We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The purpose of this article is to examine a neglected formulaic element in Homer, which we may call the doublet, and to establish its nature and function by comparison with—mainly—Irish narrative literature. By doublet is meant a combination of two terms which are to all intents synonymous. Without attempting to give a new definition of formula it may be useful to say that both the doublet and the noun-epithet formula—and perhaps only these two—are formulae of the style of heroic narrative.
1 Munro, e.g., dismisses the phenomena in a short, though notable, comment on Od. 15.175: 
is an example ol the kind of hendiadys formed by two nearl; synonymous words: e.g. 
Lat. more modoque, Germ. “Art und Weise”. The two meanings are fused, as it were, into a single more complete conception.' Parry does not deal with the topic. The term doublet has been used in a broader sense to characterize the rehandling or recurrence of analogous thematic material. See, e.g., Fenik, B., Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad, p.238 et al. (Hermes Einzelschrift 1968, Heft 21).Google Scholar
2 In Iliad 24.255–6 Priam calls himself utterly ill-fated since he begot excellent sons in broad Troy only to see them perish (he does not say unlucky Troy). On the other hand Latin poets, although they use epithets of Homeric type, also use such combinations as, for example, ‘damnosas … artes’ (Ov. Metam. 8.215)Google Scholar, referring to the arts of Daedalus whereby he made wings for himself and his son, Icarus- ‘arts which would bring him loss’. This is an interesting liberation of the epithet, but it is not Homeric. The only somewhat analogous development in Homer which comes to mind is Penelope's statement that Odysseus had gone to look on ‘evil Troy that may not be named’ 
Od. 19.260, 596, and 23.19). The phrase appears to be a formula and while the prefix 
could be regarded as an epithet the real epithet is 
not to be named, whereby the poet rejects in a novel manner the very idea not merely of an epithet but even of the very noun itself.
3 The operation of vision in heroic literature is a large question of which the epithet-noun combinations is a small aspect.
4 Another doublet of similar meaning, 
occurs in Od. 21.282.
5 
with 
is not, however, unique. See Il. 1.550; for pattern of the first limb of the doublet see Od. 4.492.
6 
occurs e.g. Il. 18.176; 22.142; and Od. 11.266; 14.395. 
common.
7 Another instance in the Iliad (16.47) begins differently and omits 
8 The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, ed. Parry, A., pp.461–4; also pp.251 ff.Google Scholar
9 For evidence from Greek and Roman writers on the Celts and their men of learning see Tierney, J.J., ‘The Celtic Ethnography of Posidonius’, Proc. Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 60, C, 5 (Dublin, 1960)Google Scholar-especially Caesar, , B.C. 6.14, on Druids (sic), their long training and dependence on memory.Google Scholar
The repertoire of an Old or Medieval Irish fili was enormous-five fifties of main tales and two fifties of subordinate tales. (See O'Curry, E., Lectures on the Manuscript Materials of Ir. Hist., Dublin, 1861Google Scholar, repr. Bibliography and Reference Series 87, Burt Franklin, New York. Appendix no. LXXXVIII, pp.583–4). In the Book of Leinster version of the Táin (the longest heroic tale of the Ulster cycle), the penultimate paragraph reads: ‘A blessing on every one who shall faithfully memorise the Táin as it is written here and shall not add any other form to it’ (Táin Bó Cüalgne, ed. with transl. Cecile O'Rahilly, Dublin Inst, for Advanced Studies, 1970, p.272.)
For memory and mental composition in a bardic school see extract from the Clanricarde Memoirs and Letters publ. by Bergin, O. J., Jour. Ivernian Soc. 5 (1912).Google Scholar
10 ‘Dá mbadh fïor-ghaisgidheach nó curadh maith thú, ní fhágfá áit ná ionad, ceard ná cearn, ball ná clúid gan cuartú go grinn géar, agus annsin gheobhthá amach duit féin an áit i n-a dtugtar cath agus caon-chosgar!’
11 Íar ccaitheamh 7 iar ccoimhchinneadh na réé 7 na roi-aimsire sin dóibh, dano, 7 iar mbeith ion-aistir 7 ion-imtheachta dá n-áos cneadh 7 crécht, 7 dá lucht othrais 7 easláinte, ro gabhadh lámh ar imtheacht leó go luinneach lúathgháireach dochum a loinge 7 a lúath-arthraigh d'fhágbháil na hlruaidhe fó chédóir Tóraigheacht Taise Taoibhgbile, ed. Máire, Ní Mhuirgheasa, Dublin, 1954, p.78Google Scholar, 2133.
