1. Since when? We may perhaps say that August Fick’s restoration of the poems to an alleged native idiom (1883–1886) was, amongst scholars, the last sign of a natural belief that the poet’s language was rooted in common, living speech.

2. See Nagler, M. N., ‘Towards a Generative View of the Oral Formula’, TAP A 98 (1967), 269–311Google Scholar.

3. I use the term ‘originality’ not for something ‘new’, ‘novel’, ‘not said before’, but to point out the value of anything that is vividly or freshly realized. This is, I believe, the truer meaning. If it were not so, any doggerel would have a high value of originality.

4. See Parry, Milman, The Making of Homeric Verse, Oxford 1971, 120–124Google Scholar.

5. Such is Milman Parry’s meaning when he says that the epithet merges into one idea with the noun, cp. op.cit. 127 ff. He confines to the noun, however, the whole weight of meaning, and in his treatment the epithet is a dispensable appendage, not an integrating element. He thus classifies the epithets in various ways, but when it comes to meaning he does not go beyond its common definition as ‘ornamental’. Cp. Hainsworth, J. B., The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula, Oxford 1968, 76 n.lGoogle Scholar.

6. For the meaning, ‘strong’, the following adjectives are currently used in Homer: or . They are all used as epithets. Their use as predicates, on the other hand, is rare and limited to concessive sentences: (Il.12.410, 8.144, 15.164, 16.624 etc.); or else with superlative sense: Il.21.566, , c.p. Il.9.53, 13.483. We have here a transparent development of meaning. The noun ἀλκἡ — as opposed to — has distinctness of meaning as an independent human or animal quality. It does not refer to natural elements (cp. ). It is never the gift of a god to man as in . It is never found in periphrastic phrases such as . On the other hand, it is represented as an object of knowledge or experience: it can be negatived, cp. and it thus categorizes affirmatively, never passing, like its synonyms, into the meaning, ‘brute strength’, ‘violence’. It is no wonder, then, that the adjective, ἂλκιμος, has developed as a predicate. We have in Od. 1.302, 22.232, ib.138. Cp. Il.6.522, 15.570. 13.278.

7. There are the following adjectives in Homer with the meaning, ‘swift’:.

Again they are very seldom used as predicates. The only clear example I can find is Il.10.316: . In Od.17.308, , there is need of the complement θɛινέ. Elsewhere the predicate is internal to a certain phrase: (Il.15.269, cp.22.24,ib.144, 20. 93, etc.), (Il.5.122, 13, 61, 23.772), (Il.19.276, Od.2.257, cp.4.103), or it is merely concessive (Il.21.264).

It is interesting that θоὸς, (cp. θέω ‘I run’) has the sense, ‘swift’, in its nounepithet relation but passes into the vague sense, ‘impetuous’, ‘eager’, in its rare instances as predicate: εί θоὸς, έσσι(Il.16.494, cp.ib.422, 5.536). A sign that the meaning, ‘swift’, needs to be identified with something swift by nature. Cp. the use of

8. For ‘wise’ see the epithets, ; as predicate exceptionally πολόφρων and cessive in Il.18.108, Od.14.464) and often πεπνύμευος but limited to connection with ‘speaking’ as in Od.3.328, , (cp. Il.4.204–206, 8.388 (after a speech), 18.125, 19.350–352. 4.190 harks back to 3.328. νοήμων only with a negative , (Od.2.282. al.)

On the other hand, πιντός (cp. πινύσσω, ἂπινύσσω) is, significantly enough, always a predicate, never an epithet (Od. 1.229, 4.211, 11.445–446, 20.131). See especially Od. 11.445–6, with the different functions of πιυτή(con-περίφρων. Homer develops here πινυτή as predicate in conjunction with the verbal phrase . Through coordination or contrast he brings out fresh meanings: Od.13.332, (cp.Il. 9.341), in Od.23 11–12 ἂϕσων opposed to έπίϕσων, in Od.4.158–160 (cp.Il.21.462–464) the sense of σαόϕσων vividly made transparent. Or the poet affirms predicative values by negativing a negative: Od.17.586, Il.24.157, Od.2.270, , cp.17.273. Notice that such passages recur in dialogue, with word-meaning developing out of the immediate dramatic contents.

