The Homeric Question šāāļø
Who WAS Homer and why does it even matter?
Christopher Nolan continues to have me and everyone I know who is remotely ancient-adjacent in a chokehold. Yes, I have seen the film and no, Iām not going to subject you to a scene-by-scene rant. There are more than enough of those pieces clogging my feed at the moment and while there are some brilliant, insightful takes, overall the nit-picky pessimism is grating on me. What I HAVE prepared for you is essentially a follow up to a newsletter I wrote a few weeks ago (I threatened to tackle the Homeric question somewhere around the fourth paragraph).
The idea for this newsletter is actually all thanks to my PhD supervisor. Iām working on monsters in Classical vase painting, but I was initially just focussing on Scylla as a case study (I have been told my topic is going to change at least 4 more times and Iām not at all sickened by that thought). In one of our meetings she was throwing a bunch of suggestions at me (all very helpful, she is genuinely the best), when she, in her German accent, just casually dropped in āand, of course, youāll have to address the Homeric question at some point.ā I replied, Iām sorry the fucking WHAT???? In my mind. I replied in my mind. I have hopes that by the time I get to the third or fourth year of this whole thang Iāll have built up the courage to swear in front of her but we arenāt there yet and thatās okay!!!
The essential Homeric question is, in short, who was Homer?
In my rummaging I came across a 1992 article by Gregory Nagy, who first rips apart the idea that there was only one question, kindly listing a whole bunch of them for us:
āWho was Homer? When and where did Homer live? Was there a Homer? Is there one author of the Iliad and Odyssey, or are there different authors for each? Is there a succession of authors or even of redactors for each? Is there for that matter a unitary Iliad, a unitary Odyssey?ā1
Now Iām sure you can immediately understand why these questions have academics all over the world fizzing their little knickers but these questions got people riled up back in the day too!
No one hates chronology more than me but alas I am legally required to give you the timeline. It is broadly agreed that the Iliad and Odyssey went through whatās known as a formative stage in the eighth century BCE, becoming more definitive i.e. locked in around the sixth century BCE.2 The epics started spreading during the Archaic period (ca. 650 - 480 BCE), with evidence of the spread of the stories found on both sides of the Aegean in the seventh century.
The Homeric questionā¢ļø goes as far back as Aristotle, writing around 335 BCE. Plato and Aristotle apparently bickered about it, with Plato claiming that there was no way that Achilles dragged the corpse of Hector around the walls of Troy while Aristotle fired back with receipts, citing a Thessalian custom where theyād drag murderers around the tombs of those they had killed.3 How lovely.
A couple of hundred years after Homer was supposedly rolling around, we also have 4-5 ancient Greek cities calling dibs, claiming him as a native son.4 These claims make a rather lovely point about the broad appeal of Homeric epic, articulated by A. B. Lord;
ā[T]he very number of [these claims], and the fact that potential āhomesā for Homer expanded as the Greek world did⦠shows just how extraordinary Homerās āuniversalityā was felt to be.ā5
So universal weāre still blathering on about it today.
So ancient people were up in arms, surprise surprise, and modern commentators really picked up where they left off, with the shorthand āthe Homeric Questionā coming into common use from around 1830.6 In the nineteenth century scholars were dealing with a much looser chronology than we are today; they thought the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed somewhere between the eleventh or tenth century all the way up to the mid sixth. Nowadays weāre working with a much tighter window, between 750 and 600 BCE.7 So thatās something. In terms of archaeological evidence, scenes from the Iliad first pop up in 630 BCE and we do have an early example which depicts Polyphemus getting stabbed in the eye back in 675 BCE.8
Not to pile on but I have my own question which is how the hell are we supposed to wrap our heads around the Iliad and the Odyssey when it was first performed and the unified Homeric text that we inherited from the ancient Greeks?
