Homer’s Iliad the Basel Commentary, Book XIX 1501512242, 9781501512247, 781501504419, 150150441X

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 XIX By Marina Coray 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 978-1-5015-1224-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0441-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0434-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Table of contents Preface to the German Edition  VII Preface to the English Edition  IX Notes for the Reader (including list of abbreviations)  XI 24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)  1 Overview of the Action in Book 19  9 Commentary  11 Bibliographic Abbreviations  189

Preface to the German Edition With 424 verses, Book 19 of the Iliad is relatively short. In terms of content, however, it occupies a significant place within the structure of the action of the poem: Achilleus’ renunciation of his wrath is the turning point of the entire action, and this Book is thus closely linked to those that contain the cornerstones of the story of the wrath and its consequences. Moreover, the speeches in the great assembly scene, in which a broad consensus was reached via the mediation of Odysseus, have regularly attracted particular interest from commentators. As a result, the present commentary aims to provide a critical survey of various controversies and proposed solutions to contentious issues and, via selected bibliography, to point the way to exploration at greater depth. In its aim and structure, the commentary follows the volumes already published on Books 1, 2, and 6, the prefaces of which explain in detail the conception of the project as a whole. Many discussions refer back to entries in these previously published commentary volumes; similar use was made of the commentary on Book 3, under preparation at the same time as this one, while in a few cases there are also references to the commentary on Book 24, which will be published shortly. * The Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen For­ schung, which has supported the project from the outset, made possible my participation in the ‘Basler Kommentar’, as did additional donors that kindly aided in broadening the financial base for the project: two Basel institutions, namely the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft and the Max Geldner-Stiftung, and the Hamburger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur. Having been primarily engaged in teaching in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Basel, I was delighted to join the collaborators of the ‘Basel Commentary’ in April 2003. In the first instance, I would like to thank my honored teacher, Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz, who inspired me time and again to engage with the world of Homer, who continually encouraged me with his interest in the development of this commentary, and who tirelessly improved my work with critical encouragement. Particular thanks are likewise due to Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl who, helpfully and with great interest in my work, made numerous suggestions that opened up broader viewpoints. Also valuable was the fact that in all stages of my work I was able to rely on the help of the other two collaborators at Basel; extensive discussion with Dr. Magda-

VIII 

 Iliad 19

lene Stoevesandt and lic. phil. Claude Brügger helped me find viable solutions to many problems. I am grateful for this inexhaustible source of assistance, as well as for the valuable suggestions of the external collaborators: Dr. Martha Krie­terSpiro (Zurich), with whom I fruitfully consulted on many issues  – particularly oath and armoring scenes – and Prof. Dr. Robert Plath (Erlangen). No less helpful was the feedback received from our external experts: Rudolf Führer, Fritz Graf, Irene de Jong, Michael Meier-Brügger, Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, René Nünlist, Rolf A. Stucky, Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg, Rudolf Wachter and Martin L. West. All of them saved me from errors, and they continuously improved my work with additions, suggestions and critical questions. The work session with the team members of the Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (LfgrE) and their director, Prof. Dr. Michael Meier-Brügger, also proved productive for me: the occasion of their visit to Basel in January 2008 provided an opportunity to engage with them in stimulating discussion of sections of my commentary. As work on the commentary came to an end, I was able to rely on the meticulous work of stud. phil. Alexandra Scharfenberger and stud. phil. Tamara Hofer; warm thanks are owed them for collaboratively reading and thinking through the material. But completion of the final version would not have been possible without the judicious editing by Magdalene Stoevesandt and the constant support in all technical issues by Claude Brügger, who also assisted me in the production of the master copy. I would like to thank them both warmly for this as well. Further thanks are due Dr. Elisabeth Schuhmann of the publishers Walter de Gruyter, who followed the development of the commentary with great interest, and to lic. phil. Christoph Schneider, who as the subject librarian for Classical Studies in the Basel University Library provided generous support through the acquisition of bibliographic items. Finally, special thanks are owed my husband, who supported me throughout all stages of my work and participated with great understanding and engagement in many discussions about my reflections on commenting, and who shares my joy and interest in the millennia old language and culture of Greece. Basel, April 2009

Marina Coray

Preface to the English Edition For this slightly revised version of my German commentary I have tried to include as much of the literature that has appeared in the field of Homeric studies since 2009, the year of its original publication, as possible. The present English edition has been made possible by the most generous support of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft (FAG) and the L. & Th. La Roche Stiftung, as well as the publisher Walter de Gruyter. I feel deeply indebted to all. My thanks are also due to Michiel Klein-Swormink, director of the US branch of De Gruyter, and to Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl and Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz, the two directors of the Basel Commentary on Homer’s Iliad, who initiated and supported this translation project. The translation team has performed a Herculean task: Prof. Dr. S. Douglas Olson, Dr. Benjamin W. Millis and Dr. Sara Strack had to translate a rather complex German text into readable English. I want to express my profound gratitude for their diligence and patience. I also want to extend my warmest thanks both to my colleague Dr. Magdalene Stoevesandt for her help and support throughout all these years, and last, but not least, to my husband for having shown a profound interest in my work and for giving many pieces of sound advice. Basel, April 2016

Marina Coray

Notes for the Reader 1. In the commentary, four levels of explanation are distinguished graphically: a) The most important explanations for users of all audiences are set in regular type. Knowledge of Greek is not required here; Greek words are given in transliteration (exception: lemmata from LfgrE, see COM 41 [1]). b) More detailed explanations of the Greek text are set in smaller type. These sections correspond to a standard philological commentary. c) Specific information on particular sub-fields of Homeric scholarship is set in small type. d) The ‘elementary section’, designed to facilitate an initial approach to the text especially for school and university students, appears beneath a dividing line at the foot of the page. The elementary section discusses Homeric word forms in particular, as well as prosody and meter. It is based on the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’, to which reference is made with the abbreviation ‘R’. Particularly frequent phenomena (e.g. the lack of an augment) are not noted throughout but are instead recalled ca. every 50 verses. — Information relating to Homeric vocabulary is largely omitted; for this, the reader is referred to the specialized dictionaries of Cunliffe and Autenrieth/ Kaegi. Complex issues are addressed in the elementary section as well as the main commentary: they are briefly summarized in the elementary section and discussed in greater detail in the main commentary. Such passages are marked in the elementary section with an arrow (↑). In contrast, references of the type ‘cf. 73n.’ in the elementary section refer to notes within the elementary section itself, never to the main commentary. 2. The chapters of the Prolegomena volume are cited by the following abbreviations: CG/CH Cast of Characters of the Iliad: Gods/Human Beings COM Introduction: Commenting on Homer FOR Formularity and Orality Grammar of Homeric Greek G History of the Text HT M Homeric Meter (including prosody) MYC Homeric-Mycenaean Word Index NTHS New Trends in Homeric Scholarship

XII 

 Iliad 19

xxxP



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

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

3. Textual criticism The commentary is based on the Teubner text of M. L. West. In some passages, the commentators favor decisions differing from that edition. In these cases, both versions of the lemma are provided; West’s text is shown first in square brackets, followed by the reading favored in the commentary. 4. English lemmata The English lemmata in the commentary are taken from the translation of R. Lattimore. In places where the commentators favor a different rendering, both versions of the lemma are provided; the rendering of Lattimore is shown first in square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary. 5. Quotations of non-English secondary literature Quotations from secondary literature originally written in German, French or Italian are given in English translation; in such cases, the bibliographic reference is followed by the notation ‘transl.’. In the case of terms that are especially important or open to misinterpretation, the original is given in square brackets. 6. Formulaic language On the model of ‘Ameis-Hentze(-Cauer)’, repeated verses and verse-halves are usually noted (on this, cf. COM 30). Other formulaic elements (verse beginning and verse end formulae in particular) are only highlighted to the extent necessary to convey an overall impression of the formulaic character of Homeric language. 7. Type-scenesP For each type-scene, the commentary provides at the appropriate place an ‘ideal version’ by compiling a cumulative, numbered list of all characteristic elements of the scene that occur in the Iliad and/or Odyssey; the numbers of the elements actually realized in the passage in question are printed in bold. Each subsequent occurrence refers back to this primary treatment and uses numbering and bold print in accord with the same principle.



Notes for the Reader 

 XIII

8. Abbreviations

(a) Bibliographic abbreviations For the bibliographic abbreviations, see below pp. 189  ff.



