Epic Poetry

If you are looking for national unity, do not look for it in The Iliad. That is a story about an uneasy alliance of warring tribes. Don't take my word for it. Take Thucydides':

Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common action in Hellas, nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. The best proof of this is furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan War, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they are called Danaans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. - The History of the Peloponnesian War, Chapter 1, Richard Crawley translation, http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/p...r.1.first.html

As for The Faerie Queene not being complete at it's author's death, The Aeneid ends with Turnus' execution only because Virgil died before completing his poem. He asked his friends to throw it into the fire because it wasn't finished and he didn't want people to see it that way. There's a very thorough analysis of the ending here if you'd like to read it.

I never said national unity. I said national identity.

What Virgil said. And though the Aeneid was never finished, it still is coherent, and has a consistent plot. The Faerie queen does not.

And, it is not as if that essay you linked to is the definitive work on the subject. I don't think he even comes to a conclusion about the ending in his essay, since it seems to end more abruptly than the Aeneid does.

Unity or identity, The Iliad is not nationalistic. You have to wait for The Aeneid to get that sort of thing. The alliance of various tribes in the Iliad resembles The Axis and Allied forces in WW2, The Crusaders, or NATO more than two nations at war. There is a common purpose or goal without a common identity. The Argives for the most part lead the invasion force, but they do not rule the other Greeks. I think this is demonstrated pretty readily by the way Achilles stands up to Agamemnon, denies him his men, and refuses to fight.

After the fall of Troy, the individual groups split up and go back to their respective homes. Then they renew old grudges and make war upon each other. The concept of national identity is something that really has to be worked out after the fact, the way Virgil did, writing centuries after his country's unification. One has to remember that Italy proper, as it stands today wasn't unified in Dante's own time. Instead, Dante's world was a series of warring city states, frequently subjugated by foreign powers; so he enobles Florence and looks back to a time of Empire when the Roman's ruled everything. He sees himself as Roman or Florentine, not Italian. As for Homer, it's hard to write with a national identity when you don't have a nation yet. Greece doesn't become homogeneous until Alexander the Great finishes conquering it in 336 BC.

We aren't concerned with the unity of the tribes, but are more concerned with Arete. Look it up if you don't know what it means. The Iliad is not about the Greek victory over troy, it is about a fight that Achilles had with Agamemnon during the 9th year of the war.

Looks like there's an interesting exchange going on here. Certainly the celebration of a certain culture or nation is an important element of epic, but it is a much more complex topic than it seems at first glance. Mortal Terror brings up a good point in saying both that culture is never as monolithic and defined as a simple look at history might indicate, and that it would be hard to have a national epic before having nations. On the other hand JBI, is certainly right that epics seek to celebrate some sort of unified values, and often these are tied to the cultural group the hero comes from.

Quote:

---

We aren't concerned with the unity of the tribes, but are more concerned with Arete. Look it up if you don't know what it means. The Iliad is not about the Greek victory over troy, it is about a fight that Achilles had with Agamemnon during the 9th year of the war.

---

Doesn't this blend the two views you and Mortal Terror have been presenting? At the same time as Arete is a term specific to a certain culture and time, doesn't it also point to a larger and more universal ideal? We could say that Homer celebrates Greek Arete, that Virgil celebrates Roman Virtu, that Dante and Milton celebrate Christian Virtue. Though all of these terms--Arete, Virtu, Virtue--have different valances of meaning specific to their historical and cultural setting, they also all have something in common in that they are to describe man striving for an ideal. Though they start in different places, one could say that this ideal reaches a common place and speaks in common, not to just one culture but to many.

Perhaps we might think of this further in terms of the last part of your comment, in which you point out that the Illiad is not really about the campaign of the Greeks in Troy, but about a quarrel between two men. This suggests that the focus of the work is not concerned as much with a nation as with a set of individuals. This in turn has the power to move the poem to the level at which it speaks, not just to people who identify with being a member of the Greek army, but to people who identify with ever having had a quarrel with a friend or being at the point of exhaustion after a long fight.

My, I had no idea that my thoughts of epic poetry's modern absence would cause such an epic discussion. I am a mortal amongst gods here. Haha.

No, the fight always links to Arete. Agamemnon doesn't wish to appear as someone who is yielding (to in this case Achilles, since he is the only one who told him to return the girl to her father, and appease Apollo). Because of this, he takes Briseis, Achilles' prize, as a means of retaining his Arete, and therefore not seeming weak in front of his men. Achilles therefore is offended and withdraws from the fight, to which Agamemnon says essentially, "We don't need you, go, stay in your tent." But this is not enough, Achilles needs to be wanted, he begs his mother, who begs Zeus, to make the Trojans win the conflict, now that it has commenced again. In this way, Achilles becomes needed, and is eventually honored more than any fighter, after his feuds with Hector, a man who also possesses a great deal of Arete.

