Homer’s Iliad: Book III Homer’s Iliad 9781501501784, 9781614517382

Citation preview

Homer’s Iliad The Basel Commentary

Homer’s Iliad The Basel Commentary

Editors Anton Bierl and Joachim Latacz Managing Editor Magdalene Stoevesandt General Editor of the English Edition S. Douglas Olson

Homer’s Iliad The Basel Commentary Edited by Anton Bierl and Joachim Latacz

Book III By Martha Krieter-Spiro

Translated by Benjamin W. Millis and Sara Strack and edited by S. Douglas Olson

The publication of Homer’s Iliad: The Basel Commentary has been made possible by the kind financial support from the following organizations: Stavros Niarchos Foundation Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft (FAG), Basel L. & Th. La Roche-Stiftung, Basel

ISBN 978-1-61451-738-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0178-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0181-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents Preface to the German Edition | VII Preface to the English Edition | IX Notes for the Reader (including list of abbreviations) | XI 24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) | 1 Overview of the Action in Book 3 | 9 Commentary | 11 Bibliographic Abbreviations | 167

Preface to the German Edition The commentary on Book 3 of the Iliad joins the volumes of the Basel Homer Commentary that have already been published, and was written in accord with the structure and aims set out in the preface to the commentary on Book 1. The commentary is designed to contribute to the understanding of one of the bestknown sections of the Iliad. The depiction of Paris and Helen and the account of the treaty ritual performed before the duel between Paris and Menelaos – the two men between whom Helen finds herself – as well as of the duel itself, have always fascinated audiences and readers and have found a particular resonance in scholarship. In order to enable all users to reach their own conclusions, the commentary outlines relevant questions and problems in as much detail as necessary, offers an assessment and provides further references to differing approaches in scholarship, including those that have been rejected. Issues already discussed in other volumes are generally referred to only briefly. This commentary would not have been completed without generous support provided by the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel, the Max GeldnerStiftung Basel and the Hamburger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur, as well as by the University of Basel. To all these institutions I owe a deep debt of gratitude. My participation in the Basel Homer Commentary project is due to my esteemed teachers Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz and Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl. Prof. Latacz has supported me since I began my studies and has repeatedly facilitated our collaboration. I greatly value his inspiring scholarship on the world of Homer, as well as his patience and unrelenting encouragement. Prof. Bierl has pointed me toward new, fascinating directions in scholarship and always shown a willingness to talk and an interest in this work, for which I am much obliged. My colleagues – Dr.  Marina Coray, Prof. Dr.  Robert Plath and particularly Dr.  Magdalene Stoevesandt and Dr.  Claude Brügger – deserve special mention. Their unwavering helpfulness, encouragement and patience have been an indispensable source of support. They saved me from many errors and facilitated the completion of this project during a personally challenging period. In addition, Claude Brügger repeatedly saw to technical aspects of the commentary, for which I express my heartfelt gratitude. Particular thanks are also due to Dr.  Rudolf Führer, Prof. Fritz Graf, Prof. Irene de Jong and lic. phil. Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, Prof. René Nünlist, Prof. Rolf A. Stucky, Prof. Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg, Prof. Rudolf Wachter and Prof. Martin L. West, all of whom provided expert advice on many passages. I would also like to acknowledge my obligation to the researchers at the Lexikon des früh-

VIII 

 Iliad 3

griechischen Epos (LfgrE) and to their director, Prof. Michael Meier-Brügger, who happily discussed a number of issues during a visit to Basel. I would like to warmly thank Alexandra Scharfenberger and Tamara Hofer for their diligent scrutiny of the draft for this commentary; lic. phil. Christoph Schneider of the Universitätsbibliothek Basel; and the team at the Zentralbibliothek Zürich, in particular Ms. L. Haller, who was of great assistance in acquiring relevant literature. The support provided by Dr. Elisabeth Schuhmann at Walter de Gruyter is here noted with gratitude. Finally, thanks are due my family – my parents, my children and in particular my husband, without whose selfless support I could not have written this commentary. To the latter, I am immensely indebted. My daughter Ursula discovered a fascination for Homer while in the hospital; may her enjoyment now be shared by others. Zurich, April 2009

Martha Krieter-Spiro

Preface to the English Edition This is a slightly revised version of my German commentary from 2009. Besides correcting some mistakes, I took into account literature that had appeared after the original publication. The English edition would not be possible without the generous support of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft (FAG) and the L. & Th. La Roche Stiftung as well as the publisher Walter de Gruyter, to whom I owe extraordinary gratitude. A great thanks is also due to Mr. Michiel Klein-Swormink and the two leaders of the Homer Commentary, Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl and Prof. Dr.  Latacz, who actively supported the translation project from the beginning. Of course, many thanks as well to our translation team, Prof. Dr.  Douglas Olson and Dr.  Benjamin Millis and Dr.  Sara Strack. Also my colleagues, Dr. Magdalene Stoevesandt and Dr. Katharina Wesselmann, as well as my husband have supported me greatly. My very sincere thanks to everyone who aided in translating this—sometimes quite unwieldy—text, with such patience and understanding for my concerns. Zurich, March 2015

Martha Krieter-Spiro

Notes for the Reader 1.

In the commentary, four levels of explanation are distinguished graphically (cf. COM 41): a) The most important explanations for users of all audiences are set in regular type. Knowledge of Greek is not required here; Greek words are given in transliteration (exception: lemmata from LfgrE, see COM 41 [1]). b) More detailed explanations of the Greek text are set in medium type. These sections correspond to a standard philological commentary. c) Specific information on particular sub-fields of Homeric scholarship is set in small type. d) The ‘elementary section’, designed to facilitate an initial approach to the text especially for school and university students, appears beneath a dividing line at the foot of the page. The elementary section discusses Homeric word forms in particular, as well as prosody and meter. It is based on the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’, to which reference is made with the abbreviation ‘R’. Particularly frequent phenomena (e.g. the lack of an augment) are not noted throughout but are instead recalled ca. every 50 verses. — Information relating to Homeric vocabulary is largely omitted; for this, the reader is referred to the specialized dictionaries of Cunliffe and Autenrieth/Kaegi. Complex issues are addressed in the elementary section as well as the main commentary: they are briefly summarized in the elementary section and discussed in greater detail in the main commentary. Such passages are marked in the elementary section with an arrow (↑). In contrast, references of the type ‘cf. 73n.’ in the elementary section refer to notes within the elementary section itself, never to the main commentary.

2.

The chapters of the Prolegomena volume are cited by the following abbreviations: CG/CH Cast of Characters of the Iliad: Gods/Human Beings COM Introduction: Commenting on Homer FOR Formularity and Orality G Grammar of Homeric Greek HT History of the Text M Homeric Meter (including prosody) MYC Homeric-Mycenaean Word Index NTHS New Trends in Homeric Scholarship

XII 

 Iliad 3

xxxP

Superscript ‘P’ following a term refers to the definitions of terms in ‘Homeric Poetics in Keywords’. Structure of the Iliad

STR In addition: R refers to the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’ in the present commentary (below, pp. 1  ff.). 3.

Textual criticism The commentary is based on the Teubner text of M.L. West. In some passages, the commentators favor decisions differing from that edition. In these cases, both versions of the lemma are provided; West’s text is shown first in square brackets, followed by the reading favored in the commentary.

4. English lemmata The English lemmata in the commentary are taken from the translation of R. Lattimore. In places where the commentators favor a different rendering, both versions of the lemma are provided; the rendering of Lattimore is shown first in square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary. 5.

Quotations of non-English secondary literature Quotations from secondary literature originally written in German, French or Italian are given in English translation; in such cases, the bibliographic reference is followed by the notation ‘transl.’. In the case of terms that are especially important or open to misinterpretation, the original is given in square brackets.

6.

Formulaic language On the model of ‘Ameis-Hentze(-Cauer)’, repeated verses and verse-halves are usually noted (on this, cf. COM 30). Other formulaic elements (verse beginning and verse end formulae in particular) are only highlighted to the extent necessary to convey an overall impression of the formulaic character of Homeric language.

7.

Type-scenesP For each type-scene, the commentary provides at the appropriate place an ‘ideal version’ by compiling a cumulative, numbered list of all characteristic elements of the scene that occur in the Iliad and/or Odyssey; the numbers of the elements actually realized in the passage in question are printed in bold. Each subsequent occurrence refers back to this primary treatment and uses numbering and bold print in accord with the same principle.

Notes for the Reader 

 XIII

8. Abbreviations (a) Bibliographic abbreviations Bibliographic abbreviations are listed below, pp. 167  ff. (b) Primary literature (on the editions used, see below p. 170.) Aesch. Aeschylus (Eum. = Eumenides, Suppl. = Supplices [Suppliants]) Aeth. Aethiopis (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius Aristoph. Aristophanes (Ran. = Ranae [Frogs]) Aristot. Aristotle (Aud. = de Audibilibus [On Things Heard], HA = Historia Animalium [History of Animals], Top. = Topica [Topics]) Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the content of the ‘Epic Cycle’) Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Dio Chrys. Dio Chrysostom (Or. = Oratio [Speech]) Eur. Euripides (Her. = Herakles) Eust. Eustathius Hdt. Herodotus Hes. Hesiod (Op. = Opera [Works and Days]; Th. = Theogony) ‘Hes.’ Works ascribed to Hesiod (Sc. = Scutum [Shield of Herakles]; fr. = fragment) h.Hom. A collective term for the Homeric Hymns  h.Ap., Individual Homeric Hymns: to Apollo,  h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter,  h.Merc., – to Mercury/Hermes and  h.Ven. – to Venus/Aphrodite Hyg. Hyginus (Fab. = Fabulae) Il. Iliad Il. parv. Ilias parva [Little Iliad] (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Il. Pers. Iliou Persis [Sack of Troy] (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Juv. Juvenal Od. Odyssey Paus. Pausanias Pind. Pindar (Nem. = ‘Nemean Odes’; Pyth. = ‘Pythian Odes’ [victory poems]) Plat. Plato (Phaedr. = Phaedrus) Procl. Proclus

XIV 

 Iliad 3

Quint. Smyrn. schol. schol. A (etc.) Soph. Strab. Theb. Verg.

Quintus Smyrnaeus scholion, scholia scholion in manuscript A (etc.) Sophocles (OC = Oedipus at Colonus) Strabo Thebaïs (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Vergil (Georg. = Georgics, Aen. = Aeneid)

(c) Other abbreviations (Commonly used abbreviations, as well as those listed under 2 above, are not included here.) * reconstructed form < developed from > developed into | marks verse beginning or end ↑ in the elementary section, refers to the relevant lemma in the main commentary † locus desperatus a/b after a verse number  indicates the 1st/2nd verse half a/b after a verse number  indicates additional verses listed solely in the app. crit. A 1, B 1 (etc.) indicate caesurae in the hexameter (cf. M 6) app. crit. apparatus criticus (West edition) fr. fragment (frr. = fragments) Gr. Greek IE Indo-European imper. imperative impf. imperfect inf. infinitive instr. instrumental ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts n. note¹

1 ‘77n.’ refers to the commentary on verse 77 in the present volume, whereas 1.162n. refers to the commentary on verse 162 in Book 1. – ‘In 19.126 (see ad loc.)’ and ‘cf. 24.229  ff. (see ad locc.)’ refer primarily to the relevant passages in the Homeric text, secondarily to one or more commentary entries relating to the relevant passages. (In the first example, the commentary entry can be found under 19.126–127, in the second, relevant information can be found under 24.229–234 and 24.229–231.)

Notes for the Reader 

PN sc. subjunc. s.v., s.vv. VB VE VH v.l. voc.

place name scilicet (i.e. ‘supply’ or ‘namely’) subjunctive sub voce, sub vocibus verse beginning verse end verse half varia lectio (i.e. ‘variant reading’) vocative

 XV

  

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) The following compilation of the characteristics of Homeric language emphasizes its deviations from Attic grammar. Linguistic notes are included only exceptionally (but can be found in the ‘Grammar of Homeric Greek’ [G] in the Prolegomena volume; references to the relevant paragraphs of that chapter are here shown in the right margin). R1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Homeric language is an artificial language, characterized by: meter (which can result in a variety of remodellings); the technique of oral poetry (frequently repeated content is rendered in formulae, often with metrically different variants); different dialects: Ionic is the basic dialect; interspersed are forms from other dialects, particularly Aeolic (so-called Aeolicisms) that often provide variants according to 1.1 and 1.2.

G 3 3 2

Phonology, meter, prosody R2

2.1 2.2

Sound change of ᾱ > η: In the Ionic dialect, old ᾱ has changed to η; in non-Attic Ionic (i.e. also in Homer), this occurs also after ε, ι, ρ (1.30: πάτρης). When ᾱ is nonetheless found in Homer, it is generally: ‘late’, i.e. it developed after the Ionic-Attic sound change (1.3: ψυχάς); or adopted from the Aeolic poetic tradition (1.1: θεά).

5–8

R3

39  f. Vowel shortening: Long vowels (esp. η) before another vowel (esp. ο/ω/α) in medial position are frequently shortened, although not consistently (e.g. gen. pl. βασιλήων rather than the metrically impossible four-syllable -έων; the related phenomenon of quantitative metathesis [lengthening of a short second vowel] does often not occur [e.g. gen. sing. βασιλῆος rather than -έως]).

R4

Digamma (ϝ): The Ionic dialect of Homer no longer used the phoneme /w/ (like Engl. will). The phoneme is, however, attested in Mycenaean, as well as in some dialects still in the alphabetic period (Mycenaean ko-wa /korwā/, Corinthian ϙόρϝα); in part deducible etymologically (e.g. Homeric κούρη – with compensatory lengthening after the disappearance of the digamma – in contrast to Attic κόρη).

4.1 4.2

19 27

2 

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

R5 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4 5.5

5.6 5.7

 Iliad 3

In addition, digamma can often be deduced in Homer on the basis of the meter; thus in the case of: hiatus (see R 5) without elision (1.7: Ἀτρεΐδης τε (ϝ)άναξ); hiatus without shortening of a long vowel at word end (1.321: τώ (ϝ)οι, cf. R 5.5); a single consonant ‘making position’ (1.70: ὃς (ϝ)είδη). Occasionally, digamma is no longer taken into account (1.21: υἱὸν ἑκηβόλον, originally ϝεκ-). Hiatus: The clash of a vocalic word end with a vocalic word beginning (hiatus ‘gaping’) is avoided through: elision: short vowels and -αι in endings of the middle voice are elided (1.14: στέμματ’ ἔχων; 1.117: βούλομ’ ἐγώ; 5.33: μάρνασθ’ ὁπποτέροισι), occasionally also -οι in μοι/σοι (1.170); hiatus that results from elision is left unchanged (1.2: ἄλγε’ ἔθηκεν); ny ephelkystikon (movable ny): only after a short vowel (ε and ι), esp. dat. pl. -σι(ν); 3rd sing. impf./aor./perf. -ε(ν); 3rd sing. and pl. -σι(ν); the modal particle κε(ν); the suffix -φι(ν), cf. R 11.4; the suffix -θε(ν), cf. R 15.1. ny ephelkystikon also provides metrically convenient variants; contraction across word boundaries (noted as crasis: τἄλλα, χἡμεῖς). – Hiatus is admissible predominantly in the case of: loss of digamma (cf. R 4.3); so-called correption: a long vowel/diphthong at word end is shortened (1.17: Ἀτρεΐδαι τε καὶ ἄλλοι ἐϋκνήμιδες; 1.15 [with synizesis: R 7]: χρυσέ͜ῳ ἀνὰ σκήπτρῳ); metrical caesura or more generally a semantic break; after words ending in -ι and ‘small words’ such as πρό and ὅ.

R6

Vocalic contraction (e.g. following the loss of intervocalic /w/ [digamma], /s/ or /j/) is frequently not carried out in Homeric Greek (1.74: κέλεαι [2nd sing. mid., instead of Attic -ῃ]; 1.103: μένεος [gen. sing., instead of -ους]).

R7

Synizesis: Occasionally, two vowels are to be read as a single syllable, especially in the case of quantitative metathesis (1.1: Πηληϊάδε͜ω: R 3) but also in the gen. pl. -έων (synizesis is indicated by a sublinear curved line connecting the affected vowels, 1.18: θε͜οί.).

22 21 24 26

30/ 37

33

31

34 35

36 37 43– 45

46

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

R8

Diectasis: Contracted forms (e.g. ὁρῶντες) may be ‘stretched’ (ὁρόωντες); the metrically necessary prosodic shape of older uncontracted forms (*ὁράοντες, ⏖–⏑) is thus artificially reconstructed. Similarly, the aor. inf. -εῖν is written -έειν (rather than the older *-έεν).

R9

Change in consonant quantity creates metrically convenient variants (which usually derive originally from different dialects: R 1.3):

9.1

τόσ(σ)ος, ποσ(σ)ί, Ὀδυσ(σ)εύς, ἔσ(σ)εσθαι, τελέσ(σ)αι; Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς; ὅπ(π)ως, etc. Variation at word beginning creates similar flexibility in π(τ)όλεμος, π(τ)όλις.

9.2

R 10

10.1 10.2

Adaptation to the meter: Three (or more) short syllables in a row, or a single short between two longs (both metrically impossible), are avoided by: metrical lengthening (ᾱ᾽θάνατος, δῑογενής, οὔρεα rather than ὄρεα; μένεα πνείοντες rather than πνέ-); changes in word formation (πολεμήϊος rather than πολέμιος; ἱππιοχαίτης rather than ἱππο-).

 3

48

17 18

49  f.

Morphology Homeric Greek declines in ways that sometimes vary from Attic forms or represent additional forms: R 11 11.1

11.2

11.3

Especially noteworthy in the case of nouns are: 1st declension: gen. pl. -ᾱ´ων (1.604: Μουσάων) and -έων (1.273: βουλέων); dat. pl. -ῃσι (2.788: θύρῃσι) and -ῃς (1.238: παλάμῃς); gen. sing. masc. -ᾱο (1.203: Ἀτρεΐδαο) and -εω (1.1: Πηληϊάδεω); 2nd declension: gen. sing. -οιο (1.19: Πριάμοιο); dat. pl. -οισι (1.179: ἑτάροισι); 3rd declension: gen. sing. of i-stems: -ιος (2.811: πόλιος) and -ηος (16.395: πόληος); gen./dat./acc. sing. of ēu-stems: -ῆος, -ῆϊ, -ῆα (1.1: Ἀχιλῆος; 1.9: βασιλῆϊ; 1.23: ἱερῆα);

68

69

70– 76

4 

11.4

R 12 12.1 12.2 12.3

12.4 12.5

 Iliad 3

dat. pl. -εσσι in the case of s-stems and other consonant stems (1.235: ὄρεσσι); gen./dat. sing./pl. in -φι (1.38: ἶφι; 4.452: ὄρεσφι); often metrically convenient variants (e.g. βίηφι beside βίῃ). Varying stem formation (and thus declension) appears in the following nouns among others: νηῦς: gen. sing. νηός, νεός, dat. νηΐ, acc. νῆα, νέα; nom. pl. νῆες, νέες, gen. νηῶν, νεῶν, dat. νηυσί, νήεσσι, νέεσσι, acc. νῆας, νέας. πολύς, πολύ (u-stem) and πολλός, πολλή, πολλόν (o/ā-stem) are both fully declined. υἱός: gen. sing. υἱέος, υἷος, dat. υἱέϊ, υἱεῖ, υἷϊ, acc. υἱόν, υἱέα, υἷα; nom. pl. υἱέες, υἱεῖς, υἷες, gen. υἱῶν, dat. υἱάσι, υἱοῖσι, acc. υἱέας, υἷας. Ἄρης: gen. Ἄρηος, Ἄρεος, dat. Ἄρηϊ, Ἄρεϊ, Ἄρῃ, acc. Ἄρηα, Ἄρην, voc. Ἆρες, Ἄρες. Similarly complex declensions occur in the case of γόνυ (gen. γούνατος beside γουνός, nom./acc. pl. γούνατα beside γοῦνα), δόρυ (δούρατος, -τι etc. beside δουρός, -ί etc.); Ζεύς (Διός, Διΐ, Δία beside Ζηνός, Ζηνί, Ζῆν/Ζῆνα).

R 13

Among other unusual comparative forms note: χερείων, χειρότερος, χερειότερος (beside χείρων); ἀρείων (beside ἀμείνων). Some comparatives and superlatives are formed from nouns, e.g. βασιλεύτερος, βασιλεύτατος.

R 14 14.1

Varying pronoun forms: Personal pronoun: 1st sing. gen. ἐμεῖο, ἐμέο, μεο, ἐμέθεν (very rare: μοι, e.g. 1.37) 2nd sing. gen. σεῖο, σέο, σεο, σέθεν; dat. τοι 3rd sing. gen. εἷο, ἕο, ἕθεν, ἑθεν; dat. οἷ, ἑοῖ, οἱ; acc. ἕ, ἑέ, ἑ, μιν 1st pl. nom. ἄμμες; gen. ἡμέων, ἡμείων; dat. ἧμιν, ἄμμι; acc. ἡμέας, ἄμμε 2nd pl. nom. ὔμμες; gen. ὑμέων, ὑμείων; dat. ὔμμι; acc. ὑμέας, ὔμμε 3rd pl. gen. σφείων, σφεων; dat. σφισι, σφι; acc. σφέας, σφε, σφεας, σφας 1st dual nom./acc. νώ, νῶϊ; gen./dat. νῶϊν 2nd dual nom./acc. σφώ, σφῶϊ; gen./dat. σφῶϊν 3rd dual nom./acc. σφωε; gen./dat. σφωϊν

66

77 57 53

53 53/ 77

79

81

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

14.2

14.3

14.4

14.5

R 15

15.1 15.2 15.3 R 16 16.1

16.2

16.3

 5

Interrogative/indefinite pronoun: gen. sing. τέο/τεο; dat. sing. τεῳ; gen. pl. τέων; correspondingly ὅττεο, ὅτεῳ etc. Anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (= ‘article’, cf. R 17): the same endings as nouns (R 11.1–2); nom. pl. masc./fem. often with an initial τ (τοί, ταί). Possessive pronoun: 1st pl. ᾱ῾μός 2nd sing./pl. τεός ῡ῾μός 3rd sing./pl. ἑός, ὅς σφός Relative pronoun: The anaphoric demonstrative pronoun frequently functions as a relative pronoun (14.3).

84

Adverbial forms straddle the border between morphology (cases) and word formation. They can form metrically convenient variants to the true cases: ‘genitive’: -θεν (whence?, see also R 14.1), e.g. κλισίηθεν (1.391); ‘dative’: -θι (where?), e.g. οἴκοθι (8.513); ‘accusative’: -δε (whither?), e.g. ἀγορήνδε (1.54).

66

For verbs, the following points deserve particular attention: Augment: frequently absent (which can lead to assimilation, e.g. ἔμβαλε rather than ἐνέβαλε, κάλλιπον rather than κατέλιπον, cf. R 20.1); used to fit the meter. Personal endings: 2nd sing. -σθα (1.554: ἐθέλῃσθα) 1st pl. mid. -μεσθα beside -μεθα (1.140: μεταφρασόμεσθα) 3rd pl. mid. (predominantly perf.) -ᾰται/-ᾰτο beside -νται/-ντο (1.239: εἰρύαται) 3rd pl. -ν (with preceding short vowel) beside -σαν (with corresponding long vowel), esp. aor. pass. -θεν beside -θησαν (1.57: ἤγερθεν) The difference from Attic forms frequently lies merely in the omission of contraction (cf. R 6) between verbal stem and ending. Subjunctive: frequently with a short vowel in the case of athematic stems (ἴομεν from εἶμι, εἴδομεν from οἶδα); formed like the fut. ind. in the case of σ-aorists (1.80: χώσεται). – In the 3rd

83

82

83

85

86/ 93

89

6 

 Iliad 3

16.4

16.5 16.6

sing. subjunc., the ending -ησι(ν) (1.408: ἐθέλησιν) is found beside -ῃ. Infinitive: Aeolic -μεν(αι) (predominantly athematic verbs) beside Ionic -ναι (e.g. ἔμ(μ)εν and ἔμ(μ)εναι beside εἶναι); Aeolic -ῆναι beside Ionic -εῖν (2.107: φορῆναι); thematic -έμεν(αι) (1.547: ἀκουέμεν; Od. 11.380: ἀκουέμεναι); thematic aor. -έειν (2.393: φυγέειν; 15.289: θανέειν). Forms with -σκ- stand for repeated action in the past (1.490: πωλέσκετο). Especially noteworthy as variant forms of εἰμί are: pres. ind.: 2nd sing. ἐσσι, 1st pl. εἰμεν, 3rd pl. ἔασι(ν); impf.: 1st sing. ἦα, 3rd sing. ἦεν and ἔην, 3rd pl. ἔσαν (cf. 16.1); fut.: 3rd sing. ἔσ(σ)εται; part.: ἐών, -όντος; for the inf., 16.4.

87

60 90

Syntax R 17

ὅ, ἥ, τό (on the declension, R 14.3) is rarely a ‘pure article’ and instead generally has an older anaphoric demonstrative function.

R 18 18.1

Number: The dual is relatively common; forms of the dual and the plural can be freely combined. The plural is sometimes used simply for metrical convenience (1.45: τόξα).

18.2

R 19 19.1

19.2

R 20 20.1

Use of the cases: Accusative of respect is especially common (among other instances in the so-called σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος: two accusatives indicate respectively the whole and the part of something, 1.362: τί δέ σε φρένας ἵκετο πένθος;). Indications of origin, place or direction sometimes occur with no preposition (1.359: ἀνέδυ … ἁλός; 1.45: τόξ᾿ ὤμοισιν ἔχων; 1.322: ἔρχεσθον κλισίην). Prepositions: show a greater diversity of forms: ἄν (= ἀνά; with apocope, frequently with assimilation: ἂμ πεδίον, 5.87; cf. R 16.1); ἐς (= εἰς); εἰν, ἐνί, εἰνί (= ἐν); κάτ (= κατά; see on ἀνά); πάρ, παραί (= παρά); προτί, ποτί (= πρός); ξύν (= σύν); ὑπαί (= ὑπό);

99

97

97

59

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

 7

20.2

are more independent in use and position (1) with regard to nouns (i.e. are used in a more adverbial manner), frequently also placed after them as ‘postpositions’ in so-called anastrophe (and thus often with an acute accent on the first syllable: e.g. ᾧ ἔπι, 1.162); (2) with regard to verbs (i.e. not necessarily connected to the relevant verb as a preverb, so-called tmesis: ἐπὶ μῦθον ἔτελλε, 1.25); this produces metrically convenient variants.

98

R 21 21.1

Use of the moods: The moods and the modal particle (κε/κεν = ἄν) follow rules that are less strict than those described in grammars of Attic Greek. The functions of the subjunctive and the future cannot always be sharply distinguished.

100

Characteristic Homeric conjunctions are: conditional: αἰ (= εἰ); temporal: εἷος/εἵως (= ἕως) ‘while’, ἦμος ‘when’, εὖτε ‘when’, ὄφρα ‘while, until’; causal: ὅ τι, ὅ; comparative: ἠΰτε ‘like’; final: ὄφρα.

101

R 23

Alternation of voice: In the case of some verbs, the act. and mid. forms are used as convenient metrical variants with no discernible difference in meaning, e.g. φάτο/ἔφη, ὀΐω/ὀΐομαι.

100

R 24

Particles are sometimes used in ways that differ from later usage: ἄρα, ἄρ, ῥα, ῥ’: signals or suggests that something is evident, roughly ‘therefore, naturally, as is well known’; probably often used mainly for metrical reasons (especially ῥ’ to avoid hiatus, cf. R 5). ἀτάρ, αὐτάρ (metrical variants, etymologically distinct but used interchangeably in Homer with no distinction in meaning): ‘but, still’; sometimes adversative (1.127: σὺ μὲν … αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοί), sometimes progressive (1.51: αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα), rarely apodotic (like δέ, see below). apodotic δέ: δέ can introduce a main clause (apodosis) after a preceding dependent clause (protasis) (e.g. 1.58). Occasionally ἀλλά (e.g. 1.82), αὐτάρ (e.g. 3.290, cf. 1.133) and καί (e.g. 1.494) are used apodotically as well.

101

21.2

R 22 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5

24.1

24.2

24.3

8 

24.4

24.5 24.6

24.7

24.8 24.9 24.10

24.11 24.12

24.13

 Iliad 3

ἦ: ‘really, actually’; almost exclusively in direct speech. – Weakened in the compounds ἤτοι (e.g. 1.68), ἠμὲν … ἠδέ ‘on the one hand … on the other hand’ and ἠδέ ‘and’. κε(ν): = ἄν (cf. R 21.1). μέν: used not only to introduce an antithesis (with a subsequent δέ) but also commonly in its original, purely emphatic sense (≈ μήν, μάν; e.g. 1.216). μήν, μάν: emphatic; when standing alone, almost always in negative sentences (e.g. 4.512) or with imperatives (e.g. 1.302); otherwise it strengthens other particles, esp. ἦ and καί (e.g. 2.370, 19.45). οὐδέ/μηδέ: these connectives can occur after affirmative clauses, not only after negative ones as in Attic. οὖν: almost always in conjunction with temporal ἐπεί or ὡς, ‘(when) therefore’ (e.g. 1.57). περ: stresses the preceding word; specifically concessive, esp. with participles (1.586: κηδομένη περ ‘although saddened’); intensive (1.260: ἀρείοσι ἠέ περ ὑμῖν ‘with even better men than you’); limitative-contrasting (1.353: τιμήν περ ‘at least honor’). ‘Epic τε’: occurs in generalizing statements (e.g. 1.86, 1.218), esp. common in the ‘as’ part of similes (e.g. 2.90). τοι: ethical dat. of the 2nd pers. personal pronoun fossilized as a particle (and often not clearly distinguishable from it); appeals to the special attention of the addressee, roughly ‘imagine, I tell you’. τοιγάρ: ‘so then’ (to be distinguished from τοι ≈ σοι; the initial element belongs to the demonstrative stem το-, cf. τώ ‘therefore’); in Homer, it always introduces the answer to a request (e.g. 1.76).

Overview of the Action in Book 3 1–120

1–14 15–75

76–120

121–244

121–160

161–244

245–312

The initiation of the duel between Paris and Menelaos The two opposing armies march toward one another; Paris then provokes the Greeks but withdraws again at the sight of Menelaos. As a result of Hektor’s reproaches, Paris proposes deciding the war over Helen via a duel with Menelaos. Hektor and Menelaos agree to this offer, and preparations for the accord begin. The two armies advance through the plain for attack. Paris, in front, attempts to provoke the best of the Greeks, but retreats before Menelaos. Hektor reproaches him for his failure to behave responsibly in regard to Troy, whereupon Paris defends his life style but also proposes a formal duel with Menelaos. Hektor and Menelaos agree to the offer. Menelaos asks that a treaty be concluded in the presence of Priam before the duel and that it be confirmed by a ritual oath. As a result, heralds are sent to Troy and into the Greek camp to make the necessary preparations. The viewing from the walls (‘Teichoscopia’) Summoned by Iris to watch the duel, Helen mounts to the top of the tower, where Priam sits with the Trojan elders. The king calls her to him and has her point out the Greek leaders (Agamemnon, Odysseus, Aias) in the plain below. Iris informs Helen of the imminent duel and induces her to mount the tower. The advisors of Priam who sit there speak of the uncanny attraction that emanates from her, but also wish she would return to Greece. Priam is informed by Helen about the Greek leaders Agamemnon, Odysseus and Aias, who are unknown to him. Antenor subsequently recalls the deep impression Odysseus made on him when the latter was an envoy to Troy. Helen searches in vain for her brothers. The treaty ritual Priam is summoned to the battlefield by the herald Idaios. He concludes the treaty with Agamemnon, then drives back to the city before the duel.

10 

 Iliad 3

313–382

The duel between Paris and Menelaos Although Menelaos prevails in the carefully prepared duel, Paris is saved by Aphrodite and transported to his bedchamber.

383–461

Aphrodite reunites Helen with Paris; Agamemnon proclaims Menelaos the victor Despite Helen’s resistance, Aphrodite leads her to Paris. Helen reproaches him but ultimately follows him to bed. On the battlefield, meanwhile, Agamemnon declares Menelaos victorious and demands that the conditions of the agreement be honored. Aphrodite approaches Helen in the shape of an old servantwoman and invites her to go to Paris. Helen initially refuses, but soon gives in to Aphrodite’s threats. In a speech, Helen reveals to Paris her complete contempt for and disappointment in him. He reacts without concern and voices his desire for Helen, whereupon she relents. Menelaos searches unsuccessfully for Paris on the battlefield. Agamemnon then announces Menelaos’ victory in the duel and, in accord with the treaty, demands that the Trojans return Helen and the stolen possessions to Menelaos and make the retribution payment.

383–420

421–447

448–461

Commentary After the quarrel with Agamemnon, Achilleus resentfully withdraws from battle. His mother Thetis asks Zeus to allow the Trojans to be victorious, so that Agamemnon can recognize how reliant he is on Achilleus (Book 1). Zeus accordingly makes the Greeks, and thus the Trojans as well, prepare again for battle (Book 2). After a great marshalling of troops, Book 3 begins with the deployment of the armies (1–14n.; first day of battle, see STR 21 fig. 1). The expected clash, however, takes place only in Book 4. Before that, an attempt to end the war intrudes: the duel between Paris and Menelaos, which not only produces a suspenseful retardationP but also, like the troop deployment in Book 2 (2.362–368n.), recalls the outbreak and beginning of hostilities (external analepsisP). The action takes place on two temporal levels: superficially in the 10th year of the war, but according to narrative logic at its beginning (STR 22; 33–35n., 39–57n., 67–75n., 121–244n., 373– 382n., 383–420n.; Latacz [1985] 1996, 127–130). The prelude to the duel (1–120), the famous teichoscopia (‘viewing from the walls’) (121–244n.), the completion of the agreement, and the actual duel and its conclusion (245–461) provide scope for the depiction of how the major participants react to the causes and consequences of Helen’s abduction (first Menelaos, then Hektor, Paris, Helen, Priam, Agamemnon, Aphrodite) and for the characterization of three Greek leaders important for the action to come: Agamemnon, Odysseus and Aias. 1–120 The two opposing armies march toward one another; Paris then provokes the Greeks but withdraws again at the sight of Menelaos. As a result of Hektor’s reproaches, Paris proposes deciding the war over Helen via a duel with Menelaos. Hektor and Menelaos agree to this offer, and preparations for the accord begin. 1–14 The two armies advance through the plain for attack. 1–14 After the introduction of the opposing sides in the catalogues, the view falls now for the first time on the two armies together. The images of the Greeks and the Trojans previously developed separately thus come together; the image of the Trojans (gathering/advance: 2.786–3.7) forms a unit that crosses the (post-Homeric; STR 21 n. 22) Book division. The narrator unfolds a panoramic scene by means of which he allows the listener to form an overall picture of the movements on the battlefield before the (individual) battles are described; the listener can then ‘locate’ the actions that follow within this picture (similarly e.g. 4.422–456, 13.330–344, 19.356–364; on this narrative technique generally, Latacz 1977, 78  f.). The audience is thus set in the role of the gods, who look down on the battle (14.153–156, 15.6–9, 16.644–646 etc.; on panoramic scenes in general, Scott 1974, 36–38; Richardson 1990, 119–123; de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 69  f.).

12 

 Iliad 3

In v. 15, the view narrows to Paris/Alexandros, Menelaos and Hektor, widening again in 77 (Hektor steps between the armies). – As often in descriptions of mass movements, the advance is illustrated by means of similes (cf. 2.86–94, 2.455– 473, 4.422–456, 13.789–801; on this, Scott and Richardson locc. cit.), here first on the acoustic (3–7: clamor), then on the visual level (10–14: mist, dust-cloud); on the combination of multiple similes in general, 2.144–149n. and 2.455–483n. 1 αὐτάρ: on the use of αὐτάρ to introduce a change of view (here as introduction to the panoramic scene, see above), Bonifazi 2008, 48–51. — κόσμηθεν: on κοσμέω as a military term, see 1.16n., 2.554n.; cf. 2.476. — ἅμ’ ἡγεμόνεσσιν: 4× Il., always after caesura B 2. — ἕκαστοι: ‘each group individually, if the totality to which ἕκαστος refers is composed of multiple groups’ (LfgrE s.v. 497.65  ff., transl.). Since the catalogue of Trojans precedes (2.816 to the end of Book 2), this can at first sight only mean ‘each individual division of the Trojans’ (Heubeck [1950] 1991, 455 with n. 10; Bergold 1977, 7–9). Within the collective account (see 1–14n.), however, the individual contingents of both armies are referred to, since there is a differentiation between Trojans and Greeks with μὲν … δ(έ) in what immediately follows (2–8; Faesi, AH, Willcock, LfgrE loc. cit.), just as in 2.125–126 (Τρῶες μὲν … | ἡμεῖς δ(ὲ) … Ἀχαιοί).  

2 the Trojans: the collective force opposing the Greeks (2.816n.). — with clamor and shouting: on the Trojans’ conspicuous lack of discipline, see 8–9n.; their premature battle-cry is a waste of energy (Krapp 1964, 72  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 88).   κλαγγῇ τ’ ἐνοπῇ τ(ε): synonym doubling (1.160n.). κλαγγή denotes a particularly intense inarticulate sound (1.46n.), as the repetition in the following verse shows (of the cries of birds, as in 2.463 [see ad loc.] and Od. 11.605; cf. also Il. 17.756). ἐνοπή: ‘Inarticulate shouting’ (LfgrE s.v.), esp. ‘battle-cry’ (on which, Krapp 1964, 68–76, with references). — ὄρνιθες ὥς: VE ≈ 2.764. Postpositive (and in this case accented) ὥς, as at 2.190, 2.764, 2.781 etc. On the prosody (lengthening of the syllable before ὥς), 2.190n.

3–7 Simple comparisonsP are often extended to (long) similesP (2.145n.); here the general expression ‘like birds’ is made more precise by the ‘specific image’ of flying cranes (AH, transl.). The crane simile is connected to 2.459–466 (Kirk on 3–5; Wille [1958] 2001, 39  f.; on bird similes in general, 2.459–466n.; on animal similes, HE s.v. Animals 56  f.). In both passages, the simile is probably applied primarily to the noise (Gr. klangḗ, here in 2, 3, 5). In addition, the cranes are here eager to attack, hinting at the aggressiveness of the Trojans (similarly, Johansson 2012, 74).

1 κόσμηθεν: on the ending, R 16.2; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἡγεμόνεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 2 ἴσαν: impf. of εἶμι; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ὄρνιθες ὥς: = ὡς ὄρνιθες; on the prosody, ↑.

Commentary 

 13

3 cranes: on cranes as migratory birds, and on the Troad and the river valleys of western Asia Minor as part of their migration route, see 2.460n.; Johansson 2012, 73. The flight of cranes produces a unique spectacle: the size of the birds, the triangular formation of their group flight and their characteristic call easily bring to mind an advancing army (Kraak 1940, 88–98). The noise produced by cranes is also stressed by Arist. Aud. 800b22  f. (Thompson [1895] 1936, 70; Arnott 2007 s.v. Geranos; both with further ancient sources).   ἠΰτε: ‘as’ (2.87n.). Since the ‘so’ part exceptionally comes first here (it is contained in v. 2), a resumption through ὥς vel sim. is unnecessary (Ruijgh 854). — περ: ‘just’: in epic similes only here and 6.146 (Ruijgh 854). — οὐρανόθι πρό: πρό with -θι instead of gen. (metrical variant) by analogy with ἠῶθι πρό 11.50, Od. 5.469, 6.36; likewise Ἰλιόθι πρό at Il. 8.561, 10.12, 13.349, Od. 8.581: Lejeune 1939, 202–209; Chantr. 1.245  f. The sense is ‘before the sky’, i.e. with the vault of the sky as background.

4 rains unceasing: ómbros (related to Lat. imber and ultimately to Gr. néphos) refers to the characteristically powerful, heavy rains in fall and winter (5.91, 13.139, Hes. Op. 415  f., 674, 676  f., ‘Hes.’ Sc. 478; cf. Kopp 1939, 294  f.; LfgrE s.v.).   ἐπεὶ οὖν: οὖν does not refer here to what precedes (Denniston 417), but as in 4.244 or 15.363 serves to direct attention to what follows: the situation described in v. 3 is now developed into an image (vv. 5–7) made more specific by the background (v. 4): Reynen 1957, 14  f. — ἀθέσφατον: ἀ-θέσ-φατος means ‘not contained within the boundaries of the divinely ordained’, i.e. ‘the norm’, thus ‘extraordinary, excessive, inestimable’ (LfgrE s.v.; DELG s.v. θέσφατος). In connection with ὄμβρος elsewhere only at 10.6; also with οἶνος (Od. 11.61), ὕμνος (Hes. Op. 662), νύξ (Od. 15.392): Fränkel 1924, 281  f.

5 the streaming Ocean: the encircling river that flows around the world and represents the ‘edge of the earth’ (1.423n.).   ταί γε: After the inserted temporal clause, the relative pronoun αἵ recurs as a demonstrative (cf. 6.426  f., 17.658/660, Od. 1.4; AH; Ruijgh 361). — ἐπ(ί): ‘to the waters of the Ocean’: ἐπί + gen. for direction with a verb of motion also in 5.700, 11.546, 23.374, Od. 3.171 (Chantr. 2.107). — Ὠκεανοῖο ῥοάων: an inflectible VE formulaP (gen. 2× Il., 1× Od.; dat. 1× ‘Hes.’).

6–7 Pygmaian men: Pygmaíoi properly means ‘fingerling’ (from pygmḗ ‘fist’; cf. ‘Tom Thumb’), i.e. ‘dwarves’ (AH; RE s.v. Pygmaioi 2064; Frisk; Kirk on

3 πέλει οὐρανόθι: on the correption, R 5.5. — πέλει: ‘normally is’. — οὐρανόθι πρό: = πρὸ οὐρανοῦ, ‘before the (vault of the) sky’ (↑); on the suffix -θι, R 15.2. 4 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 5 ταί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3, R 17; ↑). — Ὠκεανοῖο ῥοάων: on the declension, R 11.2, R 11.1.

14 

 Iliad 3

5–6; West 2007, 296, with IE parallels; less probable is the meaning favored in LfgrE, ‘a cubit long’, i.e. a derivation from pygmḗ ‘cubit’, a meaning first attested in the 4th cent.). Here placed by the narrator at the southern edges of the world (5n.; the cranes escape the cold of the winter: Faesi; Hennig 1932, 20); on their later localizations, West 1985, 131, on ‘Hes.’ fr. 150.9 M.-W.; Hecataeus FGrHist 1 F 328; Arist. HA 597a6–9; RE loc. cit. 2065; Dasen 1993, 176. The myth may have been based on real knowledge of indigenous groups of short stature (contacted in central Africa in the mid-19th cent. and called Pygmies after the Greek term for dwarves: Janni 1978, 116  f.; Cavalli-Sforza 1986), which perhaps reached the Greeks via Egyptian informants (knowledge of Egypt being attested by passages such as Od. 3.299  f., 14.263: Morris 1997, 613  ff.; HE s.v. Egypt 239–241): Hennig 1932; Muellner 1990, 100. But legends of dwarves are in any case universal (Janni loc. cit. 129–135; Dasen loc. cit. 179; Hansen 2002, 45–49; on the IE area, West 2007, 295–297). The battle of the pygmies against the cranes, here arguably taken to be well-known, is later frequently depicted in images (e.g. on the François Vase; see LIMC s.v.). On the origin of the motif, Kraak 1940, 91  f.; Willcock (noise perceived as aggressive; 3n.); Hecataeus FGrHist 1 F 328b; RE loc. cit. 2067; Dasen loc. cit. 180  ff. (farmers’ fear for their crops); Kirk loc. cit. (originally an Egyptian folk-tale); on stories of battle between humans and birds in general, LfgrE s.v. γέρανος; Janni loc. cit. 129–136; Wölke 1983, 97; differently Muellner 1990: connection to the Delian ‘cranedance’. On mythological allusions in similes generally, 2.781–783n. — bloodshed and destruction | … baleful [battle] attack: Judgemental terms are rare in narrator-text and normally indicate the perspective of individual charactersP: the attack is ‘baleful’ and a mortal threat to the Achaians (Pygmies; de Jong [1987] 2004, 126  f.). The term érida – properly ‘quarrel, argument’, here ‘attack’ – is transferred from the human world to that of animals (on such ‘imagery interactions’, Silk 1974, 138–149; de Jong on Od. 2.143–207, end). 6 2nd VH ≈ 2.352, 24.82, Od. 4.273, 8.513. — ἀνδράσι Πυγμαίοισι: on the combination of ἀνήρ and an ethnic, LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 863.13  ff.; on the combination with other specific terms, 2.474n. — φόνον καὶ κῆρα: a formulaic synonym doubling (2.352n.); in narrator-text only here; otherwise 6× in direct and 1× in indirect speech (character languageP); on IE parallels for the periphrasis φόνον φέρω, Watkins 1995, 488–492.   7 ἠέριαι: sometimes connected by the rhapsodes with ἦρι ‘early’, sometimes with ἀήρ ‘air’ (1.497n.); here more likely ‘from the air’, as Vergil understood it (Georg. 1.375: aëriae fugere grues) and as suggested by the motif ‘aggressive birds’ (6–7n.). — κακὴν ἔριδα: on ἔρις and its overwhelmingly negative epithets (aside from κακός – here and 11.529,

6 Πυγμαίοισι: on the declension, R 11.2.

Commentary 

 15

Od. 3.161 – e.g. θυμοβόρος, ἀργαλέος, κρατερός), see Trümpy 1950, 139  f.; Gruber 1963; LfgrE s.v.; Mureddu 1983, 62  f. — ἔριδα προφέρονται: literally ‘they carry the quarrel in front of themselves’, i.e. ‘they mount an attack’, ‘they start a quarrel’ (AH). At VE also at Od. 6.92; after caesura B 1, Od. 8.210; cf. also Il. 11.529 κακὴν ἔριδα προβαλόντες.

8–9 The quiet discipline, concentration and focussed energy (8n.) of the Greeks, like their determined solidarity (9n.), stand in clear contrast with the clamorous advance of the Trojans, which is thus viewed as undisciplined (2n.). This ‘contrasting description of the behavior of the Achaians and the Trojans immediately before the beginning of battle can be seen as programmatic’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 88, transl.; similarly, Wille [1958] 2001, 49; on the contrast in detail, Albracht [1886] 2005, 51  f.; Krapp 1964, 267; Hall 1989, 30; van Wees 1996, 59; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 84–88). The contrast between the groups (again thematic in 4.422–438 and 17.361–365) has a counterpart in the divergent behavior of the opponents Paris and Menelaos in the scene that follows: while Paris rashly lashes out at his opponent with provocative gestures, Menelaos reacts with grim determination, whereupon Paris immediately retreats (vv. 15–37; Griffin 1980, 4  f.). 8 οἳ δ(ὲ) … Ἀχαιοί: Ἀχαιοί is in apposition to the prospective demonstrative οἵ (1.11n.; cf. G 99 and R 17). — σιγῇ μένεα πνείοντες: σιγή occurs in Homer only in the adverbial dat. sing. (cf. DELG s.v. σῖγα). Semantic range: ‘quiet, silent’ (a behavior seen by others; here and 134, 4.431, Hes. Op. 104), ‘silent’ (of a group that is listening, 19.255), ‘softly’ (7.195), ‘secretly’ (3.420, Od. 4.776 etc.), ‘without a word, without answer’ (Od. 15.391, 15.440 etc.); σιωπῇ, on the other hand, means ‘remaining silent by request’ (17× Il., 11× Od.; e.g. 95 [see ad loc.], 4.412, 7.427; cf. 2.280n.): Pinault 1994, 504–517. Here σιγῇ stands in contrast to ἐνοπῇ (2) and κλαγγῇ (2, 5, as well as κλαγγή v. 3): the silence of the Greeks suggests focussed energy, only their breathing being audible (μένεα πνείοντες ‘breathing aggression, exhaling courage’: 2.536n.).  

9 stubbornly minded each in his heart to stand by the others: The Achaians’ cohesiveness is also stressed elsewhere (2.362–368n., 13.237); it proves itself e.g. in the battle for Patroklos’ body (17.352–365). On this, van Wees 1996, 59; 1997, 685; 2000, 143  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 102  f., 295  ff.; on the military significance of solidarity in the context of a phalanx formation (on which, 77n.), Latacz 1977, 193  f., 235 etc.; on the attitude behind this (aidṓs, ‘regard, respect’), cf. the appeals in 5.529–532 ≈ 15.561–564 etc. to fight as a group out of mutual respect (Benardete 1963, 10  f.; on the meaning of aidṓs generally, 1.23n.).  

8 μένεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — πνείοντες: on the metrical lengthening, R 10.1. 9 μεμαῶτες: part. from μέμονα ‘strive, have the urge’. — ἀλεξέμεν: on the form, R 16.4.

16 

 Iliad 3

ἐν θυμῷ: ‘inwardly’ (AH), emphasized at VB: here not mere filler (as otherwise frequently: 1.24n.), but precisely of the Achaians’ concentration (cf. Jahn 1987, 225–246); often with verbs of wishing (esp. with ἐθέλω), also with μέμονα at 5.135, 7.2  f., 13.337  f., 15.298  f. (LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1088.12  ff.). — μεμαῶτες: The -ω- is the result of metrical lengthening by analogy with μεμαώς (G 95). μέμονα denotes an energetic, aggressive urge (2.473n.); also with ἀλέξω at 1.590, 5.779, 13.475. — ἀλεξέμεν: ‘to keep something away from someone, protect someone’, frequently with dat. (e.g. 5.779), also with ἀλλήλοις at 17.365: ‘defend one another’ (LfgrE s.v. ἀλέξω).

10 the south wind (Gr. Nótos): a rain-bearing wind; here it brings fog, elsewhere storms (2.395n.).  εὖτ(ε): comparative only here and 19.386, ‘like’ (probably by analogy with ἠΰτε), elsewhere temporal, ‘(as soon) as’ (6.392  f., 6.515  f., Od. 20.73); see schol. A; Schw. 2.660  f.; with details, Monteil 1963, 286–290 (originally meaning ‘how’); West 2001, 23 (also for the transmission). — ὄρεος κορυφῇσι: a fixed expression; also between caesurae A 1 and B 2 in 16.757, 16.824, at VE 5.554; variant οὔρεος ἐν κορυφῇς 2.456 (see ad loc.). — κατέχευεν: ‘pour down’. ἔχε(υ)α is root aor. of *χέ(ϝ)ω (G 63; Frisk s.v. χέω; Rix [1976] 1992, 207, 214; Hettrich 1976; on the digamma, Chantr. 1.159; Rix loc. cit. 62); the same form at 270, 4.269, 14.436, 19.222. So-called gnomic aorist (2.480n. on its possible function in similes).

11 shepherd: Shepherds are a traditional element of numerous similes. They are usually represented in their isolated commitment to the herd in the case of inclement weather (here fog, which makes work easier for clever thieves [see below], elsewhere a storm: 4.275–279, cf. 8.555–559) or in battle against wild animals (17.61–67, 18.161  f.): Lee 1964, 71; Kirk on 3.10–14; on 4.275–279 and 8.555–559, Latacz 1966, 148; on the loneliness in the mountains, Elliger 1975, 89. — better than night: At night livestock are penned in, during the day they scatter (schol. D ad loc., followed by Fränkel 1921, 23 n. 3). On the theft of livestock as a frequent epic motif, 1.154–157n. [ἀμείνων] ἀμείνω: as an epithet, parallel to φίλην; on the contracted acc. form (< ἀμείνονα) as at 9.423, see G 45; Chantr. 1.255. The v.l. ἀμείνων (sc. ἐστί: nominal clause with ὀμίχλη to be thought of as the subject) favored only by van Leeuwen (ad loc.) and West does have a syntactic parallel in a reading in 4.400, but is poorly attested and makes a parallelism with φίλην impossible. On the syntax in both traditions, Ruijgh 693.

10 εὖτ(ε): ‘like’ (↑). — ὄρεος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — κορυφῇσι: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2); on the declension, R 11.1. 11 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 17

12 only so far as a stone cast: typical comparison for a linear measurement (distance of a throw also at 16.589–592, 23.431–433; distance of a shout, Od. 5.400 = 6.294, 9.473, 12.181; distance of sight, Il. 5.770; a visual estimate of length, Od. 9.322; further cf. Il. 8.16, 10.351  f., 24.317–319): Monteil 1963, 208  f.; LfgrE s.v. ὅσ(σ)ος, ὅσ(σ)ον 837  ff.60  ff., 838.7  ff., 64  ff.; Kirk on 5.770–2. τόσσον … ἐπιλεύσσει: λεύσσω is here ‘to have in the field of vision’, thus ‘the sight reaches only so far’ (LfgrE); Führer/Schmidt 2001, 24 with n. 142, argue for writing ἔπι λεύσσει separatim. — τίς τ(ε): ‘one’, as at 33 etc.; τ(ε) corresponds to Lat. -que in quisque (for further parallels from IE languages and bibliography, see West on Hes. Op. 21). V. 12 thus forms a parenthetic remark before the ‘so’ part. Alternatively, the τ(ε) coordinates κατέχευεν (10) and ἐπιλεύσσει (12), the two predicates of the clause introduced by εὖτ(ε), as at 4.143, 4.279, 11.88  f., likewise in similes (Ruijgh 834; cf. Denniston 533). λᾶαν: on the form, Waanders 1999; ChronEG 8.124  f. (IE *leh2s-os or the loan-word *lāh > thematic forms *λᾶhος, *λᾶhον > λᾶς, λᾶν > with diectasis λᾶας, λᾶαν; athematic forms like λάεσσι in v. 80 are inherited or an Aeolic innovation after contraction); differently, Chantr. 1.211; cf. Risch 87; G 55.

13 1st VH = 2.784. — κονίσαλος: ‘dustcloud’ (on the word formation, Risch 186; Frisk and DELG s.v. κόνις). Dust accompanying (mass) movement (e.g. also at 5.503, 16.374  f.; see 2.150n.; Kurz 1966, 155) reveals the force and dynamism of the event. — †ἀελλής†: hapaxP of uncertain meaning: related to ἀολλής ‘all together, en masse’ (AH; Risch 83; DELG s.v. ἁλής; LfgrE s.v. ἀελλής) or ἄελλα ‘storm wind, whirlwind’ (various ancient sources, see West 2001, 184  f.)? ‘Like a whirlwind’ vel sim. fits a dustcloud better (West ibid. with discussion of other readings and interpretations). 14 = 2.785; ≈ 23.364. — ἐρχομένων: in progressive enjambmentP here, 2.785 and 13.343 (LfgrE s.v. ἔρχομαι 726.42; Clark 1997, 68), at the end of the entire overview, re-emphasizing the main theme, the unified advance of both armies (Kurz 1966, 154). The opinion occasionally expressed that 10–14 refer only to the Greeks (Krischer 1971, 44  f.; Edwards, Introd. 39; Danek 2006a, 49–54) is contradicted by the fact that οἵ in 15 picks up τῶν in 13 (cf. AH on 13). — διέπρησσον πεδίοιο: ‘they crossed a portion of the plain’ (2.785n.; ibid. for bibliography on the partitive gen.).

15–75 Paris, in front, attempts to provoke the best of the Greeks, but retreats before Menelaos. Hektor reproaches him for his failure to behave responsibly in regard to Troy, whereupon Paris defends his life style but also proposes a formal duel with Menelaos.

12 τόσσον: on -σσ-, R 9.1. — τε (after ὅσον): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ὅσον … ἐπί: = ἐφ’ ὅσον (R 20.2). — λᾶαν: acc. sing. of λᾶας ‘stone’ (↑). 13 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3); the individual Greek and Trojan fighters are meant. — ποσσί: on -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὤρνυτ(ο): impf. mid. of ὄρνυμι. 14 διέπρησσον: = διέπραττον; on the form (-η- instead of -α-), R 2.

18 

 Iliad 3

15–37 In accord with epic depiction, each army is drawn up into a phalanx-like formation after advancing, and forms a front. An initial phase of indecisive fighting (hurling of missiles and close combat) follows, until one front is broken, at which point the flight of that army, and pursuit of it by its opponents, follows as a second phase. The narrator portrays both phases of battle sometimes as comprehensive depictions of mass fighting in a few overview verses, sometimes as detailed descriptions of individual combat; in accord with the requirements of the genre ‘heroic epic’, in the latter case the actions of fighters seeking fame serve as examples for the particular course of battle or depict its turning-points (Latacz 1977 passim, esp. 75  ff.; van Wees 1997, 673–687; somewhat differently, Hellmann 2000, esp. 91–150; on this, Stoevesandt 2004, 48– 51 nn. 187, 189, 194, 198). Duels, ‘confrontations between individual fighters described in detail’ (Stoevesandt loc. cit. 97, transl.), belong to the latter category. E.g.: 11.248–263 (Agamemnon-Koön), 14.402–439 (Hektor-Aias), 16.426–507 (Sarpedon-Patroklos), 20.158–340 (Achilleus-Aineias), 21.139–182 (AchilleusAsteropaios): Stoevesandt loc. cit. 168–172. On duels in general, Latacz loc. cit. 77, 133–139; Létoublon 1983; Hellmann loc. cit. 122–133; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 100, 111–234 passim. In contrast to formal duels (67–75n.), these take place not before idle spectators but in the midst of the tumult of battle (6.120n.). In almost all duels described in detail, the Achaian is victorious (Fenik 1968, 11; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 168–171; on its typical elements, 340–382n.). The defeat of the Trojan Paris by the Greek Menelaos in Book 3 is thus paradigmatic for later clashes (Louden 2006, 54). – Here a duel is imminent after the drawing up of the two armies (16–17n.), but is broken off before blows are struck. Duels are merely initiated or broken off also at e.g. 6.119–236 (Glaukos-Diomedes: see n.), 20.438–446 (Hektor-Achilleus), 21.590–598 (Achilleus-Agenor). They allow the narrator to illustrate the relative strengths of two opponents, neither of whom ought to die at this point according to the overall plan of the work (Stoevesandt loc. cit. 172). 15 = 5.14, 22.248 etc. (in total 10× Il.); ≈ 23.816; 1st VH ≈ Od. 10.156. The formulaic verse elsewhere in the Iliad always introduces a duel. After the approach, a provocative speech or the immediate throw of a lance follows. Here, however, the verse refers to the closing in of the armies as groups (the expected collision occurs only at 4.446): AH. Perhaps the formulaic verse was chosen because of the imminent duel of Menelaos and Paris (West 2011, 128); on the use of formulaic verses in general, cf. also 1.333n.

15 ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοισιν ἰόντες: R 20.2 (↑), ‘attacking’.

Commentary 

 19

ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοισιν ἰόντες: = ἀλλήλοισιν ἐπιόντες (with dat., as at 13.482, 17.741: LfgrE s.v. εἶμι 467.69  f.).

16–17 leapt … | as challenger: He attempts to behave as a prómachos, literally ‘fighter at the front’, i.e. a fighter in the first row of the phalanx formation (31; 4.253, 4.495, etc.; in total 38× Il.: LfgrE). After the formation of a front, during the massed missile fighting the prómachoi leap out from the formation, cast their spears and withdraw again. The aim is to break the opposing front; likewise 4.457–5.38a (Latacz 1977, 131–140). A successful fighter in the first row of a phalanx formation must have exceptional physical and mental qualities; the comparatively great risks need to be weighed carefully on every occasion (assessment of the battle situation: 20.337–339, 22.458  f. with de Jong ad loc.). The narrator accordingly describes by preference the fighting of the men whose performance has proven them best; duels between a pair of opponents who leap out in front are thus frequently described (Latacz loc. cit. 135  f., 143–170; van Wees 1997, 676–680, 687–689; somewhat differently, Hellmann 2000, 157–159; an overview of the scholarship at HE s.v. Warfare 929  f.). IE parallels for the equation of the best with those fighting in front at West 2007, 458  f. 16 Τρωσίν: dat. of advantage or merely locative (‘among the Trojans’; also elsewhere in pl. terms for persons, e.g. 2.483 [see ad loc.], 6.477, 22.119, Od. 1.71; Schw. 2.155). — προμάχιζεν: προμαχίζειν, like προμάχεσθαι, means ‘to fight in a forward position’ (Latacz 1977, 145; προ- explained by προπάροιθεν ὁμίλου 22; on the formation of the word, Risch 299); likewise 20.376. — Ἀλέξανδρος: CH 8. The names Ἀλέξανδρος (45× Il., including 22× in Book 3) and Πάρις (11× Il., including 3× in Book 3) are used with no discernible difference in meaning as easy metrical variants (Kirk; differently de Jong 1987, but cf. Lloyd 1989). Both names must have been fixed in the tradition. Perhaps the origin of the double name has to do with bilingualism, or at least cultural influence from Greece, in Troy during the Hittite period (Watkins 1998, 207  f.): while ‘Paris’ is of nonGreek origin (perhaps Luwian: Watkins [1986] 1994, 712), ‘Alexandros’ probably depicts a true Greek name that is the basis for the name Alaksandu attested in Hittite texts (Kirk; BNP s.v. Luvian, end; Latacz [2001] 2004, 117  f.; West 2004a, XVIII; whether any connection exists between Alaksandu and the mythical Paris/Alexandros is debatable: West loc. cit.; HE s.v. Alexandros). — θεοειδής: a generic epithetP (‘god-like’), especially frequent in combination with names of Trojans (2.565n.). With Ἀλέξανδρος/-ον, an inflectible VE formula (12× Il., including 6× in Book 3). The frequent repetition confers on the epithet the character of a leitmotif: Paris’/Alexandros’ beauty, also emphasized at 39, 44  f., 54  f., 392, stands in contrast to his lack of fighting spirit, which his rival Menelaos, characterized by ἀρηΐφιλος (21n.), shows (LfgrE s.v. θεοειδής; Stanley 1993, 62).

16 μέν: corresponds with δ(έ) in v. 21.

20 

 Iliad 3

17 παρδαλέην: sc. δορήν or ῥινόν (ellipsis of the substantive: K.-G. 1.265  ff.), ‘leopard skin, panther skin’ (LSJ s.v.; on the formation of the word, Risch 132; on the ancient equation of leopards and panthers, LfgrE s.v. πάρδαλις). A symbol of marginality: the speckled (10.30: ποικίλῃ) skin of the leopard (1) underscores Paris’ striking appearance, his soft, almost feminine beauty (Reinhardt 1961, 247; Griffin 1980, 5; cf. h.Ven. 69–72: a panther in Aphrodite’s retinue; on the cliché of the soft Oriental 54–55n.); (2) likely points to the fact that mentally Paris has not yet completely matured into an adult fighter (Pindar Pyth. 4.77  ff. draws on this passage for his depiction of Jason as an ephebe: Segal 1986, 58; Vidal-Naquet 1989, 393; on the theme of initiation in Homeric epic generally, see Bremmer 1978; Graf 1991, 358–360; the same cluster of images is also used later for the frequent depiction of Dionysos as an ephebe and for his followers: BNP s.v. Dionysus); (3) completes Paris’ appearance as an archer, an ambivalent role (see 18n.); animal skins serve in general as mantles and shields for archers (AH, Anh. ad loc.; Leaf; Stella 1978, 215 with n. 13; Edwards 1987, 72; LfgrE loc. cit. with further examples of wearing animal skins). The panther skin is therefore inappropriate for the duel and must be exchanged for armor afterward (333n.). — καμπύλα: ‘bent, bowed’, 10× in early epic as an epithetP of τόξα (synonyms are ἀγκύλος and γναμπτός; LfgrE s.v. καμπύλος). 18–20 Repeatedly suspected since antiquity as an interpolation (schol. A on 18; schol. T on 19–20; Kirk on 17–20; West in the text [cf. app. crit.] and 2001, 12), primarily because Paris’ equipment and dress do not suit a prómachos (16– 17n.; schol. T loc. cit.; Kirk loc. cit.; Bergold 1977, 22  f.). Archers are attested, however, at the front (13.576–600: Helenos is armed with bow and sword; cf. also 13.159, 13.650 Meriones’ fight with spear and bow; see Stoevesandt 2004, 178 n. 548). On a Geometric vase on which a warrior with shield, two spears, sword and bow is depicted, Hijmans 1976, 346. The odd equipment also underscores the exceptional situation: Paris, in an ambivalent role in any case as a typical archer, appears as a prómachos without armor (17n.) but with sword and spears, which are needed for a duel (Barth 1984, 88  f.). 18 2nd VH = 11.43, Od. 22.125. — bow: Paris is traditionally known as an archer and kills or wounds with his arrows repeatedly in the Iliad (8.80–84, 11.369–395, 11.504–507, 11.581–585, 13.660–672; on the iconography with examples from later periods: LIMC s.v. Alexandros 513; other archers in the Iliad: Pandaros

17 παρδαλέην: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ὤμοισιν: locative without prep. (R 19.2). — τόξα: on the pl., R 18.2. 18 αὐτάρ: ‘and’ (progressive: R 24.2). — δοῦρε: acc. dual (beside the pl. κεκορυθμένα: R 18.1); on the form, R 4.2, R 12.5. — δύω: = δύο.

Commentary 

 21

[CH 11], Teukros [CH 4]: 2.774–775a n.). With Apollo’s help, he will kill Achilleus according to a prophecy made by the dying Hektor (22.358–360); because of this, his most important act, Paris is perhaps deliberately introduced here as an archer (Krischer 1998, 86). In Geometric art, archers are depicted as independent, successful fighters, acting from the front; from the 7th cent. on, they take a secondary position, crouching under cover behind the heavily armed men. This probably corresponds to the historical development toward close combat and a compact front line. The Iliad reflects both phases: on the one hand, the fighting of archers as prómachoi at the front (here, 13.576–600 and probably also 5.59–106); on the other, fighting from cover (4.112  f., 11.371, 11.379, 11.386  f.), with a corresponding decline in status (5.204–216, 11.385–395): Mackie 1996, 50; van Wees 1997, 689; 2000, 154; Raaflaub 2011, 17 considers influence from the east regarding the motif of archers. On archers in Homer and in Geometric art in general, Hijmans 1976; Krischer 1998 (also on the Odyssey); Farron 2003; Buchholz 2010, 234–297; on the fact that in the Iliad Trojans fight as archers more frequently than Greeks do, and achieve greater success with the bow, Farron loc. cit. 177–181; Stoevesandt 2004, 114–117, 339  f.; with reference to both epics, Mackie 2008, 91–152. — sword: on the archaeological evidence, Foltiny 1980, 269  ff. (various sword types since the Mycenaean period). — two javelins: Pole weapons – long thrusting lances used mainly for close combat and shorter javelins used in particular for fighting at a distance – are the most important offensive weapons in Homeric epic. Arrows, sling-stones, swords and battle-axes are mentioned less frequently (cf. 80n.). The terms for lance or spear, Gr. énchos and dóry, are largely synonymous in Homer (cf. 2.692n.; Höckmann 1980; Franz 2002, 64–67). Here a pair of light throwing spears is in question; the second serves as a replacement (two spears also at 11.43, 12.298, 21.145, Od. 12.228): Höckmann loc. cit. 313; Buchholz et al. 1973, 82  f.; 2010, 116  f., also on pictorial representations. δοῦρε δύω: on the metrical system of the noun-epithet formulae for pole weapons generally, see Page 1959, 238  ff, 273  ff.; Paraskevaides 1984, 22–27. On the logically superfluous δύω with the dual, see 1.16n. — κεκορυθμένα χαλκῷ: κορύσσω is the denominative verb of κορυθ- ‘helmet’; exceptionally, the dental is retained before -μ- (elsewhere an analogical σ, e.g. in λελασμένος 16.538, πέπυσμαι Od. 11.505): Schw. 1.773; Risch 343. In the VE formula here, as in 11.43, Od. 22.125, κεκορυθμένα χαλκῷ means ‘helmeted with bronze’, i.e. equipped with a bronze head (Trümpy 1950, 48; LfgrE s.v. κορύσσω; on the material for spearheads, Höckmann loc. cit. 315; for that of weapons generally, 6.3n.).

19 2nd VH = 7.150; ≈ 7.285. — the Argives: here (as normally) used as the collective term for the besiegers of Troy; a convenient metrical variant for ‘Achaians’ and ‘Danaäns’ (1.2n.; Latacz [2001] 2004, 133–136).

22 

 Iliad 3

πάλλων: ‘shaking’; a provocation, in that he shakes a spear in each hand at the same time (likewise Hektor, but to rouse the attention of his own people, at 5.495 = 6.104 = 11.212): LfgrE s.v. 949.27  ff.; Kirk on 19–20. — προκαλίζετο: with the same sense as προκαλέομαι (likewise αἰνίζομαι – αἰνέω, κομίζω – κομέω etc.; on the metrically convenient coexistence of verbs in -ίζω and -έω, Risch 299): ‘challenging’ (to a duel 3.432, 7.39, 13.809, to a competition 4.389, 5.807, Od. 8.228, to a quarrel Od. 18.20: LfgrE s.v.). With πάντας ἀρίστους at VE also at 7.150, 7.285 (variant at 7.50); with ἀντίβιον μαχέσασθαι ἐν αἰνῇ δηϊοτῆτι 7.39  f., 7.50  f. Paris provokes by means of both gestures (by shaking his spears [see above] and strutting ostentatiously about [22n.]) and words (here summarized in indirect speech; προκαλέομαι with following direct speech, 13.809: Létoublon 1983, 37  f.; cf. also the frequent speeches of provocation, e.g. 13.445–448; on this, Stoevesandt 2004, 305  f., 424–427 with a tabular overview). — πάντας ἀρίστους: an inflectible VE formula (5× nom., 11× acc., in total 12× Il., 4× Od.); meaning: all the ‘best fighters’ (LfgrE s.v. ἄριστος 1296.14–26). That a hero challenges ‘all the best’ simultaneously is not unusual in itself (cf. the expression ὅς τις ἄριστος 7.50 and Hektor’s challenge at 7.73–75, 7.150, 7.285: Bergold 1977, 23 with n. 1); in what follows, however, Paris does not live up to the claim he puts forward via his confident appearance. 20 ἀντίβιον: adverb from ἀντίβιος, ‘man against man’ (of a duel): 1.278n.; LfgrE s.v. ἀντίβιος. — ἐν αἰνῇ δηϊοτῆτι: an inflectible VE formula (gen./dat. sing., in total 10× Il., 3× Od., 2× Hes.). αἰνός ‘causing fright or abhorrence’ (LfgrE s.v. 321.51). δηϊοτής: ‘hostilities, battle’; an archaism (mostly used formulaically). A word of negative connotation, its only epithet is αἰνός (Trümpy 1950, 139; LfgrE s.v.).

21–37 A description, introduced in each case by the same formulaic half-verse (21n., 30), follows of how the two adversaries, Paris and Menelaos, have an effect on one another (challenging in 22 and threatening in 31). This opposition is further clarified by a pair of (long) similesP (lion: 23–26 – snake: 33–35), followed by a description of the reactions (advancing – retreating): Kurz 1966, 161  f.; Kirk on 21–37. 21 1st VH = 30, as well as 7× Il., 2× Od., 1× h.Hom. (with τόν/τήν/τούς), variant at 3.396; 2nd VH = 7× Il., 1× Od., 3× Hes.; ≈ 12× Il., 1× Hes. — τὸν δ’ ὡς οὖν ἐνόησεν: signals secondary focalizationP (de Jong 1985, 265  f.; [1987] 2004, 127; cf. 23n.); on the construction with a part. (22 ἐρχόμενον), 2.391n. — ἀρηΐφιλος: ‘dear to Ares, protected by Ares’ (LfgrE s.v.); a generic epithetP, much more frequent with Menelaos (25× in early epic) than with other heroes, even though Menelaos does not particularly stand out in the Iliad as one of the most courageous: this may have been different in the pre-Homeric narrative tradition, from which the collocation ἀρηΐφιλος Μενέλαος must derive (Willcock 2004, 52  f.). The designation of an outstanding person as ‘loved by a god’, like διίφιλος (1.74n.), has Eastern parallels (West 1997, 130–132).

20 μαχέσασθαι: ingressive: ‘begin the battle’.

Commentary 

 23

22 μακρὰ βιβάντα: a variant reading favored by West against βιβῶντα, the vulgate text. Aside from βιβάσθων, participial forms such as βιβάς are the only attested forms of *βίβημι ‘make strides, stride (out)’ (pres. reduplication of βα-/βη- [βαίνω]); thematic forms of *βιβάω such as βιβῶντα, βιβῶν (v.l. in 15.307, 15.686) are found in the main tradition only here and are probably more recent (Chantr. 1.300; on this in brief, LfgrE s.v. βιβάς). The forms are always connected with an immediately preceding adv. or an adverbial neut. acc. They form an inflectible formula with μακρά (in Homer 4× at VE, 2× at VB, 3× after caesura A 3); as here of the ostentatious strutting of a challenger, 7.213, 13.809 (Aias); in a similar militarily demonstrative way, 15.676; with ὕψι, 13.371: LfgrE s.v.

23 lion: Lions were probably found in Greece and Asia Minor at least until the Archaic period (archaeological and literary evidence from the Mycenaean period onward: Woronoff 1989; Usener 1994; Felsch 2001, 195  f.; Uerpmann 2006, 293  f.). ‘The supreme royal beast of prey differs from all other wild animals. The lion is itself a powerful hunter, and man competes with it’ (Buchholz et al. 1973, 9, transl.; similarly Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 56). (Long) similesP and comparisonsP with lions are exceptionally frequent in the Iliad (over 40 instances: see Lee 1964, 22; Lonsdale 1990, 143). The lion appears as an image for various warriors, above all Hektor (12.41–48, 16.823–826), Achilleus (18.318–322, 20.164–173, 24.572), Agamemnon (11.113–119, 11.172–176) and Menelaos (here and 3.449, 17.61–67, 17.109–112, 17.657–664), in the Odyssey predominantly for Odysseus (Od. 6.130–134, 17.126–130). The animal is depicted as it hunts for prey or is itself hunted by men and dogs. Most frequently, it appears in the role of the successful attacker: points of comparison are its fighting strength, courage, energy, attack and defense (5.136–142, 5.554–558, 11.113–119, 12.41–48, 12.299–306, 17.61–67, 18.161  f., Od. 6.130–134), parallel to this is the helplessness of the victim (11.113–119, 11.172–176, 15.630–636, 17.61– 67). Sometimes, however, the focus is on the lion as a defeated animal assailed by a crowd of overpowering opponents (5.554–558, 8.338–340, 11.548–555, 12.41–48, 12.299–306, 16.752  f., 18.318–322, Od. 4.791  f.). On lion similes in early epic, see Snell (1946) 1960a, 201–203; Buchholz et al. 1973, 9–14; Hartigan 1973; Scott 1974, 58–62; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 38–131; Lonsdale 1990; Clarke 1995; Wilson 2002a; HE s.v. Animals 56  f.; on the iconographic evidence, Buchholz loc. cit. 14  ff.; Marinatos 1990; on Eastern influences, Edwards, Introd. 36; West 1997, 246; BNP s.v. Lion. In the present simile, the lion profits from the hunting of another and pounces on an animal that has just been killed (similarly 15.271–276: Fränkel 1921, 65  f.; on the details, see

23 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μεγάλῳ ἐπί: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

24 

 Iliad 3

in general 2.460n.). The point of comparison is the elemental joy, ‘the […] exciting sensation of pleasure of the hungry predator […] as of a person hungry for revenge’ (Latacz 1966, 53, transl.) at the sight of the desired object. In the simile, the narrator illustrates Menelaos’ feelings when he spies his opponent (signaled by ‘was glad’, echárē 27: Bergold 1977, 24; Bonnafé 1984, 47; de Jong 1985, 265, and [1987] 2004, 126  f. with further examples of secondary focalizationP in the context of similes like 22.25–32): Paris, earlier resplendent in the leopard skin, becomes Menelaos’ victim (Lonsdale 1990, 50; SchnappGourbeillon 1981, 45), whereby the designation of the victim as a carcass in the simile probably suggests Menelaos’ feelings of superiority (Stoevesandt 2004, 179). Menelaos, however, will be unable to exact revenge, and his beastlike fury (449 ‘like a beast of prey’, thērí eoikṓs) later at Paris’ rescue stands in contrast to his animalistic joy here (Moulton 1977, 89). ἐχάρη: the most general expression for passionate, pleasurable joy (Latacz 1966, 45). So-called gnomic aorist (10n.), here ingressive as at Od. 23.32 (Latacz loc. cit. 62 n. 64), beside the durative present κατεσθίει (Chantr. 2.186). — σώματι: ‘carcass’: σῶμα (etymology uncertain) occurs in Homeric epic only in the sense ‘dead body’ (Il. 7.79, 18.161, 22.342, 23.169, Od. 11.53, 12.67, 24.187); the sense ‘living body’ is first attested at Hes. Op. 540, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 426 (there also σώματι κύρσας at VE, with reference to another situation): schol. D on 1.115; AH; Snell (1939) 1960, 5; West on Hes. Op. 540; Clarke 1999, 116  f. with nn. 138 and 140, 315–319. Ancient commentators thought it abnormal that a lion here eats an animal not killed by itself, because it was believed that a lion would not feed on a carcass (schol. D ad loc.; see Erbse on schol. ad loc.; Koller 1958, 276). Lions are attested consuming carcasses (Guggisberg 1975, 165), however, and here the animal is freshly killed, as similarly at 11.481, where it is torn apart by jackals and then eaten by a lion (already adduced by schol. T on 3.23; Leaf; LfgrE s.v. ἔλαφος); the animal’s great hunger probably also explains its behavior (Leaf, Kirk on 23–7).

24–25 V. 24 ≈ 15.271 (AH). — stag | … goat: on such alternatives in similes, 2.460n. ἔλαφον κεραόν: In Homeric similesP, the deer is always a victim (1.225n.), also of a lion at 11.474–481, 16.756–758, Od. 6.130–134 (Buchholz et al. 1973, 44–55). κεραός ‘horned, with horns, with a set of antlers’, also at 11.475, 15.271, 16.158 (LfgrE). — ἄγριον αἶγα: αἴξ is more precisely characterized by ἄγριος (also at 4.105  f., Od. 9.118  f., 14.50: LfgrE s.v. αἴξ), ἀγρότερος etc.; it is unclear whether a wild goat, a feral goat or even a chamois is meant (Buchholz et al. 1973, 55; ibid. 56  ff. on the substantial iconographic evidence). The animals were harried by dogs and hunted predominantly for their horns, which were used to produce bows, just as much as for their hides (4.105–108; Od. 14.50; Buchholz loc. cit. 56). A lion as their enemy also at 15.271–276.

24 ἠ’ ἔλαφον … ἠ’ ἄγριον: on the hiatus (here twice), R 5.1. — κεραὸν(ν) ἠ’: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura).

Commentary 

 25

25 πεινάων: in the Iliad only of lions (likewise 16.758, 18.162), of people only Od. 20.137 (LfgrE s.v.). The position in enjambmentP (Lesky 1967, 34) stresses the voracity of the animal, which is why it does not flee before the hunters (hungry lions also at 11.548  ff. ≈ 17.657  ff., 12.299  ff., Od. 6.130  ff.: Krafft 1963, 28). — μάλα γάρ τε κατεσθίει: = 21.24. — μάλα: emphasized by being placed at the beginning; likewise 17.67 ≈ 18.322, 17.564 (LfgrE s.v. 22.27  ff.); ‘greedily’ as at 21.24 (Nägelsbach). — κατεσθίει: aside from Od. 1.8  f., always of animals (2.314n.). — εἴ περ ἄν: ‘even if, although’, as at 11.391 εἴ κ’ … περ (here with a generalizing pres. subjunc.: Chantr. 2.281). εἴ περ ἂν αὐτόν ≈ 2.597, 5.224 (formulaic: Bakker 1988, 217  f.). — αὐτόν: The lion itself is in danger. As a simple anaphoric pronoun of the 3rd pers. in oblique cases, αὐτός is still rare in early epic: 1.4n.

