Abstract: IN A recent paper I suggested some criteria for identifying signs of oral composition in such shorter pieces of Greek hexameter poetry as the Homeric Hymns.' The basic premise in that paper was that the true sign of orality lay not in the repetition of "Homeric" formulae in a particular hexameter composition, but rather in the use of certain types of formular modification in accordance with set phrase and verse patterns.2 I further suggested that in the frequency of these modifications it might well be possible to recognize individual features of style in oral composition. The material which I examined was the common noun + epithet word groups in the four long Homeric Hymns to Demeter, Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite, and one passage each of comparable length from the Iliad and the Odyssey.3 The aim of this paper is to apply the same methods of formulaic analysis to the so-called "continuation" of the Odyssey, that is, 23. 297-24 end. Working from the premise of modification as a feature of oral style, I shall argue that the evidence from this section of the Odyssey demonstrates, within the limitations set by the choice of material, quite radical stylistic differences between this section and those of the Iliad and the Odyssey which were used as a control in the earlier paper. My view of the Iliad and the Odyssey has long been that of the oralist unitarian: that is, that one or at most two singers produced the two epics substantially as we have them. Thus it was never my aim in undertaking this investigation to adopt a separatist standpoint; I wished merely to put forward some additional evidence which might help those who were undecided about the place of this episode in the Odyssey to make their choice. The argument about the episode is sufficientlv well documented to render any review here of its history plethoric;4 suice to say that, after all the discussion, it is probably viewed with greater suspicion by more people than any other passage in the two epics. My methods of analysis were set out fully in the paper cited above, and I limit myself here to a brief summary. The main difference from the usual method is that instead of treating all the diction of a very limited portion of a poem-sometimes no more than 25 lines-I examine just one element

Abstract: Sicmmary.-41 undergraduates took a structured version of the group Rorschach. They were given the option of identifying themselves on the face sheet and requesting feedback from a professor of psychology or remaining anonymous and not getting feedback. In line with the experimental research relating orality and a tendency toward increased interaction with nurturing others, results showed that subjects who identified themselves and requested feedback had higher orality scores than those who remained anonymous. A more objective and versatile method of thematic scoring of Rorschach protocols was introduced; this focused on scoring words rather than usual response units. Throughout psychosexual development, the period where closeness to nurturing figures in the child's environment is most prominent is called the oral-dependent stage. Indeed, some maintain that even the basic pleasures of feeding during this stage derive from the more primary "oral" pleasures of cuddling and being close to the nurturing mother (Brody, 1956). Since the somatic aspects of psychosexual development serve as prototypes for the social and interpersonal aspects of development, psychoanalytic theory implies that the oral-dependent individual will engage in activities which enhance closeness with others, particularly if such closeness yields nurturance from the other source. There is a consistent pattern of evidence linking orality with interpersonal interest and interpersonal skill. For Peace Corps volunteers, persons who are obviously concerned with helping others, oral responses on the Rorschach correlate positively with the need to nurture others (Holt, 1966) and with measures of effective interpersonal behavior (Masling, Johnson, & Saturansk~, 1974). Blum and Miller ( 1952) reported that young children who made many nonpurposive mouth movements (an hypothesized measure of orality) were rated as more eager to be liked than those with fewer mouth movements. Subjects scoring high on orality have also been shown to engage in eye contact (Johnson, 1973) and physical contact (Juni, et aj., 1979) more than low scorers. Similarly, Holt ( 1966) reports that subjects giving many primaryprocess oral responses on the Rorschach were characterized as being open and non-defensive. Based on this pattern, it was hypothesized that orality would be positively related to the willingness to identify oneself on personality tests and requesting feedback from a figure in authority.