Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_BlankenborgR.Rhythm_without_Beat.2014.
1. The Unit of Homeric Discourse: Enjambment, Special Speech and Metrically Defined Grammatisation
1.1 The Unit of Homeric Discourse
1.2 The Verse as the Unit of Homeric Discourse
The whole-line sentence is seen as the basis of oral composition and as the traditional, compositional unit that provides the oral singer with his necessary formulas. More recent enjambment studies, like Higbie’s and Clark’s, agree with this analysis and approach. In their own subsequent approach to enjambment in Homer, they follow Parry in considering enjambment at the verse end to be the result of the whole-line formula expanding ‘beyond the limits of a single hexameter’. When discussing enjambed lines with unenjambed doubles, Higbie says:
Their acceptance of verse end enjambment in Homer is based on two premises. First: that, ever since the first lines of Homeric narrative were composed, the verse end has always been the strongest prosodic boundary in the hexameter used. Second: that at a certain, early, stage in the development of the Iliad and the Odyssey as oral narratives, the verse end was the syntactical boundary of choice. It was seldom, or perhaps never, crossed to continue the syntactically coherent unit into the next verse. At that stage, most, if not all, lines were end-stopped and consisted of one single sentence.
This exact line is used seven times in the Iliad, and fourteen times in the Odyssey. It indicates the end of the first part of the meal and signals the start of the second part, the conversation and entertainment. The frequency of the line in the Homeric narrative causes Parry to use it as an example of a formulaic expression, consisting of one “clause”, taking up exactly one verse. Higbie and Clark do the same when they refer to a ‘succession of eight whole lines’ as a ‘series of unenjambed verses’:
τοῖσι δὲ κήρυκες μὲν ὕδωρ ἐπὶ χεῖρας ἔχευαν
κοῦροι δὲ κρητῆρας ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο
νώμησαν δ᾿ ἄρα πᾶσιν ἐπαρξάμενοι δεπάεσσιν
οἱ δ᾿ ἐπεὶ οὖν σπεῖσάν τ᾿ ἔπιόν θ᾿ ὅσον ἤθελε θυμός
τοῖς δὲ δολοφρονέων μετέφη πολύμητις Ὀδυσσεύς
κέκλυτέ μευ μνηστήρες ἀγακλειτῆς βασιλεῖης
ὄφρ᾿ εἴπω τά με θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσι κελεύει
Parry already suggests that the whole-line clause is more or less equal to the whole-line formula. This equation caused problems for later scholars. One of these problems is the “couplet”, verses that are grammatically or syntactically tied together. An example is the couplet of correlative formulas: 
τόφρα μάλ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων βέλε᾿ ἔπτετο πῖπτε δὲ λαός
The couplet occurs again at Iliad 11.84–85. The lines from the couplet make their appearance separately at Odyssey 9.56 and Iliad 16.778. Clark  expects his readers to consider such correlative couplet formulas an addition to the list of whole-line formulas (both whole-line clauses and whole-line sentences or whole-sentence lines). He continues with presenting his readers with examples of longer passages consisting of “whole lines” or “unenjambed lines” (like Odyssey 21.269–276, cited above, and Iliad 8.143–152).
This approach, and the resulting classification, has proven to be a useful tool for the study of Homeric verse making and the appreciation of Homeric poetics from a reader’s point of view. The notion of “expectation” counts as an equivalent of “grammatical need”. Hence Iliad 7.394–397 can be described as a sequence of “skewed clauses”: 
παύσασθαι πολέμοιο δυσηχέος εἰς ὅ κε νεκροὺς
κείομεν ὕστερον αὖτε μαχησόμεθ᾿ εἰς ὅ κε δαίμων
ἄμμε διακρίνηι δώηι δ᾿ ἑτέροισί γε νίκην
To date, Higbie’s classification of all the types of enjambment is the most elaborate; Clark uses it as his starting point. The development of Higbie’s system out of those by Kirk and Parry is best presented in a table:
|Unenjambed verse||→||Unenjambed verse||→||Unenjambed verse|
|Unperiodic enjambment||→||Progressive enjambment||→||Adding internal enjambment|
|→||Adding external enjambment|
|Necessary enjambment||→||Periodic enjambment||→||Clausal external enjambment|
|→||Integral enjambment||→||Clausal internal enjambment|
|→||Violent enjambment||→||Violent enjambment|
When Higbie uses the word violent to label a specific type of enjambment, her labelling makes clear that different types of enjambment ought to be classified based on what it is exactly that they separate. Violent enjambment (enjambment indicated as e in the Greek text) separates words that belong to a single word group:
ἀθανάτων τοίη τοι ἐγὼν ἐπιτάρροθός εἰμι
Necessary enjambment separates words that need each other to form a grammatically complete clause;  in other words, they belong necessarily to a single grammatical clause. The constituents of a coherent grammatical clause can be separated easily within the line. Such constituents consist of single words or word groups:
ὀτρύνεις Τρώεσσιν ἐπίσκοπον
Clausal internal enjambment  separates words that need each other to form a grammatically complete clause, just like necessary enjambment. The only difference is that clausal internal enjambment separates constituents that are tied together in a single grammatical clause by correlative adverbs:
δῆμον ἐόντα παρὲξ ἀγορευέμεν οὔτ᾿ ἐνὶ βουλῆιe
οὔτέ ποτ᾿ ἐν πολέμωι σὸν δὲ κράτος αἰὲν ἀέξειν
Clausal external enjambment separates grammatical clauses, the first of which is accompanied by a constituent suggesting hierarchical syntactical organisation in combination with the subsequent line. This means that the first clause is a subordinate clause, or that the main clause in the enjambed line prepares for the subordinate clause, or another main clause, by means of a correlative adverb. Two clauses thus tied together need not immediately follow one another: there may be more subordinate clauses, parentheses and independent main clauses in between:
(Φαιήκων οἱ ἄριστοι ἐπεὶ τέρποντ᾿ ἐπέεσσινe)
ἂψ Ὀδυσεὺς κατὰ κρᾶτα καλυψάμενος γοάασκεν
Adding internal enjambment separates words belonging to a single grammatical clause, though the clause met all its grammatical requirements before the verse end. What follows the verse end can be left out without affecting the grammatical completeness of the preceding line:
ἀνδρῶν οὐδέ τί μιν θάνατον τρομέεσθαι ἄνωγαe
ἔκ γε μνηστήρων θεόθεν δ᾿ οὐκ ἔστ᾿ ἀλέασθαι
μοῦνος ἐών οἱ δ᾿ αἰὲν ἀολλέες ἔνδον ἔμιμνον
Higbie’s classification is based on a) observance of the verse end as an inevitable boundary, and b) the identification of the grammatically coherent unit with the metrical phrase.
Just like the formulaic material that can be used to compose whole-line verses or parts thereof, the runovers and anticipations of Clark’s model provide formulaic material to compose beyond the boundaries—the metrical, but from a diachronical point of view the syntactical boundaries as well  —of the individual hexameter. Runovers and anticipations function as semantic “hooks” to link formulas over the verse end.
1.3 Criticism: Grammatisation Despite the Verse End
χειρὶ σκῆπτρον ἔθηκε
Especially interesting are instances of violent enjambment that feature an attributive adjective at verse end. The undisputed examples are:
πήληξ βαλλομένη καναχὴν ἔχε 
φάσγανον ἐρραίσθη 
The Iliad, however, provides several other, similar examples from the point of view of Higbie’s system:
λαοὶ ἕπονθ᾿ ἕταροι
ὅρκος δεινότατός τε πέλει 
μάρτυροι ἔσσονται καὶ ἐπίσκοποι
υἱέας ἐξενάριζε σιδήρειόν νύ τοι ἦτορ 
There are many more examples of enjambment resembling the few quoted above, which are not counted as instances of violent enjambment by Parry’s followers. In such cases the adjective is numerical or partitive/ablatival, like πᾶς, πολύς, ἄμφω, ἄλλος, ἄκρος, and θαμύς. The adjective may be used as a noun, judging solely from the line ending in enjambment. The adjective πᾶς for example, is used attributively in Iliad 1.78 but acts as a noun in Iliad 1.122:
Ἀργείων κρατέει καί οἱ πείθονται Ἀχαιοί
πῶς τάρ τοι δώσουσι γέρας μεγάθυμοι Ἀχαιοί
Parry uses Iliad 1.78 when he explains the resulting enjambment. In his terminology, the transition from 78 to 79 is an example of “necessary” enjambment:
Parry’s estimate of this phenomenon’s frequency in Homer was based on a limited number of lines (Iliad 1.1–100, 5.1–100, 9.1–100, 13.1–100, 17.1–100, 21.1–100, Odyssey 1.1–100, 5.1–100, 9.1–100, 13.1–100, 17.1–100, 21.1–100). His focus on the whole-line formula led to the conclusion that an enjambed line ending in an attributively used adjective, is in fact an expansion of an original whole-line formula ending in an adjective used as a noun. That explains the preponderance of adjectives like πᾶς, πολύς and ἄλλος. Surely, Parry would not have objected to Higbie’s classification “violent” for Iliad 22.410–411:
Ἴλιος ὀφρυόεσσα πυρὶ σμύχοιτο κατ᾿ ἄκρης
The adjective ἅπασα has no “meaning” until it is joined with the noun Ἴλιος. Modern commentators struggle with the appropriate place of these examples in the enjambment-system.  Rightly so, as the approach of these examples makes clear that, if Higbie’s classification of enjambment is used, lines with similar features receive different labels. A transition like Iliad 9.74–75 should be labelled “violent enjambment” in Higbie’s system:
The adjective ἀρίστην does not have a “meaning” until it is joined to its noun βουλὴν in the next line. What is more, the adjective has no understandable semantics at all unless it is joined to βουλὴν. The explanation for the origin of this type of enjambment still goes back to Parry’s.  His suggestion to take a closer look at instances where the adjective was a numerical or partitive/ablatival one that might be used as a substantive, proved to be an incentive for his followers to try and limit the frequency of violent enjambment. It looks as if they try to go to great length to make sure that the compositional building block of the Homeric epic remains limited in size to the single hexameter: every type of run-over runs the risk of being labelled as some sort of aberration. It can be easily shown, however, that this approach is incorrect.
ἀμφιπόλους τῆισιν δὲ γόον πάσηισιν ἐνῶρσεν
Lines ending in a form of πᾶς, πολύς, ἄμφω, ἄλλος, ἄκρος, or θαμύς, and with a clause that is grammatically complete at the end of the line, are very rare. Normally, if a line ends in a form of πᾶς, πολύς, ἄμφω, ἄλλος, ἄκρος, or θαμύς, and the subsequent line features a noun which agrees with the adjective,  the verse-end enjambment is more than merely adding. In most instances, the enjambment is at least necessary:
Τρῶες καὶ Δαναοὶ σύναγον κρατερὴν ὑσμίνην
αἰχμὴ χαλκείη παρὰ νείατον ὦμον ἀνέσχε
The appearance of the noun as the verse-initial word is the result of out-of-line grammatisation. The difference between Iliad 16.657–8 κέκλετο δ᾿ ἄλλους || Τρῶας ‘and he called out to the other | Trojans’ and Iliad 19.262–3 οὔτε τευ ἄλλου || ἀλλ᾿ ‘nor of something else, | but’ is a difference in grammar not a coincidence due to appositional alignment of verses. Remarkable are the ease and the frequency with which the clause that enjambed the verse end continues with hyperbaton of the adjective and its awaited noun:
πὰρ Διὸς ἀθανάτοισι χόλος
Several more examples, below, will make clear that Parry’s attempt to reduce the frequency of “unusually harsh” necessary enjambment (Kirk 1966 and Higbie 1990: violent enjambment) misleads his followers. I consider it very unlikely that these instances are ‘due to a chance interplay of formulas’  in Homer.
πήληξ βαλλομένη καναχὴν ἔχε
This line has a feature in common with necessary enjambment: one of the essential elements of the clause, the verb, appears only after the enjambment. With only one exception, this is always the case when scholars quote examples of violent enjambment. The only exception is Iliad 13.611–612, where an essential element, other than the verb, is postponed till after the enjambment:
The clause in line 611 has all the elements required for grammatical completeness except for the object. The object’s appearance—and only the object’s—is prepared for by the adjective: the audience will expect it to immediately follow καλὴν, even more so as grammar at the verse end of 611 does not require any other elements or words (in other words, as the enjambment is not merely “necessary”). If verse-end enjambment were to be taken for granted as the acknowledgement of run-over, a better name for this type of enjambment would be “noun-preparatory necessary enjambment”—both to distinguish it from the broader definition of violent enjambment as used by Higbie and others, and to bring it in agreement with the basic feature of enjambment again: the expectations of the audience.
ἀμφιπόλους τῆισιν δὲ γόον πάσηισιν ἐνῶρσεν
Kirk points out that other verses ending in a form of πολύς are smoother, causing Higbie to label this type “violent”. Kirk wonders why an adverb like ἔνδοθι ‘inside’ has priority over the object-noun: the clause as it stands might have been grammatically completed within the metrical phrase. Verse 498 is grammatically complete (‘and inside she found many’) and might have been complete in meaning if Andromache was expecting only one type of women inside the house at this time. Was she? The question of course is not what Andromache might expect to find, but what the listening audience was expecting. There may have been a role for intonation here, but any role of intonation must be seen in the correct perspective.
νῆες ὅσαι πρῶται εἰρύατο 
In terms of giving emphasis or building up tension, such enjambment is no less than disappointing. The clause simply continues into the next line, despite the grammatical completeness at the straddled verse end. Another example is Iliad 13.797–799, where the Trojans are compared to a storm:
κύματα παφλάζοντα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης
κυρτὰ φαληριόωντα πρὸ μέν τ᾿ ἄλλ᾿ αὐτὰρ ἐπ᾿ ἄλλα
Line 798 supplies only one requirement for grammatical completeness, the subject. The predicate is missing, so ἐν is to be understood as ἔνεστι.  The audience is waiting for the subject and expects the first word of line 798 to be it. Whether or not intonation suggested more to come, the first word, the subject κύματα, is not likely to be a surprise for the audience. Expectations will probably shift from the verse-initial word to the remainder of the line as the audience is eager to hear what will follow this rather dull location of the subject. Three of the four words in line 798 appear four times in epic together as a word group, not interrupted by other words. The fourth word, παφλάζοντα, is separating the word group this time, and happens to be a hapax legomenon in Homer.  “Enjambment” does not seem to disrupt the structure of the clause as a grammatical unit: the clause simply continues into the next line. Enjambment does not create special expectations involving the first word of line 798. There is nothing special about its first word. If intonation strengthens the phrasal structure of the developing clause, the audience’s attention will focus on the remainder of the line, though grammar only prepared them for the awaited noun. Is it a coincidence that the second word in this line is a hapax legomenon? Either way, there is no poetic device realised as a result of what Higbie labelled “violent enjambment”. Consider the following examples:
αἰχμὰς ἐκ χειρῶν
The adjective θαμειάς remains meaningless until joined with the noun in the next line. The choice of the noun αἰχμάς is not a complete surprise for the audience. The addition, however, of the superfluous ἐκ χειρῶν in Iliad 12.44 would weaken any “emphatic” use of αἰχμάς. What the addition shows and underlines is that apparent “noun-preparatory necessary enjambment” is not a mot-en-rejet.
λίσσετ᾿ ὀδυρομένη καί οἱ κατέλεξεν ἅπαντα
κήδε᾿ ὅσ᾿ ἀνθρώποισι πέλει τῶν ἄστυ ἀλώηι
Grammatically, line 591 λίσσετ᾿ ὀδυρομένη καί οἱ κατέλεξεν ἅπαντα is complete, but 592 continues with a verse-initial noun agreeing with ἅπαντα. The remainder of line 592 is expanding on the “sorrows”. Line 592 is an example of what Clark identifies as a “hook”, resulting in out-of line composition. The composition, however, is not just about continuing the developing clause: the continuation develops into a line that is not grammatically complete by itself, and depends grammatically on the preceding verse. Was it clear to the audience that there would be more to the clause than just the noun “sorrows” as soon as they heard  it follow the ἅπαντα of line 591? Was the intended expansion already audible at the end of line 591? Looking at the examples cited we may safely assume that intonation at verse end in Iliad 14.422–423 was slightly different from that in Iliad 12.44–45. In the latter example, the addition ἐκ χειρῶν has little to do with the audience’s expectations: the audience is being prepared for the verse-initial noun (αἰχμάς), but they hear that the clause does not end with it. At the same time they come to know that the “addition” is not a grammatically required element. The same holds for Iliad 9.591. Could the audience hear that what would follow the verse-initial noun was merely an “addition” in Iliad 9.592?
