From: relvkr@learnlink.emory.edu (Vernon K. Robbins)
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:35:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Orality

goodacms@m4-arts.bham.ac.uk,Internet writes:
> As soon as 
>the element becomes a part of the story, it functions in the story as 
>a key constituent element.

	This is a key sentence.  One of the issues here is
the differences between orality, scribality, and literary
artfulness -- a level of literary creativity that, free from 
scribality, constructs the story (in this case) in an artful 
manner.  "Scribality" regularly makes phenomena present
that are not key constituent elements.  Rather, they are
there as a result of "allegiance" to some other written
version of the text. 
	Literary artfulness can achieve a form close to
orality.  When it does, it is noticeable that it has freed
itself from "scribality" -- attempting to copy certain portions
of another text verbatim.
	When Phil's insights are taken it context, it
really is noticeable that GThom 100 and 107 are
performed in a manner fully congenial with orality.
They have the form of a "recitation" (apangelia: 
using the rhetorical term that Aelius Theon of 
Alexandria uses in his Progymnasmata [see Ronald 
Hock & Edward O'Neil, The Chreia in 
Ancient Rhetoric, Scholars Press, 1986: 95]).
The key is that the composer clearly has "taken
his eyes off of" any known written copy 
available to us and composed it in the 
style of orally flowing speech.  In this
context, the reference to the largest sheep
is a natural move, unencumbered by some
other version that focused on the one 
versus the ninety-nine.  Also, the 
reference to the gold coin in #100 sets
up the scene in an efficient manner
characteristic of oral speech, without
showing any scribal "allegiance" that
distracts from its "oral flow."

	Vernon
	

-- 
Vernon K. Robbins, Department and Graduate Division of Religion
537 Kilgo Circle, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
(H) 404-982-0174; (O) 404-727-6466; Fax 404-727-7597
relvkr@learnlink.emory.edu