The Complexity of Epic Diction

Ahuvia Kahane Royal Holloway, University of London [email protected]

Abstract

This article offers a revised interpretation of the relationship between form and meaning in Greek epic hexameter diction, binding our understanding of traditional language and idiolects as well as patterns and their exception within a single, systematic approach. The article draws on methodological (and underlying philosophical) principles embedded in contemporary cognitive functional linguistics, usage-based grammar, and the study of language as a complex adaptive system (which emerges from the study of complexity in the sciences). Fundamental to work within these fields in recent decades is the rejection of paradigmatic linguistic approaches (such as traditional Greek and Latin grammar, Saussure and his emphasis on langue, Chomskyan transformations) and the polarities of form and content paradigmatic analysis often assumes. Usage-based linguistics place emphasis on signification and symbolic functions, communicative exchange, and contingent historical evolutionary processes as the primary realities of language and language formation. Grammar is regarded, not as an underlying universal structure, but as an epiphenomenal linguistic symptom. The study of complexity in linguistics expands such perspectives to provide a deep, scientific argument that binds rule-based usage and unpredictable exceptions and anomalies within a single, integrated system. Key elements of these perspectives can be extrapolated already from Milman Parry’s early observations on analogy—even as the full implications of these observations could not have been understood within the historical framework of Parry’s methodology. Various examples from the Iliad and the Odyssey, especially the usage of the formula ton d’ apameibomenos, illustrates the argument for the complexity of epic diction.

Keywords complexity – formula – epic – Homer – usage-based linguistics

1 Introduction

For a long time now,* we have recognized that Homeric diction contains a mix of formulaic and non-formulaic elements, that orality and literacy can coex- ist, that modalities of performance, reception, and cognition can be interlaced, that in some ways all language is formulaic, that repeated phraseology can res- onate with traditional themes, situations, and meanings.1 The divide between “oralists” and “Neonalysists” has, at least in some parts, given way to several flexible and nuanced integrative arguments. Scholarly emphasis has shifted away from technical questions,2 but even today substantive underlying polarities continue to affect the discussion of Homeric diction and poetics.3 Questions

* I am very grateful to two anonymous referees and to the editors of YAGE for helpful sugges- tions. Translations in this article are mine. 1 “There are more general types of formulas, and one could make no greater mistake than to limit the formulaic element to what is underlined [as formulaic in the analysis on pp. 301– 2]” (Parry 1971: 313). Cf. “The word formula proved to be a poor thing, hopelessly inadequate to cover the different kinds of formulaic realities in Homeric diction. And it is reasonable to assume that the talented traditional poet would always have been capable of some non- formulaic, original language” (Russo 1997: 259–260, emphasis in original). Of course, many modifications to Parryan theory have been proposed over the years. I do not propose to survey these in this article: see M. Edwards 1986, 1988; Russo 1997, 2011. For oral and literate states, see Finnegan 1980; Ong 1982; Zumthor 1990; Thomas 1992; Oesterreicher 1997; further bibliography in the context of Homer in M. Edwards 1986, 1988; recent work in Lardinois, Blok, and Van der Poel 2011; Minchin 2012; Scodel 2014. For formulae in ordinary language, see Kiparsky 1976; Russo 1976; generally Corrigan et al. 2009; Wood 2015. For theme and meaning, see Burgess 2006, 2015; Tsagalis 2011; Montanari, Rengakos, and Tsagalis 2012; Bakker 2013; Nagy 2015; Cur- rie 2016; Schein 2016: 117–137. 2 The once constant flow (Hoekstra 1965; Hainsworth 1968; later work by Nagy, Russo, Nagler, Finkelberg, Kahane, Bakker) has dwindled: “in recent decades, the number of scholarly publications on matters of formulaic analysis has sharply decreased, and the enthusiasm with which the essentials of oral formulaic theory were discussed in the 1960s has given way to expressed fatigue and a defensive, if not apologetic, attitude” (Finkelberg 2012: 63). 3 For the divide, see Fowler 2004: 230n42 (“It is difficult to reconcile Neoanalysis with an oral perspective.”). For integrative arguments, see Bakker 2005, 2013 (“interformularity”); Bierl 2012; Bozzone 2014 (“constructions”); Burgess 2001, 2006, 2012 (“meta-Cyclic” poetry); Čola- cović 2006, 2019 (“post-traditional” poetry; on which see also Danek 2005); Currie 2016 (allusion); Danek 1996, 1998, 2002; Finkelberg 1990, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2015 (“meta-epic”); Friedrich 2007 (interpreting exceptions to economy and an oral/literate “tertium”); Lord’s later work (1995); Montanari, Rengakos and Tsagalis 2012 (orality and Neoanalysis—with overviews by Montanari 2012 and Kullmann 2012 with bibliography; cf. Kullmann 2015); Nagler 1974 (Gestalt, “family resemblance,” and “sphota”); Nagy 2015; A. Parry 1966 (“post-orality”); Pucci 1987 and Peradotto 1990, both pioneering early intertextual readings (see Pedrick 1994);

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 80 kahane remain about the relations between highly regular formulaic repetition and exceptional, non-formulaic usage, about tradition and individual diction, and about the relation between the formal grammar of epic diction and the way in which such distinct and structured diction signifies and renders meaning in performances.4 In this article, I want to try to bridge some of these basic polarities by looking again at the nature of epic diction. I will sketch out an argument that links formal structure and meaning, order and spontaneous diction, and formulaic and other rule-bound systematic diction and its seemingly anomalous exceptions.5 My discussion follows several recent studies of Homeric diction and poetics and especially work rooted in usage-based linguistic approaches that I consider briefly in section 2. In that section I also highlight the function of basic mechanisms of cognition and language development and explain how such mechanisms can contribute to our understanding of the diction of the Iliad and the Odyssey. I invoke further important insights from recent studies of the complexity of language and of language as a complex adaptive system. The term “complexity” designates more than just a multiplicity of constitutive elements. As I will explain in greater detail, its use marks a fundamental scientific principle with far reaching practical and philosophical implications. Complex- ity is that aspect of contemporary science that attempts to account for precisely the relationship between rule-bound order and spontaneous behavior within a single, systematic framework. In its wider disciplinary contexts, it separates contemporary science from classical, Newtonian accounts of the world. In linguistics, the term complexity and the ideas it represents help distinguish so- called principles and parameters approaches from usage-based discussions. As I will try to show, both usage-based linguistics and the study of complex adaptive systems in language can provide important insights into both general and particular aspects of the sprawling, highly ordered but diverse diction of Homeric epic, its flexibility, and its capacity for nuanced, context-specific

Schein 2016: 117–137; Tsagalis 2008, 2011, 2014 (“intratraditionality”); also Foley’s notion of “traditional referentiality” (1991, 1999; cf. Lord 1960: 148; Danek 2002; Bozzone 2014: 46–49; Currie 2016: 4–9); work on epic and hypertext: Bakker 2001; Balling and Madsen 2003; Trends in Classics 2.2 (2010) (but see important qualifications in Riffaterre 1994, not accounted for in many studies of Homeric hypertextuality). 4 Cf. “In more recent times positions have softened, but not due to any systematic rethinking of the original concept of ‘formula’ that informed the ‘oral poetry’ approach to Homer” (Bakker 2013: 158). 5 Free of its mechanical constraints, anomaly is often assumed to carry individual, context- specific rather than traditional meaning more easily. See Fortassier 1989 (hiatus); Friedrich 2007 (exceptions to economy; cf. Wyatt 1992); Finkelberg 2012.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 81 signification. As part of this argument, we shall in section 3 invoke—perhaps unexpectedly—some of Milman Parry’s early observations on the nature of epic diction and especially his work on anomaly and analogy. Reinterpreted outside of Parry’s paradigmatic framework and reframed, his analysis of analogy can, I suggest, provide important evidence in support of an argument for complexity. It will help us to sketch out the potential for closer links between what may otherwise seem like incompatible or even contradictory elements of epic diction and to argue not merely for their coexistence as a diachronic mix but rather for their interaction within a single formal yet open semantically resonant continuum of epic diction. In section 4, I apply this argument to examples from Homer and specifically to the system of τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη … speech introductions. I first describe the paradigm-based presentation of this famous group of examples. I then reconsider some details of usage and put forward an alternative analysis that exposes some of the unique semantic potential of τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη … verses. At the end of this section, I provide the rationale for extending our interpretive principles to epic diction in general. Section 5 expands the argument to explore the emergence of innovative semantic values within the tradition. The section presents the linguistic background for such innovation and offers a discussion of some example of Home- ric formulae for ship. In the final section 6, I attempt to explain how the ideas of complexity and innovation can be applied more broadly in context through the process of interaction and consider how the argument affects our understanding of the relationship between tradition and the individual poet in Homeric diction. I then offer a brief concluding summary. Needless to say, this exploration in its present form cannot replace a full- length study of larger and more numerous sets of examples or a more detailed discussion of the many problems that attend any attempt to revise our understanding of Homeric diction.This latter project must await a much longer work.

2 Usage-Based Approaches

Parryan oral-formulaic arguments place heavy emphasis on the formal grammar of Homeric diction and its functionality in performance (see M. Edwards 1986: 188–207; Russo 1997, 2011). They also play down (in varying degrees in different studies) the capacity of such diction for individualized, context-specific signification. Of course, opposing such arguments are many studies of semantics and theme in epic diction, interpretations of individual formulae, discussions of intertextuality and mythological resonance, and important Neoanalyst

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 82 kahane studies.These have, in their various ways, challenged formal approaches, pointed to their flaws, or even rejected them outright. Nevertheless, the opponents of oral-formulaic theory did not always consider the underlying principles that would explain the formation and cognition of Homer’s distinct and highly structured order.6 The result was often a consolidation of methodological divisions. Among studies of Homeric diction that did attempt to revise such basic divides, several have usefully drawn on arguments from cognitive-functional linguistics and usage-based approaches to grammar. Usage-based linguists, as we shall see, focus on the symbolic dimension of language and hold that the development of grammatical form and the rules of language are inherently flexible and evolving.7 Already in his early work, Egbert Bakker, citing research by the linguists Talmy Givón and Paul Hopper, noted that “grammar is not a constraint but a set of emergent rules that make purposeful expression and communication possible” (2005: 21; orig. Bakker and Fabricotti 1991; cf. Givón 1979).8 Bakker has recently argued for the “interformular” potential of traditional diction and put forward the case for meaningful repetition, based on the degree to which formulaic usage is restricted to particular contexts and to the judgment of performers and audiences. “Epic grammar,” he suggests, “codes best what epic poets do most” (Bakker 2013: 163; cf. 1997: 186n3). This, he nev-

