"I don't want to be a football hero," was a popular song once banned by the
BBC!
On Hero-Worship.
Or the tragic hero.
There is an old Italian opera, "Gli eroi", _sic_ in the plural.
Helm was referring to Borges's references to 'the hero' in "This craft of
verse", and made a passing reference to Carlyle on Napoleon and what
Borges's take on that would be.
For the record then, "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History"
was published by Thomas Carlyle London (James Fraser) in 1841. It is a
collection of six lectures given in May 1840.
On 5 May, Carlyle lectured on the Hero as Divinity. Odin. Paganism:
Scandinavian Mythology.
I think for the Graeco-Roman, the hero was a demi-god. A divine, but not
quite divinity _in full_. I think it's the very fact that the Graeco-Roman
hero is NOT a divinity that makes him a hero. Enea claimed some divine
origin, as most heroes do, but there's a human element that allows us to
sympathise with them. (For example, I could never empathise with Plotinus's
concept
of divinity, and while many can empathise with Jesus, his mother was
human, no?)
On 8 May, Carlyle lectured on the Hero as Prophet. Muhammad: Islam.
On 12 May, Carlyle lectured on the Hero as Poet. Dante; Shakespeare.
Oddly, he skipped the hero as SUBJECT of epic, say, poetry; or more
importantly,
the tragic hero as the protagonist of Aristotelian tragedy!
On 15 May, Carlyle lectured The Hero as Priest. Luther; Reformation: Knox;
Puritanism. Again he skipped the epic hero, and while I was thinking about
this, I saw Angelina Jolie in the film version of "Beowulf" -- and I would
think that, regardless of the many anonymous collective heroes that Old
English epic (that Borges worshipped) may contain, ONE BIG HERO qua hero, that
epic seems to be lacking. In this respect, Old High German, with their
Sigfried (or "Siffrido" as the Italians prefer), or even the Provencals with
their Lohengrins (the knight of the swan), and Percivalles -- not to mention
Tristano and Tannhauser if we stick with Wagnerian uses of this -- seems
to have more of a prevalence of the heroic. "Lancelot" for example, was more
popular in Italy than it was in the Continent, and if one reads Dante's
episode of Francesca and Paolo, we see it's all about a revisiting of the
hero Lancelot and how he falls miserably after he attempts (and manages) to
have an uncourteous love affair with his master's wife!
On 19 May, Carlyle lectured on The Hero as Man of Letters. Johnson,
Rousseau, Burns.
On 22 May, Carlyle lectured on The Hero as King. Cromwell. Napoleon: Modern
Revolutionism
Why Carlyle would just ignore the Graeco-Roman tradition that gave Western
civilisation the word and the concept escapes me. It may have to do with
WHERE he lectured. In those days, those attending lectures could care less if
they were going to LEARN something!
Liddell (Alice Hargreaves's father) and Scott provide the following
expansion on
"ἥρως"
As usually, while this is a Greek lexicon they are weak at providing
paraphrases. They just translate the above as "hero".
-- which I would call a _transliteration_, rather!
In a second usage, they note, 'hero' specfically refers to "the Fourth Age
of men," (never 'divinities', as Carlyle had it) between δαίμονες and
ἄνθρωποι -- Hes.Op.172, cf. Pl.Cra.398c.
A third usage, that may have informed Carlyle had Liddell/Scott published
the thing by 1841 (they didn't!) is:
"heroes, as objects of worship,"
“ἥ. ἀντίθεοι” Pi.P.1.53,4.58; ἥ. θεός, of Heracles, Id.N.3.22; but
[“Ἡρακλέϊ] τῷ μὲν ὡς Ὀλυμπίῳ θύουσι, τῷ δὲ ἑτέρῳ ὡς
ἥρωι ἐναγίζουσι” Hdt.2.44; Σίσυφος ἥ. Thgn.711; twice in A.,
Ag.516, Fr.55; once in E., Fr.446(lyr.); “οὔτε θεοὺς οὔθ᾽ ἥρωας
αἰσχυνθεῖσα” Antipho 1.27; esp. ofl ocal deities, founders of cities, patrons
of tribes, etc., Hdt.1.168, Th.4.87, Pl.Lg.l.c., Arist.Pol.1332b18, etc.;
at Athens, ἥ. ἐπώνυμοι heroes after whom the φυλαί were named,
Paus.1.5.1,2, cf. Hdt.5.66; of historical persons to whom divine honours were
paid, as Brasidas at Amphipolis, Th.5.11, cf. Hdt.5.114,7.117: hence,= Lat.
divus,ἥρωα ἀπεδείξατε [τὸν Αὔγουστον] D.C.56.41; also,= Lares,
D.H.4.14; ὁ κατ᾽ οἰκίαν ἥ.,= Lar familiaris, ib.2.
They note that there's a still further use, where it merely means 'late' --
as in the "late Witters"
"deceased".
