/SWTG/ Start with the Greeks: New Beginning

>doesn't start with learning ancient greek
Tsk tsk
>>>translations

read diogenes of sinope instead and drop philosophy

where do I start? Is there something like latina lingua for ancient greek

PHARR

How safe is the ebook download link? I just want the texts for this reading group, and nothing else incl no viruses etc. Not 100% tech savvy, is it safe to use?

They're just files in ebook format, nothing to get worried about... you can even download free software like Calibre or Sumatra to open .epub files, or just use Adobe Reader for .pdf.

how many people are actually planning on doing this?

I am jumping on the bandwagon even though I'm no expert with greeks

I haven't tried it, but apparently the Italian language translation of the textbook series 'Athenaze' heavily reworked the content to be an inductive learning experience.

I'll start reading shortly.

Also this person on youtube who convinced me to relearn Latin using LLPSI recommends actually just learning contemporary demotic Greek and working your way backwards because more and better material is available that way and Greek is a very conservative language so it's not terribly difficult. It sounds insane to me but I trust his judgment.
youtube.com/watch?v=AelM2zyv5Us

Thanks for the PDFs. The syllabus may be at a faster pace than I'm able to handle right now. I've been looking for a good history of Ancient Greece, so I'll at least try to keep up with the Pomeroy readings. Looking forward to this.

Already did the reading of the first three days and i'm quite impressed that i remember most of it from my latin class in school. So far i liked persephones and dionysus stories the most

There will be catch-up days, though I don't know how much time you have.

Pomeroy's is definitely the most academically sound introductory text. It's used in nearly every university's greek history classes.

Thanks again. There are so many Ancient Greece history books and I had no idea where to go. Kind of anxiety-inducing. Relieved now!

I went through a few attempts at trying to get at what I wanted to ask but I realized I was just trying to ask the obvious question. Sorry for being boring and predictable.

Why the Greeks? Hamilton makes it out that they were a different kind than the other societies of the Mediterranean and Near East, and cites their religion. Implicit I guess is the notion that westerners are the intellectual descendants of the Greeks and not the Hittites or whoever, so the fact that they bore fruit means something. Does it though? On the one hand, how much of that is just historical accident? And on the other, how different really were the Greeks?
I'm not an educated person so I don't know where to start with those at all. I simultaneously have the received notions that the Anatolians and fertile crescent societies were ossified Oriental despotisms with priest-kings and cultures made to serve them while the Greeks were dynamic and lively people who strove for personal excellence, but that that's actually not true at all, just Victorian vicarious flattery, and that Greeks were one of a bunch of eastern Mediterranean cultures which heavily influenced each other. What's true, I don't know.

I only now noticed we're starting on Sunday. Oops.
Glad this isn't stillborn (yet).

>Why the Greeks?

To be part of a shared intellectual tradition of having read the Greeks that goes back very far, at least among one (large) western tradition. Sure other smart people elsewhere didn't read the Greeks, but you can be aware of that and still study them. You can also study the other good stuff other cultures produced.

>starting with what will eventually become the disgusting Platonic tradition
Aegean and near-East societies were better in every way and we don't know much at all about Aegean societies.

>disgusting Platonic tradition
why you say that user

The Greeks mark the beginning of Western civilization. Along with the Bible, they offer some of the earliest texts worth reading, and their influence spans thousands of years.

There are of course other civilizations with worthwhile works: The Art of War from the 5th century BC, the Gilgamesh epic from 2100 BC, the Panchatantra from the 3rd century BC, and the Book of the Dead from the second millennia BC, among others.

A major difference between these and the Greeks is that the Greek works are a direct lineage for thousands of years of Western canon, making them more influential for our lives than most of the works from other civilizations.

>The Greeks mark the beginning of Western civilization
no lol

>and we don't know much at all about Aegean societies.

How can you claim, then, that they are better, knowing that we don't have as much information on them? They could be worse but you don't know it.

I know it doesn't answer your question, but in the epilogue of S. Pomeroy's Brief History of Ancient Greece there's this:

"But the traditional cultures of Egypt and the Near East died, as the native elites that had patronized them for millennia gradually deserted them. Meanwhile, the dominant strand in the intellectual life of the eastern Mediterranean basin became what scholars call Hellenism, essentially a cosmopolitan form of Greek culture loosely based on Classical Greek literature. In this form Greek culture continued to flourish in the
lands conquered by Alexander the Great and influenced the medieval civilizations of Byzantium and Islam and through them the culture of western Europe and the Americas."

No, he comes after Plato

What little we know already makes them better.

you're the one free to fuck off mate

Learning demotic Greek might help you but ,as a modern Greek myself, I believe it is much better to start with ancient Greek or Latin (depends on which culture you like more and whether you know any romance language).

Modern Greek is a mix of demotic and kathareuousa (a language clean of non Greek words which was used extensively up to about 50 years ago),with kathareuousa being a continuation of Byzantine and ancient greek.

There is absolutely no need ,therefore, to learn modern Greek,which my actually confuse you more.Just learn the ancient Greek language.

Why did you give in to the mythology meme and all the side reading? I thought the plan was to just read the major works?

>I only want to have fun guys!

kill yourself degenerate

>Why did you give in to the mythology meme and all the side reading? I thought the plan was to just read the major works?

Don't read whatever you don't want to.

I for one am fine reading mythology however.

Hamilton's Mythology offers a good introduction for casual readers as well as a nice retelling of certain myths that it's unlikely we'll get to.

If you want a more academic introduction, I recommend the Handbook of Classical Mythology's Introduction, pp. 1-51.

>reading "renowned" literature just to say that you've read it

>not enjoying bettering yourself at every opportunity

>believing in the ideology of "bettering yourself"

>not just enjoying it regardless

yes, that's one of the implications my friend

enjoy your shitty life :^)

you surely misunderstood me

Someone already tried this at the start of the month and the whole thing fell flat after 2 threads. if not one. I think we'd need somewhere to organize other than Veeky Forums

I think that group went too fast and without enough notice for people to join in. I am hopeful this group will be more successful.

Just download books with the chart and go through by your own. You don't need a reading group to read a book.

I'll do it this time i guess

>pdf

I posted more epubs than I thought I'd find.

If you have more, please share.

>Homer's Contest nowhere to be seen
PLEBS

but if we take herodotus' comment that Hesiod and Homer created the Greek gods surely reading them at the same time is the most prescient idea.
Also they're called the homeric hymns for a reason...

Read homer earlier!!! #occypswtg

Not OP but:

Homer "creates" the gods but does not describe their creation, picking them up already existing, and building them into his story. Hesiod's Theogony may be comparably boring, but sets the foundation more academically. With that said, I still wouldn't read him before Homer; the crucial parts of the gods as applied to Greek lit are their personalities and the forces they represent, which is much better understood in Homer, albeit with fewer gods being described. Hesiod also represents a middle age between greek tribalism of homer's time, and tyrranic/democratic classical greece; unless only theogony is being read, Hesiod belongs after homer if one is to grasp the social transformations taking place in greece.

The homeric hymns, as you mentioned, are a good way to broaden the scope of "god biography" offered so narrowly in the homeric epics to athena, zeus, etc., extending to hermes, dionysus, etc. Some are great, most are fragmented; if you had to choose, read Hamilton's mythology instead if you want to understand the gods. Ideally read everything.

I was being somewhat jokey. Nonetheless I agree but IIRC Work and Days isn't read/isn't read that early so the chronology (ages etc.) wouldnt be read about...

Also i love the ending of your post "ideally read everything" - a motto to live by

As new an enthusiast, I do not fret on reading Hamilton neither "ideally reading everything", just as long as a program permits me to find the time to do it. As it currently is, I think, is a fair schedule.

I was on board with this group at the beginning of the year when we started with the Iliad but no one stayed on track after the first 2 books. And while everyone was circle jerking to put together this new convoluted schedule I've already read Iliad, Odyssey, Aneid and Sophocles' Theban Plays. Starting Aeschylus' tragedies tomorrow. I read supplementary text online where I feel it's needed as I go along. Fuck this unproductive group if you want to get any actual reading done. I wish you guys luck but I know it will fall apart before you even reach the major works.

>start with the gayreeks
lel

modern literature>gayreek literature

if you disagree you're a pleb Infinite Jest>Plato's Republic

Yes user I'm already reading the Iliad. I'm posting here because I explicitly want to be on a reading group. I feel I may fail to appreciate the material without some discussion and I crave human interaction

Idk if this is ran by the guy who ran the last Greeks reading group which failed spectacularly, but this is quite well-organised. If a new OP, great work. If the same old OP, you've improved a lot.

Possible someone can edit that image to put the actual dates next to the reading material? I'm Australian so the days are a bit off for me anyway, but it would be handy.

Do any of you guys want to read the notes I took for my recent re-reading of the Iliad?

A brainlet everyone.

Hello boys and girls

I'm interested in this. Have studied English Lit for a couple of decades but never got too far into the Greeks, beyond their enduring legacy within the Western literature tradition.

I'm currently reading the Iliad (again) but feel trapped by my years of focus on English-language literature of the 15th-21st centuries.

What sort of themes or metaphors should I be looking for beyond the obvious 'Deus ex machina' sort of stuff? (yes, I know that's Latin but was derived from Ancient Greek).