(b) Primary literature (on the editions used, see below pp. 192  f.) Ach. Tat. Achilleus Tatius ‘Apollod.’ Works ascribed to Apollodorus (Bibl. = Bibliotheke) Apoll. Rhod. Apollonios Rhodios Aristoph. Aristophanes (Lys. = Lysistrata) Aristot. Aristotle (Hist. an. = Historia animalium, ‘Inquiry into Animals’) Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the ‘Epic Cycle’) Cycl. ‘Epic Cycle’ Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Diod. Sic. Diodorus Siculus Eur. Euripides (Alc. = Alcestis, El. = Electra, Her. = Herakles) Eust. Eustathius Hdt. Herodotus Hes. Hesiod (Op. = Opera, ‘Works and Days’; Th. = Theogony) Works ascribed to Hesiod (Sc. = Scutum, ‘Shield of Herak‘Hes.’ les’; fr. = fragments) h.Hom. A collective term for the Homeric Hymns   h.Ap., Individual Homeric Hymns: to Apollo,   h.Bacch., – to Bacchus/Dionysus, – to Ceres/Demeter,   h.Cer., – to Mercury/Hermes and   h.Merc., – to Venus/Aphrodite   h.Ven. Iliad Il. Il. parv. Ilias parva, ‘Little Iliad’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Iliou Persis, ‘Sack of Troy’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Il. Pers. Nostoi, ‘Returns’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Nost. Odyssey Od. Paus. Pausanias Pindar (fr. = fragments) Pind. Plat. Plato (Nom. = Nomoi, ‘Laws’; Symp. = Symposium) Pliny (Nat. hist. = Naturalis historia, ‘Natural History’) Plin. Plutarch (Mor. = Moralia) Plut. Porph. Porphyry (Quaest. Hom. = Quaestiones Homericae in Iliadem, ‘Studies on Homer’s Iliad’)

XIV 

 Iliad 19

schol. scholion, scholia schol. A (etc.) scholion in manuscript A (etc.) Sen. Seneca (Epist. = epistulae ad Lucilium, ‘Epistles to Lucilius’) Soph. Sophocles (Phil. = Philoctetes) Thebais (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Theb. Thuc. Thucydides Xen. Xenophon (Anab. = Anabasis, ‘March Up-country’; Ath. pol. = Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία, ‘Constitution of the Athenians’; Equ. = de equitandi ratione, ‘On Horsemanship’) (c) Other abbreviations (Commonly used abbreviations, as well as those listed under 2 above, are not included here.) * reconstructed form < developed from > developed into | marks verse beginning and end ↑ in the elementary section, refers to the relevant lemma in the main commentary a/b after a verse number  indicates the 1st/2nd verse half A 1, B 1 (etc.) indicate caesurae in the hexameter (cf. M 6) app. crit. apparatus criticus (West edition) fr., frr. fragment, fragments Gr. Greek IE Indo-European imper. imperative impf. imperfect Introd. Introduction loc. locative manuscript, manuscripts ms., mss. n. note1 sc. scilicet

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



Notes for the Reader 

subjunc. subjunctive s.v., s.vv. sub voce, sub vocibus terminus technicus t.t. VB verse-beginning VE verse-end VH verse-half v.l., vv.ll. varia lectio, variae lectiones (i.e. ‘variant reading(s)’) voc. vocative

 XV

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

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

G 3 3 2

Phonology, meter, prosody R2

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 phe­ nomenon of quantitative metathesis [lengthening of a short second vowel] does often 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). The phoneme is, however, attested in Mycenaean, as well as in some dialects still in the alphabetic period (Mycenaean ko-wa /korwā/, Corinthian ϙόρϝα); in part deducible etymologically (e.g. Homeric κούρη – with compensatory lengthening after the disappearance of the digamma – in contrast to Attic κόρη).

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 19

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

22 21 24 26

30/ 37

33

31

34 35

36 37

R6

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

43– 45

R7

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

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 impossible), are avoided by: metrical lengthening (ᾱ᾽θάνατος, δῑογενής, οὔρεα rather than ὄρεα; μένεα πνείοντες rather than πνέ-); changes in word formation (πολεμήϊος rather than πολέμιος; ἱππιοχαίτης rather than ἱππο-).

 3

48

17 18 49  f.

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

11.2

11.3

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

68

69

70– 76

4 

11.4 R 12 12.1 12.2 12.3

12.4 12.5

 Iliad 19

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

R 13

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

R 14 14.1

Varying pronoun forms: Personal pronoun: 1st sing. gen. ἐμεῖο, ἐμέο, μεο, ἐμέθεν (very rare: μοι, e.g. 1.37) 2nd sing. gen. σεῖο, σέο, σεο, σέθεν; dat. τοι 3rd sing. gen. εἷο, ἕο, ἕθεν, ἑθεν; dat. οἷ, ἑοῖ, οἱ; acc. ἕ, ἑέ, ἑ, μιν nom. ἄμμες; gen. ἡμέων, ἡμείων; dat. ἧμιν, ἄμμι; acc. 1st pl. 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 19

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 19

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 19 1–39

New armor for Achilleus Thetis arrives at the encampment of ships and finds her son bent in grief over the body of Patroklos. She hands him his new armor and requests that he announce his return to battle to the Greeks. Since Achilleus is concerned about Patroklos’ body, she uses nectar and ambrosia to keep it from decomposing.

40–281

Assembly of the army, settlement of the quarrel The entire Achaian army witnesses the settlement of the quarrel between Achilleus and Agamemnon. Achilleus summons the Greeks to the assembly, where he publicly informs Agamemnon of the end of his wrath and asks him to send the troops into battle, in which he himself means to participate. Agamemnon tries to win sympathy for his behavior by bringing divine forces into play, and declares his willingness to publicly deliver the promised gifts of atonement to Achilleus. Achilleus pushes for battle, showing no interest in the gifts or consideration for the needs of the troops. A discussion arises between him and Odysseus regarding the necessity of eating before battle. Agamemnon has the gifts for Achilleus brought, presents them amidst the assembly, and conducts an oath ritual. The assembly is dissolved, and the gifts and Briseïs are taken to the Myrmidon camp.



40–75



76–144



145–237



238–281

282–424 282–339



340–424

Preparations in the Greek camp The mood in the Myrmidon camp is dejected: Briseïs mourns the death of Patroklos and her own fate; Achilleus continues to refuse food and gives himself over to mournful remembrance of his time together with Patroklos; he is simultaneously concerned for his elderly father Peleus. In accord with orders from Zeus, Athene nourishes Achilleus with nectar and ambrosia, while the Achaians prepare to march forth into battle. As the troops leave the ships and converge, Achilleus arms himself as well and has his horses harnessed. In a colloquy with him, his immortal horse Xanthos alludes to the circumstances of his coming death.

Commentary In Book 16, Patroklos went into battle in the armor of his friend Achilleus and was killed by Hektor. In the course of these events, the armor fell into the hands of the enemy; after a hard-fought battle, the Greeks were able to bring back to camp only Patroklos’ body (17.1–18.242). The second part of Book 18 describes the production of new armor by the divine smith Hephaistos (369–613), the delivery of the armor to Thetis (614  f.), and her departure from Hephaistos’ workshop (616  f.). Book 19 follows seamlessly with Thetis’ arrival in the Greek camp, where deep sorrow is felt for the slain Patroklos. Preparations for the imminent battle, in which Achilleus and Hektor will confront one another, begin with the handing over of the new armor: first, the mustering of the troops with Achilleus’ renunciation of his wrath, the settlement of the quarrel and the return of Briseïs, followed by a meal and the arming of the troops before their departure for battle, which will be led by Achilleus (fourth and final day of battle in the Iliad; see STR 21 fig. 1 and STR 22 fig. 2). Close links are apparent here with Books 1 and 9 (eruption of the quarrel, failed attempt at conciliation), with which Book 19 also shares a comparatively high proportion of direct speeches (Book 1: 61 %, Book 9: 82 %, Book 19: 64 %; see Fingerle 1939, 68; Edwards p. 234  f.). 1–39 Thetis arrives in the encampment of ships and finds her son bent in grief over the body of Patroklos. She hands him his new armor and requests that he announce his return to battle to the Greeks. Since Achilleus is concerned about Patroklos’ body, she uses nectar and ambrosia to keep it from decomposing. The book begins with the themeP ‘daybreak  – convening an assembly’ (cf. 2.48–52 [2.48–49n.], 8.1–3, Od. 2.1–8, 5.1–3, 8.1–15, 9.170  f., 10.187  f., 12.316–319). The convening of the assembly by Achilleus (41) is preceded by the delivery of the armor (12–19) and the preservation of Patroklos’ body (20–39). The arrival of Thetis (CG 20) at daybreak seamlessly continues the action of Book 18, i.e. the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n.): (1) the character departs (18.616  f.); (2) he/she arrives (19.3) and (3) finds the character being sought, and (3a) the bystanders are named (4–6a); (4) the first character approaches (6b); (5) he/ she speaks (7  ff.). Between (1) and (2), i.e. at the moment of the change of scene from Olympus to the Greek camp, the type-scene is expanded by the motif of the arriving dawn, and is thus adapted to the course of action announced by Thetis at 18.136  f. (delivery of armor on the following morning; Edwards on 1–3; see also 1–2n; comparable modifications of type-scenes: 1.320–348a n., 1.447–468n., 2.155–181n., 2.167n.; on a deity’s ‘travel’, see 1.43–52n.).  – The division between Books, which falls in the middle of the type-sceneP, is likely post-Homeric: STR 21 n. 22; for discussion of the division into Books in general,

