23 Pelling 2006, 78–79.
24 The Persian-Trojan-barbarian equation seems to have developed in the political rhetoric and ideology of mid-late fifth-century Athens, partly in response to the Persian Wars and partly as a tool of Athenian imperialism. This phenomenon has been widely discussed in the existing literature: see variously Hall 1989, 102, Boedeker 2001, 126, Erskine 2001, 61–92, J. Hall 2002, 172–89, Castriota 2005, Pallantza 2005, Vlassopoulos 2013, 61, 189–95 with references, and Priestley 2014, 191. The wider cultural impact of the Persian Wars on classical Greece is discussed in Rhodes 2007.
25 Graziosi 2002, 112–13 draws attention to the way that Herodotus includes these hypothetical dates in order to forge a gulf between his own contemporary history and Homer’s narration of ‘a remote, mythical and ultimately unknowable era’ (112).
26 Cf. Thuc. 1.1.2-3. On the complex mixture of Homeric and epic allusions in Book Seven of the Histories, see Carey 2016.
27 On Herodotus and the poets, see West 2004 and Marincola 2006.
28 9.27.2-5. On this and the previous scene in Book 7, see Grethlein 2010, 160–86 and cf. Pelling 2006.
29 See further Skinner 2012 and cf. Graziosi 2002, 195. On fifth-century audiences’ knowledge of Homer in an Athenian context, see Baragwanath and Foster 2017, 4–5.
30 Cf. Nemean 8.32-33, and (later) Aristotle Poetics 1460a18-19, 1460a35-b1-5.
31 Marincola 1997, 219.
32 Stesichorus may not have been the first to question the Homeric Helen. There is a reference to Hesiod as the inventor of this tradition, Hesiod frag. 358 MW: ‘Hesiod first introduced the eidōlon to the story concerning Helen’, πρῶτος Ἡσίοδος περὶ τῆς Ἑλένης τὸ εἴδωλον παρήγαγε; see further West 2002, 33–36. It is also possible that the sixth-century prose writer Hecataeus of Miletus also narrated a revised account on Helen of Troy, see Lloyd 1988, 47 with references.
33 For a critical discussion on Stesichorus’ Palinode, see Davies and Finglass 2014, 299–343 and cf. Blondell 2013, 117–22, focusing on Stesichorus’ break from, and compliance with, Homeric tradition.
34 See further Kelly 2015.
35 For problems and inconsistencies with Stesichorus’ εἴδωλον, see Blondell 2013, 96–98.
36 Blondell 2013, 154.
37 On the Helen, see Blondell 2013, 202–21.
38 The tradition continued even after Herodotus; see Isocrates Helen 64 (Graziosi 2002, 148).
39 This was also true in poetry. See Blondell 2010 and Boedeker 2012 on early Greek lyric responses to Helen.
40 On this passage, see variously Fornara 1971, 19ff., Neville 1977, Hunter 1982, 52–65, Lloyd 1988, 43–52, Fehling 1989, 59–65, Vandiver 1991, 124–32, Austin 1994, 118–36, West 2002, 31–39, Graziosi 2002, 113–18, Grethlein 2010, 151–58, Sammons 2012, and the contributions of de Jong and de Bakker in Baragwanath and de Bakker 2012b.
41 Ford 2002, 148 notes the way that Herodotus provides a close reading of the epic texts. Herodotus seldom quotes texts verbatim; the majority of quotations that he does include are from inscriptions or, notably, oracles; see further Haywood 2013, passim.
42 Sammons 2012, 55–57 discusses Herodotus’ confident assertion that Homer intentionally showed this to his audience, rather than, for example, implying this. It is worth remembering, however, that challenging long-held assumptions held by the Greeks is one of Herodotus’ chief motivations to write his Histories; cf. Cartledge and Greenwood 2002, 363: ‘[Herodotus’] innovative research sometimes cuts across or directly contradicts the received assumptions of his Greek audience’.
43 On Herodotus’ steadfast belief in the Trojan War, affirmed by his Egyptian sources, see, inter alia, Hunter 1982, 53–4, Vandiver 1991, 127, Stadter 2004, 33–38, Grethlein 2010, 153, Saïd 2012. For other Homeric/epic themes and reminiscences in Book 2, see Lloyd 1990, 227–28.
44 Fehling 1989, 59–65 argues that Herodotus has fabricated this entire story, since the Egyptians could hardly have invented a story concerning Helen’s sojourn in Egypt; cf. West 2002, 36. Note, however, Lloyd 1976, 89–113, which offers a number of useful insights into the long-standing cultural interactions between Greeks and Egyptians; cf. Moyer 2002. In the end, whatever the truth of Herodotus’ inquiries, we cannot accept that he offers a verbatim report of his interviews with the Egyptian priests, for de Jong 2012 well illustrates how Herodotus’ distinct authorial voiceprint infuses this narrative.
