Homer’s Iliad and the Trojan War
Page 22
A Francis genita sorte minore data.
Of the other small borders occupied by the Franklings (Francigene),
The land around Paris that was once called Gaul,
It was subdued by the Franks, and is called ‘Little Frankia’,
And was given to the French according to a lesser fate.
Godfrey of Viterbo, Speculum Regum 2.4
In his Trojan genealogy, Godfrey was thus able to denigrate the French, argue for Romano-German consanguinity, and celebrate Charlemagne. While Godfrey did not create these tales ex nihilo,13 he nonetheless was able to bend existing traditions concerning the Trojan issue to suit the imperial rhetoric of the Hohenstaufen court.14 Between his overtures to the Italians and insults to the French, in the Speculum Godfrey was proving himself to be a master of what those who study classical antiquity would call ‘kinship diplomacy’.15
Rival Trojan genealogies
As implied in the introduction to this section, the Hohenstaufens were not the only twelfth-century dynasty for which detailed Trojan-focused genealogies were written.16 The Plantagenet kings of England and Normandy, for example, seem to have been particularly keen to capitalize on the political potential of the Troy stories.17 But perhaps the most direct challenge to the Hohensatufen version of Trojan genealogy was that of their immediate neighbours and rivals: the Capetians of France.
While the idea of the French (or Frankish) people being of Trojan ancestry was well established by the late twelfth century,18 a Trojan lineage had not yet been specified for their ruling dynasty, the Capetians. Less than a decade after Godfrey wrote the Speculum, however, the French chronicler Rigord produced the Gesta Philippi Augusti (‘The Deeds of Philip Augustus’), extolling the great deeds of the Capetian king Philip II. The Gesta offered a completely different vision of the Trojan genealogy from that of the Speculum.19 Rigord begins his genealogical discussion as a digression on the city of Paris, which he claims to have been named after Paris the prince of Troy. Like Godfrey, he argues that the refugee Trojans split into two main groups after the fall of the city.20
Post eversionem Troje multitudo magna inde fugiens, ac deinde in duos populos se dividens, alia Francionem, quondam Priami regis Troje nepotem, videlicet Hectoris filium, super se regem levavit; alia Turchum nomine, filium Troili filii Priami, secuta sit; atque ex eo, ut quidam tradunt, duos populos sumpto nomine Francos et Turchos usque hodie vocari.
After the destruction of Troy, the great mass fleeing from there split into two groups. One was brought up by Francio, who was the grandson of Priam the king of Troy and reportedly the son of Hector. The other was named for Turchus, the son of Troilus son of Priam. And so it follows that, in accordance with tradition, the two peoples assumed the names ‘Franks’ and ‘Turks’ as we call them today.
Rigord, Gesta Philippi Augusti 3821
From the Turkish side of the family, according to Rigord, came the Goths, the Vandals, and the Normans. The progeny of Francio initially settled close to the Danube, and then moved to the area around the Rhine under the leadership of Marcomir, the grandson of Francio and Sunno, the son of Antenor. At this time, they controlled all of Germany and Gaul right up to the Pyrenees (Rigord, Gesta Philippi Augusti 39). However, after refusing to pay tribute to the Romans and fighting a bitter war with them (resulting in them being dubbed the ‘Franks’ for their ferocity), Rigord tells us they settled permanently in Gaul.
Sed postea, Sonnone et Genebaudo ducibus in Austria remanentibus, Marcomirus, filius Priami regis Austrie, qui a Francione, nepote Priami regis Troje, per multas successorum generationes, quas hic longum esset enumerare descenderat in Galliam venit cum suis.
Afterwards, while Sunno and Genebaud remained to watch over Austria; Marcomirus the son of Priam the king of Austria, who was descended from Francio the grandson of Priam the king of Troy through so many successive generations that it would be too long to list them here, came to Gaul with his people.
