To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In the last thirty years a great deal of sophisticated work has been done on the notion of metaphor: linguisticians, philosophers, scientists and archaeologists, amongst others, have all joined in the debate. At the centre of the discussion has been the 'location' of metaphor: is it a distortion of ordinary (= 'degree zero') language, or is it, on the contrary, at the very centre of linguistic usage? Far less attention, however, has been devoted to the closely related linguistic-rhetorical figure of the simile. In the recently published Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, for instance, the entry on 'simile' receives 30 lines, as against 258 for 'metaphor'. Yet there are certain forms of literature in which similes forge well ahead of metaphors as regards the insistence of their claims upon readers' attention. A prime example of such a form is Homeric epic.
Before approaching Homer directly, however, I want to ask a preliminary and very basic question. Is there anything to be gained, in spite of all the theoretical elaborations in recent criticism,3 by retaining an elementary, formal, linguistically based distinction between metaphor and simile, according to which a metaphor is a comparison which does not contain a word signifying ‘like’ or ‘as’, whereas a simile is a comparison which – however short or long – does contain such a term? To describe the ocean as ‘like an unfingered harp’ will be, on that formal definition, to use a simile; whereas to observe, with Stephen Spender, that ‘afternoon burns upon the wires of the sea’, will be to employ a metaphor
Is it that Homer talks about different things from all other poets? Doesn’t he talk mostly about war and the dealings of men with one another: good men and bad, laymen and craftsmen; and the dealings of gods with men?
(Plato, Ion 531c)
More than half of the Homeric epics consists of speech by characters, not narrative by the narrator. That is a very high proportion, and the speeches, with their scope, variety, and vividness, are a striking feature of the poems. That was to have momentous consequences. Homer is, as Plato says, the first and greatest of the tragic poets; and without the example of Homer, showing the heroes and heroines of myth conversing in dialogue in a high style, Attic tragedy would never have come into existence in the form that it did. That would have had grave implications for the plays of Seneca, and consequently for all European verse drama, including Shakespeare. It was the Homeric epics which showed how it was possible to present great figures, participants in elevated and significant action, conversing in a manner which was at once dignified and true to convincing human psychology. From Homer the line runs to Aeschylus' Agamemnon and Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra. By contrast Virgil, who took so much from Homer, does not excel at dialogue and never has extended conversations. Dialogue in the Aeneid is normally just statement and reply, and a famous scene with Dido is broken off with Aeneas 'still having much to say'.
In the eleventh century the northern and central parts of the Scandinavian peninsula were occupied by a people who are often called Lapps but who called themselves Saami. Contemporaries distinguished four main groups of Scandinavians: Danes, Götar, Svear and Norwegians or Northmen. By the year 1200 most of the territory occupied by these Scandinavians had been incorporated in the three medieval kingdoms: Norwegian kingdom, Danish kingdom, and Swedish kingdom. The Danish kingdom was the first to be firmly established. The Swedish kingdom was formed by the unification of the Götar and the Svear. The earliest Scandinavian historians, writing in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, believed that the Danish kingdom had existed since time immemorial and that the kingdoms of Norway and Sweden were relatively recent creations formed by the unification of many small kingdoms. The founder of the medieval Norwegian dynasty was Harald Hardrada. The earliest of the provincial laws, for the west Norwegian province, survives in a twelfth-century version.
Under John II and Manuel I Byzantium remained a wealthy and expansionist power, maintaining the internal structures and external initiatives which were necessary to sustain a traditional imperial identity in a changing Mediterranean world of crusaders, Turks and Italian merchants. The revival of imperial interest in the crusader states had permanent consequences in that it led to a renewal of Byzantine links with Western Europe. Yet the period following Manuel's death and the overthrow of the regency government of Alexios II saw reversion to something like the isolationism of John II's early years. The Byzantine state was one of the most centralized in the medieval world, and never more so than in the period 1081-1180, when the loss of central and eastern Anatolia forced the empire's military elite, as well as its bureaucratic elite, to identify with the capital as never before. Under the successors of Manuel I, the Comnenian system, centred on Constantinople, was programmed for self-destruction.
