From where I stand, I feel as though I am Odysseus, making my way back to Ithaca after ten grueling years of war. But that's awfully silly. I've only been reading books. Still, let me play the part of the Muse----let me tell you why.
As I have previously mentioned, my research aims to identify the disparities in how a male translator versus a female translator of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey portray women in order to identify whether a "misogyny model," as suggested by Marilyn Katz, is employed in the analysis and translation of epic poetry. I began with Robert Fagles's Iliad (1990), then continued with Emily Wilson's Iliad (2023), then read Robert Fagles's Odyssey (1996), and I will finalize my data collection with Emily Wilson's Odyssey (2018). A plethora of male-translated versions of the Homeric epics have been published in English, the most recent of which being Robert Fagles's Iliad and Odyssey; however, Emily Wilson is the only woman to have published an English translation of both the Iliad and the Odyssey. As such, no research currently exists comparing the two Homeric epics regarding their depictions of female characters. In my analysis, helped in part by the definitions of evaluative adjectives employed throughout the texts, my hope is to gather data that clearly represents disparities in the portrayal of women in Robert Fagles's and Emily Wilson's translations.
The reason I elected to study women's portrayal in the Homeric epics was due to the lack of historical information regarding the women of Ancient Greece beyond Athens and Sparta. In fact, although some historical evidence exists discussing the role of women in those city-states, what is understood about the women of the era was largely derived from male-authored accounts. In addition, it is suggested that the role of women in Athens contributed to a historiographical tautology that likewise contributed to the restriction of eighteenth-century women from society and remains recognized in contemporary life.
Researchers like P. Walcot and Leonard Moss recognize the potential that Ancient Greek literature had in contributing to Ancient Athenian fear of women and the belief in their need for subjugation due to their dichotomous portrayal as ideal---beautiful and subservient---or monstrous and violent; in particular, the Homeric epics are suggested to hold primacy in that body of literature, as Homer's works purportedly held and continue to hold the most influence in the realm of epic poetry. Thus, I find it relevant to understand the lives and roles of women in Ancient Greece as they relate to Homeric literature, as it may contribute to an understanding of where contemporary gender biases are derived from and why they persist. I wish to encourage scholars to reconsider the roles to which the Homeric women have been assigned, as such shallow, literal interpretations threaten the stories of women who once lived and dreamed of something better and irrevocably pervade the lives of those currently living.
I would not consider myself to be a goal-oriented person---I set tasks for myself from day-to-day, and in this particular instance, that means assigning myself a set of books to read each day in order to meet my deadlines. My lack of interest when it comes to goal-setting additionally means that I find difficulty in recognizing major milestones in long-term processes---since they do not matter much to me as long as the final product is completed. However, each book I've had the opportunity to finish is a rather recognizable milestone in the course of this project, and, as far as I'm concerned, reading 600-page poems on a deadline is a fairly formidable task. I'm proud to have gotten this far, and I'm looking forward to what comes next.
I began reading Robert Fagles's Iliad on January 7 and, after a two-week reading period, completed my reading and analysis of Fagles's Iliad on January 20---and so the Trojans buried Hector breaker of horses. Next, I started Emily Wilson's Iliad on January 21 and completed it on February 3---again in a two-week reading period. On February 3, I also began Robert Fagles's Odyssey, and I am on track to complete it tomorrow, February 10. Lastly, I will read Emily Wilson's Odyssey, which I plan to complete by January 17. So, as of today, February 9, I'm about three-quarters of the way done. Who's the best of the Greeks now, Ajax?
I have not faced any rough seas or dead winds, so as for progress, my reading has gone incredibly smoothly---I've quite enjoyed it, truth be told. Data collection has been straightforward and streamlined: it is a simple process of creating a key at the front of each of my books with colors assigned to each woman, then following that key by highlighting instances in which the women are evaluated throughout and making notes of my thoughts and comparisons in the margins as I read. In addition, when compared side-by-side, disparities are quite evident between the two different translations, which I will evaluate upon presently. So, as much as it has already been a pleasure to reread the stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey, I am very excited by what my research has already yielded.
When I was first introduced to the Homeric epics, it was by way of excerpted books of Homer's Odyssey---whether it was Fitzgerald or Fagles, I do not recall. The story remains the same---the language persists, the characters live and die the same, Odysseus seizes his heroic victory as it was his fate to do. Then, it was just told by a different man.