6 As with the discussion of oral-formulaic approaches, it is impossible to explore here the full range of important work that presents opposing views. M. Edwards 1988 (sections 6 and 7) surveys studies of individual formulae. Thematic, mythological, and narrative strands of traditional phraseology have been extensively developed by, for example, Neoanalysts, promi- nently in the work of W. Kullmann (1984) and increasingly since: see Burgess 2006. For discussions of intertextuality, see note 3; Kazazis and Rengakos 1999; Schein 1999; Danek 2002; Montanari (with Ascheri) 2002; Tsagalis 2008; Burgess 2012; Rutherford 2012; Bär 2016. For a discussion of intertextuality, epic diction, and complexity, see Kahane forthcoming-a. 7 Some usage principles were already foreshadowed in the work of linguists like Bopp (1816), von Schlegel (1818), and von Humboldt (1822) and, early in the twentieth century, in the work of Antoine Meillet (1912; see Hopper and Traugott 2013: 22; Lehmann 2015: 1), Parry’s teacher; for discussions of early work, see Kuryłowicz 1965; Givón 1971; Hopper and Traugott 2013. Meillet focused on the process of grammaticalization, which sometimes involved a reduction in semantic function (semantic bleaching). More recent usage-based approaches to grammar emphasize the semantic component in all formal structures. See discussion of this shift in Hoffmann and Trousdale 2013: 305–307. Usage-based arguments have gained their main impetus and influence largely in the last generation, starting with the work of Lakoff, Fill- more, and others in the 70’s and 80’s: see Bybee 1985, 2006; Givón 1995; Croft 2001; Tomasello 2003; Goldberg 2006. 8 Cf. “Today’s syntax is yesterday’s diction” (Givón in Tomasello 2003: 14).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 83 ertheless adds, does not mark the likelihood of allusion or quotation but only “the specificity of the similarity of scenes to each other” for epic poets and audiences (2013: 159).9 Drawing in greater technical detail on cognitive linguistics and on recent usage-based grammar, Chiara Bozzone treats epic formulae as “constructions,” discursive units that linguists have defined as “learned pairings of form and function” (2014: 4).10 Construction grammar stresses what is known as the syntax-lexicon continuum. From this perspective, formulaic diction can be seen as part of more flexible, dynamic processes of language development. It becomes easier to link the diction’s capacity to signify and its communicative function to its formal structure. The idea of construction grammar as a framework for understanding formulaic diction has recently received further support in Oral Poetics and Cog- nitive Science, edited by the linguists Mihailo Antović and Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas (2016). Pagán Cánovas and Antović suggest that construction grammar and oral formulaic theory are “congenial” approaches (2016: 67). They discuss some examples from Bosniac guslar performances but unfortunately offer no detailed examples from Homeric Greek, nor do they deal with the specific difficulties associated with the systematic aspects of Parryan theory, such as the assumption of economy and extension, or with the emphasis in oral- formulaic theory on composition rather than semantics. In the same volume, Hans C. Boas also sets down the argument for the similarity between contruc- tion grammar and epic formulae, although he too does not offer detailed examples from Homer or a discussion of the specific technical restrictions imposed by oral-formulaic theory (2016). From a different perspective, Bruno Currie, making an extensive argument for the allusive and thus often context- and text-specific relations of sense within Homeric verse, has likewise offered some useful, if brief, observations on the unity of formal units and meaning in Homeric phraseology by invoking usage-based grammar. As he explains, “The linguistic system, is built up from … lexically specific instances, only gradually abstracting more general represen- tations” (2016: 227, citing Barlow and Kemmer 2000: viii–ix). Usage-based approaches do not simply make it easier to understand the meaning of grammar and the emergence of form. They put forward an alter-

9 See also discussion in Tsagalis 2014: 394–398. Bakker’s emphasis on traditional links rather than specific points of allusion bears some resemblance to Burgess’s arguments about intertextuality and phraseological “pathways”; see Burgess 2010: 212n5 (“specific poems are not referenced, rather, epic ‘pathways’ are ‘indexed’”), 2012: 168. 10 More precisely: “learned pairings of form with semantic or discursive function” (Goldberg 2006: 5); cf. Bozzone 2010.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 84 kahane native model of basic linguistic cognition. This model reverses paradigmatic views of language that have framed language teaching and linguistic thought in the West from classical antiquity to the present. “The fundamental reality of language,” suggests Michael Tomasello, “is people making utterances to one another on particular occasions” (2003: 99). Grammar, far from being the deep core of language, is “derivative” (Tomasello 2003: 99):

When people repeatedly use the same particular and concrete linguistic symbols … in “similar” situations, what may emerge over time is a pattern of language use, schematized in the mind of users as one or another kind of linguistic category or construction. As opposed to linguistic rules conceived of as algebraic procedures for combining symbols that do not themselves contribute to meaning, linguistic categories and constructions are themselves meaningful linguistic symbols—since they are nothing other than the patterns in which meaningful linguistic symbols are used to communicate.

Formal paradigms of Greek and Latin grammar, Saussurian models based on core elements of langue and its relation to circumstantial parole, as well as modern generative and other algorithm-based grammars emphasize the pri- macy of abstract grammatical structure and have relatively little interest in the process of symbolization and in meaning.11 By contrast, usage-based linguistics argues that grammar and grammatical constructions are never devoid of semantic content or communicative function. Precisely for this reason, such an approach provides a useful foundation for an understanding of Homeric diction and poetics beyond the methodological and practical dichotomy of rigid structure (and metrical utility) versus signification in context. Nevertheless, not every element of epic diction is strictly formulaic or structured to the same degree by mechanical rules. Furthermore, many structured elements of Homer’s diction are used in a wide variety of flexible permutations, combinations, and contexts, and some usage is exceptional or even anomalous.

11 “In contrast to generative grammar and other formal approaches, in usage-based approaches the grammatical dimension of language is a product of a set of historical and ontogenetic processes referred to collectively as grammaticalization” (Tomasello 2003: 5). For Greek and Latin grammar, cf. also Tomasello 2003: 17–18; for Chomsky (invoked in Nagler 1974), see Tomasello 2003: 248; for de Saussure, langue and parole, (invoked in Finkelberg 2012: 82 [“no system, oral formulaic or another, can be treated as identical to the individual text that derives from it”] and Nagy 2012: 27–30), see Tomasello 2003: 12; also Currie 2016: 227 and n. 2, rightly objecting to the Saussurian framework.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 85

Discussions of the relations between traditional phraseology and individual instances of formulaic diction leave at least partially open the question of how to account for less clearly structured elements of epic language, for elements that bend, ignore, or even contradict formulaic rules. But such discussions often tend to enhance a methodological dichotomy of tradition and originality.12 Here, let me suggest, studies of complexity and especially usage-based studies of complex linguistic systems offer an important unifying methodological frame. The analysis of complexity has its foundations in the exact sciences, in quan- tum physics and modern thermodynamics, in climate science, in non-linear algebra, in certain types of set theory, and in still other disciplines. In such contexts, complexity pertains to what many scientists regard as inherent properties of the world that cannot be explained by the rigid laws of classical science. The 1977 Nobel laureate in chemistry, Ilya Prigogine, for example, explains (Nicolis and Prigogine 1989: 3):

At the end of this [the twentieth] century, more and more scientists have come to think, as we do, that many fundamental processes shaping nature are irreversible and stochastic; that the deterministic and reversible laws [of, e.g., Newtonian physics] describing the elementary interactions may not be telling the whole story.13 This leads to a new vision of matter, one no longer passive, as described in the mechanical world view, but associated with spontaneous activity.

The world is a well-ordered place, but some of its fundamentals are dynamic. As one widely cited historian of science provocatively puts it, “The act of play- ing the game has a way of changing the rules” (Gleick 1987: 24). The result is a world of complex phenomena that do not follow universal laws.

12 Finkelberg, for example, marks a dichotomy between traditional diction and the individual poet’s diction and also between tradition and invention, citing (2012: 67n10) Russo 1968: “As distinct from the formulas and formulaic expressions, the non-formulaic expressions not only cannot be shown to be modelled on formulaic patterns but are also regularly employed in untypical narrative situations” (2012: 66). Similar conceptual divisions are endorsed in Čolacović 2006 with examples from South Slavic traditions and in Friedrich 2007: 137–146. Useful recent discussion in Currie 2016: 9–12. 13 Stochastic processes, in maths, in the sciences, etc., comprise seemingly random change. Deterministic process allows us to calculate outcomes along a time axis through the appli- cation of laws and algorithms; knowing these laws, calculations can be reversed to deter- mine the original state of the elements in a system. Applying the idea of determinism to Homeric diction means knowing which formulae will be used at, for example, the end of the verse.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 86 kahane

Arguments of this type eventually found strong advocates among students of other disciplines—economists, social scientists, and, in recent years, linguists too, especially those who have approached language from usage-based perspectives (and who, to begin with, have been arguing for the derivative nature of formal grammatical rules and for dynamic change within language development).14 Thus, as Diane Larsen-Freeman and Lynn Cameron, for example, explain in Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics (2008: 1),

[Complexity] does not merely mean complicated. Although the agents or components in a complex system are usually numerous, diverse, and dynamic, a defining characteristic of a complex system is that its behav- iour emerges from the interactions of its components.

I will presently explain how such ideas apply to components of the language of Homer. For the moment, however, let us note that complex linguistic phenomena arise from nothing more than repeated usage and from the interaction that usage produces in otherwise highly organized systems. Interaction can generate diverse linguistic usage that exceeds predictable results. As Claire Kramsch and other linguists stress, language systems are open, not closed. Furthermore (Kramsch 2012: 11–12),

because the systems are open what arises may be in nonlinear relation to its cause. In other words, an unexpected occurrence may take place at any time. … Complex “systems” have no distinct boundaries; they exist only because of the fluxes that feed them, and they disappear in the absence of such fluxes. One could therefore say that a complex system is dynamic rather than static; it exists only in the interaction between things and is therefore not itself a thing.

Complex linguistic systems (Kramsch 2012: 12)

operate under conditions that are not in equilibrium [i.e., they are not static]. When you learn one additional piece of knowledge, this new knowledge doesn’t just add itself to the other things you acquired pre- viously. The equilibrium you thought you had reached in your prior state of knowledge gets disrupted as one new piece of knowledge reconfigures the whole picture.

14 See Larsen-Freeman 1997; Ellis and Larsen-Freeman 2006; Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008; Beckner and Bybee 2009; Kramsch 2012.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 87

Homer’s diction too is open, of course, despite being highly organized.15 As universally acknowledged and as we noted at the beginning of this essay, it is not a closed formulaic system. It contains many varied verbal elements, some of which are unpredictable, non-formulaic, and seemingly “non-traditional” (see Shive 1987, Friedrich 2007; cf. Christensen 2009).

