Homer’s Iliad: Book XXIV Homer’s Iliad 9781501504396, 9781501512292

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 XXIV By Claude Brügger Translated by Benjamin W. Millis and Sara Strack and edited by S. Douglas Olson

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

ISBN 978-1-5015-1229-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0439-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0429-7 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Table of Contents Preface  VII Notes for the Reader (including list of abbreviations)  IX 24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)  1 Overview of the Action in Book 24  9 Commentary  11 Bibliographic abbreviations  285

Preface ἓξ δέ οἱ υἷες ἔασιν, ἐγὼ δέ οἱ ἕβδομός εἰμι· τῶν μέτα παλλόμενος κλήρῳ λάχον ἐνθάδ’ ἕπεσθαι. Iliad 24.399  f.

Following on the publication of the Prolegomena and the commentaries on Books 1, 2, 3, 6, and 19 of the Iliad, the present volume presents the commentary on Book 24, the final book of the Iliad. This Book is undoubtedly one of the most touching and stimulating sections of Homeric epic; this was another reason for not delaying the commentary on it until the end of the project, but instead bringing it forward within the overall concept of the series (on which, see the preface in volume II.2, pp. VIIf.). In this regard, the present volume follows the principles of commenting outlined in the ones that preceded it (esp. vols. I.2 and IV.2). The existence of first-rate commentaries, including those by Rudolf Pepp­ müller (1876), Colin W. Macleod (1982) and Nicholas J. Richardson (1993), τοσσάδ’ ὀνείατ’ ἄγοντες (24.367), as well as monographs by e.g. Götz Beck (1964) and Karl Deichgräber (1972) – to mention only the most pertinent from the vast bibliography – both facilitates and impedes a new treatment of Book 24 and its 804 verses. My initial aim to encapsulate what has been recognized and well discussed, and perhaps to go a bit beyond this here and there has proved almost overly ambitious. If the undertaking has nevertheless come to a happy conclusion and one that will, I hope, be fruitful for further research, I am indebted to a number of institutions: the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung and the Hamburger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur, which took a leading role in facilitating the completion of this commentary via their generous financial support; the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel and the Max Geldner-Stiftung Basel, which supported the entire project financially; the University of Basel and the library of the University of Basel, which substantially facilitated my research by providing infrastructure and awarding me a privileged user status; the Walter de Gruyter publishing house, which, in the person of Dr. Elisabeth Schuhmann, followed the development of this volume with great goodwill and interest (the careful technical production of the volume by Florian Ruppenstein has also to be mentioned with gratitude).

VIII 

 Iliad 24

I am personally greatly indebted to: my esteemed teacher Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz, who has unflaggingly encouraged me during both my studies and my lengthy collaboration on the research project he initiated, and who has shown unqualified confidence in me; Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl, who continually followed this work and provided a welcome opportunity to ‘try out’ a preliminary version of the commentary in the context of a seminar with interested students; my colleagues Dr. Marina Coray, Dr. Martha Krieter-Spiro, Dr. Magdalene Stoe­vesandt and Prof. Dr. Robert Plath, who spared neither time nor effort in­ critically reading draft versions and sharing their knowledge with me; the external experts, who offered valuable advice based on their individual areas of expertise and saved me from many errors: Rudolf Führer, Fritz Graf, Irene de Jong, Michael Meier-Brügger, Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, René Nünlist, Rolf A. Stucky, Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg, Rudolf Wachter and Martin L. West †. Prof. Dr. Michael Meier-Brügger and the staff of the Lexikon des früh­grie­chi­ schen Epos (LfgrE), who in May 2006 invited me, together with Magdalene Stoevesandt, to Hamburg for a fruitful exchange and who also continuously and readily entrusted the team of the Basel commentary with unpublished versions of individual lemmata from not yet published fascicles of the LfgrE; the student assistants Tamara Hofer and Alexandra Scharfenberger, who read through the proofs with a keen eye and alert mind; all the other individuals who helped me on individual issues with suggestions, advice and by sending relevant material; my parents, who facilitated my studies in Classical Philology, and my family, who sometimes had to forego a husband or father for the sake of Homer. To all, I express my heartfelt thanks. Basel, August 2009

Claude Brügger

The present English edition has been made possible by the support of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel (FAG) and the L. & Th. La Roche Stiftung Basel, as well as the publisher Walter de Gruyter (Boston/Berlin). During the revision of the text for the English edition, errors were corrected and in some cases bibliographic references were supplemented (January 2015). Particular thanks are due to the translators Dr. Sarah Strack and Dr. Benjamin W. Millis and to the editor Prof. Dr. S. Douglas Olson for their most careful work. Basel, July 2016

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 medium type. These sections correspond to a standard philological commentary. c) Specific information on particular sub-fields of Homeric scholarship is set in small type. d) The ‘elementary section’, designed to facilitate an initial approach to the text especially for school and university students, appears beneath a dividing line at the foot of the page. The elementary section discusses Homeric word forms in particular, as well as prosody and meter. It is based on the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’, to which reference is made with the abbreviation ‘R’. Particularly frequent phenomena (e.g. the lack of an augment) are not noted throughout but are instead recalled ca. every 50 verses. — Information relating to Homeric vocabulary is largely omitted; for this, the reader is referred to the specialized dictionaries of Cunliffe and Autenrieth/ Kaegi. Complex issues are addressed in the elementary section as well as the main commentary; they are briefly summarized in the elementary section and discussed in greater detail in the main commentary. Such passages are marked in the elementary section with an arrow (↑). In contrast, references of the type ‘cf. 73n.’ in the elementary section refer to notes within the elementary section itself, never to the main commentary. 2. The chapters of the Prolegomena volume are cited by the following abbreviations: CG/CH Cast of characters in the Iliad: Gods/Human Beings COM Introduction: Commenting on Homer FOR Formulaity 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 Schorlarship

X 

 Iliad 24

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 version 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 

 XI

8. Abbreviations

(a) Bibliographic abbreviations For the bibliographic abbreviations, see below pp. 285  ff.

(b) Primary literature (for the editions used, see below pp. 288  f.) Aesch. Aeschylus (Ag. = Agamemnon, Prom. = Prometheus Bound, fr. = fragment) Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius Aristot. Aristotle (Rhet. = Rhetoric) Bacchyl. Bacchylides (Epin. = Epinikia, ‘Victory poems’) Certamen Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi, ‘Contest of Homer and Hesiod’ Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the ‘Epic Cycle’) Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Dion. Hal. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. =  Antiquitates Romanae, ‘Roman Antiquities’) Eleg. Adesp. Elegiaca Adespota, ‘elegiac poems’ (not attributable to any author) Eur. Euripides (Alc. =  Alcestis, Androm. =  Andromache, Hipp. = Hippolytus, IA = Iphigenia in Aulis) 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) Hom. Epigr. Homeri Epigrammata, ‘Epigrams of Homer’ h.Hom. A collective term for the Homeric hymns  h.Ap., Individual Homeric hymns: to Apollon,  h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter,  h.Mart., – to Mars/Ares,  h.Merc., – to Mercury/Hermes and  h.Ven. – to Venus/Aphrodite Il. Iliad Il. parv. Ilias parva, ‘Little Iliad’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Il. Pers. Iliou Persis, ‘Sack of Troy’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Od. Odyssey Pind. Pindar (Nem., Ol., Pyth. =  ‘Nemean, Olympian, Pythian Odes’ [Victory poems]) Plat. Plato (Prot. = Protagoras, Rep. = De re publica, ‘Republic’) Plut. Plutarch (Fab. Max. =  ‘Life of Fabius Maximus’, Mor. = Moralia)

XII 

 Iliad 24

Procl. Quint. Smyrn. schol. schol. A (etc.) Soph. Thuc. Vit. Hom. Her. Xen.



Proclus (see above s.v. Chrest.) Quintus Smyrnaeus scholion, scholia scholion in manuscript A (etc.) Sophocles (Ant. =  Antigone, El. =  Electra, OT =  Oedipus Tyrannus, ‘Oedipus the King’) Thucydides Vita Homeri Herodotea Xenophon (Anab. = Anabasis, ‘March Up-country’, Sympos. = Symposium)

(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/b after a verse number  indicates only in the app. crit. an additional verse A 1, B 1 (etc.) indicates caesurae in the hexameter (vgl. M 6) app. crit. apparatus criticus (West) fr., frr. fragment, fragments Gr. Greek IE Indo-European imper. imperative Introd. Introduction loc. locative ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts n. note1

1 ‘48n.’ refers to the commentary on verse 48 in the present volume, whereas 1.162n. refers to the commentary on verse 162 in Book 1. – ‘In 19.126 (see ad loc.)’ and ‘cf. 24.229  ff. (see ad locc.)’ refer primarily to the relevant passages in the Homeric text, secondarily to one or more commentary entries relating to the relevant passages. (In the first example, the commentary entry can be found under 19.126–127; in the second, relevant information can be found under 24.229– 234 and 24.229–231.)



Notes for the Reader 

sc. scilicet (i.e. ‘supply’ or ‘namely’) subjunc. subjunctive s.v., s.vv. sub voce, sub vocibus VB verse-beginning VE verse-end VH verse-half v.l., vv.ll. varia lectio, variae lectiones (i.e. ‘variant reading(s)’) voc. vocative

 XIII

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 language’ [G] in the Prolego­ mena 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, metric, prosody R2

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

5–8

R3

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 second short vowel] often does not occur [e.g. gen. sing. βασιλῆος rather than -έως]).

39  f.

R4

Digamma (ϝ): The Ionic dialect of Homer no longer used the phoneme /w/ (like Engl. will). It 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).

2.1 2.2

4.1

4.2

19

27

2 

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 R5 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4 5.5

5.6 5.7

 Iliad 24

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: Πηληϊάδεω:  ͜ R 3) but also in the gen. pl. -έων. (Synizesis is indicated by a sublinear curved line connecting the affected vowels, 1.18: θεοί.)  ͜

46



24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

R8

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

R9

Change in consonant quantity creates metrically convenient variants (which usually derive originally from different dialects: R 1.3): τόσ(σ)ος, ποσ(σ)ί, Ὀδυσ(σ)εύς, ἔσ(σ)εσθαι, τελέσ(σ)αι; Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς; ὅπ(π)ως, etc. Variation at word beginning creates similar flexibility in π(τ)όλεμος, π(τ)όλις.

9.1 9.2 R 10

10.1 10.2

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

 3

48

17 18 49  f.

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

11.2

11.3

Especially noteworthy in the case of nouns are: 1st declension: gen. pl. -άων (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 24

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 omparatives 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 

 Iliad 24

16.4

16.5 16.6

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

87

60 90

Syntax R 17

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

R 18 18.1

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

18.2 R 19 19.1

19.2

R 20 20.1

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

99

97

97

59

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

 7

20.2

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

98

R 21 21.1

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

100

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

101

R 23

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

100

R 24

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

101



21.2 R 22 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5

24.1

24.2

24.3

8  24.4

24.5 24.6

24.7

24.8 24.9 24.10

24.11 24.12

24.13

 Iliad 24

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 24 (‘The Ransom of Hektor’) 1–467

Preparing the encounter between Priam and Achilleus

1–187

The gods react to Achilleus dragging Hektor’s corpse and initiate the return of his dead son to Priam. Because of his restless grief for Patroklos, Achilleus drags Hektor’s body around his friend’s grave, day after day. Apollo meanwhile protects the body against disfiguration. The gods debate the appropriate response to Achilleus’ behavior. Apollo advocates for Hektor, Hera for Achilleus (because of the insult she received in the Judgment of Paris). Zeus mediates: Achilleus shall be made to return Hektor’s corpse in exchange for a ransom. Thetis is full of sorrow because the death of her son Achilleus is imminent. She is welcomed by the gods who are present and receives instructions to urge Achilleus to release Hektor’s corpse. Thetis relays Zeus’ instructions to her son; Achilleus expresses his agreement. Zeus sends Iris to Priam with the instructions that he go to Achilleus with precious gifts, under the protection of Hermes, in order to ransom Hektor’s body. Iris finds Priam in deepest mourning and relays Zeus’ message to him.



1–21



22–76



77–119



120–142



143–187

188–321

188–237a

237b–280



281–321

Priam prepares for his journey to Achilleus in the camp of the Achaians. Priam immediately has his chariot made ready and in the treasury selects the gifts for Achilleus. Hekabe attempts to dissuade her husband from his dangerous plan, but Priam is determined to go. Priam impatiently drives away the Trojans who are standing about and he abuses his sons because his chariot is not yet ready. The chariot is then made ready for travel. Immediately before her husband’s departure, Hekabe urges him to make a libation to Zeus and to ask for a good omen. Priam complies, and Zeus consequently sends a large eagle, flying from the right, as a sign.

10 

 Iliad 24

322–467

322–348



349–439



440–467

In the course of his journey, Priam encounters the god Hermes in the guise of a young man and is guided to Achilleus by him. Priam sets out together with the herald Idaios. His family accompanies him to the edge of the city, ‘as if he went to his death’. Zeus instructs Hermes to lead Priam safely to Achilleus. In the guise of a young man, Hermes proceeds to the Trojan plain. Priam and Idaios stop on the way. They then see Hermes approaching. As a ‘follower’ of Achilleus, he gains Priam’s trust; his statement that Hektor’s body shows no signs of decomposition gives Priam renewed hope. Hermes leads Priam past all obstacles – namely the guards and the gates – to Achilleus’ quarters.

468–676

Priam’s visit with Achilleus

468–571 468–512

Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters as a supplicant. Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters unobserved and pleads with him for the return of his son’s body. Both mourn the fate of their relatives. Achilleus shows pity to Priam and gives a speech of consolation. When Priam impatiently urges the return of Hektor’s corpse, Achilleus responds irritably.



513–571

572–676

572–595



596–632



633–676

677–804 677–718



719–776



777–804

Priam receives the body of his son Hektor. Achilleus invites his guest to a joint meal. Achilleus prepares Hektor’s body for its return (funerary ritual) and promises a share of the ransom to the deceased Patroklos. Achilleus announces the release of Hektor’s corpse and, by reference to Niobe, who had eaten in spite of her grief, persuades Priam to partake in a joint meal. Achilleus grants his guest a bed for the night at the request of the latter and promises a truce for the duration of Hektor’s funeral. Night rest. The funerary ceremony for Hektor in Troy During the night, Hermes urges Priam to return to Troy. Kas­ sandra catches the first sight of those returning. The Trojans then gather before the city walls to receive them. Lamentation for Hektor. Speeches of mourning by Andromache, Hekabe and Helen. Hektor’s funeral.

Commentary Book 24 – entitled ‘The Ransom of Hektor’ (Héktoros lýtra) in the ancient tradition – begins in the night between Days 29 and 30 of the action of the Iliad and stretches over approximately 20 days. It picks up several storylines and themes of the immediately preceding Books: • Desecration of Hektor’s corpse: in Book 22, Achilleus used his chariot to drag the dead Hektor to the Achaian camp in order to expose him to the dogs and birds without a funeral (22.330b–354, 395–404); he reaffirmed this intention in Book 23 in a promise to his dead friend Patroklos (23.179–183; cf. 23.19–23). The beginning of Book 24 describes how Achilleus is unable to sleep because he constantly recalls Patroklos and how he tries to calm himself by dragging Hektor’s corpse around Patroklos’ grave early each morning. Apollo meanwhile preserves the body from damage (23.184–191, 24.18b–21). • Priam’s embassy to Achilleus: Priam decided already in Book 22 to demand the return of his son’s body from Achilleus, but was prevented from doing so by his compatriots (22.412–429). In Book 24, with divine support (and against the continued resistance of his wife Hekabe), Priam is able to realize his plan and recover Hektor: Achilleus proves his humanity to the old man (after having been uncompromising on the battlefield, as Tros 20.463  ff., Lykaon 21.71  ff. and Hektor 22.123  ff./338  ff. all learned from personal experience). • Funeral ceremony: after the detailed depiction of the cremation of Patroklos’ corpse in Book 23 (23.1–257a), the games of the Greek heroes on the side of the besieging Achaians are described (funeral games in honor of Patroklos, 23.257b–897); it is apparent there that conflicts and rivalries that inevitably follow from a tense competition for a valuable prize can be resolved in a conciliatory manner and without disastrous consequences: Achilleus even voluntarily awards the first prize in spear-throwing to Agamemnon (23.884– 897). In Book 24, by contrast, the focus of the narrative is on the besieged Trojans during the funeral of Hektor; the dismay of the entire people is made emotionally comprehensible, in particular via the laments of his close female relatives (Andromache, Hekabe, Helen) (24.719–776). – The Book concludes with the ceremonial funerary meal in Priam’s palace and thus indirectly anticipates the fate of Troy.

12 

 Iliad 24

1–21 Because of his relentless grief for Patroklos, Achilleus drags Hektor’s body around his friend’s grave day after day. Apollo meanwhile protects the body against disfiguration. 1–5 The initial letters of 1–5 form the word ΛΕΥΚΗ ‘white’ (fem.; as a noun, the term for the white poplar and a skin disease). Since the word has no obvious connection with the context, this is probably a coincidental acrostic; but it did inspire the Hellenistic poet Aratus to form the programmatic acrostic ΛΕΠΤΗ ‘fine, slender’ in his Phainomena (vv. 783–787) (Vogt 1967, 82–87; Asper 1997, 182–185; Luz 2010, 4  f., 49  f.; Hilton 2013; cf. already Eustathius 1335.27  ff.; differently Korenjak 2009: an allusion to the island of Leuke, to which Achilleus is supposed to have been transported after his death).

1–2a Conclusion of the games in honor of Patroklos. The end of the sceneP is signaled via (a) the repetition of the term agṓn ‘assembly’ from the beginning of the games at 23.258 (Macleod); (b) an explicit statement of the end of the assembly (‘the people scattered to go away’: 1.487n.; Kurz 1966, 109; cf. 801); (c) the so-called panorama point of view of the narratorP: thanks to the bird’seye view, the audience can easily follow the move from one scene to the next (Richardson 1990, 119  f.; de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 69). – On the (post-Homeric) Book divisions, see the bibliography at 19.1–39n., end; also Nünlist 2006.   1 ἀγών: here in the original sense ‘assembly’ (DELG s.v. ἄγω); in addition to 23.258, cf. 19.42 (with n.), Od. 8.200. — λαοί: The plural λαοί denotes a multitude of persons who belong together (Engl. ‘people’, in the Iliad usually in a military context, as here: ‘the men, warriors, soldiers’); the sing. λαός, by contrast, stresses the collective whole (civilian ‘people’: 28, 665, 789; military ‘servicemen’: 658), but a clear differentiation is not always possible. Particular connotations can be gathered from the context: an entire civilian population, including women and children (28n.), ‘compatriots, fellow citizens’ (37), ‘townsmen’ (740), ‘subjects of a king’ (777), etc. – Bibliography: LfgrE; 1.10n.; Haubold 2000 (on the poetic function of the term λαός in Homeric epic). — θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας: an inflectible formulaic expression after caesura B 2 denoting the Achaian encampment of ships (14× Il., of which 9× with VE Ἀχαιῶν: 564n.). Variants: dat. θοῇς ἐπὶ νηυσί 4× Il., 1× Od. (19.160n.); θοῇς παρὰ νηυσί 2× Od.; gen. θοῆς ἐπὶ/παρὰ νηός 3× Od., 1× h.Ap. On the inflection of formulae in general: FOR 23. – On the ship epithet ‘swift’, see 1.12bn. — ἐπὶ νῆας ἕκαστοι: cf. 19.277 = 23.3 οἳ μὲν ἄρ’ ἐσκίδναντο ἑὴν ἐπὶ νῆα ἕκαστος (similarly Od. 2.258); pl. ἕκαστοι is here probably to be understood as a collective: ‘contingent’ (Peppmüller; LfgrE; cf. 3.1n.). On ἕκαστος as a distributive appositive, see 2.775bn. λῦτο: an athematic root aorist, elsewhere with short -υ- (2× Il. and 8× Od. in the phrase λύτο γούνατα in verse middle). Here the lengthening is by analogy with the active future and aorist forms of λύω (thus also in the present stem: 23.513 λῦεν, Od. 7.74 λῡ�ει): Shipp (1953) 1972, 105; Wyatt 1969, 209  f.; cf. 2.769n. (μήνῑεν), 3.357n. (δῑά). Otherwise (v.l. λύτο: -ῠ-) it must be interpreted as a metrical

1 λῦτο: ‘dispersed’; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — νῆας: on the inflection, R 12.1.

Commentary 

 13

licence: στίχος ἀκέφαλος (on this, see M 15). – On the (indeterminable) issue of whether λῦτο is to be translated as reflexive ‘dispersed’ or passive ‘was dissolved’, see Allan 2003, 83  f.

2b–13 After the games, the narrator immediately returns to ‘everyday business’: ‘Scarcely has Achilleus been left alone before he is again overcome by his grief’ (schol. bT on 3–4; likewise Richardson on 3–4; see also 3n.). A variant of the themeP ‘meal – sunset – sleep – sunrise’ (1.475–477n.; an additional variant: 1.601–611n.): the standard elements (2b–3a: meal, sleep) are depicted in an abbreviated manner in favor of a description of Achilleus’ state of mind (3b–12a); the sunrise is immediately linked to this (12b–13n.). On the narrative scheme ‘all are sleeping, except one’, see 2.1–6n. with bibliography (esp. Minchin 1985, 269–272, 274  f.); cf. 677–682n. (Hermes); in general, 25–26n.   2b ≈ 18.245, Od. 19.321. 3 1st VH ≈ 10.4, 24.636, Od. 4.295, 23.255. — The night between Days 29 and 30 in the action of the Iliad (31n.). — only Achilleus: Achilleus’ sleeplessness and lack of appetite (and sexual abstinence: 130  f.) are primarily an expression of his unquenchable grief for Patroklos, thus inter alia 19.199–214, 23.59–67, 23.218–225, 24.123–125, 24.129  f. (analogous are Priam at 24.635–642, Laërtes at Od. 16.142–145; cf. Penelope at Od. 4.788  f.). At the same time, Achilleus’ behavior underscores his isolation, which has persisted since Book 1 (1.488–492n.). Only the return of Hektor’s body to Priam will lead to Achilleus’ return to the community (599–676, reconciliatory meal with Priam and night rest); earlier, Achilleus at least participated in the meal before the games in honor of Patroklos, albeit reluctantly (while refusing a bath: 23.39  ff.; similarly Demeter during her search for Persephone: h.Cer. 47–50 with Richardson on h.Cer. p. 167), and a meal on Priam’s arrival is mentioned in passing at 24.475  f. (472– 476n.); see also 19.203–214n. and 24.621–676n.  – Bibliography: Nagler 1974, 177–183, 193–197; Edwards 1986, 88  f.; Taplin 1992, 260, 275–279; Seaford 1994, 67, 159–176; Postlethwaite 1998, 98–100; Schmitz 2001, 147–149; Hammer 2002, 188–194.  

γλυκεροῦ: γλυκερός is a metrical variant for γλυκύς (with the suffix -ero like κρατερός vis-à-vis κρατύς: DELG s.v. γλυκύς). ‘Sweet’ in the sense ‘delicious, pleasant’ is a common epithet of ‘sleep’ (cf. 2.2n., 2.71n.). — ταρπήμεναι: τέρπομαι has the basic meaning ‘savor, enjoy, take pleasure in’; in contrast, the (aorist) forms with the stem vowel α

2 ἐσκίδναντ(ο): σκίδνημι is an Ionic byform of σκεδάννυμι (cf. R 1.3). — ἰέναι: final-consecutive inf. — τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the form, R 14.3. — δόρποιο: on the inflection, R 11.2. 3 ὕπνου: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with μέδοντο (as an objective gen.) and with ταρπήμεναι (as a partitive gen.). — ταρπήμεναι: final-consecutive inf.; on the form, R 16.4. — ταρπήμεναι· αὐτάρ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (adversative: R 24.2).

14 

 Iliad 24

denote the pleasurable satisfaction of a need (Latacz 1966, 176–191, esp. 186  f.; cf. 513n., 3.441n., 19.18–19n.); of sleep also at Od. 23.346; here with a pregnant sense, in contrast to Achilleus’ insomnia. — αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: VE formula 17× Il., VB formula 5× Il.: in the Iliad, Achilleus is ‘the central figure, from whom the focus can be withdrawn […], but to whom it is always brought back with the phrase «But Achilleus …»’ (Latacz 1995, 88  f. n. 91 [transl.]). The formula last occurred at the beginning of the games (23.257b). – A change of scene after caesura C 2 is characteristic of Homeric poetics generally (1.194n.); on αὐτάρ as a ‘discourse marker’, cf. Bonifazi 2008, 48–51; on αὐτάρ ⏑–× after C 2, cf. Clark 1997, 140–146.

4–5 This is taken up again in 9–11a via ring-compositionP; Achilleus’ concrete memories of Patroklos intervene (at 22.387–390, he promised never to forget his friend): van Otterlo 1948, 38. 4 wept: On weeping by Homeric heroes and by Achilleus in particular, see 1.349n. and 19.5–6an. – Additional typical gestures of mourning in early epic, esp. in Book 24: fasting (129, 641  f.; see 3n.), covering oneself (163n.; veiling: 93n.), rolling around on the ground and piling dirt on one’s head (164n.), tearing at one’s hair (711–712n.). — as he remembered his beloved companion: Visualization of a particular person or object can serve in Homer as a trigger for emotions or actions, especially grief (e.g. Od. 4.104–110, 4.186–188, 19.115–120, 20.204–206), including collective mourning (Il. 24.166–168) which, via communal remembrance, sometimes has a cathartic effect (19.338–340, 24.509–516, Od. 12.309–311); cf. Crotty 1994, 73–77. — his beloved companion: A periphrastic denominationP: in the Iliad, Patroklos is repeatedly called hétaros/ hetaíros ‘companion, comrade, friend’ in the narrator-textP, in speeches by others, and by Achilleus himself (as here; also in Book 24 at 51, 416, 591, 755). In the Iliad, the term denotes (a) ‘comrades (in arms)’ in general (usually in the pl.), (b) specifically the members of a leader’s inner circle who are entrusted with particular tasks (19.316n.), including those deemed friends in a social sense; thus Alkimos and Automedon, Patroklos’ successors, are also hétaroi (473–475, see 474n.; on the esteem given to hétaroi, cf. 574  f. with n., 793n.). The fact that the same characters are also called therápontes ‘comrades in arms, assistants, servants’ (396n.) does indicates not synonymous use of the terms but different aspects of human relationships (relations of friendship and employment; see LfgrE s.v. ἑταῖρος 745.20–26). On the female equivalent dmōaí ‘female servants’, see 582–583an. – Further bibliography: van Wees 1992, 335 n. 67; Spahn 2006, 175–182 (problematic conclusions, loc. cit. 200  f.).  

4 ἑτάρου: = ἑταίρου. — οὐδέ: also after affirmative clauses in Homer (R 24.8). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 



 15

φίλου ἑτάρου: In expanded combinations such as ἑοῦ ἑτάροιο φίλοιο (416) and ὃν φίλον υἱόν (19.4), the adjective φίλος beside the possessive pronoun ἑός/ὅς most likely has a pregnant affective sense: ‘dear, beloved’ (see 19.4n. with bibliography; differently Landfester 1966, 24: φίλος is pleonastic with the possessive pronoun). At the same time, in phrases like the present one it often cannot be determined whether φίλος has an affective or merely a possessive sense, but the context – the loss of someone close – may indicate the former here (similarly at 2.261n., 3.31n.), hence ‘of the dear companion’, cf. 591, also 50, 700 (with nn.); see the discussion at 1.20n. and in Spahn 2006, 165–173. – On the disputed etymology of ἕταρος/ἑταῖρος and the question of whether the word originally began with a consonant, see 19.345n. — οὐδέ μιν ὕπνος: VE οὐδέ μιν –× 8× Il. (in Book 24: vv. 12, 414, 727), 3× Od., 1× Hes. Op.; in addition κὰδ δέ μιν ὕπνος Od. 9.372. Cf. below, 163n. (ἀμφὶ δὲ –×).

5 1st VH =  Od. 9.373. — who subdues all: cf. expressions such as ‘with the easy bondage of slumber upon them’ (678, etc.; see also 6.74n.); in light of Achilleus’ sleeplessness, the expression is here ‘paradoxical, clearly showing the intensity of the pain’ (LfgrE [transl.]; see also Richardson; Foley 1999, 233  f.). Similarly pregnant is Od. 9.373, of the sleep of the inebriated Polyphemos (see de Jong ad loc.). On the phenomenon of an epithet negated within its context (here ‘nor did sleep  … come over him’), de Jong on Od. 16.4–5 (an additional parallel: Il. 9.10–12). – On the word formation, Risch 30. — he tossed from one side to the other: outward restlessness as a symptom of internal agitation (discussed further at 10  f.); the outraged Odysseus sleeplessly plotting revenge at Od. 20.24/28 is similar; cf. also Od. 4.541 = 10.499.

ᾕρει: The connection of abstract nouns (especially of physical/mental states) with verbs of grasping, coming, etc. is common in Greek; with sleep as the agent, also e.g. 2.2 ἔχε (with n.), 22.502 ἕλοι, 24.679 ἔμαρπτεν; cf. 1.387n. (anger: λάβεν), 3.446n. (longing: αἱρεῖ), 24.170 (trembling: ἔλλαβε), 24.480 (delusion: λάβῃ), etc. On verbs of coming, see below 707–709n.; in general, Porzig 1942, 130–133. – On the negated impf. of incomplete action, Schw. 2.279 (οὐδέ μιν ᾕρει: ‘and could not …’).

6–9 On the athetesis of these verses by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus, inter alia for linguistic-stylistic reasons, see schol. A, Macleod and Richardson (on 5–11); counter-arguments already in schol. bT; also Von der Mühll 1952, 371  f.; Latacz 1965, 74  f.

6–8 The description of Achilleus’ memories of Patroklos is strongly colored emotionally by phrases such as ‘carry through’ (tolýpeuse), ‘endure suffering’ (páthen álgea), ‘heavy waves’ (alegeiná kýmata), underscoring Achilleus’ intimacy with the deceased (secondary focalizationP: de Jong [1987] 2004, 110  f.); as often in analepsesP, this has the function of further clarifying the present situation – Achilleus’ mental state: Richardson 1990, 103 with n. 29. –

16 

 Iliad 24

Additional discussion of pairs of friends in epic and particularly the friendship between Achilleus and Patroklos: 19.4–6an. 6 Patroklos’ good qualities  – especially his friendliness and prowess in battle  – render his loss all the more painful, cf. 17.670  f., 17.689  f., 19.300, 23.16, 23.280  f. – On the character Patroklos, see CH 2; 1.307n.  

ἀνδροτῆτα: ‘the embodiment of being a man’ (Latacz 1965, esp. 74  f.; ‘manly vitality’: Clarke 1999, 206 n. 92; cf. Bassi 2003, 34); only of Patroklos (also at 16.857) and Hektor (22.363), in both cases in the VE formula ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην. An old epic word (see below). — μένος ἠΰ: a VE formula for increased or divinely induced vigor (of human beings also at 20.80, Od. 2.271; of horses, Il. 17.456, 23.524, 24.442); on Vedic parallels, Schmitt 1967, 119  f., and Nagy 1990, 93  f., 113  ff., 120  f. – ἠΰς/ἐΰς ‘good, competent, valiant’ is an archaic word that as an adjective is largely limited to epic language; as the prefix εὐ-, it is attested already in Mycenaean (male personal names, see MYC). On the meaning of μένος, see 1.103n.: ‘energy’ (especially in battle).

ἀνδροτῆτα: originally probably *anr̥ tātm̥ with a short-voweled syllabic r (and m): G 15; Janko on 16.855–858; West 1988, 156–158 and 1997a, 229; Latacz (2001) 2010, 384–387; subsequently perhaps pronounced without the nasal as ἀδροτῆτα (transmitted as a v.l.) for metrical reasons: Latacz 1965, 66  f.; Ruijgh 1997, 42  ff. (differently Tichy 1981, who links the prosodic shape  –⏑–⏑ with a reconstructed, metrically freer pre-form of the hexameter; cf. Hajnal 2003, especially 46  ff., 66  f., 77 and 2003a; opposed Rix 2005, 387  f.). Extensive recent discussion of the state of research and new hypotheses in Barnes 2011 (ἀνδροτῆτα is a form analogous to *ἀμ(β)ροτῆτα, with parallels from Avestan) and Maslov 2011 (epenthetic -δ- is prosodically irrelevant). – On the issue of the linguistic age of the conjunction καί in the formula ἀνδρ. καὶ ἥβην, see Willi 2003, esp. 224–226 and 240 (perhaps already Mycenaean).

7–8 In raids, Achilleus conquered 23 towns in the vicinity of Troy, 12 of them by ship: 9.321–329, Od. 3.105  f.   7 ἠδ’ ὁπόσα  …: a shift in construction after ποθέων ἀνδροτῆτα  …: the object clause ὁπόσα … replaces the accusative object, with μεμνημένος (4) finding an echo in ποθέων: ‘longingly recall all that …’; taken up again in 9 with τῶν μιμνησκόμενος (AH). — ὁπόσα: a metrically conditioned lengthening of the short final vowel before caesura A 4, as at e.g. Od. 10.353 πορφύρεα καθύπερθ(ε), 14.343 ῥωγαλέα, τά  …: La Roche 1869, 65–67; van Leeuwen (1894) 1918, 91  f. — τολύπευσε: literally ‘wind yarn into balls’, metaphorically ‘carry out, complete, conduct’, in early epic usually referring to war (e.g. 14.86  f.; see Janko ad loc.; Müller 1974, 206  f.; Maurice 1991, 163; LfgrE); on the metaphors of weaving and spinning (of fate), cf. 209b–210n. — ἄλγεα:  ͜ The ending -εα also remains uncontracted at VE and is to be read with synizesis (G 46): τεύχεα 7.207, 22.322, Διομήδεα 4.365, 5.881, etc.; it can be partly ascribed to a modification of a VE formula, e.g. 3.27

6 ποθέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἀνδροτῆτα: to be read prosodically with a short initial syllable: ⏖–⏑. — ἠΰ: neut. of ἠΰς = εΰς (cf. εὖ); initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 7 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). — ἄλγεα:  ͜ on the synizesis, R 7.

Commentary 

 17

Ἀλέξανδρον θεοειδέα after 3.16 Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής (Peppmüller; Witte [1913] 1972, 113  f.; Chantr. 1.56). – On VE formulae with the meaning ‘suffer pains’, especially in reference to Achilleus and Odysseus, see Pucci (1982) 1998, 13  f. and in general Mawet 1979, 176  ff. 8 = Od. 8.183 (with 182 ἔχομαι … ἄλγεσι), 13.91 (with 90 πάθ’ ἄλγεα ὃν κατὰ θυμόν), 13.264 (with 263 πάθον ἄλγεα θυμῷ), always of Odysseus. — πείρων: The connection of πείρω (literally ‘pierce’) with κύματα is more natural (cf. the ship epithets ὠκύπορος 1.421n., ποντοπόρος 1.439n., also Od. 2.434 [νηῦς] πεῖρε κέλευθον) than that with πτολέμους: zeugma (Macleod on 6–8; Fenno 2005, 481 n. 16). Collection of examples of zeugma in Homer: van Leeuwen on 4.282.   9 1st VH ≈ 167; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.391 (also with τέρεν rather than θαλερόν: Il. 16.11, 19.323, Od. 16.332). — τῶν μιμνησκόμενος: an asyndetic, demonstrative connection with 6–8 (on this, K.-G. 2.343  f.; cf. v. 345) and a reprise of 4  f. (see ad loc.) in the form of a ring-compositionP. — θαλερόν: ‘swelling, bulging’; a generic epithetP of δάκρυον/δάκρυ (cf. 2.266n.). — δάκρυον εἶβεν: an inflectible VE formula (3× Il., 7× Od.; of these, 7× with κατά preceding). The verb εἴβω, with its uncertain etymology, is probably to be regarded as a metrically conditioned variant of λείβω (VE formula δάκρυα λειβ- 9× in early epic): Haslam 1976; Reece 2009, 156  ff. Additional syntactic alternative: (κατὰ) δάκρυ χέουσα (613n.).  

10–12 The triple anaphora ‘sometimes … sometimes … now again’ (in Gr. 3× ál­ lote), each time in a different position in the verse, and the amplification via a fourth, modified element (‘then …’), are an image of Achilleus’ restlessness and desperation (Göbel 1933, 28  f.; on ‘three–four’, cf. 16n.; additional examples of triple anaphora in Homer: 11.494  f., 17.430  f.; see also in general 2.381– 393n.).  – On expressions for (restless) movement to and fro, see Macleod; Kurz 1966, 136.

ἄλλοτ’ …, ἄλλοτε δ’ αὖτε: anaphora after the bucolic diaeresis is a popular stylistic device in hexameter poetry, cf. 787 (Bassett 1905, 112–114; Edwards 1987, 60).

11 ὀρθὸς ἀναστάς: an emphasis on his upright posture (= activity) after three ‘reclining’ positions (10–11a); cf. inter alia 2.42 ἕζετο δ’ ὀρθωθείς, 15.6 στῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ἀναΐξας, 23.101 ταφὼν δ’ ἀνόρουσεν, in each case from sleep (Kurz 1966, 71). The pregnant coupling of ‘upright’ and ‘stand (up)’ are likely of I-E origin (Schmitt 1967, 251  f.).  

12a on the beach of the sea: A motif for Achilleus’ isolation, as at 1.349  f. (see 1.350n.; de Jong on Od. 2.260; Elliger 1975, 66–68).  

8 πτολέμους: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2. 9 κατὰ … εἶβεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — δάκρυον: collective sing. 11 τοτέ: ‘another time’. 12 δινεύεσκ(ε) etc.: iterative forms (R 16.5). — ἀλύων: ‘be beside oneself (with grief)’. — θῖν(α): acc. sing. of θίς ‘beach’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — Ἠώς: ‘dawn’, Attic Ἕως (cf. R 3).

18 

 Iliad 24

δινεύεσκ(ε): By means of the iterative/frequentative verbal forms in -σκ- (also 13 λήθεσκεν, 15 δησάσκετο, 17 παυέσκετο, ἔασκεν), the description of the first night after the games  – which up to this point had been rendered in the imperfect  – merges seamlessly into the depiction of an action recurring regularly over the course of several days (cf. 31) (also on the divine plane: 23 ἐλεαίρεσκον, 24 ὀτρύνεσκον): AH; Genette (1972/83) 1994, 83  ff. (‘iterative narrative’); similarly 1.488–492 with n. – On the productivity of -σκ- for word formation, see G 60; Schw. 1.710–712; Wathelet 1973, especially 393  ff.; Puhvel 1991, 13  ff.; Pagniello 2007. Forms in -σκ- are not normally augmented (Pagniello loc. cit. 114  ff.). — παρὰ θῖν’ ἁλός: a formula after caesura B 1: 4× Il., 2× Od., 1× h.Hom., of which 4× followed by ἀτρυγέτοιο: from caesura C 2 on, the hexameter can be completed by a simple verse-filling epithet or, alternatively, by a clause that bears meaning (frequently in the form of a new sentence, as here) (Edwards 1966, 172–174; Clark 1997, 107–109; cf. 1.194n., end).

12b–13 The description of the following daybreak is tailored to Achilleus’ situation (AH; Vivante 1980, 127; Minchin 1985, 272; Kelly 2007, 67): he sleeps uneasily – if at all (differently from 23.59–64 and 23.231  f., where he falls asleep from exhaustion) – and is already, or still, awake before dawn; he seems almost to be waiting for dawn in order to vent his frustration by dragging Hektor’s corpse. Similarly pregnant is the related phrasing at Od. 22.197  f.: Melanthios, suspended from the ceiling, will not be able to sleep because of his ‘uncomfortable’ position and will thus be the first to catch sight of the dawn (cf. de Jong ad loc.). On ‘morning’ formulae in general, cf. 695n. — across the sea and the beaches: The localization of the dawn is determined by the narrative situation rather than by astronomic realism: the sun rises wherever Achilleus is at the moment (Peppmüller; Leaf on 23.227; Wilamowitz 1916, 508  f.).  

οὐδὲ  … λήθεσκεν: negated λανθάνω (‘A does not evade B’) is sometimes to be understood pregnantly, as here: ‘B does not disregard A’ (active perception), likewise at 15.461  f. (Teukros aiming for Hektor) ἀλλ’ οὐ λῆθε Διὸς  … νόον, ὅς ῥ’ ἐφύλασσεν | Ἕκτορ(α) (similarly at 331), with a ‘that’ clause at 23.323  f., 24.563; see Faesi on 23.323  f.; Krischer 1965, 162  f.; Snell 1978, 93  f.

14 2nd VH = 8.402, 8.416, 18.244, Od. 3.478. — chariot: Homeric heroes do not ride on horses but instead drive a two-wheeled horse-drawn chariot: Wiesner 1968, 1  ff., 110  ff.; West 2007, 468 (with further bibliography in n. 71); cf. 2.384n.

ἐπεὶ ζεύξειεν: an iterative opt. (Chantr. 2.224  f.); with ἐπεί also at 8.269  f., Od. 2.105 (v.l.), 4.222 (v.l.), 24.254. — ὑφ’ ἅρμασιν: locative dat., like ὑπ’ ὄχεσφιν 23.130, ὑπ’

13 ὑπεὶρ ἅλα …: to be taken with φαινομένη. — ὑπείρ: = ὑπέρ (R 20.1). 14 ὅ γ(ε): on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17.

Commentary 

 19

ἀμάξῃσιν 24.782, ὑπ’ ἀπήνῃ Od. 6.73 (Chantr. 2.140). – On the plural ἅρματα (usually of a single chariot), see 2.775bn. — ὠκέας ἵππους: an inflectible VE formula (3.263n.).

15 so as to drag him: The narrator takes for granted the detailed description of the first time Achilleus dragged Hektor’s corpse (22.395–405).  

Ἕκτορα δ’ ἕλκεσθαι: an emphatic VB with the final infinitive placed before the predicate (cf. ἕλκει in VB 52 and 417; on stressing words by placing them at VB in general, see Edwards, Introd. 42–44). — ἕλκεσθαι δησάσκετο δίφρου ὄπισθεν: cf. 22.398 ἐκ δίφροιο δ’ ἔδησε, κάρη δ’ ἕλκεσθαι ἔασεν. Middle δησάσκετο probably underscores Achilleus’ personal ‘interest’, his mental investment (Mutzbauer 1909, 190). — δίφρου: On the etymology and meaning of δίφρος ‘chariot (platform)’, see 3.262n.  

16 2nd VH = 17.538, 21.28, Od. 24.77; ≈ 8.476, 17.120, 17.182, 18.195. — Driving around the grave monument recalls the rite, practiced in many cultures in different contexts, of the (usually three or seven-fold) ‘circumambulation’ (circling, walking around); its diverse functions include aversion of evil, cleansing, taking possession, and veneration (RE s.v. Peridrome). The rite is frequently attested for the cult of the dead; in Homer also at 23.13  f.: the Myrmidons drive their war chariots around the body of Patroklos; Od. 24.68–70: the Achaians move in full armor around Achilleus’ funeral pyre (‘armed dance’). General bibliography on circling a grave: Eitrem 1915, 6–57 (esp. 9–13); Pax 1937, 28–73 (esp. 44–52); Nilsson (1940) 1967, 113  f.; Andronikos 1968, 14  f. – The present case is exceptional, in that circling the grave is combined with dragging the body of an opponent: ‘that is a sort of tribute to Patroclus and sign of his yearning for him, as well as a degradation of Hector’ (Macleod). An analogous practice is attested for 4th-cent. BC Thessaly (Achilleus’ homeland); this supposedly represents an old Thessalian custom: Aristotle fr. 389 Gigon; Callimachus fr. 588 Pfeiffer; schol. D on 22.398; Porphyry on 24.15  f.; van der Valk 1963, 398  f.; Sodano 1965, 232–241; Sistakou 2004, 117  f.; Hellmann 2007, 31–34.  – On pictorial representations of dragging Hektor’s corpse, see LIMC s.v. Achilleus pp. 138  ff.; Knauss 2006, 236–238. — three times: The number three is widespread in ritual practices (Göbel 1933, 21; Germain 1954, 40; RAC s.v. Drei); it also occurs as a typical numberP in Homer in connection with ‘circling’ at 23.13  f. (see above), Od. 4.277 (Helen walks around the Wooden Horse three times), and is expanded by the motif ‘three times – the fourth time’ in Achilleus’ pursuit of Hektor (Il. 22.165/208; on the motif in general, Kirk on 5.436–439; Richardson 1990, 26  f.; cf. 399n. on ‘six – the seventh’). — Menoitios’ fallen

15 δ(έ): ‘apodotic δέ’ (R 24.3). — ἕλκεσθαι: final-consecutive inf. — ὄπισθεν + gen.: ‘behind’, here as a postpositive preposition (R 20.2). 16 Μενοιτιάδαο: on the inflection, R 11.1.

20 

 Iliad 24

| son: Menoitios appears in the Iliad only as Patroklos’ father (frequently as a patronymic). Further information on this character: BNP. — tomb: After the cremation of Patroklos’ body and the recovery of the bones, earth was heaped over the cremation site, which was then surrounded by a circle of stones to form a grave mound (23.236–257; likewise for the burial of Achilleus at Od. 24.71–84, where the bones of Achilleus and Patroklos are interred together; Hektor’s grave mound at 797–801 is similar). Mounds erected over cremation burials are attested achaeologically for the Mycenaean and Geometric periods, among others: Andronikos 1968, 107–114; Richardson on 23.245–248. On the grave marker functioning as a memorial (sḗma), Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 108  ff., esp. 120  f., 131  ff., 139  f.; see also 349n.; 6.419an.

θανόντος: The aorist stem θαν- in early epic frequently appears to have a perfect sense (LfgrE s.v. θνήσκω 1045.69  ff.; examples: loc. cit. 1046.51  ff.).

17 ἐνὶ κλισίῃ: Achilleus’ ‘tent/hut’ at 448  ff. is described as a massive wooden construction thatched with reed (see 448–456n., 448n.). — παυέσκετο: used absolutely, with a pregnant sense: ‘rested again’ (αὖτις ἐνὶ κλισίῃ picks up on his lying down there at night); post-Homeric ἀναπαύεσθαι at Hdt. 1.12, etc. (schol. A and T; LfgrE s.v. αὖτις 1610.27  ff.). — τὸν δέ τ’ ἔασκεν: cf. 16.96 τοὺς δέ τ’ ἐᾶν. On ἐάω ‘let a dead man lie’, see 19.8–9an.  

τόνδε δ’ ἔασκεν, the reading of the majority of witnesses, is contradicted by the fact that in Homer ὅδε refers to characters only in direct speechP (e.g. 2.236 VE τόνδε δ’ ἐῶμεν, 2.346 VB τούσδε δ’ ἔα) and never in narrator-textP (where only ἥδε … ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή 2.5, etc.; τοῖσι … ὅδ’ ἦν νόος 15.699). There was likely originally hiatus here: τὸν δὲ ἔασκεν, or a different form of the verb: τὸν δ’ ἐάεσκεν, τὸν δ’ εἴασκεν. Discussion of the variants in Schwartz 1923, 69  f.; Ruijgh 702; Nussbaum 1998, 66–72; West 2001, 276  f.

18–21 Although at 23.184–191 Apollo and Aphrodite protect Hektor’s body (by different means: ointment, cloud), only Apollo’s actions are described here; this is probably to be interpreted as preparation for his appearance immediately hereafter: Macleod (the supposed contradiction with 23.184  ff., as well as the use of the aegis [20n.], have led to atheteses since antiquity: schol. A and b on 20–21; Richardson; in detail, Lührs 1992, 133  ff.). – In the story of Troy, Apollo supports the Trojans (CG 5; 1.9n.; Erbse 1986, 169–184); he receives the aegis from Zeus in order to support them (15.229  f./306  ff./318  ff./360  f.); Hektor in particular is under his protection (7.81  ff., 15.253  ff., 16.712  ff., 22.202  ff., etc.; Paul 1969, 71–74; cf. also 757–759 with n.). Whether Apollo’s function as the god of cultic purity also comes into play here (Mueller [1984] 2009, 124; Erbse loc. cit. 183  f.; cf. LfgrE s.v. Apollon 1101.38  ff.) must remain an open question, especially since the notion of ‘contamination’ via contact with the dead is not 17 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἔασκεν: iterative form, ‘let lie each time’ (R 16.5).

Commentary 

 21

much present in Homeric epic as a whole (Parker 1983, 66  ff.); in any case, Apollo does wash and anoint Sarpedon’s body at the request of Zeus (and has him transferred to his homeland: 16.666–683).  – In the Iliad, other gods intervene on behalf of deceased individuals as well: Thetis protects Patroklos’ body from decomposition (19.30–33, 38  f.; cf. 414–415n.), the ‘Uranian gods’ bury the twelve children of Niobe (24.612); on the moral plane, the gods also vouch for the dead, particularly Hektor at 53  f. and 113–119 (Irmscher 1950, 83  f.; Yamagata 1994, 14  ff., 171  f.). 18 VE = 1.380, h.Merc. 297. — sprawled on his face in the dust: a perversion of burial rites, as at 23.25  f. (with literal echoes): the prone position dishonors the body (Macleod), and letting it lie on the ground could allow it to fall prey to dogs and birds, cf. 22n.  

κόνι: The dative ending -ι of i-stems (frequently transmitted as -ει, cf. 707–709n.) is long, cf. 6.335 νεμέσσῑ, 18.407 Θέτῑ, 23.891 δυνάμῑ, 24.141 ἀγύρῑ; here with correption. On i-stems, see G 74; Chantraine (1945) 1961, 85–90.

19 had pity on him: The pity of the gods as a reason for their intervention (2.27n.) is a theme of Book 24 (23, 174, 301, 332). On the Greek notion of pity, see 44n.  

πᾶσαν: together with πάντα (20) stresses the comprehensive protection provided by Apollo. — ἀεικείην ἄπεχε χροΐ: For the construction with the dative, cf. 1.67, Od. 20.263; additional parallels: Schw. 2.146. On the meaning of ἀεικείη, see 22n.

20 1st VH ≈ 2nd VH of 17.229; VE ≈ 17.243, Hes. Th. 127. — Aegis: Its function and appearance vary according to context (2.446b–454n.); here the aigis is probably to be imagined, by analogy with the cloud cover at 23.188–191 (where Apollo’s intervention on behalf of the corpse is first mentioned), as a protective cloak (similarly 5.738, 18.204: armor-like cloak); cf. de Romilly 1981, 11; 1997, 216–218.  

καὶ τεθνηότα περ: i.e. not only in life but ‘also in death, beyond his death’; illustrating the ‘good relationship’ between Apollo and Hektor (18–21n., 33–35n.); similarly καὶ ἐν θανάτοιό περ αἴσῃ (428, 750). With a slightly different nuance, 35 νέκυν περ ἐόντα, 423 καὶ νέκυός περ ἐόντος (direct speechesP of deities): ‘though he is nothing but a corpse’ (Bakker 1988, 129).

18 ἐκτανύσας: (ἐκ)τανύω ‘stretch lengthwise’ (aor. act. part.). — τοῖο: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), to be taken with χροΐ; on the inflection, R 11.2. 19 ἀεικείην: = αἰκίαν, ‘disfiguration’ (cf. 22 ἀείκιζεν); on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — φῶτ(α): ‘man’. 20 περ: intensifying (R 24.10). — τεθνηότα: = τεθνεῶτα (R 3). — περὶ … κάλυπτεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — αἰγίδι: instrumental dat. — πάντα: masc., ‘him as a whole’.

22 

 Iliad 24

21 ≈ 23.187. — golden: ‘It is golden, because divine things are characteristically golden’ (Macleod; likewise the drinking vessel at 101, Hermes’ shoes at 341); of the aegis also at 2.448 (golden tassels; see ad loc.) and 17.594 (marmaréē ‘gleaming like metal’).  

ἀποδρύφοι: Although apparently taken as a present tense in the post-Homeric period (schol. D on 23.187; Sophocles fr. 416 Radt [with Radt ad loc.]; Xanthakis-Karamanos 1985/89, 270; Beekes), this is perhaps a thematic aorist (effective) that exists beside the sigmatic aorist δρυψ- at 16.324, etc.: LfgrE s.v. δρύπτω; Richardson on 23.187; undecided DELG. — ἑλκυστάζων: an intensive-expressive form of ἕλκω (as ῥυστάζω vis-à-vis (ἐ)ρύω at 755, μιμνάζω vis-à-vis μίμνω at 2.392n.; Chantr. 1.338).

χρυσείῃ: Like other Greek material adjectives (e.g. χάλκεος, σιδήρεος), χρύσεος shows prosodic and metrical flexibility: -ειος rather than -εος (χρύσειος in Book 24 also at 341, 795; σιδήρειος 205 ≈ 521), synizesis (χρύσεον  ͜ καλὸν δέπας 101, perhaps also the VB χρυσέῳ ἐν δέπαϊ at 285 [alternatively: correption]), contraction (VE χρυσῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ at 699). The lengthened form in -ειος is here probably originally the result of metrical necessity: ­Schmid 1950, esp. 11–22; Risch 131–134 (differently Lindeman 1965: an analogy with adjectives derived from s-stems, such as κήδειος; Ruijgh 1967, 234: an analogy with the variation βαθέα/βαθεῖα). Further bibliography: Chantr. 1.65  f. (on synizesis); West 1998, XXXVIf. (on χρυσῆ). – The suffix of material adjectives is characterized by a multitude of forms also in Mycenean (e.g. MYC s.v. χαλκός): Risch (1976) 1981; Heubeck 1985; Hajnal 1994.

22–76 The gods debate the appropriate response to Achilleus’ behavior. Apollo advocates for Hektor, Hera for Achilleus (because of the insult she suffered in the Judgment of Paris). Zeus mediates: Achilleus will be made to return Hektor’s corpse in exchange for a ransom.   22 1st VH ≈ 50; 2nd VH ≈ 54. — outraged: How far Achilleus’ actions violate the norm, or indeed stay within the norm, in the narrator’s portrayal of events (see below), is a matter of dispute; in any case, the undeterred, reckless repetition of dragging Hektor brings about divine intervention and thus ultimately a solution to the deadlock. – The Greek verb aeíkizen (impf., ‘he sought to disfigure’) apparently contains no moral criticism in and of itself (Richardson on 22.395; Griffin 1980, 85 n. 9; van Wees 1992, 129  f., with further bibliography in n. 132; cf. v. 417  f.); in the Iliad, it denotes, like the noun aeikeíē (19), physical damage (mutilation, disfigurement) to a corpse after the removal of the armor (especially as an impulse action: 16.545–547 for revenge, 16.558–561 in triumph), rendering a dignified burial impossible (22.395–404, cf. 22.256–259). The most commonly mentioned form of the practice, although usually only as a threat, 21 χρυσείῃ, ἵνα: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἀποδρύφοι: ‘scratch to pieces, tear apart’ (opt.). 22 ὥς: ‘so, thus’.

Commentary 

 23

is abandoning a corpse to be prey for dogs and scavenging birds (1.4n., 2.393n., 22.42  f., etc.; cf. 19.24  ff. [maggots]; collection of examples in Kelly 2007, 315– 317; Near Eastern parallels in Rollinger 1996, 178–181); cutting off the head and other body parts also occurs in the Iliad (11.146, 17.39, 17.126, 18.176  f., 18.334  f.; cf. 14.496  ff.). Hektor’s body remains unspoiled (partly, of course, because of divine intervention: 23.184  ff.; cf. 411–423n.), although Achilleus himself announced repeatedly that he would leave the body for the dogs and birds to consume (22.335  f., 22.348, 22.354, 23.21, 23.182  f.; initially, the narrator omits a signal that it will not come to that: Bowra 1952, 324; Morrison 1992, 89; cf. the concerns, still in Book 24, of Hekabe at 211 and Priam at 409). – That Achilleus chose to drag the body about allows for different interpretations: this is (a) a personal ritual to overcome powerful emotions (grief, thirst for revenge) on the basis of an old rite (see 16n.); (b) retaliation for Hektor’s intent regarding Patroklos’ body, in accord with the ius talionis (17.125–127: dragging, decapitation, leaving to the dogs; Achilleus is informed of this by Iris at 18.175–177; see Porphyry on 24.15  f.; schol. D on 22.398; Reichel 1994, 193); (c) a contrasting background against which to view Achilleus’ ‘constructive’ behavior later in the Book (his consent to the release of Hektor’s body, his pity for Priam) and Hektor’s dignified burial at the end of the Iliad (cf. 33–54n.). – For details on common practices by victors (mutilation of corpses) and a (comparatively lenient) evaluation of Achilleus’ conduct against this background, Bassett 1933; de Romilly 1981; 1997, 193–213; Vernant (1982) 2001, 332–341; Cerri 1986, especially 6  ff., 28  ff.; Lendon 2000, 3–11; differently Segal 1971, passim, especially 9  ff. (according to whom the maltreatment of Hektor’s body represents the climax of the spiral of violence in the final third of the Iliad).

ὣς ὃ μέν: a typical introduction to a summaryP that here prepares a change of sceneP, as commonly elsewhere; the impf. signals that the actions narrated sequentially overlap temporally (1.318an.; cf. Richardson 1990, 31–33, and de Jong on Od., Introd. XII: ‘appositive summary’). At the same time, the phrasing Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀείκιζεν reaches back to the beginning of the storyline concerning ἀεικείη (22.395 = 23.24): ἦ ῥα, καὶ Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀεικέα μήδετο ἔργα. — Ἕκτορα δῖον: an inflectible formula, only in the Iliad (acc.: 2× VB, 6× in verse middle, 19× VE; dat.: 11× VE). δῖος is a generic epithetP (1.7n.), with a ‘combining of contrasting terms’ (δῖον ἀεικ-) noticeable here and at 22.395/23.24 (AH on 22.395 [transl.]); on epithets for Hektor as a whole, see Wathelet s.v. Ἕκτωρ 472–474. — μενεαίνων: a denominative related to μένος ‘urge, (aggressive) energy’ (cf. 19.58n.); here often understood as ‘in anger’ vel sim. (Peppmüller; AH), but perhaps to be interpreted more broadly in the sense ‘have an unquenchable desire, act on impulse’, i.e. ‘in his rage’ vel sim.

24 

 Iliad 24

23 The blessed gods: a formula between caesurae B 1 and C 2 (5× Il., 6× Od., 2× Hes.); the epithet implies ‘living safely and without care’ (1.339n.; cf. 526n.). — as they looked: a smooth change of sceneP/setting via introduction of a character B (here: the gods) who is observing character A in the foreground of the action (here: Hektor); frequently in changes to the divine plane, where the gods appear as spectators of important events and discuss what they observe (and intervene); see 19.340n. for examples and bibliography. Here the change is also prepared by a description of the protective measures taken by Apollo (18b–21).  

τὸν δ’ ἐλεαίρεσκον … εἰσορόωντες: variant (in the impf.) of 15.12 τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν ἐλέησε etc. – On iterative/frequentative verbal forms in -σκ-, see 12an.; here: ἐλεαίρεσκον, 24 ὀτρύνεσκον; the other verbs are impf. (22 ἀείκιζεν, 25 ἑήνδανεν, 27 ἔχον).

24 ≈ 109. — to steal the body: a summary rendering of a multiplicity of speeches of more or less similar content (de Jong [1987] 2004, 115  f.; cf. 19.304n.); only the decisive counsel at 31–76 is reported in extenso (see ad loc.; cf. principle of elaborate narrationP). — Argeïphontes: =  Hermes (CG 17). On Argeïphóntēs, probably an old title, see 2.103n. and LfgrE: the original meaning is uncertain, in Homer likely ‘Slayer of Argos’.  – Hermes is expressly marked as the god of theft at Od. 19.396  f. (with Rutherford ad loc.) and in the (post-Homeric) hymn to Hermes (h.Merc. 18, 68  ff.). But in what follows here, he will contribute to the return of Hektor by different means: 153n.  

κλέψαι: here implies cunning and secrecy (72 λάθρῃ) but not theft as a criminal offense, thus: ‘to secretly remove from Achilleus, misappropriate’ (AH; cf. Luther 1935, 109; Burkert [1977] 1985, 157); the same verb is used to describe Hermes rescuing the tied-up Ares (5.390  f.: ἐξέκλεψεν). In contrast, the divine removal from battle of heroes at risk is usually described by ἁρπάζω (3.380  f., 16.436  f., 20.443  f., 21.597) or σαόω (35n.), occasionally also ὑπεκφέρω (5.318/377); on the motif of divine removal, Kullmann 1956, 125–131. — ἐΰσκοπον Ἀργεϊφόντην: an inflectible VE formula (nom./dat./acc. 2× Il., 2× Od., 3× h.Hom.), a prosodic alternative to the VE formula διάκτορος Ἀργ. (339, etc.; see 2.103n.). As an epithet of Hermes, ἐΰσκοπος means ‘the good scout’ rather than ‘the unerring one’ (LfgrE; differently of Artemis in reference to the bow at Od. 11.198  f.). – Additional epithets: κρατύς (345n.), Κυλλήνιος (post-Homeric), χρυσόρραπις (343n.); Ἀργ. as an free-standing name for Hermes without epithet: 153, 182. – On the noun-epithet system ‘Hermes’ in its entirety, see Janko 1982, 21  ff.; Dee 1994, 56  ff.

25–26 The antithesis ‘all others …, but not …’ – a variant of the motif ‘all others … x, (only) A … y’ – serves to characterize the highlighted characters and signals a turn in the action (2.1–6n.): ultimately, the opposition of the three gods here 23 ἐλεαίρεσκον: iterative form (R 16.5). — εἰσορόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 24 κλέψαι: sc. Hektor’s body.

Commentary 

 25

facilitates the  – far better  – solution to the problem later proposed by Zeus (109–111; Scodel 2002, 144).  – Early epic frequently hints at possible alternatives to the actual course of action, e.g. in ‘if-not’-situationsP (2.155–156n.), scenes of deliberation (1.188b–194n.), or different kinds of confrontations, e.g. declined requests, as here (on the keyword ‘[did not] please, [did not] approve’, cf. 1.22–25, Od. 3.141–144, 10.373  f.), but also threats (1.169–171 [with n.], 24.568–570/583–586), etc.; see Richardson 1990, 187  ff. — to Hera | nor Poseidon, nor the girl of the grey eyes: Hera and Athene (CG 16 and 8) are in the Iliad fully on the side of the Achaians (a consequence of the Judgement of Paris: 27–30n.), as is Poseidon (since Hektor’s grandfather Laomedon cheated him out of his wage for building the city walls: 21.441  ff.; CG 23; Erbse 1986, 102  ff.); these three divinities are also mentioned together at 1.400, 20.33  f. (cf. 15.213  f., 20.112–115) and actively intervene in battle on behalf of the Achaians. On sets of three gods in general, 2.478–479n. 25 ἔνθ’ ἄλλοις μὲν πᾶσιν: an inflectible VB formula (3× Il. [also at 1.22 = 1.376], 9× Od.); on the continuation with οὐδέ, 1.318bn. — ἔνθ(α): sometimes not of a precise moment in time, as e.g. 1.22 (‘then’: an immediate reaction to a speech), but in reference to an entire situation: ‘regarding this, in this case, in these circumstances’ (LfgrE s.v. 590.9  ff., esp. 34  ff.). — ἑήνδανεν: ‘pleased’ (literally ‘was sweet, pleasant’: related to ἡδύς; see 1.24n.), of agreement with a suggestion. The subject inf. that belongs to the verb must be ‘supplied’ from what precedes (κλέψαι). – On the form of the imperfect, see LfgrE s.v. 799.21  ff.: ἑήν- rather than *ἐ(ϝ)άνδανεν, probably via the influence of Attic ἥνδανεν.   26 1st VH ≈ 20.34, Od. 8.344, Hes. Th. 15 (VB τοῦ δέ etc. Od. 4.505, 7.61 and 5× ‘Hes.’). — Ποσειδάων(ι): elision of -ι is relatively rare in early epic: G 30; La Roche 1869, 110  ff.; van Leeuwen (1894) 1918, 75–77; Guilleux 2001. — γλαυκώπιδι κούρῃ: ≈ Od. 2.433 Διὸς γλαυκώπιδι κούρῃ: a variant in the dative of the VE formula γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη (on this, 1.206n.; cf. the VE formulae Διὸς κούρῃ μεγάλοιο and κούρῃ Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο: 6.304n.); similarly in verse middle before caesura C 2 κούρῃ γλαυκώπιδι καὶ Διὶ πατρί (Od. 24.518, beside the more common Ἀθηναίῃ γλαυκώπιδι, likewise before C 2; see 6.88n.). γλαυκῶπις by itself is used as an intimate address by Zeus 3× in Il. 8 and by Odysseus at Od. 13.389, in narrator-text at Od. 6.47, h.Hom. 28.10: certain epithets can stand by themselves for a divine name, thus also ἐριούνιος for Hermes (360n.); see Hainsworth on Od. 6.47. – On γλαυκῶπις ‘bright-eyed’, see 1.206n. with bibliography; also Deacy/Villing 2004 and Grand-Clément 2011, 399–403 (with various attempts to relate γλαυκῶπις to Athene’s character).  

25 ἑήνδανεν: Attic ἥνδανεν (impf.). — μὲν … οὐδέ: ‘although … but not’. — οὐδέ ποτε: ‘but never’ whenever this suggestion was made (cf. R 24.8). 26 κούρῃ: = Athene; on the form, R 2 and 4.1–2.

26 

 Iliad 24

27–30 In the chronology of the myth, the ‘Judgement of Paris’ belongs to the beginning of the story of Troy (external completing analepsisP: Richardson 1990, 103 with n. 29; cf. STR 23 Fig. 3); within the Epic Cycle, it was narrated in detail in the Cypria (Proclus Chrest. § 1 West; cf. Cypr. fr. 5  f. West). The ‘Judgement of Paris’ is mentioned in the Iliad only here; it provides the reason why Hera and Athene tolerate or even approve the maltreatment of Hektor’s corpse: principle of ‘ad hoc-narration’P (Erbse 1986, 196  f.). Knowledge of the episode is nonetheless assumed for the entire Iliad and especially for the divine factions (4.5  ff., 5.418  ff., 21.418  ff.; cf. also 6.288–295n.): CH 8 s.v. Paris; Reinhardt (1938) 1997 (‘Without the Judgement of Paris, there is no Iliad’: loc. cit. 187 [transl.]); Kullmann 1960, 236  ff.; Stinton (1965) 1990, 17  ff.; Walcot 1977; Kullmann (1986) 1992, 393  f.; Latacz (2001) 2004, 197  f. But in the causal chain, the narrator keeps it in the background in favor of the bow-shot of Pandaros (4.86–168), by means of which he ‘develops dramatically the disaster hanging over Troy in the Iliad itself’ (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 154 n. 1 [transl.]; see also Drerup 1921, 360 n. 1 and 450 n. 3; Irmscher 1950, 43  f.; van der Valk 1953, 17). – Allusions to stories from the Trojan and other myth cycles are common in Homer (Calhoun 1939; Kullmann 1960, 5–11; Schwinge 1991, 497  f.; Burgess 2001, 47  f. and 209 n. 1; on allusions to the prehistory of the Trojan War and to the first nine years of the war specifically, see Kullmann loc. cit. 227–302; Friedrich 1975, 81  f. with 188 n. 217–223; Book 24 is particularly rich in references to stories that take place before or after the Iliad itself: Mackie 2013). Such allusions have often been suspected as interpolations; criticism  – probably unjustified  – has been expressed since antiquity of the entire section from 23 on, sometimes for linguistic reasons (e.g. because of the use of the terms ‘insult’, ‘courtyard’, ‘lust’ [29  f. with nn.]), sometimes on moral-theological grounds (the ‘theft’ in 24 [but see ad loc.], the evaluation of divinities by a mortal), sometimes because of content: Poseidon (26) has no connection with the ‘Judgement of Paris’, and in any case Homer mentions the ‘Judgement of Paris’ nowhere else (Aristarchus according to schol. bT on 23 and schol. A on 25–30; on this, Beck 1964, 129–138; Richardson on 23–30. – West 2001, 12, athetizes 29  f.; see also app. crit.). – Further discussion of the history and motifs of the myth of the ‘Judgement of Paris’ in Stinton loc. cit. 17  ff., 56  ff.; Davies 2003. On pictorial depictions, LIMC s.v. Paridis Iudicium; Kaeser 2006. The phrasing of 27–30 is expressed subjectively: narrator commentary (Richardson 1990, 145 with n. 11) or even secondary focalizationP from the view-point of the two goddesses concerned (de Jong [1987] 2004, 84; Scodel 2002, 143  f.). The following words are character languageP: (ἀπ)εχθάνομαι (elsewhere in Homer only at 3.454 in narrator-text), ἕνεκα (de Jong loc. cit. 120; cf. Porzig 1942, 169), ἄτη (in Homer 21× in direct

Commentary 

 27

speechP, 4× in narrator-textP [elsewhere at 16.805, 24.480, Od. 15.233]; see Cairns 2012, 17  f.). Cf. 29n. (νείκεσσε), 30n. (‘lust’). 27 VB ≈ 12.433, 13.679, Hes. Th. 425; on the 2nd VH, see 27b–28an. — ἔχον: ‘persisted, remained’, from intransitive ἔχω ‘withstand, remain’; cf. 12.433, 13.557, 13.679 (LfgrE s.v. 839.71  ff., 844.59  ff.). — πρῶτον: ‘from the first, once and for all’; emphasizes the irreversibility of the situation (1.319n., cf. 1.6n.). — ἀπήχθετο: The form can be interpreted as impf. (in the sense ‘be hated by someone’) or as aor. (‘incur someone’s hatred’); see Mutzbauer 1893, 97  f.; Chantr. 1.394. — Ἴλιος ἱρή: an inflectible VE formula (nom./ acc./gen. 21× Il., 2× Od.; sometimes with a preposition: 143n.). On ἱερός as a generic epithet of cities, particularly Troy, see 1.38n.; West on Od. 1.2; here possibly with the effect of a contrast to ‘hated by the gods’.   27b–28a =  8.551b–552a; ≈ 4.46–47a, 4.164–165a, 6.448–449a (all with the continuation ἐϋμμελίω Πριάμοιο).

28 Paris: CH 8; often called Alexandros in the Greek text, as here, 3.16n. — delusion: Greek átē indicates a stimulus for foolish action with catastrophic consequences (on this in detail, 1.412n. and 19.88n.; cf. also 480). In the parallel passages 3.100 and 6.356, the reference is ostensibly to Helen’s abduction by Paris, whereas here the delusion is related to the preceding event in the myth, the ‘Judgement of Paris’ (explicative function of 29  f.).

λαός: Referring to the entire population, including women and children (1n.): the royal family and the inhabitants of Troy are affected to the same degree by the war, similarly at 3.50  f., 6.282  f. (with 6.283n.), 24.715, and the iterata (27b–28an.); cf. Macleod on 27–8. — Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ’ ἄτης: =  6.356; ≈ 3.100 (ἀρχῆς); on the vacillation of the transmission between ἀρχῆς and ἄτης, see 6.356n. In the present passage, ἄτης is better attested in the tradition and more appropriate in terms of content (Macleod on 27–28; West 2001, 198): a negative portrayal of Paris. — Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ(α): Hiatus without correption after a long vowel or diphthong in the 5th longum is common in early epic (see 3.100n.).  

29 2nd VH = Od. 10.435. — in his courtyard: In the Cypria, Mt. Ida is the scene of the ‘Judgement of Paris’ (Procl. Chrest. § 1 West; Stinton [1965] 1990, 29, 61  f.). This may presuppose a version of the myth in which the infant Paris was exposed on Mt. Ida and raised by herdsmen (cf. schol. D on 3.325; BNP s.v. Paris). At the same time, other princes also work on Ida as shepherds, e.g. Antiphos son of Priam at 11.104  ff. and Aineias at 20.188  f. (so too Demokoon son of Priam in Abydos [4.499  f.] and Melanippos, a nephew of Priam in Perkote on the Hellespont [15.547  f.]). Agriculture and the animal husbandry, at any rate, form

27 ὡς: ‘as’. — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — ἀπήχθετο (ϝ)ίλιος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἱρή: = ἱερά. 29 νείκεσσε: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὅτε (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: =  αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — μέσσαυλον: terminal acc. without preposition (R 19.2).

28 

 Iliad 24

the principal source of livelihood for all social strata in Homeric society: e.g. Priam takes care of his horses himself (280), while Andromache tends Hektor’s horses (8.186–189) and Patroklos those of Achilleus (23.280–282): Richter 1968, 5–8; Griffin (1986) 1992, 28–31; cf. 1.154–157n., 6.424n.

νείκεσσε: In post-Homeric versions of the myth, there is no indication that Paris ‘criticized’, let alone ‘abused’, the two unsuccessful goddesses in his decision (thus the basic sense of νεικέω, cf. 2.221–222an., 19.86an.; the contrast αἰνέω – νεικέω is also found at 10.249), but the verb probably represents the perception of Hera and Athene: for them, being passed over was a ‘disparagement, insult, slight’ (Davies 2003, 32; cf. AH; Von der Mühll 1952, 372); on the subjective style overall, 27–30n., end. — θεάς: Hera and Athene (excluding Poseidon; cf. 25–26n.); the antithesis is 30 τὴν δ(έ) = Aphrodite. — οἱ μέσσαυλον: οἱ is either an indication of direction ‘to him in his courtyard’ (e.g. 6.367) or functions like a possessive pronoun ‘into his courtyard’ (on this, Schw. 2.189  f.; cf. 716 μοι). — μέσσαυλον: Humans and animals spend the night in the μ.: ‘courtyard, fold, stable’; elsewhere in the Iliad in similes (a lion is chased from the μ.), in the Odyssey in direct speechP: LfgrE with bibliography; Rougier-Blanc 2004, 119  f.

30 her who supplied the lust that led to disaster: a suprising formulation in place of the expected ‘her who promised him Helen’ vel sim. (cf. the vv.ll. ‘her who brought him sweet desire’ and ‘her who named welcome gifts’; see app. crit.): the subjective point of view of the relevant individuals (27–30n., end); in particular, the attribute alegeinós ‘causing pain, leading to disaster’ indicates the consequences for the characters involved – and probably not only for the goddesses not chosen, but equally for the Trojans (Mawet 1979, 233; de Jong 1988, 188; on the far-reaching consequences of an issue termed alegeinós, cf. e.g. 18.17 [a message], Od. 12.226  f. [an instruction]). – In and of itself, the phrasing ‘a goddess supplies …’ is ambiguous: on the one hand, it recalls expressions such as those at 1.72, 2.827, 13.730–734: the conferral of a (positive) feature or capacity by the relevant deity (on this in general, see 529–530n. with bibliography). In a number of myths, on the other hand, sexual disinhibition is imposed as a punishment: of the Proitidai by Hera (‘Hes.’ fr. 132 M.-W.: ‘terrible lust’; see Henrichs 1974, 300  f.), of the Tyndaridai by Aphrodite, etc. (Stesichorus fr. 223 Davies; Davies 1981, 57  f. with n. 14). In reference to Paris, 3.54  f. particularly comes to mind: Hektor reproaches him for the ‘gifts of Aphrodite’ (see ad loc.). The phrasing here is thus rendered ‘in such a way as to stress Paris’ error: Aphrodite gave him not so much the most desirable of women, as «randiness», i.e. made him a seducer’: Macleod on 29–30; cf. Latacz (2001) 2004, 198 (transl.): ‘sexual attraction that radiates intensely on others’ (differently Beck 1964, 136: ‘lust’ is metonymy for Helen; cf. LfgrE s.v. μαχλοσύνη). 30 τήν: i.e. Aphrodite, anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the hiatus, R 4.4.

Commentary 



 29

μαχλοσύνην: ‘randiness, lust’, a Homeric hapaxP; in early epic also in Hesiod in reference to the Proitidai (see above), the adjective μάχλος also at Op. 586 of women during the Dog Days. The word has a negative connotation (cf. Hdt. 4.154.2).

31–76 An assembly of gods with no explicit summons, but prepared for by 23  f. (1.533–535n.; Edwards 1980, 26); similarly 7.443–445, 22.166  f. (the gods observe the – debatable – earthly events; one of them starts the discussion). Here the debate among the gods serves as a ‘forum’ for forming an opinion about the conduct of Achilleus (Cerri 1986, 19–28; van Wees 1992, 129  f.; Sarischoulis 2008, 246  f.); at its end, they begin the measures necessary for resolving the deadlock regarding Hektor’s corpse.  – The sequence ‘speech (Apollo)  – response (Hera) – mediating speech (Zeus)’, with the subsequent realization of the action proposed by the third speaker, is comparable to 7.345–379 (where 1st VH of 7.375 ≈ 24.75) and 9.17–79, also 7.385–413, Od. 24.426–462 (Macleod). The three speeches are closely related (Lohmann 1970, 152  f.); Zeus in particular takes up the arguments of the two prior speakers (offerings 34 → 68–70, concept of honor 57 → 66) and even the preceding debate that was rendered only indirectly (e.g. ‘steal’ 24 → 71); cf. 65–76n. with bibliography 31 = 1.493; 2nd VH ≈ 413, 781. — But now, as it was the twelfth dawn: The text does not make entirely clear the point in time to which ‘now’ refers. The reference is to either (a) the start of the repeated dragging of Hektor’s corpse as just described, and the debate among the gods that arose on this basis, i.e. directly to Day 30 of the action of the Iliad (3–30) (thus, among others, Peters 1922, 10–12; Latacz [1981] 1994, 185 n. 22; [1985] 2003, 149; Pavese 2007; STR 21 fig. 1), or (b) Hektor’s death, the last major event (Day 27 of the action of the Iliad), since which time Hektor’s corpse has been lying in Achilleus’ camp for twelve days, as also asserted at 413  f. (thus, among others, schol. bT; Bethe 1914, 174  f.; Myres 1933; Balensiefen 1955, 4–6, 13–16; Hellwig 1964, 40  f.; Macleod). The supplementary information at 107  f., according to which the debate among the gods referred to at 23  ff. lasted for nine days, means that in case (a), the gods initially observe the dragging of Hektor’s corpse for three days before Apollo speaks up; in case (b), that the events since Hektor’s death (Days 27, 28, 29) are included in the reckoning of days. – The count of the days of the action of the Iliad has been disputed since antiquity (on the calculations of Aristarchus and Zenodotus, which are only partially preserved, see Düntzer 1848, 194–198; Pfister 1948, 137  f.; Nünlist 2009, 69–73). Difficulties similar to those in the present passage occur at 1.493 (see ad loc.: the phrasing ‘but when … after this day …’ ‘does not refer to what was narrated immediately before’).

31 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἐκ τοῖο: ‘since then, after which’. — δυωδεκάτη: = δωδεκάτη.

30 

 Iliad 24

Overview of variant (a) (see esp. STR 21 fig. 1; Pavese 2007, 119–124): Day in the Iliad Count in Il. 24

Event

Verses

27

—

Hektor’s death

19.1–23.58 (+ night 23.59–23.108)

28

—

Cremation of Patroklos’ body

23.109–225

29

—

Funeral and games in honor of Patroklos

23.226–24.3

30–32

1–3

Dragging Hektor’s corpse begins 24.3–30 (3 days) (iterative narration: 12an.)

33–41

4–12

Further dragging (+ 9 days) and 9 days of divine debate

24.3–30, 24.107  f.

41

12

Assembly of gods, Priam’s visit to Achilleus

24.31–676

Priam’s return

24.677–776

42 42–50

1–9

9 days mourning for Hektor and gathering wood

24.777–784 (cf. 24.664)

51

10

Cremation of Hektor’s body

24.785–787 (cf. 24.665, with n.)

52

11

Burial and funeral meal

24.788–804 (cf. 24.666)

[12]

External prolepsisP: resumption of battle

24.667

Overview of variant (b) (in accord with Cauer 1902, 560, with consideration of historical inclusive reckoning [on this in general, cf. Pavese loc. cit. 126  f.]; most other proponents of variant (b) calculate purely arithmetically 27+12 = 39, and these calculations are added in italics in parentheses, cf. e.g. Faesi, vol. 1 pp. 31  f.; AH on 31 and 107; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 266  f.):

Commentary 

Day in the Iliad Calculation in Il. 24

Event

Verses

 31

27

1 (—)

Hektor’s death

19.1–23.58 (+ night 23.59–23.108)

28

2 (1)

Cremation of Patroklos’ body

23.109–225

29

3 (2)

Funeral and games in honor of Patroklos

23.226–24.3

30–38

4–12 (3–11)

9 days of dragging Hektor’s body 24.3–30 and 9 days of divine debate (iterative narration), 107  f.

38 (39)

12 (12)

Assembly of gods, Priam’s visit to 24.31–676 Achilleus

39 (40)

Priam’s return

24.677–776

39 (40) bis 47 1–9 (48)

9 days of mourning for Hektor and 24.777–784 gathering wood (cf. 24.664)

48 (49)

10

Cremation of Hektor’s body

24.785–787 (cf. 24.665, with n.)

49 (50)

11

Burial and funeral meal

24.788–804 (cf. 24.666)

[12]

External prolepsisP: resumption of battle

24.667

the twelfth dawn: Periods of 9 and 12 days use typical numbersP and represent extended uniform actions (1.53n., 2.326–329n.). The relevant correspondences between Books 1 and 24 are particularly noticeable and form a sort of bracket around the action of the Iliad: 9 days of deadly plague in the Achaian camp (1.53) ≈ 9 days of mourning for Hektor (24.664; cf. 24.784: gathering wood for the funeral pyre during the same 9 days, see below 784n.); 12 days of Achilleus’ wrath followed by an assembly of the gods (1.493) ≈ 12 days of dragging Hektor’s corpse, likewise followed by a divine assembly (24.31). On additional superficial parallels of content and structure between the two Books, see 659–667n. (a 12-day period at the beginning and end of the Iliad); 74n., 92n., 100–102n., 127n. (Zeus/Thetis/Achilleus); 501b–502n., 778–781n. (an old man attempts to ransom his child); 127n., 571n., 788n. (formulaic verses, cf. also 790n.). Bibliography: Macleod, Introd. 32–34; Beck 1964, 53–65; Latacz (1981) 1994, 201  f.; Baltes (1987) 2005, 274–278; Stanley 1993, 241–244; Schein 1997, 345  f.; Douglas 2007, 104–108 (all taking account of older bibliography).

32 

 Iliad 24

ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: a VB formula to mark a new point in the narrative, frequently with an indication of time or an arrival at a specific location, occasionally clustered (cf. 443/448): 1.493n., 3.209n.

32 ≈ h.Ap. 130. — Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων: On the epithet and the VE formula, see 1.43n. — καὶ τότ’ ἄρ(α): a metrical variant of καὶ τότε δή (1.494n.), after a ὅτε clause also at 786, Od. 15.458.  

33–54 Apollo’s words are marked by emotion and a rhetorical expressive force (see e.g. 39n.): ‘The most forceful protest against the assembled gods that can be found in the Iliad’ (Reinhardt 1961, 471 [transl.]; similarly Segal 1971, 58  f.; Deichgräber 1972, 39–43; Richardson; additional speeches by indignant gods: 7.445–463 [Poseidon, Zeus], Od. 8.305–320 [Hephaistos], etc.; on this, see Fenik 1968, 73 and Usener 1990, 152; on the speech-type rebuke, 2.225–242n. and Minchin 2002, 96  f.). Apollo’s  – negative  – perception and evaluation of Achilleus’ conduct has parallels in 9.628–639 (by Aias) and 16.29–35 (by Patroklos); here, where Apollo draws a character sketch in which Achilleus is presented as inhuman (39–45), it forms a strongly contrasting background to the hero’s subsequent ‘humane’ attitude (cf. esp. 518–551n., 560–562n., 580– 595n.). On the effect of Achilleus’ character in the Iliad overall, Whitman 1958, 181  ff.; Schmitt 1990, 77  ff.; Latacz 1995, 52  ff.; Daix 2014; cf. 22n. 33–35 In their debates, the gods repeatedly use the abundant offerings of the Trojans as an argument (Scodel 1999, 38): 4.44–49, 20.297–299, 22.169–172, 24.66–70 (24.69  f. =  4.48  f.); Hektor in particular stands out for his piety (cf. 422  f., 425–428, 749  f.; additional examples: LfgrE s.v. Hektor 510.34  ff.). On the principle of do ut des in Greek religion, 1.39–41a  n.; Scheid-Tissinier 2000, 219  ff. Cf. Od. 1.59–62 (in a reproachful question, as here). 33 ≈ Od. 5.118; VB ≈ Il. 10.164, Od. 12.279; VE ≈ Il. 24.239, Od. 10.464. — you gods: Apollo holds all the gods responsible (likewise at 39, 53) – with the exception of himself, of course (cf. 18b–21) – i.e. he includes those who did not do enough to end the maltreatment of Hektor’s corpse: AH; Davies 1981, 59.  

σχέτλιοι: a word from character languageP (Griffin 1986, 40), frequently used, as here, in a reproving or accusatory sense: ‘harsh, cruel, terrible’ (2.112n.; LfgrE with bibliography), usually of humans; in the Iliad of gods only at 2.112 ≈ 9.19, 8.361 (in both cases of Zeus). – On the notional link with (οὐκ) ἔτλητε (here at 35), cf. Od. 11.474  f., 23.150, h.Ap. 322  f. — δηλήμονες: nomen agentis related to δηλέομαι ‘spoil, destroy’ (Risch

32 καί: apodotic (cf. R 24.3). — ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἀθανάτοισι: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the inflection, R 11.2. — ἀθανάτοισι μετηύδα: ‘spoke in the crowd (in the circle) of gods, to the assembled gods’. 33 ὕμιν: unstressed by-form of ὑμῖν.

Commentary 

 33

51  f.); at Od. 18.85, etc. of the cruel king Echetos. — οὔ νυ ποθ’: a rhetorical exaggeration (cf. 63n.); as confirmed by Zeus at 68–70, Hektor regularly offered sacrifice.  – οὔ νυ: 8× in Homer after caesura C 2 (Ruijgh 1957, 61), as an introduction to an exasperated, reproachful question also at e.g. Od. 1.60 (with argumentation similar to here), Il. 4.242, 24.239, 24.683.

34 thigh pieces: Thigh bones wrapped in fat and garnished with raw meat are burnt for the gods (1.460–461n.; cf. 70). On sacrificial animals in general, 125n.  

μηρί’ ἔκηε: an expression used in various positions of the verse (1.40n.). — αἰγῶν τε τελείων: VE = 1.66 (see ad loc. on τέλειος ‘immaculate’).

35 νέκυν περ ἐόντα: 20n. – νέκυς ‘dead, corpse’, with predicative (or appositive) use also at 18.151  f., 22.386  f., 24.423; with the name of the deceased in the gen. at 24.108 (and perhaps at 17.240, see Edwards ad loc.); see LfgrE; Clarke 1999, 158  f., 162  f. — σαῶσαι: σαόω often denotes rescue from danger on the battlefield (also with a divine subject at e.g. 5.23, 15.290  f., 22.175  f.; used pregnantly of spiriting away by a god: 4.12, 11.752), also specifically of recovery of the dead (15.427, 17.149, 17.692; on the motif, see Patzer 1996, 176–178).  

36–37a The polysyndetic enumeration of the bereaved – Andromache, Hekabe, Astyanax, Priam, the Trojans – serves to heighten the emotion and, here in particular, to elicit sympathy (AH and Macleod on 36; 6.429–430n.; Deichgräber 1972, 41; cf. 466  f., 736  f., 768–772; Od. 4.224  f.; other such lists: Garland [1982] 1984, 18  f.). The naming of family members also recalls events in Book 6 (Hektor in Troy: 6.237–529).  

ᾗ … ᾧ: The two possessive pronouns at VB and VE make the degree of emotion clear (see above). – On the reflexive use of ᾗ and ᾧ in a broader sense – i.e. in reference to the logical rather than the grammatical subject (also at e.g. 6.500, 20.235, 24.211) – see Schw. 2.204; further bibliography in LfgrE s.v. ἑός. — ᾗ τ’ ἀλόχῳ: either with ἰδέειν: ‘for his wife to see’, i.e. ‘so that his wife may see him’ (similar constructions: 18.211  f. ὑψόσε δ’ αὐγή | γίνεται … περικτιόνεσσιν ἰδέσθαι, VE 2.119, etc. καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι; see AH on these passages), or a dat. of advantage with σαῶσαι (Peppmüller and others); cf. LfgrE s.v. ἰδεῖν 1126.27  ff. — τέκεϊ ᾧ: VE = Od. 4.175 (cf. Il. 5.71 πόσεϊ ᾧ; 16.542 σθένεϊ ᾧ; Od. 3.39 πατέρι ᾧ). Possessive ὅς derives from *sṷos (Latin suus): G 22 and 82; Chantr. 1.146.

34 μηρί(α): neut. pl., ‘thigh bones’. — ἔκηε: 3rd sing. aor. ind. of καίω. 35 οὐκ ἔτλητε: ‘you could not bring yourself [to do], you did not dare’. — ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6). — σαῶσαι: = σῶσαι (root σαο-). 36 ᾗ / ᾧ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — ἀλόχῳ (ϝ)ιδέειν: on the hiatus, R 4.4. — ἰδέειν: final-consecutive inf.; on the form, R 8 and 16.4.

34 

 Iliad 24

37b presently: underscores the urgency of the concern (for both Apollo and the Trojans). But a ‘speedy’ burial is also necessary for practical reasons: on the one hand, because of the facts of nature (decomposition: 19.24–27, 24.414  f.); on the other hand, and probably more important, because of moral and religious convictions (parting, honoring, separation from the world of the living, etc.: 7.408–410, 19.228  f. [see ad loc. on burials between episodes of fighting], 23.49– 53 and 71–79, Od. 11.72–78, 12.11–15). – Attempts to reconstruct Homeric ideas of death in Webster (1958) 1964, 164–166; Schnaufer 1970, 74–79; Bremmer 1983, 89–94; Johnston 1999, 9–11, 40; Albinus 2000, 30–33; somewhat matter-of-factly Garland (1982) 1984. Cf. also 591–595n., end   38 2nd VH ≈ Od. 1.291, 2.222, 3.285. — burn his body in the fire: Cremation is the typical burial rite in Homeric epic (e.g. 1.52, 23.163–165, Od. 24.65), here in marked contrast to the maltreatment of the body by Achilleus. In Greece, cremation is only occasionally attested archaeologically for the Mycenaean period (Andronikos 1968, 52–58), but examples increase rapidly in the 12th century BC (Late Helladic IIIC), and from the 10th century on (Early Iron Age / [Proto-] Geometric period) the rite is actually preferred to inhumation in some locations (Andronikos loc. cit. 59–69; Lemos 2002, 186  f.; Dickinson 2006, 73, 180  f., 185–189; Vlachou 2012, 367  f.). The two types of burial continue to coexist thereafter (for the situation in Athens in particular, see the survey in Étienne 2005). In the Troad, cremations are attested already in the 14th century (at Beşiktepe: Basedow 2000, 16, 37, 47, 148  f., 201; south of the lower town and northwest of the acropolis of Troy: Mylonas 1948, 66  f.; Becks 2002). – Additional information on the burial process: 777–804n.

ἐν πυρί: locative rather than instrumental (the latter at 21.361; see Schw. 2.170; Graz 1965, 254); cf. the frequent ἐν πυρὶ βάλλειν (9.220, etc.) as well as ἐν πυρί at VB 2.340. — κήαιεν  … κτερίσαιεν: the 3rd pl. aor. opt. is usually in -ειαν elsewhere in Homer (Richardson); on the distribution of the -αι- and -ει-forms, see Chantr. 1.464  f. — ἐπὶ κτέρεα κτερίσαιεν: corresponds to Engl. ‘pay final respects’; probably originally of the practice of placing the possessions of the deceased in the grave (Leaf; Cauer [1895] 1921, 327; Mylonas 1948, 64 n. 25; Garland [1982] 1984, 21  f.; on this custom in general, Richardson on 22.510–514 with bibliography). Elsewhere in the Iliad without an internal acc.: ‘bury ceremoniously’, e.g. 657 κτερεϊζέμεν Ἕκτορα δῖον. – The short stem κτερίζω is regarded as a linguistically more recent variant of κτερεΐζω (Debrunner 1922; Hoekstra 1965, 143).

37 λαοῖσι: ‘for his people’. — τοί: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5); with opt.: potential consecutive clause. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 35

39 It is not only the gods who are ‘terrible’ (33), but Achilleus as well: a transition to the next topic with repetition of the address ‘gods’ (collection of examples of emphatically repeated addresses: 6.429–430n.; cf. 62). — cursed: The epithet oloós ‘baneful, bringing mischief’ is character languageP and is common in early epic in reference to destructive powers, but rare as an epithet of persons (Schein 1984, 157  f.; cf. Friedrich 2007, 99  f.); used of Achilleus also at 14.139, by Poseidon (Achilleus’ ‘baleful heart’; cf. 1.342: Agamemnon’s ‘ruinous heart’), and at 21.536 by Priam (oúlos anḗr ‘this ruinous man’; cf. 2.6: ‘evil dream’ [see ad loc.]).  

βούλεσθ(ε): in Homer almost always in the sense ‘prefer to, favor’ (1.112n.). — ἐπαρήγειν: (ἐπ)αρήγω usually of preferential treatment of a warring party (Achaians or Trojans) by the gods (1.408n.); of individuals also at 23.783, Od. 13.391 (Athene/Odysseus).

40 ≈ Od. 18.220 (cf. 18.215). — φρένες: originally a body part (‘diaphragm’: 1.103n.), in a metaphorical sense ‘mind, attitude’ (mostly to localize a mental process: 1.24n. with bibliography); rare in connection with an adjective, but in those cases all the more emphatic (e.g. ἔμπεδοι 6.352, ἐσθλαί Od. 11.367, λευγαλέαι Il. 9.119, μαινόμεναι 24.114, μεγάλαι 9.184, ὀλοιαί 1.342, πυκιναί 14.294); for a detailed account, see Sullivan 1988, 54–62, 75–77. — ἐναίσιμοι: denotes the correct measure (αἶσα) of emotion in dealing with other humans (Hoffmann 1914, 61; Long 1970, 135–137): ‘measured, considerate, fair’, cf. Od. 2.230  f. (αἴσιμα εἰδώς + ἀγανὸς καὶ ἤπιος), 5.190  f. (ἐναίσιμος + ἐλεήμων, opposed to σιδήρεος), 7.309  f. (opposed to μαψιδίως κεχολῶσθαι; similarly at 15.70  f.: opposed to ἔξοχα φιλεῖν, ἔξοχα ἐχθαίρειν), 23.11–14 (opposed to μάργος, ἄφρων, χαλιφρονέων). On other uses, 2.353n. (a good omen), 6.519n. (‘at the right moment’), 425n. (offerings owed).   40b–41a οὔτε νόημα | γναμπτὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι: means approximately ‘unwillingness to be deterred, intransigence, implacability’, cf. 9.496–514 (Phoinix uges Achilleus to change his mind; esp. 9.514 ἐπιγνάμπτει νόον ἐσθλῶν sc. τιμή, similarly 1.569, 2.14  f.), 15.203 στρεπταὶ μέν τε φρένες ἐσθλῶν. On the localization of νόημα within the στήθεα, cf. Od. 13.330, 17.403.  

41b–44 The simile illustrates the sketch of Achilleus’ character drawn by Apollo: as a lion is led by its instincts while hunting, so ‘might’ and ‘will’ (bíē, thymós) are stronger than ‘pity’ and ‘shame’ (éleos, aidṓs) in him. The further course of the plot will prove the opposite, by showing Achilleus’ humanity (which he has ‘lost’ only temporarily: 44), e.g. 572n., 582–586n. (Moulton 1977, 113  f.; on the two facets of Achilleus in general: Schadewaldt [1944a] 1965, 336  ff.). –

39 Ἀχιλῆϊ: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1. 40 ᾧ οὔτ(ε): on the hiatus, R 5.7; cf. M 12.2 (hōy oúte). 41 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσι: on the inflection, R 11.3. — λέων … ὥς: = ὡς λέων. — ἄγρια (ϝ)οῖδεν: on the prosody, R 4.3.

36 

 Iliad 24

Lion comparisonsP and similesP in the Iliad are commonly found in the context of battle (in detail, 3.23n.). As here, a recurrent motif is the hunt for prey (pronounced at 12.299–306, 17.657–664, 18.161  f.; also in the Odyssey: 6.130–134, 9.292  f., 22.402–405). Lion similes are also found outside the context of battle at 18.318–322 (a lioness grieves for the young stolen from her), 22.262–264 (proverbial wisdom regarding the immutable enmity between man and lion), 24.572 (a lion pounces; see ad loc.) – all in reference to Achilleus (who is compared to a lion only once in the context of battle: 20.164  ff.); on the Achilleus-lion comparisons in particular, Moulton loc. cit. 99  ff.; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 86  ff.; Clarke 1995, 153  ff.; Wilson 2002a, 239  ff. – Lion similes/comparisons belong to character languageP, as here: 5.476, 11.383, 17.20–22, 22.262–264; the present simile, and the one at 17.20  ff., are unusual in that ‘the sympathies of the speaker are clearly with the victims’: Stoevesandt 2004, 236  f., 257–265 (quotation: 236 [transl.]). On similes in character speeches generally, 2.289n.; Ready 2011, esp. 27  ff. ὥς: on postpositive ὥς, 3.2n. — ἄγρια οἶδεν: On the meaning of ἄγριος, see 19.88n.: ‘untamed, ungoverned’, further specified in 42  f. μεγάλῃ τε βίῃ καὶ ἀγήνορι θυμῷ εἴξας; a word of negative evaluation from character languageP (6.97n.). – On οἶδα + noun or adj. in the neut. pl. as a term for a moral attitude or social behavior, see 2.213n.

42–43 given way to … his haughty | spirit: Characteristically human terms and patterns of behavior are frequently transferred to animals in similes (so-called imagery interaction: de Jong on Od. 2.143–207 with n. 15; cf. 2.87n.); this is especially the case for mental processes and seats of mental processes: Böhme 1929, 94; Lonsdale 1990, 133–135; Clarke 1995, 146; Heath 2005, 42–51.

ὅς τ’ ἐπεὶ ἄρ: VB = 17.658 (simile); ≈ 18.55 (ἥ; Thetis’ speech), h.Ap. 158 (αἵ) and 4× Il. without ἄρ (of which 3× with οὖν instead). – ἐπεὶ ἄρ occurs 15× in early epic, of which 11× in direct speechP, 2× in similes (once in character speech). In all cases, ἄρ refers to a preceding or implied precondition: ‘namely, exactly’ (e.g. AH on 22.258 and Od. 20.86). — ὅς τ’ ἐπεὶ … | εἴξας εἶσ(ι): ellipsis of the predicate after a combination of relative pronoun + temporal conjunction (Macleod with parallels). According to schol. A, Nicanor attempted to remove the inconcinnity via an (unjustified) correction of the part. εἴξας to subjunc. εἴξησ(ι) (as a predicate of ἐπεί) (Leaf ad loc., end). — βίῃ καὶ ἀγήνορι θυμῷ | εἴξας: εἴκω in a metaphorical sense ‘give in to an impulse, be (mis)led by emotion’; thus e.g. also Od. 13.143/18.139 βίῃ καὶ κάρτεϊ εἴκων (sacrilege against the gods), 9.109–111 σῷ μεγαλήτορι θυμῷ | εἴξας ἄνδρα φέριστον … | ἠτίμησας (Nestor addressing Agamemnon; similarly 9.598, Od. 5.126: LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1082.43  ff.; Griffin on 9.109  f.; Kelly 2007,

42 ὅς τ’ ἐπεί: ἐπεί is not to be translated here; ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μεγάλῃ … θυμῷ: to be taken with εἴξας. 43 εἶσ(ι): 3rd sing. of εἶμι ‘go’. — λάβησιν: on the inflection, R 16.3.

Commentary 

 37

6–8 [a somewhat one-sided interpretation]); cf. expressions such as ἧφι βίηφι πιθήσας (Il. 22.107; similarly Od. 21.315), θυμῷ ἦρα φέροντες (Il. 14.132; all examples in direct speechP). — ἀγήνορι θυμῷ: VE ≈ Od. 11.562 (acc.); elsewhere usually in the nom. θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ (Il. 2.276 etc.); the phrase denotes ‘individualistic, antisocial and often self-destructive behaviour’: Graziosi/Haubold 2003 (esp. 65; see also 2.276n. on the etymology and meaning of the epithet). The phrase also refers to Achilleus at 9.398 and – after a lion simile – at 20.174 (also in a lion simile at 12.300 κέλεται δέ ἑ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ in reference to Sarpedon); in addition, Achilleus is called ἀγήνωρ at 9.699  f., θυμολέων at 7.228. — εἶσ(ι): On the timeless use of εἶμι in similes, see LfgrE s.v. 461.56  ff. — μῆλα βροτῶν … δαῖτα: The addition βροτῶν is probably due less to Apollo as a divine speaker (thus AH) than to a desired contrast between the wild animal world and human civilization, which is also the basis for the metaphorical use of δαίς ‘meal’ (1.5n.; cf. Macleod; Schein 2009, 392  f. n. 28); similes often mention the affected shepherds (e.g. 5.136  ff., 12.299  ff., 17.61  ff., 18.161  f.). — λάβησιν: on the form, West 1998, XXXI.

44 pity … shame: In early epic, the Greek word family ele- (here éleos) denotes not so much the impulse of the subject (‘pity’; on this, cf. 516n.) as the resulting impulse for action (‘have pity’) directed at an object (human, animal, god): Pohlenz 1956, 52  f.; Paul 1969, 12  f., 49  f.; Scott 1979, 9  f., 13  f.; Kim 2000, 64– 67. – aidṓs ‘shame’ is a central notion in the world of values in the Iliad and denotes an inhibition against violating others or attracting their displeasure, i.e. it is a vital corrective to the individual’s quest for personal honor (see 1.23n., 1.149n., 6.442n.; on aidṓs in Homer in general: Cairns 1993, 48  ff.). – The word families of éleos and aidṓs are frequently linked in Books 21–24, usually by Trojans who hope/plead for mercy from Achilleus or who fear his ruthlessness (21.74, 22.123  f., 22.419, 24.207  f., 24.503; also 22.82 Hekabe addressing Hektor). But in Book 24, ‘pity’ is the most effective motivation on both the divine (cf. 19n.) and human planes and creates a conciliatory conclusion to the action of the Iliad after the general domination of mercilessness in the preceding Books (Burkert 1955, 90–107; Pohlenz loc. cit. 54  f.; Cairns 1993, 118  f.; Most 2003, 71–75).

ἔλεον … ἀπώλεσεν: emphatic phrasing: ἔλεος is a Homeric hapaxP, ἀπώλεσεν is ambivalent ‘let perish, lose’, as at 18.82 (Πάτροκλον) ἀπώλεσα, Od. 19.81  f. μή ποτε … ἀπὸ πᾶσαν ὀλέσσῃς | ἀγλαΐην (Burkert 1955, 101; Edwards on 18.82); cf. Il. 15.129 νόος δ’ ἀπόλωλε καὶ αἰδώς.

45 ≈ Hes. Op. 318. — ‘Shame’ (aidṓs, 44n.) is regarded as damaging when it manifests itself as false shame vis-à-vis manual labor (Hes. loc. cit.) or as false shyness on the part of an indigent individual (Od. 17.347/352; Yamagata 1994,

44 μὲν … οὐδέ: ‘on the one hand … on the other hand not’ (cf. 25). — οὐδέ (ϝ)οι αἰδώς: on the prosody, R 4.3 and 5.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).

38 

 Iliad 24

172  f.: ‘lacking courage’). But in the present context, aidṓs ought to have an entirely positive connotation in accord with Apollo’s intention, with the result that 45 was athetized by Aristarchus (schol. T on 44, A on 45; Lührs 1992, 34–36; West 2001, 12; West 2011b, 225  f.): the interpolation arose from a desire to add a predicate to the nominal clause at 44b (cf. 205n., 558n.); because of its proverbial character, the relative clause lent itself to use as filler (Cairns 1993, 149 with n. 7; references in West on Hes. Op. 318, end). If the verse is retained, the rhetorical figure of the polar expressionP ‘bringing harm as well as profit’ would have to be understood as a generalizing description of the effects of aidṓs: Ruijgh 368 (similarly Kemmer 1903, 232  f., with parallels); cf. Macleod (in polar expressions, the stress is often on only one of the two terms, here the second); less likely are the readings of Reucher 1983, 427 and Lévy 1995, 201 n. 154 (he who lacks aidṓs suffers harm, he who has it is at an advantage).  

γίνεται  … σίνεται: On the assonance in the middle of the verse, cf. 6.143 ἄσσον  … θάσσον (see ad loc. with bibliography).

46–52 A conclusion a maiore ad minus (2.292–294n.); Aias argues similarly when Achilleus rejects Agamemnon’s gifts (9.628–638; Nagy [1979] 1999, 106–109), as does Achilleus himself in the Niobe paradigm, likewise with an (implicit) conclusion a maiore ad minus: 599–620n., section (1). – On the exhortation to overcome his grief, see 550–551n.  

μέλλει μέν που …: On the use of μέλλω with the sense ‘it is very likely that …’ (an inductive conclusion), see Basset 1979, 75–89 (on this passage: 83), 109–111; frequently in connection with που ‘I think that, probably’ (2.116n.; here perhaps ironic: LfgrE s.v. που 1506.26–28). On που in general, see 488n.

47 Close emotional connections to children and brothers are stressed repeatedly in early epic: 6.239  f., 9.632  f., 24.736  f., Od. 4.224  f. (often beside parents and spouses); this applies especially to full siblings (explicit also at Il. 11.257, 19.293, 21.95).      48 ἤτοι: ἤτοι … αὐτάρ (50) like μὲν … δέ: Ruijgh (1981) 1996, esp. 519–523; see also 462n. — κλαύσας καὶ ὀδυράμενος: Similar synonym doublings are frequent in the semantic field ‘lament’, e.g. at 128, 160, 696, Od. 8.577, 10.454 (Kaimio 1977, 82; cf. 1.160n., 2.39n.). — μεθέηκεν: never connected with a part., and thus to be construed absolutely: ‘when

45 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μέγα: adverbial, ‘much, strongly’. 46 τις: collective ‘one, some(one)’. — φίλτερον: sc. than Patroklos was for Achilleus. — ὀλέσσαι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 47 ἠὲ … ἠέ: ‘either … or, it may be … or’. 48 ὀδυράμενος: aor. part. of ὀδύρομαι ‘groan’. — μεθέηκεν: aor. of μεθίημι ‘stop, leave off’ (ἕηκα is a by-form of ἧκα); so-called gnomic aor.

Commentary 

 39

he has wept and lamented (sufficiently), he leaves off again (from grief)’ (Leaf). On the notion, cf. 19.229.

49 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.274. — put in mortal men the heart of endurance: On the motif of suffering humans, see 525–548, Od. 18.130–142, h.Ap. 190–193, Archilochus fr. 13.5–10 West, Stesichorus fr. 222(b).204–208 Davies; more in Richardson ad loc. and in detail on h.Cer. 147  f. — the Destinies: On the Moirai as a divine power that can influence the fate and disposition of an individual, cf. 19.87 (Agamemnon on his behavior toward Achilleus), 19.410 (Xanthos on Achilleus’ imminent death), 24.209 (Hekabe on Hektor’s thread of life; see 209b–210n.); further information: CG 29; Dietrich 1965, 201–206; Sarischoulis 2008, 42–72. – In Hesiod, the Moirai appear as goddesses of fate with individual names (Th. 904–906), in Homer only here in the pl., probably because of the plural ‘humans’, in the sense: ‘to each person his own Moira’ (Erbse 1986, 277; LfgrE s.v. μοῖρα 247.19–26; differently Leitzke 1930, 21 n. 23 [transl.]: ‘the various acts of fate […] that an individual experiences over the course of his life’). In comparable expressions, the gods themselves are the subject: Il. 9.636  f., Od. 2.124  f., 23.167; this is here impossible with Apollo as speaker.

τλητόν: ‘enduring, meek, he who withstands things’; on active verbal adjectives, Risch 19; Wackernagel (1920) 1926, 287  f.; Chantraine 1933, 306  f.

50 1st VH ≈ 22; 2nd VH = 21.201; ≈ 11.115; cf. the VE formula θυμὸν ἀπηύρα/ἀπούρας (6.17n.; on the sematic proximity of ἦτορ and θυμός in the sense ‘life-[force]’, see Jahn 1987, 199, 201  ff.). — φίλον ἦτορ: a formulaic expression (3.31n.; there also on the disputed question of whether φίλον in such phrases has an affective or merely possessive sense; in the context of threats to health and life, probably pregnant ‘dear, beloved’, here in reference to Hektor; cf. 4n.).   51 2nd VH ≈ 416 (+ VB ἕλκει 52 = 417), 755. — On the content, 14–17 with nn. — ἵππων: In Homer, the plural and dual of ἵππος are frequently used in the sense ‘chariot (pulled by horses)’ (6.232n.; cf. 14n.). — ἐξάπτων: iterative (sc. ‘every day’: 12  ff.), like present ἕλκει at 52 (AH; differently Sommer 1977, 137: on analogy with χεῖρας ὀρεγνύς in prayer scenes, the pres. part. indicates ‘that the composure of the corpse, which results from ἐξάπτειν, persists during the subsequent dragging’ [transl.]). — ἑτάροιο φίλοιο: a VE formula (also 23.152, Od. 22.208; ἑοῦ ἑτάρ. φίλ. at 416). On ἕταρος ‘companion’ and the meaning of φίλος, see 4n.   52 ≈ Od. 7.159. — ἕλκει. οὐ μὲν …: The emphasis brought about via integral enjambmentP (cf. 15 with n.) is underscored by the subsequent hiatus and the ‘strong expression of

50 ὅ γε: Achilleus. — ἀπηύρα: 3rd sing. of a defective root aor. ‘take away, deprive of’. 52 ἕλκει. οὐ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — μέν (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5; μέν ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — κάλλιον: comparatives in -ίων/-ιον normally have a short -ι- in Homer.

40 

 Iliad 24

moral condemnation’ (Richardson) introduced by οὐ μέν; a similar function of οὐ μέν at 2.203, 2.233 (with 2.232–234n.). — οὐ μέν οἱ τό γε κάλλιον οὐδέ τ’ ἄμεινον: ‘indeed, this does not befit him, nor does he gain from it’ (Yamagata 1994, 232: ‘it is neither seemly nor profitable […]’; Macleod: ‘that will discredit and damage him’; cf. Martinazzoli). The understatement functions as a warning (Macleod; similarly 7.352, Od. 1.376  f., 2.168  f., Hes. Op. 759; with positive οὐ(κέτι) καλά Il. 8.400, 13.116  f., Od. 15.10, 17.460  f.). – The comparative κάλλιον in early epic regularly denotes ‘proper, fitting’ behavior (always in direct speechP), e.g. at Od. 3.357  f., 7.159  f. (Yamagata loc. cit. 224–232; LfgrE s.v. καλός 1312.33  ff.); impersonal ἄμεινον in the sense ‘right, advantageous’ is almost always found at VE, e.g. Il. 1.116 εἰ τό γ’ ἄμεινον, 1.217 ὣς γὰρ ἄμ., 1.274 ἐπεὶ πείθεσθαι ἄμ., Hes. Op. 750 οὐ γὰρ ἄμ. (also common in Hdt., see Macleod; on ἄμεινον generally, see Hoffmann 1914, 90  f.; Yamagata loc. cit. 199–202; LfgrE s.v. 624.39  ff.). The synonym doubling finds parallels at Od. 1.376 λωΐτερον καὶ ἄμ., 6.182 κρεῖσσον καὶ ἄρειον, the post-Homeric κάλλιον καὶ ἄμ. in e.g. Demosthenes’ On the Crown (18.316) and Plato’s Republic (405c), λῷον καὶ ἄμεινον ‘better and more advantageous’ as a formula of oracular consultation (e.g. Xen. Anab. 6.2.15, cf. loc. cit. 3.1.6 κάλλιστα καὶ ἄριστα; LfgrE s.v. λώϊ(τερ)ον; evidence from inscriptions in Güntert 1910, 71  f.), καλὸς κἀγαθός as a central concept of value in the 5th/4th century BC (Wankel 1961). – The comparatives are conditioned by the implied contrary action and largely correspond to an English positive, thus here ‘neither proper nor advantageous’ (LfgrE s.vv. ἀμείνων 624.43  ff., ἀρείων 1226.15  ff.; Seiler 1950, 57  f., 70  f., 88–91). — οὐδέ τ(ε): τε after οὐδέ is comparatively rare and can often be eliminated by reading οὐδ’ ἔτ(ι) (Ruijgh 703–708), although here ἔτι is less appropriate (Denniston 531 n. 1).

