Every now and then I shake the tree of internet Classics discourse with a meme comparing Greek and Roman things, which is of course a fantastic way to generate traffic but not overly conducive to actually coming to any sort of conclusion. In the same way that sports fans will forever argue over who is the ‘GOAT’ or musicians will endlessly contend that Bach > Beethoven, there is still quite a lot of fun to be had from the process - until of course, things get heated and inevitably someone ends up calling someone Hitler and things spiral out of hand…
Today however, we are here to settle one definitive debate that has kicked off recently, as to whether Homer or Virgil is the greater classical Epic poet. I’m going to tell you right now the answer is…
Virgil! But… it is going to take me a while to explain why that is and also why people are asking the wrong question to start with. So put down your pitchforks for a second and read what I have to say, then by all means pour your scorn on me if you disagree.
Homer the Bard
Let’s talk about each in turn. Homer, if we can call him that, is the author attributed to the Greek epic work Iliad and Odyssey. While there have been the ‘Homeric hymns’ and other works suggested to relate to him, either by proximity in time, place or style, we’ll simply consider those two works for this exercise. More importantly, Homer was (almost definitely) not a real person, or if he was, he was just one in a line of many people who had developed these stories and got all the credit for it. This is because these works came out of the Oral Tradition, which gives much of the works their unique qualities.
The Oral Tradition is the idea of stories being developed and told (or sung) before ever being written down. This is common across many cultures, and some still practice it today - such as Māori in Aotearoa who can trace their whakapapa (lineage) back in an unending line due to the handing down of this from generation to generation in spoken form. In Ancient Greece, likely before the alphabet had even emerged, there were no doubt story-tellers or bards, whose job was to engage and entertain with stories of a forgotten time. It’s easy to see how after the Bronze Age collapse in the Aegean, even those recent times might have seemed legendary and mystical.
Every time the story was told would be a unique rendition - since it was never written down, there was no one ‘correct’ version and every bard could put their spin on it. Over time, these bards developed their skills and trained their apprentices, to the point where it no doubt became a respected and admired position in society - and more importantly, the art form took on its own rules, rhythms, styles and conventions. Many of these were necessitated by the oral nature of storytelling - the opening invocation of the Muses to rouse the audience; the steady beat of the metre to give a musical quality to the recitation; the long repeated type scenes or generic phrases to allow the bard to have at least some memorised bits.
There is so much more I and others much wiser than me could say about this - it is a genuinely fascinating practice that we have somewhat lost due to the nature of the written word, but we still have glimpses of it today in improvised theatre or even just that one good story you love to tell at a party. The point I am coming to here is that ‘Homer’ was probably at the end of a long, long chain of these bards - each generation modifying, improving and learning from the last. To say then Homer composed the work is difficult, and is really done for the convenience of us having someone to blame when bogged down translating it! I will come back to this difficulty soon.
Publius Vergilius Maro aka Virgil
Virgil (I refuse to write Vergil, it looks weird) is almost at the opposite end of the spectrum to Homer. We know he existed, we know all about his life and friends, influences and education, and also that he wanted the Aeneid burned before he died (some suffering Latin students might agree). Living in the tumultuous 1st Century BC, he witnessed the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of Emperor Augustus, who he became entwined with through his patron Maecenas and the desire to create a ‘Golden Age’ through art and literature. Much more to say about that, another time.
Some important things to note - though from the countryside, Virgil was educated and had an excellent knowledge of Greek and Latin. His upbringing no doubt gave him an appreciation for rural life, the focus of his earlier works the Georgics and Eclogues. He was a talented poet and an intense student of all the works that had come before him - most significantly, Homer. To say he had read Homer was an understatement - he most likely would have learned Greek by memorising and reciting much of Homer, which is quite clear when you read his works.
Virgil was meticulous and painstaking in his writing of the Aeneid, which is often dismissed as ‘fan fiction’ of Homer. Yes, he borrows a character from the Iliad and sends him on adventures reminiscent of Odysseus and Achilles - but the literary world of Ancient Rome was replete with this style of writing. Where we see ‘copyright infringement,’ ancient authors saw it as an honorable nod to their great inspiration. To say that Virgil gives a few nods to Homer is like saying the Greeks used a few olives: a vast understatement. He does this not to copy or be lazy, but to make careful, considered and very clever references and embellishments to his great predecessor.
Composed over 10 years, legend has it that Virgil composed the Aeneid only 3 lines a day. Perhaps an exaggeration, but it speaks to the very considered approach he took in order to cram it full of every last bit of his literary skill, intellectual curiosity and love of poetry. In fact, he supposedly wanted it burned as it is not actually finished - there are a number of lines which are only half written, the Latin equivalent of a ‘FINISH THIS LATER’ in the margins. So while it might have been Aeneidfinal.doc it was not Aeneidfinalfinalthisone(3).doc…
Who Wins?
Now that I’ve sufficiently distracted you from your anger at the beginning, let’s revisit the original question: whether Homer or Virgil is the greater classical Epic poet. Putting aside the authorship issues around Homer and those works, it seems clear to say that while Homer was a talented bard and storyteller, Virgil was clearly a much more talented poet and writer. Many elements in Homer show clear influence of the oral tradition, where bits meander or seem stuck on, and others are repeated or underdeveloped. Whereas Virgil has painstakingly thought out the significance of every line to the utmost degree, so much so that you would now probably need several degrees and 12 different dictionaries to get half the references he is making. So Virgil is the better poet in my books.
This of course proves that the question was possibly unfairly framed. But I did so not as a gotcha or a trick, but to make a clear point here: these works are so different and should not really be compared in the same way. The poetry of Homer is raw and exciting, designed to entertain a crowd of Greeks with tales of their past; Virgil’s is beautiful and intricate, made to entertain his audience with clever homage and interesting allusion. I tend to find that this can leave a modern audience missing out on much of Virgil’s wit and genius, so it’s likely many people will prefer Homer even if they had read both. But I am here today to remind you that Virgil was damn, damn good at writing, and every time I read another passage of his in Latin I find something new that makes me go “Ah! Damn that’s clever'.”
I hope you’ve enjoyed today’s piece - keep in mind I’m doing my best to present what is an incredibly complex and nuanced subject in a simple way here, but I would be overjoyed to hear your thoughts and opinions. Take care till next time!
Another fairly interesting question would be who’s more important for development os classical (and ultimately Western) literature. Great work and Cheers from Brazil.