Editing Oral tradition (section)

==Criticism and debates==
The theory of oral tradition encountered early resistance from scholars who perceived it as potentially supporting either one side or another in the controversy between what were known as [[Homeric Question|"unitarians" and "analysts"]]—that is, scholars who believed [[Homer]] to have been a single, historical figure, and those who saw him as a conceptual "author function," a convenient name to assign to what was essentially a repertoire of traditional narrative.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Combellack |first1=Frederick M. |title=Milman Parry and Homeric Artistry |journal=Comparative Literature |date=1959 |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=193–208 |doi=10.2307/1768354 |jstor=1768354 }}</ref> A much more general dismissal of the theory and its implications simply described it as "unprovable"<ref>Rutherford, R.B. Homer: Odyssey Books XIX & XX,, Cambridge UP 1992 remarks on oral-formulaic diction, pp. 47-49</ref> Some scholars, mainly outside the field of oral tradition,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Botstein |first1=Leon |title=Hearing Is Seeing: Thoughts on the History of Music and the Imagination |journal=The Musical Quarterly |date=1995 |volume=79 |issue=4 |pages=581–589 |doi=10.1093/mq/79.4.581 |jstor=742376 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Oring |first1=Elliott |title=Folk or Lore? The Stake in Dichotomies |journal=Journal of Folklore Research |date=2006 |volume=43 |issue=3 |pages=205–218 |doi=10.2979/JFR.2006.43.3.205 |s2cid=144634366 |id={{Project MUSE|209125}} }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.valdosta.edu/folkwriting/pdf/chapter4.PDF |title=chapter4.DOC |access-date=2012-10-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213082630/http://www.valdosta.edu/folkwriting/pdf/chapter4.PDF |archive-date=2012-02-13 }}</ref> represent (either dismissively or with approval) this body of theoretical work as reducing the great [[Epic poetry|epics]] to children's party games like "[[telephone (game)|telephone]]" or "[[Chinese whispers]]". While games provide amusement by showing how messages distort content via uncontextualized transmission, Parry's supporters argue that the theory of oral tradition reveals how oral methods optimized the [[signal-to-noise ratio]] and thus improved the quality, stability and [[integrity]] of content transmission.<ref>Dawkins, Richard. ''The God Delusion''. Great Britain: Bantam, 2006 p. 118 -- Dawkins contradicts this view, however, on p. 227)</ref>

There were disputes concerning particular findings of the theory. For example, those trying to support or refute Crowne's hypothesis found the "Hero on the Beach" formula in numerous Old English poems. Similarly, it was also discovered in other works of [[Germanic peoples|Germanic]] origin, [[Middle English poetry]], and even an [[Iceland]]ic prose [[saga]]. J.A. Dane, in an article<ref>Dane, J.A. "Finnsburh and Iliad IX: A Greek Survival of the Medieval Germanic Oral-Formulaic Theme The Hero on the Beach." ''Neophilologus'' 66:443-449</ref> characterized as "polemics without rigor"<ref>Foley, John Miles. ''Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography'', (NY: Garland Publishing, 1985), p. 200</ref> claimed that the appearance of the theme in [[Ancient Greek]] poetry, a tradition without known connection to the Germanic, invalidated the notion of "an autonomous theme in the baggage of an oral poet."

