Oral Tradition, 21/1 (2006): 148-189

Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An

Examination of Homeric Motif Transference
Jonathan Burgess

As with other schools of thought in Homeric research, neoanalysis has

experienced experimentation and change.1 Neoanalysts have slowly become
aware of points of contact between their methodology and an oralist
approach, and recently some oralists have enthusiastically accepted the
compatibility of the two schools of thought. Intertextual theory can also
provide much insight into the phenomena uncovered by neoanalysis,
particularly motif transference. A central concept in neoanalyst
methodology, motif transference involves the use of non-Homeric motifs
within Homeric poetry. Neoanalysts have persuasively identified examples
of motif transference, but their explanation of its mechanics and significance
has been lacking. An oralist perspective modifies our understanding of how
motif transference is produced and received, and intertextual theory can help
explain the possible significance of Homeric reflection of non-Homeric
material.
Three levels of narrative are posited for this examination: A) cyclic
myth, B) cyclic epic, and C) Homeric epic. Level B (cyclic epic) is an epic
version of Level A (cyclic myth).2 Level C (Homeric epic) exists as a self-

1
Kakridis (1949:1-10) first coined the term “neoanalysis” and defined its method.
For a concise summary of its arguments, see Willcock 1997; for explanation of its
methodology, see Kullmann 1981, 1991.
2
The term “cyclic” when capitalized refers to the specific poems of the Epic
Cycle and their earlier versions or performance traditions; otherwise, it refers to oral epic
poems of their type (countless and mostly undocumented). Burgess 2001 establishes that
the Cycle poems well represent pre-Homeric oral traditions, to the extent that the
tradition of the Trojan war can be termed a “cyclic” tradition. On the origins of the
Homeric poems I follow, to a large extent, Nagy’s evolutionary explanation, which posits
performance traditions that gradually became stabilized (e.g., 1996:107-14). The terms
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 149

conscious extension of Level A (cyclic myth) and Level B (cyclic epic).

Levels B/C (cyclic/Homeric epic) are both manifestations of level A
(mythological traditions) that share the same form (long narrative in dactylic
hexameter), but Level C (Homeric epic) is a more complex manifestation.
While Level B (cyclic epic) presents the narrative in Level A (cylic myth)
directly, Level C (Homeric epic) plays off “cyclic” myth and epic in an
allusive manner. In the sense that Level C (Homeric epic) employs Level A
(mythological traditions) and Level B (cyclic epic) in order to implement its
full meaning, we might say that Homeric epic is “metacyclic.”3 Homeric
poetry is commonly portrayed as an overwhelming replacement of pre-
Homeric tradition, but it is instead a respectful and dependent outgrowth of
earlier myth and epic. The traditions from which the Iliad and Odyssey stem
are both assumed and appreciated by Homeric poetics.
Motif transference is the transposition of motifs from elsewhere into a
Homeric context; the Homeric manifestation of the motif should be
recognizably derivative and therefore considered secondary. In my analysis
motif transference is not a passive accumulation of influences but an active
narratological tool that evokes Trojan war material. Correspondence
between Trojan war motifs and their secondary manifestations within the
Homeric poems will therefore have implications in terms of meaning. For an
audience informed about traditional Greek myth, the secondary Homeric
motif will evoke the non-Homeric context, functioning as a subtle yet
powerful allusive device. Motif transference so defined would appear to be a
distinctive aspect of Homeric poetics. But it is not unrelated to typology and
repetition in oral poetry, and it is comparable to such poetic phenomena as
mythological exempla, or paradigms. Homeric motif transference is
therefore an example of how Homeric technique extends oral poetics yet is
not independent of it.

“pre-Homeric” and “post-Homeric” used below may seem inappropriate for this
conception, but I use them to refer to material that existed before or after the Homeric
poems stabilized into entities recognizably like what we think of as the Iliad and Odyssey
today.
3
Cf. Finkelberg 1998:154-55, 2002:160, 2003a:79 on Homeric poetry as “meta-
epic.”
150 JONATHAN BURGESS

Neoanalysis

Neoanalysis is a methodology that employs analyst technique in

pursuit of a unitarian interpretation of the Iliad. It assumes the influence of
pre-Homeric material on Homeric poetry and attempts to discover
indications of this influence within Homeric poetry. Trojan war episodes that
fall outside the narrative boundaries of the Homeric poems have usually
interested neoanalysts, especially material concerning the death of Achilles.
The Iliad and Odyssey directly refer to many events in course of the war, but
it is the inexplicit reflection of these events that has been explored in
neoanalysis.
As a source for the pre-Homeric tradition of the Trojan war,
neoanalysts have primarily used the Epic Cycle. Though the poems of the
Cycle are now lost, what we know of them provides important information
about the tradition of the Trojan war. Reconstruction of the cyclic tradition
can be difficult, and using it as an indication of the pre-Homeric tradition
has been controversial. But it is revealing that early Greek artists reflected
cyclic themes (but not necessarily the specific Cycle poems themselves)
much earlier and much more often than they reflected Homeric themes. It is
also apparent that the Iliad and Odyssey did not immediately dominate their
tradition, and so post-Homeric evidence for the pre-Homeric tradition is not
necessarily contaminated by Homeric influence, at least not at an early date.4
Using information about the Cycle available to us, we can reconstruct the
outlines of early Greek mythology that an early Greek audience would have
known when they heard the Homeric poems. In this way we can most fully
enjoy the evocation and reception of the Trojan war tradition that would
have potentially occurred when Homeric poetry was performed.
The term “neoanalysis” makes reference to the analyst school of
thought, dominant in nineteenth-century German scholarship, that argued for
multiple authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey. Neoanalysis actually belongs
to the opposing unitarian camp, which insists on a single author for the
Homeric poems, but it is built on the foundations of earlier analyst research
and at times uses its techniques. Like analysts, neoanalysts look for
discrepancies in Homeric poetry, and also like analysts, neoanalysts have
speculated on the existence of hypothetical poems in the pre-Homeric past.
Whereas analysts theorized compilation of material from various sources,
neoanalysts have believed in a single poet strongly influenced by earlier
poems.

4
These points are argued extensively in Burgess 2001.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 151

What neoanalysts have stressed is that certain motifs that apparently

exist in both Homeric poetry and the Epic Cycle seem to belong most
naturally to the latter. Their arguments have been directed towards the Iliad
for the most part, though the Odyssey is not irrelevant to the methodology.5
Many of the motif correspondences have long been noticed, though
commentators used to routinely conclude either that the Cycle poems stole
motifs from Homer or that Cyclic motifs had been interpolated into “late”
parts of Homer.6 Building on this earlier research, neoanalysts in the post-
war period argued that Homer extensively re-used Cyclic material in a
highly original manner.
Kullmann (1991) has linked to neoanalysis all material that has
influenced Homeric poetry, including other mythological cycles (e.g., the
journey of the Argonauts), non-mythological material (e.g., folktale), and
even non-Greek material (e.g., Near Eastern). Fruitful research has certainly
been accomplished in these areas, and its focus on vestigial remnants of
influences within Homeric poetry is comparable to the methodology of
neoanalysis.7 But the influence of non-Trojan war material, folktale motifs,
or Near Eastern concepts is essentially passive in effect. The audience is not
expected to recognize the original context of the motifs, which are foreign to
the story of the Trojan war. The Homeric poems may even have been
composed without any conscious recognition of the origin of such motifs.
Kullmann’s collocation of all pre-Homeric influences revealingly fails to
recognize any special significance for Trojan war motif transference and
reflects a general disinclination among neoanalysts to consider the effect of
the phenomena that they have uncovered. The influence of Trojan war
material on Homeric poetry should be seen as distinctive, for its presence is

5
Several Odyssey passages, notably in Book 24, are essential evidence for
neoanalyst arguments. For a neoanalyst perspective on the Odyssey, see Heubeck 1992;
Danek 1998. Katz (1991:7-14) refers to neoanalyst methodology in a postmodern reading
of the poem’s multiplicity of meanings.
6
Some earlier scholars explored the similarities in ways that anticipated
neoanalysis; see Kullmann 1960:1-3, 1981:6-7, 1991:428-29; West 2003:2-4. Davison
(1962:254-58) and Kullmann (1986) discuss Mülder 1910 and Welcker 1865-82,
respectively, as prototypical neoanalysts.
7
Argonautica influence on the Odyssey: Meuli 1921. Folktales: Page 1955:1-20,
1973; Glenn 1971; Hölscher 1978, 1989; Hansen 1990, 1997; Burgess 2001:94-114. Near
Eastern: Burkert 1992, 2004; West 1997; Cook 2004. Gilgamesh parallels: Burgess 1999;
Bakker 2001.
152 JONATHAN BURGESS

likely to play an active role in signifying the larger story of the Trojan war in
which the Homeric poems are situated.
Neoanalysis has provided many plausible arguments, even if some of
its central tenets remain debatable (Burgess 1997). Yet the potential of its
application has not yet been fully realized. More can be done, whether in
directions that are either inherent in the methodology or are potential
extensions of it. Below the possibilities of a progressive implementation of
neoanalysis will be explored, though with no suggestion that there is a single
best usage. The main purpose will be to provide further explanation of the
cause and function of the concept of motif transference, as it exists in
neoanalyst argument.

Neoanalysis and Orality

Neoanalysis developed in an atmosphere innocent of the oralist

methodology pioneered by Parry and Lord, and at first glance the two
schools of thought would seem incompatible.8 But it has been increasingly
recognized that oral theory is not necessarily inimical to neoanalysis.9 Both
oralists and neoanalysts presume a long pre-Homeric tradition. Whereas
oralists focus on the poetic craft of this tradition, neoanalysts are interested
in its narrative contents. In several respects, however, oral theory has
challenged the practice of neoanalysis, and to some degree neoanalysts have
responded to criticism with interesting revisions of their methodology. A
survey of three key issues present in conflict between neoanalysts and
oralists (texts, typology, and motif priority) will outline the possibilities of a
neoanalyst methodology modified by an oralist perspectives.

