(‘ρaψωdόs), and Carolo Odo Pavese, who made a thorough study of the epic tradition of rhapsodic literature. Both Patzer and Pavese, however, concentrated on linguistic issues of composition and not on the evolution of the tradition itself. In the field of communication, Eugene and Margaret Bahn deserve recognition for calling attention to the importance of Rhapsodes in the development of Greek literature. Donald E. Hargis improved on the efforts of the Bahns by synthesizing and focusing earlier research.
Despite these efforts, contemporary research on the origin and role of Rhapsodes, particularly prior to and during the establishment of rhetorical theory, is slight. Moreover, several incompatible notions about Rhapsodes persist in the few studies that have been conducted. First, the origin and development of a rhapsodic tradition is unclear. Likewise, the relationship between a group of Homeric experts, called “Homeridae” (e.g., Pindar Nemean Odes 2.1, 2), and Rhapsodes has not been thoroughly explained. Second, the importance of Rhapsodes to the history of Greek literature is still an issue of dispute. Writers such as G.S. Kirk regard Rhapsodes as “decadent and moribund” entertainers who were guilty of “straining” for “rhetorical effects” which corrupted the text of Homer (Kirk, Epic 29). Eugene and Margaret Bahn do imply that Rhapsodes played significant roles in the development of Greek thought, but they do not specify either the nature or impact of such a role (13). Finally, there is no agreement concerning the date of the demise of Rhapsodes nor why it occurred. Hargis, for example, argues that Rhapsodes reached their zenith at the time of Plato but persisted until the time of Christ (397). Martin Litchfield West claims that Rhapsodes practiced their art down to the third century after Christ (920). This chapter attempts to resolve the uncertainties noted above by tracing the development of a rhapsodic tradition prior to and throughout the period of Hellenic classical rhetoric.
A. Etymological Issues Concerning the Homeric “Rhapsode.”
As the preceding section reveals, a casual reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey inaccurately suggests that such characters as Phemius and Demodocus could be stereotyped as illiterate improvisers chanting Homeric verse. If ancient terminology is properly understood, however, these predecessors to Rhapsodes were developing and employing systems of oral discourse even before the Homeric age. The origin and relationship of Homeric interpreters with Rhapsodes, moreover, is best understood through etymology, for the literal meaning of such terms as “bard” and “rhapsode” has been a source of misunderstanding. The term “bard” is particularly confusing since it has no Greek equivalent and implies a distinction from the term “rhapsode” which is essentially arbitrary. The closest cognate to a “bard” is the Latin bardus, which means a poet, singer or minstrel (usually in reference to Gauls). Individuals such as Phemius and Demodocus, who are commonly labeled by translators as “bards” or “minstrels,” are consistently called an “aoidoi” (άoiδoί) in Homeric literature. Yet Plato, who lived over three centuries after Homer, specifically refers to Phemius in the Ion as a “rhapsode” (Ion 533C). Plato would seem to be mistaken, for he should have called Phemius an “aoidos,” as did Homer. What Plato was doing, however, was substituting a contemporary Attic Greek term for an outdated Homeric Greek term and providing an important clue to the development of the term “rhapsode” and an indication of the need to examine its Homeric origin.
In Homeric literature, an aoidos could represent any entertainer who chanted out a tale and who often kept rhythm with a lyre or staff. Both Homer and Hesiod provide several examples throughout their works (Homer, Iliad 9.186–89; Odyssey 8.65–67, 105, 254, 261–62; 13.28–30; 17.260–63; 22.330–33. Hesiod, Theogonia 29–32). In fact, the primary distinction of an aoidos from a musician seems to be only that the accompaniment is secondary to the oral work. Hesiod, for instance, distinguished an “aoidos” from an individual who specialized or limited himself only to playing an instrument such as the kithara (Hesiod, Incertae Sedes Fragmenta 1; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.25). In ancient lyric poetry, the common practice was for the aoidos to accompany his lay to a musical beat; virtually every form of Greek poetry was associated with music (Plato, Ion 530A; OCD 705). When translators arbitrarily distinguish among the Homeric bard, minstrel, and rhapsode, they obscure the unity that enabled an individual to blend song, music and poetry. Moreover, to impose the notion of specialization is to imply a refinement that had not yet occurred. Initially, Homeric aoidoi such as Phemius did not credit their oral ability to any systematic technique, as did later Rhapsodes such as Ion. Rather, as E.R. Dodds indicates, they attributed their ability to the “psychic intervention” of divine inspiration (10–11). In brief, it would be more precise to consider these Homeric chanters as “pre-Rhapsodes”; we should qualify the meaning within the context rather than obscure what is essentially the same phenomenon with various labels. There is little doubt, however, that Rhapsodes eventually took on a very specialized role as interpreters of Homeric literature, but such distinctions cannot reasonably be drawn in the Homeric age.
