RECENT RECEPTION OF HOMER: A REVIEW ARTICLE

Homer's the Iliad and the Odyssey: A Biography by Alberto Manguel; Homer in the
Twentieth Century: Between World Literature and the Western Canon by Barbara Graziosi;
Emily Greenwood; Troy: From Homer's Iliad to Hollywood Epic by Martin M. Winkler; The
Return of Ulysses: A Cultural History of Homer's Odyssey by Edith Hall
Review by: Jonathan Burgess
Phoenix, Vol. 62, No. 1/2 (Spring-Summer/printemps-t 2008), pp. 184-195
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25651704 .
Accessed: 15/10/2012 11:59
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.
.
Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Phoenix.
http://www.jstor.org
RECENT RECEPTION OF HOMER: A REVIEW ARTICLE
Jonathan
Burgess
Homer's the Iliad and the
Odyssey. A Biography.
By
Alberto Manguel.
Vancouver:
Douglas &McIntyre
Press. 2007.
Pp.
x,
285.
Homer in the
Twentieth Century: Between World Literature
and the
Western Canon. Edited
by
Barbara Graziosi and Emily Greenwood.
Oxford: Oxford
University
Press. 2007.
Pp.
xiii,
322.
Troy: From Homer's Iliad to Hollywood Epic. Edited
by
Martin M.
Winkler.
Maiden,
MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
2007.
Pp.
xi,
231.
The Return of Ulysses: A Cultural History of Homer's Odyssey.
By
Edith Hall. Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins University
Press. 2008.
Pp.
vii,
296.
A
s the books under review here
Attest,
the
reception
of Homer has
become
a
popular
and
vigorous
strand of Homeric studies.1 This reflects
the recent
growth
of
reception
studies in
classics,
leading
to a
multiplicity
of
conferences,
"companions,"
and
programs
dedicated to the role of the ancient
world in
post-antiquity.2
The Homeric
poems
will
always
be
important
in this
type
of
study,
and it is a
pleasure
to note that the books discussed below contribute
to the
ongoing
discussion in
thoughtful
and
interesting ways. They
also
happen
to work well
together, covering
different material and issues in a
surprisingly
complementary
manner.
Manguel gives
a
broad
survey
of the roles
played by
Homer in various
genres
from
antiquity
to the
present day.
The conference
papers
edited
by
Graziosi and Greenwood
provide
more
in-depth explorations
of both
This article was
composed
with the
support
of a
fellowship
at the
Jackman
Humanities Institute at
the
University
of
Toronto,
for which I am
grateful.
1
Recent
study
of Homeric
reception
includes Bloom
1991;
Boitani
1994;
Fuchs
1994;
Messineo
1995;
Boitani and Ambrosini
1998;
Babbi and Zardini
2000;
Nicosia
2003;
Due
2005;
Cavallini 2007.
Homeric
reception
can also be found in
major parts
of Fowler
2004;
Magazine
Litteraire
(January
2004) 427;
and
College
Literature
(2007)
34.2
(Special
Issue,
"Reading
Homer in the 21st
Century").
The
general
studies of classical
reception
listed in the next footnote contain
many
individual
pieces
devoted to Homeric
reception.
2
Besides the concise
introductory survey
of Hardwick
2003,
for recent
general
studies of the
reception
of classical
antiquity,
see Goff
2005;
Martindale and Thomas
2006;
Kallendorf
2007;
Hardwick and
Gillespie
2007;
and Hardwick and
Stray
2008. Also
appearing
are studies focused on
individual authors and
genres.
184
PHOENIX,
VOL. 62
(2008)
2.
REVIEW ARTICLE 185
artistic and critical
responses
to the Homeric
poems
in the twentieth
century.
The
other books focus
on one
Homeric
poem
or
the other: the collection of
essays by
Winkler
provides
different
perspectives
on
the
spectacular yet seldom-praised
film
Troy,
and Hall
surveys
the incredible number of manifestations of the
Odyssey,
notably
in modern
media,
using
the
resources
of recent critical
theory.
Though
these books have different
mandates,
and
though they
focus
on
different time
periods
and
media,
several
key
issues
keep emerging.
For
example,
what has been meant
by
"Homer" at different time
periods,
and what does it
mean
today?
When
we
look at the
reception
of Homer from the
perspective
of
different
audiences,
it
appears
that the
concept
of Homer has been
powerful yet
surprisingly
vague
and indirect down
through
the
ages.
Such notable
figures
in the
reception
of Homer
as
Dante,
Joyce,
and the Coen brothers never
encountered
Homer in the
original;
nor
did such memorable translators
as
Pope,
Keats,
and
Logue. Many
of the
most
highly inspired
and successful recreations of Homer
have in fact been
highly
mediated.
This leads to the
question
of what role
a
Homerist should
play
in Homeric
reception. Merely correcting
"mistaken"
interpretations
of the Homeric
poems
clearly
will
no
longer
suffice,
nor
will
simply observing
with satisfaction the
influential
legacy
of Homer. Current focus is
more on
how new
audiences
re
conceive of the Iliad and the
Odyssey,
not on
how Homer is
canonically respected.