Opinions about this line, however, may vary. In Iliad 12.52, the actual meaning of the verse-initial noun is in accordance with the audience’s expectations: they already heard that Hector encourages his comrades to try and cross the τάφρος in line 50, but now his own horses do not dare to leap the gap. If this enjambment is to be considered “violent”, the translation should be ‘but they whinnied loudly, standing on the outermost, the outermost of the rim’. Parry could have used these lines as an example of “non-periodic enjambment” (Kirk 1966: “progressive”; Higbie 1990: “adding”) following a form of ἄκρος used as a substantive. The clause is grammatically complete at the end of line 51: ‘but they whinnied loudly on the outermost (, standing on the rim)’.  But the clause is in fact not brought to completion. The word group ἐπ᾿ ἄκρωι χείλει ἐφεσταότες may well constitute a syntactical unit, predicate-centred around the verbal form ἐφεσταότες. Any effect of the use of the participle ἐφεσταότες on intonation  would already have been noticeable and audible from ἐπ᾿ ἄκρωι, that is, before the verse end of line 51. It is hard to think of verse-end crossing intonation as a coincidental result of appositional alignment of verses: alignment as we find it here is not appositional but rather due to the pre-existing possibility of verse-end crossing units. Thus the audience not only expects a noun to go with ἐπ᾿ ἄκρωι but something else as well. Grammatically, Iliad 12.44 and 12.51 both raise the same expectations concerning the first word of the subsequent line, but contrary to Iliad 12.44, Iliad 12.51 raises very different expectations melodiously. If enjambment prepares the audience for more to follow than just a verse-initial noun to agree with the adjective, it is inappropriate to try to classify it as “noun-preparatory necessary enjambment”. Intonation can be taken into account when determining “types” of enjambment when the types are judged in relation to phrasal structure. The content of the subsequent line must be judged by standards other than “grammatical requirement”.
κόπρος ἔην κεφαλῆι τε καὶ αὐχένι τοῖο γέροντος
The adjective πολλή has no meaning until it is joined to the noun in the next line. Then the finite verb follows with κεφαλῆι τε καὶ αὐχένι τοῖο γέροντος added, though not necessary for grammatical completeness. Of course, this addition is an important piece of information: without it, the grammatically complete clause (‘all around there was a lot of dung’) would be pointless. Enjambment brings κόπρος in verse-initial position, but the attention of the audience is immediately drawn to what follows κόπρος: the finite verb. Something similar happens in other verses despite the fact that the first word following the enjambment is all but spectacular:
Ἀρχείους ἐκέλευσα ἀλήμεναι ἐνθάδε πάντας
The choice of the noun (‘Greeks’) annuls, I think, any poetic effect of violent necessary enjambment. The effect of the non-violent necessary enjambment is smoothened by the choice of the finite verb (‘I ordered’): it immediately incites the audience to focus on what will follow the finite verb itself. In Iliad 15.80–81 the finite verb is postponed until the end of line 81:
γαῖαν ἐληλουθὼς φρεσὶ πευκαλίμηισι νοήσηι
The prepositional phrase ἐπὶ πολλὴν awaits its noun; intonation prepares the audience for the noun to be the next word. The audience does not know what noun to expect in this simile, but as soon as it hears γαῖαν its attention will again be drawn further. The audience’s attention focuses on a word—awaiting the finite verb—that will link the imagery of this clause with the central imagery of the simile proper: the νόος ἀνέρος. But the finite verb is postponed. First by the participle that concludes the phrase ὅς τ᾿ ἐπὶ πολλὴν γαῖαν ἐληλουθὼς. Then by the word group φρεσὶ πευκαλίμηισι that ends a line twice in the Iliad, but is ‘moved from the verse end’  here, as in Iliad 20.35. When the finite verb νοήσηι finally appears, the need for grammatical completeness might have prepared the audience for something following the “necessary”  enjambment. What follows is a unique quotation in Homer:
To the ear, the demarcation in intonation resembles the audible pause of the colon (:) read aloud. There seems to be a connection between two successive cases of “enjambment” in two successive verses; in this instance an accumulation of the audience’s expectations resulting in a surprising continuation after the second “enjambed” verse end. The mere suggestion of such a connection is not plausible, and almost unexplainable, in a model for Homeric verse-making that is based on the assumption of the whole-line formula as the compositional unit, and the subsequent explanation of enjambment as ‘expanding beyond the hexameter’. It also runs counter to the idea ‘that the length of the enjambment can vary from a single syllable to a complete line’.  In this case it develops into a second “enjambed” verse end and hence another subsequent line.
At first sight these lines seem to illustrate Parry’s idea that everything following the enjambment is “added”: line 113 is a complete clause (or rather, two complete clauses: ‘tell him that the gods are angry with him and, most of all, that I am’, understanding ἐμέ as the second accusative with the infinitive σκύζεσθαι). In Higbie’s system, this can hardly qualify as violent or necessary enjambment: the meaning of πάντων is clear thanks to θεούς in the same line, and the clause ἐμὲ δ᾿ ἔξοχα πάντων is readily understood as an equivalent of σκύζεσθαι οἱ εἰπὲ ἐμὲ ἔξοχα πάντων. But this description might be nowhere close to what the audience heard and expected based on line 113. If intonation prepared them for a noun agreeing with πάντων to be the first word of the next line and for something else to follow this noun, they might have been waiting for an infinitive to which ἐμέ is the subject-accusative. In other words, any preparatory effect of intonation makes the line end in “violent necessary enjambment”. As in previous examples, such “enjambment” is not likely to emphasise the first word of the next line: ἀθανάτων. The noun is by no means surprising or even meaningful. If enjambment is capable of protracting the tension felt by the audience, the word to receive emphasis is the infinitive κεχολῶσθαι, not the noun ἀθανάτων. Is it? The infinitive perfect κεχολῶσθαι does underline the appropriateness of ἔξοχα πάντων compared to the other gods’ σκύζεσθαι. But how much emphasis remains if Iliad 24.113–114 is compared to Iliad 16.657–658?
Here, the clause κέκλετο δ᾿ ἄλλους is grammatically complete; the adjective at the end of the line does not need a noun; the verse-initial noun is not surprising, nor meaningful; intonation may have prepared the audience for a verse-initial noun and for something extra. But compared to Iliad 24.113–114, the infinitive in Iliad 16.658 is as superfluous and meaningless as the noun following the enjambment. Nonetheless, the infinitive and the noun are probably both required melodious elements: as intonation is related to phrasing, the crossing of the verse end by the phrase can hardly have been without some sort of verse-end crossing intonation pattern. Seen as an audible phenomenon that is related to the structure of language, intonation, rather than the grammatical completeness of Iliad 16.657, would be a reason to label any enjambment “violent necessary enjambment”. While connecting Iliad 16.657–658, “enjambment” does not contribute to the tension in the clause. It does not emphasise one of the elements of the clause following the verse end of 657. In fact, allowing a verse end “pause” between lines 657 and 658 while reciting would only unnecessarily disturb the audience’s perception and enjoyment of the clause, and practically annul the ‘running a word group over from one verse into another and thus dimming the rhythm of the end of the hexameter’.  Similarly, a “pause” following line Iliad 24.113 is only effective in that it creates an awkward, disturbing break between two words and between two parts of a grammatically coherent clause.
ἡιόνος στόμα μακρόν
The verb ἔρυσσαν indicates the soldiers’ action of drawing the ships onto dry land. Subsequently, the verb πλῆσαν indicates a soldiers’ action as well.  Based on the grammatical completeness of line 35, the audience might understand the soldiers to have filled the ships with something “complete”.  I do not believe that the poet deliberately misleads his audience into thinking that the soldiers had filled the ships with something, as readers, taking one verse at a time, might understand at first. Instead, intonation must have prepared the listeners for more to follow in the next line than just the noun agreeing with ἀπάσης. It turns out that mentioning ἡιόνος only further postponed an object. Despite this unexpected twist of grammar, the object does not render a very special or unexpected idea; even less so, since the actual object (στόμα) has some semantic overlap with the noun in the verse-end straddling word group (ἀπάσης ἡιόνος),  which is not very special or unexpected either, in spite of “violent enjambment”.
λαῶν ἐσσὶ ἄναξ
The adjective is the last word before the straddled verse end and the agreeing noun the first of the next line. The finite verb of the clause (ἐσσί) is in the line following the enjambment too. In this case, another noun, used predicatively, is also in the second line. The adjective πολλῶν could have been used on its own, without a noun. Here, there is a noun following the adjective in “violent necessary enjambment”. The audience hears intonation prepare for a noun to immediately follow the adjective, but the meaning of the noun is in no way a surprise. In fact, after hearing the noun λαῶν the audience waits for the finite verb that has been postponed, seemingly without urgent need, through the use of the noun. Having heard ἐσσί the following ἄναξ finally gives the audience the information it has been waiting for: Nestor addresses Agamemnon as the king, only to remind him that ‘kingship has its duties.’ 
Φαίνοπι Ἀσιάδηι ἐναλίγκιος ὅς οἱ ἀπάντων
ξείνων φίλτατος ἔσκεν Ἀβυδόθι οἰκία ναίων
Apollo carefully impersonates a very close friend of Hector to make sure that his encouragement will have the desired effect: the audience waits for the poet’s explanation of Apollo’s choice. That Phainops is actually a ξεῖνος is not the most important piece of information this clause has to offer. The fulfilment of the audience’s expectation for the verse-initial word cannot have been a surprise. As before, verse content must be taken into account. Compare Iliad 5.1–3, where Pallas Athena supplies Diomedes with extra strength:
δῶκε μένος καὶ θάρσος ἵν᾿ ἔκδηλος μετὰ πᾶσιν
Ἀργείοισι γένοιτο ἰδὲ κλέος ἐσθλὸν ἄροιτο
True, Diomedes will enjoy the consequences of this extra strength throughout the book that is about to start, but the audience is not being prepared for what will follow, neither will they remember the enjambment in these lines as particularly significant once they have heard all Diomedes’s exploits in Iliad book 5. It is noteworthy, however, that the line ending in enjambment at verse end contains the non-formulaic μένος καὶ θάρσος and the Homeric hapax legomenon ἔκδηλος. Again, the “enjambment” seems to exert only a superficial influence on the words following it, but appears in combination with noteworthy phenomena preceding it in the same line. This is a fine example of the licence to compose “free-size” clauses overruling the “predominance of whole-sentence lines” thanks to metrical boundaries, an issue I will discuss in more detail in the final section of this chapter.
