* The Iliad
* Professor Edward Tayler tells us we will build a self
* The college bookstore; my lost attention
* Columbia students then and now
* C.C. begins: Anders Stephanson and the hegemony of the western calendar
* Professor Tayler teaches the Iliad
* Achilles the hero
I had forgotten. I had forgotten the extremity of its cruelty and tenderness, and, reading it now, turning the Iliad open anywhere in its 15,693 lines, I was shocked. A dying word, "shocked." Few people have been able to use it well since Claude Rains so famously said, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here," as he pocketed his winnings in Casablanca. But it's the only word for excitement and alarm of this intensity. The brute vitality of the air, the magnificence of ships, wind, and fires; the raging battles, the plains charged with terrified horses, the beasts unstrung and falling; the warriors flung facedown in the dust; the ravaged longing for home and family and meadows and the rituals of peace, leading at last to an instant of reconciliation, when even two men who are bitter enemies fall into rapt admiration of each other's nobility and beauty -- it is a war poem, and in the Richmond Lattimore translation it has an excruciating vividness, an obsessive observation of horror that causes almost disbelief.
Idomeneus stabbed at the middle of his chest with the spear, and broke the bronze armour about him which in time before had guarded his body from destruction. He cried out then, a great cry, broken, the spear in him, and fell, thunderously, and the spear in his heart was stuck fast but the heart was panting still and beating to shake the butt end of the spear.
If I had seen that quaking spear in a shopping-mall scare movie, I would have abandoned the sticky floors and headed for the door. Exploitation and dehumanization! Teenagers never read anything -- that's why they love this grisly movie trash! Yet here is the image at the beginning of Western literature, and in its most famous book.
The quivering spear was hair-raising, though there were even more frightening images: eyeballs spitted on the ends of spears and held aloft in triumph, a blade entering at the mouth "so that the brazen spearhead smashed its way clean through below the brain in an upward stroke, and the white bones splintered." Homer records these mutilations with an apparent physical relish that suddenly gives way to bitter sorrow (this is one way the images differ from those in horror movies) and to a yearning for ordinary life, a caress of nostalgia slipped into the mesmerizing catastrophe before us. The exultant violence is shot through with the most profound dismay. The Greeks, camped outside the walls of Troy, are far from home, but home, and everything lovely, proper, and comforting that might happen there, is evoked in heartbreaking flashes. There is the case of
Simoeisios in his stripling's beauty, whom once his mother descending from Ida bore beside the banks of Simoeis when she had followed her father and mother to tend the sheep-flocks.
Therefore they called him Simoeisios; but he could not render again the care of his dear parents; he was short-lived, beaten down beneath the spear of high-hearted Aias, who struck him as he first came forward beside the nipple of the right breast, and the bronze spearhead drove clean through the shoulder.
He dropped then to the ground in the dust, like some black
The nipple of the right breast. Homer in his terrifying exactness tells us where the spear comes in and goes out, what limbs are severed; he tells us that the dead will not return to rich soil, they will not take care of elderly parents, receive pleasure from their young wives. His explicitness has a finality beyond all illusion. In the end, the war (promoted by the gods) will consume almost all of them, Greeks and Trojans alike, sweeping on year after year, in battle after battle -- a mystery in its irresistible momentum, its profoundly absorbing moment-to-moment activity and overall meaninglessness. First one side drives forward, annihilates hundreds, and is on the edge of victory. Then, a few days later, inspired by some god's trick or phantasm -- a prod to the sluggish brain of an exhausted warrior -- the other side recovers, advances, and carries all before it. When the poem opens, this movement back and forth has been going on for more than nine years.
The teacher, a small, compact man, about sixty, walked into the room, and wrote some initials on the board:
W A S P
D W M
D G S I
While most of us tried to figure them out (I had no trouble with the first two, made a lame joke to myself about the third, and was stumped by the fourth), he turned, looking around the class, and said ardently, almost imploringly, "We've only got a year together...." His tone was pleading and mournful, a lover who feared he might be thwarted. There was an alarming pause. A few students, embarrassed, looked down, and then he said: "This course has been under attack for thirty years. People have said" -- pointing to the top set of initials -- "the writers are all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. It's not true, but it doesn't matter. They've said they were all Dead White Males; it's not true, but it doesn't matter. That it's all Western civilization. That's not quite true either -- there are many Western civilizations -- but it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is this."
He looked at us, then turned back to the board, considering the initials "DGSI" carefully, respectfully, and rubbed his chin. "Don't Get Sucked In," he said at last. Another pause, and I noticed the girl sitting next to me, who has wild frizzed hair and a mass of acne on her chin and forehead, opening her mouth in panic. Others were smiling. They were freshmen -- sorry, first-year students -- and not literature majors necessarily, but a cross-section of students, and therefore future lawyers, accountants, teachers, businessmen, politicians, TV producers, doctors, poets, layabouts. They were taking Lit Hum, a required course that almost all students at Columbia take the first year of school. This may have been the first teacher the students had seen in college. He wasn't making it easy on them.
"Don't get sucked in by false ideas," he said. "You're not here for political reasons. You're here for very selfish reasons. You're here to build a self. You create a self, you don't inherit it. One way you create it is out of the past. Look, if you find the Iliad dull or invidious or a glorification of war, you're right. It's a poem in your mind; let it take shape in your mind. The women are honor gifts. They're war booty, like tripods. Less than tripods. If any male reading this poem treated women on campus as chattel, it would be very strange. I also trust you to read this and not go out and hack someone to pieces."
Ah, a hipster, I thought. He admitted the obvious charges in order to minimize them. And he said nothing about transcendental values, supreme masterpieces of the West, and the rest of that. We're here for selfish reasons. The voice was pleasant but odd -- baritonal, steady, but with traces of mockery garlanding the short, definitive sentences. The intonations drooped, as if he were laying black crepe around his words. A hipster wit. He nearly droned, but there were little surprises -- ideas insinuated into corners, a sudden expansion of feeling. He had sepulchral charm, like one of Shakespeare's solemnly antic clowns.
I remembered him well enough: Edward Tayler, professor of English. I had taken a course with him twenty-nine years earlier (he was a young assistant professor then), a course in seventeenth-century Metaphysical poetry, which was then part of the sequence required for English majors at Columbia, and I recalled being baffled as much as intrigued by his manner, which definitely tended toward the cryptic. He was obviously brilliant, but he liked to jump around, keep students off balance, hint and retreat; I learned a few things about Donne and Marvell, and left the class with a sigh of relief. In the interim, he had become famous as a teacher and was now the sonorously titled Lionel Trilling Professor in the Humanities -- the moniker was derived from Columbia's most famous English literature professor, a great figure when I was there in the early sixties.
"The Hermeneutic Circle," Tayler was saying. "That's what Wilhelm Dilthey called it. You don't know what to do with the details unless you have a grip on the structure; and at the same time, you don't know what to do with the structure unless you know the details. It's true in life and in literature. The Hermeneutic Circle. It's a vicious circle. Look, we have only a year together. You have to read. There's nothing you'll do in your four years at Columbia that's more important for selfish reasons than reading the books of this course."
Could they become selves? From my position along the side of the classroom, I sneaked a look. At the moment they looked more like lumps, uncreated first-year students. The men sat with legs stretched all the way out, eyes down on their notes. Some wore caps turned backward. They were eighteen, maybe nineteen. In their T-shirts, jeans, and turned-around caps, they had a summer-camp thickness, like counselors just back from a hike with ten-year-olds. Give me a beer. The women, many of them also in T-shirts, their hair gathered at the back with a rubber band, were more directly attentive; they looked at Tayler, but they looked blankly.
Tayler handed out a sheet with some quotations. At the top of the page were some verses from the beginning of Genesis.
And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: And God
divided the light from the darkness....And God said,
Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters.
"You may not believe that God created the universe," Tayler said, mournful, sepulchral, "but, anyway, look what God is doing in this passage. He's setting up opposites. Which is something we do all the time in life. Moral opposites flow from binary opposites. There are people you touch, and people you don't touch. Every choice is an exclusion. How do you escape the binary bind? Look, St. Augustine, whom we'll read later, says that before the Fall there were no involuntary actions. Before the Fall, Adam never had an involuntary erection." Pause, pause..."If Adam and Eve wanted to do something, they did it. But you guys are screwed up; you're in trouble. There's a discrepancy between what you want to do and what you ought to do. You want to go out and have a beer with friends, and you have to force yourself through a series of battles. After the Fall, you fall into dualities."
There were other quotations on the sheet, including one from John Milton, but Tayler didn't say right then what their significance might be. He looked around. Was anyone getting it? Maybe. Was I? We would see. Then he turned all loverlike and earnest once more. And he said it again.
"Look, keep a finger on your psychic pulse as you go. This is a very selfish enterprise."
By the time the action of the Iliad begins, the deed that set off the whole chain of events -- a man making off with another man's wife -- is barely mentioned by the participants. Homer, chanting his poetry to groups of listeners, must have expected everyone to know the outrageous old tale. Years earlier, Paris, a prince of Troy, visiting the house of the Greek king Menelaus, took away, with her full consent, Helen, the king's beautiful wife. Agamemnon, the brother of the cuckold, then put together a loose federation of kings and princes whose forces voyaged to Troy and laid siege to the city, intending to punish the proud inhabitants and reclaim Helen. But after more than nine years of warfare, the foolish act of sexual abandonment that set the whole cataclysm in motion has been largely forgotten. By this time, Helen, abashed, considers herself merely a slut (her embarrassed appearance on the walls of Troy is actually something of a letdown), and Paris, her second "husband," more a lover than a fighter, barely comes out to the battlefield. When he does come out, and he and Menelaus fight a duel, the gods muddy the outcome, and the war goes on. After nine years, the war itself is causing the war.
How can a book make one feel injured and exhilarated at the same time? What's shocking about the Iliad is that the cruelty and the nobility of it seem to grow out of each other, like the good and evil twins of some malign fantasy who together form a single unstable and frightening personality. After all, Western literature begins with a quarrel between two arrogant pirates over booty. At the beginning of the poem, the various tribes of the Greeks (whom Homer calls Achaeans -- Greece wasn't a national identity in his time), the various tribes assembled before the walls of Troy are on the verge of disaster. Agamemnon, their leader, the most powerful of the kings, has kidnapped and taken as a mistress from a nearby city a young woman, the daughter of one of Apollo's priests; Apollo has angrily retaliated by bringing down a plague on the Greeks. A peevish, bullying king, unsteady in command, Agamemnon, under pressure from the other leaders, angrily gives the girl back to her father. But then, demanding compensation, he takes for himself the slave mistress of Achilles, his greatest warrior. The women are passed around like gold pieces or helmets. Achilles is so outraged by this bit of plundering within the ranks that he comes close to killing the king, a much older man. Restraining himself at the last minute, he retires from the combat and prays to his mother, the goddess Thetis, for the defeat of his own side; he then sits in his tent playing a lyre and "singing of men's fame" (i.e., his own) as his friends get cut up by the Trojans. What follows is a series of battles whose savagery remains without parallel in our literature.
It is almost too much, an extreme and bizarre work of literary art at the very beginning of Western literary art. One wants to rise to it, taking it full in the face, for the poem depicts life at its utmost, a nearly ceaseless activity of marshaling, deploying, advancing, and fleeing, spelled by peaceful periods so strenuous -- the councils and feasts and games -- that they hardly seem like relief at all. Reading the poem in its entirety is like fronting a storm that refuses to slacken or die. At first, I had to fight my way through it; I wasn't bored but I was rebellious, my attention a bucking horse unwilling to submit to the harness. It was too long, I thought, too brutal and repetitive and, for all its power as a portrait of war, strangely distant from us. Where was Homer in all this? He was everywhere, selecting and shaping the material, but he was nowhere as a palpable presence, a consciousness, and for the modern reader his absence was appalling. No one tells us how to react to the brutalities or to anything else. We are on our own. Movie-fed, I wasn't used to working so hard, and as I sat on my sofa at home, reading, my body, in daydreams, kept leaping away from the seat and into the bedroom, where I would sink into bed and turn on the TV, or to the kitchen, where I would open the fridge. Mentally, I would pull myself back, and eventually I settled down and read and read, though for a long time I remained out of balance and sore.
