Iliad Chapter 16 questions

8. In book 16 there is a massive fight over Sarpedon's body. This is because it became a focal point for both sides. The Achaeans were fighting over it because Sarpedon was their general, and when he died, they all were overcome with grief, so it gave them motive to fight for him. The Trojans on the other hand wanted to defame Sarpedon's body so as to tear down the morale of the other side. Zeus however intervened by first making Hector a coward which made him call for retreat, then the Achaeans take his armor back to the ships, and Sarpedon is brought to a river by Phoebus who washes him, and anoints him in deathless oils.

9. The responsibility Patroclus has for his own death is not much. He had the choice to go into battle and fight with Achilles armor, but that was a choice that had to be made because the armies were being beaten back, and they needed a hero. I think that Apollo was very responsible for his death because he fought Patroclus himself, then he changed forms, and persuaded Hector to kill him. I think that Hector did not have as much to do with his death in that regard, since he was debating whether or not to fight him, and it was a god who told him to. It seems that Zeus also has much to do with Patroclus' death, because he was the one who ultimately decided that he wanted Patroclus to die. He was turning over ideas on how to kill him, and he made Patroclus disobey Achilles, in that he struck fury in his heart and made him attack the wall. That is why I think that Zeus was the most responsible for the death of Patroclus. It seems that Zeus controls fate, so I think that fate cannot be held as responsible. Finally, I think Achilles is very responsible because he was the one that made it so that Patroclus had to go to fight in the first place. he was the cause of his death.

Reflections On Debate

       The Sparta vs. Athens debate was a great first experience in the realm of formal debate. I think that having a debate is an excellent way to learn about something, because it forces you to research both sides of an issue, which merits deeper understanding, and it gives you more motivation to learn. I always thought of debating as being something that would come naturally when you argue a point, but being in a formal debate, I learned that there is so much more to it, and it does not come naturally.  It was a great experience having to think on your feet in order to produce arguments and counter arguments on the fly- while in front of many important people. This being our first time, I think we had a lot of room for improvement, but that will come naturally with practice, and I think this was a great first experience overall.

Solon, Themistocles, Pericles

       I think that Plutarch, while he is very skilled at giving information about people without inputting his bias, holds Pericles in highest esteem compared to Solon and Themistocles. I think that this is the case because of how much praise he gives to Pericles, and how little he stresses he negative traits. Plutarch treats Solon in a similar way, but he seems to give more praise and affection to Pericles. Themistocles however, he seems to stress his negative sides more than the others, and still describes him as respectable, but does not praise him as much as he does Solon and Pericles.

       An example we see of Plutarch praising Pericles is when he talks about how he spoke. He says that Pericles spoke very carefully, and had a guarded tongue. He even prayed to the gods that he nothing would slip from his mouth that was not appropriate, or irrelevant (pg 71). This is a very respectable attribute, as Pericles points out, and one that I think should still be sought after today. Another attribute we see Plutarch commending was Pericles' care for the people. He describes him as "caressing the people", and "Having secured his power in the interest of the populace" (pg 72). Finally, at the end of his telling, Plutarch says, "He was indeed a character deserving our high admiration, not only for equitable and mild temper, which all along in many affairs of his life, and great animosities which he incurred, he constantly maintained." This shows that Plutarch help Pericles in very high esteem; higher ( I think) than Solon and Themistocles.

Lycurgus

       I think that Plutarch has written this biography of Lycurgus because he wanted to illustrate how Sparta's government was set up, and he is getting at the backstory of where it came from. He tells the stories of Lycurgus' travels to different countries (e.g. Crete, Asia, Egypt) and he extracts from these travels the principles, customs, and ideas that these cultures had. the next part of the biography that Plutarch shares is Lycurgus' strategy to achieve his goal of creating a political system. He starts by bringing an oracle to Sparta which he claimed had the new political system. He then secretly gathers supporters until he is ready to make his entrance into the city. After winning the favor of the kings he makes his reforms to the government and political system, and made a mixed constitution. Plutarch then goes into the story briefly of Lycurgus' later life. I think that Plutarch did all of this because Lycurgus was the single person who reformed Sparta's structure and life, and he wanted to explain how these reforms happened, so he traces it through the whole life of Lycurgus.
       I think that Plutarch was in favor of the Spartan constitution. He describes how Sparta started to plummet into chaos when the constitution was not followed, and his own words are, "-thus proving what a truly divine piece of good fortune it was for the Spartiates to have had someone to construct a mixed constitution.(pg 17)" This clearly indicates that Plutarch is in favor of the constitution that Lycurgus constructed. Also, at the end of his biography he shows his view of the reforms of Lycurgus when he says, "Lycurgus however created left no mere words and ideas, but created an acutal and unrivaled system of government. (pg 40)" Though Plutarch was very good at telling the story without his own bias, he shows us glimpses of his feelings which are that the constitution was very good.

Achilles and the Embassy

       I think that Achilles should have gone back to battle following the Embassy for Achilles. The Achaeans had broken morale, and needed a figure to look up to. this might have turned the battle in their favor, since the men were losing their vigor in battle. By letting his anger overcome him, he was letting down his nation, because he could do something to help them, but he refused. Also, Agamemnon offered him a lot of gifts to drop his anger and fight so I think that it was foolish not to take those and fight.