8
Kakridis (1971:19-20) doubted the South Slavic analogy and espoused a literate
Homer. Though Kullmann has sought connections between neoanalysis and oralist
method (see below), he has criticized the Parry/Lord comparative approach and insisted
on a literate composition of the Iliad. See Kullmann 1960:2 n. 3, 152 n. 2, 372 nn. 2, 3;
1981:13-18, 27-42; 2002:170-73 (where the oralist perspectives on Homeric composition
and transmission in Burgess 2001 are deemed outside the boundaries of neoanalysis).
9
Comparison of the two schools of thought: Heubeck 1978; Kullmann 1984.
Schoeck 1961 is the first neoanalyst study to employ oral theory extensively, while Fenik
1964 is an early melding of ideas from both schools of thought. More recent mixtures of
the two include Slatkin 1991; Janko 1992; M. Edwards 1990, 1991 (the conclusions in M.
Edwards [1990:323] are said to be “in accord with the results of the studies of Milman
Parry and Albert Lord”); Danek 1998; Burgess 2001. Finkelberg 2003b celebrates the
potential of oralist/neoanalyst research.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 153

Texts

In early manifestations of neoanalysis the influences on Homer were

considered written texts that Homer had “before his eyes.” Neoanalysts
postulated hypothetical poems like an “Achilleis” or “Memnonis” in written
form and tried to reconstruct their contents. Schadewaldt (1965) outlined and
graphed a “Memnonis” with no fewer than twenty scenes in four books. At
times neoanalysts even argued that the poems of the Epic Cycle were pre-
Homeric poems.10 After these views were met with objections, neoanalysts
tended to shy away from them. Occasionally, however, claims for the pre-
Homeric date of Cyclic poems have been revived. 11 Recently new
opportunities for this line of argument have arisen because of a general
tendency to down-date the Homeric poems.12 Although I am in sympathy
with this trend in dating, I see no need to postulate the influence of the Epic
Cycle poems on the Homeric poems. It is not just that our sources for the
date of early Greek epic are missing or obscure. The oral context of the
composition and performance of early epics should make us wary of pinning
an early epic to a specific point in time. And even if early epics could be
dated, one cannot assume that one poem at an early date would necessarily
be known well enough to influence another. For these reasons it is not
advisable to portray identifiable texts as the influences on the Homeric
poems.
Some have intelligently posited the existence of oral Cyclic poems in
the pre-Homeric tradition.13 This is likely enough, though these should not
be conceived of as static or single oral prototypes of later poems in the Epic
Cycle. It is more likely that fluid performance traditions preceded the fixed
epics in the Cycle of which we know. And there must have been many pre-
Homeric epics that had no direct relationship to the Cycle poems at all, even

10
For an overview see Kullmann 1991:428-30; Willcock 1997:175-76. Kullmann
has long argued for a seventh-century date for the Iliad, but insists his arguments do not
depend on a pre-Homeric date for the Cycle poems.
11
Kopff 1983; Dowden 1996; Ballabriga 1998:22-32.
12
For an overview and further bibliography, see Osborne 1996:156-60; Burgess
2001:49-53; van Wees 2002; Cook 2004:48-51. The tide has turned and an eighth-
century date should no longer be viewed as the communis opinio.
13
Dihle 1970:149-50; A. Edwards 1985:219-20; Davies 1989:5.
154 JONATHAN BURGESS

if they covered the same type of narrative (that is, cyclic). The Epic Cycle
poems were essentially just verse manifestations—though perhaps
particularly prominent ones—of oral mythological traditions that were
known in various forms and media. In this sense it is best to regard “cyclic”
mythological motifs, episodes, and narratives in general as the sources for
the Homeric poems. Whereas neoanalysts have looked for specific Cyclic
epics (in Level 2), whether oral or textual, as the source for motifs
transferred into a Homeric context, I consider it most plausible to view oral
mythological traditions (Level 1) as the primary or source material. The
Homeric poems would have also been aware of cyclic epic (Level 2) that
exemplifies such myth, but they probably do not allude to specific poems.
Focus on pre-Homeric oral traditions, not texts, eliminates the need
for a practice once common in neoanalysis: the attempt to find in the Iliad
word-for-word quotations of pre-Homeric texts. Though still occasionally
attempted, identification of “quotations” of lost Cyclic verse within Homeric
poetry is not only very speculative, but has dubious justification in the
context of the early Archaic period.14 It is sometimes tempting to associate
certain phraseology with narrative contexts, but that does not mean that it
belongs to a single text. Rather it might be regarded as phraseology that
tended to be employed in connection with a specific narrative.
One aspect of the textual nature of the early work of neoanalysts was
the assumption that motifs found in Homeric poetry reflect another narrative
in a very exact manner. Neoanalysts as a result argued for very detailed
correspondences between Homeric motifs and their non-Homeric
counterparts. But one cannot suppose such a degree of detail if the motifs
have been transferred from traditional myth (or generally from multitudinous
cyclic epics) and not specific, fixed texts. Though traditional narrative will
remain stable in its essential elements, minor details do not remain uniform,
and minor details are likely to be omitted or modified when a motif is
transferred. Once the possibility of textual sources for Homeric poetry is
rejected, the old neoanalyst strategy of seeking as many detailed
correspondences as possible becomes unconvincing. What remains plausible

14
Surviving Cyclic fragments display a high degree of correspondence with
Homeric phraseology. This most likely results from the typology of oral composition
(Notopoulos 1964:18-45; Burkert 1981), as opposed to Cyclic imitation of Homeric
features (Kirk 1976:183-200; Curti 1993) or vice versa. Formulaic typology in early epic
constitutes an intertextuality of immanent meaning (Foley 1991; see also Foley 1995:42-
47, 1999:13-34) but does not suggest a connection between texts. See Todorov 1981:24-
25 on intertextuality that evokes not specific texts but an “anonymous ensemble,” such as
technique, style, genre, and tradition.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 155

is the identification of a shared central element, or “pivot” (Schoeck

1961:101).

Typology

Another issue that stems from oral theory that neoanalysis has had to
confront is typology. Typology comes in many shapes and sizes. Parry
focused on the noun-epithet formulaic system, which involves phraseology
that usually is less than a line of verse. He also readily accepted the typology
demonstrated by Arend of certain recurring scenes, like preparation of
meals, arming, and so on. Lord extended the scope of typology to “themes,”
and certain kinds of typological structures have also been observed within
similar narrative situations, like battles or speeches.15
Oralists tend to think of motifs in oral traditions as adaptable to any
story, much as formulas and type-scenes can be employed in different
situations. They therefore view correspondence between Homeric and non-
Homeric motifs as insignificant. Especially objectionable from the oralist
perspective is the argument that one example of a motif has priority over
another. This is a serious challenge to neoanalysis: if there is no significant
relationship between two forms of a motif, or it is unclear that one is primary
and the other secondary, then much of neoanalyst theory is undercut.16
The term “motif” has been used variously, signifying a wide range of
material.17 This flexibility is certainly useful, but it can be vague and
confusing. In the context of motif transference, the term for the most part
refers to actions that are part of a narrative. This reduction of a narrative to a
series of motifs owes something to the work of Propp, who broke the
Russian folktale down to its basic elements.18 But whereas Propp
demonstrated the typology of motifs and stock characters in folktale,

15
Parry 1971 (404-7 on Arend); Lord 1960; Fenik 1968; M. Edwards 1992.
16
See Lord 1960:159; Page 1963:23; Fenik 1964:32-33, 1968:229-40; Nagler
1974:24-26; Jensen 1980:30-36; Nagy 1990b:130-31.
17
See Todorov 1981:48; Bremond 1982.
18
Propp 1984. Such an analysis follows the superficial narrative level of a story,
to be distinguished from the hidden deep-structure elements in structuralist studies.
Burkert (1979:5-14) compares the approach of Propp and Lévi-Strauss. Application of
Propp’s method to scenes in the Odyssey: Hölscher 1978:55; M. Edwards 1987a:62.
156 JONATHAN BURGESS

neoanalyst argument is concerned with specific characters committing

particular actions.
In an important article Kullmann acknowledged that typical motifs
exist, but argued that there are also “more specific motifs or specific nuances
in general motifs” whose adoption by the Homeric poems can be recognized
(1984:312). This argument is undeniably true to some extent. For example,
Agamemnon’s return from the Trojan war is not idiosyncratic; nostos is a
general motif shared by a number of heroic myths. But the murder of
Agamemnon upon his arrival is an aspect of his return that can be said to
belong to him. Because the return of Agamemnon is generally similar to that
of Odysseus, the two returns are repeatedly compared in the Odyssey. Yet a
mythologically informed audience would be shocked by a narrative in which
Penelope and a lover ambushed Odysseus upon his return. It is true that the
poem effectively allows the question of Penelope’s fidelity to emerge from
time to time as a potentiality, and it is also true that the existence of variants
would leave an audience in doubt as to how exactly Odysseus would achieve
his successful return.19 But the essential plot that resulted in Odysseus’
successful return would normally be respected. The return tale is generic, but
there are specific details for particular mythological versions of this tale-
type.
Traditional mythological narrative always contains aspects of
typology, but at some level is never completely typical. To be mythological
it must have some stable and specific elements, such as major characters and
a main plotline. Otherwise a myth-teller would be free to gather together a
new collocation of motifs every time the story is told. Achilles could wear a
lion skin and brandish a club, Odysseus could command the Argo, and
Agamemnon could put out his eyes after marrying his mother. Such was not
the case in Greek myth, for typology does not overwhelm the distinctiveness
of individual characters and their stories. If specific elements regularly
appear in a particular myth, then it should be noticeable when these specific
elements appear in a different myth in which they do not belong. In this
situation one myth has influenced the narration of another as a result of
motif transference.

19
Cf. Katz 1991; Ahl and Roisman 1996:205-72; Danek 1998. Foley (1999:115-
67) demonstrates that return to a wife is a tale type in South Slavic and Indo-European
oral epic.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 157

A key criterion in the analysis of typology is degree of repetition.20 A

motif that reoccurs often in different contexts appears to be typical, and one
cannot suppose that one instance has any relationship to another. Matters are
not so clear when the repetition is limited. If there are only a few examples
of a motif, it becomes tempting to investigate the possibility of a relationship
between them. A pair of repeated elements suggests correspondence even
more strongly. One instance may serve to foreshadow or prepare for a
second instance, in what is called an “anticipatory doublet.”21 An example is
the flame that burns around Diomedes’ head (Iliad 5.4-8) that seems to
anticipate the flame that burns around Achilles’ head (18.205-14, 225-27).
Encouraging one’s inclination to see a connection between the two passages
is the extensive manner in which Diomedes seems to be a doublet of
Achilles.22
In a more extensive sequence of anticipatory doublets, scenes at
Scheria in the Odyssey seem to provide extensive anticipatory mirroring of
elements in Odysseus’ later experience at Ithaca. The reception of Odysseus
is pleasant and welcoming for the most part, but some unsettling details
serve to foreshadow the trials of his homecoming.23 In both situations
Odysseus remains initially disguised, encounters a powerful but enigmatic
queen, and engages young rivals in contests. Though the Scheria scenes have
their own intrinsic value for the poem, certain motifs within them look
forward to later material found in scenes at Ithaca. In effect, the Scheria
motifs constitute a series of anticipatory doublets. From this type of
significant repetition within the Homeric poems, it is only a short step
further, mutatis mutandis, into the world of neoanalysis, where Homeric
motifs are thought to reflect paradigmatic Trojan war material external to the

