Homeric poetry

This book aims to provide the reader of Homer with the traditional knowledge and fluency in Homeric poetry which an original ancient audience would have brought to a performance of this type of narrative. To that end, Adrian Kelly presents the text of Iliad VIII next to an apparatus referring to the traditional units being employed, and gives a brief description of their semantic impact. He describes the referential curve of the narrative in a continuous commentary, tabulates all the traditional units in a separate lexicon of Homeric structure, and examines critical decisions concerning the text in a discussion which employs the referential method as a critical criterion. Two appendices deal with speech introduction formulae, and with the traditional function of Here and Athene in early Greek epic poetry.

Tsagalis, C., Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2008.01.25
Heath, M., Greece & Rome 55 (2008) 111–12
Clackson, J., Times Literary Supplement October 17 (2008) 33
Strauss Clay, J., Religious Studies Review 34 (2008) 289
Huxley, G. L., Hermathena 184 (2008) 93–5
Cook, E., Classical Review 59 (2009) 14–16
de Jong, I., Mnemosyne 62 (2009) 478–80
Blanc, A., Revue des études grecques 122 (2009) 237–9

This article argues that Homer's depiction of Odysseus in specifically bardic terms is an essential element in the self-presentation of the Homeric poet, in that it comprises the construction of an agonistic relationship with contemporary poets – as in the Hesiodic tradition – who deploy 'personal' details to bolster their claims to poetic authority.

This article reviews recent attempts to view the Dios Apate of Iliad Book 14 as essentially derived from (a series of) Ancient Near Eastern texts, and seeks to demonstrate that such attempts overplay supposed similarities and fail to understand the traditional construction of Homeric poetry in its Hellenic context. Interaction with Ancient Near Eastern traditions remains likely, but it is not to be reduced to an exercise in simplistic Quellenforschung.

L’isola di Delo è caratterizzata sin dalle più antiche attestazioni per l’aurea di benevolenza e ospitalità che la circonda. Unica, infatti, fra tutte le terre greche, accoglie Latona in cerca di un luogo per partorire i gemelli divini e tale caratteristica si applica anche al suo mitico archegeta, il sovrano locale Anio. Secondo diverse fonti, tra cui i Cypria e Simonide, questi accolse l’esercito acheo durante il tragitto verso Troia e le sue figlie, le cosiddette Oinotropi, lo sfamarono in occasione di una grave carestia. Tale benevolenza si estende anche al mare circostante, cosicché la rotta cicladica risulta oltre modo apprezzata dagli eroi greci nelle loro peregrinazioni, e può spiegare anche il motivo dell’inserzione della tappa delia nelle peregrinazioni di Enea.

Though Odysseus’ tales to Eumaios and Aninoos in Odyssey 14.199–359 and 17.417–44, respectively, are presented as fictional tales within Homer’s larger myth, some elements have striking analogs in Late Bronze–Early Iron Age reality.

This article examines these portions of the hero’s false ainoi within their fictive context for the purpose of identifying and evaluating those elements. Particular focus is given to Odysseus’ declaration that he led nine successful maritime raids prior to the Trojan War; to his twice–described ill–fated assault on Egypt; and to his claim not only to have been spared in the wake of that Egyptian raid, but to have spent a subsequent seven years in the land of the pharaohs, during which he gathered great wealth.

Through a comparative examination of literary and archaeological evidence from the Late Bronze–Early Iron transition in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is shown that these aspects of Odysseus’ stories are not only reflective of the historical reality surrounding the time in which the epic is set, but that Odysseus’ fictive experience is remarkably similar to that of one specific member of the ‘Sea Peoples’ groups best known from 19th and 20th dynasty Egyptian records: the ‘Sherden of the Sea.’

This book is the edited proceedings from the conference 'The Art of Stesichorus' held at St John's College, Oxford, on June 29–30 2012. Contributors include: Ewen Bowie (Oxford), Chris Carey (London), Patrick Finglass (Nottingham), Richard Hunter (Cambridge), Adrian Kelly (Oxford), Ian Rutherford (Reading), Gerson Schade (Berlin), Laura Swift (Open University), Martin West (Oxford).

