Recent Russian Publications On Indian Epic

Author(s): J W De Jong
Publisher: J W De Jong

Page 38

38
THE ADYAR LIBRARY BULLETIN
already that many verses end with the same diambic form of one compound: mahābala, paramtapa, arimdama, and the less frequent (because less needed) common form of the prior pāda's pathyā ending: mahābāho, mahāprājña, etc. (op. cit., p. 67). However, Hopkins was not primarily interested in the technique of the oral epic and did not elaborate a formulaic analysis of the epic diction. As mentioned above Grintser operates with a concept of the formula which includes single words. Apropos of Homer, Hoekstra has rightly pointed out that, since obviously most single elements of the vocabulary of a language are traditional and since all Greek hexameter poetry from Homer to Theocritus shows preferred 'positions for definite metrical wordtypes, this kind of 'formulaic analysis ’ is virtually a reductio ad absurdum of the theory (op. cit., p. 14). Although Parry in his first publication defined a formula as an expression ’, later he replaced expression by a group of words (four words or five syllables, see above). Grintser does not hesitate to quote disyllabic words as formulas. In Sanskrit many words of four syllables fill half a pāda and they are of course to be found in metrically preferred' positions. It would be preferable to extend the length of a formula to a group of words or a compound of at least five syllables, in order to make a clear distinction between traditional vocabulary and formulaic diction. It is certainly not necessary to establish a minimum percentage of formulaic content to prove the oral and traditional nature of a text. The formulaic contents of oral compositions vary