Rediscovering Homer By Andrew Dalby

[Viggen]

Another review has been completed for our Roman Books section, thanks to community member Pantagathus.

 

I am one of those people who secretly thinks that every epic adventure that has been penned since the Odyssey is just second rate literary counterfeiting. I first read both the Iliad and the Odyssey outside an academic environment and most of the commentary I've read since those first readings has usually been by other ancient writers...

 

...read the full review of Rediscovering Homer by Andrew Dalby

[Ursus]

Great review, Pentagathus.

 

And congratulations to Mr. Dalby.

[Pantagathus]

Thank you Ursus,

 

As I told Andrew via PM, writing this one made me a bit anxious.

[Pertinax]

A thorough, lucid review. Its a shame that ADs detractors didnt actually read it before commenting.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm wondering if our resident experts can help me on this: Why is both the Iliad and Odyssey attributed to the same person? They seem quite different to me, both stylistically and substantively.

[Andrew Dalby]

I'm wondering if our resident experts can help me on this: Why is both the Iliad and Odyssey attributed to the same person? They seem quite different to me, both stylistically and substantively.

Don't know if I count as an expert ... Yes, of course, it's one of those (many) big problems about the Iliad and Odyssey. In earliest times (say before 450 BC), Greeks used to attribute many epics to Homer -- not just these two. Later (e.g. after Alexander the Great, by scholars at the library of Alexandria), as the epics began to be studied in a more "scientific" way, it was generally accepted that several singers must have been involved. It was still nearly always assumed that Homer composed the Iliad; the majority continued to believe that Homer was responsible for the Odyssey too, because these two epics are fairly consistent linguistically, even though, as you say, there are plenty of stylistic and thematic differences.

 

In more modern times, especially in the 19th century and especially in Germany, there was a fashion to take the Iliad and Odyssey to pieces and postulate that they were composed by a succession of writers; beby now it was generally assumed that the poet(s) used writing).

 

In the 20th century there were reactions against this approach, for two successive and contradictory reasons. One reason was that the Iliad and Odyssey are so good, so well-constructed overall, that it seemed counter-intuitive to theorise that they are a patchwork composed by many authors and editors. People who took this line tended to go back to the traditional view that Homer wrote both. But meanwhile, in the 1930s, Milman Parry and other scholars working on oral poetry showed that oral composition and transmission is quite different from written composition, and that the Iliad and Odyssey showed every sign of oral composition (... except that, yes, they are in writing!)

 

People who took the Parry line were still left with difficult questions to answer: where and when were the poems written down, and where does Homer come in? There are several different answers to these questions, and it's probably now a large-ish minority, rather than a majority, who really honestly believe that one poet was responsible for both poems. I'm part of that minority, and I have tried in my book to give an explanation of why the Iliad and Odyssey have the differences that you observe ... but maybe that's enough for one post!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks, Andrew. Perhaps you could explain a puzzling passage that prompted my question. According to Book 8 of the Odyssey, the origin of the conflict between the Greeks and Trojans lay in the conflict between Odysseus and Achilles. Huh? That sure doesn't come through in the Iliad.

 

Here's the relevant passage:

The company then laid their hands upon the good things that were before them, but as soon as they had had enough to eat and drink, the muse inspired Demodocus to sing the feats of heroes, and more especially a matter that was then in the mouths of all men, to wit, the quarrel between Ulysses and Achilles, and the fierce words that they heaped on one another as they gat together at a banquet. But Agamemnon was glad when he heard his chieftains quarrelling with one another, for Apollo had foretold him this at Pytho when he crossed the stone floor to consult the oracle. Here was the beginning of the evil that by the will of Jove fell both Danaans and Trojans.

[Pantagathus]

People who took the Parry line were still left with difficult questions to answer: where and when were the poems written down, and where does Homer come in? There are several different answers to these questions, and it's probably now a large-ish minority, rather than a majority, who really honestly believe that one poet was responsible for both poems. I'm part of that minority, and I have tried in my book to give an explanation of why the Iliad and Odyssey have the differences that you observe ... but maybe that's enough for one post!

I

[The Augusta]

Great review, Pan - and it so obviously came from the heart, which I have always believed has as legitimate place as any in a review. I look forward very much to picking up a copy of Andrew's book.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In regards to the passage in question (Odyssey Book 8 lines ~75-80) I've always considered that passage the mention of 'a quarrel' not 'the quarrel' that the Iliad begins with. They all seemed to like bickering... Remeber Ajax & Odysseus & their famous quarrel.

 

Right, they're two different quarrels. It seems like the author of the Iliad had one quarrel in mind as the source of the war, and the author of the Odyssey had another quarrel in mind as the source of the war.

[Pantagathus]

Right, they're two different quarrels. It seems like the author of the Iliad had one quarrel in mind as the source of the war, and the author of the Odyssey had another quarrel in mind as the source of the war.

I really do see where you are coming from. However, this could be more of literary device than a faux pas. Also, you/we are judging it based on a translation not the original Greek.

