• HOMER AND ORAL POETRY

1
HOMER AND ORAL POETRY
BY
SARAH PRICE
Who was Homer? When did he live? Was there
even a Homer? If so, did he write both the Iliad and the
Odyssey? Although the Homeric Question has intrigued
scholars for millennia, many uncertainties remain about
the true authorship of the epics. In the past century,
inquiry has focused on the role of
oral composition in the creation of
the Homeric texts. Theories of oral
poetry composition were created
through the observation of modern
oral bards in pre-literate societies
and applied to the Iliad and the
Odyssey. The recent discovery of
the prominent role of the oral tradi-
tion in the Homeric texts does not,
however, eliminate the role played
by Homer; his inventiveness is a
major part of what makes the epics
shine.
In the 1930s, Milman Parry
(1902-1935) and Albert Lord (1912-
2001) first proposed the theory that
the Homeric epics were composed
orally. After studying the Iliad and A Yugoslavian Oral Poet
the Odyssey, Parry was convinced The Milman Parry Collection
that Homer’s poems were both traditional tales and cre-
ative compositions, despite the apparent contradiction.
But how could Homer have both inherited the songs and
1
2 HOMER AND ORAL POETRY
written them himself? Parry answered the question, ap-
plying what today is known as oral theory to the Homeric
texts to explain epithets and parallelism.
Many of the words in this debate have slightly un-
usual connotations. Oral theory itself is a misnomer – it
implies that the bard’s knowledge of oral poetry is theo-
retical. In fact, the theory lies in the affinity of the Homer-
ic texts with scholars’ existing knowledge of oral poetry
(Nagy 20). The use of the word oral can also be confus-
ing. Usually this word is used in reference to something
spoken by one or many persons and heard by others. By
modern connotations, oral poetry is any poetry recited
from memory, even if it was written before the perfor-
mance. However, scholars do not label the epic poems
oral merely because they were spoken or sung in per-
formance. Rather, the Homeric poems are oral because
they were composed at the same time as they were orally
performed (Lord 5). This idea cannot be equated with im-
provisation in the modern sense, as the bards who per-
form oral poetry have predetermined elements, on which
they base their songs. However, the singers are not by
any means performing a song they have memorized by
rote. The term oral is here relevant, not to the final form
of the poetry, but to its creation (Nagy 13).
As he examined the Homeric texts, Parry conclud-
ed that much of the poems was based on formulas. Previ-
ous scholars had seen the epithets used to modify people,
gods, and objects as embellishments to heighten the dic-
tion and thicken the images (Pope 10)1 and thought that
they were conventions intended to show respect (Pope 14
f). Other scholars used instances in which the epithets
seemed to be misused as proof of alteration by later gen-
erations. Parry, however, saw these epithets as formu-
laic expressions that had been handed down from bard
to bard and used to fit the meter. The metrical irregu-
larities, cases in which these tags appear to be misused,
could be explained by the author’s insistence on using a
particular tag for meaning despite its metrical inconsis-
tency. Similarly the instances in which the epithets are
 SARAH PRICE 3
used with seeming indifference could be understood to
emphasize meter over meaning (Parry 131 f).
Parry’s analysis showed extensive use of these tra-
ditional expressions; in fact, he estimated that up to 90%
of the works was based on formulas (Lord 142). This is
not to say that the bard whose works we have today did
nothing but put together songs with pieces of lines hand-
ed down over the years. Much of the song still remained
under the poet’s control, and there can be no doubt that
each singer’s work reflects his own particular touch.