53 Apollo hints at the consequences of failure to observe the warning at 52: not conducting a proper burial can trigger divine anger (22.358: Hektor, Od. 11.73: Elpenor; Aeschylus fr. 266 Radt; see Burkert [1984] 1992, 66).  

μή: a threat phrased as an independent fear clause: ‘lest …’, as at 1.26 (with Leaf ad loc.), 1.28n. with bibliography, 1.566, 2.195, etc., in Book 24 at 569; see also AH. — ἀγαθῷ περ ἐόντι: ≈ 1.131, 1.275, 15.185, 19.155. As at 1.275 (see ad loc.), two interpretations are possible: (1) concessive: ‘although he is ἀγαθός’, i.e. as a physically superior individual (or as a high-ranking noble: Hoffmann 1914, 74  f.; cf. Hera’s argument at 56  ff.), Achilleus is in principle free to do as he pleases with Hektor’s corpse (LfgrE s.v. ἀγαθός 22.18  ff.; Adkins 1960, 38), although Apollo would like to see this freedom of the ἀγαθός curtailed for moral reasons in the present case (52; Long 1970, 127  f.; Cairns 1993, 101, 132; Macleod); (2) adversative: ‘given that he is ἀγαθός’, i.e. his noble status is in any case intrinsically linked to an expectation of morally adequate conduct (Dover 1983, 37  f.; Ulf 1990, 18  f.; Zanker 1994, 58, 115). – On the evaluation of Achilleus’ behavior, cf. 22n. — νεμεσσηθέωμεν: The aor. pass. of νεμεσσάω/-ομαι probably means ‘be out ͜

53 μή (+ subjunc.): ‘lest, so that not’; on the hiatus, R 5.7. — νεμεσσηθέωμεν: aor. subjunc.; on  ͜ the -σσ-, R 9.1; on the synizesis, R 7. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 41

raged because of someone’, here ‘take out our outrage on him’ (LfgrE; cf. 2.222b–223n., 3.156n.; on νέμεσις in general, see 463n.). The uncontracted form -θέωμεν (to be read with synizesis) was preferred by Aristarchus (schol. A), whereas the main transmission offers contracted -θῶμεν (app. crit.; discussion in Wackernagel [1878] 1979, 1541; Meister 1921, 161  f.; Chantr. 1.458–460). — ἡμεῖς: Probably a warning ‘we gods, (ultimately) all of us’ (Macleod; cf. 33n., 70), rather than as a declarative ‘I and the remaining pro-Trojan gods’ (thus AH). οἱ: Disregard of initial digamma in the personal pronoun of the 3rd person (ἑο, οἱ, ἑ) is comparatively rare in early epic (in Book 24 also at 72): Petit 1999, 93–102, 421–427 (collection of examples); Chantr. 1.147  f. (attempts at emendation). Retention of digamma in the case of οἱ is attributed to its enclitic position in set combinations such as δέ οἱ, μέν οἱ, ὅς οἱ etc., in which the initial consonant is necessary for prosodic reasons (Hoekstra 1965, 43  f.; West 1967, 145  f.), whereas the digamma was otherwise probably no longer written or spoken during the lifetime of the Iliad poet: G 19 and 26; Chantr. 1.118  ff.; Hoekstra loc. cit.; Ruijgh (1967) 1991, 200  f.; West 2001, 162  f. (differently Leaf; van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 124  ff.). Given this context, it is striking that enclitic οἱ is here postponed to allow for the emphatic beginning μὴ ἀγαθῷ περ ἐόντι (Macleod; Richardson; cf. 106n. on σε).

54 2nd VH ≈ 22. — κωφὴν  … γαῖαν: There are two interpretative possibilities for both words: (1) κωφός: (a) ‘numb, insensitive’, (b) ‘blunt, feeble, helpless’ (cf. 11.390 κωφὸν γὰρ βέλος ἀνδρὸς ἀνάλκιδος: ‘ineffectual’); (2) γαῖα: (a) concretely of the earth, across which Hektor’s corpse is being dragged, (b) metaphorically of the corpse itself, insofar as ‘earth’, in the popular imagination, is a symbol of the (mortal) human body (7.99 ὕδωρ καὶ γαῖα γένοισθε, Soph. El. 245 ὁ μὲν θανὼν γᾶ τε καὶ οὐδὲν ὤν, Eur. Meleagros fr. 532 Kannicht κατθανὼν δὲ πᾶς ἀνὴρ γῆ καὶ σκιά; cf. Hes. Op. 61/70 [myth of Pandora] γαῖαν ὕδει φύρειν / ἐκ γαίης πλάσσε; more, including bibliography, in Verdenius on Hes. Op. 61). The result is a variety of interpretations of the sentence as a whole: (1a+2b) ‘ἀντὶ τοῦ ›ἀναίσθητον σῶμα ὑβρίζει‹’ (schol. D; in this sense also Eur. Antigone fr. 176 Kannicht; Aristot. Rhet. 1380b25  ff.); (1b+2a) ‘Apollo wishes to indicate that Achilles behaves like a coward’ (van der Valk 1963, 434 n. 104; so too Becker 1937, 170 n. 52; Erbse 1986, 183); (1b+2b) ‘In mutilating Hektor’s corpse, Achilleus mistreats an object as powerless and defenseless as the earth […]. But it is ignoble to vent one’s anger on something so defenseless’ (Doederlein 3.189  f. [transl.]; so too Macleod, explicitly rejecting 1a: ‘if κωφήν means that the dead feel nothing, that tends to play down both Achilles’ misdeed and the importance of the gods’ intervention’; cf. Wilson 2000, 19). – According to West 2001, 12, 277, the present verse is an early interpolation intended to supplement the content of 52 (Achilleus’ senseless behavior). 55 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ Hes. Op. 53; 1st VH to caesura B 1 + προσεφώνεε(ν) ≈ 3.413, Od. 18.25; 1st VH to caesura B 1 (not in speech introduction) ≈ Il. 2.599 (see ad loc.), 4.391, 6.205, 9.538, 15.68, 23.482, h.Cer. 251, also Il. 20.253 (αἵ τε χ.), Od. 12.348 (εἰ δὲ χ.); 2nd VH from caesura B 1 on = Il. 8.484; VE, see below. — A speech introduction formulaP with a typical structure: τὸν/τὴν δ(έ) + part. + προσέφη(ς) + noun-epithet formula. The participle describes the speaker’s emotions that determine the tone of the speech (here ‘bitterly’), his/her expression/gestures while speaking (e.g. 559 ‘looking darkly’) or the dialogue situation generally (e.g. 64 ‘in reply’); see 1.58n. with bibliography; Beck 2005,

42 

 Iliad 24

284  f. — λευκώλενος Ἥρη: an inflectible VE formula (= 8.484, 21.512; dat. 1.572; acc. 20.112 and 3× h.Hom.; gen. 2× h.Ap.), more frequently θεὰ λευκ. Ἥρη (1.55n.). On the epithet, cf. 723n.

56–63 Hera’s arguments address Apollo’s criticism that the gods are behaving more ‘leniently’ toward Achilleus than they had toward Hektor, but she does not engage at all with the accusations Apollo directs at Achilleus himself (schol. bT on 55). By describing the environment in which Achilleus was born by means of a type of climax (Thetis, Hera, Peleus the favorite of the gods, ‘all gods’ including Apollo: 59–63a), she declares the notion that Hektor and Achilleus have equal status absurd (Richardson; Adkins 1975, 251  ff.; on Achilleus’ status, cf. also 53n.). At the end (63b) – immediately after evoking the magnificent wedding of Thetis and Peleus  – Hera proceeds to direct invective: ‘now you have joined the other side and thus betrayed the trust of the wedded couple’ (cf. Macleod on 62–63). The ‘passionate agitation’ (AH [transl.]) typical of many of Hera’s speeches is underscored by its formal elements: change of address A–B–A, i.e. Apollo – gods – Apollo (cf. 2.225–242, 19.185–197 with nn.); switch from 2nd sing. to 2nd pl. without an explicit address at 57 (i.e. Hera is distancing herself; cf. Macleod on 57, with parallels). 56–57 Via the overstated conclusion she draws from Apollo’s plea (57), Hera immediately cancels her (apparent) concession (56): sarcasm (Macleod on 56–57; Deichgräber 1972, 43  f.). ‘A pause is to be placed after the first verse in order to fully express Hera’s disapproval’ (Deichgräber loc. cit. 44 [transl.]). 56 Ἀργυρότοξε: a distinctive epithet of Apollo, in place of the personal name (1.37n.; with the personal name: 758). — εἴη: εἰμί ‘be thus, be true, be justified’, as at Od. 15.435 (εἴη κεν καὶ τοῦτ(ο)); elsewhere in Homer in this sense linked with οὕτως, ὧδε etc., e.g. at 1.564, 4.189, 7.34, Od. 11.348 (τοῦτο μὲν οὕτω δὴ ἔσται ἔπος, αἴ κεν …), also at 373 οὕτω πῃ τάδε γ’ ἐστί; see LfgrE s.v. 454.52  ff.; Klowski 1975, 740  f. — καὶ τοῦτο: ‘even this’; cf. Hoekstra on Od. 15.435: ‘equivalent to an emphatic τοῦτο’.  

  

57 give Hektor such pride of place as you give to Achilleus: Timḗ ‘honor’ is a term from character languageP that occupies a prominent position in the Homeric system of values (1.11n.). In his decision, Zeus will take due account of it (110n.; on the substantial significance of timḗ overall in this debate among the gods, see van Wees 1992, 144). – The evaluation of whether two individuals (here Achilleus and Hektor) deserve the same timḗ is based in the Iliad on various criteria: here descent (58  f.) vs. piety (cf. 66–70); in Book 1, political power

56 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5); here in a potential clause. — τεόν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — τεόν: = σόν (possessive pronoun, R 14.4). 57 ὁμήν: = ὁμοίην.

Commentary 

 43

(Agamemnon) vs. individual achievement (Achilleus; 1.173–187n., 1.277–281; cf. 9.318  f.); success vs. a lack thereof at 4.405–410 (in contrast to the ‘Epigoni’, the ‘Seven against Thebes’ took note of signs sent by the gods); cf. LfgrE s.v. 522.21  ff. The statement ‘X honors Y as he (sc. X) honors Z’ nevertheless often expresses particularly high esteem and is used to justify a specific action/situation (5.467–469, 9.142, 13.176, 15.437–439, 18.79–82, Od. 1.428–433, etc.); in such cases, Z is often represented by parents or other relatives (at 18.82 oneself: Achilleus ‘honors’ Patroklos like himself), as well as by the gods. Collection of examples: LfgrE s.vv. ἶσος 1229.41  ff., τιμάω 515.36  ff., τίω 548.25  ff.

εἰ δὴ … θήσετε: ‘if you wish to allocate (as Apollo’s account suggests) …’: AH (transl.). δή serves here as a ‘marker of evidentiality’ (Bakker 1997, 74–80; see also 351n., with further bibliography); on the future in conditional clauses with a (dismissive) resumption of remarks made by others, cf. 1.294, etc. (Hentze 1908, 132, 140  f.; Rijksbaron [1984] 2002, 68  f.); on the mixed conditional, i.e. a potential dependent clause and vivid main clause (likewise at 296), see K.-G. 2.467; Schw. 2.684; Chantr. 2.223, 284; cf. 220–222n., 688n. – On τιμὴν τιθέναι in the sense ‘accord honor’, Porzig 1942, 29  f.; LfgrE s.v. τίθημι 483.19  ff.

58–59 The argument of divine descent is also used by Achilleus as a child of Zeus to proclaim his superiority over Asteropaios, offspring of a river (21.184–199), while Apollo uses it to encourage Aineias, son of Aphrodite, to fight against Achilleus, son ‘of a lesser goddess’ (20.105–107; similarly Aineias in his speech to Achilleus at 20.203–209; Fenik 1968, 67). Conversely, Agamemnon expresses his surprise at Hektor having done great deeds ‘just like that, son of neither a goddess nor a god’ (10.50; Scully 1990, 60). Cf. also 1.280  f. 58 1st VH ≈ Cypr. fr. 9.1 West. — Hektor: In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP, Hera continues with the two individuals mentioned in 57 (with asyndesis; cf. 605n.). The main thought lies in the 2nd VH – Achilleus is indeed also mortal (AH).  

γυναῖκα … μαζόν: a so-called σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος (G 97; on this grammatical explanation and its history in general, Jacquinod 1988; Schenkeveld 2002); a pregnant use of γυνή for ‘mortal woman’, as at 14.315, Od. 10.228, h.Ven. 110, etc. — θήσατο: ‘suckled’; a defective epic verb, etymologically related to θῆλυς/θηλάζω. Here there may be word playP with 57 θήσετε, highlighting the contrast (Macleod); e.g. Il. 17.25 ἀπόνητο – ὤνοτο (with Edwards ad loc.), Od. 6.244/246 ἐμοὶ τοιόσδε πόσις – ξείνῳ βρῶσίν τε πόσιν τε (with Garvie on 6.246).

58 θνητός: sc. ἦν (cf. 67 φίλτατος ἔσκε). — γυναῖκα … μαζόν: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1).

44 

 Iliad 24

59–63 The motif of Hera as Thetis’ foster mother (not attested again until Apollonius Rhodius 4.790  ff.) recalls the claim in the Cypria that Thetis refuses a marriage to Zeus ‘in order to grant Hera a favor’ (Cypr. fr. 2 West; similarly ‘Hes.’ fr. 210 M.-W.); Hera seems in return to have found the best possible husband for Thetis (60  f.; cf. 534–537). Be all that as it may, the fact that Hera here stresses her concern for Thetis (and thus implicitly for Thetis’ son Achilleus) in this way may also be conditioned by the aim of her speech (ad hoc invention); she uses a similar argument at 14.200  ff./301  ff. (Okeanos and Tethys as Hera’s foster parents); see Braswell 1971, 23  f. (differently de Roguin 2007, 165–167: a portrayal of Hera’s superiority vis-à-vis Thetis). – The wedding of Peleus and Thetis is also referenced at 16.380  f./866  f., 17.195  f./443  f., 18.84  f. (the gods bring gifts) and at 18.432–434, 24.537 (on external analepsesP narrated multiple times, de Jong [1987] 2004, 155 with n. 15), as well as in the Cypria (fr. 4 West). In Hera’s view, the participation of all the gods signifies their unconditional agreement to the marriage (and implicitly to any offspring that result from it: Peppmüller; AH), and Apollo’s musical performance signals his involvement in particular (in the post-Homeric period, this is developed into a prophecy regarding Achilleus’ life and deeds: Aeschylus fr. 350 Radt; Euripides IA 1062  ff.; cf. Pindar Pyth. 3.86  ff., Nem. 5.22  ff.; March 1987, 16  f.; Richardson; a plea for a pre-Homeric date for the motif is made by Scodel 1977, one for the independence of the epic and dramatic evidence by Burgess 2004). – On the variants of the Peleus-Thetis myth in the Iliad, frequently adapted to the immediate context, see 1.396–406n. with bibliography; 83n.; also BNP s.v. Peleus; Lesky (1956) 1966; Hebel 1970, 101  f.; Priess 1977, 86  f., 112  ff.; Macleod. 59 αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: a VB formula (5× Il.; cf. 3n.). — ἣν ἐγὼ αὐτή: On stressed αὐτός in reference to birth-parents, see 210n.; here ‘the rank of a person is elevated by the fact that someone of higher rank raised him «themselves»’ (LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1639.45  ff. [transl.]). On the VE ἐγὼ αὐτ-, cf. 22.428, Od. 6.218, 8.391, 16.170.   60 The verse is constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (on this in general, see 1.145n.; West 2004; 2007, 117–119). — θρέψα τε καὶ ἀτίτηλα: synonym doubling (on this, 1.160n.: emphatic), elsewhere in early epic 6× at VE (in various inflections: 14.202/303, 16.191, Od. 19.354, Hes. Th. 480, fr. 165.6 M.-W.).   καί: καί without correption before a vowel is comparatively rare in Homer, e.g. 15.290, 24.570 (‘arsis’), 24.641, Od. 2.230/232 (‘thesis’) (Labarbe 1949, 168 n. 3). Attempts at emendation (usually by adding a personal pronoun or by replacing καί with ἠδέ, e.g. at 641 [see ad loc.]) in Bekker 1872, 2; Leaf on 15.290; West 2001, 280.

59 θεᾶς: Thetis. 60 ἀτίτηλα: aor. of ἀτιτάλλω ‘raise, bring up’. — πόρον: ‘gave’ (aor.); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 45

61 ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 211.3 M.-W.; VB ≈ Il. 22.421. Additional verses that are formally or contextually related in Parry (1928a) 1971, 226  f. — dear: predicative phílos frequently denotes the favoring of a human being by a god; cf. 67, 423 (Dirlmeier 1935, 64  ff., 176  f.; Paul 1969, 56  ff.; Adkins 1972, 11  ff.).  

Πηλέϊ (or Πηλεῖ, see app. crit.): personal names in -εύς in the gen., dat. and acc. occasionally exhibit the short-voweled forms -έος, -έϊ, -έα (G 76; Chantr. 1.223  f.); the derivation is disputed (a survey in Crespo 1994; on the special case of Ἀτρεύς, see 3.36–37n.; on the metrically problematic expression Πηλῆος υἱός, 1.489n.). Particularly close to the present case are Hes. Th. 1006 Πηλεῖ (VB), Il. 14.115 Πορθεῖ (VB), 23.792 Ἀχιλλεῖ (VE); long-voweled Πηλῆϊ is more frequent (e.g. 534). — περὶ κῆρι: an expression after caesurae A 1 and A 4 or at VE (in total 8× Il., 6× Od.). In most cases, περί is adverbial (‘more than others, exceedingly’) and κῆρι locative (AH Anh., also Hainsworth on Od. 5.36; Chantr. 2.126; differently Fritz 2005, 258  f.: περί as a local preposition; cf. Kirk on 4.46). – κῆρ is frequently used in the context of strong emotional sensations (Jahn 1987, 243  f.; on the seats of mental processes in general, 1.24n.); κῆρι in connection with φίλος/φιλέω also at 9.117, 13.430, 24.423, Od. 15.245.

62 you gods: an emphatic address in the middle of a speech, cf. 39n., 56–63n., end.  

ἀντιάασθε: used at 1.67, etc. of gods who participate in a sacrifice and receive their share (1.67n.; Nagy [1979] 1999, 130, 138; cf. 70n.). The impf. is here probably a ‘vivid imagining of the event’ (AH [transl.]; Schw. 2.276  f.) rather than iterative (‘one after the other’: LfgrE s.v. 920.5  ff.); likewise at 63 δαίνυ(ο).

63 lyre: On the musical instrument, 1.603n.; on songs and music at weddings, cf. Od. 4.15–19, 23.131–135; in general, see Krapp 1964, 133  f. — o friend of the evil, faithless forever: A sharp reply to Apollo’s reproach of the gods at 33 and of Achilleus at 39  ff. (cf. Macleod); generalizations and exaggerations (‘forever’) are part of the rhetoric of disputes (1.106–108n.; Marg 1938, 52). – With ‘evil (ones)’, Hera probably alludes to the Trojans and to Paris in particular: partisanship on the part of Hera, caused by the ‘Judgement of Paris’ (25–26n., 27–30n.). Apollo constantly supports the Trojans in battle, including by defending them against Patroklos (16.698–711); at a later date, he will aid Paris in defeating Achilleus (cf. 19.409–410n.).  

κακῶν ἕταρ(ε): possibly idiomatic, cf. Hes. Op. 716 μηδὲ κακῶν ἕταρον μηδ’ ἐσθλῶν νεικεστῆρα (sc. καλέεσθαι): Peppmüller; Richardson. – κακός is character languageP;

61 Πήλεϊ, ὅς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — περί: adverbial, ‘very, extremely’. — κῆρι: ‘in the heart’ (R 19.2). — γένετ(ο): ‘was’. — ἀθανάτοισιν: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 62 ἀντιάασθε: impf. of ἀντιάω ‘visit, take part in’ (+ gen.); on the middle, R 23; on the epic diectasis, R 8. — ἐν: to be taken with τοῖσιν (cf. R 20.2). 63 δαίνυ(o): 2nd pers. sing. impf. of δαίνυμαι ‘eat, feast’. — αἰέν: = ἀεί.

46 

 Iliad 24

on the meaning, 2.190n. Here ‘mean, nasty’, noun ‘scoundrel, bandit’, cf. LfgrE (transl.): ‘good-for-nothings’, Yamagata 1994, 211: ‘i.e. my enemies’ (unlikely is van Wees 1992, 144: κακός in the sense ‘of lower status’, i.e. of Hektor in comparison to Achilleus). — ἄπιστε: The implication is that since he participated in the wedding of Peleus, Apollo should logically be on the side of the Achaians (cf. LfgrE s.v.). 64 = 1.560 (see ad loc.), etc.; 1st VH to caesura C 1 = in total 12× Il., 24× Od.; ≈ 24× Il., 31× Od. (τὸν δ’); additional variants in LfgrE s.v. ἀμείβ(ω) 619.44  f./50  ff.; on the structure of the speech introduction formulaP, see 55n.  

65–76 Zeus intervenes and mediates. He takes up the concerns of the previous speakers (31–76n.) and makes a decision that satisfies both Apollo (return of Hektor) and Hera (preservation of Achilleus’ honor): Peppmüller and Richardson on 64  ff.; Segal 1971, 60; Edwards 1980, 15; Taplin 1992, 262  f.; Flaig 1994, 18  f.; Zanker 1994, 115  f.  – On maintaining Achilleus’ honor, cf. 110n. 65 1st VH ≈ 1.545. — μὴ δὴ πάμπαν ἀποσκύδμαινε: the sense is ‘you don’t even have a reason to rage against the other gods’ (AH). On the meaning of ἀποσκυδμαίνειν ‘to be angry with someone, to quarrel’, see Irmscher 1950, 18; a hapaxP, likewise the simplex σκυδμαινέμεν at 592; a by-form of σκύζομαι (113, etc.; ἐρίζω/ἐριδαίνω/ἐριδμαίνω is analogous). On intensifying ἀπο-, 2.772n.

66–70 On offerings as a basis for divine favors, 33–35n.; the idea is here expanded emphatically by Zeus.

On the clustering of γάρ (here 4×), cf. 1.152–156, 2.12–14 (Denniston 58; Race 2000, 224 n. 41).

66 τιμή γε: The implication is: ‘in no way will the τιμή you introduced into the discussion be the same for Achilleus and Hektor (57 ὁμὴν … τιμήν), i.e. the difference in status between the two will not change fundamentally, but 〈I submit that〉 …’. — καὶ Ἕκτωρ: ‘Hektor too’, like Peleus and his son Achilleus (61, cf. next n.). – VE 5× Il.   67 φίλτατος … θεοῖσι …: ‘Verse 67 resembles and contrasts with 61’: Richardson. – On the interdependence of τιμή (57n.) and φιλία (68n.), cf. 2.197, 9.116–118, 9.630  f., 22.233– 235; Muellner 1996, 149. – Zeus also uses the rhetorically effective superlative φίλτατος to Hera in the discussion regarding the rescue of his son Sarpedon (16.433), but in the present passage, the following phrasing would be more accurate: ‘but Hektor was also loved by the gods and was indeed the dearest of all the Trojans’ (AH [transl.]). — ἔσκε: durative, ‘was always’ (3.180n. with bibliography). — ἐν Ἰλίῳ: On the digamma of (ϝ)ίλιος, generally taken into account elsewhere, see 1.71n., 6.493n.  

64 νεφεληγερέτα: ‘cloud-gatherer’ (nom.). 66 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — μί(α): ‘one and the same’ (≈ 57 ὁμήν). — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6). 67 ἐν Ἰλίῳ: originally (ϝ)ιλίῳ (R 4.6).

Commentary 

 47

68 γάρ: occasionally introduces an example or a piece of inductive evidence (Denniston 66); cf. καὶ γάρ 602n. — ἐμοί γ(ε): in rhetorical contrast to 59 ἐγὼ αὐτή. — οὐ  … ἡμάρτανε: ‘never failed to’ (impf.); on the use of ἁμαρτάνω, see Luther 1935, 33  f. — φίλων: In mutually friendly relationships, φίλος may be active ‘friendly’ or passive ‘welcome’, depending on the perspective; cf. Od. 6.208 (with Garvie ad loc.) and 8.545; 1.167n.; Benveniste 1969, 348; differently Landfester 1966, 30 (functions as a possessive pronoun rather than an objective gen.: ‘gifts for me’).  

69–70 = 4.48  f. (Zeus on Priam and the Trojans). 69 2nd VH = 1.468 (see ad loc.), etc. — ἐδεύετο: On the form with -ευ-, see G 61. — δαιτὸς ἐΐσης: ‘even(ly distributed) share’ (1.468n.); in the present passage (an offering for Zeus), ἐΐσης may have the connotation ‘befitting’ (discussion: LfgrE s.v. ἶσος 1229.70  ff.; Bernsdorff 1992, 96  f.).  

70 1st VH ≈ 9.500. — the smoke and savor: i.e. libation and burnt sacrifice (epexegetic to ‘fair sacrifice’). Libation can take place during (1.462  f.) or after a sacrifice (1.469–474n.) or, in lieu of a major sacrifice, on any occasion, particularly before (potentially dangerous) ventures (283–314): Citron 1965, 49  ff.; Benveniste 1969a, 210  ff., 220  f.; Burkert (1977) 1985, 70  ff. On the divine portion of a sacrificial feast, 34n. (thigh bones), 1.66n. (scent of fat).  

λάχομεν γέρας: γέρας as an abstract is ‘entitlement’ (cf. the formula τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ γερόντων/θανόντων, 4.323, 16.457, etc.), as a concrete ‘a (special) portion’, as at Od. 4.65  f.: νῶτα βοὸς  … τά ῥά οἱ (Menelaos) γέρα πάρθεσαν αὐτῷ; cf. 20.281  f. (the servants give Odysseus μοῖραν … ἴσην, ὡς αὐτοί [the suitors] περ ἐλάγχανον). – λαγχάνω is construed with the acc. or – less frequently – with the gen. (e.g. 76) with no apparent difference in meaning: La Roche 1861, 156  f.; Schw. 2.104.  

71–72a ἀλλ’ ἤτοι  … μέν: 462n.; on ἀλλά on its own: 74n. — κλέψαι: 24n. — ἐάσομεν: elsewhere in the sense ‘refrain from’ absolutely or with an acc. object (e.g. χόλον 9.260, κλαυθμόν Od. 4.212); with an inf. only here, perhaps to be taken as a substantival inf. (Leaf; cf. Richardson on 71–73: ‘but as for stealing, let us forget about it’). — οὐδέ πῄ ἐστιν: ‘it is in fact impossible’, with ἐστιν as a full verb (differentiation of the full verb from the copula by means of an accent is a modern convention: 6.267n.); a formulaic expression (see 6.267n.), here parenthetic (on parentheses in Homer in general, Schwyzer [1939] 1983, 91–93). — Ἀχιλλῆος, θρασὺν Ἕκτορα: an emphatic juxtaposition of ‘Achilleus’ and ‘Hektor’; cf. 469. – θρασὺν Ἕκτορα is a noun-epithet formula, 6×

68 ὥς …: i.e. φίλτατος (ἔσκε). — οὔ τι: τι is acc. of respect (R 19.2), ‘in some respect’; strengthens the negation (‘in no way’), here with impf. ‘never’. 69 ἐδεύετο: δεύομαι = δέομαι. — ἐΐσης: = ἴσης. 70 τὸ … γέρας: ‘this … as an entitlement, gift of honor’ (predicative). — λάχομεν: 1st pl. aor. of λαγχάνω ‘apportioned so as to rightfully receive’. 71 κλέψαι: to be taken with θρασὺν Ἕκτορα. — ἐάσομεν: short-vowel aor. subjunc. (R 16.3).

48 

 Iliad 24

Il. (in Book 24 also at 786), always before caesura C 2. On the ostensible contradiction between epithet and context (Hektor is dead), see FOR 1–4; cf. Leaf.

72b–73 since always | his mother is near him  …: explains why stealing the corpse ‘secretly from Achilleus … is impossible’ (71  f.): either because of Thetis’ presence itself (Faesi) or because Thetis would immediately report such a decision by the gods to her son (van Leeuwen). By mentioning Thetis, Zeus cleverly alludes to Achilleus’ divine origin  – and thus divine favor  – which was stressed by Hera at 59  ff. But the invocation of a force majeure (Thetis is here introduced as such) is a human explanatory scheme (van der Mije 1987, 242–247, with parallels) and thus a rhetorical exaggeration when articulated by Zeus (likewise at 4.10  f.; see Macleod; on ‘always’, cf. 63n.): a pretext to push through a course of action that involves Thetis, rather than bypassing her, and that brings Achilleus greater honor: 74–76, 110  f. (76n., 110n.; Myres 1932, 291  f.; Erbse 1986, 75 n. 19; Martin 1989, 58  f.; Heiden 2008, 206  f.). The statement evidently has some foundation: at 1.357  ff. Thetis hears Achilleus weeping and visits him, at 1.495  ff. she reports Achilleus’ concerns to Zeus, at 17.408  f. she relays Zeus’ decision, at 18.35  ff. she hears the lament of Achilleus and visits him, at 23.14 she participates in the mourning for Patroklos.  

ἦ γάρ: emphatic stress (1.355n.). — οἱ: disregard of the initial digamma of οἱ is rare (53n.); after γάρ also at 23.865, Hes. Op. 526, h.Aphr. 9.

73 1st VH ≈ 4.11; 2nd VH = Od. 24.63; ≈ Il. 5.490, 22.432, Od. 2.345, 10.28, 10.80, 15.476. — παρμέμβλωκεν: perf. of [παρα]βλώσκω ‘come, go’, < *μλώσκω with the glide -β- (aor.: μολεῖν); like Engl. ‘stand beside someone’, it can be used in either a concrete or a metaphorical sense (cf. Kurz 1966, 94). — ἦμαρ: The use of the neuter ἦμαρ for sing. and pl. is probably old (so also ἐννῆμαρ 1.53n., ποσσῆμαρ 657n., etc.): Wackernagel (1910) 1953, 835; Ruijgh 1957, 121; Chantr. 1.212  f. (differently Meister 1921, 33 n. 3, and Leumann 1950, 100  f.: ἦμαρ is independent of αὐτῆμαρ, ἑξῆμαρ, etc.). – νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ always occurs at VE (see iterata); in contrast, νύκτας τε καὶ ἤματα (745n.) occurs in verse middle (after caesura A 4), and 1× VB ἤματα καὶ νύκτας (23.186: Aphrodite protects Hektor’s corpse).  

  

74 ‘Zeus does not give a direct order to Iris, because that would seem high-handed in a context where his aim is to be diplomatic’: Macleod; similarly Minchin 2007, 208 n. 59 (a delicate matter); cf. 1.62–64, where Achilleus can only be referring to Kalchas, even if this is not specified (1.62–63n.; schol. A; Lloyd 2004, 79). – The complex situation (cf. 112–119n.) requires deployment of the appro72 Ἕκτορα, ἦ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἦ: ‘indeed, in fact’ (R 24.4). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ, i.e. Achilleus. — αἰεί: = ἀεί. 73 ὁμῶς: = ὁμοίως ‘equally’. 74 εἴ τις …: ‘could someone please …?’. — θεῶν: partitive gen. with τις. — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 49

priate divine helpers, particularly since Zeus never interferes personally in human affairs (cf. 2.6n., 2.27n.): Iris, Thetis, later also Hermes (Létoublon 1987, 124): Iris is the ‘standard’ divine messenger in the Iliad (CG 38), Thetis as the mother of Achilleus is predestined to serve as a messenger to him (103–142n., 141–142n.; on a more abstract level: ‘the goddess whose uninvited visit began the suffering of the Iliad will now act as an emissary for resolution’: Taplin 1992, 263; for details on the ‘chiastic’ relationship between Book 1 [Achilleus – Thetis  – Zeus] and Book 24 [Zeus  – Thetis  – Achilleus], Létoublon loc. cit. 138  ff.; also Baltes [1987] 2005, 276  f.; below 100–102n., 127n.). More on the role of Iris: LfgrE s.v.; Erbse 1986, 54  ff.; Kelly 2007, 322–324. – On Hermes, cf. 153n. – Parallels for the sequence ‘A sends B to C, C arrives at A and is sent on to D’, etc. in West 1997, 190  f.

ἀλλ(ά): common in requests at the end of speeches, marking the transition to action (2.360n.). — εἴ τις καλέσειε: a wish clause with εἰ (≈ εἴθε) as a milder form of command, cf. 10.111, 15.571, 16.559: Schw. 2.322; Chantr. 2.214; in more detail, Lange 1872/73, 325  ff.; Wakker 1994, 384  ff. — ἄσσον ἐμεῖο: ‘here to me’ (cf. 106 δεῦρο), possibly an emphatic contrast with 72  f. in the sense ‘away from Achilleus’. ἄσσον is the comparative of ἄγχι ‘close’; on the accent, West 1998, XX.

θεῶν: The scholia ad loc. and on 20.53 report ancient discussions regarding the accentuation: θεῶν (gen. pl. of ὁ θεός) vs. θέων (part. of θέω ‘run’). Here, θεῶν is transmitted almost unanimously by the manuscripts and is preferred by Herodian (schol. A) and most modern editors (possible reasons for favoring θεῶν on the basis of content in West 2001, 277). θέων is nevertheless not unthinkable in the present context (θέων as part. accompanying καλέω also at 10.53  f., 12.343; θέειν of gods, particularly of Iris, at 18.167, 23.201, h.Ap. 108, etc.; cf. AH Anh. and Martinazzoli).

75–76 Internal prolepsisP; it only becomes clear from the speeches to the actual addressees  – Thetis/Achilleus at 110  ff. and Iris/Priam at 146  ff.  – how Zeus’ decision is supposed to be implemented (146–158n.; paralipsisP: ‘piecemeal presentation’). The instructions conclude in the scene at 471  ff. (Priam visiting Achilleus; esp. 599: ‘Your son is given back to you …’), i.e. after a lengthy retardationP: ‘In the meantime Achilleus must be made ready; and, more fully, Priam’s state of mind has to be fully established’ (Taplin 1992, 261; cf. Reichel 1990, 130).   75 1st VH ≈ 744. — πυκινὸν ἔπος: 4× Il. (7.375, 11.788 in similar contexts; somewhat differently at 24.744 of the farewell of a dying person, see ad loc.). On πυκινός used metaphorically of mental processes, 2.55n.; here the exact nuance is difficult to determine: ‘clever, significant, weighty’, cf. as a contrast 92 ἅλιον ἔπος (LfgrE s.v. πυκινός 1633.5–9). Interpretations in Lynn-George 1988, 231–233; Martin 1989, 35  f.; Foley 1991, 154–

75 ὄφρα (+ subjunc.): ‘so that’ (R 22.5). — τί (ϝ)οι (ϝ)είπω: on the prosody, R 5.4 and 4.4. — πυκινὸν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5.

50 

 Iliad 24

156. – Vedic parallels for the figura etymologica ἔπος εἰπεῖν in Schmitt 1967, 264  f. — ὥς κεν …: probably ‘how’ rather than ‘so that’ (Chantr. 2.233); on indirect questions in the subjunc. with κε/κεν, Chantr. 2.295 (frequently with φράζομαι, etc.).

76 2nd VH = 116. — gifts: The acceptance of gifts in exchange for Hektor is the course of action preferred by Zeus, since it is more diplomatic and commensurate with Achilleus’ status than the theft of the body would be (cf. 110 with n.; Wilson 2002, 127). Priam’s gifts are described at 228–237.  – On the common practice of releasing captives for a ransom, see 2.229–230n. and 6.46–50n. (with bibliography). — gives back the body of Hektor: The ‘redeeming of the son’ forms a theme in Book 24 (cf. the title of the Book), including at 115–119, 136  f., 175  f., 501  f., 560  f., 599 (Cerri 1986, 30; Létoublon 1987, 124).  

δώρων: in Book 24, 7× synonymous with ἄποινα; cf. 22.341/349 (ἄποινα itself occurs 8×; on the content, see 1.13n.).

77–119 Iris goes and brings Thetis from the sea to Zeus on Olympus. Thetis is full of sorrow because the death of her son Achilleus is imminent. She is welcomed by the gods who are present, and is instructed to urge Achilleus to release Hektor’s corpse. 77–88 Iris’ journey to Thetis is narrated as a type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (1.320–348a  n.): (1) the messenger receives instructions: 74–77a, (2) departs: 77b, (4) finds the addressee: 83–86 (description of the situation), (5) approaches: 87, and (6) relates the message: 88. – Element (3) ‘arrival’ is replaced by two elements from the type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (1.43–52n., 24.89–102n.): description of route (78  f.), simile (80–82). 77 = 8.409, 24.159; 1st VH also ≈ 4× Il. (only Book 23), 1× Od. — Speech capping formulaP and execution of instructions in the same verse, as at 2.16, 3.84, 6.286, 24.718, etc. (cf. 1.345n.). — Iris storm-footed: On Iris’ role, 74n. – Most epithetsP of Iris refer to her speed, likewise 87 pódas ōkéa ‘swift of foot’, 95 pod-ḗnemos like aelló-pos ≈ ‘as fast as the wind’ (see below) here, 144 tachéia ‘swift’.  

ἀελλόπος: traditionally understood ‘with feet as swift as the wind’, a common comparison for horses, birds, and divine messengers (also Hermes: 342; cf. his winged boots at 340–342n.): Fränkel 1921, 55. On the formation of the word, LfgrE with bibliography (cf. ἀργίποδας 211n.). Further considerations, including the relationship between ἀελλόπος and the semantically related ποδήνεμος (95, etc.), in Schindler 1986, 397  f.; Bader 1991, 68–71.

76 ἐκ: ‘(from the hands) of’. — λάχῃ ἀπό: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — λάχῃ: here with the gen. (but cf. 70). — ἀπὸ … λύσῃ: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 77 ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — ὦρτο: athematic aor. of ὄρνυμαι ‘set off, start out’ (intrans. mid.). — δὲ (ϝ)ῖρις: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἀγγελέουσα: absolute ‘bring orders’; uncontracted fut. part. (R 6).

Commentary 

 51

78–79 Geographic names in the journeys of gods (see the examples from Books 13 and 14 at 78n., also Od. 5.49  f.) impart an impression of rapid movement across long distances and signal an important intervention by the deity (Kullmann 1956, 89  ff.; Kurz 1966, 158  f., who also points out that the stations along the way may be based on ancient shipping routes). On the localization of Thetis’ residence, 83n. 78 ≈ 13.33, Od. 4.845. — Samos … Imbros: cf. 753. ‘Samos’ should be understood as the island of Samothrace (at Il. 13.12  f. and h.Ap. 34 explicitly designated as ‘Thracian Samos’; the island today known as ‘Samos’ does not feature in Homeric epic). Samothrace and Imbros are situated in the northeast Aegean. The area serves as a way station for the gods on their way to the Troad: Poseidon looks out on the battlefield from Samothrace (13.10–14), he ‘parks’ his chariot between Tenedos and Imbros (13.32–38), Hera and Hypnos reach Mt. Ida from the direction of Lemnos and Imbros (14.225–231 and 281–285); cf. 346 (Hermes ‘arrives at Troy and the Hellespont’). – On the unambiguous authorial localization of the scene of the action of the Iliad via this and related passages (in Book 24 also at e.g. 346, 753), see Latacz 2002, 1110.

παιπαλοέσσης: The etymology and meaning are unclear; probably ‘rich in rocks/ mountains’ (LfgrE [transl.]). On epithetsP of the geographical area ‘mountains’, especially in the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ (which admittedly does not include the islands mentioned here), see 2.494–759n. p. 149  f.

79 2nd VH ≈ 2.95, 4.154, 19.301, 19.338, 22.429, 22.515, 24.722, 24.746, Od. 10.454, Hes. Th. 843, Sc. 344 (with various subjects). — and the sea crashed moaning about her: ‘Iris plunges into the sea with a great impact’ (Richardson); on the metaphor, cf. 2.95n.; similarly 23.230.  

μείλανι: The usual epithetsP that describe the dark color of the sea include ἠεροειδής, ἰοειδής, οἶνοψ (with which μείλανι is metrically interchangeable as the only epithet of πόντος: 1.350n.; Hainsworth 1999, 11  f.). μέλας is joined with πόντος only here, elsewhere with κῦμα and φρίξ in descriptions of the foaming sea (cf. 7.64 μελάνει δέ τε πόντος ὑπ’ αὐτῆς, sc. φρικός), usually when a sea creature dives into (or rises from) the sea, as here (e.g. fish: 21.126 θρῴσκων … μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαΐξει, 23.693 μέλαν δέ ἑ κῦμ’ ἐκάλυψεν); cf. Irwin 1974, 197  f. On epithets of the sea generally, Düntzer (1863) 1872, 511  ff.; (1864) 1979, 103  f.; Lesky 1947, 162  ff.; Dürbeck 1977, 156  ff. – On the (unique) metrical lengthening of the first syllable of μέλας, Chantr. 1.100; cf. the personal name Μειλανίων (Macleod).

79 ἔνθορε: 3rd sing. aor. of ἐνθρῴσκω ‘leap into’. — μείλανι: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — λίμνη: in Homer also in the sense ‘the sea’.

52 

 Iliad 24

80–82 A swift, purposeful change of location by a god is illustrated in Homeric epic via a variety of comparisonsP including: a meteor 4.75  ff., precipitation 15.170  ff. (likewise of Iris), a falcon 15.237  f., etc., a sea gull Od. 5.51  ff., a thought Il. 15.80  ff. (Richardson; Coffey 1957, 119  f.; Krischer 1971, 19–23; Scott 1974, 15–20; Tsagarakis 1982, 134–137; cf. de Jong on Od. 5.49–54); here, a swift downward movement is illustrated (Kurz 1966, 151; cf. Exodus 15:10, crossing of the Red Sea: the Egyptians ‘sank as lead’). The relative clause at 81  f. not only embellishes the comparison further, but goes beyond the situation under comparison by means of the ‘raw-ravening (fish)’ and ‘(the lead weight which) takes death with it’ (Fränkel 1921, 86  f., 105–107; Edwards, Introd. 33; cf. the contrasting effect of ‘war’ and ‘peace’ in similes: 2.455–483n. with bibliography).  – Additional fishing similesP: 16.406–408, Od. 12.251–254; fishing with nets: Od. 22.384–388 and possibly Il. 5.487  f. (interpretation unclear); spearing fish: Od. 10.124. Like many similes in Homer, these examples provide a glimpse of daily life in the time of the Iliad poet, whereas the heroes generally eat meat (fish only out of necessity, e.g. Od. 4.368  f.); cf. Macleod; Lesky 1967, 37; Shear 2000, 143  f.; Berdowski 2008. – In addition to the fishing lead and the piece of horn, the following items of fishing tackle are mentioned in Homer: rod (Od. 12.251), line and metal hook (Il. 16.408; cf. Od. 4.369, 12.332), bait (Od. 12.252). While the lead serves to weight the line down, the function and position of the piece of horn (also mentioned at Od. 12.253) are unclear; the usual interpretation is that this is a small tube that protects the line above the hook from being bitten through by fish (schol. D on 81; Buchholz et al. 1973, 169; LfgrE s.v. μολύβδαινα; additional interpretations in Shewan 1927, 170  f.); the lead ball must be thought of as affixed above this tube (or cast into it, cf. Labarbe 1949, 113). – On fishing in early epic and the corresponding archaeological evidence generally, see Buchholz loc. cit. 131–180, esp. 167  ff.; Uerpmann/van Neer 2000; Fischer 2007, 130–134.

On the divergent readings in Plato Ion 538d, see Richardson (with bibliography).

80 μολυβδαίνῃ … βυσσόν: ‘lead weight … sea floor’ are Homeric hapax legomenaP. Hapax words frequently cluster in similes: Edwards, Introd. 38. – The Greeks early on acquired both the word for ‘lead’ (attested in Mycenaean as mo-ri-wo-do) and the metal itself from Asia Minor; during the Bronze Age, the Cycladic island of Siphnos and the Attic mining region of Laureion are attested as lead production sites (Beekes 1999; Melchert 2008; further bibliography in LfgrE s.v. μόλιβος). – In Homer, lead is mentioned only in comparisons (also at 11.237: μόλιβος).  

80 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17); contrast 81, where it functions like a relative pronoun. — μολυβδαίνῃ (ϝ)ικέλη ἐς: on the hiatus, R 4.4 and R 5.6. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 53

81 ἀγραύλοιο: ‘dwelling in the fields’, an epithet of βοῦς used in various positions in the verse (5× Il., 2× Od. [where also 1× of πόρτις ‘calf’], 5× h.Merc.).   82 VE ≈ 2.352, 3.6, Od. 4.273, 8.513. — ὠμηστῇσιν: with the exception of 207 (Hekabe of Achilleus), always of animals: here biting fish (24.82), elsewhere carrion birds/scavenging dogs (11.454, 22.67), in Hesiod Echidna and Kerberos (Th. 300, 311, cf. 772  f.); cf. ὠμοφάγος (5× Il. in predator comparisons/similes, 1× h.Ven.). Formation of the word: ὠμός + ἐδ- ‘eat’, cf. 124n. on ἄριστον (DELG s.v. ἔδω; Leukart 1994, 160  f. n. 84). — ἐπ’ ἰχθύσι …: κῆρα φέρειν is elsewhere construed with the dat. alone (the victims are always human beings, but cf. 17.757: a falcon φόνον φέρει ὀρνίθεσσιν); the use of the preposition ἐπ(ί) might be on analogy with expressions such as ἐπ᾿ ἀλλήλοισι φέρον … ἄρηα (on this, 3.132n.), ἐπὶ ἦρα φέρων 1.572, etc. (Peppmüller) or the phrase ἐπ’ ἰχθυόεντα 19.378 (with φέρουσιν), etc. (Labarbe 1949, 118).  

83–86 Element (4) of the type-scene ‘delivery of a message’ (77–88n.): description of the situation on arrival. This forms the background for the action that follows: Thetis’ grief (91  f., 93  f., 104  f.). – Bystanders are often included in descriptions of situations, e.g. 4.89–91, 19.4–6, 24.98  f., 24.123–125 (Arend 1933, 50; Richardson 1990, 52). 83 cave: In retrospective glances at the time before and during Achilleus’ departure for Troy, as well as in previews of his (admittedly impossible) return, Thetis appears to be living in Phthia (1.396, 16.222  f., 16.574, 18.57  ff., 18.330  ff.), but throughout the action of the Iliad she inhabits a cave beneath the sea (1.358/496/532, 18.35  f./50/65) – the localization of the cave off the coast of Asia Minor (78 with n.) allows her to be particularly close to Achilleus at decisive moments (Priess 1977, 115). In other versions, Thetis has already left Peleus as a consequence of a quarrel shortly after Achilleus’ birth, whereupon Cheiron takes over the boy’s upbringing (sources in Janko on 16.220–232; on myths of ‘mermaids’ who temporarily join a human man before returning to their own element, see Nilsson [1940] 1967, 22  f.; Lesky 1947, 120  f.; on Cheiron, 19.390n.); the Iliad at least alludes to Thetis’ aversion to her marriage to Peleus: 18.85, 18.432–434 (on the myth of Peleus and Thetis, see also 59–63n.).  

ἐνὶ σπῆϊ γλαφυρῷ: 3× in verse middle in early epic, 3× at VB (usually with ἐν rather than ἐνί; in connection with Thetis also at 18.402); 6× Od. in the pl. – On the spelling σπῆϊ rather than σπέει, Ruijgh 1957, 126  f. – γλαφυρός is also an epithet of πέτρη 2.88n., νηῦς 2.454n.

81 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — κέρας: probably ‘a small tube of horn’ (above the hook). — ἐμβεβαυῖα: here ‘mounted on’. 82 ὠμηστῇσιν: on the inflection, R 11.1. 83 σπῆϊ: dat. of τὸ σπέος ‘cave, grotto’. — ἀμφί: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘surrounding Thetis’.

54 

 Iliad 24

84 1st VH ≈ 99 (cf. 2.789n.). — sea goddesses: The Nereïds, daughters of Nereus (CG 20; a list of their names at 18.39  ff.).  

ὁμηγερέες ἅλιαι: The caesura (here B 1) allows the metrical license of a short syllable in the longum; corresponding examples are 192 ὑψόροφον, ὅς (B 1), 240 γόος, ὅτι (B 1), 295 πίσυνος ἐπί (A 4), 470 λίπεν· ὅ (C 1), etc. (La Roche 1893, 110–115; see 88n. on the vocative Θέτι; M 15; on the possibility of quantifying final -ν and -ς as double consonants, see M 4.6). — ἐνὶ μέσσῃς: ‘in their midst’; on the construction, cf. LfgrE s.v. μέσ(σ)ος 163.15  ff.

εἵαθ’: on the spelling εἵ- rather than ἥ-, 2.137n. (contra: Führer/­Schmidt 2001, 20  f. [with corrigendum: read εἵατ’ and εἵατο/αι in place of ἕατ’ or ἕατο/αι]).

85–86 κλαῖε here introduces secondary focalizationP; characterizing features: μόρος and τηλόθι πάτρης are largely restricted to character languageP in Homeric epic, and παιδός is a periphrastic denominationP (de Jong 1997a, 299  f.); in addition, a relative clause with the (reflexive) ethic dat. οἱ (cf. 479; see de Jong [1987] 2004, 120); μέλλω with proleptic function can also be secondarily focalized (de Jong loc. cit. 87). – The ancient athetesis of 86 rests on an erroneous, linguistically impossible reading of 85b (ὅς made to refer to μόρον: ‘the fate intended for him’); see Richardson; Lührs 1992, 90–92.

85 Starting in Book 1, the imminent death of Achilleus is repeatedly alluded to in external prolepsesP (1.352, 9.410–416, etc.), and from Book 18 on, such references appear in close succession, e.g. 18.88–96 (Thetis: if Hektor falls, Achilleus must also die), 19.409  f., 22.355–360, 24.131  f., 24.538–542 (19.328– 333n. with bibliography; on the relevant scholia, Richardson 1980, 269). – On the depiction of Thetis mourning, cf. 18.37/51–66, Od. 24.47–49; a pathetically anticipated lament also occurs in reference to Hektor (Il. 6.500–502) and Priam (24.327  f.), see 6.497–502n.; Richardson.  

ἀμύμονος: a generic epithetP (1.92n.; 13× Il. of Achilleus: Parry 1973, 172). On the uncertain meaning, 6.22–23n. (conventional translation: ‘blameless’).

86 ≈ 16.461 (and for 85, cf. 16.460). The motif ‘(die) far from home’ produces pathos (Griffin 1980, 106  ff.; 2.162n.).  

φθείσεσθ(αι): on the spelling φθει-, West 1998, XXXVI; 2001, 30. — ἐν Τροίῃ ἐριβώλακι: an inflectible formula (3.74n.), similarly ἐν Φθίῃ ἐριβ. (1.155), ἐνὶ Θρῄκῃ ἐριβ. (11.222), etc.; on the epithet, 1.155n., 6.314b–315n. On Τροίη (‘Troy’ or ‘the Troad’), cf. 346n. — τηλόθι πάτρης: a VE formula (5× Il., 1× Od.).

84 εἵαθ’: = εἵατο, 3rd pl. impf. of ἧμαι (R 16.2). 85 μόρον (ϝ)οῦ: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οὗ: possessive pronoun (R 14.4). — ὅς (ϝ)οι ἔμελλεν: on the prosody, R 4.5 and R 5.5. — οἱ: sc. Thetis (ethic dat.). 86 τηλόθι: on -θι, R 15.2.

Commentary 

 55

87 = 2.790, 3.129, 11.199 (speech introduction formulaP). — ἀγχοῦ δ’ ἱσταμένη: an inflectible VB formula (18× Il., 6× Od., 2× h.Cer.), always with a verb of speaking in the 2nd VH; frequently in element (5) of the type-scene ‘delivery of a message’, as here (77–88n.). — πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις: a VE formula (9× Il., 1× Hes.); on the epithets of Iris, 77n. On short -ε- in ὠκέα, 2.786n.  

88 The brevity of the speech  – one might have expected e.g. an adaptation of 74–76 (cf. h.Cer. 321–323) – reflects the urgency of Zeus’ request (Richardson) but also Iris’ reticence in the face of Thetis’ grief (Zeus will address this at 104– 106). For a list of speeches comprised of a single verse, de Jong on Od. 7.342 (Il. 11.606, 18.182, 18.392, 23.707, etc.).  

ὄρσο … καλέει: ≈ 3.250, 4.204. Asyndeton with a specification of a rationale, cf. 355 (K.G. 2.344). — Ζεὺς ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς: the only formula for ‘Zeus’ that forms the end of a verse after caesura B 1 (after B 2: Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω  ͜ 2.205n., πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε 1.544n., ἐρίγδουπος πόσις Ἥρης 7.411, etc., Ὀλύμπιος ἀστεροπητής 1.580n.), but in addition probably semantically significant (Macleod): for Thetis, Zeus is the font of planning par excellence (cf. Διὸς βουλή 1.5n., 2.1  ff.). A pregnant use also occurs in the myth of Prometheus (Hes. Th. 545, 550, 561), and at ‘Hes.’ fr. 141.26, 234.2 M.-W., h.Ven. 43 (cf. h.Cer. 321 Ζεὺς ἄφθιτα εἰδώς); VE μήδεα εἰδ-/ἰδ(μ)-/οἰδ- in total 22× in early epic (cf. 282n.). – ἄφθιτος frequently denotes the imperishability of divine buildings or objects (2.46n.); here likely ≈ quae semper sibi constant (Ebeling), ‘immutable, incontrovertible’, cf. 1.526  f. (schol. bT; AH; LfgrE).

Θέτι: The short final syllable of vocatives occasionally falls in a longum (14.357, 18.385, 19.400, 23.493, Od. 3.230 etc.): a metrical license, particularly at the caesura (84n.; Hartel 1873, 64; Chantr. 1.103  f.; similarly West on Hes. Th. 964, end). Differently Cobet 1876, 333  f.; Wackernagel (1878) 1979, 1533  ff.; West on Od. 3.230: restoration of the (long by position) nominative form (which in early epic may stand in for the vocative under certain circumstances: Schw. 2.63  f.).

89–102 The type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (1.43–52n.; cf. 77–88n.): (1) occasion: 89–92 (Thetis complies with Zeus’ request), (2) preparation for the journey: 93  f., (3) departure and description of the route: 95–97, (4) simile, (5) arrival: 97b (a similar description of Thetis rising from the sea: 18.66–68; also 1.357–359, 1.494–497). This is followed by elements of the type-scene ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n.; see ad loc. also on the flexibility of this type): (3) description of the situation: the character being sought and (3a) the bystanders: 98  f. (cf. 83– 86n., end), (4) approach: 100 (here Thetis immediately sits down: 100–102n.). Since Thetis has come at Zeus’ behest, the direct speech by the character who arrives, which is otherwise part of this type of scene, is omitted (element (5)). 89 ≈ (τὸν δ’) 18.127, 19.28 (see ad loc. on the two half-verse formulae).

87 ὠκέα (ϝ)ῖρις: on the prosody, R 4.3. 88 ὄρσο: imper. of the athematic aor. ὦρτο (77n.). — μήδεα (ϝ)ειδώς: on the prosody, R 4.3.

56 

 Iliad 24

90a κεῖνος  … μέγας θεός: μέγας in the sense ‘powerful’, often formulaic (e.g. Διὸς μεγάλου/-οιο: 2.134, 6.304, etc.), here along with κεῖνος underscores Thetis’ sense of isolation and powerlessness. μέγας is likely also pregnant at 18.292 ἐπεὶ μέγας ὠδύσατο Ζεύς, 19.410 θεός τε μέγας καὶ Μοῖρα κραταιή (list of all passages in Dee 1994, 153; LfgrE s.v. μέγας 71.2  ff.). On κεῖνος expressing distance, 412n. — ἄνωγε: sc. ἐλθεῖν, ≈ καλέει 88, cf. 74 and 106 (similar is Od. 17.508  f./553).  

90b–91 Just as Helen initially refuses Aphrodite’s request to join Paris (for reasons including a fear of being rebuked by the Trojan women: 3.410–412 [3.412b = 24.91b]) and as Penelope hesitates to present herself unaccompanied before the suitors (Od. 18.184: VE ≈ Il. 24.90b; cf. Odysseus addressing Nausikaa’s slave-girls at Od. 6.221  f.), so Thetis struggles to emerge from her grief-induced isolation and join the (specifically ‘blessed’: 99) gods (Griffin 1980, 190  f.; Collins 1988, 32  f.); her aidṓs (44n.) further prohibits her from burdening her host with her own sorrows (Od. 19.115–122; Cairns 1993, 111  f.). But in contrast to Helen, ‘Thetis readily relents’ (Peppmüller [transl.]). — my heart is confused with sorrows: = 3.412 (Helen): a ‘cri de coeur’ (Kirk on 3.410–412); cf. 105. Additional laments by Thetis concerning her fate: 1.414–418, 18.54–64, 18.429–443.  

δ(έ): in the sense of γάρ, ‘because, indeed’ (1.10n.; see also schol. bT; Macleod; Race 2000, 205, 215  ff.). — ἄχε(α): On the meaning of ἄχος, 1.103n., 2.169–171n. (mental anguish caused by an external event, which initially leads to resignation caused by grief or disappointment at an immutable fact, but then often to a renewed impulse for action); the pl. lends the term ‘an indeterminate character’: Mawet 1979, 302 (transl.); cf. Anastassiou 1973, 72  ff. — ἄκριτα: here usually understood as having the sense ‘uninterrupted, innumerable’ (AH and schol. D on 3.412; LfgrE; cf. 2.796n.; differently Redfield [1975] 1994, 268 n. 16: ‘unsolved’). — θυμῷ: on the use of θυμός (frequently at VE) as a mental authority in general, 1.24n.; here semantically indistinguishable from φρένες at 105 (Jahn 1987, 202  f.).

92 ≈ 224 (Priam), Od. 2.318. — No word shall be in vain …: In a subtle allusion, Thetis adopts Zeus’ self-conception from 1.524–528: whatever he says is always fulfilled (Richardson).  

μέν: reaffirming, with an adversative function (Leaf; Denniston 368). — ὅττί κεν εἴπῃ: an inflectible VE formula (1.294n.).

90 τίπτε: = τί ποτε, ‘what then, why then?’ (signals reproach or disconcertment). 91 ἄχε’ ἄκριτα: on the hiatus, R 5.1. 92 μέν: here ‘nevertheless’. — οὐδ’ ἅλιον … ἔσσεται: i.e. ‘will come true’; οὐδέ occurs in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἅλιον (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6). — ὅττι: = ὅ τι; on the -ττ-, R 9.1. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).

Commentary 

 57

93 ≈ 18.388; 1st VH =  468 (with n.) etc.; 2nd VH ≈ 14.184. — veil: Veiling as a gesture of shame and mourning fits Thetis’ mood at the moment (Nagler 1974, 44  ff.; Mawet 1979, 265  f.; Cairns 2001a, 21–23; Llewellyn-Jones 2003, 299–301). Structurally, it represents element (2) of the type-scene ‘change of location by a deity’: preparation for the journey (89–102n.; cf. Scott 1974, 18).

κάλυμμ(α): a Homeric hapaxP (likewise 94 ἔσθος), probably synonymous with καλύπτρη ‘headscarf, veil’, as suggested by the parallel in the Hymn to Demeter: after Persephone’s abduction, Demeter in her desperation throws a κυάνεον κάλυμμα across her shoulders (h.Cer. 42) and starts her search κατὰ κρῆθεν (‘from the head down’) κεκαλυμμένη (loc. cit. 182; cf. Hes. Th. 574 of Pandora’s καλύπτρη) and προκατέσχετο χερσὶ καλύπτρην (loc. cit. 197); see Lorimer 1950, 385  f.; Marinatos 1967, 13; LfgrE. — δῖα θεάων: a VE formula (19.6b  n.).

94 black: Emphatic at VB (enjambmentP), amplified by the hyperbole that follows. Black was the color of mourning, as it is today (cf. Demeter at h.Cer. 42; West on Hes. Th. 406; RE s.v. Trauerkleidung; Dürbeck 1977, 152; LlewellynJones 2003, 305–307), in contrast to the otherwise typically bright, shining colors of veils (e.g. 3.141 Helen, 14.184  f. Hera, 22.468 Andromache, Od. 1.334 Penelope). On kyáneos ‘dark, black’, see 1.528n.; Irwin 1974, 79–96.  

τοῦ δ’ οὔ τι μελάντερον  …: On expressions of this type (‘there is/was nothing’ + comp.), cf. 2.248 (additional passages in Chantr. 2.151); usually in direct speechP, in narrator commentary here and at Od. 20.392 (prolepsis).

95 βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: literally ‘strode out in order to walk’, i.e. ‘started her journey, set out’, with an expressive, ceremonial nuance (6.296n.); an inflectible VB formula (βῆ/βῆν/βάν, δ’/ῥ’, ἰέναι/ἴμεν(αι)): 29× Il., 41× Od., 4× h.Hom.; also 3× Il. after caesura A 3. The expression may be formed by analogy with the imper. βάσκ’ ἴθι: Yates 2014 (see 144n.). — ποδήνεμος ὠκέα Ἶρις: a VE formula (9× Il., 1× h.Ap.; shorter variant: πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις 87n.). On ποδήνεμος, cf. the bibliography at 77n. (on ἀελλόπος); on epithets for Iris in general, 77n.  

96 guided her: When two or more characters travel together, the one who leads is frequently emphasized: B sets out, A goes first (a hysteron proteron [100n.]); in the combination human/deity, the deity always leads. Examples: 1.494  f. (gods/Zeus), 3.419  f. (Helen/Aphrodite), 9.192 and 657 (envoys/Odysseus), Od. 2.416 and 3.12 (Telemachos/Athene), 22.400 (Eurykleia/Telemachos), 24.9  f. (spirits of the dead/Hermes). Alternative phrasing: A leads, B follows (Il. 3.447, 93 θεάων: on the inflection, R 11.1. 94 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἔπλετο (ϝ)έσθος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἔπλετο: 3rd sing. aor. of πέλομαι ‘become, prove to be, be’. 96 ἀμφί: ‘on both sides’. — σφι: = αὐταῖς (R 14.1).

58 

 Iliad 24

Od. 1.125, 2.405  f., 2.413, etc.). — the wave of the water opened: On the motif of the receding or parting sea, cf. 18.66  f. (Thetis and the Nereïds, likewise rising from the depth of the sea), 13.29  f. (Poseidon, moving across the sea), Exodus 14:21  f. (Israelites); Kurz 1966, 156  f.

λιάζετο: ≈ διίστατο 13.29 and ῥήγνυτο 18.67 (cf. 1.349n.; Kurz 1966, 21 n. 18). — κῦμα θαλάσσης: a VE formula: 4× Il. (including 1.496, 18.66 likewise in contexts concerning Thetis), 1× h.Hom.; in verse middle, 4× in early epic.

97 1st VH ≈ 18.68 (on the v.l. ἐξαναβᾶσαι, see Peppmüller; Leaf). — οὐρανόν: Heaven and Olympus (104) both denote the dwelling-place of the gods (1.497n.; Noussia 2002, 491  ff.). — ἀϊχθήτην: The aorist of ἀΐσσω overwhelmingly shows active forms; middle s-aor. only in the inf. (ἐπ)αΐξασθαι (22.195, 23.773 [vv.ll.]), θη-aor. 3× indic. and 1× inf. (in addition to the present passage, also 3.368, 5.854 [the spear flies], 16.404 [reins slip]). No semantic difference can be discerned between the voices: possibilities are an ingressive sense (‘begin to move quickly, leap up’) as well as an effective sense (‘reach one’s desination swiftly, fly’); see the categories in Mutzbauer 1909, 78–80; LfgrE s.v.  – ἀΐσσω elsewhere frequently of deities who descend to earth from Olympus: 121 (formulaic).  

98–99 A link to the assembly of gods that receded into the narrative background after 31–76 (see ad loc.). The description of the situation has verbal echoes of that at 83  f. and represents a conscious contrast: blessed gods vs. grieving Thetis (Macleod). 98 1st VH = 15.152; ≈ 1.498 (see ad loc.); on εὐρύοπα, see also 296n.   99 1st VH ≈ 84. — μάκαρες θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες: a VE formula (also 4× Od.; cf. μάκαρες θεοί 23n., θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες 1.290n.).  

100–102 The seat of honor beside Zeus (cf. 1.405n.) and the welcoming drink serve not only as consolation, but also as Thetis’ rehabilitation and reintegration after the supplication scene in Book 1 (1.493  ff.; similarly Ares at 5.869/906, Hera at 1.584–585n., 15.85–156); in this way, the beginning and end of the action of the Iliad (realization of Thetis’ plea) are linked in a contrasting fashion: Richardson; Kurz 1966, 47; Nagler 1974, 181  f.; Erbse 1986, 204; Edwards 1987, 305; Murnaghan 1997, 36–38. – That Athene and Hera in particular see to Thetis is probably connected to their involvement with her son Achilleus (25–26n., end; cf. also 59  f.: Hera as Thetis’ foster mother).

97 εἰσαναβᾶσαι … ἀϊχθήτην: dual and plural forms may be freely combined in Homer (R 18.1). — ἀϊχθήτην: 3rd dual aor. of ἀΐσσομαι ≈ ἀΐσσω ‘hurry, rush (on one’s way)’ (cf. 121). 98 Κρονίδην: ‘son of Kronos’ = Zeus. 99 ἐόντες = ὄντες (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 59

100 Similiar formulations at 1.405, 5.869, 5.906, Hes. Op. 259. — Seating arrangements are often significant: here this is a sign of honor (100–102n.); in contrast, of formal distance at 597  f. (see ad loc.) and intimacy at 1.360n.; Kurz 1966, 46  f. (familiarity or distance); de Jong on Od. 1.130–135 (esp. Od. 2.14 and 16.42: the gérontes and Odysseus, respectively, make space for Telemachos); on the seat beside the master of the house, see also 515–516n.  

Διὶ πατρί: a formula after caesurae A 4 and C 1 or at VE (examples in Dee 1994, 73  ff.; cf. 103n.). — καθέζετο, εἶξε: hysteron proteron: the more important of two actions is named first; in general, see Macleod on 206; Schw. 2.698; Chantr. 2.352; Russo 1994, 379  f.; cf. 1.251n.

101–102 A brief type-sceneP ‘welcome/farewell’ (1.584–585n.; Arend 1933, 75; Edwards 1975, 55): (1) X offers wine to Y; (2) X addresses Y, here not in direct speechP, but rather summarized as a perlocutionary act: ‘cheered her with words’ (the welcomes at 4.3  f., 15.86 are similarly shortened: ‘greeted each other’ as a statement of the illocutionary act; on speech-act theory terminology in the interpretation of Homer, see de Jong [1987] 2004, 200–203, 207; Richardson 1990, 77  f.). Elements (3) prayer and (4) libation are not realized (divine plane). 101 a beautiful golden goblet: The precise shape of the dépas cannot be determined from early epic (the same is true of other terms for vessels, such as 305 kýpellon, 429 áleison; and all can be used synonymously: ‘drinking vessel’; see Düntzer [1864] 1979, 98). The epithets are appropriate for vessels and are commensurate with their use (welcome, libation, guest-gift): ‘(exceedingly) beautiful, golden, two-handled’ (e.g. 11.774, 24.429, Od. 8.430  f., 15.85, 22.9  f.); on ‘golden’ in particular, 21n.; on ‘two-handled’, 1.584n. with bibliography; Bloedow 2007.  

ἐν χερὶ θῆκεν: an inflectible expression in different positions in the verse, denoting the handing over of an object (Düntzer [1864] 1872, 553–557). The form χερί, rather than χειρί, occurs only here and in the parallel passages 8.289 and 20.182 (VE ἐν χερὶ θήσω/ -ει): formed by analogy with the regular dat. pl. χερ-σί, cf. 6.482, etc. ἐν χερσὶν ἔθηκεν (VE); see Wackernagel (1888) 1953, 634  f.; Leumann 1950, 318  f.

χρύσεον:  ͜ on the prosody, 21n.

102 εὔφρην(ε): here pregnant ‘make glad, cheer’ (Latacz 1966, 168, 171).  

100 πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — καθέζετο, (ϝ)εῖξε: on the prosody, R 4.3. 101 χρύσεον:  ͜ on the synizesis, R 7. — χερί: = χειρί. 102 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἐπέεσσι: on the inflection, R 11.3. — ὤρεξε: ‘handed her the cup’.

60 

 Iliad 24

103–142 The dispatch of Thetis is presented in accord with the scheme of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (77–88n.): the messenger (1) receives instructions: 103–120a, (2) departs: 120b–121, (3) arrives: 122a, (4) finds the character being sought: 122b–125 (description of situation), (5) approaches: 126  f., and (6) relays the message: 128  ff. – Element (5) is adapted to the mother-son relationship: Thetis sits down beside Achilleus and greets him tenderly (Arend 1933, 29 n. 1; cf. 141  f. with n.). 103 = 22.167, Od. 1.28. — The father of gods and men: a VE formula (1.544n.), a periphrastic denominationP of Zeus that highlights his authority (cf. de Jong [1987] 2004, 198; on the designation of Zeus as father generally, 3.276n.). The formula is especially appropriate since Thetis is acting here as a mediator between gods and humans.

τοῖσι δὲ μύθων ἦρχε: a VB formula (7× Il., 10× Od.), see 2.433n. (speech introduction formulaP after meals, etc.); on the locative τοῖσι ‘among them’, 1.68n.

104–119 After a few words of sympathy (captatio benevolentiae, 104–106), Zeus informs Thetis of the discord among the gods caused by the dragging of Hektor (31–76) and informs her of his plan (111): her son will be able to save face if he complies with the request to relinquish Hektor’s corpse; Zeus for his part will set in motion the necessary arrangements on the Trojan side. – On the ‘piecemeal presentation’ of Zeus’ plan (75  f./112–119/146–158), 75–76n. 104 1st VH ≈ 1.394, 7.25. — Olympos: on Olympus as the dwelling-place of the gods, 1.18n.; cf. 97n.  

ἤλυθες: ‘there you are!’; at the beginning of a speech, this usually expresses joy at the arrival of someone: Od. 16.23 (with AH and de Jong ad loc.), 16.461, 17.41; the reverse: Helen addressing Paris at Il. 3.428 (see ad loc.); post-Homeric examples in Richardson. — κηδομένη περ: an inflectible VE formula (6× Il., 4× Od., 1× h.Hom.).

105 I myself know this: By admitting that a particular issue (or assertion) has merit, the speaker simultaneously prepares for a counterargument (AH ad loc. and on Od. 10.457); similarly Od. 5.215/219. Here Zeus expresses sympathy and preempts possible complaints: ‘Thetis’ misgivings are echoed and met with both firmness and sympathy’ (Macleod).  

πένθος ἄλαστον: ἄλαστος is probably related to λανθάνω, i.e. ‘unforgettable grief’ (DELG; Beekes); the expression is always used in reference to a child (and 1× a husband) who has disappeared/died: Od. 1.342, 24.423, Hes. Th. 467, h.Ven. 207 (likewise ἄλαστον ὀδύρομαι at Od. 14.174); here likely in reference to Achilleus’ imminent death

104 ἤλυθες: = ἦλθες. — Οὔλυμπόνδε: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the suffix -δε, R 15.3. — περ: concessive (R 24.10). 105 μετά: ‘in (the midst)’. — φρεσίν· οἶδα: ny ephelkystikon (R 5.2) before (ϝ)οῖδα (R 4.6).

Commentary 

 61

(Kaimio 1977, 66  f.; Mawet 1979, 269  f.; Morenilla-Talens 1992). – On the connotation of πένθος, 1.254n. and 1.362n.: continued mourning after the death of a relative; cf. 91 ἄχε(α) ἄκριτα. — μετὰ φρεσίν: a formula (‘stop-gap’) between caesurae B 2 and C 2 (11× Il., 8× Od., with or without -ν; on the system of formulae, Jahn 1987, 267). On the use of φρένες as a mental seat of authority, cf. 40n. and 90b–91n., end — οἶδα καὶ αὐτός: an inflectible VE formula (4× Il., 3× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 2× h.Merc.; also 1× each in Il. and Od. in verse middle). 106 1st VH = Od. 19.171 (19.224 v.l.), Hes. Op. 661; similar examples with announcements of instructions vel sim.: 1.212n. — ἀλλὰ καὶ ὧς: ‘but even so’, i.e. ‘but despite these circumstances’ (namely Thetis’ grief); a VB formula (10× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes.). — τοῦ … εἵνεκα: on the proximity of the relative clause and dependent question, Schw. 2.643; Chantr. 2.167, 238, 293; Monteil 1963, 72  f. — σ(ε): In accord with I-E norms of word position, enclitics usually stand in the unstressed second position of a clause: Wackernagel (1892) 1953.

107 For nine days: 31n.  

νεῖκος … ὄρωρεν: cf. 3.87 Ἀλεξάνδροιο, τοῦ εἵνεκα νεῖκος ὄρωρεν.

108 Achilleus, stormer of cities: The epithetP ptolíporthos ‘stormer of cities’ is used generically in the Iliad of heroes and gods; in the Odyssey, on the other hand, it is specific to Odysseus (2.278b–279n.). Here, where it is juxtaposed to the phrase ‘Hektor’s corpse’, it may nevertheless be understood pregnantly in reference to Achilleus: with the death of Hektor, Troy’s doom is sealed (cf. 21.550/583  f.): Cosset 1985, 332–334; Shive 1987, 77  f.; Oka 1990, 19–22; Richardson on 21.550. Achilleus’ earlier conquests of cities in the vicinity of Troy may also play a role (on this, 1.366n.).  

νέκυι: ‘corpse’ (35n.); on the treatment of -υι as a diphthong (cf. 16.526), Chantr. 1.50. — Ἀχιλλῆϊ πτολιπόρθῳ: an inflectible VE formula (dat./acc.), also at 8.372, 15.77, 21.550; prosodic variant with initial consonant: ποδώκεϊ/-α Πηλεΐωνι/-α (458n.); equivalent VE formula in the gen.: Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο (19.279n.).  

109 ≈ 24. — ὀτρύνουσιν: The past tense ὀτρύνεσκον transmitted in the mss. may be influenced by the nearly identical 24 (there in narrator textP) (Leaf). In comparison, the present ὀτρύνουσιν (schol. A) attested in the so-called ‘city mss.’ of Massilia and Chios is more effective rhetorically: the gods, says Zeus, to this day continue to insist on their request (AH); Thetis thus receives the impression that she can contribute significantly

106 τοῦ: = τίνος (neut.). — εἵνεκα: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — κάλεσσα: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 107 ἐννῆμαρ: ‘for nine days’. — νεῖκος: ‘quarrel, disagreement, dispute’. — ὄρωρεν: ‘has erupted, reigns, rages’ (3rd sing. perf. of ὄρνυμι, with intransitive meaning). 108 ἀμφί (+ dat.): ‘around, over, because of’. — νέκυι: -υι to be read as a diphthong. 109 ὀτρύνουσιν: pres. with iterative sense (24 ὀτρύνεσκον is analogous).

62 

 Iliad 24

to a solution of the issue (differently Macleod, who brings ὀτρύνεσκον forward: after the announcement of an alternative course of action in 71  ff., the debate among the gods was concluded). On the city manuscripts in general, see West 2001, 67  f.

110 Zeus wishes (as suggested at 75b–76 and elaborated in what follows) that Hektor’s body be returned not behind Achilleus’ back but with his consent and for his benefit (in exchange for ransom money) (cf. Thornton 1984, 140 n. 49); a voluntary surrender of the body, combined with the acceptance of gifts from Priam, allows Achilleus to save face and acquire kýdos ≈ ‘distinction, success, prestige’ (Nestle 1941, 194  f.; on the meaning of the Greek term, see Latacz 1966, 130  f.; LfgrE). This solution reflects Achilleus’ superior status vis-à-vis Hektor (57, 66) (1.278  f.: a king to whom Zeus awards kýdos enjoys greater honor). At the same time, Zeus attempts in this way to win over Thetis, who claimed due honor for herself and Achilleus already in Book 1 (1.505–510, 1.515b–516; Zeus cannot of course mention to Thetis herself the reasoning at 72b–73 [see ad loc.], namely that the theft of Hektor’s body would be impossible because she is always present). – In contrast to the notion common in epic poetry – a hero acquires prestige via military superiority (e.g. 22.393  f.)  – Achilleus will here do so via a ‘humane’ gesture: Taplin 1992, 263; Pucci 1998a, 208  f.; Race 2014; Macleod.  

τόδε: either pointing ahead to Zeus’ instructions at 112  ff. (‘following, as follows’) or perhaps pointing back to 108 Ἕκτορος ἀμφὶ νέκυι: ‘in reference to (the handling of) the corpse, in this respect’; a detailed argument for the second alternative (anaphoric τόδε) in Race loc. cit. 716–721: Achilleus acquires κῦδος via the  – ceremonial  – manner in which the body is surrendered. — προτιάπτω: only here in early epic (Od. 2.86 μῶμον ἀνάψαι is similar; more frequent later: Peppmüller; Leaf), in place of the usual κῦδος δίδωμι, ὀπάζω, ὀρέγω, rarely also ἐπιτίθημι (Il. 23.400), etc.; see Greindl 1938, 41  ff.

111 The connection of aidṓs ‘respect’ (44n.) with philótēs ‘friendship’ in early epic usually refers to a guest and host (18.386, Od. 8.21  f., 11.360, 14.505, 19.254, etc.), occasionally – as here – to different groupings: Cairns 1993, 89  ff.  

τεήν: has the function of either (a) a subjective gen. (thus 9.630 φιλότητος ἑταίρων) or (b) an objective gen. (Od. 14.505 φιλότητι καὶ αἰδόϊ φωτὸς ἐῆος): Leaf; in the present context, (a) is more likely: Zeus’ renewed favor leaves Thetis indebted also in the future (in this sense, Cairns 1993, 92; AH; Macleod; LfgrE s.v. αἰδοῖος 269.45  ff.); case (b) would have to draw on the episode with Briareos (1.396–406n., 1.503n., 1.518–527n.), i.e. Zeus himself continues to feel indebted to Thetis (Richardson; Schultz 1910, 21; similarly Faesi).

110 προτιάπτω: = προσάπτω (R 20.1). 111 τεήν: possessive 2nd pers. sing. pronoun (R 14.4). — μετόπισθε: ‘for the future’. — φυλάσσων: ‘trying to preserve, conserve’ (conative).

Commentary 

 63

112–119 The announcement of two sets of orders to Thetis and (again) to Iris (15.54  ff. is similar) sets in motion parallel storylines that merge in the meeting of the two protagonists, Achilleus and Priam, and that lead to the surrender of Hektor’s corpse to Priam (471  ff.; cf. 146–158n.; outline in Heubeck 1954, 43). In accord with the ‘continuity of time’ principleP, the instructions directed at Iris are narrated after Thetis delivers the message to Achilleus (143  ff.; cf. 159n.); the text does not indicate the possibility that the messengers receive their instructions simultaneously, nor is that objectively reasonable: only after Achilleus’ promise at 139  f. (which Zeus tacitly appears to take for granted: gapP) can Priam be expected to undertake the dangerous journey to meet with his mortal foe (cf. the assurance at 156–158 = 185–187): Myres 1932, 293; Hölscher 1939, 47; Patzer 1990, 158  f.; Rengakos 1995, 20–22; Tsagarakis 2001, 783  f.; Scodel 2008a, 113–115. 112–116 give to your son this message: The actual instructions follow in 116; the reasoning inserted at 113–115 (‘tell him that …!’) is intended primarily for Achilleus: Zeus’ anger (113b–114a) has nowhere manifested itself as clearly as in his speech at 65–76 (Létoublon 1987, 130  f.). – On the insertion of a rationale after epitéllō ‘give orders’, cf. esp. 2.802–804, Od. 12.217  f., 12.273–275, 23.361–363.

ἐπίτειλον· | σκύζεσθαί οἱ εἰπέ: an asyndetic specification of the instructions (cf. 144n. on βάσκ’ ἴθι) with an independent verb of speaking, as at 2.10  f. ἀγορευέμεν … ὡς ἐπιτέλλω. | θωρῆξαί ἑ κέλευε …, 5.198–200 (μοι) ἐρχομένῳ ἐπέτελλε …· | … μ’ ἐκέλευε … | ἀρχεύειν, cf. 4.301 ἱππεῦσιν μὲν πρῶτ’ ἐπετέλλετο· τοὺς μὲν ἀνώγει … – On the sense of σκύζεσθαι, 65n.

112 1st VH = 4.70. — αἶψα μάλ(α): ‘immediately’; VB 4× Il., 5× Od. (19.36n.). – Asyndeton in the transition to a request: Schw. 2.632.  

113–115 ≈ 134–136; also 2nd VH of 113 = 14.257; ≈ h.Ap. 88.   114 in his heart’s madness: Greek maínomai (> ‘mania’) is commonly used in early epic of the ‘raging, storming’ of an opponent in war; here, as in Engl. ‘be mad’, as a rebuke based on improper behavior or a transgression (thus also at e.g. 8.360 Athene about Zeus, 15.128 Athene to Ares, Od. 9.350 Odysseus to Polyphemos, 18.406 Telemachos to the suitors): Becker 1937, 158  f.; Sullivan 1988, 75  ff.; Seaford 1994, 330  ff.; Hershkowitz 1998, 132  ff., 150.  

φρεσί: 40n.

112 αἶψα μάλ(α): = μάλ᾽ αἶψα. — υἱέϊ: on the inflection, R 12.3. 113 σκύζεσθαί (ϝ)οι (ϝ)εἰπέ: on the hiatus, R 4.4. — ἔξοχα: adverbial, ‘especially, greatly’. 114 κεχολῶσθαι: ‘be angry, furious’.

64 

 Iliad 24

115 holds … and did not give him | back: a rhetorical polar expressionP that fills out the verse while also adding emphasis; cf. 1.198, 1.468, 24.563, etc. (general bibliography: 3.59n.). – In speaking to Hektor, Achilleus had rejected an unconditional surrender of the body (22.258–267; cf. 7.78–86) as well as its ransom (22.338–354). The fact that Zeus does not mention the dragging of the corpse may be based on his diplomatic behavior toward Thetis.  

κορωνίσιν: ‘curved’ and thus ‘pointing upward’; on the sense and position in the verse of this epithet of ships, 1.170n. (παρὰ νηυσὶ κ. after caesura A 4 8× Il.; the same without κορωνίσιν 38× Il., 2× Od.). — ἀπέλυσεν: literally ‘return after the payment of a ransom’ (cf. 137n.): anticipation of 116 (schol. b on 116; Peppmüller; Leaf).

116 2nd VH = 76. — Perhaps … he will …: ‘Zeus, who respects Thetis’ pain (104), utters his wish to the concerned mother in the gentlest possible way. Even in this gentle form, Thetis recognizes the command of the father of the gods and in 137 she instructs her son to fulfill it’ (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 340 [transl.]; cf. Leaf and Macleod; Minchin 2007, 208  f.). — in fear of me: In early epic, to ‘fear’ a god primarily means to avoid provoking him to anger (113  f.), and thus to punishment, because of misconduct (e.g. by disregarding an order): 13.622–627, 22.356–360, Od. 2.63–67, 22.35–40 (Muellner 1992, 130  f.); cf. the attribute theoudḗs ‘god-fearing’ at Od. 6.121, etc.; in general, RAC s.v. Furcht (Gottes).  

αἴ κέν πως … λύσῃ: repeated by Thetis at 137 with ἀλλ’ ἄγε δὴ λῦσον. The restrained phrasing αἴ κέν πως + subjunc. does not as a rule imply serious doubt on the part of the speaker (2.72n.).

117 ≈ 145. — μεγαλήτορι: ‘great-hearted, with great energy, courageous’, a generic epithetP (6.283n., where also of Priam). — ἐφήσω: ‘will send (to)’ (in contrast, 300 mid. ἐφίεμαι ‘order, instruct’); cf. schol. bT with Erbse ad loc. (ancient discussion of the meaning of the verb) and 118n. on λύσασθαι.  

118–119 =  146  f., 195  f.; ≈ 175  f. (cf. 1.12  f., 24.501  f.); in addition 118 ≈ 15.116; 1st VH =  237. — ProlepsisP: ‘This fourfold repetition [see iterata] is surely not just a formular device, but is designed to bring out the importance of this central theme’: Richardson; cf. Létoublon 1987 passim. The triple repetition of the message of the dream in Book 2 (see 2.28–32n. and 2.60–70a  n.) is similar.

115 νηυσί: on the inflection, R 12.1. — οὐδ(έ): also after affirmative clauses in Homer (R 24.8). 116 αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1). — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5); on the usage, R 21.1. — τε δ(ϝ)είσῃ ἀπό: on the prosody, R 4.5 and R 5.6. 117 μεγαλήτορι (ϝ)ῖριν: on the prosody, R 5.4.

Commentary 

 65

118 λύσασθαι: The verb of speaking (≈ ‘with the message that he should’) is implied in the idea of dispatching (AH; Macleod), similarly ἄγγελος ἦλθε (11.715, 18.167, 24.194  f., h.Cer. 407–409); cf. the repetition of the order at 145  f. ἄγγειλον  … λύσασθαι, 175 λύσασθαι σ’ ἐκέλευεν, 194  f. ἄγγελος ἦλθεν | λύσασθαι. – Middle λύομαι always of the person who ‘redeems, ransoms someone’ (thus of Priam in Book 24), but active λύω of the person ‘releasing someone’ (of Achilleus: 76, etc.). — φίλον υἱόν: an inflectible formula (19.117n.); on the meaning of φίλος, 4n. — ἰόντ’: = ἰόντα (unambiguous because of acc. οἶον in 148): AH; Leaf. — ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectible formula after caesura A 4 (1.371, 14.354, 15.305, 24.203, 24.519) and – more commonly – at VE, as here with ἰόντ’ at 15.116, 24.146/195; similarly θέων ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀ. (17.691), ἱκέσθ’ ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀ. (22.417); in the dative ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν (9× Il., 1× Od.; cf. 19.160n.). – On the variants with epithets, 336n. (κοίλας ἐπὶ ν. Ἀ.), 564n. (θοὰς ἐπὶ ν. Ἀ.), also 501b–502n. (only νῆας Ἀχαιῶν). On the inflection of formulae in general, FOR 23.  

119 gifts: cf. 76n.  

Ἀχιλλῆϊ: The dative ending -ι is occasionally scanned long in Homer even outside i-stems (18n.; Chantr. 1.104  f.; Forssman 2003, 111); in most cases, the long is enabled by a subsequent caesura (as here) and/or the beginning of the following word: liquid or nasal (e.g. Ἀχιλλῆϊ μεθέμεν [1.283]; cf. G 16; M 4.6), double consonant (e.g. Ἀχιλλῆϊ πτολιπόρθῳ [108]). — τά κε θυμὸν ἰήνῃ: ‘which will surely soften his heart’ (Latacz 1966, 228  f.). The prospective relative clause with a final/consecutive nuance (Schw. 2.311  f.; Chantr. 2.247) – in contrast to the faded ἀγλαὰ δῶρα (278n.) – expresses the specific effect of Priam’s gifts; staying within the image, Achilleus’ θυμός is indeed hardened (οὔτε νόημα γναμπτόν 40  f., σιδήρεος θυμός 22.357). This aim is accomplished: 592–595 (Achilleus addressing the dead Patroklos), esp. 594 οὐ … ἀεικέα … ἄποινα (see ad loc.). – ἰαίνω denotes a corporal and mental process: softening, relaxing, warm encouragement (19.173–174n.; cf. 320–321n.).

120–142 Thetis relays Zeus’ instructions to her son; Achilleus expresses his agree­ ment. 120 1st VH: 21× Il. (of which 8× incl. θεά), 2× Od., 2× h.Cer. (1× incl. θεά); 2nd VH = 89 (see ad loc.), etc. – Speech capping formulaP used when issuing orders to human beings and gods (2.166n.), esp. messengers (Iris also at 11.195, 15.168; see Barck 1976, 144  ff.).  

121–123a Elements (2) departure and (3) arrival of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (103–142n.). Thetis’ change of location coincides with a change of

118 λύσασθαι: mid. ‘pay a ransom’; infinitive of indirect speech. — νῆας: on the inflection, R 12.1. 119 φερέμεν: inf. (R 16.4). — τά: functions like a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἰήνῃ: (prospective) aor. subjunc. of ἰαίνω, ‘soften’. 120 ὥς: ‘so, thus’. — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — οὐδ(έ): in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἀπίθησε: ‘did not obey’ (οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε is a litotes: ‘was willing’); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

66 

 Iliad 24

scene to the human plane (on this in general, Richardson 1990, 110  f.); there, Achilleus is in the same state as described earlier (esp. 4): this sugggests a uniform action in the background (the connection of 19.4  f. with 18.354  f. is similar; Krapp 1964, 334  f.). 121 = 2.167 (see ad loc.), etc.   122 of her son: The perspective is that of Thetis (cf. 85–86n.; for ‘son’ used to show focalizationP in the case of Telemachos: de Jong 1993, 302–304). Additional periphrastic denominationsP in the present scene between Thetis and Achilleus: ‘mother’ (126), ‘son and his mother’ (141): expressions of close familiarity.  

ἷξεν: a thematic s-aorist (6.172n.).

123a ἁδινά: ‘repeatedly, continuously’, frequently in the context of laments (19.314n.); picked up by Thetis in her speech to Achilleus with τέο μέχρις (128): Kaimio 1977, 50.

123b–125 Meals, sacrifices and celebrations form a common backdrop to the arrival of visitors and messengers, as also at 11.771  ff., 24.444, 24.472  ff. (with n.), Od. 3.31  ff., 4.3  ff., etc. (Arend 1933, 68; Edwards 1986, 92 n. 27; Reece 1993, 14; de Jong on Od. 3.4–67; on the present type-scene: 103–142n.). On the narratorP plane, such descriptions of situations frequently have a characterizing or preparatory function (de Jong loc. cit. and on Od. 4.3–19, 7.81–135, 14.5–28); here: ‘The point of mentioning these preparations is clearly that Achilles does not intend to eat when they are over’ (Macleod; cf. 3n.).

ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ἑταῖροι: a VE formula (4× Il., 1× Od.), elsewhere always with πολέες/πολλοὶ δ’ preceding (e.g. 19.5). – On the ‘bystanders’ in descriptions of situations, see 83–86n.

124 ἐσσυμένως: ‘eagerly, assiduously, rapidly’ (LfgrE; cf. 3.85n.). — ἐπένοντο: ‘busied themselves (with)’, in reference to preparations for a meal or other domestic tasks (1.318a  n.). — ἐντύνοντ’ ἄριστον: = Od. 16.2 (VB). Here the ἄριστον appears to coincide with the δεῖπνον ‘daytime meal’ (2.381n. with bibliography).  

The manuscripts of the Iliad transmit ἐντύνοντο ᾱ῎ ριστον (scriptio plena: Janko, Introd. 33; in general, Leaf on 17.324; van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 77  f.; cf. 1.464n., end); one papyrus alone has ἐντύνοντ(’), see app. crit. – The initial element of ἄριστον derives from an old locative *āi̯eri ‘during the (early hours of the) day’ (Ruijgh [1985] 1996, 244; Hajnal 1992, 57  f.; 1992a, 286; cf. Od. 16.2 ἄριστον ἅμ’ ἠόϊ), the final element contains ἐδ- ‘eat’ (cf. ὠμηστής 207a  n., νήστιας 19.156n.).

121 Οὐλύμποιο: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the inflection, R 11.2. — ἀΐξασα: from ἀΐσσω ‘hurry, rush (on one’s way)’. 122 ἷξεν: aor. of ἵκω ‘arrive, come’. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — κλισίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — οὗ υἱέος: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — οὗ: possessive pronoun of 3rd pers. (R 14.4). — υἱέος: on the inflection, R 12.3. — ἐν: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘inside’. — τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 124 καὶ ἐντύνοντ(ο): on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

Commentary 

 67

125 Sheep, goats, pigs and – for special occasions – cattle are found as sacrificial animals in early epic (cf. 1.66n., 2.402n., 24.34). Rearing sheep served for the production of wool, milk and meat; in Homeric society, herds of sheep were regarded as a sign of wealth (Richter 1968, 53–59; BNP s.v. Sheep). — a great fleecy sheep: The quality of livestock is frequently highlighted (‘great’: 18.559, Od. 17.180; ‘fat’: Il. 2.403, 9.207  f., etc.; age: 2.403n.; coat: 621n.). On asyndetic lists of epithets, La Roche 1897, 175  ff., 181  ff. (collection of examples); K.G. 2.341  f.; cf. 157n., 266–274n.  

ἐν κλισίῃ: The κλισίη forms an obvious location for the preparation and consumption of the meal (2.399, 7.313  f., etc.); more information on Achilleus’ quarters at 448–456n., 448n. — ἱέρευτο: probably plpf. with ἱ- shortened for metrical reasons (Chantr. 1.422; Jankuhn 1969, 98  f.; loc. cit. on the function  – not clearly determinable  – of the dative τοῖσι; most likely a dat. of agent). The verb means both ‘sacrifice’ (with mention of the ritual) and ‘slaughter’ (6.174, 18.558  ff., and frequently in the Odyssey [the suitors’ preparations for meals]); in principle, however, a portion seems to have been sacrificed to the gods in the case of any meal based on meat (6.173–174n. with bibliography; cf. 621–628n.).

126 ἣ δὲ … πότνια μήτηρ: The verse structure, with anaphoric pronoun (frequently at VB) and noun-epithet formula in apposition (usually at VE), is common in early epic, e.g. 188 (Bakker 1997, 92, 198  f.). – πότνια μήτηρ is a VE formula for goddesses or women of high rank: 21× Il., 13× Od., 3× h.Cer.; 9× of Thetis (as here; cf. 122n.), 5× of Hekabe (710); on the term πότνια, see 6.264n.  

127 = 1.361, etc. (see ad loc.; cf. 19.7n.). On the use of the formulaic verse in the present type-scene, see 103–142n. On the details of the linguistic and thematic echoes of the dialogue scene between Thetis and Achilleus in Book 1 (1.357– 430), see Richardson on 126–142 (‘The poet must surely be looking back to the theme of book 1’).  

ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: the sense has faded to ‘and spoke to him’ (6.253n.).

128–137 An extended messenger speech: (1) prologue, with reference to the situation (128–132), (2) introduction to the message, with indication of who sent it (133), (3) the actual message (134–137); cf. 2.23–34n. In the prologue, Thetis attempts, via an affectionate rebuke, to calm the emotional waters (Macleod on 128–132; similarly already Zeus at 104  ff.). The core of the message is for the most part repeated literally, as is usual (113–115 ≈ 134–136); 116–119 are compressed into a brief order at 137 (116n.). By leaving out the announcement of 125 τοῖσι: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the inflection, R 11.2. — ἱέρευτο: ‘was slaughtered, lay there slaughtered’. 126 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 127 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

68 

 Iliad 24

analogous instructions for Priam that were merely meant as background information for Thetis, the narrator retains for himself the possibility of lending particular force to the meeting between Achilleus and Priam: Achilleus does not expect Priam to come in person (Taplin 1992, 264; Macleod on 139; cf. 480–484n.). 128 2nd VH = 9.612, Od. 2.23, 4.100, 14.40. — eating your heart out: The ‘heart’ as the seat of mental conditions is here used in pregnant contrast to the physical consumption of food (2nd VH); likewise at Od. 10.379: Macleod; Nagler 1974, 182 n. 21; Jahn 1987, 233; Clarke 1999, 88 n. 71. For more on the metaphor: 6.201–202n., 19.58n.; Jahn loc. cit. 12.

τέκνον ἐμόν: τέκνον is always used in the Iliad to address adult sons or daughters (including 7× of Thetis addressing Achilleus), in the Odyssey also addressed to non-relatives: 6.254n.; the pronoun does not appear to serve to increase emotion: 19.8n. — ἀχεύων: a metrical variant of the denominative ἀχέων; the details of its formation are unclear: LfgrE with bibliography; DELG s.v. ἄχνυμαι.  – On the sense, cf. 90b–91n.; a possible differentiation between ὀδύρομαι ‘weep, lament’ (external) and ἀχέων/ἀχεύων ‘grieve, be troubled’ (internal; thus Anastassiou 1973, 77  ff.) cannot be proven; the semantic delineation of the word field is generally difficult (LfgrE s.v. ὀδύρομαι); on similar synonym doublings, see 48n.

129 remember neither your food: 3n.  

μεμνημένος: μιμνήσκομαι in battle (cf. 216) and in reference to bodily needs (food, drink, sleep; cf. also 601  f.) means ‘(once again, despite adverse conditions) direct one’s thoughts to, recall, think of’; cf. 19.147–148n., end; Bakker (2002) 2005, 139–145, esp. 142. — οὔτέ τι: on the accent, West 1998, XVIII.  

130–131a It is a good thing even  …: Gods rarely use gnomes in conversation with human beings; when they do, it is usually in the context of divine messages and/or as a sign of intimacy (Lardinois 2000, 658). In the present gnome, sexuality represents all the vital needs Achilleus should once again think of fulfilling.  – Sexual intercourse is repeatedly mentioned in Homer in direct speechP as well as in the narrator-textP (2.232, 3.441  f., etc. and 6.25, 24.676, etc.); the brevity and discretion of these expressions (‘to mingle in love’, ‘to lie [down] beside’, etc.: Wickert-Micknat 1982, 100–102) fits with the quite restrained depiction of sexuality in early epic (cf. 2.262n., 19.176n.; schol. bT on 9.134; Mauritsch 1992, 24  ff.). On the athetesis of 130–132 as ‘indecent’ and

128 τέο: = τίνος (neutr.), gen. dependent on μέχρις (here postpositive: R 20.2), thus ‘until when, how long?’. 129 ἔδεαι: fut. mid. of ἔδω ‘eat’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — οὔτέ τι: τι (‘in some way’: R 19.1) strengthens the negative. 130 ἀγαθόν: sc. ἐστίν.

Commentary 

 69

‘inappropriate’ (schol. A), see Düntzer (1847) 1872, 340  f. (arguing in favor of retaining the verses); Leaf on 129 (reflecting on the various possibilities); additional bibliography in Erbse on schol. A on 130–132.

γυναικί περ … μίσγεσθ(αι): περ does not apply to γυναικί alone (‘at least with a woman’, sc. having lost Patroklos; occasionally taken as an allusion to homosexuality: Clarke 1978, 386  ff.; in opposition to this theory generally, Latacz 2008, 131 n. 24), but underscores the overall concept γυναικὶ ἐν φιλότητι μίσγεσθαι ≈ ‘sexuality’ (Bakker 1988, 248  f.; cf. 425n. on καί). This creates an emphatic contrast with (a) abstinence from food and sleep at 128–130a (Levin 1949, 45  f. n. 19; in this case, εὐνή might also be a euphemism for sex, cf. 19.176n.); (b) imminent death, 131b–132 (with determinative γάρ; see Macleod; Denniston 482). On περ indicating a contrast, see also 2.236n.

131b–132 = 16.852  f. (Patroklos on Hektor, see Macleod); similar phrasing occurs in the remarks of the horse Xanthos at 19.409  f. — On the prolepsisP, 85n.  

βέε(αι): originally probably a short-vowel subjunc. related to the root of βίος/ζώω; used in Homer as a future (G 62; Chantr. 1.452  f.; Frisk I and III s.v. βίος; Janko on 15.194).

132 =  16.853; 1st VH ≈ Od. 8.218 (also ἄγχι παρισταμένη 5× Od.; cf. VE ἄγχι παραστάς/ παρέστη 6× Il., 3× Od.); 2nd VH = 5.83, 16.334, 16.853, 20.477, 21.110, Il. parv. fr. 29.5 West. — θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα: synonym doubling (1.160n.), perceived as a single concept (hence the predicate in the sing.). On the numerous expressions with similar content, 2.352n.; on μοῖρα, cf. 49n. – In cases like the present one, differentiation between appellative and personification is almost impossible (as well as unnecessary for understanding the text): CG 29; e.g. Erbse 1986, 277 (transl.): ‘very close to […] a personified conception’ vs. Dietrich 1965, 197: ‘All that is conveyed by this phrase is that a hero’s death is close at hand’. On the combination with παρίσταμαι, cf. inter alia 12.326 κῆρες ἐφεστᾶσιν θανάτοιο, Od. 24.28  f. παραστήσεσθαι ἔμελλε | μοῖρ’ ὀλοή, but also 16.280 παρίσταται αἴσιμον ἦμαρ (Porzig 1942, 145; Clarke 1999, 243  ff.). — μοῖρα κραταιή: a VE formula (9× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× Il. parv.); κραταιός is likely a secondary formation related to κρατύς, fem. *κραταιά (Risch 74).

133 ≈ 2.26 (with n.), 2.63; 2nd VH =  24.173, ≈ 24.561. — for I come from Zeus with a message: On the function of such references to communications from Zeus in the structure of the action of the Iliad, see Nagler 1974, 183, 185  f., 214  ff. Here the parallels between Books 2 and 24 are particularly conspicuous (see iterata); on further links between the two Books, cf. 173b–174n., 217–227n., 677–682n. (Peppmüller p. XXIVf.; Macleod, Introd. 33).  

ὦκα: calls for immediate attention (a condition for the successful execution of the following order); likewise at 2.26, Od. 6.289  f. (LfgrE s.v. ἵημι 1156.23–26).

131 μοι: ethic dat. — βέε(αι): ‘you will live’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 133 ἐμέθεν: gen. (R 14.1, cf. 15.1). — ξύνες: 2nd pers. sing. aor. imper. of ξυνίημι (= συνίημι) ‘listen’.

70 

 Iliad 24

134–136 ≈ 113–115. On the nearly literal repetition of the speech giving the orders, see Eide 1999, 121–123; 2.28–32n. With the exception of εἰπέ > φησί (≈ ‘he told me to tell you that …’; cf. 112–116n.), the modifications here are limited to the adaptation of the personal endings and pronouns.   134 τοι: in place of the transmitted σοί, which is usually emphatic (West 2001, 277; cf. Chantr. 1.265). — ἑέ: acc. of the stressed reflexive personal pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (corresponds to ἐμέ at 113); elsewhere only at 20.171 (G 81; Schw. 2.194  f.; Chantr. 1.264; on ancient discussions of the form, Barth 1984, 194  ff.). On the reflexive with a dependent inf., Chantr. 2.154.  

137 See 128–137n. – On the motif ‘release and accept ransom (for it)’, cf. 1.20, 1.95, 24.76, 24.555 (variant: ‘capture me alive [rather than killing me] and receive a ransom’: 6.46 = 11.131).  

δέξαι ἄποινα: an inflectible VE formula (6.46n., where also on the etymology of ἄποινα). – δέχομαι means not merely ‘receive’ but ‘(willingly) accept’ (LfgrE; AH ad loc. and on 555; cf. 305n.).

138 = 1.215, 18.187; ≈ 9× Il. (on this, see 1.84n.); 1st VH, see 64n.; 2nd VH in total 24× Il. — Achilleus of the swift feet: a VE formula (30× Il.; 1.58n.). Achilleus’ swiftness, probably recalling a specific mythological narrative, appears in the Iliad as an established, essential personal characteristic (Whallon 1969, 14–17; Dunkle 1996/97; Foley 1997, 167  f.; Hainsworth 1999, 7–9; Graziosi/ Haubold 2005, 50–56); it is expressed in several noun-epithet formulae (e.g. 458, 668), is confirmed by individual characters (13.324  f., 23.791  f.) and is illustrated in the pursuit of Hektor (21.599–22.213).   139–140 Since the instructions that are given cannot be executed immediately, as is otherwise common (188–190n.), a statement by Achilleus follows instead: he briefly if not altogether directly declares his agreement. The impersonal phrasing at 139 (‘studied indifference’: Wilson 2002, 128) and the reservations at 140 (‘if the Olympian himself …’) leave open whether ‘this (is) merely superficial compliance or a change of heart’: Burkert 1955, 102  f. (transl.); for detailed discussion of Achilleus’ motivation in the present context, see 560–562n. Additional bibliography on the consent given by Achilleus: Richardson on 139– 140; Segal 1971, 60; Deichgräber 1972, 50; Schein 1984, 158; Van Nortwick 1992, 78; Crotty 1994, 71; West 2011, 414  f. – On Achilleus’ short speeches in general, Edwards on 20.428  f. (cf. 669  f., 1.216–218, 18.182, 20.429, etc.).

134 ἑέ: = ἑαυτόν (R 14.1). 135 ἀθανάτων: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 137 ἄγε: ‘come!’ (originally imper. of ἄγω). 138 πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

Commentary 

 71

139 τῇδ’ εἴη …: Three possible interpretations have been mooted (Leaf; Richardson): (a) ‘So be it! He who brings ransom money may take the body’ (with stronger punctuation after τῇδ’ εἴη, cf. Allen’s text; on the concessive optative, see 226–227n.); (b) ‘Let him be on the spot, he who wishes to bring ransom money and take the body in return!’; (c) ‘He should come here who …’. On interpretation (a): although a modal (rather than local) function of τῇδε is unparalleled in Homeric epic, it is not out of the ordinary when viewed in terms of related adverbs: τῇ 1× modal (Od. 8.510), ᾗ 3× (Il. 7.286, 8.415, 9.310), πῃ 6× (including 71, 373); cf. Macleod; LfgrE s.v. τῇ 447.61  f., 448.17  ff. At the same time, in terms of content, a reluctant ‘so be it!’ appears particularly appropriate for Achilleus’ mental state, whereas at 669 (see ad loc.), after the return of Hektor’s corpse, he will decisively agree to a truce lasting several days with the phrase ἔσται τοι καὶ ταῦτα; cf. also ὧδ’ ἔστω at 7.34 and 8.523, which is metrically equivalent to the optatival τῇδ’ εἴη (Sommer 1977, 214  f.), also the future ἔσσεται οὕτως at Od. 16.31, 17.599 (LfgrE s.v. τῇδε). On εἰμί ‘be thus’, see also 56n.  – Interpretation (b), advocated by West in his text, follows the syntax of Il. 14.107 νῦν δ’ εἴη ὃς … ἐνίσποι, 17.640 εἴη δ’ ὅς τις ἑταῖρος ἀπαγγείλειε …, Od. 14.496  f. ἀλλά τις εἴη εἰπεῖν … Taken this way, Achilleus’ remark requires that the opposite party become active (indirect request); this fits with the fact that he will only prepare the body for return after Priam’s plea. On the combination local adv. + εἶναι in an imperatival use, cf. Od. 14.407  f. ἔνδον εἶεν and Latin huc ades (Haupt 1866, 251  f.; Macleod). – Interpretation (c), with εἴη as opt. of εἶμι ‘go’ (rather than of εἰμί ‘be’), derives from antiquity (schol. bT) but is unlikely and unparalleled in early epic (Sommer loc. cit. 200–214).   140 εἰ δή: ‘if indeed, if really (as you say)’; cf. 57n.; Pulleyn 2000, 262  f. (‘reluctant acceptance’). — πρόφρονι θυμῷ: ‘seriously, decidedly’, cf. 8.23 πρόφρων ἐθέλοιμι (Zeus), 8.39  f. θυμῷ | πρόφρονι μυθέομαι (Zeus), Od. 10.386 πρόφρασσα … κελεύεις (Circe). On the nuances of the meaning of πρόφρων, 1.77n. and LfgrE s.v. — Ὀλύμπιος: The sing. is always used of Zeus himself (so too at 175, etc.); differently only at 194: an attribute of ἄγγελος. — αὐτός: ‘no less than the highest god’ (AH [transl.]; cf. LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1634.55  ff.).   141–142 A variant of the speech capping formulaP ὣς οἳ μὲν τοιαῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρευον (8× Il., 16× Od.; on additional variants: Führer 1967, 42  f.). A summaryP of this type frequently introduces a change of scene to a parallel plotline (de Jong [1987] 2004, 206; Richardson 1990, 31  f.); the change of scene is here further prepared by the concluding ἐν νηῶν ἀγύρι (a birds’ eye perspective, see 1–2a  n.). πολλά conveys the notion that the dialogue continues (AH; Richardson; cf. Od. 11.81–83; differently Macleod: πολλά = ‘substantial, full of import’); this once more highlights the familarity between mother and son  – particularly in the present situation, which poses difficulties for

139 τῇδ’ εἴη: approximately ‘then so be it!’. — εἴη ὅς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἄγοιτο: mid. ἄγομαι in the sense ‘take with him’. 140 ἀνώγει: present.

72 

 Iliad 24

Achilleus, cf. 72b–73n., 122n. Spending time talking together is also intimated at 13.81  f., Od. 24.203  f., h.Cer. 434–437. 141 ἐν νηῶν ἀγύρι: cf. νεῶν ἐν ἀγῶνι 19.42n. and ἐν νεκύων ἀγύρει 16.661; etymologically related to ἀγείρω (on -υρ- for -r̥ - with Aeolic vocalism, see Schw. 1.351; Chantr. 1.25; cf. 233 πίσυρες ‘four’). On the ending -ῑ, 18n. (κόνι).   142 ≈ 3.155, Od. 13.165; 2nd VH = Od. 9.409; ≈ Il. 21.121, 21.427, 22.377, 23.535, Od. 4.189, 17.349 (sing.). — ἔπεα πτερόεντ(α): ‘winged words’, i.e. as unerring as an arrow: 1.201n.; LfgrE s.v. πτερόεις. Without subsequent direct speech elsewhere only at h.Ap. 111.  

143–187 Zeus sends Iris to Priam with instructions that he should go to Achilleus with precious gifts, under the protection of Hermes, in order to ransom Hektor’s body. Iris finds Priam in deepest mourning and relays Zeus’ message to him. 143–187 The type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (77–88n.) announced at 117–119 (cf. 112–119n.): (1) the messenger receives instructions: 143–159a, (2) departs: 159b, (3) arrives: 160a, (4) finds the person in question (description of situation): 160b–168, (5) approaches: 169  f., and (6) delivers the message: 171–187. On the particularities of the description of the situation (element 4), see 160– 168n., 160n.; on Iris, cf. 74n. 143 1st VH =  8.398, 11.185. — ὤτρυνε: not literally a verb of speaking, but nevertheless used occasionally as a verb to introduce a speech (3.249, 15.560, etc.; Fingerle 1939, 321). — εἰς Ἴλιον ἱρήν: a VE formula (3× Il., 2× Od.; with προτί rather than εἰς 5× Il.); see 27n.   144 1st VH =  8.399, 11.186, 15.158; 2nd VH ≈ h.Cer. 341. — βάσκ’ ἴθι: ‘set out and go!’, a formulaic order in the deployment of messengers, as at 2.8, etc. (see ad loc. with bibliography; on the doubling of the verb, see also Yates 2014; cf. βῆ δ’ ἰέναι above at 95n.). Here with asyndetically connected ἄγγειλον (145): ‘emphatic asyndeton of imperatives’ (Schw. 2.633 [transl.]). — ἕδος Οὐλύμποιο: = h.Cer. 341, ≈ h.Hom. 15.7; on expressions with a place name as an appositive gen. (e.g. Od. 1.2 Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον), see 2.538n.; Peppmüller; Schw. 2.121  f.   145 ≈ 117: The function of the two verses (introduction of the instructions issued to Priam) and the phrasing (Πριάμῳ μεγαλήτορι; VE with similar sounds) largely overlap. — Ἴλιον εἴσω: a VE formula (1.71n.); on the combination with ἄγγειλον, cf. Od. 4.775 μή πού τις ἀπαγγείλῃσι καὶ εἴσω, 3.427 εἴπατε δ’ εἴσω, etc.  

141 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — νηῶν: on the inflection, R 12.1. — ἀγύρι: ‘meeting place’ (dat.). 142 ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 143 ὤτρυνε … εἰς: here ‘send someone (with a message)’. — ἱρήν: = ἱεράν. 144 ἴθι (ϝ)ῖρι: on the prosody, R 5.4. 145 μεγαλήτορι (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 5.4. — Ἴλιον εἴσω: = εἰς Ἴλιον (cf. R 20).

Commentary 

 73

146–158 ≈ 175–187 (and 146  f. = 118  f. [with n.], 195  f.). — In contrast to the brief instructions issued to Thetis/Achilleus, which leave some matters open (113– 119/134–137; cf. 75–76n.), the narrator here has Zeus determine the procedure precisely: a ‘«table of contents» speech’ (on the term, de Jong on Od. 1.81–95). The Priam-plotline introduced in this way forms the action in the foreground up to 484; this creates an arc of suspense for the audience that reaches beyond the already ‘adventurous’ action: how will the announcement be realized? (similarly Od. 5.29–42 with its ‘«table of contents» speech’ for Books 5–12; see de Jong ad loc.; cf. 193–227n.). On the meaning of ‘suspense’ in Homeric epic in general: Latacz (1985) 1996, 104–106; Rengakos 1999; de Jong 2007, 28.

