Epos: Word, Narrative and the "Iliad" by Michael Lynn-George

Review by: James P. Holoka

The Classical Journal, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 1990), pp. 81-82
Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297927 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 09:19

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.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:19:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JOURNAL
THECLASSICAL 81

mask'sauthenticity."Schliemannin his reportpublishedin the Greekpress claims that

the corpse found underthe other gold mask from GraveV (not the mask itself) "very
much resembles the image which my imagination formed long ago of wide-ruling
Agememnon." Did the genuine masks lack what Schliemannin Mycenae calls "fea-
tures . . . altogetherHellenic"? Was the "AgamemnonMask" created accordingly?
But in that case one would have expected this mask to have been "found" later-
perhapsconsiderablylater-than the others. Traill'sown examinationof the evidence
shows that this was not so.
The minutedamagethat would be caused by the scientific tests desiredby Trailland
Caldermight be justified. But they must supply evidence, not suspicions, before their
theories are accepted.

J. K. ANDERSON
Universityof Californiaat Berkeley

Epos: Word,Narrativeand the "Iliad." By MICHAEL LYNN-GEORGE. Atlantic High-

lands, N.J.: HumanitiesPress International,1988. Pp. xii + 302. $35.00.

Lynn-George'sbook (originallya 1984 Cambridgedissertation)blends literaryanal-

ysis with metacriticalphilippic. He exposes theoreticaldeficiencies in particularpre-
vious critical perspectivesby offering his own readingsof various passages, themes,
etc. The analysis throughoutis broadly deconstructiveand often proceeds on a high
level of abstraction.This is not a book for the novice; readersdesiring criticaldescrip-
tion of the epic couched in a more conventionalidiom of explicationwill do betterto
turnto recent books by, for example, Camps, Griffin, Redfield, or Schein.
In the first part of his book, "Between Two Worlds," Lynn-George explains at
(excessive) length Erich Auerbach'snow venerablecharacterizationof Homeric epic
narrativeas a processionof phenomenain an absolutespatialandtemporalforeground.
He then elucidates passages (e.g., the Teichoskopia)and themes (e.g., the boule of
Zeus) thatdefy Auerbach'ssimplificationof the poem. Thus, the imperfectiveaspectof
the verb in the phraseDios d' eteleieto boule in II. 1.5 contributes"the force of a vast
indefiniteness. .... It producesa plan and a process withoutend, a plan which has no
defined goal and a process which has no specified telos. . . . At the same time it ...
emerges as havingalreadybegun in an indefinitepast, a time withoutlimit priorto 'the
first time' of narrative,an eternitywhich opens across the bordersof this entry into
story, which is itself anythingbut a simple event" (p. 38).
In the second section, "The Epic Theatre:The Languageof Achilles," both Milman
and Adam Parryare the whipping boys. The author again reveals how a theoretical
construct,in this case orality,falsifies the complex realitiesof the narrative.He targets,
in particular,Milman Parry'sreduction of formulaic language to metrical filler and
concomitant diminishing of semantic content. The central problem is, in Lynn-
George's view, our beguilementby the notion of Homer's simplicity and rapidity,an
entrenchedcriticalfable convenuesince MatthewArnold. By attributingthese qualities
to the circumstancesof oral performance,Parryobstructeda more "active and produc-
tive considerationof the possibilities created by words" (p. 80). Lynn-Georgethen
shows what a criticalmethodfreed from such theoreticalrestrictionsmay achieveby an
analysis of the embassy scene of II. 9. Forexample, Odysseus'omission of elements of
Agamemnon'soriginal offer to Achilles is shown to entail "a process of difference,
fixity and movement, preservationand loss" (p. 92) to which Achilles is somehow
sensitive and reactive in his own choice of words. As for Adam Parry'swell-known
accountof the dynamicsof "The Languageof Achilles," Lynn-Georgesees in it only

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:19:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 OCTOBER-NOVEMBER
1990

an unwarrantablesegregationof Homericnarrativefromothergreatworksof literature.

"If they [the Parrys]had examined the broadercontext of literature. . . they would
have found that no concerns are more common in literaturethan those by which they
sought to isolate the peculiarityof Homericepic" (p. 98). The struggleof a character
against the conventions of his language is not unique to Homer, nor is it a mark of
linguistic limitationsimposed by an oral poetics.
In his third section, "MortalLoss and Epic Compensation,"Lynn-Georgeattacks
the misconceptionsof a more hoary critical dogma-Analysis. Focusing specifically
on Denys Page's discussion of plot inconcinnitiescenteringon the amnesiaof Achilles
respecting the events of Book 9, he detects a richly elaboratedtheme of "loss and
recompense." A sophisticatedmanagementof conflicting temporalrelationsis again
disclosed: "This altercationin time persists well beyond book ix in the structuringof
the epic narrative.The rift betweenAchilles and the Achaiansshapes the narrativethat
follows with its prolongeddivergencebetween Achilles' continuingexpectation, after
book ix, of an Achaiansupplication,and the Achaianestimationthat such an approach
has alreadybeen made, rejected, and thereforeabandoned. . ." (p. 167).
Part4 of the book, "The Homeless Journey,"is less polemical in orientation,or at
any rate less narrowlydirectedagainst any one critic or school of criticism. It offers
furtherillustrationsof the advantagesof an approachto the text that takes more fully
into account the complexities and the depths (even of paradox) that inform it. For
instance, Lynn-Georgedemonstratesthat "Achilles is placed between the two fathers
Peleus and Priam(xxiv.540-2). In relatingtwo fathers,and in his reflectionon his own
relationto the two, Achilles links them in their grief caused by his simultaneousand
opposed roles ... 'not caringfor' / 'giving care to.' At the same time Achilles resists
any single identity in a speech which sets the two fathersapartin the differencesof
their shareddestiny .. ." (pp. 246-47).
One cannot in a short space detail more than a few of the hundredsof individual
interpretationsLynn-Georgemakes. The readermay,of course, questionthe validityof
discrete critical analyses and even of his overall argumentfor temporaland linguistic
complexity in the epic. Those allergic to deconstructionwill dislike his methods in
general. And, too, the author impedes his argumentsby hideous sentence-structure
(with subordinateclauses nested many levels deep), gratuitousrhetoricalcapers (es-
pecially chiasmus),and aberrantwordchoice. Still, the theoreticalorientationthrough-
out is salubriously "anti-foundational,"markedby a profoundskepticism regarding
doctrinaireapproachesto the Homeric poems. Hence the impatience with literary
critical (and historical) distinctions ascribingto texts of one traditionan exclusively
"surface"meaningand level of intent, but to othersdepth and intricacy.Preconceived
notions of authorship-autonomous vs. traditional,single vs. multiple, oral vs. liter-
ate--are laid bare as debilitatingcritical ideologies deserving no place in the elucida-
tion and adjudicationof artistryin a given text. Lynn-Georgecarefullyavoidsexclusive
claims of insight for his own method: "The Homeric critic works with uncertainties,
where the known is interwovenwith . . . the unknown, perhaps foreverbeyond the
reappropriationwhich makes of history the conquest of time and meaning" (p. 274).
Homeriststolerantof unconventionalapproachesto the Iliad will find much of value
here, in termsboth of textualexplicationand of metacriticaljudgment.

JAMESP. HOLOKA
EasternMichigan University

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.46 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:19:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions