Translation

[Sasha]

Every single translator has and will fail miserably at translating Homer. Many say this, but for the wrong reasons. My reasons are not that his Greek elegance is inimitable, nor that we are too remote in time and culture, nor even that his genius cannot be surpassed. I shall explicate why these are not valid reasons, and then give my reason for why all translations fall short of the mark. <br><br>Many scholars (including some distinguished translators) make the claim that the Odyssey can only be truly appreciated in Greek. Nonsense, the elegance of many of the epithets is capturable in english (contrary to what many thhink.) Where Homer refers to ροδοδακτuλος 'Ηώς Lattimore gives us rosy-fingered daw, which, I agree, falls short of the mark. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, uses "young dawn with finger tips of rose." This is prosodically and poetically equivalent to ροδοδακτuλος 'Ηώς. Also "when primeval dawn spread on the eastern sky her fingers of pink light" is a fine translation, perhaps even more so by assigning a gender to dawn in imitation of the Greek Ηώς who was also a goddess.<br><br>As for the many claims that we are too remote in time and culture to fully appreciate Homer, this would be true if the culture of Homer's Greece were utterly alien to the average person as, say, the culture surrounding that of Gilgamesh. This is not the case however, almost all of us remember being schooled in Hellenic and/or Roman mythology in our school days and thus we can, to a satisfactory extent, connect with Homer's world. <br><br>Homer's genius, while great, is not entirely unmatchable. There have been poets and translators whose native talent far outshone Homer's. Fitzgerald is one such and so was Pope. Many poets, in my opinion, such as Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Goethe, Nims and others have or had a genius that could blow Homer's out of the proverbial water. <br><br>Yet all translations of the Odyssey and Iliad have failed. <br><br>They are boring for the same reason why many scholars of ancient Greek find the original Greek to be boring. The two mega-epics were originally oral entertainment to be heard, not read. Think about our conventions in writing. 22 monotontous mentionings of a "rosy-fingered dawn" and 6 of a "wine-dark sea" and 11 of a "sweet day of return" would definitely resound as cliché in any piece of contemporary literature. Not so to Homer's own contemporaries whose poetic nerves and lexical triggers were used to something very different in an oral illiterate culture. Yet tape-recorded versions of the Odyssey are no more inspiring or useful than a lullabye to lull a child to sleep. This is because another key ingredient is missing. Homer not only recited his poems but used a κίθαρις, a sort of stringed instrument similar to a lyre. Homer did not sing his poems however, but he used the κίθαρις to mark rhythm, to play a musical interlude while he was thinking of something (let us not forget there was a certain amount of improvisation involved) and to indicate tone, pitch, and even mood (playing in a major chord to begin a thought, heightening it to a minor as the action or suspense rises, and resolving into major after some climax.) This musical accompaniment was indispensable to Homer and his contemporaries. The Homeric Epics must not be read, for that would drain them of their power, but recited, with the aid of some instrument, if not the κίθαρις then at least some instrument capable of polytonics such as a piano. If a tape of this caliber were made, I am confident that the English-speaking world would see new virtue in Homer.<br><br>Trying to Read homer from a book in any language is like trying to read Beethoven from a musical score instead of listening to a performance.

[Hannes Kaiser]

Hi there!
I totally agree with you. Performing Homer would include reciting the text, rather than reading it in silence. Furthermore, stock phrases that Homer used and that reappear again and again throughout the text are elements of oral tradition which the listeners used to revel in. Even when recited, they can become rather laborious for modern ears.
For us today bringing out these phrases in an intelligent way is a great artistic task, but I think it can be done.
Cheers,
Hannes

[Miss_Katie]

Isn't it amazing that Homer would right something so long to be sung? I very much agree that the English translation and dry-reading don't do the poem justice.

[Virgil]

I wonder if anyone would care to comment on the Robert Fagels translation. I read the Fitzgerald and the Fagel's translation and enjoyed the Fagels best. But I have no idea how it relates back to the original Greek.

[Miss_Katie]

I must have read a strange translation. It says it is translated by Butcher and Lang.

[bluevictim]

I wonder if anyone would care to comment on the Robert Fagels translation. I read the Fitzgerald and the Fagel's translation and enjoyed the Fagels best. But I have no idea how it relates back to the original Greek.

I have read very little of the Odyssey in Greek (I am more familiar with the Iliad), and I have not read either of the translations you mentioned (I read Lattimore's), but if you post some samples (maybe there are some passages you were especially curious about?) I'd be happy to take a look when I get home tonight, and offer whatever comments I can.

