Who killed Homer (again)?

 

 

Democratic Patriotic Popular Movement NIKI   

Over the past few days, a major debate has erupted across social media, following rumors that Christopher Nolan’s highly anticipated Odyssey closely follows the queer reinterpretation of classical antiquity. It has leaked, though without any official confirmation yet, that Achilles may be portrayed by Ellen Page (the actor who transitioned and is now known as Elliot Page), while Helen of Troy may be played by Lupita Nyong’o, a Black actress.

These choices, if they are indeed true, are the product of an ideological fixation that wages war against anything connected to tradition, inherited truth, and the fundamental anthropological patterns of Greek (and consequently Western) civilization. The West is essentially choosing to renegotiate its relationship with the past on entirely new terms. Who could forget the uproar caused by the BBC’s Troy series, which cast the Black actor David Gyasi as Achilles? Moving in the same direction is the translation of Emily Wilson on which Nolan reportedly based his adaptation. A translation that aspired to become an ideological “correction” of Homer, “cleansing” him of words and meanings associated with patriarchal and androcentric readings. Humanity, it seems, found in Wilson the moral courage willing to confront the “corruption” of a work that, for 2,700 years, had supposedly corrupted the souls of the young including Alexander the Great himself, who famously kept the Iliad at his bedside.

The frenzy of identity politics has flooded public discourse, public space, art, and universities alike, with insatiable expansionist tendencies. But why does it insist on staking its claim on ancient Greek civilization as well? Why does it desire an Achilles stripped of his epic heroism and of the form that once inspired terror in the Trojans? To answer this question, we must understand that Homer belongs to the foundational myths of Western civilization. Through his work, the West reflected upon heroism, glory, honour, death, fate, courage, the historicity of virtue, and the tragic nature of human existence. But once you shift the center of gravity toward sexuality, you deconstruct the founding myth in order to renegotiate your identity, to gain control over the cultural imagination of both the present and the future.

The argument usually made in favor of such interventions is the “freedom of art.” But how free can art truly be when it moves almost exclusively in one direction? When Hollywood, universities, cultural institutions, platforms, and state funding all converge around the same ideological pattern? Could it be that this supposed “nonconformity” has itself become a new form of cultural imperialism? An imperialism in which anything traditional must be branded outdated, morally inferior, and stripped of legitimacy.
We have reached the point where the freedom of Art means freedom only for those who call themselves progressive, whose mission is to “moralize” tradition by reconstructing it according to their own ideological obsessions. And so texts are censored, comedies are silenced, reactions are suppressed, historical truth is forgotten, and a new past is manufactured without the consent of the societies that inherited it.

In the end, the answer to the question posed by the book Who Killed Homer? is simple: those who insist, instead of reading Homer, on reading themselves into him. Those who, rather than engaging through Art with other worlds, transform it into a tool of perpetual self-affirmation.

And Homer is just one more victim. The greatest victim is the new generation, in whose consciousness will be inscribed a genderless, neutered Achilles, severed from the heroic ideal, from the era that he belongs to, from the anthropology he embodies. And he too will be added to the long line of “heroes” desecrated upon the masterpieces of humanity, solely in order to normalize the new kind of human being they are determined, at any cost, to impose upon us

Dr. Ioanna Stergiou
Head of Culture & Sports Thematic Group

From Ancient Hellenic to Romeiko Civilization

 

Ioannis Kon. Neonakis
Head of the Romeosyne Policy Department of NIKI

ΝΙΚΙ 

The transition of our Genos (sic) from Ancient Hellenic to Romeiko civilization constitutes a pivotal development in the historical course of our people. Countless scholars across generations have concerned themselves with this transition. Here we shall simply mention eminent contemporary thinkers, such as the late Professors Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Metallinos, Christos Yannaras, as well as the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios, Fr. Hierotheos Vlachos.

All human communities, sooner or later, are led to an inevitable, foundational regulation of relationships and modes of life, aimed at satisfying innate needs (nutrition, pleasure, health, security, companionship, religion, etc.). The concept of need is broad. It is not limited to the bodily sphere but extends also to the psychic dimension. The instinctive search for the divine, for example, and the consequent formation of religion by man, which psychologically secures the individual, belongs to this same cycle of need and its satisfaction. Communities formed for the purpose of meeting needs thus shape what may be called “societies of necessity.”

Over the course of history, and depending on particular parameters (power structures, political systems, division of labor, technological development, education, artistic cultivation, etc.), countless variations of this model have emerged. Yet their central axis and primary objective remains the individual and the satisfaction of his needs. The more impersonal the individual becomes and the greater the uniformity achieved within such a society, the more effectively regulation, control, and systemic equilibrium are ensured. Despite the significant achievements of such societies (primarily in technological advancement or artistic production), the greatest good one may hope to attain—rarely realized—is merely well-being: that is, the orderly and uninterrupted satisfaction of individual needs. And yet this is the limit. Such a society can never existentially liberate itself from the oppressive bondage of necessity, nor escape the darkness of corruption and the ultimate tyranny of transience and death.

