|
| odysseus
and his dad (a.k.a the classics list comes of age) |
Date Thu, 3 Sep 1992
From
Mike Muchow
Subject Thanks for being there
Don
Lateiner sent me a note which he intended to send to the list. The
note follows
In
order to respond to your plea, although I am not sure this will go
to the entire network (and I am not sure why not), let's talk about
Homer. Is Odysseus' treatment of his father sadistic or is it, as
Austin argues in _Archery...._ just a means to wake him up, unfreeze
his self- pitying state. #2 Does Harsh deserve the universally harsh
reponse to his argument that Penelope figures out the real identity
of the beggar? Are the subtle interpretations provided since his
epochal article real improvements e.g., psychological intuition,
total ignorance with some lucky comments, etc. What is Penelope's
intent (and can we know it) when she comes down to show off in front
of the suitors when the beggar is in the background? #3. I'll be
interested in hearing from others.
Date
Thu, 3 Sep 1992 1
From
Laurel Bowman
Subject
various
About
Odysseus' treatment of his father - isn't it of a piece with his
treatment of everybody else? He never makes it easy. You could argue
of course that there's no further need for it at that point in the
story; but it fits all his previous behavior. So he behaves that way
not out of sadism or to apply shock therapy, but just out of
consistency. About Penelope, and does she recognize the beggar -
perhaps we're intended to wonder, and not be able to decide one way
or the other? We've been given clues both ways. Her motive in
appearing in front of the suitors has been explained to me as of a
piece with her motives in everything else she does - that Penelope
always acts in such a way that whatever the circumstances are,
whatever the truth turns out to be, the outcome will be the best
possible one for her.
Date
Fri, 4 Sep 1992
From
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Odysseus
To
go back to Don Lateiner's question about Odysseus' reunion with his
father our instinct is to try to understand the matter from the
point of view of the hero's motivation, or, to put it another, from
the point of view of the poet's characterization of the hero.
Another way to understand the matter is in terms of story-patterns
and the traditions of oral epic. In this context, Odysseus' "lie"
is an example of a not uncommon kind of overdetermination. The
homecoming husband typically is in disguise and tells stories or "lies."
Mary Coote, "Lying in Passages," Canadian-American Slavic
Studies 15 (1981) 5-23 is suggestive.
Date
Fri, 4 Sep 1992
From "Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
Odyssey
I for one am grateful for Lowell's note and glad to have the
reference. But surely, the existence of common story-patterns is
only part of an explanation, unless we view the act of creating the
Odyssey as a kind of painting by numbers. I suppose that an
auditor--if the poem was presented orally, which remains in
debate--would admire the artful way in which the standard/typische
lie of Odysseus was presented, and the solution retarded; but the
art is enhanced, not compromised, if the characters have reasons for
acting as they do.
Date Fri, 4 Sep 1992
From
"C.G. BROWN"
Subject
Odysseus and his father
The
whole question of Odysseus' renion with his father is interesting.
My feeling is that it is best understood as a reflection of the
lesson in caution that he learned in the Cyclopeia. After suffering
so much by revealing his identity to Polyphemus, Odysseus becomes
very cautious indeed in the second half of the poem, and that
caution remains even when he faces his father. This is not meant to
be a complete explanation of the episode (that would require a
lengthy article, I think); my remarks are simple indicative of the
general lines in which I would develop such a discussion. An
analytical explanation is possible, but I prefer to understand these
episode within the setting of the poem and see them as meaningful in
context.
Date Fri, 4 Sep 1992
From
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re Odysseus
Thanks for your suggestion and I read quite recently an article
comparing the deceiving husband of Homer to modern Greek folktales
and folksongs of the deceiving husband. I can't immediately retrieve
the reference. And then there is the article in your myth collection
by Hansen. It may be naively modern of me to prefer Stewart's theory
that Ods can't help himself and Pen. has to break him out of his
compulsive lying to help him remember who he is. I hate to cross
swords with such a hermeneutically complex critic as yourself,
someone so knowledgeable about critical theory (I think your 1.9
book is a gem; the BMCR review confusingly sympathetic), but the
story-pattern explanation here seems to me too demeaning to the
clever Ody. poet. To say he/they is/are in a rut just won't satisfy
this critic. But I can accept it as a legitimate if reductive
critical posture.
From
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Lateiner letter (now open!) to me
The
suggestion I made about Odysseus' reunion with his father was not
meant to be reductive. I don't think that narratological (for want
of a better word) explanation would be exhaustive. It could be
combined with yours (I would say provisionally) and/or with others.
For reasons you indicated, I am the last one who would say that we
can or should read an ancient text outside our own horizon of
expectation.
From
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
Edmunds/Lateiner
Bravo
to Lowell for his second submission (response to Lateiner). I do
think his first submission raised a very interesting question about
ancient literature, i.e., to what extent is it possible to discuss
character and motivation in ancient texts. Here's a case where one
finds Robbe-Grillet, early Barthes, and Prof. Lloyd-Jones all on the
same barricade, denying the significance of character, or at least
arguing that it's less important than larger structural patterns. I
don't think we need take that route. (There's also, of course,
Virginia Woolf's dictum, "It is obvious in the first place that
Greek literature is the impersonal literature" (in On Not
Knowing Greek)). Folks in the group may want to bat this thread
around for a while--could be productive for all of us.
From
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re Edmunds/Lateiner
The
curious thing is that a character who is generated by a genre (fig.
etym. intended), at least according to me, can come to be read as
generating his own story, like a character in a modern novel. This
change in horizons is somehow in our experience of reading Homer and
could be made explicit.
Date
Sat, 5 Sep 1992
From Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re Perseus
Response
to Laurel Bowman: It's true that WE know O. is a liar because we've
seen him lie so often. But if we try to reconstruct an ancient hor.
of ex. (for which we need comparative material) it's quite possible
to conceive of an audience for which O. lies because he's a liar.
(Yes, it's circular.) Cf. the genre of the western movie. Clint
Eastwood's every word, deed, gesture, facial expression, etc. in
*Unforgiven* is owing to the fact that he is a gun slinger in a
western movie. He is a creation of the genre. Nobody learns, in the
course of the movie, what kind of character he is by watching the
movie.
From
Owen Cramer
Subject
Odysseus/Laertes
Additional
question is why O's nose knows when to quit lying to L? Start of a
sneeze, divine intervention counters story-pattern; sneeze a sign of
mortality (cf. German "Verreck du Aas!" vs. "Hilfgott!")
enters the story-pattern?
Date
Sat, 5 Sep 1992
From
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
Re Edmunds/Lateiner
I
find Lowell Edmunds' two submissions, about character generated by
genre and about Od. lying because he's a liar, fascinating but
enigmatic, perhaps because we come from different critical
traditions (that may sound grandiose, and is, but I'm paying
long-distance charges for this message and can't spend Henry
James-like periods in search of le mot juste). The second message
sounds fine to me if it = saying that a cowboy in a cowboy film has
to be placed against the expectations raised by the genre. If,
however, in speaking of "every gesture" Lowell means these
are *determined* by the genre, I'd demur. There's also the question
to what degree we can speak of these characters as having a
consciousness. Eastwood's achievement in *Unforgiven* is partly to
have have presented such a spare and generic figure of the hero, and
to have withheld from us a lot of info that we'd like to have.
Anyhow, there's gotta be room for critical discourse to distinguish
between Clint and Cleavon Little. I'd like to hear more about
character being generated by genre, as in a modern novel. (I don't
have LE's text before me and may be misquoting-- I'll check after
sending this.) Is this derived from some critical trad? I'm curious,
not negative. Genre, like character, is one of those concepts that
merits discussion. hayden White, in Metahistory and his later
essays, shows a faith in Frye's concepts of genre that I think
constitutes a major problem--others may want to pitch in on this
point. Classicists, who work with the material that provided the
basis for many defs. of genre, but which ALSO showed how those defs.
can be subverted, should have lots to say about this.
From
RANDALL N
Subject
Re Edmunds/Lateiner
The
problems with determining character in fiction are numerous, but I'm
becoming more and more convinced that not nearly enough critical
energy has been spent trying to solve them. The fact is that the
entire notion of character seems to change from fictional generation
to fictional generation. Character in the 18th century British
novel, for instance, differed considerably from what character was
in Dickens or Henry James, and it's changed again, and often, in the
20th century. Compare the heavily psychological "character"
attempted by Lawrence (however valid or invalid the psychology might
be), and then characters in Hemingway, Doris Lessing, Robertson
Davies, and Umberto Eco. Where once we wanted character to represent
psychological realism, now we seem to want character to display
genre-generated specifics or, more recently I think, evidence of
mere sign generation (i.e., character as collection of signs). So
how can we position Odysseus, from the standpoint of what Homer's
audience (whoever s/he/it was and they were) were looking for. Is
character in Odyssey anything at all like character in Sophocles?
And when we come to the notion of genre creating character, where do
we place Odyssey from the standpoint of what was going on genre-wise
back then? Or, to put it another way (because I realize the first
wasn't very good and I'm lousy at back- spacing in this mail
system), we might be able to define Jamesian character or Lawrencian
character or Agatha-Christiesque character from several different
standpoints, but the authorship questions that go along with the
Odyssey make a similar definition very difficult for that poem. We
just can't get a handle on it, or at least I don't think so. So then
we 're back to defining Odyssean character from our contemporary
perspective, which I think is extremely problematic. Obviously, I
don't have an answer.
From "C.G. BROWN"
Subject
Character
The
discussion of character has been interesting. What may merit further
discussion is the complex and subtle (and by no means uniform)
relationship between character and action. I am reminded of the
connection posited by Aristotle between character and choice
(*Poetics* 6, I think-- my text is at the office). In the Odyssey
passage that we have been discussion Odysseus' initial resolve to
approach his father deceptively is shaken by the sight of the old
man, and the hero re-assesses the situation in a typical (well,
almost) bit of Homeric decision making (24.235-240-- Heubeck deletes
238, but I think that it can stay). Odysseus' choice is perhaps
surprising in this light. That the poet draws attention to the
decision suggests that it is more than a reflex of this
well-established epic figure (I avoid `character'). Does anyone have
any thoughts on this?
Date
Mon, 7 Sep 1992
From Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re Edmunds/Lateiner
I would distinguish between ancient epic and modern novel with
respect to character. In the former, character tends to be
determined by story (usually a defineable story-pattern) and
narrative. In the latter, character tends to determine story
(usually not a story-pattern defineable as say a type in
Aarne-Thompson).
Date
Mon, 7 Sep 1992 175252
From Laurel Bowman
Subject
Odysseus
I
agree with DL that someone at some point produced the particular
instance of the epic genre which includes Odysseus' particular
characteristics; even if the genre does produce the character, it
did not have to produce THAT character, or that story. Why did it?
(For "someone" you may also read "or some group of
people"). To say that the character suits the genre doesn't
explain why that particular character in that particular way. I'm
not sure about UNFORGIVEN being a case in point; it is indeed a
Western, but I would have said that it works against our
expectations of the genre, and of the character we expect Eastwood
to have, at several points. In fact, all the way through. That
particular movie works by knowing our expectations and then
oversetting them in a particular way. The point about the difference
between Eastwood & Cleavon Little is well taken.If genre is the
only important determining factor, then why aren't they the same?
(Cleavon Little is a bad example of course, as his genre is parody.
Why isn't Clint Eastwood's character identical to, oh, his character
in The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, to cite a better example?)
Though in fact I do think that genre goes a long way to generate
character & events; to take the modern novel example again,
despite the best intentions of novelists, the genre is now
sufficiently formed that you can usually predict what the character
will do & what the outcome will be, once you've read far enough
into it to determine the genre (mystery? spy novel? thriller? black
comedy? commentary on modern urban manners? ) There are very few
novels that don't fit. I don't know that the question of authorship
need trouble us in considering the particular case of Odysseus; all
we need to deal with is the finished product, after all, not the
mind or minds of the bardic collective that produced it. I like
Odysseus' divinely-inspired nose; the traditional interpretation of
that would be the hand of the author/bard firmly reaching into the
narrative to jerk his wayward character out of his rut and back into
the plot.
Date
Mon, 7 Sep 1992
From
CLAJJP
Subject
Odysseus' "Character"
The
discussion of Odysseus' character and motives in Odyssey 24 has me
in a state of puzzlement. First while e-mail encourages an instant,
probably mostly fruitful dialogue, as opposed to the lag of months
and even years between interlocutors in the traditional printed
equivalent, I worry over its quality. There could be too much
shooting from the hip, without the self-reflecting, self-correcting
care the old discourse fostered. Second How many folks are aware of
the profound philosophical problems surrounding the concept of "character,"
or "individuality," or "self" as it is being
used in this discussion? I think a lot of philosophers (not to speak
of tough-minded postmodern literary critics) would laugh their butts
off at what we've been up to so far. Third My two cents. Action,
plotted action, plot, narrative, are all logically prior to
character. You can have a narrative without character, but not
character without narrative (even if only implied). Character is a
precarious inferential abstraction derived from the experience of
action(s) -- an inference powerfully conditioned by the
perceiver/reader's predispositions, i.e., by the kinds of questions
he addresses to the text of actions. Some cultures (this is, I
think, Edmunds' point) get along perfectly well without "character"
or what I would prefer to call "motivation", as opposed to
"function". "Motivation" is the price you pay
for "function". The nineteenth- century novel, with its
heavy load of verisimilar requirements, demands a high price in "motivation";
primitive folktales and myths require next to none, by comparison.
The Odyssey does pretty well without a lot of it. When in Odyssey
19, for example, Homer sets a very noisy event involving Odysseus
and Eurycleia in the presence of Penelope, without wishing her to be
privy to it, he simply brings on Athene to turn Penelope's mind away
from it. That would be intolerable in a nineteenth-century novel.
But he has more interesting functional fish to fry, so "motivation"
gets (by 19th-century verisimilitude standards) short shrift. So, in
Odyssey 24 I don't see much fruit in saying that Odysseus lies
because he's a liar. Character producing action ain't Homer's way. A
far better question is to ask what the larger narrative FUNCTION of
this exchange is, rather than what Odysseus' MOTIVE is in lying.
Each reader, with his/her own predispositions of verisimilitude,
will probably "read in" motivation where none is, in fact,
supplied. Fine. In fact, here's mine, for what it's worth. I
certainly don't think of it as canonical, but someone tell me it
doesn't work. Odysseus takes the indirect approach to his disclosure
here because he has already seen what happens in a not so indirect
encounter with an old and aged companion, Argus. Argus dies. I'm
inclined to see the "function" of the Argus-episode
precisely as "motivating" the indirect approach in the
Laertes-episode.
Date
Mon, 7 Sep 1992
From "Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
CLAJ on character
I
may have the identity of this sender wrong--it's not before me.
Anyhow, I applaud the submission, which seems quite sensible and
should advance the discussion. I don't think he/she is wholly right
in deploring previous submissions--to my mind, E-mail exists to
tease out initial suggestions like these, then build on them, and
although we shd try to be thoughtful in writing them they aren't
supposed to be finished products. That way lies stiltedness. The
sloppy give and take (ok, sometimes sloppy) is part of the medium,
and I'm glad of it.
