{"id":238,"date":"2018-02-10T15:02:04","date_gmt":"2018-02-10T15:02:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/?page_id=238"},"modified":"2018-02-10T15:02:04","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T15:02:04","slug":"david-f-elmer","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/david-f-elmer\/","title":{"rendered":"David F. Elmer"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Integral Odyssey<\/em><\/h1>\n

In a recent essay, Olga Davidson has explored, with her characteristic elegance and insight, a variety of myths that describe the authoritative presentation of an oral epic tradition in terms of the disintegration and subsequent reintegration of a primordial book.[1]<\/a> Her point of departure and primary focus is a brief narrative in the Sh\u0101hn\u0101ma <\/em>of Ferdowsi, which I quote here in her translation:<\/p>\n

There was a book [n\u0101ma<\/em>] from ancient times | in which there was an
\nabundance of stories.<\/span>
\nIt was dispersed into the hands of every m\u014dbad<\/em>. | Every wise one [of the
\nm\u014dbad<\/em>s] possessed a portion of it.<\/span>
\nThere was a nobleman [pahlav\u0101n<\/em>], born of the dehq\u0101n<\/em>s, | brave, powerful,
\nwise, and noble,
\none who inquired into the earliest days. | He sought to retrieve all the past
\nstories.
\nFrom every region an aged m\u014dbad<\/em> | he brought, who would remember this
\nbook [n\u0101ma<\/em>].
\nHe asked them about kings of the world | and about the famed and
\nglorious heroes,
\nwhen and how they held the world in the beginning | that they should have
\npassed it down to us in such a wretched state,
\nhow, with a lucky star, | every day completed a heroic exploit for them.
\nThe great ones, one by one, recited before him | the stories [sokhanh\u0101<\/em>]
\nabout kings and the turnings of the world.
\nWhen the lord heard their words from them | he set the foundations for a
\nrenowned book [n\u0101ma<\/em>].
\nThus it became his memorial in the world. | The small and the great praise
\nhim.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Sh\u0101hn\u0101ma<\/em> I 21.126\u2013136<\/p>\n

Arguing that \u201cthe picturing of a disintegrated and then reintegrated book is a metaphor for oral poetry,\u201d Davidson goes on to review a number of similar narratives associated with various Iranian and non-Iranian oral traditions.[2]<\/a> Among these is the myth of the so-called \u201cPeisistratean Recension,\u201d that is, the story, reported in several ancient sources, that the \u201cscattered books\u201d (libri confusos<\/em>, Cic. De or.<\/em> 3.137) of the Homeric poems were first assembled and put in order at the direction of\u2014in Cicero\u2019s version, by the very hands of\u2014the Athenian tyrant Peisistratos in the 6th<\/sup> c. BCE.[3]<\/a> Inspired by Davidson\u2019s discussion of the metaphor of a disintegrated and reintegrated text, I wish to offer to her some reflections on ways in which a similar tension between integration and disintegration is expressed by the narrative of the Odyssey<\/em>, a poem that appears to have a special connection to Athens.[4]<\/a> The tension I will trace operates independently of any textual metaphor, but, as in the case of the examples discussed by Davidson, it still speaks to the nature of the Odyssey<\/em> as the product of an oral tradition.<\/p>\n

I begin with a simple observation: the Odyssey<\/em> is a notoriously \u2018disjointed\u2019 narrative. The narrator\u2019s request in the proem that the Muse begin the story \u201cfrom any point whatsoever\u201d (\u1f01\u03bc\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5, 1.10) suggests that the starting-point for the narrative is in some sense arbitrary; and, indeed, when we first encounter Odysseus, it is in the very last stage of his journey home. Earlier events are related by Odysseus himself in the Apologoi, his retrospective narrative of his adventures returning from Troy, in narratological terms an analepsis that itself contains a prolepsis in the form of Teiresias\u2019 prediction of the future.[5]<\/sup><\/a> The narrative of Odysseus\u2019 return is thus told in a manner that seems to demand a certain amount of reordering and reintegration. That demand is finally met in Book 23, when Odysseus himself, in what might be called a second apologos<\/em>, narrates the entire tale, complete and in order, for Penelope (23.310-41).[6]<\/sup><\/a> Odysseus is thus the final integrator of his own story.<\/p>\n

