Bloomsbury (2018) h/b 224pp £114 (ISBN 9781350012684)
That the ‘matter of Troy’, and the central place of Homer within it, have permeated Western art and culture all the way to now (including periods when Homer was not available for anyone to read) is hardly controversial. Yet there still seems to be a strong appetite for studying this tradition, especially the process of its ‘reception’ in different times and places, and what causes it to grow and change its shape. A comprehensive account of the Trojan tradition would be a vast project, well beyond the scope of a single book, but that is not what we are offered here. Instead, the authors have chosen to illustrate just a few aspects, by a rather unusual method.
They argue that the tradition grows and mutates by a sort of dialogue with its recipients, as it is encountered in different times and places, and that a dialectical method is therefore a good way to show how the process varies. To this end they have chosen five themes, which are presented in the five main chapters; each author, in turn, writes about an example which illustrates the theme. The paired examples are carefully chosen to provide contrast but also some underlying features in common. The aim is to ‘shed light on specific case studies from a range of cultural contexts’, to show how the process of ‘reception’ works, and to gain insight on the place of the Iliad within the wider Trojan War tradition (there is little in this book about the Odyssey, but no doubt they could have given it the same treatment with similar conclusions).
The first chapter compares the Iliad itself with an Akkadian epic poem, Erra and Ishum, looking specifically at how the poet in each case perceives his task. These two examples come from a similar time period (the 8th C BC) from very different cultural contexts and poetic traditions; yet, it is argued, there are similar concerns with the practice of poetry and the poet’s function as he perceives it. Chapter 2 looks at visual examples: the Euthymides amphora from c. 510 BC, which shows on one side the arming of Hector and on the other a group of drunken revellers, compared against Rossetti’s portrait of Helen with a background of burning Troy; these are both from periods when the Iliad was well known, and both raise questions about social roles (male: female) which at the time are likely to have seemed subversive. The theme of Chapter 3 is debate (conflict through words) and compares the Cassandra-Hecuba-Helen speeches in Euripides’ Troades against the Trojan debate in Troilus and Cressida; both examples show the power of words as well as their limitations, and they come from times when knowledge of the Iliad was very different: basic to education in fifth-century Athens, just beginning to come into focus in Shakespeare’s England. The fourth chapter looks at the historical question (what really happened?) and contrasts Herodotus with Schliemann, both attempting to correct the Iliad’s inaccuracies while insisting on its basic ‘truth’; in both cases, Homer is firmly believed in and is central to the perceived tradition. In contrast, Chapter 5 deal with the cultural effects of the Trojan War at times when the Iliad itself was/is little known to the intended audience: Godfrey of Viterbo’s Speculum Regum (underscoring the importance of supposed Trojan ancestry for European noble houses) against the recent Hollywood film Troy, made around the time of the Iraq war and apparently heavily influenced by the politics of the time (e.g. Agamemnon and the Greeks presented as evil Bush-like imperialists).
Does this approach work? In favour of it is that it enables each author to present insights relating to each example which can be illuminating and which on their own make an entertaining read. The weakness of the dialogue method, at least as presented here, is that there is no cross-argument; each case stands alone, unquestioned by the other. They are in effect paired presentations rather than a true ‘dialogue’ in which a cut-and-thrust of argument might perhaps lead to a wider vision. The result is that the authors struggle to draw non-trivial general conclusions. In the final chapter, the only key point they seem to see emerging is that, at least from the 5th C BC onwards, the Iliad is always central to the tradition, even when it is not directly known and when key elements in the story are changed or even invented; Homer and his text are always needed to validate the story, even when he is a very shadowy presence indeed. But we always knew that – didn’t we?
Colin McDonald