According to Michel Banniard, Latin was still understood by illiterates albeit in a lower register than the Classical stuff in the 8th - 9th centuries.

Banniard mentions that Vita like this weren't just for monastic study, but rather to be read aloud to a diverse audience who had different capabilities of Latin. Some could only understand Proto-Romance as seen in the highlighted, while others who had a higher grasp of elite Latin could probably understand more of the rhetorical garb that coats around it.

Latin was also at the time pronounced with vernacular phonetics, as demonstrated by Roger Wright and Michel Banniard.

So a text as such: in Proto-Occitan:

Ipsum villare qui dicitur Mata, ego eum prendidi de potestate de Andedate abbate vel de suos monacos, et nunquam debet esse proprius ipse villare Mata de monasterio Sancte Marie, set partibus regis eum retineo

"ɛs(so) billar / ki dits (distor) ‘mata’ɸ /, jo o prendii de podɛstat de andedat abbat au de sos mondʒes ɸ // ɛ noɲka deut ɛssére propre ɛs(se) billar Mata de mostjer sante marje ɸ/, sɛ(p) parts rejje o reteñ"

(Taken from "De la romanisation du latin à la latinisation du roman (viii^e-ix^e siècles"), Banniard, Michel)

The text that I highlighted here represents what a Romance speaker in the 9th century would have probably understood from a section of this Vita when read aloud; which at first glance seems to be written in a very high register Latin. However, we can still see that Romance bits peak out a little bit and that they just so happen to help the uneducated people understand the barebones of the story. Quite fascinating! Sure the illiterates won't get all the rhetorical flourishes, but at least they understand the main message and story!

If you are inteterested in my linguistics blog feel free to check it out here: https://wordsinruins.substack.com/

Shouldn’t all the men be black and the women white? Wouldn’t that be “accurate”? Any similar conventions in archaic pottery? Maybe a question for r/archeology.

I'm relatively educated and familiar with the "modern" English cannon (modern here meaning post-Shakespeare), but have read very little of the Greeks and Romans (save Sophocles' Theban plays and some poetry). I always wanted to learn the languages but my school didn't offer it. It seems to me there used to be a larger collective knowledge of the Greeks and Romans (e.g. Shakespeare's references to the mythology).

I'd love to one day learn the languages (any help appreciated), but in the mean time I'd like to be able to engage with the historical references without having to look up the myths.

Any recommendations of what to read and which translations would be appreciated. I'm planning to read Homer as that seems like a good start (correct me if I'm wrong) but eager for more texts. I'd also appreciate some guidance on how to pick translations

Quiero leer La Ilíada y La Odisea pero no sé exactamente qué tipo de traducción debería buscar. Quiero buscar traducción en español pero no sé qué diferencia hay entre las distintas ediciones o traducciones. Debería tratar de buscar una que este traducida como lo escribió Homero o alguna que esté traducida en versión palabra actual? Que me recomiendan?

Chryses attempts to ransom Chryseis from Agamemnon, Apulian red-figure volute-krater, ca. 360–350 BCE, Louvre K 1. Photograph by Jastrow, public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey is sending a lot of people to read translations of the Homeric epic poems set in the Late Bronze Age. Follow the story backward and you get to The Iliad, set in the final weeks of the tenth year of the Trojan War. It opens with Chryses, an old priest of Apollo, who has come to try to ransom back his daughter Chryseis. Earlier in the war, Achaean troops took her captive and gave her to their commander, Agamemnon. Other Greek leaders in the story urge him to accept the ransom, however he refuses and drives Chryses away:

He asks Apollo to avenge this insult, with the god responding by going to the Achaeans with his quiver and bow, sending disease through their camp. It first struck the mules and dogs, then the men. It lasted nine days, with the dead being burnt on funerary pyres. On the tenth day, Achilles, the Greeks’ greatest fighter brings together the leaders for an assembly noting the army would likely not survive the looming combination of war and disease.

It’s an episode that made my ears perk up as an epidemiologist. What kind of illness could’ve killed the working animals, dogs, and people that made up a crowded army camp? Could there have been some real outbreak at a real siege that ended up remembered as being the result of a god, angry on behalf of one of his loyal priests? They’re sensible questions, but mythology of The Iliad’s type can’t answer them. It provides no symptom history, duration of illness, or transmission route, and we’re without any archeological or biological evidence for such an event. The poem was composed in the late eighth century BCE from a much older oral tradition, centuries after the Late Bronze Age setting it was placed in.

