Speak, Memory

[jporter]

Sorry to take up bandwidth just to say this, but: Thanks alot! Does anyone
happen to know, off hand, the most widely accepted theory of when (where,
how) the Homeric epics found their way into written form, and if there were
more than one or even several ancient written versions, perhaps competing?

jody

> From: Dedalus <dedalus204 at mediaone.net>
> 
> 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
> 
>