Discussion of the Passage

In general, it is clear that the second hemistich shows more traditional patterning—both of formulas and of formulaic phrases—than does the first. Although we are not attempting to classify the text as oral or written on the basis of these figures, the hemistichs do reveal this obvious reflex of right justification. In what follows, I shall annotate these quantitative measurements, glossing them where necessary with additional information and offering alternative explanations of phraseological structure where appropriate.

5.424 . Counting this line as a whole-line formula obscures its component parts and their innate flexibility in combination. First, the second-hemistich formula occurs eleven times in addition to 5.424 and its two verbatim repeats. One could also relate another whole-line formula (24.235), , which, with allowed morphological variation, occurs three times in the Odyssey , but this explanation would likewise not take note of the other first-hemistich partners with which kata phrena kai kata thumon joins. Or, alternatively, we might choose to explain this line as one realization of a formulaic pattern [X] , where X represents either function words or the participial structure hedzomenos d ' in the other instance at 6.118. While this hypothesis has the advantage of indicating some of the flexibility associated with this group of related phrases, it too falls short of a complete and synthetic description.

To begin with, we may note that while the second hemistich of 5.424 joins with many partners, the first hemistich is found only in this particular combination. This situation then suggests that, although we shall not be able

to reduce this collection of lines to a single kernel element and a series of elaborations, we should focus our analytical efforts on the second hemistich in order to determine what makes it so consistently realized as a formula in its own right. The word-type localization of thumon offers a clue: the metrical shape generally occurs only 13.8 percent of the time at line-end (position 12), but thumon turns up at 12 in fully 34.3 percent of its 102 occurrences. Clearly, then, some process is interfering with the average distribution of this word.

As we have already learned, Homeric phraseology tends toward "larger words" composed of smaller, individual words. Once admitted as larger groupings, such amalgams function as unitary word-types. Although their individual word-types had to be favorable to combination and localization (or at least permissible) in order for the amalgamation to take place, the composite structure then takes on a life of its own. This is precisely the case with the word thumon , whose thirty-five occurrences at line-end are broken down as follows:

The first three phrases, all of them colonic forms, are composite "words" that act as larger units and obey traditional rules that apply to those units; thus kai kata thumon and hon kata thumon , for example, occupy the most favored location for an adonean shape, position 12. Under traditional rules, which designate position and sequence through right justification and the caesura structure of the inner metric, a group of colonic forms has grown up around thumon . Various levels of fossilization are apparent: hemistich, colon, and shorter phrase. Some of these possibilities are extremely useful for combination with a variety of less fossilized partners, and so we also encounter 5.424 and its entourage of verbatim repeats and more distant relatives. The point is that none of the lines treated is in any sense "archetypal" or "seminal," and yet the similarities are unmistakable. All of them took shape under traditional rules; whether those rules are active in the formation of the line at hand or to differing degrees vestigial because it was under their guidance that a fossilized element must originally have come into being, we must ascribe the traditional structure of these lines—both individually and as a group—to their influence.

[25] Some of the occurrences in this category are likewise to be explained as colonic forms, but none is frequent enough to merit individual consideration. A few also exhibit a blocked G caesura, so that they in effect modulate to hemistich units.

5.4.25 . Although the argument can be made that both of these hemistichs are formulaic, we come nearer the true structure by explaining them as instances of word-type localization. The phrase mega kuma , a composite "word" that recurs twice within this very passage (5.429, 5.435), behaves as if it were a shape, with favored positions at , , and 12.^[26] The first two of these placements, both of which result in colonic forms, are favored because of their accordance with the inner metric of the hexameter, and are more basic to the formation of the phraseology than the hemistich patterns for which they serve as the foundation.

