comment on Poseidon, Divine Hypocrite…. A question I had while reading this book was, how is it appropriate that Poseidon, the sea god, just happens to come to the forefront of the action when the battle reaches the seashore and the ships? Why is it appropriate the sea god interferes exactly at this point?

And Christensen’s translation of 39-44 really brings into high relief the extent to which the Elements are at play in these passages: the Trojans are “like a whirlwind” (Hector is also in other places described as such) and “the earthshaker Poseidon who grips the land rose from the deep sea” — a lot of elements in in those lines. On top of this we know that Hector brings fire — so all of the elements are represented in this battle. (Could Homer be a foundation for the belief in four elements? Could the Iliad have influenced Empedocles?)

So the Trojans are fire and air while the Greeks are land and water? (And yet the rivers are on the side of the Trojans and Hephaistos who brings fire is on the side of the Greeks.)

Meanwhile, ships seem a sort of intermediary between sea and sky (Zeus?) like horses do between humans and land.

A stab at unpacking the analogy of horses and ships: wind is to ships as horses are to chariots but winds are controlled by Zeus while horses are controlled by men. (Something inapt there. Oh well.)

ngrams: Smokestack Lightning,Howling Wolf

πολλοὶ γὰρ πλουτέουσι κακοί, ἀγαθοὶ δὲ πένονται (*)

Soldiers’ Pay is by and large without “modernist tricks,” stylistically speaking, excepting Faulkner’s use of parentheses — which I don’t know if I’ve encountered in an author before him. (Feel like Virginia Woolf will employ devices like this, particularly in To the Lighthouse, though that was published a year after this in 1927.)

You could say what’s inside the paren is the voice of the Greek Chorus, a comment on the action, though it’s generally just a character’s unattributed thought, somewhat like an aside in theater.

A little more striking is when he leaves *out* of the paren what he should have included within them, which he does in a least one spot — obliterating that line between comment and thing commented on, between character thought and author narration — which I think he pursues more seriously in his later books. (Soldiers’ Pay is his first published book.)

When he does this, the effect is of objectifying the character’s thought. Without the privilege of parentheses or quotes to set it off, the thought becomes a thing and part of the landscape, something present in a room like a table might be. (A character didn’t think something: rather, there existed this thought. This thought, belonging to no one, was part of the surroundings.)

Interesting comment from Noah Smith again — did he believe demonic possession was real? Certainly. “Social movements are suprahuman entities — ‘demons’, if you like. They can possess humans and make them lose their individuality and start acting as fingers of a nonhuman pseudointelligence.”

First blush of roast Upon Thy brow,
Rays from the coil upon thee now.
Aureate, Eloquent, Fluffy, Cheesy,
A nutty crust, a little seedy.
My jaw orbits gnaw by gnaw your ring
And frees you of the bready thing.

Conclusion of Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United:

At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

These repetitions of a simple εἰμί with a πέλω thrown in seem unusual for Homer, though the assonance doesn’t. Maybe to emphasize μήνι ? Beginning of book 12:

τὸ καὶ οὔ τι πολὺν χρόνον ἔμπεδον ἦεν.
ὄφρα μὲν Ἕκτωρ ζωὸς ἔην καὶ μήνι᾽ Ἀχιλλεὺς
καὶ Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος ἀπόρθητος πόλις ἔπλεν,
τόφρα δὲ καὶ μέγα τεῖχος Ἀχαιῶν ἔμπεδον ἦεν.

Meanwhile the ὄφρα and τόφρα reverberate with the τάφρος (“ditch”) of previous lines, and, phonetics or not, it’s an unusually prospective passage.

commination
lust……………lust
ro………….ro
nhou…………nhou
sebu………..sebu
ngab……….ngab
un………un
..g……..g
….a…….a
L swin…ang…ines ST
K I.. ging..siron.. sand. rOn
Te…. Maryof Egypthami …ge
OM……. rrida bashitru Mar….. rt
Jo……… gUAr dnnelS o-da…… han
ne…………cCt..i_a_a_cCt……… jo…
s………….. oaa.|_ _ _|oaa…….. nes
t lsn| _ *. |lsn
daa|_ _ _|daa
brf yiaaiaabrf y
ging..siron.. sand
Maryof Egypthami
rrida bashitru Mar
gUAr dnnelS o-da
.BubbsalnBubb..
..Bub.ooBubb….

Thinking about the two interesting similes in book 12 (154-161; 277-289) comparing thrown stones to snowfall.

