Homer’s Iliad: Book VII Homer’s Iliad 9783110687941, 9783110687637

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 VII By Katharina Wesselmann

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 978-3-11-068763-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-068794-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-068795-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022949785 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Contents Preface VII Notes for the Reader

IX

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 9 Overview of the Action in Book 7 11 Commentary 211 Bibliographic Abbreviations

1

Preface Book 7 of the Iliad has never received sufficient scholarly attention. In this commentary, I hope to demonstrate that the two main sections of the Book – the duel between Hektor and Aias, and the construction of a wall around the encampment of the Greeks – fulfill crucial structural functions within the Iliad: the war moves beyond all negotiation and becomes detached from its original cause, Helen. Like the preceding volumes of the Basel Commentary, this one is based on the Greek text of the edition of the Iliad by Martin L. West (Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 1998/2000).

*

My research and publication of this commentary was faciliated by help and support from a variety of sources: First, I thank my colleagues Marina Coray, Martha Krieter, Magdalene Stoevesandt and Claude Brügger, who introduced me to the project, provided an immeasurable amount of advice about writing a commentary, and followed my work from the beginning. In addition, I am grateful to Joachim Latacz and Anton Bierl, who as series editors provided numerous suggestions that aided in the completion of the volume. I am also indebted to our international team of experts for their valuable suggestions and corrections: Rudolf Führer, Martin Guggisberg, Irene de Jong, Sebastiaan van der Mije, René Nünlist, Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg and Rudolf Wachter, as well as Martin West (†), who was able to read only the first half of the book. Since the present volume was submitted to the University of Basel as my Habilitationsschrift, I have been further able to benefit from the comments of the external examiners, Barbara Graziosi and Adrian Kelly. At this point, I would also like to express my gratitude to the long-standing sponsors of the project for their generous support: the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung and the Hamburger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur, as well as the University of Basel, which further supported my work with a contribution from their research fund. I thank the staff at the Classical Studies Library and at the Basel University Library for ready assistance with access to specialist publications in Homeric studies, the publishers Walter de Gruyter, and in particular Torben Behm, Katharina Legutke and Serena Pirrotta, for their support during the publication process and help with the English edition. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110687941-203

VIII

Iliad 7

For the present English edition, a very special thanks goes to the translators Benjamin W. Millis and Sara Strack, as well as S. Douglas Olson, the general editor of the English edition, for their excellent and diligent work. Not only have they created a wonderful translation of my text, but also carefully corrected omissions and errors which had been overlooked. I would also like to thank Matthew Ward, who send me an embarrassingly long list of ommissions in my bibliography that he very kindly did not mention in his review of the German edition. The English edition would not have been possible without the generous financial backing by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft, and the L. & Th. La Roche Stiftung. Kiel, September 2022

Katharina Wesselmann

Notes for the Reader 1.

In the commentary, four 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) Specific information on particular sub-fields of Homeric scholarship is set in small type. d) The ‘elementary section’, designed to facilitate an initial approach to the text especially for school and university students, appears beneath a dividing line at the foot of the page. The elementary section discusses Homeric word forms in particular, as well as prosody and meter. It is based on the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’, to which reference is made with the abbreviation ‘R’. Particularly frequent phenomena (e.g. the lack of an augment) are not noted throughout but are instead recalled ca. every 50 verses. — Information relating to Homeric vocabulary is largely omitted; for this, the reader is referred to the specialized dictionaries of Cunliffe and Autenrieth/Kaegi. Complex issues are addressed in the elementary section as well as the main commentary: they are briefly summarized in the elementary section and discussed in greater detail in the main commentary. Such passages are marked in the elementary section with an arrow (↑). In contrast, references of the type ‘cf. 73n.’ in the elementary section refer to notes within the elementary section itself, never to the main commentary.

2.

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

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110687941-204

X

Iliad 7

xxxP

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

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

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

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

7.

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

Notes for the Reader

8.

Abbreviations (a) Bibliographic abbreviations For the bibliographic abbreviations, see below pp. 211–213 (b) Primary literature (on the editions used, see below pp. 213 f.) Aesch. Aeschylus (Ag. = Agamemnon; Sept. = Septem contra Thebas) Anth. Pal. Anthologia Palatina Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius (Argon. = Argonautica) Arr. Arrian (Tact. = Tactica) Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the ‘Epic Cycle’) Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Eur. Euripides (I.T. = Iphigenia among the Taurians) 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 fort he Homeric hymns h.Ap., Individual Homeric hymns: ton Apollo, h.Bacch., – to Bacchus/Dionysos, h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter, h.Merc., – to Mercurius/Hermes und h.Ven. – to Venus/Aphrodite Il. Iliad Il. Pers. Iliou Persis, ‘Sack of Troy’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Od. Odyssey Oidip. Oidipodeia Paus. Pausanias Pind. Pindar (Nem., Pyth. = ‘Nemean, Pythian Odes’ [Victory Odes]) Procl. Proclus (see above s.v. Chrest.) Quint. Smyrn. Quintus Smyrnaeus schol. scholion, scholia schol. A (etc.) scholion in ms. A (etc.) Stat. Statius (Theb. = Thebais) Titan. Titanomachia (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Xen. Xenophon (Mem. = Memorabilia)

XI

XII

Iliad 7

(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 impf. imperfect Introd. Introduction loc. locative ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts n. note* sc. scilicet subjunc. subjunctive s. v., s.vv. sub voce, sub vocibus t.t. terminus technicus VB verse-beginning VE verse-end VH verse-half v.l., vv.ll. varia lectio, variae lectiones (i.e. ‘variant reading(s)’) voc. vocative

* ‘14n.’ refers to the commentary on verse 14 in the present volume, whereas 1.162n. refers to the commentary on verse 162 in Book 1. – ‘In 19.126 (see ad loc.)’ and ‘cf. 24.229 ff. (see ad locc.)’ refer primarily to the relevant passages in the Homeric text, secondarily to one or more commentary entries relating to the relevant passages. (In the first example, the commentary entry can be found under 19.126–127, in the second, relevant information can be found under 24.229–234 and 24.229–231.)

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 R3

R4 4.1

4.2

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). 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]). 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).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110687941-001

5–8

39 f.

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 7

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]: χρυσέῳ ͜ ἀνὰ σκήπτρῳ); metrical caesura or more generally a semantic break; after words ending in -ι and ‘small words’ such as πρό and ὅ.

22 21 24 26

30/ 37

33

31

34 35

36 37

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]).

43– 45

R7

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

46

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)

3

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).

48

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

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

17 18

49 f.

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

11.2

11.3

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

68

69

70– 76

4

11.4

R 12 12.1 12.2 12.3

12.4 12.5

Iliad 7

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

14.2

14.3

14.4

14.5

R 15

15.1 15.2 15.3 R 16 16.1

16.2

16.3

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)

5

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

84

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

66

For verbs, the following points deserve particular attention: Augment: frequently absent (which can lead to assimilation, e.g. ἔμβαλε rather than ἐνέβαλε, κάλλιπον rather than κατέλιπον, cf. R 20.1); used to fit the meter. Personal endings: 2nd sing. -σθα (1.554: ἐθέλῃσθα) 1st pl. mid. -μεσθα beside -μεθα (1.140: μεταφρασόμεσθα) 3rd pl. mid. (predominantly perf.) -ᾰται/-ᾰτο beside -νται/-ντο (1.239: εἰρύαται) 3rd pl. -ν (with preceding short vowel) beside -σαν (with corresponding long vowel), esp. aor. pass. -θεν beside -θησαν (1.57: ἤγερθεν) The difference from Attic forms frequently lies merely in the omission of contraction (cf. R 6) between verbal stem and ending. Subjunctive: frequently with a short vowel in the case of athematic stems (ἴομεν from εἶμι, εἴδομεν from οἶδα); formed like the fut. ind. in the case of σ-aorists (1.80: χώσεται). – In the 3rd sing. subjunc., the ending -ησι(ν) (1.408: ἐθέλησιν) is found beside -ῃ.

83

82 83

85

86/ 93

89

6 16.4

16.5 16.6

Iliad 7

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.

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

98

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 24.1

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.

24.2

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 7

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 7 1–312

Duel between Hektor and Aias

1–53

Athene and Apollo cause Hektor to challenge one of the Greeks to a duel. After visiting his mother Hekabe and his wife Andromache in Book 6, Hektor returns to battle along with his brother Paris. Together with Glaukos, the two brothers make initial inroads. Apollo and Athene decide by mutual consent to conclude the battle for the day by making Hektor challenge one of the Greeks to a duel. The seer Helenos becomes aware of this decision and suggests the duel to his brother Hektor.

1–16

17–53

54–243

54–91 92–122

123–169

170–205

206–243

244–312 244–272

Preparations for the duel: Hektor follows his brother’s advice; the Greeks initially respond to his challenge with fear. They are berated by Nestor, and some of the heroes accordingly put themselves forward for the fight. The choice lands on Aias, son of Telamon. Hektor challenges the Greeks and stipulates that, if necessary, the vanquished warrior’s body will be returned to his kin. None of the Greeks has the courage to face Hektor’s challenge; in the end, Menelaos volunteers. Agamemnon restrains him and points out Hektor’s superior abilities. In a speech of rebuke, Nestor admonishes the Greeks by recalling his own youth when, as the youngest of the warriors in the battle between Pylians and Arcadians, he killed the feared Ereuthalion. As a result, several Greek heroes volunteer to fight Hektor. Nestor has Hektor’s opponent be determined by lot; to the general relief, the choice falls on Aias the son of Telamon. The Greeks pray for victory or at least an indecisive outcome. Hektor takes fright at the sight of Aias but, after the latter’s speech of challenge, declares himself ready to face him. The duel takes place, but is broken off early with no clear conclusion. Aias and Hektor throw their javelins; in the subsequent close combat, Hektor is injured. When the heroes take turns hurling rocks, Hektor falls, but is lifted back up by Apollo.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110687941-002

10

Iliad 7

273–312

The heralds Talthybios and Idaios convince Hektor and Aias to leave the duel undecided. The warriors exchange gifts, and each returns to his men.

313–482

Assemblies, burials, construction of the wall

313–417a 313–344

Assemblies of the Greeks and of the Trojans The Greeks take their evening meal. Nestor proposes a truce during which the bodies of the slain are to be recovered and buried. He plans for a protective wall to be built around the encampment. General agreement. Assembly of the Trojans. Antenor suggests returning Helen in order to end the war. Paris objects but is at least willing to return the goods taken at the same time as Helen. Priam commissions Idaios to convey this offer to the Greeks and to suggest a truce in order to bury the dead. Evening meal. Assembly of the Greeks the next morning. Paris’ offer is conveyed; after an initial silence by the men, Diomedes raises powerful objections to accepting it. As a result, Agamemnon rejects the offer but grants the truce. Idaios reports back to the Trojans.

345–380

381–417a

417b–482 417b–432 433–442 443–464

465–482

Burial of the dead and construction of the wall Both sides bury their dead. Early the next morning, the Greeks erect a burial mound and build a wall around the ships. Poseidon complains to Zeus that the Greeks built a wall without first sacrificing to the gods; he also voices concern that the new fortifications will eclipse the fame of Troy’s fortification walls that he built jointly with Apollo. Zeus grants him leave to destroy the new walls after the Greeks depart. Greeks and Trojans have their evening meal; bad omens; night’s rest.

Commentary Book 7 is set at the end of the 22nd day of action in the Iliad, i.e. the evening of the first day of fighting; it also includes the two following days, during which there is a truce (see STR 21, fig. 1). The Book is part of a unit that retards the action and is partially retrospective: the initial events of the Iliad are not narrated continuously. (Thetis’ plea to Zeus to strengthen the Trojans, so that the Greeks realize how painful Achilleus’ absence is and pay him the appropriate respect [1.502–510], is not fulfilled immediately, but only from Book 8 onward.) Books 2– 7, which relate to one another in the manner of a ring-compositionP (Peters 1922, 44; Heiden 2008, 98–106), interrupt the narrative that up to that point has been progressing in a linear fashion; they serve as a retardationP that increases suspense (Morrison 1992, 35–43 [on Books 2–4]), while at the same time illuminating the background of current events (on what follows, Bethe 1914, 57–68; Kakridis [1956] 1971, 61; Friedrich 1975, 104, with n. 12; Bergold 1977, 179–181; Latacz [1985] 1996, 127–133; STR 22 with fig. 2; introduction to Books 6, 11). This narrative unit is set up in the first part of Book 2 by positioning the action of the Iliad – which began in medias res in Book 1 – within the mythical framework of the Trojan war. Given the primary audience’s prior knowledge, this positioning is effected not by authorial statement but internally to the work, in the guise of monitory recollections in characterP speeches. Agamemnon‘s ‘temptation’ speech addressed to the troops first provides a date for events: this is the 9th/10th year of the war (2.134n.; 295–296a n. with bibliography). Shortly thereafter (2.161), a speech by Hera refers to the ultimate cause of the war, which is Helen; the temporal dimension is joined by the causal. In what follows, this background panorama is expanded in a variety of ways; thus Odysseus recalls the oracle of the sparrows in Aulis (2.299–332n.), i.e. the beginning of the conflict. The insertion itself begins toward the end of Book 2: the prehistory of the war, as well as its progress – nine years of fighting to this point – are reflected in the active mḗnis action, without the main narrative strand being abandoned. The effect is sometimes illogical in terms of the action; rather than the expected description of the army formations drawn up by the two warring parties, the hostilities are preceded by a catalogue of ships which gathered at Aulis before the departure for Troy (2.494–759n.). At 3.121–244 (see ad loc.), Helen introduces the key Greek leaders to Priam by way of a ‘round of introductions‘ (teichoskopia = view down from Troy’s city walls onto the invading army), a process that seems anachronistic in the 9th/10th year of the war, as does the attempt to resolve the original conflict over Helen via a duel between Paris and Menelaos (3.245– 361). Rather than the Greeks coming under pressure – as might have been expected, given Thetis’ plea (see above) – in Books 4 and 5 it is instead the Trojans who https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110687941-003

12

Iliad 7

initially find themselves in this situation; this too seems to better reflect the course of fighting at the beginning of the war. Antenor’s suggestion that Helen be returned, rejected by Paris, is also part of this register (7.357–364; see ad loc.), as is the construction of the wall that surrounds the Greek encampment on the coast (7.313–482; see 313–482n.). In terms of narrative logic, this entire sequence of scenes should thus be part of the beginning of the war and siege, rather than of its 9th/10th year. This does not suggest that these scenes were moved unaltered from an earlier phase of the myth to a later one, as Meier 2018 (particularly clearly at 66 and 129) understands the ‘mirroring thesis’, but that the chronological framework of the narrative is loosened and thus provides an opportunity to remind the audience of the larger context without interrupting the narrative with lengthy flashbacks. Recent scholarship has noted that strict narrative logic and chronology are often subordinated in Homeric epic to meta-narrative or memorizing effects (cf. NTHS, esp. 4.8 f.). Meier’s claim (loc. cit. 89–103 and passim) that fighting between Greeks and Trojans (in contrast to their allies) began only in the tenth year of the war is unconvincing, however, since earlier mentions of hostile confrontations repeatedly name the two major parties – Greeks and Trojans – rather than ‘Greeks and Trojan allies’ (e.g. 2.119–122, 3.98–100, 3.111–112, 3.130b–133a, 3.156– 157). Other passages convey a similar impression of a long-standing conflict between the two groups: thus 2.161 f. = 2.177 f. reports that many Greeks have been killed in the Troad (en Troíē) because of Helen, while the term hysmínē at 2.345 clearly denotes the battle between the two parties into which Agamemnon led the Achaians earlier (thus Nestor at 2.344 f.). The sole exception to this consistent portrayal is 5.784–791, where Hera, posing as Stentor, taunts the Trojans as cowards who have never dared venture outside the Dardanian Gates (i.e. outside the citadel, see Latacz, ‘Appendix topographica’ in The Basel Commentary, Book XIV, p. 260), although this is doubtless to be considered a rhetorical exaggeration on the part of the furious deity (cf. 113–114n.). The ‘retrospective’ concludes with the duel between Hektor and Aias (= 2nd monomachia) that forms the core of Book 7, as well as with the construction of the wall. In accord with its concluding function, the Book has sometimes been regarded as the end of the first part of an alleged tripartite Iliad (Schein 1997, 349; Stanley 1993, esp. 39–102, Louden 2006, 2 f.; on the possibility that the end of the Book coincides with the end of one day in a performance, Stanley loc. cit. 261–268; contra, Heiden 1996). Within the retrospective phase of the Iliad, the second monomachy fulfils a key function (on additional functions related to content and structure, 1–312n.): it makes it clear that the war has now achieved inertia. The two duels frame the

Commentary

13

first day of fighting in the Iliad; at the start of that day, Helen, the original object of the war, is put up as a prize, while at its end, fame (eúchos, kléos) has become the prime focus of the competition (91). The men doing the fighting have no connection to the origins of the conflict, meaning that the war has gained a momentum divorced from its causes – even the return of Helen would no longer halt it, as Diomedes says during the evening assembly (Benardete 1968, 20–22; Reucher 1983, 162; Van Wees 1992, 181 f.; Rabel 1997, 101, 105, West 2011 on 69– 91; see also 399–404n.). Book 7, which concludes the retrospective phase – beginning in Book 8, the Greeks are finally defeated by the Trojans, as Thetis requested at the beginning of the Iliad (see above) – sees the development of a kind of equilibrium between the warring parties. Initiated by the long-desired ‘second wind’ brought to the weary Trojans by Hektor and Paris (4–7), this section hints for the first time at a shift in the balance of power (Morrison 1992, 69; Rabel 1997, 100). While the Greek Menelaos is obviously superior to the Trojan Paris in the duel in Book 3 (3.245–461), the fight between Paris’ brother Hektor and Aias in Book 7 ends in a stalement (the latter’s superiority notwithstanding; 244–312; see Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 188–194 on the relative power of the two Trojan princes). This is followed by a sequence of events in the two camps that approximately mirror one another, with Nestor on the Greek side, and Priam and Antenor on the Trojan, serving as advisors and mediators, with their authority in each case conferred by age (123n., 124–160n., 347n., 345–380n.): A: The Greeks’ evening meal (313–322). B: The Greeks’ ‘council assembly’ (323–344n.): Nestor’s proposal of a. a truce (331), b. burial of the dead (332 f.) and c. the construction of fortifications (336–343). B′: The Trojans’ assembly (345–379): Antenor’s suggestion of d. the return of Helen (348–353), e. Paris’ compromise offer: return of items looted from Sparta (but not of Helen); Priam’s mediating proposal of a. a truce (375 f.) and b. burial of the dead (376 f.). A′: The Trojans’ evening meal (380). C: Communication between Trojans and Greeks: the messenger appears in the Greek assembly; the speeches are arranged in the same manner as in B′ (345– 380n.). The burial of the dead on the 23rd day of action follows parallel lines for both parties; Greeks and Trojans are indistinguishable in death (424–426). The wall is then built on the 24th day: the Greek encampment turns into a kind of fortified city, a counterpart to Troy (313–482n.). In the end, the balance between Trojans and Greeks is complete: in the final verses of the Book, the two parties again take

14

Iliad 7

their evening meal; Zeus plots evil against both; and both are seized by fear of events to come (476–478n.). Over the course of the action-retarding sequence of Books 2–7, a shift thus develops from Greek superiority toward a short-lived balance illustrated repeatedly in Book 7 (69–72n., 200–205n., 275–276n., 280–281n., 290–292n., 306–417a n., 417b–432n.) – after which, in the following Book, the scales will tip in favor of the Trojans, with Thetis’ plea finally having its effect. 1–312 Duel between Hektor and Aias In conjunction with the fight between Paris and Menelaos in Book 3, the second duel of the Iliad frames the first day of fighting (Bethe 1914, 215 f.; cf. STR 21 fig. 1). The duels in Books 3 and 7 are not part of the general massed combat (which also contains detailed portrayals of individual fights: 3.15–37n. with bibliography; for a general overview of the types of fighting in the Iliad, Latacz 1977), but are conducted after a solemn resolution and in accord with predetermined rules during a truce in neutral ground between the two armies (“formal duel”: Latacz loc. cit. 133 f.; 3.67–75n. with bibliography). There are clear points of contact between the duel of Paris and Menelaos in Book 3 and the present encounter of Hektor and Aias: A. The Trojan protagonist appears as a confident challenger whose spirit later flags temporarily (3.30 ff. and 7.216 ff.). B. He is supported by a deity (albeit to very different degrees: 3.380–382; 7.272). C. The first round, the javelin throw, proceeds identically in both cases (3.346 ff. and 7.244 ff. [3.356–360 = 7.250–254]). D. The fight proper is preceded by extended preliminaries. In Book 3, the duel is initiated by Hektor reproaching Paris; this is followed by the teichoskopia and the treaty rituals, with the duel itself finally starting only at 313 and being described in a mere 70 verses. In Book 7, the encouragement for a duel comes from Apollo and Athene, who are involved on the Trojan and Greek sides, respectively (17–20n.); further preparations (44–205) are delayed by the hesitation of the Greek heroes to volunteer, as well by as a reproach from the aged Nestor; a lottery and the speeches of challenge by the opponents follow; and the fight proper starts only at 244 and is once again recounted in relatively few verses (to 312). (On additional similarities and differences, see Peters 1922, 44 f.; Duban 1981; Stoevesandt 2004, 212; on the iterata, see below on the individual lines.) Neither portrayal of a formal duel can be understood as a copy of the other; instead, they represent a combination of traditional motifs “on the basis of a general narrative idea” (Kirk 1978, esp. 39 f.; cf. 3.76–78n.). Numerous similar-

Commentary

15

ities in the details of the motif are thus also shared by the present duel with Hektor’s final showdown with Achilleus in Book 22 (for a detailed overview of the parallels of Books 4–7 with Books 20–24, Louden 2006, 14–79), as well as in the anticipatory details that already in Book 7 intimate Hektor’s doom (see section 4.4 below). Finally, both the formal duels in Books 3 and 7 and the fight between Hektor and Achilleus in Book 22 contain elements that also occur in chance encounters between warriors within the larger action of battle (on the themeP ‘duel’, 3.340–382n.; cf. below, 226–243n., 244–248a n., 254n.; on characteristic elements of duels in I-E literature, West 2007, 486 f.). The employment of common motifs is also apparent in the elements shared (but scattered throughout the text and not arranged in a strictly parallel fashion [cf. 208–213n.]) between (1) the present duel, (2) the fight between the young Nestor and Ereuthalion as recounted by the former at 7.150–160, and (3) the biblical narrative of David and Goliath in I Sam. 17: a. Challenging a hero to a duel (1: Il. 7.6–91, 2: Il. 7.150, 3: I Sam. 17:8–10). b. The challenger is a giant (1: the challenged warrior, Aias, is of gigantic stature [reversal of the paradigm: Il. 7.208–213n.], 2: Il. 7.155 f., 3: I Sam. 17:4). c. He possesses a special weapon (1: Il. 7.219–223 [Aias’ shield], 2: Il. 7.137–150 [Ereuthalion’s iron club], 3: I Sam. 17:7 [Goliath’s iron spear]). d. Demands are made for a fight with the best warrior, or one of the best, of the opposing army (1, 2: Il. 7.50 ≈ 150; cf. 73 ≈ 159). e. Preliminary negotiation with a conditional clause (1: Il. 7.77–86, 3: I Sam. 17:9; cf. also 2: Il. 7.71–75 [and 22.256–269]: Duban 1981, 100 f., 110 f.). f. Burial (or lack thereof ) is discussed (1: Il. 7.67–91, 3: I Sam. 17:44, 46). g. Great fear among the enemy troops (1: Il. 7.92–93, 2: Il. 7.151, 3: I Sam. 17:11, 24). h. The older brother (or other figure of authority) attempts to dissuade a potential fighter (1: Agamemnon addressing Menelaos Il. 7.107–121, 3: Eliab, followed by Saul, addressing David, I Sam. 17:28–33). i. A warrior steps forward (1: Il. 7.161–191, 2: Il. 7.152–154, 3: I Sam. 17:32). j. He is the youngest in the group (2: Il. 7.153, 3: I Sam. 17:14). k. His ‘courage’ (thymós) spurs him on (1: Il. 7.68, 2: Il. 7.152). l. l. He arms himself (1: Il. 7.206, 3: I Sam. 17:38–40). n. The fight is (nearly) decided by a stone (1: Il. 7.268–272, 3: I Sam. 17:49 f.). n. An injury to the neck is also sustained (1: Il. 7.262, 3: I Sam. 17:51). o. o. A divine intervention occurs (1: Il. 7.17–43, 58–61, 81, 272, 288 f., 2: Il. 7.154 [≈ 81], 3: I Sam. 17:45 f.). On this and on additional parallels in the Iliad for the biblical battle, cf. Mülder 1910, 33, 49 with n. 1; Mühlestein (1971) 1987, 173–190 (who points out the

16

Iliad 7

frequency of the folk-traditional ‘David and Goliath motif’ in Nestor’s speeches generally [likewise Lykurgos and Areïthoos, 142–150a n., and Nestor and Moulios, 11.706–761], and in addition offers an Egyptian parallel); Hunger 1981, 366; West 1997, 214–217, 369 f.; Yadin 2004, Louden 2006, 171–179; also Vetten 1990, 72–74. On the similarly frequent doubling of narrative patterns and motifs in biblical (fighting) scenes, see Berman 2004. The duel in Book 7 represents a necessary component of the epic in terms of both structure and content: 1. In conjunction with the one in Book 3, it initiates the conclusion of the retrospective phase at the beginning of the Iliad (which both begins and ends with a duel); the cause for the war recedes here into the background as the reason to fight, and the focus is now increasingly on fame (see the Introduction p. 12 f.). 2. Nevertheless, the scene does not lack drama: the armies could not easily cope with the loss of Aias or Hektor, respectively (at least a conceivable outcome, see 52–53n.) (Udwin 1999, 85). 3. The duel serves to highlight the two heroes: it stands in for an aristeia of Aias (Bethe 1914, 222; Krischer 1971, 78–81; cf. Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 213, 217–221), while at the same time Hektor is introduced as the most dangerous Trojan warrior (Peters 1922, 45; Bassett 1927, 154–156; Erbse [1978] 1979, 4 also with reference to the limits of his abilities); the fighting abilities of both heroes are stressed (197–199, 231 f., 235–241; van Wees 1992, 201). 4. The duel between Hektor and Aias serves in multiple ways as an anticipationP of events to come in the war: 4.1. On a general level, the stalement that results points to the indeterminacy of the situation and thus the long, arduous battles both armies still have to face (Udwin 1999, 86 f.). 4.2. More specifically, the scene anticipates the superiority of the Trojans and particularly Hektor’s deeds in the following Books: although he proves inferior in fighting ability, the scene nevertheless reveals how dangerous he is: the Greeks are initially afraid of him, and Agamemnon notes that even Achilleus ‘shuddered’ before Hektor (113–114n.; see also above on 3). 4.3. Viewed in more detail, the duel represents a parallel and precursor to a more serious encounter between Aias and Hektor (14.402–439, see ad loc.) that will pick up the first and last movements of the present duel: Hektor throwing a spear that fails to penetrate Aias’ armor (242–248), and Aias hurling a rock that brings down his opponent (268–272); cf. Friedrich 1956, 84–87. On the numerous other confrontations between the two heroes, see Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 69 f.; Di Benedetto loc. cit. 217–221; Stoevesandt 2004, 209–214. 4.4. Lastly, via a dense scatter of references, the duel also anticipatesP the final fight between Hektor and Achilleus, for whom Aias stands in only temporarily (Nagy [1979] 1999, 28–32, 142–150; van Wees 1992, 200 f.; Bouvier 2002, 203–213; Neal 2006, 114–132; cf. Broccia 1967, 78–82, who groups the duel among a

Commentary

17

series of anticipations of the final battle): 4.4.1. The divine ‘directors’ of the duel are Athene and Apollo; they are repeatedly portrayed in the Iliad as antagonists of Hektor and Achilleus (see Louden 2006, 34–36 on their role in the showdown between Hektor and Achilleus). 4.4.2. Hektor is facing the current ‘greatest’ of the Achaians (50, 73 f., 285; cf. 289 [in addition to ‘Danaans’ and ‘Argives’, ‘Achaians’ is one of the Homeric terms denoting the Greeks, see 1.2n.]), corresponding to Achilleus’ view of himself (1.91n.; cf. Nagy loc. cit. 28 f.; on Aias’ [and Diomedes’] function as a temporary stand-in for the ‘greatest’ of the Achaians, see 2.768n.; Carlier 1984, 195 n. 280; Reichel 1994, 107 f.; Louden loc. cit. 2 f., 34 f.; Hitch 2009, 184 f.). 4.4.3. But Aias is only the second greatest Achaian after Achilleus; thus Hektor’s deficiency vis-à-vis Aias (not only in this passage: Mackie 2008, 168) and his fear of the latter (216n.; 217–218n.) foreshadows his coming defeat at the hands of the greatest Achaian (Nagy loc. cit. 31 f.; Louden loc. cit. 37 f.). 4.4.4. Hektor’s position as ‘a man on his own’ is emphasized here (39, 226 f.) and again plays a role in the context of his death (22.39, 22.213, 22.294–305; cf. Nagler 1974, 145 n. 18). 4.4.5. In the case of the death of one of his opponents, Hektor arranges for the return of the corpse (79 f., 84– 86), anticipatingP the difficulties associated with his own burial (76–91n.; Thornton 1984, 67 f.; Reichel 1994, 192 f.; Romilly 1994, 176). 4.4.6. Hektor promises that his potential opponent will have a tomb that future generations can spot from the sea (87–91) – as the tradition of the myth of Troy stipulates for the grave of Achilleus (Od. 24.82–84): 76–91n. 4.4.7. At 30 f., Apollo explicitly announces the battle that will seal Troy’s fate (‘hereafter’ in contrast to ‘today’). In Book 7, Hektor is thus confident for a while of not having to die, while in Book 22 the opposite applies: there, he gains certainty regarding his imminent death (52–53n.). 4.4.7. A variety of individual elements within the duel (neck injury, fall) are usually associated with death scenes, pointing toward Hektor’s approaching demise (244–273n.). 4.4.8. The scene concludes with a pause in battle used to bury the dead; a similar pause follows the final fight between Hektor and Achilleus. Exponents of the so-called old analysis, which regarded the Iliad as a conglomerate of several poems of varying quality, mostly considered the duel in Book 7 to be the product of a later reviser and regarded it as substandard, e.g. Robert 1901, 168–175; Deecke 1906; Wilamowitz 1916, 313 f. (differently at 325); Cauer (1895) 1921, 264; Mazon 1948, 169–173; Jachmann 1949, 50–60 is polemical. Rothe 1910, 215 raised early objections: ‘[Those who] assign the poem to a «poetic epigone» should demonstrate how the battle would «originally» have been concluded’ (transl.). Others have also conceded that the episode serves to conclude this day of fighting (Von der Mühll 1952, 131). – Leaf (‘Introduction’

18

Iliad 7

to Books 3 and 7) considers the duel in Book 7 the earlier one, but likewise finds fault with the incongruity of two duels so close together. For additional older bibliography, see AH, Anh. 6–19 and the extensive list in Bergold 1977; for later views, cf. Kirk 1962, 217 (‘very poor second-best’); West 2011, 187 (‘H in particular falls below the standard of excellence that has been generally maintained up to this point’). Friis Johansen 1961 makes a neo-analytical argument from an archaeological point of view, associating the depiction of military action on an Attic Geometric Dipylon oinochoe (Paris, Louvre CA 2509, middle to third quarter of the 8th cent.) with the action in Book 7 (duel; burial of the dead) and adducing the early date of the depiction as an argument in favor of pre-Homeric epic poetry as a model for the Iliad. Fittschen 1969, 39– 41 argues convincingly against a link between the vase and Book 7; cf. Snodgrass 1998, 26. Analytical scholarship’s pejorative take on the duel episode is the result of narratological difficulties, all of which appear solvable: I. The question of why Apollo involves himself in a cause he declared lost at 7.30 f., can be addressed on both the narratorP and characterP planes: there is a dramaturgical need for a gripping description of the situation, on the one hand, and Apollo still commands a certain latitude of action in individual situations, on the other (Burkert 1955, 79; cf. Reucher 1983, 160). II. That Apollo interrupts the battle at a point as favorable for the Trojans as the current one might seem strange at first. But this is ultimately plausible, since he clearly wants to prevent Athene, who is rushing to the scene, from intervening more drastically in favor of the Greeks (Kirk). III. What is more surprising is that Athene submits to his plan (Kirk 1978, 22) and even claims to have had the same idea from the start (34– 35n.). The explanation of this by schol. bT on 6.311b seems tortuous – by means of the duel, the goddess temporarily prevents Diomedes from fighting (without having to interpose herself: Morrison 1991, 154 f.; 1992, 69), thus granting the plea of the Trojan Theano (6.305–310), at least partially (cf. schol. bT on 7.38). At the same time, the explanation is plausible in terms of character psychology, in that Athene does not want to become involved in an argument with Apollo, given that an interruption in the fighting at nightfall is imminent (252). IV. The fight remains without consequence, and its end is oddly abrupt (Kirk 1978, 23 f.): Aias’ superiority notwithstanding, the heralds Talthybios and Idaios declare the duel undecided (273–282), and the two warriors agree to terminate the fight (283–302), exchange gifts and go their separate ways (303–312). The final element recalls the outcome of an athletic duel in the funerary games in honor of Patroklos at 23.798–825 (but cf. also the encounter between Glaukos and Diomedes at 6.119–236; Bergold 1977, 190 n. 1; Kirk 1978): Hektor presents Aias with a sword with a scabbard and carrying strap, similar to what Diome-

Commentary

19

des receives as a prize from Achilleus in Book 23 (7.304 = 23.825; Bassett 1927, 152). There are also additional parallels with the athletic contest in Book 23: Epeios’ challenge to a boxing match, and the responses to it, has similarities to Hektor’s challenge to the duel (92n.; cf. 256–257n.); the list of warriors who present themselves for the chariot race in Book 23 has parallels in 7.161b–169, and both situations are decided by lot (see 161b–169n.; cf. Kirk on 161–168); Nestor delivers a paraenetic speech in the athletic context of Book 23, much as at 7.124–160 (23.306–348): Bannert 1988, 131–133; finally, the termination of the fight by the heralds at 7.273–282 (see ad loc.) recalls that of the wrestling match between Odysseus and Aias by Achilleus at 23.733–737 (Bannert 1988, 142). In terms of structure, the proximity of the topics of battle and burial stands out as a parallel between Books 7 and 23 (Heiden 2008, 79 f.). – The duel in Book 7 has thus sometimes been considered a mere ‘tournament’ (first Wilamowitz 1916, 313 [transl.], who employs the anachronistic term as a synonym for a purely athletic competition; similarly Peters 1922, 42 etc.: ‘fencing match’). In fact, the preliminaries highlight the fact that the fight will probably not decide the war (Bergold 1977, 186–190; 52–53n.; 203–205n.). That aside, the contemporary audience’s knowledge of the myth, and thus of both Hektor’s death at the hands of Achilleus and Aias’ suicide, must be assumed (Morrison 1992, 56; Scodel 1999, 140 f.). The duel has a function other than potentially deciding the war. At the same time, any conviction that it will end harmlessly is repeatedly called into question in order to increase suspense (52–53n.), e.g. via a description of the fear felt by both parties (92–122n.; 216n.; 217–218n.) and the negotiations regarding burial in case of the death of one of the warriors (76– 91). Even purely athletic circumstances such as those in Book 23, after all, can lead to serious injury or even death. 1–53 Athene and Apollo cause Hektor to challenge one of the Greeks to a duel. 1–16 After visiting his mother Hekabe and his wife Andromache in Book 6, Hektor returns to battle along with his brother Paris. Together with Glaukos, the two brothers make initial inroads. Hektor’s (CH 3.8) return to the battlefield concludes his brief visit to the city (6.237–529). He had been compelled to leave the Trojan troops in a situation of extreme distress (see 6.73–118n. on the necessity for Hektor’s sojourn in Troy). He was able to briefly alleviate the situation of the troops via a battle paraenesis (6.103–115), but circumstances nevertheless remained difficult; this is highlighted repeatedly during his visit to Troy (by Hekabe at 6.255 f., Hektor himself at 6.327, and Andromache’s servant at 6.386 f.). Hektor’s return thus appears urgent (the level of detail of the depiction of his visit to Troy can be

20

Iliad 7

explained, from a narratological point of view, as an opportunity to sketch ‘a vivid image of the situation in the beseiged city’ at this point, 6.237–529n.; cf. Graziosi/Haubold, Introd. 32–34). The beginning of Book 7, containing the speech capping formulaP ‘so speaking’, follows seamlessly from Hektor’s speech at the end of Book 6. The reason for the placement of the Book division specifically here has been a matter of dispute; a division could also be envisioned before or after the simile at 7.4–7 (cf. Broccia 1967, 62, with older bibliography; Taplin 1992, 288 f. For discussion of the (post-Homeric) division into Books generally, see the bibliography at 19.1– 39n., end; also Heiden 1998; 2000; Nünlist 2006). The scene change for the characters probably made the present division appear natural (the change in location or scene at the beginning of Books 18 and 19 is similar); the portrayal of the city of Troy thus becomes a distinct unit within the battle action (6.116 ‘and [Hektor] departed’ for Troy; 7.1 Hektor ‘swept on through the gates’). The book consequently starts with the themeP ‘return of a warrior to battle’ (cf. 5.134 ff., 16.284 ff.; Fenik 1968, 22 f.): (1) entry of a warrior into battle (1–3), (2) simile (4–7), (3) killing of enemy warriors (8–12, continued by Glaukos at 13– 16) and (4) forceful reaction by the opposing party (here the gods, 17 ff.). 1 ≈ 6.466; 2nd VH ≈ 6.390. — swept on through the gates: Hektor seems to display pugnacity also in order to stir up Paris (schol. bT). On Hektor’s haste as a leitmotif in Book 6, 6.237–529n.; 6.354n. — Hektor the glorious: a VE formula (29× Il.). The generic epithetP phaídimos is generally used in early epic in the sense ‘radiant, beautiful, magnificent’ (see 6.144n.); it probably served originally to describe heroes in their gleaming armor (cf. 12.462 ff.). The latter meaning is highlighted by scholion D; in conjunction with the gleam of Paris’ arms described at 6.513, the present passage thus evokes an intense visual impression of the two warriors who bring much-longed-for relief to the Trojans (4–7n.). ὣς εἰπών: an inflectable VB formula (nom. masc./fem., acc.), usually nom. (19.130n.). — πυλέων: prosodically unusual: as an anapest without synizesis elsewhere only at 12.340 and ‘Hes.’ Sc. 246 (cf. Od. 21.191 θυρέων: Haug 2002, 122). At the same time, the synizesis is not mandatory, nor have the conjectures to date been satisfactory (Kirk with bibliography).

2–3 Alexandros: The names Alexandros (45× Il.) and Paris (11× Il.) are used as metrically convenient variants to denote the Trojan prince (CH 3.8 s. v. Paris),

1 ὥς: = οὕτως. — πυλέων (Ionic): = (more common) Aeolic πυλάων; R 11.1, cf. R 3 (↑). — ἐξέσσυτο: root aor. of ἐκσεύομαι ‘storm out (from)’. 2 τῷ … ἅμα: = ἅμα … τῷ (R 20.2). — τῷ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — κί’ ἀδελφεός: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — κί(ε): 3rd-pers. sing. of the preterite of a defective

Commentary

21

generally with no discernible difference in meaning; in the current passage, the meaning of the name Alexandros (‘fender-off of men’) might of course be implied. For a possible origin of the double name in an amalgamated GreekHittite tradition, 3.16n. with bibliography — both: Paris, who was rebuked by Hektor for his absence from the battlefield (6.326–331) and who now demonstrates his prowess (8–10n.), is explicitly included. The suggestion here is that Paris’ readiness for combat also encourages Hektor himself (Louden 2006, 36 f. adduces for comparison Hektor’s fateful encounter with Athene in the guise of his brother Deïphobos at 22.226–247), despite him having just been portrayed as angry and pessimistic. At the same time, Hektor’s change of mood has already been prepared for in Book 6 (6.475–481n.; 6.517–529n.; 6.526–527an.). θυμῷ: On the θυμός as the seat of emotions and feelings (‘depths of the heart’), see Jahn 1987, esp. 225–232; on its use with verbs of wishing, see LfgrE s.v., 1088.23 ff. — μέμασαν: ‘were eager, impatient (to)’; frequently in combination with a verb of fighting (cf. 6.120n.) or killing. The Archaic reduplicated perfect μέμονα (also at 24, 36, 160, 261), related to μένος (like μενεαίνω, μενοινάω), covers a semantic field ranging from ‘energetic aggressive urge’ (LfgrE s.v. μέμονα 122.58 ff. [transl.]) to a mere wish (LfgrE loc. cit. 123.57 ff.); cf. DELG s.v.; 18.156n. — πολεμίζειν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι: a VE formula (= 2.121, 2.452, 3.67, 3.435, 11.12, 13.74, 14.152; ≈ 7.279, 21.572); on the synonym doubling, 1.160n., 2.39n. It occurs frequently with terms from the sphere of battle/war (1.492n.), including several times in Book 7: πόλεμον καὶ δηϊοτῆτα (29); μάχης ἠδὲ πτολέμοιο (232); μάχας τ’ ἀνδροκτασίας τε (237); for additional expressions, 16.63n.; 16.91–92n. Here the doubling seems to be used in a pregnant sense to emphasize the character’s ardor for battle (schol. bT on 7.3; cf. 1.160n.), as is already true of ἐξέσσυτο (1) followed by μέμασαν.

4–7 The simileP illustrates how the warriors become engaged in the battle (a situation frequently used to launch similes: West 2011 on 5.87–92 with examples). It begins with a quick ‘pan of the camera’ from the energetic brothers to the weary Trojans, whose perspective is then adopted in secondary focalizationP: the ‘god’ (who cannot be identified more closely, cf. Tsagarakis 1977, 93 n. 14) already mentioned at the beginning allows for a associative shift of narrative point of view toward that of the Trojans who worship Hektor like a god (22.394, 22.434 f., 24.258 f. [see ad loc.]; de Jong [1987] 2004, 129; on this and similar expressions generally, 16.605n. with bibliography; cf. also 298n.). The most obvious commonality between sailors and Trojans is their longing for relief (eeldoménoisi[n], 4 and 7; on the frequent structuring of similes as ringcompositionsP, 16.7n.). Not mentioned explicitly in the simile’s ‘so’ part, but surely also common to Trojans and sailors, is exhaustion (Fränkel 1921, 8 f.,

verb with the meaning ‘go’; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἀδελφεός: = ἀδελφός. — ἄρα: R 24.1. 3 μέμασαν: 3rd-pers. pl. plpf. of perf. μέμονα, here ‘be eager (to)’ (↑). — ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4).

22

Iliad 7

arguing against reducing Homeric similes to a single point of comparison). This weariness gets considerable emphasis (5 kámōsin; 6 kamátōi). For the Trojans, it results from the difficult battles Hektor convinced his men to fight via his paraenesis at 6.103–115; now, exhausted by fighting, they long for his return (de Jong loc. cit.). – The situation of the present simile corresponds most closely to Od. 23.233–240 (233 ‘and as when the land appears welcome to men who are swimming’; here too the subjects are seamen, albeit shipwrecked ones); see schol. bT on Il. 7.4–6; cf. Il. 19.375–380a (see ad loc.), where the sailors unwillingly drift away from land and gaze anxiously toward an unreachable fire (at Il. 4.76, sailors play a role as well, although merely as observers of the stars [Kirk]). In terms of the motif, the present passage is one of a number of different wind (and sea) similes in the Iliad (cf. 14.16–22n.; Scott 1974, 62–66; Scott 2009, 200 f.; on weather similes in general, 16.297–302a with bibliography). The contrast between the present passage and the simile at 13.795 ff. is of particular interest (Lesky 1947, 165 f.): there too Hektor and Paris enter battle jointly, and the Trojans they command are compared to roaring whirlwinds churning up the sea. At the end of Book 13, the contrast with the longed-for breeze in Book 7 makes it clear that in the meantime the balance of power has shifted in favor of the Trojans. In relation to the remaining wind and sea similes in the Iliad, the present passage occupies a position midway between two types: a. warriors entering a scene are compared to winds (4.275– 282, 11.297 f., 11.305–309) or to waves stirred up by winds (15.379–383 and 623– 629); b. wind (and churned-up sea) serves as an image for emotions (in the present case, Hektor’s and Paris’ infectious eagerness to attack, which brings relief to the Trojans; cf. Becker 1937, 169 f.): 9.4–8, 14.16–22, also 16.297–302a. – Aside from 13.491 ff., the present passage is the only simile in which Trojan warriors show solidarity among themselves (at best, cf. 5.299); among the Greeks, this is more common (Stoevesandt 2004, 267 f., 422). ἐελδομένοισιν … |2 verses| … Τρώεσσιν ἐελδομένοισι: ἐέλδομαι/ἔλδομαι (*ϝελδ- perhaps related to Latin velle) can express an ‘active’ wish or a ‘passive’ longing, probably as a continuous state (as indicated by its frequent combination with ἤματα πάντα: 14.276, Od. 5.210, 5.219, 23.6: LfgrE s.v.). Here the present participle, in contrast to the instantaneous aorist ἔδωκεν (4n.), gives expression to the long duration of the yearning (AH with Anh.). – This is comparable to 12.370 ff., where the brothers Aias and Teukros come to the aid of the hard-pressed Greeks; esp. 374 ἐπειγομένοισι δ’ ἵκοντο (v.l. ἐελδομένοισι: Labarbe 1949, 245).

4 ἔδωκεν: In Homeric similes, aorist forms are regularly augmented. Given their timelessness, they are traditionally understood as ‘gnomic’ (even though they express the narra-

4 ναύτῃσιν ἐελδομένοισιν: on the declension, R 11.1–2.

Commentary

23

tor’sP drive to visualize the image rather than its universality, Bakker [2001] 2005, 131– 135; cf. 2.480n.; 16.299–300n.; 24.616n.). This point aside, the aor. marks the instantaneous aspect of the action (4–7n., end; ἔδωκεν denotes a completed action: Wackernagel [1920/24] 2009, 232).

5 οὖρον: The object of the longing gets particular emphasis as a runover word in integral enjambmentP. — ἐπεί κε κάμωσιν: thus Aristarchus and a majority of the mss.; in the v.l. ἐπήν/ἐπῆν κε κάμωσιν, the link between the two modal particles is irregular (Chantr. 2.345, cf. 348; Ruijgh 505; for exceptions, 24.437n.). On this and the additional v.l. of a poorly attested reduplicated aor. κεκάμωσιν, 1.168n. — ἐϋξέστῃς: ‘wellsmoothed’; an epithetP of a variety of wooden objects, usually after caesura B 2 (24.271n., where also for word formation); Od. 12.172 has ξεστῇσ(ι) (after C 1). — ἐλάτῃσιν: ἐλάτη is elsewhere ‘fir’, only here and at Od. 12.172 used via metonymy to mean ‘oar of firwood’.

6 2nd VH ≈ 13.85. πόντον ἐλαύνοντες: In the context of ‘sea faring’, ἐλαύνειν elsewhere generally serves as a verb of movement (with object νῆα, which can be omitted: ‘propel [the ship]’ > ‘sail’: LfgrE s.v. 516.5 ff., 517.20 ff.). Here, however, in conjunction with the instrumental dat. ἐλάτῃσιν, it is used in the sense ‘strike’ (loc. cit. 518.43 f.; comparable expressions are e.g. ἅλα τύπτον ἐρετμοῖς [7× Od.] or ἑζόμενοι λεύκαινον ὕδωρ ξεστῇς ἐλάτῃσιν [Od. 12.172]). The variant ἐρέσσοντες mentioned in schol. AT fails to convince, since the simplex ἐρέσσω is always intransitive in early epic (Il. 9.361, Od. 9.490, 11.78, 12.194). The unusual phrasing probably points to the heavy work of rowing during a dead calm in the middle of the sea (Faesi/Franke; AH). — ὑπὸ γυῖα λέλυνται: For a variety of formulaic expressions with (ὑπο)λύω and γυῖα (including to describe physical exhaustion, as here), 6.27n.; cf. 16.312n. and 24.498n., end, both with bibliography. The dangerous proximity of exhaustion and death is stressed via the two similar expressions paraphrasing death a few verses later: λῦσε δὲ γυῖα (12) and λύντο δὲ γυῖα (16). Cf. 214– 215n.

7 ≈ 12.135. φανήτην: frequently used of divine apparitions/appearances. The verb may highlight the fact that the Trojans view Hektor as a ‘god’ (4–7n.). At the same time, Paris is included via the dual form. For the association of a god-like epiphany with Homeric heroes (Odysseus), cf. Bierl 2004, esp. 50 ff.

8–16 An expanded catalogueP (Strasburger 1954, 60): Paris, Hektor and Glaukos each kill an opponent. This sequence is representative of a successful phase of fighting for the Trojans as a group (13–16n.; Albracht [1886] 2005, 42; cf.

5 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5); ἐπεί κε: = ἐπήν (att. ἐπάν). — ἐϋξέστῃς ἐλάτῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 6 ἐλαύνοντες: transitive with πόντον as object, ‘strike’ (↑). — ὑπό: adv., ‘underneath’, or so-called tmesis ὑπὸ … λέλυνται (R 20.2). — γυῖα λέλυνται: in Homer, a neut. pl. subject can occur with a sing. or a pl. predicate. 7 τὼ … φανήτην: on the dual, R 18.1. — Τρώεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3.

24

Iliad 7

Strasburger 1954, 47; Latacz 1977, 68–85, esp. 76 f.; 6.513n.; 6.1–72n.), here only alluded to via the three killing scenes, probably due to ‘the poet’s aversion to spilling Achaian blood’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 101 [transl.]; on ‘Achaians’ denoting ‘Greeks’, 1.2n.). The Greek side is in a typical flight phase (Latacz 1977, 212–215; Kelly 2007, 117–121; here a focus on the Trojan advance without a detailed description of the Greek retreat [but cf. 15n.]), which sets the direction of the coming battle action until the next turning point (‘bestowing shape on what might otherwise seem an amorphous series of encounters’: Kelly loc. cit. 120). – The sequence contains all the elements of the typesceneP ‘battle’ (Niens 1987, XIIf. [transl.]: ‘(1) the attacker, (2) the attacked, (3) a more detailed indication of the action, (4) the weapon, (5) mention of the body part struck, (6) the effect of the strike/consequence of the wounding, (7) depiction of the death that occurred’), albeit spread across two partial scenes (8–12 and 13–16). On the multitude of possibilities for combining the elements of Homeric battle scenes, Visser 1987, 44–57; cf. 16.284–290an. with additional bibliography. – The least amount of information about Hektor’s opponent is offered in the middle killing scene, but the depiction of the action is climactic: although in the case of Paris, we are merely told about the outcome (‘killed his man’, 8), for Hektor information is given regarding the strike (11) and outcome (‘broke his limbs’ strength’, 12), and for Glaukos, about the strike (14), the fact that the opponent falls (16) and the result (‘his limbs’ strength was broken’, 16). A description of falling or stretching out routinely marks the end of a series of killings, also at e.g. Il. 12.182–194, 16.415–418 (Kurz 1966, 32 f., with additional examples of the mention of falling at the beginning and end of a sequence). On common elaborations of falling via direction of the fall, cries of woe, clanging of the armor, etc., 16.289–290n. with bibliography. 8–10 Paris’ brief phase of victory was introduced earlier by the motif of the gleam of weapons (1n.), as is typical (6.513n.; 16.70b–72an.; 19.374–383n., all with bibliography). The episode is the first in a series of ten successful appearances by Paris in the Iliad (cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 182 f.). Paris’ victim, Menesthios, receives a brief excursus regarding his biography, an ‘obituary’ that contains the typical elements ‘genealogy’, ‘specific circumstances of birth’ (alluding to a mythical-heroic background) and ‘homeland’. These ‘obituaries’ are frequently found at a turning point in an aristeia or during a phase of success for one of the parties (Spieker 1958, 14; on ‘obituaries’ in general, 6.12–19n. [with additional bibliography]; a collection of examples in Richardson 1990, 44 f. with n. 14 [p. 215]; Stoevesandt 2004, 126–159; for catalogues of the fallen, the fundamental work is Strasburger 1954 [20 f. on Il. 7.8–10]).

Commentary

25

8 2nd VH = 7.137. — killed: Here Paris is probably fighting with a spear, as at 15.341 f. An archer like him (3.17n.; 3.18–20n.) has success as a hoplite as well nowhere else in the Iliad on the Trojan side (Stoevesandt 2004, 115 f. n. 380, with reference to Krischer 1998, 88); on the ambivalent attitude toward archers in Geometric art, as well as in the Iliad itself, 3.17n. with bibliography. — Areïthoos: a determinative compound (‘swift thanks to Ares’ or metonymiclocative ‘quick in battle’; the initial element is also found in Areïlykos [16.308n.], while the final element is common in Homeric names). For its use as an adjective, see LfgrE; additional information on the word formation in von Kamptz 74 f., 102 f., 105, 184. The name is attested multiple times historically (LGPN). The character mentioned in the present passage is not identical with the follower of the Thracian Rhigmos (20.487), and Homer clearly equates him with the Areïthoos whom Nestor places in an Arcadian environment at 7.137–147: the epithetP ‘of the war club’ (7.9, 138) is otherwise absent from early epic. This results in the following geographical and chronological issues, perceived as problematic already in the scholia (bT on 7.9b): a. it remains unclear why the son of Arcadian Areïthoos lives in Boeotian Arne (according to schol. D on 7.9, Areïthoos is Boeotian and is only present in Arcadia in the context of a border dispute otherwise left obscure); b. as son of Areïthoos, Menesthios would have to be approximately the same age as the now elderly (1.250–252) Nestor (who in his youth killed Ereuthalion, son of Lykurgos the killer of Areïthoos, 7.142 ff.). The two may originally have been distinct characters (schol. bT on 7.9b) or indeed ad hoc inventions; cf. Kirk on 8–13: ‘it remains probable that the poet is drawing loosely on his own memory and imagination here’. The reuse of names multiple times is common enough in Homeric epic, see 16.345n. with bibliography, and also there for reuse of the same name at a short interval (probably because the poet was drawing on a set stock of them for ‘extras’). — lord: on the meaning of ánax, 1.36n. ἔνθ(α): Temporal ἔνθα (‘then’) can mark a new stage in the narrative, as here; in battle descriptions, the conjunction frequently introduces a focus on individual heroes (16.306n. with bibliography). –– ἑλέτην: here meaning ‘overpower’, thus in effect ‘kill’ (16.306n. with bibliography). — ὃ μέν: Paris; ὃ μέν frequently refers to the last-mentioned character (Hahn 1954, 208, on Il. 12.400–404; cf. 24.509–512; on the typical Homeric hysteron proteron, also schol. A on 8; Nünlist 2009, 326 f. with n. 4). The identity of the agent thus becomes apparent only with the mention of Hektor (11). The phrase is distributive in apposition to two subjects (generally ὃ μὲν … ὃ δέ) after a verb in the dual, as at Il. 4.536 f., 7.306 f., 13.584 f., 22.157 (without ὃ μέν but with a corresponding

8 ἑλέτην: 3rd-pers. dual aor. of αἱρέω; the subject is divided into ὃ μὲν … Ἕκτωρ δέ (11), the latter with a new predicate βάλ(ε). — Ἀρηϊθόοιο (ϝ)ἄνακτος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Ἀρηϊθόοιο: on the declension, R 11.2; likewise for Ἱππολόχοιο (13) and frequently.

26

Iliad 7

part. φεύγων̣ … ὃ δ’ ὄπισθε διώκων; see de Jong ad loc.), Od. 8.361 f., 18.95 f. (Il. 11.328 after ἔνθ’ ἑλέτην is different). Here, the second subject, instead of the more common ὃ δέ, is the personal name Ἕκτωρ δ’ (cf. Il. 12.400–404, 24.509–511; see 24.509n. with bibliography). The fact that the first subject is referred to merely as ὃ μέν might also be due to metrical constraints (a pyrrhic is lacking between the semantically significant ἔνθ’ ἑλέτην and the formulaic υἱὸν Ἀρηΐθοοιο ἄνακτος: Visser 1987, 260–262).

9 Arne: A town in Boeotia; for the debate concerning its precise location, 2.507n. — Menesthios: appears only here (so too the victims of Hektor and Glaukos in the following verses; many of the ‘extras’ in the Iliad are fated to die immediately, see 16.306–357n. with bibliography). One of Achilleus’ followers bears the same name (16.173, see ad loc. also for the meaning ‘he who holds out unwaveringly’); other forms (Menesthenēs, Menestheus, Menesthes; cf. Kirk on 5.608–9) are attested historically (LGPN). — of the war club: for the weapon, 137–150a n.; in early epic only here and at 138. 10 Phylomedusa: ‘she who cares for the community’; the name occurs only here, and is not attested historically (von Kamptz 84, 121 f., 226). γείνατ’ … βοῶπις: a verse composed according to the ‘law of increasing parts’ with several personal names, the final one expanded via an epithetP (Behaghel 1909, esp. 139; the present passage is mentioned by Schmitt 1967, 273 n. 1575). The pattern likely derives from I-E poetry (cf. 1.145n. and 24.60n. with bibliography). — βοῶπις: probably ‘large-eyed’ (1.551n.; 14.159n.); a generic epithet of beauty used for a variety of goddesses and mortal women, most commonly Hera (14× Il., 3× h.Ap.), for others at 3.144 (likely interpolated, see ad loc.), 18.40, Hes. Th. 355, ‘Hes.’ frr. 23(a).5 (restored), 129.20 M.-W., h.Hom. 31.2.

11–12 Eïoneus: likely derived from a place name (like many of the names of the doomed ‘extras’: 16.345n.), probably Eïones in the Argolid: von Kamptz 40, 124, 290; historically attested only as Esioneus (Diod. Sic. 19.89.2). The character appears only here (9n.); he is not identical with the homonymous father of the Thracian Rhesos at 10.435. — under ǀ the circle of the bronze helm, in the neck: Injuries to the neck (auchḗn) are usually lethal (16.332n. with bibliography). – The ‘circle of the helm[et]’ is probably a metal band running horizontally along its edge (LfgrE s.v. στεφάνη 209 f. with bibliography). The description

9 Ἄρνῃ: specification of location without preposition (R 19.2). — ναιετάοντα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 10 γείνατ’ Ἀρηΐθοος καὶ Φυλομέδουσα: perceived as a unity, thus with a predicate in the sing. — γείνατ(ο): on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; likewise for βάλ(ε) (11, 14), λῦσε (12), πέσε, λύντο (16) and frequently. 11–12 Ἠϊονῆα … αὐχέν(α): acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); likewise Ἰφίνοον … ὦμον (14– 16). — Ἠϊονῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. — ἔγχεϊ ὀξυόεντι: on the hiatus, R 5.7; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary

27

is presumably of a blow from behind – a phenomenon rare in the Iliad with Greek victims (and, as here, not always clearly identifiable as such; cf. the different account of who is struck from behind in schol. bT on 15.341 [only Eïoneus at 7.12 and Deïochos at 15.341 f.], Neal 2006, 249 n. 53 [‘exceptions include … Tlepolemus 5.657 and Eioneus 7.12’] and Stoevesandt 2004, 117 n. 388, 394, 403 [Iphinoos in the scene at 7.13–16 immediately after the killing of Eïoneus, Deïochos 15.341, Patroklos 16.806 f.]). – On Trojans struck from behind while fleeing, 16.308n. Ἕκτωρ δ’ Ἠϊονῆα: The arrangement subject – δέ – object (also obj. – δέ – subj.) at VB is common at the beginning of a description of individual combat (16.313n. with bibliography). — ἔγχεϊ ὀξυόεντι: an inflectable noun-epithetP fomula, only at 16.309 and at Od. 19.33 at VB, elsewhere always at VE (dat.: 6× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; acc.: 1× Il.). A metrical variant of ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ (3.380an.), but unlike the latter expression, used especially in conjunction with forms of βάλλειν and to describe injuries (Tsagarakis 1982, 32 f. with n. 6; Bakker/Fabbricotti [1991] 2005, 9 f. is critical of this). ὀξυόεις is an epic word, used as an epithet also of δόρυ (Il. 14.443; on the largely synonymous usage of ἔγχος and δόρυ, 16.139–140n., cf. 6.31–32n.) and βέλος (Batrachomyomachia 194), probably as a metrically convenient variant of ὀξύς (see 16.309n., also for the etymology). — λῦσε δὲ γυῖα: 6n.

13–16 Glaukos’ (CH 3.10; 6.119n.) involvement in the battle is introduced abruptly; the verb in the dual, referring to Hektor and Paris (8 helétēn ‘they [both] killed’), does not imply a third warrior (Niens 1987, 226 f.), and the verses have thus been interpreted as a later insertion (West 2011 ad loc., who in general assumes that the Lycian passages are later insertions into the epic [loc. cit. 64 f.]). Glaukos was perhaps added to the pair of brothers to represent the allies (Kirk); alternatively, this is an opportunity to portray him as courageous, as was impossible in his encounter with Diomedes (6.119–236) (schol. bT on 7.13). It is also conceivable that the aim was to attain the typical numberP three (cf. Blom 1936, 30; also 1.53n., 24.16n.); at the same time, typical numbers are normally mentioned explicitly elsewhere in the text (‘[as the] third’ vel sim.), which is not the case here. It is in any case crucial that the addition of the partial scene to the description of the behavior of the two brothers ‘broadens the action and … thus [conveys] the image of a large battle’ (Niens loc. cit. [transl.]): a minimum of three killings is needed to exemplify the Trojans’ victorious phase (8–16n.). 13 = 17.140; ≈ 16.593; 1st VH to caesura C 1 = 6.119. The formulaic designation of a character across an entire verse marks his importance: 1.36n., 24.562n. — Lykian: Lykia is located southeast of Caria; in the Iliad, the Lykians are important allies of the Trojans (see 2.877n. with bibliography, also West 2011, 64 f.; HE s.v. Lycians; on the evidence for historical contacts between Lykia and Greece, 6.154n.).

28

Iliad 7

ἀγὸς ἀνδρῶν: ἀγός ‘leader’ (originally a verbal noun from ἄγω [Risch 10 f.]; post-Homeric in compounds such as λοχαγός, στρατηγός) occurs in early epic particularly in formulaic expressions (LfgrE s.v. 92 f.); in the combination ἀγὸς ἀνδρῶν 5× Il. (of which 2.718 v.l.; 13.304 ἀγοὶ ἀνδρῶν), 1× ‘Hes.’.

14–16a Iphinoos: Neither Iphinoos nor his father Dexios are mentioned elsewhere (‘extras’, see 9n.). Iphinoos is one of only three Greeks in the Iliad to unsuccessfully attempt to flee (also Deïochos at 15.341 f. and Periphetes at 15.630–652: Pagani 2008, 381); Glaukos thus likely strikes him from behind (11– 12n.; Stoevesandt 2004, 394). — Dexios: ‘fortunate’; the name is attested historically multiple times (LGPN). Ἰφίνοον: The name Iphinoos is already attested in Mycenaean texts, wi-pi-no-o (DMic): ‘he who uses force to bring safely home’: the final element is likely *nes-, whence néomai, transitive ‘bring home, save’ (Mühlestein 1965, 157); in Homer the name is probably no longer understood thus but interpreted as a compound related to νόος (‘of strong mind’). Not attested historically (in contrast to numerous other compounds with Iphi- and -noos; both word elements are common in Homer as well): LfgrE; see also von Kamptz 74, 84 f., 105, 202.

14 ≈ 17.15; 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ 12.189. βάλε δουρί: 12× Il. (8× VE; 3× after caesura A 4, as in the present passage; 1× after C 1); a version of the inflectable formula βάλλω + δουρί (beside δουρὶ βαλών [6× Il.], δουρὶ βάλε(ν) [2× Il.], etc.; Higbie 1990, 167 f.). Cf. 16.399n.; 16.806b–807n. — κρατερὴν ὑσμίνην: an inflectable VE formula for a ‘battle conducted forcefully or powerfully’ (2.40n.); so too at 18. On the etymology and further shades of meaning, 16.306n. with bibliography.

15 An emphatic four-word verse (1.75n.; 16.125–126n.). — his fast horses: Elite warriors use war chariots in phases of flight or pursuit, see 2.384n.; 16.20n. s. v. ‘charioteer Patroklos’; 24.14n., all with bibliography. ἵππων: In Homer, the plural and dual of ἵππος are regularly used in the sense ‘war chariot’: 6.232n. with bibliography. — ἐπιάλμενον: The internal hiatus (elsewhere only at Od. 24.320) can be explained in accord with phonetic rules by the disappearance of an intervocalic sigma – ἅλλομαι is identical with Latin salio (Frisk) – which sometimes has an effect in early epic (cf. G 41; Schw. 2.465 n. 3). At the same time, the form (κατ)επάλμενος is more common (7× Il. [and 1× μετάλμενος], 2× Od., 1× Hes.), see 260– 261n. Aside from metrical reasons (Kirk), the use of the less common form may have been motivated by the unusual circumstances: elsewhere, the compound is used only of characters springing to the attack (Od. 14.220, Hes. Th. 855), generally Greeks (Il. 7.260, 11.421, 11.489, 12.404, 13.529, 13.531), only once a Trojan (Oïleus, Il. 11.94), but here a Greek is fleeing. The only other example (Od. 24.320) is likewise unusual, albeit in a different regard (Odysseus rushes toward his mourning father and reveals his identity).

14 δουρί: on the form, R 4.2, R 12.5. — κρατερήν: on the form (-η- after -ρ-), R 2. 15 ἐπιάλμενον: = aor. part. of ἐφάλλομαι (↑). — ὠκειάων: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary

29

The onomatopoetic explanation of the Iliad passage describing a movement from bottom to top seems slightly contrived: ‘the hiatus brings to the fore the moment in the leap when the warrior leaves the ground, his point of departure: for the leap of Iphinoos … there is no point of arrival’ (Fortassier 1989, 42 [transl.]). — ἵππων … ὠκειάων: elsewhere an inflectable VE formula (3.263n. with bibliography; on horse epithetsP in general, 2.383n.). ἵππος is usually masculine in early epic, although several famous racing horses are described as mares (2.763n.; collection of examples in Delebecque 1951, 141, 159). Here the adj. likewise points to race horses (cf. 16.393n.), but the gender can sometimes change, seemingly indiscriminately; the same animals can thus have both feminine and masculine adjectives at different times, e.g. Nestor’s horses (Willcock on 8.113; Hainsworth on 11.597). ἵπποι in the sense ‘team of horses’ can perhaps occasionally be used in the feminine, since the word retains a memory of Mycenaean i-qi-ja, a nominalized adjectival form (corresponding to later Greek ἱππία) meaning ‘chariot, wagon’ (Lee 1959, 8–17).

16 2nd VH = 15.435. — shoulder: Glaukos strikes the fleeing warrior in the shoulder with his spear (probably from behind; cf. 11–12n.), an injury that is always lethal in the Iliad: particularly graphic at 16.321–325, elsewhere at 11.421, 13.519 f., 14.450–452, 15.341, 16.289–290n. (see ad loc. with bibliography), 16.343 f. Injuries in the same location caused by arrows are a different matter: 5.98 ff., 11.506 ff. (Kirk). On injuries in the Iliad in detail, 4.457–544n. (see 203 f.). πέσε: In the Iliad, πίπτω usually refers to dying or already ‘fallen’ warriors, as here (16.310–311n. with bibliography). — λύντο δὲ γυῖα: 6n.

17–53 Apollo and Athene decide by mutual consent to conclude the battle for the day by making Hektor challenge one of the Greeks to a duel. The seer Helenos becomes aware of this decision and suggests the duel to his brother Hektor. 17–21 Now as … Athene was aware … || … from the peaks of Olympos || from his seat on Pergamos: The gods watching human action from mountain tops (oroskopia) is a common topos in ancient literature after Homer as well; see De Jong 2018. — Athene | 2 verses | … Apollo: In the war, the two deities support opposing parties: Apollo aids the Trojans, Athene the Greeks (CG 5 [on Apollo as aiding the Trojans, and Hektor in particular, also 24.18–21n.; Tsagarakis 1977, 34–41; West 2011 on 7.81 with a collection of examples; also Nagy 2012, 66 n. 154]; CG 8). 17–18 ≈ 5.711–12 (where Hera sees the raging of the Trojans and decides to intervene as well); 17 ≈ Od. 2.382, 2.393, 4.795, 6.112, 18.187, 23.242, 23.344; 1st VH of

16 ὅ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — λύντο δὲ γυῖα: cf. 6n. 17 τούς: the Trojans. — ὡς οὖν: = ‘now when’ (R 24.9). — θεά: on the form, R 2.2. 18 Ἀργείους: object of ὀλέκοντας. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι, M 12.2.

30

Iliad 7

18 ≈ Il. 19.135. — was aware of these two …: The demonstrative pronoun (on the use of ὅ ἥ τό as a demonstrative, 1.11 and 1.12b n.) in oblique cases with a verb of perception (usually, as here, enóēse) is frequently found in combination with the ‘epiphany’ of a god or hero whose name is placed at VE and emphasized via an epithetP or patronymic (3.21, 30, 5.95, 711, 11.248, 575, 581, 599, 21.49, 418, Od. 15.59, 24.232; cf. Od. 11.601; Bakker 1997, 173–178). This type of expression typically signals that the fortunes in battle are changing, especially when a successful hero is to be stopped in his tracks (West 2011 on 5.95). – In the Iliad, the gods frequently serve as ‘observers’ or ‘spectators’ of human action (61–62n.); changes of scene can also be conveyed via descriptions of observing (19.340n. with bibliography), as is the case here: Athene’s (and Apollo’s: 21) gaze provides a transition from the battlefield to a brief divine scene and divine intervention. — destroying the men of Argos: a description of the general situation, for which three concrete examples have been provided (Strasburger 1954, 47). — men of Argos: on this designation for the ‘Greeks’, 1.2n. ἐνόησε … ὀλέκοντας: on νοέω as a verb of perception construed with a part., 2.391n. — θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη: on the VE formula (19× Il., 32× Od., 4× Hes.) and the distinctive epithetP (probably ‘with bright/shining eyes’), 1.206n. — ὀλέκοντας: on the meaning of the κ-present (a ‘successful’ conclusion of the individual killing scenes), 1.10n.

19 ≈ Il. 1.44 (see ad loc.), 2.167 (see ad loc.), 4.74, 22.187, 24.121; Od. 1.102, 24.488; usually of Athene during her interventions in the human plane of action (Il. 24.121 of Thetis; 1.44 of Apollo). Elsewhere, the formulaic verse follows an authorizing consultation between the deity who acts and Zeus or Hera; not so here (or at 1.44). In contrast to the deities in other passages (and to Hera in what follows from 5.711 f. [≈ 7.17 f.]), Athene here achieves nothing, since Apollo stops her in her tracks. Aside from anything else, she does not intervene in the battle action (this is the intention Apollo anticipates: 7.24–26). Use of the formula that suggests an actual intervention causes expectations to be thwarted (Kurz 1966, 105 f.), while a possible alternative action is alluded to (cf. Homeric ‘if-not’ situationsP: 104–105n.). — Olympos: In Homeric epic, Mount Olympos in Thessaly/Macedonia is portrayed as the residence of the divine ‘clan’ (1.18n.; ‘just like a royal family that lives together on a citadel’ [de Jong on Il. 22.187]). The notions of mountain tops and divine heavens are sometimes mingled (Noussia 2002, 489–496; de Jong loc. cit.; but see Pucci 2012 with a series of examples illustrating a differentiation). On the Ouranos-Olympos formulae and their potentially different ages, Merritt Sale 1984.

19 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — Οὐλύμποιο: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the declension, R 11.2. — ἀΐξασα: from ἀΐσσω ‘hurry, rush’.

Commentary

31

ῥα: In all other examples, the formulaic verse is constructed with δέ rather ῥα (only here preceded by a dependent clause).

20a to sacred Ilion: The gods left the site of battle at the end of Book 5. On the designation of Troy as ‘Ilion’, 1.71n.; as a ‘sacred’ accumulation of cult sites and cradle of civilization, Scully 1990, esp. 23–40. Ἴλιον εἰς ἱερήν: ῎Ιλιος ἱρή is elsewhere an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc./gen. 21× Il., 2× Od.), also with a preposition: εἰς Ἴλιον ἱρήν (3× Il., 2× Od.; with προτί rather than εἰς 5× Il.); only here in this word order, at VB (but at the end of a sentence) and with the long form ἱερήν (on the word formation, West [1988] 2011, 157 f., 163). – εἰς is used here, as at 11.196, in the sense ‘toward’ (Athene does not enter the city itself ); alternatively, Ἴλιος could denote the area surrounding Troy (FOR 24). – On ἱ(ε)ρός as a generic epithetP of cities, and of Troy in particular, 1.38n.; West on Od. 1.2.

20b–21 ≈ 4.507 f. δέ: here serves an explanatory function: Apollo apparently fears Athene’s intervention on behalf of the Greeks (AH; cf. Race 2000, esp. 215–219 [the present passage is not discussed]).

21 ≈ 4.508, where also of Apollo; VE after caesura C 2 = Il. 13.347, 16.121 (see ad loc.), 23.682; ≈ 8.204; cf. 17.331 f. — Pergamos: Troy’s acropolis, which contains the religious center and the residences of the royal family; mentioned here in the context of Apollo and his temple (6.512n., cf. 81–83n.). In Book 5, Apollo spirited Aineias away to his temple and settled down there himself (5.445– 460). Elsewhere, the gods frequently observe human action from mountain tops (1.499n.; 14.156n.); on the bird’s eye view, also 59–60n. — he planned that the Trojans should conquer: Apollo’s partisanship in favor of the Trojans is made explicit here (cf. 1–312n. [section D]; 16.725n.; he also serves as a ‘forerunner’ for Zeus, who at the beginning of Book 8 will prohibit the gods from actively intervening. As the Trojans’ advocate, Apollo later turns into a ‘champion of Zeus’ interests’, who plans to temporarily strengthen the Trojans: Bergold 1977, 185 f. with n. 1). – The notion that victory is in the power of the gods, who ‘take’, ‘will’, or ‘remove’ it, is common in Homeric epic (16.844n.; 16.121n.; see LfgrE s.v. νίκη 404.48 ff.); in the present Book also at 26 f., 203, 292 = 378 = 397. The case is similar for terms such as ‘fame’, ‘strength’, etc.; in the present Book at 81 (see ad loc.), 205, 288 f. On the differentiation between permanent and temporary divine gifts (attributes vs. victories etc.), Van der Mije 1987.

20 Ἴλιον εἰς: = εἰς Ἴλιον (R 20.2). — τῇ: Athene is meant (R 17); likewise with τήν (23). — ἀντίος: predicative with ὤρνυτ(ο), ‘facing’. 21 Περγάμου ἐκκατιδών: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

32

Iliad 7

22 encountered each other beside the oak tree: Apollo goes to meet Athene in order to prevent her from aiding the Greeks (Kirk). The ‘lovely’ (5.693), ‘great’ (7.60) oak at 9.354, 11.170 and 21.549 serves as an illustrative (2.793n.) topographic fixed point in the Trojan plain near the Skaian Gate, which leads to the plain of the Skamandros and the battlefield (3.145n.; on another possible mention of the oak, 6.237n.); the present passage is useful for locating the gate, since Apollo and Athene meet where their paths cross, coming respectively from Troy’s acropolis and Mount Olympos to the west of the city (Luce 1998, 113 f.). What is more, as a point close to the city, the oak is a symbol of Trojan safety (Thornton 1984, 150–152; Trachsel 2007, 90–93; cf. 99 f.). The oak is sacred to Zeus (5.693, 7.60; cf. the oak at Dodona: Od. 14.328 = 19.297; ‘Hes.’ frr. 240.8 and 319 M.–W.); Zeus’ son Sarpedon is thus placed beneath it after he is injured (Il. 5.692 f.). In the context of the present passage (23 f.) and immediately afterward (37, 60), the temporary unity of the two deities is highlighted by stressing that both are descended from Zeus (Friedrich 2007, 96); Zeus’ oak thus appears to be an ideal place for a passing reconciliation (schol. T on 60). On other associations with the oak tree, Tsagalis 2012, 79–83. 23 1st VH. 10× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’ (on the variants, 6.122n.; cf. 7.33n.). προσέειπε: προσέ(ϝ)ειπε(ν) is an augmented reduplicated thematic aor.; see 14.64n. with bibliography for the word formation. — ἄναξ Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων: A VE formula (4× Il., including 7.37; 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 4× h.Hom.); here it marks a speech introduction that produces action (Bakker 1997, 165–169: ‘staged founding speech’ [168]).

24–32 Apollo must rapidly stop Athene rushing toward him; the harsh manner in which he addresses her and criticizes her lack of compassion at first seems imprudently impulsive (24–27; on Apollo’s emotionality in defending mortals vis-à-vis gods, cf. 24.33–54 [see ad loc.], where he angers Hera by championing Hektor [1–312n.]). In the second half of his speech (30–32), he seems to ‘catch his breath’, as it were; he reconsiders and chooses a more diplomatic tone (see below on the individual lemmata). – By stressing ‘we’ in 29, Apollo gives the impression of wanting both to cooperate with Athene and to end divine interventions generally. He himself will nevertheless intervene again only a little later (7.272). In a similar manner, Athene leads the pro-Trojan god Ares away from the battle (5.29–34), but herself becomes involved again later on (5.121) (Wiessner 1940, 39).

22 ἀλλήλοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — τὼ … συναντέσθην: from συνάντομαι ‘meet’; on the dual, R 18.1. 23 πρότερος: ‘first’. — προσέειπεν: = προσεῖπεν (↑).

Commentary

33

24–25 1st VH of 25 ≈ 1.394, 7.35, 24.104; 2nd VH of 25 = 21.395. — What can be your desire this time: Athene had already intervened in the battle action on a grand scale on this very day (5.1–8, 5.114–132, 5.250 f., 5.676, 5.792–859); Apollo’s response can be understood as rhetorical and irritated (Kirk: like Sappho fr. 1.18). The similarly phrased but clearly more pacific question put by Zeus to Hera, who is rushing to meet him on Mount Ida (Il. 14.298), does not use ‘this time, again’ (aú: ‘conveying emotional excitement, whether for good or for ill’: Bonifazi 2012, 245 with n. 178). Cf. also the question from a testy Achilleus to Athene at 1.202 (see ad loc.), as well as 1.540n. On issues regarding the objective of an urge (mémona), 14.298n.; on the rhetoric of arguments in the Iliad, 1.106– 108n. — at the urge of your mighty spirit: megas … thumós is not complimentary; at 21.395, Ares snaps at Athene with the same expression – there embedded in a stream of insults (at 393, his speech is explicitly characterized as ‘opprobrious’). thumós also means ‘temperament, passion’: 2.196n. with bibliography. In addition, cf. the etymology, which suggests affinity to ‘smoke’ (Sanskrit dhumá, Latin fumus) or ‘rush, hurry’ (thýō) (Delg, Beekes). ἦλθες: Like ἤλυθες at the beginning of a speech, this is often an expression of joy at the sight of someone (24.104n.) – or its ironic inverse: 3.428n. (Helen to Paris). Here too it is a mocking question and statement: ‘so you made it!?’ (aor. with the function of a perf.: LfgrE s.v. ἐλθεῖν 536.77). — θυμὸς ἀνῆκεν: A VE formula, also at 6.256, 7.152 (see ad loc.), 10.389, 12.307, 21.395, 22.252, ‘Hes.’ fr. 200.7; with ἀνείη at 22.346; with ἀνήσει at 2.276. θυμός is frequently the active subject with verbs of urging, desiring, etc. (2.276n. with bibliography), thus below at 68, 74, 320. On aspects of the term in 7.67–218 (urge to battle, fear of defeat, hope for victory), Cheyns 1981.