The evidence for a system in the second hemistich is even flimsier, with the hypothesis resting on the single line 14.1: . Since there is nothing in the syntax that relates this line and 5.425, we must dismiss the notion that calling this hemistich formulaic leads us toward a better understanding of it as traditional phraseology. What is operative in this case is simple localization, with trêcheian taking one of the two positions (, ) that together account for over 90 percent of the occurrences of this word-type. While we must discard the label of formulaic system for this hemistich, then, we can still see traditional rules playing a dynamic role in its formation.^[27]

5.426 . Here conventional formulaic theory works quite adequately, calling to our attention the existence of the fourth colon in 12.412: . The only drawback to this explication is its positing of a second hemistich that can, for reasons given above, be understood only as formulaic. This account of the line's structure downplays the integral nature of sun d' oste' araxe , which, although only colonic in extent, is a complete syntactic element by itself and from all points of view a unit to which nothing need be added to fill out a larger structure.

In part, this difficulty is due to the stricture we have advocated about the hemistich as the smallest unit of phraseology, and the situation is in part ameliorated by the continuing emphasis of this chapter on the normative—and not absolute—functions of both colon and hemistich. That is, it has been noted that the C1 fourth colon is extensive enough a site to permit the

[26] The actual figures for mega kuma coincide generally with these word-type (WT) localization figures. Seven instances occur at  (WT = 42.7 percent), five at  (WT = 22.6 percent), and one at 12 (WT = 31.7 percent). We may ascribe the relative paucity of instances at 12 either to the small size of the sample or, more likely, to the second-hemistich system apparent in 5.296, 5.435, and 14.315 (which may have helped to fossilize mega kuma in a yet larger structure).

[27] Compare the two occurrences of trêcheian in the Iliad (2.633, 2.717), both of which occupy line-end position (at 12). In both cases the adjective has joined with a proper name to form a composite "word" nearly a hemistich in length (preceded by kai ). The nature of this larger "word" or amalgam is made clearer by the fact that (a) both C caesura positions are blocked by the proper name and (b) the preceding, and presumably optional, kai illustrates the malleability typical of right-justified units.

formation of phraseology,^[28] and that we should not try to fashion an exclusive and unbending rule from what is actually a strong tendency. In the larger context, we must also remember that the diction forms according to traditional rules of word-type localization and inner metric, and that, other things being equal, the principle of right justification favors patterning (or fossilization) toward the end of the line and intra-linear units. In this case that process of fossilization has satisfied traditional rules that pertain to the C1 fourth colon, and a phrase has been created that becomes useful, or so it appears, in composition.

5.427 . This line does not quite as easily yield up its structure to conventional formulaic theory, for behind the convenient approximation of "whole-line system" used for quantitative purposes lies a mélange of interlocking units that do not fall out into additive parts. The second hemistich, for example, can be understood as the full noun-epithet formula thea glaukôpis Athênê or as the shorter version glaukôpis Athênê ; the Odyssey contains thirty-two occurrences of the former and eighteen of the latter, and both phrases combine with a wide variety of partners. Nevertheless, in addition to the lines that allow us to posit a whole-line system [X] , where X stands for têi d ' ar ' in the two additional occurrences, we also find evidence for a first-hemistich system [X] phresi thêke , where X varies widely.

Once again, however, traditional rules help to put the phraseology into perspective. Right justification explains the second-hemistich pair of noun-epithet formulas not simply as bi-forms that fit snugly into the correct spots, but as matched elements that typically allow for flexibility at the opening. Likewise, not only is phresi thêke backed up against the mid-line break with the initial part of the first hemistich open to syntactic adjustment, but as a composite "word" this expression also occupies the position most favored for its metrical word-type. Viewing the two hemistichs from this perspective relieves us of the necessity of wrestling with the complex multiformity of the "whole-line system" and points the way toward understanding 5.427 and related phraseology as the partially fluid, partially fossilized medium that it is.

5428 . Since conventional theory offers a satisfactory interpretation of this line, I shall not pause long over its finer points. Suffice it to note that the first-hemistich formula blocks the A caesura, and that the consequent lack of flexibility must have contributed to preserving this phrase as an integral whole. It is entirely detachable from its present partner, which in turn is a classic example of a system (again with a blocked caesura) that is nonetheless formed under traditional rules.^[29]

5.4.29 . Since the only other occurrence of stenachôn shows no formulaic

[28] Thus Kirk's claim (1966) that the C1 caesura is an alternate mid-line break. See also Kirk 1985, 24-30.

[29] Note that epessumenos is at position 9, the most favored locus for its word-type (76.5 percent).

relationship whatever to this line (although it too occupies position 5), this first hemistich must realistically be classed as non-formulaic. This placement does, however, follow traditional rules of localization (second most favored position, 34.0 percent) and right justification. Moreover, as was apparent from the earlier discussion of epea pteroenta , participles are especially preferred just before the mid-line caesura. The second hemistich, again involving mega kuma , this time shows a truer formulaic system than was discovered in relation to the first-hemistich occurrence of this composite "word" in 5.425. This difference is due immediately to the more extensive C1 fourth colon, and ultimately to the principle of right justification which underlies colon formation.

5.430 . Of the first hemistich all that can be said is that it follows right justification in its general ordering of elements and in the placement of hupaluxe in its most favored position by word-type. In a sense this sequence of words amounts to the antithesis of, for instance, the noun-epithet formula treated above, (thea) glaukôpis Athênê , the former being apparently a "nonce" creation and the latter a fossilized, composite "word." Prior theories would treat these two phrases as diametrically opposed, and there is no doubt of the difference in structure and deployment between the two. But what that dichotomy obscures is the fundamental fact that both obey traditional rules; both phrases take shape under the guidance of word-type localization and other aspects of right justification. The phrases for Athena (really a matched pair as already observed) exemplify the end result of the traditional process, whereby—to put it gnomically—words have jelled into "words" and the rules have become vestigial for individual components, while in the first hemistich of 5.430 those same rules are active and dynamic. Of course, because of its difference in compositional function, the latter sequence is likely to remain ephemeral, and we must always keep in mind that phrases—even if created under the same set of strictures—develop according to their role in the compositional process. Nonetheless, at the source of this development, no matter what its direction or eventual product, we discern the guiding force of traditional rules.

The second part of the line, typically more structured than the first, forms around the placement of palirrothion at position 9, the placement of choice for this word-type (76.5 percent, as with epessumenos in 5.428). Since the only other occurrence of this word (9.485) is found at position 9 but bears no formulaic resemblance to the present phrase, we must conclude that the governing principle behind the second-hemistich phraseology is once again traditional rules and not a hypothetical system (which would at any rate still be based on those rules).

5.431 . On the evidence of three line-initial instances of plêx- , one might perhaps insist on maintaining a formulaic system as the best explanation of the first hemistich. However, the colon structure varies over these examples, as does the syntax, and we may more easily interpret this phrase as the product of a compromise in localization. Position 5 is the only other possibility besides 9

(see 5.430, 5.428) for a word of the metrical shape of epessumenon , and, as noted earlier, participles are favored just before the mid-line break (cf. 5.314). With this common participial shape backed up against the B1 caesura, the hemistich is in effect open to the typical kind of initial modification we have encountered many times before in the hexameter.

Likewise, parallels can be cited that seem to argue for [X] embale [Y] as a system, the most prominent being [X] embale chersin , which occurs three times. But this explanation then runs into the complication of the variety of forms in which line-final chersin participates. One firm handhold in this sea of related but complexly interwoven phraseology is the regularity with which adonean clausulae form. These C2 fourth cola are, in turn, very often based on the placement of spondaic words at line-end (58.9 percent by word-type alone).^[30] To show how embale pontôi can be understood as the product of the same process, I adduce the six Odyssean examples of another adonean—eureï pontôi :

	(1.197)
	(4.498)
	(4.552)
	(2.295)
	(12.293)
	(12.401)