Parry’s theories do not neglect the larger building
blocks of epics. The collection of formulaic epithets pro-
vides a means for filling the lines, but many parts of any
story are also traditional on the thematic level. “Any-
one who reads through a collection of oral epic from any
country is soon aware that the same basic incidents and
descriptions are met with time and again” (Lord 68); the
same thing occurs in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Parry
noticed parallels in the Homeric texts, similar scenes that
recur and often consist of the same details and words
(Parry 404). He charted such common passages, includ-
ing arrival and departure, sacrifice and eating, hesitation
before decision, arming and dressing, sleep, journeys by
sea or land, oath, bath, and assembly. The results show
patterns of “nearly... the same stages of the action in
the same order, and nearly... the same verses and verse
parts” (Parry 404). Just as formulaic expressions fill the
lines of the poems, themes such as the assembly scenes,
which are “easily isolated because [they have] an obvious
beginning and an obvious end” (Lord 146) fill the body of
the epic storyline; for example, seven of these appear in
just the first two books of the Iliad, and all are variations
on the assembly theme.
Parry, thus, identified the basic, repeated compo-
nents of the Homeric texts. His theories accounted for
the phrase repetition and scene parallelism throughout
the books. It appeared that the epics were developed
through a history of oral tradition, in which formulaic ex-
pressions and basic themes were passed down from one
 4 HOMER AND ORAL POETRY
generation to another. Thus, the
epics were retold in basic com-
ponents that permitted the bard
some freedom to compose as he
performed. Unfortunately, with-
out actual performances, scholars
could not prove the relationship
between oral poetry and Homeric
literature.
Parry, therefore, chose to
gather relevant information in
the modern world and check his
conclusions from the examination
of the Homeric texts. Although
works on oral poetry had been
published, “he was too thorough
a scholar... and too devoted to
Milman Parry method to rely upon the observa-
The Milman Parry Collection
tions of others when it was pos-
sible for him to observe the phenomena of oral poetry
himself” (Parry 468). He tested his ideas by traveling to
Yugoslavia to study illiterate bards. He made two trips,
the first during the summer of 1933 and the second, on
which he was accompanied by Albert Lord, during the
academic year 1934-1935. Parry and his assistants
brought back to America approximately 3,580 phono-
graphic recordings and more than 12,500 texts. Not all
were epic songs: a few even record instrumental music of
the region. Women’s songs, short lyrical songs sung by
women or young people at social gatherings or for their
own enjoyment, fill approximately 11,000 of the recorded
texts and about 250 of the phonograph records. Another
set of recordings consists of conversations with the bards
about their lives and how they learned to sing. Although
scholars examined all of the texts and recordings, they
focused on the texts of “narrative poems of adventure,”
which, although fewer, are much longer than the wom-
en’s songs (Parry 473 f).
By combining the study of the Homeric texts with
 SARAH PRICE 5
his observation of Yugoslavian bards, Parry created his
own oral theories. Previously, scholars thought that if
the texts were composed before writing, they had been
passed down strictly by rote; changes would naturally
occur due to faulty memory. Parry argued that the po-
ems were actually composed over generations by illiterate
bards, based on inherited themes. A bard would learn
the general storyline by listening to several performanc-
es. That bard, in turn, would perform the song, but his
performance would be far from identical to what he had
previously heard. In fact, each performance would be
unique.
The reason for this lies in the songs’ transmission.
Rather than memorizing a long poem word for word, a
bard would learn oft-repeated themes, like arrival or de-
parture. These themes would become part of the inven-
tory around which he would construct the song out of
formulae such as “swift runner Achilles,” or “lord of men
Agamemnon” (Homer). Not even these formulae were
strictly set; they “[were] capable of change and [were] in-
deed frequently highly productive of other and new for-
mulas” (Lord 4). Each character or object in the book has
several possible epithets;2 this pattern provides further
evidence for oral theories, as bards would need several
formulae to match different metric configurations.
Scholars in the past failed to realize that the Ho-
meric bard needed to compose as he sang. Without writ-
ing, and even with enhanced memory, it would be ex-
tremely difficult to memorize several poems as long as
the Iliad or Odyssey: they are so lengthy that their per-
formances would encompass several days apiece. And
a bard’s repertoire would certainly not be limited to two
songs! Thus, predetermined formulae became vital, al-
lowing the bard to assemble a coherent song similar in
all important aspects to earlier versions, giving him the
opportunity to think ahead to the next scene. Themes
most likely developed as memory aids, as “familiarity
with a uniform sequence of elements in a scene reduces
the danger of omitting some important action” (Edwards
71).
