This really is an excellent discussion. I don't feel qualified to join it, but I can clear something up. Romulus the founder of Rome was decended from Aeneas through his mother Rhea sillvia.
Printable View
This really is an excellent discussion. I don't feel qualified to join it, but I can clear something up. Romulus the founder of Rome was decended from Aeneas through his mother Rhea sillvia.
Thanks for the interesting info. And why don't you feel qualified to join in? The other people are indeed pretty well-versed here, but this is the first time I've ever read the Iliad, and I can assure you I'm a complete amateur when it comes to classic literature of any sort. Hopefully I can catch up to the people on here one day, but I'm not the fastest reader so it might take me a while (for example, it took me a month [!] to finish the Iliad).Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Was there any other divine blood in the family betwen Aeneas and Romulus? Aeneas is the son of a god/goddess, although at the moment I forget which one. At least I'm pretty sure he is.
Another thing that is impressive about Hector is that he is probably the most powerful warrior in the story not to be the product of a divinity. Achilles is pretty righteous and is on another level from Hector, but he is also the son of Thetis. Odysseus is the son of Zeus. Hector, I'm pretty sure, is the greatest warrior not to be descended from a god in the story. Aias/Ajax...I forget if he is or not. But he seems to be at about Hector's level in terms of warrior skills.
I believe Romulus was in genetic line from Aeneas. Aeneas' mother was Venus/Aphrodite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir777
Yes, Hector was the product of only human parents, but his father Priam traces his roots to Zeus, however distant. Ajax the greater was also a product of human parents. I had to look that one up. :)Quote:
Another thing that is impressive about Hector is that he is probably the most powerful warrior in the story not to be the product of a divinity. Achilles is pretty righteous and is on another level from Hector, but he is also the son of Thetis. Odysseus is the son of Zeus. Hector, I'm pretty sure, is the greatest warrior not to be descended from a god in the story. Aias/Ajax...I forget if he is or not. But he seems to be at about Hector's level in terms of warrior skills.
Romulus and Remus were fathered by Mars/Ares.
Yes, but I think through their mother's line they trace back to Aeneas.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Yes, you are right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeneus - scroll down, it has the whole genealogy. Of course though, that also implies direct descent from Zeus himself, as well as the line of Troy, which, I think is used to construct a closer tie by Virgil, as a means of showing that the Trojans were sympathetic, and out of their ashes sprung the Roman greatness, to finally conquer the Greeks. The text itself is a moderate form of political propaganda, I would argue, and is certainly rooted in portraying the Roman as somehow, both ethnically and culturally, superior to the non-Roman. In that sense, he destroys the idea of the cultured Greek, by making them out to be savages, and defaming Greek heroes by portraying them as selfish killers, and praising Roman ones as honorable, communal, organized killers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
No question the romans identified with the trojans. But that doesn't mean that Homer didn't present the trojans in a positive light. I don't think he painted in black and white, Greeks good, trojans bad, or vice versa.
Oh, he didn't paint in black and white, of course - Hector is heroic, and honorable - after all, it is supposed to be the greatest battle of all time, right, so you cannot possibly have one side mediocre.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
But I think Homer makes it clear that the burning and raping of Troy is justified - I don't think he is trying to make it tragic, or make us empathize with the defeated Trojans, in perhaps the way Euripides later will - I think he is writing an Epic about the greatest war, and the greatest victory of all time. As such, the actual good and bad is defined by different terms than the way we do now.
Agamemnon, Good, Achilles, Good, Odysseus, good - we generally see all these characters as somewhat bad in there own ways - Agamemnon we see, I think as a terrible tyrant, rather than the way Homer describes him - just look at the epithets he's given - things like "God like", "Lord of men", "brilliant", and "shepherd of the people".
Even someone like Menelaus is portrayed as super-human and heroic - terms partaining to prowess in warfare are all of the highest compliment, I would wager.
The epithets used to portray the Acheans in general are all positive - things like Bronze-armored, and wide-famed. We get though less about the Trojans, the biggest one being Horse-taming, which is good, but there is no real catalogue of the Trojan ships, is there.
