Literature begins and ends with Homer.

Shar-Jan · Aug 19, 2008

Homer lived between the end of the 9th to the 8th century BC, thats over 2700 years! Wow! Legend has it that he lived in Ionia, in Asia Minor (thats modern day Turkey).

Like many other great writers through history, he was blind. Just like Milton and Borges!

At least, we think he is. In fact no one knows whether Homer actually existed or wrote any of the poems attributed to him. Common consensus nowadays is that Homer collated the various oral traditions and put them in a coherent form.

He has two major works attributed to him:

The Iliad

The name 'Iliad' relates to the city of Ilium, also known as the city of Troy. Literally it means 'the story of Ilium'.
The Iliad is an epic poem set in the last year of the Trojan War. It is the first true war story ever written, and is still the best example.

Everyone knows the legend of the Trojan war, Melelaus the Spartan losing his wife Helen to Paris, the Trojan Horse (Though thats in the Aenid by Virgil, not the Iliad)

It has an incredibly tightly crafted narrative, taking place over a mere few days. Its main theme is the wrath of Achilles, snubbed by the leader of the Greeks, Agamemnon, Achilles retires to his tent and refuses to fight. The Greeks fight the Trojans, with many heroic deeds. At some point during the ebb and flow of battle, Achilles friend/lover Patroclus gets killed. Achilles, fulfilling a prophecy of having a short life full of glory flies into a murderous rage and butchers Hector before the gates of the city. The poem ends with Priam (King of Troy and Hectors father) returning Patroclus' body in return for Hectors.

The Iliad has a huge array of characters. From beautiful and mournful Helen, to Great Ajax, son of Telamon (essentially a linebacker with a shield the size of a car). The main characters seem to leap from the page, truly larger than life characters.

Many have said the true strength in the Iliad lies in its battles, conjured up with stunning imagery.

Teucer and Ajax takin names said:
Ninth came Teucer, stretching his curved bow.
He stood beneath the shield of Ajax, son of Telamon.
As Ajax cautiously pulled his shield aside,
Teucer would peer out quickly, shoot off an arrow,
hit someone in the crowd, dropping that soldier
right where he stood, ending his life—then he'd duck back,
crouching down by Ajax, like a child beside its mother.
Ajax would then conceal him with his shining shield.

There are some incredibly brutal scenes in it as well, (for example, Penelaos stabs a Trojan in the eye, making the blade shoot out the back of his skull with the eye still attatched), making whatever dreck Palanuik (sp?) writes in Haunted pale in comparison.

Has anyone else read the Iliad? Do they have as much of an obsession over it as I do?

I'll write a summary for the Odyssey later, its better in some ways, but has less of an emotional reaction than the sheer humanity on display in the Iliad.

Deleted member 42 · Aug 19, 2008

Shar-Jan said:
Homer lived between the end of the 9th to the 8th century BC, thats over 2700 years!

Fond as I am of Homer, I'm less fond of the idea that literature begins and ends with him; he's not the first. Gilgamesh, for one, pre-dates Homer.

But yeah, I love the Illiad and the Odyssey.

Shar-Jan · Aug 19, 2008

I deliberatley chose a controversial statement to draw people in, and it worked!

mscelina · Aug 19, 2008

I love my Homer, and I still read it in Greek when I have the time.

However, I'd have to contend that this is not necessarily a 'true' war story. The emphasis upon the divine and the supernatural precludes it from being nonfiction, particularly when the history itself is of dubious nature.

And too, to say literature 'begins' with a single person--the Greek equivalent of a minstrel whose words were passed down from mouth to mouth for centuries before it was written--like the mythical Homer, no matter how great the Iliad and Odyssey are, is such a broad generalization that I cannot ascribe to it. If you wanted to be particular, literature began with the first caveman who painted the story of a deer hunt on the side of a cave wall.

And as for ending? Literature is non-ending, infinite and expansive like the universe. We will only run out of stories to tell when there is no one left to live them.

I'd keep the controversy out of it and concentrate more on the realities of what you're saying. JMO, of course; feel free to ignore it if you so wish.

Ken · Aug 19, 2008

I love the final scene where Od. dresses like a beggar and returns to his castle. Bending a bow that no one else can he wins a competition by shooting an arrow through nine rings, then takes aim at the defilers of his reign. No scene in literature has or ever will be as powerful as this, and it's a real wonder that modern-day writers who stumble upon Homer's sublime creation don't lay down their pens in despair of ever coming to compare.

mscelina · Aug 19, 2008

Because Homer didn't use a pen?

Ken · Aug 19, 2008

he used a pen made out of a feather...from an angel.

mscelina · Aug 19, 2008

*grin*

Probably more like a Dryad, or maybe a Naiad. Don't think Homer had angels, really. Perhaps Terpsichore dropped it on his head.

Ken · Aug 19, 2008

don't pay me much mind ;-)
I know your expressed views are much more factually based
...not that I have to believe them. Homer truly is one of my favorite authors.

childeroland · Aug 19, 2008

Which English translations do you think come closest to the experience of reading the original Greek?

mscelina said:
I love my Homer, and I still read it in Greek when I have the time.

However, I'd have to contend that this is not necessarily a 'true' war story. The emphasis upon the divine and the supernatural precludes it from being nonfiction, particularly when the history itself is of dubious nature.

And too, to say literature 'begins' with a single person--the Greek equivalent of a minstrel whose words were passed down from mouth to mouth for centuries before it was written--like the mythical Homer, no matter how great the Iliad and Odyssey are, is such a broad generalization that I cannot ascribe to it. If you wanted to be particular, literature began with the first caveman who painted the story of a deer hunt on the side of a cave wall.

And as for ending? Literature is non-ending, infinite and expansive like the universe. We will only run out of stories to tell when there is no one left to live them.

I'd keep the controversy out of it and concentrate more on the realities of what you're saying. JMO, of course; feel free to ignore it if you so wish.

Priene · Aug 19, 2008

There's a mass execution of Ithican serving girls at the end of the Odyssey. It disgusted me when I first read it as a twelve-year old and it disgusts me still.

Shar-Jan · Aug 20, 2008

Did you expect an ancient Mycenean warlord to have twentieth century morals?

Theres also the part in the Iliad where Diomedes and Odysseus execute Dolon while he's begging for mercy.

This is why I'm calling it a war story (its obviously at least part fiction though) , it doesn't glamourise, its very real.

Priene · Aug 20, 2008

Shar-Jan said:
Did you expect an ancient Mycenean warlord to have twentieth century morals?

So butchering people for falling in love was universally acceptable moral behaviour before the 20th century?

Here's the relevant passage, for those who haven't read it. I've taken Shewring's translation and abbreviated a little.

Odysseus: "Take the servants outside the building ... and strike them with your long sharp swords till you have taken the life from them and they have forgotten all the delights of secret love that they had once in the suitors' arms.

And now the women came flocking down together, groaning bitter, weeping plenteously. First they carried out of the house all the bodies of the dead suitors and laids under the portico. Then they washed and sponged the seats and tables. ... When the whole house had been put in order, then men took the women out of doors... and penned them inside a narrow space from which there was no way out.

Then Telemachus addressed his helpers: "Never let it be said that sluts like these had a clean death from me. They have heaped up outrage on me and on my mother, they have been the suitor's concubines.'

So he spoke, and stretched a ship's cable between a tall pillar and the round-house....So with their heads in a single line the women's necks were all caught in nooses, to make them die the most piteous death. For a long while their feet kept writhing, but not for long.

This isn't dispassionate justice for crimes committed. This is sexual sadism. Homer, whoever he might have been, is enjoying by the fate he envisions for these sluts.

Two minutes analysis shows that this passage is sadistic, misogynistic and deeply unpleasant. Another two to confirm that Telemachus was a nasty little worm who did sod all about the suitors until Daddy returned and then took it out on the weakest people he could think of. And another two to confirm that those women were in an impossible situation. Even Penelope, the Queen of Ithaca, had little control over the suitors. What were serving girls supposed to do? Odysseus had probably left the island before they were even born.

And this is the climax of the entire book. Homer was a fantastic plotter. Odysseus' external and Telemachus' internal one have moved to one finale, the death of the suitors. This is the first act of the new-old regime. If you want an idea of what life under Odysseus and Telemachus was going to be like, this shows it. Give me life under the suitors.