The original poster (sasha) is overstating his thesis quite a bit. AFAIK, there is not really a consensus as to just how the poems were performed, and both epics have been deeply touching in translation for thousands of years. You can hear an attempt to re-create a performance here (www.oeaw.ac.at/kal/sh/index.htm).

[Virgil]

I have read very little of the Odyssey in Greek (I am more familiar with the Iliad), and I have not read either of the translations you mentioned (I read Lattimore's), but if you post some samples (maybe there are some passages you were especially curious about?) I'd be happy to take a look when I get home tonight, and offer whatever comments I can.

The original poster (sasha) is overstating his thesis quite a bit. AFAIK, there is not really a consensus as to just how the poems were performed, and both epics have been deeply touching in translation for thousands of years. You can hear an attempt to re-create a performance here (www.oeaw.ac.at/kal/sh/index.htm).
Actually I quote an extended passage in the Who Is Your Hero thread: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16378&page=1&pp=15
Go the post#15

[bluevictim]

Isn't it amazing that Homer would right something so long to be sung? I very much agree that the English translation and dry-reading don't do the poem justice.
According to one of the more popular theories, the Homeric epics, as we know them, were not composed to be performed in their entirety, but rather grew from traditional oral performances, which were all shorter. These shorter elements (so the theory goes) were stitched together into the long poems we know as The Odyssey and The Iliad. With respect to the whole two-plus millenia of their reception, they were probably read far more than they were ever sung.

I'd be very interested to hear in what ways you felt the English translation and dry-reading fell short of doing the poem justice.

[Miss_Katie]

Well, as a bit of a composer myself, I always feel that lyrics lose something without the music and even though it's nice, the expression isn't nearly as beautiful without music. I'm a bit confused though, if the epics were meant to be sung in the first place. I'm not very knowledgable on the subject, really. But regardless, in the original language, I'm sure that it had a beautiful meter and rhythm to the words that is missing now in translation. That's one of the major reasons why I don't think the English does the Odyssey justice. --It's a lot more believable to me now, that the Oddyssey was composed of smaller pieces. It hadn't made much sense to me before that someone would ever sing something so long!!

[bluevictim]

Actually I quote an extended passage in the Who Is Your Hero thread: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16378&page=1&pp=15
Go the post#15
Cool! One of my favorite passages, and one I did read in Greek (a long time ago). Like I said, I'll take a look again when I get home. Naturally, any specific questions would be helpful for directing my comments.

[bluevictim]

I'm a bit confused though, if the epics were meant to be sung in the first place.Maybe the sticky issue here is what might be meant by "the first place". According to the theory I was describing, the smaller elements were sung. However, whoever it was who decided to make a long, epic whole of the traditional material might not have really envisaged the entire epic to be performed in the same way. He/she/they just thought it would be good to put the material down in writing, in a pleasing form. And he/she/they would have been right -- the written form has been monumentally successful despite being separated from the traditional method of oral performance.

But regardless, in the original language, I'm sure that it had a beautiful meter and rhythm to the words that is missing now in translation.This is certainly true. The meter these poems were written in had a tremendous influence on subsequent Western poetry, and it is more or less futile to try to exactly mimic it in translation. Of course, there are various ways of translating Homer into English verse; Lattimore, for example, uses a free six-beat line. Although I have not read many long passages in it, I find the translation by Alexander Pope into blank verse very enjoyable.

[bluevictim]