Homerists who wish to
contribute to the field need to move
outside of
(but
let
us not
say abandon)
their comfort zones of
philological
exactitude and historical
contextualization. Homeric
reception
now
involves much more
than the
epic
genre
(though Virgil,
Dante,
Milton will continue to
play
an
important
role),
and
it does not
necessarily privilege
the medium of literature.
Reception
studies have also moved far
beyond
the Eurocentric boundaries of
Western culture.
Engagements
with the Iliad and
Odyssey
occur
throughout
the
world,
and
they
take the form of various media in various
gradations
from
high
to
low culture. Most involve not
simply
imitation of the Homeric
poems,
but rather
creative interaction with them?and with
previous
interactions.
Nonetheless,
debate remains intense within
reception
studies
concerning
the method and
theory
of
pursuing
these
new
lines of
interpretation.
Is aesthetic focus
on
the
intertextual relation between Homeric verse
and later literature too
lacking
in
historical context? Does the delineation of the "horizon of
expectations"
(to
use
the well-known
phrase
of
Jauss)
of
a
particular
time and
place
create an
artificial,
flattened account? If
we
focus
on our
students'
perception
of Homer
through
new
technologies
and
popular
culture,
are we
succumbing
to
anti-intellectual
presentism?
Should we
avoid
evaluating
the merit of Homeric
interpretations,
or
is that
an
abdication of critical
judgment?
The
prolific
Alberto
Manguel
is well-known
as a
learned
yet
engaging
observer
of culture
(e.g.,
A
History of Reading,
A
Reading Diary),
and he is well suited for
an
extensive
yet
concise
survey.
Homers the Iliad and the
Odyssey:
A
Biography
is
186 PHOENIX
part
of the series Books That Shook the
World,
a
title that announces an
ideology
of canonical influence. Yet this
survey accumulates,
in its undemonstrative
way,
an enormous amount of evidence that the
reception
of Homer has been
anything
but
an
uncomplicated, straightforward
march of universal values. The
study
of
the
reception
of
antiquity
is
an immense
undertaking,
and in
practice
it
can
seem
arbitrary
or
disjointed
(most
of the works
on
Homeric
reception
listed in
my
bibliography
are in fact eclectic collections of unrelated
studies).
Manguel provides
a
convenient
roadmap
to the
amazing variety
of
aesthetic, cultural,
philosophical,
and
religious
reactions to the Homeric
poems.
The discussion is
largely chronological, hitting upon key
moments in the
history
of Homeric
reception (e.g.,
the Renaissance
"Quarrel
of Ancients and
Moderns"),
though
it
frequently
moves off into
tangents. Philosophical
and reli
gious perspectives
are
included
(medieval
Islamic
knowledge
of Homer
indirectly
through
Aristotle is
particularly interesting),
but the focus is more
often
literary
(though
there is a
nice little excursion
on
Rembrandt's so-called "Aristotle Con
templating
a
Bust of
Homer").
Attention is
given
to the
expected major figures
(Virgil,
Dante,
Joyce,
Walcot),
but also to
many
other
poets
and translators.
Though
one
hesitates to criticize details in a
book that is brave and
generous
in the
comprehensiveness
of its
survey
and
clearly introductory
in nature
(a
book
by-book
summary
of both Homeric
poems
is
provided), Manguel occasionally
displays
a
lack of academic skills. The index is
just
serviceable,
and the endnotes
suggest
amateur
dabbling
rather than
thorough scholarship
(book
titles without
pagination
are
regularly provided
for
a
single point).
I was
disappointed by
the
dated
proclamations
on
the Homeric
Question
in the Introduction
("most
scholars
now assume that the
poems
ascribed to Homer
began
as
scattered
compositions
of various kinds that
eventually
coalesced and became
perfectly
interwoven"
[2]),
and
outright
errors
emerge
at
regular
intervals. Some
are
understandable
slips
for
a
layman
(the
title "Ilion
Persis,"
Theagenes
conflated with
Theognis,
the rival
of Marius
"Sula"),
but
some involve
more
sustained
bungling. Manguel
states
that Schliemann's "Treasure of Priam" from the third-millenium b.ce. Level II
of Hisarlik is "now" dated to the time of Homer's
Troy
(which
was
Schliemann's
view,
soon
overturned),
and that it was
lost from Berlin in the Second World
War
(it
turned
up
in Moscow in
1993).
Still,
Manguel's offering
cannot be matched for both breadth and
conciseness,
and this
might
be recommended
(with caution)
as an
introductory
overview of
the
reception
of Homer. It is
a
quick
read,
sparkling
with choice anecdotes and
quotations.