ναῖον Βοιωτοί μάλα πίονα δῆμον ἔχοντες
Alternatively, the verse-initial word is one of the other remaining requirements of the grammatically complete clause:
αἰγιαλὸς νῆας χαδέειν
The verse-initial word of 34 is another required element in the clause, in this case a very special one: αἰγιαλός stands in hyperbaton (εὐρύς περ ἐὼν … αἰγιαλὸς) due to the verse-end straddling word group (πάσας … νῆας) that stands in hyperbaton itself. There are only two other examples in Homer of verse end allowing a double hyperbaton. The first one is the already cited Iliad 16.104–105, but at least there one of the divided word groups was divided only by the verse end (φαεινὴ || πήληξ). The second one is Iliad 1.283–284:
ἕρκος Ἀχαιοῖσιν πέλεται πολέμοιο κακοῖο
It is tempting to understand μέγα as an adverb (‘highly’) here, as it is used elsewhere:
Ἀργείων κρατέει καί οἱ πείθονται Ἀχαιοί
On several, similar occasions the adverb is more closely attached to the verb.  If Iliad 1.78–79 is seen as a fortuitous combination of formulas, the translation may be more like ‘who, high above all, rules over the Greeks, and whom the Greeks obey’. Such a translation is in accordance with a line-to-line approach as well. Still, neither Iliad 1.283 nor Iliad 1.78 will have left any doubt for the audience as to how μέγα was to be understood. For the poet and his audience, there must have been a significant difference in intonation at the end of the two verses. The latter prepares for the next line to continue the grammatical clause unhindered. The former includes the metrical break at verse end in the application of the hyperbaton. In other words, not only the audience was likely well aware of the grammatical function of μέγα as an adjective in Iliad 1.283 but the poet as well.
δαμνᾶι ἀθανάτους ἠδὲ θνητοὺς ἀνθρώπους
πὰρ Διὸς ἀθανάτοισι χόλος καὶ μῆνις ἐτύχθη
τέκτονος ἐν παλάμηισι δαήμονος ὅς ῥά τε πάσης
εὖ εἰδῆι σοφίης ὑποθημοσύνηισιν Ἀθήνης
χύντο χαμαὶ χολάδες
γίνετ᾿ ἐπισσώτρων ἁρματροχιὴ κατόπισθεν
εἴαθ᾿ ὁμηγερέες ἅλιαι θεαί
εἴαθ᾿ ὁμηγερέες μάκαρες θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες
Iliad 14.98–199, 24.83–84 and 24.98–99 have all the characteristics of “necessary” enjambment up until and including the first word following the enjambment. The rest of the line (‘immortals and mortal men alike’, ‘sea-goddesses … in an assembly’, ‘ever-living, blessed gods … in an assembly’), looks like an addition, from the point of view of grammatical completeness. Semantics and intonation surely run counter to such analysis. With the exception of Iliad 15.121–122, all examples allow hyperbaton in favour of another grammatical requirement (finite verb) to occupy verse-initial position. The hyperbaton allows other, grammatically non-necessary elements to be inserted in between as well (εὖ Iliad 15.412; χαμαί Iliad 21.181; ἐπισσώτρων Iliad 23.505; ὁμηγερέες ἅλιαι Iliad 24.84; ὁμηγερέες μάκαρες Iliad 24.99).
ἕρκος Ἀχαιοῖσιν πέλεται πολέμοιο κακοῖο
αἰγιαλὸς νῆας χαδέειν
πήληξ βαλλομένη καναχὴν ἔχε
In Iliad 15.84–85 the adjective ὁμηγερέεσσι stands in hyperbaton with the agreeing noun, but is not the last word of the line, nor is the noun the first of the next:
ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι Διὸς δόμωι
In his commentary on Iliad 13–16, Janko points out that the word group ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι is ‘transposed from the verse-end’,  where it can be found 38 times. An explanation for this transposition will also shed light on the nature of the enjambment at the end of line 84. For now, it has to suffice that I point out that hyperbaton allows Homer to create a grammatically complete clause of the desired length without the verse end being a hindrance that forces the poet to complete the syntax of the clause within the boundaries of the single line. As noted before, the syntax of the line does not even have to be completed as soon as possible after the enjambment. Again, the strength of the verse end as a boundary—syntactical boundary this time—does not differ very much from boundaries that appear frequently within the line. What is more: Homer’s compositional technique is not simply ‘adding lines, one after another’. It may require preparation in the line ending in enjambed verse end before any “adding” takes place. Homer’s technique is rather one that allows for liberally using (combinations of) successive recurring metrical patterns to express a well-prepared and coherent thought. He does not have to fit his thoughts in with successive recurring metrical patterns like the single hexameter.
1.4 Chantraine: Units Shaped by Apposition and Autonomy
This appositional character of Homeric syntax is evident from the paratactic organisation of the discourse. Devine and Stephens consider the ‘rather flat, as opposed to hierarchical, phrase structure’  of the Homeric epic as illustrative for the “nonconfigurationality” of ancient Greek, the fact that there is hardly any hierarchical phrase structure. Characteristics of nonconfigurationality  can indeed be found everywhere in the Iliad and the Odyssey. I will list eight of these characteristics, and illustrate each with one or more examples from the Homeric epic:
σήματ᾿ ἀναγνούσηι τά οἱ ἔμπεδα πέφραδ᾿ Ὀδυσσεύς
In Homer, such noun phrase coordination has an alternative in comitative adposition: ‘A walked to school, and so did B’ / ‘A walked to school, and B with him’ / ‘A walked to school, ánd B’:
Ἀρκεσίλαός τε Προθοήνωρ τε Κλονίος τε
ἠὲ μετὰ Τρώεσσιν ὁμιλέοι ἦ μετ᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς
The syntax of the Homeric epic is quite different from the syntax found in post-Homeric literary works. As opposed to the syntax in poetic writings of, for example, Hellenistic poetry, or that of prose writings of, for example, Plato, Homeric syntax seems to be rather flat and paratactic.  It consists of highly autonomous words, word groups, and clauses. The autonomy on these various levels is represented by the description of Homeric style as adding style: adding more word, word groups, and clauses is almost always possible, but the additions themselves are hardly ever necessary for proper understanding. Single words define their own role in the discourse,  and grammatical governance is not the standard.
1.5 Bakker: Units Shaped by Special Speech and Movement
The conceptional aspects of orality can be illustrated by marking the differences with the conventions of written discourse. Doing so for Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey would suggest that both epics were composed in an environment in which there were written texts as well as oral compositions. Since it is not probable that this is the case, Homer’s “oral style” is not the counterpart of written literature. 
b Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
d ἣ μυρί᾿ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾿ ἔθηκε
e πολλὰς δ᾿ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς
f Ἄιδι προιαψεν
h αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
i οἰωνοῖσι τε πᾶσι
j Διὸς δ᾿ ἐτελείετο βουλή
k ἐξ οὗ δὴ τὰ πρῶτα
l διαστήτην ἐρίσαντε
m Ἀτρείδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν
n καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς
b Of Achilles, son of Peleus
c So destructive
d It bestowed innumerable pains on the Greeks
e Many excellent souls
f It sent to the house of Hades
g Of heroes
h But their bodies it turned into loot for the dogs
i And all birds
j The will of Zeus gradually became fulfilled
k From the very first moment
l The two of them stood opposite one another in anger
m Atreus’s son, the lord of men
n And godlike Achilles
In Bakker’s analysis, the text of the first 7 lines of the Iliad is chunked ‘with the units into which the passage easily divides’.  The resulting units correspond to Chafe’s intonation units according to the one new idea constraint. The syntax of Iliad 1.1–7 corresponds to the audible structure of the spurts: it resembles a checklist, in this case a “preview”. Bakker calls Iliad 1.1–7 ‘a series of island-like ideas’,  with “orientation” as main purpose. The checklist-structure can be found in many verses in the Iliad and the Odyssey, often in the shape [A – verbal form – B || addition to A || addition to B]. The apparent checklist-structure is further strengthened by the autonomous usage of words and word groups: words define their own role in discourse independent of “governance” by other words; intonation units can often be considered elliptic clauses.  Autonomy of words and word groups results in appositional style—as can be expected in unplanned spoken language. Bakker asserts, however, that the discourse of the Iliad and the Odyssey cannot be fully put on a par with spoken language in general. The use of formulas and the restrictions due to meter turn the spoken language of the Iliad and the Odyssey into “special speech” or “marked speech”.  The intonation units that Bakker identifies are identical to the metrical cola that Fränkel  identified as the structural units of the hexameter. Bakker thus puts the structural unit of meter on a par with the compositional unit of discourse. The metrical shape of the Homeric epic is to be considered as a presentation of intonation units, be it a stylised presentation. 
