The Classics Society Mk II
Scroll to see replies
Original post by The Lyceum
Hm which Plato is this? I'm not very up with my Philosophy, the only one I can think of is Sokrates being a bit of a bastard in the Apologia, where he's basically claiming that the Poets aren't clever since no matter how sublime their work they don't really understand it. It's basically just point scoring for Philosophers I guess. I doubt you have that passage in mind though.
I would read that as basically Plato exulting Philosophers as much as it is him damning Rhapsodes. You know, off the top of my head I can't be sure whether or not they had a special vocabulary etc. It seems unlikely, I think only the Philosophers developed anything like that.
Also I actually don't think we have any direct evidence for how rhapsodes were trained, we have only the barest allusions to their guilds as it is.
I would read that as basically Plato exulting Philosophers as much as it is him damning Rhapsodes. You know, off the top of my head I can't be sure whether or not they had a special vocabulary etc. It seems unlikely, I think only the Philosophers developed anything like that.
Also I actually don't think we have any direct evidence for how rhapsodes were trained, we have only the barest allusions to their guilds as it is.
The Ion. And yes. Nearly all our knowledge on rhapsodes comes from this work. Brilliant.
Original post by Sappho
I am indeed. But I think Philomen is a little more certain about her orientation than this person 
I can't believe I just said this. In public.
I can't believe I just said this. In public.
He's a bad influence on your ability to hold polite conversation I'm convinced...
Original post by big-bang-theory
He's a bad influence on your ability to hold polite conversation I'm convinced...
This is very true. In addition, he's stealing my romanticism. Every time I see him with that boy, I want to think This is SO cute". But I can't. Because his boyfriend is waiting at home.
Have to cook, will try and add some more when done.
Ok cooked, forgot a lot of the ideas I had. In retrospect most of them wouldn't necessarily be relevant to what your doing.
The best advice I can give is if all else fails attack the text/its author/literary tradition and highlight the problems we have in using it to prove/disprove X/Y
The best advice I can give is if all else fails attack the text/its author/literary tradition and highlight the problems we have in using it to prove/disprove X/Y
Original post by The Lyceum
Ok cooked, forgot a lot of the ideas I had. In retrospect most of them wouldn't necessarily be relevant to what your doing.
The best advice I can give is if all else fails attack the text/its author/literary tradition and highlight the problems we have in using it to prove/disprove X/Y
The best advice I can give is if all else fails attack the text/its author/literary tradition and highlight the problems we have in using it to prove/disprove X/Y
Yeah, I'll be attacking Plato. Unfortunately, that's rather unrelated to the question. Sigh.
Where could I try to find out how the Athenian Empire was called at that time? Any thoughts?
Thucydides and most history books written on it 
It was "Athens and her allies", "The Athenians and their allies" and "The Delian League" and so on and forth. The Roman paradigm doesn't quite work well for Athens I'm afraid.
It was "Athens and her allies", "The Athenians and their allies" and "The Delian League" and so on and forth. The Roman paradigm doesn't quite work well for Athens I'm afraid.
Original post by The Lyceum
Thucydides and most history books written on it
It was "Athens and her allies", "The Athenians and their allies" and "The Delian League" and so on and forth. The Roman paradigm doesn't quite work well for Athens I'm afraid.
It was "Athens and her allies", "The Athenians and their allies" and "The Delian League" and so on and forth. The Roman paradigm doesn't quite work well for Athens I'm afraid.
Very funny. You see, that's exactly what I was thinking. Why on earth should we discuss when the League became an Empire when it wasn't seen as one.
Original post by Sappho
Very funny. You see, that's exactly what I was thinking. Why on earth should we discuss when the League became an Empire when it wasn't seen as one.
The general consensus is when they they move the treasury from Delphi to the Akropolis.
The Athenian "Empire" is really, really, interesting when you look at it from a Religious point of view and how it affected later Ionian ethnic identity, actually.