Rigord, Gesta Philippi Augusti 39
Rigord stresses that the Franks are the most noble of the descendants of Troy, sprung as they were from Hector. The inhabitants of Germany, by contrast, are depicted as a subordinate group, which were left behind to pay Roman tribute when the main body of Franks occupied Gaul. Their leaders, the little-known Sunno and Genebaud, are sons of a lesser line – that of Antenor.22 Antenor not only did not belong to the Trojan royal family – he appears briefly in the Iliad as one of Priam’s counsellors – but mythic tradition by this time had also tainted him with treason.23 Rigord was casting genealogical aspersions on the Germans, not just directly by making them a lesser offshoot of the Franks (just as Godfrey had made the little ‘Franklings’ an offshoot of the Teutonic ‘proper’ Franks), but indirectly by implying cowardice (in the willingness to pay Roman tribute) and treachery (through Antenor).
Rigord’s Trojan genealogy may not have been a direct response to Godfrey’s, but it was written within a few years of it and touched upon many similar themes. The other target of the Hohenstaufen genealogical project – Charlemagne – also quickly came into the Capetians’ sights. Over the next few years, the ancestry of Philip II’s wife was increasingly stressed – she was said to belong to the line of Charlemagne, and so their son Louis could be said to legitimately be reclaiming his Carolingian heritage.24 Godfrey may have been adept in ‘kinship diplomacy’, but he was not the only one playing the game of twelfth-century political genealogies.
Godfrey’s Homer
Promoting the Hohenstaufen imperial ideology was only one of Godfrey’s aims in the Speculum. He also had literary ambitions, as evident from the scale and scope of the planned work, in spite of that fact that the Speculum ultimately remained unfinished. These literary ambitions meant establishing himself within the pantheon of great writers and locating himself within the wider literary landscape. The citation and use of sources was one way of doing this, and Godfrey made use of a wide range of sources in several different languages. He drew from previous historiographical works, in particular relying heavily on the Chronicon of Otto of Friesling; but also from wider traditions in the chansons de geste, vernacular chronicles such as the High German Kaiserchronik, and local oral traditions.25
The most obvious way for a twelfth-century writer to establish their position in relation to existing works was to set things out explicitly, as Godfrey’s contemporary Rigord chose to do. Indeed, Rigord often named his sources in his work, arguing that his own historical authority was based on his careful and detailed study of older texts.26 For example, Rigord cites his sources for his Trojan genealogy thus:
Et quoniam multi solent dubitare de origine regni Francorum, quomodo et qualiter reges Francorum ab ipsis Trojanis descendisse dicantur, ideo sollicicius, prout potuimus colligere ex historia Gregori Turonensis et ex cronicis Eusebii et cronicis Hidacii et ex aliorum multorum scriptis in hac nostra historia satis lucide determinavimus.
Because many are used to doubting the origin of the French kings, and how and in what way the French kings are said to be descended from the Trojans; therefore we have collected as well as possible details from the History of Gregory of Tours, the Chronicle of Eusebius, the Chronicle of Hydace, and many other texts into this, our history, and set it out with great clarity.
Rigord, Gesta Philippi Augusti 38
Godfrey’s approach to his sources was markedly different. He named them only rarely, and did not usually discuss their merits or failings. Instead, he usually opted for a strategy of using unattributed quotations, seemingly in the expectation that his readers would be able to pick up on the references. This seems to be the way that Godfrey made use of several ancient and late antique works including the writings of Ovid, Virgil through Servilius’ commentary, Isidorus, Boethius, and the Historia Augusta.27 Interestingly, although Godfrey made use of all these sources, he did not name them. Perhaps surprisingly one of the few authors that he did explicitly mention by name is Homer.
This may be unexpected given that the Homeric p
oems were not known or available in western Europe at this time. Indeed, it was not until Petrarch commissioned a translation of the Iliad in the fourteenth century that knowledge about the content and details of the Homeric epics spread in Western Europe.28 Godfrey therefore wrote about Troy in a world without Homer – or at least, a world where Homer was not in any practical way at the centre of traditions about Troy, and where it was not known precisely what Homer had said about Troy. This makes it all the more remarkable that a full century and a half before the Iliad became accessible, Godfrey wrote as if he had already consulted it.
DE PRIAMO ET ANCHISE REGIBUS TROIANIS
Anchisem Priamumque simul regnasse fatemur.
Istis temporibus Troiam descripsit Homerus;
Nos quoque tangemus, me rogat alma Venus.
Nascitur ex Priamo Paris et laudabilis Hector,
De quibus annecto breviter quam plurima, lector,
Cetera que remanent magnus Homerus habet.
OF PRIAM AND ANCHISES, THE KINGS OF THE TROJANS
I say that Anchises and Priam ruled at the same time.
Homer described Troy in this era.
We may also touch on it, if I ask kindly Venus.
From Priam was born Paris and praiseworthy Hector,
About whom, my reader, I link up many things briefly.
The rest which remains, great Homer has it.
Godfrey of Viterbo, Speculum Regum 1.12 lines 1–6
Godfrey does not explicitly claim to have read Homer, but he does claim to know what was in the Homeric texts – Homer wrote of Troy in the time of Anchises and Priam. He then offers a tantalizing suggestion: he claims that, in his own poem, he has summarized the story in the interests of brevity, but implies that the reader may consult Homer for further details.29 This is a somewhat strange conceit given that both Godfrey and his readers must have known this was impossible. Godfrey was not alone, however, in writing as if he had access to Homer during the twelfth century.
The Roman de Troie was a long poem presenting a chivalric and romantic version of the tale of Troy, written for a popular audience in the vernacular French by Benoît de St Maure around 1160.30 Like Rigord, Benoît was careful to specify his sources for the story; and like Godfrey, he implied that he had access to the Homeric poems. Homer, he claimed, was still ‘received and held in authority’ (receüz | et en autorité tenuz: Benoît, Roman de Troie, 73–74). Benoît went on to explain that he had good historical and scholarly reasons for choosing not to use Homer as a source, despite his prestige. Homer, he argued, had created an unreliable account of the Trojan War:
Mais ne dist pas ses livres veir,
quar bien savons sens nuil espier
qu’il ne fu puis de cent anz nez
que li granz osz fu asemblez.
N’est merveille s’il i faillit,
qui unc n’i fu ne rein n’en vit.
But his book does not speak truly, for we know without any doubt that he was not born even a hundred years after the great army was assembled. It is no surprise if he makes mistakes, for he was never there and saw nothing of it.
Roman de Troie, 51–5631
Benoît’s preferred source was the De excidio Troiae historia by Dares Phrygius, a late antique text that was widely believed to be an eyewitness account of the Trojan War.32 His eyewitness status, Benoît asserts, made Dares a better source than Homer: ‘thus each day he wrote as he had seen it with his own eyes’ (chascun jor ensi l’escrivait |cum il o ses oilz le veeit: Roman de Troie, 105–06; text and trans. Damian-Grint 1999, 110). Like Rigord, therefore, Benoît claimed his historical reliability on the basis of using superior source material.33 And even more explicitly than was the case with Rigord, for Benoît this did not include Homer.
Godfrey shares with Benoît the implicit suggestion that he had access to the Homeric poems, but parts ways with Benoît in his judgement of Homer. Godfrey’s positive assessment of Homer is evident from the choice to name him explicitly in the text. As mentioned above, Godfrey rarely named his sources and it is significant that although he drew extensively from Dares in his Trojan genealogy, he nonetheless chose not to mention Dares’ name.34 In contrast, when Godfrey names Homer, he also seems to suggest that Homer occupied an especially elevated position – Godfrey himself may only touch on Homeric themes, apparently, if he first petitions the divine (me rogat alma Venus). Furthermore, Homer is described as ‘great’ (magnus). Indeed, later in the poem, Godfrey offers an even more glowing assessment of Homer.
Iudicio veri si querimus ista fateri,
Optima longevi rescripta probentur Homeri:
Ytala nam tellus Grecia maior erit.
If we seek to profess this as a true judgment,
The excellent writings of venerable Homer would confirm
That the land of Italy is now greater than Greece.
Godfrey of Viterbo, Speculum Regum 1.12, 34–36
These lines occur in a passage that describes the transfer of worldly power from ancient Greece to Italy.35 Godfrey tells us that although the Greeks (indeed we are now dealing with the Latin term ‘Graeci’ rather than with Homeric Achaeans or classical Hellenes) were once thought greater than the Trojans (Speculum 1.12, 31), things had now changed, and that this is evident from Homer’s work. Homer himself is described as ‘venerable’ (longevi: line 35), while his writings are ‘the best’ (optima: line 35). Not only did Godfrey imply that he had access to the Homeric poems therefore, but he also offered his judgement on the poems as being of particularly high quality.
