Lack of Divinity in "Troy" Symptomatic of Current Culture

by Marian Kester Coombs

"Since the Enlightenment, any role for the divine or supernatural has steadily given way to naturalistic explanations ('Gravity did it') and human causality ('My mean parents made me do it').

Yet mere convention or superstition fail to account for the leading role accorded the gods by the Iliad. The late Julian Jaynes of Princeton University, in The Origins Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind (1976), argues that at the time the Iliad was composed, the two hemispheres of the human brain still functioned semi-autonomously, and that auditory 'hallucinations' of the Gods, emanating from admonitory wisdom stored in the right hemisphere, were experienced as divine, external voices advising and commanding, warning and encouraging.

'A coward in the Iliad is not someone who is afraid, but someone whose kradie [heart] beats loudly. The only remedy is for Athene to 'put' strength in the kradie (2:452), or for Apollo to 'put' boldness in it (21:547)' (book and line numbers of the Iliad in parentheses). In other words, there is no 'I' in the Iliad, no 'subjectification': Its men do not act, but are automata controlled by the gods.

By the time of the Odyssey, according to Jaynes, there has been such 'a gigantic vault in mentality' that we are clearly no longer in the age of whoever composed the Iliad. The Odyssey is 'a journey of deviousness. It is the very discovery of guile, its invention and celebration.' Its gods are 'like receding ghosts,' hard to contact and quite possible to ignore. In the Odyssey, the muses are 'narratizing their own downfall, their own fading away into subjective thought ... [T]he whole long song is an odyssey toward subjective identity and its triumphant acknowledgment out of the hallucinatory enslavements of the past."
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Troy may be inspired by Homer's Iliad but definitely not based on it

Like many classical history buffs, I took time to see the new "Troy" on it's opening day in my city.

Here are some of the Pros of the new film:

Patroclus is present and is at least dealt with as a beloved cousin.

The story focuses on Achilles, Hector, and Agamemnon with sufficient homage paid to the questions of duty, honor, and glory rather than the love between Paris and Helen. The cinematography and special effects were good but not really superior to those used in the USA miniseries "Helen of Troy".

There was much more focus on Hector as a loving husband and father as well as skilled warrior and Andromache and Astyanax were nicely represented although I would have treasured the scene of Hector accidentally frightening Asytanax by appearing in his gore-covered armor as related by Homer.

Achilles was far superior to the bald, mindless brute portrayed in USA's "Helen of Troy". Even though I personally feared that Brad Pitt was not my mental visualization of Achilles, he actually portrayed a conflicted hero quite well. Eric Bana's screen presence as Hector was also equally riveting (as one of the other film critics pointed out). I liked the actor who portrayed Hector in the miniseries but his part was deliberately overshadowed by the focus on Paris.


Here are some of the cons as I perceive them:



1. The screenplay had eliminated almost all reference to the role of the divine in the events portrayed. There was no judgment of Paris. The gods did not rescue Paris by obscuring him with fog during his duel with Menelaus. Most of all, sadly, there was no flame-wreathed Achilles standing and shouting out his grief for Patroclus. The only "paranormal" reference that I remember was Hector’s admission that he had seen his fate in a dream.

2. Although the Iliad does not mention Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia, that is one of the events told in the collective Trojan War myths that was included in USA's "Helen of Troy" that I found quite poignant and that provided much more depth to the character of Agammenon portrayed by Rufus Sewell. I thought Brian Cox's Agamemnon was rather one dimensional – simply the personification of an individual totally corrupted by power.

3. I also found James Callis personification of Menelaus to hold more humanity than the brutish warrior portrayed by Brendan Gleeson. I also don't know why Hollywood chose to kill Menelaus other than the fact that he had served his purpose as far as advancing the story goes and they didn't want to pay him anymore.

4. Cassandra and her torment about forseeing the destruction of Troy was totally omitted. I thought this aspect of the story was incorporated quite effectively in the TV miniseries.

5. Since Iphigenia was omitted, a vengeful Clytemnestra was also omitted. Again, the TV miniseries, although also killing Agamemnon in Troy instead of Mycenae, provided a more dramatic resolution than this movie.

6. The movie makers decided to kill Ajax in one of the battle scenes instead of portraying his suicide after the sack of Troy, committed because he was not awarded Achilles armor. There has been a lot of discussion about Sean Bean as Odysseus starring in a sequel. This negates the possibility of incorporating any emotional meeting between an unforgiving Ajax and Odysseus in the underworld.

7. Aeneas was portrayed as a youth. In Homer, Aeneas was second only to Hector in Trojan military prowess. The boy in this movie doesn't even look old enough to have taken part in the fighting and how he was managing to pack his aged father on his back is a mystery to me. He was also too young to be leading a son old enough to be walking unassisted (Ascanius).



I still enjoyed myself and simply hope that some day someone in Hollywood will have the common sense to film the classic in its original form. By the way, I saw the preview of the new "King Arthur" movie and it looked exciting. Of course, I always get weak in the knees when I see a man in Roman armor!

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Tomb of Mayan queen uncovered

"While excavating an ancient royal palace deep in the Guatemalan rain forest, archaeologists made a rare discovery - the 1,200-year-old tomb and skeleton of a Mayan queen.

Archaeologists announced the find Thursday and said the woman appears to have been a powerful leader of a city that may have been home to tens of thousands of people at its peak. They found her bones on a raised platform, with evidence of riches scattered around her body.

The queen's skull and leg bones were missing, probably removed sometime after the body had decomposed to be used as relics. Other than that, the tomb - measuring 11 feet long by 4 feet wide by 6 feet high - was untouched.

The queen is thought to have been 30 to 45 when she died, but archaeologists have uncovered no clues as to her name, dynasty or cause of death.

Twenty-two jade plaques, each about 2 inches square, appear to have been part of the helmet. Archaeologists also found a 4-inch-long jade carving depicting the dead of a deity in profile - a type of jewel worn by kings and queens, David Freidel, an anthropology professor at Southern Methodist University, which sponsored a team of 20 archaeologists excavating the site said.

Stingray spines found in the tomb usually were used as bloodletting implements - males pierced their genitals in ceremonies that offered their blood to the gods, while women generally placed the spines in their tongues. The ones found in the tomb were placed on the queen's pelvis, Freidel said.

"She's being represented as both male and female, in my view," Freidel said." If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!