Musings
An Introduction to Ajax the Polis Hero
In Sophocles’ ‘Ajax’, Ajax possesses many qualities of the heroic ideal and some less desirable qualities as a hero. Ajax is mostly known for his physical strength and military prowess as recounted by Odysseus in Sophocles after Ajax’s death. Wilson assesses Sophocles’ Ajax as courageous and self reliant which can also be attributed to the heroic ideal, it can be evaluated from Sophocles that Ajax was a man of few words. It can be observed from ‘Ajax’ 670-83 that though blunt in speech, Ajax had certain “clarity of insight” which also asserts wisdom of sorts that can be attributed to Ajax as a hero; he can be seen as the Sophoclean hero who has gained wisdom through experience. However, Ajax can also be assesses as proud and boastful, also he becomes angry and unpredictable when he loses Achilles’ armour which are much less desirable qualities.
In order to assess Ajax’s feelings we must look at the definitions of shame and guilt. The OED defines shame as “a feeling of humiliation or distress caused by awareness of wrong behaviour, loss or respect or esteem” and guilt as the recognition of wrongdoing. An assessment of Ajax’s behaviour does indicate that he does feel shame and guilt in Sophocles, as agreed by Platzner and Harris. However, Wilson asserts that Ajax thinks primarily of himself and maintaining heroic status. This suggests that it may not be shame and guilt that Ajax is feeling in the sense of feeling sorry for his actions, but arrogance in that he is first concerned with his image as a hero and his loss of honour, instead of the damage he did. Ajax may have felt shame and guilt but this seems to be primarily concerning his loss of honour and heroic reputation.
Ajax can be seen as similar to Homer’s Achilles. Homer represents Achilles as larger that life, a superman type figure; this can also be said of Sophocles’ Ajax. Pausanias describes how angry Ajax became at being dishonoured concerning Achilles’ armour; this concern for personal honour is also seen in Homer’s Achilles in his feeling relating to Agamemnon. This suggests that both characters possess a great sense of glory and honour as their first and foremost priorities. Both heroes also seem to have a great loyalty to one another as seen in black figure pottery of them playing games together. Another similarity is the idea of invulnerability as displayed in some texts. There are also differences between the two characters. Ajax in Sophocles refuses the gods for example where as Achilles has a sense of piety, Achilles unlike Ajax, choice the more honourable death.
Plato explains the importance of every community to have a hero; Ajax can be assessed as a hero of the polis in the manner of him being the local hero and of family ancestry in both Salamis and Athens. An assessment of these traits in relation to the importance before expressed by Plato, Ajax became a polis hero. Hesiod explains how the Heroes of the Polis defended it. This suggests that Ajax was a hero for the Polis because he would defend it, however, this can be seen as an example of mutual obligation between the people and the hero, Ajax was interested in honour, by honouring him, the people of the polis were thought to be protected. Ajax is a polis hero as he is a representation of defence and power that would help to protect it, Ajax’s strength and fighting ability is seen in Attic red figure pottery.
Bibliography
Adams, S.M, The “Ajax” of Sophocles, Phoenix, Vol 9 no 3 (1955) pp. 93-110
Evelyn, H.G, Hesiod, Works and Days, University Press, London, William Heinemann Ltd.159-169
Green, P. A Concise History of Ancient Greece, Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 44-47
Harris, S.L. and Platzner, G. (2001), Classical Mythology, Images and Insights, Third Edition, Mayfield Publishing, California, pp. 797
Homer, Iliad, Translated by A.T. Murray, 1924, Book 1
Jebb R.C, Sophocles 7, Cambridge (1907) xii
Kerenyi, C. (1997), The Heroes of the Greeks, Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 319-330
Knox, B.M.W, The Ajax of Sophocles, Harvard studies in classical philology (1961), Vol 65 pp.1-37
Millard A, Ancient Greece, Usborne Publishing, London, pp. 36
Oxford English Dictionary
Pausanias 1.35.3, Translated by W.H.S. Jones and H.A. Oremrod, Heinemann, London
R.G. Bury, Plato’s Laws, Harvard University Press, London, William Heinemann Ltd. 738d
Sophocles, Ajax, Translated by R.C. Trevelyan London, G. Allen and Unwin (1919)
Tzetze, On Lycrphon 455-461
Wilson J.P, The Hero and the City, University of Michigan Press, America, pp.60, 176, 179-185
Share this:
Studying for History Exams and in General
Studying for History Exams and in General.
It’s almost exam period again. So see this previous post for some techniques and tips for students everywhere.
And a funny video.
Share this:
Where is Archaeology Blogging Going? #BlogArch
This month is the last month of the Blogging Archaeology Carnival that you may have seen participation in on other blogs and websites as well as GraecoMuse. This month we are looking at where we plan to take our blogging or where we would like to go.
