Notopoulus, Mnemosyne in Oral.pdf

8/10/2019 Notopoulus, Mnemosyne in Oral.pdf

1/30

merican Philological ssociation

Mnemosyne in Oral LiteratureAuthor(s): James A. NotopoulosSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 69 (1938),pp. 465-493Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283194.

Accessed: 04/10/2014 15:43

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 [email protected].

.

American Philological Associationand The Johns Hopkins University Pressare collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American PhilologicalAssociation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.144.81.200 on Sat, 4 Oct 2014 15:43:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283194?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/283194?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/30

Vol.

lxix]

Mnemosyne

n

Oral

Literature

465

XVI.-Mnemosyne in Oral Literature

JAMES A.

NOTOPOULOS

TRINITY

COLLEGE

The work of the

late Milman

Parry,

on

Homer,has

con-

tributed

much to an

understanding

f

the differences

n

litera-

tures created by the spoken rather than the writtenword.

Approaching

he Homeric

poems

as oral

poetry

he

proceeded

on

the

principle

of

Aristarchus

of

getting

the solution

from

the

text,

X K

ris

MewS

XVUL.

Using

form

s the clue to

func-

tion, and style

as

establishing

the

character

of

thought,

he

reconstructed

he oral

basis

of the

Homeric

poems.

In

a

series of

brilliant

papers

he has laid a

new foundation

for

the studyofHomer. It is timenow to apply the resultsof

his

work

to

certain

problems

which

are

implicit

n

the oral

literature

f

the

Greeks.

Amongthese is the

importance

f

Mnemosyne.

When Greek oral

literaturewas

committed

o

writing

we

find

mbedded

in it

the

mention

ofMnemosyne,

which s

the

personification f

an important

nd vital

force

n

oral com-

position. Its importance s evident in the prominent lace

it

occupies

in

early

Greek theology.

Hesiod

tells us

that

Earth

lay with

Heaven, and from his

primaeval

union

were

born

Theia,

Rhea,

Themis, and

Mnemosyne.2

These

Titans,

says

Rose,

"are very

ancient figures,

ittle

worshipped ny-

where n

historicalGreece, and

belonging

o a past

so remote

that

the

earliestGreeksof

whose

opinionswe have

any

certain

knowledgesaw them

surrounded with

a haze

of

extreme

antiquity."

The

inclusion f

Mnemosyne

s one

of

the

most

1

For

a

bibliography

f.

H.

Levin,

"

Portrait

f

a Homeric

cholar,"

Classical

Journal xxxii

(1937), 266.

2

Theogony

45f.

3

H.

J.

Rose,

Handbook

fGreek

MythologyNew

York,

E.

P.

Dutton,

1929),

21.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/30

466

JamesA. Notopoulos

[1938

ancient

deities is evidence

of the importance

n which this

function

was held by

the earliest

Greeks.

But the inclusion

of Mnemosyne mong theTitans is puzzling. " Mnemosyne,"

says

Rose, "is a pure

abstraction,

Memory

personified,nd

clearly

has

no business

among the

Titans proper."

It

is

evident, however,

that

this

legend

preserves

the primaeval

importance f

memory

mong pre-literate

reeks, nd, rightly

or wrongly, he

is included among

the

Titans, the

first en-

eration

of the

theogony

f Earth and

Heaven. Hesiod,

stand-

ing at the threshold f the post-heroic ge, has preservedfor

us

a

legend which

reveals the

importance

of

Memory

among

oral peoples.

Folk-memory

as

preserved

n

this

legend

the

once

supreme

mportance

f

a divinity

who

sank

into

a minor

cult

5

with the advent

of written iterature.

Supplementing

Hesiod

on the

question

of the

importance

f

memory

n

the oral

literature

f the early Greeksis the evi-

dence of the HomericHymntoHermes,dated not later than

the seventh

century.6

When

Hermes discovered

the

lyre,

he

sang

the

story

f

the mmortal

ods,

and

in

his

song

he

honored

Mnemosyne,

he

mother

of the

Muses,

first

mong

the

gods,

for,

ays

the

poemsignificantly,

the

son of

Maia

was of

her

following."

Then

follow the rest

of

the

gods

in

the

order

of their

age, thus

revealing

the

first

rank

that

Mnemosyne

occupied

as a

goddess

in the

theology

of oral

peoples.

The

further

we

go

into the

development

of written

iterature,

he

less

important

Mnemosyne

becomes

as

the writtenword

tri-

umphed

over memory

nd

the

spoken

word. But even

so,

the written iterature

from

he

sixth

century

on reflects

he

part

that

memory

nce

played

in

oral

poetry,

now no

longer

a livingforce uta conventionwhichpoets nvoke s a prelude.

In Solon's timeMemory

and

the

Muses

were

crystallized

nto

4

Op. cit. (see

note

3),

21.

5

Cf. .G.

II.2

4692; Schol.Oedipus

Col.

100.

6

T.

W. Allen,

W. R.

Halliday,

E. E. Sikes,

The

Homeric

Hymns2

(Oxford,

Clarendon

Press,

1936),276.

7

Hymn

to

Hermes

429; cf.Pap.

Lond.

46.115.



4/30

Vol. lxix] Mnemosyne

n

Oral Literature

467

an elegiac

formula:

Mvrn,uoavVn7satZqvo6sOXvpArtov'yXaa

rf4Kva

MoivaaL

HLepPLUS,

XVIre

ot

e1xoof'vy.

Terpander echoes it

in

a different etrical

form:

21r&vSwliev

ratsMva,uas

iratauv Mct,uats .

The poet in the fifth nd fourth enturies till kept up the

convention. Euripides

in

Hercules Furens has the

poet

sing

of

Memory:

En

rotyEpwv

o-

8os

KEXALae

Mva,uoavvav

10

alluding

to

the

old oral

poet,

the

yr:pwzv

f

Homeric

poetry,

who

exercised

his craft

by

means of

-memory.

This asso-

ciation of the poet with Memoryhad already in the fourth

century

become

a commonplace,

as Plato's remark

reveals:

Ka6a7rEp

ot

irottral, 8o/IaL apxolievos ri7s b7y aews Movaas

re

Kal

MvrniooiavnvVriTKaXeZOat."11

All these references

o

Mnemosyne

n

the

written

iterature

of

Greece are echoes

of

a once significant orce

in

an

oral

literature. Memory

n written

iterature s

essentially

based

on the writtenword, whereasforthe oral poet it was entirely

associated

with

the

spoken

word.

The Iliad

and

the

Odyssey,

unlike the

Aeneid,

are

not

products

of

written iterature, ut

of

an age

in

which the spoken word was the basis of creation.

Man

in

primitiveGreek society was, as Marcel Jousse

points

out

in

his

penetratingbook

on

Le Style Oral, a

"mnemo-

technician." The

dactylic hexameter s the product of

oral

8

Solon 13

(Poetae

lyriciGraeci,4 d.

T.

Bergk

[Leipzig,

Teubner,

18821);

cf. G.

Kaibel, EpigrammataGraeca

Berlin,G.

Reimer,1878),

789; A.

Plassart,

"

Inscriptionsde Thespies,"

Bulletin de

Correspondance

ellenique (1926),

403.

9

TerpanderNo. 3 (Bergk).

10

Hercules Furens 679.

11

Euthydemus

275 d; cf.

Pindar01.

vIII.74.



