Thesis Reference

Thesis The persistence of the Homeric question VARSOS, Georges Jean Abstract La thèse présente les résultats d'une enquête sur la "persistance" des formations littéraires et sur ses implications en matière de reproduction et traduction de la littérature, voire en matière de relations entre littérature et histoire. Le débat sur la "question homérique" est traité comme un cas exemplaire. L'enquête est fondée sur une lecture comparative des "Prolégomènes à Homère" (1795) de F.-A. Wolf et de "La tâche du traducteur" (1923) de W. Benjamin. La lecture de Wolf explore le paradigme philologique et ses tendances historicistes, paradigme centré sur la réformation d'un texte à reproduire. La lecture de Benjamin revisite les présupposés d'une critique, actuellement très influente, de la tradition historiciste, critique centrée sur la question de la traduction. Les concepts suivants sont discutés en autres: forme et substance, écriture et textualité, lecture et lisibilité, langage humain et temporalité historique. Reference VARSOS, Georges Jean. The persistence of the Homeric question. Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2002, no. L. 512 URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-1550 DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:155 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:155 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version. 1 / 1 FACULTE DES LETTRES PROGRAMME DE LITTERATURE COMPAREE THE PERSISTENCE OF THE HOMERIC QUESTION THESE DE DOCTORAT présentée par GEORGES JEAN VARSOS Directeur de thèse: WLAD GODZICH Président du jury: RICK WASWO JUILLET 2002 i PREFACE Work directly related to this thesis started, I think, when I read the first of Ezra Pound’s Cantos, during my post-graduate studies in Comparative Literature, in Montreal. My M.A. dissertation compared Pound’s translation and Heidegger’s transposition of the figure of Odyssean return (Pound et Heidegger, lecteurs d’Homère, Université de Montréal, 1992). I subsequently requested and was granted permission to pursue doctoral work focusing on Homer’s Odyssey – which involved transferring to the University of Geneva. The turn to the field of Homeric studies brought along the inevitable: not only the systematic reading of the original in canonical modern editions, but also an inquiry into the history of these editions and of the correlative Homeric Question. This led me to Wolf’s Prolegomena – and to the question of the manuscript tradition. A first draft of the doctoral dissertation comprised two relatively distinct parts: an overview of the philological debate on Homer, and a re-reading of selected passages of the Odyssey, especially those that poetise figures of language, humanity and memory. There only seemed to lack a brief middle part, bridging what was sensed as a gap between the two. Paul de Man provided that bridge – more specifically, his approach to reading and history, as evinced in his lecture on Walter Benjamin’s “Aufgabe des Übersetzers”. A careful re-reading of other related writings by Benjamin was soon called for – a brief excursus, so I thought. However, Benjamin’s late and, on retracing my steps, earlier work introduced me to a field hitherto unsuspected, obscured rather than explored under de Man’s guidance. Wolf persisted, but the “middle part” of the thesis extended to what is now the main body, displacing my reading of the Odyssey. I thus remain, for the time being, with more prolegomena to yet another return to Homer – on grounds far more slippery than the ones that sustained and suspended my initial return. The deManian bridge did its job. I have great difficulty envisaging how I could ever adequately acknowledge the debts I was fortunate enough to have accrued throughout this process, expressing my gratefulness in return. I only wish that the result were better, so that my thanks would not seem to fall so ironically short of doing justice to on-going relations that, I am afraid, do, fortunately, exceed words. The presence of Wlad Godzich, supervisor of the thesis, has marked my work and intellectual development. He has been, for me, a figure worth both following and resisting – with effects, in both cases, as unexpected as they were welcome. He accepted, to begin with, my Master’s and Doctoral projects, in Montreal and Geneva. He further supported my work by offering me research and teaching positions at the University of Geneva. His lectures and seminars, which first attracted me to the field of comparative literature, I have attended avidly; ii and I do not recall myself reacting to their ideas otherwise than with enthusiasm or exasperation. Everything always had to be thought all over again. Our discussions, usually over beer or coffee, never missed a point without gaining another. The conditions of our institutional affiliation were coupled with that feeling of engaging intellectual independence which is, in itself, a challenge both practical