152–158 ≈ 181–187 have been censured for remaining ‘without any effect in the further course of the narrative’ (AH Anh., Einleitung p. 99 [transl.]; in detail, Peppmüller on 152  ff.): Priam does not mention them to the concerned Hekabe, but on the contrary explicitly accepts the risk of death (224–227); Zeus’ deployment of Hermes at 331–339 appears to be spontaneous; Priam fails to recognize Hermes and is instead frightened of him (358–360a), with the result that the god must reveal himself at 460  f. Among the counter-arguments are the following: (a) at least 152–158 are indispensable as a ‘«table of contents» speech’ (Leaf on 181–187); (b) the uncertainty of the affected characters must be significant, with or without a ‘guarantee of safety’, given the daring nature of the plan (Richardson on 175–187: ‘Priam’s experience of divine reassurance in no way detracts from his sense of risk and anxiety’; cf. Eide 1999, 124  f.); (c) the encounter with Hermes, who appears in the twilight in the guise of an Achaian, will at first cause fright in any case (Martinazzoli on 152; Beck 1964, 194  ff.); (d) at 373–377, Priam appears to entertain some suspicion and thus does not appear surprised (especially given his miraculous escort to Achilleus’ quarters, cf. 445  f.) when Hermes reveals himself fully (Richardson on 372–377; Beck loc. cit. 198  ff.); (e) characters may doubt or conceal prophecies (Macleod on 181–187; Beck loc. cit. 189; cf. 220–222 with n.), but Priam himself seems to be mentally supported by them (Beck loc. cit. 189  ff.); (f) Zeus’ ‘pity’, a motif of Book 24 (19n.), finds its logical expression in the ‘guarantee of safety’ and the deployment of Hermes: Beck loc. cit. 192  f.; Peppmüller on 332; Macleod on 181–187, end; Richardson on 329–332; cf. 332n. – Conclusion: athetesis of the verses is not justified.  

148 alone, let no other man: A rhetorical polar expressionP (on this in general, 3.59n.): in accord with the wishes of the narrator, Priam and Achilleus are to meet in person and in private (Priam’s herald [149n., 468–476n., end], and Achilleus’ companions are not counted here, because they play the part of servants [472–476n.]); ‘in addition, being alone creates pity’ (schol. bT; simi146–147 ≈ 118–119 (see ad loc.). 148 οἶον: sc. Πρίαμον (subject acc.); οἶος = ‘alone’. — Τρώων: partitive gen. with τις ἄλλος ἀνήρ. — ἀνήρ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

74 

 Iliad 24

larly Preisshofen 1977, 29  f.) and emotion more generally in the case of both the characters (esp. 352–360a) and the audience. Cf. 22.416  f. (Priam): ‘let me alone … go out … to the ships of the Achaians.’

μηδέ τις … ἴτω: main clause rather than an infinitive construction: AH; cf. 608–609n., end.

149 herald: Aside from in assemblies (see 577, 701; 2.50–52n.), heralds also serve as servants and companions in early epic, e.g. at 9.170 (embassy to Achilleus), Od. 13.64 (Phaiake); cf. also 2.183–184n. – Here, the herald (in this case Idaios, the chief Trojan herald, cf. 3.247–248n.) is mainly responsible for transport and the means of transport: 149b–150, 281  f., 324  f., 470  f.  

An adversative asyndeton (AH; K.-G. 2.342). — κήρυξ: On the accent, West 1998, XXI. On Mycenaean ka-ru-ke, Panagl 2007. — οἱ: On the consistent observation of original initial digamma here and at 152  f., see 53n. (on οἱ). — γεραίτερος: ‘older’ not so much in comparison with Priam (cf. Odysseus’ herald Eurybates at Od. 19.244: ὀλίγον προγενέστερος) but as a contrast to ‘young, inexperienced’ (AH; Mackie 2008, 191  f.; on -teros formations with a contrasting function, 1.32n.; Risch 91–95; specifically on γεραίτερος, Wittwer 1970, 62  f.). Hermes, appearing as a youth, accordingly calls the herald γέρων (368; Macleod). — ὅς κ’ ἰθύνοι: Final relative clauses with κε/κεν + opt. are common in Homer: 1.64n.; Chantr. 2.249.

150 1st VH = Od. 6.37 (and 6.260 VE). — the mules and the easily running wagon: A more detailed description of the wagon occurs at 266–274 (see ad loc.); on the mules, 277–278n.

ἄμαξαν: literally ‘body (of a wagon)’ (266), frequently as a pars pro toto for ‘wagon’ (≈ ἀπήνη 275); on the smooth breathing, West 1998, XVII. — ἐΰτροχον: a possessive compound ‘with good wheels’ rather than a verb-noun compound ‘running smoothly’, cf. Od. 6.57  f. ἀπήνην εὔκυκλον (LfgrE; Plath 1994, 157  f.). An epithet of ἅρμα/ἄμαξα, always between caesurae B 2 and C 2, in Book 24 also at 179, 189, 266, 711: Plath loc. cit. 158  ff. On Vedic parallels, Durante 1976, 94. — ἥ κε: to be preferred over ἠδέ of the main transmission (West 2001, 277): it is not the herald but the wagon that will bring Hektor home (697: ἡμίονοι δὲ νέκυν φέρον); see the analogous construction at Od. 6.37  f. ἥ κεν ἄγῃσι | ζῶστρά τε καὶ πέπλους.

151 2nd VH ≈ 6.414. — νεκρὸν  …, τὸν ἔκτανε: 21.235  f. is similar; interpreted as a compressed expression with a resultative object by schol. A and T: ‘ὃν κτείνας νεκρὸν ἐποίησεν’ (like 5.795 ἕλκος … τό μιν βάλε Πάνδαρος, also 5.361, 16.511, Od. 19.393 etc.), as an epexegetic relative clause by AH. — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (1.7n.).  

149 τίς (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἕποιτο: ‘shall accompany’ (concessive opt.). — ὅς κ’ ἰθύνοι: ‘who shall steer’ (final; likewise 150  f. ἥ κε … ἄγοι). — κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). 151 προτὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4; προτί = πρός (R 20.1). — τόν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5).

Commentary 

 75

152 2nd VH ≈ 171 (see ad loc.; cf. 10.383 θάρσει, μηδέ τί τοι θάνατος καταθύμιος ἔστω etc. [Peppmüller]). — τάρβος: ‘fear (for one’s life), despair’, like ταρβοσύνη at Od. 18.342 (LfgrE; Macleod; on ταρβέω, 1.331n.); differently Doederlein 2.156 and AH: ‘horror’ (concrete).

153 1st VH ≈ Od. 4.826. — The promise of a divine helper, as at 15.254–261, 21.288– 297, Od. 2.286–295, 4.825–829 (Richardson); gods in particular repeatedly serve as ‘escorts’ (frequently in the Odyssey, also in the case of Bellerophon at 6.171: see Kirk ad loc.; additional parallels, including non-Greek ones, in Burkert [1977] 1985, 410 n. 14 and West 1997, 366). Zeus will justify to Hermes why he has been chosen for this task (334  f.); Hermes will in turn reveal himself to Priam with words similar to these (460  f.). In the Odyssey, Hermes also guides the dead (Od. 24.10) as well as heroes who descend to the underworld alive (Herakles: Od. 11.625  f.); cf. 328n. On the function of Hermes as a guide in general, 2.103n.; Richardson on 333–348; Heubeck on Od. 24.1–4; Erbse 1986, 65  ff.; LfgrE. On Hermes’ title ‘Argeïphontes’ (Slayer of Argos), see 24n.  

τοῖον γάρ: refers to what precedes (‘such that you need not fear anything’; cf. 384) and is at the same time substantiated by the relative clause that follows in 154 (AH; similarly Od. 2.285–287; additional passages: Silk 1974, 240  f.). — ὀπάσσομεν: probably related etymologically to ἕπομαι (182): causative ‘make follow’ > ‘give to’, cf. 11.796 ≈ 16.38.

154–155 lead him …: The key term is used three times in these verses (Macleod with parallels): accompaniment by Hermes is factually and ‘dramaturgically’ necessary until Achilleus’ quarters are reached (cf. 336–338), but his presence during the conversation between Achilleus and Priam would be unwelcome; his departure at 468  f. is thus already prepared here (Macleod). 154 ὃς ἄξει: The conjecture ὅς ϝ’ ἄξει (ϝε = ἑ: G 81) suggested by analogy with 183 ὅς σ’ ἄξει removes the short at VB and adds the missing acc. object (cf. app. crit.; Leaf; West on Hes. Op. 526). For the period of the poet of the Iliad, acceptance of a so-called στίχος ἀκέφαλος (as at 22.236 ὃς ἔτλης; M 15) is the most likely solution: the digamma remaining after the elision of ϝε was no longer written out (53n. on οἱ). The acc. object is easily supplied mentally from the context (Peppmüller p. LXVf.; Richardson on 154–155;    Eide 1999, 125  f.).   152 μηδέ (τι): picks up from 148: ‘and … in no manner’; on the intensifying τι, cf. 129n. — τί (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — οἱ … φρεσί: σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος, here in the dat. (cf. R 19.1). 153 τοῖον … πομπόν: predicative appositive to Ἀργεϊφόντην. — γάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ὀπάσσομεν: sc. ‘we gods’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 154 ἄξει … ἄγων: here ≈ ‘guide’. — ἄξει, εἵως: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — εἵως κεν: = ἕως ἄν. — Ἀχιλῆϊ: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — πελάσσῃ: sc. αὐτόν, ‘bring, lead someone’. 155 αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (here progressive; R 24.2). — ἐπήν: = ἐπάν/ἐπειδάν (temporal conjunction). — ἀγάγησιν: on the inflection, R 16.3. — ἔσω + acc.: ≈ εἰς.

76 

 Iliad 24

156–158 The train of thought ‘not x, and not y, but rather z’ culminates and is refined in the final affirmative section introduced by allá ‘but’: reassurance is given to Priam (cf. schol. b on 156); similarly at 1.152–158, 6.417  f., etc. (Tzamali 1996, 283  f.; examples: LfgrE s.v. ἀλλά 514.8  ff.). 156 ≈ Od. 16.404 (other similar formulations in Peppmüller on 155  f.). — οὔτ(ε) … τ(ε): ‘not he himself … and also the others’; elsewhere in Homer only at 13.230 μήτ(ε) … τε; common in later periods (K.-G. 2.291  f.); cf. 368n.  

157–158 The respect Achilleus shows Priam as a ‘supplicant’ (hikétēs) rests only indirectly on the status guaranteed by Zeus in his role as Zeus Hikesios to supplicants in general (as it appears e.g. in the Odyssey: 7.164  f., 9.270  f., 13.213  f., etc.; cf. 503; Nilsson [1940] 1967, 419–421; Erbse 1986, 253); instead, it rests primarily on Zeus’ concrete instructions, as well as on Achilleus’ respect for Priam (139  f., 568–570; see Segal 1971, 65; Schmitt 1990, 78  f. with n. 244; Taplin 1992, 273  f.; Yamagata 1994, 43–45; cf. 560–562n.). The existence of a guaranteed status for supplicants in the Iliad is occasionally denied altogether (Dihle 1970, 164  f.; Pedrick 1982, 133, 135, 140; Dreher 2006, 51), but the pregnant use of the term hikétēs at 157  f. (by Zeus himself) and 569  f. (by Achilleus in connection with Zeus’ orders) in particular imply a certain divine (or at the least moral) protection (Yamagata loc. cit.), cf. 9.511  f.: disregarding the Litaí ‘Pleas’ results in punishment by Zeus. – In early epic, several characters occupy the role of the hikétēs, including Chryses before the Atreidai (1.12  ff.; see 501b–502n.), Thetis before Zeus (1.500  ff. [see ad loc. for the bibliography]), and Odysseus before Nausikaa (Od. 6.141  ff.) and Arete (7.139  ff.); in war, however, supplicants do not enjoy the same level of protection (6.37–65n. with examples; Stoevesandt 2004, 153). 157 Zeus implicitly defends Achilleus against Apollo’s criticism (40  f.): Macleod.

Negated epithets (with alpha privative), because of their ethical and moral content, are largely restricted to character languageP (Griffin 1986, 44  f.; cf. Fehling 1969, 236  f.). A set of three negated epithets occurs in the Iliad only at 9.63 (ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιος) and here (post-Homeric examples in the bibliography listed in 2.447n.; two negated epithets: 3.40n.; Keaney 1981 [collection of examples]; on clusters of negated words in general, see 1.99n.). – Series of three attributes in the same verse produce emphasis, e.g. 3.182, 5.31, 9.63 (where in addition in accord with the law of increasing parts: 60n.). — ἄφρων: on the connotations, 2.258n. (foolish, careless, thoughtless, arrogant); cf. Od. 8.209  f. ἄφρων … | ὅς τις ξεινοδόκῳ ἔριδα προφέρηται. — ἄσκοπος: ‘he who does not look around, thoughtless’ (cf. 24n. ἐΰσκοπος). — ἀλιτήμων: probably related to the middle ἀλιτέσθαι ‘to violate, insult, transgress against’ (e.g. 570) in the

156 κτενέει: uncontracted fut. (R 6). — ἀπὸ … ἐρύξει: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

Commentary 

 77

sense ‘disregarding divine commandments to the detriment of his fellow human beings and himself’ (19.265n.; Tichy 1977, 168; Blanc 2003, 20–22; cf. DELG and Beekes s.v. ἀλείτης). Differently Keaney 1981: = ἀ-λιτάνευτος ‘inexorable’ (cf. schol. b). In early epic only here and at 186 (the same is true of ἄσκοπος). 158 ἐνδυκέως: A word from character languageP (de Jong on Od. 15.305); denotes solicitous care (frequently with φιλεῖν, τρέφειν, κομίζειν; also with verbs of escorting: 438, Od. 10.65, 14.337), here ≈ ‘mindfully, responsibly’ (LfgrE; cf. Peppmüller). Schol. bT also offers the alternative meaning ‘persistent, continual’ (in this sense also Nagy 1996, 43  ff.), but this sense is likely post-Homeric: Frisk; Leumann 1950, 311  f.; cf. Rengakos 1994, 80  f. — ἱκέτεω:  ͜ (Ionic) quantitative metathesis (G 40; Chantr. 1.70; Hoekstra 1965, 36). — πεφιδήσεται: Reduplicated futures may derive from the aorist or the perfect stems, in this case the aorist πεφιδέσθαι, but at 742 λελείψεται ‘will remain (behind) forever’ the perfect λέλειπται (Schw. 1.783  f., 2.289; Chantr. 1.447  f.; Risch 350  f.).  

159 =  77 (see ad loc.); the repetition may highlight the thematic parallels of the plotlines involving Achilleus and Priam, cf. 112–119n. (Kurz 1966, 105; Coventry 1987, 179). 160–168 The change of scene once more puts the Trojan royal family in the foreground (previously at 22.405–23.1: public mourning; cf. Hellwig 1964, 74). Iris finds them still deep in mourning (cf. 163–165 with 22.414): a description of the situation with enumeration of the characters present (element 4 of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’: 143–188n.; Richardson 1990, 216 n. 26; on listing the mourners, cf. 36–37a  n.). – The manner of mourning described here is heightened to an extreme in comparison with that of Thetis (83  ff.) and Achilleus (120  ff.) (Peppmüller; Richardson); on the mourning gestures, see 4n., 163n., 164n.   160 ἐς Πριάμοιο: ἐς/ἐν + gen. can usually be explained as an ellipsis of a word for ‘house’, likewise at 309, 482, 593 (La Roche 1893, 196; Schw. 2.120; Chantr. 2.104  f.; cf. 6.47n.). — ἐνοπήν τε γόον τε: The acc. obj. of κιχάνω is normally a character, particularly in descriptions of situations in the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (Arend 1933, 56); here, however, ‘the use of abstract nouns having collective connotations reinforces the expressive character of the phrase’ (Ruijgh/van Krimpen 1969, 128 [transl.]); on the secondary focalizationP of descriptions of situations (from the point of view of the character arriving), 2.169–171n.  – ἐνοπή means ‘clamor’ (3.2n.), γόος the ritual mourning after a death, especially mourning by relatives (723, etc. [with n.]; likewise γοάω 664) and the collective wailing (760); also occasionally without a ritual context as an action

158 ἱκέτεω:  ͜ on the inflection, R 11.1; on the synizesis, R 7. — πεφιδήσεται: fut. of φείδομαι ‘let someone live, spare someone’. 160 ἐς Πριάμοιο: ‘to/in Priam’s ⟨palace⟩’; ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1). — κίχεν: ‘found, came across’ (aor. of κιχάνω).

78 

 Iliad 24

noun with κλαίειν: ‘the weeping, mourning’ (507, 524; Porzig 1942, 52, 86); see LfgrE and in detail Derderian 2001, 31–52. On the synonym doubling, cf. 22.447 (κωκυτοῦ … καὶ οἰμωγῆς, after the death of Hektor) and in general 48n.

161 VE =  6.247; ≈ Od. 4.74. — sons: According to 6.243b–250, the 50 sons and 12 daughters of Priam live together with their spouses in the royal palace; additional information on the sons of Priam (genealogy, role in the Iliad): 6.244–246n.; 167–168n., 495–498n. — sitting around: 83–86n. — inside the courtyard: In accord with the Homeric conception, the royal estate is fronted by a fenced courtyard (aulḗ) used in part for agricultural purposes (cf. 9.475  f., 24.640, Od. 17.296–299) in the same way that any Homeric dwelling included a courtyard (cf. 452  f.): LfgrE s.v. αὐλή 1550.50  ff.; Knox 1973, 9–11; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 366. A detailed description of Priam’s palace: 6.242–250 (with nn.); on the location of the palace in the highest part of Troy (‘Pergamos’), cf. 700n., 6.512n.  

παῖδες μὲν …: asyndetically connected with 160b: a closer specification of ἐνοπήν τε γόον τε (cf. 710n.).

162 tears: On the different expressions of grief, see 4n.; on the present phrasing, cf. esp. Od. 17.103, 18.173, 19.596.  

ὃ δ’ ἐν μέσσοισι: an emphatic nominal clause: ‘but he (was, sat) in the middle, the old man, …’; on ἐν μέσσοισι, 84n. — γεραιός: a metrical variant for γέρων (164n.), likewise frequently used in lieu of a personal name and positioned at VE (1.35n.); here in apposition to the demonstrative ὅ (cf. e.g. 126 ἣ δὲ … πότνια μήτηρ).

163 mantle: Together with the chiton (‘tunic, shirt’), the mantle (Greek chlaína) is a standard part of male dress (van Wees 2005, 1–3); additional properties: with one or two (folded) layers (on this, see 230–231n. and 3.126n.), also used as a woolen blanket for sleeping (646); in general, see Marinatos 1967, 9  f.; Laser 1968, 11  f. – On the depiction of veiled mourning in ancient literature and art, Peppmüller and Richardson; Huber 2001, 120, 149, 207  f.; cf. 93n. and Od. 8.85.

ἐντυπάς: A Homeric hapaxP, obscure already in antiquity, usually understood ‘so tightly as to leave an imprint (τύπος)’ (schol. D; LfgrE): only a silhouette of Priam, who has folded the mantle tightly around himself, is visible. Different interpretations: ‘pressed into the ground, fallen down, cowering’ (LfgrE; Doederlein 3.362; Hooker [1979] 1996, 433  f.). – On the (similarly obscure) post-Homeric use of the term, Rengakos 1994, 81; Castellaneta 2012. — ἀμφὶ δὲ πολλή: VE ἀμφὶ δὲ  –× 32× Il., 29× Od., 11× Hes., 6× h.Hom. (Clark 1997, 132  f.); cf. 4n., end (οὐδέ μιν –×).

161 πατέρ’ ἀμφί: = ἀμφὶ πατέρα (postpositive: R 20.2). 162 μέσσοισι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 79

164 Covering one’s head with dirt, dust or ashes and rolling around on the ground (165; cf. 18.23–27, 22.414, 24.640, Od. 24.316  f.) are among the most emphatic gestures of mourning  – signs of (self-)humiliation  – with numerous parallels in Near Eastern culture (Kutsch [1965] 1986; Parker 1983, 41, 68; Lateiner 1995, 33  f.; West 1997, 340; Derderian 2001, 28  f., with further bibliography in n. 58; Richardson on 22.414; Macleod). — the aged man: ‘the old man’, Greek (ho) gérōn, frequently serves in both narrator textP and character languageP as a periphrastic denominationP for Priam (and other characters, especially Nestor, Phoinix, and Laërtes in the Odyssey; a list in Dee 2000, 510  f.), and occasionally has a thematic function (e.g. at 22.37/75/77, cf. below, 411n., 486–489n.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 285 n. 6). It is also used as an epithet in conjunction with an explicit mention of the name (22.25, 24.217, 24.777, etc.; all examples: LfgrE s.v. Priamos 1544.41  ff.).  

τοῖο γέροντος: VE = 9.469, 11.620, 24.577, Od. 4.410, 24.387; cf. τοῖο ἄνακτος Il. 11.322, etc., τοῖο θεοῖο Od. 21.258.  – ὁ is here probably merely a definite article: AH on Od. 3.388; Chantr. 2.164; ­Schmidt 2004, 18–20; Basset 2006, 111, 115  f.; G 99 (differently e.g. Faesi: deictic, ‘expresses sympathetic interest’ [transl.]).

165 2nd VH ≈ Od. 5.482; VE = Od. 8.148 (cf. Il. 23.99). — ἑῇσιν: On the v.l. φίλῃσι, cf. 23.99, Od. 5.482, Hes. Th. 283, h.Cer. 41. On the alternation ἑός/φίλος, see especially Il. 3.244 with n.; Leaf vol. 1, p. 564; Erbse 1960, 327  f.  

166 The daughters and daughters-in-law mainly mourn for Hektor and the other slain sons of Priam, i.e. their brothers or husbands, but also for all other fallen individuals (namely the husbands of Priam’s daughters, i.e. Trojans who are not sons of Priam); cf. Richardson.  – On the status of widows in Homeric epic, cf. 725n. — up and down the house: apparently in contrast to the men in the courtyard (161; Martinazzoli), whereas at the return of Hektor’s corpse, the women leave the house just like the men (707  ff.). Cf. 717n. (mourning generally takes place in the home).  

ἰδὲ νυοί: νυός ‘daughter-in-law’ < *snuso- (IE heritage word: Latin nurus, obsolete German Schnur). The original initial s- is apparently still prosodically effective here, see G 16 and LfgrE (with bibliography), but without effect at 3.49, 22.65, Od. 3.451. – On ἰδέ ‘and’, 2.511n.

164 ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). — κεφαλῇ … αὐχένι: locative dat. after ἀμφί (‘around his head … neck’). — τοῖο: = τοῦ. 165 τήν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5); κόπρος is fem. — καταμήσατο: ‘heaped on himself’ (from κατ-αμάομαι). — ἑῇσιν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4); on the inflection, R 11.1. 166 ἀνά: ‘throughout’. — ἰδέ: ‘and’.

80 

 Iliad 24

167–168 The motif ‘many (sons/brothers/husbands) have fallen’ produces a tragic moment in the Iliad (Griffin 1976, passim; 1980, 123  ff.; Crotty 1994, 35  f.); it occurs frequently in connection with Priam, the father robbed of his sons par excellence: 22.44  f., 22.423  ff., 24.204  f., 24.255  ff., 24.479, 24.493  ff.  – The Iliad reports the death of eleven of Priam’s sons: Polydoros (20.407  ff.), Lykaon (21.34  ff.) and Hektor (22.361) die at the hands of Achilleus; Antiphos, Chromios, Demokoon, Doryklos, Echemmon, Gorgythion, Isos and Kebriones are killed by other Achaians (see CH 8 n. 28 and character index; passages in Macleod on 498); in the Iliad, the deaths of Mestor and Troïlos are assumed to have already taken place (257n.). 167 1st VH ≈ 9. — as they remembered: 4n.  

πολέες τε καὶ ἐσθλοί: an inflectible expression (6.452n.); in the present context, cf. esp. 22.44. – ἐσθλός means ‘capable, splendid’ (19.122n. with bibliography).

168 = 13.763; 1st VH = 8.359; cf. also 17.616, 24.638. — at the hands …: ‘at the hands of someone’ is a formulaic combination for indicating the person who caused a violent death, cf. 638. — Argives: a term for the ‘Greeks’ beside ‘Achaians’ and ‘Danaäns’ (1.2n.; Latacz [2001] 2004, 133  f., 135  f.).  

χερσὶν ὕπ(ο): On ὑπό + dat. with the function of an instrumental (‘under the effect of’), see Schw. 2.526; Chantr. 2.140; Aliffi 2002. VB χερσὶν ὕπ(ο)/ὕφ’ in total 9× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc.; list of the attested formulations in Aliffi loc. cit. 422  f. (most commonly after χερσὶν ὕπο: χέρσ’ ὕπο [VB], ὑπὸ χερσί(ν) [within the verse, usually after caesura A 4 or C 1], cf. v. 638). — ψυχάς ὀλέσαντες: The exact sense of ψυχή in expressions like the present one is disputed, perhaps – as is also the case with θυμός – simply = ‘life’, cf. 11.334 θυμοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς κεκαδών (1.3n.; Warden 1971; differentiation in Garland 1981 [with bibliography]; Jahn 1987, 27–38; Sullivan 1995, 77–90; differently Clarke 1999, 130–136: ‘breath’). – Phrases with ψυχή in the context of ‘dying’ vary widely in Homer and are often unique (list in Jahn loc. cit. 33  f.); in contrast, phrases with θυμός are markedly more formulaic (including the inflectible VE formula θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι: 8× Il., 1× Od.; ὤλεσε θυμόν 3× Il. [638n.]). The same applies to expressions for killing: 754 ἐξέλετο ψυχήν, 22.257 ψυχὴν ἀφέλωμαι, Od. 22.444 ψυχὰς ἐξαφέλησθε (1× each), but ἐξείλετο θυμόν (2× Il., 2× Od.), ἐκ θυμὸν ἑλέσθαι (inflectible, 6× Il., 2× Od.).  

169–170 Elements 5 and 6 of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (143–188n.): the messenger approaches and delivers the message.  – Iris here appears to

167 μιμνησκόμεναι, οἵ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2); on the uncontracted form, R 6. 168 χερσὶν ὕπ(ο): = ὑπὸ χερσίν (R 20.2); to be taken with ὀλέσαντες. — κέατο: = ἔκειντο (impf.; R 16.2). 169 παρὰ Πρίαμον … ἠδὲ προσηύδα: on the variable prosody of the initial mute + liquid, M 4.5. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4).

Commentary 

 81

Priam as she did to Hektor at 11.197–199 (and Athene to Achilleus at 1.197  f. [see ad loc.]), namely with no change of form and visible and audible to him alone, cf. 223 and in general Od. 16.161 (AH; Hainsworth on Il. 11.199; Janko on 15.247–251; Kullmann 1956, 101  f.; Pucci [1985] 1998, 71–76 with n. 4; Bierl 2004b, 44–46; cf. the discussion in Turkeltaub 2007, 59 n. 23); in contrast, with a change of form at 2.786  ff., 3.121  ff. (with n.; cf. below 347–348n.). — messenger of Zeus: cf. 133.

στῆ δὲ παρὰ …: On the sentence structure, cf. 7.46 ≈ 8.280, 12.353 ≈ 17.707 (all with a part.: ἰών, κιών, θέων), Od. 17.414 (with no part., as here); in these cases, παρά is construed with the acc. or dat. (Chantr. 2.121  f.).

170 2nd VH ≈ 3.34 (with n.), 14.506, Od. 18.88. — in a small voice: Iris lowers her voice in order to behave sensitively and in a restrained manner toward the grieving Priam (Peppmüller on 159  ff.; AH; Lynn-George 1996, 3; cf. 88n.; differently van Leeuwen and Macleod: Iris speaks quietly in order not to be overheard by the other characters present, but see 169–170n.). On the notion that gods generally have loud voices (e.g. 19.250), see Krapp 1964, 136  ff.; in contrast, soft noises and the like are quite rare in early epic, cf. also 3.155 (with n.), Od. 14.492  f., h.Merc. 145: Krapp loc. cit. 222  f.; Kaimio 1977, 37  f. — shivers: Fear, or astonishment (e.g. 1.199), is a common reaction to divine epiphanies (Griffin 1980, 151–156; Richardson on h.Cer. 188–190 and 190 [with examples]); in the case of Priam, the reaction is amplified by the psychological stress he is already under: schol. bT; Deichgräber 1972, 50.  

φθεγξαμένη: The action of the aor. part. can coincide temporally with that of the predicate (here προσηύδα): ‘speaking quietly, she addressed him; she addressed him in a soft voice’; similarly e.g. 3.139, 6.72, 6.337  f. Bibliography: Schw. 2.300  f.; Chantr. 2.187–189; Rijksbaron [1984] 2002, 125; Macleod. — ἔλλαβε: On the connection of abstract nouns with verbs of grasping, see 5n.; of ‘shivering’ also at 3.34, 6.137, 19.14, etc.

171 2nd VH ≈ 152, 181, 563 (cf. also Od. 4.825 ≈ h.Ven. 193); VE ≈ Il. 21.288. — On the divine encouragement ‘do not be afraid!’ (here in the form of a rhetorical polar expressionP: ‘be bold and do not be afraid!’), cf., in addition to the iter­ ata, 15.254, Od. 7.50  f., 13.362, h.Hom. 7.55 (Griffin 1980, 153  f.; Near Eastern parallels in Rollinger 1996, 185–190, and West 1997, 185).  

Δαρδανίδη Πρίαμε: an inflectible expression in the verse middle and at VB (7× Il.); at 354 Δαρδανίδη alone. Priam is a great-great-great-grandson of Dardanos (CH 8; on the genealogy, cf. 349n.). — τάρβει: 152n.

170 τυτθόν: ‘little’ > ‘quiet’. — τὸν … γυῖα: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — ἔλλαβε: on the -λλ-, R 9.1. 171 μηδέ τι: ‘and … in no way’ (152n.).

82 

 Iliad 24

172 κακὸν ὀσσομένη: probably not concretely of an ‘evil, threatening look’ (thus Rakoczy 1996, 53) but of the ‘mental eye’, as at 1.105 (see ad loc.): ‘foreshadowing evil, ominous’ (AH; Doederlein 2.257) or possibly – in antithesis to 173 ἀγαθὰ φρονέουσα – ‘with an evil message in mind’ (LfgrE s.v. ὄσσομαι 835.18  f. [transl.] following Plamböck 1959, 101). — τόδ’ ἱκάνω: τόδε is either an acc. of destination (‘I have come here’: Peppmüller; La Roche 1861, 89  f.; Janko on 14.298–299) or acc. of content (‘internal acc.’, i.e. ≈ ταύτην τὴν ἄφιξιν ἱκάνω: AH; Bekker 1872, 38  f.; Schw. 2.68 n. 1, 2.77; Macleod: ‘I have come 〈on〉 this 〈errand〉’).   173a ἀγαθὰ φρονέουσα: ‘meaning well’ (likewise at Od. 1.43; differently Il. 6.162, see 6.161–162n.): Böhme 1929, 48  f.; cf. 1.73n.

173b–174 = 2.26b–27 (and 175a ≈ 2.28a) – perhaps in reference to the events in Book 2: 172  f. would make it ‘very clear that Iris’ words to Priam refer, with a positive contrast, to the menacing formulations of the dream [that came to Agamemnon]’ (Bergold 1977, 14 n. 1 [transl.]; Macleod, Introd. 33). On additional links between Books 2 and 24, see 133n. 174 who far away cares much for you and is pitiful: 19n., 2.27n.; on the ‘spectator’ function of the gods, cf. 23n.   175–187 ≈ 146–158. Necessary modifications: 175 syntax, 178/181/182/183 pronouns, 182 syntax (on ὀπάζω/ἕπομαι, see 153n., end). On the effect of speech repetitions, 118– 119n.   175 Ἕκτορα δῖον: On the noun-epithet formula, 22n.

188–237a Priam immediately has his chariot made ready, and in the treasure-room selects the gifts for Achilleus. Hekabe attempts to dissuade her husband from his dangerous plan, but Priam is determined to go. 188–190 The immediate execution of an order (with no response to the messenger) is the rule in Homeric epic (1.345n.); this applies to epiphany scenes in particular (2.182–183n.). – The departure of the god is mentioned explicitly (so also for Hermes at 468, 694); cf. 1.221–222n. 188 = 8.425, 11.210, 18.202; ≈ 5.133, Od. 1.139, 6.41 (γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη); 1st VH in total = 8× Il., 4× Od.; also ≈ Il. 15.405 (τὸν …), 21.298 (τὼ …). — On the verse structure (ἣ δὲ … μήτηρ), 126n.; on the VE formula, 87n.  

172 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 174 σε(ο): = σου (R 14.1); gen. dependent on κήδεται (ἠδ’ ἐλεαίρει). — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6). — μέγα: adverbial, ‘very’. 175–187 ≈ 146–158 (see ad loc.). 188 ὠκέα (ϝ)ῖρις: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 83

189–328 Type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (19.392–424n. with bibliography; on the present passage also Edwards 1975, 54–61); basic form: (1) harnessing the horses (occasionally divided, as here, into instructions at 189  ff. and execution at 281  f.; see below), (2) mounting the chariot (322), (3) grasping the reins, (4) spurring on the horses (326), (5) departure or journey, movement of the horses (323  ff.). – Here the scene is strongly retardedP (Krischer 1971, 143  f.; Reichel 1990, 130): in element 1, the selection of gifts from the treasure-room (191– 237a) has been added as an important component of the undertaking (cf. inter alia Od. 6.74–80: Nausikaa loads clothes and provisions); the preparation of the wagon is meanwhile suspended, reactivated by Priam’s speech of rebuke 252–264 (repeated orders), and subsequently described in extenso (266–274 with n.); cf. ‘continuity of time’ principleP. – Between elements 1 and 2, again in proportion to the significance and magnitude of the undertaking, a detailed scene of libations and omens has been inserted, as is frequently the case prior to a departure or a setting out for battle, similarly 16.220–254, Od. 15.147–181 (Bowra 1952, 185  f.; Stockinger 1959, 112  f.; Gunn 1970, 195  f.; Edwards loc. cit.; Reucher 1983, 432; Reece 1993, 37  ff.). Book 24 is accordingly sometimes termed ‘Priam’s aristeia’ (cf. the various interpretations in Kummer 1961, 34, 43; Minchin 1986, 16  f.; Danek 1988, 210 with n. 75). – On elements 2 to 5, see 322–328n. 189–280 ‘The poet binds the following actions closely together by means of a ring-form structure’ (Edwards 1987, 306): (a) Priam’s initial orders at 189  f. (in indirect speech), (b) the gifts in the treasure-room at 191  f., (c) Priam speaks with Hekabe at 193–199, (d) Hekabe’s reply at 200–216, (c’) Priam speaks with Hekabe at 217–227, (b’) the gifts in the treasure-room at 228–237a, (a’) Priam’s repeated orders (in direct speech) and preparation of the wagon at 237b–280. 189 2nd VH = 266, Od. 6.72. — his sons: At 3.259  f., it is Priam’s helpers (without closer specification) who prepare the wagon (probably not merely because the sons are on the battlefield at the time: thus LfgrE s.v. ἑταῖρος 754.45  ff.), at 5.722  ff. it is Hebe (for Hera; CG 38), at Od. 6.69/71 ‘servants’ (for Nausikaa). The instruction of the sons is appropriate in the context of the ‘family matter’ here, while also allowing a contrasting characterization of Priam and his sons, and Hektor and his brothers (253–264n., 260–262n.). — mule wagon: 266–274n.  

ἡμιονείην: A derivation from an animal name in accord with the type of material adjectives in -εος/-ειος, like αἴγεος/αἴγειος, βόεος/βόειος, etc. (­Schmid 1950, 23–28; Risch 132).

189 ὅ γ(ε): Priam.

84 

 Iliad 24

190 2nd VH ≈ 267. — ὁπλίσαι: On the meaning, 19.172a  n. (to make ready a wagon or ship, prepare for a journey; prepare a meal; arm for battle). — πείρινθα: a superstructure or box, strapped onto the wagon for transport of goods so that items are kept from falling off; its exact nature is uncertain (Plath 1994, 312–316; LfgrE). Pre-Greek, as with other words denoting items of material culture in -νθ- (Risch 174; Hoekstra on Od. 15.131; LfgrE).  

191–237a Type-sceneP ‘visit to the treasury’ (de Jong on Od. 21.5–62 and p. 598), in the Iliad also at 6.288–295 (Hekabe). The elements realized are: (1) entering the chamber: 191, (2/3) description of the room and its contents: 191  f., (4) reference to the key/caretaker, (5) selection of items: 228  ff., (6) history and (7) particular value of one of the items: 234–235a and 235b–237, (8) return (cf. 236–237a  n.). The present scene is expanded by retardation via the dialogue between Priam and Hekabe (193–227). 191 = Od. 15.99; ≈ Il. 6.288; 2nd VH ≈ 3.382. — he … went into the storeroom: Storerooms – here referring to a type of ‘treasure-room’ – were located beneath the living quarters (basement): Wace 1951, 203, 207; 1962, 490. Mentioned as the contents of such storerooms are the following: metals, containers, textiles, oil/wine (see esp. 228  ff., Od. 2.337  ff.).  

κατεβήσετο: a thematic s-aorist; on the (disputed) development of the form, see 3.262n., end. — κηώεντα: probably ‘fragrant’ (3.382n.), in the context of textile storage (229–231) perhaps of a substance for protection from moths: 6.288n. – The sequence of three attributes with enjambmentP (191  f.) serves to fill the verse, while at the same time lending emphasis (2.42–43n.; collection of examples in Blom 1936, 36  f.; bibliography on asyndetic clusters of epithets in general: 125n.); cf. 157n.

192 cedar: Greek kédros usually  – as probably here  – denotes the juniper (Juniperus), which belongs to the genus of cypresses and is represented in the Mediterranean by several common species, but occasionally also the ‘cedar’ that goes by the same name still today (BNP s.vv. Cedrus and Juniper; Meiggs 1982, 410–416; Zohary 1982, 104–107). Both have durable, hard, reddish, fragrant wood (among the junipers, this particularly applies to the Greek juniper; cf. Meiggs loc. cit. 54  f.; Al-Refai et al. 2002). Juniper wood was used in the construction of the royal tomb at Gordion, cedar wood for Ishtar’s house in the epic of Gilgamesh (tablet 6.13) and for Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:15–18; Meiggs loc. cit. 292  f., 458–460; Zohary loc. cit.).  

190 ἠνώγει: plpf. of the perf. with pres. sense ἄνωγα ‘tell, order’ (with acc.-inf. construction). 191 κατεβήσετο: ≈ κατέβη (aor.). 192 ὑψόροφον: ‘high-roofed’. — κεχόνδει: 3rd pers. sing. plpf. of χανδάνω ‘contain, hold’ (with perf. with pres. sense).

Commentary 

 85

κέδρινον: On material adjectives in -ινος, see Risch 100; cf. 269 πύξινος. — ὑψόροφον, ὅς: on the prosody, 84n.; on ὑψόροφος ‘high-roofed’, 3.423n. (always of the buildings of wealthy, noble individuals). — γλήνεα: related etymologically to γελάω ‘laugh’, i.e. ‘(gleaming) treasures, precious objects’ (Richardson; cf. Mader 1970, 182  ff.: ‘objects that produce radiance and pride’). — κεχόνδει: the original form probably thus (here transmitted only in a papyrus) rather than the more common -χαν-, cf. λέλογχα, πέπονθα: Wackernagel (1891) 1953, 825; Chantr. 1.427; Frisk s.v. χανδάνω.

193–227 The conversation between Priam and Hekabe, like e.g. 1.201–219 (Achilleus/Athene), shows the pattern A–B–A’ (Blom 1936, 41) and has a retardantP effect (cf. 189–328n.). – In the discussion, possible reactions to Zeus’ instructions and their consequences are voiced (with negative aspects offered mostly by Hekabe). Priam’s reaction naturally defines the further action: not only does he accept Zeus’ orders, but he defends them against obstacles. The insecurity on the part of the characters involved and their concern in view of the danger of the undertaking nonetheless become evident in a psychologically plausible manner; in this way, the narrator maintains suspense in his audience regarding the course and outcome of the undertaking. The same suspense is conveyed via the libation with a plea for a bird omen (283  ff.), as well as via the ‘funeral procession’ for the departing Priam (327  f.); see Macleod on 181–187 and Richardson on 175–187; Taplin 1992, 264  f. (on ‘suspense’, cf. 146–158n.). 193–199 Priam appears determined to visit Achilleus (198n., 217–227n. [esp. 218  f., 224b–227]): he is already in the midst of his preparations – the conversation takes place in the treasure-room – and states his intentions only briefly (too briefly for Hekabe: 200–216n.); his question regarding Hekabe’s opinion likely represents simply a request for agreement and support (schol. bT on 194–199; Macleod on 218–224; Deichgräber 1972, 52). 193 A unique speech introduction formulaP (Richardson, although the 2nd VH follows a common pattern; see below on φώνησέν τε); on the ‘summoning’, cf. esp. 3.161 (VE: Ἑλένην ἐκαλέσσατο φωνῇ), Od. 19.15 (VB: ἐκ δὲ καλεσσάμενος), 22.436 (VB: εἰς ἓ καλεσσάμενος); tmesis of ἐς is rare in Homeric epic (Haug 2012, 99  f.). — ἄλοχον: picked up by γυνή at 200: the conversation is to be understood as one between spouses (cf. de Jong [1987]  2004, 199) and thus as spatially separate from the rest of the household. — Ἑκάβην: at 6.293, 16.718 and here, initial digamma appears to affect the prosody (6.293n.; Janko on 16.716–720); differently 22.430, 24.283, 24.747. — φώνησέν τε: a VE formula: 17× Il., 17× Od., 2× h.Hom., including 30× (as here) with a verb preceding, usually middle (-ατο/-ετο); frequently ‘a repetition merely for filling the verse’, e.g. 353 φάτο φώνησέν τε (Führer 1967, 16 [transl.]).  

193 ἐς … ἐκαλέσσατο: ‘call (someone) in’ (cf. 191 ἐς θάλαμον); on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἄλοχον (ϝ) εκάβην: on the prosody, R 4.5.

86 

 Iliad 24

194 2nd VH ≈ 561; VE: 4× Il., 3× Od. — δαιμονίη: The adjective originally meant ‘be under the influence of a δαίμων’; the nuance here, as often (cf. 1.561n.), is uncertain, but at any rate no reaction implying that the other character is behaving in an incomprehensible behavior is recognizable, as at 2.190 (see ad loc.; LfgrE; differently Leaf and Verdenius 1959, 147: anticipation of Hekabe’s violent reaction). It is likely to be understood as an intimate address of appeal (Macleod following Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 12  ff.; LfgrE; older interpretations in Brunius-Nilsson loc. cit. 13); used between spouses also at 6.407/486 (Hektor and Andromache), Od. 23.166/174/264 (Odysseus and Penelope).  – The theory according to which δαιμονίη faded to a ‘discourse particle’ – with the sense ‘good god!, god almighty!’, Latin mehercule, English ‘oh my God!’ (Brown 2014)  – cannot be proven in the absence of clear parallels. — Ὀλύμπιος: 140n.; together with Διόθεν, it defines the origin and authority of the messenger. — ἄγγελος ἦλθεν: an inflectible phrase (ἄ. ἦλθε(ν), ἐλθών, ἔλθω), 9× in early epic at VE, 3× in verse middle (similarly 23.199 μετάγγελος ἦλθ’), 2× at VB. Here with infinitive of purpose, as at 11.715 = 18.167; cf. 118n. (on λύσασθαι).  

195–196 = 118  f. (see ad loc.), 146  f.; ≈ 175  f. (and cf. 194 with 145 and 173b).   197 1st VH: 6× Il., 13× Od. (cf. 380n.); 2nd VH ≈ Od. 9.11 (μοι κάλλιστον ἐνὶ φρεσὶν εἴδεται εἶναι). — τί τοι …: ‘what do you personally think of it?’; on the colloquial style, Macleod and Richardson; on φρεσίν, Jahn 1987, 238  f. (‘emphasis on a personal, independent component in the course of mental activities’ [transl.]).  

198 ≈ 22.346. — me: The agreement between divine instructions and human wishes is termed double motivationP, but divine intervention is generally the trigger at the beginning of an action (1.55n., 2.169–171n.), even if here it only serves as further reinforcement: Priam stated his intentions of his own accord already at 22.412–429 (cf. Reinhardt 1961, 467  f.; Macleod, Introd. 21  f.). On the role of the thymós (here something like ‘courage’) as an independent human seat of authority which can at the same time be open to divine influence, see Pelliccia 1995, 250–268 (e.g. 9.702  f., 13.68–75).

αἰνῶς: normally with verbs of fearing (e.g. 1.555, 19.23, 24.358), used metaphorically with other verbs of mental agitation: ‘much’ (like Engl. ‘terribly, awfully’); cf. ἐκπάγλως 2.357n. — μένος καὶ θυμός: an inflectible formula in connection with verbs of exhortation and ordering (nom.: 3× Il.; acc.: 10× Il., 1× Od., 1× h.Cer.; Jahn 1987, 40  f.), always after caesura B 2. On the metrical variant κραδίη καὶ θυμός, see 2.171n. (where also on the synonym doubling); for detailed discussion of the terms μένος and θυμός, 6.72n. — θυμὸς ἄνωγεν: an inflectible VE formula (11× Il., 6× Od., 1× Hes.).

194 Διόθεν: on the suffix -θεν, R 15.1. 195–196 ≈ 118–119 (with n.). 197 τόδε (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — εἴδεται: from *εἴδω (whence aor. εἶδον ‘see’); the pres. mid. is exclusively poetic: ‘appears, seems’.

Commentary 

 87

199 The thrice specified indication of direction ‘emphasizes the dangerousness of the journey’ (AH [transl.]; so too Martinazzoli); cf. 10.220  f., 24.565  f.  

ἔσω  …: pregnant variation of the VE formula κατὰ/μετὰ/ἀνὰ στρατὸν εὐρὺν Ἀχαιῶν (1.229n.): ‘into the middle of the camp’.

200–216 Hekabe receives Priam’s speech in a selective and distorted manner: she ignores the fact that this is an order from Zeus (194) and pessimistically perceives the dangers above all else (e.g. 203 ‘alone’); the name ‘Achilleus’ (196), which she herself does not use, conjures up an image of horror in her mind’s eye (207  f., 211) because of Achilleus’ conduct when he killed Hektor (observed by Hekabe: 22.405–407); in regard to her son (195), she stresses heroic qualities (214–216n.). The graphic style (esp. 212  f.) and numerous enjambmentsP attest to Hekabe’s deep desperation and bitterness (Richardson); the fear of losing her husband in addition to her son induces passionate hatred and an urge for revenge on Achilleus (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 343  f.).  – Formally, this is a speech of protest: (1) Hekabe questions (Priam’s) suggestion (201–205), (2) highlights its possible consequences (206–208a) and (3)  proposes an alternative course of action (208b–216): Minchin 2007, 149, 158  f. Inasmuch as the speech is an attempt to dissuade another person from a dangerous path, it can be specifically termed a schetliasmos (likewise Od. 2.361– 370 with a somewhat similar choice of words, also Od. 5.202–213: Krischer 1997, 106–111; see 6.407–465n.). On the role of women in the Iliad, frequently admonishing or restraining, see Kakridis (1956) 1971, 70–74; Farron 1979 (ad loc.: 26  f.). 200 1st VH =  Od. 2.361; 2nd VH =  Od. 15.434/439; VE in total 2× Il., 3× Od.; ≈ 5× Od., 2× h.Cer. (ἠμείβετο). — On the speech capping formulaP ‘spoke’ + reaction of the addressee, see 1.33n., 2.333–335n.; Finkelberg 1989, 182  f.; Arnould 1990, 173  f. Expansion of the scheme by a speech introduction formulaP as a third element in the same verse is comparatively rare: 3.181 (with n.), 10.328, 14.270, 17.33, 24.424, Od. 24.513, h.Ap. 61; similarly Od. 9.506, 11.59 (cf. Edwards 1970, 9  f.). — κώκυσεν: κωκύω occurs elsewhere mostly in the context of a lament by women, e.g. Hekabe at 22.407 and Kassandra at 24.703 upon seeing the slain Hektor (see 19.284n.; cf. 591n.); here and at Od. 2.361 (Eurykleia before Telemachos’ departure) an anticipated lament for the dead: expressing fear of not see   ing the beloved person alive again (Martin 1989, 87  f.; LfgrE).  

201–202 The image of losing one’s mind represents imprudent action or overpowering emotion (Böhme 1929, 46; Snell 1978, 65  ff.; Sullivan 1988, 40  f.;

199 κεῖσ(ε): = ἐκεῖσε. — ἰέναι ἐπί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἔσω: ≈ εἰς. 200 κώκυσεν: ≈ ‘let out a cry (of lament)’ (aor.; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1). 201 ᾗς: = αἷς (R 11.1). — τὸ πάρος περ: ‘earlier, always before now’.

88 

 Iliad 24

Hershkowitz 1998, 130), frequently in the form ‘a god robbed someone of his senses’ (6.234n., 19.137n.); on the phrasing ‘where has … gone?’, cf. 2.339n. and Kelly 2007, 124  f. with additional parallels. – On accusations of madness in general, see 114n. — in time before: Priam’s wisdom here serves as a rhetorical foil for his current (supposed) misconduct: Macleod on 201–202; de Jong on Od. 4.31–32 (both with additional parallels; also Archilochus fr. 172.2  f. West). But it is also presupposed elsewhere in epic, e.g. 3.105–110: deliberateness and reliability; 7.365–379: assertiveness in political discussion; 20.183: constancy (differently West 2000, 489  f.: ‘comparison with the aged but active Nestor does not favour Priam’; cf. 2.796–806n. with bibliography).

ᾤ μοι: an expression of various negative emotions such as indignation, mental anguish or fear (1.149n.); cf. 255. — ἔκλε(ο): from ἐκλέεο, hyphaeresis like 1.275 ἀποαίρεο, Od. 2.202 μυθέαι, 4.811 πωλέαι: schol. A; G 42; Schw. 1.252  f.; Chantr. 1.73  f. — ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους: ‘across the (whole) world’, usually after caesura A 2 and in connection with κλέος (Nagy [1979] 1999, 37; cf. Chantr. 2.111); the epexegetic 2nd VH (‘along outlanders and those you rule over’) forms a kind of polar expressionP (cf. Kemmer 1903, 91  f., with examples) and adds emphasis. — ξείνους: ‘strangers’ (on the usage in detail, LfgrE). On the compensatory lengthening with a ‘false diphthong’ (ξεῖνος < *ξένϝος), see G 27.  

203–205 ≈ 519–521 (Achilleus speaks), see ad loc. 203 alone: emphatic at VE (Richardson). Although Hekabe does not know that Zeus has ordered that Priam go to Achilleus on his own – or accompanied only by a herald (Priam does not mention this at 194  ff.) – this assumption is self-evident at 198  f. (thus Richardson and Shiffman 1992 contra Macleod, who suspects a paralepsisP [or ‘transference’: de Jong on Od., p. xviii] here); similarly 1.380b–381 (with n.).  

πῶς ἐθέλεις: similarly 4.26 πῶς ἐθέλεις ἅλιον θεῖναι πόνον (Hera addressing Zeus in anger), Od. 9.494 τίπτ’ ἐθέλεις ἐρεθιζέμεν (sc. the Cyclops: the companions alerting Odysseus), 19.482 τίη μ’ ἐθέλεις ὀλέσαι (Odysseus addressing Eurykleia when she recognizes him): ‘a question of reluctant surprise; πῶς questions the probability of the action in question: «how can you want?»’ (AH on Il. 4.26 [transl.]), ‘how can you entertain the idea?’ (Clark 1997, 228). – Asyndetic lists of questions (here 201  f./203–205) are common in epic, e.g. also at Od. 1.170  ff., 3.248  ff., 13.200  ff.: an expression of emotion (Führer 1967, 140–143). — ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: 118n.

202 ἔκλε(ο): ‘you were renowned’ (from κλέομαι). — ἠδ’ οἷσιν: ≈ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτους, οἷς (cf. R 24.4 and R 11.2). 203 ἐλθέμεν: inf. (R 16.4).

Commentary 

 89

204 a man: In the Iliad, Achilleus is called ‘man’ 20× (lists in Shive 1987, 140  ff.; Dee 2000, 134), usually in direct speechP, in which cases occasionally with a pejorative attribute (207, 212, 506; cf. inter alia 21.314 ‘savage man’, 21.536 ­‘ruinous man’) or – as here – with a relative clause (Ruijgh 307). For more on the subject, see 1.78–79n. (avoidance of the name); 1.287n. (‘this man’ in a pejorative sense); Richardson on 22.38–39 (paraphrases for ‘Achilleus’).  

ἐς ὀφθαλμούς: cf. 463 ὀφθαλμοὺς εἴσειμι and, used as a contrast, 23.53 ἀπ’ ὀφθαλμῶν; also 206n. — πολέας …: on the expression, 167n.; on the form πολέας, Chantr. 1.220  f.

205 ≈ 521; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 23.172 (cf. Il. 22.357). — iron: In early epic, iron (sídēros) is relatively rare compared to the ubiquitous bronze (chalkós); its appearance can be traced to the influence of the contemporary environment of the poet of the Iliad (the so-called Iron Age; see 6.3n., 6.48n.; LfgrE s.v. σίδηρος; Gray 1954; Forbes 1967, 29–33; Sherratt 1990, 810  f.). Metaphorically, iron represents hardness (Müller 1974, 119  f.; LfgrE s.v. σιδήρεος), with two – not always clearly distinct  – connotations: (a) enduring strength: ‘tireless, unwavering’ (e.g. Eurykleia at Od. 19.493  f.; cf. ‘heart of bronze’ at 2.490n.), (b) unrelenting callousness: ‘uncharitable, merciless’ (e.g. Kalypso at Od. 5.190  f. [negated], Thanatos at Hes. Th. 764  f.). Here and at Od.  23.172 (Penelope’s behavior toward Odysseus), perhaps approximately ‘persistent, obstinate’, in the reprise of the present phrase by Achilleus at 521 ‘imperturbable’ (cf. Williams 1993, 39; Dentice di Accadia 2012, 272  f.). – On the formulaic use of iron metaphors in early epic, Létoublon/Montanari 2004, 33–37 (cf. iterata).   The plus-verse after 205, offered in schol. A and T with slight variations (ἀθάνατοι ποίησαν Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχοντες), can be explained as an (unnecessary) syntactic supplement to the nominal clause in the 2nd VH of 205 (Leaf; Bolling 1925, 202  f.; cf. 45n.). — νυ: ‘now indeed, surely’, ‘used in an agitated state of mind’ (K.-G. 2.119 [transl.]; also especially in passionate questions, cf. 1.414n.). σιδήρειον: On the form, cf. 21n. (χρυσείῃ).

206 2nd VH ≈ 5.212. — αἱρήσει καὶ ἐσόψεται: Interpreted as a hysteron proteron by schol. bT: first ‘catch sight of’, then ‘hold’ (so too Macleod; Richardson; cf. 100n., end). Differently AH: at the moment when Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters, he is so to speak at the latter’s mercy, and ‘catching sight’ implies that Achilleus recognizes him; similarly LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 369.58  ff. (‘if he catches you …’, cf. Od. 19.154  f.: the suitors ‘catch’ Penelope in her weaving ploy); cf. Leaf; Martinazzoli. — ὀφθαλμοῖσιν: like ἐν ὀφθ. (on this, 294n.), emphatic with verbs of seeing, etc. (206, 246, 294/312, 555), indicating autopsy (cf. 223n.; 19.173–174n.) or – as here – emotion (cf. AH Anh. on Od. 4.47; 555n.).

204 πολέας: = πολλούς (R 12.2). 205 υἱέας: on the inflection, R 12.3.

90 

 Iliad 24

207a savage: Greek ōmēstḗs ‘eating raw flesh’ (AH: ‘blood-thirsty’) touches on a motif Hekabe will apply to herself a few verses later to indicate her thirst for revenge: ‘to eat the enemy raw’ (212  f. with n.; Taplin 1992, 265). On the accusation of barbarity directed specifically at Achilleus, cf. 39  ff. (speech by Apollo).  

ὠμηστὴς καὶ ἄπιστος ἀνὴρ ὅ γε: exclamatory explanatory parenthesis (schol. A; AH; Leaf): ‘this  … man!’ or ‘blood-thirsty  … as he is’; prepares the notion that follows at 207b–208a (with n.): ὠμηστής corresponds approximately to οὔ σ’ ἐλεήσει (revenge rather than mercy), ἄπιστος to οὐδέ τί σ’ αἰδέσεται (disregard of protected status). – On the use and etymology of ὠμηστής, see 82n.

207b–208a ≈ 22.123  f. (Hektor on Achilleus). — will not take pity … | nor have respect: With this expression, Hekabe implicitly shares Hektor’s concerns at 22.123  f. (an imagined reaction by Achilleus to an offer of a truce by Hektor), while at the same time replying to Priam’s wish, already expressed at 22.418  f., to ask Achilleus for ‘respect’ and ‘mercy’. In addition, she indirectly contradicts Zeus’ promise that Achilleus will recognize the supplicant’s status (157– 158n.). – On the connection between ‘mercy’ and ‘respect’ in general, see 44n. 208b–209a 1st VH of 209 ≈ 2.137, Od. 13.337, 18.316, 19.322, 21.100, h.Ap. 96. — sit … in our palace: a painful but safe alternative to travelling to the Achaian camp (AH); at the same time, it implies helplessness (Macleod; cf. 2.255n.). The Greek expression en megárōi (or pl. -ois), literally ‘in the hall’ (the central room of the Homeric house, see 3.125n.), is frequently synonymous with ‘at home’ (with emotional rather than topographic overtones: Lauffer 1980, 211; 603–604n.); in general, mégaron has a broader meaning in early epic than the technical archaeological term ‘megaron’ (Hiesel 1989, 237  ff.; Weiler 2001, 68  ff.). Additional bibliography: Wace 1962, 494; Knox 1973; Lauffer loc. cit. 208  ff.; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 363  f.; Shear 2004, 33  f. – On the formularity of the expression, cf. 1.396n.     

νῦν δέ: ‘but now’, sc. since it is so (AH; 2.82n.; cf. 757n.). — ἄνευθεν: ≈ ‘far from Hektor, in the absence of his body’, 211 ἑῶν ἀπάνευθε τοκήων is analogous (cf. the parallels at 211n.); on the (pathos-generating) motif ‘die abroad’ in general, 2.162n.

209b–210 Three images of fate are interwoven: (a) Moira as a divine force, (b) the spinning of the thread of life, and (c) the determination of the course of a person’s life (especially death) at the moment of birth. On (a) Moira, cf. 49n. (and

207 γε, οὔ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 208 οὐδέ τι: τι strengthens the negation. 209 τῷ: i.e. Hektor. — ὥς: ‘so’. — ποθι: originally local (cf. R 15.2); translate ‘somehow, probably’ (like που).

Commentary 

 91

on the VE formula, 132n.). – The notion of (b) the thread of life is – like (c) – an IE heritage, cf. the Norns in Nordic epic, the Roman Parcae, and the Klṓthes ‘Spinners’ at Od. 7.197; similarly Hes. Th. 904–906 (Onians [1951] 1988, 349  ff.; Dietrich 1962 [a critical account of this at LfgrE s.v. Κλῶθες]; Tsagarakis 1977, 120–122; West 2007, 379–385; Hainsworth on Od. 7.198); metaphors from the sphere of spinning and weaving are common in Greek (plan, ploy, etc.: e.g. 6.187n., 24.7n.), on its use in the present context, see Nilsson (1923/24) 1951, 386  f.; Müller 1974, 203–205; Clarke 1999, 251  f.; Collobert 2011, 61–65. – On (c), in addition to the iterata (below, 210n.), see 1.418, 6.488  f., 10.70  f., 22.477, 23.78  f., 24.534  f., Od. 4.207  f., 24.28  f., Hes. Th. 218  f., Vit. Hom. Her. § 14 West (= Hom. Epigr. 4.13); cf. the myth of Meleager (the prophecy of the log by the Moirai on the seventh day after Meleager’s birth); additional information in West loc. cit. 210 ≈ 20.128 (subject Αἶσα), Od. 7.198 (subject Αἶσα and Κλῶθες); VE ≈ Il. 15.198, 22.87, 22.353, Hes. Th. 208, h.Ap. 317. — γεινομένῳ: ‘during birth’; aor. part. with metrical lengthening (West on Hes. Th. 82; Wyatt 1969, 119  f.). — αὐτή: αὐτός with ‘give birth to, bring up’, etc. expresses an emotional connection and implies ‘my own child’, cf. 22.87 (LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1639.49  ff.).  

211 Similar are Hekabe’s terrible apprehensions already at 22.86–89 (on the details, Segal 1971, 61  f.); cf. also 11.817  f. (Patroklos), 22.508  f. (Andromache). — that the dogs … should feed on him: on this motif, 22n.     

ἀργίποδας: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘swift-footed’ (cf. 1.50n.); ‘fast’ (ἀργός, ταχύς; 3.26n.) is an ornamental epithetP of dogs, in the context of consuming corpses also at 11.818, 17.558, 18.283, 22.89; on the formation of the word, cf. 18.578 κύνες πόδας ἀργοί. – Like πορφύρεος (645n.), ἀργός has two connotations: ‘swift; bright’; the dog name Argos corresponds approximately to ‘Flash’ (Od. 17.292  ff.; see Irwin 1974, 215  f.; Russo on Od. 17.292). — ἆσαι: ‘to satiate’ (19.307n.); aor. inf. of a defective verb (cf. fut. ἄσεσθε 717); epexegetic for ὥς in 209 (cf. 525  f.). — ἑῶν: 36–37a  n. — ἀπάνευθε τοκήων: VE = Od. 9.36. On the motif, 208b–209a  n., end.

212–213 1st VH of 212 ≈ 3.429, 5.244 (ἀνδρ-  … κρατερ-) and Od. 11.490, 23.219, h.Hom. 19.33 (ἀνδρὶ πάρ-). — his liver and eat it: The motif ‘eat the enemy raw’ (cf. Greek ōmēstḗs at 207) represents an unquenchable thirst for revenge and always has a rhetorical function: here Hekabe’s wish (on the graphic style of the speech, cf. 200–216n.; Macleod), 4.34–36 potential (Zeus on Hera, who

210 γεινομένῳ: to be taken with 209 τῷ; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἐπένησε: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἐπι-νέω ‘spin (for someone)’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 211 ἑῶν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4). — τοκήων: on the form, R 3. 212 ἀνδρὶ πάρα: = παρ’ ἀνδρί (R 20.2). — μέσον: predicative with the sense ‘in the middle, up to the middle’.

92 

 Iliad 24

is raging at the Trojans), 22.346  f. protestation (Achilleus addressing Hektor: ‘thus truly …’; see Leaf ad loc.; Combellack 1981; differently Goldhill 1991, 89  f.); parallels from later literature in Macleod on 212  f. – On the motif in general, see Segal 1971, 40  f.; Redfield (1975) 1994, 193  ff.; Griffin 1980, 19  f.; Rawson 1984 (esp. 1164  ff.); de Romilly 1997, 175  ff. — liver: repeatedly mentioned in early epic in descriptions of wounding (11.578  f., 20.469  f., etc.), as well as in the myths of Tityos and Prometheus (as a punishment, the liver is eaten by vultures or an eagle: Od. 11.578  f., Hes. Th. 523  f.). It is unclear whether already in the Homeric period specific properties were ascribed to the liver (e.g. as the seat of emotions, thus e.g. in Aeschylus: Dumortier [1935] 1975, 18–20); theories thus far are speculative: West on Hes. Th. 523–533 (on which, Verdenius 1971, 2); Laser 1983, 46  f.; LfgrE s.v. ἦπαρ.

κρατερῷ: frequently with a pejorative connotation: ‘too strong, mighty/violent, brutal’ (AH; Benveniste 1969a, 78  f.; LfgrE s.v. passim). — ἔχοιμι: opt. of wish: ‘would that I were able’ (AH); the sense ‘able’ developed from ‘have something in order to do something with it’ (LfgrE s.v. ἔχω 844.75  ff., cf. Od. 18.364 ὄφρ’ ἂν ἔχῃς βόσκειν σὴν γαστέρ(α)).

213 vengeance: The implication is that Achilleus would deserve to have his liver eaten while he was still alive rather than be paid a ransom.  

προσφῦσα: ‘attach oneself to, bite into’ (Mutzbauer 1893, 164); cf. Od. 12.433 τῷ (sc. ἐρινεῷ) προσφὺς ἐχόμην ‘cling to’, also Od. 1.381, etc. ὀδὰξ ἐν χείλεσι φύντες ≈ ‘bite one’s lip’. — ἄντιτα: haplological form derived from ἀντί-τιτος (related to τίνω), ἄντιτα ἔργα + gen., thus ‘(produces) revenge for’ (AH), so too at Od. 17.51/60; cf. παλίντιτα ἔργα Od. 1.379; LfgrE. — γένοιτο: A potential without a modal particle is rare; another example: 19.321  f. (Schw. 2.324; Chantr. 2.216  f.).

214–216 Initially, after all the other Trojans had fled to the city, Hektor indeed stood firm against Achilleus (22.92  ff.) until, overpowered by the sight of the latter (22.136  f.), he understandably took flight as he gathered his courage once more just before the final duel (22.304  ff.; Kurz 1966, 69  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 225  f.). In the memory of Hekabe (and Priam: 500n.), Hektor’s heroic resistance is the crucial point; she is all the more furious at Achilleus (AH on 214; Macleod; on Hektor as the representative of Troy’s defense, see 499n.). – The phrasing is characterized by emphatic doublings: ‘no coward | but standing before the men of Troy’ (rhetorical polar expressionP), ‘men of Troy and deep-girdled women’ (215n.), ‘no thought in his mind of flight or withdrawal’ (216n.); the positive characterization of Hektor thus gains a generalizing force beyond the individual situation (‘obituary’: Deichgräber 1972, 53).

213 ἐσθέμεναι: =  ἐσθίειν; on the form, R 16.4. — ἄντιτα (ϝ)έργα: ‘revenge, retaliation’; on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 93

214 κακιζόμενον: ‘behave like one who is κακός, prove a coward’; a Homeric hapaxP (Peppmüller; on the word formation, Risch 299). The behavior of a coward includes deserting the battlefield in the middle of the fighting (11.408  ff.) and fear that manifests itself in psychosomatic symptoms (13.276  ff.); cf. 2.190n.  

215 ≈ 22.514. — men of Troy and the deep-girdled women: A special case of a polar expressionP ‘men and women’ (on which, see 697b–698n.) to denote the entire Trojan people (6.442n.); it always occurs in the context of Hektor as protector of the beseiged city (cf. 704).

βαθυκόλπων: a distinctive epithetP of the women of Troy in the Iliad (also at 18.122/339; elsewhere at h.Ven. 257, h.Cer. 5; the same applies to the epithet ἑλκεσιπέπλους in the metrically equivalent acc. formula Τρῶας καὶ Τρῳάδας ἑλκ., see 6.442n.). It means ‘with deep folds’, i.e. ‘hanging down over the girdle’ (Leaf on 18.122; Nawratil 1959; van Wees 2005, 7  f.; LfgrE) rather than ‘with deep bosom, full-bosomed’ (Helbig [1884] 1887, 213  ff.; Laser 1983, 32). On additional epithets for women (always referring to dress or physical beauty), see 1.55n., 1.143n., 1.429n., 6.372n., 24.697b–698n.

216 φόβου … ἀλεωρῆς: On synonym doubling in the case of terms relating to battle/war in particular, see ­Schmidt 2004, 15 (pleonasm with a ‘stylistic intensification’ in the second substantive). Similar phrases: 12.327, 13.436, Od. 20.368; cf. 245. – φόβος in Homeric epic means ‘flight, retreat’ (2.767n.), ἀλεωρή is a verbal abstract derived from ἀλέομαι ‘avoid, eschew’ (Risch 109), here in the sense ‘escape’. — μεμνημένον: 129n. (in the context of flight also at 11.71, 13.48, 16.356  f.).  

217–227 Priam reacts angrily to Hekabe’s objections, the vehemence of which he had not expected, and insists on his plan with even more determination (cf. 193–199n.; Richardson; Deichgräber 1972, 54  f.; Farron 1979, 26  f.). Like Nestor in Book 2 (preparation for the mustering of the army), Priam prevents further discussion by referring to the compulsory nature of the divine instructions (the arguments at 220–224 correspond to those at 2.80–83; cf. 2.83n., end; Peppmüller p. 100). On additional parallels between Books 2 and 24, see 133n. 217 1st VH in total 8× Il., 11× Od., 1× h.Cer.; ≈ (τόν) 378, etc. (see ad loc.); 2nd VH: 7× Il. — On the type of speech introduction formulaP found here, see Parry (1928) 1971, 10  ff.; Edwards 1970, 5  f.; in general, 1.58n. — the aged Priam, the godlike: a VE formula, found only in Book 24 (7×; also 1× without ‘the aged’ [299]) and always in speech introduction formulae: so-called formula ‘clustering’ (iteratio) having the effect of a motif (Friedrich 2007, 71–73; cf. 509n. on the formula ‘manslaughtering Hektor’). 214 ἐμοῦ, ἐπεὶ οὔ (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 5.6, 5.5, 4.4. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — κατέκτα: root aor. of κατακτείνω (3rd pers. sing.). 216 ἑσταότ(α): pregnant ‘standing firm’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

94 

 Iliad 24

αὖτε: an adversative particle denoting a change of speaker (3.58n.). — προσέειπε: ἔ(ϝ)ειπε is a reduplicated thematic aorist (Schw. 1.745; Rix [1976] 1992, 216). — θεοειδής: a generic epithetP (2.623n.), frequently of Priam (9× in Book 24, of which 8× in speech introduction formulaeP), Alexandros (763n.), Telemachos (6× Od.), Theoklymenos (5× Od.), occasionally of other characters.  – At 483 (narrator-textP), the epithet probably has a contextually significant sense because of the secondary focalizationP: Achilleus is surprised by Priam’s appearance and his nature (expressly at 631  f.) (Macleod on 483; reservations in de Jong [1987] 2004, 140; cf. 477n. on μέγας, 680n. on the metrically equivalent VE Πρίαμον βασιλῆα).

218 κατερύκανε: ἐρυκάνω (2× in early epic, in addition 1× in the expanded form ἐρυκανάω) is a metrical variant of ἐρύκω (e.g. Od. 1.315): Schw. 1.700; Chantr. 1.315  f.; Risch 271  f. — αὐτή: the nuance is here unclear, perhaps ‘via your speech’ (AH: ‘by your admonishing words’) or ‘not you of all people, my wife’ (LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1642.63  ff.; cf. Martinazzoli: ‘you who should be encouraging me’).  

219 a bird of bad omen in my palace: With this paradox (Richardson), Priam refers to Hekabe’s warning at 206–208, which he understands as an omen: the mere naming of an evil may bring it about, e.g. Aeschylus Agamemnon 1246  ff., Sophocles Aias 361  f. (reaction: eúphēma phṓnei in the sense ‘do not speak of it!’; cf. Gödde 2004, esp. 16  ff.); similarly the kledonomantia (klēdṓn: a random remark taken as an omen by a third party: de Jong on Od. 2.15–37; Fraenkel 1950, 789  f. [on Aesch. Ag. 1653]; Peradotto 1969; Lateiner 2005). – The interpretation of bird omens appears in the oldest Greek literature as the most important divination technique (e.g. 1.69, 1.72n., 6.76n.; on ancient reading of bird omens in detail, Dillon 1996; Collins 2002); cf. esp. the motif of the inauspicious bird on the roof (West on Hes. Op. 747; an epic Ornithomanteia was ascribed to Hesiod: loc. cit. 828). – ‘bird (omen)’ metaphorically of a person only here; 12.243 is similar: ‘one bird sign is best: to fight in defence of our country’ (Stockinger 1959, 154  f.).  

πέλε(ο): On the form, cf. 290n. (εὔχεο). — οὐδέ με πείσεις: a VE formula (1.132n.); like 6.360 and 18.126, a firm refusal (additional context related parallels in Martin 1989, 202).

ὄρνις: Greek has both ὄρνῐς and ὄρνῑς (LSJ; Leaf on 12.218). Early epic offers long -ις in the longum at 9.323 and h.Hom. 19.17. The present passage might accordingly read ὄρνις ἐν (rather than ἐνὶ) μεγάροισι in the biceps, as in several later manuscripts against the text of the vulgate (and at 12.218 with Aristarchus ὄρνις ἦλθε rather than ἐπῆλθε [schol. T ad loc.]); see app. crit.; differently Leaf; Wackernagel 1916, 165; van der Valk 1964, 115  f.

218 κατερύκανε: ‘do not attempt to hold me back’ (conative). 219 πέλε’· οὐδέ: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — πέλε(ο): imper. of πέλομαι ‘become, prove to be, be’.

Commentary 

 95

220–222 On the argumentative function of reservations in regard to divine signs and their agents, 2.80–82n. (cf. Fowler 2008, 119  ff., 132  ff.); here, as at 2.346– 356, the emphasis is on the fact that reservations are precisely not appropriate, given the clear divine promise.

εἰ … ἐκέλευεν, … κεν φαῖμεν: On the mixed condition (protasis: contrary to fact; apodosis: potential), see 2.80–81n.; cf. 57n., 688n.

220 1st VH ≈ 768. — τις  … ἄλλος ἐπιχθονίων: ‘another, 〈namely one⟩ of the earth’s inhabitants’; perhaps an interlacing of the opposites ‘a human – a god’ (223 θεοῦ) and ‘another  – myself’ (223 αὐτός) (Peppmüller p. 112  f.). The category of human beings referred to is specified in 221. – On the use of ἐπιχθόνιος in the juxtaposition human being – god, see 1.266n.

221 In early epic, it is particularly seers (like Kalchas among the Achaian army) and priests (e.g. Chryses) – connected with a sanctuary – who serve as mediators between gods and human beings: 1.62–63n.; cf. Vermeule 1974, 112  ff.; Burkert (1977) 1985, 111  ff. and 95  ff.; Fowler 2008, esp. 22  ff., 58  f. (additional bibliography, loc. cit. 133 n. 2).  

θυοσκόοι: an attributive appositive to μάντιες, likely ‘interpreters of sacrifices’; their activity, a special type of μαντοσύνη ‘divination’, is not described further in Homer (see also Od. 22.321  f. of the θυοσκόος Leodes): AH; Burkert (1977) 1985, 112  f.; Fowler 2008, 24–26. – On the word formation, Casabona 1966, 118  f.; Frisk; Beekes.

222 = 2.81 (see ad loc.; cf. 217–227n.). — φαῖμεν καὶ νοσφιζοίμεθα: ‘we’, i.e. in this case Priam would have to agree with Hekabe. The contrast αὐτός follows at 223: ‘I myself’.   223–224 On the sentence structure νῦν δ(έ), … γὰρ …, | εἶμι, cf. 12.326–328 (likewise with preceding εἰ μὲν γάρ: 12.322).  

223 The verse contains a twofold emphasis: (1) ‘I myself’ – ‘the god’; (2) ‘heard’ and ‘seen’. Reference to witnessing things personally by sight especially or by hearing is a common means of authentication: 2.301  f., 2.485  f., 7.53, 17.338, Od. 3.420, 15.532, etc. (Richardson). — god: Iris (at 194 called ‘a messenger … from Zeus on Olympos’ by Priam).

ἄντην: ‘(look) in the eye’, i.e. ‘in real life’ (19.15n.; cf. ὀφθαλμοῖσιν 206n.); more on ἄντην: 1.187n. (‘say to someone’s face, directly’).

221 ἠ(ὲ) … ἠ(έ): ‘either … or’. — μάντιες: = μάντεις (nom. pl.). — ἱερῆες: on the inflection, cf. R 11.3. 222 ψεῦδος: ‘deception, illusion’. — φαῖμεν: ‘order, command’ (220 ἐκέλευεν) is to be supplied as an object. — νοσφιζοίμεθα: local ‘depart from’, metaphorically ‘turn away from, distance oneself from’. 223 νῦν δ(έ): to be taken with 224 εἶμι. — αὐτός: ‘with my own eyes/ears’. — ἐσέδρακον: 1st pers. sing. aor. of εἰσδέρκομαι ‘look at, behold’.

96 

 Iliad 24

224a ≈ 92, Od. 2.318. On the more determined tone here, cf. Macleod: ‘Thetis [sc. at 92] merely obeys: Priam resolves’. — this word: i.e. Zeus’ orders as conveyed by Iris (cf. 75).   224b–227 Priam stresses his determination and his desire once again to embrace his son (cf. 226–227n.) by use of a doubled emphasis (similarly Telemachos at Od. 20.315–317, Anchises at h.Ven. 149–154): (a) ‘even if it costs me my life – I am prepared to do it’ (cf. also Il. 15.115–118), (b)  ‘when I have achieved this and that, I will be ready to die’, cf. 5.685  f., Od. 7.224  f., h.Ven. 153  f., still in use today in a faded form, e.g. Italian ‘vedi Napoli e poi muori’ (~ ‘after you visit Naples, you can die’). The expression ‘rather to die than having to witness something, or not to achieve something’ is similar (but with reversed polarity): an expression of desperation regarding imminent suffering or an impending disgrace (244b–246; 6.410  f., 6.464  f., 15.511  ff., 17.415  ff., Od. 12.350  f., 16.106  f., 20.316  f., also Il. 4.182 ≈ 8.150, 7.129  ff., 18.90  ff., 18.98  f., Od. 1.57b–59 [on which, Kloss 1994, 46  f. n. 96], 18.202  ff.; post-Homeric e.g. Stesichorus fr. 222b.211–217 Davies). Bibliography on the entire complex of the motif: Macleod on 226–227; Reinhardt 1949, 116–118; Vagnone 1982, esp. 37, 40  f.; Garvie 1986, 162  f. (all with post-Homeric parallels); van der Ben 1986, 18  f.; Bremer et al. 1987a, 145–147. On a additional form of the deathwish motif (‘had I only died before!’), see 764n.; on the conditional self-imprecation ‘I’ll be dead if I don’t …’, 2.258–264n. – Achilleus’ thoughts at 585  f. illustrate that in the present case mortal danger is in fact a realistic fear (see 582–586n.).

εἰ δέ μοι αἶσα: on the formula system of αἶσα, Hoekstra 1965, 122  f.; cf. 1.416n.

225 παρὰ νηυσὶν …: ≈ 1.371 (ἐπὶ νῆας …; see ad loc.), 2.47, etc. (κατὰ νῆας …; see ad loc.); cf. 115n. (παρὰ νηυσὶ κορωνίσιν).  

226–227 with my own son | caught in my arms: Seeing the deceased once more and saying a personal farewell is a fundamental need for those who grieve; see also 22.426  ff., 24.743  ff.  

βούλομαι: ‘would rather, prefer to’ (39n.), rather than (as Hekabe demands at 208  f.) continuing to grieve far from his son (AH); emphatic at VB. — κατακτείνειεν: a concessive optative (‘he can kill me’): Schw. 2.322; Chantr. 2.216. — ἐπὴν … εἵην: assim-

224 οὐχ ἅλιον … ἔσσεται: i.e. ‘will come true’. — ἅλιον (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6). — αἶσα: sc. ἐστί (nominal clause). 225 τεθνάμεναι: ‘to be dead, remain behind dead’; on the form, R 16.4. 227 ἀγκάς: ‘in my arms’. — ἑλόντ(α): referring to με (226). — ἐπήν: =  ἐπάν (correlative with αὐτίκα). — ἐξ  … εἵην: aor. opt. of ἐξίημι; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ἔρον: from ἔρος (= ἔρως), still with the general meaning ‘desire’.

Commentary 

 97

ilation of the mood to the opt. of the main clause, as at 19.208, etc. (Chantr. 2.260; in general, K.-G. 1.255  f.); correction of ἐπήν to ἐπεί is occasionally considered (West on Od. 2.105; Wakker 1994, 206 n. 153). — ἐξ ἔρον εἵην: literally ‘let go of the urge’, i.e. ‘satisfy the need’, usually formulaic for satiation with food and drink (1.469n. with bibliography), only here of weeping and mourning (on γόος, see 160n.; a synonymous phrase at 717: ἄσεσθε κλαυθμοῖο); the verb is usually middle (ἕντο), active also at 13.638, likewise at Sappho fr. 94.23 Voigt ἐξίης πόθο[ν (on the change in voice, G 100).

228 He spoke, and  …: a brief speech capping formulaP that makes possible a transition to the action within the same verse via a paratactic connection: word is translated into action (247, 440, 621; cf. 19.238–240n.). — covering of his clothes-chest: In the world of early epic, blankets, clothes and other precious objects are stored in (ornate) chests (esp. 16.221  ff., Od. 15.104  ff.): Laser 1968, 68  ff.  

φωριαμῶν: epic diction, in Homer also at Od. 15.104 (Helen). — κάλ’ (καλά): Not only the lid may be decorated, but the sides of the chest as well; καλά is thus perhaps also to be taken with φωριαμοί via enallage, cf. Hes. Op. 94 (Pandora) πίθου μέγα πῶμ’ ἀφελοῦσα (with West ad loc.; contra Verdenius ad loc.). On the clustering of καλός and its derivations (here περικαλλής at 229, 234), cf. 2.42–43n.

ἀνόειγεν: The verb (ἀν)οίγω ‘open’ probably derives from earlier ὀ(ϝ)ειγ-; in place of the unanimously transmitted ἀνέῳγε, a prosodically equivalent (unaugmented) imperfect can thus be restored: ἀνόειγεν, likewise 455 ἀνοείγεσκον (­Schmidt 1968, 81  f.; West 1998, XXXIII; reservations in Forssman 2005, 108  f., 112: the restored forms are pre-Homeric; cf. the summary in ChronEG 10 s.v. οἴγνυμι; further discussion in Verdejo Manchado 2014). Cf. aor. ὤ(ϝ)ειξε 446, contracted ᾦξε 457 (with Leaf ad loc.).

229–234 In premonetary Homeric society, textiles, metal and containers are among the typical objects used in ‘exchange’, e.g. 6.46–48 (ransom: WickertMicknat 1983, 36 n. 3; on the significance of the metals, cf. 6.48n.), 9.121– 130 (Agamemnon’s offer to Achilleus: Hainsworth ad loc.; cf. 19.243–248), Od. 8.389–393/438–441, 15.101–108, 24.273–279 (guest-gifts: Reece 1993, 35  f.), 17.549  f. (‘«gift of clothes» motif’: de Jong on Od. 14.122–132). — twelve  … twelve  …: a typical numberP (Lorenz 1984). The anaphorae (2× ‘twelve’, 3× ‘as many’, 2× ‘out’) underline the number of gifts (Macleod with parallels; Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 8  f.); additional number anaphorae in Book 24: 454  f., 603  f. (in general, Fehling 1969, 200).  – On descriptions via catalogue-like enumerations, see Létoublon 1998, 165–172 (esp. 169  ff.; collection of examples); Sammons 2010, 103–133 (esp. 108  ff.); cf. 234–237a  n. (climax).

228 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ἀνόειγεν: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἀνοίγω.

98 

 Iliad 24

229–231 1st VH of 229 ≈ Od. 22.144 (and 110). — Elaborate textiles play a major role in Homeric society: 6.90–91n. The precise, unequivocal definition of Homeric terms from the semantic field of textiles is hampered by the great variety and variability of their use (clothing, covers, bedding); thus the peplos, for example, usually appears as a female garment in early epic (6.90n.) but also as a blanket (for a wagon, urn or seat: 5.194, 24.795  f., Od. 7.96  f.), whereas the chlaína is used both as a cloak and a woolen blanket (163n.) (Wace/Wace 1962, 498  ff.; Marinatos 1967, 6  ff.; Laser 1968, 11  ff.; Heubeck on Od. 24.276–277; on bedding textiles specifically, see 644–648n.). – Some of the textiles mentioned here will be used to clothe the corpse at 588 (see ad loc.) and will then serve as a ‘shroud’ or ‘burial garment’ (Bouvier 1987, 27  f.: ‘the objects of the ransom in and of themselves […] announce and suggest the action to come’ [quotation p. 28]).   230–231 ≈ Od. 24.276  f. (where instead of λευκά: καλά [here: v.l.]); similar structure: Od. 14.100  f. — ἁπλοΐδας χλαίνας: ἁπλοΐς ‘single’ in the sense ‘with one layer of cloth only, not folded’ (antithesis: χλαῖνα δίπλαξ 3.126n.); on the χλαῖνα in general, see 163n. — τάπητας: to be understood ‘items made of cloth’ in a broad sense (> Engl. ‘tapestry’), in early epic usually used as blankets (cf. 644–648n.; LfgrE). — φάρεα … χιτῶνας: items of male dress (cf. 163n. with bibliography): a cloak-like wrap (2.43n.) and an undergarment (2.42n.).     

232 ≈ 19.247. — gold: Gold is a common component of ‘ransom money’ (on the function of gold in Homer in general, Seaford 2004, 30–33); the present passage may be based on the notion of weighing Hektor’s corpse in gold: 22.349– 352 (Burgess 2001, 68  f.). — talents: the largest weight unit in antiquity. The exact size of a Homeric talent  – probably less than the historically attested talents that weigh 25 kg and more – can no longer be determined (19.247n. with bibliography); on the mutual relationship between Mycenaean, Near Eastern and Classical Greek talents specifically, Ventris/Chadwick (1956) 1973, 57  f.; on archaeological finds of Mycenaean date, Petruso 2003; on the use of the talent in Homeric epics, Brown 1998.  

The verse has probably been interpolated from 19.247 (a similar list of gifts); the indications offered in support of this thesis include: (1) ἔφερεν interrupts the anaphoric enu-

229 περικαλλέας: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἔξελε: = ἐξεῖλε; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 230 τόσσους: on the -σσ-, R 9.1 (cf. 231 τόσους). 231 ἐπί: ‘in addition to’. — τοῖσι: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the inflection, R 11.2. 232 στήσας: from ἵστημι, here ‘weigh’. — δέκα πάντα τάλαντα: ‘ten talents in total, ten whole talents’.

Commentary 

 99

meration in 229–234; (2) the exact weight of 10 talents is not required here, in contrast to 19.247 (with reference to 9.122) (AH; Leaf; Macleod; West 2001, 12 with n. 28: ‘rhetorical expansion’). Counter-arguments in Beck 1964, 216–218; Tartaglini 1988.

233 shining tripods, and … cauldrons: The (cooking) cauldron was placed above the fire on a tripod (mentioned together also at 9.122  f., 23.259, Od. 13.13, 15.84, etc.); both objects were generally made of bronze (see 19.243–244n.).  

αἴθωνας: the basic meaning is disputed, in reference to metal (implements) either ‘brown’ or ‘bright, gleaming’ (19.243–244n. with bibliography).

234–237a 1st VH of 234 ≈ 11.632. — a goblet | of surpassing loveliness: The enumeration of the items ends in a climax with emphasis on the most important one, cf. 16.223–227, Od. 15.99–108 (so too in the case of persons: Il. 24.257–259); at 11.632–641 (Nestor’s Cup) and 16.225–232 (libation for Patroklos) as well a dépas ‘cup’ (101n.) plays an exceptional role; here it shows ‘the emotion of Priam. He parted with his most treasured possession to honour Hector’ (Griffin 1980, 17  ff., quotation from p. 19). The extraordinary value of the cup is stressed via an indication of its origin (Reece 1993, 36, 90; Schaps 2004, 65; on the principle of elaborate narrationP, see 2.101–108n.; on external analepsisP, cf. 235n.); the fact that the cup derives from a diplomatic act further indicates the character of Priam’s current undertaking (Sammons 2010, 108–111). — men of Thrace: allies of the Trojans; on their cultural significance, especially in regard to metallurgy and viniculture, see 2.844n. and LfgrE; extensive imagery in Die Thraker 2004 (e.g. p. 90  f. the Valchitran Treasure, dating to the 14th/13th cent. B. C.).  

Θρῇκες … ἄνδρες: on such phrases, 2.474n.

235 when he went to them with a message: external analepsesP regarding Priam’s external relations also at 3.184–190 (Phrygians), 24.277  f. (Mysians). Here possibly an ad hoc invention (Priess 1977, 142): embassies feature repeatedly in the Iliad (e.g. to Chryses in Book 1, to Achilleus in Book 9). — not | even this …: i.e. of all the treasures in the palace, this cup was the most valuable in Priam’s eyes.  

ἐξεσίην: a technical term, ‘on a diplomatic mission, as an envoy’ (also at Od. 21.20; see LfgrE); an action noun in the acc. of content with ἐλθεῖν, like ὁδόν at 1.151n. and ἀγγελίην at 11.140 (on this, Janko on 13.251–253 with bibliography; cf. 3.206n.). — κτέρας: ‘pos-

233 ἐκ: ‘out’, sc. εἷλε (cf. R 20.2). — πίσυρας: Aeolic form for Attic-Ionic τέσσερας/τέτταρας. 234 ὅ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — Θρῇκες: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2 (likewise after -ι-: 235 ἐξεσίην). 235–236 οὐδέ νυ τοῦ περ | φείσατ(ο): ‘now, he spared not even this one’. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — περί: adverbial, ‘more (than all other things), exceedingly, much’.

100 

 Iliad 24

session’, here a showpiece as a guest-gift; sing. elsewhere only at 10.216, othrwise always pl. κτέρεα (38n.). — οὐδέ νυ τοῦ περ: a VE formula with interchangeable pronoun and sometimes γε rather than περ (cf. 540): 6× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ (passages in Ruijgh 1957, 62).

236–237a 1st VH of 237 = 118, etc. (see ad loc.). — so much was it his heart’s desire …: an authorial interpretation of the events just mentioned, as at e.g. 1.56, 2.171, 21.65, 24.708 (Richardson 1990, 148  f.). With his reference to Priam’s firm determination ‘to buy back his son’, the narrator at the same time creates a direct transition from the scene in the treasure-room to the preparations for departure in the portico at 237b  ff. (Priam’s return from the treasure-room  – element 8 of the relevant type-scene [191–237a  n.]  – is not reported: gapP; cf. AH).

ὁ γέρων: 164n.; here perhaps with ‘a touch of pathos’ (Richardson; Macleod). — περὶ δ’ ἤθελε θυμῷ: VE = 21.65; ≈ 16.255, 21.177; cf. VE ἤθελε θυμός 9.177 (+ iterata), 17.702, Od. 13.40. — δ(έ): in the sense of γάρ (91n.). — φίλον υἱόν: a periphrastic denominationP (from Priam’s perspective).

237b–280 Priam impatiently drives away the Trojans who are standing about and abuses his sons because his chariot is not ready. The chariot is then prepared for the trip. 237b–248a By means of the three speeches – directed to different addressees – at 218  ff., 239  ff. and 253  ff. (see ad loc.), the narrator portrays Priam’s state of mind: ‘Everything is to be prepared for departure; any disturbance is odious to Priam, to whom all else is now as nothing’ (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 345 [transl.]; Macleod). In this context, Priam’s rebuke of the Trojans serves to separate him ‘from the general moaning’ (Wissmann 1997, 42 [transl.]), as well as to prepare for the praise of Hektor at 243  f. and 258  f. 237b the Trojans | all: picks up 22.408–429 (the entire city is filled with lament, Priam is surrounded by grieving people).   238 2nd VH cf. 22.497. — cloister walks: The architectural term aíthousa is occasionally mentioned in connection with a próthyron (e.g. at 323, with n.) and can apparently be used synonymously with pródomos (e.g. at 644/673). Nonetheless, the exact relationship in early epic of these architectural elements both to one another and to the building as a whole cannot be determined (various attempts at explanation in Fernández-Galiano, Introd. 216  f.; Hiller 1970; Veneri 1991, 180–183; Rougier-Blanc 1996; Mazarakis Ainian

237 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἅπαντας: ‘all those present’.

Commentary 

 101

1997, 364  f.; Shear 2000, 6–10; Rougier-Blanc 2005, 97–111); the aíthousa is most likely a kind of vestibule between the main building and the courtyard (on which, 161n. with further references to Priam’s palace). Guests sleep in the aíthousa (644, etc.), and  – as here  – this is the spot where preparations are made for a departure by wagon (also 323, etc.; cf. 236–237a  n.).  

ἔπεσσ’ αἰσχροῖσιν: i.e. words intended to evoke feelings of shame in the addressee (3.38n.). On the semantic field ‘insult, abuse’ (in what follows, also at 248  f., 252, 265), cf. 2.221–222a  n.

239–240 ἔρρετε: a colloquial term of aggressive wishing away: ‘out with you!’; the phrasing at 22.497  f. is similar (LfgrE; Macleod). — λωβητῆρες: 2.275n.; either in reference to 240b (LfgrE: ‘wretched talkers, scandal-mongers’) and/or 243–244a (‘a shame for the town’; in this sense, Schubert 2000, 71; similarly λώβη 3.42n.). Differently Heath 2005, 150  f.: causative, ‘who let me feel their shame’, in reference to the Trojans reminding Priam by means of their lament that he has not yet buried Hektor. — ἐλεγχέες: ‘wastrels’ (LfgrE). The unusual form (rather than ἐλέγχεα 2.235, etc.) is interpreted as a prosodic alternative that avoids hiatus (Cauer [1895] 1921, 68  f.; Meissner 2006, 108; Kirk on 4.242) or as a secondary masculine by-form (Schw. 1.513; Frisk and Beekes s.v. ἐλέγχω). — οὔ νυ καὶ ὑμῖν …: ‘don’t you all have enough cause for lament, each in his own house?’ (cf. LfgrE s.v. γόος and οἴκοι; on the meaning of γόος, see 160n.). – VE ≈ 33 (see ad loc.: οὔ νυ introduces an impatient question), Od. 10.464. — γόος, ὅτι: on the prosody, 84n. — ὅτι: ‘that’, in the sense ‘I say/ask this because’ or ‘I conclude from this that’: substantiation of a statement, question, etc. (Schw. 2.646; Chantr. 2.285; Bonifazi 2012, 193–195); cf. the ancient v.l. ὅ τε ‘that’ (on which, 1.244n.). — κηδήσοντες: a unique future form of κήδω ‘cause harm’, here subjective in the sense ‘harass’ (Anastassiou 1973, 131; cf. AH), possibly with a purposeful echo of κήδεα: ‘shower with grief’ (cf. Macleod; Richardson; 417n.).      241 2nd VH = 2.375, 18.431. — ἦ †οὔνεσθ’†: By analogy with Od. 17.378  f. ἦ ὄνοσαι, ὅτι … ‘is it not enough for you that …’, it seems likely that a 2nd pers. pl. of ὄνομαι ‘think little of’ lies behind the transmitted form (pres. with metrical lengthening: van der Valk 1963, 565  f.; impf.: Schw. 1.681 n. 4 and Macleod; Aristarchus read the aor. ἦ ὀνόσασθ’ [schol. A]; differently Leaf and Wackernagel [1891] 1979, 1589  f.: a form of ὀνίνημι. Further discussion: West 2001, 278). Like ἦ οὐχ ἅλις (5.349, 17.450, 23.670, Od. 2.312), the phrase introduces an angry protest (ironic/rhetorical question).  

238 ἀπέ(ϝ)εργεν: =  ἀπεῖργεν (impf.), ‘close, exclude, crowd out, drive away’ (+ gen.: ‘from a place’). — ἔπεσσ(ι): on the inflection, R 11.3. — ἐνίσσων: ‘rebuking, scolding’. 239 καὶ ὑμῖν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 240 μ(ε): to be taken with κηδήσοντες (‘harass’). 241 ἦ †οὔνεσθ’†, ὅτι: ≈ ‘is it not enough for you that’. — ἄλγε’ ἔδωκεν: on the hiatus, R 5.1.

102 

 Iliad 24

242 losing the best of my sons: an emphatic apposition to 241 ‘sorrow’ (Macleod; Mawet 1979, 171), with ‘the best’ ‘in an emphatic position’ (AH [transl.]). On the thought, cf. 255  ff., 384  f. — You also shall be aware of this: of his (bitter) personal experience, cf. similar threats at 1.185, 1.302, 1.411, 2.237 (with n.), 7.226, 8.17, 8.406, etc. (AH; Macleod).  

τὸν ἄριστον: ἄριστος with the article is frequently used emphatically in secondary focalizationP in reference to heroes who have suffered an injury or defeat (again of Hektor at 384, also e.g. Agamemnon at 11.288, Sarpedon at 16.521, Asteropaios at 21.207, Eumelos at 23.536); cf. Basset 2006, 113.

243–244a On the thought, cf. 18.257  f. (with reversed polarity: so long as Achilleus was angry, the Achaians were easier to fight against). – Hektor is represented in the Iliad as the most important Trojan hero: 499n.     

ῥηΐτεροι … μάλλον: an intensified comparative: ‘even more easily, much more easily’, in Homer only here (more in LSJ s.v. μάλα II.2). On the accent of μάλλον, see West 1998, XX, s.v. ἄσσον. — δή: underscores the preceding word (Schw. 2.562  f.: ‘often ironic’; Denniston 204  ff.). — τεθνηῶτος: on the form, G 95; on the genitive absolute, still rare in Homer, see Chantr. 2.323  f.

244b–246 On the death-wish motif, see 224b–227n. (‘to rather die than witness something’: an expression of desperation); on the pathetic phrase ‘having to witness Troy’s destruction with one’s own eyes’, cf. 22.61–65. – The audience knows that Priam’s wish will not come true: prolepticP references to the conquest and destruction of Troy are a theme in the Iliad, cf. 728  f. (2.12n., 6.447– 449n.; Duckworth 1933, 30–32; Kullmann 1960, 343–349).

αὐτὰρ ἐγώ γε: a VE formula (3× Il., 8× Od.).

245 The length and rhyming assonance of the two participial forms creates emphasis (Richardson); on synonym doubling specifically with terms from the sphere of battle/war, 216n. — πρίν: can be scanned either short or long in early epic (van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 90; DELG; examples in La Roche 1869, 256). On its use in the sense ‘before it comes about that’, see 6.465n. — κεραϊζομένην: cf. 22.63 θαλάμους κεραϊζομένους, in reference to the destruction of Troy, as here.

246 1st VH ≈ 3× Il., 2× Od., 3× Hes., 2× h.Cer.; frequently also in different positions in the verse. — go | down to the house of the god of death: ‘[T]he image of the descent to Hades marks out the full solemnity of death’: Clarke 1999, 170. More on the formulation and content: 3.322n., 6.19n.   242 ὀλέσαι: ‘to lose’. — ἀτάρ: ‘but, yet’ (adversative: R 24.2). — ὔμμες: = ὑμεῖς (R 14.1). 243 ῥηΐτεροι: comparative of ῥάδιος; personal construction (ῥ. ἔσεσθε ἐναιρέμεν). 244 κείνου: = ἐκείνου. — ἐναιρέμεν: inf. (R 16.4). 246 βαίην: opt. of wish — δόμον … εἴσω: ≈ εἰς δόμον. — Ἄϊδος: ‘of Hades’ (athematic gen. sing.); the initial syllable is long here, short in 593.

Commentary 



 103

δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω: a VE formulaP (5× Il., 4× Od., 1× h.Ven.); without δόμον 3× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× Thebais; additional information: 3.322n. (where also on the form and etymology of the gen. Ἄϊδος; it likely means ‘the invisible one’).

247 1st VH = 13.59. — stick: The ‘scepter’ is the emblem of (royal) authority, see 2.199 and 265 with nn. (Odysseus flogs the Achaians who are running to their ships and deals a blow to Thersites); on the scepter and its multifunctionality in general, 2.101–108n.; LfgrE; Hornblower 2000, esp. 63  ff.  

σκηπανίῳ: a rare by-form of σκῆπτρον; the word formation is uncertain (Risch 116), possibly a diminutive related to (synonymous but only attested later) σκηπάνη (LSJ; Frisk and Beekes s.v. σκήπτομαι). — δίεπ(ε): ‘impose order, clear a path (through)’ in regard to a crowd (2.207a  n.; Leaf); picks up ἀπέεργεν at 238.

248 1st VH ≈ 322. — σπερχομένοιο γέροντος: either an ablatival gen. (‘away from the old man’; cf. Schw. 2.397  f.) or a genitive absolute with a causal connotation (thus Classen 1867, 181–184; cf. 243–244a  n., end, with bibliography). – σπέρχομαι has both an objective and a subjective connotation: ‘hurry, rush’ and ‘rage, flare up’ (LfgrE s.v., with bibliography). — ὀμόκλα: picked up at both 252 in the speech introduction formulaP and 265 in the reaction to the speech: the speaker’s intention and the addressees’ understanding (‘take fright at the rebuke’) coincide. On the realization of the illocutionary act, cf. 101–102n. – On the meaning and use of ὀμοκλάω, see 6.54n. (‘loud call’); on the switch between the denominative verb here and the noun at 265, see Porzig 1942, 31  ff. (esp. 38), 84.  

249–251 Of the sons of Priam mentioned here (and at 257), the following play a role (major or minor) in the Iliad: Helenos the augur (6.76n.) and Deïphobos (CH 8), who are the leaders of a Trojan contingent together with Asios (12.94  f.), kill an Achaian each before being wounded themselves (13.576  ff. and 13.516  ff.); Athene appears to Hektor in the form of Deïphobos (22.226  ff.). Paris (cf. 28– 30), likewise a lieutenant (12.93), emerges as a warrior in Books 3 (duel with Menelaos), 11 (369  ff., 505  ff., 581  ff.), 13 (660  ff., 765  ff.) and 15 (341  f.). Polites (2.791n.) leads the injured Deïphobos away from battle (13.533  ff.) and kills an Achaian (15.339  f.). – The remaining sons of Priam mentioned here do not feature elsewhere in the Iliad; whether the original audience was expected to know them or whether they are ad hoc inventions (‘extras’) cannot be determined (but see 257n. on Mestor and Troïlos). Most have clearly Greek names (Wathelet s.vv.; dubious: Pammon, Troïlos); in addition, Hippothoos has a namesake among the allies (2.840n.), and three additional characters in the Iliad, including another son of Priam (11.101  ff.), bear the name Antiphos,

247 ἀνέρας: = ἄνδρας; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 248 σπερχομένοιο: on the inflection, R 11.2. — υἱάσιν: on the inflection, R 12.3. — οἷσιν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4).

104 

 Iliad 24

which echoes that of Antiphonos. ‘The shadowy character of them emphasizes Priam’s point that his favourite sons are dead’ (Richardson); see also Gaertner 2001, 301; Sammons 2010, 111–114; Buchan 2012, 143  f.  – Lists of nine may represent ‘a considerable number’ (2.96n.); a list of names, as here: 7.161  ff. (drawing lots for the duel against Hektor), 8.253  ff. (Achaian advance), 11.301  ff., 16.415  ff., 16.694  ff. (the dead; cf. 16.784  f.). Here the multitude of sons criticized forms a contrast to the small number of capable warriors at 257  f.; at the same time, it illustrates Priam’s renewed energy: he spurs on everyone in his vicinity to act to expedite his departure (Minchin 2001, 92  ff.); cf. the similar situations at 13.89  ff., 17.210  ff. (with a list of ten at 216  ff.). – The third name in each verse is expanded by an epithet, probably for reasons of versification (all three formulations are unique, see the nn. that follow). 249 Ἀγάθωνά τε δῖον: Names (and words generally) of the metrical form ⏖–⏑ are rare in this position in the verse (statistics in O’Neill 1942, 143) and are also almost never found as noun-epithet formulae (e.g. 154 Ἀχιλῆϊ πελάσσῃ, 434 Ἀχιλῆα δέχεσθαι, 510 Ἀχιλῆος ἐλυσθείς, etc.; but unique Ἀχιλῆϊ ἄνακτι at 9.164). The combination τε δῖον is likewise unique in early epic. 250 βοὴν ἀγαθόν: a generic epithetP (2.408n.), of Polites only here (Hoekstra 1965, 95: ‘occasional use’). It forms a semantic unit, hence τε in third position (likewise in the 2nd VH at 5.442): AH; Ruijgh 1 and 152; cf. 273–274n., end (on δέ in third position).   251 VB/VE ≈ 13.490. — Δῖον ἀγαυόν: Which of the two words represents the name of the person has been a matter of dispute since antiquity; the post-Homeric mythic tradition settled on Dios (schol. A, T; van der Valk 1964, 232; Wathelet s.v.); a similar problem is found e.g. at 13.5 ἀγαυῶν Ἱππημολγῶν (Janko ad loc.; Matthaios 1999, 218  f.). – ἀγαυός is a generic epithet of human beings and gods (e.g. 3× at VE Τρῶες ἀγ.); the sense is uncertain, but most likely ‘admirable, eminent’ (3.268n.).

252 The catalogue of names concludes in a summary (asyndetic ‘nine’: K.-G. 2.343) and has verbal links with 248: a ring-compositionP in the expanded speech introduction (cf. 248n., 2.795n., 19.404n.).  

ὁ γεραιός: cf. 162n.

253–264 The criticism of the sons resembles the speech directed at the Trojans in 239–246 in structure and tone (Macleod): an imperative, abusive address, ‘you have no place here’; Priam’s lament for his own fate; his determination. The speech is characterized by numerous generalizations and exaggerations,

250 βοὴν ἀγαθόν: to be taken with Πολίτην (τε); βοήν is acc. of respect (R 19.1). 252 ἐννέα τοῖς: ‘these nine (sons)’; dat. probably ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with ὀμοκλήσας (cf. 248) and ἐκέλευσεν (the latter frequently with the dat. in Homer); on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17.

Commentary 

 105

as is typical in rebukes and disputes (1.106–108n.): the curse 253b–254 (254n.), 255 ‘my evil destiny’, 256 ‘not one’, 258 ‘god’, 260 ‘all’, the severe accusations at 261  f. (cf. Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 62–64; more on speeches of rebuke: 33–54n.). On the ring-compositionP structure of the speech, Lohmann 1970, 21 (request – abuse – lament – abuse – request). – The narrator uses the rebuke to illustrate once more ‘the impatience and dissatisfaction of the old man’ (AH on 263 [transl.]) as well as Priam’s exceptional appreciation of Hektor (cf. 189n.). Furthermore, the repeated request to prepare the wagon is the cue to resume the actual preparations for departure (189–328n.; cf. Richardson). 253 Make haste: Priam is not afraid to make those who surround him ‘crazy’ with his haste (248, 253, 263, 322, 327; cf. 322–328n., 326n.); although the Trojans comply (247  f., 265  f.), with Achilleus this nearly leads to catastrophe (552–571n.). – The journey to the Achaian camp is repeatedly driven by haste as well: 440–447n., 468–476n.  

κακὰ τέκνα: a reversal of the address φίλα τέκνα (10.192, h.Cer. 138; τέκνα φίλα Od. 3.418, 4.78, h.Cer. 119); on the meaning of κακός, cf. 63n. — κατηφόνες: a hapaxP, ‘causing shame, disgraceful’, cf. κάκ’ ἐλέγχεα 2.235 (Thersites addressing the Achaians). On the meaning of κατηφ-, see 3.51n. (‘disgrace’); cf. e.g. 16.498  f. (the dying Sarpedon: κατηφείη καὶ ὄνειδος | ἔσσομαι), Od. 24.432 (the relatives of the murdered suitors: κατηφέες ἐσσόμεθ’ αἰεί). On the (pejorative) word formation in -ων, Macleod and Risch 56  f. — ἅμα πάντες: an inflectible formula, ≈ ἅπαντες: 6.59n.

254 The wish that the addressee were already dead is a typical motif in invectives, cf. 3.40, 3.428, 11.380  f., Od. 2.183  f., 18.401.

Ἕκτορος: ‘in contrast to πάντες, placed in initial position for emphasis’ (and strikingly located at a distance from ἀντί): AH (transl.). — ὠφέλετ(ε): In early epic, the aor. and impf. of ὀφέλλω denote without differentiation something unfulfillable/unfulfilled in the present and past (1.353n.). — ἀντὶ … πεφάσθαι: i.e. if only all others were dead and Hektor still alive; differently at 13.447, 14.471 (triumph): ‘to have died in compensation for (a dead man from the opposing party)’. — θοῇς ἐπὶ νηυσί: 1n. — πεφάσθαι: perf. pass. of θείνω, ‘to have been killed, to lie dead’ (related to the IE root *gṷhen-; cf. aor. πεφνεῖν 605 etc.); see DELG (with suppl.) and Beekes s.v. θείνω.  

255 ≈ 493; cf. 18.54  f. (Thetis to the Nereids about Achilleus; in general, the scenes at 18.37– 64 and 24.248–264 show situational and structural similarities: both Thetis and Priam set out to see their sons, speak to a group of people close to them who have been previously listed in a type of catalogue, and complain about their fate as parents; in detail, see Pattoni 1998, 15–24). — ᾤ μοι ἐγώ: VB 8× Il., 6× Od.; cf. 201–202n. — πανάποτμος:

253  f. μοι: ethic dat. — αἴθ(ε)  … |  … ὠφέλετ(ε): unfulfilled wish in the past (αἴθε =  εἴθε). — Ἕκτορος: dependent on ἀντί. — θοῇς: on the inflection, R 11.1. — νηυσί: on the inflection, R 12.1. 255 υἷας: on the inflection, R 12.3.

106 

 Iliad 24

elsewhere in early epic only in the iteratum 493 (where also Priam regarding himself; Griffin 1986, 41). An analogous word formation in παναώριος 540, παναπήμων Hes. Op. 811, πανάφυλλος h.Cer. 452; on tripartite compounds in general, Risch 229; on compounds with παν-, 2.448n. with bibliography (παν- here with an intensifying function, cf. 388 ἀπότμου, Od. 20.140 πάμπαν … ἄποτμος).

256 = 494. — not one of them is left to me: on the related motif ‘many sons have died’, 167–168n.  

Τροίῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ: together with 255 ἀρίστους amounts to ‘far and wide the best in Troy’ (LfgrE s.v. εὐρύς 805.58  ff.), cf. 6.188n., 13.433, also 774 (‘no other in all the wide Troad’). – A VB formula, 2× Il., 3× Od.; at VE in the form ἐνὶ Τροίῃ εὐρείῃ (774n.). — οὔ τινά φημί: on οὐ … φημί as a rhetorically effective assertion, e.g. 2.248 (see iterata for reference to a collection of examples).

257–259 On the climactic enumeration, cf. 234–237a  n. 257 Mestor is attested again only in later mythographers (with differing information, including his death at the hands of Achilleus). Details in Wathelet s.v.; cf. 249–251n. — The killing of Troïlos by Achilleus was portrayed in the Cypria: Procl. Chrest. § 11 West. Knowledge of this story by the original audience may be assumed (Kullmann 1960, 292  f.; Beck 1964, 143  f.). In vase painting as well, the myth of Troïlos is among the earliest topics depicted (e.g. on the François Vase [570/560 B. C.]): together with his horses, Troïlos is lingering at a well outside the town; Achilleus ambushes him, pursues Troïlos, who flees on horseback, and kills him near a temple of Apollo. Possibly represented here is the variant (less frequently attested as a whole) of Troïlos’ death in battle, if the epithetP ‘chariot fighter’ (see below) is to be understood pregnantly (schol. A, T; Zindel 1974, 30  f.; differently Kullmann loc. cit. n. 2). Details in Richardson; Wathelet s.v. Troïlos; LIMC s.v. Achilleus coll. 72  ff. and s.v. Troïlos.  

ἀντίθεον: a generic epithetP (1.264n.). — ἱππιοχάρμην: ‘(battle-hungry) chariot fighter’ (cf. 2.336n. on ἱππότα, 2.384n. on ‘chariot’); a generic epithet, always in genealogical contexts (also at Od. 11.259; 3× ‘Hes.’). The initial element is a metrical variant of ἱππο(G 49; Risch 218; cf. ἱππιοχαίτης 6.469n.) or derives from the Mycenaean i-qi-ja ‘war chariot’ (MYC; DMic; Heubeck on Od. 11.258–259). The final element χάρμη denotes ‘hunger/lust for battle’ (cf. Latacz 1966, 20  ff.). More in Benedetti 1979.  

