While reading various histories of the Middle Ages, I have occasionally come across references to the Homeric works (mentions of romances that alluded to Ulysses/Odysseus, for example), but not in a way that would imply familiarity with the actual texts of the Iliad and Odyssey. So, how familiar were educated Westerners with Homer? Did copies exist in translation, or did even learned people only know of him and his work at secondhand, such as through Virgil?
Direct Knowledge of Homer in Medieval Western Europe?
- Thread starter frustrated progressive
- Start date
Skallagrim
Banned
There were some with considerable knowledge of Greek writing, and this knowledge did increase with the Scholastic tradition (but that wasn't geared towards Homeric works). All in all, the first full translation of the Homeric works came to Western Europe from Constantinople, via Italy, in the 15th century. Previously, a shortened Latin version -- the Ilias Latina -- was widely known in the West. It was a standard part of any decent education. This version, probably created in the first century AD, was barely above a thousand lines.
In Western Europe, the general "understanding" throughout the Mediaeval period was that more than this compressed version of the Homeric account wasn't needed; Homeros was regarded as a story-teller, whose account of events was unreliable. The West instead put stock in a couple of noted forgeries(!) from Late Antiquity. First, there's the work Daretis Phrygii de excidio Trojae historia. This was supposedly the eye-witness account of Dares Phrygius, who Homeros tells us was present at Troy, a recorded in Latin by Cornelius Nepos. But it's actually a fifth century fake. Then, there's Dictys Cretensis Ephemeris belli Trojani. Supposedly a sort of diary of another warrior who was present, Dictys Cretensis, as translated into Latin. But actually also a fake, from the fourth century. (In this case, a Greek 'original' did exist, but was of a late origin itself.) The only other known "source" that was used in the West was the Excidium Troie, which has been famously discovered among the manuscripts collected by Richard Rawlinson. We don't know the origins for that one, but it's just as incorrect as the other two manuscripts -- just in different ways.
Based on these dubious "sources", the Mediaeval "Matter of Troy" gradually coalesced: a collection of highly popular chivalric romances and such things. Thus, we get Le Roman de Troie by Benoît de Sainte-Maure (written c. 1155 - 1160), De bello Troiano by Joseph of Exeter (written c. 1183), the Middle English narrative poem The Seege of Troy (sometimes The Batayle of Troy), Konrad von Würzburg's Trojanische Krieg (13th century), Guido delle Colonne's Historia destructionis Troiae (1287) and Geoffrey Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde (completed in the mid-1380s). The spurious souurces used for these works explain why they indeed do not imply familiarity with Homeros!
Nevertheless, we can say that the tale of the Trojan War was very widely known in the Middle Ages, albeit in a garbled form. It's everywhere. There's even the Trójumanna saga: a 13th century Icelandic translation (and distinctly Nordic re-interpretation!) of the work ascribed to Dares Phrygius. The story, distorted as it was, certainly held a prominent place in the imagination. To the point that virtually every royal house in Europe claimed to be descended from at least one of the heroes from the Trojan War.
In Western Europe, the general "understanding" throughout the Mediaeval period was that more than this compressed version of the Homeric account wasn't needed; Homeros was regarded as a story-teller, whose account of events was unreliable. The West instead put stock in a couple of noted forgeries(!) from Late Antiquity. First, there's the work Daretis Phrygii de excidio Trojae historia. This was supposedly the eye-witness account of Dares Phrygius, who Homeros tells us was present at Troy, a recorded in Latin by Cornelius Nepos. But it's actually a fifth century fake. Then, there's Dictys Cretensis Ephemeris belli Trojani. Supposedly a sort of diary of another warrior who was present, Dictys Cretensis, as translated into Latin. But actually also a fake, from the fourth century. (In this case, a Greek 'original' did exist, but was of a late origin itself.) The only other known "source" that was used in the West was the Excidium Troie, which has been famously discovered among the manuscripts collected by Richard Rawlinson. We don't know the origins for that one, but it's just as incorrect as the other two manuscripts -- just in different ways.
Based on these dubious "sources", the Mediaeval "Matter of Troy" gradually coalesced: a collection of highly popular chivalric romances and such things. Thus, we get Le Roman de Troie by Benoît de Sainte-Maure (written c. 1155 - 1160), De bello Troiano by Joseph of Exeter (written c. 1183), the Middle English narrative poem The Seege of Troy (sometimes The Batayle of Troy), Konrad von Würzburg's Trojanische Krieg (13th century), Guido delle Colonne's Historia destructionis Troiae (1287) and Geoffrey Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde (completed in the mid-1380s). The spurious souurces used for these works explain why they indeed do not imply familiarity with Homeros!
