Bryn
Mawr Classical Review 2002.10.25
Ernst Heitsch, Gesammelte Schriften, I: Zum fr?hgriechischen
Epos. Munich and Leipzig: K.G. Saur, 2001.
Pp. 272. ISBN 3-598-77701-9. EUR 94.00.
Reviewed by James P. Holoka, Foreign Language Department,
Eastern Michigan University (james@holoka.com) Word count: 1590 words
This is the first volume in a projected three-volume compilation
of previously published articles and reviews by Ernst Heitsch.
Volume 2 (2002) is dedicated to his work on Greek philosophy, volume
3 will gather his contributions on Greek literature up to the early
Christian era.
The pieces on early Greek epic included here are arranged not
simply chronologically but with a well-conceived design. The first
and longest essay, "'Homer' eine Frage der Definition" (9-65), is in
fact one of the most recently published (2000) in the collection.
Its placement facilitates two helpful preliminaries: (1) a
demonstration of the author's literary critical orientation to the
Homeric poems and his approach to questions of their date and
authorship, and (2) a forecast of much of what is to come in the
following essays and reviews.
In this programmatic opening paper, Heitsch stakes out, with
certain refinements, the Neoanalytic positions he took as long ago
as his Epische Kunstsprache und homerische Chronologie
(Heidelberg 1968). Neoanalysts, in a nutshell, seek to trace back
elements of the received text of the Homeric epics to other,
earlier, putative poems (an Achilleis, an Aethiopis,
etc.) within the oral tradition. Evidence for these poems is
extracted and extrapolated from sources including (late summaries
of) the Cyclic Epic poets, the Homeric Hymns, images on Greek
painted pottery, and--by ingenious interpretation of certain
inconcinnities--the Homeric poems themselves.1
Heitsch begins by examining Iliadic episodes better suited to a
narrative of events in the first rather than the tenth year of the
war: the surprised and aggressive reaction of Hector and the Trojans
to the approach of the Greek army in Book 2; the "dawn the light"
idea in Book 3 of deciding and ending the conflict by the
monomachia of the two principals in the dispute over Helen;
also in Book 3, Helen's enlistment as "spotter" on the walls of
Troy; the consultation among the Trojans whether they ought to
return Helen only in Book 7 rather than immediately after the defeat
of Paris in Book 3, a consultation, like the duel, suited to a very
early stage in the war. Heitsch also argues that, in Book 12, the
predicted destruction by Poseidon and Apollo of the trench and wall
constructed around the Achaean shoreline encampment through the
diversion of watercourses was suggested by the destruction of
Babylon by the Assyrians in 689 B.C.2
In the title of this essay, Heitsch places the name "Homer" in
quotation marks, judging that we may legitimately so designate
either of two composers, a first and a final. On the one hand, there
is the eighth-century oral poet who gave form to an Iliad in
its general outlines: i.e., an epic featuring a plot driven by the
quarrel of two major figures on the Greek side as it plays itself
out in a few days of the tenth year of the war. On the other hand,
there is the poet who produced ca. 650 the specific written version
of the Iliad that has come down to us. The latter stars an
Achilles whose behavior complicates the heroic ideal and an
Agamemnon whose primary offense is against Apollo, not Achilles.
Heitsch is at his most compelling in identifying the distinguishing
themes and motifs in this final, "Apollonian" Iliad and in
showing that the author's concentration on his own poetic goals
overrode any concerns he might have had about the ill-adjustment of
the pre-existing materials he was incorporating into his narrative.
Finally, this ultimate written version was itself somewhat altered,
perhaps in the process of editing at Athens after 600.
Heitsch's argument that the Iliad took form in two
decisive steps about a century apart opens the way for him to make
the Neoanalytic case while adroitly asserting both the existence of
an oral tradition and the crucial position of an ultimate written
version of the epic. Though it has long been recognized that
Neoanalysis might be compatible with oral poetry theory, indeed may
contribute to it in significant ways,3
a problem is posed by the contention of some theorists that the
nature of an oral-formulaic poetic language within a long tradition
of composition nullifies our usual notions of "quotation" or even
"allusion" within that tradition.4
Heitsch's aim, of course, is to make the case for such allusion or
reminiscence even within formulaic conventions; otherwise, the
Neoanalytic enterprise founders. So, yes, there existed an orally
evolved Kunstsprache that facilitated the centuries-long
tradition of epic poetry, but we may nonetheless detect quite
complex lines of direct and indirect influence within the framework
of a two-stage creative process.