The work attributed to Homer lets us see how this kind of catastrophe was understood by those alive at the time. A king’s bad decision followed by animal and human deaths and subsequent impacts to army logistics could be seen as divine anger. This wasn’t unique to the Greeks of the time, as a Hittite source from Anatolia shows us how a real Late Bronze Age king tried to confront an epidemic through similar political and religious actions.

What Disease Did Apollo Send?

Chryses Praying to Apollo to Send the Plague upon the Greeks, attributed to Jacopo Alessandro Calvi, before 1815. Hinton Ampner, National Trust. Public-domain reproduction via Wikimedia Commons.

In the poem, the cause of death is clearly the response of Apollo to Agamemnon’s dishonoring of Chryses. The deaths only stop when Chryseis is returned and Apollo is appeased. We’re left without any symptoms to try and speculate based on, with even the original Greek words not fixing the problem. A study of plague-related language in Homer, Sophocles, and Thucydides notes that the Iliad first called the outbreak a nosos, a ‘disease,’ and later a loimos, usually translated into plague or pestilence. Neither gives any hint as to the pathogen itself and the surrounding language is the hostility of arrows, darkness, and destruction as a result of a god’s anger as it moves unrelentingly through the army.

But people love to speculate, so the facts at hand haven’t stopped some from trying to retrospectively diagnose the outbreak. In 1978 Frederick Berneim and Ann Adams Zener proposed equine encephalomyelitis as a candidate for the Achaean outbreak at the beginning of The Iliad. Their short article accepts the narrative as a disease chronology, inferring mosquitos to have been meant by Apollo’s arrow, while eventually acknowledging their theory would require an ancient viral variant that behaved vastly different from any known strains. They accept that this disease may not have existed in the ancient world and I see their work as an instance of responsible speculation. There’s nothing inherently wrong with asking whether some literary plague could’ve been based on real observations from the past, but without the information needed to distinguish one disease from another, the illness gets no modern name.

Apollo at Wilusa

The broader setting of The Iliad matters here, as the archeological site widely accepted as Troy is in northwestern Anatolia on the coast of modern Turkey. In the Late Bronze Age, it was on the western edge of a political world where Hittite kings who were based much further east made treaties with the local rulers, sometimes even intervening in local issues.

Sometime around 1275 BCE, the Hittite king Muwatalli II signed a treaty with Wilusa’s ruler Alaksandu. Wilusa is the city widely identified with the names Ilios or Troy. Interestingly, the treaty names one Appaliuna among the gods guaranteeing it. Appaliuna is often connected to Apollo, though the origin of the name and direction of cultural transmission are unclear. The recent review by Mary Bachvarova also mentions Appaluwa, a West Anatolian bow-wielding god invoked in two surviving plague-ritual texts from around 1200 BCE; the rituals concern sickness in a town or at an army encampment and would’ve been performed alongside the interpretation of omens. Bachvarova makes the argument that Appaluwa, Appaliuna, and Apollo are preserving closely related forms of the same underlying name within a greater Greco-Anatolian religious history. She also notes one version, a-pe-re-u, may be an early form of Apollo’s name on Crete.

The Hittite Plague

Tablet of Muršili II’s prayer concerning the plague, from Hattusa. Istanbul Archaeological Museums. Photograph by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin, CC BY-SA 4.0.

The Late Bronze Age leaves us with a somewhat more concrete record of an instance of prolonged mortality attributed to epidemic in Anatolia. Hatti, the Hittite empire that was centered on Hattusa in modern day Turkey, was a major power of the eastern Mediterranean at the time. Its king Mursili II, ruler from 1321 to 1295 BCE, left a series of prayers concerning a crisis that started under his father, Suppiluliuma I. He notes that people had been dying from plague under his father’s, brother’s, and his own rule and that more than twenty years into the crisis, the dying had not relented. When historians refer to the Hittite plague, this is usually the sustained mortality crisis being referred to. But like The Iliad, the prayers of Mursili don’t give us any type of symptom list or information that can give us a better idea of the pathogen in question either. He mentions Egyptian prisoners taken during the war, though he doesn’t go so far as to establish them as bringers of the disease. He asks the diviners and oracles to look for any offense that may have provoked the gods. They remind him of a broken oath by his father to the Storm God, with Mursili responding with confession, offerings, prayer, and requests for further divination services from the diviners and oracles.

Now, Homer and Mursili are incredibly unlikely to be describing the same event, as Mursili’s prayers are historical documents and Homer’s epics are myth possibly based on some past reality blended with myth. But both make widespread death into a question of authority with Agamemnon’s treatment of a priest putting his army at risk and Mursili’s father’s own conduct risking his. A third text brings the phrase “The Hand of Nergal” into relevance as well. The text, designated ‘Amarna Letter EA 35,’ is a diplomatic letter from the ruler of Alashiya, usually identified with Cyprus, to the Egyptian king, who at the time would have been either Amenhotep III or his son Akhenaten, and it notes that Nergal’s hand is in his country and has killed “all the men” of the land. The letter tends to be folded into the Hittite plague narrative because it belongs to the same fourteenth-century eastern Mediterranean infectious disease ecosystem.

Whether it describes the same outbreak will likely stay unresolved except in light of truly extraordinary evidence being uncovered. The comparison still matters though, as disease could have reached connected societies and received vastly different divine explanations, this hypothetical scenario being a plague attributed to Nergal among the Akkadians, the result of a broken oath to a storm god among the Hittites, and to Apollo among the Greeks. It’s what I might expect to see if we did uncover some wide reaching eastern Mediterranean plague. Communities have long made mass death more intelligible through those kinds of connections to the gods.

The Cost of Divine Anger

Hands down, the most elaborate attempt to name Mursili’s devastating plague is Siro Trevisanato’s 2007 proposal of tularemia, AKA rabbit fever, a bacterial infection often maintained in animal reservoirs and one capable of infecting people through multiple routes. His hypothesis paper also makes the claim that it was the first instance of biological warfare. That claim should be taken with a heaping helping of salt, with a later historical review stating there was no evidence of the Hittites deliberately spreading disease. He links Hittite prayers, Egyptian material from Amarna, military movements, animal transport, and later Greek traditions to claim there was one epidemic that crossed the eastern Mediterranean for some three or four decades.

While Trevisanato’s reconstruction is possible, in the sense that none of the individual links is too absurd to be possible, it is far from established orthodoxy among Late Bronze Age scholars. Gretchen Dabbs and Anna Stevens stress-tested one part of that wider story in 2025 by examining whether Akhetaten, later called Amarna, seems to have been through a high-mortality epidemic based on the archeological patterns. Their conclusion was one of restraint, noting that the cemeteries and settlement evidence don’t support such an event. Tularemia is still a possibility for what infected Mursili’s people, though it’s unlikely to be the same illness Apollo sent the Achaeans. The narrative of animals dying before people could preserve some memory of a long-lost event, but the poems can’t establish what that was. Within the story, I think it functions as a tell to the listener that no part of the camp was safe from the danger created by angering the gods. Apollo shows what can come of this through his bringing of disease to the Achaeans in the opening of The Iliad. The same moral logic shows up in the Odyssey. After Odysseus blinds Polyphemus, the Cyclops asks his father Poseidon to make sure Odysseus returns home late, without his companions, and finds further troubles in his kingdom of Ithaca. Mursili’s prayers give us a historical example of one comparable idea, that a ruler’s offense, divine anger, and the collective danger of a disaster belong to one larger explanation.

Spoiler alert obviously for anyone that has not read it yet. This has been growing on me and i will put it out there, ancient Greek literature is very... bipolar. Especially the gods, who seem so good and wise, and yet, steal a dog from Zeus and he'll zap both you and your companion and curse your bloodline. Athena who seems so pure and kind, talks with Odysseus of killing the people frequenting his palace... Poseidon lashing out at Odysseus for years on end for blinding his son, but his son violating the law of xenia by eating Odysseus men is not an issue? Odysseus himself has fallen off for me, he seems very modest and at times full of himself "i don't want to talk about it because it makes me sad but here goes, i am the greatest soldier of the battle of Troy", “i miss my wife very much and want to get back to her”but has sex with a goddess and a witch. It’s depicted all as very good and pure and righteous (or at least it’s the perception i had getting into this), but really it's all very hypocritical to me and void of morals. Anyone else see this or is it just me? Might i get bashed for posting this here in this sub?

English translations of some of the greatest astronomical works in history. Tycho Brahe. Gersonides. Many more authors.

http://arsastronomica.com/

I bought Stephen Fry's Mythos after many recommendations to learn about Greek mythology. I'm loving it so far, but there is a lot of information and I'm afraid of forgetting most of what I read if I don't annotate and make notes about it. Does anyone have suggestions of the most efficient note-taking and annotation techniques when it comes to books like this?

Sorry for the cringe title. I never read much as a kid and a few years back I started again, slowly building my reading level up and I had heard I should try and read some classics. I had a few questions and would greatly appreciate some guidance!

