From 5-7 June 2024 the international conference “The Poet of the Greeks. The Genesis and Reception of Homer in Archaic and Classical Greece” took place in Basel. It was initiated by Lars Hübner, organised and hosted in cooperation with Johannes Bernhardt, Anton Bierl, and Alexandra Trachsel; it was made financially possible by the generous support of the Swiss National Science Foundation’s Exchange programme and the Basel Department of Greek Studies. The conference centred on the question of when and, above all, how Homer became the poet of the Greeks. Against the background of the various turns in cultural studies, it was based on three premises: First, it was assumed that the Homeric epics are based on an oral narrative tradition that goes, at least in parts, back to the Mycenaean period. Second, it was based on a pre-Aristotelian concept of Homer, which encompassed the entire pre-, side-, and post-stories of the Trojan War, as they have come down to us in the so-called Epic Cycle, the Thebais, and the Homeric Hymns. Third, the concept of “reception” was conceived not only as an aesthetic, but also as a historical category. By involving philology, archaeology, and history, the aim was to challenge the widespread view that it was Athens which had a decisive role in the shaping and dissemination of the Homeric epics. Instead, it aimed to take a Panhellenic perspective and record the genesis, reception, and geographical dissemination of the Homeric tradition in the stream of Greek literature, imagery, and history at a crucial time when the Greek world was taking shape.

Section 1 “Foundations” began with the genesis of Homer. GREGORY NAGY (Harvard) focussed on the question of what constitutes an orally transmitted text against the background of his evolutionary model of Homeric textualization; pointing to the importance of the Panathenaic recitation of Homer for the consolidation of the content of the epics in the late sixth century BC, he emphasised the fundamental function of reception in oral contexts: Without reception, any oral tradition would be gone. DAVID ELMER (Harvard) also pointed out the connections between textual transmission and reception in oral contexts and addressed the research on oral poetry initiated by Parry and Lord, which is based on comparisons with singers in Yugoslavia in the early 20th century. However, this line of research underestimates the significance of the quite different institutional contexts; for a deeper understanding, the historically specific field of tension between orality, literacy and institutionality should take centre stage. JAUME PÒRTU-LAS (Barcelona) focussed on the singer of the epics, whose image developed in the Archaic period from a divine anonymous to a wandering singer; the name Homer, however, only appears late in the polemics of Heraclitus and Xenophanes against this poetic figure, who at the time had obviously attained the status of a deified cultural hero. The consistent finding is that the consolidation of the content of amorphous narratives of the Trojan War, the conceptualization of the poetic figure of Homer and his exclusive connection with the Iliad and Odyssey are late.

Section 2 “Contexts” focussed on the oral-literary environments of the Iliad and Odyssey. JONATHAN BURGESS (Toronto) analysed the sub-genre of the Apologos and the Telegony, which, within the broad stream of the Cyclic traditions, correspond narratologically entirely to the typology of the Iliad and, with the Telegony, can even be understood as a sequel to the Odyssey; this provides an indicator that the latter must already have taken shape in the first half of the 7th century. In a philological and structural analysis of the Thebais, CHRISTOS TSAGALIS (Thessaloniki) emphasised the close relationship to the Homeric epics, brought the more open concept of resonance into play and presented findings that speak for a formation of the Iliad in the late 7th century. In a broad cultural-historical approach, GIULIO GUIDORIZZI (Turin) dealt with the significance of the Homeric Hymns and their performance at festivals such as the Delia in the 550 years BCE. Again, it became clear that the Iliad and Odyssey only emerged from amorphous mythological traditions in a longer process and that the textual consolidation of the Iliad and Odyssey must have been (more or less) completed around 600 BCE. In this formative phase of the epics, the name Homer, whose date cannot be precisely determined, must have been associated not only with the emerging Iliad and Odyssey, but also with the entire complex of the Trojan War.

