Read Aristophanes, Lysistrata, lines 167-83, ‘CALONICE: Well, if that’s what you both think ... LAMPITO: ... we are ready to swear.’ Consider the above passage in no more than 500 words:
(i) Briefly provide its context;
(ii) Consider how far this passage, while at first sight appearing to be written for comic effect, nevertheless has serious issues underlying it.
This passage is taken from the prologue of Lysistrata by Aristophanes. It occurs before the parodos, the entrance of the chorus on stage. Lysistrata has outlined her plan to the Greek women gathered around her¬ – ¬“we must abstain from – cock and balls” (124). It is an important exchange between Lysistrata, the Athenian, and Lampito, the Spartan. The passage ends with the all-important pledging of the oath to enforce the plan. The two leading women also encourage each other, in a kind of friendly rivalry, to demonstrate their power over their respective menfolk. Further, challenged by Lampito, Lysistrata pledges herself to a practical political act – the seizure of the Acropolis, i.e. physically to block access to the temple that houses the state treasury.
The comic effect of the passage stems from the absurdity of the exchange. That women should be able, through sexual abstinence, to provoke peace is clearly a fantasy. The humour thus stems from the apparent seriousness of what is said, including the pledging of an oath, with the very shaky premise of the play. As is clear from the exchange, the immediate issue at stake is the apparently never ending conflict with Sparta. The war has exhausted both human and material resources on both sides. Furthermore, the structure of Athenian democracy itself has become increasingly under threat, following the disastrous Sicilian expedition (BHAG, p.213-17). The return of the tyranny of Hippias is often trailed as a threat (Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 619). The second and more central issue, from the point of view of the comedy, is the unprecedented political role played by the women of Athens and Sparta. The comedy may seem to the males of the audience as a pure fantasy given the traditionally subservient role of women during that period (OCCC p.777, BHAG pp. 157-161). He cleverly chooses the one instance of communal power the women did have in 5th century Athens, viz their specific role in all-women religious ceremonies (such as the Greek festivals of Aphrodite and Demeter that involved sexual humour, OCCC p.779) to drive the point home and this is confirmed by the fact that “the over-age women have instructions [...] to seize the Acropolis under pretence of making a sacrifice” (176-9). Lysistrata herself reminds her audience of such gatherings in the opening lines of the play (Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 1-2). Aristophanes does this specifically to counter the otherwise preposterous premise of the play. At this point, to see the play as in any way a proto-feminist tract would be a serious misreading because the real power the women wield in it is entirely based on their sexuality such as in the scene between Cinesias and Myrrhine (Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 829-1013). A third issue lies in the deprecation of Athens in the mouth of Lampito: “how is one going to persuade that riffraff not to act barmy?” (170-1). On a superficial level, of course, this statement illustrates what the Spartans typically think of the democratic Athenians. But that Aristophanes should make such a side-comment in his play is revealing of a certain loss of Athenian self-esteem following the set-back of the war and of the Sicilian expedition. While the play as a whole portrays Sparta in a favourable light, this barely implicit jibe at Athens’ reputation is revealing of Aristophanes’ trenchant humour and satirical power.
549 words
Bibliography
Ancient sources
Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 167-83, in Sommerstein, A.H. (trans.), Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.15-53
Modern scholarship
Budelmann, F., Hardwick, L. and Robson, J. (2006) A219: Block 2: Classical Athens, Milton Keynes: The Open University
Pomeroy, S.B., Burnstein, S.M., Donlan, W. And Roberts, J.T. (2004) A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hornblower, S. And Spawforth, A. (eds) (1998) The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, Oxford: Oxford University Press
mardi 26 mai 2009
The Acropolis
Answer the following question in no more than 1,500 words:
‘A conscious programme of display.’ Making close reference to the art and architecture of the Acropolis, explain and illustrate what is meant by this phrase. Then take any one of the other sources you have studied in Block 2, and briefly analyse the comparisons and contrasts that may be made between this source and the Acropolis in this matter of display.
If the Acropolis in Athens is to be treated as ‘a conscious programme of display’ (Block 2, p.76) we must briefly look at the historical and political context in which it was built so as to understand the purpose and nature of the undertaking. We can then seek to interpret the remaining material evidence of the Acropolis in the light of that building programme. As we shall see, the material evidence carries with it a metaphysical dimension as well as an obvious physical one. We shall then briefly draw an analogy between the intended effect of the Acropolis and Thucydides’s rendering of Pericles’s speech dedicated to those who fought and died in the first year of the Great Peloponnesian War in 431 BCE.
By the time the Athenians, and Pericles first among them, turned their attention to re-building the site of the Acropolis in the middle of the fifth century BCE ¬-- a site which had been sacked by the Persians in 480 BCE and left largely untouched since then -- the Athenian empire was very much alive, although weakened by a revolt in Euboea and the defection of Megara to the Peloponnesian league. A connection was made in the mind of ordinary Athenian citizens between the radical democratic constitution in Athens and the possession of the empire bringing wealth and success to the polis (Joint Association of Classical Teachers, 2008, p.26). Indeed, after Xerxes’s defeat, Athens became a major cultural centre (BHAG, p.138) and some of the money received from the league against Persia led by Athens was used to celebrate religious festivals and to build magnificent buildings, such as the Parthenon in 447 BCE (ibid).
As “the guiding spirit of Athenian imperialism” (BHAG, p.145) Pericles instigated the building of this temple and others, all adorned with sculptures, on the Acropolis meaning ‘city-top’ or ‘citadel’ (JACT, 2008, p.74). According to the same source (2008, p.26) “there is little doubt that, from the first, these buildings made a statement about Athenian power and superiority. Through them, Athens presented herself as a city fit to be the leader of an empire.” Pericles justified this display of power in the following terms, according to Plutarch (Life of Pericles, 12.4): “It is fair that the city, once she has been equipped with what is necessary for war, should turn the surplus over to works which, when completed, will bring her everlasting glory.” Democratically, the public building would, appropriately, “stir every hand until almost the whole city will be under contract” (Plutarch, Life of Pericles, 12.4). In what way then does the Acropolis symbolise an imperial, yet democratic, programme?
