Ruth Scodel

Bardic Performance and Oral Tradition in Homer

As homeric epic represents epic performance, song is distinct from the narrative performances of characters who are not bards. Song, despite its traditional content, does not depend on oral tradition for its transmission, and singers, although members of the audience may request or object to a particular song, do not adapt their narratives for individual audiences. Much recent Homeric scholarship, however, minimizes differences between bardic and other narratives, treating Odysseus as epic poet and Demodocus or Phemius as narrators like Odysseus. This scholarship is not misguided or wrong. The epic poet identifies with his hero, and when the narrators point of view is close to that of Achilles or Odysseus, the distinction between character and poet may blur.1 Narratologically, there are many useful similarities between bardic and other narratives, and naturally scholars try to exploit these.2 Still, in emphasizing these aspects of Homeric poetics, we can too easily forget others. This danger is particularly strong where scholars have de? liberately ignored or deconstructed the distinctions Homer maintains in order to make visible those elements in the Homeric, literary context that represent possible historical relationships among performers, their traditions, and their audiences.3 These distinctions, precisely because

Epic facework : self-presentation and social interaction in Homer

Preface The Economy of Honor Gifts Managing Face Ransom and Revenge Remedial Exchanges Quarrel and Embassy Conclusion Bibliography.

THE SUITORS' GAMES

SCHOLARS DISAGREE ABOUT THE GOALS of Penelope’s suitors in the Odyssey—do they seek kingship, Odysseus’ property, Penelope herself, or some combination? This disagreement is unsurprising: different passages imply different goals. Twice the suitors speak of dividing Odysseus’ property (2.335–36, 16.384–86). In other passages, however, the kingship seems to be at issue; so Telemachus says that Eurymachus “is most eager to marry my mother and possess the honor [geras] of Odysseus” (15.521– 22)—which would seem to imply that he would have all Odysseus’ wealth as well. Other passages stress the suitors’ sexual desire for Penelope (1.365–66, 18.212–13). Hence scholars have often emphasized one aspect of the suitors’ aims. Some think that Penelope herself is a mere excuse and the suitors’ real desire is kingship in Ithaca.1 Others argue that Penelope is the only object and that “kingship” does not even exist.2 Many believe that Penelope and the kingship are somehow connected, and that the suitors seek both, while some admit that they are perplexed.3 The poet’s failure to clarify Penelope’s motives complicates the issue even further and has led to even more debate. Is she as loyal to

Callimachus and Fable

Callimachus used fables because they linked archaic iambic poetry and Hellenistic popular philosophy, and Greek with Egyptian and other Near Eastern cultures. They also invited characteristically Callimachean combination of an apparently simple voice with perplexing shifts and turns. All three of Callimachus’ surviving fable passages are difficult. Iambs II and IV present fables whose context, and thus targets, are obscure; while the olive seems superior to the laurel, it is not certain whether the reader should agree with the laurel’s rejection of the bramble’s right to comment. The programmatic proem of the Aetia alludes to Aesop 184 Perry, but the fable is entangled with many other allusions that complicate any straightforward message. The genre rests on essentialist premises (a donkey cannot be other than a donkey) that in the Callimachean context are always ambiguous.