Likewise, Fagles's translation of the Iliad was the first I encountered as well. I quite honestly appreciated his method of embellishing the story---I believe the way he describes the Trojan war is very beautiful---but most women in his poem act with perniciousness, vanity, and treachery to a fault. From what I noticed, the few exceptions to that rule were Trojan women: Andromache, Hecuba, and Briseis.
You may imagine my surprise---and my excitement---when I encountered very little of the language I found characteristic to the women of the Iliad and the Odyssey in Emily Wilson's translations. Whereas Fagles translated Homer's original statements as degrading or self-deprecating or bloodthirsty, Wilson understood them as neutral or ambiguous in many respects; although she did not entirely omit the negative actions or characterizations of women in either poem, she did regard them in a more neutral, if not positive, manner.
Robert Fagles's Iliad, as I have mentioned, portrays women in a manner which adheres to what I imagine would qualify Athenian women's subjugation and relegation to the role of wife and mother. Such depictions were particularly prominent with regards to Helen, Hera, Briseis, Athena, and Aphrodite---I most often noticed negative language being employed to describe the women when they were conversing with one another or with a man. Though they were consistently referred to in positive ways, most often when their beauty was discussed, their actions and character were typically described as treacherous, and their alluring beauty was employed as a lure for the trust and affection of men---as such, each of these women were much like sirens in overall description.
In Emily Wilson's Iliad, these women were not referred to with language that suggested vileness and treachery near as often, if at all. In fact, the descriptions Wilson employed were largely neutral, though in reading the text in comparison to Fagles, it is rather simple to notice where more vulgar or negative depictions are "missing" from Wilson's translation. Wilson's women retain the same qualities of character, actions, and purposes as Fagles's do; however, they are described in a manner that suggests ambiguity in their characters and invites discussion rather than immediate fear and consternation.
As the Muses know and name every man, it is my charge to know the story of every woman in this poem like the back of my hand. However, for the time being, I will present you with the descriptions of those most often named.
Helen most commonly described herself in Fagles's Iliad in three ways: "b**ch that I am," "wh**e that I am," and "hateful as I am." By others, she is consistently referred to as the cause of war---as the belonging that was unlawfully seized from Menelaus, king of Sparta and Helen's lawful husband, by Paris, prince of Troy---and as the prize for which each man was fighting. In Book III, two old men watching the war from the walls of Troy spoke to one another of Helen as she walked along the ramparts, whispering, "Who on earth could blame them? Ah, no wonder the men of Troy and Argives under arms have suffered years of agony all for her, for such a woman. Beauty, terrible beauty! A deathless goddess---so she strikes our eyes! But still, ravishing as she is, let her go home in the long ships and not be left behind...for us and our children down the years an irresistible sorrow," (Fagles 133-134, lines 185-194). As such, Fagles consistently recognizes her beauty, yes, but employs it as the sole cause for which the war was fought.
Wilson recognizes that Helen was the reason for which the men of Troy and Greece warred; however, Wilson does not explicitly blame the war on Helen; in fact, she clouds Helen's typical depiction as the sole cause. While Fagles states that "[Menelaus's] own heart blazed the most to avenge the groans and shocks of war they'd borne for Helen," (Fagles 118, lines 681-682) Wilson explains in her translation of the same line that "he had the greatest yearning for revenge for Helen's suffering and struggles," (Wilson 45, lines 703-704) not those she purportedly caused. I would not say that Wilson devalues Helen's role as a "catalyst" of war, but I would suggest that Wilson provides some ambiguity to her role as the sole cause, perhaps placing some of the blame on the men who sought after her, as is proper---her departure from Sparta is referred to as a seizure, an abduction, which was Paris's doing, and Menelaus willingly followed, as did all other Achaeans who fought at Troy for one reason or another.
Not only is Wilson's description of Helen in regards to the war's cause rather ambiguous, but her descriptions of Helen are far more neutral than Fagles's as well, though they retain the same basic meaning. For instance, where Fagles's Helen regards herself as a "wh**e," Wilson's Helen merely refers to herself as "dog-faced." Though both are rather negative, the vulgarity of Fagles's description makes Wilson's seem quite neutral in comparison.
