Introduction

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 theIliad and theOdyssey 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 neoanalyticalQuellenforschung to the entireOdyssey, 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 ofZitat (‘citation’). Danek argues that theOdyssey 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 HomericOdyssey 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