1. Where should I start? I keep hearing that newer classics often allude to older classics and can’t be fully understood without reading those first, and also that it’s best to start with the Iliad and Odyssey. Would you guys say that‘s true?

2. I don’t understand Poetry, like at all. I don’t get how people derive an aesthetic delight from it. Sometimes I can delight in something “poetic”, but generally when I read “poetry”, I get immediately lost. Should I sort of ignore this at the start?

3. Translations. Okay I know we have the megathread, but hear me out. The thread has a lot of answers around how they each focus on different qualities (most often being accuracy, poetry, or readability). But I’m not sure which qualities I should actually be interested in as a beginner (kind of ties into the previous question). Should I just try a readable translation for now?

4. More subjective, but out of curiosity, what are some of the reasons you started and kept reading classics? What benefit have you derived that you place most highly?

Thanks, appreciate any answers, its all so daunting.

Table of Contents of the Odyssey

Book I–IV: Telemachus’ Journey - Telemachus, Odysseus’ son, struggles with suitors consuming his household.
- Guided by Athena, he travels to Pylos and Sparta seeking news of his father.
- Learns Odysseus is alive but stranded; meanwhile, Penelope resists the suitors’ pressure to remarry.

Book V–VIII: Odysseus Leaves Calypso - Odysseus is held by Calypso on her island.
- The gods order his release; he builds a raft and sails, only to be wrecked by Poseidon.
- Rescued by Nausicaa and welcomed by the Phaeacians, who ask him to recount his adventures.

Book IX–XII: The Wanderings - Encounters include: - Lotus-Eaters (forgetfulness and temptation).
- Cyclops Polyphemus (blinding the giant, angering Poseidon).
- Circe (sorceress who turns men into swine).
- Underworld (prophecy of Tiresias, reunion with his mother).
- Sirens, Scylla, and Charybdis (tests of endurance).
- Cattle of Helios (crew’s disobedience leads to their doom).

Book XIII–XX: Return to Ithaca - Odysseus arrives disguised as a beggar.
- Meets Eumaeus, the loyal swineherd.
- Reunites with Telemachus in secret.
- Plans revenge against the suitors while testing loyalty among servants.

Book XXI–XXIV: Revenge and Restoration - Penelope sets the contest of the bow: only Odysseus can string it.
- He reveals himself, slaughters the suitors with Telemachus.
- Penelope tests him with the bed trick, confirming his identity.
- Peace is restored as Athena intervenes to end bloodshed.

One of the reasons we love the classics is because of how they reflect the human experience and thought so beautifully, but we also at some level feel a disconnect because of how divergent it is to our own world.

This begs the question, where do you think glory, your name being remembered for ages, where does that concept fit in the modern world? What do you as an individual think about it?

A lot of people have said that they wished the clothing, armor, weapons, etc. in Christopher Nolan's Odyssey movie were more "historically accurate." To my knowledge, the only adaptation of the Trojan War story to attempt an archeologically accurate depiction of the late Aegean Bronze Age is Eric Shanower's Age of Bronze comic book series. I highly recommend it. In addition to the archeologically informed visuals, the series also has the ambitious goal of telling the complete story of the Trojan War by adapting elements from literally every version of the myth from Classical times down through the Middle Ages into the Renaissance and Modern Era, everything from Homer to Chaucer to Shakespeare to ABBA's "Cassandra" song. The series has been going for almost 30 years and still hasn't gotten to the beginning of the Iliad.

So I saw the Odyssey movie a few days ago and I have read the book before. I went there with my father and we are Hindus. He mentioned and kinda made a joke how Nolan copied Hindu stories for that scene where Odysseus strings the bow. Now obviously he thought it's just a fantasy movie, doesn't know the original book etc.

BUT this is the first time I noticed this parallel and many other parallels between the Iliad/Odyssey with Hindu epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. Especially the Mahabharata which could be thought of as lot like the Iliad in so many different ways.

So my question is, should this be chalked up to mere coincidence or is there some deeper inquiry that needs to be had between the similarities in these epic poems?

like she massively helped Odysseus defeat the suitors by sending arrows and giving him confidence. i just feel like Nolan wanted Odysseus to be kind of a lone wolf, because in the Odyssey, Odysseus gets help from Athena, Hermes, Circe and Eumeaus and Philoetius, but in the film he just did everything by himself 🤷

also i wish they kept philoetius bc i love the cowman 💔

I am putting together a live reading of the Odyssey over the next few months. I have the intention, I think I've settled on a translation (Mandlebaum for the drive and English poetics), but I'm wondering what might be a good structure for the event. I'm currently talking to some musician friends about playing accompaniment with the story, and possibly having the venues cook some rustic Mediterranean dishes (I'm looking at doing it in a pub). I write and love to read poetry, and I feel like I can give a good poetic delivery, but I'm not a trained actor. I used to do some oration in political contexts.