258 a god: The designation of Hektor as a god (and at 259 as the son of a god, on which cf. 58–59n.) reflects the high regard in which he was held in Troy (243–244a  n.; Achilleus’ remarks at 22.394 and those of Hekabe at 22.434  f. are

256 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 257 Μήστορα …: in apposition to 255 υἷας ἀρίστους. 258 μετ(ά) + dat.: ‘under’. — οὐδὲ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)ῴκει: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 107

similar; cf. the hyperbolic expression ‘revered by the people like a god’ of various heroes, e.g. Aineias at 11.58); in addition, the designation here serves as a foil for belittling the surviving sons at 260  ff. – On comparisons with gods in general, 2.478–479n.

ἔσκε: ‘was always’ (3.180n.). — ἐῴκει: the personal construction with inf. occurs elsewhere in Homer only at Od. 22.348  f. (Fernández-Galiano ad loc.; LfgrE; Ruijgh [1986] 1996, 611 n. 5).

259 1st VH ≈ 10.403, 17.77, 20.266, Od. 10.306 (cf. also 9.190  f., h.Ven. 46, h.Hom. 19.33). — mortal man  … god: The opposing terms are pointedly placed at VB and VE (Richardson). The polar expressionP ‘god – human being’ in the same sentence is common (in Book 24 already at 258, also 537; see Macleod on 534–538; Fehling 1969, 280  ff. [esp. 282]; West 2007, 110  f.; LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 834.11  ff.).   260–262 The basic tenor of the severe accusations: the surviving sons of Priam lead an idle life of luxury at the expense of the people, instead of standing up for the community, as Hektor in particular did to set an example; similar accusations are levelled at Paris (3.39  ff., see 3.46–51n.) as well as, in a different context, the suitors in the Odyssey (e.g. Od. 1.150–165, 2.48–67); cf. Richardson; Veneri 1995, 120  f. – Dance (chorós) and battle as irreconcilable opposites are a popular rhetorical motif, see esp. Il. 3.392  ff. (3.390–394n.), 15.508, 16.617  f. (with Janko ad locc.): Schadewaldt (1944) 1965, 63; Ulf 1990, 39  f. (on the other hand, in antiquity so-called armored dances were common in the context of military ritual, cf. Od. 24.68–70: Bierl 2001, 100–104).  

‘260 is a balanced contrast of μέν and δέ clauses with dactylic rhythm, 261 a «tricolon crescendo»’ (Richardson; on 261; cf. 3.39 with n.); in addition, a sarcastic contrast with 255  f. is created: of the heroes in battle, none are left – left are rather, without exception, the ‘heroes of the round dance’, cf. Macleod: ‘ἄριστοι bitterly echoes ἀρίστους in 255’ (an ironic use of ἄριστος, as at 3.39, etc.). — ἄρης: on the so-called metonymic use, 2.381n. with bibliography; the present expression (‘Ares kills X’, i.e. ‘X falls in battle’) has close parallels at 16.543, 24.498. — ἐλέγχεα: cf. 239–240n.  

261 ψεῦσται: perhaps like 19.107 with the sense ‘you who do not follow what you purport to do/be’ (see ad loc.), cf. 3.106 ἄπιστοι (Menelaos on Priam’s sons): Luther 1935, 84  f. (‘braggarts’); differently Levet 1976, 219  f. (‘of people who invent tales’) and Carlisle 1999, 74 (‘another type of entertainer … tellers of unacceptable versions or of lesser narrative like folk tales’) by analogy with Od. 19.203 (Odysseus ἴσκε ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγων ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα); undecided, Macleod. — χοροιτυπίῃσιν: The initial element χοροι- is 259 ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). 260 τὰ … ἐλέγχεα: ‘the worthless ones there’ (deictic, cf. R 17). — πάντα: predicative, ‘all of them’. 261 χοροιτυπίῃσιν: on the inflection, R 11.1.

108 

 Iliad 24

a (metrically useful) old locative form, cf. 2.54 Πυλοιγενής, 24.375 ὁδοιπόρος, etc. (AH; Risch 220); the final element is related to τύπτω, literally ‘stamp the dancing ground in the round dance’ (Frisk s.v. χορός). On the plural in abstracts of a-stems, 2.588n.

262 1st VH = Od. 9.220, 17.242, 19.398. — the plunderers | of their own people in their land of lambs and kids: The implication is: rather than fighting the external foes (with livestock theft also normally directed against strangers, cf. 1.154–157n.; Macleod; Richardson). – The accusation against kings (here phrased as a paradox) of consuming common property is a frequent motif in the rhetoric of dispute (1.231n.). It is difficult to decide to what extent it is justified in individual cases; here either in reference to the lack of risk in the theft of sheep and goats that are usually left unguarded (thus LfgrE s.v. ἁρπακτήρ) or in the sense that Priam’s sons undeservedly take advantage of the agricultural produce they regularly receive from the people because of their status (van Wees 1992, 86). On the moral criticism of ‘theft’, cf. Hes. Op. 356.   263 See 253–264n. and 253n. — οὐκ ἂν  … ἐφοπλίσσαιτε: The potential is an ‘oblique (but taken objectively sometimes a more emphatic) form of stating a desire, plea, request’ (Schw. 2.329 [transl.]), here in the form of a question, as at 3.52  f. (see ad loc.), Od. 6.57 (Nausikaa); see also Chantr. 2.221 (‘why are you waiting to prepare my wagon for me …?’ [transl.]); Richardson; Minchin 2007, 206; 2010, 393–395. — τάχιστα: frequently in (impatient) requests, cf. 554, 635 (LfgrE s.v. 341.12  ff.).   264 2nd VH = Od. 15.219; ≈ Od. 3.476, 15.47. — ταῦτα … πάντ(α): must refer to the gifts set aside in the treasure-room – possibly ‘accompanied by an indicating gesture from Priam’  – even if they are located outside the field of view (Beck 1964, 218 [transl.]; Macleod). — ἐπιθεῖτε, ἵνα: hiatus in caesura B 2 is not uncommon in early epic, cf. 297, 318, 637, 717, 733, 784: Ahrens (1851) 1891, 123  ff.; West on Hes. Th., Introd. 96. — πρήσσωμεν ὁδοῖο: of the departure: ‘get on one’s way’ (Kurz 1966, 136 n. 42; Macleod; LfgrE s.v. πρήσσω); on the partitive gen., 2.785n.   265 ≈ 12.413, 23.417, 23.446; 1st VH ≈ 17× Il., 23× Od. (ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἳ δ’ ἄρα πάντες). — ὑποδδείσαντες: ‘take fright’; in early epic, obedience is naturally repeatedly motivated by fear (1.33, 1.568, 24.571, 24.689, etc.). — ὀμοκλήν: cf. 248n. (ὀμόκλα).  

266–274 Just as with Hera’s carriage (5.722–732), Achilleus’ shield (18.478–609) and quarters (24.448–456) and Odysseus’ raft (Od. 5.234–262), the narrator describes the wagon not in its finished state but in the way it is assembled/ made (‘narrative in description’: Minchin 2001, 114  ff.; ‘dynamic description’: de Jong on Od. 5.233–262). Such technical descriptions bring about an ini-

262 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). 263 οὐκ ἂν …: potential as a request. — ἐφοπλίσσαιτε: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 264 ἐπιθεῖτε, ἵνα: on the hiatus, R 5.6; ἐπι-θεῖτε: aor. opt. — πρήσσωμεν: Attic πράττωμεν (R 2). 265 ἔφατ(ο): on the middle, R 23. — ὑποδδείσαντες: = ὑποδείσαντες; -δδ- < -δϝ- (R 4.5).

Commentary 

 109

tial calm after highly emotional scenes only in order to immediately raise the tension once more (Macleod; Richardson; Minchin loc. cit. 129): the detail of the description is related to the significance of the subsequent action (in which the object described is an important tool); here, the wagon will bring the ransom gifts to Achilleus and Hektor’s corpse back to Troy (principle of elaborate narrationP; cf. Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 56; Bowra 1952, 210). Linguistically, such descriptions are characterized by a high density of nouns and predicates, especially by technical terms and hapax legomenaP (Edwards, Introd. 54; Müller 1968, 74  f.; Keil 1998, 47 n. 38; Perceau 2002, 128  ff.); the ‘prepositions’ (frequently at the beginning of clauses) also stand out: ‘(lifted) out, (lifted) down, then out’, etc.; Fehling 1969, 195; cf. 1.436–439 with n.). On descriptions of objects in general, see also 2.101–108n.; Grethlein 2008, 35  ff., 47  f. — the easily running wagon for mules, a fine thing | new-fabricated: Four-wheeled wagons (on ‘four-wheeled’, see 324) are drawn by mules rather than horses (277–278n.; also by cattle: 782) and are used to transport goods; cf. Od. 6.72–80 (Wiesner 1968, 10  f., 33; Richter 1968, 78–80). Because of its role as a means to transport the ransom gifts and then Hektor’s body, the wagon (and/or the draft animals) is mentioned at every opportunity in Book 24 (150  f./179  f., 189  f., 277  f., 324  f., 350, 362, 442, 447, 471, 576–579, 590, 690, 697, 702, 718). General bibliography on the wagon in early epic: Leaf p. 623  ff. (appendix M); Wiesner 1968; Plath 1994. – Four-wheeled wagons are rarely attested in archaeological contexts in Greece; their construction can be deduced only approximately from the extant finds (Crouwel 1981, 54  ff.; 1992, 77  ff.). – The emphatic cluster of attributes at 266  f. (with enjambment; cf. 191n.) points to the special occasion (of the journey) for the king; the enjambment at 268  f. and the clustering of ‘well polished/smooth’ at 271, 275, 280 are similar; cf. 2.42–43n.; on asyndetic series of epithets in general, 125n.; on series of four epithets, Bühler 1960, 212–215.

ἄειραν … δῆσαν … ᾕρεον … ἔφερον …: The switch between aor. and impf. in scenes with a dense sequence of actions is likely most often metrically determined, e.g. the landing by ship at 1.432–439 (1.437n.), the dressing scene at 2.42–46 (2.42n.). Bibliography (occasionally with attempts at differentiation): K.-G. 1.143  f.; Wackernagel (1920) 1926, 182  f.; Schw. 2.276  f.; Chantr. 2.193  f.; βαίνω in particular: 459n.

266 2nd VH = 189, Od. 6.72. — hauled out: When not in use, wagons were set on platforms (stands, trestles) and the wheels removed: 8.441 with Leaf ad loc.; 2.777b–778a  n.  

266 ἐκ … ἄειραν: = ἐξῆραν ‘lifted out/down’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

110 

 Iliad 24

267 1st VH ≈ 5.194; 2nd VH ≈ 190. — πρωτοπαγέα:  ͜ For the special occasion, a wagon is here used for the very first time: ‘brand new’ (cf. Pandaros’ wagon at 5.192  ff.; LfgrE with bibliography). – The prosodic irregularity (synizesis at word end) may result from declining the formula (5.194 καλοὶ πρωτοπαγεῖς: Plath 1994, 253; cf. 7n.); on the word formation, see Risch 81  f. (verb-noun compound, final element related to πήγνυμι). — πείρινθα: 190n.  

268–269 1st VH of 268 ≈ Od. 8.67/105; 2nd VH of 269 ≈ 11.31, Hes. Th. 812. — of boxwood: ‘The wood of the box, which grows plentifully in the mountains of Pontic Asia Minor, was appreciated early on for its hardness, density and lasting durability’ (AH [transl.]; see also Meiggs 1982, 280–283; LfgrE); already attested in Mycenaean (MYC). — massive knob: On omphalós ‘yoke-boss’, see 273–274n.     

ὀμφαλόεν: On the short before caesura B 1, see 84n. The v.l. -εντ’ is likely due to the influence of post-Homeric masculine ζυγός (Leaf); on the conjecture -ειν, see Rengakos 1993, 86. — οἰήκεσσιν: a device for guiding the reins or straps (= chest/belly strap to fasten the yoke), in the shape of rings, eyes, hooks or ends of the yoke bent upwards (or fitted with pegs). Discussion: Leaf p. 625  f. (Appendix M); Wiesner 1968, 7  f., 16  f., 105; Plath 1994, 383  ff.; LfgrE.

270 the yoke lashing (together with the yoke itself): repetition of a word stem in the case of technical terms, as at 3.330, 18.476 (Fehling 1969, 161). — yoke lashing … of nine cubits: probably a strap to connect the yoke and the wagon-pole (273–274n.). The measurements suggest extraordinary length (likewise at Od. 11.308–312: giants; h.Ap. 103  f.: necklace or garland for a goddess) – whether this is realistic or a hyperbolic indication of the quality of the royal utensils is unclear; similarly disputed are the measurements of the wagon in Hes. Op. 423  ff., especially the 7-foot-long axle (Richardson/Piggott 1982, 226, 228; Raepsaet 1987, esp. 24  f.). Additional symbolic measurements: 6.319n. (Hektor’s lance, 11 cubits), 15.678 (Aias’ pike, 22 cubits). – All numbers mentioned here (7, 9, 11, 22 [= 2×11]) are typical numbersP.  

267 πρωτοπαγέα:  ͜ on the synizesis, R 7; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 268 κάδ … ᾕρεον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; κάδ = κατά (with apocope and assimilation: R 20.1). — πασσαλόφι: ‘peg, hook’; on the inflection, R 11.4. 269 οἰήκεσσιν: from οἴηξ ‘guide for the reins’ (Attic οἴαξ: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2); on the inflection, R 11.3. — ἀρηρός: ‘fitted with’. 270 ἐκ … φέρον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ζυγόδεσμον: ‘yoke-strap’.

Commentary 

 111

271–274 The transition from the yoke to the wagon-pole is the inherent ‘weak point’ of an animal-drawn vehicle (the tip of the wagon-pole of a two-wheeled chariot breaks at 6.38–43 [6.40n.], 16.370  f.), hence the careful joining via (1) ring and nail and (2) yoke strap is all the more important, cf. 5.729  f. (illustrations in Wiesner 1968, 8  f. [see below]); a certain flexibility must be maintained, however, in the case of a four-wheeled wagon (Littauer/Crouwel 1988, 195; LfgrE s.v. πέζα). 271 ≈ Od. 6.75 (cf. 275n.); 1st VH ≈ Il. 3.293, 4.112, 6.473, Od. 9.329, 13.20, 13.370, h.Merc. 63, 134. — κατέθηκαν: rather than κατέθεσαν: for an analogous formation of a unique aorist form in -κ- (ἔθηκα, etc.), cf. 795 θῆκαν beside 720/787/797 θέσαν (Chantr. 1.379; Hackstein 2002, 136–139). — ἐϋξέστῳ: an epithet of various objects made of wood, usually after caesura B 2; in Book 24 also at 275, 590 (wagon), 280 (manger) (Plath 1994, 217  ff.). Occasionally in early epic also with a feminine form (e.g. 275): an amalgam of ἐϋ + ξεστός (Kastner 1967, 44).  

272 ring  … peg: The ring fixed to the center of the yoke (‘boss’, 273–274n.) is slipped over the nail or peg inserted close to the tip of the drawbar (Plath 1994, 381  ff. and 374  ff.).  

πέζῃ ἔπι πρώτῃ: ‘on the outer part of the tip of the drawbar’. For a summary treatment of the term and the object, LfgrE s.v. πέζα (with bibliography, esp. Plath 1994, 391  ff.); cf. 271–274n.

273–274 The binding technique cannot be accurately reconstructed from the text: the strap coming off the drawbar is probably looped around the boss in a crosswise manner three times each from left and right, and is then tied to the wagon-pole ‘in a row, in order’, i.e. in parallel, screw-like turns (Wiesner 1968, 7  f. with fig. 1 [see below]; Macleod; LfgrE s.v. ἑξείης); finally, the end of the strap is fixed to the wagon-pole. – Discussion, some parts of which are disputed, in: AH; Littauer/Crouwel 1988; Plath 1994, 377  ff.; Richardson (with additional bibliography). — knob: The yoke’s thickened middle, used as the central fastening point.  

271 τὸ μέν: = ζυγόν. — ἐϋξέστῳ ἐπί: on the prosody, (eÿxéstōy epí) M 12.2. — ῥυμῷ: ‘drawbar’. 272 πέζῃ ἔπι: = ἐπὶ πέζῃ (R 20.2); πέζα = ‘«foot» (front end) of the yoke’. — πρώτῃ, ἐπί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἐπὶ … βάλλον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — κρίκον: ‘ring (on the yoke)’. — ἕστορι: ‘nail, peg (on the wagon-pole)’. 273 ἔδησαν: as object sc. τὸ ζυγόδεσμον. — ὀμφαλόν: ‘knob (of the yoke), pommel’.

112 

 Iliad 24

A possible reconstruction of the joining of yoke and drawbar (from: Wiesner 1968, 8 fig. 1; reproduction with kind permission of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Publishers, Göttingen).  – a. ῥυμός ‘wagon-pole’; b. ζυγόν ‘yoke’; c. ὀμφαλός ‘boss’; d. κρίκος ‘yoke-ring’; e. ἕστωρ ‘peg’; f. ζυγόδεσμον ‘yoke strap’; g. γλωχίς ‘contraption to fix the yoke strap’ (with a loop [thus the illustration] or, more likely, with a hook).



αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα: a formula at VE (15× Il., 11× Od., 3× Hes., 4× h.Hom.), at VB (14× Il., 7× Od.) and after caesura A 3 (3× Il., 2× Od., 1× h.Cer.), cf. Higbie 1990, 100  f.; a typical paratactic clause connection in narrative: ‘and then’ (1.51n.). — ὑπὸ γλωχῖνα δ(έ): Because of the postponement of δέ (see below), ὑπό is probably a preposition with γλωχίς rather than an adverb/preverb in tmesis with ἔκαμψαν; γλωχίς (basic meaning ‘tip’) thus likely refers here not to the ‘end’ of the yoke strap (which is bent downward, i.e. pulled through underneath the knotting on the wagon-pole and so held in place), but to a ‘hook’ on the wagon-pole nail (under which the strap end is guided, and to which it is then fastened). On this passage in detail, Plath 1994, 369  ff.; see also LfgrE s.vv. γλωχῖνα (and τριγλώχις), as well as the bibliography mentioned above. — δ(έ): On δέ in third position after a combination of closely linked words (esp. article + noun, preposition + noun), see Bekker 1863, 286; Denniston 185–187; West on Hes. Op. 46.  

275 2nd VH ≈ 578 (v.l.), 590, Od. 6.75 (cf. 271n.). — The structure of the verse mirrors the movements of Priam’s sons: the starting point is the treasure-room (VB), the end point the transport wagon (VE); the object (‘the unnumbered spoils’) is left until the end of the sentence (276). – On the ‘treasure-room’, see 191n.

274 γλωχῖνα: ‘hook (on the wagon-pole)’.

Commentary 

 113

276 ≈ 579 (unloading the wagon). — Ἑκτορέης κεφαλῆς: a periphrastic denominationP. κεφαλή as a representative body part of human beings can connote both ‘(endangered) life’ and ‘(dear) person’ (with emotional coloring): 17.242 ἐμῇ κεφαλῇ περιδείδια, 18.82 (τὸν τῖον) ἶσον ἐμῇ κεφαλῇ (similarly Od. 11.557 ἶσον Ἀχιλλῆος κεφαλῇ), Il. 18.114 ὄφρα φίλης κεφαλῆς ὀλετῆρα κιχείω, in the address at 8.281 φίλη κεφαλή, 23.94 ἠθείη κεφαλή (cf. post-Homeric literature, e.g. Soph. Ant. 1: Ἰσμήνης κάρα); additional examples: LfgrE s.v. κεφαλή 1396.38  ff.; bibliography: Edwards on 18.82; de Jong on Od. 1.343–344; Clarke 1999, 174. Cf. below, 579n. – On the combination adj. + κεφαλή, see the passages above with ἐμός, φίλος, etc.; differently (concretely of the head) Γοργείη κεφαλή at 5.741, Od. 11.634; on the type of possessive adjective with the Aeolic ending -εος, see 2.54n. — ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα: described in detail at 229  ff.; despite its formulaic nature (VE formula, 11× Il.), the epithetP could thus be understood as contextually relevant (Buchan 2012, 145); cf. 502 in direct speechP (Priam addressing Achilleus), 555  f. ἄποινα πολλά, τά τοι φέρομεν, 594 οὐ … ἀεικέα … ἄποινα, but see the reservations at 1.13n. (where also on the form ἀπερείσιος). – The parallelism Ἑκτορέης κεφαλῆς ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα (adj. + noun / adj. + noun) lends weight to the matter: 19.267n., end (with examples).  

277–278 Mules were considered extremely useful and were valued accordingly (e.g. as a prize for boxing: 23.653  ff.): Richter 1968, 78  ff.; Wiesner 1968, 10  f., 33, 101  f.; Griffith 2006, 229–241. The area of the Propontis and the southern coast of the Black Sea was apparently an important center for mule-breeding (2.852n.; schol. T on 24.278 [with a quotation from Anacreon 377 Page]). 277 ≈ Od. 6.253; 1st VH ≈ Od. 6.111. — κρατερώνυχας: an epithet of mules as strong draft animals in difficult terrain: a naturally strong hoof is an important criterion of quality in an era without horseshoes (Delebecque 1951, 148  f.; Hainsworth on Od. 6.253). Elsewhere usually of horses (in the Iliad as a VE formula κρατ. ἵππους 5.329, 16.724/732, all in the context of speed); on horse epithets in general, 2.383n.; cf. the VE formula μώνυχας ἵππους 19.424n. — ἐντεσιεργούς: ‘working in harness’ (a hapaxP; cf. ταλαεργός 23.654 etc.); ἔντεα in the sense ‘harness for draft animals’ elsewhere only in post-Homeric literature (Richardson); on the word formation with dative/locative initial element, Risch 219  f. (On the unresolved issue of whether the initial element was originally ἠνυσι- vel sim., see the bibliography in LfgrE, esp. Wyatt 1969, 63  ff.).

278 2nd VH ≈ 534, etc. (see ad loc.). — Mysians gave once: The external analepsisP (cf. 235n.) lends the animals ‘a certain distinction’: Delebecque 1951, 28 (transl.). – In the action of the Iliad, the Mysians are Trojan allies; their territory borders the Troad to the east (2.858n.).  

τούς: ἡμίονος is feminine as a rule (thus at e.g. 324  f.), rarely masculine (also at 17.742 [simile]). — ἀγλαὰ δῶρα: a VE formula (8× Il., 6× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Merc.); in the verse

276 νήεον: impf. of νηέω ‘pile up, load’; the impf. indicates iteration (‘one gift after another’). — Ἑκτορέης: on the -η- after -ε-, R 2. 278 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1).

114 

 Iliad 24

middle (mostly in the 3rd/4th metron, cf. 447) 3× Il., 4× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Merc. – The epithet likely has a merely ornamental function (1.23n., but cf. οὐ … ἀεικέα … ἄποινα 594n.).

279 ≈ 23.291. — they led under the yoke those horses: After the detailed description of the transport wagon – which will be driven by the herald Idaios (324  f.) – the preparation of Priam’s team of horses (somewhat less important for the plot) is reported only briefly (Peppmüller; cf. 3.328–339: the arming of Paris is described in detail, while that of Menelaos is allowed only a single verse; see 3.339n.). The team of horses will pull a two-wheeled wagon, as is customary in early epic (322; see 14n.).   280 cf. 5.271. — himself had kept, and cared for them: Priam again uses one of his most valuable possessions for his journey to plead with Achilleus (Martinazzoli; cf. the precious cup at 234–237a [with n.], the mules 277  f.); in addition, the horses are a gift from the gods (534–535a  n.). On horses as an aristocratic ‘hallmark’ in general, see the bibliography at 2.762n.; on horse rearing, especially in Troy, 2.230n.; on the common motif of feeding horses before and after a drive, 2.775b–777a  n.  

αὐτὸς ἔχων: ‘keeping for himself, for his own use’ (AH; cf. 1.133, 2.233 [with n.], 5.271, Od. 21.30).

281–321 Immediately before her husband’s departure, Hekabe urges him to make a libation to Zeus and ask for a good omen. Priam complies, and Zeus consequently sends a large eagle, flying from the right, as a sign. 281 ζευγνύσθην: a causative middle: ‘they had their teams harnessed’, i.e. by Priam’s sons (schol. bT; AH; in general: K.-G. 1.108  f.). — ἐν δώμασιν ὑψηλοῖσιν: a VE formula (also at Od. 21.33, h.Hom. 29.1), cf. VE ἐν ὑψηλοῖσι δόμοισιν 6.503n. – ὑψηλός is a common epithetP of buildings or parts of buildings, with δῶμα also at 16.213 = 23.713 δώματος ὑψηλοῖο (VB); cf. 449n. (of Achilleus’ κλισίη).  

282 = 674; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.353. — the herald | and Priam: 148n., 149n.

πυκινὰ φρεσὶ μήδε’ ἔχοντες: a variant (‘inflection’) of the VE formulaP  … μήδεα εἰδώς (88n.), aside from here and 674 also at Od. 19.353 (Penelope on Eurykleia); θεοῖς ἐναλίγκια μήδε’ ἔχοντα Od. 13.89 (of Odysseus) is similar. The expression πυκινὰ φρεσὶ μήδε(α) also occurs at ‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).9 M.-W. (π. φρ. μήδε’ ἰδ[υι-) and in the quotation of ‘Homer’ at Xen. Sympos. 8.30 (π. φρ. μήδεα εἰδώς); cf. also 3.202n. (εἰδὼς … μήδεα

279 ἵππους  … ὕπαγον ζυγόν: ‘they led the horses under the yoke’; ζυγόν is acc. of direction dependent on ὕπ(αγον). 280 ἀτίταλλεν: ‘he cared for, brought up’ (durative impf.). — ἐϋξέστῃ ἐπί: on the hiatus, 271n. 281–282 τὼ  … ζευγνύσθην  … |  … ἔχοντες: dual and plural forms can be combined freely (R 18.1). — δώμασιν: here ‘building complex’ (including the courtyard). — μήδε(α): ‘thoughts, ideas, stratagems’.

Commentary 

 115

πυκνά). – Whether the epithetP (metaphorical in the sense ‘wise’: 75n.) here and at 674 is to be taken as (a) ornamental or (b) contextually relevant is difficult to decide. If (a): an expression of the wisdom characteristic of old age, cf. 486–489n. (thus schol. T on 674; Macleod). On Priam’s wisdom in particular, see 201–202n.; on Idaios’ wisdom, 7.278 and 24.325 (as well as Od. 2.38 of another herald). If (b): Priam and Idaios focus their thoughts entirely on the hazardous undertaking that is imminent (thus Richardson).

283–321 The type-sceneP ‘libation by an individual’ (Edwards 1975, 55): (1) invitation to offer libation (283–298; followed here by an assent at 299–301, an element that is otherwise part of the more common type ‘libation [by a group]’: 1.469–474n.; Edwards loc. cit. 56; de Jong on Od. 3.332–342), (2) washing hands (302–304), (3) libation with wine (305–307), (4) prayer (308–314a), (5) response by the god (314b–321; = element 9 of the type-scene ‘prayer’: 306–314n.). – On the function of libations, see 70n. with bibliography 283–298 Hekabe unexpectedly appears once again: retardationP (whether the appearance of Menelaos during Telemachos’ departure in the related scene at Od. 15.144  ff. [where 284–286 ≈ Od. 15.148–150] should similarly be interpreted as a ‘last minute delay’ or – more likely – as the customary discharge of a host’s obligations is disputed; on the one hand, see Reece 1993, 98  f.; on the other, Reinhardt 1961, 492  f. and Tsagarakis 1979, 29  f.; cf. 286n.). Only with much worry and reluctance has Hekabe resigned herself to letting her husband go – she models her terms for denoting his undertaking on his own words (198  f. + 218 ≈ 288  f., 298) – but she nevertheless tries to obtain the best possible conditions for him (and a bit of consolation for herself): he will perform a libation to Zeus (Hekabe’s recommendation to Hektor at 6.258  f. is similar) and demand a genuine promise from the highest god in the form of a bird omen. Already in her earlier speech, Hekabe did not want to believe that Zeus was watching over Priam’s mission from the start (200–216n.). On such omens demanded in prayer, so-called omina impetrativa (in Homer also at Od. 3.173  ff., 20.98  ff.), see Cuillandre 1943, 328  f.; Stockinger 1959, 50, 156; West 1997, 399 (parallels at Judges 6:36–40: Gideon). 283 1st VH = 5× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; ≈ 2× Il., 1× Od. — τετιηότι θυμῷ: a VE formula (also 11.555, 17.664; on metrically equivalent formulae, Friedrich 2007, 109  f.); it means approximately ‘dejected, worried, troubled’ (cf. LfgrE s.v. τετίη(μαι); differently Anastassiou 1973, 205  ff.: suffering due to an unfulfilled hope). On the co-existence of the perf. part. active (7× early epic) and middle (τετιημένος 12× early epic, of which 11× in the inflectible VE formula τετιημένος ἦτορ), see Schw. 1.768; Chantr. 1.432; on the expansion of the stem with -η-, Schw. 1.770; Chantr. 1.428; Hackstein 2002, 243  f.  

283 ἀγχίμολον: adverbial, ‘close by’. — σφ(ι): = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1); dative of destination with ἦλθ(ε).

116 

 Iliad 24

284 ≈ Od. 15.148. — μελίφρονα: approximately ‘heart-warming’; a generic epithetP (6.264n.).   285 ≈ Od. 15.149; 1st VH ≈ Od. 3.41 (cf. 18.121). — δέπαϊ: -ῑ as at Od. 3.41; cf. Ἀχιλλῆϊ 119n.; see also Wathelet 1962, 9  f. In contrast 3× Od. ἐν δέπαϊ χρυσέῳ (VB): long by position. — ὄφρα λείψαντε κιοίτην: The final clause might display secondary focalizationP: Hekabe expressly confirms her intention at 287  ff.: σπεῖσον (de Jong [1987] 2004, 111 with n. 32 p. 268; below, 583b–585n.).  – Forms of the defective verb ἔκιον (preterite) frequently supply a prosodic alternative (beginning with a consonant) for εἶμι (beginning with a vowel). More on the form and use of ἔκιον in Létoublon 1989, 85–92. — λείψαντε κιοίτην: The participle expresses the main idea: ‘so that they offer a libation before setting out’, ‘so that they do not depart without having first sacrificed’; 581 πυκάσας δοίη ‘so that Achilleus enshrouds the corpse before handing it over’ is similar. Bibliography: K.-G. 2.98  f.; Verdenius 1956 and on Hes. Op. 131. On the clear-cut temporal relationship between predicate and participle, see Oguse 1962, 174–176 (collection of examples).   χρυσέῳ: On the prosody (synizesis χρυσέῳ?),  ͜ see 21n.

286 1st VH = Od. 15.150; ≈ Il. 14.297, 23.582, h.Cer. 63, h.Ven. 81; 2nd VH (speech introduction formulaP): 17× Il., 26× Od., 2× h.Ven. (on the faded sense of the VE formula, cf. 127n.). — She stood in front of the horses: in part because of the prescription of the rite (libation/prayer before departure), in part to stand in the way of those setting out so as to lend emphasis to her plea: Kurz 1966, 89 (differently Kelly 2007, 141  f.: ‘protective attitude’). On the parallel at Od. 15.148–150, see 283–298n. At Il. 23.582–585, the position is adopted for ritual reasons: Antilochos stands before the horses because he must touch them (or their heads) during the oath.  

287 1st VH ≈ 6.259. — Sacrifice/libation and prayer are often mentioned in the same breath or – with regard to the principle of do ut des (1.39–41a  n.) – performed concurrently, e.g. 2.400  f., 16.231  f., 16.253, 24.306  f., Od. 3.45, 15.258 (Benveniste 1969, 235 [transl.]: ‘word and action complete one another’; Corlu 1966, 71  f.; Reynen 1983, 25  ff.); on libation in general, see 70n.; on the type-scene, 283–321n. — Zeus father: cf. 308 with n. — and pray you may come back | home again: On the wish for a happy return home, cf. esp. Il. 15.372–376, Od. 13.47–63, 21.207–211.  

284 δεξιτερῆφι: on the inflection, R 11.4. 285 δέπαϊ, ὄφρα (λ)λείψαντε: on the prosody, R 5.6 and M 4.6. — λείψαντε κιοίτην: dual of the 3rd person; κιοίτην is an optative form of a defective verb with the meaning ‘go’. 286 ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 287 εὔχεο (ϝ)οίκαδ(ε): on the prosody, R 4.3; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 



 117

τῆ: ‘there!, take it’ (with imperatives: 14.219, etc.); an old instrumental related to the pronominal stem to- (Frisk; Beekes; Schw. 2.579; LfgrE). — εὔχεο … ἱκέσθαι: aor. inf. in reference to an action in the future: 2.401n.; Schw. 2.296; Chantr. 2.189. — οἴκαδ’ ἱκέσθαι: an inflectible VE formula (3× Il., 4× Od.); variant ἐνθάδ’ ἱκ- (2× Il., 11× Od., 3× h.Hom.).

288 δυσμενέων: a term from character languageP, in the Iliad always of opponents in war (see 3.51n.). — ἐπεὶ ἄρ: 42–43n. 289 μέν: ‘of course’ (AH), with an adversative function (σέ γε – ἐμεῖο μέν) as at 92 (see ad loc.); somewhat differently, Denniston 378  f. (μέν in a dependent clause without corresponding δέ); cf. R 24.6. – Bibliography on the gen. absolute: 243–244a  n., end   290 εὔχεο:  ͜ The position of the imperative before the pronoun creates emphasis; cf. the ‘normal’ VB ἀλλὰ σύ γ’ εὔχεο Od. 9.412 (AH). – For discussion of the transmission and prosody of the verbal ending -εο, see Chantr. 1.59  f.; West 1998, XXII with n. 48; GT 7; G 45 with n. 25; Passa 2001 (on this line: 401). — ἔπειτα: either ‘subsequently’, i.e. ‘after the libation and the first general prayer’ (Faesi [transl.]; similarly Richardson: ‘in addition’), or ‘in this case’, ‘since it is so’, namely that you absolutely wish to visit Achilleus (resumption of ἐπεὶ ἂρ σέ γε …; cf. ἔπειτα after an εἰ clause at 296  f.): AH; Cunliffe s.v.; cf. 356n. and 19.112–113n. — κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι: a VE formula (1.397n.).  

291 on Ida: The cult title ‘Idaios’ is mentioned also at 16.604  f. (death of the priest Laogonos); the cult places are situated on Mount Ida (8.47  f., 22.170  f.; on the role of Zeus Idaios in the Iliad in general, Woronoff 1995; cf. 3.276n.). The invocation of the local god – an entire verse is used here to present him (cf. 1.36n.) – can lend special emphasis to a plea, as also at 308 with iterata (‘Zeus, watching over us from Ida’; Chryses, Pandaros, Glaukos addressing Apollo at 1.37  ff., 4.101, 16.514  f. and Achilleus addressing Pelasgian Zeus at 16.233 are analogous; bibliography on the contrast between local cults and Panhellenic religion in epic: 1.44n.). — looks out: namely down from Mount Ida (explicitly so at 8.51  f., 11.337, 13.4–14): an expression of the protective function of the god (Macleod).   292–295 ≈ 310–313 (293  f. = 311  f.); 292b–293a ≈ 9.521  f.  

  

292–293 a bird  … a rapid messenger  …: An eagle (315  f.), explicitly sent by Zeus also at 8.247, 12.200  f., Od. 2.146  f.; elsewhere at Il. 13.821  f., Od. 15.160  f., 20.242  f. At Od. 15.526, a falcon is termed the ‘swift messenger’ of Apollo (with

289 ὀτρύνει: ‘drive somewhere, call upon, dispatch’ (like 143). — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1). 290 εὔχεο:  ͜ on the synizesis, R 7. 291 Ἰδαίῳ, ὅς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — κατὰ … ὁρᾶται (+ acc.): ‘look down onto …’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; on the middle, R 23. 292 τέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ αὐτῷ: ‘him himself’, i.e. Zeus (cf. R 14.1). 293 καί (ϝ)εο:  ͜ on the hiatus, R 4.4; on the synizesis, R 7. — ἑο:  ͜ = αὐτοῦ (R 14.1).

118 

 Iliad 24

Hoekstra ad loc.; post-Homeric parallels in Silk 1974, 89 with n. 13).  – In Homer, the eagle appears only in omens and similes; its characteristics (usually superlative): Zeus’ favorite bird (here and in parallel passages), a reliable omen (315 = 8.247), keen sighted (17.674  f.), strong and swift (here and at 21.253). On the eagle as a royal bird, see Thompson (1895) 1936, 3  f.; on its significance in antiquity overall: RAC s.v.; on bird omens, cf. 219n.

οἰωνόν: pregnant, ‘bird of omen’ (Stockinger 1959, 154  f.). — ταχύν: thus the main transmission (with v.l. ἑόν) here and in the iteratum at 310, but ἑόν alone is transmitted at 296; see Leaf and Richardson; in detail, Erbse 1960, 331  ff.; van der Valk 1964, 93. — ἑο:  ͜ gen. of the personal pronoun (= αὐτοῦ; G 81; on the form, cf. εὔχεο 290n.). Transition from the relative clause (292: ὅς …) to an independent clause (with anaphoric personal pronoun) as at 1.78  f., etc. (K.-G. 2.432  f.; Chantr. 2.243; Macleod). — κράτος ἐστὶ μέγιστον: a VE formula (6× Il., 2× Od.); on its use in connection with Zeus, see 2.118n.

294 = 312; 2nd VH = h.Ven. 83, 179; cf. 15.422. — on the right: i.e. from the point of view of the observer (Leaf on 12.239; Collins 2002, 27  ff.); here and in the fulfillment of the plea at 320 in emphatic position at VB. The right is thought to be the auspicious side (in Homeric epic at 10.274, 13.821, Od. 24.311  f.). — your eyes: on the significance of autopsy, 223n.  

ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσι νοήσας: a semantically equivalent ‘replacement’ for the inflectible VE formula (which does not offer a suitable participle form) (ἐν) ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι (5× Il., 1× Od., 3× h.Hom.; only participial form attested: ἰδοῦσα h.Cer. 409) and ὁρᾶσθαι (5× Il., 5× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom.; participial forms: ὁρῶσα Od. 8.459, ὁρῶντα ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.101 M.-W.); cf. Il. 1.587, 3.306 with nn.; Bertolín Cebrían 1996, 58; LfgrE s.v. νοέω 416.1  ff.  – The aorist of νοέω is frequently used as a verb of perception in early epic (≈ ἰδεῖν): Böhme 1929, 24–27; Bertolín Cebrían loc. cit. 56–59; LfgrE loc. cit. 410.54–56, 414.50  ff.; cf. Il. 15.422  f. (Hektor) ἐνόησεν ἀνεψιὸν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν | ἐν κονίῃσι πεσόντα. Interpreted pregnantly, by contrast, at Nagy 1990, 205  f.; Schmitt 1990, 140  f.: ‘(to see the sign and) recognize its significance’, cf. the combination of the two verbs at e.g. 337 ἴδῃ … νοήσῃ (with n.). – The switch between (locative) ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσι and (instrumental) ὀφθαλμοῖσι (e.g. at 206, 246) is probably for the most part metrically conditioned in early epic (cf. ἐν πυρί 38n.). On the original meaning of the preposition ἐν, see on the one hand Schw. 2.458 (transl.): ‘the ancient notion of what is seen as an image in one’s own eye’ (so too Bechert 1964, 76 n. 1); on the other hand, AH (transl.) on 18.135 / Od. 8.459: ‘what is or happens in someone’s field of view, «before the eyes»’. – On the function of (ἐν) ὀφθαλμοῖσι as a indication of autopsy, see 206n.

295 ≈ 313; 2nd VH ≈ 14.21. — Danaans: A term for the ‘Greeks’ (cf. 168n.).  

294 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — αὐτὸς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσι: ‘with one’s own eyes’. 295 τῷ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).

Commentary 



 119

τῷ: ‘does not merely pick up μιν in 294, but rather summarizes the content of the preceding participial construction μιν – νοήσας: «this bird of omen seen with one’s own eyes»’ (AH [transl.]). — πίσυνος ἐπί: on the prosody, 84n.  – πίσυνος is perhaps formed by analogy with θάρσυνος (13.823, likewise in an eagle omen), see Risch 150  f. — Δαναῶν ταχυπώλων: an inflectible VE formula (1× nom., 10× gen., only Il.), the only formula in the gen. for ‘the Greeks’ after caesura C 1 (Parry [1928] 1971, 101, 178). The epithet (elsewhere only at 23.6 of the Myrmidons), like other epithets of the Danaans (e.g. αἰχμηταί, ἥρωες, θεράποντες Ἄρηος; see Dee 2000, 153  f.), likely refers to qualities in battle, here to the use of the (two-wheeled) war chariot (on which, 2.384n.); cf. Delebecque 1951, 40.

296 εἰ  … οὐ δώσει: ‘when it comes about that he will not give =  will refuse’ (AH; K. G. 2.189, 191); οὐ δώσει ‘will refuse’ forms a conceptual unit like οὔ φημι, etc.; cf. οὐκ ἐάω at 569n., οὐκ ἐθέλω at 3.289n., οὐκ ἄνωγα at 6.444n. (in general, see Wackernagel [1924] 1928, 262  f.; Schw. 2.593  f.). – On the mixed condition (protasis: factual; apodosis: potential), see 57n.; οὐ in an εἰ-clause is also not unusual in Homer (Schw. 2.593; Chantr. 2.333  f.). — εὐρύοπα Ζεύς: an inflectible VE formula (nom./voc./acc.): 13× Il., 7× Od., 7× Hes., 6× h.Hom. – εὐρύοπα (otherwise only in the expression εὐ. Κρονίδην 1.498, 24.98, etc.) probably signifies (a) ‘far-seeing’ (1.498n.; Schmitt 1967, 157  ff., with IE parallels) rather than (b) ‘with far-reaching (thunderous) voice’ (on ὄψ ‘voice’: Pulleyn on 1.498); cf. DELG: secondary reinterpretation of (b) to (a) due to echoes of ὄψομαι/ὄπωπα ‘see’.  

The acc. εὐρύοπα Ζῆν (thus e.g. 331) is likely primary: Chantr. 1.200; Pulleyn on 1.498; Janko on 14.264–266; Schmitt 1967, 157  ff. with bibliography (differently [nom. primary]: Peppmüller on 331  f.; Kirk on 8.206; Witte [1912] 1979, 112  f.). Because of the analogy with Vedic dyā́m (Latin diem), the acc. form Ζῆν is accordingly not to be understood as elided Ζῆνα (Schw. 1.577; Frisk; Leumann 1950, 47  f., 291; Hagen 1994; Janko loc. cit.).

297 ≈ 9.517; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 23.264 as well as 8× Od. ἐποτρύνων/-ας ἐκέλευσα/-ε. — οὐκ ἂν … κελοίμην: taken as a conceptual unit by schol. bT and Faesi: ‘I would advise you against’ (so too AH on 14.62  f. πόλεμον δ’ οὐκ ἄμμε κελεύω | δύμεναι; cf. 296n. on οὐ δώσει). But the separation of negative and verb and the stressed ἐγώ γε suggest instead an (ironic) understatement: ‘I myself would hardly suggest that you do something’.   298 1st VH ≈ 12.246, 19.236 (νηυσὶν ἔπ’ Ἀργείων) and 3.119 (νῆας ἔπι γλαφυρὰς ἰέναι, with n.). — μάλα περ μεμαῶτα: an inflectible VE formula: 14.375, 17.181, Od. 22.172, ‘Hes.’ fr. 35.3 M.-W.; also 2× Il. in verse middle after caesura B 1 (on this, Janko on 15.601– 604).  

296 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — δώσει (ϝ)εόν: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἑόν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — εὐρύοπα: probably ‘far-seeing’ (nom.). 297 ἔπειτα ἐποτρύνουσα: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 298 νῆας ἔπ(ι): = ἐπὶ νῆας (R 20.2). — μεμαῶτα: part. of μέμονα ‘be eager, strive’.

120 

 Iliad 24

299–301 Priam’s assent is characterized by formal cordiality: he gives in to his wife in order to placate her (schol. bT; Faesi; Macleod [all on 300]). Implication of the gnome added as a justification: ‘I will go in any case; all the better if Zeus – beyond what Iris promised – lends his support’. On the brevity and casualness of the reply, cf. Achilleus at 139  f. (with n.). 299 A speech introductory formulaP; on the 1st VH, see 64n. (similar formulae of reply: 217n., 372n.). — Priam the godlike: 217n. (elsewhere always ‘aged Priam …’). 300 ὦ γύναι: ὦ before vocative is comparatively rare in the Iliad; whether it expresses the heightened emotional involvement of the speaker is disputed (1.442n. with bibliography). In the case of γύναι, its use appears to have a metrical basis: ὦ γύναι only at VB (in the Iliad also at 3.204, in addition 12× Od.), but in verse middle it always lacks the interjection. – γύναι ‘woman’ is a neutral address in various contexts (usually but not exclusively addressed to wives: 6.441n.; Wackernagel [1912] 1953, 991–993; but cf. ἆνερ 725n.). — οὐ  … ἀπιθήσω: ‘will follow, obey you’ (litotes: Wackernagel [1924] 1928, 297); aside from 10.129, elsewhere always in the narrator textP after orders/requests (usually ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε: 2.166n.; Peppmüller): Priam’s assent complies with the epic convention of immediately carrying out requests (188–190n.). — οὐ μέν τοι: after a vocative at the beginning of a speech, as here: 23.795, Od. 7.159; at the very beginning of a speech: Od. 1.222, 4.836, 16.267; also Il. 8.294, 21.370 (2nd verse of a speech), Od. 18.233, 23.266 (in the middle of a speech).  

301 Gnomes concerning behavior toward gods are common in the Iliad: 1.218, 1.589, 3.65  f., 6.267  f., 24.425  f., etc.; on gnomes at the end of speeches, cf. 1.218n. — to lift hands: a gesture of prayer common in many cultures (3.275n. with bibliography).  

αἴ κ’ ἐλεήσῃ: an inflectible VE formula after verbs of pleading and sacrificing (6× Il., 1× Od.); αἴ κε expresses a hope: ‘whether … in fact, whether … perhaps’ (6.94n.; differently LfgrE s.v. λιτανεύω [transl.]: ‘conditional subordinate clause with a final implication that indicates at the same time both the content and the aim of the plea’ [on 24.357]). – On the mercy of Zeus, 19n.

302 1st VH ≈ Od. 6.198, 19.96. — told: a summary order (in indirect speech); the execution of it follows immediately (303  f.): de Jong (1987) 2004, 116  f.; Richardson 1990, 71  f.  

ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formulaP with a subject that is consistent but explicitly repeated only here and at 3.310, 14.346, 23.596, 24.596 (likewise with ἦ, καί at 1.219n.; cf.

300 ἐφιεμένῃ ἀπιθήσω: on the hiatus, 271n. — ἐφιεμένῃ: mid. ἐφίεμαι ‘order, demand’. 301 ἀνασχέμεν: inf. (R 16.4). — αἴ κ(ε): ‘whether in fact’; αἰ = εἰ (R 22.1); on the use of the modal particle κε = ἄν, R 21.1. 302 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1).

Commentary 

 121

22.77 ἦ ῥ’ ὁ γέρων). 24.643, ‘where the personal name that follows immediately is not a postponed subject, but belongs to the next sentencee’ (Fingerle 1939, 366 [transl.]), is unusual: ἦ ῥ’ [sc. Priam]· Ἀχιλεὺς δ’ … κέλευσεν. — ἀμφίπολον ταμίην: a combination of terms for type and function, likewise at Od. 16.152, also γυνὴ ταμίη at Il. 6.390, etc. (in general, see 2.474n.). The ταμίη is an (unfree) servant in a senior position (6.381n.; LfgrE). On ἀμφίπολος in detail, 3.143n.

303 On the requirement that hands be washed before ritual action, 1.449n.; element 2 of the type-scene ‘libation’ (283–321n.).  

ἀκήρατον: The etymology is uncertain, and the parallels adduced are all linguistically problematic: κήρ ‘death, doom’, κηραίνω ‘harm’, κεραΐζω ‘destroy’ (cf. 245), κεράννυμι ‘mix’ (on which, 2.341 ἄκρητος, of unmixed pure wine); likely no longer distinguishable already in antiquity, cf. 15.498 οἶκος καὶ κλῆρος ἀκήρατος and Od. 9.204  f. οἶνον ἀκηράσιον; here probably in the sense ‘uncontaminated, pure, clean’ (and hence purifying); see Leaf; DELG; Nussbaum 1986, 67  f. (all with bibliography).

304 The water is poured over the hands from a jug (próchoos), with the hands held over a basin (here chérnibon, in the Odyssey lébēs).  

A variation of the formulaic verse χέρνιβα δ’ ἀμφίπολος προχόῳ ἐπέχευε φέρουσα (Od. 1.136, 4.52, 7.172, 10.368, 15.135, 17.91, always of entertaining a guest: Calhoun 1933, 9  ff.). — χέρνιβον: appears at first to be a heteroclite form of χέρνιβα (acc. of χέρνιψ) ‘water for washing hands’, but on the basis of Mycenaean and post-Homeric parallels it more likely = ‘wash-basin’ (DELG; Beekes; DMic s.v. ke-ni-qa; Richardson); the combination with πρόχοόν θ’ ἅμα also suggests ‘(holding) basin and jug (in one’s hands)’ (Leaf; van der Valk 1982, 297) rather than ‘water and jug’ (thus Peppmüller). — χερσὶν ἔχουσα: an inflectible VE formula (often with ἐν or μετά preceding, cf. 647n.): 8× Il., 7× Od., 5× Hes., 3× h.Cer.; in addition, 13× in various positions in the 1st VH.

305 κύπελλον: used in early epic with no discernible difference from δέπας (285) (101n.). — ἐδέξατο: similar phrasing at 1.596; here, as there, receiving the cup indirectly signals relenting on the part of the character concerned – δέχομαι also always implies the potential for the opposite ‘refuse’ (137n.; LfgrE; cf. 1.595n.).  

306–314 The type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n. with bibliography; also de Jong on Od. 2.260–267). The elements realized here are: (1) prayer gesture, (2) verb of praying, (5) invocation of the deity with cult titles, (7) plea, (8) formulaic conclusion, (9) description of the god’s response.

303 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17) with 304 ἀμφίπολος in apposition. 304 ἅμα: to be taken with χέρνιβον … πρόχοόν θ’ (‘and also, and at the same time’; θ’ = τε). 305 νιψάμενος: ‘after he washed his hands’ (from νίζω). — ἐδέξατο (ϝ)ῆς: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἧς ἀλόχοιο: ablatival gen.; ἧς is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4).

122 

 Iliad 24

306–307a =  16.231  f. (Achilleus prays to Zeus); 307a ≈ 7.423, Hes. Th. 761. — prayed, and poured the wine out: on the combination of libation and prayer, 287n. — enclosure: Greek hérkos, referring to the courtyard (aulḗ, 161n.); there must be no great distance from the vestibule (where the wagon has been prepared) to the courtyard (238n.; cf. AH).  – An altar to Zeus Herkeios, protector of farmsteads, stands in Odysseus’ courtyard (Od. 22.334  f.), and a similar one should be imagined here in Priam’s courtyard, as well as in Achilleus’ quarters (16.231  f. with Janko ad loc.; schol. b on 24.306; differently Donnay 2005: in the present context, Zeus Herkeios plays no role; on Zeus H. in general, Nilsson [1940] 1967, 403; Brulé 2005); in the further course of the story of Troy, Neoptolemos is supposed to have killed Priam at this altar (schol. b; Il. Pers.: Procl. Chrest. § 2 West; see Taplin 1992, 266). — looking up into the sky: like raising the hands (301), a common prayer gesture that aims to create contact with the deity (3.364n.; Macleod).   307b ἔπος ηὔδα: a VE formula with a preceding participle that usually anticipates the illocutionary act (εὐχόμενος, etc.) (14× Il., 1× Od.); with φωνήσας (locutionary act) only here: Peppmüller; Muellner 1976, 89, 94 n. 41 (collection of examples). On the terms of speech-act theory, see 101–102n. with bibliography

308–313 The narrator once more subtly distinguishes between Priam’s main concern and Hekabe’s overpowering worry: Priam does not ask primarily for a happy return (287  f.) but for a successful embassy to Achilleus (309; cf. 224– 227; Macleod on 309; Richardson); this is what Zeus promised him via Iris (153–158/182–187). – In contrast, the remainder of the prayer (310–313) is put in Hekabe’s words, in accord with oral poetic technique. 308 = 3.276, 3.320, 7.202; 1st VH ≈ 8.397, 8.438. – Solemn whole verse addresses with epithet clusters are typical of the language of prayer (2.412n., 6.305n. with bibliography). – On Zeus Idaios, see 291n.; on ‘Father Zeus’, 3.276n.  

κύδιστε μέγιστε: 2.412n.; West 2007, 129  f.

309 ≈ Od. 6.327 (ἐς Φαίηκας, of Odysseus as supplicant; here with elliptical ἐς + gen., on which cf. 160n.). — δός: a common expression in prayers (Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26). — φίλον ἐλθεῖν ἠδ’ ἐλεεινόν: The main idea is contained in the predicative adjectives φίλον/ἐλεεινόν, i.e. appoximately: ‘let me receive kind treatment and mercy when I come …’. On the two terms, see 68n. and 44n. (cf. also Od. 19.253  f.). At 650, Priam will be addressed as γέρον φίλε ‘dear old man’ by Achilleus (650n.).  

306 μέσῳ ἕρκεϊ: statement of place without preposition (R 19.2). — δὲ (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3. 308 Ἴδηθεν: gen. dependent on μεδέων ‘ruling over’; on the form, R 15.1. 309 ἐς Ἀχιλλῆος: ‘in/to Achilleus’ 〈quarters⟩, to Achilleus’; ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 123

310–313 ≈ 292–295 (311  f. = 293  f.).   314–321 The type-sceneP ‘omen’ (2.303–335n.). Since the omen appears here in response to a corresponding request, the interpretation is to some extent a given, and the speech of interpretation can be omitted (especially since the eagle’s direction of flight is clearly positive): (7) the emotional response of the recipient is immediately followed by (13) the additional effects of the omen (322  ff.); see Stockinger 1959, 131–133. 314 = 16.249, Od. 20.102; ≈ Il. 15.377; 1st VH in total 12× Il. (of which 1× fem. εὐχομένη), 5× Od. — A formulaic verse indicating that a prayer has been heard (1.43n.), the final element of the type-scene ‘prayer’ (306–314n.). — μητίετα Ζεύς: 1.175n.  

315 = 8.247. — eagle …: 21.252  f. ‘the black eagle, the marauder, who is at once the strongest of flying things and the swiftest’ is similar. It is today difficult to determine the exact species of animals portrayed in ancient poetry, e.g. the snake at 2.308 (see ad loc.), the two eagles in the parodos of Aeschylus, Agamemnon (108  ff.); here the intended reference is probably to the Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) or the Eastern imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) (Arnott 2007 s.vv. Morphnos and Perknos). ‘Poetry is not real life, […] not a naturalist’s field-report. At the same time, an image’s power increases in proportion to its precision’: Arnott 1979, 7; likewise Richardson on 314–316, end.

αὐτίκα: frequently used in the Iliad when a character is following instructions (2.442n.); it is significant here insofar as the eagle can be understood as an unequivocal sign from Zeus because of its immediate appearance, as at 8.245  ff. (Stockinger 1959, 132; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 179  f.; Dillon 1996, 108). — τελειότατον: in the case of sacrificial animals, in reference to their immaculate condition (‘entirely perfect’: 1.66n., cf. verse 34); here also of the assuredness of fulfillment (AH [transl.]: ‘most promising’, Willcock: ‘most significant’; cf. 2.330n. on τελεῖται): schol. D; Macleod; Gundert 1983, 166–168; LfgrE.

316 called as well the  …: The narrator uses this phrase either to introduce a (less familiar) technical term or to sum up a description with a well-known precise term (hip socket at 5.305  f., a type of helmet at 10.257–259); frequently merely introducing ‘a secondary and informal name’ (Kirk on 6.402–403), in part with etymological explanation: the constellations Ursa Major 18.487 and Sirius/Canis Major 22.26–31, Skamandrios/Astyanax 6.402  f. and 22.506, Areïthoös/club-fighter 7.138–141, Kleopatra/Alkyone 9.556–564 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 95 [with bibliography]; Richardson 1990, 141  f.; Stoddard 2004, 51  ff.). At the same time, the phrase creates a reference to the present: de Jong on

310–313 ≈ 292–295 (see ad loc.). 314 μητίετα: ‘rich in μῆτις, clever’ (nom.).

124 

 Iliad 24

Od. 5.273 (‘omnitemporality’). – On the related phenomenon of differentiating between divine and human language, see 1.403n., 2.813–814n.

μόρφνον: The etymology is uncertain, and the word is usually interpreted as ‘dark (colored)’; see Frisk; Beekes; LfgrE; Arnott 2007 s.v. Morphnos (all with further bibliography). — θηρητῆρ(α): of an animal only here and at 21.252 (likewise of an eagle), elsewhere always of human beings. — πέρκνον: probably ‘dark mottled/speckled’ (thus also ὑποπερκάζουσιν at Od. 7.126 of ripening grapes), here likely a substantive ‘dark speck’ (?) (on the development of a name from an attribute, see  1.403n.; West 2001, 279). – The root contained in πέρκνος forms the basis for a variety of animal names, e.g. Latin porcus, English ‘perch’. On the etymology, word formation and usage (a Homeric hapaxP) in detail, see LfgrE; ChronEG 6 s.v.; Giger-van den Heuvel 2007, 30–38. – On the clustering of technical terms, cf. 266–274n.; 2.765n.

317–319 The illustration of the wingspan by a simileP – each wing is as large as a (stately) door – adds to the effect of the eagle omen: it is conspicuous and brings about a change of mood (320  f.). For the association between door and wing, similarities in style of movement might be crucial (cf. German ‘Türflügel’ [‘wings’, i.e. leaves, of a door]: Peppmüller ad loc., end; Fränkel 1921, 53; excessively far-reaching associations in Anhalt 1995).  – Among similes regarding measurement, comparisons of size (as opposed to e.g. distance: 3.12n.) are comparatively rare (Scott 1974, 20  ff.): ‘as big as a mountain’ (Od. 3.290, 9.190–192, 10.113, 11.243), ‘as long and thick as a mast’ (Od. 9.322–324), ‘as wide as a cargo ship’ (Od. 5.249–251), perhaps also of Aias’ shield ‘like a tower’ (on which, Kirk on Il. 7.219–223).  – House architecture occurs as a motif of comparison also at 16.212  f. (closely-jointed house wall), 23.712  f. (intersecting rafters); the rich man as a motif of comparison: 4.433  ff. (many sheep), 11.67  ff. (abundant harvest), 24.480  ff. (influence in the community), Od. 11.414  ff. (feast). 317 ≈ 16.589. — θύρη: In the sing., this can denote both a ‘(single leaf) door’ and an individual ‘leaf’ of a (double leaf) door (cf. Odysseus’ armory at Od. 22.155  ff.).      318 1st VH = Od. 14.200; ≈ Il. 24.482 (and cf. Od. 14.414). — ἔϋ κληῗσ(ι): The transmission for the most part offers ἐϋκλήϊς ‘well-locking’ (thus also Aristarchus: schol. A), but since an absolute use of ἀρηρώς is attested only rarely (elsewhere usually with adv. or dat., thus e.g. 269), the v.l. ἔϋ κληῗσ’ (dat. pl.) should be preferred, hence ‘well equipped with

317 ὅσση: on the -σσ-, R 9.1; likewise 319 τόσσ(α). 318 ἀνέρος: = ἀνδρός; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἀφνειοῖο, ἔϋ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — κληῗσ(ι): ‘with bars’. 319 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), referring back to the ‘eagle’ (315); possessive gen. with πτερά. — ἔσαν: = ἦσαν (R 16.6). — πτερά· (ϝ)είσατο: on the prosody, R 4.3. — εἴσατο: aor. of εἴδομαι ‘appear, become visible’ (here with part.). — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 125

bolts’. Discussion in schol. A; Peppmüller; Richardson; LfgrE s.v. κληΐς 1443.18  ff. – On the meaning of κληΐς ‘key, ring’, cf. 6.89n.; on the locking mechanisms of doors, 446n. — ἔϋ: on the accent, West 1998, XXf. 320–321 ≈ Od. 15.164  f. (bird omen on the occasion of Telemachos’ farewell from Menelaos); in addition, 1st VH of 320 ≈ Od. 2.154; 2nd VH of 321 ≈ Il. 23.600, Od. 23.47 (additional variants in Hoekstra 1981, 27  f., and 1965, 122). — οἳ δὲ ἰδόντες: an inflectible VE formula (masc. pl. and fem. sing.), in total 4× Il., 1× Od., 6× h.Hom. — γήθησαν: i.e. contented calm replaces the anxious tension and uncertainty: ‘γηθέω expresses an intense feeling of happy satisfaction’ (Latacz 1966, 233 [transl.]; 1.255–256n.); in connection with divine signs also at Od. 15.165, 20.104, 21.414 (Latacz loc. cit. 150). — πᾶσιν θυμὸς ἰάνθη: the general sense: ‘all hearts were warmed’, ‘a load was lifted from everyone’s mind’ (Latacz 1966, 230); on ἰαίνω, cf. 119n. – πᾶσιν = φίλοι πάντες at 327 (with n.). 

322–348 Priam sets out together with the herald Idaios. His family accompanies him to the edge of the city, ‘as if he went to his death’. Zeus instructs Hermes to lead Priam safely to Achilleus. In the guise of a young man, Hermes proceeds to the Trojan plain. 322–328 Elements 2 through 5 of the type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (189–328n.) in loose order (because of the combination of mule wagon and horse carriage; see Arend 1933, 88; Tsagarakis 1982, 92) and with an accelerated narrative tempo (cf. storyP). After the retarding libation scenes, ‘in haste’ at 322 (cf. 248) signals a return to busy preparation for the departure (281  f.); cf. 326n. – With the journey that begins here, Priam in some sense crosses the entire space of the human action in the Iliad (from his palace in Troy, through the plain to Achilleus’ quarters in the Achaian camp), symbolically bridging the distance between the two warring parties: Lowe 2000, 112. 322 1st VH ≈ 248; 2nd VH ≈ 8.44, 13.26 (ἑοῦ δ’). — ξεστοῦ: only here as an epithet of the δίφρος, by contrast ἐΰξεστος 4× (cf. 271n.). On the v.l. γεραιὸς ἑοῦ in place of γέρων ξεστοῦ, see Peppmüller; Macleod.  

323 ≈ Od. 3.493, 15.146, 15.191. — forecourt: 238n.  

προθύροιο: ‘area of the door/gate’. Like other architectural terms in early epic, this cannot be localized precisely (238n.); depending on context, a reference to the courtyard gate or the main entrance door is possible (Gray 1955, 8 with n. 5; Hiller 1970, 18  ff.; LfgrE). Departure scenes refer to the former, as here (in this case together with αἴθουσα

320 διὰ (ϝ)άστεος: ‘through the city’; on the prosody, R 4.3. — δὲ (ϝ)ιδόντες: on the prosody, R 4.3. 321 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 322 ἐπεβήσετο: ≈ ἐπέβη (aor.). 323 ἐκ δ’ ἔλασε: ‘drove out’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

126 

 Iliad 24

probably a hysteron proteron: Hoekstra on Od. 15.146; cf. 100n.). — ἐριδούπου: ‘loud-thundering’; here perhaps a contextually relevant epithetP of the ‘thundering hooves’ (and the noise of the wagon wheels), as at 11.152: Reinhardt 1961, 492; thus also Macleod; Kaimio 1977, 69; Usener 1990, 156  ff.

324 The cargo wagon drives ahead ‘because, as the slower vehicle, it must dictate the speed’: Kurz 1966, 127 (transl.).

τετράκυκλον: here scanned ⏖–⏑. There are several instances of a short syllable before -τρ- (in general, see M 4.5), whereas τετρ- itself is elsewhere always long. Similar prosodic exception: Od. 9.242 τετράκυκλοι with long syllables (Leaf; Chantr. 1.108; LfgrE s.v.).

325 1st VH ≈ 2.764. — τάς: 278n. — δαΐφρων: on the word formation and sense, 6.161– 162n.; whether it is to be understood here as ‘brave in battle’ (thus e.g. the charioteers at 16.727, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 119; see LfgrE s.v. δαΐφρων 206.73  ff.) or as ‘clever’ (AH; Buttmann [1818] 1825, 201  f.; cf. 282n.) is unclear. — αὐτὰρ ὄπισθεν: a VE formula 5× Il., 2× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ (also 1× Il. αὐτὰρ ὀπίσσω).  

326 2nd VH ≈ 23.642. — The portrayal of Priam’s impatience dominates the entire departure scene (253n., with further examples) – even now, as he drives behind the (slower) mule wagon (Combellack 1965, 46  f.). — the horses | came on as the old man laid the lash upon them: Priam drives his team himself, as already in Book 3 (a journey to the battlefield for the conclusion of the treaty: 3.261/311); at the same time, he fulfills Zeus’ precondition (‘alone’: 148/177). Each man also steers his own vehicle in chariot races (23.362–372). In battle, by contrast, the chariot is driven by a ‘charioteer’, with the warrior standing beside him: 3.262 (with n.), 6.17–19 (with n.), 17.464  f. (cf. 2.384n.); so too in the procession during Patroklos’ funeral (23.132). – At 440, Hermes will play the role of charioteer.  

ἐφέπων: at 16.724/732 (see Untermann ad loc.) with the dat. ‘guide the horses toward someone’; here probably simply ‘follow after’ (cf. schol. D; AH).  

327 2nd VH ≈ 1.424, Od. 10.425. — ἄστυ: as a topographic term, generally used in Homer without any difference in meaning from πόλις (here at 329; likewise e.g. 2.329/332, 24.703/707). But sometimes ἄστυ carries a particular connotation as an archaic word: in such cases, it tends to represent an internal view (one’s own city) and thus has more emotional value vis-à-vis the inhabitants (here, the relatives follow κατὰ ἄστυ); πόλις by contrast tends to be a more objective term. Bibliography: Lévy 1983; Casevitz et al. 1989; ­Schmidt 2006, 440  f.; LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1350  f. (πόλις = in general ‘city’) and 1351– 1353 (on ἄστυ and πόλις). — φίλοι: ‘the relatives’, specified as sons and sons-in-law in

325 τάς: functions like a relative pronoun (R 14.5), likewise τούς at 326. 326 ἵπποι: sc. ‘pulled the carriage, came’ vel sim. — κέλευεν: ‘spurred on’. 327 κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: ‘through the city’; on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 127

331; at 161  ff. Priam is also surrounded by male offspring in the courtyard, whereas his female offspring stay within the living quarters (166). – Substantival φίλος is a term from character languageP: ‘The narrator’s use of φίλοι creates a pathetic tone’ (de Jong 1997a, 301; cf. de Jong on Od. 1.19).

328 1st VH ≈ Od. 13.221; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 11.684 (‘to the fighting’), Od. 16.21 (‘as if he had escaped dying’). — as if he went to his death: an expression of continued concern by the relatives (secondary focalisationP: de Jong [1987] 2004, 121); cf. the anticipated mourning for Hektor at 6.500–502 (85n.; on the present passage also Kelly 2012, 241–245). The narrator has not let the Trojans forget the positive bird omen (although skepticism toward divine signs is not foreign to early epic: 220–222n.), but aims once again to highlight Priam’s courage and determination, so as to maintain suspense for his audience (cf. 189–328n., 193–227n., 193–199n.; Macleod on 327–328; Deichgräber 1972, 58  f.).  

According to some interpreters, the narrator here provides a ‘dramaturgic’ signal that Priam’s journey to Achilleus may be interpreted following the motif of a descent into the underworld (katábasis) and the retrieval of a deceased person (as e.g. in the myth of Orpheus and Eurydike; on the motif in general, Bowra 1952, 78  ff.); cf. the phrasing at 246. If so, the following might be additional signals: nightfall (351n.), escort by Hermes (153n.) equipped with his staff, Ilos’ grave monument (349n.) and the river (351n.) as a crucial point in the liminal zone (cf. 329–332n.), Hermes opening the locked door of Achilleus’ ‘palace’ (453b–457; cf. ‘the gates of Hades’ at 5.646, 23.71/74), Achilleus as ‘ruler’ over the dead Hektor (cf. Od. 11.491): NTHS 48; Crane 1988, 36– 38; Stanley 1993, 237–240, 244  f. (with further bibliography at 393 n. 11); Danek 1998, 50  f.; in detail, Herrero de Jáuregui 2011; reservations in Beck 1965, 29; Mueller (1984) 2009, 73  f.; interpreted in a broader sense as a ‘quest narrative’ by Mackie 2008, 50  ff. — πολλ(ά): adverbial, ‘violently, much’ (of mental intensity, see 1.35n.; LfgrE s.v. 1423.10  ff.); cf. οἴκτρ’ ὀλοφυρ- 4× Od., αἴν’ ὀλοφυρ- 1× Od. — ὡς εἰ … κιόντα: ὡς εἰ + part., as at 5.374, 16.192: Lange 1872/73, 538–553 (for the present passage, 547  f.); Ruijgh 620–624 (for the present passage, 622). – κιόντα is a predicate of the acc. object to be supplied with ὀλοφυρόμενοι (sc. γέροντα). — θάνατόνδε: cf. θεοὶ θάνατόνδ’ ἐκάλεσσαν (Patroklos and Hektor): 16.693, 22.297; similarly θάνατον καὶ πότμον ἐπισπεῖν 2.358–359n. – On the use of the allative -δε with terms that can imply both a location (here: death) and an action (here: to die), see 2.51n. (ἀγορήνδε; cf. 2.443 πόλεμόνδε); cf. 338n.

329–332 With the arrival in the plain and the return of the companions to town, the narrator sets the ‘stage’ for Priam’s encounter with Hermes and the miraculous journey to Achilleus. The plain between Troy and the encampment

328 ὀλοφυρόμενοι, ὡς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ὡς εἰ: ≈ ὡς. — θάνατόνδε: on the form, R 15.3. — κιόντα: participle of a defective verb with the meaning ‘go’.

128 

 Iliad 24

of ships here takes on the appearance of a liminal zone (330: human beings withdraw; 332: gods intervene). 329 ≈ Od. 24.205. — flat land: =  the Trojan plain (2.465a  n.); cf. 351 ‘river’ = Skamandros.   330 ≈ 3.313 (Priam and Antenor leave the battlefield before the duel between Paris and Menelaos); 2nd VH ≈ 14.46, 21.561.  

προτὶ Ἴλιον ἀπονέοντο: cf. the VE formula προτὶ Ἴλιον ἠνεμόεσσαν 3.305n.

331 Zeus  … failed not to notice: on the gods observing and intervening, 23n. (here, as there, with a change of scene; see ad loc.). The expression is used frequently (in reference to various deities), e.g. at 15.461, 16.232, 20.112 (Kullmann 1956, 84; LfgrE s.v. λανθάνω 1628.60  ff.).  

οὐ λάθον: i.e. Zeus did not disregard the two (on the sense of negated λανθάνω, see 12b–13n.). — εὐρύοπα Ζῆν: 296n.; the epithetP with the meaning ‘far-seeing’ is here likely related to the context (οὐ λάθον, ἰδών).

332 1st VH ≈ 17.487; 2nd VH ≈ 15.44, 17.441, 19.340 (and cf. 1st VH of 8.350, 15.12, 16.431). — He saw the old man and took pity | upon him: Zeus sees that the time has come to fulfill the promise he made at 153  f./182  f. (cf. Priam’s plea at 301). On the theme of divine pity, see 19n. (and 146–158n., end).   333–361 The dispatch of Hermes, formed in accord with the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (77–88n.): (1) issuing orders with detailed reasoning, (2) departure of the messenger (on the elaboration of this element via additional type-scenes, see 339–348n.); the arrival (3) is narrated from the point of view of those present on site for the benefit of ‘dramatic’ suspense (they see the messenger arrive: Edwards 1987, 307; Richardson 1990, 117; de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 80  f.; similarly at 283), the description of the situation (4) consequently becomes particularly detailed (instead of e.g. ‘Hermes found them at the river’); (5) Hermes approaches and begins the conversation in a sensitive manner (there is in fact no order to be conveyed in the present case [element 6]): Arend 1933, 54, 58  ff.; Tsagarakis 1982, 78  f.

329 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἐπεὶ οὖν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — πόλιος, πεδίον: statement of origin and direction without preposition (R 19.2); on the inflection, R 11.3. — κατέβαν: = κατέβησαν (R 16.2). — ἀφίκοντο: on the unaugmented form (-ῐ-), R 16.1. 330 οἳ μέν: = φίλοι (327), clarified in 331. — ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — προτὶ (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 5.4; προτί = πρός (R 20.1). — ἀπονέοντο: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 331 παῖδες καὶ γαμβροί: in apposition to 330 οἳ μέν. — τὼ … λάθον: dual and plural forms can be combined freely (R 18.1). 332 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — προφανέντε, (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. — προφανέντε: nom. dual of the aor. part. of προφαίνομαι ‘become visible, come into sight, appear’, with ἐς + acc.

Commentary 

 129

333 ≈ Od. 5.28 (additional parallels from the Odyssey for the entire scene: 339– 345n.).  

Ἑρμείαν: Hermes; on the form, G 39. — ἀντίον ηὔδα: a VE formula in speech introductory formulaeP, usually as formula of response in dialogues: τὸν/τὴν δ’ αὖ(τ’) … ἀντίον ηὔδα (13× Il., 52× Od., 1× h.Cer.; variants: 23.482, Od. 2.242, 4.648, h.Ap. 463); before an independent speech only here and at Il. 5.170, 8.200, Od. 5.28, h.Ap. 525, h.Ven. 91.

334–338 Zeus explicitly justifies his ‘personnel decision’ by portraying the skills and qualities needed to execute the task as characteristic of Hermes: reliable guidance (on which, 153n.), friendliness to human beings (cf. 347–348n.), stealth (445  ff., 462  ff., 677  ff. [esp. 691 VE]; cf. 24n. and Macleod on 334–335); in contrast, Hermes’ ‘partisanship’ (he is essentially pro-Greek: CG 17) is of secondary importance. 334 ≈ 23.156; 1st VH ≈ 461, Od. 5.29, 19.397. — σοὶ … μάλιστα: i.e. in contrast to other gods (AH; 2.57n.). — γάρ: may refer to both the preceding vocative and the following order, and thus justifies why Zeus entrusts Hermes with this task and also why he trusts him with this particular task: Denniston 69; Ruijgh 720 (also on the particle combination γάρ τε); cf. 23.156 with AH ad loc.  

335 to whom you will: ‘a common qualification in telling of a god’s powers. […] It explains why he does not always do what he is supposed to be able to’ (West on Hes. Th. 28); cf. 343  f.  

καί τ(ε): καί likely has a coordinating function, τε a generalizing one (‘epic τε’): Denniston 528  ff.; Ruijgh 763  ff. — ἔκλυες ᾧ: dat. rather than gen. of the person is rare after κλυεῖν (e.g. Hes. Th. 474; cf. ἀκούειν ἀνέρι Il. 16.515  f.): LfgrE s.v. 1459.25  ff.; Meier-Brügger 1986 (on the present passage: 353 n. 28); cf. 1.37n. (μοι in κλῦθί μοι has a gen. function). – On the function of the aorist of ἔκλυες, cf. 616n. on ἐρρώσαντο (similar phrasings: 1.218 ὅς κε θεοῖς ἐπιπείθηται, μάλα τ’ ἔκλυον αὐτοῦ, 9.509 καί τ’ ἔκλυον εὐξαμένοιο). — ἐθέλῃσθα: on the form, G 89.  

336 βάσκ’ ἴθι: ‘get going and go!’ (144n.); in most cases at the very beginning of the speech of instruction to the messenger, here delayed by the justification at 334  f. (Richardson; Reinhardt 1961, 478  f.). — καί: ‘and’; although additional imperatives after ἴθι are generally connected asyndetically (144n.), understanding καί as ‘also’ (sc. like any other ἀνήρ [335]) is here hardly plausible, cf. 23.646 (with Leaf and Richardson ad loc.), Od. 18.171; differently AH. — κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula after caesura B 1 (also

333 ἀντίον ηὔδα: ‘address, speak to’. 334 σοὶ … μάλιστά γε φίλτατόν ἐστιν: ‘to you especially is this work most dear’. — γάρ: ‘indeed’. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11); likewise 335. 335 ἑταιρίσσαι: intrans., ‘join someone as a ἑταῖρος’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). — ἐθέλῃσθα: generalizing subjunc. (cf. 343); on the inflection, R 16.2. 336 νῆας: on the inflection, R 12.1.

130 

 Iliad 24

at 8.98, 22.465); on the variations (‘to/at the hollow ship/s’), see Kurt 1979, 35 (collection of examples). – Variant after caesura B 2: θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν (564n.); on simple ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν (after C 1), see 118n. – κοῖλος is part of the group of ship epithets that describe their construction and, like γλαφυρός (731n.), refers originally to the ‘cavity’ of the hull (Gray 1974, 97). This is the only ship epithet with the prosodic form – – (list in Parry [1928] 1971, 112). On ship epithets in general, 1.12b  n.

337 that no man shall see him, none be aware of him: Clarification of 153  f./182  f. and also a seedP for 343  f. (Hermes seizes the magic staff), 445  f. (he puts the guards to sleep), 477 (Priam approaches Achilleus without being noticed).  

μήτ’ ἄρ τις … μήτ’ ἄρ τε: an emphatic double negative, cf. μήτ’ ἄρ τι … μήτέ τι 21.288, οὔτ’ ἄρ τε … οὔτ’ ἄρα 5.89  f., οὔτ’ ἂρ … οὔτ’ ἄρ’ 6.352, 20.205, h.Merc. 346  f. – Attempts at explanation and correction of the redundant τε in Ruijgh 841  f.; other rare particle combinations with τε in Chantr. 2.344. — ἴδῃ … νοήσῃ: ‘see and notice’ (in the sense ‘recognize’), cf. on the journey home αἴ κ’ Ἀγαμέμνων γνώῃ σ(ε) (687  f.), οὐδέ τις ἔγνω (691), also 5.475, Od. 16.160, 19.478 etc.: LfgrE s.v. νοέω 414.20  ff.; above, 294n.

338 1st VH =  2.674, 17.280, Od. 11.470, 11.551, 24.18. — of the other Danaans: namely other than Achilleus (the same juxtaposition Greeks – Achilleus also in the iterata).

Πηλεΐωνάδ(ε): ≈ ‘to (the house of) Achilleus’. Allative -δε appears only here with a personal name (see the list in Lejeune 1939, 56 n. 1; repeatedly imitated by Apoll. Rhod.: Richardson). The explanation is disputed: ‘Leumann’s’ formation in accord with 22.214 Πηλεΐωνα δ’ ἵκανε > Πηλεΐωνάδ’ ἱκ- (Ellendt [1861] 1979, 86 n. 11)? analogous to the VE formula οἴκαδ’ ἱκέσθαι 287, etc. (Peppmüller)? (cf. Von der Mühll 1952, 379 n. 46: ‘hyperhomericism’.)

339–348 The messenger setting out (333–361n.) is rendered as the type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (89–102n.) and forms a covering sceneP for Priam’s uneventful drive through the plain. Element (2) preparation for the journey is also expanded as the type-scene ‘dressing‘ (on which, 2.42–47n.: it serves to prepare for a momentuous action) with (3) shoes and (4) ‘weapon’ – here, specific to the context, Hermes’ ‘magic staff’ (343n.). On the (modified) element (5) arrival and the realization of the intent of the intervention, see 333–361n. (there elements 3–5). 339–345 = Od. 5.43–49 (Hermes); also 340b–342 = Od. 1.96–98 (Athene); 343b– 344 = Od. 24.3  f. and 348 = Od. 10.279 (Hermes). – On the (motif-related, linguistic, etc.) links between Hermes’ appearances at Il. 24 and Od. 5 (Kalypso) and Od. 10 (Odysseus), see Beck 1965; Crane 1988, 38–40; Hölscher (1988)

337 ὥς: ‘so, thus’. — ἄγαγ(ε): aor.: ‘take!’.

Commentary 

 131

1990, 80; Usener 1990, 165–182; de Jong on Od. 10.275–309; cf. also 555n. – Additional correspondences between Book 24 and individual Books of the Odyssey concern in particular Od. 1: council of the gods regarding the return of a deceased person (Hektor) or supposedly deceased hero (Odysseus), Od. 6/7: hikesia scene (Priam with Achilleus, Odysseus among the Phaiakians), Od. 24: burial of a hero (Hektor and Achilleus), reunion of father and son (Priam/Hektor and Laërtes/Odysseus); see Rutherford (1991/93) 2001, 130– 132; Currie 2006, 10–15. 339 1st VH see 120n. — courier, Argeïphontes: 2.103n. (cf. 24n.); the epithetP ‘courier’ is particularly appropriate in the present context.   340–342 The text gives no indication as to whether Hermes’ sandals are supposed to be winged (schol. T; Richardson); pictorial representations of such sandals can only be found in Greece from the Archaic period on (LIMC s.v. Hermes). On ‘wind-shoes’ in Hurritic-Hittite poetry, West 1997, 191; 2007, 152 (cf. the epithets of the divine messenger Iris, 77n.). – On the symbolism of the sandals and their possible connection to Hermes’ function as god of transitions, see Cursaru 2012. 340 = Od. 5.44; ≈ Od. 17.2; 2nd VH = Il. 2.44 (see ad loc.) etc. — sandals: 2.44n. (with bibliography).

αὐτίκ’ ἔπειτ(α): Asyndeton with αὐτίκα is common (K.-G. 2.346  f.), here with an explanatory function; on αὐτίκα in general, 315n. (here amplified by ἔπειτα: ‘immediately after’, cf. 1.583, 2.322, 3.267, etc.).

341 golden and immortal: On the notion of ‘golden, because divine’, see 21n.; West on Od. 1.97. On the asyndetic cluster of attributes, cf. 125n.  

ἀμβρόσια: A derivation from the verbal adjective ἄμβροτος with the meaning ‘being part of the immortals, divine’ (also as an epithet of the night: 363n.), see Frisk s.v. βροτός; Risch 124; G 15; on the divine nourishment ‘ambrosia’, see 19.38n. — φέρον: Divine implements and actions are generally portrayed in the (timeless) present (e.g. the staff at 343b–344); exceptions, like the present one, regularly cause difficulties of interpretation, cf. 2.448 ἠερέθοντο of the tassels of the aegis (see ad loc.), Hes. Th. 10 στεῖχον of the Muses (West on Hes. Th. 7 and 10). Here understood by AH and LfgrE s.v. φέρω 848.20  ff. as an iterative imperfect: ‘used to wear, always wore’; but one might also interpret this as an injunctive, which is used in the Rigveda to portray divine qualities but has otherwise largely disappeared (West 1989; on the injunctive in general, Rix

339 ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — οὐδ(έ): also occurs after affirmative clauses in Homer (R 24.8). 341 χρύσεια: on the metrical lengthening, R 10.1. — τά: with the function of a relative pronoun (R  14.5). — μιν: =  αὐτόν (R 14.1). — φέρον: The predicate of a neuter pl. can be sing. or pl. in Homer. — ἠμὲν … ἠδέ: ‘both … and, as well as’ (R 24.4). — ὑγρήν: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2.

132 

 Iliad 24

[1976] 1992, 191  f., 194). — ὑγρήν: ‘the sea’ (ὑγρός is literally ‘liquid, flowing’: LfgrE). A substantival feminine adjective like γλαυκή (likewise ‘the sea’; Hes. Th. 440 with West ad loc.), ἀμβροσίη (19.38n.), θεσπεσίη (2.367n.), etc. (AH Anh. on Od. 1.97). 342 = Od. 1.98, 5.46; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 12.207, 23.367, Od. 2.148. — ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν: Aside from here and in the iterata, always in a VE formula (1× Il., 4× Od., 6× Hes.; sometimes κατ’ rather than ἐπ’). Together with ἐφ’ ὑγρήν, it forms a polar expressionP, at 341: ‘across the entire world, everywhere’ (Kemmer 1903, 160  f.); the epithet ἀπείρων, although formulaic when combined with γαῖα, probably strengthens this connotation (cf. LfgrE s.v. ἀπείρων). — ἅμα πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο: ‘together with the wind’; an expression illustrating speed, i.e. ‘as swift as the wind’, of Hermes also at Od. 5.46, of Athene at Od. 1.98 (and in the comparison ἀνέμου ὡς πνοιή at Od. 6.20); of horses: Il. 16.149, 19.415 (with n.), harpies: Hes. Th. 268, an eagle: Il. 12.207 (with simple dat.), Od. 2.148 (μετά rather than ἅμα; similarly Il. 23.367: horses’ manes fluttering in the wind).  

343–344 = Od. 5.47  f.; ≈ 24.4  f. — On Hermes as god of sleep and dreams, cf. Od. 7.137  f., h.Merc. 14  f. (with Càssola ad loc.); Brillante 1990, 43. 343 He caught up: 2.46n. (dressing/arming scene). — staff: Greek rhábdos, the ‘hallmark’ of Hermes; cf. the description at h.Merc. 529  ff. and Hermes’ epithet chrysórrhapis ‘with the golden staff’ (3× Od., 6× h.Hom.). On the relation of the staff to the kērýkeion and caduceus, see Nilsson (1940) 1967, 509  f. (with bibliography in n. 10). It is functionally signficant in the subsequent action as a ‘magic staff’ (even if not mentioned again): 445  f.; see Peppmüller on 339  ff.; Richardson; de Jong on Od. 5.44–48; Danek 1998, 463  f.; cf. 337n. (seedP). – On the magical touch of the gods, see 2.451b–452n.; examples of the sleep-inducing effect of the magic staff in Thompson 1955/58 no. D1364.18; on the motif of the magic staff in general, loc. cit. no. D1254; Buchholz 2012, 268  f. — he mazes the eyes of … mortals: i.e. sends people to sleep (Greek thélgei, literally ‘enchants, enthralls’); somewhat differently at 13.434  ff.: Poseidon ‘bewitched the eyes, made motionless the limbs’ of Alkathoös in order to render him incapable of flight, see Janko ad loc.   344 ὧν ἐθέλῃ: The ind. and subjunc. are transmitted here (Richardson); on the subjunc. as preferable, Hainsworth on Od. 5.48. – On the meaning of the expression, 335n. — καί: probably strengthening the polar expressionP: ‘(not only ὄμματα θέλγει, but) also ὑπν. ἐγείρει’. — ὑπνώοντας: The formation of the word is disputed, since the meaning does not fit with factitive ὑπνόω (Shipp [1953] 1972, 99; Heubeck on Od. 24.1–4); most likely a present with diectasis of a denominative ὑπνάω derived from ὕπνος (DELG with

342 γαῖαν: = γῆν. — πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο: on the inflection, R 11.1 and 11.2. — πνοιῇς: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 343 δὲ (ῥ)ῥάβδον: on the prosody, M 4.6. — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 133

bibliography and suppl.), less plausibly an analogous formation related to the denominal ἱδρώω (Chantr. 1.366 with bibliography); cf. Risch 330.  

345 Holding | this in his hand  …: A scene ending after the description of an item as at 2.47, 2.450, 15.311; with an (asyndetic) demonstrative connection (on which, K.-G. 2.343  f.; cf. 9). — winged: probably not only metaphorical of great speed at a crucial moment (thus Kurz 1966, 139, 151  f.), but also actually of his movement through the air (thus LfgrE s.v. πέτομαι 1194.7  ff.): in early epic, gods are repeatedly compared to birds, e.g. Hermes at Od. 5.50–54 (additional passages in Hainsworth on Od. 5.51; in detail and with further bibliography, Bannert 1988, 57–68; Carter 1995; cf. 2.71n.). Here, Hermes will assume human form and cover the last bit of the way on foot (347  f.).  

κρατὺς Ἀργεϊφόντης: a VE formula (2× Il., 2× Od., 5× h.Hom.); see 24n. The adjective κρατύς (in this form in -ύς) is only attested in the present Homeric noun-epithet formula (elsewhere κραταιός [on which, 132n., end] and κρατερός).

346 2nd VH ≈ 15.233, 18.150, 23.2 (‘to their ships and the Hellespont’). — to Troy and the Hellespont: taken as a geographic unit by the narrator (cf. 78n.). Troíē sometimes denotes the city of Troy/Ilion, sometimes the region of the Troad (2.141n.; LfgrE); on the ‘Hellespont’, see 544  f. with n. (the border of Priam’s realm). – On the mention of place names in ‘divine journeys’, see 78n. (a list of ‘waystations’) and 78–79n. (the function of such namings). 347–348 Hermes takes on human form and impersonates the youngest son of a noble Myrmidon and follower of their leader (396–400). This converts the encounter with Priam into a variant of the themeP ‘a foreigner meets a native’, in which a new arrival is led to the palace, usually by a child of the local ruler (on the type in general, Fenik 1974, 32  ff., 153  f.; Reece 1993, 13, 168  f.; Bettenworth 2004, 105  f.; de Jong on Od. 6 [p. 151  f.]). In a similar way, Hermes leads Odysseus to Kirke (Od. 10.275  ff.), also Athene at 13.222  f. as ‘a young man, … such as the children of kings are’ (after Odysseus’ landing in Ithaka) and at 7.19  f. as a ‘replacement’ Nausikaa (for Odysseus’ journey to the palace of the Phaiakian king and queen). In addition, the specification of age is functional in the present context: ‘As self-assured and in his element as the noble youth is, so exposed is the old man’ (Reinhardt 1961, 479  f. [transl.]); this contrast elicits mutual sympathy and thus prepares not only the encounter between Priam and Achilleus (anticipation of scenesP), but also particularly the

344 ἐθέλῃ: generalizing subjunc. without modal particle (R 21.1; cf. 335). — αὖτε: mildly adversative, ‘on the other hand, however’. 345 τήν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — μετὰ χερσίν: μετά often occurs in Homer with a locative dative (‘amidst/among, in’).

134 

 Iliad 24

topic of conversation at 486  ff. and 534  ff. via the father-son motif (on which, 362–439n.): Keil 1998, 158. – The reverse situation is found at 14.136 (after the young Diomedes’ speech, Poseidon appears as an ‘old man’, see Janko ad loc.) and in the common motif ‘goddess as an old woman’, e.g. Aphrodite as Helen’s wool spinner (3.386), see Richardson on h.Cer. 101. On divine appearances in human guise in general, Kullmann 1956, 99  ff. (collection of examples); Fuchs 1993, 22 (appearance otherwise generally in the form or a relative/confidant or another authority figure); de Jong on Od. 1.96–324 (with bibliography); cf. 169–170n.

βῆ δ’ … ἐοικώς …: identical sentence structure in a similar situation at 15.237  f.: at Zeus’ behest, Apollo goes among human beings.

347 VB = 95 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH ≈ 12.385, 16.742, Od. 8.164, 12.413. — αἰσυιητῆρι: The meaning of this was obscure already in antiquity and is thus to be preferred as the lectio difficilior (West 2001a, 119  f.; a collection of the many ancient interpretations in Erbse on schol. A and bT ad loc.); syntactically, a specification of κούρῳ on analogy with 17.726 κοῦροι θηρητῆρες, 18.494 κ. ὀρχηστῆρες (on the combination of terms for type and function, cf. 302n.). Probably to be connected with the Trojan name Αἰσυιήτης (2.793, 13.427), which is likely of non-Greek origin and contains a signifier for ‘ruler, prince’ vel sim. (Wathelet s.v.). This also applies to the v.l. αἰσυμνητῆρι attested in the (later) form αἰσυμνήτης at Od. 8.258 (≈ ‘judge, referee’); in the post-Homeric period, a term for kings and magistrates (here accordingly understood as ‘prince’): DELG; Beekes; Richardson; Janko on 13.427–433.  

348 = Od. 10.279 (and 2nd VH of 347 ≈ Od. 10.278). — with beard new grown: The first facial hair (mustache) is seen as a sign of reaching adulthood, e.g. at Od. 18.175  f./269  f. (Telemachos is ready to succeed his father): Ulf 1990, 56  f. — the most graceful time of young manhood: On the positive evaluation of youth in Homer, see Latacz 1966, 102; Vernant (1982) 1989, 56  ff.; the typical beautiful young man is also personified e.g. by Ganymedes (20.233–235). On the meaning of the adjective charíeis, see 6.90n. (‘attractive, with a charming effect’).  

347 αἰσυιητῆρι (ϝ)ε(ϝ)οικώς: on the prosody, R 5.4. 348 πρῶτον ὑπηνήτῃ: ‘who is growing a beard for the first time’. — τοῦ περ: ‘especially to one such (youth), whose …’ (generalizing in reference to youth); τοῦ with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5); on περ cf. R 24.10.

Commentary 

 135

349–439 Priam and Idaios stop on the way. They then see Hermes approaching. As a ‘follower’ of Achilleus, he gains Priam’s trust; his statement that Hektor’s body shows no signs of decomposition gives Priam renewed hope. 349–361 Via a natural interruption of the drive (letting the animals drink at the river under cover of dusk, cf. 351n.), the narrator creates the pause necessary for the meeting between the two old men and Hermes (Peppmüller on 351; cf. Kurz 1966, 119). The portrayal of the encounter is modelled on the socalled ‘«action–perception–reaction» pattern’ (on which, see 696–709n.; cf. Richardson on 352–357): Idaios sees a man approaching (on which, see 333– 361n.) – inevitably identifies him as an enemy – flight or plea for mercy? – Priam panics (on the fright of the two men despite Zeus’ promise at 152–154/181–183, cf. the discussion at 146–158n.). The second reaction (Priam) is heightened further in comparison to the first (Idaios). The tension only begins to ease when Hermes grasps Priam’s hand in a friendly fashion while addressing him as ‘father’ (361  f. with nn.). – This scene is the first of four suspense-enhancing situations that illustrate the peril of the undertaking, which had been anticipated with concern by Priam and those around him (193–227n.). The scenes that follow are: (2) Priam approaches Achilleus undetected (480–484n.); (3) Achilleus bursts out in anger at Priam’s impatience (552–571n.); (4) the overnight stay with Achilleus and the return to Troy (649  ff./679  ff.; see 650–655n., 683–688n., end). On the common epic motif of heroes having to overcome numerous dangers, cf. Bowra 1952, 48–50. 349 the great tomb of Ilos: a topographic fixed point in the narrative of the Iliad, located in the plain before Troy (on this in detail, 2.793n.). Beyond the mere geographic information, such fixed points signal special situations (Trachsel 2007, 84–89): Hektor takes counsel at the grave mound (10.415), the Trojans flee past it in the direction of the city (11.166  f.), and Paris shoots at Diomedes there (11.371  f.) – it is evidently a place that ‘signals to the Trojans relative proximity to the city and thus safety’ (Danek 1988, 147 [transl.], with bibliography): this is where Priam leaves safety (cf. 692–695n.). – Ilos, the founding hero of the city of Ilion, is Priam’s grandfather via Laomedon (20.230–240; the entire genealogy in Priess 1977, 92  f.; Edwards on 20.215–240; Mannsperger 2002, 1077–1079: ‘distant past’). In this regard, its function within the storyP aside, the ancestor monument (similar to other public or religious buildings) reflects the historical and political self-image of the society in question: Hölkeskamp 2002, 321  f. (with bibliography); Crielaard 2003, 59. On the cult of ancestors and heroes in the 8th cent. BC, see 6.419a  n.   349 οἳ δ(έ): Priam and Idaios (cf. 329n.). — σῆμα πάρεξ Ἴλοιο: = πάρεξ σῆμα Ἴλοιο. — ἔλασσαν: 3rd pers. pl. aor. of intr. ἐλαύνω; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

136 

 Iliad 24

πάρεξ: topographically ‘past’. On the accent, West 1998, XIX. — Ἴλοιο ἔλασσαν: ‘irregular’ hiatus, as at 2.332 Πριάμοιο ἕλωμεν, 24.528 δὲ ἐάων (see ad loc.), etc.: van Leeuwen (1894) 1918, 86; Schwartz 1923, 70  f.; West on Hes. Th. 369.

350 they stayed their mules and horses: The stop is described by analogy with the type-sceneP ‘arrival by chariot’ (440–485n.): (1) stopping (cf. 5.755), (3) feeding the animals.  

ἡμιόνους τε καὶ ἵππους: a variable expression; in the same position in the verse also at Hes. Op. 816 (dat.); at VB and VE ἵππους (θ’) ἡμιόνους τε (VB: 23.260, 24.471, adapted at 697; VE: 576, 690), after caesura A 4 ἵππους τε καὶ ἡμιόνους 362 (dat.: 442).

351 ‘River’ without further specification usually means the Skamandros (2.465a  n.) = Xanthos (6.4n.), the most important river in the Iliad (cf. ‘plain’ 329n.); here probably specifically the ford across the Skamandros, which in addition to the grave mound of Ilos represents a topographic fixed point between the safe and the dangerous zones (349n.): on the way home, Hermes will leave Priam at this ford (692  ff., with n.). Contrary to the seemingly natural assumption that mention of the ford (692) always implies crossing it, meaning that the Skamandros crossed the direct path between Troy and the encampment of ships (Thornton 1984, 154  f.; Luce 1998, 116  ff.), in the narrator’s imagination it was instead located along the edge of the battlefield (6.4n.; Elliger 1975, 48–51; Hainsworth on 11.166 and 497; Janko on 14.433–434; Richardson on 21.1–2). The ford thus only plays a role outside the battle scenes proper: effecting a rescue of the wounded Hektor in the direction of the city at 14.432–436, the Trojan escape route at 21.1  f., here Priam’s journey to the Achaian camp and back (Trachsel 2007, 76–78). — darkness had descended: The indication of time serves as a retroactive explanation for the interruption in the journey (Richardson 1990, 146 with n. 13). At the same time, darkness is an important precondition for the following story, both as a protective environment for Priam’s secretive action and as a sinister backdrop at tense moments (esp. at 352  ff., 443  ff., 650  ff.). At dawn, Priam will have left the Achaian camp again: 692–695n.  

ἐν ποταμῷ: a VB formula in the Iliad (4×), in the Od. 3× after caesura A 3; here ‘at the river’ (as at 18.521, Od. 5.466). — δὴ γάρ: always at the beginning of a sentence, with strong emphasis (8× Il., 9× Od., 2× Hes., 3× h.Cer.; cf. Wills 1993, 73–76). The meaning of δή is disputed: temporal (like Latin iam), affirmative/accentuating, logical/inferential? For details, see K.-G. 2.123–131; Navarre 1932; Denniston 203  ff.; Schw. 2.562  f. – δή has

350 ὄφρα (+ oblique opt.): ‘so that’ (R 22.5). 351 δὴ γὰρ καί: ‘then indeed also’ vel sim. — ἐπὶ … ἤλυθε γαῖαν: ‘had come across the earth’; ἤλυθε = ἦλθε; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

Commentary 

 137

recently been taken in particular as a signal of the interaction between narrator and recipient (or, in direct speechP, between speaker and addressee): ‘the use of this particle draws the hearer into the story by marking the narration as deriving from a shared basis, a common experience that binds the narrator and the listeners together’ (Bakker 1997, 74–80 [quotation from 78  f.]; similarly Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993, 51–53, 140–151; Wakker 1997, 211–213, 216  f.). — καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἤλυθε γαῖαν: a unique variant of the VE formula καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἦλθεν (1.475n.) or καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἱερὸν ἔλθῃ (3× Il.); also 1st VH ἀλλὰ πρὶν κνέφας ἦλθε (8.500). 352 ἐξ ἀγχιμόλοιο: adverbial, ‘from near-by’ (on the perspective, cf. 2.456n.: ἕκαθεν). The form and use are unusual (Wackernagel [1944] 1953, 892  f.): (a) an alternate formation for the metrically impossible *ἀγχιμολόθεν, cf. Od. 5.283 τηλόθεν … ἴδεν; (b) ἀγχίμολον (-μολ- related to μολεῖν ‘to come’), elsewhere always in connection with verbs of motion, usually ἐλθεῖν. — ἐφράσσατο: only ‘perceive, become aware’, not ‘(see and) recognize’ as usually (esp. Od. 10.453  f., 21.222  f., 24.391  f.; cf. 337n.), since Idaios himself will speak merely of ‘a man’ (355); Ἑρμείαν (353) derives from the narrator’s (and listener’s) ‘greater knowledge’: narrator-textP (de Jong [1987] 2004, 104  f.; cf. 3.191n.).   353 ποτὶ δὲ Πρίαμον φάτο: The unusual phrasing (598 is similar) is perhaps caused by the anapaestic rhythm  – otherwise rare for personal names  – of Πρίαμος (Edwards 1970, 28). — φάτο φώνησέν τε: = Od. 4.370, h.Cer. 53; on the VE formula φώνησέν τε, see 193n.   354 1st VH ≈ 5.440, Od. 4.71, h.Ven. 177. — Δαρδανίδη: 171n. — φραδέος νόου: cf. formulations such as ἀφραδίῃσι νόοιο at 10.122, etc. (on νόος as the force behind cleverness and ignorance, Böhme 1929, 52  f.; cf. Sullivan 1989, 159, 163). The νόος (‘thinking, mind, intellect’: an action noun) is thought to be capable of ‘achieving something’ in uncertain situations: φραζώμεθ’, ὅπως ἔσται τάδε ἔργα, εἴ τι νόος ῥέξει (14.61  f., the Achaian council in great need). Idaios himself suggests two possible responses at 356  f., although initially Priam’s νόος will fail: 358 (see ad loc.). In contrast, the young man (Hermes) is characterized in Priam’s eyes by his νόος (377): a clustering of the same word in a few verses (354, 358, 367 [see ad loc.], 377). – φραδής is a hapaxP and is attested elsewhere only as a compound (ἀ-, ἀρι-, περι-, etc.): Risch 80; Leumann 1950, 111. Here perhaps an ad hoc use (‘wary’) in a word-play with φράζεο ‘beware’: AH; Richardson; Meissner 2006, 207  f. (on φράζομαι with this meaning, LSJ s.v. II.6; cf. ἐφράσσατο at 352). The repetition of a word (stem) in the 2nd VH lends emphasis to this statement, as at e.g. 7.282, 13.72 (Fehling 1969, 166; Richardson). — ἔργα τέτυκται: with the gen. ‘it depends on …, is a matter of …, requires …’ (cf. Latin opus est). A VE formula (also in the plpf. ἔ. τέτυκτο), 3× Il., 2× Od., 2× h.Hom.; in these cases, the initial digamma of ἔργα is not taken into account 5× in total, as is the case here (G 26; cf. Hoekstra 1965, 57).  

352 ἀγχιμόλοιο (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. 353 Ἑρμείαν: in apposition to 352 τὸν δ(έ). — ποτὶ … φάτο: ≈ προσέφη (on ποτί, R 20.1–2, on the middle, R 23). 354 φράζεο, φραδέος, νόου: on the uncontracted forms, R 6.

138 

 Iliad 24

355 VB = 5.244 (Sthenelos sees Pandaros and Aineias approaching; his response at 5.249 ≈ 24.356); from caesura A 4 on ≈ Od. 1.251, 16.128; — ἄνδρ’ ὁρόω: an asyndetic continuation providing a rationale (88n.). — τάχα: frequently with the future in apprehensions and warnings: 2.192–193n.; LfgrE (‘heightens the certainty of the speaker, the vividness of the situation’ [transl.]). — διαρραίσεσθαι: on the sense and expressive use of the verb, cf. 2.473n.: ‘to shatter’, here ‘to tear into pieces’ (AH). διαρραίσεσθαι is taken to be a passive form by schol. bT and D, as well as in most commentaries – in Homer, middle future forms often have a passive force: K.-G. 1.113  f.; Schw. 1.763; Wackernagel 1926, 137  ff. But the addition of ἄνδρ(α) as a subject acc. is also possible here (in which case ἄμμε as an object): Richardson.  

356 ≈ 5.249. — with our horses: i.e. in Priam’s chariot, after abandoning the mule wagon, probably not with the objective of distracting the stranger with the sight of the precious gifts (thus schol. T) but out of fear; in addition, a more rapid flight is possible with the horse-drawn chariot than with the mule-drawn wagon.  

ἵππων: = ‘wagon’ (51n.). — ἢ … ἔπειτα: ‘or else/otherwise’, the introduction of an alternative as at 13.743, 20.120, Od. 20.63; similarly Il. 6.350 (see ad loc.); on ἔπειτα, cf. also 290n.

357 1st VH ≈ 21.65, Od. 6.169, 22.339; cf. Od. 10.481. – On the VE formula, see 301n. — clasp his knees: a customary gesture of supplicants (478n.).   358–360 Given the unexpected situation, portrayed as exceedingly dangerous by Idaios, Priam’s fear appears natural and, precisely for that reason, poignant (Leaf on 359, end; cf. Lateiner 1995, 45  f.). Aside from the brief expressions ‘the fear that makes one turn pale took hold of someone’ or ‘shaking of the limbs (shivering of the knees) took hold of someone’ (examples in FernándezGaliano on Od. 22.42; cf. 170n.), numerous varied, vivid descriptions of the symptoms of fear and terror, like the one here, can be found in early epic, comprising a range of psychosomatic phenomena such as blanching, shivering, paralysis (here at 360a), palpitations of the heart, and chattering of the teeth: 3.30–37 (Paris), 10.93–95 (Agamemnon), 13.279–283 (typology of the coward), 22.448/451–456 (Andromache) and others (see the collection in Körner 1929, 57–59 and Janko on 13.282–283). Goose bumps, however, are unique in this context (in the post-Homeric period at Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1624  f.; at Hes. Op. 539  f. of freezing in winter). Cf. the English ‘hair-raising’.

355 ὁρόω: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — τάχα: ‘soon’. — ἄμμε: = ἡμᾶς (R 14.1). 356 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 357 γούνων: = γονάτων (R 12.5 und 4.2). — λιτανεύσομεν: identical in meaning to the more common λίσσομαι ‘plead’; short-voweled aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). — αἴ κ(ε): ‘whether in fact’; αἰ = εἰ (R 22.1); on the use of the modal particle κε = ἄν, R 21.1.

Commentary 

 139

358 VE ≈ 13.481 (Idomeneus is afraid of the approaching Aineias), Od. 6.168, 18.80. — σὺν … νόος χύτο: i.e. Priam ‘became confused’, he was ‘incapable of rational thought’ (Jahn 1987, 87 [transl.]); on the formulation, cf. 9.612 μή μοι σύγχει θυμόν ‘do not shatter my resolution’ (Griffin ad loc.), 13.808 οὐ σύγχει θυμόν ‘could not shake their composure, could not take away their courage’ (additional material in Porzig 1942, 105), also Od. 9.256 κατεκλάσθη φίλον ἦτορ ‘(our) heart shattered (from fear)’. — δείδιε: plpf. from perf. δείδω (< *δεδϝοα < *δέδϝοια) ‘be afraid’, see 6.99n. — αἰνῶς: 198n.   359 2nd VH = 11.669, Od. 11.394, 13.398/430, 21.283, h.Ven. 238 (frequently with the v.l. ἐνί/ ἐπί). — ἐπὶ γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσιν: meaning ‘all over his body’ (Faesi), cf. Hes. Op. 540 (τρίχες) ὀρθαὶ φρίσσωσιν ἀειρόμεναι κατὰ σῶμα. – μέλεα denotes ‘probably the muscular parts of the body’ (LfgrE [transl.] with bibliography) – also frequently of the body in its entirety – and, in the present noun-epithet formula is generally used in the context of physical strength (11.668  f., Od. 11.393  f., 21.282  f., h.Ven. 237  f.: ‘… strength as it used to be present in the supple limbs’; also 16.109  f., 23.688  f., Od. 11.599  f.: ‘sweat is pouring from the limbs’). But the epithetP γναμπτός ‘flexible, supple’ (verbal adj.) is here either used ornamentally or has undergone a change in meaning – in the present context in reference to the old man and his paralysis (360): ‘bent’. The remaining passages with their juxtaposition of ‘formerly = young = supple’ and ‘now = old’ (see iterata) may have facilitated such a reinterpretation (Leaf; Snell [1949] 1966, 63  f.; LfgrE s.v. γναμπτός; Hainsworth on 11.669; Faulkner on h.Ven. 238; differently Fernández-Galiano on Od. 21.283, who takes ‘bent’ to be the primary meaning, with reference to various bent or curved objects such as the clasps at 18.401; but see e.g. 40  f. νόημα γναμπτόν ‘supple mind’). In addition, ὀρθαί ‘erect’ and γναμπτοῖσι ‘bent’ form an antithesis (cf. Macleod).  

360 VB = 11.545 (Aias is frightened by Zeus), 16.806 (Patroklos after the intervention of Apollo); VE: 5× Il., 3× Od. (and ≈ 1× Od.).   στῆ  … ἐγγύθεν ἐλθών: a suspenseful antithesis of VB and VE: Kurz 1966, 84  f. — ταφών: ‘as though paralyzed (by fear)’ (schol. b: ‘it has rendered him speechless’; cf. 482n.). An isolated root aorist, related to θάμβος, τέθηπα (DELG and Beekes s.v. θάμβος; Untermann on 16.806; cf. 253n. on κατηφόνες). — αὐτός: ‘on his own’, ‘without waiting for an address by Priam’ (AH [transl.]). — Ἐριούνιος: a distinctive epithetP of Hermes; used independently for the god’s personal name here and at 440 (cf. 1.37n. on Ἀργυρότοξος, 26n. on γλαυκῶπις), elsewhere 11× attributive, also 2× at VE in the form ἐριούνης. Additional epithets of Hermes: 24n.

In antiquity, the etymology of the final element of Ἐριούνιος was a matter of speculation (e.g. schol. D: μεγαλωφελής, i.e. -ουνιος related to ὀνίνημι); today, it is linked to an Arcado-Cypriot term for ‘run(ning)’, thus depending on the interpretation of the initial element either ἐρι- ‘swift

358 σὺν … χύτο: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 359 ἔσταν: = ἔστησαν (R 16.2). — γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσιν: on the inflection, R 11.2 and 11.3. 360 ἐγγύθεν: normally without an ablatival sense in Homer (cf. R 15.1): ‘near(-by)’.

140 

 Iliad 24

runner’ (ἐρι- as a reinforcing prefix, ‘much’ vel sim.; see Ruijgh 1957, 135  f.; Reece 2009, 283–288; Hainsworth on Od. 8.322–323; DELG) or ‘the one who runs on high’, i.e. can fly: Willi 1999, 97  f. (ἐρι- < *ser ‘above’ [IE root noun]).

361 2nd VH = 5.756; ≈ Od. 4.461, 631. — took the … hand: Gestures play an important role in Book 24, see also 478  f. (Priam grasps Achilleus’ knee and kisses his hands, cf. 506), 508 (Achilleus pushes Priam away), 515 (Achilleus lifts Priam up), 671  f. (Achilleus grasps Priam’s wrist). – The grasping of the (right) hand as a friendly gesture frequently accompanies address of another person, familiar or unknown, in early epic: e.g. as a greeting (Od. 1.121), as a farewell (Od. 18.258), by way of encouragement (Il. 14.137, Od. 3.374) or affirmation (Il. 21.286, 24.671  f. [with n.]) – here probably both greeting and reassurance (AH; Richardson; cf. 6.233n.: an expression of peaceful intentions); on Homeric gestures of greeting in detail, Hentze 1902, 327–332 (on the present passage, esp. 328, also 342  f.); Lateiner 1995, 67–72; collection of examples in Barck 1976, 142. – On the basic pattern ‘A approaches B, grasps his hand, addresses B’, cf. 19.7n.

προσέειπεν: elsewhere usually with a personal object (additional exceptions: Od. 4.234/484 and 24.350/393): Peppmüller. – On the form -έ(ϝ)ειπε, 217n.

362–439 The dialogue between Priam and Hermes is comprised of nine speeches (more than any other conversation in the Iliad; eight speeches and three speakers can be found at 3.162–242 [Priam/Helen/Antenor: teichoskopia] and 10.378–453 [Dolon/Odysseus/Diomedes]). The dialogue creates a retardationP of the journey (Beck 2005, 136) and springs from Hermes’ subtle conduct of the conversation, which aims at gaining trust and sympathy and conveying information regarding the situation in the Achaian camp. From Hermes’ speeches, a combination of questions and cleverly selected cues (385/388 ‘son’ = Hektor; 394–396/406 ‘Achilleus’ follower’) apparently arising from natural curiosity, Priam readily picks up on the cues of interest to him, whereas the actual questions remain unanswered (e.g. at 362  f. concerning his destination, at 380  ff. his motivation): Minchin 2007, 183  f. – Several superordinate motifs pervade the dialogue and in some cases have an effect beyond it, especially the father-son motif (362, 371, 397, 466  f., 486, 493  ff., 534  ff.; see also 347–348n., 19.322–337n., and Kummer 1961, 40  f.) and the age motif (398, 487, 515  f., 541, 565); the motif ‘Hermes as the savior of the seriously endangered Priam’ occupies the beginning, middle and end of the dialogue: 362  ff., 401  ff., 437  ff. (cf. Danek 1988, 202). – A detailed characterization of the dialogue is found at Kummer loc. cit. 34–36; Erbse 1986, 66–69; Danek loc. cit. 199–203; Wathelet 1988, 330  f.; on the parallels at Od. 10.275–309 (Hermes and Odysseus), see the bibliography at 339–345n.