“…where are you/we going with blogging or would you it like to go? I leave it up to you to choose between reflecting on you and your blog personally or all of archaeology blogging/bloggers or both. Tells us your goals for blogging. Or if you have none why that is? Tell us the direction that you hope blogging takes in archaeology.”
So where am I going with blogging about archaeology and ancient history? Well personally, as I’ve already mentioned in some of my previous posts, this to me is about productive procrastination. But I have realised that it is more than that and there are certainly things I’d like to achieve. One thing you often find with academics is a vast negativity about careers and research which can be very overwhelming especially for young academics or those who wish to expand into the field for any reason. I would like to show that there are those out there who are positive, who are willing to help and promote learning for all in a way that is fun and inspiring. This negativity is often called realism but seriously archaeology and academia is different for everyone and if you love it enough you will go far. You just need to be proactive. And if you don’t end up in academia that’s totally fine, you can still be part of this wonderful thing called history and do things that interest you and learn all that you want.
So in brief I what to promote a more positive view of history and archaeology which it deserves.
I also realised that I want to help those who are a little less knowledgeable but want to be knowledgeable. To make resources more available to those outside or academia and students themselves. Especially in the US, I have found that students simply don’t know and haven’t been told how to find information. This blog has become more than just random posts and includes access to such things which people can access really easily.
So access to resources for all! On the blog, on facebook, on twitter, everywhere!
Frankly though my main goal is a bit selfish. I have fun researching things and blogging is just fun. But in the end I would like blogging to continue what it has already started, making archaeology and ancient history more inclusive and more available to everyone. So many people are not aware of the value of archaeology and history and it’s about time they were. And I think bloggers and others are finally achieving this. For instance it is through people like us that word is got out about bad archaeological practices. For instance the horrible National Geographic Show Nazi Diggers which got pulled before it ever aired because of PUBLIC and professional outcries.
Archaeology and history are amazing. I also want to show that media dramatizations of events and the like are completely unnecessary. It seems the media these days really does thing its audience is bloody stupid and need all the stupid dramatizations and dramatic music and the like. History doesn’t need this, we don’t need this, their audiences don’t need this. Let history speak for itself. It is dramatic, it is amazing.
Hopefully with the rise of blogging in archaeology and ancient history, someday people will realise it.
http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/blogging-archaeology/
Share this:
Zeus and his Siblings: An Introduction
We hear so much about Zeus and the Olympic Gods but who were they? It worries me sometimes when an archaeology student doesn’t know the basics so let’s begin! Hesiod explains that Zeus’s parents were Cronus and Rhea and his siblings included Hades, Poseidon, Hera, Hestia and Demeter. Hesiod accounts that Zeus fathered seven lesser gods, but only two of these were with his wife/sister’s Hera.1 These children were Ares and Hephaestos, Athene, Artemis and Apollo, Hermes and Aphrodite. 2 Though accounts made by Hesiod are generally agreed on by Homer, Homer’s works do indicate that he believed that all gods originated from the Ocean. Gantz explains that Homer implicates that Oceanos and Tethys were the actual parents of Zeus. 3
Platzner and Harris explain that Zeus and his offspring did represent aspects of human beings so were anthropomorphic. Zeus represents the complexity of human sexuality/lust.4 Grimal also links Zeus to mortals with the idea of being subject to fate. Zeus’s offspring can also be seen as displaying anthropomorphic qualities. Aphrodite was the goddess of love, love being at the heart of all humans and something that all desire.5 All the gods maintained human characteristics, such as Artemis’ wildness and anger, and Athene’s strength and warrior like qualities.6 Though these gods represent the world around us such as the ocean and earth, they also include human characteristics which govern their actions. So to a fair extent, Zeus and his offspring are anthropomorphic deities.
Kerenyi assesses that Zeus’s main attributes and Functions include his place as a supreme being, as father of the gods. 7 Zeus’s defeat of the Titans illustrates military prowess, strength and he is seen as a divine warrior. 8 Platzner and Harris assert that Zeus is a representation of the complexity of human sexuality in his lust, saying that “modern mythologists tallied no fewer than 115 different objects of Zeus’s affections”. 9 Zeus also was the “distributor of good and evil” 10, meaning that he has the function of maintaining the balance of the universe. He is also attributed to being the divine patron of the Olympic Games.
