Ancient Literature Discussion (History, Myth, Philosophy &c.)

[Seika]

ἐγὼ δὲ ὀφείλω λέγειν τὰ λεγόμενα, πείθεσθαί γε μὲν οὐ παντάπασι ὀφείλω, καί μοι τοῦτο τὸ ἔπος ἐχέτω ἐς πάντα λόγον

As for myself, I am obliged to report what was reported to me, but I am not obliged to believe it in the slightest, and may the precept hold for everything in this work of mine.

Herodotos knows the value of putting down even things that you wouldn't believe (which, multiple times in the Histories, we have discovered to be true) and generally of having fun, instead of being a sour-minded dogmatist like Thucydides.

[2Bad]

On the other hand,Thucydides obsession with the details results in a much more credible source.

[Seika]

Herodotos' approach:
I will record all details and views about a subject that I can get my hands on. Occasionally I'll say I prefer one or the other, but in general it's your job to work it out.

Thucydides' approach:
I will attempt to deduce what I think is the truth about a subject from all my research, and then I will set that down as the definitive version of history.

One of these results in signal noise, where all the data is available but we have to try to work out the truth. One results in signal loss, where we no longer have certain data at all. The first is distinctly more preferable (at least at the level of noise Herodotos puts out, which frankly isn't that bad), whatever imagined 'authority' comes with laying out a singular narrative.

[VasilikiHaidee]

Is Illiad connected to both Odyssey and The Aeneid, timeline-wise?

[SeiKeo]

my god

save us from this blasted landscape of comic book continuity that we call modern culture

[Seika]

Is Illiad connected to both Odyssey and The Aeneid, timeline-wise?

They are part of the same overall mythological milieu, I guess, if that's what you're asking? Iliad happens, Troy is later sacked, Odysseus goes wandering, Aeneas becomes new Trojan king - these are details that most Classical folk would have known. As to specific relations in the text of each to the others ...

The exact connexion of the Odyssey and the Iliad is ... tricky, and ties deeply into The Homeric Question - i.e. who the hell do we mean by 'Homer' and what did he/she do anyway? - which is something that still frustrates the entire Classical profession today, nevermind anyone else. In general, the current thinking is that the Odyssey was written later than the Iliad, and as a result its ties back to the earlier poem are stronger and more frequent than the degree to which the Iliad sets up the Odyssey. In general, the Iliad foreshadows parts of the rest of the Epic Cycle for Odysseus, but they mainly relate to the Iliou Persis, the Sack of Troy, and the Wooden Horse, rather than to the ten wandering years of the Odyssey. The Odyssey, however, looks back at the time period of the Iliad more explicitly: for example, in the Nekuia of Book 11, Akhilleus renounces his choice of glorious death over long life. It's usually assumed that the Iliad itself is being referenced, though you'll find a few scholars who argue that it's still only meant to refer to the Epic Cycle legend instead of the Iliad specifically.

Aeneas' survival is prefigured in the Iliad, where he is saved by Poseidon in Book 20 since he is not a descendant of Priam, and it is prophesied that he will survive to rule the Trojans and establish a new royal line. The Aeneid itself builds on this tradition to make Aeneas specifically the founder of a new Troy in Italy, whence in turn Romulus and Remus, by way of its nature as a particularly Roman epic. (The whole Italian/Roman thing was likely unintended entirely by Homer*).

*Blah Homeric question caveat blah.

[2Bad]

Herodotos' approach:
I will record all details and views about a subject that I can get my hands on. Occasionally I'll say I prefer one or the other, but in general it's your job to work it out.

Thucydides' approach:
I will attempt to deduce what I think is the truth about a subject from all my research, and then I will set that down as the definitive version of history.

One of these results in signal noise, where all the data is available but we have to try to work out the truth. One results in signal loss, where we no longer have certain data at all. The first is distinctly more preferable (at least at the level of noise Herodotos puts out, which frankly isn't that bad), whatever imagined 'authority' comes with laying out a singular narrative.

Except you DO have to deduce what is and is not credible at some point. There's something to be said for a catalog of every tale yes, but source verification is also critical.

Of course in the case of these two you could also simply say they have different goals and be done with it.

[VasilikiHaidee]

They are part of the same overall mythological milieu, I guess, if that's what you're asking? Iliad happens, Troy is later sacked, Odysseus goes wandering, Aeneas becomes new Trojan king - these are details that most Classical folk would have known. As to specific relations in the text of each to the others ...

The exact connexion of the Odyssey and the Iliad is ... tricky, and ties deeply into The Homeric Question - i.e. who the hell do we mean by 'Homer' and what did he/she do anyway? - which is something that still frustrates the entire Classical profession today, nevermind anyone else. In general, the current thinking is that the Odyssey was written later than the Iliad, and as a result its ties back to the earlier poem are stronger and more frequent than the degree to which the Iliad sets up the Odyssey. In general, the Iliad foreshadows parts of the rest of the Epic Cycle for Odysseus, but they mainly relate to the Iliou Persis, the Sack of Troy, and the Wooden Horse, rather than to the ten wandering years of the Odyssey. The Odyssey, however, looks back at the time period of the Iliad more explicitly: for example, in the Nekuia of Book 11, Akhilleus renounces his choice of glorious death over long life. It's usually assumed that the Iliad itself is being referenced, though you'll find a few scholars who argue that it's still only meant to refer to the Epic Cycle legend instead of the Iliad specifically.