The concept of “sentence” seems hardly fit to describe the way in which the Homeric discourse is organised internally. Comparative studies have shown that the principles guiding the adding-style verse-making in Homer are similar to those underlying oral poetry from other centuries and cultures. Like these other products of poetry, the Iliad and the Odyssey present their narrative to the listening audience in a chain-of-thought-style. This style, that resembles a checklist, is the result of the chunking of information, as described above.
That is why the units that Bakker mentions are “stylized into metrical properties”.  The syntactical “segmentation” of the Homeric discourse can hence be clearly felt. The units that are strung together to represent Homeric syntax are still recognisable as individual intonation units; their shape responds to frequently used metrical patterns.  The stylisation of intonation units into metrical properties visualises Homeric discourse as the equivalent of metrical colometry:
|ἀλλοῖός μοι ξεῖνε||φάνης νέον||ἠὲ πάροιθεν|
|ἄλλα δὲ εἵματ᾿ ἔχεις||καί τοι χρὼς οὐκέθ᾿ ὁμοῖος|
|ἦ μάλα τις θεός ἐσσι||τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν|
|ἀλλ᾿ ἵληθ᾿||ἵνα τοι κεχαρισμένα δώομεν ἱρὰ|
|ἠδὲ χρύσεα δῶρα||τετυγμένα||φείδεο δ᾿ ἡμέων|
|τὸν δ᾿ ἠμείβετ` ἔπειτα||πολύτλας||δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς|
|οὔ τίς τοι θεός εἰμι||τί μ᾿ ἀθανάτοισιν ἐίσκεις|
|ἀλλὰ πατὴρ τεός εἰμι||τοῦ εἵνεκα σὺ στεναχίζων|
|πάσχεις ἄλγεα πολλά||βίας ὑποδέγμενος ἀνδρῶν|
|ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας||υἱὸν κύσε||κὰδ δὲ παρειῶν|
|δάκρυον ἧκε χαμᾶζε||πάρος δ᾿ ἔχε νωλεμὲς αἰεί|
Πιδύτην δ᾿ Ὀδυσεὺς Περκώσιον ἐξενάριξεν
ἔγχει χαλκείωι Τεῦκρος δ᾿ Ἀρετάονα δῖον
Ἀντίλοχος δ᾿ Ἄβληρον ἐνήρατο δουρὶ φαεινῶι
Νεστορίδης Ἔλατον δὲ ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων
All verses in the cluster Iliad 6.29–33 contain metrical fillers like the weapon, an epithet, or a patronymic/geonymic. The filler expressing the weapon itself contains another filler: the epithet χαλκείωι / φαεινῶι.
1.6 Units Defined by Composition: Semantic Phrases
1.6.1 Semantic phrases as the equivalent of the structural units of meter
It did not take long for Parry to realise that usage of the word “sentence” is the cause of problems:
It is remarkable that Parry keeps trying to fit the sentence-structure into the pattern of whole hexametric lines. He allows for a grouping together of several sentence-verses into a stanza—a possibility for which evidence is considered insufficient nowadays.  Parry notices that our sentence is not a very useful instrument when analysing the structure of the Iliad and the Odyssey. He looks for a different type of ending or completion for semantic phrases. Terminology like “sense”  may suggest that ending or completion. But a sense pause does not necessarily coincide with verse end, nor is every verse end a sense pause.  “Varying portions of time” may in fact straddle the verse end. Still, in Parry’s view, the chain of thoughts presented in the Homeric epic is cut up into “portions” that preferably occupy whole hexameters or parts thereof. For Parry and his followers, the sense of completeness at verse end is so strong in Homer’s lines that ‘the reader of the Iliad and the Odyssey soon comes to mark in them, as a part of a larger movement of the thought, the way in which the sense passes from verse to verse.’  Parry 1929, Kirk 1966, Higbie 1990, and Clark 1997 judge the syntactical construction within the verses of the Iliad and the Odyssey by its alignment to the metrically repeating pattern built by these stichic verses. In other words, the force of the verse end as a prosodic boundary is seen as confirmation of its force as syntactical or sense boundary. Parry understands whole-line expressions as whole-line formulas, due to their frequency in the Homeric epic. Famous examples are the speech introductions, the vocative phrase cum interrogative clause, and combined clauses:
Indeed sometimes these “whole-liners” construct larger passages (Iliad 8.145–152, Odyssey 21.269–276  ).
As does a line featuring a vocative cum interrogative clause:
Another very useful, though not strictly formulaic, line might then be:
In Iliad 1.202, the vocative gives the line a tripartite structure; Iliad 2.555 contains two complete clauses.  Some of these lines are repeated within the Iliad, like Iliad 1.73, others (Iliad 2.555) are not. If a line contains two complete grammatical clauses, often at least one of the two is either a direct command or a question. It is not surprising, therefore, that such verses appear frequently in direct speech. Some of these verses in direct speech are repeated within the Iliad, like Iliad 1.362 = Iliad 18.73, others are not: they are even unique in Homer. Some of the unique lines containing either one or two complete clauses suit their specific context very well; tentatively describing them as “formulaic” lacks all evidence.
There is the possibility that all grammatical segments are formulas. Lack of primary sources, however, deprives us of proof for that hypothesis.  As grammatical segments, formulas are shaped metrically. Bakker explains that their formation finds its origin in the extension of a nucleus (translated in capital letters) into a metrical phrase (underlined):
The principle of formulaic economy suggests that the formation of formulas was defined by metrical requirements, rather than by semantics. Noun-epithet formulas, for example, are specific extensions to occupy specific metrical positions. I agree that maintenance of metrical boundaries as positions of word end contributes to the sense of grammatical segmentation. After all, it has not proven difficult to identify recurrent metrical colometry based on positions of frequent word division (indicated by the number of the metrical position in both the Greek example and its translation): 
that can both be divided into two cola:
into four cola:
into a three-colon verse:
into a “rising threefolder”: 
Analysis of single hexameters as metrical units is, of course, the foundation of such colometry. The hexameters as the metrical units, and the metrical colon as the metrical phrase, seem to underlie the composition of the Homeric narrative. As such, they precede Homer’s semantic phrasing. There are clear examples of verses that consist of one complete “sentence”,  or “clause”;  and of verses that naturally divide into metrical cola.  Fränkel’s colometry is based on its usefulness for internal articulation: the hexameter features three “zones” into which the positions of frequent word end can be found. “Displacement” of the caesura demarcating the phrase does not question the division of the verse into four units. Fränkel  points out that the metrical cola are regularly “units of meaning”, and that the word breaks which limit them are “sense-pauses”. Porter  shows, however, that this is not always the case. He argues that the persistence of metrical cola is due to prosodic reasons (‘an expected sequence of syllables produced by a brief rhythmical impulse’  ), and that cola only tend to comprise organic word groups. He states that the main explanation for their persistence lies in sentence-articulation: colon-structure is concerned with aural effect.  Porter argues for a modification of Fränkel’s system. He looks for “balance” between the phrases that together constitute the hexameter, and accepts that the metrical colon is not invariably a semantic unit. His determination to balance the metrical cola, and to identify the colon as a word group rather than as a word, leads him to ignore the statistical evidence for the frequency of word end at position 7. As Porter’s colon is a rhythmical unit that exercises a normative effect on the meaning, Ingalls 1970 rejects Porter’s criticism of Fränkel when he concludes that Porter works from a priori notions (Porter seems to reject the idea of an iamb-shaped colon between positions 5½ and 7). Kirk meets with similar criticism. His addition to the basic colometry of the hexameter into two or four cola is offered in his 1966 publication. Kirk starts from verses where metrical boundary in the third foot is impossible.  As the frequency of word end determines the third foot caesura as the second most important metrical boundary in hexametric verse, it is straddled rarely in metrics. Identification of other metrical boundaries in the verse where the third-foot word end is impossible, leads him to the tripartite colometry of the “rising threefolder”, soon extended to incorporate “semantic rising threefolder” verses.
