Naming Achilles Book

F.A. Wolf set the "Homeric Question" nearly two centuries ago when he argued convincingly that "Homer" was a non-literate bard incapable of composing and performing the monumental Iliad and Odyssey as we have them. In the long debate that has followed, one of the most prominent figures has been Milman Parry, who argued that there was great economy and extension of formulaic diction in the Homeric poems, that the poet was in effect highly constrained by this formulaic diction and by the strict metrical requirements of the oral tradition. He concluded that only a non-literate bard could have composed such epics under these constraints. In Naming Achilles, David Shive takes issue with Parry's findings. Engaging in a close analysis of the hero Achilles as he is named in all the grammatical cases, he has concluded that Parry's thesis does not hold, that there is more extension and less economy than Milman Parry claimed to find. Homer's poetry can be seen as more creative, less restricted, and in fact does not differ markedly from subsequent literary work.