26–27 2nd VH of 26 = 8.171; 16.362 (see ad loc.); VE of 26 after caesura C 1 also = 17.627, Od. 22.236. — the Danaans: ‘Danaans’ is a Homeric term for the Greeks, alongside ‘Achaians’ and ‘Argives’ (1.2n.). — victory in the battle, turning it ǀ back?: see 16.362n. for additional phrases that suggest a shifting balance between superiority and inferiority in battle. — To give … victory: 21n. — Since you have no pity at all: Apollo reminds Athene of events described in Book 6: Helenos, followed by Hektor, suggests to the women of Troy that they sacrifice to Athene, ‘if only she will have pity’ (6.94 f., 275 f.) – in vain (6.309–311). ἦ ἵνα δή: Apollo himself responds to his rhetorical question with another question ‘will you?’; see 1.203n. with parallels and bibliography). ἦ ἵνα is used with emphatic δή only

24 τίπτε: = τί ποτε, ‘but why?’. — δὴ ͜ αὖ: ‘yet again’; on the synizesis, R 7. — μεμαυῖα: part. of the perf. μέμονα, here ‘be desirous, eager’; cf. 3n. 25 Οὐλύμποιο: 19n. — ἀνῆκεν: here ‘urged on’. 26 ἦ ἵνα: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἑτεραλκέα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 27 ἐπεὶ οὔ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — οὔ τι: ‘not at all’, literally ‘not in any regard’; τι is acc. of respect, as in the following verse (R 19.1).

34

Iliad 7

here (Denniston 233: ‘indignant’), although even without δή the expression is always used in more or less sarcastic rhetorical questions concerning the supposed intentions of one’s interlocutor; here it reveals Apollo’s disapproval (Scodel 2012, 321–323). — ἑτεραλκέα νίκην: a noun-epithetP formula (see above for iterata) meaning ‘a victory that’ (via ἀλκή) ‘is turning or has turned (to the other side)’: schol. A and b on 7.26; AH with Anh., Leaf, Willcock, in the sense ‘so far, the Trojans have been winning, now the Greeks shall win’. Less likely: ‘a victory that comes about via the aid of others – especially via divine aid’ (Casabona 1967; Janko on 16.358–363; Kelly 2007, 200), since ἕτερος as ‘one of the two’ denotes one of the warring parties rather than the favored party and favoring deity. ‘Victory in which one of the two parties is equipped with (decisive) power in battle’ (LfgrE) is likely too flat, since all Homeric examples refer to the turning of success in battle, including the sole use of the epithet not in reference to νίκη (15.738 with δῆμος: ‘people who may turn a victory’). Cf. also ἑτεροζήλως (‘making efforts for one side’ = ‘unfair, partisan’) at Hes. Th. 544. — δῷς: 2nd-pers. sing. in early epic only here (compared to 21× 3rd-pers. sing. δώῃ). The heavy monosyllabic form results in an integral enjambmentP ‘of some violence’, probably not primarily in order to emphasize Athene’s lack of compassion for the Trojans (thus Kirk; in any case, this is highlighted via the leading position of οὔ τι in what follows; AH). Instead, the end of an emphatic question is here given additional stress, and the unusual caesura A 1 results in a ‘breathing space’ after the runover word, as if in (rhetorical) shock.

28 = Od. 20.381; 1st VH ≈ 4.93, 7.48, 14.190 (see ad loc.), 2nd VH ≈ 3.41, 5.201, 17.417, 22.103, 22.108, Od. 9.228, 11.358, 20.316. — But if you might only do as I say: By using this polite, suggestive formula (14.190n.), the speaker tries to gain consent for an action without accurately revealing its context or actual motivation (Kelly 2007, 377); this is characteristic of the tense encounter between the enemy deities. Helenos will repeat the formula to Hektor (48), and the persuasive trick is transmitted from divine to human communication. τό: It is impossible to determine whether τό refers backward to the εἰ-clause or forward to what follows. In the first case, the protasis would be understood as a wish clause: ‘if you were to agree with me, that would be much more useful’: Lange 1872, 358; cf. loc. cit. 355–360; Wace/Stubbings 1962, 156; Ruijgh [1992] 1996, 681, who takes κεν to be a consecutive particle [‘in that case’]). In the second case, the protasis would be taken as conditional/potential: ‘but if you were to listen to me, the following suggestion would be much more useful’: Tabachovitz 1951, 88; cf. 78–90). The present instance probably represents a historically developed hybrid form (Schw. 2.323 f.). On the cupitive-potential optative, see also 48n. and 14.190n. — κέρδιον: a comparative neuter derived from κέρδος ‘gain, benefit’: ‘more beneficial, better, more desirable’. Used almost exclusively as a predicate noun with εἶναι (in VE formulae), mostly in direct speechP (3.41n.).

28 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).

Commentary

35

29–32 The frequency of enjambment creates an impression of rushed speech, as if Apollo were trying to divert attention from the harsh rebuke at the beginning of his remarks (24–32n.). His call to end the battle (29), initially phrased more generally, appears spontaneous as he elaborates it later (30–31a): he is concerned merely with the present day (it would be pointless to demand anything more from Athene: Kirk). 29–31a 29 f. ≈ 290 f., cf. 376 f., 395 f. – 30b–31a = 9.48b–49a, cf. 9.418b–419a, 9.685b– 686a. — For this day … | now; again hereafter: = 290 f. (290–292n.), 8.142, 20.127 (without ‘now’); on similar expressions, 24.619n. Emphasis on the temporal contrast via progressive enjambmentP and chiastic arrangement: ‘for this day; hereafter’ (Clark 1997, 90–92). As at 7.290 f. (Hektor after the duel with Aias), here too it is the man who is subsequently defeated who, by agreeing that the fighting will continue later on, tries to convince a member of the victorious party to accept a pause in battle. Priam offers a truce to the Greeks with similar words (376 f. = 395 f.: 44–45n.; see Clark loc. cit. and 156–158 with a detailed comparison of the passages). Cf. Kelly 2007, 169, on the persuasive character of the formula. — let us put an end to … the fighting: 29–31a show that Apollo is trying to achieve a momentary end to all confrontations crucial to the outcome of the war (which will ultimately lead, as he is well aware, to the destruction of Troy). When he proposes a duel at 38 ff., he must thus mean a less consequential sparring, since the death of either Hektor or Aias would be decisive (1–312n. [section IV]). — till we witness the finish | they make of Ilion: ProlepsesP of Troy’s destruction (likewise at 32) permeate the Iliad as a leitmotif: 6.447–449n. In this case, the speaker is an omniscient god; the same is not the case in the iterata at 290 f., 376 f. and 395 f., where the speakers are Trojans who accord themselves a 50 % chance of winning the war (‘until the divinity chooses between us and gives victory to one or the other’: de Jong [1987] 2004, 153). πόλεμον καὶ δηϊοτῆτα: an inflectable VE formula (gen./dat./acc., 6× Il.); in a military context, such synonym doublings are common (2–3n.). The archaism δηϊοτής means ‘hostilities, battle’ (3.20n. with bibliography; 2.415n. on the etymology and development of the meaning) and is thus roughly synonymous with πόλεμος (in early epic usually ‘battle/fighting’, less commonly ‘war’: LfgrE s.v. 1335.41 ff.; 2.453n. with bibliography). — μαχήσοντ(αι): sc. Greeks and Trojans. A concessive fut. ind., ‘as far as I’m concerned, they may fight again later’: AH; Hentze 1868, 519–521; cf. 6.71n.; 24.717n.; Schw. 2.291; Chantr. 2.202. — τέκμωρ: an ‘end point’ predetermined by fate (Leaf; cf. LfgrE s.v. τεκμαίρομαι; not ‘the Greeks’ objective’ [AH with Anh., Willcock], but more likely linked to the efforts of Hera and Athene described at 31 f.). A de facto periphrasis for

30 σήμερον: ‘today’. — εἰς ὅ: ‘until’. — τέκμωρ: ‘end, goal’, here: ‘conquest, destruction’ (↑). 31 εὕρωσιν, ἐπεί: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ὥς: = οὕτως.

36

Iliad 7

πέρσις or ἅλωσις (LfgrE s.v. τέκμωρ with bibliography); differently at 1.526 (see ad loc.: ‘sign [of something predetermined, set]’). — εὕρωσιν: ‘obtain, achieve’, as at 16.472 (AH).

31b–32 VE 31 after caesura C 1 = 10.531, 11.520, 14.337, 23.548, Od. 8.571, 13.145, 14.397, 18.113, h.Ap. 527; after caesura C 2 = Il. 14.158, Od. 20.304. — since it is dear to the heart of you: here probably in reference not only to the decision (Fränkel 1951 [1973], 82 f.) but also to the delight of the two goddesses (Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 70–72) at Troy’s imminent fall. phílon ‘dear’ is also used as an expression of divine inclination or even capriciousness at e.g. 14.69 (see ad loc.), while elsewhere (in reference to an activity or an object) it frequently describes general character, in the sense ‘something is dear to someone = his/ her own’: Landfester 1966, 99–107; see 16.556n. with additional bibliography. — goddesses immortal: In addition to Athene, Hera fights on the Greek side (CG 8). The feminine has occasionally been found bothersome, since there are also male deities who demand Troy’s destruction (for discussion, West 2011 ad loc.). But as a result of their defeat in the Judgement of Paris, Hera and Athene are emotionally engaged to a particularly high degree (2.155–181n.; for a collection of examples of joint action by Hera and Athene, 1.195n). Apollo is here perhaps contemptuously designating the fall of Troy a ‘catfight’ (cf. van der Valk 1949, 129 f.; Elmer 2013, 265 n. 14). ἔπλετο: The aor. of πέλομαι is commonly used with reference to the present: ‘turned out to be’ > ‘is’ (6.433–434n. with bibliography). — θυμῷ: 2–3n. — ἀθανάτῃσι: on the ancient variants ἀθανάτοισιν and ἀμφοτέρῃσιν, van der Valk 1964, 75; Rengakos 1993, 69; 2002, 154. — διαπραθέειν: zero-grade thematic aor. ( κρεμῶ > κρεμόω): Schw. 1.784; Chantr. 1.448 f.; on the diectasis, G 48. δαμόωσιν at 6.368n. is similar — Ἀπόλλωνος ἑκάτοιο: a VE formula: 20.295, h.Ap. 1, h.Vest. 1 (h.Hom. 26). Ἕκατος is an abbreviated form related to ἑκατηβόλος (AH, DELG). On Apollo as archer, see 57–59an. 84 νῆας ἐϋσσέλμους: an inflectable formulaP in various positions in the verse (see 419n.); starting in the 3rd metron, as here, in the gen./acc. sing. or dat. pl. in total 7× Il., 3× Od. The epithetP means ‘with good rowing benches’ or ‘with a good deck’ (2.170n.). On ship epithets in general: 1.12bn. s.v. ‘fast’; also 71–72n.; 78n.; 88n.; 229n.

85 the flowing-haired Achaians: long hair is common in the world of early Greek nobility; on the use of the inflectable VE formula, 2.11n.; on the term ‘Achaians’, 1.2n. ταρχύσωσι: ‘bury ceremonially’; in the Iliad also at 16.456 = 674 (of Sarpedon). On the etymology (likely from I-E *terh2 ‘overcome, cross over’), 16.456–457n. with bibliography; association with ταριχεύειν ‘embalm’ (AH, Leaf, Willcock, etc.) is mistaken: LfgrE and DELG s.v.; Kirk with bibliography. 86 1st VH to caesura A 4 = Od. 1.291, 2.222, 2nd VH = Od. 24.82, cf. Il. 17.432. — and heap up a mound upon him: Hektor guarantees his opponent an afterlife in the memory of posterity, as Achilleus does for Andromache’s father, Eëtion, whom he kills (6.419a); this is strongly differentiated from the repeated threats

81 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — δώῃ: aor. subjunc. of δίδωμι; like ἕλω, dependent on εἰ … κ(ε). 82 προτὶ (ϝ)ίλιον: on the hiatus, R 5.4. — προτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — ἱρήν: = ἱεράν. 83 κρεμόω: fut. of κρεμάννυμι ‘hang up, suspend from’ (↑). — ποτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — νηόν: = ναόν (Attic νεών). — Ἀπόλλωνος (ϝ)εκάτοιο: on the prosody, R 4.5. 84 τόν: can be the article or a demonstrative pronoun (R 17); if the latter, νέκυν is to be taken predicatively. 85 ὄφρα (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.3; likewise τέ (ϝ)οι in the next verse. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ταρχύσωσι: aor. subjunc. of ταρχύω ‘bury, inter’. — κάρη: = τὸ κάρα (R 2), ‘head’; acc. of respect (R 19.1). — κομόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 86 οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — χεύωσιν: aor. subjunc. of χέω ‘heap up’.

Commentary

61

by Homeric heroes to throw their opponents’ bodies to the dogs and carrion birds (76–91n.). Hektor is thinking, of course, of his own fame in particular (90). The grave monument is the sign of a hero’s fame: see NTHS 50–53; Patzek 1992, 162–185; 6.419an. with bibliography (also for the absence of explicit references to the phenomenon of hero cult in Homer [on the ongoing controversy, see Currie 2005, 47–84; Nagy 2012]); also Bakker [1997] 2005, 109 f.; Hölkeskamp 2002, 332 f. On the issues of posterity, fame and self-referentiality in the pertinent passages of the Iliad in general, see NTHS 62; 2.119n.; 2.325n.; 3.287n.; 6.356–358n.; 16.31n. (all with bibliography); Bakker 1997, 165 f.; Scodel 2002, 69 f.; Collobert 2011, 138–154; cf. Garcia 2013, 131–157 on the repeated questioning of the permanence of such monuments (e.g. at 23.331 f.: Nestor suspects that the mark chosen by Achilleus as the finish for the chariot race may have been a tomb even though it is no longer recognizable as such; in the present passage, Hektor appears to assume that no one will remember the name of the defeated warrior: 89–90n.). – The vividness of the description can be explained by the actual topography of the Troad, which includes hills and tumuli visible from the sea, the former of course present already in the 8th cent., the latter of later date but probably in some cases with predecessor structures (Hölscher [1988] 1990, 159 f.; Luce 1998, 109; Burgess 2006, 14 f.; 2009, 112–126). The Iliad also mentions additional burial mounds in the Troad: at 4.177 the tomb of Menelaos as imagined by Agamemnon (as here, with a tis-speechP: 176–182, although there the tomb is a ridiculed mark of shame rather than of honor; on the parallels with the present passage, Schneider 1996, 108 f.) and at 23.245–258 the tumulus for Patroklos planned by Achilleus. χεύωσιν: 63n.

87–91 One of eight tis-speechesP in the Iliad imagined by a characterP, five of which are by Hektor (also 6.459–463 [see ad loc.], 6.479, 7.300–302 [see ad loc.], 22.106–108 [cf. Hektor imagining a speech by Achilleus at 16.837–842, see ad loc.]), as well as one apiece by Agamemnon, Sarpedon and Menelaos (4.176– 182, 12.317–321, 23.575–578): de Jong 1987, 76–80; Schneider 1995 [on Hektor’s tis-speeches, 57–65, 104–110, 113–115]; Mackie 1996, 98 f.; Kelly 2007, 183 f., with additional bibliography. There is also evidence in the Epic of Gilgamesh for a hero’s sense that posterity will speak about him (OBV Yale fr. iv 13–15; see West 1997, 369). – On the characterP plane, the perspective of posterity can legitimize the action pursued by the speaker (Kirk on 7.300–302; 6.459–462n.), but the imagined tis-speeches serve especially to characterize the speaker (de Jong loc. cit. 83; Kirk loc. cit. on the preoccupation with fame typical of Hektor: ‘a special susceptibility to public opinion … reflecting his keen sense of duty but also akin to his special concern over the treatment of his body after death’; similarly Bouvier 2002, 60 f.). Like the present passage, the tis-speech at 6.459–463,

62

Iliad 7

where Hektor laments Andromache’s future suffering, is constructed in the manner of a ring-compositionP, with the 1st VH of 6.459 = 7.87 and the 1st VH of 6.462 = 7.91 (both verse halves also in one other tis-speech: 1st VH of 87 ≈ 6.479; 1st VH of 91 = 4.182, in the latter passage likewise in association with a burial mound: that of Menelaos, which in Agamemnon’s imagination will bear witness to his own failure). 87 1st VH ≈ 6.459, 2nd VH = 3.353. — And some day one of the men to come will say: a typical introductory formula for a tis-speechP; in the present Book, cf. 178, 201, 300 (on this, Schneider 1996, 21–31). — some day: The adverb (pote) is repeated twice in the following verses (90, 91); this creates an atmosphere of great temporal distance (Schneider 1996, 109; Grethlein 2006, 230). καί ποτέ τις εἴπησι: The subjunctive (on the form in -ησι without ι subscript, West 1998, ΧΧΧΙ) is probably no longer dependent on ὄφρα (85), but still expresses the same anxious expectation, while a similar notion is picked up at 91 in the future (cf. AH: likewise at 6.459/462, Od. 6.275/285). On the pragmatic proximity of subjunc. and fut. ind., 6.459n. with bibliography; this proximity notwithstanding, the greater certainty of the future tense can create the impression that over the course of his speech, the speaker comes to believe the notion expressed.

88 1st VH to B 1 = 8.239, Od. 23.324; ≈ Od. 21.19 (dat. pl.), Hes. Op. 817 (acc. sing.); 2nd VH from B 1 = Od. 4.474, 1.183 (there 1st VH), from C 1 = Il. 1.350, 2.613, 5.771, 23.143, Od. 2.421, 3.286, ‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).56 M.-W., h.Bacch. 7.7. — wine-blue water: The epithetP oínops ‘wine-colored’ (literally: ‘wine-faced’) was generally interpreted as ‘black’ or ‘red’ by ancient scholars (2.613n. with bibliography). The epithets for póntos, twelve in total, are not interchangeable prosodically (on the sole exception, 1.350n.): the selection is thus not made primarily in accord with semantic criteria. νηῒ πολυκλήϊδι: an inflectable VB formula (see iterata); a variant in the dat. pl. after caesura A 4: 2.175, 13.742, 23.248; in the dat. sing. with a preposition after A 4: Od. 8.161, 20.382, ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.59 M.-W.; in the dat. pl.: Il. 2.74, 15.63. Πολυκλήϊς means ‘with many oarlocks’ (i.e. pegs on the gunwales of a ship for fastening the oars: 2.74n. with bibliography). On ship epithets in general: 1.12bn. s.v. ‘fast’; cf. 71–72n.; 78n.; 84n.; 229n. — οἴνοπα πόντον: an inflectable formula, at VE (see iterata) except at Od. 1.183; variants: ἐνί + dat. (23.316, Od. 5.132, 5.221, 7.250, 12.388, 19.172, 19.274, Hes. Op. 622), εἰς + acc. (Od. 5.349, Hes. Op. 817), ἐπί + dat. (h.Ap. 391) and in the acc. without a preposition (Od. 6.170). — The combination of the two formulae ‘with its plangent repetitions of π, ν and κλ’ (Kirk) occurs elsewhere in early epic only at Hes. Op. 817 (cf. also ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.59 f.).

87 καὶ … καί: ‘and … also’. — τις (ϝ)είπησι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — εἴπησι: 3rd-pers. sing. subjunc. (R 16.3). 88 ἐπὶ (ϝ)οίνοπα: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary

63

89–90 89 ≈ 23.331. — There may be an ironic reference here to a later episode in the myth of Troy: the tomb that posterity will admire from the sea will be that of Hektor’s conqueror, Achilleus, rather than that of the second-bravest of the Achaians whom Hektor hopes to vanquish at this point (76–91n.). – Already in antiquity, the style of the two lines was likened to funerary epigrams: schol. bT on 86 and 89; Ps.-Plut. De Homero Β 215 Kindstrand (where Homer is designated as the inventor of the genre based on the present passage and the parallel at 6.460 f. [87–91n.]); see Lausberg 1982, 35; Hillgruber 1999, 434 f. (with additional examples). Modern scholarship supports the proximity of the verses to the genre of funerary epigram via inscriptions of ‘real’ epigrams, in particular the so-called Arniadas inscription from Korkyra (630–600 B.C.; GVI 73 = IG 9.1.868 = CEG 1.145), which is composed in hexameters (three verses), begins with the formula ‘this is the tomb of’ and also contains the motif of a warrior being killed while distinguishing himself (aristeúonta); there too the deceased is listed in the accusative, the conqueror (Ares) in the nominative. See Lumpp 1963; Raubitschek 1968; Gentili/Giannini 1977, 23 f.; Häusle 1980, 74 f.; Lausberg 1982, 102 with n. 4; Martin 1989, 137; Kirk; Nagy 1990a, 18 f. n. 7; Bakker (1997) 2005, 110, with additional bibliography; also Elmer 2005. In contrast to an actual epitaph, formal details such as name, patronymic and achievements are absent from the present passage (Schneider 1996, 106); there are other obvious differences on the level of addressee and speaker, with the result that the epigram says more about the speaker than its object (de Jong 1987, 77 f.). Although Hektor genuinely cannot know the name of his potential victim, the contrast between the namelessness of the buried ‘man’ whose tomb is being described, and ‘brilliant Hektor’ placed chiastically and emphatically at verse end, creates an appearance of overconfidence: even the monument erected in honor of the defeated warrior mostly tells of the fame of the victor (Martin 1989, 137; Stanley 1993, 94; Grethlein 2006, 227 f.; Schnaufer 1970, 176 [transl.] considers this reversal ‘a particular barb against the Greeks’). Although it might be conceivable that a tomb could canvas the fame of the conqueror in some manner (Scodel 2008, 81 f.), there is no evidence for such a case (Ready 2011, 238 n. 76). – Curiously, Cicero in his lost De Gloria designates 89–91 (which he translates into Latin) as the wishful imagination of Aias, who muses about how his tomb would tell of Hektor’s fame in the case of his own defeat (Gell. NA 15.6; Schneider loc. cit. 109 f.). The confusion is perhaps due to Roman veneration of the Trojan Hektor, which is ascribed even to Aias; in any case,

89 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — κατατεθνηῶτος: = -τεθνεῶτος (R 3). 90 κατέκτανε: beside the weak aor. κατέκτεινα of κατακτείνω, in Homer there is also the strong aor. κατέκτανον.

64

Iliad 7

it represents an interesting contrast to the assessment of the scholia (see the following). — who was one of the bravest: Unsurprisingly, terms originating in the semantic fields ‘achievement’ and ‘fame’ are common in tis-speechesP (Schneider 1996, 39 f.); in battle descriptions made from the perspective of the narrator, the same phrasing appears neutral: 11.506, 15.460 (AH). On the emphatic designation of warriors at the moment of death as the ‘best’ of their group, 6.7–8n.; 16.292n. with bibliography; see also above on the Arniadas inscription. It thus seems excessive to interpret Hektor’s self-presentation as ‘vainglorious, boastful and barbaric’ (schol. bT on 90). He is inclined to be overly confident, but this is based on a sense of duty rather than vanity (Stoevesandt 2004, 285 f.). — glorious Hektor: on a possible association with the gleam of the armor, 7.1n.; differently Sacks 1987, 105–151, esp. 130 f. (the epithetP is largely contrastive [here: in contrast to the opponent who is excelling] in a pejorative context: ‘The shine loses its luster’ [loc. cit. 150]; cf. Bouvier 2002, 207 f.). 91 1st VH to caesura B 1 = 4.182, 6.462; 2nd VH after C 1 = 2.325 (see ad loc.), Od. 24.196 (see ad loc.), ‘Hes.’ fr. 70.7 M.-W., h.Ap. 156. — and my glory will not be forgotten: Hektor makes explicit what so far has only been hinted at – his claim to eternal fame (kléos: 2.235n.), the ‘tidings’ that will spread beyond the here and now, corresponding to the ‘undying fame’ prophesied for Achilleus (kléos áphthiton, 9.413). The term is distinct from eúchos, the victory cheer of the moment (81, see ad loc.): Pucci (1988) 1998, 62 n. 40. On ‘postumous fame’ in Homeric epic, 86n.; 87–91n. κλέος οὔ ποτ’ ὀλεῖται: a ‘breach of economy’ (Friedrich 2007, 17 f.): the VE formula (see iterata) is prosodically and semantically interchangeable with κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται (9.413). The existence of such variants is inconsistent with the rigorous reduction of epic language to a monodimensional repertoire of formulae (cf. FOR 40–44; 1.121n. with bibliography and Friedrich loc. cit. passim); at 9.413, the aim may have been to avoid repetition of ὄλλυμι, which was already used once in the verse (Finkelberg 1986, 5). Against this is the possible I-E origin of the expression κλέος ἄφθιτον; see e.g. Schmitt 1967, 65 f.; Nagy 1974, 142 and passim; Edwards 1985, 77 with n. 17; an overview of the discussion in Garcia 2013, 257 n. 29.

91 ὥς: = οὕτως; likewise in the following verse. — τις (ϝ)ερέει: cf. 87n. — ἐρέει: fut. ‘will say’ (= ἐρεῖ, cf. R 6). — ὀλεῖται: fut. of ὄλλυμαι.

Commentary

65

92–122 None of the Greeks has the courage to face Hektor’s challenge; in the end, Menelaos volunteers. Agamemnon restrains him and points out Hektor’s superior abilities. Hektor’s challenge produces great fear among the Greeks – he is considered an extremely dangerous opponent (Stoevesandt 2004, 199 f.). As Helen’s husband, Menelaos still feels responsible for the situation as a whole (schol. bT on 7.94; see also 2.409n.; 3.97–107n. [both with bibliography], 10.25–28, 17.91 f., 23.607 f.; Whitman 1958, 171). In fact, however, this is no longer the case: in terms of the causally independent momentum for the war that is now gathering (see Introduction p. 12 f.), Menelaos no longer plays a role as the representative of the Greek side (Scully 1990, 120; cf. Bergold 1977, 190 f. with n. 3; 109–119n.), especially given that, among the ‘kings of the Achaians’ (106), he is thought to have little chance against Hektor (thus Agamemnon at 111; at 17.89 ff., Menelaos manages to briefly overtake Hektor in the battle for Patroklos’ body, but only with the help of Athene, cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 203 f.). As is repeatedly the case in the Iliad, Menelaos’ commitment is greater than his abilities (Parry 1972, 17: ‘he has more zeal than true valour’; see 2.588–590n. and 2.588n.; also 17.91–105 [on which, Fenik 1978a, 85–89] and 586–588). Nevertheless, with his act of overconfidence – followed by Agamemnon’ explicit and public statement of his inferiority – he manages to salvage the group’s reputation: his provocation will force the other heroes to respond to Hektor’s challenge (Scodel 2008, 69– 71). 92 A formulaic verse: in total 10× Il. (including a response by the Greeks to Hektor’s challenge to a duel with Paris at 3.95 [see ad loc.], but also the athletic challenge by Epeios [who boasts confidently in a manner similar to Hektor] at 23.676; cf. 1–312n. [IV]), 5× Od.; from caesura A 3 = Od. 7.154. – The 1st VH is also strongly formulaic; see next section. – As in the iteratum in Book 3, the Greeks are here at first unsure how to respond to the unexpected proposal; the same applies at 7.398, where Idaios delivers Paris’ meager offer of returning the looted goods. The verse always expresses uncertainty (Latacz [1968] 1994, 610); it concerns the decision for an important or perilous challenge (Kelly 2007, 85 f.), which in the Iliad generally promises the gain or loss of kléos (Foley 1995, 13 f.). The verse serves as a pause by preceding the response by an individual character (Pinault 1994, 511; Dué/Ebbott 2010 on 10.313). It thus represents the functional counterpart to the group of formulae that designate immediate obedience (43n.; 379n.): Elmer 2013, 28. The response that follows always deviates somewhat from what is expected: Menelaos will respond

92 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο; 43n.

66

Iliad 7

appropriately to Hektor’s challenge, but will then be prevented from fighting; similarly unexpected events occur in all situations in the Iliad that follow this formulaic verse (which is thus anticipatoryP) (Foley loc. cit. 10–20; ibid. 20–25 on the similar function of the verse in the Odyssey, albeit there not always pertinent to kléos). – The verse is repeatedly followed by the VB formula found at 94 (see ad loc.), which indicates that an answer will follow only after a delay, while further drawing out the silence (so too at 7.398 f.; also 8.28/30, 9.29/ 31, 9.430/432, 9.693/696, Od. 7.154 f., 20.320 f.). But this is not so in the duel situation in Book 3 (3.95), where Menelaos responds less hesitantly to the proposal of fighting against Paris than in the present passage, where a more dangerous opponent presents himself for battle (Kirk). — all: Often stressed elsewhere in Homeric epic is also the notion that a speech or action has left a deep impression on all those present (2.143n. with additional examples). ὣς ἔφαθ’, οἳ δ’ ἄρα πάντες: in total 8× Il., 19× Od.; contains the inflectable VB formula ὣς ἔφαθ’, οἳ/αἳ/ἣ δ’ (ἄρ[α]): in total 34× Il., 19× Od., 1× Hes., 4× h.Hom.; also the simple speech capping formulaP ὣς ἔφαθ’/τ’: 43n. — ἀκήν: ‘silently’; adv., an ossified acc. form of a noun ἀκή (3.95n.; on the etymology, 1.34n. with bibliography).

93 A rhetorically intricate verse: in terms of syntax, it presents a parallelism, whereas on a semantic level there is a strongly antithetical dichotomy (Kirk ad loc.; 1978, 28; cf. 16.282n. and 14.192n. with parallels and bibliography): shame keeps the Greeks from turning down the challenge, fear keeps them from accepting it. They are thus frozen by conflicting emotions, in contrast to e.g. 15.657 f., where they persist out of fear and shame (Redfield 1994, 267 n. 15; Williams 1993, 79). — in shame: aideísthai/aidṓs are key terms in the value system of the Iliad and Odyssey; inter alia, they designate an aversion to causing disapproval or failing to fulfill expectations (see 1.23n.; 1.149n.; 6.442n.; 24.44n. with bibliography); the present passage typifies ‘the essential, inhibitory nature of aidṓs in Homer’ (Cairns 1993, 48): aidṓs prevents the Greeks from flatly rejecting the challenge. ἀνήνασθαι … ὑποδέχθαι: The division of the verse into two parts is underlined by the identical ending of the antithetical verbs (Fehling 1969, 311). ἀνήνασθαι: The etymology of ἀπαναίνομαι ‘reject’ is disputed; either a primary verb *αἴνομαι (cf. αἶνος) in a compound with ἀν(ά), in which case it was sometimes perceived as a simplex already in early epic (cf. impf. ἠναίνετο), or a reduplicated negative ἀν- verbalised via –ι̭ ο- (*ἀν-αν-ι̭ ο-μαι), which is supported by an aorist form without iota: an overview of the bibliography in LfgrE (on this, DELG Suppl.).

93 αἴδεσθεν: = ᾐδέσθησαν (R 16.1–2). — ἀνήνασθαι: aor. inf. of ἀναίνομαι ‘reject’. — ὑποδέχθαι: aor. inf. of ὑποδέχομαι ‘accept’.

Commentary

67

94 2nd VH = 123 ≈ Od. 24.422. — at long last Menelaos … addressed them …: The formula (see below) implies that the pause between the two speeches is extraordinary; the fact that a reply does not follow immediately thus appears surprising (Beck 2005, 36 f.), perhaps an ‘awkward silence’. ὀψὲ δὲ δὴ … μετέειπε(ν): a VB formula (6× Il., 2× Od.), only here with words intervening in the formula due to the insertion Μενέλαος ἀνίστατο (Kelly 2007, 87 f.). Alternatively simple ὀψὲ δὲ δή: Il. 17.466, 3× Od.).

95–102 In his speech of rebuke, Menelaos grows agitated at the Greeks’ refusal to meet Hektor’s challenge; this may be designed to illustrate the tension between his awareness of his inferiority vis-à-vis Hektor on the one hand, and the weight of his responsibility on the other (92–122n.) (Willcock on 94). The Iliad contains numerous invective passages (2.221 ff., 3.38 ff., 5.471 ff., 21.480 ff., 24.248 ff.); they are especially frequent in the present section: here Menelaos criticizes the Greeks, at 109–119 Agamemnon takes Menelaos to task for his excessive confidence, at 123–160 Nestor reprimands the Greeks (Kirk on 7.123– 160). On the speech of rebuke as a type, 2.225–242n.; 4.242n.; 16.421–425n., all with bibliography; on the characterP plane, it frequently serves as a paraenetic incitement of the warriors (Krapp 1964, 79; Wißmann 1997, 54–62), but on the narrative plane as a brief retardationP of the battle action (Pagani 2008, 332, cf. 333, 337: other typical elements of heroic speeches, in addition to the rebuke [94–98: cf. e.g. 4.242–245; 8.163 f., 8.228–235, 12.244–247, 17.142 f., 17.149–153, 17.166–168], are threats, here more like curses [99 f.: similar e.g. 2.357–359, 2.391–393, 12.248–250, 13.232–234]). – 3.38 ff. might be considered a parallel for the present speech; Hektor there reprimands Paris, who is refusing to face Menelaos in a duel (likewise with use of the term ‘shame’ [lṓbē] at 3.42/7.97 [see ad loc.] and the notion of becoming one with the earth/dust at 3.55 [see ad loc.]/7.99): cf. Wiessner 1940, 40. 95 Menelaos’ reluctance is emphasized via the pleonastic phrase at the beginning of the verse and the expressive second VH (Kirk). νείκει ὀνειδίζων: a pleonastic phrase that occurs only here (Kirk: ‘obtrusively redundant’). νείκει can be interpreted in various ways: a. nominal as a dat. of manner: ‘with reproaches, making accusations’; b. via νείκε[α] restored from the v.l. as acc. object of ὀνειδίζων (cf. 20.251 f. ἔριδας καὶ νείκεα … | νεικεῖν): Leaf ad loc. and on 1.211. c. verbal as an unaugmented impf.: ‘he rebuked’: West 2001, 199, also on parallels in the Iliad; d. via νείκε’ restored from the v.l. as an uncontracted impf.: listed as an alternative in schol. A; West app. crit. — μέγα δὲ στοναχίζετο θυμῷ: θυμῷ does not indicate that the moaning happens inaudbly, ‘internally, in the depths of his heart’ (AH [transl.]); by analogy with phrases containing ἀναστενάχειν/ἀναστεναχίζειν (e.g. at 10.9 f., 18.315 [see

94 μετέειπεν: an indirect object (σφι vel sim.) is to be supplied.

68

Iliad 7

ad loc.]; cf. 19.314 [see ad loc.]) it could also refer to an audible ‘sighing from the bottom of his heart’ (Krapp 1964, 31 f., with 32 n. 1 [transl.]), even if μέγα does not necessarily mean ‘loud(ly)’ but is instead used generally as an intensifier with στεναχίζετο (cf. 6.523b–525n.; Kaimio 1977, 25 f.: ‘to emphasize the depth of feeling implied by the verb’). At the same time, στοναχίζω/στενάχω normally denotes an audible sound, e.g. at 16.391 (see ad loc.), also with further description of the sound (e.g. at 2.781–785 [see 2.95n.]: the earth ‘groans’ beneath the feet of soldiers as from lightning sent by Zeus; 16.384– 393 [see ad loc.]: the Trojans’ horses ‘moan’ like mountain torrents). On θυμός as the seat of emotions and feelings (‘bottom of the heart’), see Jahn 1987, 225–232; LfgrE s.v.; on the use with verbs of emotion ibid., 1089.21–67 (although it is debatable whether στεναχίζω can be considered a verb of emotion, or whether the passage should be listed in category 14, ‘passages that defy categorization or are otherwise problematic’). It is also conceivable that θυμός here does not refer to the seat of emotions but to the emotions themselves (cf. 2.196n.; 19.66n. with bibliography), in which case the dat. should be understood as instrumental, approximately ‘with passion, agitatedly’; this usage would be unique in early epic.

96 2nd VH = 2.235, see ad loc. and Kelly 2007, 190 on the accusation of ‘effeminate’ behavior common in the Iliad; West 1997, 237 n. 71 on Greek and Near Eastern parallels; Csajkas 2002, 65 f. n. 187, on the intensification of insulting feminization at 13.623: Menelaos calls the Trojans ‘bitches’. Cf. 235–241n. Menelaos’ use of a phrase which elsewhere in the Iliad occurs only in a speech by Thersites (see iterata) reinforces once more his degree of agitation (Leaf: ‘the singular contrast between the whole of the present address and the tone of courteous regret which is elsewhere so characteristic of the attitude of Menelaos towards the Greeks’). ᾤ μοι: an expression of a variety of negative emotions, such as pain, fear, disbelief (1.149n., where also for the possible origin of the phrase) and here indignation in the face of the Greek heroes’ passivity, combined with fear and the weight of responsibility (95–102n.). On the spelling ᾤ (with ι), see West 1998, XXXVII. — ἀπειλητῆρες: a hapax legomenonP in early epic; an agent noun related to ἀπειλέω ‘threaten, pledge’, i.e. ‘braggart, show-off’, used generally: none of the those present has at this point in time threatened or promised something. Agent nouns in -τήρ frequently denote an inclination toward certain behaviors (Schubert 2000, 62 [cf. 66 f.], with reference to Benveniste 1948, 37 [transl.]: ‘ἀπειλητῆρες: taken as an insult: «threateners (by trade)» = you who know only how to threaten and dare not attack’; cf. 2.275n.). A reminder of promises and expectations raised by boasts is also a paraenetic topos, e.g. in the phrase ποῦ τοι ἀπειλαί (οἴχονται);: ‘where have your threats gone?’ at 13.219 (Poseidon to Idomeneus) and 20.83 (Apollo to Aineias): LfgrE s.vv. ἀπειλητ(ήρ) and ἀπειλή; Stoevesandt 2004, 304 with n. 904 (with additional examples). 97 ἦ μὲν δή: strongly emphatic, almost exclusively in direct speech; e.g. 2.798, 3.430, 9.348 (2.798n.; 16.362n. with bibliography). — λώβη: ‘shame, loss of honor’ (1.232n.; 18.180n.;

97 ἦ: ‘really, actually’ (R 24.4). — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6). — αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς: ‘more terrible than terrible’ (↑).

Commentary

69

19.208n.; on the semantic field ‘shame’ in appeals to battle, see Stoevesandt 2004, 301 f. with n. 900). A strong term: ‘the most powerful word in Homeric vocabulary for actions that cause unbearable face-damage’ (Scodel 2008, 69; see also Bouvier 2002, 423 f.). — αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς: see 39–40n. on οἰόθεν οἶος.

98 2nd VH ≈ 160. 99 may all of you turn to water and earth: The curse allows for several (not mutually exclusive) interpretations: 1. Menelaos’ rebuke is explained by the passivity of the Greeks, who behave like inanimate ‘matter’: ‘you may as well turn to water and soil’ (in this sense, schol. A, bT, D). 2. Menelaos wishes the Greeks would be unmade by dissolving into their constituent parts (schol. bT; Faesi/Franke; Leaf): according to commonly held ideas in antiquity, water and earth are the constituents from which human life originates (Hes. Op. 61, 70; Th. 571; Semon. fr. 7.21 West2; Xenoph. 21 B 33 D-K; Thgn. 1.878; Eur. fr. 757.923 f. Kannicht TrGF 5.2, p. 776 f.; Aristoph. Av. 686; GVI 1702.2 = IG II/III2 7151 = CEG 2.482; see West on Hes. Th. 571 and West 1997, 237 f., with additional bibliography also on non-Greek examples; cf. 24.54n. on earth as a metaphor for a corpse). – AH instead interpret Menelaos’ wish as approximating ‘to rot’ rather than as a dissolution into components, since the origin of human beings from water and earth is not attested in Homer: AH, Anh. ad loc.). 3. All Greeks should be turned into inanimate objects as punishment for their wrongdoing: Clarke 1999, 157 f. n. 2 with reference to Niobe turned to stone (24.611, see ad loc.) as well as to the lithification of the Phaiakian ship (Od. 13.163). γένοισθε: for the opt. in curse formulae (here without a conditional clause), e.g. 2.258– 260, 2.340 (see ad loc.), 5.214, 6.164, 17.415, 18.98; on this, Chantr. 2.214.

100 with no life in you, utterly dishonoured: The motif of striving for kléos, fame (86n.; 87–91n.), which is omnipresent in the Iliad, is particularly frequent in speeches by heroes (e.g. 5.532 = 15.564, 6.446, 12.318 f., 17.415 f., 22.110, 22.304 f.: Pagani 2008, 364 f.); given that this aim is a matter of course, Menelaos’ condemnation of the warriors’ lack of action appears all the more harsh. ἀκήριοι, ἀκλέες: an emphatic quasi-synonym doubling (1.160n.; 2.39n.). Epithets negated with α-privative frequently have a judgemental character (and are thus largely reserved for the more emotional characterP speeches: Griffin 1986, 44 f.); on the multiplication of such negations, 3.40n. (ἄγονος … ἄγαμος); 24.157n. (ἄφρων … ἄσκοπος … ἀλιτήμων) with additional examples and bibliography. — ἀκήριοι: 6× Il., 2× Od., 1× Hes. Op., 1× h.Merc. Here, as at 21.466, ‘lifeless, without heart’; for the etymology from κῆρ ‘heart’: LfgrE with examples. — ἀκλέες: ‘without fame’; but here rather ‘who does

98 ἀντίος εἶσιν + gen.: ‘faces someone’. 99 γένοισθε: opt. of wish ‘may you turn into …’. 100 αὖθι (ϝ)έκαστοι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — αὖθι: short form of αὐτόθι ‘on the spot, here’.

70

Iliad 7

not want to win fame, ignominious, ambitionless, apathetic’ (LfgrE). The form can be understood as a nom. pl. (with hyphaeresis from ἀκλεέες), thus West following Apollonius Dyskolus and Eustathius. Better attested, but without congruence with ἀκήριοι, is neuter ἀκλεές used adverbally (Chantr. 1.74; Leaf; Kirk; LfgrE s. v. ἀκλεής): on the discussion in the scholia, see Erbse 1960, 368 f. — αὔτως: ‘equally’: ‘without courage and equally without fame’ (LfgrE s. v. αὔτως, 1682.50). The meaning ‘just so, pointless’ is also conceivable. In either case, the word is emphatic and reflects the speaker’s agitation (cf. Bonifazi 2012, 286 with n. 58).

101–102 Menelaos’ speech gathers speed via the integral enjambmentP, and together with his agitation creates an effect of ‘breathlessness’. — the threads of victory: Prior to the duel in Book 3 as well, Menelaos declares that the decision will be taken by a transcendent power (3.101 f.). The essential meaning of peírar/peírata (usually in the pl.) is ‘end/border/edge’ or ‘rope’; for attempts to explain these different senses, see Leaf; 6.143n.; Kirk on 6.143; Janko on 13.358–360; LfgrE. Nothdurft 1978 argues in favor of an even more general basic meaning: ‘connection as a path through or across’ (37 [transl.]) or ‘«site of activity», where one force or power turns into another’ (30 [transl.]). – The present passage is probably based on a metaphor for fate associated with ‘rope’ (cf. the ‘thread of destiny’ of the Fates): ‘the decision regarding victory is in the hand of the gods’ (LfgrE [transl.] following Leaf; Bergren 1975, 34 f., 186 f. The metaphor of a cord of destiny held in the hands of gods is present in Near Eastern literature as well: Rollinger 1996, 199–201). Cf. 8.18–26, where Zeus compares the power relation between himself and the other gods to a tug of war in which he has the clear advantage and where, along with the end of the rope, he holds the decision in his hands (AH); similar images – but without reference to an actual ‘rope’ – occur at 11.336 (‘There the son of Kronos strained the battle even between them’) and 14.389–390 (Poseidon and Hektor ‘strained to its deadliest the division of battle’), for which see ad loc. Perhaps related is the metaphor of ‘bonds (peírat[a]) of doom’ which are ‘fastened’ (7.402 = 12.79 = Od. 22.41 ≈ 33) or in which one becomes entangled (6.143; see ad loc. and Leaf on the present passage also on metaphors of fateful binding and fastening involving different terms). τῷδε: The deictic pronoun enables the audience to imagine Menelaos pointing at Hektor and thus enhances the drama and realism of the text (De Jong 2012). — ἐγὼν αὐτός:

101 τῷδε: dat. of disadvantage, ‘against him’. — ἐγών: = ἐγώ. — θωρήσσομαι + dat.: ‘go into battle against someone’. — αὐτάρ: connects ἐγὼν … θωρήξομαι and πείρατ’ ἔχονται ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν; here neither unambiguously adversative nor progressive (≈ ‘and’) (R 24.2). — ὕπερθεν: on the suffix -θεν, R 15.1. 102 πείρατ(α): ‘ropes’; subj. of the pass. ἔχονται ‘are being held’ (↑). — ἐν: ‘by’. — ἀθανάτοισι: initial syllable lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary

71

an antithesis to ἀλλ’ ὑμεῖς μὲν πάντες (99): Schubert 2000, 66; establishes a strong contrast with the others (who are supposed to behave differently): Bonifazi 2012, 140. — αὐτὰρ ὕπερθεν: αὐτάρ here marks the spatial transition from the human to the divine plane (cf. 54n.): Bonifazi loc. cit. 221 f. with n. 113. — ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν: a VE formula, sometimes in combination with various prepositions (8× Il., 8× Od., 9× Hes., 13× h.Hom.): 1.520n.

103 1st VH = VB formulaP (speech capping formulaP: 35× Il., 27× Od., 2× h.Hom.). — he … began to put on his splendid armour: Menelaos should be armed already, a fact that has drawn attention to the verse since antiquity. The most likely explanation is poetic convention (Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 68 n. 1): an important battle should be preceded (at a minimum implicitly) by an ‘arming’ type-sceneP (3.328–338n.; 16.130–144n.); cf. West 2011 on 34–43: ‘Features of the typical, free-standing challenge and duel persist’ (quick settling down of the armies, Aias’ arming at 206). The fact that Menelaos’ arming is only briefly summarized and does not represent an actual arming scene may illustrate the urgency displayed by the grimly determined hero in pushing for the fight. κατεδύσετο: a thematic s-aor.; on its development, 3.262n. with bibliography. An original desiderative sense is perhaps implied here: ‘prepared to dive into his armor’. But since Menelaos’ arming will be interrupted – at 122 the text states that the armor had to be taken off his shoulders – at least part of the action has been completed: Roth (1970–1974) 1990, 51 f.

104–106 One of a number of ‘if-not’ situationsP in the Iliad, designed to enhance suspense and pathos, where allusion is made to alternatives to the storyline depicted (and transmitted in myth); the topic is frequently the premature termination of the Trojan war (which could actually happen here, should Menelaos die and the original reason for the war, the fight for Helen, cease to apply [but see 92–122n.; 109–119n.]): 2.155–156n. with bibliography, also Parry 1972, 16; Morrison 1992a; Louden 1993 (‘pivotal contrafactuals’); Wakker 1994, 212– 214 (on the form that becomes standard via placement of the main clause before the conditional clause and the typical use of particles); Kelly 2007, 128– 132, with a collection of examples from the Iliad (‘contrafactual conditional sentences’). The motif of a duel between heroes that does not take place after all (or does not end decisively) is typical; see Nesselrath 1992, 16–18 with n. 28 f.: he also lists 3.350–382 (Paris and Menelaos), 7.204–312 (Hektor and Aias, see below), 8.157–171 (Diomedes and Hektor), 17.61–108 (Menelaos and Hektor), 17.483–534 (Hektor/Aineias and Automedon), 20.79–352 (Aineias and Achilleus), 23.708–739 (Aias and Odysseus in a wrestling match).

103 κατεδύσετο: aor. (↑); here ‘put on’.

72

Iliad 7

104 ≈ 16.787 (see ad loc.): the end of Patroklos’ life is announced to him in (nearly) identical dramatizing words. In the present passage, the statement is of course contrary to fact, as is made clear by the modal particle ke near the beginning. It nevertheless becomes obvious that Menelaos is in serious danger (Kirk). — o Menelaos: Persons addressed directly by the narratorP (so-called apostrophes) in Homeric epic include, in addition to Menelaos (at 4.127, 4.146, 13.603, 17.679, 17.702, 23.600), Patroklos (8× Il.), Eumaios (15× Od.), Achilleus and Melanippos (1× Il. each), as well as the god Apollo (‘Phoibos’, 2× Il.). As here, these addresses by the narrator frequently occur in descriptions of situations that threaten the hero’s life (in the case of Menelaos also in the context of his wounding by Pandaros at 4.127, 4.146): Henry 1905, 7 f. On possible reasons for the apostrophes (ease of versification, expression of a special relationship between narrator and characterP [schol. bT on 104–108] with a transfer of the sympathetic effect to the audience, or an increase in the character’s status, an element of dramaturgical design and enhancement of pathos), see 16.20n. with bibliography; Klooster 2013 (also for the possible origin of the phenomenon in the genre of hymns to gods). ἔνθά κε: a common introduction to an ‘if-not’ situation (2.155–156n. with bibliography); cf. 8n.— βιότοιο τελευτή: an inflectable VE formula (also at 16.787 [see ad loc.]). The variant θανάτοιο τελευτήν (‘Hes.’ Sc. 357, Emped. 32 B 8.2 D-K) and the Homeric expression τέλος θανάτοιο (16.502n.) likely represent the origin of Verg. Aen. 12.546 (hic tibi mortis erant metae): AH, Leaf.

105 1st VH = 24.738. — since he was far stronger than you were: In narrator commentary, the statement ‘x is better than y’ appears objective, even if there is a certain pathos in the apostrophe addressed to Menelaos. The situation is often different in characterP speeches (see 113–114n.). ἐν παλάμῃσιν: see 24.738n. for variants (frequently in combination with ὑπό; elsewhere, as at 5.558, with pass. verb forms such as κατακτείνεσθαι: AH); 2nd VH = 6.158. — ἐπεὶ [ἦ] πολὺ φέρτερος ἦεν: an inflectable VE formula (with different forms of εἶναι; 15× Il., 6× Od., 1× h.Cer.); without ἦ after ἐπεί only here and at 6.158 (AH). φέρτερος and φέρτατος are used largely synonymously with ἀμείνων and ἄριστος: 1.186n.

106–108 caught you … | … | caught you by the right hand: The intervention of the Greek leaders, who leap up, is a means of restraining Menelaos. (On the motif ‘advocating for retreat’ in the Iliad, 18.255n. with bibliography.) Agamemnon’s gentle, intimate gesture toward his brother forms a clear contrast: although he too ‘grasps’ Menelaos (the same verb heleín is used in the Greek), it

104 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — φάνη: unaugmented (R 16.1) aor. pass. of φαίνομαι. — βιότοιο: βίοτος = βίος. 105 παλάμῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6).

Commentary

73

is specified that this is ‘by the hand’ (on this, AH; Kirk; Minchin 2007, 151 f.; Sammons 2009, 166 with n. 12); cf. 4.154 and 14.137 (Poseidon and Agamemnon; see 14.137–138n. with bibliography), 24.671 f. (Achilleus and Priam; see ad loc. with bibliography), Od. 1.121 (Telemachos and Mentes-Athene), 18.258 (Odysseus and Penelope); also 20.197 (Philoitios extends his right hand to Odysseus in a friendly manner). 106 the kings of the Achaians: In Mycenaean usage, ‘king’ (basileús) is the title of local officials (regional princelings, etc.); see 1.9n. with bibliography. In the Iliad, the term denotes the leaders of individual troop contingents. Cf. 2.188n. βασιλῆες Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (also at 23.36, 24.404).

107 son of Atreus: Agamemnon and Menelaos are sons of Atreus (CH 2.2). On the relationship of the name ‘Atreus’ to ‘Attarissiyas’ in Hittite/Luwian cuneiform texts, see West 2001a; cf. 3.37n. — powerful Agamemnon: The epithet ‘powerful’ (lit. ‘ruling widely’) is used almost exclusively of Agamemnon, elsewhere only once of Poseidon (11.751). Latin populum late regem (Verg. Aen. 1.21) and late tyrannus (Hor. carm. 3.17.9) are similar: Schmitt 1967, 248. – In an ‘ifnot’-situationP, the character who intervenes and changes the course of the action is frequently denoted via a noun-epithetP formula. In conjunction with the main clause being placed first (104–105n.) – a phenomenon uncommon elsewhere in conditional clauses – this serves to add dramatic emphasis (cf. Bakker 1997, 178–180). The subject (with additional emphasis via ‘himself’) also fills the entire verse, signaling the significance of the character in question for the narrative (as at 13n.). Ἀτρείδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: a ‘long formula’ 10× Il., 1× Od., of which 3× as a whole verse formula with VB ἥρως (as at 322), used in both direct speech and narratortextP (16.273–274n.). The VE formula κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων is used 40× Il., 1× Od., 1× Il. Pers. (1.102n). A formulaic denomination of a character as an entire verse highlights his significance (13n.). 108 δεξιτερῆς ἕλε χειρός: The verb commonly takes an acc. object (14.137, Od. 1.121, 18.258 [so too λαμβάνειν at Il. 24.671 f.]), hence the conjecture δεξιτέρην … χεῖρα (Bentley; this would take into account the initial digamma of ἔπος). More likely the acc. object σε, already implicit at 106, is to be supplied in combination with the gen. part.: ‘took [you] by the hand’ rather than ‘took your hand’ (Beckert 1966, 91). On various formulations for hand-grasping gestures in Homer, see Barck 1976, 141 f. — ἔπος τ’ ἔφατ’ ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: frequent as a speech introduction formulaP in the 2nd VH: 17× Il., 26× Od.,

106 ἕλον: = εἷλον (R 16.1; a corresponding form in 108); sc. σε. — βασιλῆες: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. 108 The digamma in χειρὸς (ϝ)έπος is not taken into account (R 4.6, ↑). — ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

74

Iliad 7

2× h.Ven. The original meaning of ὀνόμαζεν ‘called him by his name’ has faded as a result of its formulaic use (1.361n.; LfgrE s.v. ὀνομάζω 715.19–45).

109–119 Agamemnon’s concern recalls his worry at 4.148 ff. when Menelaos sustained a slight injury; cf. 10.234–240, where Agamemnon tries to stop Diomedes from bringing Menelaos on his reconnaissance mission. His agitation is revealed in the introduction to his speech via two paratactic verses in integral enjambmentP (Kirk: ‘an excitably punctuated and closely enjambed couplet’); the rhythm of the speech subsequently settles down, as he lays out his reasoning. Overall, the ‘big brother’s’ speech veers between anger at the younger man (inter alia it contains elements of Odysseus’ speech of rebuke to Thersites in Book 2) and affectionate consideration of him: see the preceding and following lemmata. – The contrast with the pair of brothers in Book 3 (Hektor and Paris) is remarkable. Unlike in Book 3, here one brother (Agamemnon) does not urge the other (Menelaos) to fight, but rather restrains him from this. In contrast to Book 3, the present duel no longer concerns primarily Menelaos, who originally was affected personally; after the breach of the treaty by the Trojans, the war is no longer conducted for Helen’s sake, but has become a genuine war of all Greeks, for whom Menelaos’ readiness to fight is now more a hinderance than a help (see above Introduction p. 12 f.; 92–122n.). 109–110a Menelaos, beloved of God: Kings are ‘cherished by Zeus’, since they (including Menelaos) enjoy special divine protection (1.278–179n.; 14.27n.; CG 24). The epithetP – often purely ornamental, as here – is used of various heroes, particularly Menelaos (22 out of 43 passages: LfgrE s.v. διοτρεφής). ἀφραίνεις … | … ἀφροσύνης: The verb ἀφραίνω ‘speak/act imprudently/without understanding’, then also ‘carelessly/thoughtlessly/presumptuously’, is found elsewhere in early epic only in speeches of rebuke: 2.258 (Odysseus to Thersites; see ad loc.) and Od. 20.360 (Eurymachos the suitor to the seer Theoklymenos), the related noun ἀφροσύνη only here and at Od. 16.278 (the suitors abuse the ‘beggar’) and 24.457 (the suitors’ delusion). The number of cognate terms in early epic is restricted (ἄφρων 8× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Ven., ἀφρονέω 1× Il.; on the meaning of α-privative or deteriorative, Böhme 1929, 45). The placement of the verb at the beginning of the verse (by positioning the vocative in the middle rather than at the beginning [possible as ὦ Μενέλαε]) lends additional emphasis to Agamemnon’s statement: Kahane 1997, esp. 257 (cf. 1994, 105). — Μενέλαε διοτρεφές: A noun-epithetP formula (7× Il., 8× Od.), always after caesura A 4. — οὐδέ τί σε χρή: A VE formula (8× Il., 7× Od., 3× h.Hom.), with variant οὐδέ τί με χρή (Il. 19.67 [see ad loc.], Od. 19.118). χρή with acc. of person and gen. of thing occurs

109–110 οὐδέ τί σε χρή | ταύτης ἀφροσύνης: ‘and such senselessness does nothing for you’ (↑). οὐδέ τι: ‘and not at all’, literally ‘and in no conceivable manner’. τι is acc. of respect; cf. 27n. (R 19.1). — ἀνὰ … σχέο: mid. imper. ‘compose yourself!’. On the uncontracted form, R 6. — περ: concessive (R 24.10).

Commentary

75

elsewhere only in the Odyssey (AH; Leaf; Kirk); elsewhere in the Iliad with the inf. (also originally genitival: ‘a need for’: Schw. 2.366).

110b–111 2nd VH of 110 ≈ 1.586, 5.382; 2nd VH of 111 ≈ 11.543 (often athetized), 17.98. — Hold fast … | nor long in your pride to fight … : a sharp rebuke that echoes Odysseus’ speech to Thersites at 2.247 (see ad loc.): ‘Stop, nor stand up alone against princes’, a clearly derogatory statement that pointedly isolates Thersites. — in your pride: Here the Greek phrase ex éridos does not mean ‘in a duel’ (thus LfgrE s.v. ἔρις, 701.62), since the causal preposition éx denotes the reason for, not the manner of, the fighting (Schw. 2.463). The reference is instead to the rivalry among the Greeks; cf. the definition at Hogan 1981, summarized at 58: ‘éris means competitive rivalry which challenges the participants to prove their merit through self-assertion’; the locus classicus is the reference to good and evil éris at Hes. Op. 11–26. In general on the term and its use in the Iliad (esp. in Book 23), see Bierl 2019. – With rhetorical dexterity, Agamemnon implicitly attests to characteristics on both sides that can be understood as positive: to his brother, he ascribes a certain derring-do, to the other heroes, wise caution (Scodel 2008, 71; similarly already schol. bT on 111c). That he is insinuating that Menelaos wants to fight a duel for mere ambition (Leaf) seems less convincing; in terms of the psychology of the character, it is more plausible that Agamemnon sees through Menelaos’ sense of culpability for the war, as well as his embarrassment at the Greeks’ lack of action (cf. Hogan loc. cit. 46), and tactfully refrains from mentioning it (Kirk). — better than you: That a Greek considers a Trojan warrior superior to his Greek compatriot is remarkable, although the situation is not unique; cf. the terrifying image of the homicidal Hektor invoked by Achilleus for Agamemnon’s benefit (1.241–243; Stoevesandt 2004, 199 f.). κηδόμενός περ: A VE formula (in a variety of cases and genders: 6× Il., 4× Od., 1× h.Hom.); here ‘concern that incites action’ (Anastassiou 1973, 135 f.); cf. 18.273 (Polydamas’ demand for a withdrawal that is necessary despite reluctance to undertake it): see ad loc. with bibliography. — μηδ’ ἔθελ(ε): ἐθέλειν frequently has the meaning ‘let oneself be carried away’ in warnings and threats that a speaker uses to show an addressee his limits: 1.277n. with passages and bibliography.

112 2nd VH = 15.167, 15.183; ≈ 17.203. Ἕκτορι Πριαμίδῃ: an inflectable VB formula found exclusively in the Iliad (7× nom., 3× dat., 4× acc.). — στυγέουσι: The etymology is obscure; related Slavic terms express

111 μηδέ: connective μηδέ occurs in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἐξ: ‘because of, following from’. — σε’ ἀμείνονι: on the hiatus, R 5.1; likewise in 115. — σε(ο): = σου (R 14.1); gen. of comparison with ἀμείνονι. 112 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun functioning as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — στυγέουσι: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

76

Iliad 7

the notion of ‘cold’ (hence perhaps the name of the Styx, the ‘cold’ river of the underworld). It is potentially an early semantic particularization of a psychological experience (in contrast to the sense of cold resulting from the effect of external temperature). 114 ἔρριγ(ε) is virtually synonymous (see 113–114n.), and English expressions such as ‘a cold shiver runs down one’s spine’, ‘to have cold feet’, etc. are comparable. Here the sense is specifically ‘maintain a respectful distance from a person of greater social status or greater strength’ (as in the iterata: Zeus addressing Poseidon via Iris on the other gods’ usual attitude toward him): LfgrE; on the root στυγ-, also 1.186n.; 2.385n.; on the semantic field ‘cold’ in general, 6.344n. with bibliography.

113–114 2nd VH of 114 = 16.709, 21.107. — Even Achilleus: A well-meaning exaggeration on Agamemnon’s part (Leaf; Kirk; Willcock; Farron 1978, 43 n. 20; Stoevesandt 2004, 200); an exemplum extremum that is not to be taken literally (Lohmann 1970, 128 n. 59; cf. 6.98–101, where Helenos states that Diomedes is more terrifying than Achilleus [see 6.96–101n.]). It is said nowhere in the Iliad that Achilleus felt inferior to Hektor (cf. 9.352–355, where he hints at the opposite; also 1.240–244, where he explicitly states that [only] he can face Hektor; in addition, cf. 5.788–791: Hera on the Trojan fear of Achilleus). An interpretation of the present statement as evidence for an episode in the Trojan myth predating the action of the Iliad is speculative and unnecessary, given Agamemnon’s obvious rhetorical purpose here (Kullmann 1960, 183, 274, 291). In any case, the mention of Achilleus appears motivated on the narratorP plane as well, to keep the chief hero of the epic from being forgotten during his long absence (schol. bT; STR 22 with fig. 2). — far better: On the labeling of Achilleus as the ‘best’ of the Achaians, 16.21n.; here an argumentum a fortiori (‘even Achilleus is in fear of Hektor; how much more should you fear him’), as at 16.709 (Apollo to Patroklos: ‘if it is not granted even to Achilleus to conquer Troy, then it is not right that it fall to you first’; see ad loc.; cf. Bakker 1988, 79 f.). The statement ‘x is greatly superior to y’, made repeatedly in early epic, is neutral in narrator commentary (105n.); it may not always be pejorative in characterP language either, even if y is the addressee. The present passage nevertheless represents a pointed statement that in other contexts is meant to offend (Od. 2.180: Eurymachos the suitor to the seer Halitherses) or at best to offer an unsparing view of the facts (Il. 16.709, see above; 21.107: Achilleus speaking about himself in comparison with Lykaon, whom he is about to kill). Conversely, the motif also occurs as praise of the superior warrior, e.g. at 457; also 16.722–723 (see ad loc.), 19.217, 20.434. – Agamemnon’s wavering between

113 καί: here ‘even’. — Ἀχιλεύς: on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — μάχῃ ἔνι: = ἐν μάχῃ (R 20.1–2); on the hiatus, R 5.6. 114 ἔρριγ(ε): 3rd-pers. sing. perf. of ῥιγέω ‘tremble before’ (to be taken with ἀντιβολῆσαι). — ὅ περ: ‘who indeed’. — σέο: 111n. — πολλόν: adverbial acc. ‘by far’. On the declension, R 12.2.

Commentary

77

anger and diplomacy drew attention already in antiquity. On the one hand, he deliberately chooses as the point of comparison Achilleus, inferiority to whom is no mark of shame (schol. bT on 113–114); on the other hand, his phrasing is made more hurtful by specifically naming the weaker party rather than using the more generally phrased parallel at 1.581, where Hephaistos says of Zeus that he is ‘the strongest’ without explicitly stating the inferiority of another party (in that case especially Hera) (schol. AT on 114 in reference to the wellattested v.l. for 1.581: méga phértatós estin). καὶ δ(έ): here ‘and even’; it prefaces a particularly salient example in support of the preceding statement (AH: as at Od. 13.302; likewise καὶ γάρ at 2.377, etc. [see ad loc. for bibliography and parallels]). — τουτῷ: deictic; Agamemnon points at Hektor (101– 102n.). — μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ: A VE formula (4× Il.; variant μάχην ἐς/ἀνὰ κυδ.: 4× Il.; see 14.155n. with examples). Here the epithetP is ornamental; for a contextual use, 6.124n. (with bibliography also on the word formation). — ἔρριγ(ε): ῥιγεῖν means literally ‘feel a cold shiver’, not as an effect of external temperature but as a psychosomatic response to danger (LfgrE; 19.325n. with bibliography; Zink 1962, 16; cf. 112n. on στυγέουσι); here with inf. ‘shy away from doing something’. — ἀντιβολῆσαι: originally ‘to meet (accidentally)’ (11.808, 24.375), then as a technical military term ‘to (deliberately) meet, face’: probably so here. — πολλὸν ἀμείνων: A VE formula (5× Il., 2× Hes.).

115 2nd VH = 17.581. ἀλλὰ σὺ μέν: A VB formula (14× Il., 3× Od.: 18.408–409n.); ἀλλά with an imper. at the end of speeches denotes a transition to action (2.360n.; on the VB formula ἀλλὰ σύ, 1.127n.). — ἵζε(ο): on the restored spelling ⟨εο⟩ in place of the well-attested ⟨ευ⟩, G 45 n. 25. — ἔθνος ἑταίρων: A VE formula (6× Il.). In the Iliad, ἔθνος is limited to military contexts: ‘massed army, masses’; see 2.87n. and 3.32n. with bibliography

116–119 118 ≈ 19.72; VE of 118b–119 = 173 f.; 119 ≈ 5.409; 1st VH of 119 = 17.189, 19.73, 21.422. — Via the conditional clause and the explicit statement that the survivor will be grateful, the repeated verses have more weight here than at 173 f. (see 173b–174n.). To begin with, interpretation of them requires a decision regarding the addressee of Agamemnon’s words: 1. only Menelaos or 2. all those assembled. 1. In the first case, Agamemnon is referring to the ‘front-line warrior’ (116, prómos) mentioned immediately before this; while Menelaos may have no chance in facing Hektor, any warrior would be glad to escape alive from this dangerous opponent. This is the most likely explanation, even if the clearest parallel for the present passage, at 19.71–73 (Achilleus urges Agamemnon to resume fighting), clearly refers to the enemy: ‘I think rather | they [the Trojans] will be glad to rest where they are, whoever among them | gets away with his life from the fury of our spears’ onset.’ 2. If Agamemnon is addressing the assembly as a whole, the reference is to Hektor, who would

115 ἵζε(ο): = mid. imper. ‘sit down’. — μετά (+ acc.): ‘among, in the midst (of )’.

78

Iliad 7

be glad to survive the encounter with one of the Greek heroes. In that case, Agamemnon would be exercising ‘rhetorical control’ (Scodel 2008, 71) in order to encourage another potential duelist or to intimidate the Trojans. This interpretation involves a problematic logical break: Agamemnon first highlights Hektor’s fearsomeness at length, but then claims that whoever else among the Greeks faces him would allow him to escape only with difficulty (cf. AH, Kirk). This seems feasible only via a change in addressee (even though Agamemnon has grasped Menelaos’ hand [108] and is therefore standing close to him, he now encourages all Greeks and threatens all Trojans). Although Homeric epic does not always explicitly flag a change in addressee (1.105–120n.; 1.334–344n.; 2.284–298n.; Sammons 2009 lists 4.155–182, among others; there Agamemnon is also holding Menelaos’ hand: 154), this appears unlikely in the present passage, given the summary at 120 (Agamemnon has convinced his brother). 116 πρόμον: 75n. 117 εἴ περ: a ‘concessive conditional’ (Wakker 1994, 317) between ‘even if’ and ‘although’. — ἀδειής: ‘fearless’; only here and in the noun-epithetP formula κύον ἀδ(δ)εές (8.423, 21.481, Od. 19.91). The adj. is composed of α-privative and *δϝ(ϳ)ε(σ)-; after the loss of the digamma, δ should be reduplicated, and the word is thus a ‘prime suspect’ for post-Homeric modification (Ahrens [1843] 1891, 93 [transl.]; cf. loc. cit. n. *; Chantr. 1.102, 163).

μόθου: ‘melee (of battle)’; 5× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom. (including 4× in the formula κατὰ μόθον: 18.158b–160n.). — ἀκόρητος: A verbal adj. with α-privative related to κορέσαι ‘sate’, i.e. ‘insatiable’. The word is used metaphorically throughout Homeric epic and is always combined with a partitive gen. of a term from the semantic field ‘battle, war’ (except at 14.479; see ad loc.). For other examples (also for κορέσαι and κόρος), 19.221n. with bibliography; for the metaphor ‘satiated by battle’, 19.402n. (cf. 6.203n.); on the motif, common in Homer, of a lack of restraint, Classen 2008, 103–118; cf. Latacz 1966, 181 f.

118–119 ≈ 19.72 f.; 118b–119 = 7.173 f. — will be glad to bend his knee: either of a quick run (~ ‘take to one’s heels’) or ‘settle down’ in order to rest after a successful flight (phygḗsin can mean ‘he is fleeing’ or ‘he is escaping’) or simply after a battle: schol. A on 7.117–118; Kirk on 117–119; 19.72n. with bibliography. ἀσπασίως: ‘in a welcome manner’, i.e. ‘gladly’; a deverbative from ἀσπάζομαι. On the formation and its use in contexts of escaping and fleeing from battle, 19.72n. with bibliography. — φύγησιν: on the subjunc. ending -ησι(ν) without ι subscript, West 1998, XXXI. — δηΐου … δηϊοτῆτος: The repetition has been thought distracting (Leaf), but this type of figura etymologica is by no means rare in early epic (Kirk; Fehling 1969,

116 τούτῳ: dat. of disadvantage, like τῷδε in 101. 117 ἐστ’: = ἐστί. 118 μιν: = αὐτόν (R). — αἴ κε: = ἐάν (cf. R 22.1, 24.5). — φύγησιν: 3rd-pers. sing. subjunc. (R 16.3) resultative aor. ‘escape’.

Commentary

79

164; Clary 2009); cf. 24.772 σῇ τ’ ἀγανοφροσύνῃ καὶ σοῖς ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσι (24.770–775n.) or indeed 7.109 f. ἀφραίνεις … οὐδέ τί σε χρή | ταύτης ἀφροσύνης. On δηϊοτής, 29–31an. δήϊος, here ‘hostile, destructive’, is used in Homeric texts as an epithet of πῦρ, πόλεμος and ἀνήρ. — πολέμοιο καὶ … δηϊοτῆτος: 29–31an. — αἰνῆς δηϊοτῆτος: an inflectable VE formula (gen./dat. sing., in total 10× Il., 3× Od., 2× Hes.).

120–121a ≈ 6.61–62a; 120 = 13.788. In Book 6, the subjects are likewise Agamemnon and Menelaos; in Book 13, they are Paris and Hektor. In both first verses, one brother’s opinion prevails, supported by an assertion in the second verse in Book 6 and in the present passage by the narrator-textP that this is ‘urged wisely’. While not problematic in the present passage, the latter verse has an offputting effect at 6.62 (Agamemnon uses harsh words to prevent Menelaos from sparing his Trojan opponent); overall, ‘wisely’ (aísima) in both passages probably does not convey a moral judgment but denotes ‘according to the situation and social norms; appropriate, prudent’ (6.62an.; Stoevesandt 2004, 152–155). The present passage could also contain an echo of ‘fateful’ (Goldhill 1990, 376), which is out of place in Book 6 (see ad loc.); here Agamemnon’s words are fateful in the sense that they save Menelaos’ life. Also worth considering is the interpretation of Bostock 2015, who takes pareipṓn not as ‘counsel’ (with the piece of advice as the acc. obj. aísima) but as ‘persuade’ (‘try to make someone think differently about something’), like paraúda at Od. 11.488; in both cases, the resultant sense would be ‘persuade his brother with regard to what is right’ (aísima as an acc. of respect), without the ‘right thing’ being defined objectively. παρέπεισεν: Note the assonance and alliteration: εἰπὼν παρέπεισεν … | … παρειπών … ἐπείθετο … ἔπειτα (Kirk: ‘aural fireworks’; cf. 1978, 28). — ἀδελφεόο: a reconstructed, prosodically more convenient form (ἀδελφειοῦ with metrical lengthening -ει- is transmitted): 6.61n. with bibliography — φρένας: on the original meaning ‘diaphragm’, 1.103n.; here with no significant difference in meaning from other soul/spirit-lexemes: 6.61n. At the same time, persuading φρένες suggests a fundamental openness, in contrast to θυμός, which always presupposes a predisposition on the part of the addressee (van der Mije 2011). — ἥρως: This term characterizes the human characters in epic poetry as members of a great past; here a periphrastic denominationP for an outstanding warrior, but also sometimes a generic epithetP for a variety of main and subsidiary characters, and in the plural in reference to warriors on both the Trojan and the Greek sides: 6.34–35 with bibliography.

122 2nd VH (from caesura B 2 on) = 16.782, 16.846; see 16.782n. for similar formulae. On additional expressions for the act of ‘lifting the armour off one’s shoulders’, 16.559–560n. — [joyfully] calmly: The concern of Menelaos’ pages is clear (schol. bT); they are thus ‘calmed’ (Latacz 1966, 153–156) by his retreat. — took off the armor from his shoulders: This usually happens with slain 120 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἀδελφεόο: = ἀδελφοῦ (↑). 121 παρ(ϝ)ειπών: on the prosody, R 4.5. 122 τεύχε’ ἕλοντο: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — ἕλοντο: = εἵλοντο; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

80

Iliad 7

opponents (cf. 78n.); the use of the formula makes Menelaos appear powerless, like a dead body (tentatively Kirk: ‘the peaceful action of Menelaos’ servants «taking» armour off shoulders could carry a residual echo of the more violent removal from corpses in battle’). – The scene concludes with a return to the armor featured already at 103. — his henchmen: therápōn denotes other lower-ranking but free men of various social statuses (from mere servants in the more civilian context of the Odyssey, to the deputy leaders of a military contingent in the Iliad): LfgrE; 1.321n.; Ndoye 2010, 178–188. ἀπ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕλοντο: on the system of formulae, Kirk; 16.559–560n. with bibliography. In addition to the present formulation, early epic employs ἀπό τ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕληται (16.650), ἀπ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἐσύλα (3× Il.), αἴνυτο τεύχε’ ἀπ’ ὤμων (2× Il.) etc.; cf. 19.412.

123–169 In a speech of rebuke, Nestor admonishes the Greeks by recalling his own youth when, as the youngest warrior in the battle between Pylians and Arcadians, he killed the feared Ereuthalion. As a result, several Greek heroes volunteer to fight Hektor. 123 1st VH = 6.66; 2nd VH = 7.94; ≈ Od. 24.422. — The leaders who leapt up at 106 have by now sat down again (AH); at this point, Nestor rises (CH 2.3). Given his age, he is not in a position to accept the challenge himself, and his character can thus be used to urge younger men to action (schol. bT), especially since being an elderly warrior means that he is highly respected and has outstanding abilities as a speaker (both aspects are highlighted frequently: 1.247 ff., 4.322 f., 7.324 f., 9.93 ff., see 2.21n.; Hellmann 2000, 45 f.; in general on the relationship between age and experience, 1.259n. with bibliography and Hellmann loc. cit. 45–48; on the significance of age for social status, Ulf 1990, 51–83). – In Homeric epic, Nestor commonly comes into play when the story has reached a dead-end; cf. 1.254 ff. and 9.96 ff. (Reinhardt 1961, 76 f.), also 10.17 ff., 11.597 ff., 645 ff., 14.1 ff. Ἀργείοισιν: A speaker’s audience is frequently referred to in the locative (1.68n.). On the term ‘Argives’, 1.2n.

124–160 One of Nestor’s four major speeches in the Iliad (also 1.254 ff., 11.656 ff., 23.626 ff.). Initially, these speeches serve for self-legitimization: he underpins his authority with references to his erstwhile physical strength and achievements in battle (Hellmann 2000, 43–45) in addition to his great age and resultant experience (123n.). Morover, all of Nestor’s speeches in the Iliad operate on the basis of paradigmsP (1.259–274n. with bibliography, also Toohey 1994; Primavesi 2000 [on the meaning, particularly of the memories from his 123 Ἀργείοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2; ‘among the Argives’ (↑). — μετέειπεν: = μετεῖπεν (cf. 23n.).

Commentary

81

youth]), in contrast to his memories in the Odyssey (Minchin 2012, 89); cf. the similar function of the speech the aged Phoinix addresses to Achilleus, which contains the exemplum of the myth of Meleagros (9.434 ff.: Kirk on 7.123– 160). – The exempla in the present speech are clearly related to the situation at hand (key functionP): like Hektor challenging one of the ‘best’ among the Greeks (50, 73), Ereuthalion wanted to fight one of the ‘best’ among the Pylians (150); like the Greeks being silent and afraid (92 f.), the Pylians too ‘were all afraid and trembling’ (151; see West 2011 ad loc.). What is more, the phrasing used for Areïthoos’ death (145 ‘went down backward’) anticipates Hektor being felled by Aias (271 ‘he sprawled backward’; see Alden 2000, 88). On the characterP plane, Nestor uses this look back to stress in particular the contrast between his youthful self and the present, frightened Greeks: while Nestor, as the youngest of all (153), killed the tallest, strongest opponent (155), now the best of the Greeks (159) are gutlessly cowering before Hektor (Lohmann 1970, 78 f. n. 135). – The paradigmatic character of the speech also becomes apparent via its success: after Nestor presents himself as an example, at 161 ff. nine heroes offer themselves up for the duel. The present rebuke (95–102n.) is structured as a ring-compositionP, with each ‘ring’ diving further into the past, organically linking the exempla to current events (cf. Kirk on 7.137–150; Willcock on 7.132–157; van Otterlo 1948, 16–18; Vester loc. cit. 65–67; Gaisser 1969, 8; Lohmann loc. cit. 27 f. = Lohmann [1970] 1997, 88): A An accusation of cowardice on the part of the Greeks, underlined by an elaboration of Peleus’ sorrow, should he become aware of this cowardice (124–131); this passage is itself structured as a ring-composition (124–131n.). B The speaker’s desire to be young again (132–133a). C Exemplum 1: Ereuthalion’s challenge to a duel in the context of the Pylian war against the Arcadians, in which a youthful Nestor participated (133b–136). D Exemplum 2: the story of Ereuthalion’s armor: the duel between Areïthoos and Lykurgos (137–150a n.; via the transitional motif of armor at its beginning and end, this passage is itself structured as a ring-composition, cf. Kirk on 7.137). C′ Continuation of Exemplum 1: The Pylians’ terror when faced with Ereuthalion’s challenge; Nestor’s courage and successful fight (150b–156). B′ The speaker’s desire to be young again (157 f.). A′ Accusation of cowardice against the Greeks (159 f.). This elaborate construction resembles later rhetorical technique: A represents the exordium, B the prothesis, C-D-C the paradeigmata; the prothesis is repeated as B′; and A′ can be understood as a type of epilogue (Toohey 1994, 158).