5/30

468

James

A. Notopoulos

[1938

literature;

it is a

mnemotechnique

made by "l'utilisation

consciente

et

rationnelle

des lois automatiques

et profondes

de la memoire.

.

. pouraider la memoire u Recitateur."

12

Differing

ntirely

from

iterature

which was first omposed

with the

written

word

and

then recited, oral literature s

based

on a

spontaneous

and

natural

creation

in

which the

poet

composedorally

by

means

of formulas nd

fixed atterns,

all of which

were based

on

memory.

To understand

roperly

he natureand function

f Mnemos-

yne in the techniqueof oral poetrywe must, at the outset,

differentiate

he

various uses

which

memory

might

have

in

oralpoetry.

From

the

oral

poet,

as

we

see him

n

Homer, we

learn that one

of the functions

f

the

oral

poet was

to

per-

petuate

n

memory

he

KiAka

v8pJ.v3; it

was the

poet's task

to conserve iving xperiences

nd

transmit hem

to

posterity.

This mightbe called

the

use

of

memoryas an

end and is

illustrated n the picture of Demodocus.14 In the case of

oral

poetry

the

only

way

to

perpetuate

the

Kicea avbpcwv

as

song,

which could

not be

attached

to a

permanent

ecord ike

writing,

ut

could

only

achieve

its

object by

constant

repeti-

tion.

It

is

in

this sense

that

immortality

n

oral

poetry

de-

pended

upon constant repetition.

Plato could

admirably

be

used

to

illustrate

his

point

in

epic poetry

when he

discusses

the part memory plays in immortality:XA6071ap

eirtaT'

EQO6OS,

IIXEET?7

e'

7rcaXLv

EpLlrroLoUa

vTL T?7S ablrObUfls

jVfl/v?JV

OC@EL

Tr?V

E7rtoT-,t7fv.15

If we substitute

recitationby

the oral

poet,

in

the

place

of

/eEXETfl,

we have

an

insight

into the relation

of

memory

o

immortality

n

epic poetry.

The

use

of memory

as an end

is furthermore

onnected

with

utility

as well

as

immortality.

This

accounts

for

the

fact that oral literaturetook as its subject so much other

12

Marcel

Jousse,

Le Style

Oral rythmique

et

mnemotechnique

chez

les

Verbo-

moteursParis,

G.

Beauchesne,

1925),

191.

13

Homer

Iliad

Ix.524f.

14

Cf. Pindar

Nem.i.12,

and

Herodotus

.1

for

similar

eflection

n

written

literature.

'r

Symposium

208a.



6/30

Vol.

lxixl

Mnemosyne

n

Oral

Literature

469

non-poeticmaterial

ike genealogies, hronologies,aws,

etc.'6

The

association

of

utility

and

memory

n

oral

literature s

well illustrated n the studythat Prof.J. L. Myreshas made

of

Folk-memory.'7

With consummate kill he

has

shown

the

coherent

nd

trustworthy

oundation

f

genealogies

preserved

in

folk-memory,nd

illustrated

t

with

examples

from

ce-

andic

and Maori

history.

This

organic

relation

of

utility

with

memory

s observed

by

Plutarch

n

The

Oracles

t

Delphi:

"there is nothing

n

poetrymore serviceable to

speech

than

that the ideas communicated, y being bound up and inter-

woven

with

verse,

are better remembered

nd

kept

firmly

n

mind.

Men

in

those days had to have a memoryfor

many

things."

8

The oral

poet

as

a mnemotechnician

reserved

the useful

by binding t

in

verse,by forging metrical

pattern

which

facilitated nd guarded against mistakethe

nformation

to

be

preserved.'9 Memory therefores equally

important

n

conserving he useful as well as perpetuating he immortaln

oral

literature;

he

poet

is the

incarnatebook of oral peoples,

a fact which not

only

explains the existenceof what from ur

modern

point of view

seems non-poetic n theirwork,

but also

accounts

in

part

for

the

paratactic nature of the

poetic form

of

oral

poetry nd

literature.20

But

of

far greater

mportance n oral poetry s the use of

memory s a means n the process of creation. The part that

memoryplays

in

the

creative process of oral literature hows

memory

o

be of two

kinds, tatic and creative.2' An

example

16M.

Jousse,

op.

cit.

(see

note

12),

126-131;

Aristotle,Problems

xix.28;

Plato

Laws

793a;

Apollodorus

POPLK&,

Die

Fragmenteer

Griechischen

istoriker,

ed.

F.

Jacoby

Berlin,

Weidmann,

1929),

Part 2. B.

1025-1044.

17J. L.

Myres,

Who

Werethe

Greeks?

Berkeley,

University

f

California,

1936),

291-366;

cf.J.L.

Myres,

Folk-Memory,"Folk-Lorexxxvii

1926),

12-34.

18

PlutarchMoralia 407F (in LoebCl. Lib.).

19

Cf.

M.

Jousse,

op. cit.

(see

note

12),

191.

20

Cf.

B.

A.

Van

Groningen,

aratactische

ompositie

n de

ondste

Grieksche

literatur

Amsterdam,

Noord-Hollandsche

Uitgevers-Maatschappij,

937);

cf.

the

review

by J.

Tate in

Cl.

Rev.

I

(1937),

174-5.

21

Cf.

Bergson's

distinction

etween

memory

which

magines

and

memory

which

repeats.

H.

Bergson,

Matter

and

Memory

London,

S.

Sonnenschein

&

Co., 1911).



7/30

470

James

A. Notopoulos

[1938

of memory

s a

static factor

n oral poetry

s given

by

Parry:

"an

oral

poetrypracticed

by guilds

of singers

with

masters

and apprenticeswould tend to a more faithfulkeeping of

poems which

had

won fame,

and that

one singer

might

win

such a name

that

his

disciples

would find

heir

profit n

keep-

ing

his poetry

as

nearlywithout

change

as they

could; but

then

they

are no longer

singers

but rhapsodes,

their

task is

not of creation."

2

If,

for example,

Homer

were the

best

oral poet,

the guild

of the Homeridae

would

memorize

his

versionofthe poemsand perpetuate hemby constantrepeti-

tion.

They

would be

rhapsodes,

and an example

in later

written iterature

s the

rhapsode

in

the Ion

of

Plato,

who

memorized

Homer by

heart

from a writtentext.

In the

period

of

oral

poetry,

however,

he

rhapsode

would

memorize

it from n oral version

which

was to be found

only

n

the rirea

irrepoevra

of

the

singers.

This use of memory,however, is retentiverather than

creative.

The

study

of the

composition

of oral

poetry,23

s

it survives

today

in

Jugoslavia,

has thrown onsiderable

ight

on

the problems

of Homeric

composition

of

oral

poetry

and

the part

that memory

plays

in

it. The work

of

Krauss,

Murko,

and Parry

on

this

problem

has shown

hat

the creative

r6le

that

memory

plays

in oral

composition

s

integrally

on-

nected with the formulaof the traditionaldiction of oral

poetry;

this

Parry

studied

in detail in

Homer,

both as

to

its

form nd

function.

Oral

poetry

f all

nations,

t has been

shown,24

s

essentially

22

M.

Parry,

"Studies

in the

Epic

Technique

of Oral

Verse-Making,"

II,

Harvard

Studies

in Classical

Philology

XLIII

(1932), 16,

17.

23

F. S. Krauss,

Slavische

Volkforschungen

Leipzig,

W.

