New Trends in Homeric Scholarship (NTHS)

Abstract

Two Separate Traditions of Research? (1-3) 1.2 Focus on Composition and Crisis: 1930-1980 (4-5) 1.3 Reactions and Strategies Until the Late 1980s (6-10) 1.4 Innovations around the 1980s (11) 2. New Oral Poetry 2.1 Steps to a New Oral Poetics (12) 2.2 Communication, Audience Orientation and Performance (13-14) 2.3 Theme not Meter (15-16) 2.4 Oral and Written Discourse (17-18) 2.5 Discourse and mýthos (19-20) 3. The Evolutionary Model 3.1 Tradition as Language, Diachrony in Synchrony (21) 3.2 Ages of Homer (22-23) 3.3 Panhellenization and Agonistics (24-28) 3.4 A Summary of the Evolutionary Model, Modifications and Response to Criticism (29-31) 3.5 Consequences 3.5.1 Neounitarian Quality and Malleability (32-35) 3.5.2 Traditional Art as an Oral Poetics of Ellipsis (36-37) 3.6 Relevance to Today: Multiforms, Web and Hypertext (38-40) 4. Further Topics and Related Themes 4.1 Biography (41) 4.2 Politics and Value Orientation (42) 4.3 Etymologies (43) 4.4 Myth (44-46) 4.5 Ritual (47-49) 4.6 Hero Cult and Epic Heroes (50-53) 4.7 Possible Influences from the Near East: Oriental Myths and Narratives (54-59) 4.8 Mise en abyme and Metanarrative Reflection (60-62) 4.9 Memory (63) 5. Conclusion and Prospect (64) Brought to you by | Universitaetsbibliothek Basel Authenticated Download Date | 12/19/17 11:13 AM With the new revised English edition of this commentary we seize upon a unique opportunity to add a new chapter to the Prolegomena (NTHS). This section closes the gap, especially between the chapters COM and FOR, that has widened since the early 1990s, or even the late 1980s, when the commentary project was first planned. At the same time, it attempts to embrace new approaches, in line with the German edition's spirit of accounting for the entirety of Homeric scholarship (COM 42). In particular, we wish to address the Anglophone reader. At the beginning of the project, Latacz still spoke of two completely separate mainstreams, German-speaking and Anglophone scholarship (COM 25, 27), despite their tendencies toward convergence. One major goal of the original edition was to familiarize the German reader with English-speaking scholarship and to bring both lines to a fruitful synthesis (COM 42), as a complement to the Cambridge commentary. But I would no longer pessimistically say that our commentary was merely a German counterpart to the Cambridge commentary, a work designed to overcome the danger of standing on only one side of the great divide. The holistic scholarship to come, Latacz maintained, could make deeper and more synthetic sense of the original text (COM 27). I would assert that convergence has increased considerably since then, and that to some extent the present English edition actually represents this totalizing, synthetic tool for the beginning of the 21st century. Why has Homeric scholarship, unlike any other field, fused into a unified international community? In today's globalized world, English has become the lingua franca-whether or not we ought to regret this fact cannot be discussed here. Because of th...

La estructura común del hexámetro dactílico y el trímetro yámbico en la poesía griega arcaica

“…12 Las teorías sobre el origen del hexámetro, un tema con rica bibliografía e importantes contribuciones, incluyen la visión comparativa (sánscrito, eslavo, irlandés) de Meillet (1923), Jakobson (1952), Watkins (1963, Pighi (1964), Kurylowicz (1970) o West (1973), las fórmulas de Parry (1928), la colometría de Fränkel (1926), su posible existencia en micénico (Ruijgh, 1995;Latacz, 2001;Hajnal, 2003), su procedencia de colos líricos (West 1973, Nagy 1974, 1992, Berg 1977, Gentili & Giannini 1977, Kiparsky 2018, Tichy 1981, N. Schoubben 2018, entre otros muchos). Una visión certera y sucinta de las nuevas corrientes en la filología homérica puede encontrarse en Anton Bierl (2015).…”