Homer’s Hector v. Shakespeare’s Hector

Posted on November 4, 2011 by tessa.coneys

In 2800 most of us studied Homer, and I’m not sure if I hold this opinion alone, but while reading the Iliad, I was a big fan of Hector. In class the other day we discussed Hector’s speeches in Act 2, and I’m sure many of us were put off by Hector’s seemingly thoughtless change of opinion. Homer’s Hector does give in to the power of war, and lets the war destroy his family, however Hector seems much less a hero, as presented by Shakespeare. I can’t help but wonder why Shakespeare felt this way about Hector, especially as we discussed that the English would have felt connected to the Trojans. Shakespeare does not present either side with much respect, as we see the foolishness of the Greeks who cannot work together in the war while we also see the Trojans experiencing domestic unrest. I’m curious why Shakespeare presents the war in this way.

This entry was posted in Troilus and Cressida. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Homer’s Hector v. Shakespeare’s Hector

  1. PBerggren says:
    November 5, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    That’s the $64 question (multiply that as often as one needs to these days). No one escapes unscathed here. Wait till we get to the end of the play to see how much lower the depths can go.

  2. Lorey says:
    November 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    i agree! i feel like Shakespeare takes a jab at everyone & in many ways, they look rather pathetic in comparison & unsympathetic toward one another. Achilles and Ajax are completely self-absorbed bullies, and the romance of Troilus and Cressida all around bothers me because it’s the least romantic relationship of all time and we learn that it’s only mere lust, so that in the memorable phrase of the Greek slave Thersites, “all the argument is a whore and a cuckold” (II.iii.75).

    The only moralist character is Thersites whose conversation is grotesque and abusive. I hate he’s more or less, narrating the play. Narrating isn’t the best word to use and i really mean he’s like a filler, he’s filling in the audience with information missed by conversation amongst character which works as a narrator although he’s not actually one. It’s also through his view on the other characters that we form our view upon them which has been turning out negative.

  3. PBerggren says:
    November 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

    What is Thersites doing? Lorey’s right that he’s not narrating. In a way, isn’t he performing a choral function? He certainly establishes an intimate relationship with the audience, since he talks to us so much.

Comments are closed.