In the past century, however, the preponderance of opinions seems to be on the side of single authorship. Some defend single authorship by citing William Shakespeare's varying approaches to King Lear and The Tempest, which deal with fading kings but in contrasting ways. Others point out that The Iliad appears to have been composed first and demonstrates the work of a younger man while the Odyssey is more mature and reflects an older author. Still others cite folk influences and the various themes and content as justification of conflicting styles.
During the late 1920s and early 1930s, an American scholar named Milman Parry revolutionized classical studies by demonstrating conclusively that both The Iliad and the Odyssey were composed in an oral, formulaic style based on tradition and designed to help the rhapsode perform a long piece from memory. The poems were recited, or more likely sung, to audiences in the way that similar works are presented in the Odyssey. The performer often accompanied himself with a lyre. Metrical phrases were used as mnemonic devices, and everyday language was altered to fit this poetic language. That would account for the "elevated style" that has long been attributed to the works.
Parry's discovery clearly alters how readers look at the authorship of the epics. Some scholars, like Harold Bloom (Homer's Odyssey, 1996, p. 8) think that Homer, if he existed, was no more than an editor or organizer of poems created by others, perhaps over generations. Others, such as Seth L. Schein (Reading the Odyssey, 1996, p. 4 ff.), credit the poet with considerable creativity while welcoming the evidence of oral tradition. Schein points out that Greeks apparently had access to the Phoenician alphabet by the third quarter of the eighth century BC and that a poet trained in the oral tradition could have written down (or dictated to a scribe) The Odyssey as readers now know it. He sees literary (written), as well as folk or traditional influences, in the creation of the epic.