Nevertheless, we can say that the tale of the Trojan War was very widely known in the Middle Ages, albeit in a garbled form. It's everywhere. There's even the Trójumanna saga: a 13th century Icelandic translation (and distinctly Nordic re-interpretation!) of the work ascribed to Dares Phrygius. The story, distorted as it was, certainly held a prominent place in the imagination. To the point that virtually every royal house in Europe claimed to be descended from at least one of the heroes from the Trojan War.
Last edited:
The Iliad was very widely known and people who could read it wanted to have it. Even a relatively minor language such as Croatian had a translation. Further more it was even transcribed into Glagolitic. The translation came through Latin intermediary text rather than from some form of Greek "original" based on linguistic research.
Skallagrim
Banned
The text you refer to, I assume, is the Rumanac trojski? Written in the thirteenth century, and based on the exact same sources I mentioned in my previous post. Indeed, presumably adapted from those Latin texts themselves, without any influence from Greek sources (either original or as an intermediary translation of those Latin texts).
So, yes, the story of the Trojan War was widely known and recounted. One might describe this as "the Iliad" (the tale of Ilion), but to suggest that this was the Homeric Iliad (which this thread is asking about) would be misleading. And of course, we must note that speaking of "even a relatively minor language such as Croatian" makes no sense here: the lively connections between Croatia's coastal merchant cities (Dubrovnik,Zadar etc.) and other trade cities (and not only ties to near-by Venice, but connections extending deep into both to the Byzantine East and to the Latinate West) actually made Croatia a very likely candidate to undergo a lot of literary-cultural cross-pollination. Indeed, the Croatian version of the tale of Troy soon became the basis for Bulgarian and Russian versions, which proliferated half a century later. Far from being some back-water, Croatia was a veritable gate-way!
(A great essay that goes into this subject is "The Swan Song of the Latin Homer", by Petra Šoštarić, which can be found in the overall excellent Handbook to Classical Reception in Eastern and Central Europe.)
Last edited:
Yes.
True. I was not as precise in my statement as I should have been.
I am not quite sure I would agree with you at the time period in question. While the area of east Adriatic coast sure was an excellent place for literary-cultural cross-pollination since it was part of the Adriatic cultural coine and thus had strong links both with Latin west and Greek east the language itself was in a rather peculiar position. To see something translated into it speaks of great interest in the matter.
Thanks will check it out.
Skallagrim
Banned
That's a fair point! I think that the fact that the story got repeated, re-told, altered, expanded etc. so often in so many languages -- even without the broad reverence for Homeros that we have nowadays -- suggests that there is something inherently attractive about the story itself. It just speaks to people.
Very much recommended: broad selection of essays, organised by country, nicely high-lighting various aspects of the reception of Classical works. I specifically got it for the pieces on Poland, and then "accidentally" ended up devouring it from cover to cover.Thanks will check it out.
Thanks for your fascinating and comprehensive response! (Then again, when has a Skallagrim-post not been intricate)?
I did not think of the Scholastic textual borrowings as including Homer, so I had always been under the impression that the epics were first (re)introduced by fleeing Byzantine scholars in the 15th century. I had never heard of that Ilias Latina, or the various doubtful versions-that was very interesting.
I was unaware of there being a "Matter of Troy" as such, only knowing of the "Matters" of France, Britain, and, (with even less knowledge) Rome, and I thought of the latter as being focused on Constantine for obvious reasons, and Caesar as one of the "Nine Worthy Rulers" (and I had always thought that Shakespeare created the characters of Troilus and Cressida from whole cloth, with direct access to the Iliad). It is amazing, with some cursory research, to see how the Trojan theme spread and created many works which stand on their own merits, all from scanty and suspect mediums! This certainly sheds light on the Trojan references which were the impetus to creating this thread, (and I'll be sure to check out that Handbook to Classical Reception in Eastern and Central Europe).
An example of how late medieval Europeans (at least among the educated elites) perceived the Iliad can be found in Dante, who explicitly references events in the Iliad and Odyssey, but he also inserts non-canonical “facts,” including the effort of Odysseus to sail to a New World beyond Gibraltar—this came from medieval traditions rather than the text of the Iliad or Odyssey itself.
That was one of the things I was referring to in the OP.