Form And Content In Homer 3515036407, 9783515036405

Citation preview

HERMES ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KLASSISCHE PHILOLOGIE

EINZELSCHRIFTEN • HEFT 46

FORM AND CONTENT IN HOMER BY ODYSSEUS TSAGARAKIS

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH • WIESBADEN

NUNC COCNOSCO EX PARTE

THOMAS J. BATA LIBRARY TRENT UNIVERSITY

FORM AND CONTENT IN HOMER

HERMES ZEITSCHRIFT FUR KLASSISCHE PHILOLOGIE

EINZELSCHRIFTEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

JOCHEN BLEICKEN • KARL BUCHNER t WOLFGANG KULLMANN

HEFT 46

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH • WIESBADEN

1982

FORM AND CONTENT IN HOMER BY ODYSSEUS TSAGARAKIS

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH • WIESBADEN 1982

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Tsagarakis, Odysseus: Form and content in Homer / by Odysseus Tsagarakis. - Wiesbaden : Steiner, 1982. (Hermes : Einzelschr.; H. 46) ISBN 3-515-03640-7 NE: Hermes / Einzelschriften

Alle Rechte vorbehalten Ohne ausdriickliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, das Werk oder einzelne Teile daraus nachzudrucken oder auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie usw.) zu vervielfaltigen. © 1982 by Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH, Wiesbaden, Druck: Proff GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Honnef Printed in Germany

CONTENTS Preface.VII Introduction. 1 I. Verse Structure . 10 i. Runover Adjectives . 10 ii. Runover Nouns ..24 a. Common Nouns.24 b. Proper Nouns .27 iii. Ornamental Adjectives.32 II. Thematic Structure .47 i. Arrival .47 ii. Visit.65 iii. Message .74 iv. Meal Offering.80 v. Departure.87 a. Ship Departure .87 b. Chariot Departure.90 vi. Arming.95 vii. Assembly . 100 III. Battle Narrative . i. Combat . ii. The Call for Help. iii. Slayings .

104 104 119 127

IV. Similes. 134 i. Short Comparisons. 134 ii. Extended Similes. 140 Conclusion. 147 Select Bibliography Indexes

. 153 156

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/formcontentinhomOOOOtsag

PREFACE I first felt the need to undertake the present work when I acqainted myself with the writings of those who had discussed formulaic elements of the Homeric language and composition, and I am deeply indebted to them. While the dependence upon an oral tradition has been established and we now know much about formulas and themes, we still do not have a better understanding of the poetry which those elements help to create. They have been discussed independently of the artistic excellence which is evident in the Iliad and Odyssey, and their significance has thus not been properly considered. It will become apparent that “for¬ mulaic” or “typical” elements are not a matter of random omission, fusion or transference; they are capable of acquiring an individual cha¬ racter and of integrating into the structure of the poem. This study aims at elucidating poetic forms as they evolve from concrete situations pre¬ sented in the poems. It is hoped that this approach will prove fruitful and that the study will shed light upon some grave problems of Ho¬ meric scholarship. The text is quoted from the Oxford Editions of the Iliad by D. B. MUNRO — T. W. ALLEN and of the Odyssey by T. W. ALLEN. I should like to express sincere thanks to those who made helpful comments on this study and to Professor A. B. LORD who discussed with me some aspects of oral composition. I also wish to thank the editors of the Hermes-Einzelschriften series, especially Professor W. KULLMANN, for accepting the manuscript for publication. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Fede¬ ration for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and to this body my thanks are also due.