For
example,
there's the
story
of the rural Columbian
village
that
refused to
return,
of all the
library
books lent to
it,
a
Spanish
translation of the
Iliad. The
reason
provided
was so
powerful
that the book
was written off
as a
gift: "They explained
that Homer's
story
reflected their
own: it told of
a war-torn
country
in which mad
gods
mix with
men
and
women who
never know
exactly
what the
fighting
is
about,
or when
they
will be
happy,
or
why they
will be killed"
REVIEW ARTICLE 187
(quoted
on
6). Zola,
on
the other
hand,
was less
impressed
with Homer:
"[T]he
heroes
are
nothing
but
gang
bosses- Women
are
raped, people
are
duped,
they
insult
one
another for
months,
they
cut one
another's
throats,
they drag
around the
corpses
of their enemies. Read the novels of Fenimore
Cooper
about
the
Indians,
and
you'll
see the similarities"
(quoted
on
223;
the
categorization
of Homeric
society
as
"primitive"
has
resonance with issues
explored
below).
By sprinkling
his
fast-paced
narrative with well-chosen
quotations
and select
translations
Manguel brings
life to a
potentially overwhelming topic.
Homer in the Twentieth
Century
is a
collection of
papers
first delivered at a
2004
conference in Durham. The editors
readily
concede that
even
with the
temporal
restriction
supplied by
the title the book does not
pretend
to
comprehensiveness.
Literature is
given
the most
attention,
especially
verse
(Logue, Longley,
and
Walcot
are all treated
by
more than
one
contributor),
though
Lorna Hardwick
discusses
(among
other
matters)
the artist Romare
Bearden,
and two
essays
focus
on
cinema
(Francoise
Letoublon
on-
the director Theo
Angelopoulos,
Simon
Goldhill
on Naked and O
Brother,
Where Art
Thou?).
One could
enjoy
this
collection in the
manner
that
one tends to
employ
collected
essays
on
reception:
skim
through
the table of contents and the index to
pick
out isolated bits that
are
of
particular
interest. But Homer in the Twentieth
Century
turns out to be much
more
ambitious. In
an earnest and
lengthy
introduction the editors
bring
up
two
complex
issues that
are
intended to
provide
coherence to the somewhat
disparate
set of
papers.
The first issue is the
relationship
between academic and aesthetic
responses
to
Homer over the last
one
hundred
years.
The issue does not
consistently appear
in the
essays,
but
Johannes
Haubold
explores
it at
length by considering
the
impact
of Milman
Parry's
seminal
work;
Richard Martin
provides
a
fascinating
comparison
of
John
Synge
and the classicist
George
Thomson in their
use
of
Homer;
and Seth Schein closes the volume with a
valuable discussion of how
Homer in translation has been
employed
in
popular
Great Books
courses,
often in
the service of American
ideologies.
One
might
add Simon Goldhill's
recognition
that classicists form a
small
yet significant sub-group
in the audience
reception
of cinematic evocations of Homeric material. The second issue is
given
more
attention,
but is not unrelated to the first. A
dichotomy
is
progressively
established
between
a
'Western"
perspective
on
Homer,
as
opposed
to a
"world"
approach
to Homer. The work of
Parry
is seen as
essential to this division: he took
a
literary
classic and re-established it as a
traditional and oral
product, comparable
to works far removed in
place
and time from the linear
legacy
of canonical
epic.
This notional antithesis
(influenced
by
remarks
by
Andrew
Ford,
quoted
more
than
once)
becomes
greatly expanded, mostly
in the editors' introduction and in
the
piece by
Haubold
(who
dubs it a
"curious"
dichotomy).
'World"
approaches
to Homer are
variously
linked to local
geographies,
oral
traditions,
third world
188
PHOENIX
literature, folklore,
and
a
generally
ahistorical and
postcolonial concept
of
literary
history,
whereas "Western"
approaches
are
associated not
only
with canonical
epics
but also
universality,
translation,
and
reception
studies
(see esp. 1-5, 27-30,
120-121).
Both the editors and
Johannes
Haubold would also
place
the two
recent
companions
to Homer
on
opposite
sides;
the Brill
companion,
which has
some
chapters
on
oral
aspects
of
Homer,
is
put
in the "world"
column,
whereas
the
Cambridge companion,
which devotes
a
section to
reception,
is
relegated
to
the 'Western" one.3
Some
significant
terms
employed
in this discussion could be better defined.
The editors note that Goethe coined the
phrase
"world
literature,"
but what
he meant
by
it is
notoriously
controversial. A
comparison
to the
category
of
"world music" is
suggestive,
but not
explanatory
(citations
do lead to
helpful
bibliography).
More
troubling
is the lack of distinction between Homeric
reception
and Homeric
analogy.
Central to the construction of the notional
dichotomy
of "world" and "Western"
approaches
to Homer is the identification of
oral
theory
as a
radical
split
from
traditional,
aesthetic
study
of Homeric
poetry.
The next
interpretive
move is to
regard
Homer,
from the
perspective
of oral
theory,
as
iconically analogous
to oral
(or "world")
literature. But cultural
products
that
might
be
compared
to Homeric verse
by analogy (e.g.,
for traditional content
or
techniques
of
composition)
are
very
different from cultural
products
created
(in
whatever
manner)
with
knowledge
of the Homeric
poems, i.e.,
reception.
