Greek Epic and its Influence on Natural Law in Greek Society
There is little doubt that Greek epic had an overwhelming influence on Greek culture and society. The two epic poems ascribed to Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey, were the touchstone of a civilisation that was to dominate Western thought for two and a half millennia. Although the poems were about the Heroic Age and the culture of Bronze Age Greece, one feature that has transcended time makes its first appearance in these epic poems. This is the emergence of a concept that still affects us today. Natural Law. When we go back to Classical Athens, we can already identify many aspects of this Natural Law in different strata of society from the arts to politics, from philosophy to religion.
“Of the Logos which is always men fail to understand”. This is the opening line of the Greek philosopher Heralictus’ famous work which is only available to us now in fragments. Much ink has been spilt on exactly what he meant by the word “Logos” and indeed the placement of the word “always”. Did he mean that the Logos is always? Or did he mean that men always fail to understand? What did he mean by “Logos”? Today, Logos has religious connotations with regard to Christianity which makes it even harder to fathom. Traditionally, it is connected with the words reason, account, and rationale. But it is obviously something more. Perhaps Logos is akin to some supreme intellect that pervades the whole universe. Some sort of absolute, permanent, unchanging, and just power that governs the cosmos. In other words, the Natural Law. Heraclitus suggests that this Logos, Natural Law, is innate within us, but that we often fail to register it or pay heed to it. Its source appears to be derived by some kind of first principle, whether that be Plato’s Form of the Good, Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, the Neoplatonists’ The One, Avicenna’s Necessary Existent, or the divine being of the Abrahamic religions, in other words God. As we will see, the metaphysical nature of the universe has long been debated by philosophers, as well as poets, playwrights, and priests, to name but a few.
Natural Law is part of a hierarchy of four types of law that exist in the universe. The order is as follows – Eternal Law, Natural Law, Divine Command, and Human Law. “Eternal Law”, or “Universal Law”, represents the laws that govern the nature of the eternal universe. These laws are absolute and unchanging, transcending time. In religious terms, this would be God’s “ultimate plan”. Natural Law is closely allied to Eternal Law. Everything in nature reflects Eternal Law in some way. In other words, these natural laws are again unchanging and absolute. The third type of law is “Divine Command”. It is a series of supposed divine laws found in religious texts given to humans through Revelation. In some religions, compliance with these laws is necessary for salvation or admittance into paradise. These laws are also tied to Natural Law from Moses’ Ten Commandments on what not to do to the more proactive message of Jesus and Muhammad on how to treat each other. All three types of laws ultimately lead to the fourth type which is “Human Law”. These are man-made laws that act as an interpretation of the others, but especially Natural Law. These laws are made for the common good of the community and its emphasis is on justice and right action for the benefit of all. Humans are societal animals, and such laws are necessary for the smooth functioning of our communities and of our own lives. The smooth, harmonious order of nature should be reflected at the human level both in the individual human and the community of which he/she is a part.
Natural Law is one of the most ancient and subtle forms of law, yet with such a far-reaching influence on our lives. It is unwritten and cannot always be grasped easily. Indeed, most often we do not even acknowledge that it even exists. But it does, and it is essential that we identify with it. Unlike Human Law, Natural Law is what unifies the diverse populations of this planet. It also tells us where we come from, who we really are, and where we are going. The term “Natural Law” is rather misleading as it is more accurately a moral code which everyone should live by because it is the product of both personal and social harmony. It is a product of human reason alone and is based on the concept of absolute right and absolute justice, the knowledge of which is innate in everyone. One must do good and avoid evil. The one who does not abide by Natural Law has to face the consequences. All are held accountable for their actions. Natural Law cannot be changed as it is absolute and permanent. So it must evolve from the First Principle, the source of all being. It can only be grasped by our intellect, which is the faculty we possess that identifies for us the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. It imposes upon us a righteous way of living.
The whole point of Natural Law is to ensure some kind of order or harmony. This harmony is based on the notion of justice. There is some sort of equilibrium in nature which if transgressed will lead to some form of payback or retribution. The laws of society reflect the order that underlies the universe, natural laws. We must use our human reasoning to find parallel rational laws in both society and ourselves. Let’s go back to 5th century Classical Athens. We will see that the poets, philosophers, and playwrights have all examined the idea of Natural Law. Plato has likened the human soul to three parts of the body - the heart, stomach, and the head. This is known as the “tripartite soul”. The perfect soul is one where the mind, that is reason and intellect, is in control of both the heart, the spirited portion, and the stomach, the appetitive and desiring faculty of the soul. With the mind in control, this prevents the person from being dominated by either the spirited or appetitive faculties. There is a natural balance, or justice of the soul. This is how one achieves justice in the soul to produce a well-ordered and harmonious body in which every faculty plays its proper role.