,

To the memory of my father

INTRODUCTION The Homeric epics have been often, and variously, analysed in our time with a view to understanding their composition and artistry. An ongoing discussion of the subject has been that of students of oral poetry1, and it has proved useful but hardly sufficient since Homer is more than a simple occurrence of formulas and themes. There is no known oral poem comparable to the Iliad or the Odyssey in technique and art.2 If the exigencies of oral composition necessitate the use of themes and formulas in Yugoslav songs and they also do so in Homer, we have only learned what the poet works with, but not what he achieves.3 “Typical” scenes and themes have been found and they have also been broken down into “typical” components4, though it did not es¬ cape us that the order and the number of the thematic components are not always the same. For AREND the poet used “variation”, for others, in the more recent past, the reason lies in the exigencies of oral compo¬ sition or in the poet’s “unskillful” selection and combination of those components.5 LORD and NOTOPOULOS urged a long time age that a completely new “poetics” be written as a first step towards a proper understanding of the composition of the Homeric epics6 , and though neither of them * Cf. esp. A. B. LORD, The Singer of Tales, 141 ff. 2 In this context cf. G. F. ELSE, Homer and the Homeric Problem, Cincinnati 1965, (Lectures in memory of L. T. SEMPLE), 24 f. The recent publication of Avdo Mededovii’s poem, The Wedding of Smailagic Meho (Cambridge, Mass. 1977, vol. Ill in the Serbo-Croatian Heroic Song series) is comparable to the Odyssey only in size (yet cf. D. YOUNG’s remarks, Arion 6 (1967) p. 300), though some would try to establish important links between Homer and Avdo, and LORD says indeed in this volume (p. 17), “Avdo has made the song epic in the Homeric sense. This means not merely longer and fuller, but also more meaningful and artisti¬ cally more effective.” Yet it has been duly emphasized that the Homeric epics are superior to anything known from the repertoire of oral singers. Cf. esp. F. DIRLMEIER, Das serbocroatische Heldenlied und Homer, SBHeid 1971, 7 ff. 3 The attempt to explain contradictions and inconsistencies in the light of the exigencies of oral composition (LORD, TAPHA 69 (1938), 441 ff.) was not very successful. Cf. my papers, Hermes 104 (1976), 1 ff., and Grazer Beitrage VIII (1979), 23 ff. 4 First by AREND, Die typischen Szenen, passim. Cf. LORD, TAPHA 82, p. 73 and n. 5, who applies the term “theme” to AREND’s “Szenen”. Battle scenes have been analyzed more recently by B. FENIK, Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad, passim. 5 6

Cf. GUNN, Harv. Stud. 75 (1971), 1 ff., Edwards, TAPHA 105 (1975), 51 ff. Cf. NOTOPOULOS, esp. TAPHA 80 (1949), 1 ff. and Harv. St. 68 (1964), 45 ff., LORD,

Harv. St. 72(1968), 1 ff.

2

Introduction

wrote down such a ponema, both gave us the prolegomena “to the formu¬ lation of such a non-Aristotelian Poetics’’’ as NOTOPOULOS put it.7 LORD says, “We have exercised our imagination and ingenuity in find¬ ing a kind of unity, individuality, and originality in the Homeric poems that are irrelevant. Had Homer been interested in Aristotelian ideas of unity, he would not have been Homer, nor would he have composed the Iliad or the Odyssey”.8 The problem is that we assume Homer to be a singer of tales and we seem to overlook the fact that we have to¬ day, and Aristotle had in his days, two monumental epics known in book form from at least the sixth century B.C. on9, and that, unlike Yugoslav songs, a considerable period of time (several centuries in fact) lapsed between their original creation (whatever its form and condi¬ tions) and the written form, during which they were open to interpo¬ lation and change as were other works of early Greek literature.10 How can then an original text, even an oral one, be established? The Homeric epics are not exactly a book published yesterday or an oral perfor¬ mance locked safely in a recording device. NOTOPOULOS says, “The literature on Homer is so entwined in our teaching that it requires a new generation whose introduction to Homer starts with Parry instead of Wolf, Lachmann, Wilamowitz, and the rest.11 The student of Homer should, in other words, be taught only about how verses are made and how they function, but not about who composed them (whether Homer or somebody else after him); it does not matter much whether an original epic composition was interpo¬ lated or changed for any of a variety of reasons during those, for us still obscure, centuries of its transmission. PARRY’s followers seem not to be much concerned about such things as authorship and poetic quality which traditional criticism has successfully elucidated despite all pitfalls. The new poetics would allow, in the name of the exigencies of oral composition, any competent hand after Homer to tamper with his poems and to get away with it. We are told that since Yugoslav 7 Cf. TAPHA 80, p. 1, and Harv. St. 68, p. 1, where he welcomed LORD’S work (The Singer of Tales) as a “splendid poetics of oral poetry”. In this context see also KlRK’s criticism, Homer and the Oral Tradition, 20 f. 8 Cf. The Singer of Tales, 145. 9 W. KULLMANN, Gnomon 47 (1977), 533, thinks that the epics were written down be¬ fore the 6th century. For a more recent discussion of this question see his paper: Zur Methode der Neoanalyse in der Homerforschung, WS 15 NF (1981) 5 ff. The problems and questions arising from the transmission of the Homeric epics«are well known. On the subject more recently KIRK, op. cit. 129 ff. with bibliography. 10 NOTOPOULOS himself thinks that there are genuine and spurious verses in Hesiod (cf. Hesperia 29 (1960), 177 ff.). 11 Cf. TAPHA 82, p. 81. In this context cf. also CALHOUN, Homeric Repetitions, 22. More recently H. PATZER, Dichterische Kunst and poetisches Handwerk im homerischen Epos, 6, seems to adopt this view though not without some misgivings.