Actually I quote an extended passage in the Who Is Your Hero thread: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16378&page=1&pp=15
Go the post#15In case any others are following along, this is from the Iliad, Book 6, 466 ff. For comparison, here is Lattimore's translation:
So speaking glorious Hektor held out his arms to his baby,
who shrank back to his fair-girdled nurse's bosom
screaming, and frightened at the aspect of his own father,
terrified as he saw the bronze and the crest with its horse-hair,
nodding dreadfully, as he thought, from the peak of the helmet.
Then his beloved father laughed out, and his honoured mother,
and at once glorious Hektor lifted from his head the helmet
and laid it in all its shining upon the ground. Then taking
up his dear son he tossed him about in his arms, and kissed him,
and lifted his voice in prayer to Zeus and the other immortals:
'Zeus, and you other immortals, grant that this boy, who is my son,
may be as I am, pre-eminent among the Trojans,
great in strength, as am I, and rule strongly over Ilion;
and some day let them say of him: "He is better by far than his father",
as he comes in from the fighting; and let him kill his enemy
and bring home the blooded spoils, and delight the heart of his mother.'
So speaking he set his child again in the arms of his beloved
wife, who took him back again to her fragrant bosom
smiling in her tears; and her husband saw, and took pity upon her,
and stroked her with his hand, and called her by name and spoke to her:
'Poor Andromache! Why does your heart sorrow so much for me?
No man is going to hurl me to Hades, unless it is fated,
but as for fate, I think that no man yet has escaped it
once it has taken its first form, neither the brave man nor coward.
Go therefore back to our house, and take up your own work,
the loom and the distaff, and see to it that your handmaidens
ply their work also; but the men must see to the fighting,
all men who are the people of Ilion, but I beyond others.'
A prose translation can be found here (www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0134;layout=;qu ery=card%3D%23101;loc=6.466). Contrary to what I posted above, Alexander Pope translates (rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1641.html) (594 ff) into heroic couplets (not blank verse).

The difference between Fagles and Lattimore is not that great. Lattimore tends to be more literal. Fagles tends to use more colorful expressions, for example: 'in the same breath' vs. 'so speaking'; 'recoiled, cringing' vs. 'shrank back'; 'pressed' vs. 'took';'trying to reassure her, repeating her name' vs. 'called her by name and spoke to her'. One thing to keep in mind when evaluating the translations is that Homer's Greek is generally easy to read. Thus, a more literal translation can be said in some sense to be closer to the Greek, but can also give the wrong impression about the style if it ends up being difficult English. That said, I don't feel Lattimore's English is any harder to read than Fagles'.

Perhaps the most interesting and substantial difference is their treatment of the end of line 489. Fagles gives 'it’s [fate is] born with us the day that we are born' while Lattimore renders it 'once it [fate] has taken its first form'. Here it is a matter of interpretation. The Greek is 'epe:n ta pro:ta gene:tai', 'when first [he/she/it] comes into being'. Fagles takes as the subject of 'comes into being' the hypothetical man escaping fate (as does Willcock and Benner) and supplies 'it's born with us' as a lacuna in the thought, while Lattimore takes fate to be the subject of 'comes into being' (which seems to be the drift of a textual variant). I am inclined to side with Fagles, Willcock, and Benner concerning the subject of 'comes into being' (but I don't have any authority; maybe I'll look it up in the big Cambridge commentary someday). In that case, the thought would be something like 'no man is free from fate (i.e., every man is bound by fate) from the time that he is born', which is slightly different than what Fagles presents.

Another difference is that Lattimore translates into six-beat lines, which arguably approximates Homer's dactylic hexameters better than Fagles' more irregular lines.

I hope this helps.

[Virgil]

Wow, thanks a lot Blue. That was fascinating.

[bluevictim]

Wow, thanks a lot Blue. That was fascinating.
You're welcome. You can probably tell that I enjoy this.

I meant to include some examples where both Fagles and Lattimore diverge from a literal reading of the text: 'lifting a prayer' / 'lifted his voice in prayer' for 'spoke, praying' (or 'spoke in prayer'); 'why so desperate? Why so much grief for me?' / 'Why does your heart sorrow so much for me?' for 'please don't be overly grieved in your heart'.

Hopefully my comments give some sense as to how much freedom the translators take with the text.

[Virgil]

You're welcome. You can probably tell that I enjoy this.

I meant to include some examples where both Fagles and Lattimore diverge from a literal reading of the text: 'lifting a prayer' / 'lifted his voice in prayer' for 'spoke, praying' (or 'spoke in prayer'); 'why so desperate? Why so much grief for me?' / 'Why does your heart sorrow so much for me?' for 'please don't be overly grieved in your heart'.

Hopefully my comments give some sense as to how much freedom the translators take with the text.
Yes. Are you a translator yourself? You are apparently well versed in ancient Greek. How different is modern Greek from say 5th century BC Greek?

[bluevictim]

Yes. Are you a translator yourself? You are apparently well versed in ancient Greek. How different is modern Greek from say 5th century BC Greek? No, I don't translate in any professional capacity; the only translating I have done is for my own pleasure (and for assignments from various Greek courses I have taken). Maybe I should have made it more clear that I make no claim of authority so my posts should be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't know modern Greek, but AFAIK it is quite different from 5th century BC Greek (for those who are curious, that's the period of Herodotus, Thucydides, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Antiphon); a classicist with no prior experience with modern Greek would not be able to communicate in modern Greek.