12 

 Iliad 19

GT 5; Richardson, Introd. 20  f.; Edwards 2002, 39–47 (with bibliography); for divisions by the poet of the Iliad, Jensen 2010, 329–362, esp. 346  ff.; see also 6.1n. – Some interpreters felt that 1–2 were a disruption and suspected, probably wrongly, that they were an interpolation connected with the post-Homeric imposition of Book divisions (cf. 1–2n. and 3n. [s.v. ἣ δέ]; Edwards on 1–3). 1–2 Day 27 of the action of the Iliad begins (STR 21 fig. 1). The daybreak serves to structure the action and forms the prelude for important events: Achilleus’ step toward (formal) reconciliation and the end of his wrath at 75 (STR 22), his re-entry into battle (364  ff., 20.75  ff.) and the killing of Hektor (22.131  ff.); cf. the similar function of daybreak preceding important events at 2.48  f. (inspection of the army and departure for battle), 8.1 (defeat of the Greeks), 11.1  f. (Agamemnon’s aristeia and wounding; Hainsworth on 11.1–14). — Here, the daybreak is not described with one of the usual whole-verse formulae (e.g. 1.477, 8.1; on the various ‘morning’-formulae, see 1.477n., 2.48–49n.; Kirk on 2.48–9; de Jong on Od. 2.1). The formulaic statement that Eos, the dawn (CG 38), is rising from her husband Tithonos’ bed (11.1, Od. 5.1) is omitted as well, since here the arrival of dawn is closely linked to Thetis’ change of location: flight down from Olympos (Il. 18.616) and rising from Okeanos (19.1  f.), delivery of the gleaming armor (18.617, 19.3) and light (19.2). The sequence in the shape of the ring-compositionP Thetis – Eos – Thetis thus calls forth an association of Thetis, who brings the armor, with Eos, the bringer of light (‘imagistic association’: Nagler 1974, 142; Edwards on 1–3; cf. also Slatkin [1991] 2011, 38  f.). Eos elsewhere rises from Okeanos only in the Odyssey (22.197, 23.243  f., 23.347  f.). 1 1st VH = 8.1; ≈ 24.695; 2nd VH ≈ 3.5, Od. 22.197; VE ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 363 M.-W. — yellow-robed: In Homer, the epithet krokópeplos ‘with saffron (colored) peplos’ is used solely in reference to Eos (4x Il.), while in Hesiod it is used as an epithet of Enyo at Th. 273 and of Telesto at Th. 358 (LfgrE s.v.). On the female garment ‘peplos’, see 6.90n. and Marinatos 1967, 11; on saffron as a dye for clothing, LfgrE s.v. κρόκος and Marinatos loc. cit. 3. In other passages in the Iliad (8.1, 23.227, 24.695), the epithet is linked to an image of dawn spreading across the land or the sea like a saffron-colored cloak and, as here, is closely connected with divine action (8.2  ff., 23.226, 24.694; Vivante [1979] 1987, 51  f.: divine perspective; on dawn’s clothing in IE poetry, West 2007, 220  f.). Additional epithets of Eos that refer to color phenomena are ‘rosy-fingered’ (Greek rhododák-

1 Ἠώς: = Attic Ἕως ‘dawn’ (cf. R 3). — Ὠκεανοῖο: on the declension, R 11.2. — ῥοάων: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary 

 13

tylos) 1.477 (see ad loc.) and ‘golden-seated’ (Greek chrysóthronos; on this, 1.611n.) Od. 10.541, 12.142, etc. (Kirk on 2.48–9 and on 8.1, where note also his reticence on the issue of the different implications of the epithets). — the river of Ocean: the stream encircling the earth (1.423n.). 2 = 11.2, Od. 5.2. — to men and to immortals: The polar expressionP brings into view the community of gods and human beings (Kemmer 1903, 81), while simultaneously underlining the change of scene from the workshop of the god Hephaistos (CG 15) to the Greek camp (cf. 1–39n.). In contrast to the simple juxtaposition ‘gods  – humans’, the Greek phrasing athanátoisi  … brotoísin ‘immortals … mortals’, adapted to the situation, emphasizes the fact of mortality (LfgrE s.v. βροτός; cf. 1.339n.; LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 834.11  ff.; on Indo-Iranian parallels, West 2007, 127  f.). βροτοῖσιν: on form and meaning, 1.272n.

3 The motif of the delivery of armor finds a parallel in the Aethiopis (Proclus, Chrest. § 2 West): Eos’ son Memnon receives armor made by Hephaistos. According to the Neo-Analysts, this is to be ascribed to an oral version of the Trojan myth complex upon which Homer as well was drawing (Edwards on 1–3 and Introd. 17  ff.; Currie 2006, 23–41, especially 28  f.; cf. Kullmann [1991] 1992, 114  ff.; on neo-analysis in general, Kullmann 1984; Willcock 1997; Burgess 2006; Currie 2012; cf. also NTHS 10); contra West 2003, 9  ff.: Memnon as a post-Homeric invention meant to provide an evenly matched opponent for Achilleus following Hektor’s death. – The delivery of armor is also a common motif in ancient vase-painting. But it is frequently unclear whether what is depicted is the first delivery of armor at the departure for the Trojan War or the second one before Troy, or whether the depiction is even of a mythical scene (discussion in Friis Johansen 1967, 104  ff.; Snodgrass 1998, 149  f.; Giuliani 2003, 133  ff.; LIMC s.v. Achilleus 71  f., 122; on the basic issue ‘mythological scene – scene of everyday life’, see Fittschen 1969, 9  ff., 176  f.; Kannicht [1979] 1996, 49  ff.; Giuliani loc. cit. 46  ff.). — to the ships: i.e. in the Greek camp (1.12b n.).  — carried with her the gifts of Hephaistos: the continuation of the Thetisstory (cf. 18.617): the armor is a gift for Achilleus in recognition of the help his mother Thetis once gave to Hephaistos (18.394–407, 18.463–467). Gifts from the

2 ὤρνυθ’: = ὤρνυτο, on the elision, R 5.1. — ἀθανάτοισι: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1); on the declension, R 11.2. — φόως: on the epic diectasis (φάος > φῶς > φόως), R 8. — φέροι ἠδέ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). 3 ἥ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — νῆας: on the declension, R 12.1. — ἵκανε: on the unaugmented form (short ἵ-), R 16.1. — θεοῦ πά-ρα: = παρὰ θεοῦ (R 20.2).

14 

 Iliad 19

gods may be special talents or actual objects (weapons, musical instruments, etc.). The motif ‘gift from a god/gods’ indicates a special aptitude of the character concerned in that area or in the handling of the instrument in question (cf. de Jong on Od. 2.116–18; 6.156n.). The divine provenance of the armor is consequently emphasized repeatedly (18.617, 19.10, 19.18, 19.21, and in the arming scene 19.368, 19.383). On other objects from Hephaistos’ workshop, see 2.101n.

ἣ δ(έ): referring to Thetis, anaphoric with ἣ δ(έ) at 18.616, which in turn takes up μητρὸς Ἀχιλλῆος at 18.615; in antithesis to Ἠὼς μέν in 1: μὲν … δέ frequently links two contemporaneous storylines (e.g. 1.306/308, 18.1  f., Od. 16.321  f.: Rengakos 1995, 30; de Jong 2007, 31). — φέρουσα: an echo of 18.617 VE (1–2n.).

4–6a an account of the situation from the point of view of the character arriving (secondary focalizationP; 2.169–171n.): Thetis finds Achilleus lying down embracing the corpse and mourning with his companions (cf. 18.354  f.; elements 3 and 3a of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’, 1–39n., 2.170n.). The prostrate posture of Achilleus since Patroklos’ death (18.26  f., 18.178, 18.461 and again at 23.60; cf. 24.4  ff.) is an expression of his mental anguish (Kurz 1966, 40  f.) and a heightened expression of his inactivity (on Achilleus’ seated posture in the wrath storyline, STR 22 n. 23). — Pairs of intimate friends are a popular motif in epic poetry: Bowra 1952, 64–68; West 1997, 337  f.; on the friendship between Achilleus and Patroklos in general, Barrett 1981; Mauritsch 1992, 115–120; Latacz (1995) 1997, 24 with n. 58; Wöhrle 1999, 67–71; Latacz 2008, 131 with n. 24; de Jong on Il. 22.387–390 (homosexuality is not discernible in Homer; differently, e.g. Clarke 1978); further bibliography: LfgrE s.v. Patroklos 1060.58  ff., 1069.51  ff. 4 ὃν φίλον υἱόν: emphasizes the mother-son relationship together with 18.615 μητρὸς Ἀχιλλῆος. Elsewhere at VE, the phrase is found in speech introductions (21.330 ≈ 21.378 of Hephaistos, Od. 18.214 ≈ 24.505 of Telemachos; not at VE Il. 6.474 of Astyanax, 16.447 of the son of an unnamed god); φίλον υἱόν is an inflectible VE formula (10x Il., 17x Od., 3x ‘Hes.’, 1x h.Hom.). φίλος may either function purely as a possessive pronoun (‘own’) or have an affective meaning (‘dear, beloved’); see 1.20n., 3.31n.; LfgrE s.v. In the present description of a situation (on this, 4–6a n.), φίλος likely carries an affective connotation; likewise at 19.132: Zeus feels pity seeing ‘his beloved son’ Herakles suffer (Hooker [1987] 1996, 519; cf. also Robinson 1990, 100).