Even the armor seems to reflect these ideals. After Patroklus is slain, Hector dawns Achilles' armor, which he removed from the corpse. Within the next seen we see a transformation in Hector, to the point where he actually manages to scare his own son. The armor seems to echo his accomplishments, and his perceived Arete.

This leads Achilles to petition his mother to have Hephaestus forge him a new set, in which Homer goes to extraordinary length in describing, especially the shield. This is the same set that later Ajax would fight over, and eventually kill himself over.

The whole story is not even about a fight, as much as it is about the perceived image of Arete. All actions in the plot stem from a desire to gain a higher spot on the Arete metre, amongst the soldiers.

O.K., let's say that we're interpreting the Iliad in terms of Arete as you suggest. Why does this interpretation mean that epic, as you've been claiming, functions solely as a means of speaking for a particular culture? To be completely clear, I am not trying to claim that the work is not profoundly involved in speaking for the culture it sprang from or in celebrating ideals in a way that is particular to a certain culture and time. I doubt most people would deny that this is a feature of most epic literature. I am trying to suggest some additional modes of interpretation which highlight other, equally important features of the epic genre. In my comment above I was not trying to suggest that Arete is not an important theme throughout the poem; I was trying to suggest that the concept of Arete itself takes the story to a more universal level that in many places transcends the culture it is specific to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proust71

My, I had no idea that my thoughts of epic poetry's modern absence would cause such an epic discussion. I am a mortal amongst gods here. Haha.

---

Well, epic is an endlessly fascinating subject (then, as a Medieval/Renaissance scholar perhaps I'm just a tad prejudice in that regard :p ). A mortal? Nay, we have a nice seat set by for you here on Olympus. :D

JBI, I see what you are saying here about arete, but I think you are using arete and the concept of kleos interchangeably. Arete, as I understand it has several meanings, 1)Goodness or Excellence, 2)Self-Actualization, 3)Virtue, 4)as a type of code, like chivalry requiring deeds or a quest component. Kleos would be the Greek equivalent of glory, and everlasting fame. While I believe that many epic heroes strive for an ideal, to become the best that they can be, that they embody certain virtues and often compete in feats of strength; I also believe that Agamemnon and Achilles clash over their kleos. Agamemnon has to give back his trophies so he takes Achilles' trophies. Agamemnon wants the kleos of leading the greatest force of all time. Achilles wants the kleos of being the greatest soldier of all time. There's also the fact that Agamemnon is a wealthy king and all Achilles has is his kleos, which he's already chosen to sacrifice his own life to attain. That's the conflict.

I also think it would be a mistake to leave hamartia (an error in judgement), hubris (excessive pride or arrogance, usually leading to ruin), and the tragic flaw out of a discussion of Greek epic. Our heroes are not perfected human beings. They have weaknesses. They make errors, and one can wonder if they ever achieve true Aristotelean arete.

While I agree that arete, and kleos are often components of the epic, I don't know that they are exclusive to the epic. If we are still trying to define the limits and boundaries of epic, we must look to other factors. I don't think that subject matter, or handling of a subject will do that. If we are to define a type of writing, I think it should be done from a structural point of view, and not necessarily with what concepts it incorporates. Subject matter is the stuff of genre, but I'm not sure that epic isn't more a series of techniques, or a form. Romance novels, and sci-fi novels are still novels, but there are differences between a three act play, a five act play, and a one act play. Very specific things are meant by the term sonnet, as opposed to a lyric. Then you have well defined variations between Petrarchan, Shakespearean, and Spenserian sonnets. Set descriptions of length, rhyme scheme, and meter dominate the definition in these cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proust71

My, I had no idea that my thoughts of epic poetry's modern absence would cause such an epic discussion. I am a mortal amongst gods here. Haha.

---

As a fellow mortal, I'll venture some of my thoughts, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

I think Virgil has a good point about fantasy being the modern realm for epic because of an unease about fixing certain kinds of cultural ideals about empire, nobility etc. in a real world place. Given Virgil's hypothesis about the rise of democracy, I wonder if we can make anything of the fact that what many regard as the last English epic, Paradise Lost, is written in the wake of Cromwell's republic? Could the political context also be one reason (certainly not the reason) for setting the epic in Paradise (which, like fantasy settings, is not a real place and nation) and for making it a work that makes every Christian a potential hero?