From
Laurel Bowman
Subject
character & e-mail
What
Daniel Tompkins said. It helps if one doesn't think of e-mail as "written",
that is to say "serious, weighty stuff that really should have
footnotes to be legitimate", but rather "spoken",
that is to say, just a conversation between friends that happens to
be appearing on your local computer screen, and is just as
ephemeral. So we're welcome to field new ideas, try out things we've
just thought of, and pick up from the other postings whatever
strikes us as useful and just forget about the rest. Spontaneity is
one of the most delightful characteristics of conversation, whether
face-to-face or over the net, in my opinion. I like CLAJJ's use of
the Argus episode to motivate O's treatment of his dad.
From
Gunhild Viden
Subject
Re. character & e-mail
I
second L. Bowman on the character of e-mail. Discourse is to me the
way to increased understanding we have to put our thoughts and ideas
to test, ventilate them, reject certain parts, refine others. We do
it mentally, inside ourselves; an even better way to do it is
together with colleagues. It would be terrible to imagine a
situation where we could not discuss a problem without having it all
made up with foot-notes, instances, parallels and the whole lot; it
is from the free, "brain-storming" discourse that our
arguments are sharpened our ideas developed etc. To me e-mail
represents a way of discussing ideas (still perhaps rather vague
ditto) with a large number of people instead of with the two or
three colleagues that meet over the occasional cup of coffee in the
corridor. And Jim, I don't care so much for the bibliographies of
the contributors, but I do find it disturbing to discuss with ABCD
from XYZ university. Perhaps it shouldn't matter; I guess it is the
detestation we were all brought up to feel against the anonymous
letter. Characters in the Odyssey is not quite my table, but I do
enjoy following the discussion!
From
"David M. Schaps"
Subject
Re Edmunds/Lateiner
On
the fluidity of genre definition and the way it is redefined by each
new member of the genre (a point raised by Dan Tompkins), see E.
Spolsky and E. Schauber, _The Bounds of Interpretation Linguistic
Theory and Literary Text_ (Stanford UP, '86). David M. Schaps
Department of Classical Studies Bar Ilan University Ramat Gan,
Israel Sender "Classics and Latin discussion group." From
Lowell Edmunds Subject Re Odysseus In-Reply-To Your message of Mon,
7 Sep 1992 175252 PDT Response to Laura Bowman On the matter of
genre, I don't mean that genre is so determinging that one work in a
given genre is indistinguishable from another. I think that a
character becomes "new" or "original" in a
genre-rule-governed work by a particular reconfiguration of
established motifs, e.g., in the case of Unforgiven, target-shooting
and style of mounting a horse.
From
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re Odysseus' "Character"
Response
to clajjp I agree with Point 2 (no doubt our discussion has been "theoretically
impoverished," as those non-classical experts would say) and
with Point 3 up to the point of Argus. Function vs.
motivation--that's more or les what I was saying. Our "expectations"
concerning "the text of actions"--that's the hermeneutic
situation. It's crucial.
From
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re Perseus
Noch einmal, I think that the two approaches (oralist, poetics,
narratology, on the one hand, New Criticism, I guess, on the other)
can be brought into the same discourse as long as one is self-
conscious about the hermeneutic orientation of the project. If "a
text is an answer to a question," then the question that DL has
so fruitfully raised seems to me a specifically contemporary one. I
would have to be shown that it is a question that an ancient "reader"
would have asked. But, even if an ancient "reader" woldn't
have raised that question, it is still worth our asking it. Indeed
given our historically remote situation we have to ask such
questions, we have to begin where we are, if the text is going to be
meaninful as anything more than an artifact to which scholarly
problems are attached. But then it is also worth comparing our
reading, the reading that emerges within our horizon of
expectations, with whatever we can establish concerning readings or
receptions within ancient horizons (plur.) of expectation. In that
way, we have some control or at least perspective on our own
reading.
From
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
Re Query for Dan Tompkins
None.
I now appreciate and see the irony of his Odyssean self- effacement.
Babar the Elephant says to Cornelius, early on in his reign &
after Cornelius' headware has been sandwiched by a baby elephant (as
I recall), "You have good ideas. I will give you my hat."
Well, I'd give jack my hat, he has good ideas, but I do like a list
where folks speak up, democratically, grad students and full
professors, putting their ideas out in ragged form and being forced,
then, to reshape them. Maintaining that freedom is essential, I
think, not just to the democratic spirit of the e-list, but to its
intellectual quality. Perhaps I'm betraying my reliance on Richard
Lanham (Style an Anti-Textbook) and Peter Elbow here, but I think
that is a good way to get and develop good ideas and Jack has moved
the thread in a positive way with his notes.
From
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re character & e-mail
As Willard McCarty says in a forthcoming article, e-mail is a
strange as yet unsettled genre (that word again!)--a voice that
arrives as a text, a text that arrives as a voice. I'm reviewing Jay
David Bolter's excellent book WRITING SPACE, and one repeated point
with which I have to disagree is that electronic writing is the
technological fulfillment of differance. Rather, I think it
reinstates phonocnetrism with a vengeance.
From
James O'Donnell
Subject
Re Query for Dan Tompkins
For
Dan T. again None? It make no difference that a cogent screen or two
about the Odyssey is written by a senior and established figure in
American Homeric discussions? That the recommendation that we all
get together at the APA and have it out about this comes from a
recent past president of that organization? Our whole culture of the
text is one that has placed a high importance on the identity of the
`author' and his presumed relationship with the text. Do you ignore
that because you are postmodern and thoughtful and do taht on
principle? Or is it because of the e-mail medium and its particular
characteristics? The informality of the present stage of e-mail list
culture is obvious. How far this is a benefit is a problem I like to
hang out in the office and schmooze with the gang as much as
anybody, but having just done a big cutback of lists I belong to (to
try to keep incoming under 100 a day), I'm acutely aware that I
value lists according to the discipline and focus of the
conversations that emerge. I said in describing some of these lists
on BMCR that I could say little good about the usenet sci.classics
group, whereupon that group sent 19 messages around the world
discussing the grammar of a single phrase of the old Latin Mass, and
not a single one of those messages was informed by the least
accurate knowledge of the history of the language or of the specific
point at issue. If we have an excuse for existing as scholars, it is
not for the variety and imagination of our brainstorms, but for the
rigor with which we manage them.
From
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject Re Query for Dan Tompkins
Well,
once again the great benefit of e-mail is that we're not sitting in
a lecture hall listening to illiterates drone on about the Latin
mass. Push a button and they're history. I'd just as soon let folks
talk and build on that. If you don't like what folks say, ignore it.
I've certainly disagreed with, and found insufficient, some of the
early contributions on character, but they've been developed in
worthwhile ways with prodding (witness Lowell's, on the Odyssey). In
1968, Lionel Trilling averred that he'd never learned anything from
any contribution by a student. (This is not oratio recta.) Others of
us are learning from students, from e-mail messages, even--god help
us --from erroneous, misled, or shallow utterances. So, yeah, "None."
Like all list submissions, this one may be revised or rethought by
its author.
Date Tue, 8 Sep 1992
From
Owen Cramer
Subject
RE Query for Dan Tompkins
Jim
O'Donnell as always raises an interesting question; one that the old
format of BMCR pieces with signatures at the end also raised can we
[virtually] listen to voices coming from we know not where? I found
myself lingering over CLAJJ's "guys" and imagining a "character"
generating that posting as "speech", and the exercise
(which did not last more than half a minute) was not uninteresting.
