“MY SOUL’S FAR BETTER PART”: HOMER’S HECTOR AS MAN OF FEELING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphilo.2023.3.01Keywords:
Hector, “man of feeling,” sentimentalism, Homer, epic, gender, Alexander PopeAbstract
“My Soul’s Far Better Part”: Homer’s Hector as Man of Feeling. Eighteenth-century sentimentalism may seem foreign to the brutal world of Homer’s Iliad. Yet the parting of Hector and Andromache as depicted in the ancient Greek epic was a key symbol of sensibility in British culture at this time. Translations of the scene became staples of poetic anthologies and were quoted in periodicals, conduct books, and novels. The same passage was a popular theme for neoclassical art. This article will explore what attracted readers so persistently to the Homeric farewell scene. In contrast with previous scholarship, which maintains that eighteenth-century thinkers saw this episode primarily as an affirmation of separate, gendered spheres, I argue that interpretations of Hector and Andromache in this period blur the lines between traditionally masculine and feminine traits, transforming Hector into a “man of feeling.” This article begins by outlining how the ideals of sensibility created ambiguities in the construction of masculinity. In the second section, a close reading of Alexander Pope’s translation of the parting scene reveals that he deployed these ambiguities to make Hector a more appealing masculine archetype for a modern audience. Finally, I explore two important eighteenth-century artistic works directly inspired by Pope’s translation, demonstrating how the artists Angelica Kauffman and Gavin Hamilton used the parting scene to challenge traditional notions of manly heroism and to highlight themes of love and sympathy within the Iliad.
REZUMAT. „Jumătatea desăvârșită a sufletului meu“: Hector, personajul lui Homer, ca om sentimental. Sentimentalismul secolului al XVIII-lea poate părea cu totul și cu totul străin de lumea violentă și brutală a Iliadei lui Homer. Însă, despărțirea dintre Hector și Andromaca, așa cum este reprezentată în textul antic grec, devine în cultura britanică de mai târziu un simbol foarte puternic al sensibilității. Traduceri ale acestei scene se găsesc pretutindeni în antologii de poezie publicate la acea vreme, dar și în reviste, manuale de conduită și romane. Același pasaj devine o temă recurentă în arta neoclasică. În acest articol, îmi propun să explorez ceea ce i-a atras atât de mult pe cititorii secolului al XVIII-lea la această scenă homerică de rămas bun. Spre deosebire de alte studii critice, care susțin faptul că gânditorii secolului al XVIII-lea au văzut în această scenă o demarcare clară între cele două sfere ale masculinității și feminității, doresc să demonstrez că Hector și Andromaca sunt înțeleși în această perioadă într-un mod care confundă, de fapt, trăsăturile masculine cu cele feminine și îl transformă pe Hector într-un vrednic om sentimental. În prima parte a acestui articol, explic faptul că idealul sensibilității aduce cu sine o reprezentare ambiguă a masculinității. În a doua parte, propun o analiză atentă a traducerii lui Alexander Pope care arată cum acesta se folosește de astfel de ambiguități pentru a-l transforma pe Hector într-un arhetip masculin care să fie cu adevărat atractiv pentru un public modern. În cele din urmă, analizez două opere de artă vizuală care aparțin secolului al XVIII-lea și care se inspiră direct din traducerea lui Pope cu scopul de a demonstra faptul că artiștii Angelica Kauffman și Gavin Hamilton s-au folosit de această scenă de rămas bun pentru a contesta noțiunile tradiționale despre eroismul masculin și pentru a sublinia tema dragostei și a simpatiei în Iliada.
Cuvinte-cheie: Hector, omul sentimental, sentimentalism, Homer, epopee, identitatea de gen, Alexander Pope.
Article history: Received 12 June 2023; Revised 22 August 2023; Accepted 13 September 2023; Available online 30 September 2023; Available print 30 September 2023.
References
Addison, J. and Steele, R. 1987. The Spectator. 5 vols. Edited by Donald F. Bond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[Anon.] 1787. “A Summary of the Trojan War.” New Lady’s Magazine 2, no. 24: 21-23.
[Anon.] 1767. “Essay on Epic Poetry.” British Magazine 8: 485-88.
[Anon.] 1779. “On the Happiness of Domestic Life.” The Hibernian Magazine 1 (September): 503-05.
[Anon.] 1792. “On the Pathos of HOMER and the Characters of the ILIAD.” The Town and Country Magazine 24: 134-36.
Barker-Benfield, G.J. 1992. The Culture of Sensibility: Sex and Society in Eighteenth-Century Britain. London; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blackwell, T. 1735. An Enquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer. London.
Boime, A. 1987. Art in an Age of Revolution, 1750-1800. Vol 1. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
Brissenden, R.F. 1974. Virtue in Distress: Studies in the Novel of Sentiment from Richardson to Sade. London: Macmillan.
Brown, G. 2006. “The metamorphic book: children’s print culture in the eighteenth century.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 39, no. 3: 351-62.
Burrow, C. 1993. Epic Romance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Capp, B. 2014. “‘Jesus Wept’, but did the Englishman?” Past & Present 224, no. 1: 75-108.
Chapman, G. (ed.). 1956. Homer’s Iliads. Edited by Nicoll, A. New York: Pantheon Books.
Chetwood, K. 1693. “The Last Parting of Hector with Andromache and His Son Astyanax, When He Went to Assault the Grecians in Their Camp; in the End of Which Expedition, He Was Slain by Achilles.” In A collection of poems by several hands; most of them written by persons of eminent quality. London: Printed by T. Warren, for F. Saunders.