82

Iliad 7

124–131 In the introduction to his speech, Nestor portrays the grief of Peleus, Achilleus’ father, should he learn of the Greeks’ fear. This first part of the outer ring (A) is itself structured as a ring-composition (AH; Lohmann [1970] 1997, 88): a Peleus would lament loudly (124–126), b although in the past he had been cheered at the thought of all the nobleborn warriors (127 f.); a′ if he were to hear of the cowardice displayed by all the Greeks, he would want to die (129–131). This type of internal structure of one half of a ‘ring’ occurs frequently in the Iliad; cf. 11.656 ff., 19.155 ff. (Lohmann 1870, 89 n. 146; 19.155–172a n.). The symmetry nothwithstanding, the passage has a strong emotional effect, since the explanatory conditional clause at 129, necessary for understanding a, is delayed for an unusually long time via the insertion of b (and is even set off with a full-stop by West): b thus turns into an agitated, emphatic digression. – Peleus is a contemporary of Nestor; this is indicated by the epithets ‘horseman’ (hippēláta) and ‘great man of counsel’ (agorētḗs), which mostly denote heroes of an older generation (124–125n.; 126n.); at 11.772–790, Nestor likewise relates a story in which Peleus appears as an elder statesman (Grethlein 2006, 73 and n. 96 with additional bibliography). The invocation of a different, older authority figure relieves Nestor of the need to explicitly register criticism under his own name (Grethlein loc. cit. 74). The fact that in the present passage he names, of all people, the father of the angry Achilleus – who presumably would rejoice at the Greeks’ difficulties – is explained in the scholia as having a rather clever implication: 1. the warriors present should imagine the response of their own fathers, if even the father of the sulking Achilleus would be pained at the current situation; 2. the Greeks should recall Achilleus, who would outmatch Hektor and would not hesitate to accept the challenge (thus also Lowenstam 1993, 73 n. 39; Grethlein loc. cit.; Scodel 2008, 71); 3. the Trojans should recognize the close relationship between Peleus and the Greek troops, and conclude that Achilleus’ anger cannot last long. – But all these considerations are likely too complicated (cf. Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012, 152 f. and n. 27); Nestor is here simply evoking a ‘father figure’ of great authority (Kirk; Crotty 1994, 28 ‘communal conscience’), who is repeatedly invoked as such in the Iliad (e.g. by Odysseus to Achilleus at 9.252–259, by Nestor to Patroklos at 11.783 f.). At 128, via the topic of genealogy, Nestor likewise calls to mind the fathers of the other men fighting before Troy. On the exhortation, frequent in the Iliad, ‘not to shame the race of our forebears’, see 6.209n. with examples and bibliography. The topic ‘fathers’ is also present thoughout the

Commentary

83

Iliad via the character of Priam, father to the main hero on the opposing side (the two father-son pairs are explicitly compared by Priam and Achilleus: 22.420–422, 24.486 ff. [see 24.486–489n.; 24.488–489n.; 24.493–494n.; 24.516n.; 24.534–548n.; 24.538–542n.; 24.541n.; 24.542n.]). Ultimately, Nestor himself is ‘tradition personified’ (Grethlein loc. cit.; cf. Martin 1989, 108 ‘keeper of traditions and overseer of poetic memory’; Dickson 1995, 72 ‘encyclopaedic memory of his group’). 124–125 124 = 1.254; 2nd VH of 125 = 9.438, 11.772, 18.331. In the iteratum at 1.254, Nestor reproves Agamemnon and Achilleus for their disagreement. While in the present passage, he continues to point to Peleus’ potential anguish, in Book 1 he imagines Priam’s glee at their quarreling; both passages employ the verb gēthéō (‘rejoice’), here at 127 (see ad loc.) to describe Peleus’ earlier satisfaction at the thought of the Greek warriors (AH; Kirk). — the land of Achaia: here a collective term for the Greek homeland (1.2n. with bibliography; 1.254n.). The notion of the Trojan war as a Panhellenic undertaking is in effect: the cowardice of the greatest Greek heroes is a source of shame for the land as a whole (Stoevesandt 2004, 348 f., cf. 41 f. with n. 173). ὦ πόποι: an expression of (usually negative) surprise in direct speech (1.254n.); as here, frequently in the context of a rebuke for inappropriate behavior (LfgrE s.v. πόποι). — ἦ μέγα … | ἦ … μέγ(α): anaphora that stresses emotion (in the iteratum, the second verse [1.255] also begins with ἦ κε); the same adverb is added to this by way of contrast in the context of Peleus’ joy at 127 (μέγ’ ἐγήθεεν). Anaphora is a frequent feature of the speeches of the eloquent Nestor (1.248–249n., 1.249n.), but comparatively rare in his speeches in Book 7: Di Benedetto 2000. On ἦ as an indicator of putting oneself in another’s place (Theory of Mind), see Scodel 2012, esp. 329. — πένθος: here means the grief and shame caused by the collective humiliation of an imminent defeat (1.254n. with bibliography; LfgrE s. v. 1150.5 ff.). — ἦ κε μέγ’ οἰμώξειε: possibly an otherwise unattested VB formula, as indicated by the usage in Hdt. 7.159 (likewise hexameter-like in combination with a noun-epithetP formula and in direct speech). οἰμώζω denotes crying out from physical or mental pain; used only of men (LfgrE s.v., where also for bibliography on word formations based on the interjection οἴμοι). μέγα here not only refers to the intensity of the emotion (see above), but evokes an acoustic notion of great volume (Kaimio 1977, 25). — ἱππηλάτα: ‘driver of the chariot’; the nom. in -ᾰ is probably a transference from the voc. to the nom. (see 2.336n. on the synonym ἱππότα and 1.175n. on μητίετα, both with bibliography). An epithetP for heroes from an older generation (19.311n.), often in a formula with γέρων, probably because of the metrically convenient combination of the epithet with old bisyllabic names in -ευς (in addition to Peleus, also Phyleus, Tydeus and Oineus: Kirk).

124 πόποι, ἦ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἦ: emphatic, esp. in direct speech (R 24.4); likewise in 125. 125 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5); likewise 130 κεν. — μέγ(α): adv., ‘very, greatly’; likewise in 127. — ἱππηλάτα: nom. sing. (↑).

84

Iliad 7

126 The formulaic denomination of Peleus in a complete verse signals the authority accorded him (cf. 13n.). βουληφόρος ἠδ’ ἀγορητής: member of the council of elders/leaders/‘cadre’ (βουλή) and speaker in the general assembly (ἀγορά); on the two bodies, 1.54n.; 1.144n.; 2.194n. with bibliography, to which add Schulz 2011, 5–89, and see also Pelloso 2012, 40f. on the function of the the ἀγορά. ἀγορητής is used especially of aged heroes: elsewhere of Nestor (1.248, 4.293) and the Trojan elders (3.150), also of Thersites (2.246 although likely ironic: LfgrE) and Telemachos (Od. 20.274; the suitors are taken by surprise by the young man’s eloquence, which is unusual for his age: 268 f.).

127–128 128 ≈ 15.141. — The episode alluded to here is the visit by Nestor and Odysseus to Phthia, where they recruited Achilleus and Patroklos; Nestor will return to this at greater length (11.765–790; Odysseus calls this episode to mind at 9.252–259; a different version of the story in Cypr. fr. 19 West). – Nestor’s familiarity with the genealogy of all Greek warriors (pántōn Argeíōn) lends him an authority that transcends the characterP plane, given that cataloguesP otherwise fall within the narrator’s remit – and even the narrator points to his limitations when enumerating the Greek warriors before Troy (2.488–492n.): cf. Dickson 1995, 72–75. — he was filled with great joy: Peleus’ satisfaction at the warriors’ noble lineage is contrasted emphatically with his horror, as imagined by Nestor, at how little credit they are to their forebears (Alden 2000, 86; Grethlein 2006, 73; on the paradigmatic significance, as well as the entertainment value, of genealogies for ancient audiences, Alden loc. cit. 153 ff.; cf. the questions regarding family and origins raised constantly in Homeric epic, e.g. at 6.145 [see ad loc.] and the formulaic verse in the Odyssey ‘What man are you, and whence? Where is your city? Your parents?’ [Od. 1.170, 10.325, 14.187, 15.264, 19.105, 24.298]). εἰρόμενος … | … ἐρέων: on the word repetition, 118–119n. — ἐγήθεεν: As frequently elsewhere, the verb here denotes satisfaction at a person’s efficiency: Latacz 1966, 141– 143 (where also on the distinction from the more pronouncedly emotional χαίρω). — ᾧ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ: a VE formula (3× Il., 7× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’). — γενεήν τε τόκον τε: an inflectable VE formula (also Il. 15.141, Od. 15.175); both terms denote origin (τόκος means ‘offspring’ only in later Greek: Faesi/Franke; AH; Leaf; Kirk [differently schol. A, D πατέρα καὶ παῖδα]; on the synonym doubling, 1.160n.; 2.39n.).

126 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). 127 εἰρόμενος: from εἴρομαι ‘question, inquire of’. — ἐγήθεεν: on the uncontracted form, R 6.— ᾧ ἐνί: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (hōy ení), M 12.2. — ᾧ: possessive 3rd-pers. pronoun (R 14.4). — ἐνὶ (ϝ)οίκῳ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 128 ἐρέων: ‘ask for’ (+ acc.); explains the preceding general εἰρόμενος. On the uncontracted form, R 6. — γενεήν: on the form (-η- after -ε-), R 2.

Commentary

85

129 πτώσσοντας: πτώσσω is a denominative related to πτώξ ‘hare’, i.e. the ‘cowerer’; this in turn is a root noun related to πτῆξαι (trans. ‘push down’ or like πτώσσω ‘cower’): LfgrE s.vv. with bibliography; cf. 2.312n.; 14.40n. Only here with ὑπό and the dat. (AH: on analogy with φέβεσθαι [11.191, 15.637], κλονέεσθαι [5.93]). The verb is always linked to fear and thus has negative connotations: ‘keep timidly in the background’, here almost ‘duck away, shirk’; cf. 4.224, 4.340, 4.371 (Kurz 1966, 55 n. 18). — ἀκούσαι: ‘if he heard that’ (ἀκούω with acc. and part. only here in early epic; likewise πεύθομαι at Od. 4.732: AH; Leaf. In later texts, verbs of perception in the sense ‘learn of, come to know’ are usually construed with the acc. and part.: Schw. 2.107).

130–131 2nd VH of 131 = 3.322, h.Ven. 154; from caesura C 1 on = Il. 11.263, 14.457, 24.246, Od. 9.524, 11.150, 11.627, 23.252; from caesura C 2 on = Il. 6.284, 6.422, 22.425, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 151, Theb. fr. 3.4 West. — the life breath from his limbs: Here thymós literally denotes the life force (see below); the reference is thus to dying (16.410n. with bibliography). — go down into the house of Hades: a common phrase describing death; see 3.322n.; 6.19n.; 14.457n. with bibliography for similar expressions in the Iliad. On Hades, 1.3n. (form of the name); 3.322n. (recent bibliography on the disputed etymology); CG 14 (myth). On the expression ‘prefer to die than have to live through sth.’, 24.224b–227n. with examples and bibliography. φίλας: serves here as a possessive pronoun, as often in Homer (1.20n.; 3.31n.). — ἀνὰ χεῖρας ἀείραι: an unusual expression. Elsewhere in early epic (including 177), raising one’s hands toward the gods is described via the inflectable VE formula χεῖρας ἀνέσχον (Kirk; 3.275n. with bibliography on the prayer posture described in the passage); as here, a gesture of intense grief with the formula separated (χερσὶν | … ἀνασχόμενος) at 22.33 f. (not of turning to the gods, but in combination with beating the head ‘in order to beat all the more forcefully’: de Jong on Il. 22.33–34). — θυμὸν ἀπὸ μελέων: a VB formula, also at Od. 15.354, with the formula separated Il. 13.671 f. = 16.606 f., 23.880. θυμός means ‘vital energy, life force, life’ (LfgrE s.v. 1080.63 ff.; 1.205n.; 3.294n.; 16.410n., see ad loc. also on the synonymous alternatives ψυχή and αἰών). The notion of the θυμός descending to Hades is attested only here, while more often it is the ψυχή, see 330n.; against placing undue significance on the difference in meaning between the two words, Nagy 1999, 90; Clarke 1999, 178 (although the latter defines both terms as ‘breath’: 129–156). In addition, both verse halves are formulaic; the combination is attested only here, but need not have been perceived as unusual; cf. Leumann 1950, 221, 337; Snell 1946 (1953), 11. On μέλεα meaning ‘body’, 24.359n. — Ἄϊδος: an athematic

129 τοὺς … πτώσσοντας ὑφ’ Ἕκτορι: indirect statement with part., ‘[that] they cower before Hektor’ (↑). — τούς: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἀκούσαι: 3rdpers. sing. aor. opt. 130–131 πολλά: adv., ‘many times, repeatedly’. — ἀθανάτοισι: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). On the declension, R 11.2. — ἀνὰ … ἀείραι: 3rd-pers. sing. aor. opt. of ἀναείρω; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; ‘raise the hands and plead that’. The acc.-inf. indirect statement θυμὸν … δῦναι is dependent as the content of the prayer. — ἀπὸ (μ)μελέων: on the prosody, M 4.6. — δόμον … εἴσω: = εἰς … δόμον (R 20.2). — Ἄϊδος: initial syllable lengthened (↑).

86

Iliad 7

gen. sing. In accord with the same principle of formation, dat. sing. Ἄϊδι; otherwise inflected thematically (3.322n., where also on the etymology).

132–133a 132 = 2.371 (see ad loc.), 4.288, 16.97 (see ad loc.), Od. 4.341, 7.311, 17.132, 18.235, 24.376; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 8.540, 13.827. — If only … | I were in my youth as when …: As at 11.670 and 23.629, Nestor prefaces his reminiscences with the wish to be young again, although there with the formulaic verse that here picks up the wish in 157 in the manner of a ring-composition (Kirk). His wish is one of a number of character statements that discuss personal inferiority or a wish to be stronger, e.g. 16.722 f. (Apollo in the guise of Asios to Hektor, likewise in a paraenetic context: ‘If I were as much stronger than you as now I am weaker!’), 19.217–219 (Odysseus to Achilleus regarding his physical inferiority and intellectual superiority), Od. 21.372 ff. (Telemachos on his physical powerlessness vis-à-vis the suitors); cf. Il. 4.313 ff. (Agamemnon to Nestor, wishing him the power of youth). – Nestor’s wish is unrealizable; emotionally overwhelmed speakers wishing for the impossible are common in the Iliad, see Kelly 2007, 366 f. with additional bibliography. — o father Zeus, Athene, Apollo: The invocation of the three key deities (see CG 5, 8 and 24) seems particularly appropriate here – Apollo and Athene are sitting in Zeus’ tree and observing the scene (22n.) – although the formulaic affirmative exclamation is also used in less fitting contexts. It always serves to introduce a comparative – often unrealizable – wish (‘if only x would be/happen like y’, etc.; 16.97 is an exception, see ad loc. with bibliography) and, given its unrealizability, can sometimes, as here, represent an expression of frustration rather than a real wish (cf. Kahane 1994, 102 f.). αἲ γάρ: Nestor’s statement is something between a wish and a conditional clause (Denniston 90); the apodosis ultimately follows at 158 after repetition of the wish (157). — Ἀθηναίη: 57–59a n. — ἡβῷμ’ ὡς: In Homeric epic, the cupitive opt. can be used with unrealizable wishes (beside the indicative of a secondary tense, as is the norm later), as also at 16.722–723 (see ad loc.): Wace/Stubbings 1962, 151; Chantr. 2.214 f.; Schw. 2.320 f.; cf. Wilmott 2007, 134–137.

133b–156 Nestor’s account of past wars in the western Peloponnese may be part of a local myth cycle independent of the Troy myth (KirΚ on 7.123–160; RE s.v. Pheia; West [1988] 2011, 160; Alden 2000, 75 n. 5; Zanetto 2017). This is supported by a. the spread of allusions to a war between Pylos and neighbouring Elis and Arcadia (in the Iliad also at 4.319, 11.670–762, 23.630–642) and b. the

132 αἲ γάρ: = εἰ γάρ (cf. R 22.1); introduction to a wish clause (↑). — Ἀθηναίη: on the form (-η after -ι-), R 2. 133 ἡβῷμ(ι): 1st-pers. sing. opt. of ἡβάω ‘be young’. — μάχοντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary

87

circulation of ancient subsidiary traditions regarding Nestor’s victory over Arcadian Ereuthalion (Ariaithus FGrHist 316 F 7a = schol. bT on Il. 4.319): once Ereuthalion fell to the ground, the young Nestor, hopping with joy, left the area designated for the duel – which according to the rules led to his disqualification and thus in fact a victory for the Arcadian (perhaps a victory dance [Vian 1952, 242]; on the spread of armed dances in the context of ancient military rituals, cf. Od. 24.68–70 [Bierl 2001, 100–104]; at the same time, Homeric epic mentions dancing as the unreconcilable contrast to war, which is more in line with Nestor’s disqualification [see 240–241n.]). Ereuthalion, who died of his injuries, is celebrated as the victor over Nestor in his funerary inscription. If this variant was familiar in addition to the version in the Iliad, Nestor’s selfpraise here should be taken with a grain of salt. 133b–135 2nd VH of 135 = Od. 3.292. — Keladon: The adj. keládōn means ‘rushing, murmuring’; the etymology is unclear, although an association with Latin celer ‘quick’ (Tichy 1983, 197 f.) is semantically more fruitful than the usual (Frisk, DELG) link to kaléō ‘call’. Elsewhere in Homer, the word is attested as an attribute of rivers (e.g. 18.576, 21.16), whereas here it appears to function as the actual name of a river (see below). But the ‘Keladon’ cannot be identified unequivocally (perhaps identical with the Keladon in Callim. h. 3.107 and the Kelados in Paus. 8.38.9, which flows between Arcadia and Triphylian Pylos [RE s.v.]; alternatively an old name for the river Ladon in Arcadia [Wace/Stubbings 1962, 293]). Cf. Frame 2009, n. 134. — Pylians: on the controversial location of Pylos in Messenia, Triphylia or Elis, 2.591n.; Frame loc. cit., 715 f. with n.; Zanetto 2017. — Pheia: probably not the same as the Pheai in Elis mentioned at Od. 15.297, near modern Katakolo (LfgrE; on the v.l. Pheras [acc.], see Kirk loc. cit.; West 2014, 88 n. 50 and 243 n. 163); this town is located on the coast, unlike Homeric Arcadia (LfgrE s.vv. Ἀρκάδες, Ἀρκαδίη; cf. 2.603n.), and is thus geographically unlikely to be the site of a Pylian-Arcadian war, particularly since it features only one river in its immediate surroundings (Strab. 8.3.12). On additional attempts at identification since antiquity, RE s.v. — Iardanos: also cannot be identified; the iteratum refers to a river on Crete, while Stephanus of Byzantium mentions a river by the same name in Lydia. (A pre-Greek, nonIE origin of the suffix -danos in river names is likely: Peretti 1994, 154–156.) Later traditions name the river Akidon in reference to the present passage (with Iardanos being its older name: schol. T on 7.133–135) or take it as the

134 ἀγρόμενοι: aor. mid. part. of ἀγείρω. 135 πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — τείχεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

88

Iliad 7

name of a person buried on the banks of the Akidon (Paus. 5.5.9; Strab. 8.3.21; the latter offers an alternative reading of the passage, with Akídonti in place of Keládonti, together with the neighboring city Chaa in place of Pheia). – Given the geographical difficulties, 135 has sometimes been athetized (West app. crit. and 2001, 200). If the verse is retained, less literal interpretations are perhaps not out of place: based on the parallels between the duel with the story of David and Goliath (1–312n.), an echo of the biblical river Jordan in the name Iardanos is conceivable (Mülder 1910, 47 n. 2; Mühlestein [1971] 1987, 182 with n. 30; cf. Leaf on 133, who points to similarities in meaning between the Jordan [derived from Hebr. yārad ‘it came/flowed down’] and Greek keládōn ‘rushing, murmuring’). Very broadly, the riverine landscape of Nestor’s story presents a parallel to the current scene, the Trojan plain, further emphasizing the paradigmatic reference (Vetten 1990, 71). ὠκυρόῳ: ‘swift-flowing’, a verbal compound (on the formation, Risch 197 f.). An epithet of rivers, only here and at 5.598, where danger is implied – as perhaps also here. In addition, at Hes. Th. 360, h.Cer. 420, Ὠκυρόη is the name of an Oceanid: LfgrE s.vv. — Κελάδοντι: Attempts to understand κελάδοντι as an epithet of Ἰαρδάνου at 135 (schol. A, D, T on 7.113–135) are untenable, due to the separation of the words and the difficulties caused by the change in case (LfgrE, Kirk on 7.133–135). — ἐγχεσίμωροι: a generic epithetP of peoples. The initial element is related to ἔγχος ‘spear’, but the final element is obscure; perhaps to be understood as ‘spear-famed’ (2.692n.; LfgrE s.v.). Also at 2.611, the Arcadians are characterized as warriors particularly skilled in close combat: 2.604n. The spear (ἔγχος, δόρυ, used largely synonymously in Homer; cf. 6.31–32n.; 16.139–140n.) can be used as a missile or in close combat, cf. 244–262. — Ἰαρδάνου ἀμφὶ ῥέεθρα: a modification of the VE formula ‘name of a river in the gen. + ἀμφὶ ῥέεθρα’ (in addition to the iteratum at Od. 3.292, also at 2.461, 2.533).

136 Nestor referred to Ereuthalion already at 4.319, where he mentioned his killing to Agamemnon – in conjunction with the wish to once again be as young as he was then. ‘Now comes the full story’ (Kirk). Ἐρευθαλίων: The name is likely derived from the Argive toponym Ἐρευθαλία (von Kamptz 134; see LfgrE with additional bibliography). — πρόμος: 75n. — ἰσόθεος φώς: a VE formula used of various heroes; a generic epithetP of heroes with no distinctive characteristics (2.565n.; 16.632n., both with bibliography); cf. the notion, common in Homeric epic, of a hero venerated like a god (4–7n.; 16.605n. with bibliography).

137–150a The club that Areïthoos commonly used to break though (141) the opposing battle lines (phálangas) can be seen as a primitive, archaic weapon; its bearers thus belong to an older generation (especially Herakles; cf. Meleagros, whose name contains the root -wagro, ‘smasher’: West 2007, 460 f., where also

136 τοῖσι … ἵστατο: 123n. — τοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2. On the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἵστατο, (ϝ)ἰσόθεος: on the prosody, R 4.3. On the hiatus, R 5.4.

Commentary

89

for additional I-E traditions). At the same time, the name Areïthoos points to a warrior who is agile rather than brutal (8n.). In combination with the fact that while metal clubs are not attested in Greece (the only mention is the iron club of Orion at Od. 11.575), they do occur as symbols of power in the Near East (a club is also difficult to imagine as an actual weapon used against the tightly-packed phalanx), this has led to speculation of a Syro-Cypriot origin for the myth of the ‘man with the club’, who is here equipped with a Greek name (Lorimer 1950, 119 f.; Buchholz 1980, 324 f. with n. 1947, 336 f.; Kirk on 7.138– 141). – The provenance of Ereuthalion’s arms takes up 14 lines and is thus the longest ‘object genealogy’ in the Iliad; note also 2.101–108 ([see ad loc.] Agamemnon’s sceptre); 10.261b–271 (boar’s tusk helmet); 11.19–23 (Agamemnon’s cuirass); 15.529b–534 (Meges’ cuirass); 16.140–144, 19.390 f. (Achilleus’ spear); 17.194b–197, 18.84 f. (Achilleus’ first armor): Grethlein 2006, 75 n. 101. On ekphrasis as a broad category: 2.101–108n.; 2.447–449n.; 18.478–608n. (4); 19.387–391n. with additional bibliography. – The traditional motif of the ‘special weapon’ (cf. Aias’ shield [219–225a n.], Hektor’s eleven-cubit-long spear [6.319n.], Achilleus’ ashen spear [16.141–144n.; 19.387–391n.; 19.388–389n.; 19.390n.; de Jong on Il. 22.133–134] and of course his shield made by Hephaistos [18.478–608n.]) fits into the scheme of the ‘battle of David against Goliath’ (1– 312n. [c]). In addition, gifted weapons are characteristic of famous warriors: the bows of Pandaros and Teukros were given by Apollo (2.287, 11.353, 15.441 [but a different origin-story exists; cf. 4.105–411 with n.]), Agamemnon’s cuirass (see above) was a gift from Kinyras, Achilleus’ spear (see above) a gift from Cheiron (via Peleus to Achilleus), Achilleus’ first armor a gift from the gods (likewise initially given to Peleus: 17.194–197, 18.82–85), the second a gift from Hephaistos (19.10 f. etc.), his horses a gift from Poseidon (these also via Peleus: 23.277 f.), Odysseus’ bow, which only he can draw, a gift from Iphitos (21.11– 41): Shear 2000, 197 f. n. 600 (where also on objects that have been made by gods and are among a mortal’s property without mention of an act of donation); Ready 2011, 83 f. Cf. Redfield 1994, 243, on the frequently unhappy fate of the recipients of such gifts. – The description increases the suspense of the narrative by lending great weight to the opponent, as well as by making him appear more dangerous (cf. Hebel 1970, 88). At the same time, Nestor’s reputation is enhanced: he defeats an opponent who owns such arms (Grethlein 2006, 75 n. 101; Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012, 153 n. 28; cf. Crielaard 2002 [esp. 249–256, 281] on the motif of the inherited object as a symbol of the continuity between heroic past and present). But this passage also illustrates that an opponent’s supposed invincibility does not guarantee his victory – a notion designed to give courage to the Greeks in the present situation (Alden 2000, 87 f.; Primavesi 2000, 51 f.).

90

Iliad 7

137–141 1st VH of 137 = Od. 24.380. — Areïthoos: likely identical with the father of Menesthios, who is killed by Paris at the beginning of Book 7 (8n.). — given by the men … | the name: This type of expression frequently introduces a character’s epithet (24.316n. with examples and bibliography). — the men … | and the fair-girdled women: a polar expression.P The fact that Areïthoos is known even among women, highlights his fame (cf. AH). — neither with the bow … | but with a great bar clubbed of iron: a polar expression that emphasizes the weapon’s exceptional character. In part, Homeric epic reflects a period during which iron represented a new, valuable and exotic material (at 6.48, it is mentioned as a precious material in addition to bronze and gold; see ad loc.); iron weapons are thus something special in early epic, even if they were in common use at the time of the codification of the Iliad (elsewhere only a sword [‘Hes.’ Sc. 128], an arrowhead [Il. 4.123], and a variety of tools. In contrast, iron is frequently used for miraculous or divine objects: the axle of Hera’s cart that is otherwise made mostly of gold and silver [5.723], the gates of Tartaros [8.15], the vault of heaven [17.425]: LfgrE s.vv. σιδήρεος, σιδήρειος and σίδηρος); this strengthens the suspicion that the ‘club-fighter’ has a nonGreek origin [137–150a n.]). τεύχε(α): Here ‘arms’ in general are meant, not in contrast to the club (Kirk) but likely including it (the formulaic nature of this verse, as well as of the 1st VH of 146, supports a generic use of the term; see 145–146n.). — Ἀρηϊθόοιο … | … Ἀρηϊθόου: emphatic chiastic epanalepsis (Kirk) that facilitates the addition of supplementary information (6.153–154n. with bibliography; see 2.672n. with additional examples). — ἐπίκλησιν … | … κίκλησκον: A variant of the VE formula ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσι (18.487n.). The present tense κικλήσκω is derived from the zero-grade perfect κέκλημαι (from καλέω); the reduplication is characteristic of -σκω verbs, which denote mental activities (e.g. γιγνώσκω derived from ἔγνων, μιμνήσκω from ἔμνησα, etc.): Risch 276. — καλλίζωνοί τε γυναῖκες: an inflectable VE formula (2× Il., 1× Od., 3× h.Ap.: 24.697b– 698n., where also for bibliography on the girdle as a typical element of female dress). — τόξοισι: an elliptical plural, here denoting bow and arrows (Schw. 2.51; on the realia, 3.17n.; 3.18–20n.). — δουρί τε μακρῷ: a VE formula (also at Il. 5.297, 18.341, ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.1 M.-W.). — ῥήγνυσκε: an iterative preterite related to ῥήγνυμι ‘break through’. — φάλαγγας: 55n.

142–150a The description of Lykourgos’ tactics against his opponent utilizes the common folktale motif of the strong outwitted by the clever (142 ‘by craft’; on 137 τεύχε’ ἔχων: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — τεύχε(α): on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ὤμοισιν: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2).— Ἀρηϊθόοιο (ϝ)άcνακτος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Ἀρηϊθόοιο: on the declension, R 11.2; beside Ἀρηϊθόου in the following verse. 138 τόν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R. 14.5). — ἐπίκλησιν ‘called’ (adverbial acc.). 139 κίκλησκον: unaugmented (R 16.1) impf. (↑). 140 οὕνεκ(α): crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘since’. — ἄρ(α): R 24.1. — δουρί: on the form, R 4.2, R 12.5; likewise in 145.

Commentary

91

the motif ‘David against Goliath’, 1–312n.): Lykourgos steers the club-fighter to a narrow part of the path, where there is no room to swing his weapon (143 f.). It is debatable whether this trick is actually necessary or merely serves again to highlight the ‘magic weapon’: ‘he could have shot him down almost anywhere, but the mace-man has to be overthrown specifically in relation to his idiosyncratic weapon’ (Kirk on 142–145). At the same time, Areïthoos is apparently killed by a thrust of the spear (perónēsen [145–146.]: close combat promises to be more successful than a throw of the spear, which might be dodged by the [agile? 137–150a n.] warrior). This attack from close quarters appears possible for Lykourgos only because Areïthoos cannot use his club. 142 Lykourgos: The name (or its uncontracted form, Lykoörgos) is attested frequently in early epic. The most prominent bearer of it is the Thracian opponent of Dionysos (6.130n.); ‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 3.9.1 f. (= 3.102, 105) mentions an Arcadian king by this name, and the story of Lykourgos and Ereuthalion is picked up by Paus. 8.4.10 and 8.11.4 [mention of the character also at 5.5.5; 8.4.8]). — by craft, not strength: In the Odyssey, the Cyclops speaks in very similar terms when wounded by Odysseus alias ‘Nobody’: ‘Good friends, Nobody is killing me by force or treachery’ (9.409). There the term used for force is bíē, synonymous with the present krátos; likewise at Il. 7.197 f., where Aias says that no one could overcome him ‘by force … | nor by craft either’ (bíē/idreíē). Cf. 7. 242 f. on the juxtaposition ‘secretly’ (= slyly) and openly (Luther 1935, 116 f.). – On the paired opposites force and (tendentially unheroic) guile in Homeric epic, Cantarella 1979, 239–243; Nagy 1979, 45–49; De Jong on Od. 8.266–366 (see 207); Wilson 2005. On the undermining of ‘real qualities’ by guile in the Iliad, also 23.515 (Antilochos has beaten Menelaos in the chariot race by guile, not speed), 23.708–728 (Odysseus’ trick in the wrestling match against Aias). On the estimation, ambivalent at best, of ‘guile’ in Greek myth, see the summary in Detienne/Vernant [1974] 1978, 3–6. ἔπεφνε: a reduplicated aor. of θείνω ‘kill’ (Schw. 1.748; LfgrE s.v.); part of a formula system of verbs for ‘killing’ that are used synonymously (6.12n. with bibliography).

143–144 1st VH = 23.416. — in the narrow pass of the way: In Pausanias’ time, the grave of Areïthoos could be seen near Mantineia at a narrow passage called Phoizon (8.11.4). — where the iron club served not: cf. the motif, common in the Iliad, of abilities/characteristics that are useless at the point of death (6.12–19n.; West 2011 on 2.859). 142 Λυκόοργος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δόλῳ, οὔ: on the hiatus, M 12.2. — οὔ τι: 27n. 143–144 στεινωπῷ ἐν ὁδῷ, ὅθ’: on the hiatus (twice), R 5.6. — ὅθ(ι): ‘where’ (cf. R 15.2). — κορύνη (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — χραῖσμε: aor. of χραισμέω ‘parry’ (↑); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — πρίν: adv., ‘before’. — ὑποφθάς: from ὑποφθάνω ‘anticipate’.

92

Iliad 7

χραῖσμε: here, as well as at 11.120 and 20.296, with the acc. obj. ὄλεθρον in the sense ‘parry/ward off’; at 1.566 f. with a person as obj. (ἄσσον ἰόνθ’): LfgrE.

145–146 1st VH of 145 = 13.197; 2nd VH = 11.144, 12.192; ≈ 4.108, 4.522, 7.271, 13.548, 15.434, 16.289 (see ad loc.); 1st VH of 146 ≈ 13.619, 17.537, 21.183; as well as additional formulae (see below). Linguistically, the two verses thus consist in their entirety of formulaic elements (Kirk); on the classification of the contents of battle scenes, 8–16n. — so he went down backward ǀ to the ground: 124– 160n. περόνησεν: περονάω denotes action with a spear only here and at the iteratum 13.197, elsewhere pinning with fibulae (LfgrE). — ἐρείσθη: an aor. pass. of ἐρείδω, with a dat. used for locative specification (‘fall down onto’). The pass. form expresses the force of the hit: Areïthoos is being ‘pressed to the ground’ (Kurz 1966, 21 [transl.]). — τεύχεα δ’ ἐξενάριζε: here actually ‘remove the armour’; more often the verb simply means ‘kill’ (1.191n.; cf. 6.20n.). — τά οἱ πόρε: τά (vel sim.) οἱ/τοι πόρε with the subj. following at VE is used 7× Il., 3× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ (similar expressions at Il. 23.540, 24.30, Od. 9.201). On its position after caesura B 1 or B 2, Hoekstra 1965, 64 f.; on additional formulaic relative clauses explicating an object’s origin, Bakker (2001) 2005, 124 with n. 32. — χάλκεος Ἄρης: a VE formula (5× Il.). Here Ἄρης likely refers to the god himself rather than being a metonymic usage (in contrast to the immediately following verse: 147n.), since the expression τά (vel sim.) οἱ/τοι πόρε is used exclusively with a personal subj. (The formula χάλκεος Ἄρης is certainly used metonymically only at 16.543, see ad loc.) In early epic, whether an anthropomorphic personification of elements of nature or other forces is actually present cannot always be determined unequivocally (CG 28–32).

147 through the grind of battle: The name ‘Ares’ is here likely used metonymically for war rather than personally for the god, as in the preceding verse; the repetition appears to be accidental and is not pointed (Fehling 1969, 150 f.). φόρει: φορέω is an iterative of φέρω (Schw. 1.720) and denotes e.g. the habitual wearing of clothes or armor (19.360n.). — μῶλον ἄρηος: a VE formula (4× Il., with μετά also at 16.245), see 2.401n. (where also with bibliography on the meaning of μῶλος: probably ‘exertion’ > ‘battle’).

148 in his halls: ení megároisin refers to the megaron, the central room of the Homeric house (3.125n.); in a more general sense, it simply means ‘at home’ (24.209a n. with bibliography).

145 μέσον: sc. αὐτόν. — οὔδει: dat. (↑) of οὖδας ‘ground’. 146 τά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — τά: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 147 φόρει: impf. of φορέω ‘carry, bear’ (↑). On the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἄρηος: on the declension, R 12.4. 148 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισιν: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ἐγήρα: 3rd-pers. sing. aor. of γηράσκω ‘age, grow old’.

Commentary

93

149 his beloved henchman: 122n. δῶκε … φορῆναι: The form φορῆναι (also at 10.270) is a matter of dispute: it is either a Myceneanism related to po-re-na (Pylos Tn 316 do-ra-qe pe-re, po-re-na-qe a-ke; thus Brewer 1984; Nagy 1994– 1995; Willi 1994–1995) or an epic back-form related to Aeolic φορήμεναι similar to epic-Ionic μιγῆναι related to epic-Aeolic μιγήμεναι (thus Risch 256; Rix 1977, 93 f.; Peters 1986, 307 f.; LfgrE; an overview of the discussion in Hackstein 2002, 13 f.).

150 2nd VH = 3.19 (see ad loc. and 50n.); ≈ 7.285. 151 = h.Ap. 47. — they were all afraid and trembling: 124–160n. ἐτρόμεον καὶ ἐδείδισαν: The two terms (and cognates) frequently occur in early epic in synonym doubling (on which, 1.160n.; 2.39n.): 6.137, 15.627 f., 20.44 f., Od. 4.820, 18.80; cf. Od. 18.77. — οὐδέ τις ἔτλη: a VE formula (in total 6× Il., 3× Od., 1× h.Hom.).

152 my hard-enduring: emphatic contrast with 151: ‘none had the courage’ (AH; in the Greek, repetition of the stem -tlē-); cf. word playP. θυμὸς ἀνῆκε: commonly a VE formula (24–25n.), after caesura A 3 only here and at ‘Hes.’ fr. 200.7 M.-W. — πολυτλήμων πολεμίζειν: The repetition of the initial syllable increases the emphasis of the statement.

153 I in age was the youngest: The motif of the child prodigy is traditional and plays a role in the story of David and Goliath as well (1–312n. [j]). Even if Nestor associates youth with vigor (157; cf. 13.484), his youth renders the victory more surprising, since he is an inexperienced warrior; this could thus be a particular barb directed at the wavering Greeks (Hebel 1970, 88). θάρσεϊ ᾧ: θάρσος means ‘courage, bravery’, but also ‘foolhardiness’ (cf. 6.126 σῷ θάρσει, see ad loc.). The reflexive ᾧ lacks a clear point of reference: ‘with one’s own courage’ does not in itself indicate whose characteristic this is. The reference is probably to Nestor’s courage (‘to fight with one’s own [= my] courage’: AH; Leaf; Kirk; cf. Od. 13.320 f. ἀλλ’ αἰεὶ φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἔχων δεδαϊγμένον ἦτορ / ἠλώμην ‘but always with the heart torn within one’s own [= my] inside / I wandered’); this is supported by the reference to Nestor’s youth that follows immediately and highlights the unusual quality of his θάρσος (θάρσεϊ ᾧ· γενεῇ δέ). – At the same time, the description of the θυμός as driving the warrior to fight via his θάρσος was considered over-complicated (Aristonikos [following Aristarchus?] in schol. AT contra Zenodotus [cf. HT 9 f.]); the 3rd-pers. poss. pronoun might also refer to θυμός: approximately ‘my daring in its courage’ (Faesi/Franke; Cheyns 1981, 143 f.), although further examples of this are lacking (closest is

149 δ(έ): apodotic (R 24.3). — φορῆναι: inf. (R 16.4; ↑) of φορέω (iterative-intensive of φέρω); here with a final sense. 150 τοῦ: Areïthoos (cf. 137). — ὅ: Ereuthalion. 151 ἐτρόμεον: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἐδείδισαν: δειδ- < *δεδϝ- (R 4.2). plpf. < perf. δείδια ‘fear’. — οὐδ(έ): connective οὐδέ occurs in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 152 ἀνῆκε: 25n. 153 θάρσεϊ (ϝ)ῷ: on the prosody, R 4.3.

94

Iliad 7

the use of the epithet μεγαλήτωρ with θυμός: Leaf). — ἔσκον: a variant of ἔην; usually durative, as here (3.180n. with bibliography).

154 1st VH ≈ 1.271. — Athene: supports the Pylians also at 11.714 f./721; here she is likely mentioned simply as the goddess of war. μαχόμην … δῶκεν: The durative impf. indicates the long duration of the battle. Athene’s help, which appears at a single point and is conclusive, is then described via a resultative aor. (AH). — δῶκεν δέ μοι εὖχος Ἀθήνη: 81n.

155 A strongly emphatic metron (AH; Kirk on 155 ‘solemnly spondaic’) that underlines the height of the defeated warrior. — δή: reinforcing, ‘certainly’ (AH). — μήκιστον: The superlative is found only here in the Iliad, elsewhere at Od. 5.465 and 11.309 (in reference to Otos and Ephialtes); the variant μακροτάτη occurs at 14.288 (14.287–288n.). Superlatives are predominantly used in (more emphatic) characterP speech, as is the case here (Kirk ad loc. and p. 31). 156 πολλός: rare in the nom. (in total 3× Il., 3× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom.); of spatial extent also at 20.249 and 23.245 (Faesi/Franke; AH). — τις: ‘weakening or augmenting, it makes an adjectival or substantival term, also an adverbial one, appear not entirely precise’ (Schw. 2.215 [transl.]); here likely the latter, approximately ‘gigantic’ (AH). See also 3.220n. — παρήορος: a compound of παρά + ἀείρω (Frisk; DELG), ‘harnessed beside’. The meaning in the present passage is disputed; elsewhere (noun/substantive) ‘spare horse’ (16.471, 16.474; see 16.152n.) or ‘mentally unhinged’ (23.603). Ultimately, a reconstruction of the development of terms as disparate as these must remain speculative (analytical attempts involving different poets with differing interpretations have long been dismissed: Myres 1958, 289 f., contra Leumann 1950, 222–231). The most plausible explanation is the aspect, probably shared by all meanings, of objects virtually devoid of function or even useless, which seems to apply also to the present passage with the sense ‘helpless, no longer fit to fight’: Erbse 1993, 133–136 (contra the traditional understanding ‘stretched out’ [schol. A, bT, D], which is already described in the phrase πολλὸς γάρ τις ἔκειτο and cannot be reconciled with any other meaning of the term). Cf. LfgrE with additional bibliography. — ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα: A VE formula (in total 10× Il., 11× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom.) and after caesura A 3 (5× Il., 4× Od., 1× Hes., 5× h.Hom.) or at VB (2× Il.).

157–158 157 = 11.670, 23.629 (Nestor), Od. 14.468 (Odysseus as a Cretan, with Eumaios); ≈ 503; cf. 132–133a n.; 2nd VH of 157 ≈ Il. 4.314; 2nd VH of 158 = 7.263. εἴθ(ε) … | τώ κε τάχ(α): The syntactically independent clauses form a conditional structure (‘if – then’) in terms of content. εἴθ(ε) + opt. here prefaces a wish clause,

154 οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 155 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — μήκιστον: predicative, ‘as the tallest’; likewise κάρτιστον = κράτιστον. — κτάνον: aor. of κτείνω. 156 πολλός: on the declension, R 12.2; predicative with ἔκειτο (‘he lay there, stretched out wide’). — ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα: ‘hither and thither’ = in every direction. 157 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἡβώοιμι: = ἡβῷμι (cf. 133n.). On the epic diectasis, R 8. 158 τώ: ‘then’. — τάχ(α): adv., ‘soon, quickly’.

Commentary

95

imagined as unattainable, and τώ κε τάχα introduces the resulting conclusion in the potential clause (see 16.722–723n. with similar examples); here the latter has a slight ironic bent, with the sense ‘in that case, he would soon be fighting’ (cf. Kirk). — δέ: the iterata use τε (i.e. the second wish is already implied by the first); most of these (with the exception of Od. 14.503) lead to a subsequent verse starting with ὡς ὁπότε/ ὅτε (cf. 7.132 f.), whereas 158 in the present passage forms an independent clause. The use of δέ rather than τε is perhaps to be explained by the fact that the link between the two verse halves is less tight here than in the iterata, where the verse forms a more compact unit as part of a more complex system (Ruijgh 176 f.). — ἔμπεδος: ‘solid, reliable, present (still unchanged)’; in the latter sense often of youth and health, as here; aside from βίη, also combined with μένος, ἴς, κῖκυς, etc. (e.g. 5.254, Od. 11.393): LfgrE s.v. 565.48 ff.; cf. 6.352n. φρένες ἔμπεδοι. — ἀντήσειε μάχης: In the Iliad, ἀντάω with gen. is frequently linked with terms for war and battles (‘to visit something in order to participate in it’); the aor. denotes the specific action ‘to encounter’: LfgrE s.v. 920.13 ff., 76 ff. — κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ: A VE formula (in total 37× Il.); the epithet means ‘helmet-shaking’ or ‘with gleaming helmet’ (2.816n.; 6.116n.).

159–160 159 ≈ 73. — who are the bravest of all the Achaeans: By adopting Hektor’s expression from 73 (see ad loc. and 50n.; on the repetitions, 44–45n.), Nestor exerts additional pressure: the best of the Greeks must not behave in a cowardly manner. The discrepancy between a warrior’s behavior at present and his abilities in principle is often put forth in the Iliad, e.g. at 2.190, 8.93 f., 13.95 ff./116 ff., 15.296 ff.: Stoevesandt 2004, 303 with n. 902; cf. Bergold 1977, 188 f. n. 6; also 3.39 ff., where Hektor calls Paris’ attention to the stark difference between the latter’s refusal to fight and the Trojans’ expectations (on this, 3.44–45n.), as well as to the discrepancy between Paris’ flight from Menelaos (3.30 ff.) and his audacious abduction of Helen (3.46–51n.). ὑμέων δ’ οἵ περ ἔασιν … | … οἳ … μέμαθ’: The change of person from the 3rd- to the 2nd-pers. pl. is not unusual; cf. 5.878, 17.250, Od. 9.275 f. (AH). Here it is perhaps motivated by the repetition of the phrasing from 73 (Kirk): addressing the warriors directly increases the paraenetic intensity (Dentice di Accadia Ammone 2012, 154). — ἀντίον ἐλθεῖν: ‘to face’; in Greek with the gen. A variable VE formula; in battle situations often denoting an attack, as here (19.70n. with bibliography; cf. 7.98). 161a νείκεσσ(ε): ‘rebuked them, criticized them’; denotes a paraenetic admonition containing a certain degree of insult: LfgrE s.v. νεικέ(ί)ω 307.54 ff.; cf. Menelaos’ rebuke (95–102n.).

159 ὑμέ ͜ων: = ὑμῶν (R 14.1); on the synizesis, R 7. ὑμέων is a partitive gen. from οἵ (relative, with emphatic περ: ‘among you, who’; cf. 110n.; 114n.). — ἔασιν: = εἰσίν (R 16.6). — ἀριστῆες: 73n. 160 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), best translated as predicative: ‘not even as these’, i.e. as the greatest among the Achaians, who you are; ‘not even so’. — προφρονέως: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — μέμαθ’: = μέματε; 2nd-pers. pl. of perf. μέμονα, here ‘want’; cf. 3n. 161 νείκεσσ(ε): aor. of νεικέω. On the -σσ-, R 9.1. — πάντες: ‘in total, as a whole’. — ἀνέσταν: = ἀνέστησαν (R 16.2).

96

Iliad 7

161b–169 A short catalogueP of potential duelists. Lists in the shape of catalogues are part of the stock of Greek epic (2.494–759n. [p. 147] with bibliography; Sammons 2010; Reitz/Scheidegger/Wesselmann 2021), the most prominent in the Iliad being the Catalogue of Ships in Book 2. There are also other extensive examples, such as the catalogue of women at 14.313–328 (see ad loc.) and that of Nereïds at 18.39–49 (see ad loc.), but many of these are shorter, like the present one (examples in the Iliad in Kelly 2007, 122). The function of these passages, frequently off-putting to a modern audience, is sometimes a retardationP of the action (cf. 16.168–197n. with bibliography). But this comparatively short catalogue serves mainly to illustrate the action by introducting the characters involved. – In total, nine heroes are listed; this represents a typical numberP, which here serves to indicate a group of considerable size that has been mobilized as a result of Nestor’s speech (cf. 2.96n. with bibliography on the number nine; also Kelly loc. cit. 261–263, with examples from the Iliad. On other lists of nine characters mentioned by name, 24.249–251n.; cf. 16.306–357n., with a catalogue of nine examples of individual killings in the context of an androktasiē scene: there the number nine indicates incompleteness, since the battle continues.) – The present passage mentions some of the major heroes of the Iliad (especially Agamemnon, Diomedes and Aias [179–180n.]); certain combinations of names also occur elsewhere in the Iliad: one or two of the Aiantes and Idomeneus at 1.145, 2.405 f., 3.229 f., 6.436, 8.262 f. (= 7.164 f.), 10.53, 10.112, 15.301 (in the latter three examples in a formulaic expression), 23.473–493; Thoas and Odysseus: 2.631– 644, ‘Hes.’ fr. 198 M.-W. (West 2011 on 161–168). There are additional parallels with other lists of warriors (see the iterata: the commonalities are particularly pronounced in the athletic games in Book 23 and the battle scene in Book 8 [7.164–167 = 8.262–265]): 1–312n. (section IV), although given their formulaic nature, the present lines should not be overestimated as a concrete link between the various scenes. οἳ δ’ ἐννέα πάντες … | … | τῷ δ’ ἔπι … | τοῖσι δ’ ἔπ(ι) … etc.: A ‘refrain-composition’ (De Jong on Od., p. xvi): lists arranged anaphorically that specify a summary statement (in the present passage, the list concludes with the sum: πάντες [169]) are common in Homeric epic; cf. 236–241 (οὐκ οἶδεν πολεμήϊα ἔργα | … εὖ οἶδα … | οἶδ’ … οἶδ’ … | … | οἶδα … | οἶδα … [with a list of different πολεμήϊα ἔργα]: 226–243n.; 236–241n.), 10.227– 231 (οἳ δ’ ἔθελον … | ἠθελέτην Αἴαντε … | ἤθελε Μηριόνης … | ἤθελε δ’ Ἀτρεΐδης … | ἤθελε δ’ ὁ τλήμων Ὀδυσεύς), Od. 4.613–615 (preceded by the cognate δώρων, followed by δώσω, ὃ κάλλιστον … ἐστι. | δώσω τοι κρητῆρα), 8.321–323 (οἱ δ’ ἀγέροντο θεοί … | ἦλθε Ποσειδάων γαιήοχος, ἦλθ’ ἐριούνης | Ἑρμείας, ἦλθεν δὲ ἄναξ ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων): AH on 7.238. On anaphoric verse beginnings in the Iliad generally, 2.381–393n.; 16.12– 18n.

161b = Od. 8.258.

Commentary

97

162 ≈ 5.38, 23.288; 1st VH ≈ 8.256, 14.442 (see ad loc.), Od. 1.113, 8.197, 9.449, 14.220, 17.31, 17.328. ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectable VE formula (1.172n.).

163 = 23.290; ≈ 23.812; there are other parallels in which an entire verse states that a hero rises from his seat (ṓrto ‘he rose’ occurs before caesura C 1 and is framed by the patronymic/epithet and name: 7.211, 23.293, Od. 8.3: Parry (1928) 1971, 77). — son of Tydeus, strong Diomedes: On the first and second day of fighting in the Iliad, Diomedes is by far the most successful Greek hero, a kind of replacement character for the absent Achilleus (6.96–101n. with bibliography, and add Hitch 2009, 146 with n. 10). In the present Book, he will also stand out in the council (399 ff.). On his father Tydeus, CH 2.6. κρατερός: a generic epithetP of heroes (LfgrE s.v. 1522.54 ff.). The formula Τυδεΐδης ὦρτο κρατερὸς Διομήδης is used here and in the iterata; note also ὁ Τυδεΐδης κρατερὸς Διομήδης at VE in 8.532 and 11.660 = 16.25 (see ad loc.), and unadorned κρατερὸς Διομήδης (14× at VE; 1× in the verse middle).

164 = 8.262; ≈ 18.157. — the two Aiantes: The reference is likely not to the two heroes in the Iliad named ‘Aias’ (the Salaminian ‘Telamonian’ [224–225n.] and the Locrian son of Oïleus [CH 2.3]), but to the brothers Aias and Teukros, since in subsequent verses (179, 183, 187) the name Aias is only used in the singular, without specifying which of the Aiantes is being referred to (Wackernagel [1877] 1953, 542 f.; followed by Chantr. 2.29; 2.51; Nappi loc. cit. 221). The dual Áiante seems to sometimes denote Aias and Teukros (see first Wackernagel loc. cit., based on a. the Vedic use of the dual, in which one of two different nouns receives a dual ending and stands for both, and b. the lack of a connection between the Locrian and the Telamonian Aias that might explain their frequent joint appearances: see 2.406n. with additional bibliography; also Nappi loc. cit.). In the present passage, this meaning appears to have been transferred to the plural, which seems to be used in place of the more common dual (17× Il.) here and elsewhere (iterata and 8.79, 13.313) for purely metrical reasons (Nappi 2002, 221). — their fierce strength upon them: In the Iliad, the formula (inflectable, 3× Il., 2× Od.) is used exclusively in combination with the Aiantes (in the Odyssey also in the sing. of Polyphemos [9.214] and of the image, conjured up by Polyphemos, of the man foretold to conquer him, i.e. Odysseus [9.514]); it stresses the link between armor and fighting strength:

162 ὦρτο: aor. of ὄρνυμαι ‘rise’; likewise in 163. — πολύ: adv., ‘by far’. — The digamma in μὲν (ϝ)άναξ is not taken into account (R 4.6). 163 τῷ … ἔπι: = ἐπὶ … τῷ (R 20.2); corresponds to τοῖσι … ἔπ(ι) in 164, 165, 167. 164 θοῦριν(ν) ἐπιειμένοι: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ἐπιειμένοι: ‘dressed in, equipped with’ (+ acc.; ↑), perf. part. of ἐπιέννυμι.

98

Iliad 7

19.36n. with bibliography. On Semitic and Vedic parallels for the metaphor, West 1997, 238 f.; 2007, 92. θοῦριν: ‘rushing, impetuous’: on the etymology and the more common phrase θούριδος ἀλκῆς, 18.157n. — ἐπιειμένοι ἀλκήν: on ἐπιειμένος (‘dressed in’) with an abstract, 1.149n. (where ἀναιδείην ‘impudence’).

165–166 = 8.263 f.; ≈ 17.258 f.; 165b–166a ≈ 10.58b–59a; 166 = 8.264, 17.259; ≈ 2.651. — Idomeneus: a Cretan leader (CH 2.3; 2.645n.). — companion: Meriones is denoted by the noun opáōn (5× Il.); he is linked to Idomeneus by friendship and kinship (Idomeneus is his uncle: 2.651n.), but is of lower rank (cf. Müller 1971, 67–81) and is thus also called Idomeneus’ therápōn (122n.). A opáōn/therápōn can be materially independent, in contrast to a simple therápōn; Meriones has his own hut, a ship (13.266 f.) and his own chariot driver, Koiranos (17.610 f.): Greenhalgh 1982, 84–86 (at the same time, Koiranos himself is likewise designated an opáōn; Greenhalgh explains this as a result of metrical necessity). But the limited number of examples mean that the difference between the two terms cannot be conclusively determined. (Elsewhere in early epic, figures labeled opáōn are Phoinix, follower of Peleus at 23.360, and Hekate, companion of Persephone, at h.Cer. 440.) — Meriones: The character appears to have a long history in the epic tradition; this is indicated by his accompanying set formula (‘a match for the murderous Lord of Battles’), which prosodic considerations suggest may go back to the 15th cent. B.C. and is used exclusively of Meriones (see below); note also the hero’s conspicuously antiquated boar’s tusk helmet (10.261–265), as well as the connection with Hurrian maryannu ‘outstanding chariot driver’: 2.651n. and 19.238–240n. with bibliography; CH 2.4. — Lord of Battles: Enyalios is a local Cretan deity, originally the god of the direct clash between two opponents, later linked to Ares; in Homeric epic the names are used synonymously: 2.651n. with bibliography; also de Jong on Il. 22.132. Brief comparisons of heroes with the god of war are common (see below), but extensive similes are rare (208–213n.); the short comparative formula does not necessarily indicate that the warrior in question is presenting his best side in the situation at hand (Kelly 2007, 228–231). Ἰδομενεὺς καὶ ὀπάων Ἰδομενῆος: 79–80n. — ὀπάων: with suffix -ṷon- related to an action noun *ὁπᾱ´ ‘following, followers’ (ἕπομαι is likewise related); related to Mycenaean o-qa-wo-ni (Ruijgh [1968] 1996, 255; LfgrE; DMic). There may be a link with Mycenaean o-pa ‘labor, contribution’, also with the sense ‘tribute’ (DMic; Ruijgh loc. cit. 261), the latter found among other examples on Linear B tablets from Knossos (Alden 2012, 123 f.

165 Ἰδομενῆος: on the declension, R 3; R 11.3. 166 Ἐνυαλίῳ ἀνδρειφόντῃ: to be read with synizesis of Ἐνυα ͜ λίῳ or synaloephe of Ἐνυαλίῳ ἀνδρειφόντῃ (↑).

͜

Commentary

99

with n. 59, with examples and additional bibliography), supporting the hypothesis of a Cretan origin for the term (Kirk on 165; cf. Webster [1958] 1964, 105; Wace/Stubbings 1962, 456). — ἀτάλαντος: 47n. — Ἐνυαλίῳ ἀνδρειφόντῃ: on the metrical problem, M 13.4, G 15; Latacz (2001) 2004, 261–263. In early epic, comparison with the god of war (Enyalios = Ares) is expressed in numerous inflectable formulae, e.g. ἶσος Ἐνυαλίῳ (22.132), ἶσος Ἄρηϊ (11.295, 11.604 [there after caesura A 3], 12.130, 13.802, 20.46, Od. 8.115) and ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηϊ (Il. 2.627, 5.576, 8.215, 13.295, 13.328, 13.528, 15.302, 16.784 [see ad loc.], 17.72, 17.536, ‘Hes.’ fr. 25.16 M.-W.).

167 = 8.265; ≈ 2.736, 5.79. — Eurypylos: CH 2.4; a Thessalian hero, ruler of Thessalian Ormenion. His abilities are repeatedly highlighted in the Iliad; potentially pre-Homeric (2.736n. with bibliography). His father Euhaimon is otherwise known only from Demetrius of Scepsis, who mentions him as the son of Ormenos (fr. 68 Gaede = Strab. 9.5.18), which would make him the brother of Amyntor and thus make Eurypylos the cousin of Phoinix (CH 2.5). ἀγλαὸς υἱός: an inflectable VE formula (18× Il., 8× Od., 6× h.Hom.), commonly preceded by the name of the father in the gen.; in this combination also 3× at VB (Il. 23.302, ‘Hes.’ fr. 12.2 M.-W., h.Merc. 500). Cf. the formula ἄλκιμος υἱός (6.436–437n.).

168 Thoas: The leader of the Aitolians, without a major role in the Iliad (in accord with his function as a substitute ruler after the extinction of the original dynasty: 2.641–643); in addition to the present passage, he is mentioned a mere three times in more prominent form: at 4.527–535 he kills the Thracian leader Peiroos; at 13.215–239 Poseidon assumes his appearance in order to urge on Idomeneus; and at 15.281–299 the other leaders follow Thoas’ instructions not to yield before Hektor (2.638n.; on other bearers of the same name, 14.230n.; 16.310–311n. with bibliography). — Andraimon’s son: Homer mentions Andraimon only in his capacity as father of Thoas; elsewhere he is characterized as the son-in-law and successor of the mythical king Oineus of Kalydon (‘Apollod.’ Bibl. 1.8.1/1.8.6 [= 1.64/1.78]; on the sons of Oineus, 2.638n.; Paus. 10.38.5). — and brilliant Odysseus: Odysseus being mentioned last perhaps illustrates the superiority in action typical of him: he rises last (schol. bT). But see 161b–169n. for caution against over-interpretation of the order of the list. Ἀνδραιμονίδης: a hapaxP in early epic, elsewhere Ἀνδραίμονος υἱός (2.638, 15.281, Od. 14.499, ‘Hes.’ fr. 198.9 M.-W.). — δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς: A VE formula (23× Il., 79× Od.).

169 ≈ 9.356; 2nd VH = 7.42 (see 41–42n.). πάντες: constitutes the frame for the catalogue in combination with 161 (161b–169n.).

167 Εὐρύπυλος(ς), Εὐαίμονος: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura: M 8). 168 ἄν: = ἀνά (R 20.1); a verb of rousing oneself, e.g. ὦρτο, is to be supplied. 169 οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17.

100

Iliad 7

170–205 Nestor has Hektor’s opponent be determined by lot; to general relief, the choice falls on Aias the son of Telamon. The Greeks pray for victory or at least an indecisive outcome. Early epic mentions a series of additional instances of drawing lots to determine a selection or order of individuals; the motif is also part of a traditional narrative pattern of ceremonial duels, and occurs in Book 3 as well: see 3.316– 325n. with bibliography, where also on other instances of drawing lots in early epic and the corresponding type-sceneP: 1. The lots are thrown into a helmet (176), 2. the participants offer a prayer (177 ff.), 3. the lots are shaken (181), 4. one lot falls from the helmet and indicates an individual (182 f.). The present scene naturally contains some iterata characteristic of drawing lots, especially those that also occur in the drawing for the first throw in the duel in Book 3 (see on the individual lemmata). 170 τοῖς δ’ αὖτις μετέειπε: A VB formula (also 10.241, Od. 15.439; the more common form is τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπε: 2.336n.); a speech introduction formulaP. On the locative τοῖς, 123n. — αὖτις: here with a continuative, connective function (Bonifazi 2012, 266 f.: ‘switching to … the next speaker’ / ‘zooming-in effect’); cf. 16.477n. with additional bibliography. — Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ: a VE formula (in total 21× Il., 10× Od., 1× Hes.). Γερήνιος is probably an adj. related to Gerenia or Gerenos/on (a town in Messenia): 2.336n. with bibliography, where also on ἱππότα (cf. 124–125n. on ἱππηλάτα).

171–174 The draw, that is the selection by fate of Aias, serves to place a counterpart on the Greek side to the divine selection of Hektor by Apollo (Reucher 1983, 164 f.). On the characterP plane, the idea of the draw can also be explained as a strategic measure designed by Nestor: in this way, none of the volunteers on the Greek side is neglected, and it is demonstrated for the benefit of the Trojans that a multitude of warriors are available who are a match for Hektor. Moreover, if Hektor fights a randomly selected warrior rather than the current ‘greatest’ among the Greeks, the Trojans will not be able to draw conclusions regarding the quality of the remaining Greek troops (schol. T on 171; cf. Aias’ statement at 231 f.). 171 πεπάλαχθε: perhaps a reduplicated aor. of παλάσσομαι, here with the otherwise unattested meaning ‘throw the lot’ (related to πάλος ‘lot’ [cf. schol. D], which is post-Homeric albeit attested already in Sappho fr. 33.2 Voigt). Aristarchus (and Herodian?) read πεπάλασθε (from πάλλω ‘shake’: schol. A and bT [on this, Erbse 1960, 91]; they are folllowed by AH; Leaf; Kirk), as also at Od. 9.331 (κληρῷ) πεπαλάσθαι for πεπαλάχθαι, probably in order to avoid a connection with the verb παλάσσω, the most common

170 τοῖς: ‘among them’ (↑); on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἱππότα: nom. sing. (↑). 171 κλήρῳ νῦν πεπάλαχθε: ‘now throw the lot’ (↑). — ὅς κε: = ὅστις ἄν (R 24.5), ↑; λάχησιν is 3rdpers. sing. aor. subjunc. of λαγχάνω (R 16.3); likewise φύγησι of φεύγω (173).

Commentary

101

meaning of which, ‘spatter, befoul’, is inappropriate in both passages. At the same time, the correct aor. form for πάλλω should be πεπάλεσθε/πεπαλέσθαι, rendering a misspelling as πεπάλαχθε/πεπαλάχθαι exceedingly unlikely (Bechtel 1914, 266 f.; Risch 283; van der Valk 1964, 205; West 2001, 200). The more plausible explanation is an original sense ‘shake’ for παλάσσω/παλάσσομαι, from which developed the meaning ‘spatter while shaking’ on the one hand, and ‘throw the lot’ (originally from the notion of a cup being shaken, although here more abstract with the sense ‘participate in a draw’: the actual ‘shaking’ [πάλλεν] happens only at 181 in Agamemnon’s helmet) on the other. — διαμπερές: ‘right through’, i.e. one after the other: everyone is supposed to throw his lot into the helmet (Faesi/Franke; AH). — ὅς κε λάχησιν: between a relative clause (without an antecedent in the main clause: ‘throw in the lot one after the other, whoever will then draw it’) and a dependent interrogative clause (‘[in order to see] who will draw it’): Monteil 1963, 64–66; cf. Schw. 2.643 f.; Chantr. 2.238, 293; cf. 2.365n. [see ad loc.]). 172–173a 173 ≈ 6.260. — ὀνήσει … | … ὀνήσεται: The benefit to the warrior himself – the reference is likely to his gain in prestige – is emphasized via both the pronouns αὐτός and ὅν and the change of the verb to the middle (Kirk; cf. 16.230n.; on the stylistic figure of juxtaposing different forms of one verb, see Fehling 1969, 266). The mention of the θυμός gives expression to his mental engagement (Böhme 1929, 75 with n. 4), almost to the point of meaning ‘for oneself’ (Hahn 1954, 256); for a mere ‘manner of speaking’ (LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1085.37 ff.), the phrase on balance appears too emphatic. – Similar expressions: ὤνησας κραδίην (1.395); θυμὸν ἰαίνειν (etc.: LfgrE loc. cit. 1086.38 ff.). — ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς: 57–59a n.

173b–174 = 118b–119 (117–119n.). – The abbreviated version of the passage, limited to the conditional clause in combination with the possibility, at least considered, that the Greek warrior might be defeated, seems like a figure of speech without much semantic significance (like ‘god willing’ or ‘hopefully’, especially after the optimistic 172 f. 175 marked: With nine heroes participating, distinctive marks are necessary (in contrast to a draw between two candidates, as in Book 3; it remains unclear what is used for lots there [3.316–325n.], but two pebbles of different colors would suffice): the marks are probably cut into pot sherds, pieces of wood, or the like. It is unlikely that writing is used, given that the herald himself is unable to identify the marks on the decisive lot and must show them to all the participants at 183 ff.: thus already Aristarchus in schol. A on 7.175 and 187, as well as schol. D on 175 (see also AH; Leaf on 184; Kirk ad loc. and on 3.324–325). But the interpretation that the markings were not intelligible to all because of

172 δὴ ὀνήσει ἐϋκνήμιδας: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 173 καὶ δ(έ): ‘but also’. — αὐτὸς (ϝ)όν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ὅν: possessive 3rd-pers. pronoun (R 14.4). — αἴ κε φύγησιν: 118n. 174 πολέμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 175 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἔφαθ’: 43n. — οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17; likewise in 185. — ἐσημήναντο (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3.

102

Iliad 7

the heroes’ different origins is also offered (schol. bT on 7.175). On the heterogenous ancient notions of literacy in the heroic age, see Schmidt 1976, 213–215; Heubeck 1979, 126–146; Brillante 1996, 31–33. – Actual writing must be at the basis of the ‘murderous symbols’ at 6.168–170, given the complexity of the content (see ad loc. with bibliography; on both passages, also Camerotto 2009, 221–224). What appears meaningful is the distinction between lexicographic writing depicting language on the one hand, and merely semasiographic writing conveying meaning on the other (Powell 1991, 198–200; definitions pp. 250 and 252; 1997, 27); at 6.168 ff., the former is present, in the present passage, the latter. οἵ … ἕκαστος: distributive division of the subj. (Schw. 2.616). 176 κυνέῃ: originally a leather helmet (abbreviated from κυνέη δορή/ῥινός ‘dog skin’), subsequently mostly a bronze helmet with leather lining, or a leather helmet with sheet bronze reinforcements; usually synonymous with κόρυς and τρυφάλεια (3.316n. with bibliography). — Ἀγαμέμνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο: a VE formula (in total 9× Il., 4× Od.).

177–183a The type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n. with bibliography); included here are the elements (1) prayer gesture (177 f.), (2) verb of praying (178), (5) invocation of the deity (179), (7) plea (179 f.), (8) formulaic conclusion (181), (9) positive response by the deity (implied at 182–183a). Like the two prayers preceding the duel in Book 3 (3.298–301 and 3.318–324a), the present passage represents a tis-speechP (3.318–324a n. with bibliography); the same applies to the prayer at 200–205. The form serves here to illustrate by way of example a multitude of similar speeches by individual representative speakers from the crowd of Greek and Trojan warriors; this also becomes clear in the iterative forms for the verb ‘speak’ (eípesken: 178 [see ad loc.], 201; cf. 2.188–206n.). 177–180 177–178a = 3.318–319a. – 178b–179 to caesura A 3 = 3.364 f., 7.201 f., 19.257 f., 21.272 f. – 1st VH of 178 to caesura C 1 in total 4× Il., 6× Od., always followed by ἐς πλησίον ἄλλον (on which, 2.271n.), to B 2 in total 3× Il., 6× Od., ≈ 3× Il., 3× Od. (ὥς ἄρα τις εἴπεσκε[ν]); 2nd VH ≈ 5.867; from caesura C 2 on = Hes. Th. 746; ≈ Th. 679. – 180 ≈ 11.46. 177–178 holding up their hands … | … gazing into the wide sky: a common posture for prayer (3.275n.; 3.364n. with bibliography); see also 179–180n. (‘Father Zeus’).

176 ἐν … ἔβαλον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — κυνέῃ Ἀγαμέμνονος: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — κυνέῃ: on the -ῃ after -ε-, R 2. On the uncontracted form, R 6. — Ἀτρεΐδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. 177 θεοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2. 178 τις (ϝ)εἴπεσκεν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — εἴπεσκεν: on -σκ-, R 16.5 (↑).

Commentary

103

λαοὶ δ’ ἠρήσαντο: on the nuances in meaning of λαοί (‘warriors, soldiers’) and ἠρήσαντο (‘prayed’; ἀράομαι here likely used synonymously with εὔχομαι), 3.318n. with bibliography. — χεῖρας ἀνέσχον: 130–131n. — εἴπεσκεν: The iterative here renders synchronous statements by a variety of characters, as at 2.271 (see ad loc.; Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 42 f.). On the suffix -σκ-, G 60.

179–180 In the short prayer, the typical numberP nine is reduced to the likewise typical number three (Blom 1936, 31), limiting and focusing the audience’s attention (Nagy [1979] 1999, 30); adding to the suspense of the draw is the similarly suspenseful question of whether the prayer has been heard and one of the three heroes mentioned will be chosen (de Jong 1987, 71). The three names are arranged according to the law of increasing parts (Behaghel 1909, esp. 139; West 2011; cf. 10n.); the passage is a hierarchical climax ending in Agamemnon, who occupies an exceptional position as military leader (162n.). At the same time, this does not imply that Agamemnon is the greatest warrior of the three (Schneider 1996, 59 f.), since the names are clearly arranged in order of preference: 182 f. states that Aias is the preferred candidate (schol. T; Kirk). All three heroes serve as substitutes for Achilleus in different ways: Aias is the second greatest warrior after him (2.768n.; cf. 1–312n. [4.4.2.]); Diomedes is similarly successful in battle and at times serves as a substitute character for the absent Achilleus (163n.); and Agamemnon, finally, is responsible for the absence of Achilleus, the ‘obvious candidate’, and must thus stand in for him (cf. Kelly 2007, 248 f.). Over the course of the Iliad, Hektor will be defeated by all three heroes: by Aias in the imminent duel (and repeatedly: Stoevesandt 2004, 212–214; Mackie 2008, 168), by Agamemnon at 11.181–210 (Zeus directs Hektor to intervene only after Agamemnon has withdrawn from battle), and by Diomedes at 11.349–367 (Hektor flees from him): Willcock on 11.360 (in detail on the power differential between Hektor and the various Greek heroes, Stoevesandt 2004, 199–225). – The heroes mentioned in the prayer are less powerful fighters; they are part of a group that tends to be used as substitutes (Strasburger 1954, 106; Schneider loc. cit. 58), with the exception of Odysseus, whose strengths are concentrated in the intellectual sphere (cf. the characterization of him by Helen in the teichoscopia at 3.200–202 [3.191–224n.]). — Father Zeus: an address used by both gods and human beings (19.121n.). Zeus’ epithet ‘father’ has I-E origins, e.g. Latin Iu-piter (3.276n. with bibliography). The notion of Zeus as a decisive divine power in war is omnipresent in Homeric epic (19.223b–224n.; see also 69n.). Addressing the sky god Zeus while looking up toward him (178) lends a personal, emotional note to the prayer. (This becomes

179 ἠ(ὲ) … ἠ(έ): ‘either … or’. 180 βασιλῆα: on the declension, R 11.3; R 3.

104

Iliad 7

even more apparent in the iterata 3.364 f. and 21.272 f. in their respective contexts: Pucci 2012.) — of golden Mykenai: A VE formula, also at 11.46 and Od. 3.305. Mycenae’s wealth was proverbial already in antiquity; cf. the pronouncement of Zeus bestowing strength on the tribe of Aiakos, wisdom on the tribe of Amythaon, and wealth on the tribe of Atreus – i.e. the dynasty of Mycenaean rulers (‘Hes.’ fr. 203 M.-W.), and the designation of Mycenaean tholos tombs as thēsauroí (Paus. 2.16.6): see Hainsworth on 11.46. On possible natural gold deposits in the environs of Mycenae (by way of explanation for the numerous gold objects recovered from there), Shear 2000, 138. Elsewhere in early epic, the epithet ‘golden’ (polýchrysos) is used of Troy (18.289) and of Aphrodite (in that case ‘adorned with gold’: 2× Hes., 6× ‘Hes.’, 2× h.Hom.): LfgrE with bibliography. Ζεῦ πάτερ: A VB formula: 1.503n. — Αἴαντα λαχεῖν: The inf. expresses the wish, sc. δός (2.413n.; schol. T; Schw. 2.382). — Τυδέος: a short-vowel gen. of Τυδεύς: 6.96n. with bibliography; cf. 3.37n. on Ἀτρέος. — Τυδέος υἱόν: an inflectable VE formula (in total 14× Il.), also after caesura A 3 (6× Il., 1× Od.) and once in verse middle (Il. 6.277). — αὐτὸν βασιλῆα: The reference is to ‘the boss himself’ (Schneider loc. cit. 60 [transl.]).

181 1st VH = 3.324; 2nd VH = 7.170, see ad loc. — Nestor … shook the lots: As an impartial and trusted figure, Nestor is well suited to conducting the draw (schol. T), in particular since he initiated the proceedings (171). ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφαν: a speech capping formulaP, in total 4× Il., 5× Od. — Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ: 170n.

182–189 This part of the type-sceneP ‘drawing of lots’ has no parallel: the lot is shown to all participants until Aias finally recognizes it as his own. That the winner of the draw is the last to be shown the lot that has fallen from the helmet (at least this is the impression created by the herald initially presenting it to ‘all the greatest Achaians’: 184), serves to create suspense on the characterP plane (schol. bT on 185): the audience is aware that the lot is Aias’ (183), but can experience the torment of waiting together with the Greeks. 182–183 1st VH of 182 to caesura B 1 = Od. 10.207; 2nd VH of 183 after caesura B 2 = 186. — that one that they all had wished for: narratorP commentary; only at 191 do the Greeks finally learn that Aias will fight the duel. At the same time, this result becomes increasingly clear as the herald proceeds along the line, and one hero after another rejects the lot; ‘the great men of the Achaians’

181 ἄρ(α): probably used mainly for metrical reasons; cf. R 24.1. — ἔφαν: = ἔφησαν (R 16.2). — πάλλεν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 182 ἐκ … ἔθορε: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — αὐτοί: ‘they themselves’ (the Achaians participating in the draw). 183 ἀν’ ὅμιλον: ‘along the throng’ (↑). — ἁπάντῃ: adv., ‘to everywhere’; likewise in 186.

Commentary

105

(184) and ‘all of them’ (185) imply that Aias is the last to be shown it (191– 192n.). — of Aias: The gen. Aíantos is placed emphatically at the beginning of the verse as a runover word (AH), and at the end of the sentence after the relative clause; it is only here that the suspense created in the prayer at 179– 180 (see ad loc.) is released (on the audience plane, see 182–189n.): ‘[the narrator] effectively reserves the most important information for the last’ (de Jong 1987, 71; cf. Owen 1946, 76). In the drawing of lots in Book 3, convened to resolve the less momentuous decision of the order in the duel, the release comes more quickly after the iteratum at 3.324 (‘So they spoke, and tall Hektor of the shining helmet shook’; 1st VH = 7.181), in the immediately subsequent verse: ‘looking backward, and at once Paris’ lot was shaken out’ (Kirk 1978, 30–32). — a herald: A herald is tasked with functioning as a servant and companion (24.149n.) or with convening assemblies and ensuring orderly proceedings (2.50–52n.); heralds are also involved in the preparations for a duel at 3.268–274, where they assist in the preparatory sacrifice. On the functions of heralds in general, 1.321n.; 1.334n.; 18.558n. — all through the great throng: Since the armies are sitting on opposite sides (cf. 54–56), the nine heroes who have volunteered can be envisioned as placed in a row, but probably among the other warriors rather than as a discrete group; this is indicated by the herald having to carry the lot ‘everywhere’ (Kirk). The repetition of the phrase at 186 illustrates the redundancy and extended duration of the process. κήρυξ: on the accent, West 1998, XXI. On Mycenaean ka-ru-ke, 1.321n. and 24.149n. with bibliography. 184 ἐνδέξια: the formally correct and thus auspicious direction (also the direction in which Hephaistos serves the gods: 1.597n.): AH; Leaf; Kirk. — ἀριστήεσσιν Ἀχαιῶν: 50n. 185 οἳ … ἕκαστος: distributive division of the subj., as at 175 (see ad loc.). πᾶσιν is picked up from the preceding verse; the complementary combination of πᾶς and ἕκαστος is not unusual (2.449n.). — ἀπηνήναντο: 93n.

186 2nd VH after caesura B 2 = 183. 187 glorious Aias: a VE formula, in total 6× Il.; on phaídimos ‘shining’, 1n. As at 182 f. (see ad loc.), the name is emphasized by its placement after the relative clause. ἐπιγράψας: In early epic, γράφω always means ‘cut, scratch’; elsewhere in Homer only in descriptions of injuries, with the exception of 6.169, where the reference is to writing

184 δεῖξ(ε): on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἐνδέξια: adv., ‘left to right, clockwise’ (↑). — ἀριστήεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 185 γινώσκοντες: = γιγνώσκοντες. — ἀπηνήναντο (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3. 187 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1); the κλῆρον (182) is meant. — κυνέῃ: dat. of destination. βάλε is probably synonymous with ἔμβαλεν in the next verse.

106

Iliad 7

on a tablet (see ad loc. and 175n.). The present passage has the somewhat more specific meaning ‘mark (in a distinctive, recognizable way)’: Chadwick 1996, 79. — φαίδιμος Αἴας: nom. rather than acc. – as would be expected as an appositive of τόν (186) – assimilated to the closer relative clause (ὅς), as at 3.124 (see ad loc. for additional examples).

188 The moment at which the herald presents the lot to Aias is described in an entire verse ‘to make the moment of recognition even more dramatic’ (Kirk); this is in addition to the detailed retarding rendering of events before and after the lot is identified (182–189n.; 182–183n.; 189–191n.). ἤτοι: strongly emphatic; elsewhere almost exclusively in direct speech, like simple ἦ (Wace 1962, 174); cf. 191. — ὑπέσχεθε: ‘held underneath’, i.e. under the herald’s hand containing the lot, in English ‘held out his hand’. A poetic by-form of ὑπέσχε; as an active verb only here and at 4.269 in early epic (LfgrE; overview of verbs in -θω and -θον in Risch 278–280). — ἄγχι παραστάς: an inflectable VE formula (elsewhere 5× Il., 3× Od.). – παραστάς ‘approached closely (or from the side)’ is otherwise usually linked to a verb of striking/wounding (16.114n.) or speaking (see also 46n.; 6.75n.).

189–191 Aias’ emotional movement is rendered in meticulous detail, starting with the sensory impression (‘saw’, ‘caught sight of’), the intellectual cognition (‘recognized’), and an initial sense of satisfaction (‘was glad’, gḗthēse), moving to the welling up of exuberant joy (throwing down the lot at 190; statement at 191 chaírō): Latacz 1966, 147. On the differentiation of the Greek terms (quiet satisfaction vs. expressive joy), see loc. cit. 232 f. 189 ἰδών, γήθησε: formulaic, only here and at 1.330 after caesura B 2; elsewhere after A 2 (4.255, 8.278, Od. 5.486, 24.504). γήθησεν ἰδών (after A 4: Il. 4.283, 4.311, 10.190, Od. 13.226, 22.207) is similar; see also Kelly 2007, 270 f. with additional examples from the Iliad with the sense ‘joy at a sight’. — θυμῷ: on θυμός as the seat of emotions and impulses, 95n.; cf. 2–3n. Not used pregnantly here; conversely at 192 f., where joy is expressed by Aias himself rather than by the narrator.

190 The spontaneous throwing down of the lot (‘a heroic and almost rustic reaction’: Kirk) illustrates Aias’ delight, as well as his absolute determination (cf. Faesi/Franke; AH), which also comes to the fore in the short speech that follows and in his appearance after the arming (211 ff.), and which causes fear and terror on the Trojan side (214–215n.). χαμάδις βάλε: an inflectable formula after caesura B 1 (also Od. 4.114, 19.63); in early epic, χαμάδις is always used in the same verse position (in total 10× Il., 2× Od.), with the exception of Od. 19.599. — φώνησέν τε: A VE formula, 17× Il., 17× Od., 2× h.Hom. (24.193n.).

188 ἤτοι: ‘really, actually’ (↑). — ὅ: sc. the herald; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. 189 γνῶ: = ἔγνω (R. 16.1); the subject is again Aias. — σῆμα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. 190 τόν: sc. κλῆρον. — πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — ἑόν: possessive 3rd-pers. pronoun (R 14.4).