6 HOMER AND ORAL POETRY
Yugoslavian evidence confirmed Parry thesis. As
would be expected, when different singers sang the same
tale, the versions shared vital components, themes, and
phrases they had learned from their predecessors and
peers but also carried the distinctive marks of the indi-
vidual bards: it seems that traditional formulae do not
eliminate the need for creativity and ingenuity. Similar-
ly, Homer was a master of techniques he had inherited
from many generations of bards, which he modified in
his composition; he “adapted the standard scenes and
phraseology developed by his predecessors” (Edwards 3)
for his unique performances.
Important to consider, however, are oral theory’s
implications for the role of Homer himself, or whichever
bard wrote down today’s Iliad and Odyssey. The use of
themes and formulae by no means eliminates the sing-
er’s creativity and ingenuity. In the years since the oral
theory was first published, deviations from the model,
which highlight the poet’s individuality, have been care-
fully studied. These include the frequent use of long sim-
iles and the apparent contradictions, reconciled by the
bard.
The use of similes in Homeric texts is atypi-
cal among epics and shows the individual creativity of
the composer: “Whenever Homer wants to say some-
thing important he slows down the pace of the narra-
tive” (Mueller 217) by applying one. Two primary types
of similes have been observed in the texts. The first is
the short simile, as in “like a god,” “like a lion,” “like a
storm-wind,” or “like man-slaying Ares” (Edwards 102).
These similes are used like the epithet. Far more unique,
however, is the long simile, such as “like fawns / done
in from hightailing over some big meadow, / winded and
teetering, / heart inside them spent. / Standing there
dazed...” (Homer IV.278-281). As long similes often use
the short similes as starting points, they likely developed
from the latter; long similes, however, elaborate on the
comparison. Other types of long similes first build the
picture, only later explaining the comparison. What is
 SARAH PRICE 7
remarkable about these poetical devices, however, is that
“though there are some two hundred of these long similes
in the Iliad and about forty in the Odyssey, all but six in
the Iliad and two in the Odyssey are unique in wording”
(Edwards 102). Such a variety of lines contrasts sharply
with the prevalence of formulaic epithets.
Furthermore, the picture in the similes is often
not of the ancient heroic world of the Trojan War, but
rather of Homer’s own world. The details of Greek home-
lands and countryside are exact; some scenes, such as
those describing an Asian meadow or west winds from
Thrace, can even be traced to the Ionic shore. Indeed,
the characters in the similes are not heroes and kings,
but rather other ordinary men and women, familiar to
the audience. Homer’s personal creativity and ingenu-
ity are demonstrated by the similes. It is unlikely that a
bard would have memorized two hundred specific similes
for one poem: thus, he would have needed to generate
the images himself, using what was familiar to him and
to his audience. The poet’s role in making creative addi-
tions cannot be underestimated by focusing on the role
of traditional content and formulas.
Oral theory and the bard’s role account for many,
but not all, of the discrepancies found in Homeric texts.
Over time, different and contradictory versions of par-
ticular scenes of the stories would have arisen, and the
skilled poet would have needed to reconcile them. For
example, Chromios is somehow killed not once, but three
times in the course of the Iliad (Page 305); after genera-
tions, however, how could a bard determine which death
was correct? The final composer whose work we have
today would have been forced to reconcile these variants;
Homer’s job was to make traditional stories flow more
smoothly without critically changing them.
