It's a very interesting thought that Homer and his readings can be analyzed but not interpreted. The question sounded confusing and absurd at first but once thought about makes perfect sense. After reading the bible and Homer's writings it's clear how Homer leaves few questions unanswered and explains what each person is doing and why they are doing what they do. The bible tells it's stories and leaves it's meanings up to the reader to interpret what they feel that message is. The reader is left with little room to imagine or wonder why things in the play are happening the way they do.
The Bible professes it's stories in a very singular way. Bible stories are told as if they were truth and as if they happened in the past. It's quite interesting how each religious text is written in past tents and the other in present tents as if history was being made as you read. The concepts of analyzing and interpret Homer and The Bible can be conflicting at times. A reader must both analyze and interpret the bible and translate it's meaning into something that makes sense. The proof of this is everywhere. Readers of the Bible from different parts of the country and even the world derive different meanings from the bible and it's verses.
I feel that the Homer's writings can still be somewhat interpreted but only slightly since so much information is given at every turn. We may not be able to speculate on a given scenario based on the information provided but we are able to wonder why things are that way. We can wonder why they believe multiple god's exist and why the story includes such far out creatures as a cyclops.
Aruback was trying to convince us that Homer's work was more theatrical and for our entertainment. To gain a greater meaning out of his stories would be pointless and the main idea was to enjoy the stories. Scriptures were made to be interpreted to be understood so each person could translate they're different meanings from them. There might be some lesson to learn from Homers readings but if so they were not intended and accidental. Being able to interpret the bible may be a good and bad thing. At the same time it could be dangerous to only derive one meaning from a reading. The readings of Homer seem to be entertainment oriented meaning that the stories didn't exist but they were written to be told and passed down in an entertaining fashion through stories or even acted out in theatre. The bible leaves much room for interpretation. I can relate each writing to our own constitution as it is written very specifically but also written with much room for interpretation.
I like your post. I also came to a very similar conclusion to you.
ReplyDeleteGreat point here:
ReplyDelete"Aruback was trying to convince us that Homer's work was more theatrical and for our entertainment. To gain a greater meaning out of his stories would be pointless and the main idea was to enjoy the stories. Scriptures were made to be interpreted to be understood so each person could translate they're different meanings from them."
I think you get at the heart of Auerbach's argument here. The first step is to understand the distinction he's making between the different styles. But you're gone further to understanding *why* he thinks these distinctions are important and how they function.
In some ways, you could say that the first part of your post is the analysis, in which you break down Auerbach's argument into its pieces. But the last part is interpretation, the explaining of the meaning of the larger whole.
Nicely done.