Commentary 

 141

362–371 Hermes begins the conversation with feigned ignorance (as suits his role); similarly suggestive questions posed with the aim of drawing out the addressee: Athene/Mentes to Telemachos at Od. 1.206–212/224–229, also Athene to Zeus at 1.59–62, Odysseus to Telemachos at 16.95–98 (de Jong on Od. 1.59– 62; Fuchs 1993, 17). – Hermes names the dangers in four pairs of verses; the focus moves steadily from the general environment (darkness at 362  f., the enemies close by at 364  f.) to Priam himself (the valuable gifts at 366  f., the defenselessness of Priam and Idaios at 368  f.): Danek 1988, 200. Hermes offers himself as someone who can protect them from danger and legitimizes himself as a necessary and simultaneously trustworthy escort: 370  f. (Erbse 1986, 66; Jahn 1987, 51 n. 66). 362 my father: Greek páter, an affable, deferential address directed at older men (also 7× Od. toward Odysseus); here, together with the pregnant, ring-composition-like repetition at the end of the speech (371: ‘like a beloved father’), it introduces the father-son motif: Macleod; Richardson on 362–371. Priam for his part will address the young man as ‘dear child’ (373) (on such reciprocal references between speakers, see Bassett 1920, 44; Macleod, Introd. 52  f.).  

ὧδ(ε): ‘thus’; either a reference to the unusual circumstances (nighttime; thus Martinazzoli) or said with a view to the old man: ‘thus, as you are; just because; thus, without further ado’ (like γέρων … ὡς σύ περ ὧδε at 398: Hentze 1868, 515; cf. 464n.).

363 ≈ 10.83, 10.386 (nocturnal expedition); 1st VH = 10.41, 10.142, Od. 9.404, 15.8. — while other mortals are sleeping: a variant of the motif ‘all are sleeping – except one’ (2b–13n.); here it underlines the unusual timing of the journey (cf. AH).  

ἀμβροσίην: 341n.; as an epithet of the night, usually understood in the sense ‘divine gift’ or ‘giving vitality’: 2.57n. (where also on διά and the formulaic system διὰ νύκτα; see also 366n.).

364 2nd VH ≈ 2.536 (Ἄβαντες), 3.8, 11.508 (Ἀχαιοί). — μένεα πνείοντας: ‘breathing (out) aggression’ (2.536n.), here probably a contextually relevant epithetP as a contrast to the frightened, defenseless Priam (cf. 3.8, Od. 22.203).  

362 πῇ: ‘(to) where?’ (literally ‘on which path?’, cf. 373 πῃ ‘somehow, approximately’, 381 πῃ ‘(to) somewhere’). 363 ἀμβροσίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — θ’: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 364 ἔδδεισας: = ἔδεισας, here ≈ ‘have you let yourself be deterred by’; -δδ- < -δϝ- (R 4.5). — μένεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6 (likewise 365 δυσμενέες). — πνείοντας: = πνέοντας; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

142 

 Iliad 24

365 VE = 22.153; ≈ 7× Il., 7× Od. (ἐόντα, etc.). — δυσμενέες καὶ ἀνάρσιοι: predicative; like its opposite ἄρθμιος (‘allied’), ἀνάρσιος is etymologically related to ἀραρίσκω; here as a synonym doubling: ‘enemies’ (AH; van Wees 1992, 391 n. 100).   366 = 653; 2nd VH = 10.394/468, Hes. Th. 481, Carmen Naupactium fr. 7 West. — θοὴν διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν: a VE formula, always with secretive actions (see iterata; also without θοήν at Il. 10.297, Hes. Th. 788, Margites fr. 7.10/12 West; VE Νύκτα μέλαιναν Hes. Th. 20, VE νυκτὶ μελαίνῃ 2× Il., 3× Od.). – θοός ‘swift’ as an epithet of the night (also as a personification: Νυκτὶ θοῇ Il. 14.261) is problematic (on the discussion in antiquity, especially in the scholia on 10.394, see ­Schmidt 1976, 136–139): most likely ‘swiftly descending’, ‘because in southern lands the night descends quickly, without a gradual transition via dusk and evening’ (AH on Od. 12.284 [transl.]; somewhat differently Buttmann 1825, 67–69: ‘abruptly’, with an emotional connotation in reference to the dangers of the night); other interpretations assume mechanical reshapings, e.g. from the formula θοὴν ἀνὰ/ἐπὶ νῆα μέλαιναν, etc. (Hainsworth on 10.394; Macleod) or from an original ‘walk/drive quickly through the night’ (West on Hes. Th. 481); on the epithets of the night in general, de Jong 1998, 130–133. On the spatial connotations of διὰ νύκτα, see 2.57n.; Luraghi 2012, 381–383.   367 τίς ἂν δή τοι νόος εἴη: νόος is here understood in various ways: as the ‘mood of the soul’ (Buchholz 1885, 103 [transl.]), thus ‘how would you feel in that case?’ (AH; similarly Macleod), or – probably corresponding more closely to the use of νόος elsewhere (cf. 354n.) – as the result (or content) of an act of thinking (result noun; Böhme 1929, 59  f.), thus ‘what would you do then?’ (Jahn 1987, 50  f.; in this sense also schol. bT: τί διανοήσῃ; Leaf: ‘expedient’; see also Porzig 1942, 27; Bechert 1964, 128  f.), cf. 9.104, 15.509, Od. 5.23.  

368–369 The external risks for Priam are compounded by a general characteristic of old men: a decreasing ability to fight also mentioned at e.g. 3.149–151 in the case of the Trojan dēmogérontes, the ‘eldest in the people’s council’, and at 4.313–325 in the case of Nestor (cf. 1.259n., below 486–489n.). Hermes, on the other hand, represents a young man in his prime (347  f.). 368 1st VH ≈ Od. 16.71. — οὔτ(ε) … δέ: ‘not on the one hand … but on the other hand’, as at 7.433 (K.-G. 2.292; Denniston 511; cf. Higbie 1990, 43  f.); 156 (see ad loc.) is similar. The construction creates an elegant variation in the two halves of the verse (instead of merely ‘neither of you is young enough to …’ vel sim.; cf. Richardson). – An asyndetic continuation of 367 with the sense ‘I ask this because …’ (substantiating, cf. 88n.).  

365 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἔασιν: = εἰσίν (R 16.6). 366 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — σε (ϝ)ίδοιτο: on the prosody, R 4.3. 367 τοσσάδ(ε): on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὀνείατ(α): here ‘valuables, treasures’, elsewhere usually of food stuffs, e.g. 627 (literally ‘refreshments’, related to ὀνίνημι). 368 ἐσσί: = εἶ (R 16.6). — γέρων: predicative (i.e. ‘he is old who accompanies you’).

Commentary 

 143

369 = Od. 16.72, 21.133; ≈ Il. 19.183. — ἀπαμύνασθαι: Strictly speaking, the infinitive is dependent only on οὔτ’  … νέος ἐσσί ‘you are not young (enough)’ (e.g. 5.171  f., 13.622  f., Hes. Th. 972  f., Op. 405  f., where a relative pronoun and an adjective, respectively, refer back to an earlier term: K.-G. 1.80; West on Hes. Op. 406); in terms of content, however, ἀπαμύνασθαι may relate to both clauses in 368 (discussion in Peppmüller; Leaf; differently Macleod: infinitive dependent on γέρων, i.e. ‘too old to …’). — πρότερος: denotes the person to act first (frequently in reference to injustice or quarrels: 3.299, 3.351, 19.183 [with n.], Hes. Th. 166, etc.; Il. 2.378 ἐγὼ δ’ ἦρχον χαλεπαίνων is equivalent); cf. 634n. — χαλεπήνῃ: ‘act antagonistically’ (2.378n.; Cairns 2003, 23  f.: ‘unprovoked aggression’) – here of the perfectly realistic risk of a sudden attack/assault, as at e.g. 662  f., 778  f. (cf. 779n.; Reinhardt 1961, 482  f.).  

370–371 The suspense built up at 362–369 (cf. 362–371n.) is resolved: Hermes reassures Priam that he poses no danger but instead represents help, since he feels connected to him (362n.; cf. 57n. on a comparison between two individuals that expresses esteem).  

καὶ δέ κεν ἄλλον: καὶ δέ ‘and//but also’ (Denniston 199  f.); on καὶ ἄλλος ‘also anyone else’, 768n. — ἀπαλεξήσαιμι: Three aorist stems of ἀλέξω ‘defend’ are attested: ἀλαλκεῖν (reduplicated root aorist), ἀλέξασθαι (sigmatic aor.), ἀλεξῆσαι (expansion with ē-, beside the future ἀλεξήσω): Chantr. 1.415; Risch 349  f.; ChronEG 3 s.v. — ἐΐσκω: on the form and use, 3.197n. (‘consider as equal, regard equally’).  

372 = 386, 405, 552, 659; 1st VH: 48× Il., 24× Od., 2× h.Ven. (τὸν δ’ / τὴν δ’); 2nd VH = 217. etc. (see ad loc.). — In what follows, the narrator provides variatio via regular alternation between the speech introduction formulaeP τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα (Priam: γέρων Πρίαμος θεοειδής) and τὸν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπε (Hermes, 378, etc.: διάκτορος Ἀργεϊφόντης; used by Priam at 217); see Janko 1981, 255  ff. (esp. 259  f.); Friedrich 2007, 68–73; cf. 1.121n. with bibliography. On another form of variatio in the speech introduction, see 3.171n.

373–377 By agreeing with Hermes’ assessment of the present danger, Priam implicitly accepts his support (373). With dramatic ironyP, Priam ascribes the good fortune of meeting a trustworthy stranger in risky terrain to the intervention of a god (Jörgensen’s principleP); although he may have a certain inkling (146– 158n.) thanks to Iris’ announcement that Hermes will escort him (181–183), he cannot know with any certainty at this point (cf. 358–360n.) that the young man standing before him has been sent by Zeus and is indeed a god himself (377n.) (Richardson; Deichgräber 1972, 60  f.).

369 ὅτε  … χαλεπήνῃ: an iterative temporal clause, frequently without the modal particle in Homer (R 21.1). — τις: picks up ἄνδρ(α). 370 ἀλλ’ ἐγώ: ‘I, however’. — οὐδέν: adverbial, ‘in no way’. — σε (ϝ)ρέξω: on the prosody, R 4.5. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 371 σεῖ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1). — πατρὶ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)ίσκω: on the prosody, R 5.4.

144 

 Iliad 24

373 2nd VH ≈ Od. 4.611; VE: 3× Il., 9× Od., 1× h.Ven. — dear child: an echo of ‘my father’ (362n.), as an address similarly not necessarily tied to actual kinship: 3.162n.; cf. 19.8n.  

οὕτω πῃ τάδε γ’ ἐστί: on εἶναι ‘be thus, be true’, cf. 56n. (εἴη). – πῃ ‘somehow’ may here lend the sentence a concessive connotation (LfgrE s.v. 1209.44  ff.): ‘that may well be – but one … by the gods …’; on the function of ἀλλά at 374, LfgrE s.v. 523.2  ff. (transl.): ‘An argument is acknowledged [sc. here 373], while another one (concerning the same problem) is juxtaposed’, likewise at 1.286  f., 6.441  f., etc.

374 has held his hand above me: On the widespread image of the protecting hand of a god, cf. 4.249, 5.433, 9.420, etc.; Exodus 33:22, Ezra 8:31, etc. (see Hainsworth on 9.420, with bibliography).  

ἔτι … καὶ ἐμεῖο …: implication: ‘has held a hand over me even after all the misfortunes that have befallen me so far’ (AH).

375 ὁδοιπόρον: ‘traveler, wanderer’ (not ‘guide, travel companion’, although he is welcome to Priam as one who knows the way: Doederlein 2.143; LfgrE); the initial element ὁδοι- is probably an old locative form (261n.).  

376–377 The combination of external and internal virtues (here beauty and cleverness) is highly regarded in Homeric society, not only in direct speech as a compliment, as here, but also in the narrator text (e.g. 632: external appearance and eloquence): Bernsdorff 1992, 20–24. 376 2nd VH ≈ Od. 14.177. — αἴσιον: a Homeric hapaxP, related to αἶσα ‘(appropriate) share, lot, fortune’, i.e. ‘appropriate, (coming) at the right time’ (as at 6.519 ἦλθον ἐναίσιμον; thus LfgrE) or ‘auspicious’ (as at 2.353 ἐναίσιμα σήματα; thus AH; Richardson; further bibliography in Sarischoulis 2008, 94 n. 359); here of a ‘lucky coincidence’. — οἷος δή: normally with an emotional connotation (frequently ironic, here admiring): Denniston 220  f.; οἷος is generally a word from character languageP (Griffin 1986, 46; de Jong 1988, 188). – On οἷος + predicate adj. (so that οἷος ≈ ὡς), e.g. 15.94 οἷος ἐκείνου θυμὸς ὑπερφίαλος καὶ ἀπηνής, 21.108 οἷος καὶ ἐγὼ καλός τε μέγας τε. — δέμας καὶ εἶδος: synonym doubling, after caesura B 2 also at Od. 5.213, 14.177; also VE εἶδός τε δέμας τε 5× Od., 1× h.Ven. – On the semantic field ‘physique’, cf. 1.115n., 2.58n. — εἶδος ἀγητός: an inflectible VE formula (5.787, 8.228, 22.370, Od. 14.177, h.Ap. 198). ἀγητός ‘admirable’ in early epic is attested only in this VE formula.  

373 τάδε: i.e. ‘the present situation’. 374 ἔτι: ‘still, furthermore’. — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1), gen. dependent on ὑπερέσχεθε. — θεῶν: partitive gen. with τις. — ὑπερέσχεθε: poetic by-form of ὑπερέσχε ‘held … over’. 375 ἀντιβολῆσαι: final/consecutive inf. with ἧκεν. 376 σύ: sc. εἶ ‘you are’. — δέμας καὶ εἶδος: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

Commentary 

 145

377 2nd VH ≈ 387. — your parents are fortunate in you: The point is that Hermes’ parents (like he himself, of course) are ‘blessed’ (a formulaic appellation of gods, cf. 23n.): dramatic ironyP (373–377n.; Macleod; cf. Keil 1998, 43).  

πέπνυσαι: πέπνυμαι/πεπνυμένος ‘(be) clever, intelligent’ appears in early epic inter alia in the case of ‘professional’ orators (heralds, council members: 3.148 with n.) and as a qualification of younger people and their speeches – as exceptionally good for their age (here thus in reference to 362  ff.; cf. 9.57–59 and 46× Od. Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον ηὔδα): Austin 1975, 74–78; ChronEG 4 s.v.; Heath 2001, 133–138; Cuypers 2005a and LfgrE; cf. the Cypriot personal name Πνυταγόρας (Ruijgh 1957, 135). – The etymology of πέπνυμαι is disputed; it is likely related to πνέω (‘breathe’ > ‘be conscious’ > ‘be clever’): ChronEG loc. cit.; Heath loc. cit. 133  f. n. 11; LfgrE. Additional thoughts and bibliography on the morphological-formal relationship between πέπνυμαι and πνέω (and πινυτός) also in Frisk; Clarke 1997/98, 137  f. n. 15 and 19. — νόῳ: ‘intellectual capacity, intellect’ (354n.); instrumental dative. — μακάρων: in Homer usually of the ‘blessed’ gods (23n.), less frequently of fortunate (e.g. Od. 1.217) human beings or those judged fortunate (e.g. Il. 3.182, Od. 5.306; in a context similar to the one here: Od. 6.150–161 [Odysseus addressing Nausikaa]; cf. Dova 2000, 62–64 with n. 48).

378 = 389, 410, 432; ≈ 21.497 (Λητὼ δέ), Od. 5.145 (τὴν δ’ αὖτε); 1st VH in total 34× Il., 46× Od., 2× Hes., 1× h.Merc.; ≈ (τήν) 217, etc. (see ad loc.). Cf. 372n. — διάκτορος Ἀργεϊφόντης: an inflectible VE formula (2.103n.; on formulae for Hermes, see also 24n. above).

379–388 Hermes does not correct Priam (379) and returns to the unanswered question regarding the latter’s destination (362, see 362–371n.); to avoid arousing suspicion, he makes two intentionally erroneous if not unlikely assumptions in this regard (380–384a, see 381–382n. and 383n.). The postponed justification for his assumptions (384b–385) is similarly well-calculated: the sensitive praise for the fallen Hektor must affect Priam all the more lastingly as it is uttered by a stranger (Richardson on 379–385). Hermes’ strategy pays off: at 387  f. Priam once more disregards the question regarding their destination and gratefully picks up on the subject of Hektor with a counter-question; with this, Priam takes over from Hermes the role of the one posing questions (Macleod on 381–384 and Introd. 41; Erbse 1986, 67; cf. 362–439n.). 379 =  1.286, 8.146; ≈ 2× Il., 4× Od.  – Via the formulaic verse (see 1.286n.), the speaker politely approves of what has previously been said in order to subsequently change the subject (as here [380], frequently in the form of a request: Peppmüller; Pelliccia 1995, 207  f.; Kelly 2007, 180–182). In addition, the approval is given with an intentional ambiguity: ‘Priam’s words are more true

377 πέπνυσαί τε …: transition from a relative to an independent clause (τε = ‘and’). — ἔξεσσι: 2nd pers. sing. of ἔξειμι (cf. 368n.). — τοκήων: on the form, R 3.

146 

 Iliad 24

than he realizes’, see 373–377n. (and 377n., end) in reference to the dramatic ironyP (Richardson; so too Macleod; on the term ‘ambiguity’, see de Jong on Od., p. xi). 380 =  10.384, 10.405, 24.656 and 13× Od.; on the 1st VH, see 197n.; 2nd VH ≈ Il.  10.413, 10.427, Od. 24.123, 24.303, ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.11 M.-W.  – The formula expresses the existence of differing levels of information between two characters; either in the guise of a request for information, as here, or in the 1st person as an announcement of a bit of information; by a deity in human form also at Od. 1.206/224 (Athene addressing Telemachos). On the variability of the formula and its use, see Finkelberg 1987; Danek 1988, 144–146; cf. 407n.  

ἀτρεκέως: ‘accurately’, literally ‘untwisted’ (see 2.10n.).

381–382 The notion of a potentate attempting to bring his fortune to safety abroad is an obvious one, not least in view of the given situation; moreover, in Priam’s case such action is explicitly attested  – albeit not by Homer himself: shortly before the fall of Troy, Priam entrusts the Thracian king Polymestor with his youngest son Polydoros and much treasure (Eur. Hecuba 4–12; in the Iliad, Polydoros has already died in battle: 20.407–418, 22.46  f.); see Peppmüller on 379  ff. (p. 183) and Richardson on 379–385; Wathelet s.v. Polydoros.   381 2nd VH = 9.330, Od. 15.159, 19.272. — πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλά: 167n. 382 1st VH =  Od. 14.231, 20.220; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 13.364 (the gifts of the Phaiakians after Odysseus arrives in Ithaka). — ἀλλοδαπούς: on the meaning, 3.48n. (‘foreign, distant’). — ἵνα: ‘so that there’; the relative (‘where’) and final (‘so that’) functions can barely be differentiated here, cf. 3.130n. (Leaf; Schw. 2.673; Chantr. 2.268; Monteil 1963, 380; Willmott 2007, 158–160). — σόα: σόος is the usual Homeric form (originally σάϝος, Attic contracted σῶς): 1.117n.; LfgrE s.v. σάος/σόος/σῶς with bibliography.  

383 Achilleus already considered abandonment of the city a possible Trojan reaction to the death of Hektor (22.383  f.). In addition, the motif of flight from Troy prior to its capture has an equivalent in the version of the myth of Aineias as told in the Iliou Persis (Procl. Chrest. § 1 West; Anderson 1997, 62  f.). — all of you: implication: not only possessions (381) but the people themselves.  

Ἴλιον ἱρήν: an inflectible VE formula (27n.).

380 ἄγε: ‘come!’ (originally imper. of ἄγω). — τόδε (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3; τόδε refers to the double question that follows (381  ff.). 381–383 ἠέ … ἦ(ε): ‘whether … or’. — πῃ: ‘(to) somewhere’ (362n.). 382 ἄνδρας ἐς ἀλλοδαπούς: = εἰς ἄνδρας ἀλλ. (R 20.1–2). — περ: ‘at least’ (R 24.10), with τάδε (κειμήλια). — σόα: ‘in safety, unhurt’. 383 καταλείπετε (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — καταλείπετε: ‘you are in the process of leaving’ (pres.). — ἱρήν: = ἱεράν.

Commentary 

 147

384 2nd VH ≈ 16.521 (Sarpedon; cf. 17.689 of Patroklos). — in fear: emphatic enjambmentP; the following explanation (similarly 6.137, 15.628, 21.24) illustrates that Hermes – despite his disguise – speaks of the Trojan fear (which is only natural, given the circumstances) not mockingly but full of compassion (379– 388n.; cf. 393n.).

τοῖος γὰρ ἀνὴρ ὥριστος: an indirect reciprocation of the compliment Priam directed to the young man at 375 (τοιόνδ’ … ὁδοιπόρον). τοῖος is either attributive: ‘since such a man, the best ⟨among all⟩, has perished’ (Martinazzoli; Richardson) or predicative: ‘since such a one (protector of the city) has perished with the best of men, you may well consider abandoning the city’ (AH); on τοῖος, cf. 153n. – ὥριστος < ὁ ἄριστος (crasis: G 31; Chantr. 1.85); on the use of ἄριστος with the article as an honorific, see 242n.

385 1st VH = Od. 4.807. — your son: This surprising identification (emphatic at VB: Macleod; Edwards, Introd. 43) is part of Hermes’ engaging conversational strategy (at 388, Priam picks up on it approvingly in catchword-techniqueP: ‘my … son’s’) rather than a slip of the tongue with which the god betrays his omniscience (for which reason Bekker 1872, 29–31, Peppmüller on 379  ff. and AH, among others, wanted to delete 385): Leaf; Martinazzoli; Erbse 1986, 67; cf. 390n. – In a similar manner, at Od. 14.440 Odysseus, in the guise of a beggar, mentions Eumaios’ name before the moment of recognition (de Jong on Od. 14.440–1).  

μάχης ἐπεδεύετ’ Ἀχαιῶν: (ἐπι)δεύομαι with the ablatival gen. means ‘be inferior in something/to someone’ (in litotes with negation: ‘be superior, strong’), cf. 17.142 and 23.670 μάχης (as here), 13.310 πολέμοιο, Od. 21.185 βίης ἐπιδευέες ἦσαν; Il. 5.636 ἀνδρῶν, 23.483  f. Ἀργείων. The combination of two genitives is rare; at Od. 21.253  f. τοσσόνδε βίης ἐπιδευέες εἰμὲν | … Ὀδυσῆος, the personal name is probably a comparative gen. (AH ad loc.; LfgrE s.v. ἐπιδευής). Here, μάχης and Ἀχαιῶν as genitives of the object and person are either equally dependent on ἐπεδεύετο, thus ‘in battle was not second to the Achaians in any way’ (Doederlein 1.102; LSJ s.v. ἐπιδεύομαι), or Ἀχαιῶν is an objective gen. dependent on μάχης (as at 11.542 Αἴαντος δ’ ἀλέεινε μάχην): ‘want for nothing in the battle against the Achaians’ (Leaf; Macleod; Erbse 1986, 67; LfgrE s.v. μάχη 46.58  ff.).

386 = 372 etc. (see ad loc.). 387 1st VH = 6.123, 15.247; 2nd VH ≈ 377. — In Homeric epic, identity is generally derived from paternal ancestors, i.e. a question regarding ‘who’ someone is is also always an inquiry into lineage and ancestry: 397; other characters in Homeric epic also fail to mention their name during introductions (see 6.145n.; on the IE parallels, see the bibliography at 6.123n.).   385 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). 387 σύ ἐσσι: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — τέων: = τίνων (R 14.2).

148 

 Iliad 24

δέ: on δέ after interrogatives in general, 6.55n.; here ‘a question arising from pleasant surprise that suggests itself in a lively fashion’: AH. — φέριστε: a polite address (6.123n. and Graziosi/Haubold on 6.123; cf. LfgrE), in the Iliad 3× after questions regarding the identity of characters (see iterata).

388 [ὥς] ὅς: ὅς and ὡς occasionally compete with one another in the transmission; likewise at 7.171, 14.45, 21.127, 22.236 (see the respective app. crit. in West’s edition). The vacillation may be attributed in part to different spellings (an o sound in both cases, cf. Janko, Introd. 34  f. with n. 62), in part to notes by ancient grammarians (e.g. Aristophanes in schol. A on 14.45; on the uncertainty of the interpretation, cf. also schol. A on the present passage). On analogy with 15.247 τίς δὲ σύ ἐσσι, φέριστε, θεῶν, ὅς μ’ εἴρεαι ἄντην, the relative pronoun ὅς is here more appropriate in connection with the question regarding identity: ‘who are you, you who  …’ (Peppmüller; Willcock; Macleod); on the explanatory function of the relative clause, cf. e.g. 434. – The ὡς preferred by West has an exclamatory function: ‘how …!‘ (cf. AH; Richardson); factual ὡς ‘that’ (cf. Leaf: ‘from what you say’) would also be possible. — καλά: adverbial, as an evaluation of speeches also at Od. 8.166 (καλόν in the sense κατὰ κόσμον 8.179; antithesis: ἀτάσθαλος), 17.381 (οὐ καλά in contrast to ἐσθλὸς ἐών), h.Merc. 479 (καλὰ καὶ εὖ κατὰ κόσμον). Probably less subjectively of the effect on the addressee ‘sympathetic, sensitive’ (Cunliffe s.v., end; AH; Martinazzoli) than objectively ‘befitting, appropriate’ (Macleod). — οἶτον ἀπότμου παιδός: A pointed resumption of 384  f. ὄλωλεν | σὸς πάϊς. Since οἶτος and πότμος are used as approximate equivalents in early epic (Dietrich 1965, 272; Erbse 1986, 280), the result is a word playP with the character of an oxymoron, albeit not as marked as in the type πότμον ἄποτμον (Eur. Hipp. 1143  f.; in Homer, cf. Od. 18.73 Ἶρος Ἄϊρος, 23.97 μῆτερ ἐμή, δύσμητερ); on such oxymorons in general, Risch (1949) 1981, 90  ff.; Fehling 1969, 286  ff. – ἄποτμος is otherwise in early epic used only of Odysseus (Od. 1.219, 20.140). — οἶτον … ἔνισπες: In the Odyssey, οἶτος as the object of a verb of speaking (Sarischoulis 2008, 123  f.) sometimes has a titular character and thus references the storyP – i.e. the Odyssey – itself (so-called self-referentiality, see 2.119n. with additions at 6.356–358n., end): Od. 1.350 Δαναῶν κακὸν οἶτον ἀείδειν (351  f. follows the reference to the popularity of the ἀοιδὴ νεωτάτη), 8.489 κατὰ κόσμον (≈ here καλά, see above) Ἀχαιῶν οἶτον ἀείδεις; νόστος with a verb of speaking is similar, e.g. νόστος + ἐνέπω at Od. 9.37 (LfgrE s.v. νόστος 434.53  ff.; cf. de Jong 2004b, 49–51). But whether a self-reference by the narrator is to be posited in the present passage must remain an open question.  

389 = 378 etc. (see ad loc.). 390–404 In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP, Hermes initially picks up on the conclusion of Priam’s speech (topic: Hektor), responding only later to the initial question (regarding his identity). This response (396–400) is

388 τόν: the ‘article’ with anaphoric demonstrative function (R 17) refers back to 384  f. — ἔνισπες: 2nd pers. sing. aor. of ἐνέπω ‘report, mention’.

Commentary 

 149

in turn centrally embedded in the framework (constructed in a parallel manner) of ‘battle/abstinence from battle’ (in the past at 391–395, in the future at 401–404): Danek 1988, 200  f. – The fabricated autobiographic story is comparable, on the one hand, to other instances of gods appearing in human form (Athene/Mentes at Od. 1.179–194, Demeter at h.Cer. 119–134, Aphrodite with Anchises at h.Ven. 108–130), and on the other hand to Odysseus’ ‘tall tales’ on Ithaka (on which, de Jong on Od. 13.253–286, with bibliography): a mix of facts and fiction attuned to the addressee (always with argument functionP); here Hermes continues to be intent on gaining Priam’s trust (for details on which, see the following nn.). 390 1st VH = 433; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 1.284. — You try me out …: implication: ‘you are using the question about my identity as a pretext to gain more information about Hektor’ (Macleod). The mention of Hektor’s name – the conversation thus far concerned only a ‘son’ – is a clue for Priam that the speaker has recognized his own true intentions (Richardson on 389–404) and is well informed concerning Hektor (AH)  – ‘a tactful way of asserting his divine superiority without revealing his divinity’: Macleod on 433.  

πειρᾷ: < *πειράεαι, a contraction of the 2nd pers. sing. mid., unusual in Homer (Leaf; Chantr. 1.57), likewise at 21.459; cf. 2.365n. (on γνώσεαι). — καί: explicative/specifying (Macleod; Verdenius 1956a, 249  f.; likewise at 2.74 with n.). — Ἕκτορα δῖον: 22n.

391–393 Hermes’ speech calls to mind Hektor’s great successes in Books 12–16 (esp. 12.436  ff., 13.136  ff., 15.262  ff./405  ff./623  ff., 16.112  ff.) – for Priam proof of Hermes’ trustworthiness and at the same time an additional compliment regarding his son (Macleod on 391–404; similarly Athene/Mentes on Odysseus at Od. 1.255–265). Comparable in content and phrasing are the external analepsisP at Il. 19.134–136 (see ad loc.) and the prolepsis at 9.651–653. 391 2nd VH = 6.124, 7.113, 8.448; ≈ 4.225, 12.325, 13.270, 14.155. — τὸν μὲν ἐγώ: an inflectible VB formula (τόν/τήν/τούς/τῷ/τῶν; also ἐγώ/ἐγών as prosodic variants): 10× Il., 15× Od., 1× Hes.; here continued by ἡμεῖς δ’ ἑσταότες … (394). — μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ: a VE formula (6.124n.). The epithetP may be contextually relevant here: in battle, Hektor has gained κῦδος ‘prestige’.  

392 my eyes: cf. 206n., 223n. (on the significance of autopsy), 294.  

ὄπωπα: perf. of an attained state, especially as a ‘summary of a series of similar previous events’ (Schw. 2.263 [transl.]; likewise AH; see also 2.272n.). — καὶ εὖτ(ε): ‘(and)

390 εἴρεαι: (uncontracted) 2nd pers. sing. pres. of εἴρομαι ‘ask’ (with acc.: ‘inquire about’). 391 πολλά: ‘often’. — μάχῃ ἔνι: = ἐν μάχῃ (R 20.1–2); on the prosody (máchēy éni), M 12.2. 392 εὖτ(ε): ‘as’ (R 22.2). — νηυσίν: on the inflection, R 12.1. — ἐλάσσας: aor. part. of ἐλαύνω, intransitive ‘drive (a chariot)’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

150 

 Iliad 24

especially as’; continues on from μάλα πολλά (391) while adding intensification. On this use of καί, Denniston 291  f.; Verdenius 1956a, 250. — ἐπὶ νηυσίν: on ἐπί + dat. as an indication of destination with verbs of movement, cf. 2.6n. (with bibliography); with transitive ἐλαύνω also at 15.259.

393 The emotionally colored verb daḯzō (literally ‘cut into pieces’, cf. 2.416), which usually occurs in direct speechP or secondary focalizationP, is repeatedly used to describe Hektor’s actions in battle against the Achaians (here and at 19.302  f.) and especially against Patroklos (18.235  f., etc., partly in combination with the same VE formula as here); see 19.203n.; LfgrE s.v. In the present context, it is to be understood as a further commendation (not criticism) of Hektor (cf. 384n.), preparing the following juxtaposition ‘successful Hektor – idle us’ (394  f.).  

ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (25× Il., 11× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’); on its use primarily in static/generic contexts (here iterative κτείνεσκε), see Bakker (1992) 2005, 29–33. – χαλκός ‘copper, bronze’ is used via metonymy for ‘weapon’ (usually spear): 1.236n., 6.3n.

394–400 The report from the point of view of a (forced) spectator lends additional weight to the eyewitness account of the ‘Myrmidon’: he had the time to observe Hektor’s deeds closely. The mention of Achilleus appears to happen only incidentally in this context and leads to the speaker’s ‘autobiography’ in the form of an epic regressionP (396–400); the initially undefined ‘we’ (394; the Myrmidons are meant) is defined in the process, as is the origin of the young man: Hermes poses as a ‘follower’ of Achilleus, of course with a view to the destination of Priam’s journey, and thus becomes Priam’s informant for all matters concerning Hektor (namely his corpse): 406–409 (with n.). 394 1st VH = 2.320 (see ad loc.); ἑσταότες here means ‘idly standing about’ (with a justification in the following γάρ-sentence): Kurz 1966, 61 n. 5; cf. 403 καθήμενοι. — οὐ γὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς …: on the formulation, cf. 11.717  f. (οὐδ’ ἐμὲ Νηλεύς | εἴα θωρήσσεσθαι), 15.521  f. / Od. 7.40  f. (οὐ γὰρ Ἀπόλλων/Ἀθήνη | εἴα).  

395 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — his anger at Agamemnon: A reference to events in Book 1 (internal analepsisP); the keyword chólos ‘anger’ (of Achilleus) is used there in 192, 224, 283.  

μάρνασθαι: synonymous with μάχεσθαι, attested only in the pres. and impf. (Trümpy 1950, 167  f.; Beekes; cf. DELG: ‘an archaic character’). — κεχολωμένος: On the Greek terms for ‘anger, wrath’, see 1.81–82n.

393 κτείνεσκε: iterative form (R 16.5). 394 ἑσταότες: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — θαυμάζομεν: impf. (R 16.1). 395 εἴα: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἐάω; sc. from 394 ἡμᾶς ‘us Myrmidons’. — Ἀτρεΐωνι: by-form of Ἀτρεΐδης (dat.).

Commentary 

 151

396 henchman: Greek therápōn denotes men of various social ranks who are themselves free but subject to others either permanently or temporarily (1.321n.; 2.762n.; van Wees 1992, 42–44; ­Schmidt 2006a, 123 n. 30; Spahn 2006, 177– 179). In the Iliad, the following characters appear as Achilleus’ therápontes: Patroklos (at 18.151  f. explicitly called a therápon), Automedon and Alkimos (474n.); on the relationship between the terms therápon ‘battle companion, aide’ and hétaros ‘companion, comrade’, see 4n. — strong-wrought vessel: Both the statement that he travelled on the same ship as Achilleus and the rejection of Priam’s gift (433–436, with n.) are signs of the position of trust held by the therápōn (cf. schol. D; AH).  

νηῦς εὐεργής: an inflectible VE formula (nom. and 2× Od., 2× h.Hom.; acc. εὐεργέα νῆα 6× Od., in addition 1× Od. in verse middle). εὐεργής ‘well-wrought’ is an ornamental epithetP also of δίφρος ‘wagon’, χρυσός ‘gold’, etc. (Plath 1994, 211–217).

397 ≈ Od. 15.267; cf. Il. 5.248, 20.209. — I am a Myrmidon: The supposed ‘Myrmidon’ does not mention his name but only his homeland and father: 387n.  – On the name and role of the Myrmidons (Achilleus’ contingent), 2.684n.; on the localization of their homeland, 2.681n. — Polyktor: In the Homeric period, this was probably taken as the speaking name of a rich man (explicitly at 398 ‘wealthy’; Edwards 1987, 121; cf. the signal function of speaking names in Odysseus’ fictional biographies: Grossardt 1998, 214  f.). Other bearers of the name: Od. 17.207 (builder, perhaps donor, of a sacred fountain), 18.299/22.243 (father of the suitor Peisandros); see Rank 1951, 94, 146  f.; Russo on Od. 17.207.  – The etymology of the short name is uncertain: ‘possessor of many things’ or ‘donor of many things’ (more details in von Kamptz 69; Peters 1980, 237  f. n. 187). 398 Wealth is an important factor in the prestige of a Homeric hero and is frequently mentioned in the so-called ‘obituaries’ of fallen warriors: Strasburger 1954, 28; Ulf 1990, 184  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 128, 139  ff. – Here wealth and age are elements that link Polyktor and Priam and promote the formation of trust (schol. bT; AH; Macleod); on the effectiveness of the age motif in this scene, 362–439n.

ὡς σύ περ ὧδε: ‘as you stand before me’ (AH; see also 2.258n. on ὡς νύ περ ὧδε); h.Cer. 116 (γυναῖκες) τηλίκαι ὡς σύ περ ὧδε is similar.

399 six  … seventh: Typical numbersP. An ordinal number provides the culmination and conclusion of a (detailed or summary) sequence; see 2.313n. on eight–ninth (with bibliography), cf. 2.326–329n. on nine–tenth, 19.246n. on 396 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); Achilleus is meant. — ἐγώ: sc. εἰμί. — μία … νηῦς: ‘one and the same ship’.

152 

 Iliad 24

seven–eighth; see also 31n. Further six–seven progressions: 7.247  f. (layers of a shield), Od. 10.80  f., 12.397–400, 14.249–254, 15.476  f. (days); additional groups of seven individuals: Il. 6.421 (Andromache’s brothers), 9.85 (guard supervisors), 9.128  f., etc. (women of Lesbos).  

ἓξ δέ οἱ υἷες …: In such expressions, the numeral tends to be placed at the beginning of the sentence, cf. 5.10 δύω δέ οἱ υἱέες ἤστην, 11.692 δώδεκα γὰρ Νηλῆος … υἱέες ἦμεν, Od. 6.62 πέντε δέ τοι φίλοι υἷες …

400 The drawing of lots to determine a selection or sequence of individuals is described repeatedly in early epic (for details, 3.316–325n.). The present case deals with the fulfilment of military service by a family (see below): whereas the kings and contingent leaders voluntarily swear an oath of allegiance to Agamemnon (2.762n. with bibliography), their subordinates had a certain liability for military service, although the relevant references occur only in passing in Homer (Janko on 13.663–670; Hellmann 2000, 54 n. 21): Euchenor from Korinth goes to war to avoid the ‘troublesome price the Achaians would ask’ (13.663  ff.); Echepolos from Sikyon presents Agamemnon with a mare in order to be released from military service (23.295–299); among the four sons of Aigyptios, only Antiphos goes to Troy (Od. 2.17–22); Odysseus as a ‘Cretan’ must go to war along with Idomeneus as a result of public pressure (Od. 14.229–239). The characters mentioned and the Myrmidons all (a) are portrayed as wealthy and (b) belong directly to the realm of a military leader (2× Agamemnon, 1× each Odysseus, Idomeneus, Achilleus; cf. Taplin 1990, 68); the function of therápōn (396n.) marks the ‘son of Polyktor’ as a particularly close confidante of Achilleus for the duration of the campaign (Gschnitzer 1976, 83  f. n. 183; van Wees 1992, 43). – The drawing of lots among Polyktor’s seven sons is due either to the fact that each household was in principle required to provide only one man for military service (AH; Roussel 1976, 120; Hellmann loc. cit. 53  f.) or that the father was able to buy out some of his sons (in this case, six of seven) from military service, depending on the size of his fortune (Nowag 1983, 27  f.). – More in Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 38 n. 1; Hellmann loc. cit. 52–55; Stoevesandt 2004, 147 n. 465.  

τῶν μέτα: μετά ‘amid, among, with’ is usually constructed in Homer with the dat., rarely with the gen. (Schw. 2.483; Conti 2003, 211  f.). — ἐνθάδ’ ἕπεσθαι: cf. the VE formula ἐνθάδ’ ἱκέσθαι (287n.); on absolute ἕπεσθαι ‘to go to war, to join the campaign’, cf. 3.239  f., 11.781, Od. 24.117.

399 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἔασιν: = εἰσίν (R 16.6). 400 τῶν μέτα: = μετὰ τούτων (R 17, R 20.2). — ἐνθάδ’ ἕπεσθαι: inf. dependent on λάχον.

Commentary 

 153

401–404 ‘Nothing here depends on the reconstruction of military incidents, but instead everything focuses on bolstering the courage of the old king and expediting his plan’: Erbse 1986, 68 (transl.). The motif ‘Hermes as savior of the acutely endangered Priam’ (362–439n.) is ingeniously used, as at 437–439 (see ad loc.), on the level of both the characters and the narrator: (a) at 401a, the surface meaning of Hermes’ statement is ‘I went to reconnoitre’ (schol. bT; AH), the connotation is ‘I came for your sake’; (b) the announcement that battle will be resumed the following morning is a hint to Priam that he absolutely must complete his plan this very night; for the audience, this heightens the suspense concerning the further course of the story: false prolepsisP (at 656–672, Achilleus and Priam agree to a truce; see 658n.); cf. Macleod: ‘the war must go on, and Troy fall, whatever happens between Achilles and Priam.’ — But now …: The ‘autobiographic’ narrative (390–404n.) concludes by returning to the present and explaining why the person is now here; likewise at Od. 1.194 (with the same VB), 17.444, h.Ven. 117, similarly Od. 24.307  f., h.Cer. 133.   402 θήσονται … μάχην: either pregnant ‘commence battle’ (Mutzbauer 1893, 203), ‘reinstate the state of war’ (Porzig 1942, 28–31 [quotation from 29], with further discussion) or periphrastic = μαχήσονται (cf. 7.30 ὕστερον αὖτε μαχήσοντ(αι) in a similar situation; 16.448 περὶ ἄστυ … μάχονται); frequently attested in the post-Homeric period, the formally closest parallel is Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.51.2 μάχην ἕωθεν τίθεσθαι; sometimes with an attribute of μάχην (‘Hes.’ Sc. 261/411 δριμεῖαν; Plut. Fab. Max. 11.5 καρτεράν). — περὶ ἄστυ: locative (6.256n.). — ἑλίκωπες Ἀχαιοί: an inflectible VE formula (occurrences: 1.389n.); on the unexplained meaning of the generic epithetP, see 1.98n.   403 καθήμενοι: connotes ‘inactivity’ or ‘pointless activity’ (2.255n.); cf. 542. The Myrmidons, condemned to idleness at 2.779, 16.200–209, 24.394  f., show that an army may grow restless during such lulls in fighting (403  f.) (cf. their reawakened lust for battle at 16.155–166). In the present situation, their arms had been at rest since the cremation of Patroklos’ body (on the chronology, 31n.).   404 πολέμου: with the function of an action noun, i.e. ‘the fighting’ (2.453n.); to be linked syntactically ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with both ἴσχειν and ἐσσυμένους, cf. 9.655, 13.315 (Peppmüller; Leaf). — βασιλῆες Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (also 7.106, 23.36); on the Homeric term βασιλεύς, 1.9n.  

405 = 372 etc. (see ad loc.).

401 ἦλθον: sc. as a scout. — πεδίονδ(ε): on the form, R 15.3. — ἠῶθεν: ‘at day-break, early in the morning’, related to ἠώς ‘dawn’; on the word formation, R 15.1. 402 περὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4. 403 ἀσχαλόωσι: related to ἀσχαλάω ‘be irritated, be annoyed’ (due to impatience); on the epic diectasis, R 8. — οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 404 ἐσσυμένους: perf. part. of σεύομαι ‘hurry, charge, push; strive, aspire to’, with the gen.

154 

 Iliad 24

406–409 The keyword ‘henchman’ (catch-word techniqueP: 396) functions as a signal for Priam: the young man is just the person to provide him with information and to lead him to Achilleus (430  f.). – The inquiry after his son (407–409) is primarily an ‘expression of paternal concern’ (Peppmüller [transl.]), while practical considerations likely play a role as well: Priam’s undertaking has a purpose only if Hektor’s corpse is still in the camp (408) (schol. bT on 408  f.; Erbse 1986, 68). 406 ≈ 16.653 (of Patroklos). — εἰ μὲν δή: ‘if you in fact, as you say, …’ (Denniston 392); usually at the very beginning of speeches, e.g. 660, Od. 4.831  f. — Πηληϊάδεω  ͜ Ἀχιλῆος: a VE formula (= 1.1, 1.322, 9.166, 16.269, 16.653, Od. 11.467, 24.15), see 1.1n. It is impossible to determine whether the patronymic here, as at 1.1, is contextually relevant (e.g. in the sense of a diplomatically accurate designation: Shive 1990, 180). – Achilleus is mentioned both at the beginning and the end (409) of the speech.   407 A variation of the formulaic verse at 380 (see ad loc.) in combination with the inflectible VE formula ἀληθείην καταλέξω/κατέλεξα (6× Od.; with πᾶσαν: Od. 17.122). In addition, the VB formula εἰ δ’ ἄγε δή (3× early epic, also 25× ἀλλ’ ἄγε δή, 2× μαῖ’, ἄγε δή) is modified by the emphatic runover word εἶς (Macleod with parallels). — πᾶσαν ἀληθείην: ‘(unsparingly) the whole truth’, explicitly requested also at 9.309–313, Od. 3.96  f. (AH; Martinazzoli; Barck 1976, 115  f.; Steiner on Od. 17.108); explicated by the indirect double question at 408  f.   408 ≈ Od. 11.175; 1st VH ≈ Il. 22.386 (κεῖται πὰρ νήεσσι νέκυς, sc. Patroklos), Od. 14.260, 17.429.  

409 Priam fears the worst, see 22n., 211n.; the formulation is accordingly pathetic: in other passages (in the context of declarations of intent, threats, etc.), the victim is not ‘thrown before’ the dogs but ‘given’ to them (17.127, 23.21; cf. Peppmüller), while the ‘cutting up’ is left to the dogs themselves (22.354, 23.21).  

ᾗσι κυσίν: In early epic, κύνες is usually masc., less often fem. (as here, also e.g. 17.127 and 17.255 in a similar context). — μελεϊστί: ‘limb by limb, into pieces’, an adv. in -τί related to the verbal adj. of (unattested) μελεΐζω: Risch 366 (with bibliography); Anghelina 2007, esp. 2  f. In early epic only in connection with ταμεῖν (also Od. 9.291 [Polyphemos], 18.339 [Odysseus addressing Melantho]).

406 Πηληϊάδεω  ͜ Ἀχιλῆος: on the synizesis, R 7; on the declension, R 11.1/11.3; on the single -λ- in Ἀχιλῆος, R 9.1. 407 εἶς: = εἶ (R 16.6). — ἄγε: 380n. — ἀληθείην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. 408 ἠ(ὲ) … ἦε: ‘whether … or’. — πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — νήεσσιν: on the declension, R 12.1. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 409 ᾗσι: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4); on the declension, R 11.1. — προύθηκεν: = προέθηκεν.

Commentary 

 155

410 = 378 (see ad loc.). 411–423 In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP, at 411 Hermes first picks up Priam’s imagined horrors from 409, then (at 412) his hopes from 408 (in catch-word techniqueP: ‘beside the ships’ 408/412, ‘dogs’ 409/411, ‘Achilleus’ 409/412). He immediately dismisses the imagined horrors as unfounded (at 19.23b–33 Thetis must likewise reassure Achilleus, who is anxious about the body of Patroklos; see Foley 1991, 163–168, who terms this narrative pattern a ‘feared desecration’). In a series of items of increasing intensity that takes the form of a priamel, Hermes lists in detail – and thus credibly (schol. T on 414  f.; Peppmüller on 412  ff.) – what Hektor’s corpse is not subjected to: (a) annihilation by scavenging animals, decomposition, maggots: 411–415; (b) disfigurement resulting from the dragging and the wounds inflicted by Achilleus and the Achaians respectively: 416–421 (on the parallelism between enumerations (a) and (b), cf. Danek 1988, 201). The integrity of the corpse at first appears a miracle (cf. 418b); only at the close of the speech does Hermes pointedly name the reason for its integrity: the care of the gods (a so-called epiphonema: Macleod on 422–423; Richardson on 410–423; on the term, Lausberg [1960] 1990, 434).  – On the speech as a whole and its preparatory function for the meeting between Achilleus and Priam, see Segal 1971, 62–64 (‘Now that tent, sheltering the corpse of his [sc. Achilles’] bitterest enemy, will be the scene of a magnanimity scarcely imaginable before’: loc. cit. 64); on the literal echoes in Hekabe’s mourning speech, see 748–759n. 411 1st VH ≈ Od. 3.226. — ὦ γέρον: a deferential address (exceptions: 1.26n.) common at VB (8× Il., 11× Od., 2× h.Merc.); Priam in particular is styled a γέρων by both characters and the narrator (164n.). — κύνες φάγον οὐδ’ οἰωνοί: cf. 2.393 φυγέειν κύνας ἠδ’ οἰωνούς (with n.), 22.335  f. σὲ μὲν κύνες ἠδ’ οἰωνοί | ἑλκήσουσ(ι).

412 lies: That the (intact) body is lying there is a motif of the speech (also at 414, 419).  

κεῖνος: can signal distance in a temporal (2.330n.) or, as here, locative sense: ‘he  … there’ (3.391n.; Schw. 2.210  f.; Chantr. 2.169  f.).

413 the twelfth dawn: 31n.

ἐν κλισίῃσι: i.e. in the (sheltered area of the) military camp, similarly at 11.834(–836): schol. bT; Martinazzoli; cf. Segal 1971, 64. κλισίη has different connotations in 554, 569 (see ad locc.). — ἤδη: Beside ἠώς in the main transmission is an apparently ancient variant ἥδε with the weakly attested further variant ἤδη (see app. crit.). An argument against ἠώς might be found in the fact that it is inappropriate for night, when the action

412–413 ἔτι … αὔτως: ‘still the same (as he was)’, i.e. undamaged. — δυωδεκάτη δέ οἱ ἤδη | κειμένῳ: i.e. he has been lying there for twelve days already. — δέ (ϝ)οι: 399n.

156 

 Iliad 24

takes place: Leaf, Macleod; ellipsis of a term for ‘day’ vel sim. is common in Greek, cf. 1.54 (with preceding ἐννῆμαρ), 1.425, etc. (Schw. 2.175), and ἤδη is here particularly fitting after 411 οὔ πω and 412 ἔτι. At the same time, ἠώς in the sense ‘day’ would not be exceptional as a ‘unit of counting’ (and probably occurs in the main transmission of the present passage for that reason): 21.80  f. ἠὼς δέ μοί ἐστιν | ἥδε δυωδεκάτη (similarly 21.155  f., Od. 19.192, all in direct speechP), Il. 13.794 ἠοῖ τῇ προτέρῃ (van der Valk 1982, 299  f.; Richardson).

414–415 Not even the natural process of decomposition has begun; cf. Patroklos’ corpse at 19.23b–33 (19.23b–27n., 19.25–27n.). On the protection by the gods, cf. 18–21n.  

χρώς: frequently denotes the body in its entirety: ‘skin’ > ‘(skin with) flesh’ > ‘body’ (19.27n. with bibliography).

415 ≈ 19.31 (μυίας, αἵ ῥά τε …); see ad loc.  

416–418a Hermes summarizes the events reported by the narrator at 12b–21 for the benefit of Priam (cf. 422–423n.); the two passages are linked by literal echoes (‘tomb’, ‘drags’, ‘dawn’). A special nuance: the periphrastic denominationP of Patroklos at 416b (‘his beloved companion’s tomb’) appears more emotional than the patronymic in the narrator’s version at 16b (‘the tomb of Menoitios’ fallen son’): Macleod; Richardson.  

ἑοῦ ἑτάροιο φίλοιο: a merging of two formulae: VE οὗ ἑτάροιο (23.748) and VE ἑτάροιο φίλοιο (51n.) (Hainsworth 1968, 78). On ἕταρος ‘companion, comrade, friend’ and on the meaning of φίλος, see 4n.

417 VB ≈ 22.465 (Achilleus’ horses drag the body toward the Achaian camp). — The designation of dawn as ‘divine’ is probably of IE origin: Schmitt 1967, 172–175; West 2007, 218  f.; cf. 2.48n.  

ἀκηδέστως: ‘careless, ruthless’. As at 240 (see 239–240n., end), 422, etc., the stem κηδ- here likely connotes specifically ‘mourning, burial, honors for the dead’ (which are not respected by Achilleus in his actions) beside the general sense ‘care, sorrow, grief’: Mawet 1979, 372; likewise at 6.60 (see ad loc.), 6.241.

414 οὐδέ τι: τι (‘in any regard’: R 19.1) reinforces the negative, here ‘yet … by no means’; the second οὐδέ is intensifying: ‘and not even’. 415 ἔσθουσ(ι): a poetic by-form of (unmetrical) ἐσθίουσι. — ῥα: ‘indeed, of course’ (R 24.1). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 416 ἦ μέν: strongly emphatic (‘in fact’ vel sim.): R 24.4/6. — σῆμα (ϝ)εοῦ ἑτάροιο: on the hiatus, R 4.4 and 5.6. — ἑτάροιο: =  ἑταίρου. — ἑοῦ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R14.4). 417 ἠώς: ‘dawn’ (Attic ἕως). — ὅτε … φανήῃ: iterative temporal clause (R 21.1, cf. 369n.); φανήῃ is uncontracted 3rd pers. sing. aor. subjunc. (R 6).

Commentary 

 157

418 αἰσχύνει: of the disfigurement of the body, like ἀείκιζεν at 22 (see ad loc.); cf. 18.180, 22.75. — αὐτὸς ἐπελθών: a VE formula (an additional 5× Od.).   419 οἷον: not used to denote the degree (‘how fresh like the dew he is lying there’) but rather modally (‘in which [miraculous] way he is lying there as fresh as the dew’): AH; Ruijgh 526. — ἐερσήεις: = ἑρσήεις (with prothetic vowel), ‘dewy’ (in contrast to ‘bloody’: αἷμα, μιαρός); similarly Hekabe at 757  ff.: ἑρσήεις καὶ πρόσφατος  – like one who dies a sudden, painless death. Dew symbolizes moisture, freshness, vitality, fertility, e.g. at 14.346–351, Od. 13.245 (see also Boedeker 1984; on the present passage, 77–79). — αἷμα νένιπται: Hektor is the subject. Verbs of cleansing are frequently construed with a double accusative (of the person or body part and of what is cleaned away), e.g. at 16.667 (Zeus to Apollo) αἷμα κάθηρον  … | Σαρπηδόνα, Od. 6.224  f. χρόα νίζετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς | ἅλμην (Schw. 2.83; Chantr. 2.43); here in the passive with the person in the nom. and what is cleaned away in the acc.   420a μιαρός: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘defiled’, attested in Mycenaean as an attribute of textiles (the meaning is obscure: ‘dyed’?, see DMic; Neumann 1992, 73; ChronEG 7 s.v.); cf. 4.141–147: comparison of a wound with a colored piece of ivory (2× μιαίνω).  

420b–421 In the internal analepsisP at 22.371–375 (Achaians stabbing at the slain Hektor), the portrayal of the integrity of the corpse reaches its climax (see 411– 423n.): in a dead body, wounds do not heal naturally (schol. T on 420).  

ἐν αὐτῷ: ‘in his body’ (AH); in Homer, αὐτός frequently denotes human beings in terms of their physicality (1.4n.). ἐν + dat. indicates the aim or endpoint: Chantr. 2.101  f.; on the construction of ἐλαύνω, esp. de Boel 1992; parallels: 20.259 ἐν … σάκεϊ ἔλασ’ … ἔγχος, similarly 5.317 χαλκὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι βαλών, etc. — χαλκὸν ἔλασσαν: an inflectible VE formula (8× Il., 1× Od., usually in the phrase διάπρο δὲ χαλκὸν ἔλ.).

422–423 Via Hermes, the narrator provides a summary of (a) the interventions by Aphrodite and Apollo aimed at protecting the body (23.184b–191, 24.18b–21) and (b) the council of the gods (23–76, with literal echoes: 423a ≈ 35b [here with the perspective reversed], 423b ≈ 67); see also Richardson. – On the motif of the pious Hektor as a protege of the gods, cf. 33–35n., 748–759n.

418 οὐδέ μιν αἰσχύνει: ‘and still does not disfigure him’. — θηοῖο: 2nd pers. sing. pres. opt. of θηέομαι ‘observe, see with amazement’ (Attic θεάομαι). — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 419 περί: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘all around’. 420 ποθι (μ)μιαρός: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ποθι: = που ‘anywhere’ (R 15.2). — σὺν … μέμυκεν: ‘have closed’ (so-called tmesis: R 20.2), related to μύω ‘close’ (of eyes, wounds). 421 ὅσσ(α) ἐτύπη: Hektor is the subject (τύπτω τινὰ ἕλκος ‘give someone a wound’), thus ≈ ‘all wounds he had received’. — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2); on the uncontracted form, R 6. — χαλκόν: metonymy for ‘weapon’. — ἔλασσαν: cf. 392n.

158 

 Iliad 24

422 κήδονται … θεοί: in opposition to 417 ἕλκει ἀκηδέστως (on the climactic form of the speech and its pointed conclusion at 422  f., see 411–423n.). – ‘care for’ is common as a motivation for divine interventions: 2.27n.; Anastassiou 1973, 145–147; Lynn-George 1996, 6–11. — υἷος ἑῆος: approximately ‘of your noble son’, a VE formula (3× Il.; also 1× each παιδὸς/ἀνδρὸς/φωτὸς ἑῆος). On the disputed etymology of ἑῆος, 19.342n. (related to ἐΰς ‘good, capable’ or the possessive pronoun ἑός; for ἑός = σός, see Hainsworth on 11.142).   423 καὶ … περ: intensifying rather than concessive: ‘even (more)’ (Denniston 484–486; cf. 428, 750). — φίλος περὶ κῆρι: 61n.; on the correlation of φίλος and κήδεσθαι, see also 749  f. (Kim 2000, 57).  

424 1st VH =  6.212, 17.567, Od. 7.329, 8.199, 8.385, 13.250, 18.281, Hes. Th. 173, h.Cer. 370 (with the exception of the present case, always with a noun-epithet formula in the 2nd VH); on the VE formula here, as well as the structure of the verse, see 200n.; cf. also 1.33 with n. — was made joyful: i.e. after being soothed, Priam responds with satisfaction to the information provided by the ‘Myrmidon’ and feels confirmed in his plans; see 425–431n. (Latacz 1966, 140  f., 235). 425–431 On the basis of the divine assistance (422  f.), Priam draws the conclusion, phrased as a gnome (Ahrens 1937, 38), that his regular sacrifices had been worthwhile (these were in fact an important topic in the divine assembly; see 33–35n.): ‘Book 24 here, as in general, affirms in the midst of the tragic suffering that the gods are in some measure good and just’ (Macleod); cf. Laërtes’ statement at Od. 24.351  f. (Richardson; Heubeck on Od. 24.351–355). Priam offers a gift to the ‘Myrmidon’ out of spontaneous gratitude (schol. bT on 429; Deichgräber 1972, 62; Erbse 1986, 68) and combines it with a request to guide him ‘with help from the gods’. The narrator creates a multi-layered dramatic ironyP (Macleod on 430; Richardson on 429–431; similarly Danek 1988, 201  f.): (a) the offer of a gift to Hermes is similar to the language of prayer (430n.) and, in combination with the expectation of something in return, exemplifies the principle do ut des mentioned at 425–428; (b) ‘with the gods’ grace be my escort’ (430) – that is why Hermes appeared in the first place. This point particularly illustrates the subtlety of Hermes’ strategy (cf. 362–439n.): he uses the conversation to make Priam ask of his own accord and full of trust for Hermes to guide him, without ever having to so much as hint that he has come on behalf of Zeus. 422 ὥς: ‘so’. — τοι: R 24.12. — υἷος: gen. dependent on κήδονται; on the declension of υἱός, R 12.3. 423 ἐόντος: = ὄντος (R 16.6). — σφι: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — περί: adverbial, ‘very, extremely’. — κῆρι: ‘in the heart’ (R 19.2).

Commentary 

 159

425 ὦ τέκος: VB =  Od. 7.22 (Odysseus addressing Athene in the shape of a girl), ‘Hes.’ fr. 248.1 M. W.; on the use of τέκος, 373n. — καί: refers either to ἐναίσιμα δῶρα alone (AH) or to the entire sentence (in which case in the sense ‘it is worthwhile 〈beside all other things in his life⟩ to do good also toward the gods’; thus at 7.282 = 7.293, Od. 3.196; περ at 130 [see ad loc.] is similar; Denniston 321; Kirk on 7.282). — ἐναίσιμα δῶρα: ‘gifts that correspond to the αἶσα (the portion due), i.e. that one owes’ (LfgrE; Sarischoulis 2008, 97–99), as at h.Cer. 369 (where those who do not fulfil this obligation are threatened with lifelong punishment: loc. cit. 367–369); cf. 40n. — διδοῦναι: an infinitive form not otherwise attested. Various explanations (not mutually exclusive) are possible: (a) adaptation of the inflectible VE formula δῶρα δίδωμι/διδοῦσιν/διδοῖτε Od. 20.342/18.279/11.357 (Peppmüller; Wyatt 1969, 224; in which case, the fut. inf. δῶρα διδώσειν at Od. 24.314 with Heubeck ad loc. is also analogous); (b) influence of the aor. inf. δοῦναι (Schw. 1.808 n. 4; Chantr. 1.104; Leaf; similarly García-Ramón 1990, 159); (c) metrical lengthening of the pres. inf. διδόναι (not attested in Homer, but not impossible metrically), as e.g. ζευγνῦμεν 16.145 (with Leaf ad loc.), τιθήμεναι 23.83 (Chantr. 1.486; Richardson).   426 ἐπεί: with the sense of γάρ (explicative); cf. K.-G. 2.461  f.; Rijksbaron (1984) 2002, 86. — εἴ ποτ’ ἔην γε: a VE formula, ‘if ever there had been one’ – ‘the phrase of one looking back to happier days’ (Willcock); see 3.180n.  

427 2nd VH = 5.890, 13.68, Od. 6.240, 8.331, 19.43; ≈ Il. 5.404, Od. 12.337, 14.394, 18.180, Hes. Th. 101, Op. 139, 257, h.Ap. 498, 512, also (at VE only) ‘Hes.’ Sc. 79, fr. 10(a).1 M.-W. — forgot: To not forget the gods (litotes) – i.e. to sacrifice regularly – is a sign of a morally exemplary attitude; cf. Od. 14.420  f. and 33– 35n.  

ἐνὶ μεγάροισι: ‘at home’ (208b–209a  n.). — οἳ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν: cf. the (longer) VE formulae Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχοντες (1.18n.), τοὶ/οἳ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι (2× Il., 16× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Hom.).

428 2nd VH =  750. — τῶν οἱ ἀπεμνήσαντο: In the post-Homeric period usually ἀπομιμνήσκομαι χάριν + gen. ‘pay someone thanks for, repay something’, e.g. Hes. Th. 503: Zeus frees the Cyclopes, οἵ οἱ ἀπεμνήσαντο χάριν εὐεργεσιάων (ἀπο- as an expression of reciprocity; see also Richardson). Here τῶν likely refers to 425 δῶρα (or generally =  ‘this’); there is also a v.l. τῶ ‘therefore’. — καὶ  … περ: 423n. — θανάτοιο  … αἴσῃ: an appositive genitive (Chantr. 2.62); in addition to 750, the same expression occurs at Cypr. fr. 9.1 West, similarly at Il. 16.687 κῆρα … θανάτοιο, Od. 2.100 μοῖρ(α) … θανάτοιο.  

425 ἦ ῥ(α): ‘indeed, surely’ (R 24.4, 24.1). — ἀγαθόν: sc. ἐστιν, here ‘it is worthwhile’. 426 ἀθανάτοις: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). 427 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισι: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the inflection, R 11.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1). — θεῶν: dependent on λήθετ(ο) ‘forgot’. 428 οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1; here dat. of advantage).

160 

 Iliad 24

429 this beautiful drinking-cup: The ‘cup’ spontaneously offered by Priam calls to mind the ‘goblet of surpassing loveliness’ from Thrace (234  f.; cf. schol. T on 433  f.; Willcock). Differently Eustathios 1357.31  ff. and Macleod: that vessel is too valuable for Priam to purposely give it to anyone other than Achilleus; the cup here is thus implicitly reckoned among the objects transported (i.e. invented ad hoc). – On designations of vessels in early epic and their epithets, 101n.   430 Borrowed from the language of prayer: 17.645 (Aias addressing Zeus) Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἀλλὰ σὺ ῥῦσαι …, 10.463  f. (Odysseus addressing Athene) ἀλλὰ καὶ αὖτις πέμψον … — αὐτόν: αὐτός occasionally stands in in early epic for a 1st or 2nd person in an oblique case (here ≈ ἐμέ): 2.263n. (perhaps also here with an implied contrast ‘person’ vs. ‘belongings’: δέξαι … ἄλεισον, αὐτόν τε ῥῦσαι). — σύν γε θεοῖσιν: ‘with the aid of the gods’; on dramatic ironyP, 425–431n.  

431 ≈ 448 (see ad loc.). — until I make my way: Now that nothing impedes the continuation of his journey, Priam again urges haste (Martinazzoli; cf. 326n.).  

ὄφρα κεν … ἀφίκωμαι: ὄφρα with subjunc. can have a temporal (‘until’) or final (‘so that’) sense: Schw. 2.651; Chantr. 2.262; Wathelet 1999 (esp. 368  f.).

432 = 378 etc. (see ad loc.). 433–439 The ‘Myrmidon’ rejects Priam’s gift for two reasons (structured via the similar-sounding verse beginnings at 435 and 437 in his speech: ton men egṓ – soi d’ an egṓ): at 435  f. out of fear and respect for his master (modern parallels in West 2000, 492), and at 437  f. out of kindness toward Priam. This again stresses the honesty and trustworthiness of the ‘Myrmidon’ and his intimacy with Achilleus (396n.); on Achilleus’ strictness and violent temper (436), cf. the characterization at 11.647–654 – somewhat exaggerated by Patroklos due to the situation (with Hainsworth ad loc.), also 1.188  ff., 24.572 (see ad loc.) and 585  f. – In the present speech – the last before Hermes reveals himself – the narrator makes the most of the dramatic ironyP resulting from Hermes’ role (cf. already 425–431n.): (1) the (ostensible) ‘putting to the test’ of the god at 433 (with echoes of 390: Macleod on 433; Richardson on 432–439); (2) the refusal of the gift by the god (schol. bT on 433  f.; Macleod on 430; in a similar manner, Athene/‘Mentes’ refuses Telemachos’ guest-gift: Od. 1.316  f. [de Jong on Od. 1.309–318]); (3) the offer to accompany Priam all the way to Argos ‘by ship or

429 ἐμέο πάρα: = παρ’ ἐμοῦ (R 14.1, R 20.2). 430 αὐτόν: =  ‘me’. — τε (ῥ)ῥῦσαι: imper. of ἔρυμαι/ῥῦμαι ‘protect’; on the prosody, M  4.6. — πέμψον: ‘escorted, guided’. 431 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 161

on foot’ (437  f., with allusions to 340–342: the winged sandals carry Hermes ‘everywhere over land and sea’, cf. 342n. and 437n.). 433 1st VH = 390 (see ad loc.). — aged sir, for I am young: A pointed antithesis. On the one hand, it is appropriate that the younger person obey the older one, since the latter has more experience of life (1.259 with n.; cf. 486–489n.); on the other hand, the older person should limit his influence over the younger (‘who easily falls prey to temptations’: AH [transl.]): Hermes pretends to interpret the offer of a gift as a test of his integrity (cf. Eurymachos to Halitherses at Od. 2.185–193: Ulf 1990, 206  f.).  

οὐδέ με πείσεις: a VE formula (219n.) in parenthetic position (the relative clause at 434 follows on from πειρᾷ: AH); cf. 9.345 μή μεο πειράτω … οὐδέ με πείσει.

434 κέλεαι:  ͜ On the restoration of the uncontracted form – the transmission unanimously offers κέλῃ – see 2.365n.; Richardson. — πάρεξ: in a metaphorical sense like English ‘behind someone’s back’, cf. παρ(εξ)ελθεῖν ‘to circumvent, outwit’ (1.132n.), also Od. 4.347  f. οὐκ ἂν ἐγώ γε | ἄλλα πάρεξ εἴποιμι παρακλιδὸν οὐδ’ ἀπατήσω, Il. 20.133 πάρεκ νόον ‘against all reason’ (Schw. 2.429; Faulkner on h.Ven. 36); on the original locative sense as well as the accent, 349n.   435 τὸν μὲν ἐγώ: a VB formula (391n.), continued by σοὶ δ(έ) 437 (cf. 433–439n. on the structure of the speech). — δείδοικα καὶ αἰδέομαι: Fear (in the face of danger) and awe/respect (within a community; see 44n.) frequently appear in Homer as mutually complementary motivations; pregnant at 15.657  f. (despite their distress, the Achaians persevere behind the ships): ἴσχε γὰρ αἰδώς | καὶ δέος (discussion of this passage in Wissmann 1997, 48  f.); Od. 7.305  f. (Odysseus justifies not having come to Alkinoös together with Nausikaa): ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἔθελον δείσας αἰσχυνόμενός τε, | μή πως καὶ σοὶ θυμὸς ἐπισκύσσαιτο ἰδόντι; 17.188  f. (Eumaios does not want to act against Telemachos’ wishes): ἀλλὰ τὸν αἰδέομαι καὶ δείδια, μή μοι ὀπίσσω | νεικείῃ (in part conditioned by the subservient relationship, as here; cf. 1.331: Cairns 1993, 88  f.). More in Macleod; Richardson on h.Cer. 190 (with older bibliography); Williams 1993, 196  f. n. 24. — περὶ κῆρι: 61n.   436 συλεύειν: συλάω/συλεύω elsewhere usually of the despoiling of fallen warriors; here metaphorically in reference to the ‘booty’ due Achilleus in the form of ransom for the slain Hektor (LfgrE). — μετόπισθε γένηται: VE ≈ 20.308, Od. 8.414.

437–439 The dialogue between Priam and Hermes concludes in the form of a ring-compositionP with renewed pledges of aid (≈ 368–371: Danek 1988, 202; on the motif ‘Hermes as savior of the immediately endangered Priam’, 362–

433 νεωτέρου: in apposition to ἐμεῖο (= ἐμοῦ, R 14.1). 434 κέλεαι:  ͜ on the uncontracted form, R 6; on the synizesis, R 7. — σέο: = σοῦ (R 14.1); ablatival gen., dependent on δέχεσθαι. 435 δείδοικα: δειδ- < *δεδϝ- (R 4.2).

162 

 Iliad 24

439n.). In addition, the keyword ‘guide’ (437/439) recalls the promise Priam received from Iris in her literal repetition of Zeus’ orders (152  f. ≈ 181  f.; Hermes will reveal himself at 461 with the same keyword [460–461n.]). – On Hermes’ role as guide, 153n. 437 2nd VH ≈ Od. 6.321. — Argos: The term may specifically designate Pelasgian Argos, home of the Myrmidons (2.681; schol. bT; AH; Richardson), but also the Greek homeland in general (2.287n.; Cauer [1895] 1921, 288; Macleod; additional bibliography in Graziosi/Haubold on 6.152). That said, Argos here has the function of an extreme example (on the term, Lohmann 1970, 128 n. 59) by symbolizing for Priam the heart of the enemies’ country: Danek 1988, 202 n. 58; cf. 433–439n., end.  

ἂν … καί κε: καί κε after ἄν appears to mark the noun that follows as a special case: ‘possibly even’ (AH), likewise καὶ ἄν after κεν at 14.244–246 (Hypnos): ἄλλον μέν κεν ἐγώ γε θεῶν  … | ῥεῖα κατευνήσαιμι, καὶ ἂν ποταμοῖο ῥέεθρα | Ὠκεανοῦ; without καί at 13.126–128 φάλαγγες | … ἃς οὔτ’ ἄν κεν Ἄρης ὀνόσαιτο μετελθών | οὔτέ κ’ Ἀθηναίη (similarly Od. 4.733  f.); also καὶ ἄν and καί κε + noun without duplication of the modal particle at Il. 5.362, 19.415, Od. 6.300, etc.; in detail on which, K.-G. 1.246–248; AH (with Anh.) on Il. 14.245. Differently Ruijgh (1990) 1996, 646  f. (σοὶ … πομπός as a protasis, καί κε … as a new sentence), Chantr. 2.345 (textual corruption). On the coexistence of the modal particles ἄν and κε/κεν (which originally probably derive from different dialects) in general, see LfgrE s.v. ἄν 709  f. and the bibliography in Meier-Brügger 1992, 1.108. — κλυτόν: ‘famed’; only here as an epithet of a place name, a metrical alternative to 4.171 πολυδίψιον Ἄργος ἱκοίμην; probably consciously chosen by a ‘Myrmidon’ as a ‘Greek’ (Ἀργεῖοι is the term for all Greeks). κλυτός is elsewhere a generic epithetP of magnificent objects – e.g. of gifts (458 etc.) and palaces (719n.) – and of gods, less frequently of human beings (e.g. Hektor at 789; see ad loc.); see also 2.742n., 19.10n. — Ἄργος ἱκοίμην: an inflectible phrase at VE (also 4.171; see above) and after caesura A 3 (4× Il.).

438 ἐνδυκέως: 158n. — ἐν νηῒ … ἢ πεζός: πεζός means ‘on foot’ (in contrast to ‘by wagon’) or ‘across the land’ (in contrast to ‘by ship’; the use of a wagon cannot be ruled out here: LfgrE), cf. 9.328  f., Od. 3.323  f., 11.159, etc.   ἁμαρτέων:  ͜ Papyri and manuscripts always transmit the verb with an initial ὁμ-, but according to the scholia on 12.412 and 23.414, Aristarchus read ἁμ-, while the related adverb ἁμαρτή is overwhelmingly attested in this form. ἁμ- is probably the original form ( h-, related to IE *sem-/ som- as in εἷς and ὁμός): Ruijgh 2011, 262  f.; cf. M 13.2; 1.51n.

574–575 575 ≈ Od. 24.79 (of Antilochos who was buried together with Achilleus and Patroklos); other similar expressions: Il. 2.21, 16.146, etc. (Peppmüller). — after Patroklos dead: Here, immediately before the return of the corpse, it is recalled that Patroklos was Achilleus’ favorite: it is for his sake that Achilleus has thus far retained the corpse (Taplin 1992, 79  f.; Macleod). In addition, 574  f. and 591–595 (where Achilleus talks to the dead Patroklos) constitute a frame for the portrayal of Achilleus’ preparations of the body for its return. –

573 τῷ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 574 ῥα: = ἄρα, ‘indeed, as is well known’ (R 24.1). 575 τῖ(ε): 3rd pers. sing. impf. of τίω ‘honor, esteem’. — Ἀχιλεύς: on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — ἑτάρων: = ἑταίρων; partitive gen.

Commentary 

 215

On the ‘successor’ role of Automedon and Alkimos, see 474n. (574 ≈ 474). — honored: an expression of appreciation (57n.).

μετά: ‘after’, as an indication of ranking, with a temporal connotation (‘after Patroklos’ death’): Schw. 2.486; Chantr. 2.119. — θανόντα: 16n., end

576–579 Unharnessing the horses and unloading the wagon are elements of the type-sceneP ‘arrival by chariot’ that have been suspended until a preliminary agreement is reached between Achilleus and Priam (560  f.), see 440–485n.; West 2011, 422. In addition, the unloading is described with nearly the same words as the loading (276): the gifts have reached their destination (cf. also 579n.). At the same time, the herald (last mentioned at 470  f.) is received as an additional guest (type-scene ‘visit’, elements 5 and 6: leading the visitor in and offering him a chair [477–478n.]). 576 On the 2nd VH, see 350n.   577 VB: 447n.; VE: 164n. — καλήτορα: formally an agent noun, ‘caller, convener’ (cf. 2.50– 52 with n., 9.10–12), here an epithet of Idaios, elsewhere a personal name (Achaian: 13.541; Trojan: 15.419; cf. Kalesios, Axylos’ charioteer: 6.18n.). Idaios is also awarded unique herald-epithets elsewhere: ἠπύτα ‘loudly calling’ (7.384), ἀστυβοώτης ‘calling throughout the town’ (701). More on the functions of heralds: 149n.   578 1st VH ≈ 2.549, 7.57, Od. 6.212; 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 273; cf. Il. 24.275 (ἐϋξέστης ἐπ’ ἀπήνης etc.; see 275n.). — δίφρου: 515n. (on θρόνου). — ἐϋσσώτρου: ‘with good felloes’, cf. ἐπίσσωτρον (v.l. ὀπίσσωτρον) ‘tire’ Il. 5.725, etc. Beside the more common ἐϋξέστου in the same position in the verse (271 with n., 275, 590, Od. 6.75; transmitted by most mss. here as well), ἐϋσσ. ought to be preferred as the lectio difficilior, attested inter alia by schol. D and T, as well as by two papyri; thus Richardson; Labarbe 1949, 99  f.; van der Valk 1964, 577  f. Differently Peppmüller and Macleod: the formularity (578b–579 ≈ 275b–276) speaks against such variatio. – The epithet occurs elsewhere only at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 273 (ἐ. ἐπ’ ἀπήνης).  

579 ≈ 276 (see ad loc.). The repetition of the phrasing of 276 (treasury scene, Priam’s perspective: ‘Hektor’s head’, ‘large ransom’) may be a signal by the narrator of Achilleus’ empathy toward Priam (Scodel 2008, 78  f.; cf. the next n., end).  

576 ὑπὸ ζυγόφιν: ‘out from under the yoke’ (gen.; on the form, R 11.4). 577 ἐς … ἄγαγον: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1). — τοῖο: = τοῦ, here as the article; on the inflection, R 11.2. 578 κὰδ … εἷσαν: sigmatic aor. act. (transitive) of καθίζω/καθέζω ‘let one sit’; κάδ = κατά (assimiliated form with apocope: R 20.1); on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ἐϋσσώτρου: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 579 ᾕρεον: the impf. indicates iteration (‘one gift after another’).

216 

 Iliad 24

580–595 For the purpose of the return of Hektor’s corpse, Achilleus conducts the anticipated funeral rites (normally provided by the relatives of the deceased): washing, anointing and clothing (preparations at 580–586, implementation at 587  f. [on the details, see ad loc.]), laying out (so-called prothesis, here together with preparations for transport: 589  f.); this would otherwise be followed by the lament, which is here replaced by an invocation of the dead Patroklos (591–595). The ritual is reprised by the Trojans at 719  ff. (prothesis, lament) and brought to its completion (784  ff.: cremation on the pyre, retrieval of the burnt remains and burial in a tomb, erection of the grave monument, funeral meal; see ad loc.). On the sequence of events in funerary ritual in detail, see Andronikos 1968 (esp. 1–37); Sourvinou-Inwood 1983 (esp. 37–43); Cerchiai 1984, 47–61; specifically from a narrative point of view, Edwards 1986; de Jong on Od. 24.37–92 (type-sceneP).  – By personally participating (589), Achilleus pays his last respects to Hektor, thus making amends for his abuse of the corpse and ‘officially’ terminating his revenge for Patroklos (to whom he accorded the same ritual at 18.343–355). In this way, he returns to his former generosity toward slain opponents (e.g. Eëtion: 6.417–419a with n. and 6.413–428n.) – a generosity that came to him easily then, before Patroklos’ death, but which is now all the more indicative of his attitude, see 21.100–105 (on Achilleus’ ‘humane’ relenting, cf. 33–54n.). Finally, he also shows reverence to Priam by personally handing over the body, just as Priam came in person to deliver the ransom (Macleod on 587–589; Richardson on 582–590; Beck 1964, 243  f.; Segal 1971, 65; Taplin 1992, 274; Seaford 1994, 173  f.; Heath 2005, 154  f.; Grethlein 2007, 38–42; cf. 626: Achilleus serves the meat). 580 On the use of the garments, see 587–588n.  

ἐΰννητον: an epithet of textiles (elsewhere at 18.595  f. χιτῶνας |  … ἐϋννήτους  … στίλβοντας, Od. 7.96  f. πέπλοι | λεπτοὶ ἐΰννητοι); as is frequently the case, the (good) characteristics of the material  – here the ‘well-spun’ yarn  – are applied to the entire object (LfgrE s.v., with parallels).

581 2nd VH ≈ Od. 1.317, also Il. 11.798, 23.856 and the inflectible VE formula οἶκόνδε νέεσθαι 2.290n. — πυκάσας δοίη: The participle expresses the main idea (285n.).  

582–586 Achilleus is concerned that the sight of his slain son might cause Priam’s grief to turn to rage directed against Achilleus as the perpetrator (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 369 n. *; LfgrE s.v. ἄχνυμαι 1771.19  f.; Macleod; the v.l. góon ‘lament’

580 κὰδ … ἔλιπον: sc. on/on top of the wagon. — φάρε(α): on the uncontracted form, R 6; on the hiatus, R 5.1. 581 ὄφρα (+ opt. as an indication of indirect speech): ‘so that’ (R 22.5). — δοίη (ϝ)οῖκόνδε: on the prosody, R 4.4; on the form οἶκόνδε, R 15.3.

Commentary 

 217

in place of chólon ‘anger, rage’ at 584, transmitted in schol. b and T, is probably too trite: Erbse ad loc. with bibliography). This hints at a potential escalation of the situation – which was already characterized as tense in the preceding pair of speeches (552–571) (cf. 572n. [lion simile]), with the possibility of the narrator offering an alternative storyline (586a; see Richardson 1990, 188  f.; Nesselrath 1992, 21): Achilleus’ possible reaction to Priam’s behavior is now explicitly described as ‘to kill’, as opposed to the periphrasis ‘not to spare’ at 569  f. (586; see Richardson on 582–586: ‘much more explicit’; similarly de Jong 1997, 316) – the worst possible consequence Priam had imagined beforehand (224–227), and which Achilleus wants to avoid by all means. A ‘confrontation between Priam and Achilleus over Hektor’s body’ is generally avoided throughout the entire scene (again at 600  f., 619  f., implicitly at 650; see overall Basista 1979, 5–14 [quotation: p. 5 (transl.)]). The narrator thus defers the reunion between father and son and reserves the lament proper for the next scene (in Troy) (retardationP).

583 (or 584) through 586 have been variously suspected as interpolations, among other reasons because they merely repeat what Achilleus already said (see Peppmüller on 580  ff.; AH on 583, with Anh.); 586 in particular is sometimes considered a careless adaptation of 570 (Leaf), a ‘commonplace’ (Beck 1964, 242) or a mere rhetorical expansion (West 2001, 12 n. 28). But see above on the attempt to interpret it as a climax.

582–583a serving-maids: dmōái ‘female servants’ generally denotes the female domestic staff of the palace (e.g. in Troy: 6.323, 6.375  f.; common in the Odyssey); in the Achaian camp, these are probably captive women (cf. 18.28; Hainsworth on 9.658; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 164  f.; ­Schmidt 2006a, 127). Their most frequently mentioned tasks are: serving food (but in Book 24 this function is filled by the hétaroi ‘companions’: 473  ff., 622  ff. [4n.]), washing guests (cf. 587  f.), preparing beds (643  ff., together with the hétaroi). Bibliography: Ramming 1973, 34–41; Wickert-Micknat loc. cit. 227–230. — called out …, | but take it first aside: Hektor’s body had until now lain outside ‘in the dust’ (17  f.); the ‘outside’ here gains a special significance: a conflict with Priam is to be avoided.     

νόσφιν ἀειράσας: with δμῳάς, ‘when they had carried him away’ (part of the summary order in indirect speech, cf. 24n.; sc. as the object: νέκυν from 581).

582 ἐκκαλέσας: sc. from out of the house. — κέλετ(ο): ‘ordered’ (impf.). — ἀμφί: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘all around’. 583 ἀειράσας: fem. acc. pl. of the aor. part. of ἀείρω (Attic αἴρω). — ὡς μή: final (likewise μή at 584). — Πρίαμος (ϝ)ίδοι: on the prosody, R 4.5.

218 

 Iliad 24

583b–585 ὡς μὴ Πρίαμος ἴδοι υἱόν, | μὴ ὃ μὲν … οὐκ ἐρύσαιτο: Final clauses (particularly those with an optative indicating indirect speech: Nünlist 2002, 452) can express a character’s subjective intentions (secondary focalizationP) and thus explain particular actions and/or characterize the individual for the audience. Additional examples: 5.563  f., 10.366–368, 18.344  f., 23.434–437, 24.284  f. (see ad loc.), 24.580  f., Od. 1.133–135, 7.15–17 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 113  f., 118, 122; collection of examples in Richardson 1990, 235 n. 17). — ὃ μὲν  … Ἀχιλῆϊ δ(έ): Although the portrayal is of Achilleus’ own thoughts, a personal name is used in place of a pronoun: this lends more weight to the statement’s second part (Macleod); cf. 509–511 ὃ μὲν  … αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς (509n.) and the name Eurykleia in the retrospective of the story of Odysseus’ scar at Od. 19.401 (secondary focalizationP; de Jong on Od. 19.392–468). — οὐκ ἐρύσαιτο: ≈ ‘give free rein (to anger)’ (on the close linking of οὐ + verb, see 296n., 569n.). ἔρυμαι means ‘protect, preserve, keep’ (499, also 1.216, Od. 16.459, etc.), ‘fend off, detain’ (Il. 2.859, 8.143, etc.). — ὀρινθείη … ἦτορ: On the use of ὀρίνω with emotions, cf. 467n. — φίλον ἦτορ: a VE formula (13× Il., 19× Od., 2× Hes.). φίλος as an attribute of limbs/body parts has usually faded to an expression of natural association (i.e. it corresponds to a possessive pronoun), see 1.20n., 3.31n. (but cf. 4n. on its emotional use).      586 2nd VH ≈ 570 (see ad loc.). — κατακτείνειε … ἀλίτηται: Whether the opt. and subjunc. differ in meaning when they are used in the same sentence, in the sense that the opt. would express a mere possibility, the subjunc. an expectation or consequence (cf. 551n.), is a matter of dispute; thus perhaps here: ‘… and thus would contravene Zeus’ orders’. Pro: Peppmüller; Monro (1882) 1891, 253; Chantr. 2.211  f./298  f.; cf. 6.454–455n.; contra (a change in mood is necessitated by formulaic language or is metri causa; a difference in nuance is hardly susceptible of proof): Tabachovitz 1951, 49–55; Macleod    on 688; Richardson on 582–586.  

587–588 587 = Od. 8.454; ≈ Od. 4.49, 17.88; 2nd VH = Od. 8.364, h.Ven. 61; ≈ Od. 4.252, 23.154, 24.366, also Il. 23.186. – 588 ≈ Od. 3.467 (= 23.155), also (with different terms for the garments) ≈ 4.50 (= 17.89), 8.455, 10.365, 24.367. — Then when  …: immediate execution of the orders given at 582 (cf. 302n.), with literal echoes: servants, washing, anointing. — olive oil: For both the living and the dead, olive oil is used for care of the body after bathing or washing (Andronikos 1968, 2  f.; Laser 1983, 160–164). In the Mycenaean period, the addition of scents to oil (rose, sage and sedge) and its processing into ointment are well attested (Ventris/Chadwick [1956] 1973, 476  f.; Laser loc. cit. 163; in detail, Shelmerdine 1985, esp. 17  ff., 123  ff.), cf. 14.171  f., 18.351, 23.186, Od. 2.339 (a guarded interpretation of the Homeric testimony in Lilja 1972,

584 μή ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.7. 585 παῖδα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. 586 καί (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.4.; ἑ = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 588 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 219

58  f.). On oil production in general, see also Richter 1968, 134  ff. — cloak …: After washing and anointing, the body is wrapped in beautiful garments (from the deceased’s own house, if possible – a custom here taken into account by Achilleus, cf. Yamagata 2005, 543; Martinazzoli on 581): 16.670 (Sarpedon’s body), 18.352  f. (Patroklos’ body), 22.510–513 (Andromache sees no possibility of wrapping Hektor’s body; see Richardson ad loc.), Od. 2.97–102, etc. (the shroud for Laërtes), 24.59 (Achilleus’ body); see also 229–231n., end. – In accord with the narrator’s imagination, the body was probably clothed in a ‘burial gown’ (chitṓn, otherwise the ‘undergarment’; cf. 229  ff. with nn.), laid out on a blanket (pháros, usually =  ‘cloak, mantle’) and covered with a second blanket (‘pall’); thus the interpretation of 580 by schol. b, as well as the text of a law from Iulis on Keos dating to the 5th century (cited by Richardson on 580–581; on the law in detail, Engels 1998, 60–64; see also Andronikos 1968, 7  f.; Wagner-Hasel 2000, 92–94). Geometric vases often show the pall with a checkerboard pattern and conspicuously spread above the corpse (Marwitz 1961; Ahlberg 1971, 55–63). – That the present verse, in contrast to 580, mentions only one blanket (namely the pall) is a result of the formularity: it occurs elsewhere in bathing scenes (where clothing oneself similarly follows washing and anointing), see the iterata (Richardson on 587–590; Arend 1933, 124; cf. Foley 1991, 184–187, who stresses the connection between the bath and the subsequent feast). On the hysteron proteron (the gown is actually put on before the blanket/cloak), cf. 100n., end. 589–590 2nd VH of 590 ≈ 275, etc. (see ad loc.). — An anticipation of the laying out (‘prothesis’), see 719  f. The prothesis is an integral element of funerary ritual: the body is prepared for burial, the survivors can mourn beside it (cf. 18.352– 355, 21.122–125, 22.86–89, 22.352–354, Od. 24.43–62); see Andronikos 1968, 7–14; Alexiou (1974) 2002, 6  f.; cf. 719–776n. — himself: Greek autós, i.e. one person (here Achilleus) does more than is expected or customary, thus making a particular contribution  – personally  – to the success of a matter (cf. 9.12, 14.379  f., Od. 13.20–22, 22.450  f.); see 580–595n. with bibliography   

Ἀχιλεὺς … ἀείρας, | σὺν δ’ ἕταροι ἤειραν: The linguistic parallelism is a reflection of the repeated lifting action. — λεχέων: In a funerary context, λέχος ‘bedstead’ denotes one’s own bed as the place for displaying the corpse (743), the ritual deathbed for laying out (720, perhaps originally one’s own bed as well), or, as here, the bier for transporting the body (also at 600, 702; likewise at 18.233, identical with φέρτρον at 18.236);

589 λεχέων: gen. dependent on ἐπέθηκεν (‘lay upon’); on the plural, R 18.2; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 590 σύν: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘together with Achilleus’. — ἕταροι: = ἑταῖροι. — ἤειραν: = Attic ἦραν.

220 

 Iliad 24

see LfgrE s.v.; Laser 1968, 5, 16  f. – After ἐπιτίθημι, gen. rather than dat. is rare, but cf. Hdt. 2.121δ.1 (with ἐπί + gen.).

591–595 In terms of form and content, the speech picks up 23.178–183 (Achilleus addressing Patroklos after lighting the pyre): the same speech introduction formulaP (591n.), an introductory imperative, an address by name, a qualification ‘though you be in the house of Hades’ (592–593n.). This reprise signals ‘I know that I promised you (already intimated at 22.354, 23.19–21) not to hand over Hektor’s body for proper burial’ – but both the situation and Achilleus’ personal attitude have changed in the meantime; he now gently asks for lenience, probably also for his own reassurance (Heath 2005, 155): anticipatory ‘do not be angry with me’ (592), empathy conveyed by ‘his father’ (cf. Martinazzoli on 594; Hammer 2002, 191), litotes ‘not unworthy (ransom)’ (594n.), promise of an adequate compensation for acquiescence – the latter as a sort of addition to the offerings associated with the cremation at 23.163  ff. The belief that the living can attract the anger of the dead, and/or that the dead are to receive offerings even after burial, is attested only occasionally prior to the Classical period (in early epic, cf. Od. 11.29–33); secure inferences thus cannot be drawn regarding the custom: Andronikos 1968, 126–128; Bremmer 1983, 108; Parker 1983, 133  f.; Johnston 1999, 46–63; also 592–593n. 591 A formulaic verse for emotional situations: 10.522 (Hippokoön discovers the annihilation of the Thracians, especially Rhesos; without direct speech), 23.178 (see 591–595n.); 2nd VH =  16.491 (the dying Sarpedon addressing Glaukos); also 1st VH = 15.397, Od. 13.198 (on additional variants with different verbs, see 3.398n.). ᾤμωξεν: denotes a shriek occasioned by physical or mental anguish (literally ‘cry οἴμοι’); men are always the subject (LfgrE). – The equivalent for women: κωκύω (200n., cf. 703 κώκυσέν τ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα).

592–593 The lack of certainty as to whether the dead can perceive the living is repeatedly offered as a reservation in Greek literature (Macleod with examples and bibliography); cf. Il. 23.19 = 179. At any rate, at 22.389 and Od. 11.475  f. Achilleus explicitly notes that the souls of the dead lack the ability to think or recall (Il. 23.103  f. is difficult to interpret, see Richardson ad loc.), and in the Nekyia Teiresias alone is endowed with reason (Od. 10.492–495); the other dead can recognize and talk to Odysseus and display emotion only after partaking of the sacrificial blood (Od. 11.147–149, 152–154, 387–391). On the (occasionally contradictory) notions surrounding death in Homer in general, Schnaufer 1970, 58–70; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 78–83, 89–92, 106  f.; Johnston 1999, 7–11.

Commentary 

 221

592 1st VH ≈ Od. 23.209. — σκυδμαινέμεν: 65n. — αἴ κε πύθηαι: an auditory echo of the VE formula αἴ κε πίθηαι (1.207n.), cf. FOR 25.   593 Ἄϊδος: cf. 246n., end. — Ἕκτορα δῖον: 22n. — ἔλυσα: an anticipation of the ‘official’ announcement at 599 υἱὸς μὲν δή τοι λέλυται.   594 οὐ … ἀεικέα: only here in place of ἀγλαά (278n.) or ἀπερείσια (276n.), the more common epithets for ἄποινα: the litotes is expressive (on the intention of the speech, see 591–595n.); cf. 119n., 1.13n. – The term is picked up at 595 with ὅσσ’ ἐπέοικεν (on which, cf. 3.286 with n.).   595 ἀποδάσσομαι: related to ἀποδατέομαι, literally ‘give/give over a share of the war ­booty’ (cf. 17.231, 22.118; simplex at 1.125, etc.), here meant as a sacrificial offering (591–595n.).  

596–632 Achilleus announces the release of Hektor’s corpse and, by reference to Niobe, who ate despite her grief, persuades Priam to partake in a joint meal. 596 ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formulaP (302n.). — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (1.7n.).  

597–598 The motif ‘he sat down on the chair from which he had risen’ (attested repeatedly in the Odyssey: de Jong on Od. 5.195–196) picks up 515: Achilleus there rose to receive Priam as a supplicant; since Priam’s request has now been fulfilled and Hektor’s body prepared, Achilleus can sit down again. He does so ‘at the wall opposite ⟨Priam’s seat⟩’ (Frazer 1971, 297  f.). As before, this seating arrangement suggests a formal, deferential distance, as also during the embassy in Book 9 (9.218  f.) and shortly before the reunion of Odysseus and Penelope in Od. 23.89  f., 23.164  f. (Richardson; de Jong on Od. 23.89–90 and 23.164–165; cf. Kurz 1966, 47); the distance will be diminished further only with the joint meal (628–632; cf. 621–676n.).   597 1st VH = Od. 4.136; VE = Od. 5.195, 18.157 = 21.139 = 21.166 = 23.164 (and ≈ 21.243/392). — κλισμῷ …, ἔνθεν ἀνέστη: The κλισμός, a chair with a backrest (related to κλίνω), in its design and use occupies an intermediary position between the θρόνος and the δίφρος (Laser 1968, 43  f.; see also 515n.). It is used inter alia as a substitute chair for the master

592 σκυδμαινέμεν: ‘be angry with’ (imperatival inf.); on the inflection, R 16.4. — αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1). — πύθηαι: = πύθῃ (R 6). 593 εἰν Ἄϊδος: ‘in 〈the house of〉 Hades’, cf. 246n.; εἰν = ἐν (R 20.1). — περ: concessive (R 24.10). — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6). — ὅτι Ἕκτορα: on the hiatus, R 5.7. 594 φίλῳ, ἐπεί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 595 καὶ τῶνδ(ε): ‘also from these’. — ὅσσ(α): on –σσ,- R 9.1. 596 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — καὶ ἐς: on the correption, R 5.5. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — κλισίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — πάλιν: ‘back’. — ἤϊε: = ᾔει ‘went’. 597 ἔνθεν: relative, ‘from where’.

222 

 Iliad 24

of the household when a guest is awarded the privilege of the θρόνος (Od. 1.130–132); should this also be the case here (if Achilleus offers his own θρόνος to Priam at 515/522: Frazer 1971, 296, 299  f., 301; Reece 1993, 19, 21; cf. 571n.), the present phrasing may be the result of a contamination of two typical actions: ‘returned to his former seat’ and ‘sat down on a different chair opposite the guest’ (in this sense, Edwards 1975, 69–71; on the typical motif, see 597–598n.). If one instead understands ἔνθεν ἀνέστη literally, κλισμός here and θρόνος at 515 should be synonymous, as at 11.623/645 (Laser 1968, 43  f.; Hainsworth on 11.623; Leaf; Richardson); in that case, Priam sat down on a chair other than the θρόνος. Differently again Bouvier 2009, 489–502 (contamination of two different variants of the same story). — πολυδαιδάλῳ: ‘richly decorated, ornamented’ (LfgrE). Chairs often have epithets that hint at their elaborate or valuable character: π. and δαιδαλέος also at h.Ap. 345 and Il. 18.389  f., 4× Od.; additional attributes of a κλισμός: ποικίλος (Od. 1.132), χρύσεος (Il. 8.436), φαεινός (h.Cer. 193). At the same time, Achilleus’ implements are frequently described with words related to δαίδαλον, calling attention to their owner at key moments; this applies e.g. to the phorminx at Il. 9.186  f. and repeatedly to Achilleus’ new armor (19.13n.; Morris 1992, 15–19). Further bibliography on δαιδαλ- at 19.13n. 598 1st VH = Od. 23.90; ≈ Il. 9.219. — τοίχου: a partitive genitive of place, ‘on one spot of the wall’ (Schw. 2.111  f.; Chantr. 2.58). — φάτο μῦθον: at VE 4× Il., 6× Od., 1× h.Ap. On ποτὶ δὲ Πρίαμον φάτο, see 353n. On the construction with μῦθον and acc. of the person addressed, cf. the formulaic expression at 485 τὸν … πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν, 682 μιν πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν.  

599–620 Achilleus solemnly announces the release of Hektor’s body (599) and urges Priam, via the paradigmP of Niobe, to eat, all his grief notwithstanding (602  ff.; cf. Odysseus at 19.225: ‘one cannot mourn the dead with the stomach’; on which, Heath 2005, 162; Lentini 2006, 137–140). The speech is constructed from multiple instances of ring-compositionP (including an epic regressionP at 602–613); a parallel construction is added at 613–620. On the structure as a whole, see the analyses (in part slightly divergent) in Heubeck 1954, 25, 28; Lohmann 1970, 12  f. (with earlier bibliography at n. 1); Krischer 1971, 138; Pötscher 1985/86, 22  f.; Minchin 2001, 191, 194  f.; Richardson: 1 Hektor has been laid out (a precondition for the ritual of lament); you may take him back to Troy tomorrow (600  f.). 2 But first let us partake of a meal (601b). 3 Even Niobe ate (602). c She even had 12 children, all of whom died in the bloom of their youth (603  f.).

598 τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέρου: ‘at the wall opposite’. — ποτὶ  … φάτο: ≈ προσέφη (so-called tmesis: R 20.2; on ποτί, R 20.1; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1, on the middle, R 23).

Commentary 

 223

b Apollo and Artemis killed those children out of vengeance (605  f.). a Since Niobe blasphemed against Leto (607  f.). b’ For that reason, Apollo and Artemis killed Niobe’s children (609). c’ They lay in their own blood for nine days without anyone burying them (610  f.). x Since the people had been turned to stone (611b). y Therefore, the gods buried the children on the tenth day (612). x’ 3’ At that point, Niobe ate and interrupted her mourning (613). A Now she has given herself once more wholly to grief (614–617). B 2’ Let us thus have a meal as well (618  f.). A’ 1’ You also can lament later and continue your mourning B’ when you conduct Hektor home tomorrow (619  f.). The story of Niobe is among a series of famous Homeric paradigmsP derived from non-Trojan myth cycles: Lykourgos in Book 6 (6.130–140n.), Meleagros in Book 9 (9.524–605; see Hainsworth ad loc.), Zeus’ delusion on the occasion of Herakles’ birth in Book 19 (19.86b–138n., 19.95–133n.); see also Oehler 1925, esp. 5–31; Held 1987, esp. 245–247, 252  f., 254–256; Alden 2000, esp. 13–47; also 27–30n. (general bibliography on references to myths). On the post-Homeric use of the Niobe story (including at Sophocles Antigone 823  ff.), see Oehler loc. cit. 119  f.; Arnould 1990, 236–239. The argument functionP of the Niobe paradigm is twofold (cf. Davies 2006): (1) comfort in the fact that others (namely other parents) have previously suffered worse  – comparable exempla may be found e.g. in the first song of Gudrun in the Edda, where Gudrun is inconsolable at the death of Sigurd; (2) exhortation directed at Priam to interrupt his mourning and take a meal together with Achilleus now (Marino 1999, 25–33 goes further: the paradigm has a prescriptive effect on Priam’s planning of the funeral rite at 660  ff.; cf. 664–667n.). The fact that Achilleus underlines his invitation to eat with a paradigm, and immediately afterward begins preparing the meal (621n.), may be based on his concern that Priam might again decline the invitation (cf. 552–571 with n.; Beck 1964, 120). In addition, several key functionsP arise: on the one hand, Achilleus seals his guest-friendship with a meal typical of such scenes, thus casting himself in a conciliatory light (return to ‘normality’: 621–676n.), perhaps even with the realization that mourning excessively, as he himself did for Patroklos, should not become an end in itself (i.e. in a way he heeds Apollo’s warning at 46–52 without being aware of it; cf. already Achilleus’ speech at 518  ff., esp. 524, 550). Niobe’s fate, on the other hand, is used to characterize grief as a life-long companion, anticipating the subsequent storyline on the Trojan side (and thus the end of the Iliad): lament and grief will contin-

224 

 Iliad 24

ue to dominate (703  ff.), interrupted only at the very end by a meal (801  ff.). – Recent bibliography on the Niobe paradigm: Alden 2000, 26–29; Schmitz 2001; Heath 2005, 156–166; on ‘eternalized’ grief in particular: Seaford 1994, 174  f.; Lynn-George 1996, 15  f.; Mackie 1996, 161–163; somewhat differently Andersen 1987, 5  f. (key function: as e.g. at 525  f. or 547  f., the distance between gods and humans is also discussed in 610–612; similarly Heath loc. cit. 161  f., 164–166). On individual idiosyncracies of the Homeric Niobe paradigm: (1) The number of Niobe’s children (603  f.) varies widely in the mythic tradition; most often there are 10, 12, 14 or 20 children (ancient testimony for this in Roscher 1904, 44  f., and Erbse in his apparatus to schol. A on 604; on the varied representation of the Niobe myth in antiquity in general, see e.g. Bömer 1976, 47–53; BNP s.v. Niobe). In Homer, twelve is a typical numberP, e.g. twelve children of Aiolos at Od. 10.5  f., twelve sons of Neleus at Il. 11.692 (cf. 229– 234n.). Irrespective of the actual number, the focus here is on the conclusion a maiore ad minus: twelve children of Niobe as opposed to one son of Priam, cf. 602n., 603–604n. (Hebel 1970, 39  f.; Alden 2000, 27 n. 39). (2) The version according to which Zeus – whose name is perhaps merely a standin for the originator of an inexplicable event (cf. Jörgensen’s principleP) – had turned the populace to stone, so that the slain children lay unburied until the gods’ intervention (610–612), is unique. The petrification may be based on a transfer of motifs within the story: in the version that has become canonical (sketched out briefly at 614–617, in detail at e.g. Ovid Metamorphoses 6.146– 312), Zeus pities the mourning Niobe and places her in petrified form on Mount Sipylos in her native Lydia. The motif transfer is facilitated by the assimilation via a folk etymology of laós ‘people’ (on the plural: 1n.) to the phonetically similar láas ‘stone’ (so too by way of example in the myth of Deukalion: ‘Hes.’ fr. 234 M.-W.; cf. Leaf; Rank 1951, 101–103); on petrification as a common mythological motif in general, cf. 2.319 (snake in Aulis), Od. 13.163 (Phaiakian ship), etc. (Louden 2011, 307–309; 2.318n., end). The modification – apparently an ad hoc invention – serves to make the paradigm parallel with the storyline of the Iliad: like Hektor, Niobe’s children remain unburied for several days (the nineday mourning period for Hektor at 664 is similar), while the gods protect the bodies of both Niobe’s children and Hektor: Kakridis 1949, 99–102 (although with an overly broad parallelism of the paradigm and the Achilleus story, see Pötscher 1985/86, 24  f., and Schmitz 2001, 145  f.); Willcock 1964, 141  f., 147; Hebel 1970, 41  f.; Heath 2005, 159  f.; Macleod on 611 (on the modification, also loc. cit. on 614–617); cf. also 6.218–221n.; differently Pötscher loc. cit. 27– 31 (contamination of two traditional variants of the myth); on the fine line the

Commentary 

 225

narrator walks between tradition (the story must be recognizable in its basic outline) and innovation (the story must fit the current context) in general, see Friedrich 1975, 76  f.; Edmunds 1997, 420–422, 428; Scodel 2002, 22–26, 31. – On the chronology of events in Book 24, cf. 31n. (nine- and twelve-day periods); on the number nine, especially in funerary ritual, 664–667n. (3) The authenticity of 614–617 was questioned by the Alexandrian grammarians Aristophanes and Aristarchus, in part because the verses ridiculed Achilleus’ appeal to Priam: ‘eat, since also Niobe ate and turned to stone’ (schol. A; AH Anh.; in a similar sense also Kakridis 1949, 97  f.; Pearce 2008); additional arguments: geographical contradictions (Sistakou 2002, 160–162; cf. 615n. below on Sipylos and 616n. on Akelesios), a mythographical insertion causing disturbance in the ring-composition (thus e.g. Nestle 1942, 66  f. n. 3; Lohmann 1970, 13). On the structure, see both the scheme above (with parallel construction) and Willcock 1964, 142 n. 3 (‘mathematical exactness’ is not required; point (4) at 6.433–439n. is similar); in regard to the argument and key functions (see above) in particular, the continuation of mourning at a later date is a key element of Achilleus’ statement; in addition, both the allusion at 639 to 617 (‘to digest suffering’) and the references of later poets to this passage in the Iliad presuppose 614–617 (Leaf; Von der Mühll 1952, 384  f.; Beck 1964, 124  f.; van der Valk 1964, 385  f.; Rengakos 1993, 95  f.; Schmitz 2001, 151–153). 599 Achilleus fulfills Priam’s request (and thus implicitly Zeus’ orders: 75–76n.; cf. 560  f.). — is given back: a motif in Book 24 (76n.). The de facto ‘release’ has already taken place at 580–595 (see ad loc.), and its execution is now announced (Greek lélytai perfect).  

μὲν δή: ‘now’; in direct speechP (frequently at the beginning of the speech), stresses the execution or completion of an action or the fulfilment of a wish: 3.457 νίκη μὲν δὴ φαίνετ’ … Μενελάου, Od. 21.207 ἔνδον μὲν δὴ ὅδ’ αὐτὸς ἐγώ (sc. Odysseus), Sappho fr. 112.1  f. Voigt σοὶ μὲν δὴ γάμος ὠς ἄραο ἐκτετέλεστ(αι). An exhortation (developing the action) sometimes follows with νῦν δέ, ἀλλ’ ἄγε vel sim., here at 601 νῦν δὲ μνησώμεθα δόρπου (examples in AH, also Il. 3.457  f., 17.708–712, Od. 23.257–261); similarly 650/656 (650n.). — ὡς ἐκέλευες: an inflectible VE formula (also in the aor.), in total 5× Il., 10× Od., 1× h.Cer.; cf. ὡς σὺ κελεύεις 669n. – Aside from ‘order’, κελεύω (‘direct, bid’) can also be used in a weakened sense in early epic: ‘request, urge, beg’, etc., cf. LfgrE s.v. On the (not unusual) impf. of a verb of speaking, see Schw. 2.277  f. with earlier bibliography; Chantr. 2.192  f.

599 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

226 

 Iliad 24

600 1st VH ≈ 4.143; 2nd VH = 9.618, Od. 12.24, 15.396, h.Cer. 293; ≈ 2× Il., 4× Od. (ἅμ’ ἠοῖ φ.). — On the postponement of the reunion of father and son, see 582–586n.; on the phrasing ἅμα δ’ ἠοῖ … | ὄψεαι, cf. 8.470  f. ἠοῦς δὴ καὶ μάλλον … | ὄψεαι.   601 2nd VH ≈ 19.148 (χάρμης), 15.477, Od. 22.73 (ἀλλὰ μν. χάρμης), 20.246 (ἀλλὰ μν. δαιτός). — νῦν δέ: 599n. (μὲν δή). — μνησώμεθα: 129n. — δόρπου: the contextually relevant ‘evening meal’, in contrast to the general σίτου in the paradigm (602, 613, 619).   602 καὶ γάρ τ(ε): καὶ γάρ introduces exempla of all kinds, especially mythological paradigmsP (e.g. also in the myth of Meleagros at 9.533 and the Zeus/Herakles myth at 19.95; in post-Homeric literature at Pindar Ol. 7.27; Bacchylides Epin. 5.97), see 2.377n. and Edmunds 2006, 24; similarly 2.292–294n. (a conclusion a maiore ad minus, which is also present here). – τε in a concrete, quasi-historical description is striking and is explained by the mythological, generalizing context (Denniston 531; Ruijgh 738); differently Chantr. 2.343 (‘a potential and contingent force’ [transl.]). — ἠΰκομος: 466n.   603–604 ≈ Od. 10.5  f. (Aiolos). — τῇ περ: περ in the relative clause reinforces the conclusion a maiore ad minus: ‘also Niobe, who even lost twelve children’ (whereas at issue here is one dead son, Hektor): Bakker 1988, 79  f. – On the dat. of possession, Schw. 2.147  f.; Chantr. 2.71  f. — παῖδες ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν: ἐνὶ μεγ. underscores the children’s affiliation with the family, cf. 497, 539 and esp. 6.421 (Achilleus kills Andromache’s seven brothers); additional passages: LfgrE s.vv. παῖς 934.2  ff., τίκτω 512.20  ff. On the emotional shading of ἐνὶ μεγ. in general, 208b–209a  n. — ἓξ μὲν  …, ἓξ δ(έ): On the numerical anaphora (here in a parallel sequence), cf. 229–234n.     

605–609 ‘Greek mythology abounds in stories of mortals who dared to compete with the gods in battles and competitions’: 6.130–140n. (with the examples from the Iliad); on the Odyssey, see de Jong on Od. 8.223–228 (on the phrasing here ‘Apollo killed out of anger, because …’, cf. esp. Od. 8.227  f.); also the Cypria: Procl. Chrest. § 8 West. – Apollo (CG 5) and Artemis (CG 7) here act primarily as the children of the affected Leto (CG 18), but because of their arrows are elsewhere also considered to be the originators of a sudden (or easy) death (Od. 15.409–411), Apollo particularly for men (758  f., Od. 3.279  f.), Artemis for women (Od. 5.123  f., 11.172  f./198  f.); see also 6.205n., 19.59n. (with bibliography).

600 λεχέεσσ(ι): on the inflection, R 11.3. — ἠοῖ: dat. of ἠώς ‘dawn’ (Attic ἕως). — φαινομένηφιν: fem. dat. sing. (R 11.4). 601 ὄψεαι: = ὄψῃ, sc. ‘your son’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 602 καὶ γάρ τ(ε): ‘since also …’; on the ‘epic τε’, R 24.11. — ἠΰκομος: initial syllable metrically lengthened (< εὐ-): R 10.1. — Νιόβη ἐμνήσατο: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 603 τῇ: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισιν: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the inflection, R 11.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1). — ὄλοντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 604 θυγατέρες, (ϝ)έξ: on the prosody, R 4.5. — θυγατέρες: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — υἱέες: on the inflection, R 12.3. — ἡβώοντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

Commentary 

 227

605 2nd VH ≈ Il. 1.49. — sons: In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP, Achilleus continues with the group of persons mentioned second in 604 (schol. A; cf. 58n.).  