I'll be lurking in this thread every few days (Aus time) and would love some feedback from those with more knowledge than I.

PF

Yes please,

PF

I am a new OP. I can't add dates because I plan to have catch-up days interspersed with the readings, and possibly have some short readings on those days for those that are caught up.

With it understood that this schedule WILL shift forward, here are the dates anyways.

Cool cool, that makes sense.

Cheers :)

Here's the pastebin:
pastebin [...] com/2gzTaPrd

Here's the download:
www.filedropper [...] com/iliadnotesfagles

Just add the dots for both links.

Please keep in mind that I am more or less confident in the observations I made here, and that I'm not absolutely positive about any of them, but I think most are sound. Some assumptions are made that may be off-base, but working off of a translation makes that difficult.

And to answer your question, focus on themes like fate, parallels between the gods and humans, rage, and, of course, the desire for fame/honor. If you're unfamiliar with the Homeric concepts of kleos and time and such, see this page:

department.monm.edu/classics/Courses/CLAS210/CourseDocuments/Epic/HOMER.ImportantGreekTerms.htm

Pay special attention to the similes throughout the Iliad. If I remember right, there are about 220 of them, and they serve a wonderful purpose.

Just wondering, why is the Introduction to the Illiad scheduled after the work itself?

>start with the greeks
>all of the recommendations are basically mythology and fiction

I always assumed people meant the philosophers when they said 'start with the greeks'. I'm a bit disappointed with you Veeky Forums

>he never read the chart that gets posted a million times

Thanks very much (are you OP?) I'm reading the Hammond edition (coincidentally also my surname) but I'm sure I'll get a lot out of your analysis.

My copy was given to me by the woman I love, my 'Ate', who now lives on the other side of the world and makes my life seem like a Greek tragedy.

Thank you for your help, I'll follow this thread with interest.

PF

Dawn of the first day

I must politely point out that this is a board devoted to literature, not philosophy. r9k might be a better forum to discuss Plato's theory of forms, but there are perhaps too many trolls there to make it worthwhile.

PF

is for history and philosophy shitposting

Your response leads to the question: 'Why are you posting here?'

We should get back to the topic of Greek Literature.

So how does one explain the anger of Achilles? And how does it fit in to the Western literary canon?

I'm not trolling, this is a serious question as I don't know the Greeks that well.

PF

>So how does one explain the anger of Achilles? And how does it fit in to the Western literary canon?

Explain his anger in what way? Can you elaborate on your question here?

The anger of Achilles is in the opening line of the Iliad and is described as a disagreement between him and the son of Atreus. The argument was said to have been started by one of Zues' kids.

I'll admit to being lost in the last few centuries of literature, but what does this mean beyond the perpetual struggle between humans ans gods, and the implication that both parties are inherently fucked?

*and
*PF

I'm not an expert, but Greeks looked down on pure aggression and power without thought or strategy. At least the aristocratic Greeks, though presumably their standards also became the standards of the lower classes.

Achilles lets his emotions carry him every which way, whereas Odysseus does not. Both are powerful men, but one is also very intelligent and in the Odyssey he is someone to admire, whereas Achilles in the Iliad is not somebody to admire. Heracles also succeeded against many beasts despite being half human, because he was more intelligent than them while also being very strong. Beasts (generally) just have raw power in Greek myth, at least the beasts/monsters that are fought. Whereas gods, goddesses, higher 'monsters', and the higher echelons of humans have both power and wisdom in varying degrees. Uranus had his nuts cut off because Cronus was more intelligent and outsmarted him with the help of Gaia. Cronus then feared his own son would would steal his role, so 'stored' them within himself rather than store them in Rhea like Uranus did with Gaia. Zeus then usurped Cronus with the help of Rhea and the monster-children of Gaia (and others? I forget)

Zeus was the wisest of them all, and he feared that a son would be more wise than him, but instead Athena was born who probably is much more wise than him, but is a woman.

He is also more sociable and charismatic, and thus has some powerful allies.

Speaking of Athena, Athena is held in much better regard than Ares despite both being war gods, because Athena is wise too.

You can even look at Greece itself to see this belief: they couldn't keep up with population growth due to the limited viable agricultural space, so Greek nations colonized and traded. They worked hard through agriculture, but also smart through trade and colonization.

In short, Homer is providing (and very likely reflecting) moral values through them being personified.

Hope this helped. I apologize for my ignorance of the Iliad and Odyssey, as well as various other mythologies. I haven't read any in full in a very long time, and am just now sparking my memory.

I am excited :D i have downloaded the materials and i am ready to discuss them with you guys :D

NEW THREAD

>The anger of Achilles is in the opening line of the Iliad and is described as a disagreement between him and the son of Atreus. The argument was said to have been started by one of Zues' kids.

