Vouchsafe thy Honor

By Matt Pike

            Many of the advancements and developments that humankind has experienced in its socio-cultural evolution over time can be readily identified for their utility in the preserving of the species. The development of agriculture had the obvious benefit of being able to feed a growing population, but also served to bring about socio-political structural innovations that were necessary for society to grow as it has. One could make the argument that the development of the concept of religion was inevitable for early humans who found themselves trying to successfully interact with the external world. Many evolutionary advancements can be easily identified with an examination of their origins and consequences, but the concept of honor does not afford itself to such a straightforward observation. The concept of honor has manifested itself under different names in different cultures at various times throughout history, and thus requires a more comprehensive examination of the various components of the concept. Perhaps the best manner to begin to address this is with an analysis of the early manifestations of the concept of honor in the ancient Greek culture as portrayed by Homer's Iliad.

The concept of honor can only have meaning if it exists within a framework through which a subject and the perceivers of that subject can compare certain actions to a criterion to form a judgment about the honorableness of that particular action. This framework must inherently contain values of "what is best" because it is from these that a continuum can be constructed to measure how close to the absolutes a person or action is. These values may be derived in several different ways, for example: purely from one individual who builds the "framework" solely for application to himself, or to others, but is never accepted on a wider scale, or the values may societal institution where any member of the society or culture will have the same value system, or there may be the Platonic Forms where there is an absolute "right" that the entirety of the world is subject to, and strives to attain. Regardless of where the values originate, they must be fully accepted by an individual actor before honor becomes a concern.

The story of the Iliad begins in such a way that some sense of honor is already in full effect. The war is occurring over the dishonorable "theft" of Helen, so by the time that the reader turns to the first page; it is already assumed that honor is a strongly motivational aspect of human existence. With the confrontation that occurs between Achilles and Agamemnon, it becomes clearer what this entails. Achilles feels dishonored by Agamemnon's striping him of his prize, the lovely girl Briseis, because she was awarded to him by the Achaeans as a result of his previous glorious deeds. This serves to illustrate a couple of different things about the Greek conception of honor.

Immediately, it stands out in this situation that the women in the Iliad are generally considered property, and are completely incapable of having honor, except for in the sense of being chaste or "virginal". This is a direct result of honor's intimate relation with what it is to "be a man", both in Greek society, and in large part in all of western culture. There are numerous points within the Iliad where a commander will call to his troops saying, "Be men, my friends!" or "Stand firm and be men!" appealing every time to the concept of honor implicit in being a "man" as sufficient grounds for action in war. This understanding of masculinity no doubt follows directly from the fact that men are the ones fighting the wars, and war is the arena where honor is most applicable. The characters in the Iliad frequently taunt or insult the others by calling them "girls and cowards", which is the opposite of the courageous man that everyone wishes to be seen as.

The second aspect of honor illuminated by the initial confrontation between Achilles and Agamemnon is the importance of one's consistency. Achilles is angry because Agamemnon is acting inconsistently with what he knows to be true. Agamemnon is fully aware that Achilles is a great warrior, and has performed many valorous deeds, yet reverses the decree that "gave" Achilles Briseis as a reward. This is another theme that resurfaces throughout the work, especially in regards to keeping one's word. In the duel between Paris and Menelaus, it was agreed that the winner would take possession of Helen, but then the Trojans refused to keep their part of the bargain when Menelaus defeated Paris. Yet, it is clear throughout the book that when promises are made, they are meant to be taken as binding. Of course, even Zeus, the Father of Heaven, goes back on his word at times. This would seem to suggest that the honorableness of something lies more in the intent than in the end result, because one has no power over Fate, and can never do more than attempt to bring something about.

This irrelevance of the final outcome is encountered repeatedly in the Greek conception of honor. When warriors are trying to decide whether to engage each other in combat, they are fully aware that they may be killed. Repeatedly throughout the Iliad a warrior will say, "Perhaps the gods will vouchsafe me a victory"; but this is outside of the realm of honor. Honor for the Greeks does not appear to have anything directly to do with whether one wins the combat or not, honor is more concerned with how one goes about things. For example, if a warrior is retreating or holding back from the battle, one of his comrades may implore him to "be a man" and be bold, brave, and steadfast, to not fear death or dishonor his heritage. There is no assertion that being brave will keep one alive, but it is still assumed to be better for an individual to act honorably without regard to the end result of those actions. There does, however, seem to be an assumption that one is less likely to be killed if acting with honor. As Ajax says to his men in Book XV, "My friends, be men, and fear dishonor! Carry yourselves in battle so as to win respect from one another. Men who respect each other's good opinion are less likely to be killed than those who do not, but in flight there is neither gain nor glory." (p.238)

There is also a recognition of the fact that acting dishonorably may not necessarily guarantee anyone safety. If someone, either Greek or Trojan retreats out of cowardliness, they may still be killed in the retreat, or if the opposing side advances and either burns the ships or sacks the city; so there is no way to be certain that one will survive in any situation. If there is a chance of being killed and a chance of surviving whether someone behaves honorably or not, then the individual must consider the after-effects of the situation. If someone behaves dishonorably and runs, his comrades will no longer respect him, or reward him, and the person's overall station will be diminished by the action. If someone behaves honorably and survives, his stature in the society increases and he is rewarded. If he is killed, his family still earns respect, and his body is treated with the respect and honor that he was due.