9. are, in Homer, always connected with a particular situation (as ‘to fight alone against many’, ‘to be left alone’ Il. 17.94, 9.438 etc.) and mean rather ‘unaccompanied’ than ‘lonely’. To express a sense of solitude we find a verb or a verbal phrase — e.g. of Achilles in Il.1.349 . Nearest to ‘solitary’ seems Il.24.614, , Od 14 372,ἀπότρπος

10. On the aspect of the verb see E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, Munich 1950, II 246–269 and the literature there quoted. There is no special work, it seems, about aspect in Homer. Cp. Chantraine, P., Grammaire Homerique, Paris 1953, II 13Google Scholar.

11. So also . See the dictionaries. These participles are mostly joined to another verb of movement in the imperfect, conveying intense, though short duration, cp.especially Il.15.685–687. The act of going is often qualified by the adverbial neuter plural forms as though they marked the incidence of step after step — a process well portrayed in Od.15.555 .

12. — and so — often implies such a sudden anxiety and urgency — e.g. of Patroclus setting off to learn the fate of the Achaeans in the most critical hour, Il.11.617, cp.4.199, 5.167, ib.566, 12.352, 17.657, ib.698. Similarly of gods starting on a mission: Il.4.74, 5.778, 7.19, etc. Notice in an absolute sense, without any mention of place, as if simply to stress the start, the initiative, 11.9.596, 13.242, 15.483.

13. The same resignation in Penelope rebuked by Telemachus — Od.1.360, . Such a state has a sense of finality. Hence in Il.22.362=16.856. Plu-perfect rather than imperfect: action not merely enduring but gathered into form. The moving figure thus acquires relief, and expresses bearing as well as movement, bringing out the image: Il.13.156, , So, after a simile, Il.ll.296, 17.137, cp.16.751, 22.21, Od.10.388, 17.26. Whence, often, the meaning, ‘to depart’: anyone who departs is naturally seen as a figure by itself, apart: cp.Il.1.221, 6.313, Od.8.361, 13.164; this is implicit also in Il.16.864, 17.706. Cp. P. Chantraine, op. cit. II 199–200; E. Schwyzer, op.cit. II 288; Wackernagel, J., Vorlesungen über Syntax, Basel 1926, I 186Google Scholar.

14. On the similes see Fränkel, H., Die Homerischen Gleichnisse, Göttingen 1921Google Scholar. He surveys the rich threads of meaning in individual similes, but denies any common reason or purpose for their use, cp. 98–99, 104 fT. Coffey, M., ‘The Function of the Homeric Simile’, AJP 77 (1957) 113–132Google Scholar: the similes as illustrating features of the subject-matter (movement, appearance, sound, measurement, etc.). On the connection between simile and verb, cp. Rambo, Eleanor F., ‘On Homer’s Similes’, CJ 28 (1932-3) 26Google Scholar. On further implications of the similes cp. Riezler, K., ‘Das Homerische Gleichnis und der Anfang der Philosophie’, Die Antike 12 (1936) 253–271Google Scholar.

15. See in this connection, how often the Homeric similes are introduced by temporal conjunctions: Il.2.87, 147, 209, 780, etc. Simple ὠς or οτος are also temporal, being construed directly with a verb — e.g. Il.5.499, . Even in the much rarer instances of ‘resembling to …’ the poet immediately develops the resemblance into action — e.g. Il.5.87–88, .

16. Compare Od.7.36 . Swift as a wing and not as a bird, as a thought and not as thought. Both πτεερνin its specific meaning and ντημα as a verbal noun imply a sense of activity.

17. by itself expresses swiftness here; for in such cases Homer normally says ‘went …. arrived’, cp.Il.2.16–17, 167–168, 665–667, etc.

18. Except perhaps 77.16.384–393.