5–6a The mention of the ritual mourning conducted by Achilleus and his companions during the laying out of the corpse (‘prothesis’: Andronikos 1968, 7–14; Alexiou [1974] 2002, 6  f.; on depictions of ‘prothesis’ in Geometric art,

4 Πατρόκλῳ: dependent on περικείμενον: περίκειμαι ‘lies there embracing’. — ὅν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4).

Commentary 

 15

see Ahlberg 1971, 31–45; cf. also 211–213a n.) takes up the depiction in Book 18: the mourning, begun after the retrieval of the body (18.233  f. myrómenoi), continues throughout the night (18.314  f., 18.354  f.) until the following morning (19.1  f.), via joint lament over the body (6a mýronto, cf. also 212  f.; see Krapp 1964, 334  f.). — Tears are not contradictory to the Homeric heroic ideal; this idea first develops in the post-Homeric period (Monsacré 1984, 137–142; van Wees 1998a, 11–16; HE s.v. ‘Weeping’; cf. also schol. AbT on 5). In the Iliad, men most often shed tears in mourning the death of a kinsman or friend, particularly Achilleus – alone or together with his companions – for Patroklos (18.35, 18.72  f., etc., 19.304, 23.9  ff., etc., 24.3  ff., etc.); likewise Antilochos (17.695  ff., 18.17, 18.32), the Trojans for Hektor (22.408  f. 23.1, 24.161  f., 24.664, etc.), a father for his slain son (5.156  f., 19.323), Achilleus in sad uncertainty about his elderly father (19.338  f., 24.511). Additional emotions that elicit tears are fear of death (10.377, 11.136  f., 13.88  f.), desperation (Agamemnon in the face of the Trojans’ good fortune in war 8.245, 9.13  f.; similarly Patroklos 16.2  ff.; Aias during the battle for the body of Patroklos 17.648; Herakles in the service of Eurystheus 8.364; Phoinix after Achilleus’ refusal 9.433), being insulted (Achilleus over the seizure of Briseïs 1.349, 1.357, 1.360), fury and frustration (Diomedes on the occasion of the chariot race 23.385), pain and rage (the charioteer Eumelos 23.396  f.), pain (Thersites 2.266); cf. Odysseus visiting Kalypso (Od. 5.82  ff.) and the Phaiakians (8.83  ff.). Further passages in Monsacré 1984, 137  ff.; Waern 1985, 223  ff.; Arnould 1990, 22  ff., 51  ff., 73  ff., 94  ff., 145  ff., 187  ff.; van Wees 1998a, 11–15. 5 1st VH ≈ Od. 10.201, 16.216. — κλαίοντα λιγέως: an asyndetic connection of the second participle in progressive enjambmentP (cf. 1.105n.) that stresses Achilleus’ lament for Patroklos via the integral enjambmentP of μύρονθ’ (6a). – λιγύς ‘shrill, clear/piercing’ characterizes a clear, high quality of tone, such as the whistling of the winds or the sound of a phorminx; in the case of human beings, the clearly audible voice of a speaker or herald (1.248n.; LfgrE s.v.); in the Iliad, it is used in connection with the verb κλαίω only here, to mark the particular intensity of Achilleus’ pain (Krapp 1964, 235 with n. 3); more common in the Odyssey: 10.201, 11.391, 16.216 and 21.56 (piercingly loud crying by men and women) (Kaimio 1977, 43; Monsacré 1984, 181). Women’s shrill cries of lament are similarly described by the expression λίγα κωκύω ‘cry piercingly, shrilly’ (e.g. Briseïs, 284n.). — ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ἑταῖροι: a VE formula (4x Il., 1x Od.).

5 κλαίοντα (λ)λιγέως: on the prosody, M 4.6. — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2); on the uncontracted form, R 6.

16 

 Iliad 19

6a μύρονθ’: an onomatopoeic formation (Tichy 1983, 156), denoting joint ritual mourning (LfgrE s.v.).

6b Through the circle of mourners, Thetis approaches Achilleus (as at the beginning of Achilleus’ lament at 18.70: Faesi). Her appearance lends energy to the mourning scene and provides an impulse for renewed action (cf. the signal contained in the specification of time at 1  f.): grief is superseded by rage (16  f.), inactivity is shed (23).

ἣ δ(έ): ἥ is simultaneously anaphoric with ἥ in 3 and looks ahead to the apposition δῖα θεάων (1.348a n.; on the function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, 1.11n. [s.v. τὸν Χρύσην]). — τοῖσι: In contrast to the short forms (τοῖς IE instrumental), the long forms (τοῖσι IE locative) exclusively fulfil the function of pronominals rather than that of articles (Schw. 1.611; Chantr. 1.276; Rix [1976] 1992, 182  f.). — παρίστατο: sc. Ἀχιλλῆι as the object (Faesi; LfgrE s.v. ἵστημι 1244.32); in dialogue scenes, it signals intimacy between speaker and addressee (Kurz 1966, 95; de Jong on Od. 10.377). — δῖα θεάων: a VE formula (7x Il., 26x Od., 5x Hes., 5x h.Hom.). A set expression for Thetis, used like a generic epithetP, also at Il. 24.93, elsewhere in early epic in reference to Athene, Aphrodite, Charis, Demeter, Dione, Eidothee, Eurybie, Hera, Kalypso, Kirke and Psamathe; comparable to δῖα γυναικῶν (2.714n.). Which expression is earlier is disputed: δῖα γυναικῶν as a model for δῖα θεάων according to Schw. 2.116; Chantr. 2.60; DELG, Frisk, Beekes s.v. δῖος; the opposite according to Ruijgh 1967, 133. δῖα (originally ‘she who is associated with Zeus [*di̯ēu̯ s], the heavenly, the divine’) in these expressions is likely to be understood as merely a general expression of supreme excellence (‘the sublime among goddesses, women’; cf. LfgrE s.v. δῖος; 1.7n.); as in the case of διογενής ‘descended from Zeus’, the original meaning has faded (1.337n.).

δῖα: Feminine in -ι̯ᾰ, derived from Διϝ- (*διϝ-ι̯ᾰ), which first occurs in the Mycenaean theonym di-u-ja or di-wi-ja with the meaning ‘consort of Zeus’ (Ruijgh 1967, 130  ff.; [1985] 1996, 46, 62 n., 65; read as ‘daughter of Zeus’ by Kastner 1967, 63 with n. 25; DMic s.v. di-u-ja; Hooker (1990) 1996, 297; Bartoněk 2003, 420; further bibliography on the relationship δῖος/δῖα in Frisk 3.75).

7 =  6.253, 6.406, 14.232, 18.384, 18.423, Od. 2.302, 8.291, 11.247, 15.530; ≈ Od. 10.280; 2nd VH (speech introduction formulaP) a further 11x in Il., 21x Od., 2x h.Ven. A formulaic verse for a cordial greeting, together with speech introduction: A approaches B, grasps B’s hand and addresses him/her. — She clung to her son’s hand: The formula – found only in the iterata – implies urgency and the purposefulness of the subsequent speech; physical contact is maintained throughout the speech and is meant to lend emphasis to the words spoken

6 μύρονθ’: =  μύροντο from μύρομαι ‘cry, lament’. — τοῖσι: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 7 ἐν  … φῦ: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); 3rd sing. aor. of ἐμφύομαι ‘grow into’. — ἄρα (ϝ)οι  … χειρὶ (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.3, 5.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

Commentary 

 17

(cf. Od. 2.302/321, where Telemachos reacts to Antinoos’ forced cordiality by removing his hand only after his reply in the negative): AH; Barck 1976, 141  ff.; cf. physical contact in the ‘hikesia’ (1.500n., 1.513n.). On other occasions, Thetis meets her weeping son with gestures of tender affection (caressing him: 1.361 with n. and 24.127; holding his head as a gesture of [joint] mourning: 18.71). The poet there depicts her as a concerned, empathetic mother trying to offer comfort (cf. 1.357/362, 18.35  f./63  f./70, 24.126/128  f.), but in the present scene she is a ‘goddess’ who speaks urgently with her son (cf. 6, 12, 28). χειρί: Whether to understand this as an instrumental dative (‘grew onto him with her hand’: thus AH, Willcock, Kirk on 6.253, Heubeck on Od. 24.410) or a locative as a dative of destination/attained place of repose (‘grew onto his hand’: thus West and Stanford on Od. 2.302; LSJ s.v. ἐμφύω; on the dative of destination with verbs of movement, Schw. 2.139, Chantr. 2.68; on an attained place of repose with verbs such as ‘lay, place/set, throw, fall’ etc., Schw. 2.154  ff.) is disputed. Understanding it as a locative is supported by the use of ἐμφύω at 8.84, Od. 1.381; the two datives οἱ … χειρί may thus be explained as a σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ μέρος (cf. K.-G. 1.289  f.; Schw. 2.81, 189  f. with n. 5; Elmiger 1935, 52; Kölligan 2007, 113). — ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: ‘and addressed him’; the original meaning of this VE formula (‘call [out] someone’s name’) has faded (1.361n.; LfgrE s.v. ὀνομάζω 715.19  ff.).