This takes us to ⨠oral poetry āØ
The Homeric epics in their earliest form were not meant to be read hunched over in a library, they were performed live! The sheer size of themāclocking in at somewhere between 10 and 18 hoursāmake Nolanās 2 hours and 58 minutes look like childās play. The fact that they were first spoken rather than written down throws a rather large spanner in the works in terms of trying to get to the bottom of the Homeric question BUT the squabbling about authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey is actually a byproduct of the very nature of oral epic.9
Also, in terms of canon (or LACK of canon as per my previous newsletter), it seems reasonable to assume that there was a dash of personalisation or creative license each time a bard got going. Donāt take my word for it, take Gregory Nagyās:
ā[O]ral tradition comes to life in performance, and the here-and-now of each new performance is an opportunity for innovation, whether or not any such innovation is explicitly acknowledged in the tradition.ā10
Martin West puts it quite romantically,
āThis is how the epic poets of the Homeric age probably saw themselves: not as authors but as conservators and performers.ā11
Itās weird to imagine the tomes we know now, that are so expansive and juicy theyāre annoying to travel with, as floating around in the ether, held in the collective memory of ancient bards rather than as something tangible that you could hold in your hand. Homer himself (herself? themselves?) often used the adjective āwingedā to describe words which provides us with a handy image; these words were indeed just floating around šŖ½
The spread of the epics can also be connecting to the wave of pan-Hellenism crashing during the eighth century BCE,12 the beginnings of the formation of a national identity (perhaps an ancient audience responded to Odysseusā getting back to Ithaca and tearing through the suitors in a similar way to a drunk group of Australians when they hear š¶ I come from a land down under š¶ in a pub). The Iliad and the Odyssey created and maintained this sense of belonging, with heroic poetry as the shared cultural heritage of the Greeks or rather, the Hellenes.13
Now to the nitty gritty. Pisistratus is apparently the poor sod who was tasked with gathering up the work of Homer and actually writing it all down in the sixth century BCE.14 BUT the earliest account that says this is how it went down comes from Cicero, around 500 years after Pisistratus allegedly did his gathering.15 Ascribing both the Iliad and Odyssey to Homer canāt be traced further back than 520 BCE where a fellow called Hipparchus established the recitation of both poems as part of the massive Athenian festival, the Great Panathenaea.16 Aristarchus, an ancient commentator writing in roughly 150 BCE (essentially yesterday) is the guy credited with splitting the Iliad and the Odyssey into 24 books each.17
Itās a MESS. Such a mess that a bunch of people think that there was no real, historical Homer. H. Turnbull is one of them:
āHomer looks much more like a legendāa way to anthropomorphize the ancient Greek epic traditionāthan a historical figure. If scholars have been unable to establish a standard biography and trace the Iliad and Odyssey to a flesh-and-blood individual, it is, we can conclude, because he simply never existed as such.ā18
Others believe that a) Homer did exist and b) Homer was a woman ā¼ļø
This theory was put forward by Samuel Butler, who argued that the Odyssey was written by a woman and not just any woman, but Nausicaa herself!19 The Authoress of the Odyssey was written in 1897 wherein Butler claims that the Odyssey was written by a young, unmaried woman from Sicily in 1050 BCE.20 Some of his⦠evidence:
āCalypsoās jealousy of Penelope is too prettily done for a man. A man would be sure to overdo it.ā
āWhen Ulysses and Penelope are in bed and are telling their stories to one another, Penelope tells hers first. I believe a male writer would have made Ulyssesā story come first and Penelopeās second.ā
āThe other chief characteristics of the āOdysseyā which incline me to ascribe it to a woman are a kind of art for artās sake, love of a small lie, and a determination to have things both ways whenever it suits her purpose.ā (Pages 145, 157 and 119).
Youāve convinced me. In all seriousness this makes me incredibly nostalgic for the time where you could write scholarship based purely off of vibes. He just had a feeling! And that was enough! In 1897!