But no, it wasn't seen as an Empire exactly. They went out of their way to do the whole "lol best friends" things. The word often used for empire btw was ὰρκἠ which can have a myriad of connotations and so comes up a lot. Even the Roman term didn't mean "Empire" in today's sense exactly.
Original post by The Lyceum
The general consensus is when they they move the treasury from Delphi to the Akropolis.
The Athenian "Empire" is really, really, interesting when you look at it from a Religious point of view and how it affected later Ionian ethnic identity, actually.
But no, it wasn't seen as an Empire exactly. They went out of their way to do the whole "lol best friends" things. The word often used for empire btw was ὰρκἠ which can have a myriad of connotations and so comes up a lot. Even the Roman term didn't mean "Empire" in today's sense exactly.
The Athenian "Empire" is really, really, interesting when you look at it from a Religious point of view and how it affected later Ionian ethnic identity, actually.
But no, it wasn't seen as an Empire exactly. They went out of their way to do the whole "lol best friends" things. The word often used for empire btw was ὰρκἠ which can have a myriad of connotations and so comes up a lot. Even the Roman term didn't mean "Empire" in today's sense exactly.
1. I disagree.
2. Maybe, but that's not my question.
3. Yes, I know, that's one of my points, and fortunately I just found a book on Ancient Imperialism.
Also, sorry if I come across as very annoyed, but I am actually very annoyed and stressed and also it annoys me very much when people tell me things like 'They didn't call it empire cos that's Latin'. Argh!
Original post by Sappho
1. I disagree.
2. Maybe, but that's not my question.
3. Yes, I know, that's one of my points, and fortunately I just found a book on Ancient Imperialism.
Also, sorry if I come across as very annoyed, but I am actually very annoyed and stressed and also it annoys me very much when people tell me things like 'They didn't call it empire cos that's Latin'. Argh!
2. Maybe, but that's not my question.
3. Yes, I know, that's one of my points, and fortunately I just found a book on Ancient Imperialism.
Also, sorry if I come across as very annoyed, but I am actually very annoyed and stressed and also it annoys me very much when people tell me things like 'They didn't call it empire cos that's Latin'. Argh!
Haha don't worry about it, whether or not one agrees or not is somewhat irrelevant since that is, or rather was, the consensus. The reality is much more difficult to grasp and, disturbingly, shifts depending on what context you examine it from.
There's an article by J Ma "Empires, Statuses and Realities" which might be helpful in "Interpreting the Athenian Empire" eds J Ma (Oxford) if you can get hold of it. In general the book is quite good.
Original post by The Lyceum
Haha don't worry about it, whether or not one agrees or not is somewhat irrelevant since that is, or rather was, the consensus. The reality is much more difficult to grasp and, disturbingly, shifts depending on what context you examine it from.
There's an article by J Ma "Empires, Statuses and Realities" which might be helpful in "Interpreting the Athenian Empire" eds J Ma (Oxford) if you can get hold of it. In general the book is quite good.
There's an article by J Ma "Empires, Statuses and Realities" which might be helpful in "Interpreting the Athenian Empire" eds J Ma (Oxford) if you can get hold of it. In general the book is quite good.
I actually looked for that one earlier today, but someone has taken it out.
Does anyone have any good articles/books to recommend on using Homer as historical evidence.
I think I roughly know where I'm going with this essay, my essential argument is that Homer is so heavily stylised in a poetic form that what we do know was accurate, we know because of archaeological evidence and such like and not because of Homer, and in most instances without archaeology it would still be reckless to assume Homer is correct given:
A what he does allude to knowing (chariot and siege warfare are my two main examples) throughout most of the Iliad he bastardises into single combat and armies agreeing to march out into a field whenever specific events occur simply because it's more poetically useful, so how can we know what else he's edited for stylistic affect
and
B He's so detached from Mycenaean civilisation that unless he makes his knowledge clear because we already know he's right through other means we don't know if it's fabricated for effect (large temples to Gods and cult statues) or if he genuinely had access to knowledge of Mycenae that we don't.