26 2nd VH = 11.414, ≈ 17.282 (AH). — the hounds in their speed: Dogs in (long) similesP are almost always hunting- or sheep-hounds (Faust 1970, 22). The qualities of a good hunting dog include speed (Od. 17.312  ff.); hence tachýs (5× Il., 2× Od.) and argós ‘swift, agile’ (3× Il., 3× Od.; cf. 1.50n.) as the most common epithets. Used for hunting deer or ibex: 13.198, 15.271  f.; in fighting lions: 11.292  f., 11.548  f., 12.303, 17.65, 17.110, 17.658 (Faust loc. cit. 22; Mainoldi 1984, 109–113; LfgrE s.v. κύων 1600.44  ff./56  ff.). ταχέες τε κύνες: collocation of κύων with ταχύς (without τε) elsewhere in Homer 3× after caesura B 1 (11.818, 17.558, 18.584), 2× after caesura B 2 (22.89, Od. 14.133, 21.363), in total 4× nom., 2× acc. — θαλεροί τ’ αἰζηοί: θαλερός is ‘blooming, vigorous’, of young men as at 4.474, 10.259, 14.4, and see iterata above (LfgrE s.v.). αἰζηός: ‘(young) man’ (2.660n.). 27 2nd VH = 450; ≈ 10× Il. — Μενέλαος Ἀλέξανδρον: The contrast is stressed by the adjacent position of the words (Kirk on 27–8). — Ἀλέξανδρον θεοειδέ͜α: 16n.; synizesis at VE as at 24.7 ἄλγε͜α (see ad loc.).

28 1st VH ≈ 3× Il., 2× Od., 3× Hes., 2× h.Cer.; also frequent in other verse positions (cf. 169n. and 306n.); 2nd VH ≈ Od. 20.121. — to punish the robber: As in 2.356/2.590, audience knowledge of the abduction of Helen by Paris is assumed (West 2011, 129). ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδών: strengthens ἐνόησεν and again signals secondary focalizationP (21n., 23n.). — φάτο γὰρ τείσασθαι ἀλείτην: Menelaos’ perception and mood (his joy), illustrated in the simile, are now substantiated in indirect speech (φάτο, ‘said to himself, thought’: LfgrE s.v. φημί 894.18  ff.); a similar sequence at 10.5–20, 14.16–24 (de Jong 1985, 265 n. 29). The pejorative term ἀλείτης expresses how Menelaos sees his opponent and does not necessarily imply a judgement on the part of the narrator, who nowhere expressly condemns Paris (Od. 20.121 ἀλείτας is analogous; see de Jong [1987]

25 πεινάων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — περ: concessive (R 24.10). 27 θεοειδέ͜α: on the uncontracted form, R 6, on the synizesis, R 7. 28 φάτο: impf. of φημί; on the middle voice, R 23. — τείσασθαι: from τίνω.

26 

 Iliad 3

2004, 139 with n. 106). The wish to restore their own honor (likewise 351–354, 366, 379) is an existential matter for the actors in a heroic epic: 1.11n.; 1.159–160n.; Bergold 1977, 25. Since Menelaos’ honor as a host has been injured (see below), he is accordingly obliged to defend the religiously sanctioned law of hospitality for himself and the community (103–104n., 207n., 350–355a n.). — τείσασθαι: aor. related to future action, as at 2.401 (see ad loc.), 3.366, Od. 20.121 (Schw. 2.296; Chantr. 2.189, 307, both also on the v.l. τίσεσθαι); effective (Hentze 1907/08, 279  f.). On the reading τίσασθαι (probably the result of an iotacism), Chantr. 1.13; West 1998, XXXV; LfgrE s.v. τίνω 531.5  ff., 28  ff. — ἀλείτην: derived from the religious sphere, from ἀλιταίνειν (aor. ἀλιτεῖν) ‘to offend, transgress against someone/something’ (probably related to Ger. ‘Leid’): ‘blasphemer, one who breaks the existing lawful order’ (here the law of hospitality [see CH 8 s.v. Paris], like the suitors in Od. 20.121): LfgrE s.v.; Tichy 1977. 29 = 5.494, 6.103, 12.81, 13.749; from caesura A 3 on = 4.419, 11.211, 16.426; from caesura C 2 on = 5.111, 16.733, 16.755, 24.469. — αὐτίκα: on the function of αὐτίκα in stressing a tension-filled turning point in the story, Bonifazi 2012, 276  f. — ἐξ ὀχέων: τὸ ὄχος is properly ‘traveler’ (from the same root as Lat. vehere, Germ. be-wegen), ‘wagon, chariot’, ‘only in pl., with reference to the individual parts’ (AH, transl.; LfgrE s.v. ὄχεα 895.4  ff.). On the use of chariots in battle, 2.384n. — σὺν τεύχεσιν: τεῦχος from τεύχω; ‘something produced, equipment’, in Homeric epic always pl., ‘armament’; primarily referring to helmet, breastplate, shield and greaves, sometimes also weapons such as sword and spear. σὺν τεύχεσιν means ‘fully armed, prepared (for battle)’: Trümpy 1950, 75–79; LfgrE s.v. 425.55  ff., 427.12  ff. — ἄλτο: athematic aor. of ἅλλομαι (Schw. 1.740); on the accent, ORTH 2; West 1998, XX. — χαμᾶζε: from χαμαί, ‘on the ground, to the ground’ (G 66).

30–37 This passage is a contrast to Paris’ audacious provocation (16–20) and Menelaos’ desire to attack (21–29; on the structural parallels, 21–37n.). Paris’ naïveté and overestimation of his own abilities not untypical of the behavior of the Trojans as a group (similarly e.g. Euphorbos at 16.813–815 retreats in a cowardly way). In contrast to Paris, however, other Trojans, e.g. Hektor (7.54  ff., as here, in a formal duel he has himself provoked), are in the end prevented by their pride from giving in to fear and retreating (Stoevesandt 2004, 212). – Here Paris’ reaction is described in a ring-compositionP: the focal point is the snake simile (33–35), which illustrates Menelaos’ effect on Paris (30–31a) and the latter’s impulsive reaction (31b–32, 36  f.); the formulaic VE Aléxandros theoeidḗs, ‘godlike Alexandros’ (30, 37), forms the outer ring: Stanley 1993, 60. 30 = 11.581; 1st VH = 21 (with note); 2nd VH = 8× Il.; ≈ 2× Il. — ἐνόησεν: as in 21 (see ad loc.), a signal for secondary focalizationP (de Jong 1985, 265  f.). 31 the heart was shaken within him: panic at the sight of the enemy also in 22.136; cf. 7.216 (West 1997, 215, with an Eastern parallel).

31 φίλον ἦτορ: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

Commentary 

 27

ἐν προμάχοισι: 16–17n. — φανέντα: punctual aor.: while Paris continuously provokes (16 προμάχιζεν, 19 προκαλίζετο impf.), Menelaos suddenly appears (29 αὐτίκα). — φίλον ἦτορ: a formulaic combination (in total 19× Il., 30× Od., 3× Hes., 2× h.Cer., 34× of these at VE, 11× at VE with intervening word(s)). In this and similar combinations (with κῆρ, θυμός, στῆθος), φίλος generally functions as a pure possessive pronoun (‘his own’); this explanation is supported by the frequent use of these lexemes with a possessive pronoun instead of with φίλος, e.g. 16.450 τεὸν δ’ ὀλοφύρεται ἦτορ; cf. also 4.313 ἐνὶ στήθεσσι φίλοισιν with 19.271 ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἐμοῖσιν; in general, LfgrE s.v. φίλος 932.56  ff.; Landfester 1966, 22. An affective meaning of φίλον should only be accepted where ἦτορ is used pregnantly in the sense ‘(threatened) vitality’, the loss of which means death (thus 5.250, 15.252, 21.201, 24.50 [see ad loc.], Od. 16.428). On ἦτορ, 1.24n., 1.188n.; on φίλος, 1.20n.; LfgrE loc. cit. 935.12 and Landfester loc. cit. 1–34, who always, however, equates attributive φίλος with a possessive pronoun (on this in brief, LfgrE s.v. ἦτορ 943.35  f.); differently, Robinson 1990, who argues for an affective connotation in all instances.

32 = 11.585, 13.566, 13.596, 13.648, 14.408, 16.817, ≈ 13.165, 13.533. Elsewhere, the formula occurs when a fighter retreats on account of injury or after an unsuccessful attack; Paris, on the other hand, allows himself to be intimidated by the mere gaze of his rival (Kurz 1966, 144  f.). ἑτάρων εἰς ἔθνος: ἔθνος ‘massed army, masses’, always with gen. pl. (generally ἑταίρων); almost exclusively in a military context (2.87n.; LfgrE s.v.). — κῆρ(α): κήρ normally means ‘(fate of) death’, as here and 360, and is seldom used as a personification (2.301–302n.). — ἀλεείνων: conative, with an implication of finality: ‘seeking to escape, in order to escape’ (LfgrE s.v. 464.2  ff.).

33–35 The snake simile clarifies how unprepared Paris was for a duel with Menelaos when he provoked ‘the best of the Argives’ (19). Paris, still entirely unconcerned as a prómachos in his attractive panther skin (16–17n., 17n.), only realizes the consequences the abduction of Helen has brought upon him when Menelaos suddenly appears (narratologically, Paris’ provocation stands at the beginning of the war; cf. also Hektor’s reproaches, 46–51n.): Stoevesandt 2004, 180; van der Mije 2011, 372. The staccato-like parataxis underscores his shock at the sudden encounter and his immediate retreat (on the vivid description of symptoms of fright in general, 24.358–360n.). In early epic, snakes are always ominous and frightening (2.308n., 33n.; perhaps a viper is meant: van der Mije loc. cit. 365 with n. 14); Menelaos’ ‘desirous greed for battle’ (Stoevesandt loc. cit. 179, transl.) has the same effect on Paris. The latter acts unheroically and flees. In the single comparable snake simile (22.93–96), on the other hand, a snake defending itself is used as an image of Hektor’s he-

32 ἄψ: ‘back’. — ἑτάρων: = ἑταίρων.

28 

 Iliad 3

roic spirit of resistance (for detailed discussion of the clear correspondences between the two situations, Bergold 1977, 27–30; Baltes [1987] 2005, 279  f.). 33 ὡς δ’ ὅτε: a common simile introduction (2.147–148n.). — τις: a hunter or woodcutter (34n.). — δράκοντα: probably related to δέρκομαι (with reference to the eerie, paralyzing gaze of a snake): DELG s.v. δέρκομαι; with reservations, Frisk s.v. δράκων. — παλίνορσος: a Homeric hapaxP; ‘(retreating) backward’, so that the snake can be kept in sight (LfgrE s.v.; on the meaning of πάλιν-, 1.59n.). — ἀπέστη: a so-called gnomic aorist (10n.), like ἔλλαβε (34), ἀνεχώρησεν and εἷλε (35). 34 2nd VH ≈ 14.506, 24.170, Od. 18.88. — οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃς: a VB formula (in total 6× in early epic; 3× οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃσι(ν); 1× in the middle of a verse ἐν β. ὄρεος; cf. οὔρεος ἐν κορυφῇς 2.456 [see ad loc.] and ὄρεος κορυφῇσι 10n.). — βήσσῃς: ‘valley, ravine’, of the wilderness, which is only useful for hunting (17.283) or woodcutting (11.86–88); LfgrE s.v. — ἔλλαβε: = ἔλαβε (long consonant < *sl): G 16; likewise 5.83. On the idea that a bodily condition seizes a person, 2.2n. — γυῖα: ‘limbs’, insofar as they are moved by joints, normally ‘legs’ or ‘arms and legs’, thus ≈ ‘body’ (insofar as the body is mobile). In the case of fear, limbs tremble (with τρόμος also at 7.215, 8.452, 20.44; similarly 22.448, see de Jong ad loc.) or become slack ([ὑπο]λύειν: Od. 18.341; cf. also 6.27n.): Vivante 1955, 40; Snell 1969, 43  f.; LfgrE s.v. 35 ἂψ δ’ ἀνεχώρησεν: an inflectible VB formula in Homer (2× with δ(έ), 1× with τ(ε); in total 6× Il., 1× Od.). — ὦχρος: a Homeric hapaxP; whether masc. or neut. is uncertain (Wackernagel 1916, 234  f.; DELG s.v. ὠχρός). ‘Paleness’ (LSJ) as a sign of fright also at 17.733, Od. 11.633; of cowardice at 13.279, 13.284.

36–37 in terror … godlike: again a contrast between beauty and fighting spirit (16n.): AH. καθ’ ὅμιλον ἔδυ: reprises the content of v. 32 (ring-compositionP, cf. 30–37n.), here with the metaphor of ‘immersion’ in a crowd (cf. 7.217  f., 20.379; on this, Kurz 1966, 148). — ἀγερώχων: a generic epithetP of people and heroes; meaning uncertain (2.654n.). Ἀτρέος υἱόν: also before caesura B 2 at 17.1, 17.553, in voc. 2.23, 2.60. Ἀτρέος is a short-vowel gen. of Ἀτρεύς (15× Il./Od.; dat. Ἀτρέϊ, equally a short-vowel form, and nom. only at 2.105  f.). The conspicuous lack of older standard forms in -ῆος, -ῆϊ, -ῆα, supports the assumption that Ἀτρεύς is a relatively late formation (probably a secondary back-formation from the patronymic, by analogy with Πηλεύς – Πηλεΐδης etc.). West 2001a suspects that the original (Mycenaean) form of the name was *Atrehion/-ias < *Atresion/-ias vel sim. (related to ἄτρεστος ‘untrembling, firm’); this may be

33 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — δράκοντα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. 34 οὔρεος: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — βήσσῃς: on the declension, R 11.1. — ὑπό: adverbal, ‘down’ (cf. R 20.2). — ἔλλαβε: on the double consonant (-λλ-), R 9.1 and ↑. 35 ἀνεχώρησεν(ν), ὦχρος: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — μιν … παρειάς: acc. of the whole and of the part (R 19.1); μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 29

connected with ‘Attarissiyas’, attested as the name of a leader of Achijawa in a Hittite document of the 14th cent. BC (West loc. cit., taking up Forrer 1924, 16–21).

38 = 6.325; VB ≈ 6.402, 8.493, 15.440, 15.552; VE = 13.768, ≈ 24.238. — Hektor: CH 8; 2.816n. νείκεσσεν … ἐπέεσσιν: an inflectible formula; ἐπέεσσιν always at VE (5× Il. [12.267  f. ἐπέεσσιν | νείκεον], 2× Od.), forms of νεικε(ί)ω sometimes at VB, sometimes after caesurae A  3 / A 4. Frequently used for a speech introductionP. — αἰσχροῖς ἐπέεσσιν: < *αἰσχροῖσι ϝέπεσσιν (1.223n., G 70). αἰσχρός is here ‘reproachful, reviling, shameful for the one addressed’ (Adkins 1960, 58 n. 12; Cairns 2001a, 206; LfgrE s.v.), as at 23.473 (Leaf).

39–57 Hektor’s speech follows the typical structure of rebukes (38 neíkessen, ‘scolded’; see 2.225–242n. with bibliography; collection of passages: 2.221– 222n.): (1) address (39), (2/3) criticism, description of the bad behavior (40–51), (4) request for action, here turning into further criticism (52–57). The criticism itself is presented in the form of a ring-composition: the middle section 46–51 (abduction of Helen) is framed by the antithesis ‘beauty – inadequate fighting strength’ (43–45, 53–55) and by Hektor cursing Paris twice (39  f., 56  f.). On the organization, Lohmann 1970, 109; Steinrück 1992, 85. Rhetorical devices such as bestowing a pejorative name (39 ‘disgraceful-Paris’), alliteration (43, 46, 47, 50; on this in general, 2.50–52n., 3.43n.), parallel constructions (50, 53), chiasmus (51) and metaphors (such as láïnon chitṓna, ‘stone mantle’, 57) heighten the effect of the speech (Koster 1980, 48  f.; Kirk on 56–7; Martin 1989, 135). This is also a ‘masterpiece of the Homeric technique of exposition’ (Reichel 1994, 249, transl.), since it reminds the listeners of the story’s prehistory (46–50; on such external completing analepsesP, illuminating the causes of the war, in general, Kullmann 1960, 227–302; Friedrich 1975, 81  f. with n. 217–223 p. 188 [collection of passages]; on Book 3 specifically, Bergold 1977, 70) and at the same time serves to characterize the two brothers Hektor (as aristeús, ‘best’) and Paris (on whose actual military performance, Bernsdorff 1992, 29; Stoevesandt 2004, 181–183). On the motif of two dissimilar brothers, Reinhardt (1938) 1997, 184–186; Davies 2003, 33, 35, 38  f.; on Hektor’s three speeches of reproach to Paris in the Iliad – here, 6.325–331 and 13.769–773 – see 6.325–342n. 39 = 13.769 (likewise Hektor to Paris). The entire verse is an address (cf. 1.36n.), like 5.31, 5.455, 11.385, an ‘abusive tirade’ (Bergold 1977, 30, transl.) with a crescendo effect (AH: an increasing number of syllables per word from εἶδος to ἠπεροπευτά, in accord with

38 νείκεσσεν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 39 Δύσπαρι, (ϝ)εῖδος: on the prosody, R 5.4. — εἶδος: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

30 

 Iliad 3

the ‘law of increasing parts’, on which, cf. 1.145n., 3.182; West 2004, 33–49; 2007, 117– 119; similar cases, e.g. 5.31, 5.831, in Göbel 1933, 32). On the emphatic effect of the asyndetic series of epithets, 2.23n. — Δύσπαρι: ‘Ill-Paris, Disaster-Paris’. A nominal compound with a negative prefix, like 18.54 δυσαριστοτόκεια, Od. 23.97 δύσμητερ, Od. 18.73 Ἄϊρος; cf. Od. 19.260 Κακοΐλιον: LfgrE s.v.; Schw. 1.431  f. (the word formation may be IE in origin: West 2007, 80  f.). The expression summarizes the words of abuse that follow and, simultaneously, the speech as a whole (Koster 1980, 48). — εἶδος ἄριστε: in itself, a compliment (2.715n.: Alkestis, Od. 11.469: Aias); but made negative (AH; Koster 1980, 48) by its framing (here Δύσπαρι and γυναιμανές) and context (Paris’ retreat), as in 13.769, 17.142 and 2.246 (λιγύς περ ἐὼν ἀγορητής, see ad loc.) and 5.787 = 8.228 (εἶδος ἀγητοί). Paris’ behavior does not correspond to the expectations his outer beauty produces (44–45n.). — γυναιμανές: ‘mad for women, woman-crazy’ (LfgrE s.v.; Keil 1998, 78). As in 13.769 and 11.385 (παρθενοπῖπα ‘girl-ogler’), Helen’s abduction is generalized (cf. also 24.261: Paris and his brothers are all labelled liars). — ἠπεροπευτά: ‘seducer’ (here and 13.769), ‘deceiver’ (h.Merc. 282) (from ἠπεροπεύω ‘tempt [women]’ [399, 5.349], ‘deceive’ [23.605, Od. 13.326  f.]): LfgrE s.v.; on the semantic field, Luther 1935, 103–105. Hektor reproaches Paris not only for his fundamental attitude (γυναιμανές), but also because he acts on it (Koster 1980, 49).

40 VB = 1.415, 18.86. — On the wish that the addressee had already been killed, in general 428–436n.; 24.254n. ὄφελες: 1.353n. — ἄγονός τ(ε) … ἄγαμός τ(ε): Emphatic connection of terms of similar meaning is a favored stylistic device (1.160n., 2.39n.); for doubling of word-negation, e.g. also 6.60 (ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι, as here, in a curse), 20.303 (ἄσπερμος … καὶ ἄφαντος), 22.386 ≈ Od. 11.54, 11.72 (ἄκλαυτος ἄθαπτος); cf. also 1.99n., 1.415n., 2.447n.; Fehling 1969, 235–241; Durante 1976, 150–152; West 2007, 110 (with reference to Vedic parallels). — ἄγονος: The meaning of this Homeric hapaxP is uncertain. It is presumably formed from γόνος ‘birth, descent, descendants’ (Risch 201) and to be understood ‘childless’ (Autenrieth in the 3rd ed. of Nägelsbach, with reference to Eur. Her. 888), perhaps even ‘sterile, impotent’ (considered by Leaf and Kirk; Pavlu 1942, 574; this meaning is attested of plants, animals and in a metaphorical sense from the Classical period onward: LSJ). Hektor’s wish thus corresponds to the cursing of Phoinix by his father in 9.455  f. (see app. crit. on the extra verses 40ab). — ἄγαμος: This Homeric hapaxP must mean ‘celibate, unmarried’, here disparagingly ‘unwed’ as the logical complementary continuation of ἄγονος (Kirk): Paris’ randiness has led to Helen’s seduction, the war and his irresponsible behavior as promachos.

40 αἴθ(ε) (= εἴθε) ὄφελες: past unfulfilled wish. — ὄφελες(ς) ἄγονος: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — ἔμεναι ἄγαμος: on the prosody, R 5.6. — ἔμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).

Commentary 

 31

41 ≈ Od. 11.358, 20.316; VE ≈ Il. 5.201, 7.28, 17.417, 22.103, 22.108, Od. 9.228, 20.381. — The verse is athetized by West, who points out that it is missing in a papyrus, probably not by chance, since it adds nothing to the wish in 40; ἠ’ in 42 should then be understood as comparative, with the sense ‘rather than’ (West 2001, 185). But the verse serves to explain the statement: βουλοίμην and κέρδιον ἦεν express that it is in Hektor’s personal interest, as well as the general interest, that Paris not publicly (42 ἄλλων) make a fool of himself (cf. Helen’s lament in 6.350–353, with n.). In any case, ἠ(έ)/ἤ is not attested either in Homeric epic or later without a preceding comparative or words with comparative sense like βούλομαι ‘prefer’ (Bäumlein 1861, 136; cf. 1.112n.). — κέρδιον: neut. comparative derived from κέρδος ‘advantage, profit’; used almost exclusively as a predicate noun with εἶναι (in VE formulae: see iterata, also 4× Il., 12× Od.), normally in direct speechP; ‘advantageous, better, more desirable’, with no direct moralizing judgement (LfgrE s.v.). 42 λώβην: ‘«outrage», inasmuch as it touches precisely on the τιμή of the individual’ (Mawet 1979, 119, transl.); here of a person (like ἐλέγχε’ 2.235): ‘disgrace, blot’ (LfgrE s.v.; on the semantic field, 1.232n.). — ἐπόψιον: Although this reading of an ancient grammarian is a hapaxP, it can be connected with ἐφεψιάομαι ‘mock’ (Od. 19.331, 19.370) and must mean ‘for ridicule, as a target of ridicule’ (Wackernagel 1916, 42; West 2001b, 132). The main tradition has ὑπόψιον, which is nowhere else attested with the meaning ‘looked at from under, askance’, that must be accepted here, and the syntactic connection of ἄλλων with ὑπόψιον is difficult to explain (as Bergold 1977, 33  f. n. 1 is forced to admit). 43 καγχαλόωσι: in combination with κάρη, κομόωντες is probably intentionally onomatopoetic (Kirk). Alliteration was likely used to best advantage in an oral presentation; on orality in general, Hermann (1840) 1979, 47–50; Latacz (1977) 1979, 29–32. An onomatopoetic word (cf. the triumphant Engl. ‘Ha!’; from the root *k(h)aŋkh, like Attic καγχάζω ‘laugh loudly, jeer’; -αλάω is by analogy with ἀσχαλάω ‘be unable to persist in an unpleasant situation, be impatient’: Tichy 1983, 222  f.; Frisk: quite a likely formation). In 10.565, Od. 23.1, 23.59 it means ‘be triumphant’ (Tichy loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v.), in 6.514 ‘loudly cheer, rejoice’; here ‘laugh derisively’ (Krapp 1964, 46 with n. 3; Giannakis 1997, 282). After the indeterminate ἐπόψιον ἄλλων (42), the disparagement is capped by the vivid image of the sneering opponents (Koster 1980, 49). — κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί: on the formula and the realia, 2.11n.

44–45 The Achaians, as Hektor presents the situation to his brother, presumably took Paris’ beautiful appearance, together with his handsome armament (6.321

41 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — τό: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); here referring to the content of v. 40. — ἦεν = ἦν (R 16.6). 42 ἠ’ οὕτω: on the hiatus, R 5.1. 43 ἦ: ‘truly’ (R 24.4). — που: ‘probably’. — καγχαλόωσι: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — κάρη: Attic τὸ κάρα (R 2), ‘head’; acc. of respect (R 19.1). — κομόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

32 

 Iliad 3

‘with beautiful weapons’; on the panther skin 17n.), to suggest high rank, an aristéus, ‘prince’, with exceptional abilities in battle as a challenger at the front. ‘By his head-long flight […], he made it impossible that he could be regarded as an aristéus’ (Latacz 1977, 152  f.; quotation from p. 152 n. 54, transl.). Hektor accordingly reproaches Paris for the fact that his outer worth, his beauty, does not correspond to his inner worth, his (lack of) fighting strength: the same reproach also at 5.787, 8.228, 13.769, 17.142 (Fenik 1968, 155; Bernsdorff 1992, 28, compares 39 and 13.769). This is based on the elite ideology of Homeric society, which as a rule assumes the equation of beauty with proficiency (2.671–675n.; Bernsdorff 1992, esp. 30–35 [specifically on Paris]; cf. also 16n.). Hektor’s speech is an example of the awareness ‘that the coincidence of these qualities is not a matter of course’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 180, transl.; Bernsdorff loc. cit. 46; further examples at 2.211–224n.; cf. also 212–224n.; comparison with Archilochus fr. 114 West at Bernsdorff loc. cit. 120  f.; Müller 1994, 182–185). On the fact that Hektor’s reproaches strictly speaking only fit the situation at the beginning of the war, see the Introduction p. 11 above. 44 φάντες: ‘who had assumed’ (on the meaning, cf. 1.187n., 2.37; signals a tertiary focalizationP); on the anteriority of the action expressed by the (pres.) part., as at Od. 8.491, 13.401, 19.253 etc., see K.-G. 1.200. — ἀριστῆα: ‘prince’ (1.227n.); predicative (Latacz 1977, 152 n. 54). — πρόμον: ‘foreman, champion’. The formation of the word is uncertain: is it an ordinal number like Lat. pri-mus, or syncopated πρόμαχος? Against the latter is the difference in usage of the two words: in contrast to πρόμαχος, πρόμος always occurs in the singular and normally indicates a self-appointed or elected ‘representative of the community in a formal duel’ (thus 7.75, 7.116, 7.136, 22.85: Latacz 1977, 152 n. 54, transl.); only 5.533 and Od. 11.493 are used in a general sense like πρόμαχος ‘fighter in front’ (16–17n.): Latacz loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v. — οὕνεκα: emphatic: ‘on account of which, because’ (1.11n.). — καλόν: predicative, stressed before εἶδος in enjambmentP (Lanérès 1997, 220: literally ‘beautiful (is) on (him) the appearance’ [‘belle (est) sur (lui) l’apparence’]); cf. 1.525  f.   45 ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔστι βίη …: ‘rather than opposing φάντες with a participle of a verb of perception, Hektor immediately presents the facts themselves from his standpoint’ (AH, transl.). On such transfers from tertiary to secondary focalizationP, 1.112n., 1.401n. — βίη: ‘bodily strength, self-assertiveness’ in contrast to εἶδος also at Od. 18.4 (Iros), the two combined at 21.316 (Achilleus): LfgrE s.v. 58.33, 59.24  ff; Krafft 1963, 43. — φρεσίν: semantically, the word is to be taken with ἀλκή (LfgrE s.v. ἀλκή 496.55  ff.); cf. 4.245, 16.157. Paris lacks not just bodily strength but the proper attitude for battle (Jahn 1987, 232). — οὐδέ τις ἀλκή: a VE formula, = 21.528, Od. 22.226, 22.305, ≈ Il. 5.532, 15.564. ἀλκή

44 ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). — οὕνεκα: crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘because’ (↑). 45 ἔπι: = ἔπεστιν. — φρεσίν: locative dat. without prep. (R 19.2; ↑).

Commentary 

 33

‘resistance, defence, battle’ (16.602, 21.528, Od. 12.120 etc.), ‘will to defend someone/ something, fighting spirit’ (4.245, 5.299 etc.), here in connection with βίη and φρεσίν ‘physical and mental fighting strength’ (LfgrE s.v., esp. 496.64  ff.; cf. 19.36n.; similarly, Zaborowski 2002, 294–303). Paris is depicted thus again by Hektor (55n.) and by Diomedes (ἀνδρὸς ἀνάλκιδος 11.390).

46–51 A long rhetorical question: ‘Have you really, as a man like this,  …’, i.e. one who flees headlong when fighting in front and who, in the presence of the enemies of his fatherland, turns out to be handsome but too weak to fight, ‘already then thrown yourself into a rash act that proved disastrous to your community?’ According to Hektor, therefore, by retreating Paris again shows a lack of responsibility. Once again, he does not care about the consequences of Helen’s abduction and shows no aidṓs ‘consideration’ (9n.) toward his people (suggestion from van der Mije; cf. also Bergold 1977, 34  f., who, however, depicts Hektor’s assessment of the abduction too positively; on the appeal to aidṓs, Stoevesandt 2004, 296 n. 887). The alliteration of π in 46, 47, 50 and ρ in 47 (Kirk) is likely meant to underscore Hektor’s agitation. 46 2nd VH = 444; ≈ 240. — ἦ: expression of disbelief: 1.133n. On the v.l. ἤ in the sense of εἰ, Bergold 1977, 34  f. n. 3 (46–51 protasis, 52–53 apodosis; although in this case, the following verses [50  f.] would add nothing). — τοιόσδε ἐών: Hiatus at this position in the verse is rare (cf. 2.8n.), a fact that led to various conjectures (see Leaf ad loc.); but cf. 5.118, 19.288, 23.263 (Chantr. 1.91). — ποντοπόροισι: a generic epithetP of ships (1.439n.). 47 ἐρίηρας: from ἦρα (1.572n.), probably ‘rich in favors’, then 1) ‘he who does a favor/ offers help, reliable’ (likewise 378, 4.266, 23.6), 2) ‘he who attracts favors to himself, valued, dear’ (Od. 8.62 = 471): LfgrE s.v. Always in the same position in the verse; a generic epithetP of ἑταῖρος (like φίλος or πιστός); placed after ἑταῖρος only here, elsewhere 6× Il., 14× Od. in the inflectible VE formula ἐρ. ἑτ. — ἀγείρας: The action of the verb is prior to that of ἐπιπλώσας and μιχθείς (cf. 2.353 [with n.], 12.86): AH. ἐπιπλώσας: secondary σ-aor. from the root aor. ἐπέπλων; formed not from πλέω but from the parallel root πλώω ‘swim, travel on the sea’ (Od. 3.15 ἐπέπλως, Hes. Op. 650 ἐπέπλων, Il. 6.291 v.l. ἐπιπλώς [probably to be corrected to ἐπιπλούς, see n.]): Harðarson 1993, 183; LIV s.v. *pleh3-.; Beekes s.v. πλώω.

48 ἀλλοδαποῖσι: adj. ‘originating from another land, foreign’ (cf. παντο-δαπός); here the substantive, ‘foreigner’, as at Od. 3.74 = 9.255, h.Ap. 455. The word designates newcomers from a foreign place (16.550, Od. 17.485) or foreign (and distant) peoples and lands

46 τοιόσδε ἐών: on the hiatus, ↑. — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6). — νέεσσιν: dat. pl. of νηῦς (R 12.1). 47 ἑτάρους: = ἑταίρους. 48 εὐειδέ’ ἀνῆγες: on the hiatus, R 5.1.

34 

 Iliad 3

(also 19.324; formulaic in the 1st VH of 24.382 = Od. 14.231 = 20.220): LfgrE s.v. The element of enormous distance is further stressed by ἀπίης (49): Paris’ γυναιμανία (40) overcame all boundaries. — εὐειδέ(α): ‘of beautiful form’; a generic epithetP of women and goddesses, attested elsewhere in early epic only accompanying the names of women in catalogues (5× Hes./‘Hes.’: LfgrE s.v.). — ἀνῆγες: ἀνάγω is ‘abduct’, as at 13.627 (LfgrE s.v. ἄγω 121.35  ff.). 49 ἀπίης: ἄπιος is ‘distant, remote’, only in the present formula (1.270n.). — νυόν: IE heritage word (24.166n.), attested elsewhere in early epic only in the meaning ‘daughterin-law’ (22.65, 24.166, Od. 3.451): LfgrE. Here either ‘sister-in-law’ (sc. of Agamemnon: ἀνδρῶν αἰχμητάων is then a generalizing pl. [AH]) or in a wider sense ‘relative by marriage’ (ἀνδρ. αἰχμ. then designates all male relations of the οἶκος affected by the abduction: thus Gates 1971, 24  f.; Kirk; LfgrE s.v.). — ἀνδρῶν αἰχμητάων: a VE formula (2× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’); αἰχμητής ‘he who fights with a lance’ is normally used formulaically in the pl. for ‘warriors’ generally (LfgrE s.v.; 1.152n.). With a pregnant sense here and at 2.543: ‘warriors’ and not some weaklings or inexperienced men; and thus dangerous avengers (West 2011, 129). On the collocation of ἀνήρ and specific designations, 2.474n. 50–51 πῆμα … | … χάρμα: πῆμα: ‘harm, disaster, evil, sorrow’ (8.176, 11.347), used to characterize people, monsters, objects and events (3.160 Helen, 6.282 Alexandros/Paris, 22.288, 22.421 Achilleus). With μέγα and at the same position in the verse, in total 1× Il., 2× Od., 2× Hes. χάρμα: from χαίρω: ‘object/cause of malicious joy’. πῆμα and χάρμα are both predicative: a characteristic use of verbal nouns in -μα; cf. e.g. 4.38  f. μὴ τοῦτό γε … | … μέγ’ ἔρισμα μετ’ ἀμφοτέροισι γένηται, 22.358 μή τοί τι θεῶν μήνιμα γένωμαι: Latacz 1966, 122  ff.; Mawet 1979, 91–97; 1981, esp. 149–152. πῆμα is in apposition to the clause γυναῖκ’ … ἀνῆγες (like λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον 24.735: Chantr. 2.15), and for its part is explained by the contrasting pair δυσμενέσιν μὲν χάρμα, κατηφείην δὲ σοὶ αὐτῷ (cf. Od. 6.184  f., 19.471 χάρμα vs. ἄλγεα, Il. 23.342 vs. ἐλεγχείη; further examples of apposition to clauses at Chantr. 2.15): the cause of joy for the Greeks is not the abduction but the bad situation for the Trojans that results from it (Latacz 1966, 122–124). 50 μέγα πῆμα … δήμῳ: probably formulaic; variant at 24.706 μέγα χάρμα πόλει τ’ ἦν παντί τε δήμῳ (Hoekstra 1965, 116; Kirk). — πόληΐ … δήμῳ: ‘for the city … and its inhabitants’ (LfgrE s.v. δῆμος 276.11  ff.; 2.198n.). Hektor also refers to the consequences of Paris’ act for Priam and the entire population at 6.282  f., 6.327–329 (Hölkeskamp 2000, 28 with n. 39).

51 bringing joy to the enemy: Warnings against giving the enemy cause for malicious joy occur repeatedly in the exhortations and battle paraeneses of the Iliad; cf. 1.255  f., 2.160 ≈ 2.176, 6.82, 10.193. Chiasmus (AH).

49 αἰχμητάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 50 πόληϊ: dat. sing.; on the declension, cf. R 11.3.

Commentary 

 35

δυσμενέσιν: opponents in war, i.e. the Greeks. δυσμενής (always pl.) is always used in the Iliad of military opponents, but the etymological meaning ‘wishing ill’ can be understood in all occurrences. An emotive word, aside from 22.403 only in direct speeches (LfgrE s.v.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 144; character languageP). δυσμενέσιν, a form attested only here, was perhaps preferred to the longer and more widely distributed variant δυσμενέεσσι for rhythmic reasons (as a counterpoint to σοὶ αὐτῷ, which is approximately the same length): Blanc 2007, 21  f. — κατηφείην: from κατηφής; the etymology is uncertain (Beekes s.v. κατηφής). The meaning is generally taken to be ‘despondency, disgrace, ignominy’; only predicative and in direct speech (as at 16.498, 17.556): Mawet 1979, 117; LfgrE s.v. Like χάρμα, here in apposition to πῆμα (50–51n.): Paris’ unwillingness to take responsibility for the war he has caused is a source of shame for him (Latacz 1966, 124; Mawet loc. cit.). 52–53 οὐκ ἂν δὴ μείνειας …; | γνοίης …: The potential opt. μείνειας expresses an oblique request, here with οὐ in the form of a question, as at 5.32, 24.263, Od. 7.22 etc. (Chantr. 2.221  f.; K.-G. 1.233; on the potential opt., also 2.250n.). As an introduction to v. 53, the question can also be understood and expanded as the protasis of a conditional sentence: εἰ μείνειας (52), γνοίης … (53). On such ellipses of the protasis, Chantr. 2.276; K.-G. 2.483; on the sarcastic effect here, Wakker 1994, 393; cf. also the asyndeta with inferential force in 2.276, 24.439 and ἦ τε 56n. 52 2nd VH = 5× Il., 1× Hes.; ≈ 14× Il., 1× Od., 3× Hes. — μείνειας: μένω is here ‘stand firm (against)’ (a basic term from military language), as at 5.527, 21.571 etc.: LfgrE s.v. 149.8  ff. — ἀρηΐφιλον: 21n. 53 γνοίης χ’ οἵου φωτός …: γιγνώσκω is often used with the sense ‘become acquainted with, notice (someone’s physical strengths)’ (cf. Engl. ‘you need to get to know me’); with a threatening undertone also at 8.17, Od. 20.237, 21.202 (with an indirect question, as here), also Il. 1.302 (see ad loc.), 18.270 etc.: LfgrE s.v. 158.13  ff. – οἵου, in emphatic position after caesura A 3, stands in contrast to τοιόσδε (46): suggestion from Führer. — θαλερὴν παράκοιτιν: on the meaning of θαλερός, 26n.; on the formation of παράκοιτις ‘bed-sharer, wife’, 138n.; παρακοίτης ‘husband’ is also attested (6.430 ≈ 8.156, Hes. Th. 928).

54–55 nor the favors of Aphrodite, | nor your locks … nor all your beauty: In Homeric epic, the idea that the gods bestow gifts on human beings is often expressed: in general terms, good or bad things (24.527–533 [see ad loc.], Od. 8.63  f.), specific (un)fortunate circumstances (e.g. wealth or success: Il. 14.490  f., 24.534–548) or (sometimes fateful) qualities or competences, which are often granted by the god specifically responsible for the area in question (Il. 13.726–734, Od. 15.252  f., 20.70–72): Thalmann 1984, 78–112; van der Mije 1987, 248–263; Scheid-Tissinier 2000, 208–219. In this passage, the gifts of Aphrodite, goddess of love, probably represent Paris’ beauty in an erotic di-

53 χ’: = κε = ἄν (R 24.5).

36 

 Iliad 3

mension, his sexual attractiveness, which helped him win Helen (Bernsdorff 1992, 31). On the cliché of the soft Easterner, apparent occasionally in the Iliad but wide-spread later on, 2.872n. and, on Paris specifically, Hall 1989, 31. Hektor’s warning that some exceptional abilities bestowed by a god have no use in battle is later demonstrated in the narrator-text by the death of a Trojan experienced in hunting (5.49–58) and is implied in 2.858–861 and 5.59–64 (cf. also 6.12–19n.). 54 οὐκ ἄν τοι χραίσμῃ  …: The statement (53) is followed asyndetically by the implied reason (on substantiating asyndeton, K.-G. 2.344; cf. the reading of Dio Chrys. XI 55 in Ludwich, app. crit.: οὐ γάρ). — χραίσμῃ: prospective subjunc. in the main clause for the expression of a subjective expectation (1.137n.), more assertive than the opt. (AH); on the connection with the opt. μιγείης in the dependent clause (55), 2.488n. — κίθαρις: ‘string instrument, lyre’ (Od. 1.153 etc.); here ‘music from a string-instrument’ (as at Od. 1.159, 8.248, h.Ap. 188): LfgrE s.v. On string instruments in general, 1.603n.; Hagel 2008. Music in itself is not devalued, rather its exaggerated meaning for Paris: Veneri 1995. — τά: demonstrative (G 99) ‘these (of yours)’, like 55 ἥ and τό (AH). 55 εἶδος: 16n. and 39n. — ὅτ(ε): with the opt. for the introduction of a mere assumption also at 8.23, 13.319  f. (Schw. 2.649  f.; Wakker 1994, 206 n. 153). — ἐν κονίῃσι μιγείης: as at 10.457 = Od. 22.329, a periphrasis for a humiliating, pathetic death (dust to express defeat also at 16.795  f. and 22.401–405): Fränkel 1921, 85  f.; LfgrE s.v. μίσγω 228.61; de Jong on 22.401–4. 56 ἀλλά: on the relation to the previous sentence, 2.241n. — δειδήμονες: ‘fearful’, Homeric hapaxP. — ἦ τε: ‘and in truth’ (as at 366, 5.201, 11.362; see also R 24.4): Schw. 2.576 n. 4. Here, as in 5.885, it introduces a contrast: K.-G. 2.238  f.; Denniston 532: ‘otherwise’.

57 mantle of … stones: The stress is on ‘stones’: Hektor is likely alluding ironically again to Paris’ outward appearance (Postlethwaite 2000, 68), this time with a threatening metaphor for stoning (LfgrE s.v. λάϊνος, Kirk on 56–7). On stoning as a form of expulsion from a community, Stengel (1890) 1920, 84; Hirzel 1909; Fehling 1974; Padel 1995, 101  f. Hektor’s words reveal hostility toward Paris among the Trojans (cf. also 42, 454, 6.280–285, 6.523–525, 7.347–353, 7.389  f.). Paris’ power, which is based on his followers (companions in the abduction: 47), his wealth (4.95–99, 11.123–125) and Priam’s restraint (306–307, 7.365–378), nonetheless makes the Trojans shy away from rebellion (van Wees 1992, 176  ff.). Cf. the criticism of the passivity of the Achaians at 1.231  f. (with n.); in contrast, note the life-threatening rebellion in Od. 16.424–430 (Ulf 1990, 45).

54 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — χραίσμῃ: aor. subjunc. 55 τε (ϝ)εῖδος: on the prosody, R 4.3. 57 ἕνεχ’: = ἕνεκα. — ὅσσα (ϝ)έ(ϝ)οργας: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 37

λάϊνον: from λᾶας; ‘of stone’, in emphatic position (LfgrE s.v.). — ἕσσο: plpf. of ἕννυμαι ‘clothe oneself, wrap oneself up in’: LfgrE s.v. ἕννυμι. Past irreality that extends into the present: ‘otherwise you would have already (long since) and even now have on’ (Schw. 2.348). — ἔοργας: on the stative-confective perf. in conditions, cf. 2.272n.; the tense expresses the result of a series of preceding, often bad actions, as here (de Jong on 22.347). At VE with ὅσσα also 21.399; with οἷα 22.347. 58 = 6.332, 13.774; 1st VH (with τόν/τήν) 42× Il., 57× Od., 2× Hes., 2× h.Hom. On the adaptation of a speech introductory formula to a dialogue situation, 1.58n. — αὖτε: adversative particle to indicate a change of speaker, frequent after a demonstrative pronoun and δ(έ): 1.237n.; LfgrE s.v. 1582.34  ff; Klein 1988, 286  f.: very similar in function to αὖ.

59–75 As in two later scenes (6.333–341, 13.775–787), Paris reacts quite calmly to his brother’s reproaches and essentially accepts the criticism (59n., 60–63n.) but also distances himself from it (on Paris’ three answers in general: 6.325– 342n.); here he claims respect for his own nature (64–66n.) but then reacts, with no further justification or rationale for his behavior, to Hektor’s provocative demand (52) and his reminder of Paris’ responsibility toward the community (50) by offering a formal duel with Menelaos as a solution to the conflict (67–75n.). 59 = 6.333 (likewise Paris to Hektor). — ἐπεί: after a voc., as in 13.68, Od. 1.231, 8.236, merely signals a reason for something left unexpressed, here agreement (similarly γάρ in Il. 7.328, 23.156 etc.; K.-G. 1.50  f.; AH; cf. Hainsworth on Od. 8.236; on dependent clauses developing independence in colloquial usage in general, Tzamali 2001). The legitimacy of Hektor’s words is immediately acknowledged, as in 6.333 (Martin 1989, 134  f.; Reichel 1994, 250). — κατ’ αἶσαν … οὐδ’ ὑπὲρ αἶσαν: αἶσα means ‘share’ (portion), concretely, but is mostly metaphorical: ‘that which is alloted by a higher order, fate’ (LfgrE s.v.). In the expressions κατὰ/ὑπὲρ αἶσαν, connected with a verb of speaking (as here, 6.333, 10.445 and 17.716), it designates a ‘social norm’ (10.445 perhaps ‘truthfully’; cf. 1.286 κατὰ μοῖραν in the same sense [see ad loc. for bibliography]; similarly Luther 1935, 69  f. on κατ’ αἶσαν in general). Paris acknowledges that Hektor uses the legitimate expectations of the Trojans as a standard for what he demands of him. The combination of a term with its negative counterpart is a popular stylistic feature (rhetorical polarity, see polar expressionP; collection of examples, with other terminology: Fehling 1969, 272  f.; Tzamali 1997; examples from other IE languages: West 2007, 105).

60–63 The simile inserted parenthetically underscores the different natures of the two brothers. By comparing Hektor’s disposition to an ax, Paris acknowledges the steadfast, heroic character of his brother, who would not have recoiled from Menelaos as he did himself (31) and who attains his goal with steely self-assertiveness, as an ax does: Paris is now prepared to face a duel

58 προσέ(ϝ)ειπεν: = προσεῖπεν.

38 

 Iliad 3

(67–75). At the same time, however, Paris implies with this simile that Hektor’s words affect him as sharply and ruthlessly as an ax and that they show insufficient understanding of his very different nature. While Paris does not openly attack his brother the military leader (2.796–806n.), and in the end accedes to his suggestion, he later abruptly rejects Antenor’s request that he return Helen (7.357–364), thus claiming continuing endorsement of his attitude by the Trojan community as a whole (7.357–364). Bibliography: Fränkel 1921, 35, 55; Müller 1974, 36; Bergold 1977, 38  f. with reference to Eust. 384.29  ff.; Kirk; Vodoklys 1992, 30. On bronze as a metaphor for hard-heartedness, 2.490n. On comparisonsP and (long) similesP in direct speech generally, 2.289n. 60 αἰεί: acts as an expression of admiration for Hektor’s consequent, rigorous attitude; but generalizing αἰεί also betrays a certain irritation (more clearly so at 108–110 [see ad loc.], 1.107, 1.541, 5.873 etc.; see Labarbe 1949, 210). — κραδίη: on the function of the heart and other body parts as a psychological faculty generally, 1.24n. — πέλεκυς ὥς: on the prosody (lengthening of the syllable before ὥς), 2.190n. — ἀτειρής: ‘not to be worn down, indestructible’ (likely from τείρω, Lat. terere: Frisk): e.g. 15.697, 18.474, Od. 11.270. In the case of offensive weapons (always called χαλκός) likely also ‘fearless, unsparing, hard’ (5.292, 7.247, 20.108): LfgrE. Since the simile is ambiguous (60–63n.), both connotations can likely be heard. 61 On the expansion of a simple comparisonP via relative clauses, 2.145n. — ὑπ’ ἀνέρος: ‘under the influence of a man’ (ὑπό used thus also at 1.242, 2.334, 6.73 etc.): Schw. 2.528  f. 62 νήϊον: sc. δόρυ, ‘beam, plank for a ship’ (so too at 13.391 = 16.484): LfgrE s.v. — ἐκτάμνησιν: What is meant is: hews a beam for a ship from a felled tree-trunk (δόρυ 61) (Müller 1974, 36). On the orthography without ι subscr., ORTH 4; West 1998, XXXI. — ὀφέλλει: ‘increases, intensifies’ (1.510n.): the ax by its heft. — ἐρωήν: perhaps related to Germ. ‘rasen’ (‘rush’); always at VE. The word means ‘momentum, force, energy of a relatively heavy body’ (cf. schol. D ad loc.: δύναμιν); of projectiles, 15.358, 21.251, 23.529 (LfgrE s.v.).   63 ≈ Od. 10.329. — ἀτάρβητος νόος: corresponds to πέλεκυς ἀτειρής (60). νόος means ‘disposition’ (LfgrE s.v. 427.23  f., 58) and characterizes Hektor’s thinking in general (not just his capacity for criticism; Jahn 1987, 71 leaves both possibilities open). ἀτάρβητος could be ‘intrepid, fearless’ here, as at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 110, the only other attestation in early epic (similarly at 12.45  f. κῆρ is the subject of ταρβεῖν: LfgrE s.v.); in connection with

60 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — πέλεκυς ὥς: = ὡς πέλεκυς. 61 τ(ε) … τε: 2× ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — δουρός: on the form, R 4.2, R 12.5. — ἀνέρος: = ἀνδρός; metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). 62 ἐκτάμνησιν: = ἐκτέμνησιν; 3rd sing. subjunc. (R 16.3). 63 σοί: emphatic. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3.

Commentary 

 39

Paris’ muted criticism, however, the word can also be understood ‘without respect’; cf. ταρβεῖν in Aesch. Eum. 700 ταρβοῦντες … σέβας and 714  f. χρησμοὺς … ταρβεῖν as at Soph. OC 292 ταρβεῖν … τἀνθυμήματα.

64–66 Paris defends his lifestyle in response to Hektor (60–63) (Bergold 1977, 39  f.; Reichel 1994, 250; Stoevesandt 2004, 180  f.). In the ‘Judgement of Paris’, he chose Aphrodite (CH 8) and received gifts (54) from the un-warlike goddess (5.428–430: Monsacré 1984, 48) that render him an outsider within an ‘elite characterized by a strict code of duties’ (Latacz 1992, 207, transl.). He appears to suffer as a result (cf. 6.326n., 6.335–336n.), but defends his gifts as god-given; anyone who receives such things, even without having asked for them, is compelled to accept them gratefully and cannot simply rid himself of them (ambiguous apóblēta 65: ‘to be rejected’ [2.361n.] and ‘not disposable’: Bergold 1977, 41). This fits with other statements in early epic about divine gifts, according to which gods determine what they give humans and how, when and in what assortment, and the human has no choice in the matter (4.318–320, 24.518–551, Od. 4.236  f., 18.142, h.Cer. 147  f.) but must accept whatever the gods bestow; this may be put by way of justification, as here, as a comfort (Od. 6.188–190, 14.444  f.) or as a warning (Il. 9.38  f., 13.726–734). Rejecting the gifts bestowed may result in divine punishment (thus Aphrodite threatens the rebellious Helen with death: 413–420n.). For more on divine gifts, 54n. with bibliography. 64 δῶρ’ … Ἀφροδίτης: in typical catch-word techniqueP, Paris ‘cites’ Hektor (54). — ἐρατά: ‘sought-after, lovely, charming’; as here, of love at Hes. Th. 970 ≈ 1009 ≈ 1018, ‘Hes.’ fr. 235.3 M.-W.; also of feminine beauty (Hes. Th. 259 ≈ 353/355), song, music (h.Merc. 153 etc.) and places (h.Ap. 380 etc.): LfgrE s.v. — χρυσῆς Ἀφροδίτης: an inflectible VE formula (attested in all cases, in total 5× Il., 5× Od., 1× h.Ven., 13× Hes.). On the contracted form of χρύσεος, West 1998, XXXVIf. On the epithet ‘golden’ as an expression of Aphrodite’s beauty, perhaps originally a mark of Eos, Boedeker 1974, 22  f.; West 2007, 221 n. 90; on gold as a divine attribute generally, 2.448n.; West loc. cit. 153  f., with IE parallels. 65 1st VH ≈ 2.361; 2nd VH = 20.265. — ἐρικυδέα: from κῦδος ‘fame’: ‘brilliant, splendid’; of divine gifts and sacrificial meals: ‘resplendent, opulent’ (24.802, Od. 3.66, 10.182, 13.26, 20.280); of persons (predominantly goddesses) ‘venerable, majestic’ (14.327, Od. 11.631): LfgrE s.v. 66 αὐτοί: either ‘themselves’, i.e. no one else, and then, as in most references of αὐτός to one or more unnamed divinities, likely with no particular emphasis (cf., e.g., Od. 11.139

65 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1) or ethical dat. fossilized into a particle (R 24.12). 66 ὅσσα: on -σσ-, R 9.1. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — δῶσιν: 3rd sing. subjunc. (↑).

40 

 Iliad 3

τὰ μὲν … ἐπέκλωσαν θεοὶ αὐτοί; LfgrE s.v. 1636.62  ff.); or ‘of their own accord’ (AH; Faesi) to emphasize divine will (contrasted by negated ἑκών). — δῶσιν: iterative-distributive subjunc. (rare in such relative clauses: elsewhere only Od. 18.137; see Ruijgh 561; Pucci 1998, 7 n. 10). — ἑκὼν δ’ οὐκ ἄν τις ἕλοιτο: αἱρέομαι in mid. in connection with αὐτός or ἑκών can mean ‘choose for oneself’ (9.139, 9.281, 10.242, Od. 9.334 etc.) or ‘take possession of, take’ (e.g. 1.137, 1.324, 13.729, Hes. Op. 359): LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 360.5  ff. The fact that Hektor’s criticism is fundamentally accepted (59), along with the self-justifying tone of 64–66 (see ad loc.), suggest the sense ‘no one would choose them of his own free will’ (Fränkel [1951] 1962, 75; van der Mije 1987, 253; Kirk on 65–6; cf. Leaf; the epithets ἐρατά and ἐρικυδέα in 64  f. are then not to be regarded as pregnant).

67–75 Paris reacts to Hektor’s provocative request (59–75n.) and narrows the sweeping challenge to the best of the Achaians (19) to an offer of a duel with Menelaos. Such a duel (cf. 15–37n.) is not part of the general massed battle, but takes place in accord with a solemn decision and rules fixed beforehand, during a truce, between the two armies, who act as spectators (Latacz 1977, 133  f.; Duban 1981, 98  f.; Létoublon 1983, 30; Hellmann 2000, 122; Udwin 1999, 9–12; in brief, West 1997, 214; on the transformation of the space between the armies into a ‘stage’ where the duel is ‘enacted’, Tsagalis 2012, 62  f.; cf. also 342n.). The expected clash of the armies following their advance (1–14n.) is thus postponed further (it occurs only in 4.446  ff.): Morrison 1992, 41. The formal duel proposed here and conducted in 245–382 after a ritual oath is meant to decide the entire war. The offer of a duel would of course be expected near the beginning of the hostilities; but the narrator’s technique has elements of the story’s prehistory reflected in the action superficially playing out in the 9th/10th year of the war (see above, p. 11). Duels between representatives of hostile communities are also found, e.g., in Germanic heroic poetry and the Bible (David and Goliath, I Samuel 17); detailed comparisons and discussion of the historicity of such accounts in Udwin 1999; in brief, West 2007, 486  f. The second formal duel of the Iliad, between Hektor and Aias and described in 7.207–312, which together with the duel here frames the first day of battle (cf. STR 21 fig. 1), on the other hand, is meant simply to document the balance of power between the two armies and is less formal (in detail, Bergold 1977, 183–193; Duban 1981, 99–109; in brief, Hellmann 2000, 122; on individual similarities, especially repeated verses, 76–78n.). A quasi-formal duel between Achilleus and Hektor takes place in 22.1–404. 67 2nd VH = 2.121, 2.452, 3.435, 7.3, 11.12, 13.74, 14.152; ≈ 7.279, 21.572. — νῦν αὖτ(ε): marks Paris’ transition from justification to concession (AH). — εἴ μ’ ἐθέλεις: with a causal

67 ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4).

Commentary 

 41

nuance (‘since you wish’), as in other indefinite εἰ-clauses with a resumptive function (reference to a preceding statement or the actual situation), e.g. 23.558, Od. 3.376, 13.238 (Chantr. 2.287; Wakker 1994, 126–129). — πολεμίζειν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι: a VE formula (see iterata); on the synonym doubling, 1.492n. 68 = 7.49. — ἄλλους: The contrast between two individuals (69: ἔμ’, Μενέλαον) and ‘others’ is frequently differentiated by ring-compositionP; here: the others (68) – Paris and Menelaos (69  ff.) – the others (73  ff.), likewise at 88–94, 250–258, reversed at 5.875–880, 24.767–775 (Lohmann 1970, 111 n. 32). — κάθεσον: sing., since this lies in Hektor’s competence; συμβάλετ(ε) (70), on the other hand, requires the participation of both sides (Hooker). καθίζω trans. ‘make sit, let settle down’: the armies sit down afterward, with their weapons laid aside (89, 114), as spectators (LfgrE s.v. ἑζεσθαι 410.31  ff.). On the transmitted form κάθισον (Hellenistic pronunciation), Wackernagel 1916, 63  f.; West 1998, XXXI.

69–73 ≈ 90–94. 70 possessions: repeatedly mentioned in the Iliad as the subject of negotiations (72, 91, 93, 255, 282, 285, 458, 7.350, 7.363, 7.389, 7.400, 22.114; cf. also 13.626); according to the Cypria (Proclus, Chrest. § 2 West), Paris took many objects when he abducted Helen (Kakridis [1954] 1971, 26–27, with n. 3). συμβάλετ(ε): συμβάλλω is ‘throw together […] two similar objects so they mix, clash’ (LfgrE s.v. βάλλω 31.42–44, transl.; here Paris and Menelaos, 20.55 Greeks and Trojans; 4.453, 5.774 water from two rivers, 4.447 = 8.61 lances). — ἀμφ(ί): indicates the subject of the battle, as at Od. 22.227 (Helen), Il. 16.526 (Sarpedon’s body) etc. (Chantr. 2.87; Fritz 2005, 82).

71–75 With the offer of a duel, the prospect of settling the conflict without the destruction of Troy presents itself in a false prolepsisP. In contrast to the second formal duel (cf. 7.52  f.), the narrator leaves the characters in a state of uncertainty regarding the outcome and effects of the battle (until 4.155  ff.; 3.95, 111  f., 259n., 275–291n., 297–302n., 306–307n., 318–324a n.). As in the first and second Books (1.169–171n.), the narrator brings an alternative to the traditional course of the Trojan War into the audience’s view – this time, however, with no clarifying hints (cf. 2.36–40n., 2.155–156n., 3.302n., 3.316–325n., 3.350–355a n., 3.373–382n.) and in a longer section of the text – thus creating uncertainty and heightening curiosity about how he will connect the description of the duel with the fixed myth (Morrison 1992, 54–63). 71 = Od. 18.46. — νικήσῃ κρέσσων τε γένηται: on the synonym doubling of words from the realm of battle/war, 1.492n. On the orthography κρέσσων, ORTH 2; West 1998, XX, s.v. ἄσσον.

69 αὐτάρ: ‘but, however’ (R 24.2).

42 

 Iliad 3

72 take the possessions … and the woman, and lead her homeward: based on the idea that the prize is located on the field of battle (as at 23.259–261) and that Helen, as the prize of battle, looks on, as in the mythical contest of suitors (AH, Anh. ad loc.; Bergold 1977, 45 with n. 2; on the contest of suitors in myth, Kakridis [1954] 1971, 33–35). εὖ: with ἑλών, ‘fittingly’ (Nägelsbach; Leaf). — οἴκαδ’ ἀγέσθω: ἄγεσθαι with an inanimate direct object means ‘to carry as a personal possession, take with one’, here with κτήματα as at 93, 7.390, 22.116, Od. 4.82; with women as the object ‘take (home) with one’ as slave (6.455) or lawful wife after a kidnapping (4.19), with οἴκαδε/οἶκον, as here, a technical term for ‘bring/lead home a woman as wife’ (404, Od. 6.159 etc., without specifying the destination 18.87, Od. 6.28, Hes. Th. 266 etc.); also ‘lead a woman into a common home for another man’ (Od. 4.10, 21.214, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 274 etc.): LfgrE s.vv. ἄγω 120.74  ff. and οἴκαδε. 73–75 ≈ 256–258. 73 οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι: all others, divided in v. 74 into Trojans (ναίοιτε, sc. ὑμεῖς μέν) and Greeks (τοὶ δέ). Cf. Od. 24.483–485. — φιλότητα καὶ ὅρκια πιστὰ ταμόντες: ὅρκια (πιστὰ) ταμόντες is an inflectible VE formula (also 94, 252/256, 19.191; at VB 2.124, Od. 24.483). ὅρκια, often with the epithet πιστά, ‘insuring trust’ (LfgrE s.v.), indicates the sacrificial animals and, metaphorically, the agreements confirmed by oath at their slaughter (ταμόντες; 2.124n., with bibliography; on the meaning of τάμνω and the possible Eastern origin of the metaphor, see also 292n.; LfgrE s.v. τάμνω 298.63  ff.). The word is also connected with φιλότητα via zeugma: ‘conclude a reliable agreement of friendship’ (cf. 323; Faesi, Leaf; analogous Eastern pleonasms at West 1997, 23). On the oath ritual, 245–302n. 74 ἐριβώλακα: ‘with large, solid clods (of earth)’, a generic epithetP of fertile land (1.155n.). In connection with Τροίη, an inflectible formula after caesura A 4 (cf. 257, 6.315, 16.461 ≈ 24.86 [see ad loc.]). In Homer, Τροίη can refer equally to the city or the entire Troad (2.141n.).

75 1st VH = 15.30, Od. 15.239; ≈ Od. 4.562, 15.274. — Argos, and Achaia: The collocation denotes Greece as a whole (AH). ‘Argos’ refers to the region of the Peloponnese later called the ‘Argolid’ (cf. 1.30n.). Achaia indicates the northern part of Greece, in contrast to Argos in the south (1.254n.; Latacz [2001] 2004, 121, 124  ff., 133  ff.).

72 τε (ϝ)οἴκαδ’: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἀγέσθω: 3rd sing. imper. 73 ὅρκια πιστὰ ταμόντες: i.e. after the conclusion of a truce; on the phrase, ↑. — ταμόντες: aor. of τάμνω (= τέμνω). 74 τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3, R 17). — νεέσθων: 3rd pl. imper.; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 75 Ἄργος ἐς: = εἰς Ἄργος (R 20.1–2).

Commentary 

 43

Ἄργος ἐς ἱππόβοτον καὶ Ἀχαιΐδα καλλιγύναικα: The parallelism underscores the syntactic structure; likewise in the case of ethnic and geographical names at 10.431, Od. 4.702 (Fehling 1969, 308  f.). — ἱππόβοτον: a generic epithetP of islands and regions, e.g. 14× of Argos; as here, an inflectible VB formula at Od. 4.562, ‘Hes.’ fr. 25.36 M.-W.; the meaning ‘steed-nurturing’ is more likely than ‘grazed by horses’ (2.287n.). — Ἀχαιΐδα: sc. γῆν (LfgrE s.v.). — καλλιγύναικα: ‘full of beautiful women’; a generic epithetP that emphasizes the appeal of a region (2.683n.). Here Paris obviously associates Greece with Helen (schol. AbT ad loc.; Kirk on 73–5; LfgrE s.v. with reference to Od. 13.412 Σπάρτην ἐς κ.).

76–120 Hektor and Menelaos agree to the offer. Menelaos asks that a treaty be concluded in the presence of Priam before the duel and that it be confirmed by a ritual oath. As a result, heralds are sent to Troy and into the Greek camp to make the necessary preparations. 76–78 = 7.54–56. These verses are part of the pair of duel-scenes that frame the first day of battle (67–75n.). They contain formulaic elements like ὣς ἔφαθ’ (76n.) but also rarely attested words like ἱδρύθησαν, and the motifs, the raising of a lance and the reaction of the army to it, occur nowhere else. Other verses, too, are identical or similar in the two scenes (3.85  f. ≈ 7.66  f., 3.324 ≈ 7.181, 3.348 = 7.259, 3.355b–360 = 7.249b–254). In Book 7, however, explicit reference to the first duel is lacking: likely the poet simply used the same traditional narrative pattern twice and allowed the parallelism to work as such (Kirk 1978; Reichel 1994, 241). 76 ὣς ἔφαθ’: speech capping formulaP (1.33n.). — αὖτ(ε): 58n. — ἐχάρη: The description of the joyful reaction to his readiness for the duel (76, 111) frames this depiction of gradually descending calm (84, 95): ring-compositionP (Steinrück 1992, 86). — μέγα: adverbial (originally an internal acc.: Schw. 2.77  f., Chantr. 2.44). — μῦθον ἀκούσας: an inflectible VE formula (8× Il., 11× Od., 4× Hes., 4× h.Hom.); at VB 1× Il., 1× Hes.; cf. h.Merc. 334. 77 = 7.55; 2nd VH ≈ 13.718, 17.285, 19.152. — ἐς μέσσον: toward the middle (in the μεταίχμιον) between the two fronts, from where he later speaks (85). On the meaning of this central space for the truce until 4.444, Elmer 2012, 35–38. — ἀνέεργε: ‘force back’ as at 7.55, 17.752, h.Merc. 211 (LfgrE s.v. (ἐ)έργω). — φάλαγγας: The term φάλαγγες – always pl. in Homer except at 6.6 (see ad loc.) – designates a formation that is ready for battle (2.558n., cf. 15; on the importance of φάλαγγες in battle, Latacz 1977, 26–67; Hellmann 2000, 104–112, with an overview of recent research).

76 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο: impf. of φημί; on the mid., R 23. — μέγα: adv. (↑), ‘greatly’; to be construed with ἐχάρη. 77 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — μέσσον: on -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἀνέ(ϝ)εργε: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

44 

 Iliad 3

78 = 7.56. The verse is missing in several manuscripts; that ἱδρύθησαν in the meaning of ἱδρύω attested elsewhere, ‘make sit’ (2.191, 7.56, Od. 3.37: LfgrE s.v.), does not fit here, as the Trojans sit down only later (326, cf. 111–115, 134–135n.), is also problematic. West accordingly suspects that the verse is a concordance interpolation from Book 7 and athetizes it (2001, 13 n. 31; already similarly, Faesi). But ἱδρύθησαν, as the conclusion of the durative impf. ἀνέεργε 77, could here mean simply ‘they were brought to a standstill’ (AH, Faesi; cf. 84 ἔσχοντο μάχης and ἕαται in 134 [with n.]). — μέσσου δουρός: ‘«the spear in the middle», […] so that he forced back the Trojans with its horizontal length’ (AH, transl.). ἱδρύθησαν: on the variant ἱδρύνθησαν, Schw. 1.761 n. 5; Chantr. 1.404 (analogy to forms like ἐκλίνθη 360).

79 kept pointing their bows at him: The motif that one side continues to fight, while the other has broken off battle, occurs only here. ἐπετοξάζοντο: a Homeric hapaxP: ‘shoot at someone’ (LfgrE). On the status of archers in Homeric battle scenes, 18n. — κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί: 43n.

80 with flung stones: Stones are thrown in a massed exchange of missiles also at 12.287 and 16.774; in an individual fight with deadly result, 4.517–526, 12.378– 386, 16.411–414, 16.577–580, 16.586  f., 16.733–743; injury from flung stones: 5.302–310, 5.580–583, 7.263–272, 8.320–329, 14.409–420, 21.403–408; rescue from a flung stone: 20.285–291 (Hellmann 2000, 66 n. 92, 108 n. 90). τιτυσκόμενοι: τιτύσκομαι < *τι-τύχ-σκ-ομαι (Frisk) from τεύχω and τυγχάνω, ‘(repeatedly) ready oneself’ (for a goal one wishes to attain, τυγχάνειν), ‘aim’ (here with arrows; 13.159 ≈ 370 and 21.582 with a spear): Trümpy 1950, 110  f.; Giannakis 1997, 251–254. — λάεσσι: 12n.

81 Agamemnon: As Achaian commander-in-chief (CH 2), he is forced to put his foot down in delicate situations, both here and later (455  ff.). μακρὸν ἄϋσεν: an inflectible formula (5× Il., 1× Od. after caesura A 3; 14× Il. at VE), mostly, as here, part of a speech introductionP. ἀΰω ‘cry out, howl’ (onomatopoetic); μακρόν ‘far, loud’; the word usually introduces a battle-cry in the tumult, but here, as at Od. 24.530, an order to cease fighting (LfgrE s.v. αὔω 1691.78  ff.). — ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectible VE formula (2.434n.); on the collocation ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν 1.7n.

78 δουρός: on the form, R 4.2, R 12.5. — τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3, R 17). 79 ἐπετοξάζοντο: iterative/conative. — κάρη κομόωντες: 43n. 80 ἰοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2. — λάεσσι: dat. pl. of λᾶας ‘stone’ (R 11.3). — ἔβαλλον: iterative/conative. 81 ὃ … Ἀγαμέμνων: Ἀγαμέμνων is in apposition to the prospective demonstrative ὅ (R 17); ‘but the one, Agamemnon’. — μακρόν: adv. (↑).

Commentary 

 45

82 ≈ Od. 24.54. The doubling of the address and the order (in a rhetorical polar expressionP, cf. 1.198, 1.468 etc.), along with the asyndeton, stress the urgency of the situation (AH; Kirk on 82–3; cf. 2.284n.). — Ἀργεῖοι: ‘Greeks’, 19n. — κοῦροι Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula and a metrically conditioned variant of υἷες Ἀχαιῶν, referring to all Greeks present (1.473n.). 83 στεῦται: athematic epic verb, usually with an inf. (2.597n.), ‘be obvious, clear; make clear’; here ‘he behaves so that it is clear / he makes it clear that he wishes to speak’ (similarly 18.191): LfgrE s.v. στεῦται. — κορυθαιόλος: a distinctive epithetP of Hektor; etymology and meaning uncertain (2.816n., 6.116n.).

84–85 On the sequence ‘speech capping formulaP – reaction of the audience – speech introduction formulaP’, 2.333–335n. As generally in Homeric epic, the order is followed with no further ado (1.345n.; here, after the speech capping formula, it is narrated in the same verse, as in 2.16, 6.286 etc.). 84 ὣς ἔφαθ’, οἳ δ(έ): a formulaic speech capping formulaP (45× Il., 35× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Hom.); on the capping formula scheme ‘spoke’ + reaction of addressee, see 1.33n.; Finkelberg 1989, 182  f. — ἄνεώ τ’ ἐγένοντο: ‘they became quiet’; ἄνεω adv., indicating the absence of speech / a falling silent (2.323n.). 85 From caesura A 4 on = 7.66. — ἐσσυμένως: ‘zestfully, eagerly, quickly’ (from σεύομαι), as here of obeying (‘promptly, zealously’) at Od. 15.288, h.Cer. 341, 359, 449 (LfgrE s.v.); normally at VB, as clause-end (with enjambmentP) also at 23.364, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 340, 435. — μετ’ ἀμφοτέροισιν: ‘between the two (armies)’; the oldest meaning of μετά, ‘in the midst of’, is still the main one in Homeric epic (Schw. 2.481  f.).

86 = 304, 7.67. — Trojans: The entire anti-Greek force is meant (2.125–126n.). — strong-greaved: on the realia, 1.17n. κέκλυτέ μοι: a VB formula for a speech introduction (9× Il., 10× Od., 2× Hes., 1× h.Hom.), in Homeric epic always before a formulaic address. κέ-κλυ-τε is likely originally an athematic reduplicated aorist later interpreted as a perfect (LfgrE s.v. with bibliography; Rix [1976] 1992, 216). — μοι: thus West with van Leeuwen against the mss. reading μευ (West 1998, XXXII, who in general prefers the older μεο/με’ for the gen.; differently, G 81 n. 38). μοι can be dat. or gen. (G 81; 1.37n.; LfgrE loc. cit. 1459.25  ff.). — ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί: an inflectible VE formula (31× Il., 5× Od., 1× Hes., of which 19× nom., 18× acc.).

82 ἴσχεσθ(ε): imper. mid. of ἴσχω, ‘restrain yourself, stop’. — βάλλετε: pres. imper., durative: ‘do not throw ⟨any more⟩’. 83 τι (ϝ)έπος (ϝ)ερέειν: on the prosody, R 5.4 or 4.5; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 84 ἔσχοντο: ‘leave off from’. — ἄνεω: ‘silent’ (adv.). 85 μετ’ … ἔ(ϝ)ειπεν: = μετεῖπεν; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

46 

 Iliad 3

87 = 7.374, 7.388. VE from caesura C 2 on = 12.348, 12.361, 13.122, 15.400; ≈ 17.384, 20.140, Od. 16.98, 16.116, 20.267. — εἵνεκα: on the metrical lengthening, 1.174n. — νεῖκος: ‘quarrel’; here ‘armed conflict, battle, war’, as at 7.374, 7.388, 22.116 etc. (LfgrE s.v.); stressing a clash in a specific instance, in contrast to πόλεμος, which denotes the war in general (Trümpy 1950, 144). 88–94 Hektor mostly repeats Paris’ speech word for word (68–75); a number of the expressions also appear in Idaios’ messenger speech to Priam 255–258. On such repetitions in command speeches (principle of elaborate narrationP), 2.28–32n. with bibliography. A few changes are made, however: 1) 88–89: κάθεσον (68) is left out, and an additional call to lay down weapons is inserted, as important for Hektor after the Greek attack to allow him to speak in peace (Hebel 1970, 138); 2) 90–94 αὐτὰρ ἔμ’ (69) is necessarily changed to αὐτὸν δ’, συμβάλετ’ (70) to οἴους, ταμόντες (73) to τάμωμεν; 3) 74–75 is omitted, since according to the narrator Hektor deems it unnecessary, and probably undiplomatic as well, to discuss the consequences of withdrawal at this point (Hebel loc. cit.; Kirk on 86–94). As at e.g. 15.182 or Od. 1.39  f., indirect speech (κέλεται 88) 92 slips into direct speech (on such simplifications of style in general, Tzamali 1996, 71  f.), and in 94 Hektor includes himself with τάμωμεν. His instructions thus have a more personal effect than a messenger speech, and he lends Paris’ words the authority of his own person (Hebel loc. cit.).

89 The reaction of the fighters to Paris’ proposal appears in 114, 135 and 195: the weapons are laid aside, the armies are now merely spectators. τεύχεα κάλ(α): formulaic: here and 18.137 at VB, a further 8× Il., 2× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ at VE; 6× Il., 1× Od. after caesura A 3; 1× Il. in enjambment. — ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ: an inflectible VE formula (12× Il., 2× Od., 4× Hes., 2× h.Hom. [ἐπὶ] χθονὶ/χθόνα πουλυβοτείρῃ/ πουλυβότειραν). πουλυβότειρα is ‘feeding many’; only in this formula and 1× with Ἀχαιΐδα (11.170; see LfgrE s.v.). 94 οἱ δ’ ἄλλοι … τάμωμεν: οἱ ἄλλοι is in apposition to the 1st pl.: ‘we, the others’ (Schw. 2.63).

95–96 On the transition between the two speeches, 84–85n. 95 = 9.693, 23.676, Od. 8.234 etc. (in total 10× Il., 5× Od.); aside from these, 1st VH in total 7× Il., 18× Od.; from caesura A 3 = Od. 7.154. — ἀκὴν ἐγένοντο σιωπῇ: ἀκήν ‘silent’; adv., fossilized acc. of a noun ἀκή, perhaps with ἀκέων from *ak-, ‘attentive’ (1.34n. with bibliography). The silence in the present formula is always one of ‘«not knowing what

87 Ἀλεξάνδροιο: on the declension, R 11.2. — τοῦ εἵνεκα: on the correption, R 5.5. — τοῦ: with the function of οὗ (R 14.5). — ὄρωρεν: intrans. perf. of ὄρνυμι, ‘arise, originate’. 88 κέλεται: κέλομαι for κελεύω is frequent in Homer. 89 τεύχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — πουλυβοτείρῃ: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1); on the ending, R 2. 90–94 ≈ 69–73 (see ad loc.). 95 ἀκήν: adv. (↑).

Commentary 

 47

to say», an indecisive silence’ (Latacz [1968] 1994, 610, transl.); here the Achaians are overwhelmed by Hektor’s words (they did not expect such an offer after Paris’ retreat) and do not know how Menelaos will react (Morrison 1992, 58). Other forms and formulae of silence: 17.696 (inability to speak), Od. 1.381 etc. (grim silence), Od. 17.57 etc. (shocked silence): Latacz loc. cit. 611–616. 96 τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπε: a VB formula (2.336n.); on the form μετέειπε (< *μετέϝειπε), 2.59n. — βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος: an inflectible VE formula; βοὴν ἀγαθός: ‘powerful in shouting’; construed closely together, used as a generic epithetP of warriors, probably with reference to a good commanding voice (cf. κέκλυτε 97), also to the ability to produce a battle-cry loud enough to frighten the enemy (2.408n.).

97–107 The short clauses and interruptions (cf. also the enjambmentP in vv. 98, 102, 106) may reflect Menelaos’ style (213–215) but also an inner dismay, his ‘agony’ (97 álgos): on the one hand, his personal sorrow at the abduction of Helen (Barck 1971, 22; differently, Kirk on 97–110: because the opportunity for revenge [cf. v. 23] is now limited by the terms of the treaty), on the other hand, agony at the suffering of the others, as he is conscious of his responsibility for the war (2.409n., 7.101  f., 10.25–28, 17.91  f., 23.607  f.; Barck loc. cit. 12; Rousseau 1990, 339  ff.). In a diplomatic manner, he also takes into account the suffering of the Trojans (99 ‘Argives and Trojans, you have suffered much evil’: Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 167). 97 1st VH ≈ 10.284, 2nd VH ≈ Od. 2.41. — κέκλυτε: 86n. — γάρ: primarily justifies the call to listen (cf. καὶ ἐμεῖο) but also the subsequent acceptance of the offer of a duel (101–107). Further instances of γάρ referring as much to what precedes as to what follows, e.g. Od. 23.361–365, at Denniston 70. 98 φρονέω: ‘I am intent on’, as at 5.564 and 17.286 (Bergold 1977, 49 n. 2; Kirk on 98–9). — διακρινθήμεναι: ‘to part company’, after the ritual oath and the duel (likewise 102; less conclusively 7.306  f.): LfgrE s.v. κρίνω 1544.45  ff. Ingressive aor. related to a future action, as often after verbs with an implication of intent, e.g. h.Ap. 247  f. (AH; Chantr. 2.307–311). — ἤδη: ‘now’, as at 1.456, Od. 1.303, 20.315 etc. (Bäumlein 1861, 141; AH; Kirk on 98–9).

99 1st VH ≈ 12.3. — evil: The burdensome war already fought for nine years far from home and with the constant threat of death (2.115, 2.161  f. = 2.177  f., 2.289– 296, 2.388  f. [see ad loc.]; cf. 2.400  f.). ἐπεὶ κακὰ πολλὰ πέπασθε: an inflectible VE formula (with πέπασθε also Od. 23.53, ≈ Od. 10.465, with πέπονθα Od. 17.284). κακὰ πολλὰ παθών/παθόντ(α) likewise after cae-

96 βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1; ↑). 97 ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1). 98 διακρινθήμεναι: on the declension, R 16.4.

48 

 Iliad 3

sura A 4 (Od. 5.377, 8.184, 15.176), after caesura A 1 (Od. 2.174); Od. 3.113 πόλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς πάθομεν κακά, Od. 16.205 only παθὼν κακά. πέπασθε: on the ending: 2nd pl. perf. act., rather than πέπο-σ-τε (-στε in accord with the abstraction of a stem in -σ- in the case of liquid/nasal stems; -θε is then analogous to e.g. ἐγρήγορθε [rst > rth, 7.371, 18.299]: Hackstein 2002, 246–253). For a defence of the transmitted πέποσθε (πέπασθε is an Alexandrinian emendation) and an explanation of it (o-grade), Hackstein loc. cit. 250.

