What do you think?
Rate this book
The Homeric Odyssey: The Mary Flexner Lectures Delivered at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania
This book contains the transcript of a lecture series delivered at Bryn Mawr College in 1954. These lectures were presented as an introduction to and overview of The Odyssey. The speaker, Denys Page, is an Homeric scholar, and outlines the plot, historical background, relationship to other mythology, and possible origins of The Odyssey. Originally designed for a non-specialized audience and as an oral presentation, this book will be useful and interesting to undergraduates.
186 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1955
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 16, 2018
I had really enjoyed Denys Page's "History and the Homeric Iliad," so after finishing the Odyssey, I wanted to read his take in "The Homeric Odyssey." Like his book about the Iliad, it is a collection of six lectures he delivered on the topic, in this case at Bryn Mawr College. This is noteworthy because that means Richmond Lattimore, a notable classicist whose translations of Homer have become the standards in English, was present in the audience. I had the sense that these lectures were more Greek-heavy than Page's later talks on the Iliad. And by the way, even though these were delivered in lecture form, the book versions have copious and extensive footnotes.
Page's main purpose is to show that various parts of the Odyssey must have been written by different poets. The core of the poem, he argues, was composed by a man of genius. Then later hacks messed things up with their revisions and additions. He casually tosses in words like "incompetent" and "ignorant." Many of the arguments are based on the vocabulary used. He states with great confidence that this or that word, or this or that grammatical form, were alien to the "epic dialect." Though I can see his point, it is rather bold to make such claims when the basis of our knowledge of epic dialect is essentially what appears in Homer's poems!
Page also makes arguments based on the construction of scenes. "How could the poet have forgotten what he told us a few minutes ago?" he asks, in my paraphrase. But I think he hasn't completely understood the concept of oral poetry as a living medium. He is familiar with the trailblazing work of Milman Parry, but seems to believe that the use of Homeric formulas is primarily as an aid in memorizing long spans of text. Albert Lord's "The Singer of Tales" came out after "The Homeric Odyssey," so Page has not had the benefit of reading this synthesis of Lord's and Parry's work. But it seems clear to me that oral poetry was not primarily a medium of memorizing lines, it was a vehicle for telling stories that could expand or contract based on the poet's reading of the situation. In other words, contradictions that appear in our text of Homer do not necessarily entail multiple poets. They could simply reflect remnants of different ways of telling the same story.
Though I think Page overstates his case against the unity of the composition of the Odyssey, I was convinced by his later argument that the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed by different poets. On reflection, I do believe there are enough differences in storytelling approach and language to make this case. But why were the ancients convinced they were composed by the same man? Either way, we are fortunate to have two such outstanding works that still survive from the distant past.
N.B. To appreciate "The Homeric Odyssey" and Page's arguments, it is best to be familiar the Odyssey in the original Greek. Otherwise many of his arguments will not make sense.
Page's main purpose is to show that various parts of the Odyssey must have been written by different poets. The core of the poem, he argues, was composed by a man of genius. Then later hacks messed things up with their revisions and additions. He casually tosses in words like "incompetent" and "ignorant." Many of the arguments are based on the vocabulary used. He states with great confidence that this or that word, or this or that grammatical form, were alien to the "epic dialect." Though I can see his point, it is rather bold to make such claims when the basis of our knowledge of epic dialect is essentially what appears in Homer's poems!
Page also makes arguments based on the construction of scenes. "How could the poet have forgotten what he told us a few minutes ago?" he asks, in my paraphrase. But I think he hasn't completely understood the concept of oral poetry as a living medium. He is familiar with the trailblazing work of Milman Parry, but seems to believe that the use of Homeric formulas is primarily as an aid in memorizing long spans of text. Albert Lord's "The Singer of Tales" came out after "The Homeric Odyssey," so Page has not had the benefit of reading this synthesis of Lord's and Parry's work. But it seems clear to me that oral poetry was not primarily a medium of memorizing lines, it was a vehicle for telling stories that could expand or contract based on the poet's reading of the situation. In other words, contradictions that appear in our text of Homer do not necessarily entail multiple poets. They could simply reflect remnants of different ways of telling the same story.
Though I think Page overstates his case against the unity of the composition of the Odyssey, I was convinced by his later argument that the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed by different poets. On reflection, I do believe there are enough differences in storytelling approach and language to make this case. But why were the ancients convinced they were composed by the same man? Either way, we are fortunate to have two such outstanding works that still survive from the distant past.
N.B. To appreciate "The Homeric Odyssey" and Page's arguments, it is best to be familiar the Odyssey in the original Greek. Otherwise many of his arguments will not make sense.
Displaying 1 of 1 review