Homer’s Iliad: Book VI Homer’s Iliad 9781501501760, 9781614517399

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 VI By Magdalene Stoevesandt

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 978-1-61451-739-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0176-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0180-7 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. © 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin 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

Table of contents Preface to the German Edition | VII Preface to the English Edition | XI Notes for the Reader (including list of abbreviations) | XIII 24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) | 1 Overview of the Action in Book 6 | 9 Commentary | 11 Bibliographic Abbreviations | 183

Preface to the German Edition The present commentary on Book 6 of the Iliad follows the previously published volumes on Books 1 and 2 in its aims and structure, and the prefaces to those volumes provide detailed information regarding the ideas behind the commentary as a whole. Only a few notes are added here. With the sequence ‘Hektor in Troy’ (237–529), Book 6 contains one of the most widely read sections of the Iliad. The immediately preceding episode involving Diomedes and Glaukos (119–236), along with the inset stories of Lykourgos’ sacrilege and Bellerophontes’ adventures, have attracted almost an equal degree of scholarly attention; many related interpretative issues have been debated since antiquity. It scarcely requires saying that it would have been neither possible nor useful to document every scholarly opinion regarding each individual problem. An attempt has nevertheless been made to provide as comprehensive an overview as possible of the solutions offered to date in regard to contentious issues – even where the commentary gives clear preference to one particular choice. The goal is to also take into account readers who may not agree with positions favored in the commentary and to provide adequate references to allow interested individuals to pursue all significant questions further. In the present volume, I was able to draw upon many discussions of semantics, syntax, formulaic language and realia already found in the other volumes. Accordingly, references to the commentaries on Books 1 and 2 of the Iliad are numerous; where appropriate, reference was also made to Books 3, 19 and 24, which will be published in the near future.1 Care has nevertheless been taken to include all information necessary for understanding each passage in the present volume itself. * The generous support of a number of sponsors made it possible for work on the Commentary project as a whole to continue on a new basis after the publication of the first volumes in 2000/03. Prominent mention is owed the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, which has supported the project from the start and provided the financial basis for the completion of the present volume. Two private Basel institutions, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft and the Max Geldner-Stiftung, as well as the Ham-

1 Note for the English edition: These volumes appeared in German in 2009 and are currently being translated into English; the English editions are scheduled to appear in 2015/16.

VIII 

 Iliad 6

burger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur, allowed an increase in the number of collaborators, enabling work on multiple commentaries on Books of the Iliad during this phase of the project. Various important resources, including infrastructure, were provided by the Hamburger Stiftung and the Universität Basel. The team’s motivation and well-being were greatly enhanced by a move to more spacious premises in close proximity to the Seminar für Klassische Philologie, thanks to a decision by the University administration in December 2004. My personal interest in Homeric epic dates back to my student days; my discovery of a love for these texts, and the continuation of that love to this day, is due to the infectious enthusiasm of Prof. Dr.  Joachim Latacz. It was therefore particularly gratifying that after the conclusion of my studies, Prof. Latacz invited me to participate in the Commentary project, providing me with an opportunity to become active in the field of Homeric studies myself. Over the years, I have learned much from his benevolent and critical attention to my work. Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl, who has led the project together with Prof. Latacz since 2003, deserves no less thanks; he has continually supported the work for the present volume and has given me the opportunity to regularly contribute to teaching in our department. Discussions with students that took place in this context have stimulated my academic studies to no small degree. The constant exchange of ideas with my colleagues was also invaluable. The commentary in its present form could not have come into being without the willingness of my Basel comrades-in-arms, Claude Brügger and Marina Coray, to at all times lend an ear to as-yet-incomplete ideas, thus contributing to the solution of almost all complex problems. I am also indebted to our two external colleagues, Martha Krieter-Spiro (Zürich) and Robert Plath (Erlangen), for additional valuable suggestions. The project leaders and my colleagues have read various drafts of the text with great attention and have saved me from numerous errors; they suggested additions and clarifications but also cuts, and raised questions I had not considered. The same is true for our external experts: Rudolf Führer, Fritz Graf, Irene de Jong, Michael Meier-Brügger, Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, René Nünlist, Rolf A. Stucky, Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg, Rudof Wachter and Martin L. West. While it would have been impossible to document all their contributions in detail, I have made explicit mention where they expressed ideas that provided a nuance not suggested in previous interpretations. Cordial thanks are due all of them for dedicating considerable amounts of time to the work, and for using their professional expertise in a variety of specialist fields within Homeric studies to ensure that the commentary did not end up one-sided or incomplete.

Preface to the German Edition 

 IX

A further opportunity for fruitful dialogue with outstanding experts on Homer was due to Prof. Dr.  Michael Meier-Brügger, who invited my colleague Claude Brügger and me to Hamburg in May 2006 to participate in a project meeting of collaborators on the Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (LfgrE) in which sections of our draft commentaries were discussed in detail. (Some of the discussions initiated there were continued this past January on the occasion of the Hamburg team’s reciprocal visit to Basel.) I owe thanks to the administration and staff of the Universitätsbibliothek Basel for their generous help in sourcing bibliography, and in particular to Christoph Schneider, who as collections manager for Classics willingly met all requests for acquisitions. Addressing the inevitable details that completing a commentary entails requires particular commitment and perseverance. Here, our research assistants Tamara Hofer and especially Alexandra Scharfenberger provided invaluable services. It is thanks to my colleague Claude Brügger that the idea of preparing a camera-ready copy did not cause me many sleepless nights. He instructed me in all the technical processes with unfailing helpfulness and patience, and always quickly identified solutions for issues that exceeded my abilities in this area. It was a great motivation for me to know that the volume rested in the best possible hands at Walter de Gruyter. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Elisabeth Schuhmann; the kind sympathy of her interest in the volume’s progress was second to none. Completion of the commentary would have been unthinkable without my ability to rely on the constant support of my family and friends; it is due to them that I did not lose courage during dry spells, but also that I took, and enjoyed, the necessary breathing room. Basel, September 2008

Magdalene Stoevesandt

Preface to the English Edition This is a revised and updated version of my German commentary from 2008. Homeric studies are a flourishing field, producing new insights and ideas every year; I have tried to include as many of them as possible into the present English edition. It was an especially rewarding task to study the commentary on Iliad 6 by Barbara Graziosi and Johannes Haubold that appeared in 2010 and to compare their interpretations in detail with mine. In many cases, I found my views corroborated by theirs; in others, their commentary drew my attention to points I had previously overlooked, or made me rethink my positions (although, inevitably, some points of disagreement remain). The present English edition has been made possible by 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 all of which I feel deeply indebted. Many thanks are also due to Michiel Klein-Swormink, director of the US branch of De Gruyter, and the two directors of the Homer Commentary, Prof. Dr.  Anton Bierl and Prof. Dr.  Joachim Latacz, for initiating and supporting the translation project with considerable effort. The greatest workload, of course, has been shouldered by our translation team, Prof. Dr.  S.  Douglas Olson, Dr.  Benjamin W. Millis and Dr.  Sara Strack. They undertook the difficult task of rendering my rather complex German text into readable English, never losing patience with my queries. I want to express my warmest thanks to them. Last, but not least I want to thank my colleagues at the Homer Commentary, Claude Brügger, Marina Coray, Martha Krieter-Spiro and Katharina Wesselmann, for their unceasing support and humor during a long period of shared work. Basel, June 2015

Magdalene Stoevesandt

Notes for the Reader 1.

In the commentary, three levels of explanation are distinguished graphically: 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 smaller type. These sections correspond to a standard philological commentary. c) 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 xxxP Superscript ‘P’ following a term refers to the definitions of terms in ‘Homeric Poetics in Keywords’. STR Structure of the Iliad

XIV 

 Iliad 6

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 

 XV

8. Abbreviations (a) Bibliographic abbreviations For the bibliographic abbreviations, see below p. 183  ff. (b) Primary literature (on the editions used, see below pp. 186  f.) Aesch. Aeschylus (Sept. = Septem, ‘Seven against Thebes’; fr. = fragment) Anth. Pal. Anthologia Palatina ‘Apollod.’ Works ascribed to Apollodorus (Bibl. =  Bibliotheke, Epit. = Epitome) Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius Archil. Archilochus Aristoph. Aristophanes (Nub. = Nubes, ‘Clouds’) Bacchyl. Bacchylides Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the ‘Epic Cycle’) Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Diod. Diodorus Eur. Euripides (Andr. =  ‘Andromache’, Ba. =  ‘Bacchae’, Hec. = ‘Hecuba’, Hel. = ‘Helen’, Or. = ‘Orestes’; fr. = fragment) 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.Bacch., – to Bacchus/Dionysus, h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter, h.Merc., – to Mercurius/Hermes and h.Ven. – to Venus/Aphrodite Il. Iliad Il. parv. Ilias parva, ‘Little Iliad’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Il. Pers. Iliou Persis, ‘Sack of Troy’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Isocr. Isocrates Od. Odyssey Ov. Ovid (Met. = Metamorphoses) Paus. Pausanias Pind. Pindar (Isthm., Nem., Ol., Pyth. = ‘Isthmian, Nemean, Olympian, Pythian Odes’ [victory poems])

XVI 

 Iliad 6

Plat. Plut. schol. schol. A (etc.) Soph. Strab. Theophr. Thuc. Verg. Xen.

Plato (Phaed. = Phaedo, Phaedr. = Phaedrus) Plutarch (Quaest. Gr. = Quaestiones Graecae, ‘Studies on the origin of Greek customs’) scholion, scholia scholion in manuscript A (etc.) Sophocles (Ant. = ‘Antigone’, Phil. = ‘Philoktetes’; fr. = fragment) Strabo Theophrastus (hist. plant. =  historia plantarum, ‘History of plants’) Thucydides Vergil (Aen. = ‘Aeneid’) Xenophon (Anab. =  Anabasis, ‘March Up-country’; Hell. = Hellenica, ‘History of Greece’; Cyr. = Cyropaedia, ‘Education of Cyrus’)

(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 and end ↑ in the elementary section, refers to the relevant lemma in the main commentary a/b after a verse number  indicates the 1st/2nd verse half A 1, B 1 (etc.) indicate caesurae in the hexameter (cf. M 6) app. crit. apparatus criticus (West edition) fr., frr. fragment, fragments Gr. Greek IE Indo-European imper. imperative Introd. Introduction loc. locative ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts n. note2

2 ‘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

Notes for the Reader 

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

 XVII

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

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.)

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 6

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. -έ͜ων (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): 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.

9.1 9.2

R 10

10.1 10.2

 3

48

17 18

Adaptation to the meter: Three (or more) short syllables in a row, 49  f. 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-).

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 6

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

83

82

83

For verbs, the following points deserve particular attention: 85 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. 86/ Personal endings: 93 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. 89 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 sing. subjunc., the ending -ησι(ν) (1.408: ἐθέλησιν) is found beside -ῃ.

6 

 Iliad 6

16.4

16.5 16.6

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

21.2

R 22 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 R 23

Alternation of voice: In the case of some verbs, the act. and mid. 100 forms are used as convenient metrical variants with no discernible difference in meaning, e.g. φάτο/ἔφη, ὀΐω/ὀΐομαι.

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.

24.1

24.2

24.3

101

8 

24.4

24.5 24.6

24.7

24.8 24.9 24.10

24.11 24.12

24.13

 Iliad 6

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 6 1–118 1–72

73–118

Undecided battles After a phase of indecisive fighting, Aias manages to break through the opposing front, causing a mass flight among the Trojans. Helenos urges Hektor and Aineias to halt the fleeing Trojans. Hektor is to go to the city afterwards and ask Hekabe to initiate a procession of supplication by the Trojan women to the temple of Athene. After restoring Trojan resistance, Hektor leaves the battle.

119–236

Diomedes and Glaukos While Hektor is on his way into the city, a duel develops between Diomedes and the Lykian leader Glaukos. Glaukos responds to Diomedes’ provocative challenge – in which he tells of Lycourgos’ sacrilege against Dionysos  – with a long excursus on his family’s history; it transpires that the two heroes are linked by a bond of guest friendship inherited from their grandfathers. At Diomedes’ suggestion, they decide to refrain from all further confrontation in battle and exchange their armor as a visible sign of their newly discovered relationship – although Glaukos is here taken advantage of.

237–529 237–241

Hektor in Troy Hektor is assailed by the women of Troy with questions about their relatives; he tells them to pray to the gods. Hektor and Hekabe Hektor encounters his mother Hekabe near Priam’s palace; she offers him wine for a libation and for his own refreshment. Hektor declines and asks Hekabe to conduct a procession of supplication to the temple of Athene together with the Trojan women; he himself will fetch his brother Paris to rejoin the battle. A futile supplicatory procession to the temple of Athene by the Trojan women Hektor with Paris and Helen Hektor censures Paris for his withdrawal from battle; Paris promises to immediately arm himself in order to return to battle along with his brother. Hektor declines Helen’s invitation to rest a bit in her house: he does not wish to keep the hard-pressed Trojans

242–285

286–312 313–368

10 

 Iliad 6

369–502

503–529

waiting – and since he has a sense of his impending death, he wants to see his wife and child one last time before returning to battle. Hektor and Andromache (so-called homilia) Hektor does not find Andromache at home, since she has gone to the tower by the Skaian gate out of concern for him. He therefore hurries back to the gate himself and comes upon her there along with their young son Astyanax. Andromache implores him not to continue to risk his life in open battle. He reciprocates her feelings of love and concern, but explains that his sense of duty compels him to fight. Astyanax’ childlike fear of his father’s crest lifts the somber mood for a moment; in the end, however, Andromache takes leave of her husband in tears and on her return home begins mourning him together with her servants. Paris, resplendent in his armor and filled with new lust for battle, catches up with Hektor at the Skaian gate; the brothers converse before returning to battle together.

Commentary Book 6 of the Iliad takes place during day 22 of the action of the epic – the first of four days of battle described in detail (see STR 21, fig. 1). Achilleus has withdrawn from battle in anger after his fight with Agamemnon; via his mother Thetis, he has obtained Zeus’ support for the Trojans henceforth (days 1–21: Il. 1.12b–2.47). But Zeus’ plan, containing a decisive Greek defeat (1.495b–530, 2.3  f.), remains suspended for the time being: during the first day of battle (2.48–7.380), the Greeks remain in overall control, several minor setbacks notwithstanding. This is because Books 2–7 represent a sort of latent external analepsisP (STR 22 with fig. 2): although the narrative ostensibly takes place during year 9/10 of the war, it contains elements that within the logic of the narrative are placed at the beginning of the Trojan War. The minor episode of Achilleus’ wrath is thus embedded in the larger context of the myth of Troy (STR 22–24); at the same time, the delay of the anticipated Greek defeat serves to increase suspense (retardationP; Morrison 1992, 35–43). In addition to the catalogue of forces (2.484  ff., 2.816  ff.), the duel between Paris and Menelaos over Helen (see 3.67–75n.), the teichoscopia (3.121– 244n.), etc., the elements referred to above include the Greek successes described in Il. 4–7, which reflect the course of battle at the beginning of the Trojan campaign (Latacz [1985] 1996, 126–132; cf. also Kakridis [1956] 1971, 61; Kullmann 1960, 278). The situation as outlined at the beginning of the work is only considered insofar as the narrator repeatedly recalls Achilleus’ angry boycott (Latacz loc. cit. 123  f., 127  f.); other Greek heroes emerge in his place on the first day of battle. The most successful is Diomedes, whose aristeia occupies all of Book 5 and still reverberates in the following Books (cf. 96–101n.). In Book 6, this occurs in a twofold manner: Diomedes himself has a further significant appearance in 119–236 (see ad loc.), and the terror he spreads forms the background of the scene sequence ‘Hektor in Troy’, which provides the narrator with an occasion for an impressive portrayal of the situation within the besieged city (237–529n.). There, the end of the Trojan War, which is not told as part of the Iliad, is also already anticipated in the dark forebodings of those concerned (esp. 447  ff.; see STR 22 fig. 2; on the position of Book 6 within the overall structure of the Iliad, see also Graziozi/Haubold, Introd. 24–26). Diomedes’ prominent role in Book 6 is also reflected in the fact that Hdt. 2.116.3 cites verses 289–292 as coming from the part of the Iliad entitled Διομήδεος ἀριστείη; later, as attested in Eust. 621.17  f. (introduction to Il. 6) and in the medieval mss., Book 6 has the title Ἕκτορος καὶ Ἀνδρομάχης ὁμιλία, while Διομήδους ἀριστεία denotes only Book 5 (cf. Jensen 1999, 10; 2011, 330  f.; on the division of the Iliad into Books, see 1n.).

12 

 Iliad 6

1–72 After a phase of indecisive fighting, Aias manages to break through the opposing front, causing a mass flight among the Trojans. In the battle scenes of the Iliad, two basic situations alternate: (1) phases of indecisive fighting, (2) flight/withdrawal of one party (followed by the fleeing fighters assembling and forming a new front). The narrator sometimes uses comprehensive descriptions of mass battle to depict both phase types, and in a few verses these convey an overview of the entire battle situation/action; at other times, he uses (much more detailed) descriptions of individual engagements that exemplify the course of battle at that point or single out highlights (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). Here, the portrayal of an indecisive battle from a bird’s-eye view (verses 1–4; similarly e.g. 4.446–451 = 8.60–65, cf. Kelly 2007, 106–108) is followed by a phase of Trojan flight, illustrated by a catalogue of killing scenes: pursuing their fleeing opponents, various Greek heroes kill one or more of them (likewise 5.37–83, 14.511–522, 16.306–351; with reversed roles 15.328–342, briefly indicated at 7.8–16; cf. Kelly loc. cit. 267  f.). 1 2nd VH = 5.379; ≈ 4.65, 16.256. — Achaians: one of the Homeric terms for the Greeks (1.2n.; HE s.v.). — left to itself: sc. by the gods, who until now had taken part in battle. The verse picks up from the preceding narrative in the manner of a summary: the high point of Diomedes’ aristeia was his battle with Ares, in which he was supported by Athene (and indirectly Hera); in 5.864  ff. Ares leaves the battle, and in 5.907  ff. he is followed by Athene and Hera (in West’s edition of the text, 5.907–6.1 are printed as a single paragraph). At the same time, the verse introduces a change of scene by making a transition to a bird’s-eye view (de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 74). Such ‘hinge’ points were frequently chosen as boundaries in the (likely post-Homeric) division of the Iliad into 24 Books (Edwards 2002, 39–47 [with bibliography]; cf. also HT 5; STR 21 n. 22; Nünlist 2006; an argument for the division into Books by the poet of the Iliad himself is made by Jensen 2011, 329–362; cf. also Heiden 2008, 37–65, esp. 61  ff.). – A complete withdrawal of the gods from battle remains the exception in the Iliad (Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 50). At 7.17  ff., Athene returns to the battlefield together with Apollo; beginning in Book 8, Zeus attempts to direct the action of battle by himself, but his ban on interference is repeatedly circumvented by the other gods; he permits Apollo to return to the battle in 15.220  ff., Athene in 17.544  ff., and all the gods in 20.22  ff. The present situation

1 οἰώθη: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

Commentary 

 13

is matched most closely by 11.73  ff. and the brief moment before the arrival of the gods in 20.41  ff. φύλοπις αἰνή: an inflectible VE formula (nom./acc.; in total 11x Il., 1x Od., 2x Hes., 1x h.Hom.). φύλοπις (etymology uncertain: Frisk, DELG, Beekes) is part of the semantic field ‘battle, combat’, although the exact nuance in meaning is uncertain (see LfgrE s.v. and Graziozi/Haubold ad loc.: φύλοπις may denote an aspect of πόλεμος, cf. the phrase φυλόπιδος  … πτολέμοιο [13.635, similarly Od. 11.314, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 113  f.] and the common collocation πόλεμος … καὶ φύλοπις [4.82 etc.]). Like all other terms from this semantic field, it generally has a negative connotation in early epic (epithets: 15x αἰνή as well as 2x κρατερή and 1x each ἀργαλέη and κρυερή; cf. also Il. 19.221 φυλόπιδος … κόρος): Trümpy 1950, 165  f.; see also de Jong (1987) 2004, 231–233 (collection of all epithets used with μάχη, π(τ)όλεμος, ὑσμίνη and φύλοπις); de Romilly 1997, 69  f.; 1.162n., 2.401n., 6.77n.

2 now one way, now in another: During indecisive phases of battle, there are repeated episodes of temporary retreat and renewed rousing of one party (e.g. 4.505–514, 16.569–602), creating the impression that the battle surges forward and back on a broad front (Latacz 1977, 91). ἴθυσε μάχη: Word end between the two shorts of the 4th metrum is unusual (against so-called ‘Hermann’s bridge’, see M 9; Hoekstra 1969, 62–65; Brillante ad loc. and Blanc 2008, 38, with further bibliography); whether this was designed to achieve a ‘«bouncing» effect’ to highlight the ‘spasmodic, to-and-fro aspect of the fighting’ (thus Kirk), must remain open. – ἰθύω (from ἰθύς ‘straight’) is occasionally used in battle descriptions with the sense ‘advance, push forward’; with an inanimate subject only here (alternatively μάχη may be understood here specifically as ‘mass of men fighting’: LfgrE s.v. μάχη 48.46  ff.); otherwise of individual heroes (16.582 etc.), of collectives (Achaians: 4.507, Trojans: 12.443, 17.725) and of beasts of prey in similes (11.552 etc.): LfgrE s.v.

3 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — bronze: Greek chalkḗrea, from chalkós ‘bronze’ and ararískō ‘join together’, originally means ‘fitted with (a) bronze (tip)’ (on the word formation, Leumann 1950, 66  f.). In reality, battles in the Homeric period were largely fought with iron weapons; epic’s virtually exclusive talk of bronze weapons can be ascribed to two factors: (1) the continued use of metrically convenient formulae that originated in the Bronze Age (West on Hes. Op. 150; Hooker [1988] 1996, 276); (2) the poet’s desire to contrast his own period with the heroic past (cf. 1.272n., 5.302  ff., etc.; 6.34–35n. end). But it is disputed whether the virtual absence of iron weapons in Homeric epic stems from a deliberate archaizing tendency on the part of the poet (thus e.g. Finley [1954] 1979, 149; LfgrE s.v. σίδηρος; Hesiod’s story of the ages of men attests to the fact

2 πολλά: adv., ‘many times, repeatedly’. — ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθ(α): ‘hither and thither’; the partitive gen. πεδίοιο (on the declension, R 11.2) is dependent on this.

14 

 Iliad 6

that the comparative novelty of this material was well-known in the Archaic period: West loc. cit.) or whether bronze weapons were considered a ‘heroic’ attribute primarily because of their luster (hierarchy of metals: gold/silver for the gods [1.37n., 2.448n.], bronze for heroes, iron largely for tools in daily use: Patzek 1992, 188  ff.; van Wees 1994, 133  f.; LfgrE s.v. χαλκός; but cf. also 48n.). — spears: the primary weapon of attack in Homeric epic (cf. 2.692n.), used in both distance and close combat (LfgrE s.v. δόρυ 337.54  ff.); less often mentioned are arrows, sling stones, swords and battle axes. On the archaeological finds, Höckmann 1980; Franz 2002, 64–67; cf. also 319n. ἀλλήλων ἰθυνομένων: ἀλλήλων is dependent on ἰθυνομένων (gen. after verbs of aiming: Schw. 2.104  f.); ἰθυν. (in reference to the fighters on both sides) may be understood as a gen. dependent on μάχη (LfgrE s.v. μάχη 48.46  ff., cf. 2n.) or as a gen. absolute (AH, Leaf; cf. Chantr. 2.324): ‘of those who/while they were aiming at each other’; similarly 13.497–499 περὶ στήθεσσι δὲ χαλκός | σμερδαλέον κονάβιζε τιτυσκομένων καθ’ ὅμιλον | ἀλλήλων. — χαλκήρεα δοῦρα: an inflectible VE formula (acc. pl. also at Od. 5.309; dat. sing. 3x Il., 2x Od.); on the form δοῦρα, see G 4, 27, 53 and Graziosi/Haubold with bibliography (δουρ- < *dorw-; the false diphthong stands in place of lengthened ο); on the metrical system for the noun-epithet formulae for ‘spear’ in general, see Page 1959, 238  ff., 273  ff.; Paraskevaides 1984, 22–27; cf. also 31–32n.

4 Xanthos  … Simoeis: the two major rivers in the Trojan plain (Xanthos = Skamandros: 20.74). The text does not make clear precisely how the narrator envisages their course; all the same, most passages  – including the present one – convey the impression that in his imagination the rivers formed the lateral boundaries of the battlefield (the armies’ advance and retreat are not obstructed by the rivers): Elliger 1975, 45, 48–51; Trachsel 2007, 66–78 (on the contradiction, probably only apparent, between this conception and 5.773  f., see Herzhoff 2011, 225, 239 nn. 55–57; on the problem of the thrice-mentioned ford of the Skamandros, 24.351n. with bibliography). – The Simoeis is generally identified with the modern Dümrek Su, the Skamandros/Xanthos with the Menderes (Cook 1973, 66, 128; Herzhoff loc. cit. 225, 238  f. nn. 47–54; differently Hertel 2003, 183); further attempts to align information from the Iliad with specific geographical realities unsurprisingly meet with obstacles (caution against applying inappropriate realism to the Homeric texts in Drerup 1921, 128  ff.; Cook loc. cit. 91  f.; Elliger loc. cit. 43  f.; de Jong 2012a, 21, 36–38; cf. also 2.793n.).

3 χαλκήρεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δοῦρα: on the declension, R 12.5 and ↑. 4 ἰδέ: ‘and’ (a metrically convenient variant for ἠδέ). — ῥοάων: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary 

 15

An early such attempt may be at the bottom of the v.l. μεσσηγὺς ποταμοῖο Σκαμάνδρου καὶ στομαλίμνης, which was initially adopted in Aristarchus’ ὑπομνήματα but later dismissed on the ground of the theory of the Iliad’s topography that Aristarchus developed in the meantime (schol. A, bT). A στομαλίμνη (lagoon) at the mouth of the Skamandros and Simoeis is mentioned in Strab. 13.1.31/34 (= C 595/597) and appears to have played a role in the Hellenistic discussion of Homeric topography; this form of the word is attested only in Strabo (previously only στομάλιμνον Theoc. 4.23; στόμα λίμνης Apoll. Rhod. 4.1572) and appears to be a neologism (West 1967, 72  f.; cf. also van der Valk 1949, 23). – Rengakos 1993, 154  f. (followed by Trachsel 2007, 58  f.) assumes a ‘respectable age’ for the v.l., but the reading of Pap. Hibeh II 193 (3rd cent. BC), the earliest witness, is quite uncertain: Johnson 2002.

5–36 ‘A series of uninterrupted, easy slayings by one side’ (Fenik 1968, 10), like 5.38–83, 7.8–16, 12.182–195, 14.511–522, 15.328–342, 16.306–350 (cf. 1–72n.). Aias kills one opponent (verses 5–11), Diomedes two (12–19), Euryalos four (20–28); the next eight verses (29–36) report another seven victories by prominent Achaian heroes (similarly 15.328–342 and in the aristeiai of individual heroes 12.182–187, 12.188–195, 16.399–418). The climax stresses the inevitability of the Trojans’ flight (cf. also verse 41). On this, Albracht (1886) 2005, 81; Broccia 1963, 17–33, esp. 32  f.; Nicolai 1973, 16  f., 31  f.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.; on catalogue-like lists of killing scenes in general, Strasburger 1954, esp. 15–20, 52–68; Beye 1964; Kühlmann 1973, 28–41; Kelly 2007, 267–269; Sammons 2010, 7  f., 13  f., 156–158 (with further bibliography). 5–11 First Telamonian Aias … | broke the Trojan battalions …: Flight phases in the Iliad are triggered by exceptional achievements by individual heroes, by one army’s mass advance (e.g. 8.335  f., 11.86–91), and/or by divine intervention (e.g. 8.68–77, 15.320–327). Here Aias achieves a breakthrough by killing a leader, which leads to a swiftly spreading panic among the latter’s fellow combatants; similarly 5.9–29, 14.489–507, 16.284–296 (on this, Latacz 1977, 211; Hellmann 2000, 153  f.; a tabulated overview of the triggering moments of flight phases: Stoevesandt 2004, 89–91; cf. also Kelly 2007, 117  f.). 5 1st VH = 12.378, ≈ 14.511; cf. also 13.809. — First: In a new phase of battle, the narrator frequently highlights who is the first hero to record a success (regardless of whether said success is the trigger for the turn/change in question [as here and at 16.593] or not [e.g. 4.457/59, 5.38, 8.256]); on this, Latacz 1977, 83  f.; de Jong (1987) 2004, 50  f.; somewhat differently Hellmann 2000, 153 (who attempts to assign all passages to the first category). — Aias, that bastion of the Achaians: Aias son of Telamon – the patronymic distinguishes him from the homonymous son of Oïleus  – is the best Achaian fighter after Achilleus (CH 3 and 2.768n. with bibliography). The apposition ‘bastion of the Achaians’ is used as a distinctive epithetP (3x Il. of Aias: also at 3.229, 7.211; cf. LfgrE s.v.

16 

 Iliad 6

ἕρκος 707.6  ff.); he is thereby characterized by his main function as a defensive fighter irrespective of context (FOR 3). Τελαμώνιος: on adjectives of affiliation in -ιος as patronymics, see G 56; 2.20n. — ἕρκος: originally ‘(protective) enclosure’; on its metaphorical use, 1.283b–284n.

6 brought light: In Homeric battle scenes, ‘light’ generally serves as a metaphor for ‘rescue/rescuer’ in moments of extreme distress (11.797, 15.741, 16.39, 16.95, 17.615, 18.102, 21.538; on this, Lossau 1994; cf. the association of ‘light/ life’ [5.120 etc.], ‘darkness/death’ [6.11 etc.]). The use is somewhat different here, where the light metaphor likely conveys something like ‘relief’ (AH ad loc.: ‘made space’), while at the same time communicating the notion ‘(glory of) victory, fame’ (cf. 8.282  f./285 [with AH and Kirk ad loc.], 20.95  f.; Ciani 1974, 8; on parallels from the Old Testament [Isaiah 49:6 etc.] and the Rigveda [1.117.21 etc.], see West 1997, 253 and Durante 1976, 117  f.; West 2007, 482). Cf. also Bremer 1976, 59–66 (the fundamental idea of a ‘unity of space and light’: ‘«Making light» has the effect of a liberating opening up of space’ [62, transl.]). Τρώων: ‘placed in striking juxtaposition to Ἀχαιῶν at the end of line 5: Aias protects the Achaeans and defeats the Trojans’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — φάλαγγα: the only example in Homer of φάλαγξ in the sing.; the reference is apparently to the opposing army’s first line of battle. For details on the sense of φάλαγξ/φάλαγγες in the Iliad, see Latacz 1977, 45–67 (a military technical term, corresponding to ‘line of battle, rank’); differently van Wees 1997, 674  f. (‘rank’ in a non-specific sense as part of an ‘amorphous mass’, in part because of the metaphor νέφος … πεζῶν [4.274, with a following cloud simile]; but see Latacz loc. cit. 57  f.). For the continuing debate about the function of φάλαγγες in the Iliad, as well as the realism of Homeric battle descriptions, see Raaflaub 2008, esp. 474–479; Schwartz 2009, 102–115; Buchholz 2010, 97–103.

7–8 the man … | Akamas: The first victim after the departure of the gods from the battlefield, probably not entirely by chance, is the hero whose shape Ares had taken at 5.461  ff. when supporting the Trojans (schol. T; Finsler [1908] 1918, 59; Stanley 1993, 87); Akamas is otherwise mentioned only when he is introduced in the catalogue of Trojans (as one of two leaders of the Trojans’ Thracian allies: 2.844n.). – The fallen warrior’s significance is highlighted by a number of details describing him more closely (Strasburger 1954, 20); the actual mention of the name is delayed for effect (likewise at 4.457  f., 12.378  f. [as here, each concerns the initial victim in a catalogue of killing scenes], as

6 ῥῆξε: aor. of ῥήγνυμι; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — φόως: on the epic diectasis (φάος > φῶς > φόως), R 8. — ἑτάροισιν: on the declension, R 11.2; ἕταρος is a variant form of ἑταῖρος. 7 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — Θρῄκεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — τέτυκτο: plpf. pass. of τεύχω, ‘was’. 8 Ἐϋσσώρου Ἀκάμαντ(α): on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἠΰν: ἠΰς is a variant form of ἐΰς ‘capable’.

Commentary 

 17

well as 5.541  f., 16.570  f.; cf. also 23.470–472, 23.664  f.): Broccia 1963, 17  f. — far the best of the Thracians: Dying warriors are often emphatically termed the ‘best’ of their group (leaders here and at 11.328, 17.307, 21.207; others: 5.541, 5.843, 17.80, cf. 16.570; see LfgrE s.v. ἄριστος 1289.58  ff., 1294.54  ff., 1296.40  ff.). On Thrace and the Thracians in the Iliad, 2.844n. βαλών: temporally coincident with ῥῆξε, ‘by hitting’ (AH; Schw. 2.300  f.; cf. de Jong on Il. 22.15–16). — ἠΰν τε μέγαν τε: an inflectible VE formula; a combination of two generic warrior epithetsP (2.653n.).

9–11 =  4.459–461, likewise at the start of a catalogue of killing scenes; probably an element of epic formulaic language coined for this type of narrative situation (on typical elements in battle scenes in general, Fenik 1968). In the Iliad, details regarding the kind of injuries sustained are given for about half of the 243 named victims (the spectrum ranges from a simple designation of the affected body part to grisly depictions of bloody details, the latter almost exclusively of Trojans); on this in detail, Friedrich (1956) 2003; Morrison 1999; Saunders 2003 (from the point of view of medical history); Tatum 2003, 116–135 (with parallels from modern literature and art); Stoevesandt 2004, 117–122 (with statistical data and further bibliography). The injury is usually followed immediately by death; a description of extended agony is avoided (Marg [1942] 1976, 12). 9 τόν ῥ’ ἔβαλε πρῶτος: a ring-compositionP, reprising verses 5/7; cf. ABC-schemeP (more pronounced in 12–19, see ad loc.). – τόν ῥ’ ἔβαλε(ν) is a VB formula (4x Il.). — φάλον: The meaning of the term has been disputed since antiquity; it likely denotes a metal plate affixed to the front of a (leather) helmet for reinforcement (3.362n.). — ἱπποδασείης: ‘bushy with horse-hair’, an epithet of κόρυς (7x Il.) and κυνέη (2x Od.) (LfgrE s.v.); on the function of the crest, cf. 469n. 11 =  4.461, 4.503; 2nd VH =  4.526, 13.575, 14.519, 15.578, 16.316, 20.393, 20.471, 21.181; ≈ 16.325, h.Ap. 370. — αἰχμὴ χαλκείη: an inflectible VB formula (only Il., 10x nom., 1x dat.). — τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσ’ ἐκάλυψεν: a formulaic expression for the occurrence of death (see iterata); metrically equivalent variants: στυγερὸς δ’ ἄρα μιν σκότος εἷλεν (5.47, 13.672, 16.607), θάνατος δέ μιν ἀμφεκάλυψεν (5.68); cf. also τὸν/τὴν δὲ κατ’ ὀφθαλμῶν ἐρεβεννὴ νὺξ ἐκάλυψεν (5.659, 13.580; 22.466 of Andromache’s loss of consciousness), θανάτου δὲ μέλαν νέφος ἀμφεκάλυψεν (16.350, similarly Od. 4.180, Il. 20.417  f.), κατὰ δ’ ὀφθαλμῶν κέχυτ’ ἀχλύς (16.344, similarly Od. 22.88) and others. On this, Garland 1981,

9 τόν … φάλον: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); on the demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἱπποδασείης: on the form (-η- after -ι-), R 2. 10 πῆξε: sc. his spear. — ὀστέον εἴσω: = εἰς ὀστέον; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 11 χαλκείη: on the metrical lengthening (-ει- rather than -ε-), R 10.1. — τὸν … ὄσσ(ε): acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); ὄσσε: dual, ‘eyes’.

18 

 Iliad 6

46, 55; Clarke 1999, 239–243; Morrison 1999, esp. 130  f., 136  f. – Given the formulaic nature of both metaphors, it is unlikely that σκότος is used here as a deliberate antithesis to φόως in 6 (thus Stanley 1993, 87, following Broccia 1963, 21).

12–19 An ABC-schemeP scene (Beye 1964, esp. 348): 12 (part A) anticipates in summary fashion the action portrayed in detail in 17–19 (part C); part B contains a retrospect of highlights in the life of the otherwise unknown Axylos. These so-called ‘obituaries’ occur for about a quarter of named victims in the Iliad. They consist of recurrent basic motifs that are variously combined and individually configured: in this case, the secondary themes ‘homeland’ and ‘affluence’ (the same combination at e.g. 5.543  f., 5.612  f., 5.708  f., 13.664, 16.595  f.) are combined with the primary theme ‘abilities/characteristics that are useless in the face of death’ (Axylos’ hospitality; cf. e.g. Ennomos’ abilities as a seer 2.858  ff., Skamandrios’ talent for hunting 5.49  ff., Phereklos’ craft skills 5.59  ff., Polydoros’ speed 20.407  ff.). Fundamental for the typology and function of the ‘obituaries’ is Strasburger 1954 (where see 28 and 113  ff. for Axylos); in addition, Merz 1953; Spieker 1958; Fenik 1968, 150  ff. and passim; Griffin 1976; 1980, 103–143; on the differences between ‘obituaries’ for Trojans and Achaians, Stoevesandt 2004, 126–156. 12 Diomedes: the most significant Achaian offensive fighter after Achilleus, whom he temporarily replaces during the latter’s boycott of battle (aristeia in Books 5/6/8, cf. p. 11 above and 96–101n.; on the individual, CH 3). Ἄξυλον: occurs only here; the derivation and etymology of the name are uncertain (for possible explanations, see LfgrE and Wathelet s.v.). — ἔπεφνε: a reduplicated aor. from the word stem *gu̯hen-, ‘slay, kill’, see LfgrE s.v. *θείνω, πεφνεῖν and 3.281n. with bibliography; part of a formulaic system of verbs of killing that are used synonymously (also ἕλε(ν), κτεῖνε(ν), ἔκτανε(ν), ἐνήρατο, ἐνάριζε(ν), ἐξενάριξε(ν) and others): Visser 1987, esp. 197  f. (on the genesis of the present verse) and 68, 75  f.; 1988, 27–37. — βοὴν ἀγαθός: a set phrase that serves as an epithet for a number of heroes, although with uneven distribution (21x in the present VE formula of Diomedes, 25x of Menelaos, but only 5x in total of other heroes: 2.408n.); it thus occupies a position between generic and distinctive epithetsP (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. with reference to Hainsworth on Il. 9–12, Introd. 22  f., and Friedrich 2007, 84–86).

13 Arisbe: a city on the Hellespont that cannot be localized more specifically (2.836n.). Τευθρανίδην, ὅς  …: The patronymic in progressive enjambmentP eases the connection to the following relative clause; likewise at 2.628 (see ad loc.), 5.535, 12.438, 13.561,

12 βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 13 ἐϋκτιμένῃ ἐν: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (ëuktiménēy en), M 12.2.

Commentary 

 19

14.444, etc. On this, Hoekstra 1965, 34 (‘a syntactic type of enjambement which is likely to be traditional’); Higbie 1990, 33  f.; in general on progressive enjambment with a following dependent clause: 2.325n., 2.614n., 2.626n., 19.8–9a  n.; Clark 1997, 92–105. – The name Τεύθρας is of non-Greek origin, but nonetheless occurs in the Iliad among the Achaians as well (5.705); it may have been known to the poet of the Iliad from the myth of Telephos, where Τεύθρας is the eponymous king of the Mysian region of Teuthrania (on the so-called Teuthranian expedition of the warriors who went to Troy, cf. Kullmann 1960, 192  ff.): Wathelet s.v. — ἐϋκτιμένῃ: ‘well-built, well-settled, well-planned’; a generic epithetP of towns (cf. 2.501n.), streets (6.391), gardens (21.77 etc.), houses (Od. 4.476 etc.), etc. (LfgrE; Hainsworth on Od. 8.283).

14–15 On the significance of guest-friendship in Homeric society, see 3.207n.; cf. also 6.215n., 6.226n. ἀφνειὸς βιότοιο: an inflectible VB formula (= 5.544, acc. 14.122); on the partitive gen. with ἀφνειός, Schw. 2.111; on βίοτος ‘livelihood, property’, LfgrE s.v. 63.29  ff. — φιλέεσκεν: on φιλέω in the sense ‘receive hospitably, entertain’, cf. 3.207n. (ἐξείνισσα beside φίλησα), Od. 8.208 etc. — ὁδῷ ἔπι: i.e. likely located along a well-travelled countryroad (Strasburger 1954, 28; LfgrE s.v. ὁδός 494.47  ff., 61  ff.). — οἰκία ναίων: an inflectible VE formula (5x Il., 4x Od.).

16 2nd VH = 20.289, Od. 4.292; ≈ Il. 2.873; cf. also 11.120, 20.296. — Yet there was none of these now to stand before him and keep off | the sad destruction: ‘an expression of regret’ (AH, transl.); on the emotional function of ‘obituaries’ in the Iliad in general, Strasburger 1954, esp. 69–77, 113–115; Griffin 1976; 1980, 103–143. On human vulnerability in the face of violence and death as an underlying theme of Homeric epic, see Lynn-George 1993 (based on a study of the verbs, usually negated, arkéin ‘to defend, protect’ and chraisméin ‘to benefit, help’); Grethlein 2006, 154–159. λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον: an inflectible formula at VE and following caesura A 3 (2.873n.).

17–19 stripped life from both of them  …: The joint death of a chariot fighter and his charioteer is a typical motif; cf. 5.576  ff., 11.92  ff., 11.101  ff., 11.320  ff., 13.384  ff., 16.399  ff., 20.484  ff., etc. (Strasburger 1954, 45 n. 4; Fenik 1968, 60  f., 82). 17 πρόσθεν: locative: ‘in front of him’, for his protection (AH). — ὑπαντιάσας: ‘confronting (the attacker)’ (AH); the sense of ὑπό is uncertain, perhaps ‘unnoticed’ (LfgrE s.v. ἀντάω/

15 φιλέεσκεν: frequentative (-σκ-): R 16.5. — ὁδῷ ἔπι: = ἐφ’ ὁδῷ (R 20.2). — ἔπι (ϝ)οικία: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἰκία: on the plural, R 18.2. 16 ἀλλά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 17 ἀπηύρα: root aor. of a defective verb (with lengthened vowel as augment [< *ἀπ-η-ϝρᾱ]), ‘he took away’ (with double acc.).

20 

 Iliad 6

ἀντιάω 922.15  f.; cf. Schw. 2.524). — ἄμφω θυμὸν ἀπηύρα: Diomedes is the subject; ἄμφω, which exceptionally is not used anaphorically here (LfgrE s.v. 701.33, 703.3  f.), is explained in 18 and emphatically repeated in 19 (Kirk, AH). – θυμὸν ἀπηύρα is an inflectible VE formula (7x Il., 2x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’); on θυμός ‘life, life-force’, see 1.205n., 3.294n. 18 αὐτὸν καὶ θεράποντα: a VB formula (= 13.331, 16.279); on θεράπων ‘servant, follower’, see 1.321n. — Καλήσιον: a speaking name, from καλέω (like Καλήτωρ [15.419; epithet of a herald in 24.577]; on the formation, von Kamptz 12, 117). In the present context perhaps to be read ‘inviter’ (Aristarchus [schol. A]; Strasburger 1954, 28; LfgrE s.v.). Other interpretations: as a charioteer, Kalesios is named ‘for the calls with which he directs his horses’ (Robert 1901, 490, transl.); or with a passive sense: ‘The charioteer is the one whom a warrior calls upon when he needs him in the course of battle’ (Wathelet s.v., transl.). — [οἱ] τόθ’: The τόθ’ of the dominant tradition emphasizes the difference between the situation before Troy and the image of peace mapped out earlier; if Καλήσιος were to be understood ‘inviter’ (see above), the resulting idea would be ‘Kalesios, who used to assist his master in feasts, «then», i.e. before Troy, served as charioteer – which led to his demise’. West prefers the weakly attested v.l. οἱ.

19 down [to the underworld] below the earth went both men: a variant of the more common phrase ‘descend into Hades/the house of Hades’ (e.g. 284, 422, 3.322 [see ad loc.], etc.; ‘below the earth’ also at 411, 18.333, Od. 24.106; in combination: Il. 22.482  f.). As here, it is usually said of the dying individual himself; less frequently of his psychḗ (1.3n. [in contrast to the corpse, which remains on earth: 1.4n.], 16.856 = 22.362, etc.). On Homeric ideas of dying and of life after death in detail, Clarke 1999, 127–284 (where see 168  ff. on the passage to Hades); on parallels in Near Eastern and Hittite literature, see West 1997, 151  ff. ἔσκεν: on the durative-iterative use of ἔσκε(ν), Chantr. 1.320  f.; Graziozi/Haubold ad loc.: ‘he used to be’. — ὑφηνίοχος: a Homeric hapaxP; not ‘a charioteer subordinate to another charioteer’ (like ὕπαρχος ‘subordinate commander, lieutenant’) but ‘his (sc. Axylos’) dependent/subordinate charioteer’; i.e. with no factual difference from the simplex, like Od. 4.386 ὑποδμώς (= ὁ ὑπό τινι δμώς), Od. 15.330 ὑποδρηστήρ (see schol. A, bT; AH; Lehrs [1833] 1882, 108; Schw. 2.524). With reference to Il. 5.226–238, Kirk objects that ‘acting as driver is not necessarily a menial task’, but there is normally a status difference between warrior and charioteer (cf. the formula ἡνίοχος/-ον θεράπων/-οντα [4x Il.] cited by Kirk himself).

20 Euryalos: son of Mekisteus (28); joint leader, with Diomedes and Sthenelos, of the southern Argive contingent (2.565n.). He excels here as victor over four

18 ῥά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. 19 τώ: nom. dual of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (cf. R 17). — γαῖαν: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — ἐδύτην: 3rd dual aor. of δύομαι.

Commentary 

 21

Trojans, but subsequently features only in the funerary games for Patroklos in 23.677–699, where Epeios defeats him in a boxing match. – ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 3.6.3/3.7.2 (=  3.63/3.82) includes Mekisteus and Euryalos among the Seven against Thebes (223–224n.) and the Epigoni respectively, whereas they are absent from the lists in Aesch. Sept. 375  ff. and schol. bT on Il. 4.406; see the source critical analysis in Kullmann 1960, 148  ff. — Opheltios  … Dresos: mentioned only here; Opheltios has an Achaian namesake who dies at the hands of Hektor at 11.302. For the structure of the verse, cf. 11.335, 14.513, also 6.30; a reconstruction of the genesis of the verse in Visser 1987, 173–177. — ἐξενάριξεν: (ἐξ)εναρίζειν strictly means ‘to remove armor (ἔναρα: 68–69n.) from a slain opponent’ (thus 417, 7.146, etc.), which may be implied here (cf. 28; LfgrE s.v. 575.56  ff.); more often, it is simply ‘to kill’ (1.191n., 5.703, 6.30  f., etc.; cf. 12n.).

21–28 The death of a pair of brothers is a common motif in Homeric battle scenes (of twins, as here, also at 5.541  ff.; in addition, 5.148  ff., 5.152  ff., 5.159  ff., etc.; on this, Kotopoulos 1982, 100–148; cf. also Trypanis 1963; Hellmann 2000, 112– 116). – This scene, like the preceding one, contains an ‘obituary’ of the victims; as at 5.542–549, it has the form of an extended genealogy with an ‘onion’ structure (sons – parents – grandparents – parents – sons; on this, Strasburger 1954, 22; cf. ring-compositionP and ABC-schemeP); here the arrangement of the narrative is such that the accounts of the twins’ birth and death in 26  f. follow one another immediately (Graziosi/Haubold on 26–7). – The scene gains ‘a distinct kind of pathos’ (Fenik 1968, 152) via use of the typical motif ‘conception/birth in a rural environment’ (25), which provides an effective contrast to the war scenes in the primary narrative; cf. 14.442  ff. and 20.381  ff. (likewise of sons of nymphs), 4.473  ff.; on the particular associations between the present passage and 14.442  ff., see Kirk. 21 Aisepos and Pedasos: Aisepos is named after a river at the eastern border of the Troad, Pedasos after a town in the south (2.825n., 6.34–35n.); both heroes are mentioned only here. βῆ δὲ μετ(ά): a formulaic phrase (5x Il. at VB; 3x Il., 1x Od. following caesura C 2). Here and at 5.152, 13.469 of an attacker (‘he attacked/charged’); otherwise neutral ‘he/she walked toward’ (4.292, 13.297, etc.): Schw. 2.485. — οὕς ποτε: A relative pron. + ποτε frequently introduces analepsesP; e.g. 4.474, 11.104, 21.35 (in ‘obituaries’, as here), as well as 4.106, 6.132, etc.

22–23 Abarbare: The etymology of the name is uncertain (LfgrE; likely of nonGreek derivation, according to Wathelet s.v.). Whether the character stems from a local myth from Asia Minor (as suspected by Wathelet and Willcock) or represents an ad hoc invention cannot be determined (Kirk). — Boukolion:

22 

 Iliad 6

a speaking name, appropriate to the rustic scene evoked in what follows: ‘cowherd’ (and in general ‘herdsman’, see LfgrE s.v. βουκόλος; in 25, Boukolion appears as a shepherd); cf. von  Kamptz 260; Wathelet s.v.; Higbie 1995, 21  f. – An older half-brother of Priam, although not listed among the sons of Laomedon in the genealogy of the Trojan dynasty in 20.237  f. (since he is a mere ad hoc invention for the present passage: Leaf; or due to his position as an illegitimate son: Kirk; Ebbott 2003, 20  f. n. 48). Extramarital children occasionally feature in the Iliad’s ‘obituaries’ (cf. 5.69  ff., 11.101  ff., 13.173, 15.332  ff.; Strasburger 1954, 23  f.); on their social position in Homeric society, see Wickert-Micknat 1982, 84–86. νηΐς: The term ‘naiad, spring-nymph’ (from νάω/ναίω ‘flow’) adds greater specificity to νύμφη in 21 (in general ‘female nature deity’): LfgrE s.v. — ἀμύμονι: one of the most common generic epithetsP (1.92n.); usually of persons, as here, but also of statements, plans, activities, etc. (LfgrE s.v.). The conventional rendering ‘blameless’ is based on a disputed etymology (α privativum + -μυμ- from μῶμος, supported by Janko on 13.641–2 [with bibliography]); alternative suggestion by Heubeck 1987 (cf. ChronEG 1 s.v.): a deverbative with suffix -μων- like δαήμων, ἐλεήμων, etc.; from ἀμεύομαι in the sense ‘exceed’ attested in Pindar (Nem. 11.13 etc.), or alternatively from ἀμύνω (in this case originally ‘successfully fending off enemies’, later generalized as ‘excellent’). — Βουκολίωνι. | Βουκολίων …: similarly 5.800  f., 6.197  f. On this type of linking, Fehling 1969, 144  f.; cf. also 2.101–108n. end. — ἀγαυοῦ: a generic epithet of humans and deities; meaning uncertain, but most likely ‘admirable, eminent’ (3.268n.).

24 in … secrecy: cf. 2.515, 14.296, 16.184: as these parallels suggest, the reference is not to adultery (as at 160  ff.) but to a premarital relationship (Aristarchus [schol. A on 24]; cf. Lehrs [1833] 1882, 131  f.; Rengakos 1994, 138). The motif has the character of a ‘spicy’ detail; on its significance in Greek myth (where the paternity of children conceived premaritally is generally assigned to a god) and the socio-historical implications, see Mauritsch 1992, 39–60; Ebbott 2003, 9–36. γενεῇ: properly ‘among the offspring’ (2.707n.). — γείνατο μήτηρ: a VE formula (1.280n.). The stress is here (as at 13.777, Od. 6.25) placed on the predicative adj. σκότιον; there is less interest in the mother – who remains nameless – than in the circumstances of the birth. 25 1st VH ≈ 11.106; 2nd VH =  Od. 5.126, ‘Hes.’ fr. 17(a).5 and 177.12 M.-W. (restored); ≈ Il. 3.445, Od. 23.219, h.Hom. 32.14. — ποιμαίνων  … ἐπ(ί): ‘while watching over’. On this use of ἐπί, Schw. 2.467; cf. Od. 20.209  f. ὅς μ’ ἐπὶ βουσὶν | εἷσ(ε), 20.221 βουσὶν ἐπ’

24 δέ (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 25 μίγη: aor. of μείγνυμαι ‘mix with’, i.e. ‘sleep with’ (sc. τῇ νύμφῃ).

Commentary 

 23

ἀλλοτρίῃσι καθήμενον. – On princes as herdsmen, cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. and 424n. — ὄεσσι: dat. pl. of ὄϊς, a metrically convenient variant of ὀΐεσσι (Schw. 1.564, 573; Chantr. 1.219). — φιλότητι καὶ εὐνῇ: a formulaic phrase; with the exception of 15.32 (φιλότης τε καὶ εὐνή), always in the dat. (7x early epic in the present VE formula, see iterata; 2x Od., 2x ‘Hes.’ VB formula εὐνῇ καὶ φιλότητι). On the terminology, 3.441n., 3.445n.; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 100–102. 26 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 49, ≈ fr. 17(a).14 M.-W.; cf. also Il. 5.548. — ἣ δ’ ὑποκυσαμένη: a VB formula (also Od. 11.254 and 8x Hes./‘Hes.’, 1x h.Hom.; also in the pl. at Il. 20.225 of the mares of Erichthonios). — γείνατο παῖδε: an inflectible formula (usually at VE; also ἐγείνατο; object in the sing., dual or pl.; in total 2x Il., 3x Od., 10x Hes./‘Hes.’, 1x h.Hom.). 27 καὶ μέν: ‘καὶ μέν, like καὶ μήν, introduces a new point, or develops and amplifies an old one’ (here: a reprisal of 21): Denniston 390; 1.269n. — ὑπέλυσε μένος καὶ φαίδιμα γυῖα: Together with the objects μένος, ἦτορ, ἅψεα, γυῖα and γούνατα (connected in different formulae; μένος + γυῖα only here), (ὑπο)λύειν describes the consequences of lethal injuries, exhaustion and strong emotions: ‘to loosen (below)’ (causing the individual’s knees to buckle), ‘to weaken, make limp’ (AH; LfgrE s.v.; Garland 1981, 47, 55–57). — μένος: denotes the vital energy lost at the point of death (LfgrE s.v. 141.29  ff.; similarly θυμός in 17, see ad loc. and cf. 3.294n.; see also 6.72n.). — φαίδιμα γυῖα: a VE formula (7x Il., 1x Hes.); on φαίδιμος, see 144n.

28 2nd VH = 15.524, 22.368 (also VE = 5.164, 17.60). — Despoiling slain opponents is a recurrent element of Homeric battle descriptions. In addition to its material value, the looted armor has symbolic significance as a document of the victor’s bravery (see esp. 480  f., 13.260  ff., 17.229  ff., as well as 6.234–236n.; but cf. also Nestor’s admonition in 66  ff. not to be distracted from battle by despoiling opponents [see ad loc.]). Bibliography: Hoekstra 1981, 21  f. (formulaic system for scenes of despoiling); van Wees 1996, 54–56; Patzer 1996, 172–174. 29–36 A summary portrayal of seven further Achaian victories: leaders of different rank (see CH 3/4; on Polypoites 2.740n., on Leïtos 2.494n.) each kill an opponent (similarly 14.511–522, of Trojan successes 15.339–342). All the victims are mentioned only here and are likely ad hoc inventions by the poet of the Iliad (Faesi/Franke; Kullmann 1960, esp. 124 n. 1 and 129 n. 2; Broccia 1963, 32 n. 36). For the most part, they bear Greek names (see Wathelet s.v.; Pidytes and Ableros are the only uncertain ones); Phylakos (2.705n.), Elatos (Od. 22.267) and Melanthios (Od. 17.247 etc.) occur elsewhere as the names of Greek characters.

26 διδυμάονε … παῖδε: dual. 28 Μηκιστηϊάδης: Euryalos. — τεύχε’ ἐσύλα: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the uncontracted form τεύχε(α), R 6.

24 

 Iliad 6

On the structure of the list in detail, see Broccia 1963, 25–28: the self-contained 29 is followed by three pairs of verses with chiastic construction (30  f. and 35b–36: victim – victor  – victor  – victim; reversed in 32  f.), while the symmetry is broken by three additions in progressive enjambmentP (of different function syntactically: ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ, Νεστορίδης, φεύγοντ(α)); further loosening is introduced by the parenthesis 34–35a. The passage overall evokes ‘the impression of rapid and relentless attack’ (Graziozi/ Haubold ad loc.). – Reconstruction of the genesis of individual verses in Visser 1987 (197–199 on 29, 181–184 on 30, 79–102 on 32, 220–222 on 35, 190–194 on 36). 29 μενεπτόλεμος: a generic epithetP of heroes and peoples; 4x in the present VE formula of Polypoites, leader of the Lapiths (2.740n.).

30 Perkote: a town situated on the Hellespont (2.835n.). 31–32 with the bronze spear … | … with the shining shaft: The use of spear vs. shaft (Greek énchos/dóry, largely synonymous in Homer) in regard to these two killings in particular does not represent a specific detail of fighting technique (cf. 3n.); redundant in terms of content, the two expressions aid versification as metrical filler (as well as introducing variatio): Visser 1987, 80  ff.; Bakker/ Fabricotti 1991, 66  ff. ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ: a VB formula (7x Il.). — δῖον: the most common generic epithetP in epic language (1.7n.). — δουρὶ φαεινῷ: a VE formula (22x Il.), identical to νήλεϊ χαλκῷ in terms of meter and prosody (11x Il., 8x Od., 2x Hes./’Hes.’). The deviation from the principle of economy of formulae (FOR 32) can be explained by the different use of the two expressions: in contrast to the more neutral δουρὶ φαεινῷ, ‘νήλεϊ χαλκῷ may add an overtone of menace and imminent terror to the context’, e.g. 5.330, 13.501 = 16.761 (Bakker/van den Houten 1992, quotation from p. 11; on this phenomenon in general: Friedrich 2007). 33 ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectible VE formula (nom./voc.; see 1.172n.); on the phrase ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν, 1.7n.

34–35 Satnioeis … | … Pedasos: river and town in the territory of the Leleges, beneath Ida in the southern Troad (21.86  f.; Strab. 13.1.50 [= C 605  f.]; more precise localization is impossible: Cook 1973, 245  f., 267). Pedasos, the hometown of Priam’s secondary wife Laothoë, was destroyed together with Lyrnessos (2.690n.) by Achilleus (20.92, 21.84  ff.).

30 Ὀδυσεύς: on the single -σ-, R 9.1. 32 ἐνήρατο: aor. of ἐναίρω ‘kill’; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — δουρί: on the declension, R 12.5; cf. 3n. 33 δὲ (ϝ)άναξ: on the prosody, R 4.3. 34 ἐϋρρείταο: on the declension, R 11.1. 35 ἕλε: = εἷλε (R 16.1).

Commentary 

 25

ναῖε δέ: on the v.l. ὃς ναῖε (Zenodotus), see Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — ἐϋρρείταο: a generic epithet of rivers (LfgrE s.v.). — αἰπεινήν: a generic epithet of towns/cities (metrical variants: αἰπύς [2.538n.], αἰπήεις [only at 21.87, likewise of Pedasos]). The reference is more likely to the impression created by a well-fortified town’s exterior (‘towering’; Visser 1997, 86, 128  f.) than to its geographical situation (LfgrE: ‘located on high’). — ἥρως: appears as a generic epithetP of a range of major and minor characters (here and at 63, as at 1.102, 24.474, etc.) and of the Achaians (2.110, 6.67, 19.34, etc.), as a periphrastic denominationP of outstanding warriors (e.g. 61), and in the pl. in reference to fighters from both sides (1.4, 16.144, 20.326, etc.). The term characterizes the human actors in epic narratives as belonging to a grand past (see Hes. Op. 156  ff. and Il. 12.23: the age of heroes as ‘demi-gods’; cf. 1.4n., 6.3n.; LfgrE s.v. ἥρως; van Wees 2006); the extent of its social connotation (‘member of the elite’) is disputed (pro: 1.4n. with bibliography; contra: Schmidt 2004, 17; van Wees loc. cit. 368  f.). On the significance of hero cults in the Homeric period, see 419a  n.

36 as he ran away: Like the use of spear vs. shaft at 31/32, this is not a detail characteristic of this act of killing (after Aias breached the opposing frontline, a general flight began, cf. 41, 73  f.; 1–72n.). The addition (Greek phéugont’: participle in enjambmentP) again has a primarily metrical-stylistic function; likewise 15.342 (following the mention of mass flight at 15.326): Visser 1987, 190–192. 37–65 A warrior’s plea for mercy is a typical motif in Homeric depictions of battle (a variant of the themeP ‘supplication’]; on this, 1.500–531n. and HE s.v. ‘supplication’ with bibliography; specifically on the present type of scene, Merz 1953, 36–40; Strasburger 1954, 85–88; Griffin 1980, 53–56; Pedrick 1980; 1982, 129–133, 139  f.; Yamagata 1994, 41–44; Giordano 1999, 109–134; Stoevesandt 2004, 149–159; Pagani 2008, 407–415). Throughout the Iliad, the supplicants are members of the Trojan party (a sign of their military inferiority that also becomes apparent elsewhere: schol. T on 6.45 etc.; Stoevesandt loc. cit.). Although mercy toward individual warriors – especially by Achilleus – is mentioned in external analepsesP (11.104b–106, 21.35b–46a/100–102, 24.751–753; cf. also 2.229–230n.), in battle scenes in the Iliad itself all supplication is in vain (10.374b–381/446–457, 11.122–147, 20.463–472a, 21.34–119; cf. also 22.337–354; likewise Od. 22.310–329, differently Od. 14.273–284, 22.330–377). The distinctiveness of the present scene lies in the fact that Menelaos at first wants to accede to his opponent’s plea, but is then persuaded otherwise by Agamemnon (a special type of the epic ‘almost-episode’ [‘Beinahe-Episode’; cf. 2.155–156n.]: Nesselrath 1992, 11  f.; on a parallel motif in the story of Gilgamesh, see West 1997, 216  f.). In the wider context, it serves to recall the war’s prehistory (56– 57a  n.) and to clarify the situation faced by the Atreidai (55–60n., 62a  n.) and the Trojans (57b–60n.) after the injustice perpetrated in the past.

26 

 Iliad 6

37–44 The terse statement ‘Menelaos captured Adrestos alive’ (37–38a) is followed by a detailed narrative outlining step by step how the situation came to be; on this narrative technique, de Jong 2007, 35; de Jong/ Nünlist 2007, 539 s.v. ‘«header» device’; cf. also 156–159n. 37–38 1st VH of 37 ≈ 45; 2nd VH of 38 ≈ 18.7. — Menelaos of the great war cry: 2.408n. — captured  … | alive: a surprise after the numerous killing scenes, ensuring renewed attention. — Adrestos: mentioned only here. The character shares his name with two other Trojans who die in the Iliad (2.830n., 11.329: leader of the people from Adresteia; 16.694: victim of Patroklos) and with the well-known leader of the Seven against Thebes (2.572n., 14.121, etc.; BNP s.v.). The derivation of the name is disputed, but it might have been linked, at least by folk etymology, with Greek ádrēstos ‘inescapable/not running away’ (Wathelet s.v. Ἄδρηστος I with bibliography); in the present context (see esp. 57–60), it is perhaps to be read ‘who cannot escape (his fate)’ (Wilamowitz 1916, 303; Maronitis 1965, 327). δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα: a more emphatic connective than the usual simple δέ / δ’ ἄρ(α) (suggestion by de Jong); it leads from the unembellished catalogue in 29  ff. to the more significant episode that follows (similarly Od. 22.285; cf. also Il. 3.398n. on τ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα in connection with verbs of emotion). — ἀτυζομένω  …: ἀτύζεσθαι primarily means ‘to be bewildered, panicked, beside oneself’ (cf. 41, 8.183, 15.90, etc.); here and at 18.7, Od. 11.606 with an indication of location/direction: ‘to flee in a panic’ (LfgrE s.v.); cf. also 468n. – On the asyndetic string of participles (ἀτυζομένω … | … βλαφθέντε … | ἄξαντ(ε)), cf. Schw. 2.405  f. — πεδίοιο: ‘across the plain’ (2.785n.).

39–40 1st VH of 40 =  16.371. — tamarisk growth: The tamarisk, a ‘woody plant that predominantly occurs, in the form of a tree or bush, in wet areas such as embankments’, was ‘one of the most common tree species found by Schliemann on the banks of the Skamandros, in agreement with the information in the Iliad’ (LfgrE s.v. μυρίκη, transl.); cf. 10.466  f., 21.18, 21.350. — chariot: on the use of war-chariots in Homer, see 2.384n., 6.103n.; current bibliography: Buchholz 2010, 29–38; Raaflaub 2011. βλαφθέντε: In Homer, the medio-passive βλάπτεσθαι is commonly used with the (perhaps primary) sense ‘to lose one’s footing, stumble, become entangled in’; cf. 15.647, 16.331, 23.387, etc. (LfgrE s.v.; Kurz 1966, 22 with n. 23). — ἀγκύλον: with ἅρμα only

38–40 ἵππω … ἀτυζομένω … | … βλαφθέντε … | ἄξαντ(ε) … αὐτώ: nom. dual (Homeric warchariots are pulled by two horses). 38 γάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 39 ὄζῳ ἔνι: = ἐν ὄζῳ (R 20.1–2). 40 ἄξαντ(ε): aor. part. of ἄγνυμι ‘shatter’. — ἐβήτην: 3rd dual of ἔβην.

Commentary 

 27

here (likely in reference to the curved edge of the chariot body), otherwise an epithet of bows (3x Il./Od. ἀγκύλα τόξα); a prosodic variant of καμπύλος (2x in early epic with ἅρμα, 10x with τόξα); see Plath 1994, 139–143 (with bibliography). — ἐν πρώτῳ ῥυμῷ: ‘at the tip of the pole’, i.e. at the apparently particularly fragile join between pole and yoke (numerous Trojan chariots break in the same weak spot during their flight across the ditch of the Achaian camp, 16.370  f.); on the technical details, see 5.729  f., 24.271– 274n.; Wiesner 1968, 16–18, 104–106; cf. also Crouwel 1981, 90–97; 1992, 71  f. — αὐτὼ μέν: in contrast to Adrestos (αὐτὸς δ(έ), 42); but probably not ‘the horses themselves’ vs. ‘he himself’ (since in antitheses the elements of the contrasting pair are not normally both rendered with αὐτός), but αὐτώ with the sense ‘on their own’, without their charioteer (considered in LfgrE s.v. 1653.40  ff.; on this use of αὐτός, cf. 1.270, 14.248, etc.). 41 ≈ 21.4, 21.554. — φοβέοντο: According to Aristarchus, φοβεῖσθαι is used in Homer exclusively with the sense ‘to flee’ (schol. A ad loc. etc.; Lehrs [1833] 1882, 75–77), but in contrast to φέβομαι, it has a psychological component (135, 12.45  f., 21.574  f., etc. show the first signs of the later standard sense ‘to be afraid’; Φόβος as a demonic force: 4.440, 5.739, 9.2, etc., cf. CG 38); on this, Trümpy 1950, 221  f.; Gruber 1963, 19–25; Kurz 1966, 142; Erbse 1986, 29  ff.; 2002, 45  f.

42 = 23.394 (of Eumelos during a chariot race). — was whirled beside the wheel from the chariot: i.e. he had fallen sideways across the wheel and remained lying beside it; the narrator probably envisages a chariot body with low sides or railings (Wiesner 1968, 16), as was common in the Geometric period (Wiesner loc. cit. 68–70 with figs. 17–18 and 25; Crouwel 1981, 73  f. with figs. 143–145). δίφροιο: on the semantic range (‘chariot[body]’ and ‘chair, stool’) and the formation of the word, cf. 3.262n. 43 πρηνὴς ἐν κονίῃσιν: an inflectible VB formula (see the iterata at 2.418n.); on the use of πρηνής, 2.414n., 6.307n. 44 Ἀτρεΐδης Μενέλαος: an inflectible formula (VB: nom. 5x Il.; voc. 1x Il., 6x Od. – VE: nom. 1x Il., 2x Od.; acc. 1x Od.); but also with word(s) intervening (Ἀτρ. at VB or after caesura A 3, Μεν. at VE: 15x in early epic). — δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: a VE formula (and after caesura B 1 at 6.126); δολιχόσκιος probably means ‘casting a long shadow’ (the second component is σκιά): 3.346n. with bibliography.

41 ᾗ περ: ‘just where, where also’; περ stresses the preceding word (R 24.10). 43 πρηνής: predicative adj., ‘forward, head first’. — κονίῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — πὰρ … ἔστη: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); on the apocope (πάρ = παρά), R 20.1. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3.

28 

 Iliad 6

45 2nd VH = Od. 10.264; ≈ Il. 21.71. — catching him by the knees: a common gesture of supplicants (1.500n.; Gould [1973] 2001, 24–27; Naiden 2006, 45  f.); on the significance of the physical contact, see 1.513n., 6.61–65n. ἐλλίσσετο: The main tradition shows the standard form ἐλίσσετο, but -λ- must be pronounced as a double consonant for metrical reasons; West accordingly prints the papyrus variant ἐλλίσσετο; cf. G 16.

46–50 ≈ 11.131–135; 48–50 also ≈ 10.379–381. On the rhetorical composition of the supplication speech, Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012, 157–160 (≈ 2013, 106– 110). – The release of captured soldiers for ransom was a common practice in Greek and Roman antiquity (evidence in Pritchett 1991, 245–283). Menelaos’ spontaneous reaction in the present scene (51–53), as well as 2.229  f. (see ad loc.), 11.106 and 22.49–51, show that a similar concept operated in principle in Homeric society (notwithstanding the fact that all relevant offers in the Iliad are rejected); see Wickert-Micknat 1983, 33–37; Wilson 2002, 31  f., 148  f. – On the ring-compositionP structure of the speech, Lohmann 1970, 113. 46 ζώγρει: ζωγρέω < ζωὸν ἀγρέω ‘capture alive’ (Frisk and DELG s.v. ζωάγρια). — Ἀτρέος: short-vowel gen. of Ἀτρεύς (the original form of the name was perhaps *Atresion vel sim., from ἄτρεστος ‘untrembling, fearless’: West 2001b; 3.36–37n.). — σὺ δ(έ): occurs predominantly in Homer and Herodotus, ‘sometimes at the beginning of a sentence without necessarily emphasizing the previously mentioned second person, who does not stand in contrast to another person either’ (Schw. 2.188, transl.). Common with imperatives: cf. e.g. 24.555 (λῦσον  …· σὺ δὲ δέξαι ἄποινα), Od. 7.163, 12.219  f., 22.431; see also 1.97n. on ὅ γε.  – On σὺ δέ after a voc., 2.344n. — ἄξια: like other adjs. of evaluative content, used almost exclusively in character speechP (exception: 23.885); see Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — δέξαι ἄποινα: an inflectible VE formula (imper. 4x Il.; inf. 2x Il., 1x h.Ven.; cf. also 1.20, 1.95). ἄποινα ‘ransom’ is usually explained as haplology for *ἀπό-ποινα (from ἀπο-τίνω) (1.13n.); differently, West 2001a, 121: *ἅποινα < *sm̥ -kwoina, ‘equalizing payment’, with psilosis (cf. 2.169n. on ἀτάλαντος). On the distinction of the term from ποινή (usually ‘compensation’ for injustice committed, then also ‘revenge’: 3.290n.), see LfgrE s.v. ἄποινα and ποινή; for details on the economic and social aspects of payments of ransom, compensation and revenge: Scodel 2008, 75–93.  – The aor. imper. δέξαι ‘relates to the statement immediately required that Menelaos is willing to accept the payment’ (AH, transl.). 47 ἐν ἀφνειοῦ πατρός: sc. δόμῳ (Schw. 2.120). According to Chantr. 2.104  f., however, this is not in accord with the original meaning of the phrase, which may instead represent the remains of an old construction εἰς/ἐν + partitive gen. (cf. ἐμποδών). — κειμήλια κεῖται: an inflectible VE formula (5x Il./Od.; in addition 3x Od. κειμήλια κεῖτο ἄνακτος);

45 λαβών: sc. Μενέλαον, with γούνων as gen. of the body part touched. — γούνων: on the declension, R 12.5 (< *γόνϝων, cf. R 4.2).

Commentary 

 29

figura etymologica (κειμήλιον ‘treasure, valuable object’ with κεῖμαι ‘lie in store’ [cf. 1.124, 4.144, etc.]: Frisk, LfgrE). – On the social and cultural significance of κειμήλια in Homer and Archaic Greece in general, see Fischer 1973, 442–448; Bichler 2007.

48 =  10.379, 11.133, Od. 21.10; ≈ Od. 14.324. — bronze  … gold  … difficultly wrought iron: ‘a triad as an expression of comprehensiveness’ for a collective (here ‘many treasures’), whose importance is meant to be stressed, as at e.g. 1.177, 3.431, 9.498, 11.265 (Göbel 1933, 32  f., transl.; cf. also Blom 1936, 38–40). In accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’, the third noun is augmented with an epithet (a common stylistic figure in IE poetry: 1.145n.; West 2004). – On the significance of bronze in Homeric epics, cf. 2.226n., 6.3n. The fact that iron is listed next to gold as a precious material may be interpreted as an archaizing trait: Gray 1954, 1  f.; LfgrE s.v. σίδηρος with bibliography (the value of iron in the Bronze Age due to its scarcity); Hoekstra on Od. 14.324 (a formulaic verse of late Mycenaean or Dark Age date, when the processing of iron still entailed great effort – as attested by the epithet polýkmētos [LfgrE s.v.]); differently Patzek 1992, 190. 49 χαρίσαιτο: on the development of the specialized sense ‘give cheerfully/willingly’ from the phrase διδόναι χαριζόμενον (11.23, Od. 10.43), see Latacz 1966, 113  f. The choice of words portrays Adrestos’ ‘desperate attempt to establish a bond with the enemy’ as undertaken only ‘as a last resort in supplication’ (Graziosi/Haubold); likewise 19.380, 11.134; cf. also 1.18  f. and 24.478  f. (with n.). — ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα: ‘immeasurable ransom’, a hyperbolic formula (1.13n.; Scodel 2008, 76–80).

50 by the ships of the Achaians: i.e. in the Greek camp, which is surrounded by their ships in the manner of a rampart (1.12b  n.). εἴ κεν …: κεν is often used in Homer in the main and subordinate clauses of potential sentences (Schw. 2.685  f.). — ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (1.559n.). 51 ≈ 2.142 (see ad loc.), 3.395, 4.208, 11.804, 13.468, Od. 17.150 (each with ὄρινεν at VE); 2nd VH = Od. 7.258, 9.33, 23.337; ≈ Il. 9.587, ‘Hes.’ fr. 22.8 M.-W (restored). — θυμὸν ἔπειθεν: The lexemes of the semantic field ‘soul-spirit’ are frequently chosen with regard to metrical convenience alone (1.24n.; Jahn 1987 passim). But a semantic difference can be identified in the phrases θυμὸν and φρένα(ς) πείθειν (here and at 9.386, 9.587, 22.78, Od. 7.258, 9.500, 23.230 vs. Il. 4.104, 12.173, 16.842, Od. 1.42  f.): θυμός is employed where emotions are concerned (θυμὸν ἔπειθεν ≈ ‘swayed/overcame his heart’), whereas φρένες

49 τῶν: ‘from these things’ (R 17). — κεν: = ἄν (R 21.1). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 50 ζωόν: predicative with ἐμέ, to be taken with the locative phrase ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν: ‘that I am alive by the ships of the Achaians’. — πεπύθοιτ(ο): reduplicated aor. of πυνθάνομαι. — νηυσίν: on the declension, R 12.1. 51 φάτο: impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — στήθεσσιν: on the plural, R 18.2.

30 

 Iliad 6

denotes someone’s rational side (φρένα(ς) ἔπειθε ≈ ‘convinced/persuaded him’): van der Mije 2011, esp. 453. Menelaos’ willingness to spare Adrestos (probably not merely because of the ransom, but also out of pity: cf. Agamemnon’s rebuke 55  f.) is in keeping with his otherwise rather gentle character (cf. e.g. 23.566–600; Graziosi/Haubold on 51–65 with bibliography). But Agamemnon persuades him to change his mind by appealing to reason (61: ἔτρεψεν … φρένας): van der Mije loc. cit. 451. — ἔπειθεν: The impf. is probably not conative (thus Leaf, similarly Willcock, Kirk), but has an aorist sense (as at 4.104, 16.842, etc.); Menelaos is already about to hand the captive to his servant (52  f.): van der Mije 2011, 451 n. 6, with reference to Rijksbaron (1984) 2002, 18.  – ἔπειθεν is the reading in one papyrus and three manuscripts (among them the ‘libri praestantissimi’ Venetus A and Laur. 32.15; see app. crit. and West 1998, XI); the vulgate ὄρινεν (in the Venetus A super lineam) is presumably the result of a mechanical alignment of the passage with the formulaic verse (see iterata).

52–53a Heroes in leadership positions always have men at hand who can, when needed, take charge of prisoners (as here and 21.32), captured horses (5.25  f. etc.) or spoils (13.640  f. etc.) (Hellmann 2000, 118). τάχ’ ἔμελλε: an inflectible formulaic phrase (3rd sing./pl.; in total 4x Il., 3x Od., 1x each Hes./‘Hes.’, 1x h.Merc.). The impf. of μέλλω + fut. inf. is occasionally used in ‘almost-episodes’ (‘Beinahe-Episoden’) to refer to an expected action that is temporarily or conclusively checked; cf. e.g. 11.181, 23.773, Od. 4.514, 6.110, 10.275  f.; Basset 1979, 52– 57; LfgrE s.v. 112.53  ff.; de Jong on Od. 6.110–11. — θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (1.12b  n., 1.371n.). — καταξέμεν: a thematic s-aorist (as at 23.50, 23.111, 24.663), probably secondarily derived from the ‘future imperative’ ἄξετε (3.105 etc.; cf. ἄξοντο 8.545 beside ἄξεσθε 8.505): 3.103n.; Risch 250; Chantr. 1.418; Roth (1970–1974) 1990, 23–26. 53b ἀλλ’ Ἀγαμέμνων: on a new beginning after caesura C 2, see 1.194n. 54 1st VH ≈ 15.584, 17.257; cf. 6.394, 15.88 (2nd VH). — θέων … ὀμοκλήσας: The two participles highlight Agamemnon’s eagerness. — ὀμοκλήσας: from ὀμοκλή ‘loud call’ (the final element is from καλέω; the initial element is uncertain, but is perhaps equivalent to Sanskr. áma- ‘power, force’: Frisk, DELG; more optimistically, West 1998, XVIII); the word is used in reference to scolding, threatening or warning speeches (cf. e.g. 2.199, 5.439, 20.365, 20.448, 24.248/252): LfgrE s.v.; Krapp 1964, 78. — ἔπος ηὔδα: a VE formula (14x Il., 1x Od.); always with a preceding participle that determines the tone of the following speech more precisely (ὀμοκλήσας only here; elsewhere δακρύσας, εὐχόμενος, ὀλοφυρόμενος, etc.). On the adaptation of speech introduction formulaeP to their individual context in general, see 1.58n.

52 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — τάχ(α): adv., ‘soon’, in connection with ἔμελλε ‘he was almost on the point of’. — νῆας: on the declension, R 12.1. 53 ᾧ: possessive pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — καταξέμεν: aor. inf. (R 16.4; ↑), final: ‘in order to lead him down (sc. to the coast)’.