Introduction

3

singers work out the same theme in different ways, we must rest assured that Homer did the same thing and that, therefore, inconsistencies in our text are due to the same cause.12 Aristotle’s views of organic unity are, we are told, incompatible with the composition of an oral poem13, but Aristotle based his judgement on Homer’s achievement which, we all know, is far greater than any known oral poet has ever achieved. LORD tells us that “themes lead na¬ turally from one to another to form a song which exists as a whole in the singer’s mind with Aristotelian beginning, middle, and end, and the units within this whole, the themes, have a semi-independent life of their own”14 , and claims, ironically enough, a certain Aristotelian unity for Yugoslav songs. But this Aristotelian “whole” becomes more com¬ plex in an epic of the quality and magnitude of the Iliad, whatever may be said about composition by theme in Yugoslav songs. Aristotle’s views reflect, understandably enough, organized thinking, and if he says that the Homeric epics have organic unity we must endeavour to understand it and to see if what he says can be reconciled with what is known from oral poetry about unity of plot. We should not reject his views outright on the unsupported premise that he considered Homer to be a literary poet and applied to him the principles of organic unity of the Sophoclean tragedy. Some studies have attempted to find a structural symmetry in the Homeric epics, some kind of a poetic architecture. MYRES offered a Geometric design for the Iliad15, and WHITMAN expanded and “moder¬ nized” that design in the light of the theory of oral composition.16 WHITMAN interchanges “design” with “form” (Geometric that is) and discovers it not only in the “grouping of days” but also in the balance, through similarity or opposition, of scenes and whole books.17 The Geometric form may exist and may be attributed to a conscious effort of the poet as WHITMAN thinks, but it does not help us very much in understanding the structure of individual themes, scenes or episodes.

12 For criticism of this position see my paper, Grazer Beitrage VIII (1979), passim. 13 In addition to LORD and NOTOPOULOS see now NAGLER, Spontaneity and Tradi¬ tion, 24, “The unity of an oral poem is not what the readers have been, since Aristotle, condi¬ tioned to expect”. Yet cf. also HAINSWORTH’s remarks, JHS 90 (1970), 90 ff. esp. p. 98. 14 Cf. LORD, op. cit. (n. 8 above), p. 94, and more emphatically GUNN loc. cit. 15 See his paper, JHS 52 (1932), 264 ff. Cf. also SHEPPARD, The Pattern of the Iliad, passim, and JHS 56 (1936), 39 ff. 16 Homer and the Heroic Tradition, 249 ff. NOTOPOULOS too found the subject fasci¬ nating enough to discuss it, though from a different angle. Cf. his paper, Athena 61 (1957), 65 ff. Cf. further S. BERTRAM, TAPHA 97 (1966), 15 ff., who deals with the structural sym¬ metry of the Odyssey, and J. H. GAISSER, Harv.St. 73 (1969), who concentrates on digressions. 17 Cf. op. cit. pp. 250 and 258. Cf. also WEBSTER, From Mycenae to Homer, pp. 259 f., 206 f., and 261 ff.