 

In Greek the line about the Odysseus - Achilles quarrel (which has some un-tranlated word fragments in it...) begins with what in my rudimentary understanding of Greek means something like, "Thus, at some unknown point in time" it goes on to mention the strife. (I would post the Greek word but the forum doesn't seem to want me to do it at the moment)

 

Could be that the original intention of the author of the Odyssey was to refer to when Odysseus went to get Achilles to stop acting like a girl (literally!) which was the real key to setting the events of the Iliad in motion and also what the oracle refered to (the Greeks not being able to win the war without Achilles). More than likely that key point was a casualty of centuries of copying and then millennia later to translation and it seems the author of the Odyssey has made a mistake about the quarrel over Briseis. This seems especially likely since one finds the Greek word in the text which refers to coming into manhood.

 

Andrew, your thoughts?

[Andrew Dalby]

Right, they're two different quarrels. It seems like the author of the Iliad had one quarrel in mind as the source of the war, and the author of the Odyssey had another quarrel in mind as the source of the war.

I really do see where you are coming from. However, this could be more of literary device than a faux pas. Also, you/we are judging it based on a translation not the original Greek.

 

In Greek the line about the Odysseus - Achilles quarrel (which has some un-tranlated word fragments in it...) begins with what in my rudimentary understanding of Greek means something like, "Thus, at some unknown point in time" it goes on to mention the strife. (I would post the Greek word but the forum doesn't seem to want me to do it at the moment)

 

Could be that the original intention of the author of the Odyssey was to refer to when Odysseus went to get Achilles to stop acting like a girl (literally!) which was the real key to setting the events of the Iliad in motion and also what the oracle refered to (the Greeks not being able to win the war without Achilles). More than likely that key point was a casualty of centuries of copying and then millennia later to translation and it seems the author of the Odyssey has made a mistake about the quarrel over Briseis. This seems especially likely since one finds the Greek word in the text which refers to coming into manhood.

 

Andrew, your thoughts?

Sorry to have gone quiet today -- I've been out on a local history excursion, looking at obscure French chateaux and not thinking about Achilles or Odysseus at all!

 

One big argument (I think) in favour of one author for both poems goes like this (this is summarized from pp. 112-113 of my book).

 

If the Odyssey were by a poet who saw himself as in any way competing with, emulating or improving on the Iliad, you would expect at least some minor episode in the Iliad to be taken up and retold in a better way -- just as a demonstration. That never happens.

 

Instead, the Odyssey works remarkably well as a sequel to the Iliad because it avoids repeating any stories. In spite of all its flashbacks, not even the smallest episode is narrated in both poems. An example I use is that, as MPC has said, one of the songs of Demodokos about the Trojan War, outlined in the Odyssey, is about the quarrel of Achilles and Odysseus (an episode not mentioned in the Iliad). What's more, the Odyssey actually helps to fill in any gaps left by the Iliad. An example is that the other song of Demodokos on a Trojan War theme is about the Trojan Horse (which can't be told in the Iliad because it happened after the end of the Iliad story).

 

There's more still. The Iliad and Odyssey each contain internal contradictions and loose ends. That's not surprising from an author who must have been close to oral composition methods. It's to be expected, in fact. But, strangely, there are practically no true contradictions between the Iliad on one side and the Odyssey on the other. Practically nowhere where, in reading the Odyssey, you can say: that can't have happened if we believe the Iliad. Now, how can it be that there are no contradictions of that kind? My answer is: because the author of the Iliad had had twenty or thirty years to re-read his/her own work (a very unusual activity at that period) and was totally familiar with it -- and was then commissioned to compose the Odyssey.

 

I have already half given away my answer to MPC's last point -- about the purpose of telling the Quarrel story. I don't think it was ever meant to be a retelling of the Embassy-to-Achilles story, or of the Dispute-over-Briseis, because those stories are already told in the Iliad and the Odyssey doesn't duplicate the stories in the Iliad. No, I think it's meant to be a different story (one that we haven't heard of from any other source, but then, we aren't regular listeners to early Greek epic poets) and the main requirement was that it had to be one that would make Odysseus regret the past, and thus begin to betray his identity.

 

One last point (I aim for short posts, but this topic seems to require long ones!) The translation that MPC quotes is (I think) misleading. In Odyssey 8, lines 79-82, it has "for Apollo had foretold him this at Pytho when he crossed the stone floor to consult the oracle. Here was the beginning of the evil that by the will of Jove fell both Danaans and Trojans." which allows one to understand that the quarrel of Odysseus and Achilles was the beginning of the evil. But that would be a strange misunderstanding of a very well-known story: the apple, and the Judgment of Paris, and Aphrodite's promise were the beginnings of the evil, and surely everyone knew that. The translation ought to be more like "... to consult the oracle; for at that time the beginning of the sorrows that afflicted Trojans and Greeks by great Zeus's will was already approaching." -- i.e. at the time when Agamemnon consulted the oracle.