Commentary 

 31

55–60 This speech is typical of Agamemnon’s self-perception as an ‘unrelenting judge and designated avenger of Trojan transgression’ (Strasburger 1954, 70, transl.; cf. Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 50) and of his propensity to cruelty (Fenik 1986, 5  ff.); cf. 1.26–32n., 2.411–420n., 4.234–239 and esp. 11.137b–147. At the same time, his advice in 62 is termed ‘appropriate’ or ‘sensible’ by the narrator, since Menelaos would have sent the wrong signal by sparing his opponent (see 62a  n.); the speech can perhaps be understood as a ‘rhetorical performance’ aimed also at the other Achaians and ‘intended to boost the morale of the army and encourage the kind of relentless fighting urged by Nestor in the exhortation that follows’ (Sammons 2009, 178  f.); on the idea that even in the midst of battle, foot-soldiers attentively follow all that is happening around them, cf. 230  f. The passion of the appeal is underscored by rhetorical means: a double address with 2x ὦ (cf. 17.238; Soph. Phil. 799; Aristoph. Nub. 816, etc.; on this, Schw. 2.61); ironic questions; a cluster of negatives (57–59: μή τις … | … μηδ’ ὅν τινα … | … μηδ’ ὅς); three integral and two progressive enjambmentsP in six verses (see Broccia 1963, 41  f.; Kirk on 55–60 and 57–60). 55 1st VH = 17.238. — ὦ πέπον: an intimate address, approximate to ‘my dear’; depending on the context, it can be meant amicably (e.g. 5.109, 11.314, 12.322, etc.) or – as here – used to admonish/reproach (cf. e.g. 9.252, 16.628; it is even more pointed in the two attestations of the pl.: 2.235n., 13.120): LfgrE s.v.  – On ὦ with the voc., 1.442n. — τίη δέ: δέ after interrogatives often contains ‘a note of surprise, impatience, or indignation’ (Denniston 173; cf. AH ad loc.); in the combination τίη δὲ σύ, as here: 14.264, 15.244, 17.170, Od. 16.421, 17.375, 19.500. On writing τίη as a single word, West 1998, XXI  f. — κήδεαι: on κήδομαι ‘be concerned for someone’s well-being, feel pity’, see LfgrE s.v. 1401.35  ff.; Mawet 1979, 366–368; Kim 2000, 53–58.

56–57a Did you in your house get the best of treatment | from the Trojans?: an ironic allusion to the abduction of Helen (cf. CH 8 with n. 30; 2.161n., 6.288– 295n., 6.291–292n.). ἀνδρῶν; … | … Τρώων: generalizing plurals: Agamemnon accuses Menelaos of excessive humanity; he does not consider Adrestos so much an individual as a representative of the Trojan side (cf. AH; LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 844.57  ff.). — ἦ: on ἦ introducing indignant questions, see 1.133n. — ἄριστα: not an adv., but the subject of πεποίηται (impersonal ποιεῖταί τινι + adv. is post-Homeric: Leaf).

55 τίη: ‘why?’. — κήδεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 56 κατὰ (ϝ)οῖκον: on the prosody, R 4.3. 57 πρὸς Τρώων: ‘on the part of the Trojans, from the Trojans’.

32 

 Iliad 6

57b–60 The practice of Homeric warfare is that generally only adult men are killed in the conquest of a city, whereas women and children are enslaved (see Agamemnon’s own words in 4.238  f.; in addition 9.593  f., 24.732  ff., Od. 14.264  f.); the victors’ vindictiveness may nevertheless also affect children, especially members of the royal family (cf. 22.63  f., 24.734  ff.; Il. parv. fr. 29 West [Astyanax]; Cypr. fr. 31 West: ‘he is a fool who kills the father and spares the sons’). Agamemnon’s angry, pointed wish not to spare even unborn male children poignantly reveals the extent of the threat facing the besieged Trojans: a sombre background for the Troy-scenes following in 237  ff. (Owen 1946, 57).  – On Homeric practice regarding conquests in general, see WickertMicknat 1983, 32–49 (specifically on the handling of children: 32  f., 38  f., 46  ff.; more precisely on this, Hutchinson 1985, 100). For references to the extinction of unborn life in Near Eastern literature (e.g. in the Old Testament: 2 Kings  8:12 and 15:16, Isaiah 13.18, Amos  1:13), see West 1997, 217; Louden 2006, 151. 57 2nd VH = Od. 12.287; ≈ Od. 9.286, 12.446; cf. also Il. 14.507 = 16.283 = Od. 22.43; Od. 1.11, 17.47, 22.67. — αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον: a VE formula (6x Il., 8x Od.; 1x Od. after caesura A 3). In its figurative meaning ‘abrupt, harsh, difficult to deal with’ (with ὄλεθρος, πόνος, χόλος, etc.), αἰπύς is one of the words of emotion that are largely limited to direct speech (see character languageP; de Jong [1987] 2004, 142).

59–60 of Ilion’s | people: on ‘Ilion’ and ‘Troy’ as alternative names for the besieged city, see 1.71n.; FOR 24. κοῦρον ἐόντα: a more precise determination of gender, ‘as a boy’ (AH). κοῦρος (otherwise mostly ≈ νεανίας) in reference to unborn children is found only here in early epic; of infants (with the meaning ‘son’) at Od. 19.523, h.Hom. 19.45 (LfgrE s.v.; Rengakos 1994, 105  f.). — φέροι: on the potential opt. in a relative clause after a desiderative in the main clause, see Schw. 2.325; Chantr. 2.248. — ἅμα πάντες: an inflectible formula (in different locations within the verse; in total 11x Il., 10x Od., 5x h.Hom.); virtually ‘merged into a single semantic unit’ (≈ ἅπαντες): LfgrE s.v. ἅμα 600.57, transl.; 1.424n. — ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι: ‘unburied and with no grave marker’ (ἀκήδεστος like ἀκηδής in 24.554, Od. 24.187: ‘unprovided for’ in the sense of ‘without receiving the last honors’; ἄφαντος from φαίνομαι, i.e. with no visible sign of them remaining): LfgrE s.v.; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 70  f.; on the emphatic connection of semantically similar terms (occasionally both with α privativum, as here), see 1.415n., 3.40n. (with further parallels and bibliography). – Similar threats and wishes – in particular that the body of an opponent fall prey to dogs and carrion-eating birds – are repeatedly found in speeches by he-

58 γαστέρι: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). 59 ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6). — μηδ’ ὃς φύγοι: ὅς is demonstrative, ‘not even he’. 60 ἐξαπολοίατ(ο): = ἐξαπόλοιντο (R 16.2); with gen.: ‘let them be eradicated from’.

Commentary 

 33

roes on both sides; cf. e.g. 13.831 (Hektor addressing Aias), 22.41  ff. (Priam on Achilleus), 22.335  f./352  ff. (Achilleus addressing Hektor); further attestations and bibliography in 1.4n.

61–65 Menelaos accepts Agamemnon’s speech without objection and pushes away Adrestos, who is then killed by Agamemnon. It is noteworthy that (1) Menelaos does not kill the supplicant himself and (2) the killing happens only after physical contact between him and his opponent is severed: the Atreidai thus avoid violating the ‘rules’ of the supplication ritual (otherwise done in Homeric epic only by Odysseus in Od. 22.310  ff.). Menelaos must still use physical force to end physical contact with Adrestos (in contrast to the scene with Lykaon Il. 21.114  ff.; see in detail Gould [1973] 2001, 32–36), but this does not turn him into a violator of divine law: supplicants on the battlefield are not protected by Zeus hikésios, since there can be no right to mercy in war (Stoevesandt 2004, 153 with n. 481; Pagani 2008, 415). 61 ≈ 7.120, 13.788. — ἔτρεψεν: v.l. παρέπεισεν (cf. iterata). — ἀδελφεόο: a reconstructed form (see app. crit.); the transmitted ἀδελφειοῦ shows metrical lengthening that can be removed via dissolution of the contraction at word end (West 1998, XXXIII  f. [with bibliography]; critical of this is G 45 n. 24; Führer/Schmidt 2001, 18); cf. also 2.518n., 2.731n., 6.344n. — φρένας: cf. 51n.; on the original meaning, 1.103n. — ἥρως: 34–35n.

62a = 7.121a. — [since he urged justice] by counseling what was appropriate: This passage has caused discomfort among ancient and modern interpreters, since the cruelty apparently recommended is in contradiction to the sympathetic portrayal of the Trojans’ fate elsewhere (especially in the ‘obituaries’ [cf. 16n.] and in the homilia [392  ff.]: Fenik 1986, 25  f.). But (1) Greek pareipṓn (‘by counseling’) denotes the act of swaying (cf. Schw. 2.493); the remark should thus be connected specifically with Agamemnon’s advice to spare no supplicant, rather than with his cruel wish in verses 57  ff. (von der Mühll 1952, 109). (2) aísimos in connection with verbs of speech and thought means ‘in accord with the situation and social norms; appropriate, sensible’ (clearly so in the parallel passage 7.121; cf. LfgrE s.v.). It does not contain a moral judgment (‘what is right’) but a sober statement: the ‘heroic code’ demands that Menelaos – the initiator of the campaign – consequently pursue the restoration of his honor without sparing any opponent (contrast 226n.); after the failure of the negotiations for Helen’s return, the entire Trojan community can be held liable for the injustice committed, individual sentiments notwithstanding (cf. 1.42 vs. 1.22  f.). But the fact that the narrator records this does not imply that he wants to prevent compassion being felt for the victims of this intercom-

61 ἀδελφεόο: = ἀδελφοῦ (↑).

34 

 Iliad 6

munal conflict; see Kirk ad loc.; van Wees 1992, 188 with 384 n. 50; Wilson 2002, 166  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 152–155; Scodel 2008, 83  f.; Sammons 2009, 175–180 (cf. 55–60n.). Other attempts at a solution are less satisfactory: Fenik 1986 (αἴσιμα παρειπών, coined for situations such as 7.121, is here employed incorrectly due to a ‘formular reflex’); Goldhill 1990 (αἰ. παρ. ‘swaying him with fateful words’); Yamagata 1990 (αἰ. παρ. as a mere evaluation of Agamemnon’s ‘eloquence’: ‘persuading/dissuading by a well measured/-balanced argument’). – According to Taplin 1992, 50, the phrase αἴσιμα παρειπών portrays Menelaos’ judgment in secondary focalizationP, but the text contains no clear signal of focalization (de Jong [1987] 2004, 205; cf. Stoevesandt loc. cit. n. 486).  – A recent interpretation worth considering (though unverifiable) is offered by Bostock 2015, esp. 106: παρειπών should be read like παραύδα in Od. 11.488 with the sense ‘try to make someone think differently about something’; αἴσιμα παρειπών would thus not be the narrator’s comment on Agamemnon’s speech, but simply state that Agamemnon made Menelaos change his opinion about αἴσιμα: ‘talking him round as to what was appropriate’. 62b–65 String of integral enjambmentsP (as in the preceding speech of Agamemnon): ‘The result is intense and dramatic’ (Kirk). 62b ἕθεν: on the prosodic reverberation of an original word beginning [ww] (< *hw- < *sw-), see G 22. 63 κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: a VE formula (1.102n.). 64 ≈ 14.447; 1st VH also ≈ 14.517. — οὖτα: root aor., existing beside the probably more recent sigmatic aor. οὔτασε and οὔτησε (Frisk s.v. with bibliography; Tucker 1990, 211  f.). οὐτά(ζ)ω means ‘strike, pierce, wound (from close proximity)’ (in contrast to βάλλω ‘strike [with spear or arrow]’): Trümpy 1950, 92  f.; LfgrE s.v. — ἀνετράπετ(ο): ‘fell backwards’ (sc. on his back, see 65): AH; Kurz 1966, 22.

65 1st VH ≈ 2nd VH of 13.618, 16.503. — setting his heel upon the midriff: sc. to pull the spear from the body more easily; at the same time, a gesture of triumph (Kurz 1966, 35). Cf. iterata and 5.620, 16.863. λάξ: adv., ‘with the foot or sole’; formed like πύξ ‘with the fist’, γνύξ ‘with bent knee’, etc. (Frisk; Risch 364; Schw. 1.260, 620). — ἐν στήθεσι βάς: on ἐν + dat. in indications of direction, see Schw. 2.455  f. — μείλινον ἔγχος: a VE formula (6x Il.); in contrast to the metrically equivalent formula χάλκεον ἔγχος (3.317n.), never with verbs meaning ‘hit, strike’ or ‘wound’ (since μείλινον is said of the shaft of ash wood, χάλκεον of the point): LfgrE s.v. μείλινος (with bibliography s.v. μελίη); cf. 3n., 31–32n.

62 παρ(ϝ)ειπών: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ὃ δ(έ): sc. Menelaos. — ἀπὸ (ϝϝ)έθεν: = ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ (R 14.1); on the prosody, ↑. 64 οὖτα: 3rd sing. aor. (↑). — κατὰ (λ)λαπάρην: on the prosody, M 4.6. — Ἀτρεΐδης: sc. Agamemnon.

Commentary 

 35

66–72 Nestor, the oldest warrior at Troy, regularly comes to the fore in the Iliad with speeches of warning, appeals to battle, and strategic advice (CH 3; 1.247b–252n.; 2.362–368n.); in this way, he repeatedly reminds his addressees to place the common good above individual interest (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.; cf. esp. 1.254–284n., 4.303–305, 9.96–113, 11.664–668/762–803). His warning not to linger over the spoliation of opponents (28n.) finds a parallel in Hektor’s appeal in 15.346–351. 66 1st VH = 7.123; 2nd VH = 110, 8.172, 11.285, 15.346, 15.424, 15.485, 16.268, 17.183: a speech introductory formulaP for battle exhortations. In contrast to the formulaic verse ἤϋσεν δὲ διαπρύσιον Δαναοῖσι/Τρώεσσι γεγωνώς, which generally introduces appeals to persevere in situations of distress (8.227, 11.275, 13.149, etc.), ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας is usually used before exhortations to intensify an attack and is directed at an army that is already victorious or at least confident: these formulae seem to have been coined for the relevant standard situations (Kaimio 1977, 26–30). Cf. also 13.413, 13.445, 14.453, 14.478 (ἐπηύξατο μακρὸν ἀΰσας, introduction of speeches of triumph); differently, 22.294 (ἐκάλει … μ. ἀ., a call for help). — Ἀργείοισιν: 107n. 67 = 2.110 (see ad loc.), 15.733, 19.78; 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ fr. 193.6 M.-W. (restored). On this in detail, Graziosi/Haubold: ‘The line falls into three sections, each defining the relationship between the speaker and his listeners from a slightly different perspective. ὦ φίλοι establishes an affective bond […], ἥρωες Δαναοί identifies the addressees collectively as Danaans [= Greeks, cf. 107n.] […], θεράποντες Ἄρηος defines the addressees as warriors […] and prepares them for the military advice to come.’ 68–69 μή τις νῦν … | μιμνέτω: A negated pres. imper. (rather than aor. subjunc.) is used when an action is not meant to continue: ‘now no man should remain 〈for longer〉’ (cf. e.g. 1.210 μηδὲ ξίφος ἕλκεο after 194 εἵλκετο … ξίφος): Schw. 2.343; Chantr. 2.230  f. On the 3rd sing. imper. in exhortations directed at multiple present individuals, Schw. 2.342  f.; cf. also 2.381–393n. — ἐνάρων: ἔναρα always denotes the slain opponent’s armor that has been or is going to be looted (like post-Homeric σκῦλα, Lat. spolia): Trümpy 1950, 86–88; Pritchett 1991, 132  f., 147  f.; cf. also 20n. — ὥς κεν … ἵκηται: on the modal particle in final clauses, Schw. 2.665, 672 with n. 1; Chantr. 2.270; cf. 1.32n. 70 ἀλλ’ ἄνδρας κτείνωμεν: core of the speech, formulated with expressive terseness in contrast to the introductory warning in 68  f. (1⁄2 verse vs. 2 verses).

66 ἐκέκλετο (+ dat.): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘admonish, urge’. — μακρόν: adv., ‘loudly’. 67 Ἄρηος: on the declension, R 12.4. 68 ἐπιβαλλόμενος (+ gen.): ‘pouncing upon’. 69 μιμνέτω: 3rd sing. pres. imper. of μίμνω (≈ μένω). 70 τά: sc. τὰ ἔναρα (68). — τὰ (ϝ)έκηλοι: on the prosody, R 5.4.

36 

 Iliad 6

71 νεκροὺς  … τεθνηῶτας: probably derivative of the formulaic phrase νεκύων κατατεθνηώτων (LfgrE s.v. νεκρός). On the form τεθνηῶτας, G 95, Chantr. 1.430  f. — συλήσετε: fut. ind. with concessive meaning, ‘afterwards you may … despoil … if you must’ (cf. 24.716  f.): Schw. 2.291, Chantr. 2.202. A pointed change from 1st to 2nd person (κτείνωμεν … συλήσετε): Nestor wants to participate in the labors of battle but to leave the spoiling to others (schol. A: Athenocles [3rd/2nd cent. BC] against Zenodotus’ v.l. Τρώων ἂμ πεδίον συλήσομεν ἔντεα νεκρούς; cf. Kirk; on Athenocles, see West 2001, 77). 72 =  5.470, 11.291, 13.155, 15.500, 15.514, 15.667, 16.210, 16.275; ≈ 5.792, Od. 8.15; with the exception of Od. 8.15, always after a battle exhortation. 1st VH also = 4.73, 19.349, 22.186, Od. 24.487. — εἰπών: temporally coincident with ὤτρυνε (AH on 5.470; Schw. 2.300  f.; cf. 7–8n.). — μένος καὶ θυμόν: μένος usually, as here, denotes warriors’ targeted, aggressive energy (cf. 1.103n.); the more general term θυμός may be used to denote both the seat of emotions and mental energy and the relevant mental powers themselves (cf. 17n., 51n., 2.196n.; LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1081.51  ff.; on the differentiation of μένος/θυμός, see also Jahn 1987, 39–45). On the common linking of semantically similar terms in epic language, cf. 59–60n. (ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι).

73–118 Helenos urges Hektor and Aineias to halt the fleeing Trojans. Hektor is to go to the city afterwards and ask Hekabe to initiate a procession of supplication by the Trojan women to the temple of Athene. After restoring Trojan resistance, Hektor leaves the battle. Interpreters from antiquity on (cf. schol. bT on 116) have been vexed by the fact that the most powerful Trojan hero is made to leave the battlefield at a critical moment for the sake of a simple errand (for a detailed account of the history of research: Broccia 1963, 53–72, esp. 64  ff.). But ‘the force of such logic pales before the poetic requirement that Hector must be shown inside the walls of Troy’ (Mueller [1970] 1978, 110; already similarly Leaf, Introd. 256, etc.). The action is also carefully motivated. In 76 (see ad loc.), Helenos is introduced as a figure of the highest authority, a signal by the narrator that the necessity of his instructions is not to be questioned (Kakridis [1937] 1949, 63  f.; Haubold 2000, 88; on such ‘speaker-recommendations’ in general: de Jong [1987] 2004, 199). At the seer’s command, Hektor applies himself first to his military, then to his religious duties; the fact that he personally goes to Troy after the restoration of order on the battlefield – where he leaves Aineias as his deputy (75–80n.) – underlines the urgency of the ritual (cf. Carlier 1984, 162  f. with n. 118; the ultimate failure of the rite cannot be blamed on either Hektor or Helenos; cf. 96–101n., 288–295n., 306–307n.). The danger experienced by the Trojans fight-

71 ἄμ: = ἀνά (R 20.1). — συλήσετε: from συλάω (with double acc.), ‘despoil someone of something’; on the fut., ↑. — τεθνηῶτας: = τεθνεῶτας (↑).

Commentary 

 37

ing in Hektor’s absence, furthermore, provides an effective background for the scenes in Troy (repeatedly called to mind: 254  ff., 360  ff., etc.): Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 140; Broccia loc. cit. 67  ff. 73–76 ‘If-not’ situationsP often mark dramatic moments in the course of a battle (Fenik 1968, 154, 175–177, 221; de Jong [1987] 2004, 72–75; Nesselrath 1992, 12–16), especially when mass flight is prevented from breaking out (Trojans: 8.130  ff., 13.723  ff., 17.319  ff.; Achaians: 11.310  ff., cf. also 2.155–156n.) or those fleeing regroup in time to avoid total defeat (Trojans: here and at 16.698  ff., similarly 21.544  ff.; Achaians: 8.217  ff., similarly 18.151  ff.). The looming danger is usually averted through the intervention of a god (8.130  ff., 16.698  ff.) or a hero driven by a god (8.217  ff., 17.319  ff., etc.), less often by human initiative alone (here and at 11.310  ff. [Odysseus], 13.723  ff. [Polydamas]; Helenos’ characterization as ‘best by far of the augurs’ may of course imply that his intervention – as at 7.44  ff. – is inspired by the gods [de Jong loc. cit. 72  f.; similarly Kirk on 73–101]). 73–74 = 17.319  f., ≈ 17.336  f.; in addition, 73 ≈ 16.303. 73 ἔνθά κεν: on the accentuation, West 1998, XVIII. — αὖτε: sometimes denotes a ‘shift of focus’ (e.g. in formulae such as τὸν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπε that accompany a change of speaker in dialogue); taken in this sense by Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.: ‘the Trojans «for their part»’ in contrast to the previously mentioned Achaians. But αὖτε here may also be understood as an unstressed particle that is simply continuative (thus LfgrE s.v. 1584.70  ff., 1589.74  ff.). — ἀρηϊφίλων: a generic epithetP; 4x with Ἀχαιῶν (see iterata 73–74n.), elsewhere of Menelaos (25x) and occasionally other heroes (2.778b  n.). As in the phrase θεράποντες Ἄρηος (6.67 etc.), the god’s name here is a metonymy for ‘war’ (CG 28), since the character Ares fights on the side of the Trojans; cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (2.334n.); on ὑπό ‘under the influence of’, cf. also 3.61n., 4.423, 18.149  f., etc. (Schw. 2.528  f.). 74 ἀναλκίῃσι δαμέντες: Powers, conditions and emotions, divine and natural, sometimes appear as the logical subjects of δάμνημι ‘overcome’ (e.g. 1.61: war and pestilence; 14.353: sleep and love; 21.52: exhaustion [LfgrE s.v. 214.43  ff.]); here the fleeing Trojans’ temporary ‘lack of spirit for battle/resistance’ (ἀναλκίη is always dependent on the situation and thus does not denote ‘cowardice’ as a permanent characteristic: LfgrE s.v.). On the frequent ‘poetic plural’ for abstracts of ā-stems, see 2.588n.

75–80 Aineias and Hektor …: Aineias (leader of the Dardanians: CH 8; 2.819n., 2.820n.) and Hektor in particular (1.242n., 2.796–806n.; on the etymology of his name, 6.402–403n.) regularly appear in battle scenes in the Iliad as the

73 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 74 ἀναλκίῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1; on the plural, ↑.

38 

 Iliad 6

recipients of exhortations (paraeneses) and advice (Aineias: 13.462  ff., 17.322  ff., 20.79  ff., 20.330  ff., also mentioned at 16.536 with others besides Hektor; Hektor: 5.471  ff., 7.46  ff., 11.195  ff., 11.521  ff., 12.60  ff., 12.210  ff., 13.723  ff., 16.536  ff., 16.715  ff., 17.70  ff., 17.140  ff., 17.333  ff., 17.582  ff., 20.375  ff.; cf. Fenik 1968, 49  f., 154  f. [and passim: see Index s.v. ‘rebuke pattern’ and ‘advice pattern’]; on Hektor’s occasional lack of initiative, see Mackie 1996, 87–89; Stoevesandt 2004, 95, 200  f., 297). Here Helenos addresses both at the same time, likely so that Aineias can assume the role of leader in the battle after Hektor departs (AH on 77). 75–76 2nd VH of 76 = 1.69 (see ad loc.). — Priam’s son, Helenos, best by far of the augurs: a formula (in the Greek line 76, in Lattimore 75) encompassing an entire verse used for the introduction of a significant individual, as at 1.36 (see ad loc.), 1.102, etc. As ‘best by far of the augurs’, Helenos is a figure of authority (as is Kalchas among the Achaians: 1.69–73n.), whom Hektor willingly obeys here and at 7.44  ff. (whereas he contradicts Polydamas, who appears later as a counselor, in two of four situations; on the connections between these six advice-giving scenes, see Bannert 1988, 71–81). On the significance of augurs and other seers in early epic in general: 1.62–63n. and 1.72n. with bibliography; Woronoff 1999; Di Sacco Franco 2000 (although the statement on p. 43  f. that Helenos is not explicitly characterized as a seer is problematic); Collins 2002. – On Helenos’ overall role in the Trojan cycle, see Wathelet s.v. 510  ff.; West 2011 ad loc. εἰ μὴ ἄρ(α): a VB formula (10x Il., 1x Od., 2x Hes., 1x h.Cer.; cf. 3.374n.). — εἶπε παραστάς: a formulaic phrase (7x Il.: 6x VE, 1x before caesura C 2) that signals a certain familiarity between speaker and addressee (Kurz 1966, 95). Aside from 23.155 and 23.617 (and ἄγχι παραστάς 23.304), the phrase usually prefaces advice and paraeneses directed at Hektor (by Polydamas: 12.60 = 12.210 ≈ 13.725; by Apollo: 20.375, similarly 16.715; by Helenos: here and 7.46). — οἰωνοπόλων ὄχ’ ἄριστος: on the v.l. μάντις τ’ οἰωνοπόλος τε, see Graziosi/Haubold.

77–79 Helenos begins with an appeal, in the manner of a captatio benevolentiae, to both leaders’ sense of responsibility (similarly Nestor in 1.254  ff., see ad loc.; cf. also 2.25 [on this, 2.20–34n.]). His reference to their positions of leadership (77  f.), and particularly his diplomatic compliment in 78  f., appeal to their honor: combat and strategic planning – including the ability to keep a clear head in the current battle – are the most important prerequisites of heroic

75 μὴ ἄρ’… καὶ Ἕκτορι: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — Ἕκτορι (ϝ)εῖπε: on the prosody, R 5.4. 76 Ἕλενος(ς), οἰωνοπόλων: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — ὄχ(α): adv., ‘by far’.

Commentary 

 39

prowess (although no hero in the Iliad excels equally in both areas: 1.258n. with bibliography; on Hektor’s deficiencies in the second area, cf. 75–80n., 13.727  ff., 18.249  ff./312  f.; on this, Lowenstam 1993, 132–135 with n. 175). The praise is suitable for reminding the two of what is expected of them in a situation like the current one. 77 πόνος: often denotes in Homer the ‘labor of battle’ specifically (e.g. 13.344, 16.568; on battle as laborious work, also 1.162n., 2.401n.), but it can also refer to mental strain (355: πόνος φρένας ἀμφιβέβηκεν). The notion of the burden of responsibility borne by the addressees might be heard here as well (LfgrE s.v. 1445.52  ff., cf. 1445.48  ff.).

78 Lykians: probably here denotes the Lycians in the Troad mentioned in Strabo 12.8.4 (= C 572) rather than the Trojan allies from Lycia in south-west Asia Minor (cf. 2.826n., 2.877n. end, 5.105, 5.173; Parker 1999, 501 n. 52; Latacz 2002, 1117 n. 59). The expression ‘Trojans and Lycians’ thus serves as a summary term for the inhabitants of the area threatened by the Greeks (town and hinterland). Τρώων καὶ Λυκίων: an inflectible VB formula (only Il.; occasionally ἤ rather than καί, in the dat. τε καί; in total 1x nom., 3x gen., 3x dat., 1x acc., 6x voc.). 79 πᾶσαν ἐπ’ ἰθύν: ἡ ἰθύς is derived from the adj./adv. ἰθύς ‘straight’ (Risch 41; Frisk with bibliography) and thus originally meant ‘a straight direction’ (cf. 21.303 πρὸς ῥόον … ἀν’ ἰθύν, ‘straight on against the flow’ [LfgrE]); figuratively ‘intention, disposition’ (cf. Od. 16.304, Odysseus to Telemachos: γυναικῶν γνώομεν ἰθύν). πᾶσαν ἐπ’ ἰθύν (here and Od. 4.434) thus likely means ‘for any undertaking’ (AH; Leaf: ‘enterprise’, Kirk: ‘initiative’); differently LfgrE (from the basic meaning ‘direction [of thrust]’: ‘for any confrontation’).

80–82 The passage links three characteristic motifs of Homeric battle paraeneses and warning speeches: (1) an exhortation to stand firm (an appeal for perseverance in a difficult situation or, in a phase of flight such as this, a demand to resume resistance): cf. 4.509  ff., 5.529  ff. ≈ 15.561  ff., 8.94  ff., 11.348, 11.587  ff., 13.150  f., etc.; on this, Fenik 1968, 57; Latacz 1977, 196; (2) an exhortation for the leaders to spur on the other warriors: cf. 5.485  f., 11.204  f., 12.367, 13.55  f., 15.258  f., 15.475, etc.; (3) a warning against the shame of defeat, here expressed by the provocative formulation ‘tumble into their women’s arms’ (81–82n.), and against the gloating of the enemy that is to be expected (cf. 1.255  f., 2.160 ≈ 2.176, 3.51, 10.193).  – A collection of passages relating to the three motifs: Stoevesandt 2004, 297 with nn. 889  f., 300–302 with nn. 898 and 900.

77 ὔμμι: = ὑμῖν (R 14.1). 78 Τρώων καὶ Λυκίων: partitive gen. dependent on ὔμμι μάλιστα. — ἐγκέκλιται: to be construed with ὔμμι: ‘rests on you’. — οὕνεκ(α): crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘because’. 79 φρονέειν: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

40 

 Iliad 6

80 your people: Greek lāós, in the Iliad usually (as here) ‘the (male) population in arms, the army’ (1.10n.). 81–82 by the gates: Phases of flight terminate ‘regularly only after those fleeing arrive at a place that is topographically suitable for facilitating the collection of the dispersed forces (their ships, the ditch, their wall in the case of the Greeks, the citywalls in the case of the Trojans […])’: Latacz 1977, 214, transl. — before they tumble into their women’s | arms: The phrasing is even more pointed than that of the narrator in 74: it insinuates that the Trojans want to seek refuge with their women, whom they were in fact supposed to protect (schol. bT on 81; Scully 1990, 67  f.; cf. the transport of Paris to his bedchamber in 3.380  ff. and Helen’s reaction in 3.410  ff./426  ff.; on the accusation of ‘effeminate’ behavior in the Iliad in general: 2.235n. with bibliography). The passage can also be interpreted as the seedP for the leitmotif that later directs the sequence of scenes ‘Hektor in Troy’ (237–529n.): the hero will have to resist three times the temptation of being distracted from his duties by the women of Troy (Graziosi/ Haubold ad loc.). πάντῃ ἐποιχόμενοι: an inflectible VB formula (only Il., 2x each nom. sing./pl.). On the issue, 104n. — πρίν: often scanned long in early epic (DELG). — αὖτ(ε): in contrast to 73 (see ad loc.), likely used here pointedly as a modal adv.: ‘it marks the restoration of an earlier condition’ (LfgrE s.v. 1584.54, transl.), i.e. αὖτε with the sense ‘back again into the safety of their domestic environment’. But a temporal sense cannot be excluded (‘again, as before’: Faesi/Franke). — ἐν … | … πεσέειν: repeatedly used in reference to panicked behavior in flight; cf. 2.175n., 11.311, 13.742, etc. — δηΐοισι: to be read either with a shortened vowel in internal hiatus (⏖–⏑) or with three syllables (δῄοισι) (Chantr. 1.107; cf. 2.415n. with bibliography; see also there for the etymology and semantic development). — χάρμα: ‘object/occasion of gloating’ (3.50–51n.). 83 φάλαγγας: 6n. — ἁπάσας: an emphatic echo of πάντῃ from line 81: ‘Helenos makes it clear that «all» the lines need to be restored before Hector can enter the city’ (Graziosi/ Haubold).

80 αὐτοῦ: adv., ‘on the spot, here’. — ἐρυκάκετε: reduplicated aor. imper. of ἐρύκω. — πυλάων: the noun is used only in the plural and can denote a single gate or multiple gates; here, as in 237, probably the Skaian gate as the main gate of Troy is meant (the plural refers to the gate’s two wings, cf. Lat. fores); on the declension, R 11.1. 81–82 ἐν … | … πεσέειν (+ dat.): from ἐμπίπτω ‘throw oneself into’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; on the aor. inf. in -έειν, R 8, R 16.4. — φεύγοντας: in logical agreement with the collective λαόν (80) (constructio ad sensum). — δηΐοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. 83 ἐπεί κε: = ἐπειδάν (cf. R 24.5). — ἐποτρύνητον: 2nd dual aor. subjunc. of ἐποτρύνω ‘urge on’.

Commentary 

 41

84 Δαναοῖσι: cf. 67n., 107n. — μαχησόμεθ(α): a common formation of the fut. of μάχομαι/ μαχέομαι in Homer (Chantr. 1.451; cf. 2.366n.). 85 1st VH ≈ Od. 7.218; 2nd VH =  Od. 19.73. — τειρόμενοι: from τείρω ‘distress, weaken’ (cf. Lat. terere), ‘oppress, torment, exhaust’; always in the present stem in reference to persistent conditions (LfgrE s.v.).

86–101 Helenos gives Hektor detailed instructions for a ritual the Trojan women are to conduct to plead for Athene’s help (this fails, however: 306–307n., 311n.). Athene is the patron goddess par excellence of cities (her epithet is erysíptolis ‘protector of cities’ in Theano’s prayer at 305 and h.Hom. 11.1, 28.3; a cult title common later is Poliás/Poliúchos ‘preserver of cities’: Burkert [1977] 1985, 140). She is venerated as such also at Troy (cf. CG 3) – despite her animosity after the Judgment of Paris, which the Trojans are perhaps not even aware of (cf. 96–101n. end); the pro-Achaian Hephaistos, for example, likewise receives worship in Troy (5.9  ff.). The cult of Athene also plays a role elsewhere in the story of Troy: the theft of the Palladion by Odysseus and Diomedes (Il. parv., Proclus Chrest. § 4 West); and the goddess’ anger at the sacrilege committed by Oilean Aias, who dragged Kassandra away from Athene’s cult statue (Il. Pers., Proclus Chrest. § 3 West; cf. also Od. 1.325  ff. [with West ad loc.], 3.132  ff., 4.499  ff.). – Helenos’ instructions are repeated several times in what follows, sometimes literally, sometimes with variations (also in content): cf. 113–115 (Hektor explains to the army why he must leave the battle), 269– 278 (he conveys the instructions to Hekabe), 286–311 (the narrator reports on the performance of the ritual); for detailed discussion of the differences, see 88–89n., 113–115n., 269–278n., 270n. (overview: Kirk on 86–98). Repetitions of this type are an old convention in epics formed by oral tradition (FOR 12; Bowra 1952, 254–259); on their use in the Iliad, cf. 1.308–312n., 2.28–32n., and 2.60–70a  n. with bibliography; de Jong (1987) 2004, 179–185, 208–210; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 46–54; Kelly 2007, 325–329. 86 ἀτάρ: ‘normally first in sentence or clause: but in Homer occasionally postponed after apostrophe’ (Denniston 54); cf. 429, 22.331, Od. 4.236 (AH). — εἰπέ: on εἰπεῖν ‘to relay an order’, cf. 114, 14.501, 15.57, Od. 3.427, 22.431, etc. (LfgrE s.v. 472.32  ff., 476.59  ff.). Elsewhere construed with the inf.; here the contents of the message follow in an independent clause 87  ff. (but cf. 87–93n.).

84 ἡμεῖς μέν: as opposed to ἀτὰρ σύ (86). — αὖθι: short form of αὐτόθι ‘on the spot, here’. 85 περ: concessive (R 24.10). — ἀναγκαίη: ≈ ἀνάγκη. 86 πόλινδε: on the suffix -δε, R 15.3. — μετέρχεο, (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — μετέρχεο: ‘go toward’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

42 

 Iliad 6

87–93 ἣ δὲ … | 4 verses | θεῖναι … | καί οἱ ὑποσχέσθαι: an imperatival inf. of the 3rd pers. with an expressed subj. in the nom. is unusual; the present passage is explained as ‘a kind of attempt at an indirect style’ (direct: 273  f. θὲς … | καί οἱ ὑποσχέσθαι): Chantr. 2.317, transl.; Schw. 2.382. 87 μητέρι σῇ καὶ ἐμῇ: a periphrastic denominationP of Hekabe (as at 251, 264); her name itself occurs first only at 293 (see ad loc.). — ξυνάγουσα: prior to the main action (schol. A: ἀντὶ τοῦ συναγαγοῦσα; cf. 270 ἔρχεο … ἀολλίσσασα) (AH; cf. K.-G. 1.200). — γεραιάς: The fem. is found in Homer only here and at 270, 287, 296; as a counterpart to γέροντες (2.53n.), it denotes female members of the elite, including young women (at 379  f., Hektor suspects Andromache is among them); differently Graziosi/Haubold. – The weakly attested v.l. γεραιράς here and at 270 (schol. bT ad loc.: τινὲς ‘γεραιράς’, τὰς ἱερείας τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γέρας δεχομένας) is probably an ancient conjecture (van der Valk 1963, 456  f.; differently Schulze 1892, 500–503, followed by AH, Brillante, etc.).

88–94 As far as can be ascertained from archaeological evidence, the passage reflects contemporary cult practice of the Homeric period (cf. Kirk on 87–94; the reflexive application to Troy is in accord with epic convention: CG 3). (1) The construction of detached temples as ‘dwellings’ for deities represented by their cult statues emerged in the 8th cent. BC (Gruben [1966] 2001, 29  ff.; Coldstream [1977] 2003, 317  ff.; cf. also 1.39n.). (2) Sanctuaries of Athene  – in contrast to extra-urban sanctuaries for other gods – were frequently situated on acropoleis (Burkert [1977] 1985, 140). (3) The custom of offering garments to deities (esp. female deities) is widespread in antiquity (attestations in Mesopotamia starting in the 2nd millenium BC: Romano 1988, 133; on the Greco-Roman sources, see Boardman 2004, 296–298; Kauffmann/Szabados 2004 [best known example: the offering of a peplos at the Panathenaia]). (4) Animal sacrifices were normally made on an open-air altar in front of a temple, but also inside the temple in some locations (Coldstream loc. cit. 280, 321, 324; Gruben loc. cit. 31: a temple in the shape of a megaron with a central sacrificial hearth). The sacrifice of twelve head of cattle in an indoor space is nevertheless difficult to envisage; nēós thus probably denotes here the ‘temple compound’ as a whole: AH; LfgrE s.v. νηός 367.20  ff. 88–89 Both verses are suspected as interpolations by schol. bT, 89 alone by Koechly and others (see app. crit. and Leaf ad loc.), since (1) Hektor does not repeat them in his instructions to Hekabe at 269  ff. and (2) it is not Hekabe’s (but rather Theano’s: 298) duty to open up the temple. But (1) the mention of Athene’s temple in 88 is essential and corresponds to 269 (the verbatim rendition of the order only begins at 271  ff., whereas the beginning has been rephrased: 269–278n.), and (2) at 298  ff., Theano not only opens up the temple, but also conducts the entire ceremony (the offering of a garment and prayers)

87 ἐμῇ· ἥ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ξυνάγουσα: ξυν- = συν- (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 43

which had been entrusted to Hekabe at 90  ff. ≈ 271  ff.; cf. 2.155–181, where Athene has Odysseus fulfill an order entrusted to her by Hera (see ad loc.). The fact that the ritual is to be conducted by a priestess is likely omitted here and at 271  ff. as obvious. (Graziosi/ Haubold give slightly more significance to the differences between Helenos’ orders and their execution: see Introd. 29  f. and their comments on 88–9, 269–78, 297–311, 300.) 88 Ἀθηναίης γλαυκώπιδος: an inflectible formula after caesura A 2 (gen. here and 1x h.Hom., dat. 3x Il.); for the nom./acc., the considerably more common VE formula γλ. Ἀθήνη(ν) is used instead (1.206n., there also on the meaning of the epithet: likely ‘with bright/shining eyes’). On the form Ἀθηναίη (literally ‘the Athenian 〈goddess〉’), also attested epigraphically, see Wachter 2001, 263. — ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ: a VE formula (4x Il.). πόλις ἄκρη/ἀκροτάτη (in total 6x/2x Il.), like ἀκρόπολις (Od. 8.494/504), denotes the part of the city that is highest and that simultaneously constitutes the political and religious center of Troy (LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1350.26  ff.). 89 οἴξασα: an s-aorist of ὀ(ϝ)είγω with a contracted verbal stem (Schw. 1.250; West 1998, XXXIII; Forssman 2005, 109, 112 [assuming a more complex development]). — κληϊ῀δι: κληΐς with the meaning ‘key’ (elsewhere in Homer mostly ‘latch’) is already attested in Mycenaean (ka-ra-wi-po-ro /klāwi-phoros/, likely ‘key-bearer’ as the title of a priestess’ office: MYC s.v. κληΐς; Kirk and Hitch 2009, 36, with bibliography); on the appearance and function of keys, cf. Od. 21.6  f. and 46–50 (with Fernández-Galiano on verse 6 and LfgrE s.v. 1443.42  ff.).

90–97 ≈ 271–278; also 92 ≈ 303, 93b–95 ≈ 308b–310 (cf. 86–101n.). 90–91 a robe …: Textile work, also practiced by queens and goddesses (5.733  ff., Od. 7.234  f., etc.), plays a major role in Homeric society (Wickert-Micknat 1982, 42–45; van Wees 2005, esp. 16–18); skillfully woven cloth and garments are accordingly regarded as having special value (cf. e.g. 22.510  ff., 24.229  ff. [with n.], Od. 15.104  ff., 18.292  ff., 19.232  ff.; see also Taplin [1980] 2001, 354– 356). The quality of the garment to be offered to Athene by Hekabe is emphasized by the use of three superlative expressions. 90 πέπλον: a garment for women consisting of a cloth fastened with pins or clasps (Od. 18.292  ff.; πέπλοι may also be used to cover or wrap objects, 5.194  f., 24.795  f., etc.): LfgrE; van Wees 2005, 4  ff. — ὅ: masc. of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun functioning as a relative pronoun (R 14.5; G 83). West prefers Bentley’s conjecture (confirmed by a papyrus) over the manuscripts’ ὅς, since the digamma in (ϝ)οι is usually prosodically relevant in early epic (Chantr. 1.147; West 2001, 192; but cf. 101n.). The transmission of the Iliad overall vacillates between ὅ οἱ (13.211, Od. 14.3, Aristarchus’ reading

88 νηόν: = ναόν (Att. νεών), acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — Ἀθηναίης … ἄκρῃ: on -η- after -ι- and -ρ-, R 2. 89 ἱεροῖο δόμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 90 οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1). — δοκέει: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4).

44 

 Iliad 6

in Od. 1.300 [see West ad loc.]) and ὅς οἱ (the main tradition here and at 13.561, Od. 1.300 = 3.198, 21.416; to be retained according to Graziosi/Haubold). — χαριέστατος: χαρίεις denotes ‘the attractive, fetching effect of an object on its viewer, and so is not primarily static, like καλός, but energetic’ (Latacz 1966, 99, transl.); it frequently occurs in the context of cult and prayer (likewise κεχαρισμένος; cf. 1.39, 8.204, 20.298  f., Od. 3.58  f., 19.397, etc.): in a kind of ‘charm war’, humans try to obtain gifts from the gods in return for tempting gifts (Parker 1998, esp. 109; cf. 1.39–41a  n.). — μέγιστος: The value of a garment is determined inter alia by its size, cf. Od. 15.107, 18.292; on this, van Wees 2005, 4, 15–17. 91 μεγάρῳ: here not the central gathering room of the house but (as often) the house as a whole (LfgrE s.v. 65.14  ff.; cf. 24.209a  n. [with bibliography]). — φίλτατος: on the connection with χαριέστατος, see Latacz 1966, 103 (transl.): ‘the attractive is at the same time endearing; hence later χαρίεις = «charming».’

92 lay it along the knees: Whether the cult statue is meant to be dressed in the garment later is unclear (on a similar lack of clarity in other sources relating to the custom of offering garments, cf. Boardman 2004, 296; Kauffmann/ Szabados 2004, 427  f.). – The narrator here evidently envisages a sitting figure, a cause of debate already in antiquity (schol. A: epí ‘on’ should be understood in the sense of pará ‘beside, next to’, since palladia are always rendered in a standing position; Strabo 13.1.41 [= C 601] disagrees and points to the existence of a number of seated statues of Athene, which in his day were considered very old; on this, Graf 1985, 44  f., 209  f.). No Geometric cult statues  – with the exception of three standing cult figures from Dreros (Crete)  – have been preserved, probably because they were mostly made of wood (Coldstream [1977] 2003, 321). But a seated figure type is attested in the form of a clay model (dated ca. 800 BC) that depicts an enthroned female deity within a small round building (Hägg/Marinatos 1991); furthermore, an 8th/7th-century seated figure of Athena Lindia (Rhodes) is attested by literary sources and later copies (Canciani 1984, 35  f.). Cf. also Kirk (although it is unclear if the vase painting mentioned by him is to be interpreted as a cult scene); Burkert (1977) 1985, 90; Vermeule 1974, 16  f., 42, 158  f., 164. ἠϋκόμοιο: a generic epithetP of women and goddesses (1.36n.).

93 twelve: a typical numberP that ‘expresses a sense of completeness’ (in contrast to the number 9, cf. 174n.: Graziosi/Haubold); of sacrificial animals also

91 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάρῳ: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — καί (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ … αὐτῇ: = ἑαυτῇ. 92–93 θεῖναι … | καί … ὑποσχέσθαι: imperatival inf. (↑ 87–93n.). — γούνασιν: on the declension, R 12.5. — καί (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 45

at Od. 8.59 (sheep), 13.181  f. (bulls); of the young Trojans Achilleus plans to sacrifice at Patroklos’ pyre: Il. 18.336  f. ≈ 23.22  f., etc; a tripod worth twelve head of cattle as the prize in a contest: 23.703 (cf. Kirk); in various other contexts: Waltz 1933, 22; Germain 1954, esp. 99, 101 (collection of attestations). — heifers: Sacrifices of cattle are expensive and are offered only on special occasions (sacrifices of sheep and goats being more common); cf. 1.66n., 2.402n. 94 ἤνις: an epithet of sacrificial cows intended for Athene, found only here (repeated at 275/309) and at 10.292  f. =  Od. 3.382  f. (βοῦν ἤνιν [or ἦνιν] εὐρυμέτωπον, | ἀδμήτην). The etymology and meaning are disputed; most likely ‘one year old’ (from ἔνος, an old word for ‘year’ also contained in ἐνιαυτός: Wackernagel [1914] 1953, 1171  f. n. 1; LfgrE, Frisk, DELG). Differently Szemerényi 1965 (cf. DELG and Wyatt 1969, 73 n. 34): ἦνιν < νῆνιν < νεῆνιν ‘young’; ἦνιν to be explained through haplography of ν in the collocation ΒΟΝΗΝΙΝ. Critical of all previous attempts at explanation (although without offering a solution of his own): Darms 1978, 113–116 with 471 n. 178. — ἠκέστας: only in the present iteratum-verse (on the alliterative connection with ἤνις, cf. the penchant for repeating the prefix in phrases such as ἀκήδεστοι καὶ ἄφαντοι [59–60n.] and ὄτριχας οἰέτεας [2.765n.]: Fehling 1969, 240). Understood ‘uncurbed, untamed’ since antiquity (schol. T: ἀδαμάστους, ἀκεντήτους; cf. ἀδμήτην in the corresponding phrase at 10.292  f. = Od. 3.382  f.), from κεντέω ‘spur on’; since metrical lengthening of α privativum resulting in ἠ- (rather than ᾱ᾽- as in ᾱ᾽θάνατος) would be unparalleled, probably originally *νήκεστος (like νη-κερδής etc.; loss of initial ν in the original formula in the sing. *ΗΝΙΝΗΚΕΣΤΗΝ, cf. ΒΟΝΗΝΙΝ above): Frisk and DELG, following Schwyzer (1931) 1983, 672 (according to Reece [1999/2000, 196  f.; 2009, 52–55] a mishearing already in the pre-Homeric oral poetic tradition; cf. also Wyatt 1969, 72  f.). On other interpretations of the word, see Reece 2009, 52, 63 (with bibliography). – As noted by Eust. 627.18  f., young female animals are particularly suitable as sacrifices for the virgin goddess Athene; ἤκεστος is thus perhaps also to be read ἡ μήπω ταύρῳ μεμειγμένη (Tzannetatos 1960/61; considered in LfgrE; cf. the ambiguity of ἀδμής and ἄδμητος ‘not yet tamed’/‘virginal’). — αἴ κ’ ἐλεήσῃ: a VE formula (inflectible: 2nd sing. at 309, elsewhere 3rd sing.; in total 6x Il., 1x Od.). αἴ κε here may express a condition or an expectation (Wakker 1994, 368 n. 7): ‘promise to offer cows, if she pities the city’ or ‘promise her to offer cows in the hope that she may pity the city’ (cf. e.g. 1.420n.: αἴ κε πίθηται ‘in the hope that he will obey’; unequivocally so  – the iterata at 275 and 309 aside  – in all remaining attestations of the formula αἴ κ’ ἐλεήσῃ: 9.172, 24.301, 24.357, Od. 13.182; on εἰ/ἐάν-clauses expressing expectation or intent in general: Wakker 1994, 365–379). 95 ἄστύ τε: on the accentuation, West 1998, XVIII. ἄστυ usually denotes a town as a topographic entity, but occasionally – as here – also the community of town-dwellers (e.g. Tyrtaios fr. 12.24 West): Raaflaub 1993, 13 with 26 n. 69; on πόλις in the same sense, LfgrE s.v. 1376.45  ff.; on ἄστυ and πόλις as metrically convenient alternatives, 2.332n. —

94 ἤνις: acc. pl. — ἱερευσέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1).

46 

 Iliad 6

ἀλόχους καὶ νήπια τέκνα: a VE formula (nom. 2.136 [see ad loc.], elsewhere acc.); on νήπιος ‘small, helpless’ as an epithet of τέκνον, 2.311n.

96–101 son of Tydeus  …: Although Diomedes appears at the beginning of Book 6 as only one warrior among many (5–36n.), he is nevertheless the most successful Achaian hero on the first and second days of fighting in the Iliad (Book 5 passim, 6.119–236, 8.90–132; cf. p. 11 above) – a kind of replacement character for the absent Achilleus (with whom he shares a number of features: Andersen 1978, 10–12; Lang 1995, 154–156; Alden 2000, 170 n. 40, 173–175). Helenos’ words thus illustrate the impression left by the depiction of his aristeia in Book 5, while at the same time serving on the level of narrative strategy to prepare for Diomedes’ impending appearances (esp. the scene that follows immediately in 119  ff.): AH on 98; Broccia 1963, 60  f. – The statement in 98– 101 that Diomedes proved a more dangerous opponent even than Achilleus is at odds with the narrator’s commentary at 2.768  f. (a comparison of heroes at the end of the Catalogue of Ships: Achilleus is the best Achaian warrior, Aias the second best; cf. also 99n.). It may be understood as (a) a rhetorical exaggeration, meant to underline the mission’s urgency (Lohmann 1970, 128 n. 59); (b) a situational ‘extreme and personal view’ on the part of Helenos (not communicated to Hekabe by Hektor; egṓ  … phēmi, ‘I say’, at 98 is emphatic): Kirk (similarly Willcock 1977, 51); or (c) a realistic ‘snap-shot’: as a result of Athene’s influence, Diomedes has worked himself up to an extreme battle frenzy (Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 103  f.); Achilleus, who so far has been moderate despite all his boldness (cf. 37–65n. and 417–419a  n.), will display similar behavior only after the death of Patroklos (Zanker 1994, 74  f.). – Whether Helenos suspects Athene’s fundamental enmity toward the Trojans and her particular support for Diomedes remains uncertain. If not, his words are characterized by dramatic ironyP (thus Andersen 1978, 95  f.; although in this case, the evident dramatic irony at 306  f. would lose some of its edge [see ad loc.]). If so (this is possible even for heroes who lack the abilities of a seer, according to Homeric notions: 20.94  ff., 22.296  ff.), he would have the Trojan women pray for Athene’s mercy precisely for that reason; after the positive introduction of Helenos at 73  ff., the latter interpretation seems more likely (cf. 73–118n.; Schnapp-Gourbeillon loc. cit.). 96 αἴ κεν: thus the majority of mss. (and unanimously transmitted at 270): a paratactic explication of the first αἴ κε clause in 94 (similarly 10.510  f., Od. 19.81/83: two clauses of concern in each case). Parataxis is typical of Homeric style (1.10n., 1.134n.); this speaks against Aristarchus’ reading ὥς κεν (and Od. 19.83 ἤν πως rather than μή πως), in which

96 ἱρῆς: = ἱερῆς.

Commentary 

 47

the second clause is subordinate to the first (AH, Leaf, Kirk). — Τυδέος υἱόν: an inflectible formula (2.406n.). Τυδέος is a short vowel gen. of Τυδεύς (cf. G 76); the absence of the earlier standard form in -ῆος, however, suggests that the name (likely pre-Greek) was not originally formed in -εύς (West 2001b, 262  f.; cf. 3.36–37n.). — Ἰλίου ἱρῆς: an inflectible VE formula (5x nom., 3x gen., 15x acc.; in total 21x Il., 2x Od.); on adjectives meaning ‘sacred’ as generic epithetsP of cities, see 1.38n. 97 ἄγριον: used only by warriors in direct speech (character speechP) in reference to opponents; it is thus likely pejorative: cf. 8.96 (Diomedes on Hektor), 21.314 (Skamandros on Achilleus). — μήστωρα φόβοιο: an inflectible VE formula (5x acc. sing., 2x acc. dual; in total 6x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’). μήστωρ (from μήδομαι) means ‘he who can devise clever plans’ (7.366, 8.22, etc.) and ‘he who knows how to achieve something by cleverness and dexterity’: thus in the phrases μήστωρ ἀϋτῆς ‘author of battle-din’ (13.93 etc.) and μήστωρ φόβοιο ‘he who knows how to incite the flight of his opponents, an inciter of flight’ (LfgrE s.v.). On φόβος ‘(panicked) flight’, see Trümpy 1950, 219  f.; Erbse 1986, 29  ff.; cf. also 41n. 98 δή: The particle is both ‘evidential’ and ‘socializing’ (Bakker 1997, 75): by using it, the speaker conveys the suggestion that the view expressed is obvious and is surely shared by the addressee (Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993, 51–53, 140–151; Bakker loc. cit. 75  f., 78  f.). — γενέσθαι: With a predicative adj., γ. may denote a constant characteristic or a behavior in specific situations (in the first case, like εἶναι but likely on the basis of the idea of ‘having grown into something’: e.g. 153, 210, 9.558; in the second case, ‘to assume a characteristic, prove to be’: e.g. 23.632): LfgrE s.v. 152.43  ff. It is probably to be understood in the second sense here; thus AH (‘became, proved to be’, as a situational opinion/insight [cf. 96–101n.]; differently LfgrE loc. cit.).

99 Achilleus: The terrifying effect Achilleus had on his opponents prior to his withdrawal from battle is repeatedly made a topic of the narrative in the Iliad (external analepsesP: cf. 5.788  ff. [Hera], 9.352  ff. [Achilleus himself], 20.28 [Zeus], etc.; see AH and Jones 1995, esp. 104  f., 109). ἐδείδιμεν: < *ἐ-δέ-δϝι-μεν (with compensatory lengthening after the loss of digamma: R 4.2, G 27); Plpf. of the perf. δείδω (< *δέδϝοα < *δέδϝοια); see Schw. 1.769, LfgrE s.v. δείδω. — ὄρχαμον ἀνδρῶν: ‘leader of men’; an inflectible VE formula (2.837n.) used like a generic epithetP for various heroes.

100 goddess: on Thetis, mother of Achilleus, see CG 20. On the connection between the divine parentage of a hero and his military success, cf. 1.178n., 1.280, 21.106  ff., 21.184  ff., e negativo 10.47  ff.; Fenik 1968, 67; see also 24.58–59n.

98 κάρτιστον: = κράτιστον. 99 Ἀχιλῆα: on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — ποθ’: = ποτέ ‘ever’. 100 ἐξέμμεναι: = ἐξεῖναι (R 16.4); with gen.: ‘descend from’. — ὅδε: Diomedes.

48 

 Iliad 6

ὅν περ  …: ‘who  … in fact’: relative clauses with περ repeatedly follow a relative emphasized by οὐδέ (‘not even’) or καί (‘even’). In these cases, ‘[t]he relative clause […] provides the relevant intension [i.e. connotation] of the head noun, the superlative property by virtue of which the head noun functions as focus constituent’ (here, the superlative property of the head noun Achilleus is his divine parentage); likewise 16.709, 18.117  f., 19.95, 19.415  f., etc. (Bakker 1988, 77  f., quotation from p. 77). — φασί: in relation to a person’s origin also at 5.635, 20.105, 20.206, 21.159, Od. 1.220, etc. It may suggest doubt, but can also refer to generally accepted fact (2.783n., 19.96n.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 237  f.); the latter is likely here. — ὅδε: ‘the deictic pronoun presents Diomedes as dangerously near’ (Graziosi/Haubold with reference to Chantr. 2.168  f.). 101 μαίνεται … μένος: possibly an etymologizing word playP; cf. 8.355/358 (with Leaf and Kirk ad loc.); Frisk and DELG s.v. μαίνομαι and μέμονα (DELG is cautious); Hershkowitz 1998, 142–147 with n. 64. – μαίνεσθαι in the sense ‘to rage in battle’ is consistently used in the Iliad in direct speech in reference to a feared and/or loathed opponent (see character speechP), with the exception of 15.605 and 21.5; it is sometimes enhanced by adverbs (here λίην, 8.355 οὐκέτ’ ἀνεκτῶς, 9.238 ἐκπάγλως): LfgrE s.v. 6.8  ff.; Graz 1965, 184  f.; Eck 2012, 136–141. On μένος, see 72n. — οὐδέ τίς οἱ: one of the rare cases in which the digamma in (ϝ)οι is not taken into account (a cause for conjecture: Bentley οὔ τίς οἱ, Brandreth οὐδέ τις ἄρ, see app. crit. and Leaf); cf. 90n.; Chantr. 1.147  f.; West on Hes. Op. 526. — ἰσοφαρίζειν: ‘to deem oneself equal with someone’, probably from ἰσοφόρος (Od. 18.373) ‘with α rather than ο in accordance with other verbs in -αρίζω’ (Risch 299, transl.; on other attempts at explanation, see LfgrE s.v.).

102–109 A dramatic twist: Hektor induces the Trojans to restore their front line; their renewed resistance is quite unexpected for the Achaians (108–109n.). 102 A variant of the formula ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε + subject (2.166n.). That a character executes another’s command without comment is standard in Homer (individuals of any status occur as the subject of πείθομαι/οὐκ ἀπιθέω, e.g. even Agamemnon and Zeus: 2.441, 4.68; cf. 1.345n.). — ὣς ἔφαθ’, Ἕκτωρ δ(έ): a VB formula (5x Il.: 2.807n.).

103–106 =  5.494–497, ≈ 11.211–214; likewise in reference to Hektor after he has been prompted to act by someone else (Sarpedon and Iris, respectively). These verses may have been coined for this type of scene; it is perhaps due to their formularity that Aineias is not mentioned again here.

101 οὐδέ: In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — μένος: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 102 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο, impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — οὔ τι: ‘in no way’ (literally ‘not in some way’: τι is acc. of respect). — κασιγνήτῳ ἀπίθησεν: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (kasignḗtōy apíthēsen), M 12.2. — ἀπίθησεν: aor. of ἀπιθέω (= ἀπειθέω); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 49

103 = 3.29 (see ad loc.) etc. In Homeric descriptions of battles, chariots are predominantly employed in phases of flight and pursuit (2.384n., more recent bibliography in 6.39–40n.); by leaping off the chariot, Hektor signals renewed readiness for combat. αὐτίκα: The present formulaic verse is ‘[a] typical instance of αὐτίκα signaling the zooming in on action after speeches or after general descriptions’ (Bonifazi 2012, 277 n. 32); αὐτίκα is occasionally used to highlight a character’s determined action (cf. 308a  n.). — ἄλτο: aor. of ἅλλομαι ‘leap’; on the form, Chantr. 1.383; on the accent, West 1998, XX.

104 shaking two sharp spears: sc. one in each hand (Homeric heroes are sometimes equipped with two spears: 3.18n.); a gesture for challenging opponents (3.19n.) or, as here, for attracting the attention of one’s own people (cf. LfgrE s.v. πάλλω 949.27  ff.). — ranged over the whole host: ‘It is […] a standard tactic for a warrior to move through the ranks and encourage his men’ (Fenik 1968, 177); cf. 4.231  ff. (Agamemnon’s ‘epipolesis’ immediately before battle begins), 5.528, 12.265  f., 12.467, 17.356 (during battle, as here). 105 φύλοπιν αἰνήν: 1n. 106 = 17.343 (etc., see 103–106n.). — ἐλελίχθησαν: < *ἐ(ϝ)ελίχθησαν, ‘turned around’ (from ἑλίσσω; in contrast, 22.448 ἐλελίχθη from ἐλελίζω ‘cause to vibrate’): Chantr. 1.132; LfgrE s.v.; cf. 1.530n.

107 Argives: In a strict sense, this denotes the inhabitants of the region of Argos (later the ‘Argolid’) in the Peloponnese (cf. 158–159n.); but it is frequently used in Homer as a synonym for ‘Achaians’ (106) and ‘Danaans’ (66  f.) as a summary term for all Greeks (1.2n.). — gave way backward: sc. without taking flight; Greek hypochōréō is used when one of the two sides retreats temporarily but then resumes battle (cf. 4.505 =  16.588 =  17.316; Broccia 1963, 62  f.). 108–109 and thought  …: an indirect rendering of the thoughts and emotions of the crowd, as at 12.106  f., 12.125  f., 12.261  f., 13.41  f., 15.699  ff., 17.395  ff., etc. (occasionally also expressed in tis-speechesP: 2.271  ff., 3.297  ff., etc.): de Jong (1987) 2004, 113 with n. 37. – An event is rarely assigned erroneously to a deity’s intervention in Homer (but cf. 5.177  f./183 [Diomedes’ powers in combat induce Aineias and Pandaros to fear that he might be a god], Od. 23.62  ff. [Penelope on the killing of the suitors]; see also 128n.). The reaction of the Achaians under-

103 ὀχέων: gen. of τὰ ὄχεα ‘chariot’, which occurs only in the pl.; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — χαμᾶζε: adv., ‘to the ground’. 104 δοῦρα: on the declension, R 12.5. 106 ἔσταν: = ἔστησαν (R 16.2).

50 

 Iliad 6

scores the exceptionality of the situation: no one would have expected such a sudden reverse of their flight on the part of the Trojans. — sky: on the sky (vs. Olympus) as the dwelling of the gods, see 1.497n. 108 οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος: an inflectible VE formula (gen./dat./acc.; in total 7x Il., 4x Od., 10x Hes. [+ 2x in different locations in the verse], 3x h.Hom.). The ornamental epithetP ἀστερόεις is used not only of the night sky but also of the daytime sky and the god Uranos (highlighted already by schol. bT in reference to 15.371: οὐ τὸν τότε, ἀλλὰ τὸν φύσει; cf. FOR 3; LfgrE s.v.; Nünlist 2009, 299–306). 109 κατελθέμεν· ὣς ἐλέλιχθεν: thus West, following Nikanor (schol. A: ὣς ἐλέλιχθεν ἀντὶ τοῦ οὕτως [in the sense ‘so suddenly’] ἐλέλιχθεν; on Nikanor, see COM 19 and HT 15); the majority of the manuscripts offer κατελθέμεν, ὡς ἐλ. (in this case ὡς in the sense ὅτι οὕτως, as at 16.17; cf. Monro [1882] 1891, 238  f.; K.-G. 2.370  f.).

110–118 Before leaving the battlefield, Hektor orders the army to stand fast even in his absence (likewise 17.183  ff.; cf. also 11.276  ff. [Agamemnon], 11.587  ff. [Eurypylos], 17.669  ff. [Menelaos]; on this, Fenik 1968, 169  f.). ‘Since there are virtually no battle paraeneses in epic that remain without success […], the audience knows that battle will now continue on a large scale’ (confirmed at 7.4  ff.: great relief among the now completely exhausted Trojans at Hektor’s return to battle together with Paris): Latacz 1977, 137 (transl.). 110 = 8.172, 15.346; 2nd VH also = 66 etc. (see ad loc.). 111 =  9.233; ≈ 11.564, 12.108, but there in the nom.: used only here as a formula of address (instead of the more common phrases ‘Trojans, Lykians and Dardanians who fight at close quarters’ [6x Il., here v.l.] and ‘Listen to me, o Trojans, Dardanians and companions’ [4x Il.]). This indicates that the two laudatory epithets are here used pregnantly: ‘his [sc. Hektor’s] troops have to live up to their reputation of being high-spirited and far-renowned when they have to fight temporarily without the benefit of his leadership’ (Friedrich 2007, 110). Τρῶες ὑπέρθυμοι: an inflectible VB formula (only Il.; voc. also at 20.366, in addition 3x nom., 1x acc.; elsewhere 1x Τρῶας μὲν ὑπ. after A 4). On ὑπέρθυμος, 2.746n. and Friedrich loc. cit. 108–110. — τηλεκλειτοί τ’ ἐπίκουροι: an inflectible VE formula (only Il.; 2x nom., 1x voc., 1x gen. [without τ’]; variant: κλειτοί (τ’) ἐπίκουροι [227n.]). ἐπίκουροι is used in the Iliad only in reference to the Trojan side (LfgrE s.v.). – τηλεκλειτός/τηλεκλυτός, ‘far-famed’, is also used with personal names (e.g. 14.321

108 φάν: = ἔφασαν (R 16.1–2), ‘they thought’. — ἀθανάτων: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). 109 κατελθέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — ἐλέλιχθεν: = ἐλελίχθησαν (R 16.2). 110 Τρώεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. — ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας: = 66 (see ad loc.).

Commentary 

 51

Phoinix, Od. 1.30 Orestes). In addition to the adj., numerous phrases in early epic reference the idea ‘widely spread fame’ (e.g. κλέος εὐρύ, Od. 1.344 etc.; κλέος …, ὅσον τ’ ἐπικίδναται ἠώς, Il. 7.451/458; κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει, 8.192 etc.): a motif inherited from IE poetry (Schmitt 1967, 71  ff.; cf. also 2.325n.). But the transmission of the present VE formula regularly fluctuates between τηλεκλειτοί and τηλεκλητοί ‘summoned from afar’ (here and at 5.491, 9.233, 12.108): some Trojan allies come from very far afield (see 2.877, 5.478  f., 16.538–540, 17.300  f.; LfgrE s.v. τηλεκλειτός). 112 The manuscripts here offer the formulaic verse ἀνέρες ἔστε, φίλοι, μνήσασθε δὲ θούριδος ἀλκῆς (= 8.174, 11.287, etc., including the present passage 7x Il.; on ἀλκή as the object of verbs of recalling and forgetting, cf. 265n.). Zenodotus (see HT 9  f.) read the variant ἀνέρες ἔστε θοοὶ καὶ ἀμύνετον ἄστεϊ λώβην (schol. A). ἀμύνετον (dual for plural) will have been introduced into the text by rhapsodes to avoid hiatus and should be emended to ἀμύνετε (Leaf; West 2001, 41  f., 45); West prefers this form of the text (following Leaf and Rengakos 1993, 60) to the vulgate version, since the formulaic verse is more likely to have replaced the variant than vice versa (differently Kelly 2007, 392, and Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.). On θοός as a positive characteristic of warriors, cf. 2.542–544n., 2.758n.; 5.571 ≈ 15.585; 16.494, etc.; LfgrE s.v. 1054.66  ff.: the basic meaning ‘fast’ (from θέω) in these passages is ‘overlaid by strong connot. of […] effectiveness in aggression, martial vigour’. Alternatively, does θοός here have the sense ‘sharp, dashing’ (suggestion by Führer)? Cf. θοόω ‘sharpen, put a point on’ Od. 9.327; LfgrE s.v. θοός 1053.14  f., 1055.40  ff.

113–115 Hektor briefly explains why he must leave the battlefield. His words do not correspond exactly to Helenos’ instructions; the narrator clearly has him take into account both the audience and the context (Willcock 1977, 45  f.): (1) The seer did not instruct Hektor to address both women and council members (which he does not do in the end); the addition may be explained as Hektor’s attempt to avoid giving the army the impression that he is seeking help (specifically and exclusively) from women in a time of war (schol. A, bT on 114 and Eust. 628.6  ff.; Redfield [1975] 1994, 121; cf. 81–82n.). On Hektor’s use of the phrasing ‘our wives’ instead of mentioning Hekabe and the ‘ladies of honor’ (geraiaí, cf. 87n.), see Graziosi/Haubold on 110–118 and on 114. (2) Hektor talks in general about prayers of supplication to ‘the gods’ and does not mention either Athene or Diomedes; this is likely for reasons of economy (the details are unimportant to the army).

112 ἀνέρες: = ἄνδρες; metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — ἀμύνετε (ϝ)άστεϊ: on the prosody, R 4.3.

52 

 Iliad 6

113–114 γέρουσιν |  … βουλευτῇσι: i.e. the members of the βουλὴ γερόντων, an established institution of the Homeric polis (1.144n., 2.53n.; likely already Mycenaean, cf. DMic s.v. ke-ro-si-ja); on their role in Troy, cf. 3.149n., 15.721  ff., 22.119  ff. — εἴπω: as at 86 (see ad loc.) in the sense ‘instruct’. 115 δαίμοσιν: δαίμων, originally probably ‘allotter of fortune’, is used here (as elsewhere in Homer) with no recognizable difference from θεός (1.222n.; LfgrE s.v.; Tsagarakis 1977, 98–116; but cf. 3.420n.). — ἀρήσασθαι: in Homer not yet with the meaning ‘to curse’, but ‘to voice a plea (for good or bad things) to a deity’ (LfgrE; 1.35n.; on the differentiation from εὔχομαι, 304n.). — ἑκατόμβας: literally ‘sacrifice of a hundred head of cattle’; in actuality, used of any large-scale blood sacrifice and thus not in contradiction to 93 (cf. 1.65n.). Hektor nevertheless remains vague in talking about ‘sacrifices’ to ‘the gods’ (the pl. is also used of sacrifices to several/all gods on a particular occasion at 2.306 [see ad loc.] etc.; cf. LfgrE s.v. 501.50  ff.; differently AH with reference to 1.315 [pl. of one largescale sacrifice, there dedicated to Apollo]). 116 = 369, 17.188; 1st VH ≈ 1.428 etc. (see ad loc.). — κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ: a VE formula (2.816n.). The epithet (only Il., 38x of Hektor, 1x of Ares) ‘evokes the imposing and fearsome aspects of the warrior’s appearance’ (LfgrE, transl.); it means either ‘shaking the helmet’ (cf. 13.805, 15.608  ff.: a shock to the helmet during intense battle; 3.337 etc.: a menacing nodding of the plume [see ad loc.]; 22.132: κορυθάϊξ as an epithet of Ares) or ‘with a shining helmet’ (cf. 13.340  ff., 16.70  ff., etc.: the gleam of weapons can cause panic; 5.4  ff., 11.62  ff., etc.: similes with gleaming weapons often mark the opening of an aristeia); see Camerotto 2009, 111–122 (with further attestations). Cf. also 466–473n. – Epithets that refer to the weaponry of individual heroes or entire armies (or sections thereof) occur frequently elsewhere in the Iliad; e.g. ἀγκυλότοξος (2.848n.), δολιχεγχής (21.155), ἐϋκνήμις (1.17n.), ἐϋμμελίης (6.448–449n.), ἱπποκορυστής (2.1–2a  n.), λινοθώρηξ (2.528–530n.), χαλκοκορυστής (6.198b–199n.), χαλκοχίτων (1.371n.).

117–118 In contrast to e.g. Antilochos at 17.698  f., Hektor retains his armor when leaving the battlefield. His sense of duty urges him to hurry (cf. 237–529n.); he remains ‘the warrior’ also in Troy (Kirk; Broccia 1963, 67  f.; Kurz 1966, 157). ἀμφί: here probably with the sense ‘above and below’ (cf. 1.45n.), explicated by σφυρὰ καὶ αὐχένα (AH, Faesi/Franke, Leaf); others read ‘on both sides’, referring to σφυρά only (Monro [1882] 1891, 170; cf. Chantr. 2.86). — σφυρὰ τύπτε καὶ αὐχένα: Hektor carries a long shield that reaches down to his feet (cf. 15.645  f.), which he has thrown across his back on leaving the battle (cf. 11.545). On the long shield (which in the Iliad

113 ὄφρ(α): ‘while’ (R 22.2), with a prospective subjunc. — βείω: subjunc. of ἔβην (att. βῶ); *βήω > *βέω (R 3) > βείω (reconstruction of the original prosodic structure; cf. R 8). — προτὶ (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 5.4. — προτί: = πρός (R 20.1). 114 βουλευτῇσι … ἡμετέρῃς ἀλόχοισιν: on the declension, R 11.1–2. 117 ἀμφί: adv. (↑). — μιν σφυρὰ … καὶ αὐχένα: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); μιν = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 53

is found beside the more modern round shield; likely a Mycenaean reminiscence), see Kirk (with bibliography); 2.388–389n.; cf. below s.v. ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης. — δέρμα κελαινόν, | ἄντυξ ἣ πυμάτη θέεν …: ἄντυξ is generally understood as predicative to δέρμα: ‘the dark leather that ran around as the outermost rim’ (ἥ is postpositive and adapted to the gender of ἄντυξ: AH, Faesi/Franke, Willcock); but it may also be understood as specifying apposition: ‘the dark leather – (namely) the rim that …’. The shields described in the Iliad largely consist of multiple layers of leather and one layer of metal (7.245  ff., 12.294  ff., 13.803  f., etc.; cf. LfgrE s.v. πτύξ); δέρμα here denotes either the shield as a whole as pars pro toto (Kirk; in that case, ἄντυξ is clearly in apposition) or the outward-turned edge of the leather lining (Leaf, Willcock; depictions suggest the existence of Mycenaean shields made of animal pelt, which were turned outward at the edges to reinforce the rim: Borchhardt 1977, 6  f.). — ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης: an inflectible VE formula (10x Il., 1x Od.; in total 4x gen. sing., 6x nom. pl., 1x each acc. sing./pl.). Bosses for decoration and reinforcement of the center of the shield are attested archaeologically only for the smaller round shields. Originally, the formula was likely coined to describe such shields (Borchhardt loc. cit. 27  ff., esp. 36, 50); but in the narrator’s imagination, Aias’ tower shield is also fitted with a boss (7.266  f., not formulaic). In Homeric scholarship, this is either explained via the so-called amalgamation theory (which suggests that over the course of centuries, elements of different provenance were merged in the epic tradition) or as an expression of poetic fantasy. On the amalgamation theory, see Kirk 1962, 179–210, esp. 190–192, and ad loc.; Latacz 1977, 16  f. (with older bibliography); Sherratt (1990) 1992, esp. 148–151; Finkelberg 2012, 92–95; critically: van Wees 1992, esp. 17–21; Grethlein 2010, 126–129; a middle position: Raaflaub 2011, esp. 10–14; in general on considering Homeric epics under diachronic aspects: NTHS 21  ff.

119–236 While Hektor is on his way into the city, a duel develops between Diomedes and the Lykian leader Glaukos. Glaukos responds to Diomedes’ provocative challenge – in which he tells of Lykourgos’ sacrilege against Dionysos – with a long excursus on his family’s history; it transpires that the two heroes are linked by a bond of guest friendship inherited from their grandfathers. At Diomedes’ suggestion, they decide to refrain from all further confrontation in battle and exchange their armor as a visible sign of their newly discovered relationship – although Glaukos is here taken advantage of. The episode forms a continuation of Diomedes’ aristeia in Book 5; as such, it underlines once more, despite its bloodless outcome, the danger posed by the hero who motivated Hektor’s errand to Troy (cf. 96–101n., 234–236n.; Broccia 1963, 82–84, 94  f.). But the content and tone are clearly distinct from the preceding battle descriptions: the stories embedded in the challenge speeches provide diversion (schol. bT on 119; Eust. 628.36  ff.), and the surprising turn at the end is an elegant way of saving the narrator from having to undertake an ‘awkward attempt’ at exceeding once again the peaks of Diomedes’ military performance portrayed in Book 5 (Faesi/Franke on 119, transl.). The scene

54 

 Iliad 6

also serves to bridge the time between Hektor’s departure from the battlefield (116–118) and his arrival in Troy (237); on this, see ‘covering’ sceneP (with bibliography) and e.g. 1.312/430  f. (for which, 1.431n.), 11.616  f./644, 17.700  f./18.2, 18.148/369, Od. 15.284  ff./495  ff., 23.366  ff./24.205  ff., 24.412/489  f.  – Broccia 1963, 73–105, offers a detailed interpretation of the scene (with critical assessment of the older, largely analytical bibliography), likewise Fornaro 1992 and Grethlein 2006, chap. III (esp. 43–45, 78–87, 94–97, 112–115); see also Maftei 1976 (on discussion of the episode in antiquity); Gaisser 1969; Andersen 1978, 95–110; Krischer 1979, 9–16; Piccaluga 1980; Scodel 1992; Harries 1993; Fornaro 1994, 141–171; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 319–328; Fineberg 1999; Newton 2009, 58–70, 81  f.; Tsagalis 2010 (≈ 2012, 67–74, 247–252); Buchan 2012, 130–141; Graziosi/Haubold, Introd. 36–40; cf. also 145–211n., 152–211n., 234–236n. (further bibliography specifically on Glaukos’ speech and the motif of the exchange of armor). According to schol. A on 119, some interpreters (τινές) moved the scene to another point in the Iliad. Their reasons can only be guessed at; the ostensible contradiction between 128  f. and 5.127  ff. (see 123–143n.) may have prompted them to place the episode at the beginning of the Diomedeia (before Athene gave Diomedes the gift of recognizing gods): Leaf, Introd. 256; Maftei 1976, 5–7, 14; Fornaro 1992, 25–29.

119 1st VH = 7.13, 17.140. — Glaukos: named in the catalogue of Trojans as the second Lykian leader beside his cousin Sarpedon (2.876n.), to whom he is clearly subordinate (see 12.309  ff.); his appearance here is his first (and most significant). In subsequent battle action, he proves a courageous but only moderately successful warrior (kills an opponent at 7.13  ff.; is wounded by an arrow shot by Teukros at 12.387  ff. and is healed by Apollo at 16.508  ff.; then participates in the battle for Sarpedon’s corpse, defeating a single foe at 16.593  ff.). – Glaukos bears a common Greek personal name (attested already in Mycenaean; on the uncertain etymology, see Wathelet s.v. with bibliography); this fits with his Greek roots (154n.), but the phenomenon also occurs fairly often with other individuals on the Trojan side (2.816–877n. end). — the son of Tydeus: see 96–101n., 96n. 120 = 20.159; ≈ 23.814. At 20.159  ff., the duel between Achilleus and Aineias follows, and it offers numerous parallels to the present scene (an exchange of extensive challenge speeches, including a narration of the Trojan warrior’s genealogy; a bloodless outcome, achieved in that case by the spiriting away

119 Ἱππολόχοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 120 ἐς μέσον: substantive, ‘in the middle’; ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1). — συνίτην: 2nd dual impf. of συνιέναι; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — μεμαῶτε: nom. dual part. of μέμονα ‘strive, have an urge’.