Heims,

1908);

M.

Murko, La poesie populaire epique en Yugoslavie au debutdu XX6 siecle (Paris,

Champion,

1929);

H.

M. and

N.

K.

Chadwick,

The

Growth

of

Literature

(Cam-

bridge,

At the University

Press,

1936),

ii.299-456.

24

Cf.

Jousse,

op.

cit.

(see

note 12),

113;

Parry,

"

Studies

in the

Epic

Tech-

nique

of

Oral

Verse-Making,"

i,

Harvard

Studies

in Classical Philology

XLI

(1930),

77,

78;

H.

M. and

N.

K.

Chadwick,

op.

cit.

(see

note

23),

i.22,

44,

62,

564;

T. E.

Lawrence,

Seven

Pillars

of

Wisdom

(New

York,

Doubleday,

Doran

&

Co.,

1935),

125, 278-9.



8/30

Vol. lxix]

Mnemosyne

n

Oral Literature

471

composed

of

fixed,

tereotyped

cliches

or

formulas,

ranging

all the

way

from

phrases

of fixed

epithet

to

whole

lines

and

even wholepassages. The outstanding eature ftheformula

in

epic

poetry

s its

repetition, he

cause

of

which

was

little

understood

until

recently

when its

importance

n

Homeric

oral

composition

was shown

by

Parry.

Unlike the

poet

of

written iteraturewho

composes

with

pen

and

paper,

and is

not bound

by the

necessity

of

time

required

n

the

composi-

tion, the

oral

poet

must

compose

with

the

spoken

word,

must

do so spontaneouslyand consecutively. He has therefore

certain

problems

arising

in

oral

composition

which do

not

arise

in

written

composition.

Most

pressing

of

these is

the

need of

"word-groups

ll

made to fithis

verse and tell

what

he

has to

tell. In

composinghe

will

do no

more

than

put

together

for

his

needs

phrases

which he

has

often heard or

used

himself,

nd

which,

grouping

themselves

n

accordance

with a fixedpatternof thought, ome naturallyto make the

sentence

and the verse."

25

By

means of

these

ready-made

and

traditional

word-groupshe is

able to

compose

orally,

filling

n

a

verse or

part of

a

verse

withone of

these

formulas

which

leave

him

time

to

think

of

the next

verse.

Their re-

currence

s

necessary

f

oral

composition

s to

take

place,

for

without

them

the oral

poet

would falter n

the

midstof

his

composition;his creation,unlikethat of the poet ofwritten

literature,

nvolves

not the

creation

of

new

phrases

but

rather

the use of

traditional

phrases.

The

frequencynd

number

of these

formulas

llustrate

the

creative

functionof

memory

n

oral

composition.

One can

readilysee

the

amount of

memory

required

before

one

could

create

orally,

f

he

multiplies

he

case ofthe

single

formula, s

Parrysays, "by all thesewhichare to be found n the two

poems,and

which

require he

250

pages

of

Schmidt's

Parallel-

Homer

for

their

isting."

6

Parry

computes

25,000 or

26,000

25

Parry,

p. cit.

(see

note

24),

I.77.

For

examples

of

how

the

poet

makes

use of

these

word-groups

n

oral

composition f.

pp.

85-86.

26

Parry,

bid.,

89.



9/30

472 JamesA.

Notopoulos [1938

repetitions

n

Homer's 27,853

or so

verses.27 Such a survey

shows

that the poet could

not

exercise his craft without

memory. The verse s createdon the basis of a vast complex

systemof formulaswhich the

poet had to memorize s part

of his

craft. Before he could

compose he had

to

memorize

a vast

number

f

word-groupswhich would

serve

as

the basis

of his

improvisation. Without

keeping

n

memory

ll

these

formulas,which are the oral

diction out of which his poetry

is

made, no oral poetry could

be possible. Memory is the

means by which the poet creates orally. It is a creative

factor

n

the very process of oral creation; it is an inherent

part

of

it and without t no poet could create. As may be

seen there s no place for

passive memory

n

this technique,

for

the formulas ary

in

length

nd

are

fused together

n

the

veryheat of oral recitation; ike thenotesofthe scale theyare

constantly

used

in

new context. It is

in

this sense that

Mnemosyne s at thebasis of oral composition;withoutmem-

orythepoet could not retainthe vast

and complex formulas,

groups, nd systemswhich he needed

to

formulate

is verses.

For

the

poet

of

the hexameter, hought

was

synonymous

with

memory,

or

he

could

only

thinkout his lines

on the basis

of

memorized ormulas. The

veryelasticity

f

memory

ssential

to

the expressionof thought

by

the

poet

is

witness

to its

creative character. For thoughtand memoryare so close

in

the

process

of

composition

that

etymologically

Movaat

s

connected

with

Mnemosyne,28

ovaat,

i.e.

*

Movaat,

the Re-

27

Parry, ibid.,

90.

28

Memory

not only extends to word-groups,

but also to entire

scenes.

Walter Arend

in

his book Die Typischen

Scenen bei

Homer

(Berlin, Weidmann,

1933) has analyzed

the 'Homeric

poems and shown that certain

actions are

repeated with the same details and words. Instances of such typical scenes

are arrival, sacrifice, journey

by land or sea, arming, dressing,

etc.

Though

Arend does not

recognize the implications

of his

analysis, Parry has pointed

out that

these

type schemes show the schematization

of

Homer's

composition.

As

in

the formula

the poet in his apprenticeship to

the older singer

retained

in

his memory ways to develop action,

so that memory

is at the basis

of the oral

technique ranging

from noun-epithet

formulas to manner of developing

action.

Cf. Parry's review,

Class. Phil.

xxxi

(1936), 357-60.



10/30

Vol. lxix]

Mnemosyne

n Oral Literature 473

minders.29

It

is

not unreasonable then to think

that

though

inspiration came

from

the Muses,

behind

inspiration

tood

Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses, who was intimately

connected

with

oral

creation.

The oral poet

in

the absence

of

the written ext learned

his

craft

and

material through

he

EbrEa

-Ep6Evra.

The

amazing

memory

f

a Jugoslavguslar throws ight

on

the ability of

an

oral

poet

to

recite poem

of

the

length

f

the

Iliad

or

Odyssey.

Krauss

in

studying

the mnemonic

faculty

of

the

Jugoslav

guslars reports that a guslar named Milovan could recite

40,000

lines

in

a

row,

and

that

he

was

only ordinary;popular

opinion creditsthe good guslarwith knowing

from

memory

30,000

to

even 100,000verses.30

Inviewof

this

modern

arallel

in

an oral society t is not impossible o assign the

Iliad

or the

Odyssey

o a

single

oral

poet.

For

memory

was

the

peculiar

faculty and province

of

the

oral

poet; he could

no

more do

withoutmemory han we, the childrenof the writtenword,

can do without books.

By memorizing

he vast and

com-

plicated systemsof formulaic iction the poet could call upon

his

memory

ot

only

for

he exact phrase

to

fill

ut a

particular

verse,

but also for the

creation

of

the

general pattern

of

the

poem. Memory

was not

only the

end for

which the poet

strove,

but

was also the creative factorof the means in his

inspiration. Without her, oral compositionwas impossible.

As the foundation

f

the

technique

of

oral

poetry,Mnemosyne

was

rightly

nvoked

as

"mother

of

the Muses."

31

29

Cf. G.

