<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The "Odyssey" and "Iliad" in their historical contexts
Review: "The World of Odysseus" is a book with a unique intent: use archaeology and what historians have pieced together about pre-Classical Greece to describe the society that Odysseus (and the other characters of the Odyssey/Iliad) would have known at the time of the Trojan War. From theorizing about Homer's identity, to speculating on the relationship between Penelope and Odysseus, the author succeeds in a sotry nearly as interesting as the Odyssey itself.
In any discussion about Homer and the epics, invariably questions arise about their historicity. Whole forests have been felled, and TV programs of varying (to say the least) accuracy have been broadcast about this point. The autor contends that such discussion is tangential to the real issue: the myth itself is important in what the content tells us about Greek society of the time-roughly 1200 BC. Thus, considering that Homer is relating actual locations and personages, but assuming the tales about the Gods were satire totally misses the point of the poems. All aspects of society are covered: customs, religion and class all get well written chapters. A pretty solid social history of Bronze-Age Greece. What tells against the book though is its age. Naturally the latest archaeology and theories don't appear here. Recommended as excellent background to the study of these two epic poems.
Rating:
Summary: The "Odyssey" and "Iliad" in their historical contexts
Review: "The World of Odysseus" is a book with a unique intent: use archaeology and what historians have pieced together about pre-Classical Greece to describe the society that Odysseus (and the other characters of the Odyssey/Iliad) would have known at the time of the Trojan War. From theorizing about Homer's identity, to speculating on the relationship between Penelope and Odysseus, the author succeeds in a sotry nearly as interesting as the Odyssey itself.
In any discussion about Homer and the epics, invariably questions arise about their historicity. Whole forests have been felled, and TV programs of varying (to say the least) accuracy have been broadcast about this point. The autor contends that such discussion is tangential to the real issue: the myth itself is important in what the content tells us about Greek society of the time-roughly 1200 BC. Thus, considering that Homer is relating actual locations and personages, but assuming the tales about the Gods were satire totally misses the point of the poems. All aspects of society are covered: customs, religion and class all get well written chapters. A pretty solid social history of Bronze-Age Greece. What tells against the book though is its age. Naturally the latest archaeology and theories don't appear here. Recommended as excellent background to the study of these two epic poems.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent insight into Trojan War Era Greece
Review: All of Finley's books, are the best analysis of the ancient world. With a few exceptions, all of his arguments are sound. This book is a collection of his arguments about the world of Trojan War Greece. Do not let the title fool you, Finley explores all aspects of the Trojan War era Greek civilization.
Rating:
Summary: The Anthropology of Homer
Review: Finley only briefly ventures into archaeology in the beginning of _The World of Odysseus_, and only to demonstrate that Mycenean Greece is not the world of the Homeric heroes. From this conclusion he guesses that Homer is likely describing a world that existed between the Mycenean era and the poet's own time. Finley then goes literary, eschewing anthropology and archaeology and instead analyzing the texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey. From the stories of Homer, he reconstructs the sort of society in the Homeric heroes lived, in terms of its economy, its social structure, and its morals and values. The picture he draws is interesting and compelling, above all because it is consistent. Its consistency is, of course, an argument in favor of the view that the Homeric world really did exist (i.e., that gods and magic and specific names aside, the cultural world described by Homer is authentic, and not an artistic creation). Moreover, because the culture is consistent, an understanding of it helps a reader to interpret sometimes puzzling actions on the part of Homer's heroes. This is therefore important secondary reading to accompany any reading of Homer.
Rating:
Summary: Homer revisited
Review: Like most liberal arts graduates of the "Baby Boomer" generation, I know a little about Homer's poems "The Odyssey" and "The Iliad" from reading excerpts in high school, and possibly college, and of course the movies "Helen of Troy", and "Ulysses" starring Kirk Douglas. Those means merely scratched the surface of the magnificant works upon which they were based, and this book, beautifully and insightfully written, is a wonderful aide to understanding the poems in their actual context. This work shows how the poems related to "real life" at the time of their composition, and how "reality-based" they may have been. There is the agrument for whether or not there actually was a "Trojan War", and if so, where was it fought. The ancient Greek era is examined in detail, and the customs and mores of various ages are discussed insofar as they relate to portions of the poems. I learned significantly more about these works than I imagined when I began the book, and now I have a heightened admiration for the person or persons known as Homer, and of course for the erudite author of this interesting work of scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: A work of classical scholarship that is TRULY a classic
Review: Moses Finley's WORLD OF ODYSSEUS is that rarest of rarities: it is a work of historical-literary scholarship that so far hasn't dated hardly at all. As such, it makes the perfect edition to the NYRB Classics series: this nifty little study gives the reader a very informative (and mostly very accurate) overview of life during Homer's age, the so-called "Dark Ages" of ancient Greece. The iconoclasm of Finley's approach--his daring refusal to believe the Homeric epics gave accurate portraits of the Mycenaean Age they purported to describe, and his insistence that they rather spoke to Homer's own time--still seems brave and innovative fifty years later, and Bernard Knox does a superb job contextualizing the impact of Finley's study.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent "Epilogue" to Homer
Review: Reading Finley immediately after you finish Homer allows you to revisit the epics' individual passages and tie them into coherent themes. Finley's discussion of the Greek household, or oikos, is especially good, as are his insights on giftgiving. The world that Homer sang of is a stark contrast to the more familiar, Classical Greece, and yet the seeds of that Greece (and hence our world) are already reconizably there. Perhaps they are there in a truer, less alloyed form. The only regrettable part of this book is the second appendix, a speech that Finley later gave on Schliemann. It is full of such professional bitterness that one begins to doubt Finley's decency. The publisher produced a gem of a book, but it should seriously consider removing these few pages in future editions.