8–11 Thetis’ speech is a curt request  – expressed only implicitly  – to abandon inactivity (let the corpse lie) and act immediately (take up the armor). It contains elements of traditional speeches of consolation and encouragement: an expression of sympathy (8n.), an admonition to cease mourning and come to terms with what has happened (8  f.), and a reference to the irreversibility of death (9): Fingerle 1939, 190  f.; on these elements in consolation literature, Kassel 1958, 5  ff.; Chapa 1998, 27  ff., 34  ff.; cf. also 24.550–551n. 8 2nd VH = 18.112, 19.65, 24.523, Od. 16.147. — we: By means of the ‘we’, Thetis signals her empathy and cautiously attempts to detach Achilleus from the numbness of his grief. — though we grieve (Greek achnýmenói per): an inflectible phrase (nom. sing./pl., gen. and dat. sing.; in total 15x Il., 7x Od., 4x h.Cer.). Greek áchnymai frequently denotes a state of grief and disappointment over immutable things (cf. 9), in conjunction with aggression; it is also used when a slain friend must be left behind on the battlefield (thus at 8.125, 8.316, 17.459; see LfgrE s.v. ἄχνυμαι 1767  f.; Anastassiou 1973, 29  ff.; Mawet 1979, 325  ff.; cf. 1.103n., 2.270n.).

τέκνον ἐμόν: The address τέκνον occurs 17x Il. and 3x h.Hom., always in the case of an actual familial relationship; 21x Od., also without a kinship relationship (in refer-

8 ἐάσομεν: short-vowel aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). — περ: concessive (R 24.10).

18 

 Iliad 19

ence to Telemachos, Odysseus and Penelope); on the metrical variant τέκος, 1.202n. The combination with the possessive pronoun ἐμόν (9x each in Il./Od., 1x h.Hom.) is generally used either at VB (5x Il., 7x Od.) or before caesura B 1 (4x Il., 1x Od., 1x h.Cer.; exception: Od. 22.486), and is unlikely to be an emotional amplification: elsewhere spoken by Thetis at 1.414, 24.128, but not in the similarly emotional situations at 1.362 and 18.73 (without ἐμόν also at 18.128, 19.29); used by Hekabe sometimes with ἐμόν (22.82) and sometimes without it (6.254, 22.84, 22.431). On the address with τέκος, see 1.202n. — τοῦτον: In addition to its deictic function, this may here signal not so much coldness and a lack of sympathy (thus AH; Edwards on 8–11) as impatience (Leaf), and designates the dead as less important in the present moment, in contrast to τῷ/τῷδ(ε) at 30/33 (cf. Schw. 2.209  f.; LfgrE s.v. ἐάω 383.33  ff.: ‘let [lie, rest]’; on deixis and gestures, de Jong 2012; on the occurrence of οὗτος in direct speeches and narrator text, Bakker [1999] 2005, 75  f.). But as a whole Thetis’ speeches in this scene reveal a certain detachment vis-à-vis the slain Patroklos by not mentioning his name (differently Achilleus: 24 with n.). 8–9a ἐάσομεν  … | κεῖσθαι: a progressive enjambmentP (likewise at 5.684  f., 5.847  f., 8.125  f., 15.472  f.; but at 8.317 bare εἴασε without κεῖσθαι with the meaning ‘let lie’). The runover word emphasizes the ‘lying’ and signals, with its caesura effect, the turning away from a person or action (Kurz 1966, 38; Edwards on 17.298–300 and ibid., Introd. 42).  – ἐάω is used inter alia in portrayals of battle where a warrior ‘leaves behind’ a fallen individual – usually a slain enemy – on the battlefield in order to devote himself to further action (5.148, 5.847, 11.148, 11.323, 11.426, 20.456, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 424; cf. Il. 24.17 Hektor’s body near the ships); occasionally also in reference to companions (thus at 8.125 = 8.317, where Hektor must leave behind his fallen charioteer [ἀχνύμενός περ] in order to continue fighting, and at 5.684  f. in the wounded Sarpedon’s plea to Hektor not to leave him behind): Kurz 1966, 37  ff.; Nussbaum 1998, 75  ff.

9b Thetis refers to the will of the gods (Patroklos was killed via Apollo’s intervention and with Zeus’ consent: 16.788–800) probably also in order to absolve Achilleus of responsibility for the death of his friend (cf. Achilleus’ self-reproach at 18.98  ff); in contrast, at 18.73  ff., in ignorance of the events, she attempted to console him by noting that all had been according to his wishes. ἐπεὶ δὴ πρῶτα: ‘since now in fact’; the adverbial accusative πρῶτα in connection with a temporal conjunction stresses irreversibility (1.6n.); δή indicates that the topic is a generally known fact (Chantr. 2.255 n.1). — θεῶν ἰότητι: a formulaP that follows caesura B 2 (1x Il., 6x Od., 1x h.Hom.); ἰότης, often used in direct speeches (in the Iliad exclusively in speeches by gods), in early epic usually denotes the will of the gods (LfgrE s.v. ἰότητ-; on the uncertain etymology, Frisk, DELG and Beekes s.v.).

9 δαμάσθη: aor. pass. of δάμνημι, δαμνάω/δαμάω ‘subdue, overcome’.

Commentary 

 19

10–11 With her second address, Thetis transitions to the actual exhortation and thus to a different topic – the armor newly made by Hephaistos. Its significance for the narrative is underlined by a triple predication (famous, very beautiful, unique). 10 τύνη: This address occurs elsewhere at Il. 5.485, 6.262 (with n.), 12.237, 16.64, 24.465, Hes. Th. 36, Op. 10, 641. The emphasis comes via the choice of words and position at VB (Hainsworth on 12.237) and signals the change of topic from Patroklos to Achilleus (LfgrE); similarly ἀλλὰ σύ 1.127 (with n.), etc.  – The origin of the form is unclear: an archaism (Janko on 16.64–5), Aeolicism (Wathelet 1970, 286  f.), or derivation from Boeotian (West 1988, 167  f.) or West Greek (Peters 1987, 236). — κλυτὰ τεύχεα: a common expression, 16x Il., 2x Od., 4x ‘Hes.’ Sc. (of which after caesura C 1, as here, 10x Il., 1x Od., 4x ‘Hes.’ Sc.); used in the Iliad 4x for Achilleus’ new armor and 6x for his old armor, as well as for that of Aineias, Paris, Euphorbos and the sons of Merops. The verbal adjective of κλυεῖν, with the original meaning ‘of which one hears’ (hence ‘famous’, cf. 2.742n.), is a common epithetP of gods (among others, Hephaistos 18.614) and human beings, as well as of objects such as weapons, gifts, craftsman ship items, palaces, places, etc. (LfgrE s.v.; Hooker [1980] 1996, 479  f.; West 2001a, 128  ff.; on τεύχεα ‘armor, weapons’, 3.29n.). — δέξο: In contrast to the participle δέγμενος (usually durative, ‘expecting’), the imperative is to be understood as a single immediate action: ‘receive here!’ (Willcock; Debrunner 1956, 78  f.), much like δέκτο/ἔδεκτο (2.420n.).

11 no man (Greek ou pō tis anḗr): The addition ‘man’ (anḗr) highlights Achilleus as the first warrior to wear such armor, while at the same time stressing the contrast with the gods (‘human man’) and thus Achilleus’ proximity to them (Edwards on 8–11: ‘mortal’; LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 834.11  ff. and 859.33  ff.; cf. men with special abilities who are matched by ‘no man’: 2.553, 5.172, 23.632, Od. 11.483, 22.6).

καλὰ μάλ’, οἷ(α): strong emphasis via progressive enjambmentP followed by a relative clause with a supplement to the two attributes already mentioned (famous, beautiful armor, such as has never been seen before); together with the accumulation of asyndetic attributes (on this, 2.42–43n.), this emphasizes the uniqueness of the armor. On καλός at VB, occasionally with a relative clause following, see Vivante 1982, 205; Perceau 2002, 178  f.; on οἷος without correlative denoting a particular category of object, see Monteil 1963, 182; LfgrE s.v. 604.60  f.

12–19 The mourning scene closes with the end of the speech and the clang of the armor being laid down (Krapp 1964, 335; cf. 5–6a n., 6b n.). By means of the

10 τύνη: = emphatic σύ (↑). — Ἡφαίστοιο πάρα: = παρ’ Ἡφαίστοιο (R 20.2; on the declension, R 11.2). — τεύχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δέξο: athematic imper. of δέχομαι (↑). 11 οἷ(α): the antecedent is τεύχεα, ‘how they’. — ὤμοισι: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). — φόρησεν: aor. of φορέω (iterative-intensive of φέρω, to indicate a habitual action).