In this manner, the society attempts to construct a conception of honor with sufficient benefit to entice hero's to follow it, because it is in the society best interest. In considering that honor is most closely associated with the military class of people, as in Plato's structure of the timocracy, it becomes apparent that it is beneficial for the warrior class of any society to follow a strict sense of honor. One of the primary measurements of the power of a nation throughout the history of humanity has been its military strength.

By having a strict, and enticing, societal conception of honor, a sovereign political entity is able to recruit more of its subject to join in the military class, and thus increase its strength. An example of this is clearly found in the size of the Greek host that is besieging Troy. Agamemnon was able to assemble a massive fleet of soldiers by appealing to their sense of honor, both its requisite loyalty, and also each individual's hope for personal gain and glory. Additionally, the military will perform better if each individual strives towards military excellence, which a firm belief in honor directs. The soldiers are less likely to run or panic if they know it is equivalent to dishonor. As long as every member of the force is accountable for his actions in some way, then everyone will behave as if they are constantly being watched and judged.

Once this mindset takes effect, every actor pushes himself harder than he would have, and accomplishes new deeds for his nation. For example, Diomedes is spurred on by honor in the first third of the book, and accomplishes great and glorious deeds. He is fully aware that his fellow soldiers are watching, and that word of his deeds will be repeated to others, including King Agamemnon who will hopefully reward him extravagantly for his glorious acts. So the aspect of honor that is concerned with others perception of him pushed Diomedes to new feats of war, which then served to benefit the entire Greek host. In this sense, honor can somewhat be conceived as being similar to Plato's "noble lie". It starts out as a fabrication with no necessary basis in reality, but once fully adopted by the society, it serves to afford the entire culture many benefits.

            At the same time that the conception of honor aids in the assembling of a large military power and in the devotion of the soldiers, it has some rather severe drawbacks as well. These disadvantages are encountered when the aims of honor do not coincide with the optimal tactical and strategic goals of the campaign. In the Iliad, the cause of the war directly concerns the Greek's honor, and each soldier is presumably involved for the sake of duty and honor, but the objective of the campaign is to defeat the Trojan army. The men go about the combat in a way that places honor above the objective, however, as demonstrated by the portrayal of the tactical situation.

For most of the battles, the Greek army has a line of troops, and the Trojan army has a line parallel to it. One, or several people, at a time then step forth from each side and engage others from the opposition. At the same time, the squires are held back and not directly involved in the fighting. Additionally, as the fighting continues, men are traveling back and forth between the battlefield and the ships transporting spoils and prisoners.

All of this is in direct opposition to what have been tactically optimal for the Greeks, which would have been to assemble a highly disciplined force, consisting of all available men, and position them in such a way as to maximize their benefit in a situation of total commitment. The Greeks outnumber the Trojans, and thus should have been using their larger numbers to encircle the opposition, where its force could then have been divided into smaller pockets of resistance and dealt with. Instead, however, Agamemnon and the other commanders are more interested in giving speeches on valor and honor and urging their men to fight harder than in actually giving orders and applying strategy. There is one point in Book XVII were Ajax gives "strict orders that no man was either to give ground, or to stand out before the others, but all were to hold well together". (p.273) The remainder of the passage makes it clear that the Greeks, in a tight formation similar to that of the Roman phalanx unit, suffered much lower casualties as a result of their taking care to "defend and stand by one another". This is one of the only points were strategy and tactics are mentioned in the story, and implies that had strategy been more usefully employed, the Greeks might have suffered less losses and ended the confrontation more quickly.

The story told in the Iliad serves to expose some of the many advantages of a cultural imposition of honor, for the political entity and also for the individual. It also serves as a caution of what may happen if honor becomes too consuming, both in interfering with the objective that it was applied towards, and also in the fanatical moral apathy that Achilles evidences once he reenters the fighting. Honor is a powerful tool to be employed by a culture, and a powerful source of strength for individuals. But like all tools, it must be used wisely, and is only as strong as the beliefs that it accepts in the overall value framework.

                                    Bibliography

Homer, The Iliad and The Odyssey, translated by Samuel Butler. New York: Barnes and Nobler Books, 1999.