4

Introduction

A scene may balance out another scene but the fact should not be overlooked that no scene is the exact duplicate of another despite any similarities in content and that principles of Geometric vase painting can, therefore, not have the same meaning in poetry, which deals with human situations. If there is a balanced symmetry between Iliad I and Iliad XXIV, it is not because it was designed as in a vase painting. The point can be best illustrated by a consideration of two of the “corres¬ ponding episodes” in MYRES’ diagram of Iliad I:18 they are No. 4 and 10, where “Achilles guarantees order” in the beginning and end of the assembly when he (first “episode”) assures Calchas that he will not allow anyone to lay hands on him (A 87 ff.) and when he (second ba¬ lancing “episode”) says to Agamemnon that he will not offer violence to whoever comes to take away Briseis (v. 298 ff.). Now we know that Achilles’ actions are differently motivated in these two instances and that his “promise” in A 298 ff. was in no way anticipated by his “promise” in v. 87 ff. as MYRES would have us be¬ lieve. For Achilles’ attitude has changed; he is now hostile to Agamem¬ non, and it is only because of divine intervention that he refrains from killing him (v. 188 ff.).19 If Achilles were “law-abiding, however high spirited” as shown in his “promise” to Calchas (though I do not think that his assurance to Calchas has this meaning) and if that “promise” were indicative of a balancing “promise” in terms of structure, we should have the proof already at v. 188 ff.20 As it is the symmetrical design is not in harmony with certain elements of content.21 We are told that there are common poetic elements in the design such as “formulas”, and “themes”22, but what do really “visual” for¬ mulas like the meander, swastikas, zig-zag, stars etc. tell us about those elements except that they are used paratactically? They may be said to reflect a certain sense of order and rhythm23, which we may also 18 Op. cit. 286 and 287. On the misuse of the Aristotelian term “episode” see my paper, REG 86 (1973), 294 ff. 19 In this context see my paper, “Die Epiphanie Athenes im A der Ilias: Psychologie oder Religion?”, Gymnasium 87 (1980), 57 ff. 20 I note in passing that the “promise” used by MYRES in both instances (p. 287), conceals the existing difference between the two reactions of Achilles. In v. 297 ff., he is still threatening Agamemnon, and if he says that he would not use violence, it is because he decided earlier to abide by the will of the gods (v. 216-18), not because he gave Calchas assurances. Achilles may be a “law-abiding” man but there are other factors and circumstances at work (cf. my paper, n. 19 above) and they should not be overlooked. 21 MYRES says himself, “To the abduction of Briseis. . . there is no formal counterpart in XXIV” (p. 288). And this is not the only “anomaly” in this scheme of things. For criticism see also J. H. GAISSER, Harv. St. 73 (1969), 2. 22 Cf. NOTOPOULOS, Athena 61 (1967), 71. 23 In this context cf. V. R. d’A. DESBOROUGH, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford 1952), p. 298, and NOTOPOULOS, op. cit. 70.

Introduction

5

discover in Homer’s poetry, but they never explain how change occurs simply because they, unlike the poetic material, are not impregnated with life. The artist of the Dipylon vases is not portraying real life. There is “filling ornamentation” in Homer and in Geometric art24, but here again its function is different. NOTOPOULOS noted that orna¬ mentation “is an integral characteristic of Geometric and Homeric art which resemble each other in “design” but . . . operate on different levels of refracting reality”.25 In Geometric art the refraction of reality is generic, and the formula, NOTOPOULOS tells us, is the reality, where¬ as in Homer the reality, however still generic and formulaic, has “imme¬ diate relation to life”26, but the implication of this truth for the com¬ position has not been considered. Formulas, themes and scenes may be typical, and structurally ba¬ lanced, but we now need to define the “type” in terms of an individual structure within the poetic plot. Neither exigencies of oral composition nor a desire to create a symmetrical composition — least of all variation — have been shown to account for the change that occurs in those typi¬ cal features of Homer’s poetry or for the form of a given structure. AREND only succeeded in underlining the fact that there occur typical elements in typical scenes. But he deduced a general “Typus” and mea¬ sured individual thematic structures against it, ascribing differences to what he vaguely called variation.27 Unfortunately, this method has been adopted by others as we will see. It is not enough to know that the assembly is, for instance, “one of the commonest themes” in “all epic poetry”28 or that it consists of typical elements. It is more impor¬ tant to know why its structure in A 54 ff. differs from that in T 40 ff. of our Iliad. The theme is repeated, it is “typical”, but its structure is individual, and what makes it individual is the arrangement of the poetic material which is termed form in the present study. The question before us is not so much whether the present poetic form is the result of improvisation or literary art, but how this form 24 NOTOPOULOS, op. cit. 78 ff. Though he surely is mistaken in his view that “numerous scenes of sleeping, dressing, bathing, eating, sacrificing and its details” (p. 81) are all unneces¬ sary filling ornamentation; a great deal of them are evidently not, and AREND, whom NOTO¬ POULOS quotes in the same context, never said they are. We should not say that such scenes “have no organic role in the action of the poem”. They concern the characters of the story. 25 Op. cit. 88. 26 Op. cit. 88 f. He is comparing the match-like figures in Geometric vases with the “threedimensional individual figures” in Homer. On Homer’s presentation of the lifelike reality see E. AUERBACH, Mimesiss, Bern 1971,6 ff. 27 Op. cit. 27, and passim. He quotes the noLKi\ia of the ancient scholia which can be a mis¬ leading idea (cf. my paper, REG 86 (1973), 294 ff.). The idea of variation itself has struck, it seems, deep roots in discussions of Homeric composition. Cf. for instance BOWRA, Heroic Poetry, 180. 28 LORD, TAPHA 82 (1951), p. 75, n. 3.