In view of this ultimate act of narrative integration, it is altogether appropriate that Odysseus\u2019 mastery as integrator should be put prominently on display at his very first appearance in the poem. After devoting the first four books to Telemachus\u2014itself a kind of displacement of Odysseus as the poem\u2019s main subject\u2014the narrative at last zeroes in on Odysseus, marooned on Kalypso\u2019s island, at the beginning of Book 5. He initially appears in a posture of passivity, weeping as he gazes out to sea; his first substantive action, in this scene and in the poem as a whole, is a signal act of integration, namely, the construction of a skhedi\u0113<\/em>, an \u2018improvised ship.\u2019[7]<\/a> The narrative describes the shipbuilding process in considerable detail, underscoring Odysseus\u2019 ability to construct a harmonious whole out of scattered and disorganized parts.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

Interpreting this scene in a metapoetic perspective, Carol Dougherty has stressed the resemblance between the shipbuilder\u2019s craft and the art of the rhapsode, both of which assemble discrete elements into balanced unities.[9]<\/a> She is right to do so: Odysseus\u2019 skill as shipwright clearly figures his proficiency as a craftsman of the spoken word, a proficiency that brings him into close proximity with the rhapsode. But the scene has also a structural significance within the narrative economy of the Odyssey<\/em>. As an icon of integration, Odysseus\u2019 assembling of the skhedi\u0113<\/em> looks forward to an important act of narrative integration, namely, the moment in Book 11 when Odysseus concludes the Apologoi by describing his arrival on Kalypso\u2019s island. This is the moment at which Odysseus\u2019 retrospective narration catches up with the \u2018dislocated\u2019 situation depicted at the start of the poem; it is a moment that provides for audience or reader a measure of satisfaction at the apprehension of a narrative unity, a sense of completion and wholeness.[10]<\/a> The Kalypso narrative is the \u2018join\u2019 by which this sense of wholeness is accomplished. It is no coincidence that the join is marked, iconically, by the exhibition of Odysseus\u2019 joinery. No coincidence, either, is the fact that the poem\u2019s final act of narrative integration\u2014Odysseus\u2019 \u2018second apologos<\/em>\u2019 for Penelope\u2014is likewise marked by a conspicuous display of joinery, in this case, Odysseus\u2019 retelling of the process by which he constructed both the bed that lies at the center of his house and the bed-chamber (and by implication the house as a whole) that encloses it (23.190-201). This retelling is, of course, the catalyst for the scene of recognition and reconciliation with Penelope, at the heart of which is the narrative joinery that at last reintegrates the events of the poem\u2019s disjointed fabula<\/em> into a unified whole.<\/p>\n

It must be said, however, that if Odysseus\u2019 \u2018improvised ship\u2019 represents a certain integral wholeness, it is not a durable wholeness. The skhedi\u0113<\/em> is very soon destroyed\u2014disintegrated into its individual parts by a wave sent by Poseidon. This act on the part of Poseidon is indicative of the god\u2019s overall function in the poem as the primary obstacle to the achievement of the narrative\u2019s telos<\/em>, the return of Odysseus and his reintegration into Ithacan society. As the embodiment of forces that deflect Odysseus from the goal around which the narrative is organized, Poseidon is a disruptor of the narrative totality represented by the Odyssey<\/em>. His disruptive role is by no means put to an end by Odysseus\u2019 landing on Ithaca in Book 12; it extends even beyond the end of the poem, for, as Teiresias predicts and as Odysseus reports to Penelope in Book 23, it is on account of Poseidon\u2019s wrath that Odysseus will eventually have to make another journey, one that will take him so far away from the territory of his own epic of maritime wandering that he will find himself among people who mistake an oar for a winnowing-shovel.[11]<\/sup><\/a> The integral totality achieved at the conclusion of the poem is thus shadowed by the prospect of its imminent dissolution.<\/p>\n

It is significant, however, that the \u2018winnowing-shovel\u2019 that marks the point of maximum divergence from the Odyssey<\/em>\u2019s defining center, Ithaca, provides a precise counterpart for Odysseus\u2019 skhedi\u0113<\/em>, understood as an icon of both integration and imminent disintegration. For, even as it indexes the disruption of the totality of the story of return, the oar mistaken for a winnowing shovel establishes another, larger totality by pointing back to Odysseus\u2019 ship. At the moment of its destruction by Poseidon\u2019s wave, the disintegrating skhedi\u0113<\/em> is compared to a pile of chaff scattered by the wind (5.368-70):<\/p>\n

\u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b6\u03b1\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f94\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03be\u1fc3
\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc3,
\n\u1f63\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u2019 \u2026<\/p>\n