The first point to note is that of location (Illustrations Book, Plate 3). The Acropolis is situated on a rocky hillside that rises 120 m from the surrounding plain (JACT, 2008, p.74). This made it “a natural place of refuge in time of trouble” (ibid). Secondly, on top of being “the central fortress,” the Acropolis is “the principal sanctuary of Athena, patron goddess of the city” (OCCC, p.93). One of the first monuments to be erected after the sack by the Persians was a bronze statue of Athena Promachos “set up to celebrate victory over the Persians” (ibid). This statue was visible from what was to later be the Propylaea, the gateway building to the Acropolis (Illustrations Book, Plate 10). Towards the end of the fifth century, the statue was housed in the most sacred of the temples of the Acropolis, the Erechtheion. Thus, the imperial implications of the Acropolis are evident from the outset, chronologically and geographically; at its entrance lay a statue celebrating that victory which was instrumental in the formation of the Athenian empire.
Next came the Parthenon, undoubtedly the most known and celebrated monument of the Acropolis. Temple to Athena, housing an unprecedented gold and ivory statue of the goddess, the Parthenon also served as the state treasury (Block 2, p.74) confirming its status as “a monument to Athens’ imperial position” (JACT, 2008, p.80). Indeed, the move of the treasury of the Delian league from Delos to Athens in 454 BCE (Block 2, p.74) marks the beginning of what is now called the Athenian empire. This was no ordinary treasury however. The Parthenon was “the largest temple of its day” (ibid), positioned in the centre of the Acropolis and visible from afar, to friends and foe alike (Experiencing the Classical World, p.98). Especially of interest are the temple’s sculptures, i.e. the pediments, the metopes and the endlessly controversial frieze. Together these can be viewed “as celebrating Athens’ spiritual life, military prowess and cultural pre-eminence” (ECW, p.99).
The pediments, for example, depict, on the east end, the birth of Athena, and on the west end, the contest between her and Poseidon for the possession of the land (Readings Book 1, Reading 2.6., Pausanias 1.24.5). These pediments portray the power of the polis as having divine origin (birth of Athena) on the one hand and divine sanction (reign of Athena) on the other. The metopes “depict various battles between the powers of civilisation and groups that are somehow uncivilised – the gods battle against the giants, the Greeks against the Amazons” (ECW, p.99). The message thus conveyed is unequivocal: Athens is the bastion of civilisation, Hellenism, and has to assert herself in the struggle against un-Greek barbarians on the one hand, and possibly undemocratic Greek poleis on the other, i.e. poleis not forming part of her empire, the chief among them being Sparta.
The frieze itself is said to depict the festival of the Panathenaia, dedicated to the patron goddess Athena, and certainly suggests as much in terms of the procession it depicts although its actual constitution is somewhat mythical, if not aristocratic, with a predominance of cavalry and charioteers (Robin Osbourne, 1987, pp.103-104). Nevertheless, the fact that the procession (which was all-inclusive in that all members of the polis, citizens and denizens alike, took part in it) made its way to the Parthenon frieze shows that the building programme was open to influences which were not solely those of the powerful. The frieze is a loose but undeniable representation of unity and not of struggle, like the metopes.
In his essay on Classical Athens (ECW, pp.99-100), James Robson points out the thematic unity of the Acropolis as a whole. Thus the already mentioned statue of Athena Parthenos included “a shield sculpted with scenes of the battles between both gods and giants and Greeks and Amazons [and] sandals whose decoration included the battle between Lapiths and centaurs (all motifs found on the temple’s metopes).” In addition, the Parthenos statue could be seen as complementing the already mentioned Promachos statue, while the temple of Athena Nike that sits just outside of the Acropolis boasts a frieze representing the battle of Marathon which was a major Greek victory against the first Persian invasion by Darius. Rather like the Parthenon frieze, an actual event, in this case a battle, had entered the world of myth and was thus fit to be the object of a temple’s decoration.
A similar glorification of past deeds is to be found in Pericles’ Funeral Speech dedicated to those who died in the first year of the Great Peloponnesian War in 431 BCE (Readings Book 1, Reading 2.8 Thucydides 2.34-46). In 2.36 Pericles glorifies, alongside “our ancestors,” “our own fathers, who added to their inheritance the empire which we now possess.” The not- too-distant past, symbolised by the battle of Marathon on the temple of Athena Nike, features in the opening words of the statesman’s speech. In 2.43 he notes that “heroes have the whole earth for their tomb.” The following sentence in 2.41 sums up the building programme on the Acropolis: “the admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours, since we have not left our power without witness, but have shown it by mighty proofs.”
As with the Parthenon frieze, there is no reference in the speech to named individuals or fighting units, although the war dead were mainly cavalry, i.e. from the upper-classes. Athens being a democracy of sorts, Pericles was careful not to single out any individuals or groups of individuals which would undermine the unity of the state. The emphasis is on participation, and there is no doubt that the construction of the Acropolis entailed a wide participation from the citizen and non-citizen body alike, as noted above. Intriguingly, Thucydides puts the following words in Pericles’ mouth: “For Athens alone of her contemporaries is found when tested to be greater than her reputation.” This sits oddly with Thucydides’ own statement (Thucydides 1.10) that were Athens to be found in ruins, “one would conjecture from what met the eye that the city had been twice as powerful as in fact it is.” This, if anything, points to the success of the Acropolis in conveying the power of Athens and her empire, making her, to quote Pericles, “the school of Hellas.” Pericles’s observation in 2.45 that the most ‘glorious’ women keep themselves discreet is mirrored in the aforementioned frieze in which a tiny minority of women figure.
1,510 words
Bibliography
Ancient sources
Plutarch, Life of Pericles
Pausanias, Guide to Greece, vol.1, in Levi, P. (trans.) (1979 [1971]), Hammondsworth: Penguin, pp.69-70)
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.34-46, in Crawley, R. (trans.) (1997), Ware: Wordsworth Editions, pp.93-100
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.10, in Crawley, R. (trans.) (1997), Ware: Wordsworth Editions
Modern scholarship
Budelmann, F., Hardwick, L. and Robson, J. (2006) A219: Block 2: Classical Athens, Milton Keynes: The Open University
Joint Association of Classical Teachers (2008) The World of Athens, Cambridge and NY: Cambridge University Press
Pomeroy, S.B., Burnstein, S.M., Donlan, W. And Roberts, J.T. (2004) A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Robson, J. (2006) ‘Self and Society in Classical Athens’ in Perkins, P. (ed.), Experiencing the Classical World, Milton Keynes: The Open University
A219 Illustrations Book
‘A conscious programme of display.’ Making close reference to the art and architecture of the Acropolis, explain and illustrate what is meant by this phrase. Then take any one of the other sources you have studied in Block 2, and briefly analyse the comparisons and contrasts that may be made between this source and the Acropolis in this matter of display.