On a societal level, the ideal city is similarly structured. Plato sees three classes of citizens. At the bottom, reflecting the stomach or appetitive part of the soul, are the artisans or workers. The spirited part of the soul is seen in the city in the lower “guardian” class of soldiers. The ruling faculty in the city is provided by the philosopher kings whose only interest is to maintain harmony in the city by ensuring that each group of citizens perform only the tasks assigned to them. Hence the rulers rule, the soldiers protect, and the workers produce. Plato’s pupil, Aristotle, gives his own take on Natural Law. One of Aristotle’s greatest ideas was that of the Golden Mean. This can be defined by the Delphic maxim “nothing in excess”. When talking about virtues in his Ethics, he always described each virtue as something between two extremes, that being deficiency and excess. For example, an excess in courage could lead to recklessness, but a lack of courage could lead to cowardice, therefore one must seek the middle point of the two extremes. This Golden Mean essentially provides a natural balance or justice in the soul. Again, this can be applied at the societal level. The rule of the best is corrupted when the rulers put their own interests before that of the state. This eventually leads to a degenerate form of leadership which finally leads to ochlocracy or mob rule. Such a scenario in a man or society is a perversion of Natural Law.
We can see the idea of Natural Law present in the works of playwrights and poets. In Sophocles’ Antigone, Polynices, an exiled Theban, is killed during his siege of the city. His sister, Antigone, wishes to give him a proper burial despite king Creon’s decree of death to anyone that touches Polynices’ body. When she breaks the law and is caught, Antigone is brought to Creon. When questioned about her actions, Antigone admits to the crime but in her defence states that proper burial rites are beyond the laws of man. They are the unwritten and immortal laws of the gods that must be obeyed regardless of matters of citizenship or past history. In other words, this is Natural Law. Antigone ends up being sentenced to death for her “crime”, but she remained adamant that what she did was right. This introduces a disturbing aspect of Natural Law - retribution or payback. In this play, Creon suffers terribly for his refusal to acknowledge Natural Law when he loses both his wife Eurydice and son Haimon to suicide as a result of his actions of putting Human Law above Natural Law. The chorus ends the play by warning the audience that reverence to the gods, therefore by implication Natural Law, must never cease.
The works of the 8th century poet Hesiod, which were popular in 5th century Athens, also dwells on the issue of retribution. In his poem Works and Days, Hesiod tells of how he is an heir to a farm passed down to him and his brother Perses. However, the prodigal Perses who has spent all his money now returns to Hesiod, demanding that he hand over property and money. Hesiod now faces his brother and the judges, who Perses paid off to pass verdicts in his own favour, in court. Hesiod takes this opportunity to attack the corrupt judges but more importantly to persuade his brother to avoid Eris (Strife) and to instead teach him the value of work and how it can be used to generate income. Using myths to further his argument, Hesiod warns Perses of terrible punishment for those who do bad deeds and follow a dark path. Using Zeus as the arbiter of justice, he states in line 238, “But for those who practise violence and cruel deeds far-seeing Zeus, the son of Cronos, ordains a punishment. Often even a whole city suffers for a bad man who sins and devises presumptuous deeds, and the son of Cronos lays great trouble upon the people, famine and plague together, so that the men perish away, and their women do not bear children, and their houses become few, through the contriving of Olympian Zeus. And again, at another time, the son of Cronos either destroys their wide army, or their walls, or else makes an end of their ships on the sea”. This is essentially a warning to abide by Natural Law and to act justly or otherwise face imminent retribution. Hesiod being an 8th century poet, is far closer in time to our Homer. And we already see here the role of the almighty Zeus as the arbiter and protector of Natural Law, a facet of him that first becomes evident in Homer’s epics.
The historians of ancient Greece give us examples of Natural Law in real-life events. In the work of the thematic historian Herodotus, a number of themes reflect on infractions of Natural Law. A recurring theme is of how hubris leads to nemesis. Powerful figures run afoul of Natural Law through their arrogance and deceit. The fall of Croesus and the destruction of Xerxes’ invading army both dwell on this theme. Despite warnings, both potentiates act in a hubristic manner and are both brought crashing down to earth. Croesus, the king of Lydia, in addition to his hubris, is also plagued by another infraction of Natural Law which took a long time to effect a retribution. One of Croesus’ ancestors, through intrigue and murder, had usurped the throne. It took several generations for retribution to take effect. The sins of the fathers were visited on the sons in this case, showing that Natural Law has a long memory. All this demonstrates that Natural Law advocates a harmonious order where any upsetting of the equilibrium will be punished at one time or another, and the balance restored. As we will see, the first murmurings of this are to be found in the Homeric epics.