Commentary

107

191–199 Aias’ brief address starts, after he identifies his token (κλῆρος ἐμός), with a vociferous expression of joy and confidence (191 f.). This is followed by his plea that his companions pray to Zeus – silently, he says, immediately correcting himself: they have nothing to fear (193–196) – thus ending the speech on an optimistic, confident note (197–199). 195–199 were objected to in antiquity (also by West), since it was thought that the lines do not suit Aias and that he contradicts himself in a ludicrous fashion (schol. A on 7.195–199; cf. Wilamowitz 1884, 244 n. 6 [transl.] ‘the one who piously asks his companions to pray for him before going into a hard battle does not claim that no one is his equal in strength and dexterity’). But it is unlikely that the verses are a later insertion, since they must have been known already to Pindar, who may refer to 198 f. at Nem. 2.13 f. (Leaf; Kirk; Sotiriou 2000; West app. testim.). Other arguments for athetesis are also uncompelling: similar statements of opinion occur elsewhere in Homeric epic (e.g. Od. 17.275–279), and it is psychologically plausible (Leaf; cf. Kirk ad loc. and on 195–199; Willcock on 195–199) that Aias’ general confidence would be briefly breached by unease before concluding in a rhetorically intricately crafted climax of self-assuredness (197–199n.), even if the effect he is hoping for from silent vs. loud prayer remains obscure (195– 196n.). 191–192 I myself: The troops’ delight at Aias’ selection is not made explicit (gapP); it is probably assumed that it quickly becomes evident (West 2011). — brilliant Hektor: 41–42n. ὦ φίλοι: An address suggesting intimacy, made to a larger circle of addressees (2.56n.; 2.299n.; 18.254n.); characteristic of speeches by the Greeks (26× Il.), less common (7×) and usually without the interjection ὦ on the Trojan side (Mackie 1996, 133 f.; the parallel use in both camps is found only once, in two immediately adjacent tis-speechesP by Achaians and Trojans [17.415, 17.421] that are both introduced by ὦ φίλοι): bonds of friendship are more important in the Greek camp, compared to dynastically structured Troy. In the present passage, Aias uses the vocative to address not necessarily only the eight other heroes who threw their lots in the helmet, but likely the Greek troops in their entirety: the men all share the anticipation with him (de Jong 1987, 72). On the use of the voc. φίλοι in the Iliad generally, Kakridis 1963, 8 ff.; Opelt 1978, 181–184. — ἤτοι κλῆρος ἐμός: an exclamation without a verb, ‘so, my lot!’ (Guiraud 1962, 136: ‘voici mon sort!’; so too Lanérès 1992, 455 f.) or an elliptical ‘indeed, the lot is mine!’ — θυμῷ: via its emphatic position as a runover word in progressive enjambementP, θυμῷ here acquires an intensifying function (‘in the heart’ in the sense ‘from the heart’) beyond the mere ‘location’ (Latacz 1966, 73; on the role of the θυμός in intensifying the rendering, also Jahn 1987, 230–232); cf. 95n., also 2–3n. — δοκέω: Elsewhere in early epic, this means ‘seem, appear’; ‘believe’ (in the sense mihi videor) only here, Od. 18.382, h.Ven. 125 and h.Merc. 208 (LfgrE).

192 δοκέω: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — νικησέμεν: fut. inf. (R 16.4).

108

Iliad 7

193 2nd VH ≈ 6.340. ἀλλ’ ἄγετ(ε): Aias’ statement regarding his own person mutates into an appeal to the others for action. As is common after ἀλλ’ ἄγετ(ε), an imperatival clause follows (194): 2.72n. with bibliography. — πολεμήϊα τεύχεα: a formula after caesura B 1; also ‘Hes.’ Sc. 238, fr. 343.19 M.-W., h.Hom. 28.5.

194 2nd VH = 2.102, 7.200, 18.118; Hes. Op. 69; ≈ 1.502. — praying: It is not entirely clear why Aias asks the others to pray, rather than praying himself. The explanation that he is insufficiently pious (cf. the description of him arrogantly declining divine help at Sophocles Aias 758–777) does not fit with the fact that he perceives the prayer to be necessary (Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 50 f.); rather than explicitly excluding himself from the prayer, he is more likely asking for collective support for his own pleas to the gods, in particular given that he will be fighting as the representative of all Greeks. This is supported by the prayer being rendered as a tis-speechP, i.e. as the individual prayers of a number of characters, among whom Aias may be imagined. Διὶ Κρονίωνι: an inflectable formula after caesura B 2 (1.502n.); Διΐ (scanned ⏑–) likely derives from Mycenaean *Διϝεί (cf. 47n.). — ἄνακτι: ἄναξ is a title for various gods (2.102n.).

195–196 2nd VH of 196 (from caesura B 1) = Od. 2.199. — in silence: Silent prayer is comparatively rare in early epic; cf. two more prayers ‘in the mind’ (katá thymón): a. during the race in Iliad 23, Odysseus prays to Athena (23.769) – this is of course a situation where he can hardly pray aloud; something similar applies b. when he is shipwrecked at Od. 5.444 (Aubriot-Sévin loc. cit. 153; Pelliccia 1995, 131 f.). It remains unclear why silent prayer is required in the present passage (Aias withdraws the instruction in the following verse, ‘since we have nothing to be afraid of’): 1. The Trojans could conclude that the Greeks were afraid of Hektor and praying for that reason (schol. bT on 7.195; Corlu 1966, 87). 2. The Trojans in turn could offer a prayer of their own, counteracting the Greek prayer (AH; Leaf; Kirk; Buchholz 1884, 267 f.; Cauer [1895] 1923, 621 f. n. 17; Pelliccia loc. cit. 134; cf. 136). According to ‘magical thinking’, a prayer can only be invalidated (e.g. with curses: Wilamowitz 1884, 244 n. 6) if its wording is known (Leaf compares inter alia the secret pronounciation of the Jewish name of God; see also Krapp 1964, 124 f. [transl.]: ‘a rem-

193 ἀλλ’ ἄγετ(ε): ‘but let’s go!’ (↑). — ὄφρα: temporal, ‘while, as long as’ (R 22.2); corresponds with τόφρ(α) ‘as long as’ in 194. — πολεμήϊα: = πολέμια (R 10.2). — τεύχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δύω: aor. subjunc. 194 Κρονίωνι (ϝ)άνακτι: on the prosody, R 5.4. 195 ὑμείων: = ὑμῶν (R 14.1). 196 ἠέ: = ἤ ‘or’. — δείδιμεν: 1st-pers. pl. perf. with pres. meaning of δείδω ‘fear’.

Commentary

109

nant of magical notions’). Interpretations 1. and 2. are not mutually exclusive (Aubriot-Sévin loc. cit. 154); in any case, the idea of concealing a communication from the enemy is found elsewhere in the Iliad: Priam prohibits his people from loudly wailing while recovering the dead from the battlefield (427n.); Agamemnon’s convening of a confidential assembly is done by individual messages rather than a public call (9.11 f.); Nestor suspects that a man approaching silently in the dark may be an enemy (10.82–85): Wille 2001, 51. — or openly out loud: The Trojans are not to think that the Greeks are praying silently out of fear (Kirk on 196). – The present passage appears to assume that while the Trojans will hear the men’s prayer, they will not hear Aias’ instructions to them. At first, this seems illogical, but precisely who participates in a conversation in the Iliad is never specified, and spatial changes in a scene are not even marked in the case of a transition from a mass scene – military assembly, battlefield – to a private conversation (Hellwig 1964, 39). σιγῇ: attested in Homer only in the adverbial dat. (‘quietly, silently’), somewhat more general than σιωπῇ ‘keeping silent upon request’ (3.8n.). — ἐφ’ ὑμείων: ‘among yourselves’; cf. ἐπ’ αὐτόφιν at 19.255 (see ad loc.): Faesi/Franke; AH; Leaf; Kirk. — ἀμφαδίην: an ossified acc., used adverbially, of ἀμφάδι(ος) (formed from ἀναφαίνω): Schw. 1.621; only here, at 13.356 and Od. 5.120; in the Iliad an alternative to an opposing idea, here σιγῇ; cf. 243 λάθρῃ … ἀμφαδόν (Kirk; LfgrE). — δείδιμεν: an ‘associative’ use of the pl. (cf. 3.440n.); Aias speaks for himself but also for his praying companions. The pl. thus does not simply stand in for the 1st-pers. sing. (24.556n. with bibliography). — ἔμπης: ‘this way or that, in either case’ (cf. AH: ‘either way, may the Trojans do what they will’).

196–199 These verses have been suspected as an Athenian interpolation; in the Iliad, Aias is associated with Salamis only here and at 2.557 (West 2011 on 195, [196–199]). 197–199 2nd VH of 199 = 18.436, Od. 3.28. — Rhetorically, the verses are heavily stylized: first a pair of opposites – ‘force’ and ‘craft’ (142n.) – frame one another, ‘willing, the unwilling’; next the antitheses are replaced by synonyms, ‘to be born and raised in’. 197 ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα: ‘joined more from a desire of emphasizing the second than in strict logic’ (Leaf compares οἰόθεν οἶος and αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς [39–40n.]; ‘intensification of expression’: Schw. 2.699 [transl.]); 4.43 ἑκὼν ἀέκοντί γε θυμῷ, Od. 5.155 οὐκ ἐθέλων ἐθελούσῃ are similar; cf. Od. 3.272 ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν. — δίηται: δίημι/δίω is a defective verb; here and elsewhere, the pres. and aor. cannot be distinguished clearly (LfgrE). The meaning is ‘chase away’ (likely related to διώκω: schol. D; DELG s.v. δίεμαι). – On the functional proximity of the subjunc. and fut. ind., 87n. Here there is a particular

197 βίῃ: on -ῃ after -ι-, R 2. — γε (ϝ)εκών: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἀέκοντα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

110

Iliad 7

proximity of the fut. insofar as the prospective subjunc. is used without a modal particle; this is more common when the verb has no proper fut. form (Ruijgh 288).

198–199 craft: refers specifically to technical abilities of warcraft and military know-how (16.359n. with bibliography). The importance of knowledge and experience in warcraft is stressed repeatedly in the Iliad (236–241n.; 2.368n.; Barck 1992, 63–66; Ready 2011, 130 ff.; on οἶδα in the sense ‘know from experience’, Classen 2008, 80–83; on the link between experience and age, Hellmann 2000, 45–49). — Salamis: An island in the Saronic Gulf near Athens; the home of Aias, mentioned also in the Catalogue of Ships (2.557, see ad loc.). ἰδρείῃ: The reading τ’ ἀϊδρείῃ is better attested in mss. (West app. crit.), but was felt to be unsatisfactory already in antiquity (schol. A, T on 7.198). At best, interpreting α as intensive is conceivable (schol. b), or alternatively ἀϊδρείη could be associated with Aias: ‘nor via my ineptitude’ (van der Valk 1964, 204 f.; cf. Leaf). At the same time, linking it to the obj. Aias would result in losing the contrast with βίῃ, which is linked to the subj. (Ready 2011, 115 n. 22). — ἰδρείῃ … νήϊδα: Both are related to oἶδα (the prefix νή- is a negative: DELG), which will also be used by Hektor to proclaim his ability in battle (226–243n.): Wiessner 1940, 41; Kirk; Pagani 2008, 358. — οὐδ’ ἐμέ: It is unusual for a superordinate subj. to be picked up as the subj. acc. in an acc.-inf. construction, and this construction thus creates a strongly emphatic impression (in the sense ‘nor me!’ in reference to Hektor); cf. 13.269 (AH; Kirk; Schw. 2.376). — οὕτως: ‘in such a manner’, modifying νήϊδα. For οὕτως placed after the word it modifies, 2.120n. — οὕτως | ἔλπομαι: The integral enjambementP increases the speed of Aias’ speech and thus makes it more dynamic (cf. Kirk on 191–199). — ἔλπομαι: ‘believe, suppose, think’, but also ‘expect’ or even ‘hope’ (LfgrE), which would suit the present passage (‘I surely hope not’), cf. Kirk (‘I should be surprised to find that’). — τραφέμεν: on the intrans. use (‘grow up’) of the strong aor. (ἔ)τραφον, 1.251n.; LfgrE s.v. τρέφω 611.18 ff.

200–205 The new Greek prayer is again portrayed as a type-sceneP (177–183a n.), here (1) specifying the prayer gesture (201 looking toward the sky), (2) mention of the verb of praying (200), (3) naming the deity (200), (5) invocation of the deity (202, with mention of titles and cult location), (7) plea (203). There are also numerous formulaic elements (see the individual lemmata). The fourverse length is characteristic of a short prayer by the troops, cf. 3.298–301, 3.320–323 (in addition to Menelaos’ prayers at 3.351–354, 3.365–368), all of which are also to Zeus (Kirk). – Regarding content, on the other hand, the present prayer has an individual stamp in terms of the complexity of the plea: if possible, Zeus is to award victory to Aias, but if he also loves Hektor, he should at least ensure a tie. In the Iliad, this is the sole example of a prayer with an

198 τι (ϝ)ιδρείῃ, ἐπεί: on the prosody, 4.3. — ἰδρείῃ, ἐπεί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — τι: acc. of respect (R 19.1), strengthening οὐδέ: ‘and not in any way’ (cf. 27n.; 109n.). — νήϊδα: acc. of νῆϊς ‘ignorant’ (↑). 199 τραφέμεν: aor. act. inf. of τρέφω (R 16.4).

Commentary

111

alternative plea (Beckmann 1932, 17 n. 1), while elsewhere in early epic there is only Polyphemus’ prayer that Odysseus never reach home, but if he does, let this happen only after a delay, in chaos and suffering, after the loss of all his companions, and in a ship that is not his own (Od. 9.526–535: Morrison 1992, 55 f. with n. 11; cf. the combination of two – albeit not alternative – pleas in the admittedly much longer prayer at 16.231–252 [see loc.cit.]). – It stands to reason to interpret the Greeks’ fatalistic attitude as an expression of respect for the opponent, who is now listening (195–196n.; the verbs of speaking [201, 206] do not suggest silent prayer); de Jong 1987, 72, speaks of ‘impartiality and mild tone’. The first term is perhaps somewhat extreme (Schneider 1996, 60 f.), but at the same time unconditional partisanship cannot be seen in the two troop prayers in Book 3 at 298–301 and 320–323; there Greeks and Trojans pray for punishment of whoever violates the oaths or whoever is responsible for the war, rather then the opposing candidate. In the present passage, the cautious qualification is more conspicuous, since only the Greeks are praying. – In addition, the plea for a tie functions as an anticipationP; the present passage lays the groundwork for the possibility of the duel ending without a clear victor (Morrison 1991, 151 f.), and the phrasing is thus picked up when the duel is interrupted (280–281n.). – On the motif of a balance between Greeks and Trojans in Book 7, see the Introduction, end.) 200 2nd VH = 194 (see ad loc.). — ὣς ἔφαθ’, oἳ δ’: 92n.

201–202 ≈ 3.319 f.; 201 = 178 (177–178n.); 202 = 3.276, 3.320, 24.308; 1st VH ≈ 8.397, 8.438. — Father Zeus: 179–180n. — watching over us from Ida: Mount Ida is a range to the southeast of Troy; in the imagined world of the Iliad, the Gargaros summit houses a sanctuary of Zeus (8.48 f.), hence the notion of the god watching the battle action in the Troad (2.821n.). Also at 3.276 and 3.320, Zeus Idaios is invoked by Greeks (and Trojans) prior to battle, there in his function as a guarantor of the treaty (see ad loc. with bibliography). Here the Greek invocation of a local god in a whole verse address (13n.) again highlights their respectful attitude toward the Trojans (200–205n.; 2.412 [see ad loc.], which focuses on the destruction of Troy, is different). On the invocation of one’s own local deities, 24.291n. with bibliography; also Pucci 2012, 439 f. On the accumulation of epithets, 6.305n. with bibliography. κύδιστε μέγιστε: A VE formula, in addition to the iterata also at h.Hom. 23.4; elsewhere at VB as Ζεῦ κύδιστε μέγιστε (2.412, 3.298, Hes. Th. 548). κύδιστε is the superlative of κυδρός, ‘furnished with the greatest κῦδος (strength, charisma, authority)’; used not

200 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο; 43n. — Κρωνίωνι (ϝ)άνακτι: on the prosody, R 4.3. 201 = 178 (see ad loc.). 202 Ἴδηθεν: on the form, R 15.1. — μεδέων: ‘govern, hold sway’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

112

Iliad 7

only of Zeus but also of heroes and female deities (1.122n.). The emphatic effect of the asyndetic sequence of epithets (on this, 2.23n. and 2.412n. with bibliography) is reinforced via a homoeoteleuton. The use of superlative epithets in invocations of deities is characteristic of I-E liturgical language (West 2007, 129 f., with older bibliography).

203–205 renown … victory … | … | … honor: Greater emphasis is placed on the glory resulting from victory than on the victory itself. It is a common notion throughout Homeric epic that fame and honor are based on military success (19.204n.); here the fame aspect is even elevated above the outcome of the duel (see Introduction p. 12 f.). 203 ≈ Hes. Th. 628. — Grant … renown … victory: 21n. δὸς … εὖχος ἀρέσθαι: on the combination of δίδωμι and εὖχος, 81n. δός with inf. occurs frequently in prayers (Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26; cf. 21.297 δίδομεν δέ τοι εὖχος ἀρέσθαι [Poseidon and Athena to Achilleus]). εὖχος ἀρέσθαι is a VE formula (in addition to the examples mentioned, also Hes. Th. 628); cf. the more common κῦδος ἀρέσθ(αι): 18.294n. On combinations of the two formulae with forms of δίδωμι, Higbie 1990, 176– 178. — ἀγλαόν: with abstracts only here, in the iteratum and at h.Merc. 451 (ἀγλαὸς οἶμος ἀοιδῆς): LfgrE 77.64 ff.

204 On Zeus’ love for the two warriors, 280–281n. περ: usually stresses the preceding word (Schw. 2.571), ‘but if you also love Hektor’; this is more likely than περ modifying the much more distant εἰ (‘even if really’: Denniston 488; Kirk). Certainly in the present passage καί is semantically more crucial than περ (Bakker 1988, 258). — φιλέεις καὶ κήδεαι: The combination of the two verbs is somewhat redundant; likewise at 1.196 (see ad loc.) = 1.209, 9.342, Od. 3.223, 14.146; see also Mawet 1979, 367. On synonym doubling generally, 1.160n.; 2.39n.

205 give … strength … honour: 21n. ἴσην: emphatic at VB; can refer to either βίην or κῦδος. — κῦδος ὄπασσον: an inflectable VE formula (7× Il., 3× Od., 1× Hes.); furthermore 1× Il. in verse middle; also the intrans. variant κῦδος ὀπηδεῖ 1× Il., 1× Hes. Etymologically, ὀπάζω is likely related to ἕπομαι: causative ‘make follow’ > ‘give to take with’ (LfgrE). — κῦδος: denotes success, superiority and the resultant prestige (LfgrE; 6.184n.; 19.204n. with bibliography); here used pregnantly in contrast to εὖχος (203) as fame that can also be won in an undecided duel, thus complementary to the fame of victory originally wished for Aias (Reynen 1983, 163 f.; Schneider 1996, 62 f.). The emphasis on fame in the prayer scene as a whole is intensified via the doubling of the etymologically related terms ηὔχοντο (200; the sense of course divorced from the topic of ‘fame’) and εὖχος (203), and κύδιστε (202) and κῦδος (cf. Pucci [1988] 1999, 62 n. 40).

203 ἀρέσθαι: aor. inf. of ἄρνυμαι ‘win, acquire’. 204 φιλέεις … κήδεαι: on the uncontracted forms, R 6. 205 ὄπασσον: from ὀπάζω ‘allot, bestow’ (↑); on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary

113

206–243 Hektor takes fright at the sight of Aias but, after the latter’s speech of challenge, declares himself ready to face him. 206–225 On the question of why Aias is not already armed (Faesi/Franke), cf. the same discussion regarding Menelaos’ readiness at 103n. Here the arming scene is similarly only alluded to. But at the same time, an element that frequently features in the type-sceneP ‘arming’ (18.478n.) is, so to speak, ‘outsourced’: namely the excursus on an individual weapon and its origin provided in the brief description of the shield at 219–223 (Kirk on 220–223). The brevity of the description of arming suggests haste here as well; the action gathers speed (208 ‘he strode on his way’). This contributes to the pathos of the description of the threat presented by Aias, as does the filling in of numerous details (207 ‘his body’; 209 ‘into the fighting of men’ etc.) and the accumulation of epithets (206 ‘shining’, 208 ‘gigantic’, 213 ‘far-shadowing’). On the scene as a whole, see Kirk on 212–213: ‘The vision of Aias taking huge strides forward, wielding his great spear and smiling dangerously, is unforgettable’. 206 ≈ 16.130 (Patroklos; see ad loc.); 1st VH: 43n. κορύσσετο: κορύσσω originally means ‘put on a helmet’ (κόρυς), then ‘arm’ generally (Kirk; LfgrE). — νώροπι χαλκῷ: an inflectable VE formula, likewise at 13.406 and the iteratum (2.578n.; 16.130n.). On χαλκός, 77n. The etymology of νῶροψ is obscure (DELG with bibliography on various attempts at explanation); it meant either ‘shining’ (LfgrE) or ‘solid’ (Visser 2002, 98 f.). The more common prosodic alternative is αἴθοπι χαλκῷ (10× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; on this, see Visser loc. cit.; Friedrich 2007, 125; also frequently in combination with κορύσσομαι: κεκορυθμένος αἴθοπι χαλκῷ [8× Il., 1× Od.: Kirk]). Also used – albeit never for ‘armor’ – is ἤνοπι (‘shimmering’) χαλκῷ (16.408 [see ad loc.] of a fish hook, and 18.349 and Od. 10.360 of a cooking pot). The most common prosodically equivalent adjective for χαλκῷ is νηλέϊ (11× Il., 8× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’), although it is used exclusively of ‘unfeeling’ attacking weapons (Kirk).

207 ≈ 14.187 (see ad loc.), h.Hom. 6.14; 1st VH = Od. 5.76, 6.227, 7.134, 8.282; ≈ Il. 16.198, 19.54, Od. 8.131, 16.340, 22.440, 22.457, h.Cer. 483. περὶ χροΐ: on this verse-filling phrase, 14.187n. — τεύχεα: The ending -εα, a likely correct variant from Herodian for the mss. reading τεύχη (which is probably the later, Attic spelling), remains uncontracted also at VE and is to be read with synizesis (Kirk; Blanc 2008, 100 f.; 24.7n. with additional examples and bibliography).

208–213 as Ares the war god walks gigantic: A point of comparison between Aias and Ares, in addition to an impetuous lust for battle (see below), is an imposing appearance, emphatically described in the present verses: Aias is

206 ἔφαν: = ἔφησαν (R 16.2). 207 αὐτάρ: cf. 101n. — χροῒ (ϝ)έσσατο: on the hiatus, R 5.4. — ἕσσατο: aor. of ἕννυμαι ‘don, put on’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — τεύχε ͜α: on the synizesis, R 7 (↑).

114

Iliad 7

depicted almost as a giant (‘gigantic’; ‘huge strides’). Aias’ size is frequently highlighted elsewhere in the Iliad (3.227n. with examples and bibliography). This passage inverts the traditional David and Goliath paradigm (1–312n.) – the one challenged now suddenly presents himself to the challenger as a terrifying opponent, indeed a giant, who inspires fear and terror in the man who originally seemed threatening (216n.; 217–218n.). In addition to the element of surprise, this switch has comic effects (226–243n.). – The emphasis on Aias’ and Ares’ movement (‘he strode on his way [208] … walks gigantic [208] … going [209] … strode [211] … taking huge strides forward’ [213], cf. Kurz 1966, 101 f.) suggests an association with the traditional epithets of the war god: ‘violent Ares’ (thoúros, 24.498n.), Latin Mars Gradivus (Faesi/Franke on 208). The description of movement toward the opponent also simply increases the suspense (so too in the encounters between Achilleus and Aineias at 20.158–176 and between Achilleus and Hektor at 22.131–137). The comparison with Ares creates a certain atmosphere; tertium comparationis is the ‘impetuous’ readiness to fight (Reucher 1983, 165 f.). – Elaborate comparisonsP or similesP comparing human beings to gods are rare: in addition to the present passage, also 2.478–479 (comparison of Agamemnon with Zeus, Ares and Poseidon; on the phenomenon of similes involving deities, see ad loc. with bibliography; Scott 2009, 54 f., 197–199), 13.298–304 (Idomeneus and Meriones go into battle like Ares and Phobos), Od. 6.102–108 (Nausikaa stands out among her entourage like Artemis). In contrast, brief comparisons of a warrior with the god of war are frequent (165–166n.). It is comparatively rare for the image chosen for a simile to derive from the same context as what is being compared (Aias strides into battle as Ares strides into battle); in addition to 13.298 ff. (see above), cf. also e.g. 14.147 ff. (Poseidon’s battle cry is as loud as the battle cry of nine or ten thousand men), 18.207 ff. (the flames on Achilleus’ head recall signal fires from an embattled city): 14.147–152n. with bibliography and additional examples. 208–209 Son of Kronos: patronymic of Zeus; not used for other sons of Kronos (LfgrE). For the invocation of Zeus, 179–180n. σεύατ(ο): an asigmatic α-aor. (6.505n.); in the same verse position also at 6.505, 14.227, Od. 5.51, h.Cer. 43 and h.Ven. 66 of characters setting out after arming or dressing: 14.227n. with bibliography. — πελώριος: an adj. related to πέλωρ ‘monster’, usually in reference to physical size: ‘gigantic, enormous’ (LfgrE; 3.166n. with bibliography; also Camerotto 2009, 125–129). Only here of Ares, but frequently of Aias (also 3.229 [see ad

208–209 οἷος: ‘such as, like’. — τε … τ(ε) … τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μετά (+ acc.): ‘in the midst of’. — ἀνέρας: = ἄνδρας; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary

115

loc. with bibliography on parallel Old Irish and Old German notions of superhumanly large heroes], 7.211, 17.174, 17.360); the use of the epithet for Ares prepares for the comparison of the hero with the god (Tsagarakis 1982, 43). – In combination with its use for Aias at 211, the term, which is used largely in character languageP, marks secondary focalizationP by Greeks and Trojans, as well as by Hektor (De Jong on 22.91–92). — πόλεμόνδε: a compound of the acc. with the enclitic particle -δε (1.54n. s. v. ἀγορήνδε; G 66). The spatial dimension ‘onto the battlefield’ at least reverberates here (LfgrE s. v. 1340.29: ‘[quasi]-spatial’). In addition, πόλεμος as an action noun denotes the ‘fighting’ (‘into battle’): 2.453n. with bibliography; LfgrE s.v. 1335.41 ff. — Usually, as here, after caesura A 4 (13× from a total 16× Il., 2× Od.): Kirk. ἔρχεται Ἄρης | ὅς τ’ εἶσιν: on the comparable phenomenon of verb doubling, 2.8n. (βάσκ’ ἴθι). Here the two verbs denote different aspects of the process: ἔρχεται the walking itself, εἶσιν the movement from A to B (LfgrE s.v. ἔρχομαι, 727.1 ff.: ‘unspecific as opposed to specific’ [transl.]; cf. Chantr. 1.331 f.; Létoublon 1985, 230; Napoli 2006, 171–173 notes that the differentiation does not apply to all examples).

210 2nd VH ≈ 1.8. — heart-perishing: thumobóros; an epithet used only in the Iliad for ‘battle, strife’ (éris; on the naturally pejorative epithets of the term, 16.662n.). The metaphor ‘eating (away at), consuming one’s power, heart, mind’ (in the sense ‘draining the substance of’) is common in Greek and other cultures (6.201–202n. and 19.58n. with bibliography). When the reference is to an actual military altercation, as in the present passage (and at 16.476), rather than a battle of words (19.58, 20.253), the meaning ‘life-eating’ in the sense ‘lethal’ is also possible (AH). θυμοβόρου: similarly at VB 19.58 (θυμοβόρῳ ἔριδι μενεήναμεν), otherwise in the VE formula ἔριδος πέρι θυμοβόροιο (301, 16.476 [see ad loc.], 20.253); cf. Hes. Op. 799 (θυμοβορεῖν). — ἔριδος μένεϊ ξυνέηκε μάχεσθαι: The augment on the aorist form is common in Homeric similes (4n.). – ἔριδος μένεϊ is used periphrastically for ἔριδι (μένος is here really the drive for war: LfgrE s.v. μένος 140.6–8, 25–27). – μένεϊ is a final dat. with ξυνέηκε ‘(to agitate) for strife’: see 1.8n. with bibliography. The dat. (ἔριδι) is likewise used with ξυνιέναι (20.66) and ξυνελαύνω (20.134, 21.394). – μάχεσθαι is a final-consecutive supplement (‘for fighting’): AH on 1.8; K.-G. 2.2.

211 ≈ 3.229. — the wall of the Achaians: only of Aias; also at Il. 6.5 and 3.229. On Aias’ role as a defensive fighter, Ready 2011, 136 n. 78. On similar Homeric metaphors (16.212 phalanx as a wall, etc.), Fränkel 1921, 38 f. On the designation ‘Achaians’, 1.2n. ἕρκος: The basic meaning is ‘(protective) enclosure’ (fence, wall), metaphorically ‘defense’: 1.283b–284n. and 3.229n. with bibliography. — πελώριος: 208–209n.

210 θυμοβόρου ἔριδος: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ξυνέηκε: aor. of ξυν-ἵημι, ξυν- = συν- (R 20.1); ἕηκα is a by-form of ἧκα. 211 ὦρτο: 162n.

116

Iliad 7

212–213 2nd VH of 213 = Od. 19.438. — smiling under his threatening brows: ‘one of Homer’s most brilliant and powerful phrases’ (Kirk); ‘a uniquely phrased oxymoron … supremely paradoxical, a chilling evocation of bloodlust’ (Halliwell 2008, 55). The emotional antithesis of a smile in a stormy face is comparable to Hera’s smiling with her lips only – ‘but above the dark brows her forehead was not at peace’ (15.102–103); cf. the image at 15.605–609 of the gleaming eyes underneath the terrifying (blosyroísi, as also here) brows in the description of the raging Hektor, who is likewise compared to Ares (AH; Kirk; on the ‘glittering’ gaze as a sign of rage, Camerotto 2009, 133 f., with numerous examples [see also 1.104n.; 1.200n.]), as well as the internal, bitter laugh of the humiliated ‘beggar’ Odysseus at Od. 20.300–302. Smiles and laughter in the context of violence and bloodthirst appear in the Iliad also at e.g. 10.400 (Odysseus smiles at the captive Dolon), 10.565 (Odysseus ‘cheers’ after reporting to Nestor about the bloodbath he and Diomedes caused while speeding away with the captured horses of Rhesos), 11.378 (Paris laughs when he hits Diomedes in the foot): Halliwell loc. cit. 56–58 (with reference to the drastic contrast between Aias’ horrific smile in the present passage and the intimate, familiar laugh shared by Hektor, Andromache and their young son, which happened not long ago [6.471 and 484]). — taking huge strides forward: a demonstration of courage and strength; of ostentatious strutting also at e.g. 3.22 (see ad loc. and 16.534n. with examples and bibliography). — and shaking the spear: The shaking suggests the potency of the spear, ready to be thrown. Aias thereby demonstrates his resolve and certainty of victory (Patzer 1996, 110 f.); for shaking one’s spear when setting out into battle, also 13.583 and 20.423 (Kurz 1966, 118). βλοσυροῖσι: The meaning is likely ‘horrendous, terrifying’ generally (LfgrE; cf. schol. D ad loc. and on 11.36); unconvincing is the more specific translation ‘hairy, shaggy, bristling’ (Adam 1899, 10; followed by Leaf and LSJ), which is based in particular on the only other example in the Iliad, describing Hektor’s eyebrows (15.608 βλοσυρῇσιν ὑπ’ ὀφρύσιν); also βλοσυρῶπις (11.36 of the Gorgon). Elsewhere in early epic βλοσυρός 4× ‘Hes.’ Sc., where the word is used in reference to the overall appearance in 3 of 4 examples, rather than merely to the face, as in the Iliad (147 Phobos’ forehead; 175 lions; 191 Ares; 250 Keres). – The etymology is obscure; Leumann 1950, 141–148, suggests a derivation from βλοσυρῶπις ‘vulture-faced’ via I-E *gwl̥ tur(os), related to Latin volturus; sceptical responses in Frisk; DELG; LfgrE. — προσώπασι: πρόσωπον yields pl. πρόσωπα and προσώπατα (similar to γοῦνα/γούνατα) and thus (albeit only here in early epic) a dat. pl. in -ασι (Risch 59). — νέρθε δὲ ποσσίν: Although unnecessary semantically, the graphic detail intensifies the general pathos of the description (206–225n.), here especially in combination with προσώπασι (‘from head to foot ready for war’). So too at

212 μειδιόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — βλοσυροῖσι προσώπασι: locative or instrumental dat. with preposition. On the plural, R 18.2. — ποσσίν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 213 ἤϊε: = ᾔει ‘went’. — μακρά: adv., ‘far’. — κραδάων: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary

117

13.78 (Aias, strengthened by Poseidon, on the battle euphoria that propels him forward ‘with both feet beneath’), and also context-specific νέρθε δὲ γοῦνα (22.452: Andromache’s knees have frozen with terror). — μακρὰ βιβάς: a formula at VB (15.307 Hektor; Od. 9.450 Polyphemus’ ram) or, as here, after caesura A 3 (Il. 15.686 Aias; cf. Od. 11.539 Achilleus’ ψυχή in the underworld [μακρὰ βιβᾶσα]). The inflectable formula μακρὰ βιβάσθων at VE (twice of Aias, once each of Glaukos and Menelaos [μακρὰ βιβάντα]) is similar: 3.22n. (where also on the forms of *βίβημι) and 16.534n., both with bibliography. On additional combinations of βαίνω with an acc. pl. neuter (κραιπνά, κοῦφα, etc.), Létoublon 1983, 128 f. — κραδάων: κραδάω/κραδαίνoμαι ‘shake, brandish’ always has ‘spear’ as obj. and occurs only in the pres. part. (active also at Od. 19.438 [in the same VE formula] and Il. 13.583, 20.423 at VB ὀξὺ δόρυ κραδάων; middle ‘vibrating’ [13.504 = 16.614, 17.524]); aside from 17.524, always combined with a verb of movement (LfgrE). πάλλων (3.19n.) is also used for shaking multiple spears. — δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: A VE formula (and at 6.126 after caesura B 1; Od. 22.97 with the words separated ἔγχος … δολιχόσκιον). δολιχόσκιος may mean ‘throw a long shadow’ (final element σκιά): 3.346n. with bibliography.

214–215 215 = 20.44; similar phrasing at 14.506, etc. (see ad loc.). — and the Argives … were made glad, while the Trojans …: The terrifying appearance of their champion, indicated in secondary focalizationP (208–209n.), makes the Greeks take heart, while their opponents are afraid; cf. 4.275–283 (the soldiers surrounding the two Aiantes are compared to a dark cloud terrifying a goatherd; Agamemnon delights in the sight), as well as 8.553–565 (the watch fires, ominous for the Greeks, are described in a strongly aestheticized manner as a source of joy to the Trojans): de Jong (1987) 2004, 272 n. 73; Stoevesandt 2004, 237–241. In addition, the fear and joy in the present passage continue the oxymoron of the fiercely smiling Aias (212–213n.). On the term ‘Argives’, 1.2n. μέγ(α): adv., ‘very, greatly’; quantity denoting density, as is often the case in Homer; cf. 1.35n. with bibliography. — Τρῶας δὲ τρόμος: The alliteration τρ- τρ- may be an onomatopoetic rendering of trembling. — τρόμος … ὑπήλυθε γυῖα: Limbs trembling from fear is a common motif in early epic; cf. 216n. and 3.34n. with examples and bibliography. — ἕκαστον: in apposition to Τρῶας; ‘man by man’ (AH).

216 the heart beat hard: The scene foreshadows Hektor’s fear in Book 22 (1– 312n. [4.4.3.]); there too his fear of Achilleus is balanced by the fear of public opinion in Troy (22.99–110, 136 f.). – Hektor is afraid here, but is not depicted as cowardly. Contrast other depictions of fright in Homer, especially in reference to Paris in Book 3, who is compared e.g. to a pale and trembling man retreating from a snake (3.33–37). In contrast, in the present passage the Tro-

214 εἰσορόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 215 ὑπήλυθε: = ὑπῆλθε. — γυῖα (ϝ)έκαστον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — γυῖα: acc. of respect, here with Τρῶας in the σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος (R 19.1). 216 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσι: on the plural, R 18.2.

118

Iliad 7

jans are trembling (and are thus more afraid than their hero, who is in immediate danger; thus already the interpretation in antiquity: Plut. Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat 10 p. 30A: Hillgruber 1999, 301). Cf. other Homeric descriptions of fear, e.g. 10.390 (Dolon) ‘his legs were shaking beneath him’ and Od. 18.75–77 ‘and the heart in Iros was stirred with trouble, | but even so the thralls girt him forcibly up, and dragged him | there. He was frightened, and the flesh shook all over his body’ (18.88 is similar). All these responses are evidently stronger than Hektor’s (cf. schol. bT on 7.216). But as regards the mentioned previously (93) fear felt by the Greeks, Hektor’s rapidly beating heart finds itself in good company (Stoevesandt 2004, 209 f.; cf. loc. cit. 340– 342 and 20–29 on the dispute between van der Valk 1953 and Kakridis 1956 concerning Homer’s supposed ‘nationalism’ and the resulting negative depiction of Hektor). – At the same time, Hektor himself has created the situation he now fears; the idea ‘afraid of his own daring’ seems not inappropriate (Stoevesandt loc. cit.). See also 217–218n. θυμὸς … πάτασσεν: πατάσσω means ‘beat, knock’; here likely of the heart (rather than of his rapid breathing, thus Pelliccia 1995, 58 f.; Chadwick 1996, 144 f.), since intrans. πατάσσω has both θυμός (also at 23.370) and κραδίη (13.282) as a subj. Admittedly, a vigorous beating of the heart and rapid breathing are linked (explicitly at 22.451–467: Clarke 1999, 104 f.). The anatomical connotation of θυμός created via πατάσσειν is attested only here and at 23.370; the other end of the spectrum is occupied by the abstract meaning ‘life force’ at 7.131 (see loc.cit.; Saunders 2004, 9). πατάσσειν designates an acoustic process; see LfgrE s.v. and s.v. πάταγος (in contrast to πάλλομαι ‘leap’, likewise used of the heart; cf. LfgrE s.v. 949.64–950.6). On other physical responses of the θυμός (albeit sometimes to be understood metaphorically: e.g. 5.698 κεκαφηότα; 15.280 παραὶ ποσὶ κάππεσε; Od. 23.216 ἐρρίγει), see Pelliccia loc. cit.

217–218 1st VH of 217 = 17.354. — but he could not ǀ any more find means to take flight: Hektor is unable to flee, since this would go against his sense of honor as the challenger (AH; Faesi/Franke; it is likely his own thoughts that are depicted here: de Jong [1987] 2004, 121). The insinuation is that, were this not the case, he would indeed run away (schol. bT on 7.217). Hektor is here shown as both duty-bound and afraid – but not as a coward, since he will overcome his fear. There is no contradiction between Hektor’s fear and Helenos’ encouragement at 52 f. (as was frequently alleged as a point of criticism in the past: Leaf; AH, Anh. 34, with older bibliography), since this is a tense situation and Aias a threatening figure who frightens all the Trojans at this moment (Stoevesandt 2004, 209 f.; cf. Bassett 1927, 152 f.; also Grethlein 2006,

217 ἔτι εἶχεν: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — εἶχεν (+ inf.): intr., ‘could, had the opportunity to’. — ὑποτρέσαι: aor. inf. of ὑποτρέω ‘retreat, back up’. 218 ἄψ: ‘back(ward)’. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — προκαλέσσατο: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary

119

226–232 on the vagueness of Helenos’ prophecy). It is in any case not unusual that a Homeric character experiences irrational fear, i.e. fear contrary to a prophecy (e.g. at 24.358–360 Priam is startled by Hermes, despite Zeus having explicitly announced the encounter and its harmlessness at 143–187; see 24.146–158n.). Even in an athletic competition, fear for a competitor’s life can arise (e.g. 23.822). – The present passage can be understood as an anticipationP of the final encounter between Hektor and Achilleus (1–312n. [4.4.3.]): while Hektor stands firm here, in Book 22 he flees from his superior opponent, Achilleus (22.136 f.). There also he had previously delivered an overly optimistic speech (18.285–309n.): Griffin 1990, 361 f.; Louden 2006, 37 f. ὑποτρέσαι οὐδ’ ἀναδῦναι: an emphatic synonym doubling (1.160n.; 2.39n.). — ἀναδῦναι | ἂψ λαῶν ἐς ὅμιλον: The metaphor of ‘diving into’ the crowd (or behind walls) is not uncommon in the Iliad (Kirk; 3.36n.; LfgrE s.v. δύνω, δύω 358.46 ff. On a warrior’s retreat into the general crowd of troops, 16.813b–815n. with examples and bibliography); cf. the formula ἂψ δ’ ἑτάρων εἰς ἔθνος ἐχάζετο (3.32n.). — χάρμῃ: χάρμη can mean ‘battle lust’ or ‘battle’ (Latacz 1966, 20–38); here dat. either of purpose (‘for battle’: AH; Hoekstra 1965, 151 n. 1; Schw. 2.139) or of means (‘with battle lust’: Latacz loc. cit. 26; Kirk).

219–225a A description, constructed in the manner of a ring compositionP, of Aias with his shield (van Otterlo 1948, 31): Aias approaches (A: 219a; A′: 225a) with his shield (B: 219b; B′: 224) made of bronze and ox-hide (C: 220a; C′: 222b–223) and produced for him by Tychios (D: 220b; D′: 222a). – The great tower shield proves impenetrable in the subsequent duel on three occasions (cf. Louden 2006, 40 f.). It is characteristic of Aias and symbolizes his strength and invulnerability (Neal 2006, 280 f., 283, cf. 1 f.); at 11.526 f., the hero is recognized from afar due to his shield, and his son Eurysakes even bears it in his name (eurý ‘wide’ and sákos ‘shield’). In the 4th cent., Salamis minted coins with this motif (Kroll 1993, 214 f.). The shield’s shape and size are highlighted repeatedly (see the iterata at 219, also 245, 266, 8.267–272, 11.545, 13.709–711, 17.132 ff., 18.193 [see ad loc.]). With its seven hides, the shield surpasses even the shield of Achilleus made by Hephaistos (18.478–608n.), which is constructed from only five layers (18.481); the shield of Aias’ half-brother Teukros is made from only four (15.479). Realistic limits are here sometimes left behind; a metal cover for a shield this large is hardly feasible (220–223n.). – Its brevity notwithstanding, the present shield-description contains elements typical of an ekphrasis: size (219), material and composition (220, 222 f.), quality (221 on the maker’s skills), and history of manufacture (221–223), like the summary of the ‘major’ shield description in Book 18: 18.478–482n. with bibliography, also Minchin 2001, 106– 112. On the form and function of object descriptions in general, 2.101–108n.; 2.447–449n. – On the traditional motif of the ‘special weapon’, 137–150a n.

120

Iliad 7

219 = 11.485, 17.128, 1st VH ≈ 5.275, 18.16, 18.381, 20.330, Od. 8.62, 8.261, 8.471, h.Cer. 438, 2nd VH of Od. 17.71. — like a wall: The comparison with a wall (of a tower) probably refers to the shield’s enormous size in particular (cf. 24.317– 319n. on Homeric comparisons of size; on towers in early epic, including as metaphors for impenetrable defenses [also Od. 11.556; cf. Il. 15.737 f.], 3.149n.); the phrase is clearly more vivid than e.g. 3.335 ‘huge and heavy’. The idea of the large shield in Homeric epic appears to be based on the long shield, present in the archaeological record of the early Mycenaean period, which covers the body down to the ankles, in contrast to the smaller and more easily movable round shield attested from the 13th cent. on and more common during the time of the codification of the Iliad (2.388–389n. and 18.478–608n. [2], with examples and bibliography on the archaeological evidence; also Anselmi 1998, 53–57). Cf. 238–239n. – At the same time, in most pictorial representations Aias is shown with either a round or an oval Boeotian shield (Borchhardt 1977, 24); this may be a fictional type symbolizing the ‘heroic’ warrior (Lorimer 1950, 166; van Wees 2008, 89). The Homeric text also does not always differentiate clearly between long and round shields: Aias’ shield is said to have a ‘boss’ (267), which has sometimes been understood as an indication of its round form (a boss/knob as the centre of the shield: Lorimer loc. cit. 182 f.; but see 6.117– 118 with bibliography). But the boss at 267 may simply represent a type of bull’s eye: Hektor has hit ‘the bull’ (Friedrich [1956] 2003, 76). The shield can be described differently depending on the context: long, huge and archaic when Aias approaches threateningly; round and fit for battle when he is fighting – an essentially hyperbolic description (Raaflaub 2005, 231). – The preHomeric age of the Mycenaean tower shield (on this, Greco 2002) is adduced as one of the arguments for the great antiquity of the character of Aias – in addition to other evidence: Aias’ gigantic size corresponds to that of Bronze Age heroes (Lapiths, Herakles, Orion, Giants, etc.); the use of the dual Aíante (164n.) reflects older expressions; the form of the dat. sing. with three longs (14.459 etc., see ad loc.) probably derives from Mycenaean Aíwántei (Myk s.v.); I-E formulae such as ‘the wall of the Achaians’ (211n.) and ‘their fierce strength upon them’ (164n.) are only applied to Aias and the Aiantes: West (1988) 2011, 158 f. and n. 57 with older bibliography. ἐγγύθεν: here ‘drawing near’. In Homer, the suffix -θεν, denoting place from which, is usually no longer operative as such, rendering ἐγγύθεν synonymous with ἐγγύς. (The case is different especially in combination with οὐτάζω.) A similar development may be observed for ἀπόπροθεν, which is mostly used synonymously with ἀποπρό and ἀπόπροθι (Lejeune 1939, 316; LfgrE). — φέρων σάκος ἠΰτε πύργον: The pre-Homeric

219 ἠΰτε: ‘as’ (R 22.4).

Commentary

121

age of the armor described suggests the great antiquity of the formula or even the entire verse (West [1988] 2011, 158, constructs a Mycenaean precursor Aíwans d’ engúthen ḗlthe phérōn ssákos [twákos?] ēwúte púrgon). ἠΰτε πύργον is metrically equivalent to ἑπταβόειον (222, 245, 266, 11.545) but seems tied to the verse as a whole (Visser 1987, 12 n. 16; see iterata). — σάκος: in Homer a general term for shield, interchangeable with ἀσπίς, but not without exception: thus Aias’ shield is always, and Achilleus’ almost always, referred to as a σάκος, whereas Hektor’s shield is always called an ἀσπίς (Kirk on 219–223; Trümpy 1950, 30 f.; LfgrE s.v. σάκος 65.21 ff.; 18.458n.). The term σάκος appears to have greater poetic and heroic connotations than ἀσπίς (Schmidt 2006, 441; 3.335n.); on attempts to assign the original use of the two terms to the round shield or the long shield, see Trümpy 1950, 20–36; LfgrE s.v. ἀσπίς 1427.26 ff.; 3.335n.; 3.347n. — ἠΰτε: likely predicative with φέρων (in the sense that Aias carried the shield ‘like a tower’, i.e. such that it provided him with impenetrable protection [AH]); differently Ruijgh 851 f.; Schw. 2.576: ἠΰτε – from *ἠϝέ ‘or’ and *υτε ‘also’ [DELG] – πύργον attributive with σάκος (‘Aias carried the shield, or indeed a tower’ in the sense ‘the shield resembled a tower’). The phrase ἠΰτε παιδός at 7.235 is surely also used predicatively; cf. 15.646 ἕρκος ἀκόντων used predicatively with φορέεσκε in the same verse position and likewise of a shield (Anselmi 1998, 58 f.). The fact that ἠΰτε πύργον is a metrical doublet of ἐπταβόειον but tied to the present formulaic verse (see above) similarly supports a predicative connection to the otherwise unemployed φέρων.

220–223 bronze … | 2 lines | … hammered an eighth fold of bronze upon it: for a shield this size, the weight of a bronze cover seems excessive; the point appears rather to be to poetically elevate the armor of ‘gigantic’ Aias. κάμε τεύχων … | … | … ἐποίησεν: The various verbs used to characterize the production process seem to be used synonymously (ἤλασε at 223 is different; see 222–223n.); cf. the ‘major’ shield description in Book 18, which also does not consistently differentiate the technical steps of production (18.478n.). κάμε is used transitively: ‘laboriously craft something, craft something with effort’ (i.e. ‘carefully, elaborately’); also of Hephaistos’ forging and other artisanal work (18.614n. with bibliography).

220–221 2nd VH of 220 ≈ 2.101, 8.195, 19.368 (all of objects made by Hephaistos). — of bronze and sevenfold ox-hide: In the Iliad, shields are frequently made from multiple layers of leather sewn together, sometimes reinforced by a layer or edging of bronze (12.294 ff., 13.803 f., etc.; 6.117–118n. and 18.481n. with bibliography), but see 220–223n. In the present passage, the metalwork is not described in detail (contrary to e.g. 12.295–297); the maker of the shield is thus called a ‘leather cutter’ at 221 rather than a smith (Kirk). Conversely, the smith (chalkeús) at 12.295 also sews the ox-hides (LfgrE s.v. σκυτοτόμος). — which Tychios wrought him: In contrast to the shield-description in Book 18, the audience here does not get to witness the production process; rather, the mak-

220 ὅ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1); likewise in 222. 221 ὄχ(α): adv., ‘by far’ (↑). — Ὕλῃ ἔνι: = ἐν Ὕλῃ (R 20.1–2). On the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἔνι (ϝ)οικία: on the prosody, R 4.3. οἰκία (neut.) is a plural in Homeric epic.

122

Iliad 7

ing of the shield is reported by way of an analepsisP using past tenses. The maker is still highly visible here (in contrast to object-descriptions, where the maker is merely named or the production process is rendered via a passive verb form: De Jong 2015, 893 f., 896 f.). On the production topos, see in addition to the iterata also 5.735 = 8.368 (Athene made a garment), 6.314 f. (Paris built a house, together with master builders) ≈ Od. 7.234 f. (Arete made garments together with her servants), Il. 18.370 f. (Hephaistos built a house), 23.741 ff. (the Sidonians made a mixing bowl), Od. 8.372 f. (Polybos made a purple ball), 19.56 f. (Ikmalios made a precious chair): LfgrE s.v. σκυτοτόμος; 6.314a n. On the esteem for craftsman’s skills in Homeric epic, 6.313–317n.; Canciani 1984, 70–79. — Tychios: derived from teúchein ‘to make, produce’. Speaking names are common in Homeric epic and are sometimes linked to a character’s typical occupation, as here; of craftsmen also at 5.59 f. (‘Tekton, son of Harmon’ = ‘the master builder, son of the joiner’) and 18.592 (the ‘skillful’ sculptor Daidalos; see ad loc.); cf. the singer Demodokos (‘welcome to the people’, first at Od. 8.44) and Phemios (‘speaker’, first at Od. 1.154): LfgrE s.v. σκυτοτόμος with additional examples; also the ‘prayer’ Thestor (1.69–73n.), the ‘long-striding’ herald Eurybates (2.184n.), Periphetes, ‘speaking all around’, who is the son of a messenger (15.638–652 [14.515n.]), and the herald Periphas, son of the ‘loud crier’ Epytides (on ēpýta as an epithetP of Idaios the herald, 384n.). — Hyle: probably the Boeotian town listed in the Catalogue of Ships (2.500n.), although there the initial syllable is long, while it is short here and at 5.708 (schol. A on 7.221). Boeotia is known for cattle-rearing and thus also for leather production (LfgrE s.v. σκυτοτόμος with bibliography; there also on other designations of origin signaling quality, in a sense ~ ‘Sheffield steel’, ‘Parisian couture’). The reading Hyde seems less appropriate (West app. crit.; Kirk on possible reasons for association or confusion): the town is located in Lydia and is thus an unlikely origin for Aias’ shield (Strab. 9.2.20). It is possible (thus Kirk loc. cit.) that the connection with Lydia is based on an ancient legend according to which the blind Homer found shelter in the Kymian colony of Neon Teichos near Sardis with a leather-cutter named Tychios, whom he consequently immortalized as the maker of Aias’ shield (‘Hdt.’ Vit.Hom. 9 f.; schol. T on 7.220; Eustathios II p. 448–450 = p. 678.9–40). ὅ οἱ Τυχίος κάμε τεύχων: The linguistic play highlights Tychios’ skillful work; cf. 5.59– 62 Tέκτονος υἱόν | Ἁρμονίδε ͜ω, ὃς … ἐπίστατο … | τεύχειν· … | ὃς … τεκτήνατο: Faesi/ Franke; Leaf; Willcock. – The expression τά οἱ πόρε χάλκεος Ἄρης is similar (145– 146n.). — σκυτοτόμων: ‘leather-cutter, worker in leather’, a hapax legomenonP in early epic; on the formation, cf. δρυτόμος, ὑλοτόμος, ῥινοτόμος, etc. (LfgrE). — ὄχ’ ἄριστος: an inflectable formula after caesura A 4, as here, in total 6× Il., 2× Od.; after caesura C 1 2× Il., 6× Od.; at VE 2× Il., 1× Od., also ἔξοχ’ ἄ. at VE (2× Il., 4× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’). — οἰκία ναίων: an inflectable VE formula (8× participle, 1× 3rd-pers. sing. impf.: 5× Il., 4× Od.): 16.595n., end; see ad loc. also for the prosodic variant δώματα ναί-/δώματ’ ἔναι-.

Commentary

123

222–223 sevenfold … | … an eighth fold: The ordinal adjective ‘eighth’ serves as the climax of a (detailed or summary) enumeration (2.313n.). On the sequence ‘seven … the eighth’, 19.246n. with additional examples. σάκος αἰόλον ἑπταβόειον: metrically equivalent to δεινὸν σάκος ἑπταβόειον (245 [see ad loc.], 266), ‘deliberate variatio’ (Friedrich 2007, 68–77). — αἰόλον: of Aias’ shield also at 16.107. The etymology is perhaps from *αἰϝ- (Latin aevum) with suffix -ολο-; in the case of animals, it means ‘lively, agile’ (19.404n.), of weapons ‘colorful’ (schol. T on 222; the alternative meaning suggested there, ‘easily movable’, is unlikely, given the size of Aias’ shield: Leaf; cf. 238–239n.) or ‘lively, shimmering, iridescent’ (LfgrE with bibliography). — ταύρων: a specification of material, as at 238 βῶν and 4.105 αἰγός (Leaf). — ζατρεφέων: ‘very well-fed’; of herd animals such as pigs (Od. 14.19) and goats (Od. 14.105), as well as Proteus’ seals (Od. 4.451), eventually also of Python consuming men and herds (h.Ap. 302): LfgrE s.v. In the present passage, the term likely indicates the quality of the leather; cf. 3.375n. — ἤλασε: a technical term for bronzework; cf. 12.295 f.

224–225 1st VH of 225 = 21.161, 23.184. — carrying this to cover ǀ his chest: The shield is slung around the body by a strap, leaving the warrior free to use both hands (at 12.298, Sarpedon is carrying a shield while brandishing two spears). The straps on Aias’ shield and sword feature prominently at 14.404– 406 (see loc.cit.), where they save his life. — Telamonian: the patronymic Telamṓnios (also Telamōniádēs) for Aias and (less frequently) Teukros is probably in origin an appellative (LfgrE): in addition to the meaning ‘shield-bearer’ (obvious given the fame of Aias’ shield with its telamṓnes ‘straps’), the name is also explained as ‘bearer of the sky’ (on analogy with the names Atlas and Tantalos, which are also formed from the root tla-/tlē- ‘carry’), which would fit Aias’ gigantic height (14.409n. with bibliography). It is also understood as a patronymic; on possessive adjectives in -ios as patronymics, G 56; 2.20n. τό: The use of the neuter τό as a relative or demonstrative pronoun occurs elsewhere only at 16.228 (see ad loc.) and 22.307 at VB, where metrical lengthening makes it more striking than here. — ἐγγύς: picks up ἐγγύθεν ἦλθε at 219; Aias comes dangerously close to Hektor. — Τελαμώνιος Αἴας: a VE formula (in total 21× Il.). — ἀπειλήσας: The meaning vacillates between ‘threaten’ and ‘boast’, approximately ‘proclaim while puffing oneself up’; prior to a duel, Homeric heroes try to intimidate their opponents either via actual threats or by bragging about themselves as especially dangerous warriors, which again is to be understood as a threat (LfgrE; cf. Kirk, and see 226–243n.).

226–243 Warriors’ speeches of challenge are frequently part of the type-sceneP ‘duel’ (3.340–382n.; cf. 95–102n. on paraenetic speeches of rebuke; Stoevesandt 222 ὅς (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. 223 ἐπί: adv. or in so-called tmesis with ἤλασε (R 20.2), here ‘overlay, hammer on top’. — ὄγδοον: predicative. 224 τό: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), refers to σάκος. 225 στῆ: = ἔστη (R. 16.1). — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1).

124

Iliad 7

2004, 327–329, on the motif of highlighting one’s own battle prowess). In the present passage, the purpose of the two provocative speeches seems to be in particular to proactively deny situations that are embarrassing or unpleasant for the warriors, leading to comic effects in both cases: a. Aias mentions the delicate issue of Achilleus, who is actually the ‘greatest’ of the Achaians, not being available for the duel, while at the same time downplaying the matter: there are many ‘greatest’ among the Greeks who can face Hektor without difficulty. He thus responds to the question of how Achilleus’ boycott of the war affects the balance of power between Greeks and Trojans. (In the present context, the question is not raised explicitly, but is in the minds of both sides: at 4.509–513, Apollo encouraged the Trojans by pointing out the absence of the Greeks’ chief hero; at 5.787–791, Hera scolded the Greeks for achieving nothing without Achilleus: Reichel 1994, 108 f.). Aias is referring to the nine heroes willing to fight Hektor (161 ff.); he of course neglects to mention that they have come forward only in response to Nestor’s rebuke, which is still in mind in this passage. – b. Hektor’s short catalogueP of his battle skills clearly serves to motivate him, given his recent virulent fear (216n.; 217–218n.) (Stoevesandt 2004, 325–329; cf. Hektor’s speech after Achilleus’ miss at 22.279–288), and does not signal real self-confidence (thus Bartolotta 2002, 102 f.) or even braggadocio (Di Benedetto 2000, 27: ‘ostentation’). Via the catalogue inserted into a conversation – the fastest possible way to transmit information – Hektor’s words create a frantic impression; the fivefold anaphora ‘I know/know to/can’ (in Greek the same verb in the form oída, 237, 238 [2×], 240, 241: Wiessner 1940, 41), provoked by Aias’ statement ‘you will learn now’ (eíseai, 226), comes across as an overly emphatic rhetorical ‘defence system’ (Duban 1981, 107 [transl.]; cf. Mackie 1996, 64–66; also Martin 1989, 132 f. on the connection between the speech and Hektor’s constant efforts to preserve his reputation, and Mackie loc. cit. 109–111 on Hektor’s overall frequent use of anaphora). – Quick enumerative speaking as an emergency measure to hide one’s doubts is observable also in other Homeric characters: in his speech at 1.140–144, Agamemnon wants to appear to be in charge of events and to deflect attention from an embarrassing situation (see ad loc.: the instructions on the steps necessary for the return of Chryseis are explicitly designed to forestall the tiresome discussion regarding the restitution of his own prize). Furthermore, emphatic anaphora is common in lists (161b–169n.), but seems excessive here: in contrast to e.g. Agamemnon’s address to the troops at 2.382–384, where anaphora serves to stress the instructions to the men, as a means of self-motivation it creates the impression of panic. Especially given Hektor’s previous overconfidence and the subsequent ‘afraid of his own daring’ (75n.; 89–90n.; 216n.), the speech appears as something of a caricature (even if Hektor proves in the course of

Commentary

125

the epic that he is indeed master of all the skills listed [Bassett 1927, 155 f.]). This effect is intensified via the contrast with Aias’ ultimately modest claim to be only one among many Greek champions (cf. Reucher 1983, 166; Scodel 2008, 27). For greater detail on this, see Wesselmann 2021. 226–227 you will learn now ǀ for sure: threatening, like Diomedes at 8.110 f.: ‘so Hektor | even may know if my spear also rages in my hands’ grip’, and Achilleus on Patroklos at 16.242 f.: ‘so that even Hektor | will find out whether our henchman knows how to fight his battles | by himself’ (AH; see 16.242–245n.; 24.242n. with other similar expressions and bibliography). Hektor in turn will pick up the topic of ‘knowledge’ in what follows (226–243n.). νῦν μὲν δή: elsewhere a VB formula (3× Il., 4× Od.), here displaced by the vocative. — οἰόθεν οἶος ǀ … ἀριστῆες: on οἰόθεν οἶος, 39–40n.; on the motif of the ‘greatest’, 50n.; on repetitions in Book 7, 44–45n.

228 even after Achilleus: The mention of the currently inactive Achilleus once more underlines the character of the duel between Hektor and Aias as an anticipationP of Hektor’s fight against the actual ‘greatest’ of the Greeks (1– 312n. [4.4]); in the phase preceding Achilleus’ return, he is again frequently called to mind in general terms (113–114n.). On the characterP plane, there is a need to address the question hanging over them, namely of the consequences of Achilleus’ absence on the Greeks’ strength in battle (226–243n.); this does not need to be a gibe directed at Hektor, who would not have dared to mount the challenge had Achilleus been available as an opponent (AH), but expresses self-assurance on the part of the Greeks who are unsettled by Hektor’s challenge (92 f.), with the main hero’s absence presumably a major factor. Ἀχιλλῆα ῥηξήνορα: an inflectable noun-epithet formula after caesura Α 2 (in the gen./ dat./acc.): 4× Il., 1× Od., 1× Hes. Th.; ῥηξήνωρ is a distinctive epithetP of Achilleus, ‘he who breaks through (the lines of ) the men’ (LfgrE; 16.146n. with bibliography). — θυμολέοντα: always acc. at VE, also at 5.639, Od. 4.724, 4.814, 11.267, Hes. Th. 1007, it means ‘with courage like a lion’, also of Herakles and Odysseus. The designation is laudatory (cf. 5.638 f./643: ἀλλοῖόν τινά φασι βίην Ἡρακληείην | εἶναι, ἐμὸν πατέρα θρασυμέμνονα θυμολέοντα, | 3 vv. | σοὶ δὲ κακὸς μὲν θυμός), in contrast to the frequent lion similes in the Iliad (3.23n. with bibliography) where, in addition to the role of the successful attacker, the lack of pity serves as a point of comparison (24.41b–44n.): LfgrE.

229–230 = 2.771 f.; 229 ≈ 3.283; cf. Od. 19.182. — He lies now … | … in anger: ‘Lying (down)’ is an explicit sign of inaction (2.688n.; 2.772n. with bibliography 226 σάφα (ϝ)είσεαι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — σάφα: adv., ‘clearly’. — εἴσεαι: 2nd-pers. sing. fut. of οἶδα. On the uncontracted form, R 6. 227 Δαναοῖσιν: locative, ‘among the Danaans’. — ἀριστῆες: 73n. — μετέασι: 3rd-pers. pl. of μέτειμι (R 16.6). 228 Ἀχιλλῆα (ϝ)ρηξήνορα: on the prosody, R 4.5. — Ἀχιλλῆα: on the declension, R 11.3 and R 3. 229 νήεσσι: on the declension, R 12.1.

126

Iliad 7

on the emphatic term ‘having (great) anger’ [apomēníō]). On the ‘wrath’ of Achilleus, 1.1n. ἀλλ’ ὃ μὲν ἐν + dat.: a VB formula (in total 4× Il., 3× Od.: Usener 1990, 18 n. 5). — ἐν νήεσσι … ποντοπόροισι: 71–72n. — κορωνίσι: ‘curved’, ‘towering’; a epithetP of ships, always in the dat. pl. between caesurae B 2 and C 2 (1.170n. with bibliography also on the word formation). In general on ship-epithets: 1.12bn. s.v. ‘swift’; cf. 71–72n.; 78n.; 84n.; on the asyndetic sequence, 2.23n. and 2.412n. with bibliography. — ἀπομηνίσας: in the Iliad only of Achilleus (also at 2.772, 9.426, 19.62); ἀπο- has an intensifying function (on possible nuances of meaning, 2.772n.). — Ἀγαμέμνονι ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectable VE formula, in total 11× Il., 3× Od.; list of iterata: 2.254n. (dat.); 2.243n. (acc.); gen. variant: Ἀγαμέμνονος Ἀτρείδαο (1.203, etc.; see ad loc.). 231 σέθεν ἀντιάσαιμεν: ἀντ(ι)άω + gen.: ‘face someone in battle, rival someone’ (16.423n.).

232 there are plenty of us: concluding the train of thought with emphasis as a runover word at VB (AH; Kirk) also at 10.171. — so now begin: The curt request strongly contrasts with the elaborate lot-drawing process in Book 3 that determines which warrior is allowed to begin the duel and thus has an advantage (3.314–317n.). In the present passage, a repetition of the draw might form a distraction (Kirk); the basic function of heightening suspense (cf. 179–180n.; 182–189n.) would be somewhat strained. What is more, Aias here demonstrates his sense of superiority in intimidating fashion by leaving the first throw to his opponent (like Poseidon to Apollo at 21.439: schol. bT on 7.232 and 235; AH and Willcock on 232). The advantage of the first spear throw is obvious (differently: Kirk on 3.313–317): if it finds its target, the opponent has no chance to respond. μάχης ἠδὲ πτολέμοιο: 29–31a n. on πόλεμον καὶ δηϊοτῆτα.

233 = 287, 22.249; ≈ 6.440, 22.232; 1st VH = 7.33 (see ad loc.). μέγας κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ: in total 12× Il.; only κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ is more common (157–158n.). On the generic warrior epithetP μέγας, 14.409n.

234 = 9.644, 11.465; 2nd VH = 8.281 (of Teukros). — Hektor’s honorific address to Aias in a complete verse (13n.) stands in contrast to the mere vocative ‘Hektor’ (226) in Aias’ speech (AH; Kirk), as well as to the terse order to begin the duel (232n.). The verse sits oddly with the rest of Hektor’s agitated speech, unless it is understood as a deliberately slow delivery intended, by way of contrast, as

231 εἰμέν: = ἐσμέν (R 16.6). — σέθεν: = σοῦ (R 14.1). 232 καί: explanatory and emphatic: ‘in fact, and even’.— πολέες(ς). ἀλλ’: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura: M 8). — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2). — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). — πτολεμοῖο: on the -πτ-, R 9.2. 233 προσέειπε: = προσεῖπε (cf. 23n.). 234 Αἶαν: vocative of Αἶας. — διογενές: first syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary

127

a provocative jibe at Aias’ brevity. The verse is missing in Venetus A and in some papyri (or is replaced with the invective from 13.824), and is thus deemed interpolated by West (app. crit.). — seed of Zeus: of Aias also at 4.489, 7.249, 9.644, 11.465. Although he is a great-grandson of Zeus via his grandfather Aiakos, the epithetP is generic and is also used of heroes whose genealogies are not linked with the chief god, at least not in Homer (1.337n.). κοίρανε: derived from I-E *kori̭ o- ‘troops’ > *kori̯ o-no- ‘military leader’; in the Iliad still in this sense (later more generally ‘ruler’): 2.204n. with bibliography; on this, West 2007, 449.

235–241 Hektor’s indignation can be partially explained by Aias’ patronizing gesture of leaving the first throw to him (232n.); at the same time, he will later throw first without further discussion (Leaf). The text may suggest that he takes the overall tone of Aias’ speech to be offensive (Kirk; Stoevesandt 2004, 328 n. 976); in particular, the claim that, in addition to Achilleus, many Greeks are a match for Hektor (226–243n.) is anything but complimentary. — some ineffectual | boy, or a woman: The comparison with children and women recalls Diomedes’ response to Paris’ shot at 11.389: ‘I care no more than if a witless child or woman | had struck me’. On the numerous comparisons and similes with children in Homeric epic, which frequently feature their helplessness, particularly in a military context as an image representing un-warlike, weak individuals, see in detail 16.7–11n. (with bibliography); cf. esp. Aineias’ response to Achilleus’ threats at 20.200–202 that likewise concludes with a reference to his own abilities: ‘Son of Peleus, never hope by words to frighten me | as if I were a baby. I myself understand well enough | how to speak in vituperation and how to offer insults’. On the accusation of ‘effeminate’ behavior directed at a warrior, 96n.; it is worth noting that Hektor is the only Homeric warrior to compare himself to a woman, here (negated) and shortly before his death at 22.125, where he imagines being killed by Achilleus after capitulating ‘as if I were ǀ a woman’. At 6.490–493, Hektor delineates the military sphere clearly from the ‘world of women’ (cf. Griffin 1990, 362). — I know well myself: Hektor divides his military skills (in general: 237) into a. handling the shield (238 f.), b. attack (240) and c. close combat (241). That a. and c. overlap thematically may be illogical, strictly speaking (Kirk), although it does make sense that, in the face of a duel with a warrior carrying an extraordinary shield, Hektor would stress his competence in handling such objects (see also 238–239n.). 235 ἀφαυροῦ: ‘weak’; only here in the positive (comparative: 7.457, 12.458; superlative: 15.11, Od. 20.110, Hes. Op. 586). The etymology is obscure; at 11.389, ἄφρων is used in a similar sense (LfgrE). 235 τί: strengthens μή (cf. 27n.; 109–110n.; 198n.). — με(ο): = μου (R 14.1). — ἠΰτε: ‘as’ (in comparisons).

128

Iliad 7

236–241 ἣ οὐκ: The relative pronoun is shortened prosodically only here in early epic (Faesi/Franke; AH; Kirk). — οὐκ οἶδεν … | … οἶδα etc.: After the emphatic antithesis ἣ οὐκ οἶδεν … | αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν εὖ οἶδα at 236 f., the repeated οἶδ(α) in 238 frames the 1st VH (with the second οἶδ’ being placed immediately before the central caesura, thus receiving additional emphasis; cf. Kirk on 238–239); the form is subsequently used twice in anaphora at VB (240–241). On the frequency of anaphorically structured lists in Homeric epic, 161b–169n. — πολεμήϊα ἔργα: ‘works of war’. A VE formula (6× Il., 1× h.Hom.), 1× Od. after caesura B 1 (cf. 2.338n. on similar expressions).

237 2nd VH ≈ 24.548; cf. Od. 11.612, Hes. Th. 228. — αὐτὰρ ἐγών: strongly antithetical. — μάχας τ’ ἀνδροκτασίας τε: on the synonym doubling, 29–31a n. 238–239 I know how to turn to the right, how to turn to the left the … ǀ … shield: Hektor is probably merely referring to his dexterity and agility in using his shield (Kirk), which he can point in any direction at will (cf. the similar expression at 12.238–240, where Hektor says that he does not heed bird omens, whether they are flying to the right or to the left; the point is the arbitrariness of the movement). – The reference here is probably to a smaller round shield (250n.) with a central grip (Lorimer 1950, 186, 462; Borchhardt 1977, 27 ff.), in contrast to the long shield carried by Aias with straps (219n.), even if elsewhere Hektor himself carries a long shield (6.117–118n.). The scene may be depicted in this manner on a Proto-Attic stand (beginning of the 7th cent. B.C.) showing two warriors in combat with the two different types of shield (Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek Inv. 8936; see Ahlberg-Cornell 1992, 58–62; for a critical view, Snodgrass 1998, 78–83). – In any case, Hektor’s shield is apparently meant to be smaller than the mighty shield of Aias; in fact, it will not withstand Aias’ cast of a rock (270). Hektor thus highlights his shield’s ease of handling by way of compensation (238–239n.; cf. Leumann 1950, 199). Aias’ is to be thought of as bulkier: it is mentioned mostly in defensive situations rather than in actual combat (thus in the iterata for 219: 11.485 [Aias rushes to the aid of the embattled Odysseus] = 17.128 [he helps defend the body of Patroklos; Anselmi 1998, 59 f.]). The ease with which Hektor’s shield is wielded is reflected in 238 also in the light, bouncing rhythm of two sets of a pair of dactyls preceding the emphatic spondeic conclusion (cf. Willcock; AH; on the lyrical sound of the verse, Fingerle 1938, 148; Wace 1962, 22; Martin 1989,

236 ἠέ: = ἤ ‘or’. — ἣ οὐκ: on the correption, R 5.5 and ↑.— πολεμήϊα (ϝ)έργα: on the prosody, R 4.3; likewise δεξιά, (ϝ)οῖδ’ (238). — πολεμήϊα: 193n. 237 ἐγών (before a vowel): = ἐγώ. — εὖ (ϝ)οῖδα: on the prosody, R 4.4. 238 βῶν: = βοῦν; here fem.: ‘ox-hide shield’. 239 τό μοί ἐστι: ‘to me, this means’, refers to νωμῆσαι βῶν. — ταλαύρινον: adv. or acc. subject of the inf.: ‘as a shield-bearer’.

Commentary

129

132). — which is my protection in battle: again in contrast to Aias and his less mobile tower shield. βῶν: In early epic, βοῦς, literally ‘cow’, also denotes shields (in the fem., likely by analogy with ἀσπίς: LfgrE); the designation of material (‘ox-hide’) is used metonymically or as pars pro toto for the object itself (16.636n.). The acc. form βῶν is attested only here and was corrected to βοῦν already by Aristophanes of Byzantium, but is retained by Aristarchus (schol. A, T); Rhianos has the possibly dialectal form βῶ (< *βόα). βῶν is presumably an Aeolic element (also preserved in Doric) in Homer’s Ionic (on the amalgamation of dialects in Homeric language in general, see G 2–3), which is not rendered as βοῦν since in Ionic βοῦς otherwise means merely ‘cow’; in Homer as ‘shield’ otherwise only in combination with a determinative adj. in the pl. (12.105, 12.137, 16.636): Wackernagel 1916, 12 f.; Leumann 1950, 201; Kirk. — ἀζαλέην: ‘dried’; cf. 12.137, where shields are likewise referred to as ‘dry’ (βόας αὔας). — τό μοί ἐστι ταλαύρινον πολεμίζειν: ‘this, to me, is fighting as a shield-carrier’ (cf. Willcock; Kirk); similar expressions at 9.706 τὸ γὰρ μένος ἐστὶ καὶ ἀλκή; 13.484 ὅ τε κράτος ἐστὶ μέγιστον; Od. 9.393 τὸ γὰρ αὖτε σιδήρου γε κράτος ἐστίν (AH). – ταλαύρινος means ‘shield-bearing’, a verbnoun compound from ταλάσσαι/τλῆναι (‘to carry’) and (*ϝ)ρινός (‘leather shield’): LfgrE; cf. Mycenaean wi-ri-no: MYC s.v. ῥινός; DMic. Elsewhere only in the formula αἵματος ἆσαι Ἄρηα, ταλαύρινον πολεμιστήν (5.289, 20.78, 22.267), ‘to glut with his blood Ares, who fights under the shield’s guard’. The loose association of the god of war in the sense of a model also for Hektor is clear here, given the parallelism of the formula (also πολεμίζειν and πολεμιστήν), in particular in view of the fact that the ‘shieldbearer’ Aias has just been compared with Ares (208 ff.) and Hektor explicitly mentions Ares at 241 (Kirk).

240–241 After the portrayal of Hektor’s defensive skills at 238 f., the topic changes to offensive fighting; at the same time, it remains unclear precisely what Hektor is thinking about here. The ‘struggle of flying horses’ evokes war chariots, which in the Iliad are used particularly in phases of flight and pursuit (2.384n.; 16.20n.; 24.14n., all with bibliography). All this suggests that the reference is to the contrast between mobile and static battle, i.e. acting as a pursuer on the one hand, and a still undecided battle on the other (Willcock; Kirk: ‘both in pursuit and at close quarters’ rather than ‘attack from the chariot and on foot’ [AH (transl.)], since in Homeric epic attacks are not made by chariot). But war chariots are in any case irrelevant for the duel that follows; by evoking ‘swift horses’, Hektor merely lends tempo and drama to the hectic and panicked (226–243n.) enumeration of his skills. This of course underlines the caricaturelike nature of his speech: caught up in his anxiety, Hektor suddenly begins talking about horses, even though these have no place in the current situation. — to tread my measure: The metaphor (‘figuratively’: LfgrE s.v. μέλπω)

240 ἐπαῗξαι: aor. inf. of ἐπαΐσσω + acc. ‘rush at’. — ὠκειάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 241 ἐνὶ σταδίῃ: sc. ὑσμίνῃ (↑). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — δηίῳ … Ἄρηϊ: ‘[in honor of] destructive Ares’ (↑). On the form Ἄρηϊ, R 12.4.

130

Iliad 7

can be understood in various ways: a. fast, elegant movements; this would seem appropriate, given Hektor’s emphasis on his agility when faced with the gigantic Aias and his enormous shield (238–239n.); that speed is a typical characteristic of warriors in Homeric epic is further attested to by epithets meaning ‘fast’ used for Ares (ἀρτίπος, θοός, ὠκύτατος: AH) and Achilleus (πόδας ὠκύς: 1.58n.; 24.138n.); b. audacious carelessness in the face of danger (schol. bT, A, D on 7.241; cf. Griffin 1980, 194 with n. 43 f.); cf. 13.291, 17.228 (battle as a ‘dalliance’, oaristýs). Admittedly, Hektor’s audacity is only a pretense (216n.; 217–218n.). – ‘Effeminate’ dancing and ‘masculine’ battle can be used as opposites in Homeric epic, esp. 3.392 ff. (3.390–394n.), 15.508, 16.617 f. (24.260–262n. with bibliography; on this Monsacré [1984] 2017, 27 f.). On the relationship between ‘battle and dance’ in general, see also Ready 2011, 164 f.; cf. 133b–156n., where also for the phenomenon of the ‘war dance’, although this does not fit within the present list of war skills (Kurz 1966, 138). – In addition to ‘dance’, mélpomai denotes song (LfgrE); the acoustic dimension of war cries is perhaps to be thought of here (Kurz loc. cit.). — the grim floor of the war god: apparently envisioned as a kind of service to Ares (Faesi/ Franke; AH ad loc. and on 239). ἐπαῗξαι μόθον: an external acc. (‘plunge into the fray’: AH) rather than an internal acc. (‘attack and cause turmoil’: Ebeling s.v. ἐπαΐσσω). — μόθον: 117n. — ἵππων ὠκειάων: 15n. — ἐνὶ σταδίῃ: σταδίη can be used either adjectivally with ὑσμίνη ([ἐν] σταδίῃ ὑσμίνῃ) or as a substantive, as here; the present passage likely refers to static battle in contrast to phases of pursuit (see above), while elsewhere it is mostly ‘close combat’ in contrast to ranged combat with the spear or bow and arrows (13.314, 13.713, 15.283). Both contrast with ἐν σταδίῃ at 13.514: Idomeneus is too exhausted for ranged combat; although he can evade death ἐν σταδίῃ, he is no longer able to flee. — δηίῳ: likely to be taken with the first vowel shortened (⏑⏑–) (Schw. 1.244); for the meaning, 118–119n.

242–243 Yet … I would not strike you: Hektor seemingly assumes that continuing his speech would raise suspicions that he is trying to distract and gain time – in order to find a weakness in Aias (AH; Leaf). — great as you are: respectful (schol. bT on 7.242; Faesi/Franke). — by stealth: ‘eyeing, peering at’ (opipeúō) is considered unheroic; cf. the use of the same term in Agamemnon’s accusation directed at Diomedes at 4.371: ‘Why are you skulking and spying out the outworks of battle?’ (The ‘outworks’ show potential routes of escape for a coward); additional examples in Mackie 1996, 51 f. — but openly: Like Aias at 196, Hektor now pleads for open action (Greek uses the same term: amphadíēn/amphadón). — perhaps I might hit you: The vagueness of this

242 ἀλλ’ οὐ γάρ: ‘but … indeed not’ (↑). — βαλέειν: aor. inf. (resultative, ‘strike, hit’). On the form, R 8 and 16.4. — ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6). 243 ἀμφαδόν: adv., ‘openly’. — αἴ κε: = ἐάν (cf. 77n.); ↑.

