The Comparative Study of Homer

Abstract

THE comparative study of Homer is no new thing. Indeed some of the more sensational adventures in Homeric researches in the last century have been largely due to it. For instance, Lachmann's theory that the Iliad is made out of a number of independent poems may be traced to Lotnnrot's creation of the Finnish Kalevala from traditional lays; Leaf's analysis of the Iliad into three strata owes something to the scientific analysis of the great Indian epics with their obvious interpolations; Gilbert Murray's notion that the Homeric poems are traditional books, continually changed, increased, and expurgated, comes from the Higher Criticism of the Old Testament. Perhaps these efforts are a little discouraging and may deter us from thinking that comparative study can really add to the knowledge of Homer. But the study has considerable possibilities which have not been properly exploited, and it is time to look again and see what can be got from it, for two reasons. First, these earlier efforts are not really comparative. It is not enough to explain the history of one book by the history of another. What is needed is a well established body of works which show so many of the same characteristics that they may be regarded as belonging to a single class. That such a class exists has been abundantly proved by H. M. and N. K. Chadwick in The Growth of Literature. They have collected and analysed a quantity of material and shown how coherent it is. It now remains to use it in a synthesis. Secondly, this material has been greatly increased in recent years, since the Chadwicks began to write, and texts are available which they were not able to use. For instance, in the Widener Library at Harvard there is the unique collection of Jugoslav material made by Milman Parry. Here is a well documented stock of heroic p ems, taken down on records as their bards performed them, and they show what the living art is. In addition to this there is the large amount of new texts published in recent years, mostly in the U.S.S.R. Russian scholars have not only supplemented the great researches of Gilferding, Kireevski and Rybnikov in the last century by collecting volumes of modern byliny as they are performed by existing bards, but have published, either in the original languages or in Russian translations, poems from the Kara-Kirghiz,' whose poetry was studied by Radlov in the 'sixties, the Ossetes,2 the Kalmucks,3 the Armenians,4 and the Buryats.5 Not all texts are equally well edited, and we may sometimes suspect improvements or complain that the translations are not sufficiently literal for exact study. None the less a great deal may be learned, if we recognize the limitations of publication and are content to work within them. Outside the Slavonic countries the collecting of texts continues on a smaller scale. A beginning has been made with Albanian, and there are hopes that more may be done with modern Greek. Of course much remains untouched. Africa is still almost unexp ored; the epic poems of the Achehnese of Western Sumatra, described by Snouck Hurgronje more than fifty years ago,6 seem never to have been published; there is perhaps much to be done with peoples like the Afghans, the Kurds, the Malays, and the Arabs. None the less the existing texts are sufficiently copious to provide a various and interesting body of material and to justify us in asking what, if anything, a comparative study of it can contribute to Homeric problems. An examination of this material on the lines laid down by the Chadwicks shows that there