Homer and the Homeric Question

[tomwaits]

I'm not a scholar of ancient Greece, but I'm kind of fascinated by the Homeric Question. Most scholars agree that the Iliad and Odyssey were not composed by one man, but were instead developed orally by bards over generations. But someone eventually wrote it down. And even though the bards didn't memorize the Iliad word for word, the poem is pretty damn long and it's hard for me to imagine total oral composition for a poem of such length. Did "Homer" take several poems floating around in the Greek bard tradition and combine them into two massive thematically-related epic poems? Or did he take a few small poems and created something huge, greatly expanding on them? Can we ever really know? Maybe someone with better knowledge of Greek can enlighten.

As an aside, where did the name "Homer" even come from? In edition of Hesiod's "Theogony" from Penguin Classics, the translator posits this theory in an endnote:

Quote:

'in harmony': the Greek is homereusai, which could, but does not, mean 'with Homeric voices'. Is it possible that here we find a clue to the meaning of Homer's name? The Homeridae (songs of Homer) were a guild of professional singers. Maybe their name originally meant 'harmonious men', 'sons of harmony', and the name Homer was invented for their eponymous founder, then applied to the author of the epics they sang. The major problem with this interpretation, of course, is that the Homeridae sang solo, but perhaps they originally sang in chorus, before they took to chanting Homer's popular works.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I'm not a scholar of ancient Greece, but I'm kind of fascinated by the Homeric Question. Most scholars agree that the Iliad and Odyssey were not composed by one man, but were instead developed orally by bards over generations. But someone eventually wrote it down. And even though the bards didn't memorize the Iliad word for word, the poem is pretty damn long and it's hard for me to imagine total oral composition for a poem of such length. Did "Homer" take several poems floating around in the Greek bard tradition and combine them into two massive thematically-related epic poems? Or did he take a few small poems and created something huge, greatly expanding on them? Can we ever really know? Maybe someone with better knowledge of Greek can enlighten.

I'm not familiar with how bards in an oral tradition remember and reproduce texts, but I'd imagine they at least memorize the flow of the story as well as significant passages.

(and I'd say it's not out of line that there were people who rote memorized the whole epic: after all, there are also people who rote memorize the Quran which is of similar length).

But as far as improvising goes, I don't see how that would be a big problem. The "poem" part meant it was in meter, not that it rhymed. The Homeric poems use various formulas, such as "rose-fingered Dawn", "earthquaker Poseidon", "Odysseus with many ruses", "the wine-red sea" which help fill out the meter. Here and there words are modified by lengthening or shortening the vowels, or eliding an augment in a preterite tense so they fit the meter. And it's written in a mixture of Greek dialects.

As far as the structure goes, I'd say that indeed, the structure of the Odyssey allowed to tack on more stories, but that's purely my conjecture. (I don't know about the Iliad, haven't much read from that).

The Odyssey starts out with Telemachos, Odysseus' son, sailing to Nestor in Pylos, and there he hears how things went with the other Greek heroes after Troy. So there's an opportunity to tack on the one or the other story about the various heroes.

Next, the Gods order Calypso to release Odysseus and let him sail home. He shipwrecks and arrives at the island of the Phaiacians. There, in a giant flashback, he relates to Nausikaa's father and his court all his adventures since he sailed from Troy. Those are all pretty loose stories, so yes, it's entirely possible the number of stories grew over time.

And finally, the Phaiacians give him a lift home, Odysseus meets his son and together they plot to get rid of Penelope's suitors and he reunites with her.

[tomwaits]

Well, the difference between Homer and the Quran is that the Quran is sacred scripture, whereas Homer's poems are not. Greek bards did not have any incentive to memorize the traditional poems word for word.

But I was referring mainly to composition, not memorization. In the US, traditional folk tunes have evolved over generations, most of them borrowing melody and lyrics from European folk songs. Once those folk tunes were recorded and distributed, that evolving process stopped. Similarly, once the Iliad and Odyssey were written down, the evolution of the poems stopped. That's really the analogy I look to when thinking about Homer, and I guess I just find it hard to believe that one traditional folk poem can somehow expand to over 15,000 lines. It's certainly within the realm of possibility, but I'm skeptical.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Well, the difference between Homer and the Quran is that the Quran is sacred scripture, whereas Homer's poems are not. Greek bards did not have any incentive to memorize the traditional poems word for word.

They may have had once they became so famous that there were matches in reciting Homeric poetry (which happened in the 6th C. BC).

Originally Posted by tomwaits

But I was referring mainly to composition, not memorization. In the US, traditional folk tunes have evolved over generations, most of them borrowing melody and lyrics from European folk songs. Once those folk tunes were recorded and distributed, that evolving process stopped. Similarly, once the Iliad and Odyssey were written down, the evolution of the poems stopped. That's really the analogy I look to when thinking about Homer, and I guess I just find it hard to believe that one traditional folk poem can somehow expand to over 15,000 lines. It's certainly within the realm of possibility, but I'm skeptical.

