The Homeric Question and the Oral-formulaic Theory

226 Pages·1980·5.043 MB·English

by  Minna Skafte Jensen

HOMERICQ UESTIONA ND
ΤΗΕ
ORAL-FORMULAICT HEORY
ΤΗΕ
OPUSCULA GRAECOLATINA
(SupplementaMusei
Tusculanι)
Edenda curavit Ivan Boserup
Vol. 20
HOMERIC QUESTION AND
ΤΗΕ
ORAL-FORMULAIC THEORY
ΤΗΕ
by
Minna Skafte Jensen
MUSEUM TUSCULANUM PRESS
COPENHAGEN 1980
For Lise, Signe,a nd Jonas
Ενα,
C> Muιeum Tuιculanum Preιa
Printed in
Special-Trykkeήet a-ι Viborι
Lay-out and typinJ: Palle G. Andenen
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11 The Frame of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The selection of mateήal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Which literaιy forms are comparable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
How valid is the oral theoιy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
111 Quality as an Argument against Orality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Riιιd and the Odyssey compared to the Epic Cycle . . . . . 30
Compositoήal pattems in the Rilld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Premeditation and correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
IV Quantity as an Argument against Orality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Laιge-scale epics orally composed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The sociology of epic in the Riιιd and the Odyssey . . . . . . . . 51
The sociology of ancient Greek epic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
l..ength of the Riιιd and the Odyssey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
V Poetics as an Argument for Orality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Poetics of Serbian oral epic singers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Theoιy and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
Descήptions of singers in the Rilld and the Odyssey . . . . . . . 69
Infonnation οπ the poet's own ambitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Hesiodic poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
VI The Rilld and the Odyssey as Oral Dictated Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Lord's three degrees of oral composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
The process of dictation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5
11ιe tranιitίonal text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
The inίtiative fo r the m::ordίng in wήting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Vι I The Wήting of the llilld and the Odyuey in Sixth-Century Athens 96
11ιe teπninus post quem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
The t eπninus ante quem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Ο 1
of the Vulgate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Ηίιtοιy
Vιιι OralC ompoιίtion in the Sixth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
and reproduction in oral tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Creativίty
The singers in the Odyuey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
The rhapsodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
When was oral composition brought to an end in Greece? . . . 124
ΙΧ The ttD:...:.t rat e an D... • " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
ι;-ιaιa ~nsιon
Arguments pro et contra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
The evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Plutarch's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 136
theoιy
Ref to Homer in political disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
erenceι
lnterpolations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Homer brought to the mainland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 144
The of rhapsodic recitals at the Panathenaea . . . . 145
inιtitution
The coUectingo f Homer's poems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
TheR iad, the Odyssey, and the Cultural Policy of Pisistratus ... 159
Χ
The cultu ral policy of Pisistratus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Oral epic as a conveyor of ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 162
of Pisistratean Athens in the Riad and the Odyssey .. . 167
Markι
in Danish) .................. . 172
Danιk reιume (Summaιy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Noteι
Blbliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 189
Anclent Passageι Discussed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
General lndex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Appendix: Sourceι Re feπed to in Chapter ΙΧ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Table of the Evidence Discussed in Chapter
ΙΧ
Preface
The present book has been long in the making. the years 1964-
Duήng
67, while I held a scholarship at the University of Copenhagen, 1
worked Homer and Hesiod, studies that were published in part in
οη
Danish (Hovedlinier de sidste Artiers Homerforskning, Copenhagen:
ί
Gad 1968; Odysseus som fortaeller, Museum Tusculanum1 3, 1970, p.
27-39), and in part in English (Tradition and Individuality Hesiod's
ίη
Works and Days, et 21, 1966, p. 1-27). Since then,
Clιιssica Medilleνalill
1 have continued the study of archaic Greek hexameter poetry from
the viewpoint of the theory; generally just by keeping
oral-foπnulaic
the problematics mind, making notes and collecting for
ίη mateήal
further study, sometimes, when I was free from other duties, by con
centrating the subject. January and 1974 1 held an
οη Duήng Februaιy
Albanian state scholarship, which enabled me to attend oral epic singing
as well as to study the archives of the Institute of Folklore in Tirana.
This direct contact with a living tradition was much more important for
my approach to Homer than appears from the few pages of the present
book that refer to Albanian epic.
The readers I have had in mind while engaged in the present study
are both and scholars studying other oral traditions: there
Homeήsts
fore Greek and Latin quotations have been translated. Richmond
Lattimore's translations of the Rilld, the Odyssey, and Hesiod have
been used, and that of Apostolos Athanassakis for the
Ν. Homeήc
Hymns. a few occasions, where the point I wish to make is not
Οπ
revealed in these translations, 1 give my own pedantic version and
mention the fact in a note.
Where I engage discussion, 1 prefer to deal with one, or a few,
ίη