Other men may have more active recollections -- scoring a goal, kissing a girl at the homecoming game, all that autumn-air, pocket-flask, Scott Fitzgerald stuff -- but my sweetest memory of college is on the nuzzling, sedate side. At the beginning of each semester, I would stand before the books required for my courses, prolonging the moment, like a kid looking through the store window at a bicycle he knows his parents will buy for him. I would soon possess these things, but the act of buying them could be put off. Why rush it? The required books for each course were laid out in shelves in the college bookstore. I would stare at them a long time, lifting them, turning through the pages, pretending I didn't really need this one or that, laying it down and then picking it up again. If no one was looking, I would even smell a few of them and feel the pages -- I had a thing about the physical nature of books, and I was happy when I realized that my idol, the great literary critic Edmund Wilson, was obsessed with books as sensuous objects.
Obviously, it wasn't just learning that excited me but the idea of reading the big books, the promise of enlargement, the adventure of strangeness. Reading has within it a collector's passion, the desire to possess: I would swallow the whole store. Reality never entered into this. The difficulty or tedium of the books, the droning performance of the teacher -- I might even have spent the entire previous semester in a self-absorbed funk, but I roused myself at the beginning of the new semester for the wonderful ritual of the bookstore. Each time I stood there, I saw myself serenely absorbing everything, though I was such an abominably slow reader, chewing until the flavor was nearly gone, that I never quite got around to completing the reading list of any course.
And so it has been ever since. Walking home from midtown Manhattan, I am drawn haplessly to a bookstore -- Coliseum Books, at Broadway and Fifty-seventh, will do -- where I will buy two or three books, which then, often enough, sit on my shelves for years, unread or partly read, until finally, trying to look something up, I will pull one or another out, bewildered that I have it. I like to own them: I had grown into a book-buyer but not always a book-reader; a boon to the book trade, perhaps, but not a boon to myself.
Reading, after eating and sex one of the most natural, central, and satisfying of all acts, had amazingly become a vexed experience. I read a great deal, sometimes I read all day long, but most of the stuff was journalism, essays, criticism, or novels that had been adapted into movies and that I needed to check out before writing my film reviews for New York magazine, or books by writers whom I never missed (Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, John le Carré) and whose work seems less like something new than a reacquaintance with trusted friends. But what did I read? I mean read seriously? Reading Marcel Proust's Swann's Way was a rapturous experience not likely to be succeeded by the rest of Remembrance of Things Past. At least, not in my present state of distraction. To read anything as densely, lusciously detailed as Proust, you have to set aside a special time, at least an hour of quiet, and though there were people I know who got up early to read Proust or even a decent new American novel, I can't get myself up early, and if I could, I would make coffee and read the Times in peace before the boys hit the kitchen. My wife, whose life was certainly as disrupted and jangled as mine, still read a great deal, book after book, sometimes plowing straight through an author's entire work. But I no longer had the concentration or the discipline for serious reading; I had lost the habit of just falling into something the way real readers do, devouring it on the bus, in the tub, at a lunch counter. Movies more than satisfied my desire for trash, but when I picked up a serious book, my concentration often wandered after twenty pages. I wanted to read it, but vagrant thoughts came charging in, and the words from the book got caught at a bottleneck leading to my attention. My rhythm had changed. I was a moviegoer, a magazine-reader, a CNN-watcher. Following a breaking story on CNN, I would watch updates at certain points of the day, and then pick up the story again when a car alarm woke me in the middle of the night, then catch the denouement in the morning. This business of being "informed" could be almost nightmarish: If you stayed with a story long enough, you began to feel as if you were a ball rolling over and over, or the hands of a clock coming back to the same point.
Going back to school would force me to read the whole shelf in the bookstore. By going back, I would not be searching for my youth -- a ghoulish thought. Youth, I now saw, was the most overpraised time of life. You can't watch your own kids playing when you're young, or enjoy power, and the money you spend belongs to your parents. I dawdled and stumbled through the early part of my life and enjoyed the prerogatives of middle age, but I longed for...another chance, another time spent reading seriously, another shot at school. I was sick of not really knowing anything; I longed to submit myself to something larger than my career.
At the age of forty-eight, I stood in front of the shelves in Columbia's bookstore at 115th Street and Broadway, a larger and better-lit place than the store in my day, which was so tightly packed one never got away from that slightly sweet smell that new books have. I was absurdly excited. There they were, the books for the Lit Hum and C.C. courses: the two thick volumes of Homer; the elegant Penguin editions of Aeschylus and Hobbes, with their black borders and uniform typeface; the rather severe-looking academic editions of Plato and Locke, all business, with no designs on the cover or back, just the titles, and within, rows of virtuously austere type. They were as densely printed as law-books. I was thrilled by the possibility that they might be difficult. I would read; I would study; I would sit with teenagers.
Can Achilles really be the first great hero of our literature? He seems a fool, an infantile narcissist. The first word of Western literature is menin -- in old Greek, "rage" or "wrath." Homer means Achilles' rage, the kind of rage that has an element of divine fury in it and that destroys armies and breaks cities. But to us (though not to the early Greeks), Achilles' anger seems less divine than vain and egotistical. His war booty has been stolen by another man, and he sits sulking in his tent. Is the immense size of his anger not absurdly out of proportion to its cause? Yet Achilles dominates the poem even as he withdraws; his moody self-preoccupation is part of what makes him fascinating. He creates an aura, a vibration of specialness. We understand something of who he is from Marlon Brando's glamorously sullen performances in his youth. A greater destiny flows from Achilles' angry will than from the settled desires of simpler men.