1.6.2 Semantic phrases as the equivalent of combinations of structural units
οὔνεκα τὸν Χρύσην ἠτίμασεν ἀρητῆρα
On the other hand, we find in the Homeric epics verses introduced by subordinating conjunctions that precede what may be considered their main clause. The first example in the Iliad is Iliad 1.39–41:
ἢ εἰ δή ποτέ τοι κατὰ πίονα μηρί᾿ ἔκηα
ταύρων ἠδ᾿ αἰγῶν τόδε μοι κρήηνον ἐέλδωρ
Followed by a main clause, (ταύρων ἠδ᾿ αἰγῶν) τόδε μοι κρήηνον ἐέλδωρ, the verse end of Iliad 1.40 constitutes clausal internal enjambment (Higbie’s terminology).  This type of verse-end enjambment is considered more effective than the clausal external type: Iliad 1.39–40 raise grammatical expectations. There, identification as subordinate units requires continuation by means of a main clause. Iliad 1.39–41, however, do not show any preparations in the grammar of the subordinate unit to prepare for either another subordinate unit (Iliad 1.40), or for a main clause (Iliad 1.41b). Not surprisingly, in Homer the main clause can easily be deferred for several lines, or not appear at all.  Chantraine  argues that the uncertain status of forms of ὅς is proof of the “paratactic character” of the “Homeric phrase”. Bakker and Clark seem to agree with Chantraine. The alleged paratactic character, however, has a blurring effect  on the syntactical division into main and subordinate “clauses”. Chantraine, among others, advocates the analysis that the Iliad and the Odyssey mark a stage of the development from parataxis to a broader use of hypotaxis.
An example crossing the third foot caesura is Iliad 1.48:
And, I argue, there is crossing in all instances of elision at the metrical boundary:
Other positions of frequent word end require similar attention. Grammatical coherent phrases start at various positions in the hexameter, and completion of grammar may disregard the available (and often used) metrical boundaries. Both in the Iliad and in the Odyssey, whole passages consist of such diverging grammatical and metrical patterns. I will cite four larger scale examples. The first two are examples of character speech: they illustrate what Bakker calls the “fugal effect” of more emotional passages. Numbers 3 and 4 do not have a similar excuse: they show the ordinariness of the non-alignment of metrical and grammatical boundaries. The grammatical boundaries are not always those of Bakker’s chunks, that is, with strict observance of metrical colometry. In the Greek text, I indicate the positions of frequent word end that are “straddled” by ongoing grammatisation.
τοῖσι μὲν ἔμπεδα κεῖται ἐμεῦ δ᾿ ἀπὸ μούνου Ἀχαιῶν 12
εἵλετ᾿ ἔχει δ᾿ ἄλοχον θυμαρέα τῆι παριαύων
τερπέσθω τὶ δὲ δεῖ 5 πολεμιζέμεναι Τρώεσσιν 12
Ἀργείους τὶ δὲ λαὸν 5½ ἀνήγαγεν ἐνθάδ᾿ ἀγείρας 12
Ἀτρείδης ἦ οὐχ 5 Ἑλένης 7 ἕνεκ᾿ ἠυκόμοιο
ἦ μοῦνοι φιλέουσ᾿ 5 ἀλόχους μερόπων ἀνθρώπων 12
Ἀτρείδαι ἐπεὶ ὅς τις 5½ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ ἐχέφρων 12
τὴν αὐτοῦ φιλέει καὶ κήδεται ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ τήν 12
ἐκ θυμοῦ φίλεον δουρικτητήν περ ἐοῦσαν
κῆρυξ τῆ δή τοῦτο 5 πόρε κρέας ὄφρα φάγηισι 12
Δημοδόκωι καί μιν 5 προσπτύξομαι ἀχνύμενός περ
πᾶσι γὰρ ἀνθρώποισιν 5½ ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἀοιδοὶ 12
τιμῆς ἔμμοροί εἰσι καὶ αἰδοῦς οὕνεκ᾿ ἄρα σφέας 12
οἴμας Μοῦσ᾿ ἐδίδαξε φίλησε δὲ φῦλον ἀοιδῶν
ὧσ φάτο Σαρπηδών ὀ δ᾿ ἀνέσχετο μείλινον ἔγχος 12
Τληπόλεμος καὶ τῶν μὲν 5½ ἁμαρτῆι δούρατα μακρὰ 12
ἐκ χειρῶν ἤιξαν ὁ μὲν βάλεν αὐχένα μέσσον 12
Σαρπηδών αἰχμὴ δὲ 5½ διαμπερὲς ἦλθ᾿ ἀλεγεινή
τὸν δὲ κατ᾿ ὀφθαλμῶν 5 ἐρεβεννὴ νὺξ ἐκάλυψε
Τληπόλεμος δ᾿ ἄρα μηρὸν 5½ ἀριστερὸν ἔγχει μακρῶι 12
βεβλήκειν αἰχμὴ δὲ 5½ διέσσυτο μαιμώωσα
ὀστέωι ἐγχριμφθεῖσα πατὴρ δ᾿ ἔτι λοιγὸν ἄμυνεν
ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μὲν ἔκφυγε κῆρα καὶ ἤλασε βοῦς ἐριμύκους 12
ἐς Πύλον ἐκ Φυλάκης καὶ ἐτισατο ἔργον ἀεικὲς 12
ἀντίθεον Νηλῆα κασιγνήτωι δὲ γυναῖκα 12
ἠγάγετο πρὸς δώμαθ᾿ 5½ ὀ δ᾿ ἄλλων ἵκετο δῆμον 12
Ἄργος ἐς ἱππόβοτον τόθι γάρ νύ οἱ αἴσιμον ἦεν 12
ναιέμεναι πολλοῖσιν ἀνάσσοντ᾿ Ἀργείοισιν
In all four passages grammatically coherent phrases are not equivalent to metrical cola. The way grammatically coherent phrases are being located onto the metrical pattern in fact disrupts the repetition that characterises the sequence of metrical cola of the hexameter. The juxtaposition of grammatically coherent phrases is much smoother than metrical cola suggest.
1.6.3 Larger scale semantic phrasing through the structuring impulse of meter
ἔνθ᾿ ὅ γε Νέστορ᾿ ἔτετμε λιγὺν Πυλίων ἀγορητήν
οὓς ἑτάρους στέλλοντα καὶ ὀτρύνοντα μάχεσθαι
ἀμφὶ μέγαν Πελάγοντα Ἀλάστορά τε Χρομίον τε
Αἵμονά τε κρείοντα Βίαντά τε ποιμένα λαῶν
Especially the last two lines, Iliad 4.295–296, seem to be superfluous, and, worse, incompatible with information concerning Pylian leaders elsewhere in the Iliad.  Taking Iliad 4.295–296 out of the text would not significantly damage or alter the passage. Why are these verses here? Semantic superfluity is not enough reason to take them out. Ancient scholars like Aristarchus left the verses where they found them, noting the difficulties they caused, but not removing them.
ἔνθ᾿ ἔσαν οἱ πέπλοι παμποίκιλοι ἔργα γυναικῶν
Σιδονίων τὰς αὐτὸς Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδὴς
ἤγαγε Σιδονίηθεν ἐπιπλὼς εὐρέα πόντον
τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν Ἑλένην περ ἀνήγαγεν εὐπατέρειαν
The addition over the verse end is a verse, or a cluster of verses, and may completely consist of metrical fillers, as in Odyssey 15.404–406:
Ὀρτυγίης καθύπερθεν ὅθι τροπαὶ ἠελίοιο
οὔ τι περιπληθὴς λίην τόσον ἀλλ᾿ ἀγαθὴ μέν
εὔβοτος εὔμηλος οἰνοπληθὴς πολύπυρος
In other verses, additions consist of metrical fillers occupying a part of the line. The metrical filler then bridges the half-verse gap before another addition that has more semantic value:
νύμφη πότνι᾿ ἔρυκε Καλυψώ δῖα θεάων
ἐν σπέσσι γλαφυροῖσι λιλαιομένη πόσιν εἶναι
ἐν σπέσσι γλαφυροῖσι θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος
παίδων ἠδ᾿ ἀλόχων οὐδ᾿ ἀλλήλων ἀλέγουσι
The usefulness of such metrical fillers seems to be determined by the location of semantically more valuable additions. The Odyssean formula ἐν σπέσσι γλαφυροῖσι occurs seven times, always occupying the first half of the hexameter. In Odyssey 1.15 λιλαιομένη πόσιν εἶναι occupies the second half of the hexameter, as does θεμιστεύει δὲ ἕκαστος in Odyssey 9.114. The formula ἐν σπέσσι γλαφυροῖσι is thus bound to an invariable metrical position, but so is its role as a bridge towards an equally restricted addition with higher semantic value: λιλαιομένη πόσιν εἶναι is metrically restricted as well.
Πιδύτην δ᾿ Ὀδυσεὺς Περκώσιον ἐξενάριξεν
ἔγχει χαλκείωι Τεῦκρος δ᾿ Ἀρετάονα δῖον
Ἀντίλοχος δ᾿ Ἄβληρον ἐνήρατο δουρὶ φαεινῶι
Νεστορίδης Ἔλατον δὲ ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων
Similar to the larger scale units, the smaller fillers enable semantically more important constituents to occupy the metrical position they are restricted to without jeopardising the comprehensibility of their syntactical function: the epithet ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν in Iliad 6.33 makes it easier, not more difficult, to recognise Agamemnon as the subject of the clause in which Elatus is the object.