100 ≈ 6.356; 2nd VH ≈ 24.28. — εἵνεκ(α) … ἕνεκ(α): a prosodic variation of repeated words like Ἆρες Ἄρες 5.31, 5.455, ῥέα … ῥεῖα 17.461  f., Hes. Op. 5  f. etc. (Fehling 1969, 178). — ἔριδος: ‘quarrel’, which Paris originally initiated (ἀρχῆς) with Menelaos alone (ἐμῆς): LfgrE s.v.; Kirk. — Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ(α): Hiatus without correption after a long vowel or diphthong in the 5th longum is common in early epic, e.g. after -ου 2.134, 2.803, or after -η 3.141: Monro (1882) 1891, 355  f.; Risch 1987, 8; cf. also 2.198n. — ἀρχῆς: ‘causative action, cause’, thus ≈ ‘because Paris began it’ (LfgrE s.v.); ἔριδος and ἀρχῆς complement one another (West 2001, 197  f., who translates: ‘my quarrel [with Alexander] and Alexander’s initiating [of it]’). Paris is also considered the initiator at 87 and 351, his ships are ἀρχέκακοι at 5.62  f., at 22.114–116 the abduction of Helen and Menelaos’ treasure is νείκεος ἀρχή (LfgrE loc. cit.; Bergold 1977, 50 n. 2; Hooker on 99–100). ἀρχή in this sense is perhaps derived from ἄρχω as a technical legal term, ‘inflict harm on another first’ (2.378, 4.67, Hes. Op. 709, h.Ap. 312; the timeless question is always: ‘who started it?’; cf. 3.299, 4.271, Hes. Th. 166 ≈ 172): LfgrE s.v. ἄρχω 1384.60  ff. Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ’ ἀρχῆς: As in the parallel passages 6.356 and 24.28 (with nn.), the transmission wavers between the variants ἀρχῆς and ἄτης. Here Zenodotus read ἄτης (see app. crit.), but Aristarchus ἀρχῆς; the latter fits with ἔριδος (see above on ἔριδος) and is appropriate for the emphasis on Paris’ responsibility (see above on ἀρχῆς) and Menelaos’ sense of justice (cf. 28, 23.570–585: Rousseau 1990, 344  ff.).

101 death and doom are given: Menelaos formulates it more harshly than Paris had (71; cf. 275– 291n. on the terms Agamemnon determines for the treaty). θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα: this synonym doubling (on which, 1.160n.) also 9× Il., 1× Il. parv. (cf. 2.352n.). On the meaning of μοῖρα, Dietrich 1965, 195; cf. also CG 29.

102 2nd VH ≈ Od. 24.532. 103–104 Menelaos proceeds immediately to the oath ritual meant to precede the formal duel (for which in general, 245–302n.). The request corresponds to element 1 (have a sacrificial animal brought) of the type-sceneP ‘sacrifice’ (1.447–468n.). Lambs are often used as sacrificial animals (LfgrE s.v. ἀρήν 1243.57  ff.; 1.66n.). Here their deaths, like that of the boar in 19.249–265, serve to give a solemn and more firmly binding character to the agreements con-

100 Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ(α): on the hiatus, ↑. 101 ἡμέ͜ων: = ἡμῶν (R 14.1); on the synizesis, R 7. — ὁπποτέρῳ: on -ππ-, R 9.1. — τέτυκται: ‘is prepared’, 3rd sing. perf. pass. of τεύχω. 102 τεθναίη· ἄλλοι: on the prosody, R 5.6.

Commentary 

 49

firmed by oath (v. 107) in a cursing ritual (Stengel [1890] 1920, 137; Nilsson [1940] 1967, 140  f., with examples from later periods as well; cf. Burkert [1977] 1985, 250  f.). Unlike in a normal sacrifice, however, the meat will not be divided into a portion for eating and a portion for burning for the gods, but will be disposed of in a different way (292–302n., 310n.). Nevertheless, the formulation here is as if the animals were to be killed in honor of the gods; divinities who act as witnesses to oath rituals are apparently also perceived as recipients of the blood sacrifices (Nilsson loc. cit. 141; cf. 292–302n.). The gods named are ‘[t]he most common gods of oaths in public oaths in Greece […] – Ge as the solid physical foundation of human existence, Zeus as the guarantor of the legal system, Helios as all-seeing witness’ (Graf 2005, 245, transl.; cf. 276–280; on the gods of oaths in general, 1.86n.). The earth-goddess Ge (also ‘Gaia’) and the sun-god Helios (on both, CG 38; Burkert [1977] 1985, 175; BNP s.v. Gaia and Sol; on Helios, West 1997, 20; 2007, 194–201) represent, as in 19.259, the entire cosmos (Burkert loc. cit. 251; on Eastern parallels, 276–279n.). The Trojans likely bring lambs for Gaia and Helios because they are the inhabitants of the region (schol. bT; similarly Stengel 1910, 21–23). As Zeus Horkios (‘belonging to the oath’), Zeus watches over the observance of oaths and treaties (107, 7.411; on his pre-eminent position in regard to oaths generally, Nilsson loc. cit. 421; Burkert loc. cit. 251; West 2007, 172). By abducting Helen, Paris violated guest-friendship (on its significance, 207n.); the Greeks should accordingly offer their lamb to the guardian of guest-friendship, Zeus Xeinios (schol. bT ad loc.; Kirk; cf. 1.175n.; Hall 1989, 43, with reference to 297  f., 4.44–49: the narrator regards Zeus as a Trojan god as well; cf. 1.14n.). Menelaos calls for a white lamb for Helios and a black one for Ge, corresponding to instructions attested also for other cases (black animals for chthonic deities at Od. 3.6, as here; for the dead at Od. 10.524  f. = 11.32  f.; white for Helios in inscriptions and for the Dioskouroi at h.Hom. 33.10: Stengel 1910, 187–190; Stratiki 2004; Hermary/ Leguilloux 2004, 97). The correspondence of the sex of the sacrifical animal with that of the deity invoked (as in 6.94, 23.147 etc.) accords with standard practice as known from literary sources and archaeological evidence (Stengel loc. cit. 191–196; Hermary/Leguilloux loc. cit. 97  f.). λευκόν, … μέλαιναν, | Γῇ … Ἠελίῳ: chiasmus, ‘continuity of thought’ principleP. 103 A tripartite verse with two parallel cola, like 277 (Bühler 1960, 220). — oἴσετε ἄρν(ε): asyndeton in the transition to a request: Schw. 2.632. — ἕτερον … ἑτέρην: anaphora, as at ‘Hes.’ fr. 25.37 M.-W. etc. (Fehling 1969, 204).

103 οἴσετε (ϝ)άρν’: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἄρν(ε): acc. dual of ἀρήν, ‘lamb’. — λευκόν(ν), ἑτέρην: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura).

50 

 Iliad 3

οἴσετε: imperatival, as at Il. 15.718, Od. 20.154, ἄξετε 3.105, 24.778, Od. 14.414, ἄξεσθε Il. 8.505, ὄψεσθε 24.704, οἶσε Od. 22.106, 22.481, οἰσέτω Il. 19.173, Od. 8.255 (Chantr. 1.417  f.). Reasons adduced for the development of these unusual forms are: 1) metrical requirements: the present forms ἄγετε, φέρετε e.g. cannot stand at VB (Chantr. loc. cit.); 2) a need for greater emphasis, especially of the VB: ἄγε(τε) is normally used as a particle only; see 2.72n. (Roth [1970–1974] 1990, 30). Future forms are probably the starting point for the development of the imperative, since they can be desiderative and thus semantically approach an imperative (e.g. 6.71 συλήσετε: after an adhortative subjunc.): Magnien 1912, 3  f.; Hooker (1979) 1996, 410. According to Hooker loc. cit., the 2nd pl. imper. forms originated from a contamination first of the identical endings of pres. imper. and fut. ind., and the others then followed (a further theory is offered by Roth loc. cit. 29–40). In general, it is assumed that the so-called thematic s-aorists οἰσέμεν(αι) 120, 23.564, Od. 3.429, 8.399, 12.10, 18.291, καταξέμεν Il. 6.53, ἀξέμεν(αι) 23.50, 23.111, 24.663 and ἄξοντο 8.545 are derived from these ‘future imperatives’ (Risch 250; Chantr. loc. cit.; Roth loc. cit. 24–26).

104 VB ≈ 19.259. 105–106 ὅρκια τάμνῃ | αὐτός: ὅρκια τάμνειν (73n.) is here likely intended not in the sense ‘to slaughter the sacrificial animals’ (which Agamemnon does later: 292) but metaphorically ‘to conclude the treaty’: by his personal appearance at the ritual, Priam is to act as guarantor of adherence to the treaties (AH; Leaf; Kirk; LfgrE s.v. τάμνω 299.16  ff.). 105 ἄξετε: 103n. — Πριάμοιο βίην: formulaic titulature serving as periphrastic denominationP, like ἱερὴ ἲς Τηλεμάχοιο et sim. (possibly from the Mycenaean period); similarly βίη Ἡρακληείη (2.658n. with bibliography). On Priam, see CH 8; on the origin of his name, 1.19n.; on his age, 181n. 106 ὑπερφίαλοι: ‘arrogant, reckless, excessive’, normally with a clearly negative connotation (Il. 13.621 Trojans, Od. 2.310 suitors, Od. 9.106 Kyklopes, Od. 4.503 ἔπος, adv. Od. 18.71 etc.): LfgrE. Interpreted already in antiquity as from ὑπέρ and φιάλη ‘pot’ (‘overflowing the pot-rim, exceeding the customary, proper standard’: Forssman 1969, 27–34); a connection with φύομαι is also possible (‘having grown to excess’ [‘überwüchsig’]: thus Frisk hypothetically; further suggestions in Beekes). — ἄπιστοι: certainly directed in the first instance at Paris, who abused his position as a guest; but cf. 24.261 (see ad loc.), where after Hektor’s death Priam himself denigrates his remaining sons as ψεῦσται. On the possible background, 108–110n.

107 lest some man overstep: prepares for Pandaros’ violation of the truce in Book 4, as well as for Paris’ refusal to accept defeat and return Helen (7.362): seedP; Postlethwaite 2000, 68. Menelaos’ suspicion is thus later proven to be well-founded; here the audience is likely meant to understand it as referring to his sense of running a greater risk than Paris does, since Menelaos, in contrast

104 Ἠελίῳ: = Ἡλίῳ. 105 Πριάμοιο βίην: = Priam (↑). — ὄφρα (+ subjunc.): ‘that’ (final, R 22.5). 106 ἐπεί (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ παῖδες: οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), ‘sons to him’, ‘his sons’.

Commentary 

 51

to Paris, can ‘in the best case achieve a return to the status quo ante’ with the agreement (Bergold 1977, 52, transl.; similarly schol. bT on 3.95). Διὸς ὅρκια: ‘agreements sworn by Zeus’; similarly, at 245/269 ὅρκια is joined with θεῶν (LfgrE s.v. ὅρκιον 775.23  f.). On Zeus Horkios, 103–104n., and on the meaning of ὅρκια (‘agreements confirmed by oath’), 73n. — δηλήσηται: ‘violates’; the verb is literally ‘injure, destroy’, in reference to property, agreements, body and life, usually with a negative connotation and in direct speech (cf. character languageP). δηλέομαι is similarly used with ὑπὲρ ὅρκια after Pandaros’ breach of the truce at 4.67 = 72, 4.236 ≈ 271; cf. 4.157 (LfgrE s.v.).

108–110 In Homeric epic, the idea is repeatedly expressed that young men often lack understanding and are prone to contravening norms (23.590, 23.604), whereas older men, as a result of their experience and prudence, can offer good advice and ensure what is right (1.259 [see ad loc.], 19.216–219, 23.359–361, Od. 2.16, 7.155–157; Schrade 1952, 246; Preisshofen 1977, 22; Ulf 1990, 74  f.). – Aristarchus (schol. A on 108) athetized these verses because in 108 Menelaos inexplicably softens his criticism (106) of the sons of Priam (schol. A on 108). But the gnomes, as a popular stylistic device for concluding speeches (1.218n.; in general on gnomes, Lardinois 1997), are surely meant as a diplomatic way to temper the rejection of Priam’s sons, as Menelaos is conscious of the delicacy of the situation (107n.). Furthermore, 109–110 provide the rationale for why Menelaos requested Priam in particular as guarantor: he feels that only Priam, with his experience and authority, is a reliable partner in the agreement. Priam can enforce observance of the agreement (Priess 1977, 142); his later departure to the city (310–313) anticipates the tragic breakdown of the truce (Rousseau 1990, 346 n. 33; Udwin 1999, 79  f.). 108 δ(έ): on explanatory δέ introducing a gnome, Race 1999/2000, 219–222. — ὁπλοτέρων: only in the comparative in the Iliad (2.707n.). — ἠερέθονται: ‘dangle, flutter, be fickle’ (2.448n.); the opposite is φρένες ἔμπεδοι, e.g. 6.352 (see ad loc.; Faesi; Leaf). 109 οἷς: = ἐάν τισιν; the relative clause without a preceding demonstrative represents a generalizing conditional clause; similarly at 1.549  f., 19.235 (K.-G. 2.441  f.; Chantr. 2.238). — μετέησιν: 3rd sing. subjunc. (G 90); on the orthography without ι subscr., ORTH 4; West 1998, XXXI. 109–110 πρόσσω καὶ ὀπίσσω | λεύσσει: ‘sees clearly forward and backward at the same time’. The phrase describes the ability to classify present circumstances in a causal chain and thus draw inferences about the future from the past (also of seers): 1.343n. A proverbial usage, with ὁρᾶν 18.250, Od. 24.452, with νοῆσαι 1.343. On the meaning of λεύσσει, LfgrE s.v.

108 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — δ(έ): instead of γάρ (↑). — ὁπλοτέρων: ‘younger’ (↑). 109 πρόσσω, ὀπίσσω: on -σσ-, R 9.1.

52 

 Iliad 3

110 ὅπως ὄχ’ ἄριστα … γένηται: an inflectible VE formula (Od. 13.365, 23.117, with γένοιτο Od. 3.129, 9.420). — μετ’ ἀμφοτέροισι: ‘between, among both (parties)’, as at 4.38: Chantr. 2.117.

111 1st VH = 19.74; ≈ Od. 23.32; 2nd VH: an inflectible VE formula (4× Il. nom., 5× Il. gen., 1× Il. acc.). — were joyful: on joy as a framing motif, 76n.; the war-weariness of both sides is expressed in this remark, as also at 2.142–154, 3.297–301, 319–323 (van Wees 1992, 177; Elmer 2012, 26–28 stresses the collective reaction as the basis for the agreement). ὣς ἔφαθ’, οἳ δ(έ): 84n. 112 ἐλπόμενοι: ἔλπομαι is ‘suppose, think, expect’; of a false assumption, as here, at 16.281  f., 17.404  f. (Achilleus unaware of Patroklos’ death): dramatic ironyP; cf. 71–75n. ἔλπομαι together with χαίρω also at 18.259  f., ‘Hes.’ Sc. 65  f. (LfgrE s.v. (ἐ)έλπομαι, ἔλπω). — παύσασθαι: ingressive; cf. τείσασθαι (28n.). — ὀϊζυροῦ: ὀϊζυρός with an action noun ‘full of suffering, arduous’; cf. h.Hom. 33.17 (πόνος, as here with παύσασθαι), Od. 8.540 (γόος): LfgrE s.v. On the emotional connotation of the word (here in secondary focalizationP, normally in direct speech: cf. character languageP), 1.417n. 113 ἵππους: ἵππος in the pl. often, as here, has the meaning ‘horses and chariot’ (LfgrE s.v. 1215.1  ff., 67). — ἐπὶ στίχας: ‘in lines, in rows’ (2.687n.), meaning that they brought them to a stop and set them in rows (Autenrieth/Kaegi s.v. ἐρύκω). 114 κατέθεντ(ο): Attention is repeatedly drawn to the laying down of the weapons as a sign of the truce, cf. 89n., 195, 327. 115 πλησίον ἀλλήλων: an inflectible VB formula (4× each Il./Od.). — δ(έ): in parataxis, here consecutive (1.10n.). — ἀμφίς: a metrically convenient variant of ἀμφί (2.13n.); ‘all around’, i.e. between the individual Greeks and Trojans (AH, Anh. ad loc.; Leaf; LfgrE) or ‘on both sides’, between the Greeks and the Trojans (i.e. on both sides of the front line, in the μεταίχμιον; AH; Chantr. 2.89; Bergold 1977, 53 n. 4; Kirk on 114–115). In any case, the large amount of equipment, and thus the size of the assembled forces, is made clear. — ἄρουρα: ‘ground, earth’ (cf. Lat. arare), of the ground that remains empty between the armed groups (LfgrE s.v. 1339.72  ff.). The picture of the plain full of warriors and weapons likely anticipates the view from above, the teichoscopia (121–244n.).

116 Hektor sent away to the citadel two heralds: on Hektor as military leader, 2.796–806n. The issuing of orders to heralds, element 1 of the type-sceneP

110 ὄχ(α): ‘by far’. 111 οἳ … Ἀχαιοί τε Τρῶές τε: Ἀχαιοί τε Τρῶές τε is in apposition to the demonstrative pronoun οἵ (R 17); ‘but they, the Achaians and the Trojans’. 113 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἔρυξαν: from ἐρύκειν ‘to stop’. — ἐκ … ἔβαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — ἔβαν: 3rd pl. root aor. (instead of ἔβησαν: R 16.2). 114 τά: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3, R 17). 116 προτὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4. — προτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — δύω: = δύο.

Commentary 

 53

‘delivery of a message’ (1.320–348a n.), is reported only in brief here (indirect speech 117); elements 3 (245–248), 5 (249) and 6 (250–258) follow later: 245– 258n. 117 καρπαλίμως: with φέρειν and καλέσσαι, as is usual in commands (2.17n.; LfgrE s.v. 1336.71  ff.; differently, West [who punctuates after καρπαλίμως and thus connects the adv. with ἔπεμπεν 116]).

118 Talthybios: a herald in the service of the collective force and simultaneously Agamemnon’s personal attendant (1.320–321n.; LfgrE s.v.; on the name ‘Talthybios’, 1.320n.; on the function of heralds in general, 1.321n.). κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: a VE formula. κρείων is ‘ruling, commanding’ (1.102n.). 119–120 VB through caesura C 1 ≈ 24.298. — lambs: Livestock acquired by the army via raids was kept as food supplies (Buchholz 2010, 75  f.). νῆας ἔπι γλαφυράς: a VB formula (16× Il., in addition 3× with ἀνά). γλαφυρός is a very common epithet of ships and a metrical alternative for κοῖλος (2.454n.). — οἰσέμεναι: 103n. — οὐκ ἀπίθησ(ε): on litotes in Homer, Donnelly 1930. Commands in Homer are normally obeyed without comment (1.345n.). — Ἀγαμέμνονι δίῳ: an inflectible VE formula (2.221–222a n.). On the epithet δῖος, 1.7n.

121–244 Summoned by Iris to watch the duel, Helen mounts the top of the tower, where Priam sits with the Trojan elders. The king calls her to him and has her point out the Greek leaders (Agamemnon, Odysseus, Aias) in the plain below. It is inconceivable that in the tenth year of the war Priam is still unfamiliar with the names of the Greeks leaders; like the offer of a duel, the scene belongs narratologically to the beginning of the war (AH on 166; STR 22; Latacz [1985] 1996, 130  f.; Heitsch 2006, 10; in detail, and on individual passages, Grethlein 2006, 272–277; cf. 2.362–368n.). Whether the combination ‘viewing from the walls and catalogue of attackers’ is a traditional, inherited complex of scenes (thus Kirk on 161–246 and Edwards 1987, 189) is impossible to say (Wyatt 1989/90, 18; on similar catalogues, West 2007, 471  f.). The viewing from the walls in the Iliad (the so-called teichoscopia) has multiple functions. (1) It fills the time between the dispatch of the heralds (116) and their arrival in Troy (245; ‘covering’ sceneP: Willcock). (2) It deepens and fills out the picture of important characters; Agamemnon and Odysseus, as well as Menelaos, Aias

117 καρπαλίμως: ‘swiftly’. — καλέσσαι: on -σσ-, R 9.1. 118 αὐτάρ: ‘but, and (for his part)’ (R 24.2). — ὃ … Ἀγαμέμνων: Ἀγαμέμνων is in apposition to ὅ (cf. 111n.). 119 νῆας ἔπι: = ἐπὶ νῆας, so-called anastrophe (R 20.2). — νῆας: on the declension, R 12.1. — ἰέναι, ἠδ’: on the prosody, R 5.6. — ἄρν(ε): acc. dual of ἀρήν ‘lamb’ (cf. 104).

54 

 Iliad 3

and Idomeneus, are seen through the eyes of other actors, while Priam, Helen, Antenor and the remaining Trojan elders are characterized by the way they judge themselves and others. (3) At the same time, it brings the listeners to Troy and shows the suffering of the population in the war (159–160n.), Priam’s respect for his adversary Agamemnon (182–190n.) and his friendliness toward Helen (164–165n.). (4) Helen, the primary cause of the war, makes her first appearance in this scene, having previously been ‘built up’ only indirectly (cf. in subsequent periods the long, indirect exposition of central characters in drama, e.g. of Agamemnon in Aeschylus’ homonymous tragedy); up to this point, the focus of attention has been the original cause of the entire war: Helen’s irresistible attractiveness (2.157–162, 2.354–356, 2.589  f., 3.68–70; Latacz [1987] 1994, 119  f.; 2007, 93). In the teichoscopia, not only does Helen’s effect on others (as a result of her superhuman beauty: 158n.) become clear, but her own feelings do as well: her agonizing guilt, remorse, shame and longing for her homeland, and loneliness (126n., 140n., 172–180n., 229–244n.; Parry 1966, 198; Latacz [1987] 1994, 120  f.; 2007, 94–96). 121–160 Iris informs Helen of the imminent duel and induces her to mount the tower. The advisors of Priam who sit there speak of the uncanny attraction that emanates from her, but also wish she would return to Greece. 121 Helen: the most beautiful woman of Greece, abducted by Paris and brought to Troy (CH 8). Detailed interpretations of her depiction in Homeric epic in Reckford 1964 (epithets, motifs connected with the character and their function in the action of the Iliad; detailed interpretation of 395–420); Groten 1968 (Helen is depicted as a sympathetic character on the whole); Latacz (1987) 1994; 2007 (Helen’s suffering from her own nature); Roisman 2006 (Helen’s battle against compulsion); Blondell 2010; 2013, 53–72 (Helen’s responsibility); on Book 3 in particular, Pucci 2003; idiosyncratically on Helen’s speech and dress as devices she uses deliberately, Worman 2002. An interpretation of the character as a symbol is attempted by Suzuki 1989 (feminist); Austin 1994 (Helen’s uniqueness as an incarnation of beauty). For a comparison of the character of Helen in Homeric epic with that of a presumably older narrative tradition and of IE myths, and on the continued vitality of the subject, Kakridis (1954) 1971 (Helen as a prize of war); West 1975; 2004a; 2007, 230–232 (Helen as an IE daughter of the sun); Clader 1976 (blending of IE and pre-IE ideas); Homeyer 1977 (an assembly of the evidence); Reichel 1999 (compar-

121 λευκωλένῳ ἄγγελος: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

Commentary 

 55

ative history of the motif); Blundell 2013, 27–52 (feminist). On the iconography, Ghali-Kahil 1955; LIMC s.v. Hélène. Comprehensive further bibliography on Helen in Reichel 1999. — came a messenger: abbreviated form of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (full form: 1.320–348a n.); elements 1–2, giving the instructions and departure of the messenger, are lacking here (likewise 2.786–808, see ad loc.; cf. 6.269–278n.), and the scene begins with the arrival of the messenger (element 3: 121–124); after this come the description of the situation (element 4: 125–128), the approach of the messenger and the relating of the message (elements 5 and 6: 129–138). Since the individual giving Iris her orders (usually Zeus: 2.787, 8.397  f., 11.182–185, 15.143  f./152/157, 24.77, 24.143; Hera: 18.166–168; exceptions: 5.353, 23.198  f.; see LfgrE s.v. Ἶρις 1221.39  ff.) is exceptionally left unnamed, her motivation is a matter of dispute. Largely because of Helen’s desire for Menelaos (139  f.) and because of 5.353– 369 (Iris cares for the wounded Aphrodite), a special relationship between Iris and Aphrodite has been supposed (schol. bT; older bibliography in Hentze 1903, 335  f.; FG 38 s.v. Iris). This might perhaps explain 5.353–369 but not Iris’ function here of arousing Helen’s longing for her homeland (139  f.); in terms of cult and genealogy, no relationship between the two divine figures can be established (information from Graf). Instead, Iris is probably to be imagined as a female counterpart of the male messenger of the gods, Hermes (CG 17), since she inserts herself into a specifically female sphere (125n.). By filling Helen with desire for her first husband (139  f.), Iris acts in any case in accord with the intentions of Zeus, who desires the fall of Troy and the return of Helen to Sparta. As in 5.353  ff., Iris could then be understood as acting with Zeus’ approval (Erbse 1986, 62; Kelly 2007, 323  f., both against the idea that the narrator here allows Iris to act on her own initiative: thus Leaf; Hentze loc. cit. 333–338; Lendle 1968, 68; Edwards 1987, 192). At the same time, Iris likely embodies Helen’s own longing as well. The poet prepares for the teichoscopia by providing a double motivationP for Helen’s movement up onto the walls; he later motivates the counterpart of this scene, the meeting with Aphrodite, which leads Helen back into the house (383–420n.; anticipationP), in the same way: in both passages, Helen yields on the one hand to a divinity (Iris, Aphrodite), but on the other to her own impulses, all of which taken together stresses her helplessness (similarly Kirk on 383–4). — Iris: on the role of Iris – personification of the rainbow and the female messenger of the gods – see CG 38 and Erbse 1986, 54–65. αὖθ’: introduces a relatively sudden change of scene: ‘on the other hand, however (on the Trojan side)’ (LfgrE s.v. 1584.70  ff.). — λευκωλένῳ: ‘with white elbows (i.e. lower arms)’, as a mark of feminine beauty; indicates high social status (1.55n.; a Norse parallel at West 2007, 84); a generic epithetP; of Helen also at Od. 22.227. — ἄγγελος ἦλθεν:

56 

 Iliad 3

an inflectible formula, 2× Il. at VB, 6× Il., 3× Od., 1× h.Cer. 46 at VE, 3× Il., 2× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Cer. 407 in the middle of the verse or with word(s) intervening. As here, the formula is almost always augmented by a dat., which immediately establishes a relationship between the messenger and the recipient of the message (Kurz 1966, 121).

122 In the likeness: Appearing in the form of a person on close terms with the addressee lends more credibility (2.21n.). — Antenor’s son: Antenor is a member of the Trojan council of elders (148) and the father of numerous sons (CH 9). The emphatic repetition of the patronymic in the next verse (similar to an epanalepsis: 2.672n.) is perhaps connected with his role as advocate for the peace party (3.205  ff.; 7.347–353). In any case, it is appropriate that Iris prepares Helen for a possible end to the war (132–134) in the likeness of Antenor’s daughter-in-law Laodike: Bergold 1977, 147 n. 2; Danek 2006, 6  f. γαλόῳ: ‘husband’s sister, sister-in-law’, likewise at 6.378 (see ad loc.), 6.383, 22.473, 24.769. IE heritage word (cf. Lat. glos ‘sister-in-law’); the formation is uncertain (Beekes 1976, 13–15; Beekes s.v. γαλόως; Schw. 1.480). — δάμαρτι: ‘wife’; the term occurs only at the first mention of a woman and always with her husband’s name in the gen. (likewise at 14.503, Od. 4.126, 20.290, 24.125, h.Ap. 212): LfgrE; on a possible semantic development of Mycenaean da-mar, ‘lease-holder of public land, independent from the palace, with his own farm’ to ‘heiress, lawful wife’ in the pre-Homeric period, Hajnal 1998, 52–59.

123 2nd VH ≈ 13.10. — Helikaon: mentioned only here in Homeric epic (LfgrE). εἶχε: ἔχειν is here ‘to have for a wife’, as at 53, 9.336 etc. (LfgrE s.v. 842.28  ff.). — κρείων: ‘ruling, commanding’, a generic epithetP of gods, heroes and women (1.102n.).

124 ≈ 6.252; 2nd VH = 13.365, 13.378; ≈ 2.715, h.Cer. 146. — Laodike: daughter of Priam and Hekabe; also mentioned at 6.252. A connection between the two most influential Trojan families was formed by her marriage to a son of Antenor (Wathelet s.v.). Iris here assumes the form of Laodike; at 4.86  f., Athene assumes the form of Laodokos, like Helikaon a son of Antenor. This parallelism suggests the invention of at least the two male names by the narrator (Kirk on 122–4; similarly von Kamptz 37 and, on Laodokos, Mühlestein 1969, 78). Laodíkē, perhaps chosen in place of the less common Laodoke (Mühlestein loc. cit.), belongs to a set of names indicating a quality not of the name-bearer but of her father (‘administering justice to the people’ is an appropriate attribute

122 εἰδομένη: part. from (ϝ)είδομαι (+ dat.) ‘make oneself equal to someone’, i.e. ‘take someone’s form’. — γαλόῳ, Ἀντηνορίδαο: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — Ἀντηνορίδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. 123 τήν: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). 124 Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. — εἶδος: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

Commentary 

 57

of Priam); likewise e.g. in the cases of Agamemnon’s daughters Chrysothemis and Iphianassa (9.145) and Astyanax (6.402–403n.): von Kamptz 31  f., 84  f. Λαοδίκην … ἀρίστην: acc. instead of dat.; although ostensibly in agreement with γαλόῳ (122), assimilated to the closer relative clause (123 τήν) as at 7.187, Od. 1.70, 2.120 etc. (AH; K.-G. 2.419). — θυγατρῶν εἶδος ἀρίστην: formulaic (see iterata); a contradiction is accordingly scarcely to be felt in the use of the same expression at 13.365 for Priam’s daughter Kassandra; similarly loose are the superlatives used at 13.433, 15.282 (Janko on 13.365–7; cf. LfgrE s.v. ἄριστος 1289.68  f.: emphatic use); an Eastern parallel for the expression at West 1997, 239.

125 ≈ Od. 19.139, 24.129; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 2.104, 19.149, 24.139, 24.147. — A ‘tragic counterpart’ (Lohmann 1988, 62, transl.) to this scene with Helen weaving is found in Book 22 (437–441). Andromache and Helen are both occupied with typical women’s work in peaceful surroundings, inside their house (WickertMicknat 1982, 40), while their husbands, the dissimilar brothers Hektor and Paris, either fight for their lives or prepare to do so. Helen weaves battle scenes, Andromache flowers, indicative of the contrast between the two women’s natures: one calmly watches her husband fight, reluctantly joins him after he is rescued by Aphrodite and reproaches him (145–436); the other is at first completely unaware, then must see her beloved husband lying there defiled, killed after being deceived by Athene, and faints (22.463–474). For detailed discussion, Lohmann 1988, 58–60. — came on Helen … she was weaving: As is usual, the arrival is described from the point of view of the one arriving: 2.169–171n. — in the chamber: mégaron means (1) ‘hall’, i.e. a common room for social purposes (eating, cooking), e.g. 9.487, 18.374, (2) ‘private room’ for women and maid-servants, as at Od. 2.94 = 19.139 = 24.129, (3) ‘dwelling, house’ in general, also in pl., as Il. 1.396, 1.418, 2.137, 3.207 (LfgrE s.v. μέγαρον 63.33  ff.; further bibliography at 24.209a n.). Whether Helen, like Penelope, weaves in a separate room (synonymous with the room called thálamos in 142; thus schol. A ad loc.; AH) or in the hall (meaning that she only fetches a cloth from the thálamos: LfgrE s.v. θάλαμος 958.68  ff.) is unclear; since Paris, like Hektor, has his own house (6.313), the meaning ‘house’ is also conceivable (LfgrE s.v. μέγαρον 65.17  ff.). — was weaving: The lady of the house is in charge of all weaving and participates in the work (Od. 1.356–358, 2.94: Penelope; 5.62: Kalypso, 6.52  f.: Arete): Marinatos 1967, 1  f.; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 44.

125 τήν: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — δὲ (μ)μέγαν: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura).

58 

 Iliad 3

ἱστὸν ὕφαινεν: an inflectible formula (VE also at 6.456, Od. 15.517, Hes. Op. 64; in addition at Il. 22.440 after caesura A 3). — ἱστόν: here ‘fabric’ on the loom (LfgrE s.v. 1252.51  ff.).

126 ≈ 22.441; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 3.262, 4.170. — working into it the numerous struggles: Weaving is an old IE metaphor for poetry (Durante 1976, 173  f.; Schmitt 1967, 298–300; Nünlist 1998, 84, 110; West 2007, 36–38; on Greek literature specifically, Müller 1974, 217  f.; Snyder 1981; Scheid/Svenbro [1994] 1996, 111–130; Nünlist loc. cit. 110–116). Helen’s weaving was seen as an image of the Iliad itself already in antiquity (schol. bT on 126–127; Clader 1976, 7  f.). The theme of the woven scenes corresponds to that of the poet of the Iliad (Nünlist loc. cit. 84). The narrator thus signals that Helen is conscious of her own role in events (see also 128n.). Like an epic hero, but more passively, she shares responsibility for a significant chain of events (6.357  f.) while at the same time, like a singer, she prepares for the dissemination of the events to posterity (Clader loc. cit. 8  f.; Schein 1984, 23  f.; Collins 1988, 42  f.). In some ways, the scene also anticipates her subsequent explanatory role in the teichoscopia (cf. 121–244n.). The depiction of the weaving and the entire scene constitute a short ékphrasis (typified description), which names the artist (Helen) and the work, as well as describing what is depicted (Kakridis [1963] 1971, 110  ff., 122  ff.; Becker 1995, 54–57; on descriptions of objects generally, 2.101–108n., 2.447–449n.; Boehm/Pfotenhauer 1995; on their functions in the Iliad, Minchin 1999). δίπλακα: ‘in two layers, two-fold’ (δί-πλαξ; final element ambiguous: Frisk; Beekes: cf. Lat. duplex); here sc. χλαῖναν (‘mantle’; on which, 24.163n.): ‘double-mantle’ (probably produced by folding the fabric over). As at 22.441, Od. 19.241, equivalent in meaning to χλαῖνα διπλῆ (Il. 10.133  f., Od. 19.225  f.; cf. δίπτυχος Od. 13.224): schol. D and A ad loc.; AH; Marinatos 1967, 9  f.; LfgrE s.v. δίπλαξ. — μαρμαρέην: ‘sparkling, glittering, shimmering’; usually of metal (17.594, 18.480) or the surface of the sea (14.273): LfgrE. This lectio difficilior is present in the majority of the manuscripts. The Alexandrian grammarians read πορφυρέην ‘purple-colored’ or ‘shimmering, flowing’ (see app. crit.; the meaning of the adjective πορφύρεος is uncertain: LfgrE). The authenticity of the v.l. cannot be ruled out entirely (Rengakos 1993, 55) because of 22.441 (contrasting scene: see above) and Apoll. Rhod. 1.722 (imitation?), as well as Od. 13.108, 19.242 (purple clothing mentioned). — ἐνέπασσεν: from πάσσω ‘strew’: ‘scattered, inserted’, i.e. ‘wove in(to the fabric)’, as at 22.441: Wace 1948, 51  f.; LfgrE s.v. πάσσω. The technique of inserting motifs (14.179, 22.441, Od. 15.107) and scenes (as here), so-called tapestry weaving, is old and wide-spread (Wace loc. cit. 52  f.; Barber 1991, 359, with Egyptian examples; Banck-

126 μαρμαρέην: on -η- after -ε-, R 2; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — πολέας: = πολλούς (R 12.2). — ἀέθλους: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 

 59

Burgess 1999, 60–63, on textile finds in central Europe; technical details in PekridouGorecki 1989, 42  f.). — ἀέθλους: ἄεθλος ‘effort, hardship (bound up with sorrow and danger)’ (stronger than πόνος ‘labor, trouble’), specifically ‘battles and perils of war, acts of war’ (Od. 3.262, 4.170, 4.241), here ‘battle scenes’ (Trümpy 1950, 150; LfgrE s.v.); external analepsisP of earlier battles (AH).

127 = 131, 251, 8.71, ≈ 4.333. A four-fold rhyme with parallelism, like 11.220, 12.283, Od. 16.265 (Fehling 1969, 311). — breakers of horses: a generic epithetP of the Trojans and various heroes (2.23n. and 2.230n.). — bronze-armored: a generic epithetP of peoples (normally Greeks, in VE formula; 1.371n.). 128 ἕθεν εἵνεκ(α): It is unclear whether the relative clause represents Helen’s thoughts (secondary focalizationP: de Jong [1987] 2004, 120; Taplin 1992, 98) or if the narrator himself is judging her role in the war (Bergold 1977, 55). In favor of the former are the use of ἕθεν εἵνεκα with secondary focalizationP at 10.27 and Od. 23.304, Helen’s awareness of her guilt (173–175, 6.344–358; cf. Latacz [1987] 1994, 120–123; 2007, 96–99) and the fact that the narrator does not otherwise speak of her in a negative fashion: de Jong loc. cit. — ὑπ’ Ἄρηος παλαμάων: on ὑπό, cf. 61n. Ares is here not metonymic – as is frequently the case (132n.) – but is clearly seen as a character, the lord of grievous battle (Trümpy 1950, 152; LfgrE s.v. Ἄρης 1257.21  ff., 1258.64  ff.; on personification generally, CG 28). Cf. 5.594 (Ares shakes a lance in his hands); the same use of παλάμη also at 7.105, 21.469, 24.738 (Kirk).

129 = 2.790, 11.199, 24.87. A speech introduction formulaP: 2.790n. ἀγχοῦ δ’ ἱσταμένη: an inflectible VB formula, always with a verb of speaking in the 2nd VH; here it serves as element 5 of the type-scene ‘delivery of a message’ (2.172n.). — πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις: a VE formula (9× Il., 1× Hes.). — ὠκέα: on the form (internal correption), 2.786n. 130 νύμφα φίλη: As at Od. 4.743, νύμφα is here an address (by a woman) to a married woman (LfgrE s.v. 443.3  ff.); with φίλη it is emphatic (Landfester 1966, 27) and familiar, ‘my dear’ (Willcock). Voc. ending in -α (instead of nom. -η as voc.) also at Od. 4.743 and Sappho fr. 116 Voigt; probably from IE -ǝ in ablaut from -ā (Rix [1976] 1992, 131; G 68). — ἵνα … ἴδηαι: ἵνα is here in transition from the meaning ‘where’ to ‘so that’; subjunc. ἴδηαι is perhaps prospective, not yet voluntative (Schw. 2.672  f.; on this in general, K.-G. 2.377  f.). — θέσκελα: θέσ-κελ-ος, from κέλομαι ‘drive’; the first element is related to the

127 θ’: = τε. 128 ἕθεν: = ἑαυτῆς (R 14.1). — εἵνεκ(α): metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — ῎Αρηος: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1); on the declension, R 12.4. — παλαμάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 129 προσέφη: The object is Helen, mentioned in 121/125  ff. — πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1). — ὠκέα (ϝ)ῖρις: on the hiatus, R 4.3. 130 νύμφα: voc. (↑). — θέσκελα (ϝ)έργα (ϝ)ίδηαι: on the hiatus, R 4.3. — ἴδηαι: 2nd sing. mid. subjunc.; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

60 

 Iliad 3

root of θεός (LfgrE; Frisk: originally ‘driven by a divinity’; differently, Meier-Brügger 2006, 124: ‘driving, furthering cultic activity’). The word means ‘astounding, wondrous, extraordinary’; aside from 23.107 (adv.), used with ἔργα also at Od. 11.374 (deeds to be narrated), 11.610 (work of art), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 34 (trick), ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.96 M.-W. (plan); here ‘astounding things, a surprising change’ (LfgrE loc. cit. and s.v. ἔργον 676.70  f.), a deliberate formulation, likely meant to pique Helen’s curiosity (AH).

131 = 127 (see ad loc.), 251, 8.71, ≈ 4.333. The repetition of the verse after four hexameters functions as a citation of Helen’s weaving (on weaving as poetry, 126n.): Steinrück 1992, 88; Gumpert 2001, 5. It is likely meant to emphasize the contrast between the ‘many battles’ (126) and the ‘wondrous change’ (130): Bergold 1977, 57 n. 3; Grethlein 2006, 279  f. 132–135 οἵ in 132 is the relative, picked up by demonstrative οἵ in 134 (similarly Od. 4.652  f.): Nägelsbach. The two verses with contrasting content each receive a supplementary description (133 and 135): Kirk.

132 2nd VH ≈ 8.516, 19.318. — just now carried sorrowful war …: a further external analepsisP of earlier battles (cf. 126n.; Tsagarakis 1982, 71), which assumes clashes in the early stages of the war, fought bitterly and with heavy casualties (Stoevesandt 2004, 55  f.). ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοισι φέρον … ἄρηα: φέρειν ἄρηα ἐπί τινι ‘to attack someone, battle against someone’; likewise at 8.516 = 19.318 (LfgrE s.v. Ἄρης 1260.5  ff.; cf. πόλεμον … φέροιεν ‘Hes.’ Sc. 150 = 163). Literally ‘bring Ares’, i.e. (the god of) war, ‘into the land’; on the so-called metonymic use of Ἄρης/ἄρης, 2.381n., 2.440n. — πολύδακρυν: ‘rich in tears, causing many tears’; likewise with ἄρηα at 8.516 = 19.318; with πόλεμος/μάχη/ὑσμίνη at 165, 17.192, 17.543  f., 22.487 (LfgrE). On the negative assessment of war, cf. ὀλοοῖο 133 and 6.1n. 133 VB through caesura A 4 = 2.473, 2.812, 7.66, 18.256, 20.217; 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 113. — ὀλοοῖο: ὀλοός from ὄλλυμι, ‘bringing destruction’; also of φόβος (11.71, 16.771), γόος (23.10 ≈ 98) and Zeus (365 = Od. 20.201): LfgrE s.v. — λιλαιόμενοι: λιλαίομαι is a reduplicated pres. (*li-las-i̯o-) from *las-, cf. Engl. lust, Lat. lascivus (Schw. 1.273; Risch 341; thus hesitantly Beekes). Only in the pres.; meaning: ‘desire, want, long for’; with gen., as here, at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 113 (likewise πολέμοιο), Hes. Th. 665 (πολέμου), Od. 1.315 etc.; also with inf./acc.-inf.: 16.89 (πολεμίζειν), 13.253 (μάχεσθαι), 20.76 (δῦναι ὅμιλον), 3.399 etc. (LfgrE s.v.; Kloss 1994, 113).

134–135 now they [are all seated] wait expectantly … | they lean on their shields: Achaians and Trojans stand still and, while standing, lean on their shields (231; cf. 114; AH on 135; on the shield type, 2.388–389n.); Gr. héatai

132 ἀλλήλοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — φέρον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἄρηα: on the declension, R 12.4.

Commentary 

 61

(basic meaning: ‘sit’) here – as often – thus simply indicates an expectant attitude (cf. LfgrE s.v. ἧμαι 910.71  ff., 911.38  ff.). The men will actually sit down only immediately before the duel at 326 (Kurz 1966, 49). 134 σιγῇ: ‘remaining silent’ (8n.). — πόλεμος δὲ πέπαυται: parenthetic (Ruijgh 166). ἕαται: like ἕαται in 9.628 and ἕατ(ο) in 7.414; *ἥαται > ἕ͜ᾱται (metathesis, synizesis) or by analogy with κέαται (11.659 = 11.826 = 16.24, 19.203) *ἥαται > ἕᾰται (Werner 1948, 58–60; Nussbaum 1998, 62; cf. 2.137n.).

135 ἔγχεα μακρά: on the weapon, 18n. μακρός is a common epithet of pole weapons (with ἔγχος also in the VE formula ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ 5× Il., 2× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’; with ἐγχείη in the VB formula μακρῇς ἐγχείῃσι 137, 254, as well as 13.339  f., 13.782; with δόρυ, partly in VE formulae, in total 13× Il., 5× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; with ξυστόν in a VB formula 2× Il.): LfgrE s.v. μακρός 15.36  ff. — πέπηγεν: intrans. mid. perf. of πήγνυμαι: ‘are bored, are stuck’, sc. into the ground with the spear-point (as at 10.373  f.) or, conversely, with the point up and the spear-butt (σαυρωτήρ: cf. 10.153 and RE s.v.) in the ground. 136 = 253; 1st VH = 11.369. — ἀρηΐφιλος: 21n. 137 ≈ 254. — μακρῇς ἐγχείῃσι: ἐγχείη means ‘lance’. The expression picks up ἔγχεα μακρά (135, see ad loc.; Bergold 1977, 58 n. 1) and heightens the contrast between the spectators and the two fighters. — περί: ‘about’, in a metaphorical sense (of a battle-prize vel sim.) also at 15.416, 18.195, 23.659  f. (Schw. 2.502).

138 1st VH = 255; 2nd VH ≈ 9.397, 14.268, Hes. Th. 410, also ‘Hes.’ frr. 10(a).22, 105.3 and 195.4 M.-W. (all three restored). — of the man who wins you: The motif of a battle between two men over a woman (bride-contest) is here varied and sharpened (Helen is already married, her two husbands fight over her; see 72n., 140n.; Wickert-Micknat [1954] 1983, 57; Kakridis [1954] 1971, 36  f.). Helen is defined by the warring sides as merely a disputed possession (Gumpert 2001, 7); no one asks for her own decision (Reichel 1999, 293). τῷ δέ κε νικήσαντι … κεκλήσε(αι): The prospective fut. ind. (or fut. perf.) with a modal particle is used with no fundamental difference in meaning from the prospective subjunc. (1.139n.). κε belongs to the predicate, as at 255 τῷ δέ κε νικήσαντι … ἕποιτο and 7.41  f.; κε(ν) and ἄν are used in conjunction with a participle only after Homer (Schw. 2.407, cf. also 2.324). — τῷ … νικήσαντι: The dat. is usually used with the perf. pass.

134 οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — ἕαται: = ἧνται; on the ending, R 16.2. 135 ἀσπίσι κεκλιμένοι: locative dat., ‘leaned on’. — παρά: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘besides’. — ἔγχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 136 αὐτάρ: ‘but, and (for their part)’ (R 24.2). 137 μακρῇς ἐγχείῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — μαχήσονται: fut. of μαχέομαι (a variant of μάχομαι). — σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1). 138 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — κεκλήσε’ ἄκοιτις: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — κεκλήσε(αι): = κεκλήσῃ (R 6); prospective fut. perf. ind. of καλεῖσθαι.

62 

 Iliad 3

(here κεκλήσε’), e.g. 13.168, Od. 8.472: Schw. 2.150; Chantr. 2.72  f. Individual participles are already used adjectivally and substantivally in early epic, while the accompanying demonstrative pronoun has almost become an article; likewise 1.70, 21.262, 23.325, 23.663 etc. (AH; Schw. 2.408; Chantr. 2.163; on the article in general, 1.11n.). — φίλη: possessive, perhaps with an affective connotation (on the various interpretations of φίλος, 31n.). — ἄκοιτις: a possessive compound from ἀ- ‘together’ (unaspirated: psilotic or analogous to the dissimilated aspiration of ἄλοχος) and κοίτη ‘bed’: ‘she who shares the bed, wife, consort’ (cf. 53n.): LfgrE. Always at VE except in Hesiod, frequently in the inflectible VE formula φίλην/θαλερήν ποιεῖν/καλεῖσθαι/τίθεσθαι ἄκοιτιν (2× Il., 17× Hes. [some restored], 1× h.Hom.; ἄκοιτις in the nom. only here). κεκλήσε(αι): thus West 1998, XXII, following Payne Knight; κεκλήσῃ (mss.) is likely a post-Homeric modernization (Chantr. 1.57; 2.365n.); differently, Führer/Schmidt 2001, 19 with n. 98.

139 = h.Ven. 143; 1st VH = Od. 13.352, 13.366, h.Cer. 275; 2nd VH = h.Ven. 45, 53; from caesura C 2 on = Il. 13.82, 16.529, Od. 19.485, 23.260. — εἰποῦσα: simultaneous with ἔμβαλε (AH; in general, Schw. 2.301, with further exx.). — γλυκὺν ἵμερον ἔμβαλε: ἵμερος is ‘longing’, usually with a successful attempt at immediate fulfillment (141 and h.Ven. 151 αὐτίκα), hence often called γλυκύς (see iterata), aroused by a god or human being (with ἐμβάλλειν, see iterata; for formulaic γλυκὺς ἵμερος αἱρεῖ/ᾕρει, 446 = 14.328, Od. 22.500, h.Merc. 422; CEG I 454 [Nestor’s cup], with correction of the dating in CEG II 304). Here it means ‘longing to see, yearning for’; by contrast, ‘erotic desire’ at 446, 14.328, h.Ven. 57 etc.: LfgrE; Kirk on 139–40; Kloss 1994, 45  f., 53, 60. — θυμῷ: interchangeable with other soul/spirit lexemes in accord with metrical requirements (1.24n.; cf. e.g. h.Ven. 57, 73).

140 2nd VH ≈ 15.663. — after her husband of time before: Helen’s relationship with Paris is regarded as a new marriage, as 122/124, 163, 329, 429 also show (Bergold 1977, 58 n. 3; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 103). Her rediscovered feelings for Menelaos and her remorse for her adultery are also discernible at 173  f., 428  f., 6.344–348. — city: Sparta. — parents: Leda and Tyndareos. In 199, 426, Od. 4.184, Helen is called a daughter of Zeus: Leaf; Kirk on 139–40; cf. CH 8; in ‘Hes.’ frr. 176 and 196–200 M.-W., she is regarded as the daughter of Tyndareos; this type of ‘double descent’ is wide-spread in mythology (likewise e.g. in the case of Amphitryon, 5.392): Faesi; RE s.v. Helene 2826  f.; Clader 1976, 47  f. 141 wrapping herself about in shimmering garments: The narrator has individuals clothe themselves with veils or wraps for various reasons. He uses the gesture to indicate (1) grief, sadness, remorse (as here; Helen weeps, 142b; likewise 24.93, 24.163 [with nn.]; but the opposite gesture also occurs, i.e. un-

139 θεά: on the form, R 2.2. — ἔμβαλε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; on the assimilation, cf. R 20.1. 140 ἄστεος: = ἄστεως. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). — τοκήων: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.

Commentary 

 63

covering via removal of clothing as a gesture of grief: 22.406, 22.468–470, h.Cer. 41 and 197); (2) aidṓs ‘reserve’, i.e. consciousness of moral rules: a woman does not show herself in public without a veil (which is not pulled down, however; the face is left uncovered, and eye contact is possible). Helen thus leaves the room as a respectable woman, with a veil and accompanied by two maid-servants (143n., her longing to see her former husband accords with this; likewise Penelope at Od. 1.334 = 16.416 = 18.210 = 21.65; a detailed comparison of the present scene with Od. 1.334  ff. at Nagler 1974, 71  f.); (3) a seductive effect, since precisely because of its ostensible protective function, the covering (often luxuriously crafted) has an attractive, at times even magical effect. Helen’s light-colored garment likely contributes to her attractiveness (156–160n.), as do e.g. those of Hera at 14.184  f. and of Pandora at Hes. Th. 574  f. On the veil as an item of clothing, Llewellyn-Jones 2003, 41–120; Marinatos 1967, 13  f., 46, 48–50; on the functions of veiling and covering, see Llewellyn-Jones loc. cit. 121–214, 283–314; LfgrE s.vv. κάλυμμα, καλύπτρη, κρήδεμνον; Nagler loc. cit. 44–72; Constantinidou 1990, 52  f., 58; on the luxurious workmanship, LfgrE loc. cit. and s.v. ὀθόναι. Iconographic exx. at Kyrieleis 1995, 9, 30  ff. with Taf. 7 (Archaic kore from Naxos). – Helen clothes herself in a light-colored garment, Andromache sheds her shining wrap and cloth (22.468–470); Paris arms himself, Hektor lies without weapons, almost naked: the contrast between the present scene and 22.437  ff. (see 125n.) is also underscored by the motif of dressing/arming and nakedness (Lohmann 1988, 61). ἀργεννῇσι: ἀργεννός < *ἀργεσνός (Aeolic σν > νν), from the root ἀργ- ‘white, shining’: Risch 100. The meaning is perhaps ‘light-colored, whitish’, here of fabric, otherwise of sheep (198, 6.424 etc.): LfgrE s.v. — καλυψαμένη ὀθόνῃσιν: on the hiatus, 100n. ὀθόναι, always pl., is probably an Egyptian word borrowed via a Semitic language (Masson 1967, 89  f.). ‘Cloth’, predominantly of linen; something woven at Od. 7.107, a female article of clothing here and at 18.595: LfgrE s.v. Here a ‘veil’ is meant, called ἑανός at 419, otherwise κρήδεμνον or καλύπτρη (14.184 etc. and 22.406 etc.): an item of clothing worn in public by women, which falls from the top of the head over the shoulders and back and can be used to cover the face quickly (Helbig [1884] 1887, 218; Marinatos 1967, 46).

142 2nd VH ≈ 6.496, 16.11, 19.323, 24.9, Od. 4.556, 10.201, 10.409, 10.570, 11.5, 11.391, 11.466, 12.12, 16.332, 22.447. — she went forth: departure, element (1) of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n.); then (2) arrival (145), (3) description of the situation (146–153).

142 κατὰ … χέουσα: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

64 

 Iliad 3

θαλάμοιο: ‘bedroom, chamber’ (for withdrawing into; for the storage of personal, precious objects), here and at Od. 4.121, 4.718, 4.802, 17.36, 17.506, 19.53 ‘women’s quarter’, an area for the lady of the house (where she can be alone with her maid-servants and stores clothing and jewelry): LfgrE; cf. 6.316n.; on Helen’s movements in the house, 125n. — τέρεν κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα: τέρην from τείρω, Lat. teres; originally ‘abraded, polished, smooth’ or ‘friable’, the adjective means ‘delicate’ (LfgrE). Only here in the VE formula κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα (1.413n.), otherwise used with a form of εἴβειν ‘let flow down’; more often, θαλερὸν κατὰ δάκρυ is combined with a form of χεῖν or εἴβειν: see iterata and cf. 2.266n. on θαλερόν. δάκρυ is here to be understood as a collective (‘stream of tears, flow of tears’), cf. 9.14 δάκρυ χέων ὥς τε κρήνη (LfgrE s.v. δάκρυ 209.40  ff.). 143 = Od. 1.331, 18.207; ≈ Il. 24.573, Od. 6.84, 19.601; 1st VH ≈ Il. 2.745, 2.822, Od. 2.11, 15.100. On the formula system, cf. Nagler 1974, 93; Clark 1997, 86–89. — ἅμα: on the position in the verse, 2.577n. — ἀμφίπολοι: from ἀμφί in the sense ‘on both sides’ and πέλομαι: ‘they who move themselves around someone, maid-servants’, originally denoting a pair of maid-servants in functions related to a courtly or cultic mistress. Mycenaean a-pi-qoro is a maid-servant for profane services (household duties) or cult (4 instances, in pl. or dual). Later, in Homeric epic, unfree maid-servants are called ἀμφίπολοι instead of δμῳαί if they ‘surround a noble lady in the house [sc. for household work] or accompany her outside the house’ (Gschnitzer 1976, 23, transl.; similarly, Schmidt 2006, 442: the term connotes proximity to the mistress), thus Helen, as here, and e.g. also Andromache (6.372, 6.491 etc.) and Penelope (see iterata, etc.). ‘Noblewomen are usually attended by maids when they go where they might meet men’ (West on Od. 1.331–5), as Od. 18.184 also shows (West loc. cit.). Personal service often presupposes a trust-relation, as is also suggested by the naming of individual maid-servants (Od. 4.133, 19.65, 23.228). – The sing. ἀμφίπολος also stands in for the unattested sing. of δμῳαί. On ἀμφίπολοι in general, LfgrE s.v. 683.78, 684.1  ff. 37  ff.; Ramming 1974, 42–47, 105–111; Gschnitzer loc. cit. 22–45; for the Mycenaean period, Hiller 1987; on the motif, 24.573n.

144 The verse, suspected of being spurious since Aristarchus (schol. D and A, b, T), is likely an Attic interpolation. Aithre is not otherwise mentioned in Homer. According to post-Homeric sources, she is the daughter of Pelops’ son Pittheus, the wife of Aigeus in Athens and the mother of Theseus. After Theseus and Perithoös abducted Helen, Theseus entrusted her to Aithre while he descended to the Underworld. As a result, the Dioskouroi, Helen’s brothers, invaded Attica, freed their sister and took Aithre captive. Helen subsequently took Aithre to Troy; after the sack of Troy, Aithre was freed by Theseus’ sons Demophon and Akamas (Cypr. fr. 12 West; Il. Pers. fr. 6 and Proclus, Chrest. §  4 West; Il. parv. fr. 17 West; Alcman fr. 210 Calame and Stesichorus fr. 191 Page/Davies; Hellanicus FGrHist 4 F 134 = fr. 168c Fowler; Hdt. 9.73.2; for ad-

144 Πιτθῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.

Commentary 

 65

ditional testimonia, see RE Suppl. XIII s.v. Theseus 1161–1163; West 2001, 186 n. 15; on the depictions on the chest of Cypselus [Paus. 5.19.3], on paintings [Paus. 10.25.5  ff.], and on Attic vases RE loc. cit. 1164–1167). In support of the athetization of the verse is (1) above all else that the Theseus myth appears to be otherwise unknown to the poet of the Iliad (1.265n.): the Catalogue of Ships does not list Demophon and Akamas as leaders of the Athenians, but rather Menestheus (2.552). (2) An allusion to a story like that of Aithre in a single verse would be atypical for the Iliad. (3) The verse falls outside the typological framework, since a formulaic verse like 143 (see iterata) is nowhere followed by personal names. The inserted verse appears to be founded on an Athenian attempt to connect the Theseus myth to events at Troy (on the problem in its entirety, Dihle 1970, 29–34, 103; West 2001, 185  f.; HE s.v. Aithra; on this type of interpolation generally, West loc. cit. 12; differently, Jenkins 1999 [relation of the passage to 236  ff., see 237n.]; Kullmann 2002, 164  f. [suggesting that knowledge of the Theseus myth is assumed in the Iliad]). — Klymene: not otherwise mentioned; perhaps referring to another character from local Attic legend (Wilamowitz 1884, 222 n. 15 thinks of the sister of Perithoös mentioned at Hyg. Fab. 79 and 92): LfgrE s.v. βοῶπις: a generic epithetP for beauty; iconographic evidence from the Archaic period suggests that it was likely understood at that time as ‘large-eyed’ (1.551n.). 14× Il., 3× h.Ap. of Hera, of other goddesses and human women also 7.10, 18.40, Hes. Th. 355, ‘Hes.’ frr. 23(a).5 and 129.20 M.-W., h.Hom. 31.2.

145 1st VH ≈ 5.367, 6.370 = 6.497, ≈ Od. 15.193; through caesura A 4 ≈ 20.341. — the Skaian gates: ‘the Left gate’ (LfgrE s.v. Σκαιός for various attempts at explanation). The Greek word for ‘gate’, pýlai, occurs only in the pl. but can designate a single gate (pl. with reference to its two wings, cf. Lat. fores). The ‘Skaian gate’ is an important gate that leads to the Skamander plain and the battlefield (as well as the Hellespont), also mentioned at 263, 6.237, 9.354, 16.712, 22.6, 22.360 etc. (on the Dardanian gate, 22.194n.). On gates as a meeting place, 2.788n. – On archaeological evidence for an important gate in the appropriate place and a possible identification of the Skaian gate with Bronze Age Gate U in Troy VI, Klinkott 2004, 63–68 + Übersichtsplan (general plan). ἵκανον: impf. with aor. function (like ἵκανε: 1.431n.). 146–149 οἳ … ἀμφὶ Πρίαμον …: οἱ ἀμφί τινα means ‘those accompanying someone’, likewise at 2.445, 6.436, Od. 22.281; cf. above on ἀμφίπολοι (Schw. 2.416). For metrical reasons, most of these names are in the acc., while the last two are in the nom. (cf. 148n.;

145 ὅθι: ‘where’ (cf. R 15.2).

66 

 Iliad 3

Leaf: mere variation in the enumeration; other explanations: Sale 1994, 72: the mention of Priam first may suggest his position as primus inter pares; Faesi on 148, Sale loc. cit. 72 n. 86: Antenor and Oukalegon are emphasized because of Antenor’s important role in the scenes that follow; Wathelet s.v. Θυμοίτης and Bergold 1977, 61  f. n. 4: the first five Trojans named after Priam, among them three brothers of the king [Lampos, Klytios, Hiketaon], are members of the royal family and perhaps of the inner circle of the council; but the fact that a close relationship of Thymoites and Panthoös with Priam is not apparent elsewhere contradicts this suggestion; cf. 2.194n. on the council of the Greeks).

146 Panthoös: mentioned elsewhere as the father of Polydamas, Euphorbos and Hyperenor (17.23 etc.) and as the husband of Phrontis (17.40). According to later sources (schol. T on 12.211–212; Verg. Aen. 2.318  ff.), a priest of Apollo; this fits his high social status and the fact that in the Iliad Apollo repeatedly comes to his sons’ aid (15.521  f., 16.806–817): Wathelet s.v.; LfgrE s.v. Θυμοίτην: mentioned only here; the origin of the name is uncertain (a common origin of the Trojan and the ἥρως ἐπώνυμος of the Attic deme Θυμοιτάδαι, or from θύμον ‘Thymian’?): von Kamptz 277  f.; Wathelet s.v.

147 = 20.238; there, Lampos, Klytios and Hiketaon are called sons of Laomedon; they are therefore Priam’s brothers. Since all three characters are also mentioned individually (see below) and, for the narrator, obviously belong to the older generation of Troy, there is no basis for suspecting the verse to be a concordance interpolation from 20.238 (West 2001, 186). – The verse structure of three personal names, each with an increasing number of syllables and the last accompanied by an epithet, is probably inherited (1.145n.; West 2007, 117  f.). — Lampos: brother of Priam (see above), father of Dolops (15.525–527). — Klytios: brother of Priam (see above), father of Kaletor (15.419, 15.427). — Hiketaon: brother of Priam (see above), father of Melanippos (15.546  f., 15.576). Hiketaon’s relationship with his brother Priam, here clearly close, corresponds to Melanippos’ position vis-à-vis his uncle (15.551, athetized by West) and his cousin Hektor (15.545  ff.): Wathelet s.v. Ἱκετάονος: on the formation of the name, Granata 2013, 27. — ὄζον Ἄρηος: a fixed combination with the function of a generic epithetP for warriors (VE formula); ὄζος is likely ‘companion, servant’. Only warriors of secondary importance (like Hiketaon as a former fighter) are characterized by this collocation (2.540n.).

148 2nd VH from caesura C 1 on = 7.276, 9.689, Od. 18.65. — Antenor: member of the peace party, father of numerous sons (CH 9; 122n.). He later recounts how he entertained Odysseus and Menelaos and describes them (204–224), partic-

148 πεπνυμένω: nom. dual (R 18.1).

Commentary 

 67

ipates together with Priam in the oath-sacrifice (262 = 312), and advises that Helen be returned after Pandaros’ violation of the oath (7.347–353). Οὐκαλέγων τε καὶ ᾿Αντήνωρ: The construction with οἳ ἀμφί is abandoned (AH). — Οὐκαλέγων: a speaking name from Οὐκ-αλέγων (‘Not-worrying, Worry-less’: Risch 27, 211; AH); perhaps it ‘denotes the man who knows how to deal with evil opponents, corresponding to the words οὐκ ἀλεγίζω, οὐκ ἀλέγω (8.477, 8.483, Od. 17.390)’ (Wackernagel [1924] 2009, 726  f.) or is a caricaturing nickname from folk tradition outside epic poetry (Wathelet s.v.) or a negative coinage by the narrator (‘unscrupulous’, as a counterpart to peace-loving Antenor: Rank 1951, 130; similarly Gantar 1971, 3–5; Danek 2006, 8 with n. 13): LfgrE s.v. Otherwise mentioned only at Verg. Aen. 2.312 and Juv. 3.199 (AH; LfgrE; BNP s.v. with bibliography). — πεπνυμένω ἄμφω: from πέπνυμαι ‘possess intelligence, be clever’; probably from πνέ(ϝ)ω (from *πν-υ; ῡ with metrical lengthening; semantic development: ‘breathe’ > ‘be in a state of awareness’ > ‘be clever’; for more, 24.377n. with bibliography); of words, thoughts or advice (7.278, Od. 2.38 etc.); as an epithet, often formulaic before speeches, as here; of advisors (here and 18.249), heralds (7.276, 9.689), young men (23.586, Od. 18.65; Od. 1.213 etc. of Telemachos, in total 48×) and older men (also 203, 7.347 of Antenor; cf. also Od. 3.20 = 328), in total 12× Il., 67× Od., 1× Hes. (Clarke 1997/98, 137–139; ChronEG 4.100; LfgrE s.v. πέπνῡμαι, πεπνῡμένος 1157.44  ff., 1158.18  ff.).

149 by the Skaian [gates] gate: i.e. on the tower mentioned at 153  f. In early epic, towers are structures that stand out from the wall (22.97), feature a platform for numerous fighters (18.278, 18.287, 22.195) and are protected by a parapet with battlements (12.258–260). They are large (6.386) and tall (384, 7.338 = 437, 12.386, 18.274  f., Od. 6.262  f.; the comparison at Il. 4.462 associates them with height; here in the teichoscopia, they serve as a look-out post, as at 6.373, 6.386, 8.518  f., 21.526, 22.462 etc.); they thus represent metaphors for protection and impenetrable resistance (7.219 = 11.485 = 17.128, Od. 11.556; cf. also Il. 15.737  f.). For the Homeric period, only the foundations of a tower in Smyrna are known; at the same time, many imposing foundations for towers, some quite well built, have been excavated from the late Bronze Age in Troy, Hittite cities and Cyprus. These suggest new fortification technologies at that time. Instead of narrow parapets on top of the walls, imposing towers were placed at intervals corresponding to the range of arrows (ca. 30m) and, with their wide, spacious platforms, were intended to protect the city. Their height provided a view of important locations sometimes hard to oversee; at Troy, they protected e.g. the gates and the lower city (basic information on the Bronze Age finds in Naumann [1955] 1971, 236–266, 310–319, 322  f., 491; on Troy, Klinkott 2004,

149 εἵατο: = ἧντο (ἐκάθηντο); on the ending, R 16.2.

68 

 Iliad 3

75–77, 80  f.; on Smyrna and Cyprus, as well as on Homeric and post-Homeric evidence for towers, Iakovides 1977, 218–221; Wokalek 1973, 120–127; cf. the illustration of a silver cup from Cyprus with a relief depiction of city fortifications [8th/7th cent. BC]: Smith 2008). εἵατο: on the orthography εἵατο (rather than ἥατο), 2.137n. — δημογέροντες: in apposition to the preceding list of names; δημογέροντες are the oldest members of the community, the members of the council (βουλή), including the king; likewise at 11.372 (of Trojans only); called Τρώων ἡγήτορες at 153: LfgrE s.v. Similarly, the simplex γέροντες is used with the meaning ‘elders as members of the βουλή’: 6.113  f., 15.721 on the Trojan side, 2.53 (see ad loc.) on the Greek side: LfgrE s.v. γέρων 140.45  ff. On the βουλή in general, 1.144n. Hektor has military command only; Priam controls affairs of state, along with the council of elders that advises him (cf. 2.796–806n.): 7.345–380, 15.721–723 (Deger 1970, 124  f.; Panagiotou 1983, 29; differently, Starke 1997, 462). 150 γήραϊ: = post-Homeric γήρᾳ (Schw. 1.515); dat. of cause. — δή: ‘evidently’ (cf. 2.134– 135n.). — ἀγορηταί: on the connection of old age (and here expressly experience as a fighter) with accomplished rhetorical prowess (ἐσθλοί in enjambmentP is stressed), 1.247b–252n. Priam’s advisors, who pass judgement on Helen (156–160), are therefore outstanding not only as members of the royal family (Priam’s brothers) but also as good orators.

151–152 as cicadas who … | settle on trees, to issue their delicate voice of singing: Gr. téttix denotes the ‘cicada, tree cricket’, which lives in trees (schol. A ad loc.; AH; for details, see Davies/Kathirithamby 1986, 113–133). Since in the preceding words the community elders’ gift of speech was emphasized and now the ‘delicate voice’ of cicadas is mentioned, the comparison appears to refer primarily to the voice (Krapp 1964, 161; Kaimio 1977, 97; on other cicada comparisons in early Greek literature, Nünlist 1998, 47). The chirping of cicadas is clear and piercing, i.e. clearly audible, and is thus appropriate in reference to a good speaker (Hes. Op. 583, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 393, Alcaeus fr. 347.3 Voigt, Sappho fr. 101A Voigt and Plat. Phaedr. 259b5  f., 262d attest to the positive evaluation; on this, LfgrE s.v. λιγυρός; Davies/Kathirithamby loc. cit. 117–119, with further testimonia). ‘The cicada, hard, dry, tiny and weak, but endowed with a ringing voice, must have recalled a dried-up, bony old man whose voice alone is still fresh and strong’ (Fränkel 1921, 83, transl.; similarly schol. AT, b). That the Trojan elders and the cicadas occupy elevated seats (respectively, tower and tree) is a further point in common (Krafft 1963, 136). The reference is surely not to the chattering of cicadas (Alexis fr. 96 K.-A., Eust. 395.45  ff.): the judgment regarding Helen presents the Trojan elders as speakers who adjudi-

151 τεττίγεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 69

cate appropriately (Moulton 1977, 92; differently, Kirk on 152; Postlethwaite 2000, 70). An allusion to the metamorphosis into a cicada of the eternally old Tithonos (like Lampos, Klytios and Hiketaon a son of Laomedon: 20.237; cf. 147n.), on the other hand, cannot be ruled out entirely (Hellanicus FGrHist 4 F 140 = fr. 140 Fowler; Danek 2006a, 67  f.); but the Tithonos myth is most likely simply based on the same comparison of old men to cicadas (Roscher s.v. Tithonos 1025; Bergold 1977, 63 n. 2; on the myth in general, Kakridis 1930; Davies/ Kathirithamby 1986, 126  f.). 152 1st VH ≈ Hes. Op. 583, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 394.— δενδρέ͜ῳ ἐφεζόμενοι: a combination of synizesis (δενδρέ͜ῳ from δενδρέϝῳ) and correption, like 1.15 (see ad loc.), Hes. Op. 144, 583 (on which, West). — λειριόεσσαν: The etymology and meaning of λειριόεις are uncertain (Leumann 1950, 27; LfgrE s.v.). Otherwise attested only at 13.830 (of the skin), Hes. Th. 41 (also of the voice) and later, e.g. Quint. Smyrn. 2.418 (of the Hesperides) (LSJ s.v.). Usually derived from λείριον (< *λείλιον; first attested at h.Cer. 427) ‘lily’ (?): ‘like a lily’ (schol. bT; LfgrE s.v. λείριον). This would imply synaesthesia, a transference from the optical sphere to the acoustic (schol. bT ad loc.; Stanford 1969, 4; on synaesthesia in antiquity in general, Waern 1952; Catrein 2003, 11–42): the brilliant white or the beauty of the flower would correspond to the clearly audible song of the cicada, which was perceived as beautiful (similarly, λευκός and Lat. candidus can be applied to a voice, cf. Aristot. Top. 107a12 and the expression vox candida: West on Hes. Th. 41; on the beauty of the flower, Stanford loc. cit. 7  f.). But this is a bold transference, and that λείριον can mean ‘lily’ is uncertain (LfgrE s.v.). Other authorities consider the meaning ‘delicate, fine’ (association with the flower [AH; Reiter 1962, 75  f.] or a derivation from λειρός = ἰσχνός, ‘thin, weak’ [Hsch. s.v.], discussed by West loc. cit.; Frisk s.v.); but this does not fit with the piercing song of the cicadas (Kirk on 152). — ἱεῖσιν: 3rd pl. pres. (G 92). ὄπα ἵημι, ‘let the voice sound’, as at 221, 14.150  f., Od. 12.192 etc. (LfgrE s.v. ὀπός II 743.51  ff.); similarly φωνὴν/ἀοιδὴν (κατα-)χεῖν at Od. 19.521, Hes. Op. 583 (Wilhelmi 1967, 14–24). 153 τοῖοι: summarizes the comparison to cicadas sitting in a tree. — ἡγήτορες: here ‘political leaders’ (as advisors to Priam); picks up δημογέροντες (149, see ad loc.).

154 1st VH = 8.251. — they saw: signals secondary focalizationP; followed by the speech the perception triggers (156–160), in which the focalization is again clarified by means of demonstrative toiḗd(e) (‘for the sake of such a woman’, 157); similarly 4.79–84, 4.148–162, 11.345–348 (with focalization likewise signaled in speech) etc.; de Jong (1987) 2004, 106  f., 267 nn. 18–19. εἴδονθ’: likely mid. rather than act. for metrical reasons (cf. 1.262n. with bibliography; differently Bechert 1964, 247; LfgrE s.v. ἰδεῖν 1121.56).

152 ἐφεζόμενοι (ϝ)όπα: on the hiatus, R 4.4. — ὄπα: from ὄψ ‘voice’. — ἱεῖσιν: = ἱᾶσιν. 153 τοῖοι: = τοιοῦτοι; predicative. 154 εἴδονθ’: = εἴδοντο.

70 

 Iliad 3

155 ≈ 24.142, Od. 13.165; 2nd VH = Od. 9.409; ≈ Il. 21.121, 21.427, 22.377, 23.535, Od. 4.189, 17.349. — ἦκα: from ἥσσων, ἥκιστος (related to Lat. segnis: Frisk s.v.; doubts: Beekes; on the initial psilosis, Chantr. 1.184, 186) with adverbial ending -α like ὦκα, ῥεῖα (Risch 89). The word means ‘a little’; of sound ‘softly’, as here and h.Merc. 149 (on the conception of sound as a quantity, as at 24.170, see Wille [1958] 2001, 75): LfgrE s.v. The hushed speech of the elders signals their fear of openly revealing their ambivalence toward Helen; Priam alone calls out to her in a loud voice (161 ἐκαλέσσατο φωνῇ), so that she can hear the cry, and ‘takes a stance clearly’ in her favor (Krapp 1964, 272, transl.). On the banal reading ὦκα (‘quickly’), West 2001, 40 n. 30. — πτερόεντ(α): ‘feathered’ (like an arrow), i.e. flying steadily and thus accurate (1.201n.).

156–160 The speech of the Trojan elders is divided into three parts: the justification of the war (156  f.) is followed by its ambivalent rationale (158: Helen’s fascinating yet simultaneously frightening beauty), which leads to the rejection of further fighting (159  f.: the cause of the war must be removed): Loraux 1984, 17. Since this judgment is made in conversation (155), it appears to represent the opinion of all the community elders (Fingerle 1939, 293, with reference to the analogous function of tis-speechesP; Richardson 1990, 80  f.). The narrator’s indirect depiction of Helen’s beauty, and in particular his decision to leave the assessment of it to experienced, prudent men (note the succinct manner, free of detailed description of her outward appearance), has been regarded as an especially impressive masterstroke since antiquity, e.g. by Quintilian (8.4.21), Eustathius (ad loc.) and Lessing (Laokoon XXI) (AH; Faesi; Kirk on 158). 156 οὐ νέμεσις: νέμεσις is ‘indignation’ in regard to behavior that has transgressed against αἰδώς and crossed moral boundaries (LfgrE s.v.; Redfield [1975] 1994, 116  f.; Riedinger 1980, 69–75; Cairns 1993, 51–54; 2003, 33–39; cf. 2.222b–223n.); thus οὐ νέμεσις ‘one cannot be indignant’, as at 14.80, Od. 1.350, 20.330, similarly Od. 2.136, 22.40, always in direct speech (cf. character languageP; LfgrE s.v.). The judgment assumes that the rationale for the war is generally questioned in Troy (Schmid 1982, 12; Roisman 2006, 7; cf. 164, 24.767). The implicit accusation that battling over a single unfaithful woman violates elite values is immediately rejected (Collins 1988, 43  f.). It would be far-fetched to see an allusion to Nemesis as Helen’s mother (LfgrE s.v.; Kullmann 1960, 255; on Νέμεσις as Helen’s mother, RE s.v. Nemesis 2342–2346). — ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς: an inflectible VE formula (86n.); on the realia, 1.17n.

157 for long time: external analepsisP of earlier battles (cf. 126n.). ἄλγεα πάσχειν: an inflectible VE formula (5× Il., 10× Od., 1× Hes.).

157 ἀμφί: = περί, ‘about, for the sake of’.

Commentary 

 71

158 ≈ Hes. Op. 62. — Terrible is the likeness of her face to immortal goddesses: ‘This is the only simile for Helen in the Iliad. Her beauty and destructiveness are simply but powerfully concentrated’ (Moulton 1977, 92; Pandora has a similar effect at Hes. Op. 62: Ready 2011, 110  f.). The sight of god-like Helen overwhelms and oppresses; the appearance of the goddess Aphrodite thus has an even greater effect on Helen when the goddess powerfully intervenes (395  ff.): Moulton loc. cit.; Bergold 1977, 64. On comparisons to gods in general, 2.478–479n. αἰνῶς: ‘dreadful’ in the literal sense, since there is a connection to the divine sphere, as at 10.547, that can likewise be referred to as αἰνός (on the sense ‘very’, 24.198n.; cf. also 2.222b–223n. on ἐκπάγλως): LfgrE s.v. 323.29  ff. On the position at VB, 2.222b–223n. — ἀθανάτῃσι: on the fem. ending, see Schw. 2.38 (cf. 1.99n. on ἀπριάτην). — εἰς ὦπα: ὦπ- is the root noun from ὄψομαι, ὄπωπα; it is attested only in the phrase εἰς ὦπα and in compounds like Κύκλωψ (Risch 6). Also at 9.373, 15.147, etc.; refers to the ‘face’ in its (often frightening) effect, ‘look, expression’ (Prier 1989, 76  f.), 4× in early epic with ἰδεῖν, otherwise with ἔοικα/ἐίσκειν; ἔοικεν is here strengthened by an implicit ἰδόντι (‘to the one who looks her in the face, she resembles …’): Nägelsbach; Faesi.

159–160 let her go away: Priam’s advisors naturally have no knowledge as yet of the treaty preparations (Priam is informed later: 250–258). Their concern for Troy’s future, however, complements the impression of a war-weary mood in the Trojan army (111n.). When Antenor, one of the speakers in this scene, later (7.350  f., after Pandaros’ shot and the fighting that ensues) openly advocates returning Helen and finds approval for his opinion (7.393: Collins 1988, 41), he nonetheless does not prevail against Paris (7.362). 159 ἀλλὰ καὶ ὧς: a VB formula (10× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes.), amplified and explained by τοίη περ ἐοῦσ(α); on περ used thus with demonstratives and participles as a ‘marker of (intensional) scalarity’, Bakker 1988, 113–116 (quotation from p. 116). 160 μηδ(ὲ) … λίποιτο: a wish, parallel to νεέσθω. — πῆμα: 50–51n.; predicative.

161–244 Priam is informed by Helen about the Greek leaders Agamemnon, Odysseus and Aias, who are unknown to him. Antenor subsequently recalls the deep

158 ἀθανάτῃσι: occasionally a three-termination adj. (without this being metrically necessary); the initial syllable is metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — θεῇς: on the declension, R 11.1. — ὦπα (ϝ) έ(ϝ)οικεν: on the prosody, R 4.3. 159 ὧς: = οὕτως. — τοίη: = τοιαύτη. — ἐοῦσ(α): = οὖσα (R 16.6). — νηυσί: on the declension, R 12.1. — νεέσθω: 3rd sing. imper.; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 160 μηδ(έ): the connectives οὐδέ/μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses in Homer (R 24.8). — τεκέεσσι: = τέκνοις. — ὀπίσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — λίποιτο: mid. with pass. sense (‘be left behind, remain behind’).

72 

 Iliad 3

impression Odysseus made on him when the latter was an envoy to Troy. Helen searches in vain for her brothers. 161 ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφαν: a speech capping formulaP, in total 4× Il., 5× Od. — ἐκαλέσσατο φωνῇ: φωνή describes the voice as an (often loud) sound (LfgrE s.v. φωνή 1077.22  ff.). The addition of φωνῇ thus characterizes Priam’s reaction as particularly forceful (‘he summoned loudly’), similarly Od. 24.530 ἤϋσεν φωνῇ; cf. Il. 24.193 (AH on Od. 24.530). The contrast with the hushed talk of the elders (155n.) shows Priam’s superior, regal behavior, which in turn corresponds to the behavior of Agamemnon that is perceived as regal (170) (Krapp 1964, 272  f.). 162 1st VH ≈ 15.154. — πάροιθ(ε) … ἐμεῖο: ‘in front of me’, i.e. ‘with your back toward me’ as at 16.255 (LfgrE s.v.), so that both can see what is going on before the walls. — φίλον τέκος: always before caesura C 2, in total 12× Il., 4× Od., 1× h.Hom., the variant φίλε τέκνον at 22.84 and 3× Od. before caesura B 2. The address does not only designate actual kinship, but can be used as a friendly address by an older person to a younger one, as here (φίλον is emphatic: Landfester 1966, 26 with n. 66): Wendel 1929, 30. 163 πόσιν: πόσις is cognate with δεσ-πότης, πότνια, Ποσειδάων, Lat. potens: ‘husband, man’ (LfgrE s.v.). On the designation of Menelaos as πόσις, 140n. Priam is merely being sympathetic; he does not of course know of Iris’ message or of the longing in Helen that it provoked (139  f.) — πηούς: The etymology of πηός is uncertain; the meaning is ‘brother-in-law, relation by marriage’ (Od. 8.581, 10.441) and here more generally ‘kinsman’ (as at Od. 23.120, Hes. Op. 345). In what follows, the talk is of Helen’s brotherin-law Agamemnon (178) and her brothers (236–238): LfgrE s.v. — φίλους: ‘relatives’: Landfester 1966, 71.