20
On the various types of Homeric repetition and analogy, I have found the
following especially helpful: Lohmann 1970; Austin 1975:115-29; Andersen 1987; M.
Edwards 1991:11-23; Lowenstam 1993:1-12.
21
Fenik 1968:213-14; M. Edwards 1987b:50-51, 1991:19-20.
22
See Schoeck 1961:75-80; Alden 2000:169-75. Trojans explicitly compare the
two at 6.96-101. Their prayer that Diomedes will fall at the Scaean gates at 6.306-7 could
be an allusion to Achilles’ fate.
23
See Lang 1969; Lowenstam 1993:207-28.
158 JONATHAN BURGESS

Homeric poems.24 Homeric motifs that reflect material outside the poem
function in ways that are comparable to the anticipatory doublet.
Repetition of motifs in motif transference is not finite in the way it is
in the case of anticipatory doublets. According to my analysis, motif
transference involves a Homeric motif reflecting innumerable manifestations
of a motif in oral myth. There are parameters to the repetition in motif
transference, however. The Homeric instance of the motif will refer to a
motif that is traditionally linked to a particular narrative context. The
mythological context may be expressed multiple times and in various
manners, but its basic contours remain stable. So motif transference is
essentially limited to a Homeric instance and a source motif that is
contextually bound, even if it occurs in a multiple and fluid manner. In this
sense motif transference is a pairing, analogous to the pairing of anticipatory
doublets within the Homeric poems.
Though oralists are correct to note that typology can undercut the
arguments of neoanalysts, not all motifs are “building blocks. . .with which
the oral poets could create an endless variety of scenes using the same basic
materials” (Fenik 1964:33). Typological motifs coexist with other more
specific elements. Typology with unlimited repetition resists the linkage of
two instances of a motif, but limited repetition invites recognition of a
correspondence between different manifestations. The existence of a wide
spectrum of types of repetition is often recognized in oralist works, like the
seminal Singer of Tales by Albert Lord. Though Lord states that the
movement of motifs is so fluid that they cannot belong to a tradition
(1960:159), in his arguments he repeatedly traces the transference of what
neoanalysts would call specific motifs to new contexts in the Homeric
poems. The essential pattern of withdrawal, devastation, and return that he
discusses (186-97) is typical, and neoanalyst methodology could not be
applied to it. But his comments recognize that sometimes correspondence is
derivative, not merely parallel, as when Patroclus in his death is recognized
as a double of Achilles (195). Discrepancies are cited as evidence for such
phenomena. This type of argument, that there are motifs that belong to one
context and their transference to the context of the Homeric poems is
discernible, is essentially a neoanalyst argument.

Priority of Motifs

Neonalysts assume priority in their description of motif transference.

One of two examples of a motif is considered primary and the other
24
An analogy made by McLeod (1987:35).
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 159

secondary (the one that occurs within Homeric poetry). In the example of the
flame motif, it seems certain that its application to Diomedes reflects its later
application to the more major character Achilles at an important point in the
poem. But it not always clear to whom a motif “belongs,” and neoanalysts
have expended much effort in establishing that certain motif manifestations
are primary and others secondary.
Critics have complained about the lack of objective criteria in
neoanalyst categorization of primary and secondary instances of motifs.25 If
a Homeric version of a motif seems as appropriate as a corresponding extra-
Iliadic version, then the question of priority is not easily resolved. Arguably,
motifs labeled “secondary” by neoanalysts were actually invented for their
Homeric occurrence and then subsequently imitated elsewhere. Subjective
neoanalyst arguments that portray the non-Homeric manifestation of a motif
as somehow superior (more dramatic, more aesthetically pleasing) than the
Homeric manifestation can be less than convincing. As a result, even
scholars who have accepted correspondence between the Iliad and cyclic
motifs have not always agreed with the neoanalyst premise that they are
used in a secondary manner in the Iliad.26
For a neoanalyst argument about motif transference to be persuasive,
priority or unequal status must be established. Neoanalysts have often
plausibly established such status by stressing peculiarities in the re-use of
motifs. Indeed, the uncovering of a secondary motif’s inappropriateness lies
at the heart of neoanalysis; in this activity it is heir to the analyst tradition. A
close reading of the Homeric text is employed in search for evidence that a
motif has been imperfectly adapted to a new context, and the Homeric
instance is portrayed as a single and unusual manifestation of a motif that
usually exists in a different context. Another method of recognizing motif
transference is to identify the re-use of specific, as opposed to typical,
motifs. Repetition is common in Homeric poetry and the Epic Cycle, but in
itself is not necessarily significant.27 Correspondence may indicate nothing
25
E.g., Page 1963:22; Lesky 1967:75; Dihle 1970:11-26. For a reply to such
criticism, see Kullmann 1960:29-50.
26
For example, Evelyn-White (1914:xxx) assumes that the Aethiopis has taken
motifs from the Iliad; West (2003) reverts to this type of argument, with a complexity
comparable to the tangled pedigree of textual conflation at Reinhardt 1961.
27
Homeric: Fenik 1964:148-54, 1974:133-232; Nickel 2002. Cyclic: Welcker
1865-82, 2:13; Pestalozzi 1945:34; Kullmann 1960:224; Fenik 1964:10, 38-39,
1968:237-38.
160 JONATHAN BURGESS

more than expansion of themes or roles, as for example the paired doublets
Mentor/Mentes, Melantho/Melanthius, or even Circe/Calypso in the
Odyssey. In Trojan war myth the early, failed Teuthranian expedition is
essentially a doublet of the campaign against Troy (usually assumed
28
secondary, though it has been argued that it is primary). Other cyclic
repetition includes the various foreign defenders of Troy (Rhesus,
Penthesileia, Memnon, and Eurypylus), or conditions necessary for the fall
of Troy (e.g., the stealing of the Palladium, the summoning of Philoctetes).
Achilles and Memnon share characteristics (children of goddesses,
Hephaistean golden armor) that seem more than coincidental, but it is not
certain that one was created in imitation of the other; more likely, a degree
of polarity or ironic correspondence developed over a long period of time.
Motif transference needs to involve more than correspondence.
Priority does seem to be discernible in the case of several characters in
the Iliad who appear to be Achilles doublets. Above it was noted that
Diomedes has been considered a doublet of Achilles. Diomedes is a major
character with his own important role in the poem, but several motifs
associated with him seem to belong to Achilles. A number of very minor
characters have also been considered to be doublets of Achilles because of
certain characteristics readily associated with Achilles specifically (like
foreknowledge of dual fates).29 The most notable doublet of Achilles in the
Iliad, however, is Patroclus. Motifs pertaining to Patroclus in the Iliad (e.g.,
his duel with a foreign defender of Troy, a death brought about with
Apollo’s assistance, an elaborate funeral with games) correspond to motifs
we know were featured in the later life of Achilles. The sequence of motifs,
which we might call the “Achilles fabula,” features some motifs that are
specific to myth about Achilles (e.g, death before the walls of Troy, with
Apollo involved), and others that are typical but more appropriate for a hero
of the stature of Achilles (e.g., funeral games).30 The resemblance of
Patroclus to Achilles seems to result from expansion of the traditional
character of Patroclus so that his actions reflect events in the traditional story

28
Carpenter 1946:54-64.
29
Achilles~Euchenor: Kullmann 1960:309, 1981:4-25, 1991:441 n. 65; Fenik
1968:4, 148-49. Achilles~Menesthius: Schoeck 1961:54; Asius~Achilles (and Patroclus):
Lowenstam 1981:115; Achilles~Hippothous: Rabel 1991.
30
In narratological terms a chronological sequence of actions is a fabula, a
narrative abstraction that is not identical to a specific poem’s version of that fabula. See
de Jong 1987:xiv, 31-32; 2001:xiv.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 161

of Achilles. What distinguishes Patroclus as an example of an Achilles

doublet is that the primary motifs are located outside the boundary of the
poem, in myth about Achilles. Patroclus thus serves as doublet in true
neoanalyst fashion, for the motifs attached to him are secondary and reflect a
primary situation external to the Iliad.
In another type of motif transference, a specific motif is applied to the
same character with whom it was originally associated but transferred to a
new chronological time in his story. The reflection of Achilles’ funeral in
Book 18 of the Iliad is an example. Achilles lies in the dust, Thetis and the
Nereids wail and surround Achilles, and Thetis cradles the head of her son in
her arms. This behavior seems insufficiently motivated by the death of
Patroclus, but is reminiscent of the mythological scene of the funeral of
Achilles. A traditional event in his story has been chronologically
displaced.31
Motif transference, the secondary Homeric reflection of a primary
specific motif that exists in oral traditions, appears to be one aspect of
Homeric poetics. It is a rather sophisticated poetic device, much different
from mere repetition. The transference of specific motifs from one character
or situation to another is not possible in the normal course of myth, for the
stability of tradition precludes it (as discussed above; Agamemnon does not
marry his mother, for instance). On the basis of the limited evidence that we
have, motif transference does not seem be a feature of non-Homeric epic
either (though below I argue it is not unrelated to certain phenomena in oral
poetics). As such, motif transference is a distinctively Homeric device, and
the central component of what I term the “metacyclic” nature of Homeric
poetry.

Neoanalysis and Intertextuality

Neoanalysts have been more energetic in establishing

correspondences between motifs in the Iliad and outside the Iliad than in
explaining exactly how and why a motif is re-used by the Homeric poems.
The effect and function of motif transference requires further exploration. It
will be useful in this regard to introduce the term “intertextuality” into the
discussion.

