Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SVEN-TAGE TEODORSSON
A
The still ongoing discussion about the question as to when the Homeric
poems were recorded in writing is paradoxical, considering that Milman
Parry did not present a clear idea of this issue, while Albert Lord declared
his unequivocal opinion that Homer himself dictated them. The notion of
a long period of oral transmission until they were finally recorded in the
Pisistratean recension can be seen as a continuation of the old ‘analyst’
theory. It is now time to abandon this theory, seeing that the evidence in
favour of recording in the eighth century has become increasingly stronger
in recent decades. Three contemporary factors in that century together
form decisive evidence indicating that the recording happened at that time,
(1) the intense influence of Eastern culture, not least the influence of lit-
eracy, (2) the newly invented Greek alphabet, and (3) the appearance of
the genius of Homer.
the work of one author and must have been recorded in writing in
his time, while on the other side there are the modernized follow-
ers of Robert Wood (1717-1771), who argued that Homer could
not have been a literate poet, and Friedrich August Wolf (1759-
1824), who, presupposing that the alphabet was not yet in use,
argued that Homer could not have composed poems of the length
of the Iliad and the Odyssey; instead these poems were gradually built
up and expanded, layer by layer, during a period of oral transmission
until they were recorded in writing in the Pisistratean recension.
The discoveries of Parry and Lord have changed the basis for
both sides as to how to explain the genesis of the Homeric poems.
The new understanding of the nature of oral poetry which these
pioneers provided made the old positions untenable, to unitarians
as well as to analysts. Parry’s discovery of the strict technique of
making verse by means of formulaic phrases and noun-epithet for-
mulae made it possible to understand how an oral tradition can be
relatively stable and unchanging over long periods of time.
As a consequence, unitarians could no more regard Homer as a
literate poet like Vergil or Dante sitting at ease, pen in hand, com-
posing his hexameters. The basic material of the poems had obvi-
ously been transmitted orally over a period of time of undefined
length and had not been produced by the author himself at the
moment of composition. The formulaic verse structure clearly showed
that the author of the Homeric poems was primarily an oral poet.
Also the analyst position appeared as no longer tenable. The idea
of distinct layers of composition or different versions of various date
and provenience was not compatible with the picture of an oral
tradition of fluid poetry existing in improvised performances. However,
it now seemed no less reasonable to assume a long period of oral
transmission without great damage to the composition of the author.
Parry himself never expressed any positive opinion about the rela-
tion of Homer’s lifetime to the final shape of the poems. The open
question has nevertheless been commonly answered by the follow-
ers and admirers of Parry in the traditional analyst way, i.e. they
have maintained, and still do, that the poems were not recorded
in writing until the Pisistratean recension.
Milman Parry made two great achievements during his short life:
(1) In his very first scientific production (published only in 1971),
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 163
Thus, even if the situation for creative singers was not so bad as
described by Parry, several scholars could not reconcile themselves
to the image of Homer as a singer prevented by the rigorous pat-
tern of formulae and themes from making full use of his creative
genius. Wade-Gery (1952, 38 f.) expressed the feelings of disap-
pointment of many classicists with a crushing simile: “As Darwin
seemed to many to have removed the finger of God from the cre-
ation of the world and of man, so Milman Parry has seemed to
some to remove the creative poet from the Iliad and Odyssey.” Bowra,
who possessed a broad and sound knowledge of oral poetry, espe-
cially Russian songs, expressed a balanced judgement when he
observed: “Behind him [Homer] lie centuries of oral performance,
largely improvised, with all its wealth of formulae adapted to an
exacting metre; these he knows and uses fully. But if he also knows
writing and is able to commit his poems to it, he is enabled to give
a far greater precision and care to what he says than any impro-
vising poet ever can. Since it is almost impossible to believe that
the Iliad and Odyssey were ever improvised, and the richness of their
poetry suggests some reliance on writing, we may see in them exam-
ples of what happens when writing comes to help the oral bard.
He continues to compose in the same manner as before, but with
far greater care and effectiveness.”4)
This criticism could not, of course, be neglected or explained
away. It made Parry’s followers, with Lord in the lead, focus their
studies on the crucial period of transmission from oral to written
technique. This had never been done by Parry, who was entirely
concerned with the tradition and the conservative function of the
formulaic style, and less interested in the process of transmitting
oral poetry into written texts. He criticized those scholars who, in
studying and comparing ancient poetry, Greek, Saxon, Welsh, Irish,
Norse, and German, regard them primarily as literary works. He
regretted that they did not realize that these poems differed from
later literature not so much because they are products of an older
kind of culture, “but because they are two kinds of form: the one part
points out that “we know from other traditions that when writing
has arrived at the moment when it is used for artistic purposes, the
first things written are the songs of the peoples”. Even if this state-
ment may not hold true for all traditions, it is certainly generally
correct.10) We will return to this issue further on.
who assumed the half-century 800-750, or more precisely 800-775 BC, for both
events, and Ruijgh (1997, 535 f.), who places the creation of the alphabet c. 1000,
and Homer in the second half of the ninth century.
10) For example, the Norse tradition probably began to be recorded in the lat-
ter part of the twelfth century, after writing in the vernacular had begun by 1100 AD,
see Tolley 2002, 129.
11) See Heubeck 1979, 80-7; Burkert 1992.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 167
cultures and made their first acquaintance with the literacy that had
existed in those countries since more than thousand years. We may
safely assume that they listened to recitations of the epics of those
peoples or heard the stories narrated at occasional meetings. They
observed, presumably with curiosity and astonishment, that the
Eastern peoples preserved their poetry as written texts, while they
themselves transmitted their poems orally. It may be that the
Mycenaean Greeks got the dactylic hexameter from the Minoans
in Crete.12) They were exposed to an extensive and profound influence
and appropriated Eastern elements of mythology and religion as
well as of heroic and cosmogonic myth and reshaped the material
according to the forms of their own culture. Evidence of that is to
be found in Homer and Hesiod and generally in Greek religion
and myth.
This kind of evidence is supported by archaeological material.13)
As new archaeological finds have steadily enlarged our knowledge,
we have gradually arrived at a more precise appreciation of the
connections between the Aegean region and the Eastern countries
both during the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age. This mater-
ial, and especially the increased number of written documents in
cuneiform and the more exact interpretation of them, are of invalu-
able importance to our judgement of the nature of the Eastern
influence on Greek epics.14)
The Trojan war inspired the Mycenaean poets to an intensified
creativity. The narrative of this heroic enterprise was developed,
reproduced and transmitted in oral song during the centuries to
come. The memory of the Great Age was kept alive, including the
cultural elements of that period, domestic or foreign by origin.
The disastrous break that hit the Mycenaean culture at the end
of the thirteenth century did not affect the memory of the impres-
sions from the East; reminiscences of them in Homer are numer-
ous. An important consequence of Milman Parry’s exploration of
the long and stable tradition of the formulaic style was that we got
decisive evidence of the Mycenaean origin of the Greek epic, though
this had already been assumed earlier. It follows from Parry’s dis-
covery of the exceedingly slow formation of the epic language that
it must go back to a very early date.15)
A rather different position, however, is taken by Ruijgh (1997,
591 f.), who makes Homer the creator of the Ionian epic language.
He adopts (593 f.) the ancient opinion that the poet was born in
Smyrna, and on this assumption he concludes that he, living in
close contact with the Aeolian epic singers, acquired the art of epic
song from them and transposed it into his own Ionian dialect.16)
Ruijgh (1997, 597 f.) places Homer in the second half of the ninth
century (ékmÆ around 832),17) and thus deprives the Ionian epics of
an oral tradition of their own; on this theory they would be exclu-
sively Aeolian. But Ruijgh’s arguments (1997, 592) are not tenable:
the mixed use of the Aeolian particle ke(n) and the Ionian ên is not
decisive; and the near universal observance of digamma in Homer,
without this being indicated by the letter W, is reminiscent of the
older state of the East Ionian dialect and no indication of a trans-
position from Aeolic. In fact, we do not know which of these dialects
lost the digamma first. The mixed nature of the Homeric language
15) Nilsson (1933, 179-83) was the first scholar of international reputation to
recognize the value of Parry’s work as evidence of the antiquity of the epic language.
16) Ruijgh 1997, 592: “Tout porte à conclure qu’Homère a appris l’art de la
versification épique en écoutant des aèdes éoliens. . . . au lieu d’adopter simple-
ment leur langage éolien épique, il l’a transposé en ionien au prix de l’introduc-
tion de beaucoup d’éléments artificiels.”
17) Ruijgh bases his dating on Hdt. 2.53.2 ÑHs¤odon går ka‹ ÜOmhron ≤lik¤hn
tetrakos¤oisi ¶tesi dok°v meu presbut°rouw gen°syai, and adds Suda s.v. ÜOmhrow,
where the poet is placed 57 years before the first Olympiad (776). The reliance
of this dating is indeed questionable.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 169
18) Ruijgh himself (1997, 588 and in numerous earlier publications) has clearly
shown his awareness of the long tradition of Greek epics as demonstrated by
Milman Parry. For a laudatory judgement of his achievements see Ruijgh’s review
of Parry 1971 in Linguistics 145 (1975), 119-28 (reprinted as Ruijgh 1991, 216-25).
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 170
Euboea) at some point of time between 1000 and 800 BC, trying
to write their own language with the Phoenician writing system.
They had learned the phonetic values of the signs without difficulty
thanks to the simple acrophonic structure and the convenient stan-
dardized series of letters presented in alphabetic lists, about which
Phoenicians had instructed them. However, there was a difficulty
in denoting the vowels, seeing that there were no signs for these
phonemes in the Phoenician script. But it suddenly occurred to
someone in the company that a number of Phoenician signs which
denoted consonants which were unknown in Greek, could be used
for the vowels. The result of this idea was the first complete alpha-
bet in the world. In my view it is not necessary to see one single
individual, an ingenious ‘adapter’, as the originator of the Greek
alphabet.19)
It was probably for practical reasons in the first place that the
Greeks made efforts to adapt the Phoenician alphabet so as to suit
their own language. They may have realized that writing would
facilitate their commerce and administration and make it possible
to communicate by letters, in imitation of the Phoenicians and other
Eastern peoples.20) It is a highly unrealistic assumption that they
should have invented the alphabet precisely with the intention of
recording the Homeric poems.21) Homer is probably to be dated in
the first half of the eighth century, whereas the alphabet may have
been created some fifty years before.
The datings of both these events have been much discussed and
are still controversial. Extreme opinions that the alphabet was cre-
19) The idealized genius, the eÍretÆw of the Greek alphabet, whom Powell
(1991) imagines is an improbable and unnecessary assumption. No special inge-
nuity was needed to arrive at the solution of using the superfluous Phoenician
signs for the denotation of the Greek vowels, as pointed out by Jeffery (1990,
2-5).
20) In the Bellerophon story, Il. 6.144-211, the folded tablet, the p¤naj ptuktÒw
(169), on which king Proetus had scratched baneful signs, sÆmata lugrã / grãcaw,
is an important piece of evidence. It shows that this ‘fatal letter’ was written with
alphabetic signs on a wooden writing-tablet, a d°ltow. Ruijgh (1997, 536) points
out that the Greeks got the loan-word together with the custom of writing on such
tablets. At p. 556, however, he states that what Proetus scratched on the tablet
was a drawing representing the messenger himself, who should be put to death:
“le s∞ma pourrait être le dessin d’un bonhomme transpercé”.
21) This is the view of Wade-Gery (1952, 11-4) and Powell (1991, 109 f.).
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 171
ated at least a century before 1000, or not earlier than 700,22) can
be dismissed as improbable and need not be considered here. It
will be sufficient for our issue to discuss three recent positions,
namely those of Powell (1991) and Ruijgh (1997)23) and, specifically
as regards the date of the alphabet, Woodard (1997).
That Powell, following the lead of Wade-Gery (1952), places
Homer in the period 800-750 is of course unproblematic, but his
assumption that the alphabet was created at the same time “seems
not altogether probable”.24) Woodard and other critics forcefully
attack Powell’s idea. Ruijgh uses linguistic arguments against the
simultaneity and assumes an interval of about two hundred years
between the creation of the alphabet and Homer. Placing Homer
in the second half of the ninth century, he arrives at a date around
1000 for the origin of the alphabet. Ruijgh’s main argument is the
fact that the Greeks chose the letter ˙et, denoting a voiceless frica-
tive laryngal in Phoenician, for the Greek /h/, and not the weak
glottal fricative he,25) and he argues that they made this choice
because at that point of time they needed a clear symbol for the
Greek /h/ which was then still pronounced strongly, whereas in
Homer’s time (850-800) this sound had become very faint. This is
a weak argument. If the sound /h/ in the dialect of the creator(s)
of the alphabet was a distinctive sound, a phoneme, whether or
not pronounced strongly, it had to be denoted with the best letter
available, namely ˙et, and not the indistinctive he. The choice was
entirely natural, especially as he was needed for symbolizing /e/.