And
most of the
papers
are
about
reception.
The shift in the notional
dichotomy
from academic to creative
approaches
to Homer is thus not a
clean one. The
non-Western
approaches
to Homer featured in these
papers
involve creative
reception,
and traditional material is almost
entirely
absent
(parts
of the
chapters
by
Graziosi and Martin
excepted).
It
might
also be
pointed
out that
analogies
were
drawn between Homer and traditional literatures?and
"primitive"
culture,
as
the
quotation by
Zola above
indicates?long
before
Parry
in the
early
twentieth
century.
Still,
the editors should be commended for
making
a
greater
effort at thematic
coherence than is
usually
the case in collections of
reception papers.
In
practice
the notional
dichotomy
is often treated
flexibly,
and with less of
a
polemical
tone than
one at first
suspects.
For
example,
Graziosi introduces her
analysis
of
Ismail Kadare's The File on H with the observation that
apparently diametrically
opposed perceptions
of Homer have often
merged
and shifted in
ways
that are
still not understood. And Haubold demonstrates that there
was tension between
"Western" and "world"
perceptions
of Homer within the work of
Parry
and his
followers. With much
subtlety
he notes the
irony
of Homer s
canonical
prestige
lending authority
to
comparative
studies
(an
issue that returns in Graziosi's
survey
3
Morris and Powell
1997;
Fowler 2004. The
ideological
divide between the two
companions
seems to be
over-emphasized, perhaps
under the influence of the
highly-charged
review of the second
companion by
one of the editors of the first at BMCR 2005.0429.
REVIEW ARTICLE 189
of the
controversy
about African
epic)
and the
paradox
of Walcot's desire to
describe the
relationship
of Omeros to Homer
as
"simultaneous" rather than
chronological.4
The notional
dichotomy might
be
regarded
as a
provocative
construct that
helps
us
think
about
certain issues that tend to
appear
in the
papers.
Richard Martin
describes the different
employments
of Homer
by
the dramatist
John
Synge
and the classicist
George
Thomson
as
"importing"
and
"exporting" respectively,
which
might
be related in their
essence to influence
vs.
analogy. Stephen
Minta
challenges
the
chronological privileging
that
might
seem
inherent in
reception
studies
by insightfully explaining
the Nausicaa
episode
of the
Odyssey by
means
of
its
parallel
scene in
James Joyce's Ulysses.
Oliver
Taplin convincingly
demonstrates
that Homeric similes
are
surprisingly lacking
in
geographical specificity compared
to select
adaptations
of Homeric similes in modern
verse.
Simon Goldhill's
discussion of two
films,
one which
explicitly
recreates the
Odyssey
{0
Brother,
Where Art
Thouf)
and another which
only arguably
does
so
{Naked),
could be
seen
as
another kind of
exploration
of Homeric influence and
analogy
(with
a
focus
on
the issues of creative intention and audience
reception).
Although
there is not
space enough
to discuss all the
chapters,in
this
volume,
it
may
be said that each is of
high quality;
in terms of
scholarship,
this is
probably
the most
worthy
book of those reviewed here.
Though
one sometimes wishes
that the
searching questions
raised had been
pursued
further,
one
gets
the sense
that the conference
on
which this volume is based
was most
invigorating.
The
publication
of these
papers
will doubtless
inspire
much further
thought
about the
nature of Homeric
reception.
Two other books to be discussed focus
on one or
the other of the Homeric
poems.
The collection of
papers
on
the film
Troy
edited
by
Martin Winkler
necessarily
engages
heavily
with the
Iliad,
which the film announces as its
inspiration
at its close.
Troy:
From Homers Iliad to
Hollywood Epic
is welcome
as
another
example
of the serious consideration that classicists have
given
to film
over
the last
generation,
not least due to the efforts of the editor. It
ably
demonstrates
that low culture
as
well
as
high
has its
place
in
reception
studies.
The book has
recourse to cinema
studies,
though
the
methodology
of this field
does not dominate. Winkler
expertly
and
persuasively argues
for the cinematic
technique
of Homeric
verse,
a
demonstration of how in
reception
studies
good
things
can
result from
juxtaposing
media and
moving
backwards
chronologically
from
adaptation
to
original.
Several contributors
explain aspects
of
Troy by
referring
to the cinematic tradition of the
Troy story (for
which Winkler
provides
an
annotated
filmography
at the end of the
book).
Other
approaches
include
4
Walcot's
highly
innovative
poem
is an
emblematic fusion of the two sides of the
dichotomy;
in
geographical,
cultural,
and
postcolonialist
terms it
might
be identified as
"world"
literature,
and its
innovative
employment
of Homer is
anything
but a
simplistic
inheritance or
legacy.
Yet at the same
time it is
certainly
not
independent
of
Homer;
rather than
rejecting
the canonical Homer it steers it
in new
directions.
