Talk:Iliad/Archive 1

Refs needed
This needs a reference to go back on the page.

Of the many themes in the Iliad, perhaps the most important is the idea of moral choice. Achilles believes he

, perhaps the most important is the idea of moral choice. Achilles believes he has two options: he can either live a long, unremarkable life at home or else he can die young and gloriously as a mercenary warrior. Military adventuring (that is, pillage and plunder) was a way of life in pre-Homeric times, and the many ruins of thick-walled cities and fortresses in the region give silent testimony to the fear that must have characterized life in the ancient world.

For some men, military adventuring is a more attractive choice than staying home on the farm. Death in battle leads to honor and glory—timae and kleos—which were important values of the day — more important than even right and wrong. One of the remarkable things about the Iliad is the way that Achilles, especially in Book 9, both embraces concepts of honor and glory and also rejects them. It should be noted that, despite the fact that he is the antagonist in the story, Hector probably best displays the qualities of an ancient

Mediterranean hero.

he Olympian pantheon is portrayed as a scheming, squabbling family, unhappy in their domination by the The Olympian pantheon is portrayed as a scheming, squabbling family, unhappy in their domination by the all-powerful Zeus. Driving home this divine selfishness, the characters with "godlike" ancestry and qualities-- Achilles' strength, Helen's beauty-- tend to act carelessly, ignoring the far-reaching consequences of their emotional decisions. The more practical heroes, such as Odysseus and Hector, are often put in the position

of cleaning up after their reckless comrades.


 * Could you please sign your comments? What needs a reference? Do you want a reference to show that the Iliad exists and is written in Greek?  You start out asking for references (the article already has sufficient references,in my view), but then you give your viewpoints on the Iliad.  Please try and clarify where the references are needed.  I'm removing that tag and encouraging you to put the citations needed tag in specific places where you think references are needed.  I'll put in one general reference for the first paragraph, but the information in the first paragraph is in every major encyclopedia, including the 1930's Britannica...--LeValley 19:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

spoilers
Do we really need a spoilers warning? We're talking about the Trojan war here, something that took place over 3000 years ago...Matt gies 08:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly; 3000 years ... some might have forgotten the plot ;-).

More seriously; I find the warning reasonable as not everyone knows the story (I actually only know few who have read the Illiad and personally know it merely through greek history).--Martin 16:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC) ...illustrating how ridicular those spoiler notices are anyway. They are something of a geeks' obsession. You would expect an article about a certain story to actually (gasp) contain information about the story, and if your immaculate ignorance is important to your enjoyment of the plot, you will just not read the article :) dab 08:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, a spoiler warning is not necessary. This is an epic poem, not a suspense thriller. Save the spoiler warning for the film "Troy." Attaching a spoiler warning here would be as ridiculous as attaching one to the discussion of the bible.

Ollie This should be seen as history, not so much a story, and therefore there is no real reason to have a spoiler.


 * Wikipedia does not approve of spoiler warnings under any circumstances, because WP articles are not promotional material but encyclopedic in nature. See WP: Spoiler for the guidelines. Lexo (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is too bad, in some cases, as Wikipedia has ruined many a novel-reading experience for my students - but no matter. Wikipedia disapproves spoilers, that's true - and if it's okay to give away the ending of a novel or movie (often in the second or third sentence of the introduction - not, as one might expect, in the section that recounts the entire store, obviously,there can be no "spoilers" about the Trojan war.--LeValley 19:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Characters section
do we need it at all? There's a mind-blowingly detailed list at Trojan war, and all major characters are introduced in the plot outline anyway. dab 08:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there should be a little pruning of redundancy. This article should concentrate on the specifics of the poem (OCD has a page of literary-type analysis for instance, questions of authorship etc) and just summarize events as described in the Iliad, linking to Trojan war for the full quasi-history; some of the war story is based on non-Homeric sources. Stan 13:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Full characters can exist on another page. --Oldak Quill 22:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there is considerable (and understandable) cross-focus between the article on the Iliad and the article on the Trojan War. Not an easy thing to sort out, but would make both articles more clear and more accessible. Diomedes Agonistes (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Long intro
Two things. The intro seems to be getting a bit large, with someone from Perdue just adding a big paragraph on the homosexual relationship between Achilles and Petroklos. Can we trim this down a bit, and put that into the body of the article, where it belongs? Also, I don't believe that the phrase "queer scholars" is generally accepted. Does one have to be queer to study homosexuality? How about simply "scholars". --Sean Kelly 18:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

God-like adjective
In the Lattimore translation, Homer describes several characters as "god-like." I can remember three off the top of my head: Achilleus, Paris Alexandros, and Sarpedon. These are three specific examples, so, saying that Achilleus is only one of two characters in the poem described as god-like is in error. I am pretty sure there have been a total of about four or five characters described this way, and I'm only on the fifth book. 66.32.166.92

Actually, the description of 'god-like' or as it might also be translated 'brilliant' (ie. Gk. 'dios' which stems from an Indo-European root concerned with light, from which we get the name like Zeus), is meaningless for the most part. It is merely a metrical device used in the formulation of epic. In other words, when the poet was constructing a line in which a certain name appeared and which lacked a certain metrical value of syllables, he inserted stock words that fit in place. Thus we get things like 'brilliant Akhilleus' and 'swift-footed Akhilleus', epithets which don't for certain agree with character traits (many heroes that bear the epithet 'blameless' really don't seem that blameless, for example), but serve metrical purpose. This should thus not be taken as any form of character description, and if two or more heroes bear it only means their names might be metrically the same. Lattimore deals with this matter in his introduction to the Iliad. Anyway, the sum total is that many heroes may then bear the epithet, and to use it to say anything about Akhilleus' character or the character of any other hero is sketchy at best. Alexaion 04:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

" 'dios' which stems from an Indo-European root concerned with light, from which we get the name like Zeus), is meaningless for the most part." - This may not be the case. Recent academic research published in the Hydrographic Journal by Dr P Knight and Dr Hannah shows the findings of academic research into the navigation methods of the Pacific Islanders using stars. The findings came about by applying meanings in oral tradition "chants" handed down orally until early Westerners recorded them (similar to how the Illiad and Odyssey were likely handed down long before they were recorded in text). The Islander chants were translated and applied to the rediscovered technique of navigating by the stars, found through following on work started by Cook but which was only understood when Skymap historical night sky simulation software became available to research the various locations and stars mentioned in the poetic chants.

The root of 'Zeus' being associated with 'light' (the brightest planet in the night sky) and the preliminary work of applying the same star-based navigation system used in the Pacific to the Odyssey shows strong correlation to directly named gods being the brightest planets in the night sky, with various creatures defining star patterns. These provided navigational directions useful in their age. Preliminary dating using SkyMap for when the star movements described in the story of the Illiad match locations on the map puts the period around the turn of the copper to bronze age, indicating that perhaps the Illiad may be a moderately historically accurate handed down reference of the first battle for the resource tin (possibly represented in the story by the beautiful Helen) as well as containing fighting instructions for future generations. The distances, times and star references place the battle of Troy outside of and north of the Meditteranean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.178.201 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference
The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

'Widely read' translations
Hi, I've corrected the number of widely read translations from four to five - Martin Hammond's version is published by Penguin and used at an educational level, so it seems rather major to myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.187.220 (talk • contribs)


 * Hammond's translation is only the the second-best-selling version published by Penguin (and unlike the others, Hammond lacks a Wikip. article assessing his notability). Also, this addition was made in a way that looks a bit too much like an ill-informed advertisement.  Some specific difference between it and the other translations might get close to WP:NPOV and WP:V.  But "closest to the original text" is in no way a neutral or verifiable claim, it's something that only belongs in a marketing blurb from the publisher.  I'm removing this addition.  Wareh 19:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems like an odd dismissal to a widely regarded British (English) translation, in fact the Translations into English section itself has no references to back up the claims of quality of translation. Also assessing an author's credibility upon the existance of a wikip. entry a dangerous precident. I do agree that specific quality of translations needs to be complimented with some form of reference, but if Hammond's translation is, say, backed up with a Classical Review journal entry why shouldn't the other translations provided? 82.46.43.160 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can agree that it would be better for critical estimations to be cited for all of them. That said, I think what the article says now is a fairly cautious and accurate statement of the character and intention of the different approaches.  Note that no translation is described with an obviously non-NPOV superlative like "closest to the original text."  I'm sure no reliable source has said this about Hammond's translation because it isn't true.  In any case, praising translations with superlatives is something I hope we can all agree is extremely inappropriate in the article.  I'd be very glad to see a sentence added of the form, ideally, "Martin Hammond, in his translation, has sought to [insert quote from his translator's preface]."  Wareh 16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The priest and Apollo
I am flummoxed by a misrepresentation of the facts. The Background section erroneously states that the priest prays for Apollo to smite the Achaeans, and that Apollo does so, before the Iliad opens. These events are in fact the opening of the poem. However, without a major rewrite of the opening of the next section, I can't move the facts to where they should be, and neither can I do that without losing the focus on Achilles's rage, which is important and valuable. The whole story with the plague, the seer, Odysseus's sacrifice ship, and Agamemnon's reason for taking Achilles's girl is complicated and hard to reduce. Anyone feeling up to the task? --Darksasami 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had a shot at adding a few more details from book 1. Let me know what you think.


