Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T21:20:32.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Weighing Achilles' Wingéd Words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Gordon M. Messing
Gordon M. Messing*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Friedrich & Redfield (in Lg. 54.263–88, 1978) have argued that Homer's heroes had their own idiolects. This view is untenable: it is inconsistent with the practices of oral poetry and with the classical doctrine of êthos. Their stylometric tests are unconvincing because of inadequate sampling, an unreliable textual tradition, and a defective rationale in applying stylistic criteria.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 888 - 900
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, Thomas W. 1931 (ed.) Homeri Ilias, tomus II libros i-xii continens. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Richard W., and Doležel, Lubomír. 1968 (eds.) An annotated bibliography of statistical stylistics. Ann Arbor: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Bolling, George M. 1950. Ilias Atheniensium. Lancaster, PA: American Philological Association, with the coöperation of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Bowra, C. M. 1930. Tradition and design in the Iliad. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Gilman, A. 1966. Personality and style in Concord. Transcendentalism and its legacy in Concord, ed. by Simon, M. & Parsons, T. H. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Chatman, Seymour. 1971 (ed.) Literary style: A symposium. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doležel, Lubomír, and Bailey, Richard W. 1969 (eds.) Statistics and style. New York: American Elzevier.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1962. A statistical method for determining authorship: The Junius Letters, 1769–1771. (Gothenburg studies in English, 13.) Göteborg: Elander.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1973. Linguistic stylistics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, E. L. 1978. Language and style. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Fenik, Bernard C. 1978 (ed.) Homer, tradition and invention. (Cincinnati classical studies, New series, 2.) Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley L. 1973. What is stylistics and why are they saying such terrible things about it? Approaches to poetics: Selected papers from the English Institute, ed. by Chatman, Seymour, 109–52. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fra nkel, H. 1962. Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Freeman, Donald C. 1970 (ed.) Linguistics and literary style. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Freeman, Donald C. 1975. The strategy of fusion: Dylan Thomas's syntax. Style and structure in literature: Essays in the new stylistics, ed. by Fowler, Roger, 19–39. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul, and Redfield, James. 1978. Speech as a personality symbol: The case of Achilles. Lg. 54.263–88.Google Scholar
Griffith, Mark. 1977. The authenticity of Prometheus bound. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Hainsworth, J. B. 1969. Homer. (Greece & Rome, New surveys in the classics, 3.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hendricks, William O. 1976. Grammar of style and styles of grammar. (North-Holland studies in theoretical poetics, 3.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Herington, C. J. 1970. The author of the Prometheus bound. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Heubeck, Alfred. 1974. Die homerische Frage: Ein Bericht über die Forschung der letzen Jahrzehnte. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Heubeck, Alfred. 1978. Homeric studies today: Results and prospects. In Fenik, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1964. George Melville Boiling. Lg. 40.333–6.Google Scholar
Hogan, James C. 1976. Double prín and the language of Achilles. Classical Journal 71.305–10.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B., and Stahlke, Herbert F. W. 1972 (eds.) Current trends in stylistics. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S. 1962. The songs of Homer. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Leed, Jacob. 1966 (ed.) The computer and literary style. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
Lesky, A. 1968. Horneros. Realencyklopä die der klassichen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. by von Pauly, A. F. & Wissowa, Georg, Supplementband 11, 687–846. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu. 1950. Homerische Wörter. Basel: Reinhardt.Google Scholar
Lodge, David. 1978. Where it's at: The poetry of psychobabble. Encounter 51:4.134–41.Google Scholar
Lord, Albert B. 1960. The singer of tales. (Harvard studies in comparative literature, 24.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, Cyra. 1976. The serial: A year in the life of Marin County. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Marg, Walter. 1938. Der Charakter in der Sprache der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Semonides—Homer—Pindar). (Kieler Arbeiten zur klassischen Philologie, 1.) Würzburg: Tritsch. [Reprinted as Libellus 117, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.]Google Scholar
Mason, H. A. 1972. To Homer through Pope. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Messing, Gordon. 1971. The impact of transformational grammar upon stylistics and literary analysis. Linguistics 66.56–73.Google Scholar
Milic, Louis T. 1967. A quantitative approach to the style of Jonathan Swift. (Studies in English literature, 23.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milic, Louis T. 1971. Rhetorical choice and stylistic option: The conscious and unconscious poles. In Chatman, 77–88.Google Scholar
Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1971. The development of Greek biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Morton, Andrew Q., Winspear, Alban D.; et al. 1971. It's Greek to the computer. Montreal: Harvest House.Google Scholar
Nagler, Michael N. 1974. Spontaneity and tradition: A study in the oral art of Homer. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, Gregory. 1974. Comparative studies in Greek and Indic meter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmann, Richard. 1962. Shaw: The style and the man. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Ohmann, Richard. 1964. Generative grammar and the concept of literary style. Word 20.423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmann, Richard. 1971. Speech, action, and style. In Chatman, 241–54.Google Scholar
Ohmann, Richard. 1973. Literature as act. Approaches to poetics: Selected papers from the English Institute, ed. by Chatman, Seymour, 81–107. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, Adam. 1956. The language of Achilles. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 7.1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, Adam. 1972. Language and characterization in Homer. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 76.1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, Milman. 1930. Studies in the epic techniques of oral versemaking, I: Homer and Homeric style. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 41.73–147. [Reprinted in The making of Homeric verse: The collected papers of Milman Parry, ed. by Adam Parry, 266–324. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redfield, James M. 1975. Nature and culture in the Iliad: The tragedy of Hector. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Redfield, James M. 1979. The proem of the Iliad: Homer's art. Classical Philology 74.95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringbom, Håkon, et al. 1975. Style and text: Studies presented to Nils Eric Enkvist. Stockholm: Skriptor.Google Scholar
Shipp, G. P. 1953. Studies in the language of Homer. Cambridge: University Press. [2nd ed., 1972.]Google Scholar
Snell, Bruno. 1953. The discovery of the mind: The Greek origins of European thought. Trans. by Rosenmeyer, T. G. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stolz, Benjamin A., and Shannon, Richard S. III. 1976 (eds.) Oral literature and the formula. Ann Arbor: Center for the Coördination of Ancient and Modern Literatures, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1968. The Evans statements: A case for forensic linguistics. (Gothenburg studies in English, 20.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Thesleff, Holger. 1967. Studies in the styles of Plato. (Acta philosophica Fennica, 20.) Helsinki: Societas Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
Tompkins, Daniel P. 1972. Stylistic characterization in Thucydides. Yale Classical Studies 22.181–214.Google Scholar
Tompkins, Daniel P. 1978. Reciprocities between a text and two translations: Thucydides, Venizelos, and Kakridis. Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora 5:1.69–79.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Ulrich von. 1914. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Wyatt, William F. Jr. 1969. Metrical lengthening in Homer. (Incunabula Graeca, 35.) Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo.Google Scholar
Yule, G. Udny. 1944. The statistical study of literary vocabulary. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar