Homer's illliad

The Illiad is considered to be the oldest piece of extant western literature. It continues to be read, discussed and dissected thousands of years after it was written. Literature that survives the test of time is the sort that deals, in most part, with the intricacies of the human psyche. Complex emotions that are encapsulated and elucidated upon, are what are responsible for timeless classics. In this respect, the Illiad shows unprecedented scope for research and pondering.

     It impresses one with it's epic proportions. It presents a glorious and almost magical vision of the age in which the author lived. This was expected out of Homer, as Greeks took the role of historians very seriously. The proportionality is a welcome change to the modern reader, whose choices in Modern literature are dominated by the concept of realism.

    The grandeur does not reach a level where one forgets that the characters are but mortal men. Their flaws are not belittled and nor are their weaknesses ignored. At least, within the realm of the characters that the story deals with, Homer does not take any clear sides. His clear preferences to men who are honorable is evident in his glorification of Hector and Achilles over all else. But, he does fail in his duty as a documenter of happenings. 

   

My favourite character: My choice would unequivocally be Hector. Hector was naturally endowed with a calm mind and sharp rationale. A quality that in Achilles, was either missing or was overpowered by a brash and impulsive mind. Hector's adherence to a reason and his sense of duty make him endearing. He is the ideal prince.  He loves fiercely his wife, father and brothers, but puts his country above all else. He has a strong sense of "right". He is a patriot, but not a jingoist as is evident by his strong desire to establish peace with the Greeks. At a time when a Prince could have his way in almost any way, Hector stays true and faithful to this wife. His acceptance of his fate without complaint or regret sees his glorious end. 

The concept of a "nation"

Ernest Renan, once famously said, " A nation-state is not composed of a single homogeneous ethnic group (a community), but of a variety of individuals willing to live together." True to his words, France has always been accepting of people of any racial background as long as they agree to naturalize. Even during the colonial period, The people belonging to France's colonies in Africa were considered Frenchmen by the law. This concept, although seemingly ubiquitous today, was crucial and novel at a time when in many countries, citizenship was limited by race/descent. For instance, in USA, which is today cited as a foremost example of a multi-cultural society, full citizenship was limited to "free-white-people", until the third decade of the 20th century.
   Although the concept of believing in the superiority of one's race is quite an inherent human trait, the appalling notion that racial make-up has anything to do with one's ability to blend into a society is condemnable. Although, human society as undergone a lot of "progress', one still can see instances of such behaviour. In today's society, although blatant displays of racism have been curbed, one still sees outbursts of xenophobia, hostility and contempt towards people belonging to minority sects. At this juncture, i cannot help but point out that the very feeling patriotism is a highly overrated and romanticized delusion. Drawing the line between patriotism and jingoism is something men throughout history have never been successful at perfecting. 
   The ideal notion that a nation is but an economic, political and administrative division, i feel, will be more easily achievable in a multi-cultural society. Although arguments exist that, a nation sharing a strong sense of cultural unity and pride would be desirable, I strongly feel that this is root cause of all the atrocities one commits in the name of one's country. Following this train of thought, here is a noteworthy anecdote: When the well-renown J.R.R.Tolkien was to visit Nazi-Germany for a book-reading, he was sent a letter by the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, asking if he was of "Aryan" lineage. Tolkien's hard-hitting response, pointing out that "aryan" refers only to the speakers of the Indo-Iranian family of languages, never made it to the hands of the notorious dictator. After all these years, one can but muse over how far human society has actually come from such days. Opinions would definitely be varied. (At this point, i couldn't help but suppress a snide lop-sided smile)

The battle of the sexes

The very title of this post may cause many to plunge into fits of consternation.  Despite every signs of peace, love or any goodwill between members of the opposite sexes, one still can not but notice the constant tug-of-war between their members. 

   This, in part, is constituted by the constant need to attract the attention of the opposite sex. I was lead into this line of thought by one of my friends' reflective quips. He went "hmmmm....to men, all women are conquests that they succeed or fail in". This, although caused me to spring back in denial, did cause me to ponder. it is but a fact that men put themselves at the mercy of a woman, try various tricks, pretend, deceive just for the pleasure of knowing that he succeeded in his "conquest". I can not but acknowledge the possibility that women, in their own way, are privy to this battle of sexes. It is but a musing of a man, that this may be the obvious reason behind health consciousness, sexy shoes and expensive perfumes. 

  Although this supposed "battle" may be the center of many a person's ridicule, it is true. It's implications may be not readily be acceptable to a majority of us; But, one can definitely not rule out it's existence. Shifting to a more biological perspective, this is nature's way of ensuring healthy offspring. The constant "battle" keeps us on our toes while picking a prospective mate. The better one is at handling the opposte sex, the healthier one's children will be, could be the empirical, rudimentary and theoretical conclusion one may draw from this. considerations of the human sense of logic could very well render this argument moot. Nonetheless, the battle goes on.