Curtius,

Principles of Greek

Etymology5, trans.

by Wilkins

and

England

(London,

Murray, 1886),

I.377;

Ulrich von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,

Glaube

der Hellenen

(Berlin,

Weidmann,

1931),

i.251.

30Jousse,

op. cit.

(see note

12), 113,

114.

31

Evidence in written literature of the importance of memory as a creative

factor in oral

literature

is

preserved

in

a tradition

recorded

by

Pausanias

(ix.29.2) which

states

that the

Heliconian

muses

are

three in number:

MeX&T1,

Mvsiusq,

AOLB'.

This religious tradition

throws

light on the relation of

Memory

as

a force in

poetry

(cf.

Homer's

technique

of

personification

of

a force

without

that force

necessarily being a

regular

god in

theology,

KvuotAo6s,

i?p,

liad xviii.

535). In

this

tradition

memory

is

personification

of a

factor in oral

poetry;

she

is here

identified

directly

with

the poetic

process.

Though different

from

the



11/30

474 James

A. Notopoulos

[1938

II

The Homeric

poems

were not

essentially

changedin char-

acter with their commitment o writing. Though several

centuries

may

have elapsed

from he

date of

their

oral com-

position

to

that oftheir

commitment

o writing, he

intimate

connection

of memorywith

oral composition

conservedthe

poemsthrough

his

period

with ittle

change

n their

ssential

oral features.32

Their form still

betrays

the

characteristics

of oral literature.

With

the change

of the

method

of com-

positionfrom spontaneousnatural oral style to a written

composition

Mnemosyne

ost

her function.

Written

itera-

ture

preserves

her in an inherited

theology;

poets at

the

threshold

of

the transition

till

begin

theirpoetry

with

an

invocation

to Mnemosyne

s once the

oral

poet

did,

but

now

it is a

mere

onvention.

Thucydides,

however,

givesevidence

that folk-memoryas still

a force

n

his

day;

he

mentions

n

oral traditionstill alive among the Peloponnesians:

Xi&yovL

b6

Kai

ot r'a aa4E'arara

IIEXoirovvr7pIcv

vi71.

Irap&

rv

ip6rEpOV

66ypEvot.

.

..

~Here we

have

an

echo

of the

strong

oots

of

folk-memory

ven

at an

advanced

literary

ge.

The

accu-

racy

of such

folk-memory

with

regard

to

genealogies,

as

Myres

has

proven,

merits

the

judgment

of

caac/4Trara

by

the

Hesiodic

tradition

it reflects essentially

the

same

emphasis

which

oral

poetry

placed

on memory. The theological expression of a vital force in the life of

the

oral

peoples

is consonant

with

the

personification

processes

of the

primitive

mind.

The

non-metaphorical

expression

of

this

important

force

is

found

in

the

Homeric

vocabulary

where besides

the retentive

connotation

of

the

verb

,Mt/uw7'0KW

we

have

an

echo

of its

creative

force

in the

imperative

,ueI,V-00o

hich

means

to take thought

for

something,

to

consider,

think,

where

an active

mental

process

is evolved.

When

Circe

tells

Odysseus

Av,1o-Et

e

aE

Kac

06es

acoT6s

(Odyssey

xII.38),

we

have

an echo

of the

oral

invocation

of

the

poet

to

the

muses

for

in-

spiration,

which

in

his

case

involved

the

proper functioning

of the

memory

with

respect

to

formulas.

32

Pausanias

vii.26.6;

cf. J.

L. Myres,

op.

cit.

(see

note

17),

100;

Parry,

op.

cit.

(see

note

24),

i.144f.

For

the

tendency

to

push

the

introduction

of

letters

to

Greece

after

1000

B.C. see

Rhys Carpenter,

"The

Antiquity

of

the

Greek

Alphabet,"

A.J.A.

xxxvii

(1933),

8-29.

33

Thucydides

I.9;

cf. the

officials

called

,Av'jioves

n

M.

Tod,

Greek

Historical

Inscriptions

(Oxford,

Clarendon

Press,

1933),

No.

25,

who

seem

to

be

a

sur-

vival

from

the oral tradition.



12/30

Vol.

lxix]

Mnemosyne

n Oral Literature

475

historian.

Though

folk-memory

ersisted,

the

introduction

of

letters

entirelychanged

the

method

of

composition

and

with this change Mnemosynelost her vitalityas a force n

literature.

The

written

word, as

it

became

supreme,

nar-

cotized

memory.

The

transition,

owever,

from

ral to

written iterature

id

not

come

about

without a

struggle. A

pr1rpa

of

Lycurgus

forbade

the

putting of

the laws

into

writing.34

n

Caesar's

De

Bello

Gallico

we

have

a

glimpse

of

the

struggle

which

must

have been waged against the encroachmentof the written

word

upon

the

spoken

word. The

Druids,

he

reports, learn

by

heart

a

great

number

f

verses,

. .

and

they

do

not

think

it

proper

to

commit

these

utterances

to

writing,

lthough n

almost

all

otheraccounts

theymake use of

Greek

letters. I

believe

they

have

adopted

the

practice for

two

reasons-

that

they do

not wish

the

rule to

become

common

property,

northosewho learnthe ruleto relyon writing nd so neglect

the

cultivationof

the

memory,

nd,

in

fact,

it

does

usually

happen

that

the

assistance

of

writing

tends to

relax the

diligence

of

the

student

and

the

action of

the

memory."

5

This

commentary

f

Caesar on

the

Druid

opposition o

letters

and

Lycurgus'

law

forbidding

he

commitment f

his laws

into

writing

reflect

he

persistenceof

the oral

tradition nd

the premium n oral societyputs on memory. The dislike

for

he

written

word,

t is

to be

noted,

s

accountedfor n

part

by

the

weakening

effect

t had

upon

memory

which

was

prized

highly

mong

oral

peoples.6

34

Plutarch

Life

of

Lycurgus

XIII; for

the

oral

character of

laws

cf. S.

H.

Butcher,

"The

Written

and

the

Spoken

Word,"

Some

Aspects

of the

Greek

Genius3

(London,

Macmillan

and

Co.,

Limited,

1904),

183-187.

35

Caesar De Bello Gallico vi.14 (in Loeb Cl. Lib.); cf. Quint. Inst. xi.2.9, cited

by W. H.

Thompson in

his

edition

of

Phaedrus

of

Plato

(London, Whittaker

&

Co.,

1868),

136.

For

oral

literature in

the sacred

literature

of

India

cf.

Chad-

wick, op.

cit.

(see

note

23),

II.603-625.

36

J. L.

Myres,

"Folk-Memory,"

Folk-Lore

xxxvii

(1926),

234:

"

In

mediaeval

and

modern

history,

this kind

of

folk-memory

for

events

does

not

count for

much,

all

the

principal

occurrences

being

established

by

contemporary

docu-

ments,

official

and

otherwise. . . .

This,

however,

while

testifying

to

the



13/30

476

James

A.

Notopoulos

[1938

The existence

f

thisprejudice

againstthe

encroachment

f

the

written

word

s furthermore

eflected

n the legend

of

the

'culturehero' Prometheus,who broughtbenefits o mankind

and

was

punished

by

Zeus.

