Homer the Astronomer

Some well-meaning astronomers (Marcelo Magnasco of the Laboratory of Mathematical Physics at Rockefeller, and Constantino Baikouzis of the Observatorio Astronómico in La Plata, Argentina) are trying to date the events in Homer's Odyssey based on scattered mentions of astronomical events, such as a solar eclipse. One of these events is their astronomical interpretation of Homer's report of the actions of a god (see the link above). The gods, rationalized out of their own divinity, become merely stars; I'm sure Homer would disagree.

Clearly Drs. Magnasco and Baikouzis have not read the work of Albert Lord (who is not cited in their article), who developed the theory of "oral formulaic theory" to address the question of how Yugoslavian bards -- and ultimately, Homer -- could create long works of oral history.

In short, when the article about these astronomers talks about what Homer "wrote," therein lies the problem.

Homer did not write. Most likely, he sang. Someone wrote it down, sure, but the Illiad and the Odyssey were not, at heart, written documents. Homeric details such as astronomical events are not pieces of data passed down from one document to the next (albeit sans citations) but rather poetic devices, employed because of their rhyme scheme, cadence, or poetic nature. The fact that Homer mentions an eclipse does not mean it happened at that time -- Homer wasn't there, after all (by his own admission). Someone saw an eclipse at some point, and it has probably worked its way into this tale independently of its timing in relation to the events Homer was relating.

Assuming, of course, that Homer was relating "history" in the western sense at all. But even if he was relating a history of "true" events, we know from other oral traditions that compression is common in oral histories of the distant past. Famous people, even though they lived generations apart, suddenly appear in the same stories fighting over women and waging war. Events are conflated: three wars become one. This doesn't mean that oral history isn't significant, meaningful, or interesting. But it isn't written history, and it can't be mapped neatly onto a Gregorian calendar.

The Drs. justify their admitedly shaky interpretation by saying that they are simply trying to promote reading:

"Even though there are historical arguments that say this is a ridiculous thing to think about, if we can get a few people to read The Odyssey differently, to look at it and ponder whether there was an actual date inscribed in it, we will be happy," Magnasco says.

They seem to have missed the point. Getting people to read (in a literate society, anyway) and think (anywhere) is a good idea. But they are projecting their assumptions about literacy back onto Homer -- ignoring completely the fact that he most likely did not think like modern literate people, let alone astronomers. They assume that his work can be taken out of the context in which it was produced -- that they can analyze the data without knowing the conditions that produced it. Last time I checked, scientists were pretty careful to explain their methodologies. Wouldn't you want to know Homer's methods before taking his data at face value?

So astronomers, please. Stay out of folklore studies, and I'll promise not to start requesting time on the Very Large Array. Deal?