The Iliad is one of the cornerstones of Western literature. At first glance this may seem unwarranted. It tells only a fraction of the story of the siege of Troy, it consists largely of gory battle descriptions, the principal character spends most of the book sulking offstage, and it's the capricious gods who will determine the outcome of the whole business anyway. But it's the latter that is the key to the importance of this poem to the ancient Greeks and to us.

The gods do what they do, favor whom they favor, for petty reasons of their own that have nothing to do with right or wrong, glory or shame, courage or fear. It is only men who have these feelings. The gods have preordained the outcome of the battle, and men know this, but they fight anyway. They gods even appear in person on the battlefield, and men fight them, knowing they cannot win. They fight for honor, glory, comradeship, duty, treasure, or love, each knowing that he is likely to die and take nothing he has gained to the underworld with him. Men, in the Iliad, prove themselves greater than the gods who control them. Man finds a reason to continue his struggle in the face of blind fate he can never overcome. This is why the Iliad is as inspiring as it is entertaining.

The Fagles translation is so readable that it is actually a little jarring at first. One expects ancient epics to be heavy going, but this Iliad reads like today's fiction. Perhaps this is not the most literal translation of the Greek--I'm not qualified to say--but it surely is in keeping with the author's original intent, which is to present a spellbinding tale about great heroes in their days of glory. The extra materials in the Penguin volume--introduction, maps, glossary and notes--are all top notch as well and very useful. ( )

I've read the Fitzgerald translation, but this time I felt like reading a classic, Victorian prose translation. We'll see how it goes. ( )

Comments on just finishing the Robert Fagles translation:

o People say it is a book about anger, but it is certainly also about killing, getting killed, grasping for glory or fame, as well as loving.

o For someone like myself who finds cultural historiography fascinating, the book is an excellent resource.

o One obvious thing is that while all humans have an emotional natures it becomes equally apparent that different cultures in different times respond radically different to age old basic situations like love and death. In the book, the Greeks respond to love or loss of a loved one without any inhibition or effort at self control. By comparison, in our time the practice of keeping a stiff upper lip and a measured middle way would look anemic by comparison. It is strange that this view toward loving and loss are not covered in any of the books of criticism cited at the back of the book.

o On the topic of loss also, it is apparent that it was a totally acceptable custom and even expected for one to give oneself up to publicly and totally grieving-for as long as it takes. The men and women both are expected to weep uncontrollably.

When was the last time any of us ever did that?

In summary, I loved it and was amazed that I found it so entrancing through out.

Would obviously love to hear how those with military background respond to the book. ( )

I preferred the odyssey, but this is still great! A who's, who of the ancient greek world with a heavy dose of manipulation by the God's thrown in! Everyone should read this!

Lattimore's translation is the most accurate and the best for close reading.

I'm not sure, but I think this was the edition I read & liked the best - I've read several over the years. I liked the 'full' or 'best translated' versions & the highly edited versions the least. There's a happy medium in there. The full versions have a lot characters & stuff going on that doesn't add to the story & just confuses me. When edited too much, the story loses its flavor.

The story line, plot, can't be beat. Much of the motivation of the characters seems weak or over-used, but that's only because it is the great-granddaddy of so much of our current literature, of course. ( )

This is a great edition of one of the few books that really deserves the term 'timeless classic'. There is an introduction that is informative without being overly scholarly (if I want an indepth description of the Iliad I will read one of the myriad of books written about the Iliad); the chapter introductions with their outlines are brilliant for giving an overview of what is coming up; and the translation itself is highly readable. ( )

The Iliad, one of two existing pieces of Homer's Epic Cycle, chronicles the battle of Troy, or Ilium (hence, Iliad).

