The "Hermeneutics" of Reading Homer.

Greek Homeric Greek and Early Greek Poetry
1

Fairly long essay by Joel Christensen (University of Brandeis).

https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2020/07/28/on-reading-homer/

Thoughts? Here is part of his conclusion on why we should read Homer:

There’s a lot more to say and there’s not a Homerist alive who won’t take issue with the way I have framed some of this. The fact is that we have few facts apart from the poems themselves. Here is where we near our turning point. The real reason I think people should read Homer is that the process of doing so—especially with other people—is transformative. How and why this transformation happens is a little involved, so I am about to get really annoying. But, to put it simply, Homeric epic refuses to give its audiences simple answers and forces us to think deeply, if we do it right.

2

After citing and discussing all the “usual” reasons for reading Homer with which he has varying levels of disagreement, Christensen moves on to what he considers the most important reasons for taking up Homer: Multivocality/Multiculturality, Transformation, and Allegory. Of the three, I found Transformation the most attractive, from which Barry quotes in his post. A little further along in that section, Christenson states: “The shared work of interpreting epic with its characters is a kind of extended mind over time. When we read them and discuss them with others, we engage in the transformative process of creating community around the interrogation of the self.” When I read this, I immediately thought of Sean’s Odyssey Reading Group and how productive and meaningful that activity was for me. The Odyssey became for me something more than a great story told in virtually perfect verse. It became Something To Think About. The questions raised in the group forced me to think about meaning and relevance and to realise that there are no hard and fast answers in either epic, but there are many good questions.

His concluding paragraph is worth sharing:
“It is fine to read Homer in translation, in summary, or in excerpt. It is fine to read Homer out of curiosity about peoples in the past, to understand the history of our ideas about literature, to think about claims of universal humanism or that literature can give us values and ennoble us. Whatever brings you to Homer, the reason I think you should read the Iliad or the Odyssey is to be transformed by powerful narratives that seek to make you try to understand more of the universe inside and through yourself. I dare say you may not even require teachers to do this, but it does help to have friends to read with you.”

3

Well, sure, but isn’t that the purpose of any truly good literature? To make us think new thoughts, to take us in uncomfortable directions? Of course, we are living in a society in which many people only want to hear their own narrative reinforced, and technology makes this even easier. So maybe this is a really good reminder…

4

I don’t quite understand why Christensen feels he needs to make this point.

I think most people require some form of assistence reading and interpreting a book virtually three millenia old, whether it’s a live professor or a commentary. Otherwise chances are you’re just reading words.

5

Perhaps Christensen stated this in his conclusion because he’s writing to a large audience which may very well include those who will otherwise read the epics as interesting stories (or perhaps because they saw the movies!) and not realise that there is much, much more to be gleaned from their verses. I see his point a little differently: that when you read with friends, the assistance is indirect. The interaction provides you with different perspectives which may help you in resolving your own questions or help you along in the “transformative” process. I agree with Barry, though; the idea of transforming one’s perceptions and attitudes is central to all great literature, not just the Homeric epics.

6

Viewing more recent academic lectures on YouTube and reading more recent articles from academics such as this, it seems there must be an expectation that presenters make disclaimers regarding gender, class, race, colonialism, capitalism, land, etc. in discussion of Homer. The syllabi often print disclaimers and acknowledgements as well. Essential to some, I suppose…

“Why teach Homer if the Homeric epics have been instrumentalized as part of colonialism and white supremacy? These are not idle questions. They are the questions that need to be answered if the discipline of Classics to continue in any form at all.”

That said, it’s a good article for a neophyte like me, even if I first read Homer as part of the Great Books of the Western World canon (canon, ranked 5th of an ascending 10 reasons to read Homer).

Adler’s GBWW canon approach advises no use of external sources (commentaries, reviews, etc.) until after multiple reads and a deep analysis for self-discovery. The several GBWW groups I’m familiar with even advise readers skip introductions/notes until after group discussion of a text. I find most participants have already been “schooled” on the texts in question, so bring that influenced commentary to group discussions.

My practice has evolved to a 1st pass sped up audiobook listen followed by a hard copy close read with annotations. Where I ponder points, I consult external sources. I highlight points from translators’/commentators’ notes as well, as I’d often skip right by them.

I most enjoy discussion leaders that help focus on questions and sections of significance. The interplay between group members who are coming to a text for the first time and those with more background can surprise everyone.

While there may be little new to say about Homer, it’s what’s new to me that matters, as the reader, on my 3rd translation of Iliad and 1st year studying Homeric Greek with a Pharr-based study group.