βάσκ᾿ ἴθι Ἶρι ταχεῖα
When the verb ‘to speak’ is confined to verse-final position,  fillers may bridge the gap to the verse end:
κλῦτέ μευ ἀμφίπολοι λευκώλενοι
When grammatical completeness requires another constituent that must be postponed to the following line, the subsequent line is still extended towards the verse end:
Πριαμίδης Ἕλενος οἰωνοπόλων ὄχ᾿ ἄριστος
Αἰνεία τε καὶ Ἕκτορ
Extensions over the verse end due to the requirements of grammatical completeness may even result in the addition of another verb not denoting the actual act of speaking before the verse end:
χειρὸς ἔχων Μενέλαον ἐπεστενάχοντο δ᾿ ἑταῖροι
What the various extensions have in common, regardless of their size and exact metrical shape, is their usefulness in extending an utterance towards the verse end. The verse end, however, is not always the nearest metrical boundary.
αἰθέρος ἐκ δίης ὅτε τε Ζεὺς λαίλαπα τείνηι
ὣς τῶν ἐκ νηῶν γένετο ἰαχή τε φόβος τε
δήν ἐπεὶ οὔ πω τοῖον ἀνήλυθεν ἐκ δόρυ γαίης
ὡς σέ γύναι ἄγαμαί τε τέθηπά τε
What the extended simile in particular shows, is the usefulness of additional constituents up until the verse end before resumption: constituents and even whole lines may be freely added, as long as the addition as a whole, together with possibly required constituents,  ends with verse end:
χώρωι ἐν οἰοπόλωι ὅ θ᾿ ἅλις ἀναβέβροχεν ὕδωρ
55 καλὸν τηλεθάον τὸ δέ τε πνοιαὶ δονέουσι
παντοίων ἀνέμων καί τε βρύει ἄνθει λευκῶι
ἐλθὼν δ᾿ ἐξαπίνης ἄνεμος σὺν λαίλαπι πολλῆι
βόθρου τ᾿ ἐξέστρεψε καὶ ἐξετάνυσσ᾿ ἐπὶ γαίηι
τοῖον Πάνθου υἱὸν ἐυμμελίην Ἐύφορβον
60 Ἀτρείδης Μενέλαος ἐπεὶ κτάνε τεύχε᾿ ἐσύλα
ὡς δ᾿ ὅτε τίς τε λέων ὀρεσίτροφος ἀλκὶ πεποιθώς
βοσκομένης ἀγέλης βοῦν ἁρπάσηι ἥ τις ἀρίστη
τῆς δ᾿ ἐξ αὐχέν᾿ ἔαξε λαβὼν κρατεροῖσιν ὀδοῦσι
πρῶτον ἔπειτα δέ θ᾿ αἷμα καὶ ἔγκατα πάντα λαφύσσει
65 δηιῶν ἀμφὶ δὲ τόν γε κύνες τ᾿ ἄνδρές τε νομῆες
πολλὰ μάλ᾿ ἰύζουσιν ἀπόπροθεν οὐδ᾿ ἐθέλουσιν
ἀντίον ἐλθέμεναι μάλα γὰρ χλωρὸν δέος αἱρεῖ
ὣς τῶν οὔ τινι θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἐτόλμα
ἀντίον ἐλθέμεναι Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο
The start, or completion, of direct speech, like the resumption of an extended simile, is a special instance of syntactical organisation in Homer. Syntax is still rather flat and paratactic  in these cases, but the compositional process is not that of mere adding anymore. There may still be some semantically more or less important additions following the verb denoting ‘to speak’ or the resumption (ὡς) of a simile. The verb ‘to speak’, however, prepares for a specific type of continuation, that is direct speech. Similarly, the start of an extended simile  prepares for resumption by means of ὡς or τοῖον. The start of the constituents, whose appearance is prepared for, is confined to the start of the hexameter. Above, I argued that the fixed localisation of constituents due to their metrical shape does not harm the comprehensibility of their syntactical function. Semantically, the metrical fillers contribute to this comprehensibility. In the case of direct speech, as in that of the resumed extended simile, the syntactical function of constituents is confined to one specific metrical location, the start of the line. Even if the verb denoting ‘to speak’ were not in the preceding line, there are various ways to mark the start of the first line of direct discourse as a shift in discourse type. I will give examples of the various markers:
κλέπτε νόωι ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις
Ἀτρείδα δὲ μάλιστα δύω κοσμήτορε λαῶν
Ἀτρείδαι τε καὶ ἄλλοι ἐυκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί
In many instances, as in the examples cited, various markers of discourse shift are combined. The discourse shift itself seems confined to verse-initial position. But some doubt might arise in the absence of verse-initial semantic markers of the shift:
θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα
Both analyses are equally possible.
Metrical fillers show that certain constituents may be used despite their invariable position, and that the verse end facilitates grammatical completion by means of extension of the discourse unit that ends with it:
βάσκ᾿ ἴθι οὖλε ὄνειρε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν
ὦ πάτερ ἡμέτερε Κρονίδη ὕπατε κρειόντων
πόντου Ἰκαρίοιο τὰ μέν τ᾿ Εὖρός τε Νότος τε
ὤρορ᾿ ἐπαίξας πατρὸς Διὸς ἐκ νεφελάων
ὡς δ᾿ ὅτε κινήσηι Ζέφυρος βαθὺ λήιον ἐλθών
λάβρος ἐπαιγίζων ἐτί τ᾿ ἠμύει ἀσταχύεσσιν
ὧς τῶν πᾶσ᾿ ἀγορὴ κινήθη τοὶ δ᾿ ἀλαλητῶι
νῆας ἔπ᾿ ἐσσεύοντο ποδῶν δ᾿ ὑπένερθε κονίη
ἵστατ᾿ ἀειρομένη τοὶ δ᾿ ἀλλήλοισι κέλευον
ἅπτεσθαι νηῶν ἠδ᾿ ἑλκέμεν εἰς ἅλα δῖαν
οὐρούς τ᾿ ἐξεκάθαιρον ἀυτὴ δ` οὐρανὸν ἷκεν
οἴκαδε ἱεμένων ὑπὸ δ᾿ ἥιρεον ἕρματα νηῶν
ὡς δ᾿ ὅτ᾿ ὀπωρινὸς Βορέης φορέηισιν ἀκάνθας
ἂμ πεδίον πυκιναὶ δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήληισιν ἔχονται
ὣς τὴν ἂμ πέλαγος ἄνεμοι φέρον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα
The invariable verse-initial position of certain discourse markers strengthens the idea that the verse end of Homer’s dactylic hexameter is the first position of choice for the completion of one syntactical unit and the start of the next. Apart from direct discourse and extended similes, many other verses feature verse-initial start, or verse-end completion of syntactical units.
The third foot caesura is not the only position for an additional, verse-internal “break” in syntax:
And then there is a second type of phrasing, as not every line in the Iliad and the Odyssey has the start of a syntactical unit at its beginning, or the completion of one at its end. Verse-internal metrical boundaries do not always feature a syntactical “break” either. Metrical boundaries like the verse end and the third foot caesura are regularly straddled by syntactical units. The principle of using metrical fillers to facilitate the start of a syntactical unit from a metrical boundary is equally used to continue the syntactical unit over the metrical boundary (fillers are in bold):
ἤιε (2) μακρὰ βιβάς
κεῖτ᾿ ἀπομηνίσας (5) Ἀγαμέμνονι
γαῖαν ἐγὼν (3) ἰδόμην
As in previous examples, the application of metrical fillers results in metrically variable and context neutral (innocuous) constituents. As such, the constituents are peripheral material, as opposed to the nuclei, the semantically more important constituents. The metrical fillers do not jeopardise the comprehensibility of the semantic function of nuclei. When demarcated by a “break” in syntax (indicated by square brackets) on either side, the filler is semantically (and syntactically) tied to either the preceding, or the subsequent syntactical unit:
ὤιχετ᾿ ← ἀπὸ μελέων]5[στυγερὸς → δ᾿ ἄρα μιν σκότος εἷλεν]
καλὴν ← χρυσείην]5[κεφαλῆι →  δ᾿ ἐπέθηκε καλύπτρην]
Often, however, metrical fillers are not the start or closure of a syntactical unit. Many metrical fillers have their place within the syntactical unit:
The hyperbaton, so to say, of the nuclei (Μηριόνης … ηὔδα) belonging to the syntactically coherent unit, does not hinder the syntactical coherence. The fillers themselves are an integral part of the syntactical unit. As syntactical coherence is maintained despite “disturbances” like epithets, so it is maintained despite more structural embedded constituents, like the “embedded predication”: 
παντοίοις ἀνέμοισιν ὑπὲρ μέγα λαῖτμα θαλάσσης
οἴκαδε ἱέμενοι ἄλλην ὁδόν ἄλλα κέλευθα
The examples so far show that the nuclei, the semantically more important constituents, may well keep their metrically restricted position. The gap between the nuclei, bridged by means of peripheral material, regularly extends the nuclei forwards or backwards to a position of frequent word end (metrical boundary). The “adding” that characterises Homeric style presents itself as adding of metrical phrases: nuclei (printed in capitals in the following translations) are extended to positions of frequent word end in order to constitute metrical phrases like cola and hemistichs before being added:
In these examples, the juxtaposition of metrical hemistichs results in juxtaposition of smaller scale syntactical units. Such adding of metrical phrases, I would argue, is paratactic in more than one sense: it is paratactic both metrically and syntactically. Metrically, positions of frequent word end (in this case: the third foot caesura) are observed; syntactically, the organisation does not imply any further hierarchical organisation.
