Homer, The Iliad: A great war

The Story
The Iliad, or The Song of Ilium, starts with the arrival of the Argives on Trojan land. They are there to recapture Helen, the wife of Menelaus, that had been stolen away by the sons of Priam. Agamemnon, the leading king, insults Achilles by taking one of Achilles' captured prizes, a young woman. Achilles then refuses, as a point of honour, to join the Argives in battle and even goes so far as to petition the gods for the Argives to lose without him. Then the battle ensues and is going against the Argives, the Trojans are having their way with the battle. The battle reaches the ships and Achilles friend is killed by Hector. Achilles joins the battle, vowing to take down Hector, and has a great impact on the state of the fighting. He eventually kills Hector, in single combat, but is not happy with that as revenge and proceeds to desecrate his body, while putting on elaborate funeral games for his friend. He does eventually return Hectors body to his father, who the buries him with dignity.

Reflections
One of the things that struck me is that Homer has clearly never seen a chariot in use: their use in the poem is nonsensical. They are only there to take the combatants to each other and then to be dismounted to fight. In reality, they would have fought from the chariot and only dismounted if the chariot was damaged, much more damage could be done this way. This suggests that the text was written down much later, when the phalanx had taken over, as the most powerful formation for war; with their long spears, chariots could not get close and fell out of common usage in the Greek world.
Homer also uses a preponderance of names. Minor characters that are just there to get killed are named. Every prince, of every nation involved, and all divisions in the boats, all are named. George RR Martin didn't uses as many names even in the Song of Ice and Fire.
Achilles is seen as the righteous hero, breaking faith with Agamemnon, when he was betrayed by him, and yet avenging his friend when his is killed by Hector. Nothing Agamemnon did could bring Achilles back into the fight but after his friends death, nothing would keep him from his revenge or from honoring his friend with a games.

Comparisons
The Iliad is the second epic poem on the list, which surprised me a little; when originally writing the list, I had expected it to be the first. The Iliad is harder to read than The Epic of Gilgamesh.
In the Iliad it is about who did what, it is focused on the people and who they are. By contrast the Epic of Gilgamesh focuses on what was done, focusing on the events that the characters went through.
Both texts began life as oral stories, but they filled different roles societally. The Iliad played the part of a common past for the Panhellenic tribes and is a literal who's who. At the time is was written down, it would have been used as a touchstone of a common past for all Greeks. Both texts speak of a heroic past, where the men were stronger and the gods intervened more readily.

Have you read the The Iliad? If so what did you think?
Does this inspire you to read the The Iliad? If so tell me what you think when your done!

Buy a copy of The Iliad
Read my post on The Epic of Gilgamesh

The Egyptian Book of the Dead: Not really a book

Edition
Although it is what I read, I would not really recommend the penguin classic edition or any edition translated by Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge. The problem is Wallis Budge thought that the King James version of the bibles sounded right for a religious text. So, when he wrote his translation he wrote it in a King James style. My project is all about reading and understanding and I feel for my purposes, that this edition is anything but ideal. That being said, it is considered the foremost work on the subject.

Synopsis
It is worth noting that The Egyptian Book of the Dead is not the translation of a single work but rather a collated series of prayers, ceremonies and other writings from the graves, coffins and burial ruins from a range of times.
The book teaches that life after death is achievable if the right procedures are followed at burial. The dead must be "identified" with the gods, by calling the deceased by the name of the god, to gain their attributes in getting to the afterlife and in the afterlife. The gods have multiple names are are associated with a given city. Though cities may have different names over time.
It also tells of the works of the gods in day to day life, how the day and the night are presided over and how the deceased can be ascribed with the power of the relevant gods in the afterlife.

Reflection
Because it is a collection of smaller works at different times in Egypt's history, there is a large amount of repetition or variations on a theme where the same ideas are covered in only marginally different texts.
Actually, my use of "prayers" before is a little bit misleading as they are often not addressed to any given god but are more like magic spells to give the deceased movement or speech in the after life.
You can see in the texts the slowly shifting culture and beliefs in Egypt, as parts of the ceremonies and spells fade from usage and others come to the fore.
In the vignettes, with each chapter, the gods are depicted both with human heads and the heads of animals depending on the god. It is hard to tell from this if the Egyptians thought the gods were like men or not. It does make it easier to recognise the more common gods in a scene.

Comparison
The obvious comparison, especially due to the language choice in the English translation, is to that of the Christian Bible. But beyond the choice of King James English, in the translation, they have very little in common. One of the few commonalities is the view of an afterlife and a final judgement. And although they agree on these events happening, their form is dramatically different.

Have you read the The Egyptian Book of the Dead? If so what did you think?
Does this inspire you to read the The Egyptian Book of the Dead ? If so tell me what you think when your done!


I am not posting a link for where to buy The Egyptian Book of the Dead because I don't think you should get the Penguin Classics edition and I haven't done the research as to what would be a good alternative.