Pelling, C., Classics for All 2015/08/11

In this paper, I argue that the traditional narrative of Iphigenia's sacrifice lies allusively behind the opening scenes of the Iliad (1.8-487). Scholars have long suspected that this episode is evoked in Agamemnon's scathing rebuke of Calchas (1.105-8), but I contend that this is only one moment in a far more sustained allusive dialogue: both the debate over Chryseis and her eventual return to her father replay and rework the sacrifice story. The Iliad begins by recalling the start of the whole Trojan war. [See https://twitter.com/Nellenist/status/1517245751679762435 for a brief summary of key points and please contact me for a correctly paginated offprint.]

This article argues that the reception of Homeric poetry in the lyric poets of the Archaic period is a process of evolution, in which evidentiary difficulty and the gradual development of intertextuality combine to make Stesichorus the first truly intertextual poet in the Greek tradition. Earlier interactions are, as far as we can tell, very limited, confined to mentions of basic plot or famous episodes, whilst even his exiguous fragments allow us to see Stesichorus engaging in a sustained and recreative manner with the entire Iliad and Odyssey. This is an uncorrected proof.

Héritage et souvenir de l’époque mycénienne, l’épopée grecque s’est progressivement enrichie de nouvelles valeurs sociales, apparues au cours des âges obscurs et de l’époque archaïque. De cette situation résulte un décalage évident entre le récit, éloigné des auditeurs dans le temps et l’espace, et le message sous-jacent, qui leur est parfaitement contemporain. Dès lors, l’épopée est en permanence le vecteur de l’identité hellénique.

Spekali, #6

The present paper discusses Aristotle's "Poetics" in the light of one significant aspect of the Homeric innovation. Taking into account the given source and modern Homeric conceptions, the author of the paper classifies  the distinguishing criteria of the oral and written stages, which supposedly existed within the perennial process of the formation of the "Iliad". By way of illustration of the above-mentioned Book 9 of the "Iliad" is analyzed.

Cet article propose de voir à quoi correspond, dans l’Antiquité, la catégorie d’ « épopée didactique » (ou « poésie didactique »), couramment utilisée par les savants modernes pour rendre compte d’œuvres comme les Travaux et les jours, le De rerum natura ou encore les Géorgiques, en opposition avec la catégorie d’« épopée narrative » (ou parfois simplement d’« épopée »), qui comprendrait les poèmes d’Homère, l’Énéide, etc. Une enquête anthropologique et pragmatique montre que la catégorie de « poésie didactique » n’existait pas chez les Anciens. Dans un deuxième temps, on essaie de voir à quel moment on commence à parler de « poésie didactique ».

This paper sketches out a history of ancient and modern discussions on the aesthetic “imperfection” of the Iliad and the Odyssey. The views of, among others, Horace, Pseudo-Longinus, F.A. Wolf, F.W. Nietzsche will be examined, as well as more recent evaluations of the Homeric poems. A passing comment by U. Eco will also inspire some reflections

Spekali, #10
At 9.198 of the “Iliad”, Achilles greets, perhaps, only three ambassadors, or his friends, in the dual; however, at 9.204 the same greeting is repeated in the plural. In the process of interpretation of the issue several questions arose. In order to answer these questions, there is a need to reevaluate the whole embassy scene, but, again, from the Unitarian standpoint.

La figure du héros épique est un excellent angle d’approche pour souligner la modernité de l’hellénisme. Car le héros épique, qui est une invitation permanente à se dépasser au-delà de soi-même, à transgresser toutes les frontières, à tendre vers l’universel, reste en même temps enraciné dans la plus profonde humanité.

Traduzione letterale, interlineare dell'inizio del nono libro dell'Iliade, versi 1-113. Si tratta dell'assemblea greca che apre il libro, fino al termine del primo discorso di Nestore, in cui l'eroe suggerisce ad Agamennone, e all'assemblea riunita, di cercare un modo per convincere Achille deporre la sua ira e tornare a combattere.
La traduzione è accompagnata da note e commenti tratti, come sempre, dall'edizione commentata dell'Iliade di W. Leaf, e dal commentario edito da G. S. Kirk (per quest'ultimo, il commento è di B. Hainsworth).

Counselors, councilors and ambassadors are often complementary figures, but from Homeric Greece to classical Sparta we know of certain characters like the hero Odysseus or the Spartiate Lichas who perform all of these tasks (i.e. deliberating, deciding and delivering the decision) personally. Starting off with the analysis of the relevant literary sources, this paper proposes to address the following questions: what does the triple function of these figures imply for their respective duties? Can these cases be considered to be representative for Homeric Greece and Classical Sparta?