I'd say mysterious identities are one of the charms of the Internet,
letting us attend to messages.
From
Don Lateiner
Subject
Re Odysseus' "Character"
For
those of you without the hermeneutic tools to figure out who clajjp
ktl. is, the answer is Jack Perradotto. He raises the "shoot
from the hip" bogeyman. He is right. I so shot. I confess. I
like email classics chat for its ephemerality. Dumb ideas will get
laughed down or politely criticized. As for critical naivete, if we
all go off and read Genette, Bakhtin, Barthes (Ancient, by now),
Derrida, de Man, de Woman, Cixous, Propp redivivus, etc., we can
shut down now. Those people can't read Greek and so have only
indirect contributions to make to our discussion. I can't agree more
that in the Ody. and elsewhere, we infer character from actions (and
gestures, and paralinguistics, and even, yes, words). We cannot
thereby abdicate forming some impression of the individuals who
carry out the actions (actors? characters? figures?
action-determined mannikins?). Character seems a good shorthand when
we discuss why Laertes suffers another indignity at the hands of his
polysadistic son. As for the Argos example, that would suggest that
Ods. should avoid sudden shock, not multiply the shock by sad, bad
news unhappy man, I sent him away five years since (24.309 ff.). If
this is gentle therapy, give me a lobotomy any day.
From
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
Re Query for Dan Tompkins
Addendum
to an earlier response I wrote to J O'Donnell. It means a great deal
to me that Jack Peradotto, whose work in general and whose
submission in particular I have profited from, participates in the
discussion, suggests an APA panel (I'd be very interested in that)
etc. My only objection was to the possibility that discussion would
become so circumspect and guarded as to lose its spontaneity. Then
too, I believe this list was begun by grad students, and it seems
esp. important that they be encouraged to speak up and speak out.
From
Don Lateiner
Subject
Re Query for Dan Tompkins
Unauthorized
answer for Dan Tompkins It surprises me. I like surprises. I like
surprises for myself in the middle voice. Tell me the person with
soul so pure that would not have any reaction to knowing whether the
illustrious Jack or the Beanstalk Jack wrote that note.
From
Don Lateiner
Subject Re Edmunds/Lateiner
Thank
you DM Schaps, and I think unlikely bibl. is a fine service we can
do each other on e-mail. Each of us is proud, deservedly, of
readings out of the usual boundaries, and we can share it cheaply
and widely by this network.
Date
Tue, 8 Sep 1992
From
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
Re Odysseus' "Character"
Don
Lateiner should flesh out what he means in saying that we might as
well shut down now if we're going to read Barthes, etc. (just call
if "French sludge" with Paglia, for shorthand), and then
by saying that those dudes don't read Greek and have nothing to
contribute to us. coming from a scholar who's used and benefited
from, and enlightened the rest of us withal, the kind of scholarship
he dismisses, this sounds v. odd. If some sort of sequentiality is
implied (do the Greek, then go read Barthes . . .) there's a danger
there too by the time we get around to reading Barthes, Hayden White
or whoever, our critical skills may well have atrophied.
From
"Daniel P. Tompkins"
Subject
Re Query for Dan Tompkins
I
was surprised and embarrassed, I admit. But for LIST purposes it's
the quality of thes ubmission that matters.
Date
Tue, 8 Sep 1992
From
Don Lateiner
Subject
Re Query for Dan Tompkins
FOR
J O'D. Does rigor require the right number of "n"'s in
Pennn (sic)? No, I think not, esp. on something as hard not to blot
a line on as email. Rigorists can limit their reading, their
opposites (call us loosites or laxatives) can chat away, read what
they want, move on when they've had enough. In fact, why not another
email network for rigorist classicists? Then the ole' girls'n' boys
can shmooze, shlep, and shlumpf around to our hearts' content.
Date
Tue, 8 Sep 1992
From Don Lateiner
Subject Re Odysseus' "Character"
Reply
to DPT challenge In the email manner I endorse, and given my
technology, I see that my wording about "shutting down"
was imprecise. I meant, if we can not talk about Homer until we
correct our critical theory, until we read all the theory there is,
we shall not get back to Homer. Judging by my readings in TOmpkins,
Perradotto, Edmunds, and the other heavies whose work I know (and
admire --as I said in my Edmunds posting of some days ago), they
read Greek, pick up literary theory and try to apply it to our
peculiar literature (oops, I mean data base), and do so with various
results. At the risk of being impolite but with the motive of
truthfulness, I have found JP's book on the *Odyssey* very tough
going. I have yet to finish it. I keep wanting to hear something
more direct about the literature I love. On the other hand, although
I don't always agree with Austin's *Archery*, I have trouble putting
it down. It responds to my questions, to my desire to understand the
poem. Please ostracize me if I have broken email etiquettes.
From
"James J. Clauss"
Subject
Re Character
I
have been reading with great interest the various explanations for
Odysseus' seemingly nasty deceit of his father. In fact, I have not
been able to stop thinking of it, so perhaps if I vent my febrile
thoughts on the topic to this list I can get back to work. Why does
Od. make trial of his father? I find several reasons, none of which
are exclusive. 1. At lines 216-18, Od. tells his servants that he
wants to make trial of his father (peiresomai). This is a common
epic motif (e.g., Agamemnon's "peira" in Il. 2 and Jason's
in Argo. 2). 2. The trial here involves whether or not L. will
recognize Od. Recognition of Od. is so common in the poem that it
happens not only in the case of Od. himself, but also in the case of
Telemachus, who is constantly told how much he looks like Od. 3. Od
gets to hear yet again how loved he really is by all his family
(24.281ff.). Perhaps the real question should be, can we tolerate
another Od. love-fest? 4. Just like Hesiod's Muses, Od. loves to
lie; not surprising for a descendant of Hermes, who as an infant did
not hesitate to tell a boldfaced lie to *his* father (h. Merc.). Why
do the Muses lie? I know that this question has many answers, but
for the sake of e-brevity, let me only say that it is because in
general the audience loved a real whopper convincingly told,
especially one they were in on. And any way, given that L. is still
alive and that Od. would accordingly have to confront him, wouldn't
we be more surprised if the Od. we've come to know and love simply
went over to L. and said "I'm home, dad"? I particularly
liked Donald Lateiner's comment on a son teasing his father and fear
the day when my own sons take vengeance for my constant teasing of
them. 5. Finally, C.G. Brown aptly cited Aristotle, who I think
offers us some insight on the scene. Ari.-- as many other
contemporaries and predecessors, to judge from extant literature --
was particularly fond of recognition scenes, and points out how
frequent and important a phenomenon this type of scene was in epic
and tragedy. You cannot have a recognition scene without deception
of some sort, even if it is of a more innocent kind (e.g.,
ignorance). Od's lie thus sets up a dramatic recognition scene that
sees L., brought to the point of desperate tears, suddenly learn the
happy truth. After all, the sadder L is, the more joy his discovery
will bring. So, again the poet is playing to his audience's
expectations and preferences. In sum, Od.'s trial of L., a regular
feature of epic, is employed by Od. in a way consistent with major
themes of the poem and a characteristic mode of action of the main
figure. No one scene need motivate it. Moreover, being a complex
epic (Ari. Poetics Ch. 24), the poet completes his series of
recognition scenes prompted by Od's lies by presenting us with the
most pathetic of all; one that even makes Od. waver about going
through with it (24.235ff.). Od.s lie to L. is not odd or
surprising, then, and, though we may question its morality or
etiquette, we must not forget that poet and audience loved such
narrative pyrotechnics.
