Few works have impacted Western Civilization as much as the Iliad, the ancient poem that permeated the Greek world up until the twilight of the Hellenistic period. Alexander the Great himself allegedly kept a copy along with his dagger at his bedside. The Iliad is the “arma” or arms to which the Roman poet Virgil refers in his inaugural “arma virumque cano” in the Aeneid. While the Iliad itself was lost to the West in the Middle Ages, the stories of Achilles nonetheless were passed down in varying forms from other sources. With the rediscovery of Homer in the Renaissance, the Iliad once again returned to its central role in the Western canon. In our own day, the Iliad is still taught, researched, and debated. 

In contemporary discussions, the work is often viewed as an archaic window into an earlier time. Homer is normally understood to be giving a portrait of the allegedly more violent and primitive Mycenean era that preceded his own age. Thus the political structure and social formation (and technology and theology) are all remnants of a world that Homer did not know firsthand. In his work, The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought, Franklin & Marshall College professor Dean Hammer challenges this common view, arguing that Homer is depicting the social formation and politics of his own era, in which the Greek polis was emerging. Originally published in 2002, this book was recently re-released in paperback. 

Throughout The Iliad as Politics, Hammer defends Homer from the critique that the poem is “dangerous” or “immoral,” a view that has been present at least since Plato. Hammer reads the Iliad as a “philosophical” or, at least, educational text—one that Plato famously banishes from the Republic (while he leaves room for selective passages of poetry to remain). Plato contended that poetry was a form of mimesis and thus unreality, being three levels removed from the world of Forms. He condemned poetry also due to its preoccupation with appearances as opposed to the essence of things. Finally, Plato held that poetry has a tremendous ability to poison the characters of citizens by depicting immoral and degenerate behavior, as well as stimulating the human desire for intense emotional experiences. (Aristotle seems to disagree on this point in his discussion of catharsis in the Poetics but St. Augustine agrees in his Confessions.) Hammer sees Plato as the founder of a tradition that dismisses poetry as non-philosophical and dangerous. 

Hammer further takes aim at the belief held by modern scholars that the Iliad is part of an archaic, pre-philosophical tradition of oral poetry which is essentially unreflective. In this view, the Iliad is a “tribal encyclopedia” of information, not a rational exploration of “ideas.” In contrast to this view, Hammer argues that a work originally of oral composition, like the Iliad, can be a means by which a people think about themselves, performing politics collectively through communal poetry. Drawing from other scholars, Hammer argues that the Iliad, in fact, provides a portrait of the era of the formation of the first Greek city-states. As Aristotle held, a city-state or polis was a necessary precondition for doing “politics.”

Hammer notes that, contrary to popular belief, there is an emphasis in Homer upon the importance of the relationship of the people to the aristocratic class. While the Iliad is often taken (with some justification) to be celebrating the aristocracy while ignoring the common people, Hammer argues that the situation is more complex. He points to the emergent democracies that would develop in Greek city-states like Athens. Hammer acknowledges that there is evidence in the Iliad for the persistence of earlier models of kingship in which the ruler would exercise absolute sway over the people—certainly there are points at which the Greek king Agamemnon acts in this way. However, it may be better to see Agamemnon as a ruler who has “reciprocal obligations” with his people. Hammer notes a number of scenes in which figures such as Achilles call the people to assembly, and even Agamemnon at least gauges the response of the people to his actions. This is not to argue for the idea of “citizens” in Homer; rather it is to see the roots of citizenship in early Greek epics. 

However, Hammer’s most valuable work in The Iliad as Politics is his discussion of Homer’s ethical politics. As recent scholars such as James Porter have noted, Homer’s world is brutally violent—a point critics have struggled with (or avoided) for centuries. On the other hand, some scholars and researchers (including Porter) have noted that Homer’s works contain a profound meditation on the costs of war as well as the empathy that can be drawn from the human experience of suffering. Indeed, Homer has even been used by the military for treating vets with PTSD. Hammer emphasizes this Homer of empathy and humility in his final chapter, “Toward a Political Ethic.” He argues that the traditional reading of the ethics of the Iliad as the moral code of an “honor and shame” society does not present a complete and full picture of Homer. Hammer suggests that there is more to Homer and Homer’s world than merely a celebration of individual glory; rather it is a poem that emphasizes humility and empathy. Hammer argues that there is a core ethical message in Achilles’s change of heart. While the great Greek warrior initially was outraged at the violation of his honor when Agamemnon took the woman Briseis from him, Achilles learns a higher moral teaching when he loses Patroclus. The loss of his dear friend initially drives Achilles on to a brutal rampage during which he kills numerous Trojans—even sacrificing 12 Trojan children—and, finally, kills Hector and attempts to mutilate Hector’s body by dragging it behind his chariot. 

However, Achilles famously gives Hector’s body back to Hector’s father Priam when he comes to Achilles’s tent. Hammer points to this famous scene as a sign that Achilles has obtained a greater depth of wisdom. Achilles has learned to suffer with others and empathize with them, obtaining a level of “heroic magnanimity” as a result of his experience of the death of a loved one. Hammer points to Achilles’s comment in Book 9 of the Iliad in which he recognizes that death comes to all humans—whether they are noble or commoner. Hammer also brilliantly notes that the loss of Patroclus further prompts Achilles to recognize that his longing for Patroclus humbles Achilles, causing him to reevaluate his earlier prideful perception of himself as being self-sufficient. Indeed, as Hammer further demonstrates, the grief that Achilles experiences as a result of Patroclus’s death is stronger than Achilles can endure and further teaches the Greek warrior humility and empathy. 

Surprisingly then, given the level of violence, Hammer takes pity to be the foundation of Homer’s political ethic, making community life possible by instilling a sense of care in the political community. Achilles learns that he is not (necessarily) the master of his destiny and of his life. Like that of all humans, he is interconnected with others. Achilles’s return of Hector’s corpse to his father is further a profound symbol of his letting go of the past, and the past’s seeming demands for vengeance. Vengeance does not repair the past; it just causes more harm and discord. Achilles famously cleans the body of Hector before returning it to Priam in a manner similar to how Achilles cleaned his friend Patroclus. Achilles thus shows that he has achieved a deeper level of empathy and a sense of community. 

In The Iliad as Politics, Hammer thus provides a profound retort to Plato’s condemnation of poetry in The Republic. Poetry’s ability to depict suffering and darker human emotions and experience is not a danger to the polis but is, rather, a medicine that provides both an ethical and political teaching of empathy and forgiveness. Poetry has the ability to depict human beings in action through the illustration of vivid images. The experience of poetry is thus not simply an intellectual experience or exclusively entertainment. Rather, great poetry, such as the Iliad, by utilizing emotions and images, can be deeply educational and even therapeutic. The ultimate message of the Iliad is, for Hammer, not the celebration of individual glory, but the reality of a shared human world and community.