Chapter and Verse is a series where JHU Press authors and editors discuss the literary landscape of poetry and prose, whether their own creative work or the literature of others.
Guest post by David F. Elmer
When I first had the idea for my new book, The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad, the United States was in the midst of the worst phase of the war in Iraq. In hindsight I can see more clearly than ever how the politics of those years shaped my view of the ancient Greeks’ great martial epic.
I took as my subject the ways in which the Iliad depicts politics, which I understand broadly as the project of collectively determining common values, goals, and actions. I became fascinated by the ways in which a poem that focuses so relentlessly on the competition for prestige among powerful individuals (Agamemnon, Achilles) simultaneously projects consensus as the ultimate political ideal. The tension that emerged from my readings resonated, for me, with my misgivings about what I perceived as the unchecked growth of executive power in the American polity. Presidential signing statements and military tribunals prompted me to incorporate Giorgio Agamben’s chilling vision of constitutional crisis (State of Exception) into my interpretation of Agamemnon’s willful disregard for both the established procedures and the express wishes of his people.
My book is an exercise more in literary interpretation than in political theory, so I do not claim to have any prescription for bringing about a renewed commitment to public deliberation and consensus. In fact, my interpretations might seem, at first glance, to be surprisingly apolitical. I claim that the Iliad’s depiction of politics has in fact very little to do with any historical practice of politics—in the strict sense—among early Greeks. (The notion of a historical “Homeric society” has become an increasingly untenable fiction.) Instead, I view the poem’s vision of consensus as a reflection of the dynamics of the poetic tradition that produced our Iliad.
That poetic tradition, however, has an essential political dimension. The Iliad as we know it is the product of a long process of development. Over the course of centuries, traditional stories and heroic poems about the Trojan war circulated as oral compositions. Gradually, in the context of large, regional festivals that drew audiences from across the Greek-speaking world, a standard version of the Troy story arose; that standard version is represented for us by the Iliad and the Odyssey. These poems are in a very real sense the product of consensus, a consensus among the performers and audiences that shaped the poems. And this consensus was political in the broadest sense: it reflected a variety of trade-offs among Greeks from diverse local communities as they negotiated over an articulation of the heroic past that could be meaningful to them all as an expression of collective identity.
Of course, the achievement of this consensus did very little to alleviate the endemic political problems of the Greek world: unstable governments and constant warfare between neighboring states. But I do not think it would be too naïve or idealistic to suggest that the consensus represented in and by the Iliad offers an important—and hopeful—lesson for those who feel dissatisfied with our prevailing political culture. In an age of niche media, when opportunities for truly inclusive conversations are fewer and fewer, it is useful to be reminded of the potential of literature and art as focal points for collective discussion and debate. Great works of literature, such as the Iliad, have the potential to draw citizens of diverse backgrounds and political orientations into constructive conversations about questions that we must confront together, as a civic community.
David F. Elmer is an associate professor of the classics at Harvard University and author of The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad, published by the JHU Press.