If you haven't read it yet, you probably should. ( )

An extensive review of the 2003 revision of E. V. Rieu's translation of Iliad:
http://realmofryan.blogspot.com/2009/... ( )

The Iliad was an amazing work. While I still prefer The Odyssey, this is a sheerly remarkable piece of literature. I must note, however, that I have not read the Iliad in its entirety, and the version which I read was included in a Norton Anthology. I do not remember who the translator was. ( )

Without parallel. A classic for 2500 years and still counting! ( )

The Iliad is a genuine classic, sure to please aficionados and students of: poetry; mythology; ancient history; military literature; rhetoric; and epic fiction in general. Be that as it may, I must state that I wasn't entirely pleased with the most recent adaptation, in which: Menelaus was portrayed by Cheney; Agamemnon by Bush; Achilles by Rumsfeld; Ajax by Powell; Priam by Saddam; Paris by the rather abstract, but quite real, blowback from America's (specifically, the Reagan Administration's) foreign policy; Helen by Saddam's delusory and dramatically overstated weapons program, and so on and so forth... ( )

The fighting scenes can be a bit of a drag to read, but the storyline itself is fun, particularly the scenes with the gods/goddesses. This is an easy to read translation too. ( )

One year of the epic battle of Troy takes center stage in Homer's Iliad. Full of gory war descriptions, hubris/pride, love, and passion, this classic show us the bottom line of human nature: that we work for ourselves, but also for a better cause (whatever that may be). ( )

Homer's Epic is the reason why legions of archaeologists are scowering the coast of Turkey looking for any sign of Troy. Achillies, Hector, Odysseus, Diomedes, it's an all-star cast that includes the Greek Gods of old like Zeus and Aphrodite.
Endless theme of the losses sustained during war, the fate of the soldier and the parents that made him, all these classic elements create THE greatest story of all time. It's the oldest and still one of the most loved and treasured and with very very very good reason. ( )

What a barn-burner of a book! This translation is fantastic. For those who wish to have more poetic versions of The Iliad, versions that stick to the strict meter of Homer, there are these, stretching back centuries. However, Fagles has given us a truly clean, 21st century edition that relinquishes the rhyme but cuts to the heart of the matter, where people say exactly what they mean and actions are shown with beautiful yet direct language. This is the perfect introduction for Homer, something that can be taught in high school, where students would love it. The simpler language is no less wonderful, but it is certainly more accessible. The introduction by Bernard Knox is fun to read and a good introduction to Homer for the complete beginner. My only wish with the introduction is for Knox to spend more time on the debate on if Homer was one person, several, or many. ( )

80% gore. 5% sex. 15% badass speeches. This is 300 in book form. Add the fact that it's Homer, and you got a 5-star here. ( )

Translated into English Prose by Andrew Lang, Walter Leaf and Ernest Myers ( )

(Alistair) Come on. You don't really expect me to write a book review of the lliad, do you?

Oh, very well, then.

Second greatest epic poem of its age. Personally, though, I prefer his other book.

( http://weblog.siliconcerebrate.com/ce... ) ( )

http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/1195788...

I preferred The Iliad somehow to The Odyssey. There is a wider range of characters, a broader range of settings, a continuing tension between the battlefields of Troy and the realm of the gods. Indeed, I found the continuing interference by rival divine authorities in human affairs strongly reminiscent of the Balkan / Levantine instinct for explaining contemporary human politics by conspiracy theory, resorting to unseen, unaccountable forces to explain what is going on.

I'm sorry to say that my inner geek prevailed at one point: I found myself getting quite unreasonably interested in the description of Hephaistos' mechanical devices in Chapter XVIII. Surely these are the earliest examples of robots and androids in fiction? The first description is of his mechanised tripods on wheels:

...τρίποδας γὰρ ἐείκοσι πάντας ἔτευχεν
ἑστάμεναι περὶ τοῖχον ἐϋσταθέος μεγάροιο,
χρύσεα δέ σφ' ὑπὸ κύκλα ἑκάστῳ πυθμένι θῆκεν,
ὄφρά οἱ αὐτόματοι θεῖον δυσαίατ' ἀγῶνα
ἠδ' αὖτις πρὸς δῶμα νεοίατο θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι.

Alexander Pope's translation:

Full twenty tripods for his hall he framed,
That placed on living wheels of massy gold,
(Wondrous to tell,) instinct with spirit roll'd
From place to place, around the bless'd abodes
Self-moved, obedient to the beck of gods:

Samuel Butler's translation:

...he was making twenty tripods that were to stand by the wall of his house, and he set wheels of gold under them all that they might go of their own selves to the assemblies of the gods, and come back again--marvels indeed to see.