While all six lines share the same line-final phrase, which has itself formed under traditional rules, it is deployed in a variety of ways. The first three examples offer an illustration of right justification and the morphology of formulaic diction, as what amounts to a three-colon phrase based on the adonean shows the typical malleable opening that allows for adjustment to syntactic context. Exactly how flexible this first colon is may be understood by noting that this opening part of the hemistich and line varies the position of eti according to the other function words, which are in turn dictated by the situation-specific usage. The second group of three examples illustrates another kind of morphology, which involves an alternate B caesura and second-hemistich formula. In all of these cases the present participle is, as might be expected, backed up against the mid-line break, and variation, as in the first group of lines, takes place primarily in colon 1, as prescribed by right justification.

Instead of insisting on a formulate system for the second hemistich of 5.431, then (and instead of insisting on one or another formula for lines involving eureï pontôi ), I would advocate explaining both situations via traditional rules,

[30] A relatively large percentage (in fact the highest) for such a short word-type—that is, for a word-type that can, at least theoretically, take so many different positions in the hexameter.

which favor the formation of an adonean "word" to occupy position 12.^[31] Widening the focus to take account of the entire hexameter instrument, in lieu of limiting interpretation to a single word-group produced by that instrument, allows us to credit the poet with a more flexible, multiform linguistic medium, a medium well suited both in its malleability and in its referentiality to the twin goals of compositional aptness and traditional art.

5.432 . At first sight there seems to be nothing traditional about this line. The lack of demonstrable formulaic expressions in either hemistich can be attributed at least in part to the fact that this is the first line of the famed "octopus simile." And this in turn means not only that the vocabulary to be employed here and throughout the simile will be far less familiar than in the straight narrative part of the poem, but also that this particular simile, unassociated with any others by Scott (1974), stands alone and unconnected with the rest of the Homeric poems. It is in short no wonder that we find no evidence of patterned diction in the concordance.

But if the words themselves are not repeated, the rules under which they combine to form this and all other lines are ever present, and this unique line thus provides a good test case for seeking traditional structure through the influence of rules rather than through the phraseology which is their issue. We must first acknowledge hôs d ' hote as one possible realization of the initial multiform partner of the hôs ... hôs frame that marks all similes in Homer, with its opposite number to be found at the beginning of 5.434. From that point on, this line is purely the creation of right justification and traditional rules, as all three word-types take their most favored positions: poulupodos at 5, thalamês at 7, and exelkomenoio at 12.^[32] . There are no signs of agglomeration of these elements at all; no caesurae are blocked, no formulas or systems disturb the word-type distribution, and each word behaves individually according to its type. In comparison with other lines examined in this section, 5.432 seems to be a line formed according to traditional rules but without much probability of multiformity. It seems, in short, like a simile.

5.433 . This line is not much more productive of classically defined formulas or systems than the one preceding, and for many of the same reasons. Nevertheless, we do notice the hapax legomenon kotulêdonophin backed up against the mid-line caesura as would be expected; in this case, the blocked A caesura is of no great import because a word of such extent must block

[31] On adoneans, cf. Nagler 1974, esp. 5-9; and Ingalls 1972. Note also that while by word-type we would expect only 58.9 percent of the occurrences of pontôi to be line-final, in actuality fully thirty of thirty-seven, or 81.1 percent, are at position 12. This disparity can be traced to deflection of the normal distribution by the patterned phraseology that we have examined, in which pontôi is fossilized as part of a composite "word."

one of the caesurae no matter where it is located.^[33] Of the many examples of echontai and its relatives in the Odyssey , none really matches the syntax of the second hemistich, and so the interpretation of that section of the line as a formulaic system is legalistic at best. What we can say about the latter part-of the line is that echontai and its morphological kin (ech - plus ) occur 105 times in the poem, with fully 91.4 percent of them at line-end, in harmony with word-type localization. This placement then associates with numerous other words in different combinations to form a wide variety of patterns, not all of them classically formulaic, that cannot be reduced to sets of units.^[34]

5.434 . This line also shows signs of being "nonce" diction, that is, phraseology composed according to traditional rules without discernible roots shared by the rest of the Odyssey diction. The hypothesis of a first-colon system rests on petrêisi 's recurrence at  in 5.156, an interpretation made somewhat more attractive by the fact that it is also preceded by a preposition there, forming an identical accentual grouping. But we must also contend both with the repetition of pros petrêisi in line-initial position at 9.284 and with the reality that word-type localization of the composite form (proclitic plus petrêisi or ) is the most basic determinant of position at .