3 Reinterpreting Homer’s Systematic Diction

We need to examine precisely how complexity of this type can manifest and evolve within the diction of Homeric verse and how its essential mechanisms operate. Here, strangely ahead of its time, some of the earliest work on epic language as a system—Parry’s studies of analogy, equivalent formulae, and anomaly—provides helpful observations. I am not, I should stress, suggesting a return to Parryanism. We will have to reframe some of the basic methodological premises of Parry’s analysis in light of recent linguistic arguments. However, starting with Parry is significant. If we can demonstrate that complex behavior can be identified already within a relatively rigid conception of formulaic diction as a rule-bound formal system, a conception that otherwise (especially in its hard versions) largely rejects nuanced variation and symbolic functions, if we can show that this system can generate both regular phraseology and innovative, unexpected non-linear effects, we will have taken a step towards reinterpreting epic diction as a continuum of formal tradition and nuanced spontaneous diction.16 In “The Traditional Epithet in Homer,” Parry discusses many prominent examples of formulae and formulaic systems. Every student of Homer is today familiar with these—for example, τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη … (“then to him in answer spoke …”) and similar formulae expressing the essential idea “X spoke to him,” completed in our case by a subject expression such as πολύμητις Ὀδυσ- σεύς and other metrically equivalent, mostly noun-epithet formulae describing Achilles, Zeus, Agamemnon, Ajax, Priam, Menelaus, Diomedes, Hector, and other epic heroes and gods. In the section titled “Formulary Diction and the

15 By “open” I mean that it attests to a diversity of form that is preserved within the otherwise fixed (closed, crystallized) canonical texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey. 16 For a survey of discussions of Parry’s work on analogy, see M. Edwards 1986: 202–207. Fur- ther discussion of forms of analogy in Homeric diction in Russo 1963, 1966; Minton 1965; Young 1967; G. Edwards 1971: 90–93; Nagy 1990: 154 and n. 41 (discussing Kuryłowicz [see 1947: esp. 169]); Hackstein 2010: 12–13; Bozzone 2014: 74, citing Lord 1960: 37; see note 17.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 88 kahane

Operation of Analogy,” Parry explains the underlying principle that produces such diction (1971: 68; cf. M. Edwards 1986: 202):

The bards, always trying to find for the expression of each idea in their poetry a formula at once noble and easy to handle, created new expressions—insofar as the result was compatible with their sense of heroic style—in the simplest way possible: they modified expressions already in existence. To this process are due all the series of formulae which we have so far examined [throughout TE]. In each of these series it would be pointless to look for the original or the oldest formula. But in every case there must have been an original expression from which a series was produced by the system of imitation we call analogy.

Parry viewed the process as fundamental, as he immediately stresses (1971: 68):

Analogy is perhaps the single most important factor for us to grasp if we are to arrive at a real understanding of Homeric diction. To understand the role of analogy in the formation of epic language is to understand the interdependence of word, ideas and metre in heroic poetry. It is to see to what extent the hexameter and the genius of the bards influenced epic style.

Analogy’s key role in the creation of formulaic diction was widely recognized by many of Parry’s students. Albert Lord in The Singer of Tales, for example, viewed it as integral to the singer’s training, to the process of recomposition- in-performance, and to the creation and expansion of diction.17 The general

17 “I believe that the really significant element in the process is rather the setting up of various patterns that make adjustment of phrase and creation of phrases by analogy possible. This will be the whole basis of his art. Were he merely to learn the phrases and lines from his predecessors, acquiring thus a stock of them, which he would then shuffle about and mechanically put together in juxtaposition as inviolable, fixed units, he would, I am con- vinced, never become a singer. He must make his feeling for the patterning of lines, which he has absorbed earlier, specific with actual phrases and lines, and by the necessity of performance learn to adjust what he hears and what he wants to say to these patterns” (Lord 1960: 37, emphasis in original). “For anyone, however, who is trying to understand how a particular style comes into being, it is necessary to note that there are two ways by which a phrase is produced; one is by remembering it, the other is through creating it by analogy with other phrases; and it may well be impossible to differentiate between the two. While both remembering and creating (in the sense of making, not necessarily ‘originating’) play important roles, the latter, creating, is especially significant. The singer cannot, and does

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 89 importance of analogy as a linguistic mechanism had been recognized in classical times, of course, and there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that “the talent for analogical reasoning constitutes the core of Human cognition,” indeed, that the specific mechanism of analogy is “the core component of linguistic competence” (Blevins and Blevins 2009: 2).18 Parry’s discussion of analogy nevertheless took a further, crucial turn when he considered the formation of anomalous diction in Homer. Details of the oral-formulaic argument need no repeating here (see Russo 1997, 2011). Let us simply stress that in Parry’s view (1971: 276, passim) oral epic traditions led to the development of formulaic systems that provided the bard with several distinct metrical variants for expressing a single essential idea, such as “X spoke to him,” “Odysseus,” “ship,” and “spear.” Such systems were in principle “extensive” (variants covered a range of metrical shapes) and “economical/thrifty” (within the system, metrical equivalents were generally avoided). Formulaic diction thus made possible rapid and efficient production of well-formed verse in performance. Where the laws of traditional diction were neglected, Parry thought, “we should know forthwith that the lines in question are the work of a poet or interpolator later than that of the author of the original poem” (1971: 168). Parry proposed to identify such neglect in, for example, equivalent noun- epithet expressions with the same metrical value, which break the law of economy/thrift. His assumption, as is well known, is that a single expression containing an essential idea in a given metrical form is useful in traditional composition whereas equivalent expressions offer no further advantage and thus appear as anomalies. Most systematic formulaic diction was, according to Parry, created by the process of analogy.Yet exactly the same process could also create the anomaly of equivalence (1971: 176):

A great many equivalent noun-epithet formulae derive naturally from that operation of analogy which, as we saw (TE, pp. 68–74), is the dom- inant factor in the development of hexametric diction from its beginning to its end.

not, remember enough to sing a song; he must, and does, learn to create phrases. Hence the most important elements in the style are the basic patterns which we have illustrated, and which are established at this period” (43). 18 Cf. Kuryłowicz 1947; Penn, Holyoak, and Povinelli 2008. The importance of analogy was recognized in antiquity by Varro (Duso 2006; Ángel Castello 2008), Quintilian (Von Fritz 1949), and Herodian (Sluiter 2011); for an overview, see Law 2003. Paradigmatic approaches tend to ignore analogy: “analogy is simply an inappropriate concept in the first place” (Chomsky 1986: 32).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 90 kahane

Parry explains (1971: 176):

This operation of analogy, the power of which is attested by each artifice of epic diction, is too powerful to stop once it has created a metrically unique formula. In the bard’s mind, there will always be an association between the words of one unique expression and another, and thus, by analogy, he will draw from two unique formulae one which will repeat the metre of an already existing formula.

To illustrate this point, Parry offers many examples, including some noun- epithet formulae for the essential idea “ship” (1971: 176).19 First, he says, by analogy to other noun-epithet formulae the bards sought to create an expression for ship in the accusative, εὐεργέα νῆα, beginning with a vowel at the hep- themimeral caesura, as in the following verse (Od. 9.279):

ἀλλά μοι ’,εἴφ ὅπῃ ἔσχες ἰὼν εὐεργέα νῆα,

But tell me, where did you moor your well-made ship when you came here?

In the same way, following the need for extension and the law of economy, they created the genitive νεὸς … ποντοπόροιο and the dative νήεσσι … ποντοπόροισι, extending the clause or sentence from the bucolic diaeresis to the verse-end:

Ἕκτωρ δὲ πρυμνῆς νεὸς ἥψατο ποντοπόροιο Il. 15.704

Hector caught hold of the stern of a seafaring ship

ἔπλεον ἁρπάξας ἐν ποντοπόροισι νέεσσι, Il. 3.444

Caught you up and sailed away in seafaring ships

19 The formulaic system for ship (details in Parry 1971: 109–113) is “without doubt the most complex of all formulary systems created for common nouns; and the Iliad and Odyssey seem to give us examples of most of the formulae of which the system is made” (109). For other examples of anomaly, see 171–190, 202–221.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 91

ἀλλ’ ὃ μὲν ἐν νήεσσι κορωνίσι ποντοπόροισι Il. 2.771

But he among his seafaring curved ships

However, Parry says, the very principle of extension, the need to create a range of noun-epithet formulae for ship in different metrical forms, introduces two epithets, ποντοπόροιο and εὐεργέα, into the system. Each of these is unique in the oblique cases. Yet “the nominative of either can serve equally well with νηῦς to make a subject noun-epithet formula” (Parry 1971: 176).

τοῦ γὰρ ἐγὼ θεράπων, μία δ’ ἤγαγε νηῦς εὐεργής· Il. 24.396

For I am his henchman, a single well-made ship brought us here

οἴη δὴ κείνῃ γε παρέπλω ποντοπόρος νηῦς Od. 12.69

Only that seafaring ship ever sailed past that place

Parry explains the result (1971: 176–177):

Analogy could equally well lead the bards to choose ποντοπόρος νηῦς on the model of ποντοπόροισι νέεσσι, νήεσσι … ποντοπόροισι as νηῦς εὐεργής on the model of εὐεργέα νῆα. And even after one of these expressions had been chosen, the other epithet, closely bound up with νηῦς remained, ready to spring to mind at any time.

Parry speaks about bards making a choice that is clearly not determined by mechanical rules. What we should stress is that the surplus of diction emerges unpredictably (“ready to spring to mind at any time,” not according to a mechanical law), not because of the whims of an interpolator, but organically from regular processes within the system. As Adam Parry summing up the contradictory essence of the process says in the introduction to The Making of Homeric Verse, “Apparent deviations from the economy of the system are themselves best explained by the sense of analogy which controls the system as a whole and indeed created it in the first place” (1971: xxiii). It is unlikely that either Milman or Adam Parry fully understood the contradictory nature of this process. We are, in fact, dealing with a system that

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 92 kahane relies on the generative practice of a fundamental cognitive mechanism (analogy) and seems to follow traditional rules of construction. Yet through nothing more than the process of repeated usage and the interaction of elements this system itself generates a surplus of diction and in some cases can even break the system’s own rules. Fully applied in performance, analogy and what we might describe as the rules of an open epic langue thus produce irregular epic parole. At this point, as a matter of methodological principle, the conceptual difference between epic langue and parole becomes weak, perhaps even mean- ingless.20 Rules may be systematically applied, extended, duplicated, or broken at any time in the future. Parry suggests that “the bard was led by formulary technique to produce metrical irregularities” (1971: 197).21 Yet it is not hard see why, though the argument for analogy was often discussed, the anomalous potential at the very heart of the system was not explored to its full extent. Inasmuch as the mechanism of analogy was responsible for regular, systematic diction, it could be accepted. But for Parry and for many scholars after him, the capacity of the system to change organically through use of the system, to interact and evolve, and even to move from rule to exception presented an unacceptable methodological contradiction. If, as Parry’s account suggests, the mechanism of analogy is “the single most important factor for us to grasp if we are to arrive at a real understanding of Homeric diction,” if, furthermore, as Parry had claimed, analogy was a generative mechanism too powerful to contain, then development of this argument and its unpredictable consequences to their full extent could under- mine the foundations of exactly the kind of closed, formal, rule-bound system of Homeric language production and diction that Parry and his followers were trying to describe. By contrast, a usage-based approach to linguistic complexity that rejects the priority of paradigmatic form and grammatical rules and that sees the base reality of language as an open, continuous, and emergent process of change can easily accommodate the surplus products of analogy. Understanding analogy as a systematic generative force and assimilating the principles of usage-based linguistic complexity is more than just a means of explaining exceptionality in Homer. Complexity allows us to establish a continuum, first, of formal structure and semantics and, second, of tradition and spontaneous production and individual diction.22 If analogy is indeed as preva-

20 For langue and parole, see note 11. 21 See also 202: “the fault is caused by the way in which a formula is used. It is the result of the juxtaposition of two formulae.” 22 Currie considers the relationship between “typologically generated repetition versus specific reprise” (2016: 4–22, 259–262). Part of the purpose of this article is to provide the

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 93 lent as it is, if, as Parry demonstrated, it generates both systematic diction and diction that exceeds even the rule of economy (and other formal rules), there is no reason or need to assume that epic diction should contain only purely formal or mechanical elements. It stands to reason that analogy may take effect at any time and wherever it can, producing all types of patterns, some conforming to rules, but others conforming to a lesser degree or extending the rules, or creating new rules or even breaking the rules as patterns overlap and interact with each other. Analogy may be based on lexical, metrical, phonological, semantic, syntactic, thematic, discursive, or poetic attributes or on any combination of formal and sense-related attributes. As I keep stressing, there are indeed many different kinds of formulaic and non-formulaic patterns as well as much seemingly unique diction in Homer. If, as usage-based approaches argue, “linguistic categories and constructions are themselves meaningful linguistic symbols” (Tomasello 2003: 99), then, as a matter of principle, we can assume that all the different kinds of diction in Homer can be associated with signification.