To use the two letters inversely would have been rather strange.26)
Furthermore, Ruijgh (1997, 556) argues that the creation of the
Greek alphabet was the achievement of a Euboean. This is indeed
quite probable, but then Ruijgh’s argument is invalidated anew,
22) Naveh (1973) argues that the transmission from Phoenician to Greek script
occurred c. 1100, whereas Carpenter (1933) places this event c. 700 at the earliest.
23) See above, footnote 9.
24) Woodard 1997, 253.
25) Ruijgh 1997, 535, 567; 1998, 661-3.
26) It was also a natural choice because the vowel of the letter name he was a
close /e/, unlike the vowel in the name ˙et, which was a long open /e:/, see
Ruijgh 1997, 570 f. And to use ‘ayin for /e/ instead of /o/ would have been
anomalous, seeing that this was a rounded oval sign depicting an eye, which could
naturally be associated visually-acrophonically with ˆmma, ÙfyalmÒw, see Ruijgh
1997, 43 f., 569. The choice of he for /e/ was the only natural one.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 172
27) Lord (1960, 156) rightly intimates that this might have been possible. He
describes the exciting literary culture of the East: “In the eighth century Sargon
II (722-705) established the library at Nineveh and under him the Assyrian Empire
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 173
was at its greatest extent. His library contained tablets inscribed with epic, mythic,
magic, and historical material in several languages, including Sumerian, dating
from as early as 2000 BC. Here were to be found the Epic of Creation and the
Epic of Gilgamesh, among other texts. Two bodies of recorded lore, one already
ancient in ancient times, the other new and exciting in its serious intensity, were
thus available to any Greeks who might turn in their direction.” Presumably this
literature was available to foreigners even before the establishment of Sargon’s
library.
28) Powell 1991, 123-86.
29) Whitman (1958, 79) notices that the alphabet was no hieratic secret guarded
by priests, or confined to archival accounts, records, or business operations. It was
a fairly public accomplishment by the late eighth century.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 174
30) Strab. 6.8 (259) states that the Epizephyric Locrians were the first to write
down their laws. In Athens the lawgiver Dracon was said to have recorded his
laws, and the Gortyn law, preserved on stone c. 450, was written boustrophedon.
This old-fashioned law, together with this way of writing, suggests an early date,
see Jeffery 1990, 309-14.
31) Jensen (1980, 92) mistakenly compares with the slow acceptance of print-
ing, tapes, movies, and television. Writing and written poetry at Homer’s time
were no innovations; their history extended over more than one and a half mil-
lennium.
32) For the notion of a ‘Greek renaissance’ as an adequate term for the pro-
gressive spirit of that time, see Snodgrass 1971, 416-36, and Hiller 1983. See fur-
ther Burkert 1992, 114-20.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 175
prepared to use it for poetry. And they did so. The most probable
time for this enterprise is the period 800-750, as assumed by Powell.
And Ruijgh (1997, 556, 582) rightly assumes that Euboea is the
most probable place. The Euboean merchants had been the first to
start commerce with the Levant, and in the eighth century they
had become as rich as to be able to provide the expensive writing
material needed.
Lord (1960, 156) was the first to suggest clearly that “the idea
of recording the Homeric poems, and the Cyclic epics, and the
works of Hesiod, came from the observation of or hearing about
similar activity going on further to the East”. Recently, the follower
of Lord, R. Janko, expressed this thought as follows (1998, 12):
“One influence on the person responsible for the recording must
have been knowledge of the existence of written literature, which
means the written epics of the Levant.”