Aeneas' survival is prefigured in the Iliad, where he is saved by Poseidon in Book 20 since he is not a descendant of Priam, and it is prophesied that he will survive to rule the Trojans and establish a new royal line. The Aeneid itself builds on this tradition to make Aeneas specifically the founder of a new Troy in Italy, whence in turn Romulus and Remus, by way of its nature as a particularly Roman epic. (The whole Italian/Roman thing was likely unintended entirely by Homer*).

*Blah Homeric question caveat blah.

Yes, that's what I am asking. I was wondering whether I would enjoy Aeneid as a standalone or read Iliad and Odyssey for a more deeper flavor. Thanks for answering my question!

[Sunara]

You can but it's almost always more fun and informative to read the original legends instead of just summaries of them.

Usually that is the case but only if the translation is good and tolerable. (Very few can read them in their original languages.) However, if it is terrible and filled with flub or edited towards the translator's personal opinion, it is better to turn to sources like wiki. (Or if you don't have time.) Most of the time, myths and other fiction usually have several translators so it is easier to find a good one.

More obscure legends and so called "non-fiction" materials tend to get iffy. Sometimes they are filled with flub and other times there is over-flowing bigotry. I've run into many condescending so-called "translations" of ancient books. Some of them aren't even a translation but the author's opinion on said ancient book. That also occurs with original works too... so some have to skimmed or summarized. Who wants to read 300 pages of someone saying a female or certain race is inferior... Some of those ancient so-called "magic theory" texts, I've read, got really weird and became a new level of bigotry...

That said, some of these legends are really fun and should be read. A lot of the Irish myths are really interesting. Read some stuff in some books and a few translations. Irish history is so full of fun stuff to read. I also liked some of Mesopotamian and Babylonian stuff though I admit I looked online for those last two. I don't think there are accessible books?

[asterism42]

Humm...

I haven't read any direct versions of legends and whatnot. On the whole I prefer stuff like 19th century fiction.

I've read Lysistrata, though. It's pretty funny if you like that kind of thing.

[Seika]

The Aristophanic comedies are fine to read, but much better performed. I saw a great production of Frogs in London a few years back.

Brekekekex koax koax.

[Dullahan]

The Aristophanic comedies are fine to read, but much better performed. I saw a great production of Frogs in London a few years back.

Brekekekex koax koax.

In translation, or in the original Greek?

[Seika]

In translation, with plenty of Tony Blair jokes for good measure. But they used the Greek onomatopoeia for the frogswans' croaking, which was very memorable. I don't think they managed to translate the "khaire Kharon" pun though, because I remember coming across that later and having a quiet little giggle to myself.

I've only ever seen Alcestis in the Greek, which had a fantastic Herakles. Exactly the right amount of larger-than-life attitude, in enjoying himself and in heroism.

[Dullahan]

I'd assume that basically any English adaptation of The Frogs has to use the Greek onomatapoeia. Brekekekex is too much of a classicist meme to avoid. If someone tried to 'translate' it as ribbitribbitribbit or whatever, they'd get fucking lynched. It's just not done.

[Seika]

Ribbit does sound a bit pathetic.

Ah, I thought that khaire line was more obvious. Looked it up: χαῖρ᾽ ὦ Χάρων, χαῖρ᾽ ὦ Χάρων, χαῖρ᾽ ὦ Χάρων.

ἔξεστί θ᾽ ὥσπερ Ἡγέλοχος ἡμῖν λέγειν,
‘ἐκ κυμάτων γὰρ αὖθις αὖ γαλῆν ὁρῶ.’
Aristophanes, you're such a little git.

[Christemo]

Started reading Siddhartha after finishing my Islamic Law book (Which I'll talk about if anyone cares to listen). Its hardly an accurate depiction of Buddhism but its a great story about life regardless.

[Dullahan]

I can't imagine any law book being interesting, Islamic or otherwise. Then again, I've been reading 500-page technical manuals on oilfield engineering and management from 1904. Are there any particularly fascinating intricacies of Sharia you'd like to share with the class?

[Christemo]

Well ok islamic law is probably the wrong term. Its more or less a 150 page thesis on the history and development of Islam as a system of law and how it knits law and belief together as one, which uh, to put it mildly causes a lot of conflicts. Like even in Ali's time people couldn't make up their mind. A specific case would be when islamic judges were installed in a recently occupied Egypt in the 12th century which resulted in a massive debacle because the judges operated far too differently from the local ones (even though the locals were also muslims).

The author isnt a believer himself so its a pretty neutral book that basically tries really hard not to say "yeah uh it doesnt really work yo" by not really holding an opinion and using examples of haraam behavior without ever blaming the belief itself (or rather, what an ideal islamic system would be like).

[Dullahan]

Well ok islamic law is probably the wrong term. Its more or less a 150 page thesis on the history and development of Islam as a system of law and how it knits law and belief together as one, which uh, to put it mildly causes a lot of conflicts. Like even in Ali's time people couldn't make up their mind. A specific case would be when islamic judges bwere installed in a recently occupied Egypt in the 12th century which resulted in a massive debacle because the judges operated far too differently from the local ones (even though the locals were also muslims)

Localist vs. universalist conflict seems to be a repeated motif in Islamic history. I recall reading somewhere about how a lot of the opposition to IS in Syria comes from local Sunni militants that are often similar in beliefs, but don't like IS because they're foreigners.

[Christemo]

Yeah, unfortunately IS are generally too numerous for locals, who often just get forced into working with them instead at the threat of their families and livelihoods. I read about the situation faced by locals in Mosul and it just sounds awful.