Commentary 

 55

of the defeated Aineias; cf. Grethlein 2006, 79 with n. 107). In contrast to the tournament at 23.814  ff. (with a slightly varied introductory verse) and the formal duels at 3.340  ff. and 7.207  ff., neither confrontation takes place before passive spectators (see 110–118n.; 20.244  f., 20.319  f.); the individual warriors have simply ventured far into the field midway between the frontlines (cf. 125  f.; 20.178  f.), whereas the majority of warriors are engaged in a battle with missiles carried out across greater distances. It is in accord with Homeric narrative convention (which of course does not require a completely ‘realistic’ portrayal of battle) that the two heroes carry on an extended conversation undisturbed by the fight raging around them. On this, Latacz 1977, 118  ff., esp. 133–139, 145; de Jong 2005, 17–20. ἀμφοτέρων: sc. Greeks and Trojans. On the v.l. ἀμφοτέρω (nom. dual, referring to the two warriors), see Graziosi/Haubold. — συνίτην: sc. on their chariots, which they only leave at 232 (LfgrE s.v. εἶμι 459.66  f.). Cf. 5.14 and 5.850 (= an iteratum: 6.121): ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοισιν ἰόντες there in both cases refers to one warrior on foot and two on a chariot; ἰέναι in the sense of ‘to drive’ also at 23.8, Od. 6.179, etc. — μεμαῶτε μάχεσθαι: an inflectible VE formula (masc. dat. sing. and nom./acc. dual, fem. nom. sing.; in total 7x Il., 1x Od.). 121 An iteratumP (12x Il., 23.816 with VB ἀλλ’ ὅτε); aside from 3.15 (see ad loc.), always used to introduce duels. 122 τὸν πρότερος προσέειπε(ν): a VB formula (10x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’; variants: προτέρη προσέειπε(ν) / προτέρη … προσεφώνεε(ν): 1x/2x Od.; πρότερος προσέφη: 2x h.Merc.). – προσέ(ϝ)ειπε is a reduplicated thematic aor. (Schw. 1.745; Rix [1976] 1992, 216). — βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης: 12n.

123–143 Diomedes begins his challenge speech by asking ‘who among mortal men’ his opponent is, and comments on his opponent’s courage in a surprised fashion (123–127); should he be facing a god, he does not wish to fight him: Lykourgos is a cautionary example (128–141). If his opponent is human, on the other hand, he should approach and thus come to ruin all the more quickly (142  f.).  – Since antiquity, there has been discussion of (1) how/whether it is possible that Diomedes does not yet know the Lykian leader in the tenth year of the war (whereas Glaukos immediately recognizes his opponent [145], in accord with the narrative conventions of the Iliad [de Jong 2005, 15  f.; cf. 123n.]); (2) what relation exists between 128  ff. and Book 5, where Athene gave Diomedes the ability to distinguish gods from men (5.127  ff.) and he repeatedly fought the

121 οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἀλλήλοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2. 122 πρότερος: ‘as the first’. — προσέειπε: = προσεῖπε (↑). — βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

56 

 Iliad 6

former (Maftei 1976, 13–18; cf. 119–236n. end). There are two fundamental interpretative approaches to both questions (aside from analytic attempts at a solution; bibliography on this in Broccia 1963, 82  f. n. 32), depending on whether one understands Diomedes’ words as (a) serious or (b) ironic: (1) (a) Books 2–7 reflect events that actually belong to the beginning of the war (cf. p. 11 above; STR 22); Diomedes’ question regarding the identity of Glaukos (who appears for the first time here) has a counterpart in 3.161  ff., where Priam has Helen acquaint him with the most prominent Achaian leaders (Faesi). What is more, the relationship between the two heroes via guest friendship is only revealed by this question, and this leads to the unexpected end of the scene (212  ff. indicates that Diomedes at least had to known that Glaukos is Bellerophontes’ grandson): de Jong 2005, 16  f. (b) 123 is a rhetorical question (cf. 14.470–475). 124  ff. thus acquire a certain point: Diomedes pretends not to know Glaukos, as if the latter had so far refrained from playing a role in battle; and such a nobody is now trying to challenge him! (thus Kirk; cf. also Pelliccia 2002, 220; Newton 2009, 59–61). – (2) (a) Athene must have given Diomedes the ability to distinguish between gods and men only temporarily; after her departure at 5.907  f., he is again left to his own devices (schol. bT on 123; AH, Kirk on 128; Bassett 1923, 178  f.). Apollo’s warning at 5.440  ff. taught him caution (5.596  ff./815  ff.); this experience explains his concern at 6.128  ff. (Andersen 1978, 85  f., 97; already similarly Bassett loc. cit.; Malten 1944, 1  f., etc.). Furthermore, the motif is anticipated in 108  f. (schol. bT on 128; Bassett loc. cit.; Avery 1994). (b) Diomedes does not seriously expect Glaukos to be a god. 128  ff. are part of his technique of rhetorical intimidation (the implication is ‘only if you were a god could you dare face me’) and serve to mock his opponent (see Kirk on 128–143; Donlan 1989, 13; Martin 1989, 127–130 [going a bit too far; see Scodel 1992, 79  f.]; Fornaro 1992, 15–19). This interpretation is supported by the fact that challenge speeches – especially by Achaian heroes – are generally characterized by aggression and sarcasm (Martin loc. cit.; on the type in general, Stoevesandt 2004, 305–335, with bibliography); that the thought at 128  ff., after the question in 123 (‘who are you among mortal men’), is unexpected and framed by harsh threats (127/142  f.) (Fornaro loc. cit.); and that the god Dionysos appears intimidated and helpless in the narrative example Diomedes uses as an implicit parallel for his opponent (Martin and Fornaro loc. cit.). 123 1st VH =  15.247, 24.387. — There is only a single parallel in the Iliad for a question on the battlefield regarding an opponent’s identity: 21.150, where

123 σύ ἐσσι: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 57

Achilleus addresses Asteropaios (who has only been in Troy for eleven days: 21.155  f.); cf. de Jong 2005, 17 n. 49; on further parallels between the two scenes, Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 317 n. 1, 325  f.; Louden 2006, 28–30. At the same time, the motif is common in IE epic poetry: see Schmitt 1967, 135–138; West 2007, 431, 476. τίς δέ: on δέ after interrogatives, see 55n. — φέριστε: formally a polite form of address (cf. iterata and Od. 1.405, 9.269, h.Merc. 208, 533); but possibly ironic/condescending here and at Od. 1.405: ‘my good man’ (suggestion by Nünlist; cf. Graziosi/Haubold). — καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων: a VE formula (1x Il., 6x Od.) and a variation of the more common formula θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων (1.339n.); on the epithets connected with the terms for ‘human’ in general (ἄνθρωπος, ἀνήρ, βροτός), see Düntzer (1864) 1979, 104  f. 124 μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ: a VE formula (4x Il.; the variant μάχην ἐς/ἀνὰ κυδ.: 4x Il.). The epithetP, otherwise ornamental, may have been revitalized here (i.e. is pointedly context-sensitive: FOR 39); in that case, it would contain the malicious insinuation that Glaukos had thus far earned no κῦδος (Martin 1989, 127). – On the formation of κυδιάνειρα, see Tronci 2000, 282  f. 125 1st VH = Od. 4.32; ≈ h.Ap. 476; cf. also Il. 16.573, Od. 4.518, h.Cer. 451 (there πρίν … τότ(ε)). — τὸ πρίν: emphatic with the sense ‘in the old days, in the whole of the past’ (in contrast to simple πρίν ‘in an earlier age’): Wackernagel (1920/24) 2009, 575; LfgrE s.v. πάρος 987.25  ff. — γε: The particle clusters in Diomedes’ speech (cf. 128, 129) and ‘contributes to its animated tone’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — προβέβηκας: ‘you have ventured to the fore (as πρόμαχος)’ (LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 20.13  f.; AH; cf. 120n.); according to others, with the metaphorical sense ‘you exceed’ (as at 23.890: Létoublon 1985, 135; Ruijgh 815). 126 θάρσει: an ambivalent term: usually positive, ‘courage’ (e.g. 5.2, 7.153, etc.) but occasionally with a negative connotation, ‘(reckless) audacity’ (clearly thus at 21.395): LfgrE; cf. also 2.212n. on the name ‘Thersites’. — ὅ τ(ε): ‘motivates the judgment expressed in σῷ θάρσει’ (AH, transl.), cf. 4.32, 15.468, etc.; approximately: ‘〈I say this〉 because’; ‘〈as can be seen in the fact〉 that’ (cf. Chantr. 2.286, who, however, reads ὅ τε in the present passage as a simple causal conjunction: ‘since’ [‘puisque’]); or temporal ὅτε with a causal implication (cf. 1.244n.): ‘now that’ [‘maintenant que’], referring to νῦν at 125 (Ruijgh 815). — δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: 44n.; according to Kirk, here with ‘sinister overtones’ signaled by the unusual position of the formula (elsewhere at VE). — ἔμεινας: on μένω/μίμνω ‘withstand, stand up to a thing’, cf. 8.536, 13.830, 15.708  f. (with reference to spears and other weapons, as here), also 12.133, 15.620 (wind and weather): LfgrE s.v. 149.32  ff.

124 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6); likewise 125. — ὄπωπα: sc. σέ. — μάχῃ ἔνι: = ἐν μάχῃ (R 20.1–2); on the hiatus, R 5.6. — κυδιανείρῃ: on the form (-ῃ after -ρ-), R 2. 125 ἀτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2).

58 

 Iliad 6

127–143 On the ring-compositionP structure of the passage, see Lohmann 1970, 12  f. (with bibliography); the central section 132–139a, in which the Lykourgos paradigm is set out in detail, is framed by the four ‘rings’ 127/143, 128/142, 129/141, 130  f./139b–140. – On narrative examples in the Iliad in general, see paradigmP; Grethlein 2006, 43–63 (taking the present passage as his starting point: 43–45) and 334–340 (collection of attestations). 127 =  21.151; 2nd VH ≈ 21.431. — The threat  – implicit or explicit  – that an opponent will not survive a duel is a standard element in Homeric challenge speeches (more commonly delivered by Achaians than representatives of the Trojan side: on the whole, the Achaians behave more confidently than their opponents); cf. e.g. 5.652–654 ≈ 11.443–445, 6.143 = 20.429, 17.30–32 ≈ 20.196–198, 21.150  f. (Stoevesandt 2004, 308  f., with further examples). Here, Diomedes lends a particular point to his threat by anticipating the mourning of Glaukos’ parents, which simultaneously causes his opponent emotional pain and treats him ‘patronisingly […] as young and inexperienced’ (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.; on the motif ‘kinsmen’s sorrow’ in challenge and triumph speeches, cf. 11.393  ff., 11.452  ff., 14.501  ff., 17.27  f., 21.122  ff., 21.151, 22.348  ff.; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 312). 128 ≈ Od. 7.199. Gods readily appear in human form in Homeric epic. Occasionally, humans see through this ‘mask’ (cf. 1.197–198n., 2.791n., 2.807n.). At the same time, humans are occasionally mistaken for gods – or speculation to this effect is expressed for rhetorical reasons, as probably here (see above): cf. 5.177  f./183 (Aineias and Pandaros on Diomedes); Od. 6.123  f./149  f. (Odysseus on Nausikaa and her servants and Odysseus addressing Nausikaa, respectively); 6.243/280  f., 7.199, 16.178  ff., 17.484  ff., 23.62  ff. (Nausikaa, Alkinoös, Telemachos, the suitors and Penelope on/to Odysseus; on this, Bierl 2004b, 49  ff.); see also 108–109n. 129 ἐπουρανίοισι: an epithet of the gods only here and at 131 (in the same position within the verse: a close interlocking of introduction and paradigm), 527, Od. 17.484; frequently paraphrased by the expression οἳ/τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι(ν) (20x in early epic); cf. also the VE formula θεοὶ οὐρανίωνες (6x in early epic: 1.570n.).

127 δυστήνων … παῖδες: ‘sons of unfortunate 〈parents〉’. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μένει ἀντιόωσιν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀντιόωσιν: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 128 εἰ δέ τις ἀθανάτων … εἰλήλουθας: τις ἀθ. is predicative, ‘but if you came … as one of the immortals …, but if you came … being one of the immortals’. — ἀθανάτων … εἰλήλουθας: on the metrical lengthening of the first syllables, R 10.1 (εἰλήλουθας = ἐλήλυθας). 129 θεοῖσιν: generalizing plural.

Commentary 

 59

130–140 Greek mythology abounds in stories of mortals who dared to compete with the gods in battles and competitions (on this, Treu [1955] 1968, 17–28); the Iliad also mentions: Thamyris 2.594  ff. (see ad loc.); Otos and Ephialtes, as well as Herakles 5.385  ff./392  ff. (Dione’s paradigmsP when comforting Aphrodite after she is wounded by Diomedes; on the relation between these stories and the present paradigm, see Sammons 2009, 23–38); Idas 9.558  ff.; Laomedon 21.441  ff.; Niobe 24.602  ff. (on this, 24.599–620n., 605–609n.); cf. also 6.200–205n. on Bellerophontes. The story of Lykourgos is one of the widespread myths that describe human resistance to Dionysos and his orgiastic cult; cf. the stories of Pentheus in Thebes (Eur. Bacchae), Orpheus in Thrace (Aesch. Bassarae, fr. 23–25 Radt; on this, West [1983] 1990, 32  ff.), the daughters of Minyas in Boiotian Orchomenos (Ov. Met. 4.1–40 and 390–415; Plut. Quaest. Gr. 38), Perseus (Paus. 2.20.4 and 2.22.1) and the daughters of Proitos in Argos (‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 2.2.2 [= 2.26], referring to Hesiod; on this, West 1985, 78  f.), etc. These are apparently aetiological myths concerning rituals that are enacted differently at a local level but are related in their core structure; for detailed discussion, see Dodds (1944) 1960, XXV–XXVII; Privitera 1970, 14–19; Burkert (1972) 1997, 191–200; (1977) 1985, 164  f.; Casadio 1994, esp. 83–99, 111–116, 252–263; Davies 2000, 23–25. – The myth of Lykourgos is transmitted in various versions. Not all of them portray Dionysos as being as helpless as this one does: in the majority of sources, the god avenges himself on Lykourgos by inflicting him with madness (see Dodds loc. cit.; West [1983] 1990, 26–32; Fornaro 1994, 154; LIMC s.v. ‘Lykourgos I’). 130 Lykourgos: In older sources, a king in Thrace (‘Eumelos’ Europia, fr. 27 West), where he was ruler of the Edones (Aesch. Edones, fr. 57–67 Radt; Soph. Ant. 955–965); on later divergent localizations of the myth, BNP and LIMC s.v. οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδέ: ‘since even  … not’ (as at 13.269 etc.; see Chantr. 2.337  f.); an introduction to a mythological paradigm also at 18.117: a negative counterpart to καὶ γάρ at 19.95, 24.602, etc. (Davies 2000, 18 n. 16). — υἱός: The first syllable should be read as short (υ-yος, perhaps derived from older ὑύς): Chantr. 1.168, 228  f.; West 1998, XXXIV; 1.489n. 131–132 ὅς ῥα  … ὅς ποτε: ‘the two relative clauses have complementary tasks: the first states the main point of the story’ (θεοῖσιν ἐπουρανίοισιν ἔριζεν reprises the phrase θεοῖσιν ἐπουρανίοισι μαχοίμην at 129); ‘the second introduces a detailed account of what happened’: Graziosi/Haubold.

130 Λυκόοργος: on the uncontracted form, R 6 (but cf. 134: Λυκούργου).

60 

 Iliad 6

131 At 5.407, Aphrodite’s mother Dione speaks in a similar fashion about Diomedes. But her prophecy of his imminent death is not fulfilled (cf. 200– 205n. end). δὴν ἦν: on the predicative use of the adverb, see 1.416n.; Schw. 2.414  f.; Chantr. 2.9; cf. also Hoffmann (1952/56) 1976 (with examples from other IE languages).

132 fosterers: According to h.Hom. 26.3  ff., Zeus handed his newborn son Dionysos to the nymphs of the Nysa range, who brought him up and later ranged through the mountains with him. In the episode narrated here, Dionysos is probably to be imagined as still a child (Kirk on 132–137: ‘child-god’). — Dionysos: worshipped since the Mycenaean period (on the attestations in Linear B, see BNP s.v. with bibliography; Palaima 1998), but mentioned in Homer only here and at 14.325, Od. 11.325 and 24.74; cf. also Il. 22.460 (comparison between Andromache and a maenad) and 6.388–389n. On the god’s marginality in Homer, see CG 10 (the cult of Dionysos, which is supported almost exclusively by women and ‘radically intervenes in the ordinary lives of communities’, has no place in the main action of the epic); further considerations in Privitera 1970; Granata 1991; Wathelet 1991; Seaford 1994, 328  ff.; Davies 2000; Tsagalis 2008, 1–13, 26–29; Rangos 2009; Graziosi/Haubold on 130–140 (‘In this episode he is mentioned precisely as a limit-case: even the least martial of gods should not be attacked’) and on 132. μαινομένοιο: The behavior that Dionysos, as god of ecstasy, elsewhere triggers in others is ‘projected’ onto the god himself; on this phenomenon, Henrichs 1994, esp. 44–47.

133 Nyseian hill: a variously located (schol. D) mythological region where Dionysos grew up (132n.); the name (difficult to interpret etymologically) may be linked to the final element of the name Dio-nysos (LfgrE s.v. with bibliography). ἠγάθεον: ‘most holy’, a generic epithetP of toponyms (1.252n., cf. 1.38n.); here perhaps with a pregnant sense (LfgrE s.v.). — ἅμα πᾶσαι: 59–60n. 134 θύσθλα: The etymology and precise meaning have been a matter of dispute since antiquity (sources collected in Pisani 1934, 225  f.; Moreschini Quattordio 1974, 36–38); either a precursor of the Classical thyrsos (θύσθλα < *θύρσ-θλα: DELG following Benveniste 1935, 203; Krauskopf 2001); or general cult equipment of maenads (related to θυ(ί)ω ‘rave’, connected secondarily with θύω ‘sacrifice’: Frisk 1.697 and 3.108; LfgrE s.v. θύσθλα; Beekes s.v. is skeptical of all attempts to identify a Greek etymology: ‘rather

131 δήν: adv., ‘for long’. — ἦν: here a full verb, ‘lived’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). 132 Διωνύσοιο: = Διονύσου (on the declension, R 11.2). 133 σεῦε: aor. of σεύω ‘chase away, hunt’. 134 χαμαί: adv., ‘on the ground’. — κατέχευαν: ‘let fall’, epic aor. of καταχέω.

Commentary 

 61

[…] a loan, either from Anatolian or from Pre-Greek’). — ὑπ’ ἀνδροφόνοιο Λυκούργου: an example of the use, rare in Homer, of ὑπό + gen. for the agent of a passive verb (Schw. 2.529; Chantr. 2.143, 180  f.; Aliffi 2002, 414; George 2005, 61–66 [with further bibliography]). – Cf. also Finkelberg 2012, 91–95: The present passage (130–137), like many direct speeches in Homer, displays an accumulation of linguistically recent elements (i.e. dating to the time of the written version of the Iliad); one of these is the contracted form Λυκούργου (beside the older Λυκόοργος at 130). — ἀνδροφόνοιο: a generic epithetP going back to the common IE poetic diction (Schmitt 1967, 123–127); frequently of Hektor (1.242n., 6.498n., 24.509n.), elsewhere of Ares, Achilleus’ hands, and 1x each of a lance and a poison: LfgrE s.v. 135a βουπλῆγι: a Homeric hapaxP; according to schol. D and T, either a cow-hide whip or an axe for killing sacrificial cattle (cf. Anth. Pal. 9.352; thus in Nonnos’ version of the story, Dionysiaca 20.322  ff., etc.); Eust. 629.51 adds ‘ox-goad’ (βούκεντρον). The third interpretation is supported by the use of the homonym μύωψ (‘spur, goad’) in the Europia ascribed to Eumelos, fr. 27 West (the version of the Lykourgos myth closest to that of the Iliad in terms of content; the date is uncertain, perhaps 7th/6th cent.: West 2002, 131  f.). The iconographic evidence begins in the 5th cent. BC and usually shows Lykourgos with a double axe, but it relates predominantly to episodes of the myth attested only in the post-Homeric period (particularly involving Lykourgos, struck with madness, killing his wife and son): LIMC s.v. ‘Lykourgos I’. – There may be a connection between Lykourgos’ βουπλήξ and the variously attested idea of Dionysiac epiphanies in the shape of a bull (carmina popularia 871 Page [Elian cult song], Aesch. fr. 23 Radt, Eur. Ba. 920  ff., etc.; on this, Leaf; Brillante; Fornaro 1994, 152).

135b–137 For the stress on the god’s fear, see 123–143n. end (elsewhere men tremble before gods: 24.170n.). 135b φοβηθείς: see 41n. According to schol. A ad loc., Zenodotus’ text offered the variant χολωθείς: possibly an early rhapsodic correction, inspired by the criticism of Homeric depictions of deities that began in the 6th cent. (in this case likely combined with an athetesis of 137 – although this is not attested): West 2001, 23–28, esp. 27; but perhaps merely a conjecture to avoid the tautology φοβηθείς/δειδιότα (137): Nickau 1977, 193.

136 2nd VH ≈ 18.398 (Hephaistos recalls Eurynome and Thetis sheltering him when his mother Hera cast him down from Olympos); on Thetis’ role as a helper of other deities, cf. also 1.396  ff. (with n.); Slatkin 1991, 53  ff. — dived into the salt surf: cf. the myth, recounted in h.Bacch., of the Tyrrhenian sailors turned into dolphins by Dionysos (Graziosi/Haubold with bibliography). δύσεθ’: a thematic s-aorist (hypotheses on its origin: 3.262n. s.v. βήσετο). — (ὑπε)δέξατο κόλπῳ: a VE formula (483, 18.398, h.Cer. 231; cf. h.Hom. 26.4 δεξάμεναι κόλποισι, of Dionysos’ nurses). – κόλπος originally denoted the female bosom (and the portion of

136 δύσεθ’: = δύσετο, s-aor. of δύομαι (beside the root aor. ἔδυ): ↑.

62 

 Iliad 6

the garment enveloping it; cf. 24.215n. on βαθύκολπος), particularly with reference to mothers and nurses who hold a child to their bosom or take it to their breast, where it finds shelter and security (cf. 400, 467, and the above-listed attestations of the present phrase): Laser 1983, 32; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 70. But here the second meaning ‘marine gulf, bay’ may also be implied (‘Thetis’ denotes both the marine deity and her affiliated element, cf. CG 28): LfgrE s.v. κόλπος.

138–140 On the motif ‘divine hatred as a cause of human suffering’, see Irmscher 1950, 15  f. (collection of passages) and passim. 138 ὀδύσαντο: aside from Od. 19.407 (an etymological wordplay, see Russo ad loc.), always referring to gods’ anger at mortals (LfgrE s.v.). — θεοὶ ῥεῖα ζώοντες: a VE formula (= Od. 4.805, 5.122); like μάκαρ (141, cf. 1.339n.), used to characterize gods in contrast to δειλοὶ/ὀϊζυροὶ βροτοί (AH).

139 son of Kronos: on Zeus as the guarantor of law, see CG 24. — blindness: ‘a traditional punishment for impiety’ (Kirk with reference to Teiresias [for the various versions of the myth, see KlP and BNP s.v.]); cf. also the legend of the blinding of Stesichoros after his blasphemous remarks concerning Helen (Plat. Phaedr. 243a = Stesichoros fr. 192 Page/Davies). Further attestations of the notion, widespread in antiquity, that blindness and ailments of the eyes generally were punishments sent by the gods: John 9:2; Acts 9:8  f.; confessional inscriptions from western Asia Minor dating to the 1st–3rd cent. AD (Petzl 1994, nos. 5, 16, 45, 49, 50, etc.); see also Gartziou-Tatti 2010 (with further bibliography). οὐδ’ ἄρ’ ἔτι δήν: a VE formula (4x Il., 3x Od.; 1x Od. at VB), here in integral enjambmentP followed by the predicate ἦν; this reprises the phrase δὴν ἦν at 131 as part of the ring-compositionP (cf. 127–143n.). 140 2nd VH = 200 (of Bellerophontes), ≈ Od. 14.366. — πᾶσι θεοῖσιν: a VE formula (6x each in Il./Od., 2x h.Hom.; in addition 2x Od. after caesura A 3). 141 οὐδ’ ἂν ἐγὼ … ἐθέλοιμι: an elliptical expression for ‘I, too, would likely not have long to live, if I … wanted to fight’ (AH, transl.).

137 δειδιότα: = δεδιότα (δειδ- < *δεδϝ-, R 4.2), part. of the perf. δείδω/δείδια, with present meaning. — ἔχε: = εἶχε (R 16.1), sc. αὐτόν. — ὀμοκλῇ: dat. of cause. 138 τῷ: sc. Lykourgos — ῥεῖα: adv., ‘easily, at ease’. — ζώοντες: = ζῶντες (R 8), pres. part. of ζώειν (= ζῆν). 139 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἔτι δ(ϝ)ήν: on the prosody, R 4.5. 140 ἀπήχθετο: aor. of ἀπεχθάνομαι ‘make oneself hated, be hated’. 141 μακάρεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3.

Commentary 

 63

142 1st VH = Od. 6.153 (Odysseus to Nausikaa); 2nd VH ≈ Il. 21.465, cf. also h.Ap. 365, ‘Hes.’ fr. 211.13 M.-W. — who eat what the soil yields: sc. in contrast to the gods (see 5.339  ff. with Kirk ad loc.), who feed on nectar and ambrosia (Od. 5.92  f., 5.195  ff.; cf. Il. 5.777, 19.38n., 19.161n.); similar expressions: 13.322, Od. 8.222 ≈ 9.89 = 10.101, 9.191 (AH). 143 =  20.429 (Achilleus to Aineias; on parallels between the two scenes, see 120n., 145–211n.). On threats of this type in challenge speeches, see 127n. ἄσσον  … θάσσον: on the accentuation, West 1998, XX; on the rhyming effect, cf. 5.440 φράζεο … χάζεο (Leaf; Kirk; Macleod, Introd. 51: ‘a calculated form of [stylistic] heightening’, with further examples of deliberate use of acoustic effects). — ὥς κεν … ὀλέθρου πείραθ’ ἵκηαι: cf. Od. 23.212b = h.Ven. 106b γήραος οὐδὸν ἱκέσθαι, Od. 11.317b ἥβης μέτρον ἵκοντο, etc.: the periphrastic expressions aid the versification at VE (suggestion by Führer). The exact meaning of the present phrase is uncertain, since πεῖραρ in early epic can mean ‘boundary’ (e.g. in the VE formula πείρατα/πείρασι γαίης: 7x in early epic) as well as ‘cord, (end of a length of) rope’ (Od. 12.51 etc.); on the disputed etymology and semantic development, see LfgrE s.v.; Janko on 13.358–360. Here used metaphorically, either ‘in order for you to … reach the borderland of your doom’ (LfgrE following Bergren 1975, 35  ff.; developed from phrases such as 8.478  f. τὰ νείατα πείραθ’ ἵκηαι | γαίης) or ‘in order for you to … be bound by the ties of doom’ (AH and others; cf. the VE formula ὀλέθρου πείρατ’ ἐφῆπται/ἐφῆπτο [7.402 etc., 4x Il./Od.] and the related metaphors κήδε’ ἐφῆπται [2.32n.], ἄτῃ ἐνέδησε βαρείῃ [2.111n.], μοῖρ’ ἐπέδησεν [22.5]).

144 2nd VH =  21.97; ≈ 21.152, Od. 16.308. — the shining son of Hippolochos: a periphrastic denominationP of Glaukos; perhaps employed deliberately in preparation for the genealogy that follows (esp. 206  ff.): de Jong (1987) 2004, 198. φαίδιμος υἱός: an inflectible VE formula (nom./acc.; in total 4x Il., 10x Od., 3x Hes., 1x h.Hom.; in addition 2x Od. after caesura A 3). φαίδιμος may have originally served to describe heroes in the splendor of their armor (cf. 12.462  ff.), but is used in early epic with the general meaning ‘radiant, beautiful, stately’ (a generic epithetP of heroes [Hektor, Aias, Achilleus, etc.] and of body parts [γυῖα: 7x Il., 1x Hes.; ὤμῳ: 2x Od.]): LfgrE s.v. with bibliography.

142 ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6). 143 κεν: = ἄν (which occurs in Homer also in final clauses: R 21.1). — πείραθ’: = πείρατα, acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2; on the meaning, ↑). — ἵκηαι: uncontracted (R 6) 2nd sing. aor. subjunc. of ἱκνέομαι. 144 αὖθ’: = αὖτε.

64 

 Iliad 6

145–211 Glaukos initially seems inclined to disregard Diomedes’ question regarding his identity (=  ancestry: 145n.), but then responds to it comprehensively (150–211: the longest genealogical narrative in the Iliad); his reflections on the transience of human life (leaf simile 146–149) show a certain tension with the pride in his own lineage that he reveals in what follows (esp. 151b and 206–211). For that reason, some interpreters regard the leaf simile as a topos, inserted for its own sake and only superficially adapted to the context (Fränkel 1921, 41; Holoka 1976, 78  f.; West 1997, 365, and 2011 on verse 145; Pelliccia 2002, 223–230). But (1) Glaukos’ behavior is paralleled at 20.200– 258, where Aineias’ own comments on the uselessness of long speeches do not deter him from dwelling at length on his genealogy; both speeches can be interpreted as expressions of a certain ‘nervous hesitation’ (Willcock 1992, 68–72). (2) Glaukos’ vacillation between pessimism (entirely appropriate in the face of looming danger: Broccia 1963, 85  f.; Craig 1967, 243  f.) and proud self-confidence is ‘characteristic of Homeric psychology’ (Griffin 1980, 72): cf. 4.160–168 vs. 169–182 (Agamemnon), 6.447–465 vs. 476–481 (Hektor), and esp. 20.213–241 vs. 242  f. (Aineias). (3) Glaukos’ reference to the transience of human life and his pride in his ancestors are only apparently contradictory; for Homeric heroes, knowledge of transitoriness is a particular incentive to obtain fame – and thus a kind of immortality – via great deeds (see 12.322– 328, Sarpedon to Glaukos). After Bellerophontes’ sad end and the premature death of two of his children (200–205: an implicit illustration of 146–149), responsibility for the family’s reputation now rests on Glaukos (and his cousin Sarpedon) alone; he reminds himself of this responsibility at 206–211 (Griffin 1980, 72  f.; Macleod, Introd. 11  f.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 166–168; Goldhill 1991, 77–79; Susanetti 1999, 100–102; Aceti 2008, 45–57; Collobert 2012, 43–47, 50 and passim [cf. the review by Stoevesandt 2014]). – Other interpreters read the speech, including the leaf simile, as a witty repartee to Diomedes’ verbal attack: Kirk on 144–151 (Glaukos’ answer ‘is both witty and clever […] The reflective tone makes Diomedes’ sarcasm sound cheap […]’); Martin 1989, 128  f.; Lowry 1995; Pelliccia 2002 (with interesting observations on the formal composition of 146–149); cf. also 200–205n. end. In this view, Glaukos is not intimidated in any way, but then it remains difficult to explain his behavior at 234–236 (see ad loc.). On the structure of the speech, see Lohmann 1970, 89–91: framing of the genealogical narrative by a ring-compositionP, 145–151/211 (expansion of the outer ring’s first component as at 7.124–131/159  f., 11.656–668a/762b–764, 19.155–161/171–172a); enumeration of three generations each at 152–155 and 196–210 as the second ring that encloses Bellerophontes’ adventures (156–195).

Commentary 

 65

145 ≈ 21.153 (Asteropaios to Achilleus). Glaukos and Asteropaios evidently understand the question regarding their identity (6.123, 21.150) as referring to their lineage; both subsequently identify themselves exclusively via their ancestors, without providing their own names (thus also the Myrmidon Hermes impersonates at 24.397, Nausikaa at Od. 6.196, Telemachos at Od. 15.267: Fenik 1974, 18  f.; Fornaro 1992, 20 n. 25; on ancestry as a primary means of identification, cf. also the formulaic verse at Od. 1.170 [etc.] with West ad loc.). μεγάθυμε: a generic epithetP of heroes and peoples (1.123n.).

146–149 On comparisonsP and similesP in character speech, see 2.289n. – Leaves, flowers and grass are common images of human transience; Glaukos here also implicitly answers Diomedes’ question as to whether he is man or god. In the Iliad, the image is found a second time at 21.464–466a (there used by Apollo, who refuses to fight Poseidon for the sake of short-lived humans); cf. also 17.53  ff., 18.54  ff., etc. (Grethlein 2006, 87–94; Kelly 2007, 289–291; see also D’Alfonso 2008, 8–14, who links the passage to ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.124  ff. M.-W.: the simile represents the condition humaine that began with the separation of men and gods; further Rangos 2009, 72–76, who reads the simile against a background of religious notions stemming from the cult of Dionysos). On further attestations in Greco-Roman literature and the question of the extent to which later poets were influenced by the present passage, see Delz 1995, 9–12; Sider (1996) 2001; Burgess 2001, 117–126 (with further bibliography p. 235 n. 252); Pelliccia 2002, 197, 222  f., 229  f.; Rangos 2009, 76–82; Graziosi/ Haubold on 146–9 and 146. The motif probably derives from Near Eastern literature (examples in the Old Testament: Job 14:2  f., Psalms 90:5  f., 103:15  f., Isaiah 40:6  f., etc.; on this, West 1997, 365; Burgess loc. cit. 121  f.; Grethlein 2006a, 4 n. 2). The interpretation of the details of the present simile is disputed: φύει at 149 (see below) poses difficulties, as does the broad range of meanings possible for the key word γενεή. In the simile’s frame at 145/151, γενεή is used with the sense ‘descent’ (i.e. ‘«lineage» […] with aspects of ancestry’: LfgrE s.v. 126.65  f., transl.). At 146, γενεὴ φύλλων/ ἀνδρῶν evidently denotes the entirety of leaves and men (‘human race’ [without aspects of ancestry] = ‘human kind’, transferred to the leaves: Grethlein 2006a, 5; similarly LfgrE s.v. 128.60  ff.; Fornaro 1994, 155; cf. 146n.; the meaning ‘generation’, adopted by

145 τίη: ‘why?’. 146 οἵη περ: ‘just as’ (R 24.10). — δέ: In Homer, the particle can signal the transition to the main clause (apodotic δέ: R 24.3). 147 τὰ μέν … ἄλλα δέ: ‘some … but other (sc. new) ones’ (in reference to φύλλα). — τ(ε) … θ’: 2x ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

66 

 Iliad 6

many interpreters [see Grethlein loc. cit. n. 6], hardly makes sense here). 147  ff. are more difficult; possible interpretations: (1) φύει is to be understood as transitive in 148 (with its normal meaning ‘brings forth, produces’) but intransitive in 149 (‘grows, develops, emerges’); the expected underlying idea, ‘growth and decline of leaves corresponds to the growth and decline of human γενεαί’, is expressed most pointedly in this way (Faesi/Franke, Leaf, etc.). The intransitive use of φύω is unparalleled in Homer – and surprising immediately after the standard use in 148 – but possible linguistically (149n.). γενεή at 149 then means either (a) ‘generation’ (thus among others Fränkel 1921, 41; Griffin 1980, 72; Pelliccia 2002, 217; Fornaro 1992, 33): suggested by the image at 147  f.; but in that case the connection of the thought with 145/151 is hard to see (LfgrE s.v. 128.15  ff.). Alternatively, the word is used with the meaning (b) ‘lineage, family’ (again without aspects of ancestry): ‘it emphasizes the transience even of noble families and distinguished lineages’ (LfgrE s.v. 128.13  ff., transl.). (2) φύει is transitive at 148 and at 149; (a) γενεή is again ‘family’: ‘one procreates, the other ceases (i.e. dies out)’: suggestion by Führer, transl. (similarly LSJ s.v. φύω A II). (b) ἀνδρῶν γενεή in 149, as in 146, denotes the ‘human race’ and is parallel with ὕλη in 147; ἣ μὲν … ἣ δ(έ) at 149 is to be understood as a distributive apposition (K.-G. 1.286  ff.): as the wind blows leaves to the ground, while the forest regrows them, ‘so also the race of men: in part it brings forth (men), in part it ceases to do so …’ (Grethlein 2006a, quotation from p. 10, transl.; similarly Fornaro 1994, 155). In this case, however, the lack of analogy between 147a and 149b remains somewhat unsatisfactory. Solutions (1) (b) and (2) (a) appear preferable to the others. 146 φύλλων: ‘a pun on φῦλα, «tribes», which is close in meaning to γενεή =  «race»’: Graziosi/Haubold with reference to ‘Musaios’ (VS 2 B 5): ὡς δ’ αὔτως καὶ φύλλα φύει ζείδωρος ἄρουρα· | ἄλλα μὲν ἐν μελίῃσιν ἀποφθίνει, ἄλλα δὲ φύει· | ὣς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπων γενεὴ καὶ φῦλον ἑλίσσει. 148 τηλεθόωσα: τηλεθάω (only the participle occurs in Homer) is an ‘expressive present’ derived from θάλλω (with dissimilation of the aspirate *θηλ- > τηλ-): DELG s.v. θάλλω B  3, transl. — ὥρῃ: The tradition varies between dat. ὥρῃ (schol. A ascribes this to Aristophanes of Byzantium; on his text, see HT 11) and nom. ὥρη; the parallel φύλλα … γίνεται ὥρῃ at 2.468 ≈ Od. 9.51 supports Aristophanes’ reading (but cf. Graziosi/ Haubold ad loc.). 149 φύει: If understood as intransitive (146–149n.), this may be a linguistic innovation arising from the ‘antithetical dynamics’ of the passage: Pelliccia 2002, 218–220, with reference to Hes. Op. 5: (Zeus) ῥέα μὲν γὰρ βριάει (‘makes strong’), ῥέα δὲ βριάοντα (‘one who is strong’) χαλέπτει; on the intransitive use of otherwise transitive verbs in general, K.-G. 1.91–96; Schw. 2.219. The conjecture φύεθ’ (Bothe/Brandreth) thus appears unnecessary.

148 τηλεθόωσα: on the epic lengthening, R 8; on the word formation, ↑. — φύει, (ϝ)έαρος: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἐπιγίνεται: = ἐπιγίγνεται; sc. φύλλα as the subject.

Commentary 

 67

150–151 = 20.213  f.; 150 also ≈ 21.487. — εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις καὶ ταῦτα δαήμεναι …: The apodosis (ἴσθι vel sim.) can easily be supplied from the context (similarly e.g. 1.135  f. [see ad loc.], 21.487, Od. 1.188; on this, Schw. 2.687, Chantr. 2.275). Punctuation after ἐθέλεις (with δαήμεναι as imperatival inf.), favored by Nikanor (schol. A) and others, appears artificial by comparison. — καὶ ταῦτα: referring to Diomedes’ question about Glaukos’ identity (AH; Leaf). — ὄφρ’ εὖ εἴδῃς: an inflectible VE formula (1.185n.; cf. 6.438n.). — ἡμετέρην γενεήν: ‘our’ in the sense of ‘my and my kinsmen’s/ancestors’ lineage’ (LfgrE s.v. γενεή 127.36  f., transl.; cf. Chantr. 2.33). Differently, Ebeling s.v. ἡμέτερος (‘meus’); in cautious agreement with this, Floyd 1969, 126  f. (ἡμετ. may mark an emphatic contrast: ‘my origin’ as opposed to that of all other humans). — πολλοὶ δέ μιν ἄνδρες ἴσασιν: on the pride expressed by these words, see 145–211n.; at the same time, probably ‘a putdown, answering Diomedes’ insults’ (at 124  f.): Graziosi/Haubold.

152–211 Genealogies are a characteristic element of Homeric challenge and triumph speeches (cf. 5.635–642, 13.448–453a, 14.472–474, 20.206–241, 21.157– 160, 21.184–191; on this, Lang 1994; Stoevesandt 2004, 329–335; Grethlein 2006, 65–84). The present genealogical narrative contains a number of distinctive features that have provoked scholarly interest; matters of discussion are, in particular: (1) the link established between Greece and Lykia (152  ff. [see 154n. with bibliography], 196n., 209  f.); (2) the fairytale-like features of the Bellerophontes narrative and the accumulation of motifs of Near Eastern provenance (on this, EM s.v. Bellerophon; Dornseiff 1934, 72  f.; Radermacher [1938] 1943, 97–117; Strömberg 1961; Astour 1965, 250–276; Petersmann 1981, 55–57; White 1982; Burkert 1983, 51–53; Bertolini 1989, 138–140; West 1997, 365–367; for details, see 160–166n., 168–170n., 178–195n., 179–182n., 201–202n.); (3) the fragmentary nature of the narrative, which in some places is limited to mere allusions – especially concerning the role of the gods (on this phenomenon, found on occasion in secondary storiesP, in general, see Scodel 2002, 124–154; similarly allusive are e.g. the stories surrounding Diomedes’ father Tydeus at 4.376–398/405–409 and 14.113–125); related are the questions of (a) whether and where the poet of the Iliad had recourse to older narrative traditions, knowledge of which he could take for granted in his audience, and (b) what aims he was pursuing with his individual arrangement of the material (especially where the omission or alteration of elements set by tradition can be considered plausible). On this complex of issues, Maftei 1976, 38–40, 45– 50 (summary of the discussion in antiquity); Malten 1944; Kullmann 1956, 22–25; Peppermüller 1961 and 1962; Gaisser 1969; Andersen 1978, 101–105;

150 δαήμεναι: inf. of the aor. ἐδάην, ‘find out, learn of’ (R 16.4). — ὄφρ(α): final (R 22.5). — εὖ (ϝ)είδῃς: on the prosody, R 4.4. 151 μιν: = αὐτήν (R 14.1).

68 

 Iliad 6

de Jong (1987) 2004, 162–168; Fornaro 1992, 40–56; Scodel 1992; Alden 1996 and 2000, 131–152; Assunção 1997; Grethlein 2006, 78–84; Aceti 2008, 45–57 and esp. 187–194; for details, see 153n., 157n., 183n., 191n. and esp. 200–205n. 152 2nd VH =  Od. 3.263. — There is a city  …: New locales and characters are often introduced with ésti/ḗn (‘there is’ / ‘there was’) placed in emphatic position at VB; this narrative pattern has parallels in IE (2.811n. with bibliography; West 2007, 93) as well as Near Eastern literature (West 1997, 259). — Ephyre, in the corner of horse-pasturing | Argos: Ephyre/Ephyra is a frequent toponym (RE s.v.). The localization of the city referred to here is a matter of dispute (see below); but the poet of the Iliad clearly thinks of it as situated in the part of the northeast Peloponnese later known as the ‘Argolid’, which in mythological tradition is firmly linked to the name Proitos (157n.; on the – ambiguous – toponym ‘Argos’, see LfgrE s.v. and cf. 1.30n., 2.108n.). Schol. A, bT ad loc., likely justifiably (cf. 2.570n.), identify Ephyre with Corinth, which in other sources appears as the backdrop of the myths surrounding Sisyphos and Bellerophontes (‘Eumelos’ Corinthiaca, frr. 19 and 23–25 West; Pind. Ol. 13.49– 93; on this, Gostoli 2012). This identification has often been called into question in modern scholarship, on the grounds that the expression μυχῷ Ἄργεος – used at Od. 3.263 in reference to Mycenae – is unsuitable for Corinth and refers instead to a remote location ‘in the interior’ of the Argolid (thus, among others, Leaf; Sakellariou 1968, 901  f.; West 2002, 130; Visser 1997, 158 with n. 12) or elsewhere in Greece (‘Argos’ in a wider sense: Graziosi/ Haubold), since the phrase ἐν μυχῷ is otherwise used to refer to the interiors of houses (sleeping or private quarters) or to the rearmost corners of grottoes (e.g. 9.663 = 24.675, 22.440, Od. 5.226, 9.236, 13.363). It is unlikely, however, that an important king’s seat of power would be imagined as in a remote location; instead, ‘in a corner’ should be understood in the sense ‘on the edge’ (which also fits Mycenae, located at the southern border of Agamemnon’s realm; cf. the map in Visser loc. cit. 156 and LfgrE s.v. τὸ Ἄργος 1209.30  ff.): suggestion by Latacz; cf. also Gostoli 2012, 86. — μυχῷ Ἄργεος: Datives in -ῳ and -ῃ, shortened in hiatus, often have a locative function in Homer and may derive from *-οι/*-αι (originally short diphthongs): Hoffmann in Dürbeck 1978, 43–47; this is particularly plausible in the present case: the locative μυχοῖ is attested at Od. 21.146 in the form μυχοί-τατος ‘in the farthest corner’ (Dürbeck loc. cit. n. 8; cf. LfgrE s.v. μυχός/μυχοίτατος). — Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο: a VE formula (7x in early epic: 2.287n.). The generic epithetP of landscapes ἱππόβοτος (ἵππος + βόσκω, ‘horse-pasturing’) is used with Ἄργος in total 14x in early epic (independent of whether the later ‘Argolid’, the Peloponnese or the whole of Greece is referred to), also 1x each with Elis, Trikke, etc; cf. εὔπωλος as an epithet of Ἴλιος/Δαρδανίη: in the Iliad, horse breeding is equally impor-

152 πόλις(ς) Ἐφύρη: on the prosody, M 4.6.

Commentary 

 69

tant to Greeks and Trojans (LfgrE s.v. Ἄργος and ἱππόβοτος; Sauzeau 2004, esp. 132  ff. [with bibliography]; cf. also 2.23n., 2.230n.). 153–154 Σίσυφος … | Σίσυφος Αἰολίδης: Epanalepses, used only exceptionally in Homer (2.672n.) as a means of emphasis, facilitate the addition of supplementary information (Fehling 1969, 183–185); they thus occur frequently in genealogies and other catalogue-poetry (Fornaro 1992, 40 n. 68; collection of examples: 2.672n.; cf. also 2.871n., 6.394–399n. end). For parallels in Near Eastern and IE literature, see West 1997, 256  f., and 2007, 106  f.

153 Sisyphos: a mythical king of Ephyre/Corinth, known largely as a penitent in the underworld (Od. 11.593–600, suspected without reason as a ‘rhapsodic expansion’ by Kirk). The majority of sources stipulate Sisyphos’ attempt to escape death through cunning as the reason for his punishment (Alcaeus fr. 38a Voigt), whether he did this by persuading Persephone (Theognis 702–712 West) or by binding Thanatos and outwitting Hades (Pherecydes FGrHist 3 F 119 = fr. 119 Fowler); see BNP and HE s.v.; Gostoli 2012, 88–91. Sisyphos’ characterization as kérdistos andrṓn, ‘most clever/cunning of men’ (see LfgrE s.v. κέρδιστος), and the early attestation of the myth suggest that the rudiments of the story were known to both the poet of the Iliad and his audience; it is of course omitted from the narrative of Glaukos, who aims to portray his family in the best light possible (cf. 157n., 183n., 200–205n.). ἔσκεν … γένετ(ο): durative ἔσκεν (cf. 19n.) beside declarative γένετο: ‘he lived … he was’; γένετο here functions as aor. of the copula ἐστίν (cf. 210, 24.61, etc.): Kölligan 2007, 89, 97. 154–155 τέκεθ’ … | … ἔτικτεν: In early epic, τίκτειν in the aor. mid. and impf. act. usually denotes the male act of procreation, whereas the aor. act. (e.g. 196, 199) is largely used in the sense ‘give birth’ (Kirk; LfgrE s.v. with bibliography; on the development of the use of the word in epic, Hoekstra 1981, 72–81, 92–96).

154 Aiolos’ son: Aiolos (not identical with the custodian of the winds mentioned at Od. 10.2) is a son of Hellen (‘Hes.’ fr. 9 M.-W.) and the ancestor of the Greek Aiolians. The tracing of a non-Greek family from Greek origins is remarkable and unparalleled in the Iliad, and suggests that the present genealogical construct reflects historical contact between Greece and Lykia; the idea is supported by the accumulation of Near Eastern motifs in the story of Bellerophontes. But a closer determination of the time and manner of these contacts is difficult, given the sources available. The Hittite Tawagalawaletter provides an early attestation of Greek-Lykian relations (13th cent. BC:

153 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pron. functioning as a relative pron. (R 14.5). 154 υἱόν: predicative, ‘as a son’.

70 

 Iliad 6

the ‘people of Lukka’ [ancestors of the Lykians], driven from their homes, found shelter with the brother of the king of ‘Achijawa’ [Mycenaean Greece: 2.494–759n., 3. (1)]; on this, Bryce 1992, 125–130; Mellink 1995, 35). From the end of the 10th cent. (Dorian colonisation) at the latest, there appear to have been repeated confrontations between Lykians and Greek settlers from Rhodes (2.653–670n.; Kirk on 5.627–669 [duel between Sarpedon and the Rhodian leader Tlepolemos] and 6.168–170; Frei 1978). The 8th-cent. ‘Renaissance’ eventually led to a closer cultural exchange between East and West (on this in general, Burkert [1984] 1992; Latacz [1985] 1996, 52–56, with further bibliography; with reference to the story of Bellerophontes: Burkert 1983, 51–53; Kullmann 1999, 107; [1999] 2002, 70–72). Which contact(s) led to the formation of the present mythological tradition is a matter of dispute; the hypothesis that it merges reminiscences of historical situations of various dates is most plausible (a balanced portrayal: Bryce 1986, 11–41 [with reservations: Bryce 1992]; Aceti 2008, 155–224; on the amalgamated character of the Homeric epics, cf. 2.494–759n., 3. (3); 2.816–877n. end; 6.117–118n. end). Unprovable is the theory, still maintained today, that the poet of the Iliad or one of his predecessors had personal contacts with Lykian rulers and created a Greek pedigree for them at their request (thus, among others, Malten 1944; Frei 1978, 826; Hiller 1993, 109, 115 [who admittedly posits a historical core for the myth in the Mycenaean period]; Patzek 1996, 220; contra: Tsagalis 2010, 106–108; cf. also 2.820n. on the ‘Aeneiadae hypothesis’). — Glaukos: the homonymous great-grandfather of the speaker. 155 Bellerophontes: The origin and etymology of the name are disputed. Understood as ‘Slayer of Belleros’ in the scholia, and likely understood thus also in the Homeric period (the final element as in Hermes’ cult-title ‘Argeïphontes’ [on which, 2.103n.] and in Lykophontes, Polyphontes [von Kamptz 78]). At the same time, Belleros plays only a minor role in the mythological tradition; the explanation in the D-scholia (= Asklepiades FGrHist 12 F 13) that the reference is to the Corinthian leader Belleros, after whose slaying Bellerophontes fled to Proitos (cf. 157n.), appears to be an ad hoc invention (Kirk: ‘His name clearly invited all sorts of speculation […]’). Kretschmer 1948, aiming to retain the ancient etymology, regards ‘Belleros’ as the pre-Greek name of a local demon or monster who was the eponym of the region ‘Pelleritis’ on the border between the Corinthia and the Argolid (with approval: von Kamptz 186). But ‘Bellero-phontes’ might also be a folk etymological reinterpretation of a foreign name (Lykian: Malten 1944, 10  f., with bibliography; Semitic: Astour 1965, 225–240, following Lewy 1895, 190–193; White 1982, 120–122; Thracian: Bonfante 1998, 560; in general, see Frisk, DELG).

Commentary 

 71

ἀμύμονα: 22–23n.; Bellerophontes is alternately given the epithets ἀμύμων (here and at 190) and δαΐφρων (162 [see ad loc.], 196), although δαΐφρων would be metrically possible in all four passages (sc. omitting the preceding ny ephelkystikon at 155 and at 190): likely deliberate variatio (suggestion by Führer; on this phenomenon in general: Friedrich 2007, 68–77; cf. 263n.).

156–159 A brief synopsis of the events described in more detail at 160–170; similarly e.g. 37–38a : 38b–44 (see 37–44n.), 3.328  f. : 330–338, 11.16 : 17–46, 16.257  f. : 259–276a, 20.79  f. : 81–110, Od. 14.337b–338 : 339–347, Hes. Op. 47–49 : 50–105, Pind. Pyth. 6.28–32a : 32b–42 (AH; Heubeck 1979, 133 n. 710; de Jong 2007, 35; Nünlist 2007, 235  f., 242; de Jong/Nünlist 2007, 539  f. s.vv. ‘«header» device’ and ‘initial summary with subsequent elaboration’). 156 To Bellerophontes the gods granted  …: Exceptional qualities are frequently termed gifts from the gods in Homeric epic, although some gifts are ambivalent for the recipients (3.54–55n. with bibliography). The reference to Bellerophontes’ ‘beauty’ and ‘graceful masculinity’ serve as anticipatory explanations of Anteia’s passion (Faesi/Franke, Kirk), but he will also prove his ‘manliness’ in heroic exploits in Lykia (LfgrE s.v. ἠνορέη). – On depictions of male beauty in the Iliad in general: Bernsdorff 1992, 89–92; on the notion that physical beauty ideally coincides with heroic prowess, loc. cit. passim and 2.671–675n., 3.44–45n., 3.179n. 157 Proitos: according to later sources, a king in Argos (capital of the Argolid: ‘Hes.’ fr. 37.10 M.-W.; Pind. Nem. 10.40–42) or Tiryns (‘Hes.’ fr. 129.16; ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 2.2.1 [=  2.25]; schol. on Eur. Or. 965). Why Bellerophontes travelled to Proitos from Ephyre – or whether Ephyre, contrary to later tradition, should be regarded as Proitos’ residence and the scene of the action depicted at 160  ff. – is not apparent from the text; it likewise remains unclear what relationship Bellerophontes has with Proitos, and why he is in Proitos’ house in the first place. Post-Homeric sources indicate that Bellerophontes took refuge with Proitos after a homicide (Eur. Stheneboia, fr. 661.16–18 Kannicht, where the victim is not named; according to schol. D on 155, he was the Corinthian king Belleros; ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 2.3.1 [=  2.30] lists further names; on this motif in general, Alden 2012, 117  f., 121  f.; Nünlist 2009a). If the story formed part of a pre-Homeric narrative tradition in some way, this would represent another detail omitted by Glaukos for the sake of his family’s reputation (cf. 153n.; similarly Diomedes at 14.119  f., see Janko ad loc.): Gaisser 1969, 170–172; Andersen 1978, 102; Alden 2000, 137  f.; 2012, 118; differently Nünlist 2009a,

157 αὐτάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — μήσατο: from μήδομαι (+ dat.) ‘devise (against)’. — θυμῷ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).

72 

 Iliad 6

632  f. (according to whom ‘cases of exiled killers appear to be unproblematic for Homer’: loc. cit. 628). κακὰ μήσατο θυμῷ: ≈ 14.253. θυμῷ is here perhaps pregnant, ‘clandestinely’ (LfgrE s.v. μήδομαι 180.43; cf. in general Jahn 1987, 225–232); the phrase foreshadows the ruse portrayed at 168–170. 158–159 ἐκ δήμου  … | Ἀργείων: ‘from the region (2.198n.) of the Argives’, i.e. from the Argolid, which encompasses both Ephyre (152: μυχῷ Ἄργεος) and Argos/Tiryns (157n.). Kirk (following Payne Knight and Leaf) suspects that 159 is ‘a gloss designed to show that Argos itself [i.e. Proitos’ seat of government in Argos town] was in question’: inconclusive. — ἔλασσεν: (ἐξ)ελαύνω means ‘expel (by force)’ (LfgrE s.v. 519.60  ff.), leading Hentze (and others) to identify a contradiction in the ‘mission’ described at 168  f., and thus to suspect an interpolation at 156–159 (see AH on 156–159 and 158; Anh. 137  f.; differently Ameis in the 1st edition). But from Glaukos’ perspective, i.e. in hindsight, the result of Proitos’ actions may well be described as ‘expulsion’. — φέρτερος: generally means ‘superior (to)’; here likely in reference not to personal ἀρετή but to political power (as at 1.186, see ad loc.). — Ζεὺς γάρ οἱ ὑπὸ σκήπτρῳ ἐδάμασσεν: ‘the Argives’ is probably to be supplied as object of ἐδάμασσεν (schol. bT; cautiously approving: Willcock, Kirk): the verse explains that Proitos rather than Bellerophontes (as Sisyphos’ heir) ruled the Argolid at the time. Others supply ‘Bellerophontes’ (AH, Faesi/Franke, Graziosi/Haubold; LfgrE s.v. σκῆπτρον 145.50  ff.; two manuscripts offer μιν as a v.l. of οἱ); Leaf and LfgrE s.v. δάμνημι 216.31  ff. consider both possibilities. The emphasis should be in any case on the fact that Bellerophontes becomes dependent on Proitos not through a lack of personal qualities but by Zeus’ will (Eust. 632.1  ff. compares the relationship of Bellerophontes and Proitos with that of Herakles and Eurystheus [on which, see 19.95–133n., 19.133n.]). On Zeus as the source of regal authority – which includes power over individuals – see 1.277–279 with nn., CG 24. — σκήπτρῳ: on the σκῆπτρον as a sovereign’s insignia and symbol of power, cf. 2.101–108n.

160–166 The passage follows a common narrative scheme: the so-called Potiphar motif (Genesis  39) is already attested in the 13th cent. BC in Near Eastern literature (in the Egyptian ‘Story of Two Brothers’: Pritchard [1950] 1969, 23–25); parallels in Greek mythology: Peleus and Hippolyte/Astydameia (‘Hes.’ fr. 208 M.-W.; Pind. Nem. 4.54–61 and 5.26–34), Hippolytos and Phaidra (Eur. Hippolytos), etc. On the numerous literary versions of the motif, see in detail Thompson K2111 (with bibliography); Peppermüller 1961, 105–131; West 1997, 365, 482; Hansen 2002, 332–352 (with further bibliography); cf.

158 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἔλασσεν: = ἤλασεν (R 16.1, R 9.1). — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6). 159 Ἀργείων: dependent on δήμου (158). — γάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οἱ … ἐδάμασσεν: ‘had made subject to him (sc. Proitos), had put in his power’. — σκήπτρῳ ἐδάμασσεν: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (skḗptrōy edámassen), M 12.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 73

also Alden 2012, 118–122. – Anteia reappears in later sources under the name ‘Stheneboia’ (‘Hes.’ fr. 129.16  ff. M.-W.; Eur. fr. 661–672 Kannicht). 160 ἐπεμήνατο: aor. of ἐπιμαίνομαι (+ dat., as at e.g. Anacreon 359 Page), ‘be out of one’s mind with desire for someone, be mad about someone’; governs the epexegetical inf. μιγήμεναι (161). – A Homeric hapaxP (cf. γυναιμανές at 3.39); in contrast to the more neutral ἠράσ(σ)ατο (16.182, 20.223, etc.), it may express moral disapproval (direct speech often contains value judgements: character languageP): suggestion by Führer. — δῖ(α): a conventional generic epithetP (1.7n.); deemed inappropriate in the current passage by Aristarchus (since Anteia is behaving unethically), but defended by Herodian (schol. A: κατὰ κόσμον ποιητικὸν προσέρριπται, ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ‘δῖα Κλυταιμνήστρη’ [Od. 3.266]): that Homeric epithets may be purely ornamental was recognized already in antiquity (Nünlist 2009, 299–306; cf. FOR 3–4). 161–162 1st VH of 162 ≈ Od. 1.43. — κρυπταδίῃ φιλότητι μιγήμεναι: cf. Hes. Op. 329 κρυπταδίῃς εὐνῇς (also referring to adultery; further parallels in West ad loc.); on the phrase φιλότητι μιγήμεναι, cf. 25n. — οὔ τι | πεῖθ(ε): The negated iterative impf. ‘can produce a particularly strong negation of the verbal content’, ‘could not persuade’ (Schw. 2.279, transl.). — ἀγαθὰ φρονέοντα: ‘since he was thinking properly’, i.e. in the way expected of someone ἀγαθός (LfgrE s.v. ἀγαθός 28.47  ff.; Leaf; on the connotations of ἀγαθός, see 1.275n.). Cf. the phrase φρεσὶ γὰρ κέχρητ’ ἀγαθῇσι (expression of a ‘fixed notion of «proper» behavior […] corresponding to the fixed notion of someone ἀγαθός’: LfgrE loc. cit. 27.63  f., transl.): Od. 3.266 (of Klytaimestra before she succumbed to Aigithos’ seduction; cf. Penelope’s ἀγαθαὶ φρένες praised at Od. 24.194), in addition Od. 14.421 (Eumaios remembers to sacrifice to the gods before the meal), Od. 16.398 (Amphinomos resists the other suitors’ plan to kill Telemachos). Differently Il. 24.173 (see ad loc.) and Od. 1.43 (ἀγαθὰ φρονέων with dat.: ‘being kind to someone’). — δαΐφρονα: a generic epithetP, always of men, with the exception of Od. 15.356 and h.Cer. 359. On the etymology and meaning, Tronci 2000, 280–282 (earlier bibliography in 2.23n.): probably originally ‘clever’ (related to Sanskrit dasrá- ‘miraculous, wise’, cf. δαῆναι ‘learn, find out’; frequently in the Odyssey with this meaning), but secondarily associated with δαΐ ‘during battle’ and interpreted as ‘courageous, brave’; here and at 196, both readings are possible (LfgrE s.v. 207.10  ff.).

164–165 Direct speeches quoted by characters (‘speech within speech’) are a popular stylistic device in Greek epic and drama (Nünlist 2002). On their (comparatively sparse: Nünlist loc. cit. 220  f.) use in the Iliad, see de Jong

160 τῷ: sc. Bellerophontes. — δῖ’ Ἄντεια: on the hiatus, R 5.1. 161 μιγήμεναι: aor. inf. of μείγνυμαι (R 16.4). — οὔ τι: 102n. 163 βασιλῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. 164 τεθναίης … ἢ κάκτανε: a curse formula: ‘you ought to be killed … or kill’ (i.e.: ‘you ought to be killed, if you yourself do not kill’, ‘kill or be killed’). — κάκτανε: = κατάκτανε (↑), imper. of the 2nd aor. of κατακτείνω.

74 

 Iliad 6

(1987) 2004, 171–179; 2.323–332n. (with further bibliography). Here, the quote serves to mark a crucial moment in the story; Proitos’ predicament and Anteia’s perfidy are highlighted with ‘dramatic vividness’ (de Jong loc. cit. 172). κάκτανε: on the form, Schw. 1.337, 2.473 n. 5: κατάκτανε > *κάκκτανε (apocope and assimilation) > κάκτανε (simplification of the resulting gemination); analogous are 11.702 κάσχεθε, Od. 17.32 καστορνῦσα; the apocope here may have a deliberate onomatopoeticrhetorical effect (Kirk). — μ’: = μοι; elision of -οι is rare, but cf. 1.170  f. οὐδέ σ(οι) ὀΐω | … πλοῦτον ἀφύξειν, Od. 4.367 ἥ μ(οι) οἴῳ ἔρροντι συνήντετο (G 30; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.). — ἔθελεν  … οὐκ ἐθελούσῃ: cf. Od. 5.155 παρ’ οὐκ ἐθέλων ἐθελούσῃ, 3.272 ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν (schol. bT; Kirk). — φιλότητι μιγήμεναι: a pointed repetition of the phrase from 161. 166 χόλος λάβεν: 1.387n. — οἷον: ‘(because of) what’ (οἷον in the sense of ὅτι τοιοῦτον: K.-G. 2.370  f.; cf. 2.320n., 6.109n.).

167 since his heart was awed (sebássato) by such action: =  417 (there of Achilleus when he refrains from despoiling Eëtion’s corpse). sébas (‘awe’) and the derivative verbs sebázomai/sébomai (e.g. 4.242) are close in meaning to aidṓs/aidéomai (on this, 441–442n.): ‘Like aidṓs, sébas can acknowledge the status of others and inhibit action […] In Homer both accompany a reluctance to embark on conduct which is instinctively found unacceptable […]’ (Cairns 1993, 137  f.; cf. also Kirk). No reason is given for Proitos’ awe; the passage may be understood as an indication that the poet of the Iliad presupposes the version of the myth mentioned at 157n. (schol. D, similarly T: a supplicant may not be killed). τό γε: ‘«that particular act». Glaukos emphasises the limitations of Proitos’ piety: he shies away from attempting to kill Bellerophontes; but he does arrange for him to be killed by someone else’ (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.).

168–170 A letter containing a death sentence for the messenger is a common narrative motif (Thompson K978), likely of Near Eastern origin (best-known parallel: the letter of Urias, 2 Samuel 11:14–17; on a possible example already in the Old Babylonian legend of Sargon, see Alster 1987; West 1997, 366). – The art of writing is not mentioned elsewhere in Homeric epic (even longer messages are commonly conveyed orally); the poet appears to have imagined heroic society as largely pre-literate. Aristarchus (followed among others by Wolf [1795] 1985, 95–100 [=  cap. 19]; Faesi/Franke; Powell 1991, 198–200; 1997, 27) therefore assumed that the ‘signs’ (sḗmata) in 168 were not letters but a type of pictogram (as at 7.175–189, where the Greek heroes mark lots, with

166 φάτο: impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — δὲ (ϝ)άνακτα: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 75

only Aias recognizing his own sḗma; for details on the discussion of the two passages in antiquity, see Maftei 1976, 29–35; Schmidt 1976, 213  f.; Heubeck 1979, 127  f., 135). But the phrasing in 169 contradicts this interpretation: the ‘numerous’ signs are apparently meant to convey a more complex message (AH, Anh. 151; Heubeck loc. cit. 137, 140); and the phrase ‘folding tablet’ refers to a writing material widely used since the Bronze Age and common in Greece (once more) from the 8th cent. BC on (169n.). Which type of writing should be posited here is disputed. It is not impossible that the story of Bellerophontes preserved a vague memory of the Mycenaean Linear B script (Willcock; Lesky 1967, 56 [= RE s.v. Homeros 742]) or – more likely in this context – of Near Eastern Bronze Age writing systems (cuneiform Hittite or hieroglyphic Luwian: Aravantinos 1976; Mellink 1995, 41; Brillante 1996, 41–45; on the use of these two writing systems, Dinçol/Dinçol 2005, 211  f.; on cuneiform correspondence between Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite-Luwian sphere, Latacz [2001] 2004, 123–128, 243  f.): as a set component of an old story, the motif of the deadly letter may have survived in the Greek narrative tradition even through the non-literate Dark Ages (Jeffery 1962, 555; cf. Carlier 2000, 309). But the passage may also be read as an allusion – albeit isolated – to the contemporary alphabetic script obtained by the Greeks via their renewed contacts with the Near East during the 8th-cent. ‘Renaissance’ (adaptation of the Phoenician alphabetic script: Burkert [1984] 1992, 25–33; Teodorsson 2006); in that case, the impression of a disrupting anachronism would be skilfully avoided by the narrator’s careful circumscription of the matter at hand (‘murderous symbols’ rather than ‘letters’), which retains the exotic and slightly sinister character of writing (Kirk; Heubeck loc. cit. 137–146; Burkert 1983, 51–53; Bellamy 1988/89, 289–295; Ford 1992, 132, 137). 168 ὅ γε: Proitos (cf. 1.97n.; Schw. 2.208).

169 folding tablet: Wooden writing tablets, joined with hinges and covered with wax on the interior, were known in the Near East, and possibly also in Greece, already in the 2nd millenium BC: an example of unknown provenance, dated to the 14th/13th cent. BC, was preserved in the shipwreck at Ulu Burun near Kaş (south coast of Turkey) (Payton 1991 with bibliography); the existence of wooden writing tablets in Mesopotamia, Syria and the Hittite kingdom is attested in Bronze Age written sources – in turn transmitted in stone and clay (Symington 1991, with 119–121 on the use of sealed wooden tablets for the safe transmission of messages); small bronze hinges that may have belonged

168 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — Λυκίηνδε: on the suffix -δε, R 15.3.

76 

 Iliad 6

to folding writing tablets were discovered in Pylos and Knossos (Shear 1998; more cautiously Perna 2007, 226, 229). – In Greece, writing tablets came into (renewed) use, following the non-literate Dark Ages, by the 8th cent. at the latest; they were likely adopted from the Phoenicians along with the alphabet (délta/déltos, the letter name and a technical term for a ‘writing tablet’, is a Semitic loan word: Heubeck 1979, 143–146; Burkert 1983, 52; [1984] 1992, 28–30; West 1997, 25, 561). γράψας: basic meaning ‘scratch, incise’; elsewhere in Homer (except for 7.187: Aias’ lot) only in descriptions of woundings (4.139, 17.599, etc.): LfgrE s.v. — θυμοφθόρα: ‘lifedestroying, deadly’ (Od. 2.329 in reference to poison): LfgrE s.v.; on θυμός with the meaning ‘life, life force’, cf. 17n.

170 his wife’s father: Proitos leaves his revenge to Anteia’s father, the king of the Lykians (173; here unnamed, in later sources ‘Iobates’: schol. A, T; Soph. Iobates, fr. 297–299 Radt; ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 2.3.1 [= 2.30  f.]; schol. T also considers an identification with Amisodaros, mentioned at 16.328  f., who raised the Chimaira). ἠνώγειν: ἠνώγει(ν) < *ἠνώγεε(ν), spelled with ny ephelkystikon by West following Aristarchus (see schol. A and West 1998, XXVI), is 3rd sing. of the probably Ionic plpf. form ἠνώγεα (LfgrE s.v. ἄνωγα 960.64  ff. with bibliography).

171 in the blameless convoy | of the gods: Glaukos repeatedly empasizes that the gods show a particular interest in Bellerophontes and play a part in determining his fate  – for good or evil: cf. 156n., 158–159n., 183, 191, 200  ff. On the motif of divine company on a perilous path, cf. 24.153n., 24.331b–469a, Od. 3.376, 9.142, 10.141, 11.332, etc.; parallels from the Old Testament: Exodus 23:20/23, Numbers 20:16 (Kirk; West 1997, 366). αὐτὰρ ὃ βῆ: a VB formula (11x Il., 4x Od.). — ἀμύμονι: 22–23n.

172 ≈ 5.773; cf. also 14.433  f. = 21.1  f. = 24.692  f. — Xanthos: Homeric epic knows two rivers by this name, one in the Troad (= Skamandros: 4n.; see iterata) and the main river of Lykia mentioned here (2.877n.). ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: a frequent VB formula marking a new point in a report or narrative (1.493n.); in the present condensed narrative in particularly close succession: 172, 175, 191, 200, also 178 αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δή; similarly 3.209–221 (see 3.209n.), 10.338–365. — ἷξε: thematic s-aorist of ἵκω (3rd sing. 11x in early epic, 3rd pl. ἷξον 14x in early epic, 2nd sing. ἷξες 3x h.Ap.; provides metrical variants for ἵκετο, -οντο, -εο; a hypothesis regarding the origin of these forms in Roth [1970–1974] 1990, 77–85). — ῥέοντα: The epithet may func-

170 ἠνώγειν: ‘commanded’, 3rd sing. plpf. (↑) of the perf. ἄνωγα (cf. 382n.). — ᾧ: possessive pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — ὄφρ(α): final (R 22.5). 172 Λυκίην: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2).

Commentary 

 77

tion to distinguish the river from the town of the same name at the river mouth (schol. bT; Maftei 1976, 35  f.).

173–177 According to the conventions of Homeric guest-friendship, visitors are asked no questions until they have been served a meal (cf. 9.221–224, Od. 1.123  f., etc.; on this, Reece 1993, 26). At first glance, it is nevertheless surprising that the Lykian king entertains Bellerophontes for a full nine days before asking to see Proitos’ letter (Leaf, Kirk; Odysseus’ sojourn among the Phaeacians, which they adduce as a parallel, is not quite comparable, in that the guest there ignores an initial question regarding his identity: Od. 7.237  f./8.548  ff.). But 176  f. implies that Bellerophontes has already mentioned the letter and thus probably answered the standard questions regarding his name and origin after the welcoming meal (AH); after that, he is treated as a ‘friend of the family’ for the time being. – Generous hospitality is mentioned elsewhere in Homeric epic: cf. 217 (Bellerophontes visiting Oineus: twenty days), 3.232  f. (‘frequently’), Od. 19.194–199 (twelve days), Od. 24.118  f. (travel and stay together: one month); cf. also Od. 15.1–183 (Telemachus’ departure after a stay of ca. one month at Sparta). – The indication of time employed here – ‘for nine days … but on the tenth’ – is formulaic and occurs in various contexts; the typical numberP nine frequently expresses incompleteness: the tenth day then brings the decisive change (Graziosi/Haubold; cf. 1.53n., 2.326–329n.). 173–174 προφρονέως μιν τῖεν  …· | ἐννῆμαρ ξείνισσε: The explicative asyndeton enhances the narrative’s vivacity and lends it an ‘affective nuance’: Ruijgh 208  f., transl.; cf. 1.105n. — εὐρείης: a generic epithetP of regions (and towns, there likely in reference to the surrounding countryside: Visser 1997, 87); in early epic 7x of Lykia, 9x of Troy, 7x of Krete, 1x each of Knossos, Sparta and others (LfgrE s.v. 805.55  ff.). — ἐννῆμαρ … ἐννέα βοῦς: The anaphora stresses the outlays incurred by the Lykian king on his guest’s behalf: a cow per day (cf. Fehling 1969, 215). On the formation of ἐννῆμαρ, see 1.53n. — ἱέρευσεν: In contrast to 94 (= 275 ≈ 309), here the thought of meat consumption is dominant; it is nonetheless likely implied that the gods receive their share (as is customary for more festive meals: cf. 9.219  f., Od. 7.190  f., 14.414–438): LfgrE s.v. 1137.34  ff.; Casabona 1966, 22–26; Vermeule 1974, 95, 98  f.

175 ≈ 24.785; 1st VH = 9.474, h.Cer. 51; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 1.477, 9.707, 23.109, 24.788 and 21x Od. (see below). — the rose fingers of the … dawn: 1.477n.; on dawn as a goddess, see CG 38 s.v. Eos; on the variety of formulaic expressions for ‘daybreak’, see Kirk on 2.48–9.

174 ἐννῆμαρ: adv., ‘for nine days’. — ξείνισσε: = ἐξένισε (ξειν- < *ξενϝ-: R 4.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1). 175 ἠώς: ‘dawn’, Att. ἕως (cf. R 3).

78 

 Iliad 6

δεκάτη ἐφάνη: The hiatus is likely caused by modification of the formula (M 14); 175 is a variant of the more common formulaic verse ἦμος δ’ ἠριγένεια φάνη ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς (Il. 1.477, 24.788 and 20x Od.): Graziosi/Haubold. 176 καὶ τότε: serves to highlight ‘significant events or breaks in the story’ (Bakker 1997, 79)  – especially in combination with ἀλλ’ ὅτε (δή) in the preceding verse; e.g. 1.494, 22.209, Od. 2.108. — σῆμα: The sing. (as opposed to the pl. at 168) denotes the folding tablet as a whole (AH, Leaf, Kirk). 177 ὅττί ῥά οἱ: a VB formula (5x Il., 2x Od.; also 3x Il. after caesura A 3).

178–195 The three difficult tasks Bellerophontes must perform, and the reward of the hand of the princess and half the kingdom, are typical fairytale motifs (Strömberg 1961, 4  f.; Petersmann 1981, 55  f.; cf. also EM s.v. ‘Aufgaben’; Thompson H918 and H931). The attack on the hero, who has already performed the three tasks, is also paralleled in fairytales (Göbel 1933, 23, referring to Grimm nos. 20 and 134, ‘The Brave Little Tailor [Das tapfere Schneiderlein]’ and ‘The Six Servants [Die sechs Diener]’), but the ambush motif, through which a parallel is created here between Bellerophontes and Diomedes’ father Tydeus (see 187–190n.), is related primarily to the genre of epic (cf. 4.391–398 [Tydeus], also 1.227, 13.276–291, 18.513–529, Od. 8.492–520, 14.217–221, 14.468– 506, etc.; Bertolini 1989, 140  f. n. 22; Assunção 1997, 48; on the ambush motif in Homer generally: Edwards 1985, 15–41). Bellerophontes’ invincibility is underscored by the emphatic repetition of the predicate κατέπεφνε(ν) (183, 186, 190). The increase in narrative speed at 179–186 is notable as well (three tasks: 5 verses, 2 verses, 1 verse); the fourth adventure (187–190), again described in greater detail, thus gains in importance.

179–182 the Chimaira …: mentioned again in the Iliad at 16.328  f. (Amisodaros, father of two of Sarpedon’s companions, raised her ‘to be an evil to many’); described in more detail at Hes. Th. 319–322, where she is the daughter of Hydra, the monster killed by Herakles (or the daughter of Echidna and Typhon?, cf. West ad loc.), whereas here she is merely ascribed a vague ‘divine’ origin. The Greek word chímaira literally means ‘goat’; in pictorial art, the Chimaira usually appears as a lion (less frequently: lioness) with a goat’s head growing from its back, while its tail ends in a snake’s head (a popular motif from the 7th cent. BC on; see LIMC s.v.). Invention of the Chimaira was likely stimulated by Near

176 καί: apodotic (like δέ in 146): R 24.3. — μιν(ν) ἐρέεινε: on the prosody, M 4.6. — σῆμα (ϝ)ιδέσθαι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἰδέσθαι: on the middle, R 23. 177 ὅττι: = ὅ τι (R 9.1). — ῥά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = ἑαυτῷ (R 14.1). — γαμβροῖο πάρα: παρὰ γαμβροῦ (R 20.2, R 11.2). — φέροιτο: opt. as an indication of indirect speech; mid., ‘brings with him’.

Commentary 

 79

Eastern art, where hybrid creatures were common; nevertheless, the combination of lion, goat and snake appears to have sprung from Greek imagination (closest to the Greek depictions is a Neo-Hittite relief from Carchemish [8th cent. BC]: a winged lion with the heads of a lion and a human being and a tail ending in the head of a snake); see Boardman (1964) 1980, 79 (with fig. 80); Akurgal 1966, 187  f. (with fig. 78 p. 108); Burkert 1983, 52; West 1997, 366  f. – Schol. T on 181 and other later sources connect the fire-breathing monster to volcanic activity in Lykia (Kirk; Bryce 1986, 17–19; Negri 2001; cf. 2.782n. on Typhoeus). 179 ἀμαιμακέτην: epithet of uncertain etymology and meaning. At 16.329, as here, of the Chimaira, Hes. Th. 319 of her fiery breath (cf. 182n.); ‘Hes.’ Sc. 207 of the sea; Od. 14.311 of a mast floating in the sea. Most likely ‘with (many) storms’ (α copulativum + *μαιμακετός ‘storm’, from μαιμάω/-άσσω ‘rush, be eager’), i.e. ‘of a tempestuous nature’ (Od. 14.311 consequently ‘being in a storm’); in Homer’s time perhaps connected also to μάχη/μάχομαι and read as ‘invincible’ (of masts: ‘indestructible, solid’) (DELG; LfgrE; Leukart 1986, 344; Graziosi/Haubold with further bibliography).

180 of immortal make, not human: The combination of a term with its negated opposite is a popular stylistic figure (rhetorical polarity, see polar expressionP; collection of material: Tzamali 1997). θεῖον: possessive adj. instead of gen. (AH; Schw. 2.176  f., Chantr. 2.14); cf. e.g. 2.54 (Νεστορέῃ παρὰ νηῒ Πυλοιγενέος βασιλῆος), 5.741 (Γοργείην κεφαλὴν δεινοῖο πελώρου). — γένος: ‘offspring’ (AH; LfgrE s.v. 131.61  ff.). 181–182 = Hes. Th. 323  f., where, however, it is surely interpolated (see West ad loc.). 181 Tripartite verses with parallelism are rare in Archaic poetry (cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 321 M.-W. ἔργα νέων, βουλαὶ δὲ μέσων, εὐχαὶ δὲ γερόντων): Bühler 1960, 218–221 (with further examples, largely from Hellenistic poetry); cf. also Fehling 1969, 312. 182 δεινόν: attribute of μένος (AH with reference to 17.565, 23.177) or adv. (Leaf with reference to Od. 4.406; Willcock; LfgrE s.v. 238.2  f.). — ἀποπνείουσα πυρὸς μένος: μένος is sometimes used with reference to elemental forces of nature (fire also at 23.177, 24.792, etc.; also rivers 12.18, winds 5.524 etc., the sun 23.190 etc.; see LfgrE s.v. 142.40  ff.). On the phrase ἀποπνείουσα μένος, cf. 2.536n., 3.8, etc. (μένεα πνείοντες Ἄβαντες/Ἀχαιοί, ‘breathing aggression, valor’); on this, Graz 1965, 291 (transl.): ‘πυρὸς μένος offers a different force than that of a simple periphrase indicating what the Chimaira breathes out [i.e. fire, as at Hes. Th. 319 πνέουσαν … πῦρ]; in breathing out «the might of fire», the Chimaira simultaneously exhales its own might, as do the Abantes and the Achaeans.’