[cat]

this is really stupid. i think you could do alot better. all im saying is that you should try to work on it some more

[dalton]

I too have found the various translations of Homer to be either too literal or too self-indulgent without enough consideration for the reading public. The idea that Homer will ever hold the magic that he held for an audience of illiterates is purely academic in nature and no longer applies to the present era.
To amplify another point about Homeric translations: They are either ponderous out of a misguided sense of textual respect, or presumptuous, interpreting more or less than the bard intended. We should first inform ouselves that primitive folk intended these tales to be appreciated by each and every member of the family, with life-experience imparting to the parents that the gods and demigods were not to be taken too seriously, and to children that their actions could result in desastrous consequences if they did not pay heed to what the storyteller said. In other words, Zeus and the other collective gods were a sort of amalgamated Santa Claus to children, intended to keep them on the straight-and-narrow, while to their parents it was a ripping tale that they half-believed, that is, they believed in some of the higher gods, but not necessarily in the fantastic situations that Homer placed them in.

After that fault-finding with previous interpretations of Homer, it might seem foolhardy to offer up yet another attempt at cracking the case, yet this is what I have tried to do with a small part of the text, and in rimed hexameter verse. It either works or it doesn't, so you be the judge:


Homer, The Iliad (end of book 1)


Then the lady Hera of the eyes of oxen stated:
"O dreadfulest of Kronos, what is this that you've related?
I've never inquired or questioned you greatly up to now,
But feel free thinking about what you desire anyhow.
That you've been led astray I feel terror deep in my soul stir,
Due to Thetis the silvery-footed child of the briny's oldster.
For, beginning at dawn she was clasping your two knees and squatting,
And I think you assented to honor Akhilleus by nodding,
And by the Akhaian vessels massacre many a man of their folk."
Zeus who is the gatherer of clouds, returning with words to her, spoke:
"O befuddled one, I can't flee you, you're always suspecting;
Yet you won't be able to do a thing in thus reflecting,
No, but you'll be further from my heart, and for you it'll worsen;
And if it's as you say, it's what's pleasing to my person.
But be seated unheard now, and the words that I'm uttering yield to,
Lest all of the gods on Olympos be useless to shield you
When I approach with invincible hands upon you extended."
He spoke, and Hera the oxen-eyed whom fear had attended
Sat in silence as she thoroughly repressed her unlucky heart.
Worried were the sky gods in the house of Zeus, hearing him impart.
Then Hephaistos the famous smith faced the aggregation
To bring forth to his white-armed beloved mother consolation:
"This will turn out to be an unbearable disaster, in truth,
If you two on account of mortals begin to dispute
By bringing bickering among the gods, and so a lack of delight
Will take place at the glorious feast, since evil is winning the fight.
And I advise my mother, who is herself not unperceptive,
To try being to Zeus, our well-beloved father, receptive,
That father be enraged no more to spoil our eating.
Should the lord Olympian of lightning wish our unseating,
And because he is the mightiest, fling us from where we are sitting---
But do indeed yourself to him in soothing words go bidding,
And then straightaway we'll have again the Olympian's favor.
So he spoke, and darted up before his mother and gave 'er
A two-handled goblet in hand, addressing 'er and saying:
Courage, my mother, and bear up, albeit to you it's dismaying,
Lest beloved though you be, my eyes were to witness you battered.
Come to that, I won't be able to help, even though I am shattered,
Because the Olympian is powerful in resistance.
Why, he grabbed my foot once when I was coming to your assistance,
Flung me by that from the awesome door, sent me downwardly heading;
And all through the day I fell, but when the sun was over with setting,
Hurtled into Lemnos with little life in me left surviving;
Then, having fallen, was nursed at once by the Sintian men arriving."
He spoke, and Hera the creamy-armed goddess smiled in favor,
And smiling upon her son, took from his hand the cup he gave 'er.
To all the gods left he went in right directions t'ward them,
And with dips from the wine crater the sweet-tasting nectar poured them.
Then from the lucky gods arose rabid laughter from observing
The way Hephaistos rushed about throughout the palace serving.
Thus onwards they ate all day until the setting sun was hidden;
Nor of the feast was a soul an equal share forbidden,
Nor none kept from the beautiful lyre held by Apollo,
And lovely-voiced Muses who sang replies as their turns would follow.
But later when the radient bright rays of the sun descended,
Then each one went to his own abode with sleep intended---
Homes that for all and sundry were crafted deftly in these places,
Due to Hephaistos the renowned of the limping paces.
T'ward his bed went Zeus, Olympian master of the lightning, where
Then as now he would take rest when to him sweet sleep would nightly fare.
Here he now climbed up and slept beside Hera of the golden chair.