164–165 Priam has reminded Helen of her past (163); he then apparently perceives her discomfort and immediately makes clear that he does not hold her responsible for the current situation (an immediate clarification to an addressee also at Od. 7.315, 18.409): AH. Priam’s statement that the gods are responsible for the war continues with the question of Helen’s guilt, which began with her appearance (128, 136–138, 139  f., 142, 156–160): Pijls 1988, 194; Taplin 1992, 97  f. Priam knows that the gods are behind the power of her beauty; this is also clear from Aphrodite’s threats directed at the rebellious Helen (414–418). But Helen herself points unambiguously to her own responsibility (173–175, 6.343–358) and does not let Priam exonerate her. She recognizes her own nature, which led to her consent, at Aphrodite’s instigation, to being abducted by Paris, and which later results in her succumbing to his charms once more after

161 ἔφαν: = ἔφησαν (R 16.2). — ἐκαλέσσατο: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 162 δεῦρο: with ἐλθοῦσα. — πάροιθ(ε): with (ἵζε’) ἐμεῖο. — τέκος: = τέκνον. — ἵζε’ ἐμεῖο: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — ἵζε(ο): on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1). 163 ὄφρα (ϝ)ίδῃς: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ὄφρα: final (R 22.5).

Commentary 

 73

his defeat in the duel (447). When Priam assigns responsibility for the war to the gods alone, he likely does so mostly out of friendship for Helen (at 24.770 she says that Priam was always gentle to her); in Homeric thought, a human being remains responsible for his actions even if he is under divine influence (Kullmann 1956, 109; Lesky [1961] 1999, 398; Groten 1968, 34; Schmitt 1990, 89; Taplin 1992, 97; differently, Erbse 1986, 100  f.; 1996, 1; Scodel 1999, 53: Priam’s fatalism; on the personal responsibility of human beings in Homeric epic in general, Lesky [1961] 1999; double motivationP). On the necessity that neither side hold Helen responsible and thus call the motivation for the war into question, Blondell 2013, 60–62. 164 μοι: ‘in my eyes’ (AH). — νυ: with ‘modestly oppositional force’ (Ruijgh 1957, 59  f., transl.). — αἰτίη … αἴτιοι: on the factual (not morally judgmental) sense, 1.153n. On contrasting polyptoton in general, Fehling 1969, 36–42. — αἴτιοί εἰσιν: a VE formula (1.153n.). 165 μοι ἐφώρμησαν: ἐφορμᾶν ‘drive, stir up’, here with μοι ‘have set upon me’; similarly Od. 18.376 πόλεμον … ὁρμήσειε, Od. 7.272 ἀνέμους (LfgrE s.v. ὁρμάω 785.9  ff.). — πολύδακρυν: 132n.

166–170 The beginning of the teichoscopia proper (on the term, 121–244n.). Priam looks down from the top of the wall. As he does so, he notices individual Achaians who stand out from the rest in some way (167–170, 193  f., 226  f.; similarly Antenor at 210  f., 223): Göbel 1933, 24. Priam is impressed by Agamemnon’s stateliness, from which he deduces the royal status of the latter (on the idea of correspondence between external appearance and social status, 44–45n.; Bernsdorff 1992, 48). Agamemnon’s superior physical appearance and leading military role as supreme commander are highlighted repeatedly: already at 2.480–483 and later in the marshaling of the army 4.223  ff. (2.480–483n.); these characteristics correspond to his role in Book 3 as a whole (81–83, 118–120, 267–294, 455–461): Donlan 1971, 112. As a result, Priam’s description makes Agamemnon instantly recognizable to the audience (Bergold 1977, 67). The narrator thus has Priam and Helen, his partner in the dialogue, note events simultaneously occurring elsewhere (below the wall) and interpret them (also indirectly for the audience) (on this technique, BNP s.v. Teichoscopy). 166 ὡς: final, parallel to ὄφρα (163): Faesi; Leaf on 162. — καί: ‘also’; the word refers to the clause as a whole (AH). — πελώριον: adj. from πέλωρ ‘giant, monster’ (Risch

164 οὔ τι: τι is acc. of respect (R 19.1): ‘not in any way’, thus ‘in no way’. — μοι αἰτίη ἐσσί: on the so-called correptions, R 5.5. — αἰτίη: on -η after -ι-, R 2. — ἐσσί: 2nd sing. of εἰμί (R 16.6). 166 ἐξονομήνῃς: from ἐξονομαίνω = ἐξονομάζω.

74 

 Iliad 3

62  f.). Usually in reference to bodily size: ‘monstrous, huge’ (229, 11.820, 22.92, Od. 9.190 etc.), but here more generally of the imposing, stately appearance of the man (168–170); common in direct speech; elsewhere also usually in secondary focalizationP (cf. character languageP; de Jong [1987] 2004, 130; LfgrE). The word summarizes the entirety of Priam’s impression, as described in the following lines (Bernsdorff 1992, 49). 167 ≈ 226. — ὅδ(ε): here, as in 192 and 226, in a question by Priam, with corresponding οὗτος in Helen’s answer (178, 200, 229): AH; Schw. 2.209. — ἠΰς τε μέγας τε: an inflectible VE formula that connects two generic epithets of warriors (2.653n.). 168 ἤτοι μέν: an asyndeton with explanatory function; ἤτοι μέν serves as an equivalent variant of simple μέν (Ruijgh [1981] 1996, esp. 523–532). — κεφαλῇ: refers here to height (2.478n.); on the dat. of respect, Schw. 2.168; Bergold 1977, 67 n. 3. — μέζονες: on the orthography, ORTH 2 s.v. ἄσσον; West 1998, XX.

169 these eyes have never yet looked on: the same ‘subjectively colored’ (Bernsdorff 1992, 50, transl.) exaggeration at Od. 4.269 (referring to Odysseus) and 6.160 (referring to Nausikaa). καλόν: emphatic at VB (Vivante 1982, 204). — ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσιν: an inflectible VE formula (in total 8× Il., 12× Od., 3× h.Hom.): Nussbaum 2002, 184–186, with metrical variants.

170 2nd VH ≈ Od. 24.253. — Priam summarizes his impression. γεραρόν: from γέρας, adj. in -αρός like λιπαρός, στιβαρός (Risch 69); ‘noble, stately, dignified’, elsewhere in Il. and Od. only at Il. 3.211, otherwise at Vit. p. 17.9/11 and later (LfgrE; LSJ). — βασιλῆϊ … ἀνδρί: βασιλῆϊ is in apposition to ἀνδρί (2.474n.; cf. also 3.6n., 3.185). On the sense of βασιλεύς, 1.9n.

171 ≈ 228; to caesura C 2 ≈ 437, 23.794, h.Merc. 162, 201, 260, 463; 1st VH = 6.343; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 4.382, 4.398, 10.487, 10.503, 12.115. — Helen’s three answers to Priam’s questions are introduced with three different verses (171, 199, 228): Edwards 1969, 81  f.; Friedrich 2007, 74  f. (‘deliberate variatio’). μύθοισιν ἀμείβετο: ἀμείβεσθαι is literally ‘to alternate’ (1.604); with dat. ἐπέεσσιν/ μύθῳ/μύθοισιν ‘alternate with/in words, answer’. The acc. with ἀμείβεσθαι is explained as transferred from constructions such as προσειπεῖν/προσαυδᾶν + part. of ἀμείβομαι (LfgrE s.v. 621.13  ff., 75  ff.). — δῖα γυναικῶν: used like a generic epithetP in reference to

167 ὅς τις: = ὅστις (indirect question). — ἠΰς: = ἐΰς ‘good’, with metrical lengthening (R 10.1). 168 ἤτοι μέν: ‘though indeed’. — κεφαλῇ: ‘by a head’. — καί: ‘even’. — ἔασιν: 3rd  pl. of εἰμί (R 16.6). 169 ἐγών (before a vowel): = ἐγώ. — πω (ϝ)ίδον: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἴδον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ὀφθαλμοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2. 170 βασιλῆϊ: on the declension, R 11.3. — ἀνδρὶ (ϝ)έ(ϝ)οικεν: on the prosody, R 5.4. 171 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17.

Commentary 

 75

women in a prominent position (2.714n.); of Helen also at 228, 423, Od. 4.305, 15.106. On the etymology and formation of δῖα, 19.6b n.

172–180 Helen reacts to Priam’s words. She first returns his friendly greeting (162  f.) with a deferential address that indicates her guilt (172n.); then she rejects his exoneration (162–165) and condemns her own infidelity (173–176). After this, she answers his question (166–170) by offering Agamemnon’s name, characterizing him and specifying her familial relationship to him, while denigrating herself (177–180). Her harsh statements regarding herself and her actions reveal her disillusionment, self-hatred (173a n., 180n.), shame at seeing her former husband before the walls (174, 180), agony (176b), loneliness (174b– 175), regret and feelings of guilt toward the Greeks as well as the Trojans and their elderly king (172; death wish 173). Helen talks about herself in a similarly negative fashion at 242, 404, 6.344–348, 6.355  f. But her enigmatic nature is also characteristic of her, and is here illustrated by the vagueness of her statements (she does not speak concretely of her responsibility for the departure for Troy, 173–176; to her, the past is no longer clearly perceptible, 180). ‘Although tormented by a sense of her own guilt, she nevertheless rejects any personal culpability’ (Latacz 2007, 95). Helen had thus far only been described by others (2.158–162, 2.354–356, 2.589  f., 3.68–70, 3.156–160, 3.162–165); in the present scene, by judging herself (and not e.g. defending herself against an attack by Priam), she gains humanity and thus sympathy via a psychologically sensitive representation by the narrator (Snell 1973, 10; Latacz [1987] 1994, 121; 2007, 88  f.; some calculation may, however, be implied in her self-incrimination: Blondell 2013, 64  f.). In this way, the narrator psychologizes the facts of the myth (Kullmann [1981] 1992, 85). 172 αἰδοῖος … δεινός: αἰδοῖος is here ‘one to whom αἰδώς is shown, awe-inspiring, venerable’, similarly 22.451 of a mother-in-law (LfgrE s.v. 268.25  ff.). δεινός ‘terrible’ (in the sense ‘inspiring fear in me’), sc. ‘through an awareness of my guilt and culpability’ (Faesi, transl.): thus also Nägelsbach; Wilamowitz 1931, 355 n. 1; LfgrE s.v. 236.75  ff. δεινός, emphatic at VE and not immediately connected to αἰδοῖος, is thus used more pointedly than at 18.394 and Od. 8.22, 14.234 (where it merely reinforces αἰδοῖος or is used more generally in the sense ‘commanding respect, potentially dangerous’): LfgrE loc. cit. 235.76  f., 236.75  ff.; differently Kirk. — φίλε ἑκυρέ: a response to φίλον τέκος (162); φίλε denotes the familial relationship and is at the same time affective (Cairns 1993, 89 with n. 130; cf. 1.20n., 3.31n.). The beginning of ἑκυρέ (originally σϝ-; cf. Old High Germ. swehur, Lat. socer: G 22) here makes position; ‘father-in-law’; otherwise at 24.770, also said by Helen in reference to the Trojan king (LfgrE s.v.).

172 φίλε (σϝ)εκυρέ: on the prosody, ↑. — ἑκυρέ, δ(ϝ)εινός: on the prosody, R 4.5.

76 

 Iliad 3

173a I wish bitter death had been what I wanted: Helen curses her actions by wishing for death, as at 6.345–348 and 24.764 (with nn.). Paris, on the other hand, is only cursed in this manner by others: 428 by Helen, 40 and 6.281  f. by Hektor. The idea that someone’s death could have prevented suffering in the future is also expressed elsewhere (19.59, Od. 5.308–310, 20.61–65), but is here strengthened: for Helen, death ought to have been welcome (hadeín), a statement probably meant in contrast to her recollection of how Paris once pleased her (schol. b, T). She now apparently considers death an alternative she could and should have preferred to being seduced by Paris at Aphrodite’s instigation (Schmitt 1990, 89; differently LfgrE s.v. ἁνδάνω 800.43  ff.; Bergold 1977, 69  f.; Erbse 1996, 1). ὡς ὄφελεν: ‘how much … should have’, a past unfulfilled wish. Likewise at 428, 6.345 etc.: Schw. 2.346; ὡς, like εἴθε, underlines ‘the notion of regret’ (Chantr. 2.228, transl.); on ὄφελεν, 1.353n. — ἁδεῖν: aor. from the root *σϝαδ- ‘be sweet, pleasant, pleasing’ (1.24n.); ϝ is disregarded here, contrary to normal usage (LfgrE s.v. ἁνδάνω 799.35  ff.). — κακός: an epithet of θάνατος in character languageP, also at 16.47, 21.66, 22.300, Od. 22.14, 24.153, here in contrast to ἁδεῖν (AH; de Jong on 22.300).

173b–174 when I came … | … forsaking my chamber, my kinsmen: Helen thus takes for granted that she followed Paris to Troy voluntarily (she alone is this clear on the point); likewise 6.344–358, Od. 4.259–264 (2.356n.; Reichel 1999, 292). Her loneliness in Troy is also evident at 236–242 (looking for her brothers) and 24.765–772 (mention of attacks by Paris’ family): Kakridis (1954) 1971, 40. On the continued use of the motif ‘Helen leaving her homeland’, Sappho fr. 16.9  ff. Voigt; Bierl 2003, 108  f. with n. 64. 174 θάλαμον: here ‘bedroom’ (142n.), as a metaphor for marriage and thus Menelaos; likewise at Od. 4.263 (schol. T; LfgrE s.v. 958.31  ff.). On Helen’s remorse, 140n. — γνωτούς: probably related to γιγνώσκω; likely with the sense ‘brother’ (certainly at 17.35, 22.234), but perhaps also generally ‘close relation’ (possible at 13.697 = 15.336, 14.485, 15.350): Frisk; Gates 1971, 26; LfgrE. Here the reference may be specifically to her brothers Kastor and Polydeukes, for whom Helen is searching at 236–242 (LfgrE).

175 child: Hermione, the only child of Helen and Menelaos (Od. 4.12–14; cf. CH 8 s.v. Helen). τηλυγέτην: Formation and sense are uncertain. Since the word is always used of an only son or (as here) daughter, the sense ‘tenderly beloved’ is always appropriate; likewise 5.153, 9.143, 9.285, 9.482, 13.470 (perhaps with pejorative sense, ‘pampered’), Od. 4.11, 16.19, h.Cer. 164, 283 (LfgrE s.v. τηλύγετος 467.57  ff., with reference to a possible le-

173 ἁδεῖν: aor. inf. of ἁνδάνω. — ὁππότε: on the -ππ-, R 9.1. 174 υἱέϊ: on the declension, R 12.3. — σῷ ἑπόμην: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

Commentary 

 77

gal sense ‘heir’). — ὁμηλικίην: literally ‘of the same age’; collectively with the concrete sense ‘peers, contemporaries’ (5.326, 13.485, Od. 3.49): LfgrE s.v. — ἐρατεινήν: a generic epithetP of persons at Od. 4.13, Hes. Th. 909, here of an abstract with a collective sense, elsewhere of abstracts at Il. 6.156, Od. 23.300 (LfgrE s.v.); also common with geographic terms (239n.). 176 τό: ‘therefore’ (= διὰ τοῦτο), adverbial acc., likewise at 12.9, 19.213 (AH; Willcock; Schw. 2.77  f.). — τέτηκα: perf. of τήκομαι ‘melt’, Od. 19.207 (snow), Hes. Th. 866 (metal); of human beings: ‘waste away’ from disease (Od. 5.396), psychologically ‘languishing, pining away from grief or longing’ (here and Od. 8.522, 19.208: Latacz 1966, 227, transl.; in general, Arnould 1986, 273). 177 = Od. 7.243, 15.402; ≈ 19.171; 1st VH ≈ Il. 1.419; 2nd VH = Od. 1.231, 15.390; ≈ Il. 1.550, 1.553, Od. 23.99, 24.478. — τοῦτο δέ τοι ἐρέω: a VB formula (see iterata). τοῦτο: correlative with the relative ὅ (Schw. 2.209). — ἀνείρεαι ἠδὲ μεταλλᾷς: a VE formula (cf. 1.550n.). ἀνείρεαι: like εἴρομαι (1.513) ‘ask’. μεταλλᾷς: ‘ask for’; on the etymology and usage, 1.550n.; LfgrE s.v. On synonym doubling, 1.160n. 178 οὗτος: 167n. — Ἀτρεΐδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: a VE formula (10× Il., 1× Od.): 1.102n. κρείων: ‘commanding, imperious’ (1.102n.).

179 2nd VH ≈ 4.87. — a good king and a strong spearfighter: Helen confirms Priam’s impression (166–170): the unknown man is truly a king (as well as the foremost of the Achaians, 178), and his military achievements match his stature (Bernsdorff 1992, 48  f.; on Agamemnon’s great military prowess according to the narrator-textP, Patzer 1996, 187; Stoevesandt 2004, 303; on the lance or spear as the most important weapon in battle, 6.3n.). The qualification ‘a good king’ refers to Agamemnon’s ability to lead by means of prudent advice (Kemper 1960, 13; cf. 2.201–202n.). He thus combines ‘individual strength with political might (cf. 6.478)’: LfgrE s.v. ἀγαθός 24.18  ff., transl. ἀμφότερον: nom., in apposition to the following clause βασιλεύς τ’ ἀγαθὸς κρατερός τ’ αἰχμητής, ‘who is both’. ἀμφότερον is appositional also at VB at 4.60 (athetized by West), 13.166, 18.365 etc. (Schw. 2.617). — βασιλεύς τ’ ἀγαθὸς κρατερός τ’ αἰχμητής: chiasmus (Barck 1976, 127 n. 305). 180 2nd VH from caesura C 2 on = Il. 24.426, Od. 19.315, 24.289. — δαήρ: an inherited word, ‘brother-in-law’, but only in the sense ‘husband’s brother’, likewise at 6.344, 14.156 etc. (LfgrE; Huld 1988, 424). — αὖτ(ε): ‘on the other hand, also’, introducing a concomitant thought (Agamemnon’s kinship with Helen) that follows the main statement (Agamemnon’s official function), as at Od. 11.338 (LfgrE s.v. 1589.36  ff.; Schw. 2.705  f.).

176 καί: in reference to the sentence as a whole. 177 τοι (ϝ)ερέω, ὅ: on the prosody, R 4.4, R 5.6. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐρέω: = Attic ἐρῶ, cf. R 6. — ἀνείρεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). 180 ἔην: 3rd sing. impf. of εἰμί (R 16.6).

78 

 Iliad 3

— ἔσκε: from *ἐσ-σκ-ε as a variant of ἔην; usually durative, as here, e.g. also Od. 19.315 (Schw. 1.677, 708; Chantr. 1.290, 320; LfgrE s.v. πέλομαι 1133.22–24). — κυνώπιδος: gen. in apposition to ἐμός, as if the word were ἐμοῦ (cf. phrases such as Νεστορέῃ παρὰ νηῒ … βασιλῆος, where a possessive adj. is used in place of gen.: 2.54n.; Schw. 2.177). κυνῶπις ‘dog-eyed’ is fem. of κύνωψ. Helen characterizes herself thus on account of her infidelity also at Od. 4.145, similarly Il. 6.344 (see ad loc.), 6.356, as a female dog, symbolizing shamelessness (see 1.159n. on the formation and sense of κύνωψ, with additional examples and bibliography; cf. English ‘bitch’). — εἴ ποτ’ ἔην γε: for parallels, see iterata; before caesura B 2 also at Il. 11.762; Od. 15.268 is similar (but without γε); always in direct speech (cf. character languageP). The conditional clause signifies that the past has become doubtful and unreal for the speaker because it is so far away; at the same time, repetition of the predicate (ἔην after ἔσκε), stressed by the use of γε, emphasizes Helen’s longing for an earlier time (Fehling 1969, 293; Bergold 1977, 71 n. 1; Macleod on 24.426; Kirk; LfgrE s.v. εἰμί 455.68  ff.). Helen’s ignorance of her brothers’ fate also fits with a sense of great temporal distance vis-à-vis the past (236–242): Kullmann (1968) 2001, 391  f. 181 1st VH to caesura A 3: 73× Il., 65× Od., 5× Hes., 2× ‘Hes.’, 7× h.Hom.; 2nd VH from caesura C 2 on 17× Il., 17× Od., 2× h.Hom. — ὣς φάτο· … ἠγάσσατο φώνησέν τε: a speech capping scheme ‘he/she spoke + addressee’s response’ (1.33n., 2.333–335n.), augmented by a speech introductory formulaP as a third element in the same line; this is relatively rare (also 10.328, 14.270, 17.33, 24.200, 24.424, Od. 24.513, h.Ap. 61; similarly Od. 9.506 = 11.59). The speech introduction is shaped as a variant of the formulaic introduction ‘τὸν δ’ αὖτ’ + personal name + ἀπαμείβετο φώνησέν τε’ (1× Il., 10× Od.; on this, Edwards 1970, 4–7). — ὁ γέρων: common as a periphrastic denominationP of Priam (and other characters: LfgrE); ὁ is likely merely the definite article here (AH on Od. 3.388; Chantr. 2.164; G 99). — ἠγάσσατο: ἄγαμαι, from ἀγα- (cf. ἄγαν), is ‘have a sense that someone/something crosses the boundaries of the normal, be overwhelmed’, in a positive sense ‘marvel at’ (as here), frequently with μῦθον as object in the sense ‘be overwhelmed with awe at, be greatly impressed by’ (7.404 = 9.51 = 9.711; 8.29 = 9.694 etc.); negatively ‘be indignant, upset, appalled’ (7.41, 14.111, 17.71 etc.): LfgrE; Schadewaldt (1959) 1970, 68.

182–190 Informed by Helen of the name and rank of the formidable Greek (178– 180 in response to 166–170), Priam praises Agamemnon for his power, which depends on the size of the Greek army in its entirety. Makarismoí, declarations of how blessed another person is, are also attested at Od. 5.306  f., 6.153–159, 24.36  f., Hes. Th. 96b–97, 954  f., Op. 826–828, ‘Hes.’ frr. 33(a).13  f. and 211.7 M.-W., h.Cer. 480–482, h.Hom. 30.7b–8 (Dirichlet 1914, 24–26; Richardson on h.Cer. 480, with bibliography; West on Hes. Op. 826). The depiction of Agamemnon is in accordance with his overall role in Book 3 (166–170n.); his importance

181 ὥς: ‘thus’. — φάτο: impf. of φημί; on the mid., R 23. — ἠγάσσατο: aor.: ‘fell into a state of wonderment’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 79

as leader of the greatest number of warriors is also stressed repeatedly elsewhere (1.173–187n., 1.281n., 2.576–577a n., 2.577b–580n.). Like Iris’ depiction of the enormous Greek army at 2.798–801, this speech fits the current reflection of the beginning of the war (cf. above p.  11), i.e. the first Greek deployment before Troy (Grethlein 2006, 276; 2.796–806n., 2.798–799n., cf. 121–244n., 2.459–466n., 467–468n.). – The old Trojan king supports his statement with a recollection from his youth (as the elderly Nestor is also accustomed to do: 1.259–274n.): not even the enormous Phrygian army, which he once supported as an ally against the Amazons, could match the Greek deployment before Troy (184–190 with n.). Priam, under siege in Troy, thus admires his adversary: ‘The poet could hardly have found a more striking way to illustrate the magnificence of the Achaian undertaking’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 289  f., transl.; similarly Hebel 1970, 130). Since the narrator likely has Priam assume a Phrygian victory over the Amazons, the king appears filled with grim foreboding of the conquest of his city by the even more numerous Greeks (Bergold 1977, 71–74; differently Kirk on 184–9: Priam is not depicted as troubled). 182 The use of the entire verse as an apostrophe indicates the importance of the person in question (1.36n.; cf. 39n.). The emphasis is increased via the asyndetic series of epithets (as at 2.23 [see ad loc. for bibliography] = 2.60, 4.370, 5.277 etc.) and the structure of the verse in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (on which, 39n.). μάκαρ: ‘blessed’; of human beings deserving praise as blessed also at Od. 5.306 (24.377n.); here likely in the sense ‘very powerful, secure’ (de Heer 1969, 10; similarly Keil 1998, 43). — Ἀτρεΐδη: A patronymic rather than a personal name is found in an address also at e.g. 250, 1.59 (see ad loc.), 19.185; on patronymics in general, 1.1n.; West 2007, 81, 404. — μοιρηγενές: hapaxP; μοιρη-γενής is literally ‘born with the Moirai’, i.e. ‘born under a lucky star, child of destiny’ (cf. κακῇ αἴσῃ τέκον 1.418n.); on μοῖρα in a positive sense as ‘good portion, good fortune’ cf. words from the same stem: at 6.408, 24.773 ἄμμορον, literally ‘without a portion’, thus ‘ill-fated’, 19.315 δυσάμμορε, Od. 20.76 μοῖράν τ’ ἀμμορίην τε: LfgrE; Faesi. — ὀλβιόδαιμον: hapaxP; ‘with a δαίμων that brings blessings’ (on δαίμων ‘allotter of fate’, 1.222n.), ‘blessed by the gods, of blessed fate’ (i.e. in favorable circumstances, wealthy, powerful); the notion of gods giving blessings (ὄλβος) also at 24.534–537: de Heer 1969, 9  f.; Gruber 1971, 18; Keil 1998, 41–43. ὀλβιοδαίμων thus precludes the semantic ambiguity of both μοῖρα (in the preceding μοιρηγενές) and δαίμων (both often used in a negative sense: Keil loc. cit. 44). 183 1st VH to caesura A 4 = 10.401 ≈ 4.93, 6.215, 7.48, 14.190, 18.394, 19.315. — ἦ ῥά νύ τοι …: The reasons for praise are rarely given in a main clause (likewise at Od. 6.155b–157); in-

183 ἦ ῥά νυ: ‘thus truly’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — δεδμήατο: 3rd pl. plpf. pass. (R 16.2) of δάμνημι.

80 

 Iliad 3

stead, a relative clause provides the reason, or sometimes a precondition (ὄλβιος/μάκαρ/ μακάριος, ὅς is an inflectible formula): Dirichlet 1914, 24–26. — τοι … δεδμήατο: dat. of agent with intrans. mid. and pass. forms of δάμνημι/δαμνά(ζ)ω also at 301, 429, 5.878, Od. 11.621  f. etc. (Schw. 2.149 with n. 6; on the origin of this use of the dative case George 2005, 51–60). The plpf. is used since Priam is referring to earlier reports (as at 2.798– 801) that he now sees confirmed: ‘were therefore subject’ and ‘are subject as I now see them’. A similar use of the plpf. and the impf. to confirm a notion at 8.163, 12.164, 16.33 (AH; Faesi; Leaf; Bergold 1977, 72 n. 2). — πολλοί: predicative, ‘in large numbers’: ‘Agamemnon is considered blessed because of the number of men he commands’ (AH, transl.). — κοῦροι Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (1.473n.).

184–190 Priam compares the Greek army to the Phrygian deployment against the Amazons. On the Phrygians, listed as allies in the Trojan catalogue, 2.862n.; on connections between Priam’s family and Phrygia, 186n. The Amazons (189), a mythical people of female warriors, are otherwise mentioned in Homeric epic only at 6.186 as the opponents of Bellerophontes (for another possible reference, 2.813–814n.). The myth of their war against the Phrygians is taken by the narrator to be well-known (on such assumptions in general, Scodel 2002, 23); alternatively, he created the myth and has Priam suggest its familiarity (187 rha, ‘of course’; Von der Mühll 1952, 70; on suggestions with ara/rha in general, Grimm 1962, 30). In any case, the myth is not otherwise known from mythography or iconography (Blok 1995, 148–152; on the iconography of Amazons in general, with evidence from the mid-7th cent. on, von Bothmer 1957; LIMC s.v. Amazons). Whether the legend mentioned here has any connection with later myths of the Amazons (e.g. their support under Penthesileia for the Trojans [Aeth. frr. 1 and 2 and Procl. Chrest. § 1 West; cf. 24.804n.] or Herakles’ fight against them; on this, Kullmann 1960, 46; Blok loc. cit. 302) thus remains an open question; the assumption of a historical background to these battles (Watkins [1986] 1994, 707; Kullmann [1999] 2002, 193; Blok loc. cit. 301) is speculative, even more so as the date of the Phrygian migration is disputed (2.862n.). – The motif ‘already always/a long time/many  …, but never yet …’ has the function of a sort of summary priamelP; collection of references at 2.798–799n. (to which add 24.765–767, Od. 17.515– 517, 24.87–90, h.Merc. 450  ff.). 184 ἤδη: ‘once’, as at 205, 1.260, 1.590, 20.90, 20.187 (schol. A; West on Hes. Op. 37). — καί: ‘also’ (as at 205 καὶ δεῦρο): Autenrieth in the 3rd ed. of Nägelsbach. — Φρυγίην: 184–190n. — ἀμπελόεσσαν: ‘rich in vines’ (2.561n.).

184 εἰσήλυθον: = εἰσῆλθον.

Commentary 

 81

185 πλείστους: predicative, ‘in the largest number’ (AH). — Φρύγας ἀνέρας: 6n. — αἰολοπώλους: ‘with quick-moving colts’; cf. πόδας αἰόλος ἵππος 19.404; a distinctive epithetP of the Phrygians (only here and in h.Ven. 137, which seems to be modeled on the present passage [see Olson on h.Ven. 137–140], as well as the plus-verse 2.798a: LfgrE); like ἱππόδαμοι at 10.431, it refers to the horse-breeding for which they were known (2.862n.).

186 Otreus: mentioned as ruler of the Phrygians also at h.Ven. 111, 146. Since Priam’s wife Hekabe comes from Phrygia (16.717–719), it is conceivable that Otreus, as Priam’s kinsman, played a role in the prehistory of the Trojan War and in the myth of the Amazons in particular; see also 24.804n. (LfgrE). – ‘Otreus’ is a non-Greek name, perhaps derived from the place-name Otroia in Bithynia (von Kamptz 125). — Mygdon: attested only here; a non-Greek name, perhaps eponym of the Mygdones, a Thracian people who migrated to Asia Minor (Strab. 7.3.2 = C 295): LfgrE; von Kamptz 135; cf. 2.862n. on the Phrygians. λαούς: ‘warriors, people’ (1.10n.). — ἀντιθέοιο: a generic epithetP of heroes (1.264n.).

187 1st VH ≈ 4.378. — Sangarios: a river at the Phrygian border mentioned also at 16.719; it flows into the Black Sea (2.862n.; BNP s.v.). ἐστρατόωντο: ‘were in the field’, as at 4.378 (similarly 11.713): Trümpy 1950, 180; LfgrE. 188 1st VH to caesura C 1 = 5.478. — [ἐλέγμην] ἐλέχθην: from λέχομαι ‘lie down, bivouac’, which is also used elsewhere in the context of keeping watch (LfgrE s.v. λέγω 1650.69  ff., 1651.1–3 and 25  ff.); it picks up ἐστρατόωντο and supplements ἐπίκουρος ἐών. Mss. and papyri transmit only this form; the variant ἐλέγμην from λέγομαι ‘be counted among’ transmitted at Strab. 12.3.24 = C 552 has a parallel at Od. 9.335, but the sense is superfluous in proximity to ἐπίκουρος ἐών. On this problem, Leaf (reading ἐλέχθην, from λέχομαι or λέγομαι); LfgrE s.v. λέγω 1651.28  ff. (reading ἐλέχθην; more likely from λέγομαι); AH; Faesi; Kirk (reading ἐλέχθην, from λέγομαι); West app. crit. and 2001, 186  f. (reading ἐλέγμην).    189 ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε: a VB formula; usually in direct speech of a memory of a personal experience, as here (2.351n.). — τ(ε): after ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε also at 13.335; the usage is equivalent to simple ὅτε τε, as at 5.803 (cf. other expansions of temporal conjunctions such as ἐπεί τε): Ruijgh 492–494. — ἀντιάνειραι: from ἀντί in the sense ‘instead of, equivalent to’

185 ἔνθα (ϝ)ίδον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἀνέρας: = ἄνδρας; the initial syllable is metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 186 Ὀτρῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. — ἀντιθέοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 187 ἐστρατόωντο: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 188 ἐγών (before a vowel): = ἐγώ. — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6). 189 ἤματι τῷ: = ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἤματι; on the demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἤματι: from ἦμαρ ‘day’.

82 

 Iliad 3

(as at 186 ἀντί-θεος) and ἀνήρ: ‘equivalent to a man/men, man-like’; an epithet of the Amazons at VE also at 6.186 (LfgrE; for a speculative view on the antiquity of the formulaic phrase, Blok 1995, 189). 190 οἵ: ‘these’, i.e. the Phrygians mentioned in 185. — ἑλίκωπες Ἀχαιοί: an inflectible VE formula: 1.389n. On the uncertain sense of the adj., 1.98n.

191–224 Priam inquires about Odysseus, who is unknown to him (191–198); Helen responds (199–202) and is seconded by Antenor (203–224). All three focus on Odysseus’ intelligence: the old king notices his superior leadership in the army (196–198n.), Helen describes him as polýmētis, ‘of many counsels’ (200n., picked up by Antenor) and stresses his strategic thinking (202), which Antenor notes again at 208 and 212 (mḗdea, ‘counsels’, in total 3×): Bernsdorff 1992, 52, 54. The characterization of Odysseus is consistent with the depiction of him in Books 1 and 2, where he appears as Agamemnon’s indispensable assistant as a result of his diplomatic and psychological skills (1.311n.: embassy to Chryse; 2.169n., 2.186–187n., 2.244–277n., 2.284–298n.: preventing the Greeks from returning home after Agamemnon’s unsuccessful test of the army); at the same time, his important role in the embassy to Achilleus in Book 9 is anticipated (Edwards 1987, 193; Hölscher [1991] 1994, 54). 191 ≈ 225. — seeing Odysseus: The interruption of Priam’s speech is quite unusual and provides an opportunity for the narrator to immediately name for the audience (as at 225) the Greek warrior the king does not know; the audience can then apply Priam’s question and his description, which emphasizes the man’s actions more than his appearance (191–224n.), unambiguously to Odysseus (de Jong 1985, 261  f.; [1987] 2004, 104, 286  f. n. 21). δεύτερον: adverbial with ἐρέειν(ε), parallel to τὸ τρίτον 225; on the mnemonic function of such numerals, Bonifazi 2012, 227. — αὖτ(ε): ‘αὖτε with a numerical adv. contrasts an event with an earlier event that is similar or the same’ (LfgrE s.v. 1589.14  ff., transl.). Likewise at VB with δεύτερον/-ος 7× Il., 2× Hes., with τρίτον 2× Il., 2× Od. — Ὀδυσῆα: consonant shortening, -σ- rather than -σσ-, for metrical reasons, perhaps as a result of the supposed connection of ὀδύσασθαι with the name (Od. 19.407–409, cf. Od. 1.62, 5.340): G 49; Wachter 2001, 266. — ὁ γεραιός: a formulaic phrase (at VE and after caesura A 4; in total 9× Il., 1× Od.); γεραιός is a ‘metrical variant for γέρων’ (LfgrE, transl.); both occasionally serve as a periphrastic denominationP for Priam, Nestor, etc. (181n., also on ὁ). 192 εἴπ’ ἄγε: ἄγε is a fossilized imper. that functions like a particle (cf. 2.72n.); likewise εἴπ’ ἄγε μ(οι) 9.673, 10.544, Od. 15.347, 23.261; ‘a verbal form connected with ἄγε elsewhere

190 ὅσοι (ϝ)ελίκωπες: on the prosody, R 4.4. 191 Ὀδυσῆα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. 192 τέκος: = τέκνον.

Commentary 

 83

uniformly follows it’ (AH, transl.). — τόνδε: anticipation of the subject of the dependent clause (as at 2.409, see ad loc.), picked up by ὅδ(ε); the doubling of the pronoun strengthens the deictic aspect. — φίλον τέκος: on the address, 162n.

193–194 Odysseus is shorter than the stately Agamemnon (193; size is an important feature for comparison: 2.58n.; West 1997, 358, with Near Eastern parallels), but he has wider shoulders and a broader chest than the latter (194; on a broad chest as signifying a physique suitable for attacking in battle, 2.479n., on shoulders, 2.218n.). But Odysseus is no match for Aias who, more than anyone else, is conspicuous for his broad shoulders (227). Odysseus thus does not equal the commanding figure of Agamemnon (166–170n.); his actions, on which Priam concentrates (196–198n.), are more impressive than his appearance (Bernsdorff 1992, 49  f.). 193 2nd VH = 1.203, 2.9, 7.176, 9.178, 9.226, 9.388, 14.137, 19.241, 4× Od. — κεφαλῇ: dat. of respect to denote physical size, as at 168 (see ad loc.). Aristarchus’ variant κεφαλήν (acc. of respect) is by analogy to κεφαλήν 227 (Leaf) or else stems from a misinterpretation of κεφαλῇ 168 as dat. of degree of measure (Bergold 1977, 74 n. 2). 194 ἰδέ: a metrical variant of ἠδέ (2.511n. with bibliography).

195 ≈ 89, 21.426. — Priam notes that the man’s weapons have been laid down, a sign of the truce (89n.), the reason for which he will only learn later (250–258). He is therefore surprised that the unknown individual nonetheless inspects the warriors (Kirk on 195–6). τεύχεα: 29n. — ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ: an inflectible VE formula (89n.).

196–198 The simple comparisonP of Odysseus to a ram (196 ktílos hṓs), taken up and expanded in 197 (197  f.; cf. 3–7 [with n.]; Kirk on 197–8), illustrates his leading position. Priam is impressed by Odysseus’ inspection of the army (Bernsdorff 1992, 50). In 13.491–495, Aineias’ authority is similarly compared to that of a bellwether. Agamemnon, on the other hand, whose imposing appearance has just been stressed (166–170), stands out like a bull from the herd (2.480–483n.; cf. also 2.474–477n. on herd similes); that simile is likely recalled here (Moulton 1977, 92 n. 14; Bergold 1977, 77 n. 1): Odysseus is active as a leader in the background, in contrast to Agamemnon, who represents kingship and is static until Book 4 (Bergold loc. cit. 77). The image of a ram with dense fleece fits nicely with the preceding description of Odysseus’ stocky stature

193 Ἀτρείδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. 194 εὐρύτερος … ἰδέσθαι: ‘broader … to look at’. — στέρνοισιν: on the plural, R 18.2. — ἰδέσθαι: on the mid., R 23. 195 τεύχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — μέν (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ: ≈ αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — πουλυβοτείρῃ: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1); on -ῃ after -ρ-, R 2.

84 

 Iliad 3

(Hartigan 1973, 227). It may also allude to the hero’s probably well-known escape beneath Polyphemus’ thick-fleeced bellwether (Od. 9.424–463; similarly Clay 1983, 120  f.). 196 2nd VH ≈ 4.231, 4.250, 11.264, 11.540, 15.279. — κτίλος: from κτίζω; attested after Homer (‘Hes.’ fr. 323 M.-W., Empedocles VS 31 B 130.1, Quint. Smyrn. 1.388, etc.) with the sense ‘tame, obedient’, subst. ‘ram’ (Frisk; Troxler 1964, 128  f.; Casevitz 1985, 241–244); ‘bellwether’ here and at 13.492, both times in a simile (Casevitz loc. cit. 241 considers an active sense, ‘taming’, the basis for this transference). — ὥς: on the position of the word, 2n. — ἐπιπωλεῖται: likely from πέλομαι (Risch 309; Tucker 1990, 123 n. 161; LIV s.v. *ku̯elh); here ‘pace out’ for the purpose of inspection, as at 4.231, 4.250 (in Agamemnon’s epipolesis); similarly 198 διέρχεται (of the bellwether) and 15.279 ἐποιχόμενον στίχας ἀνδρῶν (of Hektor): LfgrE s.v. πωλέομαι 1675.3  ff. — στίχας: denotes battle lines in horizontal order (2.525–526n.), here of the waiting warriors. Frequently in connection with ἀνδρῶν, as here (iterata: at VE after ἐπεπωλεῖτο or ἐποιχόμενον; elsewhere 7× Il., 1× Od.). 197 ἐγώ γε: ‘I (for my part); others may put it differently’ (AH, transl.). — ἐΐσκω: from *(ϝε-)ϝίκ-σκ-ω from ἔοικα (Risch 276), ‘compare, deem similar’, likewise at 5.181, 11.799 (ἴσκοντες), 24.371, Od. 6.152 etc.; always in direct speech, aside from Hes. Op. 62 (LfgrE s.v. ἔοικα 622.18  ff.). — πηγεσιμάλλῳ: a hapaxP; likely with nominal πηγός ‘strong, solid’ as the first element (rather than verbal πήγνυμι [AH; considered by Leaf]; the name Πρωτεσίλαος likewise has a nominal first element + -εσι); -ε-σι- is an expansion metri gratia as in ἑλκεσίπεπλος (also at VE: 6.442, 7.297, 22.105). The second element is μαλλός ‘flock of wool’ (Hes. Op. 234); πηγεσίμαλλος is thus ‘thick-fleeced, with shaggy fleece’, cf. Od. 9.425 οἴιες … δασύ-μαλλοι (Knecht 1946, 29; Risch 167, 192; LfgrE). 198 πῶυ: ‘herd’ (from ποιμήν), likewise at 15.323, Od. 14.100, etc. (LfgrE s.v. 1676.42  ff.). — διέρχεται: for the sense, cf. ἐπιπωλεῖται 196 (with n.). — ἀργεννάων: ‘bright, whitish’ (141n.).    199 1st VH ≈ 48× Il., 24× Od., 2× h.Hom.; 2nd VH = 3.418, Od. 4.184, 4.219, 23.218; from caesura C 1 on = Od. 6.229, Hes. Op. 256; ≈ Hes. Th. 76. The second introductory line of Helen’s responses (171n.) consists of two formulaic verse-halves and resembles Aphrodite’s response formula τὴν/τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα Διὸς θυγάτηρ Ἀφροδίτη 14.193, h.Ven. 107 = 191. — Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα: in total 5× of Helen (all in the Iliad), otherwise 1× each of Athene (Od. 6.229), Dike (Hes. Op. 256) and the Muses (Hes. Th. 76), always at VE (see iterata); a metrical variant of Διὸς θυγάτηρ (Od. 4.227 of Helen, in total 24× in early epic; cf. 2.491–492n.) and κούρη Διὸς (αἰγιόχοιο) (426 [see ad loc.] of Helen, in total 15× in

196 κτίλος ὥς: = ὡς κτίλος. 197 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — γε (ϝ)ε(ϝ)ίσκω: on the hiatus, R 4.3. 198 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἀργεννάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 199 ἐκγεγαυῖα: perf. part. of ἐκγίγνομαι (↑).

Commentary 

 85

early epic); cf. Helen’s epithet εὐπατέρεια Il. 6.292, Od. 22.227. On Helen’s father, 140n.; CH 8. — ἐκγεγαυῖα: part. of perf. γέγονα with ablaut (α < n̥): Risch 345.

200 resourceful: Gr. polýmētis ‘with much mḗtis’ (a term for practical intelligence and strategic thinking: 2.169n.); like polymḗchanos ‘inventive’ a standard epithet of Odysseus (also 216, 268; at VE in total 14× Il., 66× Od.; see in general 1.311n., 2.173n.). Here the epithet has the effect of summarizing Helen’s and Antenor’s characterizations of Odysseus (202 and 216–224). οὗτος δ’ αὖ: linked with οὗτός γε at 178 by continuing the enumeration with δ’ αὖ, a prosodic variant of αὖ (Klein 1988, 250, 253); 229 continues with δ(έ) alone (Ruijgh 167). On οὗτος, 167n. 201–202 An illustration of the two epithets used in 200, Λαερτιάδης (201 on the origin) and πολύμητις (202 on the character): Kirk on 200–2; Bernsdorff 1992, 50.

201 rough: Gr. kranaós, epithet of Ithaka (likewise Od. 1.247 = 16.124 ≈ 15.510, 21.346), Eleusis (h.Cer. 356) and Delos (h.Ap. 16, 26); cf. 445n. The barrenness of Ithaka’s soil is also stressed elsewhere (Od. 4.605–608, 9.27, 10.417, 10.463, 13.242): LfgrE. The motif appears to be prescribed by the myth to render Odysseus’ desire to return home particularly paradoxical (2.632n.). Here it is connected with the notion that the best men often come from precisely the poorest regions (Od. 9.27, h.Ap. 72; schol. bT ad loc.; Bergold 1977, 78 n. 2; Skafte Jensen 1981/82, 5  f.). τράφεν: on the intransitive use (‘grew up’), 1.251n. — ἐν δήμῳ Ἰθάκης: the same phrase, but all at VB, at Od. 13.97, 15.534, 16.419. δῆμος is here ‘inhabited area’ (2.198n.). On attempts to identify the island of Ithaka, 2.632n.; Guggisberg 2008. 202 εἰδὼς … μήδεα πυκνά: μήδεα εἰδώς and variants are elsewhere formulaic at VE (see 24.88n.). As an exception to this, like 208, the epithet (πυκνά) is used at VE (rather than before caesura C 1), and δόλους, a synonym with emphatic effect, is added to the entire phrase, as is παντοίους, which occupies a chiastic position in relation to πυκνά. Similar accumulation of terms from the semantic field ‘intelligence – cunning’: Hes. Th. 559  f., Op. 54  f. On synonym doubling in general, 1.160n.; on this verse, LfgrE s.v. μήδεα; Hainsworth 1968, 82  f. — δόλους: Cunning action is characteristic of Odysseus. In Homeric epic generally, it is regarded ambivalently; usually with approval (11.430, 23.725, Od. 3.122, 9.19  f., 13.292, cf. 13.291–299); with disapproval at Il. 4.339 (Detienne/ Vernant 1974, 19  f., 62 n. 2, 102; Dunkle 1987). Here – with the addition of παντοίους (as at Od. 3.119) and as a complement to μήδεα πυκνά – it is surely meant in a positive sense (LfgrE; Luther 1935, 117  f.). — μήδεα: Semantically correlative with πολύμητις (200n.), the word denotes practical intelligence, which is thus characteristic of Odysseus (also at 208, 212, Od. 11.202, 13.89, ‘Hes.’ fr. 198.3 M.-W.): LfgrE. — πυκνά: on metaphorical

201 περ: concessive (R 24.10). — ἐούσης: = οὔσης (R 16.6).

86 

 Iliad 3

πυκ(ι)νός in reference to mental processes, 2.55n. πυκνά = πυκινά, both from the adv. πύκα ‘strongly’ (Risch 99).

203–224 After the speech introduction verse, Antenor first indicates that he wishes to confirm Helen’s characterization of Odysseus (204, 205 gar, ‘because’). Only in the case of Odysseus is such a confirmation of Helen’s response offered, and it brings with it particular emphasis on the individual considered. This emphasis is likely a result of Odysseus’ leading intellectual role, from the negotiations preceding the beginning of the war, discussed here, to its end (invention of the Trojan horse). Antenor is also better placed than Helen to speak of her former husband Menelaos (Tsagalis 2008, 128 n. 82). He bases his remarks on his own experiences: on the occasion of the embassy of Menelaos and Odysseus to Troy, he was able to compare their appearance as well as their manner of thinking (205–208). Antenor’s speech now narrows to Odysseus’ incomparable oratory, which illustrates his intelligence (and at the same time follows the sequence of events in the assembly chronologically – entrance, standing, sitting, rising and speaking; the description of Menelaos, already characterized at 21–29, here serves simply as a contrasting background). The appearance of the two men is first briefly described (209–211), and a description of Menelaos’ oratorical style is then offered in only three lines (213–215; Menelaos, the ‘loser’ in the comparison, speaks first: Müller 1994, 184), followed by Antenor’s reminiscence of Odysseus’ attitude before he spoke (216– 220) and of his great facility with words (221–224): Lohmann 1970, 87; Bergold 1977, 80  f. 203 ≈ 4.265, 13.254, Od. 1.213, etc. (in total 13× Il., 52× Od., 1× h.Cer.). — Antenor: 148n. τὴν δ’ αὖτ(ε) … ἀντίον ηὔδα: a speech introductory formulaP, also attested with αὖ (see iterata above; for variants, 24.333n.); with πεπνυμένος in total 5× Il., 44× Od. (of Telemachos, with the exception of 24.375). Unlike in most instances, here the formula does not signal a response by the person previously addressed, but indicates another person joining the conversation (likewise Od. 1.345, 1.399, etc.): Edwards 1970, 4. — αὖτ(ε): 58n. — πεπνυμένος: 148n. Also an epithet of Antenor in the same position in the verse at 7.347. 204 ≈ Il. 15.206, Od. 8.141, 16.69, 23.183. — ὦ: relatively rare in the Iliad; whether it emphasizes the speaker’s emotion is disputed (1.442n.). — γύναι: a neutral address (24.300n.), but elsewhere in the Iliad directed only to a wife (438, 6.441, 24.300: Wendel 1929, 11) and thus here perhaps indicative of a familial relationship (on Antenor’s relation to

203 τὴν … ἀντίον ηὔδα: ‘addressed her’. 204 τοῦτο (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἔ(ϝ)ειπες: = εἶπες.

Commentary 

 87

Helen, cf. 122n.). — ἦ μάλα: ‘yes, indeed, doubtless’, usually introducing a sentence or following a vocative, as here; character languageP (LfgrE s.v. μάλα 23.34  ff.). — νημερτὲς ἔειπες: an inflectible VE formula (νημερτές/-έα + forms of εἰπεῖν in total 1× Il., 3× Od., 1× h.Hom.), variants νημερτέα εἴρω 1× Od. and νημερτὲς ἐνίσπες/-ῃ/ἐνίψει 1× Il., 8× Od. — νημερτές: ‘unerring’, predicative (AH); on the formation, 1.514n., 6.376n. Always in direct speech except at h.Cer. 294 (LfgrE s.v. 363.37  f.).

205–224 The background to Antenor’s reminiscence of Odysseus is the embassy of Odysseus and Menelaos to Troy, mentioned also in Book 11 in an external analepsisP (205  f., 11.139  f.; on the chronology, STR 23). Hosted by their guestfriend Antenor (207), they demanded Helen’s return in the assembly of the people (209, 11.125), although unsuccessfully (11.123–125); the war began as a result. The origin of this story, also transmitted in the Cypria (Proclus Chrest. §  10 West), is uncertain (Kullmann 1960, 275; [1991] 1992, 112, with further evidence, including iconography, from later periods: pre-Homeric; likewise Danek 2005, 19; Danek 2006, 8, assuming alterations of a motif; van der Valk 1964, 235  f.: invention by the poet of the Iliad and post-Homeric embellishment are possible). Here the story serves to demonstrate Odysseus’ rhetorical abilities; it may also be intended to recall Trojan responsibility for the war prior to the treaty scene (276–302; on this connection, van Wees 1992, 175  f.), and Antenor’s role as host and admirer of the Greek Odysseus may prepare for his plea in Book 7 that Helen be returned (7.347–353; similarly LfgrE s.v. πέπνυμαι 1159.343  f.). 205 2nd VH = Od. 21.190. — brilliant Odysseus: a VE formula (1.145n.). γάρ: introduces a story that, as a whole, functions to explain the preceding statement (similarly e.g. Hdt. 1.59.1): de Jong 1997, 176–179. — καί: ‘also’, with δεῦρο (184n.). — ποτ(ε): a rare example of an enclitic placed after caesura B 2 (in Homeric epic also at 220, 10.453, 23.668): Beck 1972, 225 n. 22; West 1982, 36. ποτε is often used to introduce analepsis (de Jong 2007, 21). 206 σῆς ἕνεκ’ ἀγγελίης: Whether an otherwise unattested masc. ἀγγελίης in the sense ‘messenger’, derived from the fem. abstract ἀγγελίη ‘message’, is to be understood here and at 4.384, 11.140, 13.252, 15.640 has been disputed since antiquity. Antenor’s words could mean (with readings varying accordingly): (1) ‘for your sake as messenger’ (reading σεῦ, dependent on ἕνεκα; ἀγγελίης as a predicative nom.) or (2) ‘because of a message concerning you’ (ἀγγελίης dependent on ἕνεκα; with poss. pronoun σῆς or objective gen. σεῦ/σεῖ’). In favor of (2) are: the abstract is frequently attested; the supposed formation of the masc. lacks morphological parallels (the only comparable masc., νεηνίης and ταμίης, are not based on abstracts [on ταμίης, 19.44n.]); interpret-

205 ἤδη … ποτ(έ): ‘once … before’. — ἤλυθε: = ἦλθε. 206 σῆς ἕνεκ’ ἀγγελίης: ‘because of a message concerning you’ (↑).

88 

 Iliad 3

ing the word as a declined form of ἀγγελίη is also possible in the other Iliad passages. On the position of ἕνεκα, cf. Od. 16.334 τῆς αὐτῆς ἕνεκ’ ἀγγελίης. Finally, the abstract ἀγγελίη fits Antenor’s response to Helen’s speech: Odysseus and Menelaos come to Troy with the important message that they and the Greeks generally demanded Helen’s return (differently Erbse [1975] 1979, 80: an emphasis on Odysseus’ role as negotiator is more natural; thus the masc. is the better fit; similarly van der Valk 1964, 200 n. 518). West’s σῆς (following Zenodotus) as a complement to gen. ἀγγελίης is to be preferred to σεῦ (based on Aristarchus’ reading and transmitted in all mss.) because of the similar ἐμὴν … ἀγγελίην 19.336  f. (‘message from me’). On the problem in its entirety, schol. A ad loc.; Buttmann (1818) 1825, 202–209; Leaf; Leumann 1950, 168–173; Forssman 1974; Erbse (1975) 1979, 73–80; West app. crit. ad loc. and on Hes. Th. 781; on the conjecture σεῖ’, Janko 2000, 3. — ἀρηϊφίλῳ: 21n.

207 To both of these I gave in my halls kind entertainment: The hosting of a guest is mentioned frequently in Homeric epic (232  f., 354, 13.627, Od. 5.135, 10.14, in Odysseus’ fabricated stories 14.321  f., 19.194  f., 24.266, etc.) and is portrayed in type-scenesP in the Odyssey (in Books 3, 4 and 15: Telemachos in the houses of Nestor and Menelaos, in Books 5–13: Odysseus’ stay with the Phaiakians, in Books 13–23: Odysseus first in Eumaios’ house, then in his own); in Il. 6.119–236 the focus is on the renewal of guest-friendship. This is important because a xeínos, i.e. a foreigner (Greek or non-Greek; in the 8th cent., mobility had increased), lacks protection outside his own community and kin-group. Aristocrats from different communities accordingly guarantee (inter alia by handshake, sacrifice, oath or gift exchange) one another mutual help (board and lodging, as here, as well as military protection, fiduciary services, mediation, conducting rituals, etc., as needed) and repeatedly confirm these relationships with gifts (luxury items; material finds attest to their importance for the contemporary economy). These relationships between two xeínoi, guest-friends, presuppose a certain level of wealth, contribute to it, and in fact represent a source of power (Agamemnon’s power rests on this as well). The relationships are hereditary (6.215n.) but can lapse or be violated by one of the partners (354); they are supported not by the law but only by morality and religion (via Zeus Xeinios, 103–104n.). On guest-friendship in general, Benveniste 1969, 341–345; Herman 1987; van Wees 1992, 228–237; Spahn 2006, 201–208; on the corresponding semantic field in Homer, Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 115–176; on the type-scenesP, Reece 1993; on the finds, Coldstream 1983. ἐξείνισσα: ξεινίζω, almost always in the aor., as here, is ‘receive as a guest, treat as a guest’ (i.e. offer food and drink, as well as a bed for the night); that someone is received

207 ἐξείνισσα: = ἐξένισα (ξειν- < *ξενϝ-: R 4.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1).

Commentary 

 89

into the sphere of the οἶκος is often made explicit, as here (with ἐν(ὶ) μεγάροισ(ιν) also at 6.217, Od. 7.190, 19.217; Il. 3.233 οἴκῳ ἐν ἡμετέρῳ, cf. Od. 19.194 = 24.271: Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 129; LfgrE). — ἐν μεγάροισι: on the sense, 125n. — φίλησα: on the sense ‘receive hospitably, host’, Landfester 1966, 108  f.; Benveniste 1969, 341  f. Alongside the more neutral ξεινίζειν (likewise Od. 14.322, 19.194  f. = 24.271  f.), the verb more forcefully expresses ‘the […] geniality, and the friendship developing from it’ (LfgrE s.v. ξεινίζω, transl.). 208 φυήν: ‘growth’ (1.115n.), ‘that makes one person appear larger when seated, the other when standing’, as described at 209–211 (Krafft 1963, 43, transl.). — ἐδάην: an aor. with the same root as δι-δά-σκ-ω; ‘learn, become acquainted with, come to know through experience’ (with acc., as at 6.150, Od. 4.267, 4.493, etc.; aor. in -η- are otherwise mostly intransitive): LfgrE s.v. δαῆναι; Schw. 1.757. — μήδεα πυκνά: 202n., 203–224n.

209 2nd VH = 10.180. — assembled: i.e. at an assembly of the people (cf. 11.139 ‘among the Trojans assembled’), like that already mentioned at 2.788  f. On the order of events and the function of an assembly generally, 1.54n.; the Greek and Trojan assemblies are depicted as largely equivalent (Panagiotou 1983, 29; Hölkeskamp 1997, 1  f.). ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: ὅτε δή is ‘precisely when, just when’ (Denniston 219). ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή is a common VB formula for marking a new item in a report or a story (1.493n.); here in rapid succession: 209, 212, 216, 221 (likewise at 6.172–200, 10.338–365; on this Moorhouse 1952, 102: ‘[…] in the technique of oral recitation, this fourfold repetition of ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή is intended to mark strongly for the audience closely connected stages of thought or action’). — ἔμιχθεν: ‘met with, joined’ as at 10.180, Od. 5.378, 6.136, etc. (AH; LfgrE s.v. μίσγω 227.58  ff.).

210–211 Antenor confirms Priam’s impression of Odysseus: not only is he shorter than Agamemnon (193), but when standing he is also shorter than Menelaos (210); at the same time, he has broader shoulders than either of the Atreïdai (194, 211) and is stately when seated (211), with gerarṓteros ‘the more stately’ (211) likely recalling the effect of Agamemnon (170 hoútō gerarón ‘such a stately individual’), which Odysseus, however, cannot attain (cf. 193–194n.): Kirk on 209–11; Bernsdorff 1992, 51  f. On the speakers standing and the audience sitting at an assembly, 1.54n.; on the seats, 2.99n. 210 στάντων: ‘partitive gen., although approaching a gen. absolute; cf. 289’ (AH, transl.). — ὑπείρεχεν: here intransitive, ‘rise above’, sc. Odysseus (LfgrE s.v. ἔχω 849.56  ff.). — εὐρέας ὤμους: an inflectible VE formula (acc. also at 227, 16.360, Od. 22.488, h.Ap.

209 Τρώεσσιν ἐν: = ἐν Τρώεσσιν (R 20.2); on the declension, R 11.3. — ἀγρομένοισιν: aor. mid. part. of ἀγείρω, ‘assembled’. — ἔμιχθεν: 3rd pl. aor. pass. of μίσγω (R 16.2). 210 ὑπείρεχεν: = ὑπέρεχεν (second syllable metrically lengthened: R 10.1). — εὐρέας ὤμους: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

90 

 Iliad 3

450, h.Merc. 217; nom. Od. 18.68; variant εὐρέε τ᾿ ὤμω Il. 16.791, 23.380; with a word intervening Od. 6.225). 211 ἄμφω δ’ ἑζομένω: anacoluthon: ‘a nominative of the whole, this too nearly absolute’ (AH, transl.); likewise 10.224, Od. 9.462  f.; the construction likely developed from cases such as Il. 7.175 (ἕκαστος in apposition after οἳ δέ); cf. also Il. 12.400/404, 16.317/321, Od. 12.73/101 with the terms for the parts distributed across several lines (K.-G. 1.286  f., 288 n. 11; Chantr. 2.15  f.). — γεραρώτερος: 170n.

212–224 Antenor, himself designated a good orator by the narrator (150  f., cf. his epithet at 148, 203: ‘wise’), characterizes the rhetorical style of Menelaos and Odysseus. In this, he presupposes – as the narrator and his audience do as well – rhetorical norms such as fluent, audible speech, appropriate choice of vocabulary (Menelaos’ style certainly meets this standard), eye contact, gesturing with the staff (213–220), forcefulness, an overpowering verbal flow (222): Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 48 n. 1; Montiglio 2000, 74  f. In the Hellenistic period, Homer was considered the founder of rhetoric, and Menelaos’ and Odysseus’ manner of speaking as described here were seen as the model for plain and solemn speech, respectively; on the extensive influence of this passage, Schöpsdau 1969, 56–86; Létoublon 1994, 30–35. Odysseus’ outward demeanor deceives the Trojans (219b–220), who judge him differently after his speech (224). The discrepancy between inner ability and outer appearance plays an important role, as also in the case of Paris (16n., 44–45n.), who disappoints positive expectations, whereas the opposite happens with Odysseus (Bernsdorff 1992, 59 with n. 99; Müller 1994, 182–184). Because of this discrepancy, Odysseus appears opaque to the Trojans, almost sinister and dangerous (Bergold 1977, 85  f.; Bernsdorff loc. cit. 58). 212 μύθους καὶ μήδεα: μήδεα (208) is picked up and expanded by the alliterative μύθους; μύθους has the connotation ‘plan’ also at 2.282, 4.323, Od. 13.298 (there in conjunction with βουλή: LfgrE s.v. μῦθος 275.45  ff.; Létoublon 1994, 36). — ἔφαινον: This reading is transmitted in a single ms. and assumed in schol. D (φανερὰ ἐποίουν) and Apoll. Rhod. 4.782 (app. crit.; West 2001, 187). Although ὕφαινον is found in more mss., it is inappropriate here: as a metaphor (the interweaving of threads into cloth represents the arrangement of individual thoughts into a whole), ὑφαίνειν is otherwise used only in connection with the obj. μῆτιν (7.324, 9.93, Od. 4.678, 4.739, 13.303, 13.386, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 28) or δόλον (Il. 6.187, Od. 5.356; with both obj. Od. 9.422), and thus means ‘to contrive, construct’, negatively ‘to plot’ (on weaving as a metaphor in general, 126n.). ‘μήδεα ὑφαίνειν […] suggests intricate plotting. Here the reference is not to plotting but to speaking, not to the formation but to the presentation of points of view’ (West loc. cit.). Cf. 18.295 νοήματα φαῖν(ε).

211 ἄμφω δ’ ἑζομένω: nom. dual (R 18.1); ‘when both were sitting’ (↑). — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 91

213 2nd VH ≈ Od. 18.26. — ἤτοι μέν: on this phrase, 168n. — ἐπιτροχάδην: adv. derived from ἐπιτρέχω, ‘in the manner of a swift run’, i.e. ‘fluently, smartly’, likewise at Od. 18.26 (LfgrE). 214 λιγέως: ‘clearly, piercingly’ (1.248n.); Menelaos’ abilities are proven also at 17.245–247, 256 (where he successfully calls for reinforcements in response to Aias’ request); cf. also the formula βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος (2.408n.): Krapp 1964, 213  f. — πολύμυθος: ‘full of words’, likewise at Od. 2.200 (LfgrE), also in direct speech. Cf. ἀμετροεπής (2.212n.). 215 ἀφαμαρτοεπής: Homeric hapaxP, compound in -επής (2.212n.); strengthened form of ἁμαρτοεπής (13.824) with the sense ‘one who misses the (right) words’, i.e. with negation caused by litotes here ‘one who hits on the right, appropriate words’, in the sense of νημερτής (204n.). The same notion – that words ‘strike accurately’, like arrows or other missiles – is found at Od. 11.511 οὐχ ἡμάρτανε μύθων, 11.344  f. οὐ … ἀπὸ σκοποῦ … μυθεῖται, similarly Il. 9.56, Od. 7.292, as well as in the phrase ἔπεα πτερόεντα (155n.) (LfgrE; AH, Anh. ad loc.; Luther 1935, 36; on such metaphors, Nünlist 1998, 142–154). — ἦ καί: concessive ‘and although actually’, like ἦ 7.393 etc. (Autenrieth in the 3rd ed. of Nägelsbach; LSJ), or more emphatically ‘even though’ with the well-attested variant εἰ καί (Leaf; Hooker): Menelaos is not a bad orator (212–224n.). Others regard the sense as causal: ‘however’, ‘Antenor excuses Menelaos’ deficit in rhetorical practice with his lesser age’ (AH, transl., in reference to 2.291 [see ad loc.] and 9.57 [ἦ καί in a context similar to here]; differently Bernsdorff 1992, 53  f.: Antenor explains Menelaos’ terseness as a result of the younger man’s modesty; but in that way, he would reduce Odysseus’ achievement). — γένει: ‘by birth’, i.e. ‘in age’ (AH), only here, otherwise γενεῇ, as at 2.707 (see ad loc.), 6.24, etc. (LfgrE 132.30). 216 πολύμητις: 200n. — ἀναΐξειεν: from ἀναΐσσω ‘leap to one’s feet’, like ἀΐσσω 18.506, also in a scene of counsel. Iterative: one is meant to imagine the negotiation as a dialogue in which Odysseus (and probably also Menelaos) repeatedly takes the floor. The iterative forms στάσκεν, ἴδεσκε (217) and ἔχεσκεν (219; G 60), as well as the impf. ἐνώμα (218), likewise signal repetition.

217 he would just stand and stare down …: Odysseus does not seek eye contact with his audience, likely a sign of focusing before his speech (Constantinidou 1994, 3) rather than a conscious strategy (Martin 1989, 96), which would not be expedient or fit Antenor’s concluding statement that contrasts Odysseus’ demeanor with his words (224): Worman 2002, 218 n. 39. στάσκεν … ἴδεσκε: 216n. — ὑπαὶ … ἴδεσκε: ‘kept staring down’. ὑπαί/ὑπό has the sense ‘downward’ only here (La Roche 1861, 5: cf. 1.434 ὑφέντες and Lat. sub in submitto; Autenrieth in the 3rd ed. of Nägelsbach); ‘from below’ (Leaf; Kirk), comparable with ὑπόδρα, does not fit the clause that follows, κατὰ χθονὸς ὄμματα πήξας. — κατὰ

214–215 μάλα (λ)λιγέως: on the prosody, M 4.6. — πολύμυθος | … ἀφαμαρτοεπής: sc. ἦν. 217 ὑπαί: = ὑπό (R 20.1). — δὲ (ϝ)ίδεσκε: on the prosody, R 4.3.

92 

 Iliad 3

χθονός: ‘across the floor (from above)’, κατά as at 5.696, Od. 8.85, etc. (K.-G. 1.475; Schw. 2.479). κατά with genitive differs from ἐπί with dative (1.88 ἐπὶ χθονί) in the greater precision of the reference; the use of the genitive in such prepositional phrases results from the fact that the partitive gen. had acquired more varied functions in pre-Homeric time (Hettrich 2012, 54–61).

218–220 The staff, which here perhaps functions as a specific sign of the legitimacy of the Greek embassy (LfgrE s.v. σκῆπτρον 147.5  ff.), signals that Odysseus has the floor (cf. 1.234n.; Buchholz 2012, 261). Its use by the speaker was usually meant inter alia to lend weight to his words, as implied by the Trojan reaction. Odysseus foregoing the staff – likely a sign of his concentration, like looking toward the ground – creates uncertainty in his audience (AH on 219; Kurz 1966, 60; Bergold 1977, 84; it is perhaps also to be viewed as a deliberate strategy: Buchholz loc. cit.). 218 προπρηνές: προ-πρηνής is ‘with the face downward, bent forward’ (24.18, Od. 22.98), here ‘forward’; προ- is redundant, perhaps emphatic (LfgrE).

219–220 like any man who knows nothing | … a fool: Odysseus does not appear polýmētis (200n., 216). 219 ἔχεσκεν: 216n. — ἀΐδρει: ἄ-(ϝ)ιδρις, from (ϝ)οῖδα, is ‘unknowing, ignorant’, likewise Od. 10.282, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 410 (LfgrE). — φωτὶ ἐοικώς: a variant VE formula (also at 14.136, h.Merc. 377, similarly Od. 6.187, 20.227, h.Merc. 265) for ἀνδρὶ ἐοικώς (4× early epic); on variants with ἀνήρ/φώς in general, 2.164n. ἀστεμφές: ‘unmoved, unshaken’, etymology uncertain: from *stembh- ‘secure, fasten, press’ with alpha intensivum (Schw. 1.433; Frisk s.v. ἀστεμφής; DELG; ChronEG 2.153) or from *στέμβω ‘shake incessantly’ with alpha privative (Bechtel 1914 s.v. ἀστεμφής; Frisk s.v. στέμβω; LfgrE; with reservations Beekes).

220 φαίης: past potential, always with κε(ν)/ἄν, here in the 2nd pers. like Lat. diceres, crederes, videres; ‘you/one could have said, thought, seen’. Here (as at 392) in direct speech (secondary narrateesP: the Trojans at the assembly in the past and Antenor’s audience, the Trojans and Helen on top of the wall); comparable, but in narrator-text, is 15.697 (φαίης κ(ε)), 4.429, 17.366 (οὐδέ κε φαίης at VE), similarly 5.85, 14.58 (οὐκ/οὐδ’ ἂν γνοίης), 4.223 (οὐκ ἂν ἴδοις): AH; Schw. 2.328; de Jong (1987) 2004, 56  f. — ζάκοτον: Homeric hapaxP; from ζά (= Aeolic form of διά), ‘through and through, very’ (likewise 1.38 ζάθεος etc.) and κότος ‘rancor’ (1.81–82n.): Risch 216; LfgrE. The sense is ‘exceedingly grim’ (AH; too weakly rendered in LfgrE and Willcock: ‘sullen’). Odysseus seems entirely introverted, as though unable in this hostile environment to adequately convey (i.e. via eye contact and gestures) the outrage of the Greeks over Helen’s abduction and

219 φωτὶ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)οικώς: on the prosody, R 5.4. 220 φαίης … ζάκοτον … ἔμμεναι: sc. Odysseus as the subject acc. — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).

Commentary 

 93

their demand for her return (Leaf; Fränkel 1921, 33 n. 4). — τιν(α): ‘τὶς τὶ allows an adjectival, substantival or adverbial term to be expressed without complete precision but with a weaker or stronger sense («in a way, approximately, somewhat, like»)’: Schw. 2.215, transl. Likewise 7.156, Od. 9.11, 9.348, 10.45. — αὔτως: ‘only, simply’ (AH; Bonifazi 2012, 287; cf. 1.133n.); differently LfgrE s.v. αὔτως 1682.41  ff.: ‘equally’.

221–222 the words … | … like the winter snows: Snowflakes are repeatedly used in Homeric similes and comparisons as a metaphor for falling missiles (weapons or stones: 12.156–160, 12.278–289 [cf. the metaphor ‘Zeus’ missiles’ 12.279  f.]), as well as once apiece for shining weapons (19.357–361), the divine messenger Iris approaching from Mount Ida (15.170–172) and words (here). Aspects of snow that are stressed are: the large quantity (falling thickly: 12.158, 12.278, 19.357, cf. 10.7), how it covers everything (12.281–286), its coldness (19.358, cf. 22.152), the speed of the falling flakes (15.170–172), perhaps also its sheen (19.357–361, cf. 13.754). Here, the snowflakes represent Odysseus’ rhetorical achievement, accomplished as an envoy requesting the return of Helen and the stolen goods: the audience is showered with his loud (221) words like dense snowflakes (similar in effect to a hail of missiles, compared to snowflakes in the similes of Book 12). Odysseus’ statements cover every counter-argument, they appear to fall fast (i.e. they hit their target), as in the Iris simile, and, as is perhaps also implied, they almost make a chill run down one’s spine. After the description of Menelaos’ brief and fluent speech and of Odysseus’ initial, motionless silence (217–220), the latter’s rhetorical ability seems even more powerful. On snow similes in general, Fränkel 1921, 31–33; on this passage in particular, schol. D; AH; Wilhelmi 1967, 20  f.; Reucher 1983, 77; Bernsdorff 1992, 55 with n. 95. μεγάλην: ‘loud’; μέγας describes sound as a quantity, and hence refers to its intensity, also at 275 (prayer), 12.138, 14.393 etc. (battle-cry), 21.256 etc. (din), Od. 24.463 (assent), h.Cer. 82 (lament): LfgrE s.v. 74.20  ff.; cf. also 1.35n. — ἐκ στήθεος εἵη: The iterative opt. corresponds to ἀναΐξειεν in 216; thus εἵη is preferable to the variant ἵει (Faesi). On the meaning of εἵη and the phrase ὄπα ἵημι, 152n.; στῆθος as an organ of speech also at 4.430, 14.150 (LfgrE s.v. 219.40  ff.). — ἔπεα νιφάδεσσιν: The long consonant from (σ)νιφ- ‘snow’ makes position, as at 12.278, 13.754, Od. 19.338 (G 16; Chantr. 1.176). — νιφάδεσσιν: ‘snowflakes’, only in similes and comparisons, also at 12.156, 12.278, 15.170, 19.357 (LfgrE).

223–224 Then we | wondered less beholding Odysseus’ outward appearance: The meaning of the verse is disputed. The parallelism with 223 (negation ouk – ou at VB, followed by the chronological indicator épeita ‘thereafter’

222 καὶ (ϝ)έπεα (σ)νιφάδεσσιν: on the hiatus, R 4.4; on the word-beginning of (σ)νιφάδεσσιν, ↑. — χειμερίῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1.

94 

 Iliad 3

or tóte ‘then’, in both cases a declined form of ‘Odysseus’ in the same position in the line, and perhaps also the s-sounds in erísseie, agassámeth), as well as the movement in the entire speech toward Odysseus’ surprising rhetorical achievement, suggest that Antenor here summarizes his impression of Odysseus’ character: once his unique rhetorical ability has become apparent, the Trojans no longer judge him in a one-sided manner and cease to interpret his demeanor before the speech in a negative fashion (AH, Anh. ad loc.; Faesi; Kirk; similarly LfgrE s.v. εἶδος 423.75–424.2; on the parallelism, Di Benedetto 2000, 11  f.). Other interpretations: ‘at that time, we did not admire his appearance as much as his rhetorical ability‘ (schol. D and T; Bernsdorff 1992, 55– 58) or ‘we did not admire his appearance then as much as now, from the top of the wall’ (Ebeling s.v. ἄγαμαι; Krafft 1963, 43; Bergold 1977, 85 with n. 1); but reference to 208 would unnecessarily stress Odysseus’ appearance, given that it is not in fact spectacular (193–194n., 210–211n.). 223 ≈ Od. 15.321, 19.286. — Ὀδυσῆϊ: emphatic (with γ’) instead of a pronoun, as at 224 (AH). On the consonant shortening, 191n. — ἐρίσσειε: ‘could have competed’; on the potential opt., 220n., 1.232n.; AH. On the sense of ἐρίζω and the motif ‘no one would be able to match X’, 2.555n.; with βροτὸς ἄλλος also in the iterata (see above) and ‘Hes.’ fr. 30.23 M.-W. (restored), and similarly at Od. 4.78. — βροτὸς ἄλλος: an inflectible VE formula (2.248n.). On the etymology and meaning of βροτός, see 1.272n. The negation has an emphatic effect (2.248n.). 224 τότε γ(ε): referring to the point in time after Odysseus’ speech (221 ὅτε) and strongly emphasized: La Roche 1861, 177. — ὧδ(ε): with ἀγασσάμεθ(α), ‘to the (same) degree’, sc. ‘as before’, i.e. before Odysseus’ speech (217–220): Faesi. — Ὀδυσῆος … εἶδος: with ἄγαμαι (with εἶδος also at Hes. Th. 619 and in the formulaic VE εἶδος ἀγητός 5.787, 8.228, 22.370, 24.376 [see ad loc.], Od. 14.177, h.Ap. 198): Faesi; Hooker. — ἀγασσάμεθ(α): on the sense in general, 181n.; here ‘it approaches the sense «consider something odd, strange», and is used of things one had not imagined or anticipated, or had imagined differently’ (La Roche 1861, 178, transl.; similarly AH; Faesi; Kirk; Hooker).

225 ≈ 191. — Aias: the second strongest Achaian warrior after Achilleus and one of the most important characters in the Iliad (CH 3; 1.138n., 2.557n., 2.768n.). He is accordingly the topic of the speech that follows (cf. 191n.). τὸ τρίτον αὖτ(ε): 191n. 226 ≈ 167. — τίς ταρ: on the particle ταρ introducing particularly significant statements, 1.8n.; LfgrE; Reece 2009, 217–230. — ἠΰς τε μέγας τε: 167n.

223 ἐρίσσειε: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 225 Αἴαντα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. 226 ἠΰς: 167n.

Commentary 

 95

227 ἔξοχος … κεφαλὴν ἠδ’ εὐρέας ὤμους: κεφαλή denotes height (168n.). On this as a feature of comparison, 2.58n., 3.193–194n. Helen subsequently confirms Aias’ enormous height (229 πελώριος ‘tremendous, gigantic’). It is frequently stressed elsewhere as well: πελώριος also at 7.211, etc. (see 229n.), in addition to the VE formula μέγας Τελαμώνιος Αἴας (12× Il.) / μέγαν Τελαμώνιον υἱόν (3× Il.), μέγας alone 5.625, 9.169, 16.358, and Hektor’s statement that Aias’ height was granted to him by a god (7.288): Von der Mühll 1930, 3–5. On broad shoulders, 193–194n. 228 ≈ 171, Od. 4.305; 1st VH = Od. 15.171. On the variation in the speech introductions, 171n. — τανύπεπλος: a possessive compound, ‘with a flowing robe’ (from *τανύς ‘extended, thin’, perhaps later also connected with τανύω ‘stretch, strain’): Risch 190  f. An epithet of divine and human women (3× of Helen, see iterata), in total 3× Il., 4× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’ (LfgrE). — δῖα γυναικῶν: 171n.

229–244 In her speech, Helen first offers an answer to Priam’s question regarding Aias (229), then moves on to Idomeneus (230–233), and holds out the prospect of possible further identifications (234  f.) in a summary priamelP (234–238), before trying unsuccessfully to spot her brothers, whose absence she attempts to explain in a variety of ways (236–242). A subsequent comment by the narrator gives the real reason (243–244). The brevity of the answer to Priam’s question regarding Aias is conspicuous, and the remainder of the speech accordingly creates the impression of a monologue. In the one line devoted to him, Aias is nonetheless acknowledged to be an indispensable bastion of the army (Bergold 1977, 87  f.), and Helen’s quick transition to Idomeneus, who is standing close to Aias (cf. 4.251–274: schol. A; she is scanning the army: 234), is natural; the narrator thus precludes further questions by Priam that might easily have seemed monotonous (cf. a similar acceleration at Od. 11.225–330: de Jong ad loc.). Seeing Idomeneus reminds Helen of her past (232  f.: external completing analepsisP: Steinrück 1992, 92) and thus of her brothers, about whom she is worried. Her longing for her family, which prompted her to mount the wall (139  f.), also makes her bring her conversation with Priam to an end; her isolation and shame surface again, as at the beginning of the teichoscopia 173–175, 180 (at 241  f., she makes it particularly clear that she does not consider herself worthy of the war being fought for her sake): Parry 1966, 198; Bergold loc. cit. 88–91; Kirk on 230–3. The narrator’s commentary on this passage (a rare example: Richardson 1990, 141–148; cf. 302n. on the prayers) is moving in its sober brevity: Helen is completely isolated in Troy and utterly unaware of the fate of her family in distant Sparta (Parry 1966, 197; Richardson loc. cit. 145  f.; cf. the style of the ‘obituaries’: Stoevesandt 2004, 132, with bibliography).

227 κεφαλὴν … εὐρέας ὤμους: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

96 

 Iliad 3

229 ≈ 7.211. — wall of the Achaians: on the characterization of Aias as a defensive warrior (as at 6.5, 7.211), 6.5n. οὗτος: 167n. — δ(έ): 200n. — πελώριος: 166n. Used of Aias also at 7.211, 17.174, 17.360; in 7.208, Aias is compared to πελώριος Ἄρης. The image is likely based on a traditional notion of superhumanly tall heroes, as Old Irish and Old Germanic parallels suggest (West 2007, 425  f.). — ἕρκος: on the sense, 1.283b–284n.; West 2007, 454  f.

230 ≈ Od. 14.205. — Idomeneus: the Kretan leader (CH 3; 2.645n.). — like a god: The comparison refers to Idomeneus’ imposing figure (Fränkel 1921, 96). On comparisons to gods in general, 2.478–479n. ἑτέρωθεν: signals a change in perspective (resulting from a change of place: ‘on the other side, on the other hand’), usually preceded by a personal or ethnic name: 1.247a n. — θεὸς ὥς: on the word order and prosody, 2n. 231 Κρητῶν ἀγοί: ἀγός ‘leader’, a verbal noun from ἄγω, denotes membership in the corps of leaders, occasionally also commanders like Idomeneus or Sarpedon; virtually always in nom. with objective gen. (with Κρητῶν otherwise in sing., 7× of Idomeneus; also with Τρώων, Λυκίων, Θρῃκῶν, ἀνδρῶν): LfgrE. — ἠγερέθονται: from ἀγείρω, probably ‘they have gathered together’ or ‘are gathered’; on the formation, which is not entirely clear, 2.303–304n.

232 would entertain him: on guest-friendship in general, 207n. A connection between these visits of Kretan Idomeneus to Sparta and the information in the Cypria (Proclus Chrest. § 2 West) that Menelaos left for Krete following Paris’ arrival, is uncertain (Kullmann 1960, 249); likewise uncertain is a connection with ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.56–65 M.-W. (Idomeneus travels to Sparta as Helen’s suitor): Marg 1970, 506  f. ξείνισσεν: 207n. — ἀρηΐφιλος: 21n. 233 1st VH = Od. 1.258, 22.358. — οἴκῳ ἐν ἡμετέρῳ: on the sense ‘in our house’ (i.e. on the couple’s estate), 1.30n. 234 ἑλίκωπας Ἀχαιούς: 190n. 235 ἔϋ: on the form, ORTH 2; West 1998, XXf. — γνοίην καί τ’ οὔνομα μυθησαίμην: καί τ(ε) expresses a climax (1.521n.). On οὔνομα μυθησαίμην, cf. Od. 9.16 ὄνομα … μυθήσομαι and Il. 2.488 οὐκ ἂν … μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω (with n.). 236 δοιώ: ‘two’ (< δϝ-), a metrical variant of δύο (LfgrE). — κοσμήτορε λαῶν: on the designation of the military leader as an organizer of the battle lines, 1.16n.

230 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — θεὸς ὥς: = ὡς θεός. 232 ξείνισσεν: = ἐξένισεν (ξειν- < *ξενϝ-: R 4.2). 233 Κρήτηθεν: on the form, R 15.1. — ἵκοιτο: iterative opt. 234 ὁρῶ (ϝ)ελίκωπας: on the prosody, R 4.4. 235 οὔνομα: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). 236–239 δοιώ, κοσμήτορε, αὐτοκασιγνήτω, τώ, ἑσπέσθην: on the duals, R 18.1.

Commentary 

 97

237 = Od. 11.300; ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 198.8 = 199.1 M.-W., h.Hom. 33.3, Cypr. fr. 16.6 West. — Kastor … and … Polydeukes: Lat. Castor and Pollux, divine twins considered sons of Zeus, the Dioskouroi (Diós koúroi) (‘Hes.’ fr. 24 M.-W. and h.Hom. 33.1), and of IE origin (there are similar Sanskrit, Latvian and Germanic twins). At the same time, they are called sons of the Spartan king Tyndareos at Od. 11.298–300 (LfgrE s.v. Κάστωρ: perhaps presupposed in Homer is the version of the myth in which Kastor is the son of Tyndareos and Polydeukes the son of Zeus [schol. on Pind. Nem. 10.150a]; parallels for such dual paternities of twins in Ward 1968, 4, 12–14; but Tyndareus as ‘thunderer’ may be equated with Zeus: Clader 1976, 48). At 238, Helen mentions only the mother they have in common, perhaps for the sake of greater clarity (Leda: Od. 11.298–300; cf. 6.345n. and Kirk on 236–44). In Cypr. fr. 9 West, Kastor is mortal, Polydeukes immortal (in the Cypria, Kastor dies a violent death after a joint raid to seize livestock, Proclus Chrest. § 3 West); according to Od. 11.301–304 and Pind. Nem. 10.55  ff., the brothers share immortality and alternate being alive. Here, they are simply assumed to be dead (243  f.). This corresponds to the image of heroes in the Iliad, is a better explanation for their absence, and heightens the pathos and dramatic ironyP of the passage (CH 1; Parry 1966, 197; Bergold 1977, 91  f. n. 2; Kirk loc. cit.). When Helen is searching for her brothers here, we are certainly not to imagine (with Kullmann 1960, 77; Bergold loc. cit. 90  f.; Jenkins 1999, 220) that she hopes for another rescue like the one that followed her abduction by Theseus, since that myth is probably unknown to the poet of the Iliad (144n.). On the Dioskouroi in general, RE s.v.; Burkert (1977) 1985, 212  f.; BNP, including references to iconography; on their IE origin and universal parallels in detail, Ward 1968, 1–29; a summary account, West 2007, 186–191. ἱππόδαμον: a generic epithetP of heroes (2.23n.), in total 6× of Kastor (see iterata). The connection of the twins with horses is likely of IE origin (West 2007, 186–191). — πὺξ ἀγαθόν: πύξ is from πυγμή ‘boxing’; the ending is explained in various ways (DELG, Schw. 1.620, Frisk: adverbial -s; Chantr. 1.250: perhaps nom.; Risch 364, Szemerényi 1965, 20 n. 78, LfgrE: perhaps originally dat. pl.); the sense is ‘with the fists, when boxing’, always of contests, with ἀγαθός of Polydeukes also at Od. 11.300 (cf. ἀεθλοφόρον ‘Hes.’ fr. 198.8 M.-W. etc. = Cypr. fr. 16.6 West, κρατερός ‘Hes.’ fr. 197.3 M.-W.); elsewhere at Il. 23.621, Od. 8.103 etc.: LfgrE. — Πολυδεύκε͜α: on the synizesis at VE, 24.7n. 238 2nd VH ≈ 19.293. — αὐτοκασιγνήτω, τώ … γείνατο μήτηρ: The relative clause both specifies and explains αὐτοκασιγνήτω; on such epexegetic relative clauses, 1.238n.; on the specification, 2.313n. — αὐτοκασιγνήτω: ‘real brothers’; used also of half-siblings – as perhaps here (the addition τώ μοι μία γείνατο μήτηρ stresses direct blood relationship only). The long word before caesura B 1 has an emphatic effect and highlights Helen’s longing (LfgrE). — μοι μία: μία is ‘one and the same’, μοι with γείνατο, cf. 24.496  f. μοι ἰῆς ἐκ νηδύος ἦσαν, | τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους μοι ἔτικτον …: LfgrE s.v. εἷς 489  f.

98 

 Iliad 3

— γείνατο μήτηρ: a VE formula (1.280n.). On transitive ἐγεινάμην beside intransitive ἐγενόμην, Schw. 1.746, 756; Wyatt 1969, 119  f. n. 19. 239–240 ἠ’ … | ἤ: There was doubt already in antiquity as to whether to read ἢ … ἦ (double question) or ἠ(ὲ) … ἤ (‘either … or’) (app. crit.). Since Helen is conversing with Priam, questions are less appropriate (AH, Anh. ad loc.). — ἐσπέσθην: ‘aor. «joined [the expedition]», ἕποντο 240 impf. «followed along»’ (AH, transl.). On the unaspirated form, ORTH 1; West 1998, XVII. 239 2nd VH = 443. — ἐρατεινῆς: a generic epithetP of persons (175n.) and geographic terms (2.532n.), here with a pregnant sense of Helen’s homeland: ‘beloved’ (Kienzle 1936, 87; LfgrE). 240 2nd VH ≈ 46, 444. — δεύρω: thus Herodian (against the prosodically difficult δεῦρο of the main transmission); from Mycenaean de-we-ro, ‘on this side of’, an adv. in -ω like ἄνω, κάτω, πρόσω; the sense is ‘hither’; the form δεῦρο, uniformly attested elsewhere in Homer and later, developed via shortening of -ω in word-final position before a vowel in phrases such as δεύρω ἴθι (Ruijgh [1972] 1991, 112–115). — ποντοπόροισιν: 46n.

241–244 Helen projects her own feelings of guilt and shame (172–180n.) onto her brothers (implicit tertiary focalisationP). The actual reason for their absence follows immediately in a comment by the narrator, as if correcting Helen (de Jong [1987] 2004, 169  f.). 241 αὖτ(ε): used like a strengthened form of δέ, it corresponds to μέν at 240 (Faesi; Kirk on 239–42). — μάχην καταδύμεναι: ‘throw oneself into battle’, like μάχην δύμεναι (see 6.185n.). 242 αἴσχεα … καὶ ὀνείδεα: αἶσχος is ‘ugliness’ in the sense ‘ugly speech, abuse, censure’, usually in pl., here of infidelity, 6.351, 6.524 of cowardice in battle; also ‘blemish, shame’ (Od. 11.433, Hes. Op. 211, etc.). ὄνειδος is ‘reproach, censure’. Both words belong to character languageP (LfgrE s.v. αἶσχος 384.33, s.v. ὄνειδος 710.1; cf. 1.211n.); joined in a synonym doubling, they are emphatic here (1.160n.). — ἅ μοί ἐστιν: ‘that attach to me’. 243 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.301. — κάτεχεν: ‘held fast’ (2.699n.). A Near Eastern parallel for the notion of the earth holding the dead in West 1997, 236. — φυσίζοος: It is uncertain whether this is from ζειαί, a species of cereal, probably emmer wheat, with the sense ‘grain-giving’ (Frisk; DELG; Risch 170; like ζείδωρος, cf. 2.548n.), or from ζωή (Ionic ζοή), in which case it means ‘life-giving’ (considered by Forssman 1975, 81 n. 8; the connection – which, however, may be based on folk etymology alone – was made in antiquity: Aesch. Suppl. 584; Eust. 410.45  ff.; cf. Irigoin 1991, 133): LfgrE s.vv. ζειαί and ζείδωρος; Sideras 1971, 74. Always an epithet of the earth (of αἶα here and at Od. 11.301, h.Ven. 125, Hdt. 1.67.4 [quotation of an oracle]; of γῆ Il. 21.63); whether the adjective is

240 δεύρω: = δεῦρο. — νέεσσ’ ἔνι: = ἐν νέεσσι (R 20.1–2). — νέεσσ(ι): = on the declension, R 12.1. 241 καταδύμεναι: on the form, R 16.4. 242 δειδιότες: part. from δέδια (= δέδοικα); < *δεδϝιότες (R 4.2).

Commentary 

 99

purely ornamental (Parry [1930] 1971, 129; Mureddu 1983, 26) or has contextual significance (Vivante 1982, 137  f.; Mueller 1984, 23  f.; Kirk on 243–4; Floyd 1988/89) is disputed: if ‘grain-giving’, it could correspond to the usual epithets of the earth with the sense ‘fertile’ (2.548n.) and thus be purely formulaic; this is contradicted, however, by the fact that in Homeric epic the word is always used in connection with the dead beneath the earth. The notion of a life-giving earth enclosing the dead is paradoxical in itself, but even more so here, where Helen assumes that her brothers are alive, when they are in fact dead (Kirk loc. cit.; cf. 237n.). The epithet thus increases the pathos (Helen’s ignorance, her longing, cf. on ἐρατεινῆς 239): Kirk loc. cit., Vivante loc. cit. 244 2nd VH = Od. 24.266. — αὖθι: probably picks up Λακεδαίμονος (239); the implication is ‘they never even left Sparta and thus did not come to Troy’ (LfgrE s.v. 1547.48  ff.). — φίλῃ: formulaic in connection with πατρίδι γαίῃ (2.140n.). This reading is supported by virtually the entire tradition (Aristarchus, mss.) and avoids hiatus; it is thus preferable to the variant ἑῇ in Zenodotus, although formulaic ἑῇ ἐν πατρίδι γαίῃ is attested (22.404; acc.: Od. 5.42, 5.115, 9.533, 13.52) and ὅς referring to all persons, sing. and pl., may be an inherited usage (Chantr. 1.273  f.). — πατρίδι γαίῃ: an inflectible VE formula (2.140n.). Λακεδαίμονι: The ethnic Λακεδαιμόνιος is attested already in Mycenaean (ra-ke-da-mi-ni-jo TH Fq 229.4 and [ra-]ke-da-mo-ni-jo-u-jo TH Gp 227.2): Aravantinos et al. 2001, 356.

245–312 Priam is summoned to the battlefield by the herald Idaios. He concludes the treaty with Agamemnon, then drives back to the city before the duel. 245–302 The treaty between the Greeks and the Trojans is to be ratified with an oath. ‘Animals were occasionally sacrificed when an oath was sworn; usually, the pouring of a libation was considered sufficient’ (Stengel [1890] 1920, 86, transl.; on oaths in general, also BNP and HE s.v.; Graf 2005, esp. 244). The importance of the treaty is underlined here via an extended ritual with elements of the type-sceneP ‘sacrifice’ (1.447–468n.): (1) sacrificial animals and equipment are fetched (245–248; the command in question is at 103  f., see ad loc.), (3) animals and equipment are assembled (269a), (7) wine is mixed (269b–270a; = element 3 of the type-sceneP ‘libation’: 1.469–474n.), (10) hands are washed (270b), (8) the hair of the sacrificial animals is cut and distributed (271–274), (12) a prayer, containing the treaty, is offered by the participants (275–291), (18) the throats of the sacrificial animals are cut with a knife (292–294), (13) a libation is made by the participants, here with a further prayer (295–302). On the characteristics of an oath-sacrifice that distinguish this passage from the sacrifices at 1.447–468, see 270n., 271–274n., 275–291n., 292–302n.; Arend 1933, 78; Burkert (1977) 1985, 250–252; Kirk 1981, 63  f.; a comparable oath-sacrifice

244 Λακεδαίμονι αὖθι: on the prosody, R 5.7. — αὖθι: a shortened form of αὐτόθι ‘(just) there’.

100 

 Iliad 3

is described at 19.249b–268a (see ad loc.). A handshake is normally exchanged as part of the treaty-ritual (2.341n.), although this is mentioned only at 4.159 (athetized by West) (for further details on this point, Rollinger 2004, 400, 404–408). 245–258 In the meantime, the heralds sent by Hektor (116 with n.) have arrived in Troy (element 3 of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’; on which, 1.320– 348a n.), and have already completed (245–248) the stipulated preparations (117b) when they bring the message to Priam at the Skaian Gate (149) on their way back (Kurz 1966, 163). One of the two, Idaios, approaches Priam (249, element 5) and relates what he was instructed (250–258, element 6). 245 ≈ Od. 20.276; 1st VH = Il. 8.517. — heralds: on the function and social status of Homeric heralds in general, 1.320–321n. — pledged: sc. to the gods mentioned at 104. ἀνὰ ἄστυ: ‘through the city’, toward the plain (LfgrE s.v. ἀνά 748.36  f.). — ὅρκια πιστά: i.e. the sacrificial animals and sacrificial wine mentioned at 246, which are brought to the site of the offering in 269 (on the sense of ὅρκια and πιστά in general, 73n.).

246 two young rams: as requested of the Trojans by Menelaos at 103. On the animals’ function as sacrificial victims, 103–104n. — wine: on the significance of wine in oath rituals, see 270n., 292–302n., 295  f. ἐΰφρονα: literally ‘with good φρήν’, as an epithet of θυμός or persons: ‘cheerful, merry’ (15.99, Od. 17.531, h.Ap. 194, h.Hom. 30.14), ‘favorably disposed’ (h.Ven. 102). Here, on the other hand, the adjective is causative with οἶνον: ‘cheering, remover of sorrows’ (LfgrE); it functions as a prosodic variant of μελίφρονα (epithet of οἶνον 4× each in Il./Od., likewise after caesura B 2; cf. 6.264n.). – On epithets of wine in general (largely referring to its pleasant taste and red color): Page 1959, 231 with n. 32 p.  268; Paraskevaides 1984, 68  f. — καρπὸν ἀρούρης: The phrase is found elsewhere only in the VE formula ἀρούρης καρπὸν ἔδουσιν/ἔδοντες 6.142, 21.465, both of cereal. καρπός as (the fruit produced by) vines also at 18.568, h.Hom. 7.41: LfgrE s.v. καρπός I; Kirk.

247–248 247: VB to caesura B 1 = Od. 6.78. 248: VB = 7.278; VE = Od. 1.142, 4.58, 10.357. — goatskin wine sack: Wineskins made from entire hides of animals are attested at Od. 10.19 and in iconography (although only in slightly later periods); such a skin may be meant here as well (likewise Od. 5.265, 6.78, 9.196, 9.212; used to transport wine or water): LfgrE s.v. ἀσκός; BNP s.v. Wineskin. — the shining | mixing bowl: i.e. made from metal, perhaps silver as at

245 ἀνὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — φέρον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 246 ἄρνε δύω: acc. dual (R 18.1). — καὶ (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἀρούρης: on the -ηafter -ρ-, R 2. 247 ἀσκῷ ἐν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

Commentary 

 101

Od. 15.121–123 (schol. D; Handschur 1970, 91). Wine is mixed in it (270n.). — Idaios: one of the two Trojan heralds sent by Hektor in 116; his name is derived from Ida, the mountain of Zeus in the Troad, and as a herald he is under Zeus’ protection. Idaios is old (24.149 ≈ 24.178, 24.368) and wise (7.276/278, 24.282, etc.) and appears to be particularly close to Priam (24.577). He appears in three Books: (1) here, where he and another herald bring the equipment wanted for the sacrifice and fetch Priam; (2) at 7.273–292, 7.372–417a, where he and Talthybios bring the duel between Aias and Hektor to an end and as a messenger he negotiates a truce; (3) at 24.322  ff., where he accompanies Priam to see Achilleus (CH 11; von Kamptz 291; LfgrE; Wathelet s.v.). κρητῆρα φαεινόν: the same phrase at Od. 15.121 (also at VE), with words intervening at Panyassis fr. 9.1 West.

249 ≈ 17.215, Od. 7.341; 2nd VH = Il. 4.233. — Standing beside the aged man: sc. after he climbed the tower (149) (AH). γέροντα: Priam; cf. 181n.

250–258 Idaios’ speech repeats, sometimes word for word, phrasings from the speeches of Paris (73–75) and Iris (136–138), as though this were the customary explicit repetition of an order (on which, 2.28–32n., 2.437–444n.). But the speech giving the messenger his instructions is absent (116  f. only in an abbreviated form and in indirect speech), since it would have unnecessarily increased the number of the four required versions of the planned agreement (Paris’ proposal, Hektor’s speech, the messages of Iris and Idaios): Bergold 1977, 93; de Jong (1987) 2004, 181, 281 n. 67. In contrast to earlier versions, the three uses of the stem gyn- ‘woman’ stand out (254, 255, 258): the war is being fought for the sake of a woman (2.161  f. = 2.177  f., 2.356, 3.156  f.), and a duel between the rivals can consequently replace it. 250 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — the chief men: i.e. the elite (the best, áristoi, like aristḗes [1.227n.] in a socio-political sense), who participate in the sacrifice at the conclusion of the treaty (270b, 274): LfgrE s.v. ἄριστος 1297.43  ff.; Schulz 1981, 74  f.; Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989, 54–56; Schulz 2011, 74–76. ὄρσεο: likewise trisyllabic and at VB at 16.126, 18.170, 21.331, Od. 6.255, h.Ven. 177 (in contrast, bisyllabic after caesura A 1, see 19.139n.; there also on the morphology and orthography). — Λαομεδοντιάδη: on Priam’s genealogy, 20.215–238; cf. 147n. On the use of patronymics instead of personal names, 3.182n.; here, the long patronymic, which bridges the central caesurae up to caesura C 1 and has a solemn, weighty effect, em-

249 παριστάμενος (ϝ)επέεσσιν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἐπέεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 250 ὄρσεο: thematic aor. imper. of ὄρνυμαι ‘rise up, stand up’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

102 

 Iliad 3

phasizes dynastic power and responsibility. — καλέουσιν: explanatory asyndeton (on which in general, K.-G. 2.344, with further examples of asyndeton after an imper.) with the verb in first position (likewise in asyndeton, e.g. 5.169, 22.295, Od. 8.322: Chantr. 2.351).

251 = 127 (see ad loc.), 131, 8.71, ≈ 4.333. 252 the plain: of Troy (2.465a n.). ὅρκια πιστὰ τάμητε: 73n. On Priam’s role during the sacrifice, 105n., 108–110n.; on his position in Troy in general, 149n. 253 = 136 (see ad loc.); VB to caesura B 1 = 11.369. — αὐτάρ: probably explanatory, as elsewhere only at h.Cer. 100 and perhaps Il. 5.399, but perhaps simply progressive (LfgrE s.v. 1574.63  ff.). 254 ≈ 137 (see ad loc.). — ἀμφί: 70n.

255 1st VH = 138. — to the winner: 138n. — possessions: 70n. τῷ δέ κε νικήσαντι: on the position of κε and on the participle with article, 138n. — ἕποιτο: potential (with κε): Schw. 2.324.

256–258 ≈ 73–75 (see ad loc.). 257 ναίοιμεν: In contrast to the distancing potential ἕποιτο, the opt. of wish stresses that what is said is in the interest of all parties, including the speaker (similarly Bergold 1977, 93 n. 5). A potential sense, emphasizing the mere possibility (as posited by AH, Willcock), would contradict the expectation expressed elsewhere of a speedy end to the war (74 ναίοιτε opt. of wish, 94 ὅρκια πιστὰ τάμωμεν, 112 ἐλπόμενοι παύσασθαι … πολέμοιο; cf. the description of the treaty-ritual at 245  ff. and the hopeful prayer at 323). — τοί: the Greeks (like τοί at 74, see 73n.). — νέονται: pres. with fut. sense (like εἶμι, νέομαι frequently has a fut. sense: LfgrE s.v. 326.27  f. with bibliography).

259–265 Type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (cf. 24.189–328n. and 24.440–485n.) with elements (1) harnessing horses (order, 259b–260a, and execution, 260b), (2) mounting the chariot (261a/262), (3) grasping the reins (261b), (5) movement forward with indication of direction (263), (6) arrival (264), (7) dismounting (265): Arend 1933, 86  f. Parts of elements 2 and 3 are repeated verbatim in Priam’s return to Troy (311  f.); the king’s trips thus frame the oath-sacrifice: Steinrück 1992, 93.

252 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — καταβῆναι: final inf. of καλέουσιν. — ἵν’ ὅρκια πιστὰ τάμητε: 73n. 253 αὐτάρ: ‘namely’ or ‘and then’ (R 24.2, ). 254 μακρῇς ἐγχείῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — μαχήσοντ(αι): 137n. 255 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — ἕποιτο: agreement of the predicate with the subject standing next to it, namely κτήματα. 256 ταμόντες: 73n. 257 τοί: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 14.3, R 17.

Commentary 

 103

259 1st VH = 15.34, Od. 5.116, 5.171; to caesura C 1 ≈ Il. 1.33, 24.424, 24.571, 24.689. — shuddered: sc. since he knows that Menelaos is eager for revenge and is a better fighter than his son (cf. ‘favorite of Ares’ in 253); for that reason he later similarly cannot bring himself to watch the duel (306  f.). Hektor, on the other hand, welcomes the prospect of a decisive battle, since he hopes for an end to the war (76b): schol. bT; AH. ὣς φάτο, ῥίγησεν δ(έ): on this speech capping formulaP and its variants, see 1.33n. On ny ephelkystikon ‘making position’, G 33, 1.388n. — ὁ γέρων: Priam (181n.). — ἑταίροις: The construction with dat. is the lectio difficilior (see app. crit.) and avoids the assonance ἑταίρους ἵππους; the dative is also used in the variant at VE 23.563 ἐκέλευσεν ἑταίρῳ (further examples in K.-G. 1.410  f.), while the acc. is used in ἐκέλευσα/-ε δ’ ἑταίρους Od. 9.177, 15.547. The reference is to Priam’s helpers, likely servants as at Od. 6.69 (24.189n.; LfgrE s.v. 754.45  ff.).

260 2nd VH ≈ Od. 6.71, 15.288, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 410, fr. 204.84 M.-W. (restored). 261 ≈ 311; 2nd VH ≈ 19.394. — And Priam mounted into the car: The actual execution of the order (the helpers rush to Priam’s house, harness the horses and drive them to the gate) and Priam’s descent from the tower are to be supplied mentally (gapP; AH on 260; Bergold 1977, 94 n. 2). κατὰ δ’ ἡνία τεῖνεν ὀπίσσω: κατά has a reinforcing effect (cf. κατέχω, κάτοιδα: Schw. 2.476; Lindblad 1922, 138): ‘pulled the reins tight backward’ (AH). As long as the harnessed team and chariot are standing still, the reins are fastened to the front rail of the chariot (5.262, 5.322); Priam unties the reins from there and pulls them backward to keep the horses restrained (AH; Delebecque 1951, 62, 183).

262 = 312; 1st VH ≈ 5.365; 2nd VH = Od. 3.481. — Antenor: 148n. Antenor and Odysseus (268a) are ideal helpers for Priam and Agamemnon, respectively, since both are familiar with the opposing party as a result of the first Greek embassy to Troy (205–224n.). Mention of them here, and in particular of Antenor as a representative of the peace party, beside the commanders Priam and Agamemnon indicates ‘that a second, more promising attempt to settle the conflict is now undertaken’ (Bergold 1977, 95, transl.; similarly Danek 2006, 9  f.). — beside him stepped into the … chariot: The chariot (díphros) had space for two people (Wiesner 1968, 13); the position of the charioteer adjacent to the warrior or passenger is attested in iconography and has IE parallels;

259 φάτο: impf. of φημί; on the mid., R 23. 260 ζευγνύμεναι: on the form, R 16.4. 261 ἂν … ἔβη: = ἀνέβη (R 20.2); ἄν = ἀνά (R 20.1). — ὀπίσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 262 πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), governed by πάρ. — δίφρον: acc. of direction (R 19.2).

104 

 Iliad 3

the term ‘one who mounts beside’ (paraibátai, from pará ‘beside’ and baíno ‘mount’) for warriors next to charioteers at 23.132 points in the same direction (Plath 1994, 421  f.; cf. West 2007, 469; iconographic evidence in Crouwel 1992, pl. 5, 7; a Mesopotamian example for the position of the charioteer in front of the passenger in Crouwel/Littauer 1979, 16 with fig. 3). δίφρον: δίφρος means (1) the ‘body’ or ‘box’ of a two-wheeled chariot, ‘chariot’ (used as battle vehicle [on which in general, 2.384n.] 6.42, 8.320, 11.399, 16.485, etc.; used as a travel vehicle, as here, also at 312, Od. 3.324, 3.481, 3.483; for racing Il. 23.394, 23.509; for carrying loads 310); (2) more simply ‘seat, stool’ at 424–426, 6.354, 24.578, Od. 21.177 etc. The word is a thematic compound of δι- (*du̯i-, see δϝίς and δίς) + -φρ- (zero-grade of the root of φέρω). The details of the semantic development are unclear: Wiesner 1968, 13  f., 23–25; Laser 1968, 36–38; LfgrE s.v. 317.12  ff.; Plath 1994, 194  f., 415. βήσετο: a thematic s-aor.; origin disputed: either a formal analogy with fut. imper. βήσεο (Leumann [1953] 1959) or (desiderative) impf. from βήσεται, thus ‘was about to mount’ (Magnien 1912, 2; Roth [1970–1974] 1990, 41–59); discussion in Schw. 1.788; LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 13.30  ff.

263 2nd VH ≈ 5.240, 11.127, 11.760. — Σκαιῶν: substantival only here (sc. πυλάων): AH. On the location of the gates, 145n. — ἔχον: frequently ‘steer’ (see iterata; LfgrE s.v. 840.53  ff.). — ὠκέας ἵππους: an inflectible VE formula (nom.: 10× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; acc.: 18× Il., 2× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’), with parallels in other IE languages (Schmitt 1967, 238–242; West 2007, 465  f.); on epithets for horses in general, 2.383n. 264 1st VH = Od. 16.335; 2nd VH = Il. 4.70, 7.35, 11.533, 17.458, 20.24. — ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: a VB formula; signals a change of scene (1.493n.). 265 ≈ 8.492, 11.619, 24.459. — ἵππων: properly ‘horses’; pl. of ἵππος occasionally with the sense ‘(war) chariot’ (6.232n.). — ἐπὶ χθόνα πουλυβότειραν: a VE formula (89n.).

266 = 341. — among: i.e. into the space between the parties, where the all-decisive duel is supposed to take place (67–75n.) and which is the setting for the action from here to 382; it thus also symbolizes the union of the warring parties in a joint ceremony (Hitch 2009, 80). ἐστιχόωντο: ‘they strode’ (2.92n.).

267 rose up: to greet the new arrivals (AH) and for the sacrifice that follows (LfgrE s.v. ὄρνυμι 800.9  f.; explicit mention of standing up for an oath ritual likewise at 19.249b–250: Arend 1933, 78).

263 τώ: nom. dual of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3, R 17). — Σκαιῶν: sc. πυλάων (= πυλῶν); on the plural, 145n. — πεδίονδ(ε): ‘to the plain’ (R 15.3). — ἔχον: on the plural beside the dual, R 18.1. 264 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — μετά (+ acc.): ‘in the midst of, among’. 265 πουλυβότειραν: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). 266 μέσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἐστιχόωντο: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 267 ἔπειτα (ϝ)άναξ: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 105

αὐτίκα: 29n.

268 Odysseus: on his function during the sacrifice and his position vis-à-vis Agamemnon, 191–224n., 196–198n., 262n. — heralds: sc. of both parties. Ὀδυσεύς: on the orthography, 191n. — πολύμητις: on the sense, 200n. — ἀτάρ: introduces a quick change of perspective, as at 270; but cf. 273 αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα (sequential): Julia 2001, 93. — ἀγαυοί: a generic epithet of human beings and gods (and of δῶρον at h.Merc. 442 in reference to Hermes’ singing ability). Usually taken ‘illustrious, noble’ (from ἄγαμαι/ἀγάσσομαι: DELG, LfgrE; cautiously Frisk; dubiously Beekes); differently Blanc 2002, 169, 174–176: ‘he who cries loud’ (from ἀγα- + -αϋός [from ἀΰω], perhaps originally an epithet of heralds, as here and Od. 8.418; cf. also βοὴν ἀγαθός). 269 ὅρκια πιστά: the wine provided by the two sets of adversaries, the two lambs from Troy (245n., 246n.) and the lamb from the Greek camp (119  f.).

270 2nd VH of 270 = 9.174, Od. 1.146, 3.338, 21.270; ≈ Od. 4.216. — mixed the wine: not with water, since the wine used in oath ceremonies was not meant to be drunk (2.341n.); rather, the wine brought by both parties is poured together in a mixing bowl, symbolically binding the two partners to the agreement (292– 302n.): schol. A; Kirk. — poured water over the hands: on the dictate that hands are to be washed before ritual acts, 1.449n. — princes: the elite (250n.; LfgrE s.v. βασιλεύς 45.27  ff.). ἔχευαν: on the form, 10n.

271–274 Cutting the hair of a sacrificial animal belongs to the initial stage of the sacrifice (19.254, Od. 3.446, 14.422 termed [ap]árchesthai ‘to begin’): the sacrificial animal is thus no longer intact (hair is a symbol for the head and so for life; cf. 23.144  ff. and in the Old Testament Judges 16:17  ff.). During a normal sacrifice, in which the meat is eaten, the cut-off hair is thrown into the fire as a preliminary offering (Od. 3.446, 14.422). Here, during an oath-sacrifice, in which no fire is involved (310n.), the hair is distributed among the participants (274); this is generally interpreted as a sign of obligation by means of which those making the offering identify their own fate, should they violate the oath, with that of the slaughtered animal. The Trojans accordingly all share the guilt that results from Pandaros’ violation of the oath in Book 4. Contact with the hair is perhaps also meant to add vitality to the oath: ‘contact with the victim’s living substance adds force to the compulsion of the oath’ (Kitts 2005, 143; on hair-ritual in general, Nilsson [1940] 1967, 140; Burkert [1977] 1985, 56;

268 ἄν: sc. ἀνώρνυτο. — ἀτάρ: = αὐτάρ, progressive (R 24.2). 269 κρητῆρι: locative (R 19.2). — δὲ (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3.

106 

 Iliad 3

Rudhardt [1958] 1992, 220, 261; Kitts loc. cit. 140–144; on this passage in particular, Kirk on 273–4; Postlethwaite 2000, 72). 271–272 = 19.252  f. 271 1st VH to caesura C 1 = 361; ≈ 13.271. — Atreus’ son: Agamemnon conducts the sacrifice because, in an epic addressed to a Greek audience, he represents the Greek party wronged by the abduction of Helen. For a commitment of the Trojan side, Priam’s mere participation suffices (cf. 105). For detail on the characterization of Agamemnon suggested by his formulation of the conditions of the treaty, 275–291n. Near Eastern parallels for the king’s role as priest in West 1997, 15  f. χείρεσσι: likely added simply as metrical filler, since absent at 361 and 13.610. — μάχαιραν: ‘knife, dagger’, of bronze (292, 19.266), used for a sacrifice also at 19.252, h.Ap. 535; worn during a dance at 18.597 and used for surgical purposes at 11.844; also attested at ‘Hes.’ fr. 209.2 M.-W. In early epic, it is nowhere attested as a weapon in war; the etymology is uncertain, and a connection with μάχομαι is disputed (LfgrE; Foltiny 1980, 240–242; Peters 1980, 191  f.; Martin 1983, 94–98; Metz 2005, 308–312, with iconographic evidence; Beekes).

272 = 19.253. — hung … beside the … sheath of his war sword: on the material used for swords and the function of the straps, 2.45n.; the emphasis on the knife is likely meant to stress Agamemnon’s position as leader of the oath-sacrifice (Hitch 2009, 90; 271n.). ἄωρτο: elsewhere only at 19.253; from ἀείρω ‘lift’; expressing an acquired state (of having been lifted): ‘was hanging’. The formation is uncertain: either originally Aeolic ἄορτο as an impf. from an intr. root pres. *h2u̯er- ‘hang’, Homeric ἄωρτο following the Ionic plpf. *ἐώρεε (Tichy 1983, 364  f.; LIV s.v. *h2u̯er-); or understood as a mid. plpf., with ἀωρ- explained variously in modern times (Aeolic -ορ-?, with or without reduplication?): LfgrE s.v. ἀείρω I with older bibliography; Hackstein 2002, 202–204 (202, transl.: ‘Attic reduplicated *h2u̯e-h2u̯or-’).

274 princes: 250n. s.v. ‘the chief men’. 275–291 Agamemnon lists the conditions of the treaty, the individual parts of which appear to reflect actual practice (cf. 292–302n.) but cannot simply be equated with historical treaties (Rollinger 2004, 376, 412; an analysis of this treaty and accompanying ritual and comparison with contemporary Near Eastern contractual practices, ibid. 378–416). The treaty is concluded

271 δὲ (ϝ)ερυσσάμενος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐρυσσάμενος: aor. of ἐρύω ‘draw’, mid.: ‘draw one’s own knife’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — χείρεσσι: on the plural, R 18.2. 272 ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — πάρ: to be taken with κουλεόν. — κουλεόν: = κολεόν ‘sheath’; the initial syllable is metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — αἰέν: = ἀεί. — ἄωρτο: ‘hung’ (↑).

Commentary 

 107

under oath (279 ‘whoever … has sworn to falsehood’, 280 ‘oaths of fidelity’) and placed under the protection of the gods. It begins in the form of the typesceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n.) with the gesture of prayer (275, element 1), a verb of praying (275, element 2), an invocation of the deities (276–279, element 5) and a plea that they watch over the sworn treaty (280, element 7, cf. 278b–279). But the prayer will not be fulfilled; rather, the gods themselves will later provoke a violation of the treaty by the Trojan Pandaros (4.14–19, 4.64b–104). The treaty itself (281–291) deviates from Hektor’s proposal in two points (90–94). (1) Realization of the provisions requires the death of one of the two opponents (281, 284), not merely victory (as suggested by Hektor in 92; however, Menelaos, too, had assumed at 101–102a that the loser would die). That Aphrodite snatches Paris away thus creates an unanticipated situation. Although Agamemnon immediately reacts as if Paris had been killed and repeats the demands directed at the Trojans (458–460), it is the gods and Pandaros who finally decide the situation (Kirk on 281–6). (2) In case of an outcome favorable to the Greeks (the death of Paris), Agamemnon demands in addition considerable compensation (284–287), which, if denied, will result in a resumption of the war and the eventual sack of the city (288–291). Redress for the abduction of Helen is repeatedly mentioned elsewhere as an additional aim of the war (1.159–160n., 5.552  f., Od. 14.70  f., 14.117), and material offers by a defeated people to purchase the freedom of a besieged city are clearly conceivable (18.509–512, 22.114–121): it thus cannot be ruled out that Agamemnon’s formulation has to be taken as a legitimate clarification of the proposed treaty (van Wees 1992, 382 n. 28; Tsopanakis 1969, 338). At the same time, Agamemnon might be changing the treaty in a high-handed manner, exploiting the earlier absence of Priam (Bergold 1977, 98–101; Kirk on 286; Wilson 2002, 176). The undetermined amount of material compensation (286b–287), which gives Agamemnon ‘carte blanche’ in the event of Paris’ death (Bergold 1977, 99, transl.), and the threat associated with it at 288–291, in any case make clear the superior position of the Greeks as partners in the treaty (Rollinger 2004, 388). At the same time, the terms illustrate Agamemnon’s ambition and greed (which already led to the argument with Achilleus: 1.119n., 1.122n.) – whereas Menelaos is mainly concerned with an end to the war (97–107n.)  –, his vindictiveness (cf. 6.55– 60n.), his certainty of victory (since he trusts the dream sent by Zeus, in which he was promised a speedy conquest of the city: 2.29b–33a, 2.37n.), and his distrust of the Trojans, which he admittedly shares with Menelaos (107n.; seedP of Pandaros’ violation of the treaty; on this, Woronoff 1994, 395). Even before the duel of the mismatched opponents (cf. 30–37), Agamemnon’s alterations to the treaty complicate achievement of the peace that many desire (111  f.; dramatic ironyP); thus, the narrator anticipates the war’s end, the sack of Troy

108 

 Iliad 3

(external prolepsisP; on the sack as a motif, 2.12n.). On the characterization of Agamemnon, Bergold 1977, 99–101; Raaflaub 1988, 204  f.; Wilson 2002, 176. 275 ≈ 1.450. — Atreus’ son: as spokesman for the leaders of both parties. τοῖσιν: locative, ‘among these’ (1.68n.). On ny ephelkystikon ‘making position’, G 33, 1.388n. — μεγάλ(α): ‘loudly, in a loud voice’ (221–222n.). — χεῖρας ἀνασχών: an inflectible VE formula (as here: 5× Il., 3× Od., ἀνέσχον: 3× Il., 1× Od., ἀνασχεῖν: 1× Il.). On the posture for prayer common in ancient Greece as well as in numerous other cultures, Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 125–143; Pulleyn 1997, 188–191; West 1997, 42  f., with examples and further bibliography; cf. also 1.351n.

276–279 In comparison with 104 (where Ge ‘Earth’, Helios ‘Sun’ and Zeus are mentioned), the list of gods invoked has been expanded to better encompass the entire cosmos: heaven (Zeus, Helios), earth (Ge/Gaia, the rivers), the underworld (the divinities of the underworld). No one who violates the oath should accordingly be able to escape. Similar lists of gods in the context of treaties or oaths occur at 19.258  f. (Agamemnon’s very similar oath by Zeus, Ge, Helios and the Erinyes) and 15.36  f. (Hera’s oath by Gaia, Ouranos [the heavens] and Styx [the river of the underworld], among others; likewise Kalypso’s oath at Od. 5.184  f.) and are known epigraphically from later treaties as well (Zeus, Ge and Helios are commonly listed as guarantors). Hittite and Babylonian parallels (some with extended lists, often with openings similar to here) may point to old Near Eastern traditions as the basis of Greek practice (Nilsson [1940] 1967, 141; Burkert [1977] 1985, 251; Kirk; West 1997, 20  f.; Rollinger 2004, 388 with n. 149). On the appeal by both parties to the same divinities, 1.14n. 276 = 320, 7.202, 24.308; 1st VH ≈ 8.397, 8.438. — Father Zeus: Zeus’ epithet patḗr is of IE origin (West 2007, 170: ‘The most constant title of the gods who inherit *Dyeus’ name is «father»’); this is illustrated by parallels such as Lat. Iu-piter and Sanskrit Dyaus pitar as well as the fact that in some traditions the sky god is known as the consort of ‘mother earth’ and the father of gods and human beings (West loc. cit. 170  f., 182  f., 185  f.; in brief, Burkert [1977] 1985, 125  f., 129; 1.544n., 3.199n.). — watching over us from Ida: Zeus Idaios is supposed to supervise adherence to the treaties from nearby Mount Ida (at 24.291 he is characterized as he ‘who looks out on all the Troad’): Faesi; Woronoff 1995, 216. On Zeus Idaios and the invocation of local gods in general, 2.821n., 24.291n.; cf. 3.247–248n. On Zeus as god of treaties, 103–104n.

275 τοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2; on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 14.3, R 17. 276 Ἴδηθεν: on the form, R 15.1. — μεδέων: ‘ruling’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 

 109

On the solemn formulaic full-verse address and κύδιστε μέγιστε, 2.412n.; West 2007, 129  f.; on the accumulation of epithets in prayers generally, 6.305n. (with bibliography). — Ἴδηθεν: ‘from Ida’ (Chantr. 1.243).

277 ≈ Od. 11.109, 12.323. — Helios, you who see all things, who listen to all things: on the sun god Helios, 103–104n.; the same notion of the sun as guardian is attested in the iterata and h.Cer. 62 (on which, Richardson with post-Homeric examples); on IE parallels, Durante (1958) 1968, 298; West 2007, 198  f.; on Near Eastern parallels, West 1997, 358. ὃς πάντ’ ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ’ ἐπακούεις: The parallelism, polar expressionP and anaphora of πάντ’ are typical of exhortations of gods (cf. 21.196, Od. 11.109, 12.323, Hes. Th. 121, Op. 267; on this, Fehling 1969, 92, 201  f., 245, 277). ἐφορᾶν with the connotation ‘to monitor, and punish should the need arise’ also at Od. 13.214 (Zeus), 17.487 (gods). Ἠέλιός θ’: nom. instead of voc. in the second address, which is connected to the first, vocative address via θ’ (τε, IE ku̯e); Sanskrit and Old Iranian parallels in invocations of gods point to an archaism (for explanation, Zwolanek 1970, 60  f.; Klein 1981; West 2007, 306  f.), perhaps an inheritance from IE poetic language (Schmitt 1967, 11  f.).

278a rivers: on river gods and their cult in general, CG 34; on IE parallels, West 2007, 274–279; the reference here is to local rivers, the Skamandros and the Simoeis, in particular (similarly Beckmann 1932, 29). A priest of the Skamandros is mentioned at 5.77  f., and sacrifices to the same deity are referred to at 21.130–132. — earth: 103–104n. 278b–279a you: sc. Hades and Persephone (see below). — who under the earth take vengeance | on dead men: The notion of punishment after death is concrete in Homeric epic only at Od. 11.576–600 (Tityos, Tantalos, Sisyphos) and possibly at 19.259–260 (see ad loc.), but in later periods is generalized (h.Cer. 367–369) and made more elaborate (see AH on 279; Ruhl 1903, 33  f.; Luther 1935, 94; Dodds 1951, 137, 158 n. 10; Richardson on h.Cer. 367–9; Burkert [1977] 1985, 197  f.; in detail, Sourvinou-Inwood 1983, 36  f., 44–48; 1995, 10– 300, esp. 66–70, also on the broader changes in attitudes toward death detectable in the archaeological record: individualization, hero cult). The idea that the underworld powers can not only intervene in life (9.454–457, 9.566–572) but punish after death fits with the appeal, which encompasses the entire cosmos (276–279n.) and the future, including after the oath-breaker’s death (Burkert loc. cit. 252); it thus does not contradict the plea for punishment of

277 Ἠέλιος: = Ἥλιος. — θ’: = τ(ε). 278–279 οἳ … | … τείνυσθον: τείνυσθον is 2nd dual pres. act. ind.; on the combination with the plural οἵ, R 18.1.

110 

 Iliad 3

the oath-breaker and his family while they are alive uttered later during the joint prayer (299–301; differently Kirk). οἳ ὑπένερθε … | … τείνυσθον: τείνυσθον: athematic mid. τ(ε)ινυ- ‘make pay’ (G 61); on forms such as this with -ει- (likely borrowed from the aor.), West 1998, XXXVf.; differently LfgrE s.v. τίνω. On ὑπένερθε referring to the underworld, cf. 14.274 ἔνερθε. The relative clause has no antecedent; on the fear of naming the gods of the underworld, Hirzel 1918, 24. The dual τείνυσθον suggests that the relative clause refers to Hades and Persephone, to whom appeal is made also at 9.457 and 9.569 for action against transgressions (AH; Faesi; Leaf; Beckmann 1932, 29  f.; Richardson on h.Cer. 367–9 [p. 272] with reference to Aristoph. Ran. 145  ff. and 273  ff.). The Erinyes are named as taking vengeance on perjurers in a similar context at 19.259. — καμόντας: ‘those who have toiled, those who have succumbed to exhaustion, the dead’, elsewhere only in the VE formula εἴδωλα καμόντων 23.72, Od. 11.476, 24.14 (LfgrE s.v. κάμνω).

279 ≈ 19.260. — whoever … has sworn to falsehood: Neither Menelaos’ precautions (105–107) nor the curse on oath-breakers (implicit here, explicit at 299–301) are able to prevent the eventual violation of the treaty (4.66  f. = 4.71  f., 4.86  ff., 4.157, 4.236 ≈ 4.271, 7.351b–352): internal prolepsisP (LfgrE s.v. ἐπίορκος; cf. 275–291n.; in detail on the narratological function of prolepsis, as well as the difference from the Near Eastern tradition of including subsequent generations in a curse, Gagné 2010). ὅτις: in total 4× Il., 14× Od. in place of ὅστις, formed by analogy with ὅ τι (G 84; Schw. 1.617). — ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ: an inflectible VE formula (ὀμόσσῃ/ὀμόσσας: 2× Il., 2× Hes.); ἐπίορκος ‘perjury, false oath’, 4× Il., 4× Hes., referring to the future or the past (promissory and assertory); almost always in connection with potential punishment by the gods, as here. On the etymology and the internal hiatus, LfgrE.

280 witnesses: Gods are listed as witnesses and hence guarantors (‘to guard’) of treaties also at 7.76, 22.255 and in ancient Near Eastern contracts (LfgrE s.v. μάρτυρος; West 1997, 21  f.). 281 καταπέφνῃ: a reduplicated aor. from *gu̯hen-, ‘slay, kill’, also represented in the pres. θείνω, as well as in φόνος and Lat. de-fendo: Schw. 1.748; Chantr. 1.396  f.; LIV s.v. An equivalent from the same semantic field ‘kill’ (κτείνῃ) is used for metrical reasons in the parallel 284 because it stands there in a different position in the verse; on the flexibility of the predicate in the composition of verses generally, Visser 1987, 332–336. 282 αὐτός: ‘for himself’, similarly at 2.233 (see ad loc.), 5.271 (AH; LfgrE s.v. 1646.47  ff.).

279 κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). — ὀμόσσῃ: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 280 μάρτυροι: = μάρτυρες. 281 καταπέφνῃ: 3rd sing. aor. subjunc. of θείνω ‘kill’ (↑). 282 ἐχέτω: 3rd sing. imper.

Commentary 

 111

283 ποντοπόροισιν: 46n.

284 the fair-haired Menelaos: a VE formula (2.642n.): The generic epithetP ‘blonde’ is used in the Iliad mostly of Menelaos (LfgrE s.v. ξανθός; cf. 1.197n.). Light-colored or blonde hair is characteristic of many IE heroes: West 2007, 427  f. 285–287 ≈ 458–460. 285–286a Τρῶας … ἀποδοῦναι, | … ἀποτινέμεν: Agamemnon moves on from decisions he makes himself (imper. ἐχέτω [282] and subjunc. νεώμεθα [283]) to demands directed to the Trojans; the gods are to watch over their implementation (acc.-inf. construction; cf. 459 ἔκδοτε, ἀποτινέμεν): AH; Schw. 2.382.

286 a price … which will be fitting: Timḗ is here the satisfaction necessary to restore honor that has been violated (1.159–160n., where also on the connection – possibly only a folk etymology – with tínō ‘pay a penalty’, with which the noun is joined here [timḗn … apotinémen] and at 288  f. [timḗn … tínein]; cf. LfgrE s.v. τιμή 518.45  f., 520.48  ff.). Paris’ violation of guest-friendship requires material compensation commensurate with the rank of the Atreïdai (Nowag 1983, 11) and compensation for the booty anticipated in the sack of Troy, which they will have to pass up as a result of the peace agreement (Wilson 2002, 178). 287 [which among people yet to come shall be as a standard] which shall be remembered by people yet to come: Agamemnon specifies his idea of a ‘just’ price: substantial enough to be remembered for centuries to come. The compensation is thereby designed to permanently protect the honor of the injured parties, even for posterity, and of course to serve as a deterrent (Maehler 1963, 12; Kirk; Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 193). Posthumous reputation is a fundamental value in IE societies (West 2007, 396–410); its role in Homeric epic corresponds to this (2.325n.). What posterity will have to say about them is a concern e.g. for Achilleus 9.413, Helen 6.357b–358 and Hektor 22.304  f. (cf. also Od. 4.710, Penelope on Telemachos): Maehler loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v. πέλομαι 1133.49  ff. The present passage offers a variation on the concept of the posthumous reputation of a hero, which is normally acquired in battle; since the action is limited to a representative duel, it is the compensation that will be most remembered. πέληται: πέλομαι ‘exist’ here in the sense ‘remain (in memory)’ (AH; LfgrE s.v. 1133.28  f., 49  ff.) rather that ‘to be a standard’ (as taken by Lattimore); admittedly, the two no-

283 νήεσσι: on the declension, R 12.1. 286 ἀποτινέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — ἔοικεν: sc. ἀποτινέμεν.

112 

 Iliad 3

tions can be combined: if the recompense is remembered, it ‘can serve as an example’ among future generations (AH, transl.). The subjunc. is prospective (cf. 1.137n.); the modal particle is absent, which is unusual in relative clauses with a subjunc. verb (but cf. e.g. 5.33, 5.407, Od. 18.335  f.): Leaf; Schw. 2.312. 288 Πρίαμος Πριάμοιό τε παῖδες: a VE formula (= 1.255, 4.31, ≈ 4.35; cf. Od. 19.414). 289 οὐκ ἐθέλωσιν: the two words are perceived as a single unit (‘deny’), hence οὐ instead of μή; likewise 20.138  f. εἰ … οὐκ εἰῶσι, etc. (Schw. 2.593  f.; Chantr. 2.333; cf. 24.296n.). — Ἀλεξάνδροιο πεσόντος: on the gen. absolute in Homer, Chantr. 2.323  f. 290 αὐτὰρ ἐγώ: αὐτάρ marks the contrast in the apodosis (likewise at 22.390, see R 24.3 and Denniston 55; similarly 1.133, see ad loc.) and emphasizes ἐγώ (Julia 2001, 87); ἐγώ picks up on ἐμοί from 288. — καὶ ἔπειτα: ‘καί shows that Agamemnon intends the demand for τιμή to be understood as equivalent to the other provisions (which are also introduced with ἔπειθ’, v. 282 and 285)’ (Bergold 1977, 100 n. 1, transl.). — ποινῆς: belongs to the same root as τίνω and is attested already in Mycenaean (MYC 228), literally ‘price, compensation’ (5.266a, 17.207a), especially ‘external means for the restoration of honor’ (Heubeck [1949] 1984, 127), specifically ‘revenge’ (sc. for war casualties via killing a member of the opposing side: 13.659, 14.483b, 16.398b, 21.28) or ‘price, penalty’ in material form (5.266, 9.633–636a, 18.498, ‘Hes.’ fr. 23.20 M.-W.). ποινή here takes up the τιμή demanded in 286 and ‘probably constitutes a heightening of the tone (with an aspect of «revenge»), but without materially exceeding τιμή’ (LfgrE s.v. ποινή 1326.44  f., transl.). In practical terms, this means that if the Trojans fail to honor the treaty, Agamemnon will fight for material compensation, τιμή, until he can sack the city (Wilson 2002, 178; in that case, the booty would of course be more valuable than the payment foreseen in the treaty). Somewhat differently, Benveniste 1969a, 55; ScheidTissinier 1994, 193; Yamagata 1994, 140  f.: ποινή denotes the punishment and material compensation for the treaty violation.

291 the end of my quarrel: refers to the sack of the city with all the attendant atrocities, as at 2.122 (6.57–60n.; on télos as ‘result’, AH; LfgrE s.v. 388.10  ff.). αὖθι μένων: an inflectible VB formula (1.492n.). — εἵως: replaces old *ἧος: Werner 1948, 71; Chantr. 1.11. — τέλος πολέμοιο κιχείω: a variant of the VE formula τέλος θανάτοιο κιχείη (9.416, Od. 17.476; LfgrE s.v. κιχάνω 1427.67  f.).

292–302 The treaty is sealed via the ritual that follows, which consists of an oath-sacrifice and a special libation (Bergold 1977, 101; Callaway 1990, 86). ‘The oath sacrifice shares essential elements with the normal animal sacrifice, but underlines the aspect of terror and destruction’ (Burkert [1977] 1985, 251;

288 Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 290 αὐτὰρ ἐγώ: ‘I for my part’. — εἵνεκα: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). 291 αὖθι: short form of αὐτόθι ‘on the spot, here’. — εἵως: = ἕως. — κιχείω: aor. subjunc. of κιχάνω ‘reach’.

Commentary 

 113

on various interpretations of oath-sacrifice in general, Kitts 2005, 129–133; cf. 103–104n.). Frequently, as in this case, the slaughtered animal dies in place of the potential oath-breaker: it is considered cursed, and its flesh is accordingly neither consumed nor offered to the gods (2.341n., 3.310n., 19.266–276n.; Stengel [1890] 1920, 86; 1910, 21; LfgrE s.v. τάμνω 299.6  ff.; Rollinger 2004, 393–395, with Near Eastern parallels; on curse-rituals in general, Graf 1994, 233–236; specifically on the oath, Graf 2005, 244). Physical contact is maintained with the animal or its parts – here its hair (273  f.) – as the oath is sworn, stressing the commitment of all participants (Rudhardt [1958] 1992, 284; on further ritual acts, Burkert [1977] 1985, 250–252; 271–274n.). When the animal is slaughtered by having its throat cut (292–294), the sacrifice is reduced to a kind of bloody libation (Rudhardt loc. cit. 282). The subsequent pouring of wine 295  f., unlike normal libations, likewise does not serve as a gift to the gods invoked (Stengel [1890] 1920, 137; 1910, 20; Nilsson [1940] 1967, 139  f.; Simon 2004, 237  f.; on the type-sceneP ‘libation’, see 1.469–474n.); the gods are merely witnesses. The belief that they would take action against perjurers can also be detected at 7.411, 10.328–331 and in a self-cursing at 19.258–265 (Kullmann [1985] 1992, 251; cf. also 302n. on the violation of the oath). Libations are attested in oath-rituals also at 2.341 (see ad loc.) and Od. 14.331 (Citron 1965, 49–51; Simon loc. cit. 241 compares them to the oath-ritual among gods described at Hes. Th. 784–806). Unlike the mix of water and wine in libations to the gods, the wine is not poured out partially (6.259  f., see ad loc.) but completely (295  f.), and in ritual terms it signifies the oath-breaker’s brain (298–301): Stengel (1890) 1920, 137 with n. 10; Reynen 1983, 32; Simon loc. cit. 237  f., 241. Oath-rituals including such curses, some of which similarly employ liquids, are attested in numerous literary and historical sources (in Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Hittite, Neo-Assyrian and Hebrew treaties and agreements from the 2nd millennium on), and the narrative clearly rests on knowledge of actual practice (West 1997, 21  f.; in detail, Faraone 1993, 65–80; Giorgieri 2001, 425–431, like Rollinger 2004a on the libation described here, which they believe is influenced by contemporary Neo-Assyrian forms of contract; differently, Starke 1997, 483 n. 195: based on an older Anatolian tradition); this influence may have led to the inclusion of formal curses regarding the families, which would in fact only be appropriate for a treaty between neighboring parties (since, in the case of a Greek treaty violation, the Trojans would be unable to punish Greek wives and children: Mülder 1910, 13; WickertMicknat [1954] 1983, 18–20 with n. 4); but the formulation might also have a prolepticP function (since the curse comes true for Trojan women and children; 301n.).

114 

 Iliad 3

292 ἦ, καί: a speech capping formulaP (1.219n., 24.228n.). — ἀπὸ … τάμε: As at 19.266, τάμνειν refers to the cutting of the throat of the sacrificial animal, which bleeds out. The bleeding out is the crucial element of oath-sacrifice, which is therefore described as ὅρκια τάμνειν (Rudhardt [1958] 1992, 282; cf. Stengel 1910, 20: τάμνειν ‘slaughter (in a religiously prescribed manner)’; 2.124n.; LfgrE s.v. τάμνω 298.42  ff.). — νηλέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (11× Il., 8× Od., 2× Hes.); a prosodic variant of the more common ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ (24.393n.; on the use with an ‘overtone of menace and imminent terror’, Bakker/van den Houten 1992, 10–12; quotation from p. 11); usually of weapons; also of a sacrificial implement at 19.266, Od. 10.532 ≈ 11.45 (LfgrE s.v. νηλεής 359.45  ff.). νηλεής is formed with the privative particle *n̥ (Forssman 1966, 145–149; Beekes 1969, 106–111) and a second element likely from ἐλεέω/ἔλεος (cf. 24.44n.), thus ‘pitiless, ruthless’; on a different interpretation, the word is formed from ἀλέομαι, thus ‘inescapable’ (as an epithet of ἦμαρ and χαλκός), whereby some posit two originally separate formations for the adj. (Risch 215  f.; Frisk and DELG s.v. with bibliography; Untermann on Il. 16.761). But the sense ‘pitiless’ is applicable in all instances (LfgrE s.v.; Burkert 1955, 23–27, 73  f.). νηλέϊ < *νηλέει (hyphaeresis: G 42) or by analogy to ὀξέϊ (χαλκῷ) (Werner 1948, 45  f.; Burkert loc. cit. 27). χαλκῷ ‘bronze’ represents metonymically the sacrificial knife, mentioned already at 271 (see ad loc.; on the metonymy, 1.236n.).

293–294 The detailed description of the dying lambs is likely meant to emphasize the impending fate of potential oath-breakers and thus the significance of the treaty (Faraone 1993, 74–76). The description, reminiscent of the death of a human being, accordingly resembles later scenes of dying Trojans (20.403– 406, 21.182a, etc.: Kitts 2005, 155  f., 181–187). 293 1st VH ≈ 4.112, 6.473, 24.271, Od. 6.75, 9.329, 13.20, 13.370, h.Merc. 63, 134. — ἀσπαίροντας: as a motor reflex following a fatal injury (LfgrE). 294 1st VH ≈ 20.472. — θυμοῦ δευομένους: explains why the animals are no longer able to stand. θυμός is here ‘life-force, vital energy’ that guides motor activity; without θ., controlled movement is no longer possible (LfgrE s.v. 1080  f.). In addition, there may be an allusion to the older sense of θυμός ‘puff (of air), breath’, as in θυμὸν ἀποπνείων at 4.524, 13.654, etc. (cf. also 6.17 with n.; on the development of the meaning of θυμός, which in IE signifies ‘smoke’, metaphorically ‘panting’, and which survives in Lat. fumus as well as in Hittite vocabulary, see Meier-Brügger 1989; Frisk; on the present passage, Clarke 1999, 130). On the form δευομένους, G 61. — μένος: ‘the «force» striving for (μέμαα) activity’ (AH, transl.; similarly LfgrE s.v. 141.29: ‘vital spirits’); of a sacrificial animal also at Od. 3.450; cf. also 1.103n., 2.536n.

292 ἦ: 3rd sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ἀπὸ … τάμε: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); likewise ἀπὸ … εἵλετο in 294. 293 τούς: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 14.3, R 17. 294 δευομένους: = δεομένους.

Commentary 

 115

295–296 they poured it | forth: referring to the leaders who washed their hands prior to the oath-ritual (270n.). ἀφυσσόμενοι: pres. mid. part. of ἀφύσσω (LfgrE s.v. ἀφύω 1731.52) ‘draw’; preferable to the aor. ἀφυσσάμενοι, which is also attested (similarly at 10.579, 23.220), because the process of both drawing and pouring (296 ἔκχεον) carried out by all the leaders is iterative (West, app. crit.; LfgrE loc. cit. 1732.34  ff.). — δεπάεσσιν: instrumental (the beakers are used for drawing, as at 23.219  f.; see Bruns 1970, 45; LfgrE s.v. δέπας 250.47). — ηὔχοντο: here with the nuance ‘affirm solemnly and bindingly, vow’, of the act of swearing the oath (1.91n.; Citron 1965, 95). — θεοῖς αἰειγενέτῃσιν: a VE formula (2.400n.).

297–302  Several unnamed characters comment on the libation, and the remarks are summarized in a representative tis-speechP. The individuals in question are likely the leaders in particular, since the libation is part of the treaty ritual (292–302n.), in which only the leaders participate (250n.); hóde óinos ‘this wine here’ at 300 supports this interpretation, since this can only be said by close bystanders (AH; Hentze 1905, 256 with n. 2; there is no evidence in the text to support the theory in de Jong 1987a, 70 [common soldiers rather than leaders]). Regardless, the oath ritual is public, and the prayer surely verbalizes everyone’s wishes (Schneider 1996, 50). The speech is a curse in the form of the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n.), comprised of elements (2) verb of praying (296), (3) list of deities (296), (5) invocation of the deity (298), (7) plea (299–301), (8) formulaic conclusion (302a), (9) description of the god’s response (302b) (on the proleptic function of the prayer, 300n., 301n., 302n.). On cursing as part of the oath ritual, 292–302n.; in the narrative, the curse at the end emphasizes again the significance of the subsequent duel and the treaty, violation of which is mentioned repeatedly (302n.), and reveals the sincere longing for peace on the part of both parties (297 explicitly mentions both) already apparent at 111  f. (see ad loc.): Edwards 1987, 194, with reference to tis-speeches at 7.178–180, 7.201–205 and 17.414–423 that similarly emphasize the importance of what follows for the parties involved; de Jong 1987a, 70, 82; Schneider 1996, 46–52. The prayer remains unfulfilled, like the following three, equally long prayers, made before and during the duel, at 320–323, 351–354 (cf. Kirk ad loc.) and 365–368. All four illustrate the emotions of the participants, the leaders, then the crowd, and finally Menelaos, in their pleas for victory over the guilty, as well as for peace and its preservation; with heightened dramatic ironyP – thus increasing suspense – the prayers demonstrate human helplessness in the face of the gods despite strict treaty rituals and provisions and the moral and military superiority of the Greek side.

116 

 Iliad 3

297 = 319; ≈ 4.85, 7.300, 17.414; additionally 1st VH = 5× Il., 12× Od.; ≈ 2× Il., 3× Od. (ὣς ἄρα τις εἴπεσκε(ν)). 2nd VH: an inflectible VE formula (111n.). — εἴπεσκεν: The iterative is used here for simultaneous statements by different characters, as at 2.271 (see ad loc.). On the suffix -σκ-, G 60.

298 1st VH = 2.412, Hes. Th. 548; 2nd VH = Il. 3.308, Od. 3.346, 14.53, 14.119, 18.112, 21.365, Hes. Th. 624; ≈ Il. 18.116, 22.366. — At this point, before the crucial curse, all gods are again solemnly invoked, as at the beginning of the ritual (276–279), but this time summarily in a formulaic verse (Kirk; Pulleyn 1997, 110  f.). The emphasis on Zeus over the remaining gods (as in the iterata and other formulae at 6.475, 8.526, Od. 12.371) corresponds to his dominant role among the Olympians and in the human world, here as god of treaties (CG 24; LfgrE s.v. θεός 1011.53  ff., 1013.42  ff.; Rollinger 2004, 388 with n. 149, 392). The connection of a single, named god with a collectivity of deities has Old Iranian and Latin parallels (West 2007, 122). Ζεῦ κύδιστε μέγιστε: 276n. 299 ≈ 4.67, 4.72, 4.236, 4.271. — πρότεροι: ‘first’; in similar contexts at 351, 19.183 (see ad loc.), 24.369 (see ad loc.), etc.; cf. also 100n. on ἀρχῆς. — ὑπὲρ ὅρκια πημήνειαν: ὑπέρ: ‘(go) beyond (something), in violation (of)’, similarly ὑπὲρ αἶσαν 59 = 6.333, ὑπὲρ θεόν 17.327 (Faesi; Chantr. 2.136; LfgrE s.v. πημαίνω). πημαίνω (from πῆμα) is ‘violate, undo’, almost always in character speechP and always active in a religious-legal context (so too at 15.42, 24.781, Hes. Th. 232, h.Ap. 262). Forms of δηλέομαι with the phrase ὑπὲρ ὅρκια are also attested in Book 4 (see iterata) and at 3.107 (see ad loc.); comparable expressions for the violation of a treaty are 4.157 κατὰ δ’ ὅρκια πιστὰ πάτησαν, 4.269 σύν γ’ ὅρκι’ ἔχευαν. On the potential opt. in a relative clause dependent on a wish in the main clause, see Schw. 2.330, 325; Chantr. 2.248.

300 ≈ Od. 9.290. — brains: Gr. enképhalos, in early epic used only in reference to fatalities, frequently in massacres; loss of the brain represents loss of life (LfgrE s.v. ἐγκέφαλος; Onians [1951] 1988, 108; Friedrich [1956] 2003, 49). The curse is made concrete in corresponding descriptions of the deaths of Trojans and Trojan allies (11.97, 12.185, 16.347, 17.297, 20.399) after Pandaros’ violation of the oath and, later, after the conquest of the city (as described e.g. in the Iliou Persis): internal and external prolepsisP.

297 τις (ϝ)είπεσκεν: on the prosody, R 4.5. 298 ἀθάνατοι: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). 299 ὁππότεροι: on the -ππ-, R 9.1. — πρότεροι ὑπέρ: on the prosody, R 5.6. 300 σφ(ι): = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — ὅδε (ϝ)οῖνος: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 117

301 The entire verse implicitly continues the external prolepsisP in a manner comparable to Hektor’s prediction (of Andromache’s fate) at 6.454–463. On the suffering of the population of a conquered city, 6.450–458n.; specifically on the killing of Trojan children, 6.57–60n.; on the fate of captive women, 1.31n. with bibliography, 2.355n., 6.450–458n., Od. 8.523  ff. αὐτῶν καὶ τεκέων: ‘dependent on ἐγκέφαλος; genitive, although preceded by σφί’ (AH, transl.), as at Od. 6.155/157 σφισι … λευσσόντων, 11.75  f. μοι … ἀνδρὸς δυστήνοιο (AH; Faesi; on gen. in apposition to dat. generally, Chantr. 2.72, 322  f.); similar postpositive expansions at Od. 3.380  f. δίδωθι … μοι κλέος …, αὐτῷ καὶ παίδεσσι καὶ αἰδοίῃ παρακοίτι, as well as 3.208  f., 4.20, etc. (AH). — ἄλλοισι δαμεῖεν: on the dat., 183n. The general sense is ‘they may become subject to the power of others’ (similarly at 18.432; Wickert-Micknat [1954] 1983, 20 n. 1). The comprehensive δαμεῖεν (‘to be raped’ is merely part of the sense) corresponds to the curse better than does the specific μιγεῖεν, which is also attested (West, app. crit.; Bergold 1977, 101 n. 4). Near Eastern parallels in West 1997, 358.

302 ≈ 2.419. — The Gr. phrase oud’ ára pō can be understood ‘and not at all’ or ‘and not yet’ (see below). The (at least initially) negative reaction of Zeus in the narrator’s commentary on the prayer is in any case a preliminary indication that the treaty will fail and that hopes for peace will remain unfulfilled (internal prolepsisP of the uncertain outcome of the duel and the violation of the treaty via Pandaros’ shot that follows in Book 4 and that also brings no resolution). Zeus must allow the treaty to be violated to comply with Thetis’ plea for adequate recompense for Achilleus (1.509  f., 1.528, 2.36–40, 2.419  f.); the later prayers preceding the duel are accordingly also ignored (320–323, 351–354). If 302 is applied strictly to the earlier cursing of the oath-breakers, it also contains an external prolepsisP: the curse will not be fulfilled now but rather in the later battles and (horrific) sack of Troy (cf. 2.419–420n.) – an expectation later voiced by representatives of both parties (Agamemnon: 4.157–168, 4.234–239; Idomeneus: 4.270  f.; Antenor: 7.350–353; cf. 4.164  f. = 6.448  f. [Agamemnon and Hektor]). On the proleptic function of similar narrator commentaries and negative divine responses to prayers generally, 2.419–420n., 6.311n.; Kelly 2007, 251  f.; on the present passage, Bergold 1977, 102  f. with n. 4; Kirk; Erbse 1986, 228  f.; Mikalson 1989, 95 n. 99; Richardson 1990, 138; Reichel 1994, 238–241, 329; Schneider 1996, 51  f.; Pucci 2002, 21  f. with n. 8. — son of Kronos: Zeus (CG 24; on Kronos, see CG 26).

301 δαμεῖεν: 3rd pl. aor. opt. pass. of δάμνημι ‘overwhelm, subjugate’. 302 ἔφαν: = ἔφασαν (R 16.2). — οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — σφιν: = σφι = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — ἐπεκράαινε: impf., ‘wished to bring about’.

118 

 Iliad 3

Both content and linguistic considerations suggest that the plus-verses in P.Hib. 19 (2nd cent. BC) are rhapsodic additions (West, app. crit.; Kullmann [1955] 1992, 15 n. 9; Bergold 1977, 103 n. 1; Kirk). — ὣς ἔφαν: a variant of a speech capping formulaP (1.33n.); likewise at 10.295, Od. 10.422, 10.475. — ἄρα: signals certainty (R 24.1): the audience is reminded of Zeus’ plan (see above). — πω: in early epic, an occasional modal use (e.g. immediately below at 306, also at 4.184, 22.279, Od. 12.208, Hes. Op. 273, etc.) is attested beside the more common temporal use (1.106, 2.122, 3.169 [see ad loc.], 3.442, etc.; cf. 1.224n.); here, in connection with the negative οὐδ(έ), a modal sense ‘not at all’ in reference to the possible success of the treaty is likely (see above; thus AH; Pucci loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v. πω 1670.44  f.), while a temporal nuance in the sense ‘not yet’ referring to the fulfillment of the curse may also be included (see above; thus Bergold 1977, 102 with n. 4; Kirk and Schneider locc. cit. argue for a purely temporal interpretation). — σφιν: on the form, G 81. — ἐπεκράαινε: on the orthography, West 1998, XXXII. 303 2nd VH = 24.777; ≈ 24.485. — Δαρδανίδης Πρίαμος: an inflectible formula at VB and mid-verse (7× Il.). Priam is a great-great-great-grandson of Dardanos (CH 8; on the genealogy, cf. 24.349n.; on the use of patronymics, 1.1n.). — μετὰ μῦθον ἔειπεν: an inflectible VE formula, used as a speech introductory formulaP in speeches directed to a group; 3rd sing. at 9.623, 20.114, 20.292, 24.777, as here; 1st sing. at Od. 10.561 (cf. 1.552n. on μῦθον ἔειπες).

304 = 86 (see ad loc.). 305 2nd VH = 8.499, 12.115, 13.724, 18.174, 23.64; ≈ Il. 23.297, ‘Hes.’ fr. 136.8 M.-W. (restored), h.Ven. 280. — Priam was summoned as guarantor to observe the oath (105–110); his departure makes finding a solution after the unexpected outcome of the duel more difficult and encourages violation of the agreement (3.449–4.104): 108–110n. — [Ilion] Ilios: on this alternative name for Troy (and its two forms Ilios/Ilion, the latter being the standard form only from the 5th cent. BC on), see 1.71n. ἤτοι ἐγών: ἤτοι is equivalent to weakened ἦ (R 24.4; ≈ ‘now’) and stands here, like μέν, in contrast to a mentally supplied ὑμεῖς δέ (Ruijgh [1981] 1996, 282; on ἤτοι functioning like μέν in general, K.-G. 2.146  f.; Ruijgh [1981] 1996). — ἠνεμόεσσαν: PN epithet, especially of Troy, which is exposed to the winds (see iterata): 2.606n. η instead of α in word-initial position likely occurred by analogy with η in νήνεμος ‘without wind’ (8.556) for metrical reasons (discussion of the disputed details in Wyatt 1969, 74; Darms 1978, 330  f.).

306–307 The passage forms a background that contrasts with Book 22 (seedP): while Priam here believes he cannot bear to witness the duel between Menelaos

303 τοῖσι: to be taken with μετὰ … ἔειπεν. — μετὰ … ἔ(ϝ)ειπεν: = μετεῖπεν (R 20.2). 305 ἤτοι: stresses ἐγών (R 24.4). — προτὶ (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 5.4. — προτί: = πρός (20.1). — ἠνεμόεσσαν: ‘windy’ (from ἄνεμος); the initial syllable is metrically lengthened (R 10.1; ↑).

Commentary 

 119

and Paris (cf. 259n.), he will later be forced to see with his own eyes Hektor, his most capable and beloved son, killed in battle with Achilleus and watch his body being abused (22.25–78, 22.408a, 22.412–429, cf. 24.160–165; Kirk; Baltes [1987] 2005, 281). 306 2nd VH ≈ 6× Il., 3× Od., 2× h.Hom. — ἄψ: at the end of a clause and in progressive enjambmentP only here (West 1967, 54; LfgrE s.v. 1784.2  ff.; cf. μάψ 2.214), ‘a metrically convenient way of introducing a necessary ἐπεί-clause at the beginning of a verse’ (Kirk on 306–7; cf. 2.614n., 19.8–9a n.); thereby probably also stressing Priam’s urgent wish (‘back at all cost!’; similarly Bergold 1977, 104 n. 2). — οὔ πω: in its original modal sense ‘not at all’ (302n.; AH; Schw. 2.579; LfgrE s.v. πω 1669.62  ff.). — ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρᾶσθαι: an inflectible VE formula (4× Il., 3× Od.; with νοήσας 2× Il., 2× h.Hom.): Nussbaum 2002, 184–186. On the uncertain interpretation of the prep. ἐν, 24.294n.; 1.587n. 307 ἀρηϊφίλῳ: 21n.; perhaps context-sensitive (on the term, cf. epithetP): Paris has a significant opponent.

308–309 Like Menelaos in 101, Priam avoids the question of guilt (Schneider 1996, 54). 308 ≈ Od. 14.119. — Zeus knows: Gr. and IE parallels in West 2007, 477. — Zeus … and the rest of the gods immortal: 298n. μέν: ≈ μήν, stresses Ζεὺς … καὶ ἀθάνατοι θεοὶ ἄλλοι (Denniston 360): The gods know what the duel’s eventual outcome will be, whereas Priam is plagued by doubt (Faesi). 309 θανάτοιο τέλος: a set phrase (also 9.411, 13.602; more often τέλος θανάτοιο). θανάτοιο is an explanatory gen. dependent on τέλος (on which generally, K.-G. 1.265; Chantr. 2.62): ‘the end represented by death, the end in death’ (LfgrE s.v. τέλος 388.42  ff.).

310 Priam picks up the carcasses of the lambs brought from Troy by the heralds (246a) in order to dispose of them in the city, as attested for oath-sacrifices elsewhere (19.267  f.: thrown in the sea; Paus. 3.20.9: buried): 292–302n.; Kirk; Rudhardt (1958) 1992, 284. ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formulaP (24.302n.). — ἰσόθεος φώς: a generic epithetP of heroes (2.565n.).

311–312 Priam’s return concludes the framing of the oath-sacrifice (259–265n.). 311 ≈ 261 (see ad loc.). 312 = 262 (see ad loc.).

306 ἄψ: ‘back’. — ὁρᾶσθαι: on the mid., R 23. 308 γε (ϝ)οῖδε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἀθάνατοι: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). 309 πεπρωμένον ἐστίν: = perf. πέπρωται ‘is determined by fate’. 310 ἦ: 292n. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — δίφρον (ϝ)άρνας θέτο (ϝ)ισόθεος: on the prosody, R 4.5, R 4.3. 311–312 see 261n., 262n.

120 

 Iliad 3

313–382 Although Menelaos prevails in the carefully prepared duel, Paris is saved by Aphrodite and transported to his bedchamber. 313 ≈ 24.330; 2nd VH ≈ 14.46, 21.561; cf. 305. 314–317 The duel is meant to decide the outcome of the war; strict regulations are therefore necessary, regarding which representatives of the two parties – Odysseus and Hektor – are to be consulted (AH, Anh. on 315; Paduano/Mirto on 292–323; cf. the strict provisions common in duels until the 20th cent.). The two men meticulously measure the battleground (in part already defined by the watching armies) (113–115; Kirk on 313–317; IE parallels: West 2007, 487) and determine which opponent will initiate the fight (being allowed to cast one’s lance first is an advantage: at 7.232 and 21.439  f., Aias and Poseidon respectively demonstrate their sense of superiority by letting the opponent have the first throw: schol. bT on 7.235; AH on 7.232; Stoevesandt 2004, 328 n. 976). On a narratological level, the detailed description of the preparations for the duel, in particular of the drawing of lots at 315  ff., serves to increase suspense (cf. 325n.). 314 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ 5.704, 18.154. — δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς: 205n.