31
Kakridis 1949:65-75; Pestalozzi 1945:26, 32, 42; Schadewaldt 1965:166;
Kullmann 1960:331-32, 1984:310, 1991:441; Schoeck 1961:43-44; M. Edwards
1990:312.
162 JONATHAN BURGESS

Can one describe the relationship between the Homeric and non-
Homeric that results from motif transference as a kind of intertextuality? A
word featuring “text” might seem inappropriate for the Homeric poems,
which in the very least stem from oral compositional techniques, were
certainly not first publicized with the aid of texts, and were textualized at an
uncertain date by unknown processes. And as discussed above, Homeric
allusions to extra-Homeric narrative would not likely refer to specific texts,
but rather to mythological traditions. But much depends on the meaning of
the term “intertextuality,” which has been variously employed. In its
common, debased usage, intertextuality refers to literary allusion and
influence. This will not fit the oral circumstances of epic composition in the
Archaic Age very easily. A more theoretical formulation of intertextuality
could potentially engage with oral circumstances quite well, though the
appropriateness of this application needs to be scrutinized carefully.32
Most intertextual studies by classicists have focused on the relatively
textual world of Roman literature and its sources. Several recent studies
display an admirable theoretical sophistication and are generally helpful to
our concerns here.33 But the oral circumstances of early Greek epic present a
different and more daunting challenge. Can oral poems influence one
another? If that is conceivable, is the process of influence recoverable?
“Weak” intertextual analyses that have modernized source criticism and yet
remain textually bound cannot address such questions.
The fluidity of oral narrative poses no insurmountable difficulty for a
postmodern exploration of intertextuality, however, since from this
perspective all cultural constructs can be considered “texts” (though I will
not refer to oral narratives as “texts” because of the high potential for
confusion). On the other hand, the infinite regress of many postmodern
approaches, in which everything potentially connects in an endless
intersection of “texts,” is inimical to reaching an understanding of the
poetics at work. The challenge for an intertextual examination of oral epic is

32
Peradotto (1997:10) distinguishes between the “weakest, least provocative
sense of the word” comparable to old-fashioned Quellenforschung in classical studies (cf.
the title of Kullmann 1960) and its “strong or postmodern sense.” The term was coined
by Kristeva; see espec. Kristeva 1980:36-91. Useful general discussions of types of
intertextuality include Jenny 1982; Genette 1997:1-15; Allen 2000; Fowler 2000. See
Danek 1998:13-15 for a sensible application of intertextuality to oral epic.
33
Hinds 1998; Fowler 2000:115-37; Edmunds 2001. For an intertextual
exploration of Hellenistic literature, see Hubbard 1998. Fowler (2000:131) notes that the
issue of orality has made Hellenists more cautious than Latinists about intertextuality.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 163

to respect the fluidity of the oral circumstances without losing the ability to
discern the possible effect of correspondence.
The most ambitious and thorough attempt to delineate
“intertextuality” in early Greek epic has been made by Pietro Pucci.34 The
focus is on how the Odyssey and the Iliad “read” one another. The argument
is subtle and rewarding, though some aspects remain problematic. Pucci
employs the terminology of literacy (“texts,” “reading”) that, though applied
with postmodern sophistication and acknowledgment of the poems’ oral
origins, can seem inappropriate.35 An ahistorical approach, with only vague
references to a formative period in which the two Homeric poems evolved
together (1987:18, 41, 61), leaves many implications of the argument
hanging. Though the intertextuality theoretically involves mutual interaction
between both Homeric poems, the argument in practice tends to characterize
the Odyssey as reactive in relation to the Iliad. This priority actually suggests
a later historical date for the Odyssey, or at the very least assumes a
secondary status for this poem.
More troubling in my view is the exclusively Homercentric manner of
the explored relationship between the Odyssey and the Iliad. References in
the Odyssey to the charm of the Muses, or the klea andrôn, or “giant texts
(songs) of the Trojan war” are all interpreted as references to the Iliad.36 But
such passages more plausibly allude to the general tradition of the Trojan
war, that is, the cylic epic tradition. A careful reader will find small signs
that Pucci is conscious of this weakness in the argument, and occasionally he
apologizes for the exclusion of the Cyclic evidence by reference to the
paucity of its surviving evidence (1987:17, 143). This strikes me as at least
defeatist in its disinclination to consider the wider expanse of early epic
traditions.
Gregory Nagy has sought to explain apparent intertextuality in early
epic within the context of orality. In Nagy’s formulation, “When we are
dealing with the traditional poetry of the Homeric (and Hesiodic)
compositions, it is not justifiable to claim that a passage in any text can refer

34
Pucci 1987; see also Pucci 1998.
35
Nagy 2003:9-10. The practice is defended at Pucci 1988:27-28; Pedrick
1994:85, 94 nn. 38, 39.
36
Pucci 1987:198, esp. n. 21, 209-13, 216, 220. See also Pucci 1998:5-6.
164 JONATHAN BURGESS

to another passage in another text.”37 Instead, Nagy sees longstanding poetic

performance traditions continuously influencing and reacting to other
longstanding yet still evolving poetic traditions (diachronic cross-references,
in Nagy’s terminology).38 The denial of textualized reference is justifiable,
since intertextuality at this time period cannot confidently be reduced to
influence from one text to another. That leaves long-term intertextuality
between fluid poetic traditions a possible form of poetic interaction, however
difficult it may be to conceptualize.39
The Odyssey and the Iliad themselves are often portrayed as
competitors, and this is a plausible possibility.40 The “metacyclic” nature of
the two Homeric poems places them in a special, circumscribed category
(level C, Homeric poetry). Self-awareness of their metacyclic nature would
allow and encourage interaction between the two poems (how this is
conceived depends on a scholar’s stance toward the Homeric Question). It
may have sometimes happened that non-Homeric epics became so valued,
not least for their sociopolitical functions, that they would be stabilized by
re-performance, with identifiable performance traditions eventually
resulting. Different performance traditions with different functions could
conceivably lead to agonistic rivalry.41
But intertextuality between non-Homeric epics (or epic performance
traditions) cannot be readily assumed in the Archaic Age. The ontological
status of performance traditions is not clear at an early date. We speak of

37
Nagy 1979:40; discussed further and given different emphasis at 2003:8-9; see
also 1990a:53-54.
38
This concept is applied to the Cyclic epics at Nagy 1990a:70-79. Cf. Lang 1983
on “reverberation,” an argument that tends to assume that secondary Homeric motifs
instantly received equal status with primary motifs in longstanding mythological
traditions. But the Homeric poems did not immediately dominate their tradition in the
Archaic Age; see Burgess 2001.
39
For concerns, see Beye 1993:30-34, 262-65; Clay 1997:241-46 (reply at Nagy
2003:7-19).
40
Besides Pucci 1987, see Burkert 1997; Usener 1990; Danek 1998:509-12;
Schein 2001; Rengakos 2002. Page (1955:158-59) argued that the Iliad was unknown to
the poet of the Odyssey because the Odyssey seems to avoid allusion to its material.
41
For speculative attempts to recover the diachronic permutations of rival
performance traditions, cf. Aloni 1986:51-67; Burgess 2002; Marks 2002, 2003.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 165

early Greek epic poems with hindsight from the perspective of their fixed
and recorded artifacts, and we cannot be sure that performance traditions
would have had the self-awareness about either themselves or other
performance traditions to engage in allusive intertextuality. It should also be
wondered whether all early epic can be herded into particular performance
traditions. Many poems would not have been re-performed to such an extent
as to result in an identifiable performance tradition, and not every epic
performer would have performed exclusively in a recognized poetic
tradition.42 Direct connections between evolving performance traditions
within level B (cyclic epic) or between specific performance traditions in
levels B (cyclic epic) and C (Homeric epic) may not have been common at a
time when individual poetic compositions were not necessarily celebrated as
distinct entities. Competition was an essential aspect of the performance of
epic, as of so many areas of Greek culture, but this does not necessarily
translate into competition between poetic traditions as distinct entities.43
What does all this mean for neoanalysis? Since neoanalysis can be
mixed with oralist methodology, as was seen above, its practice need not
depend on the literacy inherent in source criticism or in “weak”
intertextuality. On the other hand, neoanalyst attempts to trace the process of
motif transference cannot easily function within the world of postmodern
intertextuality, at least as it is often practiced. Motif transference, even as
modified by an oralist perspective, has certain parameters—for instance, the
labeling of motifs as primary or secondary, with the secondary evoking the
primary—that would be deemed overly restrictive by some theoretical

42
One bard might potentially sing a wide range of various narratives: Woodhouse
1930:242-43; Lord 1960:151; Willcock 1976:287; M. Edwards 1990:316, 1991:17-18;
Anderson 1997:56; West 2003:6.
43
On competition and early Greek verse, see Griffith 1990 (especially relevant on
narrative variation and contradiction); Ford 2002:272-93; Collins 2004. On this issue my
analysis differs from that of Finkelberg, who argues that the “meta-epic” nature of
Homeric poetry is intended to “supersede” or “neutralize” other traditions (2003a:75, 78-
79). I see the metacyclic nature of Homeric poetry as more parasitic in nature, in the
sense that the full extent of its potential meaning is dependent on cyclic myth. Scodel
(2004) effectively questions the agonistic nature of Homeric poetry. I would add that it is
misleading to conflate myth and epic; a Homeric stance on, e.g., Heracles is not
necessarily directed towards an epic about Heracles. Agonistic rivalry at the level of
narrative presentation need not entail hostility at the level of narrative content.
166 JONATHAN BURGESS

stances.44 Within this range of possibilities, which is indeed rather wide,

neoanalyst arguments can be reinterpreted as demonstrating an
“intertextuality” between Homeric epic and mythological traditions (that is,
cyclic traditions, but probably not the Cycle poems or specific cyclic epics).
Intertextuality in early epic is doubtful in textual terms, and does not even
need to be conceived as a relation between fluid performance traditions.
Often it is more plausible to posit intertextuality between a poem (or its
performance tradition) and mythological traditions variously expressed in
different media and notionally known throughout the culture. This
intertextuality involves paradigmatic correspondence between motifs outside
of Homeric poetry and within it, most strikingly in the phenomenon
described above as “motif transference.”

An Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis

What purpose can be served by neoanalysis practiced from an oralist

perspective with consideration of intertextual theory? One hopes that it
might better explain the poetic function of the phenomena that have been
observed by neoanalysts. The purpose of motif transference has not been
adequately addressed by neoanalysts, who have in fact often assumed that it
is passive in effect. A different analysis is possible, one that perceives an
actively allusive significance for motif transference, though such difficult
issues as authorial intention and audience reception need to be taken into
account.