[meddle_some]

I don't think a "justifiable" translation from Greek to English has anything to do with succeeding/failing at translating. Sure reading something will be different than listening to a performer but it's unfair to say the translations fail because of this (not to even get into the origins of the epics attributed to Homer). Also because one may consider it "boring" to read the texts is far from a translator failing. The influence and lasting power of the Odyssey gives tremendous support to the success of the tales, whether read aloud, read silenty, sang to music or whatever.

[bluevictim]

Thanks for offering your translation, dalton; I whipped up a quick translation of the first few lines of the Iliad myself in the favorite first lines thread.

I guess discussion of translations can go on forever. I agree with the points brought up by both dalton and meddle_some. I suppose any translation, especially of poetry, reflects the vision of the translator. Every translator has his own prioritization of what most needs to come through. In comparison to other Greek poetry, though, I think Homer is very translatable.

[dalton]

Enjoyed your English rendering. Reminds me of mine before I set it to rime. My task was to try be be almost as literal as you, keep the syllabic count and stress (our English stress, that is), avoid consonant clusters that would impede the flow (the last being, in my opinion, a major drawback of Pope's version) and use evocative words without reverting to archaisms. Alas, I only managed to complete the first book. I keep telling myself that one of these days I'll take up where I left off, but who am I kidding. I forget which of the many translators it was, who, asked how he enjoyed having the privilege of setting down Homer into English, replied: "Sir, I would fain spend a year in debtor's prison than to ever again be chained to that demanding master."
Perhaps your patience will prove more enduring than mine.

[bluevictim]

My task was to try be be almost as literal as you, keep the syllabic count and stress (our English stress, that is), avoid consonant clusters that would impede the flow (the last being, in my opinion, a major drawback of Pope's version) and use evocative words without reverting to archaisms.
You certainly did an admirable job. The translation is accessible and vivid. I think completing the first book is quite an accomplishment.

I have to admit that the feminine rhymes clash a bit against my own sense of Homer's Iliad, but that's just me.


Perhaps your patience will prove more enduring than mine.
Thanks for the encouragement, but I actually never intended to translate any more than the first two lines. I saw the thread about favorite first lines, and I like the opening of the Iliad so much I wanted to post it there. Even though I posted it to a public forum, I did the translation mostly as an exercise for myself, so it suffers from the lack of consideration for the reading public that you mentioned earlier.


I forget which of the many translators it was, who, asked how he enjoyed having the privilege of setting down Homer into English, replied: "Sir, I would fain spend a year in debtor's prison than to ever again be chained to that demanding master."
I'll have to remember this quote.

[dalton]

Thanks for the compliment. No, your lines are quite battle-worthy for a tentative attempt. Better than most.
I had attempted a version with the dactyl as end-rime, but after ten or twelve lines I realized that I was sacrificing meaning because of the fewer rime schemes inherent with that device. In my mind, the semantics of a translation should always be the main concern.

[Klaus Peter]

Your point seems to be that Homer is boring, and with the aid of some musical instrument, maybe even more than one, his works will become less boring. This reminds me of a friend who said that Beethoven would be less boring if his symphonies were played faster or in a modern fashion (rap, rock?). Many people find Beethoven, and even Mozart boring, but who is at fault? If you think that the great classic composers are boring, it simply means that you don´t have the ability to appreciate them, and in the case of the literary classic, it means you don´t understand the books. Many people, if pressed, will confess that they think Shakespeare boring too. Homer and Shakespeare are not at fault. Homer has been read for over two thousand years so he obviously passed the test of time. To understand any of the classics requires some intelectual commitment and a good dose of humility. -snip- Comment by moderator: Do not make derogatory personal remarks, the original poster is entitled to his or her opinion. Please read the forum rules!

[JBI]

Of course no translation will be good, and Virgil, by the way it is Robert Fagles not Fagels. His translation I feel to be one of the finest, but I agree nothing really cuts it.

You must accept it, that no other language can maintain that meter, and that accuracy, especially since our language (English) isn't supportive of that meter at all.

[storyG]

Looks like I have stumbled over this thread long after it is dead, but as the Iliad still lives so might this thread.