Thucydides, a 5th century Athenian historian and general, gives a graphic account of the consequences of an egregious infraction of Natural Law by the Athenians with regards to the Siege of Melos during the Peloponnesian War. This is the setting of the famous Melian Dialogue. The Athenians send envoys to the Melians demanding that they surrender the island or face destruction. The envoys begin their arguments by saying that the question of justice is only relevant between parties of equal strength, and that the strong can do whatever they want, and the weak suffer what they must. The Melians push back, saying that Melos is a neutral state and has done nothing to provoke such an action, and that in case of an Athenian attack, the gods would be with Melos as their position is morally just. But the Athenians counter by reminding the Melians that according to the Natural Law given by the gods, Athens has the right to conquer Melos as its empire is much stronger than the latter’s island. They continue by saying that they were not the first to come up with this law, nor the first to act on it, and that this law will continue to exist forever. When the Melians refused to submit to Athens, the siege began, and it was eventually won by Athens who shortly afterwards had all the men of the island state killed and the women and children sold into slavery. But what the Athenians did was actually a gross breach of Natural Law. It was not right for them to confront Melos like they did since the Melians were neutral in the war and did nothing to deserve such an action. However, the Athenians believe they were justified since according to their interpretation of Natural Law, might is right. It was an erroneous interpretation. What is just is what is right, and the one who transgresses Natural Law and acts unjustly is always punished in the end. Straight after the Melian Dialogue comes the traumatic events of the Sicilian Expedition in which those who had espoused the might is right philosophy paid for it with their lives as Athens lost two armies and two fleets at Syracuse on that ill-fated expedition. Ultimately, they would lose the Peloponnesian War and their hegemony in Greece was finished. This is a prime example of hubris leads to nemesis, yet another important facet of the Homeric epics working its way into the history of Classical Greece.
This paper is about Greek epic and its influence on Natural Law in Greek society. We have seen in many aspects of Greek life the pervasive presence of Natural Law. Indeed, in addition to the works of playwrights, philosophers, historians, and poets, the history of 5th century Athens also reflects a confluence of the nascent fledgling legal systems which will soon dominate the Western World and the older, innate, unwritten rules that have its origins in Natural Law. It appears that the greatest exponent of Natural Law turns out to be Homer himself. In his works the Iliad and the Odyssey, we see clearly what Natural Law expected of people and the consequences of these natural dictates. It is in the Odyssey where Natural Law takes centre stage and allows us to see the consequences of actions that are blatantly dismissive of the dictates of Natural Law. We will see that it is the characters that bring their destruction upon themselves. At the beginning of the Odyssey, the character of Zeus warns mortals in advance of the consequences of disobeying the mandates of Natural Law. He says that man always blames the gods for their problems, but it is their own foolish actions which bring them suffering, something which was not their destiny. To disobey Natural Law is to disobey the dictates of reason. The gods of Homer should be viewed on two levels. One is the workings of the divine machinery in areas of causation and consequences. However, on a more human level, they reflect human intellect and impulses. When Aegisthus rejects the advice of Hermes on not killing Agamemnon and stealing his wife, he is also rejecting reason. Hence his wilful action brings destruction upon himself. Athene’s response was that his end was well-deserved and that “may all who act as he did share in his fate”. The consequences of infringing Natural Law will also be seen in both the sufferings of Odysseus and his men with regard to his decisions as a leader, and the Suitors with regard to their wooing of Penelope.
The most prominent breach of natural law by Odysseus can be seen with his final interaction with the cyclops Polyphemus. Polyphemus himself behaves in a manner that is at odds with Natural Law with respect to xenia or guest friendship and he pays the price by being blinded by Odysseus. After blinding the monster and escaping its cave, Odysseus and his men fled the island of the cyclops. But as they sailed away, Odysseus began taunting Polyphemus. This angered Polyphemus and he complained to his father who was none other than Poseidon, the god of the seas. Having learned of his son’s ordeal, the incensed Poseidon was determined to make Odysseus’s journey home as difficult as possible. This is a prime example of hubris leads to nemesis. The arrogant Odysseus’ self-boasting cost him by turning a god against him which led to his journey home taking 10 years of wandering and sufferings. Indeed, it is the sufferings of Odysseus that the poet focuses on.