Standing as an exception in its time, ancient Hellenism—after centuries of historical maturation—managed to approach, if only briefly, imperfectly, and fragmentarily, another mode of existence: another kind of society, described by ancient thought and by modern thinkers alike as the “society of the true,” or alternatively as a “relation-centered communitarian civilization.” Here, the primary axis of life was no longer the satisfaction of needs but rather the relationship between persons, the safeguarding of otherness, and the harmonious integration of persons into a novel body: the Ecclesia, understood as a mode of living and illumination of relationship. The Ecclesia of the Demos was not merely an electoral assembly, but a way of life and a manifestation of relationship as the supreme value. The healing of need was not abandoned but was integrated into the service of preserving and elevating personal communion. Though imperfect, this civilization of relationship fertilized the Hellenic soul and rendered it fertile ground for further developments.

What the Hellenic intellect had long awaited was fulfilled—indeed fulfilled in perfection—when the God of the Christians was revealed to the Hellenic world. For this God bestowed upon the Hellenic soul the two things it most deeply desired: freedom from all necessity and an inconceivable model of personal communion. This God possesses an incomprehensible freedom, subject to no limitation. His Incarnation constitutes a transcendence of nature itself, while His Resurrection constitutes liberation from the ultimate necessity of death. Yet most astonishing of all is this: this God is not merely a person who has relationships; He Himself is relationship. The God of the Christians is defined as relationship—indeed, as relationship of ecstatic love: an indivisible, loving, ontological unity of three persons (“without division”), without confusion or absorption of otherness (“without confusion”). The Hellenes received this God with joy and were intoxicated with the “sober intoxication” of revelatory light. They tasted and celebrated the endless feast of the ecclesial event and sought, as far as they were able, to shape their relationships—both individually and collectively—according to the Trinitarian mode of “without confusion and without division.” Thus Hellenism evolved into a new way of life, into a new Hellenicity, into a new civilization: that of Romeosyne.

Much could be written concerning the specific elements and axes that constitute what we describe as Hellenic identity across time—elements of the “society of relationship” which existed in embryonic form within ancient life and found their full meaning and fulfillment within Orthodoxy. Here we shall confine ourselves to a concise presentation of certain central axes, using the formulation of the late Professor Fr. George Metallinos.

(a) A foundational element of Hellenic identity is religiosity as theocentricity. The Hellene is a theocentric being. He lives in constant reference to God. The Hellene was never atheist; rather, he always engaged in an unceasing quest for the true God. From Homeric times, the divine element permeates every aspect of daily life. This is precisely what led Saint Paul to describe the Athenians as “most religious,” that is, most reverent.

(b) The second element is ethics as humanism. Hellenic civilization affirms the human person, recognizes him, and honors him. Despite its shortcomings, it does not possess a racist spirit. It continually seeks truth and virtue, presenting moral exemplars and striving to educate toward the “good and noble.” It offers powerful paradigms of virtue, such as Antigone, who nearly touches Christianity itself.

(c) Simultaneously, Hellenism manifests a consciousness of the unity and universality of life. The Hellene affirms life in its entirety—all its dimensions, earthly and heavenly. He rejects nothing. This is what he would later proclaim more fully as a Christian: “Let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life unto Christ our God.” It is the affirmation and sanctification of life in its unbroken and ongoing journey.

(d) Hellenic civilization also possesses a profound awareness of the limits of human reason. It knows that human reason and human capacities are finite. Any transgression of these limits is understood as hubris. Hellenism never accepted any form of absolutized rationalism or the absolutization of reason. The absolutization of reason—or even further, the absolutization of efficiency (to use a modern term)—which today has been elevated to supreme value, is regarded by Hellenic civilization as deviation and dead end. This understanding would later be expressed most fully by the great Cappadocian Fathers and by Saint Gregory Palamas. Human wisdom is clearly distinguished from divine wisdom. The created can analyze only the created. The uncreated is revealed only within divine grace. The God of the Christians is not grasped intellectually but reveals Himself freely within the salvific body of the Church.

(e) A central place in Hellenic civilization is held by the communal understanding and communal experience of truth. Heraclitus expressed that truth is realized through participation. The Hellene has always believed that only by sharing—both his goods and his very being—does he live in truth. This is expressed among others in warmth of manner, joy of coexistence, philotimo, and the proverbial Greek hospitality.

(f) A sine qua non characteristic of Hellenicity is its powerful capacity for assimilation and transformation. Hellenism not only affirms otherness but rapidly absorbs and creatively transforms whatever the outside world offers—ideas, goods, structures. One recalls here Chrysostom’s phrase: “What is not assumed is not healed.” Historically, however, Hellenism assimilated only those elements compatible with its identity and tradition, elements that would not distort its unique character. Tragically, over the past two centuries, serving foreign interests, the political and academic elite imposed institutions that not only fail to correspond to our identity but actively oppose it, gravely distorting the people’s innate sense of authenticity.

(g) Finally, we mention the universality of Hellenism. Hellenicity is not confined to the artificial borders of a protectorate-state or Balkan province, as some seek to impose. It is a soteriological reality that concerns every human person. But this reception must be mature—within freedom, love, and light—not an imposed, chaotic “multiculturalism” engineered deceitfully by the rulers of this dark age. Hellenism united with all peoples partially through the light of the Hellenic spirit, and fully through the uncreated light of the eternal Pentecost, with Christ Himself as Shepherd. From the incomplete universality of Alexander the Great to the true universality of Saint Paul and Constantine the Great. From ancient Hellenicity to the new Hellenicity: Romeosyne.