representative or specially important studies rather than an anony
mous of views. 1 do this both order to avoid to
seήes ίη attήbuting
scholars views they do not hold, and because I hope my own book
will be more readable this way.
ίη
7
Roman figures refer to songs from the Riad, Arabic ones to songs
from the Odyssey. 1n spelling ancient Greek and Roman names 1
follow The Oxford Classical Dictionary, e.g. Demodocus,
wήting
not Demodokos, even if the result may seem slightly old-fa shioned.
lf I speak of the poet of the Riad and the Odyssey in the singular,
it is for the sake of convenieiιce; 1 do not think we have the means to
decide if there was one poet for both or for each.
and colleagues have read the study or parts of it at
Fήends vaήous
stages of its and discussed it with me. For such help, special
progreσ
thanks are due to Antonio Aloni, 0ivind Andersen, Karsten
Fήis­
Jensen, Bengt Holbek, and J0rgen Raasted. They are not responsible
for any of the mistakes that may remain. 1 thank Michael Chesnutt
and J ennifer Dupuis-Paήs for coπecting the English; again, if eπors
remain, the fault is mine. 1 am grateful to the board of Opus
editoήal
culll Graecolatinap, articularly to lvan Boserup, for accepting the book
for publication in this Last, but not least, 1 thank Palle G.
seήes.
Andersen for his careful typing.
The Danish Research Council for the Humanities and the Faculty
of Arts of the University ofCopenhagen have defrayed the expenses of
for which I am thankful. 1 should like, also, to take this
pήnting,
opportunity to express my gratitude to the Cultural Committee of
Albania for the above mentioned scholarship, to the lnstitutes of
Folklore and of Literature and Language in Tirana, and above all to
Gjovalin Shkurtaj of the latter institute. Furthermore, 1 am indebted to
the University of Copenhagen where I was a student, where I held a
scholarship as a postgraduate, and where I have eamed my living during
the last decade; 1 am especially grateful to the lnstitute of Classics of
this university and to Johnny
Chήstensen.
8
1
Introduction
Ίhe aim of this study ίs to argue that the lliad and the Odyssey were
orally composed, and that their composition took place in the sixth
century B.C. on the initiative of Pisistratus.
Milman Parry was careful to emphasize that his demonstration of
the orality of the style did not mean that Homer
Homeήc necessaήly
was an oral poet (1); and in this, as in most other questions in the
field of humanities, no final proof can be given. But since Parry's
ideas became known to others than classicists, mainly through the
publications of Lord, they have influenced studies of other
Α. Β.
traditional literature, from the past as well as from the present, in a
way that can again be used by classicists; f olklorists and anthropolo
gists have become more interested in questions of oral
compositoήal
technique, and publications are now appearing in which Parry and
Lord's theory is tested in relation to other oral traditions than ancient
Greek and modem Serbocroatian epic. Studies are made of the function
of formula and theme in traditions with different poetic conditions,
or in prose; of the function of oral composition in societies of
vaήous
types; of the of the audience in the process of composition in
rόle
performance; of different published versions of a text; etc.
Today, therefore, a comprehensive mateήal ίs at the disposal of the
who wishes to view the questions in a
Homeήst vaήous Homeήc
comparative f ramework. ln the present work I wish to use such
mateήal
as an aid in some of the oldest established ques
answeήng Homeήc
tions. That of single or multiple authorship has been obviously and
elegantly solved by the theory of Parry: analytics and unitarians were
both the authorship multiple at the level of tradition, single
ήght, ίs
at that of individual performance. The questions to be discussed here
are, then: when, where, by whom, and for what purpose was this
single/multiple authorship realized.
9
At present, the virtually unanimous general about the
opιmon
and the Odyssey is that they were not composed orally, but by
Riιld
a poet building an oral tradition; that the introduction of
wήting οη
into Greece was in some way connected with Homer's
wήting oήgina­
lity; and that the Riod and the Odyssey were composed and c.
wήtten
700 B.C. This seems to me to be unacceptable. First, it is unnecessary
to assume that the poems were composed in if both language
wήting;
and style point to oral composition, the simplest theory to explain
the facts must be that they actually ,were orally composed. Το main
tain a composition is legitimate only if there are cogent reasons
wήtten
that exclude oral composition; and with composition in the
wήting
very solution to the question of or single authorship gets
mώtiple
lost. My next reason for finding general opinion to be unacceptable
is that there is nothing to indicate that the poet of the Iliad and of the
Odyssey was, or wanted to be, Finally, the assumption of
oήginal.
composition c. 700 B.C. is absurd when compared with what
wήtten
is known of the date of the introduction of into Greece; it
wήting
implies that one of the very things that the alphabet was used for
fιrst
was the of two huge poems, which be very
wήting woώd mateήally
problematic, and which inside a that was predominantly oral
cώture
would be a very unlikely project.
The present book falls into two main parts. After a preliminary
discussion of what it is legitimate to refer to for the kind of
mateήal
I make ( chapter 11), the first part is concerned with the
compaήsons
question of oral composition. The arguments against this viewpoint
are mainly of two types: the poems are so excellent as to surpass the
limits of oral composition, and they are too long for any oral perfor
mance; this argumentation is shown to be subjective and expressive
of a limited knowledge of the scope of oral poetry. lt is shown that
the and the Odyssey confonn very well to the poetics of oral
Riιld
epic, where the decisive factor is the story. Lord's theory that
tnιe
the poems are oral dictated texts is conftrmed, and it is underlined
that the initiative for recording oral epic poetry in nonnally
wήting
comes from outside the tradition; the story of a recension undertaken
by Pisistratus gives just such an outside initiative (chapters 111-VI).
The second part investigates the evidence for sixth-century Athens
10