In book 10, Odysseus was hospitably entertained by Aeolus, the king of the winds and sent on his way home to Ithaca. On the tenth day of sailing, he and his men are so close to their homeland that they can see the fires burning, but then come to grief through what Odysseus claims is their own senseless stupidity. Whilst he was sleeping, the curious sailors opened the bag of winds gifted to Odysseus. Immediately, the winds burst out of the bag and blew all of them back to Aeolus’ island. This is the first of a succession of sufferings which Odysseus must endure. When they reach Aeolus, the king of the winds rejects them, stating that this is evidence that they are detested by the gods and drives them away. From there, they arrive at the land of the Laestrygonians who turn out to be giant cannibals who destroy all but one ship and kill all their crews. Only Odysseus’ ship made it out. When they arrive at the island of Circe, Odysseus’ confidence is at an all-time low. However, slowly but surely, he begins to rehabilitate himself so that by the time he lands on the shores of Ithaca, a more guarded, wary, and circumspect Odysseus is equipped to deal with the situation that is to present itself to him there. Odysseus lands alone. He has lost all his men, although this was not his fault. They too had disobeyed the dictates of Natural Law by feasting on the cattle of the Sun God despite being warned not to eat them. The men had tried their best to avoid eating the cattle, but starvation in the end overtook them, hoping that their sacrifices would appease the gods. But this was not to be, and the final survivors of the Trojan war met their end in a watery grave, leaving Odysseus as the sole survivor. Odysseus refrained from offending the gods on this occasion, and thereby had escaped the men’s fate.
The second group of people who had transgressed natural law in the Odyssey are the 108 suitors who had been encamped in Odysseus’ house eating away at his resources whilst attempting to woo his wife Penelope and depriving the son Telemachus of his inheritance. These all will suffer terribly for their misdeeds, which were against the dictates of Natural Law, disturbing the balance of harmony and order. At first, the crimes of the Suitors do not seem heinous. They consisted of attempting to court the wife of Odysseus, living off of Odysseus’s goods and land at no cost to themselves, maltreating the household servants, and their insolent, raucous, and ill-mannered behaviour. Behaviour of this sort would of course be totally inappropriate and unacceptable, using their strength in numbers to exploit the homestead of a defenceless woman and her callow child. But did these actions deserve death? As the story progresses, more serious offences are hatched or committed by the Suitors. There is talk about killing Telemachus, the son of Odysseus, and dividing up his property between them. Some of the Suitors even attempted to kill Telemachus in an ambush at sea, which is the most serious of all the crimes they plotted. The Suitors also made bold statements of what they would do to Odysseus should he ever come back to Ithaca. It was suggested that his mere appearance would lead to his death. However, the fact remains that they did not kill anyone. The norm of those days was that those who have committed like crimes would resort to restitution. This would consist of a payment in the form of reparations to the man who had been wronged. Eurymachus makes this clear after Odysseus has killed the suitor Antinous with the bow he had just strung in Book 22 (Od. 22. 55-59). This was not how Odysseus chose to respond to the transgressions of the Suitors. Such was the implacable anger of Odysseus that not only did he slaughter all 108 of the Suitors, but he also hanged 12 of his maids who had proved disloyal to his household. Betrayal seems to be the motivating factor in Odysseus’s actions.
The gods, particularly Athene, being the guardians of justice, believed that the Suitors deserved nothing else but death. During a discussion among the gods about the murder of Agamemnon by Aegisthus and Clytemnestra, the sage goddess Athene says, “Father of ours, Son of Cronos, King of Kings, Aegisthus’ end is just what he deserved. May all who act as he did share his fate!” (Od. 1. 45-48) Athene was the goddess that helped Odysseus the most throughout his journey and was instrumental in the plan of the destruction of the suitors. However, this knowledge of Natural Law was not limited to the divine. Even Eumaeus, Odysseus’s swineherd, believed the Suitors were committing a great injustice towards Odysseus as he says, “Yet the blessed gods don’t like wicked acts. Justice and fair play are what they respect in men.” (Od. 14. 83-84)
Everybody, the gods, his family and faithful servants, are all in agreement that the Suitors should pay with their lives for their crimes. But in defence of the Suitors, the fact remains that they were not guilty of killing anyone. The only crimes they committed were wasting Odysseus’s resources, appalling behaviour, and treating Odysseus’s family with disrespect. True, there was a plan to dispose of Telemachus on his return from the mainland. There was also talk of killing him in the palace, but they were restrained by the Suitor Amphinomus (Od. 16. 393-405). Not all the Suitors were bad. Amphinomus was described as a man of principle (Od. 16. 398). As well as stopping the other Suitors killing Telemachus, Amphinomus was well-liked by Penelope and advised by Odysseus, now disguised as a beggar, to rid himself of the Suitors and leave lest he should die in the same manner as the others. Amphinomus was not a bad person but was keeping bad company. Amphinomus unfortunately does not heed this advice and is ironically killed by the man he saves, Telemachus (Od. 18. 111-157). I cannot help but think of the ill-fated Sicilian Expedition of 5th century Athens and wonder how many just Athenians suffered an unjust end for not standing up for what was right and following the mob.