---

There are two points here that I'd like to address. First, I'm not convinced that (as Virgil put it) it is "impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms" because "cynicism ... undermines whatever the reason for being of an epic." Second, I think fantasy and science fiction lack a very important element of epic poetry -- its nonfictional aspect.

As to the first point, I think there are plenty of national / cultural norms in American (just to use a specific example) society that an epic can draw from. Not only that, there are plenty of national heroic tales that can be made into an American epic. There is no shortage of heroic stories of the exploration of America, the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War, the Wild West, the World Wars, or the space race which capture many important cultural ideals of Americans that cynicism has done little to weaken. This is evidenced by the success of many movies about these tales, like Jeremiah Johnson, Tombstone, or The Right Stuff. More evidence of the existence and strength of cultural norms can be found in political rhetoric, but that's off limits for discussion here.

My second point is related to the first -- I think it's important to keep in mind the nonfictional aspect of epic poetry. In other words, fantasy is a poor choice (in my opinion) as a modern realm for epic. I don't think the story of Adam and Eve was any less real to Milton than the Trojan War was to Homer. Epic poetry is not escapist literature, and it does not work as a product of an individual with an exceptional mind (in my opinion). Maybe my point here is related to JBI's insistence on cultural relevance (although I'm not very clear on what he is trying to say). I think it is important that Homer's gods and heroes fit into, and participate in, the existing world of gods and heroes as his audience understood it, and that Milton's Satan, Adam, Eve, God the Father, and God the Son are to be identified with the Satan, Adam, etc. of his audience's belief. I do not mean to say that imagination and invention are not crucial elements of epic poetry, but I do think that it would lose a great deal of its power if it were independent of its larger cultural context.


I do agree with this sentiment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

People are always going to have need of epic stories. They crave having common tales to tell and refer to, heroes to look up to, and some sort of larger narrative that celebrates the virtues and beliefs of their age.

---

As I said, I don't think fantasy fulfills these needs. A little closer to the spirit of epic (in my opinion) are popular history books, especially now that many authors are giving up the pretense of objectivity, or the kind of movie I mentioned above.

Quote:

---

There are two points here that I'd like to address. First, I'm not convinced that (as Virgil put it) it is "impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms" because "cynicism ... undermines whatever the reason for being of an epic." Second, I think fantasy and science fiction lack a very important element of epic poetry -- its nonfictional aspect.

As to the first point, I think there are plenty of national / cultural norms in American (just to use a specific example) society that an epic can draw from. Not only that, there are plenty of national heroic tales that can be made into an American epic. There is no shortage of heroic stories of the exploration of America, the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War, the Wild West, the World Wars, or the space race which capture many important cultural ideals of Americans that cynicism has done little to weaken. This is evidenced by the success of many movies about these tales, like Jeremiah Johnson, Tombstone, or The Right Stuff. More evidence of the existence and strength of cultural norms can be found in political rhetoric, but that's off limits for discussion here.

---

Glad to see you joining the discussion Blue. I agree with you that there are still plenty of national narratives around, and I also don't entirely agree with the comments on this thread that it's impossible to create something that celebrates national norms these days. I do still think that Virg. was possibly bringing up a good point in suggesting that democracy problematizes some traditional features of epic, most obviously the celebration of a noble class of warrior. American national stories like to base themselves on the premise of celebrating the "common man" (even when it is an uncommon man, we love to find common roots for him). This does mean a shift in the kind of epic stories that can be told and the way they will be told. I am, however, with you in that I see no reason why America couldn't have it's own kind of epic as well as anyone else.

I also think people on this thread have been right to point out that, particularly within the last hundred years or so, there's also been a significant shift toward a more global culture, and that there is some sense that explicitly celebrating empire is not going to fly. I find this aspect of our current age very interesting and exciting in terms of the type of epic stories it could potentially produce. Perhaps, though, we should say that this is simply a new additional factor in our current age, and not one that necessarily obliterates the possibility of a work that identifies with one particular nation or culture.