Having been sucked into reading the Iliad by first seeing the movie version TROY and experiencing the overwhelming hauting power of the stripped down story, it makes which translation seem a little less important. (The fleshy nature of Brad Pitt's Achilles seems to lend itself to the power of this story.) Still when I am reading I want a translation that resonates with me whose rhythyms and general energy I like, so translation is important and I want to thank folks for their opinions therewith. I am stuck with Samuel Butler's Iliad right now. I happened to find a copy of the Odyssey translated by Robert Fitzgerald laying around and I can tell right now Fitzgerald's style definitely feels better than Butler's to me. I tend to not analyze this kind of thing so much however,--it is largely intuitive to me.

Audience is a point which the movie version vs. the written word makes me see more clearly. As a bonus the movie TROY makes the Iliad accessible to the literate and semi-literate public alike. Homer not only had to entertain an audience of a variety of opinions to be popular and make a living, he undoubtable entertained kings and nobles and had to worry about offending anyone and getting his head chopped off or such. So his message, if a moral one, and I think Homer was a moral type, must be disguised in the story.

Greek God were above good and evil but that doesn't mean some concept of good and evil did not exist, however I suppose it was not too popular. The screen play of TROY, (and I think there is a novel version call TROY and that may be what the screenplay is based on), has allowed a more clearly readable moral theme: Pro-love, anti-lechery, and anti-war/violence. I can see the Gods representing the capriciousness of fate and the powers and equations of the powers that be good, evil and inbetween, largely inbetween, but they are also a huge distraction from the stripped down story, and there are other details. I thought the difference between Helen in the movie vs. Helen in the Homeric poem were interesting.

In the end, how do we know how and how much Homer was influenced by his listening public to how he shaped and editied his story? We do know Homer is not the last story teller to experience censorship from the reading/listening public and have that influence what they commercially produced.

The other problem with all Homer's smoke screens is I think they not only detract from his saintly moralist message, but they distract from the clear trajectory of the story, making the whole thing harder to follow and yes, perhaps a little boring. But this way there was something for everyone and Homer would still have his head in the morning. Dumb violent brutes would never be able to figure it out to complain.

peace,

storyG

[storyG]

Looks like I have stumbled over this thread long after it is dead, but as the Iliad still lives so might this thread.

Having been sucked into reading the Iliad by first seeing the movie version TROY and experiencing the overwhelming hauting power of the stripped down story, it makes which translation seem a little less important. (The fleshy nature of Brad Pitt's Achilles seems to lend itself to the power of this story.) Still when I am reading I want a translation that resonates with me whose rhythyms and general energy I like, so translation is important and I want to thank folks for their opinions therewith. I am stuck with Samuel Butler's Iliad right now. I happened to find a copy of the Odyssey translated by Robert Fitzgerald laying around and I can tell right now Fitzgerald's style definitely feels better than Butler's to me. I tend to not analyze this kind of thing so much however,--it is largely intuitive to me.

Audience is a point which the movie version vs. the written word makes me see more clearly. As a bonus the movie TROY makes the Iliad accessible to the literate and semi-literate public alike. Homer not only had to entertain an audience of a variety of opinions to be popular and make a living, he undoubtable entertained kings and nobles and had to worry about offending anyone and getting his head chopped off or such. So his message, if a moral one, and I think Homer was a moral type, must be disguised in the story.

Greek God were above good and evil but that doesn't mean some concept of good and evil did not exist, however I suppose it was not too popular. The screen play of TROY, (and I think there is a novel version call TROY and that may be what the screenplay is based on), has allowed a more clearly readable moral theme: Pro-love, anti-lechery, and anti-war/violence. I can see the Gods representing the capriciousness of fate and the powers and equations of the powers that be good, evil and inbetween, largely inbetween, but they are also a huge distraction from the stripped down story, and there are other details. I thought the difference between Helen in the movie vs. Helen in the Homeric poem were interesting.

In the end, how do we know how and how much Homer was influenced by his listening public to how he shaped and editied his story? We do know Homer is not the last story teller to experience censorship from the reading/listening public and have that influence what they commercially produced.

The other problem with all Homer's smoke screens is I think they not only detract from his saintly moralist message, but they distract from the clear trajectory of the story, making the whole thing harder to follow and yes, perhaps a little boring. But this way there was something for everyone and Homer would still have his head in the morning. Dumb violent brutes would never be able to figure it out to complain.

peace,

storyG