4 Analogy and Signification in Homer: The Case of τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη

Traditional phraseology can, as many scholars have argued, trigger traditional reference and can also invoke narrative and mythological themes (see note 1). Free of context, such phraseology may well be thought of as having only a general or traditional sense. Yet we should not regard elements of epic diction simply as entries in an abstract oral-traditional lexicon/repository (as items in a context-free list). Nor should we view such elements simply as variables in an algorithmic formulaic system. Tradition is a dynamic historical agglomerate of specific, contingent, interactive enactments of discourse. Formulae are used in actual contexts and thus necessarily in particular situations and narratives in conjunction with adjacent or overlapping patterns with which they interact. Such interactions generate emergent local and context-specific constructions and meanings.23

cognitive and linguistic grounding that make such arguments methodologically plausi- ble. 23 Many scholars recognize this interactive principle: “The disposition of formula [sic] reveals to us one of the most important aspects of epic diction: the interconnection of formulae” (Parry 1971: 204). Bakker’s (2005) notions of staging formulae and the relation between core and peripheral elements clearly assume interaction but place emphasis on predictable regularity rather than on stochastic innovation.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 94 kahane

Consider the familiar speech-introductory formula τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμε- νος προσέφη …, which marks a change of speaker and which is part of the larger framework of speech-introductory formulaic expressions in Homer.24 Parry lists the components of this system, in accordance with his method, as interchangeable, modular tokens of a formulaic type (along with several other speech-introductory types), almost in the form of a grammatical paradigm (1971: 15). Counts are for the whole verse, not for all instances of the noun- epithet formula:25

24 For speech introductions, including this particular construction, see M. Edwards 1968, 1969; Parry 1971: 14–16; Muñoz Valle 1971; Olson 1994; Viechnicki 1994; Beck 2005 (esp. 19– 20), 2012; Kelly 2007: 281–285; De Decker 2015 (esp. 174–191, very detailed but with a few exceptions from a formal paradigmatic grammatical perspective). Automated analysis, lists, breakdown of grammatical variants, statistics (lemmata and word forms, contexts, etc.), text, and translation in Kahane et al. Further usage information in LfgrE with additional paper lists and indices in Dee 2010 (and his earlier work on the epitheta) andTebben 1994–1998. 25 Parry’s data here are not always precise.

πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς (11 times): in fact, 12×, Iliad only νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς (15 times): in fact, 14×, both Iliad and Odyssey κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων (5 times): Iliad only and only to masculine addressees Τελαμώνιος Αἴας (2 times): τὸν Iliad only and only to masculine addressees τὴν } δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη { Πρίαμος θεοειδής: τοὺς to a feminine addressee in the Iliad ξανθὸς Μενέλαος (4 times): Odyssey book 4 only, to both masculine and feminine addressees κρατερὸς Διομήδης: in fact, 2×, both in the Iliad, once to a feminine addressee, once to a masculine addressee ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων: … ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων never in Homer and only once elsewhere (Homeric Hymn to Apollo 474); the only instance of this speech-introductory construction with the plural masculine pronoun τοὺς κορυθαίολος Ἕκτωρ: in the Iliad, to a masculine addressee.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 95

πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς (11 times) νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς (15 times) κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων (5 times) τὸν Τελαμώνιος Αἴας (2 times) τὴν } δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη { Πρίαμος θεοειδής τοὺς ξανθὸς Μενέλαος (4 times) κρατερὸς Διομήδης ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων κορυθαίολος Ἕκτωρ

From a formal perspective, τὸν/τὴν/[τοὺς] are simply grammatical variants. They are prefix components that mark the addressee of the speech and provide formal flexibility but seem to change nothing of the essence of the speech- introductory verse as a whole.26 Similarly the participle, although given in the paradigm in the masculine (ἀπαμειβόμενος) only, can in principle be inflected in all gendered forms (-ος,-η,-ον), all of which are metrically suitable for use. Had all variants actually been attested, they would have allowed us to con- struct the verse successfully, preserving its essential meaning but adapting it to a wider range of formal contexts. As for the inflected verb προσέφη, it is unmarked for gender but does, of course, distinguish person (and number). Parry lists only the third person singular, but implicitly we again get the sense that we are dealing with grammatical variants. From a formal perspective, the first, second, and third person singular forms of this composite verb (-έφην,- έφης,-έφη) are all metrically possible variants. As accustomed audiences and readers of Homer will know, the second person form is in fact attested in several apostrophic instances of the verse in both the Iliad and the Odyssey (for example, Il. 16.20; Od. 14.55; see further below and note 40). The first person form is attested (3×) in speech-introductory verses too: these have very different structural components that nevertheless preserve the verb’s metrical position (from the penthemimeres to the hephthemimeres).27 The final structural element in Parry’s presentation is a list of metrically equivalent noun-epithet formulae,

26 The presentation of gender as a technical formality is often discussed in feminist critique of language. See overview and bibliography in Saul and Diaz-Leon 2017. In the context of Homeric diction, see further below and Kahane forthcoming-b. 27 All in the Odyssey’s apologue: 9.282 (ἀλλά μιν ἄψορρον προσέφην δολίοισ’ ἐπέεσσι [“but I said back to him with guileful words”]), 9.501 (ἀλλά μιν ἄψορρον προσέφην κεκοτηότι θυμῷ [“but I said back to him with a resentful heart”]), 10.422 (ὣς ἔφαν, αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ προσέφην μαλακοῖς ἐπέεσσι [“So said they. But I spoke to them with gentle words”]).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 96 kahane all of which allow us to complete a well-formed hexameter, and thus, as Parry would wish us to see them, a list of interchangeable structural components.28 Faced with this layout of the evidence, even if we otherwise oppose the notion of an “essential idea,” Parry’s gloss “X answered him” seems like an appropriate general abstraction of the meaning of this formulaic type (1971: 14). Let me suggest, however, that both this layout and the gloss mask, almost a priori, the possibility of individualized meanings and the poetic perspective they embody. Parry’s presentation subsumes several highly significant details of the formula’s patterns of actual usage into a mechanical, paradigm-like list. Methodologically, this presentation forecloses our interpretation of grammar almost unawares. Closer scrutiny of actual usage shows how misleading his presentation is. Let us first emphasize some basic grammatical details, so basic perhaps that their implication with regard to usage, meaning, and poetics can be easily over- looked. In Homer, all instances of this speech introduction (104×) are directed towards an addressee in the singular. In his formulaic paradigm, Parry lists the plural τοὺς but this is, in fact, not attested in Homer and only once elsewhere in extant epic (Homeric Hymn to Apollo 474; see note 25). The participle and verb in Parry’s paradigm are also in the singular in all instances of this speech introduction. Plurals of this composite verb are not attested. Plural forms of verbs of speaking are in general more rare,29 and they often mark an indeterminate and in this sense unimportant speaker.30 The context for τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη … verses, then, is strictly a determinate personal interaction between one speaker and one addressee. Furthermore, this interaction is always presented from the perspective of a narrator who is situated outside the speaker’s narrative reality and is recounting (and re-enacting) words uttered in the past.31 One-on-one verbal exchanges are certainly the most common form of speech in Homer. They would not have seemed of significance in our particular case but for further grammatical constraints that Parry’s presentation scheme

28 Usage of these formulae is clearly inseparable from their metrical shape. The point, however (see, for example, Nagy 1976), is that rather than metrics producing formulae, usage patterns can affect metrics. 29 Most verba dicendi in Homer are in the singular; but cf. Ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφαν … (15×); στήτην, οὐδέ τί μιν προσεφώνεον οὐδ’ ἐρέοντο (“… stood there, and did not speak to him or question him,” Il. 1.332); καί μ’ ὀλοφυρόμενοι ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδων (“crying they addressed me with winged words,” Od. 10.418). 30 See De Decker 2015: 81, pace his largely paradigmatic approach. 31 This has important narratological and poetic implications that have been studied extensively since de Jong 2004 (see recently Beck 2012) but which I cannot address within the limited scope of the present article.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 97 largely masks: though both male and female characters are addressed by means of τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη … in Homer, the speaker is, in fact, not a gender-neutral “X” but almost always masculine (102× out of a total of 104×).32 There are two exceptional examples in the grammatical neuter, which we will presently discuss, but no feminine speakers whose speech is introduced by this formula. Women are, of course, prominent speakers in Homer (Minchin 2006; Fletcher 2008; Rousseau 2015). Furthermore, many female name-epithet formulae suit the metrical slot from the penthemimeres to the end of the verse. These include λευκώλενος Ἥρη (22×), πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις (9×), both of which are always verse terminal. Most distinctly, they also include the nominative name-epithet formula γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη (Il. 28×; Od. 50×), which is always used in verse-terminal position and which describes one of the most prolific and important speakers in the Homeric poems. From a technical-paradigmatic perspective, feminine noun-epithet formulae of this type seem like natural complements to the … ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη speech-response pattern. They require only a minor, metrically insignificant alteration to the grammatical gender of the participle. There are, furthermore, abundant examples of feminine noun-epithet formulae in other, formally similar variants of speech-response verses such as τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα … and related verse types.33 There are also a few instances of the simplex participial form ἀμειβομένη followed by προσέειπεν.34 And yet the specific feminine-gendered speech-introductory variant *τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβομένη προσέφη … is never used in Homer or anywhere else.35 Nor, indeed, is *ἀπαμειβομένη ever attested. The inflection of the partici-

32 These numbers do not include similar formulae … ἀπαμειβόμενος προσεφώνεε … (4×; cf. Kelly 2007: 415–416n17; for other forms, see further below) or the second person … ἀπαμει- βόμενος προσέφης (13×). 33 τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα completed by θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη 7×; βοῶπις πότνια Ἥρη 5× and θεὰ λευκώλενος Ἥρη 1×, breaking economy, both forms in Il. only; θεὰ Θέτις ἀργυρόπεζα 3× and Θέτις κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα 1×, both forms in Il. only; φιλομμειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη 1×; Διώνη, δῖα θεάων 1×; ποδήνεμος ὠκέα Ἶρις 1×; περίφρων Πηνελόπεια 4×, Od. only; φίλη τροφὸς Εὐρύκλεια 1×. Cf. Il. 8.484: Ὣς φάτο, τὸν δ’ οὔ τι προσέφη λευκώλενος Ἥρη (“so he said. And Hera of the white arms said nothing to him.”). Full mark-up of repetition and variants in Kahane et al. 34 Nevertheless, examples of ἀμειβομένη (fem. sing.) appear only in the Odyssey and only four times (4.234, 4.706, 19.214, 19.252), all verse terminal (… ἀμειβομένη προσέειπε(ν)//) and, significantly, without the proper name of the female speaker in the same verse. These examples describe the poem’s two strong, cunning women, Helen and Penelope. Other- wise there are two instances of the fem. pl. –αι, at Il. 1.604 and Od. 24.60, both of the Muses. See LfgrE s.v. ἀμείβω; Kahane et al.; Tebben 1994–1998; De Decker 2015. 35 Cf. Beck 2005: 33–34 and appendix II, 284–285; Beck 2012; De Decker 2015: 188–191.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 98 kahane ple ἀπαμειβόμενος is grammatically defective, and this, as often elsewhere with defective paradigms, is semantically and poetically significant.36 We should not assume that broadly similar patterns have identical meaning and functions. Analysing individual contexts of the formula τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμει- βόμενος προσέφη …, Adrian Kelly, for example, characterizes its semantics and, in effect, the unique details of its illocutionary force as follows (2007: 281):

This responsory hemistich signals a disagreement between characters and it is differentiated semantically from the “to him replied” (τὸν δ’ ἠμεί- βετ’ ἔπειτα) unit in representing an increased determination to assert the speaker’s intention and / or status in a situation. This disjunction need not stem from actual disagreement … or the immediate context, and the speaker may only feel that the statement is inappropriate or reveals an inappropriate attitude … perhaps requiring modification or extension.