He is very young, perhaps in his early twenties, fearless, tall, fleet-footed, strong, a compound of muscle and beauty with so powerful a sense of his own precedence that he is willing to let the war go badly when his honor is sullied. The Trojans, led by their stalwart, Hector, kill many Greeks and come close to burning the Greek ships and cutting off their retreat. Hoping to stem the tide, Achilles' tentmate and beloved friend Patroclus enters the battle. He dons Achilles' armor, and in that armor -- as a substitute for Achilles -- he is slain by Hector.
Achilles' withdrawal now comes to an end. Enraged, inconsolable, he prepares at last to enter the battle (we are deep into the poem, and we have not yet seen him fight), an event accompanied by a cataclysmic rending of the heavens and the seas. The sky darkens, the underworld nearly cracks open. Huge forces, unstoppable, move into place. Achilles begins to fight, expelling his anguish in a rampage. As Book XXI opens, he is driving the Trojans back toward Troy:
But when they came to the crossing place of the fair-running river of whirling Xanthos, a stream whose father was Zeus the immortal, there Achilleus split them and chased some back over the fiat land toward the city, where the Achaians themselves had stampeded in terror on the day before, when glorious Hektor was still in his fury. Along this ground they were streaming in flight; but Hera let fall a deep mist before them to stay them. Meanwhile the other half were crowded into the silvery whirls of the deep-running river and tumbled into it in huge clamour, and the steep-running water sounded, and the banks echoed hugely about them, as they out-crying tried to swim this way and that, spun about in the eddies. As before the blast of a fire the locusts escaping into a river swarm in air, and the fire unwearied blazes from a sudden start, and the locusts huddle in water; so before Achilleus the murmuring waters of Xanthos the deep-whirling were filled with confusion of men and of horses.
But heaven-descended Achilleus left his spear there on the bank leaning against the tamarisks, and leapt in like some immortal, with only his sword, but his heart was bent on evil actions, and he struck in a circle around him. The shameful sound of their groaning rose as they were struck with the sword, and the water was reddened with blood. As before a huge-gaping dolphin the other fishes escaping cram the corners of a deepwater harbour in fear, for he avidly eats up any he can catch; so the Trojans along the course of the terrible river shrank under the bluffs. He, when his hands grew weary with killing, chose out and took twelve young men alive from the river to be vengeance for the death of Patroklos, the son of Menoitios. These, bewildered with fear like fawns, he led out of the water and bound their hands behind them with thongs well cut out of leather, with the very belts they themselves wore on their ingirt tunics, and gave them to his companions to lead away to the hollow ships, then himself whirled back, still in a fury to kill men.
Homer didn't have to tell his listeners that the leather thongs, tightening as they dried, would cut into the flesh of Achilles' Trojan captives. Nor did he have to explain why Achilles later kills a Trojan warrior, an acquaintance, who begs for mercy at his knees. But how is the American reader supposed to respond to this? He comes from a society that is nominally ethical. Our legal and administrative system, our presidential utterances, our popular culture, in which TV policemen rarely fail to care for the victims of crime, are swathed in concern. Since the society is in fact often indifferent to hardship, it is no surprise that irony and cynicism barnacle the national mood. By contrast, the Greek view was savage but offered without hypocrisy. Accepting death in battle as inevitable, the Greek and Trojan aristocrats of the Iliad experience the world not as pleasant or unpleasant, nor as good and evil, but as glorious or shameful. We might say that Homer offers a conception of life that is noble rather than ethical -- except that such an opposition is finally misleading. For the Greeks, nobility has an ethical quality. You are not good or bad in the Christian sense. You are strong or weak; beautiful or ugly; conquering or vanquished; living or dead; favored by gods or cursed. Here were some of Tayler's "binary opposites," but skewed into matching pairs alien to us, in which nothing softened Homer's appraisal of quality.
Academic opponents of courses in the Western classics constantly urge readers to consider "the other" -- the other cultures, odd or repugnant to Western tastes, which we have allegedly trampled or rendered marginal and also the others who are excluded or trivialized within our own culture: women, people of color, anyone who is nonwhite, non-male, non-Western. But here, at the beginning of the written culture of the West (the Iliad dates from perhaps the eighth century B.C.), is something like "the other," the Greeks themselves, a race of noble savages stripping corpses of their armor and reciting their genealogies at one another during huge feasts or even on the field of battle. Kill, plunder, bathe, eat, offer sacrifices to the gods -- what do we have to do with these ancient marauders of the eastern Mediterranean?
They looked awfully pale for college students. From where I sat, on the steps of Low Library, watching them walk around the campus on the second day of school, there was hardly a suntan in sight. Didn't anyone go to the beach anymore? I knew this was a city campus, but we've just had three months of summer. They didn't look all that happy, either; they looked serious, even a bit gloomy, and tense. Opening-week anxieties perhaps. Also, the tuition was a fortune (about $23,000 including room and board), and even though many of them received aid, they probably needed more money. They had spent the summer working, that was it, and working indoors. No time for the beach. Anyway, Columbia students never did look too healthy. One could not call it a debonair campus (the glamorous go elsewhere). They were smart, though, and serious and ambitious, and isn't that what I liked about them?
In my day, back in the early sixties, the College was heavily populated with city Jews and Italian-Americans, bookish, sallow young men (like me) preoccupied with Sartre and Kafka, Beethoven and the Modern Jazz Quartet, young men in green corduroy jackets or pea coats, who smoked unfiltered cigarettes, Camels or Gitanes, in the Bogart imitation fashionable at the time. We weren't the only students, of course. In fact, we were a minority, my friends and I -- English and history majors heading for careers in law, teaching, and journalism -- but we had created our own snobbish version of Columbia, which centered on such famous writers (and fairly recent students) as Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, and such English teachers as Trilling, Frederick Dupee, and Steven Marcus. There were also the students I thought of as Ivy League boys -- noble oarsmen, I called them -- who had a haughty but depressed air, as if they were disappointed not to be at Princeton. I was prejudiced against them, not only because their manners were different from ours but because they were so often in good shape. Now most of the male students were in better physical shape than we had been; they almost all had some muscle tone (infra dig among intellectual students in 1961).
