Abstract

In a recent article Margalit Finkelberg raises the question of whether or not the phrase κλοσ π;θιτον at Iliad 9.413 is indeed a Homeric formula: λετο μν μοι νóατοσ, τρ κλοσ π;θιτον σται Her purpose is to ‘test the antiquity of κλοσ π;θιτον on the internal grounds of Homeric diction’ .1 Proposing to use specifically the analytic techniques of oral theory, she argues that this phrase does not represent a survival from an Indo-European heroic poetry, as has been suggested from the occurrence of its exact cognate, śápos;rdvas áksitam, in Vedic poetry. To this end Finkelberg presents a precise and carefully organized argument. I briefly summarize its two branches as follows: It is the formulae that comprise the oldest stratum of Homeric diction, and so it is here that one would find survivals of Indo-European poetic diction. κλοσ π;θιτον σται , however, cannot be judged a Homeric formula by the criterion of repetition since it is a unique phrase in Homer. Nor can it be judged a formula by the ‘functional’ criterion since the better attested κλοσ οὒ ποτ óλεται expresses the same essential idea in the same metrical shape. A unique phrase such as that in question might nonetheless be ancient. The development of the use of π;θιτοσ, first to modify concrete nouns, and only later with abstracts, however, would indicate that its use with κλοσ is late. The demonstration that κλοσ θιτον σται is a ‘formulaic expression’, moreover, argues that it was coined for this specific context in Iliad 9 by analogy with other Homeric formulae, and so does not preserve an Indo-European formula