Morrison, 'Interpretation of Order. A Study in the Poetics of Homeric Repetition', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9409
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9409-morrison-interpretation
@@@@94.9.11, Kahane, Interpretation of Order
Ahuvia Kahane, The Interpretation of Order. A Study in the
Poetics of Homeric Repetition. Oxford Classical Monographs.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Pp. 190. $39.95. ISBN
0-19-814077-0.
Reviewed by James V. Morrison -- Centre College
The audience hears andra ("man") as the first word of
the Odyssey. How does this affect the audience's
reception of the epic which follows? Do repetitions of such a
common word later in the epic echo the first line in any
meaningful way? What if this word appears in the accusative case
at the beginning of a verse--would the added features of
grammatical case and verse position more strongly echo the
Odyssey's opening theme? Such questions have motivated K.
to explore the significance of repetition in the Homeric epics.
Although K. studies metrical shape, position, and caesura in
Homer, his goal is primarily a literary interpretation examining
the connections between techniques of verse composition and the
issues of theme and character. As his array of evidence
demonstrates, these questions ought to be asked. K.'s answers
are sometimes quite persuasive, and almost always imaginative and
provocative; at times the evidence is too slight to bear the
weight of his interpretation.
Chapter 1, "Patterns and Verse-Making Technique," locates K.'s
project within the confines of oral-formulaic theory. K. posits
that the main focus of his study--the repetition of single
words--falls outside the boundaries of what scholars call the
Homeric formula (Parry's definition begins, "a group of
words..."). K. then builds on work which has demonstrated that
certain metrical shapes are highly localized in Homeric poetry,
i.e., some words appear at certain favored positions in hexameter
verse. A word with the metrical shape of u - - could appear at
several points in the hexameter verse, yet in Homer
Odysseus, e.g., appears at line end 95% of the time. That
is, we discover a tendency of the poet to place Odysseus
in the verse-terminal position. Such are the statistical facts
K. wishes to interpret. In part, these phenomena are a
consequence of formulaic composition, but K. believes that it is
possible to discover "the semantic significance of the
localization of particular words or types of words...qua
single words." (12) What do these metrical phenomena mean in
literary terms? K. is not concerned with how the formulaic
style was created or its capacity to facilitate the process of
composition. Coming rather from the perspective of reception and
response, K. wishes to learn the effects that these patterns
produce.
Chapter 2, "Metrical Units and Sense-Units," explores the
placement of word-endings within the hexameter line. K. shows
that the most frequent breaks (or pauses) in meter coincide with
the most frequent breaks in sense (K. makes use of West's work in
Greek Meter on "sense-pause"--K. maintains contra
Daitz that deliberate pauses were used during performance and
could be expressive). The importance of this argument is to
demonstrate that metrical structure can be semantically
functional. Using the data of O'Neill and others, K. calculates
that the highest frequency of word-endings occur at positions 2,
3, 5, 5 1/2, 7, 8; they are least frequent at 7 1/2 (Hermann's
bridge) and 11, according to the standard metrical scheme. This
means that if the localization of metrical shapes overlaps the
system of sense-pauses, then "there must be some significant
relationship between metrical shape and location and sense." (30)
This metrical regularity in turn generates expectations which the
poet may manipulate.
To show the interpretive potential of this approach, K.
examines two passages: Odyssey 5.1-4 and Iliad
1.1.-7. K. argues that the unconventional way of describing Eos
at Od. 5.1 is context-sensitive. The opening emblem of Eos
and Tithonus is thematically significant for book 5 which
presents the relationship of Odysseus and Calypso and the
possibility of immortality for a hero. (K.'s analysis is
somewhat weakened by the fact that the description of Eos at
Od. 5 is also used at Iliad 11.1, without apparent
literary significance.) Noting dynamics and tension in the
musical flow, K.'s fine reading of these lines (and the
Iliad's opening) investigates the interplay of meter and
sense-units.
Chapter 3, "Accusative Theme-Word Patterns," is the strongest
section of the book. The case that metrical phenomena have a
meaning is made most persuasively here. K. begins with the
analogy of a musical motif assigned a meaning by repeated
association with a theme. The "motifs" K. examines in the Homeric
corpus are the repetition of aner, menis, and
nostos ("man," "wrath," and "homecoming"). Let me
recapitulate K.'s interpretation of aner in the
Odyssey.