Then I'm moving on to Homeric culture and pointing out that the problems in B are exactly the opposite way round. We still can't disentangle Homeric from Mycenaean cultural reference.
(There's also a bit on the historicity of the Trojan war but it's been much easier to find material on that so I'm reasonably happy with where that's going whereas the rest is just a tangled mess. Although if anyone knows any articles/books that discuss names in the Iliad and Odyessy [Penelope being from to weave, Hector being from holding fast etc. it would be a very useful citation <and indeed read> as I learnt about it in a lecture at Greek camp but for the life of me can't remember the name of the professor to try and cite him as a reference])
I think I roughly know where I'm going with this essay, my essential argument is that Homer is so heavily stylised in a poetic form that what we do know was accurate, we know because of archaeological evidence and such like and not because of Homer, and in most instances without archaeology it would still be reckless to assume Homer is correct given:
A what he does allude to knowing (chariot and siege warfare are my two main examples) throughout most of the Iliad he bastardises into single combat and armies agreeing to march out into a field whenever specific events occur simply because it's more poetically useful, so how can we know what else he's edited for stylistic affect
and
B He's so detached from Mycenaean civilisation that unless he makes his knowledge clear because we already know he's right through other means we don't know if it's fabricated for effect (large temples to Gods and cult statues) or if he genuinely had access to knowledge of Mycenae that we don't.
Then I'm moving on to Homeric culture and pointing out that the problems in B are exactly the opposite way round. We still can't disentangle Homeric from Mycenaean cultural reference.
(There's also a bit on the historicity of the Trojan war but it's been much easier to find material on that so I'm reasonably happy with where that's going whereas the rest is just a tangled mess. Although if anyone knows any articles/books that discuss names in the Iliad and Odyessy [Penelope being from to weave, Hector being from holding fast etc. it would be a very useful citation <and indeed read> as I learnt about it in a lecture at Greek camp but for the life of me can't remember the name of the professor to try and cite him as a reference])
Original post by Sappho
I actually looked for that one earlier today, but someone has taken it out.
Condolences! I can't think of anything else off the top of my head that's so useful and yet so accessible.
Original post by big-bang-theory
Does anyone have any good articles/books to recommend on using Homer as historical evidence.
I think I roughly know where I'm going with this essay, my essential argument is that Homer is so heavily stylised in a poetic form that what we do know was accurate, we know because of archaeological evidence and such like and not because of Homer, and in most instances without archaeology it would still be reckless to assume Homer is correct given:
A what he does allude to knowing (chariot and siege warfare are my two main examples) throughout most of the Iliad he bastardises into single combat and armies agreeing to march out into a field whenever specific events occur simply because it's more poetically useful, so how can we know what else he's edited for stylistic affect
and
B He's so detached from Mycenaean civilisation that unless he makes his knowledge clear because we already know he's right through other means we don't know if it's fabricated for effect (large temples to Gods and cult statues) or if he genuinely had access to knowledge of Mycenae that we don't.
Then I'm moving on to Homeric culture and pointing out that the problems in B are exactly the opposite way round. We still can't disentangle Homeric from Mycenaean cultural reference.
(There's also a bit on the historicity of the Trojan war but it's been much easier to find material on that so I'm reasonably happy with where that's going whereas the rest is just a tangled mess. Although if anyone knows any articles/books that discuss names in the Iliad and Odyessy [Penelope being from to weave, Hector being from holding fast etc. it would be a very useful citation <and indeed read> as I learnt about it in a lecture at Greek camp but for the life of me can't remember the name of the professor to try and cite him as a reference])
I think I roughly know where I'm going with this essay, my essential argument is that Homer is so heavily stylised in a poetic form that what we do know was accurate, we know because of archaeological evidence and such like and not because of Homer, and in most instances without archaeology it would still be reckless to assume Homer is correct given:
A what he does allude to knowing (chariot and siege warfare are my two main examples) throughout most of the Iliad he bastardises into single combat and armies agreeing to march out into a field whenever specific events occur simply because it's more poetically useful, so how can we know what else he's edited for stylistic affect
and
B He's so detached from Mycenaean civilisation that unless he makes his knowledge clear because we already know he's right through other means we don't know if it's fabricated for effect (large temples to Gods and cult statues) or if he genuinely had access to knowledge of Mycenae that we don't.