Passages may be built using verses that are syntactical units:
[χαίρων οὕνεχ᾿ ἑταῖρον (5½) ἐνηέα λεῦσσ᾿ ἐν ἀγῶνι]
[καὶ τότε κουφότερον (5) μετεφώνεε Φαιήκεσσι]
If a passage consists of verses that are syntactical wholes, the verse end as position of demarcation is observed, and paratactic syntactical organisation aptly describes the juxtaposition of verses. In that case, however, metrical boundaries within the line no longer demarcate syntactical units that may be applied as syntactically paratactic additions. The single syntactical unit is then no longer equal in size to the shorter metrical colon or hemistich, but to the single hexameter. Extended nuclei constituting metrical phrases are themselves part of larger scale syntactical units. The larger unit still consists of metrical phrases: the continuing additions take the repetitive shape of dactylic hexameters.
As Bakker put it, grammar “emerges” from such adaptation.  When put side by side, the single words loose some of their autonomy: not all of it, as they still define their own role in the discourse,  and grammatical governance is not the standard.
The more metrical boundaries are being straddled within a syntactical unit, the stronger a sense of higher level syntactical organisation becomes. Straddling a metrical boundary within a syntactical unit means that the second part of the unit is not a paratactic addition: it may contain a semantically relevant constituent of the developing syntactical unit. As the extension of the nucleus to the metrical boundary led to a certain level of “grammatisation”, so the straddling of metrical boundaries leads to a larger scale grammatisation. On a larger scale, grammatisation may be equally due to straddling the verse end, the third foot caesura, or both:
νοῦσον ἀνὰ στρατὸν ὦρσε (5½) κακήν]
πλάγχθη] [ἐπεὶ Τροίης (5) ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσε]
Larger scale grammatisation is the process of extending the expression of thought, not by means of addition, but by means of semantic cohesion. Certain points of demarcation appear: not the metrical demarcation that easily allows for endless continuation through repetition, but semantic-syntactical contours that create a sense of completion, or expectation. I argue that there is reason to assume that the syntactical contours of the Homeric epic are not so much limited by metrical boundaries, but rather brought into being by a degree of selection of metrical boundaries.
ἂψ ἐθέλω ἀρέσαι δόμεναί τ᾿ ἀπερείσι᾿ ἄποινα
εἰ μὴ κτλ
Beginning with the subordinate clause and using a correlative can of course be combined. The resumption by means of the main clause is then more accurately marked:
τέως Ἀχαιοὶ μὲν μέγα κύδανον
Resumption, however, may be equally marked within the line:
τρὶς δὲ μεθῆκε βίης τὸ δὲ τέτρατον κτλ
I have rejected any “strength” of enjambement, and the possibility for emphasis due to metrical position, but I think it is safe to state that the grammatical organisation at the metrical boundary is not paratactic in these examples. The continuation over the metrical boundary is not a mere addition in the sense that ‘it could have been anything’, any new focus of consciousness. The continuation is prepared for, and it stands in a semantically hierarchichal relation to what preceded it. Even a continuation by means of another main clause, as in Iliad 21.177 τὸ δὲ τέτρατον, has a semantic function prepared for by a constituent in the preceding main clause:  without it, the usage of τρίς remains without proper meaning.
δάκρυσι τοῖον γὰρ 5 πόθεον μήστωρα φόβοιο
μήτηρ παρμέμβλωκεν ὁμῶς νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ
This phenomenon may of course be compared to the so-called dislocation of constituents, a characteristic of nonconfigurational language discussed above in 1.4. Many instances of “enjambment” can then be removed from the various categories, as they reflect a cognitive process:  an implicit constituent is merely made explicit through left- or right-dislocation.
ἱστάμεναι θαύμαζον ἐπὶ προθύροισιν ἑκάστη
Prosodically “isolated” nouns may thus function as “heralding” of the clause to come, or as an “afterthought” to the clause that has just been completed. From a semantic point of view, such labeling is not always in order: the prosodically isolated noun is often essential for the comprehension of the narrative. For example, as the isolated noun signals the shift to another grammatical subject:
ἄγριον ἐν στήθεσσι θέτο μεγαλήτορα θυμόν
It is not impossible, as it would not be in spoken discourse, to consider the isolated noun a heralding (or theme) of the clause to come, but the semantic shift has already been indicated by a conjunction (αὐτὰρ) whose domain stretches beyond the single noun  Ἀχιλλεὺς. The verse end is hence a grammatical transition within a larger scale syntactical whole. Punctuation in the translation is helpful to show the syntactical coherence between the conjunction and the clause, despite the “dislocated” noun:
ἄγριον ἐν στήθεσσι θέτο μεγαλήτορα θυμόν
As free-floating as the dislocated constituent seems to be, it is syntactically incorporated into a developing clause. The same is true for the “dislocated” discourse marker or sentential particle:
νῶι μαχησόμεθα Τρωσίν τε καὶ Ἕκτορι δίωι
δμωιὰς ἐν μεγάροισιν ἐμοῖς κτείνωμι γυναῖκας
The discourse markers and sentential particles are separated from their clauses by a metrical boundary, but the development of a syntactically coherent whole is not hindered by the verse end. Within the hexameter, metrical boundaries do not hinder syntactically cohesive extension of the clause either:
αἰεὶ δὴ μέλλοιμεν ἀγήρω τ᾿ ἀθανάτω τε
ἔσσεσθ᾿ οὔτε κεν αὐτὸς (5½) ἐνὶ πρώτοισι μαχοίμην
εἰσιδέειν οὐ γὰρ κεν (5½) ὑπέκφυγον αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον
Nor do verse-internal metrical boundaries necessarily create “dislocation” of other constituents:
σεῦ ἔσομαι τάχα γάρ σε (5½) κατακτανέουσιν Ἀχαιοὶ
Still, it is remarkable that so many discourse markers and sentential particles, often together with other constituents, are metrically “isolated”, as they constitute metrical phrases. As such, they do not comprise independent “units of meaning”. The metrical phrase contains constituents that can not be left out without rendering the clause incomprehensible.
ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι Διὸς δόμωι 8 οἳ δὲ ἰδόντες 12
πάντες ἀνήιξαν καὶ δεικανόωντο δέπασσιν
ὕψι περ ἐν νεφέεσσι καθημένω 8 ὥ τε καὶ ἄλλοις 12
ἀνδράσι τε κρατέουσι καὶ ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι
In this last example, Odyssey 16.263–265, the leap from an isolated metrical phrase that can be juxtaposed paratactically, to a semantically and syntactically integrated part is especially perceptible: just take out the underlined metrical phrases. Semantically, the integration is partly the result of the way the constituent is extended towards the nearest metrical boundary: the phrase comprises a sentential particle and another semantic nucleus, or a discourse marker and another semantic nucleus, or a constituent suggesting syntactical hierarchy and another semantic nucleus. In other words, the transitional constituent is tied to something more to follow or to be implicated: the chunk that is the metrical phrase is not in itself markedly autonomous or syntactically paratactic. The chunk is characterised as transitional: it both continues from what was already said (sometimes by contrast), and it needs further elaboration in subsequent syntactical development. The chunking of “transitional” constituents has an equivalent in linguistics: in the pragmatic approach, these constituents are not always considered as part of the clause proper, but as extra-clausal, if they hold functions like theme and tail. Their syntactical relation to the clause itself becomes apparent through prosodic characterisation.  On a larger scale, semantic hierarchy also nullifies the equation of “metrical parataxis” and syntactical parataxis.
1.7 Conclusion: Continuation as Progressive Tendency
[ back ] In the system of O’Neill, position 12 is rendered by X. X is supposed to indicate the metrical anceps element (syllaba anceps), allowing either a short (⏑) or a long syllable, due to metrical indifference as typical for line termination. The anceps is persistently given in Dee 2004. Alternatively, position 12 may be seen as a necessarily long element. Other aspects of prosody, like pitch, intonation, rhythm, and stress, are referred to using their specific terminology.