William Cowper's translation:

...tripods bright he form'd
Twenty at once, his palace-wall to grace
Ranged in harmonious order. Under each
Two golden wheels he set, on which (a sight
Marvellous!) into council they should roll465
Self-moved, and to his house, self-moved, return.

But it gets better - he has robot women to do his bidding!

ὑπὸ δ' ἀμφίπολοι ῥώοντο ἄνακτι
χρύσειαι ζωῇσι νεήνισιν εἰοικυῖαι.
τῇς ἐν μὲν νόος ἐστὶ μετὰ φρεσίν, ἐν δὲ καὶ αὐδὴ
καὶ σθένος, ἀθανάτων δὲ θεῶν ἄπο ἔργα ἴσασιν.

Alexander Pope's translation:

The monarch's steps two female forms uphold,
That moved and breathed in animated gold;
To whom was voice, and sense, and science given
Of works divine (such wonders are in heaven!)

Samuel Butler's translation:

There were golden handmaids also who worked for him, and were like real young women, with sense and reason, voice also and strength, and all the learning of the immortals.

William Cowper's translation:

Beside the king of fire two golden forms
Majestic mov'd, that serv'd him in the place
Of handmaids; young they seem'd and seem'd alive,
Nor want they intellect, or speech, or force,
Or prompt dexterity by the gods inspir'd.

Non-robot women get rather a raw deal in the Iliad. The quarrel between Achilles and the rest of the Greeks starts with a dispute over who gets to keep the captive women Briseis and Chryseis. In the funeral games for Patroclus, Ajax and Odysseus wrestle for a prize of a woman who is not named but is skilled in all domestic matters. Actually she is the consolation prize for the loser: the winner gets a nice big cauldron. (I am not making this up.) The match is declared a draw and Ajax and Odysseus are told by Achilles to split the prizes, but we are not told how they manage this (and perhaps we are better off not knowing).

Having said which, the goddesses Thetis, Athena, Hera and indeed the Trojan women, Hecuba and Andromache (and to an extent Helen) are all interesting characters in their own rights; as are most of the men, several of whom (this is hardly a spoiler) get horribly killed off during the conflict.

I was fascinated by the continuous tension between praise and horror of combat. It's clear to me that Homer's articulation of the warrior's code of honour lies rhetorically behind an awful lot of subsequent eras' jingoism and exhortation of young men to die stupidly. The battle scenes are pretty gory and get a bit repetitive, but there are moments of real power. Yet at the same time he is clear about the other side: moves towards peace-making are clearly a Good Thing, though torpedoed by human incompetence and divine malice; the last chapter has grieving Priam confronting Achilles over the body of his son Hector.

Anyway, I'm very glad I finally read this. ( )

Some commentaries describe The Iliad as direct and fast paced. Those aren't the descriptive words that come to my mind. 'Long' and 'boring' are what I had in mind. I kept waiting for the Trojan horse to show up! Everybody has heard of the Trojan horse, so why isn't it in The Iliad? Now I know that The Iliad is about the anger of Achilles. But Achilles' heel and death do not occur in The Iliad either. There were probably many other ancient Greek epics that have been lost and are no longer known to us today. I think The Iliad was preserved because it was so uninteresting that later authors weren't tempted to rewrite it with later versions. That explains why the myths of the Trojan horse and Achilles' heel are based on later writings. They are more interesting plot ideas and may have preempted earlier myths that are now lost. (This is my idea and I may be the only person who believes it.)

Homer's war details are very graphic and grotesque. Brains, eyeballs and guts are reconfigured and blood spilled in just about every conceivable way in The Iliad. The one thing not described is maiming and slow death. The injuries are either not serious or they're serious enough to cause instant death; Nothing in between.

Fate plays a central role in the thinking of the characters in The Iliad. Who would have thought that the Greeks believed in predestination long before Calvin. Why is the concept of avoiding death by not fighting so hard to understand? These guys think they're fated to die in battle. Why not rob (or delay) the fate of death and run the other direction?