If the Acropolis in Athens is to be treated as ‘a conscious programme of display’ (Block 2, p.76) we must briefly look at the historical and political context in which it was built so as to understand the purpose and nature of the undertaking. We can then seek to interpret the remaining material evidence of the Acropolis in the light of that building programme. As we shall see, the material evidence carries with it a metaphysical dimension as well as an obvious physical one. We shall then briefly draw an analogy between the intended effect of the Acropolis and Thucydides’s rendering of Pericles’s speech dedicated to those who fought and died in the first year of the Great Peloponnesian War in 431 BCE.
By the time the Athenians, and Pericles first among them, turned their attention to re-building the site of the Acropolis in the middle of the fifth century BCE ¬-- a site which had been sacked by the Persians in 480 BCE and left largely untouched since then -- the Athenian empire was very much alive, although weakened by a revolt in Euboea and the defection of Megara to the Peloponnesian league. A connection was made in the mind of ordinary Athenian citizens between the radical democratic constitution in Athens and the possession of the empire bringing wealth and success to the polis (Joint Association of Classical Teachers, 2008, p.26). Indeed, after Xerxes’s defeat, Athens became a major cultural centre (BHAG, p.138) and some of the money received from the league against Persia led by Athens was used to celebrate religious festivals and to build magnificent buildings, such as the Parthenon in 447 BCE (ibid).
As “the guiding spirit of Athenian imperialism” (BHAG, p.145) Pericles instigated the building of this temple and others, all adorned with sculptures, on the Acropolis meaning ‘city-top’ or ‘citadel’ (JACT, 2008, p.74). According to the same source (2008, p.26) “there is little doubt that, from the first, these buildings made a statement about Athenian power and superiority. Through them, Athens presented herself as a city fit to be the leader of an empire.” Pericles justified this display of power in the following terms, according to Plutarch (Life of Pericles, 12.4): “It is fair that the city, once she has been equipped with what is necessary for war, should turn the surplus over to works which, when completed, will bring her everlasting glory.” Democratically, the public building would, appropriately, “stir every hand until almost the whole city will be under contract” (Plutarch, Life of Pericles, 12.4). In what way then does the Acropolis symbolise an imperial, yet democratic, programme?
The first point to note is that of location (Illustrations Book, Plate 3). The Acropolis is situated on a rocky hillside that rises 120 m from the surrounding plain (JACT, 2008, p.74). This made it “a natural place of refuge in time of trouble” (ibid). Secondly, on top of being “the central fortress,” the Acropolis is “the principal sanctuary of Athena, patron goddess of the city” (OCCC, p.93). One of the first monuments to be erected after the sack by the Persians was a bronze statue of Athena Promachos “set up to celebrate victory over the Persians” (ibid). This statue was visible from what was to later be the Propylaea, the gateway building to the Acropolis (Illustrations Book, Plate 10). Towards the end of the fifth century, the statue was housed in the most sacred of the temples of the Acropolis, the Erechtheion. Thus, the imperial implications of the Acropolis are evident from the outset, chronologically and geographically; at its entrance lay a statue celebrating that victory which was instrumental in the formation of the Athenian empire.
Next came the Parthenon, undoubtedly the most known and celebrated monument of the Acropolis. Temple to Athena, housing an unprecedented gold and ivory statue of the goddess, the Parthenon also served as the state treasury (Block 2, p.74) confirming its status as “a monument to Athens’ imperial position” (JACT, 2008, p.80). Indeed, the move of the treasury of the Delian league from Delos to Athens in 454 BCE (Block 2, p.74) marks the beginning of what is now called the Athenian empire. This was no ordinary treasury however. The Parthenon was “the largest temple of its day” (ibid), positioned in the centre of the Acropolis and visible from afar, to friends and foe alike (Experiencing the Classical World, p.98). Especially of interest are the temple’s sculptures, i.e. the pediments, the metopes and the endlessly controversial frieze. Together these can be viewed “as celebrating Athens’ spiritual life, military prowess and cultural pre-eminence” (ECW, p.99).
The pediments, for example, depict, on the east end, the birth of Athena, and on the west end, the contest between her and Poseidon for the possession of the land (Readings Book 1, Reading 2.6., Pausanias 1.24.5). These pediments portray the power of the polis as having divine origin (birth of Athena) on the one hand and divine sanction (reign of Athena) on the other. The metopes “depict various battles between the powers of civilisation and groups that are somehow uncivilised – the gods battle against the giants, the Greeks against the Amazons” (ECW, p.99). The message thus conveyed is unequivocal: Athens is the bastion of civilisation, Hellenism, and has to assert herself in the struggle against un-Greek barbarians on the one hand, and possibly undemocratic Greek poleis on the other, i.e. poleis not forming part of her empire, the chief among them being Sparta.
The frieze itself is said to depict the festival of the Panathenaia, dedicated to the patron goddess Athena, and certainly suggests as much in terms of the procession it depicts although its actual constitution is somewhat mythical, if not aristocratic, with a predominance of cavalry and charioteers (Robin Osbourne, 1987, pp.103-104). Nevertheless, the fact that the procession (which was all-inclusive in that all members of the polis, citizens and denizens alike, took part in it) made its way to the Parthenon frieze shows that the building programme was open to influences which were not solely those of the powerful. The frieze is a loose but undeniable representation of unity and not of struggle, like the metopes.