6

Introduction

was achieved by a poet who became dependent upon traditional and formulaic material for the composition of his work, i.e. on what prin¬ ciple is the poetic material arranged. It has not been seen clearly that content, which influences form, is not just what a verse, a theme, a type-scene or a simile contains. The content is plot-related, and this is a significant fact whose implications for the composition will be examined. The epics of Homer require, in their present state, a care¬ ful study of the relation between form and content before anything definite can be said about an oral poetics or about a structural sym¬ metry. The chief aim is, then, to discuss how content determines poetic form in all of its major aspects in the development of the plot. The poet’s way of handling his material would seem to be dictated by well-established poetic conventions, and this factor too will be taken into consideration. Form, whatever its specific aspect, was bound to be more or less fixed to the point of being recognized as such in its overall architecture, and as such it surely exerted limitations on the poet’s freedom of choice in the composition. Pre-existing structural elements, which include the formula, the theme, the simile and the scene, had attained a certain form like a ready-made building mate¬ rial, and some of that material might retain its form, but it was the new plot that brought about the change and gave individual structures an individual form. The content of these elements, upon which we will confine our dis¬ cussion, would seem to be “typical” since it concerns traditional heroes and their actions. Even the plot would seem to be so, and yet there is room for the creation of the individuality of person and situation.29 The angry hero is, we are told, a traditional theme30, but Homer chose Achilles as the angry hero, thus linking the type hero to a distinct individual. I realize of course that in pre-Homeric epics the “angry hero” was not faceless, and the tale of Meleager (I 524 ff.) is a case in point31, 29 The terms “individuality” and “individual” should of course be understood in a certain sense distinct from the concepts in the Archaic Epoch. In this context see my study: SelfExpression in Early Greek Lyric, Elegiac and Iambic Poetry, Wiesbaden 1977 (Palingenesia XI), 10 ff. with bibliography. 30 Cf. more recently H. PATZER, op. cit., 41 f„ A. HEUBECK, “Homeric Studies Today”, in: Homer Tradition and Invention, 13. W. SCHADEWALDT, Der Aufbau der Ilias 31, points out that traditional themes belong more to the heroic world than to a specific poetic tradition. 31 Cf. esp. KAKRIDIS, Homeric Researches, passim. WHITMAN, op. cit. 155, sees nothing more than the type in that tale which in Homer he elevates to “a study of heroic self-searching and the dark night of the soul”, and sees in that study “creativity in the highest sense”. This may be so, but the poetic achievement is more concrete and specific in terms of composition. WHITMAN makes too much, I am afraid, of Homer’s own purpose (p. 156) in shaping traditio¬ nal figures (originality). That the role of Meleager did also underlie a certain purpose, is shown by the fact that it is quoted to Achilles as an example for instruction.

Introduction

7

but all the same: Achilles was not, and could not, be exactly like Me¬ leager or any of the “angry heroes”. How many heroes did, or could, share his personal fate, have the same friends and enemies? Achilles, like other Homeric heroes, might even have figured in pre-Homeric epics as neo-analysts have argued32, though we do not know in what way, but in the Iliad his role is defined in relation to others around him, which leads to the individuality of the poetic situation.33 Achilles might be a “typical figure” of heroic poetry, since what befell him had befallen other heroes before, but it should not be overlooked that a hero’s involvement in, and reaction to, those “typical happenings” (insult to his honor, withdrawal, death of his friend, return to action, and avenge of the friend’s death), though “typical” too are also per¬ sonal and individual as in the Iliad which shows admirably that “hap¬ penings” originate in character.34 It is possible to discern in the plots certain motifs that point to self-contained stories in heroic poetry35, but Homeric plots are not simply an amalgam of various conventional elements which one has only to sort out and study in order to understand the composition of the poem. The type theme of menis is individual as it applies to Achilles in the Iliad, and so are the basic situations related to it. For example, Achilles does not return to the battlefield under the circumstances in which Meleager returned (I 590 ff.)36, though the return of the angry hero is as such typical. The poet may select and combine skilfully those

