read them with the same pleasure and made no difference among all of them.

Five years later, during mu studies in Belgrade, I read Homer directed in mu reading by Milo Duri s brilliant lectures, a distinguished hellenist and inspired professor. I had the feeling then that I was reading Homer for the first time. I discovered at that time, as I can remember, the most important idea of the ancient writer! to interpel the immense hellenic mythology in his wor" and to ma"e it active and alive. For my third reading I was instigated by Aderbah's "Mimesis". #hrough his analysis I discovered the essence of the fundamental works like Homer's ones, and the Bible with its importance for the civili ation movements. !o the fourth reading " was attracted with the ""liad" translation into Macedonian by our educated hellenist Mihailo #etrugevski. Besides, " was convinced after manu times that i can be translated into all the languages, however, among the rest, in a moment during my reading " thought$ How did the ancient %reeks read the ""liad". Because " still don't have an answer to this &uestion " am going to finish this e'plication with two optional conclusions$ (irst$ everybody discovers the identity of each work for himself and )econd$ each reader discovers himself during his reading. )lobodan Mickovid

!he *iterature and the "dentity

"

t seems, first of all, that with the sub+ect posted in that way we get an a'iom which makes our conversation meaningless. But, if we scrape the selfproved part of the a'iom a number of &uestions will appear. (or e'ample$ ,hat proves the evident selfproving that the literature is something created in a way that with the creation itself acknowledges its own e'istence. ,hat e'presses the identity in the literature, that e'treme self-proving. /oes that happen only in a national literature corpus. /oes each work of a particular author e'press a particular identity. "f each work has its own identity, if it is uni&ue, independent, self-confident, self-proving, can we read it at all. "s it possible for us to critici e it. 0an we understand it. ,e already have many &uestions and there is none answer.

!he sub+ect is, however, essential, in its widht and depth, and it is worth discussing. Among the great number of &uestions that need to be answered " will scope another one that has not been posted yet$ How is it possible that the universality of a body, often heard as a flocculus, if it testifies itself with its own e'istence, appears as artefact. How big is its universe then. *et's look back in the capital work of our civili ation, the Homer work. ,hat is his identity and what can he, if we comprehend him, prove and e'plain to is. My personal e'perience about this &uesion is as follows. ,e had Homer in our school programs very early, in the seventh grade when we were only thirteen years old. !hose who decided so probably had counted on the attractive action of the ""liad", and "1dyssey" particular2' , that it would be attractive for our age. And they didn't make a mistake. " recall that we read in that time Homer, 0ervantes who was probably chosen by the same reasons, but we also read 0onan /oyle, (enimar 0ooper and 0arl May on our own choice although they were not in our school program. ,e

34

Ilk

35