The Homeric Narrator and His Own kleos

Author(s): Irene J. F. de Jong

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 59, Fasc. 2 (2006), pp. 188-207
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4433723 .
Accessed: 26/08/2012 13:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.
http://www.jstor.org
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND
HIS OWN KLEOS*
BY
IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
Abstract
The Homeric narrator's celebrated reticence about his own
person, work,
and
aspirations
has led scholars to call him modest. In this
paper
I
argue
that there are
enough implicit
or indirect
signs
which
point
at a Homeric
narrator himself
aspiring
to
kleos, just
like the heroes he celebrates.
Introduction. A modest Homer?
The task of Homer is to
keep
alive the
memory
of the klea
andr?n,
the
'glorious
deeds of men'. This is
hardly
a controversial state-
ment,1) although
nowhere does he himself
say
as
much,
unlike
Herodotus,
for
example,
who writes his
history
'in order that the
important
and remarkable achievements
produced by
Greeks and
barbarians will not become devoid of fame
(aklea)\
or
Pindar,
who
offers his
song
as
'long-lasting light
for achievements of
great strength'
(0. 4.10).
The idea that
singing
the klea of others
might bring
the
poet
himself kleos is also often
expressed, e.g. by Ibycus,
who
promises
Polycrates 'undying
fame
(kleos)
as
song
and
my
fame
(kleos)
can
give
it'
(282.47-8).
But
again,
not
by
Homer. The
paradoxical
conclu-
sion must be that
although
Homer is the most famous
poet
of
ancient
literature,
the
history
of
poetic
fame,
in the sense of a
poet's
self-promotion,
seems to
begin only
after
him.2)
*
This is an
expanded
version of a
paper
I
gave
in Leuven. I wish to thank
S.R. van der
Mije
and M. de
Pourq
for
helpful suggestions,
Barbara
Fasting
for
correcting my English.
1)
Cf. Goldhill
1991,
166: "That the declaration and
preservation
of kleos is a
crucial function of the
poet's
voice in ancient Greek culture is a
commonplace".
2)
Cf.
Bendey [1713] 1938,
304: "Nor is there one word in Homer that
presages
or
promises immortality
to his
work,
as we find there is in the later
poets Virgil,
Horace, Ovid,
Lucan and
Statius";
Stroh
1971,
235: "Von diesen Stellen
abgese-
hen
[Iliad 6.237-8, etc.] spricht
Homer nicht von der
verewigenden
Macht seiner
Dichtung";
Stein
1990,
266.
?
Koninklijke
Brill
NV, Leiden,
2006
Mnemosyne,
Vol.
LIX,
Fase. 2
Also available online
-
www.brill.nl
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 189
It is indeed the
picture
of a modest Homer which we find
painted
in various colours
throughout
Homeric
scholarship (e.g.,
"Der
Gedanke,
dass der Mensch mitnichten der
Sch?pfer
des Werkes
ist. .
.,
sondern dass er
selbst,
das Ich als
solches,
entweder schein-
bar
gar
nicht vorhanden oder nur
Empfangender
oder nur Instrument
einer h?heren Gewalt ist?dieser Gedanke kann als der zentrale der
?ltesten hellenischen Literatur bezeichnet
werden"),3)
with renewed
vigour
since the
emergence
of oralism
(e.g., "Singers deny
that
they
are the creators of
song").4) A?partial?exception
is Maehler
(1963),
who detected an increase in authorial self-consciousness in the
Odyssey
vis-?-vis the
Iliad> though
on the whole
adhering
to the
picture
of
a modest
Homer,
in
comparison
with self-conscious
poets
such as
Theognis, Pindar,
and
Bacchylides.
The
progress
that Maehler made
is lost in the
study by
Ford
(1992), which,
though
in
many respects
highly illuminating
and
convincing,
to
my
mind
goes
too far in its
emphasis
on Homer's
complete
denial of
responsibility
for his own
poem.
In this
paper
I want to
modify
this
portrait
of a modest
Homer,
or as I
prefer
to
say,
Homeric
narrator.5)
In
my
view there are
occasional
signs,
of an
implicit
or indirect
nature,
which
point
to a
greater
self-consciousness than is
generally
assumed. I am not refer-
ring
to his?well-known and well-studied?indirect
promotion
of
epic poetry
in
general^ e.g.,
in the form of his alter
ego's
Phemius and
Demodocus or his illustrious
'colleague',
the
hero-singer Odysseus,6)
but
specifically
to the
promotion
of his oum
poems
and his own kleos.
Before
embarking
on
my
discussion of these
signs
of
self-promo-
tion,
I would like to look
briefly
at that ultimate
sign
of
modesty,
the
anonymity
of the Homeric
epics.
Scholars have
variously explained
this. The
explanation
most
frequently given
is that it is a characteristic
of heroic oral
poetry.
The
singers
felt
part
of a
long tradition,
and
their task was to
preserve
that tradition
by presenting
variations of
3)
Kranz
1967,
8.
4)
Lord
1960,
102.
5)
A recent
paper by
Scodel
(2004)
also discusses Homer's
modesty, by
which
she
refers, however,
to another
aspect
of his work: his refusal to
engage
in a dis-
cussion with his
predecessors,
as does
e.g.
Pindar.
6)
On Phemius and Demodocus as his alter
ego's,
see
esp.
Fr?nkel
1969, 6-27;
Marg 1971, 11-23;
Thalmann
1984, 122-33;
and Ford
1992, 101-25;
on
Odysseus
the
'singer',
see Thalmann
1984,
170-80 and
Segal 1994,
86-95.
190 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
an old tale.
They
never claimed a
song
as their own.
Moreover,
since
they
were
performing
before their
audiences,
there was no
need to
give
their names: their listeners could see who
they were.7)
The second
explanation belongs
to the
history
of mentalities: the
birth of
individuality
or
discovery
of the self
only
comes with the
rise of Greek
lyric or,
in a recent
variant,
with the advent of lit-
eracy.8)
A
third,
and
very special explanation
is that of Svenbro
(1976),
who
argues
that Homer refrains from
presenting
his
poems
under his own name in order to avoid the wrath of the Muses
(cf.
the fate of the
singer Thamyris,
as described in Iliad
2.594-600)
and
preclude possible negative
reactions from his audience.
Whatever its
explanation,
that
anonymity
is a fact. But does it
necessarily signify
a lack of self-consciousness on the
part
of the
poet?
Bowra,
who is an adherent of the first
explanation,
does not
think so:
Since a bard often claims the
past
or a
god
as the source of his infor-
mation,
he is not in a
position
to make
any great
claims for himself.
But this does not mean that heroic
poetry
is
necessarily anonymous,
or that bards are
always
too modest to claim their creations for them-
selves. In fact
they
are often far from
modest,
but even if
they were,
their audiences would not allow them to remain unknown . .. However
anonymous
their
poems may be,
the bards themselves are often well
known,
and that makes it
unlikely
that
they
disclaim
any
share in
works of their own
composition.9)
Bowra's
suggestion
is backed
up by
what we observe in the Homeric
poems
themselves: in his
songs
Demodocus does not
appear
to refer
to himself
(we
cannot be
sure,
since
they
are never
quoted directly),
and
yet
it is clear that
people
know his
name,
indeed that he is
famous. But Bowra's
suggestion
is not
really helpful
for
my
kind of
approach,
since it looks for self-consciousness outside the
poems.