Book 24 of the Odyssey is very interesting in that it shows that there is a time when retribution must end. With Odysseus and his group about to attack and slaughter the relatives of the Suitors, Athene intervenes and orders him to make peace and restore the harmony lest he himself should incur the wrath of Zeus. The wise Odysseus complies. Let it be. One has to know when to stop.
Although it is the Odyssey which focuses on Natural Law and the consequences of violating it, there are instances in the Iliad where characters bring sufferings upon themselves due to their repudiation of Natural Law. At the beginning of the Iliad, a plague is ravaging the Greek army, and Agamemnon, the king of the Achaeans, is at fault. The king was given Chriseis, the daughter of a priest of Apollo named Chryses, as a spoil of war from the Achaeans. After Agamemnon refuses to give the girl back to him, Chryses prays to Apollo to punish the Greeks by sending down a plague. Apollo, angered at the maltreatment of one of his priests, accepts the prayer and fires disease-riddled arrows at the Greek camp. After ten days of constant suffering and death, Achilles, the greatest of all the Greek warriors, calls a meeting of the army. Calchas, a seer, explains that the plague can only be lifted if Agamemnon returns Chryses back to her father. After some protests, Agamemnon finally gives in an decides to give the girl back. However, he demands to be compensated for his loss, saying that he would otherwise be dishonoured. After Achilles informs him that the spoils have already been divided, and that he would repay Agamemnon later, the king of the Achaeans refuses and says that he will take the prize of anyone he wishes, including that of Achilles. This greatly angers Achilles, who threatens that he will sail back home with his troops. Agamemnon then utters the disastrous words where he states he will come and take Achilles’ prize to show him how superior he is to the king of the Myrmidons. Such hubris was outrageous, and we know that the Agamemnon was destined for a great fall. This pushes Achilles over the edge, and he is about to kill Agamemnon when Athene swoops in and stops him. So instead, Achilles declares that he will no longer be fighting for the king but will stand aloof from the conflict. He then persuades his mother, Thetis, to go to Zeus and persuade the king of the gods to have the Greeks lose until Agamemnon goes on his bended knees to beg Achilles to return to the battle. Zeus nods his assent. Agamemnon’s show of hubris is going to cost him dearly and restore the glory of Achilles.
However, Agamemnon was not the only one who was guilty of hubris. Achilles himself would prove to be incredibly arrogant and self-conceited in book nine. After Achilles dropped out of the fight, the Greeks suffered terribly at the hands of the Trojans, losing many of their best soldiers. A tearful and angry Agamemnon declares the war a failure, but the wise king of Pylos, Nestor, advises Agamemnon to send emissaries to Achilles’ tent in order to persuade the great warrior to return to the fight. Agamemnon agrees and sets aside a huge amount of treasure, including the girl Briseis and the promise of marriage to one of his daughters after the war for Achilles. It seems as though the greatest warrior of the Greeks had had his way. Agamemnon was begging him to return. Greater Ajax, Phoenix, and Odysseus are assigned to the delicate mission of bringing Achilles back. After arriving at the great warrior’s tent, they reveal Agamemnon’s change of heart and his apology to Achilles. They ask him to come back to the fight. The embassy is stunned by his response. Achilles rejects the offer outright and rages at how he has been unfairly treated by the hubristic Agamemnon. The three ambassadors try their best to persuade Achilles to re-enter the fight, and although they get him to relent a little, he states that he will not join the battle until the Trojans are at his own ships.