For example, Heitsch attempts to prove a telling
interrelationship among lines in three poems: the Homeric Hymns to
Delian Apollo (line 187) and to Demeter (line 484); and the written,
mid-seventh-century Iliad (20.142). The lines tell of a god
or gods going to Olympus or the house of Zeus "to the company of the
other gods," the?n meth' hom?gurin all?n. In both Hymns, the formula
is quite appropriate: Apollo is going from his birthplace on Delos
to Delphi and then to join his fellow Olympians in his proper place;
Demeter, having isolated herself in grief for her lost daughter is
returning to her rightful place among the other gods. But in
Iliad 20, in the scenario that Poseidon envisages for Hera,
there will be no "other" gods present on Olympus to whom to return.
The formula is thus very fitting in the Hymns, much less so in the
Iliad. Heitsch concludes that it was first devised for the
passage in the Hymn to Apollo, then used in the Hymn to Demeter with
the addition of the phrase imen Oulumponde, whence, having achieved
formulaic status, it was adopted rather inappropriately in
Iliad 20.142. Thus, while not antedating the eighth-century
oral Iliad, the Hymns did influence the poet of the
seventh-century written text. (More detail in "Eine junge epische
Formel" [151-59]: Heitsch elaborately schematizes possible
inter-radiations of influence among the Hymn to Apollo and the two
crystallizations of our Iliad in "Der delische Apollonhymnos
und unsere Ilias" [160-77].)
The preceding summary will give the flavor of the argumentation
throughout Heitsch's essays. As mentioned, the opening article
touches on many of the topics treated more fully in the other items
gathered here; thus, in addition to mere footnote citations, the
reader may consult the relevant essays themselves. Besides those
cited in the previous paragraph, these include discussions of: the
expansion in our Iliad of a dispute over Briseis to include
the momentous dispute over Chryseis and the concomitant offense
against Apollo ("Der Anfang unserer Ilias und Homer" [66-84]); the
surprising change of tactics adopted by the Trojans in Book 2 ("Der
Ausbruch der Troer in unserer Ilias" [85-95]); distinctive aspects
of Homer's presentation of divinities in four passages of the
Iliad ("Die Welt als Schauspiel: Bemerkungen zu einer
Theologie der Ilias" [96-125]); the Aias interpolation in the
Catalogue of Ships ("Ilias B 557/8" [131-50]); telltale
peculiarities in Iliadic passages involving teams of horses
("Homerische Dreigespanne" [210-31]); Zeus' employment of the
"scales of destiny" ("Die epische Schicksalswaage" [232-46]); and
the distinction between success acquired through divine benefaction
and success as personal achievement ("Erfolg als Gabe oder Leistung"
[126-30]).
One further article, "Der Zorn des Paris: Zur Deutungsgeschichte
eines homerischen Zetemas" (178-209), the earliest in the collection
(1967), is devoted to a very problematic line (Iliad 6.326),
indeed a single word--cholon--in that line. Heitsch surveys
interpretations of Hektor's most peculiar use of the word in
addressing Paris, who has been in his bedroom with Helen, "sitting
out" the fighting since his near-death experience in Book 3.
Reviewed here are the explications offered in antiquity, with
quotations of four scholiasts, Plutarch, and Eustathius. Heitsch
then summarizes at length the arguments of a Unitarian
(Schadewaldt), a Neoanalyst (Kakridis), and an Analyst (Jachmann).
He discloses the flaws and special pleading in each, and concludes
with a demonstration of the careful coordination of the context of
the passage in Book 6 with one in Book 3. Such artistry should not
(as Wilamowitz pointed out) be underappreciated in the quest to
explain definitively a single odd choice of word.
Rounding out the anthology are reviews (247-72) of J.B.
