¹ Hainsworth 1991: 1–10 gives a superb and undogmatic overview of the various meanings of the word ‘epic’; see also Hutchinson 2013: 20–1 on ‘hexameters’ as a superordinate genre.

² Oxford University Press, 2015.

³ Cf. Arist. Poet. 1447b.17–20, treating Empedocles as a φυσιολόγος rather than a ποιητής because his poetry is not imitative.

⁴ See pp. 26–7 above.

⁵ Cf. Martin 2005, arguing that the Shield is more typical of early hexameter poetry than Homer.

⁶ For an exemplar of the bottom-up approach see Thalmann 1984; for the top-down approach, Ford 1992 (on Homer), 1997: 399–408 (more general).

⁷ Arist. Poet. 1451a.20 appears to refer to multiple Theseids, but only two extant fragments are linked to the title.

⁸ Argonautica narrative: frs. 3–9. Genealogical poem ‘about women’: test. and fr. 11.

⁹ Arist. Poet. 1449b. See also Kirk 1962: 372–85; Redfield 1975; Griffin 1980; R. Rutherford 1982.

¹⁰ See M. L. West 2007: 63–8, 396–410 on Indo-European praise poetry and heroic narrative.

¹¹ Nagy 1979: 16–17; Thalmann 1984: 124–31. For contrary views see Ford 1992: 59–67; Olson 1995: 1–23.

¹² Il. 9.189–91 (Achilles); Od. 8.72–5 (Demodocus); Il. 9.524–5 (Phoenix's spoken story of Meleager).

¹³ Nagy 1974: 229–65; Watkins 1995: 173–8; Finkelberg 2007. Nagy 1990: 146–52 argues that Homeric epic (κλέος-poetry) and Pindar's epinician verse (αἶνος-poetry) are cognate genres, both descended distantly from praise poetry.

¹⁴ Thus Nagy 1979: 94–7 (on Theog.), 181–7 (on Hymn. Hom. Dem.).

¹⁵ The seminal analysis is Pl. Resp. iii.392c–394c; see also Arist. Poet. 1448a.19–29, 1448b.34–8, 1460a.5–11.

¹⁶ See especially S. Richardson 1990: 167–96 on ‘self-consciousness’ and fourth-wall-breaking in Homer (e.g. when the poet directly addresses a Muse, a character in the story, or the audience; comments on plot developments; etc.).

¹⁷ Lewis 1942: 19–25; Auerbach 2003: 3–23; Ledbetter 2003: 9–39; Beecroft 2010: 61–105.

¹⁸ See pp. vi–x on ‘Homer’ and ‘Hesiod’ as personas and their relationship to the narratorial voice.

¹⁹ See especially De Jong 1987, 2001; Minchin 2001. De Jong 2006 argues (contra Ford 1992) that Homeric epic creates κλέος for the poet as well as for the heroes.

²⁰ M. L. West 1997: 306–33; I. Rutherford 2009: 14–19. On the reception of Hesiodic ‘didactic poetry’ see Hunter 2014: 40–122.

²¹ M. L. West 1978: 22–5 presents a more detailed overview of Archaic Greek wisdom poetry (but omitting the pre-Socratics).

²² This can be challenged in specific cases: for example, Schmidt 1986 sees the Perses of the Works and Days as a proxy for the kings whom Hesiod criticizes.

²³ For poets as proto-sophists see Pl. Prt. 316d. Homer uses divinities to represent natural forces: e.g. Theaet. 152e.

²⁴ See further M. L. West 1997: 276–305; I. Rutherford 2009: 9–14, 22–35.

²⁵ Ziegler, in Roscher 1884–1937: v.1469–1554, gives the most detailed account of early Greek theogonic literature, including prose sources.

²⁶ The births of the Strifes, WD 11–26; Prometheus and Pandora, 47–105; the Myth of the Races, 106–201.

²⁷ See especially Clay 1989 on the major Hymns’ preoccupation with the establishment of a stable divine order.

²⁸ Lane Fox 2008: 350.

²⁹ Il. 14.200–4 (cf. 14.246 and 14.302), 15.187–99, 18.394–409.

³⁰ Il. 1.396–406, 2.781–3 (Typhoeomachy), 5.392–4. Il. 20.19–74 may echo a Titanomachy or Gigantomachy. See also Od. 11.305–20 and Cat. frs. 16–17 on the Aloeadae attempting to conquer Olympus.

³¹ Il. 1.565–7, 1.580–1, 1.590–4, 8.7–27, 15.16–24, 15.178–86, 19.126–31. See also Od. 5.121–8.

³² As a recent example see Kelly 2012 (on recognition scenes in Odyssey 23).

³³ See Hainsworth 1990: 250 on the Odyssey: ‘In the most favourable circumstances, when a scene is of a very frequent kind…it is possible to discern the poet's units of composition. Closer analysis, however, is apt to lose its objective character…Analysis into themes, therefore, may legitimately vary from one critic to another.’