and theoretical. I have tried to cope with it, measuring my limits. My gratitude also goes to the government of Quebec, which offered me a two-year FCAR scholarship, along with a supplement that enabled me to travel from Montreal to Geneva in order to continue my work – from Pine Avenue to Pension Saint-Victor and then to Petit Castel, before landing in Valeria’s neighbourhood. Rick Waswo kindly accepted to preside over the thesis committee. Moreover, he has offered help and encouragement most effective. I also thank Jenaro Talens and Jeff Opland for accepting, on a short notice, to be members of the committee – thus making it possible for me to defend in July. The Département de Littérature Comparée of the Université de Montréal, provided me with an institutional setting in which, as a belated student of literature exhausting his youth, I found intellectual stimulation as well as the warmest human surroundings. I mean to keep on addressing to my fellow-students the same thanks I have already expressed elsewhere – while cherishing, with them, the memory of Bill Readings, whom I had the chance to meet, debate with and learn from, in Montreal. My life and studies in Montreal depended a lot on the support and company of my Greek-Canadian relatives – especially of Sophia Florakas-Petsalis, who has always been, for me, an inexhaustible source of inspiration. The English Department and the Comparative Literature Program of the Université de Genève offered me the possibility to engage in further apprenticeship, as well as in that other form of learning we call teaching. The experience was invaluable and determinant in many respects, owing both to the students that attended my seminars and to the colleagues with whom I shared privileges and responsibilities. Christine Bétrisey, whose mémoire de Licence on Benjamin’s Aufgabe I supervised, helped me to realise, through her excellent work, how much better one can indeed come to know a text one thinks one has learned by heart. iii The doctoral seminar on old and new Humanisms allowed me to enjoy clashes and reunions of viewpoints in an engaging academic forum – dovetailing into talk over soup at Chausse-Coqs. André de Muralt’s courses on ancient and medieval philosophy showed me what it means to work with texts whose historical remove makes their reading inescapably close. The course on papyrologie that I attended, in the Classics department, has been strikingly enlightening. Valeria Wagner is the closest neighbour I have had in my life. I have discussed with her – and need to go on discussing – almost everything relating to our academic life, as well as to what lies beyond its confines. Together we coped with the thesis, in many respects, including its practice, its theory, its politics – as well as its part on philology, which Valeria carefully read. Brian Neville, whose knowledge of Benjamin well precedes my own, has sustained our connection from Montreal to London, in a way that made innumerable instances of intellectual offering and exchange resound with friendship unbelievable. He read the first version on Aufgabe – and no subsequent version went untouched by his comments. My introduction would sound very different without his corrections. He keeps me real company during these difficult few days of final editing work. Simone Oettli knows well how to combine intellectual and moral support, with the wholehearted hospitality that I enjoyed so much. The fellowship of Agnieszca Soltysik, coupled with her smiling initiatives for work-in- progress meetings, has been precious. To Saba Bahar, I owe things as important as the roof over my head – and lots of useful advice that were always more than accurate. Agnese Fidecaro, Lorenza Coray, and Ward Tietz were important parts of many of the most animated moments of my life and thought in Geneva. Beba Sasiç has made all things, in and out of the Department, familiar and real unforgettably so. Family and friends in Greece have been withstanding comings and goings, unfulfilled promises and deferred restarts, distances unbearable and closeness overwhelming. It would be vain to talk of gratefulness towards those whose names are practically indistinguishable from mine, in many respects. Since old Parisian days, Anna Tabaki has tenaciously insisted that I can and must have a thesis – doing all she could, to keep me on track. She did it with that reassuring smile of complicity, which could not help suggesting that, after all, it’s not the thesis that really matters. iv To Rania Astrinaki, with whom we have talked so well over so many changing years, I wish the best for the imminent defence of her own thesis. To Apostolis Diamandis I wish the same. Through the turbulence of our discussion, together with Lena Prokopiou, I have learned an awful lot – and we’ll see what next Giorgos Tsarbopoulos is not only the oldest of friends; he also practically financed part of my work at a crucial stage in its trajectory.

Load more