Trading Places (and Things)

Many scholars of Homeric Epic like to argue whether or not the Iliad depicts any historical accuracy from the Bronze Age. Was there really a Troy ruled by Priam? Was there ever a Trojan War? How accurate are the depictions of traditions and culture within the epic in regards to the historical context into which they are placed? Scholars will debate back and forth about the historical value of the text, but one historical component within the epic that is perhaps possible to authenticate is that of trade. Although it is only mentioned a handful of times in the epic, the information could be useful to determine historical accuracy, and possibly historical insight, into Mediterranean trade during the Bronze Age.

Trade is mentioned in a few different places in the poem. It is mentioned casually as if the activity of trade is not novel, and the poem even portrays wealthy trade centers, such as Egypt (9.392-94). We catch a glimpse into an economics of trade: a bartering system, specific goods that are exchanged (7.486-89), trade routes (7.481-2), as well as trade frequency (9.73-75).

What are the implications of the inclusion of trade in the epic? Trade tends to leave behind archaeological evidence of all sorts. If scholars are searching to validate any historical accuracy within the Iliad, they must simply look for clues about trade from the Bronze Age. What evidence, if any, of Bronze Age trade do we have? Was the type of trade depicted in the epic possible during that era? Were the trade centers mentioned in the Iliad actually trade centers at the time of the supposed war? 

Trade mentioned within the Iliad will in no way validate the historical accuracy of the epic as a whole. However, it could validate one specific piece of historical representation, and in turn possibly shed light onto the characteristics of Bronze Age Mediterranean trade culture. 

Pledge: Michaela Knipp

A Modern Form of Taunting Poetry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh9LGytJOHk

Uma Thurman as Hera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujqoQ6V_kl0

Diomedes: A True Hero?

Although Achilles' wrath is the central focus of the poem, Diomedes is the key fighter for the first third of the Iliad. When Achilles goes to sulk in his tent after Agamemnon dishonored him by taking Achilles' war booty away from him, Diomedes had to step up and become the hero the Greeks needed. Diomedes shares many similar and different qualities to Achilles, who is believed to be the hero of the Iliad. Diomedes is not as good of a warrior as Achilles, but he can still face a god on the battlefield which isn't too bad either. He is a valiant soldier who is not overcome with hubris and has respect for his commander Agamemnon and the gods. Achilles is driven by his wrath and hubris, with it often coming in conflict with his position during the war. Achilles does not agree with Agamemnon and does not hide his displeasure in Agamemnon's ruling over the Greeks. Diomedes respects his leaders because he knows that is his job as a soldier of Greece. When Agamemnon "taunts" the Greek soldiers in order to rise them up, Odysseus gets angry and yells at Agamemnon for insulting his honor, but when Agamemnon tries the same thing with Diomedes, Diomedes takes it with humility because he respects Agamemnon's position of authority.
Throughout Books V and VI, Diomedes goes through an aristeia and shows many of the same talents of Achilles. Diomedes becomes the hero the Greeks needed in time of Achilles' absence; killing many Trojans, wounded even the gods, and shows courage and wisdom throughout the battle. Diomedes even shows mercy towards few on the battle field, a feat Achilles would not be able to do. Diomedes shows the characteristics of a true hero, even though Achilles obtains the majority of the fame from the Iliad. Diomedes respects his leaders, has the ability to show mercy and humility, and is a talented warrior. Diomedes is the true hero of the Iliad. 