This very short exegetical essay points out some Homeric echoes in Alcaeus’ Song 130 V. He laments his current situation that hinder him from the participation to the politikos bios, probably due to a temporary defeat of his hetaireia. Homeric linguistic-lexical features and allusions suggest that he wish to communicate to his listeners his identification with Achilles, who was also confined amongst girls on the island of Skyros. Just as failed Thetis’ attempt to impede Achilles to participate in the Trojan war and cover himself of glory in spite of death, in the same way this temporary hindrance will fail and Alcaeus will re-start fighting, covering himself of glory.

For the last 2,500 years literature has been attacked, booed, and condemned, often for the wrong reasons and occasionally for very good ones. ‘The Hatred of Literature’ examines the evolving idea of literature as seen through the eyes of its adversaries: philosophers, theologians, scientists, pedagogues, and even leaders of modern liberal democracies. From Plato to C. P. Snow to Nicolas Sarkozy, literature’s haters have questioned the value of literature―its truthfulness, virtue, and usefulness―and have attempted to demonstrate its harmfulness.

Literature does not start with Homer or Gilgamesh, William Marx says, but with Plato driving the poets out of the city, like God casting Adam and Eve out of Paradise. That is its genesis. From Plato the poets learned for the first time that they served not truth but merely the Muses. It is no mere coincidence that the love of wisdom (philosophia) coincided with the hatred of poetry. Literature was born of scandal, and scandal has defined it ever since.

In the long rhetorical war against literature, Marx identifies four indictments―in the name of authority, truth, morality, and society. This typology allows him to move in an associative way through the centuries. In describing the misplaced ambitions, corruptible powers, and abysmal failures of literature, anti-literary discourses make explicit what a given society came to expect from literature. In this way, anti-literature paradoxically asserts the validity of what it wishes to deny. The only threat to literature’s continued existence, Marx writes, is not hatred but indifference.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Words from Elsewhere
First Trial: Authority
Second Trial: Truth
Third Trial: Morality
Fourth Trial: Society
Conclusion
Notes
Acknowledgments
Index

This contribution draws attention to the rhetorical aspects of Homeric poetry. Recent scholarship has shown that speeches in the Iliad and the Odyssey display various patterns, techniques and strategies of persuasion that were in later times taught by Greek and Roman rhetoricians. The first part of this essay explores the complex relationship between Homeric poetry and classical rhetoric. The second part examines the rhetorical techniques of Polyphemus, the Sirens, Calypso and Odysseus. It is argued that a rhetorical perspective on Homeric speeches can inform and enrich the reading experience of the Odyssey. A few didactic applications are suggested.

In the Odyssey we find a description of Odysseus being recognized by his age-old and decrepit dog Argos, whom he he had reared and trained before his departure for Troia.

I will discuss this text passage with a focus on its function and intended effect on the listeners of the Odyssey and compare it to other descriptions of animals, especially dogs, in the Homeric epics.

Resumo: o artigo visa apresentar um modo de interpretação da personagem central da Odisseia por via de uma teoria da recepção focada no papel cocriador do recebedor. Está dividido em quatro partes: após a apresentação do problema, a segunda parte examina os passos-chave do poema (sobretudo dos cantos 9, 11 e 19) que embasam a argumentação da terceira, na qual são discutidos eventuais significados das ausências ou negações enformadas por Odisseu. A seção final argumenta pela possibilidade de leitura da Odisseia como um modo de ficção que não se perfaz nem como máscara nem como duplicidade, mas como alteridade radical em relação ao real. Palavras-chave: Odisseu; cocriação; estudos de recepção. Abstract: The article aims to present a way of interpreting the central character of the Odyssey through a theory of reception based on the co-creator role of the recipient. It is divided into four parts: after the presentation of the problem, the second part examines the key steps of the poem (especially of chants 9, 11 and 19) that support the argument of the third, in which are discussed possible meanings of absences or negations enformed by Odysseus. The final section argues for the possibility of reading the Odyssey as a mode of fiction that is neither mask nor duplicity, but as a radical alterity in relation to the real.