Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ines Chamarro's avatar

When I was younger I accepted the romantic opinion of a single creative Homer, but one time I had to read the Iliad and then the Odyssey straight after, and that single experience changed my mind. It is clear to me that not only there are two different [sets of] authors but they

come from radically different times and places.

The Iliad is a poem that is entirely land-based, set in one place and reflects a warrior ethos fixated on glory. You can almost taste the dust, the blood and the metal, hear the clash of arms, feel the excess of testosterone (that initial argument between Achilles and Agamemnon almost had me scrambling for cover when I had to translate it from the Homeric Greek).

If you move to the Odyssey, the setting is completely different - the unending sea, the island-hopping, the easy acceptance of the "other" (the stranger, the traveller, the god in disguise), the acquiring of reputation through hospitality rather than war. The focus is on achieving the return home, not the posthumous glory (vid. the shade of Achilles stating he would rather be a serf and alive than reign in the underworld!). There is that constant preocupation with the weather and the direction of the wind that only makes sense in a sea-faring society. They count their sheep and worry about pirates.

There is also the role and bandwidth given to the women. In the Iliad you barely hear the feminine voices, and women are completely powerless to control their own destiny. Briseis is an enslaved captive of war who changes hands twice before we even hear her speak, and when she finally opens her mouth it is to grieve over the people she has lost. Helen is a mere spectator in the civilisational cataclism wrought by her presence in Troy. And Andromache, well. That she and her husband can so accurately predict the coming disaster does nothing to prepare her for it.

Turn to the Odyssey and all the women have not just a voice but actual agency (I scoff at the jealousy vibes but my conclusion is the same): Arete of the Phaeacians has the power to decide whether or not to grant hospitality; Circe is very much the sovereign of her island, and so is Calypso. It is quite clear that even in Ithaca Odysseus became king by marrying Penelope and not the other way around (his father Laertes doesn't even live in the palace, for gods' sake). Even Helen is back in control of her own house in Sparta and dosing people around with no control whatsoever. Odysseus is bounced from woman to woman all across the poem and they are the only ones actively helping. I reckon Robert Graves was on to something when he wrote Homer's Daughter.

I could go on, but all this is to say that I rather think that the Iliad comes from an Anatolic tradition that is closer to Troy itself (also there's the dual viewpoint whereby the Achaians and the Trojans are both presented as fully fleshed people rather than generic heroes and villains - there is no villain in the Iliad, just the circumstance of a war where both sides see their lives terminally disrupted). It was probably composed in Greek but it drinks from local stories that predate the Ionian cities, in the same way that Beowulf was written in English, so to speak, but takes up an older story that does not even happen in England. On the other hand, the Odyssey was definitely composed in an island, though I have no idea which. This is a conclusion partly based on vibes on my part but I am absolutely certain of this. I also believe, with less evidence, that it must be more recent than the Iliad, because it reuses the metre, the epic epithets (Rosy-fingered Dawn etc) and the mannerisms of the Iliad, and it contains a lot of lesser stories linked to the Trojan and other cycles, including prominently the killing of Agamemnon (in a version that differs markedly from the Orestiad, which I find really interesting) but also mentions to Herakles and to the Theban cycle (Oedipus, Amphiaraos). Also it is a lot more organised than the Iliad, although that may be a later editorial effect from when the final text was crystallised. Overall it is more sanitised, more positive, and it has a happy ending, which is in spectacular contrast to the final funereal smoke of the Iliad.

All this reasoning finished clicking in my brain when I visited the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. Mycenean objects in that museum are perfectly consistent with the Iliad, down to the long-haired Achaians fighting it out in the decoration of the weapons and signet rings and Odysseus' boar tusk helmet reconstruction. The Odyssey, to me, is much closer to the Minoic culture as represented by the Santorini frescoes and especially the pottery - the swallows, the dolphins, the flowers moving in the breeze. There is a joy in life in that art that is completely absent from the violence of the war and hunting scenes associated with the Myceneans, and I believe it is that clash of mentalities that shows in the two poems. This is why I think there cannot be a single author.

M. E. Rothwell's avatar

I believe Homer was a real dude because I want to

13 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?