Talk:Homeric scholarship

Oral theory

Andrew Dalby's 9 July edit changed "it is entirely possible for epics as large as the Iliad and Odyssey to have been transmitted orally" to "... to have been created in an oral tradition". While I am personally inclined to agree with this, it (a) does not reflect scholarly consensus, and (b) was not, in fact, demonstrated by Lord and Parry. Lord in particular certainly argued in favour of oral creation, that is true; but probably fewer than a quarter of all Homerists would accept his views without qualification. Parry and Lord did however demonstrate, beyond almost anyone's capacity to doubt, that oral transmission of 16,000-line poems is in principle possible. This is important because it was one of the primary concerns to 19th-century Homerists in the wake of Wolf; it still remains a counter-intuitive stumbling-block for some people. It's debatable which of the two is more important, of course -- transmission or creation -- but from a historical point of view, transmission was definitely the bigger issue. Just to give one example to demonstrate the lack of consensus, the semi-oralist Martin West, who is among the five most influential Homerists in the world, strongly disagrees with the idea of oral creation (at least as of 2003); he would happily accept oral transmission, however; Latacz seems to have mixed views, but is certainly more interested in transmission than creation; and I get the impression that Kullmann hates the idea of oral creation. I have therefore changed the text back. Petrouchka 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to wait a day or two and see what others say. But the Parry material demonstrates, with plenty of examples of all kinds, that in the South Slavic traditions themes were transmitted but 16,000 line poems were not. The 16,000 line poem (there was only one) was created to Parry's request, not because he expected to show that such a monster could be transmitted orally (he didn't), but because he wanted to show that it could be created by an oral poet. (Its origin was a short written text that Avdo Međedović's neighbour once read to him.) In general, during the Parry-Lord fieldwork, each time a theme was requested, a different poem was produced. There was no transmission of poems. I fear the "scholarly consensus" mentioned, if it exists, is of scholars who haven't yet got round to reading Parry and Lord. Or, perhaps, have some good reason for denying what Parry and Lord have shown -- but then we need to know what that good reason is.

So we can't leave in the article the implication that Parry and Lord showed that oral transmission of very long texts was possible, because they aimed to show, and thought they had shown, that it wasn't. Read them on this -- as far as this point is concerned, the scholarly consensus is irrelevant. If the scholarly consensus is that oral transmission of such long texts is possible, it will have to be attributed to other authorities. Andrew Dalby 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll weigh in to say that I don't think the current phrase "transmitted orally" is not an accurate depiction of Parry/Lord (at least in A Singer of Tales). Transmission of a poem, as we would typically think of it in scriptist terms, does not happen in the kind of oral-composing context P./L. studied. I mean, when we say "transmitted orally" it would seem to imply a fixity that is at odds with the oral poetic environment. If you re-define "transmitted" to mean "handed-down," then there is transmission (Nagy calls this mouvance). I do think that most scholars would, however, accept some notion of "transmission" along these lines. But, that kind of transmission has nothing to do with the poem of Avdo Međedović that Dalby mentions. That is a composition. I don't think it's ever transmitted to another poet.

More at issue with this section, "thanks to the sophistication and mnemonic power of the formulaic system in Homeric poetry, it is entirely possible for epics as large as the Iliad and Odyssey to have been transmitted orally;" is that the connection is faulty. Formulaic technique as explored and studied by P./L. is a tool for re-composition, not transmission. I think the point should go like this: it is entirely possible for epics as large as the Iliad and Odyssey to have been created in an oral tradition (though some still doubt poems of such complexity and design possible) [p.s., email me if my post doesn't appear to conform to standards in any way. I'm new.] Aithon 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Lord think that the poems had been dictated in the 8th c. and transmitted in writing after that point?

I agree with Aithon that the current description of P./L.'s views on formulae could use revision. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right about Lord and the dictation theory, as we call it, at least as far as it's laid out in Singer of Tales. But, late in his life, he wrote a paper where he essential changed his mind and said that the conditions of dictation that he and P. simulated with the Yugoslav singers did not actually result in naturally good poems. The best performances and poems thought were performed in their natural form, live. He thought that the dictated poems he wrote down were actual poor in comparison because the singer had to go slow or repeat himself and would lose his artistic focus. In other words, we began to doubt that dictation as such was a reasonable way for an oral epic to become written. But this is all really not important to point at issue here. Textual transmission is not something P./L. studied. --Aithon 03:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, that is the main point. But I haven't seen that late paper of Lord's: you whet the appetite. Dictation by illiterate poets had been his universal explanation for the writing-down of ancient and medieval oral epics. So, in his late view, how did the poems get written down if not by dictation? Andrew Dalby 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In view of these comments I have restored the wording (on the subject of what Parry, Lord and others demonstrated) to "it is entirely possible for epics as large as the Iliad and Odyssey to have been created in an oral tradition", and I've added a footnote reference to the poem created by Avdo Međedović at Parry's request which, Parry and Lord considered, proved this point. If anyone really does want to claim that Parry, Lord et al. showed that oral "transmission" of such poems was possible, feel free to add this -- but also footnote it! Andrew Dalby 21:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said my piece above, and have little more to add, other than (1) to restate my view that transmission is specifically of interest, simply because it was the idée fixe of 19th century scholars; and (2) to suggest that for the purposes of Wikipedia, whether Parry/Lord were right may well be relevant, but it inevitably leads off on tangents; what's important in my view is what contemporary Homeric scholars think of P and L's arguments. And that's very mixed, and always comes with loads of qualifications. Anyway, hic sto, aliter non possum. Cheers all, Petrouchka 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Scholia

