Transitioning from the Classic Hero to the Medieval Hero
"The Song of Roland" is an important piece in helping us understand the movement from the classic Greek epic/tragic hero to the hero we see in the literature of the Middle Ages. Many of the stories we read will place the protagonists in situations in which fighting or warrior skill alone will not solve their problems, nor bring them glory. The world view changes when the Roman outlook gives way to the Holy Roman outlook--when we move to a Christian outlook, in other words. There are a couple of important distinctions to note in this transition:
1) The shift in values creates a shift in conduct. Think about it this way: when what was important to people changed, their goals and objectives in life changed, and therefore they changed their behavior. The classic hero was motivated by wealth, trophies, and glory; therefore, honor and valor in battle would help the hero achieve those. The bigger and more valiant the victory, the larger the reward in reputation.
On the other hand, the knight fights not for himself, but for his king, queen or country, or for his lady. The shift here is away from kleos (glory) to fides (loyalty) and chivalry, a French term which came to define the relationship between a knight and his lady (so, something to do with love...). For these goals, the knight must conduct himself with a bit more honor, since it's not just his own reputation that's at stake.
2) The shift in religious ideas creates a shift in the relationship to the gods/God. The classic hero lived in a world (albeit a mythical one) where the gods had direct interaction with people, and conducted themselves with human personalities and faults. They are petty and flakey, and play favorites. Fate was, then, paradoxically your fault and out of your control.
For the Medieval hero, God is distant except for certain miracles; He is either vengeful or merciful, and rarely anything else; and He lives in heaven, not down the street atop Mt. Olympus, so there is not a lot of direct contact. The knight is subordinate to God, not interacting with Him, and never challenging Him.
3) The shift in a view of the afterlife creates a shift in the approach to life. For the classic hero, to die in battle was glorious, and if you make good in life and don't die horribly (which was ironically the case for most heroes), you'd be awarded a spot in the Underworld, which is somewhere in the middle of the earth. There were some pretty nice spots down there, too; sort of like "paradise" in the Old Testament, which was actually in the upper parts of Hell, where the Old Testament saint lived before Jesus took them to Heaven. Sort of like that.
For the Medieval hero, Heaven was, well, in heaven! They live a live of purity, forsaking worldly wants to get to heaven and be with God forever. Whereas some of the eternal home's of the classic world resembled placed on earth, Heaven is like no place on earth, because it's not on earth--it's out in space somewhere...
4) The shift in the understanding of the hero's goal creates a shift in the journey. The classic hero will reach the goal and die, or die while reaching the goal. Death, really, is part of the goal, which is somewhat of a bummer, you can imagine. You will win, but you will die. If you don't die, you haven't won. All that wealth and booty equals street cred in the afterlife, but you can't take it with you.
For the Medieval hero, the knight may or may not actually achieve the intended goal. Their journey does also involve some humbling, though not necessarily death; their reward is much more intangible often, as the enlightenment they receive was not the reason for the journey, but gained over the course of the journey. In other words, they don't seek enlightenment as a product; they receive enlightenment as a process. Again, although there is often some failure, the lessons they learn to translate into some street cred with God when they get to heaven. Maybe this shift isn't so much a difference as a variation...
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
* How does "The Song of Roland" act as a transitional piece between the classic hero and the Medieval one? In what ways does the story reflect the classic ideals? In what ways does it show the shift to the new ones?
* Which hero, in your opinion, is superior, the classic or the Medieval? I don't mean if they squared off in a fight (though that would be somewhat exciting), but in terms of values and qualities?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Defining the Greek Hero (Lecture, 10/1/09)
For your essays, the first thing you will need to do is acknowledge and show understanding of the Greek concept of hero, and how it is distinct from our contemporary concept of hero. By that I mean, "we" (21st c. Americans) don't necessarily think of Achilles as the "good guy" in the Iliad, although he is clearly the protagonist. So we need to look at the values held by the Greeks in order to determine what "hero" meant to them.