The
same
applies
to
Ford,
who looks for self-consciousness of
poets
in
the
proems
which he assumes existed for these
poems (as they
do
for the Homeric
hymns
and
Hesiod):
7)
See Bowra
1952, 404-5;
Lord
1960, 101, 151-2;
Kranz
1967, 31;
Ford
1992,
23-31.
8)
See Snell
[1948]
1960;
Maehler
1963, 34;
Rosier
1980, 289-93;
Stein
1990,
1-5.
9)
Bowra
1952,
404.
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 191
At a
great
festival with an international
audience,
the
proem
was an
opportunity
to
lay
claim to a
large reputation;
in less formal cir-
cumstances,
it was the
privileged
moment for the
poet
to
speak
as ?
to that audience at that time and
place
. .. Short or
long,
it could
allow these
poets,
whose
pride, competitiveness,
and self-assertiveness
had made them Greek
poets,
to assert themselves and then sublimate
themselves into the transcendental voice of the
Muses.10)
What I am interested
in, however,
are
signs
of
self-promotion
within
the
poems
themselves,
and those are the
signs
I will be
looking
for.
1. The Muses
It
may
seem
strange
to start with the Muses when
arguing
for
the Homeric narrator's
self-consciousness,
since
they traditionally
have been seen as the
very symbol
of his
modesty.
The Muse-invo-
cations, especially
those at the
opening,
seem to
point explicitly
at
the Muse as the one who is
speaking:
????? ae?de, ?e?, ??????de?
???????
and
"??d?a ??? e??epe, ???sa, p???t??p??.
And
yet,
when
we look at the
history
of
scholarship
on the Homeric
Muse,
we
may
note an
interesting development leading
towards the emanci-
pation?indeed
the self-assertion?of the narrator vis-?-vis his
god.
Let me start at the
beginning
and
quote
an
early (1934) analysis
of
the relation of narrator and
Muse,
which attributes
responsibility
for the
poem
almost
completely
to the
god:
"Nicht der
Mensch,
der Dichter schafft das
Werk,
sondern die
Gottheit,
des Dichters
besondere
Schutzgottheit,
mit einem Wort: sein Gott selbst schafft
das Werk oder ist mindestens in
irgend
einer Weise wesentlich daran
beteiligt.
Entweder ist der Dichter nur
Empf?nger
der
g?ttlichen
Kraft oder Instrument der
Gottheit,
die durch ihn das Werk
schafft,
oder der Dichter erh?lt von seinem Gott die Gabe des
Dichtens,
. .
.,
oder sein Gott steht ihn durch seinen Rat in besonders
schwierigen
F?llen
bei."11)
At some
stage,
scholars
began
to stress the fact that
it is
only
in the Muse-invocations at the
beginning
of the
poems
that the narrator is
completely dependent
on the
Muse,
and that
10)
Ford
1992,
28. The
proems
he is
referring
to are
something
different from
the Muse-invocations with which the Iliad and
Odyssey open.
11)
Falter
1934, 3-10; quotation
from
p.
3. The same view in Kranz
1967,
10-7;
Schadewaldt
1959, 78-9; Kambylis 1965, 13-6;
and Lenz
1980,
27.
192 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
in other
places
he himself does seem to be the one
speaking:
thus,
it is the narrator who seems to answer his own
question
in Iliad
1.8-9
(???
t*
?? sf?e
?e??
e??d? ??????e ???es?a?; ??t???
?a?
????
?????
?
?a?
. .
.), and,
even more
unambiguously,
it is he
who,
after
his
request
for information in Iliad 2.484-7
(?spete
???
???,
???sa?
????p?a d??at' e???sa?,.
. . ??
t??e? ??e???e?
?a?a?? ?a?
????a???
?sa?),
in 493 announces that he will do the
speaking (??????
a?
???? ???? ????
te
p??p?sa?).
In 1987 I took a further
step
and
analysed
the
relationship
between
narrator and Muse in terms of double motivation: both
god (muse)
and mortal
(narrator)
are involved at the same time. If the activities
of Demodocus and Phemius are described as double
motivation,
notably
in
Odyssey
8.44-5
(t? ??? ?a ?e?? p???
d??e?
???d?? t??pe??,
dpp? ????? ?p?t????s?? ?e?de??)
and 22.347-8
(a?t?d?da?t??
d*
e???, ?e??
de
???
??
f?es?? ???a? pa?t??a? ???f?se?), why
should
we not
apply
the same model to the
(primary)
narrator himself?
Being
assisted
by
a
god
is no
sign
of
modesty,
but rather of
proud
self-consciousness: the
gods only help
those who deserve to be
helped.12)
Homer's
colleague
Hesiod would later be
very explicit
about this honorable selection or Dichterweihe
(Theogony 22-32).
Aligning
himself with the Muse adds to the status of his own
work,
more
specifically
to its
reliability.
The Muses add the authen-
ticity
of an
eye-witness report
to mortal
hearsay stories,
klea
(cf.
//.
2.485-6). Moreover, calling
on the
Muses,
whom Hesiod refers to
as 'the
daughters
of
Mnemosyne',
is also an indirect advertisement
of the narrator's
extraordinary ability
to memorize
long
stories
crammed with names and events. Thus the
self-promotion
of the
narrator via the
Muses,
such as the double-motivation model
describes,
is not a
sign
of
vanity,
but serves to enhance the
authority
of his
story.13)
In 1992 the
study
of Ford on Homer. The
Poetry of
the Past com-
pletely swung
the
pendulum
back
again:14)
12)
De
Jong 1987b,
45-53. Similar
analyses
in Verdenius
1983, 38-40; Murray
1983, 11;
P?tscher
1986;
Rito?k
1989, 342-3;
and
Segal 1994,
138.
13)
For discussion and
scholarship
on this
important aspect
of the Homeric
epics,
see De
Jong 2001,
ad 8.487-91.
14)
Cf. also
Finkelberg 1998,
who states that "the traditional
poet
saw himself
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 193
Epic
.. . seems to have chosen to divert ideas of verbal
artistry
from
its
singers
and to have transferred them onto
gods
as the ultimate
shapers
of events. Thus Homer discounts and even denies the
sig-
nificance of the
poet
in
shaping
and
defining poetry
... we are not
in some
period
before the
discovery
of the
self,
but we are in a
genre
in which it was
expected
that the
poet
would remove himself from
the text and
speak
not as an artisan of words but as transmitter of
stories.15)
Ford bases his claim first on the Muse-invocations and
passages
such as Iliad
6.357-8,
where Helen
complains
that the
gods give
her sorrow in order to become a
subject
of
song
for later
genera-
tions,
and
second,
following Svenbro,
on Homer's avoidance of
speaking
"of the
poet's activity
in terms of 'art' or 'skill' or 'craft'".