As a strong wind stirs a heap of dry chaff,
\nwhich it scatters here and there,
\nso [the wave] scattered the timbers of the ship \u2026<\/p>\n

This is the only simile in the Odyssey<\/em> to draw on the act of winnowing grain; in fact, this and Odysseus\u2019 \u2018winnowing-shovel\u2019 are to my knowledge the only two references to winnowing in the poem.[12]<\/sup><\/a> The collocation, at two critical moments in Odysseus\u2019 life-story, of two radically incommensurate spheres\u2014ship-craft and agriculture\u2014cannot be coincidental.[13]<\/sup><\/a> The oar-as-winnowing-shovel clearly looks back to the destruction of Odysseus\u2019 ship\u2014not unreasonably, since both are manifestations of Poseidon\u2019s anger. Separated by thousands of verses and an unspecified number of years in Odysseus\u2019 life, these two emblems of the disintegrating totality of the Odyssey <\/em>establish, in their mutual responsion, an integral whole that extends beyond the limits of the poem. It is, I hope, not too fanciful to suggest that the act of winnowing itself figures this paradoxical combination of integration and disintegration: it is an act that dissolves one unity (the pile of threshed grain) in order to create another (the pile of grain separated from the chaff).<\/p>\n

The metapoetic significance of Odysseus\u2019 ship takes on an additional dimension in view of this tension between integration and fragmentation, which can be seen as an expression of a typical and distinctive aspect of the experience of totality provided by a traditional performance medium. In contrast to the sense of wholeness experienced by, for example, the reader of a novel, who can indeed grasp the entirety of the text as a closed and complete whole, the audience of a traditional performance typically experiences wholeness as something immanent and virtual, something graspable only through metonymic connections between the performance and the tradition as a whole. Simply put, a single performance can never encompass or present the entirety of tradition. Even the entirety of our own text of the Odyssey<\/em> far exceeds the limits of a single performance. If the poem was performed in its entirety at a festival such as the Panathenaia, we must imagine the performance extending across multiple days, and featuring multiple performers[14]<\/a>; it is doubtful, in such circumstances, whether even the most attentive listener could have absorbed the entire thing. All this is to say that the sense of totality offered by a traditional performance is an evanescent one, attainable momentarily by some attentive listeners as they call to mind all that may be implied by or immanent in a motif such as Odysseus\u2019 winnowing-shovel. The experience of performance involves an ever-present tension between the fragmentary nature of the performed narrative and the integral tradition it evokes.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

I have suggested that this tension should be seen as typical of traditional performance, whether it takes place in the context of a festival such as the Panathenaia, which may well have permitted the performance of a poem in its entirety, or in a more restricted context (one thinks, for example, of the amateur rhapsodic contests attested by Plato, Timaeus<\/em> 21b, for the Athenian festival of the Apatouria). And yet Panathenaic ideology seems to have characterized the festival as a \u2018totalizing\u2019 event, a moment at which, every fourth year, the poetry of Homer was reconstituted in its entirety. This is the picture that emerges from ancient accounts of the \u2018Panathenaic Rule\u2019 (which stipulated that the Homeric poems, and only the Homeric poems, should be performed in order by rhapsodes performing in relay), and especially of the \u2018Peisistratean Recension,\u2019 which Davidson has discussed as a parallel for the narrative of Sh\u0101hn\u0101ma<\/em> I 21.126\u2013136.[16]<\/a> Given the links that have been observed between our text of the Odyssey<\/em> and the sequence of Athenian festivals culminating in the Panathenaia,[17]<\/a> one is tempted, if not obliged, to juxtapose this ideology with the Odyssey<\/em>\u2019s own internal representations of integrity and totality. In so doing one is inevitably struck by the contrast between the apparent finality of the text supposedly reconstituted under Peisistratos and the Odyssey<\/em>\u2019s own image of an unstable and evanescent whole. But the contrast is by no means a contradiction. The Odyssey<\/em>\u2019s very preoccupation with the tension between integration and disintegration can be seen as an extension of Panathenaic ideology.[18]<\/a> The evanescent totality evoked by key scenes in the poem harmonizes with the dynamics of a \u2018totalizing\u2019 event that is also recurrent<\/em>: no realization of a tradition can be considered truly final when it occurs on an occasion that is premised on the regular recurrence of such occasions in the future. Moreover, the ideology of a final and ultimate totalization, as expressed by the story of the \u2018Peisistratean Recension,\u2019 derives much of its potency as a claim to authority from the very fact that it cuts against the grain of the dynamics of traditional performance. The narrative of a disintegrated and reintegrated book speaks to the institutional authority claimed by the Panathenaia, as it does to the authority embodied in Ferdowsi\u2019s Sh\u0101hn\u0101ma<\/em>. As Davidson writes of the latter, \u201cthe book is . . . a symbol, expressing the authority and authenticity of the oral poetic traditions that are being performed.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/h2>\n

Bergren, Ann L. T. 1983. \u201cOdyssean Temporality: Many (Re)Turns.\u201d In Approaches to Homer<\/em>, edited by C. A. Rubino and C. W. Shelmerdine, 38\u201373. Austin: University of Texas Press.<\/p>\n

Burgess, Jonathan S. 2004. \u201cPerformance and the Epic Cycle.\u201d The Classical Journal<\/em> 100 (1):1\u201323.<\/p>\n

Casson, Lionel. 1964. \u201cOdysseus\u2019 Boat (Od., V, 244-257).\u201d American Journal of Philology<\/em> 85 (1):61\u201364.<\/p>\n

Cook, Erwin F. 1995. The Odyssey in Athens: Myths of Cultural Origins<\/em>. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.<\/p>\n

Dougherty, Carol. 2001. The Raft of Odysseus: The Ethnographic Imagination of Homer\u2019s <\/em>Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Davidson, Olga M. 2013. Poet and Hero in the Persian Book of Kings<\/em>. 3rd<\/sup> ed. Ilex Foundation Series 11. Boston and Washington, D.C.: Ilex Foundation.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2017. \u201cThe Written Text as a Metaphor for the Integrity of Oral Composition in Classical Persian Traditions and Beyond.\u201d Classics@<\/em> 14. http:\/\/nrs.harvard.edu\/urn-3:hlnc.essay:DavidsonO.The_Written_Text_as_a_Metaphor.2016<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nagy, Gregory. 1996. Homeric Questions<\/em>. Austin: University of Texas Press.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2002. Plato\u2019s Rhapsody and Homer\u2019s Music: The Poetics of the Panathenaic Festival in Classical Athens<\/em>. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2010. Homer the Preclassic<\/em>. Sather Classical Lectures 67. Berkeley: University of California Press.<\/p>\n

Purves, Alex. 2006. \u201cUnmarked Space: Odysseus and the Inland Journey.\u201d Arethusa<\/em> 39 (1):1\u201320.<\/p>\n

Smith, John D. 1986. \u201cWhere the Plot Thickens: Epic Moments in P\u0101b\u016bj\u012b.\u201d South Asian Studies<\/em> 2 (1):53\u201364.<\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/h2>\n