In the Odyssey, aner, the first word of the
epic, occurs 32 times in the accusative case, 11 of which are
verse-initial (cf. usage in the Iliad: acc. case 52x, of
which 4 are verse-initial; overall occurrences of aner in
the singular in all cases: 187x in Od., 222x in
Il.). K. argues that every repetition of aner in
the accusative case and in the initial position of the verse
triggers an echo of the first line of the epic, but only when the
pattern markers (accusative case, verse-initial position) are
present does andra refer to the "man" who is the subject
of the Odyssey. K.'s argument is built by analyzing
aner in four situations: (1) pattern deixis (i.e., acc.
case, verse-initial position) with reference to Odysseus. K.
examines each of these 11 instances in some detail. The "man"
returned by the Phaeacians to Ithaca (13.89) echoes Od.
1.1, marking the proemium to the second half of the epic. While
the identity of the "man" who suffers at sea is unknown to the
Phaeacians (8.139), the audience sharing "privileged information"
with the narrator hears andra and recognizes Odysseus.
(2) Pattern deixis with a reference to a character other than
Odysseus. We find Telemachus as andra neoteron "younger
man" (3.125). Here, pattern deixis echoes the similarity between
the youthful Telemachus and his hero father: Telemachus has
become "younger Odysseus." Later Odysseus speaks of an
andra ("husband") for Nausicaa (6.181): the code spells
out Odysseus himself as potential husband. When the beggar
Odysseus refers to himself as andra geronta ("old
man"--18.53), "this unambiguous reference allows the poet to put
in Odysseus' mouth words that express his true identity [to the
audience]...even as he hides it [from the suitors]." (64) (As K.
rightly insists--using de Jong's terminology--the significance of
these implicit meanings is reserved for the poet/narrator and his
audience/narratee.) andra then has a resonance which adds
contrast or irony to particular situations. K. also examines
instances of (3) aner lacking pattern markers (not
accusative, not verse-initial) without reference to Odysseus, and
(4) aner lacking pattern markers with reference to
Odysseus.
On the face of it, K.'s scope is extremely limited. Yet using
these four categories, K. cogently demonstrates that the
repetition of a relatively simple word with a mundane denotation
("man") can evoke for the audience a broader epic perspective,
regardless of the context. The pattern set at Odyssey 1.1
remains active throughout the work. The mere fact of a
grammatical form (acc. case) functions as a marker which triggers
an interpretation far beyond the local scene. K. also analyzes
menis in the Iliad, which in the accusative case,
verse-initial position refers to the "thematic wrath of the
Iliad." One might ask to what extent does "the wrath of
Apollo" (menin at 1.75) actually anticipate or evoke
Achilles' anger as "the result of a chain of events started by
Apollo"? (54) The third theme-word is nostos in the
Odyssey (occurring in the accusative case in the
Od. 38x; 19 are verse-initial; overall in the
Odyssey, 59x; 7x in the Iliad). Again,
noston in the acc. case, verse-initial position refers to
Odysseus' "thematic" return. Of interest in category 2 (pattern
deixis with reference to a character other than Odysseus): all
four instances occur in Od. bk. 4 (381, 390, 424, 470) as
Menelaus tells of his own attempts at a homecoming
(noston) yet Telemachus (and we) want to hear about
Odysseus--and appreciate that tension by virtue of the formal
pattern markers.
Chapter 4, "Patterns of the Proper-Name Vocative," limits its
investigation to proper names in the vocative case (abbreviated
PNV). K.'s argument is that the usage of the vocative case (in
this instance, its placement in the verse) corresponds to the
narrative role of the character. PNV's are found in
verse-initial position approximately 50% of the time: K. calls
this the "default mode." That is, while any vocative is designed
to get or keep the addressee's attention, a vocative in the
initial position is semantically neutral, indicating nothing of
special significance to the audience. Yet the PNV's of Odysseus
and Achilles--the focus of the two Homeric epics--almost always
occur in verse-terminal position (52 of 53x combined). What is
the effect of repeating these names at the end of the line?
(About half of all the terminal PNV's are those of Odysseus or
Achilles.) This "unparalleled (absolute) frequency of terminal
positioning ... generates a reference either directly to the
protagonists or to a 'protagonistic state.'" Because the
"terminal PNV position coincides...with an address to the epic
protagonists," (87) K. argues that the eleven other characters
addressed in verse-terminal position by virtue of the
Achilles/Odysseus pattern are addressed as though they were epic
protagonists. The effect of PNV diction is to generate an
analogy with or contrast to Achilles or Odysseus.