316–325 In early epic, lots are drawn to determine a selection or a sequence of individuals (selection: 7.171–183a of an opponent in a duel, 24.400 of a conscript [see ad loc.], Od. 9.331, 10.206 of companions; sequence: here in a duel; 23.352, 23.861 in an athletic contest; Od. 14.209 in the distribution of an inheritance). Pieces of wood, pebbles or (marked) ceramic sherds were used as lots (7.175). The process here is described in accord with the type-sceneP ‘drawing lots’: (1) the lots are placed in a helmet (316, 7.176, 23.352), (2) the participants pray (318–324a, 7.177–181a), (3) the lots are shaken (324b–325a, 7.181b, 23.353a, 23.861, Od. 10.206), (4) one lot falls out of the helmet, indicating an individual (325b, 7.182–183a, 23.353b, 23.862a, Od. 10.207). The correspondences to the drawing of lots in Book 7 in particular are part of a traditional narrative pattern for formal duels (76–78n.). In general, the drawing of lots is gripping for the audience; occasionally, this type of scene serves to emphasize the particular achievement of an opponent who prevails in the face of an unfavorable draw (here: Menelaos almost defeats Paris, even though Paris was allowed to throw first: 325b, 346, 373; victor in a contest: 23.356  f./499  ff., 23.862  ff./870  ff.). On the

313 τώ: nom. masc. dual (R 18.1); anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἄρ(α): ‘thus’ (R 24.1). — προτὶ (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 5.4. — προτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — ἀπονέοντο: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1); the verb is uncontracted (R 6) and unaugmented (R 16.1). 314 Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

Commentary 

 121

drawing of lots in detail, Demont 2000, 299–309, with bibliography; LfgrE s.v. κλῆρος; Kirk on 324–5. 316 ≈ 23.861, Od. 10.206. — κυνέῃ: originally κυνέη δορή/ῥινός (formed like παρδαλέη, see 16n.), ‘dog skin’, the word refers literally to a leather helmet (10.257  f./261, 10.335; cf. the leather cap at Od. 24.231); then mostly to bronze helmets with a leather lining, or leather helmets strengthened with bronze plates, as is shown by the epithets χαλκήρης etc. (see below and cf. 362 on φάλον; Borchhardt 1972, 7; Pflug 1988, 11, 23, also on finds of bronze helmets from the Homeric period; Franz 2002, 52, 54 with n. 217; an overview of the development of helmets in Buchholz 2010, 195). Usually synonymous with κόρυς, τρυφάλεια (at 336, 362/369, 372 κυνέη, κόρυς and τρυφάλεια all refer to the same helmet belonging to Paris: Borchhardt loc. cit. 13; on the use of the words as metrical variants, Düntzer [1864] 1979, 98). As a receptacle from which to draw lots, also 7.176, 7.182/187, 23.861, Od. 10.206 (LfgrE). — χαλκήρεϊ: on the uncontracted ending, G 71. The sense is ‘fitted with bronze’ (on the formation and on bronze in general, 6.3n.); together with κυνέη, the adjective forms an inflectible formula before caesura C 2, see iterata and Od. 22.111, 22.145; variants: κυνέη(ν) πάγχαλκος/-ον before caesura B 2 (2× Od.), κυνέης διὰ χαλκοπαρήου at VE (3× Il.). — [πάλλον] βάλλον: The impf. πάλλον (app. crit.) uniformly transmitted in the mss. tradition seems forced, since it implies that Hektor and Odysseus shake the lots for the entire duration of the prayer (324 πάλλεν). βάλλον, on the other hand, the reading of an ancient grammarian followed by some modern scholars (app. crit.; Doederlein 1858, 269), corresponds to the narrative pattern of the duel portrayed in Book 7 and to the type-sceneP ‘drawing lots’ in general (316–325n.). The two iterata, 23.861 and Od. 10.206, do not contradict this reading, since they are parts of a summarily described procedure that mentions only the key moment, i.e. the shaking of the lots (which fall out in the next line). Differently, West 2001, 187; Danek 2003, 282. 317 πρόσθεν: temporal, ‘first’, as at 346, 5.851 (LfgrE s.v. 1568.47  ff.). — χάλκεον ἔγχος: a VE formula (17× Il., 5× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’, cf. the VB formula ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ 6.31–32n.); the term denoting material refers to the lance-head. On lances, 135n.

318–324a For the type-sceneP ‘prayer’, see 1.37–42n.; the elements included here are: (1) gesture of prayer (318b), (2) verb of praying (318a), (3) naming of the divinity (318b), (5) invocation of the divinity (320), (7) plea (321–323), (8) formulaic conclusion (324a). This prayer, the second of four before and during the duel (297–302n.), corresponds to the one offered during the drawing of lots at 7.179  f. (316–325n.); like the latter and the prayer at 3.298–301, it is a tis-speechP. The representative speakers are to be understood as individuals from the crowd of Achaian and Trojan warriors (318 laói), perhaps including the leaders (Schneider 1996, 53; differently Hentze 1905, 256; de Jong 1987a, 70  f.:

316 κυνέῃ: on the -ῃ after -ε-, R 2. 317 ὁππότερος: on -ππ-, R 9.1.

122 

 Iliad 3

the crowd only). The plea does not specify whom Zeus should allow to die as being responsible for the war (321 ‘whichever man’). Regardless, Paris’ guilt is clear to all, and even his own people hate him (28, 39–57n., 100, 155–160, 350– 355a n., 451–454n., 6.280b–285n., 6.326n., 6.356n., 7.390, 22.116b). The narrator likely used neutral phrasing ‘on the one hand, in order to provide an objective criterion according to which Zeus will decide – Zeus is meant to render a just decision, i.e. one that accords with the principle of guilt – and, on the other hand, to express the uncertainty of the people regarding the outcome of the impending duel’ (Schneider 1996, 53  f., transl.; somewhat differently, Kirk on 321: the question of guilt is suppressed for the sake of suspense; de Jong loc. cit. 71: the question of guilt is left unresolved, peace is the only important issue; Heitsch 2001, 16, contra Kirk: the guilty party is clear, but the narrator avoids having the Trojans ask directly for the death of Paris). Zeus is supposed to punish the guilty party, as in a trial by ordeal (cf. 309, 350–355a n.; Hirzel 1902, 194  f. n. 2; parallels for trials by ordeal, ibid. 189–197; comparanda also in Funkhänel 1847); only the elimination of the guilty individual will bring the peace longed for by both parties (323; cf. 111n.; de Jong loc. cit.; Schneider loc. cit. 54). It is thus stressed again that the people hope for help from the very gods who will stand in the way of peace (cf. 275–291n., 297–302n.): Aphrodite saves Paris (380b–381), while Zeus yields to the wish of Athene and Hera that the war continue (4.1–73). On unfulfilled prayers in general, 302n., 6.311n. 318 = 7.177. — λαοί: ‘warriors, soldiers’, probably not specifically in contrast to the leaders (318–324a n.; LfgrE s.v. 1639.46  f.; on the sense of λαός in general, 1.10n., 2.191n.). — ἠρήσαντο: denotes the plea (1.35n.); here likely synonymous with εὔχομαι, which is used in comparable contexts at 296, 7.200 (LfgrE s.v. ἀράομαι 1172.18  ff.; on the question of the semantic difference between the two generally, 1.35n., 6.304n.). — χεῖρας ἀνέσχον: 275n. 319 = 297 (see ad loc.) — Both the transmission (the verse is omitted by only a single papyrus: see app. crit.) and ‘a certain inherent parallelism between the two prayers of both armies at 296–301 and 318–23 which favors the repetition of 297 at 319’ (similarly 7.177– 180/200–205 with 178 = 201) argue against interpolation (Apthorp 1980, 17  f.; differently Janko 2000, 2). 320 = 276 (see ad loc.). — Ζεῦ: The supreme god is invoked as a representative of all deities (318 θεοῖσι): Kirk on 318–23; AH on 7.179.

318 θεοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2. 319 = 297 (see ad loc.). 320 = 276 (see ad loc.).

Commentary 

 123

321 2nd VH ≈ Il. 4.83, Od. 3.136, 24.546. — τάδε ἔργα … ἔθηκεν: ἔργα in the sense ‘war’; on the use with τίθημι ‘cause’ cf. πόνον … ἔθεντο 17.158 and ἔριν … ἔθηκε Od. 3.136 (LfgrE s.v. ἔργον 677.52  ff. and s.v. τίθημι 484.27  ff.).

322 2nd VH = 7.131, h.Ven. 154; ≈ Il. 11.263, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 151; from caesura C 1 on = Il. 14.457, 24.246, Od. 9.524, 11.150, 11.627, 23.252; from caesura C 2 on = Il. 6.284, 6.422, 22.425, Theb. fr. 3.4 West. — [go down to] sink into the house of Hades: describes death, like the phrases ‘sink into the earth’ and ‘go down into the house of Hades’ (cf. iterata and 6.19 ...) [see ad loc.], 6.411, Od. 10.174  f., 24.106). ‘[T]he image of the descent to Hades marks out the full solemnity of death’: Clarke 1999, 168  ff. (quotation from p. 170) and 178  ff.; a list of similar phrases in Garland 1981, 54. On Hades, cf. 1.3n. (form of the name); CG 14 (myth). δός: also at 351, unsurprisingly a common formulation in prayers (Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26). — δῦναι δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω: an inflectible VE formula with shorter variants (see iterata). Ἄϊδος: Homeric epic has athematic forms beside the more recent ā-forms Ἀΐδης, Ἀΐδαο (examples of the heteroclite declension of Ἀΐδης, G 53; Chantr. 1.232). The etymology is much disputed; the main problem is the issue of the original word-beginning, in Homer normally short and unaspirated, in Attic long and aspirated. Most likely solution: from *ἀ-ϝιδ(-α)-, literally ‘the invisible’ (1.3.n.; in the present VE formula and at 20.336 with metrical lengthening of the word-beginning; the aspirated long vowel in Attic is probably derived from crasis with the article in the nom. [Ἅιδης from ὁ Ἀΐδης like ᾱ῾νήρ from ὁ ἀνήρ] and then extended to the other cases: Kamerbeek ap. Ruijgh [1970] 1991, 575  f.). Thieme’s derivation ([1952] 1968, 133–153; preferred by West 2007, 394 among others) from *sm̥-u̯id- ‘coming together with the ancestors’ as a designation for the hereafter is contradicted by the virtually exclusive use of the word as a name for the god (Beekes 1998, 17  f.; Beekes s.v.; further counter-arguments: Risch 1969, 327). A recent attempt at explanation: Janda 2000, 114–138 (rather unconvincing).

323 αὖ: a slight contrast to 322, like Od. 24.483  f. ὁ μὲν … ἡμεῖς δ’ αὖ (Klein 1988, 257; cf. 2.493n.). On the reading without δ(έ), cf. 67, 4.238 with app. crit. — φιλότητα καὶ ὅρκια πιστά: on the sense, 73n.; here, future relationships are meant (LfgrE s.v. ὅρκιον 774.43  ff.). On πιστά, also 280n. 324 1st VH = 7.181; 2nd VH in total 12× Il. — ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφαν: 161n. — μέγας κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ: a VE formula (12× Il.): 2.816n.

 

325 looking backward: Hektor does not want to be suspected of favoring his brother (AH); in addition, it was likely customary to avert the eyes when drawing lots. — Paris’ lot was outshaken: The weaker opponent (cf. 21–37) is thus

321 τάδε (ϝ)έργα: on the prosody, R 4.3. 322 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — εἴσω (postpositive): ≈ εἰς (cf. R 20.1–2). 323 καὶ ὅρκια: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 324 ἔφαν: = ἔφασαν (R 16.2). 325 ὁρόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — ἐκ … ὄρουσεν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

124 

 Iliad 3

accorded the first throw, rendering the fulfillment of the prayer uncertain from the start and maintaining suspense regarding the outcome of the duel (Probst 1914, 27; differently, Bergold 1977, 106). Paris’ failure to prevail despite this advantage underlines his inferiority, as will be the case with his brother Hektor in the duel against Aias (7.271  f.). ἄψ: ‘away’ (LfgrE s.v. 1782.16  ff.). — Πάριος: on the double name Paris/Alexandros, 16n. — ἐκ … ὄρουσεν: corresponds to ἐκ … (ἔ)θορε at 7.182, 23.353, Od. 10.207 (AH).

326–327 The people sit down (the posture of spectators: 134–135n. as well as 89n.; this also prevents interference); aside from the companions of Menelaos who fetch Paris’ helmet (378), and perhaps the Achaians and Trojans who help search for Paris (449  ff.), as well as Pandaros and his people (4.90), the crowd remains seated (4.114) until battle resumes after Pandaros’ shot (4.221  ff.): Kurz 1966, 68. 326 All the rest: all the Trojans and Achaians except the duelists. κατὰ στίχας: ‘in rows’ (cf. 113n.). — ἧχι: on the form, West 1998, XXXI. 327 1st VH = 23.475; 2nd VH = 10.504. — ἵπποι ἀερσίποδες: ἀερσίπους is from ἀείρω and πούς, ‘lifting the feet’, i.e. ‘fast’; like ὠκύς, a generic epithetP of horses, also at 18.532, 23.475, h.Ven. 211 (LfgrE; cf. 263n.; on epithets of horses generally, 2.383n.). — ποικίλα: ‘artfully ornamented’ (LfgrE). Not postpositive as elsewhere (6.504, 12.396, etc.), probably for the sake of the chiasmus (ἵπποι ἀερσίποδες – ποικίλα τεύχε(α)) (LfgrE). — τεύχε(α): 29n. — ἔκειτο: zeugma, with ἵπποι sc. ἕστασαν; similarly 10.407, Od. 14.291 (Leaf).

328–338 Paris’ preparations are described in the type-sceneP ‘arming’, comprised of the (partly formulaic) elements (1) general announcement of the arming (328  f.), putting on (2) greaves (330  f.) and (3) corselet (332  f.), strapping on (4) a sword (334–335a) and (5) a shield (335b), putting on (6) a helmet (336  f.), grasping (7) a lance (338). The arming sequence is realistic: the greaves must be put on before the corselet, since the latter will make it difficult to bend down (Eust. 420.21  ff.; Franz 2002, 62); sword and shield are strapped on before the helmet is donned. The weapons are assigned throughout to specific body parts (shins, chest, shoulders, head, hands) and described in a cumulative style with adjectives (sometimes enjambed for emphasis: 331a, 335a, 337a) or a relative clause (338b) that stress their beauty, value (reference to metal), size and utility. The weapons thus hint at their own subsequent effectiveness and stress the combat strength of the hero. All arming scenes prepare for an important battle (cf.

326 ἧχι (ϝ)εκάστῳ: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ἧχι: ‘where’. 327 τεύχε’ ἔκειτο: on the hiatus, R 5.1.

Commentary 

 125

the dressing scenes, 2.42–47n.); here for the duel that is supposed to end the war, at 11.16b–45a for Agamemnon’s aristeia, at 16.130–144 for Patroklos’ and at 19.364b–391 for Achilleus’ return to battle. Paris’ arming scene is the only one by a Trojan and the shortest of all (Stoevesandt 2004, 75 n. 266); the others contain lengthy descriptions of individual weapons, e.g. of Agamemnon’s corselet 11.19–28 (on the very brief arming scenes, Arend 1933, 95  f.; on Paris’ corselet, 332–333n.). The scene thus does not reflect well on Paris, but nevertheless raises expectations that then contrast with his miserable failure and Menelaos’ superiority in the duel (Reinhardt 1961, 310; Steinrück 1992, 94; Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 66  f.). A longer description would likely have had the effect of a parody (Edwards 1987, 194). On arming scenes in general, Arend 1933, 92–97; Armstrong 1958; Russo (1968) 1999, 130–134; Patzer (1972) 1999, 171–180; 1996, 113; on the style, Kirk 34  f.; Near Eastern and IE parallels in West 1997, 214  f.; 2007, 460, 472  f. Zenodotus’ text lacks verses 334  f., and Paris straps on his shield only at the end (338a; app. crit.): this is likely a correction by an interpreter to account for the fact that Paris never uses a sword in the subsequent fight. But the altered arming sequence is unrealistic and contradicts the typical arming scenes elsewhere (schol. A; West 1967, 54  f.; Nickau 1977, 174–176).

328–329 An anticipatory short summary of the arming described in detail at 330–338; cf. 6.156–159n. 328 ≈ Od. 23.366; 1st VH ≈ 15.479. — ἀμφ’ ὤμοισιν: actually applicable only to corselet, sword and shield (AH; cf. 334n.; on the expression in general, 2.45n.). — ἐδύσετο: a thematic s-aor., like βήσετο (262n.). — τεύχεα καλά: 89n.

329 = 7.355, 8.82; ≈ 13.766; from caesura A 3 on = 11.369, 11.505; 1st VH ≈ 352; 2nd VH ≈ 9.339, 10.5, Hes. Op. 165, ‘Hes.’ frr. 199.2, 200.2/11, 204.43/55 M.-W. (partially restored). — The use of an entire verse to name Paris indicates his significance in the duel to come (cf. 1.36n.). As at 7.355 and 13.766, the formulaic designation ‘lord of lovely-haired Helen’ likely refers to the context, here the duel with Helen’s former husband (Priess 1977, 159), and thus transforms the duel, the outcome of which is crucial for two large parties, into a fight over a woman between two rivals. — lord: 140n.

328 αὐτάρ: picks up μέν from 326, ‘but’ (R 24.2). 329 Ἀλέξανδρος, (ϝ)ελένης: on the prosody, R 4.5 and ↑. — ἠϋκόμοιο: = ἐϋ-, the initial syllable being metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — The entire verse is in apposition to ὅ in 328 (‘but he, godlike Alexandros …’).

126 

 Iliad 3

δῖος: a generic epithetP (1.7n.); with Ἀλέξανδρος also at 352, 403, 7.355, 8.82, 13.766. — ἠϋκόμοιο: a generic epithet of women (1.36n.), of Helen in total 13× in early epic (see iterata). Ἑλένης: The word-beginning ‘makes position’ because of an etymological digamma (attested in somewhat later Spartan inscriptions and in grammarians: West 2007, 231 with n. 115).

330–331 = 11.17  f., 16.131  f., 19.369  f. 330 greaves: on the material (here the greaves, like the episphýria mentioned in the next line, are to be thought of as made of metal) and the archaeological evidence, 1.17n.; Franz 2002, 62  f. 331 ≈ 18.459. — with silver fastenings: It is uncertain what part of the armor is referred to with the technical term episphýria (epi-sphýrion, ‘on the ankle’). The sense ‘ankle guards’ appears obvious; but corresponding finds of (bronze) ankle plates are post-Homeric, while the function of a Mycenaean one is disputed (Jarva 1995, 100–105). Given the material used (metal: ‘of silver’), it is difficult to imagine that the term indicates either the pads shown on late Archaic vases at the lower, inner edge of the greaves to protect the skin (Hemelrijk 1984, 132 with n. 271; considered by Jarva loc. cit.) or the ankle bands used to fasten leather gaiters (von Bothmer 1989, 68); at the same time, the reference in the word to ankles does not fit with metal trim on leather greaves (Lorimer 1950, 253; Catling 1977a, 160). At any rate, it is clear that the precious, flexible silver is unsuitable for protective armor and is likely an instance of epic exaggeration to indicate luxury (Franz 2002, 62  f.; but the specification of the material may simply refer to silver buttons used for attaching the lining [suggestion from Stucky]). ἀραρυίας: likely ‘provided with’ (LfgrE s.v. ἀραρίσκω 1182.28  ff.), which might also refer to separate ankle guards attached to the greaves (Yalouris 1960, 59 n. 38); but the meaning ‘suiting, adapted to’ cannot be excluded (Jarva 1995, 105, with archaeological evidence for ways in which leg and ankle guards were fitted to one another; cf. LfgrE loc. cit. 1178.15  ff. on the original meaning of ἀραρίσκω).

332–333  V. 332 = 11.19, 16.133, 19.371; ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 124. — the corselet | of Lykaon his brother: A corselet is the armor that protects the upper body. Two types are described in the Iliad: a full metal corselet, as here (Paris is wearing clothing underneath: 358), and a composite corselet (made from several layers of linen, reinforced with metal plates and plaited leather bands as needed; cf. the linen armor at 2.529, 2.830). The latter cannot be detected with certainty in the archaeological record; the metal type, on the other hand, is documented

330 πρῶτα: adv., ‘first of all’. — κνήμῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 332 στήθεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3; on the pl., R 18.2.

Commentary 

 127

in the bronze corselet from Argos dated to the Homeric period. The chest and back pieces flare toward the bottom, likely to allow room for evasive movements as mentioned at 360 (see ad loc.). Bibliography: Catling 1977, 74–118; Franz 2002, 58–61; on linen armor specifically, Aldrete et al. 2013. – On Lykaon, whose death is described in Book 21, CH 12. – The unheroic, effeminate Paris went to war as an archer dressed in a pretty panther skin (17n.); he did not bring a corselet, which he now requires for close combat (Krischer 1998, 83). That he borrows a corselet here probably symbolizes a change of role: Paris no longer appears as an archer but as a close combat fighter (cf. 18–20n.; Edwards 1987, 72, 194). But wearing the armor of another man does not increase one’s own strength in combat, as Patroklos and Hektor discover later on (16.830  ff., 17.201–208; Bergold 1977, 107; Baltes [1987] 2005, 281). At any rate, the armor is of no use to either Paris (358) or Lykaon himself, who will eventually be killed by Achilleus without helmet, shield or lance (21.34–135). Lykaon’s subsequent fate is perhaps alluded to here (Bergold loc. cit. 107  f.), and his absence on Lemnos is supposed to explain why his armor in particular is borrowed (Kullmann [1965] 1992, 190; Lykaon’s capture by Achilleus and sale on Lemnos are mentioned at 21.35–48/21.76–79 and in the Cypria [Proclus, Chrest. § 11 West]; Kullmann loc. cit. takes this as evidence for a pre-Homeric myth of Lykaon); but the real reason is mentioned in the story: Lykaon’s corselet fits. Λυκάονος: on the possible derivation of the name from a Luwian ethnic (‘one from Lukka’), Granata 2013, 21  f. — ἥρμοσε: with an intrans. sense (‘fit’), as at 17.210 and 19.385, ‘since it is stressed each time that someone else’s armor, or new armor, «fits», which is not a given’ (LfgrE s.v. ἁρμόζω 1321.31  ff., transl.).

334 = 2.45, 16.135, 19.372; ≈ 11.29, Od. 8.416; 1st VH = Il. 5.738. — Across his shoulders: Sword and shield are hung with straps from the right and left shoulder, respectively (2.45n.). — sword: 18n. — with the nails of silver: These secure the fittings of the hilt to the blade and are made from more durable metal with silver plating; details: Foltiny 1980, 237 with fig. 46 a, b; 2.45n., also on the epithet in the VE formula (see iterata; elsewhere 3× Il., 3× Od.). 335 = 16.136, 19.373; 2nd VH = 18.478, 18.609, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 319; from caesura C 1 on = Il. 22.307; ≈ 11.10, Od. 3.322, h.Ap. 401. — σάκος: may originally have denoted the long shield only (on the two Homeric shield types, 2.388–389n.) but developed into a general term for shield, like ἀσπίς, which is used for the same object at 356  f. and explicitly described as ‘the same on all sides’, i.e. ‘round’ (347n.) (LfgrE s.v. ἀσπίς 1427.26  ff.). Although the words are occasionally substituted metri gratia for one another, ἀσπίς and σάκος do

333 οἷο: = 3rd pers. possessive pronoun (R 14.4).

128 

 Iliad 3

not yet appear to be synonymous (LfgrE s.v. σάκος 65.21  ff.): notably, Trojan shields are never called σάκος except at 4.113 and in the formulaic verse here; this may hint at specific contemporary shield types in the Troad (LfgrE s.v. ἀσπίς 1428.67  ff.; cf. s.v. σάκος 65.47  ff./53). The passage may also be meant to heroize the Greeks in particular (LfgrE s.v. ἀσπίς 1427.38  f., transl.: ‘σάκος is both more poetic and more heroic’; Schmidt 2006, 441). 336–337 = 15.480  f., 16.137  f., Od. 22.123  f. 336 = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 136; ≈ Il. 5.743, 10.335, 11.41, h.Hom. 6.7; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 14.276. — κυνέην: 316n.

337 = 11.42. — horse-hair crest: A horse-hair crest attached to the top of the helmet by means of a socket (Borchhardt 1972, 143–147; 1977a, 57; Franz 2002, 56; cf. 2.1–2a n.) is a status symbol, since only the elite could afford (chariot) horses, and also provides some protection against sword blows from above (Borchhardt 1977a, 58, 73  f.; Franz loc. cit.). — and the plumes nodded terribly above it: The plume ‘made the warriors appear […] taller and more impressive’ and thus contributed to the ‘fearsome appearance of the heroes’, as described e.g. in Hektor’s encounter with his young son (6.466–470): Franz loc. cit., transl. 338 = Od. 17.4; ≈ Il. 16.139; 1st VH = 10.135, 14.12, 15.482, Od. 1.99, 15.551, 20.127; ≈ Il. 11.43, Od. 22.125, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 135. — spear: Paris has set his pair of spears aside and now equips himself with a single long lance (Kirk; cf. 18n.). εἵλετο: ‘The middle indicates that the process is significant for the subject (as the most distinguished of attack weapons, the lance is, as it were, the proper attribute of men of fighting age)’: LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 356.73  ff., transl. — ἄλκιμον: formulaic (see iterata), transferred from the warrior to his weapon. — οἱ: to be understood as dat. or, because of its position immediately before παλάμηφιν, as gen. (possessive), similarly 9.413 ὤλετο μέν μοι νόστος, 12.174, etc. On the use of μοι, τοι, σοι, οἱ as gen. or dat., G 81, Schw. 2.189; 1.37n. (with further bibliography).

339 1st VH ≈ 10.25. — In the same way … Menelaos put on his armor: Like the others (114), he had laid his weapons down. His armor is all described in a single verse, since repetition would have been tedious and arming scenes allow no variation other than additions (Arend 1933, 81; Russo [1968] 1979, 411). – The three additional lines in P.Hib. 40 portray Menelaos’ arming in an

336 κρατί: dat. of κάρη ‘head’. — ἐπ’ … ἔθηκεν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. 337 δεινόν: adverbial, ‘terribly’. 338 ὅ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — παλάμηφιν: on the declension, R 11.4. — ἀρήρει: plpf. of ἀραρίσκω, ‘fitted’. 339 ὣς … αὔτως: ‘in just the same way, likewise’.

Commentary 

 129

impossible sequence and should be understood as rhapsodic additions (West 1967, 56; Kirk). ὣς δ’ αὔτως: likewise at 9.195, Od. 3.64, 20.238, 21.203, 22.114, 24.409 to summarize an action very similar to an earlier one (de Jong on Od. 3.64). — ἀρήϊος: ‘associated with Ares, warlike’ (2.698n.); used in total 9× of Menelaos, here perhaps to be understood with a pregnant sense as indicating his superiority in battle (in 329, Paris was designated merely as δῖος … Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο): Eust. 420.30  ff. — ἔντε’ ἔδυνεν: ἔντε(α) is a metrical variant for τεύχεα, similarly 17.186 ἔντεα δύω at VE (LfgrE s.v. ἔντος).

340–382 The confrontation between Menelaos and Paris takes place in accord with the themeP ‘duel’, which can contain the following elements: (1) the opponents (A [here Paris] and B [Menelaos]) approach one another and (2) exchange challenges, (3) a first round of battle, conducted with lances; often comprised of (3a) a miss by A: either (α) the lance becomes stuck in the ground, or (β) it is deflected by the opponent’s shield or armor, the tip is bent or the lance fails to penetrate all the way to the skin, or (γ) B dodges the throw, while C (B’s charioteer or horse or an uninvolved third party) is hit in his place, (3b) anger at the missed throw, (3c) counter-attack (successful, or another miss) by B; if A is still alive: (4) a second round of battle, generally conducted with different weapons (swords, stones, etc.); usually an immediate victory by A or a second failed attack by A and a successful counter-attack by B (here, by contrast, there is no further action by A, but two unsuccessful attacks and anger on the part of B); (5) the final words of the dying man, (6) a vaunting speech by the victor, (7) extraction of the lance from the corpse, (8) stripping the defeated opponent. – Details vary greatly depending on context; most duels (on which in general, 15–37n.) contain only elements (1) and (3); the formal duels portrayed here and in Book 7, as well as the quasi-formal duel between Hektor and Achilleus in Book 22, show the most complex sequences; further examples at 15–37n. (also on the narrator’s marked tendency to have Achaians win duels); Stoevesandt 2004, 168–171; on Book 7 and Book 22, ibid. 210, 222  f. – Bibliography: Fenik 1968, passim, especially 11, 87  f., 145  f., 217; Tsagarakis 1982, 104–118, with numerous examples of variants; a comparison with the similar sequence of events in duels in Germanic epic poetry in Udwin 1999, 66. The present duel as a whole comprises four attempts at attack, interrupted by Menelaos’ two prayers (351–354, 365–368): two lance throws, first by Paris (346–349a, element [3a]), then by Menelaos (349b–360, [3c]), Menelaos’ sword blow and grasping at Paris’ helmet (361–368/369–378, [4]). Menelaos thus gets ever closer to Paris, but at the same time finds that the latter is increasingly fortunate in evading him (intensification: the hero avoids injury, his opponent’s weapon is destroyed, he himself is carried away): Willenbrock (1944) 1969, 53; Bergold 1977, 115 n. 1; Edwards 1987, 195. Paris is proactive only at the very beginning

130 

 Iliad 3

and quickly becomes a mere object: ‘The advantage conferred by the lot is of no use, since his initial spear throw that opens the duel is considerably weaker than his opponent’s. […] the spear stuck in his armor clearly hampers his actions to the point that he offers no further resistance’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 181, transl.). He accordingly does not draw his sword (328–338n.; Kirk on 362–4). Paris himself subsequently admits his defeat (439): Bernsdorff 1992, 29. He is thus no match even for Menelaos, himself merely a mediocre fighter (7.109  ff., 17.588). Paris survives only because of divine intervention, which comes without him praying for it, whereas his opponent’s prayers go unheeded. In the second formal duel, a Trojan is also defeated by his Greek opponent; but Paris’ brother Hektor perseveres longer against Aias (Stoevesandt loc. cit. 212). A detailed comparison of the two duels in Bergold loc. cit. 191  f.; Duban 1981, 107–109; Kirk on 355–60. 340 = 23.813. ‘Both passages [the reference is also to 342 ≈ 23.815] seem derived from a similar oral prototype’ (Kirk on 342). ἑκάτερθεν ὁμίλου: ‘«on both sides of the crowd of warriors», each within his own army’ (AH, transl.). ἑκάτερθεν is a locative adv. like ἔνερθεν, ὕπερθεν, with gen. as at 23.329, 23.813, etc. (LfgrE). — θωρήχθησαν: on the sense ‘arm oneself’, see 1.226n. and cf. 2.11n.

341 = 266 (see ad loc.). Since the duelists represent the two armies, the effect on the spectators is important; they are therefore mentioned explicitly here and at 343 (otherwise, the narrator could have used the formulaic verse 6.120 [see ad loc.]: Kirk). 342 ≈ 23.815; 1st VH ≈ 11.37, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 160; 2nd VH = 4.79; ≈ 24.482, ‘Hes.’ fr. 75.8 M.-W., cf. Od. 3.372 as well as 3.123, 4.75, 4.142, 6.161, 8.384. — looking terror at each other; and amazement seized the beholders: The arming scene ‘reveals […] the extent to which ménos [‘fierceness’] and confidence in victory begin to fill the minds of both fighters, reflecting the vital significance of the duel; after the arming, this is further articulated stylistically via facial expressions […] and threatening gestures […] (342, 345)’: Patzer 1996, 113, transl. Paris and Menelaos are depicted in terms of their effect on the tense spectators (the secondary focalisationP is emphasized by the narrator), which – as in a theater – heightens the interest of the actual audience as well (suggestion by Bierl; in general on re-actualization, NTHS 14).

341 = 266 (see ad loc.). 342 δεινόν: adverbial (with δερκόμενοι). — εἰσορόωντας: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

Commentary 

 131

δερκόμενοι: δέρκεσθαι denotes a look, sinister and often threatening, that others perceive (cf. 33n. on δράκων; Snell [1939] 1960, 2  f.; Rakoczy 1996, 95). — θάμβος: the response to an unexpected or sinister apparition, ranging from surprise and bafflement to incredulous amazement or paralysis and silence following a shock: ‘sudden cessation of word and motion’ (Lateiner 1995, 45). Here, the spectators are spellbound by the fighters’ aggression, since the confrontation will determine the future of them all. — ἔχεν: on the notion that an emotion grips and holds characters from outside, 1.387n.

343 = 4.80; ≈ 3.127, 3.131, 3.251; from caesura A 4 on ≈ 3.86, 3.156, 7.67; 2nd VH ≈ 1.17, 2.331, 3.370, 3.377, 19.74. — breakers of horses: 127n. — strong-greaved: 86n. 344 in the measured space: 314–317n. 345 1st VH ≈ 5.563. — shaking their spearshafts: a threatening gesture, as at 18  f., likewise at 5.563, 13.583, 22.133 (van Wees 1996, 75 n. 13). κοτέοντε: ‘subordinate to στήτην σείοντε’ (Faesi, transl.). κοτέω denotes a lasting aversion (2.222b–223n.), here the fierceness the opponents direct at one another.

346 2nd VH = 10× Il., 2× Od. — First of the two: according to the drawing of lots (316  f., 325). δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: a VE formula (20× Il., 4× Od.); also at 6.126 after caesura B 1; a variant at Od. 22.97 (ἔγχος … δολιχόσκιον). – The epithet (a metrical variant of simple δολιχός ‘long’: 4.533, etc.) is usually understood ‘casting a long shadow’ (with the final element related to σκιά); other interpretations, according to which the final element contains a word for ‘ash/beech tree; shaft from ash/beech wood’ (ὀξύα, Old High Germ. asc; see LfgrE with bibliography), are linguistically rather unconvincing (Frisk and DELG s.vv. δολιχός and σκιά; Kirk on 346–7; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 22.95). 347 ≈ 356, 7.250, 17.517, 20.274; to caesura C 2 ≈ 5.281; 2nd VH = 11.434, 13.160, 17.43, 23.818. — ἀσπίδα πάντοσ’ ἐΐσην: an inflectible 2nd VH formula (in total 15× Il.). πάντοσ’ ἐΐση is the most common epithet for shields and means ‘equal in all directions’, i.e. ‘round’ (LfgrE s.v. ἶσος 1230.10  ff.; ἀσπίς originally likely referred specifically to the round shield in contrast to the σάκος [335n.]: LfgrE s.v. ἀσπίς 1428.21  ff.). On ἐΐση as an epic alternative to ἶσος, 1.306n.    348 = 7.259, 17.44; 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 415. — ἔρρηξεν: ‘penetrated’ (LfgrE s.v. ῥήγνυμι 23.33  ff.). — χαλκός: in contrast to αἰχμή (‘tip’), the word denotes either the weapon as a whole (as in the next line, etc.; LfgrE s.v. χαλκός 1126.30  ff.; cf. Trümpy 1950, 56) or in

344 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — στήτην: 3rd dual aor. ind. of ἵσταμαι (R 18.1). — διαμετρητῷ ἐνί: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (diametrētṓy ení), M 12.2. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 345 σείοντ(ε) … κοτέοντε: nom. dual pres. part. (R 18.1). 347 Ἀτρείδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἐΐσην: = ἴσην. 348 ἔρρηξεν: sc. ἀσπίδα. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), referring to χαλκός.

132 

 Iliad 3

any case the entire bronze head (the tip with the socket; Kirk: ‘spear-head’ as opposed to ‘point’). The reading χαλκόν (see app. crit.) is to be rejected, largely because χαλκός nowhere else refers to a shield (at 7.267 the shield boss is meant): Bergold 1977, 201. — δέ: adversative or explanatory (Race 1999/2000, 206). 349 = 17.45; 2nd VH ≈ 5.17, 16.479. — ἀσπίδ’ ἔνι: an example of the rare elision of -ι, predominantly of the dat. sing. ending (G 30; van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 75–77; Guilleux 2001; cf. app. crit.). — κρατερῇ: here ‘unyielding, hard’ (of a shield also at 17.45, as well as h.Merc. 354 of the ground, h.Ap. 358 of an arrow): LfgrE s.v. 1524.47  ff. — ὤρνυτο: ‘rushed toward’ (LfgrE s.v. 800.38  ff.) or, as at 267, ‘rose’ (i.e. he straightened up to throw the lance: AH; Schadewaldt; Willcock: ‘He had been crouching in a defensive position’).

350–355a On the type-sceneP ‘prayer’, see 1.37–42n.; included here are elements (2) verb of praying, (5) invocation of the deity, (7) plea, (8) formulaic conclusion. Like the crowd (322), Menelaos fervently prays for Paris’ death, but he does so explicitly. He is concerned less with the end of the war than with personal revenge for the injustice he suffered (351  f.), which he believes he is finally about to achieve (cf. 28b). Menelaos is morally superior to Paris; the poet thus has him alone pray before his attack, and recalls Helen’s abduction in an external analepsisP, as at 13.626  f. This is not only a personal insult, but – since Menelaos hosted Paris – a fundamental violation of guest-friendship (on the significance of which, 207n.). Menelaos, who appears particularly sensitive to violations of laws elsewhere as well (cf. 23.570–585), therefore appeals to Zeus Xeinios to take exemplary revenge on the transgression (353  f.; on Zeus as guardian of hospitality, 103–104n.; on the duel as a trial by ordeal, 318– 324a n.). But since Zeus is bound by his promise to Thetis, he cannot fulfill either this prayer or the other three in the same scene (297–302n.). In any case, the narrator makes no reference to a divine response and thus maintains suspense. On this prayer, Bergold 1977, 109  f.; Kirk on 351–4; Rousseau 1990, 344  ff.; Morrison 1992, 16; Stoevesandt 2004, 313 n. 942; on the violation of guest-friendship, Herman 1987, 121. 350 = 17.46. — ἐπευξάμενος: complexive (i.e. summarizing) aor.; ‘with his choice of tense, the poet signals that the prayer he relates in four lines is confined to the thought of a single moment for Menelaos’ (AH, transl.). Use of only the participle of a verb of speaking for a speech introduction occurs elsewhere in Homer only at 4.5  f., 5.528, 21.530, 24.237b–238 (Fingerle 1939, 308–324 [collection of passages for all introductory formulae], esp. 316  f., 319–321).

349 κρατερῇ. ὅ: on the prosody, R 5.6. — κρατερῇ: on the -ῇ after -ρ-, R 2.

Commentary 

 133

351 2nd VH from caesura C 1 on ≈ Hes. Op. 708. — ἄνα: an old voc. (loss of -κτ as in the case of γάλα from γάλακτος), likewise at VB Ζεῦ ἄνα 16.233, Od. 17.354, ὦ ἄνα h.Ap. 179, 526; an alternative to ἄναξ (e.g. 2.434, 9.276, 16.514, etc.): Schw. 1.409; LfgrE s.v. 782.8  ff. On ἄναξ as a divine title, 2.102n. — τείσασθαι: on the spelling with -ει-, 28n. — πρότερος: 299n. — ἔοργεν: on the stative-confective perfect, Schw. 2.263; Chantr. 2.198  f.; Ruijgh (1991) 1996, 669. 352 1st VH = 13.766; ≈ 329, 7.355, 8.82. — Aristarchus read δαμῆναι instead of δάμασσον and further suggested athetizing the verse, since it merely repeats the content of the preceding one, and since Menelaos could not have referred to his opponent as δῖος (West, app. crit.; schol. A). But the line is a transition from a personal plea (351–352a) to a general request (352b–354), and the bifurcation of the prayer is marked by a change in construction (the emphatic imper. δάμασσον instead of the expected δαμῆναι is parallel to τείσασθαι); δῖος is purely conventional (329n.). There is thus no reason to alter the text (Bergold 1977, 109  f. n. 2). — ὑπὸ χερσί: often in connection with δάμνημι (2.860n.); on ὑπό + dat. meaning ‘under the influence of’ (≈ instrumental), see 2.374n.

353 ≈ 7.87. — On thoughts of posterity, cf. 287n. 354 ≈ Od. 15.55. — φιλότητα παράσχῃ: φιλότης in this context is ‘all the benefits that the ties of friendship oblige to offer to a guest’ (Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 29, transl.). 355 = 5.280, 7.244, 11.349, 17.516, 22.273, 22.289; ≈ 20.438, Od. 24.519, 24.522; 2nd VH = Il. 3.346, 7.249. — ἦ ῥα, καί: 310n.

356–360 = 7.250–254. 356 = 7.250; ≈ 347 (see ad loc.), 17.517, 20.274; to caesura C 2 ≈ 5.281; 2nd VH = 11.434, 13.160, 17.43, 23.818. 357 = 7.251, 11.435. — glittering: The normal base material for shields is leather; a shield with metal fittings is probably meant here, as at 13.406, 16.636, etc. (Borchhardt 1977, 2). διά: The position of διά at VB with metrical lengthening of iota is unusual (4× Il.: here and iterata, as well as 4.135) and likely rhetorically motivated: via their position at VB, the prepositional phrases here and in the following verse are meant to correspond (Wyatt 1969, 215–217, with further discussion). — ὄβριμον ἔγχος: a VE formula (in to-

351 Ζεῦ (ϝ)άνα: on the prosody, R 4.4. — δὸς τείσασθαι, ὅ: = δὸς ⟨ἐμὲ⟩ (subj. acc.) τείσασθαι ⟨τοῦτον⟩, ὅς. On ὅ = ὅς, R 14.5. — ἔοργεν: perf. of ἔρδω. 352 ἐμῇς: on the declension, R 11.1. — δάμασσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 353 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — ἐρρίγησι: 3rd sing. perf. subjunc. (R 16.3). 354 ὅ: = ὅς (351n.). — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 355 ἦ: 3rd sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἀμπεπαλών: reduplicated aor. of ἀναπάλλω; on ἀμ = ἀνά (apocope and assimilation), R 20.1. 356 ≈ 347 (see ad loc.). 357 διά: on the prosody, ↑.

134 

 Iliad 3

tal 13× Il.; before caesura B 2 ‘Hes.’ Sc. 135). The etymology of the epithet ὄβριμος is uncertain (possibly connected with βριαρός; rejected by Beekes). The sense is ‘strong, mighty’ (probably linking size, mass and power); used predominantly with ἔγχος and Ἄρης (LfgrE s.v. ὄβριμος 484.33  ff., 485.62  ff.; Frisk). 358 = 4.136, 7.252, 11.436. — πολυδαιδάλου: ‘very skillfully wrought, with much ornament’; on the meaning and etymology of δαίδαλον ‘piece of clever workmanship, ornament’, 19.13n.; LfgrE. 359 = 7.253. — ἀντικρύ: from ἀντί, otherwise uncertain (LfgrE), ‘straight on’; to be taken with παραί, hence with a prep., as at 4.481, 5.67 etc.: ‘straight past the flank’ (AH, transl.). — παραί: for reading this rather than παρά, West 1998, XXX. — διάμησε: ‘penetrated’ or ‘tore through’. διαμάω (with short α) occurs only here and at 7.253, and in a later imitation at Apoll. Rhod. 4.374; whether it represents a compound of ἀμάω (with long α) ‘reap’ (with a typical addition of a pyrrhic preposition: Führer 1989, 149 with n. 19) or derives from an IE root *i̯ām- ‘dig (into)’ is uncertain (LfgrE s.v. διαμάω and ἀμάω; DELG s.v. ἀμάω; Rengakos 1993, 99; Tucker 1990, 213). — χιτῶνα: an item of clothing worn beneath the armor (likely from fine fabric, possibly reinforced with bronze: 1.371n. with bibliography).

360 = 7.254; 2nd VH = 11.360; ≈ 14.462. — yet he bent away to one side …: The notion that someone whose armor has been pierced by a projectile that has also damaged the chiton can still bend to the side is unrealistic. But the poet’s idea is clearly that Paris quickly twisted sideways while the missile was being thrown; the chiton should not be thought of as tight-fitting (Spengel 1886, 714; Faesi; also considered by Kirk on 355–60). The verse represents an element of the themeP ‘duel’ (340–382n.: 3aβ, ‘a missile penetrates several layers of armor and is finally stopped before inflicting fatal injuries’; so too 4.132–139, 7.249– 254, 11.434–440: Fenik 1968, 102–104; similarly Friedrich [1956] 2003, 79–82; on such descriptions in general, Richardson 1990, 125). The scene of a formal duel here and in Book 7 involves variation and expansion, resulting in a vivid, dramatic account of events (Kirk loc. cit.). ἐκλίνθη: anterior to ἦλθε, ἠρήρειστο, διάμησε (357–359): ‘he had twisted himself’; likewise 4.527 βάλε ‘he had hit’; further examples of the common use of the aor. to refer to prior action at 1.484, 1.608, 2.513, Od. 18.5 (Spengel 1886, 714; Schw. 2.299). — κῆρα μέλαιναν: a VE formula (2.859n.); on the sense, 32n. ἀλεύατο: *ἀλέϝομαι > ἀλέομαι and ἀλεύομαι. Aor. in -ευα, likely a reconstructed root aor. like ἔχευα (10n.; Risch 249).

358 ἠρήρειστο: plpf. of ἐρείδομαι, ‘had forced itself, pushed’. 359 παραί: = παρά (R 20.1). 360 ὅ: Paris; on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17.

Commentary 

 135

361 ≈ 13.610; 1st VH to caesura C 1 = 271, 19.252. — with the silver nails: 334n. 362 ἀνασχόμενος: absolute, ‘striking out’, as at Od. 14.425, 18.95 (AH; Rengakos 1993, 153); differently LfgrE s.v. ἔχω 847.47  f.: sc. ξίφος. — φάλον: The sense has been disputed since antiquity (doxography: Gröschel 1986, 45–53; Lebessi 1992, 1  f.; LfgrE); φάλοι are most likely metal plates used to reinforce the front sections of leather helmets (less frequently at front and back or on all four sides: κυνέη/κόρυς ἀμφίφαλος [5.743, 11.41] and τετράφαλος [12.384, 22.314  f.]): thus Lebessi loc. cit. 3–10 (based on examination of Kretan warrior figurines from the 12th to 7th cent. BC, which regularly feature circular disks at the front of the helmet); also conceivable are metal guards to protect the top of the head (Gröschel loc. cit. 47–54). — αὐτῇ: refers to κόρυς; thus Aristarchus (see app. crit.). Most mss., on the other hand, have αὐτῷ (referring to φάλον). ‘The difference of nuance is minimal’ (Kirk).

363 1st VH = Od. 9.71; 2nd VH from caesura C 2 on = Il. 4.493, 8.329, 15.421, 15.465, Od. 14.31, 14.34, 22.17. — broken: in and of itself a common occurrence, described also at 16.339; it is likely the repeated failure of his attacks that enrages Menelaos (367  f.). τριχθά τε καὶ τετραχθὰ διατρυφέν: onomatopoetic like Od. 9.71 (tearing apart a sail). To denote an extreme, a base number, here three, is occasionally first mentioned and then exceeded (Göbel 1933, 16, with further examples such as Od. 5.306; Fehling 1969, 253; cf. 1.128n.).

364–368 Menelaos’ second address to Zeus contains two elements of the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n.), namely (1) gesture of prayer (364b) and (5) invocation of the deity (365), and is the fourth in a series of prayers (297–302n.). At the same time, the address is marked as a typical complaint, comprised of elements (1) speech introduction (364), (2) address (365a), (4) description of the circumstances leading to the complaint (365b–368); elements 3 (rhetorical question) and 5 (request or decision) are missing; cf. the list of elements in Fingerle 1939, 177. Similar complaints occur at e.g. 1.352–356, 8.236–244, 12.164–172, 21.272–283, Od. 20.201–225 (on these in general, Fingerle loc. cit. 173–183; Lateiner 1997, 251). Menelaos’ complaint is passionate (the verb oimṓzō 364 means ‘cry out from emotional pain’: LfgrE s.v.); in his immeasurable disappointment over his repeated inability to revenge himself on Paris (cf. 28  ff.), he blames Zeus, to whom he had called for help in 351–354, in an invective (on such invectives directed at gods, cf. 2.111–115n.), although naturally without suspecting what Zeus’ plan is (302n.): Bergold 1977, 111  f.

361 δὲ (ϝ)ερυσσάμενος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐρυσσάμενος: aor. of ἐρύω ‘draw’, mid.: his own sword; on -σσ-, R 9.1. 363 διατρυφέν: aor. pass. part. of διαθρύπτω, referring to ξίφος (361).

136 

 Iliad 3

364 ≈ 21.272; 2nd VH = 7.178, 7.201, 19.257; ≈ 5.867; from caesura C 2 on = Hes. Th. 746, ≈ Th. 679. — lifted his eyes to the wide sky: like raising one’s hands (275), a common pose for prayer, employed to establish contact with the god (cf. 7.177  f./200  f., 19.257, 24.307; Beckmann 1932, 71; Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 126– 128 with n. 7). On the sky as where the gods are located, LfgrE s.v. οὐρανός 872.35  ff. and 873.53  ff. οὐρανὸν εὐρύν: an inflectible VE formula (acc. 6× Il., 1× Od., 1× Hes.: see iterata; nom. 1× Hes.). εὐρύς here has the connotation ‘opening wide (for the individual praying)’ (Vivante 1982, 82). 365 = Od. 20.201; ≈ Il. 23.439. — Ζεῦ πάτερ: on the VB formula and the address, 1.503n., 2.412n. — ὀλοώτερος: ὀλοός is usually attested in character languageP; the comparative is used almost exclusively to characterize persons (LfgrE s.v. 656.60  f.). 366 ἦ τ(ε): ‘and indeed, and yet’ (56n.). — ἐφάμην: on the sense ‘thought, deemed’, 28n. Similarly Asios in his accusation of Zeus at 12.165: the expression of disappointment regarding unfulfilled expectations turns into an accusation (cf. also 17.171). Occasionally the realization is followed by another fruitless attempt, as here (5.190/240, 15.251/258– 270, 22.298/304–308): Kelly 2007, 351  f. — τείσασθαι: picks up τείσασθαι from 351. On the aor., 28n. 367 ἐκ: may be connected with ἠΐχθη (tmesis) or with παλάμηφιν in the next line (Kirk on 368; Hooker on 365–368). 368 οὐδ’ ἐδάμασσα: This reading (see app. crit.) recalls the prayer for victory (352 δάμασσον) and summarizes the failed attacks with lance and sword (Faesi). The better attested variant οὐδ’ ἔβαλόν μιν contradicts the fact that Menelaos did in fact hit his opponent (356), even if not fatally, and only takes into account the attempt with the lance (AH, Anh. ad loc.; Faesi). 369 VB ≈ 24.440, 24.621; 2nd VH ≈ 4.459, 6.9. — ἦ, καί: 292n. — ἱπποδασείης: ‘with a thick horsehair plume’, epithet of κόρυς (7× Il.) and κυνέη (2× Od.) (LfgrE s.v.; 337n.).

370 2nd VH = 377, 5.264, 5.324, 13.401, Od. 11.509, 20.146. — dragged him away: The reasons for this are uncertain (perhaps simply an attempt to kill; schol. bT ad loc.: was Paris being forced to leave the marked-off battlefield, thus risking the death penalty? or was he meant to be subsequently captured?); but dragging him away likely recalls scenes in which fallen combatants are dragged

365 σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1). 366 ἦ: ‘in fact’ (R 24.4). — κακότητος: ‘for his wickedness’, gen. of respect. 367 ἄγη: aor. pass. of ἄγνυμι. 368 ἠΐχθη: aor. pass. of ἀΐσσω (with no difference in meaning from the act.). — παλάμηφιν: gen. sing. (R 11.4). 369 κόρυθος λάβεν: sc. Ἀλέξανδρον; κόρυθος is a partitive gen. — ἱπποδασείης: on -η- after -ι-, R 2.

Commentary 

 137

off to be despoiled of their armor (4.465  f., 17.286  f., 17.273–399) or for the sake of humiliation, as when Achilleus drags Hektor (22.395–404): Menelaos drags Paris off like a corpse to demonstrate his victory (Bergold 1977, 112; on the comparison to Hektor, Baltes [1987] 2005, 281  f.; on reaching for the helmet of a doomed opponent in Geometric and early Archaic battle images, Buchholz 2010, 64). — spun him about: The Gr. part. epistrépsas can be understood as intransitive (Menelaos has his back or side toward the Greek army and turns himself around) or transitive (Menelaos yanks his opponent around) (West 1967, 57). But the image of the Greek grabbing the Trojan by his helmet plume and pulling him about like a horse on a rein is more vivid (LfgrE s.v. στρέφω 241.3  ff.; stréphō frequently means ‘steer [horses]’: LfgrE loc. cit. 238.44  ff.). ἐϋκνήμιδας ᾿Αχαιούς: 86n. 371 πολύκεστος: Homeric hapaxP, ‘richly decorated with punched/incised patterns’. Similarly, Aphrodite’s magic strap is called a κεστὸς ἱμάς at 14.214; the adj. may allude to Paris’ softness and vanity and thus to his connection to Aphrodite (LfgrE). — ἱμάς: from IE *seh2(i̯)- ‘tie, bind’ (Germ. ‘Seil’; doubts in Beekes): ‘strap’, here ‘chin-strap’ to keep the helmet in place, at 372 called ὀχεύς; made from cowhide (375 βοός, similarly e.g. 22.397b): LfgrE; Frisk; for details of the attachment to the helmet, Franz 2002, 57. — ἁπαλὴν ὑπὸ δειρήν: a VE formula, ≈ 13.202, 18.177, where ἁπαλός ‘tender’ is similarly used in the sense ‘easily injured’ (LfgrE s.v. ἁπαλός). ὑπό ‘underneath’, with an acc. of extent as perhaps at 19.259 (see ad loc.). 372 ὑπ’ ἀνθερεῶνος: ‘beneath the chin’, as at 1.501 (Schw. 2.527). — τρυφαλείης: τρυφάλεια ‘helmet’ is used as a metrical variant of κόρυς and κυνέη (316n.); substantival adj., archaic fem. form of τετράφαλος ‘provided with four φάλοι’ (sc. κόρυς/κυνέη); on the sense of φάλοι, 362n. At 12.384, 22.314  f., κυνέη/κόρυς τετράφαλος is used in the same sense (Frisk; Risch 137, 221; Borchhardt 1977a, 73).

373–382 The ‘if-not’ situationP emphasizes the sudden change that is crucial for everything that follows. The narrator highlights the enormous opportunity Menelaos has missed as a result of divine intervention: since he is patently superior to his opponent (cf. 21–28, 30–37, 346–368), he would doubtless have defeated him under normal circumstances – but both the terms of the myth and the demands of the narrative (Thetis’ plea, see 302n.) make this impossible. At the same time, the narrative pattern serves to heighten suspense: like Apollo’s action at 20.443  f., although in contrast to other rescue scenes (e.g. at 20.300–308), Aphrodite’s intervention is unanticipated, so the likelihood of

371 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 372 ὅς (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ὀχεὺς τέτατο: ‘was drawn tight as a fastening’ (τέτατο from τείνω).

138 

 Iliad 3

Menelaos’ victory is maintained until the last moment (Morrison 1992, 56; on ‘if-not’ situations in general, 2.155–156n.; Grethlein 2006, 281  f.; on the function of the present scene, de Jong [1987] 2004, 69; Nesselrath 1992, 16–18; Louden 1993, 183–185). But Paris is not the only Trojan dependent on divine assistance; among others, Hektor and Aineias are also rescued (380b–381n.; on the comparison with the Greeks, who never receive this kind of divine support, Stoevesandt 2004, 222). This situation initiates an implicit repetition of the abduction of Helen by Paris (Burkert [1977] 1985, 153  f.) within the framework of the large-scale analepsisP in Books 2–7 (reflection of the war’s prehistory in the action of the Iliad: STR 22; cf. 67–75n., 121–244n.): as before, Aphrodite enables Paris to escape Menelaos (373–382) and has him seduce Helen (383–448): Kullmann 1960, 251; Nicolai 1973, 153; Postlethwaite 2000, 74; on Aphrodite in general, CG 4. – Personal intervention in human actions is ‘normal’ for the gods (see 1.43–52n.; a Phoenician parallel for the rescue of a hero by a deity in West 1997, 211; an Old Persian parallel in West 2007, 484). The ease with which Aphrodite acts (381 rhéia mál’ ‘very easily’) shines an ironic light on the fighters’ exertions (illustrated again by Zeus in 4.7–13; see Reinhardt 1961, 130; Paduano/Mirto on 361–394) and fully strips agency from woman-stealing Paris (Bergold 1977, 115; cf. 340–382n.). 373–374 καί νύ κεν … | εἰ μή: on this common introduction for an ‘if-not’ situationP, see 2.155–156n. 373 = 18.165. — νυ: here with ‘temporal force’ (Ruijgh 1957, 59, transl.; but cf. 164n.). — κεν εἴρυσσεν: ‘aor., the completion of ἕλκε 370: «would have dragged (across)»’ (AH, transl.). — ἄσπετον ἤρετο κῦδος: ἤρετο is a thematic aor. of ἄρνυμαι ‘gain’. ἤρατο, transmitted in all mss. (see app. crit.), is likely based on the influence of the aor. of ἀείρω (Wackernagel 1916, 61; Chantr. 1.387). κῦδος occasionally denotes an individual’s exhilaration after a successful accomplishment, usually martial, and the corresponding sense of superiority (LfgrE s.v. 1576.3  ff.; Gruber 1963, 79–82; Latacz 1966, 131; in general, 1.122n.; of gods, 1.405n.). The gods may support obtaining κῦδος, which is fundamental to the Homeric heroic ideal (15.602, 19.204, Od. 22.253), but may also thwart this, as here (likewise 18.165, 21.596, similarly εὖχος ἀπηύρα 15.462): Greindl 1938, 41–51. In accord with its meaning, κῦδος is generally used in a formulaic manner; here and in the iteratum, the inflectible formula κῦδος ἀρέσθαι (in total 4× Il. in the 1st VH; 11× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ at VE) is expanded with ἄσπετον, the attenuated sense of which (‘unspeakable’ > ‘large’) roughly corresponds to μέγα at 9.303, 22.393 (LfgrE s.v. ἄσπετος 1422.62  ff., 1424.55  ff.; on the etymology of ἄσπετος – generally explained as a verbal adj. derived from the root of ἔσπετε – LfgrE loc. cit. 1422.29  ff.; cf. 2.484n.). On the formula as a whole

373 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).

Commentary 

 139

(κῦδος ἀρέσθαι/ὀρέξῃ/ἔδωκε etc.; εὖχος as a prosodic variant of κῦδος), see Muellner 1976, 108  f.; LfgrE s.v. κῦδος. 374 = 5.312; 1st VH = 5.680, 8.91, 8.132, 20.291, Hes. Th. 838; ≈ Il. 11.343, 15.649; 2nd VH = 5.131, 5.820, 14.193, 14.224, 21.416, 23.185, Od. 8.308, h.Ven. 81, 107, 191; ≈ h.Ap. 195. — εἰ μὴ ἄρ’ ὀξὺ νόησε: a VB formula (see iterata). ὀξὺ νόησε ‘would have paid close attention ⟨and reacted imaginatively⟩’ (LfgrE s.v. νοέω 412.60  f., transl.). — ἄρ(α): ἄρα after εἰ μή ‘underlines the unexpected character of the new event’ (Wakker 1994, 214; similarly Ruijgh 436; in general on the hint of surprise in ἄρα, Denniston 32). — Διὸς θυγάτηρ: formulaic of Aphrodite 8× Il., 1× Od., 3× h.Ven. (see iterata; CG 4); also of the Muses (2.491  f.), Athene (2.548, 4.128b etc.), Ate (19.91), Helen (Od. 4.227), Persephone (Od. 11.217), Artemis (Od. 20.61). On the IE origin of the phrase, 2.491–492n.; West 2007, 186 with n. 73: the formula was perhaps originally used of the goddess of dawn. In contrast to the variant φιλομμειδής (424n.), it is used in non-erotic contexts (Boedeker 1974, 30–32, 36–42; Friedrich 2007, 112; similarly Faulkner on h.Ven. 81).

375 2nd VH = Hes. Op. 541. — of a slaughtered bullock: The ox did not die on its own, e.g. from disease, i.e. it was healthy; its hide is therefore strong (Hes. Op. 541: shoes should be made from such leather): schol. D; Leaf; LfgrE s.v. ἴς 1224.28  ff. 376–378 Capturing the helmet as a trophy symbolizes Menelaos’ victory (cf. 13.578–580: a fallen warrior’s helmet is carried off; 16.793–800: Apollo knocks Patroklos’ helmet to the ground and Hektor picks it up); he is now cheated of victory’s benefits (schol. bT on 375; Friedrich [1956] 2003, 26, 79; Bergold 1977, 113). 376 ἔσπετο: on the unaspirated form, West 1998, XVII. — χειρὶ παχείῃ: a VE formula (13× Il., 5× Od., 1× h.Hom.). παχύς means ‘thick’ as an expression of strength, i.e. ‘sturdy’; elsewhere, χ. π. normally means ‘with a strong hand’ (instrumental), but here is comitative with ἔσπετο: ‘followed the firm grip’ (LfgrE s.v. παχύς 1081.43  ff., 1082.27  ff.): Menelaos does not let go of the helmet. 377 2nd VH = 370 (see ad loc.). — ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς: 86n. 378 1st VH = 19.268; ≈ 7.269, 23.840, Od. 9.538. — ῥῖψ’ ἐπιδινήσας: for parallels, see 19.268n. — ἐρίηρες ἑταῖροι: 47n.

379 ≈ 5.436, 20.442, 21.33; 2nd VH = 20.346, 21.140, 21.170; ≈ Od. 10.295, 10.322.

375 ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — βοὸς (ϝ)ῖφι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἶφι: instrumental (-φι, R 11.4) of (ϝ)ῖς (cf. Lat. vis), ‘with power, strength, force’. — κταμένοιο: gen. sing. (R 11.2) aor. mid. part. (with pass. sense) of κτείνω. 376 κεινή: = κενή ‘empty’; < *κενϝή (R 4.2). 379 αὐτάρ: progressive (R 24.2). — ὅ: Menelaos. — ἄψ: ‘again’. — κατακτάμεναι: aor. act. inf. of κατακτείνω (R 16.4).

140 

 Iliad 3

380a with the bronze spear: Menelaos, like Paris, had equipped himself with a single lance (338  f.), which he threw in 355; where he now obtains a second one is not specified (P.Hib. 19 therefore offers a variant reading with two lances in the arming scene, see app. crit. on 338; West 1967, 55). The explanations offered in schol. A, bT ad loc., followed in some older scholarship, are unsatisfactory both linguistically and in terms of content; the narrator is likely concerned solely with Menelaos’ renewed grim attack, which is futile in the face of divine interference: Bergold 1977, 113–115; Kirk on 379–80. ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ: a VB formula (7× Il.); the epithet refers to the head of the lance (Höckmann 1980, 315).

380b–381 2nd VH of 380 ≈ 20.443. — caught up Paris | … and wrapped him in a thick mist: In a similar manner, the sons of Aktor are made invisible in a fog and rescued by Poseidon (11.752), as Hektor and Agenor are by Apollo (20.443b–444 and 21.597); likewise, Idaios is cloaked in a cloud by Hephaistos (5.23), as Aineias is by Apollo (5.344  f.): AH. In addition, Athene uses fog to remove Odysseus from the view of the Phaiacians and the inhabitants of Ithaca (Od. 7.14  ff. and 13.189  ff.): Kopp 1939, 242; de Jong on Od. 7.14–143. ἐξήρπαξ’ Ἀφροδίτη: an unusual elision of the aor. verbal ending -ε (on this in general, Schw. 1.403; an example from Sappho in Hamm 1957, 39; from Bakchylides in Führer 1976, 195 with n. 195).

381 = 20.444; 2nd VH ≈ 11.752, 21.549, 21.597. — ῥεῖα: like ῥηϊδίως, frequently used to characterize divine actions, particularly in aretalogies; e.g. 16.690 = 17.178, Hes. Op. 5–7 (West on Hes. Th. 90; in general, CG 1). — ὥς τε θεός: with a causal nuance (explaining ῥεῖα): ‘like a goddess, as a goddess, since she is a goddess’; likewise 18.518 ὥς τε θεώ περ (Schw. 2.669; AH). — ἐκάλυψε: emphatic at the beginning of the clause with the sense ‘envelop such that nothing can be seen, remove from view, hide’ (LfgrE s.v. καλύπτω 1316.9  ff., 42  ff.).

382 ≈ 6.288, 24.191, Od. 15.99. — perfumed bedchamber: sc. with incense (see below); here with an erotic component (Lilja 1972, 47). The contrast with the hot and dusty battlefield is substantial; significantly, Paris is the only hero removed to his bedchamber, of all places (sc. in preparation for the love scene at 447  f.: LfgrE s.v. εὐώδης; Monsacré 1984, 46  f.).

380 τόν: Paris. 381 ῥεῖα: adv., ‘easily’. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — θεός(ς), ἐκάλυψε: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — ἠέρι: dat. of ἀήρ. 382 κὰδ … εἷσ(ε): ‘set, lay down’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. κάδ is an assimilated form of κατά with apocope (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 141

θαλάμῳ: on the sense ‘bedchamber’, 142n. — κηώεντι: a distinctive epithetP of θάλαμος (also at 6.288, 24.191, Od. 15.99). The sense is uncertain, most likely ‘fragrant’ (considered at LfgrE s.v. κηώεις), if so, here in a synonym doubling (1.160n.) with εὐώδης. κηώεις is likely an alternative form of κηώδης and can be linked etymologically with καίω (Frisk and Beekes s.v. κηώδης); in this case, it refers to the practice of burning aromatic substances to broadcast a pleasant smell (Marinatos 1967, 60; Lilja 1972, 48  f.; cf. Od. 5.59–61).

383–461 Despite Helen’s resistance, Aphrodite leads her to Paris. Helen reproaches him but ultimately follows him to bed. On the battlefield, meanwhile, Agamemnon declares Menelaos victorious and demands that the conditions of the agreement be honored. 383–420 Aphrodite approaches Helen in the shape of an old servant-woman and invites her to go to Paris. Helen initially refuses, but soon gives in to Aphrodite’s threats. 383–420 Aphrodite had promised Paris marriage to Helen (in the Judgment of Paris, see CH 8 s.v. Paris); she accordingly reunites the couple here as well, after he has been rescued from the duel, thus contributing to the breakdown of the peace negotiations (Kullmann 1956, 113; Constantinidou 1990, 50). Immediately after rescuing Paris, she approaches Helen on the tower and forces her to join Paris in the bedchamber. The narrative is thus connected not only with the immediately preceding action but also with the teichoscopia (121–244n.; Bergold 1977, 115  f.), and the implicit repetition of Helen’s abduction by Paris (373–382n.) further depicts the causes of the Trojan War. The echo is further underlined by elements that recall contemporary wedding rituals (419n., 425n.). At the same time, in the dialogue the poet offers a psychologically profound depiction of the problematic relationship between Helen and Aphrodite. Aphrodite appears here ‘as a deity in person, but at the same time serves to externalize Helen’s internal conflict’ (Reichel 1999, 292, transl.; similarly Farron 1979, 19; Taplin 1992, 101). With her report of the impending duel, Iris had aroused Helen’s longing for her life as a faithful wife before Paris abducted her (139  f.). Aphrodite now informs Helen of Paris’ whereabouts, praises his beauty (390–394) and thus unsettles her interlocutor: with suggestive words that reveal the power of a goddess, Aphrodite reawakens Helen’s earlier passion for Paris; perhaps the sight of the radiant goddess also reminds Helen of her own powers of seduction (390–398; 395n.; 396–418n.; Kullmann loc. cit. 114–116; Farron loc. cit. 19; Schmitt 1990, 266  f. n. 317). Helen’s response to Aphrodite’s summons is thus simultaneously an internal dialogue among her conflicting emotions (399–412; on this, Worman 2001, 25; similarly Voigt

142 

 Iliad 3

1934, 66  f.; Helen’s mental independence from the goddess is over-emphasized by Sarischoulis 2008, 161  f. with n. 623). She therefore eventually joins Paris as the result of a double motivationP (on which in general, 2.451b–452n.): out of fear of the goddess’ threat (418b) and as a consequence of her own overwhelming attraction to Paris (Kullmann loc. cit. 116 stresses that Helen makes a genuine decision). Whether the relationship between Helen and Aphrodite reflects or contrasts with pre-Homeric depictions of Helen’s role in her abduction by Paris is debated. The brief account of the episode in Proclus’ summary of the contents of the Cypria (399–412n.) does not allow much in the way of conclusions; comparative scholarship nevertheless indicates that Helen’s ambivalent attitude and the equally ambivalent judgment made by others about her (see also 158n., 172–180n., 2.356n.) result in part from the amalgamation of different narrative traditions but also from the psychological depth given by Homer to the legendary events (Reichel 1999, summary 304  f.; 172–180n.). 383–394 Aphrodite approaches Helen in the shape of an old servant-woman from Sparta, but is nonetheless recognized by her (396  f.; on this type of divine appearance, 1.197–198n.; on the motif ‘deity as elderly woman’ in later epic poetry, Richardson on h.Cer. 101). The goddess uses the role of a beloved servant-woman (388b) to exploit Helen’s longing for her homeland (139  f.) and thus gain her trust; such an encounter is also not conspicuous to the other women (Bergold 1977, 117; Fauth 1975, 244  f.). The servant-woman is clearly among the possessions taken by Paris along with Helen (70): Kirk on 385–7. Whether we are to imagine that she already advocated for Paris to Helen at that time (Bergold loc. cit.; Reucher 1983, 81) is uncertain (Rutherford [1996] 2013, 105  f.). There are obvious echoes of the parallel scene at 121–144 in which a message is delivered by Iris/Laodike. In both cases, a goddess appears in the role of a messenger who reveals something surprising to Helen – the truce at 130–138 and Paris’ beauty after the duel at 391–394 (Iris is more neutral: Kirk on 383–4); in both cases the goddess succeeds in spurring Helen to action (121n.). 384 tower: After her conversation with Priam, Helen remained atop the platform (149n.) to watch the duel (Kirk on 383–4). — Trojan women: Like the Trojan elders (149), they had mounted the tower as spectators (schol. bT; AH; gapP).

383 καλέουσ(α): uncontracted (R 6) fut. part. of καλέω. — ἴε: 3rd sing. impf. of εἶμι; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — τήν: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. 384 πύργῳ ἔφ’: = ἐπὶ πύργῳ (R 20.2); on the so-called correption R 5.5. — περί: adverbial, ‘all around’. — Τρῳαὶ (ϝ)άλις: on the prosody, R 4.4.

Commentary 

 143

385 She laid her hand upon the robe immortal, and shook it: Aphrodite does not honor Helen’s attempt to use her veil to appear as a respectable woman and to fit in with the Trojan women around her (141n.): Bergold 1977, 123. νεκταρέου: an attribute of an item of clothing also at 18.25, otherwise in early epic only at Cypr. fr. 5.5 West (of a rosebud). How the sense ‘nectar-like’ is to be understood is unclear: ‘beautiful, precious, divine’ (LfgrE), ‘fragrant’ (Leaf: as a hypothesis; Frisk; Levin 1971, 40; Lilja 1972, 47; Shelmerdine 1995, 99, 101  f. with reference to the practice already attested in the Mycenaean period of treating textiles with fragrant oil), as a parallel to ἀμβρόσιος in the sense ‘divine, making invisible, protecting’ (Clader 1976, 59; Bergold 1977, 123  f. n. 1), ‘nectar-colored’ (as a hypothesis in Schmitt 1967, 187) or ‘gleaming, white’ (Schmid 1950, 35, on the basis of 18.25: a contrast between white cloth and black ash). — ἑανοῦ: Mycenaean we-ha-no, related to ἕννυμι; in Homer the word always denotes an item of women’s clothing (also 14.178: Hera; 21.507: Artemis; 16.9: a mother in a simile; h.Cer. 176: young women). The garment’s shape and relationship to the πέπλος and Mycenaean we-ha-no are uncertain (Marinatos 1967, 41  ff.). At 3.419, and likely here as well, the reference is to a veil (141n. on ὀθόναι; LfgrE). — ἐτίναξε: (seized and) ‘shook’; τινάσσω denotes a forceful motion (e.g. 20.163, 22.311: weapons are swung or shaken as a threatening gesture; 20.57: Poseidon shakes the earth): LfgrE.

386–389 An explanatory addition is occasionally inserted between a speech introductory formulaP and direct speech; cf. 2.790n., 11.602–605, 17.553–555. 386 παλαιγενέϊ: ‘born long ago, old’, reinforces γρηΰς as at Od. 22.395, h.Cer. 101, 113 (LfgrE; AH).

387–388 a wool-dresser who … | made beautiful things out of wool: The relative clause elucidates the Homeric hapaxP eirokómōi (on this stylistic trope, 1.238n., 2.197n., 2.212–213n.). In Homeric epic, the preparatory stages of wool-working are carried out by slave-women: they clean and tease the wool (i.e. they open up the locks and comb them; Od. 18.316) and fasten it to the distaff (Od. 4.135). The spinning is often carried out by the mistress, who thus depends on the preliminary work being executed properly (Od. 1.357, 4.135, 6.53, 6.306). On wool-working generally, Marinatos 1967, 2; Pekridou-Gorecki 1989, 15–21; cf. 125n. on weaving.

385 νεκταρέου (ϝ)εανοῦ: partitive gen. with λαβοῦσα; on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἑανοῦ ἐτίναξε: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἐτίναξε: sc. μιν (the robe). 386 γρηΐ: on -η- after -ρ-, R 2. — μιν: = αὐτήν (R 14.1), obj. of προσέειπεν. — μιν (ϝ)εικυῖα: on the prosody, R 4.5. — παλαιγενέϊ: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — προσέ(ϝ)ειπεν: = προσεῖπεν. 387 εἰροκόμῳ, ἥ: on the prosody, R 5.6. — ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1). — Λακεδαίμονι: locative (R 19.2). — ναιεταώσῃ: = ναιετώσῃ (↑).

144 

 Iliad 3

387 εἰροκόμῳ: Homeric hapaxP; from εἴριον ‘wool’ and κάμνω ‘produce by hard work’ (although probably connected with κομέω ‘take care of’: Risch 198): ‘working wool’ (LfgrE). — ναιεταώσῃ: on the irregular form, West 1998, XXXII. 388 2nd VH = Od. 7.171. — ἤσκειν: 3rd sing. impf. of ἀσκέω (< *ἤσκεεν); the sole example in Homer of a contracted impf. with ny ephelkystikon, but here transmitted in the best mss. and preferred by Aristarchus to the variant in -ει (Chantr. 1.93; West 1998, xxvi; LfgrE s.v. ἀσκέω 1406.53  ff.). — φιλέεσκεν: iterative impf. with a durative sense.

389 ≈ 413; 1st VH = Od. 6.24; ≈ Il. 2.22, 2.795, 16.720, 17.326, 20.82; VE = 2.820, 5.370, Od. 20.68. — The line, absent from many papyri (see app. crit.), is athetized as an interpolation by West because it contains a redundant speech introductory formula (a reprise of 386, see 386–389n.; likewise at 4.337, 13.480, 17.326, etc.: West 2001, 12  f.; Apthorp 1999, 16  f.). ἐεισαμένη: on the prothetic vowel, see G 25; Chantr. 1.182. — δῖ’ Ἀφροδίτη: a VE formula (4× Il., 1× Od.).

390–394 The speech of the old servant-woman, i.e. Aphrodite, progresses rapidly from the message to Helen – she should come (390) – to a description of the waiting Paris (391–394) designed to arouse Helen’s desire (Bergold 1977, 116; Collins 1988, 53). Paris’ radiant beauty, a gift from Aphrodite (39–57n., 64– 66n.), is appropriate to a dancer rather than a warrior. Thus Paris’ charisma, which fits the cliché of the effeminate Easterner (2.872n.), is fundamentally different from that of his brother Hektor (22.370): Collins loc. cit. 52; Bernsdorff 1992, 91. The contrast between dance and battle also resonates at 15.508, 24.261 (see ad loc.), where it implies criticism of insufficient defensive resolve (in principle, however, dance is not rejected in Homeric epic, but is a familiar element of heroic life; see 13.636  f., 13.730  f. and cf. Od. 8.248–265; Schadewaldt [1944] 1965, 63; Wegner 1968, 40–44; Veneri 1995, 114, 119–121 with n. 22, 131). 390 Ἀλέξανδρός σε καλεῖ: explanatory asyndeton as at 250 (see ad loc.).

 

391 κεῖνος ὅ γ(ε): ‘κεῖνος stands for the adv. ἐκεῖ and is clarified by the added ἐν θαλάμῳ, cf. 244 ἐν Λακεδαίμονι αὖθι’ (Faesi, transl.). κεῖνος designates geographic distance also at 5.604, 19.344, 24.412; on this, West, app. crit: ‘ecce illic est’; Schw. 2.210. — θαλάμῳ: on the sense ‘bedchamber’ 142n. — δινωτοῖσι: δινωτός is also an attribute of a chair

388 φιλέεσκεν: The subject is Helen; μιν refers to the old servant-woman. 389 τῇ: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — ἐ(ϝ)εισαμένη: aor. of (ϝ)είδομαι ‘resemble’, ingressive: ‘take on someone’s form’. — προσεφώνεε: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δῖ’ Ἀφροδίτη: = δῖα Ἀφροδίτη; correption does not occur after elision (R 5.1). 390 καλεῖ (ϝ)οῖκόνδε: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἶκόνδε: on the form, R 15.3. 391 ὅ: on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — δινωτοῖσι λέχεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.2–3; on the pl., R 18.2.

Commentary 

 145

(Od. 19.56) and a shield (Il. 13.407), and the basic sense must be ‘artfully made’ (LfgrE); but the sense ‘turned, produced on a lathe’ cannot be excluded here (Laser 1968, 6; García-Ramón 1999, 243). Derivation from the IE root *gu̯i̯eh3- ‘live’ (see LIV 215  f.) is disputed; cf. the Mycenaean forms qe-qi-no-me-no and qe-qi-no-to formed from the verbal stem *qi-no ‘decorate by painting or carving’, probably originally ‘make alive’ (Heubeck 1966, 229–237; Risch 329  f.; García-Ramón 1999, in particular on the secondary phonetic and semantic adaptation to δινεῖν ‘to turn’; Beekes s.v. δίνη). 392 1st VH ≈ Od. 6.237. — στίλβων: στίλβειν, attested in Homeric epic only in the pres. part., means ‘to shine, gleam’, likewise of a person in an erotic context at Od. 6.237 (Odysseus before Nausikaa). Paris’ beauty is further emphasized by his shimmering garments (shining cloth also at Il. 18.596; on the treatment of textiles with oil to make them shine, 385n.): LfgrE; Handschur 1970, 85. — φαίης: 220n.

393–394 he was going | rather to a dance, or rested and had been dancing lately: The repetition of the word chorós ‘dance’ likely serves simply for emphasis; but the second statement – that Paris does not appear tired even after the dance – may be meant to further increase his attractiveness (somewhat differently Kirk; on the repetition of substantives, Fehling 1969, 137). 395 A speech capping formulaP; = Od. 17.150; ≈ 2.142, 4.208, 11.804, 13.468. The formula describes an emotion (often provoked by a speech) that usually leads to action (2.142n.). Helen initially does not react as Aphrodite intended (she does so only at 419) but resists. Which emotion is expressed here is a matter of dispute: desire for Paris (after she ascends the wall at 139  ff. out of longing for Menelaos; schol. D; LfgrE s.v. ὀρίνω 772.63  ff.; Wiesmann 1950, 35; Kirk) or anger, like that expressed in the speech that follows (Leaf); the reference is probably in the first instance to intense agitation caused by the flaring up of a range of different, sometimes contradictory emotions (ambivalence; cf. Engl. ‘she is stirred by emotion’; Worman 2002, 50: a mix of anger and sexual desire). — troubled: on the meaning of orínō, 2.142n. θυμὸν … ὄρινεν: a formulaic phrase (see iterata; also θυμὸν ὄριν- as an inflectible VE formula 8× Il., 3× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’). 396–418  Aristarchus athetized these verses because (1) Aphrodite cannot be beautiful at the same time she is an old woman, (2) 406  f. was seen as blasphemous and (3) 414 as unworthy of a goddess (schol. A on 395). Modern scholarship has further objected to the rarely attested δούλη at 409 (Roemer 1912, 400; Bolling 1944, 86–88). Regarding (1), the scene at 396  ff. is understood in various ways: (a) Aphrodite uses her disguise only to conceal her divine nature from the bystanders, but offers hints to Helen. Elsewhere

393 μαχεσσάμενον: on -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἐλθέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. 395 φάτο: impf. of φημί; on the mid., R 23. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1).

146 

 Iliad 3

in Homeric epic, human beings are able to recognize gods (although only as they leave, as at 13.65–72, Od. 1.322  f., 3.371–379; in contrast, with subsequent dialogue in a manner similar to here at h.Ven. 181  ff.; cf. 1.197–198n. and on the present passage Leaf; Nickau 1977, 190; on divine metamorphosis in general, Fauth 1975, 244  f.; Smith 1988; de Jong on Od. 1.96–324; on a Sanskrit parallel, West 2007, 133). (b) Helen is able to perceive the beauty even of the transformed goddess, who retains her essence. She ‘separates out that [sc. which does not match the appearance of the ‘wool-worker’] (abstracts it) and connects it with […] Aphrodite. She can do this only because she is well versed in matters pertaining to Aphrodite […]’ (Schmitt 1990, 169, transl.; similarly Fränkel [1951] 1962, 74  f.; discussed by Fauth loc. cit. 245; Pucci 2003, 111  f. goes too far: Aphrodite’s beauty indirectly depicts Helen’s beauty). The scene probably also implies that Helen begins to sense a divine presence in Aphrodite’s highly suggestive words, stops short and looks at her more closely (Fränkel loc. cit.; Kullmann 1956, 116; Worman 2002, 105). Regarding (2), see 399–412n. (Helen speaks even more harshly since she is aware of her helplessness vis-à-vis the goddess). Regarding (3), see 413–420n. (Aphrodite demonstrates her power). On δούλη, 409n.