One thing I'll have to concede to the ancient Greeks; Their concept of numerous fickle Gods matches real life much closer than the monotheistic concept of a just, fair and loving God. Frankly, some the Gods described in The Iliad remind me of the personality of God in the Biblical story of Job. They both do bad things to good people for childish reasons.

Speaking of good people, I was surprised how sympathetically The Iliad treated the Trojans. Since it's a Greek myth one would expect that the Trojans to be portrayed as bad people. But no, they're the good people defending their homes, women and children. The Greeks are the mean guys there for plunder. That's why the ancient Greeks conquered the world, they raped other people's women instead of staying home with their own. Ostensibly, the Greeks are there to rescue Helen who's been kidnapped by Paris, a junior prince of the Trojans. But it's pretty clear that the Greeks wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of sailing to Troy if there wasn't the prospect of plunder.

It's pretty clear that women, at least the young and pretty ones, are considered to be part of the plunder. A good discussion question is, 'Was Helen a willing participant in her abduction?' The answer is yes in my opinion. Another interesting case is the woman Briseis who morns the death of Patroclus who she says had treated her kindly when she was kidnapped from her homeland. She goes on to recall how the rest of her family, including her husband and three brothers, were killed when she was taken captive by the Greeks. Yet her sadness is directed toward the death of one of her captors. This must be an example of Stockholm syndrome. (Briseis was the cause of Achilles' anger when Agamemnon took her away from him.)

Incredibly the Greeks take time in the middle of their war to hold games to honor the death of Patroclus. It was a mini Olympics except that the Trojans didn't participate. The games included chariot races, boxing, wrestling, running and other competitions. I noticed that the prizes for the wrestling match gave another indication of the relative value of women for the ancient Greeks. First prize was a fire straddling tripod valued at 12 oxen and second prize was a woman skilled at crafts valued at four oxen.

It's interesting to compare The Iliad with the Hebrew story of Moses. Both stories are about incidents that occurred perhaps over 3,200 years ago. Both stories were preserved (and probably enhanced) via oral retelling until they were first put into writing perhaps 2,600 years ago. The Iliad would become the founding myth of the Greek civilization that ended up conquering the world under Alexander the Great. The other story became part of the founding myth of Judah that was taken into Babylonian captivity and later continued under foreign domination. In a sense, the one story is for the winners, and the other for the losers. Both stories have become part of the roots of the western literary tradition. Since oppressed peoples, refugees and the homeless outnumber the victors at any given time in history, many people have found the promise of deliverance contained in the Hebrew scriptures to be a comforting message. That can't be said for The Iliad. ( )

The greatest book ever spoken. ( )

The translation is a little dated ( )

After the first few chapters I found this quite easy to read - not at all what I was expecting. I must agree with a previous reviewer who mentioned that whenever the narrative focuses on a character, a few words are given on the background of the character - very helpful indeed! Looking forward to reading the Odyssey. ( )

I have the Robert Fitzgerald translation and it is wonderfully easy to read. After trying to read the Elizabethan English version of Hamlet, this is a breeze. I am enjoying following the story. My only issue is the spelling of names that Fitzgerald uses. I was reading the Wikipedia summary before I realized that one of the Aias in the book is actually Ajax. And I slow down every time I read Achilleus.
Homer certainly described the battles well. He moves around, shows the various individual battles that occur, and always keeps the interference of the gods clear. A lot of people get wounded or killed while trying to steal the goods off of a fallen warrior. Greed could be a major theme of this book.
One thing I liked about the book (that I was afraid of when I started) is how well the text does of clarifying what side each person is on. There are so MANY names mentioned in this book. But usually each time a name or conflict is mentioned something is said to help point out who is with the Trojans and who is with the Greeks.
Achilles is a warrior who makes war and takes power easily. Yet he is a man of passions and when he is angered by Agamemnon he cannot let go of his pride. When Patroclos is killed, he cannot move forward in his grief, but holds it and is held by it for 11 days. Even the abuse of Hector’s body does not provide him any relief, just exhaustion with no rest. When Thetis comes to tell him Zeus says to give Hector’s body back, he quickly agrees. Tired and ready to lay down the load of grief. ( )