[gothic-l] Re: Schliemann & The Illiad as Fiction

[Nikolai]

--- In gothic-l at y..., Alburysteve at a... wrote:
> Hi Nikolai:
> 
> > To trust in Any text written before the empirical age is
> >  completely risky. 
> 
> "empirical age"?

Yes. Empirical. Look up the word. The age from approx. 1820 to 
present.

> 
> > The world was an extremely conjectural, biased
> >  place, moreso than it is now, and heavily religiously
> >  influenced.
> 
> This is conjectural.

as was your previous post.

> 
> >   And since none of us were alive during the composition of any
> >  of these works, it would be nothing more than personal opinion,
> >  not fact, as to whether any of it is legit or whether it is
> >  there only to teach and give joy. 
> 
> In antiquity, more was written about the Homeric poems than any 
other work.  
> We know a great deal about what the classical Greeks thought about 
Homer's 
> works thus making their feelings as "knowable" as the Peloponnesian 
war, for 
> example.

Actually... I believe more was written about the bible and its many 
facets than the works of Homer.

> 
> > And since not every single
> >  piece of archaeological evidence yet to be discovered has been
> >  discovered, it would be highly arrogant to arrive at any
> >  "factual" conclusion as to a piece of literatures validity of
> >  being wholly fictional or not.
> 
> Archaeologists write a great deal about what they know and do not 
flinch from 
> drawing conclusions based on that.  Our state of knowledge is not 
placed on 
> hold until all facts in the universe have been disclosed.  But feel 
free to 
> consider my opinion tentative.

I do.

> 
> And how do you "know" on what my response was based?  Is the 
knowldege of my 
> education and personal experiences part of your conclusion

Alright then... if you did not base your opinions and thoughts off of 
your own personal experience and education... then you swiped it from 
someone else.

Forgive me... I assumed at Some point that you had been educated 
Somewhere and that was where your assumptions Came from.
Was I mistaken?

> 
> > Just because someone else of accreditation thought
> >  of a particular perspective does not mean it is fact. Because
> >  That person was not alive during the construction of the
> >  stories, either.
> 
> And I suppose that if such a person were alive at the time, his 
judgement 
> could be questioned in any epistemological inquisition as rabid as 
this.

Nice word. No... this is Not a philosophical witchhunt. Simply a 
strong opinion stated by myself about your axiomatic statement. 
Nothing personal.

> 
> >  So... it is rather arrogant to inform someone else of
> >  something's "intended purpose" when you, like the rest of us,
> >  really have no idea... only educated guesses.
> 
> If forming an educated guess is "arrogant", then I'm arrogant

no no... the idea of such is arrogant. Not you... but if you took it 
that way...  *shrug*

Next is a pasted pondering of a friend of mine, Grad student shifting 
from Notre Dame to Univ. of Chicago this coming fall, Classicist 
major/Egyptologist minor;

"Homer wasn't the only author to use the term Danai (or 
actually "Danaoi").  He may have the overwhelming majority of 
instances, but check out this list of search results. 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/psearch?phrase=%2Adanaoi%
2F&auth=Perseus%3Acorpus%3Aperseus%2CGreek%20Texts&lang=greek
As for the veracity of the Illiad, the debate is still hot.  It seems 
generally to be believed among modern scholars that the Illiad came 
out of a long tradition of oral epic poetry.  The rhythm, repetition, 
and pattern in the composition support this as do the long passages 
of lists or catalogs of items (e.g. the ships of the Achaeans [i.e. 
yet another word for the Greeks]) -- a truly magnificent feat if you 
can memorize and recite this!  The specific events and characters of 
the Illiad may not have taken place or existed, but to the Greeks 
they did and that's what really matters as far as interpreting the 
Greek perspective and conception of the story.  We're not sure 
whether there ever actually was a Homer (again, the Greeks firmly 
believed in him, calling him "The Poet").  Can't say.  Where'd the 
name come from if there never was one?  As for the authorship of the 
Illiad, it's quite safe to say that Homer didn't compose it.  There 
were likely many versions of the same story circulating at the time.  
Every time the Illiad was sung (could you imagine sitting through an 
entire singing of the Illiad -- yes, it was a song, not singing as we 
know it, but still not a monotone reading), the performer likely used 
different descriptions here and there, different epithets, perhaps 
even skipping or adding large passages.  The Illiad we have today 
just happens to be the oldest surviving version of the story in 
written form. 
Since the Illiad likely sprung from oral tradition and Homer 
uses "Danaoi" in the Illiad, it's pretty daring to say that the 
Greeks never called themselves or used the term Danaoi.  Yet, if you 
get really technical, one might argue against that (i.e. they never 
called themselves Danaoi).  Danaoi (the Danaans) is an Ionic Aeolic 
epic term referring to the subjects or kin of Danaos, the king of 
Argos (from the LSJ - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?
lang=greek&lookup=%2Adanaoi%3Dsi&embed=2&doc=Perseus%3Atext%
3A1999.01.0133 -- a Greek dictionary about the size of a VW bug).  
Argos is on the Greek mainland, while Ionia is the western coast of 
modern Turkey and the islands around there.  I'm no linguist or 
philologist, but it seems, from this, to have been a term used by one 
Greek ethnic cline ;) to describe another.  If that is the case, you 
could say that the Greeks never referred literally to themselves as 
Danaans."

Tschüs.
Nikolai
^^O^^


You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/