Neoanalyses

In general, neoanalysts imply that they are uncovering a

compositional process that was not recognized by the audience. The
unitarian perspective of neoanalysis has emphasized not allusion to tradition
but creative transformation of pre-Homeric material into something new and
superior that leaves its sources behind.45 Some neoanalysts have suggested

44
But not all; e.g., Riffaterre (1978, 1983) offers a strong argument that a text
produces intertextual significance through “ungrammaticalities” in a controlled and
recognizable manner (see espec. 1978:195 n.27, 1983:6).
45
For Willcock (1997:189) the ultimate value of neoanalysis is the isolation of
creativity, which in turn is seen to point toward a single original poet.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 167

that “Homer” was occasionally unsuccessful in his transformation of

available material to a new setting, allowing us to discover his sources. This
view is best exemplified by Schadewaldt, who speaks of looking over the
poet’s shoulder and discovering the secrets of his composition (1965:155). It
is assumed that the audience, as opposed to the neoanalyst scholar, is not
able to recognize inconsistencies resulting from motif re-use, or is not
bothered if it does.46 A variant of this view suggests that Homer was so
thoroughly steeped in traditional material that he unconsciously slipped into
it when he made his own compositions. His inappropriate use of this
material allows the critic to discover influences on the poet, influences that
the poet would not even have consciously recognized as he composed. This
view is best exemplified by Schoeck.47

Whole War

But neoanalyst methodology can also allow for the possibility of

active evocation by motif transference. The evocation by the Iliad of many
past and future events in the Trojan war outside the boundaries of the poem
has often been recognized. Much material in the Iliad does not seem to
belong to the dramatic time of the poem but rather suggests mythological
events outside the Iliad. This contextualization of the Iliad within the whole
war is sometimes accomplished by direct reference, but it also occurs by
means of indirect reflection that should be considered a type of motif
transference.
Especially notable are scenes in Books 2-7 of the Iliad that seem more
appropriate for the beginning of the war, such as the catalogue of ships, the
marshaling of troops, the duel between Paris and Menelaus, and Priam’s
inability to recognize the Greek leaders from the wall of the city. Analysts
found in such temporal discrepancies evidence of multiple authorship, and
so sometimes unitarians have felt compelled to deny, rather unpersuasively,
that they exist at all. A different approach has been to interpret these
temporal peculiarities as mistakes made by a poet immersed in oral tradition.

46
Cf. Kakridis 1971:17-18; Kullmann 1981:23.
47
Schoeck 1961. At 1960:29-50 and passim Kullmann repeatedly speaks of a
traditional or oral poet as unaware of his errors.
168 JONATHAN BURGESS

In oral composition, it has been suggested, the focus is only on the passage
immediately at hand and chronological inconsistency is not noticed.48
Instead of thinking that the Iliad repeatedly “goes off track” in the
opening books of the Iliad, we will better suppose that the early stages of the
war are evoked by the use of motifs that obviously belong to a different
chronological setting. This is secondary use of motifs to trigger recognition
of the primary motifs belonging to the traditional narrative of the whole war,
and it is comparable to reflection in the later books of the Iliad of events that
occur after the end of the poem, like the death of Achilles and the fall of
Troy. In effect, large-scale Homeric reflection of Trojan war events that
occurred before the start of the narrative (external analepsis, in
narratological terms) and after the end of the narrative (external prolepsis) is
the result.49
The passages in question are not mistakes that require excision or
toleration, but recognizable allusions to the early years of the war. That
effect would be part of the general evocation of the whole Trojan war,
upcoming events as well as past events, that many scholars have noticed in
the Iliad.50 This observation goes back to antiquity; in Chapter 23 of the
Poetics Aristotle states:

nu'n d
e}n mevro" ajpolabw;n ejpeisodivoi" kevcrhtai

aujjtw'n polloi'", oi|on new'n katalovgw// kai; a[lloi"
ejpeisodivoi" oi|" dialambavnei th;n poivhsin

Focusing on one part [Homer] employs many episodes of

other parts, such as the catalogue of ships and other
episodes by which he breaks up the composition.

Else (586) comments: “Aristotle saw what modern scholarship has

rediscovered: that Homer selected episodes from the whole course of the war
48
Unitarian analysis: notably Scott 1921:167-71; Tsagarakis 1982. Oralist: Bowra
1930:110-12; Lord 1960:187-88; Kirk 1985:286-87. Kakridis (1971:31-39) and Jamison
(1994) ascribe some of these scenes to a typology of bridal abduction independent of the
Trojan war.
49
For narratology and Homeric poetry, see de Jong 1987, 2001; Richardson 1990.
50
Murray 1934:184-86; Whitman 1958:39-45, 267-71; Else 1957:585-86; Schein
1984:19-25; M. Edwards 1987a:188-97; Taplin 1992 (espec. 83-109, 257-84); Nickel
1997:307-12; Rengakos 2004. Danek (1998:511-12) links the phenomenon with oral
poetics, citing South Slavic analogues.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 169

and incorporated them into a story which, chronologically speaking, is

51
incompatible with them.”
Aristotle’s reference to the “breaking up” of the narrative
(dialambavnei th;n poivhsin) suggests, in intertextual terms, that as the
Iliad proceeds in a horizontal or syntagmatic direction with its own story it is
repeatedly interrupted by other narratives. These other narratives are
connected to the Iliad’s story, but in a vertical or paradigmatic sense they
challenge the immediate narrative at hand. In other words, the Iliad exists
within a matrix of intertextuality. As far as Trojan war motifs are concerned,
this is a recognizable intertextuality, with one part of the story of the war
containing markers pointing to other parts of the story. Various
inconcinnities or “ungrammaticalities” reveal this matrix. Though unitarians
have sometimes resisted this portrayal of the poem, analysts, neoanalysts,
oralists, and intertextualist scholars have generally agreed with it; what is
disputed by these different perspectives is the degree of interruption, the
effect on the narrative at hand, and the possibility of recognition by an
audience.
In my view the chronological inappropriateness in the Iliad is a
brilliant narratological manipulation of time. The complete story of the war
is suggested by the narration of one incident in the war. But there is more to
the phenomenon than an efficient narration of multiple events. Evocation of
Trojan war material suggests the motivation and consequences of the
characters’ actions.52 The inescapable past and the unavoidable future
become conflated with the present, and the human condition is depicted as
an ineffable and intense temporal implosion of longstanding causality and
looming destiny.
The main interest of neoanalysts has usually been in Iliadic use of the
Achilles fabula alone, not the whole war. When they have noticed Iliadic
reflection of the whole war, they have done so with some sense of its
allusive nature.53 Yet this is seeemingly incompatible with standard

51
Else 1957:586. The phenomenon is also recognized in Eustathios; see Rengakos
2004:292 for passages and discussion.
52
For a brilliant analysis of the role of time for characterization in the Iliad, see
Kullmann 1968.
53
Cf. Pestalozzi 1945:39-41, 46-52; Kullmann 1960:5 n. 2, 366-68, 1968:17-18,
1981:42; Schoeck 1961:16, 117-20; Kakridis 1971:32, 61. The correspondences
themselves between the Iliad and the whole war are exhaustively established by
Kullmann 1960. Suggestive if inconclusive are remarks on “double time” in Kullmann
170 JONATHAN BURGESS

neoanalyst methodology, which posits creative, transformative adaptation,

discernible only in its infelicities. If Iliadic motif transference actively
suggests the whole war, as I believe it does, then it should also actively
suggest the Achilles fabula as well. Of particular importance more recently
has been the original reworking of neoanalysis by Slatkin, which has
convincingly demonstrated the significant role that traditions about Thetis
play in the Iliad, and the emphasis by Danek on the impact of non-Homeric
material on reception of the Odyssey.54 But although some have employed
neoanalysis to perceive active signification, the essential methodology of
neoanalysis assumes quite the opposite. It seems that the textual nature of
early neoanalysis imposed limitations on a narrative’s potential meaning,
whereas neoanalysis employed from an oralist perspective has allowed
perception of more meaningful poetic results of motif transference. What
neoanalysts have considered mistakes discernible only by the critic are better
seen as important signposts recognizable by the audience.55
Homeric poetry (Level C) does not try to obliterate the cyclic mytho-
poetic traditions (Levels A, B), but actively seeks to make connections to
them in a complex and transformative manner (one that I call “metacyclic”).
This is not stealing from cyclic tradition or accidentally misusing it; it is the
employment of traditional material in a new context so as to evoke the
original context. Inappropriateness does not result from unskillful
composition, but rather is designed to force recognition of the context in
which the material is usually set. In this way Homeric poetry achieves a
sophisticated type of intertextuality.56 Motif transference may be a
distinctive characteristic of Homeric poetry, but it does not mean that
Homeric poetry (Level C) overcame, vanquished, or superseded cyclic

1960:366-68, and also on time and characterization in Kullmann 1968, as noted above.
Heubeck, an early adherent of neoanalyst methodology, insightfully demonstrated the
Iliad’s portrayal of the whole war (1991, 1954:70-91).

54 Slatkin 1991, espec. 107-10; Danek 1998, 2001, 2002.

55 Clarke (1981:214) contends that neoanalysts demonstrate “how Homer
preserved the power and the associations of the epic tradition” to give the Iliad “added
resonances”; it is much less likely that Homer “borrowed from specific poems and
somehow neglected to cover his tracks.” Danek (1998:5) faults analyst and neoanalyst
work on the Odyssey for ignoring the poetic effect of Homeric re-use of traditional
material.
56
I find my main points compatible with the characteristics of “intertextuality” as
opposed to characteristics of an older sense of “allusion” in Fowler 2000.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 171

traditions (Levels A, B). Far from it; instead of making the cyclic obsolete,
the Homeric depends upon the cyclic for its poetic functioning.

Intention

An argument that favors the active significance of poetic phenomena

may be found objectionable by those who suspect that this argument implies
intentionalism. Identification of an author’s intent that was deemed
inappropriate in New Criticism had little chance of revival in later theory
that proclaimed the death of the author.57 Over time there has been a
tendency to move the focus out from author to the text and on to the
audience receiving the text. Intertextual studies that emphasize literary
sources and influences often find this situation awkward: if there are
observable connections between one text and another, how did they get
there? Some classicists pursuing intertextuality have found it necessary to
raise the possibility of authorial intention, usually with varying degrees of
regret, embarassment, or self-justification. 58
Neoanalysts, and their admirers among purveyors of the single genius
theory, wish to ascribe phenomena uncovered by neoanalysis to a radically
new technique of an inventive composer. But their arguments, persuasive or
not, need not presume an author’s intention. Recognition of motif
transference requires the acceptance of a distinctive “metacyclic” nature for
Homeric poetry, but not a monumental poet. We can sidestep the question of
what was intended in composition and instead explore the effect of what
neoanalysts have noticed. Using the textual evidence as a basis of such an
exploration, we can conceive of meaning as something achieved by an
audience in reaction to the poetry. Motif transference is not predicated upon
the assumption of a master poet; its mechanics are discernible within the
Homeric verse itself, and its significance can be approximated by focusing
on the audience reception of the poetics involved.