Commentary

131

phrase (‘unparalleled in Achaean talk’: Mackie 1996, 63) betrays Hektor’s lack of confidence regarding the outcome of the duel (Stoevesandt 2004, 309 with n. 929, 328). ἀλλ’ οὐ γάρ … ἐθέλω: ‘but I don’t mean to’; ἀλλά interrupts the conversation in order to make a transition to prompt action; γάρ gives the motivation for this (AH). — αἴ κε τύχωμι: ‘in the hope that I might strike’; see 39–40n. For the form τύχωμι, cf. Homeric ἐθέλωμι, which was probably formed from *ἐθέλησι (transmitted: -ῃσι), analogous to τίθησι : τίθημι (Schw. 1.661).

244–312 The duel takes place, but is broken off early with no clear conclusion. 244–272 Aias and Hektor throw their javelins; in the subsequent close combat, Hektor is injured. When the heroes take turns hurling rocks, Hektor falls, but is lifted back up by Apollo. 244–273 The actual duel is longer and more elaborate than the fight between Menelaos and Paris in Book 3. It fits the scheme, common in the Iliad, of the three-fold unsuccessful attempt (cf. 18.155–158 [18.155n.], 21.176–178, and especially the scene of Hektor’s death at 22.165/208–213: Fenik 1968, 46), even if there are no additional examples of a battle with three rounds for each participant (cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 170–173). Hektor attacks first each time, followed by Aias (with the exception of the dramatizing micro-episode at 255 f., where both attack at the same time, but Hektor ultimately strikes the first blow). Hektor is defeated each time, and each round reveals his inferiority more clearly (see 248b–254n.; 259n.), even if his determination to continue fighting, two injuries notwithstanding, is remarkable (and unique for a Trojan: Neal 2006, 97; cf. loc.cit. 115–117: Hektor also sustains multiple injuries in battle, but returns to the field each time). – The fight holds surprises for an audience familiar with early epic: some elements usually occur in association with the death of a warrior and thus lead to expectations of Hektor’s death, namely the injury to the neck (262n.), the choice of a rock as weapon (263–272n.), and Hektor’s fall (271–272n.); on the anticipationP of Hektor’s death, 1–312n. (paragraph 4.4). The events are similar in Hektor’s battle against Aias in Book 14; there too throwing a rock, an injury to the neck, and the hero’s tumble create an expectation of his death (14.410–411n.; 14.419–420). Even if the audience assumes from familiarity with the myth (Morrison 1992, 56; Scodel 1999, 140 f.) that Hektor will survive, the text produces repeated disturbances. This play on expectations heightens suspense and drama; the certainty regarding the course of the myth is undermined, with the duel itself serving as the core of the sequence 1–312, which elsewhere (52–53n.) also includes conflicting signals regarding the duel’s outcome.

132

Iliad 7

244–248a Hektor’s spear almost pierces Aias’ mighty shield – it becomes stuck in the final layer of leather. The motif of a missile penetrating multiple layers of armor before being stopped at the last moment, before it can inflict lethal damage, is an element of the themeP ‘duel’ (cf. 3.340–382n.: 3ab; on this, 3.360n. with bibliography); it will be mirrored at 248b–254, where in his counter-throw Aias nearly manages a lethal hit through Hektor’s armor to his abdomen. 244–246 244 f. ≈ 3.346 f., 3.355 f. (beginning of the duel between Paris and Menelaos), 5.280 f., 7.249 f., 11.349 f., 17.516 f., 20.273 f., 22.289 f., Od. 24.522 f. – 244 = 3.355, 5.280, 11.349, 17.516, 22.273, 22.289; ≈ 20.438, Od. 24.519, 24.522; 2nd VH = Il. 3.346, 5.15, 7.249. – 245 ≈ 266. — the sevenfold … | … the eighth layer: 222–223n.: the same phenomenon of an ordinal adjective being the climax as the six-seven progression in the following verses at 247 f. (‘through six folds … but was stopped in the seventh ox-hide’); see 24.399n. with additional examples. ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formulaP (24.302n.). — δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: 212–213n. — σάκος: The different terms for the shields of Aias and Hektor (σάκος and ἀσπίς) are maintained consistently for the two heroes even though they cannot be clearly assigned to different types of shield (219n.). The difference is evidently important in this passage: Aias’ superiority is symbolized by his larger shield, which unsettles Hektor (238– 239n.). — χαλκόν: the layer of bronze on top of Aias’ shield of seven hides (220–223n., 220–221n.), similar to 267.

247 six folds: The reference is to the layers of leather; the eighth layer (of bronze) was pierced right at the start. The drama of the scene is heightened by the narrator’s quasi-X-ray vision: only a thin layer of leather is stopping the spear (Neal 2006, 283). διὰ πτύχας: The acc. with the preposition διά as an indication of direction is rare. In the present passage, the rationale is perhaps that although the spear pierces six layers, it does not reach its target: the accusative, in contrast to the genitive (cf. 251 f., where the spear completely pierces the shield and body armor), stresses the extent of the object traversed; Chantr. 2.96; Luraghi 2012, 379 f. — δαΐζων: The basic meaning is ‘violently sever, slice open, make gape’, in particular, as here, with a sharp weapon; an archaism, already ossified into a formula: usually a part., elsewhere only 3× inf. and 4× ind. (LfgrE). It is frequently used to describe Hektor’s actions in fighting against the Greeks (24.393n.), although elsewhere usually in secondary focalizationP and with an emotional tinge; only here with the weapon as the subject. — χαλκὸς ἀτειρής: an inflectable formula (14.25n., where also for the heroes’ corselets). χαλκός here repre-

244 ἦ: 3rd-pers. sing. impf. of a defective verb with the sense ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — καὶ ἀμπεπαλών: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀμπεπαλών: part. of the reduplicated aor. of ἀναπάλλω ‘take a swing’ (on the prefix, R 20.1). 245 βάλεν: resultative aor. ‘struck’. On the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 246 ὄγδοος: predicative. — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6). — ἐπ’ αὐτῷ: ‘on it’ (the shield).

Commentary

133

sents Hektor’s spear (frequently used for offensive weapons [LfgrE s.v. χαλκός 1126.30 ff.] or their bronze heads [3.348n. with bibliography]). ἀτειρής means ‘indelible’, ‘indestructible’; in the case of offensive weapons also ‘merciless, hard’ (3.60n.; LfgrE). 248 ἐν τῇ δ’ ἑβδομάτῃ: The unusual placement of the particle may be the result of metrical necessity, cf. 4.470 ἐπ’ αὐτῷ δ’ ἔργον, 20.418 προτὶ (ϝ)οῖ δ’ ἔλαβ’, Od. 14.120 ἐπὶ πολλὰ δ’ ἀλήθην (Faesi/Franke). It is perhaps also due to the close association of the preposition and the word it governs: 24.273–274n., end (with bibliography). — ἑβδομάτῃ: A superlative form, metrically more convenient than the normal one (cf. πρώτιστος, τρίτατος [both passim], ὀγδοάτην [19.246]): G 80. — δεύτερος αὖτε: an inflectable VB/VE formula, always with αὖτε or αὖτις. Typical in descriptions of duels (A shoots first, B second); as here, with a verb of throwing also at 268, 20.273, 21.169; elsewhere with ὁρμάομαι or ὄρνυμαι (16.402n. with bibliography).

248b–254 249b–254 = 3.355b–360. — Aias throws his spear at Hektor and pierces his shield and armor; Hektor manages to dodge at the last moment. The motif ‘missile pierces the armor but is arrested just in time’, already used in the context of Hektor’s attack (244–248a n.), is here varied and dramatized. – The scene starts almost like the preceding one (2nd VH of 244 = 249) and contains a lengthy iteratum from Book 3, where Menelaos’ spear pierces the shield of Paris who, like Hektor, had been the first to throw. At the same time, the situation is different from that in Book 3: there Hektor had achieved something similar to Aias with his first attack, while in the parallel passage at 3.346 ff. Paris’ spear had already been bent on the outer bronze layer of Menelaos’ shield. – The scene is repeated in a similar way in other passages in the Iliad (see below iterata): 4.134–139 during Pandaros’ shot at Menelaos, 11.434–440 during Sokos’ shot at Odysseus. In both cases, the outcomes are more dramatic than in the present passage: the warriors are wounded, and only divine intervention can prevent the worst; the latter is the case also in Book 3, not in the same scene, but in the one immediately following. Hektor thus escapes surprisingly unscathed; in addition, he made a throw almost as good as Aias’: the balance of power initially seems comparatively even. This will, of course, not last (244–273n.; 259n.). 249 2nd VH = 244 (see ad loc.), 3.355. 250 = 3.356 ≈ 3.347 (see ad loc.), 17.517, 20.274; to caesura C 2 ≈ 5.281; 2nd VH = 11.434, 13.160, 17.43, 23.818. ἀσπίδα πάντοσ’ ἐΐσην: an inflectable formula of the 2nd VH (in total 15× Il.). πάντοσ’ ἐΐση is the most common epithet of shields and means ‘the same in all directions’, i.e. ‘round’ (3.347n.), here in clear contrast to Aias’ long shield (219n.; 244–246n.). — ἐΐσην:

248 σχέτο: ‘held, stuck’. On the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 250 Πριαμίδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. — πάντοσ(ε): ‘on every side’; -σε like -δε (R 15.3; ↑). — ἐΐσην: = ἴσην.

134

Iliad 7

only in the fem. and usually in formulaic combinations; developed either from a prothetic ε before ἶσος or from πάντοσε ϝίσην (LfgrE; 1.306n. with bibliography).

251–252 = 3.357 f., 11.435 f.; 252 = 4.136. — glittering: At 13.803 f. Hektor’s shield is described as featuring an actual bronze layer; in contrast, Paris’ shield in the iteratum in Book 3 is probably to be thought of as a shield with metal fittings rather than a layer of bronze (3.357n.). At the same time, the depiction of Hektor’s shield(s?) in the Iliad is not entirely consistent (cf. 238–239n.), and the present verse is in any case formulaic. διά: The unusual position at VB with metrical lengthening of the iota (only here, iterata and 4.135) creates a parallel between 251 and 252, where the path of the spear continues (3.357n. with bibliography). — ὄβριμον ἔγχος: A VE formula; ὄβριμος means ‘large, massive, bulky’ (3.347n.; LfgrE). — πολυδαιδάλου: ‘made very elaborately, highly decorated’; on the meaning and etymology, 19.13n. with bibliography; LfgrE s.v. δαίδαλον. — ἠρήρειστο: The long syllables with the lengthened η and rolling ρ onomatopoetically illustrate the heft of the thrust (schol. bT on 7.252; Kirk). 253 = 3.359. ἀντικρὺ … παραί: ‘straight past the flank’ (3.359n.); on the reading παραί rather than παρά, see West 1998, XXX. — διάμησε: ‘entered’ or ‘tore (open)’; in early epic, the verb occurs only here and in the iteratum. On the etymology, 3.359n. — χιτῶνα: A garment worn beneath the corselet (apparently made from fine cloth, perhaps with bronze reinforcements: 1.371n. and 3.332n. with bibliography; cf. Buchholz 2012 on protection of the torso).

254 = 3.360; 2nd VH = 11.360; ≈ 14.462. — yet he bent away to one side: Once a missile has penetrated the corselet and the chiton, the target realistically has no time to dodge the attack (even if the chiton is worn loosely: 3.360n.). The present passage represents a type of hysteron proteron that serves to dramatize events, or is simply highly hyperbolic phrasing with the same objective. The verse often occurs in the type-sceneP ‘duel’ (244–248a n.), although it seems unnecessary to deny its semantic valence on those grounds (e.g. Kirk 1978, 33): the hero’s achievements are not portrayed realistically but as superhuman – a type of depiction still common today (e.g. in fight sequences in action films). ἀλεύατο: A root aor. derived from *ἀλέϝομαι; see 3.360n., cf. 3.10n. — κῆρα μέλαιναν: A VE formula (2.859n.), it usually means ‘(the fate of ) death’, as here; on rare occasions, it is used as a personification (2.301–302n.; 3.32n.).

252 ἠρήρειστο: plpf. of ἐρείδομαι, ‘had forced itself’. 253 παραί: = παρά (R 20.1; ↑). — λαπάρην: on -η- after -ρ-, R 2. 254 ὅ: Hektor; on the anaphoric demonstraive pronoun, R 17. — ἐκλίνθη: pass. with mid. sense: ‘bent himself’.

Commentary

135

255 pulled them ǀ out: In the Iliad, pulling out a spear – from an opponent’s body (16.504n.) but also, less frequently, from the ground, a shield or a hand (Kirk; LfgrE s. v. σπάω 175.14 ff.) – is described especially after the killing of an opponent. ἐκσπασσαμένω: The dual underlines the parallelism of the fighters and thus the current stalemate. — δολίχ’ ἔγχεα χερσίν: A formula after caesura B 1 (so too at 4.533, 9.86). — ἅμ’ ἄμφω: A VE formula, similarly at 23.686 (where also followed by σύν ῥ’ ἔπεσον), Od. 21.188, h.Cer. 15.

256–257 ≈ 5.782 f. (of the Greeks); 256: 1st VH to caesura A 4 = 23.687; ≈ 21.387; 2nd VH from caesura A on = 15.592 (of the Trojans); on 256, cf. 5.560; 257: 2nd VH from caesura B 1 on = Od. 18.373, from caesura C 1 = Il. 8.463, Hes. Op. 437; VE after caesura C 2 = h.Merc. 334; ≈ Il. 4.330. — The significance of the repetition of the simile at 5.782 f. should not be overemphasized, since animal similes abound in the Iliad (see below) and parts of the verse are also repeated elsewhere. — and went at each other: The link between the activity and the reference object is loose; the image is thus not necessarily of lions or boars fighting one another (although this is possible; cf. 16.756–758); rather, the battling heroes have their ‘personality’: ‘wild and strong’ (Fränkel 1921, 62 [transl.]; cf. Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 58). This is supported by the iteratum in Book 5 in particular: ‘stood close huddled … | in the likeness of lions who rend their meat raw’ (5.781 f.): the characteristic feature of lions is not that they huddle together, but the danger they pose, which is the point of comparison here (cf. Nickau 1977, 110–112; Reucher 1983, 167). — like lions … | or wild boars: In the Iliad, wild boars often represent the aggressiveness of a person being attacked, as at 11.414–418, 17.281–281, 17.725–729; the alternative ‘like a boar or a lion’ also at 8.338–340, 11.292 f. and 12.42–48 (Kirk on 5.780– 783; 16.823–828n. with bibliography, where also on the juxtaposition of lions and boars in general). Lions are used equally of the attacker and the attacked. (On lion similes as common in the Iliad, see 3.23n.; in general on the reference to various possible objects of comparison in Homeric (long) similesP, 2.800n. with bibliography.) — who live on raw meat: a typical epithet of predators in the Iliad, always in similes referring to warriors (16.157–158n. with bibliography). 255 τὼ … ἐκσπασσαμένω: on the dual, R 18.1. — ἐκσπασσαμένω: aor. part. of ἐκσπάω; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἔγχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 256 σὺν … ἔπεσον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — λείουσιν: = λέουσιν (R 10.1), ‘lions’. — ὠμοφάγοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2; likewise κάπροισιν in the following verse. 257 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun functioning as a relative (R 14.5). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

136

Iliad 7

σύν ῥ’ ἔπεσον: ‘they went at each other’, also in the boxing match between Epeios and Euryalos in the funeral games for Patroklos (23.687), as well as in the battle of the gods (21.387); elsewhere of winds (Od. 5.295): LfgrE s.v. πίπτω 1263.9 ff.. On additional verbs of attacking, Kurz 1966, 140 f. — ἀλαπαδνόν: ἀλαπαδνός is an adj. in -νο- related to ἀλαπάζω (Risch 98); perhaps derived from a root *lapa (also in λαπάσσω, λαπαρός, etc.); it thus means ‘depleted, flaccid, weak’ (LfgrE s.v. ἀλαπάζω). In early epic usually with a negative in the VE formula οὐκ ἀλαπαδνόν (5.783, 8.463, 18.373, Hes. Op. 437, h.Merc. 334; at Il. 4.330 nom. pl. fem.), different only at Il. 2.675 and 4.305.

258 1st VH = 13.568; 2nd VH = 13.646, 15.528. οὔτασε: likely a secondary formation related to the athematic root aor. οὖτα (6.64n.; 16.317n., both with bibliography).

259 = 3.348, 17.44; 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 415. — In the second round of fighting, Hektor is for the first time clearly bested by Aias (244–273n.). At the same time, he at least mounts a second attack, while in the iterata the half-hearted throw of the spear, which merely results in bending the tip, remains the attacker’s only action (Paris in Book 3; Euphorbos, the loud-mouthed son of Panthoos, in Book 17). ἔρρηξεν: ‘pierced’ (LfgrE s.v. ῥήγνυμι 23.33 ff.). — χαλκός: As at 247, this refers to Hektor’s spear; the reading χαλκόν, which would refer to the layer of bronze of Aias’ shield, as at 246 and 267, is less well attested. — δέ: adversative or explicative (Race 2000, 206 [not in reference to the present passage]).

260–261 ≈ 12.404 f. (Aias attacks Sarpedon). νύξεν: νύσσω means ‘thrust’, with a shield as the target also at 11.565, 12.404, 16.704 (where with the hands; see ad loc.); thus ‘pass, cut through, penetrate’, etc. (διάπρο | ἤλυθεν); also in the iteratum in conjunction with στυφελίζω, ‘shake with a blow’ (LfgrE s.v. νύσσω). — ἐπάλμενος: 7× Il., 2× Od., 1× Hes. Th.; always after caesura B 2. On the loss of the rough breathing, see West 1998, XX. — διάπρο: ‘through and through’; elsewhere usually of fatal injuries (where the body itself is pierced). On the spelling, West 1998, XVIIIf. – In combination with ἤλ(υ)θ(ε/εν) also at 5.66 f., 12.404 f. and 14.494 f. (in the first two passages, as here, with a preceding ἥ δέ or οὐδέ; in all three, as here, with a weapon as the subject, cf. Clark 1997, 118 f.; see 14.494n. with additional bibliography). — ἐγχείη: synonymous with ἔγχος; perhaps an elliptical expression derived from an adjective related to αἰχμή (LfgrE). — δέ μιν μεμαῶτα: A VE formula, in total 5× Il.

258 δουρί: on the form, R 4.2, R 12.5. 259 connective οὐδέ occurs in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἔρρηξεν: transitive, sc. σάκος. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), refers to χαλκός. 260 ἐπάλμενος: aor. part. of ἐφάλλομαι ‘pounce on, leap at’. — ἥ: demonstrative, here anticipating the appositive ἐγχείη in the next verse: ‘and it, the lance’. 261 ἤλυθεν: = ἦλθεν. — ἐγχείη: on -η after -ι-, R 2. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — μεμαῶτα: part. of the perf. μέμονα, here ‘storm against’; cf. 3n.

Commentary

137

262 and tore at his neck: Injuries to the neck are generally fatal (16.332n. with bibliography). Here the audience’s expectations are again foiled, thus heightening suspense (244–273n.; Bergold 1977, 192). In addition, Hektor’s actual death is anticipated: Achilleus inflicts a deadly injury on Hektor’s neck (22.326 ff.); prior to that, he is injured by Aias ‘close to the neck’ at 14.412 (see ad loc.; Duban 1981, 119; Louden 2006, 43 f. [with reference to literal echoes of 7.261 f. and 22.326 f.]; Neal 2006, 121). — the dark blood broke: The vigorous stream of blood represents the hero’s power and virility (Neal 2006, 53 f. with additional examples: Menelaos 4.146 f., Diomedes 5.113, Agamemnon 11.266, Odysseus 11.458, Eurypylos 11.813, Deïphobos 13,539, Achilles 21.167). τμήδην: a hapax legomenonP; an adv. related to τάμνω, ‘cut-like’; i.e. the spear does not produce a deep wound but a superficial gash. ἐπιγράβδην at 21.166 is similar (LfgrE). — μέλαν … αἷμα: The noun-epithet formula μέλαν αἷμα is used a total of 8× in early epic, occurring after caesura A 4 and C 1, as well as at VE (6× Il., 1× Od., 1× h.Merc.), only here with the words separated. A variant: αἷμα μέλαν (4× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc.). Blood is commonly ‘dark’ in Greek, which likely also has a metaphorical meaning (‘a dark death’): 1.303n.; 16.529n., both with bibliography.

263–272 Hektor throws a rock at Aias, with little effect; Aias responds to the throw and fells Hektor. The present passage is unique in the Iliad in that a rock being thrown is met by another rock. Rocks are particularly dangerous weapons which are used predominantly by more powerful heroes (16.411n. with bibliography) and generally result in fatal, or at any rate serious, injuries (Kirk; 3.80n. with passages and bibliography; at 14.409 ff., Hektor is again struck by a rock thrown by Aias and sustains even heavier injuries, see 14.410– 411n.). Hektor picking up a rock on the one hand directs the audience’s expectations toward his victory; on the other hand, this is the third round of the battle, and Aias has defeated Hektor with the same weapon in the two previous rounds: ‘The interplay of the generic and the specific adds greatly to the audience’s excitement during the course of the combat’ (Kelly 2007, 294 f.). 263 1st VH to caesura C 1 = 11.255; 2nd VH = 7.158 (see ad loc.). — Yet ǀ even so … did not: Hektor’s courage after his injury is portrayed as unexpected via the adversative clause and is thus explicitly emphasized (244–273n.; Neal 2006, 52 f.). κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ: 157–158n.

264–265 ≈ 21.403 f.; 1st VH. 264 = 13.740, Od. 7.280; ≈ Il. 16.819, 17.47, 21.403, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 336; 2nd VH of 264 = Il. 10.31, Od. 22.326. — In the iteratum in Book 21, Athene strikes Ares in the neck with a rock; at line 405 there, the rock is also

262 ἐπῆλθε: ‘passed above, grazed’. — ἀνεκήκιεν: impf. of ἀνακηκίω: ‘well up’. 263 ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὧς: ‘but not even so’. 264 ἀναχασσάμενος: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

138

Iliad 7

referred to as a boundary stone from earlier generations, likely a sign of its size. The present passage again illustrates the play with audience expectations (244–273n.): 265b in isolation suggests a very large rock, but at 268 Aias picks up an ‘even larger’ one (cf. Kirk). — gave back: for protection and in order to take a run-up (Kurz 1966, 145). — black and rugged and huge: Rocks thrown by heroes are frequently described in detail (16.735n.), thus also the one used by Aias (268–272n.) and the one used by Hektor to smash the gate in the Greek wall (12.445 ff.). χειρὶ παχείῃ: A VE formula (in total 13× Il., 5× Od., 1× h.Hom.); παχύς means ‘thick-set, stocky’ as an expression of power (3.376n. with bibliography), usually of the hands of male heroes, once in reference to Athene (see above) and even of Penelope (Od. 21.6; on the unusual usage, see Turkeltaub 2014): Kirk on 3.376. But the formula does not indicate that the one possessing the sturdy hand will prevail (cf. Foley 1999, 219; Kelly 2007, 241 f.). — τρηχύς: ‘rough’, in addition to the iteratum of a rock also at 5.308; elsewhere usually of landscapes, paths, etc. (LfgrE).

266 ≈ 245 (244–246n.). 267 With its exotic vocabulary (see below), the verse reflects Hektor’s ultimately unsuccessful heroism: his throw strikes Aias’ shield with force and precision, but has no decisive effect (Kirk). ἐπομφάλιον: A hapax legomenonP in early epic (LfgrE), although shield bosses are mentioned frequently (Kirk; on the issue of a ‘boss’ on a long shield, 219n.); similarly formed prepositional compounds (Risch 187 f.), e.g. 5.19 μεταμάζιον, Od. 7.248 ἐφέστιον, 15.51 ἐπιδίφρια (AH), also occur in predicates of adjectives used in apposition to verbs (Schw. 2.178 f.). — περιήχησεν: ‘sounded, echoed all around’, likewise a hapax in early epic (LfgrE s.v. ἠχέω); cf. 20.260, where Aineias strikes Achilleus’ shield: μέγα δ’ ἀμφὶ σάκος μύκε. On the phenomenon of the ‘sound reverberating all around’, Krapp 1964, 232–234; on Homeric terms for the sounds of inanimate objects in general, Mugler 1963, 96–106. — χαλκός: Aias’ shield with its layer of bronze, as at 246 (220–223n.; 220–221n.).

268–272 Aias throws a rock that is hyperbolically depicted as enormous; it is ‘much larger’ and ‘like a mill-stone’ and is thrown with ‘immeasurable force’; Od. 9.537 f., the iteratum of 268 f., depicts the giant Polyphemos (repeatedly) throwing a rock at Odysseus’ ship. On Aias’ gigantic size, 219n. 268–269 ≈ Od. 9.537 f. μέζονα: on the short-vowel form, West 1998, XX. — λᾶαν: the acc. sing. of λᾶας ‘rock’; on forms and etymology, 3.12n. with bibliography. — ἐπιδινήσας: always, as here, a

266 τῷ: instrumental; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — βάλεν: 245n. 267 μέσσον: = μέσον. On the -σσ-, R 9.1; likewise in 277. — ἐπομφάλιον: adv., to be translated ‘on the boss’ (↑). 268 μέζονα: = μείζονα (↑). — ἀείρας: = ἄρας. 269 δὲ (ϝ)ῖν’: on the prosody, R 4.3; (ϝ)ίς: ‘strength, power’; Latin vis.

Commentary

139

nom. sing. aor. part. before caesura B 1. (ἐπι)δινέω denotes the turning motion when a variety of heavy objects are hurled (3.378 helmet, 19.268 an entire slaughtered boar [see ad loc.]). In the case of very heavy objects, the verb stresses the strength of the thrower (23.840 an iron throwing-weight that would provide enough iron for a man for five years). In the case of this enormous rock, the verb functions as a hyperbolic depiction of Aias’ power. — ἐπέρεισε δὲ ἶν’ ἀπέλεθρον: ‘brought immeasurable force to bear’, cf. 11.235 = 17.48 (νύξ’, ἐπὶ δ’ αὐτὸς ἔρεισε βαρείῃ χειρὶ πιθήσας, where the weapon is a lance). ἶν’ ἀπέλεθρον is unusual phrasing; aside from the iteratum (of Polyphemos), only at 5.245 (Sthenelos on Aineias and Pandaros). The possessive compound ἀ-πέλεθρος (lit. ‘having no turn’; the turn originally denotes the boundary of the furrow in the field [cf. the later unit of length πλέθρον: DELG; Frisk s.v.], i.e. ‘boundless, immeasurable’) occurs only in this combination and as an adverb at 11.354 (LfgrE; differently West [who prints ὦκα πέλεθρον rather than ὦκ’ ἀπέλεθρον there]).

270 like a millstone: myloeidḗs is a hapax legomenonP in early epic. Ancient millstones are not comparable to the enormous stones of the modern period, but should rather be envisioned as a coarse (perhaps volcanic) rock used like a pestle to manually grind grain (cf. Müller 1974, 260–262). 12.161 states that the Trojans are being hit by millstones flung by the defenders of the walls surrounding the Greek encampment (not hyperbole, according to Hainsworth, since ground grain is necessary for provisions and such stones should thus be numerous in the camp). Nevertheless, to grind grain a rock must be of a certain size and, more pertinently, weight; in addition, the rock thrown by Aias is still ‘much larger’ than Hektor’s ‘large’ rock, with Hektor collapsing under its weight. At 12.278 ff., Aias again throws an outsize rock (381–383: ‘A man could not easily | hold it, not even if he were very strong, in both hands, | of men such as men are now’). The rock propping up the ships, which Aias hurls at 14.409 f., will also have been of a considerable size and weight. μυλοειδέϊ πέτρῳ: The phrasing is adapted to the context (the rock’s size and weight are crucial, since Hektor had also thrown a ‘large’ rock [265]), as is the case also at 8.327 in the prosodically equivalent λίθῳ ὀκριόεντι – the sharp-edged stone rends the tendon of the one attacked (Friedrich 2007, 126).

271–272 The short sentences increase the drama and narrative pace (Kirk); in concentrated form, they contain various elements usually linked to the deaths of warriors; see below. Hektor’s death appears probable here as well (244– 273n.; cf. Bergold 1977, 192). Highlighting the details of the process of falling is uncommon: Kurz 1966, 21 (at the same time, Hektor’s fall at 14.414–417 is

270 εἴσω: adv., ‘inward’. — ἔαξε: aor. of ἄγνυμι, ‘break (apart)’. — βαλών: cf. 245n. 271 οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — γούναθ’: = γούνατα; on the declension, R 12.5. — ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3); Hektor is meant. — ἐξετανύσθη: 3rd-pers. sing. aor. pass. of (ἐκ)τανύω ‘stretch out lengthwise’ (↑). 272 ἐνι-: = ἐν- (R 20.1); ↑.

140

Iliad 7

painted even more dramatically, likewise creating the expectation that Aias’ attack on him had been lethal; see ad loc.; on the parallels in general, 244– 273n.). — Hektor’s very knees gave: The phrase evokes the expression ‘loosen the knees’, a euphemism for ‘kill’ (16.425n.; 24.498n.; cf. 6n.): Neal 2006, 117. — so that he sprawled backward: This is the only scene in the Iliad where a warrior falls flat on his back without dying (Neal loc. cit. 85, n. 67). The phrasing echoes a passage in Nestor’s story of Areïthoos (145, see 124–160n.). — beaten upon him: Hektor’s knees have buckled; being pressed into the hollow of his shield is probably to be envisioned as him being in a hunched over position (cf. AH; Faesi/Franke). The passage is perhaps to be understood as an anticipationP of ‘being buried’ beneath the shield – many death scenes in the Iliad describe the clatter of the falling armor (5.42, 12.396, 13.181: Neal loc. cit. 117). — Apollo lifted him upright: The god is evidently still observing from the tree (58 f.); consideration of the technical details vis-à-vis his transformation back from bird-shape is pointless (59–60n.). The crucial point for the current passage is the supernatural support Hektor receives; the details remain elusive, as is also the case when Paris is carried away by Aphrodite at 3.380 f. (Kirk). Nor does the question of why Athene provides no support in turn raise any difficulties: her passivity here seems due to the clear superiority of the Greek hero rather than her animosity toward Aias (attested outside the Iliad), whom she drives to insanity and suicide (Duffy 2008, 85–90): Aias does not require help. – Additional cases of ‘divine protection’ in the Iliad in Kelly 2007, 291 f. βλάψε: ‘caused harm’; in the context of motion also ‘trip up’ (in mid. ‘lose one’s footing’: 6.39n., 19.82n.), which is perhaps even the primary sense; cf. 23.782 with feet as the object: μ’ ἔβλαψε θεὰ πόδας (LfgrE s.v.). — φίλα: here with little more force than a possessive pronoun (1.20n.). — ἐξετανύσθη: on the sigmatic aor., Chantr. 1.406. — ἀσπιδ(ι) ἐνιχριμφθείς: a rare example of elision of iota, on which see 3.349n. with bibliography and app. crit. (the mss. only provide lectiones facilliores, which retain the iota of the dat. and instead shorten the participle (e.g. ἐνχριμφθείς). – ἐνιχριμφθείς is probably pass. ‘be pressed into’; χρίμπτω/χρίμπτομαι originally means ‘bring (oneself ) close’ (LfgrE), usually in mid. Cf. 145, where Areïthoos is ‘pressed’ against the ground (145–146n.).

273–312 The heralds Talthybios and Idaios convince Hektor and Aias to leave the duel undecided. The warriors exchange gifts, and each returns to his men. 273–281 Despite Aias having the upper hand, the battle is terminated abruptly when both heroes are about to draw their swords for a fourth round. This passage once more shows parallels with the athletic contests depicted in Book 23 (1–312n. [paragraph IV]): the phrasing ‘they would have (continued to fight)’ occurs at 7.273 and 23.733, ‘had not (the heralds/Achilleus intervened)’

Commentary

141

at 7.274 and 23.734, the notion ‘both of you are (loved by Zeus, great warriors/ victors)’ at 7.279 f. and 23.735 f. (Kirk). 273–276 The passage again contains an if-not situationP (104–105n.), albeit this time with a slight shift: the crisis itself, the threat of the loss of Hektor’s life, has already been averted due to Apollo’s intervention. Here divine action does not provide the if-not part (as is the case when Aineias is carried away by Aphrodite [5.311 ff.] and Poseidon [20.290 ff.]), but the heralds’ actions do instead. That Hektor’s life would be in immediate danger if the battle continued (thus Louden 1993, 188 f.) is not entirely clear (274n.; Morrison 1992a, 66 n. 10, thus includes the scene in his category C: ‘less momentous events are avoided’ [65]). – Duels at the beginning of a new round of fighting are frequently interrupted in the Iliad (3.379 ff., 17.530 ff., 20.288 ff.: Fenik 1968, 182). 273 ≈ 17.530 (also in a duel scene involving Hektor and with indirect involvement of Aias: Hektor’s spear missed Automedon, who killed the Trojan Aretos [525– 529]; the two Aiantes appear before a sword fight commences, causing the Trojans to retreat [531–536]). — with their swords: The sword is a typical weapon for close combat, used for slashing and thrusting: 16.115n. with bibliography. In addition to the present verse, a sword fight between heroes using the same weapons is described in the Iliad only at 16.337 and 17.530 (cf. Fenik 1968, 6, who mentions only the present passage; on pictorial representations, Lorimer 1950, 272; also Langdon 2008, 198 f. [figs. 4.2 and 4.3]). καί νύ κε δή: A VB formula: in addition to the present passage and the iteratum also at 23.490, 24.713, Od. 21.128, 24.528, ‘Hes.’ fr. 197.3 M.-W.; furthermore, simple καί νύ κε(ν): 11× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes. Th., 2× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Cer., finally 2× in verse middle (Il. 8.90, 23.592). — ξιφέεσσ(ι): ξίφος is used in early epic with no clear difference in meaning from ἄορ and φάσγανον. The emphatic long form of the dat. pl. in -έεσσι occurs in only a few passages, where both warriors carry swords (see above; Blanc 2008, 71). — αὐτοσχεδόν: ‘from close proximity’ (like αὐτοσχεδά [with adverbial suffix -δα: 16.319n.] and αὐτοσχεδίῃ/αὐτοσχεδίην [subst. used adverbially]); a technical term denoting close combat. The meaning of the initial element αὐτο- is unclear (LfgrE with bibliography for different explanations: a. ‘grabbing the man himself’ with reference to a possible older meaning of σχεδόν ‘adjoining, hanging on’ or b. a metrical expansion of σχεδόν). — οὐτάζοντο: a past contrary-to-fact condition with κε; the impf., rather than really being durative, is used with a view to the preparation: ‘they now would have gotten ready to …’ (AH; cf. 11.504, 23.733; differently at 24.714, where clearly durative); a conative use also seems possible. The mid. is to be understood as reciprocal: ‘injure one another’, as likely also at 12.427 (Jankuhn 1969, 79 f., although LfgrE s.v. 883.27 takes it as pass. there).

273 καὶ νύ … δή: ‘and now indeed’. — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — ξιφέεσσ(ι): on the declension, R 11.3 (↑).

142

Iliad 7

274 ≈ 1.334. — the heralds: On the function of heralds in general, 182–183n.; the present passage foregrounds the mediation between members of enemy factions (1.334n.), specifically as seconds in a duel (Faesi/Franke on 275 f.) or as a type of referee (Reucher 1983, 169; Scodel 1999, 140). – At first glance, only the Trojan hero appears to have reasons to interrupt the fight, since Aias is dominating Hektor. At the same time, Aias’ victory is not yet certain: Hektor’s performance in the sword fight cannot be predicted, and he has just been given divine support (schol. A, bT on 7.276; Duffy 2008, 78 f., with reference to 15.236 ff., where Apollo reinvigorates Hektor, similarly weakened by a thrown rock, to successfully continue battle). — messengers of Zeus: on the legitimization of messengers via reference to Zeus, 2.26n. The phrasing appears to carry some importance in the present passage, inasmuch as the messenger Idaios tells the warriors that both are loved by Zeus (280–281n.). It thus follows that the heralds’ actions are the result of divine inspiration, particularly given the surprising fact that no decision-making authority is named as the originator of an act as decisive as the termination of the duel (Duffy loc. cit. 77 f.). The Greek prayer at 202–205 was similarly addressed to Zeus as decision-maker; that the heralds appear as messengers from Zeus is accordingly a logical continuation of the notion. Self-determined action resulting from independent thought – or based on double motivationP – is indicated by the double reference to their wisdom (276, 278; AH on 275; cf. Kirk on 277–278), even if this is a hallmark of their occupation (Od. 2.38). 275–276 2nd VH of 276 from caesura C 1 on = 3.148, 9.689 (where similarly of heralds), Od. 18.65. — one for the … Achaians, one for the Trojans, | Idaios and Talthybios: The chiastic position of affiliation and names underlines the close collaboration between the two heralds; this is another detail that highlights the parallelism of the two parties at the end of the ‘retrospective phase’ in Books 2–7 (Introduction, end). For the term ‘Achaians’, 1.2n. — Talthybios: one of Agamemnon’s personal followers (1.320–321n.). He appears at key points in the action and thus seems to enjoy a great degree of trust: Agamemnon sends him to retrieve Briseis from Achilleus (1.320 ff.); he assists with the oath sacrifices before the duel in Book 3 (3.118–120); he is sent by Agamemnon to procure a physician for Menelaos (4.193 ff.); after Agamemnon’s return, he once more attends to the oath sacrifices (19.196 f., 19.250 f., 19.267 f.: 19.196–197n.); he stores Agamemnon’s prize (23.896 f.); see 1.320n. with bibliography and LfgrE, including for the meaning of the name (‘flourishing with life’ or ‘bursting with

274 ἠδὲ καί: ‘and also’; cf. R 24.4. 276 πεπνυμένω ἄμφω: nom. dual (R 18.1).

Commentary

143

strength’), as well as on the family of the Talthybiadai. — Idaios: the chief herald of the Trojans; his name is derived from Mount Ida in the Troad. He has an importance among the Trojans comparable to that of Talthybios among the Greeks: he too makes an appearance in the duel in Book 3 (247 f.: preparations for the sacrifice) and accompanies Priam into the Greek camp in Book 24 (24.322 ff.). In the present Book, he will also be sent to the Greeks with Paris’ offer (7.372–416): 3.248n.; LfgrE. Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων: on the VE formula and the meaning of the epithetP (referring to a textile garment with bronze reinforcements or to a bronze corselet itself ), 1.371n. — πεπνυμένω: from πέπνυμαι ‘be intelligent, wise’; on the disputed word formation (related to πνέω in the sense ‘breathe’ > ‘be conscious’ > ‘be wise, intelligent’?) and on its use in early epic, 3.148n. and 24.377n. with bibliography.

277 1st VH = 3.416; ≈ 6.120, 20.159; 2nd VH from caesura C 1 ≈ Od. 14.494. — They held their staves: The staff (skḗptron > ‘sceptre’) is a mark of authority of high-ranking officials, see 1.14–15n.; Kirk on 2.109; in the present passage, the staffs serve as a symbolic barrier between the fighters (Kirk). This is the only passage where the heralds themselves use their staffs; elsewhere they hand them to the speakers in an assembly (e.g. 23.567 f., Od. 2.37 f.: cf. 1.54n.; 1.234n.; 18.505n., all with bibliography). σχέθον, εἶπέ τε μῦθον: εἶπέ τε μῦθον is a VE formula (3× Il., 2× Od., 5× h.Hom.). The digamma in (ϝ)εῖπε is not taken into account; this may be based on an old prototype σχέθε (ϝ)εῖπέ τε μῦθον, which has here been modified due to a change in subject (Hoekstra 1965, 49 f.). — σχέθον: σχεθ- serves as the aor. stem for the pres. stem ἴσχω, with a sense of specification (14.428n. with references and bibliography). — μῦθον: The term μῦθος for ‘speech’ implies a somewhat formal setting (Martin 1989, 40 f.) and is taken up by Aias at 284 (μυθήσασθαι, 284n.). It is later used by Priam to denote Paris’ offer to the Greeks to return the looted property (374).

278 ≈ Od. 2.38. VB = 3.248. κήρυξ: 182–183n. — πεπνυμένα μήδεα εἰδώς: μήδεα are ‘clever ideas’; μήδεα εἰδώς denotes a characteristic of deities and exceptional human beings (in addition to the heralds, frequently of Odysseus, seers, rhapsodes): LfgrE. The precise formula πεπνυμένα μήδεα εἰδώς is repeated only in the iteratum, the portion πεπνυμένα εἰδώς in the Odyssey always in combination with the speaking name Medon (4.696, 4.711, 22.361, 24.442); elsewhere in early epic only at Hes. Op. 731. The VE μήδεα εἰδ-/ἰδ(μ)-/οἰδ- in total 22× in early epic: 24.88n. (The part. of οἶδα is elsewhere also frequently combined with an object in the neuter pl.: Bartolotta 2002, 92.)

279–282 The fact that the Trojan herald, rather than the Greek one, speaks the lines that follow does not constitute favoritism toward the Trojan Hektor, who 277 μέσσῳ: locative with no preposition (R 19.2) of the substantival neuter, ‘in the middle, in between’. — σχέθον: poetic by-form of ἔσχον, ‘held’. 278 μήδεα (ϝ)ειδώς: on the prosody, R 4.3. — μήδεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

144

Iliad 7

is losing; both heralds intervene and hold their staffs between the two fighters; both are characterized as ‘prudent’ (276, 278). At the same time, the speech is phrased cautiously and diplomatically: Hektor’s inferiority is elided, thus creating a fictitious draw, even if the opponents are not explicitly said to be equal (Zeus’ love for both, as well as the fact that both are good fighters, does not preclude one being a better fighter); cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 25. 210 f.; see also 288–302n. 279 dear children: a somewhat surprising address in the present situation (a bit hyperbolically Kirk: ‘that these bitter enemies should be addressed as «dear children» comes as a shock’); it is more appropriate from Nestor to the younger warriors within his own party at 10.192. At the same time, the phrase stresses the heralds’ authority, which clearly rests on the difference in age, among other things (Idaios is explicitly called old: 24.149 ≈ 24.178, 24.368); cf. Achilleus’ address to the aged King Priam ‘aged sir’ (24.650, see ad loc.): AH. Other terms for ‘child’ are employed in similar ways (τέκος and τέκνον, see LfgrE s.v. πάϊς, παῖς 933.3 ff. with bibliography). πολεμίζετε μηδὲ μάχεσθον: on the synonym doubling, 2–3n.

280–281 280 = 10.552 (Nestor on Odysseus and Diomedes when he sees them returning with Rhesos’ horses from their scouting mission). — To Zeus … both of you are beloved: a renewed reference to the even keel of Greek-Trojan relations at the present moment (Introduction, end). This has already been alluded to in the Greeks’ unusual prayer, which includes an alternative plea (200–205n.) that likewise mentions the love (204) the father of the gods has for both (205) heroes (de Jong 1987, 72; Schneider 1996, 62). – On Aias’ and Hektor’s relationship with Zeus, Duffy 2008 (Zeus only harms Aias in order to help Hektor in accord with his overarching plan of temporarily supporting the Trojans). ἀμφοτέρω … | ἄμφω: A closely related synonym is often repeated, in particular with the number two; cf. 11.634 f. δοιαί – δύω, Od. 4.128 f. δύ(ο) – δοιούς, 9.74 δύω … δύο (Fehling 1969, 213, where also for post-Homeric examples). Here the anaphoric sequence at VB is particularly emphatic. — νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς: an inflectable VE formula (16.666n.); νεφεληγερέτα (‘cloud-gatherer’) is the most common epithet for Zeus (1.511n.; equivalent formulae: 16.298n.). On the nom. in -α, cf. 124–125n. (on ἱππηλάτα). — αἰχμητά: αἰχμητής is a term for an outstanding spear-fighter, also used as an epithetP (Kirk; LfgrE; cf. 1.290, 5.602, etc.). — γε δή: this combination of particles only here in

279–281 παῖδε φίλω … μάχεσθον. | ἀμφοτέρω … σφῶϊ … | ἄμφω … αἰχμητά: on the dual (also beside the pl. πολεμίζετε), R 18.1; ἀμφοτέρω … σφῶϊ: acc., on σφῶϊ (2nd-pers. dual), R 14.1; ἄμφω: nom., sc. ἐστόν. — νεφεληγερέτα: ‘cloud-gatherer’ (nom. sing.; ↑). — καὶ (ϝ)ίδμεν: on the hiatus, R 5.4. — ἴδμεν: = ἴσμεν.

Commentary

145

the Iliad (7× Od.); strongly emphatic: ‘which we all in fact know well’ (cf. Denniston 244 f.).

282 = 293. — In the Iliad, nightfall repeatedly brings an end to fighting (2.387n.). The objection that a duel would not have started just before dusk (Kirk) is hardly convincing, since it began at the direction of Apollo and Athene. In any case, the preliminary actions, including the speeches of challenge, Nestor’s speech and the drawing of lots, may well have taken an extended period of time, so that the beginning of the night is plausible in the present passage. — Night … night-time: The repetition lends emphasis to the argument; expressions that pick up previously used (similar) words are common, e.g. 13.71 f. ‘I knew | easily … gods, though gods, are knowable’ etc. (Fehling 1969, 166; 24.354n.). — to give way to: an allusion to the personification of night (Leaf; Ahrens 1937, 18); on the notion of night as a goddess, 2.57n.; 14.259–261n.; Cuillandre 1943, 319. τελέθει: ‘comes up, appears’, a derivation of τέλομαι (root *kwel) similar in meaning to πέλομαι; partially but not fully synonymous with εἶναι, since it is semantically stronger in combination with γίγνομαι (LfgrE; Lanérès 1992, 606 f., both with additional bibliography; on the formation, also Chantr. 1.327 and Risch 278). — καί: ‘also to obey night’, since the other reasons mentioned are to be taken into account (AH); alternatively in reference to the entire sentence: ‘it is also good to’ (considered by Kirk; cf. 24.425n.; there and at Od. 3.196 likewise ἀγαθὸν καί with inf.; also 15.207 ἐσθλὸν καὶ τὸ τέτυκται, ὅτ[ι]). — νυκτὶ πιθέσθαι: elsewhere in the form πειθώμεθα νυκτὶ μελαίνῃ (8.502 = 9.65 = Od. 12.291).

283–286 Aias leaves the decision to terminate the battle to Hektor, showing a generosity – and superiority – similar to that at the beginning of the duel, where he let Hektor throw the first spear (232n.). 283 = 13.76; 1st VH to caesura C 1 = in total 25× Il., 34× Od.; ≈ 13× Il., 26× Od. (τήν), 1× h.Ap. (τούς); see 24.64n. Cf. the variant at 7.356 (see ad loc.). — son of Telamon: 224–225n. 284 Bid Hektor answer this: Hektor, as the challenger, must conclude the duel officially and with a quasi-performative speech-act that transforms the spoken word into reality (cf. ‘I hereby pronounce you man and wife’); this is expressed by mythḗsasthai, which conveys a notion of publicness and binding obligation (Martin 1989, 40 f.). 285 χάρμῃ: 217–218n. — προκαλέσσατο πάντας ἀρίστους: 39–40n.; 50n.; on the repetitions, 44–45n.

282 τελέθει· ἀγαθόν: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 284 Ἰδαῖ’, Ἕκτορα: on the hiatus after elision, R 5.1. 285 προκαλέσσατο: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

146

Iliad 7

286 ᾗ περ ἂν οὗτος: sc. ἄρξῃ (picking up ἀρχέτω); ᾗ is to be understood modally (cf. 24.139n.).

287 = 233, see ad loc. 288–302 Hektor’s speech begins at 288 f. with a statement of his respect for his opponent. These two verses precede his justified suggestion that they cease fighting (290–293); they seem formulaic, since they are largely composed of formulae used in the preceding text by the gods and the heralds (see iterata). In combination with the numerous enjambmentsP, this makes the first six verses appear breathless, as if Hektor (in contrast to Aias) must first catch his wind and is trying to gain time through the use of platitudes (on the effect of repetitions, also 44–45n. and 290–292n.). The rhythm of the following verses, where Hektor suggests standing down and exchanging gifts (294–302), is much calmer; they end on a conciliatory note also in terms of content by means of an inserted tis-speechP, in which Hektor makes official, as it were, the transition from the strife between the two heroes to their reconciliation (300–302n.). – The speech, in which Hektor makes clear the parallelism of future actions, marks as a ‘«table of contents» speech’ (de Jong on Od. 1.81–95 [cf. 24.146– 158n.]) the transition to events, arranged like a mirror image, in the second half of the Book (see Introduction, end): Aias can please his people via his return, Hektor will delight his people in turn (euphraínō is used in the same position in both verses [at 294 and 297]: Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 90 f.). 288–289 strength, stature and wisdom: The characterization of outstanding warriors in the Iliad is often achieved via three or four attributes (16.809n.). – On Aias’ stature, 208–213n.; regarding his ‘wisdom’ (pinytḗ), it remains unclear whether the reference here is to ‘prudence’ (Bernsdorff 1992, 23; LfgrE s.v. πινυτή; Scodel 2008, 35) – something in demand generally, as well as in the present situation – or to the military know-how that both Aias (198 f.) and Hektor (235–241) stressed prior to the duel (Barck 1976, 63; Kirk). Both prudence and military technique naturally follow from intelligence broadly conceived; the reference may thus be to both (but a distinction does exist: in Book 13, Polydamas confronts Hektor with the statement that although the god granted him ‘the actions of warfare’, he did not give him competence in counsel [13.727 ff.: Kirk]). – On the significance of intelligence in war, 198–199n. (cf. the pair of opposites ‘craft and strength’: 142n.). — given: 21n. 286 ἀρχέτω· αὐτὰρ ἐγώ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀρχέτω: 3rd-pers. sing. imperative. — αὐτὰρ ἐγώ: ‘I for my part’ (cf. R 24.2). — μάλα: adv., ‘willingly’. 287 προσέειπε: = προσεῖπε (cf. 23n.). 288 Αἶαν: vocative of Αἶας. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 289 περί: adv., ‘by far’. — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).

Commentary

147

πινυτήν: ‘wisdom, understanding’; the third divine gift beside ‘strength’ and ‘size’; Od. 20.70–72 is similar (Penelope on the daughters of Pandareos). In the Iliad only here (and the perhaps related ἐπίνυσσεν at 14.249 [see ad loc.]); in the Od. 8× noun and adj. πινυτός (repeatedly of Penelope). πεπνυμένος, on which 275–276n. (Kirk; LfgrE; for the etymology, see DELG and Frisk s.v. πέπνυμαι), is also related. — φέρτατός ἐσσι: cf. 105n.

290–292 290 f. ≈ 29 f. (see ad loc.), cf. 376 f., 395 f.; 292 = 378, 397. — The verses are comprised of elements that occur in Apollo’s suggestion of a duel (29 f.) on the one hand, and in Priam’s call for a truce (376–378 = 395–397; overview in Kirk) on the other. — Daimon: ‘divinity’, in general synonymous with ‘god’ (theós): LfgrE; cf. 3.420n. Significantly, the passage mentions no specific proor anti-Trojan deity, since Hektor cannot know the outcome of the war (Jörgensen’s principleP); contrast Apollo in the lines that follow the iteratum, where he names goddesses hostile to the Trojans (31b–32n.); cf. de Jong (1987) 2004, 153. μαχησόμεθ(α): either a fut. with concessive meaning in the sense ‘we will fight again then, as we must’ (similar to the iteratum; see 29–31a n.; cf. Schw. 2.291; Tzamali 1996, 406–408: ‘voluntative’ future) or a short-vowel aor. subjunc.: ‘let us fight again then’, cf. 24.667n. — διακρίνῃ: ‘separates’, not only in a physical sense on the battlefield but also via a clear division into victors and vanquished (LfgrE). — ἑτέροισι: The reference is to the totality of Trojans and Greeks (‘one of the two parties’), but already παυσώμεσθα at 290, μαχησόμεθ(α) at 291 and ἄμμε at 292 could refer both to Hektor and Aias as individual warriors, as well as to the entirety of the armies (differently AH and Leaf with analytical conclusions).

293–298 Hektor’s ideas about how the two parties will receive their respective champion corresponds to his imagining the time after the battle at 77–86 (76– 91n.): in both cases, he employs a tis-speechP (‘a man already living in the poetic tradition that is to overtake him’: Martin 1989, 137); on this, 87–91n. After his experience of defeat, Hektor’s portrayal here is more balanced than in the previous tis-speech and thus decidedly anticlimactic (joy of the Greeks in 2 verses, joy of the Trojans in 3; preceded by 4 verses on the possibility of being defeated and 11 verses on the possibility of victory). This is combined with a humbler perspective: Hektor is addressing the immediate future rather than, as before, aiming at a speaker whose temporal remove is stressed by the threefold repetition of the term ‘some day’ (87, 90, 91): Grethlein 2006, 229 f.

290 παυσώμεσθα: on the ending, R 16.2. 291 σήμερον: = τήμερον ‘for today’. — μαχησόμεθ(α): fut. or (short-vowel) subjunc. (R 16.3, R 21.2). — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). 292 ἄμμε: = ἡμᾶς (R 14.1). — δώῃ = δῷ (R 6).

148

Iliad 7

293 = 282. This verse was athetized by Aristarchus; Hektor’s repetition of the herald’s words was apparently understood as a specious excuse for breaking off the fight (schol. A on 7.282 and 293; on this, Lührs 1992, 247–249). But it seems appropriate in terms of character psychology that Hektor wants to save face by repeating the herald’s arguments, particularly given the general use of platitudes at the ‘breathless’ beginning of his speech (van Wees 1992, 388 n. 75; 288–302n.; cf. Kirk on 290–293: ‘a repetition of Idaios’ words would accord well with the ingratiating generalizations and excuses to which Hector seems to have resorted’). If the verse is athetized, ὡς σύ τ’ ἐϋφρήνῃς (294) should be taken as dependent on παυσώμεσθα (290), while 291 f. would be parenthetical.

294 Thus you may bring joy: The joy of family or followers at a hero’s return from battle is a typical motif in the Iliad (6.480–481n.); see also 306 ff. In Hektor’s case, the present passage will find an unhappy echo at 24.704–706: when his body is brought into the city, Kassandra recalls the joy the women and men of Troy used to feel when he returned from battle alive. (On Hektor’s role as the ‘protector of the city’, 24.499n.) – In the present passage, Hektor appears to try to convey that Aias’ men feared for the latter just as much as the Trojans feared for Hektor (Stoevesandt 2004, 211), a notion that is clearly refuted in the narrator text (306–312n.). ὡς: The meaning here is between modal (‘in this manner’) and final (‘so that’): Weber 1884, 9–11; Chantr. 2.267 (‘in the manner of’ [transl.]); Wilmott 2007, 159 (‘in such a way’ / ‘so as’). — ἐϋφρήνῃς: The verb is frequently used in the Iliad to mean ‘make (one’s associates) glad (by returning)’ (also 297; 5.688 ≈ 17.28); also at 24.102 in the sense of being relieved from concern (Latacz 1966, 168 f.; LfgrE). — νηυσὶν Ἀχαιούς: an inflectable VE formula; often after a preposition (παρά, ἐπί), as here. Also at 19.160 with Ἀχαιούς, elsewhere always with gen. Ἀχαιῶν: in total 15× Il., 1× Od.; after caesura A 4 also at 24.225; cf. 1.559n. (on ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν); 19.160n. (on θοῇς ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιούς). 295 μάλιστα: goes not only with ἔτας but also with ἔτας καὶ ἑταίρους in contrast to πάντας … Ἀχαιούς (294); cf. Ulf 1990, 131 n. 9. — ἔτας: here likely ‘compatriots’; the reference is to Aias’ fellow Greek warriors in a broader sense and to the members of his Salaminian contingent in particular (van Wees 1992, 272); the phrase ἔτας καὶ ἑταίρους thus does not denote strictly separated groups of individuals (one’s men can also be one’s friends): LfgrE. On the etymology and broader meaning (‘kin’), 6.239n. — οἵ τοι ἔασιν: perhaps derogatory (‘the ones you have’) in contrast to the worthy men and women of Troy at 297 (Kirk). The contrast between the Greek camp and its limited number of compatriots and friends on the one hand, and the Trojan city with all of its inhabitants on the other, reverberates here in any case.

293 = 282 (see ad loc.). 294 ἐϋφρήνῃς: aor. subjunc. of εὐφραίνω ‘delight’. — νηυσίν: on the declension, R 12.1. 295 μάλιστα (ϝ)έτας: on the prosody, R 4.3; likewise κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ and Πριάμοιο (ϝ)άνακτος in the following verse. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἔασιν: = εἰσίν (R 16.6).

Commentary

149

296 ≈ 2.803; 2nd VH = 17.160, 21.309, Od. 3.107. 297 ≈ 6.442, 22.105. Τρῶας … καὶ Τρῳάδας: a polar expressionP. — ἑλκεσιπέπλους: In the Iliad, this is a distinctive epithetP of the women of Troy (3×, see iterata); also 1× ‘Hes.’ of the women of Thebes. It means ‘trailing one’s dress, with a long train’ or instead ‘gathering one’s dress’: see 6.442n., where also for the word formation (cf. 3.197n.) and semantic field.

298 2nd VH ≈ 18.376. αἵ τέ μοι εὐχόμεναι: literally ‘who, praying to me’. μοι could also be understood as an ethical dat. with the sense ‘for me’ (AH; Faesi/Franke; Leaf; Reynen 1983, 53 f.; LfgrE s.v. 821.48) and would thus sound humble: Hektor would be admitting to being in need of prayers (cf. van der Valk 1964, 396 f. n. 101; cf. West 2011 ad loc.: ‘recalling the women’s supplication in Z’). But at the same time, εὔχομαι with an ethical dat. is not attested elsewhere in early epic; usually the dative refers to one or more deities who are being prayed to, as well as occasionally to human beings: πάντες δ’ εὐχετόωντο θεῶν Διὶ Νέστορί τ’ ἀνδρῶν (11.761); cf. expressions connoting ‘pray to someone as to a god’ (16.605n.; cf. 4–7n.) and Odysseus’ address to Athene in human form at Od. 13.230 f. The translation ‘to me’ thus suggests itself (Stoevesandt 2004, 211; cf. Muellner 1976, 50 f.; Kirk’s suggestion is overly complicated: ‘who as they gather to give thanks to the gods will include me in their prayers’). – Hektor’s statement is thus likely to be taken as strongly hyperbolic, which seems presumptuous after his close escape from the battle and his earlier being ‘afraid of his own daring’ (216n.). On the comparison of Hektor to a god (by himself and by others), also Nagy 1979, 148 f.; cf. 47n.; on hero cults, NTHS 50–53. — θεῖον … ἀγῶνα: According to the scholia, this is generally an area where statues of gods have been erected, i.e. the main assembly place on an acropolis (differently in the iteratum; there likely the actual ‘assembly square of the gods’; cf. ‘Hes.’ Sc. 205 [ἀθανάτων ἐν ἀγῶνι]): Kirk; LfgrE s.v. ἀγών; 18.376n.

299–305 The battle concludes with an exchange of gifts; its aim is to manifest and affirm the honor both warriors have won (cf. Scodel 2008, 26 f., 35); on gift exchange in Homeric society in general, Scheid-Tissinier 1994; Seaford 1994, 13–25). – The gifts appear roughly equivalent; in any case, no difference is highlighted, unlike in the case of the exchange of armor between Glaukos and Diomedes in Book 6 (6.234–236n.) (Postlethwaite 1998, 94). – The gifts will bring no luck to their recipients in the continuation of the myth: Hektor will be tied to the chariot by means of the belt by Achilleus, and Aias will throw himself onto the sword given by Hektor (Soph. Aias 661 ff., 815 ff., 1026 ff.; on this, Zanker 1992, 22 n. 8; Seaford loc. cit. 392 f.; on additional parallels between Sophoclean Aias and Hektor, see Maronitis 2004, 94 f. [Aias’ ‘homily’

296 Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 297 ἐϋφρανέω: fut. of εὐφραίνω. On the uncontracted form, R 6. — Τρῴαδας (ϝ)ελκεσιπέπλους: digamma is not taken into account (R 4.6). 298 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

150

Iliad 7

with Tekmessa, the decision-weighing monologue ‘death or shame’, issues surrounding burial]). Knowledge of the cynical continuation of the story cannot be safely assumed for either the poet of the Iliad or his audience (West 2011 on 399–305). At the same time, it is clear that ‘reconciliation’ in the present scene was never taken as an optimistic scenario or even as peace made by the two heroes (as e.g. in the case of Glaukos and Diomedes: 6.226); even within the confines of the Iliad, they will soon confront each other again (1–312n. [4.3]). 299 glorious: Here the epithet is a general expression of esteem: ‘glorious, excellent, splendid’ (LfgrE). It is not the gifts that are highly renowned but the interaction between the two heroes (Sammons 2010, 130 with n. 76). περικλυτά: placed emphatically in hyperbaton; cf. 16.517n. The adj., related to κλέος, may point to Hektor’s constant efforts to gain fame (Mackie 1996, 98).

300–302 300 ≈ 3.297, 3.319, 4.85, 17.414; 1st VH ≈ 12.317; 2nd VH: an inflectable VE formula (3.111n.). — Hektor again imagines an external perspective in a tisspeechP; see 293–298n. The capping formula, common elsewhere, is missing (‘someone will one day speak in this manner’ vel sim.; cf. Schneider 1996, 31– 35); this reinforces the impression that the contented words of ‘a Greek or a Trojan’ represent Hektor’s own perspective (de Jong 1987, 71). Similar to the ‘funerary inscription’ outlined at 89 f., these lines have an epigrammatic quality: the juxtaposition between strife and friendship is picked up again at the end via the phrasing ‘joined … parted’ (Kirk); in addition, the text features a chiastic arrangement of the antithetical terms (see below). — friendship: The word should not be over-interpreted here: philótēs is a common term for ‘settlement, amicable agreement’ (see below; cf. Reucher 1983, 169 f.: ‘mutual respect’ [transl.]; Romilly 1997: ‘an amicable agreement’; Classen 2008, 187: ‘respect toward one another’ [transl.]); it is thus incorrect to suggest that Aias and Hektor are portrayed as ‘good friends’ (Kirk). It is nevertheless worth noting that a formal affirmation of the situation is of sufficient importance to Hektor that he wants to ascribe the statement to others, namely both Trojans and Greeks. Cf. 6.230–231 (see ad loc.): Diomedes similarly wants to ensure that the others take note of and acknowledge himself and Glaukos forgoing their

299 ἄγ(ε): originally imper. of ἄγω; ossified into a particle, it adds emphasis to requests. — δώομεν: short-vowel subjunc. (R 16.3); on the uncontracted form, R 6. 300 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — εἴπησιν: 3rd-pers. sing. aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). 301–302 ἠμὲν … ἠδ(έ): ‘on the one hand … on the other hand’ (R 24.4). — ἐμαρνάσθην … | … ἀρθμήσαντε: on the dual, R 18.1; likewise τὼ … διακρινθέντε (306). — ἔριδος πέρι: = περὶ ἔριδος (R 20.2). On the meaning, ↑. — διέτμαγεν: = διετμάγησαν (R 16.2); aor. pass. (with mid. sense) of διατμήγω ‘separate’ (↑).

Commentary

151

duel (see also Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 16), although his phrasing seems pragmatic and less formal than Hektor’s strongly stylized tis-speech. – Hektor is presumably concerned about his inferiority in the duel: he affirms, as if by way of compensation, that all is ‘above board’ (cf. schol. bT; AH on 299). — heart-consuming: 210n. εἴπησιν: on the ending in -ησιν (minus the ι subscr.), West 1998, ΧΧΧΙ. — ἠμὲν … ἠδ(έ): The particles lend emphasis to the antithesis (Kirk). — ἐμαρνάσθην … | … διέτμαγεν ἀρθμήσαντε: The antithetical predicates (ἐμαρνάσθην … | … διέτμαγεν ἀρθμήσαντε) and prepositional expressions (ἔριδος πέρι θυμοβόροιο … | … ἐν φιλότητι) are arranged chiastically (Schneider 1996, 63). The dual forms in the tis-speech underline the equilibrium between the warriors, which is very important to Hektor (Scodel 2008, 35). μάρνασθαι is synonymous with μάχεσθαι; it is attested only in the pres. and impf. (24.395n. with bibliography). — ἔριδος πέρι: final or modal: ‘for/in strife’; similarly with a verb of fighting at 16.476 συνίτην ἔριδος πέρι (see ad loc.; Schw. 2.501). — ἐν φιλότητι … ἀρθμήσαντε: ἀρθμῆσαι (‘settle, reach an agreement’) is a hapax legomenonP in early epic (beside only Od. 16.427 ἄρθμιος and h.Merc. 524 ἀρθμός); it refers to an absence of animosity (LfgrE), which is also expressed in the present passage by φιλότης (in combination also at h.Merc. 524 in the context of the peace pact between Hermes and Apollo: ἐπ’ ἀρθμῷ καὶ φιλότητι. On the meaning of φιλότης as ‘peace agreement’ – here not entirely appropriate – see 16.282n.) — διέτμαγεν: only here and at 1.531 = Od. 13.439 with the meaning ‘dissolve a meeting, go separate ways’ (LfgrE); the middle is elsewhere used mostly of crowds: ‘dissolve, scatter’; once of leaves of a door (‘open’ or ‘separated into constitutent parts’); in the active ‘cut up’ or metaphorically ‘cut off from’ or ‘cut through’ (LfgrE s.v. τμήγω).

303–305 1st VH of 303 = a VB formulaP (103n.); 304 = 23.825; 305 ≈ 6.219. — The gifts exchanged in the present passage find parallels elsewhere in early epic: during the funerary games in Book 23, Achilleus likewise presents Diomedes with a sword with scabbard and strap (1–312n. [IV]). Oineus gives a valuable belt to Bellerophontes as a guest-gift: belts have a protective function, but are also luxury items with precious embellishments; here the prestigious purple dye is an added feature (6.219–220n. with bibliography). – Cf. Eumaios’ belt at Od. 14.72, presumably made from a simple piece of rope (Shear 2000, 203 n. 134). — with nails of silver: argyróēlos is an epithet of ‘chair’ and ‘sword’; the silver nails or rivets attach the mounting of the grip to the blade and also serve as decoration; archaeological examples are known from the Mycenaean period (15th cent.) and the 7th cent. B.C. (Cyprus): 2.45n.; 14.405n.; 18.389n. with bibliography. — well-cut sword-belt: The sword strap was worn across the right shoulder, so that the weapon lay flat against the left hip (2.45n.; 14.404– 406n.; 16.803n., all with bibliography). ‘Well-cut’ (eǘtmētos) is an epithet of leather items, perhaps originally of carrying straps that had to lie flat (LfgrE s.v. ἐύτμητος). — shining with purple: The purple dye renders the strap a prestige object; see 6.219–220n. with bibliography.

152

Iliad 7

δίδου: Relative to the preceding aor. δῶκε, the impf. expresses contemporaneity (Leaf), ‘parallel focus’ (Wakker 1998, 364), or at least the repetition of the action (Schw. 2.278). Even after a series of aorists of the same lexeme, the final verb can be put in the imperfect, indicating inclusion in a series of actions as well as their conclusion (Crespo 2014); here approximately ‘he gave in return’.

306–417a The contemporaneity of the Greek and Trojan assemblies underlines the parallel nature of events (Hölscher 1939, 47; see Introduction, end). The connecting figure of Idaios the herald reports the results of the Trojan assembly to the Greeks and helps shape the sequence into a whole; developing from the dichotomy of the dueling scene, it is almost as if it shows two sides of the same assembly (Bannert 1987, 18 f., also on the central positioning of the present assembly scene between those in Books 1, 2, 9 and 19 that are key for the mḗnis-storyline). 306–312 The parting of the two sides is portrayed roughly symmetrically (see also 311n.), albeit without concealing the imbalance: after two synoptic verses (‘one – the other’), Hektor and Aias are led back by their companions (AH: ‘in a celebratory procession’ [transl.]). On the Trojan side, the unexpected ‘deliverance’ is highlighted (‘alive’, ‘unwounded’, ‘escaping’, ‘still alive’), while on the Greek side, the emphasis is on Aias’ ‘victory’ (níkē; the Greeks take as a victory Hektor’s request for a termination of the duel [290], which Aias had suggested [284–286]). Both interpretations are focalizedP by the characters (307 f.: ‘who were made happy | when they saw him …’; 312: ‘happy in his victory’) rather than the narrator (de Jong [1987] 2004, 101 f.; Nünlist 2002, 449; Grethlein 2006, 230 f. [with reference to Aias’ statement at 191 f. ‘I myself am made happy | in my heart, since I think I can win over brilliant Hektor’]). A realistic assessment is nevertheless conveyed: Aias prevailed in the duel; Hektor was wounded and went to ground; his companions are glad that he is still alive; it was also Hektor who asked that the duel be broken off (schol bT and AH on 312; Kirk on 311–312; Stoevesandt 2004, 211; cf. 3.457, where Agamemnon determined that Menelaos won the duel in Book 3 after Paris was carried off ). At the same time, Hektor did fight valiantly and did win kléos: ‘what is a victory for Ajax and his friends is a lucky outcome, but not a defeat, for Hector and his’ (Scodel 2008, 27). 306–308 307b–308 = 5.514 f. (of Aineias following his rapture). — ὃ μέν: the latter (8n.). — the thronging Trojans: hómados (‘crowd, throng’) in general connotes ‘noise’, usually of the fray of battle (16.295–296n.; 19.81–82n.). More often

306 διακρινθέντε ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — μετά (+ acc.): ‘among, into’. 307 ἤϊ’, ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.1. ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — ἤϊ(ε): = ᾔει ‘went’. — κίε: 2n. — τοί: = οἵ, anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3).

Commentary

153

than the Greeks, the Trojans are portrayed as noisy and lacking discipline (schol. bT on 306–307; Kirk; 3.8–9n. with bibliography; cf. 4.433–438n.); at the same time, the term is used twice of Greek assemblies (2.96, 19.81): Krapp 1964, 12 f. τὼ δὲ διακρινθέντε ὃ μὲν … | … ὃ δ(έ): on the distributive apposition of two subjects after a dual, 8n., end (on the nom. part. rather than a partitive gen., Ruijgh 165; Hillgruber 1994, 166). Here the parallelism is emphasized via the repetition of synonymous verbs (ἤϊ(ε) … κίε) (24.509n.). The hiatus διακρινθέντε ὅ represents a break in the flow of the language and depicts the parting of the two warriors aurally (Fortassier 1989, 46). — ἐχάρησαν: χαίρω and its derivatives are often used for sudden joy at meeting someone, particularly at the return of a leader from a dangerous situation (in addition to the iteratum, also e.g. 5.682, 6.481, 10.541, Od. 2.249, 10.419, 23.32: Latacz 1966, 56 f., 68 f., cf. 142 f.); cf. 294n. — ἀρτεμέα: ‘whole, unharmed’; the etymology is uncertain. Both here and in the iteratum, the adj. characterizes a situation that surprises \ pessimistic companions; this is less clear in the only other attested example at Od. 13.43 (Odysseus is hoping to find his loved ones unharmed at home): LfgrE.

309 ≈ 6.502. — Aias is again described as terrifying, as at 208 ff.; the Trojan relief thus becomes comprehensible (Kirk). — the unconquerable hands: The emotional, originally hyperbolic expression (in the Iliad more commonly in direct speech than in narrator-text: de Jong [1987] 2004, 141; examples with paraphrases in Kelly 2007, 338 f.; cf. character languageP) seems to have been used in this passage due to its focalization by the relieved Trojans (de Jong loc. cit. 103, cf. 105 f. with n. 14). μένος καὶ χεῖρας: a common combination; usually, as here, after caesura B 2 (9× Il., 1× Od.; 1× nom., otherwise acc.): 6.502n., where also for variants. — χεῖρας ἀάπτους: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc. 10× Il., 3× Od., 4× Hes.; beside these, only 1× ἀάπτους χεῖρας after caesura B 2 at 1.567); of Hektor’s opponents, but also of the man himself (17.638; cf. 13.49 ff.). The meaning of ἄαπτος was probably originally ‘unspeakable, unpronounceable’ (via diectasis *ἆπτος < ἄ(ϝ)επτος), in which case it was likely understood as ‘untouchable’ > ‘unstoppable, terrible’ via a connection with ἅπτομαι (1.567n.; 16.244n.; both with bibliography).

310 escorted him ǀ back to the town: It has been judged problematic that Hektor’s farewell to Andromache in Book 6 is not the final one, even though she expects it to be (6.502 f.; cf. 6.365–368n.; 6.497–502n.); at the same time, no further meeting of the spouses is described in Book 7 or elsewhere. Hektor’s remaining nights in Troy (three in total, followed apparently by two nights in the field) are not rendered in detail, with the exception of the first after the duel, which is filled with consultations and discussions. The ‘arithmetical fan-

310 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — προτὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the hiatus, R 5.4. — προτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — ἄστυ, ἀελπτέοντες: on the hiatus, R 5.6; on the synizesis ἀελπτέ ͜ οντες, R 7. — σόον: sc. αὐτόν; on the uncontracted form (Attic σῶν), R 6.

154

Iliad 7

tasy of philologists’ is out of place here (Schadewaldt [1956] 1970, 22–24 [cf. already Scott 1921, 210–215], contra Wilamowitz 1916, 308, and Jachmann 1949, 21 f.). ἀελπτέοντες: A hapax legomenonP in early epic; a denominative verb in -έω from the negated verbal adjectives ἄελπτος (of children born late in their parents’ lives, when they are no longer expected: ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.95 M.-W., h.Ap. 92, h.Cer. 219, 252) and ἀελπής (of land sighted unexpectedly: Od. 5.408): LfgrE; cf. ἀνηκούστησεν (16.676) from ἀνήκουστος, ἀπιστέω ‘doubt’ (Od. 13.339) from ἄπιστος, etc. (16.676–677a n. with bibliography).

311 1st VH ≈ 15.501; 2nd VH from caesura A 4 = 5.668, 7.430. αὖθ’ ἑτέρωθεν: signals a change in perspective and scene (1.247a n.); αὖθ(ε) indicates the simultaneity of events (likewise at 345: Bonifazi 2012, 230 [cf. 218 f. n. 109]; cf. Richardson 1990, 115 f.). See also 419n.; 430n.

312 1st VH to caesura C 1 = 23.36. κεχαρηότα: stative intrans. perf.: ‘with enthusiastic joy’ (Latacz 1966, 64 f. [transl.]; see also Schw. 2.263).

313–482 Assemblies, burials, construction of the wall The second and shorter main section of Book 7 follows the conclusion of the duel: the last negotiations concerning a possible end to the war and events surrounding the building of the wall. Nestor’s speech in the Greek assembly sets out further proceedings as a ‘table of contents speech’ (de Jong on Od. 1.81–95 [cf. 24.146–158n.]): in addition to a truce and the cremation of the fallen, Nestor suggests building a wall and moat as a defensive structure around the encampment of ships; this is realized at 435–442. The appearance and composition of the structure are described at 336 ff. and 435 ff., and are repeatedly mentioned later. The ‘feat of constructing the wall’ (Reinhardt 1961, 192 [transl.]) has two parts: on the interior there is a wall of stone and wood (12.28 f.) with towers and gates, while on the exterior there is a ditch with a palisade. The distance between wall and ditch is described somewhat inconsistently: the impression is sometimes that they are situated at no great distance from one another (7.341, 12.4, 12.66), while at other times the distance is enough to serve as a camp for 700 guards (9.67, 9.85–88; cf. also 8.213–215, 10.180 ff., 18.215); on this, see below (p. 157). The towers in the wall are built overlooking the gates and primarily serve as protection for them (438); they are fitted with supports and reinforcements, the nature of which is not entirely clear (Leaf on 12.259–260). The gates’ leaves are secured

312 ἄγον: unaugmented impf. of ἄγω.

Commentary

155

with double door-beams (12.453 ff.); on this, see the overview in Reinhardt loc. cit.; Iakovidis 1997, 218 f.; Boyd 1995, 183; Mannsperger 1995, 1998, 2001; visualizations in Clay 2011, 46 f., 50. Although the man-made wall surrounding the encampment is less durable than the divinely made city walls of Troy (Trachsel 2007, 44 f.; cf. 14.52–63n.), overall Troy’s impressive structure with its towers, gates and one weak spot (13.682–684; cf. 6.433–434) provides a clear parallel for the Achaian construction (Porter 2011, 14; on the possibility of inspiration from the city walls of the lower city of Troia VI, Mannsperger 1995, 349 f.; Luce 1998, 149–151; on further parallels with the city walls of Thebes as the primary model for imagining the history of seige-warfare in the heroic period, Singor 1992). Poseidon thus considers the wall as competing with the Trojan city walls constructed by Apollo and himself (7.451–453). Via the parallelism of the walls, the encampment of ships becomes a counter-image of Troy itself; its status as a fortified ‘city’ allows the exchange of roles between attackers and defenders that will determine events in Books 8–18 of the epic (Morrison 1994; Mannsperger loc. cit.; Stanley 1993, 96 f.; Rabel 1997, 106–112; Tsagalis 2012, 103; see also Raaflaub 1993, 47 f. on the differences and similarities between the encampment of ships and a ‘regular’ polis). As a result, the Trojan breach of the wall in Book 12 (Hektor with Zeus’ aid: 12.445–471) paradoxically appears as an anticipationP of the fall of the city, particularly since at the beginning of Book 12 (12.3–35) reference is made to the future complete eradication of all traces of the Greek wall by the gods and thus to an episode that will take place after the end of the war (Boyd loc. cit. 196 f.; cf. 200–202; Porter loc. cit. 12–14; for a far-reaching interpretation of the wall’s disappearance as a sign of the end of the age of heroes, see Patzek 1992, 184 f.; Garcia 2013, 109 f.). – The fortification of the encampment of ships as a ‘city’ marks the end of the retrospective phase, during which the war takes on a life of its own and turns into a fact unmoored from its origins, unquestionable and inevitable (see Introduction p. 12 f.; Kloss loc. cit. 329 f.; Porter loc. cit. 10). The depiction of the building of the wall also appears to have narratological motivations in a number of other ways: a. As a new topographic focus (2.793n.), the wall serves to illustrate a new phase in the narrative (‘mental guide to lead [the poet] and his audience to another phase of the narrative’: Tsagalis 2012, 104); b. it gives the Greeks a false sense of security, thus dramatizing their situation; furthermore, it allows for the dramatic battle for the wall in Book 12 (Reichel 1994, 319; Raaflaub loc. cit. 48); c. as a retardingP element, it delays the return of Achilleus, thus prolonging the narrative (Tsagalis loc. cit. 104 f.); d. via the link to the burial site for the fallen, it again picks up the topic of burial (cf. 76–91n.), which runs through the Iliad from the start (1.4n.) and,

156

Iliad 7

in the context of the difficulties surrounding Hektor’s burial, will also characterize the final two Books (Davies 1986, esp. 74 f.); e. the destruction of the wall in the future is an illustration of ‘the fragility of human existence … when set against the eternity of nature and the immortal gods’ (De Jong 1987, 88 f.); on the parallels between the divine destruction of the walls and Near Eastern myths of the deluge, see Scodel 1982; West (1995) 2011a, 199 ff.; also 443–464n.); f. the passage can be read as a metapoetic image for poetic creation itself – in the sense not only of the creation of fictional objects but also of their destruction (Porter loc. cit. 18: ‘Homer shows himself to be a maker, not only of things, but of their destruction’; similarly Clay loc. cit. 57–59) – or of the transitoriness of material objects in contrast to the permanence of the epic (Taplin 1992, 136–140; similarly Heiden 2008, 107 f.; cf. Ford 1992, 147–157 who, probably overstating the matter, reads the wall as a symbol of the written text of the Iliad that is threatened by destruction); g. the situation of the Trojan war is adapted to a model more familiar to the contemporary audience, namely war between neighboring cities (depicted at e.g. 1.152 ff., 9.529 ff., 11.670 ff., 18.509 ff. [see 18.509–540n.]: Raaflaub 1993, 48 with n. 22). The wall-building episode has been deemed problematic in ways similar to the duel in Book 7: fault has been found with inconsistencies in motives for the construction and in the description of the structure on the one hand, while the fortification of the Greek camp in Year Ten has been perceived as anachronistic (already by Strabo [13.1.36]) on the other; this disapproval culminated in athetesis of the entire episode (by Page 1959, 315–324; refuted by West [1969] 2011; bibliography in Bolling 1925, 92; Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 124 f. with n. 2; see also Kirk on 7.327–343). Criticism of the passage is supported by a judgment of Thucydides, who places the construction of the wall in the immediate aftermath of the Greek arrival at Troy: 1.11.1 ‘After [the Greeks] arrived, they won a battle – this is clear: [otherwise] they would not have built a wall for the camp’ (on attempts at conjecture that aim to harmonize the passage with the Homeric text, see Kirk loc. cit.; on speculative attempts to find the ‘Thucydidean’ wall of the first year of the war in other passages of the Iliad and distinguish it from the fortifications built in the tenth year of the war according to the Iliad, see Porter loc. cit. 8–12; Kloss 2001, 328 f. with n. 11; an overview of scholarship regarding the issue in its entirety is provided by Garcia 2013, 102 n. 10). But it is unlikely that the episode has been interpolated: the construction of a wall during the period of Achilleus’ ‘wrath’ – i.e. in Year Ten of the war – is also reported elsewhere in the Iliad (9.348–350; on the unconvincing atheteses of this passage, see Kirk loc. cit.; cf. a possible depiction of the wall on the northwest frieze of the West House in Akrotiri/Thera from the 2nd millen-

Commentary

157

nium B.C.: Morris 1989, 24–26). At the same time, it is entirely plausible that the wall-building episode in the Iliad represents an innovative adaptation of mythical tradition: the dictum ‘the poet built it and tore it down’ attributed to Aristotle (in Strabo 13.1.36) is probably to be understood in this sense (Boyd loc. cit. 187 f.). Thucydides thus either undertakes a tacit correction of Homeric chronology or is drawing upon untransmitted non-Homeric traditions, according to which the wall was built at the beginning of the war. A shift of the construction of the wall from the first to the tenth year of the war, i.e. mirroring in the current mḗnis-story an episode that is earlier per se, would also explain why Nestor’s suggestion occurs somewhat abruptly – at the moment, the Greeks are under no particular pressure to defend themselves (AH on 337; Kirk loc. cit.; but cf. West [1969], 2011, 256). The placement of the episode is made plausible, however, by the consequences of Achilleus’ abstention from battle: although the Greeks are prevailing for the time being, Trojan successes are increasing, and the Greeks have suffered losses; the encampment of ships is thus more exposed at the end of the first day of battle, i.e. in Book 7, than it was previously; the absent Achilleus is replaced by the wall, as it were (Davison 1965, 16–20; Tsagarakis 1969, 129–131; Usener 1990, 78; Reichel loc. cit. 317; Boyd loc. cit. 194–196; Stoevesandt 2004, 52–56; Garcia 2013, 102–104). The varying distance between wall and ditch aside, the different descriptions of the fortification are not contradictory (Reichel loc. cit. 319–324), although it does seem as if individual parts of the construction are not taken into consideration over the course of the narrative: the ditch or the wall is sometimes ignored (Boyd loc. cit. 188–191 with examples; see also Porter loc. cit. 11 with n. 24 on the scholia and further bibliography). A judgement of these inconsistencies ‘in accord with the criteria of a realism that is more appropriate to a 19th-century novel’ would be misguided (Mannsperger loc. cit. 350 n. 3 [transl.]; see also 1998, 288 on the futility of demands for archaeological evidence for structures described in Homer; similarly Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 34). Poetic motivations could be central here as well, apart from the breaks that the oral composition of the text inevitably entails: depending on dramaturgical necessity, over the course of the action of the Iliad individual parts of the fortifications are mentioned as needed by the narratorP, i.e. individually and without consideration of the other parts, or are sometimes described as more durable, sometimes as less (16.369n.; Owen 1946, 78 f.; Delebecque 1951, 103–109; Boyd loc. cit., 204 f.; Porter loc. cit. 30 f.), ‘just as all other props are present only where necessary’ (Reinhardt loc. cit. 203 [transl.]); cf. the inconsistent description of Achilleus’ shield depending on the situation (219n.).