[1]<\/a> Davidson 2017. See also Davidson 2013: 24-46.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Davidson 2017 (not paginated).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> I follow Nagy 1996: 73 in speaking of the story of the Peisistratean Recension as a \u2018myth,\u2019 even though it takes the form of a report of a supposedly historical event. As will become clear in the course of my discussion, however, I take this \u2018myth\u2019 as a genuine reflection of historical forces at work in Athens in the late archaic and early classical periods.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> See n. 17, below.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Bergren 1983 stresses the sometimes overlooked fact that prolepsis is as central and significant a feature of the Odyssey<\/em>\u2019s plot as analepsis.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Significantly, this second apologos <\/em>is in indirect speech, suggesting that the act of narrative reintegration belongs as much to the master narrator as it does to Odysseus. Compare the remarks of Bakker 2013: 11: \u201cIt is as if the poet and the hero are vying for the same space in the presentation of the poem. But they also head toward the same goal.\u201d Penelope also narrates her own trials for Odysseus, so that the scene as a whole integrates the narrative of Odysseus\u2019 journey with the narrative of events on Ithaca in his absence.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> For skhedi\u0113<\/em> (n\u0113us)<\/em> as \u2018improvised ship\u2019 rather than simply \u2018raft,\u2019 see Casson 1964.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Note especially the striking frequency of terms for \u2018joining\u2019 or \u2018fitting\u2019 based on the root \u03b1\u03c1-: \u1f25\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (5.247), \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u1fc3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (5.248), \u1f04\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (5.254). This material quality of fitting well together extends even to the tools used by Odysseus: cf. 5.234 (\u1f04\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd) and 5.236 (\u03b5\u1f56 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Dougherty 2001: 32-37.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> In a keynote address delivered to a conference convened at the University of Zadar, Croatia, on April 7, 2017, I discussed this moment of narrative integration as part of a larger attempt to apply Peter Brooks\u2019 theory of \u201cnarrative desire\u201d to traditional oral narrative. Some of my remarks here are adapted from that presentation.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> See Purves 2006 for analysis of the way in which the inland journey dictated by Teiresias represents a journey beyond the boundaries of the Homeric tradition. Speaking of the scene in which Odysseus relates Teiresias\u2019 prophecy to Penelope (23.239-96), Purves remarks, perceptively, \u201cthe meditation on boundaries at the end of the poem only serves to thematize the possibility of a story\u2019s (endless) expansion within the context of an oral performance that the audience of an epic poem will experience in a way that readers of texts\u2014who can count pages\u2014will not\u201d (17). It will be clear from what follows that I differ somewhat from Purves in my understanding of the oar mistaken for a winnowing-shovel. Purves sees this transformation of the oar\u2019s significance as a sign of a complete break with the Homeric tradition: \u201cFor the Inlanders,\u201d she writes, \u201cthe object on Odysseus\u2019 shoulder . . . is stripped of the symbolic value that it exhibited in Homer\u2019s world\u201d (13). I prefer to see the oar-turned-winnowing-shovel as an index of a totality that escapes the limits of a single narrative instance.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> The Iliad<\/em> has two similes referring to the act of winnowing grain: Il.<\/em> 5.499-503 and 13.588-92. Note that the tertium comparationis<\/em> is somewhat different in these two cases: while the common ground in the Odyssey<\/em> simile centers on the scattering of discrete parts, in the Iliad<\/em> similes the emphasis is on the whitening effect of the dust raised in battle (5.499-503) or the bouncing motion of an arrow that glances off its target (13.588-92). In both these cases, then, the winnowing image is connected to battlefield violence. A similar connection would seem to underlie the poetic kenning for \u2018winnowing-shovel\u2019 that Teiresias offers as a s\u0113ma<\/em>: ath\u0113r\u0113loigos<\/em> (Od.<\/em> 11.128, 23.275), literally, \u2018destroyer of chaff.\u2019 The martial connotations of this term (loigos<\/em> is a frequent Iliadic designation for the destruction of war) may indicate that the totality embraced by this s\u0113ma<\/em> encompasses the Iliad<\/em> as well as the Odyssey<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> In characterizing these two spheres as \u201cradically incommensurate,\u201d I am thinking above all of the distaste for sailing exhibited by the agriculturally-oriented persona of Hesiod in the Works and Days<\/em> (cf. especially 649-51).<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> See Burgess 2004: 8-9, however, for the view that the Iliad<\/em> and Odyssey<\/em> were most likely not performed in their entirety at the Panathenaia. Burgess imagines \u201cdiscontinuous performance of discrete episodes\u201d (11), stressing that \u201cknowledge of the mythological superstructure would ensure that epic presentation of a part would readily suggest the whole of a larger story\u201d (9).<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> For a brief discussion of such a tension in the performance of the Rajasthani epic of P\u0101b\u016bj\u012b, see Smith 1986: 53.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> For the \u2018Panathenaic Rule,\u2019 see Nagy 2010: 21-26 (Nagy prefers the term \u2018Panathenaic Regulation\u2019), and for the \u2018Peisistratean Recension,\u201d see ibid. 314-25 (with references to earlier work).<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Cook 1995 links the Odyssey<\/em> to a specifically Athenian context. He finds traces within the poem of a number of features of Athenian cult, and links the poem\u2019s thematics to the sequence of year-end festivals that culminates in the Panathenaia, which marked the start of the new year in the Athenian calendar. See esp. pp. 128-170.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> By the same token, it is possible to see the Odyssey<\/em>\u2019s self-consciously \u2018disjointed\u2019 treatment of the plot as connected to the Panathenaic principle of performing the poetry of Homer \u201cin order\u201d (ephex\u0113s<\/em>), as expressed by pseudo-Plato, Hipparkhos<\/em> 228b-c (on which passage see Nagy 2002: 9-16). Odysseus\u2019 eventual re-ordering and integration of the story in his narrative for Penelope realizes, within the poem, the organizational imperatives of the Panathenaic context.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Davidson 2013: 46.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Integral Odyssey In a recent essay, Olga Davidson has explored, with her characteristic elegance and insight, a variety of myths that describe the authoritative presentation of an oral epic tradition in terms of the disintegration and subsequent reintegration of a primordial book.[1] Her point of departure and primary focus is a brief narrative in … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “David F. Elmer”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/238"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=238"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":240,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/238\/revisions\/240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}