57
New criticism: Beardsley and Wimsatt 1954 (“The Intentional Fallacy”); more
recently, Barthes 1986:49-55 (“The Death of the Author”). For a controversial defense of
intention, see Knapp and Michaels 1985. For discussion of the issue, see Kermode
1983:201-20 (includes response by P. D. Juhl).
58
Cf. Farrell 1991:21-23; Hubbard 1998:14-15; Hinds 1998:47-50; Thomas
1999:1; Edmunds 2001:viii-ix, 19-38.
172 JONATHAN BURGESS

Audience

Above I have made periodic reference to the reception of early Greek

epic by an ancient audience. It will be helpful in this regard to employ
reception theory. There have been many different and independent strands of
theory oriented toward the audience. Of particular relevance to my concerns
is the reconstruction of reception in particular historical periods. We will
have a better sense of the early significance of Homeric poetics by trying to
comprehend the parameters of its reception in the Archaic Age, or the
“horizon of expectations” of that time, to use the well-known phrase of
Hans-Robert Jauss.59 A central aspect of early reception of Homeric poetry
must surely have been the knowledge of mythological traditions that the
audience brought to a performance. The Homeric poems were not performed
within a narrative vacuum, but rather within the context of traditional myth.
The collective knowledge of the audience provided a “horizon of
expectations” that would have necessarily affected its reception. This means
that motif transference, as long as it involved motifs from traditional
narrative, would have been recognizable to the audience, with an active
poetic effect as a consequence. Motif transference would trigger significant
recognition of mythological information known collectively by the audience.
For the ancient audience familiar with the whole story of the Trojan
war, motif transference as described by neoanalysts would be readily
appreciated and would have an active, not passive, effect. The modern
audience has not easily sensed this effect because it is dismissive of the
traditional myth on which the Iliad is founded; indeed, critics have usually
unconsciously reflected the Aristarchan attitude that was hostile to the non-
Homeric Trojan war tradition as a threat to Homer’s originality.60 But
familiarity with non-Homeric material can generally be assumed for an
ancient Greek audience, which at an early date would be surrounded by the
living oral traditions of mythology, especially as expressed by oral epic.61
59
On audience-oriented theory, see Holub 1984. For the “horizon of
expectations,” see Jauss 1982:espec. 28-32 in reference to ancient literature. Also
relevant is the concept of the “implied reader” of a text, on which see Iser 1974, 1978,
and its application to oral tradition by Foley (1991:38-60).
60
See Severyns 1928; Burgess 2001, index s.v. “Aristarchus”; Ballabriga
1998:11-22.
61
A mythologically informed and actively interpreting ancient audience is
assumed at Slatkin 1991; Danek 1998, 2001, 2002. One challenge to belief in extensive
Homeric allusion to traditional material is the possibility of ad hoc invention, a concept
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 173

This may seem to grant priority to an ancient response over a modern

response, which in modern literary theory is often seen as an objectionable.62
Does the original audience of the time of the Iliad’s creation have an
authority over meaning that trumps all later interpretations? No, the Homeric
poems are eternally open to all the meanings that any audience will find in
them. The reception uncovered by my use of neoanalyst methodology is not
the only possible one, and it need not be championed as the best one.
Different ancient audiences will have had different levels of ability and
interest. Performer and audience would need to negotiate the process of
communication, and much would depend on the knowledge, alertness, and
cooperation of an audience at any given performance. Some, rather than seek
out allusions, may have chosen to accept oddities or suppressions without
question, perhaps out of generosity to the performer.63 A modern reader
uninformed of mythological traditions can find that the Iliad functions
beautifully in the presentation of its own story. The narrative problems that
neoanalysts stress—“triggers” to external narrative, in my analysis—can be
ignored or tolerated, with an absence of significance resulting.
Yet there is the potential for mythological intertextuality, and there is
no question that it was at its highest with the early ancient audience. Later
audiences in antiquity would not necessarily have access to living
mythological traditions, even if they were able to approximate the earlier
experience through preserved, fixed manifestations of these traditions, like
the poems of the Epic Cycle. Eventually non-Homeric traditions lost
prominence to such an extent that an audience would not approach Homeric
poetry in a mythologically informed way, a situation that continues to the
modern period. It is in these circumstances that neoanalyst research, by
reconstructing lost narratives and uncovering traces of them within the Iliad,
has been very useful. Much of the argumentative cogency of neoanalysis is
derived from its success in recovering neglected narratives and uncovering
their presence in a Homeric context. This approach has restored Homeric
poetry to its early historical circumstances. It is a desirable further step to

that can be overly celebrated because of a desire to emphasize innovation over tradition
(see Burgess 2001:48-49, 154-55). For skepticism about the ancient audience’s
knowledge and interpretative abilities, see Andersen 1998 (opposed by Schein [2001,
2002]); Scodel 2002. See also Morrison 1992 on “misdirection” of the audience.
Certainly an ideal audience cannot be assumed to be universal.
62
E.g., Fowler 2000:131-34 deplores the “audience limitation” that results from
interest in the production and reception of early Greek literature.
63
Scodel 2002:1-41.
174 JONATHAN BURGESS

reconstruct significance that approximates that potentially realized by a more

mythologically informed original audience.
One need not favor an ancient reception over a modern one, yet it
would be incurious, if not self-depriving, to ignore the historical
circumstances of the poem. These include not only the context of oral
composition, knowledge of which has so enriched Homeric studies, but also
the context of its early reception. This reception would at first have been
through oral performance, and the performers and the audience would
usually share a deep and longstanding knowledge of the mythological
traditions on which early epic were based. The early reception of epic, in all
its various forms, is now lost forever. But some sense of its potential can be
re-created through reconstruction of the ancient traditions, so that we may
approach the poems with some of the knowledge of the ancient audience. A
sensitive reaction to the Homeric poems, then as now, would be alert to how
motif transference provided the poems with a means to reflect their larger
mythological contexts.

Oral Comparanda

A number of related phenomena suggest that the technique of motif

transference grew organically from oral poetic traditions. It certainly is not
an isolated phenomenon. In the discussion above, motif transference was
related to various types of repetition, reflection, and doubling, which are
common in oral traditions.64 In a general way, motif transference is
comparable to any instance of one thing being compared to a different thing.
The Homeric simile, for example, involves the explicit comparison of one
set of characteristics to another.65 This may seem at first to have no relation
to motif transference, but there are instructive parallels. In the simile
correspondence is established between certain key elements, but many
aspects remain dissimilar. In motif transference, correspondence also occurs
(though is not signaled explicitly) through the correspondence of certain key
elements, or a key “pivot,” with most aspects of the respective situations
remaining dissimilar. The primary/secondary status of motifs in motif
transference also has its parallel in similes, where the primary situation of
known phenomena, often of the natural world or of civilian human

64
Cf. Lohmann 1970:209-12, 284, where the sophistication of Homeric
“mirroring” is attributed to literate composition, though with an oral background.
65
Austin 1975:115-18; Lowenstam 1993:4-7.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 175

existence, is used as a model of orientation for less readily comprehended

phenomena.
Other relevant phenomena are internal digressions within the Homeric
poems that have often been seen to mirror themes of the main narrative.
Mythological paradigms in particular provide an interesting comparison to
motif transference. This is not just because the content of both phenomena
involves traditional myth. Both also add metaphorical (that is, paradigmatic)
significance to Homeric poetics.66 Paradigms involve the use of known
traditional tales by characters in the poems in order to make a point about a
current situation.67 As with motif transference, extra-Iliadic myth is brought
into relation with the narrative within the poem (though explicitly). The
whole process depends on recognition that the paradigm and the Homeric
situation have certain key elements in common, despite much variation in
particulars. There is also a discernible distinction between primary and
secondary instances of motifs, as in motif transference, though the direction
is inverted, since secondary motifs will be added to the manipulated extra-
Iliadic myth so that it reflects the primary situation of the Iliadic narrative.
For example, many scholars have noticed that Phoenix’s parable of
Meleager in Book 9 of the Iliad resembles Achilles’ situation.68 If the
parallel was only that two heroes withdraw from battle, that would be of
little significance, for withdrawal from battle seems to be a typical motif.69
But the withdrawal of Meleager is not very compatible with other aspects of
his story that seem traditional, and Phoenix’s account of it contains details
that belong to the story of Achilles. It seems that Phoenix (and in a more

66
On the similarity of mythological paradigms to other types of Homeric
repetition and analogy, cf. Lohmann 1970:183-212; Austin 1975:124-26; Lowenstam
1993:3-4. Danek (1998:508) connects mythological paradigms to oral intertextuality.
Alden 2000 examines mythological paradigms together with significant digressions in the
narrative, labeling them all “para-narratives.” See also Martin 2002 on the “intratextual”
relevance of paradigms, espec. 52-54, and Dué 2002:5-8, 86-88 on “paradigmatic”
connections between Briseis and other lamenting figures external to the Iliad.
67
On mythological paradigms, cf. Willcock 1964, 1977; Lohmann 1970; Alden
2000.
68
See espec. Kakridis 1949:11-42, 127-48; Willcock 1964:147-53; Rosner 1976;
Morrison 1992:119-24; Hainsworth 1993:130-40; Alden 2000:179-290.
69
Besides its association with Achilles and Meleager, the motif is mentioned
briefly in the Iliad in connection with Paris (6.325-631) and Aeneas (13.459-61).
176 JONATHAN BURGESS

sophisticated manner, the narrator) has transformed a traditional story so that

its circumstances reflect those of the Iliad. It is especially notable that the
name of Meleager’s wife, “Cleopatra,” corresponds inversely to the name
“Patroclus.”70 Phoenix’s tale is designed to entice Achilles back onto the
battlefield by outlining the negative consequences of the rejection of
entreaties. On another level it probably foreshadows Achilles’ later decision
to rejoin the fighting, and perhaps even his death, as an audience with
knowledge of the Meleager tale would recognize.71
There are certainly differences between the poetic techniques of
mythological paradigms and motif transference. With paradigms, the
correspondence is made explicit; with motif transference, it is implicit. The
direction of movement from primary to secondary instances of motifs is
different. The myths in paradigms tend to be from cycles different from the
Trojan war, often featuring heroes of past generations, whereas the motif
transference of neoanalysis involves later developments in the Trojan war
story. Still, the similarities are striking. Both mythological paradigms and
motif transference involve some manipulation of detail to enhance
correspondence (with paradigms, manipulation of traditional narrative as it
is retold so as to reflect the situation within the poem; with motif
transference, manipulation of the poem’s narrative to reflect traditional
narrative). The use of mythological paradigms and motif transference are
distinct yet comparable poetic phenomena.
The point is that motif transference is not some sort of idiosyncratic,
unparalleled technique. It certainly is a subtle and sophisticated poetic
device, and it can be considered a key component of the “metacyclic” nature
of Homeric poetry. But it grew out of methods of comparison and
“reflection” that were inherent in oral traditions and in everyday life itself. It
did not come out of thin air; it is derived from observable phenomena in the
poetic and known world. Motif transference is both traditional and
distinctive, as is the “metacyclic” nature of Homeric poetry generally.
Recognition of the sophistication of motif transference does not lead
to a conclusion that Homeric poetry is independent from its traditions. It
suggests rather a dependence on the cyclic traditions of the Trojan war, to
the extent that the poetic strategies of the Iliad assume that the audience will

70
For bibliographical history on this issue, see Alden 2000:240 n. 152; the
correspondence is now widely accepted.
71
Nagy (1979:105-6) well distinguishes between the “message” that Phoenix
gives to Achilles and the “code” that the audience perceives (cf. Andersen 1987:4-7 on
“argument” and “key”).
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 177

bring to the poem a sensitive and alert knowledge of traditional myth. Motif
transference can be understood as a type of intertextuality. The
intertextuality is not between texts but between the Homeric poems and pre-
Homeric oral traditions. These traditions cannot be identified or equated
with particular poems, and it is not text that is transferred, in the sense of
words and phrases, but rather notional motifs (consisting of narrative
actions) that have traditionally been applied to specific heroes.
Intertextuality so described may sound imprecise, but motif transference
involves certain parameters that would not be recognized by a post-
structuralist concept of intertextuality. As neonalysts have established, the
motifs are specific, being usually bound to the context of a heroic myth, and
once transferred into Homeric poetry they are recognizably secondary. How
recognizable is the key issue, however; whereas traditional neoanalysts have
reserved discernment of motif transference to the scholar, it is more probable
that the reflection would be recognized by a mythologically informed
audience. In this case motif transference is more than coincidental, casual, or
merely vestigial. It is significant allusion, at least in an oral, intertextually
neoanalyst manner.72

University of Toronto

References

Ahl and Roisman 1996 F. Ahl and H. M. Roisman. The Odyssey Re-Formed.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Alden 2000 M. Alden. Homer Beside Himself. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Allen 2000 G. Allen. Intertextuality. London: Routledge.