In his essay on Classical Athens (ECW, pp.99-100), James Robson points out the thematic unity of the Acropolis as a whole. Thus the already mentioned statue of Athena Parthenos included “a shield sculpted with scenes of the battles between both gods and giants and Greeks and Amazons [and] sandals whose decoration included the battle between Lapiths and centaurs (all motifs found on the temple’s metopes).” In addition, the Parthenos statue could be seen as complementing the already mentioned Promachos statue, while the temple of Athena Nike that sits just outside of the Acropolis boasts a frieze representing the battle of Marathon which was a major Greek victory against the first Persian invasion by Darius. Rather like the Parthenon frieze, an actual event, in this case a battle, had entered the world of myth and was thus fit to be the object of a temple’s decoration.
A similar glorification of past deeds is to be found in Pericles’ Funeral Speech dedicated to those who died in the first year of the Great Peloponnesian War in 431 BCE (Readings Book 1, Reading 2.8 Thucydides 2.34-46). In 2.36 Pericles glorifies, alongside “our ancestors,” “our own fathers, who added to their inheritance the empire which we now possess.” The not- too-distant past, symbolised by the battle of Marathon on the temple of Athena Nike, features in the opening words of the statesman’s speech. In 2.43 he notes that “heroes have the whole earth for their tomb.” The following sentence in 2.41 sums up the building programme on the Acropolis: “the admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours, since we have not left our power without witness, but have shown it by mighty proofs.”
As with the Parthenon frieze, there is no reference in the speech to named individuals or fighting units, although the war dead were mainly cavalry, i.e. from the upper-classes. Athens being a democracy of sorts, Pericles was careful not to single out any individuals or groups of individuals which would undermine the unity of the state. The emphasis is on participation, and there is no doubt that the construction of the Acropolis entailed a wide participation from the citizen and non-citizen body alike, as noted above. Intriguingly, Thucydides puts the following words in Pericles’ mouth: “For Athens alone of her contemporaries is found when tested to be greater than her reputation.” This sits oddly with Thucydides’ own statement (Thucydides 1.10) that were Athens to be found in ruins, “one would conjecture from what met the eye that the city had been twice as powerful as in fact it is.” This, if anything, points to the success of the Acropolis in conveying the power of Athens and her empire, making her, to quote Pericles, “the school of Hellas.” Pericles’s observation in 2.45 that the most ‘glorious’ women keep themselves discreet is mirrored in the aforementioned frieze in which a tiny minority of women figure.
1,510 words
Bibliography
Ancient sources
Plutarch, Life of Pericles
Pausanias, Guide to Greece, vol.1, in Levi, P. (trans.) (1979 [1971]), Hammondsworth: Penguin, pp.69-70)
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.34-46, in Crawley, R. (trans.) (1997), Ware: Wordsworth Editions, pp.93-100
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.10, in Crawley, R. (trans.) (1997), Ware: Wordsworth Editions
Modern scholarship
Budelmann, F., Hardwick, L. and Robson, J. (2006) A219: Block 2: Classical Athens, Milton Keynes: The Open University
Joint Association of Classical Teachers (2008) The World of Athens, Cambridge and NY: Cambridge University Press
Pomeroy, S.B., Burnstein, S.M., Donlan, W. And Roberts, J.T. (2004) A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Robson, J. (2006) ‘Self and Society in Classical Athens’ in Perkins, P. (ed.), Experiencing the Classical World, Milton Keynes: The Open University
A219 Illustrations Book
dimanche 22 mars 2009
The Gods in Homer
(a) Choosing the books you have read in either the Odyssey or the Iliad, consider the role of the gods. Do you think they enhance or detract from the effect of the poem?
Let us consider the role of the gods through the medium of Lattimore’s translation of the Iliad, focusing on Books 1, 22, 23 and 24, bearing in mind that as a modern translation, the text cannot convey the religiosity that the oral performances must have had for the Greek listeners of 8th century BCE (CD1, Track 20). As will soon be apparent, the role of the gods appears to be both theological and poetic. I will consider both aspects together in what follows.
Book 1 (Readings Book 1, 1.1) opens with an appeal to the Muse to sing “the anger of Peleus’ son Achilles” (Homer, Iliad 1.1). This shows that the role of the gods is not merely confined to the narrative but is actually central to the performance of the poem itself. And it is because Homer is the Muse’s mouthpiece, so to speak, that he has knowledge of divine happenings (Naoko Yamagata, 2006, p.72).
Homer then notes that “Zeus’ will was accomplished” (Homer, Iliad 1.5) from the moment of the bitter enmity that opposed Achilles to Agamemnon. Thus, from the very beginning, the epic is presented as the necessary consequence of Zeus’s power over the mortal world.
The confrontation between the two kings is said to be the work of Apollo, who has been petitioned by a priest of his, Chryses, to inflict suffering on the Achaeans (Homer, Iliad 1.8-42). In this instance Apollo is making up for an injustice committed against one of his protégés (Homer, Iliad 1.26-34). He is indebted to the latter (Homer, Iliad 1.40-41). Apollo is moved to come to Chryses’s help because Chryses has sacrificed in his favour (Homer, Iliad 1.40-1). In coming to his help, Apollo is upholding the principle of reciprocity. Thus one role of the gods is to uphold certain values, for example repayment of debts and acknowledgement of sacrifices offered (Block 1, p.50).
Line 55 shows how the gods can manipulate mortal minds; in this case Achilles calls his people to assembly because Hera has put the idea into his mind. In line 56 it is said that Hera “had pity upon the Danaans when she saw them dying”. Similarly in Book 23 the gods are filled with compassion in the face of Hector’s body being mistreated by Achilles (Homer, Iliad 23.23). Not only are the gods moved by the plight of mortals but despite their ruthlessness they are capable of profound human emotion. The gods as spectators of the human world are also influenced by it as the experiences and emotions that animate it are not foreign to them. In this way they form an audience within the poem which ponders on the events that have occurred so far.
Divine concern and sympathy (Homer, Iliad 1.195-6) can translate into deus ex machina intervention. Athena’s intervention at the point when Achilles “weighed in mind and spirit” two courses of action allows the epic to continue; a dead Agamemnon would halt the seizure of Troy (Homer, Iliad 1.194-222). As Oliver Taplin (1986, p.50) points out, some scholars have suggested that this episode is merely a poetic personification of Achilles’s better judgement and says little about the role of the divine. He goes so far as to argue that “the gods in Homer do not have a theological existence independent of particular poetic context” (p.75). In my view the question is an open one: the gods, Zeus especially, certainly have fixed theological attributes and, as we shall see, are beyond fate. In terms of their strictly poetical role it might be noted at this point that many of the lesser divinities in the poem are nature personified; Dawn (Homer, Iliad 23.109), the winds Boreas and Zephyros (Homer, Iliad 23.195), Helios (sun).