Section 3 “Literature” focussed on the reception of Homeric texts in literary genres. EWEN BOWIE (Oxford) spoke about the elegy, which is not to be understood as a child, but as an equivalent twin of epic. He argued that this literary genre was primarily concerned with local perspectives and dealt flexibly with topics from the Homeric tradition; one can argue in favour of the primacy of both hexameter poetry and elegy or see both as parallel developments that had an impact on the other genre. LUCIA ATHANASSAKI (Rethymno) argued in a similar direction for the independence of Pindar and emphasised the importance of archaeological images such as the treasury of the Siphnians in Delphi or the Achaia temple on Aegina for his poems. In a paranoid reading of Sappho’s fragment 2 V., MELISSA MUELLER (Amherst) focussed on the Homeric motif of koma and profiled it through a comparison with the modern lyric poet Anne Carson. Finally, ANTON BIERL (Basel) emphasised in a broad outline how closely the Homeric tradition and tragedy stand side by side. The literary reception shows the relevance of the broader Homeric corpus from the very beginning.

Section 4 “Images” focussed on the engagement with the Homeric tradition in images. LUCA GIULIANI (Berlin) dealt with the depiction of the blinding of the Cyclops in relation to the Homeric version which can be traced back to the 7th century on amphorae from Athens, Argos, and Etruria; this finding could make an argument against the late dating of the Homeric texts. RUTH BIELFELDT (Munich) and VIKTORIA RÄUCHLE (Munich), on the other hand, focussed on the sorceress Circe and her depiction on vases, which – contrary to prevailing inter-pretations – combine several narrative strands and temporal levels in prismatic images. ALEXANDER HEINEMANN (Tübingen) addressed the depiction of mythical scenes on vases and focussed on the development of such images up to the late sixth century BC; this development centres on the political question of how towering heroic figures can be integrated into the community. Finally, SARAH P. MORRIS (Los Angeles) traced the influences of early Hittite material into the sub-Geometric Aeolian tradition and poetry on the Trojan War. All this points to the reception of a broader Homeric tradition by different groups of actors and its wide geographical dissemination.

Section 5 “History” dealt with the reception and impact of the Homeric tradition on historical developments. LARS HÜBNER (Hamburg) focussed on the dissemination and political function of Achilles cults in the northern Black Sea region, linking them to the Peisistratid appropriation of Homer and arguing for the development of Homeric networks between Ionia, Pontic Olbia and Peisistratid Athens. ELKE STEIN-HÖLKESKAMP (Cologne) discussed the Archaic lyric poets’ engagement with the elitist ethos of the Homeric heroes, which she interpreted as a form of strong criticism. In a revisionist reading of Athenian history of the 6th century BCE, JOHANNES BERNHARDT (Constance), on the other hand, took this ethos as his starting point, arguing that it applied to all leading politicians from Draco to Cleisthenes and suggesting an interpretation of the Athenian path to democracy as an ongoing series of failed attempts at establishing tyrannis. MARIA OSMERS (Würzburg) finally addressed the significance of the Trojan War in the Classical period and emphasised that the Homeric tradition quite naturally influenced the political sphere, but that no competition or even claims to sole authority of interpretation could be observed. One can thus observe that from the beginning, the reference to what was obviously understood as factual “Homeric” history served as an argument in various socio-political contexts.

Section 6 “Reflections” focussed on the reception and criticism of Homer in the Classical period. ALEXANDRA TRACHSEL (Hamburg) focussed on Theagenes of Rhegium and the beginnings of ancient Homeric philology, which is of vital importance for the development of a consistent text of the Iliad and Odyssey. MARGALIT FINKELBERG (Tel Aviv) offered a review of Homeric references in the works of Plato, which, especially in the continuing discussion, profiled the point that not only the Homeric tradition but also Platonic thought is performative in character. Finally, GYBURG UHLMANN (Nuremberg) addressed Aristotle’s engagement with Homer and his concept of mimesis, which she did not define as the praise of Homer’s authority or in relation to an external reality but related it to a character of a figure like Odysseus in the process of performing certain deeds or actions, in short as “knowledge in action”. From the beginning, the complex Homeric traditions attracted both explanation and criticism, which shows the ubiquitous relevance of Homer even when his ideas were questioned or rejected.