I understand, and I do not know of scholarly debate on this. But as I said, the middle part of the Odyssey consists of a sequence of consecutive adventures that Odyssey had on his journey: the Lotophages, the Cyclops, Scylla and Charbidis, etc. I could see how these stories developed independently, or first were attributed to someone else, and were subsequently subsumed in the whole Odyssey.

An idea might be to look at the number of ships and the number of men Odysseus had. Those numbers are mentioned a couple of times, IIRC. A discontinuity there might give a hint to that. After all, with most adventures he lost ships or men or both.

[tomwaits]

Originally Posted by ddt

They may have had once they became so famous that there were matches in reciting Homeric poetry (which happened in the 6th C. BC).

Right, but the poems had been written down somewhere in the 8th century BC. By the 6th century, they had become so popular and revered that they were on the level of Shakespeare. The Greeks would debate it, argue parts of it, dispute the historicity of it, but they couldn't change it because it had been set in stone. The real question is how it was composed during the dark ages: 13th to 9th century bc. I don't think we'll ever get a real answer though.

Quote:

I understand, and I do not know of scholarly debate on this. But as I said, the middle part of the Odyssey consists of a sequence of consecutive adventures that Odyssey had on his journey: the Lotophages, the Cyclops, Scylla and Charbidis, etc. I could see how these stories developed independently, or first were attributed to someone else, and were subsequently subsumed in the whole Odyssey.

An idea might be to look at the number of ships and the number of men Odysseus had. Those numbers are mentioned a couple of times, IIRC. A discontinuity there might give a hint to that. After all, with most adventures he lost ships or men or both.

I remember when I first read the Odyssey and I was kind of surprised at how modern it seemed because of the nonlinear narrative. Homer starts in the middle of the story, Odysseus doesn't even show up until book 5, and he doesn't begin his tale until book 9. And then, the "real" story as I see it doesn't begin until he lands at Ithaca in book 13. I think you are right that the logical conclusion is that these are all separate stories that were sort of clumsily compiled together into one grand tale, which kind of darts all over the place until it finds its focus in the last act. I also seem to recall that there's a question about the authenticity of Book 24, but I don't remember why.

[Soapy Sam]

It was Roger Bacon.
Or Roger Francis.
Or Dick Francis.
Or somebody.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

Right, but the poems had been written down somewhere in the 8th century BC. By the 6th century, they had become so popular and revered that they were on the level of Shakespeare. The Greeks would debate it, argue parts of it, dispute the historicity of it, but they couldn't change it because it had been set in stone. The real question is how it was composed during the dark ages: 13th to 9th century bc. I don't think we'll ever get a real answer though.

I don't think we will either. The Greeks themselves didn't know, and they discussed such things extensively already. And there's no chance in hell we'll get archaeological clues about an oral tradition.

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I remember when I first read the Odyssey and I was kind of surprised at how modern it seemed because of the nonlinear narrative. Homer starts in the middle of the story, Odysseus doesn't even show up until book 5, and he doesn't begin his tale until book 9.

Don't forget the frame story of Odysseus telling his own adventures as another "modern" narrative device.

Originally Posted by tomwaits

And then, the "real" story as I see it doesn't begin until he lands at Ithaca in book 13. I think you are right that the logical conclusion is that these are all separate stories that were sort of clumsily compiled together into one grand tale, which kind of darts all over the place until it finds its focus in the last act. I also seem to recall that there's a question about the authenticity of Book 24, but I don't remember why.

The German wiki page on the Odyssee mentions also this as the general consensus - no references though. I have to object to the word "clumsily" though. Despite the probably disparate sources, there is a unity of character, and the structure of the story helps to up the suspense.

[Lucian]

Have you read The Singer of Tales by Alfred Lord? If you're interested in oral composition, that's a good place to start.

ETA Oops, that's not the most recent edition, but there is a link on the page to it. Walter Ong's Orality and Literacy might also be useful. http://www.amazon.com/Orality-Litera...8215174&sr=1-1

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm sorry, I've wandered into the wrong thread by mistake.

DOH!!!!

[tomwaits]

I'm generally familiar with Lord and Parry's work, given that it has fundamentally changed the field of Homeric scholarship. But I have not actually read this book. I suppose I should...

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I'm generally familiar with Lord and Parry's work, given that it has fundamentally changed the field of Homeric scholarship. But I have not actually read this book. I suppose I should...

See my ETA above concerning Walter Ong's work. John Miles Foley has also made important contributions to the study of oral theory (and--holy crap--he just died).