180 πεφνέμεν: ‘to kill’, inf. (R 16.4) of the aor. ἔπεφνον. — ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). 181 χίμαιρα: here (unlike in 179) the appellative ‘goat’. 182 ἀποπνείουσα: on the metrical lengthening -ει-, R 10.1.

80 

 Iliad 6

183 2nd VH = 4.398 (there in reference to Diomedes’ father Tydeus; cf. 187–190n.). — According to most sources, Bellerophontes overcomes the Chimaira with the help of the winged horse Pegasos, which Poseidon sent to him (Hes. Th. 325; ‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).84–87 M.-W.; Pind. Ol. 13.61–93, etc.); he later misuses the miraculous horse to enter the realm of the gods and meets an inglorious end (Pind. Isthm. 7.42–48 etc.). It is unlikely that the poet of the Iliad was unaware of this version (thus schol. T on 191; Hesiod, who limits himself to a brief allusion at Th. 325, appears to assume general knowledge of the story: Peppermüller 1961, 42). The lack of any mention of Pegasos here (183b is only a vague allusion, if that, see below) is instead to be explained as an attempt by Glaukos to avoid any thought of his ancestor’s sacrilegious ride to heaven (Gaisser 1969, 173; Andersen 1978, 109 n. 11; cf. 157n. and especially 200–205n.). That the omission of Pegasus was in addition meant to make Bellerophontes’ victory over the Chimaira appear even more heroic (thus, among others, Radermacher [1938] 1943, 98; Petersmann 1981, 56  f.) is doubtful: in the Homeric view, the hero’s own achievement is generally not diminshed if he receives supernatural assistance (cf. e.g. 22.214–299; on this Janko, Introd. 2). Some scholars read the phrase θεῶν τεράεσσι πιθήσας as a veiled allusion to Pegasos; Pindar appears to have understood the passage this way, since at Ol. 13.73 he uses τέρας to denote the golden bridle given by Athene to Bellerophontes for the taming of Pegasos (Malten 1944, 3  f.; Peppermüller 1961, 42–44, 155–163; cf. also Gaisser 1969, 174; Fornaro 1992, 89). But in Homer the word usually means mere signs that manifest divine will (LfgrE s.v.): natural phenomena such as rainbows (11.28, 17.548) etc.; miracles such as the snake’s petrification at 2.308  ff. (at 308 there, μέγα σῆμα is synonymous with 324 τέρας μέγα, see 2.308n.); τέρας without further specification as here, 4.398, 4.408, etc. For humans, such signs are a cause of fear (17.548 etc.), warnings (4.398 etc.) or encouragement (4.408, 12.256, Od. 20.101, etc.); only the sandstorm caused by Zeus at Il.  12.252  ff. is simultaneously concrete help for the Trojans, since it obstructs their opponents. It is thus unlikely that τέρας here refers to the dispatch of Pegasos, although this cannot be ruled out (also skeptical are Leaf, Kirk and West 2011 ad loc.). — πιθήσας: intransitive s-aor. beside ἐπιθόμην, with only the part. occuring in early epic (usually at VE); whereas the metrically equivalent πεποιθώς (‘having constant trust in’) is generally used in reference to one’s own abilities or posessions (505n.), πιθήσας – as here – is more often used in relation to externalities in which trust is put in concrete situations (LfgrE s.v. 1099.41, transl.: ‘at the moment [ingressive] relying on something [foreign]’).

184 against the … Solymoi: according to Hdt. 1.173, Strab. 13.4.16 (= C 630  f.), etc., a long-established people in southwest Asia Minor (border region of Lykia and Pisidia; among other places in Termessos at the foothills of the Solymos mountains, which are also mentioned at Od. 5.283): Bryce 1986, 19  f.; Kupke 1989, 4.

Commentary 

 81

αὖ: frequent in lists (in responsion to μέν: 179/183): Klein 1988, 251–255; Bonifazi 2012, 225–229; cf. 2.768n., 3.200n. — κυδαλίμοισιν: a generic epithetP (used with the name of a people only here and at 204; otherwise of Menelaos [14x] and other heroes, as well as of κῆρ). On κῦδος, see Latacz 1966, 130  f. (cf. 1.222n.): the original meaning seems to have been ‘being singled out’ [‘Herausgehobenheit’]; consequently ‘sense of elevation’ on a psychological level and, in military contexts, ‘success, superiority; (resulting) prestige’. The nuance of the adj. derived from it is hard to grasp (LSJ: ‘glorious, renowned’, in reference to κῆρ ‘noble’; LfgrE: ‘valiant’; perhaps also ‘in good spirits’).  – On the word formation, Risch 105: -άλιμος is a contamination of -αλέος and -ιμος, ‘*κυδαλέος (: κῦδος = θαρσαλέος : θάρσος) + κύδιμος = κυδάλιμος’.

185 and this he [thought] said: Greek pháto, ‘he said’ (rather than ‘he thought’, as translated by Lattimore), indicates that Bellerophontes later on gladly recounted his adventures and that Glaukos grew up with these ‘family histories’ (cf. 207–210n.): de Jong (1987) 2004, 165, 168. μάχην … δύμεναι: δύνω here in the sense ‘enter a sphere of action’; cf. δῦναι ὅμιλον ‘to throw oneself into the fray‘ (11.537, 20.76), πόλεμον … δύῃς/δύμεναι (9.604, 14.62  f.): LfgrE s.v. 358.50/58  ff.; Kurz 1966, 148. — ἀνδρῶν: ἀνήρ functions as a contrasting term to god, woman, animal, etc. (LfgrE s.v. 829  ff.); here, μάχην … ἀνδρῶν forms a contrast to Bellerophontes’ battles with the Chimaira and the Amazons.

186 Amazons: a mythical people of female warriors, mentioned in Homer only here and at 3.189 (see 3.184–190n.; cf. also 2.813–814n. on ‘Myrina’s tomb’); their role as allies of the Trojans, whom they aid under the direction of their queen Penthesilea after the death of Hektor, is attested only in post-Homeric literature (but may go back to older narrative material): Aithiopis, Proclus Chrest. § 1 and fr. 1 West; cf. 24.804n. Speculation as to the significance of the Amazonomachy motif in the myth of Bellerophontes in Blok 1995, 303–347. ἀντιανείρας: ‘a match for a man (or men), man-like’ (3.189n.; cf. 199n. on ἀντίθεον).

187–190 Bellerophontes’ final adventure resembles Tydeus’ (CH 6) errand to Thebes (4.384–398; literal echoes: 187a ≈ 4.392a, 189  f. ≈ 4.397; in addition 183b [trust in the signs of the gods when slaying the Chimaira] = 4.398b); the implication: Glaukos’ lineage is equal to Diomedes’ (Andersen 1978, 103). τῷ … δόλον ἄλλον ὕφαινεν· | κρίνας …: explicative asyndeton; cf. 173–174n.

187–188 1st VH of 187 ≈ 4.392. — spun another … | treachery: a familiar metaphor, cf. 7.324, 9.93, Od. 5.356, 9.422, etc. (as here, the object may be dólos ‘ruse, plot/attack’, mḗtis ‘plan’, or both): see 3.212n. and Müller 1974, 217  f.;

185 καρτίστην: = κρατίστην; predicative. — τήν: demonstrative (R 17). — δύμεναι: inf. of ἔδυν (R 16.4). 187 ὕφαινεν: sc. the king of Lykia.

82 

 Iliad 6

cf. also Od. 19.137 with Russo ad loc. (Penelope commenting on herself: ‘I spin out deceptions’, with reference inter alia to her weaving ploy; on this, Bierl 2004a, 110  f.; Clayton 2004, 32  f.); other related metaphors: ‘weave sorrows’ (Il. 18.367 etc.), ‘spin someone’s fate’ (24.209b–210n., 24.525n.): Clarke 1999, 251  f. with n. 49. πυκινόν: In the parallel verse 4.392 (story of Tydeus), πυκινός is an epithet of λόχος, likewise at 24.779 (see ad loc.) and at Od. 11.525; as here, however, it may be used metaphorically of plans, remarks and other results of mental processes; see 2.55n. on πυκινὴν … βουλήν (‘The products of the mind are fashioned as tightly and strongly as a proper craft product’ or, as here, a fabric: Müller 1974, 32 n. 120, transl.); 3.202n. on μήδεα πυκνά; LfgrE s.v. 1632.46  ff. — ἐκ Λυκίης εὐρείης φῶτας ἀρίστους: In this expression, εὐρείης (173–174n.) is likely used with a pregnant sense: ‘far and wide the best men from Lykia’ (LfgrE s.v. εὐρύς 805.58  ff.; likewise 210, 13.433, 24.256 [see ad loc.], etc.). – φῶτας ἀρίστους is an inflectible VE formula (nom.: 18.230; acc. as here in a λόχος situation: Od. 4.530, 4.778); selection of the best for a λόχος also at 1.227 (see ad loc.), 13.276  f., Od. 8.512  f., etc. (a set motif: Edwards 1985, 21  f.). 189 εἷσε λόχον: εἷσε is a transitive aor. of ἕζομαι, ‘made sit down’; λόχος here (as at 4.392, 8.522, etc.) means the group forming the ambush (LfgrE s.v.). — oἶκόνδε νέοντο: an inflectible VE formula (2.290n.). 190 1st VH = 423; cf. also 4.397 (of Tydeus in a similar situation). — κατέπεφνεν: cf. 12n.

191 knew him for the powerful stock of the god: seemingly a contradiction of the genealogy in 152–155, which mentions no divine progenitors of Bellerophontes. Possible explanations: (1) Bellerophontes actually was a son of Poseidon (‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).81  f. M.-W.; Pind. Ol. 13.69; schol. T); this version is alluded to here (Faesi/Franke; Leaf; Willcock; Gaisser 1969, 173). (2) The expression ‘a god’s offspring’ should not be taken literally; it merely signifies ‘the highest kind of heroic ancestry’ (Kirk; Assunção 1997, 42, with reference to Eust. 636.5; cf. the formulaic use of the epithet diogenḗs ‘sprung from Zeus’ [1.337n.]). (3) The Lykian king inferred divine origin on the basis of Bellerophontes’ exceptional achievements (schol. A): ‘In other words, B.’s divine parentage as mentioned in 191 may be no more than the inference of one character (the Lykian king), adopted only too willingly by another character (Glaucus), who thus augments the glory of his family’ (de Jong [1987] 2004, 166; cf. secondary/tertiary focalizationP). – The statement may be understood

189 τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pron. (R 14.3). — οὔ τι: 102n. — πάλιν (ϝ)οῖκόνδε: on the prosody, R 4.5. 191 γίνωσκε (= γίγνωσκε) … ἐόντα (= ὄντα, R 16.6): sc. Βελλεροφόντην; predicative to this is θεοῦ γόνον ἠΰν. — ἠΰν: 8n.

Commentary 

 83

as a reply to 128  ff.: Glaukos claims a closeness to the gods for himself and his family that is based upon heroic deeds – and not the divinity of an unwarlike Dionysos (cf. 123–143n. end, 132n.): suggestion by Bierl. ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: 172n. — γίνωσκε: impf. for a gradually growing realization (AH, Leaf); cf. 192n., in addition 15.241 (on which, Snell 1978, 23), Od. 22.501. 192 = 11.226. — δίδου: ‘offered in marriage’ (AH); ‘the imperf. is somewhat more picturesque than the following δῶκε, as it brings before us in connexion with γίνωσκε above the gradual opening of the king’s eyes, whereas δῶκε merely states a fact’ (Leaf). — ἥν: The original word-beginning [ww] (< *hw- < *sw-, cf. Lat. suam) has a lasting prosodic effect; see G 22 and cf. 62b  n.

193 half of all the kingly privilege (timḗs basilēídos): Greek timḗ generally means the respect enjoyed by an individual, and as such is the gauge of a person’s social rank (1.159–160n.); here (as at 2.197, 20.181, Od. 1.117, 24.30, Hes. Th. 462, etc.), it refers to the institutionalized ‘regal (position of) honor’ that provides its bearer with material advantages in addition to recognition and power (cf. 9.149–156, 12.310–314, Od. 1.392  f.; on this, Benveniste 1969, 51  f.; Cobet 1981, 24  f., 30). The division of timḗ (here and at 9.616: Achilleus’ offer to Phoinix) probably indicates that the ruler cedes control over part of his realm, and consequently over the associated rights and revenues, to another (cf. 9.149–156, 9.483  f.; on this, van Wees 1992, 39, 284). 194 2nd VH =  20.184. — piece of land: Greek témenos, perhaps originally an Akkadian loanword, albeit with a shift in meaning (Akkadian tem(m)en(n)u ‘title deed, boundary marker, foundation deposit’: West 1997, 36); at the same time, Greek folk etymology linked it with témnō ‘to cut’, with which it is here connected in a word playP: ‘something cut out, excised’, i.e. a piece of land delimited for a particular purpose (see Frisk and LfgrE s.v.; unambiguously in favor of the word’s Greek origin: Beekes s.v.). Already in Mycenaean Greek, the word is attested as the term for the land holdings of a ruler or another high-ranking dignitary (DMic s.v. te-me-no with bibliography). In Homer, it is used for (1) a ‘sacred precinct’ (2.696 etc.; thus also post-Homeric); (2) a ruler’s ‘royal domain’ (12.313 [Sarpedon’s and Glaukos’ témenos: likely inherited from Bellerophontes], 18.550, 20.391, etc.); (3) land that may be awarded by the community for special services (thus in the present passage – where ‘royal domain’ is likewise a possibility – and at 9.578, 20.184). In cases (1) and (2), at least a

192 αὐτοῦ: adv., ‘on the spot, there’. — θυγατέρα (ϝϝ)ήν: on the prosody, ↑. — ἥν: possessive pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4). 193–194 δέ (ϝ)οι and μέν (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3 and 4.5; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — τάμον: (unaugmented: R 16.1) aor. of τάμνω/τέμνω.

84 

 Iliad 6

nominal award by the community may also be assumed (as in the case of honorific gifts: cf. 1.118–129n.); for details, see Carlier 1984, 158–160; van Wees 1992, 294–298; Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 229–233. On the controversial question of what land the people could draw on to award a témenos, see Donlan 1989a; Link 1994; Scheid-Tissinier loc. cit. καὶ μέν: 27n. 195 ≈ 20.185 (νέμηαι), 12.314 (VE πυροφόροιο, here v.l.). — φυταλιῆς: ‘(tree) plantation, orchard’ (or ‘vineyard’: cf. 9.579  f. / Od. 9.133  f., where οἰνόπεδον/ἄμπελοι is used beside ἄροσις): Ebeling s.v.; Leaf; LfgrE s.v. ἄρουρα 1336.38  ff.

196 His bride bore  …: sc. the Lykian king’s daughter (192); after the story of Bellerophontes, Glaukos returns to the actual genealogy. On the link established here between Greece and Lykia, see 154n. δαΐφρονι: 161–162n.

197–198a Isandros … Hippolochos … Laodameia: Bellerophontes’ three children play virtually no role in the myth otherwise (see Wathelet s.v.). Hippolochos is mentioned occasionally in the Iliad as the father of Glaukos; Isandros and Laodameia appear only in the present passage. Λαοδάμειαν. | Λαοδαμείῃ …: cf. 22  f. Βουκολίωνι. | Βουκολίων … (with n.).

198b–199 Zeus: on Zeus’ numerous liaisons with mortal women and the resultant offspring, cf. LfgrE s.v. Ζεύς 872  f. — and bore him … Sarpedon: According to the genealogy that later becomes canonical (‘Hes.’ frr. 140 and 141.14 M.-W. [restored], Hdt. 1.173, etc.), Sarpedon was the son of Zeus and Europa; as a brother of Idomeneus’ grandfather Minos, he thus lived two generations prior to the Trojan War. Attempts by later mythographers to harmonize the two traditions are forced (Diod. 5.79.3; ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 3.1.2 [= 3.6]; cf. Bryce 1986, 21). Which account is older cannot be said with assurance; the current view is that the poet of the Iliad was the first to introduce Sarpedon into the myth of Troy in order to create a worthy opponent for Patroklos: Janko on 16.419–683 (with older bibliography); contra: Prinz 1979, 100–107.  – Sarpedon is considered the best fighter among the Trojan allies (12.101  ff.); for his role in the Iliad, see 2.876n.; Wathelet s.v. μητίετα Ζεύς: a VE formula (1.175n.). — ἀντίθεον: a generic epithetP of heroes (also of Penelope) and peoples (LfgrE); it ‘expresses equivalence of power, rather than family resemblance; cf. ἀντί, «of equal value», «exchangeable for». Here, however, the geneal-

195 φυταλιῆς καὶ ἀρούρης: gen. of content with τέμενος, ‘(with, consisting of) fruit orchards and farmland’. 198 μητίετα: nom. sing. of an a-declension adj. in -ᾰ, ‘rich in μῆτις’.

Commentary 

 85

ogy reinforces the epithet’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — χαλκοκορυστήν: a generic epithetP (elsewhere in the Iliad always of Hektor; Hes. Th. 984 of Memnon, h.Hom. 8.2 of Ares); likely ‘with bronze helmet’ rather than ‘armored with bronze’ (i.e. directly from κόρυς ‘helmet’, not the denominative κορύσσω with the extended sense ‘arm oneself’): Risch 34; Frisk (1940) 1966, 324  f.; Trümpy 1950, 47  f. (contra Ebeling s.v. and others); cf. LfgrE s.v. ἱπποκορυστής. – On epithets referring to weapons and (parts of) armor generally: 116n.; on the significance of bronze weapons in Homer, 3n.

200–205 According to the common version of the myth (presumably known already in Homer’s time: 183n.), Bellerophontes descends into hybris after accomplishing his tasks; when he tries to enter the heavens with Pegasos, Zeus makes him fall into the deep and become a cripple (Pind. Isthm. 7.42–48; Asclepiades FGrHist 12 F 13 [= schol. D on Il. 6.155]). Glaukos omits this ignominious episode and portrays the sudden disaster befalling Bellerophontes, long favored by the gods, and his family as the result of an inexplicable divine whim: the Olympians’ hatred of Bellerophontes is as little justified as Artemis’ anger at Laodameia. In this way, the hero’s end appears as an illustration of the leaf simile at 146  ff. (Gaisser 1969, 174; Macleod, Introd. 11  f.; Grethlein 2006, 94–96; Sammons 2010, 36–38). For Glaukos, the responsibility resting on him as one of the last survivors of his lineage becomes an incentive to prove himself in battle (145–211n. with bibliography). According to some interpreters, the passage also contains an implicit  – legitimate  – warning addressed to the overly confident Diomedes (suggested already by schol. bT and Porphyry on 6.200–201 §§ 2–3 MacPhail; on this, Maftei 1976, 48; in addition, Andersen 1978, 102–105; Scodel 1992; Alden 1996 and 2000, 130–152; Assunção 1997, 48–66; cf. Grethlein 2006, 111  f.). But such a warning would miss its target at least for the time being: the present episode has an outcome favorable to Diomedes (234–236); the procession of supplication by the Trojan women notwithstanding, Athene does not withdraw her favor (311); and according to Od. 3.180–182, Diomedes eventually returns from the Trojan War unharmed (cf. Sammons 2010, 28  f.: Dione’s prophecy at 5.406  ff. is not fulfilled). At the same time, even Diomedes experiences serious setbacks (8.130–171, 11.369–400): the general truth portrayed in Glaukos’ speech – that no man is granted permanent success – naturally applies to Diomedes as well (Scodel 1992, 83  f.). 200–202 These verses have frequently been suspected as interpolations on the grounds that (1) the reference of καί in 200 is unclear, and (2) they represent an inappropriate interruption of the report on Bellerophontes’ descendants (μέν at 198 supposedly responds to δέ at 203/206): see AH, Anh. 138  f., 152, and Willcock; Koechly 1859, 5  f., and Faesi/Franke also athetize 205; according to West 2011 ad loc., 200–205 were perhaps adopted en bloc from a source in which the story of Bellerophontes was not part of a genealogical narrative. – On (1): Leaf and Kirk consider transposing 200–202 to after 205 (200: ‘he too’, like Isandros and Laodameia; cf. schol. T); this is unnecessary: καὶ κεῖνος either creates a relation between Bellerophontes and Lykourgos (200b = 140b) (AH) or

86 

 Iliad 6

is to be read more generally: ‘even he’, who had been a favorite of the gods until now (Monro ad loc.; Grethlein 2006, 83, 340; cf. 24.538, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ καὶ τῷ θῆκε θεὸς κακόν); or both at the same time: ‘«he too»; looking back to the story of Lycurgus, but also beyond, to the inevitable fate of all humankind’ (Graziosi/Haubold). On (2): 200–202 do not in fact represent an illogical interruption of the narrative. Bellerophontes’ fate is closely linked to that of his children; 200 marks the moment in which it turned to the worse. 201 ἤτοι ὅ corresponds to 203 Ἴσανδρον δέ and 205 τὴν δέ (de Jong [1987] 2004, 166; on ἤτοι ≈ μέν, see Ruijgh [1981] 1996). – The responsion of δέ at 203 with ἤτοι at 201 also forbids reading 203  ff. as a paratactically connected causal clause (thus Giusti 1933; Assunção 1997, 54  f.; Grethlein 2006, 341  f.; cf. schol. bT on 202); rather, Bellerophontes’ melancholy is meant to appear to be a suffering sent by the gods (Faesi/ Franke, Leaf, Kirk), joined by the further disaster of the premature death of his two children. 200 1st VH = Od. 3.286, ≈ Od. 4.519; 2nd VH = 140, ≈ Od. 14.366. — ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: 172n.

201–202 he wandered (Greek aláto) alone about the plain of Aleios (pedíon Alḗïon) … | … skulking aside (aleéinōn) from the trodden track of humanity: Herodotus 6.95 mentions an ‘Alean plain’ in Cilicia, but the poet of the Iliad appears to have chosen the name primarily for the sake of the word playP (schol. A, followed by modern commentators; Rank 1951, 37  f.; Louden 1995, 30). The combination aláto – pedíon Alḗïon (which could be rendered: ‘went wandering in the Plain of Wandering’: West 2011 ad loc.) has a parallel at Genesis  4:12/16: the fratricide Cain  – condemned to be ‘restless and vagrant (nād)’ – proceeds to the land of Nod, ‘land of Wandering’ (White 1982, 126  f.; West 1997, 367). – On the basis of later sources (Hes. Th. 793  ff., ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.124  ff. M.-W., Empedocles fr. 115 DK), D’Alonso 2008 interprets Bellerophontes’ fate as a ‘destiny in limbo’ between life and death. On the specter of a life of restless wandering in general, cf. 24.531–533n. — eating | his heart (thymón) out: a metaphor attested already in Sumerian and Egyptian (West on Hes. Op. 799); cf. Od. 9.75, 10.143, 10.379; Il. 1.491, 24.129 with nn. (there kḗr/kradíē ‘heart’ rather than thymós); also expressions such as ‘heart-eating hatred’ (19.58 with n.). Further attestations: West loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1082.48  ff. 203–204 Ares …: Expressions such as ‘Ares slew XY’ are often used figuratively for ‘XY fell in battle’ (cf. 16.543, 24.260–262n., 24.498n.). At the same time, in the case of characters such as Ares, Hephaistos, etc., the boundaries between metonymical use and anthropomorphic perception are fluid (CG 28; LfgrE s.v.

200 κεῖνος: = ἐκεῖνος (sc. Bellerophontes). — ἀπήχθετο: 140n. 201 κάπ: = κατά (with apocope and assimilation: R 20.1). 202 ὅν: possessive pron. of the 3rd person (R 14.4).

Commentary 

 87

Ἄρης 1257.21  ff.; Clarke 1999, 266  ff., esp. 269–272); here, the notion of the god in person is indicated by the context (raging gods at 200/205); cf. 5.842  ff., where Ares personally kills an Achaian (LfgrE s.v. 1262.61  ff.). 203 2nd VH = 5.388, 5.863; ≈ 13.746, Hes. Th. 714. — ἆτος πολέμοιο: ‘inexhaustible in battle’. ἆτος < ἄατος (thus the primary paradosis in Hes. Th. 714 [see West ad loc.] and v.l. at 5.388 etc.) < *ἄ-σατος, from α privativum and ἄ-μεναι ‘to sate’ (cf. Engl. sate; Old High German sat, Lat. satis): LfgrE s.v. with bibliography. πόλεμος in early epic usually refers to a fight/fights as an event/activity, less frequently to ‘war’: LfgrE s.v. 1335.41  ff.; 2.453n. with bibliography. 204 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — μαρνάμενον: μάρνασθαι in Homer is occasionally used as a metrical variant for μάχεσθαι and πολεμίζειν (Trümpy 1950, 167  f.). — Σολύμοισι … κυδαλίμοισιν: 184n.

205 1st VH =  3.413; ≈ 23.482, 24.55, Od. 18.25; cf. also 2.599n. — Artemis: A woman’s sudden demise is regularly blamed on Artemis’ arrows (CG 7), cf. 428, 19.59n., 21.483  f., 24.605  ff. (with n.: myth of Niobe), Od. 11.172  f., etc.: see Hoekstra on Od. 15.411; Burkert (1977) 1985, 151 (specifically on puerperal deaths); Clarke 1999, 257–259. The cause of the goddess’ anger remains shrouded (nor do post-Homeric mythographic sources provide information); suggestions by ancient and modern commentators (schol. T: ‘perhaps on account of the Amazons’; AH and others: on account of Laodameia’s liaison with Zeus) are mere speculation. τὴν δέ: sc. Laodameia. — χρυσήνιος: ‘with golden reins’; in early epic only here and at Od. 8.285 (of Ares). Divine attributes are often envisioned as made of gold or silver (1.37n., 2.448n.; divine team of horses with a golden harness: 5.720  ff.).

206 begot me, and I claim that he is my father: The creation of emphasis via redundance is characteristic of oral poetry; cf. 1.160n., 1.192n. — I claim: an expression of Glaukos’ pride in his family (Kirk; cf. 211n.). 207–210 The motif ‘exhortation by a father at the departure of a warrior’ is also found at 5.197–200, 9.252–259a, 11.782–790a; additional reminiscences of departure scenes: 9.438–443, 18.324–327, 23.144–149 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 173–175 with n. 51 p. 280). – The phrasing at 209  f. incidentally suggests that the father’s exhortations were linked to a reminder of their ancestors’ achievements – especially, of course, those of the legendary Bellerophontes: in addition to 185 (see ad loc.), a further pointer to the family tradition to which Glaukos refers in his narrative (de Jong loc. cit. 168).

203 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (ethical dat.). 204–205 κατέκτανε … | … ἔκτα: 2nd aor. and root aor. of (κατα)κτείνω as metrically convenient variants.

88 

 Iliad 6

207 μάλα πόλλ’ ἐπέτελλεν: a formula (VE also at 21.230, Od. 12.268/273; after caesura A 1: Il. 4.229; π. ἐ. only: 2x Hom.); in addition, ἐπιτέλλω is regularly found in scenes of the present type (5.198, 9.252, 11.782/783/785). πολλ(ά) illustrates the transition from noun to adj.: ‘many’ > ‘much, strongly’ (LfgrE s.v. 1422.33  ff.; quantity denoting intensity, as often in Homer, cf. 1.35n.; Snell [1939] 1999, 254).

208 = 11.784 (Peleus to Achilleus): pregnant formulation of the code of behavior obligatory for Homeric heroes. It contains ‘no directive for the pursuit of records and the removal of co-competitors’ at all costs (Latacz 1995, 39, transl.), but rather the challenge to prove oneself optimally as an áristos – a member of the elite – in any situation. In addition to achievements in battle – which dominate the present context; likewise 441–446 (see ad loc.) – and the council (1.258n.), this includes ‘values such as kindness, loyalty, compassion and chivalry, as well as a rationally founded sense of justice and respect for others’ (Latacz loc. cit. 40, transl.; on the extensive scholarly discussion, p. 91 nn. 108–110; see also Latacz 2013, 65–69). 209 ≈ Od. 24.508. — not shaming the generation of my fathers: on this demand, cf. 4.370–400, 5.633–643, 5.800–813, 6.444–446 (and 476–481), 7.124– 131, 8.281–285, Od. 24.506–509; Alden 2000, 156–161; Bouvier 2002, 111–117; Grethlein 2006, 72–77, 83  f.; Aceti 2008, 47–50, 55–57; cf. also Crotty 1994, 24–41 (on the significance of father figures in the Iliad generally). 210 Ἐφύρῃ: 152n. — ἐγένοντο: declarative, ‘they were’ (cf. 153n.). — εὐρείῃ: 187–188n. 211 = 20.241 (Aineias addressing Achilleus; cf. 120n., 143n.). — γενεῆς τε καὶ αἵματος: a synonym doubling (1.160n.); from αἷμα ‘blood, lineage, descent’, see LfgrE s.v. 308.37  ff. — εὔχομαι εἶναι: an inflectible VE formula (in total 15x Il., 18x Od., 2x h.Hom.; occasionally in other positions in the verse; also with ἔμμεναι). As here, frequently in reference to lineage, e.g. 5.246, 14.113, 21.187 (Muellner 1976, 68–78). On εὔχομαι ‘provide official information about oneself, (proudly) say about oneself’, see 1.91n.; Latacz 1969, 350  f., 353; Muellner loc. cit. 78, 93.

212–231 Diomedes is pleased to discover a connection with Glaukos via the guest-friendship of their grandfathers (215n.), and proposes an exchange of armor for a visible renewal of this bond. Only later does the audience learn that Glaukos’ armor is worth many times more than that of Diomedes (234–236n.). If one interprets Diomedes’ behavior in light of this information, he appears as a coolly calculating man who knows how to cleverly use a novel situation to his

208 αἰέν: = ἀεί. — ὑπείροχον (+ gen.): ‘surpassing someone, being excellent in comparison with’ (from ὑπερ-έχω; -ει- is metrically lengthened: R 10.1). — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). 209 αἰσχυνέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. 211 ταύτης: conceptually also modifies αἵματος. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1; cf. also R 24.12).

Commentary 

 89

own advantage (thus among others Mazon 1942, 164  f.; Donlan 1989, 12–15; Willcock 1992, 71; Harries 1993, 142  f.; von Reden 1995, 26  f., who compares Penelope’s behavior at Od. 18.250–283; cf. also Willcock on 234–236 [on the importance of material possessions in Homeric society: profit-oriented thinking is not fundamentally inconsistent with the heroic ideal]). But taken on their own, Diomedes’ words seem cordial and genuine, so that his proposal for exchanging armor initially appears to be a simple inspiration with no ulterior motive (schol. bT on 230; Traill 1989, 304). It must remain an open question whether the contemporary audience, which was only listening, was inclined to reevaluate the speech on the basis of the narrator’s commentary at 234  ff. in the way outlined above (Perry 1937 interprets the episode as an example of ‘the early Greek capacity for viewing things separately’: in accord with this view, Diomedes’ reaction and the narrator’s commentary are on different levels). The impression that a friendship between equal partners is about to be entered into here is emphasized linguistically via the frequency of the pronoun ἀλλήλων, -οισ(ι) (218, 226, 230, 233) as well as of verse pairs with parallelisms (219  f. and 224  f. μέν – δέ, 227/229 μέν – δ’ αὖ): ‘Diomedes persuades Glaukos, and he may initially persuade us too; but eventually we realise that there can be no equality in friendship between the two warriors’ (Graziosi/Haubold on 212–31). 212 1st VH = 17.567, 24.424, Od. 7.329, 8.199, 8.385, 13.250, 18.281, Hes. Th. 173, h.Cer. 370. — βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης: 12n. 213 κατέπηξεν ἐπὶ χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ: an unambiguous sign that he does not wish to enter into a duel (cf. 3.134  f.). Bekker conjectures ἐνί for ἐπί (with reference to 11.378), but cf. 23.876  f.; on the inflectible VE formula (ἐπὶ) χθ. πουλ., 3.89n. 214 1st VH ≈ 10.288. — μειλιχίοισι: sc. ἔπεσι/μύθοις (the same ellipse at 17.431, ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.25 M.-W.); ‘gentle, sweet’ (linked to μέλι in folk etymology: Chantraine 1937; DELG s.v. μείλια), ‘placatory, kind, ingratiating’; of both genuine (4.256, 6.343, etc.) and deceptive words (Od. 9.363 [Odysseus addressing the Cyclops], 18.283 [Penelope addressing the suitors]: LfgrE s.v. 87.67  f.). — ποιμένα λαῶν: an inflectible VE formula (1.263n.); ‘a common description of leaders in epic, which expresses their duty of care towards their people’ (Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.; cf. Haubold 2000, 17–24).

215 my guest friend from far in the time of our fathers: on the significance of guest-friendship in general, 3.207n.; on its capacity to be inherited, cf. Od.

213 πουλυβοτείρῃ: on the metrical lengthening (πουλυ- instead of πολυ-), R 10.1. 214 αὐτὰρ ὅ: sc. Diomedes again; αὐτάρ is progressive (R 24.2). 215 ξεῖνος: = ξένος (< *ξένϝος: R 4.2). — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).

90 

 Iliad 6

1.175  f., 1.187, 1.417, 15.196  f.; historical examples: Thuc. 8.6.3, Isocr. Trapezitikos 43, etc. (Herman 1987, 16  f., 69–72, 166–175 [with further examples]). ἦ ῥά νυ: emphatic, cf. 3.183, 12.164, 18.394, 19.315, etc. ῥα ‘marks the process of realisation’ (Graziosi/Haubold; cf. LfgrE s.v. ἄρα 1160.48  ff.). More on the particle νυ in Ruijgh 1957, 59  ff. (ibid. 59, transl.: ‘an intensive particle, primarily in exclamations, exhortations and questions’). — παλαιός: ‘old’ in the sense ‘from ancient times, from earlier’ (similarly Od. 2.118, 2.188, etc.; see LfgrE s.v. 936.23  ff.).

216 Oineus: the ruler of Kalydon in Aitolia, father of Meleagros and Tydeus, grandfather of Diomedes (cf. 2.641n., 14.115–118). ‘The chiastic arrangement and the juxtaposition of δῖος and ἀμύμονα give great formality to the announcement’ (Kirk). On δῖος, see 1.7n., 6.31–32n.; on ἀμύμων (of Bellerophontes already at 155 and at 190), 1.92n., 6.22–23n.

217 twenty days: cf. 173–177n. ἐρύξας: temporally coincident with ξείνισ(ε) (Schw. 2.300  f.; cf. 7–8n.). ἐρύκω here as at Od. 16.82, 17.515 ‘keep (a guest) in one’s house’ (not ‘keep back by force’): LfgrE s.v. 718.40  ff.

218–221 Diomedes’ report of the gift-exchange between Oineus and Bellerophontes is striking: Homeric custom otherwise only provides for gifts for a departing guest (albeit with the expectation of reciprocation on the occasion of a visit by his host: cf. Od. 1.318, 24.283–286; on this, Finley [1954] 1979, 64–66; Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 160, 164–170). Possible explanations for the present exception (not mutually exclusive): (1) This act initiates a new guest-friendship (the exchange of armor by the grandsons consequently serves to renew it): Herman 1987, 58–63; van Wees 1992, 228  f.; cf. Od. 21.11–38a, Hdt. 3.39.2, Xen. Hell. 4.1.39 (where, however, the partners are either both abroad or exchange gifts through messengers: no visiting scenes [Scheid-Tissinier loc. cit. 163]); similarly Il. 7.299–305 (exchange of weapons following the formal duel between Hektor and Aias). (2) The gift exchange between Bellerophontes and Oineus is designed as a precedent for the subsequent exchange of armor (Gaisser 1969, 174  f.); on such ad hoc inventions, cf. 1.262–270n., 1.396–406n., 19.95–133n., 24.599–620n., item (2); Willcock (1964) 2001. 219–220 a war belt bright with the red dye, |  … a golden  … drinking-cup: Some interpreters assume that the cup was worth more than the belt, so that the grandfathers’ exchange of gifts corresponds also in this regard to the subsequent unequal exchange of armor (Eust. 638.44  ff.; Porphyry on 6.234

217 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισιν: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the plural, R 18.2. — ἐείκοσιν: = εἴκοσιν. — ἤματ(α): from ἦμαρ ‘day’.

Commentary 

 91

§§ 3–5 MacPhail; Donlan 1989, 10  f.). This cannot be substantiated. Belts are an important part of a warrior’s equipment (with a protective function [4.186, 11.236], albeit not always effective [5.539, 12.189, etc.]; sometimes adorned with fittings and/or a buckle of precious metal [4.132  ff., 11.236  f.]; on the archaeological evidence, Brandenburg 1977; Bennett 1997, 3–57). The belt referred to here is further distinguished as a prestige object by its purple color (Bennett loc. cit. 49–51, 92–96; Wagner-Hasel 2000, 94; on purple as a status symbol, cf. 4.141  ff.; Blum 1998). The value of the cup cannot be estimated with any accuracy; on the one hand, cf. 23.656 (a cup, with no further description, as consolation prize in a boxing match), on the other hand, 11.632  ff., 16.225  ff., 24.234–237a  n. (three skilfully made cups of considerable value); at the very least, the one mentioned here is made of gold. 219 ≈ 7.305 (exchange of weapons between Hektor and Aias); in addition, VE = Od. 23.201, ≈ Il. 15.538. 220 δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον: a VE formula (6x Il., 3x Od.); probably denotes a two-handled drinking vessel (1.584n.; on the archaeological evidence, Bloedow 2007).

221 a thing I left behind: i.e. it is still in his possession; the memory of their grandfathers’ guest-friendship has survived together with the heirloom (AH, Faesi/Franke; cf. also Herman 1987, 16  f., 61–63; Grethlein 2008, 36–38, 40). On the function of gifts as a memento of the donor, see Wagner-Hasel 2000, 108–112 (cf. Od. 4.589  ff., 8.430  ff., 15.125  ff., 21.38  ff., etc.); on stories about the origins of objects in general, 2.101–108n. and – from an archaeological perspective – Crielaard 2002, 249–256 (prestige objects that have traveled great distances attest to the significance of gift-exchange for 8th/7th cent. BC reality). 222–223 Schol. T calls these two verses ἄτοποι, and numerous modern interpreters suspect them to be an interpolation, since the somewhat abrupt mention of Tydeus disrupts the context (see Koechly 1859, 6  f.; Faesi/Franke; AH ad loc. and Anh. 139, 152; van Leeuwen; cf. Leaf and Kirk). At the same time, narratives with genealogical content and stories of the origins of objects generally do not skip generations (Brillante ad loc.; Kirk: ‘Diomedes evidently feels the need to show how his father fitted into the tradition of guest-friendship’; cf. also Newton 2009, 66–69), and glimpses at the Theban myth cycle are not unusual for the poet of the Iliad (West 2001, 196; Friedrich 1975, 80 with 188 n. 215 [collection of examples]; cf. 223–224n.). West (loc. cit. 195  f. and app. crit.) consequently posits a gap before 222 and restores exempli gratia: τοῦ δ’ Οἰνεὺς πίνεσκε καθήμενος ἤματα πάντα, | πατρὸς ἐμοῖο πατήρ (14.118), ὅ μ’ ἔϋ τρέφεν ἠδ’ ἀτίταλλεν.

220 χρύσε͜ον: on the synizesis, R 7. 221 μιν: = αὐτό (sc. τὸ δέπας) (R 14.1). — ἰών: ‘when I went away’ (sc. to the war). — δώμασ(ι): on the plural, R 18.2.

92 

 Iliad 6

222 Tydeus, though, I cannot remember: on Diomedes as a ‘fatherless hero’, see Pratt 2009 and Graziosi/Haubold, Introd. 38. Τυδέα: on the short-voweled form, 96n. — μέμνημαι: with acc. meaning ‘remember, have a memory of’, as at 9.527, Od. 24.122, etc. (AH; Schw. 2.108, Chantr. 2.39).

223–224 that time … perished | in Thebe: sc. in the battle of the Seven against Thebes, one generation before the Trojan War (the cause was a dispute between Eteokles and Polyneikes, the sons of Oedipus, concerning the rule of Thebes, in which Polyneikes was supported by his father-in-law, Adrestos of Argos, and five other heroes – among them Tydeus); cf. 4.376–410, 5.800–808, 6.20n. — Argos: here (as at 14.119 etc.) meaning Diomedes’ realm, i.e. the southern Argolid (2.559–568n.; cf. 2.108n.); Glaukos’ grandfather Bellerophontes was from the northern Argolid (152n.). λαὸς Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectible formula (only Il.; 5x before caesura C 2, otherwise VE; in total 4x nom., 20x acc.); cf. Haubold 2000, 43–45, 198, 201; here, as at 4.384, 5.803, etc., it probably denotes the Argives (i.e. the attacking army led by Adrestos) as opposed to the Thebans: LfgrE s.v. Ἀχαιός 1738.43  ff.; cf. also Beck 1988, 6. On λαός ‘(male) population under arms’, 1.10n. — τώ: ‘therefore, accordingly’ (Schw. 2.579; on the accent, West 1998, XXII). 225 εἶμι: ‘I am’ (on the accent, West 1998, XX). — τῶν: ‘of them’, sc. the Lykians. — δῆμον: here (as at 158 etc.) ‘region, land’; on the semantic range of δῆμος, see 2.198n.; LfgrE s.v.

226 Let us avoid each other’s spears: In Homeric society, guest-friendship during times of war appears to be valued more highly than the participants’ party affiliations (whereas later analogous constellations frequently lead to conflicts in loyalties): Herman 1987, 1–9 and passim; cf. 3.204  ff. and Il. parv. fr. 22 West (the Trojan Antenor once hosted Odysseus; during the sack of Troy, Antenor’s son Helikaon is recognized, and saved, by Odysseus). Since both Diomedes and Glaukos fight for a foreign cause, there is no reason for them – in contrast to the Atreidai (53  ff., 62a  n.) – to indiscriminately kill all opponents (cf. Achilleus’ situation preceding Patroklos’ death: 1.152  ff., 21.100  ff.). — even in the close fighting: i.e. in future encounters in the crush of massed battle (Greek hómilos): AH, Leaf, Willcock. ἔγχεα δ’ ἀλλήλων ἀλεώμεθα: The v.l. ἔγχεσι δ’ ἀλλήλων ἀλεώμεθα (explained as ἀλλήλων παρακελεύεται φείσασθαι [schol. A] and ἀποτύχωμεν ἀλλήλων [schol. bT]) expresses more clearly that the two heroes no longer want to fight one another (whereas

222 ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6). 223 κάλλιφ’: = κατέλιπε (cf. R 20.1). — ἐν: ‘at’. — Θήβῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 224 Ἄργεϊ μέσσῳ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2); on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 225 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).

Commentary 

 93

ἔγχος ἀλέομαι is otherwise used of warriors evading an opponent’s attack: 13.184 = 13.404, etc., 22.285): van der Valk 1963, 75  f.; but ἀλέομαι + gen. is not otherwise attested (Leaf). Zenodotus read ἔγχεσι δ’ ἀλλήλους ἀλεώμεθα, which is worth considering (La Roche 1861, 139; cf. HT 10). – On the frequency of forms of the pronoun ἀλλήλων/ -οισ(ι) in the present passage, see 212–231n. end.

227–229 There are plenty of Trojans … for me | to kill, … | many Achaians for you to slaughter …: sentence parts constructed in a parallel manner, but varied such that Diomedes’ sense of superiority is subtly expressed: two verses for his own expectation of future victories, one verse for that of Glaukos; trust in divine help and his own swift feet vs. ‘whom you may (kill)’, expressing gentle doubt about Glaukos’ military abilities (Eust. 638.37  f.; Broccia 1963, 95; Kirk, Graziosi/Haubold). 227 2nd VH = 18.229, ≈ 3.451, 11.220, 17.14; the inflectible VE formula κλειτοί (τ’) ἐπίκουροι (variant of τηλεκλειτοί (τ’) ἐπίκουροι, cf. 111n.) also 2x Il., 1x Hes.

228 whom the god sends to me, or those I run down with my swift feet: In the Homeric imagination, divine influence and human action frequently coincide (double motivationP); cf. e.g. 368, 9.702  f., 16.103  f., 16.543 (Kullmann 1956, 108; Lesky [1961] 2001, 180  f.). – Running speed is one of the characteristics that render Achilleus the best of the Achaians (cf. his various epithetsP with the meaning ‘with swift/strong feet’, pódas ōkýs, podárkēs, podṓkēs: 1.58n., 1.121n., 2.860n.); this naturally also applies to Diomedes, since he is Achilleus’ ‘replacement character’ (96–101n.). γε: lends ‘a touch of modesty’ to the statement (Leaf).

230–231 so that these others may know …: similarly 7.299–302, 19.173  f. (see ad loc.), 23.609–611. The witnesses to the scene are supposed to take note of the relationship of guest-friendship between Diomedes and Glaukos and respect the fact that they refrain from combat (Eust. 638.40  ff.). 231 2nd VH = Od. 1.187. — Resumption of 215 in a ring-compositionP. εὐχόμεθ’ εἶναι: 211n.

227–229 ἐμοὶ … | 1 verse | … σοί: sc. εἰσίν, ‘there are’; dependent on this are the two final/consecutive infinitives κτείνειν and ἐναιρέμεν. — ὅν κε … | … ὅν κε (+ subjunc.): generalizing, ‘〈namely〉 each one [sc. of the Achaians/Trojans], whom’, ‘whomever’. 228 κιχείω: aor. subjunc. of κιχάνω ‘overtake, reach’. 229 ἐναιρέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — δύνηαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 230 ἐπαμείψομεν: with dat. of person (as against 235 ἀμείβω πρός); short-voweled subjunc. (R 16.3).

94 

 Iliad 6

232 ὣς ἄρα φωνήσαντε: an inflectible VB formula (1.428n.). — καθ’ ἵππων ἀΐξαντε: cf. 120n. s.v. συνίτην. – The pl. and dual of ἵππος are repeatedly used in Homer to mean ‘chariot’ (LfgrE s.v. 1211.57  ff., 1216.43  ff.; Plath 1994, 278–287); καθ’ ἵππων ἀ. is an inflectible VE formula (11.423 and 20.401 acc. sing.).

233 gripped each other’s hands: common in antiquity, just as today, as a gesture to affirm alliances and agreements: see 2.341n.; Elmiger 1935, 13  f.; Taillardat 1982, 1–4; Herman 1987, 49–54; Kitts 2005, 79–84. The gesture is thought to have originally signified a symbolic declaration of peaceful intentions, as ‘two clasping rights nullify each other’s aggressive potential’ (Herman loc. cit. 51; Elmiger loc. cit. 14  f.). πιστώσαντο: ‘made a commitment to one another’ (AH); middle verbs can denote reciprocity (K.-G. 1.89  f., 107  f.; Schw. 2.233). — ἀλλήλων: cf. 212–231n. end.

234–236 The concluding narrator commentary lends the episode an unexpected point (comparable judgements by the narrator on his characters’ actions, albeit without the present moment of surprise: 18.311, in addition 2.38 [see ad loc.], 2.873, 12.113, etc.; cf. Edwards, Introd. 4  f.). The unequal value of the two pieces of armor had not been mentioned previously (212–231n.); the act that initially appeared to serve purely to seal a new bond of friendship turns out to be a poor exchange, entered into by Glaukos in a moment of blindness. Interpreters from the Hellenistic period on have considered this turn of events strange, and have sought explanations in a multitude of ways (see below). But the most likely explanation is that the narrator commentary marks Glaukos as the inferior character, over whom Diomedes gains a symbolic victory; since (1) the gods generally prompt humans to actions toward which they are predisposed in the given circumstances (Schmitt 1990, 82–99; cf. double motivationP; 1.55n., 2.169–171n.). Glaukos’ acceding to Diomedes’ unreasonable proposal – although guest gifts may in principle be discussed, so that an objection would have been possible (Scodel 1992, 76, with reference to Od. 4.600  ff.) – should thus be seen as an indication that he is intimidated by his formidable opponent. (This does not make him a coward: it is an achievement for a middling warrior like him [119n.] to have confronted a hero of Diomedes’ stature [96–101n.] in the first place.) Cf. Horace, Serm. 1.7.15–18; Craig 1967; Walcot 1969; Andersen 1978, 106; Donlan 1989, 12–14; Willcock 1992, 71; Stoevesandt 2004, 334  f. (2) The fighting scenes of the Iliad reveal a slight pro-Achaian bias (on this in general, Stoevesandt 2004). The turn in favor of Diomedes will have been welcomed by the contemporary audience (so Pius fr.

232–233 φωνήσαντε … ἀΐξαντε | … λαβέτην … πιστώσαντο: three duals in combination with a plural (R 18.1).

Commentary 

 95

2 Hiller [see schol. T ad loc.]), and perhaps also perceived as funny (Willcock 1992, 71, etc.); the more valuable armor recompenses the Achaian, as it were, for the fact that he is denied a regular victory over Glaukos – with subsequent spoliation – by the present circumstances (similarly 5.20–26/311–327a: Diomedes captures the teams of horses belonging to heroes who have been removed from his access by being spirited away): Traill 1989; cf. also Newton 2009, 62–69 (a scene that began as a battle scene has turned into one of guest-friendship, albeit a competitive one decided in Diomedes’ favor). Overviews of the history of interpretation of this passage are provided by Bartelink 1956, 169  f.; Calder 1984, 31–33; Fornaro 1992, 66–69; Alden 2000, 305  f. Several interpreters, the above explanation notwithstanding, assume that Glaukos should be considered the winner because of his generosity, and/or that the narrated episode and the commentary at 234  ff. express different worldviews that here collide abruptly. Thus e.g. schol. bT on 234: ἐξέλετο is used with the meaning ὑπερηύξησε (untenable, but nevertheless taken up repeatedly in the modern period, e.g. by Pope: ‘elevated his Mind’; see Fornaro loc. cit.); Calder 1984: Glaukos demonstrates his superiority by outdoing Diomedes’ gift; the poet of the Iliad no longer understood this custom called ‘potlatch’ by anthropologists (but see Donlan 1989); Mackie 1996, 95  f., and Fineberg 1999, esp. 34–39: the narrator commentary is to be taken ironically and is meant (thus Fineberg) to instigate critical reflection on traditional values in the recipients; Buchan 1999: the episode illustrates ‘[the Iliad’s] failed efforts to find a meaningful ideology of exchange’ (131). Differently again Scodel 1992: Zeus had no reason to rob Glaukos of his senses; with this arbitrary act he ironically supports Glaukos’ own references to the gods’ unpredictability – ‘a mild and almost funny proof of an important and usually tragic truth’ (84).

234 Zeus the son of Kronos stole away the wits (phrénas) of Glaukos: i.e. he temporarily robbed him of ‘the ability to think rationally’ (Böhme 1929, 46, transl.; cf. Sullivan 1988, 150  ff.); as here, in a narrator commentary at 18.311 (of Athene in reference to the Trojans) and perhaps ‘Hes.’ fr. 69 M.-W. (context not preserved); also in (self-)reproaches by characters: 9.377, 17.469  f., 19.137 (see ad loc.), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 89; similarly 7.360 = 12.234, 15.724  f., Od. 14.178, 23.14 (‘destroy/harm’ rather than ‘remove’). – On phrénes with the meaning ‘mind, intellect’, cf. 1.115n.; Berres 2004, 251–253. ἔνθ’ αὖτε: introduces surprising turns in the narrative; cf. e.g. 23.140 = 23.193, Od. 2.382 = 2.393 = 4.795, etc. (LfgrE s.v. αὖτε 1588.75  ff.). — Γλαύκῳ … ἐξέλετο: on the dat. with verbs of removal, Schw. 2.146 and Chantr. 2.67  f., transl.: ‘The dative expresses better than the accusative or the genitive the interest of the person who is deprived of something.’ — φρένας ἐξέλετο Ζεύς: a VE formula (= 19.137, in addition 2x ‘Hes.’).

96 

 Iliad 6

235 who exchanged with Diomedes  … armor: At 8.195, Diomedes’ armor, which Hektor hopes to capture, is described as the work of Hephaistos; it is unclear whether the reference there is to the golden armor taken from Glaukos (pro: schol. A and T on 8.195, cf. schol. T on 6.234 and Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 27; contra: Leaf on 236, Kirk on 234–235). 236 In Greek, a memorable four-word verse (cf. 1.75n.) with a parallel sequence of two antithetical elements (Fehling 1969, 281  f., 311); the 1st VH later becomes proverbial (AH; Bartelink 1956, 170–172). — for nine oxen’s worth the worth of a hundred: on cattle as a unit of value, see 2.449n.; Macrakis 1984. ‘One hundred’ and ‘nine’ are typical numbersP in early epic (collection of examples: Germain 1954, 99–101; cf. 173–177n.). 237–529 Hektor in Troy The narrator returns to the storyline suspended after 118, and in seven scenes sketches a vivid image of the situation in the besieged city: (1) Hektor’s arrival in Troy and the questions of the anxious Trojan women regarding their relatives (237–241); (2) an encounter between Hektor and Hekabe (242–285); (3) a procession of Trojan women to the temple of Athene (286–312); (4) Hektor with Paris and Helen (313–368); (5) Hektor’s search for Andromache and their encounter at the Skaian gate (the so-called homilia, 369–495a); (6) Andromache’s return home (495b–502); (7) Paris catches up with Hektor and the two brothers talk before their return to battle (503–529). The narrative follows Hektor’s path through Troy; only in (3) and (6) does he temporarily disappear from view (on the coordination of the parallel storylines, see Krischer 1971, 108  f.; Rengakos 1995, 17  f.; Purves 2011, 528–530). – One leitmotif of the passage is Hektor’s haste: in each of the three core scenes (2/4/5), a woman attempts to persuade him to stay (Hekabe 258  ff., Helen 354  ff., Andromache 431  ff.), but each time he refuses; the emotional tension increases from scene to scene (Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 129; Kakridis [1937] 1949, 50–52; Lohmann 1988, 50–55); cf. also Reckford 1964, 8  f. (a triple appeal to the hero as a traditional motif with ‘folk-tale quality’, translated in the Iliad into complex epic scenes); Krischer 1997, 109  f. (a variant of the schetliasmos speech type, cf. 407–465n.); Lateiner 2004/05, 419 (on the significance of proximity and distance in Hektor’s encounters with the women). This sequence of scenes subtly prepares for the end of the Iliad: the same three women will engage in lament at 24.723–776 (see ad loc.) after the return of Hektor’s corpse (Guastalla 1937;

235 ὅς: sc. Glaukos.

Commentary 

 97

cf. also 369–502n. [parallels relating to Il. 22 and 24] with further bibliography). – With the exception of (3), all seven scenes are variants of the typesceneP ‘arrival’ (on the basic scheme, 1.496b–502n.; on the specifics of the present scenes [esp. 2/4/5], 6.242–253n., 313–324n., 369–389n.; Arend 1933, 31–34). – On the passage as a whole, see Guastalla loc. cit.; Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 128–130; Kakridis (1937) 1949; Schmitz 1963; Bretzigheimer 1969; Arthur 1981; Lohmann 1988, 48–59; Maronitis (1990) 2004, 33–37, 42–45; Metz 1990, 389–393; de Romilly 1997, 47–66; Van Nortwick 2001; Louden 2006, 30–34; Graziosi/Haubold, Introduction 40–47; for further bibliography relating specifically to the scene between Hektor and Andromache, see 369–502n., 407–496n., 407–465n. 237–241 Hektor is assailed by the women of Troy with questions about their relatives; he tells them to pray to the gods. 237 From caesura A 4 on ≈ 9.354, 11.170. — to the Skaian gates: i.e. Troy’s main gate, facing toward the plain of the Skamandros (3.145n.). πύργον: The transmission vacillates between φηγόν (cf. 9.354, 11.170) and πύργον. φηγόν is less appropriate here, given that the oak, mentioned repeatedly as a topographical fixed point, is located outside the city walls and that the narrator is unlikely to imagine the Trojan women meeting Hektor outside the city (West 2001, 196; contra: Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.). On the tower at the Skaian gate, 3.149n. — ἵκανεν: impf. with aor. force (1.431n.).

238 2nd VH ≈ 22.155, Od. 11.227, 11.329. — wives of the Trojans and their daughters: The periphrastic denominationP of the Trojan women may have a thematic function: the subsequent narrative deals with the relationship between the Trojan women and their family members on the battlefield (in general: 239  f.; then made concrete in regard to Hekabe, Helen and Andromache in their respective relationships with Hektor). θέον: cf. 394 ἐναντίη ἦλθε θέουσα (of Andromache concerned for Hektor).

239–240 after their sons, after their brothers and [neighbours] relations, | their husbands: The significance of family bonds is emphasized repeatedly in early epic (24.36–37a  n., 24.47n.). On the term étai (‘relations’ rather than ‘neighbours’, as rendered by Lattimore), see 239n.

237 Σκαιάς τε πύλας καὶ πύργον: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — πύλας: 80n. 238 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — θέον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). — θύγατρες: = θυγατέρες.

98 

 Iliad 6

239 2nd VH ≈ 16.456, 16.674, Od. 15.273; cf. also Il. 24.793. — ἔτας: ἔται (Elean with initial ϝ), always pl. in Homer, belongs to the IE reflexive *swe; it thus originally means ‘one’s own people’ (Frisk, DELG; Leukart 1994, 150–154, 250, 263–265). In Homer, the term sometimes (as here) denotes more or less close relations, sometimes (as at 262 and in post-Homeric literature) ‘(fellow) citizens’ (LfgrE s.v. with bibliography).

240–241 As revealed by the narrator’s comment at 241b, Hektor’s exhortation contains dramatic ironyP: for many of the women it will already be too late to pray for their family members’ survival. ὃ δ’ ἔπειτα θεοῖς εὔχεσθαι ἀνώγει | πάσας ἑξείης: Kirk prefers the v.l. πᾶσι μάλ’ ἑξείης attested in schol. A on 241 (cf. Od. 11.134 ≈ 23.281). But there is nothing problematic about the main transmission πάσας ἑξείης: a summary of several speeches with similar content in indirect speech, as at 2.400  f. (see ad loc.), 9.179–181, 20.5  f., etc. (de Jong [1987] 2004, 115  f.; cf. schol. bT: πρὸς πάσας ἐφεξῆς τὴν αὐτὴν ἀπόκρισιν ἐποιεῖτο). — ἔπειτα: ‘thereupon’, i.e. probably without addressing their questions; Hektor neither has the time to inform all the women about the fate of their family members nor in the present situation is he in a position to offer an overview of the most recent losses from the Trojan contingent (on the complexity of battle action, cf. e.g. 13.770  ff., 22.46  ff.). — ἀνώγει: unaugmented plpf. of ἄνωγα ‘order’, a perf. with present sense (Schw. 2.777, LfgrE s.v. ἄνωγα 960.64  ff.); differently 439 (see ad loc.). — κήδε’ ἐφῆπτο: ‘suffering was imposed’ (κῆδος in the sense ‘mourning for kinsmen’: Mawet 1979, 357, 358  f.); an inflectible VE formula (2.32n.; cf. also 1.445n.).

242–285 Hektor encounters his mother Hekabe near Priam’s palace; she offers him wine for a libation and for his own refreshment. Hektor declines and asks Hekabe to conduct a procession of supplication to the temple of Athene together with the Trojan women; he himself will fetch his brother Paris to rejoin the battle. 242–253 The type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n., 6.369–389n.) is here, as occasionally elsewhere, expanded via a description of the setting; likewise at 313– 317, 18.369–371, 24.448–456, Od. 7.84–132, etc. (Arend 1933, 32; Richardson 1990, 50–57; Reece 1993, 79).  – The description of Priam’s palace is likely influenced by reminiscences of the Mycenaean period, and/or by knowledge of Near Eastern palace complexes (Raaflaub 1993, 89 n. 16, 92  f. n. 42 [with bibliography]; cf. also Shear 2000, chap. 1, esp. 1  f., 9  ff.; Schirmer 2002

239 εἰρόμεναι: part. of εἴρομαι (+ acc.) ‘ask after’. — τε (ϝ)έτας: on the prosody, R 4.3. 240 πόσιας: acc. pl. of πόσις ‘husband’. — ὅ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — εὔχεσθαι ἀνώγει: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 241 ἑξείης: = ἑξῆς (adv., ‘in turn, one after another’). — πολλῇσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — κήδε’ ἐφῆπτο: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the uncontracted form κήδε(α), R 6. 242 Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

Commentary 

 99

and Seeher 2002 [on Mycenaean and Hittite palaces]; others suspect models from the Dark Ages and the period in which the Homeric epics themselves emerged: Hertel 2003, 157  f.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. with further bibliography). It is not entirely clear how the building complex is envisioned in the text  – at least for the modern reader (243n.); the narrator was probably less concerned with a precise image of the disposition of the various parts of the building than with creating ‘atmosphere’ and ‘setting’ via his description (Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 36, transl.; cf. Alden 1990): the emphasis is on the magnificence and spaciousness of the complex. This creates a tangible impression of the extent of the Trojan king’s power, which nevertheless will be unable to save the city from its downfall  – as the audience knows from numerous prolepsesP, as well as from the narrative tradition (cf. Willenbrock loc. cit. 37; Müller 1968, 89  f.; Rougier-Blanc 2002, 103, 111  f.; 2005, 286  f., 293, 302  f.; Tsagalis 2012, 137  f.). – The passage is marked by the parallel construction of the verse groups 244–246 ≈ 248–250 (Kirk): a linguistic reflection of the ‘ordered reality’ (if endangered) of urban life as opposed to the ‘turbulent world of battle’ from which Hektor comes (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 88, transl.). ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή …: The main clause follows only at 251 (ἔνθα … ἤλυθε μήτηρ), and the description of the palace at 243b–250 is parenthetical; likewise at 24.448  ff. (description of Achilleus’ hut at 24.449b–456, framed by 448/457 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ … / δή ῥα τόθ’ …); similar but with anacoluthon is Od. 6.262  ff. (a return to the main thought only at 289). On parentheses in Homer, see Classen (1851–1857) 1867, 5–18; on parentheses as an ‘ancient stylistic means of colloquial diction, which is utilized by elevated language’ generally, Schwyzer (1939) 1983 (with many examples from IE literature; p. 85 for the quotation [transl.]; for Homer specifically, 91–93). 243 ξεστῇς αἰθούσῃσι: comitative instrumental (with τετυγμένον), ‘built with wellpolished halls’ (AH; Schw. 2.161  f.). ξεστός is a generic epithetP, mostly of items made from wood or carved stone (thus at 244/248 and likely also here; see LfgrE s.v.). The exact meaning of αἴθουσα is disputed; the term is most frequently used in the sing., where it likely denotes a ‘vestibule’ between the courtyard and the main building (24.238n. with bibliography); in the pl. only here and at 20.11, Od. 8.57, which may refer to colonnaded porches surrounding the courtyard (Willcock, Kirk; Shear 2000, 9). — ἐν αὐτῷ: Whether a contrast with ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς (247) is implied is unclear. If so, the sons’ fifty bed chambers (θάλαμοι: cf. 316n.) in the main complex would have to be envisaged as clearly separate from the daughters’ twelve (Leaf, Graziosi/Haubold); otherwise, all θάλαμοι would border the palace courtyard, the twelve (with further rooms for ser-

243 ξεστῇς αἰθούσῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — τετυγμένον: perf. pass. part. of τεύχω ‘make, produce; build’.

100 

 Iliad 6

vice personnel?) opposite the fifty (thus AH, Faesi/Franke; Rider [1916] 1964, 181; Kirk considers both possibilities).

244–246 fifty …: a typical numberP (cf. the fifty sons of Aigyptos and the Danaids, the fifty Nereids, etc.; further examples in Roscher 1917). Twenty-two of Priam’s fifty sons are mentioned by name in the Iliad, and eleven die over the course of the action (see CH 8 with n. 28). Nineteen in total are borne by Hekabe (24.496), others by additional legitimate, high-status wives (Kastianeira from Thrace, 8.304  f.; Laothoë, daughter of the Lelegian king Altes, 21.84  ff./22.46  ff.): Priam’s polygamy is one of the few traits in the Iliad that lend an Eastern character to Trojan culture (Leaf on 22.48; Deger-Jalkotzy 1979; polygamy of rulers, inter alia as a means of political alliance, is historically attested particularly for the Hittites and in Israel: see Starke 1997, 464 with n. 183; West 1997, 392). Other sons of Priam are children of concubines (of lower social rank than the children of legitimate wives, but nonetheless socially respected; see e.g. 8.318  f., 12.91  f., 13.790  ff. on Kebriones; cf. Wickert-Micknat 1982, 84–86). 245 πλησίοι ἀλλήλων: i.e. probably immediately adjacent (AH with reference to Od. 14.14). An inflectible VB formula: 3.115n. 246 μνηστῇς: μνηστή (only fem.), always an epithet of ἄλοχος except at h.Ap. 208, denotes a wife ‘obtained via proper courtship’, i.e. one who is ‘legitimate’ (LfgrE s.v.). The main tradition has μνηστῇς here, as opposed to the v.l. αἰδοίῃς; the reverse is true at 250 (see app. crit.). Kirk hypothesizes that originally both passages had αἰδοίῃς ἀλόχοισιν (VE formula: in addition to this passage, 1x each Il., Od., h.Ap.), since the combination μνηστὴ ἄλοχος does not otherwise occur at VE and is usually in the sing. (3x Il., 1x Od.). But declension and dislocation of formulae are common phenomena, and the slight variation within the parallelism is probably deliberate (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 88 n. 4; Friedrich 2007, 76  f.). 247–248 ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς | … θάλαμοι: likely not a free-standing building within the courtyard (thus LfgrE s.v. αὐλή 1550.75  ff., but cf. West on Od. 1.426) but chambers opening onto the court (AH, transl.: ‘on the opposite courtyard wall’; Kirk: ‘built into the colonnades’). — τέγεοι: ‘roofed’; an ornamental epithet used as a metrical stop-gap: δώδεκ’ ἔσαν τέγεοι θάλ. corresponds to πεντήκοντ’ ἔνεσαν θάλ. at 244 (Kirk).

248 twelve: another typical numberP (93n.).

244 ἔνεσαν: = ἐνῆσαν (R 16.1). 245 δεδμημένοι: perf. pass. part. of δέμω ‘build’. 246 μνηστῇς ἀλόχοισιν: on the declension, R 11.1–2. 247 κουράων: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary 

 101

249–250 lords of the daughters of Priam: In Homeric society, men usually either stay in their father’s house after marriage (245  f., Od. 3.412  ff., etc.) or start a household of their own in the neighbourhood (Paris: 313  ff.; Hektor: 370  ff.). Special circumstances may cause them to settle with their father-in-law (e.g. loss of their own native land: Bellerophontes [157  ff./191  ff.], Tydeus [14.119  ff.]); here the reason is apparently the war: the sons-in-law, some of whom lived abroad prior to the war, support Priam in the defence of Troy (13.172  ff.; cf. 5.473  f., 13.365  ff.; see Walcot 1970, 55  f.; van Wees 1992, 333 n. 60). αἰδοίῃς: epithet of women, with both an active and a passive meaning: ‘who practice female αἰδώς and who are accorded αἰδώς’ (LfgrE s.v. 269.69  ff., transl.); thus ‘chaste, true’ and hence ‘respected, honorable’ (cf. Cairns 1993, 120  f.). On the v.l. μνηστῇς, 246n. 251 ἠπιόδωρος: a Homeric hapaxP (epithet of Κύπρις in Stesichoros fr. 223.2 Page/Davies). The meaning is uncertain (see LfgrE s.v.): most likely ‘giving kindly (kind gifts)’ (in reference to 258  ff.?; on the word formation, Risch 186), but perhaps also a suppletive fem. of ἤπιος (with weakened final element) or a metrical variant of πολύδωρος (3x Il./Od. as epithet of ἄλοχος, including of Andromache at 394 in a situation analogous to the present one: ἔνθ’ ἄλοχος πολύδωρος ἐναντίη ἦλθε θέουσα [see Kirk]). 252 ≈ 3.124 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH = 13.365, 13.378, ≈ 2.715, h.Cer. 146. — Λαοδίκην ἐσάγουσα: Hektor and Hekabe – arriving from different directions – meet in front of the palace. 252 explains why Hekabe had been out (a variant of element 3 of the type-scene ‘arrival’: account of the situation): she had accompanied her daughter home (well-born women do not normally move about in the public sphere by themselves, see 3.143n., 6.399  f., Od. 6.84; cf. also Od. 1.331 with West ad loc.). The mention of Laodike is likely due to an associative reminiscence of 3.121  ff.: the goddess Iris had taken Laodike’s form for her errand to Helen, and both poet and public may have retained the impression that the actual Laodike as well had been walking about in the city (West 2001, 196  f.; Danek 2006, 11  f.).

253 = 406, 14.232, 18.384, 18.423, 19.7, Od. 2.302, 8.291, 11.247, 15.530; ≈ Od. 10.280; 2nd VH (speech introductionP) a further 11x Il., 21x Od., 2x h.Ven. A formulaic verse introducing cordial, urgent speeches: see 19.7n. ἐν … οἱ φῦ χειρί: ‘firmly clasped his hand’; οἱ … χειρί is likely double dat. in the σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ μέρος (whole and part), with χειρί as a locative dat. of destination, i.e. literally ‘grew into his hand’ (19.7n. with bibliography). — ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: ‘and addressed

250 αἰδοίῃς: on the form, R 2, R 11.1. 251 ἔνθά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1); likewise in 253. — ἤλυθε: = ἦλθε. 252 ἐσάγουσα: = εἰσάγουσα (R 20.1). — εἶδος: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 253 ἐν … φῦ (from ἐμφύομαι), ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — ἄρα (ϝ)οι … χειρὶ (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.3, R 5.4. — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; mid. without a diffence in meaning from the act. (R 23).

102 

 Iliad 6

him’; the original meaning of the phrase, ‘called him by his name’, has faded due to its formulaic use (1.361n.; LfgrE s.v. ὀνομάζω 715.19  ff.).

254–262 Hekabe correctly guesses that Hektor has come to the city to obtain divine help; she errs only in assuming that in the current trouble he will take the time to conduct ritual actions himself, and recommends, with maternal concern, that he also use the opportunity to fortify and rest himself. 254 τέκνον: In the Iliad, the voc. is always an address to adult sons or daughters (in total 17x, including 4x Hekabe addressing Hektor, 7x Thetis addressing Achilleus); in the Odyssey also for relations outside the immediate family (Nestor addressing Telemachos and others); see 1.362n., 19.8n. — πόλεμον θρασύν: an inflectible formula after caesura B 1 (10.28, Od. 4.146, v.l. Il. 16.494) beside the metrically equivalent πόλεμον/-ος κακόν/-ός (13.225, 16.494 [main transmission], Od. 22.152). In the Iliad, θρασύς is generally used to characterize warriors; here it is applied to battle as the sphere in which they prove themselves (or πόλεμος as synecdoche for the fighters themselves: LfgrE s.v. θρασύς). — εἰλήλουθας: on the form, Schw. 1.347, 769. 255 ἦ μάλα δή: a common combination of particles (12x Il., 15x Od., 2x ‘Hes.’); like ἦ δή (1.518n.) always in direct speeches (Griffin 1986, 45  f.; Kirk). At times, as here, introducing an assumption that seems obvious to the speaker (‘certainly, surely’; cf. 518, 15.91, 18.12, ironically at 5.422, 21.55) and/or used as an expression of sympathy (cf. 8.102, 15.91; feigned at 22.229). — τείρουσι: cf. 85n.; used absolutely, as at Od. 4.441  f. — δυσώνυμοι υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: The unique expression replaces the VE formula κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί (2.11n.; in the nom. 17x Il., 1x Od.): an example of transcending the principle of formula economy (FOR 32) in favor of a ‘phrase juste’ matching the situation and the speaker’s perspective (Friedrich 2007, 93  f.; cf. loc. cit. 23–28). – δυσώνυμος ‘with a bad name, cursed’ is always used, with the exception of 12.116 (of a warrior’s deathly fate), in direct speech (character languageP; Griffin 1986, 42); cf. Od. 19.571 (Penelope on the day of her wedding to a suitor), Hes. Th. 171 (Kronos on his father Uranos), h.Ap. 368 (Apollo on the Chimaira); also Κακοΐλιον οὐκ ὀνομαστήν (Od. 19.260 etc.). According to some interpreters, δυσώνυμοι in the present passage suggests an etymologizing interpretation of the name Ἀχαιοί as derived from ἄχος ‘pain, distress’ (Eust. 640.31  ff.; AH; Rank 1951, 41  f.; cf. 10.145 = 16.22 ἄχος βεβίηκεν Ἀχαιούς). But this would be unparalleled among the other attestations of δυσώνυμος. — υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectible VE formula; the periphrastic description ‘sons of the Achaians’ for ‘Achaians’ is probably a Semitism (1.162n.; further bibliography: Graziosi/Haubold; LfgrE s.v. υἱός 701.3  ff.).

254 τίπτε: = τί ποτε, ‘why?’ — εἰλήλουθας: = ἐλήλυθας (with metrical lengthening of the initial syllable: R 10.1). 255 υἷες: on the declension, R 12.3.

Commentary 

 103

256 μαρνάμενοι: 204n. — περὶ ἄστυ: in a local sense (as opposed to a figurative sense ‘to fight for’ with gen./dat., e.g. 18.265, Od. 17.471: K.-G. 1.492  f., Schw. 2.501  f.). — θυμός: occurs repeatedly as an active subject in combination with verbs of urging, desire, etc. (LfgrE s.v. 1084.7  ff.; 2.276n. with further bibliography).

257 from the peak of the citadel: i.e. from the acropolis, as the city’s religious center (88n.). The passage does not necessarily imply that a temple of Zeus must be envisaged in addition to the temple of Athene mentioned at 88: until the Classical period, Zeus was largely worshipped in the open air (Kirk contra Leaf; cf. Burkert [1977] 1985, 88  f.). – On the application of Greek cult practice to Troy, see CG 3. — lift your hands: a gesture of prayer common in many cultures (3.275n. with bibliography). χεῖρας ἀνασχεῖν: an inflectible VE formula (3.275n.).

258–260 But stay: pointedly at VB. ‘This is Hecuba’s central request. Like all the other women Hector meets in Troy, Hecuba tries to delay him’ (Graziosi/ Haubold; cf. 237–529n.). — to pour out | a libation … | first, and afterwards if you will drink yourself, be strengthened: In the same way that sacrifice and feast belong together (1.447–468n., 1.460–461n., 6.173–174n.), in libations only part of the wine is generally poured out, and the remainder is consumed; cf. 9.177 ≈ Od. 3.342, etc.; Rudhardt (1958) 1992, 240–245; Casabona 1966, 232– 234. — father: on Zeus’ role as ‘father of gods and men’, see 1.544n., 3.276n. 258 ὄφρα κε … ἐνείκω: a transition from temporal to final ὄφρα: ‘until I will have brought you’ > ‘so that I bring you’ (Schw. 2.651; Chantr. 2.262; Wakker 1988, 329). — μελιηδέα οἶνον: an inflectible formula (gen./acc., after caesura B 1 or at VE, in total 3x Il., 6x Od., 2x h.Hom.; also 3x in early epic with hyperbaton οἶνος/-ου/-ον … μελ.). μελιηδής, literally ‘sweet as honey’, like the other epithets of wine belonging to the same semantic field (γλυκερός, ἡδύς, ἡδύποτος and μελίφρων: cf. 264n., in general 3.246n.), is also used with a broader sense ‘delicious, invigorating’ (e.g. 10.569 of wheat as horse fodder) and metaphorically ‘pleasant, longed-for’ (of νόστος, ὕπνος, etc.: Od. 11.100, 19.551; see LfgrE s.v.); it thus does not necessarily denote flavor in this case. 260 πρῶτον, ἔπειτα δέ: a VB formula (= 11.176, 17.64; ≈ 16.229). — δὲ καὐτός: Crasis is rare in Homer; cases like the present one may originally have represented elision (δὲ

256 περὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ἐνθάδε: ‘here’ (R 15.3), to be connected with ἐλθόντ(α) (257). 257 πόλιος: on the declension, R 11.3. 258 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — μελιηδέα (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐνείκω: = ἐνέγκω (aor. subjunc. of φέρω). 259 ὡς: ‘so that’. — ἀθανάτοισιν: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). 260 ὀνήσεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — αἴ κε: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5). — πίῃσθα: 2nd sing. aor. subjunc. of πίνω (R 16.2).

104 

 Iliad 6

κ’(αὶ) αὐτός). The reading preferred by Aristarchus, δέ κ’ αὐτός (with elided κε rather than καί) seems less pregnant, since Hekabe means that Hektor himself should have some wine as well (Leaf; Graziosi/Haubold; Chantr. 1.85; Schw. 1.401 with bibliography; cf. also 13.734 with Janko ad loc., Od. 3.255, 6.282). — ὀνήσεαι: likely a short-vowel subjunc. (differently AH and Graziosi/Haubold: fut. ind. no longer dependent upon ὡς). — αἴ κε πίῃσθα: probably derived from the VE formula αἴ κε πίθηαι (1.207n.) by tonal association (Kirk; cf. FOR 25).

261 Advice and exhortations are often emphasized by gnomes (cf. 1.274n., 2.196– 197n.; Ahrens 1937, 58; Lardinois 1997, esp. 218  f.); on the notion that men require food and drink for battle and other deeds, cf. 9.706, 19.155  ff. (esp. 19.161 with n.), Od. 2.290 (all of which, however, refer to wine and bread as a general periphrasis for ‘food’). κεκμηῶτι: perf. part. of κάμνω; on the form, G 95, Chantr. 1.430  f. — μένος: 72n. — μέγα: adv. ‘very’ (Leaf) or proleptic adj. with μένος (i.e. ὥστε μέγα εἶναι: thus AH); both possibilities also at Od. 11.195, 17.489, etc. 262 τύνη: an amplified personal pronoun of the 2nd pers. used in emphatic addresses (elsewhere always at VB, cf. 5.485, 12.237, etc.; in total 6x Il., 3x Hes.). On the disputed origin of the form, 19.10n. end. — ἔτῃσιν: here probably ‘fellow citizens’ (239n.); on Hektor as Troy’s main defender, see 402–403n. end. 263 = 359; 1st VH (with τόν/τήν) in total 48x Il., 24x Od., 2x h.Ven.; 2nd VH in total 12x Il. (2.816n.; on the VE formula κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ, also 6.116n.). The verse is used without recognizably differing in meaning from the response formulae τὸν/τὴν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπε μέγας κορ. Ἕκτωρ (440 etc.) and τὸν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη κορ. Ἕκτωρ (520) (cf. 1.121n. with bibliography). On the alternating use of different response formulae expressing a deliberate creative drive, see Friedrich 2007, 68–77 (‘deliberate variatio’).

264–285 Hektor refuses Hekabe’s offer for good reasons: he feels unable to carry out the proposed ritual himself (264–268n.). This provides him with an obvious opening for conveying Helenos’ message (although he passes on the instructions in his own name, 269–278n.): he must leave it to his mother and the other women of Troy to seek divine aid. He himself will attempt to persuade Paris to return to battle – a new motif not prepared for by Helenos’ speech at 86  ff. (280b–285n.). 264–268 A character refusing an invitation out of consideration for the urgency of his mission is a common epic motif: in Book 6 also at 360  ff. (and a variation at 441  ff.; cf. 237–529n.), additionally at 11.647  ff., 23.204  ff., 24.552  ff., Od. 1.314  ff., 3.360  ff., 4.593  ff., etc. (on this, Dickson 1995, 161–168; Minchin 2007,

261 ἀέξει: ≈ αὐξάνει. 262 τύνη: = σύ (↑).

