That's a novel way to look at the two epics, which I found interesting. However, my view would be that, as Homer was finalising the form of the two epics at around 800BC, he was completing an oral tradition of probably a couple of centuries prior. So the long line of bards that collectively composed the two epics would have done so before the establishment of the alphabet, and would themselves have lived in times when the Greeks didn't have writing.
As for the earlier Linear B tablets, is it not possible that they hadn't discovered any? We didn't know about their existence until they were unearthed from ruins, ancient Greeks didn't mention them.
And besides, if only the palace scribes could write and read the Linear B symbols, it is fair to assume that kings and leaders of the greek armies didn't know how to write their names, only draw their own symbols.
And even if Homer and the other epic poets were aware of the newly introduced alphabet, how many people in their audience would be familiar with this new writing system that some greeks somewhere came up with? It was probably not yet part of the everyday life so as to resonate with people, and not so fancy sounding as "quantum" is for today's movies.
I do find your conclusion persuasive; that Homer deliberately omitted or downplayed writing or use thereof in order to make the characters and stories seem more 'heroic' or mythical to the literate world that Homer knew.
I would add additionally another consideration. Yes, writing was known and used by Homer's time:- but whether or not Homer was literally a blind bard they were working in a spoken delivery and tradition, and it is simply not very entertaining or engaging to relate the contents of a letter in spoken verse. We would much rather hear the words the heroes literally spoke to each other, and Homer might well contrive encounters between disparate characters rather than relate 'X sent Y message to Z' which is not very thrilling to relate.
Just as cinema is a visual medium (show, don't tell) poesy is an aural one!
There's no way to me the Odyssey was composed orally. It's impossible. It is a long novel, and like all novels required carefully planning, structuring, etc. You can't do all this on the fly orally. It had to be written down. No one was memorising all this either.
You have little faith in the human brain! But I also think the scholarly consensus in, say, 1900 would’ve been with you. Then the field of Homeric studies was upset by the findings and claims of Milman Parry, who found living poets able to recite oral works close to the length and complexity of the two epics. While people have certainly since tested and disputed the new view, Parry swung the majority of Homeric thinking over to orality. This was in combination with the recognition of stock phrases throughout the Iliad and Odyssey that seem like a poet’s strategy for making lines fit in a tight spot. Robin Lane Fox’s recent book Homer and His Iliad is a thorough and readable argument in support of Homer as an unlettered genius.
I know it's technically possible to *recite* a novel (though very rare), that's different to composing 120,000 words into a very detailed and intricate story.
You seem to imply that Homer used writing to fix the form of the poems in the VIII century, which is problematic under every respect.
Even if we assume a "fixation" of the text at such an early stage, it would have been mostly a (clever) stitch-up of pre-existing, orally transmitted material. Such an operation took place probably much later, and in any case the poems were not meant for reading (which was not the common medium for consumption of what we now call literature until the second half of V BCE), nor for recitation in their entirety (the case of the Panathenaia seems to be a VI century innovation, not the norm).
So the almost total absence of writing in the poems is not a way of reviving a mythical past, but very much the reality the audience of Homer lived in most of the archaic era.
That's a novel way to look at the two epics, which I found interesting. However, my view would be that, as Homer was finalising the form of the two epics at around 800BC, he was completing an oral tradition of probably a couple of centuries prior. So the long line of bards that collectively composed the two epics would have done so before the establishment of the alphabet, and would themselves have lived in times when the Greeks didn't have writing.
As for the earlier Linear B tablets, is it not possible that they hadn't discovered any? We didn't know about their existence until they were unearthed from ruins, ancient Greeks didn't mention them.
And besides, if only the palace scribes could write and read the Linear B symbols, it is fair to assume that kings and leaders of the greek armies didn't know how to write their names, only draw their own symbols.
And even if Homer and the other epic poets were aware of the newly introduced alphabet, how many people in their audience would be familiar with this new writing system that some greeks somewhere came up with? It was probably not yet part of the everyday life so as to resonate with people, and not so fancy sounding as "quantum" is for today's movies.
Very well said on all accounts!
I do find your conclusion persuasive; that Homer deliberately omitted or downplayed writing or use thereof in order to make the characters and stories seem more 'heroic' or mythical to the literate world that Homer knew.
I would add additionally another consideration. Yes, writing was known and used by Homer's time:- but whether or not Homer was literally a blind bard they were working in a spoken delivery and tradition, and it is simply not very entertaining or engaging to relate the contents of a letter in spoken verse. We would much rather hear the words the heroes literally spoke to each other, and Homer might well contrive encounters between disparate characters rather than relate 'X sent Y message to Z' which is not very thrilling to relate.
Just as cinema is a visual medium (show, don't tell) poesy is an aural one!
Well said!
“dating Homer (chronologically or romantically)”
Danny.
There's no way to me the Odyssey was composed orally. It's impossible. It is a long novel, and like all novels required carefully planning, structuring, etc. You can't do all this on the fly orally. It had to be written down. No one was memorising all this either.
You have little faith in the human brain! But I also think the scholarly consensus in, say, 1900 would’ve been with you. Then the field of Homeric studies was upset by the findings and claims of Milman Parry, who found living poets able to recite oral works close to the length and complexity of the two epics. While people have certainly since tested and disputed the new view, Parry swung the majority of Homeric thinking over to orality. This was in combination with the recognition of stock phrases throughout the Iliad and Odyssey that seem like a poet’s strategy for making lines fit in a tight spot. Robin Lane Fox’s recent book Homer and His Iliad is a thorough and readable argument in support of Homer as an unlettered genius.
I know it's technically possible to *recite* a novel (though very rare), that's different to composing 120,000 words into a very detailed and intricate story.
There's no writing in Canterbury Tales (as I recall) or Gawain. It says nothing about how literate was the society that enjoyed them.
You seem to imply that Homer used writing to fix the form of the poems in the VIII century, which is problematic under every respect.
Even if we assume a "fixation" of the text at such an early stage, it would have been mostly a (clever) stitch-up of pre-existing, orally transmitted material. Such an operation took place probably much later, and in any case the poems were not meant for reading (which was not the common medium for consumption of what we now call literature until the second half of V BCE), nor for recitation in their entirety (the case of the Panathenaia seems to be a VI century innovation, not the norm).
So the almost total absence of writing in the poems is not a way of reviving a mythical past, but very much the reality the audience of Homer lived in most of the archaic era.
I don't think I imply that, because I certainly believe it!