Date
Tue, 8 Sep 1992
From Bruce Rosenstock
Subject
Re Odysseus' "Character"
Notwithstanding j. peradotto's excellent contribution to the
discussion of character in Homer, it remains an interesting question
to know what ancient "readers" would make of the role of
character in the Iliad and Odyssey. One early witness is Plato; the
Hippias Minor is devoted to the very issue at hand what sort of
character is Odysseus, how does he differ from Achilles? To be sure,
Plato seems to have a rather more sophisticated understanding of the
primacy of plot (diegesis), but Hippias holds the view that Homer
has created characters first and foremost, that Odysseus' main
character trait is self-concealing deception (alazoneia), and that
Achilles is, on the other hand, a man who says what's on his mind.
Hippias also believes that motivation is an essential feature in
Homer's creation of character Odysseus "plots" his lies.
To understand Hippias, I think it is helpful to remember that, as
Plato again tells us, the direct speech of a character was a sort of
staging of the character, with Homer imagined to be functioning as
actor no less than poet. So for any performance of the poem, there
was a need to "get into the character", to understand the
sort of person one was imitating. We may agree that "Homer as
actor" is very far from our notion of genre constraints, to say
nothing of the "death of the author", but perhaps we
should we historicize our own poetics, just as we do that of the
ancients.
From
John Peradotto
Subject
Re Odysseus' "Character"
Anonymity
was fun! But it was, I assure you, quite indeliberate, however
deliciously ironic and genuinely productive of worthwhile discourse
(a warning for anyone tempted to argue back from the result to some
unmerited cunning in the character's motivation or the author's
intent). As Owen Cramer pointed out, the play of ideas without the
impedimenta of presumed personality has its charm and fixes our
minds more productively on messages than on their sources. And if I
were perfectly consistent with my misgivings about what Barthes
calls the "ideology of the person" and the proprietary
claims attending it, I would prefer to remain anonymous. In this
sense, Dan Tompkins is right to say "None" when queried
about what difference knowing the author makes. BUT (and here I'm
with O'Donnell, though I'm not sure if for the right reason)
scholarly interpretation at its best is a dialectical, ever
incomplete social act; one's identity, one's name in this context,
as in the law, is a useful fiction, functioning merely but
essentially as the locus (and a target) of responsibility for a
particular and partial view, and its incompleteness implies an
invitation to response. Regarding, the vicissitudes of e-mail, my
apologies to all for sounding like a cop intent on discourse
cleansing. That was the furthest thing from my intention. In fact, I
much prefer it to the chaos of face-to-face talk. Mine was only a
plea for economy of effort, I guess not as gentle as I tried to make
it, from someone with too little time to read. More on character. I
offer an explanation I'm fond of. In discussing a character in *The
Awkward Age*, William Gass (*Fiction and the Figures of Life* 1970)
asks, "What is Mr. Cashmore? Here is the answer I shall give
Mr. Cashmore is (1) a noise, (2) a proper name, (3) a complex system
of ideas, (4) a controlling conception, (5) an instrument of verbal
organization,(6) a pretended mode of referring, (7) a source of
verbal energy. But Mr. Cashmore is not a person" (p. 44).
From W Schipper
Subject
Small Latin, less Greek (Was Odyseseus' "Character")
I
too would like to take some exception to Lateiner's dismissive
gesture. Does he know for certain that none of the
scholars/writers/thinkers he mentions know Greek?
From:
Robin Mitchell
Subject
Re Small Latin, less Greek (Was Odyseseus' "Character")
Look
folks, the Berlin Wall has fallen; we're allowed to talk to people
in othe r disciplines without fear of killing or being killed. The
rest of the humaniti es needs classics and classics needs the rest
of the humanities. It's not a question of closing up shop, but of
the shop being closed down.
From
John Peradotto
Subject
Lateiner on Peradotto on "Character"
Lateiner
agrees that we infer character from actions, then says "We
cannot thereby abdicate forming some impression of the individuals
who carry out the actions." Who's asking for abdication? Form
any "impression" you want; but don't insist thereby (1)
that it's critical, and (2) that it has some kind of metaphysical
primacy over action. "Character" categorizes; creates the
illusion that one has trapped and immobilized in comprehension what
is intractably in flux. "Character" does to a yet to be
concluded series of actions what Zeno does to Achilles' legs. What
folks like me fear is the violence (yes, violence) that comes from
judgments based on the presumed fixity of a too often precarious
inference called "character," more than on actions,
change, and the potential for change. With all due respect, Lateiner
demonstrates this when he says "Character seems a good
shorthand when we discuss why Laertes suffers another indignity at
the hands of his polysadistic son." Polysadistic? Lateiner
appears to have prejudged the case. Prejudged, as in prejudice. As
for the hopelessness Lateiner expresses at the thought of going off
to read Genette, Barthes, Bakhtin et al., I can't but believe it was
said in a moment of weakness and that he doesn't really mean it.
After all, the same can be said for going off to learn Greek. It
takes so much time, doesn't it? As for his comment on my reading of
Argus, I think he's right. I'll have to rethink that one.
From
Don Lateiner
Subject Re Lateiner on Peradotto on "Character"
Subj
Oh no, not him again!! And he's on the APA ballot???
Jack
P. said my remarks were not "criticism." What is "criticism"
and by what authority does he (or another) decide "what is
criticism"? If the criterion is seniority, status, salary, then
I will withdraw all my comments. But if it is not, and I think Jack
will say none of those apply, why were my remarks not "criticism."
I worry that in the name of openness and myriodoxy, we may find a
new orthodoxy.
From Don Lateiner
Subject Re Lateiner on Peradotto on "Character"
Subtext
One wet noodle I am wrong in my implication about the training and
knowledge of certain continental critics. I apologize electronically
and with no hesitation. Thanks to those who pointed out my error. It
would interest me to hear just how much Greek each of the names
bandied about had. I am unrepentant about sending messages. No one
need subscribe. I raised the Odys.-Laertes issue _in response to a
complaint_ that no one was discussing literature. Now sundry voices
object that we are discussing one too much or that someone is
hogging the line. Each of us can move on in one keystroke to the
next message (on my machine I press "n"). Anyone too busy
to read about Homer need not access this network at all or on any
given day. As Prof. WIlliams noted, 250 lurkers can bring up 250
other subjects, such as why did Pericles wear an amulet on his death
bed? Can we really blame it on the women? Or was the four-bar sigma
epigraphical controversy a Communist disinformation plot? Or are the
apocryphal Acts of Andrew really a Christian rewrite of the
_Odyssey_? Answers please! (This last is an idea owed to Dennis
MacDonald.) Peradotto (and I think I misspelled his name, sorry
again) raises interesting issues and I like his quote, what a Gass!
He suggests that I do violence when I form judgments and that I show
prejudice. I guess I agree I form judgments, and I ask if he does
not form judgments. But why do I show prejudice? Have I not read the
Odyssey? Have I not read it many times? At one point would I not
prejudge Ods.? Maybe Ods is not sadistic by JP's standards. Maybe he
is not by mine, even, but I think he is, or at least I made up a
word and said he was, and I await an argument that goes beyond
restating what he did to L. and what he said to him. Lowell Edmunds
offered one about narrative patterns. I find it suggestive but not
sufficient. Does Homer prejudge Ods? Can he? Okay, I'm not laconic.
I care passionately about these questions and I think the matter
matters. One other point JP seems to suggest that reading Genette
etc. is as important as learning Greek. I know he does not mean that
and would elegantly reply that one can do both. Good women and true
can differ on this, but I urge students and colleagues -- given
limited time-- to spend more hours on ancient Greek than modern
criticism. As a compromise, we can spend more time on elegant
literary criticism and less on email. We can, you can, the choice is
yours. Otherwise expressed, why are you reading this? And if you
still are and don't feel tricked but pleasurably tickled, then I
must be doing something right. So, hold off on your wet noodles.