Can the oldest text of European literature be the greatest ever composed? An epic of killing, unprecedented and sui generis in myriad ways, was perhaps completed before ink and stylus were (re-)introduced to a savage European continent, long after the crash or whimpers of the Bronze Age, citadel dominated civilisation that in some way the poem celebrates. This narrative of and meditation on death, loss and individual decisiveness became and remains fundamental for Mediterranean, European and even transatlantic literature. In the third, computerised millennium, when many still endorse Christian ethics of 'turn the other cheek' but otherwise rigorously forget former canons of honour, beauty and truth, conscientious readers anxiously confront this complex, inexplicable colossus, the Iliad. A provoked but fiercely introspective and precisely responsive young man becomes angry, and this anger trumps his community’s desperate need for help. The consequences of Akhilleus' decisions for himself, his friends and his enemies constitute the Iliad, a uniquely long and uniquely coherent poem by some one or many called 'Homer'. This synoptic consideration of its plot hopes to orient new readers to the story and provoke returning ones to consider afresh the terrifying subject, the various nature of the narrative with its inimitable pacing and episodic units, the characters, and their social and personal values nigh incomprehensible today.
When c. 1000 men from northern Europe whom the contemporary sources call Normans began to arrive in the south of Italy, the region was both temptingly prosperous and also unstable, particularly in the area of Lombard rule in the west and centre. The conquest of southern Italy fell into three stages. First, up to the early 1040s the Normans acted as mercenaries, selling their swords to almost every power in the south, except for the Arabs, fighting for the purpose of gain in Malaterra's succinct phrase. From 1042 onwards they acted in their own right, extending their operations from the Lombard zone into Apulia, and in the 1040s and 1050s employment turned into conquest. The papal investiture was a sign that the Normans were there to stay, and it recognized that by then their takeover was inevitable. The third phase was one of consolidation on the mainland, mopping up the last bastions of Byzantine rule in Apulia and Calabria.
The eleventh century can be seen as a time of rupture and crisis in European history. Although law before the eleventh century consisted mainly of oral tradition, written law also carried some weight, especially church (canon) law. The eleventh century saw the beginnings of an economic transformation in Europe which recent researchers have dubbed the commercial revolution of the middle ages. The commercial revolution inevitably created a demand for a rational law of contract and a reliable credit system; and this could only happen on the basis of secure and generally accepted legal texts. The transformation and new development of law was impelled not only by economic, but also by religious factors. The end of the eleventh century, the time of the Gregorian reform, saw the rediscovery of the Digest and the first attempts to teach Roman law. During the Gregorian reform, the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were much consulted, and this aroused interest in the procedural rules for ecclesiastical courts.
In 992 Basil II encouraged their activities by reducing the tolls on their ships paid for passage through the Hellespont to Constantinople. The effect was to favour Constantinople's role as the clearing house of Mediterranean trade. It underlined Constantinople's position as the cross-roads of the medieval world. This brought the Byzantine empire great opportunities. In the twenty-five years following Basil II's death the Byzantine empire had lost direction and momentum. The changing political conditions along the Byzantine frontiers would have alerted the imperial government to one of the disadvantages of the military expansionism espoused by Basil II. Constantine Monomachos's reign was pivotal. Education was at the heart of Constantine Monomachos's reforms. By 1095 Alexios had pacified the Balkans, brought peace to the church and restored sound government. Antioch was vital to Alexios' plans for the recovery of Anatolia from the Turks.
This chapter discusses the kingdom of Italy and the papal states in the time of Lothar II and Conrad III. Conrad III deeply involved in the problems of Germany, never went to Italy after succeeding Lothar to the German throne, although he seriously entertained the idea of an Italian campaign to oppose Roger II of Sicily as an ally of the Byzantine empire. The developments in Rome were the most striking indication of the changes which were taking place throughout central and northern Italy to the advantage of the city-states. After the death of the king of Sicily, William II, in the autumn of 1189, a few months before Barbarossa himself perished in the east, Henry claimed the succession to the kingdom of Sicily, as he himself said, 'the ancient right of the Empire', based on the concept of an Italian kingdom, following a tradition going back to the Lombards and the Franks.
The Old Testament prophets and patriarchs inspired Bernard of Clairvaux with striking images of papal intervention in the church and the world. While later medieval theologians and jurists thought of Bernardine titles as designating the rights and prerogatives of the papacy, for Bernard they signified the duties of the pope, who must be active in exhorting and correcting the people of Christendom. The twelfth-century papacy was often obliged to rely on the practical assistance of members of the religious orders to no less a degree than the Gregorian papacy in the late eleventh century. Both the First Lateran Council and Eugenius III identified the spiritual reward of the crusaders as 'remission of sins'. The papal defeat of 1156, inaugurated three decades of harmonious cooperation between the papacy and the kingdom of Sicily. The premature death of the formidable Emperor Henry VI removed a serious threat to the independence of the papacy and gave the pope an unprecedented freedom of action.