Certain characters fit K.'s scheme nicely. The PNV of Hector
while suited to verse-initial and verse-terminal positions is
never terminal; in fact, 32 of 35 times it is verse-initial. K.
interprets this as the poet "avoiding" terminal position for
Hector in order to emphasize his adversarial role to Achilles:
Hector is not the protagonist of the Iliad. The
PNV's of the Odyssey's suitors, too, are always
verse-initial: again, the effect is to distance the protagonist
Odysseus from his rivals. Yet it must be said (as K. points out)
that all but one of the suitors have PNV's unsuitable for
verse-terminal positioning, thus weakening K.'s general point.
That is, purely metrical considerations may have determined
placement in the verse. Penelope's PNV is found in
verse-terminal position (equivalent to "protagonistic state"),
for she functions as the counterpart in cunning to Odysseus.
Thus placement indicates not only the protagonist, but also
someone linked to the protagonist. So far K. argues plausibly.
There are, however, more doubtful cases. Telemachus's PNV
appears in verse-initial position 27 of 30 times. Is the effect
to emphasize that he is "a 'not-yet Odysseus'--a character whose
narrative role is defined precisely by his lack of Odyssean
powers"? (100) On the face of it. Yet the metrical shape of
Telemachus' PNV is unsuitable for verse-terminal position.
Questionable also is the case of Eurycleia, whose role in
bringing about the recognition of Odysseus is traced. Her PNV
appears in verse-terminal position three out of three times,
which "allows the narrator, 'using his own voice' in that code
which he shares with the reader/audience, to evoke the object of
these recognitions, the name of Odysseus." (95) At this point I
was not confident that terminal position of a PNV still triggers
an association with "protagonistic state."
The implication is certainly that usage would vary from epic
to epic. Yet Odysseus has a relatively minor role in the
Iliad: still 7 of 7 times his PNV is verse-terminal (in
the Odyssey, 23 of 24x); the PNV of Achilles is always
verse-terminal in the Odyssey (16 of 16x). Is this
designed to contrast these two characters or is this formulaic
composition at work? K.'s use of the term "contrast" is not
unambiguous. Hector is said to contrast with Achilles
structurally and narratively; thus his PNV appears in
verse-initial position. Yet the PNV of Agamemnon is almost
always in verse-terminal position (12 of 13x), and this, too,
serves to contrast the king of Mycenae with the true protagonist,
Achilles. It is true that Homer plays Achilles off against
Agamemnon and Hector in different contexts, but do both metrical
situations reflect that contrast? There is the danger of K.
trying to have it both ways.
Chapter 5, "Patterns of the Proper-Name Nominative,"
(abbreviated PNN) looks at the localization of the nominative
case of the proper names of heroes. While building on Parry's
work of noun-epithet formulae, K. attempts to move further by
asking what possible effects repetition of PNN's have at
particular spots in the verse. Again K. maintains that placement
in the verse corresponds to narrative role within the story. The
tendency is that PNN's of major heroes appear at the end of the
verse. For Achilles, Odysseus, Athene, Apollo, Agamemnon,
Diomedes, and Penelope, the PNN's occur between 93-98% of the
time in verse-terminal position; while the PNN's of Nestor, Aias,
Hector, Hera, Ares appear in verse-terminal position only 25-61%
of the time. How does K. interpret this significant disparity in
frequencies? In part by pointing to formulaic composition, but
K. believes this overall tendency to localize is not to be
explained in simple metrical terms. Thus there is a mainstream
pattern with (as K. acknowledges) a significant element of
variation; overall the effect is not as pronounced as PNV usage
(PNN's of Odysseus and Achilles in verse-terminal position are
~73 and 78%). Yet these repetitions come to have a meaning,
namely that positioning PNN's in the verse-terminal position
marks the character as heroic.
Because the material is so vast, K. begins with a close
examination of each of the PNN's in Odyssey bk. 5. K.
then looks beyond this book at the PNN's of Penelope, Telemachus,
and Patroclus, among others. We find the same strengths and
weaknesses of the previous chapter. Interesting is K.'s
discussion of Eos, Artemis, and Demeter (Od. 5.121-7),
whose PNN's are in verse-terminal position (marking them as
heroic): "Each is the protagonist in a tale of divine-mortal
liaison which is parallel to that of the central narrative of
book 5. Hence each is significant as a 'heroine.'" (124) K.'s
remarks regarding Calypso are intriguing (7 of her 18 PNN's are
in verse-terminal position). K. reads three of the instances of
verse-terminal positioning as being sensitive to the context: the
poet underlines her role as a threat to Odysseus (5.263, 321, and
372 each contain the clothes which almost drown him linked with
Calypso's PNN in verse-terminal position).