More important, the students weren't all male anymore; women had been admitted in 1982 and now made up half the college. And the size of the minority population had grown. Walking into another Lit Hum section (I was sampling different approaches), I had nodded to a few students, and then a few more, and suddenly realized that the class was utterly unlike the ones I had sat in thirty years earlier. Out of a class of twenty-two first-year students, there were exactly four white males. Four! The students were from Europe, India, Singapore. O America! They were from everywhere. But why was I so surprised? Did I want a predominance of white males in the class? I did not. Still, an old-grad memory bank had been jolted. If you are a man over forty, you simply do not realize, until you enter a classroom, how pluralistic American university education has become.
"John F. Kennedy was killed on November twenty-second, 1963," the teacher said. "Is that an objective statement?"
The other required great-books course -- Contemporary Civilization, or C.C. -- was also getting under way. As the students listened to this opening sally, they looked blank. They were mostly sophomores, and were not about to make fools of themselves. Was it a trick? "Let's see a show of hands," the teacher said. Most of the hands reluctantly went up.
"I can't say it's objective," said an Asian-American student, a boy with a gentle face and glasses. "I didn't see it; it happened before I was born."
"Well, all right. You mean you can't be sure it's true. But is it an objective statement?"
Most of the students murmured yes.
"But what about that year, 1963. In the Jewish calendar it was 5724 or whatever, and in the Chinese calendar it's something else. The date of the birth of Christ was decided by an ill-educated sixth-century monk. Christ was actually born in 4 B.C.E. Isn't 1963, by virtue of its being a year in the Christian calendar, an ideological date?"
A small, widening circle of puzzlement. Was he serious? The teacher was a history professor, a Swede named Anders Stephanson, and the students couldn't make him out yet. He was handsome, slender, about forty years old, with blond hair and blue eyes and a rather dazzling smile, and he wore faded jeans and, under a dark jacket, a white T-shirt. To my eyes, the T-shirt was a rakish touch, especially with the black jacket. A youthful biker-intellectual, then? No, I couldn't see him slopping beer on the table. When he talked, the rhythms and vocabulary were the purest advanced academese. The accent was almost British, the manner emphatic -- boisterous yet stern in Brit academic style.
"Sure, you can come up with a different date on another calendar," one of the boys said at last. "But Kennedy died on the same day whatever calendar you use. The date is a convention."
"Ah, a convention. A convention. Right."
Only Stephanson, in his flagrant Swedish/Oxford accent, said, "Roight!"
"Roight! And that convention, for better or worse, is the way we establish the calendar. A whole series of hegemonic processes account for our telling time in that way. It's not the Chinese or the Jewish way. The books in this course, like the calendar, follow the material development of Western Europe, the domination of Europe. China in the thirteenth century may have been an advanced culture, much more advanced than Europe, but for various reasons, it didn't dominate the world, and its books aren't in this course."
Well, there it was. I had heard it, and on my first day in C.C. class. Nothing could be called objective, nothing could be taken as natural or universal, not even a date. Such was a principal conviction of the "cultural left," the academic insurgents eager to unseat the illusion of Westerners that their ideas and institutions amounted to a universal norm. In this first meeting of his C.C. section, in a small, tight room in Mathematics Hall, Stephanson was pulling out rugs the students hardly knew they were standing on. Your most everyday assumptions are arbitrary -- politically determined.
He offered the upturned students the new academic dispensation. The C.C. reading list, however traditional (Plato, the Bible, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, etc.), was the result of an arbitrary process. That the books had survived for so long was proof not of their universality but of exactly the opposite -- that they were part of a tradition that had triumphed politically. Stephanson didn't even call them "books"; he used the standard new-academic "texts," which has a deromanticized, disillusioned sound, the name of something imposed, official, like a president's speech, not the fruit of a writer's desire and a reader's pleasure. The texts, he said, "represent a condensation of a certain way of putting education before students and saying what is culture and what isn't. It isn't an innocent list."
When Stephanson said the books weren't "innocent," he emphasized the word heavily, an intense young barrister before the court. After attending Gothenburg University, in Sweden, he had done graduate work at New College, Oxford, and finally at Columbia, but Oxford appeared to be the determining stylistic influence. I was beginning to be charmed by the mock-Brit strenuousness.
This notion that lists were not innocent was central to attacks on "the canon." Such lists reeked of exclusion. "The teaching of literature is the teaching of values," Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the distinguished African-American scholar and critic, wrote in 1990. "Not inherently, no, but contingently, yes; it is -- it has become -- the teaching of an aesthetic and political order, in which no women or people of color were ever able to discover the reflection or representation of their images, or hear the resonances of their cultural voices." Gates was arguing not for the dissolution of the traditional canon but for its enlargement to include those missing voices. Many others went much further, however, into a kind of philosophical attack on the hierarchies of judgment that produced lists of classics in the first place. Such lists (and not just Columbia's core curriculum, of course) amounted to a unitary, or almost unitary, sensibility and set of values, which elected itself as central, even universal, in an endless process of self-confirmation, rather like a club that insisted on the superiority of its own members while refusing to see the qualities of anyone else. What was presented in this tradition as "universal" (so the argument went) actually represented no more than the experience and the drive to power of a limited group. Universality was not only a false claim, a mystique and an imposture; it was political in its intentions and effects. And "the canon," so far from being a mere anodyne collection of remarkable works, was a key element in the "hegemony" of white Euro-American males, a disguised ideological spearhead of such Western modes, good and bad, as individualism, market capitalism, imperialism, racism, and sexism.
If Tayler, in his Lit Hum section, was saying, "These books will form you," Stephanson the C.C. teacher was saying, "These books have been selected to form you." Yet, as I sat there, I felt not dismay but something like a warming swell of pride. The idea was almost titillating: we were the object of this immense historical process that had been going on since the flowering of Greek literature.