From
Laurel Bowman
Subject
e-mail, character, criticism, and Greek
a)
I second, or twelfth, the plea for clear subject headings. I think
that's all we need to do to manage this list; if someone has a lot
to say, let them post it. If I don't AGREE that they have a lot to
say, I shall simply delete all messages emanating from that address
before reading the rest. But so far I've enjoyed following this
discussion.
b)
to JP - certainly attaching an adjective to the 'character' as
opposed to the behavior can result in prejudging; to say that we
expect Odysseus to lie here, because he has done so everywhere else,
is a different statement from saying we expect it because he is in
essence a liar. But - what is there to 'prejudge'? You say that
boxing up the character in convenient adjectives closes it off and
denies the possibility of change, which is certainly true in real
life;but when reading any text, hasn't the nature of text already
done that for us? Odysseus cannot change any more, because the
Odyssey has an end; it's over. There is no more information to be
got. So we might be safer to judge 'character' in a text than in the
real world, in fact; because in a text, the amount of information
available about an individual's behavior IS a closed set; nothing
more can be added to it. I liked your argument very much; I'm just
not sure where one goes with it, and am curious.
c)Actually,
I don't care if they can't read Greek. The whole POINT of theory is
that one should be able to transfer it from one text to another, and
one language to another. It's arguable how true that is in specific,
but in general I think it applies.
From
"C.G. BROWN"
Subject
Re Odysseus' "Character"
William
Gass' remarks on Mr. Cashmore, quoted by John Peradotto, are
pleasingly to the point. I think that few, when pressed, would
regard any literary figure as a real `person' (however we define
that). But that does not mean that ideas, values, bliefs, etc.
attributed to Mr. Cashmore within the narrative are not relevant to
an understanding of how he acts within the text. In other words,
though he does not possess true `character,' Mr. Cashmore is
nonetheless `characterized,' and that fact is significant in reading
the work.
From
John Peradotto
Subject
Re C.G. Brown on "Character"
Bravo. I agree. I think. Just to be sure, let me say that, in my
view, Mr. Cashmore has been created to suit the job; as opposed to
the job has emanated from Mr. Cashmore's pre-existing or pre-formed
character. Is this your reading?
From
John Peradotto
Subject
Response from JP to Laurel Bowman
No,
Laurel, the Odyssey ain't over; I wish it were. The text is a
transaction that cannot be complete as long as none of us readers
are complete. The interpretation of Odysseus' words and actions are
as open as your The interpretation of Odysseus' words and actions
are as open as yours of mine.
From
John Peradotto
Subject
Re Lateiner on Peradotto on "Character"
Lateiner
awaits from me an argument that goes beyond restating what Odysseus
did to Laertes and what he said to him. He wants SPECIFICS. That's
good. Really good. It's also interesting. He has stated in this
forum that he finds my *Man in the Middle Voice* "tough going".
No SPECIFICS, just "tough going". I'm not really offended.
My wife can't read it; my kids make excuses. Maybe I'm just not
clear. Don, I don't need to tell you that not everything in life or
literature is "easy going". But I'm open to criticism. I
admit not to seeing the world or texts simply. If I over-complicate,
I want genuinely to be washed in the blood of whatever authoritative
lamb will cuddle with a solid argument. I see you as a kindred
spirit in that desire. I'll make you a deal. When you get SPECIFIC
about your difficulties with my book, I'll get SPECIFIC about my
argument with the Odysseus-Laertes passage, in particular, your to
my mind deranged interpretation of Odysseus as a sadistic father-
tormentor. I'll make you an additional and better deal to do this
between the two of us and without bugging those who don't want to be
a party to it (unless some folks out there do, in which case, they
should say so). That way, it'll be a matter of truth (or its
approximation), not performance. Now, maybe, you can see why
personalities, identities get in the way of ideas and their
exchange. Idea "X" vs. idea "Y" is, let's face
it, so much cleaner than Lateiner vs. Jack in the Beanstalk.
From
Robin Mitchell
Subject
character and communication
One
problem (at least form my standpoint) of the whole epic character
discussio n is that it seems to neglect the communicative function
of literature. Literat ure doesn't exist in a vaccuum but is
conditioned by the NEEDS of its audience. If, however falsely, we
feel a need for coherent character (which we can do while still
taking into account matters like functionality --cf.Kenneth Burke, I
think) than that will be part of our experience, and our experience
of the text ultimately becomes very important. Literature is not an
inert object. The idiots in the "authentic" music movement
make a similar error by ignoring the experience of their audience
(among the many errors they make). And all in the name of
historicism, to recover that which cannot be recovered.
From:
RANDALL
Subject
Re Character and Non-authoritative postings
I'm
the first to admit that I'm not professionally qualified to post on
a board dedicated to discussion of classical literature (and other
classical things). I teach English, not Classics, and my specialties
are Canadian literature, rhetorical theory, and the relationship
between myth and language (I try to fit them all together, but
sometimes it's tough). And, if this board would rather not see
contributions from someone from outside the field, I understand and
will comply; I have no desire to have my ideas scoffed at,
denigrated, or otherwise rejected, and I know that the academy can
do such things without even intending to. But my first literary love
remains Homer, despite a PhD and a career that took me in different
directions. And I take every opportunity I can to bring Homer into
literary discussions, whether through allusion in other literary
texts, direct references, narrative patterns, or the relationship
between character and genre (if I may be permitted those two
difficult terms once more). So when I first learned of this list I
decided that here was a way to keep my unending Homeric fascination
alive, and, at the same time, to learn more about myth, a subject in
which I am conducting research. The Odyssey is literature. I do
literature. No, I don't read ancient Greek, and, no, I have no idea
what's going on in Odyssey studies these days. But I do know, to
some extent, what's going on in literary theory, and therefore I see
value in contributing to discussions about the Odyssey from a
literary theoretical standpoint (I'm not sure the logic of that
sentence really holds, but you know what I mean). Simply put, I
think I have something to add, and as long as I keep my submissions
shorter than this one I don't see how I can do any real harm. If, in
the process, someone thinks of something they hadn't thought of
before, whether or not I have citable reasons for saying those
things, then that's the whole point of lists like this anyway.
Forgive the length of this posting. Anything else I submit will, I
promise, be shorter. I guess what I'm saying is that there has to be
a place for enthusiastic semi-amateurism in these matters, because
that's the way we all started reading Homer anyway.
From
Christopher Brown
Date Wed, 9 Sep 1992
Subject
Re Odysseus' "Character"
William
Gass' remarks on Mr. Cashmore, quoted by John Peradotto, are
pleasingly to the point. I think that few, when pressed, would
regard any literary figure as a real `person' (however we define
that). But that does not mean that ideas, values, bliefs, etc.
attributed to Mr. Cashmore within the narrative are not relevant to
an understanding of how he acts within the text. In other words,
though he does not possess true `character,' Mr. Cashmore is
nonetheless `characterized,' and that fact is significant in reading
the work.
From:
Bruce Rosenstock
Subject
Re Odyssean character
This
is addressed to Jack P. especially I'm not a little surprised to
find you advocating the view that character is a function of plot.
One of your theoretical heoes (one of mine as well), Bakhtin, argues
that character reveals, among other things, the relationship which
the narrator has with the narrated world. He may try to "have
the last word" about it, and in that case the character is "objectivized",
a bundle of traits and nothing more. Or the narrator may let the
character atttain a certain degree of independence, and then he
becomes a "personality" in Bakhtin's terms, able to
surpise us with his twists and turns. I took that you felt that the
Odyssey was a polyphonic work in which Odysseus was an an
open-ended, unfinalizeable personality. How then is he only a
function of plot? Perhaps we could see in the Odysseus-Laertes scene
Odysseus once again taking over a role usually associated with the
narrator. Isn't he staging his own recognition scene?
From
Laurel Bowman
Subject
JP - the end of the Odyssey
I
would be interested to follow a continued (& more specific)
argument between JP and DL; it's been interesting so far. JP, thanks
for your response, and I had a reply written but have deleted it; I
always lose my grip at precisely this point, and think that the
problem is probably me. So I'll just read for awhile & not
contribute. But doesn't your interpretation depend at least in part
on what particular text you're reading? And, if it does, does that
imply that the text is at least predisposing, and perhaps even
setting boundaries, to your particular interpretation? Interpretive
responses to the Odyssey aren't over; but we aren't adding anything
to the base text itself, anymore. Is that an important distinction?
From
Rob Johansen
Subject
Character in the Odyssey
As
a grad student and relative neophyte to Homer, it is with some
apprehension that I go up against the likes of Messrs. Lateiner and
Peradotto, but being content to "lurk" no longer, here are
my two cents It seems to me that in the attempt to discover the
nature of any specific character in the Odyssey, or even the nature
of "character" in general, we classicists are attempting
to do much the same thing as our cousins in New Testament criticism
who are attempting to discover the "Historical Jesus." The
result of the attempts in N.T. criticism seem to me to have been
unpromising so far, because we have ended up with many different "Historical"
Jesuses, all of whom conform curiously to the critics modern
ideologies. Thus there are Marxist Jesuses, Feminist Jesuses, etc.
This profusion of ideological Jesuses has had the result of calling
the whole historical-critical method into question. I would really
hate to see us wind up in the same boat as the N.T. people. But
alas, there are signs out there of Marxist Homers and Feminist
Homers and the like. There is nothing (necessarily) wrong with those
ideologies per se, but to read them back onto an alien literature
seems to me absurd. Any critic, short of having a crystal ball or
psychic powers, is going to be look- ing at Homer through 20th
century western industrialized lenses. That does not mean we can say
nothing about Homer, but that we must be careful about what we say.
We have no way of crawling inside Homer's (if he/she/it/they
existed) head except what we have in the text, and I would like to
see more of the discussion more firmly grounded in the text. Not
that I'm complaining. All in all I find this forum very
thought-provoking, for which I thank you all.
From
W Schipper
Subject
Re Lateiner on Peradotto on "Character"
To
Jack in the Beanstalk Please stay public. Your disputes/disputations
are enlightening and amusing. And some of their content spill over
into other things. As for excessive postings I have so far found
this list a relatively staid and quiet one, even with the Odysseus
discussion. What we need is _more_ discussion, on _more_ things,
from _more_ people.
From:
"DJ.Blyth"
Subject
Character and Ancient Philosophy
Regarding
Homer, I would agree with Rob Johansen that it would be enlightening
to see discussion related more closely to the text. I wonder
whether, for instance, the Odyssey doesn't itself provide a
commentary on the question of identity Odysseus lies, certainly, and
conceals his identity - but only ever for a while. Even Proteus
eventually tells the truth, if you hold on long enough. This
suggests (obliquely, I admit) a doctrine that there is an underlying
true nature to a 'character'; presumably beliefs about human nature
inferable from the text, or demonstrable in its culture of
origination, are germane to its interpretation? The fact that we
(post-)moderns characteristically bring our own concerns to texts
doesn't mean that the texts themselves don't constrain responsible
interpretation in important ways. Presumably each of our views isn't
as bland as every other one, and as Classicists we can bring some
special relevant knowledge of the source and history of a text to
bear on the question of its meaning(s)? In fact can Homerists here
exclude the view that the Odyssey is organised precisely _around_
the 'character' of Odysseus, given the suggestions in the text (the
sequence of travel adventures, the alternate endings) of a preceding
variety of separate folk tales exemplifying his cunning? Note also
the evidence of archaic philosophical beliefs, which unilaterally
assume a distinct principle of personality should we then not look
for such an organising principle in a poem? The so-called fallacy of
authorial intention aside, there is a question of whether you want
to know about the same poem antiquity admired, or some other one
they wouldn't recognise!
From
"C.G. BROWN"
Subject
Reply to J. Peradotto on `Character'
I
think that we are substantially in agreement. Certainly in the world
of early Greek epic I cannot imagine the creation of `character' for
its own sake. Character plays a central role in that fascinating
process whereby we seek to come to an understanding of the narrative
(i.e. the action). Epic is not populated by ciphers, but figures who
have been characterized in various ways, and this characterization
generates a dimension of interpretative complexity that elevates the
narrative above a mere assemblage of `motifemes' (or Proppian
function, or whatever you might choose to call units of narrative
action). Does this make any sense?
From
John Peradotto
Subject
Hiatus on "Character"
Many
excellent responses and queries have come in over my comments on
Odysseus' "character". I want to answer them, but I must
take a two-week hiatus to -- don't be envious, and don't remind me
of the obvious irony -- to lecture Smithsonian Associates as they
cruise the presumed itinerary of the Odyssey. Needless to say, I
shall lie mercilessly. Seriously, I promise to keep up my end of the
discussion on my return.
From David Sider
Subject
Od. and Laertes
I've
been lurking through this fascinating exchange, reading it all so
quickly that I'm no longer sure who said what. At the risk, then, of
not giving proper credit and even of forgetting some of what was
said, let me give my view of Odysseus's action in lying to his
father. Generally people on the list and elsewhere, looking to
explain or justify it in terms of the Odyssey itself (without
introducing the more theoretical concerns brought up by Jack et al.)
limit themselves to the motif of Od.'s lies. And it is certainly
true that Od. lies to get things done. But another motif present
here is that of rebirth, which Od. himself has gone through many
times (Kalypso, Polyphemos' cave, etc.). When Laertes hears that Od.
is dead, he does what Achilles does -- and indeed all mourners who
tear clothing, rip their flesh, wear black do -- act like the dead
man themselves. In Achilles' case, this is a literary foreshadowing
of his own death; with Laertes, Od. is bringing him to a state from
which he will be "revived." Dangerous stuff (cf., as was
done here, his dog), but it works Athena makes L. appear taller and
and more jock-like (*passona*, 24.360). And he fights like a young
man with Od. and Telemachus against the suitors' relatives. And
speaking of Telemachus, is there anyone else who identifies himself
with his son the way Od. does in the Iliad (2.260; "may I no
longer be called the father of Telemachus..."; cf. 4.354)? (A
pedonymic?) Maybe there was a tradition known to Homer of the
particular closeness of this family. The family that is reborn
together fights together?
Laurel
Bowman
Subject
Telemachus' Dad
Of
course, the question of whether or not Odysseus IS Telemachus'
father raised repeatedly in the Odyssey (by implication - it keeps
being emphasized, as if it were in question). Odysseus' identity is
questioned at every turn, including his identity as his wife's son's
father. I'd forgotten that he called himself that though.
From
"C.G. BROWN"
Subject
Re Character in the Odyssey
This
is a response to Rob Johansen's contribution. I do not think that
the comparison with the search for the historical Jesus is very
helpful, for that is a fundamentally different kind of enterprise.