 * I'm looking at it right now.--LeValley 19:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Translations
"Lombardo's translation is generally the one most often recommended by classics scholars because of its faithfulness to the Greek and its modern vernacular style."

Huh? As a classics scholar, I have to disagree.

Here's an appraisal I wrote of good ole Stanley a few months ago:

"Lombardo: Very inaccurate (maybe worse than fagels), too interpretive (not as bad as fagels). Here's a good random example from I.514-16:

Lattimore's version (which is extremely accurate and hardly interpretive at all): 'Bend your head and promise me to accomplish this thing, or else refuse it, you have nothing to fear, that I may know by how much I am the most dishonoured of all gods.'

Here is Lombardo's version: Give me a clear yes or no. Either nod in assent Or refuse me. Why should you care if I know How negligible a goddess I am in your eyes.

While the meaning is superficially similar in both passages, the important resonant theme of fear is carelessly left out of Lombardo's translation (but still explicitly exists in the original), and Thetis has a sassy attitude in the Lombardo; it doesn't sound like she's supplicating Zeus, it sounds like she's putting him on a guilt trip. Pardon my French, but Lombardo is a douche."

I have appraisals of each of the other common translations:

Richmond Lattimore. University of Chicago Press. This is the best. There really can't be much argument about that. There are plenty of reasons, but the best one is process of elimination. So, in no particular order, the other translations readily available:

Mandelbaum: This retard spoke at my college graduation. It was the most incomprehensible, senile drivel I've ever heard in my whole life. I strongly dissuade anyone from purchasing anything that he wrote or translated.

Fagels: Idiot. Pompous, arrogant, idiot. Bad translation. Extremely inaccurate. Unnecessarily poetic and fruity. Too interpretative (and what's worse, his interpretations are wrong). Gets way too much credit from way too many dilettantes

Chapman: Translated in rhymed couplet verse. That automatically makes it the worst translation of anything ever, regardless of what that pseudo-intellectual Keats had to say.

Pulleyn: Haven't seen this one before. He's an Oxford professor with a specialty in Ancient Greek prayer, if that means anything to you.

Butler: Translated in 1898 (and you can tell). Many revisions have been made to the authoritative original text since then, and important, formative interpretive scholarship has been done. This translation has not been informed by those ideas.

Rieu/Jones: Not a good translation. Not very precise (i.e. they fail to translate entire lines of text). Plus, it's published by Penguin, and I learned long ago that when it comes to classical literature and the Great Books, Penguin buys the rights to the cheapest translation, prints it on the cheapest paper with the cheapest binding, and sells it to the public for 5 times what it is worth.

Pope: Translated in 1720. Ugh.

And that brings us to Fitzgerald, Lattimore's only serious competition: I like Fitzgerald. I love his Odyssey. I think it's better than Lattimore's. I think Lattimore "misses the point" of the Odyssey. Fitzgerald is interpretative and not extremely literal, but his interpretations are generally sound (even if I don't agree with a lot of them) and his "voice" is sometimes a better reflection of the nuances and connotations in the original Greek than Lattimore's cold calculating accurate translating. That's a good distinction; Lattimore is all about denotation, Fitzgerald is all about connotation. In a perfect world, you would read the Iliad with both of these translations side-by-side. But of course that's too cumbersome.

Lattimore has to carry the day because he sticks to the facts. He doesn't try to change the original poem or pollute it with his own thoughts or opinions about "what the Iliad is REALLY about." His style is not as beautiful in English as Fitzgerald (or even Fagels), and it is more difficult to read. Sometimes you have to plod through this translation. But if you're looking for a translation that will let you think for yourself and won't try to indoctrinate you with the preposterous opinions of some imbecilic professor, this is it. You get a pure, stripped down, accurate rendition of Homer; you have to do all the analysis and interpretation yourself, but that's why you have a brain."

I have since been forced to modify my appraisal of Rieu's translation after basically reading it and changing my mind (although I think Richmond is still the "best"). Obviously, none of that is NPOV, but it should be clear that I am familiar with many of the different methods of translating, and have translated over 5K lines of Homer myself, so I think I could do a good job with a section on differing methodologies. If it hasn't been written already, I can whip up a draft and submit it here for (presumably massive) editing.


 * Well, at least you acknowledge that your evaluation of these translations isn't NPOV. I too am a classics scholar, and I think Lombardo's translation is pretty good in spots, especially if you get the chance to hear him perform it himself--and that's where it works best, as an oral performance. Lombardo is definitely trying to translate the feel of the Greek into an equivalent modern idiom--for instance, his "Works and Days" is in a distinctly folksy style--and it doesn't always work. However, the parts of his Iliad and Odyssey that I've read and heard work really well. For instance, I like the passage you quote above. This is a place where I do think that Thetis is being "sassy." Remember, she once saved Zeus from a revolt of the gods! (Achilles refers to this earlier in Book 1.) So, Zeus owes her big time. She is putting him on a guilt trip. (If you haven't, you should read Laura Slatkin's book "The Power of Thetis"--she demonstrates that Thetis has a lot of leverage over Zeus.)


 * Also, have you read any Mandelbaum, or are you basing your impressions on his graduation speech only? He may be senile now, but he's produced beautiful translations of the Aeneid and Dante, which are both worth reading. His Iliad isn't as good as some other translations, but we are very lucky to have several fine translations to choose from.


 * Finally, Pope's translation is awesome, a wonderful example of 18th century epic style. It's obviously not the kind of thing one wants from a 20th/21st century translation--our ideas of poetic style have changed a lot since then--but it's a great product of its time.


 * Anyway, a section on translation seems like a good idea to me, especially if it has input from someone who's done a lot of translating--but try not to be so scornful of Lomardo et al. He may not be the most recommended translator of the Iliad, but there are quite a few courses that use his translation out there. Fagles is also common, but I think Lattimore is still most commonly used, and I'd agree that it is the best of the bunch. I have to disagree with you about the degree of Lattimore's not "polluting" the text with his own ideas and interpretations--all translations are interpretations, after all! Remember that old Italian proverb, traduttore traditore. Akhilleus 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Robert Frost's definition of poetry as "that which is lost in translation". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Martin Hammond's? I found it boring personally, much preferred Rieu's. I don't see the point of straightforward translations, might as well just read the original, it's just as much effort the english is so unwieldy. Colmfinito 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the chronological snobbery isn't too apparent here, is it? Typical anti-Medieval nonsense. You can die now, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The large unsigned contribution above is one of the most long-winded wastes of time I have ever encountered on a talk page. Apart from the fact that it's mere sounding-off, the contributor neither bothers to argue his/her points (or should that be prejudices?) nor signs the post, which is especially offensive to other users as it stops time-wasters like him/her from being properly ticked off.  Proof, I guess, that being a classics scholar does not necessarily make one a useful member of society.  In any case, it is quite simply beside the point; see WP:NPOV.  Also, if the user doesn't want his/her copy to be edited (and from the intemperate tone, undistinguished prose style and evident intolerance of English literature I assume that anything this contributor has to offer would probably require heavy editing anyway) then he/she shouldn't be contributing to wikipedia.  Lexo (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

removed dead link
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Open2universe (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