In lines 238-9 Achilles characterizes the Achaeans as “administering the justice of Zeus.” This confirms the opening lines of the epic that portray mortals as agents of divine will (Homer, Iliad 1.5). The following pages of Book 1 highlight another important function of the gods which is to bestow honour, which in the case of Achilles means punishing the Achaeans (Homer, Iliad 353-4). The scene on Olympus at the end of Book 1 sheds light on the human-like interaction between the gods, providing relief and counterbalance to the grim affairs in Troy (see esp. Homer, Iliad 1.599-600).
Jumping to Book 22 (Readings Book 1, 1.3) Apollo meets Achilles in the heat of battle and probes him, drawing a vexed answer (Homer, Iliad 22.7-20). Apollo contrasts his nature that is “not fated” with Achilles’s, and he in turn notes that the god has “no retribution to fear.” The role of the gods is characterized by their impunity as compared to mortals or, in other words, their lack of fate.
However, they play a part in determining the fate of mortal protagonists ; for example, when Zeus weighs the scales (or mixes the urns of sorrow and blessing in Homer, Iliad 24.527-33) while Achilles chases Hector (Homer, Iliad 22.208-213) and the latter’s death is decided¬ . This weighing of the scales at this point of the narrative is surely designed to heighten the tension, although we know through Athena that Hector was “long since doomed by his destiny.” The gods appear to be partisan, favouring those with divine blood (see Hera’s reply to Apollo at 24.56-63). These instances of divine participation elevate the action. Indeed, what good would great heroic deeds be without the gods as witnesses?
The gods’ favouring of some over others is manifest in Book 23 (Readings Book, 1.4) which describes the funeral games in honour of Patroclus. This happens after the gods (Aphrodite and Apollo) have prevented Hector’s body from decomposing and being fed on. In so doing they uphold Hector’s dignity as a deceased human being (Homer, Iliad 23.184-191). During the chariot race Apollo dashes the whip from Diomede’s hands (Homer, Iliad 23.383-4) and Athena, detecting his “foul play”, returns the whip to the warrior (Homer, Iliad 23.388-90). In this instance the competition between mortals is paralleled by competition between the immortals as they aid their favourites and harm those they despise.
Book 24 (Readings Book 1, 1.5), the last of the Iliad, reveals how the epic is unimaginable without the gods; they are essential to its unfolding. Lines 33 to 76 consist of a conversation between the gods over Hector’s dead body. Apollo bemoans the gods’ supporting of Achilles “within whose breast there are no feelings of justice. . . [whose] purposes are fierce. . .[whose] spirit is haughty. . . [who is without] shame” (Homer, Iliad 24.39-45) It may be argued that the gods, as omniscient beings, have a certain claim to judging the behaviour of mortals. More interestingly, Apollo’s characterisation of Achilles as a ruthless man reveals a limitation to the gods’ influence over mortals. “They do not change human nature” (Lattimore, 54). Achilles is Achilles; the gods do not make him what he is.
Do the gods enhance or detract from the effect of the poem? It is undoubtedly an intrusion of modern sensibility to think you can dispense with the gods in the narrative. The question betrays a modern taste which is used to different literary devices and certainly not to divine intervention. But it is clear in my view that both poetically and practically the gods enhance the poem enormously, giving it an extra layer of meaning as it were, not to mention of magnificence.
1,234 words
Ancient source
Richmond Lattimore (trans.) (1961) The Iliad of Homer, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
Modern scholarship
Emlyn-Jones, C. and Yamagata, N. (2006) A219 Block 1: Homer and the Greek ‘Dark Age’, Milton Keynes: The Open University
CD1, Track 20: Homer in Translation-introduction
Naoko Yamagata, ‘Sing Muse: Authorial voices in Ancient Greek Poetry’ in Phil Perkins (ed.) (2006), Experiencing the Classical World, Milton Keynes: The Open University, 69-85
Oliver Taplin (1986), ‘Homer’ in Boardman, Griffin, Murray (eds), Oxford History of the Classical World, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 50-77
Richmond Lattimore (trans.) (1961) The Iliad of Homer, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 54
Let us consider the role of the gods through the medium of Lattimore’s translation of the Iliad, focusing on Books 1, 22, 23 and 24, bearing in mind that as a modern translation, the text cannot convey the religiosity that the oral performances must have had for the Greek listeners of 8th century BCE (CD1, Track 20). As will soon be apparent, the role of the gods appears to be both theological and poetic. I will consider both aspects together in what follows.
Book 1 (Readings Book 1, 1.1) opens with an appeal to the Muse to sing “the anger of Peleus’ son Achilles” (Homer, Iliad 1.1). This shows that the role of the gods is not merely confined to the narrative but is actually central to the performance of the poem itself. And it is because Homer is the Muse’s mouthpiece, so to speak, that he has knowledge of divine happenings (Naoko Yamagata, 2006, p.72).
Homer then notes that “Zeus’ will was accomplished” (Homer, Iliad 1.5) from the moment of the bitter enmity that opposed Achilles to Agamemnon. Thus, from the very beginning, the epic is presented as the necessary consequence of Zeus’s power over the mortal world.
The confrontation between the two kings is said to be the work of Apollo, who has been petitioned by a priest of his, Chryses, to inflict suffering on the Achaeans (Homer, Iliad 1.8-42). In this instance Apollo is making up for an injustice committed against one of his protégés (Homer, Iliad 1.26-34). He is indebted to the latter (Homer, Iliad 1.40-41). Apollo is moved to come to Chryses’s help because Chryses has sacrificed in his favour (Homer, Iliad 1.40-1). In coming to his help, Apollo is upholding the principle of reciprocity. Thus one role of the gods is to uphold certain values, for example repayment of debts and acknowledgement of sacrifices offered (Block 1, p.50).
