the preceding rhapsode had finished; the process continued until the entire work was completed. Whether this phenomenon, called the “Pisistratean recension,” actually took place during the rule of Pisistratus has been contested (Kirk, Songs 312, 317; Pfeiffer 6, 7). By the fifth century BCE, private texts of Homer were not uncommon, and Rhapsodes who knew Homer by heart were common in Athens (Xenophon, Symposium 3.6; Memorabilia 4.2.10).
With the codification of the Iliad and Odyssey came the formation of the Homeridae, the most prestigious members of the rhapsodic guild who may well have functioned as judges in interpretative contests (Plato, Ion 530D; Hargis, “Socrates” 1–12). The exact date the Homeridae guild was formed and their relationship to Rhapsodes in general has neither been thoroughly examined nor completely understood (Oxford 526). Homeridae prospered on the island of Chios, the legendary birthplace of Homer, and claimed to be his descendants (OCD 526). The reference to Homeridae as types of Rhapsodes is made by Pindar, who describes these “sons of Homer” as “weavers of chants” (Nemean Odes 2.1–2; [Plutarch], Homeri Vita 2.2). In scholia referring to Pindar (Nemean Odes 2.1, 2) Athenaeus (22B) indicates that the most famous of these Homeridae at his time was Cynaethus of Chios, who flourished about 504 BCE. The influence of the Homeridae spread as Rhapsodes such as Xenophanes of Colophron (b. 570 BCE) traveled throughout Greece reciting his own poetry and critiquing both Homer and Hesiod (DK 21.A.1). Theagenes of Rhegium (fl. circa 525 BCE) was the author of On Homer. In it, he argued that the gods of Homeric literature were actually personifications of natural elements and abstract entities. His interpretation of Homer included comments on linguistics as well as literary and grammatical criticism (DK 8.2, 1, 1a; Pfeiffer 10–11). Although Theagenes cannot be considered one of the Homeridae with absolute certainty, there is little doubt that he represents the essence of rhapsodic scholarship—that is, an interpreter of both literary meaning and linguistic accuracy. Eventually, Rhapsodes other than those who came from Chios were admitted to the Homeric guild, and by Plato’s time Homeridae were highly esteemed throughout Athens (Ion 530D; Phaedrus 252B). In short, Homeridae were a distinguished guild of itinerant Rhapsodes who consciously attempted to illuminate meaning in Homer and to preserve written collections of words which were becoming increasingly rare, obsolete, and therefore difficult to pronounce (Pfeiffer 12; Aristotle, Poetica 1459a9ff.; Isocrates, Helen 65).
The recognition Rhapsodes had received under Pisistratus continued. As festivals and games gained popularity, so did the contests for Rhapsodes. Musicians and poets, who shared honors equally with athletes, were encouraged to compete at the Pythian, Nemean, Isthmian, and Olympian games—as Pindar’s lyric poems reveal. As the intellectual center for the Hellenic world, Athens also encouraged Rhapsodes to participate in her contests. Pericles established by decree not only a general contest for music and poetry, but also an odeion, or concert/lecture hall, to house such displays (Plutarch, Vita Parallelae: Pericles 13; Pausanias 1.8.6 and 7.20.6; Philostratus, Vita Sophistarum 571, 579). By Plato’s time, rhapsodic contests at the Panathenaea held great prestige. Plato’s dialogue-character Ion proudly referred to his competition in the event (Ion 530B; Leges 658B). By Plato’s time, Rhapsodes commonly dressed in conspicuous apparel and declaimed from a dais (Ion 530B, 535D, E). Contrary to Plato’s implications, respect for Rhapsodes was widespread, particularly among Sophists such as Protagoras, who admired Rhapsodes for their attempts to use Homer as a means of providing a practical education (DK 80.A.5; Plato, Protagoras 317B; Pfeiffer 16).
Over the centuries, Rhapsodes continued to evolve into a professional guild of individuals who were not only educators in Homeric oratory but also active participants in contests. Recognition of their success in such contests spans centuries and indicates the prestige they enjoyed. Moreover, the extant epigraphical fragments containing lists of contest participants provide vital evidence indicating their influence and fame. These fragments survive primarily as chronicles of victors at literary and oratorical festivals. Evidence from these sources indicates a number of noteworthy facts. Rhapsodes did not fall into disrepute after Plato but continued to thrive as recognized artists. Records from Amphiareion, for example, clearly show that Rhapsodes shared honors with tragic and comic actors as well as musicians during the Roman domination of Greece (see Enos, “Art”; Petracos 13, 36–41, 65). Training in the rhapsodic art as a formal study is evident through the third Christian century (SIG vol. one, no. 389 [8] duo, no. 424 [10], no. 489 [12], no. 509 [6]; vol. two, no. 711L[32], no. 736 [42.150.165]; vol. three, no. 958[36], no. 959 [9]; OCD 920). There are even indications at this late date that rhapsodic contests were offered at a wide range of places, varying from contests for children to events held on Chios (SIG, vol. three, nos. 958, 959).
Although Rhapsodes continued to participate in contests, their function as linguistic guardians of Homeric pronunciation and scholarship diminished. As centuries passed, the Greek language continued to develop, alter, and be influenced by numerous dialects which gradually eroded the oral characteristics of the language from Homeric Greek and made reconstruction increasingly more difficult (Maas 3–4). Efforts by Rhapsodes to maintain the “correct” pronunciation, intonation, accent, and rhythm of Homeric Greek were doomed to failure. From the first century BCE onward, the quantitative metre that characterized Homeric oral interpretation became further removed from the rhythmical structure of the language. In addition, for some unknown reason, no Greek writer of any importance seems to have concerned himself with metric studies (Maas 3–5).
In a futile attempt to preserve the pronunciation of Homeric Greek, scholars eventually adopted a written system of diacritical notations (stress symbols) to indicate vocal quality and quantity. In spite of these efforts, W. Sidney Allen claims that by “Alexandrian times, as knowledge of the earlier language declined, and as Greek came to be taught as a foreign language, the need was felt for marking such features in classical texts in cases where ambiguity might otherwise result” (Accent and Rhythm 4). Second century BCE Alexandrian scholars, such as Zenodotus of Ephesus, and even Byzantine scholars, such as Aristophanes, undertook lexicographical studies to codify and thereby preserve Homeric pronunciation with markings and grammatical explanations (see Pfeiffer 174–82; Kindstrand). Written explanations, however, failed to preserve phonetic vocal qualities between vowels—a distinction which is the essence of precise interpretation of the Homeric tongue. Moreover, as quantitative distinctions between vowels continued to become increasingly uncertain, the placing of word accents at regular positions in lines began to occur (Maas 15). Even into the early Christian centuries, Rhapsodes persisted in their use of the ancient Homeric tongue, but their pronunciation was far removed from the original Greek vernacular that had been altered by centuries of use and modification. By 400 BCE, “correct” pronunciation was all but nonexistent, and the rhapsodic tradition had deteriorated to such an extent that individuals no longer read according to sounds intuitively familiar to listeners but rather according to artificially contrived stress accents on each written word (Maas 13–15).
Eventually, Homeric metre was dictated by structure not tonal quality. The beneficiaries of the rhapsodic tradition were left with only the form of their language and not the quantitative (syllables based on duration of sound rather than stress) sound that produced it. Efforts of Rhapsodes to preserve the oral nature of Homeric Greek, both in practice and also in the theoretical development of notational systems, justifies their association with the history of rhetoric—even if that association reveals nothing more than the historical evolution of thought which preceded the “discovery” of rhetoric so frequently credited to Corax and Tisias.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard,