They add three further uses: ἥ. ποικίλος, = στιγματίας, Hsch.,
Phot.; βοῦς ἥ., = ἡγεμών, IG22.1126.32; and v. Ἥρων.
Does Short/Lewis's dictionary help?
Well, while the Romans did have the 'heroicus', they didn't care to turn
Greek 'heroes' into a proper Roman noun. But they did use
"hēros",
which Short and Lewis define as "a demi-god", and second, repetitively,as a
"hero".
They consider literal usages and transferred (i.e. metaphorical) usages.
For the literal group of usages they quote:
heroum veteres casus imitari
Cic. de Or. 2, 47, 194:
ille deum vitam accipiet divisque videbit Permixtos heroas,
Verg. E. 4, 16:
magnanimi heroes, id. A. 6, 649:
incipit Aeneas heros, id. ib. 6, 103; called also: Troius heros, id. ib.
451: Laertius heros, i. e. Ulysses, Ov. Tr. 5, 5, 3:
quem virum aut heroa lyra vel acri Tibia sumis celebrare, Clio?
Hor. C. 1, 12, 1: Ajax heros, id. S. 2, 3, 193: intererit multum, divusne
loquatur an heros, id.
A. P. 114.
as an adjective, but still in this literal usage, which they define as "of
or belonging to a hero or heroes, heroic" they quote:
ecce modo heroas sensus efferre videmus Nugari solitos Graece (for heroicos
or heroos), heroic thoughts or deeds,
Pers. 1, 69.—
In the transferred usage, which seems to be the one Carlyle is focusing on,
they refer to Cicero as using 'hero' of illustrious men:
heros ille noster Cato, Cic. Att. 1, 17, 9: Antonii colloquium cum heroibus
nostris (i. e. Bruto et Cassio), id. ib. 14, 6, 1: illorum fuit heroum (i.
e. Platonis et Aristotelis), id. Rep. 3, 8; and ironically of Clodius:
ignari, quantum in illo heroe esset animi, id. Att. 4, 3, 5.
Why is Carlyle being so narrow?
Perhaps because 'hero' was a later addition to the English lexicon, but one
wonders what the equivalent in "Beowulf" for 'hero' is.
"Hero" entered the English vocabulary late in the 14th century, as "MAN of
superhuman strength or physical courage".
Typically, from the French heroe (14c., Modern French héros), ultimately
from Latin heros (plural heroes) "hero, demi-god, illustrious man," and VERY
ultimately from Greek heros (plural heroes) "demi-god," a variant singular
of which was heroe.
This is of uncertain origin, etymologists grant.
-- which Popper may find satisfactory. For him, most things are uncertain,
except those who are falsified. But who can falsify a hero?
One hypothesis, due to Skeat is, that 'hero' meant in Proto-Indo-European
perhaps originally "defender, protector," from a root *ser- (1) "to watch
over, protect" (see obsSERve).
Why Aristotle would make the hero the topic of the tragedy as this form of
drama aims at catharsis is still a different problem.
Meaning "man who exhibits great bravery" in any course of action is from
1660s in English.
The usage of "chief male character in a play, story, etc." first recorded
in English 1690.
It may be THIS usage that Aristotle is thinking of: hero as protagonist.
As opposed to antagonist. The hero in tragedy is a hero because he displays
hybris. So rather than a divinity is NOTABLY a demi-god, or just a person!
It's mainly what he does (being what he is) that turns him 'heroic'.
Graeco-Roman statues -- some of them, especially Roman -- had the concept of
'heroic nudity'. The Romans disliked nude statues (unlike the hero) EXCEPT
when
it came to 'heroic nudity': thus an Emperor or two is seen in total
display of his privates -- 'full frontals,' if you chose that pov ('pov' is
point
of view). Heroic nudity could apply to statuary groups, like the
tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton. While we may say that Apollo Belvedere
displays 'heroic nudity', and the Italians call it the "Apollo pizio", since
it's Apollo in the act of killing the python, I don't think this was a
generalised usage. Gods don't count as 'heroes', and their nudity is not
necessarily heroic.
Hero-worship is from 1713 in reference to ancient cults and mysteries; of
living men by 1830s.
In Homer, 'heroes' was said of the Greeks before Troy.
Then 'hero' became a comprehensive term used of warriors generally, also of
all free men in the Heroic Age.
In classical mythology at least from the time of Hesiod (8c. B.C.E.) "man
born from a god and a mortal," especially one who had done service to
mankind; with the exception of Heracles limited to local deities and patrons
of
cities.
That Borges extends the thing to Kafka can only provoke the audience at
Harvard!
What he perhaps lacked -- but then he was no Grice -- is a conceptual
analysis of 'hero' in terms of its necessary and sufficient conditions -- as
resticted say, to Virgil (For Virgil, I think one necessary condition, given
his background, is that the hero should display stoic virtues -- the fad of
the day! -- cfr. Catone in Utica -- in the melodramma by Vivaldi -- who
became a hero in revolutionary France, too!)
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