45 For the contrast between the Helen of Homer and Stesichorus and Herodotus’ ‘distinctively imperial Helen’, see Austin 1994, 127–36. Given the plethora of inquiring terms in this account (see below), West’s view that Herodotus’ account is ‘quite plainly a version of Stesichorus’ seems much too reductive (2004, 89).
46 The Odyssey passages are 4.227-30 and 4.351-52. As Lloyd 2007, 325 notes, the final remarks in 2.116.6 proceed as though the Odyssey citations were not there; cf. further discussion in Sammons 2012, 57, n.12.
47 Anderson 1997, 11.
48 Lloyd 2007, 325 speaks of the passage as ‘suspect evidence for Herodotus’ purpose’; cf. Vandiver 1991, 126 (‘an essay in applied literary criticism’).
49 On the meaning of μῦθος in Herodotus, see Baragwanath and de Bakker 2012a, 10–19; for the fifth century more broadly, see Fowler 2011.
50 Lloyd 2007, 256 and Fowler 2011, 46–48, 59.
51 Similarly West 2002, 47: ‘it might be possible to strip off fabulous and fictional accretions and expose a sound historical core’; contra Lateiner 1989, 99 and Austin 1994, 123 (‘Homer is being relegated to no more than a poet’). de Jong’s view that ‘[Herodotus is] enlisting [Homer] as much as possible in the historiographical camp’ 2012, 133, n.24 is surely a step too far, since Herodotus explicitly demarcates Homer as an epic poet; cf., however, [Plutarch] On the Life and Poetry of Homer 74–90, which credits Homer as the inventor of the ἱστορικὸς λόγος (‘Historical Work’).
52 Cf. Sammons 2012, 56: ‘Homer indicates the true account could only be properly interpreted by an expert, indeed someone like Herodotus’.
53 For other instances of autopsy in Book 2, see Lloyd 2007, 229.
54 Cf. 2.123.1, 147.1; 7.152.3.
55 Lloyd 2007, 324 notes here the ‘accumulation of detail, a standard Herodotean device for creating verisimilitude’; cf. 1.23.7, where Periander interrogates the crew that flung the poet Arion overboard.
56 de Bakker 2012, 115 on Proteus’ revelation of truth. Blondell 2013, 152 compares Herodotus’ Proteus with Homer’s Priam.
57 Cf. 4.32, where Herodotus proffers that ‘Hesiod has spoken about the Hyperboreans, just as Homer has done in the Epigonoi, if at any rate he composed that poem’ (ἀλλ᾽ Ἡσιόδῳ μέν ἐστι περὶ Ὑπερβορέων εἰρημένα, ἔστι δὲ καὶ Ὁμήρῳ ἐν Ἐπιγόνοισι, εἰ δὴ τῷ ἐόντι γε Ὅμηρος ταῦτα τὰ ἔπεα ἐποίησε). Graziosi 2002, 193–95 shows how this serves a dual function of challenging Homeric authority whilst simultaneously reinforcing the superior skill of the Iliadic poet.
58 Fehling 1989, 62 and Lloyd 2007, 325–26.
59 Hunter 1982, 55, Vandiver 1991, 127, and Munson 2012, 200–01.
60 According to Fehling 1989, Herodotus is no historian: ‘there are no sources other than [Herodotus] for entire accounts, only for individual items of data’ (259). For a response, see now the various discussions in Dunsch and Ruffing 2013.
61 de Bakker 2012, 122ff., de Jong 2012, 128, cf. already Fornara 1971, 19–20, Neville 1977, and Hunter 1982, 56–61.
62 ὡς μὲν ὲγὼ γνώμην ἀποφαίνομαι, τοῦ δαιμονίου παρασκευάζοντος.
63 Harrison 2000, 105 and Munson 2001, 185–86 and 2012, 200.
64 Similarly 1.4.3: ‘And the Persians say that they, the people of Asia, when their women were seized by force, had made it of no account’ (σφέας μὲν δὴ τοὺς ὲκ τῆς Ἀσίης λέ
γουσι Πέρσαι ἁρπαζομένων τῶν γυναικῶν λόγον οὐδένα ποιήσασθαι); see further WἩcowski 2004, 152–53.
65 Blondell 2013, 154.
66 Cartledge and Greenwood 2002.
67 Munson 2001, 141–44, de Bakker 2012, 113–14, and Vandiver 2012.
68 Herodotus was regarded by Plutarch as a philobarabros (‘barbarian-lover’) in his On the Malice of Herodotus; see further Marincola 1994 and Baragwanath 2008, 9–22.
69 Scholarship on the connections between these two authors continues to flourish; for a provocative reading, which sees Herodotus responding to Thucydides, see Irwin 2013.