In contrast, Kelly characterizes the formula τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα as follows (2007: 281):

This response formula connotes the emotional perturbation of a respondent resulting from the remembrance of a past injury or action which impinges upon a current intention or activity. The recollection need not actually be expressed by the respondent speaker, for it can also be introduced by the prior speaker, nor must it necessarily be something of great antiquity. Indeed, the speaker may actually react to something just said as a source of his perturbation.

These distinctions, Kelly rightly points out, are not absolute. Nevertheless, they can help us to make better sense of the grammatical constraints on usage and the exclusion of female speakers from the formula τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη … Gender divisions and boundaries are a fundamental component of Home- ric poetry. Women are excluded from fighting, they neither kill nor are killed,

36 On the semantic potential of defective forms: “paradigms can be defective, in which case one or more forms are missing for certain words. Usually such gaps are well motivated on logical grounds (although the details of that logic might be language-specific). So, for example, verbs denoting weather phenomena like Czech prset ‘rain’ tend to lack first- and second-person forms, and some modal and stative verbs like Czech moci ‘be able’ and trvat ‘last’ might not have imperative forms; nouns denoting masses and abstractions sometimes lack plurals” (Janda 2007: 645).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 99 and their speech, though rarely simple or simply submissive, is set against a well-defined and exhaustively studied framework of gender biases. As young Telemachus says to his mother, Penelope (Od. 1.358–359):37

μῦθος δ’ ἄνδρεσσι μελήσει πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ’ ἐμοί· τοῦ γὰρ κράτος ἔστ’ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ.

Speech is of concern to all Men, and especially to me, who has the power in this house.

Athena and many other divinities as well as women like Penelope, Helen, Andromache, and Nausicaa are forceful figures whose powers of persuasion are considerable and often equal, sometimes superior to the speech of male characters in Homeric epic. Epic verse inscribes these powers in a variety of discursive forms. Yet neither Athena, Penelope, or Helen nor any of the other women in Homer talks back by means of the specific formula τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμει- βόμενος προσέφη, which marks explicit disagreement as the narrator is present- ing a character’s response.38 By contrast, where distinct patterns of the verb ἀμείβω (mid.) are used, we find women speakers who respond with greater emotional perturbation—for example, by means of the formula τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα. Needless to say, mapping the full range of forms of speech introductions and response in relation to gender in Homeric poetry is a large and multifaceted project. What we can, however, observe here in the usage of ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη is one detailed pairing of function and form and thus one specific fea- ture of this complex discursive landscape. Consider very briefly some significant exceptions to the common usage of this formula, such as the two instances where a neuter participle ἀπαμειβό- μενον is used. Both examples appear in the Odyssey in the same scene (4.824, 4.835). Both introduce the exceptional speech of a subject who, from narratological, thematic, and discursive perspectives, has a hybrid gendered profile. The speaker is the goddess Athena disguised as an εἴδωλον ἀμαυρόν (neuter; ἀμαυρόν never elsewhere in Homer) of Iphthime who appears to Penelope, not face to face, but in a dream. Odyssey 4.824 and 4.835 are analogical variants of the masculine formulaic construction. They do not break the formal rules of

37 See Rousseau 2015 for recent comments on this verse and its analogues.There is, of course, some dramatic irony in Telemachus’s youthful assertion to his mother, whose discursive prowess is paramount. 38 Narratologically, the question of who speaks (famously raised by Roland Barthes in 1968 [Barthes 1977]) and who is responsible for this nuance in tone is thus quite complex.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 100 kahane formulaic composition but can be described as anomalies relative to the more distinct ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη pattern of usage. In these verses, the anomaly can easily be meaningfully paired to poetic significance in context. Athena/the apparition/Iphthime is a “shady” (cf. Hesych. α 3489; ε 1634) liminal figure that forcefully talks back, waving aside Penelope’s fears about Telemachus’s safety and staunchly refusing to divulge information about Odysseus. Athena speaks with what in this discursive context is marked as masculine confidence. Tradi- tion, in other words, and the process of analogy at the heart of tradition can be used to enhance nuanced meaning in individualized contexts. Consider next some gradations within the more regular instances of τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος … and the difference in gender between the pronouns. Again, from a paradigmatic methodological perspective, this difference is merely a formal variation. Yet more detailed usage of these gendered pronoun options falls into distinct patterns that are semantically and poetically meaningful. In the Iliad, for example, when the male speaker replies to a female addressee (τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος …, 12× total), it is mostly the authoritative figures of Zeus (7×) and Achilles (3×) who do so (with Diomedes and Priam each doing so only once).39 Again, these specific statistics form part of the many details of usage that contribute to individual characterization. In the Odyssey, the speaker addressing a female character by means of this formula is most often Odysseus (20×). Otherwise, it is only Zeus (2×) and Menelaus (2×) whose speech is presented by means of this formula with the feminine pronoun. In addition, we find two instances of the participle in second person apostrophes to Eumaius—τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφης, Εὔμαιε συβῶτα—which are part of a distinct set of Homeric apostrophic formulae.40 These data, let us stress, are not surprising. Each group of examples and each individual instance requires separate analysis, but overall we can regard patterns of usage as part of the vast web of constructions and patterns that attest to the pairing of pointed form and function and that constitute the substance of a wide range of thematic, narrative, narratological, and poetic strands within the poems: Achilles and

39 Also, exceptionally, τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσεφώνεε νήδυμος Ὕπνος (“sweet sleep spoke to her in reply”) at Il. 14.242, perhaps thematically related to Od. 4.824 and 4.835. 40 Alongside 11 instances of the apostrophic formula with a masculine pronoun (13× total, all Odyssey: for the examples, see Kahane et al; cf. M. Edwards 1969; Kahane 1994: 111– 112). Apart from the Muses, only male heroes (mainly Patroclus, Menelaus, and Eumaius) are apostrophized: see Block 1982; survey and bibliography in Yamagata 1989; recent discussion in de Jong 2009: 94–96. Apostrophe, whether we regard its origins in sense or in metrical needs, makes obvious how a minor change in grammatical form (from third to second person) corresponds to profound narrative and narratological effects.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 101

Zeus, who share divine mēnis in the Iliad and who have a rather special relation to women (indeed to goddesses), Odysseus and his special relationship to the women of the Odyssey, Menelaus and his relationship to Helen in the Telemachy, the poet and his apostrophized characters, and so on. Such pairings bring to bear a simple point: the poems’ patterns of grammatical form are formal variants of general types, but they behave individually and are inseparable from their semantic and poetic functions. As we might expect, in both poems, usage of the masculine pronoun τὸν preceding ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη and προσέφης is more frequent than its feminine variant (total masc. for both poems: with the third person verb, 55×; with the second person, 11×). It also covers a wider range of speakers. Homeric men do tend to speak more frequently among themselves. By their gendered epic nature within the framework of grand epic narrative themes (Achilles’s wrath, Odysseus’s polytropy), they are also more prone to verbal disagreement of the type expressed by our formula. In the Iliad, we find τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσ- έφη used most frequently with Achilles’s noun-epithet formula (9×), followed by Odysseus’s (5×), Agamemnon’s (5×), Ajax’s (2×), Hector’s (1×), Teucrus’s (1×), Diomedes’s (1×), and Zeus’s (1×). Not surprisingly but in distinct variance to Iliadic usage, in the Odyssey Achilles’s proper name is never used with this formula and the masculine pronoun, whereas it is very common with this poem’s protagonist, Odysseus (26×). In the Odyssey, we also find a small number of instances with the names of Zeus (2×) and Menelaus (2×) and repeated instances together with the apostrophic second person form and the vocative of Eumaius (11×). We see here simple poem-specific grammatical tendencies. These are, of course, dependent on the basic thematics of each poem, but they are not to be taken for granted. They are part of the way epic gives substance and form to its themes and narratives. Consider finally the concluding subject nominatives of this formula. In almost all instances of … ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη and almost all other variants of … προσέφη …, the speech-introductory element is completed by name-epithet formulae of male heroes and divinities that are among the most distinctive verbal patterns in epic diction: πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς, πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς, κορυ- θαίολος Ἕκτωρ, νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς.41 These constructions are part of a general metricized grammatical formulaic pattern marked by verse-terminal localization of the nominative proper name itself (in the case of Achilles and Odysseus, their double-consonant forms), not only in speech introductions but in numerous other constructions, with several different epithets and in many other types

41 See Parry on “formula type” (1971: 14–15).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 102 kahane of verses. The formal analogy between all of these examples (proper name- epithet usage, but also usage of the proper name on its own) is patent to all users of epic, singers, poets, audiences, and readers. But as I have argued long ago, this general pattern marked by both lexical- semantic and metrical-grammatical pattern has important narrative/poetic functions.Terminal localization tends to mark the high status of narrative characters and contrasts with the usage of the proper names of lesser narrative figures that are generally excluded from the verse-end (Kahane 1994: 114–141). The character’s narrative function is meaningfully set within the context of the formal metrics of the proper name.42 This general tendency nevertheless incorporates numerous individual differences. It has, for example, rightly been argued by Bakker that in the Odyssey, when προσέφη formulae (in all their variants) and the formula πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς are combined, epic verse stages a discursive “epiphany” of the poem’s eponymous hero (2013: 162–163, citing data in Austin 1975: 28–29 on Odysseus). This is particularly noticeable in iterations of τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς. It portrays “the man full of mētis precisely and almost exclusively when he takes to the floor in order to speak” (Bakker 2013: 163). Now, of course, we also find the same formal pattern used with metrically equivalent name-epithet formulae of other heroes. As we noted, in the Iliad, for example, we find τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμε- νος προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς describing the protagonist of that poem. In attempting to interpret this subset of verse and its effects, we cannot ignore the significant difference between individuals, their characterization, and specific narratives. Achilles speaks with direct, explosive emotion, not with the poly- tropic mētis that defines Odysseus, and he famously expresses his contempt for the latter’s cunning calculation (Il. 9.312). The epiphany affected by Achilles’s … ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη … speech introduction may partake of a general tone of disagreement and express “an increased determination to assert the speaker’s intention” (as Kelly suggests), and it is part of a direct interpersonal verbal exchange that excludes female speakers.Yet in the case of Achilles it introduces a man full, not of mētis but of mēnis, as he takes the floor to speak.Though these formulae are structurally identical, the verbal speech epiphanies of Odysseus and Achilles, and by the same token of other characters’ names so used, are highly individualized. The semantic and narrative uniqueness of each of these speech introductions stands out against the background of their analogical structure and is

