Go back to the Homer page for more texts and other resources.

'By Their Own Hearts' Promptings': Men and Gods in Homer

An assessment of the relationship between men and gods in Homer's Odyssey and Iliad, and an investigation of the key features of Homeric religion.


Although the author of the {Iliad} and the {Odyssey} is recognised as having systematised and rationalised various disparate beliefs in the supernatural,[1] the relationship between gods and men in Homer remains characterised by contradiction and complexity. Homer?s characters see the gods as the source of both good and of evil; they embrace both fate and freedom, and recognise both the tragedy of life and the capability for divine justice. Many of these dualities are foreign to modern readers, but they are an undeniable part of early Greek theology and we must resist the temptation to reconcile them with contemporary ideals. In fact, the Greek worldview was expressly ambiguous about the gods?they recognised not only the Olympian deities but also supernatural forces and fate. This ambiguity is captured in the Greek language, which used a variety of different words to describe the supernatural, including theoi, theos, and daimon. I will argue that these ambiguities undermine many of the claims which have been made by commentators about the nature of divine power in Homer, and will suggest that the supernatural plays a multifaceted role in the {Iliad} and the {Odyssey} which is only undermined by attempts at simplification and generalisation.

In Book V of the {Iliad}, Apollo declares ?there can be no likeness ever between the make of immortal gods and of men who walk on the ground? (p. 78). Apollo is no doubt wrong?Homer reveals an astonishing number of parallels between gods and men. The most obvious is the fact that the gods are anthropomorphic. There is suggestion, especially in the use of animal epithets such as ?cow-eyed Hera? and ?owl-eyed Athena?, that the view of the gods as human beings evolved out of a time when they were once worshipped as animals.[2] There is no doubt that Homer?s view of the gods is considerably more advanced: the Olympians have inherited not only the human form but also human traits. Like men, the gods value aristeia, show a preoccupation with material possessions, and value genealogy. They subscribe to the Homeric ethic of being a ?speaker of words and a doer of deeds? ({Il}., p. 143). They are as concerned about honour as the heroes?Poseidon is concerned that Achainas are building a wall which will be more famous than the wall he and Apollo built, Hera will support the Achainas at all costs because her honour was compromised by Paris, and the gods will stop Achilleus? defiling the body of Hektor not because it is right to do so but because they owe it to the Trojan hero?he honoured them by making many offerings.

Perhaps one of the most remarkable parallels is between Zeus? inability to keep the other gods in check and Agamemnon?s leadership. In Book II, Agamemnon?s attempt to test his troops? morale very nearly leads to a full-scale revolt. In the opening of Book IV, Zeus is forced to back down from his suggestion that they should put an end to the war, and ends up making a compromise agreement with his wife. Indeed, three times in the {Iliad} Hera is able to change Zeus? mind by uttering words such as ?we other gods will not all applaud you? (IV, p. 53). This parallels Agamemnon?s inability to rule unilaterally?he has no more power to make decisions than the other Greek heroes. His argument that the Achainas should retreat, for example, is demolished by Diomedes in Book IX. Clearly both other gods and other heroes have a role to play in decision-making. Indeed, Zeus admits that the cooperation of the other gods is essential for the success of his plan to bring Odysseus home ({Od}., I, p. 5), just as Agamemnon must rely on the support of the other Greek leaders. The characters themselves realise that the will of Zeus is not absolute and as a consequence they pray to ?father Zeus and Athene and Apollo? ({Il}., II, p. 28, italics mine).[3] On the other hand, however, both Zeus and Agamemnon share important positions in their respective societies. Agamemnon, despite his failings, is regarded as a king cherished by Zeus ({Il}., II, p. 24) and the respect the other gods have for Zeus is clear: they rise to greet him ({Il}., I, p. 16), and acknowledge the fact that his decisions carry more weight than any of theirs ({Od}., op. cit.).