Line 55 shows how the gods can manipulate mortal minds; in this case Achilles calls his people to assembly because Hera has put the idea into his mind. In line 56 it is said that Hera “had pity upon the Danaans when she saw them dying”. Similarly in Book 23 the gods are filled with compassion in the face of Hector’s body being mistreated by Achilles (Homer, Iliad 23.23). Not only are the gods moved by the plight of mortals but despite their ruthlessness they are capable of profound human emotion. The gods as spectators of the human world are also influenced by it as the experiences and emotions that animate it are not foreign to them. In this way they form an audience within the poem which ponders on the events that have occurred so far.
Divine concern and sympathy (Homer, Iliad 1.195-6) can translate into deus ex machina intervention. Athena’s intervention at the point when Achilles “weighed in mind and spirit” two courses of action allows the epic to continue; a dead Agamemnon would halt the seizure of Troy (Homer, Iliad 1.194-222). As Oliver Taplin (1986, p.50) points out, some scholars have suggested that this episode is merely a poetic personification of Achilles’s better judgement and says little about the role of the divine. He goes so far as to argue that “the gods in Homer do not have a theological existence independent of particular poetic context” (p.75). In my view the question is an open one: the gods, Zeus especially, certainly have fixed theological attributes and, as we shall see, are beyond fate. In terms of their strictly poetical role it might be noted at this point that many of the lesser divinities in the poem are nature personified; Dawn (Homer, Iliad 23.109), the winds Boreas and Zephyros (Homer, Iliad 23.195), Helios (sun).
In lines 238-9 Achilles characterizes the Achaeans as “administering the justice of Zeus.” This confirms the opening lines of the epic that portray mortals as agents of divine will (Homer, Iliad 1.5). The following pages of Book 1 highlight another important function of the gods which is to bestow honour, which in the case of Achilles means punishing the Achaeans (Homer, Iliad 353-4). The scene on Olympus at the end of Book 1 sheds light on the human-like interaction between the gods, providing relief and counterbalance to the grim affairs in Troy (see esp. Homer, Iliad 1.599-600).
Jumping to Book 22 (Readings Book 1, 1.3) Apollo meets Achilles in the heat of battle and probes him, drawing a vexed answer (Homer, Iliad 22.7-20). Apollo contrasts his nature that is “not fated” with Achilles’s, and he in turn notes that the god has “no retribution to fear.” The role of the gods is characterized by their impunity as compared to mortals or, in other words, their lack of fate.
However, they play a part in determining the fate of mortal protagonists ; for example, when Zeus weighs the scales (or mixes the urns of sorrow and blessing in Homer, Iliad 24.527-33) while Achilles chases Hector (Homer, Iliad 22.208-213) and the latter’s death is decided¬ . This weighing of the scales at this point of the narrative is surely designed to heighten the tension, although we know through Athena that Hector was “long since doomed by his destiny.” The gods appear to be partisan, favouring those with divine blood (see Hera’s reply to Apollo at 24.56-63). These instances of divine participation elevate the action. Indeed, what good would great heroic deeds be without the gods as witnesses?
The gods’ favouring of some over others is manifest in Book 23 (Readings Book, 1.4) which describes the funeral games in honour of Patroclus. This happens after the gods (Aphrodite and Apollo) have prevented Hector’s body from decomposing and being fed on. In so doing they uphold Hector’s dignity as a deceased human being (Homer, Iliad 23.184-191). During the chariot race Apollo dashes the whip from Diomede’s hands (Homer, Iliad 23.383-4) and Athena, detecting his “foul play”, returns the whip to the warrior (Homer, Iliad 23.388-90). In this instance the competition between mortals is paralleled by competition between the immortals as they aid their favourites and harm those they despise.
Book 24 (Readings Book 1, 1.5), the last of the Iliad, reveals how the epic is unimaginable without the gods; they are essential to its unfolding. Lines 33 to 76 consist of a conversation between the gods over Hector’s dead body. Apollo bemoans the gods’ supporting of Achilles “within whose breast there are no feelings of justice. . . [whose] purposes are fierce. . .[whose] spirit is haughty. . . [who is without] shame” (Homer, Iliad 24.39-45) It may be argued that the gods, as omniscient beings, have a certain claim to judging the behaviour of mortals. More interestingly, Apollo’s characterisation of Achilles as a ruthless man reveals a limitation to the gods’ influence over mortals. “They do not change human nature” (Lattimore, 54). Achilles is Achilles; the gods do not make him what he is.
Do the gods enhance or detract from the effect of the poem? It is undoubtedly an intrusion of modern sensibility to think you can dispense with the gods in the narrative. The question betrays a modern taste which is used to different literary devices and certainly not to divine intervention. But it is clear in my view that both poetically and practically the gods enhance the poem enormously, giving it an extra layer of meaning as it were, not to mention of magnificence.
1,234 words
Ancient source
Richmond Lattimore (trans.) (1961) The Iliad of Homer, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
Modern scholarship
Emlyn-Jones, C. and Yamagata, N. (2006) A219 Block 1: Homer and the Greek ‘Dark Age’, Milton Keynes: The Open University
CD1, Track 20: Homer in Translation-introduction
Naoko Yamagata, ‘Sing Muse: Authorial voices in Ancient Greek Poetry’ in Phil Perkins (ed.) (2006), Experiencing the Classical World, Milton Keynes: The Open University, 69-85
Oliver Taplin (1986), ‘Homer’ in Boardman, Griffin, Murray (eds), Oxford History of the Classical World, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 50-77
Richmond Lattimore (trans.) (1961) The Iliad of Homer, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 54
vendredi 20 mars 2009
C'est L'Economie Idiot
Dans mon morceau Exces du marche, je soulignai le fait que les philosophies du marche qui transforment les etres humains en des ressources humaines atomises dominent la modernite. D'ou vient cette pulsion de faire de l'argent ? Sans doute la pauvrete est ce que la majorite des gens redoute le plus. Des histoires refroidissantes du tiers monde confirment cette peur. Et chacun est temoin de la condition des sans-abris. La raison pour laquelle le travail a gagne un sens aussi large est que quelquepart dans l'esprit humain, le travail a ete associe avec la prosperite, l'allegement et la victoire sur la pauvrete. "Making poverty history" etait une declaration de valeurs de l'occident, non sans arrogance. En tant que depressif, j'ai souffert de la facon dont le systeme est construit ; etre positif, etre pro-actif (=etre sans pensee) sont des impossibilites pour moi. Je suis force de vivre sur des aides sociales et d'appartenir a cette minorite non negligeable d'individus qui ne peuvent travailler et contribuer a la "force de travail." Il demeure que j'ai mes doutes si le travail ait fait quoiquecesoit pour ameliorer la pauvrete par opposition a l'appareil technologique. Et la technologie a son tour cree une pauvrete destructrice-l'epuisement de ressources naturelles, la deforestation, la pollution etc. Il ne fait aucun doute pourquoi les politiciens veulent le plein travail ; les gens qui travaillent sont des gens qui n'ont pas le temps de penser par eux-memes, et donc mettre en interrogation le systeme et menacer la structure de pouvoir en place. L'economie sert de justification pour l'esclavage volontaire et la soumission active. Il s'agit d'un concept totalitaire qui infiltre nos vies privees. Par contraste, en grece ancienne les matieres economiques etaient confinees a l'oikos, le menage, qui donna notre mot economie. Un autre theme a explorer est celui de l'egalite par le travail en rappelant ce que Tocqueville nomma la passion pour l'egalite dans les democraties modernes.