Among

the

gifts

which

he gave

to

mankindwere:

"the

combining

f letters,

reative

mother

f

the Muses'

arts,

wherewith

o holdall things

n

memory

(,uv'7-

,77v

Acraivrcv,

luovaoli',rop'

p-ya'v?7v).37

Prometheus'

gift

f

letters

wherewith

o hold all

things

n memory

s a radical

and

rather

opposite

view to

that

of

the

conservative

members

of oral

society. Here we see the clash between the two views of

earlypeoples

on

letters,

he

conservative

lement

of

the

oral

society

maintaining

hat

it

destroys

memory,

while

the

pro-

gressive

element

maintained

that it

would

conserve

rather

than

destroy

memory.

This

clash

is echoed

furthermore

n

the story

of

Theuth

and

Thamus

in Plato's

Phaedrus.

Those

who

do

not understand

he

background

f oral literature

ook

upon thestory s an invention fPlato, but it is evidentthat

it is in

its

essence

a genuine

tale

preserved

n

folk-memory,

harking

back

to

a

time

in

oral

society

when

the issue

of

the

written

word

vs. the

spoken

wordwas as

real and living

as

it

was

at

the time

of

Lycurgus

and

among

the Druids

in

the

first

entury

.C.

Theuth

is

a

culture

hero

like Prometheus;

he discovers

number,

eckoning,

eometry,

nd letters. Upon

his discovery

of letters

he submitted

them

to

King

Thamus

saying:

"This

invention,

0

king,

will make

the

Egyptians

wiser

and

will

improve

theirmemories;

for t is

an elixir

of

memory

nd

wisdom

that

I

have

discovered"

(1uv?7s

E-yap

superior

efficiency

f

written

records,

illustrates

also

their disastrous

by-effect-

from

the

folklore

point

of

view-in

superseding

the practice

of oral

tradition,

as

well as

the

data

which

it may

conserve.

In

particular,

the

popular

use

of

calendars

and

diaries,

and of

consecutive numeration of the years, instead of

reckoning

by

reigns, priesthoods,

or the

generations

of

family history,

transfers

all

this

kind

of

folk-memory

fromwhat may

be

described

as

its

natural

content

or

background

to

an artificial

and

mechanical

scheme."

For

the

naturalness

of

oral

poetry

cf. M. Parry,

"Whole

Formulaic

Verses

in

Greek

and

South-

slavic

Heroic

Song,"

T.A.P.A.

LXIV

(1933),

181.

37 Aeschylus

Prometheus

Bound

461

(in Loeb.

Cl.

Lib.).



14/30

Vol.

lxix]

Mnemosyne

n Oral Literature

477

KaL

oTo4Las

4'appaKov

bVpf0?7).38

This

story

represents

he

same

view

as Prometheus.

In the culture

heroes',

ike

Prometheus

and Theuth,we have the dramaticrepresentationf a group

in early

peoples

who saw

in

writing

n aid to

memory;

n

Zeus

and

Thamus,

on

the other

hand,

we have the

dramatic

xpres-

sion of

the

conservative,

traditional

group

of

oral

society

which,

ike

the

Druids,

believed that

letters

might

cause the

weakening

of

memorywhich was of

momentous

mportance

to

oral

peoples.

In

the

tale

of

the

Egyptian Theuth

3

we

have anotherecho of an important truggle hat was carried

on, analogous to

our

modern

struggle

of

the

hand made vs.

machinemade.

This

echo is

preserved

n

the form

f a

legend

which

Plato

dramatizedand

adapted

to

his

philosophic pur-

poses.

The

opposition

to

letters

is

rationalized

by

King

Thamus

as

follows:

Most

ingenious

Theuth, one

man

has

the

ability

to

beget

arts, but

the

ability to

judge of

their

useful-

ness or harmfulness o theirusers belongs to another; and

now

you, who

are

thefather f

letters,

have been led

by

your

affection o

ascribeto

thema

powerthe

opposite

of

thatwhich

they

really

possess. For

this

inventionwill

produce

forget-

fulness n

the

minds

of

thosewho learn

to

use it,

because

they

will

not

practice

their

memory.

Their

trust n

writing, ro-

duced

by

external

haracters

which

are no

partof

themselves,

will discourage the use of their own memorywithinthem.

You

have

invented n

elixir

4xap,aKov) notof

memory,

ut

of

reminding

v7roV

I

Ov?oEwS).

40

38

Phaedrus

274c (in

Loeb

Cl.

Lib.);

cf.

Philebus

18a;

Euripides

Palamedes

frg.

582

(Nauck):

X7Ois

4&p/taK';

H.

Diels,

Fragmente der

Vorsokratiker3

Berlin,

Weidmann,

1912),

II,

Dialex.

9

(648,

14

f):

Ae'ywtov

rogat

K&XXLaTOV

kte1p?7/a

uvAalsa

Kat

is

rivra

xproiAov;

cf.

A.

E.

Taylor,

Varia

Socratica

Oxford,

J.

Parker

& Co., 1911), 127.

39

or

the

historicity

nd

place of

Theuth

cf.

G.

Maspero,

Popular

Stories

of

Ancient

Egypt

(London, G.

P.

Putnam's

Sons,

1915), LI

(Int.), 20,

31,

129,

150.

40

Phaedrus

274e-275a

(in

Loeb Cl.

Lib.).

Note the

aptness of

the

word

6r6A,u-qats

o

distinguish

memory

hrough

etters

from

he

memory f

oral

lit-

erature;cf.

S. H.

Butcher,

p.

cit.

see

note34),

188,

n. 2.

For

Plato's

aware-

ness

of

the

oral

tradition

n

prehistoric

imescf.

Timaeus23c

and

Laws

886c,

and

for he

natural

ssociation

of

memory

with

childhood f.

Timaeus

26b.



15/30

478

James

A.

Notopoulos

[1938

These

echoes

of the

struggle

hat

took

place

in the

transition

period

between

oral

and written

iterature,

s

preserved

n

Plato's dramaticform, re the only context n whichwe can

hope

to understand

he

opposition

f the spoken

vs.the

written

word

n

Plato's

philosophy.

It will

be seen

that Plato's

oppo-

sition o

books

and

his

championing

fthe

spoken

word,

which

is integrally

onnected

with

memory

n

oral

literature,

s

not

a new

element

but is

the

reappearance

n Plato's

philosophy

of theold

struggle

etween

memory

nd letters.

The

memory

whichPlato advocates, it will be seen, is not the memory f

the

written

word,

which

s

simply

staticand retentive

mem-

ory,

but the

creative

memory

of

the

oral literature

which

is

vital

and synonymous

iththinking

tself.

Plato's

opposition

to the

written

word

is

a philosophic

nalysis

of the

primitive

dislike

fthe

written

word,

which

was a

lifeless

hing

ompared

to the

spoken

word,

s exemplified

n

the

natural,

pontaneous

and vivid tonalityof oral composition. Plato's thought, t

will

be

shown,

s based

on the

context

of

oral

literature,

nd

he

shares

the belief

with

all oral peoples

that

the

spoken

word

is

closer

to the

heart

of

philosophy

han

lifeless

books

which

are

removed

from

reality

by their

mechanical

and

symbolic

nature.

To Plato,

who

ever seeks

to

grasp

the original,

hilos-

ophy

can

only

be

practiced

n an oral

context

where

he

dialec-

tician iketheoralpoetcomposeswith heaid ofmemorylone.

Plato's

belief

hat

the written

word

s only

an

image

of

the

living

and

breathing

word

of the

philosopher

1

is,

as in

oral

literature,

nevitably

bound

up

with

memory.