In the concluding discussion, it once again became clear that we cannot understand Homer’s complex genesis without recognising the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation. If we assume that the Homeric epics are not the work of a poetic genius, but the result of a complex process in an oral context, then philologists, archaeologists, and historians need a methodological framework that can contribute to the understanding of a Homeric world that was not yet stable up to a certain point in time. One of the main findings is that a direct dependence or chronological sequence in the evidence of the 6th and 5th centuries BC cannot necessarily be assumed, but that the relationship between Homer and his reception can be understood as simultaneous and independent references to a Homeric tradition in a broader sense, due to the only gradual consolidation of textualization. Finally, the complex causes and circumstances of the emergence of the Iliad and Odyssey in the amorphous stream of the Trojan-Homeric tradition, their geographical dissemination and their significance for the historical development of the Archaic and Classical periods became clear. The results of the conference thus provide an excellent basis for the development of new models that go beyond the established positions of (neo-)analysts, (neo-)unitarians and (neo-)oralists – a timely publication is planned and in progress for 2025 in the MythosEikonPoiesis series with De Gruyter.

Conference overview:

Anton Bierl (Basel): Welcoming Address

Section 1: Foundations

Gregory Nagy (Harvard): A Question of ‘Reception’: How Could Homer Ever Outlive his Own Moments of Performance?

David Elmer (Harvard): Reception in an Oral Context – Some Comparatistic Perspectives

Jaume Pórtulas (Barcelona): Who and What Was ‚Homer’ in Archaic and Classical Times?

Section 2: Contexts

Jonathan Burgess (Toronto): The Question of Genre for the Apologos and the Telegony

Christos Tsagalis (Thessaloniki): Homer and the Cyclic Thebaid

Giulio Guidorizzi (Turin): The Homeric Hymns

Round Table: The Basel and Valla Commentaries

Giulio Guidorizzi (Turin) / David Elmer (Harvard) / Jaume Pòrtulas (Barcelona) / Anton Bierl (Basel) / Marina Coray (Basel) / Martha Krieter-Spiro (Basel)

Section 3: Literature

Ewen Bowie (Oxford): Homer in Elegy

Lucia Athanassaki (Rethymno, Crete): Homer in Pindar

Melissa Mueller (Amherst): Homer and Sappho

Anton Bierl (Basel): Homer and Tragedy

Section 4: Images

Sarah P. Morris (Los Angeles): Out of Anatolia: Receptions and Repercussions of the Trojan War in Greek Cult and Art

Luca Giuliani (Berlin): Blinding the Ogre: The Odyssey, Folk Tales and Iconography

Ruth Bielfeldt (Munich) / Viktoria Räuchle (Munich): Spell and Spills: How Much of Homer is in Attic Kirke Cups

Alexander Heinemann (Tübingen): Intentionale Bildgeschichten? Homeric Imageries and Athe-nian Agencies on Archaic Tableware

Section 5: History

Lars Hübner (Hamburg): A Case of Homeric Network? The Northern Pontic Cults of Achilles between Ionia, Pontic Olbia, and Peisistratid Athens

Elke Stein-Hölkeskamp (Cologne): „Ich mag den großen Feldherrn nicht, nicht den mit dem breiten Gang” – Achill & Co. in der Kritik

Johannes Bernhardt (Constance): Homeric Heritage and the Path to Athenian Democracy

Maria Osmers (Würzburg): Der Troianische Krieg und die Polis: zur Bedeutung Homers in der politischen Debatte der klassischen Zeit

Section 6: Reflections

Alexandra Trachsel (Hamburg): Envisioning the Dawning Glimmers of Philology

Margalit Finkelberg (Tel Aviv): Homer and Plato

Gyburg Uhlmann (Nuremberg): Homer and Aristotle