396–397 throat … | … breasts … eyes: a similar combination at 19.285, h.Ven. 181. 396 καί ῥ’ ὡς οὖν ἐνόησε: a variant of the inflectible formula τὸν δ’ ὡς οὖν ἐνόησεν (21n.). The formula, which elsewhere in Homeric epic refers to the realization of a fact already described by the narrator (Reynen 1958, 76; de Jong [1987] 2004, 267 n. 13), serves here to add intensity: after the depiction of Helen being unsettled by Aphrodite’s appearance as an old servant-woman and her words, the formula leads to the description of a realization whose much deeper, more intense effect is revealed in Helen’s subsequent invective: she recognizes Aphrodite and makes it clear that she no longer wishes to be deceived. — καί ῥ(α): picked up from ἄρα at 398 (AH). — ἐνόησε: either ‘caught sight of, saw’, i.e. saw the indications and so recognized the goddess (396–418n., hypothesis 1a: LfgrE s.v. νοέω 415.33  ff.) or ‘perceived, realized’, i.e. distinguished the physical characteristics mentioned from the rest of her appearance and accurately interpreted them as not belonging to the false appearance of the servant-woman (hypothesis 1b: Schmitt 1990, 169).   397 ἱμερόεντα: ἵμερος and its derivatives are often used in connection with Aphrodite and sexual desire (also at 446, 5.429, 14.198, Hes. Th. 201, h.Ven. 45, h.Hom. 10.5 etc.): LfgrE; Boedeker 1974, 50; cf. 139n. — μαρμαίροντα: perhaps an onomatopoetic verbal formation with reduplication (Tichy 1983, 289; Beekes; skeptically Giannakis 1997, 267  f.); the word means ‘sparkling, gleaming’, otherwise of flickering reflections on metal (cf. μάρμαρος ‘marble’). ὄμματα μαρμαίροντα is likely formed on the model of ἔντεα/τεύχεα/χρύσεα/χάλκεα μαρμαίροντα at 12.195/18.617/13.22/16.664 etc. (Tichy loc. cit. 289). Aphrodite’s eyes reveal her divine beauty; cf. Hes. Th. 910 on the eyes of the Graces: ἀπὸ βλεφάρων ἔρος εἴβετο (LfgrE).

396 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — περικαλλέα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 397 στήθεα: on the pl., R 18.2.

Commentary 

 147

398 2nd VH (speech introductory formulaP) in total 17× Il., 26× Od., 2× h.Ven. — θάμβησέν τ’ ἄρ ἔπειτα: This is one of a number of formulaic VBs that designate emotional responses: ᾤμωξεν (10.522, 15.397, 23.178, 24.591, Od. 13.198) / κώκυσεν (Il. 18.37, 24.703) / ῥίγησεν (11.254) / γήθησεν (Od. 13.353, 21.414) τ’ ἄρ ἔπειτα. Watkins 1995, 150  f., followed by Katz 1996, 41, reads the particle τάρ, related to Luwian -tar, instead of τ’ ἄρ, and supposes a formula shared by Greek and Luwian (cf. 1.8n.). — θάμβησεν: designates the response to something uncanny (342n.), e.g. the appearance of a deity, as here, 1.199 (see ad loc.), Od. 1.323, or a divine sign at Il. 8.77, Od. 2.155 (LfgrE). — ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: ‘and spoke to her’; the original sense of the expression, ‘called her by name’, faded due to its use as a formula (1.361n.; LfgrE s.v. ὀνομάζω 715.19  ff.).

399–412 Helen’s speech is an extraordinarily passionate invective against a deity, unparalleled in the Iliad (the milder attacks by Diomedes at 5.348–351 and Achilleus at 22.15–20 are the most closely comparable; cf. also 2.111–115n. with further references, and 3.364–368n.). Helen’s resistance is all the more remarkable and unusual, in that demands are usually fulfilled without comment in epic poetry (2.182–183n.). Helen attacks Aphrodite directly, claiming that the great seductress is about to deceive her again as she had in Sparta (399, 405; deception is, of course, part of Aphrodite’s nature, cf. Hes. Th. 205 and h.Ven. 7; on this, Reinhardt 1961, 515). Iris’ message awoke Helen’s longing for Menelaos and her homeland (139  f.), and Menelaos’ apparent victory gave her hope for a return home and an end to social ignominy. Her bitter allegations at 400–402 indicate her disappointment. She has long regretted leaving her homeland: the common motif of self-denigration is suggested by stygerḗn emé at 404 (as at 172–180, 6.344–358 [see ad loc.]). Helen thus directs her invective not just at Aphrodite but also at herself. She recognizes her close connection to the goddess but, in contrast to Paris (64–66), tries to reject her gifts. She refuses the role she is intended for and provokes the goddess by suggesting that she become Paris’ slavishly devoted lover herself (406–409). Being particularly sensitive to her surroundings (6.350–353n.), Helen fears the criticism of the female bystanders who expect her to surrender herself to the victor in the duel (410–412). Helen is thus not the passive figure in Aphrodite’s hands that the pre-Homeric tradition perhaps dictated and as which she seems to have appeared in the Cypria (as far as can be determined from Proclus’ summary; Proclus, Chrest. § 2 West); but the narrator suggests a growing sense of helplessness via her jeering, increasingly provocative questions and the wording in 412 – the Trojan women’s criticism appears to be a certainty in her mind – and he accordingly allows her speech to end in a ‘cri de cœur’ at 412b (Kirk

398 ἔπειτα, (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

148 

 Iliad 3

on 410–12). On the speech as a whole, Reckford 1964, 17–19; Lendle 1968, 65–71; Erbse 1986, 94  f.; Latacz 2007, 97  f.; Kirk; Worman 2001, 25; 2002, 49; Blondell 2013, 64  f. 399 δαιμονίη: The adj. originally meant ‘under the influence of a deity (δαίμων)’, and in the voc. the word generally expresses concern and disconcertment at the behavior of the individual addressed (1.561n., 2.190n.). The reference here is to Aphrodite’s attempt to induce Helen to act indecently (410–412): LfgrE. This is the only passage in early epic in which a human being dares address a deity this way. The address is probably less an expression of irony (thus Bergold 1977, 119 n. 2, 121; Steinrück 1992, 397 n. 94: Aphrodite is addressed like a human being because, according to Helen, she risks sinking to a human level [406–409]) than an allusion to the use of δαίμων to mean ‘fateful power’: the form of address expresses Helen’s realization and terror that the goddess is once again interfering in her life (Wilamowitz 1931, 363 n. 2). This would also fit with the conclusion of the scene (420), where the reference to Aphrodite as δαίμων recalls δαιμονίη (Wilamowitz loc. cit.; 420n. for δαίμων in the sense of ‘fateful power’). — λιλαίεαι: 133n. Desire here has a negative connotation (as distressing) similar to Od. 1.15, 9.32, etc. (Kloss 1994, 117). — ἠπεροπεύειν: 39n. 400–405 The punctuation and interpretation of these lines is disputed (discussion of some of the arguments in Lehrs [1833] 1882, 58 n. 34, Leaf und Bergold 1977, 119  f. with n. 3). (1) West, AH, Faesi and Kirk (on 400–2) understand them as two questions (ἦ in 400 ‘is it likely, perhaps?’); schol. A, Lehrs loc. cit., Leaf and Scodel 2012, 327, as two statements (ἦ ‘indeed’), Bergold loc. cit. as a statement and a question. (2) West, Lehrs loc. cit. and Leaf connect the οὕνεκα clause in 403  f. with the preceding verses (400–402) and put a question mark/colon after 404; schol. A, AH, Faesi on 403  ff., Kirk on 403–5 and Bergold loc. cit. connect it with the τούνεκα clause in 405 and place a question mark/colon after 402. Regarding (1): a question concerning removal to the east (400–402 or 400–404) is meaningless after Aphrodite’s demand that Helen join Paris (in the same location, Troy). Paris, to whom Aphrodite wants to lead Helen, is and remains the goddess’ protégé – as Helen herself stresses at 406–408. 400–402 contain only a bitter, exaggerated exclamation, with which the narrator recalls once more her previous departure from Greece for the East, that is, at the beginning of the Trojan war (cf. 373–382n.; ἦ superficially denotes the intentions of the addressee, as at 1.229, 16.830, but points in particular to the speaker’s anxieties: Scodel loc. cit. 326  f.). Regarding (2): Aphrodite’s deception consists of her attempt to lure Helen back to Paris, despite Menelaos’ victory and his consequent right to claim his former wife (457–459); 403–405 thus belong together. The early placement of the οὕνεκα clause is unusual, but paralleled at 13.727  f. (Chantr. 2.286  f.).

399 δαιμονίη: on -η after -ι-, R 2. — τί: ‘why?’. — ταῦτα: internal acc., ‘on this’. — λιλαίεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 

 149

400 πῃ … προτέρω πολίων: πολίων is a partitive gen. with πῃ (‘to anywhere in the area of the cities’: AH, transl.) like the gen. at Od. 1.425 ὅθι … περικαλλέος αὐλῆς, 4.639  f. που … ἀγρῶν: AH; Schw. 2.114 (differently Leaf; Bergold 1977, 202: gen. dependent on προτέρω). — εὖ ναιομενάων: used like a generic epithetP in reference to cities: ‘where the living is good’ (1.164n.).

401 ≈ 18.291; 2nd VH ≈ h.Ap. 179. — Phrygia: located in northwest Asia Minor, extending eastward to the river Sangarios (2.862n.). — Maionia: corresponds approximately to Lydia (2.864n.; BNP s.v. Maeonia). ἐρατεινῆς: 239n. Here the word suggests a life of sensuous Eastern luxury.

402 there also: ‘like Paris here’ (AH, transl.). — dear: Predicative phílos frequently denotes the favoring of a human being by a god (Dirlmeier 1935, 64  ff., 176  f.; Paul 1969, 56  ff.). μερόπων: an epithet of ἄνθρωποι (VE formula); etymology and sense are uncertain (1.250n.). 403 οὕνεκα: ‘because’, more emphatic than ἐπεί; stresses the causality (1.11n.). — δῖον: on the generic epithetP, 1.7n. 404 στυγερήν: from στυγέω: ‘from which one keeps a distance, loathsome, dreadful’; likewise of Klytaimestra at Od. 3.310, of Eriphyle at 11.326, of Ker at Il. 23.79 (LfgrE). In reference to Helen, 19.325 ῥιγεδανῆς, 24.775 πάντες δέ με πεφρίκασιν are similar. — οἴκαδ’ ἄγεσθαι: on the sense, 72n. 405 2nd VH ≈ Od. 10.339. — δολοφρονέουσα: elsewhere in the Iliad only of Hera (19.106n., with further examples).

406 1st VH ≈ 11.577. — beside him: in contrast to 405, ‘and do not approach me here’ (AH, transl.). ἀπόειπε κελεύθους: This is the reading in all papyri and mss.; the variant ἀπόεικε κελεύθου is known only from Aristarchus (schol. A; accepted by AH, Faesi, Willcock). Aristarchus’ argumentation is unknown; ἀποειπεῖν ‘to say no’ – elsewhere used with the sense ‘deny (a request)’ (1.515, 9.510), ‘refuse’ (9.675, h.Ven. 25), ‘revoke’ (19.35, 19.75: μῆνιν) – may have appeared too unusual and radical with κελεύθους as its object (LfgrE s.v. εἰπεῖν 478.70  ff.; Leaf; Bergold 1977, 120 n. 3). Although ἀπόειπε κελεύθους might be the result of haplography (ἀπόεικε κελεύθου > ἀπόει κελεύθου > ἀπόει⟨πε⟩ κελεύθου⟨ς⟩; suggestion by Führer), the phrase has a more pregnant sense (Kirk; one would also

400 προτέρω: ‘(yet) further’. — πολίων: gen. pl. of πόλις (cf. R 11.3). — ναιομενάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 402 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — κεῖθι: = ἐκεῖ (cf. R 15.2). 403 οὕνεκα: crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3; ↑). 404 ἐμὲ (ϝ)οίκαδ(ε): on the prosody, R 4.3. 406 ἧσο: = κάθησο. — ἀπόειπε: < *ἀπόϝειπε; = ἄπειπε.

150 

 Iliad 3

expect an aor.: Bergold loc. cit.). Both readings recall 6.202 πάτον ἀνθρώπων ἀλεείνων and amount to a challenge to Aphrodite to withdraw from the gods (as Demeter does out of grief at the abduction of Persephone, h.Cer. 92) and become a mortal woman: LfgrE s.v. εἴκω. 408 ὀΐζυε: act. ‘toil’ (‘like the ὀϊζυροὶ βροτοί’: AH, transl.; LfgrE); differently Mawet 1979, 191: ‘lament’ (over him; because the verb is derived from the interjection οἴ), but this fits less well with φύλασσε. 409 until he makes you his [wedded wife] lover: on the motif of a goddess accepting a humbler role out of love for a human being, cf. Aphrodite in h.Ven. 45–52, 247–255 (West 2011, 136). ἄλοχον: here not ‘wife’ but ‘mistress, lover’ of equal status, as at 9.336, 21.499: a marriage between the goddess and Paris is unimaginable (Clark 1940, 189  f.; LfgrE s.v. 577.71  ff.) and would also be too positive in the present context. — ὅ γε: stresses the identity of a person acting differently (here in Helen’s fantasy) in the second part of a clause; similarly at 12.240, Od. 2.327 (Nägelsbach; AH; K.-G. 1.656  f.; Leaf). — δούλην: Mycenaean do-e-ra, ‘female slave’, masc. do-e-ro, Attic δοῦλος. Only δούλη is attested in early epic (here and at Od. 4.12); given the derivations δούλιος (δούλιον ἦμαρ Il. 6.463, Od. 14.340, 17.323), δούλειος (Od. 24.252) and δουλοσύνη (Od. 22.423), δοῦλος too was probably common in the Homeric period but was avoided by the poet as a technical legal term (LfgrE; Frisk; Risch [1972] 1981, 348–350). Elsewhere, unfree individuals are designated δμώς/δμῳή, θεράπων, οἰκεύς and ἀμφίπολος (143n.). δούλη means ‘slave’ in a legal sense; here in contrast to the mistress, at Od. 4.12 in contrast to the wife. The connotation ‘additional wife’ is ‘likely context specific’, as the derivations and the sense of the Mycenaean word suggest (LfgrE, transl.; likewise Gschnitzer 1976, 10  f., contra Wickert-Micknat [1954] 1983, 59). 410 2nd VH = 14.336, 24.463, Od. 22.489. — νεμεσσητόν: ‘blameworthy, scandalous’ (LfgrE; cf. 156n.; here also a ‘reference … to a quasi-aesthetic concept of appropriateness’ as at 14.336: Cairns 1993, 54). The phrase is used in speeches as justification for a change in behavior (24.463n.). — δέ: indicates causality (on the parataxis, 1.10n.; Race 1999/2000, 206).    411 πορσανέουσα: πορσαίνω, likely from πόρσω, originally ‘encourage’; then ‘prepare, make ready’, in Homeric epic always of women in connection with λέχος in a sexual sense (here and at Od. 3.403, 7.347). The relation between πορσαίνω and πορσύνω (attested as a variant here and in the Odyssey passages, subsequently in Pindar, etc.) is disput-

408 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — κεῖνον: = ἐκεῖνον. — καί (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 409 εἰς ὅ: ‘until’, introduces a temporal clause with a prospective subjunc. and a modal particle. — ἠ’ … ἠ’ …: = ἠέ … ἠέ …; correption does not occur after elision (R 5.1). — ποιήσεται: short-voweled aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). 410 κεῖσε: = ἐκεῖσε. — ἐγών (before a vowel): = ἐγώ. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 411 πορσανέουσα: fut. part. (uncontracted: R 6) with final sense, to be taken with εἶμι’.

Commentary 

 151

ed (the different uses are perhaps for reasons of euphony): LfgrE; Risch 291; Braswell 1988, 234 (on Pind. Pyth. 4.151); on λέχος, 1.31n. — ὀπίσσω: temporal: ‘later’; similarly Nausikaa to Odysseus at Od. 6.273  f.: τῶν ἀλεείνω φῆμιν … μή τις ὀπίσσω | μωμεύῃ (LfgrE s.v. 736.25  ff., with reference to the possible but unlikely sense ‘behind my back’). 412 2nd VH = 24.91. — μωμήσονται: ‘blame’, i.e. condemn socially (rather than on the level of relatively harmless gossip): LfgrE. Strictly speaking, the fut. contradicts οὐκ εἶμι (410); the narrator is likely hinting at Helen’s awareness that she will eventually relent (AH). — δ(έ): ‘merely additive’ (Race 1999/2000, 217 n. 26). — ἄχε(α): ἄχος generally denotes mental anguish from a mix of resignation and aggression (1.103n.). Here the anguish results from regret, shame and feelings of guilt that already oppressed Helen in the teichoscopia (Anastassiou 1973, 74). — ἄκριτα: ‘continual, countless’ (schol. D; LfgrE; cf. 2.796n.). — θυμῷ: on the use of θυμός (frequently at VE) as mental or spiritual faculty in general, 1.24n.

413–420 Helen’s speech has enflamed the anger of the goddess (as is repeatedly emphasized in both narrator text and character language). Even the ‘daughter of Zeus’ (418b, the epithet has a pregnant sense: Snell 1973, 12) immediately shrinks back in the face of Aphrodite’s mighty threats. Helen had already been unable to hide her sense of powerlessness (399–412n.); faced with the fateful choice either to die or to continue living in humiliating isolation and finally cause the failure of the peace effort after Paris is saved by Aphrodite, she opts for the latter (Erbse 1986, 96). Helen’s renewed isolation is emphasized via her removal from the Trojan women who surround her (419  f.; Bergold 1977, 124). The scene as a whole thus illustrates the all-encompassing control of the goddess, already alluded to by Paris at 64–66 (see ad loc.): although she granted Helen supernatural beauty (156–160n.), she can also have her killed (417; Bergold loc. cit. 121). For the sake of her protégé Paris, Aphrodite attempts to deceive Helen (399–405); although the goddess speaks of her connection to Helen as though the latter were her favorite (415 ephílēsa, ‘loved’, cf. 402 phílos, ‘beloved’), her relationship to Paris and Helen is therefore unequal, as both Helen (399–409) and Athene (5.422  f.) are aware (Kirk on 415). Paris and Helen accordingly react differently to their exceptional status: Paris is pleased with it and defends it (67–75; 64–66n.), whereas Helen feels manipulated and does not see herself as one with Aphrodite. She is torn in her relationship with Paris. Ultimately, however, Aphrodite cannot prevail: in the Trojan War, which she caused, she has no chance (5.421–430, cf. 21.416–433), and Paris cannot retain Helen (whose return to Sparta after the war is presupposed in Book 4 of the Odyssey).

412 θυμῷ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).

152 

 Iliad 3

413–414 χολωσαμένη … | … χωσαμένη: χολοῦμαι (from χόλος, cf. 1.9n.) and χώομαι (perhaps from χέω: Frisk) are virtual synonyms: ‘rage’ (here an ingressive aor.: ‘become angry’); employed simultaneously of the same emotion also at 8.397/407, 13.660/662; they may have been used as metrical variants (Cairns 2003, 29). 413 ≈ Od. 18.25; 1st VH = Il. 6.205; ≈ 2.599, 4.391, 15.68, 20.253, 23.482, 24.55 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH = 389 (see ad loc.). – On variations of the speech introductory formulaP with the fixed structure ‘pronoun + δέ + participle of χολοῦμαι’, 2.599n.; Edwards 1970, 7  f. 414 σχετλίη: with a negative connotation here, perhaps: ‘foolhardy’ (on the original meaning ‘persistent’, other nuances and further usage, 2.112n. with bibliography; for additional bibliography, see LfgrE s.v.). Whether σχετλίη should be pronounced as two or three syllables is uncertain (both synizesis of -ίη and shortening of the first syllable before mute with a liquid would be unusual). On the problem, Tichy 1981, 30; Kirk; Hackstein 2002, 31; on synizesis in general, M 12.1; Chantr. 1.170; on the shortening, so-called Attic correption, M 4.5; Chantr. 1.108  f. — μεθείω: ‘set loose, forsake’, i.e. ‘withdraw my protection from you’ (LfgrE s.v. ἵημι 1155.46). A replacement form with metrical lengthening for *μεθέω < *μεθήω (Werner 1948, 22  f., 28).

415 2nd VH ≈ 5.423. — and grow to hate you as much as  …: Achilleus cautions his teacher Phoinix regarding a similar change in their relationship at 9.613  f. ἔκπαγλ(α): ‘exceedingly’; on the weakened sense of the adv. (originally ‘causing fright, terrifying’), 2.222b–223n.; cf. 5.61 ἔξοχα γάρ μιν (referring to a craftsman) ἐφίλατο Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη and Engl. ‘he is terribly handsome’. Athene uses the same phrase, ἔκπαγλ’ ἐφίλησεν, to allude to Aphrodite’s relationship with the Trojans at 5.423.

416–417 caught between both sides, | Danaäns and Trojans alike: The threat probably implies that Aphrodite will take away Helen’s charismatic aura if she wants to be Menelaos’ respectable wife again. ‘Hatred of the woman responsible for the war will flare up, when she loses the beauty which seemed to make any sacrifice worth while; cf. 3.156–58’ (Fränkel [1951] 1973, 67 n. 4). That the narrator uses Aphrodite’s words to suggest a concrete consequence, namely stoning ‘between’ the warring parties, i.e. the two battle lines, cannot be ruled out (Bolling 1953, 295  f.; Kirk; the reference is clearly not, at any rate, to military hostilities between the parties [Faesi on 417; Bergold 1977, 122 n. 2; LfgrE s.v. ἔχθος], which have been going on for ten years now and will resume in any case [Leaf on 417; Kirk], and which would affect Helen only indirectly; Aphrodite’s threat is aimed directly at her).

414 σχετλίη: on the prosody, ↑. — μεθείω: aor. subjunc. of μεθίημι (↑). 415 τώς: = οὕτως. — νῦν: ‘until now’.

Commentary 

 153

416 1st VH = 7.277; ≈ 6.120, 20.159. — λυγρά: ‘fatal, bringing death’ as at 6.168, 13.346; in the same sense at 417b. 417 VE ≈ Od. 1.350, 3.134. — σὺ δέ κεν … ὄληαι: ‘and you will then…’: an independent main clause (Faesi; Leaf) with a prospective subjunc. functioning like an emphatic fut. κεν with the sense ‘then, in this case’ adds emphasis (Chantr. 2.211; similarly 54, 1.137 [see ad loc.]). — κακὸν οἶτον ὄληαι: οἶτος means ‘fate’, when linked with κακός usually in the sense ‘death’; always in character languageP. Here internal acc.; cf. Il. 21.133 ὀλέεσθε κακὸν μόρον, Od. 13.384 φθείσεσθαι κακὸν οἶτον; Engl. ‘die a miserable death’ (LfgrE s.v. οἶτος; Schw. 2.74). 418 1st VH = 1.33, 1.568, 10.240, 24.571, 24.689; 2nd VH = 199, Od. 4.184, 4.219, 23.218; from caesura C 1 on = Od. 6.229, Hes. Op. 256; ≈ Hes. Th. 76. — ὣς ἔφατ’· ἔδδεισεν δ(έ): cf. 259n. — Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα: 199n.

419 shrouding herself about in the luminous spun robe: As at 141 (see ad loc.), Helen’s veiling appears ambivalent, since it serves several functions: as a gesture of mourning, it indicates her resignation, but it is also a sign of her shame before the other Trojan women, whose judgment she dreads so much (410–412). At the same time, the striking brightness and beauty of the veil is emphasized, enhancing Helen’s attractiveness – compatible with Aphrodite’s aim of reuniting her with Paris. Covering herself up is also an element of a wedding ritual, which is here recalled in the context of the recapitulation of her abduction by Paris: like a bride with a particularly beautiful veil, Helen is conducted by the matron of honor Aphrodite to the house of the ‘groom’ Paris (cf. Pandora’s raiment at Hes. Th. 574  f. and Andromache’s wedding veil at 22.470  f.; metaphorically at 16.100; wedding processions are portrayed at Il. 18.491–496, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 273–285 [Wickert-Micknat 1982, 96, 98  f.]; the iconography of the abduction by Paris is often similar to that of wedding rituals [LIMC s.v. Alexandros p. 512 in the text, and p. 389 in the plates volume]). Bibliography: Nagler 1974, 71  f.; Kirk on 418–420; Constantinidou 1990, 52– 54, 58 is overly speculative; on the role of the veil in wedding rituals in general, Llewellyn-Jones 2003, 215–258. βῆ: on the position at the beginning of clause and verse, 1.34n.; LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 10.42  ff. The sing. form does not rule out an escort of servants (143n., 422n.), but the emphasis is on Helen alone, as she follows Aphrodite to join Paris (Kurz 1966, 126). — κατασχομένη: from κατέχω ‘hold down’, mid. ‘pull down (across oneself)’; i.e. ‘cover oneself’, primar-

416 μητίσομαι: short-voweled aor. subjunc. of μητίομαι (R 16.3). 417 κεν: = ἄν; the modal particle occurs occasionally also in a final clause in Homer (R 21.1). — ὄληαι: 2nd sing. aor. subjunc. of ὄλλυμαι (cf. R 6). 418 ἔδδεισεν: < *ἔδϝεισεν, on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἐκγεγαυῖα: perf. part. of ἐκγίγνομαι. 419 κατασχομένη (ϝ)εανῷ ἀργῆτι: on the prosody, R 4.4 and 5.6.

154 

 Iliad 3

ily the face as at 141 and Od. 19.361. Helen pulls her veil down to conceal her identity (LfgrE s.v. ἔχω 848.49  ff., 68  ff.; AH; Constantinidou 1990, 53). — ἑανῷ: 385n. — ἀργῆτι φαεινῷ: ἀργής from ἀργός ‘white’, ἀργεννός (141n.). The details of the formation are uncertain (LfgrE). Used elsewhere as an attribute of κεραυνός ‘lightning’ and δημός ‘fat’ with the sense ‘bright, white’. Here it likely indicates the color, i.e. the brightness, rather than the glossy sheen of the cloth, which is already expressed in φαεινῷ (LfgrE; Handschur 1970, 27). On the sheen of textiles due to treatment with oil, 385n.; cf. 392n., 10.156; Marinatos 1967, 6, points to the sheen of linen fabrics. The epithets probably suggest precious fabrics, like those worn e.g. by Aphrodite (5.315) and Hera (14.184  f.) (Taplin [1980] 1991, 242; Constantinidou 1990, 52); on Sanskrit parallels, West 2007, 84. 420 VE ≈ 9.657, 23.12, Od. 2.416, 3.12, 23.370, 24.501 (in each case ἦρχε δ(έ) + name), Il. 13.136, 15.306, 17.107, 17.262 (the expanded variant ἦρχε δ’ ἄρ’ Ἕκτωρ), 21.391 (ἦρχε γὰρ Ἄρης). — σιγῇ: ‘secretly’ (8n.). Helen stays silent for fear of being noticed by the Trojan women and exposed to the reproaches she dreads (410–412): Pinault 1994, 506. — ἦρχε: ‘preceded’ as at 1.495 (1.495–496a n.); here the word marks the aspect of the goddess’ initiative forced upon Helen, as at 447 (LfgrE s.v. 1381.9  ff.). — δαίμων: Like θεός/θεοί, the word indicates one or more deities the speaker cannot or will not name; but it puts more emphasis on the aspect of fate (the original sense is perhaps ‘allocator of fate’, although this may only be a folk etymology) and is predominantly used in direct speech where the speaker refers to a brief, direct, concrete divine intervention experienced personally (e.g. 15.468 vs. 473, 21.93 vs. 103: de Jong [1987] 2004, 158). The word is unambiguously used of a specific deity – Aphrodite – only here in Homeric epic. The term is likely meant to emphasize her fateful power over Helen, ‘the frightening, compelling force that emanates from the goddess and is reflected in the reaction of the woman that had been so proud just now (Erbse 1986, 262, transl.). Cf. 399n. on δαιμόνιος; on δαίμων in general, LfgrE s.v.; Nilsson (1940) 1967, 216–221; Chantraine 1954, 50–54, 80–82; Tsagarakis 1977, 98–116; Erbse loc. cit. 259–268; de Jong loc. cit.; HE s.v. daimôn; on the present passage, LfgrE loc. cit.; Wilamowitz 1931, 363 n. 2; Erbse loc. cit. 96, 262.

421–447 In a speech, Helen reveals to Paris her complete contempt for and disappointment in him. He reacts without concern and voices his desire for Helen, whereupon she relents. 421 ≈ 6.242; cf. 18.406, Od. 16.335, 22.231, h.Cer. 171. — Alexandros’ splendidly wrought house: on Paris’ house, 6.313–317n.

421 αἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); likewise ἥ/τῇ at 423/424. — Ἀλεξάνδροιο: on the declension, R 11.2. — δόμον: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — περικάλλε’ ἵκοντο: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — ἵκοντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 155

422 VE ≈ 23.53. — ἀμφίπολοι: on the etymology and sense of the word generally, as well as the function in this Book of the servant-women thus designated, 143n. They accompanied Helen to the tower and back to the house, and the narrator now dismisses them, as it were (143, 419n.; AH; Kurz 1966, 126; Bergold 1977, 125; Kirk [repr. 1987]; cf. the change of scene at 1.318 and 1.487 [with nn.]); discretion requires that they remain behind in a different room.

423–427 These verses have been judged objectionable since antiquity (schol. A; Roemer 1912, 406  f.; Von der Mühll 1952, 74): menial activity (424  f.), it has been thought, is inappropriate to the goddess, who turned back into herself at 396  ff. (as that passage was understood). Yet another metamorphosis into an elderly servant-woman would then have to be posited, although multiple transformations contradict the normal Homeric depiction of deities. The significance of the scene, however, derives precisely from the unstable appearance of the goddess. For everyone present except Helen, Aphrodite is still the elderly servant-woman (cf. 396–418n.) who fetches a seat, as the maid-servants do at Od. 4.123, 19.55–58, 19.97–101, h.Cer. 195  f. (on such tasks in general, Wickert-Micknat 1982, 67). For Helen, who immediately saw through the mask of the old woman, the goddess’ service as procuress symbolizes her own ultimate defeat by Aphrodite, who has compelled her to do precisely what she herself challenged the goddess (explicitly called such at 425) to do: sit with Paris (406). Aphrodite has openly put her power (probably recalled by philommeidḗs, ‘laughter-loving’, with its erotic connotations) on display, as also before, when she made Paris sit down in his bedchamber (382). Bibliography: on the transmission: Nickau 1977, 187–192; West 2001, 26; on the function of the scene: Bergold 1977, 126; Kirk on 424; Edwards 1987, 196. 423 ὑψόροφον: ‘with a high roof, high-roofed’ (from ὄροφος ‘roof’: Risch 198, 205, cf. 1.39n. and the more common synonym ὑψερεφής 19.333, etc.); a generic epithetP; of θάλαμος another 2× Il., 2× Od.; of οἶκος in a formulaic verse 3× Od. The epithet likely evokes large, airy rooms that only the wealthy could afford (owners: here e.g. Paris, at 24.192 Priam, at 24.317 a wealthy man; cf. the high, pitched roof of the Heroon at Lefkandi [Reber 2008, 51]); here it is appropriate for the δόμον περικαλλέ(α) at 421 (cf. 382n.; LfgrE). — θάλαμον: 142n. — δῖα γυναικῶν: 171n. 424 1st VH ≈ 10.504; 2nd VH = 4.10, 5.375, 14.211, Od. 8.362, Hes. Th. 989, ‘Hes.’ fr. 176.1 M.-W., h.Ven. 17, 49, 56, 65, Cypr. fr. 6.1 West; ≈ Il. 20.40, h.Ven. 155. — δίφρον: 262n., 24.515–516n. — φιλομμειδής: an epithet of Aphrodite (VE formula, see iterata), perhaps originally of the goddess of dawn (West 2007, 221; cf. 374n.); elsewhere at Hes. Th. 256 of a Nereid. φιλομμειδής (< *φιλοσμειδής, from μειδιάω, Engl. smile: Risch 193; G 16) is

422 ἐπὶ (ϝ)έργα: on the prosody, R 5.4. 423 κίε: 3rd sing. impf. of a defective verb with the sense ‘go’.

156 

 Iliad 3

‘for whom smiling is dear’; common in erotic contexts, e.g. also 14.211 and Od. 8.362. A seductive, erotic smile is mentioned later at Hes. Th. 203–206, h.Hom. 10.3 (Landfester 1966, 118; Arnould 1990, 90  f.). Here the epithet fits the goddess’ aim of reuniting the couple (Boedeker 1974, 32–35; Kirk; Friedrich 2007, 111  f.).

425 before Alexandros: In contrast to 391, it is no longer assumed that Paris is lying or sitting on the bed; he only mounts it again later (447): AH. Sitting opposite one another forces eye contact, which is meant to completely break Helen’s mental resistance to Paris (schol. A, b). The situation clearly echoes that of a shy bride (cf. on wedding ritual, 383–420n., 419n.), but is here given a sarcastic note. 426 1st VH ≈ 6.360; 2nd VH = 5.733, 8.384, Od. 13.252, 13.371, 24.529, 24.547, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 443; ≈ 2× Il., 5× Od., 6× Hes. — and Helen … took her place there: The text does not specify if or when the goddess withdraws; it only becomes clear in the end that she has attained her goal (447; Kurz 1966, 106 n. 30; cf. 1.221–222n. on divine exits in general). κούρη Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο: an inflectible VE formula (2.598n.), elsewhere of Athene, in the pl. of the Muses and the nymphs. A metrical variant of Διὸς θυγάτηρ and Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖα (199n.); the phrase here likely refers to Helen’s elevated status, which gives her license to cynically insult a prince (428–436n.). On the uncertain meaning and etymology of αἰγίοχος, 1.202n.

427 turning her eyes away: The passage probably means that Helen avoids looking at Paris out of aversion and contempt (anticipating her mocking words at 428  ff.; Eust. 432.5  ff.; LfgrE s.v. πάλιν 942.64; Hooker; Minchin 2010, 391), but at the same time she does this instinctively, to avoid succumbing to his charm again (Eust. loc. cit.; but Helen’s attempts are unsuccessful, see 428– 436n.). — her [lord] husband: 140n. πάλιν κλίνασα: ‘turning away’. πάλιν here has the sense ‘away, back’; Helen turns away her gaze and does not meet Paris’ eyes; similarly Od. 16.179 ἑτέρωσε βάλ’ ὄμματα, h.Ven. 182 ὄσσε παρακλιδὸν ἔτραπεν; cf. also Il. 13.3 and 21.415 πάλιν τρέπεν ὄσσε (LfgrE s.v. πάλιν 942.42  ff. and s.v. ἄψ 18  ff.; Bergold 1977, 127 n. 1; Janko on 13.1–9). — ἠνίπαπε μύθῳ: a speech introductory formulaP at VE, likewise at Od. 20.17, 20.303, expanded with an attribute at Il. 2.245, 5.650, 17.141, h.Hom. 7.25. ἠνίπαπε is the root aor. of ἐνίσσω (2.245n.); ἐνίπτω (438, 24.768) is a secondary derivation from the aor. (Risch 282). Literally ‘reprimand, denigrate’, also intensified with the sense ‘fiercely scold, insultingly scold, castigate’, as here and e.g. Od. 16.417 (Penelope to Antinoos): LfgrE s.v. ἐνίσσω.

425 ἀντί(α): adv., with gen.: ‘opposite’. 426 κούρη: on the form, R 2, R 4.2. 427 ὄσσε: acc. dual, ‘eyes’. — πάλιν κλίνασα: ‘turning away’ (↑). — ἠνίπαπε: ‘scolded’ (on the form, ).

Commentary 

 157

428–436 Helen’s speech is a sarcastic rebuke (Kirk on 430–6). The chilly reception without address stands in contrast to the friendly welcome usually extended to returning warriors (6.479–481, 24.703–706, cf. 7.306–312; Schneider 1996, 128; Bouvier 2002, 22; Minchin 2010, 391–393). The death-wish motif, common in Helen’s speeches (173a n.), is this time directed not at herself but at Paris (428b–429). This and the fact that she three times refers by name to Menelaos (430, 432 and 434), whose strength in combat Helen emphasizes with laudatory epithets (429 kraterōí ‘the strong’, 430 and 432 arēḯphilos ‘beloved by Ares’), as well as the mention of her previous marriage (429), have a humiliating effect and reveal Helen’s contempt and disappointment (schol. T; AH on 429; Kirk on 428–9; Latacz [1987] 1994, 122; 2007, 97; Bouvier loc. cit.; cf. 6.344–358 with n.); the vehemence of her criticism also makes clear her desperate realization of the extent to which she is nevertheless captivated by Paris (Willcock on 427  ff.). The subsequent challenge to fight (430–433a) is an element of battle paraenesis, as is her reference to his earlier boasting (cf. 8.228  ff., 21.475  ff., etc.; on this, Stoevesandt 2004, 304; West 2007, 478; on the motif ‘appearance vs. reality’, 16n., 44–45n., 212–224n.); at the same time, like 9.590  ff. (the Meleager myth), this is an inversion of the motif ‘a woman tries to prevent her husband from going into battle’ (6.431  f. Andromache; cf. 22.84  ff. Hekabe; Lohmann 1988, 58; Alden 2000, 311 n. 3; on the contrast with Andromache, also 125n.). Like Hektor, Helen represents the sphere of aristocratic values (on this, 44–45n.; Collins 1988, 32; Lohmann loc. cit.; Gottschall 2008, 115–118). Her speech contains the same elements as Hektor’s appeal in 39  ff., i.e. the death-wish motif (428b–429, 40), the recollection of Helen’s first husband (429b, 53), Paris as he once appeared (430  f., 46–51) and as he is now (428a, 42–45), and the challenge to battle (432  f., 52): Bergold 1977, 129 with n. 1; Steinrück 1992, 96. But Hektor directs a genuine battle paraenesis to Paris and achieves his goal (67  ff.), whereas Helen’s challenge is ironic (AH on 432; Roisman 2006, 21) and immediately withdrawn (433bff.). How this retraction should be understood is a matter of dispute. Some scholars think Helen’s retraction of her challenge is meant seriously (thus e.g. AH on 433 with reference to the transition from irony to seriousness at Od. 17.403; Lendle 1968, 69  f.; Farron 1979, 20  f.; Erbse 1986, 95, 98; Steinrück loc. cit. 96  f. with n. 97  f.). In this case, Helen’s words would indicate her growing confusion in the face of Paris’ charms (with which he subsequently dazzles her at 441–447) and her fear for his life (psychologically anticipated by the aversion of her eyes at 427n.). The narrator would thus have used 433  ff. to motivate the capitulation (447b) already anticipated earlier (412n., 427n.). It is also possible to imagine that Aphrodite remained present in the room, acting in the background (schol. bT on 433; cf. 426n.). But

158 

 Iliad 3

there are many reasons to take the appeal as sarcastic as well as the beginning of the speech (van Leeuwen on 432–6, Kirk on 430–6, Jones on 427; Bergold 1977, 128  f.; Koster 1980, 49  f.; Wissmann 1997, 67  f.; Postlethwaite 2000, 75; Roisman 2006, 21  f.; etc.): the abrupt transition from biting sarcasm to tender concern for Paris’ well-being would be unnatural; the narrator (427) and Paris (438) characterize the entire speech as a rebuke; the phrase allá … egṓ ge … kélomai ‘but I advise you’ (to abstain from battle), 433  f., is elsewhere used in speeches challenging an opponent (17.30–32 ≈ 20.196–198; cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 308; West 2007, 478), and the ironic use of mḗ tách(a) ‘lest quickly’ with subjunc., 436, is also attested in Od. 18.334 (cf. also 1.28n.). The speech as a whole serves to expose Helen’s abject disillusionment – further amplified by Aphrodite’s most recent intervention – and to show how Helen attempts to retain at least some self-respect by distancing herself from Paris (as previously by attacking Aphrodite) (Roisman 2006, 20–23). Aristarchus’ athetization of 432  ff. is thus unnecessary (Leaf on 427; Lendle 1968, 69; Kirk loc. cit.). 428 ἤλυθες: elsewhere at the beginning of a speech as an expression of joy at someone’s arrival (24.104n.; Minchin 2010, 391  f. with n. 24); here both a mocking question and a statement ‘you have come?!’ (aor. with perf. force: LfgrE s.v. ἐλθεῖν 536.77; a similar question at 2.23 [see ad loc.]; Minchin loc. cit. 392 also notes the lack of address). — πολέμου: of place, ‘battlefield’, as at 6.480, etc. (LfgrE s.v. 1341.2  f.). — ὡς ὤφελες: 173a n. 429 ἀνδρί: on the dat., 183n. 430 ἦ μὲν δή: strongly emphatic (2.798n.). — ηὔχε(ο): εὔχεσθαι here in the sense ‘to say of oneself, declare’ (as at 1.91 [see ad loc.]; Reynen 1983, 110). As Paris’ challenge at the first meeting of the armies shows (16–20), he actually considered himself Menelaos’ equal (Reynen loc. cit.). In the context of Helen’s sneering words, however, the negative overtone ‘brag’ is plausible (on this sense in general, 1.91n., 2.160n.; on this passage, Corlu 1966, 45  f., who also draws attention to the impf.: Paris bragged repeatedly; LfgrE s.v. 823.11  f.). — ἀρηϊφίλου: 21n.

431 in spear and hand and your own strength: The three terms capture different aspects of a summary term such as ‘assertiveness’, while also emphasizing it (cf. 6.48 [with n.]).

428 ἤλυθες: = ἦλθες. — πολέμου· ὡς: on the hiatus, R 5.6; likewise 429 κρατερῷ, ὅς. 429 ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6). 430 ηὔχε’: = ηὔχεο (Attic ηὔχου). 431 βίῃ: on -ῃ after -ι-, R 2. — καὶ ἔγχεϊ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

Commentary 

 159

βίῃ καὶ χερσί: a combination also used elsewhere (with φέρτερος Od. 21.373 as here, also Il. 15.139 with ἀμείνων, Od. 12.246 with φέρτατοι): LfgrE s.v. χείρ 1165.27  ff. — φέρτερος: ‘superior’ (1.186n.). 432 ἀλλ’ ἴθι νῦν προκάλεσσαι: verb doubling, like βάσκ’ ἴθι (2.8n.). The extent to which ἴθι has become fossilized as a particle is uncertain (cf. 1.32n.). Likewise ἀλλ’ ἴθι νῦν at VB with imper. at 10.53, 10.175  f., 11.611, without νῦν at 19.347  f.; cf. Od. 22.157 (Sommer 1977, 208). On the sense of προκάλεσσαι, 19n. 433 ≈ 20.257. 434 παύεσθαι: The pres., Aristarchus’ reading, ‘to let it be forever’, corresponds to the explanation μηδὲ … πολεμίζειν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι at 434  f. (La Roche 1869, 100). — ξανθῷ: 284n. 435 ≈ 2.121; 2nd VH = 2.452, 3.67, 7.3, 11.12, 13.74, 14.152; ≈ 21.572. — ἀντίβιον: adj. with the figura etymologica πόλεμον πολεμίζειν (LfgrE s.v. ἀντίβιος). On the sense ‘man against man, in open confrontation’, 1.278n.; the word picks up ἐναντίον (433): Leumann 1950, 338. — πολεμίζειν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι: 67n.

436 2nd VH ≈ 11.821. — you might very well go down: simultaneously feigned concern and a reminder of what Paris almost suffered (360). ἀφραδέως: The contrast between recklessness and a grand plan is stressed in enjambmentP (expressed in a complete verse at 435: Bergold 1977, 128 n. 4); similarly 2.121  f. (see ad loc.). — ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ δουρὶ δαμήῃς: ὑπό with locative ‘under the influence of, by the effect of’, often with δάμνημι, here with δουρί in an inflectible VE formula (another 9× Il., including 1× without ὑπό), 352 (see ad loc.) etc. with χερσί: Schw. 2.526. δαμήῃς: long-voweled subjunc. (like 19.27 σαπήῃ, 22.73 φανήῃ): Schw. 1.792. The subjunc., Aristarchus’ reading, fits better syntactically after παύεσθαι κέλομαι than does the opt. δαμείης transmitted in most mss. (Ruijgh 120).

437 ≈ 23.794, Od. 4.234, 4.484, 19.252, 24.350, h.Merc. 201; 2nd VH = 8× Od.; ≈ 1× Il., 25× Od. – A variant of 58, a common formula (on such alternatives in general, 1.121n.; cf. 3.171n.); as at 23.794 and h.Merc. 201, this is a combination of partially altered components of the formula καὶ τότε δή μιν ἔπεσσιν ἀμειβόμενος προσέειπεν and an inserted personal name or appellative (Edwards 1970, 21).

438–446 As in his response to Hektor (59–75, see ad loc.) but in a lighter tone (AH on 440), Paris first responds to the criticism, before rejecting it by holding

432 προκάλεσσαι: on -σσ-, R 9.1. 434 μηδέ: The conjunctions οὐδέ/μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses in Homer (R 24.8). 435 ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). 436 ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ δουρὶ δαμήῃς: δουρί (on the declension, R 12.5) is dependent on ὑπ(ό) (↑), while αὐτοῦ is dependent on δουρί. — δαμήῃς: 2nd sing. aor. pass. subjunc. of δάμνημι (↑); on the uncontracted form, R 6. 437 μύθοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2. — προσέ(ϝ)ειπεν: = προσεῖπεν.

160 

 Iliad 3

the gods responsible for past events (437–440) and then passing on to a new topic (441–446): Kirk. He has in fact understood Helen’s humiliating accusations as such (428–436n.), since he characterizes them as chalepá ‘harsh’. But he does not take them very seriously and instead seeks to explain away (439) the defeat Helen held against him at 429. Contrary to his assertions, Athene did not intervene on behalf of Menelaos, whereas Paris himself was rescued by Aphrodite while in extreme distress – something he deliberately conceals (both points will be mentioned explicitly a little later: 4.7  ff.: Baltes [1987] 2005, 282). The reference to the overwhelming power of the gods, otherwise a legitimate justification (5.601–606, 8.139–144, 17.175–178, etc.: Stoevesandt 2004, 281), is thus inappropriate here. This is solely an attempt to minimize Menelaos’ achievement and downplay the significance of the defeat (AH on 439; 6.339b n.). Paris pompously holds out the prospect of a later victory (440; schol. bT on 439–440) and does not accept the consequences, which he agreed to at 71  ff., that result from his opponent’s victory, since he knows he is protected by Aphrodite, who was the true winner of the duel (he is aware of her gifts [64]; Bergold 1977, 129  f.). While Helen struggles against the goddess (399–412), Paris seems unresisting and unconcerned (Schein 1984, 421  f.; Kirk on 439–40). He accordingly sidelines any further criticism afterward by trying to seduce Helen with memories of the past (442–446; the narrator thus recapitulates the couple’s first sexual encounter; on the external analepsisP, cf. 373–382n.; Hebel 1970, 48; Bergold loc. cit. 132; Taplin 1992, 103; on the restrained depiction of sexual activity, 24.130–131a n.); but tellingly, Paris speaks only of himself (Hebel loc. cit.). In a short priamel, he depicts his desire as overwhelming (442–446), as does Zeus subsequently at 14.315–328, likewise under the influence of Aphrodite (for a comparison of the two scenes, Bergold loc. cit. 132; Kloss 1994, 170–175; on the priamel, Race 1982, 36  f. n. 11). But although in the case of Zeus, Hera, the object of the wooing, deliberately caused this magic, the attraction generated by the intimidated Helen is the work of Aphrodite alone (Rutherford [1996] 2013, 106). 438 ὀνείδεσι: 242n. — ἔνιπτε: 427n. 439–440 νῦν μὲν … | κεῖνον δ(έ): on the alteration of contrasting terms (κεῖνον δ(έ) rather than αὖτις δέ) and the frequent connection of δέ with demonstrative pronouns, K.-G. 2.268.

438 με … θυμὸν ἔνιπτε: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). 439 ἐνίκησεν: sc. με.

Commentary 

 161

440 αὖτις: ‘another time’, as at 1.140; in contrast to ἐξαῦτις ‘again’ at 433 (LfgrE s.v. ἐξαῦτις). — ἡμῖν: Paris simultaneously includes all Trojans (associative pl. as at 7.196, 22.393: Schw. 2.243; cf. 24.556n.). 441 ≈ 14.314; 2nd VH = Od. 8.292, cf. Il. 24.636. — φιλότητι: φιλότης ‘per se denotes reciprocal affiliation with a contractual basis’ (73, 94, 256, 323), ‘including […] on the basis of marriage’: Wickert-Micknat 1982, 101, transl. Combined formulaically with εὐνάζω/-άω, εὐνή, μείγνυμι, etc., it denotes ‘love’ in the sense of sexual intercourse; likewise 445. Here locative with εὐνηθέντε, as a variant of ἐν φιλότητι (with εὐνηθέντε/ εὐνηθῆναι 14.314, 14.331, 14.360): Latacz 1966, 185. — τραπείομεν: aor. pass. (with mid. sense) of τέρπω, like τάρπημεν 11.780, ταρπήμεναι 24.3, etc. (on the alternation αρ/ρα in general, G 15; on τέρπω, Chantr. 1.399  f.). -ει- is formed by analogy with the 1st sing. (where it is a replacement for -η-; cf. μεθείω at 414 [with n.]): Werner 1948, 23, 28  f. The forms of τέρπομαι with α as the vowel stem denote the pleasurable gratification of a need (Latacz 1966, 176–191, esp. 186  f.), here (as occasionally) of sexual desire: LfgrE s.v. τέρπω 407.36  ff. 442 1st VH = 14.315; 2nd VH ≈ 14.294. — ὧδέ γ(ε): ‘so much’, resumed by ὥς at 446 (AH). — ἔρως φρένας ἀμφεκάλυψεν: likewise at 14.294, similarly h.Ven. 57. On ἀμφί in such phrases, see 1.103n., LfgrE s.v. ἀμφί 665.52  ff. (emotion wraps ‘around’ or places itself ‘on both sides’ of the φρένες). On the image – ἔρως encases the φρένες like a cloud, darkness or sleep – cf. Engl. ‘cloud one’s judgment’ (LfgrE s.v. καλύπτω 1316.2  ff., 1317.37  ff.; Kloss 1994, 34–37) and Sappho fr. 47 Voigt; another image of Eros’ power in 6.160 (see ad loc.). — ἔρως: ἔρος denotes desire in the sense of a latent, always present drive in human beings, which is converted into physical action from time to time (1.469n.; Kloss 1994, 31). The variant ἔρως is also attested as a term for sexual urges (Kloss loc. cit. 24  f., 34–39; forms of ἔρως are unequivocally attested elsewhere in early epic only at ‘Hes.’ fr. 298 M.-W., h.Merc. 449; cf. app. crit. on 442; ἔρος in the same specific sense at Il. 14.294, 14.315, h.Ven. 91, 144, ἔρῳ at Od. 18.212; Breitenberger 2007, 240 n. 43: ἔρως is merely a metrical variant). 443 2nd VH = 239. — ὅτε … πρῶτον: ‘when … for the first time’; πρῶτον stresses the irreversibility (1.6n.). — ἐρατεινῆς: 239n.

444 2nd VH = 46. — caught you up: Paris grandly stresses only his own role in past events, depicting the abduction as an extraordinary accomplishment in response to Helen’s accusation that he is unheroic (Schmid 1982, 24; van

440 κεῖνον: = ἐκεῖνον. — ἐγώ: sc. νικήσω. — πάρα … εἰσι: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); ‘are with me, stand by me’. 441 ἄγε: originally the imper. of ἄγω; fossilized as a particle that adds emphasis to requests: ‘come on!’. — τραπείομεν: 1st pl. aor. pass. subjunc. of τέρπω (R 16.3; ↑). — εὐνηθέντε: masc. nom. dual aor. pass. part. (with mid. sense) of εὐνάω. 442 μ(ε) … φρένας ἀμφεκάλυψεν: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). 444 ἔπλεον: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — νέεσσιν: dat. pl. of νηῦς (R 12.1).

162 

 Iliad 3

Wees 1992, 172). At the same time, Helen does not consider herself a mere victim (173b–174n.; on the multi-faceted image of her culpability, 2.356n.) and she evaluates the past differently (Nicolai 1973, 153; Lynn-George 1988, 34). ποντοπόροισι: 46n. 445 2nd VH ≈ 6.25, Od. 5.126, 23.219, ‘Hes.’ fr. 17(a).5 M.-W., h.Hom. 32.14. — κραναῇ: Whether the word is to be understood as a proper name (Leaf; Kullmann 1960, 251  f.) or an epithet with the sense ‘rocky’, as at 201 (see ad loc.) (AH; van der Valk 1964, 234; Kirk on 443–5; West’s text, cf. app. crit.), was disputed already in antiquity (schol. A). In the first case we would likely be dealing with an ad hoc invention by the poet of the Iliad (LfgrE s.v. Κραναή; Kullmann loc. cit.): the incident is not mentioned in the Cypria, and Κραναή is a generic name for an island (ancient scholars are accordingly uncertain about its location: Eust. 433.20  ff.). But the case for interpreting the word as an epithet is stronger: κραναῇ then emphasizes the intensity of Paris’ lust in the past, even in an inhospitable environment, against the background of the present context (the comfortable bed in the chamber: 391, 448): AH; LfgrE. — ἐμίγην φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ: an inflectible VE formula (see iterata); εὐνή in the sense ‘sexual intercourse’ with φιλότης also at 14.207, 14.306, 15.32, Od. 10.335, 15.421, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 36 (LfgrE s.v. εὐνή 787.49  ff.). 446 = 14.328; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 22.500, h.Merc. 422; from caesura C 2 on = Il. 11.89. — γλυκὺς ἵμερος αἱρεῖ: While ἔρως denotes a latent human urge (442n.), ἵμερος is used for an external impulse that fixes someone’s thinking on a particular object (139n.; Kloss 1994, 61). Mental states are often depicted as gripping a person, see 1.387n., 2.2n.; on Akkadian parallels, West 1997, 234.

447 ‘The scene culminates in yet another demonstration of power by Paris’ patron deity’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 182, transl.). Contrary to the agreement (138), Helen thus goes not to the victor of the duel but to the one who prevails in the realm of Aphrodite (Bergold 1977, 132; Taplin 1992, 201). She follows Paris, her deep contempt notwithstanding, just as she previously followed Aphrodite (árche at 447 echoes ḗrche at 420 [both ‘preceded’]: Steinrück 1992, 97). But the narrator here says nothing about Helen’s personal feelings, without specifying the moment when her mood might have changed (428–436n.). ἦ ῥα, καί: 310n. — ἄκοιτις: 138n.

448–461 Menelaos searches unsuccessfully for Paris on the battlefield. Agamemnon then announces Menelaos’ victory in the duel and, in accord with the treaty, demands that the Trojans return Helen and the stolen possessions to Menelaos and make the retribution payment.

446 ὡς: refers to ὧδε 442. — σεο: = σου (R 14.1). 447 ἦ ῥα: 355n. — λέχοσδε: ‘to the bed’ (R 15.3). — κιών: part. of the defective verb κίε ‘went’.

Commentary 

 163

448–449 After summarizing the result of the reunion of Paris and Helen (448; Bergold 1977, 133), in 449 the narrator deviates from the ‘continuity of time’ principleP and relates the situation on the battlefield after the removal of Paris (380b–382) by describing Menelaos’ search (ephoíta, ‘hurried to and fro’, a durative impf.; see Faesi on 449; Nünlist 1998, 8; cf. also 1.536–538n.). The two scenes – Paris and Helen lie in bed, Menelaos paces the battlefield like a beast of prey – are juxtaposed to great comic effect (schol. T; Kurz 1966, 16; Kirk on 449–50; Richardson 1990, 116  f.). What is reflected here is probably not only the couple’s first union after the abduction of Helen, but simultaneously Menelaos’ fruitless pursuit of the vanished couple (Nicolai 1973, 153; cf. 373–382n.). 448 τρητοῖσι: ‘pierced’, because the bed had ‘holes drilled through the boards that made up the frame, through which the wicker material was passed’ (Laser 1968, 31, transl.; the holes in the bed frame are visible on a bed depicted on an Attic amphora of the 5th cent. BC: Laser loc. cit. 29 n. 131); in conjunction with λέχος also at 24.720, Od. 3.399, 7.345 (VB formula) and Od. 1.440, 10.12 (VE formula): LfgrE. — κατηύνασθεν: mid., ‘fell asleep’; a similarly restrained depiction of sexual activity at 14.350–353, Od. 8.296 (LfgrE s.v. εὐνάζω); on this in general, 438–446n.

449 ≈ 5.528. — like a wild beast: a contrast to the simile at the beginning of the Book (21–29): Menelaos no longer experiences joy but instead irritation in his avid, predatory searching (23n.; Kullmann 1956, 129; Barck 1971, 21). The expression brings out his human powerlessness in the face of divine intervention (although he does not of course recognize it as such); a similar reaction – but with an awareness of having been cheated out of success in battle by a deity – is exhibited by Diomedes at 11.361  ff. and Achilleus at 20.344  ff., 20.445  ff., 22.14  ff. (Kullmann loc. cit. 129–131). ἐφοίτα: on the sense ‘go to and fro (while searching)’, 24.533n. — θηρὶ ἐοικώς: likewise at VE at 11.546. θήρ denotes a beast of prey, a lion or panther, as at 10.184, 11.546, 15.586 (LfgrE). 450 2nd VH = 27 (see ad loc.). — εἴ που ἐσαθρήσειεν: ‘in the hope that he might somewhere glimpse’ (similarly 1.420 αἴ κε πίθηται [see ad loc.]; more such conditional clauses with final sense in Wakker 1994, 365  ff.). — θεοειδέ͜α: 27n.

448 τώ: nom. dual of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3, R 17). — κατηύνασθεν: 3rd pl. aor. pass. (with mid. meaning) of κατευνάζω (R 16.2). — λεχέεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 449 θηρὶ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)οικώς: on the prosody, R 5.4. 450 θεοειδέ͜α: on the uncontracted form, R 6, on the synizesis, R 7.

164 

 Iliad 3

451–454 The anti-Paris mood (57n., 318–324a n.) has now increased further, as the disappearance of the prince has called the observance of the peace treaty into question (Postlethwaite 2000, 76). 453 indicates how events might have developed, had the Trojans found Paris; on such references to alternatives to the course of events actually depicted (elsewhere usually in the form of ‘if-not’ situationsP), see 2.155–156n.; Richardson 1990, 188  f. with n. 53 p. 242. 451 1st VH ≈ 15.617; 2nd VH = 17.14, ≈ 6.227 (see ad loc.), 11.220, 18.229. 452 ᾿Αλέξανδρον: repeated after 450, in contrast to Μενελάῳ (AH). — ἀρηϊφίλῳ: 21n. 453 φιλότητι: here in the general sense ‘affection, friendship’; in the dat. elsewhere almost always ‘sexual love, lovemaking’, as immediately above in Paris’ seduction speech (441n., 445). The present passage may be intended to recall that scene: in his bedchamber, Paris is removed from the reach of the other Trojans (Kirk; Taplin 1992, 103). — ἐκεύθανον, εἴ τις ἴδοιτο: ἐκεύθανον, transmitted by almost all mss. but attested only here, is an expanded form of κεύθω ‘hide’ analogous to ληθάνω (Od. 7.221, from λήθω): Schw. 1.699; Risch 272. The mixed condition is unparalleled in Homeric epic in this form; the impf. ἐκεύθανον combines two notions, the actual and the hypothetical (‘they did not hide him, sc. and would not do so’; similar post-Homeric examples without modal particle in Schw. 2.353); ἴδοιτο is potential; in inverse order at 2.80  f. (see ad loc., including bibliography on mixed conditional clauses, 5.311  f., 17.70  f., Od. 1.236  f. (AH; Bolling 1914, 125–127; Bergold 1977, 133 n. 2; Willcock).

454 hated … as dark death is hated: the same comparison as an expression of extreme disgust at 1.228 (see ad loc.), 9.312, Od. 14.156, 17.500 (AH; Fränkel 1921, 56). σφιν: on the form, G 81. — ἀπήχθετο: aor. of ἀπεχθάνομαι or impf. of ἀπέχθομαι, both with the sense ‘incur hatred, be hated’ (LfgrE s.v. ἐχθάνομαι); the same contrast of the stems φιλ- (here 453 φιλότητι) and ἐχθ- also at 4.51/53, 9.614 (LfgrE loc. cit.). — κηρὶ μελαίνῃ: a VE formula as at 360 (2.859n.); κήρ here has the nuance ‘death-bringing creature’ (on which in general, 2.301–302n.). 455 = 10.233, 19.76. — τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπεν: a VB formula (8× Il., 8× Od.). — ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectible VE formula (nom./voc.; see 1.172n.); on the combination ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν, 1.7n.

456–459 Agamemnon’s demands largely correspond to the terms of the treaty (284–287), although he formulated them in what might be seen as a high-handed manner (275–291n.); cf. Zeus’ similar proposal at 4.13–19 (Schneider 1996, 56).

453 οὐ μέν (≈ μήν): emphatic (R 24.6). — τις ἴδοιτο: The digamma at the beginning of (ϝ)ίδοιτο has no prosodic effect here (R 4.6). — ἴδοιτο: on the mid., R 23. 454 σφιν: = σφι = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). 455 μετέ(ϝ)ειπεν: = μετεῖπεν.

Commentary 

 165

456 = 7.348, 7.368, 8.497. — Dardanians: people from Dardania, Troy’s ‘mother-city’ (CH 8 n. 34; 2.819n.). κέκλυτέ μοι: 86n. 457 μὲν δή: ‘now’; in direct speech (frequently at the beginning of a speech), the combination stresses the execution or conclusion of an action, thus e.g. also 24.599 υἱὸς μὲν δή τοι λέλυται, Od. 21.207 ἔνδον μὲν δὴ ὅδ’ αὐτὸς ἐγώ (sc. Odysseus), Sappho fr. 112 Voigt σοὶ μὲν δὴ γάμος … ἐκτετέλεστ(αι). Occasionally a request (continuing the action) follows with νῦν δέ, ἀλλ’ ἄγε vel sim., here at 458  f. ὑμεῖς δ’ … ἔκδοτε (parallels at AH on 24.599; also 17.708–712, 24.601). — φαίνετ(αι): ‘has become visible, clear’. Menelaos’ victory is evident to all (acknowledged by Helen at 403  f., by Paris at 439, by Zeus at 4.13). Agamemnon now actually adopts the Trojan terms when he takes up Hektor’s words at 92 and speaks of Menelaos’ victory, despite having presupposed the death of one of the opponents at 281/281 (275–291n.). No one expected the duel to end this way (schol. AbT; Kirk; 1977, 133  f.). 458 ≈ 7.350; 2nd VH = 22.114. — ὑμεῖς δ(έ): ‘(cf. 4.14 ἡμεῖς δέ): The victory is on our side; now you must do what befits you’ (AH, transl.). — Ἀργείην: ‘(woman) of Argos’, i.e. a ‘Greek woman’ (1.2n.); epithet of Helen, here likely with a pregnant sense emphasizing the Greek claim (so too at 2.161, see ad loc.): Bergold 1977, 133. — ἅμ’ αὐτῇ: stresses the close connection of the person with the goods (LfgrE s.v. ἅμα 601.34  ff.).

459 ≈ 286 (see ad loc.). 460 = 287 (see ad loc.). 461 ≈ Od. 12.294, 12.352. — The narrator provides no information about the Trojan reaction. But the lack of objection suggests that they too recognize Menelaos’ victory (Faesi). The course of events to come thus remains open. At 4.79  ff., the two armies remain seated indecisively opposite one other. Only at 7.345  ff. do the Trojans explicitly react to Agamemnon’s demands (Antenor speaks on behalf of the anti-Paris faction and proposes the return of Helen, cf. 159  f., 451– 454n.): AH; Bergold 1977, 134; Woronoff 1994, 399; Reichel 1994, 240  f. ἐπὶ … ᾔνεον: ‘agreed, applauded’; with ἐπί sc. τούτῳ/τούτοις (LfgrE s.v. αἰνέω; Krapp 1964, 101 n. 3).

459 ἀποτινέμεν: imperatival inf.; on the form, R 16.4. — ἔοικεν: sc. ἀποτινέμεν. 461 ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the mid., R 23.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 1. Works cited without year of publication (standard works) AH

Homers Ilias. Erklärt von K.F. Ameis und C. Hentze, Leipzig and Berlin 1868–1884 (Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze); most recent editions: vol. 1.1 (Books 1–3) 71913, rev. by P. Cauer; vol. 1.2 (Books 4–6) 6 1908; vol. 1.3 (Books 7–9) 51907; vol. 1.4 (Books 10–12) 51906; vol. 2.1 (Books 13–15) 41905; vol. 2.2 (Books 16–18) 41908; vol. 2.3 (Books 19–21) 41905; vol. 2.4 (Books 22–24) 41906. (Reprint Amsterdam 1965.) Anhang zu Homers Ilias. Schulausgabe von K.F. Ameis, Leipzig 11868– 1886 (commentary on Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; Books 7–24 by Hentze); most recent editions: 1st part (Books 1–3) 31896; 2nd part (Books 4–6) 21882; 3rd part (Books 7–9) 21887; 4th part (Books 10–12) 21888; 5th part (Books 13– 15) 21897; 6th part (Books 16–18) 21900; 7th part (Books 19–21) 11883; 8th part (Books 22–24) 11886. Archaeologia Homerica. Die Denkmäler und das frühgriechische Epos. Edited by F. Matz and H.-G. Buchholz under the authority of the DAI. Göttingen 1967–. Autenrieth, G. and A. Kaegi. Wörterbuch zu den Homerischen Gedichten14. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1999 (= reprint of 131920, with a preface by J. Latacz and an introduction by A. Willi; Leipzig 11873). Beekes, R.S.P. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assistance of L. van Beek. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden/Boston 2010. (2 vols.) Brill’s New Pauly, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, transl. by C.F. Salazar; online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-new-pauly (retrieved 9. 1. 2015); print edition Leiden 2002–2011. (Original German ed.: Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart and Weimar 1996–2003.) Chantraine, P. Grammaire homérique6. Paris 1986–1988 (11942–1953). (2 vols.) Chronique d’étymologie grecque, ed. by A. Blanc, C. de Lamberterie and J.-L. Perpillou, appears annually in: RPh 70–, 1996–; cited in this volume (also in DELG) are: ChronEG 2, RPh 71 (1997 [1998]): 147–179; ChronEG 4, RPh 73 (1999 [2000]): 79–108; ChronEG 8, RPh 77 (2003 [2004]): 111–140. Morris, I. and B. Powell (eds.). A New Companion to Homer. Leiden etc. 1997. Cunliffe, R.J. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. Norman/London 21963. (London etc. 11924.) Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Nouvelle édition avec, en supplément, les Chroniques d’étymologie grecque (1–10). Paris 2009 (11968–1980). Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934). Ebeling, H. Lexicon Homericum. Leipzig 1885. (Reprint Hildesheim 1987.) (2 vols.) Edwards, M.W. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. V: Books 17–20. Cambridge 1991. 1

AH, Anh.

ArchHom

Autenrieth/Kaegi

Beekes

BNP

Chantr. ChronEG

Companion Cunliffe DELG

Denniston Ebeling Edwards

168 

Faesi

 Iliad 3

Homers Iliade. Erklärt von J.U. Faesi. 5th–6th ed., rev. by F.R. Franke. Berlin 1871–1887 (Leipzig 11851–1852). (4 vols.) Faulkner Faulkner, A. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford 2008. Fernández-Galiano Fernández-Galiano, M., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) Frisk Frisk, H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1960–1972. (3 vols.) Hainsworth Hainsworth, B., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.) HE Finkelberg, M. (ed.). The Homer Encyclopedia. Online: http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781444350302 (retrieved 16. 2. 2015); print edition Chichester 2011 (3 vols.). Hooker Homer, Iliad III, ed. with introduction, notes and vocabulary by J.T. Hooker. Bristol 1979. HTN Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer. Tradition und Neuerung. Wege der Forschung 463. Darmstadt 1979. Janko Janko, R. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge 1992. Jones Jones, P. Homer’s Iliad. A Commentary on three Translations. London 2003. de Jong on Od. Jong, I.J.F. de. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001. de Jong on Il. 22 Jong, I.J.F. de (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book XXII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2012. von Kamptz Kamptz, H. von. Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen and Zurich 1982. (Originally Diss. Jena 1958.) Kirk Kirk, G.S. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge 1985 (repr. 1987 etc.); vol. II: Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990. K.-G. Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hannover 1898–1904. (2 vols.; reprint Hanover 1992.) Lattimore The Iliad of Homer. Transl. by R. Lattimore, introduction and notes by R.P. Martin. Chicago and London 2011 (11951). Leaf The Iliad2. Ed. with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices by W. Leaf. London 1900–1902 (11886–1888). (2 vols.) van Leeuwen Ilias. Cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentariis exegeticis ed. J. van Leeuwen. Leiden 1912–1913. (2 vols.) LfgrE Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Founded by Bruno Snell. Prepared under the authority of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen and edited by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Göttingen 1955–2010. LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed. by H.C. Ackermann and J.R. Gisler. Zurich etc. 1981–1999. (18 vols.). LIV Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Ed. by M. Kümmel, Th. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer under the direction of H. Rix and with the collaboration of many others. Second, expanded and improved edition ed. by M. Kümmel and H. Rix. Wiesbaden 2001 (11998). LSJ Liddell, H.R., R. Scott and H.S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon9. Oxford 1940. (Reprint with revised Supplement 1996.)

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Ludwich Macleod MHV Nägelsbach

Olson on h.Aphr.

Paduano/Mirto RE

Richardson Risch Roscher Ruijgh Schadewaldt

Schw.

ThesCRA

Untermann

Wathelet

West on Hes. Op. West on Hes. Th. West on Od. 1–4 Willcock

 169

Homeri Carmina. Rec. et selecta lectionis varietate instruxit A. Ludwich, Pars prior (Ilias), vol. 1. Leipzig 1902. (Reprint Stuttgart and Leipzig 1995.) Macleod, C.W. (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book XXIV. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1982. Parry, M. The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, ed. by Adam Parry. New York and Oxford 1971. (Reprint 1987.) Nägelsbach, C.F. von. Anmerkungen zur Ilias (Α. Β 1–483. Γ) nebst einigen Excursen. Ein Hülfsbuch für das Verständniss des Dichters überhaupt. Third, much expanded edition ed. by G. Autenrieth. Nuremberg 1864 (11834). S.D. Olson (ed.). The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts: Text, Translation and Commentary. Texte und Kommentare 39. Berlin and Boston 2012. Omero, Iliade, traduzione e saggio introduttivo di G. Paduano, commento di M.S. Mirto. Testo greco a fronte. Biblioteca della Pléiade. Turin 1997. Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition, ed. by G. Wissowa with the cooperation of numerous specialists. Stuttgart 1894–2000. Richardson, N.J. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford 1974. Risch, E. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2. Berlin and New York 1974 (11937). Roscher, W.H. (ed.). Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. Leipzig 1884–1937. Ruijgh, C.J. Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam 1971. Homer Ilias. Neue Übertragung von W. Schadewaldt. Mit zwölf antiken Vasenbildern. Insel Taschenbuch 153. Frankfurt am Main 1975. (Reprint with an introduction by J. Latacz. Dusseldorf and Zurich 2002.) Schwyzer, E., A. Debrunner, D.J. Georgacas and F. and St. Radt. Griechische Grammatik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.1.1–4. Munich 1939– 1994. (4 vols.) Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, ed. by the Fondation for the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles 2004–2014. (8 vols. and 1 index vol.) Untermann, J. Einführung in die Sprache Homers. Der Tod des Patroklos, Ilias Π 684–867. Heidelberger Studienhefte zur Altertumswiss. Heidelberg 1987. Wathelet, P. Dictionnaire des Troyens de l’Iliade. Université de Liège. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres. Documenta et Instrumenta 1. Liège 1988. (2 vols.) Hesiod, Works and Days. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M.L. West. Oxford 1978. Hesiod, Theogony. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M.L. West. Oxford 1966. West, S., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1981.) Homer, Iliad. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by M.M. Willcock. London 1978–1984. (2 vols.)

170 

 Iliad 3

2. Editions of ancient authors and texts1 Alexis, fragments (K.-A.) in Poetae comici graeci (PCG), edd. R. Kassel et C. Austin, vol. II, Berlin and New York 1991. Alcman (Calame) Alcman. Fragmenta edidit, veterum testimonia collegit C. Calame. Rome 1983. Alcaeus (Voigt) in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971. Archilochus (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M.L. West, vol. 1. Oxford 1989 (11971). CEG Hansen, P.A. Carmina epigraphica graeca. Texte und Kommentare 12 and 15. Berlin and New York 1983–1989. (2 vols.) Empedocles (VS) No. 31 in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6. Greek and German text by H. Diels, ed. by W. Kranz, vol. 1. Berlin etc. 1951 (no. 21 in 11903). ‘Epic Cycle’ (West) in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, ed. and transl. by M.L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. Hecataeus (FGrHist) no. 1 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker2 (FGrHist), ed. F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden 1957 (Berlin 11923). Hellanicus (FGrHist/Fowler) • no. 4 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker2 (FGrHist), ed. F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden 1957 (Berlin 11923); • and in Early Greek Mythography, ed. R.L. Fowler, vol. 1: Texts. Oxford 2000. ‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.) in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; and Fragmenta selecta3, edd. R. Merkelbach and M.L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970). Sappho (Voigt) in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971. Scholia on the Iliad (Erbse) Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), rec. H. Erbse. Berlin 1969–1988. (7 vols.). Scholia on the Iliad (van Thiel) Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manu scriptos, ed. H. van Thiel, http://kups.ub.unikoeln.de/1810/; 2nd edition: http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/ (both retrieved 9. 1. 2015). Stesichorus (Page/Davies) • in Poetae melici graeci, ed. D.L. Page. Oxford 1962; • and in Poetarum melicorum graecorum fragmenta, post D.L. Page ed. M. Davies, vol. 1. New York 1991.

1 Editions are included only of works for which different editions offer different verse, paragraph or fragment numbers.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 171

3.  Articles and monographs Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique.2 Adkins 1960 Adkins, A.W.H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford. Albracht (1886) 2005 Albracht, F. Battle and Battle Description in the Iliad: A Contribution to the History of War, transl. by P. Jones, M. Willcock and G. Wright. London. (German original: Kampf und Kampfschilderung bei Homer. Ein Beitrag zu den Kriegsaltertümern. Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Königl. Landesschule Pforta 1886. Naumburg an der Saale.) Alden 2000 Alden, M.J. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford. Aldrete et al. 2013 Aldrete, G.S., S. Bartell and A. Aldrete. Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor: Unraveling the Linothorax Mystery. Baltimore. Anastassiou 1973 Anastassiou, I. Zum Wortfeld ‘Trauer’ in der Sprache Homers. Hamburg. Apthorp 1980 Apthorp, M.J. The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. 2.71. Heidelberg. Apthorp 1999 Apthorp, M.J. ‘Homer’s Winged Words and the Papyri: Some Questions of Authenticity.’ ZPE 128: 15–22. Aravantinos et al. 2001 Aravantinos, V.L., L. Godart and A. Sacconi. Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmée. Vol. 1: Les tablettes en linéaire B de la ‘Odos Pelopidou’. Édition et commentaire. Pasiphae 1. Pisa. Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin. Armstrong 1958 Armstrong, J.I. ‘The Arming Motif in the Iliad.’ AJPh 79: 337–354. Arnott 2007 Arnott, W.G. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z. The Ancient World from A to Z. London. Arnould 1986 Arnould, D. ‘τήκειν dans la peinture des larmes et du deuil chez Homère et les tragiques.’ RPh 60: 267–274. Arnould 1990 Arnould, D. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon. Collection d’études anciennes, Série grecque 119. Paris. Aubriot-Sévin 1992 Aubriot-Sévin, D. Prière et conceptions religieuses en Grèce ancienne jusqu’à la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C. Lyon etc. Austin 1994 Austin, N. Helen of Troy and Her Shameless Phantom. Ithaca and London. Bakker 1988 Bakker, E.J. Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and the Description of the Particle ‘per’. Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Bakker/van den Houten 1992 Bakker, E.J. and N. van den Houten. ‘Aspects of Synonymy in Homeric Diction: An Investigation of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ CPh 87: 1–13. (Also in E.J. Bakker, Pointing at the Past. From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics, pp. 22–37. Hellenic Studies 12. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2005.) Baltes (1987) 2005 Baltes, M. ‘Beobachtungen zum Aufbau der Ilias.’ In M. Baltes. ΕΠΙΝΟΗΜΑΤΑ. Kleine Schriften zur antiken Philosophie und homerischen Dichtung, ed. by M.-L. Lakmann, pp.  273–291. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 221. Munich

2 A cumulative list can be found at: http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/Thesaurus/APh_List.pdf (retrieved: 13. 03. 2015).

172 

 Iliad 3

and Leipzig 2005. (First published in Literaturwiss. Jahrbuch N.F. 28 [1987]: 9–25.) Banck-Burgess 1999 Banck-Burgess, J. Hochdorf IV. Die Textilfunde aus dem späthallstattzeitlichen Fürstengrab von Eberdingen-Hochdorf (Kreis Ludwigsburg) und weitere Grabtextilien aus hallstatt- und latènezeitlichen Kulturgruppen. Mit Beiträgen von L.R. Knudsen, K. Mann, P.W. Rogers und W. Hübner. Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 70. Stuttgart. Barber 1991 Barber, E.J.W. Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton. Barck 1971 Barck, C. ‘Menelaos bei Homer.’ WS 5: 5–28. Barck 1976 Barck, C. Wort und Tat bei Homer. Spudasmata 34. Hildesheim and New York. Barth 1984 Barth, H.-L. Die Fragmente aus den Schriften des Grammatikers Kallistratos zu Homers Ilias und Odyssee (Edition mit Kommentar). Bonn. Bäumlein 1861 Bäumlein, W. Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln. Stuttgart. Bechert 1964 Bechert, J. Die Diathesen von ἰδεῖν und ὁρᾶν bei Homer. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Beiheft F. Munich. Bechtel 1914 Bechtel, F. Lexilogus zu Homer. Etymologie und Stammbildung homerischer Wörter. Halle. Beck 1972 Beck, R. ‘A Principle of Composition in Homeric Verse.’ Phoenix 26: 213– 231. Becker 1995 Becker, A.S. The Shield of Achilles and the Poetics of Ekphrasis. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham, MD. Beckmann 1932 Beckmann, J.Th. Das Gebet bei Homer. Wurzburg. Beekes 1969 Beekes, R.S.P. The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek. Paris etc. Beekes 1976 Beekes, R.S.P. ‘Some Greek aRa-Forms.’ MSS 34: 9–20. Beekes 1998 Beekes, R.S.P. ‘Hades and Elysion.’ In J. Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert and L. Oliver (eds.). Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, pp. 17–28. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 92. Innsbruck. Benardete 1963 Benardete, S. ‘Achilles and the Iliad.’ Hermes 91: 1–16. Benveniste 1969 Benveniste, E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 1: économie, parenté, société. Paris. Benveniste 1969a Benveniste, E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 2: pouvoir, droit, religion; sommaires. Paris. Bergold 1977 Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos. (Zu Ilias Γ 1 – Δ 222). Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klass. Philol. 28. Bonn. Bernsdorff 1992 Bernsdorff, H. Zur Rolle des Aussehens im homerischen Menschenbild. Hypomnemata 97. Göttingen. Bierl 2003 Bierl, A. ‘«Ich aber (sage), das Schönste ist, was einer liebt!» Eine pragmatische Deutung von Sappho Fr. 16 LP/V.’ QUCC N.S. 74: 91–124. Bierl et al. 2004 Bierl, A., A. Schmitt and A. Willi (eds.). Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Festschrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages. Munich and Leipzig. Blanc 2002 Blanc, A. ‘Disguised Compounds in Greek: Homeric ἀβληχρός, ἀγαυός, ἄκμηνος, τηλύγετος and χαλίφρων.’ TPhS 100: 169–184.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Blanc 2007

 173

Blanc, A. ‘Rythme et syntaxe dans l’hexamètre. Les datifs pluriels des thèmes sigmatiques.’ In A. Blanc and E. Dupraz (eds.). Procédés synchroniques de la langue poétique en Grec et en Latin, pp. 13–26. Brussels. Blok 1995 Blok, J.H. The Early Amazons. Modern and Ancient Perspectives on a Persistent Myth. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 120. Leiden. Blondell 2010 Blondell, R. ‘«Bitch that I Am»: Self-Blame and Self-Assertion in the Iliad.’ TAPhA 140: 1–32. Blondell 2013 Blondell, R. Helen of Troy: Beauty, Myth, Devastation. Oxford. Boedeker 1974 Boedeker, D.D. Aphrodite’s Entry into Greek Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 32. Leiden. Boehm/Pfotenhauer 1995 Boehm, G. and H. Pfotenhauer (eds.). Beschreibungskunst – Kunstbeschreibung. Ekphrasis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Munich. Bolling 1914 Bolling, G.M. ‘The Archetype of Our Iliad and the Papyri.’ AJPh 35: 125–148. Bolling 1944 Bolling, G.M. The Athetized Lines of the Iliad. Special Publications of the Linguistic Society of America. Baltimore. Bolling 1953 Bolling, G.M. ‘Three Puzzles in the Language of the Iliad.’ Language 29: 293– 296. Bonifazi 2008 Bonifazi, A. ‘Memory and Visualization in Homeric Discourse Markers.’ In E.A. Mackay (ed.). Orality, Literacy, Memory in the ancient Greek and Roman World, pp. 35–64. Mnemosyne Supplement 298. Leiden and Boston. Bonifazi 2012 Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Hellenic Studies 50. Washington, D.C. Bonnafé 1984 Bonnafé, A. Poésie, nature et sacré. Vol. 1: Homère, Hésiode et le sentiment grec de la nature. Lyon. Borchhardt 1977 Borchhardt, H. ‘Frühe griechische Schildformen.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 1–56. Göttingen. Borchhardt 1972 Borchhardt, J. Homerische Helme. Helmformen der Ägäis in ihren Beziehungen zu orientalischen und europäischen Helmen in der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit. Mainz. Borchhardt 1977a Borchhardt, J. ‘Helme’. In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 57–74. Göttingen. von Bothmer 1957 von Bothmer, D. Amazons in Greek Art. Oxford. von Bothmer 1989 von Bothmer, D. ‘Armorial Adjuncts.’ MMJ 24: 65–70. Bouvier 2002 Bouvier, D. Le sceptre et la lyre. L’Iliade ou les héros de la mémoire. Collection HOROS. Grenoble. Braswell 1988 Braswell, B.K. A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar. Texte und Kommentare 14. Berlin and New York. Breitenberger 2007 Breitenberger, B. Aphrodite and Eros: the Development of Erotic Mythology in Early Greek Poetry and Cult. Studies in Classics. New York. Bremmer 1978 Bremmer, J. ‘Heroes, Rituals and the Trojan War.’ SSR 2: 5–38. Bruns 1970 Bruns, G. ‘Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten’. ArchHom chap. Q. Göttingen. Buchholz et al. 1973 Buchholz, H.-G., G. Jöhrens and I. Maull. ‘Jagd und Fischfang.’ ArchHom chap. J. Göttingen. Buchholz 2010 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Kriegswesen. Teil 3: Ergänzungen und Zusammenfassung.’ ArchHom chap. E 3. Göttingen. Buchholz 2012 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Stäbe aller Art (Zepter, Kerykeion usw.).’ ArchHom chap. D. Göttingen.

