War at Troy: What Homer Didn't Tell [Hardcover]

Quintus Smyrnaeus (Author), M. Combellack (Translator)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 280 pages
• Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press; First Edition edition (July 1968)
• ISBN-10: 0199550603
• ISBN-13: 978-0806107707
• ASIN: 0806107707
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,971,099 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars After the Iliad, before the Odyssey, October 19, 2000

By 

Joe Kenney "buttergun" (Dallas, TX) - See all my reviews

This review is from: War at Troy: What Homer Didn't Tell (Hardcover)

In the time of Homer, the story of the Trojan War was common knowledge. Therefore, when Homer composed the Iliad, he didn't worry that his audience might be left hanging by the poem's "abrupt" ending, which occurs directly after the funeral games for Patroclos, with Hector recently dead and Achilles still alive. Homer's audiences knew all that would happen, and weren't concerned that he left out the death of Achilles, the Trojan horse gambit, and even the fall of Troy itself. Likewise, his audience wasn't troubled by the fact that the Odyssey begins ten years later, with Odysseus long gone from Troy, and the War but a memory. Homer's audiences knew all of that, they just wanted to hear a good story.

But we need more than that. It goes without saying that the happenings of the Trojan War are no longer public knowledge; they had even slipped from the public consciousness by the time of Quintus of Smyrna, roughly around the 3rd Century A.D. A poet of medium talent, Quintus took up the noble task of writing an epic that would bridge the events in the Iliad with those of the Odyssey, hence the title of this work, "What Homer Didn't Tell."

Besides Quintus' annoying, overly-consistent usage of metaphors, there are a few problems with this epic. For one, there is no central character to identify with. Whereas the Iliad told the story of Achilles' wrath and the Odyssey tells the story of Odysseus' craftiness in overcoming his many challenges, this story has no central theme, other than constant battle and the eventual fall of Troy. Several new champions arrive to help the Trojans, kill a bunch of Greeks, and then are killed themselves. This is the usual pattern for the first few hundred pages; soon after, Odysseus and Diomedes enlist the aid of Achilles' son, who provides the impetus (along with the infamous horse) for Troy's fall. The funny thing is, Achilles' son is basically Achilles himself, in power, ability, and charisma. Quintus went a little overboard with this character: he's just as superhuman as his father, and, reading the book, you can't even tell the difference between him and Achilles.

As for the characters who appeared in the Iliad, all of their stories are tied up in this. Odysseus doesn't take that great of a part in the book, other than his contest with Aias and his idea for the horse. Nestor provides his usal wisdom, we see the ending to the triangle of Paris, Helen, and Menalous, and we see how morbid and joyless Priam has become, now that his son Hector is dead. Diomedes appears and disappears throughout the book, though, sometimes aiding the Greeks greatly, other times nowhere to be seen: he's set up as almost superhuman in the Iliad, but Quintus diminishes his powers somewhat, so the new heroes he introduces can take the spotlight.

All in all, a useful addition to your library if you're into Homer's work, if at least to fill the gap between the Iliad and the Odyssey. Just understand that Quintus is not nearly the poet that Homer was, and this is through no fault of the translator, who provides his own critical judgement of Quintus' skill in the foreword. If Quintus had tightened the plot with a lead character, cut out some of his rambling metaphors, and written the events in a manner that made them seem less repetitive, then maybe this book would still be in print and also be better known.

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A story with no heroes, August 10, 2001

By 

dnk "dnkboston" (Boston, MA United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: War at Troy: What Homer Didn't Tell (Hardcover)

First the obvious: This is not as lyrical as the Iliad; it lacks the adventure of the Odyssey; and the use of the metaphors will KILL you if you don't steel yourself (a really sadistic English teacher could assign this and make you try and come up with some unifying theme).

So why 4 stars? Because Quintus shows the war and the Greek "heroes" in an accurate light. His most vivid section (and that with the fewest metaphors) comes at the end in the sack of Troy. He graphically describes the murder of the men, even the elderly. Neoptolemus, Achilles son, lacks any of the heroism or even pity Achilles had when he happily kills Priam. The most heartbreaking scene in the entire book is when the Greek soldiers throw Astyanax, the infant son of the dead Hector from the walls of Troy. I spent the entire book dreading this passage, but I still wasn't prepared for the cruelty of it.

Helen, not the most sympathetic character in the history of story telling, is made even worse here. It is stated in the Iliad and implied here that she was Paris' willing paramour. However, when Menelaus takes her back, she claims that she was an unwilling victim who tried to end her own life rather than endure her new fate. When Paris dies, she weeps, but more for herself than for her dead lover. Quintus doesn't give a clear explanation for why no one thought to turn her over to Menelaus after Paris' death.

The biggest flaw of the characters in this book is the over-emphasis on Fate. Every character suffers when those words come out of his or her mouth. I believe Quintus was trying to make a point when people excused their actions through fate. We may be tempted- however briefly- to buy into it when someone as clever (but not very eloquent here) as Odysseus argues his way out of blame through the device of Fate, but when we hear Paris use the same excuse, we know we're being hoodwinked. Fate here is an excuse for the weak-willed, selfish, jealous or bad-tempered.