| > However, I think this is mistaken if Homer himself was writing in an archaic style at the time (which seems to be the case looking at the literature) Now that is a debate for the ages! There is an argument that its was written in that style because that's how it was sung/spoken. In the same way that the king james bible was poetic, but not archaic (thats an assertion that I haven't got direct evidence to back up, apart from it was radical to not have it in latin.) However to us the king james verse: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." sounds majestic where as a more modern version: "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness[h] was over the surface of the watery deep" doesn't Now if we were to move to more secular texts, part of the appeal of brigerton, apart from the sex, is the funny language. But at the time it wasn't archaic. The same with raymond chandler, his novels were fast rolling and hard hitting police procedurals, but now the language is the part that evokes the atmosphere. I think I agree with wilson, largely. Culture has a half life, some of it shorter than others. Part of the reason that the greek myths have endured is because they have been re-interpreted so often. After all a lot of later interpretations are mashed together from the entire canon, so are not "accurate" in any sense of the word. Also they are myths. The interpretation of them says almost as much about us as it does the greeks. Like how scifi is almost always social commentary. tldr: yeah we pretty much agree. |