'The title, which should be 'Songs of the Homers', suggests something less austere than Mr. Kirk's closely argued survey of the whole Homeric Question. The keynote in 'ambiguous instances must be rigorously excluded from the argument', yet conclusions are reached on most problems. It is not, I hope, only because they are broadley the same as my own that I think the book admirable. It is clear and interesting. There is a good historical summary of the millennium. All evidence, whether pro or contra the author's case, is severly scrutinized, and the notes enable most of it to be traced to its primary source. (...) When he analyses the poems, Mr. Kirk finds an overriding unity, transmitted in spite of anomalies introcuded by later overworking. His explanation is interesting. After an Originative stage, the oral tradition had a Creative stage, culminating in the two monumental poems. Most anomalies come in at this stage, from the use of old material. This was followed by a short Reproductive stage, in which unlettered bards preserved the poems whith a few additions. During the seventh century this merged into the Degenerate stage, in which rhapsodes made clumsy and eccentric additions and elaborated episodes. (...) The text again fell into a chaotic state, from which it was rescued by Aristarchus. (...) The aesthetic appreciation is delightful reading, whether you agree or not.' (D.H.F. GRAY in The Classical Review (New Series), 1963, 265-67).