It's The Economy Stupid
In my piece Market Excesses I highlighted the fact that market philosophies that transform human beings into atomised human resources are predominant in modernity. Where does this urge for money making come from? Undoubtedly poverty is what the majority of people fear the most. Gruelling stories about the third world confirm this fear. And we all have come accross the plight of the homeless. The reason why work has taken on such an all encompassing meaning is that somewhere in the human psyche work has been associated with prosperity, alleviating and defeating poverty. "Making poverty history" was a Western statement of values, not without its arrogance. As a depressive I have suffered from the way the system is designed: being positive, being pro-active (=being thoughtless) are all impossibilities for me. I am forced to live on benefits and belong to that significant minority of individuals who cannot work and contribute to the "work force." Still I have my doubts as to whether work has done anything to improve poverty as opposed to technological apparatus. And in turn technology fosters its own kind of destructive poverty-depletion of natural resources, deforestation, pollution etc. There is no doubt as to why politicians want full employment; people who work are people who do not have time to think for themselves, therefore to question the system and with that questionning threaten the power structure in place. The Economy serves as a justification for voluntary slavery and active submission. It is a totalitarian concept which infiltrates our private lives. Contrast this with Ancient Greece in which matters economic were confined to the oikos, the household, from which are word economy is derived. Another theme to consider is how work equalizes and fits what Tocqueville called the passion for equality in modern democracies.
jeudi 12 mars 2009
Terre et technologie
La tragedie du mouvement ecologique, outre son intervention trop tardive au cours du siecle dernier, est qu'il n'a pas la faveur des circonstances : ce n'est pas dans nos societes desintegres que l'on trouvera un desir collectif de changement dramatique de style de vie. Cela tient au fait que chacun n'est pas responsable dans le sens que chacun pris individuellement n'est cause du probleme ecologique. La cause se situe a l'echelle planetaire et est liee aux transformations physiques de l'environnenment qu'engendre l'activite humaine-donc l'existence humaine-aidee de la technologie.
Il est clair a mon sens que retarder le declin de l'humanite revele non pas d'une quelconque volonte collective, ni meme du miracle, mais-comble de l'ironie-de la sphere techno-logique, celle-la meme qui a accelere les difficultes environnementales de l'homme. Or la technologie assume une existence autonome, a peine controlable, des lors qu'elle est integree au monde artificiel que l'homme s'est construit au fil des millenaires. Ce n'est pas parce que ce sont les humains qui actionnent la technologie que celle-ci leur est soumise. Au contraire, par son existence meme, la technologie presuppose l'actionnement humain. En ce sens, puisque l'actionnement est non seulement a prevoir mais necessaire (la technologie faisant partie integrante du monde qu'habite l'homme), c'est plutot les hommes qui sont soumis a la technologie. Mieux, l'existence humaine (existence : manifestation ontologique-relevant de ce qui est-de l'homme) se definit dans son rapport de subordination a la technologie autant qu'autrefois elle pouvait se definir dans son rapport de subordination a la nature ; car la technologie n'ayant de sens que si elle est integree au monde des hommes, fait partie integrante de l'environnement sur lequel se construit son activite (sociale). La guerre est peut-etre l'expression la plus pure de ce double rapport de subordination, tant a la nature qu'a la technologie. Un esprit vif pourra me retorquer que cette derniere distinction est artificielle : l'homme etant un animal terrestre, son action est une manifestation de la nature-y compris la guerre-et ses production autant de produits 'naturels'. Cette pensee confond origine et essence conceptuelle. Si l'homme est inscrit dans l'ordre naturel des choses, il apprehende par objectivisations : conceptuellement a travers le langage et la science, pratiquement a travers le travail, qui transforme cette nature en moyen pour les fins qu'exige l'existence. La nature n'est donc plus une realite transcendente pour l'homme mais une realite objectivee (qu'est-ce le mot 'nature' si ce n'est une objectivisation conceptuelle ?), et de ce fait elle est distincte a la fois de lui et des autres objets conceptuels. La technologie est de ces derniers, distincte de la nature, distincte aussi de l'homme qui lui est sujet (pensant, travailleur etc).