Commentary 

 105

52–73; on parallels in Hittite literature, West 1997, 203). – In his justification for his refusal, Hektor addresses Hekabe’s words in inverse order (‘continuity of thought’ principleP): the wine would not increase his lust for battle but instead deaden it (méneos at 265 reprises ménos at 261: catch-word techniqueP; on the ambivalent valuation of wine in early Greek literature generally, see Privitera 1970, 94  ff.; Arnould 2002; cf. 1.225n.), and his religiosity prevents him from performing a sacrifice for Zeus with bloody hands: he treats it as obvious that he lacks the time for the necessary purification ritual (1.449n. with bibliography) (Brillante ad loc.). 264 ἄειρε: ἀντὶ τοῦ πρόσφερε, δίδου (schol. A); perhaps an elliptical expression for ἀείρασα φέρε (cf. 24.583 vs. 17.718, also Od. 1.141 =  4.57 παρέθηκεν ἀείρας): LfgrE s.v. 169.25  ff., 168.51  ff.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — μελίφρονα: a generic epithetP used similarly to μελιηδής (258n.): 4x each in Il./Od. of wine, elsewhere of wheat as horse fodder (8.188), of food in general (Od. 24.489 etc.), figuratively of sleep (Il. 2.34), etc. On the word formation and the meaning, 2.34n. and LfgrE s.v.: probably factitive/causative, ‘turning the senses as sweet as honey, heartwarming’ (cf. 3.246n. on ἐΰφρονα), but alternatively perceived as merely a metrical variant of μελιηδής. — πότνια μῆτερ: In early epic (as already in Mycenaean Greek), πότνια ‘mistress’ largely serves as an honorary title of goddesses; of human women only in combination with μήτηρ/μῆτερ in the present VE formula: an indication ‘of the status, based on the structure of the family, of the mother as mistress of the house […] and of the respect owed her by her children and husband’ (LfgrE s.v. πότνια 1499.11  ff., transl.; 1.357n.). 265 2nd VH ≈ 22.282. — μή μ’ ἀπογυιώσῃς μένεος: ἀπογυιόω is a Homeric hapaxP; the simplex is attested 3x in early epic with the meaning ‘cause to slacken, deaden’ (8.402 ≈ 416, Hes. Th. 858). The compound is probably formed directly from ἀπό + γυῖα ‘limbs’ (and γυιόω is a back-formation from it, like e.g. ἐκ-διφρεύω ‘throw from a chariot’ with the back-formation διφρεύω ‘drive’: Wachter 2006, XVIII); see Aly (1913) 1966, 93  f. The present expression thus means something like ‘in order for you not to separate (Germ. «ab-gliederst», ἀπο-γυιώσῃς) me from my energy’. Differently LfgrE s.v. γυιόω (the simplex is primary, ἀπο- amplifying: ‘completely cripple’). — ἀλκῆς τε λάθωμαι: ἀλκή denotes a warrior’s mental readiness to defend himself: ‘spirit of resistance, will to defend oneself’ (Latacz 1966, 25, 28  f.; cf. 3.45n., 19.36n.); like its counterpart χάρμη ‘aggressiveness’ (19.147–148n.), it is frequently joined with μιμνήσκομαι/λήθομαι: ‘turn one’s thoughts to ἀλκή, remember one’s ἀλκή (v.l. at 112, also 8.174 = 11.287, etc.) vs. ‘no longer think of one’s ἀλκή, let go of one’s ἀλκή’ (cf. 11.313, 15.322, etc.): Latacz loc. cit. 27–31. On comparable expressions in an Old Babylonian hymn and in Old English poetry, see West 1997, 228, and 2007, 477.

264 μοι (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.4. 265 μένεος(ς), ἀλκῆς: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura).

106 

 Iliad 6

266 1st VH ≈ Hes. Op. 725, 2nd VH =  Hes. Op. 724. — ἀνίπτῃσιν: thus West, following Zenodotus (contra Aristarchus and manuscripts: -οισιν). Compound adjectives and verbal adjectives can be two- or three-termination in Homer (Schw. 2.38); occasionally, the transmission is divided (cf. Leaf on 5.466; La Roche 1866, 387–389; Matthaios 1999, 277  f.). — αἴθοπα: ‘sparkling, fiery-looking’; forms a VE formula in combination with οἶνον (1.462n.).

267–268 there is no means for a man to pray to the … | son of Kronos, with blood and muck all spattered upon him: This applies only to prayers associated with a sacrificial ritual (cf. 9.171  f./175–177, Od. 4.750–752/761a), and there is thus no contradiction with 475  ff. (schol. bT on 266; AH; AubriotSévin 1992, 100  ff.); cf. the short prayers during battle at 5.115  ff., 8.236  ff., etc. — dark-misted | son of Kronos: Zeus (son of Kronos: CG 26) is characterized via various epithets as a god of thunderstorms and rain (1.354n.; CG 24). 267 ἅζομαι: < *ι̯άγι̯ομαι, related to ἅγιος ‘sacred’: ‘feel religious awe’ (1.21n.; LfgrE s.v.). — οὐδέ πῄ ἐστι: a formulaic expression (24.71 and 2x h.Hom. at VE; similarly Hes. Op. 105); ‘nor is it indeed possible/allowed’ (AH), with ἐστι as a full verb (use of the accent to distinguish between the full verb and copula does not reflect ancient practice; the accentuation is instead dependent on word position: Wackernagel [1891] 1979, 1581; Vendryès 1904, 108–110; Schw. 1.677; West 1998, XX). — κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι: an inflectible VE formula (1.397n.). 268 VB to caesura C 2 = Od. 22.402, 23.48. — λύθρῳ: ‘(clotted, thick) blood’ (literally ‘pollution’; on the root *lū- like λῦμα ‘dirt’, cf. Lat. pol-luo: LfgrE, Frisk, DELG); here and in the iterata connected with αἷμα in a synonym doubling (1.160n.). On the motif of the bloodstained warrior, cf. also 11.169, 17.541  f., 20.503 (Fenik 1968, 182), further Od. 22.401– 406/487–491, 23.95/115  f./153–163 (Odysseus in the aftermath of killing the suitors).

269–278 Hektor delivers Helenos’ instructions (87b–97) without identifying him as the initiator of the action (probably because he outranks Helenos: de Jong [1987] 2004, 282 n. 73, with reference to Hektor’s speech at 7.67  ff. after Helenos’ suggestion at 7.47  ff.; similarly Zeus at 16.671  ff. after Hera’s suggestion at 16.454  ff.). Further cases in which the character reporting messages or suggestions made by another character speaks in his/her own name: 2.173– 181 (vs. 2.155–167, cf. 2.155–181n.); 2.796–806 (vs. 2.786  f.); 16.23–27/36–45 (vs. 11.658–662/794–803); 18.18–21 (vs. 17.685–693); cf. 18.170–186 (Iris mentions Hera, who sent her, only at 184 after Achilleus’ request); apparently speaking entirely on their own initiative are Iris at 3.130–138 (see 3.121n.) and 23.205–211, and Hypnos at 14.357–360 (de Jong loc. cit. 181  f.). – The message is for the most

267 Κρονίωνι: = Κρονίδῃ. 268 πεπαλαγμένον: from παλάσσω ‘besmirch, befoul’, sc. τινα (‘someone’) as subject acc. — εὐχετάασθαι: inf. of εὐχετάομαι (epic by-form of εὔχομαι); on the epic diectasis, R 8.

Commentary 

 107

part repeated literally (271–278n.) in accord with epic narrative convention (86– 101n.). The beginning has been rephrased due to technical reasons of versification (in 87 Helenos started in the middle of the verse, whereas in 269 Hektor starts at VB; cf. 270n.); the closing verses 98–101, Helenos’ personal remarks regarding the danger posed by Diomedes, are omitted (since they are not part of the message per se and are less suitable in Hektor’s mouth: Andersen 1978, 106; Apthorp 1980, 143–145, with references to comparable cases). 269 ἀλλὰ σύ: a VB formula, commonly (as here) introducing a demand that arises from the preceding argument (1.127n., 2.360n.). — Ἀθηναίης: on the form, 88n. — ἀγελείης: a cult title of Athene (in total 11x early epic, including 7x in the present inflectible VE formula [6x gen., 1x acc.]). Traditionally understood ‘driver, carrier of the spoil’ (thus Frisk, DELG and Beekes s.v. λεία; apparently an old etymology, cf. Il. 10.460 Ἀθηναίῃ ληΐτιδι); ἀγελείη in the Homeric text would thus have to be explained as an Atticism for Ionic *ἀγεληΐη (Attic λεία = Ionic ληΐη, see Hdt. 4.202 etc.). But an Attic inscription of the 4th cent. BC has the form ἀγελάᾳ, from ἄγω + λαός: ‘leader of the warring people’ (cf. Athene’s epithets λαοσσόος at 13.128 and ἀγέστρατος at Hes. Th. 925, in addition to the Homeric personal name Ἀγέλαος at 8.257 etc.): this is thus likely the correct derivation of Homeric ἀγελείη as well (*age-lāwā > Ionic *ἀγελήη > *-λέη > -λείη; cf. Werner 1948, 64 [on Λειώδης] and G 39 [on Ἑρμείας], further G 54; somewhat differently, West on Hes. Th. 318 with bibliography). Undecided: LfgrE s.v.; Risch 191; Kirk on 4.128. 270 σὺν θυέεσσιν: a detail not mentioned at 87  ff. and perhaps added simply as metrical filler (cf. 269–278n.). The word is attested in Mycenaean Greek with the meaning ‘aromatic substance’ (tu-we-a: PY Un 267.3, see MYC s.v. θύος, DMic s.v. tu-wo), whereas in the Classical period it denotes a ‘sacrificial cake’ (on the development of the meaning Casabona 1966, 109  ff.); in Homer it is used to refer to unspecified burnt sacrifices (in contrast to blood sacrifices or libations: 9.499  f., Hes. Op. 336–339; LfgrE s.v.): perhaps incense or an aromatic wood (schol. bT: θυμιάματα; Lilja 1972, 33), cereal or sacrificial bread (RE s.v. ‘Opfer’ 587  f.). – There is no reason to follow Kirk in thinking of the cattle mentioned at 93 and 274 – which would then have to accompany the procession of women (cf. 308a  n.). — ἀολλίσσασα: causative (cf. 287: Hekabe obviously does not summon the women herself). — γεραιάς: 87n.

271–278 ≈ 90–97 (see ad locc.), with minor changes to suit the different conversational situation (cf. 87–93n.).

269 νηόν: = ναόν (Attic νεών). 270 ἔρχεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — θυέεσσιν: dat. pl. (R 11.3) of τὸ θύος ‘burnt sacrifice’ (↑). — ἀολλίσσασα: from ἀολλίζω ‘assemble’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 271–278 ≈ 90–97 (see ad locc.). 271 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

108 

 Iliad 6

279–280 A reprisal of 269–270a in the form of a ring-compositionP serves to round off the individual instructions and to introduce what follows (AH, Kirk). ‘You go … but I will …’ (correlating men … de in the Greek) introduces a bifurcation of the action; the events narrated successively at 286  ff./313  ff. essentially take place concurrently (Rengakos 1995, 17; cf. 313n.). 280a ἔρχε(ο): The main transmission has ἔρχευ, the vv.ll. are ἔρχε’ and ἔρχεο (as at 270); on the uncontracted form preferred by West, see HT 7, West 1998, XXII  f.; contra: G 45 with n. 25.

280b–285 An unexpected turn of events (Morrison 1992, 63–65): Hektor goes beyond Helenos’ order and uses his errand in the city to fetch Paris back to the battle (this subsequently proves helpful for the hard-pressed Trojans: 7.1–16; on the third day of battle, Paris makes a crucial contribution to the Greek defeat via his bowshots from an ambush: 11.369  ff./504  ff./581  ff.; cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 182  f.). At 3.373–382, Paris was removed by Aphrodite from his duel with Menelaos directly to his bedchamber and has not been seen on the battlefield since. Even if the circumstances of this sudden disappearance remained hidden from the bystanders (3.449  ff.), it is reasonable for Hektor to assume that his brother is now at home.  – Hektor’s declaration of intent is followed by a sudden outburst of anger that recalls his rebuke at 3.39  ff. (cf. 3.40 with 6.281b–282a/284  f., 3.50 with 6.282  f.): an expression of disappointment with Paris  – the cause of the war  – who after his failure at 3.30  ff. once again neglects to play his proper part in battle (Bergold 1977, 174). 280b ≈ Od. 17.52. 281–282a αἴ κ’ ἐθέλησ(ι): ‘in the hope that he is willing’ (cf. 1.408n., 6.94n.). On the semantic range of ἐθέλω, see 1.112n.; on the subjunc. ending -ησι (without ι subscr.), West 1998, XXXI. — ὥς κε  … | γαῖα χάνοι: The same image, but as the speaker’s wish for himself, is found at 4.182 ≈ 8.150, 17.416  f.; cf. also 19n. and Clarke 1999, 179  f. – κε with the cupitive opt. is unusual (formally comparable, but better explained as conditional clauses, are Od. 15.545 εἰ γάρ κεν σὺ … μίμνοις, h.Ap. 51 Δῆλ’, εἰ γάρ κ’ ἐθέλοις …). Various attempts at explanation in Schw. 2.330, Chantr. 2.218, Ruijgh 111  f.; most convincing is Kirk ad loc.: ‘κε presumably emphasizes the wish’s unreality’.

280 μετελεύσομαι: fut. of μετελθεῖν (+ acc.) ‘to go to seek someone, go in quest of someone’. — ὄφρα καλέσσω: final (R 22.5); on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 281 αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1). — ἐθέλησ(ι): 3rd sing. pres. subjunc. (R 16.3). — εἰπόντος: sc. μου. — ἀκουέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — κέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — αὖθι: short-form of αὐτόθι ‘immediately, at once’.

Commentary 

 109

282b Double motivationP: the war is traced back to both a divine and a human originator/cause (Zeus/Paris), but without relieving the human being of responsibility (somewhat different is 3.164  f., but see the commentary there, with bibliography); cf. 356–358n.; for the phrasing ‘the gods have made someone be something’, cf. also Od. 23.166  f., Hes. Th. 600  f.; Ennius Ann. 107 qualem te patriae custodem di genuerunt! (West 2007, 87, with additional parallels from the Rigveda). Ὀλύμπιος: In the sing. the word always refers to Zeus (and once to a messenger sent by Zeus: 24.194), in the pl. to all the gods (a collective designation at 1.399 and 20.47, also in the formula Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχοντες, see 1.18n.): LfgrE s.v. — πῆμα: frequently with the sense ‘evil, plague, cause of pain’, as here, characterizing individual persons and other living creatures; e.g. 3.50–51n., 3.160, 10.453, 11.347, 22.288; repeatedly with τρέφειν/ τίκτειν: 22.421, Od. 12.125, Hes. Th. 223, h.Ap. 305  f., 351  f. (Mawet 1979, 91–97).

283 to the Trojans, and … Priam, and all of his children: Before expressing his personal feelings toward Paris in a sort of heart-felt groan (284  f.), Hektor speaks in an objective manner of the suffering that afflicts the community as a whole (among whom he includes himself only indirectly: ‘Priam and his sons’ rather than ‘we’). The Iliad repeatedly emphasizes elsewhere as well that the war affects the royal family and the general population of Troy in the same way: cf. 3.50 (Hektor addressing Paris), also 2.304, 4.35  f., 4.164  f. =  6.448  f., 21.103–105, 24.27  f. Πριάμῳ … τοῖό τε παισίν: a variant of the VE formula Πρίαμος Πριάμοιό τε παῖδες (4x Il., see 1.255–256n.); cf. 4.28 Πριάμῳ κακὰ τοῖό τε παισίν. — μεγαλήτορι: ‘with much energy, great-hearted’; a generic epithetP ossified into something like a title, of various male characters (less often peoples) and of θυμός (LfgrE s.v.), of Priam 3x in the dat. in the same position in the verse (also 24.117, 24.145); a metrical variant of μεγάθυμος (1.123n.). 284 Ἄϊδος εἴσω: an elliptic variant of the VE formula δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω (on this, 3.322n., cf. 6.19n.), as at 422, 22.425, etc. 285 φαίην κεν φίλον ἦτορ ὀϊζύος ἐκλελαθέσθαι: thus Zenodotus; the majority of the manuscripts have φαίην κεν φρέν’ ἀτέρπου ὀϊζύος ἐκλ., corrected by Aristarchus to φρέν’ ἄτερ (‘without’) που ὀϊζύος ἐκλ. Aristarchus’ criticism was directed at the adj. ἀτέρπου (probably justifiably: although ἄτερπος rather than ἀτερπής is not without

282 μιν: = αὐτόν. 283 τοῖο: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17; on the declension, R 11.2), referring back to Πριάμῳ: ‘his’. 284 κεῖνον: = ἐκεῖνον. — γε (ϝ)ίδοιμι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Ἄϊδος εἴσω: sc. δόμον, ‘into the house of Hades’ (↑); εἴσω (postpositive) ≈ εἰς (cf. R 20.1–2). 285 φίλον ἦτορ: probably subject acc. rather than acc. of respect.

110 

 Iliad 6

parallels [Wachter 2001, 45], the word appears somewhat weak in terms of sense here: ‘ὀϊζύς is by its nature ἀτερπής, to say the least’ [West 2001, 197]). At the same time, the solution ἄτερ που ὀϊζύος is even less satisfactory, since ἐκλελαθέσθαι remains without a gen. object, while που does not really make sense. West with reservations accordingly adopts Zenodotus’ text, ‘which, if it were the only reading attested, would be subject to no query. The difficulty it leaves is that of explaining how φρέν’ ἀτέρπου came into the tradition in the first place and came to dominate it’ (loc. cit. 197). — φίλον ἦτορ: a formulaic phrase (3.31n.; see also there on the disputed question of whether φίλον in such phrases has an affective or purely possessive meaning). — ὀϊζύος: ὀϊζύς (from the cry of lament ὀΐ) means ‘woe, misery’ (Frisk s.v.); in Homer it may denote psychological suffering (e.g. Od. 4.812, 23.210) or misfortune, trouble and vexation allotted by fate (sometimes in synonym doubling with πόνος or κάματος in reference to the labor of battle: 13.2, 15.365, etc.): LfgrE s.v. 556.6  ff. The present passage likely refers to the suffering experienced by Hektor in the face of the situation as a whole (other interpretations: LfgrE loc. cit. 556.58  ff.). — ἐκλελαθέσθαι: The reduplicated aor. mid. is causative/ intensive: ‘to make oneself forget entirely, drive fully out of one’s mind’ (Latacz 1966, 58–62).

286–312 A futile supplicatory procession to the temple of Athene by the Trojan women 286–287 Hekabe immediately begins carrying out Hektor’s instructions (without even answering him); this accords with Homeric narrative conventions (1.345n., cf. 6.102n.). μολοῦσα ποτὶ μέγαρ(α): μέγαρα is pars pro toto (a part for the whole), ‘house, palace’ (cf. 91n.; LfgrE s.v. 65.14  ff., 66.17); on the present situation, 252n. — ἀμφιπόλοισιν | κέκλετο: a simple ‘speech-act mention’ rather than direct speech (which would have been too cumbersome here): a comparatively rare phenomenon in the Iliad (only 39 cases in contrast to 677 direct speeches: de Jong [1987] 2004, 114  f.). – On the etymology and use of ἀμφίπολος, see 3.143n., 6.323–324n. — γεραιάς: 87n.

288–295 While Hekabe leaves it to her servants to summon the women, the selection of the garment is an important, delicate task that only she can fulfill (90  f. ≈ 271  f.). She accordingly chooses the most valuable piece in her possession (289–291n., 295n.); the story of its origin, however, fatefully recalls Paris’ sacrilege (291–292n.) – and thus indirectly the insult to Athene in the judgement of Paris (cf. CH 8; 24.27–30n.). It remains unclear whether or not the Trojans are

286 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο (cf. 253n.). — ποτὶ (μ)μέγαρ(α): on the prosody, M 4.6. — ποτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — μέγαρ(α): on the plural, R 18.2. 287 κέκλετο (+ dat.): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘urge, order’. — ταί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3). — κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 111

aware of this background (cf. 86–101n., 96–101n. end; Hekabe would be acting thoughtlessly in the one case, unwittingly in the other); the audience at any rate can already guess at this point that the sacrifice will fail to achieve its objective (Taplin [1980] 2001, 355; Erbse 1986, 137; Danek 2006, 13). On stories of origin of objects in general: 2.101–108n. (with bibliography); on allusions generally to the prehistory of the Trojan War and the first nine years of fighting (external completive analepsesP): Kullmann 1960, 227–302; Friedrich 1975, 81  f. with 188 nn. 217–223 (collection of attestations). – The narrative follows the type-sceneP ‘Visit to the treasury’ (24.191–237a  n.; de Jong on Od. 21.5–62 and appendix F p. 598). The elements present are: (1) entering the room (288), (2/3) description of the room (‘fragrant’: 288) and its contents (289a), together with (6) the history of the objects mentioned (289b–292); (5) selection of an object (293) and (7) comment on its particular value (294  f.). 288 ≈ 24.191 (see ad loc.) = Od. 15.99; 1st VH = Od. 7.7; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 3.382. — fragrant: probably of substances burnt like incense (cf. 3.382n.) or placed between garments to protect against moths: Marinatos 1967, 60  f.; Lilja 1972, 48  f.; Graziosi/Haubold (with discussion of ancient sources on the etymology of the adj. kēṓeis). According to schol. A on 288, the ‘Aristarchan’ texts available to Didymos (on this, HT 12) contained an alternative verse: ἣ δ’ εἰς οἶκον ἰοῦσα παρίστατο φωριαμοῖσιν (2nd VH = Od. 15.104). This variant – attested only weakly in the manuscript transmission – is less suitable here, since after 286 Hekabe is already inside the house (in Homer, οἶκος never denotes a single room: LfgrE s.v. 568.7  ff.): Leaf, Kirk. — θάλαμον: 316n. — κατεβήσετο: a thematic s-aorist of καταβαίνω (on the disputed development of the form, see 3.262n. with bibliography). The choice of words does not necessarily imply that the θάλαμος is located in the basement, since καταβαίνω is also used in early epic with the sense ‘enter a closed room’ (e.g. Od. 11.523 of the heroes climbing into the Trojan horse): LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 19.35  ff.; Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.

289–291 the work of Sidonian | women, whom Alexandros … had brought home | from the land of Sidon: The Phoenicians from Tyre (not mentioned in Homer) and Sidon were famed throughout the Mediterranean for their craftsmanship; cf. 23.740  ff., Od. 4.613  ff.; 1 Kings  5:15  ff., 7:13  ff.; 2 Chronicles 2:3  ff. (Solomon sends for specialists from Tyre for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem); see Richardson on 23.740–749 and West on Od. 4.618; Latacz (1990) 1994; Winter 1995 (with bibliography also on the archaeological evidence). How Paris got hold of the Sidonian weavers is unclear from the text (291–292n.); conceivable possibilities: ‘via recruitment, purchase or abduc-

288 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).

112 

 Iliad 6

tion’: Latacz loc. cit. 127 (transl.); cf. (2001) 2005, 328  f.; or perhaps as a guestgift (cf. Od. 24.273/278): considered by Ormerod 1924, 88; van Wees 1992, 380  f. n. 17. Welcker (1849) 1882, 94, followed by Leaf and others, conjectures τούς – referring to πέπλοι – in place of τάς in 290 (also thus in a more recent manuscript). This is implausible: the Homeric epics nowhere mention the import of garments; textiles are made within the household or by hired day laborers (12.433  ff.) (van Wees 2005, 18 with nn. 79  f.). 289 ≈ Od. 15.105. — ἔνθ’ ἔσάν οἱ: Although rare, disregard of the digamma in (ϝ)οι is not unparalleled (see 101n. with bibliography); on attempts at emendation (ἐνθ’ ἦν οἱ Bekker, ἔνθα (ϝ)’ ἔσαν van Gent), see app. crit.; Leaf; Chantr. 1.120, 148. — πέπλοι: 90n. — παμποίκιλοι: ‘all-variegated’ (cf. 294n.); on the word formation, Leumann 1950, 101–105; Risch 213, 217. — ἔργα γυναικῶν: a VE formula (also Od. 7.97, Hes. Th. 603).

290 Alexandros: = Paris; on the origins of both names (used in Homer as metrical alternatives), see 3.16n. αὐτός: emphatic (LfgrE s.v. 1633  ff.), here perhaps with the overtone ‘he of all …’ (suggestion by Nünlist; cf. 288–295n.). — Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής: an inflectible VE formula (3.16n.).

291–292 on that journey | when he brought back also … Helen: Various versions of Paris’ abduction of Helen circulated in the mythic tradition (cf. West 2013, 90–93). (1) With favorable winds, the couple completed the journey from Sparta to Troy in three days (according to Hdt. 2.117, this was the version found in the Cypria: fr. 14 West). (2) At the same time, the present passage implies that Paris returned to Troy, together with Helen, via a lengthy detour. Later sources cite a storm at sea sent by Hera or Paris’ fear of pursuit as reasons for the delay; in addition to Sidon (which Paris conquered, according to Proclus [see below]), Egypt and Cyprus are mentioned as stops along the way (Proclus’ Cypria summary, Chrest. § 2 West [source-critical considerations on this in Kullmann 1960, 204–206, 253; Huxley 1967]; schol. A, bT on 291; ‘Apollod.’ Epit. 3.4). (3) Helen stayed behind in Egypt, while Paris returned to Troy either alone or with a phantom of Helen (Stesichoros fr. 192  f. Page/Davies; Hdt. 2.113–115; Eur. Hel. 31  ff.). The origin of these versions can only be a matter of speculation. The present passage may allude to an older narrative tradition (Hdt. 2.116 even considers it an indication that Homer knew of version (3) – which he other-

289 ἔσαν: = ἦσαν (R 16.1, 16.6). — οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1). 290 τάς: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). 291 Σιδονίηθεν: on the suffix -θεν, R 15.1. 292 περ: stresses Ἑλένην (R 24.10).

Commentary 

 113

wise suppresses), but Paris’ detour via Sidon may also have been an ad hoc invention by the poet of the Iliad for the present passage (sc. for the sake of the point mentioned at 288–295n.); the detail would then have presented an occasion for further elaboration and would have turned into the nucleus of (2/3) (Kullmann loc. cit.). ἤγαγε … ἀνήγαγεν: (ἀν)άγω is sometimes used with the sense ‘abduct, carry away’ (cf. 3.48n., 6.455), although the verb does not necessarily imply the use of force (LfgrE s.v. ἄγω passim); according to Helen herself at 3.173  ff., 6.344  ff. and Od. 4.259  ff., she followed Paris voluntarily – albeit under Aphrodite’s influence (cf. 2.356n.). — ἐπιπλούς: The manuscripts have ἐπιπλώς, but ἐπιπλούς is expected as the participle of the rootaorist ἐπέπλων (like γνούς from ἔγνων, etc.: schol. A on 3.47; Chantr. 1.378); the transmitted ἐπιπλώς is perhaps due to an erroneous interpretation of the spelling -ΠΛΟΣ in an early Attic text that used Ο for ο, ō (ου) and ω (West 2001, 21, 23; contra: Graziosi/ Haubold). – On the origin of the aor. ἔπλων, cf. 3.47n. — εὐρέα πόντον: an inflectible VE formula (acc. 1x each in Il., Od., Hes., also 1x Il. ἐπ’ εὐρ. πόντ. after caesura B 2; dat. 6x Od., 1x Hes., 1x h.Ap.). The form εὐρέα (rather than εὐρύν) probably resulted from the declension of a formula originally coined for the dat. (εὐρέϊ πόντῳ): Ellendt (1861) 1979, 78; Forssman 1991, 278  f. (with further bibliography). — εὐπατέρειαν: ‘having a noble father, daughter of a noble father’ (here and at Od. 22.227 of Helen as the daughter of Zeus, cf. 3.199n.; Od. 11.235 of Tyro as the daughter of Salmoneus); on the word formation, Risch 137  f.; LfgrE s.v. with bibliography. 293 VB until caesura C 2 ≈ Od. 15.106. — Ἑκάβη: The name is used for the first time here (up to this point, the periphrastic denominationP ‘mother’ has been used: 87n., 251, 264): ‘The proper name emphasises her individual agency as she chooses the fateful robe’ (Graziosi/Haubold). – Ἑκάβη (attested on two Corinthian vessels as ϝhεκαβ[α] and ϝεκαβα) is probably a short form of *ἑκαβόλος (an alternative or earlier form of ἑκηβόλος, an epithet of Apollo [1.14n.] and Artemis [Soph. Meleagros, fr. 401 Radt] understood as ‘far-shooting’ [from ϝεκάς]); if of foreign origin, the name was at least interpreted this way in folk etymology (Hekabe has been linked with Artemis-Hekate since antiquity; cf. the myth of her transformation into a she-dog, the animal associated with Hekate [Eur. Hec. 1265, Ov. Met. 13.402  ff./565  ff., etc.]): Frisk 3.84; Wathelet s.v. with bibliography; Wachter 2001, 239  f.

294–295 = Od. 15.107  f.; 1st VH of 295 ≈ 2nd VH of Il. 19.381 (there referring to the gleam of Achilleus’ helmet). 294 κάλλιστος … ἠδὲ μέγιστος: a variant of the expression χαριέστατος ἠδὲ μέγιστος in Helenos’ instructions at 90 =  271. ‘While κάλλιστος describes the objective quality of beauty, χάρις also evokes the pleasure of the gods as viewers: see 90n. As we soon real-

293 ἕν’: = ἕνα. — ἀειραμένη (ϝ)Εκάβη: on the prosody, R 4.4 (↑). 294 ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6).

114 

 Iliad 6

ise, Athena takes no pleasure in this gift’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — ποικίλμασιν: colorful designs or figural depictions; probably worked into the fabric (as described at 3.126 and at 22.441): Marinatos 1967, 3  f., 11; Hoekstra on Od. 15.105. — μέγιστος: 90n.

295 and shone like a star: In Homer, textiles are frequently described as ‘radiant’ or ‘gleaming’ (comparisonP with the radiance of stars also at 14.185, Od. 15.108, 19.234, 24.148 [on this, Scott 1974, 67; on parallels in the Babylonian epic Erra and in the Rigveda, see West 1997, 252, and 2007, 84]; further instances: Shelmerdine 1995, 100). Woolen and linen fabrics were made to shine via treatment with (scented) oil, a practice attested already in the Mycenaean period: 18.595  f., Od. 7.105  ff.; Marinatos 1967, 4  f.; Mycenaean attestations: Shelmerdine loc. cit. 102  f. — It lay beneath the others: ‘as the most valuable, safely stored and not in use’ (AH, transl.; schol. bT), i.e. Hekabe does not pick the first item she encounters. νείατος ἄλλων: gen. of comparison with the superlative, ‘as the lowest in comparison with others’, i.e. ‘the lowest of all’ (Schw. 2.100); on νείατος, cf. 2.824n. 296 βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: literally ‘strode out in order to walk’, i.e. ‘started her journey’; an inflectible formula (usually at VB, 3x after caesura A 3; variants: βῆ/βῆν/βάν, δ’/ῥ’, ἰέναι/ ἴμεν(αι); in total 32x Il., 41x Od., 4x h.Hom.). The expression is, ‘in contrast to simple βῆ without an inf., […] more emphatic (6x in combination with a simile or comparison), more expressive (3x hysteron proteron) and more ceremonial (7x in a series of leaders and followers)’: LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 10.61  ff., transl.; cf. also 2.8n. (βάσκ’ ἴθι), 2.183n. (βῆ δὲ θέειν). — μετεσσεύοντο: ‘«rushed after her» […] μετεσσεύοντο casts Hecuba in the role as leader and adds to the sense of urgency’, cf. 361 ἐπέσσυται, 390 ἀπέσσυτο (Graziosi/ Haubold). 297 1st VH ≈ 10.526, 18.520, 23.138. — ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ: 88n., 257n.

298–300 Theano  …: from Thrace, an ally of Troy (11.222  ff.); as the wife of Antenor and the mother of numerous sons, she is a member of one of Troy’s most influential families (CH 9). Her role as the priestess of Athene may go back to a pre-Homeric narrative tradition (Kullmann 1960, 276; Danek 2005, esp. 13–17; 2006, 12  f.; but see also Davies 1977, 81). Only a post-Homeric myth turned her into a sister of Hekabe (Leaf, Willcock). – Theano was not mentioned in Helenos’ instructions; on this, see 88–89n. 298 ὤειξε: an aor. of ὀ(ϝ)είγω restored by West (following Fick and others; see West 1998, XXXIII; cf. Schmidt 1968, 81 n. 29); Forssman 2005, 108  f., 111  f. argues for retaining the

295 ἀστὴρ δ’ ὥς: ὡς ἀστήρ. 297 νηόν: = ναόν (Attic νεών), acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). 298 τῇσι: ≈ ταύταις (R 11.1, R 17). — θύρας: pl. with reference to the two leaves of the door (as with πύλαι, cf. 80n.).

Commentary 

 115

transmitted form ὤϊξε (with zero-grade; according to him, *ὤειξε should be posited as the pre-Homeric form). — Θεανὼ καλλιπάρηος: an inflectible VE formula (= 302, acc. 11.224). Θεανώ may be a speaking name: ‘she who is concerned with the goddess’ (from θέαινα < *θέαν-ι ̯α): von Kamptz 126, 266; but cf. the doubts loc. cit. 127, 339; further discussion: Wathelet s.v. – καλλιπάρηος is a generic epithetP of women and goddesses (1.143n.). 299 Κισσηΐς: In the Iliad, this is taken as a patronymic (the father Kisses, a Thracian, is mentioned at 11.223  f.), but perhaps was originally an ethnic, ‘woman of Kissos’ (a city in Macedonia); in that case, the name of the relatively insignificant father Κισσῆς would have been derived secondarily from Κισσηΐς: von Kamptz 152, 293  f.; LfgrE s.v. Κισσῆς; cf. also 1.11n., 1.184n. (on Chryseïs/Chryses/Chryse and Briseïs/Briseus/ Brisa). — ἱπποδάμοιο: a generic epithetP of heroes (2.23n.) and of the Trojans as a group (2.230n.).

300 she whom the Trojans had established …: In Homeric society, important decisions and legal procedures are subject to community control; cf. 1.118– 129n., 6.194n. (conferment of gifts of honor and crown lands); Raaflaub 1991, 238; 1993, 54  f. (with bibliography). On procedures and criteria regarding the appointment of priests in Greek antiquity generally: Graf 1997, 473  f.; PirenneDelforge 2005, 6  ff. — to be Athene’s priestess: on the cult of Athene in Troy, see 86–101n. 301 With a wailing cry: Greek ololygḗ (an onomatopoeic form derived from an interjection: Tichy 1983, 236  f.) denotes shrill cries of women, usually in the context of ritual activities (cf. Od. 3.450, 4.767; corresponding to the men’s ritual cry iḗ paián: Bacchyl. 17.124  ff., Xen. Anab. 4.3.19); possibly ‘an archetype of prayers’ (Deubner [1941] 1982, 625 [transl.], with reference to the pl. ‘they prayed’ at 312 [see ad loc.]), here at least in connection with the typical gesture of prayer (‘they raised their hands’: 257n.); see LfgrE s.vv. ὀλολυγή and ὀλολύζειν with bibliography; Pulleyn 1997, 178–183. 303 ≈ 92 (see ad loc.), 273. 304–311 The type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n.). The elements present are: (1) gesture of prayer (anticipated in 301, see ad loc.); (2/3) verb of praying and name of the deity invoked (304); (5) invocation of the deity, using cult titles (305); (7) plea (306  f., 309b–310); (6) pledge, tied to the fulfillment of the plea (rather than a reference to services rendered earlier; the preceding offering of a garment serves as an implicit legitimization of the plea, cf. 2.411–420n. with bibli-

300 ἔθηκαν: = ἔθεσαν. 302 ἣ … Θεανώ: ἥ is anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), Θεανώ in apposition to it. 303 γούνασιν: on the declension, R 12.5 (< *γόνϝασιν, cf. R 4.2).

116 

 Iliad 6

ography) (308–309a); (8) formulaic conclusion (311a); (9) the deity’s response, here – exceptionally – negative (311b; cf. 306–307n., 311n.). 304 ≈ 10.296, Od. 6.323, 24.521, h.Hom. 33.9. — εὐχομένη δ’ ἠρᾶτο: a unique combination. The two verbs are frequently used as interchangeable synonyms, but here the original differentiation between ἀράομαι for the plea within the prayer (115n.) and εὔχομαι (in general ‘make an official statement’ [211n.] > ‘solemnly affirm, pledge’) for the accompanying pledge (Latacz 1969, 351–353; LfgrE s.v. (ἐπ)εύχομαι 821.22  ff.; cf. 1.35n.) is still apparent. Differently, Kirk and Pulleyn 1997, 74 (in Homer, the difference in meaning between εὐ. and ἀ. can no longer be perceived); Aubriot-Sévin 1992 (the semantic fields of the two verbs are generally to be distinguished [thorough analysis in chap. III– IV], but here overlap [387 with n. 258]); similarly Graziosi/Haubold (the two verbs are here used in synonym doubling, underlining the solemnity of Theano’s prayer). — Διὸς κούρῃ μεγάλοιο: an inflectible VE formula (5x Il., 3x Od., 1x each Hes. and h.Hom.); 5x in reference to Athene, otherwise of Artemis (2x), the personified ‘Pleas’, the Muses and the Dioskouroi (1x each).  – An alternative formula from caesura B 1 on (instead of B 2): κούρη/-ῃ/-ην/κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο (2.598n.; on such formula pairs generally, Hoekstra 1981, 45  f.).

305 A solemn address comprising an entire verse (as frequently in prayers: cf. 2.412n., 3.276, 5.115, etc.); on the piling up of epithets in the language of prayer, sometimes as a tricolon, as here, see Beckmann 1932, 42  f.; in addition (with reference to Vedic parallels), Tzamali 1996, 38, 274  f.; Pulleyn 1997, 145  f. — our city’s defender: a cult title of Athene (86–101n.); ‘Athena is addressed with the title that pins her down to what is now required of her’ (West 2011 ad loc.). πότνι(α): cf. 264n. — ἐρυσίπτολι: from ἔρυμαι < *ϝέρυμαι (LIV 684  f.), but the digamma – here bridging the hiatus – has left no other traces in other occurrences of the word in early epic (LfgrE s.vv. ἐρυσίπτολις/ἔρυμαι). — δῖα θεάων: a VE formula, approximately ‘sublime among goddesses’ (δῖα, originally ‘belonging to Zeus, divine’, has likely faded to a general expression of excellence in this expression): 19.6b  n.

306–307 According to Helenos, Athene should only be beseeched to keep Diomedes away from Troy (96  f. = 277  f.). Theano’s prayer deviates significantly from this: the narrator has her plead for the impossible by asking for the death of the hero; it is clearly presupposed that she suspects nothing of Athene’s close relationship with Diomedes (dramatic ironyP; cf. 96–101n. end). There are good reasons for the narrator’s approach: a rejection of the plea in the form originally intended would have discredited Helenos as a seer (problematic after the positive introduction of the character, cf. 73–118n.), whereas its accept-

304 κούρῃ: on the form, R 2, R 4.2. 305 Ἀθηναίη ἐρυσίπτολι: on the hiatus, R 5.6 or R 4.4 (↑); on the -πτ-, R 9.2.

Commentary 

 117

ance ‘would […] have spoiled the pathos of Book 6’ (Mikalson 1989, 96 n. 102; cf. 311n.; the explanation in Morrison 1991, 152–156, is somewhat labored). 306 break the spear of Diomedes: In accord with Homeric thought, gods frequently intervene directly in the action of battle by disarming heroes or rendering their weapons useless; see 13.562  f., 15.461  ff., 16.791  ff. (esp. 16.801); cf. also 23.382  ff. (Brillante ad loc.; West 1997, 210  f., with reference to parallels in Near Eastern literature [among others, the Old Testament: Psalms 46:10, 76:4, Jeremiah 49:35, Hosea 1:5]). ἆξον: on the accent, see West 1998, XX. — δή: on emphatic δή with imper., cf. 476 (δότε δή, in a prayer, as here), 20.115, Od. 12.378, etc. and the common expression ἄγε δή (Denniston 216–218). — ἠδὲ καὶ αὐτόν: an inflectible VE formula (gen./acc. sing. and nom. pl. masc.; in total 3x Il., 2x Od., 2x h.Hom.). 307 πρηνέα: usually in reference to dying (or already deceased) warriors, as here; cf. 2.417  f. etc. (2.414n.). — δὸς πεσέειν: δός + inf. is, unsurprisingly, common in the language of prayer (Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26). — Σκαιῶν  … πυλάων: 237n.; the narrator may be alluding to the mythological tradition in which Achilleus fell at the Skaian gate (cf. 22.360; ‘Apollodorus’ epit. 5.3; on the commonalities between Diomedes and Achilleus, see 96–101n.): West 2011 ad loc. 308a ὄφρα …: a pledge in the form of a final clause (da ut demus), as at Od. 16.184  f.; elsewhere with parataxis (da et dabo): 10.291  ff., Od. 3.380  ff., cf. Il. 14.236  ff. (Tabachovitz 1951, 55 with n. 1). As shown by the context of Od. 16.184  f., the formula da ut demus is not offensive in and of itself (as assumed by Lang 1975, 310  f.: ‘bribe’, ‘rather insulting’; similarly Lateiner 1997, 262; more cautiously: Pulleyn 1997, 27  f.); the prayer is rejected solely on account of its content. — αὐτίκα νῦν: does not have to imply that the sacrificial animals have already arrived (thus Kirk, cf. 270n.), since the sacrifice is meant to be performed only after Athene has fulfilled the plea being made. αὐτίκα often emphasizes more the resolve and readiness for action of the individuals involved than the speed with which an action is performed (Erren 1970).

308b–310 ≈ 93b–95 (see ad locc.), 274–276: the only verses in Theano’s prayer that exactly correspond to Helenos’ instructions (cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. and on 304–10). 311–312 ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχομένη· … | ὣς αἳ μέν ῥ’ ηὔχοντο: a combination of a speech capping formulaP with an ‘appositive summary’ (Richardson 1990, 31  ff.) that concludes

306 ἆξον: aor. imper. of ἄγνυμι ‘shatter’. — δὴ ἔγχος: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — αὐτόν: ‘the man himself’, in contrast to ἔγχος. 307 πρηνέα: predicative adj., ‘forwards, head first’. — πεσέειν: aor. inf. (on the form, R 16.4, R 8). 308b–310 ≈ 93b–95 (see ad locc.). 308 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 309 ἱερεύσομεν: short vowel subjunc. (R 16.3).

118 

 Iliad 6

the scene as a whole (312n.); likewise 17.423  f., 22.515/23.1, Od. 13.184  f.: there is no reason for athetizing 311 (as suggested by schol. A, probably following Aristarchus) or 312 (see Wilamowitz 1916, 308 n. 1). Cf. AH, Leaf, Kirk; Hölscher 1939, 41; Lührs 1992, 111–113.

311 turned her head from her: ‘The rude shock of this abrupt dismissal of what has been so elaborately described gives us a sharp realization of the hopelessness of Troy’s cause, and thus helps to establish the mood for the meeting of Hector and Andromache’ (Owen 1946, 64; similarly Mason 1973, 144, 149; on the prolepticP function of prayers in general: Duckworth 1933, 10  f.).  – The rejection of prayers is an exceptional event in Homer (Morrison 1991, 147  f. with n. 14; Kelly 2007, 250–253): of thirty formal prayers, twenty-four are answered (20x the deity’s positive response is explicitly mentioned), albeit only partially in one case (16.249  ff.); 2x (2.419 and 3.302) the formula oud’ ára pō … epekráaine is used (unclear whether ‘but he did not yet fulfill’ or ‘… definitely not …’, see 3.302n. with bibliography); 3x (3.318  ff., 3.349  ff., 6.475  ff.) the deity’s response is not mentioned, but the wish remains unfulfilled in what follows. An explicit, complete rejection of a formal prayer rendered in direct speech occurs only here (and perhaps at 2.419/3.302, see above). Further instances (futile sacrifices or prayers mentioned in narrator text or character speech): see 2.419–420n.; Mikalson 1989, 95–97; Lateiner 1997, 260  f.; a thorough discussion of Greek and Roman sources from Homer to Late Antiquity is provided by Naiden 2013, 131–182, 331–345. ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχομένη: an inflectible VB formula (fem. sing. only here, 10.295 masc. pl., otherwise masc. sing.; in total 13x Il., 5x Od.). 3x concluding formula of speeches of triumph, otherwise of prayers, as here (in these cases, usually continued with τοῦ δ’ ἔκλυε + name of the deity: cf. 1.43n.). — ἀνένευε: ἀνανεύω is literally ‘nod upward’: a slight tossing back of the head as a gesture of negation/rejection, as is common in Greece to this day (cf. Lat. renuo: Schw. 2.440; LfgrE; antonym: κατανεύω, cf. 1.528n.); here metaphorical, with the impf. likely stressing the negative verbal content: ‘did not want to grant’ (Leaf; Schw. 2.279). — Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη: a VE formula (1.400n.); on the uncertain meaning of Παλλάς, 1.200n. 312 1st VH ≈ Od. 13.185. — ὣς αἳ μέν: an inflectible VB formula, usually followed by a verb in the impf., as here: denotes the transition of a scene to a uniform action, no longer worth describing in detail, thus preparing for a change of scene (1.318a  n.). — ηὔχοντο: The plural underlines the fact that Theano spoke in the name of the community (cf. 1.450/457  f., 2.411/421); via ὀλολυγή and the gesture of prayer (301n.), the women are also actively involved in the rite (like the sacrificants at 1.449/458 and 2.410/421 by jointly throwing grains of barley): Corlu 1966, 88; cf. Pulleyn 1997, 173  ff.

312 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1).

Commentary 

 119

313–368 Hektor censures Paris for his withdrawal from battle; Paris promises to immediately arm himself in order to return to battle along with his brother. Hektor declines Helen’s invitation to rest a bit in her house: he does not wish to keep the hard-pressed Trojans waiting – and since he has a sense of his impending death, he wants to see his wife and child one last time before returning to battle. 313–324 Another variant of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n., 6.369–389n.), expanded, as at 242  ff. (see ad loc.), with a description of the setting. In addition, the portrayal of the situation  – Paris among the women, apparently calmly occupied with his ‘very lovely’ weapons (321–322n.) – is preceded by a glance at the entering Hektor, who with his mighty spear appears as the warrior par excellence, ready for battle: a pointed image of the contrast between the two dissimilar brothers (schol. bT on 319  f. and 321; Bethe 1914, 236; Arend 1933, 33; Griffin 1980, 7  f.). 313–317 In contrast to the other sons of Priam (245  f.), Paris and Hektor each have their own house (365/370), albeit in the vicinity of their father’s palace. The mention of Paris’ personal efforts in building his house is surely made with approval; cf. the analogous statement referring to Hephaistos at 18.369  ff. (on this, Marg [1957] 1971, 39  f., also on the particular proximity between Hephaistos, the creator of beautiful objects, and the poet of the Iliad, a creator of words; on the appreciation of craft and artistic abilities in the world of the Homeric epics generally: Eckstein 1974, 2, 6  ff., 12  ff., 25, etc.; Patzer 1996, 157; Ndoye 2010, 41  f.; cf. also 90–91n.). But in the current crisis – which he himself has brought upon his native city – Paris is at risk of becoming an outsider due to his ‘artistic nature’: cf. 3.46  ff. (esp. 54), 3.64–66n., 6.335–336n.; Latacz 1992, 207; Rougier-Blanc 2005, 333  f. 313 βεβήκει: probably not anterior to the main action but rather ‘turned his step, approached’ (preterite of the iterative perf. ‘take steps’: LfgrE s.v. 10.7  ff. [with bibliography]; cf. 1.221n., 6.495, 6.513; differently, Kurz 1966, 111). Although the narrative in fact falls back somewhat (Hektor’s walk to the nearby house of his brother can only have taken a fraction of the time needed by the women for their procession to the temple; cf. 279–280n.) – thus diverging from the ‘continutity of time’ principleP – the Homeric narrator does not usually signal such a ‘step back’ explicitly (Nünlist 1998, 8). 314a ≈ Od. 7.235; cf. also Il. 18.371 (of Hephaistos, see 313–317n.), and in addition 5.735 = 8.386.

313 δώματ(α): on the plural, R 18.2. — Ἀλεξάνδροιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 314 τά: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1).

120 

 Iliad 6

314b–315 οἳ τότ’ ἄριστοι | ἦσαν ἐνὶ Τροίῃ: In Homeric epic, superlatives and superlative expressions are often made more precise by information regarding their area of application; on limitations via τότε, cf. 9.272, 9.558  f. (in external analepsesP, as here), 14.287. — Τροίῃ ἐριβώλακι: an inflectible formula after caesura A 4 (3.74n.). ἐριβῶλαξ ‘with large clods’ is a generic epithetP of fertile landscapes, but is occasionally used in conjunction with city names (Larisa: 2.841n.); in Homer, Τροίη may denote both the city and the entire Troad (2.141n.). — τέκτονες ἄνδρες: Occupational and status terms are sometimes used in apposition to a generic concept (ἀνήρ, γυνή), and in these cases approximate an adjectival function (Schw. 2.614; cf. 2.474n.). – The word τέκτων denotes any craftsperson skilled in the working of wood or stone (here ‘builder’, elsewhere also ‘ship builder’, ‘carpenter’, etc.): Eckstein 1974, 23–25; LfgrE s.v. 316 VE (from caesura C 1 on) = Od. 22.494. — θάλαμον: θάλαμος may denote ‘any private room’, especially (1) bedrooms (cf. 244, 248), (2) day-rooms for the mistress of the house and her servants, women’s quarters (Od. 17.506 etc.), (3) treasuries (cf. 288); here and 321/336, the meaning is either (1) (following from 3.423  ff.; in that case, the bedroom is also used as a day-room) or (2) (LfgrE s.v.). – Although the θάλαμος is part of the δῶμα, it is here highlighted explicitly (cf. Od. 22.494 μέγαρον καὶ δῶμα καὶ αὐλήν) as the setting for the following scene (Leaf) and/or the place with which Paris has a special affinity (suggestion by Latacz); but perhaps the passage only points out that the building of the house began with the θάλαμος (cf. Od. 23.192  ff.). — δῶμα: the main building (as at Od. 22.494), in contrast to the courtyard (Leaf); elsewhere mostly used as a generic term for the house as a whole (sing. and pl. without differentiation in meaning: cf. 1.533 etc. and 6.313 etc.). 317 ἐγγύθι τε Πριάμοιο καὶ Ἕκτορος: on the position of τε, cf. Hdt. 1.69.2 ἄνευ τε δόλου καὶ ἀπάτης (Schw. 2.574). — ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ: 88n. 318–320 ≈ 8.493–495 (there of Hektor in a military assembly). The repetition of verses and verse groups in different contexts is a common technique of oral poetry (FOR 9  ff.; cf. 1.333n.); the Alexandrian scholars’ question as to whether the verses are better suited to the present situation (thus Zenodotus) or Book 8 (thus Aristarchus) is thus irrelevant in terms of Homeric poetics (Lührs 1992, 211–213). On the function of the verses in the present passage, see 313–324n. 318 διίφιλος: a generic epithetP (1.74n.).

319 eleven-cubit-long: ca. 5 m (cf. BNP s.v. ‘pechys’: the locally diverging measurements for the ancient cubit range from 40 to 52  cm). This can hardly be

315 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — Τρoίῃ ἐριβώλακι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — Τροίῃ: on the form (-ῃ after -ι-), R 2. 316 οἵ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — οἱ ἐποίησαν … καὶ αὐλήν: 2x so-called correption (R 5.5). 317 ἄκρῃ: on the form (-ῃ after -ρ-), R 2. 319 ἔχ(ε) … λάμπετο: on the unaugmented forms, R 16.1. — δουρός: on the declension, R 12.5.

Commentary 

 121

understood as realistic information (lances of this size are attested only from the 4th cent. BC onward [sc. for the Chalybians and Macedonians: Xen. Anab. 4.7.16, Theophr. hist. plant. 3.12.2] and presuppose a different battle technique: Lendle 1995, 269; lances of the Minoan-Mycenaean and Homeric periods are thought to have had a maximum length of 2–3 m, while throwing spears were significantly shorter: Höckmann 1980, esp. 276  f., 281; Franz 2002, 67). Hektor is evidently meant to be characterized by this exceptional weapon as a hero whose powers exceed the human norm (cf. 12.445  ff.; likewise Achilleus: 16.141  ff. =  19.388  ff.; Aias: 15.677  f.; cf. van Wees 1992, 20; Raaflaub 2008, 471  f.). — shining: on the motif of shining weapons as a sign of a warrior’s heroic ‘aura’, see Ciani 1974, 136  ff.; Camerotto 2009, 116–122; cf. also 116n., 466–473n., 513n. πάροιθε: preposition with δουρός, ‘at the tip of the shaft’ (AH); or adv., ‘at the front extremity, at the tip’ (in which case δουρός is to be connected with αἰχμή, and δόρυ is synonymous with ἔγχος): ‘at the tip, there gleamed the bronze point of the spear’: LfgrE s.v. 984.49  ff. 320 πόρκης: a ring that pressed the socket (a tube-shaped metal extension of the spear blade) tightly to the wooden shaft; archaeological examples date from the MinoanMycenaean period to the 6th cent. BC (Lorimer 1950, 254  f., 260; Höckmann 1980, 296; Franz 2002, 66).

321–322 found  …: a portrayal of the situation in secondary focalizationP from the point of view of the person arriving (cf. 1.329–333n., 2.169–171n.); here used pointedly to characterize Paris: 313–324n. — corselet  … shield  … bow: In contrast to 3.17  ff., Paris appears in what follows (as at 3.328  ff.) in the standard armor of hoplites (cf. 504, 513); for weapons, he continues to use bow and spear (cf. 3.18–20n., with bibliography). He nevertheless only uses the spear at 15.341  f. and likely also at 7.8; he is significantly more efficient as an archer (3.18n.; there also generally on the ambivalent role of archers in the Iliad). περικαλλέα τεύχε’ ἕποντα, | … καὶ ἀγκύλα τόξ’ ἁφόωντα: The simplex of both verbs is attested only here in early epic. Their meanings must be deduced from the etymology and use of their compounds: ἕπω (from the IE root *sep- ‘hold, handle’: LIV 534; Vine 1988; Forssman 2006, 111) apparently means ‘handle, manipulate, be busy with’ (e.g. 1.166 διέπω ‘carry out, implement’; 11.776 etc. ἀμφέπω ‘prepare [meat]’); ἁφάω (related

320 περί: adv., ‘all around’ (or so-called tmesis: περὶ … θέε): R 20.2. — χρύσε͜ος: on the synizesis, R 7. 321 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — περικαλλέα τεύχε(α): on the uncontracted forms, R 6. — τεύχε’ ἕποντα: on the hiatus, R 5.1. 322 τόξ(α): on the plural, R 18.2. — ἁφόωντα: part. of ἁφάω (↑); on the epic diectasis, R 8.

122 

 Iliad 6

to ἁφή ‘touch’ or a deverbative of ἅπτω: Frisk) likely means ‘feel (in order to examine)’ (AH; cf. τόξον … ἀμφαφόωντας Od. 19.586). The point is that Paris is mending his weapons (cf. 2.382n.) in order to return to battle (see 337  ff.): AH, Kirk. At the same time, the epithet περικαλλέα, likely used pointedly, indicates that his attention is lovingly drawn to their beautiful appearance (περικαλλέα with τεύχεα only here and at Od. 24.165; elsewhere simple καλά [21x early epic]); cf. schol. bT and Leaf on 321 (‘the «dandy» Paris is turning over and admiring his fine armour’): he is in no particular hurry. The scene in the θάλαμος as a whole appears relaxed (Kirk; Kurz 1966, 46). — ἀγκύλα: 39–40n.

323–324 of Argos: i.e. a ‘Greek woman’ (107n.); epithet of Helen (2.161n.), which defines her as an ‘outsider’ in Troy and recalls her role as the cause of the Trojan War (Graziosi-Haubold). — directing: i.e. she was supervising their spinning and weaving (while participating in the work herself): cf. 3.125n., 6.90–91n., 6.491  f. δμῳῇσι γυναιξίν: a VE formula (dat. an additional 2x Od.; acc. δμῳάς τε γυν. 1x Il., 2x Od.); on phrases of this type cf. 314b–315n. — δμῳῇσι … | … ἀμφιπόλοισι: δμῳαί (in Homer only in the pl.) is generally a collective term for ‘female servants’, whereas ἀμφίπολος (from ἀμφι-πέλομαι ‘be around someone’) is used specifically for servants who operate in the mistress’ immediate vicinity and accompany her during walks around the city (3.143n. with bibliography; cf. 6.372, 491). Here both terms, as metrically convenient variants, denote the same group of people (LfgrE s.v. δμῳ(ή) 321.66  ff., 322.17  ff.); likewise at Od. 6.99/109. — κέλευεν: in Homer frequently with the dat. of person (Chantr. 2.69; Schw. 2.147).

325–342 The Iliad depicts three occasions on which Hektor reprimands his brother Paris (also 3.38  ff., 13.765  ff.; on the relationship between the three scenes, Reichel 1994, 249–252; on this type of reproach generally, 2.225–242n. with bibliography). In each case, Paris replies matter-of-factly and precisely: he accepts legitimate criticism with disarming candor (333, 3.59; more general self-criticism 13.776–777a), but also seeks to clarify the situation to his brother when he feels that his character, behavior or motives have been misjudged (3.60–63n., 3.64–66n., 6.335–336n., 13.777b–780a). 325 =  3.38 (see ad loc.), VE =  13.768 (always spoken by Hektor to Paris). — αἰσχροῖς ἐπέεσσιν: < *αἰσχροῖσι ϝέπεσσιν (West 1998, XXXIII; cf. G 69–70). αἰσχρός, literally ‘ugly, abusive’, denotes words meant to arouse feelings of shame in the addressee (Cairns 1993, 76).

323 δμῳῇσι: on the declension, R 11.1. 324 ἀμφιπόλοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — περικλυτὰ (ϝ)έργα: on the prosody, R 4.3. 325 ἐπέεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3 and ↑.

Commentary 

 123

326 this [coldness] anger: The Greek expression chólon tónde ‘is best captured by «this anger which I assume on the basis of what I see»’ (de Jong 2012, 78): from the fact that his brother sits about in his bed chamber instead of fighting, Hektor concludes that Paris is angry with the Trojans (cf. 321–322n. end, 335  f.). The motif ‘boycott of battle by an angry hero’ is traditional; in the Iliad, it forms the core of the action (the wrath of Achilleus: 1.1 and passim); cf. also 9.524  f./553  ff. (Meleager and other early heroes), 13.459  ff. (Aineias), 13.107  ff./14.49  ff. (suspected Achaian wrath against Agamemnon); on this, Fenik 1968, 121  f.; Scodel 1999, 64. Its use in the present passage has nevertheless vexed interpreters since antiquity, since it is unclear why Paris should be angry at the Trojans at this moment (see the overview of the history of scholarship in Heitsch [1967] 2001). It has thus been assumed that Hektor is delicately insinuating a ‘heroic motif’ – rather then accusing Paris of cowardice – ‘in order to smooth the way for an honorable return to battle’ (Heubeck 1974, 68 [transl.], criticizing other interpretations – analytical and neo-analytical; schol. bT ad loc. and Eust. 644.63  f.; Kirk; Graziosi/Haubold; cf. also Heitsch loc. cit. 186–188, 195; Scodel loc. cit.). But such diplomatic consideration could hardly be expected after the opening verse 325, and Hektor’s words can also be read as a serious assessment of the situation: the Trojans are hostile toward Paris (3.453  f., 6.523  ff., 7.390), a fact that over time cannot have escaped his notice; it is indeed a reasonable assumption on Hektor’s part that Paris would react to this with defiant bitterness – especially after his failed attempt to rectify his wrongdoing via a duel with Menelaos; see schol. A and D; Faesi/Franke; Kirk; Bassett 1938, 134  f.; cf. Heitsch loc. cit. 184, 191  f. δαιμόνι(ε): The adj. originally meant ‘standing under the influence of a δαίμων’; the voc. indicates astonishment at the addressee’s behavior (cf. 407, 486n., 521; 1.561n., 2.190n.). The accumulation of occurrences of this form of address in the second half of Book 6 (4 of a total of 13 attestations in the Iliad) ‘indicates that tensions are running high’ (Graziosi/Haubold). — χόλον τόνδ’ ἔνθεο θυμῷ: ≈ Od. 24.248; cf. also Od. 11.102 = 13.342; Il. 14.50. As shown by the parallels, the expression means ‘develop anger (against others)’ (Heitsch loc. cit. 185  f.), not ‘take to heart the anger (of others)’ (thus schol. T; Bergold 1977, 177  f.; considered by Leaf). 327 2nd VH ≈ 11.181, Od. 14.472, h.Cer. 271. — λαοί: 80n. — φθινύθουσι: ‘perish (one after the other), dwindle away’ (2.346a  n.). — περί: local (256n.).

326 οὐ … καλά: adverbial; ‘it is not fair that …’ — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἔνθεο: 2nd sing. aor. of ἐντίθεμαι (= ἐνέθου: R 16.1, R 6). 327–328 πτόλιν … | … πτόλεμος: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2. — σέο: = σοῦ (R 14.1, R 6). — εἵνεκ(α): initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

124 

 Iliad 6

328–329 2nd VH of 328 = 16.63; ≈ 1.492 (see ad loc.), h.Hom. 11.3; cf. also Il. 14.37, 14.96. — it is for you …: similarly already 3.46–51 (see ad loc.): as the cause of the war, Paris can afford least of all people to evade his duties. — this war with its clamour | has flared up: a common metaphor, cf. 12.35, 13.736, 17.253, 20.18, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 155; see also 2.93n. (with bibliography). — You yourself would fight with another: Homeric reproaches sometimes contain ‘a view of the undesirable action from a broader perspective’ (Minchin 2007, 28), here in the shape of an explicit demand that Paris regard his own behavior as if from the outside (likewise 23.494; the same figure of thought in the 1st sing. as a rationale for the speaker’s own behavior: Od. 6.286, 15.69  ff.; see Cairns 1993, 76 n. 107; Minchin loc. cit. 33–35). μαρνάμενοι: 204n. — ἄστυ τόδ(ε): The emphatic demonstrative pronoun (‘this city here; the city in which we dwell’) emphasizes the urgency of the appeal. — μαχέσαιο: μάχομαι is rarely used for verbal confrontations, in which case it stresses their ferocity (1.8n.); here ‘express vehement disapproval’, as at 5.875, 9.32, negated at 13.118 (LfgrE s.v. 55.12  ff.). 330 ≈ 4.240; cf. also 12.268 and 2nd VH of 4.516, 13.229. — μεθιέντα: a key word in battle paraeneses; elsewhere mostly in reference to warriors who threaten to descend into a lack of initiative and resignation during battle (clustered in 13.95–124; on this, Latacz 1977, 214  f.). — στυγεροῦ πολέμοιο: πόλεμος (‘battle, fighting’: 203n.), like φύλοπις (1n.) and other related terms, is largely linked with epithets of negative connotation (ἀργαλέος, δακρυόεις, δυσηχής, κακός, φθεισήνωρ, etc.; see LfgrE s.v. πόλεμος 1334.54  ff.); on στυγερός ‘abominable, hated’, see 2.385n. and LfgrE s.v. 331 ἀλλ(ά): on ἀλλά with imper., cf. 269n.; in reproaches, it regularly serves to introduce the concluding demand (Minchin 2007, 29). — ἄνα: adv. used imperativally, ‘up!’ (Schw. 2.421, 424). — πυρὸς … θέρηται: θέρομαι literally means ‘warm oneself’; here and at 11.667 as a euphemism for ‘be burnt’ (LfgrE; Graz 1965, 220  ff.). πυρός is partitive gen., either in place of an instrumental dat., as with πρήθω (2.415n.; Schw. 2.110  f.), or analogous to the gen. with verbs of enjoyment (Graz loc. cit. with reference to the basic meaning; cf. Od. 17.23 θέρεσθαι πυρός ‘warm oneself at the fire, enjoy the fire’s warmth’). — δηΐοιο: see 81–82n., 2.415n. 332–333 = 3.58–59 (see ad loc.).

329 ἀμφιδέδηε: ‘blazes around (this city)’, intrans. perf. of ἀμφιδαίω; sing., since the expression ἀϋτή τε πτόλεμός τε forms a hendiadys. 330 μεθιέντα (ϝ)ίδοις: on the prosody, R 4.3. 331 τάχα (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — τάχα: adv., ‘soon’. 332 προσέειπεν: = προσεῖπεν (122n.).

Commentary 

 125

334 = Od. 18.129; ≈ Od. 15.318 = 24.265, 16.259, Il. 1.76 (see ad loc.); 1st VH = Od. 20.229. The verse is athetized by West following Bekker and others, since an apodosis is not necessary after an ἐπεί clause (cf. e.g. the parallel passage: 3.59n.): 334 might be the supplement of an interpolator who failed to understand the elliptical construction (West 2001, 12 with n. 29; cf. Leaf). But there are no compelling reasons for an athetesis (see Kirk). — τούνεκα: on the spelling, see West on Hes. Th. 88. — μευ: contracted form of μεο (G 45 with n. 25).

335–336 Paris does not entirely reject Hektor’s supposition from 326 (see below on ou … tósson ‘not so much’), but corrects it on an essential point: for him, bitterness toward the Trojans is not to the fore; instead, he brings up his need to give himself over to grief as the reason for his withdrawal from battle. The ostensible cause of this grief is his defeat at the hands of Menelaos (cf. 339b  n.); a growing realization of the inescapability of the situation he has brought upon himself and all of Troy may be seen as a deeper reason (Hijmans 1975; similarly Bergold 1977, 181  f.: resignation after the failure of his attempt to achieve a speedy conclusion to the conflict via his duel with Menelaos). – Paris’ need for a ‘timeout’ during which he passively submits to his emotions highlights his role as an outsider within the ‘ruling class’ of Homeric society, ‘which is characterized by a strict code of duty’ (Latacz 1992, 207, transl.): he distinguishes himself by his otherness, which makes it difficult for the people around to understand him – which in turn aggravates his suffering (3.60–63n., 3.64–66n., 6.517–529n.; cf. the detailed interpretation of the scene in Collins 1988, 27–39 [but on this, see immediately below]; Gartziou-Tatti 1992, 85  f. [with further bibliography]). — I sat: In Homer, ‘sitting’ may express passivity (i.e. to be understood pregnantly in the sense ‘sit about idly’): 1.349n., 2.137n., 7.100, 18.104. But Paris clearly signals by his choice of the preterite that mentally he has already given up this attitude – even though he is still physically sitting down. οὐ … τόσσον … | …, ἔθελον δ(έ) …: ‘οὐ τόσ(σ)ον x … ὅσσον/ὡς y’ or (as here and at 21.275  f., Od. 14.142–144) ‘οὐ τόσ(σ)ον x  … y + adversative particle’ weigh x against y: for the speaker, y stands in the foreground, but without dismissing x as entirely insignificant (e.g. 450  ff., 22.424  f., Od. 14.142  ff.). This speaks against the interpretation of Collins loc. cit., that the point of the scene lies in an implicit comparison of Paris – who feels a ‘wrathless grief’ at the community’s reproach, which he realizes is justified  – and angry heroes such as Achilleus or Meleager (326n.). — οὔ τοι … Τρώων τόσσον χόλῳ οὐδὲ νεμέσσι: on the collocation, cf. 8.407 Ἥρῃ δ’ οὔ τι τόσον νεμεσίζομαι οὐδὲ

334 τούνεκα: ‘therefore’. — τοι (ϝ)ερέω: on the prosody, R 4.4. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐρέω: fut. ‘will say’ (Attic ἐρῶ, cf. R 6). — σύνθεο: aor. imper. of συντίθεμαι ‘attend, heed’. — μευ: = μου (↑). 335 τοι: here the particle (R 24.12); strengthens the negation. — τόσσον … νεμέσσι (= νεμέσει): on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

126 

 Iliad 6

χολοῦμαι; Od. 23.213 μὴ νῦν μοι τόδε χώεο μηδὲ νεμέσσα. – Τρώων is an objective gen., ‘not so much from anger and irritation against the Trojans’ (cf. 326n. end) rather than a subjective gen. (thus Bergold 1977, 178  f., and others), since the thought of the Trojans’ irritation with his behavior should instead move Paris to change his attitude and return to battle (cf. 350  f., 13.121  f.): Hijmans 1975, 179  f.

337 with soft words: Helen scolded Paris violently (3.428  ff.) immediately after his defeat by Menelaos, and in the present scene (349  ff.) she once more speaks bitterly about him; Paris’ statement is thus sometimes interpreted as a dissembling assertion, by means of which he attempts to maintain the appearance of a happy marriage in front of his brother (Willcock 1977, 51; Roisman 2006, 24). The passage may also be read, however, as an internal completing analepsisP offering the audience correct information (suggestion by Nünlist): the relationship between Paris and Helen was portrayed as very complex in Book 3 (cf. 3.427n., 3.428–436n., 3.447n.), while 6.321  ff. creates the impression that the situation has eased somewhat after the ferocious scene at 3.427  ff. (cf. 313– 324n., 321–322n. end); that Helen had spoken kindly to her husband just before Hektor’s appearance thus cannot necessarily be dismissed as implausible (even though the situation changes again shortly thereafter); cf. schol. A (on this, Nünlist 2009, 157 with n. 2, 164); Faesi/Franke. παρειποῦσ(α): coincident with ὥρμησε (AH; cf. 7–8n.). — μαλακοῖς ἐπέεσσιν: δαμῶσιν > δαμόωσιν): Schw. 1.784, Chantr. 1.448; on the diectasis, G 48.

369–502 Hektor does not find Andromache at home, since she has gone to the tower by the Skaian gate out of concern for him. He therefore hurries back to the gate himself and comes upon her there along with their young son Astyanax. Andromache implores him not to continue to risk his life in open battle. He reciprocates her feelings of love and concern, but explains that his sense of duty compels him to fight. Astyanax’ childlike fear of his father’s crest lifts the somber mood for a moment; in the end, however, Andromache takes leave of her husband in tears and on her return home begins mourning him together with her servants. The section contains elements of a ring-compositionP (Lohmann 1988, 46): A Hektor arrives at his house and speaks to the female servants (370–389) B Encounter between the spouses, Hektor smiles at Astyanax (390–404) C Dialogue Hektor – Andromache (405–465) B´ Helmet-scene, his parents smile at Astyanax (466–484a)

367 σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — αὖτις: = αὖθις. 368 ἦ(ε): ‘or’.

136 

 Iliad 6

A´ Hektor sends Andromache home; her lament together with the female servants (484b–502) ‘The poet’s direction has the number of individuals progressively diminish and increase again, from the group scenes in the framing sections […] to the intimate dialogue in the center’ (Lohmann loc. cit., transl.). – Close thematic references connect the passages with scenes from Books 22 and 24: like Andromache here, Hektor’s parents unsuccessfully try to keep him away from battle at 22.33  ff.; Andromache’s ‘searching with foreboding’ at 372  ff. and her premature lament at 499  ff. contrast with her ‘unsuspecting absence’ at 22.437  ff. (Hölscher 1955, 389, transl.), whereas her growing fear at 22.447  ff. corresponds to her mood in Book 6 (cf. 388–389n., 407n.); both Andromache herself (407  ff.) and Hektor (454  ff.) anticipate her fate as a widow, which she mourns at 22.477  ff. and at 24.725  ff.; at the same time, Hektor’s hopeful prayer for Astyanax at 476  ff. presents a sharp contrast to Andromache’s visions of the future at 22.484  ff. and 24.726  ff. More details in Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 141; (1956) 1970, 36–38; Kakridis (1956a) 1971, 71–73; Segal 1971a; Lohmann 1988, 63–74; Reichel 1994, 272–274; Gagliardi 2006, esp. 11–16; Grethlein 2006, 248–253; Louden 2006, 30–34; cf. also 237–529n. 369–389 That Hektor does not encounter Andromache at home is unexpected: he had anticipated her presence there as a matter of course (365  f.; cf. 490  ff.: domestic chores as the typical responsibilities of women). The moment of surprise is emphasized even more in that the negation in 371 (see ad loc.) represents a marked deviation from the standard course of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n.): the character (1) sets off (369), (2) arrives (370), (3) does not encounter the character sought (371–374; reasons for this offered in place of the usual description of the situation), (4) approaches (375a) and (5) begins to speak (with the female servants rather than Andromache: 375b–380); on this, see schol. bT on 371; Arend 1933, 31–34; Kakridis (1937) 1949, 52; de Jong (1987) 2004, 65. Three further negations with a signal effect follow at 383  f. (see 383–385n.): none of the obvious assumptions regarding Andromache’s whereabouts apply (even though her worried walk toward the city gates is not entirely surprising after the introductory scene at 237  ff.: Tsagarakis 1990, 112). While Hektor fruitlessly searches for his wife in her domestic sphere, she has gone to the ramparts to spot him within his sphere on the battlefield: ‘The same longing sends them across and past each other and apart’, delaying their meeting; only through this suspenseful retardationP does the encounter achieve its full impact (Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 131; cf. also Maronitis [1990] 2004, 34). 369 = 116 (see ad loc.), 17.188; 1st VH ≈ 1.428, etc. (see ad loc.).

Commentary 

 137

370 =  497; ≈ Od. 17.28, 17.85, 17.178, 24.362; 1st VH ≈ 3.145, 5.367, Od. 15.193. — αἶψα δ’ ἔπειθ’ / ἔπειτ(α): a formulaic phrase (8x Il., 2x Od., 2x ‘Hes.’), although significantly less common than the metrically equivalent formula αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ(α) (32x Il., 20x Od., 4x Hes., 5x h.Hom.): Hektor’s haste is again emphasized (Graziosi/Haubold; cf. 237– 529n., 354n.). — δόμους εὖ ναιετάοντας: an inflectible VE formula (1x gen., otherwise acc.; in total 3x Il., 8x Od., 1x h.Hom.). εὖ ναιετ., epithet of δόμος, μέγαρον and πόλις, means ‘where one lives well’ (a metrical variant of εὖ ναιομεν-, cf. 1.164n.). The intransitive use of ναιετάω (elsewhere ‘inhabit’) is explained in various ways; most likely, this is a case of a ‘misplaced’ use of the participle, like English ‘dining establishment’ for ‘establishment where dining takes place’, French ‘café chantant (singing café)’ for ‘café where singing takes place’ (analogous: thé dansant); occasionally transferred from the participle to finite forms as well (ναιετάω ‘be inhabited, be situated’ at 4.45, Od. 4.177, 9.23; likewise ναίω at Il. 2.626 [see ad loc.]): Frisk s.v. ναίω with reference to Debrunner 1944; LfgrE s.v. ναιετάω; on the change from transitive to intransitive, cf. also 149n.

371 failed to find: Similar is Od. 5.81 (vs. 5.58), 9.216  f. (Reece 1993, 131; 369–389n. with bibliography); in contrast, cf. the typical course of the scene at 6.321  f. (with n.) etc. — Andromache: here mentioned by name for the first time. The speaking name, ‘fighting with men’, scarcely refers to a trait she herself bears (despite her strategic advice at 433  ff., against which Hektor implicitly protests at 492  f.), but rather to the courage of her husband Hektor: mythical figures, women and children in particular, occasionally bear names alluding to characteristics of their (more notable) kinsmen (402–403n. s.v. Astyanax; LfgrE s.v. Ἀνδρομάχη; von Kamptz 31–33; cf. Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. with further bibliography). λευκώλενον: a generic epithetP of goddesses and women, mostly of high status (who thus do not have to work outside the house): 1.55n. — ἐν μεγάροισιν: i.e. ‘at home’ (like ἔνδον at 374); cf. 91n., 24.209a  n. 372 ξὺν  … ἀμφιπόλῳ: sc. with Astyanax’ nurse (τιθήνη: 389, 467). The fact that Andromache is accompanied by only one servant (rather than two or more, as is usual: 3.143, 22.450/461, Od. 1.331, 6.84, 18.207) contributes to the intimacy of the subsequent encounter (Kurz 1966, 126). On the term ἀμφίπολος, cf. 323–324n. — εὐπέπλῳ: on the orthography (εὐ- rather than ἐϋ-), West 1998, XXIV. A generic epithet of women (8x in

370 ἔπειθ’: = ἔπειτα. — δόμους: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2); on the plural, R 18.2. — ναιετάοντας: on the uncontracted form, R 6; on the meaning, ↑. 371 οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — μεγάροισιν: on the declension, R 11.2; on the plural, R 18.2. 372 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ξύν: = σύν (R 20.1). — καὶ ἀμφιπόλῳ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀμφιπόλῳ εὐπέπλῳ: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (amphipólōy eup.), M 12.2.

138 

 Iliad 6

early epic, of which 3x in the present scene: the choice of εὔπεπλος rather than the hiatus-avoiding τανύπεπλος [3.228n.] is perhaps influenced by the VE formula at 378/383): LfgrE s.v. On the significance of elaborately made textiles in Homeric society, cf. 90–91n.; other epithets referring to garments worn by women and goddesses: κροκόπεπλος, ἑλκεσίπεπλος (441–442n.), βαθύκολπος (24.215n.), βαθύ-/ἐΰ-/καλλίζωνος. – ‘Beautifully/ well dressed’ is also found as an epithet of women in the Rigveda (1.124.7 etc.: West 2007, 84).

373 ≈ 23.106, 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.119; cf. also Il. 22.427. — on the tower: The tower at the Skaian gate (237n.) where Hektor and Andromache will meet (392  ff.) provides a good overview of the battle action; cf. 3.145  ff. (see 3.149n.), 21.526  ff., 22.25  ff. (tower and gate are mentioned at 22.35/97), 22.405  ff./462  ff.  – The keyword ‘tower’ may evoke for the primary audience Astyanax’ eventual fate (Anderson 1997, 58): as in Andromache’s premonition at 24.734  ff. (see ad loc.), the child will be thrown to his death from the top of the tower after the fall of Troy (Il. parv. fr. 29 West; cf. also 466–473n. and 22.63  f. [with de Jong on 22.56–76]). — in lamentation, and tearful: ‘Andromache weeps from her first to her last appearance in the poem. The motif of tears underlies her entire story’(Monsacré 1984, 160, transl.; see also Segal 1971a, 52; Arnould 1990, 81  f.); cf. 405, 455, 459, 484 (with n.), 496, 499, 22.476, 24.723, 24.745  f. – Both words (goáō and mýromai) are common in the Iliad in reference to mourning (LfgrE s.vv.): Andromache anticipates Hektor’s impending death (cf. góos/goáō at 499  f.; see also 407–465n. with bibliography). On the emphatic synonym doubling, see 1.160n., 1.196n. 374 ἀμύμονα: 1.92n., 6.22–23n. — τέτμεν: ‘came across’, reduplicated thematic aor. (Schw. 1.748); perhaps to be associated with the pres. τέμει (hapaxP at 13.707) (thus Chantr. 1.309, LIV 624, LfgrE s.vv. τέμει and τετμεῖν; more guardedly, Beekes, Frisk and DELG s.v. τετμεῖν). 375 1st VH ≈ Od. 20.128, 21.124, 21.149, 24.178, 24.493; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 8.433, 16.336, 17.493. — οὐδόν: may denote the threshold separating interior rooms (Od. 4.680, 4.718, etc.; LfgrE s.v. 859.6  f.); here likely the one at the entrance to the women’s quarters, where the female servants are working (AH, Willcock; differently, Graziosi/Haubold: threshold of the main entrance door, where Hektor turns back once again toward the servants; in this case, his question directed at them would be portrayed as an ‘afterthought’). — ἔειπεν: cf. 122n.

373 πύργῳ ἐφεστήκει: ‘stood on the tower’. — γοόωσα: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 374 ἔνδον: ‘inside’ in the sense ‘at home’. — τέτμεν: aor. (↑); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 375 ἐπ’ οὐδόν: to be taken with ἔστη. — δμῳῇσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἔειπεν: = εἶπεν.