Phoenix, in trying to persuade Achilles, warns him that he should master his tremendous pride and stubbornness and not to offend Natural Law in taking measures too far. He recounts the tale of the Litae, “There are goddesses of supplication, Litae, daughters of Almighty Zeus. These Litae are wrinkled creatures, limping, eyes askance, who make it their business to pursue Delusion. But Delusion is strong and sure-footed, because she is quick enough to leave them all behind. Roaming the world, Delusion brings mankind to grief. But the Litae come after and put the trouble right. The man who respects these daughters of Zeus when they approach him is greatly blessed by them, and they listen to his prayers. But when a man hardens his heart and rebuffs them, they go and supplicate Zeus asking that Delusion accompany the man so that he comes to grief and pays the price…” (Book 9 Lines 501 and following). Basically, he is warning Achilles that if an apology is given and it is genuine, then he should accept it. Otherwise, he will find that misfortune will dog him until suffering has taken the arrogance out of him. This is essentially what happens. By rejecting the embassy, and the guidelines of Natural Law, Achilles sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to great personal suffering. Trapped by his own words as he refuses to join the battle as the Trojan onslaught takes their army up to the Greek ships, but not his ships, he is forced to send his beloved friend Patroclus into the fight where he is killed by Hector. This has a terrible effect on Achilles who re-joins the battle and slaughters everyone he comes across, yet nothing can appease his anger even when he kills Hector in book 22. He is still found dragging the body of Hector around the tomb of Patroclus. Such is his grief and anger. It is relentless.
The mutilation of Hector’s corpse offends the gods, and a message is dispatched to Achilles from Zeus himself that he is to hand the body over to Priam for ransom. The picture painted by the gods of Achilles is not flattering. They regard him as a man with no decent feelings, a man who is utterly ruthless, who has destroyed pity and has no respect for others. However, when confronted by Thetis to hand over the body on Zeus’ orders, Achilles immediately and without demur obeys. The gods are used in Homer as an explanation of human actions. If you take the gods out of the equation, one can clearly see Achilles’ thought pattern in this acceptance of Zeus’ command. He is eating his own heart out, as Thetis says, in lamentation and misery. It is doing him no good. It is only adding to his suffering. It would be better to give the body back and adhere to Natural Law’s smooth, harmonious order. When Priam comes to his tent and raises to his lips the hands of the man who had killed his son, Achilles breaks down and weeps together with the old Trojan king. He sees in Priam his own father, Peleus, and has empathy with the sufferings of both old men. It is a kind of catharsis for Achilles. He says to Priam that he should endure and not mourn without end, as lamenting will do him no good at all. He makes his peace with Hector by returning the body to Priam. Achilles knows that his death is on the horizon, and he has accepted it, but now his anger, his Menis, is over. He has returned to the natural order of things (Book 24, 550).
The affronts to Natural Law raised by the poets, playwrights, philosophers, and historians in 5th century Athens have their roots in Homeric epic. In Homer’s works, we see the consequences of affronting Natural Law. In the Odyssey, men are shown bringing their destruction upon themselves by not following the dictates of Natural Law, something which was prophesised by Zeus in the very beginning of the book. Odysseus would exude hubris, his men would revel in disobedience, and of course the Suitors were guilty of greed, theft, and terrorising a family. All of these people paid the price one way or another. Natural Law was present in the Iliad as well. Like Odysseus, the proud Agamemnon demonstrated great hubris in book one. Achilles refused to accept an apology when it was sincerely given. He was stubborn, trapped by his own words, and took matters to an unnecessary excess. One must know when to stop. Both of these characters would suffer greatly for their actions. In our time, we would associate Natural Law with karma, with the words of Phoenix still resonating well today – if you do not pay heed to Natural Law, then misfortune may dog you until suffering has taken the arrogance out of you.
Bibliography
Aristotle, K., T. J. A., & Tredennick, H. (2004). The Nicomachean Ethics. Penguin.
College of Law, University of Notre Dame. (1949). Natural Law Institute Proceedings.
Finnis, J. (2011). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press.
Heraclitus, Haxton, B., & Hillman, J. (2003). Fragments. Penguin Books.
Hesiod, West, M. L., & Hesiod. (2008). Theogony and Works and Days. Oxford University Press.
Homer, Rieu, E. V., H., R. D. C., & Jones, P. V. (2004). The Iliad. Achilles Press.
Homer, Fagles, R., Knox, B., & Homer. (2006). The Odyssey. Penguin Books.
Plato, Pritchard, L. H. D., & Lane, M. S. (2007). The republic. Penguin.
Thucydides, Warner, R., & Finley, M. I. (1990). History of the Peloponnesian War. Penguin Books.
Weinreb, L. L. (2013). Natural law and Justice. Harvard University Press.