To deal with the latter would
require
another
study,
which I do
not intend to undertake here. The
'subject
of
song
for later
generations'
passages
will be discussed in detail in section three. As for all theories
which
attempt
to attribute at least some share of the
poetic
work
to the
singer,
these are
rejected by
Ford as the refusal of "the
romantic in us to see the
poet
as
merely
the 'tool' or
'passive
instru-
ment' of the Muses". He discusses a number of these
theories,
which
in various
ways argue
for a division of labour between
singer
and
Muse
('the
Muse
gives
the
poet
the content and he
puts
the form
on
it'),
and then
goes
on to
say
that "it is anachronistic to foist
upon
this oral art form a clear and
significant
distinction between
form and content". The attractiveness of
my
double-motivation the-
ory, however,
which he does not
mention,
is that it does not
imply
a division of labour
(let
alone a distinction between form and con-
tent),
but
argues
for a simultaneous collaboration of mortal and
god.
I see no
reason, therefore,
to
give up
the idea that the
Muses,
far
from
signalling modesty
or
dependence,
are in fact a subtle and
effective form of self-advertisement.
2. The kleos
of song
To win kleos is a central concern of Homeric
heroes,
who have
been
aptly
called 'status-warriors'. Once
acquired,
this kleos must be
as a
mouthpiece
of the Muses" and "no element in the
song
. . . would be con-
strued
by
the audience or the
poet
himself as the
poet's
'creation'"
(27).
15)
Ford
1992, 31-9, quotations
from
pp.
38-9.
194 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
spread
in time and
place.
Kleos can be
spread by
the heroes them-
selves, acting
as narrators
(Odysseus)
or
amateur-singers (Achilles),
but those best suited to
perpetuate
the kleos of men are the
pro-
fessional
singers,
because of their
relationship
with the
Muses.16)
Later
poets
will not hesitate to describe?and hence
promote?this
fact
explicitly, e.g., Theognis (237-52),
who tells the
subject
of his
poetry, Cyrnus,
that his name will be
spread
over the whole world
and will not die after his
death,
thanks to the
gift
of the Muses
which escorts
him, i.e.,
thanks to his immortalization in
(Theognis')
poetry.
Thus in
principle
the task of a
poet
is to further the kleos of
others. But the Homeric narrator twice indicates that
songs
them-
selves
may
also
partake
of
kleos?,
in
Odyssey
8.73-5:
???s'
a?'
???d??
????e? ?e?d??e?a?
???a
a?d???,
?????, t??
t?t'
a?a ????? ???a??? e???? ??a?e,
?e???? '?d?ss???
?a?
???e?de? ???????,.
. .
'The Muse incited Demodocus to
sing
the klea of
men,
[part of]
a
cycle
of
songs,
the kleos of which at that time reached the
broad
heaven,
[namely]
the
quarrel
between
Odysseus
and Peleus' son
Achilles,
. . .'
and in
Odyssey
1.351-2
(Telemachus speaking
about
Phemius):
"t?? ?a? ???d?? ??????
?p???e???s*
?????p??,
? t??
??????tess?
?e?t?t? ??f?p???ta?."
Tor
people always
bestow more kleos on that
song,
which is the newest to reach the ears of listeners.'17
Can we
apply
what is said about Demodocus and Phemius to the
Homeric narrator and his
poems?
I believe we can. In
my
narra-
tological commentary
I
point
to the remarkable t?te in
Odyssey
8.74.18)
This is one of three instances of absolute t?te
('at
that
time',
sc. in the
past)
in the Homeric narrator-text. The
emphatic
'then'
implies
a
'now',
and the narrator seems to be
referring indirectly
16)
For
general
discussions of Homeric
kleos,
see Maehler
1963, 10-3, 26-7;
Segal 1994, 85-109;
Edwards
1985, 71-91;
Goldhill
1991, 96-166;
Olson
1995,
1-23.
17)
And cf. the fact that
singers
are called
pe?????t??
in
Odyssey
1.325 and 8.83.
I also draw attention to
Odyssey
8.497-8,
where
Odysseus promises
to tell other
people
about Demodocus' divine
talent,
in other
words,
to
spread
his fame.
18)
De
Jong
2001,
a? 8.74.
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 195
to his own
poem:
at that time
(when Odysseus
visited the
Phaeacians)
songs
about the
Trojan
war and the nostoi of the other heroes were
famous,
now
(in
his own
time)
his
song
is
heard, which,
because it
is about the nostos of the last Greek to come home
(cf.
Od.
1.11-5),
is the newest and hence
deserving
of
kleos.?)
3. The
'subject of song for
later
generations' motif
Because of their interest in
kleos,
Homeric characters
very
much
think,
indeed
worry
about how
they
will
appear
in the
eyes
of future
generations, e.g.
Hector in Iliad
22.304-5:20)
"?? ?a?
?sp??d?
?e
?a?
???e??? ?p???????,
???a
???a ???a?
t? ?a?
?ss??????s?
p???s?a?."
'Even
so,
let me not die without a
fight
and without
kleos,
but
only
after
having
done some
great
deed for future
generations
to
hear of.'
Sometimes characters more
specifically
look ahead to their becom-
ing
the
subject
of
song, e.g.
Helen
(//. 6.357-8):
"??s?? ep?
?e?? ???e
?a???
?????, ??
?a? ?p?ss?
?????p??s? pe???e?' ???d???? ?ss??????s?."
'(Hector, you
have to
fight
hard because of Paris and
myself),
on whom Zeus set a vile
destiny,
so that even hereafter
we shall be
subjects
of
song
for men of future
generations.'
There is no
denying
that the
prophecy
voiced here
by
Helen is ful-
filled
by
the Iliad.
Indeed,
some time after the creation of the Iliad
a
fellow-poet, Simonides,
will 'confirm' Helen's words
(fr. 11.15-8):
19)
Cf.
Nagy 1974,
12: "I believe that the
poet
of the
Odyssey
is here
[in
Od.
1.351-2] making
a self-conscious reference to his own
genre,
or even to his com-
position".
Whether
?e?t?t?
can also have a connotation of
originality
is a mat-
ter of debate. Pro:
Beye (1966, 79)
and Danek
(1998, 60);
contra: Hose
(2000, 8).
The two
passages
make clear that
epic poetry
need not
necessarily always
deal
with the remote
past;
cf. Latacz
1996, 83,
who remarks that
comparative
research
on
epics
shows that
they
do
incorporate
recent
events,
and Crielaard 2002. Now
the Homeric narrator does indicate at other
places
that his
subject
matter
belongs
to the remote
past, so,
if
my
self-referential
interpretation
of the two
passages
is
right,
this would show him here not
looking
back at his
poem
from his own tem-
poral vantage point,
but forward from the other
poems
inside his
poem
to his
own
poem,
which forms their
culmination;
see Thalman
1984,
162-3.
20)
Cf. //.
2.119; 3.287;
Od.
22.255;
24.433.
196 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
??s?? ?p'
???]?at?? ????ta? ????? ??[d???] e??t?
?? pa?* ??p]??????? d??at? ??e??d[??
p?sa?
????e???,
?a?