Negative descriptions of Hera are most often observed in her conversations with Zeus and her plots with Athena---in both circumstances, she is described by Fagles as scheming, incorrigible, and with an insatiable rage. In both Fagles's and Wilson's translations, she is most commonly described in physical appearance with the epithet "white-armed Hera," and she is often referred to as "Queen Hera of the golden throne," demonstrating her role among gods and mortals. However, with regards to her actions, negative descriptions are far more prevalent. Such behavior, in fact, is made to seem common: "with Hera, though, he is not so outraged, so irate---it's always your way to thwart his will, whatever Zeus commands. You, you insolent brazen b**ch---you dare to shake that monstrous spear in Father's face?" (Fagles 245, lines 485-487).
In particular, Hera's treachery is made quite clear in Books XIV and XV, in which she seduces Zeus and tricks him into sleep in order to give the Greeks a fighting chance at victory against the Trojans. Zeus lusts after her immensely---after she bathes, dresses, anoints herself in decadent oils, and wears an enchanted breastband from Aphrodite---and she employs his lust in order to distract him and enable Poseidon to rout the Trojans. However, when Zeus wakes in Book XV and discovers her plot, Zeus responds with immense anger. In particular, Fagles describes the scene as so: 'shooting a terrible glance down at Hera, [Zeus] burst out at her, "What a disaster you create! Uncontrollable Hera---you and your treachery---halting Hector's assault and routing Hector's armies. I wouldn't be surprised, my Queen, if you were the first to reap the pernicious whirlwind you have sown---I'll whip you stroke on stroke,' (Fagles 388, lines 16-20).
Wilson does not omit Hera's scheme of seduction; in fact, she recognizes it for exactly what it is, but instead of referring to Hera as the basis of Zeus's anger, she translates it as though Zeus were more enraged with this particular plot: '"You are impossible! Hera, your wicked, lying trick has stopped Hector from fighting, and has forced his troops to flee. I think you ought to profit first from this disgusting patchwork of deceit---when I give you a whipping!"' (Wilson 349, lines 17-23).
In both Fagles's and Wilson's translations, Hera is most often related to anger and schemes---she consistently plots with Athena in order to bring the Greeks victory. However, her preference for the Argives is not the only instance of gods selecting sides in the war. Therefore, I find that such scheming can likewise be attributed to her fallibility as a goddess, not as a woman. In Book IV, most of the gods and goddesses express their preference for a particular side of the war---either the Achaeans or the Trojans---but Hera must defend her wish to help the Achaeans nonetheless. In Fagles’s version, Hera states, “I am a god too. My descent the same as yours—crooked-minded Cronus fathered me as well, the first of all his daughters, first both ways: both by birth and since I am called your consort.” However, in Wilson’s version, Hera describes herself differently: “I am also a god like you. Our parents are the same. Our crooked father Cronus had me first, and thus I am the eldest of us all. I have the highest honor for two reasons—because it is my birthright as the eldest, and also because I am called your wife and you are lord of all the other gods.” Fagles, therefore, relevantly refers to her as second in standing to Zeus, not only in birth but in status as his wife, and therefore suggests that she must abide by his will. In Wilson’s version, however, she openly states that Hera is the eldest of all of them and does not refer to her as a consort, as Fagles does, giving her primacy over Zeus and providing ambiguity to the role of marriage in defining the standing of gods and goddesses.
Briseis does not appear very often in the story of the Iliad; however, disparities nonetheless exist in her description in Fagles's translation versus Wilson's translation. Though not technically Trojan, Briseis was Anatolian: she was from the city of Lyrnessus. Achilles raided her city with a selection of troops and killed her family---her mother, father, and two brothers---and she was brought back to the beaches of Troy and offered to Achilles as a war prize by all the Greeks. When Agamemnon and Achilles argue over Briseis in Book I, Fagles refers to her as "the girl," "his beauty," and "his prize." As such, Briseis's role in Fagles's Iliad is qualified largely by who she belonged to and that she was a possession---a prize, rather than a wife or daughter.
Wilson does not ignore the fact that Briseis belonged to Achilles; however, she refers to her in a different manner than Fagles did. In instances in which Fagles referred to her as "the girl" or "that girl," Wilson referred to her as "his trophy" and employed the pronoun "it" rather than "she" when discussing the manner in which she was taken. Wilson refers to her as Achilles's prize in such a manner that she is no longer a woman when she is in Achilles's possession---she is a trophy. When Briseis is returned to Achilles and mourns over Patroclus, then she is referred to as a woman; however, when traded as a prize, she becomes separate from her role as a trophy in Wilson's translation.
