Speak, Memory

[Dedalus]

A coupla thoughts, albeit in the fog of having celebrated the new year
with acquaintances just a short while ago . . .

jporter wrote:

> In their original productions/performances they were purely mnemonic,
> were they not, even the invocation of a particular muse, by a
> particular author/performer, would have been a mnemonic act, no? Any
> possible audience irritation over which muse might have been conjured
> at a particular telling, has to be conjecture offered from the luxury
> of the age of standardized reproductions, does it not?

The Muses were the nine daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne (memory) who
sang and danced at Olympian festivities.  Each Muse is now assigned to a
special department of the arts, but scholars regard this specialization
as a fairly late development:

Calliope --- Muse of epic poetry
Clio --- Muse of history
Euterpe --- Muse of the flute and Dionysiac music
Thalia --- Muse of comedy
Melpomene --- Muse of tragedy
Terpischore --- Muse of the dance and lyric poetry
Erato --- Muse of lyric poetry, hymns, and erotic poetry
Polyhymnia --- Muse of the solemn hymn and religious dance
Urania --- Muse of astronomy

For what it's worth, the Muse that John Milton repeatedly invokes
throughout _Paradise Lost_ is Urania (note the opening lines of Book
VII, for example).

As patrons of the fine arts, the Muses were often perceived as promoters
of the more civilized aspects of moral existence.  Consequently, the
Muses were frequently invoked in several millenia of artistic
expression, and remain reference points for painters and poets alike.

> If the performer invoked the daughter of memory by chanting a name,
> and the tale was well received, did the audience believe it was the
> muse which was supplying the tale, or the performer's memory?

Early Greek culture would have said it was the former.  Later Greek
culture, which began to view the various and sundry gods as
anachronistic and silly (cf. Aristophanes), probably leaned toward the
tale coming from the rhapsode himself.

> The invocation of Muses was, I'm speculating, not merely a convention
> at the time of the origination of the epics. If that were so, did
> audiences of the time really consider Homer to be The Author of the
> epics, or, just the best medium of the time for conveying The Myths.

Good question.  I don't know that I have a solid answer, other than what
I said above.  Since "Homer" (whoever she or he or they may be) is
considered part of the early tradition, I'd say they believed Homer to
be the medium thru which the tales were conveyed.  However, ancient
Greek tradition differs from, say, ancient Hebrew tradition in terms of
authorial import.  While the ancient Hebrews valued the tale over
authorship, several myths (sometimes contradictory) were woven into the
overal _chenta_ of the tale (which is why, for example, Genesis gives us
two contradictory creation myths).  Greek culture, on the other hand,
valued the authorship . . . hence, they no doubt also valued the
filtering process, thereby viewing the poet as a medium.

With champaign speculations and caviar queries,  I remain,

Dedalus