?p?????? ?p[??t??]??s??
p???s' ??]????? ???????? ?e?e?[?.
'they [Greeks
who
fought
at
Troy]
are bathed in kleos that cannot
die, by grace
of one who from the dark-tressed Muses had received
truth
entire,
and made the heroes' short-lived race a theme familiar
to
younger men.21)
Can we
go
so far as to take Iliad 6.357-8 and two similar
passages
(Od. 3.203-4; 8.579-80)
as
signs
of self-consciousness on the
part
of
the Homeric
narrator,
who makes famous heroes of the
past
fore-
tell his own
poems? Together
with
quite
a few other
scholars,
I
say
'yes'.22)
According
to
Ford, however,
these
passages provide
more
proof,
in addition to the
Muse-invocations,
that the narrator is
renouncing
responsibility
for his own
poem,
instead
attributing
it to the
gods,
who would create both the
destiny
of a mortal and the
song
which
recounts that
destiny.23)
This seems to me an untenable
interpretation,
both because the Greek in Iliad 6
clearly suggests
that the 'men of
future
generations' (not
the
gods)
will
make/sing
the
song
about
Helen,
and because in
Odyssey
1.347-9 Telemachus
explicitly
dis-
tinguishes
between fate
(for
which the
gods
are
responsible)
and
song (for
which the
singer
is
responsible).
At first
glance, Odyssey
24.196-8 would
appear
to be a better can-
didate to
suggest
the divine
origin
of mortal
song.
Here
Agamemnon
proclaims:
21)
Text and translation
by
M.
West,
as cited in Boedeker-Sider
2001,
27-8.
For Simonides'
praise
of
Homer,
see
Clay 2001,
10-1.
22)
De
Jong 2001,
ad 8.579-80. Cf. Schadewaldt
1959, 80-1; Murray 1983,
3-4;
Thalmann
1984, 153;
and Kullmann
1992,
297. Maehler
(1963, 26,
n.
2)
is
non-committal: "aus der
Perspektive
des
S?ngers
stellt sich der
urspr?ngliche
Kausalzusammenhang umgekehrt
dar,
und er
?bertr?gt
diese
Perspektive
unwillk?r-
lich auf die Personen seiner
Dichtung". Marg (1971, 20-1)
wants to
interpret
these
passages only
in their context and denies a self-referential
significance.
In narra-
tological terms,
we can consider Iliad 6.357-8 etc. a kind of
metalepsis:
when char-
acters interfere in the world of the narrator or vice
versa;
cf. Genette
1980,
234-5.
23)
Ford
1992,
38: "So Helen makes the
gods
the ultimate creators of the
epic
in which she and Paris will
figure".
In his
view, passages
like
Odyssey
3.132-3, 136,
152,
or Iliad
1.2,
where we hear of the
gods 'making'
woes/strife for
mortals,
all
suggest
divine
literary
creation.
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 197
"tf
??
?????
?? p?t* ??e?ta?
?? ??et??, te????s?
d'
?p????????s?? ???d??
a???at??
?a??essa? ???f???? ???e??pe??."
Therefore the kleos of her
[Penelope's]24)
excellence shall never
die
away,
but the immortals will make
among
mankind
a
graceful song
for
prudent Penelope,.
. .'
However,
most scholars
analyse
this
passage
in terms of double
motivation: the
gods
'make a
graceful song among
mankind'
by
incit-
ing
a
singer.25) They
also
agree
that the
graceful song
announced
here is the
Odyssey itself.26) By connecting
the
Odyssey
with the
gods,
the Homeric narrator enhances its status and
authority,
and
by
hav-
ing Agamemnon,
a hero of whom
Odysseus says
that 'his kleos is
now
greatest
under heaven'
(9.264), predict
the
Odyssey,
he
height-
ens the effectiveness of this
'metaleptic' move.27)
There is one more
passage, which, though phrased
somewhat
differently,
would
appear
to
belong
to this
category
of characters
referring
to the Homeric
poems (Od. 9.19-20):
"e??' ?d?se?? ?ae?t??d??, d?
p?s? d????s??
?????p??s? ????,
?a?
?e? ????? ???a???
??e?."
? am
Odysseus,
son of
Laertes, object
of interest to all men
because of
my crafty designs,
and
my
kleos reaches heaven.'
Odysseus
is
saying
three
things,
and
referring
to three forms of kleos.
In the first
place,
he can
rightly
claim that his kleos reaches
heaven,
since
shortly
before he was the
subject
of two
songs by
Demodocus.
In the second
place,
he will soon start
recounting
his adventures
on the
way home,
voicing
his own klea in a manner
very
much like
that of a
professional singer.
But in
my
view it is not far-fetched
24)
Scholars are divided as to who is the referent of oi:
Penelope, Odysseus,
or
both. For discussion
(and
older
scholarship),
see Edwards
1985, 90;
Katz
1991,
20-9;
and Goldhill
1991,
100. I
opt
for the traditional
analysis,
which takes
Penelope
as the
referent,
accepting
the
consequence
that at this
point
the
Odyssey
is seen as
primarily Penelope's (rather
than
Odysseus') song.
25)
Cf.
Russo,
Fernandez-Galiano & Heubeck
1992,
ad loe. Ford takes lines
196-7 as 'the
gods
will fashion a
song
for men on
earth',
but it seems more
likely
that
?p????????s??
has a local sense
(cf.
the
clearly parallel
?p'
a????p???
in
201).
26)
Cf.
Finley 1978, 3;
Thalmann
1984, 169;
Edwards
1985, 90-1;
Katz
1991,
20-9.
27) Murnaghan 1987, 125;
Goldhill
1991, 101;
Danek
1998,
487.
198 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
to take this
passage
also as a tribute which the Homeric narrator
indirectly pays
to
himself,
since he after all includes in his own
poem
both Demodocus'
songs
and
Odysseus' travel-story: Odysseus
is
famous,
because he is the main character of the
Odysseyl28)
Interestingly,
this motif
whereby
characters foresee their future as
literary personages
will be found
again
in
Euripides
Troades
1242-5,
where Hecuba
says:
e? d?
?? ?e??
?st?e?e
ta??
pe???a???
??t?
??????,
afa?e??
a?
d?te?
??? a?
?????e??e?
a?
???sa?? ???da? d??te? ?st???? ???t??.
'And
yet
had not the
gods
turned the world
upside
down,
we should
have
acquired
no
significance,
and should have remained
unsung,
instead of
giving
themes of
song
for future
generations.'
The allusion to the Homeric sentiment of Iliad 6.357-8 etc. is obvi-
ous,
and
Euripides'
audience no doubt connected 'the future
gen-
erations' with
Homer,
who indeed immortalized Hecuba and
Troy.29)
4. The Achaean
wall,
or the
(songs
last
longer
than monuments9
motif
The
counterparts
of
song
as
preservers
of kleos are
monuments,30)
primarily grave-mounds,
as witness
e.g. Odyssey
24.80-4:
"???a?
?a?
??????a t?????
?e?a?e? ???e??? ?e??? st?at?? a????t???
??t?
ep?
p??????s?,
?p? p?ate?
????sp??t?,
28)
R?ter
1969,
254: "Indem Od. . . . sich selbst
r?hmt,
r?hmt er
zugleich
die
Odyssee
und ihren
Dichter,
denn
Dichtung
und Dichter sind es
ja,
die seinen
Ruhm zum Himmel
tragen.
Der Dichter
jedoch zugleich
mit seinem Helden sich
selbst und sein Werk." Schadewaldt
(1959, 80-1)
and
Taplin (1992, 88)
also take
Iliad 2.325
(the
kleos of the
portent
at Aulis will never
die)
as
self-referential,
to
my
mind
unconvincingly.
29)
Other instances of the
'subject
of
song
for future
generations'
motif are
found in
Theognis 251-2; Euripides
Alcestis
445-54, Supplices 1225,
and Theocritus
Idyl 12.11;
these do
not, however,
refer to
(future) epic song
or Homer.
My
col-
league
from the French
department,
Dr.
Jelle Koopmans,
drew
my
attention to
an instance of the motif in Chanson de Roland
1466,
where Roland exhorts Olivier
at the
beginning
of the batde: "Male
chan?un
n'en deit cantee"
('Let
no unfavor-
able
song
be
sung
about
it',
sc. our behaviour in the
batde).
30)
I was
inspired
here
by
Ford
(1992, 131-71), although
I do not share his
conclusions
(see
n.
34).
Cf. also the
highly illuminating chapters
four and five in
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 199
??
?e?
t??efa???
??
p??t?f?? ??d??s?? e??
t???
?? ???
?e??as?
?a? ??
?et?p?s?e?
?s??ta?."
Ve
piled up
a
grave
mound that was both
great
and
perfect,
on a
jutting promontory
there
by
the wide
Hellespont,
so that it could be seen afar from out of the sea
by
men now alive and those to be born in the
future.'31)
Ideally,
these future
people
not
only
see the
grave-mound
but also
recall the deeds of the man buried
there,
in the
way wishfully
described
by
Hector
(//. 7.84-91):
t?? d? ????? ?p?
??a? ??ss?????? ap?d?s?,
?f??
?
ta???s?s? ???? ??????te? '??a???,
s???
t? ??
?e??s??
?p? p?ate?
????sp??t?.
?a? p?t?
t?? e?p?s?
?a?
???????? a????p??
??'? p???????d?
p???? ?p? ????pa p??t??
a?d??? ???
t?de
s??a
p??a?
?atate????t??,
d? p?t*
???ste???ta
?at??ta?e
fa?d???? "??t??.
??
p?t?
t?? ???e??
t? d'
???? ?????
?? p?t' ??e?ta?.
'(if
I
win,)
I will
give
back the
body (of my opponent)
so that the
long-haired
Greeks
may give
him due burial
and
heap
a mound for him
by
the broad
Hellespont.
And some
day
one of the men to come will
say,
sailing
in his
many-benched ship
on the wine-blue sea:
"This is the mound of a man who died
long ago,
whom
fighting bravely glorious
Hector killed."
So he will
speak
some
day,
and
my
kleos will never die.'
Hector's
imaginary speech
of 'one of the men to come' bears a
striking
resemblance to
inscriptions
on real
graves, e.g.:
S??a
t?de
?????da. ????p??
t??d'
??esa? "??e?
?a????e??? pa??
?a?s?? ?p*
???????? ??a?s?
p?????
???ste???ta
?at? st????ssa? ??t??.
'This is the tomb of Arniadas.
Gleaming-eyed
Ares
destroyed
him
Ford
2002,
where
again
I do not
accept
his conclusion on
p.
116 that "Homer
does not draw
explicit analogies (positive
or
negative)
between the monumental-
izing
of
poetry
and the
tangible
monument of stone or
bronze";
although
he writes
"explicit" analogies,
he means in fact all
analogies,
also
implicit
ones. Crielaard
(2002, 249-56)
also
points
at
objects
which in their
'biography' preserve
the mem-
ory
of
heroes, e.g. Iphitus'
bow
{Od. 21.13-41);
these
passages, however,
never con-
tain the
key-word
kleos.
31)
Cf. also Od. 11.75-6
~
12.14-5;
//.
7.84-91; 11.371-2;
16.456-7.
200 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
as he
fought by
the
ships
at the stream of
Arathus,
excelling gready
in the baleful clamor of
batde.'32)
On account of this
resemblance,
I called Iliad 7.89-90 an 'oral
epi-
taph'.33) Although
it derives from a
passer-by
and not a
poet,
it is
likely
that his
memory
is fed
by epic poetry.
Indeed,
the combina-
tion
'glorious
Hector' is one of the standard
ways
in which Hector
is referred to in the Iliad. Thus the
suggestion
is that
poems
are an
important,
indeed an
indispensable companion
to
physical
monuments.
Later
poets
will turn this
cooperation
between monument and
song
into a
rivalry
between the two
immortalizing
media,
which is
won
by song, e.g.,
Pindar
Pythian
6.7-14:
. . .
?t????? ????? ??sa????
??
p??????s?
'?p???????:
tete???sta?
??pa
t?? ??te
?e??????? d?????, ?pa?t??
?????
????????? ?ef??a?
st?at?? ??e??????,
??t'
??e??? ?? ??????
???? ????s? pa?f??? ?e??de?
t?pt??e???.
'. . . a treasure house of
victory songs
has been built in
Apollo's
val-
ley
rich in
gold,
one which neither winter
rain, coming
from a
loudly
rumbling
cloud as a harsh
army,
nor wind shall buffet and with their
deluge
of silt
carry
into the
depths
of the sea.'
While monuments can be
destroyed by
the
elements, songs
are
everlasting.
Is the same
opposition already present
in Homer? I think it is.
For this we must turn to the
long
external
prolepsis
in which the
narrator describes the fate of the wall around the Greek
ships
after
the fall of
Troy (//. 12.17-30):
(when
the Greeks had
left,)
d?
t?te
??t????t?
??se?d??? ?a? '?p?????
te???? ??a?d??a? p?ta??? ????? e?sa?a???te?.
dss?? ?p' ?da???
?????
??a d?
p??????s?,
32) Corcyra,
end of the sixth
century
BC.
Quoted
in Peek
1955,
25.
33)
De
Jong
1987a,
77-8. See also Scodel
1992, 58-9,
who
speaks
of an 'anti-
epitaph' (in
that Hector rather than the man buried is
praised).
She
suggests
that
in Homer's time real
epitaphs already
existed but that
Homer, wanting
to
depict
a
pre-literate
heroic
society,
instead inserted this oral
pendant.
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 201
'??s??
?'
?pt?p????
te
????s??
te
'??d???
te 20
G???????
te ?a?
??s?p?? d???
te
S???a?d???
?a?
S???e??,
d?? p????
??????a
?a?
t??f??e?a?
??ppes?? ??
?????s?
?a?
??????? ????? a?d???
t?? p??t??
???se st??at' et?ape F????? '?p?????,
?????a?
d'
?? te????
?e?
????
?e d'
??a ?e??
25
s??e???, df??