Athena is most often described in the same manner that a great warrior or solider would be depicted---she takes on a male role, rivaling even Ares in the art of war. Though both Fagles and Wilson recognize Athena's role as a harbinger of bloodshed, Wilson somewhat removes the aspect of terror from Athena's descriptions in favor of awe. For instance, in Book V, when Athena boards Diomedes’s chariot in Fagles’s translation, he states that the chariot bore “a great man and a terrifying goddess," (Fagles 191, line 970), whereas in Wilson’s version, the vehicle carried “a mighty goddess and a dauntless man,” (Wilson 128, line 839). Her method of tossing Sthenelus from the chariot was alike in both, and she was likewise very eager to fight in both translations, but in Wilson’s version, she was referred to positively—based on the adjective “mighty”—whereas in Fagles’s version, she was referred to negatively—based on “terrifying.”
In both translations, Athena works quite closely with Hera, as both side with the Achaeans, and she is likewise associated with schemes and anger, as Hera is. However, Athena is respected as Zeus's daughter while Hera is criticized as his wife, though both act similarly in war and Athena acts far more violently. Athena was born from Zeus alone, so he cares for her deeply, and she garners respect as third-born of the gods.
Aphrodite is largely depicted as vain and weak in war, and as such, she favors vain and pretty mortal men as well---like Paris or Aeneas, her demi-god son. She often spirits them from the fighting in order to save them from death, and in multiple instances, both Paris and Aeneas require her saving in order to live. Paris, in particular, is described with feminine traits in conversation with Hector, his brother and the eldest prince of Troy, and is scorned for Aphrodite's favor.
Where the disparities in Aphrodite's actions and character most often lie are in her conversations with Helen. In Book III, after Aphrodite has whisked Paris away from his duel with Menelaus for Helen, Aphrodite goes to Helen on the ramparts and requests that she go to bed with Paris. Aphrodite’s fury, in particular, was described in different ways between the two translations: in Fagles’s version, Aphrodite states that she will “toss [Helen] over,” (Fagles 142, line 481) as they are standing on Troy's walls, and “hate [her] as I love [her] now—with a vengeance.” (Fagles 142, line 482). In Wilson’s version, however, Aphrodite instead says that she will “abandon [her], and start to loathe [her] with as deep a passion as I have loved [her] as my friend till now.” (Wilson 72, lines 519-521). Fagles does not explicitly mention the two being friends, and the fact that Aphrodite’s love is with a vengeance suggests perniciousness on her behalf. However, Wilson suggests that the relationship between Helen and Aphrodite is one of kindness and friendship between women, not of mortal obeisance to and fear of a goddess.
When, in Book V, Diomedes and Athena together spear Aphrodite's wrist, Fagles depicts her as a "coward goddess," (Fagles 175, line 171) and qualifies the description through Diomedes's speech: '"Daughter of Zeus, give up the war, your lust for carnage! So, it's not enough that you lure defenseless women to their ruin? Haunting the fighting, are you? Now I think you'll cringe at the hint of war if you get wind of battle far away,"' (Fagles 175, lines 391-395).
On the other hand, Wilson refers to Aphrodite as a coward only when it comes to battle, calling her "the goddess who lacks all courage on the battlefield," (Wilson 109, lines 441-442). And though Diomedes's response in Wilson's translation is similar, she makes it seem as though not all women may be considered defenseless and that Aphrodite is not capable of tricking all women: '"Now give up war and battle, daughter of Zeus! You can seduce and trick docile, unwarlike women. Is that not enough for you? If you keep coming here to meddle on the battlefield, I think soon you will shiver even when you hear the name of war from very far away,"' (Wilson 110, lines 347-350). As such, though Aphrodite is vain and weak in matters of war in both translations, Wilson provides depth to Aphrodite's emotions and makes her appear rather like a mortal woman.
I am still in the process of reading and analyzing Robert Fagles's Odyssey (though I plan to begin Emily Wilson's tomorrow) and as such, I do not yet have data to draw comparisons between the two Odysseys for their portrayal of women. However, I can say with relative certainty that in Robert Fagles's version, both Penelope and Athena act as foils for the heroic traits of Odysseus---all three possess the same skills and cleverness, but Penelope's use of tact is referred to as "self-possessed" (Fagles 128, line 125), and Athena's wit is only ever employed to aid Telemachus and Odysseus in their exploits, though it was her fury that caused the first of Odysseus's troubles. In addition, Fagles describes the seven-year period during which Calypso attempted to seduce Odysseus as time spent in captivity, suggesting that the activity was a pernicious, monstrous attempt to gain the man's love or affection. Still, as I have not begun Wilson's Odyssey yet, there remains much to discern about the women of Homer's Odyssey.