Homer also portrays the gods with human flaws. These flaws are especially evident in the comic episodes, especially Zeus? falling into Hera?s trap of seduction ({Il}., XIV), and Demodocus? telling of the story of Ares and Aphrodite. Additionally, however, there seem to be rather more serious limitations on the gods? influence on man. Odysseus tells us that ?the gods, after all, can do anything? ({Od}., X, p. 151), but here the poet seems to know more than his characters because Homer reveals some very real limitations on the gods? powers. Although they have enormous influence in determining the course of events on earth, they never completely transcend human limitations.4 Aphrodite may be adept at the ?work of love?, but her foray into the fighting ends in disaster because, as Zeus chides, ?war?s work, my child, is not your province? ({Il}., V, p. 78). Homer seems to be playing on the ironic difference between the way the gods think about themselves and the way they actually behave. By the end of the Iliad, he has almost completely debunked Apollo?s declaration that there is no similarity between gods and men by the construction of parallel situations which illustrate the various flaws of the gods, in a way which was no doubt a source of amusement for his contemporary audience.

Nevertheless, in drawing our attention to the flaws and frivolities of the world of the gods, Homer highlights a fundamental difference between god and man: the latter is condemned to live a short, miserable life, while the former have an existence free of responsibility, suffering, and death. The juxtaposition between these two worlds is an important theme in the {Iliad}, and is explored poignantly in the relationship between Achilleus and his divine mother Thetis. Achilleus? life is ?short lived and miserable? (I, p. 13). He meets his mother four times in the Iliad, and each time his situation becomes progressively more dire. By the second meeting he has lost his best friend Patroklos, and by the third meeting it is clear that he is fated to die. By contrast, Thetis? leads a rather static life and he has responsibility for his actions; Thetis, however, is unchanged throughout the story?she lives in a static world without any of the gravity of the human world. Another important parallel is developed in the quarrels between men and those between gods. There are no consequences of the quarrel between Zeus and Hera, but when Achilleus and Agamemnon quarrel, the possible consequences are the deaths of thousands of men, the pride and reputation of the heroes, and the outcome of the war. The fragility of human life is captured well by Odysseus:

[q]Of all the creatures that breathe and creep about on Mother Earth there is none so helpless as man? when the blessed gods bring him troubles he has no choice but to endure them with a patient heart. The reason is that the view we mortals take of this earthly life depends on what Zeus, the father of gods and men, sends us day by day.[5] ({Od}., XIIX, p. 277)[/q]

There are numerous such passages in both the {Iliad} and the {Odyssey}, and in each one of them the speaker acknowledges that although the gods have the ability to grant man prosperity and health, they just as often bring him misfortune and suffering. It is not surprising, then, that there are also passages in which the heroes suggest that the gods can and should reach more often into the jar of gifts. Menelaos? lamentation, ?Father Zeus, they say your wisdom is beyond all others? and yet you are the source of all this? (XIII, p. 215), foregrounds the fundamental problem that both gods and suffering can exist together; a tension that centuries after Homer would become known as the problem of evil. However, although the problem is a universal one, the answer the Ancient Greeks gave to it is unique. They accepted unconditionally the existence of both gods and suffering?it did not lead them to doubt the existence of the gods, but rather to affirm them as the source not only of all good but also of all evil.

These flaws notwithstanding, we are left with no doubt about the gods? supreme power. Zeus? thoughts are deathless (XXIV, p. 390) and his ?mind is always stronger than the mind of men? (XVII, p. 279). Men, in contrast to the gods, ?are like leaves? (XXI, p. 346). This extraordinary simile encapsulates the tragic view of life presented in the Iliad: it is fragile and short, and even the greatest heroes will one day fade. The gods, for all their similarities with the world of men, will never suffer death. It is appropriate then that they should occupy the domain ?between earth and the starry heaven? (V, p. 86)?neither wholly human or wholly divine, they lead astonishingly human lives but in a world with entirely different parameters.

