Bottom Line: Homer teaches that merit, birth, and popular opinion are, by themselves, inadequate to govern a people. Each has a role and conservatives would do well to remember this in the present War.
Commentary (Iliad Book I, II)
Homer, the poet and not the cartoon character, in his Iliad describes a people in constant war. The stress of the conflict is beginning to fray the political bonds of the Greeks. In Books I and II Homer has three types of leader express their point of view: the great war time leader, a person who inherited his position, and the people.
The leader of the military expedition was Agamemnon whose inherited title is stressed when the opening lines of the poem describes him only as his father (Atreus) son. In any just society, great fathers will privilege their sons. There is no way to avoid this without destroying the right to private property and love of family that spur great men to excellence.
My son does not get my attention because he deserves it. He gets it because I love my son. My daughter will not inherit my wealth (such as it is) because she is worthy, but because she is my daughter.
Agamemnon is high king by the grace of birth, but he does not recognize this fact. He is not king by merit, but could (if he did as he should) speak for the commons in his uncommon position. In the councils of the war, he is there not for great exploits for he has none. He is there to represent the past, which always be considered, but instead he represents his own narrow interests.
He should be a “father” to his people, a title which brings honor but does not imply merit, but instead he demands the type of “prizes” which should only come to those with merit.
Most of us stand of the shoulders of our parents. Many Americans are involved in a great transfer of wealth from the World War II generation to the boomers. Generation X tries not to look too longly at the appreciated housing of their boomer parents.
We should not look at our patrimony (which includes any favors done to us through our birth position) as making us superior. Instead, it should demand humble service.
We risk forgetting this lesson and repeating the arrogance of Agamemnon. When a person uses an Internet connection paid for by his parents and designed by his grandparents generation, merely to whine about his problems and claim rights and privileges he has not earned, then he runs the risk of being a little Agamemnon.
Prize enough to have received the Constitution of 1789, a free economy, and a powerful nation, but too many of us demand more without having earned more. As sons and daughters of the Republic, we are given much and our forefathers were happy to give it to us, but we did not earn our great status in the Earth.
The central character of Book I (if not of the entire Iliad) is Achilles. He represents the man of merit whose excellence is displayed in his deeds. He is the easiest for American’s to respect, but his excellence is demanding and his rage when he is thwarted is a warning that merit without corresponding character can be destructive.
Achilles is the greatest warrior in the middle of a great war. He has earned his prizes as he is quick to point out. Yet he too is the son of a great man and a goddess. His great merit is earned, but it is also inherited. He is called by name in the first line of the poem, but we are also reminded of the name of his father.
Homer is reminding us that no man earns his greatness totally by his own merit. Achilles is able to do what he does partly because he is the son of Peleus and of the Thetis.
Achilles causes great harm to the Greeks when he is enraged at his lack of reward for his great exploits. He is arrogant enough to believe that the only claims to power should be claims based on merit.
He forgets the claims of love and family. He forgets the rights of the “mediocre” many (democracy).
The person who deserves honor in our nation can be the most destructive. He or she is the best and so can demand of us all that we acknowledge that status. When his demands are not met, the man of merit is often enraged and withdraws (as Achilles did) bringing destruction on us all.
The tyranny of the deserving can be as awful as any other. They deserve much, but demand more. Whenever challenged the point to their merit, but do not realize that the rest of us create the culture in which their merit can be seen. The great sports star who forgets the sport in his pursuit of records is one example. The star academic who demands higher pay and less work from the taxpayer in order to denigrate the taxpayers he loathes is another.
Great skill at arms, in mind, or in business does not justify tyrannical demands. Merit often refuses to acknowledge other demands . . . such as the demand of family (love) or numbers (democracy).
When the brightest and the best are more concerned with their own rewards, the nation is in trouble.
Finally, in Book II Homer presents us with the voice of the people in Thersites. Thersites wants to go home and end the war. Great things are beyond him and he cannot understand the long term policy decisions of the leaders. He rightly sees the futility of the War to this point, but would unleash social chaos and defeat as a remedy for mistakes in its prosecution.
Thersites cannot be ignored, because there is real wisdom in the mass of the troops. They see that there is no chance of winning until the walls of Troy are breached. Endless aristocratic fighting is mere posturing that will end nothing. It is a rich man’s war, but it is the poor men who die. Thersites is ignored and this part of the problem in the Greek camp.
Thersites himself, however, is also part of the problem. He does not merely express the opinion of the many, which is valuable, but attempts to deduce from it policy. The many are wise about their feelings and what they are doing, but do not have the excellence or knowledge to know what to do about it.
Democratic impulses are important to guide leaders, but opinion polls cannot be a substitute for thoughtful planning.
Conservatives (and I am one) often veer between a naive populism in the voice of the people is the voice of God and an elitism where the wisdom of the folk is ignored. Homer would teach us to do better.
The war weariness of Thersites should prove to the leaders that something is wrong in their policy. Thersites, however, could not be elevated to be “king” or “general.” He does not know enough.
What do the Greek leaders do? They ignore Thersites with beatings. As often happens, the leaders use the folly of the masses as an excuse to ignore their wisdom . . . since their wisdom comes wrapped in their folly.
Americans dare not make the same mistake in this present War. We must account for the war weariness of the nation. It is telling us something and propaganda or “beatings” (”stupid people”) is not sufficient. On the other hand, the notion that we should just follow whatever policy position that now commands a fluctuating majority of the Thersites in our camp is folly as well.
We must find out what the unpopularity of the War is teaching us, but not be rushed into losing the War (and the sacrifice made so far) by that opinion.
In short, Homer is like the Founders of America. He does not (in Books I and II) trust inherited position, merit, or popularity to determine the fate of the people. He would see all of these work together for the good of the whole.
Our government (with three branches) reflects this wisdom as do limits placed on its power.