No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Young And old in Homer and in Heike Monogatari
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2009
Extract
Homer's epics have been compared with many other epic traditions in the world, such as Sumerian, Indian, Serbo-Croatian, Medieval German, and Old French epics, from various points of view, such as narrative techniques, genesis of traditions, oral or writtern nature of texts, and motifs. If comparative studies of the existing sort have any significance, it is rather surprising that there has been no serious attempt to compare Homer's epics and Heike monogatari(translated as The Tale of the Heike, Heikefor short), the best of the medieval Japanese epics, for there are many reasons to believe that the comparison could be worthwhile.1 While many of the oral epic traditions in Europe, including Homer, have been long dead, the Heikehas kept a lively tradition of performance (chanting accompanied by a type of lute) by travelling bards until recently, and still today there are a few performers. One can therefore still obtain first-hand knowledge of the performance which might throw light on some unknown features of oral epics.2 Rather like Homer's influence over Greek literature and culture, the Heikehas influenced the way of life and thinking of the Japanese profoundly thanks to its popularity and wide circulation. The way in which the Heikeinfluenced other arts, such as no plays, is comparable to Homer's influence on later Greek literature such as tragedy,3 and the way the Heike'swarriors set models for later warrior ethics4 is comparable to the Homeric influence on the later Greek senses of virtue (arete), honour time), shame (aidoōs), and so on.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1993
References
Notes
1. A substantial comparative work of the Heikeand La Chanson de Rolandhas already been done by Sato, Teruo: La Chanson de Roland el Heike-Monogatari: EÉtude comparative tome II (Tokyo, 1973)Google Scholar (in Japanese). The same author has suggested a possibility of Heike-Homer comparison in his earlier work, ‘Seiyo no joji-bungaku to no hikaku o toshite mita Heike monogatari’, ed. Takagi, I., Sasaki, H., and Tomikura, T., Heike Monogatari Koza I (Tokyo, 1954), pp. 53–68Google Scholar.
2. For example, I have found a potentially interesting (though casual) remark by a Heikescholar that a long list of personal names is boring when reading, but in fact could be at times an exciting climax when listening to a performance (Shimpojiumu Nihon Bungaku[Symposium Japanese Literature] 5: Heike Monogatari[ Tokyo, 1976], p. 197)Google Scholar. A sustained pursuit of this interest could influence our appreciation of, e.g., the Catalogue of Ships in Iliad Book 2 which is normally regarded as a less interesting part by modern readers.
3. Cf. Smethurst, M. J., The Artistry of Aeschylus and Zeami: a Comparative Study of Creek Tragedy and No (Princeton, 1989), pp. 198–204, pp. 256–69Google Scholarpassim.
4. Cf. Reischauer, E. O. and Fairbank, J. K., East Asia: the Great Tradition (Boston, 1960), pp. 543–4Google Scholar.
5. In this paper I quote from and refer to the following translations:The Tale of the Heike tr. by McCullough, Helen Craig (Stanford, 1988)Google ScholarThe Iliad of Homer tr. by Lattimore, Richmond (Chicago and London, 1951)Google Scholar, The Odyssey of Homer tr. by Lattimore, Richmond (New York, 1965)Google Scholar. I cite passages from Heike monogatari by chapter and section numbers as well as the section title, and Homer by giving the epic title ill.for the Iliad, Od.for the Odyssey) and book and line numbers.
6. ‘Sanemori was undaunted, but he was exhausted - to say nothing of being a veteran ripe in years — and thus he was pinned underneath’ (‘Sanemori’, Chapter 7, Section 8).
7. Laertes’ valour miraculously restored by Athena at Od. 24. 516–25 is another, presumably temporary, exception.
8. Finley, M. I., The World of Odysseus 2 (Harmondsworth, 1979), pp. 114–15Google Scholar contends that, with the single exception of his proposal to build a defensive wall, ‘Nestor's talk was invariably emotional and psychological, aimed at bolstering morale or at soothing overheated tempers, not at selecting the course of action’, suggesting that Nestor's so called wisdom is poorly presented in the actual characterization of the hero in the Iliad. Finley's extreme view has been rightly criticized and modified by Schofield, Malcolm, Eubouliain the Iliad’, CQ 36 (1986), 6–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who concludes (p. 29) that ‘tact is the hallmark of Nestor's euboulia’.