Although these features are common to both the {Iliad} and the Odyssey, the role of gods in the latter is different in several respects. The most important difference is the development in the {Odyseey} of a system of divine justice. Zeus? opening remarks point to the fact that it is man?s own wrongdoing?not any deed of the gods?that brings suffering:

[q]What a lamentable thing it is that men should blame the gods and regard us as the source of their troubles, when it is their own transgressions which bring them suffering that was not their destiny. (I, p. 4)[/q]

Although this concept is certainly foreign to the {Iliad}, it is too simplistic to say that there is no divine justice in the one poem and nothing but divine justice in the other. Firstly, in the Iliad, there do seem to be certain codes that govern the behaviour of the gods: Hera prevents Hephaistos from causing further damage to Xanthos, for example, by scolding ?it is not right to maltreat an immortal god like this for the sake of immortal men? (XXI, p. 344). However, these codes seem to govern only behaviour between the gods and not the gods? treatment of man, as the alarming passage in which Hera promises to allow Zeus to sack Argos and Sparta and Mycenae whenever his ?heart feels strong hatred for them? (IV, p. 54) makes patently clear. Passages of this nature throw into doubt the suggestion made by Gladstone that the gods have ?a certain gravity, a sense of duty, and consciousness of moral responsibility for the use of their power over men?.[6] Nevertheless, the Zeus of the {Iliad} is expected by the characters to punish certain wrongdoers, including oathbreakers (see IV, p. 57). The Odyssey, however, goes much further?it ?extends the range of punishable offenses to almost every act of impiety?,7 including, for example, the mistreatment of supplicants (see XIII, p. 199). These differences are probably best explained by the different focus and subject matter of the two poems. The vision of the {Iliad} is of the tragedy of human life, while the {Odyssey} drives towards a very different conclusion in which the good are rewarded and the evil are punished.

The extent to which the influence of Homer?s gods precludes man making his own decisions has been a matter of much scholarly debate. Snell takes an extreme position, claiming that ?human initiative has no source of its own; whatever is planned and executed is the plan and deed of the gods?.[8] E.R. Dodds suggests that a reason for this is that ?the Homeric poets were without the refinements of language which would have been needed to ?put across? adequately a purely psychological miracle?.[9] Although this position may be a tempting one for a modern audience, it is untenable in light of numerous passages from both the {Iliad} and the {Odyssey} where it is clear that human initiative is not only possible but vitally important to the overall design of the epics.

One example often cited to support the claim that the gods function as a replacement for the psychology of the characters is the instance in Book 1 where Athene prevents Achilleus from attacking Agamemnon. Snell would argue that Achilleus? decision could just as easily be explained without recourse to divine intervention, and this is probably true. However, the reason that Homer introduces Athene here is not because he is incapable of expressing independent human decision-making but because he wishes to underscore the importance of the incident in the development of the story. The same is true of many other incidents in the Iliad; the involvement of Apollo in Patroclus? death, and Zeus? mourning of Sarpedon?s death are, above all, techniques which draw our attention to the enormity of the events. It should also be noted that Athene does not compel Achilleus to put back his sword?it is only after careful consideration of what the goddess suggests that the hero decides to do so. Achilleus? decision is as much due to his response to Athene as it is to her appearance, and to say that the characters are incapable of making independent decisions is to overlook the fact that they are regularly called upon to do so by the gods themselves. Additionally, there are some events which simply cannot be explained as having a human origin, such as the removal of Patroclus? armour ({Il}., XVI, p. 273), and the transportation of Alexandros from the duel ({Il}., III, p. 50), which must be taken into account.