A. Cultural Values (The world the Greek hero lived in)
First, we need to put the Greek hero in the context of what the Greeks valued in their society. Ideas that were important to them included:
1. A regard for material possessions. Possessions (particularly a warrior's possessions and spoils) were closely tied to his sense of honor, his prestige in the community. To lose one's possessions was a shameful thing. Think about why it upsets Achilles so that Agamemnon takes his possession, the slave girl; he is publicly insulting Achilles, without besting him in battle.
2. A regard for the gods. The relationship to the gods was simple: rather than seeming abstract and far away, the gods had direct dealings in the affairs of humans. (Not literally, of course, but this is what they believed about, for example, natural phenomenon.) Your "luck" or fate, then, was tied to your favor with the gods; if you prospered, it was because the gods willed it. If you suffered, it was because the gods willed it. By not angering or displeasing the gods, you could gain their favor, so they believed.
3. A regard for the dead and funeral rites. Finally, and most importantly, the Greeks believed that the funeral rites were important in conveying the soul of the departed safely to the underworld; if they did not go through the rites, their soul would wander the earth. The significance of this was that DEATH held an important role (especially to the hero--we will see this a bit later).
B. Qualities of a Hero (How to spot this dude on the streets of Greece)
Secondly, there were certain qualities that marked a hero in the classic Greek world. The biggest distinction, perhaps, between classic Greek heroes and our contemporary heroes is that the classic hero was often a TRAGIC hero (think Oedipus). Here are a couple of things that characterized the (tragic) hero:
1. Pedigree. Usually, the hero had some divine ancestry, a link to the gods; or, at least, the hero was able to rise to nobility. Make the connection here to the point above about "relationship to the gods."
2. Favor. Usually this relationship or favor from the gods translated in some special quality or "magic" element or assistance the hero may acquire in his journey (ie, invulnerability, invisibility caps, etc.)
3. Arete. Greek for "virtue." For a warrior, this was honor and excellence in battle. (Think, "This is Sparta! Let's fight!") For, say, a philosopher, this would be something like bookishness. (Think, "This is Athens! Let's read!")
4. Journey cycle. Usually the hero was on a Quest for Enlightenment/Salvation/Redemption (make the connections to the archetypes/Topics in World Lit). There were some exploits or adventures of some sort, and the hero responds or reacts with courage, boldness, and strength.
5. Decision. Usually the hero is faced with a serious decision on this journey-cycle. It was common for the hero to fail or make a mistake at this point. The hero would suffer would suffer for this...
6. Suffering. Suffering is meaningful for the hero (this is what makes him tragic!). More on this later, but the important thing for now is, this this suffering is usually brought about by...
7. Hamartia. This is the fault, or more appropriately, the "tragic flaw." These came in many flavors, but included hubris (our favorite--"excessive pride"), jealousy, rage, naivete, etc.
8. Neutrality. This one is weird, but try it on for size: the hero was neither fully good or evil. This goes against our conventional way of thinking, but is important to grasp to understand what the Greeks thought. Think about Oedipus, or Achilles; they don't seem "good" much at all, and they certainly aren't sympathetic. But they're not altogether evil either; they have arete (they're good at what they do), but they also have hamartia (some serious bad qualities), so for now they go in the gray area.
C. The Death Connection (or, "Hero's Gotta Die!")
As I mentioned death was important in the universe of the Greeks, and it had a significant role in the hero's journey-cycle. Let me remind you of a few things first:
* Think back to the Intro to Greek Lit Powerpoint. Greek dramas evolved from religious festivals in honor of Dionysus where people sacrificed a goat (tragos).
* Think back to the Flower myths last year; when the character's blood was spilled, a flower or plant bloomed in its spot. This was some honor (of a sort) by the gods--this character lived on in this symbol.
Think about this for a second: the Greeks connected the gods to almost all natural phenomenon; some natural phenomena were the gods immortalizing favored mortals... herein lies the importance of death to the hero. In suffering (and ultimately death), the hero obtains glorification in moving from mortal to immortalized.