πέφνεν: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of θείνω ‘kill’, cf. 254n. (πεφάσθαι). — ἀπ’ ἀργυρέοιο βιοῖο: ablatival gen. (point of departure > means): Schw. 2.446  f.; Chantr. 2.94; the same expression is also found at verse 12 of the Certamen § 9 West, the gen. alone (without ἀπό) at Il. 1.49. – Cf. Apollo’s attribute ἀργυρότοξος ‘with a silver bow’ (1.37n.); on βιός ‘bow’, 1.49n. – Variant: (ἀπὸ) κρατεροῖο βιοῖο at Od. 24.170, h.Ap. 301.

606 Ἄρτεμις ἰοχέαιρα: an inflectible noun-epithet formula; ἰοχέαιρα is a distinctive epithetP of Artemis (see 6.428n.).  

607 of the fair colouring: a generic epithet of women and goddesses (1.143n.), always at VE in Homer.  

ἰσάσκετο: on the form and meaning, see LfgrE s.v. ἰσάζω with bibliography: ‘she had (repeatedly) compared herself to’; also Kimball 2014, esp. 171  ff.

608–609 One of the ‘rhetorically most expressive passages in all of epic’ (Fehling 1969, 282): antitheses ‘two – many’, ‘two – all’ (the second antithesis is further intensified by compression into one syntactic unit); antithesis ‘give birth to (2×) – kill’ (Greek ólessan ‘put to death’ corresponds to ólonto ‘were killed’ in 603). The two verses are not lacking in a certain amount of sarcasm (Macleod speaks of ‘a note of grim pathos’): Niobe’s boast (608) is juxtaposed with the ease with which Leto’s children execute the revenge (609).  

The change in construction at 608, from the inf. τεκέειν (indirect speech) to the finite verb γείνατο, corresponds to the transition from dependent to independent speech that is not uncommon in Greek: Wackernagel 1916, 167; Macleod on 608; on this in general, Fränkel (1924) 1960, 80  f.; Slings 1994, 411–413.

609 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.81.   610–612 On the version of the myth here and its parallels with the action of the Iliad, see 599–620n., section (2).

605 τούς: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἀργυρέοιο: on the inflection, R 11.2. 606 τὰς δ(έ): sc. θυγατέρας. 607 οὕνεκ(α): crasis of οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘therefore, because’. — ἄρα (Λ)Λητοῖ (ϝ)ισάσκετο: on the prosody, M 4.6 and R 4.4. — ἄρα: ‘as is well known’ (R 24.1), likewise at 609. — ἰσάσκετο: from ἰσάζομαι ‘liken oneself, compare oneself’; iterative form (R 16.5). 608 φῆ: = ἔφη; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — δοιώ: acc. dual, ≈ δύο; here ‘〈only〉 two’. — τεκέειν: sc. Leto as the subject acc.; on the form, R 8 and 16.4. — ἥ: = Niobe; anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — γείνατο: transitive aor., ‘give birth to’. 609 τώ: nom. dual of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — καὶ … περ: concessive. — ἐόντ’: = ἐόντε (dual of the part. of εἰμί, cf. R 16.6). — ἀπὸ … ὄλεσσαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

228 

 Iliad 24

610 οἳ μὲν ἄρ’ ἐννῆμαρ …: a summaryP with a specification of time, using a typical numberP, see 31n., 1.53n. (nine- and twelve-day periods). — ἐν φόνῳ: here the ‘place of the slaughter, site of the killing’ (schol. bT; LfgrE]); somewhat differently, Ebeling s.v. and Porzig 1942, 252  f.: ‘(they lay) in their blood’.   611 δέ: in the sense of γάρ, ‘for, since’ (90b–91n.).   612 θεοὶ οὐρανίωνες: a VE formula (3× Il., 3× Od.; cf. 547n.).   613 The link with 602 in the form of a ring-compositionP is achieved via a chiastic structure: ἐμνήσατο σίτου / σίτου μνήσατ(ο); cf. 801n. — δάκρυ χέουσα: an inflectible VE formula, cf. 745 and 786 (in total 15× Il., 13× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’); variants: 9n.  

614–617 On the function of these verses, see 599–620n., section (3).  

που: either local ‘somewhere’ (thus LfgrE s.v. 1504.57  ff.) or modal ‘I suppose, probably’ (on which, 488n.). — ἐν πέτρῃσιν, ἐν οὔρεσιν …, | ἐν Σιπύλῳ, ὅθι …: a tripartite geographical description with increasing precision (similarly at 479; see ad loc.); the intensification is made formally clear via the anaphora of ἐν, cf. 22.503  f., Hes. Th. 483  f. (Beck 1964, 119  f.; Macleod on 614–15). In addition, the embellished description of Sipylos as the supposed dwelling place of the vivacious nymphs (615  f.) represents a contrasting foil to the petrified Niobe’s loneliness (614, 617). – On Achilleus’ predilection for geographical details, see 544–545n. and Richardson ad loc. (p. 342). Local knowledge of western Asia Minor (especially the Ionic-Aeolic areas) appears repeatedly in the Iliad (2.145n.; Scully 1990, 92).

614 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.574 (ἐν οἰοπόλοισιν ὄρεσσι); cf. the metrically equivalent VE ἐν οὔρεσιν ὑψηλοῖσιν 2× h.Ven. (Faulkner on h.Ven. 160). — οἰοπόλοισιν: ‘abandoned, lonely’ (19.377n.).

615 ≈ 2.783 (see ad loc.). — Sipylos: according to classical tradition, a Lydian mountain range extending from Smyrna to the north-east along the river Hermos, the modern Sipil Dagi or Manisa Daği (named for the nearby ancient city of Magnesia, modern Manisa). Attempts have been made since antiquity (e.g. Pausanias 1.21.3) to interpret certain rock formations there, namely a relief, as Niobe, see Leaf on 614–617; BNP s.v. Sipylus with bibliography; Taplin 2002, 25  f. — they say: Impersonal phasí ‘they say, it is said’ marks facts known

610 κέατ(ο): = ἔκειντο (R 16.1–2). — οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6). 611 κατθάψαι: = καταθάψαι (R 20.1); final-consecutive inf. — λαούς: ‘people, populace, fellow citizens’. — Κρονίων: ‘son of Kronos’ = Zeus. 612 τῇ δεκάτῃ: sc. ἡμέρᾳ. 613 ἣ δ(έ): = Niobe. — κάμε: aor. of κάμνω, with part. ‘tire of, cease (to do something)’. — δάκρυ: collective sing. 614 πέτρῃσιν: on the inflection, R 11.1. — οὔρεσιν: from ὄρος ‘mountain, mountain range’; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary 

 229

or acknowledged generally (i.e. not just from personal observation) (2.783n. with bibliography; also Stoddard 2004, 49–51).   616 nymphs: Mountains and rivers/springs as dwelling places, as well as dance and play as occupations, are typical of nymphs: Od. 6.122–124 (with Hainsworth on 123  f.), Hes. Th. 129  f. (with West on 130), h.Ven. 257–263. On the nymphs in detail, Larson 2001, esp. 8  ff. (landscape), 20  ff. (early epic), 98  ff. (Acheloos), 198  ff. (Lydia); cf. also the structure of the lemma in LfgrE. — [Acheloios] Akelēsios: The name, reconstructed by West (see app. crit.) on the basis of information in ancient grammarians and geographers, is that of a river that supposedly rises on Mt. Sipylos and whose nymphs are explicitly mentioned by Panyassis (fr. 23 West); on the ending, cf. Titarḗsios at Il. 2.751 (details in West 2001, 280; also schol. A and T on 616; LfgrE s.vv. Achélēs, Achelḗtis, Achelṓïos). The rather obscure name must have been gradually replaced during the transmission of the text by Achelṓïos, which is attested uniformly in the mss. – Achelōos is one of the major rivers of Greece (location: north-western Greece), but other, smaller rivers also bear the name (cf. 21.194 with Richardson ad loc.; Macleod).  

ἐρρώσαντο: In descriptions of typical or repeated mythical actions (especially by nymphs, Muses or gods), the present, aorist and other tenses are often used concurrently (here aor. ἐρρώσαντο beside pres. πέσσει; similar combinations at e.g. 527–533, Hes. Th. 1  ff., h.Ap. 1  ff., h.Ven. 1  ff., 257  ff.). In these cases, the aorist gains a timeless sense, as in similes, which is often, as here, reinforced by the generalizing ‘epic τε’ (Ruijgh 412  f.: gnomic aor.; West on Hes. Th. 7: ‘timeless’; Faulkner 2005: ‘omnitemporal’; cf. Schw. 2.283–286; McKay 1988; somewhat differently, Bakker [2002] 2005, 138  f., 145–149: the aorist is ‘perceptual’ [76], i.e. it describes in a broader sense ‘something present, happening right before the poet’s mind’s eye’ [73]). – ῥώομαι literally means ‘perform wavelike movements’, here ‘dance’ (again of the nymphs at h.Ven. 261; of the Muses at Hes. Th. 8; in both cases in the aor.), see LfgrE.  

617 θεῶν ἔκ: to be taken as attributive with κήδεα: ‘the sorrow caused by the gods’ (schol. D; Peppmüller; Macleod). — κήδεα πέσσει: likewise at 639 κήδεα μυρία πέσσω (linked with the present passage, see ad loc.), χόλον θυμαλγέα πέσσει at 4.513 ≈ 9.565 is similar. On the metaphorical use of πέσσειν ‘to digest’ in the sense ‘having to digest something’, see 2.237n. with bibliography; also Spanoudakis 2002, 159  f., 179  f.; LfgrE. The use is particularly pointed here in connection with an actual meal. Other verbs used

615 Σιπύλῳ, ὅθι: on the hiatus, R 5.6; ὅθι = ‘where’ (R 15.2). — θεάων: on the inflection, R 11.1. — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). 616 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 617 ἔνθα: picks up ἐν πέτρῃσιν …: ‘since (therefore)’. — ἐοῦσα: = οὖσα (R 16.6). — θεῶν ἔκ: = ἐκ θεῶν (R 20.2). — κήδεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

230 

 Iliad 24

with κήδεα in Homer: ἔχειν, ἀνέχεσθαι, ἀναπίμπλημι (in the sense ‘fulfil the lot of one’s life’), ἀνατλῆναι. 618 1st VH to caesura C 2 = 4.418, 5.718, where with VE θούριδος ἀλκῆς, here bridged by (the unique) δῖε γεραιέ, the gen. object σίτου following in enjambmentP in 619.  

619 afterwards: The argument ‘let us now do this and that (here at 618); other things we can do later/a different time’ (with potential optative or concessive future) occurs frequently in Homer (e.g. 6.68–71, 7.29  f. [with AH ad loc.], 23.7–11, 24.716  f., Od. 12.291–293). In addition, the statement ‘you may continue to mourn afterward’ represents a parallel to the Niobe paradigm: ‘she is now mourning again’ (614–617; see Peppmüller on 613; cf. the scheme at 599– 620n.).   620 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.404, h.Cer. 220. — πολυδάκρυτος δέ τοι ἔσται: lends weight to ἔπειτά κεν  … κλαίοισθα (619) (variatio of the expression via δακρυ- and κλα(ϝ)-, as at e.g. 1.360/362, 24.712/714). πολυδάκρυτος ‘much cried-for’ perhaps comprises a double reference (one objective, the other subjective): (a) Hektor will receive proper burial rites, (b) Priam will be able to sate his need for mourning (cf. τάρφθη πολυδακρύτοιο γόοιο Od. 19.213, etc. [on τέρπομαι γόοιο, see 513n.]): Nagler 1974, 195 n. 32.  

621–676 Via the meal shared with Priam and his night’s rest with Briseïs, Achilleus returns to ‘normality’ from his mourning, after the refusal of nournishment, sleep and sexuality that had largely dominated his life since Patroklos’ death (see 3n. with bibliography); mutatis mutandis, this also applies to Priam after Hektor’s death (637–642). What is more, the shared meal results in a particular emotional closeness between the two main characters (629–632; cf. also 541n.) and agreement to a truce for the duration of the mourning period (669  f.). On this mediatory and conciliatory function of meals in Homer (also in this sense at 19.179  f.; see ad loc.) in a somewhat broader context, see Foley 1991, 174–189; 1999, 171–174 and 271–273; this function is all the more clear given that Achilleus has actually just eaten (472–476 with n.; Richardson on 601). 621–628 As is the case here, the type-sceneP ‘meal’ frequently forms part of the type-scene ‘visit’ (477–478n.) and shows numerous variants (cf. 622n., 623–624n.); where the preparation of the meat is described in extenso (i.e. with emphasis on the correct procedure), as here (621–624), it partially corresponds to the type-scene ‘sacrifice’ (which likewise concludes with a meal, cf. 1.447–468n. and 125n.; Hitch 2009, 56–58; on the details of the preparation of

618 ἄγε: 522n. — νῶϊ: ‘both of us’, nom. dual of the 1st person personal pronoun. 619 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — κλαίοισθα: on the inflection, R 16.2. 620 Ἴλιον: acc. of direction — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 231

meat, Bruns 1970, 46–49). The basic elements are: (1) preparations (including slaughtering the animal, cutting up the meat, skewering and roasting; common in the Odyssey: washing hands, setting out tables; the latter is omitted here, since the table is still there: 476 [see 472–476n., end]); (2) serving the food (and pouring wine): 625  f.; (3) consuming the meal (usually only a single verse: 627n.); (4) conclusion of the meal and transition to conversation: 628 (the continuation of the conversation is here delayed by 629–632; cf. Edwards 1980, 21  f.). Bibliography: Arend 1933, 64, 68–75; Gunn 1971, 22–31; Reece 1993, 22–25; Bettenworth 2004, 45–143, 527 (scheme); de Jong on Od. 15.135–43. 621 VB =  440; ≈ 3.369. — Homeric paradigmsP frequently evoke an immediate response from the addressee (Minchin 2001, 204  f.): here this happens only at 639 (see ad loc.). Achilleus instead begins at once to prepare the meal, without waiting for Priam’s reply – perhaps in order to preempt a rejection of his invitation: 599–620n. (on the argument function of the Niobe paradigm); cf. Kurz 1966, 76 (transl.): ‘leap up’ denotes ‘an internal agitation’ (cf. 572 ‘leapt like a lion’) or action ‘in order to steer past the tense atmosphere’ (as in the case of Hephaistos at 1.584  f.).  

ἦ, καί: a speech capping formulaP (302n.). — ὄϊν: ‘sheep’, cf. 125n. — ἄργυφον: ‘bright, white(ish)’ (schol. D; LfgrE), cf. ἄργυφα μῆλα Od. 10.85. The word contains the same root as ἀργός (211n.), ἀργεννός (at Il. 3.198 similarly of sheep, see 3.141n.) and ἄργυρος, Latin argentum ‘silver’ (Risch [1968] 1981, 165; on the suffix -φο-, cf. Chantraine 1933, 262– 264; Risch 171; differently ChronEG 10 s.v. ἄργυρος: a compound with ὑφή, i.e. ‘of white cloth’). Epithets of sheep usually refer to the quality (e.g. 125 λάσιος) or color of the coat; in the Iliad, the latter is usually white (6.424, 18.529), less frequently black (10.215); cf. 3.103–104n. on the color of sacrificial animals. — ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς: an abbreviated form of the more common VE formula πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς (19.295–297a  n. [short form] and 138n. [long form; there also on the significance of Achilleus’ swiftness]).

622 VE = 10.472 (see Danek 1988, 152, on the use of the formula). — σφάξ’ … ἔδερόν τε καὶ ἄμφεπον: The same sequence ‘(1) slaughter, (2) skinning, (3) preparation’ with a partially identical formulation at 7.314/316; only (1) and (2) at 1.459, etc.; (1) and (3) at 18.559; (2) and (3) at 23.167, Od. 8.61, 19.421.   623–624 = 7.317  f.; ≈ Od. 19.422  f.; in addition, 624 = 1.466, etc. (see ad loc.). — 623 is formulaic in meal scenes with no separately described sacrifice, in contrast to μίστυλλόν τ’ ἄρα τἄλλα (sc. what has not been burnt as sacrificial meat) καὶ ἀμφ’ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν in meal scenes with a preceding sacrifice (1.465, etc.; see ad loc.): Gunn 1971, 28 (considers the present verse to be an adaptation: replacement of τἄλλα, which is inappropriate in this context); Reece 1993, 157 n. 17 (considers the present verse old for linguistic rea-

621 ἦ: 596n. — ὄϊν: from ὄϊς ‘sheep’ (Lat. ovis). 622 ἕταροι: = ἑταῖροι. — ἄμφεπον: from ἀμφιέπω ‘attend to, carry out’, here ‘prepare’.

232 

 Iliad 24

sons). — ἐπισταμένως: ‘knowledgably, comme il faut’ (LfgrE), cf. περιφραδέως in the same position in the following verse (also in the iterata), as well as 622 εὖ κατὰ κόσμον. On the emphasis on diligence in such scenes, see Lynn-George 1996, 17.

624 = 1.466, etc. (see ad loc.). 625–626 ≈ 9.216  f. (and 627  f. = 9.221  f.); also 1st VH of 626 = Od. 20.255. — After 474 and 574  f. (see ad loc.), Automedon’s assistance in place of Patroklos (9.216) is mentioned once again: Mueller (1984) 2009, 161; Clark 1997, 225–227. – The master of the household himself cuts a fitting piece of meat for his guest and/ or serves it: 7.321  f. (Agamemnon for Aias), 9.209/217 (Achilleus for the envoys), Od. 4.65  f. (Menelaos for Telemachos), 14.437  f. (Eumaios for Odysseus), also (with different roles) 8.474  f. (Odysseus for Demodokos). But the task can also be fulfilled entirely by servants (Od. 15.321–324, 16.253).  

σῖτον: concrete, probably =  ‘bread’ as the most important accompaniment for meat: LfgrE s.v.; κανέον accordingly denotes the bread basket (for details, see LfgrE s.v.).  

627 = 9.91, 9.221 and 11× Od. (usually followed by the formulaic verse 628); VE ≈ Od. 9.288. — A formulaic verse describing the partaking of the meal (element 3 of the type-scene [621–628n.]). On this and the function of 627  f. in the composition of meal scenes in general, see Latacz (1979) 1994, 22–26. – Slightly less frequent is the functionally equivalent formulaic verse at 1.468 (see ad loc.).

ἑτοῖμα: ‘prepared, ready’, not in the sense ‘finished’ but instead ‘available, present’ (LfgrE; DELG); beside this, προκείμενα is likely to be understood pregnantly as a passive of προτίθημι ‘put before, serve’.

628 = 1.469, 2.432, 7.323, 9.92, 9.222, 23.57, also 14× Od., 1× h.Ap. — On the linguistic particulars, see 1.469n.; on the probable great antiquity of the verse, West 1988, 164.   629–632 At the apex of an encounter, two characters pause in silence and/or admiration (cf. AH on 629): Od. 23.88–95 (Penelope and Odysseus), Herodotus 1.88.1 (Kyros and Kroisos; on which, see Pelling 2006, 85  f.), Apollonius Rhodius 3.967–972 and Valerius Flaccus 5.373–377 (Medea and Iason), Livy 30.30 (Hannibal and Scipio: paulisper alter alterius conspectu, admiratione mu­ tua prope attoniti, conticuere). Here the motif picks up 480–484 (‘wonder’) by

625 ἐπένειμε: from ἐπι-νέμω ‘apportion, distribute, serve’. — τραπέζῃ: specification of location without preposition (R 19.2). 626 ἀτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2), here slightly adversative (≈ ‘while’). 627 ὀνείαθ’: = ὀνείατα, from ὄνειαρ ‘dish’ (367n.). 628 αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (progressive: R 24.2). — πόσιος: on the inflection, R 11.3. — 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 rather than ἔρως, -ωτος, here in the general meaning ‘desire’.

Commentary 

 233

way of contrast and signals ‘human greatness, to which Achilleus and Priam approach in recognition of the lawfulness of all human things’ (Kullmann [1968] 2001, 405 (transl.); similarly Grethlein 2006, 300  f.; cf. also Taplin 1992, 277). – On the high stylistic quality of the verse, see Deichgräber 1972, 73  f.; cf. 629n., 632n. 629 ≈ 631. The parallelism in the word order in both verses (with chiasmus in the grammatical connections) formally reflects the settlement reached and the mutual admiration between Priam and Achilleus.  

ἤτοι: 48n. — Δαρδανίδης Πρίαμος: 171n.

630 2nd VH ≈ h.Cer. 241. — he seemed like an outright vision | of gods: Comparisons with gods serve to glorify a character (2.478–479n.), here possibly in secondary focalizationP by Priam, cf. Telemachos’ amazement at godlike Odysseus at Od. 24.370  f.  

ὅσσος ἔην οἷός τε: either purely outwardly of Achilleus’ god-like appearance, i.e. ‘how tall and how beautiful’, cf. 21.108 (Achilleus on himself): οἷος καὶ ἐγὼ καλός τε μέγας τε (thus schol. bT; AH; Richardson), or ‘how tall and of what kind’, i.e. οἷος in the sense ‘how outstanding, how proficient’ (of any heroic virtue), cf. the comparable formulation at 2.120 and 5.758 (of the λαός) as well as the VE formula ἠΰς τε μέγας τε (477n.), and the combination of appearance and rhetorical skill at 632 (Marg 1938, 58  f.; Deichgräber 1972, 74; on the linking of external and internal merits, see 376–377n.). On οἷος as a word from character languageP, cf. 376n. — ἄντα ἐῴκει: ἄντα is originally the acc. of a root noun meaning ‘face’, here and at h.Cer. 241 either as an acc. of respect (thus Wachter 2001, 286  f.) or, as elsewhere in early epic, ossified as an adverb (and then abbreviated in place of (ἐσ)άντα ἰδέσθαι/ἰδεῖν ‘for one who looks closely’: LfgrE s.v. ἄντα 915.22  ff. with bibliography); similarly εἰς ὦπα ἔοικεν at 3.158n.

631 ≈ 629.  

  

632 ἀγαθήν: The attribute placed in the middle of the chiastically arranged verse is mentally taken with μῦθον as well: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ (schol. bT; hence perhaps also the unusual position of τε: Ruijgh 205); on the expression, cf. 9.627 μῦθον  … οὐκ ἀγαθόν, but there merely of the ‘bad news’. ἀγαθός here probably reflects Priam’s ‘noble’ manner as an equivalent of Achilleus’ ‘likeness to a god’ at 630, cf. Priam’s epithet θεοειδής at 217n. (Hoffmann 1914, 72 n. 1; Yamagata 1994, 191; LfgrE s.v. ἀγαθός 27.24  ff.). — μῦθον ἀκούων: an inflectible VE formula (3.76n.). Unusually, μῦθος here may not aim at a particular speech or speech intention (especially given that the portrayal of the meal scene manages without direct speechP, unless one adds a conversation on the level of thought:

629 Ἀχιλῆα: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1. 630 ὅσσος: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). — ἄντα (ϝ)ε(ϝ)ῴκει: on the prosody, R 4.3. 631 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), to which Ἀχιλλεύς is in apposition. 632 εἰσορόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

234 

 Iliad 24

gapP [in this sense, Macleod]), but rather at Priam’s ‘manner of speaking, eloquence’, which he demonstrated at e.g. 486–506 (Eust. 1369.9  ff.: ἡ ἐν μύθοις δεξιότης; LfgrE s.v. μῦθος 275.62: ‘way of speaking’; cf. 201–202n. on Priam’s abilities).

633–676 Achilleus grants his guest a bed for the night at the request of the latter and promises a truce for the duration of Hektor’s funeral. Night rest. 633 1st VH = Od. 4.47, 10.181 (with 2nd VH ὁρώμενοι ὀφθαλμοῖσι(ν)), 5.201 (with 2nd VH ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος); ≈ Il. 11.780 (likewise); 2nd VH =  Od. 20.373. — τάρπησαν  … ὁρόωντες: on τάρπησαν, cf. 3n., here of ‘aesthetic pleasure’ (Latacz 1966, 190; cf. 19.18–19n.); the sense is similar to English ‘feast one’s eyes upon’. 634 2nd VH = 217 etc. (see ad loc.). — τὸν πρότερος προσέειπε: a VB formula (10× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’; for further details, see 6.122n.); marks the beginning of a conversation or, as here, its resumption after an interruption (Edwards 1970, 8  f.; cf. 369n.).  

635–676 Overview of the iterata: Iliad 24

Iliad 9

Odyssey 3

Odyssey 4

Odyssey 7

Odyssey 23 Od. (var.)

635

VE = 4.294

VE=23.254

636

= 4.295

= 23.255

643

≈ 9.658 (Patroklos)

2nd VH ≈ 4.296

2nd VH ≈ 15.93

644 645 = 4.297–300= 7.336–339

646 647 648

2nd VH ≈ 23.294 ≈ 9.659

1st VH ≈ 4.301

673

≈ 7.340

= 22.497

≈ 23.291

= 4.302

675

= 9.663

676

cf. 9.664

≈ 3.402

≈ 4.304

≈ 7.346

cf. 4.305

When the visit of a guest (type-sceneP ‘visit’, 477–478n.) continues into the night, the evening meal (and some additional conversation if necessary) can be followed by the type-scene ‘overnight stay’ (thus also at 9.658–668, Od. 634 προσέειπε: < προσέ(ϝ)ειπε (R 6).

Commentary 

 235

4.294–306, 7.335–8.1, etc.): (1) the host invites the guest (or guests) to remain overnight (Il. 9.617  f., Od. 7.318  f.) or the guest requests a place to sleep (635– 642), as here and at Od. 4.294  f.; (2) the other individuals present retire to bed; (3) the host issues the order to prepare a bed for the guest (643–646); (4) the order is carried out (647  f.); (5) the guest is invited to go to bed (649–655), and (6) lies down (often with a specification of the room: 673  f.); (7) the host sleeps in the inner part of the house with his wife or concubine (675  f.; on the function of the present version, see 673–676n.); (8) the next day dawns (695; cf. element 9 of the type-scene ‘dream’: 677–695n., end). – Here, element 5 is expanded (preparation for the departure at night, agreement to the truce: 649– 658n.), and element 8 is delayed (Priam must rise again before daybreak). – Bibliography: Arend 1933, 99  ff., esp. 101–105 and plate 8 / diagram 12; Gunn 1971, 17–22; Edwards 1992, 307  f.; Reece 1993, 31–33; de Jong on Od. 3.396–403; cf. also Reinhardt 1961, 498–504 (in the present context, the type-scene has a pregnant function within the narrative: ‘culmination of a conciliation’ [loc. cit. 502 (transl.)]; see 621–676n.). 635–642 In Priam’s speech, the narrator once more reveals the close ‘kinship in suffering’ between Priam and Achilleus: their deep grief, as well as their refusal of food, drink and sleep (cf. 3n., 621–676n.). ‘The two men have shared their grief; they now also share their return to normal life’: Macleod on 637–642.

τάχιστα: 263n.

635b–636 = Od. 4.294  f. (Telemachos and Peisistratos), 23.254  f. (Odysseus and Penelope); in all the passages, the transmission vacillates between pl. κοιμηθέντες and dual -θέντε (here of Priam and Idaios: 648, 673  f. [Peppmüller; differently Gemoll 1883, 93  f.: Priam and Achilleus]; similarly VE εὐνηθέντε(ς) at Il. 3.441, 14.314, Od. 8.292); also 2nd VH of 635 ≈ 553. — διοτρεφές: 553n. — ὄφρα καί: Although καί after ὄφρα is elsewhere always used pregnantly (e.g. at 6.230  f. ‘so that also they recognize …’), here it probably instead underscores the connection between the main and subordinate clauses, as occasionally in relative clauses (1.249n.) (Leaf: ‘continuative or explicative sense’; thus perhaps also in the controversial passage at Od. 23.171, cf. the discussion in Heubeck on Od. 23.168–172). The v.l. ὄφρα κεν is unlikely, given that final ὄφρα is only rarely accompanied by a modal particle (Chantr. 2.270; Wathelet 1999, 379  f.). — ὕπνῳ ὕπο …: locative with κοιμηθέντε, corresponding to the Homeric concept of sleep as a cover or wrapping, cf. 2.19n. (Leaf; Latacz 1966, 187). The sentence is ‘a poetic circumlocution for «so that we may sleep sufficiently and wake satisfied»’: Latacz loc. cit. (transl.); on ταρπώμεθα, cf. 3n. — γλυκερῷ: 3n.  

635 λέξον: 2nd pers. sing. imper. aor. act. of λέξασθαι ‘lay (down), go to bed’, here causative ‘bring to bed, give a bed, let sleep’. — ὄφρα (+ subjunc.): ‘so that’ (R 22.5). 636 ὕπνῳ ὕπο: = ὑφ’ ὕπνῳ (R 20.2). — κοιμηθέντε: dual.

236 

 Iliad 24

637–638 A chiastic antithesis: predicate – subject – ὑπὸ βλεφάροισιν – ἐμοῖσιν || σῇς – ὑπὸ χερσίν – subject – predicate (Macleod; Richardson). — ὄσσε ὑπό: On the hiatus, see 264n.  

638 ≈ 10.452. — beneath your hands: On the formulaic phrase ‘beneath someone’s hands’, see 168n. The emphasis on Achilleus’ hands here may recall not only the killing of Hektor but also the beginning of the hikesia – which in the meantime has proved successful – where Priam kissed Achilleus’ hands (depicted emphatically at 478  f. and phrased in Priam’s own words at 505  f.; see ad loc.): Martinazzoli.  

ἐξ οὗ: A look back to a key moment in the action (more or less distant in the past) suggests that an end to the state of affairs ongoing since that time (here sleeplessness) is at hand, cf. 765–775 (Kelly 2007, 286  f.). — ὤλεσε θυμόν: VE = 11.342, 20.412 (cf. the VE formula θυμὸν ὀλέσσῃ 1.205n.); similar phrasing: ψυχὰς ὀλέσαντες (168; see ad loc.).

639 1st VH ≈ 19.132. — Via the literal allusion to 617 (Niobe mourning), Priam acknowledges the aptness of Niobe as an model (posited by Achilleus) for his own fate (cf. Schein 1984, 161  f.), as he also does by stating at 641  f. that he has now eaten again for the first time. But he claims other aspects of Niobe’s experience to an even greater degree: ‘I sigh incessantly’, ‘thousand-fold suffering’ (cf. Beck 1964, 126 [transl.]: ‘the present tense [gains] an apodeictic-final aspect; it remains valid forever, like Niobe’s mourning above’). The period of mourning has been at least temporarily interrupted (cf. 619 with n.): whereas Niobe ‘is mourning now’ (614–617), Priam has ‘now eaten’ (641  f.): ‘the temporal sequence is inverted so as to produce a sense of closure implicitly contrasted to her [i.e. Niobe’s] open-ended sorrows’ (Holmes 2007, 76  f.).   640 1st VH ≈ 11.774; 2nd VH = 22.414 (Priam immediately after the death of Hektor and the dragging of the corpse). — Priam’s own statement underscores the pathos of the speech and corresponds to the description at 162–165; on the gesture of mourning, see 164n.      641 Cf. 639n. — νῦν δή: ‘only now, now finally’ (Peppmüller; AH; cf. Denniston 206  f.). Priam’s fasting had thus far been implicit (cf. 621–676n.). — καὶ  … καί: A correlative function of καὶ  … καί (‘both  … and’) cannot be safely assumed for Homeric epic; the first καί instead probably carries the original meaning ‘also’ (Peppmüller; Schw. 2.567

637 ὄσσε: ‘eyes’ (dual). 638 σῇς: = σαῖς (R 11.1). 639 αἰεί: = ἀεί. 640 χόρτοισι: ‘pen, enclosure’ (related to Latin hortus, English ‘garden’). 641 πασάμην: ‘partake (of food or drink)’ (the present πατέομαι is not attested in Homer); cf. 642 πεπάσμην (plpf.). — αἴθοπα (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 237

n. 4 with bibliography). Here it creates a link to the other fundamental human need – sleep (635  ff.) – whereas the second καί connects the two predicates of the present clause (Faesi; somewhat differently Denniston 322/324: the first καί emphatic, ‘I have tasted’). — αἴθοπα οἶνον: αἴθ. οἶνον is an inflectible VE formula (acc.: 8× Il., 8× Od., 1× Hes.; dat.: 3× Il., including 791); the meaning of αἶθοψ (used inter alia of metals) is disputed: ‘ember-colored’? ‘gleaming, glittering’? (cf. 233n.; Hainsworth on Od. 7.295; Beekes 1995/96, 15–17, 25; a summary of earlier scholarship in Dürbeck 1977, 177–180). καὶ αἴθοπα οἶνον: καί without correption before the vowel is comparatively rare in Homer (60n.; at caesura C 2, such hiatuses without correption are unusual: Ahrens [1851] 1891, 137  ff. [ad loc. 143]; Leaf p. 638  f. [Appendix N 20]). This may be a case of transmission of the license for hiatus between (ϝ)οῖνον and αἴθοπα; additional examples: 16.226 ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ αἴθοπα οἶνον, Od. 2.57/15.500 τε αἴθ. οἶνον. Contrast the use with ἠδέ at Od. 7.295 ἠδ’ αἴθ. οἶνον; with a different epithet at Od. 5.165 καὶ (ϝ)οῖνον ἐρυθρόν (Severyns 1943, 87  f.; Garvie on Od. 7.295; Hoekstra on Od. 15.500).

642 2nd VH ≈ 18.386/425, Od. 5.88, also Il. 16.796. — λαυκανίης καθέηκα: The expressive phrase (‘have sent down through my throat, let trickle down my throat’) perhaps reflects the pleasure with which Priam drinks his first sip of wine after a long time; similar phrasings at 19.209 (κατὰ λαιμὸν ἰείη) and h.Merc. 133 (περῆν’ ἱερῆς κατὰ δειρῆς, with additional post-Homeric examples in Allen/Halliday/Sikes ad loc.), also Od. 9.373 (reversed process: φάρυγος δ’ ἐξέσσυτο οἶνος); see also Hoekstra on Od. 16.191 (δάκρυον ἧκε χαμᾶζε). – λαυκανίη in early epic also at 22.325 (Achilleus lethally wounds Hektor in the throat).  

643 ≈ 9.658; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 4.296, 15.93. — his serving-maids and companions: on the two terms, see 4n. and 582–583a  n.; on the cooperation between the groups, cf. 572–590.  

ἦ ῥ(α): a speech capping formulaP (see 302n. on the syntactically unusual use of the formula in the present passage). — ἰδέ: ‘and’; a rare metrical variant of ἠδέ (2.511n.).

644–648 For the iterata, see 635–676n.; also Clark 1997, 171–173. — The textiles used for beds cannot be defined precisely, see 229–231n.; the most secure interpretation of chlaínai is ‘woolen blankets’ (for covering). tápētes are among Priam’s gifts for Achilleus (230) and in early epic are used as mats for sitting and sleeping (LfgrE s.v.). The relationship between the tápētes and rhḗgea, another typical component of bedclothes, is obscure: rhḗgea ‘padding, mattresses’, tápētes ‘covering, sheets’? In the present, typical description, the narrator is probably less concerned with terminological precision than with portraying the bed as proper and fitting via the multitude of materials; see LfgrE s.v. ῥῆγος; Garvie on Od. 7.336–338; Snodgrass 1970 (additional interpretations in Laser 1968, 1–34, with consideration of archaeological evidence). The formal struc-

642 λαυκανίης: ‘throat’. — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). 643 ἦ: 596n. — ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1).

238 

 Iliad 24

ture of the verses contributes to the dignity of the description (Richardson on 643–648 with reference to the increasing length of the individual infinitive clauses in 644–646, chiasmus at 644b–645, execution of the order at 647  f. with homoioteleuton [as at e.g. 2.87  f.]). 644 porch: Greek aíthousa (238n.). It is customary in Homeric epic that guests sleep in an ‘antechamber’ (cf. 673), whereas the hosts sleep ‘inside’ (675): Telemachos and Nestor at Od. 3.399/402, Telemachos and Menelaos with Helen at 4.297/302/304  f. (cf. 15.5), Odysseus and Alkinoos with Arete at 7.336/345/ 346  f. In the case of Phoinix, the location of the bed is not specified: Il. 9.620– 622, 9.658–662 (as a member of the family he may sleep in the interior, as evidently does Achilleus as the host: 9.663). – On the stylized use of terms from palatial architecture for Achilleus’ quarters, see 448n.   645 of purple: In antiquity, royal purple was an expensive, prestigious colorant due to its labor-intensive production from marine snails (BNP s.v. Purple; cf. 796n.). Purple-colored fabrics are thus frequently thrown across chairs and beds for guests (iterata [635–676n.], also 9.200, Od. 10.353, 20.151; Stulz 1990, 96  ff., esp. 114–119).  

πορφύρε(α): like ἀργός (‘bright; swift’: 211n., 621n.) and αἰόλος (19.404n.), an adjective with a double meaning: color and/or movement, hence ‘purple, shimmering, flowing’ (on the etymology and semantics in detail, LfgrE s.v.; Grand-Clément 2004, esp. 126– 134; see also 1.482n.). The word is attested already in Mycenaean Greek in reference to purple-colored textiles (DMic s.v. po-pu-re-ja); on the archaeological evidence of Bronze Age production of royal purple, Reese 1987, 203–206; Singer 2008, 27–29.  

647 On the iterata, see above 635–676n. — αἳ δ(έ): Regarding the execution of Achilleus’ orders issued at 643, the narrator mentions only female servants: the preparation of beds typically falls within their remit (582–583a  n.). — μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσαι: an inflectible VE formula (3× Il., 5× Od., 3× h.Cer.; μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχων also in verse middle, after caesurae A 1 and A 4; cf. 304n.); also with pl. δαΐδας in place of δάος (Od. 7.101, 2× h.Cer.).  

644 θέμεναι: inf. (R 16.4). 645 πορφύρε’ ἐμβαλέειν: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the form of the infinitive, R 8 and 16.4. — στορέσαι: ‘to spread (the covers)’, in contrast to 648 στόρεσαν ‘cover (the bed), make the bed’; aor. of στόρνυμι (Attic στρώννυμι, ἔστρωσα). 646 καθύπερθεν: to be taken with ἐνθέμεναι (‘to overlay’) or ἕσασθαι (‘to pull across oneself’). — ἕσασθαι: final-consecutive inf., ‘cover oneself’ (mid. of ἕννυμι). 647 αἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); in reference to δμῳαί (643). — ἴσαν: = ᾖσαν (3rd pers. pl. impf. of εἶμι). — δάος: ‘torch’, collective sing.

Commentary 

 239

648 ἐγκονέουσαι: ‘be active, bustle’ (only here and in the related verses at Od. 7.340, 23.291); a part. of accompanying action, like ἀμφιέποντες (2.525–526n.), ἐπειγόμενος (6.388, etc.): LfgrE.  

649–658 A common practice in other scenes of overnight stays (see 644n.) is here given a narratologically strategic function: Priam must sleep ‘outside’, i.e. in an antechamber (673), so that he can depart unobserved and without difficulty during the night (cf. schol. T on 650, end; the truce is accordingly agreed on now: 656  ff.); in a dangerous situation, Nestor and Diomedes also sleep ‘outside’, ready for action (10.74  f./151, with the sense: ‘outdoors’; cf. Hainsworth on 10.74). Achilleus’ orders also fulfil two additional purposes: they correspond to (1) Zeus’ assurance that Achilleus will protect his guests from the other Achaians (156 = 185), and (2) Achilleus’ reluctance to have the reunion of Priam with Hektor’s body take place in his presence (582–586n.). – But the justification supplied by Achilleus (spontaneous seeking of advice/ counsel by the other Achaian leaders: 650b–655) is likely an ad hoc invention (cf. Rothe 1910, 331  f.): although not plucked out of thin air or unbelievable (cf. the embassy visiting Achilleus in Book 9 and the Achaians’ night-time council in Book 10; Hermes will warn Priam of the same thing: 687  f.), it is nevertheless phrased in an exaggerated manner (‘always’ at 651; cf. 72b–73 with n.); a typical set phrase for such pretexts: ‘as is customary’ (652; cf. 2.73n.; Macleod; Richardson). The participle ἐπικερτομέων in the speech introduction formulaP at 649 should refer to this supposed justification as well, although the exact implication is disputed; at any rate, as a part of the typical structure of a speech introduction formula (on which, 55n.), it intimates the situational intent and tone of the speech (as at 55 χολωσαμένη, 64 ἀπαμειβόμενος, and others; list in Clarke 2001, 330 n. 9). The basic meaning of the word family κερτομ- appears to be ‘provoke’, with the provocation being either overt and aggressive or covert and subtle, frequently with an element of pretence by the speaker and – in contrast to the present passage – a violent reaction by the addressee (e.g. 1.539  ff., 4.5  ff., Od. 9.474  ff., 16.85  ff., 24.235  ff.; see 1.539n.; Hooker [1986] 1996; Clay 1999). In the parallel passages 16.744 and Od. 22.194 (the only additional Homeric attestations of the compound ἐπικερτομέων) in particular, the participle characterizes a sneering, sarcastic speech of triumph over a defeated opponent: Patroklos over Hektor’s charioteer Kebriones and Eumaios over Melanthios. But renewed verbal aggression by Achilleus against Priam (as at e.g. 559–570) should be ruled out here after the conciliatory tenor of the meal (esp. 628–632): overall, the speech is kind and benevolent. The provocative element – in the broadest sense – of the present passage must thus reside in Achilleus implicitly communicating to his guest that the time for his return has ar-

648 δοιὼ λέχε’: ‘two beds’ (acc. dual).

240 

 Iliad 24

rived, but without ‘throwing him out’ expressis verbis – ἐπικερτομέω here also in the sense ‘give a hint, allude’ (cf. Clay loc. cit. 619; Lloyd 2004, esp. 76–78, 87–89; similarly Macleod: ‘polite deception’). Different interpretations: (a) ἐπικερτομέων here has the weakened sense ‘teasingly, in jest’, i.e. Achilleus does not take his own justification entirely seriously (Peppmüller; Willcock; Bergold 1977, 136 n. 1; guardedly Leaf; cf. the understatement at 655 [650–655n.]); (b) the provocation is directed at Agamemnon rather than Priam (insofar as Achilleus is going over his head in this matter): ‘mockingly, scornfully’ (see the bibliography cited in Peppmüller p. 304  f. n. † and Leaf; Postlethwaite 1998, 102  f.; Tsomis 2010; cf. 650–655n., end; the thesis advanced by Gottesman 2008, esp. 8  f., aims in a similar direction: Achilleus’ speech serves to assert his authority). 649 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ 16.744, Od. 22.194 (προσέφης); 2nd VH = 138, etc. (see ad loc.). — ἐπικερτομέων: see 649–658n.  

650–655 The description of the fourth dangerous situation in which Priam finds himself (349–361n.) contains literal echoes of the first (653 = 366; Martinazzoli on 653): Priam might be discovered by an Achaian leader and betrayed to Agamemnon. Achilleus avoids explicit description of the possible consequences by using the impersonal phrasing at 655 (with n.) (understatement; cf. Macleod ad loc.: euphemism; Jones 1973, 10: ‘vague possibility’); Hermes will be somewhat more direct at 685–688. – The difference in opinion between Achilleus and Agamemnon hinted at calls to mind the confrontation between the two men in Book 1; on the contrast here between the polite Achilleus and the severe Agamemnon, see Strasburger 1954, 87; Collins 1988, 101  f. 650 μὲν δή: states the fulfillment of Priam’s wish (635 λέξον νῦν με τάχιστα) with emphasis on ἐκτός ‘outside’ (placed at VB), and prepares the further request at 656 (ἀλλ’ ἄγε …), cf. Od. 23.257–261 εὐνὴ μὲν δὴ σοί γε τότ’ ἔσσεται …· ἀλλ’ … εἴπ’ ἄγε μοι …; for more, see 599n. — γέρον φίλε: ‘This address shows that Achilleus has overcome all bitterness; previously only γέρον or Πρίαμε, 618 δῖε γεραιέ’ (AH [transl.]), i.e. Priam is now Achilleus’ guest-friend in a pregnant sense (φίλος); Priam himself pleaded to Zeus at 309 for such a reception: δός μ(ε) … φίλον ἐλθεῖν (Zanker 1994, 123; Kim 2000, 63  f.; Hammer 2002, 193). – γέρον φίλε elsewhere only at Od. 3.357 (Athene/Mentor addressing Nestor, same position in verse). — μή: ‘out of concern/fear that’; introduces an independent fear-clause (K.-G. 1.224; Schw. 2.674  f.; cf. 53n.).      651–652 βουληφόρος, οἵ τε  … | βουλὰς βουλεύουσι: The relative clause provides the rationale for why the arrival of a council member must be reckoned with at any time, while simultaneously explaining the term βουληφόρος (on such relative clauses, 479n.).

649 πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 650 λέξο: 2nd pers. sing. aor. imper. mid. (cf. 635n.), ‘lay down to sleep!’. 651 ἐπέλθησιν: on the inflection, R 16.3. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μοι: to be taken with παρήμενοι.

Commentary 

 241

βουλὰς βουλεύειν is a figura etymologica and means ‘to hold council, consult’ (VB of 652 ≈ 10.147/327/415, Od. 6.61; in contrast Il. 9.75 βουλὴν β. ‘to give particular advice, make a suggestion’). On the ‘council’ as a body, see 1.144n.; cf. 2.194n. – The plural βουλεύουσι is used either because of an implicit τις Ἀχαιῶν  … βουληφόρων (Ruijgh 408) or because βουληφόρος can be understood as a collective (AH; Erbse 1960, 246); parallels in Chantr. 2.21. — ἣ θέμις ἐστίν: a formula at VE (3× Il., 2× Od., 1× Hes.), VB (3× Il., 1× Od.) and in verse middle (1× Od., 1× h.Hom.). On its use as a set phrase: 649–658n.

653 = 366 (Hermes addressing Priam; see ad loc.).   654 Ἀγαμέμνονι ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectible VE formula; list of iterata: 2.254n. (dat.), 2.243n. (acc.); variant in gen.: Ἀγαμέμνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο (1.203, etc.; see ad loc.). 655 ἀνάβλησις λύσιος νεκροῖο γένοιτο: ‘a Homeric approximation of bureaucratese’ (Gottesman 2008, 9): an unusual accumulation of substantives (noun-heavy style; ἀνάβλησις in Homer also at 2.380 ἀ. κακοῦ ἔσσεται, λύσις also at Od. 9.421  f. εἴ τιν’ ἑταίροισιν θανάτου λύσιν … | εὑροίμην), specifically of verbal abstracts (action nouns) in -σις as e.g. Thuc. 1.137.4 γράψας τήν τε ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος προάγγελσιν τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως; see Schw. 2.356  f. and in general Porzig 1942, 20–22; Krarup 1948. On the meaning of the clause, see 650–655n.   656 = 380 (see ad loc.). — κατάλεξον: In response to the question ποσσῆμαρ …, Priam in fact supplies a formal ‘enumeration’ of the time required (664–667): Becker 1937, 105  f.; Perceau 2002, 58  f.   657 2nd VH ≈ 9.356. — ποσσῆμαρ: a hapax legomenonP; on the word formation (πόσ(σ)ος + ἦμαρ), see 73n.; LfgrE. — μέμονας: here probably in the weakened sense ‘want, have in mind’ (Martinazzoli; Kirk on 7.36; LfgrE s.v. 123.57  ff.; Bertolín Cebrián 1996, 31); elsewhere ‘vigorously aspire, have the urge’ (2.473n.). — κτερεϊζέμεν: 38n. — Ἕκτορα    δῖον: 22n.  

658 A truce for the burial of the dead was also agreed on at 7.375–378 ≈ 7.394– 397, there officially with all concerned, here privately between Achilleus and Priam  – yet another indication of how close the two men have become, especially given that Achilleus now goes even beyond Zeus’ orders at 133–137 (on the ‘focus on strictly private relationships’ in the Achilleus-Priam episode overall, see Elmer 2013, 180–182). The question posed since antiquity – e.g. in schol. D on 671 – as to whether Achilleus exceeds his military and political competence with the truce (cf. 23.156  f.) is thus idle: ‘Should Achilleus say to Priam: «I will convey your request to Agamemnon and the other leaders and

653 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — σε (ϝ)ίδοιτο: on the prosody, R 4.3. 655 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — λύσιος: on the inflection, R 11.3. 656 τόδε (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3. 657 ποσσῆμαρ: ‘how many days’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — κτερεϊζέμεν: inf. (R 16.4). 658 τέως: ‘so long’ (adv.).

242 

 Iliad 24

send word to you if they agree», thus sending Priam away in a state of uncertainty?’ (Rothe 1910, 331  f. [transl.]).

τέως: on the prosody, 19.189n. — μένω … ἐρύκω: subjunctives; for both verbs, a meaning can be posited that relates to both (a) the location and (b) the action: μένειν (a) ‘to remain in the camp’ (AH), (b) ‘remain quiescent, take no action’ (Cunliffe), ‘to wait’ (LfgrE); ἐρύκειν (a) ‘to retain in the camp’, (b) ‘to prevent from fighting’ (cf. LfgrE). – On the motif ‘to pause and keep others back’ in general, cf. 2.191, 5.822  f., 15.723.

659–667 Priam gratefully accepts Achilleus’ offer of a truce and sketches his further course of action – what is customary for funerary rituals. With its reference to the resumption of battle, 667 contains an external prolepsisP beyond the actual end of the Iliad (‘12th day’ = the first day after the story): the temporary truce does nothing to avert the imminent destruction of Troy (Morrison 1992, 102  f.; Taplin 1992, 282  f.). – The fact that both the beginning (1.425/493: Zeus among the Aithiopians) and the end of the Iliad are structured by twelveday periods might be due to the poet’s desire to ‘distinguish via two great caesurae’ his narrative ‘from the mass of the epic tradition’: Latacz (1981) 1994, 201  f. (transl.); on twelve-day periods in general, 31n. 659 = 372, etc. (see ad loc.). 660 2nd VH ≈ 657 in terms of sense. — εἰ μὲν δή: 406n. — τελέσαι τάφον: ‘to conduct the funerary ritual’, cf. τέλος γάμοιο Od. 20.74, τελέειν γάμον ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.85; on the meaning of τελέω, see Gundert 1983, 55 (transl.): ‘The question is not whether the funeral will be «completed» […], but rather whether it can take place at all or will be prevented by battle’ (differently Porzig 1942, 54  f.: a mere paraphrase of θάπτω); on τάφος, see 804n. — Ἕκτορι δίῳ: a VE formula (11× Il.), cf. 22n.   661 ὧδε: pointing ahead to 664  ff.: ‘as 〈I will say in a moment〉; what follows’ (AH; Leaf). — κεχαρισμένα θείης: χαρίζομαι refers not only to the effect on the recipient (‘gratifying, pleasant’) but also to the – kindly – attitude of the donor, cf. Od. 8.584–586, 10.43 (Latacz 1966, 120  f.), thus ‘would you do me a favor and prove your kindness’ (cf. Macleod; Perceau 2002, 60). On the formulation with τίθημι, cf. Od. 15.488  f. σοὶ … ἐσθλὸν ἔθηκε | Ζεύς (cf. 538–542n., end), elsewhere generally in negative contexts (‘cause hassle, pain, grief’: LfgrE s.v. τίθημι 484.3  ff.). – The actual protasis to κεχαρισμένα θείης is not con   tained in the εἰ-clause at 660, but in ὧδε … ῥέζων (Hentze 1870, 146).  

662–663 and wood is far to bring in: This is realized in what follows at 777  ff. The portrayal of the procurement of wood for the pyre reflects the mood of the

660 μ(ε): subject acc. of τελέσαι. — ἐθέλεις: here, as often, with the meaning ‘be in agreement’. 661 ὧδε … ῥέζων: conditional. — κέ μοι: to be taken with κεχαρισμένα θείης; κε = ἄν (R 24.5). — θείης: in the sense ‘prepare, do’. 662 κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)έλμεθα: on the prosody, R 4.3 and 5.4. — ἐέλμεθα: perf. mid.-pass. of εἰλέω ‘confine, pen up, hem in’. — τηλόθι δ’ ὕλη: sc. ἐστίν; τηλόθι ‘at a distance, far away’ (R 15.2).

Commentary 

 243

situations in the passages concerned: a much abbreviated narrative at 7.417– 432 with a stressed parallelism of Achaians with Trojans; a detailed technical description of the tasks carried out in honor of Patroklos at 23.110–128 as a balance to the preceding emotionally intense scene (Richardson on 23.109– 126; cf. 266–274n.); the procurement of wood for Hektor’s pyre characterized by fear and exertion here and at 777–784: the Trojans’ situation is precarious (besiegement), the destruction of the city, a fate sealed with Hektor’s death, casts its shadows ahead (allusion to the ‘end game’: Oka 1990, 28  f.; cf. 799– 800n.). As a result, the entire nine-day period of mourning is tarnished by this mood (change of perspective: 664 ‘nine days of mourning’ → 784 ‘nine days of gathering wood’ [cf. 784n.]). On a psychological level, the present verses are easily intelligible: Priam appeals to Achilleus’ pity and takes him to task with an introductory ‘as you know’ (Macleod on 662; Perceau 2002, 60; cf. Leaf). Differently Peppmüller on 661  ff.; AH on 663; West 2001, 280  f.: 662  f. have been added as a (belated) justification to reconcile Priam’s programmatic speech with its implementation (777–784).

οἶσθα γάρ, ὡς: an inflectible VB formula (also at Od. 23.60; with οἶδα: Il. 4.360, Od. 10.267, 11.69). — ὡς: both a modal (‘how’) and a factual meaning (‘that’) are possible, see Tzamali 1996, 318  f. — κατὰ ἄστυ ἐέλμεθα: In the Iliad, medio-passive εἰλέομαι repeatedly denotes the besieged state of Troy (during both retreat and flight of the Trojans to their city: 16.714, 18.286  f., 21.534/607, 22.12/47). — τηλόθι δ’ ὕλη | ἀξέμεν: an inanimate subject in the nominal clause with a final-consecutive inf., as at 9.227  f. πάρα γὰρ μενοεικέα πολλά | δαίνυσθ(αι), Od. 3.349  f. οὔ τι χλαῖναι καὶ ῥήγεα πόλλ’ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ |  … ἐνεύδειν; cf. Schw. 2.362  f. — ἀξέμεν: a thematic s-aorist (6.52–53a  n.).

δεδίασιν: the only form of δείδια ‘be afraid, fear’ without compensatory lengthening (loss of digamma: δε-δϝ- > δειδ-, cf. G 27; but in Attic regularly δεδ-: Schw. 1.227, 769) in Homer, but also the only example of the verb in the 3rd pers. plpf. in early epic as a whole. δειδίᾱσιν would be unmetrical (Schulze 1892, 88; Chantr. 1.162), δειδίᾰσιν morphologically unusual (perf. ending -ᾰσι only 2× Od.: Garvie on Od. 7.114).

664–667 The anaphoric enumeration of days (9–10–11–12, in each case at VB, typical numbersP) corresponds to the ritual procedure of the funeral (thus also serving as an internal prolepsisP, cf. 665n.); at the same time, it fulfills the ‘formalities’ of a truce agreement (656n.). – A nine-day period (on which in general, 31n.) is repeatedly attested in funerary ritual; at Od. 24.63–65, Achilleus is mourned for 17 days and cremated on the 18th (=  2×9), see Andronikos 1968, 9; additional examples in Roscher 1904, 63  f.; Richardson on 660–667; cf. 610; on nine-day periods in cult and ritual overall: Richardson on h.Cer. p. 165  f. Nevertheless, a one- or two-day prothesis is more common (so too in the case of Patroklos): Andronikos loc. cit.; Garland 1985, 26.

244 

 Iliad 24

ἐννῆμαρ μέν: VB 5× in early epic, followed by τῇ δεκάτῃ δέ (sc. ἡμέρῃ), as here, at 1.53  f., Od. 10.28  f.; in contrast, ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ δεκάτη … at 784  f., h.Cer. 47/51. On the formation of ἐννῆμαρ, see 73n., 1.53n. — ἐνὶ μεγάροις: 208b–209a  n. — γοάοιμεν: denotes ritual lament (160n.).  

665 feast: realized at 801–803. Like lament, cremation and the erection of a grave monument, the feast is a set part of funerary ritual (even held after the deaths of Aigisthos and Klytaimestra: Od. 3.309  f., see West ad loc.; additional parallels in Samter 1923, 158  ff.); it is employed, however, in different ways by the Homeric narrator: when funerary games take place after the funeral, the latter recedes into the background (held already before the cremation: Il. 23.28  f.; unmentioned: Od. 24.43–92; cf. Mylonas 1948, 57; Richardson on 23.1–34), while it otherwise occurs at the end of the festivities. The discrepancies within the present episode (at 665  f., funerary feast between cremation and construction of the grave; at 801–803, after construction of the grave) are either due to the composition (funerary feast as the solemn conclusion of the Iliad; with an eye not so much to the dead Hektor as to the surviving Trojans: Edwards 1986, 84  f., 90; 1987, 315; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 269  f.; cf. 803n.) or are irrelevant, given the typical numbers of the days (9th/10th/11th day as variables): Macleod on 801–803; cf. Andronikos 1968, 16–18. δαινυῖτο: restored form of the 3rd pers. sing. pres. opt.; the mss. transmit δαίνυτο/δαινῦτο without the -ι- that signals the optative and with variable accentuation (cf. schol. A), and a similar phenomenon occurs frequently with the aor. opt. of δύω (e.g. Il. 16.99 ἐκδῦμεν, Od. 9.377 ἀναδύη); additional examples in Schw. 1.795 and Chantr. 1.51. The date at which the contraction from υι > ῡ occured is disputed (pre-Homeric: Leaf; Wackernagel [1891] 1979, 1591  f.; Tucker 1990, 373 n. 91; post-Homeric: Bekker 1863, 69  f.; van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 232, 238; Schw. 1.199  f.).

666 The construction of the grave is described at 797–801. 667 πτολεμίξομεν: probably spoken in a resigned tone, i.e. either a future with concessive meaning (as at 717 ἄσεσθε; see ad loc.) with the sense ‘the battle may continue then’, or a short-voweled aor. subjunc. ‘let us continue fighting then’ (Macleod); differently AH (transl.): future ‘as a promise: «we will be ready for battle»’. – The initial syllable πτολ(rather than πολ-) frequently occurs in mss. and papyri even where there is no metrical need for it (Ruijgh 1957, 78–81; West 2001, 210; cf. G 18). On verbs in -ίζω with future/ aorist in -ξ, Chantr. 1.340  f. — εἴ περ ἀνάγκη: ‘if it must be’; εἴ περ is here not concessive, but instead introduces the worst possible case (‘really only if …’; see Bakker 1988, 230–232; Wakker 1994, 319–322).  

664 αὐτόν: sc. Hektor. — γοάοιμεν: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 667 δυωδεκάτῃ: Attic δωδεκάτῃ. — πτολεμίξομεν: future or (short-vowel) subjunctive (R 21.2).

Commentary 

 245

668 ≈ 20.177, 21.149; 1st VH = 378, etc. (see ad loc.); ≈ 217, etc. (see ad loc.); 2nd VH: 21× Il. — Both halves of the verse are formulaic, but are used in combination only here; alternative formulae of response: τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα ποδ. δ. Ἀχ. (1.121, 18.181), τὸν/ τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχ. (138n.); on the diversity of formulae, cf. 372n. — ποδάρκης: a distinctive epithetP of Achilleus, only in the VE formula ποδ. δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς (on which, and on the disputed meaning of the epithet, see 1.121n. and LfgrE). On the complementary acc./dat./gen. formulae, see 458n.; on Achilleus’ swiftness in general, 138n.

669–670 A brief affirmative speech by Achilleus, as at 139  f. (see ad loc.) delivered in a distinctively friendly tone – and his final words in the Iliad. On the truce, see 658n. 669 ≈ 21.223. — ἔσται τοι καὶ ταῦτα: In post-Homeric literature usually a clichéd agreement, in early epic by contrast a decisive promise ‘this will come to pass’ (with prophecies and wishes), cf. 21.223 (Achilleus addressing Skamandros) ἔσται ταῦτα  … ὡς σὺ κελεύεις, Od. 16.31/17.599 (Telemachos addressing Eumaios) ἔσσεται οὕτως, ἄττα (Fraenkel 1962, 77–89, esp. 78). As a result, Achilleus here appears much more resolute than e.g. at 139 (see ad loc.). – καὶ ταῦτα: namely, after the return of the body, now also the granting of the truce. — γέρον Πρίαμ(ε): a unique address: in early epic, the vocative γέρον is otherwise never combined with a personal name; perhaps a variation of the VE formula γέρων Πρίαμος θεοειδής (217n.) as an alternative to γέρον φίλε (650n.), which would here result in hiatus. — ὡς σὺ κελεύεις: ‘as you desire’; VE formula 4× Il., 3× Od., 1× h.Merc.; cf. ὡς ἐκέλευες 599n. (loc. cit. on the meaning of κελεύω).   670 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.169. — σχήσω … πόλεμον: with the sense ‘bring to a halt, interrupt’ (≈ παύω as at e.g. 7.29 παύσωμεν πόλεμον; cf. 19.119 ἀπέπαυσε τόκον, σχέθε δ’ Εἰλειθυίας, Od. 5.451 [river] παῦσεν ἑὸν ῥόον, ἔσχε δὲ κῦμα; additional examples of ἔχειν in this sense in Graz 1965, 266 n. 1; LfgrE s.v. 845.71  ff.). Differently Il. 14.99  f. οὐ γὰρ Ἀχαιοί | σχήσουσιν πόλεμον ‘will not endure’ (AH). – πόλεμος in early epic usually means ‘fight/ fighting’ as an activity, less frequently ‘war’ (6.203n. with bibliography).  

671–672 While the handshake seals a mutual agreement (6.233n.; Kitts 2005, 79–84), the friendly, reassuring gesture here emanates from Achilleus alone. He thus underscores the oral promise given at 669  f. (schol. bT) and encourages Priam (672; see ad loc.); the closest parallel (‘took by the right hand at the wrist’): Odysseus during his parting from Penelope (Od. 18.258). So too in the present passage, the gesture proves to be one of farewell: this is the last contact between the two characters in the Iliad. More on the gesture: Macleod; Lateiner 1995, 57; Boegehold 1999, 17  f.; on gestures of greeting, see 361n. 671 2nd VH ≈ 18.594, 21.489, h.Ap. 196. — ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας: 468n.

669 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 670 τόσσον … ὅσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

246 

 Iliad 24

672 2nd VH ≈ Od. 16.331; VE ≈ Il. 13.163, Od. 16.306. — might have no fear: likely a reference to Priam’s just-mentioned fear of an attack on the Trojans outside the city walls (662  f.) and thus to the possibility that the Achaians might break the truce just promised (778–781). But the possibility of an indirect reference to the worry – put forward by Achilleus in the preceding speech, later repeated by Hermes – that Priam might be discovered during the night cannot be entirely excluded (650–655 [see ad loc.], 683–689; thus Deichgräber 1972, 77; Jones 1989, 249).   673–676 For the iterata, see 635–676n. — Resumption of the type-sceneP ‘overnight stay’ (635–676n.). Elements 6 and 7 are here particularly pregnant (Edwards 1987a, 58; Macleod): despite the danger, Priam and Idaios sleep ‘on the spot’ in the antechamber (673; cf. 644n.); Achilleus lies in his bed – the final image the Iliad offers of him (Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 74–76). In contrast to his restlessness at the beginning of Book 24 (4  ff.), he is now calm and lying next to a woman, in accord with Thetis’ recommendation (128–132): Briseïs, whom Agamemnon took from him in Book 1 and who was temporarily replaced by a different concubine in Book 9 (9.663–665): a return to the status quo (cf. 621–676n.; 19.297b–299n.; Schadewaldt [1944a] 1965, 349; Edwards 1987, 313). Only one person is missing: Patroklos (mentioned in the overnight stay scene at 9.666, cf. 477–571n.); see Taplin 1986, 17  f.; 1992, 80–82.   674 =  282. — On reading the formulaP of the 2nd VH as either ornamental or contextually relevant, see 282n. In the second case, this would mean that the thoughts of Priam and Idaios circle around the dangers of the night and the imminent journey back to Troy (Reinhardt 1961, 502 n. 19; Deichgräber 1972, 76  f.; Dué/Ebbott 2010, 235); in other passages, however, the mulling over of matters is expressed via a less ambiguous formulation: 10.4, 24.680, Od. 15.8.   675 αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: 59n. — μυχῷ: ‘in the interior part’, in contrast to ‘outside’ (650/673); see 6.152n. — ἐϋπήκτου: an epithet of closed rooms, always at VE (2.661n.).   676 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 343.5 M.-W. — καλλιπάρηος: an epithet of women (1.143n.); elsewhere of Briseïs in the VE formula Βρισηΐδα καλλιπάρηον (1.184n.).  

672 ἔλλαβε: on the -λλ-, R 9.1. — δεξιτερήν: = δεξιάν; on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. 673 αὐτόθι: ‘there, on the spot’ (cf. R 15.2). 674 μήδε(α): ‘ideas, strategems’. 675 μυχῷ: indication of place without preposition (R 19.2). 676 παρελέξατο: cf. 635n.

Commentary 

 247

677–718 During the night, Hermes urges Priam to return to Troy. Kassandra catches the first sight of the men as they return. The Trojans gather before the city walls to receive them. 677–695 After the detailed depiction of Priam’s outward journey under the protection of Hermes (333–469a), the narrator can here forego the details of Hermes’ second appearance and Priam’s return journey (Lorimer 1950, 471). It thus initially remains unclear whether Hermes should be thought of as a dream figure (like e.g. Athene in the guise of a friend with Nausikaa: Od. 6.15–51) or as a divine warning in persona (like Athene with Telemachos lying awake: Od. 15.1–47), especially given that Hermes revealed himself at the end of the first journey (460  f. with n.; ‘supernatural visitant’ is a neutral term for this: Gunn 1971, 15–17 [see 2.6n.]; further discussion in Hundt 1935, 98  f.; Kessels 1978, 58  f.; Brillante 1990, 40–46, who considers the boundaries between sleep and waking to be particularly obscured here: on the one hand, Priam’s waking is not mentioned [689]; on the other hand, Hermes is involved in the subsequent action beyond his appearance at Priam’s bed [690–694]; cf. also 343– 344n. on Hermes’ role). Formally, the narrative follows the type-sceneP ‘dream’ (2.16–49n.): (1) night/sleep, expanded by the sleeplessness of Hermes himself: 677–681; (4) the description of the situation has already been anticipated at 673  f. (those sought are asleep); (5) Hermes approaches (682) and (6) speaks (683–688); (8) Priam responds (689); Hermes accompanies the two back to the ford and (7) disappears only then (690–694); (9) daybreak (695; cf. element 8 of the type-scene ‘overnight stay’: 635–676n.). 677–682 Just as Zeus lies awake at the beginning of Book 2 pondering how to realize Thetis’ plea, so Hermes here searches for a way to conduct Priam safely back to Troy in order to carry out the orders he received from Zeus (334–338), thus setting the story in motion again in the middle of the night. On the narrative patterns in detail, 2.1–6n. (on the pattern ‘all are asleep except one’, cf. also 2b–13n., end). On additional parallels between Books 2 and 24 of the Iliad, see 133n. 677–678 = 2.1–2a (see ad loc.); 678 = 10.2 (and VB of 677 ≈ 10.1, VB of 679 ≈ 10.3); 2nd VH of 678 ≈ Od. 15.6, VE of 678 ≈ Od. 7.318, 13.119. — bondage: cf. 5n.  

μαλακῷ: in a metaphorical sense (‘gentle’) an epithet of sleep (ὕπνος, κῶμα; cf. 2.2n. on νήδυμος) and words/speeches (cf. 1.582n.).

679 ὕπνος ἔμαρπτεν: cf. 5n. (ᾕρει). — ἐριούνιον: 360n.

677 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — καὶ ἀνέρες: on the correption, R 5.5. — ἀνέρες: = ἄνδρες; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

248 

 Iliad 24

680–681 An abbreviated type-sceneP of considering the most advantageous course of action: Hermes’ decision is not stated but directly enacted in word and deed. On the basic pattern, see 2.3–7n. — not be seen by the […] gate-wardens: Priam must leave the Achaian camp before the wardens wake from their sleep (induced at 445  f. by Hermes himself); a similar situation: Diomedes in the camp of the Thracians (10.507–514). 680 1st VH ≈ 21.137, Od. 2.156. — ἀνὰ θυμόν: a formulaic specification for the mental seat of authority (518n.; 1.24n., 2.36n.). — Πρίαμον βασιλῆα: a unique expression, perhaps a secondary focalizationP by Hermes (Friedrich 2007, 103  f.); metrically equivalent to the similarly unique expression Πρίαμον θεοειδέα ͜ (483, VE) that otherwise occurs in the nom.: (γέρων) Πρίαμος θεοειδής, see 217n.; gen. variant: Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος (2.373n.). – In Homer, VE formulae with personal names in the gen./dat./acc. + βασιλῆος/-ῆϊ/-ῆα are attested only 11× (including 4× Alkinoos); see also 803n.   681 νηῶν: i.e. ‘from the (Achaian) encampment of ships’ (cf. 1n.). — ἱεροὺς πυλαωρούς: On the role of the guards in Book 24, cf. 444 (with 443–447n.), 566. – ἱερός, attested already in Mycenaean as ‘sacred’, is used sporadically in Homer in connection with terms that at first glance appear to lack any ‘affinity with the divine, sacredness’, namely ἰχθύς 16.407 (fishing simile), δίφρος 17.464, στρατός Od. 24.81; interpretations are numerous (see Janko, Edwards, Heubeck on the relevant passages, also Russo on Od. 18.60, all with further bibliography). A meaning ‘strong, active, energetic’ vel sim. is usually posited on the basis of the etymological relationship with Vedic iṣirá- (García-Ramón 1992, esp. 183 and 185–188 [with bibliography]; Clarke 1995a). The closest parallel to the present passage may well be Il. 10.56 φυλάκων ἱερὸν τέλος ‘the sacred duty of the guards’; in this context, the attribute perhaps indicates the protection of the office granted by Zeus (as in the case of kings and heralds: LfgrE s.v. ἱερός 1143.66  ff.) or more generally ‘the importance and dignity of guarding’, cf. 21.530 ἀγακλειτοὺς πυλαωρούς (Wülfing-v.  Martitz 1960, 300  f. [transl.]; so too Leaf and Hainsworth on 10.56; Macleod); a transfer from the ‘sacred walls’ where the wardens fulfil their duties is also possible  – ἱερός occasionally occurs as an epithet of urban walls (4.378, 16.100) and of towns more generally (1.38n.), see LfgrE s.v. πυλαωρός; Scully 1990, 50  f. with n. 16.  

682 = 23.68, Od. 4.803, 6.21, 20.32, 23.4; ≈ Il. 2.59; 1st VH = 2.20. — On the notion that dream figures approach sleepers ‘by their head’, see 2.20n.: ‘the shortest path to influence’.  

πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν: a VE formula (485n.).

680 ὁρμαίνοντ(α): to be taken with Ἑρμείαν. — βασιλῆα: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3. 681 νηῶν: on the inflection, R 12.1. — λαθών: refers syntactically to Hermes, but applicable also to Priam (and Idaios). 682 στῆ: =  ἔστη; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — μιν  … μῦθον: double acc.; μιν =  αὐτόν (R 14.1). — πρὸς … ἔ(ϝ)ειπεν: = προσεῖπεν; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

Commentary 

 249

683–688 Homeric dream speeches (element 6 of the type-scene ‘dream’: 677– 695n.) follow a relatively fixed pattern. The following components are typical: (1) address, mention of the state of sleep, accusation of carelessness (683  f.), (2) specification of the current situation or danger (685–688), (3) assignment/ counsel (here implemented immediately); see Kessels 1978, 134, 141–143; Lévy 1982, 36–41; de Jong on Od. 6.25–40 (cf. 2.23–34n., 2.23–25n.). – At 685–688, the warning of danger in the Achaian camp already expressed by Achilleus at 650–655 is clarified and reinforced by the god Hermes (on Priam’s perilous situation, cf. 349–361n., end). 683 οὔ νυ: 33n.; Hermes’ reprimand can be understood as a question or an exclamation (Martinazzoli). — οἷον: explanatory, ‘〈if I see〉 how; 〈according to〉 how’ (Willcock; Macleod), corresponds to ὅτι οὕτως (K.-G. 2.370  f.; cf. 2.320n., 6.166n.); the ‘how’ is to be understood modally (419n.), i.e. ‘how calm/unconcerned …’ (AH).   684 1st VH ≈ Od. 19.110. — δηΐοισιν: on the prosody, 6.81–82n. — ἐπεί σ’ εἴασεν Ἀχιλλεύς: cf. 557 (said by Priam himself).  – ‘The stress is on Ἀχιλλεύς: the mercy of Achilleus makes you forget the danger looming in the shape of others (687  f.)’ (AH [transl.]). On the sense of ἐάω, see 557n.  

685–686 A paratactic enumeration with dé ‘but, and’. The implication is: ‘given that you have paid a great ransom for your dead son, your sons would have to pay three times that for you alive’ (AH [transl.]). Fundamentals of parataxis in K.-G. 2.226, 229  f.; Chantr. 2.351  ff. 685 2nd VH ≈ 21.42; VE (after caesura C 2) ≈ 11.243, Od. 7.264. — καὶ νῦν μέν: νῦν μέν appears to prepare the contrast with σεῖο δέ κε; on the shift in the contrasting term (νῦν – σεῖο rather than υἱὸν – σεῖο), cf. 1.18–20n.; K.-G. 2.268. The nuance of καί is difficult to determine, perhaps adversative: ‘and yet’ (AH); approximately: ‘Are you not aware of any evil? And yet you are in great danger’. On adversative καί, see Verdenius 1955, 15 (with examples and bibliography).  

686–687a three times as much: a typical numberP, frequently used as a figure for compensation, etc. (1.128, 1.213 with nn., 21.80). — for you, who are alive: an implicit antithesis versus the ‘〈dead〉 son’ at 685. Aside from this, it is usually the father who must pay the ransom for his (captive) son, not the reverse: 2.239–231, 6.46–50, etc. (Wilson 2002, 29, 150; cf. 76n.).  

683 οὐ … τι: τι (‘in some way’: R 19.1) intensifies the negation. — ἔθ’: = ἔτι. 684 δηΐοισιν: on the inflection, R 11.2. 685 ἐλύσαο: 2nd pers. sing. aor. mid. (on the uncontracted form, R 6). 686 σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1); gen. dependent on ἄποινα ‘ransom for …’. — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5).

250 

 Iliad 24

687b–688 The threatening nature of the situation is highlighted stylistically: (a) anaphora gnṓēi  – gnṓōsi ‘recognize  … learn of’ with intensification ‘Agamemnon’  – ‘all Achaians’ (Macleod on 688; cf. 2.364–368n.; Fehling 1969, 193); (b) emphatic position of the personal name at VE (Agamemnon at 687) and the patronymic in progressive enjambmentP (Atreïdes at 688), see 2.576–577a  n. – On the role of Agamemnon, cf. 654 (650–655n.).   688 1st VH ≈ 1.411, 16.273; 2nd VH = 23.661; VE = 19.173, 23.766, 23.840 and 5× Od. — γνώῃ: on the structure of the mixed conditional (protasis: prospective subjunc.; apodosis: potential [686]), see K.-G. 2.474  f.; cf. 57n., 220–222n.  

689 ≈ 1.33, 24.571. — The short sentences reflect Priam’s fright, the increased narrative speed (storyP) his rushed departure; the brevity of the description is especially notable in contrast to Agamemnon’s detailed waking and dressing scene at 2.36–47. Cf. 677–695n.; Kurz 1966, 57  f.; de Jong 1992, 396.   690–691 A short type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (189–328n.): (1) harnessing the horses, (5) driving. As at 440  f., Hermes sees to the steering of the team of horses himself, and everything happens ‘quickly’: 440–447n., 446n.; AH on 691.  – The purely dactylic rhythm of 691 (after the largely spondaic 690) perhaps underscores the speed: Richardson on h.Cer. 89, end (with parallels; general reservations in this regard in Leaf on 6.511). 690 ἵππους ἡμιόνους τε: on the expression, 350n.   691 1st VH ≈ 5.237. — οὐδέ τις ἔγνω: i.e. Priam and Idaios manage to leave the Achaian camp without incident (contrastive reprise of the verb in anaphora at 688; cf. 681 λαθών); Kassandra, a Trojan, will be the first to ‘notice/recognize’ Priam (698 ἔγνω). On Hermes’ stealth, cf. 334–338n. – VE ≈ Od. 13.188, 13.299; cf. also Il. 11.526.  

692–695 As the day dawns, the god leaves the two in the same location where night fell and Hermes joined Priam and Idaios on the outward journey (349– 353: transition between safe and unsafe areas, see esp. 349n., 351n.); see Mackie 1996a, 295.

687 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1), ethic dat. — μετόπισθε λελειμμένοι: ‘remained behind (i.e. at home, in Troy)’. — αἴ κ(ε): = ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5). 688 γνώῃ: ‘see and recognize’ (3rd pers. sing. aor. subjunc.); on the uncontracted form, R 6 (likewise γνώωσι). 689 ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — ἔδδεισεν: = ἔδεισεν; -δδ- < -δϝ- (R 4.5). 690 τοῖσιν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the inflection, R 11.2. 691 οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 251

692–693 = 14.433  f., 21.1  f. — 693 is preserved in only a few mss.: a so-called concordance interpolation dependent on parallel passages (Macleod; West 2001, 13). — crossing-place of the … river ≈ Od. 1.84; 2nd VH = Il. 24.468 (Hermes’ first departure; see ad loc.), Od. 15.43.   695 ≈ 8.1; 1st VH ≈ 19.1. — Eos: On the reckoning of the days of the action, see 31n. — yellow robe: 19.1n. – On the abundance of variation in formulae describing dawn, and on their function as a connection between the divine and human planes, see Kirk on 2.48–49 and 8.1; Macleod, Introd. 47  f.; cf. also 2.48–49n., 19.1–2n.  

πᾶσαν ἐπ’ αἶαν: a VE formula (4× Il., 1× Od.).

696–709 Just as Priam and Idaios left their relatives behind when the two reached the plain at 329  ff., they are now received by them again. The narrator here uses the so-called ‘«action–perception–reaction» pattern’: Priam returns to Troy with Hektor’s body – is observed by Kassandra – and she reacts with a speech listing possible responses (‘come and see’: 704–706); this draws the attention of the Trojans as a group to the men who are returning (707–709); on the ‘pattern’, see de Jong on Od. 5.279–290 and cf. 349–361n.; on the linking of perception and emotional response in Homer in general, Schmitt 1990, 157– 166; Bartolotta 2002, 125–128; on noeín ‘to become aware’ (700) specifically, see von Fritz 1943, 84  f. – This pattern serves to introduce Kassandra into the action as a character (699n.) and to bring about the final change of scene in the Iliad – from the encampment of ships to Troy (Hellwig 1964, 75; de Jong [1987] 2004, 107; cf. sceneP). 696–697a οἳ δ(ὲ) … ἔλων … | ἵππους, ἡμίονοι δέ: οἳ δέ picks up 694: Hermes exits, Priam and Idaios continue their journey. In 697, the mules are the subject of a separate clause (rather than e.g. VB ἵππους ἡμιόνους τε as at 471), since they play an important role in the repatriation of Hektor’s body: in what follows, Hektor represents the thematic focal point (on the significance of the mule wagon, cf. 266–274n.; Düntzer [1847a] 1872, 387; Peppmüller). — ἄστυ ἔλων: Hiatus is rare in this position (3.46n.). — οἰμωγῇ τε στοναχῇ τε: synonym doubling (48n.); on τε … τε at VE, 2.39n.     

697b–698 ≈ h.Cer. 94  f. — aware  … at first: On the motif ‘A is the first to recognize/see/hear B’, cf. 10.532–542, 13.65–67, 22.25  f., 23.450–455, Od. 1.113–118, 692 ἷξον: 3rd pers. pl. aor. of ἵκω ‘arrive at, reach’. — ἐϋρρεῖος: < ἐϋρρεϝέος, gen. of εὐρρεής ‘fair-flowing’. — ποταμοῖο: on the inflection, R 11.2. 695 Ἠώς: ‘dawn’, Attic Ἕως (cf. R 3). — ἐκίδνατο: κίδνημι is an epic by-form of σκεδάννυμι. 696 οἵ: = Priam and Idaios; anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — εἰς ἄστυ: ‘into the city’. — ἔλων: 3rd pers. pl. impf. of ἐλάω = ἐλαύνω, ‘were driving on’ (durative). 698 πρόσθ(ε): temporal, ‘earlier, before then’. — ἀνδρῶν  … γυναικῶν: partitive gen. with τις ἄλλος.

252 

 Iliad 24

4.524–528; see also 691n. On the motif ‘no one … before’, cf. 1.547  f., 8.253, 17.14 (Kelly 2007, 256  f.). — no man, no fair-girdled woman: a polar expressionP, negated with the sense ‘no-one’, e.g. 707  f. (Kemmer 1903, 92  f.).

οὐδέ τις ἄλλος: an inflectible VE formula (masc./fem.: 4× Il., 9× Od., 1× h.Cer.). — καλλιζώνων τε γυναικῶν: an inflectible VE formula (gen. also at Od. 23.147; nom. Il. 7.139; acc. h.Ap. 154), metrical variant βαθυζώνων τε γυν. (h.Cer. 95; acc. Il. 9.594, Od. 3.154, ‘Hes.’ fr. 205.5 M.-W.), cf. also ἐϋζώνοιο γυναικός (Il. 1.429, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 31). The girdle is a characteristic element of female attire, see e.g. Od. 5.231  f. (Marinatos 1967, 11  f.; van Wees 2005, 31 n. 66).  

699 2nd VH =  19.282, ‘Hes.’ fr. 30.25 M.-W. — Kassandra: mentioned by name elsewhere in Homer only at 13.366 (Othryoneus had asked for Kassandra’s hand in exchange for driving the Achaians away from Troy) and at Od. 11.422 (in the underworld, Agamemnon describes his own death and that of Kassandra; perhaps also alluded to at Il. 1.113  f., see ad loc.). The narrator could nevertheless likely assume knowledge of Kassandra’s prophetic gift (post-Homeric examples: Cypria, Procl. Chrest. § 1 West; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1072  ff.): Kassandra keeps watch at the right moment, is the first to see the returning party, and announces Hektor’s repatriation to the entire city; the specification of the location, Pergamos, which is the site of the temple of ‘her’ god Apollo (Il. 5.445  f.; see below 700n.) among other things, might be connected with this; at the same time, the Homeric narrator has made no explicit reference to Kassandra’s gift of prophecy (AH on 699/700; Richardson on 699–702; Kullmann 1960, 247; Beck 1964, 145  f.; Schein 1984, 189; Wathelet 1988, 333  f.; Mazzoldi 2001, 115–117, with further bibliography; on the omission of individual strands of a myth in Homeric epic, see Dowden 1996, 52  f.; e.g. 6.153/157/183nn.). Additional interpretations of Kassandra’s appearance: beside the subsequent speeches of lamentation by Hektor’s wife, mother and sister-in-law, with Kassandra one of his sisters also has a say (Rothe 1910, 334; cf. schol. bT on 699–700); the reference to her beauty (comparison to Aphrodite, see below) points to her future role as the paramour of Agamemnon (who will take her back to his home after the war ends) and thus to the destruction of Troy (Reinhardt 1961, 59; Taplin 1990, 78). Additional information on the character Kassandra: Wathelet s.v. and BNP s.v. Cassandra; on her rape by the ‘lesser’ Aias (CH 3) in the sanctuary of Athene in particular, cf. Od. 1.327, 3.135/145, etc.; post-Homeric mentions in the Iliou Persis (Procl. Chrest. § 3 West) and at Alcaeus fr. 298 Voigt; see West and de Jong on Od. 1.325–327; Irmscher 1950, 69–71. — a girl like Aphrodite the golden: Briseïs is honored with the same comparison, likewise in her

699 Κασσάνδρη, (ϝ)ικέλη: on the prosody, R 4.4; on the -η after -ρ-, R 2.

Commentary 

 253

only appearance with direct speechP: her lament on seeing the dead Patroklos (19.282; see ad loc.). At 13.365  f., Kassandra is called the ‘most beautiful among Priam’s daughters’ – as admittedly is also Laodike at 3.124 (see ad loc.).

ἀλλ’ ἄρα: ἀλλά after οὐκ ἄλλος, οὔ τις vel sim. means ‘no other than’, sometimes with its own predicate (identical or of similar sense): here ἔγνω  – εἰσενόησεν, 19.388  f. δύνατ(ο) – ἐπίστατο, 18.403–405 εἴδεεν – ἴσαν, Od. 16.204–206 ἐλεύσεται – ἤλυθον. ἄρα after ἀλλά appears to strengthen the logical cohesion of the sentences thus connected, cf. 13.714–717, 19.92  f., Od. 24.222–225 (Ebeling s.v. ἄρα II.3.k; Cunliffe s.v. ἄρα 7; Denniston 42; Faulkner on h.Ven. 10–11). But with the supposition of a pregnant use of ἄρα (with the sense ‘as is known, evidently’), the particle signals that Kassandra’s prophetic ability is assumed to be generally recognized (LfgrE s.v. ἄρα 1143.65  ff.).

χρυσῇ: on the form, 21n.

700–702 The verses reflect the natural sequence in which Kassandra recognizes the members of the returning party: first the two men who stand upright, Priam and Idaios, then the prostrate Hektor; at the same time, this indicates that Hektor’s body was been successfully repatriated. – The antithesis ‘Priam is standing, Hektor lying’ prepares for a reminiscence of the time when Hektor used to return from battle alive (704–706 with n.; Kurz 1966, 59). On the normal position of people in Homeric wagons, cf. 3.262n. 700 2nd VH ≈ Od. 22.99, 22.112, 24.319, also 6.56, 16.202. — Pergamos: The Pérgamos is Troy’s ‘acropolis’, i.e. the highest part of the city housing its political and religious center (6.512n.). Apollo, to whom a temple on the Pergamos is dedicated, surveys the plain below from this vantage point as well (4.507  f., 7.20  f.), whereas the Trojans themselves generally use the pýrgos, a tower with a platform at the Skaian Gate (3.149n.), as a look-out (also at e.g. 21.526  f.).

φίλον: probably with an emotional sense (‘dear, beloved’): Kassandra had anxiously awaited her father’s return. On the Homeric use of φίλος, see 4n.

701 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 61; ≈ Il. 4.366, 11.198, 13.261, 20.245, Od. 11.583, 24.204 (ἑσταότ’ ἐν …).    — ἀστυβοώτην: a hapaxP; on the meaning, 577n.   702 τόν: The designation of Hektor with a demonstrative pronoun rather than a personal name (as e.g. in the similar verse 15.9: ‘he [Zeus] saw Hektor lying in the plain’) lends particular pathos to the statement, especially after the two functional designations ‘father’ and ‘herald’ at 700  f.: this is Kassandra’s beloved, longed-for brother, the central

701 ἑσταότ(α): = ἑστῶτα (on the uncontracted form, R 6). — τε (ϝ)αστυβοώτην: on the prosody, R 4.3. 702 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); refers to νέκυν (697). — ἴδε: = εἶδε (on the unaugmented form, R 16.1). — λεχέεσσιν: on the inflection, R 11.3; on the plural, R 18.2.

254 

 Iliad 24

figure of the Trojan royal family (secondary focalizationP), see Macleod (supplemented by Rutherford on Od. 19.354); de Jong (1987) 2004, 103  f.; cf. AH on 22.463; 2.778b  n. on ἀρχόν. — ἐφ’ ἡμιόνων: i.e. on the wagon drawn by the mules (as at 356 ἐφ’ ἵππων = ‘on the wagon’); see 51n.

703 1st VH =  18.37. — to the entire city: In what follows, the narrator repeatedly stresses the large number of sympathetic persons (which corresponds to the enormous significance Hektor had for Troy): 704, 706, 707  f., 712b, 713–715, then also at 740, 776  f.; cf. Haubold 2000, 97.  

κώκυσεν: 200n. — γέγωνε: ‘could be perceived’, here perhaps with an active sense ‘made themselves known, called’ (Garvie on Od. 6.294). Despite its formal equivalence to the perfect, γέγωνε is here plpf. with the function of an imperfect (thematic ending): Chantr. 1.438  f.; Shipp (1953) 1972, 115. — ἄστυ: on the use of the term, 327n.

704–706 The contrasts lend a tragic, pathetic note to Kassandra’s speech: by means of the dead Hektor, an image is evoked of the living hero returning from battle, so that the joy of the past is evoked by the present grief (with the word play ‘joyful – joy’ in 705  f.): AH on 705; Deichgräber 1972, 79; Richardson on 703–706. On Hektor as the city’s protector in general, 499n. — men of Troy and Trojan women: 215n. 704 ὄψεσθε: Either an imperatival future or an imperative with a future aspect (as οἴσετε, ἄξετε; for details, see 3.103n.); in any case, such forms (probably formed secondarily) are used by preference in contexts relating to the future (3.103–105 οἴσετε … οἴσομεν … ἄξετε, Od. 22.101–106 οἴσω … ἀμφιβαλεῦμαι … δώσω … οἶσε) and/or, as here, with the connotation ‘goes/comes in order to …’: ὄψεσθε … ἰόντες, likewise at Od. 20.154 ἔρχεσθε κρήνηνδε καὶ οἴσετε θάσσον ἰοῦσαι, 22.106 οἶσε θέων, also Od. 8.307/313 δεῦθ’ … ὄψεσθ’, Il. 24.778 ἄξετε  … ξύλα ἄστυδε; see the considerations in Chantr. 1.417  f.; Leumann (1953) 1959, 239  f.; Roth (1970–1974) 1990, 19–40.  

705 ≈ 5.157; 2nd VH = 17.207, 22.444. — him come back living | from battle: always used pathetically of heroes who will not survive (here and in the iterata, including 3× of Hektor): Segal 1971a, 41  f. – The joy at the warrior’s return from battle is a typical epic motif (6.480–481n. with examples).  

εἴ ποτε: ‘if ever’, with the implication ‘as surely you were often …’ (AH); calls the addressees to their duty, cf. 22.83 (elsewhere usually in prayers that name services rendered or received in the past: 1.37–42n., 1.503n.).  

706 2nd VH ≈ 3.50 (Paris as a μέγα πῆμα, see Macleod on 704–706). — χαίρετ(ε): On the construction with the dative (νοστήσαντι) and causal clause (ἐπεί), see Latacz 1966,

703 κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3. 704 Ἕκτορ(α): acc. object of ὄψεσθε. 705 μάχης ἔκ: = ἐκ μάχης (R 20.2). 706 χαίρετ(ε): impf. (iterative); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 255

66  f.: the immediate occasion for joy and its deeper reason. — μέγα χάρμα … δήμῳ: On the formularity of the expression, see 3.50n. with bibliography; on the predicative verbal noun χάρμα, 3.50–51n.

707–709 The narrator summarily depicts the Trojans congregating from a bird’seye view, allowing him to subsequently focus on individuals (on this narrative pattern  – frequently e.g. in the gathering of armies for battle  – see 3.1–14n. with bibliography; 19.356b–20.3n.). They also congregate on the occasion of Hektor’s return at 6.237  f. — no man  … | nor woman: a polar expressionP (697b–698n.); ‘woman’ (stressed at VB) may prepare for the important role of women in the subsequent lament (cf. 723–776n.).  

πτόλεϊ: This form of the dative also occurs at 17.152; there with metrically lengthened -ῑ (before τε), here with the beginning of the following word treated as a double consonant πτόλεϊ (λ)λίπετ’ (M 4.6; G 16); πόλει is elsewhere usually bisyllabic (e.g. at 706), 1× πόληϊ (3.50); cf. 18n. — ἀάσχετον: probably = ἄσχετον ‘irresistible, overwhelming’ (16.548  f. Τρῶας … λάβε πένθος | ἄσχετον, οὐκ ἐπιεικτόν [after Sarpedon’ s death]). The reason for the doubling of α- is obscure: loss of -ν- (ἀ-αν- or ἀν-α-)? epic diectasis? duplication of the negative for the sake of clarity? (discussion in AH Anh. on 5.892; Wackernagel [1878] 1979, 1552–1556; Chantr. 1.83; LfgrE s.v.). — ἵκετο πένθος: VE = 1.362, 18.73, Od. 23.224. ἱκάνω in combination with an abstract subject (frequently a physical/mental state) and an accusative of the person (or of the body part in question) means ‘overcome, befall, overtake’, e.g. 3.97  f. ἄλγος ἱκάνει | θυμὸν ἐμόν, 19.307 μ’ ἄχος αἰνὸν ἱκάνει, etc. (examples: LfgrE s.v. ἱκάνω 1173.41  ff.); cf. 5n. on ᾕρει (verbs of touching), 514n., end (departing), 19.164–165n. (κίχανω).

709 ἀγχοῦ … πυλάων: ≈ 714 πρὸ πυλάων, i.e. concretely ‘before the Skaian Gate’ (a Trojan gate that plays an important role elsewhere in the story of the Iliad: 3.145n.). — ἄγοντι: sc. Πριάμῳ as the person who has achieved Hektor’s repatriation (Peppmüller). On the construction, cf. Od. 10.105 κούρῃ δὲ ξύμβληντο … ὑδρευούσῃ.  

710 2nd VH ≈ 6.471. — On Andromache and Hekabe, cf. 723–776n., 725–745n., 748–759n.  

Asyndeton can occur in Homeric epic ‘when individuals, via the addition of πρῶτος vel sim., are picked out from a crowd described generally’: Nägelsbach 1864, 52 (on 1.105 [transl.]; cf. Od. 22.212 with similar VB; additional examples in Peppmüller). — ἄλοχός τε φίλη: an inflectible expression (6.366n. with examples). — πότνια μήτηρ: 126n.

707 αὐτόθ(ι): ‘there, on the spot’ (sc. ἐνὶ πτόλεϊ). — ἐνὶ πτόλεϊ: ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1), πτόλεϊ = πόλει (R 9.2). — λίπετ(ο): ‘stayed behind’ (mid.-pass.). — ἀνήρ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 709 ξύμβληντο: root aor. of συμβάλλω (mid.-pass., with dat. ‘meet, encounter someone’); ξύμ= σύμ- (R 20.1). — πυλάων: gen. dependent on ἀγχοῦ; on the inflection, R 11.1. 710 ἄλοχος: Andromache. — μήτηρ: Hekabe.

256 

 Iliad 24

711–712 Pulling out one’s hair (also known from other cultures) is among the common Homeric gestures of mourning (19.284–285n. with bibliography); it is attested already in Mycenaean images, and then more commonly in those from the Geometric period (Neumann 1965, 86  f.; Vermeule 1965, 128, 142; Iakovidis 1966; van Wees 1998, 19–41; Huber 2001, 59, 82–86, 200–202). Something similar is true of touching or holding the deceased’s head by close relatives (712, 724, 18.71 [anticipated lament: Schein 1984, 131  f.], 23.136): Richardson on 23.136 (with archaeological bibliography); Macleod on 712; Alexiou (1974) 2002, 6; Huber 2001, 204  f.; cf. 719–776n.  

τιλλέσθην: ‘pulled out their hair in mourning (for Hektor)’; a pregnant use with acc. of the person mourned (710 τόν γ’) rather than with a term for ‘hair’; similarly post-Homeric κόπτομαι, τύπτομαι: literally ‘beat one’s chest (out of grief)’ (e.g. Hdt. 2.132.2; see Peppmüller; Macleod on 710–711). — ἄμαξαν ἐΰτροχον: 150n.

712 1st VH ≈ h.Ven. 27; VE =  ‘Hes.’ fr. 75.7 M.-W. (during a contest); ≈ Il. 18.603 (during a dance). — the multitude: On the role of the accompanying crowd, see 703n.   713–717 An ‘if-not’ situationP with expansion of the formula ‘the sun would have set over their grief, if … had not …’ (23.154, Od. 16.220, 21.226; cf. Od. 23.241 ‘the sun would have risen …’); see de Jong (1987) 2004, 77, 79; Nesselrath 1992, 26. By indicating that the Trojans would have mourned Hektor before the city gates forever, the narratorP heightens the pathos of the scene (Lang 1989, 12  f.); at the same time, he can here once more illustrate Priam’s resolve and determination: the old king speaks directly from the wagon (715–717); cf. especially his impatience with the Trojans standing about and his dawdling sons at 237–265, as well as his order to procure wood after the lament for Hektor at 778–781 (see ad loc.; Richardson on 707–718, 716–717). 713 ≈ 1.601, etc. (see ad loc.). — πρόπαν: On the form and its use, see West on Hes. Th. 525.   714 1st VH ≈ 17.700, 22.81; cf. 2nd VH of 24.786. — πρὸ πυλάων: a VE formula (also at 6.80, 10.126; in verse middle: 5.789); cf. 709n.   715 ἄρ(α): signals the surprising turn of events in ‘if-not’ situations (3.374n.).  

711 τιλλέσθην: dual impf. mid. of the 3rd pers.; on the combination with pl. πρῶται, see R 18.1. — ἀΐξασαι: aor. part. (‘after they …’) of ἀΐσσω ‘rush, hurry’. 712 κεφαλῆς: sc. Ἕκτορος. — ἀμφίσταθ’: = ἀμφίστατο. 713 ἦμαρ: = ἡμέρα. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — ἠέλιον: = ἥλιον. 714 δάκρυ: collective sing. — ὀδύροντο: with κε (713) a past contrary-to-fact (durative), ‘they would have continued to grieve, mourn’. 715 λαοῖσι: ‘among the people, to the people’ (dative dependent on μετηύδα).

Commentary 

 257

716 εἴξατέ μοι οὐρεῦσι διελθέμεν: either ‘make way so I can pass with the mules’ (in this sense, Richardson) or ‘make way for my mules so that they may pass’ (AH, with οὐρεῦσι as a datival direct object of εἴξατε [718 εἶξαν ἀπήνῃ is similar]; in this case, μοι has the function of a possessive pronoun [cf. Chantr. 2.72; 29 οἱ is similar]). – οὐρεύς, like ἡμίονος, means ‘mule’ (on their use as synonyms in early epic, see LfgrE s.v. οὐρεύς; Griffith 2006, 230).  

717 1st VH ≈ Od. 21.228 (likewise in a speech after an ‘if-not’-situation). — when they had brought him inside the  … house: All public sympathy notwithstanding (703n.), the lament (in the context of the prothesis) and funeral meal normally take place within the familial space, cf. Reiner 1938, 36  f.; Derderian 2001, 35.  

ἄσεσθε: fut. ind. with concessive sense, ‘may you sate yourselves’ (Hentze 1868, 519– 521; 6.71n.); on the verb, cf. 211n.; on the formulation ‘then afterwards | you may …’, cf. 619n. — ἀγάγωμι: On the extended ending -μι with the 1st pers. sing. subjunc., see G 89; Chantr. 1.461  f.

718 ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἳ δέ: a speech capping formulaP (45× Il., 35× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Hom.), with a subsequent execution of the order (cf. 77n., 200n.). – οἳ δέ = λαοί (715).  

719–776 Lamentation for Hektor. Speeches of mourning by Andromache, Hekabe and Helen. The Trojans continue the funerary ritual (580–595n.). – Pictorial representations – namely on clay sarcophagi (larnakes) from Tanagra/Boiotia (14th/13th cent. B. C.) as well as on funerary vases from Attica (amphoras, craters; 8th cent. B. C.) – suggest a continuity of certain elements within the ritual, as described here, from the Mycenaean to the Geometric period: the corpse is laid out (prothesis), mourners crowd around the bier, one person touches the head of the deceased, women perform the lament: Cavanagh/Mee 1995; Rystedt 1999; Eder 2006, 555  f.; see also 589–590n., 711–712n., 777–804n., 795n. 719 ≈ Od. 10.112. — κλυτά: a generic epithetP (437n.); 9× as an attribute of δώματα ‘palace’. — τὸν μὲν ἔπειτα: an inflectible VE formula (6× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes., 2× h.Cer.).  

716 μοι οὐρεῦσι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — διελθέμεν: final-consecutive inf.; on the form, R 16.4. — αὐτάρ: ‘but, however’ (progressive: R 24.2). 717 ἐπήν: = ἐπάν. — ἀγάγωμι: = ἀγάγω (aor. subjunc.); sc. νεκρόν (cf. 709). — δόμονδε: on the form, R 15.3. 718 καὶ (ϝ)εῖξαν: on the prosody, R 4.4; εἶξαν from εἴκω (with dat.) ‘make way (for someone), yield’. 719 εἰσάγαγον: sc. νεκρόν. — δώματα: specification of direction without preposition (R 19.2); on the plural, R 18.2.

258 

 Iliad 24

720a =  Od. 3.399, 7.345. — on a carved bed: in contrast to the simple bier on which Achilleus had placed the corpse (589): AH. Perhaps also in contrived contrast to 22.86–89 and 22.352  f.: Hekabe’s fear and Achilleus’ threat that Hekabe would not be able to place her son on a bier and mourn him there has not come true (Schein 1984, 189).  

τρητοῖς: ‘pierced with holes’, to fasten the straps that support the mattress (3.448n.). On λέχος ‘death bed’, see 589–590n.

720b–722 A group of singers (professional or at least specialized) are fetched to perform thrḗnoi ‘dirges’, the women (members of the family) present ‘respond’ in a kind of refrain with wails: Reiner 1938, 61–67; Andronikos 1968, 12–14; Alexiou (1974) 2000, 10–13; Tsagalis 2004, 2–6, 48  f.; cf. 2 Chronicles 35:25. – On the accumulation of technical terms, cf. 266–274n.; Keil 1998, 172; Tsagalis loc. cit. 3  f. 721 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.383 (στ. ἀϋτήν, cf. FOR 25). — ἐξάρχους: a Homeric hapaxP, cf. the verb ἐξάρχω ‘lead, strike up’ in the context of laments (747, 761, also 18.316, etc.) and dance and song (18.606, etc.); on the additional uses and interpretations of the verb, see Zimmermann 1992, 19  f.   722 2nd VH =  19.301, 22.515, 24.746 (see ad loc.). — The interplay of singers and women in the joint lament (721 στονόεσσα ἀοιδή) is mirrored in the chiastic antithesis at 722: οἳ ἐθρήνεον – στενάχοντο γυναῖκες (cf. Eust. 1372.32  ff.). — οἳ μὲν ἄρ(α): picks up and clarifies οἵ τε (721) and introduces a distributive structure (5.574, 12.288, 23.3, Od. 1.110 are analogous; cf. 509n.); in this sense, Leaf; Willcock; Grandolini 1996, 69  f. In that case, στονόεσσαν ἀοιδήν is to be read as an internal accusative with ἐθρήνεον (and perhaps also more loosely connected with ἐπὶ στενάχοντο). On other interpretations (some with different readings and/or with an athetesis of 721), see app. crit. and Peppmüller, as well as the bibliography in LfgrE s.v. θρῆνος. — ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο: ἐπί in the sense of a response to the speeches of mourning (‘thereupon’; see 720b–722n. with bibliography, also Derderian 2001, 26 n. 46; Tsagalis 2004, 66 with n. 205; Beck 2005, 245).  

723–776 Within the storyP, the royal women closest to the deceased – Andromache, Hekabe and Helen – in a sense take over the leading function of the thrḗnoi singers (whose appearance is related in only a summary fashion: 720b–722 with n.). Their speeches of mourning, rendered with great personal feeling, are not only a eulogy of Hektor in life and death, but also offer deep insight into the thoughts of the affected family members, as well as into the mood of

720 λεχέεσσι: 702n. — παρά: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘besides’. — εἷσαν: transitive aor. of ἕζομαι, ‘let take a seat, cause to sit down’. 721 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 722 οἳ μὲν ἄρ(α): to be rendered as ‘on the one hand’ vel sim. in English (sc. ‘the women on the other hand …’). — ἐθρήνεον:  ͜ on the synizesis, R 7. — στενάχοντο: on the middle, R 23.

Commentary 

 259

the population of a doomed city generally – a final climax of pathetic psychological illustrative art immediately before the end of the Iliad (Deichgräber 1972, 79–82; Taplin 1992, 281  f.; Wagner-Hasel 2000, 88  f.; Macleod; somewhat one-sided Perkell 2008, according to whom the mourning speeches represent a corrective to the dominant heroic ideology of the epic [cf. below 739n., 770–775n., end]; on the content and structure of speeches of mourning in general, see 19.286–339n. with bibliography; Gagliardi 2007). The speeches also contain references to Book 6 (where Hektor, still alive, encounters the three women) and Book 22 (where the immediate reaction of Hekabe and Andromache to Hektor’s death is depicted): see 6.237–529n., 6.369–502n. (with bibliography); for more on these references, 725–745n., 748–759n. – The order of appearance of the three women in Book 6 is climactic: Hekabe – Helen – Andromache (cf. 6.237–529n.; similarly in Book 22: Hekabe  – Andromache); conversely, in the present scene, Andromache, as the most affected person, is placed first with the longest speech of mourning; on Helen’s position as the third and final speaker, see 762–775n. 723 ≈ Od. 6.101, 7.233, 11.335. — τῇσιν: ‘among them’ (locative: 1.68n.). — λευκώλενος: a generic epithetP of goddesses and high-status women (who do not need to work outdoors), characterizing beauty: 1.55n.; the only epithet of Ἀνδρομάχη in Homer (aside from here, only in Book 6: 6.371/377). On a possible but unlikely contextually relevant interpretation, see Kaimio 1977, 50 n. 104; Edwards 1987, 314; Richardson on 723–724: (a) a reference back to the encounter between Hektor and Andromache in Book 6; (b) an emphasis on Andromache’s arms in the context of the gesture of mourning: she holds Hektor’s head μετὰ χερσίν (724). — ἦρχε γόοιο: synonymous with the more common ἐξῆρχε γ. (747, etc.): Grandolini 1996, 71; cf. 721n.; on the introductory verses of speeches of mourning in general, Tsagalis 2004, 55–64. – In contrast to the formal θρῆνος (720b–722n.), γόος is the spontaneous lament by the relatives during the mourning ritual (160n.).

724 and held in her arms: Andromache’s position at the head of Hektor’s corpse is not just a mere gesture but a sign of her emotional connection to the deceased (711–712n.).  

Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο: The vulgate offers Ἕ. ἀνδροφόνοιο; in contrast, several papyri and other witnesses offer Ἕ. ἱπποδάμοιο (including Matro in a parody of the present verse [4th cent. B. C.]). This seems to support Ἕ. ἱππ. (West 2001, 281). – Arguments for retaining the main transmission: (a) ἀνδροφόνος might be presupposed in 736–739; (b) the word is also used at 6.498 in connection with Andromache’s mourning for Hektor (Richardson on 723–724; Friedrich 2007, 106; cf. 509n., with further thoughts on the use of the two noun-epithet formulae). The other examples of Ἕκτορος ἱππ. (16.717,

724 κάρη: ‘head’ (neuter sing.); on the -η after -ρ-, R 2.

260 

 Iliad 24

22.161, 22.211, 24.804, all at VE) are not disputed. — ἱπποδάμοιο: a generic epithetP of heroes (frequently Diomedes; of Hektor also 4× at VE) and of the Trojans; on the possible reference to Trojan horse-breeding, which is known to be of great antiquity, see 2.230n.

725–745 Andromache’s mourning for Hektor has parallels in form and content to her earlier speeches in Books 6 and 22: it is likewise tripartite (here underscored by changes in address: see below; on the typical tripartite structure of speeches of mourning, see 19.286–339n.; Lohmann 1988, 70–72; Alexiou [1974] 2002, 132  f.; Foley 1999, 188–198; Tsagalis 2004, 46  f.), and it elaborates further the motif of the widowed wife and orphaned son as a consequence of Hektor’s death: a brief mention at 6.432 (seedP), a vividly painted image of the orphan boy as an outcast in his native land in the second speech at 22.482–507 (Astyanax’ death is hinted at as an alternative at 22.487); in the present passage, Andromache finally projects a horrific vision of Astyanax, captured and led away by the victors or even killed on the spot (climactic use of the motif: Kullmann [1968] 2001, 399–402; Lohmann 1988, 72–74; de Jong 1987a, 109  f.; on Astyanax, see 734b–738n.). Further details in Richardson; Tsagalis 2004, 133–136. The speech is characterized by an accumulation of stylistic elements: (1) change of address A–B–A: ‘husband’ (725–732a) – ‘child’ (732b–740; in this section, Hektor is referred to in the 3rd person) – ‘Hektor’ (741–745; vocative at 742 as an emphatic runover word: Edwards, Introd. 43); (2) an increased occurrence of integral enjambmentP expressing agitation: 725  f., 727  f., 728  f., 729  f., etc. (cf. 6.407–412n.); (3) word playP and word repetition: etymologizing of the name ‘Hektor’ (729b–730n.), designation of the potential master and of Astyanax’ father as ἀμείλιχος and οὐ  … μείλιχος 734/739 (cf. 11.136  f. προσαυδήτην βασιλῆα | μειλιχίοις ἐπέεσσιν· ἀμείλικτον δ’ ὄπ’ ἄκουσαν), linking of Astyanax’ fate and Andromache’s grief with Hektor’s eagerness in battle via triple λυγρός at 735/739/742 (Macleod on 739; Murnaghan 1999, 216  f.), figurae etymologicae at 733 and 744 (ἔργα … ἐργάζοιο, εἶπες … ἔπος); (4) sound pattern: assonance and alliteration at 725 (1st VH), 733 (ε-), 734 (α-) (Richardson on 725–726, 732–740).

725 My husband, …: Each of the three mourners (Andromache here, Hekabe at 748, Helen at 762) uses the relevant kinship specification in addressing Hektor (cf. Friedrich 2007, 106  f.) and elaborates further on her relationship to him in the speech: Andromache as widowed wife (and mother of their joint son), Hekabe as mother, Helen as sister-in-law. — young: Early death is a motif typical not only of the Iliad (Hektor: 15.612  f.; Achilleus: 1.352, 1.417, etc., cf. 540n.; other warriors: 4.478  f., 5.550–553, etc.) but especially of funerary inscriptions (so-called mors immatura; see e.g. Griessmair 1966).   725 ἆνερ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ὤλεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — κάδ: = κατά (assimilated form with apocope: R 20.1), with 726 λείπεις (so-called tmesis: R 20.2).

Commentary 



 261

ἆνερ: The vocative ἆνερ (unique in Homer) in place of the metrically equivalent Ἕκτορ (thus at 748, 762) reflects Andromache’s intimacy with Hektor, cf. 6.430 σὺ δέ μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης. On the use of ἆνερ/ἄνερ, largely restricted to the husband, in Greek literature, see Wackernagel (1912) 1953, 991–993 (but cf. 300n. on γύναι). — ἀπ’ αἰῶνος … ὤλεο: a pathetic formulation, like English ‘snatched away in the prime of life, departed from this world’; expressions such as ‘lose one’s life’ vel sim. are more common (e.g. θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι, 1.205n.); cf. Macleod. On the meaning of αἰών (‘life force’ of young people), see 19.27n.; West on Hes. Th. 609. On the construction, cf. 18.107 ὡς ἔρις ἔκ τε θεῶν ἔκ τ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλοιτο, Od. 15.91 ἐκ μεγάρων κειμήλιον  … ὄληται. — χήρην: a contrast to the vocative ‘my husband’ (VB – VE), with a faintly accusatory tone (cf. 742–745; Alexiou [1974] 2000, 182–184). – The difficult situation faced by widows is frequently highlighted in Homer, especially at 6.405  ff., 22.482  ff., Od. 8.523  ff.; see 2.289n. with bibliography.

726–727 ≈ 22.484  f. (Andromache’s speech of mourning following closely on Hektor’s death).  

ἐν μεγάροισι: ‘at home’ (208b–209a  n.). — νήπιος αὔτως: ‘still so young’ (6.400n.). — δυσάμμοροι: ‘very miserable’; on the formation and use of the word, 19.315n.  

728–729a The last explicit prolepsisP of the fall of Troy in the Iliad (244b–246n.). On the narrative pattern ‘X will not come about; sooner Y will happen’, e.g. 1.29  f., 16.628  f. (Kelly 2007, 191  f.).  