20 

 Iliad 19

antithetical motif ‘all others … x, (only) A … y’, the narrator accentuates one character in particular and points the action in a new direction (2.1–6n.): the sight of the armor changes Achilleus’ mood, with the rage and aggression that also flared up during his lament taking over (16  f., see 16n.); this – and his joy in the armor (18  f.) – singles him out as the only person worthy of this armor among the companions, since they shy away (cf. Schein 1984, 93). – The visual impression (cf. 18.617, 19.11/13/19) and the acoustic phenomenon (13) are here linked suggestively in their effect on the bystanders (14–15a/15b–18) (Krapp 1964, 289; cf. the radiance when Achilleus dons the armor 369  ff. and its effect on his opponents 20.44  ff., 22.134  ff.; on the motif of radiant armor/weapons, 374–383n.; on the phenomenon of synaesthesia in Homer, Wille 2001, 77  ff.). 12 1st VH = an inflectible VB formula (speech capping formulaP): 35x Il., 27x Od., 2x h.Hom. (1.428n.). 13 VE = 5.60. — clashed loudly: The acoustic phenomenon has a proleptic function: it foreshadows Achilleus’ aristeia in the imminent battle, during which he will kill Hektor with the aid of these arms (Krapp 1964, 308  f.; Patzer 1996, 117  f.). Ἀχιλλῆος: on the etymology of the personal name, 1.1n. — τὰ δ(ὲ) … δαίδαλα πάντα: τά simultaneously stands in anaphora with τεύχε(α) (12) and looks ahead to the apposition δαίδαλα πάντα (cf. 6b n.). The substantival word δαίδαλον, generally used in the pl., denotes an artfully wrought object with elaborate decoration (LfgrE s.v.: ‘Wunderwerke’). Achilleus’ new armor, the shield in particular, is characterized as a notable work of art by use of the word family δαιδαλ- (18.479, 482, 612, 19.19, 380, 22.314; cf. the reference to the mythical craftsman and inventor Δαίδαλος 18.592): Morris 1992, 15  f.; for a detailed account of the meaning and use, Frontisi-Ducroux (1975) 2000, 37–83. The etymology is disputed (Leumann 1950, 131  ff.: a Mediterranean word; Tichy 1983, 299–304). — ἀνέβραχε: The onomatopoeic formation of the aorist denotes the sudden onset of a sound of considerable volume, frequently the clang of weapons, less often voices (LfgrE s.v. βραχεῖν; Krapp 1964, 98  f.; Tichy 1983, 57). The preverb ἀνα- (the compound is elsewhere only at Od. 21.48, of the opening of door bolts) on the one hand enhances the ingressive meaning (‘resounded’: LfgrE s.v. βραχεῖν; DELG s.v. ἀνά), while on the other hand signaling the ascending of the tone (‘resounded up’, cf. Schw. 2.440; Chantr. 2.90) and corresponds with κατά (12 ‘laid down’).

14–16 The effect of the noise produced by the armor, and implicitly also of its radiance, on those present is elucidated (cf. 1.533–535n.) by the polar expressionP ‘all – none’ (Greek pántas – oudé tis), as well as by another affirmative state-

12 ὥς: ‘so’. — θεά: on the form, R 2.2. — κατὰ … ἔθηκεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 13 Ἀχιλλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.

Commentary 

 21

ment that reprises the first with a variation, and is contrasted with Achilleus’ reaction (15  f.): the opposition between ‘no one dares to look – Achilleus looks on’ particularly stresses his power (AH; Faesi; cf. 11n., 12–19n.). 14 2nd VH ≈ 22.136 (Hektor before Achilleus). — Myrmidons: inhabitants of Achilleus’ native land, Phthia (CM 2 with n. 11; 2.684n.).

ἕλε τρόμος: A mental state is frequently described by saying that an emotional impulse ‘grips’ a character: 1.387n., 2.2n., 3.446n. — οὐδέ τις ἔτλη: a VE formula (6x Il., 3x Od., 1x h.Hom.).

15 ἄντην: an adverbial acc. of direction (‘into the face, directly’: 1.187n.; cf. the locative dat. ἀντί, Latin ante). Elsewhere always in reference to a human object, in the Iliad it often connotes courage (LfgrE s.v. ἄντην 925.71  ff.); together with the preverb εἰσ-, it here stresses the intensity of the gaze (LfgrE s.v. ἄντα 913.66  ff.). — ἔτρεσαν: a return to τρόμος (‘tremor’ caused by fear): the word playP with τρέω ‘shrink from’ (LfgrE s.v. τρέω: ‘flinch in fear’) and the etymologically close τρόμος ‘tremor’ (LfgrE; Frisk and Beekes s.v. τρέω; DELG s.v. τρέμω) acts as emphasis and enhances the contrast with Achilleus’ reaction (16–19). — αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (17x Il.); change of perspective toward a different character. On a new sentence beginning after caesura C 2, 1.194n.

16 the anger came harder: The sight of the armor intensifies Achilleus’ memory of the loss of his friend and his old armor, and causes a thirst for revenge and rage against Hektor, which also gripped Achilleus at times during the mourning scene (cf. 18.322, 337), to flare up even more (Taplin 1992, 199  f.); on abruptly surging ‘rage, anger’ (Greek chólos) and its differentiation from a chronic state of ‘anger’ (Greek mḗnis), see 1.1n., 1.9n., 1.81–82n.; Considine 1966, 22  f.; Clarke 1999, 92  ff. This produces renewed activity after the paralysing grief (STR 22 n. 23; Redfield [1975] 1994, 14; Cairns 2003, 26  f. with n. 70); cf. 18.107–110 (Achilleus on the effect of rage on humans) with Edwards ad loc.

ὡς … ὥς: is an ‘expression of the immediate succession of storylines’ (AH [transl.]; cf. 1.512n.): ‘as soon as …, then …’; similarly at 14.294, 20.424. — μάλλον: on the accent, West 1998, XX, s.v. ἄσσον. — ἔδυ χόλος: The emotional impulse is portrayed as though it penetrates the character from outside (likewise at 9.553, 22.94; additionally 17.210 ἄρης, 9.239 λύσσα, 19.367, Od.18.348, 20.286 ἄχος): LfgrE s.v. δύνω 359.1  ff.; cf. 14n. — ἐν δέ οἱ ὄσσε: a VE formula (Od. 6.131, 10.247, Hes. Th. 826); ἐν is adverbial (cf. G 98), either in the sense ‘within the head’ or ‘within the eyes’ (AH; Faesi; cf. West on Hes.

14 ἕλε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — οὐδέ: In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 15 εἰσιδέειν: on the form, R 16.4, R 8. — αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2). 16 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ὄσσε: dual ‘eyes’ (closely related sing. form: acc. ὦπα ‘face’); it is the subject of ἐξεφάανθεν (17); for the combination of dual and plural, R 18.1.

22 

 Iliad 19

Th. 826), οἱ a dat. sympatheticus (cf. Schw. 2.147  f.; Chantr. 2.101). — ὡς εἰ: with ellipse of the predicate (cf. 9.648, 16.59, 19.366 [athetized by West], 150, Od. 7.36, 19.39, 19.211): either ἐκφαανθείη or εἶεν is to be understood with the subject ὄσσε (Ruijgh 621; cf. K.-G. 2.492).

17 his eyes glittered terribly … like sunflare: a sign of aggressiveness (1.104n.; Camerotto 2009, 133  f.); the glare is here caused, on the one hand, by the surging rage, and on the other hand, by looking at the radiant armor (cf. 18.617; LfgrE s.v. σέλας 91.55  f.: ‘his gaze withstands the divine radiance and reflects’ [transl.]). – Achilleus’ demeanor after the death of Patroklos is often accompanied by fire and light similesP: thus also at 18.207  ff., 19.365  f., 374  ff., 381, 398, 20.371  f., 490  ff., 21.12  ff., 522  ff., 22.25  ff., 134  f., 317  ff. (Schadewaldt [1943] 1965, 320 with n. 3; Whitman 1958, 138  f.; Richardson on 22.317–321; de Jong on Il. 22.134–135). σέλας: elsewhere denotes the widely visible blaze of a fire (e.g. 19.375  f.), a divine ray of light such as Zeus’ lightning bolt (8.76), the flame emanating from Achilleus’ head (18.214) and the gleam of his shield (19.374 [athetized by West], 19.379): LfgrE s.vv. αὐγή 1532.39  ff., σέλας; Graz 1965, 310  ff.; Ciani 1974, 16. — ἐξεφάανθεν: epic diectasis of *ἐξεφάενθεν (G 48; 1.200n.).

18–19 The touching and especially the holding of the armor signals taking possession of the gift; together with the gazing, this triggers a joy that Achilleus savors intensely (Latacz 1966, 206; Nünlist 1998, 85); cf. the effect Hephaistos at 18.466  f. anticipates the armor will have on an observer.

