According to Erich Auerbach’s essay “Odysseus’ scar” the statement is claimed that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted.” To look into this statement we first must come to a conclusion of the vocab used in the quote.
Analysis as I see it deals with examination, it consists of looking into a word or subject, separating ideas, and dissecting the meaning.
Interpretation, on the other hand deals with making meaning out of what it is you are looking at. The two terms are somewhat similar in that they both deal with looking at something with a lens, making a conclusion and deciphering, but they are inherently different in that interpretation takes on a meaning, and explanation.
Auerbach’s argument involves Homer’s tale of Odysseus and the Biblical account of Abraham and Isaac. Auerbach’s statement that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted” first had me question the validity of the statement. My question was, “Cant everything be interpreted?” I still believe that every piece of literature can be interpreted, but to get my head around this statement I have to think of it as a comparison. A comparison between the two works.
The Odyssey has little or no room for interpretation compared to the Biblical account of the Abraham and Isaac story. Looking at the Abraham story we find that the author left plenty of room for interpretation, one such example is the question, “Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice his son.” In the text there is no explanation for us, as a reader we must interpret it in our own way.
On the other hand, we find in the Odyssey that almost everything is explained and in great detail. Leaving hardly, if any room, for interpretation.
So that is how I understand the statement by Auerbach, that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted.
That was the conclusion I came to too. I would say it makes the story more "timeless" as it can mean different things to different people in different places, but the Odyssey has stood the test of time as well..
ReplyDeleteGood job of analyzing Auerbach's argument in the essay. I wonder, though, what the takeaway is, what it means (the interpretation, let's say).
ReplyDeleteFor instance, you can think about interpretation is terms of cause and effect (among others). What's the cause of the two different styles shown in these two texts?
And, perhaps more importantly, what is the effect of the different styles on the reader?