32 Cf. HEUBECK, op.cit. p. 12, n. 31. 33 If we say “The plot of the Iliad depends on Homer’s revealing gradually the relations between gods and men. . .” (S. BENARDETE, Agon 1 (1968), 35), we should then qualify the vague and general “gods and men”; otherwise the plot will not be that of the Iliad. 34 On this pont see W. JAEGER, Paideia I, Oxford 1965, p. 51. Cf. also WHITMAN, op. cit. 181 ff., BOWRA, Tradition and Design in the Iliad, p. 192 f. According to REINHARDT, Die Ilias und Ihr Dichter, 99, the poet “dichtet in Konflikten”. 35 Cf. U. HOLSCHER, The Transformation from Folk-Tale to Epic, 52. 36 This point is often too conveniently overlooked. It is not the “Not des Heeres” (PATZER, op. cit. 44) that makes Achilles change his mind but the friend’s personal appeal (n 21 ff. I note in passing NAGLER’s over-simplification of the function of this appeal, op. cit. 135), even though Achilles does, in his reply, refer to the fact that the Trojans were close to the ships (v. 66 f.); we know that they had been there for quite sometime, and he never lifted a finger to do anything himself. His personal interest in the wounded Machaon should also not be inter¬ preted in terms of an interest in the “Kriegsnot der Achaier” (PATZER, p. 43); Machaon is, first and foremost, the physician of the army, not just a warrior, and Achilles is, understandably enough, concerned about him (A 613 f.). Unlike Meleager, Achilles does not return, when he eventually does, in response to anyone’s personal appeal to save the men or because he is per¬ sonally threatened by the enemy; he returns to avenge Patroclus’ death which he could not foresee when he sent him alone into the battlefield. That he had no intention of giving up his anger is proven by the fact that his mother had to ask him to do so (T 34 ff.) since that was the only way to achieve his objective (in this context cf. my paper, Hermes 99 (1971), 272).

Introduction

8

motifs, and he may thus prove his creative talent37, (personally I think that Homer’s creativity lies elsewhere), but there is more (as far as com¬ position is concerned): we have a withdrawal, but who is the man who withdraws, for not all heroes would withdraw from combat or, for that matter, return under the same circumstances. The archetypal pattern (Withdrawal, Devastation, Return)38 may be found in the Iliad, but that is not enough to know. What matters most is its human content since it is bound to influence the development of the plot and so the structure of the entire poem. Without Patroclus, Hector, Apollo, or Priam, not to speak of Agamemnon39, the theme of menis would not be what it is. Now in composing the poem the poet takes into consideration what his heroes must say and do according to the role he assigns to them within the framework of his plot which, to repeat, is in a sense indivi¬ dual. The poet apparently knows what role they played in traditional heroic lays, he knows about their character qualities, about their deeds etc. But it was obviously not possible or desirable to include in his poem all that was known about a hero or an event.40 The life of heroes and gods in its major manifestations had already taken certain fixed form in those lays and was sanctioned by a long epic tradition but that “ready-made” form could not always be used in a poem with different plot requirements, and for the poet it was not just a question of cutting and fitting, of selecting and combining pre-existing forms. The mechanics of verse-making is now well understood, but more is obviously needed. The recent realization that the Homeric formula is flexible41 is certainly important, but we should, further, ask what makes it flexible. Achilles’ hands were undoubtedly “man-slaying” in pre-Homeric lays, and the formula also received an adjective like “irresis¬ tible” or “awful” before Homer, but when Priam bends to kiss those hands the formula takes the form which the situation requires.42 This, if anything, gives it meaning and effectiveness.43 The situation itself might be termed “typical”: the father of the slain son comes to ransom

37 Cf. PATZER, op. cit. 42, HEUBECK, op. cit. 13, NAGLER, op. cit. 131 ff. 38 For the terminology cf. LORD, The Singer of Tales, 186 ff. and NAGLER, loc. cit. 39 WHITMAN (pp. 156, 162) says that Agamemnon did not appear in epic tradition as he does in Homer, which is of course true, but I doubt whether the poet used the traditional figure of Agamemnon with a view to establishing “him as the opposite of Achilles” (p. 162). I do not see such a purpose. It is simply Achilles who reveals Agamemnon and vice-versa. 40 See Aristotle’s comments on Homer’s method of composition (Poetics 1451 a 21-26), and my discussion Aristotle Poetics 1451 A 24-30, Phoenix 22 (1968), 159 ff. 41 See esp. HA1NSWORTH, The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula, passim, and HOEKSTRA, Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes, passim. 42 Cf. p. 17 f. below. 43

This has nothing to do with any “asthetischen Kriterien” (PATZER, p. 9).