τέρπετο  … |  … τετάρπετο: The impf. signifies a pause in the joy felt in gazing and touching, while the reduplicated aorist signals the achievement of satisfaction. The re­ petition of the verb in the subordinate clause with αὐτὰρ ἐπεί indicates that the pleasure of viewing has been concluded and the action is now proceeding (20: αὐτίκα): LfgrE s.v. τέρπω 406.40  ff. and 409.40  ff.: ‘enjoy, have pleasure in’; Latacz 1966, 190; Fehling 1969, 147; cf. also 1.474n. In addition, this clarifies Achilleus’ changed mood in contrast to the beginning of the scene (5: κλαίοντα λιγέως). — ἀγλαὰ δῶρα: a VE formula (8x Il., 6x Od., 1x Hes., 1x h.Merc.); ἀγλαός probably originally means ‘bright, radiant’, as an epithet of δῶρα; also ‘attractive, tantalizing’ (1.23n.). — φρεσὶν ᾗσι: indicates that the pleasure is an intense one (‘at heart’) involving the senses (Latacz 1966, 219; Jahn 1987, 225  ff.; cf. also 1.333n. vs. 1.24n., 2.301–302n. vs. 2.213n.). — δαίδαλα: 13n.

17 δεινόν: adverbial acc. — ὑπό: ‘out from under’. — ὡς εἰ σέλας: ‘like a ray of light’ (↑). — ἐξεφάανθεν: aor. pass. of ἐκ-φαείνω; on the ending, R 16.2; on the epic diectasis, ↑. 18 τέρπετο: durative. — χείρεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 19 ᾗσι: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (likewise ἥν in v. 20) (R 14.4); on the declension, R 11.1. — τετάρπετο: reduplicated thematic aor. of τέρπομαι.

Commentary 

 23

20 αὐτίκα: In addition to the temporal immediacy (prepared for by αὐτὰρ ἐπεί), this stresses taking the initiative, here in the shape of a direct speech in which Achilleus voices a new thought (2.322n.; LfgrE s.v. 1606.61  ff.). — μητέρα ἥν: an anticipation of the address μῆτερ ἐμή (cf. 8 τέκνον ἐμόν); on the mother-son relationship, see also 4n., 7n.). — ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα: a speech introduction formulaP: 55x Il., 59x Od. (of which 6x προσ-ηύδων), 3x ‘Hes.’, 7x h.Hom.; on the meaning of πτερόεντα (‘feathered’, i.e. unerring like an arrow) and on προσηύδα (with πρ- that does not make position), see 1.201n.; LfgrE s.v. πτερόεις.

21–27 According to the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP, Achilleus reprises the last topic of the preceding speech first (likewise Thetis at 29  ff.). 21 such: Greek epieikés means ‘commensurate’ with the rank of the individuals concerned as well as with the situation (LfgrE s.v.; cf. 1.119n.), and thus here appropriate for the one who has wrought the armor.

τὰ μὲν ὅπλα: elsewhere in early epic mostly with the general meaning ‘tools, implements’; with the meaning ‘armor’, which is later standard, only here and at 10.254, 10.272, 18.614, Hes. Th. 853 (LfgrE s.v.; Trümpy 1950, 81  f.; Danek 1988, 119  f.). – ὅ, ἥ, τό with substantives frequently marks a contrast (G 99; Chantr. 2.161).

22 No mortal man: The addition ‘mortal’ (Greek brotós) to ‘man’ (Greek ándra, cf. 11n.), itself the term of contrast to ‘god’, serves pregnantly to identify humans as beings inferior to the gods (LfgrE s.v. βροτός 102.13  ff.; for additional epithets of the terms for ‘human’, see 1.266n.; Düntzer [1864] 1979, 104  f.; cf. 2n.). μηδὲ  … τελέσσαι: acc.-inf. with ‘generalizing consecutive force’ (Chantr. 2.335 [transl.]), sc. οἷα (ἔργα) as object in the acc.: ‘and such as could accomplish no …’. — βροτὸν ἄνδρα: an inflectible formula after caesura C 1 (nom./dat./acc.: 3x Il., 3x Od., 2x Hes., 1x h. Merc.), cf. 2.248n.; on the form βροτός, 1.272n.

23a I shall arm myself: This includes preparing mentally for battle (LfgrE; 2.11n.: establishing mental readiness for battle; cf. 36n.). νῦν δ’ ἤτοι μὲν ἐγώ: likewise at 67; a contextually conditioned variant of the more common particle combination ἀλλ’ ἤτοι μέν that occurs with announcements (on this, 1.140n.): νῦν δ(έ) is characteristic of Achilleus’ language (1.354b–356n.; cf. character languageP); ἤτοι μέν emphatically sets up the contrast ἀλλὰ … | δείδω (cf. Ruijgh [1981] 1996, 523  f.).

20 μητέρα (ϝ)ήν: on the prosody, R 4.3. — προσηύδα: 3rd sing. impf. of προσαυδάω, with double acc. (μητέρα … ἔπεα) ‘tell someone something’. 21 πόρεν: aor. of a defective verb, ‘give, bestow’. — οἷ(α) ἐπιεικές (sc. ἐστι): ‘such, as is fitting, that …’. 22 ἔμεν: = εἶναι (R 16.4). — ἀθανάτων: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — τελέσσαι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 23 ἤτοι: R 24.4.

24 

 Iliad 19

23b–27 a strong contrast with his delight in the magnificent armor: despite the careful treatment of the corpse (18.350  ff.; on this, Andronikos 1968, 4  f.; Laser 1983, 161), Achilleus fears an infestation of flies and maggots and thus decomposition of the body he plans to bury only once revenge has been enacted (cf. 18.334  f.); on the concern that corpses remain undamaged, cf. 24.408–420 (Priam’s fear for Hektor); on the use of this narrative scheme in the Iliad, Foley 1991, 163–168 (‘feared desecration’). The motif of the consequences of delayed burial appears already in the epic of Gilgamesh (George 2003, 279, 681): for seven days and nights, Gilgamesh mourns his dead friend Enkidu, until a maggot appears on his face (Kirk 1970, 108, 138; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 318; West 1997, 343; Szlezák 2004, 20; cf. also NTHS 54–57). 23b–24 ἀλλὰ … | δείδω, μή: = 10.38  f., 22.454  f. — emphasis via integral enjambmentP as a transition to explicit description, likewise at 25 (μυῖαι) and 26 (εὐλάς) (Edwards; on a new sentence beginning after caesura C 2, see 1.194n.). — ἀλλὰ μάλ’ αἰνῶς: a VE formula (= 6.441, 10.38, 22.454).

24 warlike son of Menoitios: Although Thetis does not mention the deceased by name (8, 30, 33; for the different practice of the narratorP at the beginning and end of the scene, see 4, 38), Achilleus at first speaks of him as of a living person (cf. schol. b on 24), using a formulaic expression of kinship (cf. periphrastic denominationP); he named him thus at 18.12, before learning of his death, as did Thetis during her visit to Hephaistos in her account of the events leading to the death of Patroklos (18.455). The subsequent image of the corpse, defenseless against flies, maggots and corruption, thus has an effect that is all the stronger (25–27). δείδω: (always at VB) is perfect < *δεδϝοια, with compensatory lengthening of ε and contraction of *-οια > *-οα > -ω (Schw. 1.769; cf. G 27 and 45). — ἄλκιμον υἱόν: an inflectible VE formula (nom./acc.), in total 15x Il. (of which 12x with Μενοιτίου), 5x Hes., 1x h.Merc.; elsewhere in early epic used for Diomedes, Meges, Automedon, Herakles and Hermes.

25–27 The graphic description of the process of decomposition is meant to rouse pity for the dead and to induce Thetis to act to prevent it (Martin 1989, 33). Likewise Andromache at 22.508  f. fears that Hektor’s body might become infested with maggots. On additional literary uses of this experience of everyday life (see also 30  f.) and on ancient specialist literature on flies, see Davies/ Kathirithamby 1986, 8  f., 150  ff.; KlP s.v. Fliege; on the intrusiveness of swarms of flies, see also 2.469n., 2.469–473n.

24 τόφρα: ‘meanwhile’.

Commentary 

 25

25 χαλκοτύπους: a Homeric hapaxP and verb-noun compound, here with passive meaning ‘struck by/with (a) bronze (weapon)’ (cf. schol. bT ad loc.; on χαλκός ‘bronze’, see 1.236n., 2.226n., 6.3n.), in post-Homeric literature with active meaning ‘beating metal; coppersmith’ (Edwards; LSJ s.v.); on this type of formation, which can be active or passive, Risch 196  ff.; on the increased rate of hapax legomena in Achilleus’ speeches, see Griffin 1986, 51  f., 57. — ὠτειλάς: in contrast to ἕλκος (49, 52; on this, 2.723n.), often denotes lethal wounds or those on corpses (LfgrE s.v. ἕλκος; Trümpy 1950, 93  f.).