English translations & External links redundancy
Links to full text in the External links section should probably be scraped since they are already in the English translations section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenous (talk • contribs) 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Section on Achilles and Patroclus
The section on the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus has grown beyond discussion of the relationship in the Iliad to include other interpretations of the characters' relationship in Classical texts. Would it be appropriate to spin that into an article of its own, with a reference here, and cut the content on this page to discussion of what's actually in Homer? If we created Achilles and Patroclus or something like that it could also be linked from the characters' individual pages and other pages discussing Greek homosexuality, etc. Do others think this is a good idea, or should the full content remain here? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. This is the article about the Iliad, not about the "Greek vice" of Classical times. I daresay the pederastic aspects belong to the 5th and 4th centuries and should not burden this article on the Homeric work. We have Pederasty in ancient Greece, where such discussions are fully adequate, I suggest linking there, or export to a separate Achilles and Patroclus. There is also Patroclus. I am also very doubtful of the merits of Category:Pederastic heroes and deities, and especially of the listing of Achilles and Patroclus in it. dab (&#5839;) 19:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I've created Achilles and Patroclus, and over the next few days will try to reduce the bits on this page that aren't directly relevant to Homer.  (Any help, on this page or the new one, is of course welcome.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

ɖɸ
 * Pardon? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

wrong spelling
i think lliad was spelled wrong. i think it is illiad. thats what it says on my books about the illiad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willgfass1 (talk • contribs) 18:12, March 29, 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. --Akhilleus 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Homer
I don't believe it to be fair to say whether or not Homer was a real individual. If you wish to say so, then you should go to the biography of Jesus and change that too. No-one knows whether or not either of these men ever lived. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibssa 9 (talk • contribs) 09:09, April 8, 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm... a couple of points here.


 * 1) The article doesn't make a claim about whether Homer was a real individual; it says "Scholars dispute whether Homer existed, and whether he was one person, but it is clear that the poems spring from a long tradition of oral poetry." And it's said that for a while.
 * 2) The evidence for the existence of a real Jesus of Nazareth is a lot more solid than that for the existence of a real Homer. Jesus may not be mentioned in texts contemporary with his own life, but he is mentioned in texts written no more than a generation later.  The earliest recorded mention of Homer is, I believe, a century or more after the generally accepted date for the writing of the Homeric epics.  Although the historicity of Jesus is a legitimate question, our knowledge of Jesus is far, far more solid than our knowledge of Homer. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

reorganization
I just made an edit to the article which included shifting around some sections. I intend to do more, but I'd like some input first. The article as it stands has a great deal of overlap with other articles, especially Trojan war; I don't think the Iliad article needs to repeat all the information about the beginning and end of the war that's covered at Trojan war. I also don't think the Iliad article needs the list of major characters, since this information is also at Trojan war. So I'd like to delete the overlapping material, but I want to make sure that there are no serious objections first.

--Akhilleus (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to have deleted the entire "The Iliad as oral tradition" section, which is useful material not duplicated elsehwere so far as I know. Stan 13:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Stan, that's true. That section sucked, and needed a rewrite. The material in Oral tradition is far superior. The biggest problem in the section here was the last paragraph, which said that the presence of similes and metaphors in Homer was due to oral tradition. That's goofy; similes and metaphors are present in most written literature. Worse, the last paragraph presented Homer's use of oral tradition as a conscious choice to better communicate with his audience. But Homer didn't compose orally because he chose to; he composed orally because that's the way poets worked back then.


 * I'll restore the first two paragraphs of "The Iliad as oral tradition", but I don't think the last paragraph is useful. At some point I'll revise the section. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point about the last para - I was looking more at the other two. There has been a lot of research in how general theories of oral tradition apply to the Iliad, could probably be expanded up to its own article by someone knowledgeable in the topic (not me :-) ). Stan 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

transliteration
Why is it when describing a greek work of literature we are using latin transliterations of names? While talking of Achilles and Hecuba would be OK in an article about the myth, shouldn't we stick to Akhilleus and Hekabe when writing about the text? I am posting here as I don't want to wade in and start changing transliterations without someone else agreeing - it does not seem to have been discussed before. --5telios 10:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy on names is to use the most common form in English. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a myth, text, or geographic locale. Akhilleus and Hekabe are in some sense more accurate, and are commonly used in works of scholarship, but Achilles and Hecuba are far more common. Same with Menelaos and Patroklos--Menelaus and Patroclus are more common. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. live and learn...--5telios 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Egyptian authorship
Please see discussion at Talk:Odyssey. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dating
Small point of fact - Martin West advocates a 7th century dating for the Iliad, but he seems to prefer a 6th century date for the Odyssey (see his article "Iliad and Aethiopis" in Classical Quarterly 2003 - he may have published further since then). --Ancus 13.13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Richard Lattimore in his introduction to the Iliad he states that "For the Illiad and Odyssey, full and reasonably sound texts were available from at least the end of the sixth century B.C.; possibly, and I would say probably, from long before that." (Lattimore 1961, pg. 13) So when it is written in the wiki file that it is dated to the 7th or 6th century this must be some sort of mistake. Because how can it be dated to the 7th or 6th century when there is a great lapse of time between when it was first TOLD and when it was actually WRITTEN? --User:Aka khan 20 November 2006


 * First of all, don't treat as fact that there was a lapse; when Lattimore says "probably...long before that," he means it! Since the poems are generally believed to have been composed orally, composition and original writing down need not have occurred at the same time. But most scholars do combine the final composition with its transcription (for example, with the poet dictating his work to a scribe).  But when scholars speak of "full and reasonably" sound texts, or some such, while they could be endorsing the view that the original poet's work was elaborated by others in an oral tradition before being written down, they are more usually (and soundly, I believe) making a point about textual criticism, which is that the poem in the interval that worries you underwent changes, not necessarily significant ones from the modern reader's point of view, but in dialect, sound changes, etc.  In this case, scholars are looking at our available sources and using them to reconstruct an "original," and they want to be very careful that if all our sources derive from a "standardized" text (say, one produced in the Athens of Pisistratus), then they do not make the false claim to have reconstructed a form of the poem that existed before that standardization process.  Bottom line (if I can offer one without citations): there are no generally persuasive and fatal objections to a complete, and even written, Iliad in the 7th century B.C.  Wareh 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Book X
Should it be mentioned that Book X of the Iliad may have been written at a later date than Homer? Dondoolee 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If adding this idea, I would do so in the form of two facts: (1) the scholia's telling us that Book 10 is an interpolation is quite unique (as opposed to the sweeping verdicts of modern analysts, which will criticize anything), (2) West's edition marks it all as an interpolation, citing especially Georg Danek's Studien zur Dolonie. Wareh 15:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning
I added this to the article and also to the The Odyssey and it was removed by User:Shanes with the dismissive comment that this was "sillyness". Why? I see it as perfectly reasonable.The Illiad and The Odyssey are two of the great seminal works of Western literature, and saying that it doesn't deserve a spoiler warning makes the assumption that no-one will read this works for enjoyment's sake and/or that everyone knows the plot and history. I don't believe that either of these is true. I think we should give the Illiad's and Odyssey's plot proper recognition. These are works of literature, are NOT historical accounts. Compare Richard III (play) and War and Peace which both have spoiler warnings. Bwithh 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The spoiler warnings are silly. This isn't a review site, but an encyclopedia, and any reasonable reader of an encyclopedia should expect a plot summary in an article on a major work of literature. If someone hasn't read the poems and believes that a plot summary might spoil their enjoyment, I would suggest that they stop reading articles on the poems, and, you know, actually read the poems...