Furthermore, there are countless examples in both poems of the characters making decisions without any intervention from the gods. The phrase ?of their own heart?s promptings?, regularly used in the {Iliad}, indicates that the Greeks were perfectly willing to ascribe certain events to human actions. Andromache offers two suggestions to account for the Achaians managing to find the best location for scaling the wall of Troy: ?Either someone skilled in prophecies must have told them, or it may be their own hearts? prompting? ({Il}., XI, p. 102; see also X, p. 160). Interestingly, similar language[10] is used in referring to Zeus: he comes down from Olympus by his ?great heart?s prompting? ({Il}., VII, p. 105), and, when thinking about the death of his son Sarpedon, he says that ?there are two ways my heart pulls?. In the Odyssey, Medeon says that Telemachus? journey to Pylos was due either to the urgings of a god or the promptings of his heart.11 These examples suggest that Snell?s extreme position cannot be right?divine intervention never actually excludes human initiative. This makes Martin Hammond?s more mild claim that ?divine and human causation work in parallel?[12] far more sensitive to the complexities of the Homeric poems. This parallel causation is often said to lead to the ?problem of overdetermination?, but it is only a problem to the modern reader and it is unreasonable to attempt to overcome it by suggesting that divine intervention is merely a surrogate for human psychology.

In addition, an argument may be made that the gods? intervention is limited in the sense that it is prompted by human action. Homer blames the war on ?the blind folly of Alexandros? ({Il}., XXIV, p. 388) as much as he does any god, and perhaps it is only when men are placed in situations where they need divine help, or where they specifically appeal for divine help, that the gods intervene. This reading suggests that the gods would only interfere in human affairs where there the stakes are high, and explains why they concern themselves almost exclusively with the heroes. On this reading, we may even go so far as to reject Menelaos?s statement that ?the threads of victory are not in our hands, they are held above, among the immortal gods??after all, if the gods are involving themselves only in the limited sphere of the heroes then surely the side most adept at fighting, with the bravest warriors and the best weapons will win the day on the battlefield. But it is not this simple. In Homer battles are won not by the efforts of thousands of warriors but by the heroes and, specifically, the extent to which the heroes have the support of the gods. This is why the so-called ?divine entourage?[13] is so important in the Iliad?the Achaians depend on the likes of Odysseus and Diomedes, who are supported by Athene (she is Odysseus? patron god, and Diomedes? family patron), and the Trojans rely primarily on Apollo. Thus it is clear that although the gods do appear to be limited in the sense that they concern themselves exclusively with the heroes, the importance of this involvement should not be underestimated because success is, in the end, always contingent on divine support.

The use of the Greek moira reveals a second dimension of divine power which is very different from the type of power wielded by the Olympian gods, and which often seems to have control over them. It is very often associated with death,[14] but it is also used in a more general sense to refer to the inescapable events of one?s life,[15] including events as trivial as sleeping ({Od}., XIX, p. 303). As Hektor puts it, ?fate? is something no man is ever freed from, whether brave man or coward, from the first moment of his birth? ({Il}., VI, p. 103). It is also, some critics argue, something that the gods are never freed from. The primary example is Zeus? inability to intervene in order to save his son Sarpedon. However, the extent to which fate constrains the actions of the gods seems to be regularly overstated. Although Hera may warn that to release a man who was long ago destined by fate would meet with the disapproval of the other gods, she never suggests that it is beyond Zeus? capability to do it. In fact, her warning is no stronger than the words she uses in order to convince Zeus not to make peace between the Achaians and the Trojans?she uses the same phrase, ?Do it, then: but we other gods will not applaud you? ({Il}., IV, p. 53). This suggests that fate is not something by which the gods are necessarily constrained, but rather it is something which is to be respected and considered. In this way, Zeus? weighing of the scales can be read not as his being bound by fate but as his consulting and making a commitment to follow it. In fact, as far as Homer?s characters are concerned, the gods and fate are not in conflict; rather, they work towards the same end.