³⁴ Hymn. Hom. Herm. 429–30; Pind. Nem. 2.1–3; Thuc. 3.104.4; ps.-Plut. De mus. 1133c. Cf. Od. 8.499, Demodocus beginning his song ‘from the god’; see Clay 2011: 238 for discussion.

³⁵ Προοίμιον also had more than one meaning in antiquity: in Ar. Eq. 1343 and Arist. Rh. iii.1414b.19–26 it means the opening of a show speech; in Crates of Mallos fr. 1 Broggiato (=Life of Homer 10.B.1 West) it means the same as English ‘proem’. See also Nagy 2009: 230, who takes -οιμ- < *soim-, hence προοίμιον = ‘pre-threading’.

³⁶ Janko 1981. Mythic: Hymns 2, 4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 26, 28, 31, 33; composite: Hymns 1, 3.179–546, 5, 19, Theog. 1–34; prolonged: Hymn 3.1–178, Theog. 35–105, and add Simonides’ hymn to Achilles (frs. eleg. 10 and 11, provided that fr. 10 comes from an attributive section); attributive: Hymns 9–12, 14, 21–5, 27, 29, 30, 32, W&D 1–10; defective: Hymns 12, 13. (See above p. 20 on Hymn 8, written over a millennium later.)

³⁷ Crates of Mallos fr. 78 Broggiato (Hes. test. 50). See M. L. West 1966: 136–7 on ancient obelization of the Theogony and Works and Days proems.

³⁸ Similarly Clay 1997: 498.

³⁹ Aloni 1980 argues that hymns’ preludic function extended into the Hellenistic period.

⁴⁰ Arend 1933 is the seminal discussion; Edwards 1992 gives an overview in English, with extensive bibliography.

⁴¹ Minchin 2001: 32–72 discusses type scenes in relation to a performer's cognitive competences.

⁴² On arming scenes see Arend 1933: 92–8; Kirk 1985: 313–16.

⁴³ Reece 1993: 5–46 discusses formal patterns in hospitality scenes, with analysis of Hymn. Hom. Dem. at 229–30.

⁴⁴ On adornment or beautification scenes see Arend 1933: 97–8 and Table 7.

⁴⁵ Major Homeric genealogies: Il. 6.150–211 (Glaucus), 14.110–27 (Diomedes), 20.213–41 (Aeneas); Od. 15.225–55 (Theoclymenus). Briefer examples: Il. 13.448–54 (Idomeneus), 21.186–91 (Achilles); Od. 7.56–66 (Alcinous), 16.115–20 (Odysseus).

⁴⁶ Naupactia test. and fr. 11.

⁴⁷ M. L. West 1985: 46–7.

⁴⁸ On these principles see M. L. West 1966: 34–9.

⁴⁹ Il. 6.156–202 (Bellerophon); Cat. frs. 22.20–33, 31.13–33.9, 139–141 (Heracles), frs. 47–51 (Atalanta), frs. 69–71 (Mestra).

⁵⁰ M. L. West 1966: 31; Muellner 1996: 56.

⁵¹ See especially Visser 1997. See also Sammons 2010, arguing that Homeric catalogues are designed to compete with Hesiodic and Cyclic ones.

⁵² On typical elements see especially Edwards 1980; see also Kirk 1985: 170–7 (on the Catalogue of Ships).

⁵³ On this class of catalogues see Tsagalis 2010.

⁵⁴ I. Rutherford 2000.

⁵⁵ Catalogue of Ships: Il. 2.484–779; Trojan Catalogue: 2.815–77; Myrmidons: 16.112–13 (invocation of Muse) and 168–97 (full catalogue entry).

⁵⁶ Naupactia fr. 4 states that the poet ‘lists all the heroes recognized[?] by him’ (πάντας ἀριθμεῖ τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ φερομένους ἀριστεῖς). ὑπ′ αὐτοῦ is an emendation, and the meaning of φερομένους is uncertain. Cf. Ap. Rhod. Argon. 1.20–233.

⁵⁷ On the artistic character of the Catalogue of Ships see especially Minchin 2001: 73–99.

⁵⁸ Northrup 1980: 152 notes the frequent references to children in the Odyssey's catalogue of heroines.

⁵⁹ Naupactia test. and fr. 11.

⁶⁰ On epic proems generally see Bassett 1934; G. Wheeler 2002; Harden and Kelly 2013, with a formal analysis similar to the one given here. To avoid terminological problems Bassett uses the term ‘induction’, while Wheeler uses ‘introit’. There are also many studies especially of the Odyssey proem (see Wheeler for bibliography). Confusion arises when hymns are called ‘proems’, especially in poems that have both, such as the Theogony: in the senses used here, the Theogony's opening hymn occupies lines 1–104, while the proem is at 104–15.

