@article{oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004435,
 author = {小川, 正広 and Ogawa, Masahiro},
 issue = {3},
 journal = {国立民族学博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology},
 month = {Dec},
 note = {It is commonly assumed that the Homeric poems (i.e., the
Iliad and the Odyssey) were composed during the 8th century B.C.,
and it is also certain that the alphabet was introduced into the
Greek world at the latest by the last half of the same century. This
begged the much discussed question of how and when these songs,
which owe much of their language and technique to a long oral
tradition, were first committed to writing. In this paper, I
attempt to approach this problem in two different ways : (1) by
examining the opinions of scholars who valued Milman Parry's
study of oral epic poetry; and (2) by tracing the origin of the
written text from the Alexandrian period back to the age of
Homer.
Although Parry showed that the Homeric poems were created
orally, his successors were soon obliged to confront a difficult
question which he did not consider. A. B. Lord, his collaborator
in collecting the actual oral epics in Yugoslavia, has
observed that (a) an orally-composed poem cannot be handed
on by oral transmission without fundamental changes, but that
(b) the oral poet's powers are destroyed if he learns to read and
write. Thus he concluded that Homer did not himself write his
poems, but rather, dictated them. Of these two principles, (b)
was criticized by Adam Parry, who argued that Homer could have
written them without having been exposed to such a dangerous
literary culture as that which developed around the living South-
Slavic bards. On the contrary, G. S. Kirk accepted the principle
(b) and, rejecting (a), has tried to credit the early Greek rhapsodes
with a higher degree of verbal accuracy in their performances
than in the case of the ordinary Yugoslavian poets.
In this debate, the common concern would be to connect,
as directly as one can, the Homer as "Singer of Tales" with the
Homer of the preserved poems, whose "dramatic quality"
( J. B. Hainsworth) makes the chief obstacle to its being thought
a pure oral product. However, to what extent is it possible?
We cannot respond without pursuing the history of the text.
The origin of the present text, on the whole, goes back
through the critical works of the Alexandrian scholars of the 2nd
century B.C. to the old vulgate, which, by its linguistic characteristics,
can be closely related to Attica. On the other hand,
the ancient traditions suggest that an official text was used in
the Athenian festival called Panathenaea, where the Homeric
poems were regularly recited from the 6th century. Although
this is the oldest text which we can confirm, it is possible to think
that this Attic text was brought from Ionia, virtually from the
Homeridae ("descendants of Homer"), mainly because of a comparatively
small number of orthographic errors caused by the
formal adoption of Ionic alphabet at Athens, in 403 B.C. The
Homeridae were not only reputed as excellent reciters, but they
seem to have been practised in improvisation as well. So they
must have used writing to fix the Homeric version, with a view to
applying themselves to creative composition, which was also an
important heritage of Homer.
Now, whereas recitation and improvisation are psychologically
the same thing for the modern Yugoslavian poets (according
to Lord), I suppose there was a clear distinction between imitation
and originality for the singers of the Homeric time (aoidoi) and
the Homeridae. It is in this mental condition that the letters
worked for the professional poets as an effective means of record.
But it should not be overlooked that the public transmission remained
oral until a much later time, and in this respect we
cannot disregard Kirk's view of oral tradition.},
 pages = {609--630},
 title = {ホメロスの詩と文字使用},
 volume = {9},
 year = {1984},
 yomi = {オガワ, マサヒロ}
}