Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2020
Every facet of this topic has generated a lengthy bibliography within the last two centuries. The following touch on some central themes and contain many further leads to other secondary literature.
Grandolini (1996) comments in detail on the Homeric passages dealing with song. Excellent surveys of the dynamics of poetry as depicted in Homer are Walsh (1984), Segal ( 2001), Ford (1992), and Scodel (2002). Peponi (2012) examines responses to song in Homer and the Hymns, with a sustained reading of the Sirens episode and scenes from Odyssey Book 8 in particular.
On the general problems of intertextuality in Homeric poetry see Tsagalis (2008). On relative dating and the crystallization of the Homeric text, especially as it relates to the Panathenaic contests, essential are the works of Nagy (1996a, 2002, 2003a, 2009c, 2010). Kotsidu (1991) has a full appendix of primary texts relating to the festival. Herington (1985) contains a useful section on rhapsodes.
For individual song and recitation genres connected to epic portrayals, a survey with further bibliography can be found in Lambin (1992). On the history of the paean, see Rutherford (2001). Burkert (1987b) examines the interaction of rhapsodic practice and Stesichorean choral lyric. Dalby (1995) looks at other lyric genres. Karanika (2014) analyzes women’s work songs, with modern Greek parallels. Steinrück (2008) speculates about the relation of iambos to the Odyssey. Power (2010) is a superb history of singing to the kithara. The genre of lament has been analyzed fully by Alexiou (2002), Dué (2002), and Tsagalis (2004); Martin (2003) examines Helen’s role as a lament maker.
Important comparative material on the status of poets, the performance of epic, and embedded smaller genres can be found in Lord (1991 and  2000) and the essays in Foley (2005). Highly relevant comparanda for oral-traditional poetics are in Williams and Ford (1992, Ireland), Austen (1999, West Africa), and Reynolds (1995, Egypt). Pagliai (2009) surveys poeticized insult traditions worldwide. Martin (1989) uses ethnographies of speaking to analyze paraliterary performance in the Iliad.
On the eighth-century b.c. Dipylon vase see Watkins (1976). Further detailed work on specific Homeric scenes discussed in this chapter includes Doherty (1995) and Martin (2001) on Odyssey Book 11; Becker (1995) on Achilles’ shield; Dougherty (1991) on Phemius as autodidact; Stephens (2002) on the Linos song and its later reception; Ford (1999) on Odyssey Book 9; Braswell (1982) on the Song of Ares and Aphrodite; and Mackie (1997) on Odyssean stories as distinct from song making. Nagy ( 1999) has a wealth of insightful comments on many individual passages relevant to the poetics of the Iliad and Odyssey.
Recent surveys of Homeric Greek include Janko 1992, Horrocks 1997, and Hackstein 2010. On the influence of Homer on Greek literature, see Hunter 2004; discussion of the legacy of epic in archaic lyric in Silk 2010; special speech: Bakker 1997. The conception of an artificial Kunstsprache is developed in the work of Witte (papers collected in Witte 1972) and Meister (1921) and grounded in oral tradition in Parry 1932. On the development of Homeric diction from its (pre-)Mycenaean origins to Ionic, see S. West 1988 and Ruijgh 1995. The idea of an Aeolic stage is defended in Janko 1982, 1992, S. West 1988, Ruijgh 1995, among others; critique (and to my mind, refutation) of the idea in Horrocks 1997 and Jones 2012. On augment, see Bakker 2005. The “autonomy” of words in Homeric syntax is discussed in Chantraine 1953 (12–21), who speaks of syntaxe appositionnelle; also Devine and Stephens 2000, and Bakker 2011. The cognitive approach to Homeric discourse is presented in Bakker 1997 and 2005.
PP = Nagy, G. 1996a. Poetry as Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HQ = Nagy, G. 1996b. Homeric Questions. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
HR = Nagy, G. 2003a. Homeric Responses. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
HTL = Nagy, G. 2004. Homer’s Text and Language. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
HC = Nagy, G. 2009c. Homer the Classic. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.
HPC = Nagy, G. 2010. Homer the Preclassic. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
For more on the idea of text as a metaphor and the relationship of Homeric poetry to the festival of the Panathenaia in Athens, see Panathenaia. As I argue elsewhere, Homeric poetry as song actually compares itself to the weaving of the peplos or “robe” of Athena in the historical context of celebrating the Panathenaia (analysis in HPC 266‒72). See also Early Editions for more on the Homeric texts. Ancient editions show traces of the multitextuality of these texts, which in turn shows the multiformity of Homeric poetry as song. (For more on multiformity and the Homer Multitext see Dué 2019.) Finally, see Homer and the Alphabet: from the standpoint of my argumentation, alphabetic literacy has nothing to do with the actual composition of Homeric poetry in all its multiformity.
For the text see Wölke 1978; Glei 1984; Fusillo 1988; and West 2003b. For a discussion of date and authorship, see Ludwich 1896; Rzach 1913; Bliquez 1977; and West 2003b. For the literary nature of parody and is cultural context, see Schibli 1983; Most 1993; Olson and Sens 1999; Sens 2005; Scodel 2008a; and Kelly 2009. For translation and commentary, see Christensen and Robinson 2018.