"They are canonical works," he said, "in the sense that they lend themselves to constant reinterpretation," and this led into his explanation of the way the class would go. He would not tell us what to think; he would monitor the discussion and keep it on track. The students would take turns working up "presentations" of the individual authors.
"One never accepts the texts as they seem to be," he said. "One always interrogates them. There may be no 'objective' points of view, but there are serious readings."
We will be serious readers and muck about with the books. But how?
"Think shape, how it's put together," Tayler was saying, "rather than what the characters feel or don't feel. The Iliad is not a simple glorification of war; something else is happening here. And the something else requires an epic reading."
Enough initials; this was the real thing, the nuts and bolts of literary analysis. He was working with the class on the structure of the huge poem, getting them to see large overall movements and then smaller movements and patterns within limited blocks, giving them a handle on the sprawling text, which suddenly began to seem not nearly so sprawling. Tayler could be called a historian of ideas, but when he dealt directly with the text, he used a method derived from the New Criticism, the method of literary analysis which flourished in American universities from the forties to the sixties and which insisted on the formal unity of a great work of art. In recent years, the New Criticism had actually become rather rare, another casualty of the changed ideology of university literary study. Tayler was attempting to do something now widely regarded as impossible or delusional or even secretly political -- letting the text "speak for itself."
Tayler didn't just tell the students what he wanted, of course. Imploring and urging, he pulled it out of them, asking leading questions, dropping hints, asking them to read aloud passages that have no apparent connection, passages spaced far apart in the book. At times, the class stalled, and he retreated from his point, literally stepping backward and letting his head drop for a moment before approaching from another angle, like a guerrilla force making tentative forays through the jungle. Eventually, he would coax them out of hiding and surround them.
Cornered, a student spoke.
"Um, because Achilles calls this guy he's, y'know, about to kill, 'Friend'?"
The freshmen stumbled a lot, speaking in broken fragments. Some of them would start and then trail off or just stare blankly when Tayler called on them, and suddenly, even though I knew he wasn't going to call on me, my palms began to sweat and I looked down at my notebook, because I didn't always know the answer either, and school, school, came flooding back -- a time when I often didn't know the answer. Even worse, he was the kind of teacher who kept a student on the spot, trying to rattle the kid's brain enough until the answer, lost in the bottom drawers of sloth and forgetfulness, suddenly fell out -- something I always hated, because in that situation my brain would usually lock up. Fortunately, he seemed to understand that there was no point just waiting. When a student went into lockup, he would eventually move away to someone else, or he would take what the student had said, however minimal, and play with it, enlarging it so it made some kind of sense, and then weave it together with the three or four intelligible words that someone else had said; and soon these two half-mute students, still flushed with embarrassment, were described as building something together, or even as having a full-fledged "disagreement." Which was pretty funny, since neither of them was aware of having said much of anything. Sometimes, emboldened by Tayler's magic tricks, the students would begin talking and actually become the rabbits he had pulled out of the hat. He began as a con artist and ended up holding the class by its ears.
Why was structure so important? The class was a little ragged, but he kept working at it, jumping all over the poem. Would he tie together all the loose ends? Suspense gathered in the spaces between his summarizing remarks. He worked on, say, five books of the Iliad at a time, getting the students to see a recurring pattern of oaths, truces, duels, and feasts, and after an hour or so (the class met for two hours twice a week) they were beginning to do it without much prodding, finding the symmetries -- "ring composition," he called it, in which chunks of structural elements returned in the poem but with the elements in reverse order. Then, suddenly, he went to the board, and drew something.
"Cat," someone said, a student named Hurewitz.
"Yeah. And Hurewitz, what's this?"
"Rat," said Hurewitz.
"Rat? Hurewitz, c'mon!"
"Yeah. Pig. See, your cultural baggage is novels, movies, and TV; you're used to reading for character and psychological development. So you can recognize the cat. But if your cultural baggage doesn't let you see the squiggle on the tail, you're lost, you're still lapping milk instead of heading for the trough. This poem isn't a novel" -- he crossed out the cat -- "it's a piggy epic. In all these instances, I've been asking you to look at the squiggle on the tail -- asking you to look at a mind that works differently. It's an epic, it works by circles and symmetries. Look, it's a poem about wrath, about a special kind of wrath. Achilles drops out and sits sulking in his tent for days. So what's all this other stuff doing there -- the battles and the other heroes? We study all these minor heroes and these patterns because they exemplify different aspects of the heroic code. Then we understand what Achilles means, because he violates the code."
Smiles broke out, relief. The mystification was over -- for the time being.
"Intellectual thumbscrews have been applied, and I'm sorry. I apologize for it. What I've been trying to do is to teach you how to read the older works of art. You have to read something from another culture. There's no psychology in this thing, no conflict between free will and determinism, no subjective and objective. It's an epic -- all foreground. But it's not a random collection of battles; each part gets its emotional counterpart later. As soon as you get used to it, you can get rid of me, which will be a relief to you. You get rid of me, and you get you.
"Suddenly, everyone looked up. How would that happen?
The formal approach, I could see, was Tayler's defense against banality. He mentioned the contemporary resistance to reading the Iliad. There had been a time in the late eighties at Columbia when the yearly prospect of reading the poem in Lit Hum had been greeted by dismay from some of the younger faculty. It was a poem that oppressed women and glorified war, and it had an infantile hero, and so on. I smiled to myself, because I had been thinking along the same lines, and without the benefit of any critical theory. Tayler didn't say so in so many words, but I gathered that his opinion was that any idiot could see those things, and you could see them while never seeing what the epic poem was about. By deconstructing it or appropriating it to some modern perception of class, power, gender -- none of which much applied to Homer -- you made the poem meaningless. The older classics, he implied, would not live if the books were turned into a mere inadequate version of the present.
