(no subject)
Jun. 14th, 2022 05:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparklightReading Talking Trojan by Hilary Mackie and it's interesting so far! Just tripping me up a little trying to separate out where the author might be going too negative (because that's her interpretation) with how the Trojans talk/are presented, and where it is the actual text that might be doing so.
Because obviously, for as generally even-handed as the Iliad can be about the Trojans and the Achaeans, it's still a very Greek story!
The book is basically about how one can get some sense of culture/differences between the Achaeans and the Trojans by the way they talk and similar. I've already seen some things I didn't notice before - for example, while the Achaeans all have very formalized antagonism into advise and agreement (generally against Agamemnon lol) the Trojans, when a leader, that is, Hektor, is repudiated mostly do this is "private" (for a measure of "private" because it still happens out in the open, on the battlefield a lot).
Which, I think that's definitely something one can go on, for all that the setup between the two armies are similar with one greater commander heading over a large conglomeration of allied forces/cities. The two actual gatherings the Trojan commanders/leaders have (setting aside the one in Book 2) don't really contain much rebuke leading into eventual "consensus", rather they reach the end far quicker by either Hektor or Priam, negatively or positively, shutting down any other argument by proclaiming what is to be done.
On the other hand, the author rather dismisses the Trojan elders (Priam and the men with him in Book 3) as removed from politics and not discussing strategy - but their forces are out on the plain already, and what would be the point of these men, who no longer have the men who are actually fighting nearby to hear, to discuss military matters?
I'm also not convinced that the instances we see of elders being dismissed should be taken as a general "Trojan trait". One is Paris repudiating Antenor for bringing up the possibility of giving back Helen again (of course Paris is going to not be too agreeable about that!). The other is Iris, a goddess, also in the guise of one of Priam's own sons, so Iris using "old man" and saying he loves to talk as if it's still peacetime can have any number of inflections and I am not at all convinced this should be read as intentionally rude? Especially when Priam wasn't given any lines beforehand, either reasonable or not, so Iris-as-Polites is presumably not rebuking him for having said anything that isn't useful.
I'll see where this goes! Because either way it's still an interesting read.
Edit 1: Really interesting point about how the Trojans do not engage in insulting their enemies (especially not before a duel), as the Achaeans do. They also more uniformly give epithets to the enemies they talk to, which, again, the Achaeans don't.
(As an aside/corollary to this, and it might come up later in the book because there's a section talking about Hektor and Paris), even as Hektor often abuses/insults Paris more like the Achaeans insult their opponents in general, he also does praise him, more obviously in one out of their three conversations.)
Because obviously, for as generally even-handed as the Iliad can be about the Trojans and the Achaeans, it's still a very Greek story!
The book is basically about how one can get some sense of culture/differences between the Achaeans and the Trojans by the way they talk and similar. I've already seen some things I didn't notice before - for example, while the Achaeans all have very formalized antagonism into advise and agreement (generally against Agamemnon lol) the Trojans, when a leader, that is, Hektor, is repudiated mostly do this is "private" (for a measure of "private" because it still happens out in the open, on the battlefield a lot).
Which, I think that's definitely something one can go on, for all that the setup between the two armies are similar with one greater commander heading over a large conglomeration of allied forces/cities. The two actual gatherings the Trojan commanders/leaders have (setting aside the one in Book 2) don't really contain much rebuke leading into eventual "consensus", rather they reach the end far quicker by either Hektor or Priam, negatively or positively, shutting down any other argument by proclaiming what is to be done.
On the other hand, the author rather dismisses the Trojan elders (Priam and the men with him in Book 3) as removed from politics and not discussing strategy - but their forces are out on the plain already, and what would be the point of these men, who no longer have the men who are actually fighting nearby to hear, to discuss military matters?
I'm also not convinced that the instances we see of elders being dismissed should be taken as a general "Trojan trait". One is Paris repudiating Antenor for bringing up the possibility of giving back Helen again (of course Paris is going to not be too agreeable about that!). The other is Iris, a goddess, also in the guise of one of Priam's own sons, so Iris using "old man" and saying he loves to talk as if it's still peacetime can have any number of inflections and I am not at all convinced this should be read as intentionally rude? Especially when Priam wasn't given any lines beforehand, either reasonable or not, so Iris-as-Polites is presumably not rebuking him for having said anything that isn't useful.
I'll see where this goes! Because either way it's still an interesting read.
Edit 1: Really interesting point about how the Trojans do not engage in insulting their enemies (especially not before a duel), as the Achaeans do. They also more uniformly give epithets to the enemies they talk to, which, again, the Achaeans don't.
(As an aside/corollary to this, and it might come up later in the book because there's a section talking about Hektor and Paris), even as Hektor often abuses/insults Paris more like the Achaeans insult their opponents in general, he also does praise him, more obviously in one out of their three conversations.)