The order is:
1) Agamemnon refuses to return Chryseis (daughter) to Chryses (father) even though he was offered an abundance of treasure to ransom her away (he should have accepted: there are several instances of refusing supplicants in the Iliad, which is usually not acceptable)
2) Chryses prays to Apollo (Zeus' son) to do something about it. Apollo causes a plague and kills off many Achaeans.
3) Agamemnon gives up the girl to Chryses on condition that he is given another girl so that he isn't dishonored. Achilles tells him that the next girl they get will automatically go to him, Agamemnon disagrees and threatens to take Briseis from Achilles.
4) Agamemnon takes Briseis from Achilles, causing the wrath of Achilles and his withdrawal from the battle.

In the grand scheme of things it all comes back to honor. Agamemnon feels dishonored by having to concede Chryseis, and so in turn ends up dishonoring Achilles by taking his woman. The whole army assented with Chryses' original request to have his daughter returned, but Agamemnon ignored their judgment and, as he does shortly after with Achilles, makes the mistake of dishonoring somebody to the woe of the army. In Chryses' case, Agamemnon's dishonor causes the death of so many men in the army because of Apollo's plague, and in Achilles' case, Achilles' withdrawal from battle causes not only the death of so many men in the army, but Patroclus as well. I'm not sure if this answers your question at all, so sorry if it doesn't.

>whereas Achilles in the Iliad is not somebody to admire

I must disagree here. Achilles is the original existential hero; he chooses freely and knowingly between his two paths, as opposed to every single other character present at Troy who either make no mention of this kind of thing, or are blind to what they're going into (seen repeatedly with Hector). He ultimately chooses to live a short life full of honor, and so he does end up getting his honor in the end which, as we can see in the poem, is a major goal to strive after. Also, the fame he gains in the end isn't from the killing of Trojans or even of Hector, but from his peaceful and civilized reception of Priam, hence why Zeus near the start of Book 24 says that he will give honor to Achilles *after the fact of Hector having been killed*.

Thank you for your response.
While it was a tad vague and meandering, you've given me things to think about.

Thanks again, I'll see you in the new thread.

PF

Excellent response, user. I have to go and look after my son now and while he can play chess, the Iliad ,may be a bit too much for a seven year old.

I'll come back in a couple of hours and try to understand your point of view.

PF

It was vague because I read all of this when I was probably 12

I'm 29 now. Most of what I said is extrapolated from what I've heard in lectures. I'm surprised I remembered anything.

I also will not be in any of these threads.

Yes. He's like those spergish Star Trek fans who have all the memorabilia and alternate cuts and multiple copies across formats. There's a lot of repeats but he's anal as fuck about having every source he could. The Suda is also a good overview, but DL is such a loveable sperg.
not to shit on your parade but this reading list seems, odd. is there a particular rhyme or reason from one of the texts or a syllabus why you're going with this? you don't need to change it but I'm wondering if there's a reasoning I'm not seeing.
good boy

>But the traditional cultures of Egypt and the Near East died, as the native elites that had patronized them for millennia gradually deserted them. Meanwhile, the dominant strand in the intellectual life of the eastern Mediterranean basin became what scholars call Hellenism, essentially a cosmopolitan form of Greek culture loosely based on Classical Greek literature. In this form Greek culture continued to flourish in the
>lands conquered by Alexander the Great and influenced the medieval civilizations of Byzantium and Islam and through them the culture of western Europe and the Americas."
This is a reference to the Ionic and other early loose groupings of "Greeks" of nearby islands who supported the Egyptians as mercenaries. The cultural exchange between the two is just when Egypt had pushed as north as it could, and was flourishing, while Greece was still building itself up small enclaves of people who were starting to identify as linked under the Hellenic banner, had most of its culture based in the Anatolia region, no city states comparable to the later juggernauts of Attica et al, and was largely borrowing everything it know from the more developed east, especially their Egyptian allies. Early Greek large scale sculpture used look like the Egyptian empires' only slightly cruder, which occurs about the time the mercenaries from Ionia start identifying more common links with what would become the main body of Greek states and islands and returning home as the Egyptian state stagnates. Between then and Alexander is when what we identify as The Greeks in art and lit goes into its prime, but the early influence of Egyptian and other more eastern philosophy on the Greeks is why most of the preSocratics belong to the Ionian school (though this is disparate as a "school" of philosophy, it's really a testament to the variety of sources the early Ionians stole for later posterity that it's so hard to classify a trend in it)
read Aristophanes by yourself. best bantz

I might spazz out in your threads now and then OP. I'm not into the group but good luck with that shit