 * I would gladly remove the spoiler warnings from Richard III (play) and War and Peace. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I would gladly re-insert them. What you're arguing against is the whole idea of spoiler warnings in general - not for the Odyssey/Illiad in particular. So why don't you remove them from all the film, novel, play etc. articles? See what the consensus is then? But that kind of discussion is for manual of style guideline reform pages, not for picking on particular works. And it's not as if these are small poems... Illiad and Odyssey are works of epic length Bwithh 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am, in fact, against any spoiler warnings, especially for a classic piece of literature or film. I would remove a spoiler warning from Frankenstein or Mildred Pierce, but I would probably leave them in for a recent novel, or a movie that was recently released. But you're not addressing my argument, which is that in an encyclopedia, a discussion of the plot is something that any reader should expect. The section titles "the story of the Iliad" or "Book summaries" are also pretty good indicators of what's ahead. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To me inserting "spoiler" warnings in an article on a clasical text as the Iliad is about as ridiculous as having them in, say, the Genesis or the Mahabharata articles. Learning about the Trojan War, or how Achilles Kills Hector and is later killed by Paris isn't "spoiling" the Iliad. It is educating the reader on the Iliad, as an encyclopedia article should. And I doubt anyone reading the Iliad doesn't know the plot beforehand. I'm against "spoiler" warnings on wikipedia in general, but when it comes to classical epics like the Iliad or the Odyssey "spoiler" warnings become really comical and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Shanes 10:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add my voice to the chorus: putting a spoiler warning on a classical text is silly. There is no need to "protect" the reader from plot details of a 2800-year-old text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree: also with Akhilleus's points, above, that a good encyclopedia article has to include a summary of the plot, and that a section title such as "the story of the Iliad" is sufficient warning. Andrew Dalby 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we seem to have a consensus that spoiler warnings aren't needed for the Iliad and Odyssey, could we agree that spoiler warnings aren't needed for classical literature in general? I ask because there's a spoiler warning on at least one tragedy, Euripedes' Bacchae; I haven't checked very widely for others. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd support that, but I'd like us to try to find a wider forum for this discussion before we go on a tag-removing rampage through all classical pages. (This seems to me like the sort of thing people get needlessly upset about, and it would be good to be able to point to existing discussion on some central page when the inevitable protests occur.)  I'll drop notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning to see if we can get a solid consensus on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me. I've removed the spoiler tag at The Bacchae; if anyone spots any others, feel free to remove them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like the opinion of someone who hasn't written about classical Greek and Latin literature, but would read about it. I'd like to have spoiler warnings on even classical Greek literature, but only for fiction (not for actual historical events), and only for large plot twist / ending details, especially if they appear outside of a "plot summary" section. We can't assume that every reader allready knows the content of classical literature (whether classical Greek or Latin, or the contemporary "classics"). Individual wikiprojects and article collaborators are of course welcome to develop consensus on individual articles. Spoiler warning is there for you if some of your editors want spoiler warnings on specific sections, and to discourage improper use of spoiler warnings (like ROT-13). If your wikiproject establishes a consensus on not using spoiler warnings, you must of course leave room for exceptions, just like the Spoiler warning guideline leaves you room to use common sense. --GunnarRene 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with GunnarRene. I'd like to have the spoiler warning on all works of fiction.  The age of the work is not really relevant.  For any person, there will always be a time before they read the work, no matter how old it is.  It is perfectly reasonable to expect that some readers will come to an article such as this for background information prior to enjoying the book.  For example, they may want to know how old it is, or how we have classified the work, or whether it has ever been translated to their language, or into Braille. If they want to read about the spoilers, all they have to do is scroll past the notice. Johntex\talk 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This suggestion is absurd. Spoiler warnings are for new works of fiction, or works of fiction whose enjoyment explicitly depends on plot details remaining secret (e.g. The Sixth Sense).  I challenge you to find a single person whose enjoyment of The Iliad was "spoiled" by the foreknowledge that Achilles kills Hector.  That's not how classical fiction works.  Classical fiction was written with the assumption that the audience would know the general outline of the story: the enjoyment comes from how the tale is told, not its plot.  Heck, The Iliad opens with a summary of the story: "Sing, Muse, the rage of Achilles."  Not all fiction depends on plot details remaining secret for its enjoyment, and spoiler warnings should be restricted to works of fiction which do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see Spoiler warnings on candy wrappers, book covers, front pages of newspapers, and of course, all wikipedia articles. The Jackal God 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am against spoiler warnings anywhere at all, but I only believe in enforcing this rule in encyclopedias, and the only place where I get to push for such a rule is Wikipedia. A spoiler is something that will reveal an important plot point in a work of fiction. I believe (and it's purely my opinion) that any work of fiction where the effect is seriously spoiled by knowing in advance what's going to happen is, plain and simple, trash. That's okay: some trash is fun, but we shouldn't read it all the time. Likewise, if you find yourself unable to enjoy any work of fiction where you know in advance what's going to happen, it means that you're reading fiction in a very, very basic and arguably illiterate manner, because it means that you can never read anything more than once. Any work of fiction that is any good will only improve on re-reading; any work of fiction which is only of interest because of the plot twists is, like I said, trash, and I think that not many people would dispute that. (It's not the only kind of trash there is, but it's still trash.) However, that's all just my opinion. I see the point of not including spoilers in advertising material because a lot of people (for example, people who like reading trash) hate to know how things end before they read the book or see the movie, and for all that I think they have bad taste in fiction, I don't see why they can't be enticed into reading or watching stuff without having the game given away. But wikipedia is not advertising material. It's an encyclopedia. If you don't provide a reasonably complete summary in an encyclopedia then you are not writing the encylopedia properly, and nobody should expect that a wikipedia article should be incomplete just because it'll spare the sensibilities of some very unschooled readers. Anybody reading an encyclopedia should expect to find stuff out, and should be prepared in advance to find spoilers. Since that is a condition of consulting an encyclopedia in the first place, it follows that spoiler warnings are unnecessary in wikipedia. Lexo (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Characters that don't feaure in the poem
"Calchas, (Κάλχας) a powerful Greek prophet and omen reader, who guided the Greeks through the war with his predictions." He does not actually feature in Homer's original poem. He has crept into later works, and in some versions Helenus takes his place. I think this should be removed. Imagine in a film article, like King Kong, where the film has been remade. "New" characters such as some of the saliors should not be in the article of the original film. There is no difference here. Fuzzibloke 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You might wish to re-read Book 1 of the Iliad, because Calchas certainly takes part there. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Article structure
Ok, I think there's a problem with the way the article's laid out, because right now we've got two plot summaries, and a major section and a subsection called "the story of the Iliad". I'm sure this is my fault, from edits I made months ago, but I'm not sure how to solve the problem. Anyone else have an idea? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * for lack of a heading on the Story section: This may be in the top 10 worst sentences I've seen in WP: "Those matters are subject of the Epic Cycle poems — the Theogonia and Titanomachia, about the world’s creation and early history; the Cypria, about Helen’s abduction; the Aethiopis, Ilias Parva, Iliu Persis, and Nostoi, continuations of the Iliad; and the Telegonia, about the death of Odysseus — which exist as literary fragments dating between the seventh and sixth centuries BC." 173.57.26.9 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Deception of Zeus
I oppose this: I think there's enough to say about the episode on its own. And rew D alby 19:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of merging; is every episode of the Iliad to have its own article? For instance, should there be an article on the Teichoscopia? You could probably write a fairly substantial piece on this bit of the poem, but does Wikipedia need it? Personally, I don't think so. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I say merge too-- otherwise, to be fair, every book would need an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.190.34.194 (talk • contribs).

I oppose a merger- mot every issue faced by the characters of the Iliad would require a separate article just because one would. This is a significant enough issue from the storyline that would be searched for sepatately. the infamous rmx 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merger - this section of the Iliad, as well as many others warrant an article of their own as they have been studied extensively. Currently the main Iliad article does not contain these, and if it were to it would end up enormous. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (WP:NOT) so there is not limit to the information it may contain. As long as it is notable and verifiable it can be included. Madmedea 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to oppose too, the treatment of the section is rather too detailed to be imported as is into this article, which in fact has only a single line summary of each book. Yes, I would welcome a separate article on each book, and if we had that, the "deception" article should be merged into that on book 14. This article should however focus more on summarizing the Iliad itself, and less on repeating background material already treated on Trojan War. dab (??) 17:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a new section "Key incidents and passages" to house links to articles which deal with specific sections of the Iliad in detail. In the future the articles linked to could be merged into Book articles if that is felt to be a good idea. As there seems to be a fair consensus against the merger, I'm going to remove the tag. Madmedea 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide
I think this article needs a IPA pronunciation guide for the name, since capital i looks identical to lower case L in the standard wikipedia font. --Ozhiker 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is Wikipedia policy on the pronunciation of names? Attic Greek or conventional English? --Scottandrewhutchins 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The articles are titled in English so we generally give the standard English pronunciations. If a Greek equivalent is also given, then it is sometimes accompanied by its own IPA transcription.  (I doubt any of this is quite on the level of policy.)  In this case, Ozhiker is concerned about the word "Iliad," which is an English (not Greek) word (no typographical ambiguity with Ἰλιάς).  Wareh 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Source of translation used in article
The source of the following translation used in the article should be noted, hopefully with a footnote:

μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί' Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε' ἔθηκεν,

Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus, the destructive rage that sent countless pains on the Achaeans...