Aloni 1986 A. Aloni. Tradizioni arcaiche della Troade e composizione

dell’ Iliade. Milan: Edizioni Unicopli.

72
I would like to dedicate this article to the memory of Steven Lowenstam, whom
I never met, but who engaged in extensive e-mail correspondence with me about many of
the issues addressed here, and much more, shortly before his untimely death. I am
grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial
support, and to my research assitant Michal Dziong.
178 JONATHAN BURGESS

Andersen 1987 Ø. Andersen. “Myth, Paradigm and ‘Spatial Form’ in the

Iliad.” In Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Ed. by J. M. Bremer
et. al. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner. pp. 1-13.

Andersen 1998 . “Allusion and the Audience of Homer.” In

Homerica. Ed. by M. Païsi-Apostolopoulou. Ithaca,
Greece: Kentro Odysseiakon Spoudon. pp. 137-49.

Anderson 1997 M. J. Anderson. The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry

and Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Austin 1975 N. Austin. Archery at the Dark of the Moon. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Bakker 2001 E. Bakker. “The Greek Gilgamesh, or the Immortality of

Return.” In Eranos. Ed. by M. Païsi-Apostolopoulou.
Ithaca, Greece: Kentro Odysseiakon Spoudon. pp. 331-53.

Ballabriga 1998 A. Ballabriga. Les fictions d’Homère. Paris: Presses

Universitaires de France.

Barthes 1986 R. Barthes. The Rustle of Language. Trans. by R. Howard.

Oxford: Hill and Wang.

Beardsley and Wimsatt M. Beardsley and W. K. Wimsatt. “The Intentional Fallacy.”

1954 In The Verbal Icon. Ed. by William K. Wimsatt. Lexington:
University of Kentucky Press. pp. 3-20.

Beye 1993 C. R. Beye. Ancient Epic Poetry. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.

Bowra 1930 C. M. Bowra. Tradition and Design in the Iliad. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Bremond 1982 C. Bremond. “A Critique of the Motif.” In French Literary

Theory Today. Ed. by T. Todorov. Trans. by R. Carter.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125-46.

Burgess 1997 J. S. Burgess. “Beyond Neo-analysis: Problems with the

Vengeance Theory.” American Journal of Philology,
118:1-19.

Burgess 1999 . “Gilgamesh and Odysseus in the Otherworld.”

Echoes du Monde Classique/Classical Views, 18:171-210.

Burgess 2001 . The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and

the Epic Cycle. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 179

Burgess 2002 . “Kyprias, the Kypria, and Multiformity.”

Phoenix, 56:234-45.

Burkert 1979 W. Burkert. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and

Ritual. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burkert 1981 . “Seven against Thebes: An Oral Tradition

between Babylonian and Greek Literature.” In I poemi
epici rapsodici non Omerici e la tradizione orale. Ed. by C.
Brillante et. al. M. Padova: Editrice Antenore. pp. 29-51.

Burkert 1992 . The Orientalizing Revolution. Trans. by M. E.

Pinder and W. Burkert. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Burkert 1997 . “The Song of Ares and Aphrodite: On the

Relationship between the Odyssey and the Iliad.” In
Homer: German Scholarship in Translation. Trans by P. V.
Jones and G. M. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon. pp. 249-62.

Burkert 2004 . Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts

of Greek Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Carpenter 1946 R. Carpenter. Folk Tale, Fiction, and Saga in the Homeric
Epics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clarke 1981 H. H. C. Clarke. Homer’s Readers. Newark: University of

Delaware Press.

Clay 1997 J. S. Clay. The Wrath of Athena. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.

Collins 2004 D. Collins. Master of the Game. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Cook 2004 E. Cook. “Near Eastern Sources for the Palace of

Alkinoos.” American Journal of Archaeology, 108:43-77.

Curti 1993 M. Curti. “L’officina dei cicli.” Studi Classici e Orientali,

43:33-47.

Danek 1998 G. Danek. Epos und Zitat: Studien zu den Quellen der
Odyssee. Wiener Studien, 22. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
180 JONATHAN BURGESS

Danek 2001 . “Achilles and the Iliad.” In Eranos. Ed. by M.

Païsi-Apostolopoulou. Ithaca, Greece: Kentro Odysseiakon
Spoudon. pp. 165-79.

Danek 2002 . “Traditional Referentiality and Homeric

Intertextuality.” In Omero tremila anni dopo. Ed. by F.
Montanari. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. pp. 3-
19.

Davies 1989 M. Davies. The Epic Cycle. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.

Davison 1962 J. A. Davison. “The Homeric Question.” In A Companion

to Homer. Ed. by A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings.
London: St. Martin’s Press. pp. 234-65.

de Jong 1987 I. J. F. de Jong. Narrators and Focalizers. Amsterdam: B.

R. Grüner.

de Jong 2001 . A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dihle 1970 A. Dihle. Homer-Probleme. Opladen: Westdeutscher

Verlag.

Dowden 1996 K. Dowden. “Homer’s Sense of Text.” Journal of Hellenic

Studies, 116:47-61.

Dué 2002 C. Dué. Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briseis.

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Edmunds 2001 L. Edmunds. Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman

Poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

A. Edwards 1985 A. Edwards. “Achilles in the Underworld: Iliad, Odyssey,

and Aethiopis.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies,
26:215-28.

M. Edwards 1987a M. W. Edwards. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

M. Edwards 1987b . “Topos and Transformation in Homer.” In

Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Ed. by J. M. Bremer et al.
Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner. pp. 47-60.

M. Edwards 1990 . “Neoanalysis and Beyond." Classical Antiquity,

9:311-25.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 181

M. Edwards 1991 . The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 5. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

M. Edwards 1992 . “Homer and Oral Tradition: The Type-Scene.”

Oral Tradition, 7:284-330.

Else 1957 G. F. Else. Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Evelyn-White 1914 H. G. Evelyn-White. Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and

Homerica. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Farrell 1991 J. Farrell. Vergil’s Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient

Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fenik 1964 B. C. Fenik. Iliad X and the Rhesus: The Myth. Brussels:
Latomus: Revue d’études latines, 73.

Fenik 1968 . Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Hermes

Einzelschriften, 21. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

Fenik 1974 . Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften,

30. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

Finkelberg 1998 M. Finkelberg. The Birth of Literary Fiction in Ancient

Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Finkelberg 2002 . “The Sources of Iliad 7.” Colby Quarterly,

38:151-61.

Finkelberg 2003a . “Homer as a Foundation Text.” In Homer, the

Bible, and Beyond. Ed. by M. Finkelberg and G. G.
Stroumsa. Leiden: Brill. pp. 75-96.

Finkelberg 2003b . “Neoanalysis and Oral Tradition in Homeric

Studies.” Oral Tradition, 18:68-69.

Foley 1991 J. M. Foley. Immanent Art. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Foley 1995 . The Singer of Tales in Performance.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Foley 1999 . Homer’s Traditional Art. University Park:

Pennsylvania State University Press.
182 JONATHAN BURGESS

Ford 2002 A. Ford. The Origins of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Fowler 2000 D. Fowler. “On the Shoulders of Giants: Intertextuality and

Classical Studies.” In Roman Constructions. Ed. by Don
Fowler. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 115-37.

Genette 1997 G. Genette. Palimpsests. Trans. by C. Newman and C.

Doubinsky. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Glenn 1971 J. Glenn. “The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer’s Kyklopeia.”

Transcriptions of the American Philological Association,
102:133-81.

Griffith 1990 M. Griffith. “Contest and Contradiction in Early Greek

Poetry.” In Cabinet of the Muses. Ed. by M. Griffith and D.
J. Mastronarde. Atlanta: Scholars Press. pp. 185-207.

Hainsworth 1993 B. Hainsworth. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 3.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hansen 1990 W. F. Hansen. “Odysseus and the Oar: A Folkloric

Approach.” In Approaches to Greek Myth. Ed. by L.
Edmunds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp.
241-72.

Hansen 1997 . “Homer and the Folktale.” In A New Companion

to Homer. Ed. by I. Morris and B. Powell. Leiden: Brill. pp.
442-62.

Heubeck 1954 A. Heubeck. Der Odyssee-Dichter und die Ilias. Erlangen:

Palm und Enke.

Heubeck 1978 . “Homeric Studies Today: Results and

Prospects.” In Homer: Tradition and Invention. Ed. by B.
C. Fenik. Leiden: Brill. pp. 1-17.

Heubeck 1991 . “Studien zur Struktur der Ilias (Retardation-

Motivübertragung).” In Homer: Die Dichtung und ihre
Deutung. Ed. by J. Latacz. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft. pp. 450-74.

Heubeck 1992 . “Books XXIII-XXIV.” In A Commentary on

Homer’s Odyssey. Vol. 3. Ed. by A. Heubeck et al. Oxford:
Clarendon Press. pp. 313-418.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 183

Hinds 1998 S. Hinds. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of

Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hölscher 1978 U. Hölscher. “The Transformation from Folk-Tale to Epic.”

In Homer: Tradition and Invention. Ed. by B. C. Fenik.
Leiden: Brill. pp. 51-67.

Hölscher 1989 . Die Odyssee: Epos zwischen Märchen und

Roman. Munich: Beck.