Other less explicable and far more noticeable con-
flicts do, however, occur. A prime example is the em-
bassy scene in book nine of the Iliad, which may never be
reconciled. In the scene, Nestor suggests that Agamem-
non “let [old Phoenix] lead the way. / Then giant Ajax
8 HOMER AND ORAL POETRY
and tactful royal Odysseus” (Homer IX.202-203) with two
heralds, Odius and Eurybates. This makes the embassy
a party of five; however, in the lines that follow, the Greek
dual form, which applies to exactly two people, is used
several times.
An old theory suggested that Phoenix had been
sent ahead of Odysseus and Ajax, but when the latter
two approached, “Achilles, startled, / sprang to his feet,
the lyre still in his hands, / leaving the seat where he
had sat in peace” (Homer IX.232-235). An Achilles who
had been prepared by Phoenix would not have been star-
tled (Page 299). Another theory maintained that the dual
form might have been used as a simple plural form; al-
though this explanation has generally been disregarded,
some have argued that “the dual forms conveyed to the
poet not so much a rigid grammatical duality as an air of
honorable antiquity, so that the solecism was not so ap-
parent to him and his audience as it is to us” (Edwards
219). This theory merits particular consideration, be-
cause many archaic forms are found in the poems.
An additional theory suggests that “the two of
them” refers to the heralds, whereas, when Achilles greets
two dear friends, he is greeting Phoenix and Ajax (some-
one as sly and cunning as Odysseus cannot be consid-
ered Achilles’ friend) (Nagy 139 f). In that case, the dual
form would be used, first, because of the two heralds
and, second, to snub Odysseus; according to the theory,
the apparent strangeness may also result from variant
stories. Perhaps an earlier version of the story had a two
person embassy; perhaps one version snubbed Odysseus
openly, while another did not. Homer, as a skilled bard,
would have tried to combine these stories so that each
was recognizable. For example, Homer could have used
the dual form when the party met Achilles to spurn Odys-
seus subtly, so that those who knew that version would
recognize it, while those who did not would miss it.
Achilles discussion with the embassy itself, espe-
cially Phoenix’s advice, seems to contradict the rest of
the story by suggesting the gods will punish Achilles if
 SARAH PRICE 9
he does not aid the Greeks. Some critics have used it
to support the theory of multiple authorship and later
addition. Alternately, however, it can explain Homer’s
creative role in reconciling contradictory traditions.
Thus, the role of the individual bard is established with-
in the context of traditional storytelling. The need for
creative ingenuity, despite the structure of themes and
formulas, cannot be stressed enough, nor can the poet’s
role in reconciling variant ideas. The written texts in ex-
istence today are doubtless part of a long tradition but
are also the product of individual genius.
The role of Homer in oral poetry goes further, how-
ever, than his own individual genius. Until the Iliad and
the Odyssey were written down, they could continue to
change and grow. Once a hard copy existed, the process
of mutation became much more difficult, possible only
through deliberate manipulation or transcription errors.
Homer is remembered as the author of these epic poems,
and if it is his version which survives, our memory of him
is true: his story was the most lasting in a long line of
epic tradition. The Iliad and the Odyssey are the result
both of many poetical geniuses and of one, and we must
underestimate the value neither of Homer as an individ-
ual, nor of the tradition to which he belonged.
1
Pope, in particular, attributes these expressions to the creative genius of the
poet.
2
For example, Achilles can be “swift runner,” “brilliant,” or “blazing.”
Works Cited
Edwards, Mark W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1987.
Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin, 1991.
Lord, Albert B. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964.
Mueller, Martin. “The Simile.” Ed. Harold Bloom. Modern Critical Views:
Homer. New York: Chelsea House, 1986. 217-31.
Nagy, Gregory. Homeric Questions. Austin: University of Texas P, 1996.
Page, Denys L. Historv and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley: University of
California P, 1959.
Parry, Adam, Ed. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Pacers of
Milman Parry. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.
Pope, Alexander. Preface. The Iliad of Homer: Books I-IX. Ed. Maynard
Mack. London: Methuen, 1967. 3-25.