174 

 Iliad 3

Bühler 1960

Bühler, W. Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Hermes Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden. Burkert 1955 Burkert, W. Zum altgriechischen Mitleidsbegriff. Erlangen. Burkert (1977) 1985 Burkert, W. Greek Religion, transl. by J. Raffan. Cambridge, Mass. (German original: Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stuttgart 1977.) Buttmann (1818) 1825 Buttmann, P. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung, hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod2, vol. 1. Berlin (11818). Cairns 1993 Cairns, D.L. Aidōs. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford. Cairns 2001 Cairns, D.L. (ed.). Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford. Cairns 2001a Cairns, D.L. ‘Affronts and Quarrels in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 203–219. Cairns 2003 Cairns, D.L. ‘Ethics, Ethology, Terminology: Iliadic Anger and the Cross-Cultural Study of Emotion.’ In S. Braund and G.W. Most (eds.). Ancient Anger. Perspectives from Homer to Galen, pp. 11–49. Yale Classical Studies 32. Cambridge. Callaway 1990 Callaway, C.L. The Oath in Epic Poetry. Diss. Univ. of Washington. Casevitz 1985 Casevitz, M. Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien. Étude lexicologique: les familles de κτίζω et de οἰκέω–οἰκίζω. Études et Commentaires 97. Paris. Catling 1977 Catling, H.W. ‘Panzer.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 74–118. Göttingen. Catling 1977a Catling, H.W. ‘Beinschienen.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil  1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 143–161. Göttingen. Catrein 2003 Catrein, Chr. Vertauschte Sinne: Untersuchungen zur Synästhesie in der römischen Dichtung. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 178. Munich and Leipzig. Cavalli-Sforza 1986 Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (ed.). African Pygmies. Orlando. Chantraine 1954 Chantraine, P. ‘Le divin et les dieux chez Homère.’ In La notion du divin depuis Homère jusqu’à Platon, pp. 47–94. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 1. Vandœuvres/Geneva. Citron 1965 Citron, A. Semantische Untersuchung zu σπένδεσθαι – σπένδειν – εὔχεσθαι. Winterthur. Clader 1976 Clader, L.L. Helen. The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradition. Mnemosyne Supplement 42. Leiden. Clark 1940 Clark, W.P. ‘Iliad IX. 336 and the Meaning of ἄλοχος in Homer.’ CPh 35: 188– 190. Clarke 1995 Clarke, M. ‘Between Lions and Men: Images of the Hero in the Iliad.’ GRBS 36: 137–159. Clark 1997 Clarke, M. Out of Line. Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham, MD etc. Clarke 1997/98 Clarke, M. ‘πινύσκω and Its Cognates: A Note on Simonides, fr. 508 Page.’ Glotta 74: 135–142. Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Clay 1983 Clay, J.S. The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Princeton. Coldstream 1983 Coldstream, J.N. ‘Gift Exchange in the Eighth Century B.C.’ In Hägg 1983, pp. 201–207.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Collins 1988

 175

Collins, L. Studies in Characterization in the Iliad. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 189. Frankfurt am Main. Constantinidou 1990 Constantinidou, S. ‘Evidence for Marriage Ritual in Iliad 3.’ Dodone (philol) 19: 47–59. Constantinidou 1994 Constantinidou, S. ‘The Vision of Homer: The Eyes of Heroes and Gods.’ Antichthon 28: 1–15. Corlu 1966 Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux tragiques. Études et commentaires 64. Paris. Crouwel 1992 Crouwel, J.H. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 9. Amsterdam. Crouwel/Littauer 1979 Crouwel, J.H. and M.A. Littauer. Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East. Handbuch der Orientalistik 7, Abteilung 1, Bd.  2, Abschnitt B, Lieferung 1. Leiden. Danek 2003 Danek, G. Review of West 2001. In WS 116: 281–286. Danek 2005 Danek, G. ‘Antenor und die Bittgesandtschaft. Ilias, Bakchylides 15 und der Astarita-Krater.’ WS 118: 5–20. Danek 2006 Danek, G. ‘Antenor und seine Familie in der Ilias.’ WS 119: 5–22. Danek 2006a Danek, G. ‘Die Gleichnisse der Ilias und der Dichter Homer.’ In F. Montanari and A. Rengakos (eds.). La poésie épique grecque: métamorphoses d’un genre littéraire, pp. 41–77. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 52. Vandœuvres/Geneva. Darms 1978 Darms, G. Schwäher und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn. Die Vr̥ddhi-Ableitung im Germanischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft N.F. Beiheft 9. Munich. Dasen 1993 Dasen, V. Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece. Oxford. Davies 2003 Davies, M. ‘The Judgements of Paris and Solomon.’ CQ N.S. 53: 32–43. Davies/Kathirithamby 1986 Davies, M. and J. Kathirithamby. Greek Insects. London. Deger 1970 Deger, S. Herrschaftsformen bei Homer. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 43. Vienna. Delebecque 1951 Delebecque, E. Le cheval dans l’Iliade. Paris. Demont 2000 Demont, P. ‘Lots héroïques: Remarques sur le tirage au sort de l’Iliade aux Sept Contre Thèbes d’Eschyle.’ REG 113: 299–325. Detienne/Vernant 1974 Detienne, M. and J.-P. Vernant. Les ruses de l’intelligence. La mètis des Grecs. Nouvelle bibliothèque scientifique. Paris. Di Benedetto 2000 Di Benedetto, V. ‘Anafore incipitarie nell’Iliade.’ MD 45: 9–41. Dietrich 1965 Dietrich, B.C. Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer. University of London Classical Studies 3. London etc. Dihle 1970 Dihle, A. Homer-Probleme. Opladen. Dirichlet 1914 Dirichlet, G.L. De veterum macarismis. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 14.4. Giessen. Dirlmeier 1935 Dirlmeier, F. ‘ΘΕΟΦΙΛΙΑ – ΦΙΛΟΘΕΙΑ.’ Philologus 90 (N.F. 44): 57–77, 176–193. Dodds 1951 Dodds, E.R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Sather Classical Lectures 25. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Doederlein1858 Doederlein, L. Homerisches Glossarium, vol. 3. Erlangen. Donlan 1971 Donlan, W. ‘Homer’s Agamemnon.’ CW 65: 109–115. Donnelly 1930 Donnelly, F.P. ‘Homeric Litotes.’ CW 23: 137–140, 145–146.

176 

 Iliad 3

Duban 1981

Duban, J.M. ‘Les duels majeurs de l’Iliade et le langage d’Hector.’ LEC 49: 97–124. Düntzer (1864) 1979 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Ausdruck.’ In HTN, pp. 88–108 (slightly abridged; first published in JbbClassPhil 10 [1864]: 673–694; also in H. Düntzer. Homerische Abhandlungen, pp. 517– 549. Leipzig 1872). Dunkle 1987 Dunkle, R. ‘Nestor, Odysseus, and the Mêtis–Biê Antithesis: The Funeral Games, Iliad 23.’ CW 81: 1–17. Durante (1958) 1968 Durante, M. ‘Epea pteroenta. Die Rede als «Weg» in griechischen und vedischen Bildern.’ In Schmitt 1968, pp.  242–260. (Italian original in RAL 13 [1958] 3–14.) Durante 1976 Durante, M. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Parte seconda: Risultanze della comparazione indoeuropea. Incunabula Graeca 64. Rome. Edwards 1969 Edwards, M.W. ‘On Some «Answering» Expressions in Homer.’ CPh 64: 81–87. Edwards 1970 Edwards, M.W. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions.’ HSCPh 74: 1–36. Edwards 1987 Edwards, M.W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London. Elliger 1975 Elliger, W. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15. Berlin and New York. Elmer 2012 Elmer, D.F. ‘Building Community Across the Battle-Lines. The Truce in Iliad 3 and 4.’ In J. Wilker (ed.). Maintaining Peace and Interstate Stability in Archaic and Classical Greece, pp. 25–48. Studien zur Alten Geschichte 16. Mainz. Erbse (1975) 1979 Erbse, H. ‘Homerisches ΑΓΓΕΛΙΗΣ.’ In H. Erbse. Ausgewählte Schriften zur klassischen Philologie, pp. 73–80. Berlin and New York. (First published in J. Bingen, G. Cambier and G. Nachtergael [eds.]. Le monde grec. Pensée, littérature, histoire, documents. Hommages à Claire Préaux, pp. 68–74. Brussels 1975.) Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York. Erbse 1996 Erbse, H. ‘Über Götter und Menschen in der Ilias Homers.’ Hermes 124: 1–16. Faraone 1993 Faraone, C.A. ‘Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals: Sympathetic Magic in Near Eastern and Early Greek Oath Ceremonies.’ JHS 113: 60–80. Farron 1979 Farron, S. ‘The Portrayal of Women in the Iliad.’ AClass 22: 15–31. Farron 2003 Farron, S. ‘Attitudes to Military Archery in the Iliad.’ In A.F. Basson and W.J. Dominik (eds.). Literature, Art, History: Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition in Honour of W.J. Henderson, pp. 169–184. Frankfurt am Main. Faust 1970 Faust, M. ‘Die künstlerische Verwendung von κύων «Hund» in den homerischen Epen.’ Glotta 48: 8–31. Fauth 1975 Fauth, W. ‘Zur Typologie mythischer Metamorphosen in der homerischen Dichtung.’ Poetica 7: 235–268. Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias. Berlin. Fehling 1974 Fehling, D. Ethologische Überlegungen auf dem Gebiet der Altertumskunde. Phallische Demonstration – Fernsicht – Steinigung. Zetemata 61. Munich. Felsch 2001 Felsch, R.C.S. ‘Opferhandlungen des Alltagslebens im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos von Hyampolis in den Phasen SH III C – Spätgeometrisch.’ Aegaeum 22: 193–199.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Fenik 1968

 177

Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden. Fingerle 1939 Fingerle, A. Typik der homerischen Reden. Munich. Finkelberg 1989 Finkelberg, M ‘Formulaic and Nonformulaic Elements in Homer.’ CPh 84: 179–197. Floyd 1988/89 Floyd, E.D. ‘Homer and the Life-Producing Earth.’ CW 82: 337–349. Foltiny 1980 Foltiny, St. ‘Schwert, Dolch und Messer.’ In ArchHom chap. E 2 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 2: Angriffswaffen’), pp. 231–274. Göttingen. Forrer 1924 Forrer, E. ‘Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keilschrifttexten von Bogazköi.’ MDOG 63: 1–24. Forssman 1966 Forssman, B. Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars. Klassisch-philologische Studien 33. Wiesbaden. Forssman 1969 Forssman, B. ‘Zu ὑπερφίαλος.’ MSS 26: 27–34. Forssman 1974 Forssman, B. ‘Zu homerisch ἀγγελίης «Bote».’ MSS 32: 41–64. Forssman 1975 Forssman, B. Review of M. van Strien-Gerritsen. De homerische composita. Assen 1973. Kratylos 20: 77–82. Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen (= 21977: unaltered reprint with afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch). (Abridged English transl. in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp.  301–321 [= Fränkel 1921, pp.  16–35] and Wright/Jones 1997, pp. 103–123 [= Fränkel 1921, pp. 98–114].) Fränkel 1924 Fränkel, H. ‘Homerische Wörter.’ In ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres am 11.  12. 1923, gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, pp. 274–282. Göttingen. Fränkel (1951) 1973 Fränkel, H. Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy: A History of Greek Epic, Lyric, and Prose to the Middle of the Fifth Century, transl. by M. Hadas and J. Willis. New York and London. (German original: Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts2. Munich 1962 [11951 New York].) Franz 2002 Franz, J.P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europäische Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt am Main etc. Friedrich (1956) 2003 Friedrich, W.-H. Wounding and Death in the Iliad: Homeric Techniques of Description, transl. by P. Jones and G. Wright, with a new appendix by K.  Saunders. London. (German original: Verwundung und Tod in der Ilias. Homerische Darstellungsweisen. AbhGöttingen 3.38. Göttingen.) Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theorie der epischen Gattung. Heidelberg. Friedrich 2007 Friedrich, R. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches. Hermes Einzelschriften 100. Stuttgart. Fritz 2005 Fritz, M.A. Die trikasuellen Lokalpartikeln bei Homer. Syntax und Semantik. Historische Sprachforschung, Ergänzungsheft 44. Göttingen. Führer 1976 Führer, R. Beiträge zur Metrik und Textkritik der griechischen Lyriker, 2a–2b: Text und Kolometrie von Bakchylides’ Ἠΐθεοι (c. 17). Zum Problem der Responsionsfreiheiten bei Pindar und Bakchylides. NAWG 1976, 5. Göttingen. Führer 1989 Führer, R. Review of Jahn 1987. GGA 241: 147–157.

178 

 Iliad 3

Führer/Schmidt 2001 Führer, R. and M. Schmidt. ‘Homerus redivivus.’ Review of Homerus, Ilias, recensuit and testimonia congessit M.L. West (vol. I, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998). GGA 253: 1–32. Funkhänel 1847 Funkhänel, K.H. ‘Gottesurtheil bei Griechen und Römern.’ Philologus 2: 385– 402. Gagné 2010 Gagné, R. ‘The Poetics of exôleia in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 63: 353–380. Gantar 1971 Gantar, K. ‘Ucalegonte in Virgilio, Omero e Giovenale.’ AVM 39: 1–6. García-Ramón 1999 García-Ramón, J.L. ‘Mykenisch qe-qi-no-me-no, homerisch δινωτός und der PN di-nu-wa-ta.’ In S. Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller and O. Panagl (eds.). Floreant Studia Mycenaea, vol. 1, pp. 237–248. Vienna. Garland 1981 Garland, R. ‘The Causation of Death in the Iliad. A Theological and Biological Investigation.’ BICS 28: 43–60. Gates 1971 Gates, H.P. The Kinship Terminology of Homeric Greek. Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics 37.4. Baltimore. George 2005 George, C.H. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge. Ghali-Kahil 1955 Ghali-Kahil, L. Les enlèvements et le retour d’Hélène dans les textes et les documents figurés. Paris. (2 vols.) Giannakis 1997 Giannakis, G.K. Studies in the Syntax and Semantics of the Reduplicated Presents of Homeric Greek and Indo-European. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 90. Innsbruck. Giorgieri 2001 Giorgieri, M. ‘Aspetti magico-religiosi del giuramento presso gli Ittiti e i Greci.’ In S. Ribichini et al. (eds.). La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale (Roma, 20–22. 5. 1999), pp. 421–440. Rome. Göbel 1933 Göbel, F. Formen und Formeln der epischen Dreiheit in der griechischen Dichtung. Tübingen. Gottschall 2008 Gottschall, J. The Rape of Troy: Evolution, Violence and the World of Homer. Cambridge. Graf 1991 Graf, F. ‘Religion und Mythologie im Zusammenhang mit Homer: Forschung und Ausblick.’ In J. Latacz (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Rückblick und Ausblick, pp. 331–362. Colloquium Rauricum 2. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Graf 1994 Graf, F. La magie dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine. Idéologie et pratique. Paris. Graf 2005 Graf, F. ‘Eid.’ In ThesCRA 3: 237–246. Granata 2013 Granata, E. ‘I nomi di persona in -ᾱ(ϝ)ον- nella poesia epica arcaica.’ RFIC 141: 5–45. Greindl 1938 Greindl, M. Κλέος, κῦδος, εὖχος, τιμή, φάτις, δόξα. Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des epischen und lyrischen Sprachgebrauches. Munich. Grethlein 2006 Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänomenologischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Hypomnemata 163. Göttingen. Griffin 1980 Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. Grimm 1962 Grimm, J. ‘Die Partikel ἄρα im frühen griechischen Epos.’ Glotta 40: 3– 41. Gröschel 1986 Gröschel, S.-G. ‘Der goldene Helm der Athena (Ilias V, 743/44).’ AMIT N.F. 19: 43–78. Groten 1968 Groten Jr., F.J. ‘Homer’s Helen.’ G&R 15: 33–39.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Gruber 1963

 179

Gruber, J. Über einige abstrakte Begriffe des frühen Griechischen. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 9. Meisenheim am Glan. Gruber 1971 Gruber, J. Review of de Heer 1969. Gnomon 43: 16–20. Gschnitzer 1976 Gschnitzer, F. Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. 2.  Teil: Untersuchungen zur älteren, insbesondere homerischen Sklaventerminologie. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 7. Wiesbaden. Guggisberg 1975 Guggisberg, C.A.W. Wild Cats of the World. New York. Guggisberg 2008 Guggisberg, M. ‘Die realen Schauplätze der Odyssee: Ithaka, Pylos, Sparta.’ In Latacz et al. 2008, pp. 90–98. Guilleux 2001 Guilleux, N. ‘Le i bref de datif singulier athématique: les règles d’une élision homérique et tragique.’ RPh 75: 65–82. Gumpert 2001 Gumpert, M. Grafting Helen. The Abduction of the Classical Past. Madison. Hackstein 2002 Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morphologischer Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, Sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden. Hägg 1983 Hägg, R. (ed.). The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (1.–5. 6. 1981). Stockholm. Hagel 2008 Hagel, S. ‘Die Sänger aus musikarchäologischer Perspektive.’ In Latacz et al. 2008, pp. 106–111. Hainsworth 1968 Hainsworth, J.B. The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula. Oxford. Hajnal 1998 Hajnal, I. Mykenisches und homerisches Lexikon. Übereinstimmungen, Divergenzen und der Versuch einer Typologie. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 69. Innsbruck. Hall 1989 Hall, E. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy. Oxford. Hamm 1957 Hamm, E.-M. Grammatik zu Sappho und Alkaios. AbhBerlin 1951.2. Berlin. Handschur 1970 Handschur, E. Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den homerischen Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 39. Vienna. Hansen 2002 Hansen, W. Ariadne’s Thread. A Guide to International Tales Found in Classical Literature. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Harđarson 1993 Harđarson, J.A. Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen und Griechischen. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 74. Innsbruck. Hartigan 1973 Hartigan, K.V. ‘«He Rose like a Lion …»: Animal Similes in Homer and Virgil.’ AAntHung 21: 223–244. Hebel 1970 Hebel, V. Untersuchungen zur Form und Funktion der Wiedererzählungen in Ilias und Odyssee. Heidelberg. de Heer 1969 de Heer, C. Μάκαρ – εὐδαίμων – ὄλβιος – εὐτυχής. A Study of the Semantic Field Denoting Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the 5th Century B.C. Amsterdam. Heitsch 2001 Heitsch, E. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 1: Zum frühgriechischen Epos. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 152. Munich and Leipzig. Heitsch 2006 Heitsch, E. Altes und Neues zur Ilias. Überlegungen zur Genese des Werkes. AbhMainz 2006/3. Stuttgart. Helbig (1884) 1887 Helbig, W. Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert. Archäologische Untersuchungen2. Leipzig (11884).

180 

 Iliad 3

Hellmann 2000

Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart. Hemelrijk 1984 Hemelrijk, J.M. Caeretan Hydriae, vol. 1: Text. Forschungen zur antiken Keramik 2.5. Mainz. Hennig 1932 Hennig, R. ‘Der kulturhistorische Hintergrund der Geschichte vom Kampf zwischen Pygmäen und Kranichen.’ RhM N.F. 81: 20–24. Hentze 1903 Hentze, C. ‘Das Auftreten der Iris im zweiten, dritten und fünften Gesange der Ilias.’ Philologus 62: 321–338. Hentze 1905 Hentze, C. ‘Die Chorreden in den homerischen Epen.’ Philologus 64: 254–268. Hentze 1907/08 Hentze, C. ‘Aktionsart und Zeitstufe der Infinitive in den homerischen Gedichten.’ IF 22: 267–289. Herman 1987 Herman, G. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge. Hermann (1840) 1979 Hermann, G. ‘Über die Wiederholungen bei Homer.’ In HTN, pp. 47–59. (Latin original: De iteratis apud Homerum. Leipzig; also in Th. Fritzsche [ed.]. Godofredi Hermanni Opuscula, vol. 8, pp. 11–23. Leipzig 1877.) Hermary/Leguilloux 2004 Hermary, A., M. Leguilloux et al. ‘Les sacrifices dans le monde grec.’ In ThesCRA 1: 59–134. Hettrich 1976 Hettrich, H. ‘Zur historischen Morphologie von gr. ἔχε(υ)α und ἔσσευα.’ MSS 35: 47–61. Hettrich 2012 Hettrich, H. ‘Präpositionalausdrücke bei Homer.’ In Meier-Brügger 2012, pp. 45–61. Heubeck (1949) 1984 Heubeck, A. ‘Homerica.’ In A. Heubeck, Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Sprache und Literatur, pp. 115–127. Erlanger Forschungen, Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften 33. Erlangen. (First published in Gymnasium 56: 242–254.) Heubeck (1950) 1991 Heubeck, A. ‘Studien zur Struktur der Ilias (Retardation – Motivübertragung).’ In Latacz 1991, pp. 450–474. (First published in Gymnasium Fridericianum. Festschrift zur Feier des 200jährigen Bestehens des Hum. Gymnasiums Erlangen 1745–1945, pp. 17–36. Erlangen.) Heubeck 1966 Heubeck, A. ‘Mycenaean qe-qi-no-me-no.’ In L.R. Palmer und J. Chadwick (eds.). Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, pp. 229–237. Cambridge. Hijmans 1976 Hijmans Jr., B.L. ‘Archers in the Iliad.’ In Festoen. Opgedragen aan Annie Nicolette Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, pp. 343–352. Scripta Archaeologica Groningana 6. Groningen. Hiller 1987 Hiller, S. ‘A-PI-QO-RO AMPHIPOLOI.’ In J.T. Killen, J.L. Melena and J.-P. Olivier (eds.). Studies in Mycenaean and Classical Greek Presented to John Chadwick (= Minos N.S. 20–22), pp. 239–255. Salamanca. Hirzel 1902 Hirzel, R. Der Eid. Ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte. Leipzig. (Reprint Aalen 1966.) Hirzel 1909 Hirzel, R. Die Strafe der Steinigung. ASG 27.7. Leipzig. (Reprint Darmstadt 1967 as Libelli 208.) Hirzel 1918 Hirzel, R. Der Name. Ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte im Altertum und besonders bei den Griechen. ASG 36.11. Leipzig. Hitch 2009 Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice. Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies 25. Cambridge, Mass. Höckmann 1980 Höckmann, O. ‘Lanze und Speer.’ In ArchHom chap. E 2 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 2: Angriffswaffen’), pp. 275–319. Göttingen.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Hoekstra 1965

 181

Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes. Studies in the Development of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akad. van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, N.R. 71.1. Amsterdam. Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I.M. Manners in the Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 63. Leiden. Hölkeskamp 1997 Hölkeskamp, K.-J. ‘Agorai bei Homer.’ In W. Eder and K.-J. Hölkeskamp (eds.). Volk und Verfassung im vorhellenistischen Griechenland. Beiträge auf dem Symposium zu Ehren von Karl-Wilhelm Welwei (Bochum, 1.–2. 3. 1996), pp. 1–19. Stuttgart. Hölkeskamp 2000 Hölkeskamp, K.-J. ‘Zwischen Agon und Argumentation. Rede und Redner in der archaischen Polis.’ In C. Neumeister and W. Raeck (eds.). Rede und Redner. Bewertung und Darstellung in den antiken Kulturen, Kolloquium Frankfurt a.M. (14.–16.  10. 1998), pp.  17–43. Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 1. Möhnesee. Hölscher (1991) 1994 Hölscher, U. ‘Der epische Odysseus.’ In J. Latacz and M. Kraus (eds.). Das nächste Fremde. Von Texten der griechischen Frühzeit und ihrem Reflex in der Moderne, pp. 52–61. Munich. (First published in Gymnasium 98: 385–396.) Homeyer 1977 Homeyer, H. Die spartanische Helena und der trojanische Krieg. Palingenesia 12. Wiesbaden. Hooker (1979) 1996 Hooker, J.T. ‘Future Imperatives in Homer.’ In F. Amory, P. Considine and S. Hooker (eds.). Scripta Minora. Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek Subjects, pp. 409–14. Amsterdam. (First published in MSS 38: 87–92.) Huld 1988 Huld, M.E. ‘Homeric ΔΑΗΡ.’ AJPh 109: 424–430. Iakovides 1977 Iakovides, S. ‘Vormykenische und mykenische Wehrbauten.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 161–221. Göttingen. Irigoin 1991 Irigoin, J. ‘Du jeu verbal à la recherche étymologique: Homère et les scholies homériques.’ RPh 65: 127–134. Jahn 1987 Jahn, T. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele-Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83. Munich. Janda 2000 Janda, M. Eleusis. Das indogermanische Erbe der Mysterien. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 96. Innsbruck. Janko 2000 Janko, R. Review of West 1998. CR 50: 1–4. Janni 1978 Janni, P. Etnografia e mito. La storia dei pigmei. Filologia e critica 30. Rome. Jarva 1995 Jarva, E. Archaiologia. On Archaic Greek Body Armour. Studia archaeologica septentrionalia 3. Rovaniemi. Jenkins 1999 Jenkins, T.E. ‘Homeros ekainopoiese: Theseus, Aithra, and Variation in Homeric Myth-Making.’ In M. Carlisle and O. Levaniouk (eds.). Nine Essays on Homer, pp. 207–226. Lanham, MD. Johansson 2012 Johansson, K. The Birds in the Iliad. Identities, Interactions and Functions. Gothenburg Studies in History 2. Göteborg. de Jong 1985 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘Fokalisation und die homerischen Gleichnisse.’ Mnemosyne 38: 257–280. de Jong 1987 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘Paris/Alexandros in the Iliad.’ Mnemosyne 40: 124–128. de Jong 1987a de Jong, I.J.F. ‘The Voice of Anonymity: tis-Speeches in the Iliad.’ Eranos 85: 69–84. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 258–273.)

182 

 Iliad 3

de Jong (1987) 2004 de Jong, I.J.F. Narrators and Focalizers. The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad2. London (Amsterdam 11987). de Jong 1997 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘Γάρ Introducing Embedded Narratives.’ In A. Rijksbaron (ed.). New Approaches to Greek Particles. Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Amsterdam (4.–6. 1. 1996) to Honour C.J. Ruijgh on the Occasion of His Retirement, pp. 175–185. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 7. Amsterdam. de Jong 1999 Jong, I.J.F. de (ed.). Homer. Critical Assessments. Vol. 1: The Creation of the Poems; vol. 2: The Homeric World; vol. 3: Literary Interpretation; vol. 4: Homer’s Art. London and New York. de Jong 2007 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘Homer.’ In I.J.F. de Jong and R. Nünlist (eds.). Time in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 2, pp. 17–37. Mnemosyne Supplement 291. Leiden. de Jong/Nünlist 2004 de Jong, I.J.F. and R. Nünlist. ‘From Bird’s Eye View to Close-Up. The Standpoint of the Narrator in the Homeric Epics.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 63– 83. Julia 2001 Julia, M.-A. ‘Les particules αὐτάρ et ἀτάρ: passerelles entre la structuration syntaxique et la structuration informative de l’énoncé.’ RPh 75: 83–98. Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki. Kakridis 1930 Kakridis, J.T. ‘ΤΙΘΩΝΟΣ.’ WS 48: 25–38. Kakridis (1954) 1971 Kakridis, J.T. ‘Problems of the Homeric Helen. A. Helen in the Iliad.’ In Kakridis 1971, pp. 25–40. (First published in Hellenica 13: 205–220.) Kakridis (1963) 1971 Kakridis, J.T. ‘Imagined Ecphrases.’ In Kakridis 1971, pp. 108–124. (German original: ‘Erdichtete Ekphrasen. Ein Beitrag zur homerischen Schildbeschreibung.’ WS 76: 7–26.) Kakridis 1971 Kakridis, J.T. Homer Revisited. Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund 64. Lund. Katz 1996 Katz, J.T. ‘Αὐτάρ, ἀτάρ, ταρ: The Poetics of a Particle in Homer.’ Unpublished lecture; abstract in APA Abstracts of the 128th Annual Meeting [27.–30.  12. 1996], p. 81. New York. Kazazis/Rengakos 1999 Kazazis, J.N. and A. Rengakos (eds.). Euphrosyne. Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis. Stuttgart. Keil 1998 Keil, D. Lexikalische Raritäten im Homer. Ihre Bedeutung für den Prozeß der Literarisierung des griechischen Epos. Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 35. Trier. Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford. Kemper 1960 Kemper, H.D. Rat und Tat. Studien zur Darstellung eines antithetischen Begriffspaares in der klassischen Periode der griechischen Literatur. Bonn. Kienzle 1936 Kienzle, E. Der Lobpreis von Städten und Ländern in der älteren griechischen Dichtung. Kallmünz. Kirk 1978 Kirk, G.S. ‘The Formal Duels in Books 3 and 7 of the Iliad.’ In B. Fenik (ed.). Homer: Tradition and Invention, pp. 18–40. Leiden. Kirk 1981 Kirk, G.S. ‘Some Methodological Pitfalls in the Study of Ancient Greek Sacrifice (in particular).’ In Le sacrifice dans l’antiquité, pp. 41–90. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 27. Vandœuvres/Geneva. Kitts 2005 Kitts, M. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society. Oath-Making Rituals and Narratives in the Iliad. Cambridge etc.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Klein 1981

 183

Klein, J.S. ‘The Origin of the Rigvedic vā́yan índraś ca Construction.’ MSS 40: 73–91. Klein 1988 Klein, J.S. ‘Homeric Greek αὖ: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Study.’ HSF 101: 249–288. Klinkott 2004 Klinkott, M. ‘Die Wehrmauern von Troia VI – Bauaufnahme und Auswertung.’ Studia Troica 14: 33–85. Kloss 1994 Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgriechischen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen. Knecht 1946 Knecht, T. Geschichte der griechischen Komposita vom Typ τερψίμβροτος. Biel. Koller 1958 Koller, H. ‘Σῶμα bei Homer.’ Glotta 37: 276–281. Kopp 1939 Kopp, J.V. Das physikalische Weltbild der frühen griechischen Dichtung. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der vorsokratischen Physik. Fribourg. Koster 1980 Koster, S. Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 99. Meisenheim am Glan. Kraak 1940 Kraak, W.K. Vogeltrek in de oudheid, in het bijzonder bij Aristoteles. Amsterdam. Krafft 1963 Krafft, F. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Homer und Hesiod. Hypomnemata 6. Göttingen. Krapp 1964 Krapp, H.J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich. Krischer 1971 Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Munich. Krischer 1998 Krischer, T. ‘Arcieri nell’epica omerica. Armi, comportamenti, valori.’ In F. Montanari (ed.). Omero. Gli aedi, i poemi, gli interpreti, pp. 79–100. Biblioteca di cultura 243. Florence. Kullmann (1955) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Ein vorhomerisches Motiv im Iliasproömium.’ In Kullmann 1992, pp. 11–35. (First published in Philologus 99: 167–192.) Kullmann 1956 Kullmann, W. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Entstehung des homerischen ‘Götterapparats’. Deutsche Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswiss. 1. Berlin. Kullmann 1960 Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Einzelschriften 14. Wiesbaden. Kullmann (1965) 1992 Kullmann, W. Review of Reinhardt 1961. In Kullmann 1992, pp. 170–197. (First published in GGA 217: 9–36.) Kullmann (1968) 1997 Kullmann, W. ‘Past and Future in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 385–408. (German original: ‘Vergangenheit und Zukunft in der Ilias.’ Poetica 2: 15–37; reprinted in Kullmann 1992, pp. 219–242.) Kullmann (1981) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Zur Methode der Neoanalyse in der Homerforschung.’ In Kullmann 1992, pp. 67–99. (First published in WS N.F. 15: 5–42.) Kullmann (1985) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Gods and Men in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ In Kullmann 1992, pp. 243–263. (First published in HSCPh 89: 1–23.) Kullmann (1991) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung zu Homer (Neoanalyse).’ In Kullmann 1992, pp. 100–134. (Original, shorter version in J. Latacz [ed.]. Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Rückblick und Ausblick, pp. 425–455. Colloquium Rauricum 2. Stuttgart and Leipzig.) Kullmann 1992 Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R.J. Müller. Stuttgart. Kullmann (1999) 2002 Kullmann, W. ‘Homer und Kleinasien.’ In W. Kullmann. Realität, Imagination und Theorie. Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike, ed.

184 

 Iliad 3

by A. Rengakos, pp. 60–74. Stuttgart. (First published in Kazazis/Rengakos 1999, pp. 189–201.) Kullmann 2002 Kullmann, W. ‘Nachlese zur Neoanalyse.’ In W. Kullmann. Realität, Imagination und Theorie. Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike, ed. by A. Rengakos, pp. 162–176. Stuttgart. Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften N.F. 2.11. Heidelberg. Kyrieleis 1995 Kyrieleis, H. ‘Eine neue Kore des Cheramyes.’ AntP 24: 7–36, pls. 1–8. Labarbe 1949 Labarbe, J. L’Homère de Platon. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 117. Liège. Landfester 1966 Landfester, M. Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen. Spudasmata 11. Hildesheim. Lanérès 1997 Lanérès, N. Les formes de la phrase nominale en grec ancien: étude sur la langue de l’Iliade. Lille and Paris. (2 vols.) Lardinois 1997 Lardinois, A. ‘Modern Paroemiology and the Use of Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ CPh 92: 213–234. La Roche 1861 La Roche, J. Homerische Studien. Der Accusativ im Homer. Vienna. La Roche 1869 La Roche, J. Homerische Untersuchungen. Leipzig. Laser 1968 Laser, S. ‘Hausrat.’ ArchHom chap. P. Göttingen. Latacz 1966 Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften N.F. 2.17. Heidelberg. Latacz (1968) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘ἄπτερος μῦθος – ἄπτερος φάτις: ungeflügelte Worte?’ In Latacz 1994, pp. 605–624. (First published in Glotta 46: 27–47.) Latacz 1977 Latacz, J. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Zetemata 66. Munich. Latacz (1977) 1979 Latacz, J. ‘Tradition und Neuerung in der Homerforschung. Zur Geschichte der Oral poetry-Theorie.’ In HTN, pp. 25–44. Latacz (1985) 1996 Latacz, J. Homer. His Art and His World, transl. by J.P. Holoka. Ann Arbor. (German original: Homer. Der erste Dichter des Abendlands. Munich and Zurich; Dusseldorf 42003.) Latacz (1987) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Frauengestalten Homers.’ In Latacz 1994, pp. 95–124. (First published in Humanistische Bildung 11: 43–71.) Latacz 1991 Latacz, J. Homer. Die Dichtung und ihre Deutung. Wege der Forschung 634. Darmstadt. Latacz 1992 Latacz, J. ‘Homers Ilias und die Folgen. Wie der Mythos Troia entstand.’ In I. Gamer-Wallert (ed.). Troia. Brücke zwischen Orient und Okzident, pp. 201– 218. Tübingen. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 361–368.) Latacz 1994 Latacz, J. Erschließung der Antike. Kleine Schriften zur Literatur der Griechen und Römer, ed. by F. Graf, J. von Ungern-Sternberg and A. Schmitt in collaboration with R. Thiel. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy and Homer. Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery, transl. by K. Windle and R. Ireland. Oxford. (German original: Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Munich and Zurich 42003 [Munich and Berlin 1 2001]; expanded German edition: Leipzig 62010.) Latacz 2007 Latacz, J. ‘A Battlefield of the Emotions: Homer’s Helen.’ In M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, A. Rengakos and Chr. Tsagalis (eds.). Άθλα και Έπαθλα στα Ομηρικά Έπη (Contests and Rewards in the Homeric Epics). Από τα Πρακτικά του Ι’

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 185

Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια (15.–19. 9. 2004), pp. 87–100. Ithaca. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 347–358.) Latacz et al. 2008 Latacz, J., T. Greub, P. Blome and A. Wieczorek. Homer. Der Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst (Katalog zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung: Basel 16. 3.– 17. 8. 2008, Mannheim 13. 9. 2008–18. 1. 2009). Munich. Latacz 2014 Latacz, J. Homers Ilias. Studien zu Dichter, Werk und Rezeption (Kleine Schriften II), ed. by Th. Greub, K. Greub-Frącz and A. Schmitt. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 327. Berlin and Boston. Lateiner 1995 Lateiner, D. Sardonic Smile. Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic. Ann Arbor. Lateiner 1997 Lateiner, D. ‘Homeric Prayer.’ Arethusa 30: 241–272. Lebessi 1992 Lebessi, A. ‘Zum Phalos des homerischen Helms.’ MDAI(A) 107: 1–10. Lee 1964 Lee, D.J.N. The Similes of the Iliad and the Odyssey Compared. Melbourne. van Leeuwen (1894) 1918 van Leeuwen, J. Enchiridium dictionis epicae2. Leiden (11894). Lehrs (1833) 1882 Lehrs, K. De Aristarchi studiis Homericis3. Leipzig (11833). Lejeune 1939 Lejeune, M. Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux. Lendle 1968 Lendle, O. ‘Paris, Helena und Aphrodite. Zur Interpretation des 3. Gesanges der Ilias.’ A&A 14: 63–71. Lesky (1961) 1999 Lesky, A. Motivation by Gods and Men, transl. by H.M. Harvey. In de Jong 1999, vol. 2, pp. 384–403. (Abridged version of Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos. SHAW 1961.4. Heidelberg 1961.) Lesky 1967 Lesky, A. Homeros (Sonderausgaben der RE). Stuttgart. (Also in RE, Supplement 11 [1968]: 687–846.) Létoublon 1983 Létoublon, F. ‘Défi et combat dans l’Iliade.’ REG 96: 27–48. Létoublon 1994 Létoublon, F. ‘Le bon orateur et le génie selon Anténor dans l’Iliade: Ménélas et Ulysse.’ In J.-M. Galy and A. Thivel (eds.). La rhétorique grecque. Actes du Colloque ‘Octave Navarre’ (Nizza, 17.–19. 12. 1992), pp. 29–40. Paris. Leumann 1950 Leumann, M. Homerische Wörter. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 3. Basel. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.) Leumann (1953) 1959 Leumann, M. ‘«Aoristi mixti» und Imperative vom Futurstamm im Griechischen.’ In M. Leumann. Kleine Schriften, hrsg. zum 70.  Geburtstag von H. Haffter, E. Risch und W. Rüegg, pp. 234–241. Zurich. (First published in Glotta 32: 204–213.) Levin 1971 Levin, S. ‘The Etymology of νέκταρ: Exotic Scents in Early Greece.’ SMEA 13: 31–50. Lilja 1972 Lilja, S. The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 49. Helsinki. Lindblad 1922 Lindblad, W. Die Bedeutungsentwicklung des Präfixes KATA in Kompositis. Eine semasiologische Untersuchung. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum I 1. Helsinki. Llewellyn-Jones 2003 Llewellyn-Jones, L. Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece. Swansea. Lloyd 1989 Lloyd, M. ‘Paris/Alexandros in Homer and Euripides.’ Mnemosyne 42: 76–79. Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York. Lohmann 1988 Lohmann, D. Die Andromache-Szenen der Ilias. Ansätze und Methoden der Homer-Interpretation. Spudasmata 42. Hildesheim etc.

186 

 Iliad 3

Lonsdale 1990

Lonsdale, S. Creatures of Speech: Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 5. Stuttgart. Loraux 1984 Loraux, N. ‘Le fantôme de la sexualité.’ Nouvelle Revue de Psychanalyse 29: 11–31. Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H.L. Homer and the Monuments. London. Louden 1993 Louden, B. ‘Pivotal Contrafactuals in Homeric Epic.’ ClAnt 12: 181–198. Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig. Lynn-George 1988 Lynn-George, M. Epos: Word, Narrative and the Iliad. Basingstoke and London. Mackie 2008 Mackie, C.J. Rivers of Fire: Mythic Themes in Homer’s Iliad. Washington, D.C. Mackie 1996 Mackie, H. Talking Trojan. Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham, MD etc. Maehler 1963 Maehler, H. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars. Hypomnemata 3. Göttingen. Magnien 1912 Magnien, V. Le futur grec. Tome II: Emplois et origines. Paris. Mainoldi 1984 Mainoldi, C. L’image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne d’Homère à Platon. Association des publications près les universités de Strasbourg. Paris. Marg 1970 Marg, W. (ed.). Hesiod. Sämtliche Gedichte. Theogonie – Erga – Frauenkataloge, übersetzt und erläutert. Zurich and Stuttgart. Marinatos 1967 Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung’. ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen. Marinatos 1990 Marinatos, N. ‘Celebrations of Death and the Symbolism of the Lion Hunt.’ In R. Hägg and G.C. Nordquist (eds.). Celebrations of Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid. Proceedings of the Sixth international Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens (11.–13.  6. 1988), pp.  143–148. Acta Inst. Athen. Regni Sueciae. Series in 4o, 40. Stockholm. Martin 1983 Martin, R.P. Healing, Sacrifice and Battle. Amechania and Related Concepts in Early Greek Poetry. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 41. Innsbruck. Martin 1989 Martin, R.P. The Language of Heroes. Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Masson 1967 Masson, E. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris. Mawet 1979 Mawet, F. Recherches sur les oppositions fonctionnelles dans le vocabulaire homérique de la douleur (autour de πῆμα – ἄλγος). Académie Royale de Belgique, mémoires de la classe des lettres, 2e série 63.4. Brussels. Mawet 1981 Mawet, F. ‘La fonction prédicative des dérivés grecs en -μα.’ Die Sprache 27: 141–166. Meier-Brügger 1989 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Griech. θυμός und seine Sippe.’ MH 46: 243–246. Meier-Brügger 2006 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Zur Bildung von griechisch θεός.’ ILing 29: 119–125. Meier-Brügger 2012 Meier-Brügger, M. (ed.). Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon: Akten des Hamburger Kolloquiums vom 6.-8. 10. 2012 zum Abschluss des Lexikons des frühgriechischen Epos. Abh. der Akad. der Wiss. zu Göttingen N.F. 21. Berlin. Metz 2005 Metz, J. ‘Machaira (sphagis, kopis).’ In ThesCRA 5: 308–312.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

van der Mije 1987

 187

van der Mije, S.R. ‘Achilles’ God-Given Strength. Iliad A 178 and Gifts from the Gods in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 40: 241–267. van der Mije 2011 van der Mije, S.R. ‘Bad Herbs – the Snake Simile in Iliad 22.’ Mnemosyne 64: 359–382. Mikalson 1989 Mikalson, J.D. ‘Unanswered Prayers in Greek Tragedy.’ JHS 109: 81–98. Minchin 1999 Minchin, E. ‘Describing and Narrating in Homer’s Iliad.’ In E.A. Mackay (ed.). Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and its Influence in the Greek and Roman World, pp. 49–64. Mnemosyne Supplement 188. Leiden etc. Minchin 2010 Minchin, E. ‘From Gentle Teasing to Heavy Sarcasm: Instances of Rhetorical Irony in Homer’s Iliad.’ Hermes 138: 387–402. Monro (1882) 1891 Monro, D.B. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect2. Oxford (11882). Monsacré 1984 Monsacré, H. Les larmes d’Achille. Le héros, la femme et la souffrance dans la poésie d’Homère. Paris. Monteil 1963 Monteil, P. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa formation, son développement, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle a.C. Études et Commentaires 47. Paris. Montiglio 2000 Montiglio, S. Silence in the Land of Logos. Princeton. Moorhouse 1952 Moorhouse, A.C. ‘Observations on Epic ἀλλά.’ CQ N.S. 2: 100–104. Morris 1997 Morris, S. ‘Homer and the Near East.’ In Companion, pp. 599–623. Morrison 1991 Morrison, J.V. ‘The Function and Context of Homeric Prayers: A Narrative Perspective.’ Hermes 119: 147–157. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 284–297.) Morrison 1992 Morrison, J.V. Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor. Moulton 1977 Moulton, C. Similes in Homeric Poems. Hypomnemata 49. Göttingen. Mueller 1984 Mueller, M. The Iliad. London. Muellner 1976 Muellner, L.C. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι Through its Formulas. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 13. Innsbruck. Muellner 1990 Muellner, L.C. ‘The Simile of the Cranes and Pygmies: A Study of Homeric Metaphor.’ HSCPh 93: 59–101. (Also in Nagy 2001, vol. 1, pp. 85–127.) Mühlestein 1969 Mühlestein, H. ‘Redende Personennamen bei Homer.’ SMEA 9: 67–94. Mülder 1910 Mülder, D. Die Ilias und ihre Quellen. Berlin. Müller 1994 Müller, C.W. ‘Komik und Realismus in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Archilochos Fr. 114 West.’ Philologus 138: 175–188. Müller 1974 Müller, D. Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 51. Meisenheim am Glan. Mureddu 1983 Mureddu, P. Formula e tradizione nella poesia di Esiodo. Rome. Nagler 1974 Nagler, M.N. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley etc. Nagy 2001 Nagy, G. Greek Literature. Vol. 1: The Oral Traditional Background of Ancient Greek Literature; vol. 2: Homer and Hesiod as Prototypes of Greek Literature. New York and London. Naumann (1955) 1971 Naumann, R. Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit2. Tübingen (11955). Nesselrath 1992 Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 27. Stuttgart.

188 

 Iliad 3

Nickau 1977

Nickau, K. Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 16. Berlin and New York. Nicolai 1973 Nicolai, W. Kleine und große Darstellungseinheiten in der Ilias. Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften N.F. 2.47. Heidelberg. Nilsson (1940) 1967 Nilsson, M.P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Bd.  1: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft3. Handbuch der Altertumswiss. 5.2.1. Munich (11940). (Reprint 1992.) Nowag 1983 Nowag, W. Raub und Beute in der archaischen Zeit der Griechen. Frankfurt am Main. Nünlist 1998 Nünlist, R. Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 101. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Nussbaum 1998 Nussbaum, A.J. Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Hypomnemata 120. Göttingen. Nussbaum 2002 Nussbaum, A.J. ‘Homeric ORHAI (Od. 14.343) and OMEITAI (Il. 9.274): Two of a Kind?’ ColbyQ 38: 175–196. Onians (1951) 1988 Onians, R.B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate. New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and Kindred Evidence, also of Some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs2. Cambridge (11951). Padel 1995 Padel, R. Whom Gods Destroy: Elements of Greek and Tragic Madness. Princeton. Page 1959 Page, D.L. History and the Homeric Iliad. Sather Classical Lectures 31. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Panagiotou 1983 Panagiotou, K.S. Die ideale Form der Polis bei Homer und Hesiod. Bochum. Paraskevaides 1984 Paraskevaides, H.A. The Use of Synonyms in Homeric Formulaic Diction. Amsterdam. Parry 1966 Parry, A. ‘Have We Homer’s Iliad?’ YClS 20: 175–216. (Also in A.M. Parry. The Language of Achilles and Other Papers. Oxford 1989, pp.  104–140, and in Nagy 2001, vol. 2, pp. 57–96.) Parry (1930) 1971 Parry, M. ‘Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making: I. Homer and Homeric Style.’ In MHV, pp. 266–324. (First published in HSCPh 41: 73– 147.) Patzer (1972) 1999 Patzer, H. Dichterische Kunst und poetisches Handwerk im homerischen Epos. Sitzungsber. der wiss. Gesellschaft an der J.W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main 10.1. Wiesbaden. (Abridged English transl. in de Jong 1999, vol. 4, pp. 155–183 [= Patzer 1972, pp. 10–40].) Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wiss. Gesellschaft an der J.W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Geisteswiss. Reihe 12. Stuttgart. Paul 1969 Paul, A. Die Barmherzigkeit der Götter im griechischen Epos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 32. Vienna. Pavlu 1942 Pavlu, J. ‘Zu Hom. Ilias III.’ PhW 62: Sp. 574. Pekridou-Gorecki 1989 Pekridou-Gorecki, A. Mode im antiken Griechenland: Textile Fertigung und Kleidung. Beck’s archäologische Bibliothek. Munich. Peters 1980 Peters, M. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. SAWW 377.8. Vienna.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Pflug 1988

 189

Pflug, H. ‘Griechische Helme geometrischer Zeit.’ In Antike Helme. Sammlung Lipperheide und andere Bestände des Antikenmuseums Berlin, mit Beiträgen von A. Bottini, M. Egg, F.-W. von Hase, H. Pflug, U. Schaaff, P. Schauer und G. Waurich, pp. 11–26. Röm.-German. Zentralmuseum, Monographien 14. Mainz. Pijls 1988 Pijls, D. ‘De figuur van Helena in Ilias, 3.121–180.’ Kleio 17: 193–200. Pinault 1994 Pinault, G.-J. ‘Les deux formes du silence homérique et l’origine du verbe σιωπάω.’ In D. Conso et al. (eds.). Mélanges François Kerlouégan, pp. 501– 526. Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 515. Institut Félix Gaffiot 11. Paris. Plath 1994 Plath, R. Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76. Nuremberg. Postlethwaite 2000 Postlethwaite, N. Homer’s Iliad: A Commentary on the Translation of Richard Lattimore. Exeter. Preisshofen 1977 Preisshofen, F. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Greisenalters in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Hermes Einzelschriften 34. Wiesbaden. Prier 1989 Prier, R.A. Thauma idesthai: The Phenomenology of Sight and Appearance in Archaic Greek. Tallahassee. Priess 1977 Priess, K.A. Der mythologische Stoff in der Ilias. Mainz. Probst 1914 Probst, H. Studien zur Ilias. Beilage zum Jahresberichte des Königl. Neuen Gymnasiums zu Nürnberg. Nuremberg. Pucci 1998 Pucci, P. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. Lanham, MD etc. Pucci 2002 Pucci, P. ‘Theology and Poetics in the Iliad.’ Arethusa 35: 17–34. Pucci 2003 Pucci, P. ‘Prosopopée d’Hélène.’ In M. Broze et al. (eds.). Le mythe d’Hélène, pp. 89–119. Mythes et Religions. Brussels. Pulleyn 1997 Pulleyn, S. Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford. Raaflaub 1988 Raaflaub, K.A. ‘Die Anfänge des politischen Denkens bei den Griechen.’ In I. Fetscher and H. Münkler (eds.). Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen, vol. 1, pp. 189–267. Munich. Raaflaub 2011 Raaflaub, K.A. ‘Riding on Homer’s Chariot: The Search for a Historical «Epic Society».’ Antichthon 45: 1–34. Race 1982 Race, W.H. The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius. Mnemosyne Supplement 74. Leiden. Race 1999/2000 Race, W.H. ‘Explanatory δέ-Clauses in the Iliad.’ CJ 95: 205–227. Rakoczy 1996 Rakoczy, T. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter. Eine Untersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur. Classica Monacensia 13. Tübingen. Ramming 1974 Ramming, G. Die Dienerschaft in der Odyssee. Erlangen and Nuremberg. Rank 1951 Rank, L.P. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus. Assen. Ready 2011 Ready, J.L. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. New York. Reber 2008 Reber, K. ‘Die Architektur – Häuser für Menschen und Götter.’ In Latacz et al. 2008, pp. 48–55. Reckford 1964 Reckford, K.J. ‘Helen in the Iliad.’ GRBS 5: 5–20. Redfield (1975) 1994 Redfield, J.M. Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector2. Durham and London (Chicago 11975). Reece 1993 Reece, S. The Stranger’s Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene. Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor.

190 

 Iliad 3

Reichel 1994 Reichel 1999

Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. ScriptOralia 62. Tübingen. Reichel, M. ‘Die homerische Helenagestalt aus motivgeschichtlicher und motivvergleichender Sicht.’ In Kazazis/Rengakos 1999, pp. 291–307. Reinhardt (1938) 1997 Reinhardt, K. ‘The Judgement of Paris.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, pp. 170–191. (German original: Das Parisurteil. Wissenschaft und Gegenwart 11. Frankfurt; reprint in K. Reinhardt. Von Werken und Formen, pp. 11–36. Godesberg 1948; K. Reinhardt. Tradition und Geist. Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. by C. Becker, pp. 16–36. Göttingen 1960; and in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 47–65.) Reinhardt 1961 Reinhardt, K. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, ed. by U. Hölscher. Göttingen. Reiter 1962 Reiter, G. Die griechischen Bezeichnungen der Farben Weiß, Grau und Braun. Eine Bedeutungsuntersuchung. Commentationes Aenipontanae 16. Innsbruck. Rengakos 1993 Rengakos, A. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Einzelschriften 64. Stuttgart. Reucher 1983 Reucher, Th. Die situative Weltsicht Homers. Eine Interpretation der Ilias. Darmstadt. Reynen 1957 Reynen, H. ‘Die Partikel οὖν bei Homer.’ Glotta 36: 1–47. Reynen 1958 Reynen, H. ‘Die Partikel οὖν bei Homer (Fortsetzung).’ Glotta 37: 67–102, 182–204. Reynen 1983 Reynen, H. ΕΥΧΕΣΘΑΙ und seine Derivate bei Homer. Bonn. Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville. Riedinger 1980 Riedinger, J.-C. ‘Les deux αἰδώς chez Homère.’ RPh 54: 62–79. Risch 1969 Risch, E. Review of Schmitt 1967 and 1968. Gnomon 41: 321–327. Risch (1972) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Les traits non-homériques chez Homère.’ In E. Risch, Kleine Schriften, zum siebzigsten Geburtstag hrsg. von A. Etter und M. Looser, pp. 346– 353. Berlin and New York. (First published in A. Ernout [ed.]. Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie grecques offerts à Pierre Chantraine, pp. 191–198. Paris.) Risch 1987 Risch, E. ‘Zum Nestorbecher aus Ischia.’ ZPE 70: 1–9. Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2. Darmstadt (11976). Robinson 1990 Robinson, D. ‘Homeric φίλος: Love of Life and Limbs, and Friendship with One’s θυμός.’ In E.M. Craik (ed.). ‘Owls to Athens’. Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, pp. 97–108. Oxford. Roemer 1912 Roemer, A. Aristarchs Athetesen in der Homerkritik (wirkliche und angebliche). Eine kritische Untersuchung. Leipzig and Berlin. Roisman 2006 Roisman, H.M. ‘Helen in the Iliad; Causa Belli and Victim of War: From Silent Weaver to Public Speaker.’ AJPh 127: 1–36. Rollinger 2004 Rollinger, R. ‘Die Verschriftlichung von Normen: Einflüsse und Elemente orientalischer Kulturtechnik in den homerischen Epen, dargestellt am Beispiel des Vertragswesens.’ In R. Rollinger and Chr. Ulf (eds.). Griechische Archaik. Interne Entwicklungen – externe Impulse, pp. 369–425. Berlin. Rollinger 2004a Rollinger, R. ‘Hethiter, Homer und Anatolien. Erwägungen zu Il. 3, 300  f. und KUB XIII Nr. 3, III 1  f.’ Historia 53: 1–21. Roth (1970–1974) 1990 Roth, C.P. ‘Mixed Aorists’ in Homeric Greek. New York and London. (Earlier versions of chap. 2–5 have previously been published: chap. 2 as ‘Some «Mixed Aorists» in Homer.’ Glotta 48 [1970] 155–163; chap. 3 as ‘More Ho-

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 191

meric «Mixed Aorists».’ Glotta 52 [1974] 1–10; chap. 4–5 as ‘Thematic S-Aorists in Homer.’ HSCPh 77 [1973] 181–186.) Rousseau 1990 Rousseau, P. ‘Le deuxième Atride. Le type épique de Ménélas dans l’Iliade.’ In M.-M. Mactoux and É. Geny (eds.). Mélanges Pierre Lévêque, vol. 5, pp. 325–354. Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 429. Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 101. Paris. Rudhardt (1958) 1992 Rudhardt, J. Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique2. Paris (Geneva 11958). Ruhl 1903 Ruhl, L. De mortuorum iudicio. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten II.2. Giessen. Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C.J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen. Ruijgh (1970) 1991 Ruijgh, C.J. Review of DELG, vol. 1, Α–Δ. In Ruijgh 1991, pp. 571–590. (First published in Lingua 25: 302–321.) Ruijgh (1972) 1991 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘À propos de de-we-ro-a3-ko-ra-i-ja.’ In Ruijgh 1991, pp. 108–117. (First published in M.S. Ruipérez [ed.]. Acta Mycenaea. Proceedings of the 5th International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies [= Minos N.S. 12], vol. 2, pp. 441–450. Salamanca.) Ruijgh (1981) 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘L’emploi de ΗΤΟΙ chez Homère et Hésiode.’ In Ruijgh 1996, pp. 519–534. (First published in Mnemosyne 34: 272–287.) Ruijgh (1991) 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘Les valeurs temporelles des formes verbales en grec ancien.’ In Ruijgh 1996, pp. 656–676. (First published in J. Gvozdanoviç and T. Janssen [eds.]. The Function of Tense in Texts, pp. 197–217. Amsterdam.) Ruijgh 1991 Ruijgh, C.J. Scripta minora ad linguam graecam pertinentia, vol. 1, ed. by J.M. Bremer, A. Rijksbaron and F.M.J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. Scripta minora ad linguam graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by A. Rijksbaron and F.M.J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Russo (1968) 1999 Russo, J.A. ‘Homer against His Tradition.’ In de Jong 1999, vol. 4, pp. 125–141. (First published in Arion 7: 275–295.) Rutherford (1996) 2013 Rutherford, R.B. Homer2. G&R New Surveys in the Classics 41. Oxford (11996). Sale 1994 Sale, W.M. ‘The Government of Troy: Politics in the Iliad.’ GRBS 35: 5–102. Sarischoulis 2008 Sarischoulis, E. Schicksal, Götter und Handlungsfreiheit in den Epen Homers. Palingenesia 92. Stuttgart. Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938). (Reprint Darmstadt 1987.) Schadewaldt (1944) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Die Gestalt des homerischen Sängers.’ In W. Schadewalt. Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage4, pp. 54–86. Stuttgart. (Original contribution to the 1st edition of 1944.) Schadewaldt (1959) 1970 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Neue Kriterien zur Odyssee-Analyse. Die Wiedererkennung des Odysseus und der Penelope.’ In W.  Schadewaldt. Hellas und Hesperien. Gesammmelte Schriften zur Antike und zur neueren Literatur in zwei Bänden, vol. 1, pp. 58–78. Zurich and Stuttgart. (First published as SHAW 1959.2.) Scheid/Svenbro (1994) 1996 Scheid, J. and J. Svenbro. The Craft of Zeus. Myths of Weaving and Fabric, transl. by C. Volk. Revealing Antiquity 9. Cambridge, Mass. and London. (French original: Le métier de Zeus. Mythe du tissage et du tissu dans le monde gréco-romain. Paris.)

192 

 Iliad 3

Scheid-Tissinier 1994 Scheid-Tissinier, É. Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pratiques. Nancy. Scheid-Tissinier 2000 Scheid-Tissinier, É. ‘Recevoir des dieux, donner aux dieux. Aspects de la relation avec le divin dans la poésie grecque archaïque.’ RPh 74: 199– 230. Schein 1984 Schein, S.L The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. Berkeley etc. Schmid 1982 Schmid, G.B. Die Beurteilung der Helena in der frühgriechischen Literatur. Freiburg im Breisgau. Schmid 1950 Schmid, S. -εος und -ειος bei den griechischen Stoffadjektiven. Zurich. Schmidt 2006 Schmidt, M. ‘Some Remarks on the Semantics of ἄναξ in Homer.’ In S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I.S. Lemos (eds.). Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, pp. 439–447. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh. Schmitt 1990 Schmitt, A. Selbständigkeit und Abhängigkeit menschlichen Handelns bei Homer. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Psychologie Homers. AbhMainz 1990.5. Mainz and Stuttgart. Schmitt 1967 Schmitt, R. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Schmitt 1968 Schmitt, R. (ed.). Indogermanische Dichtersprache. Wege der Forschung 165. Darmstadt. Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981 Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations de l’animal chez Homère. Textes à l’appui. Histoire classique. Paris. Schneider 1996 Schneider, H. Der anonyme Publikumskommentar in Ilias und Odyssee. Philosophie 25. Münster. Schöpsdau 1969 Schöpsdau, K. Antike Vorstellungen von der Geschichte der griechischen Rhetorik. Saarbrücken. Schrade 1952 Schrade, H. Götter und Menschen Homers. Stuttgart. Schulz 1981 Schulz, B.J. ‘Bezeichnungen und Selbstbezeichnungen der Aristokraten und Oligarchen in der griechischen Literatur von Homer bis Aristoteles.’ In E.C. Welskopf (ed.). Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, vol. 3, pp. 67–155. Berlin. Schulz 2011 Schulz, F. Die homerischen Räte und die spartanische Gerusie. Syssitia 1. Dusseldorf. Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimilitude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Scodel 2002 Scodel, R. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor. Scodel 2012 Scodel, R. ‘ἦ and Theory of Mind in the Iliad.’ In Meier-Brügger 2012, pp. 319– 334. Scott 1974 Scott, W.C. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Mnemosyne Supplement 28. Leiden. Segal 1986 Segal, C. Pindar’s Mythmaking: The Fourth Pythian Ode. Princeton. Shelmerdine 1995 Shelmerdine, C.W. ‘Shining and Fragrant Cloth in Homeric Epic.’ In J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris (eds.). The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, pp. 99–107. Austin. Sideras 1971 Sideras, A. Aeschylus Homericus. Untersuchungen zu den Homerismen der aischyleischen Sprache. Hypomnemata 31. Göttingen.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Silk 1974

 193

Silk, M.S. Interaction in Poetic Imagery with Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry. London and Cambridge. Simon 2004 Simon, E. ‘Libation.’ In ThesCRA 1: 237–253. Skafte Jensen 1981/82 Skafte Jensen, M. ‘A Note on Homer’s Use of the Word κραναός.’ C&M 33: 5–8. Smith 2008 Smith, A. ‘Phönizische Schale mit Reliefszenen.’ In Latacz et al. 2008, p. 313. Smith 1988 Smith, W. ‘The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad.’ Numen 35: 161–178. Snell (1939) 1960 Snell, B. ‘Homer’s View of Man.’ In Snell (1946) 1960, pp. 1–22. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 2, pp. 241–259; German original: ‘Die Sprache Homers als Ausdruck seiner Gedankenwelt.’ NJAB 2 [1939]: 393–410; also in B. Snell. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen, pp. 13–29. Göttingen 41975 [Hamburg 11946].) Snell (1946) 1960 Snell, B. The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought2. New York (Oxford 11953). (German original: Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen. Göttingen 4 1975 [Hamburg 11946].) Snell (1946) 1960a Snell, B. ‘From Myth to Logic: The Role of the Comparison.’ In Snell (1946) 1960, pp.  191–226. (German original: ‘Gleichnis, Vergleich, Metapher, Analogie. Der Weg vom mythischen zum logischen Denken.’ In B. Snell. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen, pp. 178–204. Göttingen 41975 [Hamburg 11946].) Snell 1969 Snell, B. Tyrtaios und die Sprache des Epos. Hypomnemata 22. Göttingen. Snell 1973 Snell, B. ‘Was die Alten von der schönen Helena dachten.’ In B. Hüppauf and D. Sternberger (eds.). Über Literatur und Geschichte. Festschrift für Gerhard Storz, pp. 5–22. Frankfurt am Main. Snyder 1981 Snyder, J.M. ‘The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric Poets.’ CJ 76: 193–196. Sommer 1977 Sommer, F. ‘Thematische Formen bei εἶμι.’ In F. Sommer. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B. Forssman, pp. 186–225. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft N.F. Beiheft 1. Munich. Sourvinou-Inwood 1983 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘A Trauma in Flux: Death in the 8th Century and After.’ In Hägg 1983, pp. 33–49. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period. Oxford. Spahn 2006 Spahn, P. ‘«Freundschaft» und «Gesellschaft» bei Homer.’ In A. Luther (ed.). Geschichte und Fiktion in der homerischen Odyssee, pp.  163–216. Zetemata 125. Munich. Spengel 1886 Spengel, A. ‘Zu Homer Il. IV 527 und III 360.’ Philologus 45: 712–714. Stanford 1969 Stanford, W.B. ‘The Lily Voice of the Cicadas (Iliad 3.152).’ Phoenix 23: 3–8. Stanley 1993 Stanley, K. The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad. Princeton etc. Starke 1997 Starke, F. ‘Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend.’ Studia Troica 7: 447–487. Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989 Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft. Studien zum griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Steinrück 1992 Steinrück, M. Rede und Kontext. Zum Verhältnis von Person und Erzähler in frühgriechischen Texten. Habelts Dissertationsdrucke. Reihe Klassische Philologie 39. Bonn.

194 

 Iliad 3

Stella 1978 Stella, L.A. Tradizione micenea e poesia dell’Iliade. Filologia e critica 29. Rome. Stengel (1890) 1920 Stengel, P. Die Griechischen Kultusaltertümer3. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 5.3. Munich (11890). Stengel 1910 Stengel, P. Opferbräuche der Griechen. Leipzig and Berlin. (Reprint Darmstadt 1972.) Stoevesandt 2004 Stoevesandt, M. Feinde – Gegner – Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den Kampfszenen der Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 30. Basel. Stratiki 2004 Stratiki, K. ‘Melas in Greek Cultural Practices: The Case of Heroic Sacrifices in the Periegesis of Pausanias.’ In L. Cleland and K. Stears with G. Davies (eds.). Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World, pp.  106–109. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1267. Oxford. Suzuki 1989 Suzuki, M. Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference, and the Epic. Ithaca and London. Szemerényi 1965 Szemerényi, O. ‘Etyma Graeca I.’ Die Sprache 11: 5–24. Taplin (1980) 1991 Taplin, O. ‘The Shield of Achilles within the Iliad.’ In Latacz 1991, pp. 227– 253. (First published in G&R 27: 1–21; also in I. McAuslan und P. Walcot [eds.]. Homer, pp. 96–115. G&R Studies 4. Oxford 1998; in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 179–200; and in Cairns 2001, pp. 342–364.) Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford. Thalmann 1984 Thalmann, W.G. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Baltimore and London. Thieme (1952) 1968 Thieme, P. ‘Hades.’ In Schmitt 1968, pp. 133–153. (First published in Studien zur indogermanischen Wortkunde und Religionsgeschichte, pp. 35–55. Berlin.) Thompson (1895) 1936 Thompson, D’A.W. A Glossary of Greek Birds2. London (Oxford 11895). Tichy 1977 Tichy, E. ‘Griech. ἀλειτηρός, νηλειτής und die Entwicklung der Wortsippe ἀλείτης.’ Glotta 55: 160–177. Tichy 1981 Tichy, E. ‘Homerisch ἀνδροτῆτα und die Vorgeschichte des daktylischen Hexameters.’ Glotta 59: 28–67. Tichy 1983 Tichy, E. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. SAWW 409. Vienna. Troxler 1964 Troxler, H. Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods. Zurich. Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel. Tsagalis 2008 Tsagalis, C. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics. Hellenic Studies 29. Washington, D.C. Tsagalis 2012 Tsagalis, C. From Listeners to Viewers: Space in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies 53. Cambridge, Mass. Tsagarakis 1977 Tsagarakis, O. Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in Homer. Amsterdam. Tsagarakis 1982 Tsagarakis, O. ‘The Teichoskopia Cannot Belong in the Beginning of the Trojan War.’ QUCC 41: 61–72. Tsopanakis 1969 Tsopanakis, A.G. ‘Moral and Legal Aspects of Aggression and Defence in Homer.’ Epistemonike epeteris 11: 334–352. Tucker 1990 Tucker, E.F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Historische Sprachforschung Ergänzungsheft 35. Göttingen.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Tzamali 1996

 195

Tzamali, E. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft N.F. Beiheft 16. Dettelbach. Tzamali 1997 Tzamali, E. ‘Positive Aussage plus negierte Gegenaussage im Griechischen. Teil I: Die ältere griechische Dichtung.’ MSS 57: 129–167. Tzamali 2001 Tzamali, E. ‘Zur Verselbständigung von Nebensätzen im Altgriechischen.’ Mnemosyne 54: 385–392. Udwin 1999 Udwin, V.M. Between Two Armies: The Place of the Duel in Epic Culture. Davis Medieval Texts and Studies 10. Leiden. Uerpmann 2006 Uerpmann, M. ‘Von Adler bis Zahnbrassen – Der Beitrag der Archäozoologie zur Erforschung Troias.’ In M.O. Korfmann (ed.). Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft, pp. 283–296. Mainz. Ulf 1990 Ulf, C. Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung. Vestigia. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 43. Munich. Usener 1994 Usener, K. ‘Zur Existenz des Löwen im Griechenland der Antike. Eine Überprüfung auf dem Hintergrund biologischer Erkenntnisse.’ SO 69: 5–33. van der Valk 1964 van der Valk, M. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 2. Leiden. Veneri 1995 Veneri, A. ‘La cetra di Paride: l’altra faccia della musica in Omero e nei suoi interpreti antichi.’ In B. Gentili and F. Perusino (eds.). Mousike. Metrica, ritmica e musica greca in memoria di Giovanni Comotti, pp.  111–132. Studi di metrica classica 11. Pisa and Rome. Vidal-Naquet 1989 Vidal-Naquet, P. ‘Retour au chasseur noir.’ In M.-M. Mactoux and É. Geny (eds.). Mélanges Pierre Lévêque, vol. 2, pp.  387–411. Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 377. Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 82. Paris. Visser 1987 Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Europäische Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main etc. Vivante 1955 Vivante, P. ‘Sulla designazione del corpo in Omero.’ AGI 40: 39–50. Vivante 1982 Vivante, P. The Epithets in Homer: A Study in Poetic Values. New Haven and London. Vodoklys 1992 Vodoklys, E.J. Blame-Expression in the Epic Tradition. Harvard Dissertations in Classics. New York and London. Voigt 1934 Voigt, C. Überlegung und Entscheidung. Studien zur Selbstauffassung des Menschen bei Homer. Pan-Bücherei. Philosophie 16. Berlin. Von der Mühll 1930 Von der Mühll, P. Der große Aias. Rektoratsprogramm der Universität Basel. Basel. Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 4. Basel. Waanders 1999 Waanders, F.M.J. ‘*Lāh(o) – «stone» in Mycenaean and Homer.’ In S.  Deger-Jalkotzy, S. Hiller and O. Panagl (eds.). Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X.  Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums (Salzburg, 1.–5.  5. 1995), vol. 2, pp.  601–606. Denkschriften der Österr. Akad. der Wiss. 247. Vienna. Wace 1948 Wace, A.J.B. ‘Weaving or Embroidery?’ AJA 52: 51–55, 452. Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wackernagel 1916 Wackernagel, J. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 4. Göttingen. (Reprint 1970.)

196 

 Iliad 3

Wackernagel (1924) 2009 Wackernagel, J. Lectures on Syntax with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic, transl. with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow, Oxford 2009. (German original: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Zweite Reihe2. Basel 1928 [11924].) Waern 1952 Waern, I. ‘Zur Synästhesie in griechischer Dichtung.’ Eranos 50: 14–22. Wakker 1994 Wakker, G.C. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Ward 1968 Ward, D. The Divine Twins: An Indo-European Myth in Germanic Tradition. Folklore Studies 19. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Watkins (1986) 1994 Watkins, C. ‘The Language of the Trojans.’ In C. Watkins. Selected Writings. Vol. 2: Culture and Poetics, ed. by L. Oliver, pp. 700–717. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 80. Innsbruck. (First published in M.J. Mellink [ed.]. Troy and the Trojan War. A Symposium Held at Bryn Mawr College, pp. 45–62. Bryn Mawr.) Watkins 1995 Watkins, C. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York and Oxford. Watkins 1998 Watkins, C. ‘Homer and Hittite Revisited.’ In P. Knox and C. Foss (eds.). Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen, pp. 201–211. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 92. Stuttgart and Leipzig. van Wees 1992 van Wees, H. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam. van Wees 1996 van Wees, H. ‘Heroes, Knights and Nutters: Warrior Mentality in Homer.’ In A.B. Lloyd (ed.). Battle in Antiquity, pp. 1–86. London. van Wees 1997 van Wees, H. ‘Homeric Warfare.’ In Companion, pp. 668–693. van Wees 2000 van Wees, H. ‘The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century.’ In H. van Wees (ed.). War and Violence in Ancient Greece, pp. 125–166. London. Wegner 1968 Wegner, M. ‘Musik und Tanz.’ ArchHom chap. U. Göttingen. Wendel 1929 Wendel, Th. Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit. Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 6. Stuttgart. Werner 1948 Werner, R. η und ει vor Vokal bei Homer. Fribourg. West 1975 West, M.L. Immortal Helen. An Inaugural Lecture. Delivered on 30 April 1975, London. West 1982 West, M.L. Greek Metre. Oxford. West 1985 West, M.L. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Origins. Oxford. West 1997 West, M.L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 1998 West, M.L. ‘Praefatio.’ In Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M.L. West, vol. 1, pp. v–xxxvii. Stuttgart and Leipzig. West 2001 West, M.L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich and Leipzig. West 2001a West, M.L. ‘Atreus and Attarissiyas.’ Glotta 77: 262–266. West 2001b West, M.L. ‘Some Homeric Words.’ Glotta 77: 118–135. West 2004 West, M.L. ‘An Indo-European Stylistic Feature in Homer.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 33–49.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

West 2004a

 197

West, M.L. ‘Geschichte und Vorgeschichte: Die Sage von Troia.’ Studia Troica 14: xiii–xx. West 2007 West, M.L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 2011 West, M.L. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary. Oxford. West 1967 West, S. The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer. Papyrologica Coloniensia 3. Cologne and Opladen. Wickert-Micknat (1954) 1983 Wickert-Micknat, G. ‘Kriegsgefangenschaft und Unfreiheit in der Ilias.’ In G. Wickert-Micknat. Unfreiheit im Zeitalter der homerischen Epen, pp.  1–77. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 16. Wiesbaden. (= G. Micknat. Studien zur Kriegsgefangenschaft und zur Sklaverei in der griechischen Geschichte2, 1. Teil: Homer. Wiesbaden.) Wickert-Micknat 1982 Wickert-Micknat, G. ‘Die Frau.’ ArchHom chap. R. Göttingen. Wiesmann 1950 Wiesmann, P. Die schöne Helena. Darstellung eines Menschen bei Homer. Chur. Wiesner 1968 Wiesner, J. ‘Fahren und Reiten.’ ArchHom chap. F. Göttingen. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1884 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Homerische Untersuchungen. Philologische Untersuchungen 7. Berlin. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1931 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Der Glaube der Hellenen, vol. 1. Berlin. Wilhelmi 1967 Wilhelmi, G. Untersuchungen zum Bild vom Fließen der Sprache in der griechischen Literatur. Tübingen. Willcock 2004 Willcock, M.M. ‘Traditional Epithets.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 51–62. Wille (1958) 2001 Wille, G. Akroasis. Der akustische Sinnesbereich in der griechischen Literatur bis zum Ende der klassischen Zeit. Tübinger phänomenologische Bibliothek 1. Tübingen and Basel. (Originally Habilitationsschrift Tübingen 1958.) Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers Ilias. Marburg and Lahn. (Originally Diss. Marburg 1944.) Wilson 2002 Wilson, D.F. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge. Wilson 2002a Wilson, D.F. ‘Lion Kings: Heroes in the Epic Mirror.’ ColbyQ 38: 231–263. Wißmann 1997 Wißmann, J. Motivation und Schmähung. Feigheit in der Ilias und in der griechischen Tragödie. Drama Beiheft 7. Stuttgart. Wölke 1983 Wölke, H. Review of Janni 1978. Gnomon 55: 97–99. Wokalek 1973 Wokalek, A. Griechische Stadtbefestigungen. Studien zur Geschichte der frühgriechischen Befestigungsanlagen. Abhandlungen zur Kunst-, Musik- und Literaturwissenschaft 136. Bonn. Worman 2001 Worman, N. ‘This Voice Which Is Not One: Helen’s Verbal Guises in Homeric Epic.’ In A. Lardinois and L. McClure (eds.). Making Silence Speak. Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, pp. 19–37. Princeton and Oxford. Worman 2002 Worman, N. The Cast of Character: Style in Greek Literature. Austin. Woronoff 1989 Woronoff, M. ‘Les lions de l’Ida.’ In M. Casevitz (ed.). Études Homériques, pp. 103–106. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 17. Paris. Woronoff 1994 Woronoff, M. ‘Folie de princes et génocide troyen. De la culpabilité collective à la responsabilité individuelle.’ In M.-M. Mactoux and É. Geny (eds.). Mélanges Pierre Lévêque, vol. 8, pp. 389–405. Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 499. Centre de recherche d’histoire ancienne 124. Paris. Woronoff 1995 Woronoff, M. ‘De l’Olympe à l’Ida: le Zeus des sommets.’ Ktèma 20: 213–222.

198 

 Iliad 3

Wright/Jones 1997 Homer. German Scholarship in Translation. Transl. by G.M. Wright and P.V. Jones, with Introduction by P.V. Jones. Oxford. Wyatt 1969 Wyatt Jr., W.F. Metrical Lengthening in Homer. Incunabula Graeca 35. Rome. Wyatt 1989/90 Wyatt Jr., W.F. ‘Homeric Transitions.’ Archaiognosia 6: 11–23. Yalouris 1960 Yalouris, N. ‘Mykenische Bronzeschutzwaffen.’ MDAI(A) 75: 42–67. Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Supplement 131. Leiden etc. Zaborowski 2002 Zaborowski, R. La crainte et le courage dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. Contribution lexicographique à la psychologie homérique des sentiments. Warsaw. Zwolanek 1970 Zwolanek, R. ‘Vā́yav índraśca’. Studien zu Anrufungsformen im Vedischen, Avestischen und Griechischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft N.F. Beiheft 5. Munich.