- Patiwat 11:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Female characters
There was briefly a separate listing of female characters. It got reverted out, but I have restored it. To put it simply, there are problems with characterizing Helen and Briseis as either Achaeans or Trojans. And rew D alby 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I'm being a pedant, but it didn't get 'reverted out' it was part of the anonymous 'passive voice' edit - the rest of which was good. But well spotted, and I agree. Madmedea 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right, and I didn't mean to criticize anybody. And rew D alby  17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Honor and Glory/ Right and Wrong
I'm sort of throwing a question to Wikipedia experts out of curiosity, under the guise of "Citation neded!"

"Death in battle leads to honor and glory—timae and kleos—which were important values of the day — more important than even right and wrong."

Where do you figure? Is there a scholarly reference? I mean, I believe you, but the question interests me. Thanks for helping a Wikipedia newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.160.46.254 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Original research
Where are the references for the analysis in the Story of the Iliad section? Since there can be no original research in WP, they need to be taken from some source. If one of the references listed are the source, it needs to be identified as the source of the analysis where the analysis appears. We could remove it to a separate section, as it has little to do with the Iliad's story, and would be more appropriate it an analysis section (assuming we could get references) APAULCH 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What material do you think is unreferenced? It's not original research to do a plot summary, although we should indicate what primary sources are being summarized. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainly this part:

Of the many themes in the Iliad, perhaps the most important is the idea of moral choice. Achilles believes he has two options: he can either live a long, unremarkable life at home or else he can die young and gloriously as a mercenary warrior. Military adventuring (that is, pillage and plunder) was a way of life in pre-Homeric times, and the many ruins of thick-walled cities and fortresses in the region give silent testimony to the fear that must have characterized life in the ancient world.

For some men, military adventuring is a more attractive choice than staying home on the farm. Death in battle leads to honor and glory—timae and kleos—which were important values of the day — more important than even right and wrong. One of the remarkable things about the Iliad is the way that Achilles, especially in Book 9, both embraces concepts of honor and glory and also rejects them. It should be noted that, despite the fact that he is the antagonist in the story, Hector probably best displays the qualities of an ancient Mediterranean hero.

This is all excellent analysis, but it should have a reference. The Iliad never states the ideas above, so it isn't part of the work. APAULCH 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that most of this is OR. There's a few options: you can either remove the material entirely, remove the material from the article and put it on the talk page in the hopes that someone will provide a citation, or you can put a tag in the article, which will appear as &#91;citation needed&#93;  in the article. Personally, I think the analysis is a bit off, so I'd delete the material from the article, and leave it here on the talk page. But since you raised the issue, I'll let you decide how to proceed. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Date
is there a more detailed discussion of the date of the Iliad somewhere? at Homer or Homeric Question maybe? I may be oldfashioned, but I am most familiar with the 8th century as a solid consensus. I think Burkert goes for the early 8th, if not late 9th. Others may prefer the later 8th or early 7th. Is there any reference for the claim that "many, including West" now favour the  7th, or even 6th(!)? Mention of Bernal's "several centuries earlier" probably qualifies as WP:FRINGE(?) I note that de:Ilias has "730 BC, plus or minus 50-100 years". dab (�) 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not a more detailed discussion, but there should be one at Homer, eventually. The 7th century date is actually quite common now (in Anglo-American scholarship, not German). Burkert actually believes the Iliad postdates 663 BC based on a reference to Egyptian Thebes in 9.381-84. Not a great argument, but that's what he says. Other scholars have stronger reasons for the 7th-century date, one of which is the absence of identifiably Homeric scenes on vase painting until the latter half of the 7th cent. I think the scholar who's argued this most strongly is Snodgrass. Bernal is fringy, but there are bona fide classical scholars who go for a 10th/9th century date; they are in the distinct minority, though. I'll try to get more concrete references so we can put this in the Homer article. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * that would be great, thanks! dab (�) 20:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the pots I've seen illustrating the blinding of Polyphemus date to "mid 7th century". I therefore favour dates in the first half of the 7th century for both the Iliad and the Odyssey, assuming they were written by one man. That would of course be wrong if the Polyphemus story became popular then and subsequently influenced Homer, but the language is too archaic to be later (it's not just about style - it has been said that there is no clear example of the future tense in the Iliad - all the candidates are really subjunctives, which is a good age indicator, as the future was invented later). Fuficius Fango (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hacket Illiad.jpg
Image:Hacket Illiad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

anyone read ancient Greek?
Hello, is there anyone who can read ancient Greek and can verify the accuracy of the change in this edit? Thanks. -- Kyok o  06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct form is Ἰλιάς. I think Ἰλιάδα is the modern form. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ancient question (3 years ago) :) but I just want to confirm the answer above, just in case anyone in the future has the same.Ilias (genitive Iliados) is the ancient greek form of the word(also valid in kathareuousa).Iliada is the modern greek one.A Thanatos|talk 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Iliás.Fuficius Fango (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

intro text
Would there be uproar if some changes were made to the intro text? I am thinking of the following:

The Iliad (Greek Ἰλιάς) is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer, traditionally accepted to be a blind Ionian poet. Most modern scholars consider the epics to be the oldest extant literature in the Greek language, dating to the 8th or 7th century BC, although the greater antiquity of Hesiod's works is argued by some scholars. The existence of a single author for the poems is disputed as the poems themselves show evidence of a long oral tradition and hence, multiple authors.

The poem concerns events during the tenth and final year in the siege of the city of Ilion, or Troy, by the Greeks (See Trojan War). The word "Iliad" means "pertaining to Ilion" (in Latin, Ilium), the city proper, as opposed to Troy (in Greek, Τροία, Troía; in Latin, Troia), the state centered around Ilium, over which Priam reigned. The names "Ilium" and "Troy" are often used interchangeably.

Old version:

The Iliad (Greek Ἰλιάς) is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer, supposedly a blind Ionian poet, or collection of nameless poets. Most modern scholars consider the epics to be the oldest literature in the Greek language, possibly equalled by Hesiod, dated to the 8th or 7th century BC.

The poem concerns events during the tenth and final year in the siege of the city of Ilium, or Troy, by the Greeks (See Trojan War). The word "Iliad" means "pertaining to Ilium" (in Latin, Ilium), the city proper, as opposed to Troy (in Greek, Τροία, Troía; in Latin, Troia), the state centered around Ilium, over which Priam reigned. The names "Ilium" and "Troy" are often used interchangeably.

--5telios 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me. I think it would be good to rewrite even more--the intro doesn't mention Achilles! Plus, I'm not sure that this explanation of the double name of Troy/Ilion is corerect, or worth putting in the intro. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Baby steps :)  --5telios 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do something - I don't think it's at all clear what, if any, is the distinction between 'Ilium' and 'Troy' when referring to the city. Also, 'Ilios' seems parachuted in from nowhere with no prior or subsequent reference.  I can only presume it's a declension or something of the word 'Ilium', but I'm sorry, I only speak English and I'd love some clarification! Gondooley (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Satire?
OK. The Iliad is currently categorized as satire. I'm assuming it's a good-faith edit by someone who doesn't know what satire is, so I'm taking it out.