42 See Nagy 1976: 256 (cf. 1992: 34 and comments in Kahane 1994: 45–46), who suggests that traditional themes can motivate formulae that then motivate meter.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 103 enhanced by it. Every time an instance of this pattern is used, it inevitably generates context-specific thematic and poetic interactions and contrasts. Within the dramatic series of exchanges of Iliad 1, for example, experienced readers will not fail to note contrastive tensions between Achilles’s protective response to Calchas in 1.84, Agamemnon’s selfish and aggressive reply to Achilles in 1.130, Achilles’s anguished but submissive response to Athena in 1.215, Agamem- non’s inflexible and damning response to Nestor in 1.285, and so on. We should also stress that resonating alongside each of these speech introductions and their elements and interacting with them is an almost open-ended system of partially overlapping imbricated sets of other formally analogous patterns of speech-introductory verses and their individualized constructions,43 such as τὸν δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπόδρα ἰδὼν προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς (“looking darkly at him, swift- footed Achilles said,” Il. 1.148), emphasizing Achilles’s impetuous authority in the quarrel with Agamemnon, or the highly contrastive verse-internal form with Achilles’s single consonant variant and no epithet—τὸν δ’ Ἀχιλεὺς μύθοι- σιν ἀμειβόμενος προσέειπεν· (“and Achilles answered him in words and said,” Il. 23.794)—which emphasizes his harmonious exchange with Antilochus, or indeed τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα (as characterized above by Kelly).44 The number of potential variables at play in any interpretation quickly multiplies. Each analogical pattern may lead to others and thus to an exponentially growing number of local and general interactive relations. We must also note that not all audiences and readers share the same experience of epic verse or sensibilities and personal inclinations. Different individuals and groups may be more attuned to some analogies or less so and will thus interpret the verse differently. We reach a point of hermeneutic diversity that is at once traditional and highly individualized.

5 Analogy and the Formation of New Meaning

Let us try to extend this argument by one small step. It is possible that somehow, due to special conditions, symbolic value and signification do not prefigure in the usage of certain traditional expressions and formal patterns. This, after all, is Parry’s position when he suggests that the compositional requirements of rapid oral performance produced alternative metrical variants and reduced the

43 Brief discussion of imbrication in Kahane 2005: 78. 44 See also Kelly 2007: 419n33, arguing for the authority of final positioning, and the semantics of internal positioning (cf. the general metrico-semantic framework proposed by Kahane 1994).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 104 kahane sense of traditional formulae to essential ideas. Nevertheless, especially within large, complex systems, juxtaposition and interaction often produce formal change. This is likely to coincide with innovation and changes to meaning. Consider again the case of the epithets εὐεργής and ποντοπόρος in the system of formulae for ship. When these epithets are used in their metrically unique dative and accusative constructions, we might perhaps assume that they denote little more than the essential idea of ship. Yet, as we have seen, the epic’s generative principle of analogy has eventually also produced the equivalent nominative formulae νηῦς εὐεργής and ποντοπόρος νηῦς. These forms do not simply infringe abstract rules. The function of both formulae is now unclear. Bards, poets, audiences, and readers, both as individual interpreters and as interpretive communities, are faced with a problem (“how are we to understand the use of these forms?”, “why are different forms used?”) that metrical utility and the law of economy cannot explain. The common practice of language, at least as it is described from a usage-based perspective, nevertheless suggests that the difference between these nominative forms coincides with lexical, semantic, discursive, poetic, or otherwise sense related difference. Sense related functions may be triggered by historical resonance or by con- textual elements, by traditional or individual sensibilities, by oral and perhaps even written intratexts and intertexts.45 They will, however, almost invariably be affected by an analogy to some other element perceived as similar for the simple reason that analogy, as we have seen, is “the core component of linguistic competence” (Blevins and Blevins 2009: 2). Usage-based linguists commonly describe this type of adjustment as the process of reanalysis and specifically as semantic reanalysis (Eckhardt 2006: 4– 5):46

45 Pace important views of “intertextuality without text” (see esp. Burgess 2012) in Homer, scholars in other disciplines see no difficulty in assuming intertextuality within oral envi- ronments: “In the domain of oral poetics, intertextuality has been a defining focus since the latter part of the seventeenth century, when oral tradition became a key element in marking the juncture between premodern and modern epochs in the evolution of language and culture. In the late eighteenth century, Herder’s celebration of the ‘sung again’ quality of oral poetry, its circulation among the people, and its capacity to ‘spite the power of time,’ established the foundational orientations of the study of oral poetics toward the genetic relationships among ‘variants’ and ‘versions’ and the durability of the ‘oral tradition’ constituted by the intertextual relationships that link these cognate texts” (Bauman 2004: 2). 46 Cf. Tomasello 2003: 15–17; Beckner and Bybee 2009. As Eckhardt explains, evidence from the last decades suggests semantic gain in reanalysis whereas earlier studies (such as

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 105

First, the words, phrases, or morphemes under change hold different structural positions in the sentence before and after reanalysis. It is commonly assumed that the semantic evaluation of a sentence is driven by the semantic content of the parts of the sentence and the way in which they are composed. Consequently, if an item changes its structural relation to other material in the sentence, we will necessarily witness some meaning changes that are driven by, or reflect, these structural changes.

As cognitive psychology reminds us, the mind has a natural tendency to recognize and create patterns, schemas, and associations. Users are likely to try to resolve at least some functional anomalies and exceptions by aligning them, or re-aligning them, with other examples that share one or more recognizable fea- ture that may then be projected back onto a more general interpretation. Some anomalous expressions, such the nominative noun-epithet formulae with εὐερ- γής (“well-made”) and ποντοπόρος (“seafaring”), are repeated more than once. Repetition can both reflect the potential for patterning and create it. In usage- based terms, the formulae νηῦς εὐεργής and ποντοπόρος νηῦς may acquire specific new patterns of usage as “constructions,” “learned pairings of form with semantic or discourse functions” (Goldberg 2006: 5; see note 10; Tomasello 2003: 196–200). As in the case of speech introductions, a full verse-by-verse mapping of usage of these epithets, let alone in relation to other epithets for ship, is a task that extends well beyond the scope of this investigation. However, a brief glance should suffice to illustrate the principle of semantic reanalysis. Note first that regardless of case εὐεργής is the more general epithet of the two. “Well- made” can describe various types of man-made objects, including ships, chariots, a cloak, and “well-worked” gold.47 By contrast, ποντοπόρος (“seafaring”) is more narrowly defined and in Homer is used only of ships.48 Arie Hoekstra

Meillet 1912) tended to associate the formation of formal patterns of grammar through usage (grammaticalization) with a weakening of semantic functions (semantic bleaching). 47 See LfgrE. We are probably dealing with two different kinds of objects. Ships, chariots, and a cloak are the products of skilful labor. Gold (Od. 9.202) is the material being pro- cessed (cf. Schneider 1893: 26; Hoffmann 1914: 63, 114; A.A. Parry 1973: 142n3; Gray 1974: 94; Kurt 1979: 43). The interaction of these different kinds of substantives with εὐεργής generates two, non-interchangeable denotations, “well-made” and “well-worked.” These coincide with grammaticalized usage in different cases (for example, gen. in the case of a “well-made chariot”) and other formal attributes. 48 See LfgrE. Parry notes that most epithets for ships “are not applicable to other objects” and

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 106 kahane suggests that the formula ποντοπόρος νηῦς is “probably very old” (Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989: 218 at 339). This is perhaps supported by the scholia (schol. BQ Od. 11.11 [Dindorf 1855: 479]; cf. schol. D Il. 1.439 [van Thiel 2014: 67]), according to which the epithet ποντοπόρος refers to the crossing of Oceanus, the wider, mythological boundary of the world. The epithet ποντοπόρος may thus highlight distant myths rather than practical navigation. If we look at the nominative usage of ποντοπόρος in Homer—the point where the epithet’s metrical value can no longer account for diction—we do indeed find some reflection of these qualities. The epithet seems to describe special, mythical ships, vessels that cross from one existential realm to another under particularly dangerous conditions.We have only four examples, limited to the Odyssey, a poem whose thematics are, we should stress, more fantastic than those of the Iliad. The first example is Circe’s account of the Argo passing through the Clashing Rocks (12.69–70):49

οἴη δὴ κείνῃ γε παρέπλω ποντοπόρος νηῦς Ἀργὼ πᾶσι μέλουσα, παρ’ Αἰήταο πλέουσα·

Only that seafaring ship ever sailed past that place, Argo, known to all, sailing from Aietes.

The next two adjacent examples describe the Phaeacian ship (13.93–95, 13.161– 164):

εὖτ’ ἀστὴρ ὑπερέσχε φαάντατος, ὅς τε μάλιστα ἔρχεται ἀγγέλλων φάος Ἠοῦς ἠριγενείης, τῆμος δὴ νήσῳ προσεπίλνατο ποντοπόρος νηῦς.

When the brightest star was up, which most often Comes announcing the light of early-rising Dawn, Then the seafaring ship put in at the island.

uses this to account for “the almost complete absence in this system of equivalent forms.” (1971: 113). He mentions περικαλλέα (sic; often applied to chariot) as an exception but says nothing of εὐεργής. 49 Many scholars see this verse as important evidence for a pre-Homeric Argonautica. See Heubeck and Hoekstra 1989: 121; West 2005.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 107

… ἡ δὲ μάλα σχεδὸν ἤλυθε ποντοπόρος νηῦς ῥίμφα διωκομένη. τῆς δὲ σχεδὸν ἦλθ’ ἐνοσίχθων, ὅς μιν λᾶαν ἔθηκε καὶ ἐρρίζωσεν ἔνερθε χειρὶ καταπρηνεῖ ἐλάσας· ὁ δὲ νόσφι βεβήκει.

… the seafaring ship came very near Quickly following. The Earth shaker came near And he turned her into stone and rooted her below Driving with the flat of his hand. And he went away.

The final example, in one of Odysseus’s Cretan narratives, describes his passage from safety to the danger of the unknown sea (14.339–340):

ἀλλ’ ὅτε γαίης πολλὸν ἀπέπλω ποντοπόρος νηῦς, αὐτίκα δούλιον ἦμαρ ἐμοὶ περιμηχανόωντο.

But when the seafaring ship sailed far from land Then they immediately contrived the day of slavery for me.

