|
|
Italo wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Italo wrote:
VtSkier wrote:
Italo wrote:
(snip)
It was meant to be read out loud. But oral
composition is an impossibility.
You'd best define yourself here. One of the jobs of
the bards of ancient celtic countries, was to take
everyday happenings and put them into words that were
easily remembered because they either didn't have the
means to write them into archives or they believed
that memory was a better way. If this isn't "oral
composition" I don't know what else to call it. "Making up stories",
such as pre-literate poets might
have done can only be called oral composition. Take
an event. Turn the pictures/memories/words/sounds of
this event into a story that will rivet your
listeners can only be composition.
If it is of the same size as the Iliad then one needs to
make notes. When one makes notes then it is not an oral
composition any more.
For oral only use, that's oral composition.
(snip)
How does this relate to the Iliad?
It does not, AFAIK, but you stated flatly, it a paragraph
by itself, that "oral composition is an impossibility." So I just
wanted to know what you meant.
It was in reply to what Joey wrote;
"The Iliad's language and style are very definitely
suggestive of oral composition. "
And then with my answer I meant that this may appear so
because it had to sound natural as it was to be read out
loud. But for me this only goes for the language and style.
Not when it comes to the amount of information and specifics
in the text. The idea that the Iliad was composed without
the aid of writing, then transmitted over several
generations also without writing, remaining accurate and
unchanged is really unlikely. Especialy when one realizes
that there was literacy, from the period in which the story
is set in, to the time of the composition, up to the time
when it was put in writing. I for one believe that Homer
composed the Iliad and Odyssey in writing, using written
sources and incorporating entire passages from these earlier
texts.
BTW, what does all of this have to do with Jericho? Looks
like a lot more thread drift here than that which I
contributed to.
I agree with, "The idea that the Iliad was composed without
the aid of writing, then transmitted over several
generations also without writing, remaining accurate and
unchanged is really unlikely." wholeheartedly. The idea
that an oral transmission will remain unchanged is put to
the lie very easily by simply looking at all the different
versions there are to our oldest folksongs, which were, for
the most part, handed down orally. No oral transmission of
something that is intended for amusement/instruction/
pleasure can/will remain static. For one thing, audiences
and tastes change and the performer is always playing to
his audience.
The big however here, is that there was a culture that existed
up until historical (Roman) times that did not use writing,
apparently believing that memory was more accurate/more
meaningful/whatever. The Celtic peoples of northern Europe
used poetry (which was invented as a memory jogger as much
as for its aesthetic qualities) and memory to record all of
the laws/stories and judgments of the people.
Also, it is a LARGE question whether or not the use of
quipu(sp?) beads as a memory jogger by Andean peoples before
the arrival of Europeans was a form of writing or not.
If not, then their whole civilization relied on memory for
record keeping with some help from a memory jogger.
I think that for reasonable lengths of time (perhaps not the
time from the events of the Iliad to the time of Homer) that
memory can be and effective repository of the records of
a people.
|
|