It's also possible that I don't know what satire is. If that's the case, that's why this topic is here. superlusertc 2007 December 06, 04:44 (UTC)

Satire, my foot! Is it tragedy? is an undergraduate question. A silly one: the only criteria are Aristotle's, and they exclude every Greek play apart from Oedipus Tyrannus. Fuficius Fango (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fresca?
Why is Fresca under the See Also section on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.67.55 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare
Chaucer did Troilus before Shakespeare. Chaucer's Troilus is arguably better thank Shakespeare's (it's tough to compare a poem to a play, even a verse play), and it is certainly more important to literature. I recommend adding Chaucer at the least, and probably removing Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Virgil's Aeneid
Any reason why the Aeneid isn't mentioned in this article? Surely it's relevant, it offers a parody through Virgil's one-upmanship, and is at least far more relevant than "Manowar's" 28 minute song about the Iliad Plebmonk (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is still very much a work in progress. Certainly it would be worth mentioning the Aeneid, but calling it a "parody" is probably a bad idea... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Textual history?
I think the article should discuss the textual history – how has the text come down to us, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk-Office (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I came here looking for the information about the book, not the story itself. Has this text been known to us continually since antiquity, or was it ever rediscovered? What is the earliest surviving text? Are there any differences between early texts? Soloist (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the textual history of the Iliad is important, but it's missing from this article. There's not even a link to it, or, as far as I can see, to any article that discusses the subject. My own understanding is that there are innumerable manuscripts of Homer, so many that if a new literary Greek manuscript is discovered, it usually turns out to be Homer. But it seems to me that among the welter of extant manuscripts, some, perhaps a very few, must be much more important than the rest. There is also the question of the role of the Alexandrian scholars and their normalization (or regularization) of the text. Anybody up on this issue who's willing to summarize it?--Floozybackloves (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I also consider the above statements necessary to provide some type of chronology concerning the "discovery of Homer's epics!" No where in the article is there any indication as to when and where the first written copy of Homer, and any of his works, was discovered and revealed to the world! That is, he was a verbal bard, and reportedly blind, at that! Could he actually write? Did he ever actually turn the thousands of lines of verse or song into a printed version?

You should understand, that it seems that Homer, and his works, seem to have disappeared for hundreds of years, until some one, some where, actually found an "ancient copy!" So, a very necessary questions should be; Who first found Homer's work(s), and then, just when were they found?, as well as where?; and then, when were they first verified as Homer's work?

For instance, what is the first recorded mention of a "blind bard named Homer?" There must exist in our history, some remembrance of the first expositon of Homer's work(s)?

So, just were is the information?, as well as an explanation?69.92.23.64 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

the Themes section
Is anyone else troubled by how OR most of the themes section sounds? Perhaps having a "themes" section is a bit too high-school-ish. How about a section on "Critical Interpretations"? It would be helpful if someone has access to JSTOR. --Quadalpha (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fagles-iliad.jpg
The image Image:Fagles-iliad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
A further confirmation of 800 BCE as being the probable time of the Iliad can be found in Richmond Lattimore's Introduction to "The Iliad of Homer" Lattimore R 1951 (paperback 1961 ISBN 0-226-46940-9 The University of Chacgo Press pp 28 and 29 citing Herodotus "400 years before my time....etc" William H Pitt (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of people disagree with Lattimore and give later dates. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lattimore is ancient. Herodotus is ancienter. Fuficius Fango (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Achilles Rage
This is about the first sentance of the article. I think stating that 'the wrath of achilles' is the main theme of the Iliad is a pretty bold statement and an unreferenced opinion at best. 'The Rage of Achilles' is certainly the title of Book I of the Iliad, which is one book of twenty four. And much of the intro is actually concentrated on the rage of Apollo. The direct quote of The Iliad, right after the intro paragrpah is 'What god drove them to fight with such a fury? Apollo...etc.' Those who are familiar with Apollo's roll in The Iliad will agree that his rage is definately as much worth noting.

Bottom line: this statement needs to be sourced or be removed. Most of us know how the book of the Iliad ends, and its quite contradictory to the opening sentance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.124.200 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not even the title of the first book since there are no titles. --Quadalpha (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not all Greek to me
Some of the passages and character names are given in Greek and others aren't. I don't see the need for it (other than for Illiad Iliad), but at least it should be consistent. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd take out the character names, at least. Be sure to spell Iliad right, though... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reorganisation/rewrite
Perhaps it's time for a major overhaul of this article. I suggest we come up with a new plan for it, then see which bits from the current version can stay in or be moved around, and which bits need to be rewritten.

There does seem to be some kind of wiki-convention for articles on literature. I've come up with this scheme, modified for the Iliad from some featured articles (Hamlet, for example):

Introduction references, links
 * 1) Synopsis (a summary of actions, with no editorial interpretation)
 * 2) Sources (i.e., historical Trojan war, contexts, anachronisms, perhaps some mentions of oral traditions, but most of that in the next section)
 * 3) Language (dialects, meter, etc.)
 * 4) Date and Authorship (including a summary and links to articles on the Homeric question)
 * 5) Manuscript tradition (and textual criticism)
 * 6) Reception and criticism (historical opinions, reception, modern viewpoints. Needs to be carefully monitored for citations.)
 * 7) Influence
 * 8) + Various things like adaptations, translations

Thoughts? Suggestions? Abuse? All welcome! --Quadalpha (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Quadalpha:


 * Thank you, for the notice; I agree, it is over-long. Please proceed, and I will comment as required.
 * Mhazard9 (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Decide whether to spell it metre or meter. Fuficius Fango (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The synopsis
We don't have a substantial synopsis yet, so I've started with book 1. This is the level of detail I thought would be good; a lot happens in book 1, so it'll be shorter for most other books. Thoughts?

[shorten page] --Quadalpha (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to see an extensive book-by-book synopsis. A short summary is a good idea, but we don't need to turn the article into Cliff's Notes. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd make mention of every significant action, but yes, it is starting to look too long. I've condensed the first two books' summaries. Better? --Quadalpha (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is great fun. :) I think we'll end up with a length comparable to the synopsis in the Hamlet article, which would be quite good, as the Iliad is much longer. --Quadalpha (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent synopsis and much needed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've put the new synopsis in place of the current. If anyone has a minute, please go through and criticise! --Quadalpha (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've saved the current one here for possible future use. The bits towards the end might come in handy for other sections. --Quadalpha (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Iliad begins thus: μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί' Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε' ἔθηκεν, Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus, the destructive rage that sent countless ills on the Achaeans...

The poem’s first word, μῆνις (mēnis) — wrath — establishes a principal theme of the Iliad: the Wrath of Achilles. At the story’s start, the Greeks quarrel about returning Chryseis, a Trojan war-prize of King Agamemnon, king of Mycenae the leader of Greek expedition, to her father Chryses, an Apollonian priest. When Agamemnon refuses to ransom the girl to her father, the offended Apollo plagues them with pestilence. At an assembly called by Achilles, the Greeks compel Agamemnon to return Chryseis to appease Apollo and end the pestilence; he reluctantly agrees, but, in her stead, takes Briseis, Achilles’s war-prize concubine. Dishonoured, Achilles wrathfully withdraws himself, and his Myrmidon warriors, from the war. He then retreats to his ships and warns Agamemnon that the next person who tries to take something from him will die by his sword.

Thematically analogous to Achilles’s hubris is Hector’s nobility, as Trojan prince, husband, and father, defending country, kith and kin. With Achilles out of battle, Hector successfully breaches the fortified Greek camp at the Trojan shore, wounding Odysseus and Diomedes; the gods are favoring the Trojans. When they threaten to set the Greek ships afire, Patroclus dresses in Achilles’ armor to lead the Myrmidons in repelling the Trojans. In battle, Hector kills the disguised Patroclus, thinking him Achilles. In revenge, Achilles slays Hector in single combat, then defiles his corpse for days, until King Priam, aided by Hermes, recovers Hector’s corpse from Achilles, who pitying the bereaved king, empathetically consents. Hector’s funeral ends the Iliad.

Homeric warfare is brutal, bloody, and mean; names, detailed battle descriptions, taunts and war cries convey the immediacy of combat, wounds, and death. A warrior’s death merely aggravates the violence, as the sides battle for booty (armour, corpses) and revenge, which, in turn, motivate the comrades of the dead to cycles of punitive attack and counterattack; the fortunate escape death by friendly charioteers and divine intervention. The Iliad features strong supernaturalism (religion): the Greek and Trojan folk are pious, their armies manned with divinely-descended heroes. They consult prophets and priests in deciding their actions with sacrifices to the gods — who join in battle, fighting mortal and immortal, whilst advising and protecting their human favorites.