Commentary 

 139

376 εἰ δ’ ἄγε  … μυθήσασθε: εἰ with the imperative (usually in connection with ἄγε) functions as an interjection; both the origin of hortative εἰ and its relation to the homonymous conjunction and the wish-particle εἰ (γάρ) / εἴθε are disputed (discussion of various possibilities in Schw. 2.557; Chantr. 2.274; Dunkel 1985, 63–66; Wakker 1994, 386–391). – ἄγε with the imper. plural, as at 2.331, 8.18, etc. (Leaf; Schw. 2.583); δ’ is formulaic in this expression (10x Il., 9x Od.; at the beginning of direct speech at 16.667, Od. 12.112, 23.35, as here: Graziosi/Haubold); it likely serves to avoid hiatus. — νημερτέα: < the privative prefix *n̥ + ἁμαρτάνω (Forssman 1966, 145–149; Beekes 1969, 98–113); like ἀληθέα at 382, it addresses not so much the truth – there is no reason for Hektor to believe that the servants might be lying to him – as the clarity and accuracy of the information requested (LfgrE s.v. 363.43  f., 364.32  ff.; Fuchs 1993, 43; cf. also 1.514n.). 377 From caesura A 3 on ≈ 371: ‘Hector’s language is very similar to that of the poet […], though in his mouth it sounds more ponderous’ (Graziosi/Haubold); this effect is likely created predominantly by the epithet λευκώλενος, which is more appropriate for narrator-textP than for character language – as already noted by ancient interpreters of Homer (schol. bT ad loc.; on this, Nünlist 2009, 120  f., 303). – 2nd VH also ≈ Od. 18.198, 19.60 (on this, Parry [1928] 1971, 98). 378–380 ἠέ … ἠ’ … | ἠ’ …: Questions in three or more parts with anaphora are a popular poetic stylistic technique (e.g. 10.406  ff.; Sappho fr. 1.15  ff. Voigt; Pind. Ol. 2.2; on this, Göbel 1933, 29, 48; Tzamali 1996, 65  f.). The third part is here expanded with a relative clause (similarly Sappho fr. 1; examples from Vedic in Tzamali loc. cit.) according to the ‘law of increasing parts’ (48n.). At the same time, the first two possibilities suggested by Hektor are closely connected to allow 378 to be interpreted as the first part of a double question (thus AH and Chantr. 2.11 [who read ἠέ … ἢ … ἦ], Schw. 2.566; on the textual variants, see app. crit. and Schw. loc. cit.). — ἐς γαλόων … | … ἐς Ἀθηναίης: sc. δόμον or νηόν (but cf. also 47n.); on the form Ἀθηναίης, 88n. 378 ≈ 383, 24.769. — γαλόων … εἰνατέρων: differentiated terms for sisters-in-law: γαλόῳ are the husband’s sisters (3.122n.), εἰνατέρες the wives of the husband’s brothers (cf. iterata and 22.473; thus e.g. Andromache and Helen are εἰνατέρες: schol. D). Inherited terms from the era of extended families, in the Iliad used only of members of Priam’s family, post-Homeric only in grammarians and lexicographers and occasionally in late inscriptions from Asia Minor (from the 1st cent. BC on; likely imitations of Homer: Gates 1971, 34 with 72 n. 2); for details, see LfgrE, Frisk, DELG s.vv.; Gates loc. cit. 23–26; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 86  f.; Mallory/Adams 2006, 210, 215  f. – For women married into a foreign city – particularly for Andromache, whose blood relatives are now dead (413  ff.) – the husband and his kin are the closest family members.

376 εἰ δ’ ἄγε: emphatic introduction of the imper. (cf. 340n.; ↑). — νημερτέα: acc. obj. (neut. pl.) or adv.; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 377 πῇ ἔβη: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — μεγάροιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 378 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — ἠ’ εἰνατέρων: on the hiatus, R 5.1.

140 

 Iliad 6

379–380 ≈ 384–385. — to the house of Athene: on the cult of Athene in Troy, see 86–101n. — where … | … propitiate: reference to the ongoing ritual scene that the narrator at 312 had consigned to a uniform ‘background’ action; see 312n. and cf. 1.390n. ἔνθά περ ἄλλαι: an inflectible formula at VE and after caesura A 3 (nom. pl. of all genders; in total 4x Il., 4x Od., 2x Hes.). — ἐϋπλόκαμοι: ‘fair-tressed’, a generic epithetP of women of all social levels and of goddesses (42x in early epic); forms a semantic field along with καλλιπλόκαμος (10x in early epic), λιπαροπλόκαμος (only at 19.126 [see ad loc.] and 1x Od. as a v.l.), ἠΰκομος (51x) and καλλίκομος (5x) (LfgrE; in general on epithets describing female beauty: 1.143n.). — δεινὴν θεόν: δεινός is frequently used in reference to deities (31x in early epic, see LfgrE s.v. 236.40  ff.); it usually portrays them as intimidating and as – potentially or actually – menacing (e.g. 16.788  f., 17.210  f., Od. 12.322  f., Hes. Th. 934  f.), although occasionally also as powerful protectors and aides (e.g. Il. 18.394  f., Od. 7.40  f.). At times, both aspects are active (deities as simultaneously aides to one party and dangerous opponents of another: 4.514, 5.839, Hes. Th. 669  f., etc.; figures such as Kalypso and Kirke: Od. 7.245  f./254  ff., 10.135  f., 11.6  ff., etc.); thus probably here as well: the Trojan women hope for Athene’s assistance as ‘protectress of the city’ (305), but at the same time Hektor’s ominous visions of the future (367  f., 447  ff.) suggest that he at least suspects the goddess’ true attitude toward Troy (cf. 96–101n. end).

381 housekeeper: The Greek word tamíē denotes an (enslaved) servant in a leading position (likely related to tameín ‘to cut up’ [19.44n.]: charged among other matters with managing and distributing provisions); as the ‘head maid’ she naturally comes to the fore here as the spokesperson (LfgrE s.v.). ὀτρηρή: related to ὀτρύνω, thus likely ‘deft, rendering ready service’ (LfgrE); elsewhere an epithet of θεράπων (1.321 and 4x Od.; additionally 1x Od. adv. ὀτρηρῶς ‘quickly, rapidly’). – In the Odyssey, ταμίη is instead used with the metrically equivalent epithet αἰδοίη ‘worthy of honor’ (formulaic verse Od. 1.139 = 4.55 etc., in total 7x), which in the Iliad is reserved for individuals of high status (Kirk). — πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν: a VE formula (2.156n.). 382 2nd VH = Od. 14.125, 17.15, 18.342, h.Cer. 121. — ἐπεί …: on the absence of an apodosis (here approximately: ‘thus I will inform you’), K.-G. 1.51; cf. 334n. — ἀληθέα: a metrical variant of νημερτέα at 376 (see ad loc.; Kirk on 381–385).

379 ἐξοίχεται: ‘has gone out’ (pres. with perf. sense). — περ: emphasizes ἔνθα, ‘where indeed’ (R 24.10). 380 ἱλάσκονται: durative (‘they are in the process of …’) or conative. 381 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ὀτρηρὴ ταμίη: on the -η after -ρ- and -ι-, R 2. — πρὸς … ἔειπεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); governs the two acc. objects τόν and μῦθον. 382 ἄνωγας: perfect with present sense, ‘you order’.

Commentary 

 141

383–385 ≈ 378–380: The servant responds in the negative to Hektor’s suppositions one after another; this creates a kind of priamel, strongly emphasizing the subsequent, correct answer (‘not a, not b, but rather c’: Race 1982, 39 with n. 18). Similarly 1.65/93  f. (see 1.93n.), 16.36  f./50  ff., Od. 2.30  ff./42  ff., 11.172  f./198  ff., 11.398  ff./406  ff., 16.95  ff./114  ff.; on this, see Arend 1933, 13–17; Kakridis 1949a, 108–120; West 1997, 198  f., and 2007, 107  f. (all three with references to parallels in other poetic traditions: Ugaritic, Hittite, Old English, Serbo-Croatian, modern Greek, etc.); cf. also 6.450–465n. 386–389 The information, provided earlier in the narrator-textP (372  f.), is repeated in the servant’s speech, since it has significance for the communication on the characterP level as well; similarly 1.208  f. ~ 1.195  f., 13.256–258 ~ 13.156– 168/247  f., 13.780–783 ~ 13.761–764, 18.184 ~ 18.168 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 218  f.). At the same time, the servant’s ‘refocalization’ manifests itself in a ‘greater degree of emotion’ (especially 389a vs. 373b; similarly 13.769–773 vs. 13.758–760, 16.516b–521a vs. 16.510–512: Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 60–63, quotation from p. 60 [transl.]), and the justification for Andromache’s conduct via news of the plight of the Trojan army – portrayed in a rhetorical antithesis in 387 – adds new information (completing analepsisP). 387 κράτος: repeatedly used with the meaning ‘predominance, superiority’ in relation to actual battle situations; e.g. 1.509 (see ad loc.), 11.319, 17.613, 17.623 (LfgrE s.v. 1527.64  ff.).

388–389 like a woman | gone mad: literally ‘like a raging woman’ (mainoménēi); reprised at 22.460, where Andromache runs to the city walls ‘like a maenad’ (mainádi ísē), fearful – justly this time – that Hektor may have been killed (on the connections between Books 6 and 22, see 369–502n.). As if in a Dionysian frenzy, Andromache is ‘beside herself’ (cf. Bierl 1991, 228–230: Dionysian imagery is common in expressions of excessive emotion [attestations from Attic tragedy]; two examples for similar imagery in Akkadian literature in West 1997, 369). On possible further implications of the comparison, see Arthur 1981, 30 (Andromache is acting like a maenad by leaving her own domestic sphere); similarly Seaford 1994, 332  f.; Gagliardi 2006, 16  ff.; also Tsagalis 2008, 1–29 (a somewhat speculative attempt to uncover intertextual connections between Iliad 6 and a rival tradition of epic poetry concerning Boeotian Thebes); further bibliography on Dionysos and Dionysian elements in the Iliad: 132n.

386 οὕνεκ(α): crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘because’. 389 μαινομένῃ (ϝ)εικυῖα: on the prosody, R 4.4. — φέρει … ἅμα: ‘brings at the same time’ (by accompanying her), ‘carries after her’.

142 

 Iliad 6

388 ἀφικάνει: ‘is on her way’ (LfgrE s.v. ἱκάνω 1179.35  f.); alternatively with perf. sense (as at 14.43, Od. 14.159: AH, Leaf), where δή implies that this is an obvious assumption: ‘must have arrived’ (Kirk; cf. Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993, 82, 140–151). The doubts directed at the authenticity of the verse by West 2001, 198 – the servant is in no position to know that Andromache is just arriving at the city walls or what psychological state she is in – are uncompelling.

390 and Hektor hastened from his home: on Hektor’s haste as a leitmotif, see 237–529n., 354n. ἦ: with explicit designation of the subject only here and at Od. 3.337, 22.292 (to clarify change of subject), Il. 22.77 (AH, Leaf). — γυνὴ ταμίη: on collocations of this type, 314b–315n. 391 ἐϋκτιμένας: 13n. 392 εὖτε: usually asyndetic at the beginning of a sentence in Homer (Schw. 2.660  f.; Chantr. 2.254). 393 Σκαιάς: strongly emphasized by hyperbaton and its position in enjambment at VB; the Skaian gate (237n.) marks the border between city and battlefield, where husband and wife may meet for a moment, before they must each return to their own sphere (490  ff.): Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. and Introd. 45. — ἔμελλε: ‘should, had to’ (sc. after the conversation with Andromache: Kirk; cf. Basset 1979, 52); not ‘was about to’ (implying that Hektor had almost returned to battle without seeing Andromache: thus, among others, Willcock; Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 131; Morrison 1992, 67): since the servant has told Hektor precisely where to look for Andromache, and since Paris has not yet caught up with him, such a change of mind after 365  ff. would be difficult to explain.

394–399 Via information regarding Andromache’s ancestry, the narratorP prepares the ground for the characterP’s own words at 413  ff. (Lohmann 1988, 41; Richardson 1990, 41  f.; similarly e.g. 11.122  ff./138  ff., 21.34  ff./54  ff. and 74  ff.: de Jong [1987] 2004, 89  f.). As the audience knows from 1.366  ff. and 2.691, Andromache’s native city, Thebe, together with Lyrnessos, was destroyed by Achilleus (cf. 1.366n.). The fate of these cities and their inhabitants forms a leitmotif in the Iliad (Zarker [1965] 1987): Chryseïs (1.369) and Andromache’s mother (6.425  f.) were captured in Thebe, Briseïs in Lyrnessos (2.689  f., 19.59  f.); in addition, spoils from Thebe are mentioned at 9.186  ff. (a lyre), 16.152  ff.

390 ἦ: 3rd sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ὃ … Ἕκτωρ: ὅ is demonstrative (R 17), with Ἕκτωρ in apposition. — ἀπέσσυτο: root-aor. of ἀποσεύομαι ‘hurry away’. 391 αὖτις: = αὖθις. — κατ’ ἀγυιάς: ‘down the streets’ (Hektor’s house is situated on the acropolis). 392 εὖτε: ‘as’ (R 22.2). — μέγα (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3. 393 τῇ: ‘where’ (demonstrative of πῇ, here relative: R 14.5). — διεξίμεναι: = διεξιέναι (on the form, R 16.4). — πεδίονδε: on the suffix -δε, R 15.3.

Commentary 

 143

(Achilleus’ horse Pedasos) and at 23.826  ff. (a lump of iron that Eëtion used to throw in the manner of a discus). Like Briseïs (19.291  ff.), Andromache has lost almost all the members of her family at the hands of Achilleus (413  ff.); the fate of slavery, which she initially evaded because she was already married in Troy at the time her native city fell (cf. 22.471  f.), still awaits her: Thebe’s destruction anticipates Troy’s ruin (cf. 19.291–296n.; Reinhardt 1961, 61  f.; Zarker loc. cit. 151; Taplin 1986, 18  f.). At the same time, the passage has the effect of increasing suspense: the meeting between husband and wife, expected immediately after ἐναντίη ἦλθε θέουσα, is delayed once more by several verses (retardationP; Graziosi/Haubold). Stylistically, the passage is characterized by two traits found mainly in spoken language that hint at the ‘oral background’ of the Iliad (Tsagalis 2004, 123 n. 337, with bibliography; Bakker [1999] 2005, 48–52; Kirk): (a) ‘cumulative technique’: the repetition of names in progressive enjambmentP aids the addition of new information (epanalepsis 395  f.: Ἠετίωνος, | Ἠετίων, ὅς …; similarly 396  f.: ὑπὸ Πλάκῳ ὑληέσσῃ, | Θήβῃ Ὑποπλακίῃ …); (b) ring-compositionP (394/399: ἔνθ’ ἄλοχος  … ἐναντίη ἦλθε / ἥ οἱ ἔπειτ’ ἤντησ(ε); 395/398: θυγάτηρ  … Ἠετίωνος / τοῦ περ δὴ θυγάτηρ; 396/397: ὑπὸ Πλάκῳ  …, | Θήβῃ Ὑποπλακίῃ). 394 2nd VH =  15.88; cf. 54 (1st VH). — πολύδωρος: an epithet of ἄλοχος (here and at 22.88, Od. 24.294), ‘richly endowed’ or ‘bringing many gifts’; whether in reference to the groom’s bridal gifts (cf. 22.471  f.), the dowry provided by the parents (cf. 9.147  f., Od. 1.277  f. = 2.196  f.), or both (LfgrE with bibliography; Willcock; Heubeck on Od. 24.294), is unclear. — θέουσα: cf. θέον at 238 (of the Trojan women anxious about their kinsmen). 395–396a 395 = 8.187; a four-word verse (1.75n.). — μεγαλήτορος: 283n. — Ἠετίωνος, | Ἠετίων, ὅς: on the epanalepsis, cf. 153–154n. The conspicuous nom. Ἠετίων (rather than repetition of the gen., as at 21.86, 2.850 ≈ 21.158) is usually explained as an attractio inversa (attraction of the antecedent to the case of the relative pronoun, as at 14.75  f., 14.371  f., etc.: Chantr. 2.237  f., AH, Leaf, Kirk and others; an attempt to explain the development of the phenomenon on the basis of the present passage in Jacquinod 1996). Differently, West 1965, 139, and Slings 1994, 423  f. (cf. the objections to an interpretation as attractio inversa in Wackernagel [1920/24] 2009, 79  f.): apposition with anacolouthon, as at Od. 1.50  f. νήσῳ ἐν ἀμφιρύτῃ, ὅθι τ’ ὀμφαλός ἐστι θαλάσσης, | νῆσος δενδρήεσσα: ‘The tendency to revert to the nominative is a widespread linguistic phenomenon’ (West loc. cit.; attestations from inscriptions and papyri and parallels from other languages in Havers 1928, 105  ff.), but at Od. 1.50  f. the nom. may also be in apposition to ὀμφαλός (see S. West ad loc.).

394 ἔνθ(α): ‘there’ (introducing the main clause).

144 

 Iliad 6

396b–397 396b =  2nd VH of 425, 22.479. — underneath wooded Plakos, | in Thebe below Plakos: Like Lyrnessos (394–399n.), Thebe is among the cities in Troy’s vicinity that were conquered by Achilleus while Troy itself was being unsuccessfully besieged (1.366n., 9.328  f.). The name is attested historically: Hdt. 7.42.1, Xen. Anab. 7.8.7 and others mention a ‘plain of Thebe’ between Adramyttion (modern Edremit) and Antandros in the southern Troad (2.691n.; further testimonia in Leaf 1923, 307  f.). Remains of a Bronze Age settlement, perhaps identifiable as Thebe, were discovered at Mandra Tepe on the northwestern edge of the plain of Edremit (Cook 1973, 267; Kirk). ‘Plakos’ likely refers to the southern foothills of the Ida mountains (Kirk); Demetrios of Skepsis (fr. 8 Gaede) mentions a village ‘Plakus’ six stades from Thebe (cf. Leaf loc. cit. 322). — Kilikian people: The name ‘Kilikians’ occurs in Homer only here and at 415, in both cases in relation to the inhabitants of Thebe in the Troad (cf. Strab. 13.1.7, 13.1.60 [= C 585/611]); they are to be distinguished from the inhabitants of the region of Kilikia in southeastern Asia Minor, which is about 800 km from Troy and is not mentioned in the Iliad (the geographical area from which the Trojan allies come only reaches as far as Lykia: 2.876  f.). ὑληέσσῃ: a generic epithetP, largely of mountain ranges and mountainous islands (e.g. 21.449: Ida; 13.12: Samos; Od. 1.246, 9.24, etc.: Zakynthos). — ἄνδρεσσιν ἀνάσσων: a VE formula (= 17.308; ἄνδρεσσιν ἄνακτα: 5.546, 13.452; on such modifications of formulae, see Hoekstra 1965, esp. 55). 398 ἔχεθ’ Ἕκτορι: ἔχω in early epic may be used in the sense ‘have as wife’ (3.123n.); in the passive only here (perhaps to avoid frequent change of subject at 394–399: Jankuhn 1969, 78; in addition, the passive construction allows the responsion between 395 and 398 [2x θυγάτηρ after caesura A 4]: suggestion by Führer). On the dat. of interest with the passive, see Schw. 2.149  f.; Chantr. 2.72  f.; George 2005, 51–60. — χαλκοκορυστῇ: 199n.

399 2nd VH ≈ 22.461, Od. 6.84, 19.601. 400–403 Introduction of Astyanax in preparation for his role at 466  ff. The emotionally colored description of the child at 400  f. may be focalizedP by Hektor (de Jong 1987, 108; Graziosi/Haubold; skeptical: Kullmann 2002, 668).

397 Θήβῃ Ὑποπλακίῃ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). — Κιλίκεσσ’ ἄνδρεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 398 τοῦ περ δὴ θυγάτηρ: ‘the very one whose daughter’ (on περ, R 24.10). — ἔχεθ’ Ἕκτορι: ‘was married to Hektor’ (properly pass., ‘was held by’ [ἔχεθ’ = ἔχετο]; see ↑). 399 ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἔπειτ(α): ‘there’, points back to 394  f. — ἅμα: governs αὐτῇ. — κίεν: ‘went’, 3rd sing. preterite of a defective verb.

Commentary 

 145

400 κόλπῳ: cf. 136n. — ἀταλάφρονα: a Homeric hapaxP; etymology and meaning are unclear. Most likely ‘a spur of the moment invention on the basis of ἀταλὰ φρονέοντες’ (18.567), approximately ‘cheerful, (childishly) playful, lively’, perhaps also ‘delicate, spoiled’ (related to ἀτιτάλλω ‘rear, coddle’): LfgrE s.v. (transl.) with bibliography and discussion of additional possibilities. — νήπιον αὔτως: ≈ 22.484, 24.726 (there Andromache about Astyanax; here the designation of Astyanax as νήπιος, underlining the helplessness of the little child [366n.], foreshadows Andromache’s appeal at 407  ff., ‘as if the narrator, in prolepsis, were responding to the appeal of one of his most pathetic characters’: Briand 2011, 197, transl.; cf. also Bonifazi 2012, 288  f.). αὔτως ‘only just’ (K.-G. 1.655; cf. 1.133n.), i.e. ‘no more than an infant’, ‘just a baby’ (Leaf, Willcock), ‘still so small’ (AH); differently LfgrE s.v. αὔτως 1682.54  ff.

401 the [admired] beloved: Elsewhere in early epic, Greek agapētós is used exclusively in direct speech (4x Od. in reference to Telemachos): de Jong 1987, 108; cf. character languageP. — beautiful as a star shining: Entrances of characters are often marked by similes or comparisons (Scott 1974, 38–41). Here the comparison to a star probably refers to the loveliness emanating from the child (schol. bT; on light/radiance as a metaphor for ‘beauty’, e.g. 295, 10.547, 14.183/185, h.Ven. 174  f.; of a beloved person also at Od. 16.23 = 17.41 [Eumaios and Penelope addressing Telemachos: ‘darling light’]: Bremer 1976, 214–221). – On stars as motifs in similes in general: Fränkel 1921, 47  f.; Scott 1974, 66–68. 402–403 On the double name of Hektor’s son, cf. 9.556  ff. (Kleopatra/Alkyone) and 3.16n. (Alexandros/Paris). Whether this is an ad hoc invention of the poet of the Iliad, or whether both names (perhaps originally designating different sons of Hektor) were specified in the tradition, must remain a matter of speculation. The epic cycle has only ‘Astyanax’, who is killed during the sack of Troy (373n.); later mythographic sources (first Hellanicus, FGrHist 4 F 31 = fr. 31 Fowler [5th cent. BC]) name a ‘Skamandrios’, who survives the war. If this version was already known to the poet of the Iliad, he implicitly rejects it here by identifying ‘Skamandrios’ with ‘Astyanax’: according to his understanding (20.306), the lineage of Priam was meant to perish completely (Smith 1981, 53–58; cf. also LfgrE s.vv. Ἀστύαναξ and Σκαμάνδριος with bibliography). — called Skamandrios: after the main river of Troy (Skamandros = Xanthos: 4n.; also the tutelary god of the city, who in Book 21 is defeated by Hephaistos). Personal names derived from names of rivers are common, cf. 4.474  ff., 6.21n., 14.443  ff. In the Iliad, ‘Skamandrios’ occurs only here as the name of Hektor’s

402 τόν: functioning as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — καλέεσκε: frequentative (-σκ-): R 16.5. 403 ἐρύετο (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 4.3.

146 

 Iliad 6

son; another Trojan with the same name is killed at 5.49  ff. — Astyanax: 3x Il. (22.500/506 both spoken by Andromache; as here, 22.506 explicitly labels this a nickname given to the child by the Trojans). ‘Asty-anax’ means ‘city-ruler’, with the connotation ‘protector’ (cf. below on the etymology of ‘Hektor’): the defense of the community is the ruler’s main task (cf. 12.318  ff., 16.542; whether ‘protector’ should be taken as the basic meaning of ánax [thus Leumann 1950, 42  f., with bibliography] is disputed: cautiously positive DELG, more guarded Frisk s.vv. ἄναξ and ἀνακῶς; opposed LfgrE s.vv. ἄναξ 783.26  ff. and Ἀστύαναξ 1461.78  ff.). Children may be named for traits or offices of their fathers (Leaf; von Kamptz 31  f.; cf. 371n.); e.g. Tele-machos ‘remote-fighter’ (in reference to Odysseus as archer), Iphi-anassa ‘ruling with might’ (Agamemnon’s daughter, 9.145). Here the naming likely expresses both the Trojans’ gratitude toward Hektor as their protector and their desire that his son may rule Troy one day (cf. Hektor’s own wish at 478). — since Hektor alone saved Ilion: similarly Andromache at 22.507. Hektor is by far the best warrior on the Trojan side; the Iliad repeatedly creates the impression that the course of battle essentially depends on him, at least as long as his more powerful opponent Achilleus does not participate, and that Troy’s fate is sealed with his doom: see e.g. 12.37  ff., 12.462  ff., 14.388  ff., 15.279  f., 22.410  f. (narrator-text); 6.492  f., 13.151  ff., 16.833  ff. (Hektor on himself); 22.56  ff., 22.507, 24.243  f., 24.499  ff. (see ad loc.), 24.729  f. (Priam and Andromache); 1.241  ff., 9.351  f., 11.820  f., 22.378  ff. (Achilleus and Patroklos); cf. de Jong (1987) 2004, 134; van Wees 1996, 15; Hellmann 2000, 156; Stoevesandt 2004, 199  ff. In the Iliad, his name is accordingly linked with Greek échō in the sense ‘preserve, protect’ (see below). oíos ‘sole, alone’ should of course not be taken literally: for Troy’s defense, Hektor relies on the active participation of the entire army (cf. 5.472  ff.; on this, Stoevesandt loc. cit. 285  f., 297; on the significance of the massed army in battle descriptions in the Iliad generally: Latacz 1977 passim). At the same time, he is indisputably the best fighter and acknowledged as the chief commander by both the Trojans and their allies – and thus as the ‘head’ and guarantor of the city’s defense. καλέεσκε Σκαμάνδριον: The initial double consonant Σκ- does not make position (M 4.5; Chantr. 1.110). — αὐτὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι: a VE formula (= 19.83, Od. 8.40). — Ἕκτωρ: The name, already attested in Mycenaean (DMic s.v. e-ko-to), likely originally meant ‘conqueror, victor’ (corresponding to e-ka-no *Ἐχάνωρ ‘conqueror of men’ and others), related to the IE root *seg̑h- ‘overcome, win’ (cf. Germanic names such as Sigemund, Sigurd, English Victor: West 2007, 399). In accordance with the development of the meaning of Greek ἔχω ‘obtain (by force)’ > ‘hold fast; preserve, protect’ (LfgrE s.v. ἔχω 837.32  ff.), Ἕκτωρ is consequently interpreted secondarily as ‘protector’; this is especially clear in the etymologizing word playP Ἕκτορ … | … πόλιν ἑξέμεν at 5.472  f. (see AH ad loc.; von Kamptz 261  f.; Meier 1976; Watkins 1998, 208–211; cf. also 24.729b–730n.).

Commentary 

 147

404 ἤτοι ὃ μέν: a VB formula (16x Il., 3x ‘Hes.’); ἤτοι and μέν are nearly synonymous (cf. 200–202n.); the pleonastic combination may result in emphasis, but in the present expression is likely mainly metri gratia (Ruijgh [1981] 1996, 523–526).

405 letting her tears fall: cf. 373n.; on the VE formula, 1.413n.; on related formulae, Arnould 1990, 130. 406 = 253 (see ad loc.) etc. 407–496 The dialogue between Hektor and Andromache reveals a fundamental conflict of values that will also determine the future action of the Iliad. Andromache implores her husband to no longer risk his life in open battle, since by losing him she would lose her last remaining – and closest – relative. Hektor counters with a consideration of public opinion (aidṓs, see 441–442n.) and the demands of heroic ethics to preserve his and his father’s fame (kléos, 446). Nonetheless, Hektor leaves no doubt that Andromache means more to him than anyone else (450  ff.). The conflict is multifaceted: (1) Like any hero, Hektor must decide between the desire to preserve his own life and fame  – usually obtained by an early death, but persisting beyond death (cf. 145–211n., point (3), 9.408  ff., 12.322  ff.; Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 133; Quaglia 1959/60, 167  ff.). (2) As a warrior in a city under siege, he is further subject to tension between his obligations to his family and to the community as a whole: if he risks his life defending the community, his exertions benefit everyone, whereas his death will hit his closest relatives the hardest (407  ff., 431  f.; Redfield [1975] 1994, 123). (3) The conflict has another dimension for Hektor, as Troy’s preeminent warrior, chief commander and heir to the dynasty (Redfield loc. cit. 123  f.): the greatest commitment in battle is expected from him (441  ff., 492  f.), while at the same time Troy’s future depends on his survival (402–403n.); Andromache is thus not alone in urging him to be cautious (433–439n.).  – Scholars dispute whether the text suggests a judgement favoring one of the two speakers: (a) more likely in favor of Hektor: Schadewaldt loc. cit. 132– 139; Quaglia loc. cit.; Erbse (1978) 1979, 14–16; (b) in favor of Andromache (Hektor is proving selfish and/or imprudent, since he is biased toward his personal fame): Arthur 1981, 31–37; Mackie 1996, 119–125; Alden 2000, 272–275, 311–318; Görgemanns 2001; Zajko 2006, 88–91; Tsagalis 2012, 134–136; more cautiously, Van Nortwick 2001, 226–232 (Hektor in internal conflict); (c) the text provides an impartial portrayal of an irreconcilable conflict: Schmitz 1963; Redfield loc. cit.; Lohmann 1988, 78  f. (differently 68  f. and 81: in favor of Andromache); Metz 1990, 389–395; cf. also Minchin 2012, 91–94. The

405 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), as in 406. — δάκρυ: collective sing. 406 = 253 (see ad loc.).

148 

 Iliad 6

sophistication with which the tensions noted above are portrayed in the Iliad as a whole (on this, Redfield loc. cit. chap. 3–4), favors (c); cf. also 433–439n. end. 407–465 Andromache’s speech and Hektor’s response are related to one another via an overarching chiastic composition (Lohmann 1970, 96  ff.; 1988, 34  ff.; cf. ‘continuity of thought’ principleP): Andromache (407–439) A Vision of the future (Hektor’s death) and death wish (407–411a) B Fate of the homeland and of her remaining relatives (retrospective); Hektor’s significance for Andromache (411b–430) C Plea (431  f.) and strategic counsel (433–439) Hektor (441–465) C´ Rejection of the plea (441–446) B´ Fate of the homeland and of his remaining relatives (prospective); Andromache’s significance for Hektor (447–454a) A´ Vision of the future (Andromache as a slave) and death wish (454b–465) In terms of motifs, the pair of speeches echoes the genre ‘lament’; on this, see Lohmann 1988, especially 38–45 (comparison with the speeches of mourning for Patroklos at 19.287–337); Foley 1999, 187–199; Murnaghan 1999, esp. 212–214; Derderian 2001, 48  f.; Dué 2002, 67–73; Tsagalis 2004, esp. 109–112, 118–129; Gagliardi 2006; Foley 2010, 25  f., 30  f.; cf. also 369–502n. (references to the lament for Hektor in Books 22 and 24); 497–502n. (motif of premature lament). – In addition, Andromache’s speech belongs to the genre schetliasmos (an attempt to discourage a loved one from a dangerous path; e.g. 22.38–76, 22.82–89, 24.200–216n.; on the rhetorical means Andromache employs, see Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012, 160–167 [≈ 2013, 110–116]). It is characteristic of the present scene that the motif ‘horrors of the future’ – otherwise used by the supplicant to rouse compassion for his or her own fate (22.59  ff., 22.86  ff.; Soph. Aias 496  ff.) – is not expanded on by Andromache but instead by Hektor (454  ff.). This is an indication of the particular intimacy between the speakers: it is unique in a scene of this type that the recipient of the pleas gives so much time to the counterpart’s situation (Krischer 1979, 16–22). 407–439 Internally, Andromache’s speech is again arranged as a ring-compositionP (Lohmann 1970, 96  f.; 1988, 34  f.): (a) accusation of a lack of compassion for his wife and child (407–411a); (b) Hektor as Andromache’s sole support (411b–413a); (c) Andromache’s loss of all remaining relatives (413b–428); (b´) Hektor as Andromache’s sole support (429  f.); (a´) plea for compassion for his wife and child (431  f.; the strategic counsel at 433  ff. is added as a kind of

Commentary 

 149

‘coda’ [athetized by Lohmann loc. cit. and others, following Aristarchus: see ad loc.]). 407–412 A cluster of integral enjambmentsP (407  f., 408  f., 410  f., 411  f.) expressing agitation, as at 22.451–455, 24.725–745 (see ad loc.): Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 133; Kirk; Bakker (1999) 2005, 54  f.

407 [Dearest] Strange man, your own great strength will be your death …: on the address (Greek daimónie), cf. 326n. end. Hektor’s impetuous urge for battle (Greek ménos, see 72n.) has a self-destructive component that frightens Andromache (cf. her premonitions at 22.455–459). The dangers of an excessive urge for battle are discussed in the narrator-text as well: with reference to Hektor, implicitly at 22.96 (in his ‘unquenchable ménos’ he faces the duel with Achilleus, despite the pleas of his parents) and in the lion simile at 12.41  ff. (esp. 46); in addition at 5.563  f. (Ares lends ménos to Menelaos in order to have him killed) and 16.751  ff. (lion simile referring to Patroklos): Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 133; cf. also Graziosi/Haubold 2003 and Clarke 2004, esp. 80  ff. — have no pity: here an accusation, but reprised at 431 in the shape of an appeal. Hektor will pity Andromache (484), but will nevertheless be unable to comply with her plea (Burkert 1955, 86–88; Graziosi/Haubold with further bibliography). φθείσει: on the spelling φθει-, West 1998, XXXVI; 2001, 30. 408 νηπίαχον: likely an expressive expansion of νήπιον (Frisk, DELG; discussion of further possibilities in Graziosi/Haubold); denotes small children in their weakness and helplessness (elsewhere at 2.338 and 16.262; cf. νηπιαχεύω at 22.502, also Andromache of Astyanax). — ἄμμορον: possessive compound from α privative and μόρος ‘share’, i.e. ‘without a share in, excluded from’ (e.g. at 18.489 ἄμμορος … λοετρῶν Ὠκεανοῖο), ‘deprived (of a thing/relative)’ (Eur. Hec. 421 ἡμεῖς δὲ … ἄμμοροι τέκνων); here and at 24.773 absolute: ‘miserable’ (at the loss of a relative): LfgrE, LSJ s.v.; cf. also 19.315n. on the expanded form δυσάμμορος (always in the context of laments). 409 σεῖ(ο): thus West, following Fick (mss.: σεῦ, likewise at 411); cf. 454 (where σεῖ’, ὅτε is the main transmission, σεῦ a v.l. attested in a single ms.). — κατακτενέουσιν: Both κτενέω (24.156 etc.) and κτανέω (here, 14.481, etc.; assimilation to the aorist, see G 62) occur in the mss. as the fut. of κτείνω; West (see 1998, XXXII), following Cobet 1876, 330  f., gives the standard form κτεν- throughout.

407 φθείσει: fut. of φθίνω ‘destroy’. — τεόν: possessive pronoun of the 2nd person (R 14.4). 408 τάχα: adv., ‘soon’. 409 σεῖ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1), as in 411. — κατακτενέουσιν: fut. of κατακτείνω (Attic κατακτενοῦσιν, cf. R 6).

150 

 Iliad 6

410–411 On the death-wish motif, cf. 3.173n., 6.345–348n. — to sink into the earth: 19n. (both passages use the same expression in the Greek). 410 2nd VH = Od. 2.74. — κε κέρδιον εἴη: an inflectible VE formula (3.41n.); as at 4.171, a potential optative is used between forms of the fut. ind. (409, 412) to convey greater subjectivity (AH). 411 σεῖ’ ἀφαμαρτούσῃ: on (ἀφ)αμαρτάνω (+ gen.) meaning ‘lose’, cf. 22.505, Od. 9.512 (Luther 1935, 34  f.; LfgrE s.v. 609.19  ff., 47  ff.). 412 θαλπωρή: related to θάλπω ‘warm’, metaphorical throughout (in Homer also at 10.223, Od. 1.167): ‘heartening, comfort, consolation’ (LfgrE; Zink 1962, 11  f.). — σύ γε: emphatic (as at 9.231); stressed σύ also at 429 and 430 (AH). — πότμον ἐπίσπῃς: an inflectible VE formula (7x Il., 16x Od.), ‘fulfill one’s fate of death, die’ (2.358–359n.; LfgrE s.v. πότμος 1497.11  ff.); the original notion may be ‘come into contact with one’s fate’ (Forssman 2006, 114, with reference to ‘«handle, touch», the apparently old, concrete meaning of ἕπω’ [transl.; cf. 321–322n.]).

413–428 Andromache’s report of her family’s fate, in the shape of an external completing analepsisP, at once fulfills (1) an argument functionP (on the character level) and (2) a key functionP (on the level of the narrator/audience): (1) Andromache expands on what Hektor must naturally have known for a long time; she appeals to his pity and pointedly clarifies what his death would mean for her (especially emotionally, but also socially: in Homeric society, a widow usually returns to her birth family [427–428n.], an option no longer open to Andromache after the loss of her parents and brothers [Wickert-Micknat 1983, 63]). (2) Andromache’s comments regarding Achilleus suggest to the audience that she will lose her husband at the hands of the same individual who has already killed her father and brothers (dramatic ironyP: Andromache herself does not anticipate this [409  f.]). Here, 417  ff. in particular reflect future events (they contrast with the defiling of Hektor’s body at 22.395  ff., 24.14  ff. and, at the same time, illustrate Achilleus’ magnanimity and gentleness, which resurface at the end of the Iliad: 24.515  ff., especially 580  ff. [see ad loc.]): Owen 1946, 67–69; Segal 1971, 65; Tsagalis 2004, 119–124; cf. also 417–419a  n. – In more detail on Andromache’s native city of Thebe, and on parallels between her fate and that of Briseïs: 394–399n.

410 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). 411 χθόνα: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). — δύμεναι: = δῦναι (R 16.4). 412 ἔσται: sc. μοι. — ἐπίσπῃς: aor. subjunc. of ἐφέπω (↑).

Commentary 

 151

413 2nd VH = 429, 9.561, 11.452, 13.430, 19.291, 22.239, 22.341 and 4x Od.; ≈ Il. 6.471. — πότνια μήτηρ: 264n. 414 ἤτοι: ≈ μέν (404n.), picked up by δέ at 421 and 425 (Graziosi/Haubold). — ἁμόν: ἁμός < Aeolic ἄμμος (related to ἄμμες ‘we’; LfgrE s.v.; Chantr. 1.272; G 82) or a Doric form (West 1988, 168; 1998, XVII); it is unclear whether to understand ‘our’ (with the brothers mentioned at 421  ff. in mind: AH; on the sociative pl. of family language, Slotty 1927, 351–353; cf. also Schw. 2.203, 243) or ‘mine’ (ἁμός sometimes appears to be understood as the possessive pronoun of the 1st sing., i.e. as a variant of ἐμός: Chantr. 1.272). — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (1.7n.). 415 Κιλίκων: 396b–397n. — εὖ ναιετάωσαν: 370n.; on the irregular form, West 1998, XXXII. 416 ὑψίπυλον: 3x Il. (16.698 and 21.544 of Troy); together with εὔπυργος, εὐτείχεος, τειχιόεις and others, a generic epithetP of cities that emphasizes solidity and the impressive appearance of the fortifications (cf. 1.129n.; Visser 1997, 86, 131). — κατὰ δ’ ἔκτανεν Ἠετίωνα: The repetition of the statement at 414 (with the proper name rather than πατέρα) works both as emphasis and as preparation for the contrast that follows at 417  ff. (AH, Kirk).

417–419a It is evidence of great generosity that Achilleus personally took care of Eëtion’s funeral, and that he abstained from despoiling his opponent (cf. in contrast Hektor’s contractual conditions for the formal duel at 7.77  ff.: release of the corpse, but despoiling of the opponent [Kirk]). Achilleus’ even-handed conduct toward opponents prior to his friend Patroklos’ death is repeatedly emphasized in the Iliad (external completing analepsesP): cf. 11.104  ff., 21.35  ff./100  ff., 24.751  ff. (sparing hostages; cf. 37–65n.); on this, Zanker 1994, 8  f., 74  f.; Kim 2000, 10  f.; Scodel 2002, 13  f. (a contrast to the non-Homeric epic tradition: Achilleus’ cruelty in the Troïlos episode). 417 2nd VH = 167 (see ad loc.). — ἐξενάριξε: 20n.

418 2nd VH = 13.331, 13.719. — burned the body in all its elaborate war-gear: Cremation is the only type of burial in Homeric epic (1.52n.; Andronikos 1968, 21  ff., 129  ff.). Including the warrior’s armor in the pyre (elsewhere only in the

413 ἀλλ(ά): ‘but 〈only〉’. — ἄχε’: = ἄχεα (R 6, R 5.1). — πατὴρ καὶ … μήτηρ: felt as a single concept, thus with a predicate in the sing. 414 ἀπέκτανε: In Homer, beside the weak aor. ἀπέκτεινα, a strong aor. ἀπέκτανον is also formed from (ἀπο)κτείνω (likewise 416: κατὰ … ἔκτανε). 415 ἐκ … πέρσεν: aor. of ἐκπέρθω; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. 417 μιν: = αὐτόν, likewise in 418 (R 14.1). — σεβάσσατο: aor. of σεβάζομαι (+ acc.) ‘shrink from’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — τό: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — θυμῷ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). 418 κατέκηε: aor. of κατακαίω ‘burn’.

152 

 Iliad 6

case of Elpenor: Od. 11.74, 12.13), however, is exceptional; therefore, it is all the more remarkable that Achilleus does not take it (on the material and idealized value of spoils, cf. 28n.). ἔντεσι: The pl. ἔντεα ‘equipment, weapons’ is used in epic as a prosodic alternative for τεύχεα (LfgrE s.v.); on the use of synonyms as metrically convenient variants in general: Düntzer (1864) 1979, 97  ff. — δαιδαλέοισιν: ‘elaborately decorated’ (cf. the speaking name of the mythical artist ‘Daidalos’); an epithet of defensive weapons, furniture, textiles, etc. (LfgrE s.v.; see also 19.13n. with bibliography).

419a piled a grave mound over it: Achilleus ensures that his opponent survives in the memory of posterity; contrast Agamemnon’s vision at 59b–60 and the repeated threats of Homeric heroes to throw their opponent’s corpse to the dogs and carrion birds (59–60n.; Griffin 1980, 161 with n. 35). On the function of the grave monument (Greek sḗma) as a ‘sign’ that preserves a hero’s fame, cf. 7.86  ff., Od. 1.239  ff./291  f., 4.584, 11.75  ff., 24.80  ff., etc.; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 108–140, especially 131  ff.; Grethlein 2008, 28–32.  – The increasing significance of grave monuments as places of memory is also indicated by the spread of ancestor and hero cult during the ‘renaissance’ of the 8th cent. (Antonaccio 1995; Deoudi 1999); on the much discussed question of why Homer nowhere explicitly mentions such cults, see van Wees 2006, 370–375; Graziosi/Haubold on 34–35 with further bibliography; on possible implicit allusions to this custom, see Nagy 2012, especially 47–71; NTHS 50–53. 419b–420 Mention of the nymphs in this otherwise realistic story seems surprising; it is impossible to decide whether this is an allusion to a local myth (Wilamowitz 1916, 313; cf. Willcock) or merely a ‘touching and exotic detail’ (Kirk) in celebration of the deceased. (Elsewhere in the Iliad, nymphs appear mostly in the genealogies of Trojan heroes: cf. 21  f., 14.444  f., 20.384  f.; Priess 1977, 82.) — elm trees: Probably because of their apparent barrenness, these were considered trees of the dead (like the poplars and willows mentioned at Od. 10.510; cf. also Verg. Aen. 6.282  ff. [an elm at the entrance to the underworld]): Leaf; LfgrE s.v. πτελέη. κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο: an inflectible VE formula (denoting nymphs and Muses, in the sing. Athene: 2.598n.); on αἰγίοχος as an epithet of Zeus, 1.202n.; on the aegis, 2.446b–454n.

419 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). — ἐπὶ … ἔχεεν: ‘piled up 〈over him〉’ (R 20.2). — περί: adv., ‘all around’ (R 20.2). 420 κοῦραι: on the form, R 4.2.

Commentary 

 153

421 seven: a typical numberP (cf. 24.399n.; Graziosi/Haubold: the girl with seven brothers is also a common motif in fairy tales, see Thompson Z71.5.1). ἐν μεγάροισιν: i.e. ‘at home’, in the parental home (cf. 371n.). 422 ἰῷ: a Homeric hapaxP; either an artificially formed neuter of ἴα (=  μία, Aeolic or an archaism), in pointed contrast to πάντες: ‘all in one and the same day’ (Ruijgh [1971] 1991, 601; LfgrE s.v. ἴα); or an anaphoric pronoun (as in the Gortyn lawcode at 7.23 and 8.8), ‘on that day’ (considered in DELG s.v. ἰός, LfgrE loc. cit.; Ruijgh [1991] 1996, 349 n. 41). — Ἄϊδος εἴσω: 3.322n., 6.284n. 423 1st VH = 190 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH 21x Il. (1.121n.). — κατέπεφνε: cf. 12n.

424 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ fr. 193.17 M.-W. (restored); ≈ Hes. Th. 290. — Achilleus’ raids in the vicinity of Troy served, among other things, to capture cattle and sheep (sc. to feed the army: Thuc. 1.11; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 4); cf. 11.104  ff., 20.91, 20.188  ff. – In Homeric society, it is standard practice for princes to take the animals to pasture: members of the elite regularly participate in everyday labor (cf. 25n., 90–91n., 313–317n., 11.106, 20.188, 21.37  f., 24.29n., Od. 13.222  f., etc.; Ndoye 2010, 32–42). βουσὶν ἔπ(ι): i.e. during their watch over the cattle, ‘when grazing the cattle’ (cf. 25n.). — εἰλιπόδεσσι: an epithet of cattle; etymology and meaning are unclear. The adj. is perhaps related to εἴλω/ἑλίσσω ‘turn’ (on the neglect of the digamma, see Hoekstra 1965, 67  f.: VB βουσὶν ἔπ’ εἰλ. < VE *ἐπὶ ϝειλ. βόεσσιν); in that case, it refers to the rolling gait of the animals, whose back legs describe a semi-circular movement (schol. D: ὅτι ἑλίσσουσι τοὺς πόδας κατὰ τὴν πορείαν; LSJ, LfgrE, Frisk s.v.). Contrast: ἵπποι ἀερσίποδες (3.327 etc., ‘lifting their feet’); cf. also μῆλα ταναύποδα (Od. 9.464 etc., ‘〈striding〉 with extended legs’?, cf. LfgrE s.v.). — ἀργεννῇς ὀΐεσσιν: =  Od. 17.472; on ἀργεννός ‘whitish, shimmering white’, see 3.141n. 425 2nd VH = 396 (see ad loc.), 22.479. — βασίλευεν: ‘was queen’, as wife of the king (like Chloris as the wife of Neleus at Od. 11.285); whether and to what extent the word also implies the exercise of ruling functions (cf. Arete’s role in the public life of the Phaiakians, Od. 7.71  ff.) cannot be discerned from the text. The idea of matriarchy (Pomeroy 1975, 17  f.) should at any rate be discarded (cf. 1.366, 6.396  f., 9.188, 16.153).

421–422 οἳ … | οἵ: the first οἵ is relative (with ἑπτὰ κασίγνητοι in apposition), the second demonstrative. — ἔσαν: = ἦσαν (R 16.1, 16.6). — κίον: cf. 399n. — ἤματι: from ἦμαρ ‘day’. — Ἄϊδος εἴσω: 284n. 424 βουσὶν ἔπ(ι): = ἐπὶ βουσίν (R 20.2; ↑). — εἰλιπόδεσσι … ὀΐεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. — ἀργεννῇς: on the declension, R 11.1.

154 

 Iliad 6

426 with all his other possessions: Captured women may be listed in the same breath as other booty (e.g. at 9.122  ff. ≈ 264  ff., 9.365  ff., 23.259  ff.); as slaves, they are of measurable, material value (23.704  f., Od. 1.430  f.). 427–428 released her again …: This presumably implies that her father, mentioned at 428, ransomed her (the attempt  – naturally often fruitless  – of fathers to ransom their captured daughters or sons is a leitmotif in the Iliad: cf. 1.13/20  f., 6.46  ff., 11.131  ff., 22.49  f., also 24.501  f./554  ff. [Hektor’s corpse]; see Wilson 2002, 29  f. with 191 n. 75). On the widow’s return to her parental home, cf. Od. 1.275  ff. ≈ 2.195  ff. (Penelope’s situation after the supposed death of Odysseus); Wickert-Micknat 1982, 92. — Artemis | … struck her down: 205n. 427 ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα: a VE formula (1.13n.); on the etymology of ἄποινα, see 46n. 428 2nd VH = Od. 15.478. — ἰοχέαιρα: a distinctive epithetP of Artemis (26x early epic, of these 13x in the present inflectible VE formula [nom./acc.]). Etymology and meaning are disputed; probably originally ‘who holds arrows in her hands’ (final element related to χείρ: Beekes s.v. with bibliography, especially Peters 1980, 223–228, and Viredaz 2000, 303; West 2007, 150; Sanskrit parallel: íṣu-hasta ‘who holds an arrow in his hand’), but secondarily linked with χέω and interpreted as ‘who pours out, sends out arrows’: Hesych. s.v., schol. T on 16.465; perhaps understood thus already in the Homeric period (LfgrE s.v. with reference to 5.618 δούρατ’ ἔχευαν, 8.159 =  15.590 βέλεα  … χέοντο; but there in reference to a rain of missiles such as can only be produced by a group of marksmen: Viredaz loc. cit. n. 100).

429–430 Hektor: A second address within the same speech has emphatic effect; cf. 1.232 = 2.242, 1.401, 2.284n., 2.362n., 3.82n., 6.355, 9.33, 9.437, etc. — father … mother | … brother … young husband: intensifying variation of 413 (Kirk; Perceau 2002, 198): Hektor must replace all the loved ones Andromache has lost, but she loves him especially as her husband (effectively stressed by the epithet, the position at verse end, and the anaphora ‘you are to me … you are to me’: Kakridis [1937] 1949, 50; Tsagalis 2004, 120  f.). – The thought may be inspired by Near Eastern sources, where the motif ‘a god/ruler is like a father, a mother, or a brother to the people’ is common: Graziosi/Haubold with examples and bibliography. ἀτάρ: 86n. — σύ … | … σὺ δέ: on the connective δέ in anaphora, see Denniston 163. — θαλερὸς παρακοίτης: ≈ 8.156 (acc. pl.), 3.53 (fem. acc. sing.). θαλερός used in reference

426–427 τὴν … | … τήν: anaphoric demonstrative pronouns, which pick up the object from 425 after the relative clause. — δεῦρ(ο): ‘hither’ (into the Achaean camp before Troy). — ὅ γε: sc. Achilleus. 429 ἀτάρ: ≈ αὐτάρ (R 24.2). — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 155

to human beings means ‘blooming, at the height of vitality’ (cf. Andromache’s lament at 24.725 over Hektor’s death at such a young age): LfgrE s.v.

431 Please take pity upon me: a reprisal of 407 (see ad loc.) in the shape of a ring-compositionP. ἐπὶ πύργῳ: ‘at the tower’ or ‘atop the tower’; the implication in any case is that Hektor should stay within the protective sphere of the city fortifications (sc. in order to direct battle from there: 433  ff.; see AH, Kirk). 432 παῖδ’ ὀρφανικὸν  … χήρην τε γυναῖκα: chiasmus, by means of which the pointed periphrastic denominationP ‘wife’ (rather than ‘me’) is placed at verse end: Andromache stresses Hektor’s responsibility to the members of his family.

433–439 The athetization of these verses by Aristarchus (schol. A) triggered a discussion of their authenticity that continues to the present (Aristarchus is followed by, among others, AH; Bethe 1914, 239  ff.; Lohmann 1988, 37  f., 80  f.; Görgemanns 2001, 116; counter arguments: scholia bT on 433, 434, 435, 436  f.; Faesi/Franke; Kirk; Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 134; Tsagalis 2004, 124  ff.; Heath 2005, 70  f., with further bibliography; non-committal: Leaf; West 2001, 198  f.). The main arguments for athetesis are ((1) through (3) already in Aristarchus): (1) strategic counsel is inappropriate coming from a woman, (2) Hektor does not address it in his response at 441  ff., (3) nowhere else is there mention of a weakness in the wall or of deliberate Achaian attacks there, so that Andromache’s statement contains a falsehood (pseúdos), (4) the addition disturbs the economy of the speech, which is in the form of a ring-composition (Bethe loc. cit. 242; Lohmann loc. cit. 37  f.). Regarding (1) and (2): 433  ff. are answered implicitly by Hektor at 490  ff.: Andromache’s ‘interference’ in military matters is inappropriate from his point of view, but this in no way prevents the narrator from having her speak thus (see below). Regarding (3): according to the principle of ‘ad hoc narration’P, some facts are reported only when they become relevant to the action, but that does not make them less ‘real’ within the fictional world of the narrative (Andersen 1990, 37–39). (4) is based on an overly schematic view of the poet’s compositional technique (see West and Heath loc. cit.; cf. also 24.599–620n. end on 614–617).  – Retaining 433  ff. is supported especially by the fact that the speech might be read as an incitement to a passive withdrawal from battle, were it to conclude with 431  f. – an ‘infamy’ Andromache can scarcely expect from her husband (Schadewaldt loc. cit.; differently Lohmann loc. cit. 80). At the same time, Andromache is not

431 ἄγε: cf. 340n. — αὐτοῦ: adv., ‘just here’. — μίμν(ε): ≈ μένε. 432 θήῃς: aor. subjunc. of τίθημι (with double acc.) ‘make someone something’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

156 

 Iliad 6

alone (even among women) in counselling for a cautious, defensive strategy: cf. 22.84  f. (Hekabe), also 12.211  ff. and 18.273  ff. (Polydamas), 15.721  ff. (elders), 22.56  f. (Priam). The counsels mentioned above, however, differ in detail. In Book 22, Priam and Hekabe ask their son not to expose himself to certain death in the duel with Achilleus and thus deprive the city of its ablest defender. The elders, Polydamas in particular, are concerned with the safety of the entire army. Hektor’s rejection in Book 18 of Polydamas’ advice to withdraw into the city after Achilleus’ return to battle is labelled a mistake by the narrator (18.310  ff.), and is later recognized as such by Hektor himself (22.99  ff.: self-reproach for having inflicted heavy losses on the army because of his decision). Some interpreters conclude from this that the narrator is entirely on Andromache’s side here (especially Alden 2000, 272–275; similarly Lohmann 1988, 68  f.; Mackie 1996, 123  f.; Görgemanns 2001, 118  f.; cf. 407–496n. end). But her counsel  – unlike that of Polydamas – is motivated primarily by consideration for Hektor’s personal safety and the fate of Astyanax and herself (431  f.); this makes it difficult for Hektor to comply with her wish (cf. 441–446n. and Graziosi/Haubold on 433).

433–434 fig tree: mentioned also at 11.167 and 22.145 (flight of the Trojans and Hektor past the fig tree). It remains unclear where the tree should be imagined; the reference appears to be to a location relatively close to the wall but at some distance from the Skaian gate (Kirk; cf. also Elliger 1975, 46  f., 57  f.; Thornton 1984, 152  f.; Trachsel 2007, 89  f.).  – On the topographical landmarks mentioned in the Iliad generally, see 2.793n. — there where the city | is openest to attack, and where the wall may be mounted: According to Pindar Ol. 8.31–46, Apollo and Poseidon were assisted by the mortal hero Aiakos in building the walls of Troy; it had been decreed by fate that the otherwise impregnable wall would be forced at the point constructed by Aiakos. In the Iliad, only the construction of the wall by Apollo and Poseidon (7.452  f.) or by Poseidon alone (21.446  ff.) is mentioned explicitly. If the story of Aiakos’ involvement was part of the pre-Homeric narrative tradition, the present passage would allude to it (cf. schol. bT on 438; West on 435; Scully 1990, 36  f., 50); alternatively, the story may have developed on the basis of the present passage (Faesi/Franke; Leaf; Kirk).  – Andromache’s statement has been linked by excavators since Dörpfeld to a weak point in the city walls of Troy near Gate VI U, which may have inspired the poet’s fantasy (Kirk, Brillante [with bibliography]; Korfmann 2002, 216  f.).

434 ἀμβατός: = ἀναβατός (cf. R 20.1), ‘mountable’. — ἐπίδρομον: ‘assailable, open to attack’.

Commentary 

 157

ἔπλετο: The aor. of πέλομαι may be used in reference to the present (together with a pres. at 9.54, 14.337, etc., as here): ‘has proved to be’ > ‘is’ (LfgrE s.v. 1134.31  ff., 1135.40  ff.; Waanders 2000, 257, 263, 266).

435 Three times: a typical numberP (collection of examples: Blom 1936, 24–28); cf. especially 16.702  ff. (Patroklos’ triple attempt to storm the walls of Troy), also 5.436  f., 18.155  ff., 20.445  f., etc. (‘triple attempts’ as a typical motif in battle scenes: Fenik 1968, 46). As in the motif ‘for nine days … but on the tenth’ (173–177n.), the expression suggests that a fourth attempt may follow and bring about a decisive turn of events (West 2011 and Graziosi/Haubold ad loc.). 436–437 the two Aiantes … Idomeneus | … the two Atreidai … son of Tydeus: cf. CH 2–3 and the similar enumerations at 2.404  ff., 7.162  ff., 8.253  ff./261  ff. Achilleus’ absence is in accord with the situation at the beginning of the action of the Iliad. Αἴαντε: The dual probably originally denoted Aias son of Telamon together with his brother Teukros, but in the Iliad the term is generally used for the homonymous sons of Telamon and Oïleus (2.406n.). — ἀγακλυτόν: ‘very famous, splendid’ (metrical-prosodic variants: ἀγακλειτός, ἀγακλεής; on the intensifying ἀγα- cf. ἄγαν); a generic epithetP of heroes (and 1x each of Hephaistos and a centaur) and of δώματα (LfgrE s.v.). — Τυδέος: 96n. — ἄλκιμον υἱόν: an inflectible VE formula (nom./acc.), in total 15x Il. (of these 12x of Patroklos: 19.24n.), 5x Hes., 1x h.Merc.

438–439 Enumeration of suppositions is common in Homeric epic; cf. 5.811  f., in form of a question 6.378  ff. (see ad loc.), 10.84, 13.251  f., 16.12  ff., Od. 2.30  ff., 11.172  f., etc. (cf. also 6.383–385n. with bibliography). On the two alternatives considered by Andromache, cf. Od. 4.712  f., 7.263, also Il. 13.68–75 (combination of divine and personal motivation); the ‘prophetic arts’ might allude to the version of the myth transmitted at Pind. Ol. 8.31–46 (433–434n.). 438 που: ‘From που meaning «somewhere» is developed the sense «I suppose», «I think», the particle conveying a feeling of uncertainty in the speaker’ (Denniston 490  f.). — θεοπροπίων: derived from θεοπρόπος ‘one who reveals the will of the gods, seer’, thus ‘sayings of a seer, divine signs (interpreted by seers)’ (1.85n.). — εὖ εἰδώς: an inflectible VE formula (εἰδώς, εἴδω, -ῃς, οἶδα(ς); in total 15x Il., 10x Od., 3x h.Hom.; also sometimes in other positions in the verse, cf. 1.385n.). On the partitive gen. with οἶδα, see Schw. 2.107.

435 ἐπειρήσανθ’: = ἐπειρήσαντο, absolute: ‘made an attempt’. 436 Αἴαντε: acc. dual (cf. R 18.1; ↑). — Ἰδομενῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. 438–439 ἤ που … | ἤ νυ καί: ‘it may be that … or that’; properly, main clauses connected paratactically, ‘perhaps he has either … or else’. — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — ἔνισπε: aor. of ἐν(ν)έπω ‘report, say’. — εὖ (ϝ)ειδώς: on the prosody, R 4.4. — εἰδώς: with gen. ‘being knowledgeable about, well skilled in’ (↑). — αὐτῶν θυμός: ‘their own heart, their own will’.

158 

 Iliad 6

439 ≈ 15.43. — θυμός: 256n. end, 444n. — ἐποτρύνει καὶ ἀνώγει: an inflectible VE formula (-ει, -ῃ, -ναι/-ξαι, in total 5x Il., 2x Od.); on the synonym doubling, 1.160n. In connection with ἐποτρύνει, ἀνώγει is to be understood as pres. (contrast 240 with n.): a secondary derivation from the present sense of the perf. ἄνωγα (Schw. 1.767 with n. 10; DELG), perhaps emerging under the influence of the present formula (LfgrE s.v. ἄνωγα 961.8  ff.). – The pres. is likely used beside the aor. ἔνισπε as an expression of the expectation that further attacks will occur in the same location: ‘(again and again/still) urges and encourages’ (AH, Faesi/Franke). 440 = 22.232; ≈ 7.233, 7.287, 22.249; 1st VH (with τόν/τήν) 42x Il., 57x Od., 2x Hes., 2x h.Hom.; cf. 263n.

441–465 Although Hektor’s response to Andromache’s speech contains a heartfelt declaration of love (454, 464  f.), it offers no consolation; its dark, savagely realistic visions of the future at 447  ff. can only serve to confirm her fears. Hektor only achieves a more comforting tone at 486  ff. (see ad loc.; Latacz [1987] 1994, 117). On the structure of the speech, see 407–465n. 441–446 Hektor rejects Andromache’s plea by referring to the values he recognizes as obligatory for himself as a member of the elite: if he were to limit himself to conducting the battle from a protected position, both the community and Hektor himself would regard this as cowardice (see 441–442n.); a man in his position is expected to fight at the front line at all times (cf. 445n.). Similarly pregnant formulations of the ‘heroic code’ can be found at 5.253  f., 6.208  ff. (see 208n.), 11.408  ff., 11.784, 12.310  ff. (Fenik 1968, 31; Morrison 1992, 146 n. 9). Hektor will later justify his offensive strategy on the ground that decisively driving the Greeks back will secure his homeland permanently and will free his city from the oppressive siege (15.494  ff., 18.285  ff.; cf. 8.526  ff., 12.243, 15.718  ff.; see also 9.590  ff., where Kleopatra – the antithesis of Andromache – drives her husband Meleager into battle in order that he might save the city from ruin [on this, Wissmann 1997, 66]). There, Hektor’s confidence in his ability to drive the enemies entirely out of the country is derived from the successes of the second and third day of battle, as well as from Zeus’ promise of victory (11.200  ff.). But this notion has no place beside the visions of the future at 447  ff. (Görgemanns 2001, 119  f.). – Only at the end of his speech does Hektor indicate that he wishes to give his best in battle not least for Andromache’s sake – namely, to save her from the ‘day of slavery’ for as long as possible (463n.; cf. also 447n.).

441–442 442 =  22.105 (Hektor before his duel with Achilleus); 2nd VH =  7.297. — All these things are in my mind also  …: Hektor clarifies that he shares Andromache’s concerns, but then immediately counters them – without addressing them in detail – with a declaration of his own point of view; similarly

441 ἦ: emphatic (R 24.4).

Commentary 

 159

1.286  f. (see ad loc.), 8.146  f., etc. (formulaic expression ‘you spoke fittingly of all this – but …’). — lady: a neutral form of address (mostly but not exclusively in reference to wives); used in different contexts and moods: e.g. Od. 4.266 vs. 23.183, 6.168 vs. 19.81; Il. 3.204, 3.438, 24.300. — I would feel deep shame | before the Trojans  …: ‘feel shame’ is Greek aidéomai, ‘feel aidṓs’; aidṓs makes human beings respect social norms: the term denotes both consideration for others and fear of the criticism to which one will be subjected if one fails to fulfill their expectations (Cairns 1993 passim, esp. 68–87 on aidṓs in the context of battle; on this, also van Wees 1996, 21–23). – Since Dodds 1951, Homeric society has often been denoted a ‘shame culture’, whose members are primarily guided in their conduct by concern for public opinion (in contrast to modern ‘guilt culture’, in which internal standards of value take precedence). Opposing this one-sided perspective is Cairns loc. cit. 14–47 and (on the present passage) 79–81: although Hektor is particularly sensitive to public opinion (see 459–463n.), his behavior is determined as much by his own thymós (mental energy, ‘heart’ as the location for the striving of the will: LfgrE s.v.; cf. 444n.) as by aidṓs; external and internal motivations coincide. ἀλλὰ μάλ’ αἰνῶς: a VE formula (= 10.38, 19.23, 22.454). — Τρῶας καὶ Τρῳάδας: a polar expressionP denoting the Trojan population as a whole (cf. the iterata, as well as 7.80, 22.57, 22.434, 22.514, 24.215, 24.704; Kemmer 1903, 144  f.). — ἑλκεσιπέπλους: a distinctive epithetP of the women of Troy in the Iliad (3x, see iterata); also 1x ‘Hes.’ of the women of Thebes. The meaning is ‘dragging their gown behind, with a long train’, or better ‘gathering their gown’ (cf. Sappho fr. 57.3 Voigt: disparagingly of a woman who does not know how to τὰ βράκε’ ἔλκην ἐπὶ τὼν σφύρων): LfgrE s.v. with bibliography. On the formation of the word, Risch 192; Tronci 2000, 295  f.; on the semantic field, 372n.

443–444 a coward  … |  … valiant: When used of persons, Greek kakós (basic meaning ‘bad’) and its counterpart esthlós mostly refer in the Iliad to accomplishment in battle, while also having a social connotation (‘a coward/commoner’ vs. ‘a valiant/noble person’): see LfgrE s.vv. and 2.190n. with bibliography. 443 κακὸς ὥς: scanned ⏑––: in formulaic expressions such as this, the original initial /j/ of ὥς still has a prosodic effect (West 1997a, 229; cf. 2.190n.). — ἀλυσκάζω: deverbative from ἀλύσκω ‘(be able to) escape, evade’, with an intensive iterative meaning; pejorative here and at 5.253, ‘shirk/dodge (danger)’ (LfgrE s.v.). 444 οὐδέ  … ἄνωγεν: ‘does not allow, prohibits’ (sc. ἀλυσκάζειν); cf. οὐκ ἐθέλω ‘deny’ (3.289n.), οὐ κελεύω ‘dissuade’ (14.62, 24.297), etc. (AH, Leaf; Schw. 2.593  f.). — θυμός:

443 αἴ κε: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, R 24.5). — κακὸς ὥς: = ὡς κακός. — πολέμοιο: dependent on νόσφιν. 444 ἄνωγεν: perfect with present sense (382n.). — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).

160 

 Iliad 6

used pregnantly ‘to emphasize the independent personal factor in the process of mental activities’ (Jahn 1987, 229  f., transl.); cf. θυμὸς ἐπέσσυται at 361. — μάθον: The verb is attested in Homer only here and at Od. 17.226, in both passages with the meaning ‘get permanently in the habit of, adopt an attitude’ (LfgrE s.v. μαθεῖν; cf. also 351n. on οἶδα in reference to patterns of behavior).

445 to fight … among the foremost ranks: likewise Sarpedon in his formulation of the ‘heroic code’ at 12.321; cf. 5.536, 9.709, 13.270  f. (on which, Latacz 1977, 151–154); on parallels in IE poetry, West 2007, 458  f. — always: in the Greek in stressed position at VB, as at 208 = 11.784 (‘to always be the best …’), here further emphasized via enjambmentP; fame calls for constant protection (Patzer 1996, 217). This is also apparent in passages such as 17.142  ff.: a brief slackening in the battle tempo (17.129  f.) immediately results in vehement criticism of Hektor. 446 great glory: Greek kléos, literally ‘what is heard (about someone), reputation’; mostly used positively with the sense ‘renown’ (2.325n. with bibliography). On the prevalence of the expression ‘great fame/renown’ in IE poetry, see West 2007, 406  f. — my father: cf. 209n. ἀρνύμενος: The context suggests the meaning ‘seeking to maintain’ (schol. bT; AH); in that case, the notion is the same as in 209. Differently, LfgrE s.v. (cf. schol. A, Kirk): ἄρνυμαι, ‘achieve, obtain’ in the aor. stem, is regularly used in the present with the meaning ‘seek to obtain’ (cf. 1.159, 5.553, with dat. of advantage; as a consequence, πατρός … ἠδ’ ἐμὸν αὐτοῦ stands for πατρὶ καὶ ἐμαυτῷ; cf. Eust. 654.61). But both nuances of meaning may reverberate in ἀρνύμενος: cf. Od. 1.5 ἀρνύμενος ἥν τε ψυχὴν (‘preserve’) καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων (‘obtain’; West ad loc.: ‘trying to secure’ in reference to both objects). — ἐμὸν αὐτοῦ: an amplification of the possessive pronoun by means of the gen. of αὐτός, as at 490 τὰ σ’ αὐτῆς ἔργα, Od. 1.7 αὐτῶν … σφετέρῃσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν, etc.; the compound reflexive pronouns ἐμαυτοῦ, σ(ε)αυτοῦ, etc. are post-Homeric (Chantr. 2.158; Schw. 2.201, 205).

447–449 ≈ 4.163–165, spoken by Agamemnon (after the breach of the treaty by Pandaros): an example of the varying effects repeated verses may display in different contexts; in the present case, the repetition allows the audience to consider the city’s doom from the Greek point of view as well as the Trojan one (Macleod, Introd. 43; Kirk; Owen 1946, 71; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 184–187; on repeated verse groups in direct speeches in general: de Jong [1987] 2004, 179–192, esp. 187  f.). – ProlepsesP of the fall of Troy run through the Iliad as a leitmotif (predominantly in direct speech; exceptions: explicit prediction 12.13  ff., allusions 21.522  ff., 22.410  f., etc.); on this, Duckworth 1933, 30–32, 54

445 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — πρώτοισι μετὰ Τρώεσσι: = μετὰ πρώτοις Τρ. (cf. R 20.2).

Commentary 

 161

n. 120; collection of attestations: Kullmann 1960, 343–349; Haft 1990, 39  f., 56; formulaic expressions for Troy’s destruction: Scully 1990, 69–77.  – On the contrast between Hektor’s clear-sighted anticipation of Troy’s end and his re-awakening hope at 475  ff., see ad loc. 447 ≈ 4.163, Od. 15.211. — μέν: ≈ μήν ‘although, admittedly’ (K.-G. 2.139  f.); implication: Hektor seeks to defend Troy by his efforts in battle for as long as possible, even though he anticipates the city’s ultimate fall. – The majority of the mss. offer the reading γάρ (as in the iterata) rather than μέν; in that case, 447  ff. would imply that a knowledge of Troy’s imminent ruin in particular reinforces Hektor’s striving for fame – as a permanent value (Taplin 1992, 123  f.; Görgemanns 2001, 116; cf. 145–211n., point (3)). In the present context, this notion nevertheless appears forced (Kirk) and insensitive to Andromache: Hektor – elsewhere the defender of their homeland par excellence (402–403n.) – would be giving her the impression that he is now fighting exclusively for the sake of his personal fame, having given up in resignation his role as defender of the city. μέν, although less well attested in the tradition, gets further support from the fact that γάρ might have replaced μέν more easily than vice versa (in analogy to the parallel passage at 4.163, and because γάρ is in general ‘more typically invasive’ than μέν: West 2001, 199). — κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ θυμόν: a VE formula (1.193n.) used for various spiritual or mental processes: 3x with οἶδα (see iterata), also 8x with ὁρμαίνω, 6x with μερμηρίζω, 2x with φράζομαι, 1x each with νοέω, ἐρέθω and δέδοικα. A metrically convenient synonym doubling (1.160n.); φρήν and θυμός thus do not denote two different aspects of mental processes: the lexemes of the semantic field ‘soul-spirit’ are generally interchangeable in such phrases (Jahn 1987, 210  f.; cf. 51n., 61n.). 448–449 = 4.164  f.; 448b–449 ≈ 4.46b–47 (and 8.551b–552, probably spurious). On the notion, cf. 283n. — Ἴλιος ἱρή: 96n. — λαός: here denotes the people as a whole, including women and children (LfgrE s.v. 1636.31  ff.; but cf. 80n., 327, 433). — ἐϋμμελίω: ‘with a good ash lance’, a generic epithetP of heroes, but in the Iliad only of Priam and the sons of Panthoos (LfgrE s.v.; cf. 12n. on βοὴν ἀγαθός). On the contracted form, Schw. 1.252, Chantr. 1.64  f.; on the semantic field, 116n.

450–465 An implicit reply to Andromache’s profession of love at 429  f.: as she had done, Hektor indicates how much his wife means to him through the contrast ‘all other relatives – you’. The form of the priamel lends additional emotional intensity to the notion (with intensification from one section to the next: ‘it is not the pain of the Trojans that touches me so much [1 verse] – not even that of Hekabe, nor that of Priam [1 verse] – nor that of my brothers [2 verses] –

447 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6, ↑). — τόδε (ϝ)οῖδα: on the prosody, R 4.3. 448 ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6). — ὀλώλῃ (ϝ)ίλιος: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ὀλώλῃ: subjunc. of the intrans. perf. of ὄλλυμι, ‘perish’. — ἱρή: = ἱερά. 449 ἐϋμμελίω: gen. of ἐϋμμελίης (↑).

162 

 Iliad 6

as much as yours’ [expressed across 12 verses]); see Race 1982, 35, 41  f.; further bibliography on the priamel in general: Bierl 2003, 103 n. 43; cf. also 383–385n. 450–458 On the fate awaiting the population of a conquered city, cf. 57b–60n., 9.591b–594, 22.59–71a (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 140 n. 3; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 32  f., 38–49); specifically on the sufferings of a warrior’s widow: Od. 8.523  ff. 450–454 Τρώων … ἄλγος … | … Ἑκάβης … | 2 verses | … σεῖ(ο): Τρώων and the genitives that follow are taken as objective by AH (‘my pain for the Trojans … does not affect me as much as the one for you’). But ἄλγος does not denote only (physical and mental) pain, but also the circumstances of fate causing this pain (cf. the common expression ἄλγεα δίδωμι with a deity as the subject: Mawet 1979, 161  ff.; Rijksbaron 1992); this allows for the more natural interpretation of Τρώων etc. as subjective genitives (‘the pain of the Trojans …’): LfgrE s.v. μέλω 118.71; Kirk; Graziosi/Haubold on 450. 450 ὀπίσσω: ‘for the future, with a view to the future’ (LfgrE s.v. 736.59  ff.); cf. Od. 19.330 τῷ δὲ καταρῶνται πάντες βροτοὶ ἄλγε’ ὀπίσσω, Il. 22.19 ἐπεὶ οὔ τι τίσιν γ’ ἔδδεισας ὀπίσσω. 451 αὐτῆς: intensifying (‘herself’ in the sense ‘even’, like French même, negated ‘not even’): LfgrE s.v. 1642.3  ff./35  ff. — Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος: a VE formula (2.373n.).

452 brothers: On the role played by the sons of Priam in the Iliad, see 244–246n. πολέες τε καὶ ἐσθλοί: an inflectible phrase (nom./acc./gen.; neuter πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλά), common at VE; in total 12x Il., 9x Od., 1x h.Hom. In contexts similar to this one: 22.44, 24.167, 24.204, 24.520. 453 ἐν κονίῃσι πέσοιεν: an inflectible formulaic phrase: also at VB at 23.437 (as here), 15.423, 17.428 (πεσόντα/-τος); 5x Il. ἐν κονίῃσι πεσών after caesura A 3; 4x Il. πέσον/-εν ἐν κονίῃσι at VE; also other variants. — ὑπ(ό): 368n. — ἀνδράσι δυσμενέεσσιν: = Od. 3.90, 22.234; more frequent at VB (inflectible: 19.168n.); on the archaic form (beside the younger δυσμενέσιν at 3.51), see G 70 and Blanc 2007, 21  f.; 2008, 187–189. δυσμενής, in the Iliad always relating to opponents in war, is like many emotional terms largely limited to character languageP (exception: 22.403): LfgrE s.v.; de Jong (1987) 2004, 144. 454–455 κεν … | … ἄγηται: a prospective subjunctive as an expression of a definite expectation (Schw. 2.311), in contrast to the potential optatives at 452  f. (fate of the brothers) and 456  f. (secondary consequences of Andromache’s fate as a slave): Kirk. — Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων: a VE formula (1.371n.). — δακρυόεσσαν: cf. 373n. — ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ:

450 τόσσον … ὀπίσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 451 Πριάμοιο (ϝ)άνακτος: on the prosody, R 4.3. 452 πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2). 454–455 σεῖ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1). — ὅτε κεν … | … ἄγηται: prospective subjunc. mid.: ‘when … will lead with himself’. — δακρυόεσσαν: sc. σε. — ἀπούρας: part. of ἀπηύρων ‘took away’ (root aor. of a defective verb, cf. 17n.).

Commentary 

 163

VE formula (= 16.831, 20.193), ‘day of freedom’ (adj. rather than a gen.: Schw. 2.177  f.). As a description of a condition, ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ is presumably secondarily derived from the antonym δούλιον ἦμαρ (463, Od. 14.340, 17.323), where ἦμαρ is still used of the actual ‘day’ of the change in condition (Raaflaub 1981, 188 with n. 62; LfgrE s.v. ἐλεύθερος). On comparable expressions (ἦμαρ ἀναγκαῖον, ὀλέθριον ἦμαρ, αἴσιμον ἦμαρ, etc.), see 19.294n.; LfgrE s.v. ἦμαρ 917.34  ff. – On the concept of freedom in Homer, see LfgrE s.v. ἐλεύθερος with bibliography (especially Raaflaub loc. cit. 188  f. with nn. 68  f.) and Jacquinod 1992: the prerequisite for an individual’s personal freedom is integration into an intact community; both aspects are inseparably connected in the term ἐλεύθερος (elsewhere in early epic only at 528, see ad loc.). 456–459 καί κεν … | καί κεν … | 1 verse | καί: The emphatic anaphora stresses the number of sorrows awaiting Andromache in slavery.

456–458 Weaving and fetching water are typical female tasks, performed also by free individuals in Homeric society (see 90–91n., 490  f.; Od. 7.19  f., 10.105  ff.); the trouble regarding Andromache’s future fate thus does not concern the impending labor so much as life in a foreign land (cf. 1.30) and subordination to another woman’s authority (see 456b vs. 491  f.; schol. bT on 456; WickertMicknat 1983, 41 n. 1; Ndoye 2010, 275  f.). Hektor omits mentioning that as a young female slave, she may also face sexual exploitation (cf. 1.31n.; in the post-Homeric narrative tradition, Andromache appears as Neoptolemos’ concubine [Eur. Andr. 12–38 etc.]): Kirk on 455. — in Argos … | … from the spring Messeis or Hypereia: Since Hektor cannot foresee where Andromache will be taken after the fall of Troy, ‘Argos’ here likely denotes Greece as a whole (LfgrE s.v. Ἄργος 1210.24  ff.; cf. 107n., also 24.437n.: ‘Argos’ as a sort of code for the center of the enemy’s country); ‘Messeis’ and ‘Hypereia’ may be interpreted as universally common names of springs (‘the middle’, ‘the upper’: Kirk; LfgrE s.v. Μεσσηΐς end; cf. 2.734n.). At any rate, attempts at localization by later authors (Strab. 9.5.6, 9.5.18 [= C 432/438  f.], Paus. 3.20.1) do not lead to definitive results (details in Kirk). 456 πρὸς ἄλλης: ‘on the orders of another (woman)’ (Schw. 2.514  f.). — ἱστόν: ‘web’; forms an inflectible formula together with ὑφαίνω (3.125n.). 458 2nd VH ≈ Od. 10.273, h.Ven. 130. — πόλλ’ ἀεκαζομένη: an inflectible VB formula (1x each Il./Od., 2x h.Cer.). — ἀνάγκη: also stressed elsewhere as a characteristic of slaves’

456 ἐοῦσα: = οὖσα (R 16.6). 457 φορέοις: φορέω is the frequentative of φέρω. — Μεσσηΐδος ἠ’ Ὑπερείης: gen. of origin without preposition (R 19.2); ἠ(έ) = ‘or’. 458 πόλλ’: = πολλά; adv., ‘much, very’. — ἀεκαζομένη: ‘unwilling’ (part. of the otherwise unattested verb *ἀεκάζομαι). — ἐπικείσετ(αι): sc. σοι, ‘will lie upon you’.