Then I'm moving on to Homeric culture and pointing out that the problems in B are exactly the opposite way round. We still can't disentangle Homeric from Mycenaean cultural reference.
(There's also a bit on the historicity of the Trojan war but it's been much easier to find material on that so I'm reasonably happy with where that's going whereas the rest is just a tangled mess. Although if anyone knows any articles/books that discuss names in the Iliad and Odyessy [Penelope being from to weave, Hector being from holding fast etc. it would be a very useful citation <and indeed read> as I learnt about it in a lecture at Greek camp but for the life of me can't remember the name of the professor to try and cite him as a reference])
Just reminds me of my last essay on Thucydides. He may use him at I,10.1 (cf. Thucydides. “Book VI” edited by K. J. Dover. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1960.), and he probably uses him in VI, 1-2.
Original post by The Lyceum
Condolences! I can't think of anything else off the top of my head that's so useful and yet so accessible.
Maybe someone brings it back beofre th deadline, or I might be able to recall it later.
Original post by big-bang-theory
Does anyone have any good articles/books to recommend on using Homer as historical evidence.
I think I roughly know where I'm going with this essay, my essential argument is that Homer is so heavily stylised in a poetic form that what we do know was accurate, we know because of archaeological evidence and such like and not because of Homer, and in most instances without archaeology it would still be reckless to assume Homer is correct given:
A what he does allude to knowing (chariot and siege warfare are my two main examples) throughout most of the Iliad he bastardises into single combat and armies agreeing to march out into a field whenever specific events occur simply because it's more poetically useful, so how can we know what else he's edited for stylistic affect
and
B He's so detached from Mycenaean civilisation that unless he makes his knowledge clear because we already know he's right through other means we don't know if it's fabricated for effect (large temples to Gods and cult statues) or if he genuinely had access to knowledge of Mycenae that we don't.
Then I'm moving on to Homeric culture and pointing out that the problems in B are exactly the opposite way round. We still can't disentangle Homeric from Mycenaean cultural reference.
(There's also a bit on the historicity of the Trojan war but it's been much easier to find material on that so I'm reasonably happy with where that's going whereas the rest is just a tangled mess. Although if anyone knows any articles/books that discuss names in the Iliad and Odyessy [Penelope being from to weave, Hector being from holding fast etc. it would be a very useful citation <and indeed read> as I learnt about it in a lecture at Greek camp but for the life of me can't remember the name of the professor to try and cite him as a reference])
I think I roughly know where I'm going with this essay, my essential argument is that Homer is so heavily stylised in a poetic form that what we do know was accurate, we know because of archaeological evidence and such like and not because of Homer, and in most instances without archaeology it would still be reckless to assume Homer is correct given:
A what he does allude to knowing (chariot and siege warfare are my two main examples) throughout most of the Iliad he bastardises into single combat and armies agreeing to march out into a field whenever specific events occur simply because it's more poetically useful, so how can we know what else he's edited for stylistic affect
and
B He's so detached from Mycenaean civilisation that unless he makes his knowledge clear because we already know he's right through other means we don't know if it's fabricated for effect (large temples to Gods and cult statues) or if he genuinely had access to knowledge of Mycenae that we don't.
Then I'm moving on to Homeric culture and pointing out that the problems in B are exactly the opposite way round. We still can't disentangle Homeric from Mycenaean cultural reference.