158

Iliad 7

313–432 Assemblies of the Greeks and of the Trojans 313–344 The Greeks take their evening meal. Nestor proposes a truce during which the bodies of the slain are to be recovered and buried. He plans for a protective wall to be built around the encampment. General agreement. 313–322 The sacrifice scene is composed entirely of formulaic verses (see iterata). It is a short version of the type-sceneP ‘sacrifice’; for the most complete version, see 1.447–468n. with bibliography (also the diagrammatic overview B in Shear 2000, 120); on the recurring elements ‘flaying’ and ‘preparing’ used here as well, 24.622n. – The present description largely omits elements from the first phases of the sacrifice (sacralization, details of what is carried out) by only describing the desacralizing elements of preparation and consumption (317– 318n.) – with the exception of the mention of the act of slaughter itself (hiéreusen at 314 means both to slaughter and to sacrifice: 6.173–174n.; 24.125n.) and of Zeus as the addressee. In the present passage, the focus is on the prominent description of the meal that serves to honor the ‘victor’ (Arend 1933, 65 f. with n. 4; cf. Tsagarakis 1982, 80–82) and demonstrates the authority of the supreme military leader (Hitch 2009, 141 ff.; cf. Ulf 1990, 195–202 on the bonding function of distributive meals in Homeric epic; Rundin 1996 on the political implications of meals in Homeric epic generally). – The brief sacrificial scene also serves as a hinge between the duel and the assembly, and provides a stage for Nestor’s suggestion at 326 ff. (Hitch loc. cit. 110); the latter is the case also at 2.432–441 (cf. Kirk on 313–324 and 314–315). The fact that sacrificial scenes are described only on the Greek side, although community-building meals also fit well in an urban scenario, is in keeping with the normal pattern of the Iliad offering fundamentally more detailed descriptions of hierarchical and other relationships within the Greek camp (Mackie 1996, 130 f.). – On the realia, van Straten 1995; Hitch loc. cit. esp. 18 ff. (consideration of literary descriptions of sacrifices in Homeric epic in relation to sacrifical practice attested elsewhere). 313 = 9.669; 1st VH ≈ 11.618, 23.38, 24.448. — the shelters: Like the accommodations of other heroes, Agamemnon’s dwelling is denoted by klisíē (in the pl., as frequently of the dwellings of the Greek leaders). The term is used for temporary accommodations, ‘tent, hut, barracks’, e.g. also of the housing of Eumaios the swine-herd in the Odyssey (14.5–14a/48–51a). But it can assume luxurious proportions, e.g. the dwelling of Achilleus in the Greek camp, which is comprised of a series of solidly built rooms and is described in the manner of a palace, in accord with the dignity of its inhabitant (24.448–456n.; 24.448n. 313 οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — κλισίῃσιν ἐν: = ἐν κλισίῃσιν (R 20.2). — κλισίῃσιν … Ἀτρεΐδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. — γένοντο: ‘they were’; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary

159

with bibliography; LfgrE). Agamemnon’s dwelling can hardly be envisioned as lesser than Achilleus’ (which is described in detail in Book 24, since it serves as the stage for the meeting between Priam and Achilleus). 314–315 ≈ 2.402–403; 1st VH of 314 = Od. 13.24; 1st VH of 315 = 2nd VH Od. 19.420. — dedicated an ox among them: Agamemnon’s wealth and the generosity of his gesture are revealed in his choice of sacrificial animal: oxen are far more valuable than the more common sheep (2.402n.; 2.449n.; 18.559n.; Richter 1968, 44 ff.). Agamemnon’s concern for his wealth and its demonstration is revealed in Achilleus’ accusation that he is ‘greediest for gain of all men’ (1.122n.); this also becomes clear from the immense catalogue of gifts he will offer Achilleus for the latter’s return (9.120–157; on this, see Gaertner 2001, 300 f.; Sammons 2010, 115–131). — a … male: Male animals are more palatable and more expendable for the herd (LfgrE s.v. ἄρσην). — five-year-old: Animal husbandry in the Homeric period was geared toward the production of meat rather than dairy-products; cattle were thus slaughtered relatively young (2.403n. with bibliography). The youth of the animal is probably also indicative of the high quality of the meat. — all-powerful son of Kronos: The prayer at the iteratum 2.403 is in fact better motivated (2.400 f.: a prayer for return from battle unharmed); at the same time, this does not necessarily indicate a concordance interpolation in the present passage (thus West 2011 ad loc.). τοῖσι … | … Κρονίωνι: ‘for them [as a meal] … | … for the son of Kronos [as sacrifice]’, cf. Od. 13.24 f. (AH; Schw. 2.151). — ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectable VE formula (1.172n.). — ὑπερμενέϊ Κρονίωνι: an inflectable VE formula (2.350n.); on the meaning of the epithet and the length of the dat. ending –ι in ὑπερμενέϊ, 2.116n.

316–318 ≈ Od. 19.421–423; 1st VH of 316 = Od. 8.61. τὸν δέρον ἀμφί θ’ ἕπον: similar phrasing at 24.622; see ad loc. for additional parallels. — διέχευαν: related to διαχέω ‘cut up’ (ἔχε[υ]α is a root aor. related to *χέ[ϝ]ω: 3.10n. with bibliography); a technical term in early epic in the context of sacrifice/ slaughter; in addition to the iteratum Od. 19.421, also at Od. 3.456, 14.427 (LfgrE).

317–320 ≈ 1.465–468, 2.428–431. 317–318 = 24.623 f.; ≈ 1.465 f., 2.428 f., Od. 14.430 f.; 317 = Od. 19.422; ≈ Od. 3.462, 12.365, cf. Il. 9.210, Od. 14.75. 318: cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 316.1 M.-W.; 1st VH = Od. 19.423. — 317 is formulaic in meal scenes without a specially described sacrifice (24.623–

314 τοῖσι: dat. of advantage (↑). On the declension, R 11.2. — δέ: apodotic (R 24.3). 316–317 δέρον: 3rd-pers. pl. impf. of δέρω: ‘flay’. Unaugmented (R 16.1), likewise ἀμφὶ … ἕπον (3rd-pers. pl. impf. of ἀμφέπω, ‘were busy with, were preparing it’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2), πεῖραν (3rd-pers. pl. aor. of πείρω ‘skewer’) and μίστυλλον. — θ(ε): = τε. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἄρ(α): probably used mainly for metrical reasons; cf. R 24.1. 318 περιφραδέως: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἐρύσαντο: ‘pulled down’.

160

Iliad 7

624n.); 318 often serves as a transition to the phase of desacralization after a portion of the sacrifice has been set aside for the deity. Here the phase of sacralization is not depicted but is nonetheless likely implied (1.465n. with bibliography; 313–322n.; see also Pirenne-Delforge 2017, 144 f.). περιφραδέως: ‘expertly’; in early epic as an adverb concerning the preparation of meat (additionally 1× as adj. at h.Merc. 464): LfgrE. ‘Care’ is always strongly emphasized during the preparation of Homeric meals (here also ἐπισταμένως in 317): Lynn-George 1996, 17; cf. 24.623–624n. (the same combination with added εὖ κατὰ κόσμον in 622). – The long word bridges the B caesura, a phenomenon that occurs in less than 2 % of verses in early epic: M 6 with n. 10.

319–320 = 1.467 f., 2.430 f.; ≈ Od. 16.478 f.; 319 ≈ Od. 24.384; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 8.61; 320 = Il. 1.602, 23.56, Od. 19.425; 2nd VH = Il. 4.48, 24.69. — a fair portion: lit. ‘equal(ly distributed) meal’; here the particular sense is ‘appropriate, fitting’ (Ulf 1990, 195 with n. 52; Bernsdorff 1992, 96 f.; Hitch 2009, 108), lending special emphasis to the piece of the loin that Aias receives (321, see ad loc.). αὐτὰρ ἐπεί: signals a change in the action or a new scene section (Broccia 1967, 23 f.), frequently in the type-sceneP ‘sacrifice’ including ‘eating’ (1.469n.): the expression is repeated at 323. — τετύκοντο: a reduplicated aor. mid. related to τεύχω ‘prepare’ (1.467n. with bibliography). — θυμός: here specifically as the seat of the drive caused by hunger (LfgrE s.v. 1085.15 ff.); cf. θυμός as active subject with verbs of desiring, etc. (24–25n.). — δαιτὸς ἐΐσης: emphasized by the litotes οὐδὲ … ἐδεύετο (1.468n.). — ἐΐσης: see 250n. on ἐΐσην.

321 ≈ Od. 14.437. — the long cuts of the chine’s portion: Agamemnon offers the best cut to Aias as a special mark of honor, in a form of courtesy paid to guests or honored individuals: to the embassy by Achilleus and Patroklos at 9.207 f., to Telemachos and Peisistratos by Menelaos at Od. 4.65, to Demodokos by Odysseus at Od. 8.475, to Odysseus by Eumaios in the iteratum (Kirk; post-Homeric examples in Leaf). The head of the household frequently does the cutting and serving (24.625–626n.). In the present passage, the gesture by the supreme military leader might also express the recognition of the community as a whole (Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 280 f.). For other indications of honor during meals, Carlier 1984, 154–157; Ulf 1990, 183. — the long cuts: The reference is to the tender, juicy loins, which run along and downward from the middle of the spine (AH). — gave to Aias in honor: Agamemnon giving something (geraírō) to Aias here contrasts with him having taken away Achilleus’ gift of honor (géras) (cf. Scodel 2008, 27).

319 αὐτάρ: progressive (R 24.1). 320 οὐδέ: connective οὐδέ occurs in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — οὐδέ τι: τι is acc. of respect (R 19.1); cf. 27–28n. — ἐδεύετο: δεύομαι = δέομαι. — ἐΐσης: = ἴσης (↑). 321 νώτοισι … διηνεκέεσσι: on the pl., R 18.2; on the declension, R 11.2–3.

Commentary

161

322 = 1.102, 13.112. — wide-ruling Agamemnon: 107n. The ceremonial whole verse formula (1.36n.; 24.562n.) provides a clear contrast to the unadorned mention of Aias’ name at 321. ἥρως: 120–121a n.

323–344 The scene of the evening meal assumes features of an assembly via Nestor’s speech (on the type-sceneP, 1.54n.). Nestor is the only speaker, but this corresponds to his usual role of either initiating debates (in Achaian assemblies, this role is otherwise performed only by Agamemnon: Ruzé 1997, 52 with n. 49) or speaking the closing words that initiate action (otherwise only by Diomedes: Ruzé loc. cit. 58; Schulz 2011, 58 with n. 229; see also loc. cit. 50 with n. 212). The separation of meal and conversation, somewhat artificial in an informal setting, is typical of the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP (‘the contemporaneous as successive’: Arend 1933, 64 n. 1 [transl.]) and is not unusual in Homeric epic (cf. Od. 1.123 f., 3.69 f., 4.60 f.); here it is also due to the formulaic character of the meal scene (313–322n.). 323–326 = 9.92–95; in what follows in the iteratum, Nestor suggests the embassy be sent to Achilleus. 323 A formulaic verse: 7× Il., 14× Od., 1× h.Hom.; on modifications and additional formulaic verses at the end of a feast, Reece 1993, 24 f. — ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο: ‘let go the desire’; of the desire for food, drink, sex or sleep, but also for crying and lamenting (1.469n. with bibliography; on the possible antiquity of the verse, West [1988] 2011, 164). 324 began to weave his counsel: a common metaphor; in addition to the iteratum, cf. 9.93, also 6.187, Od. 5.356, 9.422, etc. (the object is sometimes mḗtis ‘plan, wisdom’, as here, sometimes dólos ‘cunning, plot’, or both); see 6.187n. with further bibliography. On the metaphor ‘weaving plots’, also Detienne/ Vernant [1974] 1978, esp. 137 f., 299 f.; Snyder 1981; Scheid/Svenbro (1994) 1996; see too LfgrE s.v. ὑφαίνω on the expression ‘weave songs’ originating in I-E poetic language; this is not attested in early epic, although semantic parallels exist (stéphei/rháptō); see Nünlist 1998, 110 ff. on weaving metaphors generally. – Nestor’s wisdom contrasts with the strength of the absent Achilleus (Nagy 1979, 48; in general on the juxtaposition of ‘brain-brawn’, 142n.); the clever plan of building a wall is supposed to protect the Greek forces in place of Achilleus. On Nestor’s mḗtis, see also the iteratum 9.93 (the plan of the embassy

323 καὶ ἐδητύος: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἐξ … ἕντο: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); ἕντο is (unaugmented) 3rd-pers. pl. aor. mid. of ἵημι (Attic εἷντο). — ἔρον: ἔρος, -ου, in Homer in place of Attic ἔρως, -ωτος, here with the general meaning ‘desire’. 324 τοῖς: ‘among them’ (↑). — ἤρχετο: mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23).

162

Iliad 7

to Achilleus) and 23.313 ff. (Nestor’s advice to his son before the horse race: repeated emphatic praise of cleverness as opposed to speed): Alden 2000, 105 n. 73. τοῖς: on the locative, 123n. — πάμπρωτος: ‘as the very first’; used as a predicative adj. only here and in the iteratum; elsewhere an adv. in -ον or -α (LfgrE). On the word formation, cf. παμποίκιλοι ‘all-variegated’ in 6.289 (see ad loc.); see also Leumann 1950, 101–105; Risch 213.

325–326 = Od. 24.52 f. 325 2nd VH = 2.5, 9.94, 10.17, 14.161, Od. 9.318, 9.424, 11.230, 24.52, ‘Hes.’ fr. 209.1 M.W., h.Ven. 235. — whose advice has shown best before this: At this point, Nestor has already repeatedly distinguished himself as a wise counsellor (his typical function in the Iliad: CH 2.3; 1.247b–252n.; 2.362–368n.; 6.66–72n.; in the minds of other characters, he is also the first point of call for those seeking advice, see 2.20 f., 2.370 ff., 10.17 ff., Od. 11.510: Schulz 2011, 30 with n. 124): in Book 1, he tried to reconcile Achilleus and Agamemnon (1.247 ff.); in Book 2, he supported Agamemnon’s proposal to call the men to arms (2.79 ff.), exhorted the men to persevere (2.337 ff.) during Agamemnon’s test of the troops (2.73– 75n.; 2.110–141n.) and advised Agamemnon on a psychologically wise deployment of them ‘by tribes, by clan’ (2.362); in the so-called Epipṓlēsis in Book 4, he proved himself an experienced and shrewd strategist, again in an encounter with Agamemnon (4.292–325 [see ad loc.]); in Book 6, he exhorted the fighters in a brief paraenetic speech to concentrate on fighting and leave despoiling for later (6.66 ff.); and in the present Book, he has again proved his paraenetic qualities (124–160n.). 326 A speech introductory formulaP, 9× Il., 6× Od.; a recommendation of the speaker now appearing (de Jong [1987] 2004, 199; here in addition to 325), although not necessarily a guarantee of the soundness of the advice itself (Kelly 2007, 375 n. 2), as becomes clear in the repetition at 367 (Priam supports Paris’ refusal to return Helen). ἔϋ φρονέων: ‘sensible’ in the sense ‘having in mind what is appropriate for the situation’, but also ‘well-meaning’ (LfgrE s.v. φρονέω 1041.48 ff., differently 1.73n.). σφιν goes with μετέειπεν (‘among them he spoke’: 123n.) but due to its position was probably taken already at an early date as a dat. of advantage with φρονέων (1.73n. with bibliography). — ἀγορήσατο: a denominative of ἀγορή; 24× Il./Od. in the VE formula ἀγορήσατο καὶ μετέειπεν (1.73n.; on synonym doubling, 1.160n.; 2.39n.).

325 πρόσθεν: adv., ‘earlier, previously’. — ἀρίστη: predicative. 326 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1); cf. 123n. — ἀγορήσατο: mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — μετέειπεν: = μετεῖπεν (cf. 23n.).

Commentary

163

327 = 385, 23.236; 1st VH = 23.272, 23.658 (on the phenomenon of formula clusters, 33n.). ἀριστῆες Παναχαιῶν: an inflectable VE formula (73n.).

328 flowing-haired Achaians: 85n. γάρ: like 73 above (see ad loc.), ‘anticipatory’ (Schw. 2.560 [transl.; with no mention of the previous passage]), ‘by inversion, preceding the fact explained, since, as’ (LSJ), followed by τώ at 331 (schol. A and bT; Denniston 71), as at 13.228–230, 15.739–741, 17.221–227, 17.338–340, 23.607–609 (AH).

329 whose dark blood: In Greek, blood is commonly described as ‘dark’ and rarely as ‘red’; on the terms in early epic, see 1.303n. with bibliography, also Neal 2006, 296. Elsewhere in early epic, kelainós, used in the present passage, denotes other dark items (waves, soil, fur) as well as atmospheric phenomena (night, a storm) and metaphorically the ‘heart’ (LfgrE s. v. κελαινός). — fair waters: a common epithetP of rivers (ëúrroos/ëurreḗs), of the Skamandros also at 14.433 (see ad loc.). 330 2nd VH ≈ Od. 10.560, 11.65. — the fierce war god: a common combination, also formulaic; the reference is to the heat and cruelty of war (2.440n. with bibliography), here perhaps also a pregnant use for the god Ares (CG 6) as helper of the Trojans (Erbse 1986, 161). — while their souls went down into the house of Hades: The echo of the phrasing in the prooimion (1.3, see also 333n.) lends special emphasis to Nestor’s speech (Clarke 1999, 149: ‘grand style’). ‘Soul’, psychḗ, here denotes the ‘sign’ of life, i.e. the ‘life-spirit’ that becomes the ‘death-spirit’ in the underworld; discussion of the term at 1.3n.; 16.856n.; 24.168n. with bibliography; see also 130–131n. 331 πόλεμον … Ἀχαιῶν: The reference is to the Greek battle activities that Agamemnon is supposed to stop temporarily; the Trojan activities remain potentially dangerous. See 343, where πόλεμος Τρώων denotes a possible enemy attack (LfgrE s. v. 1335.19 ff.). 332 κυκλήσομεν: ‘we will drive’, probably (short-vowel) aor. subjunc. rather than fut. by analogy with κατακείομεν (333), ποιήσομεν (339), ὀρύξομεν (341). – κυκλέω is a denominative of κύκλος, ‘wheel’, cf. Engl. ‘to wheel’ with the homonymous noun (LfgrE); a hapax legomenonP in early epic. On the transport of goods by wagon, 24.266–274n.

327 ἀριστῆες: = voc. pl. of ἀριστεύς ≈ ἄριστος; cf. R 3, R 11.3. 328 πολλοί: probably to be taken predicatively, ‘in large numbers’. — τεθνᾶσι: 3rd-pers. pl. perf. of θνῄσκω ‘die’. — κάρη κομόωντες: 85n. 329 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun functioning as a relative (R 14.5). — ἐΰρροον: to be taken with Σκάμανδρον; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 330 ῎Αϊδόσδε: on the suffix, R 15.3. 331 τώ: ‘therefore’. — ἠοῖ: dat. of ἠώς ‘dawn’ (Attic ἕως). 332 ἀγρόμενοι: aor. mid. part. of ἀγείρω, ‘gathered, assembled’. — ἐνθάδε: ‘here’ (R 15.3).

164

Iliad 7

333 1st VH = Hes. Op. 607, 816; cf. Od. 17.298 (ἡμιόνων τε βοῶν τε) and the 2nd VH of 24.782 (βόας ἡμιόνους τε). — them[selves]: Once more (330n.) there is an echo of the prooimion, which likewise distinguishes between the ‘souls’ of the heroes and ‘themselves’; autoús denotes human beings in their corporeality (1.4n.), often specifically the slain (Bonifazi 2012, 141–143). κατακείομεν: on the spelling, West app. crit. and Chantr. 1.9.

334–335 Burning the dead (79–80n.) and a subsequent secondary burial of the ashes are mentioned in early epic also in the case of Patroklos (23.237–244, 23.252–254), Hektor (24.782–801) and Achilleus (Od. 24.72–84) (24.795–798n.; Garcia 2013, 137 f., where also for a Hittite parallel); these burials are here anticipatedP (Louden 2006, 48; Shive 1996, 192). On the prominence of the topic of burials in the Iliad generally, and in Book 7 in particular, 76–91n. The repatriation of remains is not mentioned elsewhere, but the suggestion here makes sense (also as an anticipatory contrast to Hektor’s non-burial): Nestor stresses the great honor and care to be accorded the dead by suggesting an unusual measure. At this point, it is especially in his interest to encourage the living and to remind them of their return home (schol. bT on 335). These verses were athetized already in antiquity; in Homeric epic, all dead are in fact buried on the spot. This aside, the arguments for athetesis are uncompelling. a. References to the practical difficulties of identifying an individual’s bones after cremation (schol. A on 334–335) are moot, since Nestor’s instructions do not indicate that the dead will be subjected to a mass cremation or mass burial (thus the notion of having to separate the bodies afterward [Shive loc. cit. 191] is entirely unnecessary [unlike 23.240, which concerns Patroklos, a prominent casualty, who was cremated in a separate place]); see also 336– 337a n. b. Suspecting that the verses are an Athenian interpolation is speculative; it is based on the hypothesis that the custom of repatriating the dead was an Athenian innovation after the battle of Drabeskos in 464 B.C., whereas the fallen were usually buried on the spot (in early epic, see 4.174 f., 7.84–86, 18.332, Od. 3.109–112, 24.65–84). The text of the Iliad would thus represent 5th-century Athenian ideas; by this measure, Aischylos’ reference to the repatriation of remains from Troy (Ag. 434–444) was a deliberate anachronism in reference to a recently introduced Athenian custom (Jacoby 1944; for an overview of the

333 ἀτάρ: progressive (R 24.1). — κατακείομεν: from καίω, ‘burn’, ↑. 334 τυτθόν: ‘a little, somewhat’. — νεῶν/νηῶν (338): on the declension, R 12.1. — κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). On the modal particle in a final sentence, R 21.1. — ὄστεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 335 ἄγῃ, ὅτ’: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — πατρίδα γαῖαν: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2).

Commentary

165

debate, Shive loc. cit.). c. Finally, the fact that the sorting of the remains is not mentioned later (AH; Willcock; Kirk) is not noteworthy; this may be a poetic elision or one of the minor inconsistencies common in early epic (cf. gapP). – On the problem of an overly literal/realistic reading of the passage generally, Willcock; Garcia 2013, 101. ὄστεα παισὶν ἕκαστος | οἴκαδ’ ἄγῃ: The phrasing (‘each … may carry the bones back to a man’s children’) appears somewhat obscure (AH), especially given the more reasonable parallel at Od. 7.149 f. παισὶν ἐπιτρέψειεν ἕκαστος | κτήματ’ ἐνὶ μεγάροισι (‘and grant to each to leave to his children his property in his house’). Of course, the sense of the present passage is ‘that the bones of each may be brought to his children’. — νεώμεθα: The verb is used here with the simple acc. of direction (LfgrE s.v. νέομαι 327.17 f.). — πατρίδα γαῖαν: a very common inflectable VE formula (acc. 68×, dat. 7× early epic): 2.140n.; on the longer variant φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν, 460n.

336–341 ≈ 435–440. In the iteratum, the narrator describes the Achaians putting Nestor’s suggestions into action. Since the verb forms in the present passage are in the 1st-pers. pl. hortatory subjunc., whereas the iteratum has the 3rdpers. pl. ind., minor differences in word choice result from the different prosodic valence of the different verb forms; see 337b–338n. 336–337a ≈ 435–436a. — indiscriminately: ákriton means ‘indiscriminate’. The sense is probably that a single (336: ἕνα) mound is built for all the dead (Faesi/ Franke; Kirk; differently Leaf followed by LfgrE: ‘such material as first comes to hand’, cf. above a.). – If the reference is to a mass grave into which all the bones are deposited without distinction (schol. A on 334–335), an athetesis of 334 f. is indeed necessary (see ad loc.); alternatively, it is possible that the mound serves as a cenotaph (Luce 1998, 139, with reference to archaeological finds in the Troad; a cenotaph is also attested at Od. 4.583 f., where it is referred to as a týmbos). ἐξαγαγόντες: here probably ‘erect’, with τύμβον as the object (LfgrE; Faesi/Franke and AH [transl.]: ‘enact [pile up]’, in the sense found at Vergil Aen. 2.460 f. turrim … summis sub astra | eductam tectis). Other suggestions are simultaneously more complicated and less likely (a. ‘bring out’ the mound from the plain, literally in the sense of building material: Leaf; b. ‘set out, fix’ the mound ‘in its outline’ [in this case with the reading ἐν πεδίῳ transmitted by Aristophanes Byz. in schol. AT on 7.436]: Kirk; c. an intransitive use of the verb (‘go out’: schol. bT on 336–337), although this is not attested in early epic and also raises the question of the extent to which burial outside the plain makes sense.

337b–338 ≈ 436b–437; 338 ≈ 14.56, 14.68. — towered ramparts: here likely representing ‘the wall and high towers’ (as in the more recent mss. tradition of the 336 πύρην: on the form (-η- after -ρ-), R 2. 337 ποτί: = πρός (R 20.1). 338 εἶλαρ: predicative appositive with πύργους.

166

Iliad 7

iteratum, see 436b–437n.); the omission likely results from metrical constraints (336–341n.; cf. Willcock and Kirk on 338). – Like the towers of the city walls, those of the encampment walls are ‘tall’ (hypsēlós; of the tower at the Skaian Gate 3.384) and ‘well-built’ (ëúdmētos; of the encampment wall’s towers: 12.154, city walls’: 22.195); they project from the wall (22.97) and thus serve as lookout places (8.518 f.) and platforms for fighting from (12.154); there is space on top of the towers for many men (12.430 f.), i.e. they are bastions (Mannsperger 1998, 295 f.). On towers in early epic generally, 3.149n. with bibliography. — a defence of ourselves and our vessels: In the two iterata, Agamemnon and Nestor voice their earlier hopes for the wall, now destroyed: they had considered it an ‘unbreakable fortification for the ships and ourselves’. The formulaic verse will thus be adapted later to stress, by repetition, the point at which the wall disappoints (de Jong 1984, 153 f.). εἶλαρ: only in the nom. and acc., ‘means of defence’. Derived from *ϝέλ-ϝαρ as an action noun of a not clearly identifiable verb, probably εἰλέω, (ϝ)έλσαι ‘crowd together, shut in’ (Frisk with additional bibliography). — αὐτῶν: νῆες in combination with a personal pronoun frequently means ‘the ships and their crew’ (14.47n.; 24.499n.; LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1654.54 ff.); thus here ‘for ourselves’, at 437 ‘for themselves’, similarly at 2.317 (see ad loc.).

339 ≈ 438. πύλας: The plural frequently refers to a single gate (two door leaves > a gate, cf. Latin fores), but here it appears that several gates are actually referred to, since several towers are to be built; cf. 7.438, 12.175 (AH). Cf. 2.809n. — εὖ ἀραρυίας: ‘well joined’; in early epic, the perf. part. of ἀραρίσκω is a decorative epithetP of finished objects and is used in particular in the sphere of crafts. Common in conjunction with a word for ‘door’, it probably means ‘closing tightly’ only here and in the iteratum with πύλαι (uncertain referent at 12.454), elsewhere with σανίδες or θύραι (LfgrE s. v. ἀραρίσκω 1178.9 ff., 59 ff.).

340 = 439. ἱππηλασίη: ‘passable by chariots’; only here and in the iteratum; beside ἱππήλατος (LfgrE s.vv.). — εἴη: There is no direct parallel for an opt. in a final clause after a hortatory subjunc. (AH), but in the iteratum 439, the opt. as an indication of indirect speech is used necessarily after a subordinate clause with an aor. ind. (albeit athetized by West, see ad loc.). The second passage perhaps represents a quasi-type-sceneP for construction of a fortification, here rendered in direct speech.

341 ≈ 440. — and close: probably to be taken not literally but as a relative indication of distance: ‘not far (away)’ (Mannsperger 1995, 344 [transl.]; see 313–482n.). 339 αὐτοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2. — εὖ ἀραρυίας: on the hiatus, R 5.7. 340 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5); ↑. — δι’ αὐτάων: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — αὐτάων: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἱππηλασίη: on the form (-η after -ι-), R 2. 341 ἔκτοσθεν … ἐγγύθι: on the suffixes -θεν/-θι, R 15.1–2: ‘from outside … close (to the wall)’.

Commentary

167

342 ἥ χ’ … ἐρυκάκοι: In relative clauses with a final sense, the modal particle with the opt. regularly stresses the likely and thus expected consequences (Chantr. 2.249): ‘which will then surely defend, as it should’; after a hortatory subjunc. also at 1.64 (see ad loc.) and Od. 20.383 (AH with additional examples). — ἵππον: in the collective singular only here in early epic. 343 ἐπιβρίσῃ: the compound only here and at 12.414: the meaning is identical to the simplex, ‘press with force’, subsequently ‘prevail’. — Τρώων ἀγερώχων: A VE formula (5× Il.); the meaning of the generic epithetP is uncertain; it is conventionally rendered ‘proud’ (2.654n.).

344 = 9.710; 1st VH in total 8× Il., 19× Od. (92n.). — gave him their approval: epainéō is predominantly used of Greek characters (of Trojans only at 18.312, after Trojan noisiness is highlighted two verses earlier: Mackie 1996, 93); here pregnant in contrast with the ‘agitated’ (346n.) Trojan assembly (Elmer 2013, 132–145, esp. 133; on the general tendency to portray the Trojans as noisy and the Greeks as calm and disciplined, 306–308n., although it should be borne in mind that Trojan assemblies are attended by larger crowds than the Greek council, which develops from an informal meal scene: 323–344n.). – The contrast between social orders is crucial: the collective decision by the Greek leaders is juxtaposed to the phrasing on the Trojan side, ‘they listened to him with care and obeyed him’ (379; attested elsewhere only in the Od. and h.Ap., always where there is a clear hierachy): LfgrE s.v. πείθω, πιθήσ- 1095.27–30; Elmer loc. cit. 268 n. 9.; the hierarchy-driven patterns of communication of the Trojan royal family with the council ultimately contribute to the city’s downfall (Christensen 2015). πάντες ἐπῄνησαν: an inflectable expression in verse middle (in total 6× Il., 5× Od.: 16.443n.).

345–380 Assembly of the Trojans. Antenor suggests returning Helen in order to end the war. Paris objects but is at least willing to return the goods taken at the same time as Helen. Priam commissions Idaios to convey this offer to the Greeks and to suggest a truce to bury the dead. Evening meal. The sceneP changes to the Trojan side (as at 2.786, 8.55, 11.56, etc.); on the typesceneP ‘assembly’, 1.54n. Holding a full assembly in the evening is atypical (so too at 9.9 ff. and Od. 3.127): more commonly, agoraí are called early in the morning, as at 7.381 ff. (also 2.48 ff., Od. 2.1 ff., 6.53 ff., 8.1 ff.): Schulz 2011, 39.

342 χ’: = κε = ἄν (R 24.5; ↑). — ἵππον: collective sing. — ἐρυκάκοι: opt. (↑) of the reduplicated aor. of ἐρύκω ‘fend off, repel’. — ἐοῦσα: = οὖσα (cf. R 16.6). 344 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο; 43n. — οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), with βασιλῆες in apposition; on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.

168

Iliad 7

But the deviation here is due to the situation: after another inconclusive duel, both sides have an urgent interest in consulting about further action rather than waiting until morning. – Antenor’s suggestion of returning Helen (348– 353) appears to be an indirect attack on Paris (on the generally hostile Trojan attitude toward Paris, see 3.39 ff., 3.454, 6.280 ff., 6.326 ff., 6.523 ff. [3.57n.; 6.326n.]; in the present Book, this hostility also appears in Idaios’ speech [385 ff.], see also 346n.). Paris protests vehemently (357–364), whereupon Priam intervenes on behalf of his son (368–378). – Antenor’s proposal is also a response to the outcome of the duel in Book 3 (351 f.); these elements, which seem out of place in the 10th year of the war, are part of the epic’s retrospective phase that concludes with Book 7 (Introduction p. 11 f.). At the same time, the advice to return Helen increases suspense and offers an alternative to the expected course of events: the premature conclusion of the Trojan campaign, frequently invoked in the Iliad, sometimes in the shape of ‘almost’ or ‘if-not’ situationsP (104–105n.; Reinhardt 1961, 107–110). But of course the possibility of a peaceful end to the war seems hopeless from the beginning; it is immediately thwarted by Paris’ objection (Nesselrath 1992, 19). – The sequence ‘speech – counter speech – mediating speech’ with the subsequent realization of the further action proposed by the third speaker will be repeated in the Greek camp (7.385– 413; cf. Introduction p. 13 f. on the mirrored arrangement of the final part of Book 7); it also occurs in other speech sequences in Homeric epic (24.31–76n.). Cf. Kirk on 344–378 and 357–364: the formulaic nature of these sequences corresponds to their frequency. Priam’s speech mediating between Paris and Antenor is reminiscent of Nestor’s intervention in the strife between Achilleus and Agamemnon at 1.247 ff. (Kirk on 344–378) and thus reinforces the parallel function of the two wise, aged advisors. At the same time, unlike Nestor, Priam is not interested in a true reconciliation of the opponents, but ignores Antenor’s suggestion and wholly supports his son (Dickson 1995, 145 f.; cf. Preisshofen 1977, 25–31 on the contrast between sprightly Nestor and passive Priam, who ultimately is as powerless as Antenor with his proposal [347n.]). – That Paris’ protest prevails, contrary to the wishes of the Trojans (390, 393), provoked astonishment already in antiquity (cf. Hdt. 2.120); after the final decision to keep Helen, despite the oaths sworn in Book 3 (emphatically referenced by Antenor: 7.351–353), the Greeks are now fighting a ‘just(ified)’ war with the prospect of divine support (Raaflaub 1988, 202–205; on the complex issue of Homeric theodicy, van Erp Taalman Kip 2000). The decision-making reflects the complex relationships between the characters: Priam’s permissive paternal love for Paris is repeatedly depicted in the Iliad (3.259 [see ad loc.], 3.304–309, see van Wees 1992, 179 with n. 34). The scene also seems to fit with the Trojan king’s attitude, revealed at 3.164 f. (see ad loc.), that Troy’s doom is due to the

Commentary

169

will of the gods and human action can do little to influence it. Even setting aside the character of Priam, kinship relations have a role to play in Troy: a large section of the Trojan council of elders is composed of Paris’ relatives, whose silence in the present scene is probably motivated to some extent by family solidarity (van Wees loc. cit. 179 with n. 35). Finally, some of the Trojans are thought to have been bribed by Paris (11.123–125, see also 3.57n.). The scholia speculate that Priam was wary of hostilies between supporters and opponents of Paris, or that he was hoping the Greeks were sufficiently tired of fighting to accept the offer (schol. bT on 366–367). – The vagueness of motivations may originally have stemmed from a narrative dilemma: the Trojans are clearly in the wrong for having stolen Helen, but Homeric epic portrays them not without empathy as characters with whom one can identify; the narrator shifts the problem from the narrative plane to the character psychology of the weak Priam (Scodel 1999, 52–54). This ‘stopgap’ solution, however, creates a remarkable effect in the portrayal of complex ‘political thinking’ in the tension between individual and communal interests, aristocracy and populace, divine and human motivations (Raaflaub loc. cit., 201 f.; 1988b, esp. 2–5). – Hektor is conspicuously absent from the assembly scene; he does not quite fit into the scene after he is portrayed as critical of Paris in Book 6 (6.281–285, 6.325–342) (Bassett 1927, 149; cf. Owen 1946, 77: steering the audience against the Trojans in the absence of Hektor, who was portrayed as a figure with whom one can identify in Book 6; Taplin 1992, 125: for the time being, Hektor is not shown in Troy in order to maintain the impression, created in Book 6, of his definitive mental farewell to wife, child and home [cf. 310n.]). 345 1st VH ≈ 8.489. αὖτ(ε): 311n. — ἀγορὴ ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ: a VE formula (4× Il.). πόλις ἄκρη/ἀκροτάτη (in total 6×/2× Il.) corresponds to the term ἀκρόπολις (Od. 8.494/504); this is the highest part of the town and also its political and religious center (LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1350.26 ff.).

346 2nd VH ≈ 2.788. — fiercely shaken to tumult: The Trojans are agitated, as will also be evident in the heated, hostile discussion between Antenor and Paris that follows; Priam has to cut it off \ at 367 ff. (Wilamowitz 1916, 50 f.). On Trojan noisiness in general, in contrast to Greek discipline, 306–308n.; 344n. — before the doors of Priam: Priam presides over the affairs of the state while being advised by the council of elders (2.796–806n.; 3.149n.). The gate as a place for encounters and an assembly space is likely an orientalizing

345 The digamma in γένετ’ (ϝ)Ιλίου is not taken into account (R 4.6). 346 τετρηχυῖα: ‘in turmoil, uneasy’ (part. of the intransitive perf. of ταράσσω); ↑. — Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

170

Iliad 7

element (2.788n.). There need not be a precise notion of the places in question here, but the same phrasing is found at 2.788, and the Trojan mode of assembly is thus portrayed in a reasonably consistent fashion (Trachsel 2007, 31 f.). δεινή: here either with a faded sense (‘enormous’) in reference to the size of the assembly (Kirk compares the usage as “reinforcement” at 3.172 [differently 3.172n.]), or in place of an adverb with τετρηχυῖα (LfgrE s.v. 238.7 ff.), ‘terribly agitated’; in the latter case, different punctuation would be required. — τετρηχυῖα: cf. 2.95 τετρήχει δ’ ἀγορή (where the scene is portrayed at greater length and more dramatically).

347 ≈ 18.249, Od. 22.461. – A speech introductory formulaP: the subject and epithet (or apposition) are placed on either side of the central caesura B 1 (1.571n.). — Antenor: CH 3.9; an experienced adviser and member of the Trojan council of elders; a representative of the peace party, perhaps – as the father of multiple sons – out of personal interest. He hosted Odysseus and Menelaos when they came to Troy for negotiations prior to the war (3.205–224n.), and within the collective of the Trojan elders, he already spoke earlier in support of returning Helen (3.159 f., see ad loc.). Here Antenor serves as a moral authority: “[he] acts as Priam should have acted, as the moral man who sets his community right” (Louden 2006, 194). At the same time, Antenor’s role corresponds approximately to that of Nestor in the Greek camp (schol. bT on 345). On other cautionary figures on both sides, 18.249–253n.; on the venerability of old age in Homeric epic, 123n. At the same time, Antenor fails to carry his point against the young Paris (on this, 345–380n.); elsewhere in the Iliad young characters also prevail against older ones at the expense of the common cause, and the latter are proven right (Ulf 1990, 74, with reference to other situations in which the Trojan elders are ignored, e.g. 2.796 ff. and 15.719 ff. [although these are not all old men: 2.53n.]). In general on the role of old men in the Iliad, who despite great experience lack the capacity to intervene personally in the fighting, Roisman 2005. – Antenor’s name, like that of the other ‘wise voice of caution’, Polydamas, is not attested as part of a noun-epithetP formula at the end of a verse. These characters are thus not metrically staged in the manner of heroes such as Hektor, Achilleus or Odysseus (they “lack heroic staging possibilities”: Bakker 1997, 170 f.). τοῖσιν: locative (123n.). — πεπνυμένος: 275–276n. At 3.203 in the same position in the verse, likewise as an epithet of Antenor.

348–353 Antenor openly demands the return of Helen; the speech thus joins a series of indications of the Trojans’ war-weariness (see 3.111n. and 3.159–160n. with examples and bibliography, on which Scodel 2002, 190). This is also evi-

347 τοῖσιν: ‘among them’ (↑).

Commentary

171

dence for the growing isolation of Paris (in addition to 3.38 ff., 3.451 ff., 6.280 ff., 6.349 ff., 7.389 ff.: Stoevesandt 2004, 154 with n. 484). Idaios thus conveys Paris’ replacement offer to the Greeks without much enthusiasm (390, 393; see 385– 397n.). – Notably, Antenor speaks for the collective and thus largely uses 1st and 2nd pers. pl. forms, whereas for Paris the matter is personal, as his use of the 1st- and 2nd-pers. sing. indicatives (Elmer 2013, 136; Christensen 2015, 34 f., 37 f.). Paris is perhaps provoked by the fact that Antenor does not include him in the decision to return Helen: the suggestion is made with no mention of him (Kelly 2007, 145 f.). 348–349 = 7.368 f.; 348 = 3.456, 8.497; 349. A common formulaic verse; see 68n. — Dardanians: originally the term for a group of people from Troy’s ‘metropolis’ Dardanië, they have only come to the city as part of the effort to defend it. In the Iliad, the term is sometimes used for the Trojans as a whole (CH 3.8 n. 34; 2.819n.), analogous to ‘Achaians’, ‘Danaans’ and ‘Argives’ used for the Greeks (see 1.2n.). Here the emphasis is also likely on the address to the entirety (Trojans and all allies) rather than the differentiation between different groups. Cf. 414n. κέκλυτέ μοι: 66b–67n. — Τρῶες καὶ Δάρδανοι: a formula after caesura A 4 (3.456, 7.368, 8.497); on variants, 414n.

350 ≈ 3.458; 2nd VH = 22.114. — all her possessions: According to the the Cypria, Paris took numerous valuable items when he abducted Helen (Proclus Chrest. § 2 West); they are repeatedly referred to in the Iliad as the subject of negotiations (3.70n. with examples and bibliography). δεῦτ(ε): imperatival pl. related to the hortatory particle δεῦρο (originally a locative adv. ‘(to) here, hither’); it serves to prompt an action but not necessarily movement toward the speaker (14.128n.). Here and at Od. 8.11, the word introduces a speech as reinforcement of the essentially equivalent ἄγε(τε); the metrically equivalent but adversative ἀλλ’ ἄγετε is more common (AH; Kirk). — Ἀργείην: ‘Argive woman’, i.e. ‘Greek woman’ (1.2n.); an epithet of Helen, here pregnantly highlighting the Greek claim (2.161n. and 3.458n. with bibliography). — ἅμα: In the Iliad, this word is frequently used to stress the affiliation of the looted objects with Helen as a person: ‘along with’ (in addition to the iterata also at 13.626, 22.117 f.: LfgrE s.v. ἅμα 601.34 ff.); cf. 6.426 of Andromache’s mother (see ad loc. for other mentions of captive women together with looted objects).

351a = 22.117.

348 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). 349 τά: functions like a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 350 δεῦτ’ ἄγετ(ε): ‘come now!’ (↑). 351–352 ἄγειν: final inf. — μαχόμεσθα: on the ending, R 16.2. — τώ: ‘therefore’. — τι: subject accusative of ἐκτελέεσθαι (↑). — ἥμιν: = ἠμῖν (↑).

172

Iliad 7

351b–353 The integral enjambmentsP lend a sense of haste (Kirk), or of emotion and urgency, to Antenor’s words. — true pledges: In many anticipationsP, Troy’s fall is compared to breaking the oath: 69n. ὅρκια πιστά | ψευσάμενοι: ὅρκια could be an acc. obj. with ψευσάμενοι (La Roche 1861, 21; cf. Luther 1935, 90 [transl.]: “make oaths ψεῦδος”), but this would represent the sole transitive use of ψεύδεσθαι in early epic. A free use of the acc. (as an acc. of respect) is more common and thus here more likely: ‘we were not faithful in regard to the oaths’ (Leaf; Kirk; see also LfgrE s.v. ψεύδομαι 1307.39 ff.). πιστά is strongly antithetical to ψευσάμενοι (AH). — οὔ νύ τι κέρδιον: The comparative κέρδιον (negated only here and at Od. 14.355) is occasioned by an implied adverse action and largely corresponds to the positive form in English (approximately ‘nothing particularly advantageous’); cf. 24.52n. on κάλλιον / ἀμείνων, also 19.56n. The understatement serves as a warning; 24.52 οὐ μέν οἱ τό γε κάλλιον οὐδέ τ’ ἄμεινον is similar. — ἵνα: here in an unusual and not clearly definable sense (the conditional particle ἐάν would be expected instead): a. conditional, cf. Monteil 1963, 383: ‘«local-circumstantial» ἵνα: «in the case of, in the circumstance of» (cf. Latin ubi: «on the supposition that»)’; Kirk: ‘The present use involves a relatively easy extension from local to circumstantial, or concrete to abstract, application: «therefore I do not expect any beneficial result for us where we do not act as I suggest»’, cf. German: ‘wo nicht’; or b. imperatival as a new sentence: ‘let us not act in this manner’ (in reference to 351b–352a): van der Valk 1964, 226 f., who refers to the post-Homeric imperatival use of ἵνα + subjunc. – The vagueness in meaning and the prosodic peculiarity of ἵνα (μ)μή (but cf. Od. 3.327: ἵνα (ν)νημερτές [Faesi/Franke]) led to the conjecture (ἵν’ ἄν [schol. A and T on 353]; ἐκτελέεσθ’ εἴ κεν [Leaf]) or the athetesis of the verse, which was supposedly only inserted to provide a verb for 352 (schol. A on 353). But this argument rests on feet of clay: although κέρδιον is attested without a verb in early epic only at 19.63 (sc. ἔσται vel sim.), the present text is not a lectio facillior, since κέρδιον is not attested with ἐκτελέεσθαι at all (elsewhere it is combined with forms of εἶναι and once with ἔπλετο [Od. 20.304]). For discussion, Kirk. — ἥμιν: on the accent, West 1998, XVIII. — ὧδε: here retrospective (cf. Schw. 2.209).

354–356 The verses introducing Paris’ response form a minor type-sceneP ‘response’, which is immediately repeated at 7.365–367 (also at 1.68–73, 2.76–78, Od. 2.224–228): (1) one speaker sits down, (2) another rises (3) and is named in a full verse, (4) sometimes in a relative clause that characterizes the speaker more closely; (5) a verse that is adapted to the context introduces the direct speech (356 is neutral, but in the repetition of the combination at 365–367, 367 makes explicit the speaker’s friendly disposition, which would be inappropriate here: Clark 1997, 184–187). The vignette-style type-scene is in turn part of the sequence ‘speech – counter speech – mediating speech’ (345–380n.), which itself can represent element 5 of the type-scene ‘assembly’ (1.54n.).

353 ἐκτελέεσθαι: fut. mid. of ἐκτελέω. On the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἵνα (μ)μή: on the prosody, M 4.6 (↑); likewise Ἀλέξανδρος(ς) Ἑλένης (355).

Commentary

173

354 A speech capping formulaP in depictions of assemblies (in total 5× Il., 1× Od.): 1.68n.; aside from 1.101, always in the combination of elements laid out above (354–356n.; Clark 1997, 187–189). 1st VH ≈ 15.100, Od. 7.153, h.Merc. 365. — τοῖσι: locative (123n.). 355 = 3.329 (see ad loc.), 8.82; ≈ 13.766; from caesura A 3 on = 11.369, 11.505; 1st VH ≈ 352; 2nd VH ≈ 9.339, 10.5, Hes. Op. 165, ‘Hes.’ frr. 199.2, 200.2/11, 204.43/55 M.W. (partially restored). — brilliant Alexandros: ‘brilliant’ is a generic epithetP: 41–42n. On the name Alexandros, 2–3n. — lord: Paris and Helen are officially a couple; Menelaos is considered the ‘ex-husband’ (e.g. 3.429). See 3.140n. with bibliography. The designation ‘lord of lovely-haired Helen’ in the present passage implies that Paris has the last word on the issue of her return (contextually relevant also at 3.329n. with bibliography). In addition to Paris, only Zeus is designated the husband of his wife in a formula (at 10.5 similarly as the ‘lord of Hera the lovely-haired’, elsewhere 4× Il., 3× Od.: Dué/Ebbott 2010, 324 f.). — lovely-haired: an epithet of goddesses and of Helen (of the latter in total 13× in early epic: iterata), rarely of other mortal women (LfgrE s.v. ἠύκομος). Ἑλένης: The initial digamma of the name, attested in Spartan inscriptions, has a prosodic effect (it ‘makes position’) here: 3.329n. with bibliography; on this, NAGVI 264 f. §251.

356 A speech introductory formulaP (≈ 15.48, 23.557, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 117). — winged words: épea pteróenta, the most common noun-epithet formula in early epic (Dee 2010, 285), means ‘flying smoothly and thus true’; see 1.201n. and 16.6n. with bibliography; also LfgrE s.v. πτερόεις; Reece 2009, 315–319. ὅς μιν ἀμειβόμενος: a variant, attested only here, of the very common VB formula τὸν/τὴν/τοὺς δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος (283n.); the iterata have καί μιν ἀμειβόμενος (restored thus also at ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.25 M.-W.). There is also τὸν καὶ ἀμειβόμενος (h.Merc. 201).

357–364 Possible outcomes of a siege would normally be the destruction of the besieged city or the return of the items being claimed (18.511–512n.). The Greek demand in the latter case is clear: the return of Helen is the priority, the looted objects take second place. In addition, they would demand payment of restitution (stipulated by Agamemnon at 3.284–287). Paris is trying to bargain; his proposal is unacceptable to the Greeks and will thus be rejected (7.400– 402). Paris’ proposal seems particularly brazen on the day of the first duel between him and Menelaos, given that it involved oath-breaking, which was

354 ἤτοι: ἦ is emphatic; ἤτοι is almost always weaker (R 24.4). — κατ(ὰ) … ἕζετο: on the socalled tmesis, R 20.2. — τοῖσιν: ‘among them’ (↑). 355 ἠϋκόμοιο: = ἐϋ-, initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 356 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1), to be taken with προσηύδα; with ἔπεα πτερόεντα as a second object. — ἀμειβόμενος (ϝ)έπεα: on the prosody, R 4.5. — προσηύδα: 3rd-pers. sing. impf. of προσαυδάω ‘address, say to someone’.

174

Iliad 7

called to mind in the preceding lines (69, 351b–353) (AH). – The first five verses of Paris’ speech consist of formulaic expressions; in the last three, he tersely makes his point (Kirk: ‘punch line’). The rhythm thus changes from well-structured whole verse sentences to an agitated syntax with an interruption at 362 and enjambment at 363 f. (Kirk). 357–360 ≈ 12.231–234 (where addressed to Polydamas); 357 = 18.285. The similarities between the situations (‘a member of the Trojan royal family brusquely rejects a wise counsel’: 18.285–309n.) are clear, but it probably goes too far to speak of a ‘pattern’ here (Elmer 2013, 137 f.), since the phenomenon concerns only two characters. At the same time, the parallelism underlines the fatal commonalities between the brothers, all contrasts notwithstanding. 357–358 357 ≈ 12.231, 18.285 (Hektor on Polydamas’ advice); VE = Od. 8.236; ≈ Il. 12.173; 358 = 12.232. — no longer: contextually relevant in 18.285 (Polydamas’ previous advice found Hektor’s approval), see ad loc.: here probably purely formulaic (differently Kirk: Paris’ speech is sarcastic, if superficially polite; the expression ‘no longer’ refers to the fact that Antenor’s advice would normally be welcome). — please me: probably means not only ‘(appropriately >) acceptable to me’ (LfgrE) but also, given Antenor’s hostile attitude toward Paris (AH; Leaf), approximately ‘favorable for me’. — Your mind knows how …: with the sense ‘you cannot be serious’ (similarly AH). σὺ μέν: Antenor, in contrast to Paris himself: αὐτὰρ ἐγώ (361): AH. — ταῦτ(α): largely pejorative in character language with reference to preceding statements (de Jong [1987] 2004, 287 n. 25). — ταῦτ’ ἀγορεύεις. | οἶσθα καὶ ἄλλον: an asyndetic chiastic antithesis; strongly emphatic (AH).

359–361 With the praise at 358 and the suggestion that Antenor’s proposal may have been made in jest, Paris’ verdict (as well as Hektor’s censure of Polydamas in the iteratum) sounds comparatively gentle, or at most ironic, but in any case less harsh than other accusations of derangement in Homeric epic, e.g. Leiokritos’ speech to Mentor/Athene in Od. 2.242–256 (Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 40–42). 359 = 12.233. εἰ δ’ ἐτεόν: a formulaic expression (14.125n.: VB 4× Il., 7× Od.). ἐτεόν here, as predominantly elsewhere, is adverbial, ‘really, in fact’ (18.305n. with bibliography); on the more pointed meaning ‘true’, 2.300n. and 14.125n. with bibliography. — ἀπὸ σπουδῆς: ‘from (earnest) effort, in (all) seriousness’ (LfgrE).

357 φίλα: predicative.

Commentary

175

360 = 12.234. — it is the very gods who ruined the brain within you: The notion that a human being’s mind (phrénes) might be impacted by divine influence (or other factors, such as delusion, shock, sleep or wine) is common in early epic. It rarely occurs in the text as a definitive statement by the omniscient narrator, but is more frequent in a (self-)reproach by a character, in which case it is unreliable information, as also in passages where the speaker – like Paris in the present passage – is himself in error (cf. Hektor in the iteratum and at 15.724 f.): 6.234n.; LfgrE s.v. φρένες, φρήν 1023.30 ff.; Scodel 1992, 75 f.; see also 16.403–404a n. with bibliography. – The term phrénes primarily designates the capacity to think, but often contains an ethical aspect (‘way of thinking, conviction’): 6.352n.; 24.40n. ἐξ ἄρα δή … ἔπειτα: The verse is emphasized by the stressed position of ἐξ at VB and the frequency of particles (including δή, used already at 359) (Kirk). ἄρα ‘thus’ denotes the result of the preceding sentence, δή ‘surely’ the subjective certainty of the conclusion. ἔπειτα ‘accordingly’ refers back to the content of the preceding sentence. The same combination occurs at Od. 17.185 (AH).

361 2nd VH after caesura A 4 = 8.525. — breakers of horses: 38n. Of the Trojans also 24× Il. 362 straight out: antikrý is used of speech only here; it usually describes the path of a weapon straight through a body (AH; Kirk; LfgrE), and Paris’ uncompromising stance is thereby emphatically highlighted (Christensen 2015, 37). — I will not give back the woman: cf. the dispute over battle-prizes in Book 23, where Antilochos initially declares it self-evident that ‘the mare I will not give up’ (553), while good-naturedly handing over the animal to Menelaos a little later (591 f.). Both scenes reflect the issues that trigger the story of the Iliad: contested claims to ownership of women or booty. ἀπόφημι: apodeictic, ‘declare, make a declaration’ (LfgrE s.v. φημί 897.50 ff.). — ἀποδώσω: a voluntative future; picked up again at 364 (see ad loc.) via the periphrasis ἐθέλω + inf. (Tzamali 1996, 406–408, with additional I-E examples; cf. 290–292n.).

363–364 364 ≈ 391. — Argos: used here as a pars pro toto for ‘Greece’ (2.287n. with bibliography; LfgrE s.v. Ἄργος 1210.25 f.; cf. the term ‘Argives’ [see 1.2n.]; also 24.437n.: ‘Argos’ as a kind of code for the center of the enemy territory). — to our house … | … from my own goods: oíkothen is always used of items

360 ἐξ … ὤλεσαν: here with φρένας as object, ‘scattered your wits’ (↑). On the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 361 μεθ’ (+ dat.): ‘among, in the midst (of )’. 363 ὅσσ(α): on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — Ἄργεος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δῶ: = δῶμα; indication of direction without preposition (R 19.2). 364 δόμεναι: aor. inf. (R 16.4), here in the sense ‘give (back)’. — ἔτ(ι): ‘also, besides’.

176

Iliad 7

of personal property (LfgrE). óikos (and here also dō) denotes the estate as a whole; Paris is stressing the status of Helen and himself as proprietors (similarly 1.30 [see ad loc.] and 3.233), as is futher underlined by the use of the 1stpers. pl. possessive pronoun. — I am willing to give: Paris emphasizes his sovereignty in decision-making (which is de facto not a given), thus somewhat recalling Agamemnon, who speaks in a similar tone regarding the return of Chryseis in Book 1 (1.112–117n.). ἀγόμην: impf. ‘in lively memory of the process’ (AH [transl.]); followed at 390 by an aorist expressing the outcome of the action. ἄγεσθαι with an item as direct object means ‘carry off, take something as personal property’; of goods or women (3.72n.).

365–380 In his mediating speech, Priam gives orders for further action (‘«table of contents» speech’: de Jong on Od. 1.81–95 [cf. 24.146–158n.]): to eat and keep watch, on the following morning to convey Paris’ proposal to the Greeks and arrange a truce until the dead have been buried. (On the possible motivations for taking Paris’ issues into account, 345–380n.) Priam’s suggestion to bury the dead is parallel to Nestor’s proposal in the Greek assembly; cf. Introduction, end. 365–367 Type-sceneP ‘response’ (354–356n.). — equal of the gods in counsel, | who in kind intention: Priam’s wisdom is also emphasized elsewhere in the Iliad (24.201n.), but in the present passage he is acting quite unwisely. Thus the noun-epithetP formula can only be generic (326n.; 366n.), as elsewhere of Peirithoos, Patroklos (‘neither especially renowned for counsel’: Kirk) and Neleus. ‘In kind intention’ (eu phronéōn) is likely a reference to Priam’s desire for harmony, which leads him to support Paris over the assembly (cf. 345– 380n.). 365 = 354 (see ad loc.). 366 Δαρδανίδης Πρίαμος: an inflectable expression at VB and in verse middle (7× Il.). Priam is a great-great-great-grandson of Dardanos (on the genealogy, CH 3.8; 24.349n. with bibliography; on the use of patronymics, 1.1n.). — θεόφιν μήστωρ ἀτάλαντος: an inflectable VE formula (in total 3× Il., 2× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ [restored]). μήστωρ means ‘who can devise clever plans’ (6.97n.); on the word formation (archaizing retention of lengthened grade -τωρ- in almost all forms), 14.318n. — θεόφιν: The ending -φι(ν) can indicate the dat. or gen., but rarely the real case, namely the instrumental, locative or ablative, here a comitative instrumental (Schw. 2.172). — ἀτάλαντος: 47n.

367 = 326 (see ad loc.). 368–369 368 = 348 (see ad loc.); 369 = 349 = 68 (see ad loc.). — These verses are probably an early concordance interpolation that serves to demarcate Priam’s speech more clearly (West 2001, 11–14 with n. 31), as suggested by their absence from a number of papyrus fragments (West app. crit.).

Commentary

177

370–372 370–371 ≈ 18.298 f.; 1st VH of 370 ≈ 380, 11.730; 1st VH of 372 ≈ 381; 2nd VH from caesura C 1 on = 78. — In the iteratum in Book 18, the order to keep watch seems more appropriate, since the Trojans are in the field, in contrast to here, where they are within the city walls, a detail stressed in the 2nd VH of 370: ‘about the city, as you did before this’; 18.298 reads ‘by positions along the encampment’ (AH, Leaf, Kirk). But athetesis of 371 (Leaf) seems unnecessary, since the city needs guarding as well. Cf. 380n. — Take now … | … | and at dawn: In the Iliad, instructions given in the evening for the following day usually feature in assemblies and are thus frequently found in combination with other typical elements such as the evening meal (370n.): Kelly 2007, 352–354 (with examples from the Iliad); cf. also the phrasing ‘For this day … | now; … again hereafter’ at 29 f. ≈ 290 f. (29–31a n.; 290–292n.). 370 Take now your supper: The type-sceneP ‘meal’, depicted in greater detail elsewhere (24.621–628n.; Arend 1933, 68–76), is only briefly alluded to here (and at 380). Like 9.65 f./88 and the iterata (18.298 f./314), it starts with an order (Arend loc. cit. 75). δόρπον: ‘evening meal, supper’, in contrast to δεῖπνον (19.208n.). — ὡς τὸ πάρος περ: A VE formula (5× Il., 6× Od., 1× Hes. Op., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom.); ‘exactly as always’ rather than ‘as previously’ (see LfgrE s.v. 987.6 ff. on πάρος with the present: ‘it is indicated by the speaker that an earlier circumstance continues to apply’ [transl.]; Schw. 2.656); see also 18.385–386n. with bibliography. 371 μνήσασθε: μιμνήσκομαι means ‘turn one’s mind toward, reflect on’ (LfgrE s.v.; cf. Bakker [2002] 2005, 142); cf. expressions in calls to battle (μ. χάρμης, ἀλκῆς: 19.147– 148n.). — ἐγρήγορθε: 2nd-pers. pl. perf. act. imper. of intr. ἐγείρομαι (‘stay awake!’); on the formation and etymology, 18.298–299n. with bibliography, also Schw. 1.800 n. 8. — ἕκαστος: distributive apposition, as at e.g. 2.775b, on which see K.-G. 1.286.

372–398 The type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (a variant of ‘arrival’: on this, 1.496b–502n.). It proceeds according to the following basic scheme (Arend 1933, 54–61, cf. 28 ff.): (1) issuing an order (372–378); (2) the messenger departs and (3) arrives (381), (4) finds the person(s) in question (description of the situation: 382 f.), (5) approaches (383 f.) and (6) carries out the orders (385–398). – At the same time, the scheme is flexible: in the present scene, Priam does not address his orders to the messenger personally, as normally (e.g. 11.185–194, 24.331– 338), but rather to the assembly of the Trojans: the king involves his subjects and waits for their approval (379) (Tsagarakis 1982, 74 f.), even if this involves appearance only (379n.). — On additional variants of the type-scene ‘delivery

370 κατά (+ acc.): of spatial extent ‘across, in’; likewise in 380. — πτόλιν: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2. — ὡς τὸ πάρος περ: περ stresses the preceding word: R 24.10; ↑. 371 ἐγρήγορθε (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3.

178

Iliad 7

of a message’, 1.320–348a n.; 2.16–49n.; 2.786–808n.; 3.116n.; 3.121n.; 3.245–258n.; 14.354–356n.; 18.1–22a n.; 18.166–202n.; 19.341–356a n.; 24.77–88n.; 24.103–142n.; 24.143–187n.; 24.333–361n. 372–375 ἴτω … | εἰπέμεν Ἀτρείδῃς … | μῦθον … | καὶ δὲ τόδ’ εἰπέμεναι πυκινὸν ἔπος: The first inf., εἰπέμεν, is probably used in a final sense after ἴτω (‘let him go to say’); the same may also be case for the second, εἰπέμεναι (‘namely to speak this forceful word’) or it may be used independently in an imperatival sense (in accord with the punctuation employed by West): Schw. 2.382; Sommer 1977, 207 (cf. 75n.). In this case, this is a rare example of an explicitly indicated subject with the imperatival infinitive of the 3rd pers. (Ἰδαῖος in 372a; cf. 79–80n.).

372 Idaios: 275–276n. ἠῶθεν: ‘at the first glimpse of dawn’, before sunrise. Correspondingly, the first rays of sunlight strike the fields at 421; cf. the descriptions of early morning in Od. 19.428 and 19.433 (AH on Il. 7.381). — κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας: 78n.

373 ≈ 5.552, 7.470, 17.249; from caesura B 1 on = ‘Hes.’ fr. 136.9, 13 (restored) M.-W. 374 = 388, 3.87. VE from caesura C 2 on = 12.348, 12.361, 13.122, 15.400; ≈ 17.384, 20.140, Od. 16.98, 16.116, 20.267. — for whose sake this strife has arisen: Paris’ abduction of Helen is repeatedly recalled in the Iliad as the issue that triggered the war: e.g. 2.161 (Hera), 3.100 (Menelaos, see ad loc.) and 3.351 (Menelaos), 5.63 f. (narrator), 6.356 (Helen), 9.339 and 19.325 (Achilleus), 22.116 (Hektor). Priam’s mention of Paris, not Helen, as the sole cause for the war matches his exculpation of Helen at 3.164–165 (see ad loc.). μῦθον: 277n. — τοῦ εἵνεκα νεῖκος ὄρωρεν: Similar expressions in reference to the battle for Troy are ἥ τ’ ἔπλετο νείκεος ἀρχή at 22.116 and τότε γάρ ῥα κυλίνδετο πήματος ἀρχή at Od. 8.81. — εἵνεκα: on the metrical lengthening, 1.174n.

375–378 ≈ 394–397; 377 ≈ 30 (29–31a n.), 291 (290–292n.); 378 = 292 (see ad loc.). — we shall fight again: The truce will last for a single day. Although it is unrealistic that the Greeks’ extensive fortifications would be completed in so little time, the brief period for the burial of the dead is customary; a nine-day mourning period, like the one for Hektor, is exceptional (24.664–667n.). — the divinity: 290–292n.

372 ἠῶθεν: on the suffix, R 15.1. — νῆας: on the declension, R 12.1. 373 εἰπέμεν: aor. inf. (R 16.4); here with a final sense. — Ἀτρεΐδῃς: on the declension, R 11.1. 374 Ἀλεξάνδροιο: on the declension, R 11.2. — τοῦ: with the function of οὗ (R 14.5). — ὄρωρεν: perf. of ὄρνυμαι, intransitive ‘arise, emerge’. 375 τόδ’ (ϝ)ειπέμεναι: The digamma of (ϝ)ειπέμεναι is not taken into account (R 4.6). On the form εἰπέμεναι, R 16.4. — πυκινὸν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — αἴ κ(ε): = ἐάν (cf. 77n.); κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5); likewise in 376 f. 377 κείομεν: (short-vowel) aor. subjunc. of καίω (R 16.3). — μαχησόμεθα: fut. or (short-vowel) subjunc. (R 16.3, R 21.2).

Commentary

179

εἰπέμεναι … ἔπος: The figura etymologica finds parallels in Vedic; see Schmitt 1967, 264 f. On εἰπέμεναι, 372–375n. — πυκινὸν ἔπος: 4× Il. (11.788 and 24.75 in contexts similar to the present one; somewhat differently at 24.744 of a dying man’s parting words, see ad loc.). In general on the adj. πυκινός referring to mental processes, 2.55n.; on its meaning with ἔπος (‘wise, relevant, significant’), 24.75n. with bibliography. — αἴ κ’ ἐθέλωσιν: an inflectable VE formula (in total 8× Il., 6× Od., Hes. Th. 164, h.Merc. 181); in addition, the expression occurs at VB (3× Il., 1×. Od.) and after caesura A 4 (7× Il., 2× Od., 2× Hes. Op.). It is actually a double question, with the second part left unstated (‘whether they …, ’); see 1.66–67n. with bibliography. Cf. αἴ κε + subjunc. in the sense ‘in the hope that’ (1.420n. with bibliography). — δυσηχέος: a negatively connoted epithetP with πόλεμος (πολέμοιο δ. is a formula before caesura C 2: 7× Il.) and θάνατος (3× Il.); the meaning is obscure (related to ἠχή [i.e. ‘ringing frightfully’] or ἄχος [i.e. ‘painful’]?): 16.442n. and 18.307n., both with bibliography; LfgrE s.v.; on epithetsP with terms for ‘battle, war’, 6.330n.). — εἰς ὅ κε … | … εἰς ὅ κε: In addition to the integral enjambment of 375–378, the repetition heightens the emphasis of Priam’s words (365– 380n.). — κείομεν: on the spelling, West app. crit. and Chantr. 1.9.

379 = 9.79, 14.133, 14.378, 15.300, 23.54, 23.738, Od. 3.477, 15.220, 22.178, 23.141, h.Ap. 502; ≈ Od. 6.247, 20.157; 2nd VH = Hes. Th. 474. That a character’sP orders are obeyed without further discussion is normal, as also in the common concluding formula ‘This s/he said, and XY was not disobedient’ (43n.) and its variants (1.345n.; see also Muellner 1976, 18 f. on the ‘religious’ variant of the formula: ‘He spoke thus and prayed, and … heard him’ [7× Il., 4× Od.]). Nevertheless, the formula is conspicuous in the present passage inasmuch as it follows Priam’s tendentious (345–380n.) proposal for a compromise that contravenes the will of those present (393b; 348–353n.; 389–390n.), especially given that he ascribes a private character to the proposed errand rather than presenting it as the wish of the wider community: the messenger should deliver Paris’ proposal to Agamemnon and Menelaos. ‘The apparent readiness with which the Trojans execute [Priam’s order] actually conceals deep-seated differences among them as a group’ (Elmer 2013, 25, cf. there also p. 132 ff. on the heterogeneity of the Trojan forces as compared to the Greek army). κλύον: here in the sense ‘listened to’ (LfgrE), ‘obedience [as] the state of being persuaded by what was heard’ (Wille 2001, 94 [transl.]).

380 1st VH to caesura C 2 = 18.314; 2nd VH = 11.730, 18.298. — The verse is not transmitted in all mss. (West app. crit.). It is suprising that the text suddenly refers to army divisions, in particular given that 370 is a variant of 18.298 with the 2nd VH replaced by ‘Now take your supper about the city, as you did before!’, rather than reading ‘Take your supper by positions along the encamp-

379 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο (43n.). — μάλα: ‘well’. 380 εἵλοντο: mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — τελέεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3.

180

Iliad 7

ment!’, as in the iterata: in Book 18 the Trojans are in the field, whereas here they are in the city (AH; Kirk). At the same time, it is reasonable to suppose that the many Trojan and allied fighters dwelling in the city (18.286 f.; cf. 8.502– 522) are quartered according to their divisions. ἐν τελέεσσιν: τέλος with a concrete sense ‘division, contingent’. On the root τλῆναι (I-E *telh2- ‘pick up, take (up)on (oneself )’), probably with the original sense ‘duty one undertakes’: 18.298–299n. with bibliography.

381–417a Assembly of the Greeks the next morning. Paris’ offer is conveyed; after an initial silence by the men, Diomedes raises powerful objections to accepting it. As a result, Agamemnon rejects the offer but grants the truce. Idaios reports back to the Trojans. The narrative pace picks up in this sequence of scenes. It begins with Idaios’ errand ‘at dawn’, which is reported immediately after the Trojans’ evening meal (380); the night’s rest is thus not explicitly mentioned (on this gapP, also 433–434n.): Kurz 1966, 15; cf. 24.784–804n.) – the number of chronological indicators has increased. Similarly, no mention is made of the speaker rising in the Greek assembly, in contrast to the preceding scene among the Trojans (354– 356n.). Finally, Idaios’ delivery of the Greek response to the Trojans is reported only in summary form, without presenting his speech verbatim, which is rare in the Iliad (De Jong [1987] 2004, 181). This increase of the narrative pace perhaps results from the predictability of events: the Greeks do not consider the half-hearted offer to return goods, and this is described in less detail than the preceding, somewhat surprising decision-making process on the Trojan side (345–380n.); cf. Kurz loc. cit. 73 f. (whose term ‘irrelevance’ [transl.] does not apply; this is no less than the final, categorically rejected attempt to solve the conflict peacefully). 381–412 In this Greek assembly, Agamemnon’s position as supreme commander of the troops as a whole becomes particularly clear: although the men’s silence makes clear their reservations regarding the proposal to return the goods (398n.), and they ultimately agree loudly with Diomedes’ speech (403–404n.), the decision-making power ultimately belongs to Agamemnon, as he himself stresses again at 407 (405–411n., but see also 407n.). Idaios thus singles him out as the addressee of the herald’s speech (385 ‘Son of Atreus, and you other great men of all the Achaians’): Patzer 1996, 191. 381–383 where he found …: on the typical Homeric change of scene in which the narrator follows a character from location A to location B, de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 73 f. 381 ἠῶθεν: 372n. — νῆας: on the declension, R 12.1, likewise νηΐ (383).

Commentary

181

381 ≈ 372 (see ad loc.). 382 Δαναοὺς θεράποντας Ἄρηος: an inflectable VE formula, elsewhere always in the nom.: 2.110, 6.67, 15.733, 19.78, ‘Hes.’ fr. 193.6 M.-W. (restored); also simply θεράποντες Ἄρηος in the nom. pl. (for the dual): 8.79, 10.228, dual (with switch of words: Ἄρεος θεράποντε) 19.47. It signifies ‘warriors’ (2.110n.).

383 1st VH = 10.35, 16.286, Od. 15.223. — Agamemnon’s ship: In the Iliad, the Achaian assemblies (agoraí) take place within the semi-circle formed by the ships pulled up onto the shore, namely roughly in its center, where the ships of Odysseus (11.806), Nestor (2.54) and Agamemnon are imagined as located (1.12b n. s.v. ‘ships of the Achaians’; 1.54n.; 2.54n., all with additional bibliography). νηῒ παρὰ πρυμνῇ: The etymology and meaning of πρυμνός are not entirely clear (related to πρό?). At the same time, the adj. was patently always used in a localizing manner like ἄκρος or μέσος; when employed in a specifically nautical sense to designate the section of a ship opposite the bow, i.e. the stern, it is usually combined with νηῦς in formulaic fashion: 14.31–32n. with bibliography. — αὐτὰρ ὃ τοῖσιν: formulaic; only here at VE, otherwise after caesura A 3 (23.29, Od. 1.9, 20.242). On entrances and changes of scene after caesura C 2 as characteristic of Homeric poetics, 1.194n. with bibliography.

384 1st VH = 417. ἠπύτα: a hapax legomenonP in early epic. It means ‘one who calls loudly’ (related to ἠπύω) and is thus a typical epithetP of heralds (on whose tasks, 182–183n.): of Idaios also καλήτωρ (24.577), ἀστυβοώτης (24.701). On other epithets for heroes with a similar meaning, LfgrE s.v. ἠπύτα. Some speaking names of heralds go in the same direction (cf. 220–221n.), e.g. Ἠπυτίδης at 17.324 (patronymic of the herald Periphas, ‘He who speaks all around’). On the nom. in -ᾰ, 124–125n. (ἱππηλάτα); other similarly formed epithets are used with proper names, in contrast to ἠπύτα, which is used with κήρυξ (Kirk; Willcock). — κήρυξ: on the accent, West 1998, XXI.

385–397 Idaios’ speech mostly consists of a rendering of Paris’ offer and Priam’s instructions (naturally including verbatim repetitions, see iterata), but is more complex than most Homeric ‘relay instructions’ (Kelly 2007, 325–329): the speech conveys instructions from two different characters, while Idaios adds distinctive nuances of his own and even inserts his own opinions (Kelly loc. cit.); see 387n.; 389–393n.; 389–390n.; 392–393n.; 394n. The latter characteristic, however, is not entirely unique; Iris similarly expands Zeus’ threatening message to Athene with her own insults, which the father of gods had not voiced

382 τούς: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17; likewise ὃ τοῖσι in 383), with Δαναοὺς θεράποντας Ἄρηος in apposition. — εἰν: = ἐν (R 20.1). — ἀγορῇ: on the form (-ῃ after -ρ-), R 2. — Ἄρηος: on the declension, R 12.4. 383 νηῒ πάρα: = παρὰ νηΐ (R 20.2). — πρύμνῃ Ἀγαμέμνονος: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — τοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2; likewise μέσσοισιν in 384. 384 μέσσοισιν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — μετεφώνεεν: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

182

Iliad 7

(8.423 f.). Cf. Helenos’ unauthorized additions to the exchange between Athene and Apollo at 52–53 (see ad loc. with additional examples). On a formal level, meanwhile, Idaios’ speech has an unusual structure, in that it uses not one but several terms from the semantic field ‘speech’, in contrast to most other indirect speeches in Homeric epic (386–388 ‘Priam and the rest … have bidden me | give you … | the word …’; 393 ‘he says’; 394 ‘They told me to give you this message also’). This is usually the case in messages where the speaker distances himself from what is said (here particularly clear; see the following lemmata). The terms also divide the speech into two parts: Paris’ offer and his refusal (Beck 2012, 95 f.). 385 = 327 (see ad loc.). 386 2nd VH = 10.563, VE after caesura C 2 = 16.103. Πρίαμός τε καὶ ἄλλοι Τρῶες: The king and his subjects are often mentioned in the same breath, frequently in formulaic expressions: 2.160n. — ἀγαυοί: a generic epithetP of human beings and gods, usually taken to mean ‘admirable, exalted’ (LfgrE; 3.268n. with bibliography; Stoevesandt 2004, 29, 37).