In

the

context

of

oral

literaturememory

s

equally

a

creative

factor

n

dia-

lectic.

Memory

which plays

such

a

great

part

in

Plato's

philosophy

s

a

reappearance

n

philosophy

f the vital

r6le

it

once had in the creationof oral epic poetry. Plato recog-

nizes

that

memory

and

the

spoken

word

are

interrelated.

Furthermore

is association

of

memory

nd

the

spoken

word

in the

Phaedrus

s bound

up

withhis conviction

hat

philosophy

should

be

based

upon

those forces

which

make

for vitality,

41

Phaedrus

76a.



16/30

Vol.

lxixl

Mnemosyne

n Oral Literature

479

naturalness

nd

spontaneitv

n

human

expression.

The

writ-

ten

word

is,

like

the

rhapsodists'

use

of

memory,

simply

retentive f whatwas created. The oralpoetand philosopher

make

use

of

memory

s a creative

factor.

That Plato

is

not

creating

something

new

in

his

use of

memory

nd

his

emphasis

on the

spoken

word s

evident

from

the study

of the

part

memoryplays

in

Greek

philosophy.

With the

introduction

f

writing

memory

ecomes

a mere

con-

vention

n

literature;

t was

kept

most

alive

in

folk-memory,

religion,42nd philosophywhereit continued to keep its vi-

tality. It first

ppears

in

our

evidence

in

Pythagoreanism.

Pythagoras,

s Burnet has

shown,43referred

he

spoken

word

and

did

not

commit his

thought

to

writing.

"It was

not,"

he

says,

"till

Alexandrian

times

that

any

one ventured

to

forgebooks

in

his name.

The

writings

scribed

to

the

first

Pythagoreans

were

also

forgeries

f

the same

period."

Ven-

eration forthe spokenwordofthe Master,

abro's

'E4a,

and the

story

f

Hippasus'

death for

evealing

ecretspoint to a

strong

oral

tradition n

Pythagoreanism.

Among the

followers

f

Pythagoras

the exercise

of

memory

&uvi1avKEv)

44

was

an

important

duty.

The

importance

of

memory n the

Pytha-

gorean

thought nd

way

of

ife s

preserved

n

Iamblichus'Life

of

Pythagoras,45

here

we are told that

the

Pythagoreans

alled

their hilosophy

AKOVaHafara,

r71

-Lv

Kova,uaI-LKoV

LtXoUooLa,

hus

showing the

importance

n

which

the

spokenword

was

held

by

the

school.

Transmission

was oral, as in

the

case of

the

Druids, and

this

was not

because of the

absence of

ettersbut

rather

because of

their

profound

onviction f

the

superiority

of

the

spoken

over

the written

word.

So

deep was

their

veneration

for

the

spokenword

and its

handmaiden

memory,

that Pythagoreanteachings, s Burnethas shown,46 erenot

42

Cf.

Plutarch

Moralia

397c,

402d;

Tacitus

Annales

i.54.

43

J.

Burnet,

Early

Greek

hilosophy4

London, A.

& C.

Black,

Ltd.,

1930),

92.

44

Diogenes

Laertius vIII.22.

45

ambl.

V.

P.

82, in

Diels,

op. cit.

see

note38),

ii.280.4,p.

358.

46

.

Burnet, op.

cit.

(see note

43),

277-284.



17/30

480

James

A. Notopoulos

[1938

committed

o writing

ill ater.

This non-existence f

written

Pythagorean iterature

which

gave rise

in later ages to the

fiction f Pythagorean ilence,47 eveals the extentto which

the oral

tradition

urvived

even as late as the fifth

entury.

Behind

this phenomenonwe

see how

important

he practice

of memory

was in

this oral society. Iamblichus

preserves

picture

of the ritual of mnemonics

which

reminds

us of the

monastic

deals of

the Middle Ages: 4ovro

U &6V

KaTEXECV

Kai

btao-q?ELv

EV

Tnf

vl,vJ

lriravT

TaLa

WL6aKo,Eva

TE Kai

4pa6/uEva,

KaLi

IAExpL

TOVTOV avaKEva?EaOaL Tas TE /aOr/flEftLsKaLL Ta's aKpOxELS, IUEXPC orov

vvacraL

lrapac8EXEo-OaL

To-

uavOivov

Kal

6LalV7fIovEUOV,

OTLC EKELVO lEOTLV,

X,

6EL

7LVCcTWKELV

ac

Ev

'

yvc&'JIAv

vXo-oaELv.

ETircvv

'yoiv

cor4apa

Tiv

,/.4/4V

Kai wroXXIv

abTils

iroLtovvTo

wyuvcaLoLav

TE Kai

EirLqAXELav.

...

HuGaay6paos v)p o1v

rp6rEpov

'K

Trjs

KOLTflS

avitoTaTo

1j

Ta

0r

S

yovluEva

dva1cvq,o0EI?l

. . .

o0vEv

'yap /,6EOV 7rpoS

E1r'fCrT?1L77V

al

E/L1rELplaV

al

4p6v

v

rov

'vvaovac

pAvYflovEvELv.48

The importance

n

which

memorywas held is shownnotonly n theiroral transmission

and training utalso

in

their

philosophy.

Memory

was

repre-

sented by the

number Ten which

was considered

the

most

perfectnumber,49

nd

the music

of the

spheresrevolving

n

unison

was

called

Mv?1Agonrvvq}.50

The

importance

of

Memory

in

Pythagoreanism

s to be

connected

withthe

Orphic

religiousbackground

f ts

thought.

The Orphics, like the Druids of whom Caesar speaks, pre-

served the

secrets and

doctrines

of the

sect

orally.5"

The

cardinal

doctrine

of

Orphism

nd

Pythagoreanism,

he

trans-

migration

of

souls,

was

intimately

bound

up

with

memory

which

was the ink

between

hisworld

and'the

ife fter

death.

Pythagoras

s

said

to have remembered

aving

been

Euphorbus

47A. E. Taylor,

Aristotlend

His

Predecessors

Chicago,

The

Open

Court

Publishing

Co.,

1927),

39,

n.

1; cf.

Olympiodorus

in Platonis

Phaedonem

Commentaria

A i.13; Isocrates

Bousiris

28.

48

Iambl.

V.

P. 164-6

in

Diels,

op.

cit.

(see note

38),

ii.282, p.

361-2.

49

Diels,

op.

cit., i.236.13,

p. 305; 235.33,

p.

303.

50

Porphyry

Vita

Pythagorae

131.

51

Cf.

'1lpoi

A6-yot;

0.

Kern,

Orphicorum

Fragmenta

(Berlin,

Weidmann,

1923),

140f.



18/30

Vol. lxix]

Mnemosyne

n Oral Literature

481

in the

Trojan

war,

as

well as other

characters,

nd his soul

is

said

to

have received from

Hermes

the

gift

of

remembering

all the plants and animals in which t had resided.52On the

thin

gold plates

which

were

discoveredat Thurii

were

found

Orphicverseswhich

though

of

ate

date

refer

ack to the

fifth

century

or

earlier.53

In

these verses

we

get

a

picture

of

the

halls of Hades wherein

s a

divine fountain

of

Memory

from

which

any

one

may

drink

who

says

he

is the

child of

Heaven

and

Earth.54

In

the oracle

of

Trophonius

in

Lebadeia,55

Mnemosynewas the name of one of the two springs n the

cavern of

Trophonius,

the

other

being

called

Lethe. The

symbolic

significance f the

fountainof

Lethe

of

which one

drank

in

order

to

forget

ll other

matters, nd the

fountain

of

Mnemosyne

f

whichone

drank n

order o

remember

what

was

revealed

by

the

oracle, shows the

extent to

which

the

oral

traditionwith

ts stress on

memory

urvived

not

only

in

philosophy ut in religion s well.