36) Nagy (1992; 1996, 109, 151 f.), who represents an extreme oralist position,
does not acknowledge the distinction between éoido¤ and =acƒdo¤. His opinion
that the Homeric poems are quite multiform has been shown by numerous critics
to be unfounded; see Finkelberg 2000, 1 f.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 177
Both these poets, one belonging to, the other, Hesiod, dependent
on, the old oral tradition, produced poems of another kind and of
higher poetical quality than the products of oral improvising per-
formances. This is due to the time factor. A writing poet of course
writes down his lines according to the speed of his composition
activity, while a poet who is dictating must comply with the lim-
ited writing speed of the scribe(s). The low pace of dictation offers
extra time for consideration to the poet. He may even occasionally
allow himself to instruct the scribe to make minor modifications in
the dictated text. In any case, writing is an invaluable aid for the
composer, because he is more free and, consequently, can be more
creative. The best parts of Homer’s poems are those that are the
least formulaic. He reduces or abandons the formulaic style in those
passages where he has something important to say.39) The greater
freedom enhances creativity and productivity so that the poet may
also enlarge his compositions to a great length. The length, unity
of composition, and variation in style and content exhibited by the
Homeric poems are characteristics which are all incompatible with
purely oral poetry.
The influence and aid of writing made it possible for the poet
occasionally to compose lines almost entirely without using formu-
laic phrases. This means that these parts of the poems are some-
thing else than purely oral. In fact, they are more like written poetry.
Thus, the Iliad and Odyssey should rightly be called transitional texts,
seeing that they combine oral and written style.
Parry and Lord were convinced that such a thing as a transi-
tional text cannot exist, and this is still the conviction of the adher-
ents of the oral theory. They maintain that any text is either oral
or written.40) This is a strange idea. It would mean that even the
less formulaic parts are the natural outcome of purely oral com-
position. But Lord himself (1960, 148 f.) suggests that this is not
39) Pope (1963) has shown that the poems are not in their entirety built up
with formulaic phrases as elements of composition, as Parry (and Lord) maintained.
See further Lesky 1966, 69 f.; see also Schadewaldt 1966, 161 f.; Erbse 1972, 180-2;
Heubeck 1974, 141; Kakridis 1993, 831.
40) Parry (1933, 180): “one part of literature is oral, the other written”; Lord
(1960, 129): “it is not possible that he be both [italics original] an oral and a writ-
ten poet at any given time in his career”; Lord 1991, 43-5; Jensen 1980, 89 f.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 180
so: during dictation longer and technically better texts can be pro-
duced than in actual performance. Lord (153 f.) explains the length
of the Iliad and Odyssey as due to the opportunity the dictation offers
to the poet. And the spontaneous judgements of Yugoslav singers
themselves corroborate Lord’s impression: “Sung songs are truer,
dictated songs are finer!” Lord (1991, 47) paraphrases this as: “Sung
songs are closer to what we have heard from others, but we can
be better poets in dictated song!”
In my view, the logical conclusion in consequence of these obser-
vations must be that dictated song, as an intermediary form between
purely oral and purely written composition, should be called exactly
a transitional text.
Lord repeatedly underlined that the notion of a fixed text does
not exist for a genuine oral singer. This is certainly true. But in
spite of this fact the adherents of the oral theory regard the Iliad
and Odyssey as essentially composed by ‘Homer’ in the eighth cen-
tury, with the prospect that these poems should be preserved for
the future by means of oral transmission in the form given to them
by him. This implies, then, illogically, that the poet must somehow
have worked with the idea of a fixed text and thus have under-
taken to secure a true transmission of his poems by oral singers,
an enormous enterprise indeed, and thus unrealistic from the out-
set. The poet would have had to sing them in endless repetitions
to a number of apprentices who had to memorize them to the limit
of their capacity as thoroughly as possible. This would have been
extremely difficult, considering that Homer himself, as an oral singer,
without the aid of a written text, could hardly repeat his lines in
identical form every time and, as a traditional singer, may not even
have been anxious to do that. Consequently, if perchance his appren-
tices succeeded to learn the master’s songs—each of course mem-
orizing a part of them, because no single person could be in command
of them as a whole—the variation of versions would have been con-
siderable already at the beginning of the transmission. It is easy to
imagine that after two hundred years, on these conditions, a thor-
ough recension would have been sorely needed. Without the sup-
port of a written text the poems would have been sung to pieces.41)
41) Merkelbach (1952, 33-6) compares the Homeric poems with other European
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 181
epics and lays stress upon their unity and high quality and excludes the possibil-
ity of oral transmission during many generations. He supports (p. 34) Drerup
(Homerische Poetik I 77), who wrote: “. . ., daß ein großes Epos, ohne schriftliche
Fixierung in den Fluß einer noch lebendigen Volksdichtung von den impro-
visierenden Rhapsoden wieder ‘zersungen’, ja geradezu atomisiert werden müßte”.