?e ??ss?? ???p??a
te??ea ?e??.
a?t??
d'
????s??a??? ???? ?e??ess? t??a??a?
??e?t',
?? d'
??a
p??ta
?e?e???a ???as? p??pe
f?t???
?a?
????,
ta ??sa?
??????te? '??a???,
?e?a d'
?p???se? pa?' ???????? ????sp??t??,...
30
'then Poseidon and
Apollo planned
to wreck the
wall, letting
loose the
strength
of rivers
upon it,
all the rivers that run to the sea from the mountains of
Ida,
Rhesus,
Heptaporus,
Karesus, Rhodius,
Granicus,
Aesopus, holy Scamander,
and
Simoeis,
where
many
ox-hide shields and helmets
and a race of semi-divine men had fallen in the dust.
Phoebus
Apollo
turned the mouths of all these waters
together
and nine
days long
hurled the flood
against
the wall. And Zeus rained
incessandy,
to wash the wall the sooner into the sea.
And the shaker of the earth himself
holding
in his hand the trident
guided them,
and hurled into the waves all the foundations
of
logs
and stones that the
toiling
Greeks had set into
position,
and made all smooth
again
beside the
strong-flowing Hellespont,.
. .'
What
happens
here is what Pindar said in
Pythian
6 would never
happen
to the 'treasure house' of his
song:
a monument is
destroyed
by
rain and waves and carried to the
sea,
leaving
behind no trace
in the
landscape.
And
although, characteristically,
the Homeric nar-
rator does not
spell
it
out,
the
message is,
I
think,
clear: no trace
of the Achaean wall
remains,
and its
memory
survives
solely
as a
result of his
song,
which describes its construction in book 7 and
the fierce battle around it in book
15.34)
We could even
go
a
step
34)
There are
many
other
interpretations
of the
significance
of this
unique
excurse on the destruction of the wall:
1) according
to Aristotie and
many
schol-
ars in his
wake,
the
poet
removed what he had created
himself,
so as to
prevent
his hearers from
going
and
looking
for the wall of which there was no
trace; 2)
Scodel
(1982) compares
the
passage
to
Flood-myths,
and
suggest
that the wall
puts
the
Trojan
war into a remote
past
and marks the end of the era of the
heroes;
3)
Ford
(1992, 147-57)
takes the wall to
represent
the Iliad and
suggests
that Homer
resisted the idea of fixation of his text
through writing
and showed via the destruc-
tion of the wall that such fixation does not work.
202 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
further and
say
that without the
Iliad,
not
only
the
memory
of the
wall,
but that of the martial
exploits
of the race of semi-divine men
at
Troy (symbolized
in the above
passage by
their ox-hide shields
and
helmets)
would have been lost. As Reinhardt
puts
it: "Was
Poseidon
verrichtet,
ist das Werk der
ewigen
Natur. Das Menschen-
werk
geht
unter im
Ewigen.
Das
Grosse,
das
geschah,
lebt nur noch
im
Gedicht."35)
A later fellow
poet, Propertius,
will
spell
out what the Homeric
narrator leaves
implicit (Elegy 3.1.25-34):
Nam
quis equo pulsas abiegno
nosceret arces 25
fluminaque
Haemonio comminus isse
viro,
Idaeum
Simoenta,
Iovis cunabula
parui,
Hectora
per campos
ter masculasse rotas?
Deiphobumque Helenumque
et
Polydamantis
in armis
qualemcumque
Parim vix sua nosset humus. 30
Exiguo
sermone fores
nunc, Ilion,
et tu
Troia bis Oetaei numine
capta
dei.
Nec non ille tui casus memorator Homerus
posteritate
suum crescere sensit
opus.
'For who would know the fortress battered
by
the firwood
horse,
the
rivers that
fought
in combat with
Thessaly's hero,
Simoeis
together
with
Jove's offspring
Scamander,
and the chariot that thrice befouled
Hector's
body
on the
plain?
And
Deiphobus
and Helenus and Paris
in
Polydamas'
armour, sorry figure though
he
cut,
their own coun-
try
would
scarcely
know about.
Ilion, you
would now be litde talked
of,
as
you too, Troy,
twice taken
by
the
power
of Oeta's
god.
Homer
also,
the chronicler of
your fate,
has found his
reputation grow
with
the
passage
of
time.'36)
Propertius'
remark about Homer's own
'reputation growing
with
the
passage
of time'
brings
me to
my
last
point.
35)
Reinhardt
1961, 267-9, quotation
from 269.
Taplin (1992, 140)
adds:
"Poetry
is
imperishable, provided
that?unlike the wall?it has attracted divine favour. The
poet prompts
the
thought
that it is
significant
that the
gods
have not obliterated
the Iliad!"
36) Propertius' poem
forms
part
of a series of
passages
which
suggest
that the
kleos of the Homeric heroes is
entirely
due to Homer: cf. Pindar Nemean
7.20-33;
Theocritus
16.51-7;
22.218-20.
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 203
5. Immortal kleos
of
Homeric
poems?
Does the Homeric narrator even foresee for himself and his
poems
the kind of immortal kleos which later
poets
claim,
most
famously
Horace in Ode 3.30.1-7
(?
have finished a monument more
lasting
than bronze ... I shall not
wholly die,
and a
large part
of me will
elude the Goddess of
death')?37)
In the
past
most scholars would
have answered 'no'
(see my
note
2),
and
recently
Ford has reiterated
this
position:
Often without
thinking
we assume that Homer would have ended his
dictation or
writing
with the same
feeling
as
Horace,
when he
penned
the
epilogue
to three books of odes. . . Yet I do not see much trace
of such an attitude in Homer. . .To assume that the
availability
of
writing
would have
automatically brought
with it
expectations
of
Horatian
perfection
and
enduringness may
be a no less
apocalyptic
fantasy
than the notion of a 'literate revolution' in which the tech-
nology
of the
alphabet instantaneously
transformed
thought
and
speech.38)
The
suggestion
is that ideas of
poetic immortality only
come with
the introduction of
writing,
and even then
only slowly, just
as?or
perhaps
because?notions of authorial consciousness and of text as
a fixed
unity only develop together
with
writing.
In
my view,
here?
as in
many
other
respects?too sharp
a distinction is drawn between
oral and written
texts.39)
Let us take
up things
one
by
one. It has been
suggested
that
even an oral Homeric narrator
may
have conceived of his own nar-
rative as a text: "Construction of an
architecturally accomplished
poem
on that scale . . .
implies
some
impressive?probably life-long?
degree
of
premeditation
and
planning,
a sense of
text,
and
suggests
something
which in
principle
is
capable
of
being repeated.
Such a
construction does not necessitate the use of
writing."40) Next,
it has
37)
For an overview of such claims
(mainly
from the side of Roman
poets),
see
Stroh 1971.
38)
Ford
1992,
135-6 and
again
in Ford
2003,
19: "I shall
argue
that it is
significant
that
only very
late in the fifth
century
we find
songs being approached,
studied,
and
enjoyed
in the form of texts?fixed and isolated verbal constructs
demanding
a
special
form of
appreciation
and
analysis".