190 PHOENIX
analysis
of the film's narrative
strategies
in
comparison
with the Iliad and ancient
mytho-poetic
traditions
(Joachim
Latacz,
Georg
Danek, Jon Solomon,
Kim
Shahabudin,
Stephen Scully,
Monica
Cyrino,
Alena
Allen),
Troys employment
of material culture
(the
late Manfred
Korfmann, J. Lesley
Fitton),
and the
political
implications
of the film
(Frederick Ahl,
Robert
Rabel).
The book
might encourage
classicists who did not take
Troy seriously
to
appreciate
how it touches
upon
important
issues,
and it should inform the
general
fan about the film's
cinematic,
mytho-poetic,
and
archaeological background.
Overall,
it
appears
that the book is directed at the former
audience,
though
the
casualness of some
contributors
might suggest
that
they
had the latter audience in
mind. At times the
quality
of
argument
descends to that of
an earnest
yet inexpert
undergraduate
lecture,
and the research
underpinning
some
discussions can seem
less than
thorough (e.g.,
one contributor cites the outdated Allen edition of the
Epic Cycle,
as if the three editions
appearing
in the last
twenty years,
including
a
Loeb,
did not
exist).
Though
the volume is well
produced,
there is little contact
between the
contributions,
with
resulting
contradictions and redundancies. In
sum,
it is a
solid set of
papers,
but such
lapses challenge
the
general argument
that
Troy
is
worthy
of academic attention.
Defense of the film is indeed the
prime
motivation of
many
of the
papers.
Several
very
good points
are
made
repeatedly
and
convincingly:
that the film
as a
product
of
mass
media
was not directed at an
academic
audience,
that
an
adaptation
need not
display fidelity
to its
source,
and that the ancient
mytho
poetic
tradition
was innovative. The tone can
be
defensive, however,
in a
way
that is
counter-productive
to
objective analysis.
In the introduction and often
afterwards the
director,
Wolfgang
Petersen,
is
praised
as an artist of sound
classicist
training.5
Here and there viewers who
were
bored
by
the film are
berated and critics who found the film
a
failure
are
derided. More
engaging
and
credible
are
those contributors who
acknowledge
the film's
failings?and
there
are
many?before discussing
issues raised
by
the film. Several contributors do
this,
and do it well. For
example,
Danek
provocatively
compares aspects
of
Dictys
and
Dares to those of
Troy
or even the Iliad
itself;
Shahabudin
provides
many
insights
into the film's
mythological aspects;
and Ahl and Rabel both
pursue interesting
political interpretations.
One
prominent topic
is the film's relation to material culture. One thinks
of Kathleen Coleman's well-known tribulations
as a
historical consultant for
Gladiator when Fitton's
essay opens
with
"Troy
had
no
official historical advisor"
(99).
What follows is a moderate defense of the medium's need
to deviate from
historical
accuracy,
balanced
by
clear delineation of how the film mixed material
culture from different time
periods,
and
occasionally
did
so
unnecessarily.
It is
5
Petersen himself
speaks
of his
experience
of Homer in the
original
Greek in the
special
features
sections of the "director's cut" DVD. The new
release,
with its restoration of scenes cut from the
theatrical
release,
provides support
to some of the
arguments
made in this book. But most critics will
conclude that the film's essential flaws remain.
REVIEW ARTICLE 191
nice that Fitton has taken
advantage
of this
opportunity
to showcase her sensible
views,
providing
a corrective to her
appearance
on
the DVD
"special
features,"
where she is shown
burbling
soundbites in
praise
of the film's historic
authenticity
(and
is
bizarrely
identified with the British Columbia rather than British Museum
department
of
antiquities,
a
revealing example
of
Hollywood's
cavalier
disregard
for the academic
world).
Korfmann's contribution also focuses
on
Troys perspective
on
material
culture,
as one
would
expect.
One of his last
publications,
the
piece
is rather
light, taking
an
accommodating
stance towards the film's deviances from the
archaeological
record before
summarizing
with firmer rhetoric his inclination to think that
historical circumstances led to the
myth
of the
Trojan
war. He is cheered
by
the
hope
that the field of
archaeology
will
gain
from the
publicity
of the
film,
whatever
its inaccuracies. This
pragmatic thought
occurs to
many
classicists when
they
see
antiquity portrayed
in the
mass
media,
but it is not a
particularly sophisticated
engagement
with
reception
studies.
Curiously,
almost all of the contributors fail
to comment
upon
the film's most essential
characteristic,
its
pretence
at
telling
a
historical,
and not
mythological, story.6
We have here
a
much
more
layered
situation than
that, say,
of Gladiator. That
Hollywood
film fictionalized
history;
Troy applies
a
modern
archaeological perspective
to ancient
myth
(which
served
as a
type
of
history)
in order to
present
what
purports
to be
pre-legendary history!
The last book under review focuses
on
the
Odyssey.