Introduction

9

the body from his slayer.44 But: this situation becomes unique and in¬ dividual when the poet replaces “father” by Priam, the “son” by Hec¬ tor, and the “slayer” by Achilles. The poet takes into consideration the past and the present of those people. It is not just a simple question of giving names to the generic noun “father”, “son”, and “slayer” of the ransom situation and particularize them. Homer is poetry, not fossilized material. We cannot learn how a “typical” theme or scene is formed unless we consider its form indi¬ vidually in the light of the poetic context as it is determined by the plot, and this fact is of the utmost importance for any meaningful analysis of thematic structures in the Homeric epics 45 It does of course matter whether the material is original or tradi¬ tional46, but whatever its origin may be, it obeys the principles of composition which the poet lays down for the creation47 of his own poem or poems. We must realize that poetry is life, and life is what the poet aims at portraying within the limits which poetic conventions impose upon him. Furthermore, that life, usually heroic, is not what his predecessors (or his material) taught him to see; he belongs in a different period, and his own schooling affects the interpretation of traditional material and poetry. The discussion centers on selected passages of both epics, and the main emphasis is placed upon major thematic structures since it is these structures that best allow us to view a wider spectrum of poetic life and thus to demonstrate the interaction between form and content. By con¬ trast, verse structures are, per se, less suitable for the present purpose but some common features are discussed inasmuch as poetic material permits.

44

This would be the “essential idea” in terms of PARRY’s theory. Cf. PATZER’s analysis of

the four “Motive” of the Iliad in terms of the “Idee” (op. cit., p. 42 f.). The theme of the ran¬ somed prisoner is clearly alluded to in A 12 ff. and Z 49 f. 45 KRISCHER’s study, Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik 3, puts emphasis upon the “Zusammenhang” but omits, as far as I can see, this all-important point. 46 J. A. RUSSO, in Oral Literature and the Formula, p. 41, speaks, for example, of “the patent traditionality of some scenes (e. g. battle, arming, feasting, the gathering of assemblies, arrival and departure) and the less obvious traditionality of others . . .”. Neoanalytic studies have endeavoured to demonstrate how traditional motifs may have influenced the structure of the epics. In this context cf. HEUBECK, Die homerische Frage, 153 ff. and, more recently in detail, KULLMANN (op. cit.). The difficulty has of course been to establish the origin of some motifs and the priority of some others. Cf. A. DIHLE, Homer-Probleme, passim. 47 The concept of poetry as creation is still applicable to Homer despite the teachings of the school of oral poetry on mechanical processes and craft. Cf. PATZER, op. cit. 8 f. Pertinent are also J. REDFIELD’s remarks, CPH 74 (1979), 95 ff.

I. VERSE STRUCTURE i. RUNOVER ADJECTIVES As a building unit of the poetic narrative and speech the verse con¬ tains certain formulaic elements which have a metrical and a syntactical function as has been repeatedly demonstrated.1 The most common of those elements is the noun-adjective formula which is used regularly in fixed positions of the verse, and which is capable of expansion, con¬ traction, and modification. PARRY argued convincingly, but not con¬ clusively, that the conditions under which the noun-adjective formula operates are metrical.2 Though we will not discuss the formula in the present context, we will consider what determines those “metrical con¬ ditions” in Homer, and, furthermore, what the “essential idea”, which the formula expresses, depends upon.3 Structural verse elements had a technical function to perform but in Homer they assumed another, equally important, function when an individual plot developed into an epic poem. The so-called runover adjective4 is a case in point. A formulaic phrase like S/caidc re 7n)Xac Kai ^priydu LKavev is expanded by "E/crcop 5’ cjc in the beginning (cf. Z 237) or by aXX’ 5oov in the same position (I 354), but in one case at least it is changed (Z 392 f.): erne ttv\aq hiave biepx6pevobpCbv

nptoojf (cf. 6 268, \ 629, £ 97, co 25), except a 100 f. (n. 4 above) where the same reference is made to the effect of Athene’s spear (so much already in 0 390 f.). 6 7

Cf. I 189, and also d 73. In this context see my paper, Phoenix’s Social Status and the Achaean Embassy,

Mnemosyne 32 (1979), 221 ff. 8 9

Cf.E37f., P.252 f. Note that at least once e/raaro? modifies \ao7c (P 250 f.).