Every hero faces a trial of some kind: Achilles battled the River Xanthus, Odysseus endured Scylla and Charybdis, and I have my beloved methodology.
See, I considered beforehand that the use of evaluative adjectives to define each and every instance in which a woman was described would be a clever tool to limit bias, and I do not disagree with that notion now. However, what I somehow failed to recognize was the significant disparity between the subject matter of epic poetry and that of Victorian literature. That is, there are methods of portrayal employed in both translations of the Homeric epics that are absent from Victorian literature, and vice versa.
There are four major gaps that my current methodology leaves me with in my research: the referral to women as belongings or possessions is not included, as possession is not necessarily qualified as evaluation; the use of female pronouns in similes or sections of the poem referring to animals is left out; many monsters or semi-mortal creatures are referred to with female pronouns---like the Chimaera or Scylla---but do not technically qualify as women; and on occasion, gods and goddesses will take the form of other gods or mortals or send phantoms to give a message, and it is difficult to determine whether their words are their own or whether descriptions from the person they are conversing with apply to them or to the body they inhabit. Due to the fact that my current methodology leaves me with a lot of significant data rendered useless, I have ceased inputting my data into my collection spreadsheet for the time being, which will likely cause pressure for time in the coming weeks. Already, my concern for inputting my data has caused me to limit my reading period for the Odysseys from two weeks to one; I have limited time as it is, with work for other classes and a part-time job taking up much of the "spare" time I have, hence the limited reading period has proved difficult to adhere to.
In all honesty, my hope is to finish reading all four of my books before discussing the refinement of my methodology---that way, I will be certain nothing is left out. As such, I have put off discussion or outside research regarding adjustments in my methodology until next week---particularly Monday, February 17---and into the data analysis period in March so I have enough time to complete my reading. While this may be a mistake, my hope is that by postponing discussions regarding my methodology, I would be more well-versed in exactly what it is I need to code for and what I need to ensure is part of my criteria.
So, the larger problem is currently left unsolved, but I have given it thought and persisted in reading regardless. In order to accommodate for the changes I plan to make to my methodology, I ensured I would have ample time to accumulate my data into my spreadsheet by limiting my reading period for the Odysseys. In addition, I have been making notes of potential criteria throughout my reading so that I may research fitting methodologies with the basis of analysis already clear.
I must admit, it is difficult to discuss a solution to a problem I have not entirely endeavored to solve yet, but as I see it, completing my reading prior to reevaluating my methods is akin to gathering the supplies to make a raft prior to beginning its assembly--that way, I have everything I need at one time, and I could set sail to my own shores at a sooner date.
Originally, my worry had been that the descriptions and portrayals of women I sought would be sparse and lacking significance. However, the data collection I have completed so far has yielded more information than I know what to do with, and while it is quite formidable, I'm more than happy to have it---it indicates immense potential for the misogyny model I intend to evaluate. It brings me hope to know that there are instances of disparity between the male-translated and female-translated versions of the Homeric epics because it means that my research holds meaning; perhaps what I produce when this process is over will contribute to a more dynamic study of women in Ancient Greek literature, or even beyond that realm.
I'll admit, the sheer amount of information there is to collect and analyze frightens me due to the little time I have to do so. Managing my time thus far has already been a difficult task, especially making time for my research in the midst of work from other classes, my job, and hobbies that often take priority. Still, I do not find all this---my research, my other classwork, the course of my life as a whole---to be anything unlike what I understand as typical for second semester. So, I feel rather calm, I feel as though I am learning to make the most of what little time I have, and I am glad that I selected a topic that makes me want to keep reading, keep exploring.
I must concede that there is still much left for me to do---I still must finish my final book, assemble all my data, reevaluate my methodology, and complete my final presentation and paper. However, I am quite content with all I have discovered as of now.
I am beginning Emily Wilson's Odyssey this week, and I am looking forward to putting all the pieces into place these next couple of months---weaving intricate threads and fibers of these stories into a final, vivid conclusion. I have learned so much from the stories of these women, and I understand now that yes, the myths of their lives do indeed retain a strong connection to history and to our contemporary reality. Those ageless tales I love so much and the machinations behind them have begun to make sense, and I am glad for that.
"Start from where you will---sing for our time too." - Robert Fagles, The Odyssey