Our judgment on the heroic qualities of certain characters I think are anachronistic - I don't think Agamemnon is a villain, but rather a hero in the text. I don't think Achilles is in transition - I think he remains the same narcissist he is at the beginning of the book.
The whole poem to me reads more like a discussion on various forms of "arete", and the confrontation that occurs when two people so possessing of this quality collide. Agamemnon cannot submit to Achilles without losing face, whereas Achilles will not, and cannot submit to his general, without admitting that he as a warrior is subject to the control of Agamemnon, and not his own will.
Achilles is there for the glory of being the best, whereas most of the other heroes are there because of a commitment made before the war started, to defend the chosen husband of Helen, Menelaus. This then puts Achilles as a character in a rather strange place - he is only there for his own glory, and the war for him is not fought on political grounds, but rather as a vehicle for his own ego.
The war only gets personal when Patroklus gets taken out. That's the big moment of change - not that he grows up, but rather that he gets personally involved.
Troy burning, I think, is something which is celebrated, rather than lamented. Ultimately, I think of it as akin to Beowulf slaying the Dragon - it's a tale of the greatest warriors, and their defeat of their enemies - the Trojans are worse than the Greeks, are not as favored by the Gods, and therefore, Troy burns for their sacrilege.
I think we have enough to suggest, for instance, that the Trojan Horse is thought of by Homer, if we take the Odyssey as being from the same "person" or line of thought, as a great move, and something praiseworthy - the victory is considered the greatest achievement of mankind, I would argue, by Homer. This doesn't seem a culture who pities their victims, but rather celebrates their victory by massacring the men and raping the women, before composing Bardic tales of their valor and heroism on the battlefield.
I wonder if you'd care to be a little more specific. Troy was certainly portrayed as in possession of great wealth (especially Priam, but keep in mind that Menelaus was also in possession of great wealth in the Odyssey), but I don't think the Greeks were portrayed as cruder than the Trojans. Of course it was also emphasized that the Greeks were camped far from home, so naturally they would seem less civilized than the Trojans at home in their city, but I don't think there was any indication that the Greeks were inherently less sophisticated. I agree that Priam comes off as older and wiser than Agamemnon, but Priam really should be compared to the fathers of the Greeks at home than to the warriors in the field. Paris does seem more effeminate than Menelaus, but I don't think that really makes a trend. There isn't really any difference in terms of cultural sophistication between Hector, Poulydamas, Agamemnon, and Achilles. As for the gifts from Priam for ransoming Hector's body, they don't seem to be any more sophisticated than Achilles' prizes for the funeral games of Patroclus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I wonder if you can figure out exactly what the commentator said? As I noted before, later Greeks did portray the Trojans as Eastern aliens (who were seen as more effeminate), but I don't believe the Iliad itself does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir777
Your general outline of pre-classical Greece is largely correct. There are some correspondences between the culture that Homer describes and the Mycenaeans, and there are some features that would be hard to explain if they didn't come down from the Mycenaeans, but of course there are also many discrepancies between Homer's world and the Mycenaeans. The Mycenaeans had a system of writing, but they were suddenly wiped out, and a "Dark Age" ensued, during which no literary evidence was left until the eighth century BC; the culture depicted in the Homeric poems correspond more to this period. By the eighth century, the Greeks had adopted the Phoenician alphabet and a "renaissance" had started which led to the archaic age.Quote:
I also remember reading that the Trojans were supposed to represent part of a misty past even in Homer's age, the Mycenean Age, which apparently had writing which was lost in the "Greek Dark Age" (of which Homer came on the tail end--I suppose he was the beginning of the Archaic Age?).