The characters of the Iliad relate the Trojan War to Greece’s other myths — Jason and the Argonauts, the Seven Against Thebes, the Labors of Hercules, et cetera — of which there exist versions, thus, Homer’s dramatic licence fitting character and event to narrative. The poem tells only of the final weeks of the war’s concluding tenth year, it tells neither of its provocation — Paris abducting Helen from her husband, Menelaus, King of Sparta — nor of its first nine years, nor of its ending with Achilles’s death and the fall of Troy. Those matters are subject of the Epic Cycle poems — the Theogonia and Titanomachia, about the world’s creation and early history; the Cypria, about Helen’s abduction; the Aethiopis, Ilias Parva, Iliu Persis, and Nostoi, continuations of the Iliad; and the Telegonia, about the death of Odysseus — which exist as literary fragments dating between the seventh and sixth centuries BC.


 * Tricky! "The poem’s first word, μῆνις (mēnis) — wrath — establishes a principal theme of the Iliad: the Wrath of Achilles." This is to ignore the first word of line 2. A principal theme of the Iliad may then be more specifically Achilles' doomed wrath. Also you talk of Achilles' hubris. No, Agamemnon is the one at fault. Zeus is punishing him with Achilles' wrath. Although Achilles eventually takes his wrath too far. User:Akhilleus is astute in warning against turning the article into Cliff's notes. Fuficius Fango (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Books
The division of Homer's epics into twenty-four books each is a matter of some controversy: There is no positive evidence that the division. . . was made before the Alexandrian period. In the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. several authors refer to episodes or sections of both poems by titles. . . such titles did not correspond to our book divisions, and taken by itself this tends to suggest either that the division was not yet made, or that if it was, it was not so widely used as to effect the older division by episodes. . . it has been suggested that the innovation made by the Alexandrian scholars was not the division into books, but simply the use of letters of the alphabet for them, the division itself being older. Those who prefer an earlier date. . . tend to associate it with rhapsodic practice, and the use of the term ῥαψῳδια for a book might support this


 * Book 1: After nine years of the Trojan War, King Agamemnon seizes Briseis, Achilles’s war-concubine, for having relinquished Chryseis; dishonoured, Achilles wrathfully withdraws; the gods argue the War’s outcome.
 * Book 2: Testing Greek resolve, Agamemnon feigns a homeward order; Odysseus encourages the Greeks to pursue the fight; see the “Catalogue of Ships” and the “Catalogue of Trojans and Allies”.
 * Book 3: In a truce, Paris and Menelaus meet in single combat for Helen, while she and King Priam watch from the city; Aphrodite rescues the over-matched Paris, yet Menelaus is the victor.
 * Book 4: The Greek-favouring Athena provokes a Trojan truce-breaking and battle begins.
 * Book 5: In his aristeia (battle supremacy), Diomedes, aided by Athena, wounds Aphrodite and Ares.
 * Book 6: Glaucus and Diomedes do not fight each other, and swap armour; at Troy, Hector bids farewell to his wife, Andromache, and their son.
 * Book 7: Hector battles Ajax; Paris offers restitution — but not Helen.
 * Book 8: Zeus orders divine withdrawal; Hera and Athena defy him; the war favours Troy.
 * Book 9: The “Embassy to Achilles”: Agamemnon sends Odysseus, Ajax, and Phoenix to Achilles for help, who spurns the offered honours and riches.
 * Book 10: The “Doloneia”: Diomedes and Odysseus kill the Trojan Dolon, and effect a night raid against a Thracian camp.
 * Book 11: Paris wounds Diomedes; Achilles has Patroclus enquire about the fight’s progress; Nestor begs for the Myrmidons.
 * Book 12: Led by Hector, the Trojans breach the Greek camp walls.
 * Book 13: Contravening Zeus’s order, Poseidon rallies the Greeks.
 * Book 14: With the “Deception of Zeus”, Hera helps Poseidon assist the Greeks to repel the Trojans; Hector is wounded.
 * Book 15: Zeus stops Poseidon; Apollo rouses Hector set the Greek ships afire.
 * Book 16: Patroclus says "But you have been impracticable Achilles . . . at least send me out speedily". Achilles replies "put my renowned armour on your shoulders and lead out the battle-loving Myrmidons to fight". Patroclus proceeds to repel the Trojans; he kills Sarpedon; Hector kills Patroclus.
 * Book 17: Hector strips Patroclus of Achilles’s armour; Menelaus and the Greeks recover Patroclus’s corpse. (books XVI and XVII constitute the “Patrocleia”).
 * Book 18: Achilles seeks to avenge Patroclus; Hephaestus forges a new “Shield of Achilles”.
 * Book 19: Agamemnon and Achilles reconcile; he joins battle, despite his deadly fate.
 * Book 20: The gods join the battle; Achilles drives all the Trojans before him.
 * Book 21: Achilles routs the Trojans, and battles the river Scamander; Apollo leads him astray.
 * Book 22: Achilles kills Hector outside the walls of Troy, dragging the corpse to the Greek camp.
 * Book 23: Funereal games celebrate Patroclus; twelve Trojan youths are burned with the corpse.
 * Book 24: King Priam secretly enters the Greek camp, begging Achilles for Hector’s corpse, who consents; at the funeral pyre, Helen and Andromache comment upon the war.



Notable passages

 * The Catalogue of Ships (Book II, lines 494-759)
 * The Teichoscopia (Book III, lines 121-244)
 * The Deception of Zeus (Book XIV, lines 153-353)
 * The Shield of Achilles (Book XVIII, lines 430-617)

After the Iliad
The Iliad foreshadows events subsequent to Hector’s funeral, conveying Troy’s doom; see the Trojan War for its story, as developed in later Græco–Roman poetry and drama; the Odyssey narrates Odysseus’s decade-long journey home to Ithaca. The poems incorporate overlapping past and future references, and, despite their narrow scopes, are a complete thematic exploration of the Trojan War.

"Themes"
I think most of the current themes section would have to go at some point; it reads like a high school paper and is woefully wanting of citation. Some of the citations don't even say what is claimed. I propose replacing it with diachronic reception/criticism section in this article, and some of its content might be better placed in a "Homeric Greek culture" article. Thoughts? Does such an article exist? --Quadalpha (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Homer supports the Trojans!
Homer was from Smyrna(Western Anatolia). The Luwians of this region became Greeks after the Greek invasion of Western Anatolia... At the beginning, Artemis, Apollon and Leto were the Luwian gods/goddesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#Luwian_Gods_and_Goddesses /Zeus, Hera, Poseidon and Hades were "the real" Greek gods...

The Greeks began to conquer Western Anatolia (in fact, they conquered only the seashores!) between 1200 BC-750 BC. At that time Western Anatolian people = The Greek rulers + Luwian people (that began to speak Greek and forgot their own Luwian language!) Homer wrote the Iliad in 730 BC. He really supports the Trojans! And The Iliad ends with Hector's funeral! Homer was born in Smyrna (now İzmir). Today, we know that Homer was a "Greek" epic poet. He was a "Hellenised Anatolian" man! He said many "good things" about the Achaeans in The Iliad, but he had to write these things because the Greeks were "the rulers" of Western Anatolia at that time. At the beginning, The Iliad was the epic poem of the Trojans and the other Luwian people of Western Anatolia. After the Greeks had conquered Western Anatolia, the Greeks adopted this epic poem and it became a "Greek" epic poem! Homer did NOT write The Odyssey! The Odyssey was a "real Greek" epic poem. (but they used the same characters. There was an influence of The Iliad on The Odyssey!) Böri (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Illiad and Odyssey may be pre-Greek and much older than noted by many scholars. The era described in the Illiad has been projected to be at the turn of the copper age to bronze age (the time at which the first tin mine was discovered and at which time the region commenced needing bronze swords to compete with those who controlled the tin), with several academics suggesting the Trojan Wars were battles associated with the earliest known tin mines in Europe north of the Meditteranean. The "gods" in the poem have been found to relate to the planets in the night sky. The Odyssey gives sailing directions to islands in the Atlantic and may yet reveal locations up the Northern coast towards Britain (known to be an early site for tin). It is highly unlikely that the Trojans were inside the Meditteranean given the directions, times and distances, they were likely a wood-based not a stone based civilization... cult movies have given a false impression of the actual and described events for sensational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.178.201 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

730 BC
the date of The Iliad Böri (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Iliad in the arts and literature
This section is almost entirely trivia and should be dropped. Maybe a "Notable Commentaries" section to keep things like the Weil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.15.10 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This section as it stands currently is, I agree, entirely anecdotal and unacceptable. However, the Iliad and Homer's poetry in general hold a profound place in the history of Western literature, trailing perhaps only the Odyssey and the Bible. It undoubtedly needs to be drastically reworked, but I think removing this section altogether would be a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bclogston041 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
What does Iliad mean in Greek? The article does not say. --Michael C. Price talk 11:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It means (essentially) "song about Ilion" (which was the Greek name for Troy). I'm surprised it's not in there. Ifnkovhg (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Odyssey vs Achilliad

 * Άνδρα μοι ένεπε μούσα, πολύτροπον
 * Tell me, O muse, of the ingenious hero

Homer’s introduction of Odysseus’s epic, titled Odyssey.