Mon propos est que lorsqu'une technologie existe et est disponible, son non actionnement ne peut relever que de la decision morale, d'une volonte deliberee qui se definie contre le predonne (ce qui existe), a savoir l'environnement (qui, on l'a vu, est technologique autant que naturel). Il suit que l'homme ou la femme qui se reclame de "l'environnement" contre la technologie et de ses effets nefastes sur cet "environnement" est dans une situation ambigue : il se reclame non tant de l'environnement en tant que tel, mais de l'environnement pre-technologique et, plus fondamentalement, de l'environnement non objective, transcendant (qui est donc a traiter comme une fin et non pas simplement comme un moyen). L'ambiguite reside en ce qu'il ou elle ne peut s'empecher d'apprehender l'environnement en tant qu'objet (il ne peut en etre autrement - le langage, la pensee et l'activite sont des formes d'objectivisation) - et apres tout il est le premier a invoquer "l'environnement" - mais se refuse a en tirer les consequences pratiques, a savoir la transformation de l'objet en moyen pour des fins humaines. A ce titre ce n'est pas un hasard que les dix commandements interdisent aux hebreux la representation et l'invocation vaine de Dieu ; car s'il en fut autrement, Dieu serait reduit au statut d'objet, puis de moyen - par l'image d'une part, par le langage d'autre part. Pour etre convainquants, les 'environnementalistes' doivent insister sur le caractere transcendant de l'environnement pre-technologique, sur le fait que le travail de l'homme sur cet environnement doit etre reduit au strict minimum, la necessite de survivre, afin de limiter le glissage conceptuel de l'objet vers le moyen.
Il est clair a mon sens que retarder le declin de l'humanite revele non pas d'une quelconque volonte collective, ni meme du miracle, mais-comble de l'ironie-de la sphere techno-logique, celle-la meme qui a accelere les difficultes environnementales de l'homme. Or la technologie assume une existence autonome, a peine controlable, des lors qu'elle est integree au monde artificiel que l'homme s'est construit au fil des millenaires. Ce n'est pas parce que ce sont les humains qui actionnent la technologie que celle-ci leur est soumise. Au contraire, par son existence meme, la technologie presuppose l'actionnement humain. En ce sens, puisque l'actionnement est non seulement a prevoir mais necessaire (la technologie faisant partie integrante du monde qu'habite l'homme), c'est plutot les hommes qui sont soumis a la technologie. Mieux, l'existence humaine (existence : manifestation ontologique-relevant de ce qui est-de l'homme) se definit dans son rapport de subordination a la technologie autant qu'autrefois elle pouvait se definir dans son rapport de subordination a la nature ; car la technologie n'ayant de sens que si elle est integree au monde des hommes, fait partie integrante de l'environnement sur lequel se construit son activite (sociale). La guerre est peut-etre l'expression la plus pure de ce double rapport de subordination, tant a la nature qu'a la technologie. Un esprit vif pourra me retorquer que cette derniere distinction est artificielle : l'homme etant un animal terrestre, son action est une manifestation de la nature-y compris la guerre-et ses production autant de produits 'naturels'. Cette pensee confond origine et essence conceptuelle. Si l'homme est inscrit dans l'ordre naturel des choses, il apprehende par objectivisations : conceptuellement a travers le langage et la science, pratiquement a travers le travail, qui transforme cette nature en moyen pour les fins qu'exige l'existence. La nature n'est donc plus une realite transcendente pour l'homme mais une realite objectivee (qu'est-ce le mot 'nature' si ce n'est une objectivisation conceptuelle ?), et de ce fait elle est distincte a la fois de lui et des autres objets conceptuels. La technologie est de ces derniers, distincte de la nature, distincte aussi de l'homme qui lui est sujet (pensant, travailleur etc).
Mon propos est que lorsqu'une technologie existe et est disponible, son non actionnement ne peut relever que de la decision morale, d'une volonte deliberee qui se definie contre le predonne (ce qui existe), a savoir l'environnement (qui, on l'a vu, est technologique autant que naturel). Il suit que l'homme ou la femme qui se reclame de "l'environnement" contre la technologie et de ses effets nefastes sur cet "environnement" est dans une situation ambigue : il se reclame non tant de l'environnement en tant que tel, mais de l'environnement pre-technologique et, plus fondamentalement, de l'environnement non objective, transcendant (qui est donc a traiter comme une fin et non pas simplement comme un moyen). L'ambiguite reside en ce qu'il ou elle ne peut s'empecher d'apprehender l'environnement en tant qu'objet (il ne peut en etre autrement - le langage, la pensee et l'activite sont des formes d'objectivisation) - et apres tout il est le premier a invoquer "l'environnement" - mais se refuse a en tirer les consequences pratiques, a savoir la transformation de l'objet en moyen pour des fins humaines. A ce titre ce n'est pas un hasard que les dix commandements interdisent aux hebreux la representation et l'invocation vaine de Dieu ; car s'il en fut autrement, Dieu serait reduit au statut d'objet, puis de moyen - par l'image d'une part, par le langage d'autre part. Pour etre convainquants, les 'environnementalistes' doivent insister sur le caractere transcendant de l'environnement pre-technologique, sur le fait que le travail de l'homme sur cet environnement doit etre reduit au strict minimum, la necessite de survivre, afin de limiter le glissage conceptuel de l'objet vers le moyen.
lundi 9 mars 2009
Good Things That Come With Depression
Depression is a serious illness with serious consequences such as economic loss, social withdrawal, academic impairment and so on. However, serious depression comes with a certain wisdom about the human condition and human beings' limitless capacity for suffering. It is a form of transcendence. When one is depressed one experiences the Whole of existence, what the Greeks called phusis. One sees through the thinly veiled abyss of the media and of contemporary 'public' life. In my case, I could never have written my philosophical pieces without depression: Perception and Knowledge, Time and Moment, Lathoron, On Truth and so on. Arguably, with depression comes a certain increased awareness of history, if history is understood as spiritual progression, because one experiences one's body as historical. With depression also comes an increased sensitivity to the uniqueness of things, especially of beautiful things. One does not take things for granted in other words. Of course what I write is true of my depression and probably not that of others. But melancholia is a definite source of philosophy and often finds expression in the works of great poets, thinkers and composers. It is an ancient emotion, an occurrence in the human psyche that will never go away completely. There will always be depressed people and, with them, a dark perception of the world but not necessarily a bad one. Depressed people owe it to themselves to survive because theirs is a noble life, spent in communion with the Whole, even if it is delusional and self-defeating. For depression is a profound emotion, and that produndity has its place in an otherwise non profound world. Of course this is my opinion. At any rate fighting depression as I do has made me wise beyond my years in that I can detect those thoughts which bring over a precipice, those tendencies which are life-denying and dangerous, those habits which are self-destructive. It is, in short, an exercise in self-knowledge though indubitably a very unpleasant one.
Inscription à :
Messages (Atom)