No, Homer doesn't get a free pass on this just because it was written long ago.

Homer, whoever he was, wasn't Mycenaen. We don't judge Shakespeare by Roman standards just because he wrote Julius Caesar. I'm relying on scholarship for this, but the consensus seems to be he lived a few centuries before Periclean Athens.

We need to make up our mind about the ancient Greeks. Were they our forerunners and the cradle of civilization, setting standards in literature and education we've been struggling to meet ever since? Or were they mindless savages, incapable of recognising right from wrong? If the latter, how could they produce great literature? If the former, how can you not be revolted by this passage?

EriRae · Aug 20, 2008

I personally love Fagles' translations. He translates in verse, as intended. I also read his version of the Aeneid.

I like the Odyssey best, probably because I taught it to my seniors. The fantasy and adventure aspects of the story create images that teens can grasp, along with the ideal love of Penelope and the trials Odysseus must face to get her back.

HeronW · Aug 20, 2008

Iliad, Odyssey, Ovid's Metamorphosis, Aeschelus, Euripides--you don't get much better than those.

Shar-Jan · Aug 20, 2008

So butchering people for falling in love was universally acceptable moral behaviour before the 20th century?

Pretty much. Look at honour killings today, its the same mindset. I'm not condoning it but saying that this is how the world was.

groaning bitter, weeping plenteously... to make them die the most piteous death.

I would disagree that Homer is revelling in it, his characters are, but Homer isn't Telemachus or Odysseus. He almost seems disinterested in that passage you quoted, even though Telemachus is clearly very excited about it.

We need to make up our mind about the ancient Greeks. Were they our forerunners and the cradle of civilization, setting standards in literature and education we've been struggling to meet ever since? Or were they mindless savages, incapable of recognising right from wrong? If the latter, how could they produce great literature? If the former, how can you not be revolted by this passage?

Like every other civilisation on earth (yes, even the Mongols) they were both. Every civilisation breeds great poets and artists and sociopathic mass murderers. What do you think people are going to say about Western civilisation in a thousand years? Were they great innovators and pioneers in science and literature, or were they brutal savages that dropped atom bombs and turned a blind eye to tryants?

Deleted member 42 · Aug 20, 2008

Priene said:
We need to make up our mind about the ancient Greeks. Were they our forerunners and the cradle of civilization, setting standards in literature and education we've been struggling to meet ever since? Or were they mindless savages, incapable of recognising right from wrong? If the latter, how could they produce great literature? If the former, how can you not be revolted by this passage?

Err . . . when the Greeks are spoken of as "the cradle of civilization," it's not the Homeric Greeks, or even Homer's era; it's the era of Plato, and the birth of writing.

Regarding the barbarism, well, yeah! And pretty much every other ancient Western text we revere is equally barbaric; Hindu scripture, the Old Testament, Beowulf, Gilgamesh . . . Part of the value of these texts is that they remind of of where we came from, and why we need to keep moving away from many of those tenets.

CaroGirl · Aug 20, 2008

I think this opinion takes a narrow view of the world origins of story telling. Ancient Homeric texts influenced WESTERN story tellers, most certainly, but what about ancient stories from China and Japan. There are ancient stories all over the world that arose independent of European influenced stories. What about the stories of the tribes of Africa, or the Maori, the Cree?

Literature begins and ends with humans having stories to tell to each other. That is all.

Priene · Aug 20, 2008

Medievalist said:
Err . . . when the Greeks are spoken of as "the cradle of civilization," it's not the Homeric Greeks, or even Homer's era; it's the era of Plato, and the birth of writing.

But Homer was substantially later than Mycenaen times. The classical Greeks revered the book, and considered it one of the cornerstones of their civilisation. Surely our reverence for ancient Greek culture starts with Homer and Hesiod, not Plato?

Medievalist said:
Regarding the barbarism, well, yeah! And pretty much every other ancient Western text we revere is equally barbaric; Hindu scripture, the Old Testament, Beowulf, Gilgamesh . . . Part of the value of these texts is that they remind of of where we came from, and why we need to keep moving away from many of those tenets.

