The study of early Greek epic was always at the forefront of research activity in the field of Classics. One, and perhaps, the main reason was Homer, a poet who has been an icon of Greek poetry and culture throughout the centuries. It was only to be expected that the Iliad and the Odyssey would still attract intense scholarly interest, as they had already done in antiquity. In the last fifty years major developments have taken place, both in the field of Homeric studies and in the rest of early Greek epic. These developments have not only created a more solid basis for studying the Homeric epics, but they have also broadened our horizons with respect to the place of Homeric poetry within a larger cultural milieu. The impressive advances in Hesiodic studies, the more systematic approach to the Epic Cycle, the more nuanced use and re-evaluation of dominant twentieth-century theories like Neoanalysis and Oral Theory, the study of other fragmentary Greek epic, the cognitive turn, narratology, the performance of epic poetry in the ancient and modern world, the fruitful utilization of Indo-European material, and the widely accepted recognition of the close relation between Homer and the mythology and literature of the ancient Near East have virtually shaped anew the way we read and understand Homer. The studies collected in this volume, which represent part of my work during the last twenty years and are informed by most of the aforementioned sub-fields, span four research areas: (i) Homer; (ii) Hesiod; (iii) the Epic Cycle; (d) the performance of epic. They owe a lot to a host of scholars, whose scientific contributions have made me think, re-evaluate, and explore further the fascinating world of early Greek epic. In what follows, I offer a brief presentation of my own research input within the on-going dialogue pertaining to early Greek epic.

(i) In the field of Homeric studies, Neoanalysis and Oral Theory have been injected with new blood. Several scholars have opted for a more nuanced and methodologically consistent version of the theoretical basis on which rests each of these two schools of Homeric criticism. Others have considerably broadened the range of material which can be employed as a backdrop for testing all relevant arguments.

Georg Danek1 has masterfully applied the neoanalytical Quellenforschung to the entire Odyssey, while being alert to the impressive advances of the Oral Theory concerning traditionality and performance. On a methodological level, his main contribution is the notion of Zitat (‘citation’). Danek argues that the Odyssey consistently ‘cites’ its sources by recourse to a system of references embedded into the text. Another principal contribution of Danek is his systematic and thorough exploration of alternative versions of Odysseus’ return that the Homeric Odyssey regularly employs as cues for its audience. In the English-speaking world, the main contributions are those by Jonathan Burgess2 and Bruno Currie.3 Both scholars have had a significant input with respect to several methodological issues, which an earlier form of neoanalytical criticism ignored. They have addressed crucial matters pertaining to the function of allusion in early Greek epic and discussed the controversial issues of text-fixity and symptomatic versus intentional thematic and phraseological repetition. Currie has also extended the scope of neoanalytical research by bringing into the discussion Greek hymnic and ancient Near Eastern poetry. Another strong voice is that of Margalit Finkelberg who has both enlarged the neoanalytical source-pool4 and offered refined and subtle arguments as regards the metacyclic nature of Homeric epic5 and the relation between oral-formulaic theory and the individual poet.6 Michael Reichel7 has meticulously studied the intratextual references in the Iliad, which display a remarkable precision and cohesion which he explained as the work of a single poet who used writing in the composition of the poem. Reichel has also debated the orality of Homeric poetry favoring the neoanalytical method. A special place is occupied by Ernst Heitsch8 who stands between Analysis and Neoanalysis. Heitsch claimed that a short poem on Aeneas is a source on which draw both the Iliad and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. He also accepts the basic neonalytical view about the influence of the Aethiopis on the Iliad. For him Homer is the last poet of the Iliad who gave the epic its final shaping in seventh-century Athens.

As regards the Oral Theory, Gregory Nagy has been the principal driving force behind its application to technical matters,9 interpretation,10 and the shaping11 of Homeric epic. His evolutionary model, which involves five periods corresponding to degrees of gradually increasing crystallization12 has given to the Oral Theory a depth that was lacking from its first stages. The evolutionary model amounts to a ‘response’ to criticism pertaining to the question of fixity and the process of fixation of Homeric poetry and is against the dictation theory13 that aimed at finding a middle ground between an oral and a writing Homer.14 A welcome ‘turn’ to the dictation theory has recently been suggested by Jonathan Ready,15 who draws on the testimony of folklorists and ethnographers engaged with the study of modern instances of the textualization of oral traditional works, and opts for a textualization of Homeric epic by means of a process involving a collector who had a poet dictate his version of the Iliad and the Odyssey to a scribe. For Ready, the Homeric text should be seen as the cocreation of the performer, collector, and scribe. Further boost to the Oral Theory has been given by John Miles Foley whose methodical, meticulous, and exceptionally erudite studies have substantially enlarged the reach of the oral theory and improved our knowledge of oral poetry across the globe.16 A special place among oralists is occupied by Oliver Taplin,17 who envisages an oral Homer, trained in oral traditional epic and composing the Iliad by employing the techniques of oral composition. Taplin explains the cohesion, interaction between scenes separated by thousands of verses, and structural unity of the Iliad by suggesting that Homer performed different parts of his epic at different venues throughout his life and continued to work on it, implementing changes, omissions, and adaptations. Taplin’s theory of an oral poet working over an extended period of many years is analogous to M.L. West’s theory of two poets who are also trained in oral traditional epic but compose the Iliad and the Odyssey respectively by recourse to writing over an extended period of his life.18 Oral Theory has also gained a great deal both by its creative use of linguistics and by using formulaic material in a more nuanced and interpretively meaningful way. In the field of linguistics, the contribution of Egbert Bakker is of special merit. By applying linguistic theory to the study of Homeric style, Bakker argued that formulas should be studied within the framework of spoken speech.19 For him, epic language contains devices which allow the performer of epic song to bring the past to the present. By employing discourse analysis, he has demonstrated that epic employs an entire deictic system that creates vividness, which lies at the heart of the performance of Homeric poetry.20 A chief representative of the study of the inspired and resourceful use of diction in Homeric epic is Richard Martin,21 who has studied direct speech in the Iliad. Being alert to the advances made in ethnography, sociolinguistics, literary theory and folklore studies, Martin treats speeches as authoritative speech-acts, where traditionality and spontaneity coexist. The surprising ways speakers combine, alter, adapt, and even misuse traditional diction results in the creation of individual idiolects that mark each character’s voice as unique. Significant are also the contributions of Pietro Pucci and Ruth Scodel. Pucci showed how the interaction between the two Homeric epics on the level of phraseology creates meaning. His intertextual approach is bidirectional: from the Iliad to the Odyssey and from the Odyssey to the Iliad.22 Scodel has studied how oral poets tailored individual nuances to their audiences, while dealing with traditional material that they had learned from earlier poets. She has argued that the oral poet, while pretending that the content of his song is familiar to his audience, makes sure that all kinds of listeners can follow and enjoy it. Innovation and originality could hardly be identified by the audience, since Homeric epic tends to traditionalize what is new with respect to the performance and, at the same time, present it as authoritative.23

These are some of the studies which have played a key role in the fields of Neoanalysis and Oral Theory. Furthermore, progress in Homeric research has been also made possible by new textual editions and commentaries. The publication of the scholia vetera (Hartmut Erbse)24 and the D-scholia (Helmut van Thiel)25 to the Iliad, the...