抄録
Among the Analytic school of Homeric interpretation it is commonly told that the last book of the Iliad is one of those "late parts" or a later addition to the "original poem", the auguments resting mainly on linguistic and stylistic evidence. This paper tries to re-examine this traditional view. The main points of discussion : 1. the neologism or the linguistic innovation in 9 compared with other parts of the Iliad; 2. the supposed similarities in diction and vocabulary between it and the Odyssey. The conclusions : Linguistically late or new aspects of Ω do not necessarily suggest different authorship, because of the peculiarity of Homeric poetry, language of which is conditioned by the traditional oral-technique. The linguistic innovation is mainly caused by the deviation from formulaic expressions ; rare "late-" forms in the. Iliad chiefly occur, as G. P. Shipp remarks, in similes and in speeches. It is closely related to the innovation in subject matter or expressions. Thus the linguistic difference may depend more upon the difference of subject situation rather than upon different authorship. Too much emphasis, the writer thinks, has been placed upon the Odyssean similarities. Concerning the verbal echoes from the Odyssey, statistics show that the case of Ω is not so outstanding. Also there is no recognizable difference between Α and Ω concerning the Odyssean phrases, formulae or repetitions. Lastly, no reasonable criterion can be found to separate from the rest of the Iliad. Indeed Ω may be regarded as late or new either in language or in subject matter however, its "lateness" must be interpreted in terms other than those investigated above.