(There's also a bit on the historicity of the Trojan war but it's been much easier to find material on that so I'm reasonably happy with where that's going whereas the rest is just a tangled mess. Although if anyone knows any articles/books that discuss names in the Iliad and Odyessy [Penelope being from to weave, Hector being from holding fast etc. it would be a very useful citation <and indeed read> as I learnt about it in a lecture at Greek camp but for the life of me can't remember the name of the professor to try and cite him as a reference])
Just....what....I don't know what to really do with this. We can easily disentangle Homer from Mycenaean cultural references, in fact we do that all the time.
In terms of evidence contra to Mycenaean stuff: The entire social organisation is not Bronze, there's constant references to Temples (most likely Sub-Mycenaen) but nothing about the usual tree and pillar, spring etc cults. There's also evidence that Homer knew of Hero cults in the funerals.
However the poetic geography of book 2 is Mycenaean.
Also I completely don't understand your point about single combat. Are you suggesting that bronze age combat didn't play out as a series of set pieces amongst heavily armed chieftains vs followers? Because that's exactly how most historians do argue it was played out. In fact you can see clear cognates of this in modern tribal warfare as in Papua New Guinea (Van Wees) or in accounts from the British Empire regarding, say, the Zulu.
As for the names. We tend not to try and etymologize them for several very sound, complex, lengthy philological reasons. For what it's worth though names ending in ευς are clearly Mycenaean.
There's no real point discussing about "poetic effect" when it comes to a lot of these things unless you know enough Greek to understand the oral poetic system being used here.
Your FIRST stop for the Homeric world though should be Finley's "World of Odysseus" and then see what other Classicists have wrote about it: It's quite controversial in some aspects, i.e claiming that Homer represents a dark age world. (We have problems accepting this in toto)
Also check out Osbourne's "Greece in the Making" briefly and also Murray's "Early Greece" these are your best, brief, introductions.
Original post by Sappho
Maybe someone brings it back beofre th deadline, or I might be able to recall it later.
People are dicks. I hope it gets back though, if I come across something in time I'll send you the reference. God knows what I turn up in my readings you see. Good luck
Original post by The Lyceum
People are dicks. I hope it gets back though, if I come across something in time I'll send you the reference. God knows what I turn up in my readings you see. Good luck
Thank you, that's very kind. Actually I think this one I was talking about earlier seems rather useful. And I like Finley in general, so it's all good
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Oxford classics course II admissions (per college)
- TSR Goes Green: What's your favourite animal?
- TSR Goes Green: What stops you accessing nature?
- Welcome to Part-Time and Temporary Employment
- TSR Goes Green! Mk II - 2024 Hub thread
- New College Oxford elitist classics department?
- Worcester College Oxford Offer Holders 2024
- classics at oxbridge
- Favourite nature documentary
- Best movies
- Official UEA Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Oxford Classics and English Applicants 2024
- goldies poll album tracks april 84
- Notes for Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964
- oxford classics offer holders 2024
- Core ideology essay
- Anthropology, Classical Studies, and English in a Personal Statement?
- English & classical studies/civilisation
- oxford personal statement (classics) - talk about A level subjects?
- Find the Student Society for You at Kingston University!
Latest
Last reply 4 minutes ago
TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities - Tenth SessionLast reply 4 minutes ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (H573/01) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2919
Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 9 minutes ago
Which route to becoming media lecturer at university?Last reply 10 minutes ago
Are the PMT (physics maths and tutor) notes, flashcards and past papers goodGCSEs
13
Last reply 11 minutes ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 12 minutes ago
Is MathsFM French Alevels good for a CS degree at top uni (OX, UCL, Durham etc)Last reply 12 minutes ago
What path do I take - Looking for History undergraduate, Anthropology MasterLast reply 13 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Plymouth Marjon University - Your Questions AnsweredLast reply 15 minutes ago
Bank of America Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
What happens if i dont manage to find housing for second yr?- Uni of Bath