42) For a comprehensive collection and analysis of these see Merkelbach 1952,
23-47.
43) Cic. de Orat. 3.137 . . . Pisistrati, qui primus Homeri libros, confusos antea, sic dis-
posuisse dicimus, ut nunc habemus.
44) See above, footnote 36.
45) Seaford 1994, 144 f.
46) Scodel 2002, 43-5.
47) Jensen 2000, 59-67.
48) Jensen 2000, 58.
49) Jensen (2002, 103): “However, all the various hypotheses seem to me more
or less desperate; the Iliad and the Odyssey are simply too long. Especially, I want
to challenge the idea that the epic tradition in archaic Greece aimed to produce
the Iliad and the Odyssey. . . . So I suggest that we turn the picture upside down
and discard the written Iliad and Odyssey altogether as anomalies.”
50) West 1999, 365.
Mnemosyne 59,2_1865_161-187 4/27/06 4:00 PM Page 182
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Merkelbach, R. 1952. Die pisistratische Redaktion der homerischen Gedichte, RhM 95,
23-47
McCarter, J.P. 1975. The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet and the Early Phoenician Scripts
(Missoula, MT)
Muhly, J.D. 1970. Homer and the Phoenicians. The Relations Between Greece and the Near
East in the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Ages, Berytus 19, 19-64
Naveh, J. 1973. Some Semitic Epigraphical Considerations on the Antiquity of the Greek
Alphabet, AJA 77, 1-8
Naveh, J. 1992. Homeric Questions, TAPhA 122, 17-60
Naveh, J. 1996. Poetry and Performance: Homer and Beyond (Cambridge)
Nilsson, M.P. 1933. Homer and Mycenae (London)
Parry, A. 1966. Have we Homer’s Iliad?, YCIS 20, 177-216
Parry, M. 1930. Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making, I. Homer and Homeric
Style, HSPh 41, 73-147
Parry, M. 1933. Whole Formulaic Verses in Greek and Southslavic Heroic Song, TAPhA
64, 179-97 [= Parry, M. 1971, 376-90]
Parry, M. 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers of Milman Parry,
ed. by Adam Parry (Oxford)
Pope, M.W.M. 1963. The Parry-Lord Theory of Homeric Composition, PCASA 6, 1-19
Poursat, J.-C. 1977. Les ivoires mycéniens (Athènes)
Powell, B.B. 1991. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet (Cambridge)
Ruijgh, C.J. 1991. Scripta Minora, I (Amsterdam)
Ruijgh, C.J. 1995. D’Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique, in:
Crielaard, J.P. (ed.) Homeric Questions (Amsterdam), 1-96
Ruijgh, C.J. 1997. La date de la création de l’alphabet grec et celle de l’épopée homérique,
Bibliotheca Orientalis 54, 534-603
Scodel, R. 2002. Listening to Homer. Tradition, Narrative, and Audience (Oxford)
Schadewaldt, W. 31966. Iliasstudien (Darmstadt)
Seaford, R. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual. Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State
(Oxford)
Snodgrass, A.M. 1971. The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh)
Stella, L.A. 1927. Il poema di Ulisse (Firenze)
Stella, L.A. 1965. La civiltà micenea nei documenti contemporanei (Roma)
Strasburger, G. 1998. Die Fahrt des Odysseus zu den Toten, Antike und Abendland
44, 1-29
Stubbings, F.H. 1959. Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant (Cambridge)
Tolley, C. 2002. Oral Assumptions. A Warning from Old Norse, in: Honko, L. (ed.) The
Kalevala and the World’s Traditional Epics (Helsinki), 128-35
UNP = Parker, S.B. (ed.) 1997. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (Atlanta, GA)
Vermeule, E., Karagheorghis, V. 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Painting (Cambridge,
MA/London)
Wade-Gery, H.T. 1952. The Poet of the Iliad (Cambridge)
Webster, T.B.L. 1956. Homer and Eastern Poetry, Minos 4, 104-16
Webster, T.B.L. 1958. From Mycenae to Homer (London)
West, M.L. 1997. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and
Myth (Oxford)
West, M.L. 1999. The Invention of Homer, CQ 49, 364-82
Whitman, C.H. 1958. Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge, MA)
Wirth, H. 1921. Homer und Babylon (Freiburg)
Woodard, R.D. 1997. Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer (New York/Oxford)