10 Cf. (3 78 and 203, r 284 etc.

Verse Structure

26

instances reference is made to the suitors. Let us now look at the following two passages. In £ 285 f. we read: evda pev 67rraerec pevov amddi, noWa 5’ dyetpa xpppaf av' Aiyvim'ouc dv8paq • 8idooav yap dnavres. In

7

315 f., pp tol Kara irdvra p>aycooL Krppara 8aooapevoL kt\.

Though the runover nouns in both instances may be said to be inter¬ changeable, the modifiers are apparently not, as a little reflection will show. In the first case the speaker, Odysseus, says that during his long stay in Egypt “he acquired many goods”; he cannot possibly say “all goods”. In the second instance Nestor advises Telemachus to make sure that the suitors do not eat away “all goods” (7ravra KTppaTa). If Nestor had said “many goods” (7roAAa KTppaTa), the obvious implication would be that the suitors should be allowed to eat away “some”, which would be awkward and embarrassing. As it now stands, we are told that the suitors had already wasted a great deal of the man’s property, which happens to be true of course. They should, therefore, not be permitted to waste the rest of that property.11 The noun yala might also be quoted. There is the formula -noWpv eni yalav12 , and in three cases at least the noun is a runover: P 372

vep>ov ’ano tt)\' dkaAnao kt\. 12 Cf. (3 364,6 268, % 380 etc.

Runover Nouns

27

b. Proper Nouns Not only common runover nouns are given meaningful adjective mo¬ difiers; proper nouns too are as we shall presently see. The name Zeus is a case in point. Often it is not preceded by an ad¬ jective (E 358 f., II 385 f., e 408 f., o 488 f. etc.), but there are passages in which it is, and these are of interest to us. In O 610 f. Zet)e is quali¬ fied by apvvTCop which has been overlooked by those who noticed only Zei)c and said that the name is superfluous since the poet is clearly talk¬ ing about Zeus.13 It is the use of the epithet which requires the noun and forms with it a unity. The epithet itself is appropriate to the con¬ text from v. 292 on. Not that apvvTcop could be unclear after auroc yap oi air’ aldepos rjev, which refers to Zeus; the epithet takes proper nouns: UovXvdapaq apvvTOjp (E 449), MeneXaoc apvvTcop (O 540). The modifier, for which there was a metrical equivalent14, says how Zeus was thought of in this context: the god was supporting and de¬ fending Hector. This was required by the plot. In one case at least the modifier could not be replaced by a metri¬ cally equivalent adjective at all. This is cbruoroc in e 127: oi)8e 8f)v pev clttvotck; Zeus, 6'c piv KaTe-ne^ve fiaXcov apypTL Kepavvcb. The relative clause, following the runover Zeuc, is absolutely essential here, and so is airvmoc;, which is a rather rare adjective.15 Zeus acted after he learned what happened. Though there are numerous proper nouns in the runover position, very few are preceded by modifiers that are required by the context.16 In addition to the two instances discussed above the following might be cited (£2 460 f.): cb yepov, rjroL eydo #eoc djuj3poroc eiXpXovda, 'Eppetdc ktX. Hermes introduces himself to Priam. Yet it is rather striking that he does not use any of his standard attributes, like xpvooppaTuc;1'7,

13 Cf. BASSETT, op. cit. 123, who criticizes GlSEKE’s “rhetorical emphasis”. 14 Cf. Kpovicjv (A 336, O 254) used in the same verse position as djuiWwp. It will be no¬ ticed that patronymics do not, as a rule, require their proper nouns. Yet cf. for instance S 449 f. nouiWSdjuac ... UavdoiSris in the runover position. Cf. p. 29 below. 15 Cf. 6 675 Httvotch; pvdujv, said of Penelope. 16 Often a modifier seems to be formulaic (metrically convenient). Cf. for example nepi-

(A 608), xpeiojv 'EXerfvcjp/xa^KodovT'ASrtc; (A 464), Kpeiojv (I 368), Kopvorrivl'AyeXaov (© 257), KopvarrivlAad-yovov (n 604).

k\vt6 dwifilriv iXddvre aw evreoi neipridrivai. 8 This can be clearly seen from the second verse of the passage 0fj ... pepr/Xdjq (v. 469), which is evidently singular, from v. 477 AIvelav eniAma (Sorfddov (also singular), and finally from Idomeneus’ own words (v. 481 f.) SelSia. 6’ ah-wc/Aivetdv inidma n66a