Holub 1984 R. C. Holub. Reception Theory. New York: Methuen.

Hubbard 1998 T. K. Hubbard. The Pipes of Pan: Intertextuality and

Literary Filiation from Theocritus to Milton. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.

Iser 1974 W. Iser. The Implied Reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Iser 1978 . The Act of Reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Jamison 1994 S. W. Jamison. “Draupadí on the Walls of Troy: Iliad 3

from an Indic Perspective.” Classical Antiquities, 13:5-16.

Janko 1992 R. Janko. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 4. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Jauss 1982 H. R. Jauss. Towards an Aesthetic of Reception.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Jenny 1982 L. Jenny. “The Strategy of Form.” In French Literary

Theory Today. Ed. by T. Todorov. Trans. by R. Carter.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 34-63.

Jensen 1980 M. S. Jensen. The Homeric Question and the Oral-

Formulaic Theory. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum
Press.

Kakridis 1949 J. T. Kakridis. Homeric Researches. Lund: C. W. K.

Gleerup.

Kakridis 1971 . Homer Revisited. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.

Katz 1991 M. Katz. Penelope’s Renown. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.
184 JONATHAN BURGESS

Kermode 1983 F. Kermode. Essays on Fiction 1971-82. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kirk 1976 G. S. Kirk. Homer and the Oral Tradition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Kirk 1985 . The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 1. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Knapp and Michaels S. Knapp and W. B. Michaels. “Against Theory.” In Against

1985 Theory. Ed. by W. J. T. Mitchell. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. pp. 11-30.

Kopff 1983 E. Kopff. “The Structure of the Amazonia (Aethiopis).” In

The Greek Renaissance of the 8th Century B.C. Ed. by R.
Häag. Stockholm: Aström. pp. 57-62.

Kristeva 1980 J. Kristeva. Desire in Language. Ed. by L. S. Roudiez.

Trans. by T. Gora et al. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Kullmann 1960 W. Kullmann. Die Quellen der Ilias. Hermes

Einzelschriften, 14. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

Kullmann 1968 . “Vergangenheit und Zukunft in der Ilias.”

Poetica, 2:15-37.

Kullmann 1981 . “Zur Methode der Neoanalyse in der

Homerforschung.” Weiner Studien, 15:5-42.

Kullmann 1984 . “Oral Poetry Theory and Neoanalysis in Homeric

Research.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 25:307-
24.

Kullmann 1986 . “Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker über Homer und den

epischen Kyklos.” In Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker:Werk und
Wirkung. Ed. by W. M. Calder III. Hermes Einzelschriften,
49. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. pp. 105-30.

Kullmann 1991 . “Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung

zu Homer (Neoanalyse).” In Zweihundert Jahre Homer-
Forschung. Ed. by J. Latacz. Stuttgart: K. G. Saur. pp. 425-
55.

Kullmann 2002 . Realität, Imagination und Theorie. Ed. by A.

Rengakos. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 185

Lang 1969 M. L. Lang. “Homer and Oral Techniques.” Hesperia,

38:159-68.

Lang 1983 . “Reverberation and Mythology in the Iliad.” In

Approaches to Homer. Ed. by C. A. Rubino and C. W.
Shelmerdine. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 140-
64.

Lesky 1967 A. Lesky. Homeros. Stuttgart: Druckenmüller. [Also in G.

Wissowa et al., eds. 1893-1972. Paulys Real-Encyclopädie
der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Suppl. 11. Stuttgart:
J. B. Metzler.]

Lohmann 1970 D. Lohmann. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Berlin:
De Gruyter.

Lord 1960 A. B. Lord. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Lowenstam 1981 S. Lowenstam. The Death of Patroklos. Königstein: Hain.

Lowenstam 1993 . The Scepter and the Spear. Lanham, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Marks 2002 J. Marks. “The Junction between the Kypria and the Iliad.”
Phoenix, 56:1-24.

Marks 2003 . “Alternative Odysseys: The Case of Thoas and

Odysseus.” Transactions of the American Philological
Association, 133:209-26.

Martin 2002 R. Martin. “Wrapping Homer Up: Cohesion, Discourse,

and Deviation in the Iliad.” In Intratextuality. Ed. by A.
Sharrock and H. Morales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp. 43-65.

McLeod 1987 W. McLeod. “The Iliad and the Odyssey as Great

Literature.” In Approaches to Teaching Homer’s Iliad and
Odyssey. Ed. by K. Myrsiades. New York: Modern
Language Association of America. pp. 34-40.

Meuli 1921 K. Meuli. Odyssee und Argonautika. Berlin: Weidmann.

Morrison 1992 J. Morrison. Homeric Misdirection. Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press.

Mueller 1984 M. Mueller. The Iliad. London: G. Allen and Unwin.

186 JONATHAN BURGESS

Mülder 1910 D. Mülder. Die Ilias und ihre Quellen. Berlin:

Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

Murray 1934 G. Murray. The Rise of the Greek Epic. 4th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Nagler 1974 M. N. Nagler. Spontaneity and Tradition. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Nagy 1979 G. Nagy. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Nagy 1990a . Pindar’s Homer. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Nagy 1990b . Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press.

Nagy 1996 . Poetry as Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Nagy 2003 . Homeric Responses. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Nickel 1997 R. Nickel. “Paris in the Epic Tradition: A Study in Homeric

Techniques of Characterization.” Unpubl. Ph. D. Dissertation,
University of Toronto.

Nickel 2002 . “Euphorbus and the Death of Achilles.” Phoenix,

56:215-33.

Notopoulos 1964 J. A. Notopoulos. “Studies in Early Greek Oral Poetry.”

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 68:1-77.

Osborne 1996 R. Osborne. Greece in the Making 1200-479 BC. London:

Routledge.

Page 1955 D. L. Page. The Homeric Odyssey. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Page 1963 . Review of Schoeck 1961. Classical Review,

13:21-24.

Page 1973 . Folktales in Homer’s Odyssey. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 187

Parry 1971 M. Parry. The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected

Papers of Milman Parry. Ed. by A. Parry. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Pedrick 1994 V. Pedrick. “Reading in the Middle Voice: The Homeric

Intertextuality of Pietro Pucci and John Peradotto.” Helios,
21:75-93.

Peradotto 1997 J. Peradotto. “Modern Theoretical Approaches to Homer.”

In A New Companion to Homer: Ed. by B. Powell and I.
Morris. Leiden: Brill. pp. 380-95.

Pestalozzi 1945 H. Pestalozzi. Die Achilleis als Quelle der Ilias. Zurich:
Rentsch.

Propp 1984 V. Propp. Theory and History of Folktale. Ed. by A.

Liberman. Trans. by A. Y. Martin and Richard P. Martin.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Pucci 1987 P. Pucci. Odysseus Polutropos. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.

Pucci 1998 . The Song of the Sirens. Lanham, MD: Rowman

and Littlefield.

Rabel 1991 R. Rabel. “Hippothous and the Death of Achilles.”

Classical Journal, 86:126-30.

Reinhardt 1961 K. Reinhardt. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter. Ed. by U.

Hölscher. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Rengakos 2002 A. Rengakos. “Narrativität, Intertextualität, Selbstreferentialität.

Die neue Deutung der Odyssee.” In Epea Pteroenta. Ed. by
M. Reichel and A. Rengakos. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. pp. 173-
91.

Rengakos 2004 . “Die Argonautika und das ‘kyklische Gedicht’.” In

Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Ed by A. Bierl et al.
Munich: K. J. Saur. pp. 277-304.

Richardson 1990 S. Richardson. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University Press.

Riffaterre 1978 M. Riffaterre. Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.
188 JONATHAN BURGESS

Riffaterre 1983 . Text Production. Trans. by T. Lyons. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Rosner 1976 J. Rosner. “The Speech of Phoenix: Iliad 9.434-605.”

Phoenix, 30:314-27.

Schadewaldt 1965 W. Schadewaldt. Von Homers Welt und Werk. 4th ed.
Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler.

Schein 1984 S. L. Schein. The Mortal Hero. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Schein 2001 . “Homeric Intertextuality: Two Examples.” In

Euphrosyne. Ed. by A. Rengakos and J. N. Kazazis.
Stuttgart: F. Steiner. pp. 185-201.

Schein 2002 . “Mythological Allusion in the Odyssey.” In

Omero tremila anni dopo. Ed. by F. Montanari. Rome:
Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. pp. 85-104.

Schoeck 1961 G. Schoeck. Ilias und Aithiopis. Zurich: Atlantis.

Scodel 2002 R. Scodel. Listening to Homer. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press.

Scodel 2004 . “The Modesty of Homer.” In Oral Performance

and Its Context. Ed. by C. J. Mackie. Leiden: Brill. pp. 1-
19.

Scott 1921 J. A. Scott. The Unity of Homer. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Severyns 1928 A. Severyns. Le cycle épique dans l’école d’Aristarque.

Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles Lettres.”

Slatkin 1991 L. M. Slatkin. The Power of Thetis. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Taplin 1992 O. Taplin. Homeric Soundings. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Thomas 1999 R. F. Thomas. Reading Virgil and His Texts: Studies in

Intertextuality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Todorov 1981 T. Todorov. Introduction to Poetics. Trans. by R. Howard.

Theory and History of Literature, 1. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
 NEOANALYIS, ORALITY, AND INTERTEXTUALITY 189

Todorov 1983 . Symbolism and Interpretation. Trans. by C.

Porter. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Tsagarakis 1982 O. Tsagarakis. “The Teichoskopia Cannot Belong to the

Beginning of the Trojan War.” Quaderni Urbinati di
Cultura Classica, 41:61-72.

Usener 1990 K. Usener. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis der Odyssee zur

Ilias. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

van Wees 2002 H. van Wees. “Homer and Early Greece.” Colby Quarterly,
38:94-117.

Welcker 1865-82 F. G. Welcker. Der epische Cyclus, oder die homerischen

Dichter. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Hildesheim: Olms. Rpt. 1981.

West 1997 M. L. West. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic

Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

West 2003 . “Iliad and Aethiopis.” Classical Quarterly, 53:1-

14.

Whitman 1958 C. Whitman. Homer and the Heroic Tradition. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Willcock 1964 M. M. Willcock. “Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.”

Classical Quarterly, 14:141-54.

Willcock 1976 . A Companion to the Iliad. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Willcock 1977 . “Ad hoc Invention in the Iliad.” Harvard Studies

in Classical Philology, 18:41-53.

Willcock 1997 . “Neoanalysis.” In A New Companion to Homer.

Ed. by B. Powell and I. Morris. Leiden: Brill. pp. 174-89.

Woodhouse 1930 W. J. Woodhouse. The Composition of Homer’s Odyssey.

Oxford: Clarendon. Rpt. 1969.