Hainsworth, The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula
("replacing the concept of a formulaic language as a collection of
congealed word-combinations is the idea of a linguistic medium in
which singers could move freely and confidently and which possessed
sufficient flexibility to permit the frequent expression of new
thoughts and unique situations within the flow of epic recitation");
Joachim Latacz, ed., Tradition und Neuerung (a compendium of
articles worthwhile especially as an introduction, still needed in
Germany, to oral poetry theory; also as "ein Stuck
Wissenschaftsgeschichte"); and M.L. West, Hesiod: Theogony
("the author ... provides an edition with commentary that is useful
alike for its Greek text, for questions of subject matter, for
specific explications, and overall conception of [Hesiod] and his
work").
All in all, then, this compilation harvests the fruits of
thirty-plus years of work by a true Neoanalytic believer. The whole
is animated by a fervent conviction that we not only may, but must,
fathom the process whereby our Iliad (there is very little on
the Odyssey in the book) came to have its unique structure
and artistry. Those able to embrace or at least tolerate 5
this persistent ideology of composition and influence will find much
of value in Heitsch's Kleine Schriften. The argumentation is
consistently clever, cogent, and subtle; the control of ancient
sources and modern scholarship (not only in German) consummate; the
literary critical sensibility refined and persuasive.
Notes:
1. See W. Kullmann, "Zur Methode
der Neoanalyse in der Homerforschung," Wiener Studien 15
(1981) 5-42, and idem, "Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen
Forschung zu Homer (Neoanalyse)," in Zweihundert Jahre
Homer-Forschung: R?ckblick und Ausblick, ed. J. Latacz
(Stuttgart and Leipzig 1991) 425-55. By contrast, old-style (i.e.,
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century) Analysis posited
Ur-versions of the Homeric poems which were then expanded by later
additions, for example, by slow accretion around a central kernel
(Kerntheorie), or by the amalgamation of many small songs
(Kleinliedertheorie). These were conceived of as wholesale
expansions, not the relatively small interpolations into a fixed
written version recognized by most Homeric scholars whatever their
critical orientation. (Iliad 10, the "Doloneia," is a special
case.) 2. See M.L. West, "The Date of
the Iliad," Museum Helveticum 52 (1995) 203-19 and idem,
The East Face of Helicon (Oxford 1997) 377-80. Heitsch (28,
n. 15) also cites Walter Burkert, "Das hunderttorige Theben und die
Datierung der Ilias," Wiener Studien 10 (1976) 5-21, to
similar effect with regard to the destruction of Egyptian Thebes in
663. 3. See Alfred Heubeck, Die
Homerische Frage (Darmstadt 1974) 151, and W. Kullmann, "Oral
Poetry Theory and Neoanalysis in Homeric Research," Greek, Roman,
and Byzantine Studies 25 (1984) 311. 4. At 60, n. 74 and again at 160, n. 1,
Heitsch quotes J.B. Hainsworth, Homer [Greece & Rome New
Surveys in the Classics, No. 3] (Oxford 1969) 30: "The fact that
formulae, or most of them, are common property means that no
occurrence of a line or a phrase is in any sense a quotation or a
reminiscence of another occurrence," and, approvingly, M.D. Reeve's
laconic demurral--"for 'is' read 'need be.'" 5. Cf. F.M. Combellack, "Contemporary
Homeric Scholarship," Classical World 49 (1955) 31: "This
kind of search for this kind of sources is a strange and malignant
Analytical disease which has infected many Unitarians .... Some
Unitarians are now spending much of their time roaming in the
fairyland which has long had such attractions for the Analysts, and
we are now likely to meet in Unitarian works the same sort of
fabulous monsters (Meleagergedicht, Memnongedicht, and
the like) as used to amuse us only in Analytical treatises. These
Unitarians not only have the old Analytical affection for these
wondrous imaginary poems but also have the same amazing knowledge of
their size, contents, and quality." These particular Unitarians are
in fact Neoanalysts. The latter term, evidently coined by Johannes
T. Kakridis (see his Homeric Researches [Lund 1949] 2, 7),
was not in wide circulation in 1955, though Combellack was aware of
it.
|