Different Portrayals of Common Women in the Iliad and The Epic of Gilgamesh

This post will focus on specifically differences between The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad. Of course, there are a myriad of differences between the two poems, but as this is but a single post and not a full-fledged paper, I will only focus on the different roles between common women in Gilgamesh and the Iliad. It is important to note that by “common” women I mean non-elite and non-divine women. In Gilgamesh we are quickly introduced to Shamhat, a temple prostitute that is sent into the wildness to sleep with Enkidu the Wildman. By sleeping with Shamhat, Enkidu is no longer accepted by the wild animals and is forced to join civilization and travel to Uruk, the city where Gilgamesh is king. Once Enkidu and Gilgamesh meet they become fast friends. The rest of the epic is a compilation of several different adventures which Enkidu and Gilgamesh undergo together. Towards the end of the epic Enkidu is chosen to die by the gods for a wrong which he and Gilgamesh committed together. On his death bed, Enkidu curses Shamhat for taking him to Uruk, and, thus, subconsciously leading him to his death (39). What happens next is extremely interesting, Shamash, a god which is revered by Enkidu and Gilgamesh throughout the epic, protects Shamhat from Enkidu’s curse. Shamash tells Enkidu that he must not curse Shamhat, for had it not been for her, Enkidu would have never traveled to Uruk and consequently would have never become friends with Gilgamesh the king.  A friendship which led to Enkidu’s lavishly exquisite lifestyle and fame.

In the Iliad, not only are common women rarely mentioned but they are never positively credited with being the cause of someone’s fame or kingly lifestyle. Moreover, they are never protected or singled out by any gods. In book one of the Iliad the only common women mentioned are those which Agamemnon and Achilles have as prizes. When these women are referenced they are most commonly referred to as inanimate objects, “a prize,” nothing more. In Gilgamesh, not only is Shamhat, a temple prostitute, singled out and protected by a god, but she is even blessed by Enkidu on his death bed. Thus, a prostitute, a most lowly position for any woman, is praised more in The Epic of Gilgamesh than any common woman or even noble woman, for that matter, in the Iliad. Of course a different case can be made for the goddesses of the Iliad, but those women are divinities. And the argument can be made that even Shamhat, a lowly prostitute, is more highly praised in Gilgamesh, than most goddesses are in the Iliad.  For most of the goddesses in the Iliad are portrayed as haughty and immature, but that is an argument for another time.

In closing, it must be made clear that I know nothing about Sumerian culture. All I know is that which I have read in The Epic of Gilgamesh. But if I had to guess, I would speculate that women were viewed with a little more magnitude and positivity in Sumerian culture than in ancient Greek culture. After all, I do know a lot about ancient Greek attitudes towards women, and it is no mistake that the ancient Greeks came up with the word “misogyny.” Ancient Greek culture viewed women quiet negatively; consequently it is no accident that the Iliad, an epic poem that reflects ancient Greek Culture, supports such negative portrayals of women.

Deaths in the Iliad - Infographic!

http://greekmythcomix.wordpress.com/comic/deaths-in-the-iliad-a-classics-infographic/

The Odysseus Metaphor

There are many metaphors and similes throughout Homer's Iliad. Some are italicized and some are not. This, of course, is completely up to the translator. These metaphors or similes allow the audience to gain some knowledge of the character the metaphor describes or, in other cases, allows the audience to more easily picture a scene based on a more common image. For example, in Book 3 Homer writes that the older Trojans sat on the wall and the reader should, "Think of cicadas perched on a branch, their delicate voices shrill in the woods." (3.178-179). This gives the audience an idea of how the old counselors sounded. In addition, a very famous simile regarding Menelaus also occurs in Book 3. Menelaus is described as feeling "as a lion must feel when he finds the carcass of a stag or wild goat, and, half-starving, consumes it greedily even though hounds and hunters are swarming down on him." (3. 28-31). This simile comparing Menelaus to a lion seems to demonstrate his strength, ferocity, and magnificence as one of the greater Greek heroes. 

One of my favorite similes that I have come across so far, however, regards Odysseus. This simile is easy to miss, as Lombardo did not italicize it. In this instance Odysseus is said to be "roaming the ranks like a ram, that's it, just like a thick-fleeced ram striding through a flock of silvery sheep." (3. 210-212). This comparison is very foretelling for Odysseus. It foreshadows or references the encounter with the Cyclops Polyphemus in the Homeric epic The Odyssey. Odysseus escapes from the Cyclops' cave by clinging to the underbelly of a ram. This adventure in The Odyssey is yet another demonstration of Odysseus' cleverness. This simile in The Iliad, however, is a demonstration of Homer's (or the author's) cleverness. The audience would have probably recognized this foreshadowing because they would have been familiar with the story of Odysseus and the Cyclops. 

