Would Alexander, madman as he was, have been so much a madman, had it not been for Homer?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I would then go on to say that Homer, as we now know, was working in what they call an oral tradition.
To many, Homer may appear lazy and a loser, but he's just much misguided. He's boorish, sure, but well meaning and, I guess, the one thing we have in common is the pursuit of lousy diets.
Since the time of Homer every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.
It is surely no coincidence that Napoleon's two greatest heroes were Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. In certain respects, he would outdo them both.
I can't measure up to Homer. His composition has survived for nearly three millennia and remains the world's most beautiful and mournful depiction of war. But the story of the Trojan War does not belong to Homer. The characters he employs were legendary long before he was born.
I sound like Homer. I mean Winslow Homer.
Yes, and there were changes of light on landscapes and changes of direction of the wind and the force of the wind and weather. That whole scene is too important in Homer to neglect.
Only the madman is absolutely sure.
If I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.
Homer was able to give us no information relating to the truth, for he wrote of human rather than divine things.
No opposing quotes found.