Here, then, may be the kernel of semantic differentiation forming around a local construction, reflecting (or re-reflecting) earlier elements of sense.

6 Interaction, Tradition, and the Individual Poet: From Formal Systems to the Complexity of Epic Diction

Anomaly, broadly understood, is perhaps more widespread than we might at first assume. We have seen that it is the result of a very ordinary mechanism: nothing more than the interaction of patterns in use. The total number of anomalies in Homer, those that break the law of economy, those that infringe hiatus, and others, is significant (see note 5). But more important, from the perspective of usage almost every element of Homeric diction arguably has some uniqueness. Given the density of patterning in Homeric diction and the close relation of such patterning to narrative and theme, the likelihood is high of some form of interaction and thus of some form of meaningful, context- specific mutation, differentiation, or semantic innovation wherever any one pattern meets another. Interpreting interaction is necessarily a fragile and nuanced process, but if patterns are “learned pairings of form and content,” then interpretation itself is almost inevitable. New forms lead to new content and vice versa. Interactions

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 108 kahane within epic diction, though closely dependent on the patterns of traditional phraseology, can thus be as nuanced as any other form of living oral communication among individuals and as nuanced as the individual verse of literate poets. The problem of traditional diction and individual verse has, of course, long concerned students of epic. Many scholars have explained anomaly as the mark of an individual poet and contrasted it to the tradition (see, for example, Finkelberg 2012). In truth, these polarities are part of a single continuum. As Nick Ellis and Diane Larsen-Freeman, point out (2006: 14–15):

Language exists both in individuals (as idiolect) and in the community of users (as communal language). Language is emergent at these two distinctive but interdependent levels: An idiolect is emergent from an individual’s language use through social interactions with other individuals in the communal language, whereas a communal language is emergent as the result of the interaction of the idiolects.

Albert Lord expressed very much the same view in The Singer of Tales. “There are,” he says, “two ways by which a phrase is produced; one is by remembering it [i.e., adhering to the traditional, communal pattern], the other is through creating it by analogy with other phrases.” “And,” he adds, “it may well be impossible to differentiate between the two” (1960: 43). From a fundamental methodological perspective, idiolects and communal or, in our case, traditional language are inseparable. They are present in every text, whether individually authored or traditional, as indeed in Homer’s poetry. Our basic point, then, is simply that epic diction and its patterns are emergent, interactive, and inherently complex (in the scientific, more technical sense of the word). The nature of the process that produces epic verse and language in general suggests that few, if any, patterns operate in a completely fixed, unchanging manner. Homeric diction is replete with patterns of every sort and thus also with many sorts of exception. Metrical pauses and metrical sequences are highly regularized; individual lexical items are highly localized in particular parts of the verse, often independently and not necessarily as part of a group of words; syntactic structures tend to be repeated, often with a variety of individual lexical items; we can identify phonetic patterns, theme based patterns, patterns that are restricted to specific parts of the narrative (clustering), or to discursive functions, patterns that involve scenes, actions, grammatical, lexical, or poetic categories, and so on. Such patterns almost inevitably overlap with each other, creating multiple levels of interaction, interference, and change, creating language that is traditional but often hybrid. Dense pattern-

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 109 ing and interaction between patterns in epic, various forms of exceptionality, and context-specific usage are likely to emerge regularly as part of the system and to play a prevalent role in ordered epic diction. Through the processes of analogy and reanalysis they can lead (often, but not necessarily in every case) to context-specific, structurally distinct, traditional yet semantically resonant innovation. Linguistically, such innovation represents a continuum of idiolects and communal language. Historically, it is quite possible that at specific moments either an individual poet or an anonymous tradition played a greater role in the formation of specific epic elements of diction. Since the text of the Homeric epics attests systematically to both patterns and their exceptions and since some aspects of the patterns in Homeric diction may be associated with oral composition while others seem to have little utility in an oral performance, we can reasonably assume some interaction between oral and literate production, as indeed, in several different ways, scholars have suggested. Given the scarcity of independent external evidence that precedes or is contemporary with the texts of early epic and since, as we have argued, from a methodological and linguistic perspective the text represents an unbroken linguistic continuum, it is unlikely that we will be able to decide between these possibilities.

Works Cited

Andersen, Ø. and Haug, D.T.T. eds. 2012. Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ángel Castello, L. 2008. “Analogía y anomalía en Varrón: De lingua latina VIII–X.” In Buzón, R.P. et al. eds. Docenda Homenaje a Gerardo H. Pagés. Buenos Aires: Univer- sidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. 185–218. Antović, M. and Pagán Cánovas, C. eds. 2016. Oral Poetics and Cognitive Science. Berlin: De Gruyter. Austin, N. 1975. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bakker, E.J. and Fabricotti, F. 1991. “Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics in Homeric Dic- tion: The Case of Dative Expressions for Spear.” Mnemosyne 44: 63–84. Bakker, E.J. 1997. Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bakker, E.J. 2001. “Homer, Hypertext, and the Web of Myth.” In Schaefer, U. and Spiel- mann, E. eds. Varieties and Consequences of Literacy and Orality / Formen und Folgen vonSchriflischkeitundMündlichkeit:FranzBäumlzum75Geburtstag.Tübingen: Narr. 149–160.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 110 kahane

Bakker, E.J. 2005. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Washington, DC: Center for Hellentic Studies. Bakker, E.J. 2013. The Meaning of Meat and the Structure of the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balling, H. and Madsen, A.K. 2003. From Homer to Hypertext: Studies in Narrative, Liter- ature and Media. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Bär, S. 2016. “Reading Homer, Writing Troy: Intertextuality and Narrativity of the Gods and the Divine in Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica.” In Clauss, J.J., Cuypers, M., and Kahane, A. eds. The Gods of Greek Hexameter Poetry: From the Archaic Age to Late Antiquity and Beyond. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. 215–230. Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. eds. 2000. Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Barthes, R. 1977. “The Death of the Author.” In Image-Music-Text. Trans. by S. Heath. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. 142–148. Bauman, R. 2004. A World of Others’ Words: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Intertextual- ity. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Beck, D. 2005. Homeric Conversation. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. Beck, D. 2012. Speech Presentation in Homeric Epic. Austin: University of Texas Press. Beckner, C. and Bybee, J. 2009. “A Usage-Based Account of Constituency and Reanal- ysis.” In Ellis, N.C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. eds. Language as a Complex Adaptive System. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 27–46. Bierl, A. 2012. “Orality, Fluid Textualization and Interweaving Themes. Some Remarks on the Doloneia: Magical Horses from Night to Light and Death to Life.” In Monta- nari, Rengakos, and Tsagalis, eds. 133–174. Blevins, J.P. and Blevins, J. eds. 2009. Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Block, E. 1982. “The Narrator Speaks: Apostrophe in Homer and Vergil.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 122: 1–22. Boas, H.C. 2016. “Frames and Constructions for the Study of Oral Poetics.” In Antović and Pagán Cánovas, eds. 99–124. Bopp, F. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Nebst Episoden aus dem Ramajana und Mahabharata in genauen metrischen Übersetzun- gen aus dem Originaltexte und einigen Abschnitten aus den Vedas. Frankfurt: Andre- äsche Buchhandlung. Bozzone, C. 2010. “New Perspectives on Formularity.” In Jamison, S.W., Melchert, H.C., and Vine, B. eds. Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bre- men: Hempen Verlag. 27–44. Bozzone, C. 2014. “Constructions: A New Approach to Formularity, Discourse, and Syn- tax in Homer.” PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 111

Burgess, J.S. 2001.TheTradition of theTrojanWar in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Burgess, J.S. 2006. “Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An Examination of Home- ric Motif Transference.” Oral Tradition 21: 148–181. Burgess, J.S. 2010. “The Hypertext of Astyanax.” Trends in Classics 2: 211–224. Burgess, J.S. 2012. “Intertextuality without Text in Early Greek Epic.” In Andersen and Haug, eds. 168–183. Burgess, J.S. 2015. Homer. London: I.B. Tauris. Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amster- dam: Benjamins. Chomsky,N. 1986. Knowledgeof Language:ItsNature,OriginandUse. NewYork:Praeger. Christensen, J.P. 2009. “Review of Friedrich (2007) Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches.” American Journal of Philology 130: 131–135. Čolacović, Z. 2006. “The Singer Above Tales. Homer, Mededović and Traditional Epics.” Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca 9: 161–187. Čolacović, Z. 2019. “Avdo Međedović’s Post-Traditional Epics and Their Applications to Homeric Studies.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 138. Forthcoming. Corrigan, R. et al. eds. 2009. Formulaic Language. Vol. I: Distribution and Historical Change. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspec- tive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Currie, B. 2016. Homer’s Allusive Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Danek, G. 1996. “Intertextualität in der Ilias. Intertextualität in der Odyssee.” Wiener humanistische Blätter 38: 22–36. Danek, G. 1998. Epos und Zitat: Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Danek, G. 2002. “Traditional Referentiality and Homeric Intertextuality.” In Montanari, F. ed. Omero tremila anni dopo. Atti del congresso di Genova 6–8 luglio 2000. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. 3–19. Danek, G. 2005. “Review of Čolacović and Rojc-Čolacović 2004.” Würzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft 118: 5–20. De Decker, F. 2015. “A Morphosyntactic Analysis of Speech Introductions and Conclu- sions in Homer.” PhD Dissertation, Ludwig Maximiliansuniversität. de Jong, I.J.F. 2004. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. 2nd ed. London: Bristol Classical Press. de Jong, I.J.F. 2009. “Metalepsis in Ancient Greek Literature.” In Grethlein, J. and Ren- gakos, A. eds. Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in An- cient Literature. Berlin: De Gruyter. 87–116. Dee, J.H. 2010. Iuncturae Homericae. Hildesheim, Zürich: Olms / Weidmann. Dindorf, G. 1855. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 112 kahane

Duso, A. 2006. “L’analogia in Varrone.” In Oniga, R. and Zennaro, L. eds. Atti della gior- nata di linguistica latina. Venice: Cafoscarina. 9–20. Eckhardt, R. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, G.P. 1971. The Language of Hesiod in its Traditional Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, M.W. 1968. “Homeric Speech Introductions.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 74: 1–36. Edwards, M.W. 1969. “On Some ‘Answering’ Expressions in Homer.” Classical Philology 64: 81–87. Edwards, M.W. 1986. “Homer and Oral Tradition: The Formula, Part I.” Oral Tradition 1: 171–230. Edwards, M.W. 1988. “Homer and Oral Tradition: The Formula, Part II.” Oral Tradition 3: 11–60. Ellis, N.C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. eds. 2006. Language as a Complex Adaptive System. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Fantuzzi, M. and Tsagalis, C. eds. 2015. The Greek Epic Cycle and its Ancient Reception: A Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fillmore, C.J. 1977. “The Case for Case Reopened.” In Cole, P. ed. Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. 59–81. Finkelberg, M. 1990. “A Creative Oral Poet and the Muse.” American Journal of Philology 111: 293–303. Finkelberg, M. 2002. “The Sources of the Iliad.” Colby Quarterly 38: 151–161. Finkelberg, M. 2003. “Homer as a Foundation Text.” In Finkelberg, M. and Stroumsa, G.G. eds. Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill. 75–96. Finkelberg, M. 2004. “Oral Theory and the Limits of Formulaic Diction.” Oral Tradition 19: 236–252. Finkelberg, M. 2012. “Oral Formulaic Theory and the Individual Poet.” In Montanari, Rengakos, and Tsagalis, eds. 73–82. Finkelberg, M. 2015. “Meta-Cyclic Epic and Homeric Poetry.” In Fantuzzi and Tsagalis, eds. 126–138. Finnegan, R. 1980. Oral Poetry: Its Nature, Significance and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fletcher, J. 2008. “Women’s Space and Wingless Words in the Odyssey.”Phoenix 62: 77– 91. Foley, J.M. 1991. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Foley, J.M. 1999. Homer’sTraditional Art. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press. Fortassier, P. 1989. L’hiatus expressif dans l’Iliade et dans l’Odyssée. Leuven: Peeters.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 113