On Didymus and the Homeric editions he consulted, see West 2001, 50‒73. On the “city editions,” see Citti 1966 and West 2001, 67‒72 (with bibliography). On the meaning of ekdosis in antiquity see van Groningen 1963. For a survey of what an ancient Alexandrian edition looked like, see Montanari 2002, 120‒27; Schironi 2018, 49‒62.
For ekphrasis as an art form and as a genre of description, see Friedländer 1912, Spitzer 1955, Perutelli 1978, Barthes 1986, Fowler 1991, Krieger 1992, Webb 1999, and Elsner 2002. For ekphrasis in Epic, see Kurman 1974. For Achilles’ shield, see Atchity 1978, Hardie 1985, Byre 1992‒1993, Becker 1995, Rabel 1997, Scully 2003.
For Proclus and Photius, see Severyns 1928 and 1938, and West 2013; For the development of the epic cycle, see Davies 1989, and West 2013; Fantuzzi and Tsagalis 2014; For the texts of the Epic Cycle, see Davies 1988 and Bernabé 1987; for differences between Homer and the poems of the Epic Cycle, see Griffin 1977 and Burgess 2001. For the influence of cyclic poems on the Iliad and the Odyssey see Kullman 1960 and Montanari et al. 2012.
For analogical formulae, see Lord  2000, Russo 1966, Hainsworth 1968, Ingalls 1976, and Minton 1965. Cf. Russo 1997, 243‒52. For the contextual meaning debate, see Whallon 1969, Vivante 1982, and Sacks 1987. For Homeric composition and language, see Visser 1987, Foley 1988 and Bakker 1997. For oral culture, see Lord  2000, Finnegan 1977, Ong 1982, Havelock 1982, and Gentili 1988.
For general discussions of gods in epic, see Calhoun 1937; Griffin 1980; Erbse 1986; Richardson 1993, 25‒33; and Kearns 2004. For ancient traditions of interpretation, see Lamberton 1986. For ritual and Homeric gods, see Otto 1954; Burkert  1985; and Cook 1995. For the gods’ relationship to Greek society, see Adkins 1972; and Yamagata 1994; for continuities between Hesiodic and Homeric representations of the divine, see Clay  2006 (on the Hymns); Clay 2003; and Graziosi and Haubold 2005; for the relationship between human agency and the divine realm, see Dodds  1997; Snell  1960; Gill 1996; and Allan 2006. For the narrative functions of the gods, see Lowe 2000; Pucci 2002; and Heiden 2002.
The classic statement on comparative method is Meillet  1967. For an introduction to PIE, Indo-European languages, and Indo-European culture see Fortson 2010. The classic comprehensive investigation of Indo-European culture through its vocabulary is Benveniste 1973. On Indo-European poetics see the extended treatment in Watkins 1995, brief summary in Katz 2010. For a discussion of the Indo-European context of Greek epic, the methodology and the benefits of its study, see Katz 2005. For a concise introduction to Indo-European myth in Homer, see Nagy 1990b (chapter 1). For a general survey of Indo-European poetry and myth see Puhvel 1987, West 2007. A controversial and influential theory of Indo-European myth and society is Dumézil 1968‒1973. For a more theoretical discussion of approaches to Indo-European mythology, see Jackson 1999. On the Indo-European heritage of the Greek concept of the hero, see Nagy 2005. On various aspects of Indo-European mythology in Homer, see Muellner  2016, 1996, Nagy  1999, 1990b, Frame 1978 and 2009, Jamison 1994, 1996, 1999, 2001, Boedeker 1974, Watkins 1979, 1995, Steets 1993, Edmunds 2016, Platte 2017, Walsh 2005, and Compton 2006. On Celtic parallels to Penelope and Damayanti, see McCone 1990, and Dooley 2006.
Rohde 1925; Snell  1960; Dodds  1997 (chapter 5); Onians 1954; Ireland and Steel 1975; Redfield 1975:175‒86; Burkert  1985; Darcus 1979; Renehan 1979; Vermeule 1979; Darcus 1980; Claus 1981; Kovel 1981; Lescher 1981; Dihle 1982; Bremmer 1983; Darcus Sullivan 1987; Caswell 1990; Pelliccia 1995; Darcus Sullivan 1996; Koziak 1999; Martin and Barresi 2006; Bremmer 2010; Purves 2011a; Dova 2012; Long 2015.
For an introduction to scholia, see Dickey 2007, 11‒16 (on “scholia” as genre) and 18‒23 (on Homeric scholia). On the different components of the Homeric scholia and manuscripts containing them, see Erbse 1969‒1988, I, xi‒lix; for a survey of ancient scholarship on Homer with a discussion of how it was transmitted in the different sources, see Pontani 2005, 42‒103. On the content of the exegetical scholia, see Schmidt 1976; Richardson 1980; Nünlist 2009. For a survey of the different topics discussed in scholia and for a comparison between scholia maiora and hupomnēmata on papyrus, see Schironi 2012. On how to use the scholia of Didymus and Aristonicus to reconstruct Aristarchus’s work on Homer, see Schironi 2015.