387 2nd VH = 4.17 (after the duel between Paris and Menelaos, Zeus suggests to the other gods that they let the war end now); VE after caesura C 2 = Od. 24.435. Idaios’ hyper-polite address to the Greeks (see below on the optative) underlines his interest in a positive reception of his proposal (Kirk: ‘Idaios’ attempts to be ingratiating add an element of drama to an otherwise foregone conclusion’). The herald likely represents the majority of war-weary Trojans (348–353n.); cf. 390 (389–390n.). Added to this is Idaios’ awareness of the inappropriateness of Paris’ proposal due to the violation of the oaths after the fist duel: ‘It seems as if the herald were reluctant to deliver Paris’ message’ (AH [transl.]). αἴ κέ … γένοιτο: Elsewhere in Homeric epic, αἴ κε with opt. is used only at 1.60 (εἴ κεν, Achilleus to Agamemnon) and Od. 13.389 (Odysseus to Athene). The great politeness expressed by the optative suggests a purely conditional reading of the sentence, with Idaios humbly asking permission to even be allowed to speak: ‘if it were in other ways acceptable and pleasant to you’ (AH; cf. 4.17n., but there simple εἰ with opt.). It is also conceivable that the αἰ clause refers not to εἰπεῖν – the question is thus not whether Idaios is allowed to speak – but to μῦθον Ἀλεξάνδροιο, that is, the approval of the relayed offer: ‘whether it might please you/hoping that it might please you’ (Tabachovitz 1951, 109 f.; Wakker 1994, 320 n. 40). This would correspond to αἴ κ’ ἐθέλωσιν at 375 and αἴ κ’ ἐθέλητε at 394 (375–378n.). — περ: here not to be understood concessively;

386 ἠνώγει: plpf. of the present perf. ἄνωγα ‘order, command’. — καὶ ἄλλοι: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 387 αἴ κε: = ἐάν (see 77n.). — περ: stresses the preceding word (R 24.10). — ὔμμι: = ὑμῖν (R 14.1). — καὶ (ϝ)ἡδύ: on the hiatus, R 5.4.

Commentary

183

instead, it reinforces the modal particle and thus increases the note of caution in Idaios’ tone (Bakker 1988, 231 [mentioning the present passage in the index p. 279]: ‘to introduce a sceptic tone’): ‘if it might perhaps please you’ (differently Wakker loc. cit.: ‘solely/ precisely hoping that’).

388 = 374 (see ad loc.). It must be kept in mind that the addressees are now a different group: an admission of Paris’ guilt to the Greeks is far more explosive than in the Trojan assembly. 389–393 Idaios modifies Paris’ speech, softening its acerbity by changing the order. Paris first refused to forfeit Helen, then subsequently ‘graciously’ agreed to return the looted goods (362–364), whereas Idaios starts with a kind of captatio benevolentiae with the offer, leaving the bad news for the end (de Jong [1987] 2004, 184). 389–390 389–390a ≈ 22.115 f.; 390 ≈ 24.764 (athetized by West; Helen talking about herself ), 1st VH = 22.116. — Idaios’ wish that Paris had died accords with the generally hostile mood toward the latter among the Trojans (3.57n.); cf. Hektor’s exclamations at 3.40 and 6.281 f., as well as Helen’s wish for his death at 3.428b–429 (3.428–436n.). More generally, the wish that the addressee had already been killed is a typical motif of insults (24.254n.); this is frequently combined with the notion that later suffering could have been prevented by a person’s death (3.173a n.). At the same time, it is unusual and in fact amplifies the emphatic intensity of Idaios’ speech that he does not address Paris directly but rather utters a wish for his death when speaking about him, the more so because he is among the enemy. (It is unlikely that these words are spoken as a quiet aside during the public speech [thus Democritus, according to schol. A on 390–391].) ὡς … ὤφελλ’ ἀπολέσθαι: ‘how … he ought to have died’, an unattainable wish in the past. ὡς underlines the notion of regret, as also at 3.173a; see ad loc. with bibliography. — κοίλῃς ἐνὶ νηυσίν: 78n.

391 ≈ 364, see 363–364n. 392–393 At 362, Paris talked about Helen as ‘the woman’ (or implicitly ‘my woman/ wife’); Idaios, in turn, stresses her status as the lawful wife of Menelaos, while furnishing the latter with a respectful epithetP (Stanley 1993, 96: ‘more than diplomatic emphasis’). He also makes it clear that Paris is wrong even in the eyes of the Trojans in keeping another man’s wife, while plausibly interpreting Antenor’s proposal (348–353n.) as the will of the Trojan community (Kirk). 389 κοίλῃς: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — νηυσίν: on the declension, R 12.1. 390 Τροίηνδ(ε): on the suffix, R 15.3. On the form (-η- after -ι-), R 2. — πρίν: adv., ‘earlier, previously’. 392 κυδαλίμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

184

Iliad 7

κουριδίην δ’ ἄλοχον: an inflectable VB formula (gen./dat./acc. sing.: 3× Il., 2× Od., h.Ven. 127). Said of Helen also by Menelaos (13.626), otherwise of the wives of Agamemnon (1.114), Odysseus (Od. 14.245) and Laërtes (15.356), as well as by Briseïs at Il. 19.298 (who, in mourning Patroklos, recalls that he had meant to make her Achilleus’ wife). On ἄλοχος, also 79–80n. — Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο: a VE formula (7× Il., 7× Od.). κυδάλιμος is derived from κῦδος; on the meaning (‘valiant’ or ‘in good spirits’) and word formation (on -άλιμος, Risch 105), 6.184n. This is a generic epithetP of heroes, especially Menelaos, but also of other (sons of ) heroes or their κῆρ (12.45): LfgrE. — οὔ φησιν δώσειν: ‘he refused to give up (sth.)’ carries more force than οὐ δώσει, particularly in response to the Trojan demands (AH); once again, Idaios distances himself from Paris. — ἦ μὲν Τρῶές γε: ἦ μέν (≈ μήν) has a strongly emphatic effect, particularly in combination with γε, which marks the contrast between the characters. The sentence is to be taken concessively (3.430 and Od. 19.167; cf. ἦ καί in Il. 3.215 [see ad loc. with bibliography]): AH; Leaf.

394 ≈ 375 (see ad loc.). ἠνώγεον: The order actually came from Priam; the 3rd-pers. pl. is used here for ‘the Trojans’. Had the verb been singular, Paris would have been taken as the subject (AH), although this is probably not the only reason for the herald’s phrasing: here too the contrast between Paris on the one hand, and the majority of the Trojans on the other, is made clear. – On the common pres. perf. ἄνωγα, 4.287n. with bibliography. On the unusual impf. form ἠνώγεον, Nussbaum 1987, 248–250; Katz 2006, 11–12 n. 27; Beckwith 2004, all with parallels and further bibliography.

395–397 = 376–378 (see 375–378n.). 398 = 92 (see ad loc.). — The indecisiveness always expressed by this verse is here amplified by the fact that Idaios has presented two proposals, one unacceptable (Paris returns looted goods in place of Helen), the other (truce and burial of the dead) in accord with the Greeks’ wishes (Elmer 2013, 28). 399–404 The Greeks are initially reluctant to respond; they may want to wait for Agamemnon’s answer. Perhaps buoyed by his success in battle on the previous day (schol. bT on 399), which was described in detail in the extended aristeia in Book 5, Diomedes, the youngest (14.112) of the Greek heroes, has the first word (‘the hero least overawed by circumstances’: Kirk on 398–399). The noisy approval of the Greeks after his speech demonstrates the men’s unity at this moment, in contrast to the complex circumstances in Troy (345–380n.): Christensen 2009, 139. Diomedes speaks decisively and with rhetorical sharpness: since the affront consists precisely of the fact that Helen is excluded from Paris’ offer, the statement that she should not be taken back seems particularly pointed: ‘even if you were to give us Helen, we wouldn’t take her back!’ (cf.

394 ἠνώγεον (ϝ)ειπεῖν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἠνώγεον: impf. of the present perf. ἄνωγα ‘order, command’; on the uncontracted form, R 6; ↑. — αἴ κε: = ἐάν (cf. 77n.); κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5), as also in 395 f.

Commentary

185

AH on 401; Kirk on 400–402). At this point, the original cause of the war, explicitly recalled by Idaios at 388, has conclusively receded into the background: ‘Diomedes appears to have forgotten the real reason for the Achaians’ expedition, which has become submerged in his mind by a desire to press on to nothing less than the total destruction of Troy’ (Zanker 1994, 48; cf. Introduction, p. 12 f. above). The clarification of Greek resolve casts an even more tragic light on Hektor’s panicked search for a way out shortly before his death at 22.110 ff. (would Achilleus let him live, if he were to return Helen?). If Diomedes’ present speech is still remembered there, the hopelessness of Hektor’s deliberation is clear. – Diomedes’ speech also marks a waypoint in the remarkable development of his character over the course of the Iliad. He is silent when unjustly censured by Agamemnon in Book 4; after his aristeia in Book 5, he speaks for the first time in the present passage at a prominent point and is acclaimed; in Book 9, he will painfully criticize Agamemnon (9.32 ff., 9.696 ff.) and again receive approval; finally, he prevails with his thoughtful advice in Book 14 (14.110–132n. with bibliography; also Christensen loc. cit. 151–153; cf. Taplin 1992, 134–136: Diomedes fights against gods with Athene’s support; he thus speaks from a position of authority where the plans of the gods are concerned, as in the present scene). 399 = 9.31, 9.696; 1st VH = 7.94 (see ad loc. and 92n.); 2nd VH from caesura A 4 = 10.219, 10.241, 14.109. — of the great war cry: a generic epithetP (25× of Menelaos, 21× of Diomedes, 2× each of the greater Aias and Hektor, 1× of Polites). The reference is probably primarily to a leader’s clear, commanding voice, perhaps also to his ability to frighten the enemy during an attack with loud war-cries (2.408n. with bibliography). βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Διομήδης: a VE formula (21× Il.). 400 τις: The indefinite pronoun seems more emphatic in its generality than the expected 2nd-pers. pl. (AH). — νῦν: stressed, with regard to 401 f.: at this point surely negotiations will no longer be entered into. Diomedes is likely alluding to the broken oaths, as well as to the Greek successes in Books 5 and 6 and Aias’ supremacy in the duel (AH on 401).

401 2nd VH = 17.629. δέ: explicative ‘because’ (Race 2000, 214) or ‘yes’, ‘indeed’. — νήπιος: here, as frequently in reference to adults, ‘oblivious’, particularly with regard to the future; cf. Edmunds 1990, 60: ‘lack of foresight’, ‘out of touch with the wishes or plans of the gods’.

399 μετέειπε: = μετεῖπε (cf. 23n.). — βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 400 ἄρ: R 24.1. — Ἀλεξάνδροιο: ablatival. — δεχέσθω: 3rd-pers. sing. mid. imper. 401 γνωτόν: here ‘recognizable’.

186

Iliad 7

402 2nd VH = 12.79, Od. 22.41 ≈ 22.33. — the terms of death: 101–102n. Diomedes is probably referring to the oath-breaking to which Troy’s fall is frequently linked prolepticallyP: 69n. ἐφῆπται: The meaning of ἐφάπτομαι is uncertain, presumably approximately ‘has been imposed’ (2.32n.); only perf./plpf. pass. ἐφῆπται/ἐφῆπτο with a dat. of person. The notion may be based on the idea of hunting with snares, in which animals will certainly become entangled; here, as at Od. 22.33, with the additional nuance of a contrast between the unsuspecting ‘prey’ and the ‘hunter’ who knows that he must only wait (LfgrE s.v. ἅπτω 1123.54 ff.).

403–405 The sequence ‘speech cappingP – response of the audience – speech introductionP’ frequently represents a compositional unit (2.333–335n. with bibliography, also on the different types of response of the audience and particularly cries of approval). 403–404 = 9.50 f. – 1st VH 403 = 92 (see ad loc.). – 404 = 9.711, 1st VH = 8.29, 9.431, 9.694 (athetized by West). — breaker of horses: 38n. ἐπίαχον: ‘they cried out’. Often an expression of agreement in mass scenes; the use in Odysseus’ speech at 2.333 and Agamemnon’s address at 2.394 is similar. On the range of meanings, which span joy, fright and pain, 6.468n.; on the semantic field ‘cry, shout’ in general, LfgrE s.v. αὔω 1689.7 ff. ἰάχειν is also used for the roaring of gods and/or forces of nature (e.g. 1.428 = Od. 2.428 waves; h.Miner. 11 the earth after the birth of Athene; h.Dian. 7 forests while Artemis hunts; Il. 23.216 fire), as well as for battle cries (e.g. 5.860 = 14.148, 13.835); the men’s cries of approval must thus be imagined as quite intense and as having heroic connotations (Hammer 2002, 154 f.), perhaps in contrast to the chaotic shouting common on the Trojan side (κελάδησαν: 18.310n.; on the Trojans’ lack of discipline in general, 306–308n.; 344n.; 346n.). –— υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectable VE formula, a collective periphrastic denomination; cf. the biblical phrase ‘the sons of Israel’ (1.162n.; 16.42n. with bibliography). — ἀγασσάμενοι: 41–42n. — Διομήδεος ἱπποδάμοιο: A VE formula, in addition to the iterata also at 5.415, 5.781, 5.849, 8.194, Od. 3.181.

405–411 Agamemnon’s reponse at first consists of a reference to the will of his men (406 f.), albeit not without qualification: while saying that he shares their opinion, he also points out that the decision ultimately rests with him (407; Kirk on 406–408; Carlier 1984, 167, 185). The authorization of a truce to bury the dead is given three times, each time intensified: the personal granting (408) is followed by the gnome that the dead should not remain unburied too long (409 f.); it concludes with the mention of oaths and an invocation of Zeus (411):

402 Τρώεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 403 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο; 43n. — οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), with υἷες Ἀχαιῶν in apposition. — υἷες: on the declension, R 12.3. 404 ἀγασσάμενοι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary

187

Ahrens 1937, 18. Agamemnon wisely withholds the plan to build a wall from the Trojan herald (Garcia 2013, 99 with n. 4). 405 2nd VH = 1.130, 1.285, 2.369, 4.188, 4.356, 10.42, 14.41. The verse structure καὶ τότ(ε) + acc. obj. + προσέφη + noun-epithet formula is common in early epic (15.220, 16.666, 21.228, Od. 7.178, 13.49, 23.247; e.g. Od. 15.194, 24.539 is similar). — κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: A VE formula; κρείων means ‘commanding, ruling’ (1.102n.).

407 and such is my pleasure also: Agamemnon’s expression represents a stark contrast to the beginning of the Iliad: while here he explicitly says that he takes pleasure in the attitude of the men (epi-handánei), at 1.24 the same term (there as simplex) communicates his displeasure – with grave consequences – at the troops’ agreement with the plea of Chryses, the priest of Apollo (ouk … hḗndane: Christensen 2009, 139; Elmer 2013, 115 with n. 20). Agamemnon seems to have learned to acknowledge, at least superficially, the will of his people, although the decision in the present passage comes at a much lower cost to him than that in Book 1. ὑποκρίνονται: ‘respond to someone (and thus communicate a decision)’, as at Od. 2.111 and h.Ap. 171. Elsewhere the verb means ‘interpret for someone’ (in reference to a dream or omen): LfgrE, where also on the unclear development of the two meanings. — ἐμοί τ’ ἐπιανδάνει: ‘and I too like it thus’; the compound expresses conclusive approval after the decision has already been made via agreement of all parties (LfgrE s.v. ἁνδάνω 800.72–801.10); differently at 45 (44–45n.).

408 VE after caesura C 2 = Od. 2.235, 8.206, h.Merc. 465 ≈ Il. 4.54. ἀμφί: elsewhere with a verb of thinking or speaking ‘concerning, regarding’, but here with an ellipse of the verb: ‘and the following concerning the corpses’. — μεγαίρω: derived from *μέγαρ(ός) / μέγας, ‘regard as too large, too much’ > ‘refuse, begrudge’ (LfgrE s.v.; DELG s.v. μέγας).

409–410 no sparing: In the Iliad, men killed in battle are generally buried quickly; this is due to practical necessity (the impossibility of long or frequent pauses in battle, dangers of decomposition), but can also be understood as respect for the dead, who are only released from the world of the living via the rituals of burial (24.37b n. with bibliography; also 19.228–229n.). – Agamemnon’s emphasis on the necessity of swift action implies dramatic consequences should burial fail to occur, anticipating the issues concerning Hektor’s corpse (cf. 76–

406 407 408 410

ἤτοι: ‘really, actually’ (R 24.4). τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). κατακαιέμεν: pres. inf. (R 16.4); likewise μειλισσέμεν (410). — οὔ τι: 27n. γίνετ(αι): = γίγνετ(αι). — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5) .

188

Iliad 7

91n.): Elmer 2013, 268 n. 11. – The syntax of this gnomic statement is uncertain: ‘there is no sparing’ should probably be understood as ‘it is not possible/acceptable to spare’ (Faesi/Franke). The temporal clause is likely not merely reinforcement, ‘the fallen dead, when they have died’, but part of what follows: ‘to placate them swiftly with fire when they have died’ (cf. Od. 11.221: AH; Kirk). οὐ γάρ τις φειδὼ … | γίνετ’ ἐπεί … μειλισσέμεν: The periphrasis φειδὼ γίνετ’ replaces the pass., which cannot be formed from φείδομαι; cf. 8.181 μνημοσύνη τις ἔπειτα πυρὸς δηΐοιο γενέσθω, 22.243 f. μὴ δέ τι δούρων | ἔστω φειδωλή, Od. 17.451 f. ἐπεὶ οὔ τις ἐπίσχεσις οὐδ’ ἐλεητύς | ἀλλοτρίων χαρίσασθαι, Od. 13.279 f. οὐδέ τις ἥμιν | δόρπου μνῆστις ἔην μάλα περ χατέουσιν ἑλέσθαι (AH). – μειλισσέμεν is an inf. of respect: ‘there is no sparing vis-à-vis placating them quickly’ (AH) or an ablatival inf.: = οὐ φειδὼ τοῦ μειλισσέμεν αὐτούς (Schw. 2.361). For the inf. after φείδω, cf. Od. 17.451 f., 20.202 f., 22.232 (AH). In Attic, the negative οὐ φειδὼ γίνετ’ would be connected to the inf. via μὴ οὐ (AH). — κατατεθνηώτων: a (redundant) epithetP with νέκυς/νεκρός (12× Il./Od., of which 8× in the VE formula νεκύων κατατεθνηώτων, as here): LfgrE s.v. νέκυς. On the form with -ηω-, G 95; Chantr. 1.430 f. — πυρός: partitive gen., as with χαρίζεσθαι. πῦρ in combination with verbs of burning (for which μειλισσέμεν is here used metonymically) is more often used as a partitive gen. than an instrumental dat. (2.415n.; Schw. 2.111). Cf. πυρὸς λελαχεῖν in 79 f. (AH; 79–80n.). μειλισσέμεν: a rare (elsewhere in early epic only at Od. 3.96) denominative verb related to μείλια ‘gift of reconciliation, compensation’; the etymology is uncertain and is perhaps explicable via μελ-ν-, like Latin mel, mellis ‘honey’ and Lithuanian malóné ‘grace’ or méilė ‘love’, Old Church Slavonic milǔ ‘compassionate’. At the time, μειλίσσειν was likely associated with μέλι, ‘honey’: DELG s. v. μείλια; Frisk s. v. μείλιχος; Graz 1965, 218–220; Redfield (1975) 1994, 279 f. n. 48.

411 ≈ 10.329. — Let Zeus … witness our pledges: As Zeus Horkios, ‘of the oaths’, he watches over oaths and contracts; on this, and on oath-deities in general, 1.86n.; 3.103–104n. The belief that gods intervene against perjurers is expressed repeatedly in the Iliad: 3.298–301, 4.155–168 [see 4.160–168n.], 10.328–331, 19.258–265 (3.292–302n.). – It is nevertheless somewhat confusing that ‘oaths’ are mentioned here at all, since neither Nestor (331 ff.) nor Priam (375 ff.) suggested any official validation of the truce. At the same time, a detailed description of an oath ceremony, like the one before the duel in Book 3, would be out of place, particularly since the violation of those oaths had been mentioned frequently; either an official procedure is silently assumed here or ὅρκια denotes the ‘contract’ Agamemnon has entered into via his approval at 408 (AH; similarly Torrance 2014, 144, who reads 408–412 as the swearing of an oath). The Iliad contains other examples of such ‘unsworn temporary truces’, e.g. Hektor’s instructions at 7.76–91 that the body of the slain duelist be returned

411 ἴστω: 3rd-pers. sing. imper. of οἶδα.

Commentary

189

to his people (see ad loc.) or the official agreement between Priam and Achilleus at 24.656–672 (24.658n.): Sommerstein 2014, 66. ἴστω: frequently in the VB formula ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς πρῶτα (19.258 [see ad loc.], Od. 14.158, 17.155, 19.303, 20.230) or in shorter variants (ἴστω νῦν Ζεὺς: Il. 10.329, ἴστω νῦν: 15.36, Od. 5.184, h.Ap. 84). — ἐρίγδουπος πόσις Ἥρης: A VE formula denoting Zeus, always in direct speech related to oaths (10.329), wishes addressed to the god (Od. 8.465, 15.112/ 180), or other forms of (supporting) interaction between gods and humans (Il. 13.154, 16.88, see ad loc. for prosodic equivalents and additional examples of the weather epithetP ἐρίγδουπος). On additional VE formulae for ‘Zeus’, 24.88n.

412 the scepter: The staff (skḗptron > ‘scepter’) represents political might and the power of judicial decision-making, and is held up during the oath (as at 10.321/328); elsewhere it is also the mark of a priest (1.14–15n.) or identifies the speaker in a public assembly (277n.). Agamemnon’s scepter has an illustrious origin, including an originally divine provenance; this underlines his authority (2.101–108, see ad loc.) as well as his descent from Zeus (Bouvier 2002, 273– 275). — in the sight of all gods: The initial mention of Zeus alone (411) corresponds to his dominant role among the Olympian gods, as well as to his function as god of oaths. The combination of a single, named god and the collective has parallels in both early epic and other ancient texts (3.298n. with bibliography). τὸ σκῆπτρον: The article is determinative: ‘the well-known staff that belongs to him’ (Schw. 2.22).

413–417a The narrator creates a smooth transition to the next scene by means of Idaios’ departure for Troy (Kurz 1966, 106), although it is unusual for the narrator to leave the arriving character to the side and describe the expectations of those in the house (415; cf. 10.530 f., Od. 15.550 ff./16.1 ff.: Arend 1933, 45 f.; De Jong on Od. 16.1–153 and 16.4–48). The quick ‘cut’ amplifies the effect of the parallelism between the two camps (Introduction, end). – On the location of the Trojan assembly (not stated explicitly here, but likely assumed), 346n. 413 2nd VH ≈ 429. ἄψορρον: adv. ‘going back, back’; the second element ὀρρ- is likely related to ἔρρω ‘depart’ (thus Forssman 1980, 185 ff.; Beekes s.v. ἄψορρος) rather than to ὄρρος ‘rump, ass’ (thus Frisk, LfgrE): 4.152n. As here, often at VB: 4.152, 12.74, 16.376, 21.382, Od. 10.558, 11.63, Hes. Th. 659, cf. h.Ap. 436, h.Merc. 505 (ἄψορροι). Emphatic: ‘«back once again» to the city’ (Kirk): see 413–417a n. — προτὶ Ἴλιον ἱρήν: an inflectable VE formula; see 20an.

412 ἀνέσχεθε: poetic by-form of ἀνέσχε. 413 προτὶ Ἴλιον ἱρήν: 82n.

190

Iliad 7

414 2nd VH = 8.154. ἕατ(o): perhaps derived from *ἥατο > ἕ͜ᾱτο via metathesis and synizesis (analogous with κέᾰτο) (3.134n. with bibliography). — Τρῶες καὶ Δαρδανίωνες: a variant of the formula Τρῶες καὶ Δάρδανοι (348–349n.), only here and in the iteratum. Δαρδανίωνες is synonymous with Δάρδανοι (348–349n.) and is a patronymic formation from the name of the Trojan primogenitor, Dardanos son of Zeus (20.215); cf. οὐρανίωνες as a synonym for οὐράνιοι (1.570n.). Another variant of the formula is feminine: 18.122 (see ad loc.) Τρωϊάδων καὶ Δαρδανίδων and 18.339 Τρῳαὶ καὶ Δαρδανίδες. 415 πάντες ὁμηγερέες: A VB formula (2.789n.). — ποτιδέγμενοι: -δέγμενοι, durative ‘waiting’, is used in place of –δεχόμενοι, which does not fit in a hexameter (Debrunner 1956, 77–79). — ἔλθοι: opt. as an indication of indirect speech expressing secondary focalizationP; with δέγμενος/ι and ὁπ(π)ότ(ε), as here, also 2.794, 9.191, 18.524, cf. Il. 18.508 (see ad loc.) and Od. 20.386: de Jong [1987] 2004, 111, 268 n. 31; Nünlist 2002, 452).

417a = 384. 417b–482 Burial of the dead and construction of the wall. 417b–432 Both sides bury their dead. The centerpiece of the passage, a touching description of the recovery of the dead (421–427b), contains at its core (424) a statement regarding the difficulty of recognizing them: the identity of individual warriors, and thus their affiliation with one of the two warring parties, is voided in death. The passage is accordingly framed by two groups of verses, in which the Greeks and Trojans perform the same actions (417b–420 and 427b–432), ‘here described in exactly balanced terms’ (Kirk on 419–420). The parallelism of the framing passages goes as far as having both start in the middle of the verse, where the Trojans are the subject; the Greek side in turn is twice described as ‘over there’ (hetérōthen, 419, 430). On the motif of a balance between Greeks and Trojans, repeatedly alluded to in Book 7, see Introduction, end; on the increased use of this element in the present passage, Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 94 f. 417b ≈ 2.52.

414 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), with Τρῶες καὶ Δαρδανίωνες (↑) in apposition. — εἰν: = ἐν (R 20.1). — ἕατ(o): unaugmented (R 16.1) 3rd-pers. pl. plpf. of the perf. ἧμαι ‘sit’ (R 16.2); ↑. 415 ποτιδέγμενοι: perf. part. of ποτιδέχομαι = προσδέχομαι ‘expect’ (↑). — ὁππότε: on the -ππ-, R 9.1. 416 ἀπέειπεν: = ἀπεῖπεν (cf. 23n.). 417 μέσσοισιν: on the -σσ-, R. 91. — τοί: = οἵ (R 14.3).

Commentary

191

418 ≈ 420. ἀμφότερον: adverbial appositive to the following sentence (ἕτεροι μὲν) νέκυάς τ’ ἀγέμεν, ἕτεροι δὲ μεθ’ ὕλην, ‘for both (things): (some) to bring back the dead, others to gather wood’: 3.179n. (with further examples of ἀμφότερον at VB as an appositive). — ἕτεροι δέ: The syntax is somewhat illogical, since the counterpart ἕτεροι μέν is omitted; this breaks up the strict symmetry of what follows (417b–432n.) (Ruijgh 205 with n. 114).

419 1st VH = 11.215, 12.415, 13.835. ἑτέρωθεν: frequently signals a change in scene or perspective, often in combination with a personal name (1.247a n.); see 311n.; 430n. — ἐϋσσέλμων ἀπὸ νηῶν: an inflectable VE formula (with variants in a number of positions in the verse; see 84n., where also for the meaning of the epithetP), likewise at Od. 2.414, 14.345 (ἐνί + dat. sing.), 8.500, 24.117 (ἐπί + gen. pl.), 12.358, 17.160, 19.243 (ἐπί + gen. sing.), h.Bacch. 7.6 (ἀπό + gen. sing.).

420 ≈ 418; see ad loc. νέκῡς is acc. pl. (< *-υνς: Chantr. 1.221 f.).

421–422 = Od. 19.433 f. In both passages, the verses denote a time of day well past sunrise: the hunting party gathered around young Odysseus at dawn (19.428), and at 19.433 he has already reached the upper slopes of Parnassos. The early morning described here is distinct from the dawn (381) throughout the entire Idaios scene (Kirk). προσέβαλλεν: probably ‘threw onto’, in which case an object such as φάος or ἀκτῖνας must be supplied; cf. 16.768 πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἔβαλον … ὄζους (trees during a storm); also Od. 12.71 καί νύ κε τὴν (ship) … βάλεν … ποτὶ πέτρας (LfgrE s.v. βάλλω 31.34 ff.). 422 ἀκαλαρρείταο: a hapax legomenonP compound in -της derived from ἀκαλά and ῥέω. The initial element occurs as the adv. ἀκαλά in ‘Hes.’ fr. 339 M.-W., Sappho fr. 43.5 Voigt, here an adverbial or internal acc. If related to ἀκή, ‘silence, calm’ (Frisk, DELG), the expansion with -λα- could not be explained via this etymology, and the word is thus better connected with *kelh2- (as in κέλαδος), ‘noisily rushing along’, so that ἀ-καλαρρείτης is ‘not featuring a noisy flow, flowing calmly’ (Meier-Brügger 1995–1996). — βαθυρρόου Ὠκεανοῖο: a VE formula, also at 14.311 (see ad loc.), Od. 11.13, 19.434. βαθύρροος, related to ῥέω, ‘with deep waters’, is an epithet of large streams such as the encircling Okeanos (called a stream throughout early epic: LfgrE s.v. Ὠκεανός 1333.27 ff.). The Okeanos flows all around the earth and represents the end of the world (14.200n.); the sun, moon and stars rise from it (18.488–489n.).

423 assembled together: The brevity of the concluding phrase underlines the pathos of the unusual encounter between Greeks and Trojans outside battle action (cf. Kirk on 421–432). 418 ἀγέμεν(ν), (ϝ)ἕτεροι: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura: M 8). — ἀγέμεν: pres. inf. (R 16.4). — ἕτεροι δέ: sc. ἕτεροι μὲν with νέκυάς … ἀγέμεν (↑). — μεθ’ ὕλην: ‘(go) for wood’. 419 νηῶν: on the declension, R 12.1. 421 ἠέλιος: = ἥλιος. — νέον: adv., ‘just now, recently, newly’. 422 ἀκαλαρρείταο: on the declension, R 11.1. — βαθυρρόου: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

192

Iliad 7

εἰσανιών: The double compound is securely attested elsewhere in early epic only once (Hes. Th. 761) aside from a fragment occasionally assigned to Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women (fr. 93.11 Traversa; on this, Pfeiffer 1937). It may be developed by assimilation to the VB formula in prayer scenes: οὐρανὸν εἰσανιδών (16.232 = 24.307). — ἤντεον: 3rd-pers. pl. impf. of ἀντάω; Ionic ε can be explained via the influence of similar fut. and aor. forms with verbs in -έω and -άω (Chantr. 1.361).

424 They found ǀ it hard to recognize: The stark motif of a slain man disfigured beyond recognition is used in Homer also in the case of Sarpedon (16.638–640): he too has the blood removed from him (by the god Apollo) and is carried away from the battlefield (16.667 ff./678 ff.); see 16.638–640n. with bibliography and for non-Homeric parallels. In Homeric epic, injuries are either fatal or light; the reality of severe injuries and extended suffering on the battlefield is elided. This does not lessen the pathos of the scene, since the nameless warriors appear particularly touching in death: not all the dead in the Iliad are raptured by a god or immediately retrieved by their companions, as warriors of lesser importance are initially left behind (8.491 = 10.199), chariots drive across corpses (11.533–537 ≈ 20.498–502), and the famous motif of animals feasting on the dead comes to mind (1.4n.) (Griffin 1980, 48, 137 f.). χαλεπῶς ἦν: on the adv. used as a predicative, 1.416n.; 6.131n.; Schw. 2.414 f.; Chantr. 2.9.

425 2nd VH = 14.7, 18.345, 23.41; ≈ 13.640. — but: adversative vis-à-vis what preceded: initially they were unable to distinguish the dead, but after cleaning it became possible to recognize and separate Trojans and Greeks (ΑΗ; Leaf; Kirk). This is thus not the ritual washing that is commonly part of burial rites (16.666–683n.). ἄπο: ‘(washed) away’. The compound ἀπονίζω occurs with tmesis only here in early epic (LfgrE s.v. νίζω, νίπτω, 402.1 f.). — βροτόν: ‘dried blood’, ‘crust of blood’, used in early epic only in the context of cleaning (in contrast to the related adj. βροτόεις, a general epithet of bloodied armor: LfgrE s.v.); aside from Od. 24.189, only in the present VE formula (see iterata). The etymology is obscure (18.344–345n.; LfgrE). 426 δάκρυα θερμὰ χέοντες: on the inflectable half-verse formula, the formular system ‘shed tears’ and the epithets with δάκρυ, 16.3n.

427 But great Priam would not let them cry out: This passage was long considered central to the question of Homer’s philhellenism (an overview of the scholarship in Stoevesandt 2004, 1–43): are the Trojans, in contrast to the

424 ἄνδρα (ϝ)έκαστον: on the prosody, R 4.3. 425 ὕδατι (ν)ίζοντες: on the prosody, M 4.6. (Note also the caesura: M 8.) — νίζοντες ἄπο: on the position and accentuation of the preposition, R 20.2 (↑). 426 ἀμαξάων: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἐπάειραν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 427 εἴα: 3rd-pers. sing. impf. of ἐάω.

Commentary

193

Greeks, so weak that their king must prohibit wailing? This view was often promoted beginning in antiquity (schol. AT), prominently by G. E. Lessing in Laokoon: ‘[Homer] wants to teach us that only the civilized Greek is able to weep and at the same time be brave, whereas the uncivilized Trojan must stifle all humanity in order to be so’ (1766, 20 f. [chapter 1; transl.]). The objection that the suffering of the besieged Trojans was greater than that of the besieging Greeks was used – also prominently – by J. G. Herder (1769), who nonetheless, albeit in a different context, noted the contrast between the ‘softer, Asiatic people’ and the ‘harder Greeks’ (although not necessarily to the disadvantage of the Trojans [1794, 192–194; transl.]). The qualification was added that Priam’s ban does not represent different mentalities but different customs: the reference was to a ritual lament, customary among the Trojans but not the Greeks, which would be inappropriate during the brief pause in battle (Jacobs 1791). This reading would find a parallel in Book 24, where the king interrupts the loud lament over Hektor, the thrḗnos led by the women, in order to direct the men to practical activity, in that case gathering wood (24.778–781, see ad loc.). It is nonetheless hard to deny that this passage fits the general depiction of the Trojans as ‘noisy’ and ‘disorganized’ (306–308n. and 344n.) and, unlike the Greeks, as needing to be exhorted to purposeful action. At the same time, the difference between the peoples is not drawn as pointedly as is sometimes implied. In fact, both sides weep (426), while the mourning during the burials is described with the same phrasing for both Greeks and Trojans (428/431 ‘with their hearts in sorrow’) (Kirk). In addition, later in the Iliad the greatest Greek hero, Achilleus, is depicted crying and wailing noisily while piling up the pyre for Patroklos and during the latter’s cremation (23.172, 23.178, 23.217 ff.). – The similarity between the two parties is rarely stronger than in this passage (417b–432n.). That the Trojan king is named as the only supreme commander may be related. The warriors are shown as mourners, united in their humanity; one name, that of the eldest, suffices to indicate the leaders (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 94 f., 387). — in silence: The position at VE (siōpḗi) underlines the pathos of the ‘dead silence’ (cf. Kirk on 431–432). μέγας: normally a generic epithetP of heroes, here likely pregnant in the sense ‘imperial, venerable’, as at 24.477 (see ad loc. with bibliography). — σιωπῇ: always denotes silence after a request (in contrast to σιγῇ); see 3.8n. with bibliography.

428–429 ≈ 431–432. — ἐπενήνεον: A problematic impf. form of ἐπινηέω ‘pile up, raise’ found only here and in the iteratum and sometimes suspected of being

428 κῆρ: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 429 ἔβαν: 3rd-pers. pl. root aor. (rather than ἔβησαν: R 16.2). — προτὶ Ἴλιον ἱρήν: 82n.

194

Iliad 7

a misspelling of ἐπενήεον (Schw. 1.648 n. 3, followed by LSJ); for discussion, DELG s.v. νηέω. In early epic always with a locative gen., as here (LfgrE s.v. νηέω). — ἀχνύμενοι κῆρ: an inflectable VE formula (nom. sing./dual/pl., acc. sing.: 7× Il., 6× Od., ‘Hes.’ Sc. 435). κῆρ is a verse-filling element without contextspecific meaning when used in connection with psychological processes (1.24n.; 19.57n. with bibliography); it has a mildly intensifying effect (‘from the bottom of one’s heart’): LfgrE s.v. 1408.38 ff. — ἐν δὲ πυρὶ πρήσαντες: ἐν πυρί is locative (Schw. 2.458); ἐν can conceivably be used adverbially in reference to πυρκαϊῆς (‘thereupon’), with πυρί accordingly a simple locative (Graz 1965, 232 with n. 2). — προτὶ Ἴλιον ἱρήν: an inflectable VE formula; see 20an. 430 ὡς δ’αὔτως ἑτέρωθεν: signals a change in perspective and scene (as at 311n.; 419n.; cf. 1.247a n.); a parallelism of the scenes is suggested via ὡς δ’αὔτως (‘exactly like that’) (Bonifazi 2012, 289 f.). — ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί: 57–59a n.

431–432 ≈ 428 f. κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας: 78n.

433–442 Early the next morning, the Greeks erect a burial mound and build a wall around the ships. 433–434 434 ≈ 24.789. — The early morning assembly around the burnt-out pyre and eventual place of burial has strong similarities in content and language with the description of Hektor’s funeral at 24.788–789 (Kirk): ‘But when the young dawn showed again with her rosy fingers, | the people gathered around the pyre of illustrious Hektor’. Given the extensive treatment of the topic of burial in the present Book, particularly in reference to Hektor (76–91n.), this passage may be an anticipationP of the end of the Iliad. — The vague impression that the Greeks and Trojans spent the night with the dead results from the gapP of the night’s rest, which is not mentioned explicitly, and the density of subsequent indications of time (381–417a n.). This impression matches the burial situation: it is customary to stay with the burning pyre throughout the night, something mentioned for the burials of both Patroklos (23.217–226) and Achilleus (Od. 24.65–72). A similar gap occurs in the context of Hektor’s funeral (24.784–804n.). ἦμος δ’ οὔτ’ ἄρ πω … ἔτι δ(έ) … | τῆμος ἄρ(α): οὔτ(ε) rarely corresponds to δ(έ), but this sometimes happens (cf. 24.368) ‘when the second element expresses a contrast with the first’ (K.-G. 2.292 [transl.]; Denniston 511): dawn as a contrast to twilight. Cf.

430 ὣς … αὔτως: ‘in the same manner, likewise’. 433–434 ἦμος … τῆμος: ‘when …, then’ (cf. R 22.2). — ἠώς: = ἕως. — ἄρ … | … ἄρ(α): here probably used mainly for metrical reasons (R 24.1). — πυρήν: on the form (-η- after -ρ-), R 2. — ἤγρετο: aor. mid. of ἀγείρω.

Commentary

195

24.368n. — ἀμφιλύκη: A hapax legomenonP in early epic (elsewhere only Apoll. Rhod. 2.671); ‘around the time it becomes light’. Its formation is unclear; probably a hypostasis from ἀμφὶ λύκην similar to ἀνάλογος derived from ἀνὰ λόγον (LSJ; DELG s.v. *λύκη). ἀμφιλύκη might conceivably be taken as a (sole) Homeric example of the subsequently attested meaning of the prefix as ‘uncertain, dubious’ (as in later Greek ἀμφίλογος, ἀμφιγνοεῖν) (Leaf). — κριτὸς ἤγρετο λαός: It is unclear to what extent the crowd building the burial mound and the wall is ‘chosen’; at 336 ff. Nestor apparently called on all Greeks (336 ‘And let us gather and pile one single mound!’). κριτός might a. be the result of earlier oral coinage, ‘not specifically thought out in context’ (Kirk), i.e. a phonetic parallel to the similar-sounding κλυτοῦ in the same position in the nearly identical 24.789; or b. refer to a group of ‘select’ individuals ordered to tend to the fire during the night, like Achilleus sitting at Patroklos’ pyre (23.217 ff.) until Agamemnon’s arrival awakens him the next morning (23.234). In the latter case, it is worth re-considering the original reading of the mss., where ἔγρετο (derived from ἐγείρομαι ‘wake up’) rather than ἤγρετο (from ἀγείρομαι ‘assemble’, conjectured by Düntzer) appears: Murray 2002. On this in detail, 24.789n. with bibliography.

435–440 ≈ 336–341, see ad loc. 436b–437 πύργους ὑψηλούς: The later mss. insert θ’ here (‘a fort … | and towered ramparts’); in fact, ‘towers’ does seem somewhat unwieldy as a simple appositive to ‘wall’, since the two elements cannot be identical. The lack of a conjunction is explicible on the assumption of a mildly illogical asyndetic enumeration of three elements: τεῖχος and πύργους as separate elements, εἶλαρ in apposition to both (‘and there they built the wall, tall towers, a rampart …’).

441 = 9.350, where Achilleus describes the ditch with mocking words: even with a ditch and stakes, the fortifications will not repel Hektor and the Trojans as long as Achilleus is not present in person. — stakes: not ordered by Nestor in his general instructions; this detail instead finds its place in the narrator text (Kirk). The stakes again feature prominently at 12.55–57 and 15.63 f.; in the first passage, it seems as if they are placed not inside the ditch but along the top of its edges. This is explicible if the edges are thought of as indistinguishable from the ditch itself (Hainsworth on 12. 63–64). Alternatively, this is one of the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the fortifications (on which, 313– 482n., end; in the case of the ditch, the description is more or less concrete according to the requirements of the scene: De Jong 2012, 29). σκόλοπας: a term, used only in the pl., for the stakes used in conjunction with a wall as fortifications; in the Iliad only of the fortifications around the ships, and perhaps at 18.177 of the city walls of Troy (see ad loc.), at Od. 7.45 of the Phaiakian city walls: LfgrE s. v.

435–440 ≈ 336–341 (see ad loc.). — ποίεον: on the uncontracted and unaugmented form, R 6, R 16.1. — ἐπ’ αὐτῷ: refers to τεῖχος, ‘immediately against it’. — ὄρυξαν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 441 ἐν: adv. (R 20.2), ‘therein’. — κατέπηξαν: aor. of καταπήγνυμι ‘stick, ram into’.

196

Iliad 7

442 1st VH = 5.84, 5.627. — flowing-haired Achaians: 85n. 443–464 Poseidon complains to Zeus that the Greeks built a wall without first sacrificing to the gods; he also voices concern that the new fortifications will eclipse the fame of Troy’s fortification walls that he built jointly with Apollo. Zeus grants him leave to destroy the new walls after the Greeks depart. The scene has a clear parallel in the Odyssey (13.125 ff.), where Poseidon similarly complains to Zeus about his wishes being ignored; the topic there is Poseidon’s enemy Odysseus, who is being returned to Ithaka on a Phaiakian ship. In the Odyssey, Zeus similarly encourages Poseidon and suggests the further action himself, namely turning the Phaiakian ship to stone in retaliation. For a detailed comparison (with analytical conclusions), Usener 1990, 67–80. For other speeches by enraged deities, 24.33–54n.; also Louden 2011, 21, with the parallel of the offended Ishtar in the epic of Gilgamesh. 443–444 444 ≈ 4.1. — meanwhile | the gods … | watched: Homeric epic sometimes uses descriptions of divine observation to smooth over changes of scene; cf. 17–18n. ἀστεροπητῇ: ‘hurling lightning’, also at 1.580, 1.609, 12.275, Hes. Th. 390, all at VE, as here, but in the nom. A distinctive weather epithetP, as in total 9 of 61 Homeric epithets for the weather god Zeus (1.354n.). — θηέοντο: Att. θεάοντο; on the Ionic blending of verbs in -έω and -άω, Chantr. 1.351. — Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων: 275–276n.

445 = 21.287; 2nd VH in total 14× Il., 10× Od., 1× Hes., 3× ‘Hes.’ — and … Poseidon … began speaking among them: As usual, the divine assembly has not been summoned explicitly (Zeus calls for an assembly only at 8.2 ff. and 20.4 ff.: Kurz 1966, 52); instead, one of the gods observing the situation starts the discussion. Although all or most gods are generally present (443 ‘meanwhile ǀ the gods’), only a few of them speak. Poseidon appears here as Zeus’ younger, rebellious brother, as elsewhere in the Iliad (14.135–152n.). He only speaks in the council of gods in the present scene, but is portrayed as an important member elsewhere as well (at 24.22 f., he is present in the council; at Od. 1.22– 95, Zeus uses his absence to push through Odysseus’ return home: Schulz 2011,

442 ὥς: = οὕτως. — κάρη κομόωντες: 85n. (likewise in 448, 459, 472, 476). 443 πάρ = παρά (R 20.1). — Ζηνί: on the declension, R 12.5. — καθήμενοι ἀστεροπητῇ: on the socalled correption, R 5.5. 444 θηέοντο: impf. of θηέομαι (↑); on the synizesis, R 7. — θηέοντο (μ)μέγα: on the prosody, ͜ M 4.6. — μέγα (ϝ)έργον: on the prosody, R 4.3. 445 τοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2. On the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — τοῖσι … ἦρχε: cf. 123n. — Ποσειδάων: nom.; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary

197

26 with n. 108). The gods’ speeches are also motivated by their observations of human events elsewhere: cf. 4.1 ff., where Zeus reacts to the duel between Paris and Menelaos, and 24.31–76 (see ad loc.), where Apollo speaks up after the gods witness the desecration of Hektor’s corpse. — who shakes the earth: Poseidon is not only the god of the sea, but also rules over the depths of the earth and earthquakes (14.135n. with bibliography, where also on the absence of these functions from cult). This function will play a role in his later destruction of the Greek wall (12.27–29). τοῖσι δὲ μύθων ἦρχε: A VB formula (7× Il., 10× Od.); a speech introduction formulaP. For the locative τοῖσι, 123n. — ἐνοσίχθων: in total 23× Il., 18× Od., 4× Hes., always in the nom. with one exception; the substantive Ἐννοσίγαιος at 7.455 is a later synonym in oblique cases (14.135n.).

446 on the wide earth: The adj. ‘wide, boundless’ (apeírōn) is hyperbolic: it generally denotes things that appear boundless without actually being so (LfgrE s.v. ἀπείρων). In Homeric epic, the earth is actually thought of as bounded: the stream Okeanos surrounds it (14.200n.). Ζεῦ πάτερ: 179–180n. A VB formula frequently combined with emphatic ἦ (ῥά), as here; cf. esp. 8.236, where it similarly introduces a question of hyperbolic universality. — βροτῶν ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν: A VE formula, also at Od. 17.386, 19.107; cf. the variants at Hes. Op. 487 βροτοὺς ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν, Od. 15.79 πολλὴν ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν and Od. 17.418 σε κλείω κατ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν; used in a contextually relevant manner in connection with the topic ‘fame’ (Sacks 1987, 38–43). Also ἠδ’ ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν at VB: 24.342n. 447 νόον καὶ μῆτιν: here synonymous as ‘the result of mental (planning) activity’ (Jahn 1987, 56 f. [transl.]); likewise at 15.509. — ἐνίψει: Given the context, this must derive from ἐνέπειν (‘report’) rather than ἐνίπτειν (‘censure’): Poseidon criticizes construction of the wall unaccompanied by sacrifice (450) and thus without communication with the gods, who are supposed to give their blessing. At the same time, ἐνέπειν and ἐνίπτειν are often confused; the form may have replaced an original ἐνέψει (DELG s. v. ἐννέπω; Chantr. 1.442 f.; Kirk; Leaf).

448 2nd VH after caesura B 2 = 459, 18.6. — now: dḗ áute, in direct speech almost always in indignant, frequently rhetorical questions; here clearly hyperbolic, since there is no actual repetition. Similar are Od. 10.281, where Hermes addresses Odysseus regarding the fact that he is ‘again’ travelling by himself on Kirke’s island of Aiaia, even though he is unfamiliar with the location, and

446 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — γαῖαν: = γῆν (likewise in 460). 447 ὅς τις: = ὅστις. — ἀθανάτοισι: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — νόον: ‘way of thinking, intention’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 448 ὁράᾳς: on the uncontracted form, R 8 and G 48. — ὅ τε: ‘so that’. — δὴ ͜ αὖτε: on the synizesis, R 7.

198

Iliad 7

11.93, where the shade of Teiresias asks Odysseus why he is ‘again’ visiting the dead (LfgrE s.v. αὖτε 1583.55 ff.; see 1.202n.; Bonifazi 2012, 245 with n. 178). οὐχ ὁράᾳς: A VB formula (also Il. 15.555, 21.108, Od. 17.545). — ὅ τε: frequently introduces factual result clauses (‘so that’, cf. Latin quod), as here; in addition, it has the causal sense ‘since, because’ (Schw. 2.645, Chantr. 2.288 f.). On writing the two words separatim, 1.244n.

449–450 ≈ 12.5–6 (12.6 athetized by West). — and not given to the gods any grand sacrifice?: The building of temporary fortifications during war may represent a borderline case in the characters’ imagination, where sacrifices are not automatically necessary, especially given the haste in the present passage (Kirk). But not only Poseidon is offended by this procedure: when the destruction of the wall is reported in Book 12, it is noted that it was ‘constructed against the will of the gods’ (12.8), and Zeus and Apollo help with the destruction. – Sacrifices would have imposed a degree of obligation on the gods to support those offering them; cf. the various passages where gods, in discussion with other deities, cite mortals’ sacrifices as an argument for supporting them: 4.30 ff. (Zeus–Hera/Troy), 8.198 ff. (Hera–Poseidon/Greeks), 20.292 ff. (Poseidon–assembly of gods/Aineias), 22.168 ff. (Zeus/Hektor), 24.66 ff. (Zeus/Hektor), Od. 1.59 ff. (Athene–Zeus/Odysseus). At the same time, gods are angry at the lack of sacrifices elsewhere, e.g. Il. 9.533 ff. (Artemis/Oineus), 23.859 ff. (Apollo/Teukros), Od. 4.451 ff. (gods/Menelaos): Parker 1998, 116–118. – The epithetP ‘grand, famed’ (kleitós) likely refers to the impressive scale of the sacrifices; elsewhere in the Iliad, the word is used of (usually Trojan) allied peoples (6.227n.) and cities: LfgrE s.v. κλειτός. τεῖχος ἐτειχίσσαντο: This figura etymologica occurs only here in early epic; for parallels, Fehling 1969, 156 f. τειχίζω is a denominative verb from τεῖχος with the independent suffix -ίζω (in the case of πολίζω [453 πολίσσαμεν], it is still mere -ζω): Schw. 1.735. The more usual combination is τεῖχος with the verb δέμω (13.683) or the adj. ἐΰδμητος (12.36, 12.137, 21.516). The enraged Poseidon’s unusual choice of words corresponds to the observation that tautology frequently characterizes angry speakers (Clary 2009, 68 f.). — οὐδέ: introduces a paratactic contrast to what precedes: ‘and/but not’, ‘without being …’ (AH). — κλειτὰς ἑκατόμβας: an inflectable VE formula (also acc. sing. and with expansion of the epithet to ἀγακλειτάς): 4.102, 4.120, 12.6 (athetized by West), 23.864 (athetized by West and printed only in the apparatus), 23.873, Od. 3.59, 7.202, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 479. On the term ἑκατόμβη ‘sacrifice of one hundred cattle’, i.e. generally ‘large-scale sacrifice’, see 1.65n.

449 ἐτειχίσσαντο: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — νεῶν ὕπερ: = ὑπὲρ νεῶν (R 20.2), here ‘for the ships’ protection’. — ἀμφί: adv. (R 20.2). 450 ἤλασαν: with τάφρον (449) as object: ‘they drove’. — οὐδέ: connective οὐδέ occurs in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — δόσαν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary

199

451–453 451 ≈ 458. — as long as dawnlight is scattered: metonymy for ‘across the whole world’ (Kirk). The expression is related to Homeric similes for measurements of distance (how far one can shout, see, etc.): see 3.12n. with examples and bibliography. The spatial extent of fame presumably includes a notion of its acoustic dimension (kléos = a verbal noun derived from a term for ‘hear’: Frisk; DELG): Wille 2001, 56 f. Expressions that describe the notion ‘widespread hearsay/fame’ are common in early epic; see 6.111n. with an overview. — and men will forget: This is based on the myth of Poseidon and Apollo having to build city walls for the Trojan king Laomedon in atonement for their rebellion against Zeus. (The cause is mentioned by schol. T on 21.444, schol. on Pind. Ol. 8.41b and Tzetzes schol. on Lyc. 34; see Kullmann 1956, 14– 18; on the rebellion by a majority of gods that is put down only with the aid of hundred-armed Briareos, 1.396–406n.). The statement that Poseidon built the Trojan walls together with Apollo contradicts 21.441 ff., where the sea-god claims to have built the walls himself while Apollo was herding the king’s cattle (possibly a contamination of the present myth with that of Admetos, whom Apollo must serve as a herdsman as punishment for the murder of the Cyclopes). But this deviation should not be overemphasized, since the story has been transmitted in countless variants (examples in Gunning 1924), sometimes with Apollo as the sole builder of the wall (e.g. Eur. Andr. 1009 f.). The Iliad itself alludes to a possible third version, in which the mortal Aiakos lends a hand to the two deities during the construction (6.433–434n.). In the two passages in the Iliad, Poseidon employs the variant that best serves his respective arguments (Richardson on 21.441–457; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 70 f.). In Book 7, the lack of appreciation for the Trojan city walls appears more serious if they are not Poseidon’s personal achievement alone but a structure built by two gods ‘with hard labor’ – the issue is a lack of reverence not for Poseidon but for the gods per se (corresponding to Poseidon’s introductory remarks regarding the absent sacrifice). In Book 21, by contrast, Poseidon reminds Apollo in great detail of all the efforts they both undertook only to be cheated out of their wages by Laomedon – with the aim of dissuading Apollo from supporting the Trojans. — Phoibos Apollo: an obscure epithet of Apollo (1.43n. with bibliography).

451 τοῦ … τοῦ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17 (likewise in 452). — ἤτοι: ‘truly’ (R 24.4). — ὅσον: adv. ‘as far as’. — ἠώς: = ἕως. 452 ἐπιλήσονται: generalizing subject: ‘people will forget, it will be forgotten’. — τὸ ἐγώ: on the hiatus, R 5.6 und 5.7. — τό: with the function of ὅ (R 14.5). 453 πολίσσαμεν: unaugmented (R 16.1) aor. of πολίζω ‘build’ (↑); on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἀθλήσαντε: on the dual, R 18.1.

200

Iliad 7

τοῦ … | τοῦ: The first pronoun refers back to τεῖχος (449), while the second points ahead to τό and refers to the Trojan city walls. — ἐπικίδναται: attested only in the middle; [σ]κίδναμαι is an epic-poetic by-form of σκεδάννυμαι (‘spread’). It occurs only three times in early epic: here and the iteratum for the light of dawn, at 2.850 of water (see ad loc. and LfgrE s.v. [σ]κεδάσσαι, σκίδν[ημι], [σ]κίδναμαι 139.23 ff.). The simplex κίδναμαι is also used at 8.1 and 23.227 ≈ 24.695 with the dawn as the subject. — Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων: a common VE formula, in addition to inflected variants at VB (16.527n.). — ἥρῳ: in early epic only here and at Od. 8.483; otherwise always trisyllabic ἥρωϊ. — πολίσσαμεν: πολίσσαι does not mean ‘found a city’ here, as in the other two examples in early epic (20.217, ‘Hes.’ fr. 240.5 M.-W.), but ‘build (a wall)’: LfgrE; perhaps a distinction of the ‘real’ city from the ‘camp’ that is merely ‘fortified’ by means of the new walls (Rabel 1997, 111 f.). — ἀθλήσαντε: ἀθλέω < *ἀϝεθλέω ‘toil’ is a denominative verb from ἄεθλος, similar to ἀ(ε)θλεύω but less common: only here and at 15.30 (Risch 332– 335; LfgrE).

454 = Hes. Th. 558; ≈ 1.517, 4.30. — Deeply troubled, Zeus … answered him: A speech introduction formulaP, in addition to Zeus (iterata) also of Poseidon (8.208, 15.184), Achilleus (16.48, 18.97, 19.419, 22.14), Menelaos (17.18, Od. 4.30, 4.332), Eumaios (Od. 15.325, where in the 2nd pers. in an anastrophe). See also 1.517n.; 6.48n.; 19.419n. with bibliography. ὀχθήσας: The verb describes different degrees of emotional agitation (16.48n. with bibliography), here most likely irritation (given Poseidon’s sensitivity; cf. the exasperated exclamation ὦ πόποι at 455): of Zeus in situations where he is pressured into decisions, confrontations or clarifications (LfgrE s.v. 903.59 ff.). – Speeches introduced by ὀχθήσας often start forcefully to match the agitation (frequently with ὦ μοι or, as here, with ὦ πόποι): LfgrE s. v. 903.37 ff. — νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς: 280–281n.

455 = Od. 13.140 ≈ Il. 8.201. ὦ πόποι: 124–125n. — Ἐννοσίγαι’: 445n. — εὐρυσθενές: An epithetP of Poseidon, always in a vocative formula; probably context-sensitive, since all three examples are concerned with the worship and fame of the sea god. — οἷον ἔειπες: ‘what did you just say!, what are you talking about!’, together with the prosodic alternative ποῖον ἔειπες (beginning with a consonant) 5× Il., 4× Od., always at VE, with an exclamatory function (also 3× Il. as an object clause at VE). Identical verse structure with interjection, address and the present expression at 8.152, 16.49, Od. 13.140; for additional parallels, 16.49n. (where an asyndetic explanatory verse also follows, as often).

456–457 far weaker: The motif of personal superiority or inferiority is common in the Iliad; cf. 113–114n.

454 μέγ(α): adv., ‘very’. — νεφεληγερέτα: 280n. 455 πόποι, Ἐννοσίγαι’: on the hiatus, R 5.5 and 5.6. — Ἐννοσίγαι’ εὐρυσθενές: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — οἷον (ϝ)έειπες: the digamma it not taken into account (R 4.6). — ἔειπες: = εἶπες (23n.). 456 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — δείσειε: aor. opt. of δείδω ‘fear’. 457 σέο: = σοῦ (R 14.1). — πολλόν: adverbial acc., ‘much, by far’; on the declension, R 12.2. — χεῖράς … μένος: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

Commentary

201

νόημα: here probably not the Greek ‘plans’, i.e. the construction of the wall (thus LfgrE s.v. 417.49 ff.), since this has already been completed and is thus no longer merely a ‘plan’. Instead, the term denotes Poseidon’s ‘thoughts’ that his achievements might recede into the background. — ἀφαυρότερος: 235n. — χεῖράς τε μένος τε: cf. 309n.

458 ≈ 451 (see ad loc.). 459 flowing-haired Achaians: 85n. ἄγρει μάν: ἄγρει is an imper. of ἀγρέω that came to be used as an interjection; μάν is added for emphasis (Denniston 331): ‘let’s go!’, ‘let’s get to it!’. Another 3× Il. and 2× Od. (of which 1× pl.); introduces another order in the imper. (14.271n. with bibliography). μάν forms an etymological unit with μέν and μά (as well as Attic μήν). It is frequently used in clauses correlated with a following clause, and particle compounds thus start replacing stand-alone forms early on (cf. μέν̣ … δέ in Attic), although here the latter is still present (Schw. 2.569 f.). — αὖτε: here temporal ‘sometime later’ (LfgrE s.v. 1584.20 ff.), in contrast to the present situation (AH).

460 = 15.499 ≈ 2.140, 9.27. φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν: A VE formula (16× Il., 13× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; of which 10× with a form of νηῦς ‘ship’ in the 1st VH): 16.832n., where also on φίλην (see also 44–45n.).

461–463 462 ≈ 12.31. — A prolepsisP of the destruction of the wall; a ‘short version’ of the more detailed description at 12.17–32, which uses literal echoes (see iterata). Poseidon and Apollo turn rivers against the wall, while Zeus causes it to rain, so that the wall is washed into the sea. (Poseidon also prods it with his trident.) Later on, the beach is restored to its original state with sand, and the rivers are turned back, so that nothing remains to be seen of the Greek wall (cf. 313–482n.). – On minor discrepancies between versions and the criticism of ancient scholia, Nickau 1977, 178–180. τὸ μέν: picks up τεῖχος once more in order to contrast it with what follows; cf. Od. 1.116 f. μνηστήρων τῶν μὲν σκέδασιν κατὰ δώματα θείη, τιμὴν δ’ αὐτὸς ἔχοι (AH). — καταχεῦαι: aor. inf. of καταχέω, here used imperativally; likewise καλύψαι from καλύπτω in the next verse. Because of their frequent combination with prospective conditional clauses (here at 459 f.), imperatival infinitives can also be understood as having a future sense (4.42n. with bibliography), which would be especially appropriate here in combination with ἔσται in 458. — ἀμαλδύνηται: ‘destroy, weaken, deface’; elsewhere in early epic only in the second passage discussing the destruction of the wall (12.18, 12.32, and thus also with τεῖχος as object) and at h.Cer. 94 (with εἶδος as object: Demeter disfigures her beauty by mourning).

459 μάν ≈ μήν: emphatic (R 24.7). — κάρη κομόωντες: 85n. 460 νηυσί: on the declension, R 12.1. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). 461 ἀναρρήξας: aor. part. of ἀναρρήγνυμι ‘destroy’. — τό: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17 (↑). 462 ἠϊόνα (μ)μεγάλην: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura: M8). 463 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1); ethical dat. or dat. of advantage.

202

Iliad 7

The verb is probably a denominative of *ἀμαλδύς; the initial vowel (of uncertain origin) aside, it corresponds to Latin mollis (< *moldṷis), Sanskrit mr̥dú- ‘soft, delicate’. On possible connections with βλαδύς, μέλδομαι, ἀμαλός, etc., see Frisk; DELG; Beekes s.v. ἀμαλδύνω.

464 A speech capping formulaP; 8× Il., 16× Od. A summaryP, here of the conversation among the gods, always introduces a change in scene to a different strand of the action (16.101n. with bibliography). 465–8.1 Greeks and Trojans have their evening meal; bad omens; night’s rest. Together with the beginning of Book 8, the closing scene in Book 7 forms a themeP: ‘sunset – meal – sleep – sunrise’ (for further examples, 1.475–477n.). It begins with a peaceful generic picture that evokes a mood of contentment: after the completion of a great task (‘a feeling of accomplishment’: Kirk on 466–482), the Greeks buy wine and enjoy a feast; the Trojans and their allies also feast. The exchange of gifts in the context of purchasing wine again brings into play the metaphor of the Greek camp as a fortified town (Rabel 1997, 110 f.), rendering it a mirror image of Troy herself (313–482n.). The ‘bustling’ at the shore provides a notable contrast to 459–463, where Zeus prophesies the future emptiness of the location, creating a broader context, ‘the emotional environment in which the poet saw his story’ (Owen 1946, 80 f.). The mood thus changes in the final verses, and the Book ends on a sinister note: Zeus, who intends evil for both parties (476–478n.), makes it thunder, commonly a bad omen in the Iliad (Kelly 2007, 113–115) that symbolizes the sound of the imminent battle (Owen loc. cit. 81), whereupon the men take fright and offer libations (Kirk on 476–482). In the Homeric narrator text, the refusal of a god to accept a sacrifice is often employed as a prolepsisP of disaster (2.419–420n.; Naiden 2013, 168 f.). Strictly speaking, this is not the case in the present scene, since the libations are offered in response to an evil omen rather than being the divine response to an act of sacrifice (as intimated by Stockinger 1959, 111). But the concurrence of thunder and feast (476–478n.) blurs this logic of causality. – The numerous impf. forms in 472 and 477–480 make the portrayal of the action more vivid: ‘the seer and rhapsode does not view them as completed but as becoming completed’ (Schw. 2.276 [transl.]). This changes from 480 onward, where the aor. forms that now follow increase the pace of the conclusion, ‘blow by blow, as it were’ (Schw. 2.277 [transl.]).

464 ὥς: = οὕτως.

Commentary

203

465 δύσετο δ’ ἠέλιος: A VB formula, only here in the Iliad, 10× Od., although there δύσετό τ’ ἠέλιος, a reading attested also for the present passage. At the same time, the formula is normally used at the beginning of a sentence rather than after the typical summaryP 464 (see ad loc.), as here, which is always followed by a coordinated main clause. The particle τε is thus scarcely to be expected (Ruigh 175 f.). On the thematic s-aor. δύσετο, 19.36n. — τετέλεστο δὲ ἔργον Ἀχαιῶν: Similar phrasing occurs in the proverb-like expression ἅμα μῦθος ἔην, τετέλεστο δὲ ἔργον, ‘said and done’ (19.242; see ad loc. and cf. Od. 22.479). The focus here may also be on the completion of the labor within a short period of time.

466–475 The scene in which the Greeks supply themselves with wine from the ships of Euneos from the island of Lemnos has sometimes been considered a later Attic insertion. There are in fact contextual inconsistencies (West 2011 on 466–481): 9.71 f. states that the Greeks receive daily supplies of wine from Thrace, but here a shipment from Lemnos creates enormous interest among the troops, giving rise to the impression that this is a special luxury. The argument that the drunken night (476 f.) contradicts the Greeks finally going to rest (482; West loc. cit.) fails to convince; there is no reason they cannot go to rest in the early morning. Additional arguments against the passage’s authenticity are the term ἀνδραπόδεσσι, which is not attested elsewhere in early epic (but see 473–475n.), the reference to Euneos, the ancestor of the Attic genos Euneidai (e.g. Wackernagel 1916, 154–156; Von der Mühll 1952, 142 f.), and the hapax legomenonP βουφόνεον, used at 466 to mean ‘they slaughtered cattle’ (Finglass 2006, 190–192; but see 466n.). Each of these can be considered atypical of Homeric epic to a greater or lesser degree, and in this regard the passage is an example of the Iliad’s heterogeneity in style and content; cf. Kelly 2008, 16 ‘the textual criticism of Homer must come to terms with the variegated nature of the poem and its tradition’. The short narrative probably derives from ancient Indo-European patterns, and the order of the gifts mentioned thus finds parallels in the Hittite ‘Merchant epic’ (Watkins [1979] 1994, 655–662). 466 ≈ 2.399. — near the huts: 313n. βουφόνεον: A hapax legomenonP, although other compounds from βοῦς and φονεῖν are common in Greek (e.g. the feast of the Bouphonia and the month name) and are attested in early epic (h.Merc. 436 Βουφόνε). But the word is perhaps used with a pregnant sense. φονεῖν carries a connotation of violence (Leaf), and given that the Greeks have neglected to offer sacrifice during the construction of the wall, that Poseidon blames them for this, and that Zeus will send a bad omen immediately after the evening meal, an accusation might be implied: ‘Here, where the Achaians would have been obligated

465 ἠέλιος: = ἥλιος. — τετελέστο: unaugmented (R 16.1) plpf. pass. of τελέω, denotes a state: ‘had been completed’. — δὲ (ϝ)έργον: on the prosody, R 4.3. 466 ἕλοντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

204

Iliad 7

to sacrifice to the gods but instead slaughtered the cattle for themselves, the poet inserts this word in order to signify that something improper is taking place’ (Bechert 1964, 13 [transl.]). Cattle are valuable animals that are only slaughtered on special occasions (18.559n.). — δόρπον ἕλοντο: A formula, also at VE at Od. 14.347, before caesura B 2 at 4.786; cf. the formula δεῖπνον ἑλόντο in the same verse position in Il. 2.399, 8.53, Od. 9.86, 10.57. δόρπον means ‘evening meal’, in contrast to δεῖπνον (19.208n.). 467 παρέστασαν οἶνον ἄγουσαι: The form παρέστασαν appears to be placed before οἶνον for metrical reasons (since the digamma that would have made position is no longer taken into account). It is either a plpf. (Wackernagel [1878] 1979, 1549 f.) or a by-form of aor. παρέστησαν (Shipp [1953] 1972, 261).

468 2nd VH after caesura B 2 = 23.747. — Euneos: The son of Jason the Argonaut and Hypsipyle, queen of Lemnos (469n.). In the present passage, the speaking name (eu néō: ‘swim well’, Pavan on Stat. Theb. 6.342) seems appropriate for the sailor, but is linked to the voyage of the Argo by Statius (Theb. 6.342 f. omine dictus | Euneos Argoo). The fact that in antiquity the character was taken to be closely linked to the Argonaut saga makes it unlikely that he was a Homeric invention (thus Kirk). Euneos is elsewhere only rarely attested, albeit as a colorful character (Burkert 1994): after the death of Jason, he is brought to Thrace by Orpheus and instructed in playing the lyre (Eur. Hypsipyle, fr. 759a.1610–1631 Kannicht [TrGF 5.2, 71, p. 787 f.]) and establishes a dynasty of dancers and kithara-players (Hesych. s.v. Εὐνεῖδαι). He wins a chariot race at the Nemean Games together with his twin brother Deipylos (Hygin Fab. 15 and 274) or Thoas (Stat. Theb. 6.340 ff.). – Euneos is portrayed as a proficient trader elsewhere as well (cf. 473–475n.); 21.34 ff. and 23.740 ff. report that he bought the captive Lykaon, a son of Priam, from Achilleus in exchange for a silver mixing-bowl worth 100 head of cattle, and he subsequently has a guest-friend ransom Lykaon for a handsome profit. Homeric epic rarely portrays commercial trade (Seaford 2004, 26–30; overview of booty and exchange activities in Van Wees 1992, 218–227; on commercial transactions, Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 65–82). 469 2.VH = Hes. Th. 1000. — Hypsipyle … Jason: After the women of Lemnos murdered their faithless husbands, Hypsipyle became queen of a women’s state. She alone spared her father, whom she sent in a box into exile across the sea. She and the other women of Lemnos fell in love with the Argonauts, who stopped at Lemnos; Hypsipyle gave birth to a son by Jason (thus e.g. Apoll. Rhod. 1.609–914, Ov. Her. 6, Stat. Theb. 5, ‘Apollod.’ 1.114 f. = 1.9.17, Val. Fl. 2.72–

467 νῆες: on the declension, R 12.1. — Λήμνοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 468 τάς: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5); likewise τόν in 469. — προέηκεν: aor. of προίημι ‘send (out)’ (-έηκα is a by-form of -ῆκα). — Ἰησονίδης: on the form (-η- after -ι-), R 2. 469 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — Ὑψιπύλη ὑπ’: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

Commentary

205

430, Pind. Nem. hypothesis b). The Argonaut saga is mentioned explicitly in Homeric epic only at Od. 12.69–72 (for other references, see West [2005] 2011a; cf. Mackie 2001 on the sparse early Greek references to the figure of Jason); Lemnos, by contrast, appears in multiple passages, e.g. in the Diós apátē, the story of Zeus’ seduction by Hera at 14.153–353 (14.230n.), as well as in the background story for the Greek expedition to Troy, via Philoktetes, who is abandoned there (2.716 ff.), and as a stop for the Greek forces on their way to the city (8.228 ff.): Kirk on 467–469. Lemnos is an integral part of the plot of the Iliad, not merely a background location as the home of one or more heroes, as is the case for Phthia, Argos, Boiotian Thebes and Lycia (Tsagalis 2012, 161). – The Lemnians seem connected to the Greeks in benign neutrality; the other supplier of wine in the Iliad is Thrace at 9.72 (Leaf on 468). ὑπ’ Ἰήσονι: τίκτω ὑπό τινος (also at 2.714, 2.728, 2.742, 2.820, 5.313, 9.492, Hes. Th.1001) means ‘receive, conceive (a child) from someone’; see Wickert-Micknat 1982, 105. — ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectable VE formula (dat./acc.); a common generic epithetP of rulers and military leaders (1.263n.; 2.243n.; 16.2n.), of Jason in early epic only here, the iterata and ‘Hes.’ fr. 40.1 M.-W.

470 Apart to the sons of Atreus: The wine intended for the sons of Atreus is possibly a kind of ‘giveaway’ before trading is initiated with the remaining Greeks. Trade and gift-giving are not mutually exclusive: ‘Mentes’ at Od. 1.182– 184 impersonates a metal-trader but is given guest-gifts by Telemachos (1.307– 313); at Il. 23.740–745, even the Phoenicians, proverbial traders, present a gift to the Lemnian king Thoas (Seaford 1994, 18 f.). 471 a thousand ǀ measures: The amount a ‘measure’ (métron) represents cannot be definitely determined (LfgrE s.v. μέτρον 173.26); it perhaps corresponds to the Phoenician saton, i.e. approximately twelve liters (AH). The number here is probably hyperbolic and represents a large quantity (Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 24 f.). Large quantities of wine were usually transported in ceramic vessels (Od. 2.290, 9.204), small quantities in wineskins (3.247n.): AH on 467. μέθυ: Wine, originally ‘mead’ (Sansk. mádhu-, ‘honey’ or ‘sweet’: Frisk; DELG; ΒΕΕΚΕs) was later probably used for all alcoholic beverages (LfgrE s.v.).

472 the flowing-haired Achaians: 85n. οἰνίζοντο: ‘supplied themselves with wine’, here in the sense ‘bought’ (LfgrE). The use of a specialized verb implies the existence of a wine trade (Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 71). On trade in the early Greek period in general, see Kopcke 1990.

470 χωρίς: ‘apart’. — Ἀτρείδῃς: on the declension, R 11.1. 471 ἀγέμεν: pres. inf. (R 16.4); here with a final sense. — χείλια: = Attic χίλια. 472 ἔνθεν: ‘from there’; on the suffix, R 15.1. — ἀρ’ (ϝ)οινίζοντο: the digamma is not taken into account (R 4.6). — κάρη κομόωντες: 85n. (likewise in 476).

206

Iliad 7

473–475 The items the Greeks exchange are probably booty, which should be plentiful in the Greek camp after ten years of war and numerous raids into the Trojan hinterland (1.125n.); Euneos probably receives a very good price for his wine – 21.80 also stresses his commercial success (van Wees 1992, 238 f.). – The five-fold anaphora of ἄλλοι (the only example in surviving early epic: Nickau 1977, 129 f.) creates an impression of busyness (Kirk); the identical rhythm in 473 and 474 with a purely spondaic first VH and a dactyl in the second – A-B A-B – suggests a back and forth. — shining iron: Iron is considered a precious material (137–141n.). χαλκῷ … | … | … ἀνδραπόδεσσι: Instrumental datives, ‘price as means’ (Schw. 2.166 f. [transl.]). — αἴθωνι σιδήρῳ: an inflectable VE formula, also at 4.485, 20.372, Od. 1.184, h.Merc. 180 (acc. in the latter two passages), Hes. Op. 743. The basic meaning of αἴθων is disputed, in reference to metal (objects) either ‘brown’ or ‘bright, shining’ (19.243– 244n. with bibliography); given the other epithets used with σίδηρος, πολιός ‘grey’ and πολύκμητος ‘well-shaped’, ‘shining’ seems more likely, while ‘brownish red’ might apply at most to the finish, e.g. in the shape of an applied colorant (Kirk). — δὲ ῥινοῖς: ῥhere, as usual, makes position (original form *u̥rīnó-); the sole exception is Od. 5.281 (LfgrE). — ἀνδραπόδεσσι: a possessive compound from ἀνδρα- and ποδ-, a collective plural formed like τετράποδα (Hdt., e.g. 4.18), i.e. ‘human-legged’ instead of ‘four-legged’ (Frisk; LfgrE, both with additional bibliography). A hapax legomenonP in early epic; more common terms for slaves are e.g. δμῶες, δμωαί, δούλη; the adj. δούλιον in the expression δούλιον ἦμαρ is related (Kirk on 473–475). The word was considered Attic already in antiquity (by Aristarchus, according to Aristonikos; see schol. A, bT [Roemer 1912, 155 f. considers this attribution unjustified]; probably also by Aristophanes and Zenodotos [thus Eust. p. 692.21 f.]; in the modern period by Wackernagel 1916, 154–156). This is first countered by Wilamowitz 1916, 53, 507, followed by Egli 1954, 16, 18 f., 21– 23, 39 f.: the heteroclite paradigm -δα, -δων, -δοισι is attested as early as Herodotus, while sing. -ον first occurs in ‘Xenophon’ (Ath. Pol. 1.18). An overview of the scholarship in Van der Valk 1964, 449 with n. 344; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 34 n. 2; on the criticism of ancient scholia in detail, Nickau 1977, 129 f. — δαῖτα θάλειαν: an inflectable VE formula, in the acc. also at Od. 3.420, in the dat. at 8.76; with the words separated at 8.99 (δαιτὶ συνήορός ἐστι θαλείῃ). θάλεια is a derivative (attested solely in the feminine) of θάλλω, ‘flourish, prosper’ and as an epithet of a feast means approximately ‘opulent’ (Frisk; DELG).

476–478 1st VH of 476 = 18.354; 2nd VH of 478 after caesura B 1 = Od. 14.243. — All night … | … | but all night: The emphatic anaphora (pannýchioi … | … |

473 χαλκῷ, ἄλλοι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 474 αὐτῇσι βόεσσιν: ‘with the cattle themselves’ = ‘with entire cows’ (in contrast to the aforementioned skins). — αὐτῇσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — βόεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3; likewise ἀνδραπόδεσσι in 475. 477 κατά (+ acc.): of spatial extension ‘across, in’. — πτόλιν: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2. — ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). 478 σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — μητίετα: nom. sing. of the a-decl. in short -α, ‘abounding in μῆτις’; ↑.

Commentary

207

pannýchios) emphasizes the simultaneity and thus the contrast between the peaceful meal and the bad omen. The only parallel in early epic is the solemn nocturnal burial of Patroklos at 23.217–220, where the anaphora similarly juxtaposes divine and human action, again in the context of a libation (‘Nightlong [the winds] piled the flames on the funeral pyre together ǀ and blew with a screaming blast, and nightlong swift-footed Achilleus ǀ from a golden mixingbowl, with a two-handled goblet in his hand, ǀ drew the wine and poured it onto the ground and drenched the ground with it.’ In general on activities in the Iliad that last all night, Kelly 2007, 356 (with additional bibliography). — was threatening evil ǀ upon them: It is unclear whether the pronoun ‘them’ (sphin) refers to the Greeks alone (Faesi/Franke; AH; Willcock) or to both parties (Eust. p. 692.11 ff.; Leaf; Kirk); the former is indicated by the fact that disaster is imminent for the Greeks (henceforth, Zeus will comply with Thetis’ request to support the Trojans; see Introduction p. 11–14), whereas disaster for the Trojans is still far away. Reference to both parties nevertheless seems more likely; at any rate, the Trojans were mentioned most recently (otherwise 477 after caesura A 4 would have to be read parenthetically with omission of a verb meaning ‘dwell’). In addition, the motif of balance permeates the Book as a whole and suits the final verses perfectly (Di Benedetto 1998, 242 f.; cf. Duckworth 1933, 55 n. 124: ‘the normal interpretation that sphin refers to both Achaeans and Trojans coincides with what the reader has been led to expect – temporary woes for the Achaeans and ultimate disaster for the Trojans’); cf. 69–72, where Hektor suspects Zeus is irritated with the Greeks and the Trojans in equal measure, and 2.38–40, where Agamemnon lacks the same insight. The pronouns in the subsequent verses thus also likely refer to warriors in both camps. – The balance of fate will tip against the Greeks only in the next Book; Zeus again signals this via thunder and lightning that induces ‘green fear’ (see 479n.), unambiguously in this case, only on the Greek side (8.68–77). κακὰ μήδετο: The formula is used here and in the iteratum after B1; at Od. 3.166 and 12.295 after caesura C 1. — μητίετα Ζεύς: A VE formula, 16× Il. (of which 1× voc.: 1.508), 3× Od., 10× Hes., 7× h.Hom. On Zeus’ μῆτις and the form μητίετα, 1.175n. (also 124–125n. on ἱππηλάτα).

479 2nd VH = Od. 11.43, 11.633, 12.243; ≈ Il. 8.77, 17.67, 22.42, 24.533, Od. 24.450, h.Cer. 190. — terrible thunderstroke: Thunder as a phenomenon is closely linked to the weather-god Zeus (1.354n.), as evidenced by his typical epithetsP (erígdoupos, ‘loud-thundering’, terpikéraunos, ‘delighting in thunder’, hypsibremétēs, ‘highthundering’); he sometimes employs it as a sign of honor or elevation (Krapp

479 σμερδαλέα κτυπέων … δέος: on the uncontracted forms, R 6. — σμερδαλέα: ‘terribly, horribly’ (adv.).