Edith Hall's The Return
of Ulysses
is an
important
book that
every
good
academic
library
will need to
have,
and if an
individual scholar interested in
reception
studies
were to
buy
only
one
of the books under review
here,
this should be the
one.
This
reception
study
focuses
on creative
responses
to the
Odyssey (occasionally touching
upon
intellectual
approaches), including
those of mass
media and low culture in recent
times. It
surveys
an enormous amount of material with
a
sophisticated
command
of modern
theory, though
with
organization
and
interpretation
that is sometimes
idiosyncratic.
In
explaining
her
intentions,
Hall
quickly brings up
the classic book
on
reception
of
Odysseus by
Stanford
(1968).
The author
points
out that the
tremendous
technological
and
political changes
to our
world over
the
past
half-century justify
a
fresh look at the
topic.
New theoretical
developments?
particularly
feminist and
post-colonialist?are highlighted.
Other announced
distinctions
concern
what the
project
does not
attempt.
Not much attention is
paid
to the
reception
of the
Odyssey
in
antiquity,
and
study
of the Homeric text and
its
original
context is foresworn. This
can
lead to some
frustrating
moments when
highly provocative proclamations
are
made
only
in
passing (e.g.,
that
Odysseus
was a
historical Bronze
Age king,
that the
Odyssey
was written in the
mid-eighth
century
b.c.e.,
or
that it
immediately
dominated Greek
culture).
6
Shahabudin has some
insightful
remarks on this issue towards the end of her
essay.
For further
discussion,
see
Burgess forthcoming,
with
bibliography.
192 PHOENIX
Hall also
begs
off
surveying
efforts to discover the "real" route of
Odysseus.
Fair
enough,
since localizations of the
journey
s
topography
in
far-flung
reaches of
the
globe
are
indeed rather far-fetched. It is a
pity, though,
since a
sub-category
of this
genre
involves western Mediterannean haunts associated with
Odysseus
already
in
antiquity?in
other
words,
ancient
reception
of the
myth.
And
though
sailing
in the wake of
Odysseus
is
absurdly positivistic,
reconstruction of
Odysseus'
travels
might
be
regarded
as a
modern form of
Odyssey reception.7
The method of Hall's
procedure
is not
chronological,
but thematic. Discussion
is
organized variously by genre,
media,
or
theoretical
approach.
Verse, novels,
and drama
are
often
examined,
and
generous
attention is also
given
to cinema
(Canadians
will be
pleased
to see
Canadian
perspectives,
from
Hugh
MacLennan
to the Inuit film
Atarnajuat:
The Fast Runner to
Margaret
Atwood's
Penelopiad,
given frequent
attention).
Early chapters
tend to start with
an
aspect
of the
Odyssey
and
segue
into a
related
area
of modern
reception.
For
example, Chapter
Three
uses a
discussion of the
shape-shifter
Proteus,
the
shape-shifting
of
Circe,
and the
reality-shifting proto-actor Odysseus
to launch into
an
examination of
the
Odyssey
on
stage,
and from there
a
discussion of
genre. Chapter
Four
quite
naturally
moves
from the
complexity
of narrative
technique
in the Homeric
epic
to
novels;
in
Chapter
Five ancient
song
culture
similarly
leads to music
(including
heavy
metal)
and
opera.
At times the
quantity
of information resembles
a
catalogue-like transcription
of
notes,
and the
sequence
of
thought
can exhibit
an
abrupt,
stream-of-consciousness
style.8
For
example,
a
discussion
on
translation of the
Odyssey
mentions Lamb's
paraphrase
for
children,
then
moves on
quickly
to
several versions of the
epic
in
visual media intended for a
young
audience,
and thence
to cinematic treatments.
Not
many
works
are
examined in
detail,
though
a number
are
considered for
two or three
pages (e.g.,
the films
Contempt,
The
Searchers,
and The
Natural,
and
Ralph
Ellison's Invisible
Man).
Some favorites
are
reconsidered in different
chapters
from different
angles.
The
pace
will
probably discourage
many
readers
from
regularly flipping
back to the
endnotes,
which tend
simply
to cite
original
and
secondary
sources
very concisely.
The heart of the book lies in Part
II,
"World and
Society" (Chapters
Six
to
Ten).
Here the
analysis
is
organized by
sustained considerations of theoretical
issues,
with attention
paid
to how the
Odyssey
can or
should be received in the
7One
recent
example
can be recommended: Scott HxAers No-Man s Lands: One Mans
Odyssey
through
the
Odyssey
(New
York
2008).
Typical
in
many ways
of the modern travel account
(middle
aged
male recounts
mishaps,
with a
judicious
mix of factual information and
spiritual
self-revelation,
while
following
the
path
of an admired
explorer),
this
engaging
book is
really
about low
budget,
improvisatory
tourism,
with
some
surprisingly Odyssean
twists in the narrative structure.
Though
the
journey
of
Odysseus
is the
organizing principle,
its
reality
is not taken
too
seriously.