⁶¹ Surviving exemplars are: Il. 1.1–10ff. (it would be wrong to specify a definite end point because of the way in which the relative clauses expand gradually into the main narrative); Od. 1.1–11ff.; Cat. fr. 1.1–15ff.; Theog. 104–15; Epigoni fr. 1; Little Iliad frs. 1 and 28 Bernabé (the latter=fr. 1 West); Choerilus, Persica frs. 1 and 2 Bernabé. On the Little Iliad proem see Scafoglio 2006; on the Persica proem see MacFarlane 2009. Harden and Kelly 2013 also interpret Odysseus’ request to Demodocus (Od. 8.492–9ff.) as a proem of sorts, and Hermes’ first song (Hymn. Hom. Herm. 52–62) as a blend of hymn and proem.

⁶² See especially Pedrick 1992 (on the Odyssey proem); G. Wheeler 2002.

⁶³ Scafoglio 2006.

⁶⁴ On this transition see especially I. Rutherford 2001: 44–5.

⁶⁵ Hymns 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, 31, 32, 33.

⁶⁶ For detailed discussion see Clay 2003: 58–67.

⁶⁷ See also Snell 1953: 136–52, who outlines the development of this dichotomy from Homer to Parmenides, adducing Heracleitus and Xenophanes in addition to the texts mentioned here.

⁶⁸ See M. L. West 2007: 95–9 on the Indo-European background to the Greek simile.

⁶⁹ Beall 2004, esp. 27–9; Snell 1953: 191–226.

⁷⁰ See also frs. B 23.1–10 (mixing of paints as an analogy for the blending of the elements), B 100.8–22 (suction in a water clock as an analogy for blood vessels).

⁷¹ Especially Fontenrose 1978: 11–57, 166–95; also Parke and Wormell 1956: xxi–xxxvi (neither discussion attempts to tie characteristics to specific eras).

⁷² Fontenrose 1978: 13–20.

⁷³ Fontenrose 1978: 177–9.

⁷⁴ On the conditionals in Teiresias’ prophecy see especially Peradotto 1985: 438–43.

⁷⁵ See recently Steiner 2012, with bibliography. Epimenides fr. 45 Bernabé also draws on this fable.

⁷⁶ Il. 9.527–605, 24.601–20. On parables in Homer generally see Pelliccia in Finkelberg 2011b: ii.622–4; on mythical paradigms or ‘para-narratives’ see Alden 2000.

⁷⁷ Panyassis frs. 19–22. West takes frs. 20–2 as Heracles replying prudently to Eurytus’ reckless encouragement. More plausible is Huxley's view (1969: 178–9) that the fragments are all spoken by Eurytus, who begins by enthusing about wine but becomes hesitant as he sees his guest becoming more drunk and more dangerous. On this reading the most likely sequence is: 19, 21, 20, 22 (the pairs 19, 21 and 20, 22 are in any case suggested by their grouping in Athenaeus, our source for the fragments, ii.36d–37d).

⁷⁸ P.Oxy. 4708; on the new Archilochus as exemplum see especially Swift 2012.

⁷⁹ On the route see Kirk 1985: 183–6.

⁸⁰ See further N. Richardson 2010: 10–13.

⁸¹ Od. 11.225–330 (on the route see Northrup 1980); Cat. frs. 154b to 155.64 (M. L. West 1985: 114–19); Hymn. Hom. Herm. 68–145, Hermes’ odd route from Pieria to Mount Cyllene (Arcadia) via Onchestus (Boeotia) and the river Alpheios (Elis).

⁸² Simon. fr. eleg. 11.29–43 (the march from Sparta northward to Plataea); Aesch. Ag. 281–311 (Clytemnestra's beacons across the Aegean).

⁸³ See Myres 1941 for a detailed reconstruction with illustrations. On symbolism in this ekphrasis see especially Thalmann 1984: 62–4; Becker 1992.

⁸⁴ Lynn-George 1978 makes a compelling argument that Il. 18.535–40 is interpolated from Shield 156–60.

⁸⁵ Francis 2009: 13–17.

⁸⁶ The full story appears in Charax FGrH 103 fr. 5; see also M. L. West 2003a: 167 n. 69.

⁸⁷ Pace West, στύραξ=‘butt-spike’ (cf. Xen. Hell. 6.2.19; Pl. Lach. 184a; Hesych. σ.2092). The detail of the haft appears in sch. Opp. Hal. 2.497.

⁸⁸ See Davies 2001: 17. The bronze ἔλλοπας ἰχθῦς (‘mute fish’) in Shield 212–13 indicate that this phrase is from an ekphrasis; see also M. L. West 2003a: 233 n. 14, arguing that Eumelus’ fish are real ones in a lake.

⁸⁹ M. L. West 2003b: 16–17.

⁹⁰ Thalmann 1984: 4–28. From a narratological perspective see also Minchin 2007: 102–16 on hysteron prōton, Minchin 2001: 181–202 on ring composition.