208

Iliad 7

1964, 180–183), but it is mostly used to frighten, as here. For additional examples of Zeus showing his displeasure via lightning and/or thunder, see 16.384–393n. with additional bibliography; he will again frighten the Achaians with thunder and lightning on the next day (8.75 ff.). Zeus’ thunder and lightning join a series of situations where he intervenes in the action via unusual meteorological phenomena (16.459–461n.) either in the form of disquieting omens, as here, or via more direct interventions, e.g. when he ends the battle for Sarpedon’s body by casting night over the battlefield (16.567 f., see ad loc.). — green fear: Enallage; the adj. chlōrós denotes a variety of color shades ranging from ‘green’ (plants) and ‘yellow’ (honey) to ‘shining’ (metal); the reference here is pobably to the color of a frightened face, i.e. a yellowish pallor, perhaps in combination with glistening sweat or tears (Idomeneus calls the change in facial color a sign of cowardice: 13.279). As here, the cause for fright is often a loud noise (LfgrE s.v. χλωρός). The sudden recognition of an ambush likewise provokes this emotion (Il. 10.374–376, Od. 22.42): Dué/Ebbott 2010 on 10.376. Finally, the phrase ‘green fear’ (chlōrón déos) and similar expressions (Il. 10.376 and 15.4: ‘in green fear’, chlōrós/oí hypaí deíous) are frequently used for divinely inspired fear: ‘a superhuman, unconquerable force … a coded sign for something beyond mortal control’ (Foley 1999, 217). – Elsewhere Zeus also frightens the troops (cf. 8.75 ff.) or individual warriors (e.g. 11.544 ff.), as does Apollo (cf. 17.118). σμερδαλέα κτυπέων: The expression shows similarities with the VB formula σμερδαλέα ἰάχων (7× Il., 1× Od.; inflected at h.Hom. 28.11) that denotes a loud battle cry (19.41n.); Zeus’ thundering forecasts difficult battles. σμερδαλέον means ‘terrible, horrible’, of acoustic or visual impressions, always at VB (2.309n. with bibliography; also Kelly 2007, 135 f.; LfgrE). κτυπτεῖν for ‘thundering’ is used in Homeric epic only of Zeus sending a sign to human beings; only here in the iterative pres. part., elsewhere always in the instantaneous aor. (LfgrE). It is thus a singular and correspondingly threatening sign that it thunders throughout the night. — ᾕρει: The impf. underlines the gradual progression of the action; ‘took them one after the other’ (Schw. 2.277).

480–481 and none was so hardy | as to drink, till he had poured …: In contrast to libations of wine in the context of funerary rites (23.220, see 476–478n.) or during oath sacrifices, where the wine that is poured can symbolize an oathbreaker’s brain (3.292–302n.), in the context of a meal only half of it is poured, while the remainder is consumed (6.259–260n.). The familiar ritual is nevertheless charged with fear here: the Greeks may have forgotten to make sacrifice during the construction of the wall, but in their current frightened state they follow the customs down to the smallest detail.

480 δεπάων: gen. pl. of τὸ δέπας. 481 πρὶν … πρίν: the first is adverbial, the second a conjunction; ‘sooner … than’. — πιέειν: aor. inf. of πίνω (on the form, R 16.4, R 8).

Commentary

209

δεπάων: The shape of the dépas cannot be clearly deduced from early epic: 24.101n. — οὐδέ τις ἔτλη: A VE formula (6x Il., 3x Od., h.Ap. 47). — ὑπερμενέϊ Κρονίωνι: 314– 315n.

482–8.1 482 ≈ 9.713, Od. 19.427; 2nd VH = Od. 16.481; 8.1 ≈ 24.695, cf. 23.227; 1st VH = 19.1 (see ad loc. on ‘Dawn the yellow-robed’); 2nd VH after caesura C 2 = 9.506, 23.742, Od. 24.509. — took the blessing of slumber: Sleep is here perhaps thought of as personified (Clarke 1999, 238; on depictions of sleep in Homeric epic as sometimes anthropomorphic, sometimes not, 14.231–291n. and 14.231n.). – With a view toward the imminent disaster and the wide-spread fear, the ‘rather bland conclusion’ (Kirk) might contain a note of irony. The phrase always marks the end of a Book or at any rate a significant break (Od. 19.427). The end of the day also marks the (post-Homeric: 1–16n.) end of a Book between Books 1/2, 10/11 and 18/19 (fig. 2 in STR), but here this is unusually clearly motivated by the separable concluding events in Book 7 on the one hand, and the initial actions in Book 8 on the other (sleep contrasts with dawn, the succession of assemblies contrasts with the resumption of battle, Zeus’ threatening rumbling contrasts with the divine assembly at 8.1–52): Taplin 1992, 289. The seamlessness of the narrative between going to rest and the dawn, with no description of events during the night, is unique in Homeric epic — this is admittedly anticipated, as it were, by the anaphora ‘all night long’ at 476 and 478 — nor is there a temporal conjunction indicating the passage of time (Heiden 2008, 57 f.). – On the wealth of variants in formulae describing dawn, Kirk on 2.48–49 and 8.1; MacLeod, Introd. 47 f.; cf. 2.48–49n.; 19.1–2n.

Bibliographic Abbreviations 1 Works cited without year of publication (standard works) Homers Ilias. Erklärt von K. F. Ameis und C. Hentze, Leipzig and Berlin 11868– 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 (4–6) 61908; vol. 1.3 (7–9) 51907; vol. 1.4 (10–12) 51906; vol. 2.1 (13–15) 41905; vol. 2.2 (16–18) 41908; vol. 2.3 (19–21) 41905; vol. 2.4 (22–24) 41906. (Reprint Amsterdam 1965.) AH, Anh. Anhang zu Homers Ilias. Schulausgabe von K. F. Ameis, Leipzig 11868–1886 (commentary on Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze); cited in this volume: Heft 2 (on Il. 4–6) 21882. ArchHom Archaeologia Homerica. Die Denkmäler und das frühgriechische Epos. Edited by F. Matz and H.-G. Buchholz under the authority of the DAI. Göttingen 1967–. Beekes Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assistance of L. van Beek (Leiden Etymological Dictionary Series, 10). Leiden and Boston 2010. (2 vols.) BNP 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 24. 10. 2022); 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.) CG Graf, F. ‘Cast of Characters of the Iliad: Gods (CG)’. In Prolegomena, 122–139. CH Stoevesandt, M. ‘Cast of Characters of the Iliad: Human Beings (CH).’ In Prolegomena, 140–150. Chantr. Chantraine, P. Grammaire homérique6. Paris 1986–1988 (11942–1953). (2 vols.) DELG 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 Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934). DMic Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 vols.) Edwards Edwards, M.W. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. V: Books 17–20. Cambridge 1991. Faesi Homers Iliade4. Erklärt von J. U. Faesi. Leipzig 1864–1865 (11851–1852). Faulkner Faulkner, A. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Oxford 2008. Fernández-Galiano Fernández-Galiano, M. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) FOR Latacz, J. ‘Formularity and Orality (FOR).’ In Prolegomena, 39–64. Frisk Frisk, H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1960– 1972. (3 vols.) G Wachter, R. ‘Grammar of Homeric Greek (G).’ In Prolegomena, 65–115. Graziosi/Haubold Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer Iliad Book VI. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. Hainsworth Hainsworth, J.B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge on Il. 9–12 1993. AH

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110687941-004

212

Iliad 7

Hainsworth on Od. 5–8 HE Hoekstra HT HTN Hutchinson Janko de Jong on Od. de Jong on Il. 22 von Kamptz

K.-G. Kirk La Roche Leaf van Leeuwen LfgrE

LGPN LIV

LSJ M MYK NTHS Olson P (superscript)

Hainsworth, J. B. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.) The Homer Encyclopedia, ed. by M. Finkelberg. Chichester 2011. (3 vols.) Hoekstra, A. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1984.) West, M.L. ‘History of the Text (HT).’ In Prolegomena, 27–38. Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer: Tradition und Neuerung. Wege der Forschung 463. Darmstadt 1979. Aeschylus: Septem contra Thebas, ed. with Introduction and Commentary by G. O. Hutchinson. Oxford 1985. Janko, R. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge 1992. Jong, I.J.F. de. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001. Jong, I.J.F. de. Homer, Iliad Book XXII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2012. Kamptz, H. von. Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen and Zurich 1982. (Originally diss. Jena 1958.) Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904 (Reprint Hanover 1992.) (2 vols.) Kirk, G.S. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge 1985; vol. II: Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990. Homers Ilias, für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von J. La Roche, Theil 1: Gesang I–IV. Berlin 1870. The Iliad2. Ed. with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices by W. Leaf. London 1900–1902 (11886–1888). (2 vols.) Ilias. Cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentariis exegeticis ed. J. van Leeuwen. Leiden 1912–1913. (2 vols.) 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 of Greek Personal Names, ed. By P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews. Oxford 1987–2013. (7 vols.). https://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/ (retrieved 10. 09. 2022). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Ed. by M. Kümmel, T. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer under the direction of H. Rix and with the collaboration of many other. 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.) Nünlist, R. ‘Homeric Meter (M).’ In Prolegomena, 116–121. Wachter, R. ‘Homeric – Mycenaean Word Index (MYC).’ In Prolegomena, 236– 258. Bierl, A. ‘New Trends in Homeric Scholarship.’ In Prolegomena, 177–203. Olson, S.D. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts. Text, Translation and Commentary. Texte und Kommentare 39. Berlin and Boston 2012. Nünlist, R. and I. de Jong. ‘Homeric Poetics in Keywords (P).’ In Prolegomena, 164–176.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

Paduano/Mirto PECS Prolegomena RE

Richardson on Il. 21–24 Risch Ruijgh Schadewaldt Schw.

STR ThesCRA

Wathelet

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

213

Omero, Iliade. Traduzione e saggio introduttivo di G. Paduano. Commento di M. S. Mirto. Testo greco a fronte. Biblioteca della Pléiade. Turin 1997. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, ed. by R. Stillwell et al. Princeton 1976. Homer’s Iliad. The Basel Commentary: Prolegomena, ed. by A. Bierl, J. Latacz and S. D. Olson. Berlin and Boston 2015. 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. Homer Ilias, neue Übertragung von W. Schadewaldt. Frankfurt am Main 1975. Schwyzer, E., A. Debrunner, D. J. Georgacas and F. and S. Radt. Griechische Grammatik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.1.1–4. Munich 1939–1994. (4 vols.) Latacz, J. ‘The Structure of the Iliad (STR).’ In Prolegomena, 151–163. 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 indices.) 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. Stuttgart etc. 1998– 2000. (2 vols.) Hesiod, Works and Days. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford 1978. Hesiod, Theogony. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford 1966. West, S. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1981.) Homer, Iliad. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by M. M. Willcock London 1978–1984. (2 vols.)

2 Editions of ancient authors and texts Included are only editions of works for which different editions offer differing verse, paragraph or fragment numbers. Callimachus CEG

Callimachus, vol. I: Fragmenta, ed. R. Pfeiffer. Oxford 1949. Hansen, P.A. Carmina epigraphica Graeca. Texte und Kommentare 12 and 15. Berlin and New York 1983–1989. (2 vols.)

214

Iliad 7

Demetrius of Scepsis (Gaede) ‘Epic Cycle’

‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.) Pindar (S.-M.) Proclus (West)

Sappho (Voigt) Scholia on the Iliad

Thebais (West)

Vitae Homeri (Wilam.)

Demetrii Scepsii quae supersunt, ed. R. Gaede. Jena 1880. (diss. Greifswald.) Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. M. Davies. Göttingen 1988. Poetarum epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta, pars I 2, ed. A. Bernabé. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1996 (11987). Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta3, edd. R. Merkelbach et M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970). in Fragmenta Hesiodea, edd. R. Merkelbach et M.L.West. Oxford 1967. in Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis4, post B. Snell ed. H. Maehler, Leipzig 1975 (11943). in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta, ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971. Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), rec. H. Erbse, Berlin 1969– 1988. (7 vols.) Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manu scriptos. Proecdosis aucta et correctior, ed. H. van Thiel. Elektronische Schriftenreihe der Universitätsund Stadtbibliothek Köln 7. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/ (retrieved 24. 10. 2022). in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. in Vitae Homeri et Hesiodi in usum scholarum, ed. U. v. WilamowitzMoellendorff. Kleine Texte 137. Bonn 1916.

3 Articles and monographs Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique. A cumulative list can be found at: https:// guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=381579&p=2585381 (retrieved: 24. 10. 2022). Aceti et al. 2008

Aceti, C., D. Leuzzi and L. Pagani. Eroi nell’ Iliade. Personaggi e strutture narrative. Rome. Adam 1899 Adam, J. ‘On the Word βλοσυρός.’ CR 13: 10–11. Ahlberg-Cornell 1992 Ahlberg-Cornell, G. Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art: Representation and Interpretation. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 100. Gothenburg. Ahrens 1937 Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus). Halle. Ahrens (1836) 1891 Ahrens, H.L. ‘Etymologische Untersuchungen zum Homer.’ In H. L. Ahrens. Kleine Schriften, Bd. 1: Zur Sprachwissenschaft, ed. by C. Haeberlin, pp. 543– 561. Hanover. (First published in ZfA 3 [1836] 801–815.) Ahrens (1843) 1891 Ahrens, H.L. ‘Homerische Excurse, 1. Genitive der zweiten Declination auf ōō.’ In H. L. Ahrens. Kleine Schriften, Bd. 1: Zur Sprachwissenschaft, ed. by C. Haeberlin, pp. 85–89. Hanover. (First published in RhM N.F. 2 [1843] 161–167.)

Bibliographic Abbreviations

215

Aitchison, J.M. ‘Τελαμώνιος Αἴας and other Patronymics.’ Glotta 42: 132–138. 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 1886.) Alden 2000 Alden, M. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford 2000. Alden 2012 Alden, M. ‘The Despised Migrant (Il. 9.648 = 16.59).’ In Montanari/Rengakos/ Tsagalis 2012, 115–131. Alexanderson 1970 Alexanderson, B. ‘Homeric Formulae for Ships.’ Eranos 68: 1–46. Anastassiou 1983 Anastassiou, I. Zum Wortfeld ‘Trauer’ in der Sprache Homers. Hamburg. Allan 2010 Allan, R.J. ‘The infinitivus pro imperativo in Ancient Greek: The Imperatival Infinitive as an Expression of Proper Procedural Action.’ Mnemosyne 63: 203– 228. Anselmi 1998 Anselmi, L. ‘Lo scudo di Aiace. Note archeologiche e letterarie.’ Aevum Antiquum 11: 51–126. Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin. Armstrong 1958 Armstrong, J.I. ‘The Arming Motif in the Iliad.’ AJPh 79: 337–354. Arnott 2007 Arnott, W.G. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z. London and New York. Asper 1998 Asper, M. ‘Katalog.’ In G. Ueding (ed.). Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 4, pp. 915–922. Tü bingen. 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. Aumü ller 1996/97 Aumü ller, E. ‘Das neunte Jahr (Ilias B 134–295–328).’ WJA 21: 39–47. 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 (1997) 2005 Bakker, E.J. ‘Storytelling in the Future: Truth, Time, and Tense in Homeric Epic.’ In Bakker 2005, 92–113. (First published in Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text, ed. by E. J. Bakker and A. Kahane, pp. 11–36. Cambridge, Mass. 1997.) Bakker (2001) 2005 Bakker, E.J. ‘Similes, Augment, and the Language of Immediacy.’ In Bakker 2005, 114–135. (First published in Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World, ed. by J. Watson, pp. 1–23. Mnemosyne Supplements 218. Leiden 2001.) Bakker (2002) 2005 Bakker, E.J. ‘Remembering the God’s Arrival.’ In Bakker 2005, 136–153. (First published in Arethusa 35 [2002] 63–81 [lightly revised].) Bakker 2005 Bakker, E.J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Bakker/Fabbricotti (1991) 2005 Bakker, E. J. and F. Fabbricotti. ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics.’ In Bakker 2005, 1–21. (First published as ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics in Homeric Diction: The Case of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ Mnemosyne 44 [1991] 63–84.) Bakker/van den Houten (1992) 2005 Bakker, E.J. and N. van den Houten. ‘Formula, Context, and Synonymy.’ In Bakker 2005, 22–37. (First published as ‘Aspects of Synonymy in Homeric Diction: An Investigation of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ CPh 87 [1992] 1–13.) Aitchison 1964 Albracht 1886

216

Iliad 7

Bannert 1978 Bannert 1987

Bannert 1988 Barck 1976 Bartolotta 2002 Bassett 1927 Bechert 1964 Bechtel 1914 Beck 2005 Beck 2012 Becker 1937 Beckmann 1932 Beckwith 2004 Behaghel 1909 Benardete 1968 Benveniste 1948 Bergold 1977 Bergren 1975

Berman 2004 Bernsdorff 1992 Bertolín Cebrián Bethe 1914 Bierl 2001

Bierl 2004

Bierl 2019

Bannert, H. ‘Zur Vogelgestalt der Götter bei Homer.’ WS 12: 29–42. Bannert, H. ‘Versammlungsszenen bei Homer.’ In Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation, ed. by J. M. Bremer, I.J.F. de Jong and J. Kalff, pp. 15–30. Amsterdam. Bannert, H. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Beispiele für eine Poetik des Epos. Wiener Studien Beiheft 13. Vienna. Barck, C. Wort und Tat bei Homer. Spudasmata 34. Hildesheim and New York. Bartolotta, A. L’occhio della mente: un’eredità indoeuropea nei poemi omerici. Palermo. Bassett, S.E. ‘The Single Combat between Hector and Aias.’ AJPh 48: 148–156. Bechert, J. ‘βουφονέω.’ MSS 17: 5–17. Bechtel, F. Lexilogus zu Homer. Etymologie und Stammbildung homerischer Wörter. Halle. Beck, D. Homeric Conversation. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Beck, D. Speech Presentation in Homeric Epic. Austin. Becker, O. Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im frühgriechischen Denken. Hermes Einzelschriften 4. Berlin. Beckmann, J.T. Das Gebet bei Homer. Würzburg. Beckwith, M.C. ‘Homeric ἠνώγεον (H394), ἐρρίγει (ψ216) and the Imperfect Origins of the Greek Pluperfect.’ HSF 117: 76–85. Behaghel, O. ‘Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern.’ IF 25: 110–142. Benardete, S. ‘The ARISTEIA of Diomedes and the Plot of the Iliad.’ Agon 2: 10–38. Benveniste, E. Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris. (Reprint 1993.) 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 ΠΕΙΡΑΡ in Early Greek Poetry: A Study in the Interrelationship of Metrics, Linguistics and Poetics. American Classical Studies 2. New York. Berman, J. Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and Their Equivalent Non-battle Narratives. Leiden and Boston. Bernsdorff, H. Zur Rolle des Aussehens im homerischen Menschenbild. Hypomnemata 97. Göttingen. 1996 Bertolín Cebrián, R. Die Verben des Denkens bei Homer. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 97. Innsbruck. Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage. Vol. 1: Ilias. Leipzig and Berlin. Bierl, A. Der Chor in der Alten Komödie. Ritual und Performativität (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Aristophanes’ ‘Thesmophoriazusen’ und der Phalloslieder fr. 851 PMG). Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 126. Leipzig. 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. Bierl, A. ‘Agonistic Excess and Its Ritual Resolution in Hero Cult: the Funeral Games in Iliad 23 as a mise en abyme.’ In Eris vs. Aemulatio: Valuing Competition in Classical Antiquity, ed. by C. Damon and C. Pieper, pp. 53–77. Mnemosyne Supplements 423. Leiden.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

217

Blanc, A. Les contraintes métriques dans la poésie homérique. L’emploi des thèmes nominaux sigmatiques dans l’hexamètre dactylique. Collection linguistique 94. Leuven and Paris. Blom 1936 Blom, J.W.S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I. Triaden, hebdomaden en enneaden. Nijmegen. Böhme 1929 Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin. Bolling 1925 Bolling, G.M. The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Oxford. Bolling 1929 Bolling, G.M. ‘The Meaning of που in Homer.’ Language 5: 100–105. Bonifazi 2012 Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Borchhardt 1977 Borchhardt, H. ‘Frühe griechische Schildformen.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 1–56. Göttingen. Bostock 2015 Bostock, R. ‘«No Comment»: Iliad 6.62.’ RhM 158: 104–107. Bouché-Leclercq (1879–1882) 2003 Bouché-Leclercq, A. Histoire de la divination dans l’Antiquité. Divination hellénique et divination italique2. Collection HOROS. Grenoble (1Paris). Bouvier 2002 Bouvier, D. Le sceptre et la lyre. L’Iliade ou les héros de la mémoire. Grenoble. Bowra 1960 Bowra, C.M. ‘Homeric Epithets for Troy.’ JHS 80: 16–23. Boyd 1995 Boyd, T.W. ‘A Poet on the Achaean Wall.’ Oral Tradition 10: 181–206. Brewer 1984 Brewer, W. A. ‘Notes on φέρω καὶ ἄγω.’ IF 89: 129–139. Brillante 1996 Brillante, C. ‘La scrittura in Omero.’ QUCC N.S. 52: 31–45. Broccia 1967 Broccia, G. La forma poetica dell’Iliade e la genesi dell’epos omerico. Biblioteca di Helikon, Testi e Studi 4. Messina. Bruns 1970 Bruns, G. ‘Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten.’ ArchHom chap. Q. Göttingen. Buchholz 1884 Buchholz, E. Die Homerischen Realien, Bd. 3: Die Homerische Götterlehre auf Grundlage der Homerischen Dichtungen. Leipzig. Buchholz 1980 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Keule.’ In ArchHom chap. E 2 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 2: Angriffswaffen’, ed. by H.-G. Buchholz), pp. 319–338. Göttingen. Buchholz 2010 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Schutz des übrigen Körpers.’ In ArchHom chap. E3 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 3’, ed. by H. G. Buchholz), pp. 214–226. Göttingen. Burgess 2006 Burgess, J. S. ‘The Tumuli of Achilles.’ In The Homerizon: Conceptual Interrogations in Homeric Studies. https://classics-at.chs.harvard.edu/classic s3-jonathan-s-burgess-tumuli-of-achilles/ (retrieved 24. 10. 2022). Washington. Burgess 2009 Burgess, J.S. The Death and Afterlife of Achilles. Baltimore. Burkert 1955 Burkert, W. Zum altgriechischen Mitleidsbegriff. Erlangen. Burkert 1994 Burkert, W. ‘Orpheus, Dionysos und die Euneiden in Athen: Das Zeugnis von Euripides’ Hypsipyle.’ In Orchestra. Drama – Mythos – Bühne, ed. by A. Bierl and P. von Möllendorff, pp. 44–49. Leipzig. Burkert (1991) 2001 Burkert, W. ‘Homer’s Anthropomorphism: Narrative and Ritual.’ In Burkert 2001, 80–94. (First published in New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, ed. by D. Buitron-Oliver, pp. 81–91. Washington.) Burkert (1992) 2001 Burkert, W. ‘The Formation of Greek Religion at the Close of the Dark Ages.’ In Burkert 2001, 13–29. (First published in SIFC 10 [1992] 533–551.) Burkert 2001 Burkert, W. Kleine Schriften I. Homerica, ed. by C. Riedweg Hypomnemata Suppl. 2. Göttingen. Burkert 2001a Burkert, W. ‘Epiphanies and Signs of Power: Minoan Suggestions and Comparative Evidence.’ ICS 29: 1–19. Blanc 2008

218

Iliad 7

Camerotto 2009 Canciani 1984 Cantarella 1979 Carlier 1984

Casabona 1967 Cauer (1895) 1921 Cauer (1895) 1923 Chadwick 1996 Cheyns 1981 Christensen 2009

Christensen 2015 Clark 1997 Clarke 1999 Clary 2009

Classen 2008 Clay 1983 Clay 2011 Collobert 2011 Corlu 1966 Crespo 2014

Crielaard 2002

Crotty 1994 Csajkas 2002

Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: composizione e racconto nell’epica greca arcaica. Padua. Canciani, F. ‘Bildkunst, Teil 2.’ ArchHom chap. N 2. Göttingen. Cantarella, E. Norma e sanzione in Omero. Contributo alla protostoria del diritto greco. Milan. 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. Casabona, J. ‘Ἑτεραλκης.’ AFLA 53: 1–11. Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3. Erste Hälfte. Leipzig (11895). Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3. Zweite Hälfte, ed. by E. Bruhn. Leipzig (11895). Chadwick, J. Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the lexicography of Ancient Greek. Oxford. Cheyns, A. ‘Considérations sur les emplois de θυμός dans Homère, Il. VII, 67–218.’ AC 50: 137–147. Christensen, J.P. ‘The End of Speeches and a Speech’s End: Nestor, Diomedes, and the telos muthôn.’ In Reading Homer: Film and Text, ed. by K. Myrsiades, pp. 136–162. Madison and Teaneck. Christensen, J.P. ‘Trojan Politics and the Assemblies of Iliad 7.’ GRBS 55: 25– 51. Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Lanham etc. Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Clary, T.C. Rhetoric and Repetition: The Figura Etymologica in Homeric Epic. Diss. Cornell. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/13974 (retrieved 24. 10. 2022). Classen, C.J. Vorbilder – Werte – Normen in den homerischen Epen. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 260. Berlin and New York. Clay, J.S. The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Princeton. Clay, J.S. Homer’s Trojan Theater: Space, Vision, and Memory in the Iliad. Cambridge. Collobert, C. Parier sur le temps. La quête héroïque d’immortalité dans l’épopée homérique. Collection d’Études Anciennes, Série grecque 143. Paris. Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux tragiques. Études et commentaires 64. Paris. Crespo, E. ‘A Rule for the Choice of Aorist and Imperfect.’ In The Greek Verb: Morphology, Syntax, and Semantics. Proceedings of the 8th International Meeting on Greek Linguistics, Agrigento, October 1–3, 2009, ed. by A. Bartolotta, pp. 71–82. Louvain-La-Neuve. 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, 239–296. Crotty, K. The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Csajkas, P. Die singulären Iterata der Ilias. Bücher 11–15. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 164. Munich and Leipzig.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

219

Cuillandre, J. La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques. En concordance avec la doctrine pythagoricienne et avec la tradition celtique. Paris. Currie 2005 Currie, B. Pindar and the Cult of Heroes. Oxford. Davies 1986 Davies, M. ‘Nestor’s Advice in Iliad 7.’ Eranos 84: 69–75. Davison 1965 Davison, J.A. ‘Thucydides, Homer and the Achaean Wall.’ GRBS 6: 5–28. Debrunner 1956 Debrunner, A. ‘Δέγμενος, ἑσπόμενος, ἄρχμενος.’ In ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, ed. by H. Kronasser, vol. 1, pp. 77–84. Vienna. Dee 2010 Dee, J.H. Iuncturae Homericae: A Study of Noun-Epithet Combinations in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Part I: Repertories I–III. Hildesheim. Deecke 1906 Deecke, W. De Hectoris et Aiacis certamine singulari. Göttingen. Delebecque 1951 Delebecque, E. Le cheval dans l’Iliade. Paris. 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. Detienne/Vernant (1974) 1978 Detienne, M. and J. P. Vernant. Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society. Hassocks. (Original French ed.: Les ruses de l’intelligence. La mètis des Grecs. Paris 1974). Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero3. Turin (11994). Di Benedetto 2000 Di Benedetto, V. ‘Anafore incipitarie nell’Iliade.’ MD 45: 9–41. Dickson 1995 Dickson, K. Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. New York and London. Dietrich 1965 Dietrich, B.C. Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer. London. Dietrich 1983 Dietrich, B.C. ‘Divine Epiphanies in Homer.’ Numen 30: 53–79. Dirlmeier 1967 Dirlmeier, F. Die Vogelgestalt homerischer Götter. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1967.2. Heidelberg. Duban 1981 Duban, J.M. ‘Les duels majeurs de l’Iliade et le langage d’Hector.’ LEC 49: 97– 124. Duckworth 1933 Duckworth, G.E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius, and Virgil. Princeton. Dué/Ebbot 2010 Dué, C. and M. Ebbot. Iliad 10 and the Poetics of Ambush: A Multitext Edition with Essays and Commentary. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Duffy 2008 Duffy, W. ‘Aias and the Gods.’ College Literature 35: 75–96. (Also in Approaches to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, ed. by K. Myrsiades. American University Studies, Ser. XIX, 38. New York etc. 2010, 149–169) Edmunds 1990 Edmunds, S.T. Homeric Nēpios. Harvard Dissertations in Classics. New York and London. Edwards 1985 Edwards, A.T. Achilles in the Odyssey. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 171. Königstein/Ts. Edwards 1986 Edwards, M.W. ‘The Conventions of an Homeric Funeral.’ In Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster, ed. by J. Betts, J. Hooker and T. Green, vol. 1, pp. 84–92. Bristol. Edwards 2002 Edwards, M.W. Sound, Sense, and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Poetry. Princeton. Egli 1954 Egli, J. Heteroklisie im Griechischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Fälle von Gelenkheteroklisie. Zurich. Elmer 2005 Elmer, D.F. ‘Helen Epigrammatopoios.’ CA 24: 1–39. Cuillandre 1943

220

Iliad 7

Elmer, D.F. ‘Building Community Across the Battle-Lines: The Truce in Iliad 3 and 4.’ In Maintaining Peace and Interstate Stability in Archaic and Classical Greece, ed. by J. Wilker, pp. 25–48. Studien zur Alten Geschichte 16. Mainz. Elmer 2013 Elmer, D.F. The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad. Baltimore. Erbse 1960 Erbse, H. Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien. Zetemata 24. Muunich. Erbse (1978) 1979 Erbse, H. ‘Hektor in der Ilias.’ In H. Erbse. Ausgewählte Schriften zur Klassischen Philologie, pp. 1–18. Berlin 1979. (First published in Kyklos. Griechisches und Byzantinisches. Rudolf Keydell zum 90. Geburtstag, ed. by H.G. Beck et al., pp. 1–19. Berlin and New York 1978.) Erbse 1980 Erbse, H. ‘Homerische Götter in Vogelgestalt.’ Hermes 108: 259–274. Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York. Erbse 1993 Erbse, H. ‘Zwei homerische Wörter.’ Glotta 71: 130–136. van Erp Taalman Kip 2000 van Erp Taalman Kip, A.M. ‘The Gods of the Iliad and the Fate of Troy.’ Mnemosyne 53: 385–402. van Erp Taalman Kip 2012 van Erp Taalman Kip, A.M. ‘On Defining a Homeric Idiom.’ Mnemosyne 65: 539–551. Farron 1978 Farron, S. ‘The Character of Hector in the Iliad.’ AClass 21: 39–57. Fauth 1975 Fauth, W. ‘Zur Typologie mythischer Metamorphosen in der homerischen Dichtung.’ Poetica 7: 235–268. Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias. Berlin. Fenik 1978 Fenik, B. (ed.). Homer: Tradition and Innovation. Cincinnati Classical Studies 2. Leiden. Fenik 1978a Fenik, B. ‘Stylization and Variety: Four Monologues in the Iliad.’ In Fenik 1978, 68–90. Fingerle 1939 Fingerle, A. Typik der Homerischen Reden. Munich. Finglass 2006 Finglass, P. ‘The Ending of Iliad 7.’ Philologus 150: 187–197. Finkelberg 1986 Finkelberg, M. ‘Is κλέος ἄφθιτον a Homeric Formula?’ CPh 36: 1–5. Fittschen 1969 Fittschen, K. Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den Griechen. Berlin. Foley 1995 Foley, J.M. ‘Sixteen Moments of Silence in Homer.’ QUCC n.s. 50: 7–26. Foley 1999 Foley, J.M. Homers’s Traditional Art. University Park. Ford 1992 Ford, A. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca and London. Forssman 1980 Forssman, B. ‘Ein unbekanntes Lautgesetz der homerischen Sprache?’ In Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der VI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wien 24.–29. September 1978, ed. by M. Mayrhofer, pp. 180–198. Wiesbaden. Fortassier 1989 Fortassier, P. L’hiatus expressif dans l’Iliade et dans l’Odyssee. Paris. Frame 2009 Frame, D. Hippota Nestor. Hellenic Studies 37. Cambridge, Mass. Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen. (= 21977: unaltered reprint with an afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch). Fränkel [1921] 1999 Fränkel, H. ‘The Interpretation of Individual Similes: (A) Elemental Forces,’ transl. by C. Krojzl and S.R. van der Mije. In de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 301–321 (= Fränkel 1921, 16–35). Elmer 2012

Bibliographic Abbreviations

221

Fränkel (1951) 1973 Fränkel, H. Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy: A History of Greek Epic, Lyric, and Prose to the Middle of the Fifth Century, transl. by M. Hadas and J. Willis. New York and London. (German original: Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts2. Munich 1962 [11951 New York].) Franz 2002 Franz, J.P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europ. Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt am Main, etc. Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theorie der epischen Gattung. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften 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. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 3.38. Göttingen 1956.) Friis Johansen 1961 Friis Johansen, K. Ajas und Hektor. Ein vorhomerisches Heldenlied? Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser udgivnet af det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 39.4. Copenhagen. Frontisi-Ducroux 1986 Frontisi-Ducroux, F. La cithare d’Achille. Essai sur la poétique de l’Iliade. Biblioteca di QUCC 1. Rome. Gaertner 2001 Gaertner, J.F. ‘The Homeric Catalogues and Their Function in Epic Narrative.’ Hermes 129: 298–305. Gaisser 1969 Gaisser, J.H. ‘A Structural Analysis of the Digressions in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ HSCPh 73: 1–43. Garcia 2013 Garcia, L.F. Homeric Durability: Telling Time in the Iliad. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Gentili/Giannini 1977 Gentili, B. and P. Giannini. ‘Preistoria e formazione dell’ esametro.’ QUCC 26: 7–51. Goldhill 1990 Goldhill, S. ‘Supplication and Authorial Comment in the Iliad: Iliad Z 61–2.’ Hermes 118: 373–376. Graz 1965 Graz, L. Le feu dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. PUR: champ d’emploi et signification. Études et commentaires 60. Paris. Greco 2002 Greco, A. ‘Aiace Telamonio e Teucro. Le tecniche di combattimento nella Grecia Micenea dell’età delle tombe a fossa.’ In Montanari 2002, 561–578. Greenhalgh 1982 Greenhalgh, P.A.L. ‘The Homeric Therapon and Opaon and their Historical Implications.’ BICS 29: 81–90. Grethlein 2006 Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänomenologischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Hypomnemata 163. Göttingen. Griffin 1978 Griffin, J. ‘The Divine Audience and the Religion of the Iliad.’ CQ 28: 1–22. Griffin 1980 Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. Griffin 1986 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers.’ JHS 106: 36–57. Griffin 1990 Griffin, J. ‘Achilles Kills Hector.’ Lampas 23: 353–369. Grimm 1962 Grimm, J. ‘Die Partikel ἄρα im frühen griechischen Epos.’ Glotta 40: 3–41. Guiraud, C. La phrase nominale en Grec d’Homère à Euripide. Paris. Guiraud 1962 Gunning 1924 Gunning, J. ‘Laomedon.’ RE 12.1: 747–755.

222

Iliad 7

Hackstein 2002

Hahn 1954 Halliwell 2008 Hammer 2002 Häusle 1980 Hebel 1970 Heiden 1996 Heiden 1998 Heiden 2000 Heiden 2008 Hellmann 2000 Hellwig 1964 Henry 1905 Hentze 1868 Herder 1769

Herder 1793

Heubeck 1979 Higbie 1990 Higbie 2001

Hillgruber 1994 Hillgruber 1999 Hitch 2009 Hoekstra 1965

Hogan 1981

Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morphologischer Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, Sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden. Hahn, E.A. ‘Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative.’ TAPhA 85: 197–289. Halliwell, S. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity. Cambridge. Hammer, D. The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought. Norman. Häusle, H. Das Denkmal als Garant des Nachruhms. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Thematik eines Motivs in lateinischen Inschriften. Zetemata 75. Munich. Hebel, V. Untersuchungen zur Form und Funktion der Wiedererzählungen in Ilias und Odyssee. Heidelberg. Heiden, B. ‘The Three Movements of the Iliad.’ GRBS 37: 5–22. Heiden, B. ‘The Placement of «Book Divisions» in the Iliad.’ JHS 118: 68–81. Heiden, B. ‘Narrative Discontinuity and Segment Marking at Iliad 3/4, 7/8, and 10/11, and Odyssey 4/5, 17/18, and 23/24.’ C&M 51: 5–15. Heiden, B. Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad. Oxford and New York. Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart. Hellwig, B. Raum und Zeit im homerischen Epos. Spudasmata 2. Hildesheim. Henry, R.M. ‘The Use and Origin of Apostrophe in Homer.’ CR 19: 7–9. Hentze, C. ‘Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete der homerischen Syntax.’ Philologus 27: 494–533. Herder, J.G. ‘Erstes kritisches Wäldchen.’ In J. G. Herder. Werke in zehn Bänden. Vol. 2: Schriften zur Ästhetik und Literatur 1767–1781, ed. by G. E. Grimm, pp. 63–245. Frankfurt am Main. Herder, J.G. ‘Briefe zur Beförderung der Humanität. Dritte Sammlung (1794).’ In J. G. Herder. Werke in zehn Bänden., Vol. 7: Briefe zur Beförderung der Humanität, ed. by H. D. Irmscher, pp. 143–210. Frankfurt am Main. Heubeck, A. ‘Schrift.’ ArchHom chap. X. Göttingen. Higbie, C. Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad. Oxford. Higbie, C. ‘Homeric Athena in the Chronicle of Lindos.’ In Athena in the Classical World, ed. by S. Deacy and A. Villing, pp. 105–125. Leiden, Boston and Cologne. Hillgruber, M. Die pseudoplutarchische Schrift De Homero. Vol. 1: Einleitung und Kommentar zu den Kapiteln 1–73. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Hillgruber, M. Die pseudoplutarchische Schrift De Homero. Vol. 2: Kommentar zu den Kapiteln 74–218. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the Development of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde N.R. 71.1. Amsterdam. Hogan, J.C. ‘Eris in Homer.’ GB 10: 21–58.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

223

Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I.M. Manners in the Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne Supplements 63. Leiden. Hölkeskamp 2002 Hölkeskamp, H. J. ‘Ptolis und Agore: Homer and the Archaeology of the CityState.’ In Montanari 2002, 297–333. Hölscher 1939 Hölscher, U. Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee. Szenenwechsel und gleichzeitige Handlungen. Hermes Einzelschriften 6. Berlin. Hölscher (1988) 1990 Hölscher, U. Die Odyssee. Epos zwischen Märchen und Roman3. Munich (11988). Hooker (1989) 1996 Hooker, J.T. ‘Gifts in Homer.’ In Hooker 1996, 539–550. (First published in BICS 36 [1989] 79–90.) Howald 1924 Howald, E. ‘Meleager und Achill.’ RhM 73: 402–425. Hunger 1981 Hunger, F. ‘David und Goliath.’ In Enzyklopädie des Märchens, vol. 3, pp. 365– 367. Berlin. Iakovidis 1977 Iakovidis (Iakovides), S. ‘Vormykenische und mykenische Wehrbauten.’ In ArchHom chap. E, pp. 161–221. Göttingen. Jachmann 1949 Jachmann, G. Homerische Einzellieder. Cologne. (Reprint Darmstadt 1968.) Jacobs 1791 Jacobs, F. ‘Verbot Priamus den Trojanern zu weinen? Ueber Ilias H 424sqq.’ Bibliothek der alten Literatur und Kunst 8: 34–49. Jacoby 1944 Jacoby, F. ‘State Burial in Athens.’ JHS 64: 37–66. Jacquinod 1988 Jacquinod, B. ‘Analyse syntaxique de la mise au même cas du complément du tout et du complément de la partie en grec ancien.’ In Rijksbaron et al. 1988, 135–145. Jahn 1987 Jahn, T. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele–Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83. Munich. Janko 1981 Janko, R. ‘Equivalent Formulae in the Greek Epos.’ Mnemosyne 34: 251–264. Janko 1982 Janko, R. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction. Cambridge. Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur ZVS 21. Göttingen. Johansson 2012 Johansson, K. The Birds in the Iliad: Identities, Interactions and Functions. Gothenburg Studies in History 2. Diss. Gothenburg. (https://gupea.ub.gu.se/ bitstream/2077/28033/1/gupea_2077_28033_1.pdf [retrieved: 24. 10. 2022].) Jones 2012 Jones, B. ‘Relative Chronology and an «Aeolic Phase» of Epic.’ In Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, ed. by Ø. Andersen and D. T. T. Haug, pp. 44–64. Cambridge. de Jong 1987 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘The Voice of Anonymity: tis-Speeches in the Iliad.’ Eranos 85: 69–84. de Jong 1999 de Jong, I.J.F. (ed.). Homer: Critical Assessments. Vol. 1: The Creation of the Poems; Vol. 2: The Homeric World; Vol. 3: Literary Interpretation; Vol. 4: Homer’s Art. London and New York. de Jong (1987) 2004 de Jong, I.J.F. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987). de Jong 2012 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘Homer.’ In Space in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, ed. by I.J.F. de Jong, pp. 21–38. Mnemosyne Supplements 339. Leiden and Boston. de Jong 2012a de Jong, I.J.F. ‘Double Deixis in Homeric Speech: On the Interpretation of ὅδε and οὗτος.’ In Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon. Akten des Hambur-

224

Iliad 7

ger Kolloquiums vom 6.–8. 10. 2010 zum Abschluß des Lexikons des frühgriechischen Epos, ed. by M. Meier-Brügger, pp. 63–83. Berlin and Boston. de Jong 2015 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘Pluperfects and the Artist in Ekphrases: From the Shield of Achilles to the Shield of Aeneas (and Beyond).’ Mnemosyne 68: 889–916. de Jong 2018 de Jong, I.J.F. ‘The View from the Mountain (Oroskopia) in Greek and Latin Literature.’ CJ 64: 23–48. de Jong/Nünlist 2004 de Jong, I.J.F. and R. Nünlist. ‘From Bird’s Eye View to Close-Up: The Standpoint of the Narrator in the Homeric Epics.’ In Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Festschrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages, ed. by A. Bierl, A. Schmitt and A. Willi, pp. 63–83. Munich and Leipzig. Kahane 1994 Kahane, A. The Interpretation of Order: A Study in the Poetics of Homeric Repetition. Oxford. Kahane 1997 Kahane, A. ‘The Semantics of Performance: A Case Study of Proper-Name Vocatives in Homer.’ In Hommage à Milman Parry. Le style formulaire de l’épopée homérique et la théorie de l’oralité poétique, ed. by F. Létoublon, pp. 251–262. Amsterdam. Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki. Kakridis (1956) 1971 Kakridis, J.T. ‘Ἀεὶ φιλέλλην ὁ ποιητής?’ In Kakridis 1971, 54–67. (Original shorter version: ‘Homer, ein Philhellene?’ WS 69 [1956] 26–32.) Kakridis 1963 Kakridis, H.J. La notion de l’amitié et de l’hospitalité chez Homère. Thessaloniki. Kakridis 1971 Kakridis, J.T. Homer Revisited. Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund 64. Lund. Katz 2006 Katz, J.T. ‘The Origin of the Greek Pluperfect.’ Die Sprache 46: 1–37. Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford. Kelly 2008 Kelly, A. ‘The Ending of Iliad 7: a response.’ Philologus 152: 5–17. Kirk 1962 Kirk, G.S. The Songs of Homer. Cambridge. Kirk 1978 Kirk, G.S. ‘The Formal Duels in Books 3 and 7 of the Iliad.’ In Fenik 1978, 18– 40. Klinkott 2004 Klinkott, M. ‘Die Wehrmauern von Troia VI – Bauaufnahme und Auswertung.’ Studia Troica 14: 33–85. Klooster 2013 Klooster, J. ‘Apostrophe in Homer, Apollonius and Callimachus.’ In Über die Grenze. Metalepse in Text- und Bildmedien des Altertums, ed. by U. E. Eisen and P. von Möllendorff, pp. 151–173. Berlin and Boston. Kloss 2001 Kloss, G. ‘Thukydides 1,11,1 und die Schiffsmauer in der Ilias.’ RhM 144: 325– 332. Kopcke 1990 Kopcke, G. ‘Handel.’ ArchHom chap. M. Göttingen. Kozak 2014 Kozak, L.A. ‘Oaths between Warriors in Epic and Tragedy.’ In Sommerstein/ Torrance 2014, 60–66. Krapp 1964 Krapp, H.J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich. Krischer 1971 Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Munich. Krischer 1998 Krischer, T. ‘Arcieri nell’ epica omerica. Armi, comportamenti, valori.’ In Omero. Gli aedi, i poemi, gli interpreti, ed. by F. Montanari, pp. 79–100. Biblioteca di cultura 243. Florence. Kroll 1993 Kroll, J.H. (with contributions by A. S. Walker). The Athenian Agora XXVI: The Greek Coins. Princeton.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

225

Kullmann, W. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Entstehung des homerischen ‘Götterapparats’. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 1. Berlin. Kullmann 1960 Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Einzelschriften 14. Wiesbaden. Kullmann (1985) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Gods and Men in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ In Kullmann 1992, 243–263. (First published in HSCPh 89 [1985] 1–23.) Kullmann 1992 Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R. J. Mü ller. Stuttgart. Kullmann 2002 Kullmann, W. Realität, Imagination und Theorie. Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike, ed. by A. Rengakos. Stuttgart. Kullmann 2002a Kullmann, W. ‘Homer und das Troia der späten Bronzezeit.’ In Kullmann 2002, 97–138. Kurt 1979 Kurt, C. Seemännische Fachausdrücke bei Homer. Unter Berücksichtigung Hesiods und der Lyriker bis Bakchylides. Ergänzungsheft zur ZVS 28. Göttingen. Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften N.F. 2.11. Heidelberg. Labarbe 1949 Labarbe, J. L’Homère de Platon. Liège. Landfester 1966 Landfester, M. Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen. Spudasmata 11. Hildesheim. Lanérès 1997 Lanérès, N. Les formes de la phrase nominale en grec ancien: étude sur la langue de l’Iliade. Lille and Paris. (2 vols.) Langdon 2008 Langdon, S. Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece, 1100–700 B.C.E. Cambridge. Lange 1872/73 Lange, L. Der homerische Gebrauch der Partikel εἰ. ASG 6.4 and 6.5. Leipzig. La Roche 1861 La Roche, J. Homerische Studien. Der Accusativ im Homer. Vienna. Latacz 1966 Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften N.F. 2.17. Heidelberg. 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; Düsseldorf 42003.) Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery, transl. by K. Windle and R. Ireland. Oxford. (German original: Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Munich and Zürich 42003 [Munich and Berlin 12001]; expanded German edition: Leipzig 62010.) Lausberg 1982 Lausberg, M. Das Einzeldistichon. Studien zum antiken Epigramm. Studia et Testimonia Antiqua 19. Munich. Lee 1959 Lee, D.J.N. ‘Some Vestigial Mycenaean Words in the Iliad.’ BICS 6: 6–21. Lee 1964 Lee, D.J.N. The Similes of the Iliad and the Odyssey Compared. Melbourne. Lejeune 1939 Lejeune, M. Les Adverbes grecs en –θεν. Bordeaux. Lesky 1947 Lesky, A. Thalatta. Der Weg der Griechen zum Meer. Vienna. Lessing 1766 Lessing, G.E. ‘Laokoon, oder über die Grenzen der Malerei und Poesie. Mit beiläufigen Erklärungen verschiedener Punkte der alten Kunstgeschichte.’ In G. E. Lessing. Werke und Briefe in zwölf Bänden, ed. by W. Barner et al. Vol. 5.2: Werke 1766–1769, pp. 9–321. Frankfurt am Main. Kullmann 1956

226

Iliad 7

Létoublon, F. Il allait, pareil à la nuit. Les verbes de mouvement en grec: supplétisme et aspect verbal. Études et commentaires 98. Paris. Leumann 1950 Leumann, M. Homerische Wörter. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 3. Basel. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.) Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York. Lohmann (1970) 1997 Lohmann, D. ‘The «Inner Composition» of the Speeches in the Iliad.’ In Homer: German Scholarship in Translation, transl. by G. M. Wright and P. V. Jones. Oxford, 71–102. Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H.L. Homer and the Monuments. London. Louden 1993 Louden, B. ‘Pivotal Contrafactuals in Homeric Epic.’ ClAnt 12: 181–198. Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Louden 2011 Louden B. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East. Cambridge. Lowenstam 1993 Lowenstam, S. The Scepter and the Spear: Studies on Forms of Repetition in the Homeric Poems. Lanham. Luce 1998 Luce, J.V. Celebrating Homer’s Landscapes: Troy and Ithaca revisited. New Haven and London. Lührs 1992 Lührs, D. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias und zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien. Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 11. Hildesheim. Lumpp 1963 Lumpp, H.-M. ‘Die Arniadas-Inschrift aus Korkyra. Homerisches im Epigramm – Epigrammatisches im Homer.’ Forschungen und Fortschritte 37: 212–215. Luraghi 2012 Luraghi, S. ‘The Spatial Meaning of διά with the Accusative in Homeric Greek.’ Mnemosyne 65: 357–386. Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig. Lynn-George 1996 Lynn-George, M. ‘Structures of Care in the Iliad.’ CQ 46: 1–26. Mackie 2001 Mackie, C.J. ‘The Earliest Jason: What’s in a Name?’ G&R 48: 1–17. Mackie 2008 Mackie, C.J. Rivers of Fire: Mythic Themes in Homer’s Iliad. Washington, D.C. Mackie 1996 Mackie, H. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Mannsperger 1995 Mannsperger, B. ‘Die Funktion des Grabens am Schiffslager der Achäer.’ Studia Troica 5: 343–356. Mannsperger 1998 Mannsperger, B. ‘Die Mauer am Schiffslager der Achaier.’ Studia Troica 8: 287–304. Mannsperger 2001 Mannsperger, B. ‘Das Stadtbild von Troia in der Ilias. Gebäude und Befestigungssysteme.’ TTW 81–83. Maronitis 2004 Maronitis, D.N. Homeric Megathemes: War – Homilia – Homecoming, transl. by D. Connolly. Lanham. Martin 1989 Martin, R. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Matthaios 1999 Matthaios, S. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre. Hypomnemata 126. Göttingen. Mawet 1979 Mawet, F. Recherches sur les oppositions fonctionnelles dans le vocabulaire homérique de la douleur (autour de πῆμα – ἄλγος). MAB 2. 63.4. Brussels. Mazon 1948 Mazon, P. Introduction à l’Iliade. Paris. Meier 2019 Meier, S. Die Ilias und ihr Anfang. Zur Handlungskomposition als Kunstform bei Homer. Studien zu Literatur und Erkenntnis 14. Heidelberg. Létoublon 1985

Bibliographic Abbreviations

227

Meier-Brügger 1995–1996 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Zu episch ἀκαλαρρείταο.’ Glotta 73: 60–63. Meier-Brügger 2006 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘The rise and descent of the language of the Homeric poems.’ In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, ed. by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I. S. Lemos, pp. 417–426. Edinburgh. Merritt Sale 1984 Merritt Sale, W. ‘Homeric Olympus and Its Formulae.’ AJPh 105: 1–28. van der Mije 1987 van der Mije, S.R. ‘Achilles’ God-Given Strength: Iliad A 178 and Gifts from the Gods in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 40: 241–267. van der Mije 2011 van der Mije, S.R. ‘πείθειν φρένα(ς), πείθειν θυμόν – A Note on Homeric Psychology.’ Mnemosyne 64: 447–454. Minchin 2001 Minchin, E. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford. 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/Rengakos/Tsagalis 2012, 83–99. Monsacré (1984) 2017 Monsacré, H. The Tears of Achilles. Hellenic Studies Series 75. Cambridge, Mass. and London. (French original: Les larmes d’ Achille. Le héros, la femme et la souffrance dans la poésie d’Homère. Paris 1984.) Montanari 2002 Montanari, F. (ed.). Omero. Tremila anni dopo. Atti del congresso di Genova, 6.–8. 7. 2000. Storia e letteratura 210. Rome. Montanari/Rengakos/Tsagalis 2012 Montanari, F., A. Rengakos and C. Tsagalis (eds.). Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Berlin and Boston. Monteil 1963 Monteil, P. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa formation, son développement, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle a.C. Études et commentaires 47. Paris. Morris 1989 Morris, S.P. ‘A Tale of Two Cities: The Miniature Frescoes from Thera and the Origins of Greek Poetry.’ AJA 93: 511–535. 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 1992a Morrison, J.V. ‘Alternatives to the Epic Tradition: Homer’s Challenges in the Iliad.’ TAPhA 122: 61–71. Morrison 1994 Morrison, J.V. ‘Thematic Inversion in the Iliad: The Greeks under Siege.’ GRBS 35: 209–227. Morrison 2000 Morrison, J. V. ‘Shipwreck Encounters: Odyssean Wanderings, The Tempest, and The Post-Colonial World.’ CML 20: 59–90. Mühlestein 1965 Mühlestein, H. ‘Namen von Neleiden auf Pylostäfelchen.’ MH 22: 155–165. Mühlestein (1967) 1987 Mühlestein, H. ‘Le nom des deux Ajax.’ In Mühlestein 1987, 12–52. (First published in SMEA 2 [1967] 41–52.) Mühlestein (1971) 1987 Mühlestein, H. ‘Jung Nestor, Jung David.’ In Mühlestein 1987, 56–73. (First published in A&A 17 [1971] 173–190.) Mühlestein 1987 Mühlestein, H. Homerische Namenstudien. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 183. Frankfurt am Main. Mü lder, D. Die Ilias und ihre Quellen. Berlin. Mü lder 1910 Müller 1974 Müller, D. Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 51. Meisenheim am Glan.

228

Iliad 7

Muellner 1976 Mugler 1963 Murray 2002 Nagler 1974 Nagy 1974 Nagy (1979) 1999 Nagy 1990 Nagy 1990a Nagy 1994–1995 Nagy 2012 Naiden 2013 Napoli 2006 Nappi 2002 Ndoye 2010 Neal 2006 Nesselrath 1992 Nickau 1977 Niens 1987 Nothdurft 1978 Noussia 2002

Nünlist 1998 Nünlist 2002 Nünlist 2006 Nünlist 2009 Nussbaum 1987

Muellner, L.C. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through Its Formulas. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 13. Innsbruck. Mugler, C. Les origines de la science grecque chez Homère. L’homme et l’univers physique. Études et commentaires 46. Paris. Murray, J. ‘Waking up to Iliad 7.434.’ CQ 52: 580–581. Nagler, M.N. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley etc. Nagy, G. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter. Cambridge, Mass. Nagy, G. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry2. Baltimore and London (11979). Nagy, G. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Nagy, G. Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore and London. Nagy, G. ‘A Mycenaean Reflex in Homer: ΦΟΡΗΝΑΙ.’ Minos 29–30 (published 1998): 171–175. Nagy, G. ‘Signs of Hero Cult in Homeric Poetry.’ In Montanari/Rengakos/ Tsagalis 2012, 27–71. Naiden, F.S. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods. Oxford. Napoli, M. Aspect and actionality in Homeric Greek: A contrastive analysis. Materiali Linguistici Università di Pavia. Milan. Nappi, M.P. ‘Note sull’uso di Αἴαντε nell’Iliade.’ RCCM 44: 211–235. Ndoye, M. Groupes sociaux et idéologie du travail dans les mondes homérique et hésiodique. Besançon. Neal, T. The Wounded Hero: Non-Fatal Injury in Homer’s Iliad. Sapheneia 11. Bern. Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos. Stuttgart. Nickau, K. Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 16. Berlin. Niens, C. Struktur und Dynamik in den Kampfszenen der Ilias. Heidelberg. Nothdurft, W. ‘Noch einmal Πεῖραρ/Πείρατα bei Homer.’ Glotta 56: 25–40. Noussia, M. ‘Olympus, the Sky, and the History of the Text of Homer.’ In Omero. Tremila anni dopo, ed. by F. Montanari and P. Ascheri, pp. 489–503. Rome. Nünlist, R. Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 101. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Nünlist, R. ‘Some Clarifying Remarks on «Focalization».’ In Montanari 2002, 445–453. Nünlist, R. ‘A Neglected testimonium on the Homeric Book-Division.’ ZPE 157: 47–49. Nünlist, R. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge. Nussbaum, A.J. ‘Homeric ἐπελήκεον (θ 379) and related forms.’ In Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929–1985). Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference Cornell University, June 6–9, 1985, ed. by C. Watkins, pp. 229–253. Berlin and New York.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

229

Olson, S.D. ‘Equivalent Speech-Introduction Formulae in the Iliad.’ Mnemosyne 47: 145–151. Opelt 1978 Opelt, I. ‘Gefühlswörter bei Homer und in den Argonautika des Apollonios Rhodios.’ Glotta 56: 170–190. van Otterlo 1948 van Otterlo, W.A.A. De ringcompositie als opbouwprincipe in de epische gedichten van Homerus. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde 51.1. Amsterdam. Owen 1946 Owen, E. T. The Story of the Iliad. London. Pagani 2008 Pagani, L. ‘Il codice eroico e il guerriero di fronte alla morte.’ In Aceti et al. 2008, 327–418. Page 1959 Page, D.L. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Parker 1998 Parker, R. ‘Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion.’ In Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, ed. by C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford, pp. 105–125. Oxford. Parry (1928) 1971 Parry, M. ‘The Traditional Epithet in Homer.’ In MHV 1–190. (French original: L’Épithète traditionnelle dans Homère. Essai sur un problème de style homérique. Paris 1928.) Parry 1972 Parry, A. ‘Language and Characterization in Homer.’ HSCPh 76: 1–22. (Also in A. Parry. The Language of Achilles and Other Papers, pp. 310–325. Oxford 1989.) Patzek 1992 Patzek, B. Homer und Mykene. Mündliche Dichtung und Geschichtsschreibung. Munich. Patzer (1972) 1999 Patzer, H. ‘Artistry and Craftsmanship in the Homeric Epics’, transl. by C. Krojzl and S.R. van der Mije. In de Jong 1999, vol. 4, pp. 155–183. (German orignal: Dichterische Kunst und poetisches Handwerk im homerischen Epos. Sitzungsberichte der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. GoetheUniversität Frankfurt a. M. 10.1, 1971. Wiesbaden. Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geisteswissenschaften Reihe 12. Stuttgart. Pavan 2009 Pavan, A. La gara delle quadrighe e il gioco della guerra. Saggio di commento a P. Papinii Statii Thebaidos liber VI. 238–549. Alexandria. Pelliccia 1995 Pelliccia, H. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Hypomnemata 107. Göttingen. Pelloso 2012 Pelloso, C. Themis e dike in Omero. Ai primordi del diritto dei Greci. Classica Philosophica et Iuridica, Saggi 1. Alexandria. Perceau 2002 Perceau, S. La parole vive. Communiquer en catalogue dans l’épopée homérique. Bibliothèque d’ études classiques 30. Louvain etc. Peretti 1994 Peretti, A. Dall’ Eridano di Esiodo al Retrone vicentino. Studio su un idronimo erratico. Pisa. Peters 1922 Peters, H. Zur Einheit der Ilias. Göttingen. Peters 1986 Peters, M. ‘Zur Frage einer «achäischen» Phase des griechischen Epos.’ In o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by A. Etter, pp. 303–319. Berlin and New York. Pfeiffer 1937 Pfeiffer, R. ‘Hesiodisches und Homerisches.’ Philologus 92: 1–18. Pinault 1994 Pinault, G.-J. ‘Les deux formes du silence homérique et l’origine du verbe σιωπάω.’ In Mélanges François Kerlouégan, ed. by D. Conso et al., pp. 501– Olson 1994

230

Iliad 7

526. Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 515. Institut Félix Gaffiot 11. Paris. Pirenne-Delforge 2017 Pirenne-Delforge, V. ‘Le rituel: communiquer avec les dieux.’ In Les dieux d’Homère. Polythéisme et poésie en Grèce ancienne, ed. by G. Pironti and C. Bonnet, pp. 135–150. Lüttich. Porter 2011 Porter, J.I. ‘Making and Unmaking: The Achaean Wall and the Limits of Fictionality in Homeric Criticism.’ TAPhA 141: 1–36. Postlethwaite 1998 Postlethwaite, N. ‘Akhilleus and Agamemnon: Generalized Reciprocity.’ In Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, ed. by C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford, pp. 93–104. Oxford. Powell 1991 Powell, B.B. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge. Powell 1997 Powell, B.B. ‘Homer and Writing.’ In Companion, 3–32. Preisshofen 1977 Preisshofen, F. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Greisenalters in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Hermes Einzelschriften 34. Wiesbaden. Primavesi 2000 Primavesi, O. ‘Nestors Erzählungen. Die Variationen eines rhetorischen Überzeugungsmittels in der Ilias.’ In Rede und Redner. Bewertung und Darstellung in den antiken Kulturen, ed. by C. Neumeister and W. Raeck, pp. 45–64. Möhnesee. Pritchett 1979 Pritchett, W.K. The Greek State at War, Part III. Berkeley etc. Pucci (1988) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘Banter and Banquets for Heroic Death.’ In P. Pucci. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer, pp. 49–68. Lanham. Pucci (1988a) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘Epiphanic Strategy and Intertextuality.’ In P. Pucci. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer, pp. 69–80. Lanham etc. (First published as ‘Strategia epifanica e intertestualità nel secondo libro dell’Iliade.’ SIFC 3rd ser. 6 [1988] 5–24.) Pucci 2012 Pucci, P. ‘Iterative and Syntactical Units: A Religious Gesture in the Iliad.’ In Montanari/Rengakos/Tsagalis 2012, 427–443. Raaflaub 1988 Raaflaub, K. ‘Die Anfänge des politischen Denkens bei den Griechen. Das 8. und frü he 7. Jahrhundert.’ In Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen, ed. by I. Fetscher and H. Mü nkler, vol. 1, pp. 189–224. Munich. Raaflaub 1993 ‘Homer to Solon: The Rise of the Polis. The Written Sources.’ In The Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium … (1.–4. 7. 1992), ed. by M. H. Hansen, pp. 41– 105. Copenhagen. Raaflaub 2005 Raaflaub, K. ‘Homerische Krieger, Protohopliten und die Polis. Schritte zur Lösung alter Probleme.’ In Krieg – Gesellschaft – Institutionen. Beiträge zu einer vergleichenden Kriegsgeschichte, ed. by B. Meißner, O. Schmitt and M. Sommer, pp. 229–266. Berlin. Rabel 1997 Rabel, R.J. Plot and Point of View in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Race 2000 Race, W.H. ‘Explanatory δέ-Clauses in the Iliad.’ CJ 95: 205–227. Raubitschek 1968 Raubitschek, A.E. ‘Das Denkmal-Epigramm.’ In L’Epigramme Grecque, pp. 1– 36. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 14. Vandoeuvres and Geneva. Ready 2011 Ready, J.L. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge. Ready 2018 Ready, J.L. The Homeric Simile in Comparative Perspectives: Oral Traditions from Saudi-Arabia to Indonesia. Oxford. 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.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

231

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. Reitz/Scheidegger/Wesselmann 2019 Reitz, C., C. Scheidegger-Lämmle and K. Wesselmann, ‘Catalogues.’ In Structures of Epic Poetry, ed. by C. Reitz and S. Finkmann, vol. 1, pp. 653–725. Berlin and Boston. Rengakos 1993 Rengakos, A. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Einzelschriften 64. Stuttgart. Rengakos 2002 Rengakos, A. ‘The Hellenistic Poets as Homeric Critics.’ In Montanari 2002, 143–157. Reucher 1983 Reucher, T. Die situative Weltsicht Homers. Eine Interpretation der Ilias. Darmstadt. Reynen 1983 Reynen, H. ΕΥΧΕΣΘΑΙ und seine Derivate bei Homer. Bonn. Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville. Richter 1968 Richter, W. ‘Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter.’ With an essay on ‘Landwirtschaftliche Geräte’ by W. Schiering. ArchHom chap. H. Göttingen. Rijksbaron (1984) 2002 Rijksbaron, A. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction3. Amsterdam (11984). Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2. Darmstadt (11976). Rix 1977 Rix, H. Rev. of F. Householder and G. Nagy, Greek. A survey of recent work, The Hague, 1972. Kratylos 22: 89–96. Robbins 1990 Robbins, E. ‘Achilles to Thetis: Iliad 1.365–412.’ EMC 34: 1–15. Robert 1901 Robert, C. Studien zur Ilias. Berlin. Roemer 1912 Roemer, A. Aristarchs Athetesen in der Homerkritik (wirkliche und angebliche). Eine kritische Untersuchung. Leipzig and Berlin. Roisman 2005 Roisman, H.M. ‘Old Men and Chirping Cicadas in the Teichoskopia.’ In Approaches to Homer, Ancient and Modern, ed. by R. J. Rabel, pp. 105–118. Swansea. Rollinger 1996 Rollinger, R. ‘Altorientalische Motivik in der frü hgriechischen Literatur am Beispiel der homerischen Epen. Elemente des Kampfes in der Ilias und in der altorientalischen Literatur (nebst Überlegungen zur Präsenz altorientalischer Wanderpriester im frü harchaischen Griechenland).’ In Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität. Die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit, ed. by C. Ulf, pp. 156–210. Berlin. Romilly 1997 Romilly, J. de. Hector. Paris. Roth (1970–1974) 1990 Roth, C.P. ‘Mixed Aorists’ in Homeric Greek. New York and London. (chap. 2 ≈ C. L. Prince. ‘Some «Mixed Aorists» in Homer.’ Glotta 48 [1970] 155–163; chap. 3 ≈ C. P. Roth. ‘More Homeric «Mixed Aorists».’ Glotta 52 [1974] 1–10; chap. 4–5 ≈ C. P. Roth. ‘Thematic S-Aorists in Homer.’ HSCPh 77 [1973] 181–186.) Ruijgh (1968) 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘Les noms en -won- (-āwon-, īwon-), -uon- en grec alphabétique et en mycénien.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 240–286. (First published in Minos 9 [1968] 109–155.) Ruijgh (1992) 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘L’emploi le plus ancien et les emplois plus récents de la particule κε / ἄν.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 677–686. (First published in La langue et les textes Reece 2009

232

Iliad 7

en grec ancien. Actes du Colloque Pierre Chantraine [Grenoble, 5–8 Septembre 1989], ed. by F. Létoublon, pp. 75–84. Amsterdam 1992.) Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Rundin 1996 Rundin, J. ‘A Politics of Eating: Feasting in Early Greek Society. AJPh 117: 179– 215. Ruzé 1997 Ruzé, F. Délibération et pouvoir dans la cité grecque de Nestor à Socrate. Histoire ancienne et médiévale 43. Paris. Sacks 1987 Sacks, R. The Traditional Phrase in Homer: Two Studies in Form, Meaning and Interpretation. Leiden etc. 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. Sarischoulis 2008 Sarischoulis, E. Schicksal, Götter und Handlungsfreiheit in den Epen Homers. Palingenesia 92. Stuttgart. Saunders 2004 Saunders, K.B. ‘Frölich’s Table of Homeric Wounds.’ CQ 54: 1–17. 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, pp. 21–38. Zurich and Stuttgart. (First published in WS 69 [1956] 5–25.) Scheid/Svenbro (1994) 1996 Scheid, J. and J. Svenbro. The Craft of Zeus: Myths of Weaving and Fabric. Cambridge, Mass. and London. (French original: Le métier de Zeus. Mythe du tissage et du tissu dans le monde gréco-romain. Paris 1994.) 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. Schein 1997 Schein, S.L. ‘The Iliad: Structure and Interpretation.’ In Companion, 345–359. Schmidt 1976 Schmidt, M. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias. Zetemata 62. Munich. Schmidt 2006 Schmidt, M. ‘Some Remarks on the Semantics of ἄναξ in Homer.’ In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, ed. by S. DegerJalkotzy and I. S. Lemos, pp. 439–447. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh. Schmitt 1967 Schmitt, R. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981 Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations de l’animal chez Homère. Textes à l’appui. Histoire classique. Paris. Schnaufer 1970 Schnaufer, A. Frühgriechischer Totenglaube. Untersuchungen zum Totenglauben der mykenischen und homerischen Zeit. Tübingen. Schneider 1996 Schneider, H. Der anonyme Publikumskommentar in Ilias und Odyssee. Philosophie 25. Mü nster. Schubert 2000 Schubert, P. Noms d’agent et invective: entre phénomène linguistique et interprétation du récit dans les poèmes homériques. Hypomnemata 133. Göttingen. Schulz 2011 Schulz, F. Die homerischen Räte und die spartanische Gerusie. Syssitia 1. Düsseldorf.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

233

Schwyzer (1940) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Syntaktische Archaismen des Attischen.’ In E. Schwyzer. Kleine Schriften, ed. by R. Schmitt, pp. 443–456. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 45. Innsbruck. (First published in APAW 1940.) Scodel 1982 Scodel, R. ‘The Achaean Wall and the Myth of Destruction.’ HSCPh 86: 33– 50. Scodel 1992 Scodel, R. ‘The Wits of Glaucus.’ TAPhA 122: 73–84. Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimilitude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Scodel 2008 Scodel, R. Epic Facework: Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. Swansea. Scodel 2012 Scodel, R. ‘ἦ and Theory of Mind in the Iliad.’ In Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon. Akten des Hamburger Kolloquiums vom 6.–8. 10. 2010 zum Abschluß des Lexikons des frühgriechischen Epos, ed. by M. Meier-Brügger, pp. 319–334. Berlin and Boston. Scott 1921 Scott, J.A. The Unity of Homer. Sather Classical Lectures 1. Berkeley. Scott 1974 Scott, W.C. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Mnemosyne Supplements 28. Leiden. Scott 2009 Scott, W.C. The Artistry of the Homeric Simile. Hanover, NH and London. 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. Seaford 2004 Seaford, R. Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy. Cambridge. Segal 1971 Segal, C. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad. Mnemosyne Supplements 17. Leiden. Severyns 1943 Severyns, A. Homère. II: Le poète et son oeuvre. Brussels. Shear 2000 Shear, I.M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and Athens. Shipp (1953) 1972 Shipp, G. P. Studies in the Language of Homer2. Cambridge (11953). Shive 1996 Shive, D. ‘Ὅμηρον ἐξ Αἰσχύλου σαφηνίζειν: Iliad 7.332–338 and Agamemnon 433–455.’ Phoenix 50: 189–196. Singor 1992 Singor, H.W. ‘The Achaean Wall and the Seven Gates of Thebes.’ Hermes 120: 401–411. Skafte Jensen 1999 Skafte Jensen, M. ‘SO Debate: Dividing Homer: When and how were the Iliad and the Odyssey Divided into Songs?’ With comments by Ø. Andersen, A. Ballabriga, C. Calame, M. Cantilena, J. Strauss Clay, M. W. Edwards, B. Heiden, I. de Jong, G. Nagy, M. and S. West. Symbolae Osloenses 74: 5–91. Smith 1988 Smith, W. ‘The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad.’ Numen 35: 161–178. Snell (1946) 1953 Snell, B. The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought, transl. by T. G. Rosenmeyer. Oxford. (German original: Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen. Hamburg 1946; Göttingen 41975.) Snodgrass 1998 Snodgrass, A. Homer and the Artists: Text and Picture in Early Greek Art. Cambridge. Snyder 1981 Snyder, J.M. ‘The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric Poets.’ CJ 76: 193–196.

234

Iliad 7

Sommer, F. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B. Forssman. MSS Beiheft 1. Munich. Sommerstein/Torrance 2014 Sommerstein, A. and I. Torrance. Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 307. Berlin and Boston. Sotiriou 2000 Sotiriou, M. ‘Ἕκτωρ Αἴαντος ἄκουσεν (PINDAR, NEM. 2.14).’ Philologus 144: 134–138. 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. Stefanelli 2005 Stefanelli, R. ‘Homerica: οἰόθεν οἶος, αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς, ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος.’ QDLF 15: 123–137. Stockinger 1959 Stockinger, H. Die Vorzeichen im homerischen Epos. Ihre Typik und ihre Bedeutung. St. Ottilien. Stoevesandt 2004 Stoevesandt, M. Feinde – Gegner – Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den Kampfszenen der Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 30. Basel. Strasburger 1954 Strasburger, G. Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias. Frankfurt am Main. van Straten 1995 Straten, F.T. van. HIERA KALA: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 127. Leiden. Tabachovitz 1951 Tabachovitz, D. Homerische εἰ-Sätze. Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen. Lund. Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford. 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. Vienna. Toohey 1994 Toohey, P. ‘Epic and Rhetoric.’ In Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. by I. Worthington, pp. 153–175. London and New York. Torrance 2014 Torrance, I. ‘Ways to give oaths extra sanctity.’ In Sommerstein/ Torrance 2014, 132–155. 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. Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchung zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel. Tsagalis 2012 Tsagalis, C. From Listeners to Viewers: Space in the Iliad. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Tsagarakis 1969 Tsagarakis, O. ‘The Achaean Wall and the Homeric Question.’ Hermes 97: 129–135. Tsagarakis 1971 Tsagarakis, O. ‘The Achaean Embassy and the Wrath of Achilles.’ Hermes 99: 257–277. Tsagarakis 1977 Tsagarakis, O. Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in Homer. Amsterdam. Tsagarakis 1982 Tsagarakis, O. Form and Content in Homer. Hermes Einzelschriften 46. Wiesbaden. Turkeltaub 2014 Turkeltaub, D. ‘Penelope’s «Stout Hand» and Odyssean Humour.’ JHS 134: 103–119. Tzamali 1996 Tzamali, E. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. MSS Beiheft 16. Dettelbach. Sommer 1977

Bibliographic Abbreviations

235

Tzavella-Evjen, H. ‘Homeric Medicine.’ In 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), ed. by R. Hägg, pp. 185–188. Stockholm. Udwin 1999 Udwin, V.M. Between Two Armies: The Place of the Duel in Epic Culture. Davis Medieval Texts and Studies 10. Leiden. Ulf 1990 Ulf, C. Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung. Vestigia. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 43. Munich. Usener 1990 Usener, K. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis der Odyssee zur Ilias. ScriptOralia 21. Tübingen. van der Valk 1949 van der Valk, M. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey. Leiden. van der Valk 1953 van der Valk, M. ‘Homer’s Nationalistic Attitude.’ AC 22: 5–26. van der Valk 1964 van der Valk, M. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 2. Leiden. Vester 1956 Vester, H. Nestor. Funktion und Gestalt in der Ilias. Tü bingen. Vetten 1990 Vetten, C.-P. Das mythische Vorbild der Ilias. Bonn. Vian 1952 Vian, F. La guerre des géants. Le mythe avant l’époque hellénistique. Paris. Visser 1987 Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Europäische Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main. Visser 2002 Visser, E. Rev. of LfgrE, Lieferungen 16–17, 1997–99. Gnomon 74: 97–101. Von der Mü hll 1930 Von der Mü hll, P. Der große Aias. Rektoratsprogramm der Universität Basel. Basel. Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 4. Basel. Wace/Stubbings 1962 Wace, A.J.B. and F. H. Stubbings (eds.). A Companion to Homer. London and New York. Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wackernagel (1877) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Zum homerischen Dual.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 538– 546. (First published in ZVS 23 [1877] 302–310.) Wackernagel (1878) 1979 Wackernagel, J. ‘Die epische Zerdehnung.’ In Wackernagel 1979, 1512– 1565. (First published in Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 4 [1878] 259–312.) Wackernagel (1895) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 680–741. (First published in ZVS 33 [1895] 1–62.) Wackernagel 1916 Wackernagel, J. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 4. Göttingen. (Reprint 1970.) Wackernagel (1920/24) 2009 Wackernagel, J. Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic, ed. 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 1953 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vols. 1–2, ed. by the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Göttingen. Wackernagel 1979 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, ed. by B. Forssman on behalf of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Göttingen. Wakker 1994 Wakker, G. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Tzavella-Evjen 1983

236

Iliad 7

Wakker, G. Rev. of C. Sicking and P. Stork, Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek, Leiden, 1996. Mnemosyne 51: 357–372. Wathelet 1999 Wathelet, P. ‘Les subordonnées introduites par ὄφρα dans l’épopée homérique.’ In Les complétives en Grec ancien. Actes du colloque international de Saint-Étienne (3.–5. 9. 1998), ed. by B. Jacquinod, pp. 367–382. SaintÉtienne. Watkins (1979) 1994 Watkins, C. ‘NAM.RA GUD UDU in Hittite: Indo-European poetic language and the folk taxonomy of wealth.’ In C. Watkins. Selected Writings. Vol. 2: Culture and Poetics, ed. by L. Oliver, pp. 644–662. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 80. Innsbruck. (First published in Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, ed. by E. Neu and W. Meid, pp. 269–287. Innsbruck.) Weber 1884 Weber, P. Entwickelungsgeschichte der Ansichtssätze. Erste Abtheilung: Von Homer bis zur attischen Prosa. Würzburg. Webster (1958) 1964 Webster, T.B.L. From Mycenae to Homer2. London (11958). van Wees 1992 van Wees, H. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam. van Wees 2008 van Wees, H. ‘«Der Krieg sei Sorge der Männer». Bewaffnung und Kampftechnik.’ In Begleitband zur Ausstellung ‘Zeit der Helden. Die “dunklen Jahrhunderte” Griechenlands 1200–700 v. Chr.’ (Karlsruhe 25. 10. 2008– 15. 02. 2009), ed. by the Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, pp. 86–100. Darmstadt. Wesselmann 2021 Wesselmann, K. ‘Homeric Heroes Speaking in Lists: Comical Characterisation through Catalogues.’ In Lists and Catalogues in Ancient Literature and Beyond. Towards a Poetics of Enumeration, ed. by R. Lämmle, C. ScheideggerLämmle and K. Wesselmann, pp. 281–302. Berlin and Boston. West 1969 West, M.L. ‘The Achaean Wall.’ CR 19: 255–260. West (1988) 2011a West, M.L. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic.’ JHS 108: 151–172. (Also in Nagy 2001, vol. 1, 191–212 and in a revised version in West 2011a, 35–73.) West (1995) 2011a West, M.L. ‘The Date of the Iliad.’ In West 2011a, 188–208. (First published in MH 52 [1988] 203–219.) West 1997 West, M.L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 1998 West, M.L. ‘Praefatio.’ In Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M.L.W., vol. 1, pp. v–xxxvii. Stuttgart and Leipzig. West 2001 West, M.L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich and Leipzig. West 2001a West, M.L. ‘Atreus and Attarissiyas.’ Glotta 77 (published 2003): 262–266. West (2005) 2011a West, M.L. ‘Odyssey and Argonautica.’ In West 2011a, 277–312. (First published in CQ 55 [2005] 39–64.) West 2007 West, M.L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 2011 West, M.L. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary. Oxford. West 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 2014 West, M.L. The Making of the Odyssey. Oxford. 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.. Wakker 1998

Bibliographic Abbreviations

237

Whitman 1958 Whitman, C.H. Homer and the Heroic Tradition. Cambridge, Mass. Wickert-Micknat 1982 Wickert-Micknat, G. ‘Die Frau.’ ArchHom chap. R. Göttingen. Wiessner 1940 Wiessner, K. Bauformen der Ilias. Leipzig. Wilamowitz 1884 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Homerische Untersuchungen. Berlin. Wilamowitz 1916 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin. 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 Tübingen Habilitationsschrift 1958.) Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers Ilias. Marburg/Lahn. (Diss. Marburg 1944.) Willi 1994–1995 Willi, A. ‘do-ra-qe pe-re po-re-na-qe a-ke: an Indo-European figure in Mycenaean?’ Minos 29/30 (published 1998): 177–185. Williams 1993 Williams, B. Shame and Necessity. Sather Classical Lectures 57. Berkeley etc. Willmott 2007 Willmott, J. The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge. Wilson 2005 Wilson, D.F. ‘Demodokos’ «Iliad» and Homer’s.’ In Approaches to Homer, Ancient & Modern, ed. by R. J. Rabel, pp. 1–20. Swansea. Wißmann 1997 Wißmann, J. Motivation und Schmähung. Feigheit in der Ilias und in der griechischen Tragödie. Drama Beiheft 7. Stuttgart. Wyatt 1969 Wyatt, W. F. Jr. Metrical Lengthening in Homer. Incunabula Graeca 35. Rome. Yadin 2004 Yadin, A. ‘Goliath’s Armour and Israelite Collective Memory.’ Vetus Testamentum 54: 373–395. Zanetto 2017 Zanetto, G. ‘Fighting on the River: The Alpheus and the «Pylian» Epic.’ In Time and Space in Ancient Myth, Religion and Culture, ed. by A. Bierl, M. Christopoulos and A. Papachrysostomou, pp. 229–238. Berlin and Boston. Zanker 1992 Zanker, G. ‘Sophocles’ Ajax and the Heroic Values of the Iliad.’ CQ 42: 20–25. Zanker 1994 Zanker, G. The Heart of Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Zink 1962 Zink, N. Griechische Ausdrucksweisen für warm und kalt im seelischen Bereich. Heidelberg.