Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
THE FORMULA
In fact the 350 species [of sharks] found in the world vary immensely,
so much so as to stretch the definition of the very word shark,
E. O. Wilson, The Diversity o f Life, p. 113
1 That was well done by M. W. Edwards (1986b; 1988) in two surveys that are
close to annotated bibliographies. Among other reviews of the development of for
mula studies since Parry, the most important among European scholars are Latacz,
cd., (1979) 1-44, an attempt to reconcile the German and the Parryist traditions;
Fantuzzi (1980), with good bibliography and critical assessment of problems; Cantilena
(1982), 19-103, who comments insightfully on some serious questions of theory,
definition and methodology that have characterized formula studies since Parry; and
Holoka's admirable survey (1991). Hainsworth (1993) 1-31 offers a fine and detailed
discussion of the important problems in the relation between Homeric diction and
composition.
T H E FORMULA 239
* As Parry (1971) 324, 335, put it: ‘At no time is [the poet] seeking words for an
idea which has never before found expression . . . his poetry remains throughout the
sum of longer and shorter passages which he has heard.’
3 J. M. Foley (1990); (1991) has coined the useful term ‘oral-derived text.’
4 See Hainsworth (1993) 6-7; M. W. Edwards (1991) 53-55.
240 JO SEPH RUSSO
" G. Nagy (1976); Gentili and Giannini (1977); Hoekstra (1981) 33-53; M. L
West (1973a); (1973b) 161 87. Gentili and Giannini’s argument is especially attrac
tive, offering an important place to both formula and meter and placing special
emphasis on their interaction to yield, over time, the finished product that is the
hexameter as we know it. Gentili views the hexameter as a relatively late creation,
whose constituent units are essentially those filled by many of Parry’s formulas: adonic,
alcmanian, enoplian, reizianum, and hemiepes. These formula shapes made avail
able ‘preferred’ structural units which were joined to make the eventually polished
hexameter.
9 In principle Parry never considers single words as complete formulas, but in
practice he occasionally does. See his comments on όλοόφρονος (1971) 71, Homer’s
regular use of ήρώων and Άμγείων to begin the verse, (1971) 313, and the middle
participle plus enclitic περ, (1971) 314.
242 JO SEPH RUSSO
13 Parry (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.'
13 A. B. Lord (1960) Ch. 2, and especially pp. 35-45.
244 JO SEPH RUSSO
14 A. B. Lord (I960) 41. This is precisely the point demonstrated in detail for the
hexameter in Russo (1966) (especially pp. 236-40); Ingalls (1972); and Gentili and
Giannini (1977).
15 θδσσον R 17.654, έπ’ άλλήλοισιν 3x, κολοσυρτσν R 12.147, κλισίηθεν //. 12.336,
and Οίχολίηθεν in verse-initial instead of verse end combination, //. 2.596.
16 I myself have argued for single words and word-types as formulaic when they
are heavily localized (1963); (1966), but recognize that such a claim can cover too
broad a range of phenomena to be illuminating. I would now say that single-word
formularity becomes significant in certain words and forms whose metrical shape
ideally fills one of the verse-cola. C. J. Ruijgh (1957) 29-55, 87 has suggested single
word formularity for the heavily localized αύτάρ and μερμηρίζω, and Kirk (1962)
67-68 for ήτορ and θάμα, and in (1966b) 104 for γενέσβαι, γένηται, γένοντο, and
γένοιτο.
T H E FORMULA 245
17 Cantilena (1982) 82-89 finds a formular density of around 50% for the Hymns,
dose to the approximately 54% he calculates for the Homeric epics. See p. 83 n. 70
for a generous appreciation of Notopoulos’ contributions to oral studies.
246 JO SEPH RUSSO
10 Russo (1963); (1966). Some unease about giving the name ‘formula’ to what
were conceived as formula-generating potentialities is seen in the suggesdon that the
structural patterns should perhaps be thought of as ‘shadows of formulas’ ([1963]
239), a phrase that even to a severe critic of the structural approach is, ‘however
misleading, still the most illuminating and suggestive’ (Minton [1973] 253.)
19 See the appropriate warnings of Hainsworth (1964) and Minton (1965) about
the dangers of using high percentages of loosely defined analogical/struclural for
mulas to argue for oral composition. It should noted that, unlike Lord and Notopoulos,
I never calculated percentages of formulas to prove oral composition, well aware
that their boundaries were too fluid to allow strict quantification. I simply assumed
oral composition as the likeliest hypothesis (as I still do), and claimed that structural
patterns were one sign of such a style. One part of Minton’s argument (repeated by
Packard [1976]) that the presence of structural formulas in Apollonios’ Argonautka
invalidates any claim that their presence in Homer points to oral composition, fails
to allow for the historical precedence of Homer as die poet who established norms
of hexameter dictional patterns that later poets were bound to fallow. As I have
argued (Russo [1976]), frequency of structural formulas may fairly be considered a
necessary but not sufficient condition for an oral hexameter style.
THE FORMULA 247
so Hoekstra (1965) 11-20 and Hainsworth (1968) 14—19 explicitly reject the use
of analogical substitution systems as indices of ora) style.
31 Severyns (1946) 49-61. Parry’s Homeric Formulas and M etre ([1971] 191-239) is
entirely concerned with modification, juxtaposition, conflation, etc. of formulas, ap
proached from the perspective of the metrical anomalies caused by these adaptations.
248 JO SEPH RUSSO
Ώ Hoekstra (1965) 18-20. Lord repeatedly rejected the term improvisation be
cause of its suggestion of ad hoc creation, and preferred instead to call the oral
creative process ‘(re-)composition in performance.’ See mast recently A. B. Lord
(1991) 76.
TH E FORMULA 249
four words or five syllables, which was meant to exclude brief and
trivial word combinations. The brevity o f ----- x limits it to rather
humble formulaic phrases like the familiar φίλος υιός μέγα αστυ, βροτός
άνήρ, βροτόν άνδρα, μέγα δώμα, δύο δούρε, θεοί άλλοι, κακά πολλά,
πρόπαν ήμαρ, κλέος εύρύ, etc. Some of these do not ideally meet Parry’s
criterion of epithet-noun combination, and can seem rather trivial
compared to formulas that afford the composing poet more significant
cola as building blocks for his hexameter line. This shorter phrase-
type also gains considerable mobility when its final syllable is short,
as Hainsworth points out, because of the ease with which it can
avoid limitations of placement imposed by the internal bridges of
hexameter structure (p. 47).
O ne limitation of Hainsworth’s illuminating study is that in his
emphasis on the role of flexibility in generating new formular vari
ants, he believes it necessary to minimize the importance of other
sources of formula creation and extension. His original purpose,
acknowledged in his Preface, is ‘to correct an emphasis on certain
structuralist standpoints which seemed mistaken.’ A previous study of
his revealed the conviction that ‘pattern and structure of the phrases,
interpreted strictly, do not play a predominant part in the creation
of new diction.’23 And as a consequence o f his avoidance o f struc-
tural/analogical considerations, he ends up with a high number of
‘unique expressions,’ many of which could easily be seen as struc
tural or analogical variants of familiar existing formulas. These phrases
are ‘unique’ in the literal sense, but remain such close kin to other
phrases similarly constructed that it seems obdurate not to classify
them all within one formular substitution system.24
Hainsworth’s approach leaves some questions of detail perhaps
29 Hainsworth (1964) 164. His 1962 article contains the more moderate judgment
that ‘formula-types. . . are not the sole technique used in composition by formulae’
(p. 59). This study shows the origins of Hainsworth’s conviction that schematization
represents tradition whereas flexibility means invention (pp. 64-65), which makes
understandable his emphasis on the latter for an appreciation of the oral poet’s
creativity.
24 At (1968) 132-33 νηλέι θυμφ and νηλέι χαλκφ are listed as ‘regular formulae’
while the obviously kindred νηλέι δεσμψ and νηλέι νκνφ, because they occur only
once, are classified as ‘unique expressions.’ The same is true of the ‘unique’ δείελσν
ήμαρ despite the well-established system νηλεές (ιερόν, δούλιον, αΐσιμον. μόρσιμον,
νόστιμου) ήμαρ (ρρ. 136-8); and the ‘unique’ σήματα λυγρά and έχθεα λυγρά despite
κήδεα (άλγεα) λυγρά (3x, 2χ) and the έλκεα λυγρά classed with ‘possible formulas and
derivative expressions’ (pp. 136-7). Many other ‘unique expressions’ may be simi
larly reconsidered.
250 JO SEPH RUSSO
25 Higbie (1990) 166-68 shows how formulas like εϊπον + μύθον and βάλλω +
δουρί can be ‘altered almost beyond recognition,’ citing instances where ‘a flexible
formula carries the seeds of its own destruction’ and is mote plausibly ‘construed as
individual words and not as a formula.’
TH E FORMULA 251
unavoidably, from Parry’s writings, but need not be the only posi
tion for an oralist aesthetic.
Discourse theory
27 Bakker (1993a); quotations from pp. 3, 8. See also Bakker (1990); (this vol.), for
analyses o f Homeric text according to ‘intonation units' rather than the traditional
ones of formula, colon, and verse.
THE FORMULA 259
Conclusion
traditional phrase
formulaic expression
[flexible formula]
structural formula