The Homeric Code in the Iliad

While the Homeric code is present throughout the book and can be said to be the reason that the
heroes act as they do, it is possible that instead of supporting the concept the Iliad is an early
example of satyr which in soft tones is questioning the importance of these characteristics.
However, it is hard to distinguish the true angle Homer intended without any additional writings
and so it remains possible that instead of challenging this they were simply retelling the story of a
well-respected myth. Even so, when I investigate the Homeric code, especially in book 17, it
doesn’t take radical thinking to draw this conclusion.
Firstly, in consideration to this prospect it is bests seen in from both sides in book 17 where there
are an equal amount or positive connotations as negative ones surrounding the Homeric code. An
example of a positive connotation is how the better hero usually defeats the lesser hero and rarely
the reverse, which is supportive of how the Homeric code promoted the best hero to follow its strict
rulings. This is seen promptly in book 17 by the fight between Menelaus and Euphorbus which
resulted in Menelaus success, who in terms of the Homeric code had been promoted greatly
through his responses and ability in this flyting. When the simile is used describing the defeat of
Euphorbus with Menelaus described as “uproots it from it’s trench and lays it on the ground,” it is
entirely possible that this implies how although they were both heroes there is a certain hierarchy
within this heroism where one can gain stature or die to another’s glory. However, the negative
connotations of this is that the Homeric code doesn’t simply support fighting prowess but also
greater powers such as inheritance and godly notice and so it cannot be said that this levelling can
be transferred to the fighting. However, this would also mean that there cannot be a greatest hero
for the regions which the Homeric code is judged is so vast that there simply cannot be a best,
especially since the Homeric code is contradictory in instances. While a hero is better if they are
emotional, they must maintain control and so fail if they favour one over another. Best put by
William Allen “their heroic power is double-edged,” and so it fully supports the belief that Homer
intended to either admonish the Homeric code or attempt to improve its faults.
But this is not to say that he doesn’t highlight the best of the code. In book 17, Homer makes note
of many heroics performed by Ajax son of Telamon, an ambassador for the warrior side of the
Homeric code. Both his cool composure and general ferocity among other traits support the best
of being a hero which by being identifiable by the Homeric code is respected and so there is a
balanced argument over the code. The way in which He is referred to as he “withstands the
destructive torrents” solely praises the qualities which define his strength and wisdom of war, is
questioned throughout by both the young and the eventually dead. Even in dead this respect is
continued as shown through Patroclus who although he had previously died in book 16 still was a
thorough in this book as leaders called to their men in the name of Patroclus which gave them the
fierce bravery which the code prizes. As shown in “He was a better man than the one I killed,”
Patroclus was highly valued for his differing side of the code they share which supports both
heritage, bravery and glory hunting. Therefore, Homer is by no means doing the code dishonour
but instead is attempting to shown faith by providing a fair judgement.
However, Patroclus is also a good example of how the code is contradictory. Although he is
recognised as a hero, it was his emotion which lead to a “fatal blindness” which led to his downfall.
This suggests a flaw in the code that a hero can break the vows of the Homeric code, such as
losing their self-control, and still be a valiant Homeric hero. The Homeric code simply cannot go
this far from multiple aspects of a hero and so falls short. This is prominent also in Hector who
slides along the lines of heroic throughout this book. Although he is a hero, his failing suggest that
the Homeric code is powerless to outer entities such as the time’ which it prioritises. This is seen
in Glaucus’ reaction to Hector where his “heroic reputation hides a coward”. His reputation is
moulded by the qualities which make him a hero and by questioning this he is calling out all he has
done and reducing this to equal cowardice, a grave thought to the Greek society. By being fouled
in this way Hector’s Time’ is being injured but also his other heroic qualities, which therefore
challenges how much of a Homeric hero he is if all his heroism can be forgotten so easily. Redfield
relates this to Hector in how “focussing upon Hector, Homer gives a different perspective on
Homeric culture.” But this simply shows the failure of the Code as Hector bounces from hero to
coward throughout the book and so his different perspective is a good example at how the
Homeric code cannot compete with entities such as the atmosphere and the outcome where it
fails.
Lastly, Homer is continuous in his relaying the failings of the code but on numerous grounds. In
book 1 Homer starts his argument on the grounds that the Homeric ideals can create unnecessary
controversy, as seen in the fight between Agamemnon and Achilles where both heroes pride
means neither will back down till victory is “laid at their feet”. But in book 3 and 4 the code, instead
of being a controversial subject is simply an inconvenience as in the duel between Menelaus and
Paris, Menelaus “would have hauled him off” but was stopped by Aphrodite who saved Paris. This
meant that there was no winner or loser as the oath declared required a death and so the Homeric
code should have meant a winner was crowned but there was no such success, meaning that the
code has failed in the area it most supports: defining heroes. Without this the code is as I said, an
inconvenience to the heroes and should be reprimanded, or at least improved.
And so, by taking into consideration all which Homer has done involving the ideals presented in
the Homeric code, it is remains possible that this epic was an underlying statement on the
definition of a hero. But whether this holds true or not, Homer’s interlacing of the good and the bad
as well as the successes and failures still question the Homeric code and achieves it’s purpose as
although the outcome may remain the same the failings of the code are not ignored in the
bloodshed and therefore the Homeric code is brought to mind, not as a judgement of character but
a classification which is contradictory and definitely finite.