Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:38:16.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orality and the reception of late Byzantine vernacular literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Roderick Beaton
Roderick Beaton*
Affiliation:
King’s College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The starting point for this paper is the belief that orality has to be understood in a wider sense than is given to the term bv the oral-formulaic theory of Milman Parry and Albert Lord. This is the more important when the field of study is medieval or modern Greece, societies far removed from what Walter Ong (1982: 31–75) has termed the ‘primary orality’ of a culture from which writing is absent. The oral formulaic theory, although excellent as a tool for the analysis of materials actually transcribed from oral performance, has come to be seen in the last fifteen years or so as an unwieldy and often unreliable yardstick for assessing the interaction of oral and written types of discourse. The insistence of the theory that for a text to be considered oral, the three processes of composition, performance and transmission should be simultaneous, imposes a definition of orality which is unjustifiably restrictive, and despite the well-intentioned efforts of Albert Lord and others to address the problem of the ‘transitional’ text, the method of analysis developed through close study of one particular oral tradition in Yugoslavia has proved disappointingly inflexible in its attempt to account for texts which are neither, according to its own definitions, truly oral nor fully literary (cf. Beaton 1987).

Type
Articles:
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 14 , 1990 , pp. 174 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexiou, S. 1979. (Iraklio).Google Scholar
Alexiou, S. 1985. (Athens).Google Scholar
Bakker, W. and van Gemert, A. 1988. 6] (Athens).Google Scholar
Beaton, R. 1987. ‘Modern and medieval poetry in vernacular Greek’. (Nicosia) 485–94.Google Scholar
Beaton, R. 1989. The Medieval Greek Romance (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Danezis, G. 1987a. ‘Das Vorbild des Spaneas: ein neuer Vorschlag und die Folgen für die Edition des Textes’, in Eideneier, H. (ed.), Neograeca Medii Aevi: Text und Ausgabe. Akten zum Symposion Köln 1986 (Cologne) 89–102.Google Scholar
Danezis, G. 1987b. Spaneas: Vorlage, Quellen, Versionen [Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 31] (Munich).Google Scholar
Eideneier, H. 1982-3. ‘Leser- oder Hörerkreis? Zur byzantinischen Dichtung in der Volkssprache’, 34: 119–50. Eideneier, H. 1985. ‘Sinnvolles Verhörer im Ptochoprodromos III’, 36: 78–101.Google Scholar
Eideneier, H. 1987. ‘Der Ptochoprodromos in schriftlicher und mündlicher Überlieferung’, in Eideneier, H. (ed.), Neograeca Medii Aevi: Text und Ausgabe. Akten zum Symposion Köln 1986 (Cologne) 101–119.Google Scholar
Eideneier, H. 1988. Krasopateras: Kritische Ausgabe der Versionen des 16. - 18. Jahrhunderts (Neograeca Medii Aevi 3] (Cologne).Google Scholar
Fenik, B. 1991. Basileios Digenis Akritis: Epic and Popular Style in the Escorial Version (Iraklio).Google Scholar
Foley, J.M. 1988. The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology (Bloomington and Indianapolis).Google Scholar
Hesseling, D.C. 1919. L’Achilléïde byzantine, avec une introduction, des observations et un index (Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Jeffreys, E. and M. 1983. Popular Literature in Late Byzantium (London).Google Scholar
, E. 1955. 2] (Athens).Google Scholar
, E. 1968-. 1100–1669 (Thessaloniki).Google Scholar
Lord, A.B. 1986. ‘The merging of two worlds: oral and written poetry as carriers of ancient values’, in Foley, J.M. (ed.), Oral tradition in literature: interpretation in context (Columbia, Missouri) 19–64.Google Scholar
Norgaard, L. and Smith, O. 1975. A Byzantine Iliad: The Text of Par. Suppl. Gr. 926. Edited with Critical Apparatus, Introduction and Indexes [Opuscula Graecolatina 5] (Copenhagen).Google Scholar
Ong, W. 1982. Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word (London and New York).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panajotakis, N. 1987. ‘Sachlikisstudien’, in Eideneier, H. (ed.), Neograeca Medii Aevi: Text und Ausgabe. Akten zum Symposion Köln 1986 (Cologne) 219–78.Google Scholar
Prombonas, I. 1985. (Athens).Google Scholar
Ricks, D. 1989. ‘Is the Escorial Akrites a unitary poem?’ B 30: 184–207.Google Scholar
Ricks, D. 1990. Byzantine Heroic Poetry (Bristol).Google Scholar
Schmitt, J. 1904. The Chronicle of Morea (London; reprinted Groningen, 1967).Google Scholar
Smith, O. 1987. ‘Versions and manuscripts of the Achilleid’, in Eideneier, H. (ed.), Neograeca Medii Aevi: Text und Ausgabe. Akten zum Symposion Köln 1986 (Cologne) 315–25.Google Scholar
Smith, O. 1988. ‘Notes on the Byzantine Achilleid: the Oxford version’, Classica et Mediaevalia 39: 259–72.Google Scholar
Trypanis, C. 1963. ‘Byzantine oral poetry’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 56: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsiouni, V. 1972. critical edition. [Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 15] (Munich).Google Scholar