Denis O'Hare's Interview

Here is the link to the podcast with Denis O'Hare talking about his one-man show, An Iliad: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/05/06/iliad

He's got a very interesting take on Homer, as he conceives the poet for the show...

Heroic Faults

            The Epic of Gilgamesh begins in this way: “The story of him who knew the most of all men know; who made the journey; heartbroken; reconciled…who went to the end of the earth, and over; who returned, and wrote the story on a tablet of stone” (Ferry, 3). This introduction reveals that the hero himself, Gilgamesh, wrote the story that is being told. It is easy to look over these first few lines, to skim through them thoughtlessly, eager to reach the larger story within. However, hidden within these opening stanzas may be the key to understanding what a hero embodied in the Babylonian world of the twenty-seventy century B.C.E.

            Gilgamesh is described in the beginning of the epic as both loved and feared. His people are simultaneously awed and frightened of his power: “There was no withstanding the aura or power of the Wild Ox Gilgamesh. Neither the father’s son nor the wife of the noble; neither the mother’s daughter nor the warrior’s bride was safe” (Ferry, 4). What is interesting about this depiction of the hero is that, as the introduction suggests, it was written by the hero himself. Gilgamesh admits that his people feared and resented him, that they prayed to the gods to subdue his power in some way. Throughout the epic, Gilgamesh admits his fear of death, failing the sleep challenge miserably, and his loss of the plant of youth. The hero in this Sumerian epic is able to admit his flaws.

            I am curious what this may imply about the Babylonian hero of this era. In later epics, and even in literature today, admitting defeat rarely happens. The hero has to look strong and all knowing, and overall immune from mistakes. But in Gilgamesh, the hero openly speaks about his failures, and there is no implication that this equals weakness, or that it makes him any less of a hero. I am left wondering if the character of Gilgamesh and his ability to admit his shortcomings embodies what Babylonian society of this time deemed heroic.

The Anti-Hero

One thing that caught my interest while I was reading Books 2 and 3 of the Iliad for class this week was the introduction of the Anti-Hero. While reading and analyzing Homeric Epics (or any epics for that matter) we almost always discuss the question, "what makes a hero?". The majority of soldiers in the armies (Greek or Trojan) are not heroes in the epic sense of the word. Not to say they are not brave and well-trained, they are just ordinary people as opposed to "heroes" like Achilles or Odysseus. There must be, however, a way of distinguishing not only a hero from everyone else but an anti-hero from everyone else as well.

I noticed that each side, Greek and Trojan, has an anti-hero that is mentioned in Books 2 and 3. For the Greeks this person is Thersites. Homer describes this man as "a blathering fool and a rabble rouser" (2.232-231) and a man who constantly insults the heroic leaders of the Grecian army in a crazy attempt to get the rest of the army to laugh at them. Even his appearance is so opposite that of the great Homeric heroes, "he was also the ugliest soldier at the siege of Troy, bowlegged, walked with a limp, his shoulders slumped over his caved in-chest, and up top scraggly fuzz sprouted on his pointy head" (2.236-239). Everyone dislikes him including Achilles, Odysseus, and the other men. This is obvious when Odysseus strikes him over the head for being a coward and insulting Agamemnon and the entire Greek army laughs at him.

On the other side of the battlefield the man who appears to be an anti-hero (at least in Book 3) is Paris. Paris is not as great an anti-hero as Thersites is for the Greeks though. It becomes clear from the moment the audience first is introduced to him that he is a coward. He stands in front of the Trojan army flaunting himself until he notices Menelaus about to come attack him for stealing Helen. Paris, "turned milky when he saw him coming on, and he faded back into the Trojan troops with cheeks...pale"  (3.37-39). In addition, the Trojan army does not seem very fond of Paris. They seem to see him as a "womanizing pretty boy" (3.45). They would be more than happy to turn him over to the Greeks when he flees to go sleep with Helen after his duel with Menelaus.

Although Paris and Thersites are two very different kinds of Anti-Heroes they are both non-heroes at this point and still worse than the average Greek or Trojan soldier. Something about their behavior makes them unlikable to their comrades and this very explicit dislike suggests the true qualities that are valued in the society of the time period.