Some months ago, I recorded a vivid fantasy in which I saw the Homeric heroes Ajax and Epicles fighting under a blue sun and noted that this would explain Homer's famous "wine-dark sea."
Homer's "wine-dark sea" seems bizarre to us moderns, for whom wine is red and the sea is blue. Under a blue sun, though, the sea would not look any bluer than anything else, and "red" -- reflecting less blue light than any other visible color -- would be a close cousin to "dark."
Obviously, I don't really believe the Sun was ever blue, though, so Homer's sea remains a mystery.
Homeric Greek (like several other languages) apparently only had four basic color words -- black, white, red, and yellow. Of the four, black is obviously the best fit for the color of the sea, and arguably for "red" wine as well. (The color of tea is similarly ambiguous. The sort of tea that is called "black" in English is called "red" in Chinese.)
Basically red, or basically black? |
So it's not surprising at all that Homer would use the same color word -- black -- to describe both wine and the sea. Still, "wine-dark" is surprising. Many languages consider pink a shade of red and would call a pink piglet "red" -- but would they ever call it blood-red? Even if piglets and blood are both "red" in some languages, a piglet obviously isn't the color of blood and would never be described that way. We can see something similar in English. In Old English, as in modern Russian, there was a basic distinction between light blue (Russian голубой) and dark blue (Russian синий), similar to the distinction between pink and red. Modern English uses blue (originally meaning "light blue") for both -- but sky-blue is still used exclusively for things that are light blue like the sky, not dark blue like the sea. Homer's calling the sea "wine-dark" is precisely as strange as a modern English speaker calling it "sky-blue."
On the other hand, there's my wife, who (like my father) is incapable of distinguishing certain shades of blue (that of my eyes, for instance) from gray. At first I thought this was purely a linguistic phenomenon -- that she applied the label blue to a somewhat different range of colors than I did. Once, though, we were arguing over whether a particular blanket was blue (as it very obviously was!) or gray, and I said, "When I say gray, I mean the color of a mouse. Look at that blanket. Could a mouse be that color?" And she insisted that, yes, a mouse could be that color!
Grey as a mouse? |
10 comments:
I don't understand what the mystery is about. It seems to be based on the assumption that wine is always red, but "red wine" is not the only type of wine, there is also "white wine", which is actually a misnomer, because white wine has a distinct yellow-green tint. Perhaps this fact is not familiar to alcohol-avoiding mormons? The mystery can also be resolves by noting that algae and plankton can often give the sea an unusual color, including red.
Finally, there is the phenomenon of the sea appearing red when the sun is low on the horizon.
Certainly wine comes in different colors, but not blue, which is the normal color of the sea. The sea can appear to be different colors under different circumstances, but for Homer it is clearly the standard way of describing the sea and must refer to its usual appearance.
If "wine-looking" ("wine-dark" is actually a translator's inference) is to be used to describe things, it must refer to some single color. Everyone knows what "rose-colored glasses" look like, even though some roses are yellow. When Lord Peter Wimsey asked Harriet Vane to wear a "wine-coloured frock," she knew he didn't mean chartreuse. Whatever color Homer may have associated with wine, he thought that both the sea and oxen were that color, too, and I think we can agree that, outside of Paul Bunyan tall tales, oxen are never the color of the sea.
I am really intrigued by the vision. The sea looks blue when the sky is blue: the sea is reflecting the sky. It looks grey-green when the sky is overcast.
In a blue sun, ceteris paribus, things that look blue now would look white. In other words, blue would be indistinguishable from white. But it makes me wonder (1) what colour the sky would appear if the sun were blue and (2) if it is even possible given the logic of the warm and cool colours respectively as outlined by Goethe’s colour theory. The sun could only look blue if the earth were the source of infinite light and the sun a kind of etheric void.
@Max
"The sun could only look blue if the earth were the source of infinite light and the sun a kind of etheric void."
I'm not sure what theory of Goethe's this is based on, but many stars do appear blue, so it's obviously possible. My understanding, based on the theory of black-body radiation, is that if the Sun were twice as hot, it would be as blue (but only as blue) as Rigel. If you mean a purely blue Sun, emitting only blue wavelengths, then yes, that's impossible. For stars, anyway. I can't speak for etheric voids.
Am I missing something, or why the assumption that "wine-dark" refers to colour? Why not something like shade or opacity, or (lack of) clarity? Or maybe something more poetic, evoking an intoxicating, sleepy depth?
My goodness, how did I attract a fellow lojban-liker to my blog without ever writing a single word in or about lojban?
cmalu munje? I'm here via Bruce Charlton, but that's no explanation.
ci'izra!
Oh that's a good word, hadn't seen that one before.
Post a Comment