Oral

literature

persisted

n both

Pythagoreanism

nd

Or-

phism,

nd

in

their

doctrines

Memory

was

enshrined

s a

god-

dess

of

great

importance. The

emphasison

the

spokenword

and

the

vitality

of

memory

n

these

systems

how

that

there

is

no

distinctbreak

in

the

fortleben

f

oral

literature n

Greece.

The

oral

tradition

hough

overshadowed

by

written

iterature

in thesixthand fifthenturies ontinuesto be a vital force n

Orphism and

Pythagoreanism.

Mnemosyne

and

the

spoken

word

urvivedn

the

a'Kwvouara

and

mnemonics

f

the

atter

and in

the

use

of

oral

tradition n

oracles

and the

Mysteries.

It

is

from

hese

that

Plato

received as

a

heritage

he

signifi-

cance

and

importance

f

the

spoken

word

and

memory.

And

as

he

did in

the

case of

much

that he

received

from

radition

Plato made the spoken word and memoryalive and vital

again,

addingnew

significancend

depth

to their

meaning.

52

Diels,

op.

cit.,

I.24.20,

p.

30.

63

W.

C.

K.

Guthrie,

Orpheus

and

Greek

Religion

(London, Methuen

&

Co.,

1935),

172.

54

Kern,

op.

cit.

(see

note

51),

32a,

p.

105;

cf.

297c

2,

p. 310.

66

Pausanias

ix.39.8,

13;

cf.

Pindar

Isth.

vi.75.



19/30

482

JamesA.

Notopoulos

[1938

The

place

that

memory

occupies

in Plato's thought

can

onlybe

fullyunderstood

by

setting

t

in the contextof

oral

literature nd the recognized uperiority f the spoken over

the written

word.

The conflict

etweenThamus

and

Theuth

is another

phase

of the conflict etween

memory

n the

oral

tradition

nd

memory

n

the

written radition.

We

have in

Theuth

the dramatic

expression

of

a new

order

in

which

memory

s made to

rely

on external

ymbols

for

ts preserva-

tion.

On the

other

hand

King Thamus

represents

he

pres-

ervationof memory n its pristinevitality as illustrated n

theoral tradition

f

poetry.

He objects

to Theuth's

nvention

because it

would

impair the

creative

character

of

memory.

Plato

in his

explanation

of the story

decides

against

Theuth

and

sides with

Thamus

because

the

function

f memory

n

philosophy,

whose

dialectic

is oral

in

character,5"

s to

give

life,

vitality,

nd naturalness,

whichare

the

attributes

f

the

spoken word. It is the creative use of memory,which is

movement

f

thought,

ather han

a fixedformalized

etention

of

t

in

the

written

word,

that

Plato advocates.

Memory

n

the

oral context

s

associated

in Plato

with

the

original,

nd

in

a

written ontext

with

the use of

images.

If

we

are

to understand

Plato's

rejection

of

memory

n

the

written

ontext

nd

his defense

f

memory

n the oral

tradition

wemustrelate t to histheory foriginalvs. mage. Memory

in

the

written

radition

relies

on externalsymbols

and,

like

the mathematician

who relies

on

external

ymbols,

s

inferior

to

memory

n

the

oral

tradition.

Memory

n the

oral

tradi-

tion,

like

the dialectic

in Plato's

"Divided

Line",

proceeds

unencumbered y

symbolism.

Oral

memory

s

important

n

thought

ecause

it

is

direct

nd

free

from

ymbolism;

memory

in itswritten ontext s, likethebook,a lifeless lcbwov.The

written

word,

however,

ike the

magemay

be a

stepping

tone

to the original,

but

the

memory

of the

philosopher

must

in

its creative apprehension

be

similar

to

dialectic.

Without

memory,

nowledge

ould

not

be

possible

for he

philosopher,

56

Cf. the etymology

of

5taXEKTLK-q.



20/30

Vol.

lxixl

Mnemosyne

n

Oral Literature

483

for

knowledge

is not

learning

from a

written book

but

a

creative recollection

of innate

values.

For the

philosopher,

as forthe oral poet,memory s not a mechanicalretention f

something

earned

from

book

57

but the

creative

pprehension

of

thought

r

poetry

n the

soul.

The

contrastbetween

memory

n the written

ontext and

memory

n

the

oral context s

further ontrasted

n

terms

of

&S4a

nd

ELrto,lu.

Thamus ells

Theuth hat

etters illgive

to

students

o-ooaS

s

cav

rather han

6XrjGELav; they

will become

5Oo0O4OL

nstead f

ooo4oL.5'

Memoryn its relation o

ooo4a

is

creative, .e.

memory

s at the

basis of

the

soul's

recollection

of

theworldof

deas.

Such a

memorys

intimately onnected

with

dialectic

which, ike the

literary

orm f

the dialogue

of

Plato's

dialogues, reveals

its

oral

basis

and

its

preoccupation

solely with

the spoken word.

Furthermore

this

memory

shares

n

the creative ask

of

dialectic, n

ts

movement

pward,

in its vital oral task of

a,vvauoaL

.

. .

folorqOat.59

Memory n

thewritten

ontext,on

the

otherhand, is

unable

to

proceed

withoutthe

images and

their

imperfect

nd

illusory

nature

which

characterizes

64a;

it

is

vbro'yvflotLs;

ts

writtenX6yos.

s

bandied about

(KVXLv3ELTcLr)

like an

object of

64a

60

amongthose

who

understand

and

those who

have no interest n

it;

the

written

X6oyos

lways

needs its father,

he

oral

X06yos,

o help it,

for t has no power to protect tself. The absence of lifeand

mva,luts,

which is the

quality

of

Being,6'

relegates

"written

memory" into

the

realm of

34a,

the

image, the

lifeless, he

derivative. The

presence of the

living

power of

reason in

oral

memory

renders

thought able

to

defenditself n

argu-

ment, nd

makes reason

the

natural

handmaiden

of

dialectic;

the

oral

nature of reason

keeps

philosophy

rom ecoming

et

as a 'dogma'; any fixedform s likely to hinder and delay

living insight;

reason

keeps

philosophyas a living

process,

57

This

faculty

is

uro,uvIaLons;

cf.

Phaedrus

275a.

58

Phaedrus 275b.

*59

bid. 275e.

60

Ibid. 2

75e.

61

Sophist

247e.



21/30

484 JamesA. Notopoulos

[1938

in need of constant

exercise to perpetuate itself;reason is

creative, seeking mmortality

hroughcontinual

oral discus-

sion.62 Thus this association of memory n the written nd

oral ontext ith heopposites

o'a

EirtaHy77

reveals

hedepth

of memory's roots in

Plato's philosophy.

Memory is not

ooo4a,

but without t

there can be no dialectic.

Behind the

oral tradition s memory, nd philosophy s essentially

n oral

expression

of

thought.