However, at this point Godfrey is not really writing about Homer at all. Rather, he is writing about himself, and his own argument about the changing seat of power. Homer is invoked only to confirm Godfrey’s position, supporting his version of history and the Trojan genealogy. In the opacity of contemporary ignorance concerning Homer, Godfrey saw an opportunity. He used Homer as a mirror to reflect and authenticate his own arguments, casting Homer in his own image.
The mirror refracted
In the decade that followed the initial composition of the Speculum, Godfrey worked almost constantly on revising his history. The historical material of the Speculum was reworked into the Memoria seculorum (‘Remembrance of the Ages’), parts of which began to circulate as early as 1185; and then eventually into a work entitled the Pantheon, which reached its final form around 1190. The composition of the Pantheon involved a fair amount of cut-and-paste, but there were also many additions and a significant change of emphasis in relation to Godfrey’s Trojan material.
In particular, there is considerably less interest in Trojan genealogy and the Hohenstaufen dynasty in the Pantheon than in the Speculum. Charlemagne does not feature so prominently, and is no longer presented as the culmination of the genealogical discussion. Similarly, the fate of the Trojan survivors receives less attention, as does the division between the proper Teutonic ‘Franks’ and the ‘Franklings’ of France. Overall, Godfrey had become far less interested in the imperial ideology of the Hohenstaufen dynasty. Instead, his own literary and historical ambitions now take centre stage – as indicated by the change of title. Where the Speculum regum suggested looking backwards to reflect on past images of kingly power, the Pantheon was larger and more encyclopaedic in scope, looking outwards. It has been suggested that this change may have been partly due to the Speculum receiving only a lukewarm reception from the Hohenstaufens, leading Godfrey to seek patronage and recognition elsewhere. Significantly, the Pantheon was no longer dedicated to the Hohenstaufen heir Henry, but instead to the Pope Urban III – a personal enemy of Frederick I.36
Although much of Godfrey’s Trojan material was trimmed for the Pantheon, it is significant that the lines concerning Homer were retained, albeit with a slight change of emphasis. The new title given to the poem about the fall of Troy sets the tone – this is no longer a poem focusing on the kings of Troy exclusively. Instead, the poem is first and foremost concerned with chronicling the times.
CHRONICA ILIUS
TEMPORIS, DE REGIBUS ET CAUSIS TROIANORUM:
Istis temporibus Troiam describit Homerus,
Anchisem Priamumque simul feremus,
Gestaque, tangemus, me rogat ipsa Venus.
Nascitur ex Priamo Paris et laudabilis Hector,
De quibus annecto breviter quam plurima lector,
Cetera quae remanent, magnus Homerus habet.
THE CHRONICLE OF THAT TIME, OF THE KINGS AND TROUBLES OF THE TROJANS:
Homer described Troy in this era,
We find that Anchises and Priam reigned at the same time;
And we will touch on their deeds, if I ask Venus herself.
Of Priam was born Paris and praiseworthy Hector,
About whom, my reader, I link up many things briefly.
The rest which remains, great Homer has it.
Godfrey of Viterbo, Pantheon 7, columns 183–8437
The other subtle change in these lines is in the description of Venus – instead of ‘kindly’ (alma) Venus, Godfrey will now ask the goddess ‘herself’ (ipsa). In the later reference to Homer there is once again a subtle change of wording. Crucially, Godfrey has made a firmer claim on what was in the Homeric text.
Iudicio veri, si quaerimus ista fateri:
Inclyta longaevi rescripta legantur Homeri,
Itala nam tellus Graecua maior erit.
If we seek to profess this as a true judgement,
In the renowned writings of venerable Homer it is read that
That the land of Italy is now greater than Greece.
Godfrey of Viterbo, Pantheon 7, column 185
Godfrey implies, now more than before, that he has access to the writings of Homer – specifying for his own readers what could be ‘read’ (legantur) in Homer’s writings. And yet, while this formulation is stronger in its claims about Homeric content, it is weaker in its claims for a Godfreidian Homer. Homer is not cited here simply to prove the arguments of Godfrey – he is here to be read in his own right. Perhaps, in this more final version of his universal history, Godfrey felt less constrained within his literary hall of mirrors.