At times, the reasoning appears dubious. Telemachus's PNN
(128x throughout the epic) is never verse-terminal. "The
effect...is to deny Telemachus the nominative markers of a
'hero.'" (135) Yet this interpretation is again undermined by
the fact that Telemachus's PNN is metrically unsuitable for
terminal positioning. Hermes's PNN occurs 17 of 20x in a
non-terminal position. So far fine, yet the PNN of
argeiphontes (while not strictly a proper name) is always
verse-terminal. K.'s comments show how far he is willing to push
the evidence, for he sees that "its usage may be a compromise,
allowing Hermes a place on the 'fringe' of the heroic circle, and
particularly in Odyssey 5, where he plays a more prominent
role and is given a more rounded characterization." (127) The
PNN of Eos ("Dawn") is verse-terminal 41 of 50x. How is she
heroic? K.'s answer: "Eos is the personification of heroic
time." (134) This appeared to me to verge on silliness. Still
this special pleading does not nullify the general drift of this
chapter. His reading of Patroclus's PNN (occurring 44x--never
verse-terminal) is on the mark. The fact that Patroclus's PNN
does not occupy terminal position reinforces that idea that
Patroclus is not heroic. In fact, Patroclus performs a
contrasting role often responding to the protagonist Achilles:
"his 'listening mode' particularly endears him to the audience,
who are also, by definition, listeners." (140)
Given the formulaic composition of the Homeric epics, what
literary questions are still available? J.M. Foley, Immanent
Art. From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic
(Bloomington 1991), has recently argued for a new type of
oral poetics where phrases gain meaning by reference to the
entire oral tradition (their "metonymic referentiality"), thus
transcending the pure denotative meaning of the word or phrase as
it appears in its specific situation. In The Interpretation
of Order, K. argues that the context should be the epic
itself. Heroes' names and epic themes take on a broader
significance within a single work. Only in the
Odyssey is verse-initial, acc. case andra
significant, evoking the "man" Odysseus. This may not contradict
Foley so much as shift the emphasis. What is clear is that K.
also insists upon a type of literary criticism which allows for
context-based readings. We may interpret phrases and words with
close attention to the situation in which they appear--this
operation is not exclusive to 'literary' poetry.
In sum then what does K. mean by the "Interpretation of
Order"? Order in its simplest sense may mean nothing more than a
word appearing in the first or last position of a verse. K.
argues that this order or positioning tells us something of
literary significance. The idea of order of course operates at
other levels, as K. distinguishes marked positions from the
default mode, the epic protagonist from peripheral characters,
and epic themes from secondary issues. K. has offered the best
possible argument for this sort of reading. The argument moves
logically step by step. The presentation is made clear by
numbered paragraphs (1.1, 1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc.). K. is
sensitive, tactful, even polite: he apologizes for the technical
sections, always pointing out the reason for such statistical
surveying. (Most tables are in appendices.) The work is
exceptionally error free--I found only three typos--most
important for a work of this sort. K.'s command of the Homeric
scholarship--both technical and literary--is most impressive, as
he deliberately builds upon this work. K. is at his best in
chapter 3 on thematic words. As he acknowledges, chapters 4 and 5
are designed to interpret tendencies which are flexible--overall
he may be right, yet at points he is undermined by a
predetermined reading. Still the questions are exceedingly
important--to raise them in such an intelligent manner is a
significant achievement. K. endeavors to bridge oral formulaic
theory and traditional literary criticism. Ranging over both
epics, K. examines key figures and major themes, while attempting
to gauge subtle effects and nuance--all with great sensitivity to
the oral basis and performative aspects of Homeric epic. Indeed,
his prevailing metaphor is that we are listening to the music of
Homer (my nomination for a subtitle to this work--one of the
quotations introducing chapters cites Pater: "All Art constantly
aspires towards the conditions of Music."). K.'s own subtitle,
"The Poetics of Homeric Repetition," indicates that by studying
the effects of repetition, we come to see that the question of
structure and aesthetics does not necessitate an either/or
answer. K. sees beauty and meaning in the order itself.