「일리아드」(Iliad)의 인성(Humanities) 연구

Abstract

This study is intended to contribute to the study of Homeros and more particularly to the study of humanities in Iliad. The belief that the study Homeros is where the greater need for serious literary criticism still lies is main motif of this study. This study began with my recognition that the heroes in Iliad(B.C.700-675) are almost identical with the heroes of Hesiodos’ Works and Days(B.C. 675-50): they both are demi-gods(ἡμίθεοι)(160). The purpose of this study is to analyze the humanities of heroes in Iliad, and to find out some of the factors which consists Homeric humanities. The first of these factors is the heroes’ ability to recognize the mortality. From the start of the poem, with Thetis’ words of prophecy or foreboding introducing the central sorrow of the Iliad, humanities and mortality are tied together in a bond that is as certain as it is mysterious. In other words, I have proved that mortality is the cornerstone of humanities, because the most urgent need of all heroes is to perpetuate one’s status in the form of continuing fame after death. The second factor I chose is menos(μένος). The basic difference between the heroic generation and our own is their greater capacity for self-propelled vigour. Menos carries the implication of madness, frenzied and self-destructive behavior, impling that the excessive menos of the hero is pushing him towards what would nowadays be labelled insanity. To find out the existence of “self” in the heroes, as one factor of humanities, is the one of the contributions to this study. Bruno Snell argues that Homeros has no word for the self, and since he has no word for it, it follows that as far as he is concerned the thing, the self does not exist. But, although Homeros has no one word for the self, there are an array of words which can do duty of self. One of these words is ‘thumos’(θυμός), which means soul, breath, and life. A striking illustration of the usage of this term comes in the passage in Iliad Book 11. Odysseus, under increasing pressure from Trojans, after Diomedes’ withdrawal, wonders whether to retreat. At that moment, he speaks to his thumos, and after while, his thumos speaks to him. In this case, I think, “he” or ‘thumos’ is nothing but the self. What this study confirmed, with the matter of the existence of the thing the word self indicates, is that even if a culture doesn’t have a word for a thing(i.e. self), the culture recognises that thing’s existence. The last factor I chose, among other things, is “being capable of akrates.” Akrates has the meanings of “without command over oneself, incontinent,” “not having power or command over a thing or oneself.” Bruno Snell denies that Homeros’ creatures are capable of akrates. So, as for him, Homeric heroes do not make decisions reflectively. On the contrary, I found out lots of clear cases which seem to me as akratic actions. Among them were those of Helen, Achilleus, and Hector. They were sometimes capable of being at the mercy of inner forces, but they knew and regretted that this was happening to them. In other words, they were capable of akrates, making genuine decisions because humanities had existed even under the colossal pressure of divinity.