 * Μήνιν άοιδε θεά Πηλιάδεω Αχιλλήος
 * Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus

Homer’s introduction of Achilles’s epic, yet not titled "Achilliad" as introduced, but … Iliad instead, after Ilion.

Is there any plausible explanation for this? -- Odysses (₪) 21:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of an explanation, but both titles are very well attested in antiquity. So it worked for the ancient Greeks... --Akhilleus (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

fwiiw, it would be interesting to establish when these titles are first attested (are they Hellenistic?). --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your replies. I agree with dab that the term Iliad may have not appeared before the Hellenistic period. Plutarch recalls Iliad in his life of Alexander, but this is after the Hellenistic. From a quick look, Herodotus does not mention Odyssey or Iliad, but Homer's and Hesiod's Theogonies in his Histories, book ii. Are there not any references of Iliad before the Hellenistic? -- Odysses  (₪) 22:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently Herodotus does mention Iliad 2.116.2. -- Odysses (₪) 11:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Connection to ancient Indian literature
An editor recently added information surrounding a possible a connection between ancient Indian literature and the Iliad. I moved it from the top of the article to the bottom - something so esoteric and tenuous should not be that prominent. Also, I'm not sure whether or not this information is appropriate for inclusion in the article - I know very little about ancient Hindi - but it seems like the information's validity needs to be assessed. Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is irrelevant. It is relevant as an early reference to the Mahabharata, and is duly covered at the Mahabharata article. It has nothing to do with the Iliad other than that both are epic poems. --dab (𒁳) 07:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed in just how bad a shape this article still is. Now we have brought the Homer article to acceptable standard, it may be time to make an effort here. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noticed how much better the Homer article is now. By all means, help out with this one. I'll include here a plug for the plan of the article I put up under "Reorganisation/rewrite" above. --Quadalpha (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Several necessary comments
I need to make several comments that in my opinion will improve the legibility and quality of this article.

Why only Agenor and Dolon are listed under the Trojans with book numbers? I think the book numbers are unnecessary (unless every person has one).

"Paris refuses" in "Antenor — King Priam’s advisor, who argues for returning Helen to end the war. Paris refuses." is out of context and unnecessary.

"espoused first to Paris, then to Deiphobus; Her abduction by Paris precipitated the war." in "Helen (Ἑλένη) — Menelaus’s wife; espoused first to Paris, then to Deiphobus; her abduction by Paris precipitated the war." is too much information.

"courted by Apollo, who bestows the gift of prophecy to her; upon her rejection, he curses her, and her warnings of Trojan doom go unheeded." in "Cassandra (Κασσάνδρα) — Priam’s daughter; courted by Apollo, who bestows the gift of prophecy to her; upon her rejection, he curses her, and her warnings of Trojan doom go unheeded." is too much information.

"she was Achilles' prize of the Trojan war." in "Briseis — a Trojan woman captured by the Greeks; she was Achilles' prize of the Trojan war." is too much information.

The concept of "nostos" is nor defined or explained.

The kleos passage would look very nice if the original and the Richmond Lattimore translation are placed in parallel. Could that be done?

"seeing Patroclus about to kill Sarpedon, his mortal son, Zeus says" in an unclear passage. Sarpedon is a son of Zeus. This is part should be rewritten.

"In deciding - between losing a son or abiding fate - Zeus, the King of the Gods, allows it." What is allowed? This sentence needs to be reworked.

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in the "The Iliad as oral tradition" section are hard to read and somewhat unclear. They do not convey information efficiently to the reader.

1.   * Note: A large amount of the citations and argumentation in this section of the article must be ultimately attributed to:

2. Lendon, J.E. Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2005.

3. Hans van Wees argues that the period that the descriptions of warfare relate can be pinned down fairly specifically - to the first half of the 7th century.[8]

Sentences 1, 2 and 3 should not be part of the "The Iliad as oral tradition" section. Sentence 3 should be placed in the first part of the "Date and textual history" section.

In the "English translations" section, it is not clear where the quotation starts for the sentence "it has great rhetorical power”."

Pope is mentioned in "English translations". Would it be the Alexander Pope mentioned in the same paragraph a few lines later? If that is the case, then the link should be 4 lines up.

ICE77 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph on West
I just removed the paragraph on M L West that read as follows: "As M. L. West demonstrates in his magisterial The Making of the Iliad, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2011), at some point Homer wrote down or dictated his material, and in the course of years or decades he composed the vast panorama of the Iliad, expanding his early draft to four or five times its original length and thus creating the supreme masterpiece that has been handed down to us, amazingly intact, over more than two and a half millennia."

This paragraph has a variety of problems. First, it gives undue importance to a single analysis of the Iliad, despite there being numerous different interpretations of the textual history of the work. Second, it seems to not match the breadth of thinking on the subject as found at Homeric Question, which seems (as far as I read it) to say that the majority opinion is that there was not a "transcriber" identifiable as "Homer", and that, instead, Homer is more of a title than a person. If we were to include this information from West, we would need to make it clear that it's just one scholar's opinion. Third, if we do want to include it, the POV wording needs to be stripped out (such as "magisterial", "supreme masterpiece", and "amazingly intact"). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Manuscripts
I think that Nitriensis and Uncial 098 are fragments of Gospel without connections with Iliad. On the contrary the most important manuscripts on Iliad are missed in the article: some Marciani and Iliad Picta in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Lele giannoni (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How old are the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Illiad, the fact doesn't find a mention anywhere in the article. I feel that its an important to mentione it here & any information on this should be included in the lede or the timeline section. -Ambar wiki (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit check required
A user who went on to make a dubious edit (which I will revert) made this change, can someone look it over please? --bodnotbod (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Achilles and morality
French Wikipedia's article on the Iliad has some sections that, in my view, are worth inclusion in this entry: the morality that Achilles symbolizes, how the Greek aristocracy saw in it a model, and a little bit on the Iliad's reception in the Antiquity. If no one has a problem, I'd like to translate that portion of the entry, and also include more on criticism of it by Plato, which is very much relevant to the subject of the Iliad's morality. Is this the right entry, or are there other with a more narrow focus on the Iliad's ethnics? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture
How come no mention of Robert Wise's rather odd film Helen of Troy (1956)? aajacksoniv (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

2015 movie
Re: in popular culture (which, I think, should come after the section on transaltions, not before), The Boy next Door uses the Iliad in a way discussed at that site. Maybe it should be included here.211.225.34.164 (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Iliad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071205014548/http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu:80/classics/dunkle/studyguide/homer.htm to http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/dunkle/studyguide/homer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Poorly written sentence
"The West, however, had tended to look at Homer as a liar as they believed they possessed much more down to earth and realistic eyewitness accounts of the Trojan War written by Dares and Dictys Cretensis who were supposedly present at the events."

Would sound much more scholarly as:

"Western Europeans, however, had tended to view Homer as unreliable.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.37.1 (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been changed. AndrewOne (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iliad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421140227/http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/nagy/threads/concept_of_hero.html to http://athome.harvard.edu/programs/nagy/threads/concept_of_hero.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iliad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606191424/http://faber.co.uk/work/memorial/9780571274161/ to http://www.faber.co.uk/work/memorial/9780571274161/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Dishonouring Hector's body
I've taken the liberty of adding "by dragging it behind his chariot" after the reference to Achilles' "dishonouring Hector's body" as given today's morals, somebody unfamiliar with the poem might read this as implying something more scurrilous. I hope nobody objects.Partnerfrance (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)