HELLENIC STUDIES SERIES
Cover: Achilles Unbound: Multiformity and Tradition in the Homeric Epics, from Harvard University PressCover: Achilles Unbound in PAPERBACK

Hellenic Studies Series 81

Achilles Unbound

Multiformity and Tradition in the Homeric Epics

Add to Cart

Product Details

PAPERBACK

$27.50 • £22.95 • €25.00

ISBN 9780674987364

Publication Date: 04/02/2019

Text

228 pages

6 x 9 inches

8 color illustrations

Center for Hellenic Studies > Hellenic Studies Series

World

Though Achilles the character is bound by fate and by narrative tradition, Achilles’s poem, the Iliad, was never fixed and monolithic in antiquity—it was multiform. And the wider epic tradition, from which the Iliad emerged, was yet more multiform. In Achilles Unbound, Casey Dué, building on nearly twenty years of work as coeditor of the Homer Multitext, explores both the traditionality and multiformity of the Iliad in a way that gives us a greater appreciation of the epic that has been handed down to us.

Dué argues that the attested multiforms of the Iliad—in ancient quotations, on papyrus, and in the scholia of medieval manuscripts—give us glimpses of the very long history of the text, access to even earlier Iliads, and a greater awareness of the mechanisms by which such a remarkable poem could be composed in performance. Using methodologies grounded in an understanding of Homeric poetry as a system, Achilles Unbound argues for nothing short of a paradigm shift in our approach to the Homeric epics, one that embraces their long evolution and the totality of the world of epic song, in which each performance was newly composed and received by its audience.

Recent News

Black lives matter. Black voices matter. A statement from HUP »

From Our Blog

Jacket: We Have Never Been Modern, by Bruno Latour, translated by Catherine Porter, from Harvard University Press

Bruno Latour Wins Kyoto Prize

Congratulations to Bruno Latour for being named the 2021 Kyoto Prize laureate for arts and philosophy. To celebrate, here’s an excerpt from We Have Never Been Modern. By claiming that the modern Constitution does not permit itself to be understood, by proposing to reveal the practices that allow it to exist, by asserting that the critical mechanism has outlived its usefulness, am I behaving as though we were entering a new era that would follow the era of the moderns?