The older Olympian gods are still seen as creator gods and are generally related to universal ideas. They are more firmly intertwined with the universe as a whole and have greater and broader areas of influence. For instance, Hesiod describes Zeus as maintainer of balance in the universe, as the overseer of all that is good and evil. 11 Hera retains the creative power of her parents, an attribute which controls life itself. Poseidon is seen as the king of the sea, the ocean being a powerful force of nature. The younger Olympian god’s attributes are more specific. An assessment of Homer and Hesiod’s works suggest that these gods were more linked to certain aspects of humanity. 12 For instance, Artemis as the goddess of midwifery and childbirth and Apollo being the communicator of the God’s will to humanity. 13
The nature myth theory acts as an explanation for the creation of life as the ancient Greeks knew it. An assessment of this theory suggests that the functions of the Greek Pantheon were an extension of this explanation, further creating reason behind aspects of life by providing personifications of the world and of human characteristics. The theory explains the attributes and functions of the Pantheon to a great extent as it is the base from which the ideas of life and creation emerge which are reflected in the Pantheon’s traits.
- Hesiod, Theogony and Works and Days , Hesiod; West, M. L. , (1988)
- Harris, S.L. and Platzner, G., Classical Mythology, Images and Insights, Fourth Edition, (California, 2004), p. 178
- Gantz, T., “The Olympians” in Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (London, 1993)
- Harris, S.L. and Platzner, G., op.cit., p.182
- Grimal, P., Dictionary of Classical Mythology (London, 1991), p. 47
- ibid., p.60, 66
- Kerenyi, C. (1997), The Gods Of The Greeks (London, 1961), p. 91
- Hesiod, op.cit., Book 1
- Harris, S.L. and Platzner, G., op.cit., p.182
- Grimal, P., op.cit., p. 454
- Hesiod, op.cit, Book 1
- Homer, Iliad, (Translated by A.T. Murray, 1924)
- Harris, S.L. and Platzner, G., op.cit., 194
Bibliography
Gantz, T., “The Olympians” in Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (London, 1993), pp. 57-119 .
Grimal, P., Dictionary of Classical Mythology (London, 1991), pp. 47, 60, 66, 453-456
Harris, S.L. and Platzner, G., Classical Mythology, Images and Insights, Fourth Edition, (California, 2004), p. 178, pp.177-198
Hesiod, Theogony and Works and Days , Hesiod; West, M. L. , (1988)
Homer, Iliad, (Translated by A.T. Murray, 1924), Book 1
Homer, Odyssey (translated by A.T.Murray, 1919)
Kerenyi, C. (1997), The Gods Of The Greeks (London, 1961) , pp. 91-116
Kirk, G. S., The Nature of Greek Myths (London, 1988), pp. 113-145
Pinsent, J. (1969), Myths and Legend Of Ancient Greece (London), pp. 148-152
Share this:
The Persecution of Christians in Eusebius
Koenig wrote that “Religious tolerance is something we should all practice; however, there has been more persecution and atrocities committed in the name of religion and religious freedom than anything else.” This post will look at the persecution of Christians through Eusebius’ Historica Ecclesiastica and other primary and secondary sources.
It is difficult to apportion blame for this persecution, or whether individuals can even be held responsible, for truly the greatest contributors to persecution are those who do nothing when they have power to make a difference. Eusebius like Lactantius implies that blame lies with Galerius though his implication does not directly name him; instead addressing Galerius as the long accepted “prime mover in the calamitous persecution.”[1] Lactantius agrees with this claim announcing that, due to his mother’s conceived hatred against the Christians for not following her ways, she instigated Galerius to destroy them.[2] Why would Eusebius make the suggestion that Galerius was responsible? Barnes asserts that Eusebius was a prime supporter of Constantine and wrote in his reign.[3] His support for Constantine suggests that he could not offend those related to the Emperor, such as Constantius who reigned during the same period as Galerius as he would be indirectly offending Constantine himself. It is also possible that Eusebius had a personal vendetta against Galerius, blaming him for the persecution of his fellow Christians.
Eusebius’ account also suggests that divine judgement was responsible for the persecution of Christians. Eusebius expresses that “increasing freedom transformed our character to arrogance and sloth.”[4] Eusebius goes on to explain that divine judgement, God himself, gradually began to order things and the persecution began with the Christians in the army. This indicates that Eusebius thought the Christians brought the persecution upon themselves for ignoring sins and abusing their own freedom. Eusebius’ suggestion of divine judgement further indicates that he was attempting to put a positive spin on the circumstances, making it appear that persecution was part of God’s ultimate plans, God being infallible. Barnes asserts that the purpose for this suggestion was to strengthen the belief that “God intervenes in history to ensure that the Christian Church shall prosper.”[5] This indicates that Eusebius may have even been suggesting that the persecution had its benefits in the prosperity of Christianity by laying the blame of the persecution in divine hands.
The account by Eusebius and other scholars shows that the persecution affected different areas with varying intensities, some greater than others. For instance, Eusebius describes the persecution at Thebais where people were subject to wild animals and other horrendous tortures.[6] An analysis of Eusebius’ account of Thebais, Antioch and Nicomedia among others gives us the impression that though the Christians suffered horribly, there was always a faith that could not be taken from them, that there was a “most wonderful eagerness…in those who had put their trust in Christ.”[7] This gives us the impression that many Christians saw the persecution as a chance to prove their loyalty to God.