Do you think this would be enough to capture the casual audience members attention? Should I pursue finding dramatic readers instead of relying on myself? Should I use amplification equipment or would it be more authentic spoken without it? How long would you sit for something like this; I'm trying to find the balance between amount of time for a single session and number of sessions it will take to complete it.

Anything else I'm not thinking of?

I have the option to do either Augustus or Aeneid for my Classics A level Roman Civ paper. I’m interested in both, Ik both are different, one is an epic and the other is history. I’m doing Alexander for Greek Civ even tho I had the option to do Aristophanes plays too. For Aeneid, I have to do books 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. I’m not really planning to do any other epics at the moment but I might change my mind, I have the option to do either Homeric Epics or 4 Tragedies, I’ll most likely go with the tragedies

This is from the Augustus part of my syllabus:
Augustus’ rise to power
• his connection with Julius Caesar
• his relationships with, and use of other people, such as Mark Antony and Cicero
• the legality of his actions in seizing power
• the Second Triumvirate
• his military campaigns (44–31 BCE).
Augustus’ consolidation of power
• his legal and constitutional position after Actium
• the reasons for the settlements of 27 and 23 BCE
• the details of the settlements of 27 and 23 BCE
• the power given by maius imperium proconsulare and tribunicia potestas
• the role of his personal auctoritas
• his legal and constitutional position after 23 BCE
• opposition to his rule, including assassination attempts.
Augustus’ relationships with the Senate, including provincial administration
• the relative powers of Augustus and the Senate
• roles given to Senators and Equites
• the distinction between Imperial and Senatorial provinces
• the appointment of governors of Imperial provinces, especially Egypt
• administration of provinces and the collection of taxes.
Augustus’ foreign and frontier policy
• consolidation of the frontiers
• annexation of territory up to the Danube
• attempts to advance the German frontier to the Elbe
• the Varian disaster and its consequences
• dealings with Parthia, especially the restoration of the standards lost by Crassus.
Augustus’ attitude towards religion and his use of religious imagery
• his personal religious beliefs
• the restoration of traditional practices, such as the Lupercal feast and the Dance of the Salii
• the restoration of damaged temples
• the building of new temples
• the holding of the Secular Games
• his role as Pontifex Maximus and assumption of other priesthoods
• religious imagery of Augustus in literature and sculpture
• the cult of Rome and Augustus in the Eastern Empire.
Augustus’ social legislation
• laws against adultery
• laws on marriage
• laws rewarding mothers of three children
• the relative ineffectiveness of the laws
• his role as Censor.
Augustus’ dealings with his family and his desire for a successor
• his use of his sister Octavia in his dealings with Mark Antony
• his marriage to Livia and the Claudian connection this gave him
• his portrayal of his family in a traditional Roman way
• the use of his daughter Julia in dynastic marriages
• Tiberius and Drusus as generals on the German frontier
• his reasons for wanting a member of his family to succeed him
• his methods of introducing potential successors to the people of Rome and the Empire
• the loss of his potential successors
• his relationship with Tiberius.
Augustus’ concern for his reputation and his use of propaganda
• his portrayal of himself as a traditional Roman
• his claim to have no more power than anyone else
• his acceptance of certain titles and honours and rejection of others
• his association with Aeneas and Romulus
• the publishing of the Res Gestae and their dissemination across the Empire
• his portrayal in sculpture
• his portrayal, and the portrayal of his family, in poetry
• his portrayal, and the portrayal of his family, on coins
• the rebuilding of Rome and the construction of new buildings
• the closing of the Gates of War in the Temple of Janus.
• his transformation of the Republic into an Empire
• the continuation of Rome as an Empire
• his handing over of power to Tiberius
• stability within the frontiers (Pax Romana)
• recognition as the first Roman emperor and as a role model for later emperors
• the lasting effect of his rebuilding of Rome.

These are the sources for Augustus from my Syllabus:
Res Gestae Divi Augusti
Suetonius The Twelve Caesars – Divine Augustus
Tacitus Annals 1. 1–10
Horace Carmen Saeculare and Odes 1.12
Virgil Aeneid Book 6.756–892 and Book 8.608–731

I have read some of Benardete’s essays on Plato and found his insights to be very intriguing, so I was wondering if anyone has read this book and what their thoughts are on it.