Thus events in Homer are doubly and sometimes triply determined, with the gods, fate, and human initiative weaving a complex narrative web. The involvement of the gods is even more complicated by the fact that they embody the interplay of divine and earthly, potent and frivolous, just and unjust. We have seen the inadequacy of attempts to rationalise these complexities and to reconcile them with our modern worldview. Perhaps the most erroneous of these attempts is the claim that human initiative has no place in Homer?it is clear that, although Homer?s characters may have seen the gods and fate as weavers of their destiny, they never questioned their own ability to weave themselves, ?by their own hearts? promptings?. It is only if we accept the Homeric poems with all their complexities intact that we can start to fully appreciate the role played by the gods. Because, in the end, the Greeks were less concerned with what precise combination of supernatural intervention and natural initiative caused events such as Patroklos? death, than they were with the manner in which it happened, the reaction of the other characters, and its consequences. If we lose the gods, we lose a sense of the enormity of Patroklos? death, we forget about the importance of the fight over his body, and, without the touching account of him being moved to his homeland by Sleep and Death, we could never understand the beauty of his life and the humanity of his death. Remarkably, all of these feelings are basic human ones which we experience every day of our lives?yet it is the gods who best accentuate them in us. Thus the supernatural forms an irreplaceable part of Homer?s project of highlighting the important events in the lives of heroes, and telling of the tragedy of human life. We may never be able to wholly rationalise or understand them, but Homer?s gods will never stop influencing us.




[b]Bibliography[/b]
C. M. Bowra, {The Greek Experience}, London, Cardinal, 1973.
??, Tradition and Design in the Iliad, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1930.
G. M. Calhoun, ?Homer?s Gods: Prolegomena?, {Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association}, 1937, vol. 68, p. 11.
E.R. Dodds, {The Greeks and the Irrational}, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1951.
W.E. Gladstone, {Landmarks of Homeric Study}, London, Macmillan, 1890.
Homer, {Iliad}, tr. M. Hammond, London, Penguin, 1987.
??, {Odyssey}, tr. E. V. Rieu (revised), London, Penguin, 1991.
W. Kullmann, ?Gods and Men in the {Iliad} and the Odyssey?, {Harvard Studies in Classical Philology}, 1985, vol. 89, p. 1.
G. S. Kirk, {Homer and the Epic}, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1965.
B. Snell, The {Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought}, Oxford, Blackwell, 1953.
O. Tsagarakis, {Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in Homer}, Amsterdam, Gruner, 1977.



[b]Page References[/b]
References in the text of the essay are to books and page numbers in the Penguin Classics translations of the {Iliad} and the {Odyssey}.



[!1] C.M. Bowra, {Tradition and Design in the Iliad}, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1930, p. 218.
[!2] Ibid, p. 219-220.
[!3] This line is repeated?see especially IV p. 60 and VII p. 108.
[!4] G. M. Calhoun, ?Homer?s Gods: Prolegomena?, {Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association}, 1937, vol. 68, p. 15.
[!5] These words were echoed by the playwright Euripides in the opening to his {Medea}, indicating the extent to which they continued to reflect the Greek worldview for many years after their composition.
[!6] {Landmarks of Homeric Study}, London, Macmillan, 1890.
[!7] O. Tsagarakis, Nature {and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in Homer}, Amsterdam, Gruner, 1977, p. 23.
[!8] {The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought}, Oxford, Blackwell, 1953, p. 30.
[!9] {The Greeks and the Irrational}, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1951, p. 14.
[!10] The same Greek word thymos (heart) is used in all of the passages here cited.
[!11] Thymos (heart; see supra, note 7) is obscured in the Rieu translation.
[!12] {Introduction }to the {Iliad}, p. xxii.
[!13] Calhoun, op. cit., p. 16.
[!14] Achilleus mentions this association explicitly when he says that ?death and strong Fate are there for me? ({Il}., XXI, p. 338).
[!15] O. Tsagarakis, op. cit., p. 134






Authors | Quotes | Digests | Submit | Interact | Store

Copyright © Classics Network. Contact Us