The place where the persecutions appear to be carried out with the greatest intensity according to Eusebius and Lactantius was not a location in the geographical sense. Eusebius highlights that the army was a key target and starting point of the persecution.[8] An assessment of the army being central to the persecution suggests that there was an aim to strengthen the loyalty of military powers. Eusebius also asserts that Nicomedia was a focus point.[9] From this account we gain the impression that the intensity in Nicomedia was to primarily strengthen imperial powers.
Other areas where we see an intensity of persecution as told by Eusebius were Antioch and Tyre. ‘Historica Ecclesiastica’ recounts the “ordeal of the Egyptians who championed the faith so gloriously at Tyre.”[10] Eusebius also indicates the great intensity in Egypt and Syria, stating that “we should feel equal admiration for those of them [Egyptians] who were martyred in their own country.”[11] This statement also suggests that the persecution was wide spread.
Religion is more apparent in history than any other reason for persecution. The persecution of the Christians under Diocletian is one such example where the persecution had varying consequences to the population and church even with the introduction of an edict of toleration.[12] The edict of toleration would have provided the majority of the Christians with a sense of relief. Though, the sheer number of volunteer martyrs mentioned by Eusebius and Lactantius implicate that for the few the edict removed their chance to show their devotion. Momigliano asserts that one such response is that some Christians voiced resentment in light of those who “survived in fear”[13] through the persecution rather than in physical pain. An analysis of this suggests that there may have been some resentment for the minority who appeared to seek the persecution.[14]
The edict also created consequences in relation to ‘conscience’ and the unification of the church. Chadwick assesses that there were many problems of conscience as a result of the persecution and that one such response was the rise of certain militant extremist groups such as the Donatists.[15] The Donatists counted even the smallest of physical punishments as a worthy martyrdom and saw those who denied their faith, as traitors. This suggests that militant ideas forced a widening division focusing on the legitimacy of certain clergy members. Chadwick assesses that these problems of ‘conscience’ in light of the persecution led to many adaptations of the law to meet particular cases. [16]
Eusebius explains another ramification of the edict’s responses was that it set bishops against each other due to certain cleric’s militant ideologies.[17] In achieving this, the church was further divided even though Constantine appears to be looking for a means of unification. An evaluation of the responses to the edict suggest that it created a new though less severe bout of persecution, this time between the various factions of the Christian population.
The persecution of Christians under Diocletian is one example of the many religious conflicts throughout history. Through primary and secondary sources we see where the blame of this persecution is aimed and that the persecution looked towards securing military and imperial power. The persecution had several ramifications, showing us that even with an edict of toleration the church lay divided. We do however see one continuing theme; that even in the face of extreme controversy and persecution, faith stood tall in the hearts of many even in the face of death.
[1]: Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiastica, Book 8 (Eusebius, The History of the Church, Penguin (London 1989), p.280 – Eusebius addresses Galerius as “the author of this edict” rather than by name. Further reference to Galerius as the prime instigator of the persecution is found on p.281 as the man whom Eusebius wrote of on the previous page.
Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History was rewritten at least twice in light of the persecution, Eusebius wishing to leave a permanent account of the martyrs of his day
[2] Lactanius, De Mortibus Persecutorum,, 11-13 in Stevenson, J., A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD337 (London 1987), p.271 – Lactantius recounts the nature of Galerius’ mother in regards to the Christian religion not agreeing with her own and how she made sure her hatred continued in her equally superstitious son.
[3] Barnes, T.D., Constantine and Eusebius (London 1981), p.150
[4] Eusebius, op.cit, p.257
[5] Barnes, op.cit., p.162
[6] Eusebius, op.cit., p.265
[7] Ibid., p.265
[8] Ibid., p. 260 – primary attack on the army as an example as well as a means to secure military power on the part of the Arian persecutors
Lactanius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, 31.1-52.5 (Creed, J.L. (trans.), (Oxford, 1984), p.49
[9] Eusebius, op.cit., p.261 – significant centre of imperial power in the period, by securing the power of the imperial forces you secure more significantly the population which they rule over
[10] Ibid., p.264
[11] Ibid., p.264
[12] Barnes op.cit., p.159
[13] Momigliano, A., The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), p.80
[14] Cameron, A., The Later Roman Empire: AD 284-430 (Glasgow. 1993), p.66 – provided a link to the apostles
[15] Chadwick, H., Studies on Ancient Christianity (Hampshire, 1984), p.XX47
[16] Ibid., p.XX47
[17] Eusebius, Vita Constantini, 22.1-61.1, Cameron, A. & Hall, S.G. (trans.), Eusebius, Life of Constantine (Oxford, 1999), p.115, book II 61.2-62
GraecoMuse 