8
Typographical
errors also
give
an
impression
of hastiness. I do not consider
reviewing
a form of
proof-reading,
but it
may
be said that neither of the two
major
academic
presses distinguished
itself
in its
editing.
REVIEW ARTICLE 193
modern world. Discussion of
post-colonial,
feminist,
and class
perspectives
on
the
Odyssey
are
particularly strong.
Hall demonstrates how the
story
of
Odysseus'
wanderings provides
a
conceptual
means
of
addressing
cultural
interaction,
gender
issues,
and
sociological
concerns.
Though
the
Odyssey
is
praised throughout
the
book,
the author is also
concerned with
exposing
its
troubling socio-political aspects.
Early
on
there is
some
suggestion
that the ancient
epic might
contain
"emergent" philosophies
more
compatible
with modern sensibilities. But
usually
the author is interested
in creative renovations of the
Odyssey,
not revisionist
interpretation
of it. After
surveying
various academic
attempts
to rehabilitate the
Penelope
of the
Odyssey,
Hall finds herself
more in
sympathy
with modern
re-tellings
of the
story
from the
perspective
of
Penelope, especially
the
interestingly
flawed
Penelope
of Atwood's
Penelopiad.
Hall is also
pleased
that
reception
of the
Odyssey
has often featured
heroes of humble status
(notably
in American
cinema, e.g.,
Cold
Mountain,
Sommersby,
and O
Brother,
Where Art
Thou?),
inspired by
the
Odyssey
's attention
to lower-class characters and
Odysseus' beggar disguise.
The
highly
individual
style
of the
commentary keeps
the reader alert and
leads to some
surprises.
Cold Mountain is treated
dismissively,
deemed too
lacking
in sex and violence to
inspire analysis.
With limited evidence it is
claimed that
postcolonialist
identification with the
Cyclops
has
recently
become
common
(oddly,
a
Texan law code is also cited in defense of the
Cyclops'
behavior;
surprisingly,
moments of
pathos
for the monster in the
Odyssey
are not
mentioned).
The author's distaste for the
imperialist
attitude of
Odysseus
leads
to a
rather
confusing
series of
suggestions
on
how the
poem might
be found more
acceptable.
More
on
target
is the attention
given
to
modern works that fuse the
Odyssey
with other cultural
traditions,
like Walcot's Omeros.
Whereas the traditional character
Odysseus/Ulysses
was central to Stanford's
study,
Hall states that her intention is to
investigate reception
of the
Odyssey
alone. Yet consideration is
given
to
story patterns
(e.g., quest,
vengeance)
that
correspond
to the Homeric
poem
only generally.
And the return of the
missing
husband is itself
a
tale
type.9
Stanford's attention to
Odysseus
as a
folktale
figure
and to
Odysseus
in non-Homeric traditions
(e.g.,
in the
Cycle
and
drama)
revealed that
correspondence
to the
Odyssey
is not
necessarily
attributable to the
influence of the Homeric
poem,
or
the Homeric
poem
alone. Consideration of
pre-, para-,
and non-Homeric
conceptions
of
Odysseus might
have clarified?or
curtailed?some of the
wider-ranging investigations
in this book. Hall tends to
favor intertextual
relationships
to the
Odyssey
in
potential
but
unprovable
cases,
like the Chanson de
Roland,
the medieval Huon de
Bordeaux,
the medieval
Japanese
Yuriwaka
Daijin,
the African
Sundiata,
and the Inuit
story
of
Atanarjuat.10
At
one
9Foley
1999:
115-167;
more
generally, Foley
2005b.
10
The last
recently publicized through
the
highly praised
film
Atanarjuat:
The Fast Runner. Hall
suggests
that the
Odyssey may
have been influenced
by
the
Atanarjuat legend, though
it is dated to no
more
than 500 to 1500
years ago.
194 PHOENIX
point
she observes that resemblances between movies and the
Odyssey
are
often
exaggerated;
such
scepticism
could be
applied
to a
few of her own
discussions.
Sometimes the
Odyssey
would better
serve as a
point
of
comparative
reference,
not
a
source.11
That
said,
this
engaging
and
passionate
book is a
great
achievement that
will inform and
inspire
its readers. When
turning
to the classic
study by
Stanford in
comparison,
I noticed its relative
organization
and
precision.
But
the tone came
off
as
comparatively
mild, staid,
and dated. There is
no
doubt
that Hall has
correctly
identified
a
need for
a new
survey
of
reception
of the
Odyssey
that takes account of current
theory
and the wealth of new
conceptions
of the Homeric
poem,
some in
genres
only recently
considered
worthy
of
academic attention. The Return
of Ulysses might
be considered
an
interpretative
classic that matches
our
multicultural,
politicized, globalized,
media-saturated,
and
occasionally
frenetic
age.
Readers will
acquire sophisticated
critical tools
with which to
ponder
the
Odyssey
and
a
broader
awareness of the
reception
of the Homeric
poem.