Another camp argue that the Odyssey and the Iliad were written by two different people. Martin West cites their thematic differences: the Iliad is āa tragedy of heroic passions⦠[while] the Odyssey is the story of one manās triumph over adversity in a world of folktale.ā21 Tim Whitmarsh fires back, asserting that āthe [Odyssey] possesses a remarkable unity of tone and treatment and that the whole is marked by that unique combination of matter and form which we term Homeric.ā22
Turnbull argues that it was at least conceivable that the epics had different authors:
āThe argument that it is improbable that early Greece could have produced two epic poets of such genius is sufficiently answered, I think, by the fact that at Athens, a city of perhaps 30,000 free citizens, a period of about sixty years saw the productions of the masterpieces of three great tragic poets, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.ā23
There was something in the WATER. Or, more likely, the olive oil.
West continues, āThere will always be folk who cling to the traditional faith in one Homer who composed both epics.ā24
I fear I am one of those folk.
Letās wrap things up with a quote Iāve nicked from Tim Whitmarsh, who, writing about that kook Samuel Butler, penned this whopper:
āThe truth of the Homeric texts cannot be exposed by academic praxis, because academic praxis is trammelled by its own self-serving trajectory.ā25
Donāt. Trust. ANYONE. Least of all me.
The main thing I want you to take away from all this is that the Homeric epics are not sealed in amber. The power of these stories comes from their elasticity, their adaptability, a feature that was an integral part of them in their earliest form. Even in antiquity they couldnāt access some sort of pure, frozen version of these stories, they started evolving as soon as they came into being.26
Back to the actual Homeric question šāāļø To summarise, thereās still a frankly staggering amount that we donāt know but it feels like weāre getting warmer. And the fact that weāre standing on the shoulders of those that have come before is kind of the whole point.
What about you? Do you have a theory? Gut feelings and hunches are more than welcome, in fact they are encouraged.
Reference List
Dougher, Sarah. āAn Epic for the Ladies: Contextualizing Samuel Butlerās Theory of āOdysseyā Authorship.ā Arethusa 34, no. 2 (2001): 173ā84.
Foley, John Miles. āāReadingā Homer through Oral Tradition.ā College Literature 34, no. 2 (2007): 1ā28.
Hunter, Richard. The Measure of Homer: The Ancient Reception of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Lord, A. B. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, 1960.
Nagy, Gregory. āHomeric Questions.ā Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 122 (1992): 17ā60.
Turnbull, H. G. D. āThe Homeric Question.ā Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 2, no. 2 (1920): 143ā53.
West, Martin. āThe Homeric Question Today.ā Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 155, no. 4 (2011): 383ā93.
Whitmarsh, Tim. āWhat Samuel Butler Saw: Classics, Authorship and Cultural Authority in Late Victorian England.ā Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, no. 48 (2002): 66ā86.
Nagy, 1992, 17.
Nagy, 1992, 52.
Nagy, 1992, 17.
West, 2011, 385.
Nagy, 1992, 27, quoting Lord, 1960.
Nagy, 1992, 27.
West, 2011, 389.
West, 2011, 389.
Foley, 2007, 2.
Hunter, 2018, 24.
West, 2011, 390.
Foley, 2007, 7.
Foley, 2007, 7.
Turnbull, 1920, 146.
Turnbull, 1920, 147.
West, 2011, 389.
Turnbull, 1920, 144.
Turnbull, 1920, 145.
Turnbull, 1920, 146.
Dougher, 2001, 173 and 176.
Whitmarsh, 2002, 73.
West, 2011, 388.
West, 2011, 388.
West, 2011, 392.
West, 2011, 393.
āEvery engagement with Homer was, to a greater or lesser degree, also an engagement with what Homer had meant to previous readers, and how Homer had been absorbed into, and thus helped to shape, literary culture. There was, then, in antiquity no āunmediatedā access to the poet: the āHomeric traditionā was part of what āHomerā was.ā Hunter, 2018, 135.










When I was younger I accepted the romantic opinion of a single creative Homer, but one time I had to read the Iliad and then the Odyssey straight after, and that single experience changed my mind. It is clear to me that not only there are two different [sets of] authors but they
come from radically different times and places.