Very peculiar… and what’s really wild to me is that two other passages involving stones similarly echo each other: when both Hector and Ajax throw stones such as “men of today” are too weak to even pick up (384, 489).

Nothing to say about this really but one obvious thing is that the snowfall comparison suggests the lightness of the stones while the Ajax/ Hector passages suggest their extreme heaviness.

Notable: all four of these instances use a different word for ‘stone.’

Also: we might remember that Ajax and Hector threw stones at each other in Book 7.

In general, must say that Book 12 is a surprising book!

Trite to say but I wonder if the main “character” of Iliad’s book 12 is the wall of the Achaeans: the book starts with a discussion of its ultimate fate, its destruction by Poeseidon et al., the book ends with Hector bursting through its gates, not destroying but compromising the wall.

Another unusual theme of Iliad 12 is of thrown stones, which are twice evocatively described as falling like snow. Hector and Ajax are specifically described as throwing stones and it was they who threw stones at each other during their duel in book 7.

Like in book 7, the implication is that Ajax is stronger than Hector; for while both Hector and Ajax are described in the same language as throwing stones greater than a person of today could, we’re told Hector requires Zeus’ help to effect this. (Again we’re reminded that the first best of the Trojans is less than the second best of the Achaeans; meaning, the Trojans are doomed.)

ngrams: dog’s breakfast

Re: Dawn, Reestablishing Space and Time, I’m noticing how dawn is mentioned again at line 50, and a succession of “shouts” that intervene between the two mentions.

Dawn produces light; Zeus sends down Strife; Strife positions herself where you can hear a cry (γεγωνέω) from one end of the fleet to the other — and shouts (αὔω); Agamemnon shouts (βοάω) and commands the soldiers; the soldiers themselves (after a long discussion of Agamemnon’s armor) shout (ἄσβεστος δὲ βοὴ) “before the dawn”; finally Zeus produces a “din of battle” (κυδοιμός) and sends a morning dew of blood (???) down.

The general impression I get is of a scene growing more clamorous as it grows brighter…. What, though, to make of that involved description of Agamemon’s armor?

This is thought provoking on “the galloping hypocrisy of the educated class” — Noah Smith: “Non-college Americans were failed by progressivism, because they followed what college-educated progressives *said* rather than what they *did*. Thus, they are turning to a rightist movement that rejects what progressives *say*.”

….. A. a I
..v v ………iR
e a ……..,,,,,.v a v
hl……………,,,,,a i
ta…………..,,,. A R I
e. c ………….,,,,,.v a
m.. h ………….,,,,,.i r
o.. i …………..,,,,,.vair
o.. i …………..,,,,,.vair
m.. h ………….,,,,,.i r
e. c ………….,,,,,.v a
ta…………..,,,. A R I
hl……………,,,,,a i
e a ……..,,,,,.v a v
)l…………………….K+
lV……………………………kv
gI……………..t………………..GG
G…………. . . The………… .. .G
e…….paroemiographer…….z
~…………………………………….!
1…………………………………..0
1………………………………….0
1………………………………..0
1……………………………0
………..Icomminat yIcomm yinat
………..n…………….t.n………….. e..
………..d…………… l..d…………… l
………..e………….. l….e………….. l
………..f…………. e….f…………. e
………..e……….. h….e……….. h
………..n……… s……n……… s
………..s…….. t…..s…….. t
………..e…… e….e…… e
………..o…. i…..o…. i
………..f… r…f… r
………..h. r..h. r
………..aa

Passions are often engendered by their opposites. Greed sometimes produces prodigality, and prodigality greed; one is firm through weakness often, and audacious by timidity.

La Rochefoucauld [11]

Les passions en engendrent souvent qui leur sont contraires. L’avarice produit quelquefois la prodigalité, et la prodigalité l’avarice ; on est souvent ferme par faiblesse, et audacieux par timidité.

Iliad 10.246-7. τούτου γ᾽ ἑσπομένοιο καὶ ἐκ πυρὸς αἰθομένοιο
ἄμφω νοστήσαιμεν, ἐπεὶ περίοιδε νοῆσαι.

ngrams: typing,typer,typist,typed … Would guess this shows that at the same time as typing, as an activity, flourished, it declined as a profession.

“… for I wept up to a great age, never having really evolved in the fields of affection or passion, in spite of my experiences.” Beckett, Malone Dies.

Bienheureuse la cloche au gosier vigoureux…