As
they
read
they
will
probably compile
a
long
list of
poems, novels,
and films to check out. Some
might
find the amount of data
overwhelming,
but the book
can be
employed sporadically
as a
reference
tool;
the
index is excellent.
All the books under review
speak
well for the
place
of the Homeric
epics
in the current
resurgence
of
reception
studies. I have tried to indicate their
limitations
as
honestly
as
possible,
but
they
each have real
strengths,
and
they
harmonize with
one
another
quite
well.
Manguel provides
a concise
survey
of Homeric
reception
in all
major periods
and
areas from
antiquity
to the
.
present;
Homer in the Twentieth
Century presents
a
thoughtful
and
insightful
analysis
of select
topics
in Homeric
reception
in the last
century; Troy:
From
Epic
to
Hollywood
demonstrates
convincingly
that
a
Hollywood
blockbuster is
relevant to the
concerns
of
classicists;
and The Return
of Ulysses impresses
with
its
contemporary perspectives
on an
amazingly wide-ranging
survey
of
reception
of the
Odyssey.
The
way
forward has been
enticingly presented. Clearly
the
Homeric
epics
have had
an
enormously
influential
presence
in all
ages.
But
we
knew that. What
one
also
sees
from these studies is that
we
need to think of
this
reception
as more
than
a
validation of
our
profession,
or a
practical
means to
entice students into
our
field,
or
relaxing
recreation. Homeric
reception
is rather
a
process
of
re-creation, renovation, subversion,
and fusion. As
a
result
we
realize,
11
In her review of the film
Atamajuat:
The Fast
Runner,
Margaret
Atwood
(2004) quotes
a
British film critic as
saying
"If Homer had been
given
a video
camera,
this is what he would
have done." This is Homer as
metaphor;
in our culture "Homer" serves as a
general signifier
of
epic, myth, grandiosity,
etc.,
just
as the
Odyssey brings
to mind
travel, adventure, tribulations,
etc.
As a result identification of
specific reception
of the Homeric
epics
is
complicated tremendously
(indeed,
Atwood
compares
the
Atanarjuat
story
not to the
Odyssey
but to the
myth
of the house of
Atreus).
REVIEW ARTICLE 195
with admiration and
wonder,
that the Homeric
epics
have been and
are
being
continually re-composed.
Department of Classics
University
of
Toronto
125
Queen's
Park
Toronto,
Ontario
M5S 2C7
jburgess@chass.utoronto.ca
bibliography
Atwood,
M. 2004. "Of
Myths
and Men.
Atanarjuat:
The Fast
Runner,"
in
Moving
Targets: Writing
with
Intent,
1982-2004. Toronto. 259-262.
Babbi,
A. M. and F. Zardini
(eds.).
2000. Ulisse da Omero a
Pascal
Quignard.
Verona.
Bloom, H.,
ed. 1991.
Odysseus/Ulysses.
New York.
Boitani,
P. 1994. The Shadow
of Ulysses.
Tr. A. Weston. Oxford.
-and R. Ambrosini. 1998. Ulisse:
Archeologia
delluomo moderno. Rome.
Burgess, J.
S.
forthcoming.
"Achilles' Heel: Historicism in the Film
Troy? College
Literature.
Cavallini,
E. ed. 2007. Omero mediatico.
Bologna.
Due,
C. 2005. "Homer's Post-Classical
Legacy,"
in
Foley
2005a: 397-414.
Foley,
J.
M. 1999. Homers Traditional Art.
University
Park,
PA.
-2005a. A
Companion
to Ancient
Epic.
Maiden,
MA.
-2005b.
"Analogues:
Modern Oral
Epics,"
in
Foley
2005a: 196-212.
Fowler,
R. 2004. The
Cambridge Companion
to Homer.
Cambridge.
Fuchs,
G. ed. 1994.
Lange Irrfahrt?Grosse
Hemkehr. Frankfurt.
Goff,
B. ed. 2005. Classics and Colonialism. London.
Hardwick,
L. 2003.
Reception
Studies. Oxford.
-and C.
Gillespie
(eds.).
2007. Classics in Post-Colonial Worlds. Oxford.
-and C.
Stray
(eds.).
2008. A
Companion
to Classical
Receptions.
Maiden,
MA.
Jauss,
H. R. 1982. Toward an
Aesthetic
of Reception. Minneapolis.
Kallendorf,
C. ed. 2007. A
Companion
to the Classical Tradition.
Maiden,
MA.
Manguel,
A. 1998.
History of Reading.
Toronto.
-2004. A
Reading Diary.
Toronto.
Martindale,
C. and R. F. Thomas
(eds.).
2006. Classics and the Uses
of Reception.
Maiden,
MA.
Messineo,
D. 1995. II
viaggio
di Ulisse da Dante a
Levi. Florence.
Morris,
I. and B. Powell
(eds.).
1997. A New
Companion
to Homer. Leiden.
Nicosia,
S. 2003. Ulisse nel
tempo.
Venice.
Stanford,
W. B. 1968. The
Ulysses
Theme2. Oxford.