The Epic of Gilgamesh: Even the Babylonians had a flood myth

The Story
Gilgamesh was a man without equal, king of Uruk. But as a king he abused his power with excessive force so the gods created Enkidu, the wild man, to rival his strength and to stop his excesses. Enkidu is a wild man and lives in the forest, at peace with the animals. Until, he encounters a temple prostitute, who convinces him to lie with her. Because of this the forest no longer welcomes him, so she teaches him to be a civilised man and tells him of Gilgamesh's excesses. Enkidu stops Gilgamesh from entering a bridal chamber and they wrestle. Gilgamesh wins but they become friends and go on to make a name for themselves.
They head to the forest of cedar, fight and vanquish Humbaba, with the help of the god Shamash. They cut down the forest and float a city gate down the river to Uruk.
The goddess Ishtar propositions Gilgamesh, who turns her down. So, she petitions her father for the the bull of heaven, to be sent to cause problems. Gilgamesh and Enkidu wrestle the bull of heaven into submission and killed it. The gods are angry and kill Enkidu with an illness.
Gilgamesh morns for Enkidu and wrestles with his mortality. He goes to find Utnapishtim, the one who survived the flood, and gets the story of the flood from him. He asks how to gain immortality and Utnapishtim asks him to stay awake for a week: which he fails at. Utnapishtim's wife tells Gilgamesh of a plant that can give him eternal life. He trys to take it back with him but the serpent steals it. He returns to Uruk empty-handed but is now comfortable with his mortality.

Reflections
The flood story in the Gilgamesh Epic has similarities and differences to the biblical account. They agree that mankind is saved by going aboard a boat with animals. But, the biblical account has God choosing to save mankind, rather than the Epic, where one god warns the survivors, but the rest of the gods, morn the loss of mankind which they had caused.
Gilgamesh is a great and strong man but he has the faults of many a strong man. He abuses that strength and his people groan under the strain. Even with this he, is described as a great and beautiful man and after Enkidu arrives he begins to act as such.
The Aurochs was a very large, very aggressive now extinct Bovine. It is the most likely to have been the bull of heaven (Find out more here). There has been nothing else in the fossil and historical record that has been the right size and with the "right" temper to have given the pair much of a fight.


Have you heard of the Aurochs?
Have you read the The Epic of Gilgamesh? If so what did you think?
Does this inspire you to read the The Epic of Gilgamesh? If so tell me what you think when your done!
Get a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Find out more about the Aurochs.

The Song of Roland: An Unknown Gem

The Story
Following Roland a vassal of King Charles, i.e. Charlemagne, in the invasion of Spain. The Muslim (Saracen) King Marsile is the final hold out of Moorish Spain. Roland is seen as the best of Charlemagne's army and Charlemagne's key defender. Roland is set up for disaster by a traitorous step father. His step father organises an ambush of the vanguard with King Marsile and then convinces Charlemagne to put Roland and his companions in the vanguard. Roland is killed during the battle but not by the hands of the Saracens. Charlemagne must then battle with Arabic reinforcements without Roland and his valiant knights.

Reflection
I really enjoyed The Song of Roland, maybe due to its ease of reading compared to Herodotus, but I think it is an engaging poem and flows like a single story.
Roland is not killed in the battle but in blowing the horn to summon Charlemagne and his troops. This is curious to me: the author clearly did not want to have Roland killed by the hand of a Saracen but rather in some way keep him pure. No Saracen hand could strike down the beloved Roland.
Roland is aided by a Bishop who is clearly a worthy fighter in his own right. This is treated matter of factly, so I must conclude that it was common or at least not unheard of. While he is clearly not considered a knight he is an integral part of Roland's band. This may seem strange to the modern reader but there is nothing in Christian scripture against being a solider.
The war was seen as morally right, the good and godly Christians taking on that heathen foe the Saracens. In light of this, a bishop as part of the Christian fighting force makes sense. It also means he is around to give last rights, or the pardoning of the sins of the dying. Charlemagne's army was seen to be the restorers of Christian Spain.

Comparison
While the song of Roland still has an over-inflated view of the heroic past, it keeps closer to historic fact. Unlike Beowulf, which deals in monsters and dragons, the Song of Roland deals in clashes of troops: clashes that are likely based in history. Where it deviates from history is in the actions of its combatants, who are described as cleaving right through the head in a single blow on many occasion thus showing them as greater than they truly were.
The Christian overtones fit the story and the time much better than Beowulf. In the case of the song of Roland, the main characters are Christian. Therefore the Christian world view is properly attributed to them and you have a much more internally consistent story.
The other difference between the Song of Roland and Beowulf is that the Song of Roland deals with one contiguous story where as Beowulf is really three battles that are only lightly interlinked.


Have you read the Song of Roland? If so what did you think?
Does this inspire you to read the Song of Roland? If so tell me what you think when your done!
Get a copy of The Song of Roland
Read more about Beowulf