70 Thucydides also refers to Homer at 3.104.4, where he cites the Homeric Hymn to Apollo as proof of the ancient festival and assembly at Delos.
71 On Herodotus’ radical ‘monumental historical narrative’ written in prose, see Chiasson 2012 (quote at p.137); cf. the measured caveats in Clarke 2008, 189.
72 Fornara 1971, 19: ‘[Herodotus pursues] destructive criticism of the general and unconsidered assumptions of his parochial contemporaries’.
73 Herodotus provides similar sentiments on divine punishment as a response to criminal or profane acts at 4.205; 6.84.3, 91, 139.1; 7.134-37; 8.129.3. See further Harrison 2000, 102–21 and Lloyd 2007, 232–34.
74 2.3.1, 77.1; Munson 2001, 143.
75 Vandiver 1991, 129.
76 Lloyd 2007, 325; cf. Baragwanath 2008, 54, remarking on the mixture of ‘Homeric aspects alongside those that seem more fifth century and sophistic’ in Herodotus.
77 Priestley 2014, 217: ‘There is a certain irony that Herodotus came to be associated with the very writer that he accuses of intentional fictions’. It is worth bearing in mind, of course, that Herodotus strives throughout his work to forge a clear union of magnitude with Homer and his great war, even if not a hermeneutical union.
78 Munson 2012, 200.
79 This translation of the German text is taken from the English edition of Trojanischer Alterthümer, translated and edited by Philip Smith, and published as Troy and Its Remains in 1875 (Schliemann 1875, 323–24). Throughout this section, I have used this translation as it was a popular and well-known book in its own right.
80 For biographical information about Schliemann and an assessment of his archaeological work, see Traill 1995. For problems with the sources for Schliemann’s life and his own autobiographical writings, see Calder 1972. For an apologist treatment which presents Schliemann as a romantic figure and which downplays his misdeeds, see Moorehead 1994.
81 For Calvert and the relationship between Calvert and Schliemann, see Heuck Allen 1999.
82 Schliemann triumphantly announces in the preface to Trojanischer Alterthümer: ‘Meine driesjährigen Ausgrabungen haben zur Genüge bewiesen, dass die zweite Nation, die auf diesem Berge, auf den 4 bis 6 Meter oder 13 bis 20 Fuss hohen Trümmern der erstern Ansiedler, eine Stadt erbaute, die von Homer besungenen Trojaner waren’ (Schliemann 1874, x): ‘The excavations made this year (1873) have sufficiently proved that the second nation which built a town on this hill, upon the debris of the first settlers (which is from 13 to 20 feet deep), are the Trojans of whom Homer sings.’ (Schliemann 1875, 16). Schliemann eventually returned to dig at Hisarlık again in 1878–1879.
83 For current perspectives on the archaeology of the site of Troy, see Korfmann 1997 and 2006, Rose 2014 and Mac Sweeney 2018.
84 Smith 1875, xvii.
85 Schliemann attempts to forestall these latter complaints in the preface to Trojanischer Alterthümer: ‘Wenn meine Aufsätze hin und wieder Widersprüche enthalten, so hoffe ich, dass man mir diese zugute halten wird, wenn man berücksichtigt, dass ich hier eine neue Welt für die Archäologie aufgedeckt’ (Schliemann 1874, v): ‘If my memoirs now and then contain contradictions, I hope that these may be pardoned when it is considered that I have revealed a new world for archaeology’ (Schliemann 1875, 12).
86 Schliemann 1874, 235–41 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 270–75).
87 Schliemann 1874, 235 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 270).
88 Schliemann 1874, 237 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 272).
89 For a sketch of the various scholarly responses to Schliemann’s claims, see the account of Newton in Traill 1995, 126. For Schliemann’s many critics in the academy, see Calder 1972, 347–48 and Marchand 1996, 120–22.
90 For the public interest in Schliemann’s Trojan excavations, particularly in Britain, see Moorhead 1994, 151–54.
91 Schliemann 1874, v (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 12).
92 Heuck Allen 1999, 61.
93 Schliemann 1874, v, 5, 14, 125, 133, 189.
94 Schliemann 1874, xl, xli, 5, 16, 20, 32, 39, 77, 101, 102, 126, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 142, 153, 154, 192, 206, 264, 309, 320.
95 Plagues of insects and scorpions: Schliemann 1874, 155. Fire: Schliemann 1874, 241–42. The discovery of the ‘Scaean Gate’: Schliemann 1874, 271–72. The unexpected encounter with the crippled owner of the local shop, whose natural ability with languages, appreciation of Homer, and business acumen is described in terms comparable with Schliemann’s own: Schliemann 1874, 135–36.
96 For the account of the discovery of the Treasure of Priam, see Schliemann 1874, 289–302 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 323–40).
97 Schliemann 1874, 288 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 322).
98 Schliemann 1874, 298–90 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 323–24).
99 The genre was extremely popular in the late nineteenth century and often featured intrepid explorers undertaking heroic feats in faraway lands (Phillips 1996, Markovitis 2006, 171–78). For example, the decades immediately before and after the publication of Trojanischer Alterthümer saw the appearance of such adventure classics as: Jules Verne’s Voyage au centre de la Terre (1864); Baludin Möllhausen’s Die Mandanenwaise: Erzählung aus den Rheinlanden und dem Stromgebiet des Missouri (1865); Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island (1881); and H. Rider Haggard’s King Solomon’s Mines (1883).
100 Calder 1972, 352.
101 These can be found in the Preface to Ithaque, le Péloponnèse, Troie: Recherches archéologiques (1869), the Introduction to Ilios (1880), and in his posthumous Selbtsbiographie (1892).
102 Marchand 1996, 118. Alger’s most famous book was Ragged Dick (1867), published only two years before Schliemann began to include autobiographical elements in his books, and seven years before the publication of Trojanischer Alterthümer.
103 See n.99 above for the adventure novel genre.
104 English edition: Schliemann 1875, 328.
105 Schliemann 1874, 301 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 338-40).
106 English edition: Schliemann 1875, 341. It is also interesting that Schliemann, like Herodotus, appealed to specialists and experts while for Herodotus, these were the logiotatoi (‘most-learned’) Egyptian priests (Hdt 2.77.1 and above p. 118 and 121–2), for Schliemann, these were scientific experts.
107 Schliemann 1874, 301 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 3–40).
108 Vessels, weapons, and other objects: Schliemann 1874, 290–95. Jewellery: Schliemann 1874, 296–301.
109 Schliemann 1874, 297.
110 Schliemann 1874, 295–96 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 333).
111 Schliemann 1874, 296 (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 332–33).
112 E.g. Dyce 1821, Spitzner 1839, Köchly 1843, and Struve 1864.
113 The section on the Treasure of Priam is followed by a brief presentation of other remarkable finds including an inscription and coins (Schliemann 1874, 302–4 and 312–18); a discussion about the overall size of Troy (idem. 304–11); and a concluding vote of thanks to particular workmen, the site draftsman, and God for the overall success of the enterprise (idem. 318–19).
114 Schliemann 1874, xvii—xx (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 20–24).
115 Schliemann 1874, xiv (English edition: Schliemann 1875, 20).
116 English ed
ition: Schliemann 1875, 23.
117 Traill 1995, 125–26.
118 Traill 1995, 112–20. It is now thought that the various items of the treasure were discovered in different parts of the site over the three seasons of excavation between 1871 and 1873.
119 See Traill 1995, 125–40. Schliemann eventually decided to donate the treasure to the Ethnographic Museum in Berlin, in return for various honours and awards. Along with other artworks and museum pieces, it was carried away by Russian troops at the end of the Second World War, and has since been held at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. For the recent debates over the ownership of the treasure, see Blake 2015, 17.
120 ‘Auf die Angaben der Ilias vertrauend, an deren Genauigkeit ich wie ans Evangelium glaubte’, Schliemann 1874, xi (‘Trusting to the data of the Iliad, the exactness of which I used to believe in as in the Gospel itself’, Schliemann 1875, 17).
121 Schliemann 1874, xi (English edition: Schliemann 1975, 18).
122 ‘Homer stellte keine Excavationen an, um jene Denkmäler ansucht zu bringen; er kannte sie aber aus der Ueberlieferung, denn seit Jahrhunderten war Trojas tragisches Ende im Munde aller Sänger, und das Interesse, was sich daran knüpfte, war so gross, dass, wie meine Ausgrabungen erwiesen haben, die Tradition selbst in vielen Einzelheiten genau die Wahrheit berichtete’, Schliemann 1874, xiii (‘Homer made no excavations so as to bring those remains to light, but he knew of them from tradition; for the tragic fate of Troy had for centuries been in the mouths of all minstrels, and the interest attached to it was so great that, as my excavations have proved, tradition itself gave the exact truth in many details’: Schliemann 1875, 19).
123 Schliemann 1874, xiii.
124 Schliemann 1874, 305.
125 Wilamowitz argued a line more representative of scholars today – that the Homeric poems may have made use of some traditional material but were also very innovative, and that their composition owed greatly to the contemporary context of Hesiod, the lyric poets, and archaic Greek society. Wilamowitz’s argument regarding Homer and the composition of Homeric poetry were first laid out with primary reference to the Odyssey in Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884, and later expanded upon with primary reference to the Iliad in Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1916. For the different impacts of Wilamowitz and Schliemann on the field of Homeric scholarship, see Myres 1958, 123–222.
Homer’s Iliad and the Trojan War Page 20