As

Mnemosyne is the

mother of

poetry

o is

she the

mother fphilosophy.The

E"rEa

rTEpoEvTa

and

Xo-yov

aboavaL

are correlative xpressions f memory. In

oral poetrythe poet creates throughmemory;

n

philosophy

the

dialecticianproceedsbv

recollecting he knowledge

fthe

deas

which the soul

knows but has forgotten

n

this world.

The philosophermust

depend on his memory f

truth nd its

oral

expression

n

order

to

apprehend he truth

n

the horizon

of

the Good. Both oral

poetry nd oral dialectic

foundtheir

truebeing n Mnemosyne.

Memory

in

philosophy,

ays Plato,

is

a

b&-pov

.

.ris

Tc2v

Movco-~v

mqrpo's

vflMoorbvfls.63ere

we

see

definitely

lato's

awareness

of

the roots

of his

use

of

memory

n

the

epic

oral

tradition where Mnemosyne

is

the mother

of the

Muses.

Plato, o

Mvqyoonrv??

LXos,64ecognizes

he relation

of

memory

in

philosophy

o

the

goddess

of oral

poetry,

nd

is

aware

of

thesinglenatureoftheir ource. In themidstofthewritten

tradition

of

the

fourth

entury,65

lato

resurrects

he

impor-

62

Symposium

208a.

63

Theaetetus

191d.

64

Athenaeus

5.216b.

65

Another

advocate

of the oral

tradition

and the superiority

of the spoken

word

over

the written

word is

to

be found

in Alcidamas

who

in his Iepl T'^

robs

,ypacr,ros

Xo6yousypao46vrwv

ets forth

the advantages

of

extempore

speech.

Alcidamas'

statements

VOI4Itw

be

KaL

T

iv

Aa@ro

TCZv

ypparrCov

Xo6ywv

aXertV

KaO

IAV

AV?V

ErlrQVOV

Kal T7-

Xv iv

aFpo-Xpav

ev roZs

&yaCno

ylyveoOa

(18),

and

j/youcua

5' iU6Xoyovs

6tKacov

t-vaKaceXocOac

rov's

eypa/l/.evovS,

a&XX' o-rep

ea&oXa

Kax

orX,uX.ara

Kax

/At/AloyaTa

Xo6ywv

(27)

reflect

Plato's

influence.

A study

of

Alcidamas'

oration

which

is to

be found

in Antiphon,

ed.

F. Blass

(Leipzig,

Teubner, 1892),

193-205, shows

the

conscious attempt

to reinvigorate

the

oral

tradition

in

the

fourth

century

in

other

fields besides

philosophy.



22/30

Vol. lxix]

Mnemosyne

n Oral Literature

485

tance

of

the oral tradition and

its

emphasis

on the

spoken

word

and

memory.

Through

the tale of

Theuth and

Thamus

he reminds s of thelongstruggle fmemory etweenremain-

ing

purelyoral

or

becoming

derivative

and

symbolic

n

its

nature.

He reflects

his

very

ame

struggle

n

his own

philoso-

phy.

In

the

struggle

betweenthe

written nd

spoken

word

he

sides with

Thamus,

and in

doing

so

he

is

hearkening

ack

to

the

oral tradition

in

which

Mnemosyne

was one of the

oldest and

most

important

f

the

deities.

In

reminding

s

of

memory, s beingthe giftofMnemosyne,he also remindsus

that

he

is

enthroning

her

once

again

as the mother of

the

Muses,

but

this time as

the mother

f the

AEylffTq

IOVTtK?,

philosophy

III

Out of

this

study

of

the

important

nd

unique

survival

of

the oral

tradition

n

a

period

when

the

writtenword

had

sup-

planted oral

literature, everal

problems

arise,

the

answers

to which

at best are

hypothetical

nd

admit of no

proof. In

view

of

the

strongly

ooted

oral

tradition

f

philosophy

n

the

school

of

Pythagoras

with

its

emphasison

the

cultivation

of

memory

nd the

transmission f

the

doctrines f

the

founder

by

word

of mouth until as

late

as the

fourth

entury,

s

there

any

connection etween

Socrates'

oral

methodof

teaching

nd

his

abstinence

from

committing

o

writing

his

teaching or

thoughts?

We

know that

Socrates

throughout

is

entire

ife

taught

solely

by

means

of

the

spoken

word,and

though

he

read

the

works of other

philosophers, ike

Anaxagoras,66

e

abstained from

writing.

Burnet

and

Taylor have

shown

the

profound nfluence f

Pythagoreanism

nd Orphism

n

Socra-

tes'

thought,how he was influenced y Pythagoreanismnhis

views on

the

natureof the

soul,how he

had among

his

students

membersof the

Pythagorean chool of

philosophy

who

were

with

him

even

on

his last

day.

In

view of the

influence

f

Pythagoreanism

n

almost

every

ssential

phase of

his

thought,

can his

refusal to

commit

anything

to

writing

nd

his pre-

66

Phaedo

97c,

f.



23/30

486

James

A. Notopoulos

[1938

occupation

entirely

withthe

oral style

be

similarly

onsidered

a

heritage

or

influence

f Pythagoreanism?

We know

that

all other schools of philosophyand philosophers ommitted

their

teaching

to

writingwith

the

exception

of the

Pythago-

reans and

Socrates,

who

abstained

from

the

written

word

because

it was inferior

o the

spoken

word.

Their

abstinence

from

writing

nd the emphasis

on

the spoken

word

in

their

teaching are

too striking

o

be treated

as a

mere

accident.

Socrates impresses

he judgment

of

his readers

as

a man who

was likely to followthe consequencesof his teachings;if he

thought

hat books

were

lifeless nd

that

the spokenword

is

nearerto the

true

expression

f philosophy

t is not improb-

able

that

he

shared

the

Pythagorean

point

of view with

regard

to the oral

transmission

f

thought.

The exclusive

feature

f

oral literature

n

both

Pythagoreans

and

Socrates, and

the

absence

of such

in

other contemporary

hilosophers,

ead

the

student,who ventures nto the realmof probabilities,n the

absence

of

any positive

proof

to

the contrary,

o think

hat

Socrates

was likewise

nfluenced

y

the

Pythagorean

iew that

oral

style

was the

only

proper xpression

f

the

philosophical

soul.

Another

uestion

that arises

out

of this same context

s

the

problem

of

the

authorship

f

the

view

of

thePhaedrus

on

the

questionof thesuperiorityfthespokenwordand itsintimate

relation

to

memory.

Is this

the view

of the historical

Soc-

rates

or is

it

Plato's

own

view

expressed

in the

person

of

Socrates

in the

dialogue?

If we believe

with

Burnet

and

Taylor

in

ascribing

to

Socrates

the essential

points

that

he

expresses

n the

dialogues

where

he is the central

figure,

we

may

consider

he

doctrine

ocratic.

The answer

to this

ques-

tion,however,depends in part upon the first. If we believe

that

Socrates

was

following

he

Pythagorean

oral

tradition

and

its refusal

to commit

doctrines

to

writing,

we

certainly

can

regard

he doctrine

f the

Phaedrus

as

Socratic.67

67

For

references

to

the

Socratic

or

Platonic

origin

of

this

belief,

cf. Paul

Shorey,

What

Plato

Said

(Chicago,

The

University

of

Chicago

Press,

1933),

556.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/abou

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arielvecchio
View:	236 times
Download:	0 times

Notopoulus, Mnemosyne in Oral.pdf

Documents