I got that part, but I still didn't see how studying the poem formally was going to reveal the students to themselves. Did he mean it or was it just a conceit? Because if he did mean it, it was a tremendous promise -- and a frightening one. Did they want to be mucked around with that openly -- the girl just out of high school, with long straight hair and a serene way about her; the big guy from California with his legs sprawled out; the Korean boy who said little to anyone but was awfully polite? As for me, the last thing I wanted at eighteen was to be revealed to myself. And at forty-eight? Maybe it was too late.
When the Greek and Trojan warriors in the Iliad fall, they go down heavily, slowly, like great trees, with all their lineages, stories, lands, and animals crashing down with them. The slaughter is huge but never impersonal. You feel each death freshly as a blow; you never go numb. Everything in the poem has a remarkable weight and consequence, even the warriors' boasts. The men address one another formally, recounting the family honors and triumphs -- the spears taken from fallen enemies, the shields, helmets, and corselets, all taken "in the pride of their shining." Genteel modern taste forbids boasting (poor form, a winner never boasts), but the Homeric vaunting has a far different flavor from, say, two Mafia dons comparing turf. The shining helmets would not be so valuable if the men who wore them had not been of heroic quality. Glory is possible everywhere: It is the helmets in the pride of their shining.
Nor is Homer ever indifferent to the ceremonies attendant on behavior or possessions. He insists on the fitness of things. Calling this a "heroic code" doesn't capture the prescriptive and celebratory force of it. Feasting and acts of warfare and of sacrifice to the gods can be performed properly in only one way -- superbly, with utmost effort and lavish skill and maximum exposure to failure. The act must risk, in the outward trajectory of its effort, the clear possibility of shame. When performed supremely well, it may be painful but never meaningless.
Again: Nothing could be further from our world. The absence of pity was only the first shock. The second came slowly and was perhaps more a frightened realization than a shock: The splendor of the Iliad, the magnificence of earth, air, and weather, and the clash of arms, would not be fully possible if the ethical component ruled the poem. Physical exultation blazes out, untrammeled. It is not a humanist work, and it can't be made into one (though many have tried).
When I understood this -- and Tayler helped a great deal -- I stopped fighting the poem. I relaxed; I began to enjoy it, though my attention still wandered away. Imps of distraction invaded my paradise. They came unbidden, summoned by some charge of energy in the poem that would draw from my unconscious a daydream or a series of daydreams -- I was a warrior, forging mighty prose -- and then suddenly I would snap out of it and five minutes had passed, a little pocket of time gone forever.
Surely my concentration was patchier than it once was. As a teenager, I lay on my bed in my parents' apartment, reading for hours, looking up only to study the pattern of woolen threads in a thick afghan lying at the foot. Green, brown, green, brown...and then back to Dickens or Tolstoy. Or I would sit on my bed in my dormitory room up at Columbia, with its pale green cement-block walls, the sound of traffic receding to nothing (for New Yorkers, traffic is like the ocean -- white noise), and I would fall into a novel for hours. I can no longer submit to fiction in that way; I read and stop, read and stop, a train halted by obstacles on the track, bad weather, power failures. Everyone complains that young people, growing up on TV, movies, video games, and rap music, lack the patience for long, complex, written narratives, and yet as a child I had not watched all that much television, and I had also lost my patience in middle age. Have all the movies I've seen in the last thirty years broken the circuits, sending the lines helter-skelter? A gloomy idea, for, if it's true, my thoughts, such as they were, were doomed to incompleteness, haplessly shifting perspectives, manic intrusions. Snurfling gremlins were moving the furniture around. My thoughts were mediated.
But could movies really be the culprit? My moviegoing friends did not complain of poor concentration. More to the point, my life had grown much more complex. I was married to a clever and formidible woman, and there were two kids running around; I had multiple jobs and a lot more to think about than I had had at eighteen. A much larger experience was now casting up its echoes. Perhaps daydreaming was not simply wasted time but an elaboration, a sort of disguised commentary from the deep. Perhaps it was a relief from the ferocity of the poem, too.
How can a man who stays out of the action through many days (and many thousands of lines), angrily keeping to his tent as friends and enemies die, remain the hero of an epic? The answer to this question suggests why the Iliad, for all its frightening strangeness, its violence and barbarity, will not easily yield its place or its predominance at the beginning of the Western tradition in literature.
The crux of the poem -- certainly for the modern reader -- comes in Book IX, well before Achilles reenters the war. As the Trojans wait at their night fires, ready to attack at dawn, the Greeks, now in serious trouble, send three ambassadors to Achilles with promises of gifts. The three warriors, including Odysseus, the wiliest of the kings, beg Achilles to give up his anger. This is what they offer: tripods, cauldrons, horses, gold, slave women, one of Agamemnon's daughters as a future bride, and even the return of Achilles' slave mistress, whom Agamemnon swears he has never touched. What more can Achilles ask for? According to the warrior code that they all live by, he should take the gifts and return to battle. His honor had been assaulted; now it has been satisfied.
Achilles' initial answer, a staggering Shakespearian speech of more than 120 lines (lines 308 to 429), composed in shifting planes of thought and emotion, sounds unlike anything else in the poem, for it shows a man struggling to say what has never been said, or even imagined, before that instant. If the other warriors all hold forth with the awareness of family traditions, honors, trophies, and plunder supporting their words, Achilles speaks only for himself.
For as I detest the doorways of Death, I detest that man, who hides one thing in the depths of his heart, and speaks forth another. But I will speak to you the way it seems best to me: neither do I think the son of Atreus, Agamemnon, will persuade me, nor the rest of the Danaans, since there was no gratitude given for fighting incessantly forever against your enemies. Fate is the same for the man who holds back, the same if he fights hard. We are all held in a single honour, the brave with the weaklings. A man dies still if he has done nothing, as one who has done much. Nothing is won for me, now that my heart has gone through its afflictions in forever setting my life on the hazard of battle. For as to her unwinged young ones the mother bird brings back morsels, wherever she can find them, but as for herself it is suffering, such was I, as I lay through the many nights unsleeping, such as I wore through the bloody days of the fighting, striving with warriors for the sake of these men's women.
Of possessions cattle and fat sheep are things to be had for the lifting, and tripods can be won, and the tawny high heads of horses, but a man's life cannot come back again, it cannot be lifted nor captured again by force, once it has crossed the teeth's barrier.
The hero turns out to be a hero after all. Achilles' rage and withdrawal, which had seemed almost infantile, a narcissistic wound at most -- he's lost his war booty, his slave mistress, to Daddy -- has had the remarkable effect of awakening this haughty young man to a new conception of war. Suddenly, he is groping toward an idea of honor that doesn't depend on the bartering of women and goods or on the opinions that men have of one another's prowess. "We are all held in a single honor....A man dies still if he has done nothing, as one who has done much." For the greatest warrior in the world, that is a devastating admission. From our point of view, Achilles has jumped forward to a private or even spiritual sense of worth: Honor is a matter between a man and Zeus or between a man and himself, and in the end, no one can be compensated for the death of another; the worth of life is immeasurable. When you read this speech against the behavior and the speeches of the other heroes (as Tayler did with his class), you see that Achilles has come close to breaking with the honor/shame code of Homer's warrior society. He has made an attempt, not always successful, to reach consciousness itself, the consciousness that (for a modern reader) has been missing from the poem.
The first hero of consciousness can go only so far; his revolt is incomplete. After Patroclus is killed, Achilles' wrath turns into personal rage at Hector, Patroclus' slayer, and he goes on a rampage (as we've seen), killing everyone in sight; he pushes the Trojan army back into the city, and finally kills Hector, whose body he drags around the walls for days. At the funeral of Patroclus, he sacrifices the twelve young Trojans taken in the river, slitting their throats along with the sheep and cattle and piling the bodies high on the funeral pyre. Sleepless and unappeasable, he has gone mad with grief.
Now, in the complacent "humanist" reading of the Iliad, Achilles achieves completeness as a hero at the end of the poem. He gives Hector's body back to the great warrior's father -- Priam, the king of Troy. In the scene of Priam's supplication of Achilles in Book XXIV ("I have gone through what no other mortal on earth has gone through; I put my lips to the hands of the man who has killed my children"), one of the most moving things in all literature, he attains compassion (so the reading goes), and is ready to die. Homer ends the poem with the burial of Hector, but we know that Achilles has chosen glory and an early death rather than a comfortable middle age in the safety of his father's land. His character improved, Achilles renounces cruelty and rejoins the community; he will die (after the action of the poem) as a hero fulfilled.
But this is too pat; it's Sunday-school stuff, or perhaps a Lit Hum reading from fifty years ago. If that were all the poem added up to -- the maturing of an arrogant young man -- one could more easily agree with the people ready to give the Iliad a rest. But it isn't so. Rage such as Achilles', once awakened, cannot be silenced, for it takes on a new cruelty, the cruelty of thought: The questions he asks about war and death remain unanswered in the poem because they cannot be answered. The Iliad, for all its vaunting glory, remains in tension with itself, questioning, and even subverting, its own ethos, and it leaves one profoundly uneasy. When I finished it, I felt relief and also a kind of awe. Could this be the same work castigated by some critics and teachers as a mere insensible celebration of war, a triumphalist school for modern imperialists and chauvinists eager to extend their hegemony over the physical and social world? Achilles knows he will attain immortal renown as a hero, yet he's the only one who takes the measure of death. One imagines him at the end of the poem as still unconsolable and unconsoling, still raging somewhere on the plains outside Troy. The written civilization of the West begins with a hero who both embodies and questions the nature of civilization as it was then constituted.
A white male and a bourgeois, a man who was raised on the culture of the West, I am not an imperialist, exactly, but I write from within the walls of the imperium and enjoy its protections. Seen from the outside, by the cultural left, that is my identity. But only as seen from outside. For how could identity defined by race, gender, and class (the cultural left's inescapable trinity) account for the use that any of us makes of the cards we've been dealt? Or for the way we feel about our own experience? And so, when I finished the Iliad, a few things came back to me, and I recalled that at eighteen, as a freshmen reading both core-curriculum courses, I had been dismayed by Homer's war poem. A young man suffering the self-conscious torments of eighteen (and self-conscious torment was very much a fashionable style at Columbia in 1961), I measured the difference between myself and Homer's heroes and I was not happy about it. I was overawed by physical courage and by the poem's grandeur, which I experienced as a taunt.
In the interim, I had become a New York householder and father. I now enjoyed thick walls, fitted sheets, and Pellegrino water on the dinner table; and when I read the Iliad again, it troubled me in a different way. The poem's amoral magnificence, the unhoused splendor of air, feasts, and fire, resounded with the savage celebration of physical joy whose excesses -- once the shock wore off -- became almost completely intoxicating. Which left one, at the very least, with a considerably diminished satisfaction in fitted sheets and Pellegrino water. Middle-class life was no more than a pleasant compromise compared with
As when along the thundering beach the surf of the sea strikes beat upon beat as the west wind drives it onward; far out cresting first on the open water, it drives thereafter to smash roaring along the dry land, and against the rock jut bending breaks itself into crests spewing back the salt wash; so thronged beat upon beat the Danaans' close battalions steadily into battle, with each of the lords commanding his own men....
I do not mean to imply that the Iliad's power can be measured by the distress it causes a single middle-class reader. A great work of art is likely to be challenging and even subversive of almost anyone's peace. Even the quiet final book of the Iliad, in which Priam travels through the Greek lines and asks for the body of his son, is filled with sorrow and threat and intimations of the catastrophe to come -- the sacking of Troy, the slaughter of the remaining men, the carrying away of the women and children as slaves. Homer celebrated remorseless cruelty, and loathed the results of remorseless cruelty. The Iliad in its ambivalence about glory and death challenges most of our current ideas about what is right and wrong, what is true, what is heroic, and finally, what is human.
Copyright © 1996 by David Denby