Conclusion

As predicted by the prosaic studies of chapter 3 as extrapolated in the second section of this chapter, the diction of the Odyssey cannot fairly be reduced to a single type of phraseological pattern but h most faithfully understood as a spectrum of phraseology . In the section just completed we encountered traditional

[40] We may see ring-composition in the echo of 5.424 (kai kata thumon ) and 5.444 (hon kata thumon ).

structure at the levels not only of hemistich and whole line, but also of colon and multi-line unit. The colon was shown to be normatively a unit of meter rather than of phraseology, mainly because of its relative shortness but also because of the vagaries of the caesura system; nonetheless, traditional phrases do occasionally form at the colonic level, chiefly in the C1 fourth colon, which is the most extensive metrically and therefore the likeliest site for association of individual words and eventual production of a formula. The smallest normative unit of phraseology was discovered to be the hemistich , at least for purposes of quantitative analysis; at this level we had examples of everything from an invariable formula to a system that could barely qualify as such. The whole line also proved to be a site for exactly repeated and formulaic diction. And finally, the multi-line unit , of which we have had two examples in the passage from Book 5 of the Odyssey , illustrated how traditional association could cross the boundary of the line—not as a run of individual lines (the proper subject of chapter 7 on thematic structure) but as a phraseological unit extended by enjambement.

This spectrum of phraseology is the natural result of the Homeric hexameter, and should be confronted in all of its complexity rather than reduced to simplex elements that may be more easily quantifiable but are not true to the reality of the diction. The "common denominator," as it were, of this complexity is furnished by the universally applicable set of traditional rules appropriate to (because derived from) the prosody of the hexameter; these are primarily word-type localization and right justification. No matter how intractable phraseology may seem from the point of view of formulaic theory, these rules provide a way to explain the traditional structure of the line without having to resort to the necessarily partial explanation of formulas and systems. In this sense, diction can be understood as traditional even if classically defined formulas and systems cannot be demonstrated, since the rules are the primary laws under which all phraseology—even the formulas and systems themselves —comes into being.

In the end it seems best to conceive of Homeric diction not merely as a patchwork of ready-made phrases (no matter how flexible or ideal)—first since much of the diction simply does not fit that model and second because that model does an injustice to the reality of a phraseology that is developing and dynamic—but rather as an ever-evolving inventory of unequal parts under the dominion of traditional rules. At no time will this diction be "complete" in the sense that all of the parts are somehow contained in the vessel of tradition and ready for deployment. Conversely, at no time will the poet be without a large assortment of ready-made phrases, however different those phrases may be from one another. As recent studies have shown (esp. Janko 1982), there is a good deal of change within traditional diction in the Greek epos, and the Serbo-Croatian comparand (see chapter 5) helps us to imagine how formulaic and thematic repertoires must also have been affected

by local traditions and even by the personal habits of individuals in ancient Greece.

Traditional rules offer a way out of this quandary by focusing on the root causes of traditional structure in Homeric diction, rather than exclusively on certain aspects of the diction per se. Under the aegis of these rules, certain cola, hemistichs, lines, and multi-line units fossilize (just as a noun-epithet combination fossilizes), and others do not. Perhaps the frozen bit of phraseology is particularly useful for naming a certain character whose name blocks a caesura even in its most favored localization; perhaps a particular combination proves so useful that not one but many formulas and systems are founded on a single composite "word." Or perhaps, as in the case of the phraseology employed to express the octopus simile, there is no evidence that any parallel units whatsoever exist. In all of these cases, and in the ones situated between these poles on the wide spectrum of Homeric diction, the rationalizing factor is traditional rules. These rules provide the matrix through which all phraseology must pass in order to enter the tradition; they will demand right justification, word-type localization, and observance of the hexameter's inner metric. Having once entered, they may evolve in many different ways—they may form composite phrases, formulas, and systems (which in turn may skew localization figures for individual words, as we have seen); they may remain in their original form, at least for a time; or they may never be used again. The most fundamental point is, however, that whatever the life cycle and growth of such diction, it was formed under traditional rules.