The later twentieth century saw a trend in the study of classical authors from a historical ('diachronic') approach to one that focused more on the author’s own times (a 'synchronic' approach) and on the text itself. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of Homer, where the identification of Homer as an oral poet turned critics inward on his text and its special character. This Homer newly created, or 're-created', each instance of epic for each performance and his work was accordingly part of a largely irrecoverable performance tradition, rather than one in a history of interacting texts.
Nevertheless, we cannot really understand Homer, or the emergence of Greek literature, if we have no idea of the tradition that preceded him and of the different uses made of that tradition by poets of his time. And we should not exaggerate the fluidity of these poems: our Iliad and Odyssey were relatively fixed texts, which could be badged 'Homer', as far back as the sixth century BC and probably a good deal earlier. It is credible that the poems of his contemporaries were fixed to a similar extent, making after all a family of 'texts', with a recognisable intertextuality. Depending on our views of what was fixed and what was improvised, we may differ on the nature of this intertextuality: perhaps it will be easier to accept the recognition of the argument between Achilles and Agamemnon as a typical motif, 'argument between heroes', than to see in the sudden appearance of Thetis to lead the lament over Achilles (23.14), the footprint of a specific epic that depicted Thetis mourning the dead Achilles.
The subject of this chapter - in keeping with its chronological place in this section - is the importance of Homer for English epic up to the end of the eighteenth century. Its rationale, however, is not solely diachronic: the starting point is rather a widely accepted premise that between what goes before and what comes after there is a fault-line in the nature of the availability of Homer to English literary consciousness. A critical event can be readily identified, in the publication of F. A.Wolf’s Prolegomena to Homer of 1795. This work itself is the product of a period of change and questioning: the eighteenth century saw a steady growth in historical, topographical and antiquarian interest in the ancient world. In relation to Homer, Robert Wood had provided one of the most influential landmarks in his investigation, based on travels undertaken in the early 1750s, of Homer’s own time and culture, An Essay on the Original Genius of Homer (1769). Wolf, however, is definitive:
The Homer that we hold in our hands now is not the one who flourished in the mouths of the Greeks of his own day, but one variously altered, interpolated, corrected, and emended from the times of Solon down to those of the Alexandrians. Learned and clever men have long felt their way to this conclusion by using various scattered bits of evidence; but now the voices of all periods joined together bear witness, and history speaks.
The Iliad and the Odyssey have been required reading in Western culture from its first beginnings, despite the complete mystery surrounding the circumstances of their date and authorship, and despite their obvious flaws and blemishes - the repetitions, inconsistencies and irregularities which have led to their impeachment as products of a single mind. All of the uncertainties about Homer and his poems notwithstanding, their place in the cultural imagination in the West has been unrivalled. Indeed, as secular texts with no pretensions to revealed truth and yet conferred with nearly Biblical stature, their status in world literature is unique. How can we account for their standing, and especially for their enduring attraction? Whatever the answer, approaching the question will involve confronting the monumentality of the two poems - less their quality as great works of literature than their role as cultural icons, as signifiers of value, and as landmarks in the evolving relationship between literature and culture. To look at Homer in this way is to consider his place - the very idea of Homer - in the culture wars of antiquity and modernity. But it is also to do more, for a perspective such as this is an invitation to study the intellectual and cultural history of value. And given his idealised role in our culture, Homer is an ideal place to begin such an inquiry.
Seigneurie (lordship) was a system of government in which the seigneur or lord, dominus in Latin, exercised for his own profit powers that were regalian in origin, that is, powers of a public character. The formation of lordships resulted in a parcelling-out of the kingdom which gave birth to great principalities, baronies or castellanies, those cells of local life generated by a castle. Besides these collective lordships, called 'communes', the lay and ecclesiastical principalities demand attention first. The ecclesiastical peers were always chosen from among the twenty-six prelates who owed direct allegiance to the king. They all held sees on a curving frontier which, north-east of Paris, separated the Capetian domain from Angevin Normandy, Flemish Amiénois and Vermandois, imperial Lorraine and Burgundy. The ecclesiastical lordships were gradually constructed on the basis of a vast temporal power in town and country by the extension of the privilege of immunity, to which were added economic concessions related to market and minting rights.