The Iliad is a poem that is entirely land-based, set in one place and reflects a warrior ethos fixated on glory. You can almost taste the dust, the blood and the metal, hear the clash of arms, feel the excess of testosterone (that initial argument between Achilles and Agamemnon almost had me scrambling for cover when I had to translate it from the Homeric Greek).
If you move to the Odyssey, the setting is completely different - the unending sea, the island-hopping, the easy acceptance of the "other" (the stranger, the traveller, the god in disguise), the acquiring of reputation through hospitality rather than war. The focus is on achieving the return home, not the posthumous glory (vid. the shade of Achilles stating he would rather be a serf and alive than reign in the underworld!). There is that constant preocupation with the weather and the direction of the wind that only makes sense in a sea-faring society. They count their sheep and worry about pirates.
There is also the role and bandwidth given to the women. In the Iliad you barely hear the feminine voices, and women are completely powerless to control their own destiny. Briseis is an enslaved captive of war who changes hands twice before we even hear her speak, and when she finally opens her mouth it is to grieve over the people she has lost. Helen is a mere spectator in the civilisational cataclism wrought by her presence in Troy. And Andromache, well. That she and her husband can so accurately predict the coming disaster does nothing to prepare her for it.
Turn to the Odyssey and all the women have not just a voice but actual agency (I scoff at the jealousy vibes but my conclusion is the same): Arete of the Phaeacians has the power to decide whether or not to grant hospitality; Circe is very much the sovereign of her island, and so is Calypso. It is quite clear that even in Ithaca Odysseus became king by marrying Penelope and not the other way around (his father Laertes doesn't even live in the palace, for gods' sake). Even Helen is back in control of her own house in Sparta and dosing people around with no control whatsoever. Odysseus is bounced from woman to woman all across the poem and they are the only ones actively helping. I reckon Robert Graves was on to something when he wrote Homer's Daughter.
I could go on, but all this is to say that I rather think that the Iliad comes from an Anatolic tradition that is closer to Troy itself (also there's the dual viewpoint whereby the Achaians and the Trojans are both presented as fully fleshed people rather than generic heroes and villains - there is no villain in the Iliad, just the circumstance of a war where both sides see their lives terminally disrupted). It was probably composed in Greek but it drinks from local stories that predate the Ionian cities, in the same way that Beowulf was written in English, so to speak, but takes up an older story that does not even happen in England. On the other hand, the Odyssey was definitely composed in an island, though I have no idea which. This is a conclusion partly based on vibes on my part but I am absolutely certain of this. I also believe, with less evidence, that it must be more recent than the Iliad, because it reuses the metre, the epic epithets (Rosy-fingered Dawn etc) and the mannerisms of the Iliad, and it contains a lot of lesser stories linked to the Trojan and other cycles, including prominently the killing of Agamemnon (in a version that differs markedly from the Orestiad, which I find really interesting) but also mentions to Herakles and to the Theban cycle (Oedipus, Amphiaraos). Also it is a lot more organised than the Iliad, although that may be a later editorial effect from when the final text was crystallised. Overall it is more sanitised, more positive, and it has a happy ending, which is in spectacular contrast to the final funereal smoke of the Iliad.
All this reasoning finished clicking in my brain when I visited the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. Mycenean objects in that museum are perfectly consistent with the Iliad, down to the long-haired Achaians fighting it out in the decoration of the weapons and signet rings and Odysseus' boar tusk helmet reconstruction. The Odyssey, to me, is much closer to the Minoic culture as represented by the Santorini frescoes and especially the pottery - the swallows, the dolphins, the flowers moving in the breeze. There is a joy in life in that art that is completely absent from the violence of the war and hunting scenes associated with the Myceneans, and I believe it is that clash of mentalities that shows in the two poems. This is why I think there cannot be a single author.
I believe Homer was a real dude because I want to