Traditional rules and right justification are even more obviously behind the formation of the second hemistich, which has no possible formulaic relatives whatever. The adjective thraseiaôn may block both positions for the C caesura, but it does take the position most favored for its word-type (51.7 percent). And the importance of considering words in their accentual groupings is illustrated by cheirôn , which in position 12 seems generally to go against localization rules; although the spondaic word is at 12 fully 58.9 percent of the time, cheirôn occurs there in only 12.5 percent of its instances.^[35] In the present case we must look to the accentual grouping apo cheirôn , or , which turns up at position 12 every one of the forty-four times it is employed in O'Neill's sample of one thousand lines. Thus both hemistichs show signs of being "nonce" diction, but still diction that depends on traditional rules.^[36]

[33] In effect, of course, the "word" is a hemistich long because pros is proclitic.

[35] Again, as with pontôi , the reason for this deflection is fossilization of the individual word within a larger pattern, which then obeys rules appropriate to the larger word-type.

[36] It is worth mentioning in passing that a blocked caesura such as the one in 5.434 very often marks phrases that are at one of two extremes, either highly formulaic (usually straight formula; cf. the usage of trêcheian in the Iliad as documented in note 27) or "nonce" diction.

5.435 . The hypothesis of a system underlying the first hemistich is much weaker than the positing of a similar pattern behind the second hemistich. The evidence for the former rests with two other occurrences of hrinoi , with different inflections, in line-initial position; in these cases the differing inflection is part of a different syntax, and so the hemistich pattern is not truly systemic. At the same time, however, hrinoi occupies the second most favored position for its word-type and, with apedruphthen , itself in the most favored placement for , shows right justification of the metrically more extensive element. As noted above, the mega kuma phrase does seem to form part of a bona fide system (see discussion of 5.429).^[37]

5.436 . The opening part of this line provides a clear example of how the categories of formula and word-type localization can become blurred. For the first hemistich we can adduce the following comparand (6.206): . We can then posit the hemistich system [X] dustênos , where X may represent a number of function words. Legalistically, this is a formulaic system, but does it really function as such? The same phenomena, which do not include an essential idea, can be accounted for simply by word-type localization (the shape occurs 54.4 percent of the time at 5). Such a right-justified arrangement would be further favored because of the malleable opening it features. Whether we actually include this hemistich in a list of systems, then, is finally of little consequence; even formulas and systems, as we have seen, are of widely varying types, flexibility, and so on. It is more important to recognize that, on the spectrum of traditional Homeric phraseology, this hemistich pattern falls just at the cusp between a phrase due entirely to traditional rules and a true system.

And while the second hemistich may also seem to have recourse to a system involving huper moron , we best construe the half-line by noting the confluence of two localizations: Odusseus at line-end (, 92.9 percent at 12) and huper moron , a composite "word," as the third colon ( 95.6 percent at 8). One probable method for the construction of the hemistich would be the establishment of this form of Odysseus's metrically variable name at line-end, with a verb forming the adonean clausula and the third-colon "word" filling back to the B2 caesura.

5.437 . The noun-epithet phrase glaukôpis Athênê (treated above in the discussion of 5.427) is the only true formulaic element in this line, although the rest of the diction naturally follows traditional rules. Word-type localization and right justification order the placement of individual words throughout.

5.438 . In an attempt to stretch formulaic theory as far as possible, I counted both hemistichs in this line as formulaic. Of arguably greater significance,

[37] Cf. kuma kalupsen ("wave covered," 5.353) and, by analogy of sound, kôm' ekalupsen ("sleep covered," 18.201), which appear to be related to the present phraseology not through formulaic character but rather through traditional rules.

however, is the fact that kumatos and ereugetai are placed in the most highly favored positions for their respective word-types. Also entering the picture is êpeironde , which occurs eight of ten times at 12. Other associations among these words are lacking.

5.439 . Comparative evidence yields other examples of nêche at line-beginning and of parex at the end of an A2 first colon, but not of these two occurrences together. The only replicable part of the first hemistich is the phrase es gaian , which functions as a single "word" both linguistically (proclitic plus object) and compositionally; by word-type its preferred position is as a colonic form at , and seven of eight instances are placed in that spot.^[38] This positioning is thus traditional, whether we choose to view the hemistich as a system or not.

The participle horômenos is found four more times at 8, but this regularity seems to be due more to localization of the generic word-type than to systemic structure involving this particular word. A better possibility for a system is the incomplete phrase ei/ên pou epheuroi/-ô at line-end, as also employed in 5.417 with complement in 5.418:

I underline to indicate that not only does the last colon of 5.417 match the equivalent part of 5.439, but that the following lines are identically the same (5.418 = 5.440). In other words, what we have in this instance is a formula five cola long—a combination that supersedes the usually formidable line boundary with the aid of an institutionalized (necessary) enjambement. To the spectrum of units of phraseology we now add an element larger than a single line, to accompany the line, hemistich, and colon units.^[39]

5.440 . For quantitative purposes, and because conventional formulaic theory has no provision for units longer than a single line (unless it be a run of an indeterminate number of lines), I ranked 5.440 in the category of "whole-line formula." As demonstrated above, however, 5.440 is really the latter part of a formula that begins with the adonean clausula of the preceding line.

[38] The sole exception occurs at the secondary word-type position (). Since localization figures indicate an expected relative distribution of 52.4 percent for  and 37.8 percent for , we can interpret the deflection of those statistics by es gaian as a sign of formulaic structure.

[39] Since these two instances of the phrase are only about twenty lines apart in Book 5, and since no other examples are to be found in the Odyssey , the issue of proximity and its effect on the formation and maintenance of phraseology must arise. From the point of view of traditional rules, there is nothing to prevent the temporary existence of certain combinations that are not preserved beyond the moment of their immediate usefulness, just as there is no reason to doubt that certain combinations—perhaps by virtue of their wider, more generic applications become fossilized and are employed again and again. Of course, there must be, within a given poem or sample of material, the narrative opportunity for a given phrase to occur and recur, so the element of utility in a given narrative is another dimension to be considered.

The present line also reveals some unusual inner structure that leads to understanding its formation under the aegis of traditional rules. In the first hemistich, the combination of êïonas-te and paraplêgas , both metrically heavy elements but both in their second most favored positions according to word-type, leads to blockage of the A caesura and even of the mid-line break. That this metrical infelicity is offset (and from a compositional—that is, synchronic—point of view perhaps caused) by what follows is supported by the C1 phrase at line-end. To this fourth colon we adduce two examples, the first from the Odyssey (13.195) and the second from H. Apoll . (24):

These examples establish both line position (including in both cases a blocked mid-line caesura) and the integrity of the C1 phrase as a traditional pattern. Typically, this final unit is the most defined one, the earlier part of the line being constructed according to a compromise between localization tendencies. With the longer formula stretching from 5.439-40, then, we discern one component unit that also exists in other combinations, with the whole set of phraseology governed by traditional rules and right justification.

5.441 . The first hemistich may be interpreted as one realization of the system [X] potamoio , where X may be any of a number of function words, in the same fashion as the first hemistich of 5.436. But word-type localization explains the situation just as readily without having to resort to a pattern for which no essential idea can be demonstrated. Placing potamoio at , up against the B2 caesura, allows a malleable initial section of the hemistich and thus produces an arrangement that has many of the compositional benefits of a formulaic system, short of the word association. The phrase kata stoma seeks position 8 (the localization figure is 95.6 percent) in 18.97 as well, but the lack of a match in syntax makes a system a less satisfactory explanation than traditional rules.

5.442 . On the basis of 7.281, , one can posit a whole-line system underlying 5.442. In order to be cautious and to respect the possibility that the accumulation of function words in the second colon was fortuitous, however, I settled on calling the first hemistich non-formulaic and the second a formula, for the purposes of the quantitative analysis summarized above in table 18. In fact, an investigation of eeisato (favored 95.6 percent of the time at position 8) and associated diction reveals that none of the explanations from formulaic theory is entirely correct, for each fails to account for a significant part of the related phraseology.

I choose to represent the interrelatedness of this diction in a kind of stemma, as shown in figure 3. Traditional rules provide for the localization of eeisato at 8, either with or without a pattern. Those lines which on available evidence seem to lack further pattern are 2.320 and 22.89:

Figure 3.
Eeisato Diction

We also observe a core element aspaston eeisato grouped around the mid-line caesura and either unrelated to other elements, as in 5.398, , or part of a whole-line formula different in some respects from 5.442 (7.343 and 8.295),

Then there is in addition the possibility of the whole-line system mentioned above, which would include 5.442 and 7.281.

This collection of related lines illustrates how formulaic diction of various sorts can evolve from simple word-type localization, or in other words how traditional phraseology can develop from traditional rules. Not only the preferred placement of eeisato but also the positioning of the other involved words is governed by localization and right justification, and it is on this basis that formulaic diction takes shape. Establishing formulaic structure is an important, even invaluable part of the study of traditional phraseology, but in order to be fully understood that structure must be interpreted against the background of traditional rules, which govern all Homeric lines.

5.443 . According to the program described above for the quantitative analysis, I have counted 5.443 as a whole-line formula, based on the exact recurrence at 7.282. As with 5.439-40, however, we discover that the phraseology reaches beyond a single line:

(7.281-82)

Once again the unit of phraseology is longer than the single hexameter line, and once again enjambement—on this occasion "unnecessary" enjambement—assists in the extension of the phrase. Within this larger pattern, we also find evidence for a second-hemistich system, as suggested by 6.210 and 12.336:

Both the longer and the shorter patterns follow traditional rules of word-type localization and right justification, with one exception: the line-final anemoio . The expected figures (average occurrence) for words of the shape , together with the actual figures for this word, at positions 12, , and , are, respectively, 31.7 and 84.6 percent, 22.6 and 15.4 percent, and 42.7 and 0.0 percent. The preponderance of occurrences at 12 may be explained as the result of a two-step process typical of the development of diction in the epos. First, position 12 is one of the three preferred placements for this word-type, so there is no difficulty with the simple admission of anemoio to the position at line-end. From that point on, this particular word has become caught up in a number of traditional phrases, or composite "words," which behave as larger units. In addition to the formulaic patterns already mentioned (which account for four occurrences of anemoio at 12), these patterns are is anemoio (three occurrences) and hama/meta pnoiêis anemoio (four occurrences). Thus the deflection of word-type localization stems from formulaic structures in which the given word has been fossilized, structures that are formed in concert with traditional rules governing individual word-types but that later on come to obey the rules appropriate to composite "words."

5.444 . Although for the sake of quantitative analysis both hemistichs were counted as systems, the latter one more clearly fits the criteria than does the former. The hypothesis of a first-hemistich system rests on the line-initial position of egnô in half of its occurrences, a statistic just as well explained by localization alone, especially since no recurrent essential idea can be discerned for the first hemistich. The second hemistich is formed around the adonean hon kata thumon plus a preceding verb, with localization of euxato (see the discussion of 5.424).^[40]