This article belongs to a special issue of Oral Tradition published in honor of John Miles Foley’s 65th birthday and 2011 retirement. The surprise Festschrift, guest-edited by Lori and Scott Garner entirely without his knowledge, celebrates John’s tremendous impact on studies in oral tradition through a series of essays contributed by his students from the University of Missouri- Columbia (1979-present) and from NEH Summer Seminars that he has directed (1987-1996). http://journal.oraltradition.org/issues/26ii

Annotated Bibliography of Works by John Miles Foley

Compiled by R. Scott Garner

In 1985 John Miles Foley authored as his first book-length work Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography. This volume, which provided an introduction to the field of study and over 1800 annotated entries, was later supplemented by updates published in Oral Tradition (and compiled by John himself, Lee Edgar Tyler, Juris Dilevko, and Catherine S. Quick [with the assistance of Patrick Gonder, Sarah Feeny, Amerina Engel, Sheril Hook, and Rosalinda Villalobos Lopez]) that served both to summarize and to provide reflection upon new developments in an area of scholarship that eventually became too vast and broadly evolved to be contained by any single bibliographic venture. Given that John’s own work was instrumental in effecting this sustained development—while also having importance in so many other areas of study as well—it seems only fitting to close the current volume with an annotated bibliography of John’s works up through the current point in time.

In compiling this vast bibliography (which includes entries for nearly 200 essays, books, and other types of scholarly contributions), I have attempted to adhere to John’s own practice of providing full citations followed by a few sentences that summarize each item’s contents and its significance within the larger body of scholarship on oral traditions (or in some cases, within other fields as well). Additionally, I have continued his methodology of not annotating reviews of other scholars’ books unless those discussions themselves directly contributed to ongoing discourse in the field. Variations among entries with respect to capitalization or terminology are meant to reflect the specific usages within the annotated works themselves. For those works that have previously appeared in one of the bibliographies listed above, I have here reproduced those earlier versions without alteration (except for matters of style) and with much thanks to their original authors.