Quote:
Originally Posted by joolzey
Does Hillman believe literature is incapable of being both “emotion and high drama” as well as astronomical allegory? 'Don't look any further than the narrative, folks! That's all there is!' To suggest the Muse could never assail such rich, rarified heights as to be both an engaging narrative and fascinating astronomy lesson, is a slight against Homer and a limited view of his greatness. Does Hillman really believe that the ancients were incapable of holding two ideas in their heads at the same time, that two concepts are impossible to weave together into poetry? Why be so averse to the possibility of an astronomically aware Homer anyway? Is it really beyond the wit of man to have accomplished such levels of linguistic and scientific development at such an early date, before – oh the horror! – before the Common Era, before the Gospels were penned? Does that explain the aversion?
|
I think you put words in Chris's mouth. It's not that literature is incapable--just that there are reasons that this particular literature might not have presented these particular ideas.
Quote:
|
In my view, there is a reason that Homer has been passed on to us down the centuries. His genius was broad and embraced science and astronomy as well as poetic storytelling. This is not really as controversial an idea as Hillman might have us believe. Scholarship is moving forward on this after too many decades locked up in a stuffy, dark, old room. Certainly, the praise of the ancients themselves for Homer’s knowledge of the sciences is well documented and convincing. Their voices should ring out loudly and point the way to a full appraisal of Homer’s genius.
|
We should start with a full appraisal, yes. As the authors seem to say, at one of those links, ““Even though there are historical arguments that say this is a ridiculous thing to think about, if we can get a few people to read The Odyssey differently, to look at it and ponder whether there was an actual date inscribed in it, we will be happy." Surely you're not suggesting that "literature is incapable of falsehood and abstraction"
