호메로스 문헌학의 위기 - 『오뒷세이아』에 대한 분석론과 구송시학에 대한 소고 - = The Crisis of Homeric Studies Today

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In this paper, I will show how analysts and oralists have labored under the deconstructive assumptions and prevented a proper understanding of the Odyssey. Kirchhoff and his students claimed that the Odyssey was not composed, but compiled. Some later analytical critics argued that the Telemachy was composed not as an independent poem, but as an expansion of the Urodyssee.
Oral poetry theory has been generally regarded as the impetus to the demolition of the central tenets of the analytical school. But this is far from the truth. At least in understanding the Telemachy, many influential oralists have simply restated the analytical belief in their own terms. Lord’s notion of ‘multiformity’ seems to differ little from ‘multiple authorship’ of the analysts. Focusing only on the hero’s return story pattern, Foley widely neglects the entire story of Telemachus in the Odyssey. In this way, he follows the unproductive reading of early analysts who tried to separate Odysseus’ return and Telemachus’ story. Nagy and Martin who assert our Homeric texts are based on oral performance, share the analytical belief. Just as many analytic critics have evaluated our Odyssey as being of inferior quality in contrast to the hypothetical Urodyssee, they downplay the value of our inherited Homeric texts. Being confronted by the difficulty in understanding the Odyssey, both analytical critics and oralists succumbed to the temptation of a facile passe-partout, namely, multiple authorship or multiple tradition which are two different names for the same answer. Of course, the problem cannot be solved in such a mechanical way. However, the Unitarian school has not given decisive arguments on a deeper level. The argument over the Homeric Question is not closed and further exploration might prove illuminating or even necessary.