39) Despite
the fact that the volume in which Ford's 2003
paper appeared
argues against
such a strict
dichotomy.
Cf. Yunis
2003,
esp.
10: "Oral and writ-
ten
phenomena
are found mixed in
complicated, unpredictable ways".
40)
Dowden
1996,
48.
204 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
been claimed that even in the case of oral
poetry
there must have
been such a
thing
as
re-performance:
There is
every
reason to
suppose
not
merely
that all the archaic and
early
classical
poetry
that survived into the Hellenistic
age
was
orig-
inally performed orally
. .
.,
but that most of it was often
re-performed
subsequent
to the first
production.
Otherwise,
what would be the
point
of the
poet's
universal
claim,
from Homer to
Pindar,
that
they
conferred
lasting
and
widespread glory, kleos,
on the
subjects
of their
songs.41)
This claim is
actually
backed
up by
a
passage
in the
Odyssey
itself
(8.492-3, Odysseus
is
addressing Demodocus):
"???'
??e d? ?et?????
?a? ?pp??
??s???
?e?s??
d???at???"
'But
change subject
and
sing
the ?cosmos of the Wooden Horse'
If we follow those scholars who take
??s???
to refer not to the con-
struction of the Wooden Horse
(which,
after
all,
is not described in
the
ensuing song),
but to the well-constructed
song
about the Wooden
Horse,42)
then what we have here is
Odysseus asking
for a
pre-exist-
ing song,
which is
re-performed by
Demodocus in what
follows.43)
Assuming
that the Homeric narrator thinks of his own
poems
as
texts and is familiar with the
phenomenon
of
re-performance,
he
may
also be
expected
to foresee immortal kleos for his
poems. Entirely
in
character,
he does not voice this idea
himself,
but
puts
it into
the mouth of one of his central
characters,
Achilles
(77. 9.412-6):
"e?
???
?' a???
????? ?????
p????
??f??????a?,
??et?
??? ??? ??st??, ?t?? ????? ?f??t??
esta?-
e? d? ?e? ?'??ad'
????? f???? e? pat??da ?a?a?,
??et?
??? ????? ?s????,
?p?
d????
d?
???
a???
esseta?..."
'if I
stay
here and
fight
round the
city
of the
Trojans,
my
return home is
gone,
but
my
kleos shall be
everlasting;
if I return home to
my
dear native
land,
my great
kleos is
gone,
but
my
life will be
long
. . .'
41) Herington
1985,
50.
42)
So Latacz
1991, 383-7; Finkeiberg 1998, 126;
and N?nlist
1998, 90-1,
who
lists older literature. The
IfgrE
s.v.
gives
both
interpretations.
43)
In De
Jong
2004 it is
argued
that lines like 8.492-3
(and
cf. Od. 1.326-7 or
8.267)
function as a kind of 'tides' for existent
poems.
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 205
Achilles does not
specify
that his
everlasting
kleos is due to his
appear-
ing
in
poetry,
and in his
commentary
Griffin writes: "Do we
really
believe that
Achilles,
at such a
moment,
is
presented
as
talking
about himself as a
literary figure?"44)
He is
clearly sceptical.
I
myself
am more inclined to answer this
question
with a
'yes',
on the basis
of the self-referential
passages
discussed in section 3. An
appealing
analysis
of what is
going
on in these Unes is
given by
Edwards:
The narrative ... of how Achilles does remain to
fight
at
Troy,
a
choice
entailing
death but
bringing kleos,
is in fact the
story
which
the Iliad recounts. That
is,
the kleos... which the Iliad
promises
Achilles
is
virtually
identical with the contents of the Iliad as narrative. In
effect,
the
Iliad,
a tale which could not have existed had Achilles
returned
home,
predicts
itself
here.45)
Indeed,
not
only
is the Iliad
announced,
its
immortality
is also
pro-
claimed. If Achilles is
promised immortality,
this can
only
be because
the Homeric narrator foresees
immortality
for his own
poem, along
the lines later set out
explicitly by Virgil (A. 9.446-7):
si
quid
mea carmina
possunt,
nulla dies
umquam
memori vos eximet aevo . . .
'If
my
verses have
any power,
no
day
shall ever blot
you [Nisus
and
Euryalus]
from the
memory
of
time,
. . .'
If we want to understand how the Homeric narrator can foresee
immortality,
we must return once more to the Muses.
Just
as
gods
are
immortal,
their
products
are
immortal; enlisting
the Muses at
the moment of the creation of his
poems,
the narrator
thereby
also
ensures their
lasting
existence.
Conclusion
In this
paper
I have set out to
modify
the
picture
of a modest
Homer
which,
though
not
new,
has
recently
been
painted
with
renewed
vigour by
Andrew Ford. I have
argued
that the Homeric
44)
Griffin
1995,
ad 9.412-3. He is in fact
reacting
to the thesis that
????? ?f??-
t?? would be an
Indo-European
technical terminus for kleos bestowed
by poetry;
for a
summary
of the discussion on this
thesis,
see Olson
1995,
224-7.
45)
Edwards
1985,
78.
206 IRENE
J.F.
DE
JONG
narrator
indirectly promotes
his own
person
and
poems
via the
Muses, suggests
that
poetry, including
his
own,
can itself attain that
most coveted heroic asset
kleos,
makes his own work
anticipated by
his
heroes,
and hints that while monuments are
subject
to the
ravages
of
time,
his
poems,
made with divine
assistance,
are
indestructible,
indeed themselves
partake
in and
thereby
confer immortal kleos.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bendey,
R. 1938. Collected Works
(London) [ed.
A
Dyce; original 1713]
Beye,
C.R. 1966. The
Iliad,
the
Odyssey,
and the
Epic
Tradition
(Garden City, NY)
Boedeker, D., Sider,
D.
(eds.)
2001. The New Simonides. Contexts
of
Praise and Denre
(Oxford)
Bowra,
CM. 1952. Heroic
Poetry (London/New York)
Clay, J.
2001. The New Simonides and Homer's
Hemitheoi,
in:
Boedeker, D., Sider,
D.
(eds.)
The New Simonides. Contexts
of
Praise and Denre
(Oxford),
182-4
Crielaard, J.P.
2002. Past or Present?
Epic Poetry,
Aristocratic
Self Representation
and the
Concept of
Time in the
Eighth
and Seventh Centuries
BC,
in:
Montanari,
F.
(ed.)
Omero
tremilia anni
dopo (Roma),
239-95
Danek,
G. 1998.
Epos
und
%itat.
Studien zu
den
Quellen
der Ilias
(Wien)
Dowden,
K. 1996. Homer's Sense
of Text, JHS 116,
47-61
Edwards,
A.T. 1985. Achilles in the
Odyssey (K?nigstein)
Falter,
O. 1834. Der Dichter und sein Gott bei den Griechen und R?mern
(W?rzburg)
Finkeiberg,
M. 1998. The Birth
of Literary
Fiction in Ancient Greece
(Oxford)
Finley, J.H.