Huh, wha? The hero has to die to be heroic? YES. Let's look at how that pans out.
The hero has to go through an ORDEAL. This is the journey-cycle/quest. This is where the hero uses his arete. This is where favor from the gods helps. This is where the hero reveals his hamartia. This is where the favor of the gods runs out. This is meaningful for the enlightenment/salvation/redemption. Here's how it works:
(Note: Greek coming at you...)
1. Catharsis. Literally, a "release," this is the cleansing, purging, purification, clarification for the hero. This is the ordeal part of the ordeal. This is the thing that hurts, is painful, but is also good for you. This leads to...
2. Anagnorisis. This is the "epiphany" (literally, the realization) or recognition that the hero's fate is brought about by the hero, not by others. This is the enlightenment/redemption. This comes with...
3. Kleos. Literally, the "song of glory," or fame, if you will. Unfortunately, this usually takes the form of, you guessed it, DEATH, in some honorific way (not "horrific"--"honorific"--being honored, like having a flower named after you). This is how the the hero supercedes death and is redeemed, by his glorification (and, in a sense, immortalization); this is also what makes the hero tragic, though, as death (and later in literature, just a downfall) is a necessary ingredient in the recipe.
SO, to summarize...
The classic Greek hero existed in a world where gods, possessions, and death were the most important things (not in that order); the hero had a dual nature (arete/hamartia); the hero was usually involved in a quest/journey-cycle that solidified his hero-status by placing him through an ordeal in which death resulted in his redemption and glorification. Very complex, these Greek heroes; not the one-dimensional do-gooders we currently think of as heroes!
Now, how does this relate to your essay? You will need to show your understanding of the Greek hero by defining it at the start of your comparison (in your own words--not mine). Then, decide which of the qualities discussed above will work for your comparison (which "criteria") for Achilles and Hector. Both are heroes, for obviously different reasons. Which best fits the definition; or, which is the "superior" hero? This is where you should draw your own conclusion. Use data from the Iliad, and email me if you have any questions!
A. Cultural Values (The world the Greek hero lived in)
First, we need to put the Greek hero in the context of what the Greeks valued in their society. Ideas that were important to them included:
1. A regard for material possessions. Possessions (particularly a warrior's possessions and spoils) were closely tied to his sense of honor, his prestige in the community. To lose one's possessions was a shameful thing. Think about why it upsets Achilles so that Agamemnon takes his possession, the slave girl; he is publicly insulting Achilles, without besting him in battle.
2. A regard for the gods. The relationship to the gods was simple: rather than seeming abstract and far away, the gods had direct dealings in the affairs of humans. (Not literally, of course, but this is what they believed about, for example, natural phenomenon.) Your "luck" or fate, then, was tied to your favor with the gods; if you prospered, it was because the gods willed it. If you suffered, it was because the gods willed it. By not angering or displeasing the gods, you could gain their favor, so they believed.
3. A regard for the dead and funeral rites. Finally, and most importantly, the Greeks believed that the funeral rites were important in conveying the soul of the departed safely to the underworld; if they did not go through the rites, their soul would wander the earth. The significance of this was that DEATH held an important role (especially to the hero--we will see this a bit later).
B. Qualities of a Hero (How to spot this dude on the streets of Greece)
Secondly, there were certain qualities that marked a hero in the classic Greek world. The biggest distinction, perhaps, between classic Greek heroes and our contemporary heroes is that the classic hero was often a TRAGIC hero (think Oedipus). Here are a couple of things that characterized the (tragic) hero:
1. Pedigree. Usually, the hero had some divine ancestry, a link to the gods; or, at least, the hero was able to rise to nobility. Make the connection here to the point above about "relationship to the gods."
2. Favor. Usually this relationship or favor from the gods translated in some special quality or "magic" element or assistance the hero may acquire in his journey (ie, invulnerability, invisibility caps, etc.)
3. Arete. Greek for "virtue." For a warrior, this was honor and excellence in battle. (Think, "This is Sparta! Let's fight!") For, say, a philosopher, this would be something like bookishness. (Think, "This is Athens! Let's read!")