I'd agree with you about texts being barbaric. But there's something exceptionally nasty about that scene. An undercurrent of sexual glee about it. I'm not saying the Odyssey isn't a great book. I'm saying there's an ugly mark on it, on Homer*'s motivations for writing it, and if we're talking about Homer being the beginning and end of literature, well, that needs pointing out.

*obviously, I'm assuming here Homer was actually one individual

Ken · Aug 20, 2008

EriRae said:
along with the ideal love of Penelope and the trials Odysseus must face to get her back.

the ironic thing though is that when Od. at last returns he tells Penelope that he's going to be embarking on another journey the very next day, if I'm not mistaken. Always got a kick out of that :-D

Priene · Aug 20, 2008

anis said:
the ironic thing though is that when Od. at last returns he tells Penelope that he's going to be embarking on another journey the very next day, if I'm not mistaken. Always got a kick out of that :-D

Does he do that?

(Rushes off to look)

Shar-Jan · Aug 20, 2008

But Homer was substantially later than Mycenaen times. The classical Greeks revered the book, and considered it one of the cornerstones of their civilisation. Surely our reverence for ancient Greek culture starts with Homer and Hesiod, not Plato?

Most of the west takes the bible as the foundation of its civilisation (even in America, the ideas of the Founding Fathers emerge in the reformation, which was religiously motivated), and that has some bits that make the Iliad seem like kids playing in sand.

the ironic thing though is that when Od. at last returns he tells Penelope that he's going to be embarking on another journey the very next day, if I'm not mistaken. Always got a kick out of that :-D

I can't remember that, but it could be an allusion to his and Penelope's journey together. Or he's alluding to his death.

Dante seemed to think that Odysseus was very much a restless wanderer, trying to find the edge of the earth, and thats why he ends up in Inferno. He failed to see (possibly through a dodgy translation) that through it all Odysseus is just trying to get home.

Ken · Aug 20, 2008

Shar-Jan said:
Or he's alluding to his death.

interesting perspective.
Think I'll have to reread the text.

Deleted member 42 · Aug 20, 2008

Priene said:
But Homer was substantially later than Mycenaen times. The classical Greeks revered the book, and considered it one of the cornerstones of their civilisation. Surely our reverence for ancient Greek culture starts with Homer and Hesiod, not Plato?

I'd say Yes and No

First, I think historically speaking, our reverence for Homer was primarily because of Plato, and his reverence. As to Classical Greek reverence for the book, meh, not so much. Plato is fairly hostile towards writing, remember.

I'd agree with you about texts being barbaric. But there's something exceptionally nasty about that scene. An undercurrent of sexual glee about it. I'm not saying the Odyssey isn't a great book. I'm saying there's an ugly mark on it, on Homer*'s motivations for writing it, and if we're talking about Homer being the beginning and end of literature, well, that needs pointing out.

I'm not arguing, but I can find similarly awful scenes in all the other early literature I mentioned. I'm not going to speculate about Homer's intentions--but this is an era when you purchased land, quite frequently, by handing over female slaves in exchange for the real estate.

This was an era when a female child was promised to someone before she was even born.

This was an era when women's value as goods was tracked against the price of oxen.

mscelina · Aug 20, 2008

Applying modern sensibilities to ancient literature runs roughly along the same lines as applying the ideologies of the "I have a dream' speech to the War Between the States. They don't compute. Trying to extend them in order to do so in order to prove the 'wrongness' of the earlier historical era is a logical fallacy. History teaches us; we learn from our mistakes.

Homer didn't suscribe to 21st century beliefs because he knew nothing about them. Our beliefs are a direct result of what Homer knew and the historical reaction to those views. Let's keep a bit of historical perspective, shall we?

Literature begins and ends with Homer.

Shar-Jan

Deleted member 42

Shar-Jan

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Ken

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Ken

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Ken

childeroland

What happened to my LIFE?!

Priene

Out to lunch

Shar-Jan

Priene

Out to lunch

EriRae

:P

HeronW

Down Under Fan

Shar-Jan

Deleted member 42

CaroGirl

Living the dream

Priene

Out to lunch

Ken

Priene

Out to lunch

Shar-Jan

Ken

Deleted member 42

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you