Even ancient scholars were in a quandary over the etymology of the term “rhapsode.” This uncertainty is illustrated in the writings of the second century BCE grammarian Dionysius Thrax: “Rhapsody is the aspect of poetry embracing some proposed subject. Moreover, rhapsody is [derived] from the [term] ‘rod,’ from the fact that men traveled around with a baywood rod singing the poems of Homer” (Τέχνη γραμματική 5; see also, Pfeiffer 269). For Dionysius, the meaning of rhapsody (ῥαψῳδία) is derived from two words: “rod” (ῥάβδος), and “chant” (ᾠδή). Hence, for Dionysius, the term “rhapsode” came from the combined term “rodchanter,” one who beats out the metre of his chant with a staff. This interpretation is supported by archaeological evidence, for among the British Museum collection of Greek pottery is an early fifth century BCE Attic red-figure amphora (E. 27) which shows a rhapsode with a staff (ῥάβδος) chanting a poem (Kirk, Songs plate 76; Callimachus, Fragmenta 138; cf. Pausanius 9.30.3).
Although Dionysius’s interpretation differs from the concept of Rhapsodes as “weavers of chants,” its etymology is not incompatible with the earlier explanations of Hesiod and Pindar, both of whom were closer in time to the Homeric age than was Dionysius (Hesiod, Fragmenta Dubia 3; scholia on Pindar, Nemean Odes 2.1, 2). In fact, annotators of Dionysius’s writing posit both of the above interpretations: early Rhapsodes not only wove together swatches of heroic verse but also often used a staff or lyre for rhythmic accompaniment (5, accompanying scholia 8, 9). Pindar even used a term for rod (ῥάβδος, see below) in a metaphorical sense to indicate the “standard” for measuring verse, and Homer indicated that divine inspiration (μένος) could be transmitted through a staff (Isthmian Odes 4.36–39). In the Homeric sense, a “ῥάβδος” is usually taken to be a sort of magic wand, such as those used by Circe, Athena and Hermes (Iliad 13.59ff.; 24.343. Odyssey 10.238, 319; 16.172; E. R. Dodds p.9.n.52).
Etymological perspectives from such ancient authors as Dionysius Thrax provide important information for the interpretation of oral literature. With these terms in mind, Homer may be considered the father of Rhapsodes, for he was the first known aoidos to present a formal codification and canonization of heroic oral literature. The Homeric term “aoidos” first became associated with a conscious, rational system of oral discourse when, in the eighth century BCE, Hesiod called himself and Homer “ἀoidόi” who weave their compositions together (ῥάψατες ἀoiδήν) in order to compose (Hesiod Fragmenta Dubia 3; scholia on Pindar Nemean Odes 2.1, 2). Evidence cited above indicates that aoidoi such as Homer and Hesiod were the first Hellenic thinkers to advance formalized systems for both presenting and understanding oral literature–an activity that ought to be recognized as contributing to the evolution of rhetoric as a discipline.
B. The Stabilization of the Rhapsodic Tradition.
Two factors marked the rhapsodic tradition: the modification of the Greek language and the introduction of written literature. The Phoenician alphabet was introduced in Greece as early as the thirteenth century BCE, but the earliest extant “literature” is from the eighth century BCE and was used as an aid in storytelling (Ullman 22; Kirk, Epic 10; Pfeiffer 269; Kirk, Oral 19–39). Although types of script called Linear B and