Quote:

---

My second point is related to the first -- I think it's important to keep in mind the nonfictional aspect of epic poetry. In other words, fantasy is a poor choice (in my opinion) as a modern realm for epic. I don't think the story of Adam and Eve was any less real to Milton than the Trojan War was to Homer. Epic poetry is not escapist literature, and it does not work as a product of an individual with an exceptional mind (in my opinion). Maybe my point here is related to JBI's insistence on cultural relevance (although I'm not very clear on what he is trying to say). I think it is important that Homer's gods and heroes fit into, and participate in, the existing world of gods and heroes as his audience understood it, and that Milton's Satan, Adam, Eve, God the Father, and God the Son are to be identified with the Satan, Adam, etc. of his audience's belief. I do not mean to say that imagination and invention are not crucial elements of epic poetry, but I do think that it would lose a great deal of its power if it were independent of its larger cultural context.


I do agree with this sentiment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love View Post
People are always going to have need of epic stories. They crave having common tales to tell and refer to, heroes to look up to, and some sort of larger narrative that celebrates the virtues and beliefs of their age.
As I said, I don't think fantasy fulfills these needs. A little closer to the spirit of epic (in my opinion) are popular history books, especially now that many authors are giving up the pretense of objectivity, or the kind of movie I mentioned above.

---

With this second point, I can only partially agree. First, I do think that you're pointing to something important by saying that epic literature is usually rooted in fact in some essential way. I think you're absolutely right that there is supposed to be a level on which the audience feels that they are being tied to a true story of their culture or religion. (Also, lest one of my previous comments be misconstrued, I did not intend to suggest that Milton intended the story of Paradise Lost to be a fantasy, merely that his approach to telling the story has some features in common with a fantasy tradition--more on this below). So, you bring up a good point, but to suggest that history books (even popular and well written ones) could function as epic is to miss the profound importance of both fiction and elements of the fantastical that are intrinsic to the epic tradition. If popular history could replace the function of epic, then we could all throw out our Virgil and read Livy instead.

Your comments about non-fiction in epic do seem to helpfully open up a possibly productive way of discussing some of JBI's concern about cultural relevance. The element of fantasy also points to a generic distinction between what one might call "straight" epic and the genre of epic romance, which in turn helps to explain where the Faerie Queene belongs in all this, as well as the reasons fantasy may not be an entirely unexpected inheritor of epic tradition. I'm a bit wary of overburdening this thread with a detailed exploration of all this, since some may be uninterested and others already knowledgeable, so I think I'll do a blog entry on a brief history of epic fantasy and epic versus romance, and just link it here for any interested parties.

Edit: Here's a link to my blog on the subject: http://www.online-literature.com/for...941&entry=5247 I ended up just scratching the surface of the start of the epic/fantasy connection with regard to Homer, but if there's interest I may continue it up through the development of romance etc. Anyway, the entry may contain some thoughts of interest to this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluevictim

There are two points here that I'd like to address. First, I'm not convinced that (as Virgil put it) it is "impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms" because "cynicism ... undermines whatever the reason for being of an epic." ...As to the first point, I think there are plenty of national / cultural norms in American (just to use a specific example) society that an epic can draw from. Not only that, there are plenty of national heroic tales that can be made into an American epic.

---

Agreed. I didn't say that cynacism was the only reason for the decline of the epic. There are other major reasons I think as well.

First of all, the enlightenment movement, post Milton, where science becomes the over riding conceptual framework of society. With science we end mythologizing (so that even religion has to work within the science framework or be scoffed at), and mythologizing framework provides author with a touchstone for grandising heros. Science has made all people human, and so Achilles is imposibble and Aeneas and Beowulf unlikely. And their exploits as well. Related to this is the obvious fact that man is quite limited in scope to the cosmic forces, and therefore has a smaller and smaller scale.

Second, whatever caused literature to evolve further and further into realism, (perhaps because of that first point I just made) undermined the epic tradition as well. Realism is about every day things, a de-mystifying of super human accomplishment. Heros of the past looked greater. In fact all the epics prior to Milton that I can think of all occured in a heoric past. Homer wrote in 7th century BC while the events occurred at least four hundred years earlier. Same with the Aeneid and also with Beowulf. Epic writers have traditionally removed the setting to a non-contemporary time.

I think both of these points support the fact that fantasy lit is still the only viable medium for epic. Fantasy suspends or alters the rules of science and removes the story from a realism mode.

I don't think science really killed it. You look at epics such as The Lay of the Cid, which has essentially no magic, and you realize that magic isn't a requirement, but just a reoccurring thing amongst pre-enlightenment society. It is possible to have an epic based purely on semi-factual information, all of which being possible in our society. The only problem is the culture identity needs to believe this story as an epic, or critics down the road need to.

I think if you compare the epic to the post-apocalyptic genre, you may see some of the effects science has had on imaginative literature. I think, had someone written an American epic about post-nuclear society during the cold war, it perhaps may have taken.