ἥβην ἵξεσθαι: ‘to reach maturity’, as at Od. 15.366; ἥβη denotes ‘adulthood’ (maturity, ability to wed) (LfgrE). — κατ’ ἄκρης: = 13.772, 15.557, 22.411 (always of the destruction of Troy), also at Od. 5.313 (Odysseus on a raft); literally ‘from top (i.e. ἄκρης πόλεως) to bottom’, metaphorically ‘from the ground up, thoroughly’ (Schw. 2.480; Leumann 1950, 56  f.; LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1374.2–13). — πέρσεται: on the passive use of the future middle, 355n.; in the case of πέρθω, the aorist middle also has a passive function: διεπράθετο    (Od. 15.384).  

729b–730 Hektor’s significance for Troy (on which, see 499n.) is highlighted via an accumulation of pertinent terms: ‘patron, protector, guard’. The first term is elaborated in the relative clause (cf. 479n.), the second and third are placed immediately next to one another in the Greek (with the clauses arranged chiastically). In addition, the scholia (T) already identified an allusion to Hektor’s name in the third term (éches, originally (h)ékhes) (in the sense ‘preserver, pro726 πάϊς … νήπιος: sc. ἐστίν. 727 οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — οἴω: = οἶμαι (R 23). 728 πρίν: adverbial, ‘(even) sooner, before’. 729 πέρσεται: ‘will be destroyed’. — ἦ: ‘truly, indeed’ (R 24.4). — ἐπίσκοπος: sc. ὤν. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 730 ῥύσκε(ο): iterative form of ἔρυμαι/ῥῦμαι ‘protect’ (R 16.5); on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἔχες: here in the sense ‘keep from, protect’.

262 

 Iliad 24

tector’): etymologizingP, on which, see 6.402–403n., end (with bibliography); also Peppmüller and Macleod.

ἐπίσκοπος: ‘overseer, protector’ (the modern word ‘bishop’ is derived from this word), similarly at 22.255 ‘guardian, guarantor’ of an agreement. — μιν αὐτήν: ‘she herself’ (sc. πόλιν), to which 730 (in the sense ‘her inhabitants’) is complementary; cf. 499n. (on ἄστυ καὶ αὐτούς). — ἀλόχους κεδνὰς καὶ νήπια τέκνα: ≈ 4.238, 18.514; also ἀλόχους/ -οι καὶ ν. τ. 5× Il. (2.136n.), VE νήπια τ. in total 11× Il., 3× Od. (2.311n.). The formula usually occurs in the context of an absence of a husband/father and the dangers faced by his wife and children (Edmunds 1990, 27  f.); here it is used in relation to all Trojan families. — κεδνάς: ‘dear, lovingly devoted, devoted to’ (LfgrE); an attribute of ἄλοχος and μήτηρ (also in the form κεδνὰ ἰδυῖα/κέδν’ εἰδυῖα), less commonly of servants and other individuals with a close connection; perhaps etymologically related to κήδομαι ‘care about, take care of’ (ChronEG 8 s.v.).

731–735 On the custom of taking away women and children as prisoners of war and selling them as slaves, cf. 6.454–465 (Hektor’s fear), 9.593  f., 22.45, 24.751– 753, Od. 14.264  f.; more at 1.13n., 6.57b–60n.; on trade in Homer overall (frequently not for economic reasons but for prestige), van Wees 1992, 238–248. – On the brutal killing of children, cf. 6.58  f., 22.63  f. 731 δ’ ἤτοι: A coordinating particle (δέ) is needed after demonstrative αἵ at the beginning of the sentence; the reading of the main transmission δή τοι is therefore to be corrected to δ’ ἤτοι, cf. 22.12, etc.: Peppmüller; Bühler 1960, 131, 228–230. — τάχα: 355n. — νηυσὶν … γλαφυρῇσιν: γλ. is a common epithet of ships: 2.454n.; with separation of the noun and adjective only here and at Od. 13.74. On the meaning, cf. κοῖλος 336n.  

732 1st VH ≈ 1.516, Od. 21.231, 22.318; VE ≈ Il. 16.12, 22.451, Od. 3.49, 4.177, 9.421, 23.253. — I  … also: Via the stressed kai men egṓ, Andromache emphatically classes her fate with that of the other women (731 ‘wives who’). In the epic cycle, Andromache falls to Achilleus’ son Neoptolemos in the distribution of spoils: Il. parv. fr. 29.1  f. West, Il. Pers. Procl. § 4 West (Wathelet and BNP s.v. Andromache; on Neoptolemos, see 19.326–337n.). — and you, my child: It is unclear from the text whether Astyanax should be thought of as present (→ address) or absent (→ so-called apostrophe); in favor of the former, de Jong 1987a, 109  f. (with reference to depictions of prothesis showing children as well); in favor of the latter, Macleod on 732–740; both are possible: Martinazzoli; Richardson on 732–740.  

καὶ μέν: 488n.

731 ἤτοι: ‘certainly’ (R 24.4). — ὀχήσονται: ‘will be borne, go’. — γλαφυρῇσιν: on the inflection, R 11.1. 732 τῇσι: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἠ(έ): =  ἤ, correlative with ἤ in 734: ‘either … or’.

Commentary 

 263

733–734a ἔργα ἀεικέα … | ἀθλεύων: cf. 19.133 ἔργον ἀεικὲς ἔχοντα ὑπ’ Εὐρυσθῆος ἀέθλων, with n. on ἔργα ἀεικέα (‘labor incommensurate with a person’s worth, i.e. dishonorable, degrading labor’) and on ἄεθλος (‘toil associated with suffering and danger’). – On the hiatus in ἔργα ἀεικέα, see 264n. (here perhaps necessitated by modification of the formula: elsewhere ἔργον ἀεικές 6× in Homer [19.133n.], ἀεικέα (ϝ)έργα 3× Od.; cf. M 14); 2nd VH ἔργα … ἐργάζοιο ≈ Od. 22.422, Hes. Op. 382. — πρὸ ἄνακτος: ‘for the master of the house’; on this meaning of ἄναξ (elsewhere in this sense mainly in the Odyssey), see LfgrE s.v. 788.53  ff.; Yamagata 1997, 3  f.; ­Schmidt 2006, 443, 446  f. – πρό ≈ ὑπέρ, as at 8.57, 10.286 (schol. D on all three passages; Peppmüller; AH; Schw. 2.506); differently Leaf: ‘before the face of’; Chantr. 2.131 (transl.): ‘under the eyes of > under the orders of’.     

734b–738 The narrator has Andromache offer speculations regarding Astyanax’ death; these correspond to elements of the myth known from other (post-Homeric) sources and are thus likely a deliberate allusion to these sources  – ‘a  poetic means of contributing a further dimension to Andromache’s suffering’ (Anderson 1997, 56; on the characterization of Andromache, see Beck 1964, 161–163; on the embedding of the story of the Iliad in the – largely reconstructed – Trojan myth cycle, cf. 27–30n.; STR 23). In the Ilias parva, Neoptolemos flings Astyanax down from the walls (fr. 29–30 West); in the Iliou Persis, Astyanax is killed by Odysseus (Procl. Chrest. § 4 West, without further specification of the circumstances); in Euripides (Troades 721–725), Odysseus suggests that Astyanax be killed to pre-empt his revenge on the Achaians (at the same time, Andromache here assumes that the Achaians will immediately take revenge for the deaths caused by Hektor, cf. 739). Pictorial evidence links Astyanax’ death with that of Priam (in several depictions, Neoptolemos hurls the boy against his grandfather, who has fled to an altar; for details, see LIMC s.v. Astyanax; Mangold 2000, 13–33). Further discussion and bibliography in Beck loc. cit. 157–168; Anderson loc. cit. 53–59; Burgess 2001, 66  f., 154; 2010; 2012, 176–182; Macleod on 734–738 (with parallels for the combination of ‘false’ and ‘true’ premonitions); Richardson on 734–739. 735 ≈ Il. parv. fr. 29.4 West (likewise of Astyanax), cf. also Il. 1.591; 1st VH ≈ h.Ap. 318. — λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον: an inflectible formula at VE and after caesura A 3 (2.873n.); as an appositive to a clause, the expression may have a pregnant/concrete meaning here: ‘an abhorrent way to die’ (cf. Od. 3.193  f. of Agamemnon’s death): Anastassiou 1973, 152  f.; on the so-called acc. of a clausal appositive, Schw. 2.86, 617; Chantr. 2.15.

733 ἔργα ἀεικέα (ϝ)εργάζοιο: on the prosody, R 5.6 and 4.3. 734 πρὸ (ϝ)άνακτος: on the prosody, R 5.4.

264 

 Iliad 24

736–737 1st VH of 737 ≈ 2nd VH of Od. 22.216; VE of 737 = Il. 2.161/177 (Od. 8.217 is similar). — in anger because … killed his brother | or his father, or his son: as in blood feuds: 480–484n. On the emotional enumeration of relatives, cf. 36–37a  n. — so many Achaians: In the Iliad, Hektor kills 28 opponents mentioned by name (list: LfgrE s.v. Hektor 511.30  ff.) in addition to numerous nameless victims (8.341  f., 11.304  ff.).  

δή που: In contrast to the later compound δήπου, both particles retain their own function (Denniston 267): δή reinforces the relative pronoun (it can be rendered causally in English: ‘since his …’); on the usage of που, see 488n., here ‘probably, I suppose’.

738 1st VH = 7.105; ≈ 5.558, 15.411; 2nd VH = 19.61, Od. 22.269 (in addition, VE at Od. 13.395). — bit the … earth: a paraphrase for death on the battlefield, cf. English ‘to bite the dust’, German ‘ins Gras beißen’ (2.418n.). On the VE formula, see 19.61n.

ἐν παλάμῃσιν: a variant of the more common ὑπὸ χερσίν vel sim. (e.g. 168 [see ad loc.], 638); cf. ὑπ’ … παλαμάων 3.128n.

739 no merciful man in the horror of battle: Hektor’s ruthlessness in battle has its drawbacks: it affects the surviving members of his family (especially 736–738); this is nonetheless no ‘redefinition of martial valor’ (thus Lohmann 1988, 79 [transl.]): without heroism, Hektor would have been unable to fulfil his role as protector of Troy (729b–730 with n., 6.441–446n.; Schein 1984, 190).  – On the intrinsic, irreconcilable conflict between mercy and war, see 15.741, 20.467  f., also 22.373  f.; in particular, the speeches of warriors about to deliver the coup de grace to an opponent despite pleas for mercy are described as ‘implacable’ (11.137, 21.98).  

οὐ γὰρ μείλιχος … λυγρῇ: The close connection of Hektor’s fate with that of his family is underscored by literal repetitions (μείλ-, λυγρ-): 734/735/739/742 (725–745n.). — ἔσκε: ‘was always’ (3.180n.). — ἐν δαῒ λυγρῇ: a VE formula, also at 13.286, Hes. Th. 650, 674; variant ἐν δαῒ λευγαλέῃ Il. 14.387. On the archaic character of the rare δαΐ ‘battle’, see Trümpy 1950, 136; DELG; cf. δαΐφρων 2.23n.

740–742 An accumulation of terms from the semantic field ‘grief’ and a climactic enumeration of those affected: mourning by the Trojan people – lament by the parents – grief of Andromache herself (742 ‘passing all others’): Richardson on 740–742.

736 ᾧ δή που: ‘because probably his’ (ᾧ refers to τις Ἀχαιῶν [734]). — ἀδελφεόν: = ἀδελφόν. 739 τεός: = σός (R 14.4).

Commentary 

 265

740 τὼ καί: ‘therefore  … also’, i.e. because Hektor was such a successful warrior (739) and Troy’s protector par excellence (729  f.; in this sense, AH; cf. Murnaghan 1999, 216  f.).   741 =  17.37 (and ≈ the extra verse after 23.223). — ἀρητόν: only here and in the iterata; the meaning is unclear, perhaps ‘cursed’ (related to ἀρή/ἀράομαι, 1.35n., although elsewhere in Homer with no pejorative sense: 6.115n.), thus with the sense of 23.10 ὀλοὸς γόος (Mawet 1979, 273; West 2001a, 121; differently Giordano 1998: ‘a lament during which one curses the murderer or wishes revenge on him’). In contrast, the v.l. ἄρρητον ‘unspeakable’ requires no explanation and is more appropriate semantically; it is thus preferred by Leaf and Edwards (both on 17.37); LfgrE s.v. ἀρητός; Morenilla-Talens 1992, 296–298.

742 1st VH ≈ 6.493 v.l. (see ad loc.), Od. 14.138; 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Op. 200 (cf. Il. 21.585); also VE = 13.346; ≈ 19.49. — Hektor: a return to the address to Hektor with an emphatic vocative (725–745n.).

λελείψεται: a reduplicated future (158n.).

743 It is a fundamentally human wish to die in the arms of one’s family (cf. Il. 13.653  f.) or to embrace the dying (226–227n.). Here this has been impossible, not least due to the circumstances of the death: Hektor died on the battlefield, not at home. — stretch your arms to me: Stretching out the arms is generally a gesture of pleading, of asking for help: Achilleus to Thetis 1.351, Nestor to Zeus 15.371 (on prayer poses, see 301n.), Priam to Hektor 22.37, Odysseus’ companions in Skylla’s clutches at Od. 12.257. Here it can be understood as a gesture of attachment and parting, in accord with passages where survivors embrace the deceased: Il. 19.284 (Briseïs and Patroklos; see 19.284–285n.), Od. 8.527 (a married couple [simile]); attempted embrace: Il. 23.99 (Achilleus and Patroklos’ spirit), Od. 11.392 (Odysseus and Agamemnon’s spirit). Further discussion: Hentze 1902, 354  f.; Sommer 1977, 136–138; on the similarly pathetic expression ‘to spread one’s arms’, Kirk on 4.523; Kurz 1966, 27.   744 πυκινὸν ἔπος: see 75n.; here as a kind of legacy of the deceased that remains fixed in memory (745; see AH; Martin 1989, 35  f.; Crotty 1994, 73), e.g. words of thanks or consolation, counsel, prophecy; see the (partially overlapping) examples in Garland 1985, 20, 136; Mackie 1996, 122  f.; Richardson on 743–745; cf. Foley 1991, 155  f. – The words of farewell between Odysseus and Nausikaa at Od. 8.461–468 fulfil a similar purpose (Griffin 1980, 61), as do those between Odysseus and Penelope (cited by Penelope in her speech addressed to Eurymachos: 18.257–271; cf. Hölscher [1988] 1990, 50).  

740 τώ: ‘therefore, thus’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3. 743 λεχέων ἔκ: = ἐκ λεχέων (R 20.2). 744 μοι (ϝ)εῖπες: on the prosody, R 4.4. — πυκινὸν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — αἰεί: = ἀεί.

266 

 Iliad 24

745 ≈ 18.340, Od. 11.183 = 13.338 = 16.39. — Andromache is always described as weeping in the Iliad because of the associated situations: 6.373n.  

μεμνῄμην: On the (athematic) optative, see Schw. 1.795; West 2001, 270. — νύκτας τε καὶ ἤματα: an inflectible formula after caesura A 4 (nom./acc.: 2× Il., 3× Od., 4× Hes., also 1× Od. νύκτες τ. κ. ἡμέραι; cf. 73n.). The polar expressionP contains ‘the notion of continuation, an uninterrupted connection’ (Kemmer 1903, 174 [transl.]) and corresponds to αἰεί in αἰεὶ μεμνῄμην at 744  f. — δάκρυ χέουσα: 613n.

746–747 ≈ 22.429  f. 746 =  19.301, 22.515; ≈ 19.338, 22.429, 24.776; 1st VH =  22.437; ≈ 24.760; 2nd VH = 24.722. — A speech capping formulaP of laments in Books 19, 22 and 24. At the same time, the repetition of the 1st VH after the speeches by Andromache, Hekabe and Helen (746, 760, 776) conveys an impression of ritual solemnity (Segal 1971a, 35  f.; Tsagalis 2004, 48  f.; cf. refrain compositionP: van Otterlo 1944, 195); the response of the bystanders that follows is here represented in a climax: 746 sighing of the women, 760 persistent weeping (by those present), 776 sighing of the entire people (schol. bT on 776; Monsacré 1984, 165; Tsagalis 2004, 65; cf. 703n.). The narrator also prepares the change of scene at 777  ff. with ‘vast populace’ at 776: the Trojans as a group become the focus once again (cf. Beck 2005, 250  f.). 747 ≈ 22.430; 2nd VH = 18.316, 22.430, 23.17; ≈ 18.51, 24.723, 24.761. — On the 2nd VH, cf. 723n. (introductory verse of speeches of mourning).  

ἁδινοῦ: 123a  n.

748–759 The topic of Hekabe’s speech, ‘Hektor under the protection of the gods’, was prepared for by the divine debate at the beginning of Book 24 (especially Apollo at 33  f., Zeus at 66–70; cf. 33–35n.) and by Hermes’ promises to Priam (411–423) (on the literal echoes at 749  f./755  f./757  f. of 422  f./416  f./419  f., see Beck 1964, 209: ‘a type of affirmative repetition of words’; Kim 2000, 54). To the extent that Hektor deserves the protection of the gods, Hekabe’s speech of mourning is a eulogy of him: (a) specification of the topic: 748–750; (b) point 1: Hekabe’s other sons have been sold into slavery by Achilleus: 751–753 (with n.); (b’) point 2: Hektor has been killed and dragged by Achilleus: 754–756; (a’) preservation of Hektor’s body by the gods: 757–759 (on the ring-compositionP, Lohmann 1970, 111  f.; Tsagalis 2004, 31  f.).  – Hekabe’s final speech in the Iliad is at the same time the most conciliatory and consoling of all her speeches; contrast at 22.82–89 the fear of Hektor’s body being torn apart by dogs in 745 ἤματα: from ἦμαρ = ἡμέρα. 747 αὖθ’: = αὖτε ‘in turn’, here in the sense ‘subsequently’ (cf. ἔπειτα 761). — Ἑκάβη ἁδινοῦ: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

Commentary 

 267

place of a proper burial (cf. 720a  n.), 22.431–436 the desperate lament for the loss of Hektor (on the reference to the present speech, see Tsagalis loc. cit. 156  f.: ‘complementarity’), 24.201–216 a passionate hatred for Achilleus (here only hinted at: 756, see 755–756n.). – Additional bibliography on the present speech: Richardson; Segal 1971, 69–71; Schein 1984, 190  f.; Taplin 1992, 281  f.; Tsagalis loc. cit. 158–161; Gagliardi 2007, 170–175. 748 ≈ 762 (see ad loc. for additional iterata); a whole-verse address. — dearest by far to my spirit: On similarly intimate addresses, see 19.287n. — of all my sons: 495–498n.; on an address with a specification of familial relationship, see 725n.   749–750 The retrospective of the life of the individual mourned for and the juxtaposition ‘during his lifetime – in death’ are typical motifs of lament: 19.288  f., 22.435  f. (19.286–339n.; Alexiou [1974] 2002, 165–171; Tsagalis 2004, 30, 44  f.). At the same time, the protection rendered by the gods ‘even in death’ is highlighted with satisfaction (cf. 748–759n.).

περ … περ: underscores the antithesis ‘life – death’: Richardson on 748–750.

749 2nd VH ≈ Od. 24.92, h.Ven. 195. — dear to the gods: 61n.   750 2nd VH = 428 (see ad loc.; cf. also 20n. on καὶ τεθνηότα περ). — ἄρα: ‘as I can see, as becomes evident’, ‘a conclusion drawn from the sight of the corpse’ (AH [transl.]; likewise Macleod); on this function of ἄρα (frequently with a verb in the imperfect) in general, see Denniston 36  f.; LfgrE s.v. 1160.1  ff.  

751–753 In contrast to Priam (22.44  f., etc., see 167–168n.), Hekabe mourns not the death of many of her sons, but rather the fact that they were sold into slavery. In this way, she stresses the killing and maltreatment of Hektor by Achilleus (and thus also the effectiveness of divine protection) as her favorite son’s special fate (cf. AH on 751; Leaf on 752). – The iteratives in 752 and the rhetorically exaggerated listing of the three islands in 753 underscore the frequency with which the sons were taken away. In an earlier phase of the war, Achilleus in fact captured several Trojans, including Lykaon (Macleod on 751–753; cf. 753n.; on captivity in general, 731–735n.). – On the motif ‘all others … x, A (alone) … y’ (751/754), cf. 25–26n. 751 1st VH ≈ Od. 3.86, also Il. 5.877, Od. 21.232.  – On the VE formula, see 138n.   748 πολύ: adverbial, ‘by far’. 749 ἦ μέν: ≈ ἦ μήν (R 24.4/6). — μοι: ethic dat. — περ: contrasts with καὶ ἐν θανάτοιο περ αἴσῃ (750), ‘not only …, but even’ (R 24.10). — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6). 750 σεο:  ͜ = σου (R 14.1); on the synizesis, R 7. 751 πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

268 

 Iliad 24

752 πέρνασχ(ε)  … πέρην: The basic meaning of the verb is clearly perceptible in early epic: ‘export’ (Becker 1937, 33  f.; Chantraine 1940, 11  f.; Benveniste 1969, 133  f.); the combination of a verb and adverb with the same word stem has an intensifiying effect, e.g. 9.11 κλήδην κικλήσκειν (Fehling 1969, 160). On the use of πέρνημι in Homer in general: Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 74–78. — ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο: a phrase at VE (3× Il., 3× Od.), also 1× Od. in verse middle. On the epithet, see 1.316n. (‘with much noise, surf’).  

753 2nd VH ≈ h.Ap. 36. — Samos … Imbros … Lemnos: On Samos (= Samothrace) and Imbros, see 78n. During their Trojan campaign, the Achaians maintained active trade relations with Lemnos (7.467–475; explicit mention of slave trade on Lemnos at 7.475 as well as at 21.40  f., 23.746  f. [Lykaon]); in addition, they stopped at the island on their outward jouney (8.230–232) and abandoned Philoktetes there (2.721–723). Poliochni, in the southeast of Lemnos, will have played a particularly important role during the Bronze Age as a harbor town along the shipping routes toward the Dardanelles (BNP s.v. Poliochni). More on Lemnos (Hephaistos; language of the inhabitants): 1.593n. – The verse is structured in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (60n.).  

ἀμιχθαλόεσσαν: a Homeric hapaxP, elsewhere at h.Ap. 36 and in Hellenistic poetry (where an attribute of ἀήρ). Etymology and meaning are obscure, frequently interpreted as ‘inhospitable’ or ‘hazy’ in accord with the scholia: ‘The cloud of uncertainty around this foggy gloss has not been lifted by modern scholarship’ (Richardson). Detailed doxography: Bettarini 2003, 69–79.

754 You: an antithesis to 751 ‘others of my sons’; on the structure of the speech, 748–759n.

ἐξέλετο ψυχήν: 168n. — ταναήκεϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (3× Il., 1× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’), always of weapons or tools. The epithet means ‘with a long point’, the initial element is related to τανα(ϝ)ός ‘(e)long(ated)’ (LfgrE). On χαλκός, 393n.

755–756 The motif that a deceased person cannot be brought back to life regardless of the effort expended (550–551n.) is here likely an expression of Hekabe’s bitterness toward Achilleus (Segal 1971, 69, 71; Schein 1984, 190  f.; cf. 212– 213n. and 748–759n., end). Another interpretation: insight into the futility of human endeavor and thus a renunciation of – clearly pointless – revenge (thus Martinazzoli on 756; Taplin 1992, 281  f.; Macleod on 746–756 goes even further: ‘not far from pity’).

752 πέρνασχ’ (=  πέρνασκε)  … ἕλεσκε: iterative forms (R 16.5), likewise at 755 ῥυστάζεσκεν. — πέρην (with gen.): ‘beyond’. 753 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 269

755 2nd VH ≈ 51, 416. — ῥυστάζεσκεν: an intensive-expressive form (21n., end); on the content, 24.15  f. with nn.  

756 1st VH, cf. 17.35, 17.204. — killed, … did not | bring him back to life: The antithesis highlights the finality of Patroklos’ death; as his adversary Hektor will also ‘not come back to life’ (2nd VH of 756 ≈ 1st VH of 551), the families of Achilleus and Priam are now ‘even’ (cf. Taplin 1992, 282).   757–759 A sudden, easy death is frequently attributed in speeches to Apollo’s (or, in the case of women, Artemis’) arrows: 605–609n. In addition, the mention of Apollo on the narrator level may allude to the fact that the god already took care of Hektor’s body earlier: 18–21 with nn. (Richardson; that the use of the motif in the present passage is not merely formulaic, but rather expressive, is also argued on the whole by Reinhardt 1961, 484  f.; Macleod on 759). – On the contrast of mercy and violence in the case of Apollo (‘killed with his gentle missiles’) overall, see Bierl 1994. 757 νῦν δέ: juxtaposes all that has happened before with ‘what counts, matters now’ (cf. Leaf on 752, end; 208b–209a  n.). — ἑρσήεις καὶ πρόσφατος: on ἑρσήεις, 419n. – πρόσφατος (a Homeric hapaxP) probably derived from the root of θείνω/πεφνεῖν (cf. 254 πεφάσθαι): ‘just killed (died)’, i.e. ‘fresh’, cf. Hdt. 2.89.2 μισγόμενον νεκρῷ προσφάτῳ γυναικός; here in an etymological word playP with ἔπεφνες 756 and καταπέφνῃ 759 (LfgrE; DELG s.v. θείνω; Frisk and Beekes s.v. πρόσφατος). A different derivation in schol. T and Leaf: from φαίνω (‘just appeared, fresh’). – The (obscure) initial element is connected with πρός as an expression of spatial or temporal proximity (DELG loc. cit.). — ἐν μεγάροισιν: ‘at home’ (208b–209a  n.). 758 ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων: a VE formula (6× Il., 2× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 3× h.Hom., also 1× Od. in verse middle). On the epithet, cf. 56n.   759 ≈ Od. 3.280, 5.124, 11.173, 11.199, 15.411 (all with the aor. ind.; see app. crit.); 1st VH ≈ Il. 2.164/180 (see ad loc. also on ἀγανός ‘gentle, soothing, kind’).   760 1st VH ≈ 746 (see ad loc.). — γόον … ὄρινεν: 507n. — ἀλίαστον: 549n. 761 VB ≈ 3× Il., 2× Od. (τοῖσι …); on the 2nd VH, see 723n., 747n.  

755 πολλὰ (ῥ)ῥυστάζεσκεν: on the prosody, M 4.6; πολλά adverbial, ‘frequently, repeatedly’. — ἑοῦ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4). 756 τόν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἔπεφνες: 2nd pers. sing. aor. of θείνω ‘kill’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — οὐδ’ ὧς: ‘nor in this way’. 758 τῷ (ϝ)ίκελος(ς) ὅν: on the prosody, R 4.4 and M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 759 οἷς: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4). — ἀγανοῖσι βέλεσσιν: on the inflection, R 11.2 and 11.3. — ἐποιχόμενος: ‘overcoming, visiting upon someone’. — καταπέφνῃ: generalizing subjunc. without a modal particle (R 21.1). 761 τριτάτη: = τρίτη.

270 

 Iliad 24

762–775 As the third and last to deliver a speech of mourning after Andromache and Hekabe, Helen occupies a prominent position, and even a pointed one as the causa belli (and thus ultimately the initiator of Hektor’s death); on this, see the interpretations in Groten 1968, 38, Farron 1979, 21  f., Monsacré 1984, 158  f., and Worman 2002, 54  f. (a nuanced portrayal of the figure of Helen); Clader 1976, 11 and Pantelia 2002 (Helen establishes Hektor’s epic fame); Suzuki 1989, 54  f., and Roisman 2006, 30  f. (Helen is an equal to Hekabe and Andromache in the Trojan royal family); general bibliography on the figure of Helen in the Iliad: 3.121n. – Helen’s speech, like Hekabe’s (748–759n.), is structured as a ring-compositionP: (a) Hektor is the dearest: 762–764, (b) he never directed a bad word to her: 765–767, (c) the attitude of the remaining Trojans: 768–770, (b’) Hektor’s kind words: 771  f., (a’) no one is left who is kindly disposed: 773–775 (Lohmann 1970, 110  f.). Helen picks up on motifs that were significant in her appearances in Books 3 and 6 (6.344–358n.); she focuses on her relationships with those closest to her: Hektor, Paris, the sisters- and brothersin-law, Hekabe and Priam, the Trojans as a group (Richardson; Reichel 1994, 264  f.). 762 ≈ 748 (and VB 763 ≈ 749); 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 78; ≈ Od. 24.517, also Il. 5.378, Od. 16.445. — Helen’s intimate address to her brother-in-law (cf. 725n., 748n.) legitimizes her appearance as someone offering a speech of mourning and sets the tenor for her remarks as a whole: ‘Hektor the dearest’ (Collins 1988, 48  f.).

δαέρων: On δᾱήρ ‘brother-in-law’, see 3.180n. At the VB of 769 certainly to be read as bisyllabic with synizesis δᾱέρων, but here with shortening of -α- in the internal hiatus:  ͜ δᾰέρων (Chantr. 1.216; cf. G 46 and G 39).

763–766 A reference to Helen leaving Sparta for Troy (external analepsisP), as at 3.173–175, 3.351–354, 3.442–446, 6.292, etc. (Kullmann 1960, 248–253; cf. 2.161n.; CH 8 with n. 30; more on allusions to the prehistory of the Trojan War: 27–30n., 765–766n.). — The (rueful) reminiscence of the wedding to Paris and the self-imprecation (764n.) are standard motifs in Helen’s speeches (3.173–176 [3.172–180n.], 6.345–353, varied at 3.428  f.; see Ebbott 1999, 4–7, 9–11; also on the wedding motif, Tsagalis 2004, 164). 763  f. could be interpreted as a secondary thought arising from the address at 762: ‘Hektor, you are my dearest; Paris may be my husband, and still be alive, but it is from you that I received the most support all this time’ (Peppmüller p. 344  f.; AH and Leaf on 763; Richardson on 763–767; Bretzigheimer 1969, 174; Carvounis 2007). Differently e.g. Düntzer (1847a) 1872, 391 and West 2001, 282  f., who view 763  f. as an interpolation (mention of Paris in a lament for Hektor is ‘absurd’; 765  ff. are connected ‘very well to the address at 762’ via ‘since’: Düntzer loc. cit. [transl.]).

Commentary 

 271

763 πόσις: ‘spouse’ (3.163n.). — Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής: an inflectible VE formula (nom./ acc.: 12× Il.), see 3.16n.; on the epithet, cf. 217n.

764 ≈ 7.390 (Idaios on Paris); 1st VH ≈ 22.116. — here to Troy: cf. 765–766n., end (on ‘I came  …, forsaking  …’). — I should have died before: A death-wish motif, here as a self-imprecation by Helen to express remorse, as at 3.173, 6.345–348 (see ad loc.; Reichel 1994, 265  f.; discussion of more far-reaching interpretations at 6.344–358n.); at the same time, a typical element of speeches of mourning as a whole, thus e.g. Andromache at 22.481: ‘I wish my father had never begotten me’ (Alexiou [1974] 2002, 178  f.; Tsagalis 2004, 42–44; see also Richardson).  – On a different form of the death-wish motif, see 224b–227n.  

ὡς … ὤφελλον: On the form and function of this expression, see 6.345n. — πρίν: 245n.

765–767 The motif ‘always/for a long time/many … but never …’ forms a kind of summary priamelP (de Jong on Od., Introd. XVIII); for examples, see 2.798– 799n. and 3.184–190n., end. 765–766 ≈ Od. 19.222  f., 24.309  f. — the twentieth year: This specification of time has been a topic in discussions of mythological chronology since antiquity (see scholia ad loc.). Attempts to explain the number ‘twenty’ are based sometimes on poetic, sometimes on pragmatic considerations: (a) a round number as an emphatic expression of a long duration (typical numberP with no claim to chronological accuracy), (b) an approximate figure for the time actually passed arrived at via calculation. The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, but instead contribute jointly to the pregnancy of the specification of time. On (a): twenty occurs frequently in early epic as a typical number: ‘an all-purpose expression denoting the passage of «so many years» after one’s departure from home’ (Hooker [1986a] 1996, 489  f. [quotation from p. 490]; see also Reinhardt 1961, 488–490). In an ‘exuberance of emotion’, Helen thus describes the extended period during which she was able to experience Hektor’s ‘kindheartedness’ (Jachmann 1958, 133  f. n. 188); the ‘20 years’ in Odysseus’ deceptive speech to Penelope at Od. 19.221–224 contain a similar emphasis (in part an iteratum; on the Odyssey, see below). On (b): given the ten-year duration of the Trojan War (cf. Il. 2.134, 2.328–330, 12.15, Od. 5.106–108), of which the audience was well aware, the specification of time used by Helen cannot be entirely specious (Kullmann [1965] 1992, 192); the ‘remaining’ ten years not elaborated on in the Iliad are thus perhaps to be accounted for via episodes from the epic cycle, e.g. (1) the (return) journey of Paris and Helen to Troy and

764 Τροίηνδ(ε): on the form, R 15.3. — πρίν: adverbial, ‘(even) sooner, before’.

272 

 Iliad 24

its extended detours (Kakridis 1960, 407; 1971, 30 n. 13; cf. 6.292n.), (2) the lengthy mustering of the Achaian forces (schol. D), (3) the erroneous journey to Mysia (the so-called Teuthranian expedition: Von der Mühll 1952, 389; Kullmann 1960, 192  f.), (4) the growing up of Achilleus’ son Neoptolemos, who was conceived not long before the beginning of the war and who in the end participates in the sack of Troy (Kullmann [1965] 1992, 191  f.). The calculation 20 = 10+10 is also the basis for the Odyssey’s chronology (Od. 2.175, 16.205  f., etc.): 10 years of war + 10 years for Odysseus’ return (including one year with Kirke: Od. 10.469, 7 years with Kalypso: Od. 7.259  ff.). – See also Willcock on 765; Macleod on 765–766; Richardson on 765–767; West 2001, 281  f. A different approach is proposed by Tsagalis (2003/04) 2008 and Bollack 2012: deliberate intertextuality between the Iliad and the Odyssey (see iterata). — from the place: In the present situation, Helen tactfully avoids mentioning Sparta by name (Martinazzoli). — I came …, forsaking …: Helen occasionally suggests in her own statements that she followed her seducer out of her own free will, especially at 3.173–175; see 2.356n., 3.173b–174n.; Blondell 2010, 2  f.      767–770 Helen repeatedly reveals a pronounced sensitivity to public opinion (6.350–353n.); without Hektor, she feels isolated (774  f.; cf. 3.229–244n., end). At the same time, the criticism directed at her by the Trojan royal house has left no immediate mark within the Iliad, but does resonate e silentio or e contrario at 3.156–160 (Trojan elders), 3.164 (Priam), 7.345–420 (Trojan council meeting, talks with the Achaians); possible criticism is anticipated by Helen herself at 3.410–412. Cf. Ebbott 1999, 4  f., 12–17; Roisman 2006, 7  f.; similarly in the Odyssey: de Jong on Od. 4.121–136. 767 κακὸν ἔπος: cf. Od. 24.161 ἔπεσιν … κακοῖσιν ἐνίσσομεν (here 768 ἐνίπτοι); in contrast, 17.701 of a ‘message of evil’ (Patroklos’ death). — ἀσύφηλον: an adjective with uncertain etymology but an evidently pejorative meaning. In Homer also at 9.647  f. (Achilleus: Agamemnon μ’ ἀσύφηλον … ἔρεξεν | … ὡς εἴ τιν’ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην [ῥέζω with double acc. in the sense ‘do something to someone’]); here perhaps ‘unkind, disparaging, contemptuous’ (schol. D: ὑβριστικόν; AH: ‘scornful’; LfgrE: ‘hurtful’), 768 ἐνίπτοι is corresponding, 772 ἀγανοφροσύνῃ / ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσιν is contrastive; cf. Quint. Smyrn. 9.521  f. (ἀσύφηλος as much as χαλεπός, antithesis ἤπιος), eleg. adesp. fr. 25.1 West (= schol. on Eur. Androm. 184): ἡ νεότης ἀσύφηλος ἀεὶ θνητοῖσι τέτυκται.  

765 ἐεικοστὸν (ϝ)έτος: = εἰκοστὸς ἐνιαυτός; on the prosody, R 4.5. 766 κεῖθεν: =  ἐκεῖθεν ‘from there’, i.e. from her native land. — ἔβην  … ἀπελήλυθα: ‘departed (aor.) … am gone (perf.)’. — πάτρης: specification of origin without preposition (R 19.2). 767 σέ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1); gen. dependent on ἄκουσα, ‘heard from you’. — κακὸν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5.

Commentary 

 273

768–772 The priamel-like enumeration of relations (by marriage) at 769–770a (cf. 36–37a  n.) serves as a foil to Priam (770b) and especially to Hektor (771  f.); the contrast is highlighted by the chiastic structure (brothers- and sisters-in-law – mother-in-law | father-in-law  – brother-in-law [=  ‘you’]) and the antithetical repetition of hekyrḗ  – hekyrós ‘mother-in-law  – father-in-law’ (770) (in addition, 769 is structured in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ [60n.]).  – Whether the explicit mention of the mother-in-law is meant to appeal implicitly to Hekabe, who is also involved in the mourning, cannot be ascertained; the aim, however, is not criticism of Hekabe (and others) but praise of Hektor (differently AH [transl.]: ‘highly inconsiderate’; so too Von der Mühll 1952, 389 and Roth 1989, 70  f., with misguided analytic conclusions; more neutral are Eustathios 1374.36  f. and Macleod on 770, who credit Helen with sincerity and candor). In any case, no ‘bad word’ by Hekabe regarding Helen is found in the Iliad (cf. 767–770n.). 768 1st VH ≈ 220. — εἰ … ἐνίπτοι: The sole Homeric example of εἰ with the past iterative (Chantr. 2.277; Wakker 1994, 203 n. 147, 205); on the form and meaning of ἐνίπτω, see 3.427n. — τις … καὶ ἄλλος: ‘(also) some other, every other, all other’, cf. 370 (LfgrE s.v. ἄλλος 555.37  ff.). — ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν: ‘at home, among the family’ (208b–209a  n.).   769 ≈ 6.378, 6.383. — γαλόων … εἰνατέρων: denotes the husband’s sisters and the wives of the husband’s brothers (6.378n.).  

770–775 Priam’s kindness to Helen is on display in the Iliad especially at 3.162– 165 (see 3.164–165n.; schol. T.; Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 82  f.; Reichel 1994, 267  f.), Helen’s good rapport with Hektor at 6.343–368 (on which, see 6.344–358n.).  – A reminiscence of the kindness and helpfulness of the deceased also features in Briseïs’ lament for Patroklos (19.300, where 1st VH ≈ 24.773); there are also other similarities between Helen and Briseïs: both have left their native country and have lost a confidant to death (19.287–300n.; Reichel 1994, 270  f.; Tsagalis 2004, 161–165). – 771  f. are characterized by a number of stylistic refinements (for details, see Macleod ad loc.): anaphoric ‘your’ (cf. Fehling 1969, 205); repetition of the root ‘gentle’ (analogous example: 7.119 ‘from the hostile battle and the … hostility’; Fehling loc. cit. 164); framing via repetition of ‘with words’ – a supplement to Andromache’s praise of Hektor’s military ability (and ruthlessness): ‘it brings out how the killer and man of action (cf. 739) used words to protect Helen’ (Macleod loc. cit.; likewise Deichgräber 1972, 81; Roisman 2006, 32).

768 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισιν: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the inflection, R 11.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1). 769 δαέρων: on the synizesis, R 7.  ͜

274 

 Iliad 24

770 2nd VH ≈ Od. 2.47, 2.234, 5.12 (of Odysseus as ruler), 15.152 (of Nestor’s attitude toward Menelaos); ‘like a father’ also at Od. 17.397 (Telemachos sarcastically of Antinoos). Post-Homeric examples of father imagery in Silk 1974, 51 n. 18.   771–772 1st VH of 771 = 1.582. — ἐπέεσσι παραιφάμενος: elsewhere at VE παραιφάμενος ἐπέεσσι (2× early epic), VB παρφάμενος ἐπ. (2× early epic). — κατέρυκες |  … σοῖς ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσιν: cf. 2.164, 2.180, 2.189 (Odysseus prevents an Achaian retreat); on the use of ἀγανός ‘gentle, soothing, kind’, see 2.164n. – ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσιν is probably a replacement formation for original ἀγανοῖσι (ϝ)έπεσσι, cf. 759 ἀγανοῖσι βέλεσσιν, etc. (G 70; Chantr. 1.133  f.; West 1998, XXXIII; 2001, 281). — σῇ τ’ ἀγανοφροσύνῃ: ≈ Od. 11.203 (Antikleia’s spirit of Odysseus); σῇ = ‘with your own’ (AH).   773 1st VH ≈ 19.300. — ἄμμορον: ‘miserable’ (6.408 Andromache on herself; see ad loc.). — ἀχνυμένη κῆρ: an inflectible VE formula (19.57n.).   774 1st VH ≈ 9.104, 20.339, Od. 3.377, 16.204; cf. also Od. 21.93. — ἐνὶ Τροίῃ εὐρείῃ: = 13.433, Od. 11.499, 12.189; on the meaning, 256n.  

775 shrank when they saw me: A pathetically heightened close to the speech of mourning. Helen here interprets subjectively the attitude of those around her (Scodel 2008, 20  f.), but elsewhere as well she describes herself as horrible (with various terms in the Greek): 3.404 (stygerḗ; addressing Aphrodite), 6.344 (kryóessa; addressing Hektor); Achilleus of Helen at 19.325 (rhigedanḗ, with n.) is similar, as are the Trojan elders at 3.158 (Helen is ‘terrifyingly’ beautiful, with n.). An awareness of the sufferings resulting from the war that Helen caused reverberates throughout these passages (Clader 1976, 19–23; Lateiner 1995, 44); in a somewhat different context when Paris addresses Diomedes at 11.383: ‘the Trojans, who shudder before you as bleating goats do before a lion’ (fear, terror).  – On Greek phríssō/phríkē ‘shudder/shuddering’ in general, Cairns 2013; on the notion, contained in the verb, of hair standing on end, cf. 359 (with 358–360n.; Zink 1962, 19–21).  

φίλος: here with an active sense ‘kind to someone, lovingly’ (Hoffmann 1914, 20; Hooker [1987] 1996, 508  f.).

770 ἢ (ϝ)εκυρή – (ϝ)εκυρός: on the prosody, R 4.4. — πατὴρ ὥς: = ὡς πατήρ. 771 ἀλλά: apodotic (R 24.3), ‘then, thus’. — τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); picks up τις (768). — παραιφάμενος: ‘encouraging, conciliatory’; παραι- = παρα- (R 20.1); on the middle, R 23. 773 τώ: 740n. — κῆρ: ‘heart’; acc. of respect (R 19.1). 774 Τροίῃ εὐρείῃ: on the prosody (Tróiēy euréiēi), M 12.2. 775 πεφρίκασιν: perf. of φρίσσω ‘freeze, shiver, bristle’, wth intensive pres. sense; here metaphorical (with acc.): ‘shrink from someone’.

Commentary 

 275

776 ≈ 746 (see ad loc.; on the climax, also 746/760/776). — δῆμος ἀπείρων: ‘Hes.’ Sc. 472 λαὸς ἀπείρων (during the burial of Kyknos) is similar. On the meaning of δῆμος ‘inhabitants (of a certain area), people’, cf. 2.198n.; LfgrE. On the use of ἀπείρων, Leaf.

777–804 Hektor’s funeral. The Homeric style of cremation, as described here (cf. 580–595n.) and in the funerals of Patroklos at 23.127  ff. and Achilleus at Od. 24.63  ff., finds parallels in the Greek world in various places and times, namely at Lefkandi and Eretria (Euboea), Salamis (Cyprus) and Athens. The following elements in particular are detectable archaeologically: the corpse is burned on a pyre, the burnt remains are collected and placed in an urn, the urn is lowered into the ground, and a tomb monument is erected above it (Coldstream 1977, 349–352; Blome 1984; Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989, 18–22; Crielaard 2002, 246–249; Guggisberg 2008; cf. 719–776n.); on imitations of Homeric funerals in the Hellenistic period, see 795n. – On cremation in general, see 38n.; on secondary burial: 795– 798n. 777 2nd VH = 3.303 (see ad loc., also for the VE formula). — λαοῖσιν: here the male populace in particular, ‘the men’ (1n.). — ὁ γέρων Πρίαμος: a phrase that occurs after caesurae A 4 (also at 21.526) or A 1 (13.368, 22.25); cf. the VE formula γέρων Πρίαμος θεοειδής (217 etc.), and simple ὁ γέρων in verse middle (236, etc.); see also 164n. — μετὰ μῦθον ἔειπεν: a speech introduction formulaP for addressing a collective (collection of examples: 3.303n.); in contrast, cf. πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν at 485n.  

778–781 In his order to the Trojans, Priam refers back to the results of his negotiation with Achilleus regarding a truce (656–672, esp. 658, 662  f.). This is the final direct speechP in the Iliad (on which, see Beck 2005, 250  f.); like the first (1.17–21, Chryses), it is delivered by a father who ransoms his child (Pratt 2007, 38  f.; cf. 501b–502n.). – Priam’s interruption of the mourning finds parallels at 7.427 (similarly preparations for a cremation; cf. 662–663n.) and 713–717 (see ad loc.; Louden 2006, 50  f.); it restarts the action after the speeches. 778 ἄξετε: On the form, see 704n. (ὄψεσθε). — μηδέ τι θυμῷ: an inflectible VE formula, also with οὐδέ (see 19.312n.).   779 πυκινόν: here probably with the connotation ‘densely populated, strong in numbers’, as at 4.392  f. πυκινὸν λόχον …, | κούρους πεντήκοντα, 5.93  f. πυκιναὶ κλονέοντο φάλαγγες |  … πολέες περ ἐόντες, 13.680 Δαναῶν πυκινὰς στίχας ἀσπιστάων (AH; Nowag 1983,

777 μετὰ … ἔειπεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); in combination with the dat. λαοῖσιν: ‘said among the people, to the people’. 778 ξύλα (ϝ)άστυδε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — μηδέ τι: τι (‘in some way’: R 19.1) intensifies the negative; μηδέ is also used in Homer after affirmative sentences (R 24.8).

276 

 Iliad 24

54–56); in contrast, Od. 11.525 πυκινὸν λόχον of the Wooden Horse ‘tightly, solidly made’. — λόχον: ‘ambush’, here as at e.g. 18.513 in a verbal use: ‘ambuscade, attack’; it can also denote the group that lies in ambush (6.189n.); see also 1.226–227n. (special deployment of an elite group). On ambushing as a Greek military tactic in general, see Krentz 2000; van Wees 2004, 131–133. — ἦ γὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: VE = 21.532 (likewise a speech by Priam). 780–781 ὧδ’ ἐπέτελλε  …, | μὴ πρὶν πημανέειν: The relationship between predicate (ἐπέτελλε ‘gave the order, directed, instructed’) and infinitive (πημανέειν) appears to be loose here: ‘(Achilleus) instructed as follows’, i.e. ‘instructed me to convey the following’, namely ‘that he would not cause 〈us〉 harm’ (in this sense van Leeuwen; AH; Beck 1964, 252  f.; LfgrE s.v. τέλλω 386.42–44); on ἐπιτέλλω ‘(have) convey’, cf. 11.839  f. (in reference to 11.791 ταῦτ’ εἴποις Ἀχιλῆϊ), 24.112. Differently Leaf, who maintains the basic meaning: ‘was giving orders that they would not harass us’.  

780 1st VH ≈ 11.785. — black: a common epithet of ships (94× early epic), the word refers to the (water-resistant) coating of hulls with pitch (1.141n.).

μελαινάων ἀπὸ νηῶν: = 16.304, 17.383; metrically equivalent to νεῶν ἄπο καὶ κλισιάων (2.91, etc., see ad loc.; cf. Hoekstra 1965, 127).

781 ≈ Od. 4.747; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 1.493, 24.31. — none should do us injury until …: a common expression in announcements, threats, etc., which are then mostly fulfilled (e.g. at 1.97  f.); largely an element of character languageP (Kelly 2007, 339–341). — the twelfth dawn: i.e. the twelfth day; on the reckoning of days in the action, cf. 667 (659–667n. and 31n.).  

πημανέειν: ‘to harm, cause injury’, almost exclusively in character languageP and ­always in a religio-legal context: 3.299n. — μόλῃ: a metrical alternative to ἔλθῃ, which is more common with designations of time than is μολεῖν (the latter also at Od. 17.190  f. δὴ γὰρ μέμβλωκε … | ἦμαρ); cf. Létoublon 1985, 114.

782 ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἳ δ(έ): 718n. — ὑπ’ ἀμάξῃσιν: on ὑπό with dat., 14n.; on the transport wagon, 266–274n. — βόας ἡμιόνους τε: cf. VB βουσὶ καὶ ἡμιόνοισιν at 7.333, Hes. Op. 607, 816; ἡμιόνων τε βοῶν τε Od. 17.298.   783 αἶψα δ’ ἔπειτα: a formulaic expression (8× Il., 2× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’), usually denoting a rapid arrival by wagon or on foot (e.g. at 6.370). — πρὸ ἄστεος ἠγερέθοντο: On the formulation, cf. Od. 24.468. The formation of ἠγερέθοντο (related to ἀγείρω/ἀγορή) is uncertain (2.303–304n.).  

780 πέμπων: in the sense ‘dismiss, see off’. — μ’: = με (dependent on πέμπων). — ὧδε: ‘thus’ (refers forward to 781). — ἀπὸ νηῶν: to be taken with πέμπων. 781 πρὶν … πρίν: the first πρίν is an adverb, the second a conjunction: ‘previously …, before’. — πημανέειν: fut. inf.; on the form, R 8 and 16.4. — ἠώς: cf. 695n. 782 βόας: = βοῦς. 783 πρὸ (ϝ)άστεος: on the prosody, R 5.4.

Commentary 

 277

784–804 The narrator occupies a ‘panorama’ point of view (Lateiner 1995, 55; de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 69), and the narrative pace increases (storyP). The preparations for Hektor’s funeral are described only briefly, in view of the fact that a similar process (the funeral of Patroklos) was portrayed in extenso in Book 23 (Kelly 2007a, 383: ‘decreasing doublet’). The action is structured by closely spaced specifications of time: 784 summaryP, 785  f. ‘when | … dawn …’, 788  f. ‘when the young dawn …’ (Lynn-George 1988, 255; on the wide variety of formulae for ‘morning’, cf. 695n.); direct speech is absent. In addition, there is a gapP at the transition from the tenth to the eleventh day of the ritual: the pyre is lit (787)  – the night’s rest remains unmentioned  – the next day, the Trojans gather once again to quench the fire (789/791: Kurz 1966, 15; Lowe 2000, 107 n. 6). Only the interment proper is described in some detail as the central act in the funerary ritual (Richardson on 777–804; cf. 791–801n.). 784 The last nine-day period in the Iliad has a structural correspondence to Book 1: there the pyres of the plague victims burn for nine days (1.52  f.), whereas here the pyre for Hektor’s corpse is constructed over the same amount of time (STR 21 fig. 1; Richardson on 660–667; Hellwig 1964, 40  f.; Stanley 1993, 242); see also 662–663n. (664 ‘nine days of mourning’ → 784 ‘nine days of collecting wood’), 664–667n. (nine-day periods in ritual).  

γε ἀγίνεον: On the hiatus at caesura B 2, see 264n. — ἄσπετον ὕλην: an inflectible VE formula (2.455n.).

785 ≈ 6.175; 1st VH = 9.474, h.Cer. 51. — φαεσίμβροτος: an epithet of Helios (Od. 10.138, Hes. Th. 958) and of the sun (Od. 10.191); only here an as epithet of Eos/dawn, in place of the more common (weakly attested in the transmission here) ῥοδοδάκτυλος (788n.), perhaps for reasons of variatio vis-à-vis 788 (Peppmüller; Richardson; Friedrich 2007, 76). The word may originally have meant ‘seeing, watching human beings’ (of Helios: Schmitt 1967, 164, 174  f.; cf. 3.277 with n.), but in early epic is apparently understood ‘shining/appearing to human beings’ (cf. Od. 3.1  f., 12.385  f.; schol. D; LfgrE). – On the interpretation of the infix -σι- by analogy with initial elements with a sigmatic aorist stem as in e.g. τερψίμβροτος (similarly an epithet of Helios), see Risch 192; Tronci 2000, 294  f., 302  f. — ἠώς: In contrast, this is understood by West as a personification at 788 (Ἠώς); on the ‘confluence of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic action’, see CG 28 (and 38).  

786 2nd VH = 1st VH of 714. — The ekphora (transport of the corpse to the place of burial) is described in more detail in Book 23: 23.127–139; in contrast to the pro­

784 τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the form, R 14.3. — ἀγίνεον: a derivation from ἄγω (deverbative) with an intensive sense: ‘transport, procure’. 786 καί: apodotic (R 24.3).

278 

 Iliad 24

thesis (589–590n.), it is rarely depicted in the visual arts (Andronikos 1968, 50  f.; Ahlberg 1971, 220–239; Garland 1985, 31–34).

καὶ τότ’ ἄρ(α): 32n. — θρασὺν Ἕκτορα: 71–72a  n. — δάκρυ χέοντες: 613n.

787 ≈ 23.165. — aloft a … pyre: On cremation, see 38n. (cf. 777–804n.).  

ἐν δὲ …, ἐν δ(έ): on the anaphora, 10–12n. — ὑπάτῃ: on the etymology and use of the epithet, 19.258n. (mostly of Zeus, 2× of πυρή).

788 = 1.477 and 20× Od.; in addition, 2nd VH = 23.109, Od. 23.241; ≈ Il. 6.175, Od. 5.121; VE = Il. 9.707, Hes. Op. 610. — The narrator introduces the eleventh day of the funerary ritual – the actual burial – with a formulaic verse that occurs elsewhere in the Iliad only at 1.477 (= eleventh day of the action of the Iliad; see 1.477n.). On the repetition of the specification of time at 785/788, cf. 784– 804n.  

ἠριγένεια … ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς: On Eos and the two epithets, see 1.477n.; West 2007, 218–220; Janni 2011 (on ‘rosy-fingered’).

789 ≈ 7.434 (additional parallels between 7.433  f., 24.788  f. as well as 23.226–228: funerary context, specification of time with ἦμος … τῆμος). — κλυτοῦ: a generic epithetP (437n.); only here of Hektor, perhaps a gen. variant of the acc. formula θρασὺν Ἕκτορα (71– 72a  n.). ἤγρετο: Here and at 7.434, the tradition offers the form ἔγρετο (originally an aor. of ἐγείρομαι ‘rise, awaken’, e.g. 2.41), but the context demands a form of ἀγείρομαι ‘congregate’ (cf. Od. 14.248 ἐσαγείρετο λαός, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 475 ἠγείρετο λαός, in each case at VE; cf. 783 ἠγερέθοντο; Haubold 2000, 197  f.); modern editions thus print ἤγρετο or ἄγρετο (app. crit.; AH Anh.). Because of their formal similarities, the two verbs are also confounded elsewhere (LfgrE s.v. ἀγείρω 55.5  ff./61  ff.; Chantr. 1.11; Janko, Introd. 35 n. 65; Hes. Op. 240 ἀπηύρα with 419 ἐπαυρεῖ is similar [see West and Verdenius on Hes. Op. 240]); this may thus not necessarily be a mere error of transcription (since in the old Attic alphabet both /ē/ and /ĕ/ were written with epsilon: GT 6; Wackernagel 1916, 88; West 2001, 23); cf. also Macleod.

790 = Od. 2.9, 8.24, 24.421; ≈ Il. 1.57 (οἳ δ’ ἐπεὶ οὖν …), see ad loc. — Since the verse is missing from several (important) manuscripts as well as from the only papyrus containing the end of the Iliad, it is regarded as a concordance interpolation (AH Anh.; West 2001, 13).

791–801 Because of the similar storyline, this passage displays several parallels in language and content with 23.237–244 and 23.250–257 (Achilleus’ instructions for the burial of Patroklos and the execution of the orders), see Richardson on 788–801; cf. 784–804n. The iterata in a narrower sense are marked below for individual verses.

787 ἐν … ἔβαλον: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 788–789 ἦμος … τῆμος: ‘when …, then’ (temporal: R 22.2).

Commentary 

 279

791 = 23.250; ≈ 23.237. — with … wine they put out the pyre: Possible archaeological evidence for this process is mentioned in Richardson on 23.237–238 (with bibliography); an Anatolian parallel is described in the funeral rite for Hittite kings (at dawn, women quench the fire with wine and beer): West 1997, 398  f.  

πυρκαϊήν: ‘pyre, place where a fire is lit’ (= πυρή); originally *πυρ-καϝ-ιη from πῦρ and καίω, cf. Mycenaean pu-ka-wo /pur-kawos/ ‘individual in charge of lighting the fire’ (DMic), Προμηθεὺς Πυρκαεύς (title of a satyr play by Aeschylus), et al.; on the suffix -ιη, Risch 116  f. — αἴθοπι οἴνῳ: 641n.

792 =  23.238. — ἐπέσχε: in the sense ‘extend (oneself)’, as at e.g. 21.407 (Ares) ἑπτὰ δ’ ἐπέσχε πέλεθρα πεσών. — πυρὸς μένος: Whether this is used pregnantly of the elemental force of the fire (development of the blaze: LfgrE s.v. μένος 142.37  ff., esp. 51–53; Clarke 1999, 110  f.; cf. 6.182n.) or is simply a periphrasis for ‘fire’ (Graz 1965, 294–296) is disputed.  

793 2nd VH ≈ 4.441 (fem. sing.), 16.456, 16.674, Od. 15.273 (‘brothers and relatives’), Il. 6.239 (acc.). — the white bones: The (ultimately ornamental) epithetP ‘white(ish)’ is occasionally associated with the bleaching of the bones of an unburied corpse, cf. Od. 1.161 (Handschur 1970, 36  f.; Laser 1983, 5  f.), but is equally appropriate for the natural color of bones (as they appear e.g. in animal sacrifice, e.g. Hes. Th. 557; cf. West ad loc.) or for the whiteish-gray discoloration of bones burnt at high temperatures (Il. 23.252, Od. 24.72/76; on the change of color of cremated remains, see Grévin 2005; Grosskopf 2005). — the brothers and companions: The hétaroi ‘companions’ (4n.) are often regarded as equivalent to brothers or other close relatives, see e.g. 9.584  f., Od. 8.585  f., 21.216; cf. Ulf 1990, 131.  

ὀστέα λευκά: a noun-epithet formula at VB (only here), at VE (2× Il.), after caesura A 3 (3× Hes. Th.; Certamen § 9 West); also 4× Od. λεύκ’ ὀστέα.

794 VE = Od. 4.198/223; cf. above 9n. — An emphatic highlighting of the great sorrow (cf. the parallel passage at 23.250  ff., where 252 merely has ‘weeping’).   795–798 Secondary burial: the cremated remains are not left at the site of the pyre itself (see 16n., end), but are interred in a separate grave. On the details, see the following nn. (and 777–804n.).

791 κατὰ … σβέσαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — αἴθοπι (ϝ)οίνῳ: on the prosody, R 5.4. 792 ὁπόσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 793 ἕταροι: = ἑταῖροι. 794 δάκρυ: collective sing. — παρειῶν: specification of origin without preposition (R 19.2).

280 

 Iliad 24

795 casket: Greek lárnax ‘chest, box, casket’, at 18.413 Hephaistos’ (silver) ‘toolbox’, is here the (golden) urn for Hektor’s cremated remains. In archaeology, ‘larnax’ is a technical term for a container for human remains in the shape of a chest; on Crete and in Tanagra/Boiotia, several clay larnakes of Mycenaean date (14th/13th cent. B. C.) have been found, the majority of them between 0.5 m and a little over 1.0 m in length and featuring figured decoration (men and women with gestures of mourning, occasionally in combination with a ‘prothesis’): Cavanagh/Mee 1995; Immerwahr 1995; Burke 2008, 71–76. In the Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina, two gold larnakes served as urns (2nd half of the 4th cent. B. C.); the bones they contained had been wrapped in purple cloth  – apparently an imitation of the process described here (Andronikos 1978, 40–42, 46; in general, Guimier-Sorbets/Morizot 2005; cf. 777–804n., 796n., end).  

ἑλόντες: The participle ἑλών/ἑλοῦσα/ἑλόντες is frequently joined with a predicate for intensification (e.g. 625 σῖτον ἑλὼν ἐπένειμε), especially with τίθημι (3.424  f. δίφρον ἑλοῦσα … | … κατέθηκε etc.); examples: LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 354.41  ff.

γε χρυσείην: Elsewhere in early epic, a mute plus liquid in initial position normally makes ‘position’; in the case of χρ-, it fails to make position in only ten passages: also at 23.186, Od. 8.353, Hes. Op. 588, 605, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 199 (text uncertain), h.Cer. 431, h.Ap. 253, h.Merc. 332, h.Mart. 1 (cf. La Roche 1869, 39–41; M 4.5). – On the form of the material adjective, see 21n.

796/798 Two four-word verses (1.75n.) with similar structure (adj. – noun in the dative – verbal form – adj.); in addition, 796 has formal parallels at 1.582, Od. 20.58, h.Merc. 485, h.Hom. 19.9 (noun in the dat. pl. – verbal form – μαλακοῖσιν/-ῇσιν).

796 soft robes of purple: In the present context, purple (645n.) may be interpreted as a symbol of the royal dynasty (Blum 1998, 68–75; in general, Reinhold 1970) or, in accord with older interpretations, as the color of blood in funerary ritual (Wunderlich 1925, 46–59, with parallels; contra Blum loc. cit., 111–118). – The purple covering (péplos, see 229–231n.) recalls the purple cloth woven by Andromache at 22.440  f.: the use of textiles produced within the household for funerary rites is common (587–588n.); see Griffin 1990, 368; Pantelia 1993, 497. Textiles are attested archaeologically for both wrapping the human remains and enclosing the burial container (Andronikos 1968, 74; Kurtz/Boardman 1971, 98  f.; Richardson on 23.254; cf. 777–804n., 795n.).

πορφυρέοις  … μαλακοῖσιν: On the accumulation of epithets, cf. 125n. (on ‘great, fleecy’); μαλακός is frequently combined with other adjectives: 2.42  f., 14.349, 18.541  f., Od. 1.56, 9.133. — καλύψαντες: It is probably the bones (τά γε, 795), not the larnax, that are to be added as the object: ‘they collected the bones and placed them in the larnax

795 τά γε: sc. ὀστέα. — θῆκαν: = ἔθεσαν (787, 797).

Commentary 

 281

after they had wrapped them (the bones)’ (AH, Macleod and others; differently Leaf). At 23.254, by contrast, the phrase is to be understood such that Patroklos’ bones are placed in the urn on top of a double layer of fat, after which the whole object is wrapped in a cloth.

797–798 On the construction of a burial pit with a stone (or earth) cover, see Kurtz/Boardman 1971, 26, 33, 37, 51 and the bibliography at 777–804n. 797 κάπετον: here ‘burial (pit)’ (imitated at Soph. Aias 1165, 1403), 15.356 of the ditch of the encampment of ships (= τάφρος, see Leaf ad loc.), 18.564 of an irrigation channel surrounding the vineyard (Achilleus’ shield; see Edwards ad loc.); see also LfgrE. — αὐτὰρ ὕπερθεν: a VE formula (2.218n.).   798 1st VH ≈ Od. 14.36, 23.193 (and ≈ 2nd VH of Il. 16.212). — On the structure of the verse, see 796/798n. above. — λάεσσι: from λᾶας ‘stone’, here: ‘stone slabs’; on the declension, 3.12n.

799–800 The mention of look-outs presupposes that the grave monument is erected outside the city walls, as is customary; on the level of narrative strategy, this works together with 662  f. and 778b–781 to keep alive awareness of both the continued threat the Achaians pose to the Trojans – for this reason, the monument is built ‘quickly’  – and the imminent resumption of fighting (cf. 659–667n., 662–663n.): Macleod on 800; Richardson on 788–801; LynnGeorge 1988, 254. 799 2nd VH ≈ 18.523, Od. 24.208.   800–804 800, 802, 803 and 804 all culminate in a noun-epithet formulaP: solemn finale. 800 μή: ‘out of fear/worry, that’ (650n., end). — πρίν: The (adverbial) πρίν here and at 23.190 is not followed by a corresponding conjunction πρίν; the precise temporal reference thus remains open (cf. AH on 23.190): ‘before the time’, i.e. here ‘sooner than agreed upon’ (thus AH in reference to the unambiguous phrasing at 781) or ‘before the celebrations would have been concluded’. — ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί: an inflectible VE formulaP (31× Il., 5× Od., 1× Hes., of which 19× nom., 18× acc.); on the realia (‘greaves’), 1.17n. and Franz 2002, 62  f.

801 ≈ 23.257. — they went away: signals the end of an assembly or scene (1–2a  n.), here the end of Hektor’s funeral. The final scene of the Iliad (funerary feast in Priam’s palace, 801–803) is introduced immediately afterward with ‘but then’.  

797 θέσαν: sc. λάρνακα. 799 ἔχεαν: 3rd pers. pl. aor. of χέω (here ‘pile up’). — εἵατο: 3rd pers. pl. impf. of ἧμαι (R 16.2). 801 τό: the ‘article’ with an anaphoric demonstrative function (R 17); refers back to 799. — κίον: ‘they went’ (defective verb).

282 

 Iliad 24

αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα: on the formula, 273–274n.; on a change of scene after caesura C 2, see 3n., end. — χεύαντες δέ: picks up 799 ἔχεαν, cf. 1.595  f., etc. (paratactic style: Chantr. 2.359; Fehling 1969, 146–148). On the chiasmus σῆμ’ ἔχεαν  – χεύαντες  … σῆμα, cf. 602/613 (the frame, structured as a ring-composition, of the Niobe paradigm: 613n.). – On the root aorist ἔχε(υ)α, see 3.10n.

802 2nd VH = Od. 3.66, 13.26, 20.280; ≈ Od. 10.182. — Great Homeric feasts (funeral, wedding, entertainment of guests) are aimed at creating a sense of community and reinforcing status: Finley (1954) 1977, 123–126; van Wees 1992, 44–48.

εὖ: ‘as befits’, with δαίνυντ(ο): ‘plentifully, generously’ (AH; Leaf), and/or συναγειρόμενοι: ‘solemn’, like Latin rite (Peppmüller; on this sense, cf. Macleod); see also Lynn-George 1996, 23. — δαίνυντ(ο) … δαῖτα: a figura etymologica (δαι- ‘distribute, allocate’), at Od. 3.66/20.280 reinforced by the preceding μοίρας δασσάμενοι. On the Homeric formulae for ‘take a meal’, see Reece 1993, 24. — ἐρικυδέα: ‘lavish’ (3.65n.).

803 The portion of the action set at Troy in 696–804 concludes in a solemn manner via the key words ‘palace, Priam, king’ (cf. 665n.; Richardson on 801–803, end).  

διοτρεφέος βασιλῆος: an inflectible VE formulaP (8× Il., 4× Od., 2× Hes., 1× h.Hom.; by case: 5× gen. sing., 3× nom. pl., 6× gen. pl., 1× acc. pl.); with Πριάμοιο preceding also at 5.464 (cf. 4.338 Πετεῷο διοτρ. βασ.; also 680n.). On the epithet διοτρ., see 553n.

804 Like the Iliad, the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf ends with the funeral of the fallen protagonist (description of pyres, grave mounds, lament: verses 3137  ff.) and a concluding summaryP: ‘so the people of the Geats mourned / the fall of their lord (sc. Beowulf) …’ (3178  f.). – On the manner in which the narrator ends his epic (conclusion with no epilogue, explicit moral, vel sim.), see van Groningen 1958, 70–74; de Jong 2004a, 18; West 2007a, 4–7. On the form of the summaryP in general, Richardson 1990, 31. — Hektor, breaker of horses: The Iliad begins with the ‘anger of Peleus’ son Achilleus’ (1.1) and concludes with the ‘funeral of Hektor’: the epic is framed by its two protagonists (cf. Metz 1990, 400  f.).

ὣς οἵ γ(ε): an introduction to a summaryP (22n.), here of the closing image of the Iliad. — τάφον: ‘funerary celebration’, the rite in its entirety, cf. 660 τελέσαι τάφον, Od. 20.307 τάφον ἀμφεπονεῖτο; in contrast, Il. 23.29, Od. 3.309 used pregnantly of the funeral feast (δαίνυ τάφον), which should be included here – after 802 δαίνυντ(ο) … δαῖτα – given that ἀμφιέπω is frequently used in the sense ‘prepare a meal’ (e.g. at 622). — Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο: a noun-epithet formula (VE 16.717, 22.161, 22.211; VB 24.724, v.l.; see 509n., 724n.).

803 δώμασιν ἐν: = ἐν δώμασιν (R 20.2); on the plural, R 18.2.

Commentary 

 283

Schol. T attests a v.l. for ἱπποδάμοιο (‘τινὲς γράφουσιν’): ἦλθε δ’ Ἀμαζών | Ἄρηος θυγάτηρ μεγαλήτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο (= Aethiopis fr. 1 West; 2nd VH of the additional verse ≈ Od. 10.200 [of Polyphemos]; a different appositive for Ἀμαζών is transmitted by a papyrus at the end of a prose account of the prehistory of the Trojan War: ἦλθε δ’ Ἀμαζών | Ὀτρήρης θυγάτηρ, εὐειδὴς Πενθεσίλεια; on the relationship between the different additional verses in schol. T and in the papyrus, see West 2001, 283–285). Neither the change of scene after caesura C 2 (on which, see 3n., end) nor the sudden appearance of a character with ἦλθε δ(έ) is unusual (e.g. Athene at 1.194 [see ad loc.], Patroklos’ spirit at 23.65 and other dead souls 4× Od. 11, the beggar Iros at Od. 18.1); nevertheless, the transition between Hektor’s funeral and the arrival of Penthesileia in this manner appears overly abrupt. It is thus assumed today that the v.l. derives from a rhapsode who amalgamated the entire content of the epic cycle into a continuous narrative, so that in the present case the Aethiopis was seamlessly connected to the Iliad (a similar purpose – linking to the Cypria – is perhaps to be seen in the alternative prooimion of the Iliad transmitted in one ms.: ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι, | ὅππως δὴ μῆνίς τε χόλος θ’ ἕλε Πηλεΐωνα | Λητοῦς τ’ ἀγλαὸν υἱόν· ὃ γὰρ βασιλῆϊ χολωθείς [= 2nd VH of Il. 1.9]). Bibliography: Bassett 1922/23; Bethe (1922) 1929, 383  f.; Beck 1964, 168; Kurz 1966, 121  f. with n. 16; Burgess 2001, 140–142 (with further bibliography in n. 23 p. 242); also Wheeler 2002, 42  f.; somewhat differently, West 2011, 428–430 (the Iliad originally ended with 803; 804 is a remnant of the transition to the Aethiopis). – On a similar result in the corpus Hesiodeum, see West on Hes. Th., Introd. 49  f.

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

AH, Anh.

AH on Od.

AH, Anh. on Od.

Allen Allen/Halliday/ Sikes ArchHom

Beekes

BNP

Càssola Chantr. ChronEG

Companion Cunliffe DELG

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.) 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); most recent editions: 1st part (1–3) 31896; 2nd part (4–6) 21882; 3rd part (7–9) 2 1887; 4th part (10–12) 21888; 5th part (13–15) 21897; 6th part (16–18) 21900; 7th part (19–21) 11883; 8th part (22–24) 11886. Homers Odyssee. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von K. F. Ameis (and, from the 5th ed. on, by C. Hentze), Leipzig 11856–1860; most recent editions (rev. by P. Cauer): vol. 1.1 (Books 1–6), Leipzig and Berlin 131920 =  141940; vol. 1.2 (Books 7–12) 111908 = 121922 = 131940; vol. 2.1 (Books 13–18) 91910 (reprint 1928); vol. 2.2 (Books 19–24) 101911 (reprint 1928). (Reprint Amsterdam 1964.) Anhang zu Homers Odyssee. Schulausgabe von K. F. Ameis, Leipzig 11865– 1868; most recent editions (rev. by C. Hentze): 1st part (1–6) 41890; 2nd part (7–12) 31889; 3rd part (13–18) 31895; 4th part (19–24) 31900. Allen, Th.W. Homeri Ilias. Oxford 1931. (3 vols.) Allen, Th.W., W. R. Halliday and E. E. Sikes. The Homeric Hymns. Oxford 1936. (Reprint Amsterdam 1980.) 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, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assitence of L. van Beek. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden and Boston 2009. (2 vols.) Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, transl. by C. F. Salazar. Leiden 2002–2011. (German original: Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart and Weimar 1996–2003.) Inni Omerici, a cura di F. Càssola. Milan 1975. Chantraine, P. Grammaire homérique6. Paris 1986–1988 (11942–1953). (2 vols.) Chronique d’étymologie grecque, ed. by A. Blanc, C. de Lamberterie and J.-L. Perpillou, appears annually in: RPh 70  ff., 1996  ff. (also in: DELG); cited in this volume: ChronEG 3, RPh 72 (1998) 117–142; ChronEG 4, RPh 73 (1999) 79–108; ChronEG 6, RPh 75 (2001) 131–162; ChronEG 7, RPh 76 (2002) 113–142; ChronEG 8, RPh 77 (2003) 111–140; ChronEG 10, RPh 79 (2005) 161–180. Morris, I. and B. Powell (eds.). A New Companion to Homer. Leiden etc. 1997. Cunliffe, R. J. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. London etc. 1924. 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).

286 

 Iliad 24

Denniston, J. D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934). Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 vols.) Doederlein, L. Homerisches Glossarium. Erlangen 1850–1858. (3 vols.) Ebeling, H. Lexicon Homericum. Leipzig 1885. (Reprint Hildesheim 1987.) (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). (2 vols.) Faulkner Faulkner, A. (ed.) 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.) Frisk Frisk, H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1960–1972. (3 vols.) Garvie Garvie, A. F. (ed.) Homer, Odyssey Books VI–VIII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1994. Graziosi/Haubold Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold (eds.) Homer, Iliad Book VI. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. Griffin Griffin, J. (ed.) Homer. Iliad Book Nine. Oxford 1995. Hainsworth on Il. Hainsworth, B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge 1993. Hainsworth on Od. Hainsworth, B., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.) Heubeck Heubeck, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1983.); vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) Hoekstra Hoekstra, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1984.) HTN Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer. Tradition und Neuerung. Wege der Forschung 463. Darmstadt 1979. Janko Janko, R. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge 1992. de Jong de Jong, I. J.F. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001. von Kamptz Kamptz, H. von. Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen and Zurich 1982. (Originally diss. Jena 1958.) Kirk Kirk, G. S. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge 1985; vol. II: Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990. KlP Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike in fünf Bänden, ed. by K. Ziegler and W.  Sontheimer. Stuttgart and Munich 1964–1975. (Reprint Munich 1979.) (5 vols.) K.-G. Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904. (Reprint Hannover 1992.) (2 vols.) Leaf The Iliad2. Ed. with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices by W. Leaf. London 1900–1902 (11886–1888). (2 vols.) van Leeuwen Ilias. Cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentariis exegeticis ed. J. van Leeuwen. Leiden 1912–1913. (2 vols.) LfgrE Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Founded by Bruno Snell. Prepared under the authority of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen and edited by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Göttingen 1955–2010. (4 vols.) Denniston DMic Doederlein Ebeling



LGPN

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 287

Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, ed. by P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews. Oxford 1987–2013. (7 vols.). LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed. by H. C. Ackermann and J. R. Gisler. Zurich etc. 1981–1999. (18 vols.) LSJ Liddell, H. R., R. Scott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon9. Oxford 1940. (Reprint with revised Supplement 1996.) Macleod Macleod, C. W. (ed.) Homer, Iliad Book XXIV. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1982. Martinazzoli Martinazzoli, F. (ed.) Omero, Iliade libro XXIV. Rome 1948. MHV Parry, M. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Edited by Adam Parry. New York and Oxford 1971. (Reprint 1987.) Peppmüller Peppmüller, R. Commentar des vierundzwanzigsten Buches der Ilias mit Ein­ leitung. Als Beitrag zur Homerischen Frage bearbeitet von R. P. Berlin 1876. Pulleyn Pulleyn, S. (ed.) Homer, Iliad Book One. Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by S. P. Oxford 2000. RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinander­ setzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, ed. by Th. Klauser, E. Dassmann et al. Stuttgart 1950–. RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition, ed. by G. Wissowa with the cooperation of numerous specialists. Stuttgart 1894–2000. Richardson on Il. Richardson, N. J. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge 1993. Richardson on h.Cer. Richardson, N. J. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford 1974. Risch Risch, E. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2. Berlin and New York. 1974 (11937). Ruijgh Ruijgh, C. J. Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam 1971. Russo Russo, J., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII– XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1985.) Rutherford Rutherford, R. B. (ed.) Homer, Odyssey Books XIX and XX. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1992. Schw. 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.) Steiner Steiner, D. (ed.). Homer, Odyssey Books XVII–XVIII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, ed. by the Fondation pour le Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles 2004–2014. (8 vols. and 1 index vol.) Untermann Untermann, J. Einführung in die Sprache Homers. Der Tod des Patroklos, Ilias Π 684–867. Heidelberg 1987. Verdenius Verdenius, W. J. A Commentary on Hesiod, Works and Days, vv. 1–382. Mnemosyne Supplements 86. Leiden 1985. Wathelet 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.)

288 

 Iliad 24

West on Hes. Op. West on Hes. Th. West on Od. Willcock

Hesiod, Works & Days. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L.W. Oxford 1978. Hesiod, Theogony. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L.W. 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* Aeschylus, fragments (Radt) in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 3, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1985. Alcaeos (Voigt) in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971. Anacreon (Page) in Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page. Oxford 1962. Archilochus (West) in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 1. Oxford 1989 (11971). Aristotle, fragments (Gigon) in Aristotelis Opera, vol. 3: Librorum deperditorum fragmenta collegit et annotationibus instruxit O. Gigon. Berlin and New York 1987. Callimachus (Pfeiffer) Callimachus, ed. R. Pfeiffer, vol. 1: Fragmenta. Oxford 1949. Certamen (West) in Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 496. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. Elegiaca Adespota (West) in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 2. Oxford 1992 (11972). ‘Epic Cycle’ (West) 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. Eudocia (Usher) Homerocentones Eudociae Augustae, rec. ediditque M. D. Usher. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1999. Euripides, fragments (Kannicht) in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 5.1–2, ed. R. Kannicht. Göttingen 2004. ‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.) in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta3, edd. R. Merkelbach et M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970).

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



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 289

Panyassis (West) 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. Porphyrius (MacPhail) Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Text, Translation, Commentary by J. A. MacPhail Jr. Texte und Kommentare 36. Berlin and New York 2011. Proclus (West) 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. Sappho (Voigt) in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971. Scholia on the Iliad (Erbse) Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), rec. H. Erbse. Berlin 1969–1988. (7 vols.) Scholia on the Iliad (van Thiel) Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manuscriptos, ed. H. van Thiel, http://kups.ub. uni-koeln.de/5586/ (retrieved 1. 1. 2015). Sophocles, fragments (Radt) in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta2, vol. 4, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1999 (11977). Stesichorus (Davies) in Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, post D. L. Page ed. M. Davies, vol. 1. Oxford 1991. Tyrtaius (West) in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 2. Oxford 1992 (11972). Vita Homeri Herodotea (West) in Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 496. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003.

3 Articles and monographs Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique. Adkins 1960 Adkins 1972

Adkins, A. W.H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford. Adkins, A. W.H. ‘Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society.’ JHS 92: 1–19. Adkins 1975 Adkins, A. W.H. ‘Art, Beliefs, and Values in the Later Books of the Iliad.’ CPh 70: 239–254. Ahlberg 1971 Ahlberg, G. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 32. Göteborg 1971. Ahrens 1937 Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus). Halle. Ahrens (1851) 1891 Ahrens, H. L. ‘Homerische Excurse, 9. De hiatus Homerici legitimis quibusdam generibus.’ In H. L. Ahrens. Kleine Schriften, vol. 1: Zur Sprachwissen­ schaft, ed. by C. Haeberlin, pp. 123–143. Hannover. (First published in Philo­ logus 6 [1851] 9–34.)

290 

 Iliad 24

Albinus 2000

Albinus, L. The House of Hades: Studies in Ancient Greek Eschatology. Studies in Religion 2. Aarhus 2000. Alden 2000 Alden, M. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford 2000. Alexiou (1974) 2002 Alexiou, M. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition2. Greek Studies. Lanham etc. (11974). Aliffi 2002 Aliffi, M. L. ‘Le espressioni dell’agente e dello strumento nei processi di «morte violenta».’ In Montanari 2002, 409–423. Allan 2003 Allan, R. J. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Amsterdam 2003. Al-Refai et al. 2002 Al-Refai, A., R. M. Mohadjer, B. Stimm. ‘Der Baumwacholder. Verbreitung, Ökologie, Nutzung und Vermehrung.’ Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift 16; Electronic copy: http://w3.forst.tu-muenchen.de/~waldbau/litorg0/295.pdf ­(retrieved 30. 4. 2014). Anastassiou 1973 Anastassiou, I. Zum Wortfeld ‘Trauer’ in der Sprache Homers. Hamburg. Andersen 1987 Andersen, Ø. ‘Myth, Paradigm and «Spatial Form» in the Iliad.’ In Bremer et al. 1987, 1–13. Andersen/Haug 2012 Andersen, Ø., D. T.T. Haug (eds.). Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Cambridge. Anderson 1997 Anderson, M. J. The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art. Oxford. Andronikos 1968 Andronikos, M. ‘Totenkult.’ ArchHom chap. W. Göttingen. Andronikos 1978 Andronikos, M. The Royal Graves at Vergina. Athen. (First published as ‘The Royal Graves in the Great Tumulus.’ AAA 10 [1977] 40–72.) Anghelina 2007 Anghelina, C. ‘On Some Adverbs with Variable Endings in Ancient Greek.’ Glotta 83: 1–12. Anhalt 1995 Anhalt, E. K. ‘Barrier and Transcendence: The Door and the Eagle in Iliad 24.314–21.’ CQ 45: 280–295. Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin. Arnott 1979 Arnott, W. G. ‘The Eagle Portent in the «Agamemnon»: An Ornithological Footnote.’ CQ 29: 7–8. Arnott 2007 Arnott, W. G. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z. London and New York. Arnould 1990 Arnould, D. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon. Collection d’études anciennes 119. Paris. Aslan et al. 2002 Aslan, R., S. Blum, G. Kastl, F. Schweizer, D. Thumm (eds.). Mauerschau. Fest­ schrift für Manfred Korfmann. Remshalden-Grunbach. (3 vols.) Asper 1997 Asper, M. Onomata allotria: zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos. Hermes Einzelschriften 75. Stuttgart. Aubriot-Sévin 1992 Aubriot-Sévin, D. Prière et conceptions religieuses en Grèce ancienne jusqu’à la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C. Lyon etc. Austin 1975 Austin, N. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley etc. Bader 1991 Bader, F. ‘Les messagers rapides des dieux: d’Hermès ἐριούνιος à Iris ἀελλόπος, ποδήνεμος ὠκέα.’ SCO 41: 35–86. (Abridged version: ‘Autour de ϝῖρις ἀελλόπος: étymologie et métaphore.’ RPh 65 [1991] 31–44.) 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.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 291

Bakker (1992) 2005 Bakker, E.J. ‘Formula, Context, and Synonymy.’ In Bakker 2005, 22–37. (First published as [in collaboration with N. van den Houten] ‘Aspects of Synonymy in Homeric Diction: An Investigation of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ CPh 87 [1992] 1–13.) Bakker (2002) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘Remembering the God’s Arrival.’ In Bakker 2005, 136–153. (First published in Arethusa 35 [2002] 63–81 [slightly revised]). Bakker 2005 Bakker, E. J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Balensiefen 1955 Balensiefen, E. Die Zeitgestaltung in Homers Ilias. Tübingen. Baltes (1987) 2005 Baltes, M. ‘Beobachtungen zum Aufbau der Ilias.’ In M. Baltes. EΠINO­ HMATA. Kleine Schriften zur antiken Philosophie und homerischen Dichtung, ed. by M.-L. Lakmann, pp. 273–291. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 221. Munich and Leipzig. (First published in Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 28 [1987] 9–25.) Bannert 1988 Bannert, H. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Beispiele für eine Poetik des Epos. Wiener Studien, Beiheft 13. Vienna. Barck 1976 Barck, C. Wort und Tat bei Homer. Spudasmata 34. Hildesheim and New York. Barnes 2011 Barnes, T. G. ‘Homeric ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην.’ JHS 131: 1–13. Barth 1984 Barth, H.-L. Die Fragmente aus den Schriften des Grammatikers Kallistratos zu Homers Ilias und Odyssee (Edition mit Kommentar). Bonn. Bartolotta 2002 Bartolotta, A. L’occhio della mente. Un’eredità indoeuropea nei poemi omerici. Palermo. Basedow 2000 Basedow, M. A. Be¸sik-Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld. With a forward by M. Korfmann and contributions by U. Wittwer-Backofen, J. Wahl, V.  Dresely, T. H. ­Schmidt-Schultz and M. Schultz. Studia Troica Monographien 1. Mainz. Basista 1979 Basista, W. ‘Hektors Lösung.’ Boreas 2: 5–36. Basset 1979 Basset, L. Les emplois périphrastiques du verbe grec μέλλειν. Lyon. Basset 2006 Basset, L. ‘La préfiguration dans l’épopée homérique de l’article défini du grec classique.’ In Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek (Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’, Madrid, 18–21 June 2003), ed. by E. Crespo, J. de la Villa and A. R. Revuelta, pp. 105–120. Bibliothèque des cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain 117. Louvain-La-Neuve. Bassett 1905 Bassett, S. E. ‘Notes on the Bucolic Diaeresis.’ TAPhA 36: 111–124. Bassett 1920 Bassett, S. E. ‘Ὕστερον πρότερον Ὁμηρικῶς (Cicero, Att. 1.16.1).’ HSCPh 31: 39–62. Bassett 1922/23 Bassett, S. E. ‘The Last Verse of the Iliad.’ CJ 18: 305–307. Bassett 1933 Bassett, S. E. ‘Achilles’ Treatment of Hector’s Body.’ TAPhA 64: 41–65. Bassett 1938 Bassett, S. E. The Poetry of Homer. Sather Classical Lectures 15. Berkeley. Bassi 2003 Bassi, K. ‘The Semantics of Manliness in Ancient Greece.’ In Andreia: Stud­ ies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. by R. M. Rosen and I. Sluiter, pp. 25–58. Mnemosyne Supplements 238. Leiden and Boston. Bechert 1964 Bechert, J. Die Diathesen von ἰδεῖν und ὁρᾶν bei Homer. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft F. Munich. Beck 2005 Beck, D. Homeric Conversation. Cambridge Mass. and London. Beck 2008 Beck, D. ‘Narratology and Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Homeric Speech Representation.’ TAPhA 138: 351–378.

292  Beck 1964

 Iliad 24

Beck, G. Die Stellung des 24. Buches der Ilias in der alten Epentradition. Tübingen. Beck 1965 Beck, G. ‘Beobachtungen zur Kirke-Episode in der Odyssee.’ Philologus 10: 1–29. Becker 1937 Becker, O. Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im früh­grie­chi­ schen Denken. Hermes Einzelschriften 4. Berlin. Becks 2002 Becks, R. ‘Bemerkungen zu den Bestattungsplätzen von Troia VI.’ In Aslan et al. 2002, 295–306. Beekes 1995/96 Beekes, R. S.P. ‘Aithiopes.’ Glotta 73: 12–34. Beekes 1999 Beekes, R. S.P. ‘The Greek Word for «Lead».’ MSS 59: 7–14. Bekker 1863 Bekker, I. Homerische Blätter, vol. 1. Bonn. Bekker 1872 Bekker, I. Homerische Blätter, vol. 2. Bonn. van der Ben 1986 van der Ben, N. ‘Hymn to Aphrodite 36–291: Notes on the pars epica of the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’ Mnemosyne 39: 1–41. Benedetti 1979 Benedetti, M. ‘Il composto omerico ἱππιοχάρμης.’ RAL 34: 169–185. Benveniste 1969 Benveniste, É. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 1: Éco­ nomie, parenté, société. Paris. Benveniste 1969a Benveniste, É. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 2: Pou­ voir, droit, religion. Paris. Berdowski 2008 Berdowski, P. ‘Heroes and Fish in Homer.’ Palamedes 3: 75–91. Bergold 1977 Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos (Zu Ilias Γ 1 – Δ 222). Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klassische Philologie 28. Bonn. Bernsdorff 1992 Bernsdorff, H. Zur Rolle des Aussehens im homerischen Menschenbild. Hypomnemata 97. Göttingen. Bertolín Cebrián 1996 Bertolín Cebrián, R. Die Verben des Denkens bei Homer. Innsbrucker Bei­ träge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 97. Innsbruck. Bethe 1914 Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage. Vol. 1: Ilias. Leipzig and Berlin. Bethe (1922) 1929 Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage2. Vol. 2: Odyssee. Kyklos. Zeitbestimmung. Leipzig and Berlin. (11922.) Bettarini 2003 Bettarini, L. ‘Λῆμνος ἀμιχθαλόεσσα (Il. 24.753).’ QUCC 74: 69–88. Bettenworth 2004 Bettenworth, A. Gastmahlszenen in der antiken Epik von Homer bis Claudian. Diachrone Untersuchungen zur Szenentypik. Hypomnemata 153. Göttingen. Bierl 1994 Bierl, A. ‘Apollo in Greek Tragedy: Orestes and the God of Initiation.’ In Apollo: Origins and Influences, ed. by J. Solomon, pp. 81–96 and 149–159. Tucson and London. Bierl 2001 Bierl, A. Der Chor in der Alten Komödie. Ritual und Performativität (unter be­ sonderer Berücksichtigung von Aristophanes’ ‘Thesmophoriazusen’ und der Phalloslieder fr. 851 PMG). Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 126. Leipzig. Bierl 2004a Bierl, A. ‘Die Wiedererkennung von Odysseus und seiner treuen Gattin ­Penelope. Das Ablegen der Maske  – zwischen traditioneller Erzählkunst, Metanarration und psychologischer Vertiefung.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 103–126. Bierl 2004b 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 (Divine Epiphanies in the Ancient World): 43–61. Bierl et al. 2004 Bierl, A., A. Schmitt, A. Willi (eds.). Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Fest­ schrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages. Munich and Leipzig.



Bissinger 1966 Blanc 2003 Bloedow 2007

Blom 1936 Blome 1984

Blondell 2010 Blößner 1991 Blum 1998 Boedeker 1984 Boegehold 1999 de Boel 1992 Böhme 1929 Bolkestein 1939 Bollack 2012

Bolling 1925 Bolling 1929 Bolling 1944 Bömer 1976 Bonifazi 2008

Bonifazi 2012 Bonner 1937

Bouvier 1987

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 293

Bissinger, M. Das Adjektiv μέγας in der griechischen Dichtung. MSS, Beiheft K. (2 vols.) Blanc, A. ‘La «faute» et le «parricide» en grec, le «dommage» indo-arien et la «peine» germanique: formes de la racine *h2ley-.’ REG 116: 17–53. Bloedow, E. F. ‘Homer and the depas amphikypellon.’ In Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th Inter­ national Aegean Conference (Los Angeles, 20.–23.4.2006), ed. by S. P. Morris and R. Laffineur, pp. 87–97. Aegaeum 28. Liège and Austin. Blom, J. W.S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I. Triaden, heb­ domaden en enneaden. Nijmegen. Blome, P. ‘Lefkandi und Homer.’ WJA 10: 9–22. (Partially reprinted in P.  Blome. ‘Die dunklen Jahrhunderte  – aufgehellt.’ In Latacz 1991, 45–60, esp. 45–50.) Blondell, R. ‘«Bitch that I Am»: Self-Blame and Self-Assertion in the Iliad.’ TAPhA 140: 1–32. Blößner, N. Die singulären Iterata der Ilias. Bücher 16–20. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 13. Stuttgart. Blum, H. Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt. Antiquitas, Reihe 1, 47. Bonn. Boedeker, D. Descent from Heaven: Images of Dew in Greek Poetry and Reli­ gion. Chico. Boegehold, A. L. When A Gesture Was Expected: A Selection of Examples from Archaic and Classical Greek Literature. Princeton. de Boel, G. ‘Lexicographie et syntaxe: le cas de ἐλαύνω chez Homère.’ In Létoublon 1992, 63–73. Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin. Bolkestein, H. Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum. Ein Beitrag zum Problem ‘Moral und Gesellschaft’. Utrecht. Bollack, J. ‘Vingt ans pour Ulysse, vingt ans pour Hélène.’ In Donum nata­ licium digitaliter confectum Gregorio Nagy septuagenario a discipulis collegis familiaribus oblatum, Center for Hellenic Studies, http://chs.harvard.edu/ CHS/article/display/4644 (retrieved 30. 4. 2014.) Bolling, G. M. The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Oxford. Bolling, G. M. ‘The Meaning of που in Homer.’ Language 5: 100–105. Bolling, G. M. The Athetized Lines of the Iliad. Baltimore. Bömer, F. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar. Heidelberg. Bonifazi, A. ‘Memory and Visualization in Homeric Discourse Markers.’ In Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, ed. by E. A. Mackay, pp. 35–64. Mnemosyne Supplements 298. Leiden and Boston. Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric. The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Hellenic Studies 50. Cambridge Mass. and London. Bonner, C. ‘The Sibyl and Bottle Imps.’ In Quantulacumque: Studies Pre­ sented to Kirsopp Lake, ed. by R. P. Casey, A. K. and S. Lake, pp. 1–8. London. (www.questia.com/read/85822898/quantulacumque-studies-presented-to-kirsopp-lake [retrieved 30. 4. 2014].) Bouvier, D. ‘Mourir près des fontaines de Troie. Remarques sur le problème de la toilette funéraire d’Hector dans l’Iliade.’ Euphrosyne 15: 9–29.

294 

 Iliad 24

Bouvier 2009

Bouvier, D: ‘Le trône d’Achille: Représentations de chaises et de fauteuils dans l’Iliade, regards philologique et archéologique.’ In Reconstruire Troie. Permanence et renaissance d’une cité emblématique, ed. by M. Fartzoff et al., pp. 489–510. Besançon. Bowra 1952 Bowra, C. M. Heroic Poetry. London. Braswell 1971 Braswell, B. K. ‘Mythological Innovation in the Iliad.’ CQ 21: 16–26. Braund/Most 2003 Braund, S. and G. W. Most (eds.). Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen. Cambridge. Bremer et al. 1987 Bremer, J. M., I. J.F. de Jong, J. Kalff (eds.). Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation. Amsterdam. Bremer et al. 1987a Bremer, J. M., A. M. van Erp Taalman Kip, S. R. Slings. Some Recently Found Greek Poems: Text and Commentary. Mnemosyne Supplements 99. Leiden etc. Bremmer 1983 Bremmer, J. N. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton. Bretzigheimer 1969 Bretzigheimer, F. ‘Hektor in Troia. Zu Homer, 6.237–529 und 24.697–804.’ Anregung 15: 167–176. Brillante 1990 Brillante, C. ‘Scene oniriche nei poemi omerici.’ MD 24: 31–46. Brown 1998 Brown, A. ‘Homeric Talents and the Ethics of Exchange.’ JHS 118: 165–172. Brown 2014 Brown, H. P. ‘The Grammaticalization of «Daimonie» at Iliad 24.194.’ Mnemo­ syne 67: 353–369. Brulé 2005 Brulé, P. ‘«La cité est la somme des maisons». Un commentaire religieux.’ In Dasen/Piérart 2005, 27–53. Brunius-Nilsson 1955 Brunius-Nilsson, E. ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ: An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature. Uppsala. Bruns 1970 Bruns, G. ‘Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten.’ ArchHom chap. Q. Göttingen. Buchan 2012 Buchan, M. Perfidy and Passion: Reintroducing the Iliad. Madison. Buchholz 1885 Buchholz, E. Die homerischen Realien, Bd. 3, Abt. 2: Die homerische Psycholo­ gie und Ethik. Leipzig. Buchholz 2012 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Erkennungs-, Rang- und Würdezeichen.’ ArchHom chap. D. Göttingen. Buchholz et al. 1973 Buchholz, H.-G., G. Jöhrens, I. Maull. ‘Jagd und Fischfang.’ ArchHom chap. J. Göttingen. Bühler 1960 Bühler, W. Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Hermes Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden. Burgess 2001 Burgess, J. S. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore and London. Burgess 2004 Burgess, J. S. ‘Untrustworthy Apollo and the Destiny of Achilles: Iliad 24.55– 63.’ HSCPh 102: 21–40. Burgess 2010 Burgess, J. S. ‘The Hypertext of Astyanax.’ Trends in Classics 2: 211–224. Burgess 2012 Burgess, J. S. ‘Intertextuality Without Text in Early Greek Epic.’ In Andersen/ Haug 2012, 168–183. Burke 2008 Burke, B. ‘Mycenaean Memory and Bronze Age Lament.’ In Suter 2008, 70– 92. Burkert 1955 Burkert, W. Zum altgriechischen Mitleidsbegriff. Erlangen. Burkert (1977) 1985 Burkert, W. Greek Religion, transl. by J. Raffan. Cambridge Mass. (German original: Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stuttgart 1977.)



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 295

Burkert (1984) 1992 Burkert, W. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, transl. by M. E. Pinder and W. Burkert. Cambridge Mass. and London. (= expanded version of: Die orientalisierende Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur. SHAW 1984.1. Heidelberg 1984.) Burkert 2012 Burkert, W. ‘Der Abschluß der Ilias im Zeugnis korinthischer und attischer Vasen (580/560 v. Chr.).’ MH 69: 1–11. Buttmann (1818) 1825 Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung, hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod2, vol. 1 Berlin (11818). Buttmann 1825 Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung, hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod, vol. 2. Berlin. Buxton 2004 Buxton, R. ‘Similes and Other Likenesses.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Homer, ed. by R. Fowler, pp. 139–155. Cambridge. Cairns 1993 Cairns, D. L. Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford. Cairns 2001 Cairns, D. L. (ed.) Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford. Cairns 2001a Cairns, D. L. ‘Anger and the Veil in Ancient Greek Culture.’ G&R 48: 18–32. Cairns 2003 Cairns, D. L. ‘Ethics, Ethology, Terminology: Iliadic Anger and the Cross-Cultural Study of Emotion.’ In Braund/Most 2003, 11–49. Cairns 2012 Cairns, F. ‘Atē in the Homeric Poems.’ In F. Cairns (ed.) Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 15, pp. 1–52. Prenton. Cairns 2013 Cairns, D. L. ‘A Short History of Shudders.’ In Unveiling Emotions II. Emotions in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture, ed. by A. Chaniotis and P. Ducrey, pp. 85–107. HABES 55. Stuttgart. Calhoun 1933 Calhoun, G. M. ‘Homeric Repetitions.’ UCPCP 12.1: 1–25. Calhoun 1939 Calhoun, G. M. ‘Homer’s Gods – Myth and Märchen.’ AJPh 60: 1–28. Camerotto 2009 Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: composizione e rac­ conto nell’epica greca arcaica. Padua. (Part of this originally published as: ‘«Obrimos Ares, obrimos Hektor». Epiteti epici e significati.’ Aevum(ant) n.s. 2 [2002]: 141–187.) Cantarella 1976 Cantarella, E. Studi sull’omicidio in diritto greco e romano. Milan. Cantarella 1979 Cantarella, E. Norma e sanzione in Omero. Contributo alla protostoria del di­ ritto greco. Milan. Canter 1930 Canter, H. V. ‘The Figure ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ in Greek and Latin Poetry.’ AJPh 51: 32–41. Carlisle 1999 Carlisle, M. ‘Homeric Fictions: Pseudo-Words in Homer.’ In Carlisle/Levianouk 1999, 55–91. Carlisle/Levianouk 1999 Carlisle, M., O. Levianouk. (eds.) Nine Essays on Homer. Lanham etc. Carter 1995 Carter, J. B. ‘Ancestor Cult and the Occasion of Homeric Performance.’ In The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to E. T. Vermeule, ed. by J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris, pp. 285–312. Austin. Carvounis 2007 Carvounis, K. ‘Helen and Iliad 24.763–764.’ Hyperboreus 13: 5–10. Casabona 1966 Casabona, J. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec. Des origines à la fin de l’époque classique. Aix-en-Provence. Casevitz et al. 1989 Casevitz, M., E. Lévy, M. Woronoff. ‘«astu» et «polis», essai de bilan.’ LALIES 7: 279–285. Castellaneta 2012 Castellaneta, S. ‘ἐντυπάς.’ Glotta 88: 111–121.

296 

 Iliad 24

Cauer (1895) 1921 Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3, vol. 1. Leipzig (11895). Cauer 1902 Cauer, P. Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάς. Homers Ilias (Schulausgabe), 2nd revised and expanded edition. Leipzig. Cavanagh/Mee 1995 Cavanagh, W., C. Mee. ‘Mourning Before and After the Dark Age.’ In Klados: Essays in Honor of J. N. Coldstream, ed. by C. Morris, pp. 45–61. BICS Supplements 63. London. Cerchiai 1984 Cerchiai, L. ‘Geras thanonton: note sul concetto di «belle mort».’ AION ­(archeol) 6: 39–69. Cerri 1986 Cerri, G. ‘Lo statuto del guerriero morto nel diritto della guerra omerica e la novità del libro XXIV dell’Iliade  – Teoria dell’oralità e storia del testo.’ In G. Cerri (ed.). Scrivere e recitare. Modelli di trasmissione del testo poetico nell’antichità e nel medioevo, pp. 1–53. Rome. Chantraine 1933 Chantraine, P. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Collection linguistique 38. Paris. Chantraine 1940 Chantraine, P. ‘Conjugaison et histoire des verbes signifiant vendre (πέρνημι, πωλέω, ἀποδίδομαι, ἐμπολῶ).’ RPh 14: 11–24. Chantraine (1945) 1961 Chantraine, P. Morphologie historique du grec2. Paris (11945). Chapa 1998 Chapa, J. Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. Papyrologica Florentina 29. Florence. Citron 1965 Citron, A. Semantische Untersuchung zu σπένδεσθαι – σπένδειν – εὔχεσθαι. Winterthur. Clader 1976 Clader, L. L. Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradi­ tion. Mnemosyne Supplements 42. Leiden. Clark 1997 Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Lanham etc. Clarke 1995 Clarke, M. ‘Between Lions and Men: Images of the Hero in the Iliad.’ GRBS 36: 137–159. Clarke 1995a Clarke, M. ‘The Wisdom of Thales and the Problem of the Word ἱερός.’ CQ NS 45: 296–317. Clarke 1997/98 Clarke, M. πινύσκω and Its Cognates: a Note on Simonides, fr. 508 Page.’ Glotta 74: 135–142. Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Clarke 2001 Clarke, M. ‘«Heart-Cutting Talk»: Homeric κερτομέω and Related Words.’ CQ NS 51: 329–338. Clarke et al. 2006 Clarke, M. J., B. G.F. Currie, R. O.A. M. Lyne (eds.). Epic Interactions: Perspec­ tives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to Jasper Griffin by Former Pupils. Oxford. Clarke 1978 Clarke, W. M. ‘Achilles and Patroclus in Love.’ Hermes 106: 381–396. Classen 1867 Classen, J. Beobachtungen über den homerischen Sprachgebrauch. Frankfurt am Main. Clay 1999 Clay, J. S. ‘Iliad 24.649 and the Semantics of κερτομέω.’ CQ NS 49: 618–621. Cobet 1876 Cobet, C. G. Miscellanea Critica quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores graecos, praesertim Homerum et Demosthenem. Leiden. Coffey 1957 Coffey, M. ‘The Function of the Homeric Simile.’ AJPh 78: 113–132. (Also in: de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 322–337.) Coldstream 1977 Coldstream, J. N. Geometric Greece. A Benn Study: Archaeology. London.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 297

Collins et al. 2008 Collins, B. J., M. R. Bachvarova, I. C. Rutherford. (eds.) Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Confer­ ence on Cross-Cultural Interaction (17.–19.09.2004, Emory University, Atlanta). Oxford. Collins 2002 Collins, D. ‘Reading the Birds: Oiônomanteia in Early Epic.’ ColbyQ 38: 17–41. Collins 1988 Collins, L. Studies in Characterization in the Iliad. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 189. Frankfurt am Main. Combellack 1965 Combellack, F. M. ‘Some Formulary Illogicalities in Homer.’ TAPhA 96: 41–56. Combellack 1981 Combellack, F. M. ‘The Wish Without Desire.’ AJPh 102: 115–119. Conti 2003 Conti, L. ‘Die Bezeichnung instrumentalischer Bezüge bei Homer.’ IF 108: 195–222. Corlu 1966 Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux tragiques. Paris. Cosset 1985 Cosset, É. ‘Esthétique et système formulaire dans l’Iliade.’ LEC 53: 331–340. Coventry 1987 Coventry, L. ‘Messenger Scenes in Iliad 23 and 24 (23.192–211, 24.77–188).’ JHS 107: 178–180. Crane 1988 Crane, G. Calypso: Backgrounds and Conventions of the Odyssey. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 191. Frankfurt am Main. Crespo 1994 Crespo, E. ‘El origen de la flexión del tipo de Τυδέος, -έα en Homero.’ In Actas del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Madrid 23.–28.9.1991, ed. by the Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos, vol. 1, 87–92. Madrid. Crielaard 2002 Crielaard, J. P. ‘Past or Present? Epic Poetry, Aristocratic Self-Representation and the Concept of Time in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC.’ In Montanari 2002, 239–296. Crielaard 2003 Crielaard, J. P. ‘The Cultural Biography of Material Goods in Homer’s Epics.’ Gaia 7: 49–62. Crotty 1994 Crotty, K. The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Crouwel 1981 Crouwel, J. H. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amsterdam. Crouwel 1992 Crouwel, J. H. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 9. Amsterdam. Cuillandre 1943 Cuillandre, J. La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques. En concor­ dance avec la doctrine pythagoricienne et avec la tradition celtique. Paris. Currie 2006 Currie, B. ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition.’ In Clarke et al. 2006, 1–45. Cursaru 2012 Cursaru, G. ‘Les sandales d’Hermès, I: Les καλὰ πέδιλα homériques d’Hermès.’ RFIC 140: 20–61. Cuypers 2005 Cuypers, M. ‘Interactional Particles and Narrative Voice in Apollonius and Homer.’ In Beginning from Apollo: Studies in Apollonius Rhodius and the Ar­ gonautic Tradition, ed. by A. Harder and M. Cuypers, pp. 35–69. Caeculus 6. Leuven etc. Cuypers 2005a Cuypers, M. ‘Homeric πεπνυμένος.’ Talk at the APA Annual Meeting. Abstract: http://apaclassics.org/sites/default/files/documents/abstracts/ cuypers.pdf (retrieved 30. 4. 2014). Daix 2014 Daix, D.-A. ‘Achille au chant XXIV de l’Iliade: lion exécrable ou héros admirable?’ REG 127: 1–27. Danek 1988 Danek, G. Studien zur Dolonie. Wiener Studien Beiheft 12. Vienna.

298 

 Iliad 24

Danek 1998

Danek, G. Epos und Zitat. Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee. Wiener Studien Beiheft 22. Vienna. Dasen/Piérart 2005 Dasen, V. and M. Piérart. (eds.) Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ. Les cadres ‘privés’ et ‘pub­ lics’ de la religion grecque antique. Actes du IXe colloque du Centre Interna­ tional d’Études de la Religion Grecque Antique (Fribourg, 8.–10. September 2003). Kernos Supplements 15. Liège. Davies 1981 Davies, M. ‘The Judgement of Paris and Iliad Book XXIV.’ JHS 101: 56–62. Davies 2003 Davies, M. ‘The Judgements of Paris and Solomon.’ CQ NS 53: 32–43. Davies 2006 Davies, M. ‘«Self-Consolation» in the Iliad.’ CQ NS 56: 582–587. Deacy/Villing 2004 Deacy, S. and A. Villing. ‘Athena Blues? Colour and Divinity in Ancient Greece.’ In Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World, ed. by L. Cleland and K. Stears, pp. 85–90. BAR International Series 1267. Oxford. De Boel 1988 De Boel, G. Goal Accusative and Object Accusative in Homer: A Contribution to the Theory of Transitivity. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 125. Brussels. Debrunner 1921 Debrunner, A. ‘Homerica.’ IF 39: 202–207. Debrunner 1922 Debrunner, A. ‘Homerica.’ IF 40: 107–112. Dee 1994 Dee, J. H. The Epithetic Phrases for the Homeric Gods (Epitheta Deorum apud Homerum): A Repertory of the Descriptive Expressions for the Divinities of the Iliad and the Odyssey. New York and London. Dee 2000 Dee, J. H. Epitheta Hominum apud Homerum: The Epithetic Phrases for the Homeric Heroes. A Repertory of Descriptive Expressions for the Hu­ man Characters of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Alpha-Omega, Reihe A 212. Hildesheim. Deger-Jalkotzy 1979 Deger-Jalkotzy, S. ‘Homer und der Orient: Das Königtum des Priamos.’ WJA 5: 25–31. Deger-Jalkotzy/Lemos 2006 Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and I. S. Lemos. (eds.) Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh. Deichgräber 1972 Deichgräber, K. Der letzte Gesang der Ilias. AAWM 1972.5. Mainz and Wiesbaden. Delebecque 1951 Delebecque, E. Le cheval dans l’Iliade. Paris. Dentice di Accadia 2012 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. Omero e i suoi oratori. Tecniche di per­ suasione nell’Iliade. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 302. Berlin and Boston. Dentice di Accadia 2013 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. ‘Homer und seine Redner. Drei Bitt­ reden als Beispiele homerischer Redekunst.’ Gymnasium 120: 103–122. Derderian 2001 Derderian, K. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Literacy. Mnemosyne Supplements 209. Leiden etc. Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero2. Turin (11994). Dickinson 2006 Dickinson, O. The Aegaean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC. London and New York. Dickson 1995 Dickson, K. Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. New York and London. Diels (1914) 1924 Diels, H. Antike Technik. Sieben Vorträge3. Leipzig and Berlin (11914). Dietrich 1962 Dietrich, B. C. ‘The Spinning of Fate in Homer.’ Phoenix 16: 86–101. Dietrich 1965 Dietrich, B. C. Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer. London. Dihle 1970 Dihle, A. Homer-Probleme. Opladen.



Dillon 1996

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 299

Dillon, M. ‘The Importance of «Oionomanteia» in Greek Divination.’ In M. Dillon. (ed.) Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches, pp. 99–121. Amsterdam. Dirlmeier 1935 Dirlmeier, F. ‘ΘΕΟΦΙΛΙΑ  – ΦΙΛΟΘΕΙΑ.’ Philologus 90 (NF 44): 57–77 and 176–193. Donnay 2005 Donnay, G. ‘Εὔχετ’ ἔπειτα στὰς μέσῳ ἕρκεϊ (Iliade 16.231, 24.306).’ In Dasen/ Piérart 2005, 1–11. Douglas 2007 Douglas, M. Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition. New Haven and London. Dova 2000 Dova, S. ‘Who is μακάρτατος in the Odyssey?’ HSCPh 100: 53–65. Dover 1983 Dover, K. J. ‘The Portrayal of Moral Evaluation in Greek Poetry.’ JHS 103: 35–48. Dowden 1996 Dowden, K. ‘Homer’s Sense of Text.’ JHS 116: 47–61. Dreher 2006 Dreher, M. ‘Die Hikesie-Szenen der Odyssee und der Ursprung des Asylgedankens.’ In Luther 2006, 47–60. Drerup 1921 Drerup, E. Homerische Poetik, Bd. 1: Das Homerproblem in der Gegenwart. Würzburg. Duckworth 1933 Duckworth, G. E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollo­ nius, and Virgil. Princeton. Dué/Ebbott 2010 Dué, C. and M. Ebbott. Iliad 10 and the Poetics of Ambush: A Multitext Edition with Essays and Commentary. Hellenic Studies 39. Cambridge Mass. and London. Dumortier (1935) 1975 Dumortier, J. Le vocabulaire médical d’Éschyle et les écrits hippocratiques2. Paris (11935). Dunkle 1996/97 Dunkle, R. ‘Swift-Footed Achilles.’ CW 90: 227–234. Düntzer (1847) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Über das vierundzwanzigste Buch der Ilias.’ In Düntzer 1872, 326–376. (First published in RhM 5 [1847]: 378–421.) Düntzer (1847a) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Schluss der Ilias.’ In Düntzer 1872, 383–398. (English original in The Classical Museum 4 [1847]: 36–47.) Düntzer 1848 Düntzer, H. De Zenodoti Studiis Homericis. Göttingen. Düntzer (1863) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Zur Beurtheilung der stehenden Homerischen Beiwörter.’ In Düntzer 1872, 507–516. (First published in Verhandlungen der 21. Ver­ sammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Augsburg [24.–27.9.1862], pp. 102–107. Leipzig.) Düntzer (1864) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Ausdruck.’ In Düntzer 1872, 517–549. (First published in JbbClassPhil 10 [1864]: 673–694; also in: HTN 88–108 [abridged]). Düntzer (1864) 1979 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Ausdruck.’ In HTN 88–108. (Unabridged version: Düntzer [1864] 1872, see above.) Düntzer 1872 Düntzer, H. Homerische Abhandlungen. Leipzig. Durante 1976 Durante, M. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Parte seconda: Ri­ sultanze della comparazione indoeuropea. Incunabula Graeca 64. Rome. Dürbeck 1977 Dürbeck, H. Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeichnungen. Bonn. Ebbott 1999 Ebbott, M. ‘The Wrath of Helen: Self-Blame and Nemesis in the Iliad.’ In Carlisle/Levianouk 1999, 3–20. (Also in: Nagy 2001a, 235–252.) Eder 2006 Eder, B. ‘The World of Telemachus: Western Greece 1200–700 BC.’ In Deger-Jalkotzy/Lemos 2006, 549–580.

