Homer and Early Greek Epic

Collected Essays

Margalit Finkelberg

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9783110671421
• eBook ISBN: 9783110671520
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Littérature
• Subtopic: Critique littéraire ancienne et classique

This collection includes thirty scholarly essays on Homer and Greek epic poetry published by Margalit Finkelberg over the past three decades. The topics discussed reflect the author's research interests and represent the main directions of her contribution to Homeric studies: Homer's language and diction, archaic Greek epic tradition, Homer's world and values, transmission and reception of the Homeric poems. The book gives special emphasis to some of the central issues in contemporary Homeric scholarship, such as oral-formulaic theory and the role of the individual poet; Neoanalysis and the character of the relationship between Homer and the tradition about the Trojan War; the multi-layered texture of the Homeric poems; the Homeric Question; the canonic status of the Iliad and the Odyssey in antiquity and modernity. All the articles are revised and updated. The book addresses both scholars and advanced students of Classics, as well as non-specialists interested in the Homeric poems and their journey through centuries.

Part I:Language and Diction

1Is ΚΛΕΟΣ ΑΦΘΙΤΟΝ a Homeric Formula?

Since being brought to light in 1853 by Adalbert Kuhn, the fact that the Homeric expression κλέος ἄφθιτον has an exact parallel in the Veda has played a pivotal role in formulating the hypothesis that Greek epic poetry is of Indo-European origin.1 Yet only with the emergence of Milman Parry’s theory of the formulaic character of Homeric composition did it become possible to test the antiquity of κλέος ἄφθιτον on the internal grounds of Homeric diction.2

It is generally agreed that the conservative character of oral composition entails a high degree of correlation between the antiquity of a Homeric expression and its formulaic character. In other words, although not all Homeric formulae are necessarily of ancient origin, it is nevertheless in the formulaic stock of the epic diction that archaic and backward-looking expressions should be sought.3 Consequently, demonstration that κλέος ἄφθιτον (as well as other Homeric expressions with Vedic cognates)4 is a Homeric formula would constitute valuable evidence for its origin in Indo-European heroic poetry. Strangely enough, however, as Parry’s analysis won the recognition of scholars, κλέος ἄφθιτον was identified as a Homeric formula simply because of its agreement with the Vedic śráva(s) ... ákṣitam.5 Yet examination of κλέος ἄφθιτον from the internal standpoint of the Greek epic casts serious doubts on the formulaic and traditional character of this Homeric expression.

1

The technical criterion on the basis of which a Homeric expression is considered a formula is repetition. Though opinions as to the minimum number of repetitions needed to identify a given expression as a formula vary,6 it is clear that in cases where the given expression is unique, its formulaic nature cannot be taken for granted.7 Since κλέος ἄφθιτον occurs only once in Homer, comparative considerations by themselves do not afford sufficient evidence for the formulaic character of this Homeric expression. It is against the broader background of Homeric diction that examination of κλέος ἄφθιτον in Homer must proceed.

What are the conditions the satisfaction of which makes it probable that a given unique expression is a formula? Firstly, we must determine whether the existence of such a formula is functionally justified. It is generally agreed that the existence of a formula is justified in that it is a metrical and semantic unit allowing the oral poet to express a given idea under given metrical conditions. Consequently, the existence of two or more equivalent formulae would be functionally redundant from the point of view of the oral technique, and the fact is that though the poet may well replace his formulae with expressions created ad hoc as he sees fit, the replacement of one formula with another is a rare practice.8 It follows, then, that if κλέος ἄφθιτον has no formulaic equivalent, that is, if it cannot be replaced with a well-established Homeric formula, the possibility that it is an underrepresented formula would considerably increase.

Two Homeric expressions can be considered equivalent when they are metrically and semantically interchangeable. If κλέος ἄφθιτον (‘imperishable fame’) is taken as a self-contained unit, its only semantic equivalent would be ἄσβεστον κλέος (‘inextinguishable fame’) of the Odyssey.9 But is κλέος ἄφθιτον a self-contained unit?

The combination of words κλέος ἄφθιτον is found at Iliad 9.413, in Achilles’ great speech:

εἰ μέν κ’ αὖθι μένων Τρώων πόλιν ἀμφιμάχωμαι,

ὤλετο μέν μοι νόστος, ἀτὰρ κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται·

εἰ δέ κεν οἴκαδ’ ἵκωμι φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν,

ὤλετό μοι κλέος ἐσθλόν, ἐπὶ δηρὸν δέ μοι αἰὼν

ἔσσεται, οὐδέ κέ μ’ ὦκα τέλος θανάτοιο κιχείη.

‘If I abide here and fight about the Trojans’ city, then lost is my return, but my fame will be imperishable; but if I go home to my dear native land, then lost is my noble fame, but my life will long endure, nor will the issue of death soon reach me’.10

The first conclusion that follows from examining κλέος ἄφθιτον within its context is that it cannot be identified as a noun-epithet combination for the simple reason that, in the clause κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται, ἄφθιτον is not the attribute of κλέος but its predicate (the predicative adjective).11 Hence, not κλέος ἄφθιτον (‘imperishable fame’) but κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται (‘fame will be imperishable’) is a self-contained semantic unit in Homer.

Thus, we must try to correlate κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται, and not just κλέος ἄφθιτον, with other Homeric expressions in which immortality or something to that effect is predicated of fame. Whether the predicate is adjectival or verbal is not significant here. This gives us the following group – (1) ‘fame will never be lost’ (κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται Il. 2.325, 7.91; Od. 24.196); (2) ‘fame should be inextinguishable᾽ (ἄσβεστον κλέος εἴη, Od. 4.584, 7.333), and (3) ‘fame reaches unto heaven᾽ (κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει, Il. 8.325; Od. 9.20).1F12 Of the three expressions, ἄσβεστον κλέος ἐίη is shaped differently from κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται and therefore cannot replace it in the hexameter, and κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει, though shaped like κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται and employed in the same metrical position (after the fourth-foot caesura), cannot replace it in the hexameter because of the difference in the tenses.13 However, κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται is not only shaped like κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται and employed in the same metrical position, but also replaces it in the hexameter. Thus,

(after the fourth-foot caesura)	κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται	3 times
	κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται	once.

The fact that κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται is found three times in Homer makes a good case for identifying it as a Homeric formula for expressing the idea of the immortality of fame after the fourth-foot caesura, precisely the metrical position in which κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται occurs only once. Since κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται at Iliad 9.413 may be replaced with a well-established Homeric formula, its existence as a formula is functionally redundant. In view of this, κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται may be counted a formula with no more reason than any other unique expression in Homer.

2

Though unique expressions are generally presumed to belong to the latest stage of composition, it is at the same time possible that some of them belonged to the most ancient layers in the formulaic stock of Greek epic diction, and were supplanted with more recent formulae in all other relevant contexts.14 And, though the frequency with which κλέος ἄφθιτον emerges in post-Homeric diction somewhat diminishes the relevance of this option for this particular expression,15 it nevertheless deserves testing. To argue for the antiquity of a given Homeric expression, we check whether it excludes features which may indicate that it was created by analogy with other Homeric expressions. If the expression contains certain peculiarities of language, if its meaning is obsolete, if its words are of restricted usage—in short, if no parallel can be drawn between it and other expressions in Homer, the possibility that it is an ancient one is considerable.16 Yet examination of κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται in the broader Homeric context does in fact point to formulaic associations on the basis of which it might have been built.

Thus, ἄφθιτον (‘ imperishable’) is part of the Homeric formula for precious objects of divine origin ἄφθιτον / ἄφθιτα αἰεί (‘imperishable forever’), whose fixed position at the end of the hexameter (4 times in the Iliad) makes it ideally compatible with the term κλέος when placed after the fourth-foot caesura.17 In addition, the fact that ἄφθιτον αἰεί is regularly applied by Homer to material objects indicates that its application to so incorporeal an entity as fame must have been prompted by the analogy.18 Thus,

(after the fourth-foot caesura)	κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται	3 times
	ᴗᴗ ἄφθιτον αἰεί	4 times
	κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται	once.

Combination of κλέος with forms of the verb εἶναι at the verse-end is an established Homeric usage, and the expression κλέος εἶναι / ἐστίν / εἴη, found in Homer four times, may with every right be identified as a Homeric formula.19 In order to be transformed into κλέος … ἔσται after the fourth-foot caesura, the κλέος of this formula must simply have been brought back to the fourth foot, into the position precedented in the formula κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται.20 19FThus,

(after the fourth-foot caesura)	κλέος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλεῖται	3 times
	ᴗᴗ ἄφθιτον αἰεί	4 times
	ᴗᴗ ‒ κλέος εἶναι	4 times
	κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται	once.

It is now apparent that κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται at Iliad 9.413 is related to three well-established Homeric formulae. Considering that it also includes a significant semantic innovation (adaptation of ἄφθιτον to an incorporeal entity) and is frequently encountered in post-Homeric diction, we must conclude that it is unlikely that this expression is an ancient formula.

3

Since it is neither indispensable nor traditional, κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται at Iliad 9.413 must be an ad hoc innovation evoked by its immediate context. We have seen that the expression is part of Achilles’ account of the conditions under which his fame may or may not perish—if he stays at Troy his fame will be imperishable, and if he returns home his fame will be lost. The expression ὤλετό μοι κλέος ἐσθλόν (‘my noble fame is lost’) at the end of the senten...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Contents
• List of Abbreviations
• List of the original publication venues
• Part I: Language and Diction
• Part II: Homer and Heroic Tradition
• Part III: Homer’s World and Values
• Part IV: Transmission and Reception
• References
• General Index
• Index of passages cited