164 

 Iliad 6

existence, cf. 16.836 (ἦμαρ ἀναγκαῖον), Od. 14.272 = 17.441 (τοὺς δ’ ἄναγον ζωούς, σφίσιν ἐργάζεσθαι ἀνάγκῃ): Gschnitzer 1976, 9.

459–463 The Iliad contains eight tis-speechesP imagined by charactersP, five of them by Hektor: also 479 (see ad loc.), 7.87–91, 7.300–302, 22.106–108 (elsewhere only one each by Agamemnon, Sarpedon and Menelaos: 4.176–182, 12.317–321, 23.575–578): consideration of what others might later say about him is characteristic of Hektor (de Jong 1987a, 76–79; Bouvier 2002, 59–64; Kelly 2007, 183 [with further bibliography]; Beck 2012, 52–54, 166  f.). On the one hand, his grief over Andromache’s future suffering is in the foreground: he imagines how bitter it will be for her – a slave – to be called the former wife of Troy’s leading hero. On the other hand, this grief is combined with a certain pride: the tis-speech is ‘a kind of oral epitaph […], indicating how he hopes to be remembered, viz. as the best warrior before Troy’ (cf. 7.87–91): de Jong (1987) 2004, 177; cf. de Jong 1987a, 77; schol. bT on 460; Scodel 1992a, 59, 64  f. In this way, Hektor again implicitly justifies the heroic attitude to life that prevents him from complying with Andromache’s plea (Schneider 1996, 126). – Differently, Schadewaldt (1935) 1997, 135  f.; Arthur 1981, 33; Van Nortwick 2001, 228 (in his tis-speech, Hektor anticipates the shame Andromache’s humiliation will bring to his own name). 459 1st VH = 7.87; ≈ 2.271 (see ad loc.), etc. — εἴπησιν: a prospective subjunc., taken up by the fut. ἐρέει at 462 (likewise at 7.87/91, Od. 6.275/285; cf. καί κέ τις ὧδ’ ἐρέει Il. 4.176). On the functional proximity of subjunc. and ind. fut., see G 100; Schw. 2.310; Chantr. 2.209  f.; examined under a diachronic aspect in Ruijgh (1992) 1996, 677  ff. (678  f.: use of εἴπησι as a – metrically convenient – equivalent of ἐρέει is an archaism, the remnant of a prehistoric declarative use of the subjunc.). – On the ending -ησι (without ι subscript), West 1998, XXXI. — (κατὰ) δάκρυ χέουσαν: an inflectible VE formula (1.413n.; cf. 6.405n., 496). 460–461 ὃς ἀριστεύεσκε μάχεσθαι | Τρώων: This corresponds to the ideal, formulated by Hektor at 445, αἰεὶ … πρώτοισι μετὰ Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι; an imagined tis-speech often contains echoes of the surrounding direct speech (de Jong 1987a, 83). 460 2nd VH = 11.746, 16.292, 16.551, 17.351. 461 1st VH = 2.230 (see ad loc.), 4.333, 4.355, 11.568; ≈ 8x Il. — Τρώων ἱπποδάμων: on the generic epithet ἱππόδαμος, 299n.; on horse-breeding in Troy, 2.230n.

459 τις (ϝ)είπησιν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — εἴπησιν: 3rd sing. subjunc. (R 16.3). — κατὰ … χέουσαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — δάκρυ: collective sing. 460 ἀριστεύεσκε: frequentative (R 16.5), ‘was continually the best’; dependent on this is Τρώων (461) as a comparative or partitive gen. 461 ὅτε (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 165

462 1st VH = 4.182, 7.91; ≈ 22.108. 463 1st VH ≈ 19.324. — χήτει: an ossified dat. (related to *χῆτος ‘lack’; in early epic also at 19.324, Od. 16.35, Hes. Th. 605, h.Ap. 78); used like a preposition with the gen. (Kloss 1994, 138  f.). Cf. Latin. absentiā > Italian senza (suggestion by Führer). — τοιοῦδ’ ἀνδρὸς ἀμύνειν: τοιόσδε, τοῖος, τοιοῦτος, etc. may be used with a final-consecutive inf. to mean ‘of such a kind that he can/could’ > ‘capable of doing something’; cf. 15.254  f., Od. 2.60, 3.205  f., etc. and the expression οἷός τέ εἰμι (AH, Leaf; Schw. 2.364, Chantr. 2.302); here ‘a man (like me), who was able (so long as he was alive) / who would be able (if he were still alive), …’: a suggestion that, in his efforts in battle, Hektor has not least Andromache’s welfare in mind (cf. 441–446n.; Latacz 2008, 127). — δούλιον ἦμαρ: cf. 454–455n.

464 2nd VH ≈ 14.114. — But may I be dead and the piled earth hide me under: a recourse in form of a ring-compositionP to Andromache’s death wish at the beginning of her speech (see 407–465n., 410–411n.). χυτὴ … γαῖα: i.e. a grave mound, cf. the iteratum (Tydeus’ tomb), also 23.256b = Od. 3.258b χυτὴν ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἔχευαν, Il. 6.419a (see ad loc.), 7.86 etc. (σῆμα χέω of the piling up of a grave mound).

465 that they drag you captive: cf. Priam’s vision of the future at 22.62/65. πρίν γ’ ἔτι: The transmission vacillates between γ’ ἔτι and γέ τι (‘before in any way’, preferred as the more emphatic variant by AH [see Anh. 160], Leaf, Brillante and others). πρίν + inf. in the sense ‘before it comes about that’ (as at e.g. 24.245  f., Od. 17.597): Hektor would rather be dead than witness this. — σῆς τε βοῆς σοῦ θ’ ἑλκηθμοῖο: a hendiadys, ‘your cries during your abduction’ (Leaf, Willcock). The second possessive pronoun functions as an objective gen. (‘when they abduct you’); cf. 19.321a  n., 19.336  f., Od. 11.202 (AH; Schw. 2.203). — πυθέσθαι: may denote both immediate (‘to hear’: Leaf; Schw. 2.107) and indirect perception (‘to hear about’: Faesi/Franke; LfgrE s.v. πεύθομαι, πυνθάνομαι 1204.32  ff., but see also 1204.16  f.).

466–496 Astyanax’ childish fright at his father’s helmet leads to a temporary decrease in tension: the parents laugh out loud in relief (471); as ‘a small champion of the wife’ (Schadewaldt [1935] 1997, 137), the infant makes his father set aside his helmet, and thus his war-like nature, for a moment (472  f.); after Hektor tenderly handles the infant, he hands him back to his wife rather than to the nurse, creating a moment of particular intimacy (482  ff.); when he sees her laugh as a result amidst her tears, he feels pity for her, caresses her and finally finds some words of comfort (484  ff.). But the fundamental difference between the spouses also remains tangible in this scene: Hektor’s prayer at

462 τις (ϝ)ερέει: cf. 459n. — ἐρέει: fut. ‘will say’ (Attic ἐρεῖ, cf. R 6). — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6). 463 χήτει: ‘given the absence of, because you are lacking’ (↑). 464 τεθνηῶτα: = τεθνεῶτα (cf. 71n.). — κατὰ … καλύπτοι: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

166 

 Iliad 6

475  ff. (see ad loc.) once again shows his heroic attitude that Andromache had deplored to be so dangerous; his speech of comfort at 490  ff. leads to a sober request that she return to everyday life, where the male and female spheres are strictly separated; in the end, Andromache leaves in tears, just as she arrived (VE 496 = 405; cf. 373n.). On the scene as a whole, see Schadewaldt loc. cit. 136–139; Owen 1946, 71  f.; Quaglia 1959/60, 179  f.; Herter 1973 (comparison with representations in the visual arts); Arthur 1981, 31, 34  f.; Lohmann 1988, 47; Metz 1990, 391  f.; Pratt 2007, esp. 28–30; Halliwell 2008, 53–55; Le Meur 2009, 48–50. Astyanax’ role as a link between his parents finds a linguistic reflection in the fact that the three characters, introduced at 395  ff. by their proper names, are now largely identified through their relationships with one another: παῖς (466, 467, 477, 483), υἱός (474), πατήρ (468, 471, 479), μήτηρ (471, 481), ἄλοχος (482, 495), πόσις (484) (de Jong 1987, 109 [with somewhat different stress]; cf. periphrastic denominationP). The significance of familial relationships is further stressed by the frequency of the adj. φίλος: 468 (in contrast to ἀτυχθείς), 471 (striking expansion of the VE formula πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ, thus likely with an emphatic, affective sense [cf. 1.20n.]), also 474, 482, 495 (Kirk; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 118).

466–473 The scene may be prompted by Hektor’s traditional epithet korythaiólos (‘shaking the helmet’ or ‘with gleaming helmet’: 116n.), which evokes the menacing effect of his war-like appearance: Whallon 1969, 63–70; Camerotto 2009, 111  ff., esp. 121 with nn. 145  f. (with further bibliography); Willcock 2004, 60 with n. 11; on this phenomenon in general, NTHS 15. Despite the levity of the scene, it graphically expresses the conflict between Hektor’s roles as warrior and family man that his helmet frightens Astyanax as much as it does his enemies (cf. 468n.): Redfield (1975) 1994, 123; Griffin 1980, 7; Schein 1984, 175  f.; cf. 407–496n. The scene may also once more point ahead in the form of a prolepsisP to Astyanax’ end (cf. 373n.): according to Il. parva fr. 29 West, Neoptolemos snatches the child from his nurse’s bosom before throwing him down from the tower: παῖδα δ’ ἑλὼν ἐκ κόλπου ἐϋπλοκάμοιο τιθήνης | ῥῖψε ποδὸς τεταγὼν ἀπὸ πύργου. If this detail was already present in the pre-Homeric narrative tradition (and if the fragment of the Il. parv. reflects this tradition in its phraseology), 467  f. will have been understood as alluding to it: ἂψ δ’ ὁ πάϊς πρὸς κόλπον ἐϋζώνοιο τιθήνης | ἐκλίνθη ἰάχων. In that case, the narrator would remind his audience of Astyanax’ imminent end precisely via this inversion of the traditional motif  – here the infant finds shelter in his nurse’s bosom rather than being torn away from it (Burgess 2012, 176–183). – The ancient scholia (bT on 467) stress the scene’s ἐνάργεια (‘graphic quality’) and life-like realism; on this, see Nünlist 2009, 153, 190, 195.

Commentary 

 167

466 οὗ παιδὸς ὀρέξατο: ‘stretched (himself) out for, reached for his son’, with the gen. of the aspired (but unachieved) goal, as at 13.190  f. (Schw. 2.104; Sommer 1977, 111, 138; LfgrE s.v. ὀρέγω 762.53  ff., 763.8  f.). — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: a VE formula (29x Il.); on the generic epithetP φαίδιμος, see 144n. 467 κόλπον: 136n. — ἐϋζώνοιο: ‘well-girdled’, a generic epithet of women (1.429n.). 468–470 ἀτυχθείς, | ταρβήσας  … |  … νοήσας: progressively refined reasons for the child’s behavior: ἀτυχθείς explains ἐκλίνθη ἰάχων and is itself explicated by ταρβήσας; νοήσας in turn denotes the external cause for ταρβήσας (AH, Faesi/Franke). 468 ἰάχων: ἰάχω ‘cry out’ is used in a variety of situations; of cries of fear or terror as here, also e.g. 5.343, 20.62 (Krapp 1964, 96  f.); elsewhere mostly of warriors trying to instill fear in others with cries of attack (especially in the VB formula σμερδαλέα ἰάχων, see 16.785n.), and in mass scenes as expressions of assent (2.333, 7.403, etc.), joy (13.822), anger (17.723), etc. (LfgrE s.v.; Wille 2001, 32). — ἀτυχθείς: related to ἀτύζομαι (37–38n.), elsewhere mostly in reference to warriors or horses that flee from their opponents in panic (Schein 1984, 175). Here construed with the acc. like a verb of fearing (Willcock; LfgrE s.v. 1520.22  ff.).

469 crest with its horse-hair: Helmet crests serve as status symbols and make warriors appear more imposing, while at the same time fulfilling a protective function (cushioning sword blows): 3.337n. with bibliography. On the archaeological evidence from the Bronze and Iron Ages, see Borchhardt 1972, 143– 147; 1977a, 61  ff.; Schwartz 2009, 55–66, esp. 59  f.; Buchholz 2010, 135–209, esp. 162  ff. ταρβήσας χαλκόν: sc. because of the gleam (473n.) – which may appear threatening to adult warriors as well: 13.340  ff., 16.70  ff., etc.; cf. 116n. — ἰδέ: a metrical variant of ἠδέ (2.511n. with bibliography). — ἱππιοχαίτην: a hapaxP (on the formation of the word, see Risch 185, 218, 228; LfgrE s.v. ἱππιοχάρμης); cf. the more common epithets ἱππόκομος, ἵππουρις and ἱπποδάσεια (of helmets: LfgrE s.vv.) and ἱπποκορυστής (of warriors: 2.1–2a  n.). 470 δεινὸν … νεύοντα: cf. δεινὸν δὲ λόφος καθύπερθεν ἔνευεν (formula in arming scenes: 3.337 [see ad loc.], 11.42, 16.138, etc.). — νοήσας: on the construction with the participle, 2.391n.

466 οὗ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — ὀρέξατο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 467 ἐϋζώνοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 468 ἐκλίνθη (ϝ)ιάχων: on the prosody, R 4.4. — φίλου ὄψιν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 469 τε ἰδέ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἰδὲ (λ)λόφον: on the prosody, M 4.6. 470 δεινόν: adverbial (with νεύοντα), ‘terribly’.

168 

 Iliad 6

471 2nd VH ≈ 413 (see ad loc.), here expanded by φίλος (see 466–496n. end). — ἐκ  … ἐγέλασσε: The compound is found only here in the Iliad; ἐκ expresses ‘the spontaneous, open reaction of both Hector and Andromache’; similarly h.Merc. 389, where Zeus laughs at his small son Hermes (Graziosi/Haubold, with further bibliography on laughter as a motif in Homer). 472 1st VH = Od. 14.276, 2nd VH = Il. 6.494. 473 Cf. 3.293; 1st VH =  Od. 6.75, h.Merc. 63; ≈ Il. 4.112, 24.271, Od. 9.329, 13.20, 13.370, h.Merc. 134. — παμφανόωσαν: emphatic; the predicate adj. replaces the verse end πουλυβοτείρῃ expected in formulaic language ([ἐπὶ] χθον. πουλυβοτ. in total 20x in early epic, see 3.89n.): ‘The unexpected effect, startling to anyone familiar with the usual formulae, directs attention both to the sight of the helmet lying on the ground and to its glitter, the reason for the child’s fright’ (Edwards 1987, 211).

475–481 An abbreviated version of the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n., 6.304– 311n.). The elements here realized are: (2/3) verb of praying and naming of the deities invoked (475); (5) invocation (476a); (7) plea (476b–481). As a spontaneous wish, the prayer is comparatively informal (absence of gesture of prayer, cult titles in the invocation, and reference to services rendered or received earlier). – At the same time, the prayer is an expression of renewed confidence (see esp. 478b vs. 448); on Hektor’s vacillation between different visions of the future, Schadewaldt 1956 (1970), 25–36; Kullmann (1968) 2001, 397–399; Redfield (1975) 1994, 125–127; cf. 526–527a  n. (similar is e.g. Agamemnon at 4.160–168 vs. 169–182; on this, cf. 6.145–211n. point (2)). Hektor attempts to impart confidence to Andromache as well: 480  f. are addressed to her as much as to the gods (three-way conversationP; similar is Od. 7.331–333 etc.; cf. Lateiner 1997, 252). At the same time, the contrast between the spouses is brought out precisely in this passage: whereas Andromache fears that Hektor will soon fall victim to his own impulse for battle, making an orphan of Astyanax, he hopes that the child will one day stand out in the fighting himself – to the delight of his mother (cf. Lohmann 1988, 47; Metz 1990, 392). No reaction of the gods is mentioned (cf. 311n.), but at this point the audience is already in a position to know (if familiar with the narrative tradition: 373n.), or at least to suspect, that

471 ἐκ … ἐγέλασσε: ingressive; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — πατήρ τε … καὶ … μήτηρ: like 413 (see ad loc.), with a predicate in the sing. 472 κρατός: gen. of κάρη ‘head’. 473 τήν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), relating to κόρυθ(α) in 472. — παμφανόωσαν: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 474 ὃν φίλον υἱόν: anticipated object of the ἐπεί clause; ὅν is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — κύσε and πῆλε: unaugmented (R 16.1) aorists of κυνέω ‘kiss’ and πάλλω ‘shake, swing, sway’.

Commentary 

 169

the prayer will not be heard (Edwards 1987, 211). Andromache’s fears will be proven right (407  ff., 432), and at 22.484  ff. and 24.726  ff. she draws up her own image of Astyanax’ future; on the connections between the three passages, Lohmann 1988, 66  f., 72  f.; Tsagalis 2004, 131–134; Grethlein 2006, 251–253 (see esp. 22.498 as a ‘reply’ to 6.479); cf. 369–502n. 475 2nd VH = 8.526, Od. 4.472, 8.432; on the formulaic phrase ‘Zeus and the other gods’, see also 3.298n. with bibliography. ἐπευξάμενος: temporally coincident with εἶπεν, ‘while he prayed’ (Schw. 2.300  f.; cf. 7–8n., 72n.). 476–478 δότε δὴ … γενέσθαι | 1 verse | … καὶ … ἀνάσσειν: on δή with the imper., see 306n. The syntax of the passage has been interpreted in various ways; the least complicated solution (with West’s punctuation, i.e. no comma at the end of 477, but rather after ἀγαθόν at 478): both infinitives depend on δότε (on δίδωμι + inf. in the language of prayer, see Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26); τ(ε) at 478 links ἀριπρεπέα and ἀγαθόν (with chiastic placement of the adj. and additions; the centrally placed ὧδε probably refers ἀπὸ κοινοῦ to both parts). Punctuation after 477 in older editions is less satisfactory (see Leaf, Kirk). — καὶ τόνδε … ὡς καὶ ἐγώ περ: καί is readily used twice in corrresponding parts of sentences (AH); cf. e.g. Xen. Cyr. 2.2.6 οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐγώ, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἐποίουν (Denniston 324, with further examples). With ὡς καὶ ἐγώ περ, add εἰμί (as at 10.556  f.: ἀμείνονας ἠέ περ οἵδε [sc. εἰσὶν] | ἵππους; contrast 1.260 with assimilation of the case: ἀρείοσιν ἠέ περ ὑμῖν): Faesi/Franke. — ἀριπρεπέα Τρώεσσιν: on the locative dative without preposition referring to groups of persons, cf. e.g. ἔξοχον ἡρώεσσιν (2.483); Schw. 2.155, Chantr. 2.80. — ἶφι ἀνάσσειν: an inflectible VE formula (3x Il., 2x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’). ‘Hector reflects on Astyanax’s public name’ (ἀνάσσειν > Ἀστυ-άναξ, cf. 402–403n.): Graziosi/Haubold.

479 In a manner similar to the imagined tis-speechP regarding Andromache (459–463n.), Hektor is concerned with his own posthumous fame also here when discussing his son (Scodel 1992a, 61; Bouvier 2002, 60). On the ideal of heroes’ sons needing to maintain their fathers’ fame, see 209n., 446; here intensified: only exceptionally in Homeric epic do sons surpass their fathers (1.272n.; cf. 4.399  f. vs. 4.405, 15.641  f., Od. 2.276  f.; on this Schouler 1980, 1–7;

475 ἄλλοισιν … θεοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2. 476–477 τόνδε: subject-acc.; παῖδ’ ἐμόν is in apposition to it, ἀριπρεπέα and ἀγαθόν are predicative. — περ: stresses ἐγώ, ‘just as I am’ (R 24.10). — ἀριπρεπέα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — Τρώεσσιν: ‘among the Trojans’ (R 19.2; ↑); on the declension, R 11.3. 478 ὧδε: looks back to ὡς καὶ ἐγώ. — βίην: acc. of respect (R 19.1); on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — καὶ (ϝ)ιλίου ἶφι (ϝ)ανάσσειν: on the prosody, R 4.4 and R 5.4; the digamma of ἶφι (see below) is not taken into account (R 4.6). — ἶφι: ‘instrumental’ (-φι: R 11.4) from (ϝ)ίς (cf. Lat. vis), ‘with force’. 479 τις (ϝ)είποι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — πολλόν: adverbial acc.; on the declension, R 12.2.

170 

 Iliad 6

Grethlein 2006, 49–54; cf. also Schneider 1996, 127–129; West 2007, 440– 443). εἴποι: The vulgate text offers εἴπησι, apparently by assimilation with 459. The v.l. εἴποι is supported by matters of meter and content: (1) the first syllable of πατρός regularly scans long in Homer, (2) the opt. of wish is better suited to the context of a prayer than is the prospective subjunc. (Leaf). Differently, Graziosi/Haubold: ‘the free-standing subjunctive fits Hector’s animated, improvised prayer […] Hector is not simply expressing a wish, he is imagining a situation.’ — πατρός … ἀμείνων: Direct speeches – also ‘speeches within a speech’ (164–165n.) – encompassing less than one verse are very rare in early epic: elsewhere only Hes. Op. 453, 454; a thought rather than a speech: Il. 15.82 (Führer 1967, 51  f.). Deviations from the stichic principle (beginning or ending a speech in mid-verse) elsewhere at Il. 2.70 (see ad loc.) and 23.855 (Nünlist 2002, 223 with n. 13). — γ’ ὅδε: Aristarchus’ reading is to be preferred over the vulgate δ’ ὅ γε: cf. ἥδε at 460, τόδε at 7.89 (West, app. crit.). On emphatic γε, Denniston 116 (here ‘almost […] «even»: a limitative force [«at any rate»] would attribute undue humility to Hector’). — πολλὸν ἀμείνων: an inflectible VE formula (7x in early epic).

480–481 Joy of relatives or companions at the return of a hero from battle is a typical motif: cf. 5.687  f., 7.294  ff., 7.306  ff., 10.540  ff., 17.27  f., 17.635  f., 24.705  f. But in these cases the emphasis is usually on their relief that the hero has survived. The stress here is on the successes Astyanax is meant to achieve; as a matter of course, Hektor envisions Andromache in the role of the hero’s proud mother. – Hektor’s martial projections may appear objectionable to the modern reader, especially since they are opposed to Andromache’s previously voiced thoughts and feelings (see 407–496n., 466–496n., 475–481n.). But his attitude must be considered in the light of the social values he grew up with (441  ff. with nn.); cf. Redfield (1975) 1994, XII; Pratt 2007, 30. His words find a parallel 17.207  f., where Zeus regrets that Andromache will no longer be able to receive from her husband Achilleus’ armour, which Hektor took after defeating Patroklos (Graziosi/Haubold on 475–81). 480 ἀνιόντα: ‘(about him,) when he returns’, as if preceded by an acc.-inf. such as αὐτὸν πατρὸς ἀμείνω εἶναι (AH, Willcock); or εἰπεῖν + acc., as in the expression εὖ εἰπεῖν τινα (with the direct speech at 479 in place of the adv. εὖ: K.-G. 1.295); further discussion in Leaf. — ἔναρα βροτόεντα: a formulaic phrase (8x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’; of which 6x at VE, 3x after caesura B 1). On ἔναρα, 68–69n.; βροτόεις (related to βρότος ‘dried blood’) is found in early epic only in the present phrase and 1x each with ἀνδράγρια and ὠτειλή (LfgrE s.v.).

480 πολέμου ἀνιόντα: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

Commentary 

 171

481 δήϊον: ‘hostile’; on the etymology and semantic development, 2.415n. — φρένα: 61n.

482–485 On this moment of greatest closeness between the spouses, see 466– 496n. 482–483 ἐν χερσὶν ἔθηκεν | … δέξατο κόλπῳ: on the dat. of an attained position of rest (with and without ἐν), Schw. 2.155  f. 483 2nd VH ≈ h.Cer. 231. — κηώδεϊ: ‘fragrant’ with perfumed oil (cf. Laser 1983, 156–158); alternatively in reference to the fragrance of Andromache’s garments (AH; LfgrE s.v.; cf. 288n., 295n.). — δέξατο κόλπῳ: a VE formula (136n.).

484 and her husband … took pity upon her: cf. 407n. — smiling in her tears: This marks the last moment of  – tarnished  – happiness for Andromache, whose appearances in the Iliad are otherwise exclusively characterized by tears (Monsacré 1984, 161; cf. 373n.). – On the expression of mixed feelings in Greek literature in general: Arnould 1990, 93–99. δακρυόεν: internal acc. (as at 2.270 ἡδὺ γέλασσαν, etc.): Schw. 2.77, Chantr. 2.41  f.

485 = 1.361 (see ad loc.), 5.372, 24.127, Od. 4.610, 5.181; 1st VH = Od. 13.288; 2nd VH a further 13x Il., 24x Od., 2x h.Ven. — stroked her: a gesture of consolation and affection; elsewhere in the Iliad only in mother-child relationships (see iterata). ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: 253n.

486 [Poor Andromache] Strange woman: Greek daimoníē, equivalent to Andromache’s address at 407 (cf. Od. 23.166 vs. 174). Here likely used suggestively: in contrast to his first reaction (441/447  ff.), Hektor now seeks to comfort his wife, by suggesting that in his opinion she is worrying more than is warranted. — for me: a so-called ethic dat., as an expression of Hektor’s compassion (Burkert 1955, 87). ἀκαχίζεο: The present ἀκαχίζομαι (only 2nd sing. imper., here and at Od. 11.486) is secondarily derived from the reduplicated aor. ἀκαχέσθαι (which serves as the aor. of ἄχνυμαι/ἄχομαι): LfgrE s.vv. ἀκαχίζομαι and ἄχνυμαι; Mawet 1979, 341  f. (with further bibliography).

487–489 The notion that the moment of one’s death is predetermined appears here initially as a reason for consolation (487: Hektor will not die before his

481 φρένα: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 483 ἑόν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 484 ἐλέησε: ingressive. 485 μιν: = αὐτήν (R 14.1). — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in sense from the act. (R 23). — ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 486 τι: acc. of respect (R 19.1); used to stress μή: ‘not in any regard, not at all’. — ἀκαχίζεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — θυμῷ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).

172 

 Iliad 6

time); implicitly, however, it serves as a further argument for Hektor’s commitment to battle: if both the coward and the brave man must die, there is no point in holding back. Thus explicitly Callinus fr. 1.8  f./12–15 West (on this, Latacz 1977, 229  f. n. 11); similarly Il. 12.322–328 (Sarpedon addressing Glaukos; cf. 145–211n. point (3); Grethlein 2006, 117–120). 487–488 unless it is fated (aísa), | but as for fate (moíra): Originally both words mean an actual ‘share’, then metaphorically ‘that apportioned by fate’; aísa is the more general term, moíra is here used (as usually) in the sense ‘fate of death’ (LfgrE s.vv.). More detail on the Homeric notion of fate: 2.155n. and Redfield (1975) 1994, 131–136; Yamagata 1994, 105–120; Graziosi/Haubold 2005, 89–92; on the idea that a person’s fate – the moment of their death in particular  – is determined from birth, cf. 1.416–418, 20.127  f., 22.477, 23.78  f., 24.209b–210n. (with further attestations); on parallels in IE poetry and mythology, see West 2007, 379–385. 487 Ἄϊδι προϊάψει: an inflectible VE formula (≈ 1.3 [see ad loc.], 11.55; cf. also 5.190, ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.118 M.-W.). 488 μοῖραν … φημί: μοῖραν in stressed position at VB (Willcock), φημί ‘solemnly declarative’ (Kirk); similar (despite a difference in the situation) is 23.668. — πεφυγμένον ἔμμεναι: an expressive periphrastic perfect (Schw. 2.407  f.) denoting a state achieved: ‘has escaped’ (AH, Willcock; LfgrE s.v. φεύγω 863.38  ff.). 489 ≈ Od. 8.553; 1st VH = Od. 22.415, 23.66. — οὐ κακόν, οὐδὲ μὲν ἐσθλόν: a common polar expressionP (see iterata; additional parallels: LfgrE s.v. κακός 1283.47  ff.; Kemmer 1903, 101  f.); on the terms κακός and ἐσθλός, see 443–444n. — ἐπὴν τὰ πρῶτα: τὰ πρῶτα in combination with temporal conjunctions emphasizes the irreversibility: ‘when once’ (1.6n.).

490–493 ≈ Od. 1.356–359, 21.350–353, both of which are Telemachos addressing Penelope; instead of ‘battle’ (492), 1.358/21.352 has ‘(public) speech’ and ‘bow’ (as the instrument of the contest for the hand of Penelope); also 492b–493a ≈ Od. 11.352b–353a (Alkinoos among the Phaiakians, in reference to the escort for Odysseus); 492b = Il. 20.137b (Poseidon addressing Hera; battle as a concern for ‘men’ = humans as opposed to gods). The parallels in the Odyssey are generally interpreted as altered citations of the present passage in the Iliad (Kirk; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 21.350–353; Usener 1990, 47–66; cf. also West on Od. 1.356–359 [perhaps interpolated]). Nevertheless, it remains pos-

487 τις: to be taken with ἀνήρ. — προΐαψει: fut. of προϊάπτω ‘throw down, throw to’. 488 ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). 489 οὐδὲ μέν: ‘and neither’, emphatic (μέν ≈ μήν: R 24.6). — γένηται: γίγνομαι here in the sense ‘to be born’.

Commentary 

 173

sible that this is a common topos in the oral poetic tradition which, due to the flexibility of formulaic language, could easily be adapted to the context in question (Brillante ad loc.; Clark 1997, 64–66).  – Hektor implicitly replies to Andromache’s strategic counsel at 433–439 (see ad loc.), but in light of the introduction to the speech at 484  f., his words should not be taken as a mere expression of his claim to authority as a male, but primarily as an attempt to preserve a certain normality in a crisis situation (Graziosi/Haubold 2003, 70), which may also be helpful for Andromache (cf. AH: A.’s ‘familiar chores should help her forget her worries, while she trusts that the men will do their duty in battle’ [transl.]). On the other hand, the news of Hektor’s death at 22.440  ff. thus hits the unsuspecting woman all the harder in the midst of her everyday tasks: that scene is set up here (seedP; cf. 369–502n. with bibliography; schol. A on 22.447). 490 τὰ σ’ αὐτῆς: = τὰ σὰ αὐτῆς (cf. ἐμὸν αὐτοῦ, 446n.).

491–492a Cf. 90–91n., 323–324n. 492 ἔργον ἐποίχεσθαι: a VB formula (here and 4x Od.; also 1x Od. δόρπον ἐποίχεσθαι). ἐποίχομαι means literally ‘to go toward, to go back and forth’ (e.g. at the loom: 1.31n.); metaphorically ‘to tackle something, to apply oneself to something’ (LfgrE s.v. οἴχομαι 625.3  ff.).

493 1st VH = Od. 1.359, 11.353, 21.353, 23.61; ≈ Il. 22.422; 2nd VH = 17.145. — I beyond others: cf. 402–403n. πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ’ ἐμοί: v.l. attested in a papyrus and a testimonium (= iterata). The main transmission offers πᾶσιν, ἐμοὶ δὲ μάλιστα (= Od. 14.138, cf. Il. 24.742), but this reading, necessitating a correption of τοὶ Ἰλίῳ in the 2nd VH, neglects the digamma in (ϝ)ιλίῳ, which is otherwise usually taken into account (1.71n). On the greater reliability of the papyrus transmission in such cases, see Haslam 1997, 98  f.; contra: Führer/Schmidt 2001, 26  f., and Graziosi/Haubold ad loc. — ἐγγεγάασιν: ‘are born in’ > ‘are native to, live in’ (LfgrE s.v. γίγνομαι 154.56  ff.); on the form, Schw. 1.767 n. 7, 769.

494 1st VH ≈ 1.428 (see ad loc.) etc.; 2nd VH = 472. — took up the helmet: ‘in contrast to 472’ (AH, transl.): Hektor follows through on his closing words at 492  f. by returning to the role of a warrior from that of a father. 495 ἵππουριν: cf. 469n. — βεβήκει: 313n.

493 τοὶ (ϝ)ιλίῳ: on the prosody, R 4.4. — τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3) functioning as a relative (R 14.5). 495 ἵππουριν(ν)· ἄλοχος: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — φίλη (ϝ)οῖκόνδε: on the prosody, R 4.4; on the suffix -δε, R 15.3.

174 

 Iliad 6

496 ἐντροπαλιζομένη: ‘repeatedly turning around’ (deverbative from τρέπω: Risch 300); 4x Il., always as participle at VB, but in completely different contexts (11.547, 17.109 of warriors in retreat; 21.492 of Artemis writhing under Hera’s blows). — κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα: an inflectible VE formula (459n.), here and 8x Od. expanded by θαλερόν (‘pouring forth, swelling’: 2.266n.).

497–502 The ‘lament for the still living forms a prelude to the mourning for the fallen’ at 22.477  ff. and 24.725  ff. (AH, transl.; Kirk); like the remaining Trojan women there (22.515, 24.746), here Andromache’s many (498) servants join her lament (Gagliardi 2006, 12  f.). The scene provides an effective closure for the homilia and remains present for the audience as a gloomy background to the following Books, during which Hektor is initially successful and forgets his premonitions of death (Schadewaldt [1956] 1970, 36; on the increasingly certain prolepsesP of Hektor’s death, cf. 367–368n.). – Premature mourning is a recurrent motif in Homer (Arnould 1990, 187–189; Kelly 2012, esp. 229–255): cf. 18.37/51  ff., 24.83  ff. (Thetis’ mourning for Achilleus: external prolepsis); it has a different effect in situations where the audience knows that the person mourned will not die / has not died: 4.153  ff. (Menelaos), 24.327  f. (Priam), Od. 4.716  ff. (Telemachos), Od. 1.362  f., 4.724  f., 19.204  ff., etc. (Odysseus). 497 = 370 (see ad loc.). 498 2nd VH ≈ Od. 6.51. — Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο: on ἀνδροφόνος, see 134n. The nounepithet formula Ἕκτ. ἀνδρ. (always in the gen.) is found 8x Il. and 1x ‘Hes.’ at VE; at VB only here and 17.638, v.l. at 24.724. Metrically equivalent variant: Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο (VE 4x Il. [+ 2x v.l.], VA v.l. 24.724); on the use of the two formulae, 1.242n., 24.509n. Ἕκτορος usually appears without epithet elsewhere at VB (17x Il.); this may indicate that ἀνδροφόνοιο is used pointedly here: ‘a deliberate recall to the realities of battle’ after the peaceful scene with the child (Kirk; cf. Schein 1984, 8; Friedrich 2007, 105  f.). 499 γόον … ἐνῶρσεν: cf. 24.760 γόον … ὄρινεν (similarly Od. 10.457, 17.46) and the VE formula ὑφ’ ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο (24.507n.); on the use of γόος/γοάω, cf. 373n. 500 γόον: either an aor. formed directly from the noun γόος (like ἔκτυπον from κτύπος) or an impf. (with hyphaeresis from *γόεον, a by-form of γόαον): Chantr. 1.392; Frisk s.v. γοάω. — ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ: a VE formula (3x Il., 7x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’).

496 κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα: cf. 459n. 497 = 370 (see ad loc.). 498 ἔνδοθι: = ἔνδον (on the suffix, R 15.2). 499 τῇσιν … πάσῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — γόον: acc. of γόος ‘lament’. — ἐνῶρσεν: aor. of ἐνόρνυμι (+ dat.) ‘arouse, awaken in someone’. 500 γόον (+ acc.): ‘wept for’ (on the form, ↑). — Ἕκτορα (ϝ)ῷ and ἐνὶ (ϝ)οίκῳ: on the prosody, R 4.3 and R 5.4. — ᾧ ἐνί: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (hṓy ení), M 12.2; ᾧ is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4), ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 175

501–502 Similarly Hektor himself at 367  f. vis-à-vis Helen (ὑπότροπον ἱκέσθαι in the Iliad only in these two instances: Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 272  f.); Hektor’s wording, however, appears more ‘heroic’ than the women’s (μ’ ὑπὸ χερσὶ θεοὶ δαμόωσιν Ἀχαιῶν vs. προφυγόντα μένος καὶ χεῖρας Ἀχαιῶν): de Jong 1987, 114. 502 ≈ 7.309; 2nd VH = 13.105. — μένος καὶ χεῖρας: a common phrase, mostly after caesura B 2, as here (9x Il., 1x Od.; 1x nom., elsewhere acc.); also 1x ‘Hes.’ μένος κρατερὸν καὶ χεῖρας, 2x Il. χεῖράς τε μένος τε. As a hendiadys the equivalent of μένος χειρῶν (5.506): Berres 2004, 245.

503–529 Paris, resplendent in his armor and filled with new lust for battle, catches up with Hektor at the Skaian gate; the brothers converse before returning to battle together. 503 But Paris in turn did not linger …: The narrative takes up 341/363  f. and thus – in contrast to the ‘continuity of time’ principleP – reaches back a bit; on the skilfull coordination of the different strands of the action, see 237–529n. and 363–368n. with bibliography. οὐδέ: may be used to introduce a change of scene; cf. 10.299, 13.10, 13.521, 17.1, 17.626, 20.112, etc. (Hölscher 1939, 40  f.; Broccia 1967, 26  f.). — δήθυνεν: related to δηθά ‘for a long time’, as ταχύνω to τάχα (Schw. 1.733; Risch 291; Frisk s.v. δηθά). — ἐν ὑψηλοῖσι δόμοισιν: a VE formula (a further 1x Od., 3x ‘Hes.’); ὑψηλός as an epithet of δόμος/ δῶμα also elsewhere: inter alia 5x in early epic at VE δόμου ὑψηλοῖο, 3x ἐν δώμασιν ὑψηλοῖσιν; cf. also 3.423n. on ὑψόροφος (high, airy rooms as a sign of the quality of houses belonging the wealthy). 504 κλυτὰ τεύχεα ποικίλα χαλκῷ: The beautiful exterior of Paris’ armor is stressed once more (cf. 321–322n.). Although the phrase κλυτὰ τεύχεα (22x in early epic, see 19.10n.) and the VE formula τεύχεα ποικίλα χαλκῷ (another 3x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’) are common in epic poetry, the present combination is found only here. — ποικίλα χαλκῷ: ‘artfully embellished with bronze’; i.e. with bronze fittings, which contrast decoratively with the base material, leather (LfgrE s.v. ποικίλος 1322.19  ff.). 505 σεύατ(ο): an asigmatic α-aorist (Schw. 1.774–776, Chantr. 1.382–384), probably formed as a non-ambiguous variant of the ambiguous form ἔσσυτο (usually a root aor., but formally identical to the plpf.): Chantr. 1.385; García Ramón 1994, 65. — ποσὶ κραιπνοῖσι πεποιθώς: = 22.138; cf. ποδωκείῃσι πεποιθώς (2.792 with n.). πεποιθώς occurs at VE a total of 14x Il., 1x Od., in combination with various concrete and abstract terms; in contrast to πιθήσας (183n.), generally in reference to personal possessions

501 μιν(ν) ἔτ(ι): on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἔφαντο: ‘they believed, thought’ (impf. of φημί; on the mid., R 23). 504 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 505 ἀνὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.

176 

 Iliad 6

or abilities continuously at one’s disposal (6x ἀλκί, 2x ἀγλαΐηφι, 1x each προθυμίῃσι, χερσί, ἱπποσύνῃ τε καὶ ἠνορέηφι, ἅρμασιν οἷσι πεπ.): LfgrE s.v. πείθω 1098.46  ff./ 54  ff.

506–514 The ‘as’ section of the present simileP (506–511) recurs verbatim at 15.263–268 (of Hektor returning to battle after having been healed from serious wounds by Apollo). The relationship between the two passages has been disputed since antiquity. A number of interpreters, following Aristarchus, argue for athetesis of 15.265/266–268, as the emphasis on the hero’s elegance and beauty is more aptly applied to Paris than to Hektor; in this view, the simile was created for the present passage (West 2001, 231  f., with bibliography). Indeed, 6.503–514 is characterized by a particularly close connection between simile and context: a single image illustrates both the swiftness (505, 507, 511, 514) and the magnificent external appearance (504, 509  f., 513), as well as the elation of the hero filled with new energy (507, 509  f., 514) (Fränkel 1921, 77  f., 111; Nickau 1977, 119  f. n. 32; Bonnafé 1984, 48). But better is the assumption that this and other similes derive from a reservoir of traditional, epic formelements upon which the poet could fall back as needed – and multiple times (in Homer, beside brief formula-like comparisons such as ‘like a dáimōn’ [9x Il.], a total of eight similes have been used twice; on this, Scott 1974, 127  ff.; Beye 1984; Lührs 1992, 213  ff.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 148–151; cf. also 318– 320n.). At any rate, the use of similes to mark particular recurrent narrative situations is typical – and thus likely traditional: here and at 15.263  ff. the hero’s re-entry into battle after a crisis; likewise at 5.136  ff. (Diomedes after recovery from a wound, lion simile); similarly 22.22  ff. (Achilleus has returned to the city after being distracted by Apollo; once again a horse simile); see Krischer 1971, 41  f. – According to Bowra 1930, 92 (followed among others by Krischer loc. cit. 42  f., Moulton 1977, 94  f.), a deliberate relationship between 6.506  ff. and 15.263  ff. draws the audience’s attention to the contrast between Paris, intent only on external glory, and Hektor, the true hero. But in the further course of the action, Paris does not in fact turn out to be a weakling (see 521  f., 7.2  ff., 13.765  ff., etc.; Stoevesandt 2004, 182  f.); the use of an image also applied to Hektor, and in similar form to Achilleus (22.22  ff.), thus likely serves instead to increase appreciation for Paris (Bergold 1977, 182  f.; Bernsdorff 1992, 29  f.).  – Additional horse similes (on this, Fränkel 1921, 78–80): 22.162  ff., 23.517  ff., Od. 13.81  ff. (cf. the metaphor at 4.708); simile of the skilful rider: Il. 15.679  ff. – On imitation of the simile by Apollonius (3.1259–1261), Ennius (fr. sed. inc. lxxxii = 535–539 Skutsch) and Virgil (Aen. 11.492–497), see Graziosi/ Haubold (with bibliography).

Commentary 

 177

506–511 = 15.263–268 (see above). — ὡς δ’ ὅτε … | θείῃ …, | 1 verse | … ὑψοῦ δὲ κάρη ἔχει …: Transition from hypotaxis (with subjunc.) to parataxis (with ind.) is common in Homeric similes: see 2.147–148n.; Chantr. 2.355  f. 506 ὡς δ’ ὅτε: a common introduction to similes (2.147–148n.). — στατὸς … ἐπὶ φάτνῃ: στατός may be understood as active (like Old West Norse staδ̍r, similarly of horses: ‘inclined to stand, standing still’: Frisk s.v. ἵστημι, Beekes s.v. στατός) or as passive (‘stalled’; cf. Latin status: AH, Leaf; Ammann 1956, 17). In any case, reference is to the horse that – in contrast to horses in the meadow – has been fed special fodder in the stable for an extended period of time (ἀκοστήσας from ἀκοστή ‘barley’: LfgrE s.v.; Richter 1968, 72). On the motif ‘horse feeding’ in the Iliad, cf. also 2.775b–777a  n. 507 πεδίοιο: ‘across the plain’ (2.785n.). — κροαίνων: related to κρούω ‘knock, beat, stamp’: ‘stomping (with hooves), clattering’ (Frisk s.v. κρούω, LfgrE s.v. κροαίνω; Rengakos 1994, 107); on other (ancient) explications of the term, attested only here and at 15.264, see Graziosi/Haubold. 508 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — ἐϋρρεῖος ποταμοῖο: a VE formula (5x Il.); on the partitive gen. after λούομαι, Schw. 2.112; Chantr. 2.52 (likewise at 5.6, 21.560, Hes. Th. 5). 509–510a κυδιόων: In stressed position at VB (AH): ‘with a sense of elation, full of selfesteem’ (cf. 184n.). — ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται | ὤμοις ἀΐσσονται: ≈ h.Cer. 177  f.; ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται is an inflectible VE formula (nom./dat.; in total 3x Il., 2x h.Cer.). 510b–511 ὃ δ’ ἀγλαΐηφι πεποιθώς, | ῥίμφά ἑ γοῦνα φέρει: ὃ  … πεποιθώς forms a socalled nominative absolute (at 511 reprised by the acc. ἑ). On this type of anacoluthon, Schw. 2.403, Chantr. 2.323; a thorough analysis of the present passage within the categories of oral communication structures in Slings 1992, 96–100 (cf. also Tzamali 1996, 347  f.; Bakker 1997, 102 n. 29). – On ἀγλαΐηφι πεποιθώς, cf. 505n. — ἤθεα: ἦθος means ‘what one is accustomed to’; particularly ‘normal residence’ (of animals also at Od. 14.411, Hes. Op. 525; ‘residence’ of humans: Hes. Op. 137 etc.).

512 1st VH ≈ 9.651, 11.197 =  15.239. — from uttermost Pergamos: Greek katá Pergámou ákrēs, ‘down from high Pergamos’. ‘Pergamos/Pergamon’ is a place name attested in Asia Minor, Thrace and on Crete; in the Iliad, the term denotes the ‘acropolis’ (pólis ákrē, 88n.) of Troy, the highest point of the city, containing its religious center and the houses of the royal family (in total 6x Il.,

507 θείῃ: subjunc. of θέω ‘run’ (with metrical lengthening: R 10.1). 508 ἐϋρρεῖος: < *ἐϋρρεϝέος, gen. of ἐϋρρεής ‘fair-flowing’. 509 κυδιόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — ἀμφί: adv. (R 20.2), specified more closely in the following verse by ὤμοις (locative dat.: R 19.2): ‘on both sides … around the shoulders’. 510 ἀΐσσονται: from ἀΐσσομαι ‘move rapidly’, here: ‘flutter, flap’. — ἀγλαΐηφι: dat. of ἀγλαΐη ‘radiance, radiant appearance’ (on the form, R 11.4). 511 ῥίμφά (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — γοῦνα: nom. pl. of γόνυ (R 12.5). — μετά (+ acc.): ‘into (the middle of), to’.

178 

 Iliad 6

otherwise usually in connection with Apollo and his temple: cf. 4.508, 5.446, 5.460, 7.21, 24.700n.). The name is probably related to Greek pýrgos ‘tower’; the further etymology – e.g. the connection with IE *bhergh-, cf. Modern High German ‘Berg’ and Hittite parku- ‘high, tall’ – is disputed (see Frisk, DELG and Beekes s.v. πύργος; Solta 1990, 122  f.). 513 ≈ 19.398 (of Achilleus; cf. 506–514n. end). — The ‘so’ section of the simile is expanded by an additional comparisonP. The motif of gleaming weapons commonly introduces an aristeia (Krischer 1971, 36–38; cf. e.g. 5.4  ff., 11.44  f., 11.62  ff., 19.374–383n., 22.26); here it is followed by a phase, albeit short, of victories for Paris (the single success described at 7.8–10 is likely representative of additional ones, see 7.17  f. and cf. 6.1–72n.). — shining … as the sun shines: Greek Ēléktōr denotes the sun (or is used as a name/epithet of the sun god: 19.398 [see ad loc.] and h.Ap. 369 in combination with Hyperíōn). Etymology and meaning are unclear; the fact that the derivation ḗlektron refers both to an alloy of gold and silver and to amber (whence in turn the modern term ‘electric’, based on the static electricity observed on the material), suggests that it was taken to mean something like ‘the gleaming, shining’ (Kirk, DELG; cf. also schol. D ad loc. and Russo on Od. 18.296; skeptical: LfgrE s.v.). On the association of amber with the sun, cf. also ‘Hes.’ fr. 311 M.-W., according to which amber originated from the tears of the daughters of Helios. παμφαίνων: on the formation, 2.458n.: reduplicated φαίνω, although the prefix παμmay have been understood secondarily as a neuter of πᾶς. — ὥς τ(ε): commonly introduces similes (2.289n.). — ἐβεβήκει: 313n. 514 καγχαλόων: ‘loudly cheering, rejoicing’ (on the etymology and formation of the word, see 3.43n. with bibliography); as a counterpart of κυδιόων, it is similarly placed in stressed position at VB (AH on 509). — ταχέες δὲ πόδες φέρον: corresponds to ῥίμφά ἑ γοῦνα φέρει (511) in the ‘as’ section of the simile; in addition, πόδες reprises ποσί from 505. – πόδες φέρον is used in a formulaic manner before caesura C 2 (5x Il., 1x Od.). ‘The phrase, even without ταχέες, suggests swiftness’ (Graziosi/Haubold with reference to 13.515, 15.405, 17.700). — αἶψα δ’ ἔπειτα: a formulaic phrase (370n.). 515 Ἕκτορα δῖον: an inflectible formulaic phrase (only Il.; acc. 27x in various positions in the verse, dat. 11x VE). On the generic epithetP δῖος, 1.7n. — ἔτετμεν: ‘came upon’ (374n.). 516 1st VH ≈ Od. 16.352. — ὀάριζε: ὀαρίζω denotes private conversation, particularly between husband and wife (cf. 22.126–128 with de Jong ad loc.; LfgrE s.v.).

513 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 514 καγχαλόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — ταχέες: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 515 ἀδελφεόν: = ἀδελφόν. — εὖτ(ε): ‘as’ (R 22.2). 516 ὅθι (ϝ)ῇ: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ᾗ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4).

Commentary 

 179

517–529 According to the narrator, Paris has not been lacking in enthusiasm (503, 505, 511, 514). His words at 518  f. are thus likely to be read as an attempt to preempt further reproach from his brother via precautionary self-criticism: an expression of the unease the previous encounter with Hektor left him with (similarly AH). Hektor reacts delicately (Besslich 1966, 115): rather than directly responding to Paris’ words, he once more comments on the tensions that have arisen between them on a fundamental basis, but in a kind tone (cf. 520–529n.). In the address (daimónie: 326n. end), he again hints at his difficulty understanding his brother’s attitude – while earnestly trying to do him justice. He begins with explicit ackowledgment of Paris’ military abilities (521  f.; altogether different from 3.45, see ad loc.); he then explains how he personally suffers from the fact that Paris falls short of his capabilities and thus exposes himself to censure by the Trojans (523–525); and he concludes with a view toward a future reconciliation in a festive setting (526–529). 517 τὸν πρότερος προσέειπεν: 122n. — Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής: 290n. 518–519 Allen and others understand 518  f. as a question (in accord with schol. A, bT on 518): in the context, this is not inappropriate, although ἦ μάλα δή elsewhere only introduces statements; here, as at 255 (see ad loc.), etc., likely a speculation uttered in a concerned tone: Paris may fear not having caught up to Hektor in time, despite his hurry; Leaf’s interpretation, that Paris is exaggerating the self-accusations ‘by way of «fishing for a compliment»’ (similarly Willcock and Graziosi/Haubold), is uncompelling. Differently again, Moulton 1977, 95  f.; Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 27–30; Brillante (and cf. Kirk): ἦ μάλα δή is to be understood ironically, as at 5.422; Paris’ words contain a barb directed at Hektor who, despite his exhortations to hurry (363  f.), has himself tarried in Andromache’s company. But Hektor’s conduct corresponds exactly to his announcement at 365  ff., while the address ἠθεῖε (518n.) sits poorly with pointed irony. 518 1st VH =  22.229, ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 103; cf. also Il. 11.441. — ἠθεῖ(ε): derived from ἦθος (cf. 510b–511n.), thus approximately ‘familar, dear’ (Frisk, DELG, Beekes). In early epic only in direct speech, always in the voc. except at Od. 14.147; expresses both affection and respect (LfgrE s.v.; Bettini 1988): addresses to the elder/more distinguished brother also at 10.37 (Menelaos to Agamemnon), 22.229/239 (Athene in the shape of Deïphobos to Hektor); also 23.94 (Achilleus addressing the spirit of [the older] Patroklos in a dream), Od. 14.147 (Eumaios on the supposedly absent Odysseus), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 103 (Iolaos addressing Herakles, his father’s brother). — ἐσσύμενον: perf. part. of σεύομαι; on the accent, Chantr. 1.190.

517 προσέειπεν: = προσεῖπεν. 518 ἠθεῖ’, ἦ: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — καὶ ἐσσύμενον: adversative, ‘although you are in a hurry’.

180 

 Iliad 6

519 δηθύνων: contrasting with οὐδὲ … δήθυνεν at 503; see 517–529n. — ἐναίσιμον: related to αἶσα in the sense ‘appropriate share, measure’; here adverbial ‘at the right time’, at 521 ‘thinking right and properly’ (LfgrE, cf. Leaf). — ὡς ἐκέλευες: see 331, 363  f. 520–529 The speech has some parallels with Hektor’s first speech addressed to Paris at 326–331: vocative δαιμόνι(ε) (326, 521), reference to the Trojan suffering caused by Paris (327–329, 523–525) and to his lack of engagement (330 μεθιέντα, 523 μεθίεις), a request for speedy action (331, 526); but the bitter reproach (325 αἰσχροῖς ἐπέεσσιν) has been replaced by a gentler tone (neutral speech introduction at 520), and whereas the first speech concludes with a vision of the destruction of Troy, here Hektor closes optimistically, hoping for victory and peace: ‘He needs hope in order to face the enemy’ (Graziosi/Haubold; cf. 475–481n., 526–527a  n.). 520 1st VH (with τόν/τήν) 36x Il., 68x Od., 1x h.Ap.; only here in combination with the VE formula κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ (116n.); cf. 263n. 521 δαιμόνι(ε): 326n., 517–529n. 522–523a ἔργον … μάχης: on battle conceived as work, cf. 1.162n., 2.401n., 4.470  f., 4.539, etc.; LfgrE s.v. ἔργον 677.34  ff. — ἐπεὶ ἄλκιμός ἐσσι· | ἀλλὰ ἑκὼν μεθίεις: ἄλκιμος is one who is in principle equipped with ἀλκή, i.e. the will and ability to stand his ground in battle (LfgrE s.v.). At the same time, no warrior is safe from the danger of temporarily ‘forgetting’ his ἀλκή (265n.; cf. 16.688  ff. ≈ 17.176  ff.). Only one who does this without being under big pressure may be subject to blame: this is what ἑκὼν μεθίεις aims at (AH; LfgrE s.v. ἑκών; cf. 13.234, Od. 4.372, also ἑκὼν ὑποδάμνασαι Od. 3.214 = 16.95). — μεθίεις: Reduplicated μι-verbs in early epic exhibit both thematic and athematic forms (with some thematic forms accentuated in the manner of contract verbs, see app. crit. on the present passage); e.g. ἀνίεις (v.l. ἀνίης) 5.880, 3rd sing. προΐει 2.752, μεθίει 10.121 vs. athematic ἵησιν 3.12, etc.; various explanations of the phenomenon in Schw. 1.687 (thematic forms entered the text in the post-Homeric period); Monro (1882) 1891, 18  f., and Hackstein 2002, 97, 99–102, 110 (influence of Ionic contract verbs); Chantr. 1.298  f. (archaism dating back to a period preceding the Ionic influence on epic language). — οὐκ ἐθέλεις: perceived as one term (hence τε καὶ οὐκ rather than οὐδ(έ); cf. 3.289n., Schw. 2.593  f.). In combination with μεθιέναι also at 10.121; referring to a lack of engagement in battle also at 4.224 (litotes), 4.300, 14.51, 16.540, 17.66, etc. (LfgrE s.v. (ἐ)θέλω 417.5  ff.; Wissmann 1997, 27  f.).

519 οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 521 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — εἴη: opt. because of assimilation of the mood to that of the main clause. 522 ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6). 523 ἀλλὰ (ϝ)εκών: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 181

523b–525 Similar, but more strongly worded, is Helen at 350  f. (see 350–353n.); on the Trojan attitude toward Paris, cf. 3.453  f., 7.390. — for your sake: cf. 328– 329n.; here stressed at VE. τό: not an article with ἐμὸν κῆρ, but the object of ἄχνυμαι (anticipating the ὅτε-clause): ‘about this’ (AH, Leaf, etc.). — κῆρ | … ἐν θυμῷ: In contrast to φρένες (see 19.169–170n.: ἦτορ … ἐνὶ φρεσί), θυμός does not occur elsewhere as the location of a different mental faculty. It is difficult to say (cf. Kirk; LfgrE s.v. 1080.24–47) whether a concrete notion of θυμός as a body part underlies the present expression (thus Jahn 1987, 15–18); ἐν θυμῷ may simply have an intensifying function here (as at 19.312 etc., cf. Jahn loc. cit. 227, 230  f.: ‘deeply, in its innermost’): AH ad loc. and Anh. 166  f. — ὑπὲρ σέθεν: according to Schw. 2.522, literally ‘in your stead, addressed to you’, although already making the transition toward the meaning current later (except in Attic) ‘with regard to, about’ (≈ περί: Wackernagel [1920/24] 2009, 694  f.; differently Chantr. 2.137). — αἴσχε(α): ‘abuse, reproaches’ (cf. 3.242n., 6.351). 526–527a ἀλλ’ ἴομεν: a VB formula (5x Il., 6x Od.). — τὰ δ’ ὄπισθεν ἀρεσσόμεθ(α): ≈ 4.362 (Agamemnon addressing Odysseus, whom he had wrongly censured). ἀρεσσόμεθ(α) is an aor. subjunc. or fut. ind. of the root ἀρε- (cf. ἀρείων, ἀρετή; an alternate form of the root ἀρ- present in ἀραρίσκω: Frisk s.v. ἀρέσκω). It means literally ‘join something so that it fits’, especially where the relationship between two individuals has been disturbed: with acc. of a person ‘reconcile someone with oneself’ (9.112, 19.179, etc.); here as at 4.362 with a pronoun in the neuter: ‘put in order together’, sc. that which had occurred between the individuals concerned (clarified at 4.362  f. by εἴ τι κακὸν νῦν | εἴρηται): LfgrE s.v. ἀρέσαι; Pernée 1988. — αἴ κέ ποθι Ζεύς | δώῃ: = Od. 12.215  f., 22.252  f.; ≈ Il. 1.128  f. The prospective subjunc. denotes what the speaker considers ‘very well possible’ (Wakker 1994, 205), only slightly limited by ποθί (LfgrE: ‘somehow’). Hektor’s words are thus characterized by restrained optimism; this continues the direction taken at 475–481 (see ad loc.) in the prayer for Astyanax (Schadewaldt 1956 [1970], 26). Differently, Broccia 1964, 390: the conditional here serves to correct ὄπισθεν and means approximately ‘if there even is a «later» for us’. But this interpretation is contradicted by the festive depiction of the positive vision of the future at 527–529. 527 An expressive four-word verse (1.75n.; here followed by two five-word verses). The divine epithets ἐπουράνιος and αἰειγενέτης are attested a total of 4x Il./Od. (129n.) and

524 ὅθ’: = ὅτε. — σέθεν: = σοῦ (R 14.1). — ἀκούω: subjunc. in a generalizing temporal clause (iterative); in Homer this can occur also without a modal particle (R 21.1). 525 πρός (+ gen.): ‘on the part of’. — εἵνεκα: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1). 526 ἴομεν: short vowel subjunc. (R 16.3). — τά: ‘these things, this’ (R 17). — αἴ κε: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5). 527–529 δώῃ … | 1 verse | … ἐλάσαντας: δώῃ = δῷ (R 6), to be taken with στήσασθαι (with θεοῖς as dat. of interest); ἐλάσαντας refers to the subject acc. ἡμᾶς to be supplied with στήσασθαι: ‘when we have driven out’. — μεγάροισι: on the plural, R 18.2 and ↑.

182 

 Iliad 6

19x in early epic (always in the present inflectible formula: 2.400n.), but the combination is found only here (also similar is Od. 2.432: ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσ’ αἰειγενέτῃσιν). On the accumulation of epithets in general, La Roche 1897, 175  ff., esp. 178  f. (collection of examples); cf. 305n.

528 setting up … the wine-bowl of liberty: sc. to offer libations to the gods after the city’s deliverance from its enemies. Cf. Psalms 116.13: ‘I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord’ (sc. to thank Him for deliverance from grave danger): West 1997, 369. κρητῆρα … ἐλεύθερον: adj. instead of a gen., as in the expression ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ (455 etc.), or ‘a mixing bowl where one is free’ (Schw. 2.178), i.e. from which the Trojans may offer libations as free people (cf. Hipponax fr. 115.8 West: δούλιον ἄρτον ἔδων ‘eating the bread of slavery, eating bread as a slave’). On the connotations of ἐλεύθερος in Homer, cf. 454–455n. (with bibliography): a free person is one who can freely govern himself and his own labor, due to having a secure existence within an intact community; expelling the enemies will guarantee the continued existence of this community and consequently the personal freedom of its individual members. — ἐν μεγάροισιν: Both in the sing. and pl., μέγαρον may denote in a pregnant sense the central meeting place in a house (as here; examples in the pl.: LfgrE s.v. 64.39  ff.), or more generally the house as a whole (91n., 371n.). 529 ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς: an inflectible VE formula (see 1.17n., also for the archaeological data).

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); cited in this volume: 2nd part (on Il. 4–6) 21882. Allen, Th.W. Homeri Ilias. Oxford 1931. (3 vols.) 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 and 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.) Brillante, C. Alle fonti della poesia mondiale. Omero, il canto VI dell’Iliade per la I liceo classico. Testi e crestomazie, nuova serie. Turin 1995. 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  ff., 1996  ff.; cited in this volume: ChronEG 1, RPh 70 (1996): 103–138 (also in DELG). Morris, I. and B. Powell (eds.). A New Companion to Homer. Leiden etc. 1997. Cunliffe, R. J. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. Norman and 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). Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 vols.) 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.

Allen ArchHom

Autenrieth/Kaegi

Beekes

BNP

Brillante Chantr. ChronEG

Companion Cunliffe DELG

Denniston DMic Ebeling Edwards

184 

EM

 Iliad 6

Enzyklopädie des Märchens. Handwörterbuch zur historischen und vergleichenden Erzählforschung. Founded by K. Ranke, ed. by R. W. Brednich etc. Berlin 1977–. Faesi Homers Iliade. Erklärt von J. U. Faesi. Leipzig 1851–1852. (2 vols.) Faesi/Franke Homers Iliade. Erklärt von J. U. Faesi. 5th–6th ed., rev. by F. R. Franke. Berlin 1871–1887. (4 vols.) 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.) Graziosi/Haubold Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer, Iliad. Book VI. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. Hainsworth Hainsworth, B., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.) Hainsworth on Il. 9–12 Hainsworth, B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge 1993. 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.). Heubeck Heubeck, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1983); vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) Hoekstra Hoekstra, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1984.) 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. de Jong on Od. de Jong, I. J. F. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001. de Jong on Il. 22 de Jong, I. J. F. 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; vol. II: Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990. K.-G. Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904. (Reprint Hanover 1992.) (2 vols.) KlP Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike in fünf Bänden, ed. by K. Ziegler and W.  Sontheimer. Stuttgart and Munich 1964–1975. (Reprint Munich 1979.) (5 vols.) 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.)

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

LfgrE

LIMC LIV

LSJ Macleod Monro RE

Richardson Risch Ruijgh Russo Schw.

ThesCRA

Thompson

Wathelet

West

West on Hes. Op. West on Hes. Th.

 185

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. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed. by H. C. Ackermann and J. R. Gisler. Zurich etc. 1981–1999. (18 vols.) 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). Liddell, H. R., R. Scott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon9. Oxford 1940. (Reprint with revised Supplement 1996.) Macleod, C. W. (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book XXIV. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1982. Monro, D. B. Homer. Iliad, Books I–XII5. With an Introduction, a Brief Homeric Grammar, and Notes. Oxford 1906 (11884). 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 Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge 1993. Risch, E. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2, Berlin and New York 1974 (11937). Ruijgh, C. J. Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam 1971. Russo, J., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1985.) 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 pour le Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles 2004–2014. (8 vols. and 1 index vol.) Thompson, S. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: A Classification of Narrative Elements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux, Jest-Books and Local Legends2. Copenhagen 1955–1958 (11932–1936). (6 vols.) 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.) Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M. L. West. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Vol. I: Rhapsodias I–XII continens. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998. Vol. II: Rhapsodias XIII–XXIV et indicem nominum continens. Munich and Leipzig 2000. 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.

186 

 Iliad 6

West on Od. 1–4 Willcock

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.)

2. Editions of ancient authors and texts1 Aeschylus, fragments (Radt) in Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta, vol. 3, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1985. Alcaeus (Voigt) in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971. Anacreon (Page) in Poetae melici graeci, ed. D. L. Page. Oxford 1962. Archilochus (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 1. Oxford 1989 (11971). Asclepiades (FGrHist) no. 12 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) by F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden 21957 (Berlin 11923). Callinus (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 2. Oxford 1992 (11972). Carmina popularia (Page) in Poetae melici graeci, ed. D. L. Page. Oxford 1962. Demetrius of Scepsis (Gaede) Demetrii Scepsii quae supersunt, ed. R. Gaede. Greifswald 1880. Ennius (Skutsch) The ‘Annals’ of Q. Ennius, ed. with Introduction and Commentary by O. Skutsch. Oxford 1985. ‘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. ‘Eumelus’ (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. Euripides, fragments (Kannicht) in Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta, vol. 5.1–2, ed. R. Kannicht. Göttingen 2004. Hellanicus (FGrHist/Fowler) • no. 4 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) by F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden 2 1957 (Berlin 11923); • and in Early Greek Mythography, ed. R. L. Fowler, vol. 1: Texts. Oxford 2000.

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

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 187

‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.) in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta3, edd. R. Merkelbach and M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970). Hipponax (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 1. Oxford 1989 (11971). ‘Musaeus’ (VS) in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6. Greek and German by H. Diels, ed. by W. Kranz, vol. 1. Berlin etc. 1951 (11903). Pherecydes (FGrHist/Fowler) • no. 3 in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist) by F. Jacoby, vol. 1. Leiden 2 1957 (Berlin 11923); • and in Early Greek Mythography, ed. R. L. Fowler, vol. 1: Texts. Oxford 2000. Pius (Hiller) E. Hiller. ‘Der Grammatiker Pius und die ἀπολογίαι πρὸς τὰς ἀθετήσεις Ἀριστάρχου’. Philologus 28 (1869) 86–115. Porphyry (MacPhail) Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Text, Translation, Commentary by J. A. MacPhail Jr. Texte und Kommentare 36. Berlin and New York 2011. 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. uni-koeln.de/1810/; 2nd edition: http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/ (both retrieved 9.  1. 2015). Sophocles, fragments (Radt) in Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta2, vol. 4, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1999 (11977). 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. Oxford 1991. Theognis (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 1. Oxford 1989 (11971). Tyrtaeus (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 2. Oxford 1992 (11972).

188 

 Iliad 6

3. Articles and monographs Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique.2 Aceti 2008 Aceti, C. ‘Sarpedone fra mito e poesia.’ In L. Pagani (ed.). Eroi nell’Iliade. Personaggi e strutture narrative, pp. 1–269. Pleiadi 8. Rome. Ahrens 1937 Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus). Halle. Akurgal 1966 Akurgal, E. Orient und Okzident. Die Geburt der griechischen Kunst. Kunst der Welt: Die außereuropäischen Kulturen. Baden-Baden. (Reprint 1980.) 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 1990 Alden, M. J. ‘The Homeric House as Poetic Creation.’ In Païzi-Apostolopoulou 1990, pp. 57–67. Alden 1996 Alden, M. J. ‘Genealogy as Paradigm: The Example of Bellerophon.’ Hermes 124: 257–263. Alden 2000 Alden, M. J. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford. Alden 2012 Alden, M. J. ‘The Despised Migrant (Il. 9.648 =  16.59).’ In Montanari et al. 2012, pp. 115–131. Allan 2013 Allan, R. J. ‘Exploring Modality’s Semantic Space. Grammaticalization, Subjectification and the Case of ὀφείλω.’ Glotta 89: 1–46. Aliffi 2002 Aliffi, M. L. ‘Le espressioni dell’agente e dello strumento nei processi di «morte violenta».’ In Montanari 2002, 409–423. Alster 1987 Alster, B. ‘A Note on the Uriah Letter in the Sumerian Sargon Legend.’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 77: 169–173. Aly (1913) 1966 Aly, W. ‘Hesiodos von Askra und der Verfasser der Theogonie.’ In E. Heitsch (ed.). Hesiod, pp. 50–99. Wege der Forschung 44. Darmstadt. (First published in RhM 68 [1913] 22–67.) Ammann 1956 Ammann, H. ‘Zum griechischen Verbaladjektiv auf -τός.’ In H. Kronasser (ed.). ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, vol. 1, pp.  10–23. Vienna. Andersen 1978 Andersen, Ø. Die Diomedes-Gestalt in der Ilias. SO Suppl. 25. Oslo. Andersen 1990 Andersen, Ø. ‘The Making of the Past in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 93: 25–45. Andersen/Haug 2012 Andersen, Ø. and D. T. T. Haug (eds.). Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge. Anderson 1997 Anderson, M. J. The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Andronikos 1968 Andronikos, M. ‘Totenkult.’ ArchHom chap. W. Göttingen. Antonaccio 1995 Antonaccio, C. M. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc.

2 A cumulative list can be found at: http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/Thesaurus/APh_List.pdf (retrieved: 13. 3. 2015).

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Apthorp 1980

 189

Apthorp, M. J. The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.71. Heidelberg. Aravantinos 1976 Aravantinos, V. L. ‘Osservazioni sulla lettera di Proitos.’ SMEA 17: 117–125. Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin. Arnould 1990 Arnould, D. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon. Collection d’études anciennes 119. Paris. Arnould 2002 Arnould, D. ‘Du bon usage du vin chez Homère et dans la poésie archaïque.’ In J. Jouanna and L. Villard (eds.). Vin et santé en Grèce ancienne, pp. 7–10. BCH Suppl. 40. Athens. Arthur 1981 Arthur, M. B. ‘The Divided World of Iliad VI.’ In H. P. Foley (ed.). Reflections of Women in Antiquity, pp. 19–44. New York etc. Assunção 1997 Assunção, T. R. ‘Le mythe iliadique de Bellérophon.’ Gaia 1: 41–66. Astour 1965 Astour, M. C. Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden. 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. Avery 1994 Avery, H. C. ‘Glaucus, a God? Iliad Z 128–143.’ Hermes 122: 498–502. Bakker 1988 Bakker, E. J. Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and the Description of the Particle ‘per’. Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Bakker 1997 Bakker, E. J. Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Bakker (1999) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘How Oral is Oral Composition?’ In Bakker 2005, pp.  38–55. (First published in Mackay 1999, pp. 29–47.) Bakker 2005 Bakker, E. J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Hellenic Studies 12. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Bakker/Fabbricotti 1991 Bakker, E. J. and F. Fabbricotti. ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics in Homeric Diction: The Case of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ Mnemosyne 44: 63–84. (Also in Bakker 2005, pp. 1–21.) 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 Bakker 2005, pp. 22–37.) Bannert 1988 Bannert, H. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Beispiele für eine Poetik des Epos. Wiener Studien Beiheft 13. Vienna. Bartelink 1956 Bartelink, G. ‘χρύσεα χαλκείων (Ilias, 6, 236).’ Hermeneus 27: 169–172. Basset 1979 Basset, L. Les emplois périphrastiques du verbe grec μέλλειν. Lyon. Bassett 1923 Bassett, S. E. ‘On Z 119–236.’ CPh 18: 178–180. Bassett 1938 Bassett, S. E. The Poetry of Homer. Sather Classical Lectures 15. Berkeley. Beck 2012 Beck, D. Speech Representation in Homeric Epic. Austin. Beck 1988 Beck, W. ‘Ἀργειώνη in the Hesiodic Catalog and Antimachos.’ ZPE 73: 1–7. 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. Janua linguarum. Series practica 42. Paris etc. Bellamy 1988/89 Bellamy, R. ‘Bellerophon’s Tablet.’ CJ 84: 289–307. Bennett 1997 Bennett, M. J. Belted Heroes and Bound Women: The Myth of the Homeric Warrior-King. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Benveniste 1935 Benveniste, E. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris.

190 

 Iliad 6

Benveniste 1969 Bergold 1977 Bergren 1975

Bernsdorff 1992 Berres 2004 Bertolini 1989

Beßlich 1966

Bethe 1914 Bettini 1988 Beye 1964 Beye 1984 Bichler 2007

Bierl 1991 Bierl 2003 Bierl et al. 2004

Bierl 2004a

Bierl 2004b

Blanc 2007

Blanc 2008

Benveniste, E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 2: pouvoir, droit, religion. Paris. Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos. (Zu Ilias Γ 1  – Δ 222). Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klass. Philol. 28. Bonn. Bergren, A. L. T. The Etymology and Usage of πεῖραρ in Early Greek Poetry: A Study in the Interrelationship of Metrics, Linguistics and Poetics. American Classical Studies 2. New York. Bernsdorff, H. Zur Rolle des Aussehens im homerischen Menschenbild. Hypomnemata 97. Göttingen. Berres, T. ‘Personalität und Sprache bei Homer.’ Perspektiven der Philosophie. Neues Jahrbuch 30: 241–284. Bertolini, F. ‘Dal folclore all’epica: esempi di trasformazione e adattamento.’ In D. Lanza and O. Longo (eds.). Il meraviglioso e il verosimile tra antichità e medioevo, pp. 131–152. Biblioteca dell’ ‘Archivum Romanicum’ 221. Florence. Beßlich, S. Schweigen – Verschweigen – Übergehen. Die Darstellung des Unausgesprochenen in der Odyssee. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.12. Heidelberg. Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage. Vol. 1: Ilias. Leipzig and Berlin. Bettini, M. ‘ΗΘΕΙΟΣ.’ RFIC 116: 154–166. Beye, C. R. ‘Homeric Battle Narrative and Catalogues.’ HSCPh 68: 345–373. Beye, C. R. ‘Repeated Similes in the Homeric Poems.’ In Rigsby et al. 1984, pp. 7–13. Bichler, R. ‘Über die Bedeutung der Zimelien in der Welt der Odyssee.’ In E.  Alram-Stern und G. Nightingale (eds.). Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche (Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3.–5. 2. 2005 in Salzburg), pp. 31– 39. Österr. Akad. der Wiss., Phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 350. Vienna. Bierl, A. Dionysos und die griechische Tragödie. Politische und ‘metatheatralische’ Aspekte im Text. Classica Monacensia 1. Tübingen. 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, A., A. Schmitt and A. Willi (eds.). Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Festschrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages. Munich and Leipzig. Bierl, A. ‘Die Wiedererkennung von Odysseus und seiner treuen Gattin Penelope. Das Ablegen der Maske – zwischen traditioneller Erzählkunst, Metanarration und psychologischer Vertiefung.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 103–126. Bierl, A. ‘«Turn on the Light!». Epiphany, the God-Like Hero Odysseus, and the Golden Lamp of Athena in Homer’s Odyssey (especially 19.1– 43).’ ICS 29: 43–61. Blanc, A. ‘Rhythme et syntaxe dans l’hexamètre. Les datifs pluriels des thèmes sigmatiques.’ In A. Blanc et al. (eds.). Procédés synchroniques de la langue poétique en grec et en latin, pp. 13–26. Langues et cultures anciennes 9. Brussels. Blanc, A. Les contraintes métriques dans la poésie homérique. L’emploi des thèmes nominaux sigmatiques dans l’hexamètre dactylique. Leuven and Paris.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Bloedow 2007

 191

Bloedow, E. F. ‘Homer and the depas amphikypellon.’ In Morris/Laffineur 2007, pp. 87–95 (+ pls. XXII–XXIII). Blok 1995 Blok, J. H. The Early Amazons: Modern and Ancient Perspectives on a Persistent Myth. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 120. Leiden. Blom 1936 Blom, J. W. S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I. Triaden, hebdomaden en enneaden. Nijmegen. Blondell 2010 Blondell, R. ‘«Bitch that I Am»: Self-Blame and Self-Assertion in the Iliad.’ TAPhA 140: 1–32. Blum 1998 Blum, H. Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt. Antiquitas, Reihe 1: Abhandlungen zur Alten Geschichte 47. Bonn. Boardman (1964) 1980 Boardman, J. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade2. London (Harmondsworth 11964). Boardman 2004 Boardman, J. et al. ‘Greek Dedications.’ In ThesCRA 1: 269–318. Böhme 1929 Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin. Bonifazi 2012 Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Hellenic Studies 50. Washington, D. C. Bonfante 1998 Bonfante, G. ‘Βελλεροφόντης.’ Athenaeum 86: 560. 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. Bostock 2015 Bostock, R. ‘«No Comment»: Iliad 6.62’. RhM 158: 104–107. Bouvier 2002 Bouvier, D. Le sceptre et la lyre. L’Iliade ou les héros de la mémoire. Collection HOROS. Grenoble. Bowra 1930 Bowra, C. M. Tradition and Design in the Iliad. Oxford. (Reprint 1950.) Bowra 1952 Bowra, C. M. Heroic Poetry. London. Brandenburg 1977 Brandenburg, H.: ‘Μίτρα, ζωστήρ und ζῶμα.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 119–143. Göttingen. Bremer 1976 Bremer, D. Licht und Dunkel in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Interpretationen zur Vorgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, Suppl. 1. Bonn. Bretzigheimer 1969 Bretzigheimer, F. ‘Hektor in Troia. Zu Homer, Z 237–529 und Ω 697–804.’ Anregung 15: 167–176. Briand 2011 Briand, M. ‘À propos de νήπιος dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée: ambiguïtés et variations auctoriales, entre récit et performativité.’ In E. Raymond (ed.). Vox poetae. Manifestations auctoriales dans l’épopée gréco-latine, pp.  195–213. Actes du colloque organisé les 13 et 14 novembre 2008 par l’Université Lyon 3. Paris. Brillante 1996 Brillante, C. ‘La scrittura in Omero.’ QUCC N. S. 52: 31–45. Broccia 1956/57 Broccia, G. ‘Il posto della Ἕκτορος καὶ Ἀνδρομάχης ὁμιλία nell’Iliade e nel corso della vita eroica di Ettore. Nota sul pensiero della morte nell’Iliade.’ AAT 91: 165–203.