Fowler, R. 2004. “The Homeric Question.” In Fowler, R. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Homer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 220–232. Friedrich, R. 2007. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Givón, T. 1971. “Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology: An Archaeologist’s Field Trip.”Papers from the Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415. Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books. Goldberg, A.E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gray, D. 1974. “Seewesen.” Archaeologia Homerica vol. 1, Ch. G: 1–166. Hackstein, O. 2010. “The Greek of Epic.” In Bakker, E.J. ed. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 401–423. Hainsworth, J.B. 1968. The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Heubeck, A. and Hoekstra, A. 1989. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoekstra, A. 1965. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes. Studies in the Develop- ment of Greek Epic Diction. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollansche Uitgevers Maatschappij. Hoffmann, M.H. 1914. Die ethische Terminologie bei Homer, Hesiod und den alten Elegik- ern und Jambographen. Tübingen: Kloeres. Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. eds. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Gram- mar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hopper, P.J. and Traugott, E.C. 2013. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Janda, L. 2007. “Inflectional Morphology.” In Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 632– 649. Kahane, A. 1994.The Interpretation of Order: A Study in the Poetics of Homeric Repetition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kahane, A. 2005. Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Kahane, A. Forthcoming-a. “Oral Theory and Intertextuality: The Case of the Homeric Hymns.” In Bär, S. and Maravela, A. eds. Narratology and Intertextuality: New Perspec- tives on Greek Epic from Homer to Nonnus. Leiden: Brill. Kahane, A. Forthcoming-b. “The Politics of the Formula.” In Vasunia, P. ed. The Politics of Literary Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kahane, A. et al. The Chicago Homer. http://homer.library.northwestern.edu/. Kazazis, J.N. and Rengakos, A. eds. 1999. Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 114 kahane

Kelly, A. 2007. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Kiparsky, P. 1976. “Oral Poetry: Some Linguistic and Typological Considerations.” In Stoltz and Shannon, eds. 73–106. Kramsch, C. 2012. “Why is Everyone So Excited About Complexity Theory in Applied Linguistics?” Mélanges CRAPEL 33: 9–24. Kullmann, W. 1984. “Oral Poetry Theory and Neoanalysis in Homeric Research.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 25: 307–323. Kullmann, W. 2012. “Neoanalysis between Orality and Literacy: Some Remarks Con- cerning the Development of Greek Myths Including the Legend of the Capture of Troy.” In Montanari, Rengakos, and Tsagalis, eds. 13–27. Kullmann, W. 2015. “Motif and Source Research: Neoanalysis, Homer and Cyclic Epic.” In Fantuzzi and Tsagalis, eds. 108–126. Kurt, C.K. 1979. Seemännische Fachausdrücke bei Homer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck. Kuryłowicz, J. 1947. “La nature des process dits ‘analogiques’.”Acta Linguistica 5: 15–37 (= “The Nature of the So Called Analogical Processes.”Diachronica 12 [1995]: 113–145). Kuryłowicz, J. 1965. “The Evolution of Grammatical Categories.”Diogenes 13: 55–71. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lardinois, A.P.M.H., Blok, J.H. and Van der Poel, M.G.M. eds. 2011. Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy, and Religion. Leiden: Brill. Larsen-Freeman, D. 1997. “Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language Acquisi- tion.” Applied Linguistics 18: 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. 2008. Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Law, V. 2003. The History of Linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Lehmann, C. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press. Lord, A.B. 1960. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lord, A.B. 1995.TheSingerResumestheTale. M.L. Lord, ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Meillet, A. 1912. “L’évolution des formes grammaticales.” Scientia 12: 130–158. Minchin, E. 2006. “Men’s Talk and Women’s Talk in Homer: Rebukes and Protests.” Mediterranean Archaeology 19: 213–224. Minchin, E. ed. 2012. Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World. Leiden: Brill. Minton, W.W. 1965. “The Fallacy of the Structural Formula.” Transactions and Proceed- ings of the American Philological Association 96: 241–253. Montanari, F. (with P. Ascheri) ed. 2002. Omero tremila anni dopo: Atti del Congresso di Genova 6–8 luglio 2000. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 115

Montanari, F., Rengakos, A. and Tsagalis, C. eds. 2012. Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin: De Gruyter. Montanari, F. 2012. “Introduction: The Homeric Question Today.” In Montanari, Ren- gakos, and Tsagalis, eds. 1–12. Muñoz Valle, I. 1971. “Interpretación de la fórmula homérica ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζε.” Emerita 305: 305–314. Nagler, M.N. 1974. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nagy, G. 1976. “Formula and Meter.” In Stoltz and Shannon, eds. 239–260. Nagy, G. 1990. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Nagy, G. 1992. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Nagy, G. 2012. “Signs of Hero Cult in Homeric Poetry.” In Montanari, Rengakos, and Tsa- galis, eds. 27–71. Nagy, G. 2015. “OralTraditions,WrittenTexts, and Questions of Authorship.” In Fantuzzi and Tsagalis, eds. 59–77. Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I. 1989. Exploring Complexity: An Introduction. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. Oesterreicher,W.1997. “Types of Orality inText.” In Bakker, E.J. and Kahane, A. eds.Writ- ten Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 190–214. Olson, S.D. 1994. “Equivalent Speech-Introduction Formulae in the Iliad.” Mnemosyne 47: 145–151. Ong, W.J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge. Pagán Cánovas, C. and Antović, M. 2016. “Formulaic Creativity: Oral Poetics and Cogni- tive Theory.”Language and Communication 47: 66–74. Parry, A. 1966. “Have We Homer’s Iliad?” Yale Classical Studies 66: 177–216. Parry, A.A. 1973. Blameless Aegisthus. A Study of AMYMŌN and Other Homeric Epithets. Leiden: Brill. Parry, M. 1971. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pedrick, V. 1994. “Reading in the Middle Voice: The Homeric Intertextuality of Pietro Pucci and John Peradotto.”Helios 21: 75–96. Penn, D.C., Holyoak, K.J., and Povinelli, D.J. 2008. “Darwin’s Mistake: Explaining the Dis- continuity between Human and Nonhuman Minds.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 109–178. Peradotto, J. 1990. Man in the Middle Voice: Name and Narration in the Odyssey. Prince- ton: Princeton University Press. Pucci, P. 1987. Odysseus Polytropos: Intertexual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access 116 kahane

Riffaterre, M. 1994. “Intertextuality vs. Hypertextuality.” New Literary History 24: 779– 788. Rousseau, P. 2015. “War, Speech and the Bow Are Not Women’s Business.” In Fabre- Serris, J. and Keith, A.M. eds. Women and War in Antiquity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 15–33. Russo, J.A. 1963. “A Closer Look at Homeric Formulas.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 94: 235–247. Russo, J.A. 1966. “The Structural Formula in Homeric Verse.” Yale Classical Studies 20: 217–240. Russo, J.A. 1968. “Homer Against His Traditions.” Arion 7: 275–295. Russo, J.A. 1976. “Is Oral or Aural Composition the Cause of Homer’s Formulaic Style?” In Stoltz and Shannon, eds. 31–71. Russo, J.A. 1997. “The Formula.” In Morris, I. and Powell, B. eds. A New Companion to Homer. Leiden: Brill. 238–260. Russo, J.A. 2011. “Formula.” In Finkelberg, M. ed. The Homer Encyclopedia. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Electronic. Rutherford, I.C. 2012. “The Catalogue of Women within the Greek Epic Tradition: Allu- sion, Intertextuality and Traditional Referentiality.” In Andersen and Haug, eds. 152– 167. Saul, J. and Diaz-Leon, E. 2017. “Feminist Philosophy of Language.” In Zalta, E.N. ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2017/entries/feminism‑language/. Schein, S.L. 1999. “Homeric Intertextuality: Two Examples.” In Kazazis, J.N. and Ren- gakos, A. eds. Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. 349–356. Schein, S.L. 2016. Homeric Epic and Its Reception: Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schneider, G. 1893. Beiträge zur homerischenWortforschung undTextkritik. Görlitz: Gör- litzer Nachrichtern und Anzeiger. Scodel, R. ed. 2014. Between Orality and Literacy: Communication and Adaptation in Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. Shive, D. 1987. Naming Achilles. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sluiter, I. 2011. “A Champion of Analogy: Herodian’s On Lexical Singularity.” In Math- aios, S., Montanari, F., and Rengakos, A. eds. Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts. Berlin: De Gruyter. 291–312. Stoltz, B.A. and Shannon, R.S. eds. 1976. Oral Literature and the Formula. Ann Arbor: Center for Coordination of Ancient and Modern Studies, The University of Michi- gan. Tebben, J.R. 1994–1998. Concordantia Homerica. Hildesheim: G. Olms / Weidmann. Thomas, R. 1992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access the complexity of epic diction 117

Tomasello, M. 2003. ConstructingaLanguage:AUsage-BasedTheoryof LanguageAcqui- sition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tsagalis, C. 2008. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. Tsagalis, C. 2011. “Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis.” Trends in Classics 3: 209– 244. Tsagalis, C. 2014. “γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων: Interformularity and Intertraditionality in The- ban and Homeric Epic.” Trends in Classics 6: 357–338. van Thiel, H. 2014. Scholia D in Iliadem. Proecdosis aucta et correctior 2014. Secun- dum codices manu scriptos. Köln: Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek (Elektronis- che Schriftenreihe der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln, 7. http://kups.ub.uni ‑koeln.de/5586/). Viechnicki, P. 1994. “Ameibo: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 22: 113–122. Von Fritz, K. 1949. “Ancient Instruction in ‘Grammar’ According to Quintilian.” Ameri- can Journal of Philology 70: 337–366. von Humboldt, W. 1822. “Über das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen und ihren Einfluß auf die Ideenentwicklung.” Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen Klasse der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. von Schlegel, A.W. 1818. Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales. Paris: Librairie grecquelatine-allemande. West, M.L. 2005. “Odyssey and Argonautica.” Classical Quarterly 55: 39–64. Wood, D.C. 2015. Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Wyatt,W.F. 1992. “Review of Fortassier L’hiatus expressif dans l’Iliade et dans l’Odyssée.” Phoenix 46: 85–86. Yamagata, N. 1989. “The Apostrophe in Homer as Part of the Oral Technique.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 36: 91–103. Young, D. 1967. “Never Blotted a Line? Formula and Premeditation in Homer and Hes- iod.” Arion 6: 279–324. Zumthor, P. 1990. Oral Poetry: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:06:29AM via free access