1978. Homer's
Odyssey (Cambridge, MA)
Ford,
A. 1992. Homer. The
Poetry of
the Past
(Ithaca, NY/London)
-. 2002. The
Origins of
Cnticism:
Literary
Culture and Poetic
Theory
in Classical Greece
(Princeton)
-. 2003. From tetters to Literature:
Reading
the
"Song
Culture"
of
Classical
Greece,
in:
Yunis,
H.
(ed.)
Wntten Texts and the Rise
of
the Literate Culture in Ancient Greece
(Cambridge),
15-37
Fr?nkel,
H. 1969.
Dichtung
und
Philosophie
des
fr?hen
Griechentums: eine Geschichte der
griechischen Epik, Lyrik,
und Prosa bis
zur
Mitte des
funfien Jahrhunderts (M?nchen)
Genette,
G. 1982. Nanatwe Discourse. An
Essay
in Method
(Ithaca, NY) [French original
1972]
Goldhill,
S. 1991. The Poet's Voice.
Essays
on Poetics and Greek Literature
(Cambridge)
Griffin, J.
1995. Homer Iliad IX
(Oxford)
Herington, CJ.
1985.
Poetry
into Drama.
Early
Greek
Tragedy
and the Greek Poetic Tradition
(Berkeley)
Hose,
M. 2000. Der alte Streit zwischen
Innovation und Tradition. ?ber das Problem der
Originalit?t
in der
griechischen Literatur,
in:
Schwindt, J.P. (ed.) ^wischen
Tradition und
Innovation:
poetische Verfahren
im
Spannungsfeld
Klassischer und Neuerer Uteratur und
Literaturforschung (M?nchen),
1-24
de
Jong, I.J.F.
1987a. The Voice
of Anonymity: t\^-speeches
in the
Iliad,
?ranos
85,
69-84
-. 1987b. Narrators and
Focalizers.
The Presentation
of
the
Story
in the Iliad
(Amsterdam)
-. 2001. A
Nanatological Commentary
on the
Odyssey (Cambridge)
-. 2004. Paratext 'avant la lettre' in Ancient Greek Literature
(Homer
and
Herodotus),
in:
Dauven, C,
den
Hengst, D., Koopmans, J., Kuitert,
L.
(eds.)
Paratext. The
Fuzzy
Edges of
literature
(Amsterdam),
47-59
THE HOMERIC NARRATOR AND HIS OWN KLEOS 207
Kambylis,
?. 1965. Die Dichterweihe und ihr
Symbolik: Untersuchungen
zu Hesiodos,
Kallimachos, Properz
und Ennius
(Heidelberg)
Katz,
MA. 1991.
Penelope's
Renown:
Meaning
and
Indeterminacy
in the
Odyssey (Princeton,
Kranz,
W. 1967. Das Verh?ltnis des
Sch?pfers
zu
seinem Werke in der althellenischen Uteratur.
Studien
zur
antiken Literatur und ihrem Fortwirken: kleine
Schrifien (Heidelberg),
7-26
Kullmann,
W. 1992. Homerische Motive
(Stuttgart)
Latacz, J.
1991. Die
Erforschung
der
Ilias-Struktur,
in:
Latacz, J. (ed.) Zweihundert Jahre
Homer-Forschung (Stuttgart/Leipzig),
381-414
-. 1996. Homer. His Art and his World
(Ann Arbor)
Lenz,
A. 1980. Das Proem
des??hgriechischen Epos:
ein
Beitrag
zum
poetischen
Selbstverst?ndnis
(Bonn)
Lord,
A.B. 1960. The
Singer of
Tahs
(New York)
Maehler,
H. 1963. Die
Auffassung
des
Dichterberufs
im
fr?hen
Griechentum bis
zur
?eit
Pindars
(G?ttingen)
Marg,
W. 1971. Homer ?ber die
Dichtung (Aschendorff)
Murray,
P. 1981. Poetic
Inspiration
in
Early Greece, JHS 101,
87-100
-. 1983. Homer and the
Bard,
in:
Winnifrith, T., Murray, P., Gransden,
K.W.
(eds.) Aspects of
the
Epic (London),
1-15
Murnaghan,
S. 1987.
Disguise
and
Recognition
in the
Odyssey (Princeton)
Nagy,
G. 1974.
Comparative
Studies in Greek and Indie Metre
(Cambridge, MA)
N?nlist,
R. 1998.
Poetohgische Bildersprache
in der
fr?hgriechischen Dichtung (Stuttgart/Leipzig)
Olson,
S.D. 1995. Blood and Iron. Stories and
Storytelling
in Homer's
Odyssey (Leiden)
Peek,
W. 1955. Griechische
Vernnschnfien,
I
(Berlin)
P?tscher,
W. 1986. Das Selbstverst?ndnis des Dichters in der homerischen
Poesie,
Litera-
turwissenschaftliches
Jahrbuch
27
(Berlin),
4-22
Pucci,
R.P. 1987.
Odysseus Polutropos:
Intertextual
Readings
in the
Odyssey
and the Iliad
(Ithaca, NY/London)
Reinhardt,
?. 1961. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter
(G?ttingen)
Rito?k,
?. 1989. The Views
of Early
Greek
Epic
on
Poetry
and
Art, Mnemosyne 42,
331-48
Rosier,
W. 1980. Die
Entdeckung
der Fiktionalit?t in der
Antike,
Poetica
12,
283-319
R?ter,
?. 1969.
Odysseeinterpretationen. Untersuchungen
zum 1. Buch und
zur Phaiakis
(G?ttingen)
Russo, J., Fernandez-Galiano, M., Heubeck,
A. 1992. A
Commentary
on Homer's
Odyssey,
III: Books XVII-XXIV
(Oxford)
Schadewaldt,
W. 1959. Von Homers Welt und Werk
(Stuttgart) [3rd ed.]
Scodel,
R. 1982. The Achaean Wall and the
Myth of Destruction,
HSPh
86,
33-53
-. 1992.
Insaiption, Absence,
and
Memory,
SIFC
10,
57-76
-. 2004. The
Modesty of Homer,
in:
Mackie, CJ. (ed.)
Oral
Performance
and its
Context
(Leiden 2004)
Segal,
CP. 1994.
Singers, Heroes,
and Gods in the
Odyssey (Ithaca, NY)
Snell,
B. 1960. The
Discovery of
the Mind: the Greek
Origins of European Thought (New
York) [German original 1948]
Stein,
E. 1990. Autorbewusstsein in der
fr?hen griechischen
Literatur
(T?bingen)
Stroh,
W. 1971. Die r?mische
Liebeselegie
als werbende
Dichtung (Amsterdam)
Taplin,
O. 1992. Homenc
Soundings.
The
Shaping of
the Iliad
(Oxford)
Thalmann,
W.G. 1984. Conventions
of
Form and
Thought
in
Early
Greek
Epic Poetry
(Baltimore
/
London)
Verdenius, WJ.
1983. The
Principles of
Greek
Hterary Cnticism, Mnemosyne 36,
14-59
Yunis,
H. 2003. Introduction:
Why
Wntten
Texts?,
in:
Yunis,
H.
(ed.)
Wr?tten Texts and
the Rise
of
the Literate Culture in Ancient Greece
(Cambridge),
1-14