I agree that the Iliad would probably not be nearly as compelling if there was no Hector for Achilles to face, but I think the role of the Trojans was much more than merely to be a sufficiently formidable foe. From their introduction with Helen in book 3 to the glimpse of Hector's family in book 6 to the anguish of Zeus over Sarpedon's death in book 16, to the conclusion of the poem with Hector's funeral rites, the Iliad is clearly interested in making the audience sympathize with the Trojans.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
You seem to be insisting that it is impossible for the Greeks to empathize with the Trojans while at the same time identifying with their Achaean ancestors. I don't see why that should be the case. For Homer's audience, the events of the Iliad were in the far distant past. They were certainly well enough removed to think critically about stories set in the Trojan War, just as we're able to think critically about the injustice that Native Americans faced while at the same time appreciative of the westward expansion (and those events didn't take place very long ago at all). Indeed, we find criticism of Greek actions in the epic cycle, as well. The rape of Cassandra by Locrian Ajax is described in Iliou Persis, for example. In the Iliad itself, it is made clear that the gods were offended by Achilles' treatment of Hector's corpse.Quote:
But I think Homer makes it clear that the burning and raping of Troy is justified
This is not true. Trojans are also given positive epithets like "god-like" and "brilliant".Quote:
... just look at the epithets he's given - things like "God like", "Lord of men", "brilliant", and "shepherd of the people".
...
The epithets used to portray the Acheans in general are all positive - things like Bronze-armored, and wide-famed. We get though less about the Trojans, the biggest one being Horse-taming,
It would certainly be odd for there to be a catalog of Trojan ships when they are being sieged in their own city. There is a catalog of Trojan forces in book 2.Quote:
which is good, but there is no real catalogue of the Trojan ships, is there.
Bluevictim- You have touched on another factor to consider, that is editorial intent (as opposed to authorial intent.) Taking the tradition that the Illiad was composed in the oral by Homer, and copied down in a standardised form at the behest of Pisistratus, first tryrant of Athens. ( Some people credit the reintroduction of written Greek, on the desire to write down the Illiad.) It may be that Pisistratus' motives were entirley altruistic, but looking at his career I doubt it. He knew the value of the traditions and legends of former Greek glory, and how to use them.
The obvious message of Greeks overcoming a powerful, sophisticated enemy when they are united behind their leader , and being soundly beaten when divided, is the kind of 'spin' we still hear today from polititical leaders.
Without the text on my finger tips that will not be easy. It is my impression that the Trojans come across as more sophisticated. They are associated with Apollo and he sends a terrible plague in the very first book after a huge religious infraction by the rough and uncouth Greeks. The trojans seem to honor the gods, have priests, reflect on their children and wives. But I leave you with a passage from Tennyson's "Ulysses" to illustrate he thinks along the same lines. Ullyses has returned home after his twenty year travails of war and journey. Here are the openning lines:Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
After such a journey and meeting all sorts of people, including the Trojans, he charactrerizes his own Ithacains as a "savage race". And later,Quote:
It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.
And that the job of his kingship is "to make mild a rugged people." I think Tennyson read it the same.Quote:
This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the scepter and the isle—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
It's an interesting suggestion, that Peisistratus chose to make definitive versions of the Homeric poems for their value as pro-tyrant propaganda, or perhaps even redacted or revised the poems to increase their value as pro-tyrant propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
I don't find the hypothesis very compelling, though. The Iliad would be very problematic as a pro-tyrant work. It's hero defies the leader of the Greeks, and the leader is often represented as a bungler that easily loses heart. The Greeks do not overcome the Trojans by uniting behind their leader, but by supporting the cause of a warrior rebelling against the leader. There is very little evidence about the nature of the Peisistratid recension and its relation to the origins of a fixed Homeric text. It seems unsound to rely on speculation about the nature of the Peisistratid recension to make conclusions about interpretation of the Homeric poems.
I agree that there is no reason to believe Peisistratus' support of the arts was purely altruistic, but editorial interference is not necessary to strengthen national unity by promoting the arts.
I agree that my post was mainly speculation. But when I see a political leader as highly regarded by posterity as Pisistratus, I cynically jump to the conclusion that he controlled the media.
But back to the thread subject. I too can't help feeling strong sympathy towards the Trojans. As well as being the only character to come up to the modern idea of a hero, Hector is the only one who displays what I understand to be arete:- that is all round personal excellence subordinated to the good of his people.
Would these qualities have counted for anything in Homers time? Or is it later, in the time of democracy, that the concept of Arete was formed?
bluevictim, I will try to find where that quote is about the Trojans being more "civilized." It might take me a bit to find it, but I'll look.