[PREV - FORBIDDEN_PLANET] [TOP]
THE_ILIAD_AND_THE_PROTESTANT
July 2, 2004
The immediately striking thing
about Homer's "Iliad" is the
incessant low-level interference (850 BC,
of the gods with the human action, they say) 850 BC - Homer
to the point where it totally 400 BC - Plato
kills the story. 4 BC - Aristotle
There's a line about how
the "reins of victory
are in the hands of the A character literally
gods", and that pretty can not slip in some
much says it. dung without it being
taken as a sign from
Agamemnon is a bastard, the gods.
Achilles a spoiled brat,
and Paris an irresponsible
fop; and the twists and
turns of the plot depend
entirely on the quirks of
the gods squabbling in the
background where Zeus
always has the last say.
(This was some 8 centuries
before Aristotle
warned about invoking
the deus ex machina.)
Compare this to -- to take the first
example that comes to hand --
C.S. Forrester's "The Captain from Originally in the
Connecticut" (1941): "Saturday Evening Post".
"What Providence took away in one fashion
she restored in another, keeping an even
balance so that a man's success or failure
depended entirely on himself, as it should be."
p. 15, Chapter 2.
"Peabody's philosophy was such -- illogical though he
would have admitted it to be if he had happened
to analyze his feelings -- that to him it was the
most natural thing in the world for the wind to shift
and moderate after his own efforts had made the
change almost unnecessary. To grumble at the whims
of uncontrollable natural forces -- at the dictates
of Providence -- was to him a little absurd, like a
heathen beating his god for not responding to prayer."
p. 31, close of Chapter 2.
This is of course, a
Christian/Protestant Though whether this stuff is
attitude that Forrester strictly consistent with the
is writing about. stated premises of Christianity
is a different question.
And it is also, The connections between
very clearly, my official doctrine and social
attitude... and attitudes are complicated.
I would venture
to say, *our* LETTERS_FROM_EARTH
attitude.
In comparison, the point of
view presented in the Iliad
is exceedingly strange.
Hector complains to
Paris about how Book 3, Line 70:
useless he is, and "Ah Hector, you criticize me fairly, yes
Paris essentially nothing unfair, beyond what I deserve.
responds, well, ...
yeah, you're right, the heart inside your chest is never daunted.
but we are what the Still don't fling in my face the lovely gifts
gods made us. of golden Aphrodite. Not to be tossed aside,
the gifts of the gods, those glories...
whatever the gods give of their own free will--
Was there every a how could we ever choose them for ourselves?
people who really ..."
had this odd
mixture of
fatalism and egotism?
Who would go around
pretending that the
gods were hovering
on their every move,
and yet claim no
responsibility for
any of these moves,
since all is the
tinkering of the
gods anyway...
It doesn't really seem possible
to me -- I expect rampant hypocrisy,
a tendency to ignore this religious
doctrine whenever it conflicts with
practicality.
But then, I can't claim that my
own notions of "responsibility"
are anything like a consistent
doctrine. It's clearly a hacked SELF
together patch job...
And there, in the Iliad, is an
example of a different set of
hacks...
--------
[NEXT - FLIES]