300 

 Iliad 24

Edmunds 1990

Edmunds, S. T. Homeric Nēpios. Harvard Dissertations in Classics. New York and London. Edmunds 1997 Edmunds, L. ‘Myth in Homer.’ In Companion 415–441. Edmunds 2006 Edmunds, L. ‘The New Sappho: ΕΦΑΝΤΟ (9).’ ZPE 156: 23–26. Edwards 1985 Edwards, A. T. Achilles in the Odyssey. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 171. Königstein/Ts. Edwards 1966 Edwards, M. W. ‘Some Features of Homeric Craftmanship.’ TAPhA 97: 115–179. Edwards 1970 Edwards, M. W. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions.’ HSCPh 74: 1–36. Edwards 1975 Edwards, M. W. ‘Type-Scenes and Homeric Hospitality.’ TAPhA 105: 51–72. Edwards 1980 Edwards, M. W. ‘Convention and Individuality in Iliad 1.’ HSCPh 84: 1–28. Edwards 1986 Edwards, M. W. ‘The Conventions of a Homeric Funeral.’ In Studies in Honor of T. B.L. Webster, ed. by J. H. Betts, J. T. Hooker and J. R. Green, vol. 1, pp. 84– 92. Bristol. Edwards 1987 Edwards, M. W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London. Edwards 1987a Edwards, M. W. ‘Topos and Transformation in Homer.’ In Bremer 1987, 47–60. Edwards 1992 Edwards, M. W. ‘Homer and Oral Tradition: The Type-Scene.’ Oral Tradition 7: 284–330. Eichner/Rix 1990 Eichner, H. and H. Rix. (eds.) Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie. Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Kolloquium der Indogerman. Ge­ sellschaft vom 13.–15.10.1988 in Basel. Wiesbaden. Eide 1999 Eide, T. ‘Reformulated Repetitions in Homer.’ SO 74: 97–139. Eitrem 1915 Eitrem, S. Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer. Oslo. Ellendt (1861) 1979 Ellendt, J. E. ‘Einiges über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den Gebrauch von Wortformen und Wortverbindungen im Homer.’ In HTN 60–87. (First published as Programm Königsberg 1861; also in J. E. Ellendt. Drei Homerische Abhandlungen, pp. 6–34. Leipzig.) Elliger 1975 Elliger, W. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15. Berlin and New York. Elmer 2013 Elmer, D. F. The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad. Baltimore. Engels 1998 Engels, J. Funerum sepulcrorumque magnificentia. Begräbnis- und Grab­ luxus­gesetze in der griechisch-römischen Welt mit einigen Ausblicken auf Ein­ schränkungen des funeralen und sepulkralen Luxus im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 78. Stuttgart. Erbse 1960 Erbse, H. Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien. Zetemata 24. Munich. Erbse (1978) 1979 Erbse, H. ‘Hektor in der Ilias.’ In H. Erbse. Ausgewählte Schriften zur Klas­ sischen Philologie, pp. 1–18. Berlin. (First published in Kyklos. Griechisches und Byzantinisches. Rudolf Keydell zum 90. Geburtstag, ed. by H. G. Beck, A. Kambylio and P. Moraux, pp. 1–19. Berlin and New York 1978.) Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Unter­suchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York. Erren 1970 Erren, M. ‘Αὐτίκα ‘sogleich’ als Signal der einsetzenden Handlung in Ilias und Odyssee.’ Poetica 3: 24–58. Étienne 2005 Étienne, R. ‘L’incinération: l’exemple athénien.’ Ktèma 30: 183–188. Etter 1986 Etter, A. (ed.) O-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin and New York.



Falkner 1995

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 301

Falkner, T. M. The Poetics of Old Age in Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy. Norman and London. Faraone 2004 Faraone, C. A. ‘Hipponax Fragment 128W: Epic Parody or Expulsive Incantation?’ ClAnt 23: 209–245. Farron 1979 Farron, S. ‘The Portrayal of Women in the Iliad.’ AClass 22: 15–31. Faulkner 2005 Faulkner, A. ‘Aphrodite’s Aorists: Attributive Sections in the Homeric Hymns.’ Glotta 81: 60–79. Fauth 1974 Fauth, W. ‘Der Schlund des Orcus. Zu einer Eigentümlichkeit der rö­mischetruskischen Unterweltsvorstellung.’ Numen 21: 105–127. Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias. Berlin. Felson 2002 Felson, N. ‘Threptra and Invincible Hands: The Father-Son Relationship in Iliad 24.’ Arethusa 35: 35–50. Fenik 1968 Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden. Fenik 1974 Fenik, B. Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden. Fenno 2005 Fenno, J. ‘«A Great Wave Against the Stream»: Water Imagery in Iliadic Battle Scenes.’ AJPh 126: 475–504. Fingerle 1939 Fingerle, A. Typik der Homerischen Reden. Munich. Finglass u. a. 2007 Finglass, P. J., C. Collard, C. and N. J. Richardson. (eds.) Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday. Oxford. Finkelberg 1987 Finkelberg, M. ‘Homer’s View of the Epic Narrative: Some Formulaic Evidence.’ CPh 82: 135–138. Finkelberg 1989 Finkelberg, M. ‘Formulaic and Nonformulaic Elements in Homer.’ CPh 84: 179–197. Finley (1954) 1977 Finley, M. I. The World of Odysseus2. London (1New York 1954). Fischer 2007 Fischer, J. ‘Ernährung und Fischkonsum im spätbronzezeitlichen Griechenland.’ In Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3.–5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg, ed. by E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale, pp. 125–139. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 27. Vienna. Flaig 1994 Flaig, E. ‘Das Konsensprinzip im homerischen Olymp. Überlegungen zum göttlichen Entscheidungsprozeß Ilias 4.1–72.’ Hermes 122: 13–31. Floyd 1970 Floyd, E. D. ‘The Singular Uses of ἡμέτερος and ἡμεῖς in Homer.’ Glotta 47: 116–137. Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984 Flückiger-Guggenheim, D. Göttliche Gäste. Die Einkehr von Göttern und Heroen in der griechischen Mythologie. Bern etc. Foley 1991 Foley, J. M. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Foley 1997 Foley, J. M. ‘Oral Tradition and Its Implications.’ In Companion 146–173. Foley 1999 Foley, J. M. Homer’s Traditional Art. University Park Pa. Forbes 1967 Forbes, R. J. ‘Bergbau, Steinbruchtätigkeit und Hüttenwesen.’ ArchHom chap. K. Göttingen. Forssman 2001 Forssman, B. Review of Nussbaum 1998. Kratylos 46: 113–117.

302 

 Iliad 24

Forssman 2003

Forssman, B. Review of Homers Ilias. Gesamtkommentar, ed. by J. Latacz. Kratylos 48: 104–114. Forssman 2005 Forssman, B. ‘Das Verbum οἰγ- «öffnen» bei Homer.’ In Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (17.–23. Sept. 2000, Halle an der Saale), ed. by G. Meiser and O. Hackstein, pp. 105–115. Wiesbaden. Fowler 2008 Fowler, M. A. The Seer in Ancient Greece. Berkeley etc. Fraenkel 1950 Fraenkel, E. (ed.) Aeschylus, Agamemnon, edited with a commentary by E. F. Oxford. Fraenkel 1962 Fraenkel, E. Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes. Rome. Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen. (=  21977: unaltered reprint with an afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch; excerpt in English translation in Wright/Jones 1997, 103–123.) Fränkel (1924) 1960 Fränkel, H. ‘Eine Stileigenheit der frühgriechischen Literatur.’ In H. Fränkel. Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Literarische und philoso­ phiegeschichtliche Studien2, ed. by F. Tietze, pp. 40–96. Munich. (First published in NGG [1924] 63–127). Franz 2002 Franz, J. P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der ar­ chaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europ. Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt am Main etc. Frazer 1971 Frazer, R. M. ‘The κλισμός of Achilles, Iliad 24.596–98.’ GRBS 12: 295–301. Frenzel (1976) 1999 Frenzel, E. Motive der Weltliteratur. Ein Lexikon dichtungsgeschichtlicher Längsschnitte5. Stuttgart (11976). Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theo­ rie der epischen Gattung. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, N. F. 2.55. Heidelberg. Friedrich 2007 Friedrich, R. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches. Hermes Einzelschriften 100. Stuttgart. Friedrich/Redfield 1978 Friedrich, P. and J. Redfield. ‘Speech as a Personality Symbol: The Case of Achilles.’ Language 54: 263–288. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 4, 231–261.) v. Fritz 1943 Fritz, K. von. ‘νόος and νοεῖν in the Homeric Poems.’ CPh 28: 79–93. Fritz 2005 Fritz, M. A. Die trikasuellen Lokalpartikeln bei Homer. Syntax und Semantik. Göttingen. Frontisi-Ducroux 1986 Frontisi-Ducroux, F. La cithare d’Achille. Essai sur la poétique de l’Iliade. Biblioteca di QUCC 1. Rome. Fuchs 1993 Fuchs, E. Pseudologia. Formen und Funktionen fiktionaler Trugrede in der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, N. F. 2.91. Heidelberg. Führer 1967 Führer, R. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der frühgriechischen Lyrik. Zetemata 44. Munich. Führer/­Schmidt 2001 Führer, R. and M. S ­ chmidt. Homerus redivivus (review of Homerus, Ilias, recensuit/testimonia congessit M. L. West, vol. 1, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998). GGA 253: 1–32. Gaertner 2001 Gaertner, J. F. ‘The Homeric Catalogues and Their Function in Epic Narrative.’ Hermes 129: 298–305. Gagarin 1981 Gagarin, M. Drakon and Early Athenian Homicide Law. New Haven and London.



Gagliardi 2007

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 303

Gagliardi, P. I due volti della gloria. I lamenti funebri omerici tra poesia e antro­ pologia. Bari. García-Ramón 1990 García-Ramón, J. L. ‘Proportionale Analogie und griechische Morphologie: Athematische Infinitive im Attischen und im Westionischen.’ In Eichner/Rix 1990, 150–169. García-Ramón 1992 García-Ramón, J. L. ‘Griechisch ἱερός und seine Varianten, vedisch iṣirá-.’ In Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Leiden, 31.8.–4.9.1987), ed. by R. Beekes, A. Lubotsky and J. Weitenberg, pp. 183–205. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 65. Innsbruck. Garland 1981 Garland, R. ‘The Causation of Death in the Iliad: A Theological and Biological Investigation.’ BICS 28: 43–60. Garland (1982) 1984 Garland, R. S.J. ‘Γέρας θανόντων: An Investigation into the Claims of the Homeric Dead.’ AncSoc 15–17: 5–22. (First published in BICS 29 [1982]: 69–80.) Garland 1985 Garland, R. The Greek Way of Death. Ithaca. Garvie 1986 Garvie, A. F. (ed.) Aeschylus Choephori. With Introduction and Commentary by A. F.G. Oxford. Gemoll 1883 Gemoll, A. ‘Die Beziehungen zwischen Ilias und Odyssee.’ Hermes 18: 34–96. Genette (1972/83) 1994 Genette, G. Die Erzählung. UTB für Wissenschaft. Munich. (Translation of 1. ‘Discours du récit.’ In Figures III. Paris 1972; 2. Nouveau discours du récit. Paris 1983.) George 2006 George, C. H. ‘The Spatial Use of ἀνά and κατά with the Accusative in Homer.’ Glotta 82: 70–95. Germain 1954 Germain, G. La mystique des nombres dans l’épopée homérique et sa pré­ histoire. Paris. Giger-van den Heuvel 2007 Giger-van den Heuvel, C. Schwarz und Weiß im mykenischen Griechisch. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 125. Innsbruck. Gill et al. 1998 Gill, C., N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford. (eds.) Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Oxford. Giordano 1998 Giordano, M. ‘Γόος ἀρητός tra maledizione e vendetta di sangue: un saggio di analisi semantica.’ AION(filol) 20: 59–77. Giordano 1999 Giordano, M. La supplica. Rituale, istituzione sociale e tema epico in Omero. AION Quaderni 3. Naples. Giuliani 2003 Giuliani, L. Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der griechischen Kunst. Munich. Göbel 1933 Göbel, F. Formen und Formeln der epischen Dreiheit in der griechischen Dich­ tung. Stuttgart. Gödde 2000 Gödde, S. Das Drama der Hikesie. Ritual und Rhetorik in Aischylos’ Hiketiden. Orbis Antiquus 35. Münster. Gödde 2004 Gödde, S. ‘Euphêmia. Zur Performanz kultischer Rede zwischen Sprechen und (Ver)schweigen.’ In The Language of Silence, ed. by A. Timonen, W. Grei­ senegger and R. Kneucker, vol. 2, pp. 9–34. Turku. Goldhill 1991 Goldhill, S. The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge etc. Gottesman 2008 Gottesman, A. ‘The Pragmatics of Homeric kertomia.’ CQ NS 58: 1–12.

304 

 Iliad 24

Gould (1973) 2001 Gould, J. ‘Hiketeia.’ In J. Gould. Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture, pp. 22–77. Oxford. (Forst published in JHS 93: 74–103.) Grand-Clément 2004 Grand-Clément, A. ‘Histoire du paysage sensible des Grecs à l’époque ­archaïque: Homère, les couleurs et l’exemple de πορφύρεος.’ Pallas 65: 123–143. Grand-Clément 2011 Grand-Clément, A. La fabrique des couleurs. Histoire du paysage sensible des Grecs anciens (VIIIe – début du Ve s. av. n. è.). Paris. Grandolini 1996 Grandolini, S. Canti e aedi nei poemi omerici. Edizione e commento. Pisa and Rome. Gray 1954 Gray, D. H.F. ‘Metal-Working in Homer.’ JHS 74: 1–15. Gray 1955 Gray, D. ‘Houses in the Odyssey.’ CQ NS 5: 1–12. Gray 1974 Gray, D. ‘Seewesen.’ ArchHom chap. G. Göttingen. Graz 1965 Graz, L. Le feu dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. ΠΥΡ: champ d’emploi et signification. Études et commentaires 60. Paris. Graziosi/Haubold 2003 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. ‘Homeric Masculinity: ΗΝΟΡΕΗ and ΑΓΗΝΟΡΙΗ.’ JHS 123: 60–76. Graziosi/Haubold 2005 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer: The Resonance of Epic. London. Greene 1999 Greene, T. M. ‘The Natural Tears of Epic.’ In Epic Traditions in the Contem­ porary World: The Poetics of Community, ed. by M. Beissinger, J. Tylus and S. Wofford, pp. 189–202. Berkeley etc. Greindl 1938 Greindl, M. Κλέος, κῦδος, εὖχος, τιμή, φάτις, δόξα. Eine bedeutungsgeschicht­ liche Untersuchung des epischen und lyrischen Sprachgebrauches. Munich. Grethlein 2006 Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänome­no­ lo­gischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Hypomnemata 163. Göttingen. Grethlein 2007 Grethlein, J. ‘The Poetics of the Bath in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 103: 25–49. Grethlein 2008 Grethlein, J. ‘Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ JHS 128: 27–51. Grévin 2005 Grévin, G. ‘La crémation sur bûcher dans l’Antiquité à la lumière de l’ethnoarchéologie.’ Ktèma 30: 15–20. Griessmair 1966 Griessmair, E. Das Motiv der mors immatura in den griechischen metrischen Grabinschriften. Commentationes Aenipontanae 17. Innsbruck. Griffin 1976 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Pathos and Objectivity.’ CQ NS 26: 161–187. Griffin 1978 Griffin, J. ‘The Divine Audience and the Religion of the Iliad.’ CQ NS 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 (1986) 1992 Griffin, J. ‘Heroic and Unheroic Ideas in Homer.’ In Homer: Readings and Images, ed. by C. Emlyn-Jones, L. Hardwick and J. Purkis, pp. 21–31. London. (First published in Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios, ed. by J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richards, pp. 3–13. Oxford 1986.) Griffin 1990 Griffin, J. ‘Achilles kills Hector.’ Lampas 23: 353–369. Griffin 2007 Griffin, J. ‘Desperate Straits and the Tragic Stage.’ In Finglass et al. 2007, 189–203. Griffith 2006 Griffith, M. ‘Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagination.’ CPh 101: 185–246 and 307–358. van Groningen 1953 Groningen, B. A. van. In the Grip of the Past: Essay on an Aspect of Greek Thought. Philosophia Antiqua 6. Leiden.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 305

van Groningen 1958 Groningen, B. A. van. La composition littéraire archaïque grecque. Procédés et réalisations. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, N. R. LXV.2. Amsterdam. Gross 1970 Gross, K. ‘Götterhand und Menschenhand im homerischen Epos.’ Gymna­ sium 77: 365–375. Grossardt 1998 Grossardt, P. Die Trugreden in der Odyssee und ihre Rezeption in der antiken Literatur. Bern. Grosskopf 2005 Grosskopf, B. Leichenbrand. Biologisches und kulturhistorisches Quellen­ material zur Rekonstruktion vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Populationen und ihrer Funeralpraktiken. Diss. Leipzig 2004/2005, http://d-nb.info/979587166 (retrieved 30.04.2014). Groten 1968 Groten, F. J. ‘Homer’s Helen.’ G&R 15: 33–39. Gschnitzer 1976 Gschnitzer, F. Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. Zweiter Teil: Untersuchungen zur älteren, insbesondere homerischen Sklaventermino­ logie. Wiesbaden. Guggisberg 2008 Guggisberg, M. A. ‘Gräber von Bürgern und Heroen: «homerische» Bestattungen im klassischen Athen.’ In Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monu­ men­talisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäo­lo­ gi­sche Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, ed. by C. Kümmel, B.  Schweizer and U. Veit, pp. 287–317. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 6. Münster. Guilleux 2001 Guilleux, N. ‘Le i bref de datif singulier athématique: Les règles d’une élision homérique et tragique.’ RPh 75: 65–82. Guimier-Sorbets/Morizot 2005 Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. and Y. Morizot. ‘Des bûchers de Vergina aux hydries de Hadra, découvertes récentes sur la crémation en Macédoine et à Alexandrie.’ Ktèma 30: 137–152. Gundert 1983 Gundert, B. τέλος und τελεῖν bei Homer. Kiel. Gunn 1970 Gunn, D. M. ‘Narrative Inconsistency and the Oral Dictated Text in the Homeric Epic.’ AJPh 91: 192–203. Gunn 1971 Gunn, D. M. ‘Thematic Composition and Homeric Authorship.’ HSCPh 75: 1–31. Güntert 1910 Güntert, H. ‘Zur Geschichte der griechischen Gradationsbildungen.’ IF 27: 1–72. Hackstein 2002 Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morphologi­ scher Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, Sprach­liche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden. Hagen 1994 Hagen, H. ‘Die Diskussion um die Schreibweise von Ζῆν’ im homerischen Epos.’ Glotta 72: 98–104. Hahn 1954 Hahn, E. A. ‘Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative.’ TAPhA 85: 197–289. Hainsworth 1968 Hainsworth, J. B. The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula. Oxford. Hainsworth 1999 Hainsworth, J. B. ‘Meaning, Precision, and History in Homeric Diction.’ Ae­ vum(ant) 12: 5–15. Hajnal 1992 Hajnal, I. ‘Homerisch ἠέριος, Ἠερίβοια und ἦρι: Zur Interrelation von Wortbedeutung und Lautform.’ HSF 105: 57–72. Hajnal 1992a Hajnal, I. ‘Der mykenische Personenname a-e-ri-qo-ta*.’ In Mykenaïka. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens (Athen, 2.–6. 10. 1990), ed. by J.-P. Olivier, pp. 285–301. BCH supplément 25. Athens.

306 

 Iliad 24

Hajnal 1994

Hajnal, I. ‘Die frühgriechische Flexion der Stoffadjektive und deren ererbte Grundlagen.’ In Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (5.–9.10.1992, Zurich), ed. by G. E. Dunkel et al., pp. 77–109. Wiesbaden. Hajnal 2003 Hajnal, I. Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Die Struktur einer Argu­ mentation. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 109. Innsbruck. Hajnal 2003a Hajnal, I. ‘Der epische Hexameter im Rahmen der Homer-Troia-Debatte.’ In Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, ed. by C. Ulf, pp. 217–231. Munich. Hammer 2002 Hammer, D. The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought. Norman. Handschur 1970 Handschur, E. Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den home­ rischen Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 39. Vienna. Hartel 1873 Hartel, W. Homerische Studien. Beiträge zur homerischen Prosodie und Metrik2. Berlin. (1st ed. in SAWW 68, 1871.) Haslam 1976 Haslam, M. W. ‘Homeric Words and Homeric Metre: Two Doublets Examined (λείβω/εἴβω, γαῖα/αἶα).’ Glotta 54: 201–211. Haubold 2000 Haubold, J. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge. Haug 2012 Haug, D. T.T. ‘Tmesis in the Epic Tradition.’ In Andersen/Haug 2012, 96–105. Haupt 1866 Haupt, M. ‘Analecta.’ Hermes 1: 251–262. Heath 2001 Heath, J. ‘Telemachus πεπνυμένος: Growing into an Epithet.’ Mnemosyne 54: 129–157. Heath 2005 Heath, J. The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge. Hebel 1970 Hebel, V. Untersuchungen zur Form und Funktion der Wiedererzählungen in Ilias und Odyssee. Heidelberg. Heiden 1998 Heiden, B. ‘The Simile of the Fugitive Homicide, Iliad 24.480–84: Analogy, Foiling, and Allusion.’ AJPh 119: 1–10. Heiden 2008 Heiden, B. Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad. Oxford and New York. Helbig (1884) 1887 Helbig, W. Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert. Archäologi­ sche Untersuchungen2. Leipzig (11884). Held 1987 Held, G. F. ‘Phoinix, Agamemnon and Achilleus: Parables and Paradeigmata.’ CQ NS 37: 245–261. Hellmann 2000 Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart. Hellmann 2007 Hellmann, O. ‘Aristoteles und Achilleus: Der poetische Held aus der Sicht des Philosophen.’ In Philosophie und Dichtung im antiken Griechenland. Akten der 7. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung (Bernkastel-Kues, 10./11.10.2002), ed. by J. Althoff, pp. 27–41. Philosophie der Antike 23. Stuttgart. Hellwig 1964 Hellwig, B. Raum und Zeit im homerischen Epos. Spudasmata 2. Hildesheim. Henrichs 1974 Henrichs, A. ‘Die Proitiden im Hesiodischen Katalog.’ ZPE 15: 297–301. Hentze 1868 Hentze, C. ‘Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete der homerischen Syntax.’ Philologus 27: 494–533. Hentze 1870 Hentze, C. ‘Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete der homerischen Syntax.’ Philologus 29: 120–166.



Hentze 1902

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 307

Hentze, C. ‘Die Formen der Begrüssung in den homerischen Gedichten.’ Philologus 61: 321–355. Hentze 1908 Hentze, C. ‘Der homerische Gebrauch der εἰ-Sätze mit dem Indikativ des Futurum.’ ZVS 42: 131–146. Herrero de Jáuregui 2011 Herrero de Jáuregui, M. ‘Priam’s Catabasis: Traces of the Epic Journey to Hades in Iliad 24.’ TAPhA 141: 37–68. Hershkovitz 1998 Hershkovitz, D. The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius. Oxford. Herter 1939 Herter, H. Review of E. Dutoit. Le thème de l’adynaton dans la poésie antique. Paris 1936. Gnomon 15: 205–211. Heubeck 1954 Heubeck, A. Der Odyssee-Dichter und die Ilias. Erlangen. Heubeck 1985 Heubeck, A. ‘Zu den mykenischen Stoffadjektiven.’ MSS 46 (Festgabe für Karl Hoffmann, Teil III): 123–138. Hiesel 1989 Hiesel, G. Späthelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlandes in der Bronzezeit. Mainz. Higbie 1990 Higbie, C. Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad. Oxford. Hiller 1970 Hiller, S. ‘Die Aithusa bei Homer.’ WS 4: 14–27. Hilton 2013 Hilton, J. ‘The Hunt for Acrostics by Some Ancient Readers of Homer.’ Hermes 141: 88–95. Hitch 2009 Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Authority in the Iliad.’ Cambridge Mass. and London. Hoekstra 1965 Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the De­ velopment of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, N. R. 71.1. Amsterdam. Hoekstra 1981 Hoekstra, A. Epic Verse Before Homer: Three Studies. Amsterdam etc. Hoffmann 1914 Hoffmann, M. Die ethische Terminologie bei Homer, Hesiod und den alten ­Elegikern und Jambographen. I: Homer. Tübingen. Hoffmann 1976 Hoffmann, K. ‘Avest. vanhuuam.’ In K. Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik, ed. by J. Narten, pp. 593–604. Wiesbaden. Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I. M. Manners in the Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne Supplements 63. Leiden. Hölkeskamp 2002 Hölkeskamp, K.-J. ‘«Ptolis» and «Agore»: Homer and the Archaeology of the City-State.’ In Montanari 2002, 297–342. Holmes 2007 Holmes, B. ‘The Iliad’s Economy of Pain.’ TAPhA 137: 45–84. Holoka 1983 Holoka, J. P. ‘«Looking Darkly» (ΥΠΟΔΡΑ ΙΔΩΝ): Reflections on Status and Decorum in Homer.’ TAPhA 113: 1–16. 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 (1979) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘ἐντυπάς.’ In Hooker 1996, 433–434. (First published in Sprache 25 [1979]: 174–175.) Hooker (1986) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘A Residual Problem in Iliad 24.’ In Hooker 1996, 493–498. (First published in CQ NS 36 [1986]: 32–37.) Hooker (1986a) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Helen and the Duration of the Trojan War.’ In Hooker 1996, 489–491. (First published in PP 41 [1986]: 111–113.)

308 

 Iliad 24

Hooker (1987) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Homeric φίλος.’ In Hooker 1996, 499–520. (First published in Glotta 65 [1987]: 44–65.) Hooker 1996 Hooker, J. T. Scripta Minora: Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek Subjects, ed. by F. Amory, P. Considine and S. Hooker. Amsterdam. Hopkinson 1984 Hopkinson, N. Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter, edited with an Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 27. Cambridge. Hornblower 2000 Hornblower, S. ‘Sticks, Stones, and Spartans: the Sociology of Spartan Violence.’ In van Wees 2000, 57–82. Huber 2001 Huber, I. Die Ikonographie der Trauer in der Griechischen Kunst. Peleus 10. Mannheim and Möhnesee. Hundt 1935 Hundt, J. Der Traumglaube bei Homer. Greifswalder Beiträge zur Literaturund Stilforschung 9. Greifswald. Iakovidis 1966 Iakovidis, S. E. ‘A Mycenaean Mourning Custom.’ AJA 70: 43–50. Iakovidis 1977 Iakovidis (Iakovides), S. ‘Vormykenische und mykenische Wehrbauten.’ ArchHom chap. E, pp. 161–221. Göttingen. Immerwahr 1995 Immerwahr, S. ‘Death and the Tanagra Larnakes.’ In The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, ed. by J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris, pp. 109–121. Austin. Irmscher 1950 Irmscher, J. Götterzorn bei Homer. Leipzig. Irwin 1974 Irwin, E. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto. Jachmann 1958 Jachmann, G. Der homerische Schiffskatalog und die Ilias. Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nord­ rhein-Westfalen 5. Cologne and Opladen. 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, Th. 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 Dic­ tion. Cambridge. Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur ZVS 21. Göttingen. Janni 2011 Janni, P. ‘ΡΟΔΟΔΑΚΤΥΛΟΣ ΗΩΣ. Piccola storia di un miraggio.’ QUCC 97: 187– 196. Johann 1968 Johann, H.-Th. Trauer und Trost. Eine quellen- und strukturanalytische Unter­ suchung der philosophischen Trostschriften über den Tod. Studia et Testimonia Antiqua 5. Munich. Johnston 1999 Johnston, S. I. Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece. Berkeley etc. Jones 1973 Jones, H. ‘Homeric Nouns in -sis.’ Glotta 51: 7–29. Jones 1989 Jones, P. V. ‘Iliad 24.649: Another Solution.’ CQ NS 39: 247–250. de Jong (1987) 2004 Jong, I. J.F. de. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987). de Jong 1987a Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Silent Characters in the Iliad.’ In Bremer 1987, 105–121.



de Jong 1988

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 309

Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers: An Addendum.’ JHS 108: 188– 189 de Jong 1992 Jong, I. J.F. de. Review of Martin 1989. Mnemosyne 45: 392–397. de Jong 1993 Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Studies in Homeric Denomination.’ Mnemosyne 46: 289–306. de Jong 1997 Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homer and Narratology.’ In Companion 305–325. de Jong 1997a Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Narrator Language versus Character Language: Some Further Explorations.’ In Létoublon 1997, 293–302. de Jong 1998 Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homeric Epithet and Narrative Situation.’ In Homerica: Pro­ ceedings of the 8th International Symposion on the Odyssey (1.–5.9.1996), ed. by M. Païsi-Apostolopoulou, pp. 121–135. Ithaka. de Jong 1999 Jong, I. J.F. de. (ed.) Homer: Critical Assessments. Vol. 1: The Creation of the Poems; Vol. 2: The Homeric World; Vol. 3: Literary Interpretation; Vol. 4: ­Homer’s Art. London and New York. de Jong 2004a Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 1, ed. by I. J.F. de Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie, pp. 13–24. Mnemosyne Supplements 257. Leiden and Boston. de Jong 2004b Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Paratexts «avant la lettre» in Ancient Greek Literature (Homer and Herodotus).’ In Paratext: The Fuzzy Edges of Literature, Papers Presented at the Second Annuel Colloquium of the Research Programme History of Litera­ ture (Amsterdam, 30.–31.01.2003), ed. by C. Dauven et al., pp. 47–59. Amsterdam. de Jong 2007 de Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Time in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in An­ cient Narrative, vol. 2, ed. by I. J.F. de Jong and R. Nünlist, pp. 17–37. Mnemosyne Supplements 291. Leiden and Boston. de Jong/Nünlist 2004 Jong, I. J.F. de and R. Nünlist. ‘From Bird’s Eye View to Close-up: The Standpoint of the Narrator in the Homeric Epics.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 63–83. Junker 2002 Junker, K. ‘Symposiongeschirr oder Totengefässe? Überlegungen zur Funktion attischer Vasen des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’ AK 45: 3–26. Kaeser 2006 Kaeser, B. ‘Ein Mensch muss über Göttinnen richten: Das Urteil des Paris.’ In Wünsche 2006, 106–119. Kahane 1997 Kahane, A. ‘Hexameter Progression and the Homeric Hero’s Solitary State.’ In Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text, ed. by E. Bakker and A. Kahane, pp. 110–137. Cambridge Mass. and London. Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki. Kakridis 1949 Kakridis, J.Th. Homeric Researches. Lund. (For the chapter ‘The Myth of ­Niobe in Ω’ [96–105], cf. Kakridis, ‘Die Niobe-Sage bei Homer.’ RhM 79 [1930]: 113– 122.) Kakridis (1956) 1971 Kakridis, J.Th. ‘The Rôle of the Woman in the Iliad.’ In J.Th. Kakridis. Homer Revisited, pp. 68–75. Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund 64. Lund. (First published in Eranos 54 [1956]: 21–27.) Kakridis 1960 Kakridis, J.Th. Review of Jachmann 1958. Gnomon 32: 393–410. Kassel 1958 Kassel, R. Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolations­ literatur. Zetemata 18. Munich. Kastner 1967 Kastner, W. Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ. Heidelberg. Keaney 1981 Keaney, J. J. ‘ἀλιτήμων: Iliad 24.157 (= 186).’ Glotta 59: 67–69.

310 

 Iliad 24

Keil 1998

Kelly 2007 Kelly 2007a Kelly 2012

Kemmer 1903 Kessels 1978 Kim 2000 Kimball 2014 Kiss 2012 Kitts 2005 Kloss 1994 Klowski 1975 Knauß 2006 Knox 1971 Knox 1973 Knox 1998 Köchly 1859 Korenjak 2009 Körner 1929 Krapp 1964 Krarup 1948 Krentz 2000 Kretschmer 1923 Krischer 1965 Krischer 1971 Krischer 1997 Kullmann 1956

Keil, D. Lexikalische Raritäten im Homer. Ihre Bedeutung für den Prozeß der Literarisierung des griechischen Epos. Bochumer Altertumswissenschaft­ liches Colloquium 35. Trier. Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford. Kelly, A. ‘How to End an Orally-Derived Epic Poem.’ TAPhA 137: 371–402. Kelly, A. ‘The Mourning of Thetis: «Allusion» and the Future in the Iliad.’ In Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry, ed. by F. Montanari, A. Rengakos and C. Tsagalis, pp. 221–265. Trends in Classics Supplementary vol. 12. Berlin and Boston. Kemmer, E. Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur. Würzburg. Kessels, A. H.M. Studies on the Dream in Greek Literature. Utrecht. Kim, J. The Pity of Achilles: Oral Style and the Unity of the Iliad. Lanham. Kimball, S. E. ‘Homeric κρύπτασκε, ῥίπτασκε and ἰσάσκετο.’ Glotta 90: 163– 173. Kiss, D. ‘Iliad 22.60 and 24.487: Priam on the Threshold of Old Age.’ RhM 153: 401–404. Kitts, M. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society: Oath-Making Rituals and Nar­ ratives in the Iliad. Cambridge etc. Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im früh­grie­chi­ schen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen. Klowski, J. Review of C. H. Kahn. The Verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek. Dordrecht and Boston 1973. Gnomon 47: 737–746. Knauß, F. ‘Hektors Lösung.’ In Wünsche 2006, 236–243. Knox, M. O. ‘Huts and Farm Buildings in Homer.’ CQ NS 21: 27–31. Knox, M. O. ‘Megarons and μέγαρα: Homer and Archaeology.’ CQ NS 23: 1–21. Knox, R. ‘Iliad 24.547–549: Blameless Achilles.’ RhM 141: 1–9. Köchly, H. Hektor’s Lösung. Gratulationsschrift der Universität Zürich zum 16. October 1859 […] Herrn Dr. F. G. Welcker. Zurich. Korenjak, M. ‘ΛΕΥΚΗ: Was bedeutet das erste «Akrostichon»?’ RhM 152: 392– 396. Körner, O. Die ärztlichen Kenntnisse in Ilias und Odyssee. Munich. Krapp, H. J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich. Krarup, P. ‘Verwendung von Abstracta in der direkten Rede bei Homer.’ C&M 10 (appeared 1949): 1–17. Krentz, P. ‘Deception in Archaic and Classical Greek Warfare.’ In van Wees 2000, 167–200. Kretschmer, P. ‘Literaturbericht für die Jahre 1919 und 1920. Griechisch.’ Glotta 12: 179–230. Krischer, T. ‘ΕΤΥΜΟΣ und ΑΛΗΘΗΣ.’ Philologus 109: 161–174. Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Munich. Krischer, T. ‘Regularität und Komplexität im homerischen Epos.’ In Létoublon 1997, 105–116. 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

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 311

Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Einzelschriften 14. Wiesbaden. Kullmann (1965) 1992 Kullmann, W. Review of Reinhardt 1961. In Kullmann 1992, 170–197. (First published in GGA 217 [1965]: 9–36.) Kullmann (1968) 2001 Kullmann, W. ‘Past and Future in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, 385–408. (German original: ‘Vergangenheit und Zukunft in der Ilias.’ Poetica 2 [1968]: 15–37; also in Kullmann 1992, 219–242.) Kullmann (1986) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker über Homer und den epischen Kyklos.’ In Kullmann 1992, 373–399. (First published in Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker. Werk und Wirkung, ed. by W. M. Calder III et al., pp. 105–130. Hermes Einzelschriften 49. Stuttgart.) Kullmann 1992 Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R. J. Müller. Stuttgart. Kummer 1961 Kummer, H. ‘Die Iliaslektüre. Erfahrungen und Wünsche.’ AU 5.1 (Zur Homer-Lektüre I): 21–43. Kurt 1979 Kurt, C. Seemännische Fachausdrücke bei Homer. Unter Berücksichtigung ­Hesiods und der Lyriker bis Bakchylides. Ergänzungsheft zur ZVS 28. Göttingen. Kurtz/Boardman 1971 Kurtz, D. C. and J. Boardman. Greek Burial Customs. London. Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, N. F. 2.11. Heidelberg. Kutsch (1965) 1986 Kutsch, E. ‘«Trauerbräuche» und «Selbstminderungsriten» im Alten Testament.’ In E. Kutsch. Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament. Zum 65. Geburtstag hrsg. von L. ­Schmidt und K. Eberlein, pp. 78–95. Berlin and New York. (First published in Lüthi, K., E. Kutsch and W. Dantine. Drei Wiener Antrittsreden, pp. 23–42. Theologische Studien 78. Zurich 1965.) Labarbe 1949 Labarbe, J. L’Homère de Platon. Liège. de Lamberterie 1990 Lamberterie, C. de. Les adjectifs grecs en -υς. Sémantique et comparaison. Bibliothèque des cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain 54–55. Louvain-la-Neuve. (2 vols.) Lambrianides/Spencer 1997 Lambrianides, K. and N. Spencer. ‘Unpublished Material from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and the British School at Athens and its Contribution to a Better Understanding of the Early Bronze Age Settlement Pattern on Lesbos.’ BSA 92: 73–107. Landfester 1966 Landfester, M. Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen. Spudasmata 11. Hildesheim. Lang 1989 Lang, M. ‘Unreal Conditions in Homeric Narrative.’ GRBS 30: 5–26. Lange 1872/73 Lange, L. Der homerische Gebrauch der Partikel εἰ. ASG 6.4 and 6.5. Leipzig. Lardinois 2000 Lardinois, A. ‘Characterization through Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ Mnemo­ syne 53: 641–661. La Roche 1861 La Roche, J. Homerische Studien. Der Accusativ im Homer. Vienna. La Roche 1869 La Roche, J. Homerische Untersuchungen. Leipzig. La Roche 1893 La Roche, J. Homerische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Theil. Leipzig. La Roche 1897 La Roche, J. ‘Die Stellung des attributiven und appositiven Adjectives bei Homer.’ WS 19: 161–188. Larson 2001 Larson, J. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford. Laser 1968 Laser, S. ‘Hausrat.’ ArchHom. chap. P. Göttingen.

312 

 Iliad 24

Laser 1983 Latacz 1965 Latacz 1966

Laser, S. ‘Medizin und Körperpflege.’ ArchHom. chap. S. Göttingen. Latacz, J. ‘ΑΝΔΡΟΤΗΤΑ.’ Glotta 43: 62–76. Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, N. F. 2.17. Heidelberg. Latacz (1979) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Homer.’ Der Deutschunterricht 31.6 (1979) 5–23; slightly abridged in Latacz 1991a, 1–29 and Latacz 1994, 13–35. Latacz (1981) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Zeus’ Reise zu den Aithiopen (Zu Ilias I, 304–495).’ In Latacz 1994, 175–203. (First published in Gnomosyne. Festschrift für Walter Marg zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by G. Kurz, D. Müller and W. Nicolai, pp. 53–80. Munich 1981; also in Latacz 1991a, 515–551.) Latacz (1985) 1996 Latacz, J. Homer: His Art and His World, transl. by J. P. Holoka. Ann Arbor. (German original: Homer. Der erste Dichter des Abendlands. Munich and Zurich 1985; Düsseldorf 42003.) Latacz 1991 Latacz, J. (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Rückblick und Ausblick. Colloquium Rauricum 2. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Latacz 1991a Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer. Die Dichtung und ihre Deutung. Wege der Forschung 634. Darmstadt. Latacz 1994 Latacz, J. Erschließung der Antike. Kleine Schriften zur Literatur der Griechen und Römer, ed. by F. Graf, J. von Ungern-Sternberg and A. Schmitt with the collaboration of R. Thiel. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Latacz 1995 Latacz, J. Achilleus. Wandlungen eines europäischen Heldenbildes. Lectio Teub­neriana 3. Stuttgart and Leipzig (21997). Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery, transl. by Kevin Windle and Rosh Ireland. Oxford. (German original: Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Munich and Berlin 2001; Munich and Zurich 42003; latest ed. Leipzig 62010.) Latacz (2001) 2010 Latacz, J. Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels6. Leipzig (Munich and Berlin 12001). Latacz 2002 Latacz, J. ‘Troia – Wilios – Wilusa. Drei Namen für ein Territorium.’ In Aslan et al. 2002, 1103–1121. Latacz 2008 Latacz, J. ‘Die Ilias: Inhalt und Aufbau.’ In Homer. Der Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst (Katalog zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung: Basel 16. 3.– 17. 8. 2008, Mannheim 13.9.2008–18.1.2009), ed. by J. Latacz et al., pp. 114– 138. Munich. Lateiner 1995 Lateiner, D. Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic. Ann Arbor. Lateiner 2005 Lateiner, D. ‘Signifying Names and Other Ominous Accidental Utterances in Classical Historiography.’ GRBS 45: 35–57. Lauffer 1980 Lauffer, S. ‘Megaron.’ In ΣΤΗΛΗ. Τόμος εις μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος, pp. 208–215. Athens. Lausberg (1960) 1990 Lausberg, H. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft3. Stuttgart (Munich 11960). van Leeuwen (1894) 1918 Leeuwen, J. van. Enchiridium dictionis epicae2. Leiden (11894). Leitzke 1930 Leitzke, E. Moira und Gottheit im alten griechischen Epos. Sprachliche Unter­ suchungen. Göttingen. Lejeune 1939 Lejeune, M. Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux. Lemos 2002 Lemos, I. S. The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC. Oxford.



Lendon 2000

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 313

Lendon, J. E. ‘Homeric Vengeance and the Outbreak of Greek Wars.’ In van Wees 2000, 1–30. Lentini 2006 Lentini, G. Il ‘padre di Telemaco’. Odisseo tra Iliade e Odissea. Pisa. Lesky 1947 Lesky, A. Thalatta. Der Weg der Griechen zum Meer. Vienna. Lesky (1956) 1966 Lesky, A. ‘Peleus und Thetis im frühen Epos.’ In Lesky 1966, 401–409. (First published in SIFC 27–28 [1956]: 216–226.) Lesky (1962) 1966 Lesky, A. ‘Zur Eingangsszene der Patroklie.’ In Lesky 1966, 72–80. (First published in Serta Philologica Aenipontana. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwis­ senschaft 7–8 [1962]: 19–26.) Lesky 1966 Lesky, A. Gesammelte Schriften. Aufsätze und Reden zu antiker und deutscher Dichtung und Kultur, ed. by W. Kraus. Bern and Munich. Lesky 1967 Lesky, A. Homeros. Sonderausgaben der RE. Stuttgart. (Also in RE Suppl. 11 [1968]: 687–846.) Létoublon 1987 Létoublon, F. ‘Le messager fidèle.’ In Bremer et al. 1987, 123–144. Létoublon 1989 Létoublon, F. ‘Aoristes et imparfaits des verbes de mouvement chez Homère. Problèmes d’aspect et de morphologie verbale (ἤια, ἤιον, ἦλθον et ἔκιον).’ In Études homériques. Séminaire de recherche sous la direction de Michel Casevitz, pp. 77–93. Lyon. Létoublon 1992 Létoublon, F. (ed.) La langue et les textes en grec ancien. Actes du colloque Pierre Chantraine (Grenoble, 5–8 Septembre 1989). Amsterdam. Létoublon 1997 Létoublon, F. (ed.). Hommage à Milman Parry. Le style formulaire de l’épopée homérique et la théorie de l’oralité poétique. Amsterdam. Létoublon 1998 Létoublon, F. ‘Descriptions dans l’Iliade.’ In Quaestiones Homericae. Acta Colloquii Namurcensis (7.–9.9.1995), pp. 163–186. Collection d’Études Classiques 9. Louvain-Namour. Létoublon/Montanari 2004 Létoublon, F. and F. Montanari. ‘Les métaphores homériques. L’exemple du «coeur de fer».’ In Skhèma/Figura. Formes et figures chez les An­ ciens. Rhétorique, philosophie, littérature, ed. by M. S. Celentano, P. Chiron and M.-P. Noël, pp. 31–46. Paris. Leukart 1994 Leukart, A. Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und -ās. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den Nomina auf -eús). Mykenische Studien 12. Vienna. (Originally diss. Zurich 1973.) Leumann 1950 Leumann, M. Homerische Wörter. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 3. Basel. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.) Leumann (1953) 1959 Leumann, M. ‘«Aoristi mixti» und Imperative vom Futurstamm im Griechischen.’ In M. Leumann. Kleine Schriften, hrsg. zum 70. Geburtstag von H. Haffter, E. Risch und W. Rüegg, pp. 234–241. Zurich. (First published in Glotta 32 [1953]: 204–213.) Levet 1976 Levet, J.-P. Le vrai et le faux dans la pensée grecque archaïque. Étude de voca­bulaire, vol. 1: Présentation générale. Le vrai et le faux dans les épopées homériques. Paris. Levin 1949 Levin, S. ‘Love and the Hero of the Iliad.’ TAPhA 80: 37–49. Lévy 1982 Lévy, E. ‘Le rêve homérique.’ Ktèma 7: 23–41. Lévy 1983 Lévy, E. ‘«Astu» et «Polis» dans l’Iliade.’ Ktèma 8: 55–73. Lévy 1995 Lévy, E. ‘Arétè, timè, aidôs et némésis: le modèle homérique.’ Ktèma 20: 177–211. Lilja 1972 Lilja, S. The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 49. Helsinki.

314 

 Iliad 24

Lindeman 1965 Lindeman, F. O. ‘Notes sur les adjectifs de matière en grec.’ SO 40: 27–38. Littauer/Crouwel 1988 Littauer, M. A. and J. H. Crouwel. ‘New Light on Priam’s Wagon?’ JHS 108: 194–196. Llewellyn-Jones 2003 Llewellyn-Jones, L. Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece. Swansea. Lloyd 2004 Lloyd, M. ‘The Politeness of Achilles: Off-Record Conversation Strategies in Homer and the Meaning of kertomia.’ JHS 124: 75–89. Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York. (Excerpt in English translation: ‘The «Inner Composition» of the Speeches in the Iliad.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, 71–102.) Lohmann 1988 Lohmann, D. Die Andromache-Szenen der Ilias. Ansätze und Methoden der Homer-Interpretation. Spudasmata 42. Hildesheim etc. Long 1970 Long, A. A. ‘Morals and Values in Homer.’ JHS 90: 121–139. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 2, 305–331.) Lonsdale 1990 Lonsdale, S. H. Creatures of Speech: Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 5. Stuttgart. Lorenz 1984 Lorenz, B. ‘Notizen zur Verwendung der Zahl «Zwölf» in der Literatur.’ Lite­ raturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 25: 271–279. Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H. L. Homer and the Monuments. London. Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Louden 2011 Louden, B. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East. Cambridge. Lowe 2000 Lowe, N. J. The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative. Cambridge. Lowenstam 1981 Lowenstam, S. The Death of Patroklos: A Study in Typology. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 133. Königstein/Ts. 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. 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 etc. Luraghi 2012 Luraghi, S. ‘The Spatial Meaning of διά with the Accusative in Homeric Greek.’ Mnemosyne 65: 357–386. Luther 2006 Luther, A. (ed.) Geschichte und Fiktion in der homerischen Odyssee. Zetemata 125. Munich. Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig. Luz 2010 Luz, C. Technopaignia. Formspiele in der griechischen Dichtung. Mnemosyne Supplements 324. Leiden and Boston. Lynn-George 1988 Lynn-George, M. Epos: Word, Narrative and the Iliad. Hampshire and London. Lynn-George 1996 Lynn-George, M. ‘Structures of Care in the Iliad.’ CQ NS 46: 1–26. Mackie 1996 Mackie, H. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Mackie 1996a Mackie, C. ‘Initiatory Journeys in Homer.’ In Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches, ed. by M. Dillon, pp. 287–298. Amsterdam. Mackie 2008 Mackie, C. J. Rivers of Fire: Mythic Themes in Homer’s Iliad. Washington, D. C. Mackie 2013 Mackie, C. J. ‘Iliad 24 and the Judgement of Paris.’ CQ NS 63: 1–16.



Mader 1970

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 315

Mader, B. Untersuchungen zum Tempusgebrauch bei Homer (Futurum und De­ siderativum). Hamburg. Mangold 2000 Mangold, M. Kassandra in Athen. Die Eroberung Trojas auf attischen Vasenbil­ dern. Berlin. 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 2002 Mannsperger, B. and D. Mannsperger. ‘Die Ilias ist ein Heldenepos: Ilosgrab und Athena Ilias.’ In Aslan et al. 2002, vol. 3, 1075–1101. March 1987 March, J. R. The Creative Poet: Studies on the Treatment of Myths in Greek Poetry. BICS Supplement 49. London. Marg 1938 Marg, W. Der Charakter in der Sprache der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Semonides, Homer, Pindar). Kieler Arbeiten zur klassischen Philologie 1. Würzburg. Marinatos 1967 Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung.’ ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen. Marino 1999 Marino, E. ‘Il lutto a banchetto (Iliade 24 – Odissea 4).’ MD 43: 15–39. Martin 1989 Martin, R. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Marwitz 1961 Marwitz, H. ‘Das homerische Bahrtuch. Homerischer Totenbrauch auf ­geometrischen Vasen.’ A&A 10: 7–18. Maslov 2011 Maslov, B. P. ‘The Metrical Evidence for Pre-Mycenaean Hexameter Epic Reconsidered.’ Indoevropeiskoe iazykoznanie i klassicheskaia filologiia 15: 376– 389. (Also online: www.academia.edu/669547/_The_ metrical_evidence_for_ pre-Mycenaean_hexameter_epic_reconsidered._ [retrieved 30.04.2014].) Mason 2004 Mason, H. J. ‘Looking for the Aeolian Migration.’ Talk at the APA Annual Meeting 2004. Abstract: http://apaclassics.org/sites/default/files/documents/abstracts/mason.pdf (retrieved 30.04.2014). Mason 2008 Mason, H. J. ‘Hittite Lesbos?’ In Collins et al. 2008, 57–62. Matthaios 1999 Matthaios, S. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpre­ tation zur Wortartenlehre. Hypomnemata 126. Göttingen. Maurice 1991 Maurice, N. ‘Τολύπη ou les écheveaux de l’étymologie.’ RPh 65: 161–167. Mauritsch 1992 Mauritsch, P. Sexualität im frühen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zu Norm und Abweichung in den homerischen Epen. Vienna etc. 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. Mazarakis Ainian 1997 Mazarakis Ainian, A. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (c. 1100–700 B. C.). Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 121. Jonsered. Mazzoldi 2001 Mazzoldi, S. Cassandra, la vergine e l’indovina. Identità di un personaggio da Omero all’Ellenismo. Pisa and Rome. McKay 1988 McKay, K. L. ‘Aspectual Usage in Timeless Contexts in Ancient Greek.’ In Rijksbaron et al. 1988, 193–208. Meier-Brügger 1986 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Homerisch μευ oder μοι?’ In Etter 1986, 346–354. Meier-Brügger 1991 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Verbaute lokale Genetive im Griechischen: ἔραζε, θύραζε, χαμᾶζε; Ἐρέβευσφι; φόωσδε.’ Glotta 69: 44–47. Meier-Brügger 1992 Meier-Brügger, M. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin and New York. (2 vols.)

316 

 Iliad 24

Meiggs 1982 Meissner 2006

Meiggs, R. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford. Meissner, T. S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European: A Diachronic Study in Word Formation. Oxford. Meister 1921 Meister, K. Die homerische Kunstsprache. Preisschriften, gekrönt und hrsg. von der fürstlich Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft zu Leipzig 48. Leipzig. Melchert 2008 Melchert, H. C. ‘Greek mólybdos as a Loanword from Lydian.’ In Collins et al. 2008, 153–157. (Manuscript: www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/ molybdos.pdf [retrieved 30.04.2014].) Metz 1990 Metz, W. ‘Hektor als der homerischste aller homerischen Helden.’ Gymna­ sium 97: 385–404. Michel 1971 Michel, Christoph. Erläuterungen zum N der Ilias. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft N. F. 2.40. Heidelberg. van der Mije 1987 Mije, S. R. van der. ‘Achilles’ God-Given Strength: Iliad 1.178 and Gifts from the Gods in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 40: 241–267. Mills 2000 Mills, S. ‘Achilles, Patroclus and Parental Care in Some Homeric Similes.’ G&R 47: 3–18. Minchin 1985 Minchin, E. ‘The Sleeplessness Theme at Iliad 24.1–18: A Study of Function and Form.’ PP 40: 269–275. Minchin 1986 Minchin, E. ‘The Interpretation of a Theme in Oral Epic: Iliad 24.559–70.’ G&R 33: 11–19. Minchin 2001 Minchin, E. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cogni­ tive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford. Minchin 2001a Minchin, E. ‘On Declining an Invitation in Homer and in Everyday Talk: Context, Form, and Function.’ Antichthon 35: 1–19. Minchin 2002 Minchin, E. ‘Speech Acts in the Everyday World and in Homer: The Rebuke as a Case Study.’ In Epea and Grammata: Oral and Written Communication in Ancient Greece, ed. by I. Worthington and J. M. Foley, pp. 71–97. Mnemosyne Supplements 230. Leiden. Minchin 2007 Minchin, E. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford. Minchin 2010 Minchin, E. ‘From Gentle Teasing to Heavy Sarcasm: Instances of Rhetorical Irony in Homer’s Iliad.’ Hermes 138: 387–402. Monro (1882) 1891 Monro, D. B. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect2. Oxford (11882). Monsacré 1984 Monsacré, H. Les larmes d’Achille. Le héros, la femme et la souffrance dans la poésie d’Homère. Paris. Montanari 2002 Montanari, F. (ed.) Omero. Tremila anni dopo. Atti del congresso di Genova, 6.–8.7.2000. Storia e letteratura 210. Rome. Monteil 1963 Monteil, P. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa formation, son développe­ ment, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle a.C. Études et commentaires 47. Paris. Montiglio 2005 Montiglio, S. Wandering in Ancient Greek Culture. Chicago and London. Morenilla-Talens 1992 Morenilla-Talens, C. ‘Πένθος ἄλαστον – ἄρρητον πένθος. Klage um das tote Kind.’ Mnemosyne 45: 289–298. Morris 1992 Morris, S. P. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton. Morrison 1991 Morrison, J. V. ‘The Function and Context of Homeric Prayers: A Narrative Perspective.’ Hermes 119: 147–157. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 284–297.) Morrison 1992 Morrison, J. V. Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 317

Most 2003 Most, G. W. ‘Anger and Pity in Homer’s Iliad.’ In Braund/Most 2003, 50–75. Moulton 1977 Moulton, C. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Hypomnemata 49. Göttingen. Mueller (1984) 2009 Mueller, M. The Iliad2. London (1 1984). Muellner 1976 Muellner, L. C. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through Its Formulas. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 13. Innsbruck. Muellner 1992 Muellner, L. C. ‘Étymologie et sémantique de μῆνις.’ In Létoublon 1992, 121–135. Muellner 1996 Muellner, L. C. The Anger of Achilles: Mênis in Greek Epic. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Müller 2005 Müller, C. W. ‘Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit als Medien der bildlichen Rezeption literarischer Szenen am Beispiel der «Lösung Hektors».’ Akade­ mie-Journal (Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften): 21–26 (www.akademienunion.de/fileadmin/redaktion/user_upload/Publikationen/Akademie-Journal/AKJ_2005–1.pdf [retrieved 30.04.2014]). 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. Müller 1968 Müller, F. Darstellung und poetische Funktion der Gegenstände in der Odyssee. Marburg. Murnaghan 1997 Murnaghan, S. ‘Equal Honor and Future Glory: The Plan of Zeus in the Iliad.’ In Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, ed. by D. H. Roberts, F. M. Dunn and D. Fowler, pp. 23–42. Princeton. Murnaghan 1999 Murnaghan, S. ‘The Poetics of Loss in Greek Epic.’ In Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community, ed. by M. Beissinger, J. Tylus and S. Wofford, pp. 203–220. Berkeley etc. Musäus 2004 Musäus, I. Der Pandoramythos bei Hesiod und seine Rezeption bis Erasmus von Rotterdam. Hypomnemata 151. Göttingen. Mutzbauer 1893 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der ho­me­ ri­sche Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache, vol. 1. Strasbourg. Mutzbauer 1909 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der homer­ ische Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache, vol. 2. Strasbourg. Mylonas 1948 Mylonas, G. E. ‘Homeric and Mycenaean Burial Customs.’ AJA 52: 56–81. Myres 1932 Myres, J. L. ‘The Last Book of the Iliad: Its Place in the Structure of the Poem.’ JHS 52: 264–296. Myres 1933 Myres, J. L. ‘The Chronological Plan of the Iliad: A Correction.’ JHS 53: 115–117. Nägelsbach 1864 Nägelsbach, C. F. von. Anmerkungen zur Ilias (Α. Β 1–483. Γ) nebst einigen Excursen, 3rd much expanded edition by G. Autenrieth. Nuremberg. Nagler 1974 Nagler, M. N. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley etc. Nagler 1988 Nagler, M. N. ‘Priam’s Kiss: Toward A Peace Concept in Western Culture.’ In War and Peace: Perspectives in the Nuclear Age, ed. by U. Goebel and O. Nelson, pp. 125–136. Lubbock. Nagy (1979) 1999 Nagy, G. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek ­Poetry2. Baltimore and London (11979).

318 

 Iliad 24

Nagy 1990

Nagy, G. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Nagy 1996 Nagy, G. Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond. Cambridge. Nagy 2001 Nagy, G. (ed.) Greek Literature. Vol. 1: The Oral Traditional Background of An­ cient Greek Literature. New York and London. Nagy 2001a Nagy, G. (ed.) Greek Literature. Vol. 2: Homer and Hesiod as Prototypes of Greek Literature. New York and London. Naiden 2006 Naiden, F. S. Ancient Supplication. Oxford. Navarre 1932 Navarre, O. ‘La particule δή. Étude sémantique.’ In Mélanges Gustave Glotz, vol. 2, pp. 667–679. Paris. Nawratil 1959 Nawratil, K. ‘Βαθύκολπος.’ WS 72: 165–168. Nesselrath 1992 Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechi­ schen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike. Stuttgart. Nestle 1941 Nestle, W. Review of G. Steinkopf. Untersuchungen zur Geschischte des Ruh­ mes bei den Griechen. Halle 1937. Gnomon 17: 193–199. Nestle 1942 Nestle, W. ‘Odyssee-Interpretationen I.’ Hermes 77: 46–77. Neumann 1965 Neumann, G. Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst. Berlin. Neumann 1992 Neumann, G. ‘καθαρός «rein» und seine Sippe in den ältesten grie­chi­ schen Texten. Beobachtungen zu Bedeutung und Etymologie.’ In Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon, ed. by H. Froning, T. Hölscher and H. Mielsch, pp. 71–75. Mainz. Nilsson (1923/24) 1951 Nilsson, M. P. ‘Götter und Psychologie bei Homer.’ In M. P. Nilsson. Opuscula selecta linguis anglica, francogallica, germanica conscripta, vol. 1, pp. 355–391. Lund. (First published in ARW 22 [1923/24]: 363–390.) Nilsson (1940) 1967 Nilsson, M. P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion3, vol. 1: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 5.2.1. Munich (11940; reprint 1992). Noussia 2002 Noussia, M. ‘Olympus, the Sky, and the History of the Text of Homer.’ In Montanari 2002, 489–503. Nowag 1983 Nowag, W. Raub und Beute in der archaischen Zeit der Griechen. Frankfurt am Main. Nünlist 2002 Nünlist, R. ‘Some Clarifying Remarks on «Focalization».’ In Montanari 2002, 445–453. Nünlist 2006 Nünlist, R. ‘A Neglected testimonium on the Homeric Book-Division.’ ZPE 157: 47–49. Nünlist 2009 Nünlist, R. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criti­ cism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge. Nünlist 2009a Nünlist, R. ‘The Motif of the Exiled Killer.’ In Antike Mythen. Medien, Trans­ formationen und Konstruktionen, ed. by U. Dill and C. Walde, pp. 628–644. Berlin and New York. Nussbaum 1986 Nussbaum, A. J. Head and Horn in Indo-European. Untersuchungen zur Idg. Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 2. Berlin and New York. Nussbaum 1998 Nussbaum, A. J. Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Göttingen. Oehler 1925 Oehler, R. Mythologische Exempla in der älteren griechischen Dichtung. Basel. Ogden 1998 Ogden, D. ‘What Was in Pandora’s Box?’ In Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, ed. by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, pp. 213–230. London.



Oguse 1962 Oka 1990

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 319

Oguse, A. Recherches sur le participe circonstanciel en grec ancien. Paris. Oka, M. ‘Achill, der Zerstörer der Stadt (‘ptoliporthos’) – eine Neuerung des Iliasdichters.’ A&A 36: 18–34. Olson 1994 Olson, S. D. ‘Equivalent Speech-Introduction Formulae in the Iliad.’ Mnemo­ syne 47: 145–151. O’Neill 1942 O’Neill Jr., E. G. ‘The Localization of Metrical Word-Types in the Greek Hexameter: Homer, Hesiod and the Alexandrians.’ YClS 8: 103–178. Onians (1951) 1988 Onians, R. B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate: New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and Kindred Evidence, also of Some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs2. Cambridge (11951). Opelt 1978 Opelt, I. ‘Gefühlswörter bei Homer und in den Argonautika des Apollonios Rhodios.’ Glotta 56: 170–190. van Otterlo 1944 van Otterlo, W. A.A. ‘Eine merkwürdige Kompositionsform der älteren griechischen Literatur.’ Mnemosyne 12: 192–207. van Otterlo 1948 van Otterlo, W. A.A. De ringcompositie als opbouwprincipe in de epische ge­ dich­ten van Homerus. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 51.1. Amsterdam. Padel 1995 Padel, R. Whom Gods Destroy: Elements of Greek and Tragic Madness. Princeton. Pagniello 2007 Pagniello, F. J. ‘The Past-Iterative and the Augment in Homer.’ IF 112: 105– 123. Panagl 2007 Panagl, O. ‘Herold, Sänger oder Kultfunktionär? Rolle und Bedeutung von ka-ru-ke in mykenischer Zeit.’ In Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des inter­ nationalen Kongresses vom 3.–5.2.2005 in Salzburg, ed. by E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale, pp. 311–316. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 27. Vienna. Pantelia 1993 Pantelia, M. C. ‘Spinning and Weaving: Ideas of Domestic Order in Homer.’ AJPh 114: 493–501. Pantelia 2002 Pantelia, M. C. ‘Helen and the Last Song for Hector.’ TAPhA 132: 21–27. Parker 1983 Parker, R. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford. Parry 1973 Parry, A. A. Blameless Aegisthus: A Study of ἀμύμων and Other Homeric Epi­ thets. Mnemosyne Supplements 26. Leiden. 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 homé­ rique. Paris 1928.) Parry (1928a) 1971 Parry, M. ‘Homeric Formulae and Homeric Metre.’ In MHV 191–239. (French original: Les formules et la métrique d’Homère. Paris 1928.) Passa 2001 Passa, E. ‘L’antichità della grafia ευ per εο, εου nell’epica: a proposito di una recente edizione dell’Iliade.’ RFIC 129: 385–417. Pattoni 1998 Pattoni, M. P. ‘ὤ μοι ἐγώ, (τί πάθω;). Una formula omerica e i suoi contesti.’ Aevum(ant) 11: 5–49. Patzer 1990 Patzer, H. ‘Gleichzeitige Ereignisse im homerischen Epos.’ In ΕΡΜΗΝΕΥΜΑΤΑ. Festschrift für Hadwig Hörner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. by H. Eisenberger, pp. 153–172. Heidelberg 1990.

320 

 Iliad 24

Patzer 1996

Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geistes­ wissenschaftliche Reihe 12. Stuttgart. Paul 1969 Paul, A. Die Barmherzigkeit der Götter im griechischen Epos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 32. Vienna. Pavese 2007 Pavese, C. O. ‘I giorni dell’Iliade.’ Hermes 135: 119–133. Pax 1937 Pax, W. ‘Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen zur Etymologie des Wortes ἀμφίπολος.’ W&S 18: 1–88. Pearce 2008 Pearce, T. ‘Homer, Iliad 24.614–17.’ RhM 151: 13–25. Pedrick 1982 Pedrick, V. ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ TAPhA 112: 125–140. Pelliccia 1995 Pelliccia, H. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Hypomnemata 107. Göttingen. Pelling 2006 Pelling, C. ‘Homer and Herodotus.’ In Clarke et al. 2006, 75–104. Peradotto 1969 Peradotto, J. J. ‘Cledonomancy in the «Oresteia».’ AJPh 90: 1–21. Perceau 2002 Perceau, S. La parole vive. Communiquer en catalogue dans l’épopée homé­ rique. Bibliothèque d’études classiques 30. Louvain etc. Perkell 2008 Perkell, C. ‘Reading the Laments of Iliad 24.’ In Suter 2008, 93–117. Peters 1922 Peters, H. Zur Einheit der Ilias. Göttingen. Peters 1980 Peters, M. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. SAWW 377.8. Vienna. Petit 1999 Petit, D. *sṷe- en Grec ancien: la famille du pronom réfléchi. Linguistique grecque et comparaison indo-européenne. Leuven. Petruso 2003 Petruso, K. M. ‘Quantal Analysis of Some Mycenaean Balance Weights.’ In Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th Interna­ tional Aegean Conference (New Haven, 18.–21.4.2002), ed. by K. P. Foster and R. Laffineur, pp. 285–292. Aegaeum 24 Liège and Austin. Pfister 1948 Pfister, F. ‘Studien zum homerischen Epos.’ WJA 3: 137–162. Plamböck 1959 Plamböck, G. Erfassen – Gegenwärtigen – Innesein. Aspekte homerischer Psy­ chologie. Kiel. Plath 1994 Plath, R. Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76. Nuremberg. Plath 2006 Plath, R. ‘Das avestische Adverb fraorǝ˷t und seine sprachgeschichtliche Einbettung.’ In Iranistik in Europa – gestern, heute, morgen, ed. by H. Eichner et al., pp. 127–140. SAWW 739. Vienna. Pohlenz 1956 Pohlenz, M. ‘Furcht und Mitleid? Ein Nachwort.’ Hermes 84: 49–74. Porzig 1942 Porzig, W. Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im Indogermani­schen. Untersuchungen zur idg. Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 10. Berlin. Postlethwaite 1998 Postlethwaite, N. ‘Akhilleus and Agamemnon: Generalized Reciprocity.’ In Gill et al. 1998, 93–104. Pötscher 1985/86 Pötscher, W. ‘Homer, Ilias 24.601  ff. und die Niobe-Gestalt.’ GB 12/13: 21– 35. Pötscher 1992 Pötscher, W. ‘Die Hikesie des letzten Ilias-Gesanges (Hom., Il. 24.477  ff.).’ WJA 18: 5–16. Pötscher 2001 Pötscher, W. ‘Βούβρωστις (Hom. Il. 24.531  ff.). Die Entwicklung einer Wort­ bedeutung.’ AAntHung 41: 363–368.



Pratt 2007

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 321

Pratt, L. ‘The Parental Ethos of the Iliad.’ In Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy, ed. by A. Cohen and J. B. Rutter, pp. 25–40. Hesperia Supplement 41. Princeton. Preisshofen 1977 Preisshofen, F. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Greisenalters in der früh­ griechischen Dichtung. Hermes Einzelschriften 34. Wiesbaden. Priess 1977 Priess, K. A. Der mythologische Stoff in der Ilias. Mainz. Pucci (1982) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘The Proem of the Odyssey.’ In Pucci 1998, 11–29. (First published in Arethusa 15 [1982]: 39–62.) Pucci (1985) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘Textual Epiphanies in the Iliad.’ In Pucci 1998, 69–80. (Italian original: ‘Epifanie testuali nell’Iliade.’ SIFC, 3. Ser. 3 [1985]: 170–183.) Pucci 1998 Pucci, P. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. Lanham etc. Pucci 1998a Pucci, P. ‘Honor and Glory in the Iliad.’ In Pucci 1998, 179–230. Puhvel 1991 Puhvel, J. Homer and Hittite. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 47. Innsbruck. Pulleyn 2000 Pulleyn, S. J. ‘The Supposed Causal εἰ in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 53: 257–266. Race 2000 Race, W. H. ‘Explanatory δέ-Clauses in the Iliad.’ CJ 95: 205–227. Race 2014 Race, W. H. ‘Achilles’ κῦδος in Iliad 24.’ Mnemosyne 67: 707–724. Raepsaet 1987 Raepsaet, G. ‘Δεκαδώρῳ ἀμάξῃ. À propos d’Hésiode, Ἔργα, v. 426.’ RBPh 65: 21–30. Rakoczy 1996 Rakoczy, T. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter. Eine Untersu­ chung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur. Classica Monacensia 13. Tübingen. Ramming 1973 Ramming, G. Die Dienerschaft in der Odyssee. Erlangen and Nuremberg. Rank 1951 Rank, L.Ph. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus (Etymol­ ogizing and Related Phenomena in Homer). Assen. Rawson 1984 Rawson, C. ‘Narrative and the Proscribed Act: Homer, Euripides and the Literature of Cannibalism.’ In Literary Theory and Criticism: Festschrift Presented to René Wellek in Honor of his Eightieth Birthday, ed. by J. P. Strelka (2 vols.), Part II: Criticism, pp. 1159–1187. Bern etc. Ready 2011 Ready, J. L. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge. Redfield (1975) 1994 Redfield, J. M. Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector2. Durham and London (Chicago 11975). Reece 1993 Reece, S. The Stranger’s Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene. Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor. Reece 2009 Reece, S. Homer’s Winged Words: The Evolution of Early Greek Epic Dic­ tion in the Light of Oral Theory. Mnemosyne Supplements 313. Leiden and Boston. Reese 1987 Reese, D. S. ‘Palaikastro Shells and Bronze Age Purple-Dye Production in the Mediterranean Basin.’ BSA 82: 201–206. Reichel 1990 Reichel, M. ‘Retardationstechniken in der Ilias.’ In Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, ed. by W. Kullmann and M. Rei­ chel, pp. 125–151. ScriptOralia 30. Tübingen. Reichel 1994 Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. ScriptOralia 62. Tübingen. Reiner 1938 Reiner, E. Die rituelle Totenklage der Griechen. Stuttgart and Berlin. Reinhardt (1938) 1997 Reinhardt, K. ‘The Judgement of Paris.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, 170–191. (German original: ‘Das Parisurteil.’ Wissenschaft und Gegenwart 11. Frankfurt 1938; also in: K. Reinhardt. Von Werken und Formen, pp. 11–36. Godesberg

322 

 Iliad 24

1948; Tradition und Geist. Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. by C. Becker, pp. 16–36. Göttingen 1960; de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 47–65.) Reinhardt 1949 Reinhardt, K. Aischylos als Regisseur und Theologe. Bern. Reinhardt 1961 Reinhardt, K. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, ed. by U. Hölscher. Göttingen. Reinhold 1970 Reinhold, M. History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity. Collection Latomus 116. Brussels. Rengakos 1993 Rengakos, A. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Einzelschriften 64. Stuttgart. Rengakos 1994 Rengakos, A. Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererklärung. Zetemata 92. Munich. Rengakos 1995 Rengakos, A. ‘Zeit und Gleichzeitigkeit in den homerischen Epen.’ A&A 41: 1–33. Rengakos 1999 Rengakos, A. ‘Spannungsstrategien in den homerischen Epen.’ In Eu­ phrosyne. Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maro­ nitis, ed. by J. N. Kazazis and A. Rengakos, pp. 308–338. Stuttgart. Reucher 1983 Reucher, Th. Die situative Weltsicht Homers. Eine Interpretation der Ilias. Darmstadt. Reynen 1983 Reynen, H. ΕΥΧΕΣΘΑΙ und seine Derivate bei Homer. Bonn. Richardson 1961 Richardson, L. J.D. ‘Mycenaean βούβρωστις?’ BICS 8: 15–22. Richardson 1961a Richardson, L. J.D. ‘Further Thoughts on βούβρωστις.’ Hermathena 95: 64–66. Richardson 1980 Richardson, N. J. ‘Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch.’ CQ NS 30: 265–287. Richardson/Piggott 1982 Richardson, N. J. and S. Piggott. ‘Hesiod’s Wagon: Text and Technology.’ JHS 102: 225–229. 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. Riggsby 1992 Riggsby, A. M. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions and the Theory of Homeric Composition.’ TAPhA 122: 99–114. Rijksbaron (1984) 2002 Rijksbaron, A. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction3. Amsterdam (11984). Rijksbaron et al. 1988 Rijksbaron, A., H. A. Mulder and G. C. Wakker. (eds.) In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner (Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemo­ ration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s ‘Aus­ führliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe’, Amsterdam 1986). Amsterdam. Rinon 2008 Rinon, Y. Homer and the Dual Model of the Tragic. Ann Arbor. Risch (1949) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Griechische Determinativkomposita.’ In Risch 1981, 1–61. (First published in: IF 59 [1949]: 1–61.) Risch (1968) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Zephyros.’ In Risch 1981, 158–166. (First published in: MH 25 [1968]: 205–213.) Risch (1976) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Die Stoffadjektive auf -ejos im Mykenischen.’ In Risch 1981, 517–526. (First published in: Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European Linguistics, Of­ fered to Leonard R. Palmer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by A. Morpurgo Davies and W. Meid, pp. 309–318. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 16. Innsbruck 1976.)



Risch 1981

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 323

Risch, E. Kleine Schriften, zum 70. Geburtstag hrsg. von A. Etter und M. Looser. Berlin and New York. Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2. Darmstadt (11976). Rix 2005 Rix, H. Review of Hajnal 2003. Gnomon 77: 385–388. de Roguin 2007 de Roguin, C.-F. “… et recouvre d’une montagne leur cité!”. La fin du monde des héros dans les épopées homériques. Hypomnemata 169. Göttingen. Roisman 2006 Roisman, H. M. ‘Helen in the Iliad; causa belli and Victim of War: From Silent Weaver To Public Speaker.’ AJPh 127: 1–36. Roisman 1982 Roisman, J. ‘Some Social Conventions and Deviations in Homeric Society.’ AClass 25: 35–41. Rollinger 1996 Rollinger, R. ‘Altorientalische Motivik in der frühgriechischen Literatur am Beispiel der homerischen Epen. Elemente des Kampfes in der Ilias und in der altorientalischen Literatur (nebst Überlegungen zur Präsenz altorienta­ li­scher Wanderpriester im früharchaischen Griechenland).’ In Wege zur ­Genese griechischer Identität. Die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit, ed. by C. Ulf, pp. 156–210. Berlin. de Romilly 1981 Romilly, J. de. ‘Achill und die Leiche Hektors (Zur Humanität Homers).’ WHB 23: 1–14. de Romilly 1997 Romilly, J. de. Hector. Paris. Roscher 1904 Roscher, W. H. Die Sieben- und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen. ASG 24.1. Leipzig. Roth (1970–1974) 1990 Roth, C. P. ‘Mixed Aorists’ in Homeric Greek. New York and London. (Earlier versions of chap. 2–5 have been published previously: chap. 2 as ‘Some «Mixed Aorists» in Homer.’ Glotta 48 [1970]: 155–163; chap. 3 as ‘More Homeric «Mixed Aorists».’ Glotta 52 [1974]: 1–10; chap. 4–5 as ‘Thematic S-Aorists in Homer.’ HSCPh 77 [1973]: 181–186.) Roth 1989 Roth, P. Singuläre Iterata der Ilias (Φ–Ω). Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 189. Frankfurt am Main. Rothe 1910 Rothe, C. Die Ilias als Dichtung. Paderborn. Rougier-Blanc 1996 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Πρόδομος et αἴθουσα. Remarques sur les distinctions sémantiques et fonctionnelles entre deux termes d’architecture domestique employés chez Homère.’ REG 109: 44–65. Rougier-Blanc 2002 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Maisons modestes et maisons de héros chez Homère. Matériaux et techniques.’ Pallas 58: 101–116. Rougier-Blanc 2004 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Les espaces ruraux chez Homère. Terminologie et mode de représentation.’ Pallas 64: 115–127. Rougier-Blanc 2005 Rougier-Blanc, S. Les maisons homériques. Vocabulaire architectural et sémantique du bâti. Études d’Archéologie Classique 13. Nancy and Paris. Roussel 1976 Roussel, D. Tribu et cité. Études sur les groupes sociaux dans les cités grecques aux époques archaïque et classique. Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 23. Paris. Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C. J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen. Ruijgh 1967 Ruijgh, C. J. Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam. Ruijgh (1967) 1991 Ruijgh, C. J. Review of Hoekstra 1965. In Ruijgh 1991, 193–201. (First published in Lingua 18 [1967]: 90–98.)

324 

 Iliad 24

Ruijgh (1981) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘L’emploi de ΗΤΟΙ chez Homère et Hésiode.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 519– 534. (First published in Mnemosyne 34 [1981]: 272–287.) Ruijgh (1985) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Le mycénien et Homère.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 221–268. (First published in BCILL 26 [1985] 143–190.) Ruijgh (1986) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Review of Κ. Συνοδινού. ἔοικα-εἰκός και συγγενικά από τον Όμηρο ως τον Αριστοφάνη. Ioannina 1981. In Ruijgh 1996, 607–612. (First published in Mnemosyne 39 [1986]: 153–158.) Ruijgh (1990) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘La place des enclitiques dans l’ordre des mots chez Homère d’après la loi de Wackernagel.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 627–647. (First published in Eichner/Rix 1990, 213–233.) Ruijgh 1991 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 1, ed. by J. M. Bremer, A. Rijksbaron and F. M.J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Ruijgh 1993 Ruijgh, C. J. Review of Lamberterie 1990. Mnemosyne 46: 534–545. Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by A. Rijksbaron and F. M.J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Ruijgh 1997 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Les origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique.’ In Létoublon 1997, 33–45. Ruijgh 2011 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Mycenaean and Homeric Language.’ In A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World (vol. 2), ed. by Y. Duhoux and A. Morpurgo Davies, pp. 253–298. Louvain-la-Neuve. Ruijgh/van Krimpen 1969 Ruijgh, C. J. and N. van Krimpen. ‘L’histoire et la préhistoire de κιχάνω. Problèmes morphologiques et sémantiques.’ Mnemosyne 22: 113–136. Russo 1994 Russo, J. ‘Homer’s Style: Nonformulaic Features of an Oral Aesthetic.’ Oral Tradition 9: 371–389. Rutherford (1991/93) 2001 Rutherford, R. B. ‘From the Iliad to the Odyssey.’ In Cairns 2001, 117–146. (First published in BICS 38 [1991/93]: 47–54.) Rutherford (1996) 2013 Rutherford, R. B. Homer2. G&R New Surveys in the Classics 41. Cambridge (11996, as no. 26 in the same series). Rystedt 1999 Rystedt, E. ‘No Words, Only Pictures: Iconography in the Transition Between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in Greece.’ Opuscula Atheniensia 24: 89–98. Sacks 1987 Sacks, R. The Traditional Phrase in Homer: Two Studies in Form, Meaning and Interpretation. Leiden etc. Sale 2001 Sale, M. ‘The Oral-Formulaic Theory Today.’ In Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World, pp. 53–80. Mnemosyne Supplements 218. Leiden etc. Sammons 2010 Sammons, B. The Art and Rhetoric of the Homeric Catalogue. Oxford. Samter 1923 Samter, E. Volkskunde im altsprachlichen Unterricht. Ein Handbuch. Part 1: Homer. Berlin. Sarischoulis 2008 Sarischoulis, E. Schicksal, Götter und Handlungsfreiheit in den Epen Homers. Palingenesia 92. Stuttgart. Sarischoulis 2009 Sarischoulis, E. ‘Zur Etymologie und Bedeutung des Adjektivs ἄποτμος bei Homer im Hinblick auf potentiell bedeutungsverwandte Begriffe.’ Philologus 153: 3–9. Schadewaldt (1933) 1970 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Lebenszeit und Greisenalter im frühen Griechentum.’ In W. Schadewaldt. Hellas und Hesperien. Gesammelte Schriften zur Antike und zur neueren Literatur in zwei Bänden, vol. 1. Zurich and Stuttgart. (First published in Die Antike 9 [1933]: 282–302.)



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 325

Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938; reprint Darmstadt 1987.) Schadewaldt (1944) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Die Gestalt des homerischen Sängers.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 54–86. (Original contribution to the 1st edition of 1944.) Schadewaldt (1944a) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hektors Tod.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 268–351. (Original contribution to the 1st edition of 1944.) Schadewaldt 1965 Schadewaldt, W. Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage4. Stuttgart (11944). Schaps 2004 Schaps, D. M. The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient Greece. Ann Arbor. Scheid-Tissinier 1994 Scheid-Tissinier, É. Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pra­ tiques. Nancy. Scheid-Tissinier 2000 Scheid-Tissinier, É. ‘Recevoir des dieux, donner aux dieux. Aspects de la relation avec le divin dans la poésie grecque archaïque.’ RPh 74: 199–230. Schein 1984 Schein, S. L. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. Berkeley etc. Schein 1997 Schein, S. L. ‘The Iliad: Structure and Interpretation.’ In Companion, 345–359. Schein 2009 Schein, S. L. ‘Narrative Technique in the Parodos of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon.’ In Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature, ed. by J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos, pp. 377–398. Trends in Classics Suppl. Vol. 4. Berlin and New York. Schenkeveld 2002 Schenkeveld, D. M. ‘The Invention of the Whole-and-Part Figure and the ­Stoics on Solecism: Ancient Interpretations of Il. 24.58.’ Mnemosyne 55: 513– 537. Schindler 1986 Schindler, J. ‘Zu den homerischen ῥοδοδάκτυλος-Komposita.’ In Etter 1986, 393–401. Schlunk 1976 Schlunk, R. R. ‘The Theme of the Suppliant-Exile in the Iliad.’ AJPh 97: 199– 209. ­Schmid 1950 ­Schmid, S. -εος und -ειος bei den griechischen Stoffadjektiven. Zurich. ­Schmidt 1976 ­Schmidt, M. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroen­ zeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias. Zetemata 62. Munich. ­Schmidt 2004 ­Schmidt, M. ‘All about Iliad’ (review of Homers Ilias, Gesamtkommentar, ed. by J. Latacz). GGA 256: 1–22. ­Schmidt 2006 ­Schmidt, M. ‘Some Remarks on the Semantics of ἄναξ in Homer.’ In Deger-Jalkotzy/Lemos 2006, 439–447. ­Schmidt 2006a ­Schmidt, M. ‘Die Welt des Eumaios.’ In Luther 2006, 117–138. ­Schmidt 1968 ­Schmidt, V. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas. Mit einem kritisch-ex­ egetischen Anhang. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 1. Berlin. Schmitt 1990 Schmitt, A. Selbständigkeit und Abhängigkeit menschlichen Handelns bei Homer. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Psychologie Homers. AbhMainz 1990.5. Mainz and Stuttgart. Schmitt 1967 Schmitt, R. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Schmitz 2001 Schmitz, C. ‘«Denn auch Niobe …» – Die Bedeutung der Niobe-Erzählung in Achills Rede (Ω 599–620).’ Hermes 129: 145–157. Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981 Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations de l’animal chez Homère. Textes à l’appui. Histoire classique. Paris.

326 

 Iliad 24

Schnaufer 1970

Schnaufer, A. Frühgriechischer Totenglaube. Untersuchungen zum Totenglau­ ben der mykenischen und homerischen Zeit. Tübingen. Schubert 2000 Schubert, P. Noms d’agent et invective: entre phénomène linguistique et inter­ prétation du récit dans les poèmes homériques. Hypomnemata 133. Göttingen. Schultz 1910 Schultz, R. Αἰδώς. Rostock. Schulze 1892 Schulze, W. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh. Schwartz 1923 Schwartz, E. ‘Homerica.’ In ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Festschrift, Jacob Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres am 11.12.1923 gewidmet von Schülern, Freun­ den und Kollegen, pp. 62–71. Göttingen. Schwinge 1991 Schwinge, E.-R. ‘Homerische Epen und Erzählforschung.’ In Latacz 1991, 482–512. Schwyzer (1939) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Die Parenthese im engern und im weitern Sinne.’ In E.  Schwyzer. Kleine Schriften, ed. by R. Schmitt, pp. 80–123. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 45. Innsbruck. (First published in APAW 1939.) Scodel 1977 Scodel, R.’ Apollo’s Perfidy: Iliad Ω 59–63.’ HSCPh 81: 55–57. Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimili­ tude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Scodel 2002 Scodel, R. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor. Scodel 2005 Scodel, R. ‘Odysseus’ Ethnographic Digressions.’ In Approaches to Homer: Ancient & Modern, ed. by R. J. Rabel, pp. 147–165. Swansea. Scodel 2008 Scodel, R. Epic Facework: Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. Swansea. Scodel 2008a Scodel, R. ‘Zielinski’s Law Reconsidered.’ TAPhA 138: 107–125. Scott 1979 Scott, M. ‘Pity and Pathos in Homer.’ AClass 22: 1–14. 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 N. H. 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. Segal 1971a Segal C. ‘Andromache’s Anagnorisis: Formulaic Artistry in Iliad 22.437–476.’ HSCPh 75: 33–57. Seiler 1950 Seiler, H. Die primären griechischen Steigerungsformen. Leipzig. (Also published as: Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft 6. Hamburg 1950.) Severyns 1943 Severyns, A. Homère. II: Le poète et son oeuvre. Brussels. Shapiro 1994 Shapiro, H. A. ‘Poet and Painter: Iliad 24 and the Greek Art of Narrative.’ NAC 23: 23–48. Shear 2000 Shear, I. M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and Athens. Shear 2004 Shear, I. M. Kingship in the Mycenaean World and Its Reflections in the Oral Tradition. Philadelphia.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 327

Shelmerdine 1985 Shelmerdine, C. W. The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos. Göteborg. Sherratt 1990 Sherratt, E. S. ‘«Reading the Texts»: Archaeology and the Homeric Question.’ Antiquity 64: 807–824. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 2, 77–101; Nagy 2001, 139–156.) Shewan 1913 Shewan, A. ‘The pluralis maiestatis in Homer.’ CQ 7: 129–131. Shewan 1927 Shewan, A. ‘Fishing with a Rod in Homer.’ CPh 22: 170–183. (Also in A. Shewan. Homeric Essays, pp. 427–440. Oxford 1935.) Shiffman 1992 Shiffman, G. ‘«Going Alone» at Iliad 24.198–205.’ CQ NS 42: 269–270. Shipp (1953) 1972 Shipp, G. P. Studies in the Language of Homer2. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge (11953). Shive 1987 Shive, D. Naming Achilles. New York and Oxford. Shive 1990 Shive, D. ‘Peleides Achilleus – formelhaft oder formell?’ In Kullmann/Reichel 1990, 175–182. Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993 Sicking, C. M.J. and J. M. van Ophuijsen. Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage: Lysias and Plato. Mnemosyne Supplements 129. Leiden etc. Silk 1974 Silk, M. S. Interaction in Poetic Imagery with Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry. London and Cambridge. Singer 2008 Singer, I. ‘Purple-Dyers in Lazpa.’ In Collins et al. 2008, 21–43. Sistakou 2002 Sistakou, E. ‘Kallimachos als Homererklärer: Das Beispiel der geographi­ schen Namen.’ WS 115: 145–173. Sistakou 2004 Σιστάκου, Ε. Η άρνηση του έπους. Όψεις του Τρωικού μύθου στην ελληνιστική ποίηση. Athens. Slings 1994 Slings, S. R. ‘Een tandje lager. Aanzetten voor een orale grammatica von Homerus.’ Lampas 27: 411–427. Slotty 1927 Slotty, F. ‘Die Stellung des Griechischen und anderer idg. Sprachen zu dem soziativen und affektischen Gebrauch des Plurals der ersten Person.’ IF 45: 348–363. Snell (1949) 1966 Snell, B. ‘Homerica.’ In B. Snell. Gesammelte Schriften, pp. 62–64. Göttingen. (First published in Παγκάρπεια. Mélanges Henri Grégoire, vol. 1, pp. 547–549. Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9. Brussel.) Snell 1978 Snell, B. Der Weg zum Denken und zur Wahrheit. Studien zur frühgriechischen Sprache. Hypommnemata 57. Göttingen. Snodgrass 1970 Snodgrass, A. M. Review of Laser 1968. Gnomon 42: 159–162. Sodano 1965 Sodano, A. R. ‘Gli ἀδύνατα omerici nell’esegesi di Porfirio. La metodologia filologico-estetica di Aristotele.’ RAAN n.s. 40: 227–278. Sommer 1977 Sommer, F. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B. Forssman. MSS Beiheft 1. Munich. Sourvinou-Inwood 1983 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘A Trauma in Flux: Death in the 8th Century and After.’ In The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B. C.: Tradition and In­ novation (Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1.–5.6.1981), ed. by R. Hägg, pp. 33–49. Stockholm. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period. Oxford. Spahn 2006 Spahn, P. ‘«Freundschaft» und «Gesellschaft» bei Homer.’ In Luther 2006, 163–216. Spanoudakis 2002 Spanoudakis, K. Philitas of Cos. Mnemosyne Supplements 229. Leiden etc. Sparkes 2006 Sparkes, B. A. ‘The Ransom of Hektor Illustrated.’ Hyperboreus 12: 5–20.

328 

 Iliad 24

Spencer 1995

Spencer, N. A Gazetteer of Archaeological Sites in Lesbos. BAR International Series 623. Oxford. Stanley 1993 Stanley, K. The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad. Princeton etc. Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989 Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft. Studien zum griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Stinton (1965) 1990 Stinton, T. C.W. ‘Euripides and the Judgement of Paris.’ In T. C.W. Stinton. Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, pp. 17–75. Oxford. (First published as: JHS Supplementary Paper 11. 1965.) Stockinger 1959 Stockinger, H. Die Vorzeichen im homerischen Epos. Ihre Typik und ihre Bedeu­ tung. St. Ottilien. Stoddard 2004 Stoddard, K. The Narrative Voice in the Theogony of Hesiod. Mnemosyne Supplements 255. Leiden and Boston. 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. Stulz 1990 Stulz, H. Die Farbe Purpur im frühen Griechentum. Beobachtet in der Literatur und in der bildenden Kunst. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 6. Stuttgart. Sullivan 1987 Sullivan, S. D. ‘πραπίδες in Homer.’ Glotta 65: 182–193. Sullivan 1988 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrēn. Ottawa. Sullivan 1989 Sullivan, S. D. ‘The Psychic Term Noos in Homer and the Homeric Hymns.’ SIFC III.7: 152–195. Sullivan 1995 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological and Ethical Ideas: What Early Greeks Say. Leiden etc. Suter 2008 Suter, A. (ed.) Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond. Oxford. Suzuki 1989 Suzuki, M. Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference, and the Epic. Ithaca and London. Svenbro 1976 Svenbro, J. La parole et le marbre. Aux origines de la poétique grecque. Lund. Szemerényi 1957 Szemerényi, O. ‘The Greek Nouns in -εύς.’ In ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, vol. 2, pp. 159–181. Vienna. Szemerényi 1977 Szemerényi, O. Review of DELG. Gnomon 49: 1–10. Tabachovitz 1951 Tabachovitz, D. Homerische εἰ-Sätze. Eine sprachpsychologische Studie. Lund. Taplin 1986 Taplin, O. ‘Homer’s Use of Achilles’ Earlier Campaigns in the Iliad.’ In Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios, ed. by J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson, pp. 15–19. Oxford. Taplin 1990 Taplin, O. ‘Agamemnons’s Role in the Iliad.’ In Characterization and Individ­ uality in Greek Literature, ed. by C. Pelling, pp. 60–82. Oxford. Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford. Taplin 2002 Taplin, O. ‘A Word of Consolation in Iliad 24.614.’ SIFC III.20: 24–27. Tartaglini 1988 Tartaglini, C. ‘Nota a Hom. Il. 24.232.’ SIFC III.6: 181–185. Thalmann 1984 Thalmann, W. G. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Baltimore and London. Thompson (1895) 1936 Thompson, D’A. W. A Glossary of Greek Birds2. London (Oxford 11895). Thompson 1955/58 Thompson, St. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: a Classification of Narrative El­ ements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux, Jest-Books and Local Legends2. Copenhagen. (6 vols.)



Thornton 1970 Thornton 1984

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 329

Thornton, A. People and Themes in Homer’s Odyssey. London. Thornton, A. Homer’s Iliad: Its Composition and the Motif of Supplication. Hypomnemata 81. Göttingen. Die Thraker 2004 Die Thraker. Das goldene Reich des Orpheus (Katalog), Kunst- und Aus­stel­ lungs­halle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Bonn. Mainz. Tichy 1977 Tichy, E. ‘Griech. ἀλειτηρός, νηλειτής und die Entwicklung der Wortsippe ἀλείτης.’ Glotta 55: 160–177. Tichy 1981 Tichy, E. ‘Hom. ἀνδροτῆτα und die Vorgeschichte des daktylischen Hexameters.’ Glotta 59: 28–67. Trachsel 2007 Trachsel, A. La Troade: Un paysage et son héritage littéraire. Les commen­ taires antiques sur la Troade, leur genèse et leur influence. Bibliotheca Helve­ tica Romana 28. Rome and Basel. Treu 1965 Treu, M. ‘Griechische Ewigkeitswörter.’ Glotta 43: 1–24. Tronci 2000 Tronci, L. ‘Eredità indoeuropea e innovazione nel greco omerico: l’elemento -ι° come «marca» caratterizzante di primi membri di composto.’ SSL 38: ­275–311. Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchun­ gen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel. Tsagalis (2003/04) 2008 Tsagalis, C. ‘Time Games: The «Twenty-Year» Absent Hero.’ In C. Tsagalis. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics, pp. 135–149. Cambridge Mass. and London. (First published in EEAth 35 [2003/04]: 109–125.) Tsagalis 2004 Tsagalis, C. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 70. Berlin and New York. Tsagarakis 1977 Tsagarakis, O. Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in Homer. Amsterdam. Tsagarakis 1979 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Oral Composition, Type-Scenes and Narrative Inconsistencies in Homer.’ GB 8: 23–48. Tsagarakis 1982 Tsagarakis, O. Form and Content in Homer. Hermes Einzelschriften 46. Wiesbaden. Tsagarakis 2001 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Messengers, Divine Councils and Simultaneous Actions in Homer.’ In Πρακτικά Ια´ διεθνούς συνεδρίου κλασσικών σπουδών, Εις μνήμην Νικολάου Αλιβαδάρα, Καβάλα 24–30 Αυγούστου 1999, vol. 1, pp. 780–792. ­Athens. Tsomis 2010 Tsomis, G. P. ‘Achilleus ἐπικερτομέων in der Ilias 24.649.’ GB 27 (appeared 2011): 1–4. Tucker 1990 Tucker, E. F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen. Turkeltaub 2007 Turkeltaub, D. ‘Perceiving Iliadic Gods.’ HSCPh 103: 51–81. Tzamali 1996 Tzamali, E. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. MSS Beiheft 16. Dettelbach. Uerpmann/van Neer 2000 Uerpmann, M. and W. van Neer. ‘Fischreste aus den Grabungen in Troia (1989–1999).’ Studia Troica 10: 145–179. Ulf 1990 Ulf, C. Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschrei­ bung und historischen Lokalisierung. Vestigia: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 43. Munich. Usener 1990 Usener, K. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis der Odyssee zur Ilias. ScriptOralia 21. Tübingen.

330 

 Iliad 24

Vagnone 1982

Vagnone, G. ‘Aspetti formulari in Stesicoro, Pap. Lille 76 a b c: il desiderio di morte.’ QUCC 12: 35–42. van der Valk 1953 Valk, M. van der. ‘Homer’s Nationalistic Attitude.’ AC 22: 5–26. van der Valk 1963 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 1. Leiden. van der Valk 1964 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 2. Leiden. van der Valk 1982 Valk, M. van der. ‘The Iliad and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual Notes.’ GRBS 23: 293–303. Van Nortwick 1992 Van Nortwick, Th. Somewhere I Have Never Travelled: The Second Self and the Hero’s Journey in Ancient Epic. New York and Oxford. Veneri 1991 Veneri, A. ‘Omero e il palazzo miceneo: alcuni aspetti dell’evoluzione semantica di termini architettonici nel contesto della tradizione linguistico-stilistica dell’epos.’ In La transizione dal Miceneo all’Alto Arcaismo. Dal palazzo alla città. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Rome, 14.–19.3.1988), ed. by D. Musti et al., pp. 177–186. Rome. Veneri 1995 Veneri, A. ‘La cetra di Paride: l’altra faccia della musica in Omero e nei suoi interpreti antichi.’ In Mousike. Metrica, ritmica e musica greca in memoria die Giovanni Comotti, ed. by B. Gentili and F. Perusino, pp. 111–132. Pisa and Rome. Ventris/Chadwick (1956) 1973 Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. Documents in Mycenaean Greek2. Cambridge (11956). Verdejo Manchado 2014 Verdejo Manchado, J. ‘The Verb (ἀν)οιγ- «to open»: A New Proposal of Etymological Reconstruction.’ Glotta 90: 269–279. Verdenius 1955 Verdenius, W. J. ‘Notes on Hippocrates «Airs Waters Places».’ Mnemosyne IV.8: 14–18. Verdenius 1956 Verdenius, W. J. ‘Emphatic Use of the Participle.’ Mnemosyne IV.9: 234. Verdenius 1956a Verdenius, W. J. Review of Denniston. Mnemosyne IV.9: 248–252. Verdenius 1959 Verdenius, W. J. Review of Brunius-Nilsson 1955. Mnemosyne IV.12: 147–148. Verdenius 1971 Verdenius, W. J. ‘Hesiod, Theogony 507–616: Some Comments on a Commentary.’ Mnemosyne IV.24: 1–10. Vermeule 1965 Vermeule, E. D.T. ‘Painted Mycenaean Larnakes.’ JHS 85: 123–148. Vermeule 1974 Vermeule, E. T. ‘Götterkult.’ ArchHom chap. V. Göttingen. Vernant (1982) 2001 Vernant, J.-P. ‘A «Beautiful Death» and the Disfigured Corpse in Homeric Epic.’ In Cairns 2001, 311–341. (French original: ‘La belle mort et le cadavre outragé.’ In La mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes, ed. by G. Gnoli and J.-P. Vernant, pp. 45–76. Cambridge and Paris 1982; also in J.-P. Vernant. L’individu, la mort, l’amour. Soi-même et l’autre en Grèce ancienne, pp. 41–79. Paris 1989; English transl. first published in J.-P. Vernant. Mortals and Immor­ tals: Collected Essays, ed. by F. I. Zeitlin, pp. 50–74. Princeton 1991 [transl. by A. Szegedy-Maszak].) Visser 1987 Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Europ. Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main etc. Visser 1997 Visser, E. Homers Katalog der Schiffe. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Vivante 1980 Vivante, P. ‘Rose-Fingered Dawn and the Idea of Time.’ Ramus 8: 125–136. Vlachou 2012 Vlachou, V. ‘Death and Burial in the Greek World (Addendum to Vol. VI).’ In ThesCRA VIII, 363–384. Los Angeles. Vogt 1967 Vogt, E. ‘Das Akrostichon in der griechischen Literatur.’ A&A 13: 80–95. Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 4. Basel.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 331

Wace 1951 Wace, A. J.B. ‘Notes on the Homeric House.’ JHS 71: 203–211. Wace 1962 Wace, A. J.B. ‘Houses and Palaces.’ In Wace/Stubbings 1962, 489–497. Wace/Stubbings 1962 Wace, A. J.B. and F. H. Stubbings. (eds.) A Companion to Homer. London and New York. Wace/Wace 1962 Wace, H. P. and A. J.B. ‘Dress.’ In Wace/Stubbings 1962, 498–503. Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wackernagel (1878) 1979 Wackernagel, J. ‘Die epische Zerdehnung.’ In Wackernagel 1979, 1512– 1565. (First published in BKIS 4 [1878]: 259–312.) Wackernagel (1888) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 627–655. (First published in ZVS 29 [1888]: 124–152.) Wackernagel (1891) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Κέχονδα.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 824–825. (First published in BPhW 11 [1891]: 1475–1476.) Wackernagel (1891) 1979 Wackernagel, J. Review of P. Cauer. Homeri Ilias, Pars I. Leipzig 1890. In Wackernagel 1979, 1566–1584. (First published in BPhW 11 [1891]: 5–9, 37–43.) Wackernagel (1892) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 1–104. (First published in IF 1 [1892]: 333–436.) Wackernagel (1895) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 680–741. (First published in ZVS 33 [1895]: 1–62.) Wackernagel (1910) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Zur griechischen Wortlehre.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 833–840. (First published in Glotta 2 [1910]: 1–8.) Wackernagel (1912) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Über einige antike Anredeformen.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 970–999. (First published in Programm zur akademischen Preisvertei­ lung 1912, pp. 3–32. Göttingen.) Wackernagel 1916 Wackernagel, J. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 4. Göttingen. (Reprint 1970.) Wackernagel (1920) 1926 Wackernagel, J. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksich­ tigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Erste Reihe2. Basel (11920). (English transl.: Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic, edited with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford 2009.) Wackernagel (1924) 1928 Wackernagel, J.: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksich­ tigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Zweite Reihe2. Basel (11924). (English transl.: Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic, ed. with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford 2009.) Wackernagel (1944) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Graeca. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Albert Debrunner.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 892–896. (First published in MH 1 [1944]: 226–230.) 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. Wagner-Hasel 2000 Wagner-Hasel, B. ‘Die Reglementierung von Traueraufwand und die Tradierung des Nachruhms der Toten in Griechenland.’ In Frauenwelten in der Antike. Geschlechterordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis, ed. by T. Späth and B. Wagner-Hasel, pp. 81–102. Stuttgart and Weimar.

332 

 Iliad 24

Wakker 1994

Wakker, G. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Wakker 1997 Wakker, G. ‘Emphasis and Affirmation: Some Aspects of μήν in Tragedy.’ In New Approaches to Greek Particles: Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Amsterdam, January 4–6, 1996, to Honour C. J. Ruijgh on the Occasion of His Retirement, ed. by A. Rijksbaron, pp. 209–231. Amsterdam. Wakker 1997a Wakker, G. ‘Modal Particles and Different Points of View in Herodotus and Thucydides.’ In Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts, ed. by E. J. Bakker, pp. 215–250. Mnemosyne Supplements 171. Leiden etc. Walcot 1977 Walcot, P. ‘The Judgement of Paris.’ G&R 24: 31–39. Wankel 1961 Wankel, H. Kalos kai agathos. Würzburg. Warden 1971 Warden, J. ‘ψυχή in Homeric Death-Descriptions.’ Phoenix 25: 95–103. Wathelet 1962 Wathelet, P. ‘Mycénien et grec d’Homère.’ AC 31: 5–14. Wathelet 1973 Wathelet, P. ‘Études de linguistique homérique.’ AC 42: 381–405. Wathelet 1988 Wathelet, P. ‘Priam aux enfers ou le retour du corps d’Hector.’ LEC 56: 321–335. Wathelet 1999 Wathelet, P. ‘Les subordonnées introduites par ὄφρα dans l’épopée homé­ rique.’ In Les complétives en Grec ancien. Actes du colloque international de Saint-Étienne (3.–5.9.1998), ed. by B. Jacquinod, pp. 367–382. Saint-Étienne. Webster (1958) 1964 Webster, T. B.L. From Mycenae to Homer2. London (11958). van Wees 1992 Wees, H. van. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and His­ tory. Amsterdam. van Wees 1998 Wees, H. van. ‘A Brief History of Tears: Gender Differentiation in Archaic Greece.’ In When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, ed. by L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, pp. 10–53. London and New York. van Wees 2000 Wees, H. van (ed.) War and Violence in Ancient Greece. Swansea. van Wees 2004 Wees, H. van Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities. London. van Wees 2005 Wees, H. van ‘Clothes, Class and Gender in Homer.’ In Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds, ed. by D. Cairns, pp. 1–36. Swansea. Weiler 2001 Weiler, G. Domos theiou basileos. Herrschaftsformen und Herrschaftsarchitek­ tur in den Siedlungen der Dark Ages. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 136. Munich and Leipzig. West 1967 West, M. L. ‘Epica.’ Glotta 44: 135–148. West 1988 West, M. L. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic.’ JHS 108: 151–172. (Also in: Nagy 2001, vol. 1, 191–212; West 2011a, 35–73.) West 1989 West, M. L. ‘An Unrecognised Injunctive Usage in Greek.’ Glotta 67: 135–138. (Also in: West 2011a, 30–34.) West 1997 West, M. L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 1997a West, M. L. ‘Homer’s Meter.’ In Companion 218–237. West 1998 West, M. L. ‘Praefatio.’ Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M. L. W., vol. 1, pp. V–XXXVII. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998. West 2001 West, M. L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich and Leipzig. West 2001a West, M. L. ‘Some Homeric Words.’ Glotta 77 (2003): 118–135. West 2002 West, M. L. ‘The View From Lesbos.’ In Epea pteroenta. Beiträge zur Homer­ forschung. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 333

M. Reichel and A. Rengakos, pp. 207–219. Stuttgart. (Also in: West 2011a, 392–407.) West 2004 West, M. L. ‘An Indo-European Stylistic Feature in Homer.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 33–49. 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. Volume I: Epic. Oxford. West 2011b West, M. L. ‘Echoes of Hesiod and Elegy in the Iliad.’ In West 2011a, 209– 232. West 1967a West, S. The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer. Papyrologica Coloniensia 3. Cologne and Opladen. West 2000 West, S. ‘Priam’s Cup: A Note on Iliad 24.429–36.’ AAntHung 40: 489–494. West 2007a West, S. ‘Terminal Problems.’ In Finglass et al. 2007, 3–21. Whallon 1969 Whallon, W. Formula, Character, and Context: Studies in Homeric, Old English, and Old Testament Poetry. Cambridge, Mass. Whallon 1979 Whallon, W. ‘Is Hector «androphonos»?’ In Arktouros: Hellenic Studies pre­ sented to B. M.W. Knox, pp. 19–24. Berlin. Wheeler 2002 Wheeler, G. ‘Sing, Muse …: the Introit from Homer to Apollonius.’ CQ NS 52: 33–49. Whitman 1958 Whitman, C. H. Homer and the Heroic Tradition, Cambridge, Mass. Wickert-Micknat 1982 Wickert-Micknat, G. ‘Die Frau.’ ArchHom chap. R. Göttingen. Wickert-Micknat 1983 Wickert-Micknat, G. Unfreiheit im Zeitalter der homerischen Epen. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 16. Wiesbaden. Wiesner 1968 Wiesner, J. ‘Fahren und Reiten.’ ArchHom chap. F. Göttingen. Wilamowitz 1916 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin. Willcock 1964 Willcock, M. M. ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.’ CQ 14: 141–154. (Also in: de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 385–402; Cairns 2001, 435–455.) Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers Ilias. Marburg and Lahn. (Originally diss. Marburg 1944.) Willetts 1977 Willetts, R. F. ‘Homeric doors.’ LCM 2: 93–100. Willi 1999 Willi, A. ‘Zur Verwendung und Etymologie von griechisch ἐρι-.’ HSF 112: 86–100. Willi 2003 Willi, A. ‘καί – mykenisch oder nachmykenisch?’ Glotta 79 (2005): 224–248. Williams 1993 Williams, B. Shame and Necessity. Berkeley etc. Willmott 2007 Willmott, J. The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge. Wills 1993 Wills, J. ‘Homeric Particle Order.’ HSF 106: 61–81. Wilson 2000 Wilson, J. Sense and Nonsense in Homer: A Consideration of the Inconsisten­ cies and Incoherencies in the Texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey. BAR International Series 839. Oxford. Wilson 2002 Wilson, D. F. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge. Wilson 2002a Wilson, D. F. ‘Lion Kings: Heroes in the Epic Mirror.’ ColbyQ 38: 231–263. Wilson 1991 Wilson, J. R. ‘Negative Πρίν Clauses and the Rhetoric of Achilles.’ Glotta 69: 175–183. Wißmann 1997 Wißmann, J. Motivation und Schmähung. Feigheit in der Ilias und in der griechischen Tragödie. Drama Beiheft 7. Stuttgart.

334 

 Iliad 24

Witte (1912) 1979

Witte, K. ‘Zur Flexion homerischer Formeln.’ In HTN 109–117. (First published in Glotta 3 [1912] 110–117; also in: Witte 1972, 34–41.) Witte (1913) 1972 Witte, K. ‘Die Vokalkontraktion bei Homer.’ In Witte 1972, 104–137. (First published in Glotta 4: 209–242.) Witte 1972 Witte, K. Zur homerischen Sprache. Darmstadt. Wittwer 1970 Wittwer, M. ‘Über die kontrastierende Funktion des griechischen Suffixes -τερος.’ Glotta 47: 54–109. Worman 2002 Worman, N. The Cast of Character: Style in Greek Literature. Austin. Woronoff 1995 Woronoff, M. ‘De l’Olympe à l’Ida: le Zeus des sommets.’ Ktèma 20: 213–222. Wright/Jones 1997 Wright, G. M. and P. V. Jones. Homer: German Scholarship in Translation. Oxford. Wülfing-v. Martitz 1960 Wülfing-v. Martitz, P. ‘Ἱερός bei Homer und in der älteren griechischen Literatur.’ Glotta 38: 272–307. Wunderlich 1925 Wunderlich, E. Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Griechen und Römer. RGVV 20. Giessen. Wünsche 2006 Wünsche, R. (ed.). Mythos Troja. Ausstellungskatalog Staatliche Antiken­ samm­lungen und Glyptothek München. Munich. Wyatt 1969 Wyatt, W. F. Metrical Lengthening in Homer. Incunabula Graeca 35. Rome. Xanthakis-Karamanos 1985/89 Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. ‘Addenda Lexicis from Aeschylus and Sophocles.’ Athena 80: 269–277. Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Supplements 131. Leiden etc. Yamagata 1997 Yamagata, N. ‘ἄναξ and βασιλεύς in Homer.’ CQ 47: 1–14. Yamagata 2005 Yamagata, N. ‘Clothing and Identity in Homer: The Case of Penelope’s Web.’ Mnemosyne 58: 539–546. Yates 2014 Yates, A. D. ‘Homeric βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: A Serial Verb Construction in Greek?’ Lecture at the APA Annual Meeting 2014, handout: www.academia.edu/5331425/ Homeric_A_Serial_Verb_Construction_in_Greek (retrieved: 30.04.2014). Zanker 1994 Zanker, G. The Heart of Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Zanker 1998 Zanker, G. ‘Beyond Reciprocity: The Akhilleus–Priam Scene in Iliad 24.’ In Gill et al. 1998, 73–92. Zecchin de Fasano 2000 Zecchin de Fasano, G. C. ‘Memoria y funeral: Príamo y Aquiles en Ilíada 24.472–551.’ Synthesis 7: 57–68. (Also online: www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu. ar/art_revistas/pr.2861/pr.2861.pdf [retrieved: 30.04.2014]). Zilliacus 1953 Zilliacus, H. Selbstgefühl und Servilität. Studien zum unregelmässigen Numerus­gebrauch im Griechischen. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 18.3. Helsinki. Zimmermann 1992 Zimmermann, B. Dithyrambos. Geschichte einer Gattung. Hypomnemata 98. Göttingen. Zindel 1974 Zindel, C. Drei vorhomerische Sagenversionen in der griechischen Kunst. Basel. Zink 1962 Zink, N. Griechische Ausdrucksweisen für warm und kalt im seelischen Bereich. Heidelberg. Zohary 1982 Zohary, M. Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook to All the Plants with 200 Full-Color Plates Taken in the Natural Habitat. Cambridge etc.