Within Homeric studies specifically, Lord's ''[[The Singer of Tales]]'', which focused on problems and questions that arise in conjunction with applying oral-formulaic theory to problematic texts such as the ''[[Iliad]]'', ''[[Odyssey]]'', and even ''[[Beowulf]]'', influenced nearly all of the articles written on [[Homer]] and oral-formulaic composition thereafter. However, in response to Lord, Geoffrey Kirk published ''The Songs of Homer'', questioning Lord's extension of the oral-formulaic nature of Serbian and Croatian literature (the area from which the theory was first developed) to Homeric epic. Kirk argues that Homeric poems differ from those traditions in their "metrical strictness", "formular system[s]", and creativity. In other words, Kirk argued that Homeric poems were recited under a system that gave the reciter much more freedom to choose words and passages to get to the same end than the Serbo-Croatian poet, who was merely "reproductive".<ref>Kirk, Geoffrey S. ''The Songs of Homer.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. pp88 - 91.</ref><ref>Foley, John M. ''Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography.'' New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1985. p. 35.</ref> Shortly thereafter, Eric Havelock's ''Preface to Plato'' revolutionized how scholars looked at Homeric epic by arguing not only that it was the product of an oral tradition, but also that the oral-formulas contained therein served as a way for ancient Greeks to preserve cultural knowledge across many different generations.<ref>Foley, John M. ''Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography.'' New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1985. p. 36.</ref> [[Adam Parry]], in his 1966 work "Have we Homer's ''Iliad''?", theorized the existence of the most fully developed oral poet to his time, a person who could (at his discretion) creatively and intellectually create nuanced characters in the context of the accepted, traditional story. In fact, he discounted the Serbo-Croatian tradition to an "unfortunate" extent, choosing to elevate the Greek model of oral-tradition above all others.<ref>Foley, John M. ''Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography.'' New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1985. pp. 36, 505.</ref><ref>Parry, Adam. "Have we Homer's ''Iliad''?"''Yale Classical Studies.''20 (1966), pp.. 177-216.</ref> Lord reacted to Kirk's and Parry's essays with "Homer as Oral Poet", published in 1968, which reaffirmed Lord's belief in the relevance of Yugoslav poetry and its similarities to Homer and downplayed the intellectual and literary role of the reciters of Homeric epic.<ref>Foley, John M. ''Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography.'' New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1985. pp. 40, 406.</ref>

Many of the criticisms of the theory have been absorbed into the evolving field as useful refinements and modifications. For example, in what Foley called a "pivotal" contribution, [[Larry Benson]] introduced the concept of "written-formulaic" to describe the status of some Anglo-Saxon poetry which, while demonstrably written, contains evidence of oral influences, including heavy reliance on formulas and themes<ref>Foley, John M. ''Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography''. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. 1985. p. 42.; Foley cites "The Literary Character of Anglo-Saxon Formulaic Poetry" Publications of the Modern Language Association 81 (1966):, 334-41</ref> A number of individual scholars in many areas continue to have misgivings about the applicability of the theory or the aptness of the South Slavic comparison,<ref>George E. Dimock. "From Homer to Novi Pazar and B ack." ''Arion'', 2, iv:40-57. Reacts against the Parry-Lord hypothesis of an oral Homer, claiming that, although Lord demonstrated that the oral poet thinks in verse and offered many explanations of the various facets of the Homeric Question by recourse to the Yugoslav analogy, the difference between Homer and other, literate poets is one of degree rather than kind. Wants to rescue Homer's art from what he sees as the dangers inherent in the oral theory model.</ref> and particularly what they regard as its implications for the creativity which may legitimately be attributed to the individual artist.<ref>Perhaps the most prominent and steadfast opponent of oral traditional theory on these grounds was [[Arthur Brodeur]], in, e.g., ''The Art of Beowulf''. Berkeley: University of California Press. 3rd printing 1969; "A Study of Diction and Style in Three Anglo-Saxon Narrative Poems." In ''Nordica et Anglica''. Ed. Allan H. Orrick. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 97-114; "Beowulf: One Poem or Three?" In ''Medieval Literature and Folklore Studies in Honor of Francis Lee Utley''. Ed. Jerome Mandel and Bruce A. Rosenberg. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. pp. 3-26.</ref> However, at present, there seems to be little systematic or theoretically coordinated challenge to the fundamental tenets of the theory; as Foley put it, ""there have been numerous suggestions for revisions or modifications of the theory, but the majority of controversies have generated further understanding.<ref>Foley, John Miles. ''The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology''. Bloomington:IUP, 1988." p.93</ref>