9. Redfield, James M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad (Chicago and London, 1975), p. 13Google Scholar vividly illustrates the character of the young Achilles and the old Nestor by contrasting Achilles’ headlong criticism of Agamemnon with the way Nestor would have handled the same situation. The same book also summarizes the contrast between the young man and the mature man ‘correlated with the distinction between council and the battle as arenas of excellence’ (pp. 110–11).
10. Although Kajiwara's advice sounds perfectly reasonable, other warriors’ (and apparently also the author's) sympathy is with Yoshitsune here, which may be regarded as a forerunner of the so-called ‘Hōogan-biiki’ (bias towards Yoshitsune) as Sadamaro Watanabe, Heike Monogatari no Shisōo (Tokyo, 1989), p. 164 points outGoogle Scholar.
11. We find a similar case of a quarrel caused by a young and haughty warrior contemptuous of a more mature warrior in the opening episode of La Chanson de Roland (the quarrel between Roland and Ganelon, 277–302). This also leads to revenge by the elder.
12. Butler, K. D., ‘The Heike monogatariand the Japanese warrior ethic', Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 29 (1969), 93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 107 suggests that the actions might be regarded as a typical theme in oral composition.
13. There is a slightly similar situation in the Iliad.The middle-aged warrior Menelaus advises his young opponent called Euphorbos not to challenge him, warning that there will be no chance of overcoming him who is a stronger warrior. But the young man as proud as a lion defies the warning, challenges Menelaus, and gets killed in the end (Il. 17. 10–60). This episode also reflects characters of mild middle age and proud youth.
14. The other way round, a young man's sympathy with a father-like figure, does work in Homer. It is observed in the meeting of Achilles and Priam where Achilles pities and kindly treats Priam who is old like his own father (486–7, 511; for the passage see below). Cf. Macleod, C. W., Homer: Iliad Book XXIV (Cambridge, 1982) on 362Google Scholar.
15. A similar warning is found in Odysseus’ moralizing speech addressed to one of the suitors of Penelope (Od.18. 130–42).
16. Ishimoda, Sho, Heike Monogalari (Tokyo, 1957), p. 50Google Scholar points out, however, that despite the understanding of the power of mujôo or fate, primary interest of the author of Heikc is in the struggles of human beings against overpowering situations and that there is no absolute fatalism which would nullify the significance of human activities. Matsuo, Ashie, Heike Monogalari Ronkyu (Tokyo, 1985), p. 22Google Scholar looks at the same issues from a different angle, stating that man's struggle and action are vividly depicted because of the cruelty of changing fortunes surrounding him, summarized in the word ‘mujōo’ Watanabe, Sadamaro, Heike monogalari no Shiso (Tokyo, 1989), pp. 111–12Google Scholar observes that the word mujōo is used in most cases in depicting negative forces confronting human beings, such as death versus life and fall versus rise. All these observations point to a similar picture to that of the Homeric world in which fate( moira or aisa) functions mostly as a negative force against man, such as death or defeat, and is acknowledged by man as inevitable, but there is ample room for human will and action, and heroes are made great by their struggles in the face of, and in spite of, the inevitable fate.
17. I would like to express my special thanks to Dr. Lone Takeuchi of the Far East Department, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, who invited me to read a version of this article in her class of classical Japanese literature in April 1991.1 must thank her and her students who attended my talk for their useful and interesting comments and questions which contributed very much to this revised version. Thanks are also due to my long-time mentors, Mr J. T. Hooker and Professor H. G. T. Maehler of the Department of Greek and Latin, University College London, for their continuous encouragement to pursue my interest in the comparison between Homer and Heike monogatari.