192 

 Iliad 6

Broccia 1963

Broccia, G. Struttura e spirito del libro VI dell’Iliade. Contributo allo studio del problema omerico. Parte prima: dalle androctasie del preludio alla homilia. Biblioteca di cultura superiore, Sezione I. Sapri. Broccia 1964 Broccia, G. ‘Homerica. La chiusa di Ζ secondo la «critica» e secondo l’esegesi.’ RFIC 92: 385–396. Broccia 1967 Broccia, G. La forma poetica dell’Iliade e la genesi dell’epos omerico. Biblioteca di Helikon, Testi e Studi 4. Messina. Bryce 1986 Bryce, T. R. The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Copenhagen. Bryce 1992 Bryce, T. R. ‘Lukka Revisited.’ JNES 51: 121–130. Buchan 1999 Buchan, M. ‘Marx’s Aesthetics: Between Gift and Commodity Exchange.’ Helios 26: 129–150. Buchan 2012 Buchan, M. Perfidity and Passion: Reintroducing the Iliad. Wisconsin Studies in Classics. Madison. Buchholz 2010 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Kriegswesen, Teil 3.’ ArchHom chap. E 3. Göttingen. Bühler 1960 Bühler, W. Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Hermes Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden. Burgess 2001 Burgess, J. S. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore and London. Burgess 2012 Burgess, J. S. ‘Intertextuality without Text in Early Greek Epic.’ In Andersen/ Haug 2012, pp. 168–183. Burkert 1955 Burkert, W. Zum altgriechischen Mitleidsbegriff. Erlangen. Burkert (1972) 1997 Burkert, W. Homo Necans. Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen2. Berlin and New York (11972). Burkert (1977) 1985 Burkert, W. Greek Religion, transl. by J. Raffan. Cambridge, Mass. (German original: Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stuttgart 1977.) Burkert 1983 Burkert, W. ‘Oriental Myth and Literature in the Iliad.’ In R. Hägg (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), pp. 51–56. Stockholm. Burkert (1984) 1992 Burkert, W. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, transl. by M. E. Pinder and W. Burkert. Revealing Antiquity 5. Cambridge, Mass. (= Expanded version of: Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur. SHAW 1984.1. Heidelberg 1984.) Buttmann (1818) 1825 Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung, hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod 2, 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 2012 Cairns, D. L. ‘Atē in the Homeric Poems.’ Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 15: 1–52. Calder 1984 Calder III, W. M. ‘Gold for Bronze: Iliad 6.232–36.’ In Rigsby et al. 1984, pp. 31– 35. Camerotto 2009 Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: composizione e racconto nell’epica greca arcaica. Ricerche: collana della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Venezia 54. Padua.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Canciani 1984 Carlier 1984

 193

Canciani, F. ‘Bildkunst, Teil 2.’ ArchHom chap. N 2. Göttingen. Carlier, P. La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre. Études et travaux publiés par le groupe de recherche d’histoire romaine de l’université des sciences humaines de Strasbourg 6. Strasbourg. Carlier 2000 Carlier, P. ‘Les marques écrites chez Homère.’ In M. Perna (ed.). Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Naples, 29. 2.–2. 3. 1996), pp. 309–314. Pubblicazioni del Centro internazionale di ricerche archeologiche, antropologiche e storiche 3. Rome. Carter/Morris 1995 Carter, J. B. and S. P. Morris (eds.). The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule. Austin. Casabona 1966 Casabona, J. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec. Des origines à la fin de l’époque classique. Aix-en-Provence. Casadio 1994 Casadio, G. Storia del culto di Dioniso in Argolide. Filologia e critica 71. Rome. Chantraine 1937 Chantraine, P. ‘Grec μειλίχιος.’ AIPhO 5 (Mélanges Émile Boisacq): 169–174. Ciani 1974 Ciani, M. G. φάος e termini affini nella poesia greca. Introduzione a una fenomenologia della luce. Università di Padova, Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia 51. Florence. Clark 1997 Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Clarke 2004 Clarke, M. ‘Manhood and Heroism.’ In R. Fowler (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Homer, pp. 74–90. Cambridge. Classen (1851–1857) 1867 Classen, J. Beobachtungen über den Homerischen Sprachgebrauch. Frankfurt am Main. (First published as 5 individual essays appearing in the Frankfurter Gymnasialprogramme of 1854–1857 and the Lübecker Programm of 1851.) Clayton 2004 Clayton, B. A Penelopean Poetics: Reweaving the Feminine in Homer’s Odyssey. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Cobet 1876 Cobet, C. G. Miscellanea critica quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores Graecos, praesertim Homerum et Demosthenem. Leiden. Cobet 1981 Cobet, J. ‘König, Anführer, Herr; Monarch, Tyrann.’ In E. C. Welskopf (ed.). Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, vol. 3, pp. 11–66. Berlin. Coldstream (1977) 2003 Coldstream, J. N. Geometric Greece: 900–700 BC2. London and New York (11977). Collins 2002 Collins, D. ‘Reading the Birds: Oiônomanteia in Early Epic.’ ColbyQ 38: 17–41. Collins 1988 Collins, L. Studies in Characterization in the Iliad. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 189. Frankfurt am Main. Collobert 2011 Collobert, C. Parier sur le temps. La quête héroïque d’immortalité dans l’épopée homérique. Collection d’études anciennes 143. Paris. Cook 1973 Cook, J. M. The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study. Oxford. Corlu 1966 Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux tragiques. Paris. Craig 1967 Craig, J. D. ‘χρύσεα χαλκείων.’ CR N. S. 17: 243–245.

194 

 Iliad 6

Crielaard 2002

Crielaard, J. P. ‘Past or Present? Epic Poetry, Aristocratic Self-Representation and the Concept of Time in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC.’ In Montanari 2002, pp. 239–295. Crotty 1994 Crotty, K. The Poetics of Supplication. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Crouwel 1981 Crouwel, J. H. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amsterdam. Crouwel 1992 Crouwel, J. H. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 9. Amsterdam. D’Alfonso 2008 D’Alfonso, F. ‘La Terra Desolata. Osservazioni sul destino di Bellerofonte (Il. 6.200–202).’ MH 65: 1–21. 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. Darms 1978 Darms, G. Schwäher und Schwager, Hahn und Huhn. Die Vr̥ddhi-Ableitung im Germanischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, N. F. Beiheft 9. Munich. Davies 1977 Davies, M. I. ‘The Reclamation of Helen.’ AK 20: 73–85. Davies 2000 Davies, M. ‘Homer and Dionysus.’ Eikasmos 11: 15–27. Debrunner 1944 Debrunner, A. ‘Verschobener Partizipialgebrauch im Griechischen. (Der Typus ‘café chantant’ im Griechischen.)’ MH 1: 31–46. Deger-Jalkotzy 1979 Deger-Jalkotzy, S. ‘Homer und der Orient: Das Königtum des Priamos.’ WJA 5: 25–31. Delz 1995 Delz, J. ‘Wie die Blätter am Baum, so wechseln die Wörter.’ In D. Krömer (ed.). Wie die Blätter am Baum, so wechseln die Wörter. 100 Jahre Thesaurus linguae Latinae, pp. 1–12. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. Omero e i suoi oratori. Tecniche di persuasione nell’ ‘Iliade’. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 302. Berlin and Boston. Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2013 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. ‘Homer und seine Redner. Drei Bittreden als Beispiele homerischer Redekunst.’ Gymnasium 120: 103–122. Deoudi 1999 Deoudi, M. Heroenkulte in homerischer Zeit. BAR International Series 806. Oxford. Derderian, K. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Derderian 2001 Literacy. Mnemosyne Suppl. 209. Leiden etc. Deubner (1941) 1982 Deubner, L. ‘Ololyge und Verwandtes.’ In O. Deubner (ed.). Kleine Schriften zur klassischen Altertumskunde, pp. 607–634. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 140. Königstein/Ts. (First published in APAW 1941.1. Berlin 1941.) Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero2. Turin (11994). Dickson 1995 Dickson, K. Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. New York and London. Dinçol/Dinçol 2005 Dinçol, A. and B. Dinçol. ‘Ein anatolisches Reich als Treffpunkt zweier Welten: Die Vermittlerrolle der Hethiter zwischen Ost und West.’ In Ü.  Yalçın, C. Pulak und R. Slotta (eds.). Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum (15. 7. 2005–16. 7. 2006), pp. 211–218. Bochum. Di Sacco Franco 2000 Di Sacco Franco, M. T. ‘Les devins chez Homère. Essai d’analyse.’ Kernos 13: 35–46.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 195

Dodds (1944) 1960 Euripides, Bacchae2. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by E. R. Dodds. Oxford (11944). Dodds 1951 Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Sather Classical Lectures 25. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Donlan 1989 Donlan, W. ‘The Unequal Exchange between Glaucus and Diomedes in Light of the Homeric Gift-Economy.’ Phoenix 43: 1–15. (Also in Donlan 1999, pp. 267–282.) Donlan 1989a Donlan, W. ‘Homeric τέμενος and the Land Economy of the Dark Age.’ MH 46: 129–145. (Also in Donlan 1999, pp. 303–320.) Donlan 1999 Donlan, W. The Aristocratic Ideal and Selected Papers. Wauconda, Ill. Dornseiff 1934 Dornseiff, F. ‘Antikes zum Alten Testament. 1. Genesis.’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, N. F. 11: 57–75. Drerup 1921 Drerup, E. Das Homerproblem in der Gegenwart. Prinzipien und Methoden der Homererklärung. Homerische Poetik 1. Wurzburg. Duckworth 1933 Duckworth, G. E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius, and Virgil. Princeton. Dué 2002 Dué, C. Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briseis. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Dunkel 1985 Dunkel, G. E. ‘IE hortatory *éy, *éyte: Ved. éta  … stávāma, Hitt. eḫu=wa it, Hom. εἰ δ’ ἄγε.’ MSS 46: 47–79. 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.) Durante 1976 Durante, M. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Part 2: Risultanze della comparazione indoeuropea. Incunabula Graeca 64. Rome. Dürbeck 1978 Dürbeck, H. ‘Il. 5.502: ἀχυρμιαί.’ MSS 37: 39–57. Ebbott 2003 Ebbott, M. Imagining Illegitimacy in Classical Greek Literature. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Eck 2012 Eck, B. La mort rouge. Homicide, guerre et souillure en Grèce ancienne. Collection d’études anciennes. Série grecque 145. Paris. Eckstein 1974 Eckstein, F. ‘Handwerk, Teil  1. Die Aussagen der frühgriechischen Epos.’ ArchHom chap. L 1. Göttingen. Edwards 1985 Edwards, A. T. Achilles in the Odyssey. Ideologies of Heroism in the Homeric Epic. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 171. Königstein/Ts. Edwards 1987 Edwards, M. W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London. Edwards 2002 Edwards, M. W. Sound, Sense, and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Poetry. Princeton. Ellendt (1861) 1979 Ellendt, J. E. ‘Einiges über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den Gebrauch von Wortformen und Wortverbindungen im Homer.’ In HTN, pp.  60–87. (First published in Programm Königsberg 1861; also in J. E. Ellendt. Drei Homerische Abhandlungen, pp. 6–34. Leipzig 1864.) Elliger 1975 Elliger, W. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15. Berlin and New York. Elmiger 1935 Elmiger, J. Begrüßung und Abschied bei Homer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des antiken Grußes. Fribourg (Switzerland).

196 

 Iliad 6

Erbse (1978) 1979

Erbse, H. ‘Hektor in der Ilias.’ In H. Erbse. Ausgewählte Schriften zur Klassischen Philologie, pp. 1–18. Berlin. (First published in H. G. Beck et al. [eds.]. Kyklos. Griechisches und Byzantinisches. Rudolf Keydell zum 90. Geburtstag, pp. 1–19. Berlin and New York 1978.) Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York. Erbse 2002 Erbse, H. ‘Zur homerischen Bedeutungslehre.’ Glotta 78: 44–50. Erren 1970 Erren, M. ‘Αὐτίκα «sogleich» als Signal der einsetzenden Handlung in Ilias und Odyssee.’ Poetica 3: 24–58. Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias. Berlin. Fenik 1968 Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden. Fenik 1974 Fenik, B. Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden. Fenik 1986 Fenik, B. Homer and the Nibelungenlied: Comparative Studies in Epic Style. Martin Classical Lectures 30. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Fineberg 1999 Fineberg, S. ‘Blind Rage and Eccentric Vision in Iliad 6.’ TAPhA 129: 13–41. Finley (1954) 1999 Finley, M. I. The World of Odysseus4. London (New York 11954). Finkelberg 2012 Finkelberg, M. ‘Late Features in the Speeches of the Iliad.’ In Andersen/Haug 2012, pp. 80–95. Finsler (1908) 1918 Finsler, G. Homer2. Part 2: Inhalt und Aufbau der Gedichte. Leipzig and Berlin (11908). Fischer 1973 Fischer, F. ‘ΚΕΙΜΗΛΙΑ. Bemerkungen zur kulturgeschichtlichen Interpretation des sogenannten Südimports in der späten Hallstatt- und frühen Latène-Kultur des westlichen Mitteleuropa.’ Germania 51: 436–459. Floyd 1969 Floyd, E. D. ‘The Singular Uses of Ἡμέτερος and Ἡμεῖς in Homer.’ Glotta 47: 116–137. Foley 1999 Foley, J. M. Homer’s Traditional Art. University Park, Pa. Foley 2010 Foley, J. M. ‘«Reading Homer» through Oral Tradition.’ In K. Myrsiades (ed.). Approaches to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, pp.  15–41. American University Studies 19.38. New York etc. Ford 1992 Ford, A. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca and London. Fornaro 1992 Fornaro, S. Glauco e Diomede. Lettura di Iliade VI 119–236. Venosa. Fornaro 1994 Fornaro, S. La memoria e il canto. Antologia omerica. Collezione scolastica. Rome and Bari. Forssman 1966 Forssman, B. Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars. Klassisch-Philologische Studien 33. Wiesbaden. Forssman 1980 Forssman, B. ‘Ein unbekanntes Lautgesetz in der homerischen Sprache?’ In M. Mayrhofer, M. Peters and O. E. Pfeiffer (eds.). Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Wien, 24.–29. 9. 1978), pp. 180–198. Wiesbaden. Forssman 1991 Forssman, B. ‘Schichten in der homerischen Sprache.’ In Latacz 1991, pp. 259–288. Forssman 2005 Forssman, B. ‘Das Verbum οἰγ- «öffnen» bei Homer.’ In G. Meiser und O.  Hackstein (eds.). Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Halle a.d. Saale, 17.–23. 9. 2000), pp. 105–115. Wiesbaden.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Forssman 2006

 197

Forssman, B. ‘Epischer und chorlyrischer Literaturdialekt: das Verbum ἐφέπω.’ ILing 29: 111–117. Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen 1921 (=  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 (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 1973. (German original: Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts. Munich etc. 21962 [New York 1 1951].) Franz 2002 Franz, J. P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europ. Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt am Main. Frei 1978 Frei, P. ‘Die Lykier bei Homer.’ In E. Akurgal (ed.). Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology (Ankara and Izmir, 23.–30.  9. 1973), vol. 2, pp. 819–827. Ankara. Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theorie der epischen Gattung. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.55. Heidelberg. Friedrich 2007 Friedrich, R. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches. Hermes Einzelschriften 100. Stuttgart. 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. Abh. der Akad. der Wiss. in Göttingen, Phil.hist. Kl. 3.38. Göttingen 1956.) Frisk (1940) 1966 Frisk, H. ‘Zur griechischen Wortkunde [1. Teil].’ In H. Frisk. Kleine Schriften zur Indogermanistik und zur griechischen Wortkunde, pp.  324–334. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 21. Göteborg etc. (First published in Eranos 38 [1940] 36–46.) Frontisi-Ducroux 1986 Frontisi-Ducroux, F. La cithare d’Achille. Essai sur la poétique de l’Iliade. Biblioteca di QUCC 1. Rome. Fuchs 1993 Fuchs, E. Pseudologia. Formen und Funktionen fiktionaler Trugrede in der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.91. Heidelberg. Führer 1967 Führer, R. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der frühgriechischen Lyrik. Zetemata 44. Munich. Führer/Schmidt 2001 Führer, R. and M. Schmidt. ‘Homerus redivivus. Rez. zu: Homerus, Ilias, recensuit/testimonia congessit M. L. West (Bd. I, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998).’ GGA 253: 1–32. Gagliardi 2006 Gagliardi, P. ‘I lamenti di Andromaca nell’Iliade.’ Gaia 10: 11–46. Gaisser 1969 Gaisser, J. H. ‘Adaptation of Traditional Material in the Glaucus–Diomedes Episode.’ TAPhA 100: 165–176. García Ramón 1994 García Ramón, J. L. ‘Indogermanische Wurzelpräsentia und innere Rekonstruktion.’ In G. E. Dunkel et al. (eds.). Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch.

198 

 Iliad 6

Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Zurich, 5.–9. 10. 1992), pp. 53–75. Wiesbaden. Garland 1981 Garland, R. ‘The Causation of Death in the Iliad: A Theological and Biological Investigation.’ BICS 28: 43–60. Gartziou-Tatti 1992 Gartziou-Tatti, A. ‘Pâris-Alexandre dans l’Iliade.’ In A. Moreau (ed.). L’initiation: actes du colloque international de Montpellier (11.–14. 4. 1991). Vol. 1: Les rites d’adolescence et les mystères, pp. 73–93. Montpellier. Gartziou-Tatti 2010 Gartziou-Tatti, A. ‘Blindness as Punishment.’ In M. Christopoulos, E. D. Karakantza and O. Levaniouk (eds.). Light and Darkness in Ancient Greek Myth and Religion, pp. 181–190. Greek Studies. Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Gates 1971 Gates, H. P. The Kinship Terminology of Homeric Greek. Suppl. to International Journal of American Linguistics 37.4. Baltimore. George 2005 George, C. H. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge. Germain 1954 Germain, G. La mystique des nombres dans l’épopée homérique et sa préhistoire. Paris. Giordano 1999 Giordano, M. La supplica. Rituale, istituzione sociale e tema epico in Omero. Annali dell’istituto universitario orientale di Napoli. Dipartimento di studi del mondo classico e del mediterraneo antico, sezione filologico-letteraria 3. Naples. Giusti 1933 Giusti, A. ‘La distimia di Bellerofonte (Iliade, VI, 200–202).’ REHom 3: 39–49. Göbel 1933 Göbel, F. Formen und Formeln der epischen Dreiheit in der griechischen Dichtung. Tübingen. Goldhill 1990 Goldhill, S. ‘Supplication and Authorial Comment in the Iliad: Iliad Ζ 61–2.’ Hermes 118: 373–376. Goldhill 1991 Goldhill, S. The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge etc. Görgemanns 2001 Görgemanns, H. ‘Hektors Entscheidung.’ In S. Böhm and K.-V. von Eickstedt (eds.). ΙΘΑΚΗ. Festschrift für Jörg Schäfer zum 75. Geburtstag am 25. April 2001, pp. 115–120. Wurzburg. Gostoli 2012 Gostoli, A. ‘Sisifo nei poemi omerici e nel culto corinzio.’ In G. Cerri et al. (eds.). Tradizioni mitiche locali nell’epica greca. Convegno internazionale di studi in onore di Antonio Martina per i suoi 75 anni (Rome, 22.–23. 10. 2009), pp. 83–93. Rome. Gould (1973) 2001 Gould, J. ‘Hiketeia.’ In J. Gould. Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture, pp. 22–77. Oxford. (First published in JHS 93 [1973] 74–103.) Graf 1995 Graf, F. Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia. Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 21. Rome. Graf 1997 Graf, F. ‘Griechische Religion.’ In H.-G. Nesselrath (ed.). Einleitung in die griechische Philologie, pp. 457–504. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Granata 1991 Granata, G. ‘Dioniso tra Pilo e Omero: una nota.’ Athenaeum N. S. 79: 623–633. Gray 1954 Gray, D. H. F. ‘Metal-Working in Homer.’ JHS 74: 1–15. Graz 1965 Graz, L. Le feu dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. ΠΥΡ: champ d’emploi et signification. Études et commentaires 60. Paris.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 199

Graziosi/Haubold 2003 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. ‘Homeric Masculinity: ΗΝΟΡΕΗ and ΑΓΗΝΟΡΕΗ.’ JHS 123: 60–76. Graziosi/Haubold 2005 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer: The Resonance of Epic. Classical Literature and Society. London. Grethlein 2006 Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänomenologischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Hypomnemata 163. Göttingen. Grethlein 2006a Grethlein, J. ‘Individuelle Identität und conditio humana. Die Bedeutung und Funktion von γενεή im Blättergleichnis in Il. 6, 146–149.’ Philologus 150: 3–13. Grethlein 2008 Grethlein, J. ‘Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ JHS 128: 27–51. Grethlein 2010 Grethlein, J. ‘From «Imperishable Glory» to History: The Iliad and the Trojan War.’ In D. Konstan and K. A. Raaflaub (eds.). Epic and History, pp. 122–144. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford. Griffin 1976 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Pathos and Objectivity.’ CQ 26: 161–187. Griffin 1980 Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. Griffin 1986 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers.’ JHS 106: 36–57. Gruben (1966) 2001 Gruben, G. Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer. 5th completely revised and expanded new edition. Munich. (11966; 1st–4th editions entitled Die Tempel der Griechen.) Gruber 1963 Gruber, J. Über einige abstrakte Begriffe des frühen Griechischen. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 9. Meisenheim am Glan. Gschnitzer 1976 Gschnitzer, F. Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. Part  2: Untersuchungen zur älteren, insbesondere homerischen Sklaventerminologie. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 7. Wiesbaden. Guastalla 1937 Guastalla, R. M. ‘Un effet de symétrie dans l’Iliade: les deux retours d’Hector à Troie (VI 242 sqq. – XXIV 718 sqq.).’ REG 50: 50–66. Hackstein 2002 Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morphologischer Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden. Haft 1990 Haft, A. J. ‘«The City-Sacker Odysseus» in Iliad 2 and 10.’ TAPhA 120: 37–56. Hägg/Marinatos 1991 Hägg, R. and N. Marinatos. ‘The Giamalakis Model from Archanes: Between the Minoan and the Greek Worlds.’ In D. Musti et al. (eds.). La transizione dal Miceneo all’Alto Arcaismo. Dal palazzo alla città. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Rome, 14.–19. 3. 1988), pp. 301–308. Rome. Halliwell 2008 Halliwell, S. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity. Cambridge. Hansen 2002 Hansen, W. Ariadne’s Thread: A Guide to International Tales Found in Classical Literature. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Harries 1993 Harries, B. ‘«Strange Meeting»: Diomedes and Glaucus in Iliad 6.’ G&R 40: 133–146. Haslam 1997 Haslam, M. ‘Homeric Papyri and Transmission of the Text.’ In Companion, pp. 55–100. Haubold 2000 Haubold, J. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge. Havers 1928 Havers, W. ‘Zur Syntax des Nominativs.’ Glotta 16: 94–127.

200 

 Iliad 6

Heath 2005

Heath, J. The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge. Heiden 2008 Heiden, B. Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad. Oxford. Heitsch (1967) 2001 Heitsch, E. ‘Der Zorn des Paris. Zur Deutungsgeschichte eines homerischen Zetemas.’ In E. Heitsch. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 1: Zum frühgriechischen Epos, pp. 178–209. Beitr. zur Altertumskunde 152. Munich and Leipzig. (First published in E. Fries [ed.]. Festschrift für Joseph Klein zum 70. Geburtstag, pp. 216–247. Göttingen 1967.) Hellmann 2000 Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart. Henrichs 1994 Henrichs, A. ‘Der rasende Gott. Zur Psychologie des Dionysos und des Dionysischen in Mythos und Literatur.’ A&A 40: 31–58. Herman 1987 Herman, G. Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge. Hershkowitz 1998 Hershkowitz, D. The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius. Oxford. Hertel 2003 Hertel, D. Die Mauern von Troia. Mythos und Geschichte im antiken Ilion. Munich. Herter 1973 Herter, H. ‘Der weinende Astyanax.’ GB 1: 157–164. Herzhoff 2011 Herzhoff, B. ‘The Battlefield of the Trojan War: A New Philological and Geographical Analysis.’ Studia Troica 19: 219–254. Heubeck 1974 Heubeck, A. Die homerische Frage. Erträge der Forschung 27. Darmstadt. Heubeck 1979 Heubeck, A. ‘Schrift.’ ArchHom chap. X. Göttingen. Heubeck 1987 Heubeck, A. ‘ἀμύμων.’ Glotta 65: 37–44. Higbie 1990 Higbie, C. Measure and Music. Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad. Oxford. Higbie 1995 Higbie, C. Heroes’ Names, Homeric Identities. New York and London. Hijmans 1975 Hijmans, B. L. ‘Alexandros and His Grief.’ GB 3: 177–189. Hiller 1993 Hiller, S. ‘Lykien und Lykier bei Homer und in mykenischer Zeit.’ In J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch (eds.). Akten des II. internationalen Lykien-Symposions (Vienna, 6.–12. 5. 1990), vol. 1, pp. 107–115. Denkschriften der Österr. Akad. der Wiss. 231. Vienna. Hitch 2009 Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies 25. Washington, D. C. Höckmann 1980 Höckmann, O. ‘Lanze und Speer.’ In ArchHom chap. E 2 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 2: Angriffswaffen’), pp. 275–319. Göttingen. Hoekstra 1965 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. Hoekstra 1969 Hoekstra, A. The Sub-Epic Stage of the Formulaic Tradition: Studies in the Homeric Hymns to Apollo, to Aphrodite and to Demeter. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akad. van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, N. R. 75.2. Amsterdam and London. Hoekstra 1981 Hoekstra, A. Epic Verse Before Homer: Three Studies. Amsterdam etc. Hoffmann (1952/56) 1976 Hoffmann, K. ‘Zum prädikativen Adverb.’ In K. Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. by J. Narten, vol. 2, pp. 339–349. Wiesbaden. (First published in MSS 1 [1952/56] 42–53.)

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 201

Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I. M. Manners in the Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne Suppl. 63. Leiden. Holoka 1976 Holoka, J. P. ‘«Thick as Autumnal Leaves»  – The Structure and Generic Potentials of an Epic Simile.’ Milton Quarterly 10: 78–83. Hölscher 1939 Hölscher, U. Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee. Szenenwechsel und gleichzeitige Handlungen. Hermes Einzelschriften 6. Berlin. Hölscher 1955 Hölscher, U. ‘Rez. zu W. Schadewaldt, Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage2, Stuttgart 1951.’ Gnomon 27: 385–399. Hooker (1988) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘From Mycenae to Homer.’ In J. T. Hooker. Scripta Minora: Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek Subjects, ed. by F. Amory, P. Considine and S. Hooker, pp. 275–282. Amsterdam. (First published in Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster, ed. by J. H. Betts et al., vol. 2, pp. 57–64. Bristol 1988.) Hutchinson 1985 Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas / Seven Against Thebes. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by G. O. Hutchinson. Oxford. Huxley 1967 Huxley, G. ‘A Problem in the Kypria.’ GRBS 8: 25–27. Irmscher 1950 Irmscher, J. Götterzorn bei Homer. Leipzig. Jacquinod 1992 Jacquinod, B. ‘La liberté dans les poèmes homériques.’ In R. Sauter (ed.). Visages de liberté. Recherches lexicales et littéraires, pp. 17–27. Université Jean Monnet – Saint-Étienne, Trauvaux 79. Saint-Étienne. Jacquinod 1996 Jacquinod, B. ‘Homère Ζ 396 et l’attraction inverse.’ In D. Conso et al. (eds.). Mélanges François Kerlouégan, pp. 289–295. Paris. Jahn 1987 Jahn, Th. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele-Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83. Munich. Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur ZVS 21. Göttingen. Jeffery 1962 Jeffery, L. H. ‘Writing.’ In A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings (eds.). A Companion to Homer, pp. 545–559. London. Jensen 1999 Jensen, M. S. et al. ‘Dividing Homer: When and How were the Iliad and the Odyssey Divided into Songs?’ SO 74: 5–91. Jensen 2011 Jensen, M. S. Writing Homer: A Study Based on Results from Modern Fieldwork. Scientia Danica. Series H, Humanistica 8 vol. 4. Copenhagen. Johnson 2002 Johnson, W. A. ‘P. Hibeh II 193 (Iliad VI 4–7).’ ZPE 139: 1–2. Jones 1995 Jones, P. ‘Poetic Invention: The Fighting around Troy in the First Nine Years of the Trojan War.’ In Ø. Andersen and M. Dickie (eds.). Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality, pp. 101–111. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 3. Bergen and Athens. de Jong 1987 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Silent Characters in the Iliad.’ In J. M. Bremer, I. J. F. de Jong and J. Kalff (eds.). Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation, pp. 105–121. Amsterdam. de Jong 1987a Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘The Voice of Anonymity: tis-Speeches in the Iliad.’ Eranos 85: 69–84. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 258–273.) de Jong (1987) 2004 Jong, I. J. F. de. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987). 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.

202 

 Iliad 6

de Jong 2005

Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Convention versus Realism in the Homeric Epics.’ Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 58: 1–22. de Jong 2006 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘The Homeric Narrator and His Own kleos.’ Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 59: 188–207. de Jong 2007 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Homer.’ In de Jong/Nünlist 2007, pp. 17–37. de Jong 2009 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Metalepsis in Ancient Greek Literature.’ In J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos (eds.). Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature, pp. 87–115. Berlin and New York. de Jong 2012 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Double Deixis in Homeric Speech: On the Interpretation of ὅδε and οὗτος.’ In M. Meier-Brügger (ed.). Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon. Akten des Hamburger Kolloquiums vom 5.–8. Oktober 2010 zum Abschluß des Lexikons des frühgriechischen Epos, pp. 63–83. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, N. F. 21. Berlin and Boston. de Jong 2012a Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Space in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 3, pp. 21–38. Mnemosyne Suppl. 339. Leiden and Boston. de Jong/Nünlist 2004 Jong, I. J. F. de 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. de Jong/Nünlist 2007 Jong, I. J. F. de and R. Nünlist (eds.). Time in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 2. Mnemosyne Suppl. 291. Leiden and Boston. Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki. Kakridis (1937) 1949 Kakridis, J. Th. ‘Hectorea.’ In Kakridis 1949, pp. 43–64. (Original German version: ‘ Ἑκτόρεια.’ Hermes 72 [1937] 171–189.) Kakridis 1949 Kakridis, J. Th. Homeric Researches. Acta Reg. Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 45. Lund. Kakridis, J. Th. ‘Elements of Popular Style in Homer’s Poetry.’ In Kakridis Kakridis 1949a 1949, pp. 106–126. Kakridis (1956) 1971 Kakridis, J. Th. ‘Ἀεὶ φιλέλλην ὁ ποιητής?’ In Kakridis 1971, pp. 54–67. (Original, shorter version: ‘Homer, ein Philhellene?’ WS 69 [1956] 26–32.) Kakridis (1956a) 1971 Kakridis, J. Th. ‘The Rôle of the Woman in the Iliad.’ In Kakridis 1971, pp. 68–75. (First published in Eranos 54 [1956] 21–27.) Kakridis 1971 Kakridis, J. Th. Homer Revisited. Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund 64. Lund. Kauffmann/Szabados 2004 Kauffmann-Samaras, A. and A.-V. Szabados. ‘Rites et activités relatifs aux images de culte: vêtements, parures.’ In ThesCRA 2: 427–437. Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Kelly 2012 Kelly, A. ‘The Mourning of Thetis: «Allusion» and the Future in the Iliad.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, pp. 221–265. Kemmer 1903 Kemmer, E. Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur. Wurzburg. Kim 2000 Kim, J. The Pity of Achilles: Oral Style and the Unity of the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Kirk 1962 Kirk, G. S. The Songs of Homer. Cambridge.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Kitts 2005

 203

Kitts, M. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society: Oath-Making Rituals and Narratives in the Iliad. Cambridge etc. Klein 1988 Klein, J. S. ‘Homeric Greek αὖ: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Study.’ HSF 101: 249–288. Kloss 1994 Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgriechischen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen. Koechly 1859 Koechly, H. De Iliadis carminibus dissertatio VI. Zurich. Kölligan 2007 Kölligan, D. Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Münchner Forschungen zur hist. Sprachwiss. 6. Bremen. Korfmann 2002 Korfmann, M. ‘Ilios, ca. 1200 BC – Ilion, ca. 700 BC: Report on Findings from Archaeology.’ In Montanari 2002, pp. 209–225. Kotopoulos 1982 Kotopoulos, I. T. ‘Ἡ τυποποιημένη φράση «υἷε δύω …» καὶ ἡ λειτουργία της μέσα στὴν Ἰλιάδα.’ Dodone 11: 73–152. Krapp 1964 Krapp, H. J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich. Krauskopf 2001 Krauskopf, I. ‘Thysthla, Thyrsoi und Narthekophoroi. Anmerkungen zur Geschichte des dionysischen Kultstabes.’ Thetis 8: 47–52. Kretschmer 1948 Kretschmer, P. ‘Bellerophontes.’ Glotta 31: 92–103, 246–247. Krischer 1971 Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Munich. Krischer 1979 Krischer, T. ‘Zum Ζ der Ilias.’ GB 8: 9–22. Krischer 1997 Krischer, T. ‘Regularität und Komplexität im homerischen Epos.’ In F. Létoublon (ed.). Hommage à Milman Parry. Le style formulaire de l’épopée homérique et la théorie de l’oralité poétique, pp. 105–116. Amsterdam. Kühlmann 1973 Kühlmann, W. Katalog und Erzählung. Studien zu Konstanz und Wandel einer literarischen Form in der antiken Epik. Freiburg im Breisgau. 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 (1968) 2001 Kullmann, W. ‘Past and Future in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 385–408. (Original German version: ‘Vergangenheit und Zukunft in der Ilias.’ Poetica 2 [1968] 15–37; also in Kullmann 1992, pp. 219–242.) Kullmann 1992 Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R. J. Müller. Stuttgart. Kullmann 1999 Kullmann, W. ‘Homer and Historical Memory.’ In Mackay 1999, pp. 95–113. 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. by A. Rengakos, pp.  60–74. Stuttgart. (First published in J. N. Kazazis and A.  Rengakos (eds.). Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis, pp. 189–201. Stuttgart 1999.) Kullmann 2002 Kullmann, W. ‘Seduta di chiusura.’ In Montanari 2002, pp. 666–672. Kupke 1989 Kupke, B. ‘Lykiens Grenzen und Bevölkerung, Landschaft und Klima.’ In B. Kupke und F. Kolb (eds.). Lykien. Geschichte Lykiens im Altertum, pp. 2–8. Antike Welt 20, Sondernr. 2. Mainz. Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.11. Heidelberg.

204 

 Iliad 6

Lang 1975 Lang 1994 Lang 1995 Lardinois 1997

Lang, M. L. ‘Reason and Purpose in Homeric Prayers.’ CW 68: 309–314. Lang, M. L. ‘Lineage-Boasting and the Road not Taken.’ CQ 44: 1–6. Lang, M. L. ‘War Story into Wrath Story.’ In Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 149–162. 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 1866 La Roche, J. Die Homerische Textkritik im Alterthum. Leipzig. La Roche 1897 La Roche, J. ‘Die Stellung des attributiven und appositiven Adjectives bei Homer.’ WS 19: 161–188. Laser 1983 Laser, S. ‘Medizin und Körperpflege.’ ArchHom chap. S. Göttingen. Latacz 1966 Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.17. Heidelberg. Latacz 1969 Latacz, J. ‘Rez. zu A. Corlu, Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux tragiques, Paris 1966, und zu A. Citron, Semantische Untersuchung zu σπένδεσθαι – σπένδειν – εὔχεσθαι, Winterthur 1965.’ Gnomon 41: 347–353. Latacz 1977 Latacz, J. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Zetemata 66. Munich. 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 1985; Dusseldorf 31997.) Latacz (1987) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Frauengestalten Homers.’ In Latacz 1994, pp.  95–124. (First published in Humanistische Bildung 11 [1987] 43–71.) Latacz (1990) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Phönizier bei Homer.’ In Latacz 1994, pp. 125–135. (First published in U. Gehrig and H. G. Niemeyer [eds.]. Die Phönizier im Zeitalter Homers [Ausstellung Kestner-Museum Hannover, 14. 9.–25. 11. 1990], 11–21, 253. Mainz 1990.) Latacz 1991 Latacz, J. (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Rückblick und Ausblick. Coll. Raur. 2. Stuttgart and Leipzig. 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 with the collaboration of R. Thiel. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Latacz 1995 Latacz, J. Achilleus. Wandlungen eines europäischen Heldenbildes. Lectio Teubneriana 3. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1995. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp.  267– 346.) Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy an 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 etc. 42003 [Munich and Berlin 12001]; expanded German edition: Leipzig 62010.) Latacz 2002 Latacz, J. ‘Troia – Wilios – Wilusa. Drei Namen für ein Territorium.’ In R. Aslan et al. (eds.). Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, pp.  1103–1121. Remshalden-Grunbach. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 443–468.) 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

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Latacz 2008

Latacz 2013

Latacz 2014

Lateiner 1997 Lateiner 2004/05 Leaf 1923 Lehrs (1833) 1882 Le Meur 2009

Lendle 1995 Lesky (1961) 2001

Lesky 1967 Létoublon 1985 Létoublon 1992 Leukart 1986 Leukart 1994

Leumann 1950 Lewy 1895 Lilja 1972 Link 1994 Lohmann 1970

 205

Έπη (Contests and Rewards in the Homeric Epics). Από τα Πρακτικά του Ι’ Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια (15.–19.  9. 2004), pp.  87–100. Ithaka. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 347–358.) Latacz, J. ‘Die Ilias: Inhalt und Aufbau.’ In J. Latacz et al. (eds.). 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), pp. 114–138. Munich. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 191–235.) Latacz, J. ‘Epos-Metamorphosen.’ In B. Dunsch, A. Schmitt and Th. A. Schmitz (eds.). Epos, Lyrik, Drama. Genese und Ausformung der literarischen Gattungen. Festschrift für Ernst-Richard Schwinge zum 75. Geburtstag, pp. 55– 88. Heidelberg. 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, D. ‘Homeric Prayer.’ Arethusa 30: 241–272. Lateiner, D. ‘Proxemic and Chronemic in Homeric Epic: Time and Space in Heroic Social Interaction.’ CW 98: 413–421. Leaf, W. Strabo on the Troad: Book XIII, Chapter I. Ed. with Translation and Commentary. Cambridge. Lehrs, K. De Aristarchi studiis Homericis3. Leipzig (11833). Le Meur, N. ‘Les enfants dans l’Iliade.’ In M. Fartzoff et al. (eds.). Reconstruire Troie. Permanence et renaissances d’une cité emblématique, pp.  41–72. Besançon. Lendle, O. Kommentar zu Xenophons Anabasis. Darmstadt. Lesky, A. ‘Divine and Human Causation in Homeric Epic,’ transl. by L. Holford-Strevens. In Cairns 2001, pp.  170–202. (Abridged version of Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos. SHAW 1961.4. Heidelberg 1961.) Lesky, A. Homeros. Sonderausgaben der RE. Stuttgart. (Also in RE Suppl. 11 [1968] 687–846.) Létoublon, F. Il allait, pareil à la nuit. Les verbes de mouvement en grec: supplétisme et aspect verbal. Études et commentaires 98. Paris. Létoublon, F. (ed.). La langue et les textes en grec ancien. Actes du colloque Pierre Chantraine (Grenoble, 5.–8. 9. 1989). Amsterdam. Leukart, A. ‘Homerisch ἀτρύγετος.’ In A. Etter (ed.). o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, pp. 340–345. Berlin and New York. Leukart, A. Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und -ās. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den Nomina auf -eús). Mykenische Studien 12. Vienna. (Originally Diss. Zurich 1973.) Leumann, M. Homerische Wörter. Schweiz. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 3. Basel. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.) Lewy, H. Die semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen. Berlin. Lilja, S. The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 49. Helsinki. Link, S. ‘Temenos und ager publicus bei Homer?’ Historia 43: 241–245. Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York.

206 

 Iliad 6

Lohmann 1988

Lohmann, D. Die Andromache-Szenen der Ilias. Ansätze und Methoden der Homer-Interpretation. Spudasmata 42. Hildesheim etc. Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H. L. Homer and the Monuments. London. Lossau 1994 Lossau, M. ‘Retter-Licht (φόως, φάος) bei Homer und den Tragikern.’ Eranos 92: 85–92. Louden 1995 Louden, B. ‘Categories of Homeric Wordplay.’ TAPhA 125: 27–46. Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Lowenstam 1993 Lowenstam, S. The Scepter and the Spear. Studies on Forms of Repetition in the Homeric Poems. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham. Lowry 1995 Lowry, E. R. ‘Glaucus, the Leaves, and the Heroic Boast of Iliad 6.146–211.’ In Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 193–203. Lührs 1992 Lührs, D. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias und zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 11. Hildesheim etc. Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig. Lynn-George 1993 Lynn-George, M. ‘Aspects of the Epic Vocabulary of Vulnerability.’ ColbyQ 29: 197–221. Mackay 1999 Mackay, E. A. (ed.). Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and Its Influence in the Greek and Roman World. Mnemosyne Suppl. 188. Leiden etc. Mackie 1996 Mackie, H. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Macrakis 1984 Macrakis, A. L. ‘Comparative Economic Values in the Iliad: The Oxen-Worth.’ In Rigsby et al. 1984, pp. 211–215. Maehler 1963 Maehler, H. Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im frühen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars. Hypomnemata 3. Göttingen. Maftei 1976 Maftei, M. Antike Diskussionen über die Episode von Glaukos und Diomedes im VI. Buch der Ilias. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 74. Meisenheim am Glan. Mallory/Adams 2006 Mallory, J. P. and D. Q. Adams. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford. Malten 1944 Malten, L. ‘Homer und die lykischen Fürsten.’ Hermes 79: 1–12. Marg (1942) 1976 Marg, W. ‘Kampf und Tod in der Ilias.’ WJA 2: 7–19. (Original, shorter version in Die Antike 18 [1942] 167–179.) Marg (1957) 1971 Marg, W. Homer über die Dichtung. Der Schild des Achilleus2. Orbis Antiquus 11. Münster (11957). Marinatos 1967 Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung.’ ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen. Maronitis 1965 Maronitis, D. N. ‘Rez. zu Broccia 1963.’ Gnomon 37: 325–330. Maronitis (1990) 2004 Maronitis, D. N. ‘The Space of Homilia and Its Signs in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ In D. N. Maronitis. Homeric Megathemes: War-Homilia-Homecoming, transl. by D. Conolly, pp.  29–45. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. (Original Modern Greek version in Païzi-Apostolopoulou 1990, pp. 105–123.) Martin 1989 Martin, R. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Mason 1973 Mason, H. A. ‘An Episode in the Sixth Book of Homer’s Iliad.’ The Cambridge Quarterly 6: 143–150. Matthaios 1999 Matthaios, S. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre. Hypomnemata 126. Göttingen.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Mauritsch 1992

 207

Mauritsch, P. Sexualität im frühen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zu Norm und Abweichung in den homerischen Epen. Alltag und Kultur im Altertum 1. Vienna etc. 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. Mazon 1942 Mazon, P. Introduction à l’Iliade. With the collaboration of P. Chantraine, P. Collart and R. Langumier. Collection des universités de France. Paris. Meier 1976 Meier, M. ‘ Ἔχω und seine Bedeutung im Frühgriechischen.’ MH 33: 180– 181. Mellink 1995 Mellink, M. J. ‘Homer, Lycia, and Lukka.’ In Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 33–43. Merz 1953 Merz, F. Die Heldenbiographie als Stilmittel Homers. Zurich. Metz 1990 Metz, W. ‘Hektor als der homerischste aller homerischen Helden.’ Gymnasium 97: 385–404. van der Mije 2011 Mije, S. R. van der. ‘πείθειν φρένα(ς), πείθειν θυμόν  – A Note on Homeric Psychology.’ Mnemosyne 64: 447–454. Mikalson 1989 Mikalson, J. D. ‘Unanswered Prayers in Greek Tragedy.’ JHS 109: 81–98. Minchin 2007 Minchin, E. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford. Minchin 2012 Minchin, E. ‘Memory and Memories: Personal, Social, and Cultural Memory in the Poems of Homer.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, pp. 83–99. 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. Montanari 2002 Montanari, F. (ed.). Omero. Tremila anni dopo. Atti del congresso di Genova, 6.–8. 7. 2000. Storia e letteratura 210. Rome. Montanari et al. 2012 Montanari, F., A. Rengakos and Chr. Tsagalis (eds.). Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes 12. Berlin and Boston. Moreschini Quattordio 1974 Moreschini Quattordio, A. ‘Su alcune particolarità linguistiche del libro VI dell’Iliade.’ SCO 23: 31–53. Morris/Laffineur 2007 Morris, S. P. and R. Laffineur (eds.). Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference (Los Angeles, 20.–23. 4. 2006). Aegaeum 28. Liège. Morrison 1991 Morrison, J. V. ‘The Function and Context of Homeric Prayers: A Narrative Perspective.’ Hermes 119: 145–157. (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. Morrison 1999 Morrison, J. V. ‘Homeric Darkness: Patterns and Manipulation of Death Scenes in the Iliad.’ Hermes 127: 129–144. Mueller (1970) 1978 Mueller, M. ‘Knowledge and Delusion in the Iliad.’ In J. Wright (ed.). Essays on the Iliad, pp. 105–123. Bloomington. (First published in Mosaic 3.2 [1970] 86–103.) Muellner 1976 Muellner, L. Ch. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through its Formulas. Innsbr. Beitr. zur Sprachwiss. 13. Innsbruck. Müller 1974 Müller, D. Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 51. Meisenheim am Glan.

208 

 Iliad 6

Müller 1968

Müller, F. Darstellung und poetische Funktion der Gegenstände in der Odyssee. Marburg. Murnaghan 1999 Murnaghan, S. ‘The Poetics of Loss in Greek Epic.’ In M. Beissinger et al. (eds.). Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community, pp. 203–220. Berkeley etc. Nagy 2001 Nagy, G. (ed.). Greek Literature. Vol. 1: The Oral Traditional Background of Ancient Greek Literature. New York and London. Nagy 2012 Nagy, G. ‘Signs of Hero Cult in Homeric Poetry.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, pp. 27–71. Naiden 2006 Naiden, F. S. Ancient Supplication. Oxford. Naiden 2013 Naiden, F. S. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods. Oxford. Ndoye 2010 Ndoye, M. Groupes sociaux et idéologie du travail dans les mondes homérique et hésiodique. Besançon. Negri 2001 Negri, M. ‘Il commentario di Servio all’Eneide e l’esegesi greca di Omero. Osservazioni sul commento ad Aen. VI 288 ed Eustazio ad Il. VI 181.’ Eikasmos 12: 323–336. Nesselrath 1992 Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike. Stuttgart. Newton 2009 Newton, R. M. ‘Geras and Guest Gifts in Homer.’ In K. Myrsiades (ed.). Reading Homer: Film and Text, pp. 58–88. Madison. 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 Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.47. Heidelberg. Nünlist 1998 Nünlist, R. ‘Der Homerische Erzähler und das sogenannte Sukzessionsgesetz.’ MH 55: 2–8. Nünlist 2002 Nünlist, R. ‘Speech within Speech in Menander.’ In A. Willi (ed.). The Language of Greek Comedy, pp. 219–259. Oxford. Nünlist 2006 Nünlist, R. ‘A Neglected testimonium on the Homeric Book-Division.’ ZPE 157: 47–49. Nünlist 2007 Nünlist, R. ‘Pindar and Bacchylides.’ In de Jong/Nünlist 2007, pp. 233–251. Nünlist 2009 Nünlist, R. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge. Nünlist 2009a Nünlist, R. ‘The Motif of the Exiled Killer.’ In U. Dill and Chr. Walde (eds.). Antike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen. Fritz Graf zum 65. Geburtstag, pp. 628–644. Berlin and New York. Ormerod 1924 Ormerod, H. A. Piracy in the Ancient World: An Essay in Mediterranean History. Liverpool. Owen, E. T. The Story of the Iliad. London. Owen 1946 Pagani 2008 Pagani, L. ‘Il codice eroico e il guerriero di fronte alla morte.’ In L. Pagani (ed.). Eroi nell’Iliade. Personaggi e strutture narrative, pp. 327–418. Pleiadi 8. Rome. Page 1959 Page, D. L. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Païzi-Apostolopoulou 1990 Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M. (ed.). Ὁ Ὁμηρικὸς Οἶκος. Ἀπὸ τὰ Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Ε΄ Συνεδρίου γιὰ τὴν Ὀδύσσεια (11.–14. 9. 1987). Ithaka.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Palaima 1998

 209

Palaima, T. G. ‘Linear B and the Origins of Hellenic Religion: «di-wo-nu-so».’ In Die Geschichte der hellenischen Sprache und Schrift. Vom 2. zum 1.  Jahrtausend v. Chr.: Bruch oder Kontinuität? (Tagung Ohlstadt in Oberbayern, 3.–6. 10. 1996), pp. 205–224. Altenburg. Paraskevaides 1984 Paraskevaides, H. A. The Use of Synonyms in Homeric Formulaic Diction. Amsterdam. Parker 1998 Parker, R. ‘Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion.’ In C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford (eds.). Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, pp. 105–125. Oxford. Parker 1999 Parker, V. ‘Die Aktivitäten der Mykenäer in der Ostägäis im Lichte der Linear B Tafeln.’ In S. Deger-Jalkotzy, St. Hiller and O. Panagl (eds.). Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums (Salzburg, 1.–5. 5. 1995), vol. 2, pp. 495–502. Denkschriften der Österr. Akad. der Wiss. 247. Vienna. Parry (1928) 1971 Parry, M. ‘The Traditional Epithet in Homer.’ In M. Parry. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, ed. by A. Parry, pp. 1–190. New York and Oxford. (Reprint 1987; original French version: L’Épithète traditionnelle dans Homère. Essai sur un problème de style homérique. Paris 1928.) Patzek 1992 Patzek, B. Homer und Mykene. Mündliche Dichtung und Geschichtsschreibung. Munich. Patzek 1996 Patzek, B. ‘Homer und der Orient.’ In U. Magen and M. Rashad (eds.). Vom Halys zum Euphrat. Thomas Beran zu Ehren. Mit Beiträgen von Freunden und Schülern, pp. 215–225. Münster. Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wiss. Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geisteswiss. Reihe 12. Stuttgart. Payton 1991 Payton, R. ‘The Ulu Burun Writing-Board Set.’ AS 41: 99–106. Pedrick 1980 Pedrick, V. ‘Situational Observation’ in the Ransom Scenes of the Iliad: A Study in Techniques of Characterization. Diss. Cincinnati. Pedrick 1982 Pedrick, V. ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ TAPhA 112: 125–140. Pelliccia 2002 Pelliccia, H. ‘The Interpretation of Iliad 6.145–9 and the Sympotic Contribution to Rhetoric.’ ColbyQ 38: 197–230. Peppermüller 1961 Peppermüller, R. Die Bellerophontessage. Ihre Herkunft und Geschichte. Tübingen. Peppermüller 1962 Peppermüller, R. ‘Die Glaukos-Diomedes-Szene der Ilias. Spuren vorhomerischer Dichtung.’ WS 75: 5–21. Perceau 2002 Perceau, S. La parole vive. Communiquer en catalogue dans l’épopée homérique. Bibliothèque d’études classiques 30. Louvain etc. Perna 2007 Perna, M. ‘Homer and the «Folded Wooden Tablets».’ In Morris/Laffineur 2007, pp. 225–230 (+ pl. LVIII). Pernée 1988 Pernée, L. ‘Ἀρέσαι dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée.’ LEC 56: 67–72. Perry 1937 Perry, B. E. ‘The Early Greek Capacity for Viewing Things Separately.’ TAPhA 68: 403–427. Peters 1980 Peters, M. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. SAWW 377.8. Vienna. Petersmann 1981 Petersmann, H. ‘Homer und das Märchen.’ WS N. F. 15: 43–68.

210 

Petzl 1994

 Iliad 6

Petzl, G. (ed.). Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens. Epigraphica Anatolica 22. Bonn. Piccaluga 1980 Piccaluga, G. ‘Il Dialogo tra Diomedes e Glaukos (Hom. Il. VI 119–236).’ SSR 4: 237–258. Pirenne-Delforge 2005 Pirenne-Delforge, V. et al. ‘Personnel du culte: monde grec.’ In ThesCRA 5: 1–65. Pisani 1934 Pisani, V. ‘Διονυσιακά.’ SIFC 11: 217–226. Plath 1994 Plath, R. Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Erlanger Beitr. zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76. Nürnberg. Pomeroy 1975 Pomeroy, S. B. ‘Andromaque: un exemple méconnu de matriarcat.’ REG 88: 16–19. Powell 1991 Powell, B. B. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge etc. Powell 1997 Powell, B. B. ‘Homer and Writing.’ In Companion, pp. 3–32. Pratt 2007 Pratt, L. ‘The Parental Ethos of the Iliad.’ In A. Cohen et al. (eds.). Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy, pp. 25–40. Hesperia Suppl. 41. Princeton. Pratt 2009 Pratt, L. ‘Diomedes, the Fatherless Hero of the Iliad.’ In S. R. Hübner and D. M. Ratzan (eds.). Growing Up Fatherless in Antiquity, pp.  141–161. Cambridge. Priess 1977 Priess, K. A. Der mythologische Stoff in der Ilias. Mainz. Prinz 1979 Prinz, F. Gründungsmythen und Sagenchronologie. Zetemata 72. Munich. Pritchard (1950) 1969 Pritchard, J. B. (ed.). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament3. Princeton (11950). Pritchett 1991 Pritchett, W. K. The Greek State at War, vol. 5. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Privitera 1970 Privitera, G. A. Dioniso in Omero e nella poesia greca arcaica. Filologia e critica 6. Rome. Pulleyn 1997 Pulleyn, S. Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford. Purves 2011 Purves, A. C. ‘Homer and the Art of Overtaking.’ AJPh 132: 523–551. Quaglia 1959/60 Quaglia, L. ‘La figura di Ettore e l’etica dell’Iliade.’ AAT 94: 158–238. Raaflaub 1981 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Zum Freiheitsbegriff der Griechen. Materialien und Untersuchungen zur Bedeutungsentwicklung von ἐλεύθερος/ἐλευθερία in archaischer und klassischer Zeit.’ In E. C. Welskopf (ed.). Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, vol. 4, pp. 180–405. Berlin. Raaflaub 1991 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homer und die Geschichte des 8. Jh.s v. Chr.’ In Latacz 1991, pp. 205–256. Raaflaub 1993 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homer to Solon: The Rise of the Polis. The Written Sources.’ In M. H. Hansen (ed.). The Ancient Greek City-State: Symposium on the Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters (1.–4. 7. 1992), pp. 41–105. Copenhagen. Raaflaub 2008 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homeric Warriors and Battles: Trying to Resolve Old Problems.’ CW 101: 469–483. 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 Suppl. 74. Leiden.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 211

Radermacher (1938) 1943 Radermacher, L. Mythos und Sage bei den Griechen2. Brünn etc. (11938). Rangos 2009 Rangos, S. ‘The Story of a Simile: Hidden Evidence for Dionysus in Homer and Beyond.’ In E. Karamalengou and Eugenia Makrygianni (eds.). Ἀντιφίλησις. Studies on Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek Literature and Culture. In Honour of John-Theophanes A. Papademetriou, pp. 67–82. Stuttgart. Rank 1951 Rank, L. Ph. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus (Etymologizing and Related Phenomena in Homer). Assen. Reckford 1964 Reckford, K. J. ‘Helen in the Iliad.’ GRBS 5: 5–20. von Reden 1995 Reden, S. von. Exchange in Ancient Greece. London. 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. Reece 1999/2000 Reece, S. ‘Some Homeric Etymologies in the Light of Oral-Formulaic Theory.’ CW 93: 185–199. Reece 2009 Reece, S. Homer’s Winged Words: The Evolution of Early Greek Epic Diction in the Light of Oral Theory. Leiden and Boston. Reichel 1994 Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. ScriptOralia 62. Tübingen. Reinhardt 1961 Reinhardt, K. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, ed. by U. Hölscher. Göttingen. Rengakos 1993 Rengakos, A. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Einzelschriften 64. Stuttgart. Rengakos 1994 Rengakos, A. Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererklärung. Zetemata 92. Munich. Rengakos 1995 Rengakos, A. ‘Zeit und Gleichzeitigkeit in den homerischen Epen.’ A&A 41: 1–33. Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville. Richter 1968 Richter, W. ‘Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter. Mit einem Beitrag «Landwirtschaftliche Geräte» von W. Schiering.’ ArchHom chap. H. Göttingen. Rider (1916) 1964 Rider, B. C. Ancient Greek Houses: Their History and Development from the Neolithic Period to the Hellenistic Age. Argonaut Library of Antiquities. Chicago (Cambridge 11916). Rigsby et al. 1984 Rigsby, K. J. et al. (eds.). Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eigthieth Birthday. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs 10. Durham, N. C. Rijksbaron (1984) 2002 Rijksbaron, A. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek3. Amsterdam (11984). Rijksbaron et al. 1988 Rijksbaron, A., H. A. Mulder and G. C. Wakker (eds.). In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner (Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe, Amsterdam 1986). Amsterdam. Rijksbaron 1992 Rijksbaron, A. ‘D’où viennent les ἄλγεα? Quelques observations à propos d’ἄλγε’ ἔχειν chez Homère.’ In Létoublon 1992, pp. 181–191. Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2. Darmstadt (11976). Robert 1901 Robert, C. Studien zur Ilias. Berlin.

212 

 Iliad 6

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. Romano 1988 Romano, I. B. ‘Early Greek Cult Images and Cult Practices.’ In R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist (eds.). Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens (26.–29. 6. 1986), pp. 127–134. Acta Inst. Athen. Regni Sueciae. Series in 4o, 38. Stockholm. de Romilly 1997 Romilly, J. de. Hector. Paris. Roscher 1917 Roscher, W. H. Die Zahl 50 in Mythus, Kultus, Epos und Taktik der Hellenen und anderer Völker, besonders der Semiten. ASG 33.5. Leipzig. 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 Homeric «Mixed Aorists».’ Glotta 52 [1974] 1–10; chap. 4–5 as ‘Thematic SAorists in Homer.’ HSCPh 77 [1973] 181–186.) Rougier-Blanc 2002 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Maisons modestes et maisons de héros chez Homère. Matériaux et techniques.’ Pallas 58: 101–116. Rougier-Blanc 2005 Rougier-Blanc, S. Les Maisons Homériques. Vocabulaire architectural et sémantique du bâti. Études d’archéologie classique 13. Paris. Rudhardt (1958) 1992 Rudhardt, J. Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique2. Paris (Geneva 11958). Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C. J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen. Ruijgh (1971) 1991 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Rez. zu DELG Bd. 2.’ In C. J. Ruijgh. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 1, ed. by J. M. Bremer, A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders, pp.  591–602. Amsterdam. (First published in Lingua 28 [1971] 162–173.) 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 [1981] 272–287.) Ruijgh (1991) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘À propos du pronom ἵ (Soph. fr. 471 Radt).’ In Ruijgh 1996, pp. 335–352. (First published in H. Hofmann and A. Harder [eds.]. Fragmenta dramatica. Beiträge zur Interpretation der griechischen Tragikerfragmente und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, pp. 61–78. Göttingen 1991.) Ruijgh (1992) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘L’emploi le plus ancien et les emplois plus récents de la particule κε / ἄν.’ In Ruijgh 1996, pp. 677–686. (First published in Létoublon 1992, pp. 75–84.) Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Sakellariou 1968 Sakellariou, M. B. ‘Ἐφύρη μυχῷ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο.’ In Atti e memorie del 1° congresso internazionale di micenologia (Rome, 27. 9.–3. 10. 1967), vol. 2, pp. 901–907. Incunabula Graeca 25.2. Rome. Sammons 2009 Sammons, B. ‘Agamemnon and His Audiences.’ GRBS 49: 159–185. Sammons 2010 Sammons, B. The Art and Rhetoric of the Homeric Catalogue. Oxford. Saunders 2003 Saunders, K. B. Appendix to Friedrich (1956) 2003, pp. 131–167. Sauzeau 2004 Sauzeau, P. ‘Pourquoi Argos nourrit-elle des cavales?’ Pallas 64: 129–143. Schadewaldt (1935) 1997 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hector and Andromache.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, pp. 124–142. (Original German version: ‘Hektor und Andromache.’ Die Antike 11 [1935] 159–170; reprint in: W. Schadewaldt. Von Homers Welt und Werk.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 213

Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage4, pp. 207–233, 457  f. Stuttgart 1965; and in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 27–46.) Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938; reprint Darmstadt 1987). Schadewaldt (1956) 1970 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hektor in der Ilias.’ In W. Schadewaldt. Hellas und Hesperien. Gesammelte Schriften zur Antike und zur neueren Literatur in zwei Bänden, ed. by R. Thurow and E. Zinn, vol. 1: Zur Antike2, pp. 21–38. Zurich and Stuttgart. (First published in WS 69 [1956] [=  Festschrift Albin Lesky] 5–25.) Schadewaldt 1975 Schadewaldt, W. Homer Ilias. Neue Übertragung von W. Schadewaldt. Mit zwölf antiken Vasenbildern. Insel taschenbuch 153. Frankfurt am Main. (Reprint with an introduction by J. Latacz: Dusseldorf and Zurich 2002.) Scheid-Tissinier 1994 Scheid-Tissinier, E. Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pratiques. Nancy. Schein 1984 Schein, S. L. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. Berkeley etc. Schirmer 2002 Schirmer, W. ‘Stadt, Palast, Tempel. Charakteristika hethitischer Architektur im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.’ In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter (Katalog zur Ausstellung in Bonn, 18. 1.–28. 4. 2002), pp. 204–217. Stuttgart and Bonn. Schmidt 1976 Schmidt, M. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias. Zetemata 62. Munich. Schmidt 2004 Schmidt, M. ‘Rez. zu: Homers Ilias. Gesamtkommentar, hrsg. von J.  Latacz (Prolegomena u. Bd. I–II).’ GGA 256: 1–22. Schmidt 1968 Schmidt, V. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas. Mit einem kritischexegetischen Anhang. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 1. Berlin. 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. Schmitz 1963 Schmitz, A. ‘La polarité des contraires dans la rencontre d’Hector et Andromaque (Iliade, VI, 369–502).’ LEC 31: 129–158. 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. Schouler 1980 Schouler, B. ‘Dépasser le père.’ REG 93: 1–24. Schulze 1892 Schulze, W. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh. Schwartz 2009 Schwartz, A. Reinstating the Hoplite. Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece. Historia Einzelschriften 207. Stuttgart. Schwyzer (1931) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Drei griechische Wörter.’ In Schwyzer 1983, pp.  668–676. (First published in RhM 80 [1931] 209–217.) Schwyzer (1939) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Die Parenthese im engern und im weitern Sinne.’ In Schwyzer 1983, pp. 80–123. (First published in APAW 1939.) Schwyzer 1983 Schwyzer, E. Kleine Schriften, ed. by R. Schmitt. Innsbr. Beitr. zur Sprachwiss. 45. Innsbruck.

214 

 Iliad 6

Scodel 1992 Scodel 1992a

Scodel, R. ‘The Wits of Glaucus.’ TAPhA 122: 73–84. Scodel, R. ‘Inscription, Absence and Memory: Epic and Early Epitaph.’ SIFC 10: 57–76. Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimilitude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beitr. zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Scodel 2002 Scodel, R. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor. Scodel 2008 Scodel, R. Epic Facework. Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. Swansea. Scott 1974 Scott, W. C. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Mnemosyne Suppl. 28. Leiden. Scully 1990 Scully, S. Homer and the Sacred City. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Seaford 1994 Seaford, R. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing CityState. Oxford. Seeher 2002 Seeher, J. ‘Großkönigliche Residenz  – Mittelpunkt staatlichen Lebens. Die Palastanlage in der hethitischen Hauptstadt Ḫattusa.’ In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter (Katalog zur Ausstellung in Bonn, 18. 1.–28. 4. 2002), pp. 94–99. Stuttgart and Bonn. Segal 1971 Segal, Ch. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad. Mnemosyne Suppl. 17. Leiden. Segal 1971a Segal, Ch. ‘Andromache’s Anagnorisis: Formulaic Artistry in Iliad 22.437– 476.’ HSCPh 75: 33–57. Shear 1998 Shear, I. M. ‘Bellerophon Tablets from the Mycenaean World? A Tale of Seven Bronze Hinges.’ JHS 118: 187–189. Shear 2000 Shear, I. M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and Athens. Shelmerdine 1995 Shelmerdine, C. W. ‘Shining and Fragrant Cloth in Homeric Epic.’ In Carter/ Morris 1995, pp. 99–107. Sherratt (1990) 1992 Sherratt, E. S. ‘«Reading the Texts»: Archaeology and the Homeric Question.’ In C. Emlyn-Jones, L. Hardwick and J. Purkis (eds.). Homer: Readings and Images, pp.  145–165. London. (First published in Antiquity 64 [1990] 807–824; also in Nagy 2001, pp. 139–156.) Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993 Sicking, C. M. J. and J. M. van Ophuijsen. Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage: Lysias and Plato. Mnemosyne Suppl. 129. Leiden etc. Sider (1996) 2001 Sider, D. ‘«As Is the Generation of Leaves» in Homer, Simonides, Horace, and Stobaeus.’ In D. Boedeker and D. Sider (eds.). The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire, pp.  272–288. Oxford. (Original version in Arethusa 29 [1996] 263–282.) Slatkin 1991 Slatkin, L. M. The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad. Berkeley etc. Slings 1992 Slings, S. R. ‘Written and Spoken Language: An Exercise in the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence.’ CPh 87: 95–109. Slings 1994 Slings, S. R. ‘Een tandje lager. Aanzetten voor een orale grammatica van Homerus.’ Lampas 27: 411–427. Slotty 1927 Slotty, F. ‘Die Stellung des Griechischen und anderer idg. Sprachen zu dem soziativen und affektischen Gebrauch des Plurals der ersten Person.’ IF 45: 348–363.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Smith 1981

 215

Smith, P. M. ‘Aineiadai as Patrons of Iliad XX and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’ HSCPh 85: 17–58. Snell (1939) 1999 Snell, B. ‘Homer’s View of Man.’ In de Jong 1999, vol. 2, pp. 241–259 (original German version: ‘Die Sprache Homers als Ausdruck seiner Gedankenwelt.’ NJAB 2 [1939] 393–410; revised version reproduced as ‘Die Auffassung des Menschen bei Homer.’ In B. Snell. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen4, pp. 13–29. Göttingen 1975; English version first published in B. Snell. The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought, transl. by T. G. Rosenmeyer, pp. 1–22. Oxford 1953.) Snell 1978 Snell, B. Der Weg zum Denken und zur Wahrheit. Studien zur frühgriechischen Sprache. Hypomnemata 57. Göttingen. Solta 1990 Solta, G. R. ‘Rez. zu L. A. Gindin, Drevnejšaja onomastika Vostočnyh Balkan (frako-hetto-luvijskie i frako-maloazijskie izoglossy), Sofia 1981.’ Kratylos 35: 113–124. Sommer 1977 Sommer, F. ‘ὀρέγειν.’ In F. Sommer. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B. Forssman, pp. 107–146. MSS Beiheft 1. Munich. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period. Oxford. Spieker 1958 Spieker, R. Die Nachrufe in der Ilias. Münster. 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. Stoevesandt 2004 Stoevesandt, M. Feinde – Gegner – Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den Kampfszenen der Ilias. Schweizerische Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 30. Basel. Stoevesandt 2014 Stoevesandt, M. ‘Rez. zu Collobert 2011.’ Gnomon 86: 1–5. Strasburger 1954 Strasburger, G. Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias. Frankfurt am Main. Strömberg 1961 Strömberg, R. ‘Die Bellerophontes-Erzählung in der Ilias.’ C&M 22: 1–15. Strunk 1988 Strunk, K. ‘Zur diachronischen Morphosyntax des Konjunktivs.’ In Rijksbaron et al. 1988, pp. 291–312. Sullivan 1988 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrên. Ottawa. Susanetti 1999 Susanetti, D. ‘Foglie caduche e fragili genealogie.’ Prometheus 25: 97–116. Symington 1991 Symington, D. ‘Late Bronze Age Writing-Boards and their Uses: Textual Evidence from Anatolia and Syria.’ Anatolian Studies 41: 111–123. Szemerényi 1965 Szemerényi, O. ‘Etyma Graeca I.’ Die Sprache 11: 5–24. Tabachovitz 1951 Tabachovitz, D. Homerische εἰ-Sätze. Eine sprachpsychologische Studie. Acta instituti Atheniensis regni Sueciae. Series in 8o, 3. Lund. Taillardat 1982 Taillardat, J. ‘Φιλότης, πίστις et foedus.’ REG 95: 1–14. Taplin (1980) 2001 Taplin, O. ‘The Shield of Achilles within the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 342– 364. (First published in G&R 27 [1980] 1–21; also in J. Latacz [ed.]. Homer. Die Dichtung und ihre Deutung, pp. 227–253. Wege der Forschung 634. Darmstadt 1991; and in I. McAuslan and P. Walcot [eds.]. Homer, pp. 96–115. G&R Studies 4. Oxford 1998; and in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 179–200.) Taplin 1986 Taplin, O. ‘Homer’s Use of Achilles’ Earlier Campaigns in the Iliad.’ In J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson (eds.). Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios (1984), pp. 15–19. Oxford. Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford.

216 

 Iliad 6

Tatum 2003

Tatum, J. The Mourner’s Song: War and Remembrance from the Iliad to Vietnam. Chicago and London. Teodorsson 2006 Teodorsson, S.-T. ‘Eastern Literacy, Greek Alphabet, and Homer.’ Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 59: 161–187. Thornton 1984 Thornton, A. Homer’s Iliad: Its Composition and the Motif of Supplication. Hypomnemata 81. Göttingen. Tichy 1983 Tichy, E. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. SAWW 409. Vienna. Trachsel 2007 Trachsel, A. La Troade: Un paysage et son héritage littéraire. Les commentaires antiques sur la Troade, leur genèse et leur influence. Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 28. Rome and Basel. Traill 1989 Traill, D. A. ‘Gold Armor for Bronze and Homer’s Use of Compensatory τιμή.’ CPh 84: 301–305. Treu (1955) 1968 Treu, M. Von Homer zur Lyrik. Wandlungen des griechischen Weltbildes im Spiegel der Sprache2. Zetemata 12. Munich (11955). Tronci 2000 Tronci, L. ‘Eredità indoeuropea e innovazione nel greco omerico: l’elemento -ι° come ‘marca’ caratterizzante di primi membri di composto.’ SSL 38: 275– 311. Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel. Trypanis 1963 Trypanis, C. A. ‘Brothers Fighting together in the Iliad.’ RhM N. F. 106: 289–297. Tsagalis 2004 Tsagalis, Chr. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 70. Berlin and New York. Tsagalis 2008 Tsagalis, Chr. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics. Hellenic Studies 29. Washington, D. C. Tsagalis 2010 Tsagalis, Chr. ‘Epic Space Revisited: Narrative and Intertext in the Episode between Diomedes and Glaucus (Il. 6.119–236).’ In Ph. Mitsis and Chr. Tsagalis (eds.). Allusion, Authority, and Truth: Critical Perspectives on Greek Poetic and Rhetorical Praxis, pp. 87–113. Trends in Classics Suppl. 7. Berlin and New York. Tsagalis 2012 Tsagalis, Chr. From Listeners to Viewers: Space in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies 53. Washington, D. C. Tsagarakis 1977 Tsagarakis, O. Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in Homer. Amsterdam. Tsagarakis 1990 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Das Untypische bei Homer und literarische Komposition.’ In W. Kullmann and M. Reichel (eds.). Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, pp. 111–124. ScriptOralia 30. Tübingen. Tucker 1990 Tucker, E. F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen. Tzamali 1996 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. Tzannetatos 1960/61 Tzannetatos, Th. S. ‘ἤνις ἠκέστας.’ EEAth 11: 455–466. Usener 1990 Usener, K. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis der Odyssee zur Ilias. ScriptOralia 21. Tübingen.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

Vagnone 1982

 217

Vagnone, G. ‘Aspetti formulari in Stesicoro, Pap. Lille 76 a b c: il desiderio di morte.’ QUCC N. S. 12: 35–42. van der Valk 1949 Valk, M. van der. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey. Leiden. van der Valk 1963 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 1. Leiden. Van Nortwick 2001 Van Nortwick, T. ‘Like a Woman: Hector and the Boundaries of Masculinity.’ Arethusa 34: 221–235. Vendryès 1904 Vendryès, J. Traité d’accentuation grecque. Nouvelle collection à l’usage des classes 27. Paris. Vermeule 1974 Vermeule, E. T. ‘Götterkult.’ ArchHom chap. V. Göttingen. Vine 1988 Vine, B. ‘Greek ἕπω and Indo-European *sep-.’ IF 93: 52–61. Viredaz 2000 Viredaz, R. ‘k‘erb, jerb, χερσί.’ HSF 113: 290–307. Visser 1987 Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Europäische Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main. Visser 1988 Visser, E. ‘Formulae or Single Words? Towards a New Theory on Homeric Verse-Making.’ WJA 14: 21–37. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 1, pp. 364–381.) Visser 1997 Visser, E. Homers Katalog der Schiffe. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 4. Basel. Waanders 2000 Waanders, F. M. J. ‘Πέλομαι: To be or … to become?’ ZAnt 50: 257–272. Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wachter 2006 Wachter, R. ‘Die griechische Sprache.’ In Gemoll. Griechisch-deutsches Schulund Handwörterbuch10, pp. IV–XIX. Vienna. Wackernagel (1878) 1979 Wackernagel, J. ‘Die epische Zerdehnung.’ In Wackernagel 1979, pp. 1512–1565. (First published in Beiträge zur Kunde der indogerm. Sprachen 4 [1878] 259–312.) Wackernagel (1891) 1979 Wackernagel, J. ‘Rez. zu: Homeri Ilias. Scholarum in usum ed. P. Cauer. Pars I; carm. I–XII, Leipzig 1890.’ In Wackernagel 1979, pp. 1566–1584. (First published in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 11 [1891] 5–9, 37–43.) Wackernagel (1914) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Akzentstudien III. Zum homerischen Akzent.’ In J. Wackernagel. Kleine Schriften, ed. by the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, vol. 2, pp. 1154–1187. Göttingen. (First published in Gött. Nachr. 21 [1914] 97–130.) Wackernagel (1920/24) 2009 Wackernagel, J. Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Edited with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford. (German original: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Erste Reihe: Basel 11920, 21926; Zweite Reihe: Basel 11924, 21928.) Wackernagel 1979 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, ed. B. Forssman on behalf of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Göttingen. Wagner-Hasel 2000 Wagner-Hasel, B. Der Stoff der Gaben. Kultur und Politik des Schenkens und Tauschens im archaischen Griechenland. Campus Historische Studien 28. Frankfurt and New York. Wakker 1988 Wakker, G. C. ‘Purpose Expressions in Homeric Greek.’ In Rijksbaron et al. 1988, pp. 327–344. Wakker 1994 Wakker, G. C. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam.

218 

 Iliad 6

Walcot 1969 Walcot 1970

Walcot, P. ‘χρύσεα χαλκείων: A Further Comment.’ CR N. S. 19: 12–13. Walcot, P. Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern: A Comparison of Social and Moral Values. Manchester. Waltz 1933 Waltz, P. ‘L’exagération numérique dans l’Iliade et dans l’Odyssée.’ REHom 3: 3–38. Wathelet 1991 Wathelet, P. ‘Dionysos chez Homère ou la folie divine.’ Kernos 4: 61–82. 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 Wees, H. van. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam. van Wees 1994 Wees, H. van. ‘The Homeric Way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx.’ G&R 41: 1–18, 131–155. van Wees 1996 Wees, H. van. ‘Heroes, Knights and Nutters: Warrior Mentality in Homer.’ In A. B. Lloyd (ed.). Battle in Antiquity, pp. 1–86. London. van Wees 1997 Wees, H. van. ‘Homeric Warfare.’ In Companion, pp. 668–693. van Wees 2005 Wees, H. van. ‘Clothes, Class and Gender in Homer.’ In D. Cairns (ed.). Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds, pp. 1–36. Swansea. van Wees 2006 Wees, H. van. ‘From Kings to Demigods: Epic Heroes and Social Change c. 750–600 BC.’ In S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S. Lemos (eds.). Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, pp.  363–379. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh. Welcker (1849) 1882 Welcker, F. G. Der epische Cyclus oder die Homerischen Dichter. Part 2: Die Gedichte nach Inhalt und Composition2. Bonn (11849). Werner 1948 Werner, R. η und ει vor Vokal bei Homer. Freiburg im Üechtland. West 1965 West, M. L. ‘Haplology.’ CR N. S. 15: 139–142. West (1983) 1990 West, M. L. ‘The Lycurgus Trilogy.’ In M. L. West. Studies in Aeschylus, pp. 26– 50. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 1. Stuttgart. (Earlier, shorter version in BICS 30 [1983] 63–71, 81–82.) West 1985 West, M. L. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Origins. Oxford. West 1988 West, M. L. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic.’ JHS 108: 151–172. (Also in Nagy 2001, pp. 191–212; West 2011a, pp. 35–73.) West 1997 West, M. L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 1997a West, M. L. ‘Homer’s Meter.’ In Companion, pp. 218–237. 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. ‘Some Homeric Words.’ Glotta 77: 118–135. West 2001b West, M. L. ‘Atreus and Attarissiyas.’ Glotta 77: 262–266. West 2002 West, M. L. ‘«Eumelos»: A Corinthian Epic Cycle?’ JHS 122: 109–133. (Also in West 2011a, pp. 353–391.) West 2004 West, M. L. ‘An Indo-European Stylistic Feature in Homer.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 33–49. West 2007 West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

West 2011

 219

West, M. L. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary. Oxford. West 2011a West, M. L. Hellenica: Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought. Vol. I: Epic. Oxford. West 2013 West, M. L. The Epic Cycle: A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford. West 1967 West, S. The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer. Papyrologica Coloniensia 3. Cologne and Opladen. Whallon 1969 Whallon, W. Formula, Character, and Context: Studies in Homeric, Old English, and Old Testament Poetry. Publications of the Center for Hellenic Studies. Cambridge, Mass. White 1982 White, J. A. ‘Bellerophon in the «Land of Nod»: Some Notes on Iliad 6.153– 211.’ AJPh 103: 119–127. Wickert-Micknat 1982 Wickert-Micknat, G. ‘Die Frau.’ ArchHom chap. R. Göttingen. Wickert-Micknat 1983 Wickert-Micknat, G. Unfreiheit im Zeitalter der homerischen Epen. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 16. Wiesbaden. Wiesner 1968 Wiesner, J. ‘Fahren und Reiten.’ ArchHom chap. F. Göttingen. Wilamowitz 1916 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin. Willcock 1956/57 Willcock, M. M. ‘Β 356, Ζ 326 and Α 404.’ PCPhS 184: 23–26. Willcock (1964) 2001 Willcock, M. M. ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 435–455. (First published in CQ 14 [1964] 141–154; also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 385–402.) Willcock 1977 Willcock, M. M. ‘Ad hoc Invention in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 81: 41–53. Willcock 1992 Willcock, M. M. ‘Nervous Hesitation in the Iliad.’ In J. Pinsent and H. V. Hurt (eds.). Homer 1987: Papers of the Third Greenbank Colloquium (April 1987), pp. 65–73. Liverpool Classical Papers 2. Liverpool. Willcock 2004 Willcock, M. M. ‘Traditional Epithets.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 51–62. Wille 2001 Wille, G. Akroasis. Der akustische Sinnesbereich in der griechischen Literatur bis zum Ende der klassischen Zeit. Tübinger phänomenologische Bibliothek. Tübingen. (2 vols.; 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. Winter 1995 Winter, I. J. ‘Homer’s Phoenicians: History, Ethnography, or Literary Trope? [A Perspective on Early Orientalism].’ In Carter/Morris 1995, pp. 247–271. Wißmann 1997 Wißmann, J. Motivation und Schmähung. Feigheit in der Ilias und in der griechischen Tragödie. Drama Beiheft 7. Stuttgart. Wolf (1795) 1985 Wolf, F. A. Prolegomena to Homer, transl. with Introduction and Notes by A. Grafton, G. W. Most, and J. E. G. Zetzel. Princeton. (Latin original: Prolegomena ad Homerum sive de operum Homericorum prisca et genuina forma variisque mutationibus et probabili ratione emendandi. Halle 1795.) 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 1999 Woronoff, M. ‘Pouvoir et divination dans l’Iliade.’ In É. Smadja and É. Geny (eds.). Pouvoir, divination, prédestination dans le monde antique, pp. 175–183. Paris.

220 

 Iliad 6

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. Yamagata 1990 Yamagata, N. ‘αἴσιμα παρειπών: A Moral Judgement by the Poet?’ PP 45: 420–430. Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Suppl. 131. Leiden etc. Zajko 2006 Zajko, V. ‘Hector and Andromache: Identification and Appropriation.’ In C. Martindale and R. F. Thomas (eds.). Classics and the Uses of Reception, pp. 80–91. Malden, Mass. etc. Zanker 1994 Zanker, G. The Heart of Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Zarker (1965) 1987 Zarker, J. W. ‘King Eëtion and Thebe as Symbols in the Iliad.’ In K. Atchity et al. (eds.). Critical Essays on Homer, pp. 146–152. Boston. (First published in CJ 61 [1965] 110–114.) Zink 1962 Zink, N. Griechische Ausdrucksweisen für warm und kalt im seelischen Bereich. Heidelberg.