What about the Odyssey Scholia? I was looking around at the Homer articles here on Wiki (I am a newbie, I haven't really edited before) and discovered that there is no mention made of them, even editions. Admittedly, the great majority of work is done on the Iliadic scholia... but I know of at least two edition of Odyssean scholia: Dindorf in two volumes (1855) and the more limited Scholia in Homeri Odysseaa A 1-309 Auctoria et Emendatoria of Ludwich (1888-90, republished 1966, with new forward by Erbse). We of course also have Eustathius as is mentioned elsewhere in the article. That's about the extent of my knowledge on the Odyssean scholia though. I'm going to try and make it through Erbse's "Vorwort" to the latter and see what I can learn. Here's what the Britannica 1911 has : " The Scholia on the Odyssey were published by Buttmann (Berlin, 1821), and with greater approach to completeness by W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1855)." Aithon 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I also notice that in the articles on Homer, Iliad and Odyssey the word scholia doesn't appear (even as a 'see also'), which is a bad sign. Anyway, if you cared to add what you can glean from Erbse, I'm sure that would be an excellent move. Andrew Dalby 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do a write-up on the Odyssey scholia in the initial version of the article because they're much less copious and much less interesting (except for a few isolated hotspots). Also they dwindle progressively and very conspicuously as the Odyssey progresses -- the scholia on book 1 are fairly substantial, but by the time you get to book 24 there's maybe one small comment every 50 lines or so. If someone has something interesting to say about them I certainly don't think it would be out of place. Petrouchka 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Whoever proposed the merger from Ancient accounts of Homer didn't explain, and didn't put any notice on that other article. Unless some explanation appears, I'll take the merger notice off again. These are two different subjects, I think. Andrew Dalby 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

It seems to have been a while on this article. I think that is because it is a good article, well-written and what-not. I have not checked it for plagiarism, which I will do at some point. Meanwhile the bibliography and additional reading go below the notes, so that the notes can make reference to the items via such devices as harvnb. I notice that the appropriate bibliography is actually located in the "Homer" articles, where it tends to choke the article with huge book lists. So, I plan to move that over here. This move is consistent with the "main" reference there to this article, and the fact that this article distinguishes neoanalysis, etc, where the "Homer" counterpart does not. Such a move will mean blending some of the items.Botteville (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements

• Purely in terms of quantity it is one of the largest of all literary sub-disciplines: the annual publication output rivals that on Shakespeare.

I searched these topics until I was blue in the face without being able to find any study or other mention of relative outputs. In "Who killed Homer" I read of the death of my former field, Classics, and I read of the gigantic output in publications, more than any classicist can possibly read. I did not see any comparisons. If you have the reference for this by all means put it back in; otherwise, it looks like someone's fine innuendo. If you put it back in, correct "on" to "of", as it has become ridiculous being repeated dozens if not hundreds of times on the Internet. "By their errors ye shall know them," as a certain professor who served in WWII used to tell his class.Botteville (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted site

I saw the Lundon web site at which Lundon invites you to load an alphabetical list of scholia minora. Apparently all forms of this site are blacklisted. It isn't worth taking a chance on. There's a list all right but it can't possibly comprise all the scholia minora. Better to leave it off. Other sites will turn up I am sure. Meanwhile I need to clean my system now.Botteville (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Scholia section rewrite

The first section on scholia is not too clear. On investigating it I find it is a hash of EB 1911 and WP editorial speculations. Before I get back to Homer I will rewrite this section using a recent source and a lot of blue links. In fact, I'm doing it offline now, will be ready before long.Botteville (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

More plagiarism

The section "Hellenistic Scholars and their Aims" heavily plagiarizes "The Hebrew Bible and Philosophy of Religion" By Jaco Gericke. The test passages I located are on p.43. Our article bulletized them but he wording is exactly the same. My theory is that this practice began with EB 1911. Once it was established that anyone could copy its articles or modify them, it was only a matter of time before other works were treated the same way. That is my theory. I will have to rewrite this section also working from independent sources. It will not be a rework. I will try to find good sources ancient and modern. The question is not whether I agree or disagree with the current section. I like it. I'm sure its author did also, and he isn't us. We have met the enemy and he is us, I think Pogo said.Botteville (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)