So far as I understand it, those scholars are interested in
recovering `the man behind the text,' and so this is a historical
endeavour. In the case of Homer, there can be few now who believe
that there is a recoverable Odysseus behind the text (I am not
ruling out the possibility that there is a historical element buried
in myth; `recoverable' is an important word here). What we are
dealing with is a figure generated by the text; in reading the
Odyssey we are given various kinds of indications of the nature of
Odysseus. The challenge for us is to see the characterization as a
functioning element in the larger structure of the poem itself. In
short, contemplating Odysseus' character is fundamentally a literary
(not historical) endeavour.
From:
John R Lenz
Subject
Re Od. and Laertes
I
haven't read the thread about the Odyssey. just in response to david
Sider's interesting note about rebirth the shroud. Laertes was also
a, putatively, dead man, as long as Odysseus was away. The suitors
had just demanded that Penelope finish the weaving. This is another
way that Ody's return entails L.'s rebirth (seen in his youthful
fighting spirit in XXIV)> pedantic
From:
Lowell Edmunds
Subject
Re oral tradition and poor old laertes
On
Odysseus' lies again (1) Lowell's explanation was not intended to
exclude others; thus it was not reductive. (As Greg Crane well
knows, I go in for complicated explanations, not simple ones.) (2)
Lowell also tried again and again to introduce the notion of the
hermeneutic horizon. Don Lateiner's explanations and the much of the
vocabulary of Greg Crane's message arise within a specifically 20th
century horizon of expectation, as far as I can see.
From:
gregory crane
Subject Re oral tradition and poor old laertes
i
don't know of anyone less reductive in his approach than lowell and
hope that it was clear that i thought that some readers might have
misinterpreted his remarks. i myself would be very interested in
hearing how 20th century expectations inform the vocab of my
comments and those of don lateiner. (that's precisely one of the
things that i find most interesting about interpretive
perspectives.) i leave it to lowell to decide whether that deserves
netspace or a separate note to me (and or don).
From: Don Lateiner
Subject
Re oral tradition and poor old laertes
To
Lowell and friends trying to "understand" Laertes out on
the farm I will be glad to read what the 12th, 8th, and 4th century
"horizon of expectation" for sons coming home after 20
years was/were. We must beware Hermetical paradoxes. For instance,
any text or image we use to establish the horizon is subject to the
same "lost horizon" arguments and we find ourselves in
infinite regresses. If we use Sophocles and Euripides to understand
410 BCE responses to Homer/Odysseus ktl., we have to discount adjust
moderate for their idiosyncratic views and axes to grind. Nicht
wahr? Our own responses are grounded in 1992, or 1944-1992, and
American liberal arts education, and reading Homer first in
Lattimorian English, and --the list is Zenonian. So what? I find
Donlan's articles on Homeric society truly helpful for understanding
the dynamics of the Odyssey and the Iliad, but one could argue they
are hermeneutically naive. Insofar as we will try to understand the
Ody. from an ancient Reader's/Hearer's Standpunkt, I am for all such
efforts until they try to forestall or foreclose our own reading and
our students'. I know LEd. is not doing any such thing, but I do
think his note implies we are engaged in some illegitimate
discourse, or at least infra dign. So please establish that other
horizon (s). Many thanks for all the ideas and controversy.
From
Lowell Edmunds
Re
oral tradition and poor old laertes In-Reply-To Your message of Sun,
20 Sep 1992 113514 EDT I can't remember Greg Crane's message well
enough to respond with any precision. What struck me, in his message
as in Don Lateiner's interpretation, was an implicit set of
questions about the character and the poem that I doubt can be
assumed for an audience coeval with the composition of the poem of
with other later audiences in antiquity. These questions have to do
with the conformity or non-conformity of the character with the
obligations of a specifically modern (twentieth century was too
extreme) moral subject.
Lowell
Edmunds
Subject
Re oral tradition and poor old laertes
If our target text is A and we have a contemporary document B that
has some bearing on A, it's true that our hermeneutic relation to B
is the same as to A. If we are talking about historically remote
sources, we are equally remote from both. But it's also true that B
is different from A and that we can grasp that difference. Pro
tanto, we can see outside our own horizon. In other words, the
difficulties that Don L. rightly points out, don't mean that we are
completely trapped. As for where we start, I've already said (and I
tried to demonstrate this procedure in FROM A SABINE JAR) that I am
in complete agreement with Don L. (and also I think with several
others who have addressed this point) that we have to start from
where we are. In this I depart from my training as a classicist,
which was based on the assumption (never discussed) that an
undistorted empirical historical understanding of antiquity was (at
least in principle) possible and should be the goal of scholarship.
I was taken with Jauss because his hermeneutical method seemed to
offer a compromise between that historicism and a complete shift to
the constructs of theory, free reader response or whatever.
From
Owen Cramer
Subject
Re oral tradition and poor old laertes
I've
enjoyed esp. Lowell Edmunds' and John Miles Foley's postings of
late; I was doing the first block of our beginning comp. lit. course
in which we read the Iliad (Fitzgerald's trans.) and Gogol's
_Overcoat_ (Penguin) along with the Eichenbaum essay on "How
the Overcoad is Made", and that Formalist reading, establishing
a "primary" level of purely linguistic, often phonological
generation of the text, what my students will forever now call
_skaz_, necessarily fed back into our dealing with Homer. Eichenbaum
raises exactly the question earlier posted on CLASSICS-L whether
there is a "character" here or more properly only a set of
features in a text; and he has the advantage of reports of Gogol's
narrative practice from contemporaries, whereas we only have, say,
Hesiod's reported interview with the Muses; or perhaps a masked
autobiographical moment in the Thetis-Hephaistos interview in Iliad
18 if we believe Berlekey Peabody in _The Winged Word_. I wasn't
raised a historicist and have no qualms in principle about this kind
of pre-modern=post-modern reading.
From:
john foley
Subject
Neoanalysis, texts, and Receptionalism
In
answer to Laurel Bowman's recent query about how I was using the
ever more slippery term "text" in relation to Neoanalysis,
I was trying to distinguish between Parry-Lord theory and
Neoanalysis by contrasting what they seem to see as "precursors"
or "influences" (even this aspect of the terminology is
treacherous). Although Kullmann, in the 1984 article for example,
speaks of oral traditions that eventually produce the written
_Iliad_, and although he seems to conceive of the _Aethiopis_ as
oral-traditional at the time that it influenced a proto-Iliad, the
particular kind of influence he describes seems to me to be textual.
Or, to put it less strongly, his idea of _Aethiopis_-to-_Iliad_
influence contrasts diametrically with the P-L notion of traditional
re-creation. So, whether he calls the works "written" or "oral-traditional,"
his idea of them and their interrelation seems very close to
textual. I would prefer not to argue that (endless and finally
misleading) question of actual provenance, and to stress instead the
continuity of "oral" and "written" -- or "textual"
-- works in a complex cultural milieu. We assimilate such works to
either a romantic, noble savage orality or the much more proximate
and comfortable literary model at our peril. Perhaps most
importantly, stubborn adherence to a dichotomy now shown by
fieldwork to be outmoded pre- vents us from giving Homer his
artistic due. In brief response to Lowell Edmunds on Jauss and
related matters, I have always found helpful the work of Jauss'
cohort, Wolfgang Iser. Just as the "horizons of expectation"
heuristic can be extended to ancient Greek literature, so Iser's
ideas about the "implied reader" and the reader's "co-creation
of a work" can be modified to untangle a few of the knots in
the reception of oral traditional works and oral-derived texts. One
simply substitutes an "implied audience" and takes account
of both the individual's and the tradition's contribution to
performance (originary or textually rhetorical) and to reception.
|
| Culled
from
classics.log9209 |
|