The Classical Review NEW SERIES VOLUME XLVIII NO. 2 (VOLUME CXII OF THE CONTINUOUS SERIES) 1998 HOMER AS SPEECH E. J. Bakker: Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse (Myth and Poetics). Pp. xiv + 237. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997. ISBN: 0-8014-3295-2. In this book B. presents to a wider audience his work on ‘Orality and Homeric Discourse’ already published in a series of articles over the past years. His central claim is that Homer should be approached not as (written) literature or oral poetry but instead as a flow of speech through time. Part 1, ‘Perspectives’, introduces the text of Homer as a transcript of spoken discourse. Starting from the dichotomy ‘oral’ versus ‘written’, B. argues against the view that Homeric epic is a special type of poetry, suggesting instead to regard it as a type of speech. What this means is elaborated in Part 2, ‘Speech’, where a new understanding of Homer’s paratactic style is advocated on the basis of ‘ordinary speech’ as described by the linguist W. Chafe. Adopting Chafe’s approach to language, B. explains some of the more striking features of Homeric discourse with reference to cognitively determined linguistic strategies. In the third part, ‘Special Speech’, he investigates some of the ways in which Homeric epic in turn departs from ‘ordinary speech’. Here the key feature is metre. B. argues that some characteristics which other types of discourse, such as rhetorical prose, display at the level of syntax have their counterpart in the metrical period of the Homeric hexameter. To those familiar with B.’s work, there will be few surprises in the detail. What is new is the attempt to draw together in one sustained argument the results of ten years of research. In many ways, this attempt must be judged successful. Although potentially complicated, B.’s argument is almost always unassuming and easy to follow. Linguistic jargon is kept to an acceptable minimum, and the footnotes are mostly short and to the point. The book is also equipped with a helpful index. On the whole, B. is most convincing where he relies least on the ideas of others. His study of particles such as δ–δ, νξ–νξ, λα¬,(4)σα, η0σ, οÖξ—here restated as Chapters 4–5—may serve to illustrate the successful mixture of bold intuition and high linguistic competence which characterizes B.’s work at its best. Against the ‘cataloguing’ δ which separates intonation units and invites the audience to move further along the narrative line (pp. 62ff.), B. sets λα¬ as an inclusive element which tends to occur within such units (pp. 71–4). Νξ prepares for the progression carried out by δ and opens a ‘frame’ within which the following sections may be viewed (pp. 100–8). The concept of framing, not perhaps entirely fortunate given B.’s criticism of spatial metaphors elsewhere (e.g. p. 120 on ring composition), is also important for the somewhat bolder suggestion that the Homeric hexameter developed out of a system of ‘staged’ noun-epithet phrases (Chapters 7, 8). Such assertions are hard to prove, © Oxford University Press, 1998 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:57:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X9873001X 260 the classical review and the fact that B. tries to do so by dividing the Iliad into areas of ‘quintessential action’ (p. 168) and ‘anti-action’ (p. 169) does not inspire confidence in his results. However, B. does succeed in showing that the mechanics of formulaic language may be viewed as one phenomenon of periodization among others. Just as rhetorical prose is organized in syntactical periods (pp. 138–46), Homeric metre can be seen as a ‘routinized’ variant of the rhythmical period (pp. 186ff.). The analogy with American folk preachers (pp. 133–5) suggests a link with ritual practice. Much of what B. argues is convincing and has a strong intuitive appeal. However, his results are undermined in part by his strict adherence to the doctrines of modern cognitive linguistics. Here I would draw attention to a slightly alarming phenomenon. It is rightly assumed today that research carried out in fields other than classics can have a stimulating effect on the discipline. B.’s book further contributes to this beneficial development. However, it also highlights some of its less welcome aspects. Throughout the volume, B. follows Chafe in arguing that spoken discourse of any time and culture reflects a series of biologically conditioned foci of consciousness. Given that such foci can only be verbalized one after the other, and in the order in which they present themselves to the speaker’s mind, ‘ordinary human speech’ is ‘naturally’ paratactic. As evidence for this Chafe—and B. with him (e.g. pp. 43, 48)—cites the so-called ‘Pear Film project’ in which a number of people are shown a short film and then asked to give a narrative account of it. The result is appropriately paratactic, but this proves little. How ‘ordinary’, we may ask, is the situation described? How important is it that the persons in question are paraphrasing a film? Why are they asked to produce a narrative and how does this relate to speech in general? B. does not address any of these questions, nor does he come to terms with such dubious concepts as ‘the one new idea constraint’ (pp. 99, 103). Here as elsewhere Chafe and his ‘experimental research’ (p. 46) determine the tone and scope of B.’s discussion to an extent which threatens to obstruct rather than stimulate the proposed hermeneutic encounter. As B. himself remarked some time ago, ‘the application to the Homeric style of the concept of the fragmentation of oral narrative into idea units has . an immediate appeal’ (TAPA 120 [1990], 5). More immediacy and less application, more Bakker and less Chafe, would have made a better book. Cambridge JOHANNES HAUBOLD HOMERIC HYMNS G. Zanetto (ed.): Inni Omerici: Testo greco a fronte. Pp. 314. Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 1996. L. 16,000. ISBN: 88-17-17136-0. There have been some useful books published on the Homeric hymns recently, most notably Jenny Strauss Clay’s literary treatment of the four major hymns, The Politics of Olympus (Princeton, 1989), but this book fulfils a need by providing a handy edition with commentary and facing translation. Z. is familiar with all the relevant scholarship, and he makes judicious use of it, while not being afraid to come up with suggestions of his own. The introduction discusses the nature and function of the hymns, with a section on each of the major ones. Z. rightly points out the aetiological and theogonic nature of the hymns, which deal with conflicts among the gods and their acquisition of υινα¬. He has an interesting discussion of why archaic Greeks did not find it odd to honour their gods by telling stories of struggles, thefts, and deceits. He deals sensibly with the problem of the hymns’ function, following the © Oxford University Press, 1998 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:57:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X9873001X the classical review 261 standard view that they were used as preludes to recitations of epic at festivals but suggesting that later the longer hymns came to be performed on their own. Some recent works have questioned the traditional suggestions about the performance context of particular hymns, but Z. rightly reaffirms the theories that the Demeter hymn (Dem) was composed for an Attic/Eleusinian context, the (Delian) Apollo (Ap) hymn for performance on Delos, and the Aphrodite hymn (Aph)to honour Aeneadae in the Troad (Z. argues that it was composed on Lesbos). He probably goes too far, however, in stating that Dem is a true liturgical hymn, designed to be performed as part of the Mysteries. He picks his way sensibly through the problems of the Apollo hymn: he accepts the Burkert/Janko hypothesis that the combined hymn was performed at a Delian festival organized by Polycrates in the 520s. Z. suggests that on this occasion Cynaethus of Chios added to the older Delian hymn a Pythian one composed by him but using mainland traditions (but surely it is more likely that the Ionian Cynaethus composed the Delian half). On the Hermes hymn (Herm), Z. stresses how the hymn shows his metis and trickery, and summarizes the nature of Hermes well. The commentary is naturally selective, but helpful and informative. Z. of course makes use of the existing commentaries, but thinks for himself, and if one compares his commentary with Cassola’s important edition, Inni omerici (Milan, 1975), there is often not much overlap. Cassola’s commentary is more erudite, but Z. is frequently more interesting reading. Particularly lively is his commentary on Herm, where he brings out well the ‘Hermetic’ nature of the god’s various actions. On 64, where Hermes has a ‘desire for meat’ he comments that this seems Titanic, like Prometheus, but later Hermes renounces this and introduces the ritual of Olympian sacrifice. His lawless characteristics are legitimized by his entry into the Olympian system. On 111, which says that H. invented fire, Z. again points out the link with Prometheus, and notes that he invents it in the context of sacrifice. So he invents the sacrificial ritual and offers a model which all mortals conform to.