[ASCLEPIADES]

There's more still. The Iliad and Odyssey each contain internal contradictions and loose ends. That's not surprising from an author who must have been close to oral composition methods. It's to be expected, in fact. But, strangely, there are practically no true contradictions between the Iliad on one side and the Odyssey on the other. Practically nowhere where, in reading the Odyssey, you can say: that can't have happened if we believe the Iliad. Now, how can it be that there are no contradictions of that kind? My answer is: because the author of the Iliad had had twenty or thirty years to re-read his/her own work (a very unusual activity at that period) and was totally familiar with it -- and was then commissioned to compose the Odyssey.

 

I

Hi. Mr. Dalby. If the lack of true contradictions between the Iliad and the Odyssey is an argument for a common authorship, I would expect that the presence of internal contradictions would be an argument for multiple authorships of both books. What do you think about it?

[M. Porcius Cato]

This is an enlightening discussion. Not having Rediscovering Homer at hand, forgive me if I'm going over old ground.

 

If the Odyssey were by a poet who saw himself as in any way competing with, emulating or improving on the Iliad, you would expect at least some minor episode in the Iliad to be taken up and retold in a better way -- just as a demonstration. That never happens.

That's a good observation--the lack of direct overlap rules out the competing poets explanation, but it doesn't quite support an identity between the authors of the two works. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the Book of Joshua doesn't overlap with its prequel (Deuteronomy), but I'm not convinced they were written by a single author either (that, at least, is the traditional view: Moses as author of the Pentateuch, Joshua as author of the book bearing his name). Moreover, Joshua works as a pretty good sequel to Deuteronomy too. Why not view the Iliad and Odyssey as being similar to Deuteronomy and Joshua?

 

The Iliad and Odyssey each contain internal contradictions and loose ends. That's not surprising from an author who must have been close to oral composition methods. It's to be expected, in fact. But, strangely, there are practically no true contradictions between the Iliad on one side and the Odyssey on the other. Practically nowhere where, in reading the Odyssey, you can say: that can't have happened if we believe the Iliad. Now, how can it be that there are no contradictions of that kind? My answer is: because the author of the Iliad had had twenty or thirty years to re-read his/her own work (a very unusual activity at that period) and was totally familiar with it -- and was then commissioned to compose the Odyssey.

 

Another fascinating observation. What's interesting about your Single Author explanation, however, is how it assumes (and provides an additional explanation for) the Single Author having two states of mind when composing the two different works. Again, the evidence seems equally consistent with the Two Authors explanation.

 

The translation that MPC quotes is (I think) misleading. In Odyssey 8, lines 79-82, it has "for Apollo had foretold him this at Pytho when he crossed the stone floor to consult the oracle. Here was the beginning of the evil that by the will of Jove fell both Danaans and Trojans." which allows one to understand that the quarrel of Odysseus and Achilles was the beginning of the evil. But that would be a strange misunderstanding of a very well-known story: the apple, and the Judgment of Paris, and Aphrodite's promise were the beginnings of the evil, and surely everyone knew that. The translation ought to be more like "... to consult the oracle; for at that time the beginning of the sorrows that afflicted Trojans and Greeks by great Zeus's will was already approaching." -- i.e. at the time when Agamemnon consulted the oracle.

 

Wow! That really makes a difference! I was relying on the old Butler translation, but your version implies no contradiction between the two books.

 

While we're on the topic, I did have another reason to suspect Two Authors, and that's the factor of time. It seems like the events of the Iliad could take place without implying weird ages for the participants. But if we take them together (I've heard), the events of the two books suggest that Helen returned to Greece at age 70 or something. Maybe I'm mangling this, but if we assume that the author of the Odyssey were attempting to AVOID contradiction with the Iliad (for whatever reason), mightn't the author be more likely to catch overt contradictions than implied contradictions? Moreover, it seems like a second author would be more likely to commit implicit contradictions than would a single author. If this is right, then couldn't we use the prevalence of implicit contradictions as a way of inferring whether there were one or two authors?

[Andrew Dalby]

There's more still. The Iliad and Odyssey each contain internal contradictions and loose ends. That's not surprising from an author who must have been close to oral composition methods. It's to be expected, in fact. But, strangely, there are practically no true contradictions between the Iliad on one side and the Odyssey on the other. Practically nowhere where, in reading the Odyssey, you can say: that can't have happened if we believe the Iliad. Now, how can it be that there are no contradictions of that kind? My answer is: because the author of the Iliad had had twenty or thirty years to re-read his/her own work (a very unusual activity at that period) and was totally familiar with it -- and was then commissioned to compose the Odyssey.

 

I

Hi. Mr. Dalby. If the lack of true contradictions between the Iliad and the Odyssey is an argument for a common authorship, I would expect that the presence of internal contradictions would be an argument for multiple authorships of both books. What do you think about it?

 

Yes, certainly, if we are talking about authors whose training and experience leads them to go over and re-edit their own work -- authors who work in a context where writing is inseparable from literary composition.

 

My argument (and I think others would agree with this) is that that's not the case here. The author of the Iliad was familiar with oral composition; the commission to compose something big to be written down was a strange new development. It was a good commission, and the author accepted it, but still composed in the oral way -- which implies that you don't edit. You can't. Editing is impossible. What's said is said. So, in long poems recorded in an oral context, there are always little contradictions. It's normal. It has nothing to do with multiple authorship.