Reviews for Latin Verse Satire: An Anthology and Critical Reader

The average rating for Latin Verse Satire: An Anthology and Critical Reader based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-12-08 00:00:00 Kenneth Blake This book is an excellent example of how Western scholarship, until very recently, simply refused to acknowledge information from antiquity that it didn't agree with. Achilles: Paradigms of the War Hero from Homer to the Middle Ages is handy if you're looking for a source that names a good number of ancient and medieval works considering Achilles, but King's extremely shallow perception of the hero's sexuality throws the validity of all her other arguments into question. How can she be trusted, when she claims Achilles' strongest romantic relationship in the Middle Ages is with Briseis, and further, that there is minimal evidence to say he loved Patroclus? This is why its vital to read the primary texts yourself, or else you'll end up falling for this nonsense (and get movies like Troy (2004). King could argue for Patroclus, or Polyxena, but Briseis later becomes romantically attached with men who are not Achilles; their relationship largely isn't perceived as romantic (not to say they didn't have sex, but that theirs was not a love-story such as Patroclus and Polyxena receive). In Benoit de Saint-Maure's Trojan Epic, Roman de Troie, the most popular version from the Middle Ages, Briseis was not even Achilles' war-prize but the lover of Troilus and Diomedes...which is where we get Boccaccio's, Chaucer's, and Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida from (they're built one after the other, like Russian nesting dolls). King (conveniently) ignores the fact that in Benoit's version, Achilles and Patroclus do have a homoerotic relationship that is explicitly recognized by Hector (who is illustrated as a villain, and in that way, Benoit is pro-homo, as Achilles and Patroclus' bond is painted as nobly as possible. He even takes away Achilles' shameful refusal to bury Patroclus) - not to mention that the language Achilles' uses in his lamentations for Patroclus parallels what he says in his lovesickness over Polyxena, and Cressida's oath to Troilus. Achilles' and Patroclus' companionship was extremely important to the Middle Ages' Brotherhood bond, which was an integral element not only in the literature of the period, but in reality through the social-political sphere of the aristocracy. They are mentioned together in countless texts as an ideal to aspire towards, and these texts in the majority (especially leading up to the 13th century), were very suggestively homoerotic (Volume II of the Lancelot Grail being the best example in its portrayal of Galehaut and Lancelot, and also the most popular of the time, which again goes to show that it wasn't a phenomenon- people be thinking they were romantic, alright). Of course, King forgets to bring this up, in her book that is alllll about perceptions of Achilles throughout the Middle Ages. Rage, pride, greed, and grief are elements of Achilles' character (as King says), but dismissing his relationship with Patroclus dissolves a large and humanizing part that in turn can shade the author's original intent. Same-sex romance, whether sexual or not (lets not get into Queer Theory over here, none of us have the time), was an integral construct of Greco-Roman society, especially between bonded soldiers. A fat ol' glaring sign of wrongwrongwrong exists in the way that King states Cicero was against Achilles, seeing him only as an angry tyrant (119). Yes, Cicero does shame Achilles for his rage, but he also exalts companionship bonds - finding the "image" of yourself that exists only in another man, which grew from the tradition exemplified between Achilles and Patroclus; Achilles has layers, like an onion. He's antiquities' version of Shrek, if Shrek looked like Prince Charming. Cicero even developed his personal motto after Achilles': to be the best and overtop the rest. So, Cicero exclusively disliking Achilles...where? When? Fight me, Katherine Callen King, you are lying to the masses. Achilles was more than just his rage, and analyzing his relationship with Patroclus is a big part of discovering what made him attractive, and how he could be perceived simultaneously as a good and bad man; He was a skilled warrior dedicated to his companion, and this was recognized by many. LAYERS, OK. Basically, this book can't be trusted as King refuses to acknowledge information that doesn't fit with her argument, which throws into question everything else she says. The fact that she was an associate professor of Classics, scares me. If you're using this book, you should do so as a catalogue for works concerning Achilles and his role in the Trojan War, but not as a reliable source for enforcing your paper. I mean sure, if you're in a time crunch, don't care about your thesis and just want to hand the thing in, it'll be fine, but it's no good for anything higher than an undergrad level.

Review # 2 was written on 2011-01-18 00:00:00 Byron Jackson It's been so long since I read this that I can't really remember the details, but the rating was given at the time, so I must have found it good.