Clingham, G. 2000. “Translating difference: the example of Dryden’s ‘Last Parting of Hector and Andromache.’” Studies in the Literary Imagination 33, no. 2: 45-70.
Coypel, A. 1727. Hector’s Farewell. Musée de Troyes, Troyes, France. “Subjects From Homer’s Iliad in Neoclassical Art” by Dora Wiebenson. The Art Bulletin. Plate 16.
Crane, S. 1934. “Suggestions toward a genealogy of the ‘man of feeling.’” ELH 1, no. 3: 205-30.
Dixon, T. 2015. Weeping Britannia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryden, J. 1693. Examen Poeticum. London: Jacob Tonson.
Dryden, J. 1978. The Works of John Dryden Vol. XI. Edited by Loftis, J. et al. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ellis, M. 1996. The Politics of Sensibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellison, J. 1999. Cato’s Tears. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Errington, L. 1978. “Gavin Hamilton’s Sentimental Iliad.” Burlington Magazine 120, no. 898: 11-13.
Eustace, N. 2008. Passion Is the Gale: Emotion, Power, and the Coming of the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Ferguson, R. 1986. The Unbalanced Mind: Pope and the Rule of Passion. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press.
Goldsmith, O. 1785. Poems for Young Ladies. London: E. Johnson.
Goodden, A. 2006. Miss Angel. London: Pimlico.
Harvey, K. 2012. The Little Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. 2008. Translations of Homer. Edited by Eric Nelson. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press.
Homer. 2010. Iliad: Book VI. Edited by Barbara Graziosi and Johannes Haubold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.
Homer. 2015. The Iliad. Translated by Peter Green. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Johns-Putra, A. 2001. Heroes and Housewives. Bern; Oxford: Peter Lang.
Kauffman, A. 1780. Farewell of Abelard and Héloise. Oil on canvas, the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.
Klein, L. 1995. “Gender and the Public/Private Distinction in the Eighteenth Century: Some Questions about Evidence and Analytic Procedure.” Eighteenth‐Century Studies 29, no. 1: 97‐109.
Macmillan, D. 1999. “The iconography of moral sense: Gavin Hamilton’s sentimental heroines.” The British Art Journal 1, no. 1: 46-55.
Marzec, M. 2008. “What Makes a Man? Troilus, Hector, and the Masculinities of Courtly love.” In Men and Masculinities in Chaucer's “Troilus and Criseyde”, edited by Tison Pugh and Maria Marzec, 58-72. Cambridge; Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer.
Maurer, S.L. 1998. Proposing Men: Dialectics of Gender and Class in the Eighteenth-Century English Periodical. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mellor, A. 1995. “British Romanticism, gender, and three women artists.” In The Consumption of Culture, 1600‐1800: Image, Object, Text, edited by Anne Bermingham and John Brewer, 121-42. London: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
Mullan, J. 1988. Sentiment and Sociability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mullan, J. 1997. “Sensibility and Literary Criticism.” In The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, edited by H. B. Nisbet and Clause Rawson, 419-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newbery, J. 1769. Poetry Made Familiar and Easy to Young Gentlemen and Ladies. London: Newbery and Carnan.
Okin, S. 1982. “Women and the Making of the Sentimental Family.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 11, no. 1: 65-88.
Pope, A. 1880. Hector and Andromache: from Pope's translation of Homer's "Iliad." With life and notes. For pupil teachers and the upper standards in schools. Manchester; London: J. B. Ledsham; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.
Pope, A. 1996. The Poems of Alexander Pope: A One-Volume Edition of the Twickenham Text with Selected Annotations, edited by John Butt. London: Routledge.
Pope, A. 1967. The Works of Alexander Pope. Vol. VII: The Iliad, Books I-IX. Edited by Mack, M. London: Methuen.
Rosenthal, A. 2006. Angelica Kauffman: Art and Sensibility. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schellenberg, B. A. 2007. “Writing Eighteenth‐Century Women’s Literary History, 1986 to 2006.” Literature Compass 4, no. 6: 1538‐60.
Shankman, S. 1983. Pope’s Iliad: Homer in the Age of Passion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shoemaker, R.B. 1998. Gender in English Society, 1650-1850: The Emergence of Separate Spheres? London: Longman.
Steele, R. 1987. The Tatler. 3 vols. Edited by Donald F. Bond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone, L. 1977. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800. New York: Harper & Row.
Strawn, M. 2012. “Homer, Sentimentalism, and Pope's Translation of The Iliad.” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 52, no. 3: 585-608.
Taylor, J. 2020. “‘Employ'd in Works that Womankind Become’: Andromache and the Idealisation of Separate Spheres in Eighteenth‐Century Literature and Art.” Journal for Eighteenth‐Century Studies, 44, no. 1: 101– 21.
Thomas, C. 1994. Alexander Pope and His Eighteenth-Century Women Readers. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Todd, J. 1986. Sensibility: An Introduction. London: Methuen.
Trumbach, R. 1978. The Rise of the Egalitarian Family: Aristocratic Kinship and Domestic Relations in Eighteenth-Century England. New York; London: Academic Press.
Vickery, A. 1993. “Golden age to separate spheres? A review of the categories and chronology of English women's history.” The Historical Journal 36, no. 2: 383–414.
Wiebenson, D. 1964. “s An Analytical Essay on the Greek Alpha.” The Art Bulletin 46, no. 1: 23-37.
Wilcox, J.F. 1982. “The Philosophy of Chapman’s ‘Homer.’” Unpublished dissertation: University of Iowa. Available via ProQuest dissertations and theses.
Williams, C.D. 1993. Pope, Homer, and Manliness. London: Routledge.
Wood, R. 1769. An Essay on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer. London.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.