Rating:
Summary: A must for the Homeric reader
Review: This is a fantastic account of an epoch in which the worlds of history and mythology merge together. The historical significance of myriad passages in Homer are discussed and elaborated on. One cannot but stand in awe of Finley's perspicuity in deciphering the historical importance of even the minutest details. This is a superb reference guide to assist one's journey thru the archaic but wonderous historical niche of the ancient Greeks. For those who have already read the works of Homer, the present work is a very useful tool to examine more closely the subtle information provided in even the most remote passages of the epics. This book is highly recommended to anyone who has ever read Homer, as well as anyone who would ever like to. For students of Greek history and literature, this one is a can't miss!
Rating:
Summary: Unanswerable
Review: Well, here's Finley's conclusion: Homer's stories about the Trojan War are fiction, and Schliemann's "discoveries" of Troy do not support his wild claims (despite Schliemann's other services to archaeology). Finley quotes the sceptical judgment of Charles Newton, the British Museum curator, who in 1878 wrote that we don't know the size of that kernel of truth in Homer's epics. Finley went further: there is no historical truth at all in The Iliad, and as little in The Odyssey also. My impression is that Finley was, and remains, a minority. Most Greek scholars (historical, archaeological, or philological) feel that there IS some real facts in Homer. For instance, J. B. Bury, writing in early last century in his History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great, stated that the traditional date of the Fall of Troy - i.e., the date indicated by Homer - 1183 BC, is correct, and that Homer's Troy corresponds to archaeological facts! Bury was the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge (strange title for a scholar of ANCIENT Greece and Rome), writing his book at a time when Finley was an infant. It is possible that archaeological finds by 1954 have cast more doubts on Schliemann's labors, which were made in the 19th century. But then Finley quotes Newton with approval, and Newton wrote in 1878. It is equally possible (though I don't know) that modern archaeological discoveries have further supported Schliemann and not Finley. In a sense, the whole debate is moot. Many great works of literature are a mix of facts and fiction: Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, China's Three Kingdoms and The Journey to the West, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. These are great books. To be sure, that kernel of truth may be very small in Homer, but we don't read Hamlet, let alone see it acted on stage, because we think the story is "real". That Homer's stories were believed by the ancients to be true (Alexander for one) is a major reason why we still have them today. And who can say for sure one finds nothing but true facts in history books? Can't true history contain a kernel of fiction also? Alexander, who believed in Homer without question and was inspired by The Iliad, is the subject of countless biographies, but whether we know whole truth and nothing but concerning Alexander is still a mystery. The difference between him and Achilles is a matter of degrees.
Rating:
Summary: Unanswerable
Review: Well, here's Finley's conclusion: Homer's stories about the Trojan War are fiction, and Schliemann's "discoveries" of Troy do not support his wild claims (despite Schliemann's other services to archaeology). Finley quotes the sceptical judgment of Charles Newton, the British Museum curator, who in 1878 wrote that we don't know the size of that kernel of truth in Homer's epics. Finley went further: there is no historical truth at all in The Iliad, and as little in The Odyssey also. My impression is that Finley was, and remains, a minority. Most Greek scholars (historical, archaeological, or philological) feel that there IS some real facts in Homer. For instance, J. B. Bury, writing in early last century in his History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great, stated that the traditional date of the Fall of Troy - i.e., the date indicated by Homer - 1183 BC, is correct, and that Homer's Troy corresponds to archaeological facts! Bury was the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge (strange title for a scholar of ANCIENT Greece and Rome), writing his book at a time when Finley was an infant. It is possible that archaeological finds by 1954 have cast more doubts on Schliemann's labors, which were made in the 19th century. But then Finley quotes Newton with approval, and Newton wrote in 1878. It is equally possible (though I don't know) that modern archaeological discoveries have further supported Schliemann and not Finley. In a sense, the whole debate is moot. Many great works of literature are a mix of facts and fiction: Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, China's Three Kingdoms and The Journey to the West, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. These are great books. To be sure, that kernel of truth may be very small in Homer, but we don't read Hamlet, let alone see it acted on stage, because we think the story is "real". That Homer's stories were believed by the ancients to be true (Alexander for one) is a major reason why we still have them today. And who can say for sure one finds nothing but true facts in history books? Can't true history contain a kernel of fiction also? Alexander, who believed in Homer without question and was inspired by The Iliad, is the subject of countless biographies, but whether we know whole truth and nothing but concerning Alexander is still a mystery. The difference between him and Achilles is a matter of degrees.
<< 1 >>
|