4. Journey cycle. Usually the hero was on a Quest for Enlightenment/Salvation/Redemption (make the connections to the archetypes/Topics in World Lit). There were some exploits or adventures of some sort, and the hero responds or reacts with courage, boldness, and strength.
5. Decision. Usually the hero is faced with a serious decision on this journey-cycle. It was common for the hero to fail or make a mistake at this point. The hero would suffer would suffer for this...
6. Suffering. Suffering is meaningful for the hero (this is what makes him tragic!). More on this later, but the important thing for now is, this this suffering is usually brought about by...
7. Hamartia. This is the fault, or more appropriately, the "tragic flaw." These came in many flavors, but included hubris (our favorite--"excessive pride"), jealousy, rage, naivete, etc.
8. Neutrality. This one is weird, but try it on for size: the hero was neither fully good or evil. This goes against our conventional way of thinking, but is important to grasp to understand what the Greeks thought. Think about Oedipus, or Achilles; they don't seem "good" much at all, and they certainly aren't sympathetic. But they're not altogether evil either; they have arete (they're good at what they do), but they also have hamartia (some serious bad qualities), so for now they go in the gray area.
C. The Death Connection (or, "Hero's Gotta Die!")
As I mentioned death was important in the universe of the Greeks, and it had a significant role in the hero's journey-cycle. Let me remind you of a few things first:
* Think back to the Intro to Greek Lit Powerpoint. Greek dramas evolved from religious festivals in honor of Dionysus where people sacrificed a goat (tragos).
* Think back to the Flower myths last year; when the character's blood was spilled, a flower or plant bloomed in its spot. This was some honor (of a sort) by the gods--this character lived on in this symbol.
Think about this for a second: the Greeks connected the gods to almost all natural phenomenon; some natural phenomena were the gods immortalizing favored mortals... herein lies the importance of death to the hero. In suffering (and ultimately death), the hero obtains glorification in moving from mortal to immortalized.
Huh, wha? The hero has to die to be heroic? YES. Let's look at how that pans out.
The hero has to go through an ORDEAL. This is the journey-cycle/quest. This is where the hero uses his arete. This is where favor from the gods helps. This is where the hero reveals his hamartia. This is where the favor of the gods runs out. This is meaningful for the enlightenment/salvation/redemption. Here's how it works:
(Note: Greek coming at you...)
1. Catharsis. Literally, a "release," this is the cleansing, purging, purification, clarification for the hero. This is the ordeal part of the ordeal. This is the thing that hurts, is painful, but is also good for you. This leads to...
2. Anagnorisis. This is the "epiphany" (literally, the realization) or recognition that the hero's fate is brought about by the hero, not by others. This is the enlightenment/redemption. This comes with...
3. Kleos. Literally, the "song of glory," or fame, if you will. Unfortunately, this usually takes the form of, you guessed it, DEATH, in some honorific way (not "horrific"--"honorific"--being honored, like having a flower named after you). This is how the the hero supercedes death and is redeemed, by his glorification (and, in a sense, immortalization); this is also what makes the hero tragic, though, as death (and later in literature, just a downfall) is a necessary ingredient in the recipe.
SO, to summarize...
The classic Greek hero existed in a world where gods, possessions, and death were the most important things (not in that order); the hero had a dual nature (arete/hamartia); the hero was usually involved in a quest/journey-cycle that solidified his hero-status by placing him through an ordeal in which death resulted in his redemption and glorification. Very complex, these Greek heroes; not the one-dimensional do-gooders we currently think of as heroes!
Now, how does this relate to your essay? You will need to show your understanding of the Greek hero by defining it at the start of your comparison (in your own words--not mine). Then, decide which of the qualities discussed above will work for your comparison (which "criteria") for Achilles and Hector. Both are heroes, for obviously different reasons. Which best fits the definition; or, which is the "superior" hero? This is where you should draw your own conclusion. Use data from the Iliad, and email me if you have any questions!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)