26 2nd VH = 16.545. — these make foul the body: The Greek verb aeikízein elsewhere denotes the violation of corpses by the enemy; so a dignified burial is prevented; cf. Iris’ appeal to Achilleus at 18.170–180 to help the Greeks prevent Patroklos’ body from falling into the hands of the enemy (24.22n.; LfgrE; Segal 1971, 28  f.). There is thus a danger that the fierce battle for his body (17.104–369, 17.412–425, 17.543–761, 18.148–236) was in vain (cf. also 31n.). εὐλάς: a verbal noun, perhaps related to εἰλέω ‘turn, wind’ (Frisk; contra Beekes), here denoting the agile, whitish shimmering maggots or larvae (cf. 22.509: αἰόλαι εὐλαί) that develop from the eggs of the blow-fly laid on flesh (cf. schol. bT). — ἐγγείνωνται: a unique transitive aorist of the compound (‘produce within’: Kumpf 1984, 50; LfgrE s.v. γίγνομαι 153.42  ff.; on transitive ἐγεινάμην beside intransitive ἐγενόμην, Schw. 1.746, 756; Wyatt 1969, 119  f. n. 19). 27 αἰών: denotes the ‘life force’ of young people that leaves them at death (5.685, 16.453, Od. 7.224) or is stolen from them (Il. 22.58, Od. 9.523); it may be used in combination with ψυχή (16.453, Od. 9.523); in post-Homeric literature also ‘spinal cord, marrow’ (LfgrE s.v.; Degani 1961, 18  ff.; Bremmer 1983, 15  f., 74; Clarke 1999, 113  f.). — δ(έ): a parataxis with causal function (Denniston 169; cf. 1.10n.; additional examples in Race 2000). — πέφαται: in combination with ἐκ only here; perf. pass. elsewhere always with persons as subjects (LfgrE s.v. θείνω, πεφνεῖν: ‘life is [has been] killed out of him’; on the form, Schw. 1.297). — χρόα: on χρώς as a term for the visible parts of the body (‘skin’ or ‘flesh’ in the case of dead bodies; cf. 23.191, 24.414), see Snell (1939) 1999, 245 with n. 5; Laser 1983, 51–53; LfgrE s.v. — σαπήῃ: σήπεται also at 24.414 of the decomposition of Hektor’s body, 2.135 of the mouldering of ship parts (LfgrE). As subject νεκρός (cf. 26) is perhaps to be supplied (schol. bT; AH; Leaf; Willcock; cautiously Edwards on 25–27: “possible, but not necessary”).

25 καδδῦσαι: = καταδῦσαι (R 20.1), aor. part. of καταδύνομαι ‘slip into’; ἄλκιμον υἱόν (24) is its object. 26 ἀεικίσσωσι: aor. subjunc. of ἀεικίζω ‘treat improperly’, here ‘defile’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 27 ἐκ … πέφαται, κατὰ … σαπήῃ: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. πέφαται is perf. pass. of θείνω ‘beat’ (↑); σαπήῃ is aor. subjunc. of κατασήπομαι ‘rot’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — χρόα πάντα: acc. of respect (R 19.1), ‘all over the body’ (↑).

26 

 Iliad 19

28 =  18.127; ≈ 24.89. — Replacement of the speech capping formulaP with the speech introduction formulaP of the reply is common in conversations (Fingerle 1939, 373).

τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα: a VB formula (with τόν/τήν), in total 48x Il., 24x Od., 2x h.Ven.; on the various response formulae, 1.121n. — θεὰ Θέτις ἀργυρόπεζα: a VE formula (= 9.410, 18.146, 18.381, 24.120, Hes. Th. 1006) with a distinctive epithetP for Thetis (‘silver-footed’, see 1.538n.); on the epithet θεά in general, Dee 1994, 144; LfgrE s.v. 981.35  ff.; cf. 1.280n.

29–36 Achilleus’ speech is successful: Thetis immediately addresses his worry (29, cf. 37) and promises a remedy (30–33, cf. 38  f.), before giving him further instructions (34–36); on this structure, cf. 21–27n. 29 ≈ 18.463, Od. 13.362, 16.436, 24.357, in each instance with the imperative θάρσει at VB. The vocative τέκνον expresses greater intimacy (Higbie 1990, 95 with n. 9; on the address, 8n.). — μὴ … μελόντων: On the negative present imperative of the 3rd person in Homer, see Chantr. 2.231; Schw. 2.343. — μετὰ φρεσὶ σῇσι: always after caesura B 2 (4x Il., 3x Od., in addition to the prosodic variant with ἐνί: Jahn 1987, 270); here it denotes deeply felt worry (cf. 18–19n.). With τοι … σῇσι, cf. stressed ἐγώ at 30: ‘do not concern yourself, I will take care of this’.

30–33 Decomposition will be prevented through special treatment (38n.) that will also ensure a fresh appearance for the corpse, despite the delay of the burial. Book 24 offers the same motif regarding Hektor’s corpse (see anticipation of motifsP; AH; Segal 1971, 29; Garcia 2013, 79–94): there Apollo prevents infestation by maggots (24.18  ff., 24.414  f.), and upon its return to Hekabe, the body appears to be that of someone recently deceased (24.757; cf. Hermes’ description at 24.419  f.). 30 I shall endeavour: understatement: Thetis has no doubt that she will be able to preserve the body intact (32  f.). ἄγρια: here pejorative (schol. bT; LfgrE s.v.). — φῦλα: used elsewhere in the Iliad only for human beings or gods (but Od. 7.206: giants, ‘Hes.’ fr. 33(a).16 M.-W.: bees; see Edwards on 29–32; 2.362n.; cf. ἔθνεα 2.87n.).

31 ≈ 24.415. — those flies, which feed upon the bodies: This reprises the motif of the fear that corpses left unburied after battle will be consumed by dogs and

29 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — μελόντων: 3rd pl. imper.; in Homeric Greek, a plural verb can be used with a neut. pl. subject. 30 τῷ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17; obj. of ἀλαλκεῖν. — πειρήσω: fut. act. (Attic passive deponent). — ἀλαλκεῖν: reduplicated aor. of ἀλέξω with zero-grade, + dat. ‘to keep away from someone’. 31 ῥα: ‘indeed, as generally known’ (R 24.1). — τε: on the ‘epic τε’, R 24.11.

Commentary 

 27

birds; cf. Hektor’s threat directed at the dying Patroklos at 16.836 (fundamental references: 1.4n., 1.5n., 2.393n.).

αἵ ῥά τε: ἄρα in combination with τε marks inter alia relative clauses that contain characteristic, universally applicable facts of experience (‘as is known’): Grimm 1962, 10  f.; Ruijgh 439; cf. also 2.21n. — ἀρηϊφάτους: the verbal adjective φατ-, related to θείνω (cf. πέφαται 27), with initial nominal element in the instrumental or locative dat. (Risch 19, 211, 219; LfgrE s.v. ἀρηϊκτάμενος); elsewhere only at 24.415, Od. 11.41. The war god’s name is also used as a periphrasis for ‘battle’ (LfgrE s.v. Ἄρης 1257.21  ff.; cf. 2.381n., 6.203–204n.). — κατέδουσιν: The compound (‘eat up, gobble down’) occurs elsewhere in Homer of corpse-eating dogs (22.89, Od. 21.363), of a flesh-eating lion (Il. 17.542), and metaphorically meaning ‘eat one’s heart out’ (6.202); in the Odyssey, usually of the consumption of possessions (LfgrE s.v. ἔδω). κατα- stresses the totality: i.e. without intervention, the corpse would be consumed in its entirety.

32 2nd VH = Od. 4.86, 10.467, 14.292, 15.230, Hes. Th. 740, h.Ap. 343, h.Hom. 20.6. — κεῖται: a contracted, short-vowel subjunc. *κει̯εται (Leaf; Schw. 1.679; Chantr. 1.457; cf. G 89). — τελεσφόρον: ‘bringing completion (> fruit)’, in early epic only in this formula (see iterata) and as an epithet of Zeus (h.Hom. 23.2); here the formula denotes a particularly lengthy period of time (Gundert 1983, 171  ff., esp. 172 n. 4; LfgrE). 33 VE ≈ 16.557. — ἀρείων: The body will not only be ‘unchanged’ (ἔμπεδος) and thus ‘undamaged’ by feeding flies, but will even be ‘better’, i.e. its physical consistency will be consolidated and strengthened by the divine medicine.

34–36 The second part of Thetis’ speech provides information about the important events to follow (a so-called ‘table of contents’ speech, see de Jong on Od. 1.81–95): settlement of the quarrel in the military assembly (40–276) and arming for battle (351–424). Achilleus’ plan for revenge (1.407–412; on this, 1.408n., 1.410n., 1.411n., 1.422n., 2.375–380n.) has been fulfilled in all its points  – as he already stated to Thetis at 18.74–79 – so that the time has now arrived to conclude his boycott of battle and his quarrel with Agamemnon (Latacz [1995] 1997, 53  f.; on the onset of the quarrel, see 1.85–91n., 1.306–348a n.; on the need to settle the quarrel in public, see Raaflaub 1988, 213  f.). Since receiving the news of Patroklos’ death, however, Achilleus has been filled with such longing for battle and revenge (18.90  ff., 19.23a) that he has not yet considered either concrete steps for settling his quarrel with Agamemnon (merely hinted at at 18.111  f.) or a communication to the Greek army as a whole. Consequently, Thetis must provide instructions in order for him to proceed further (AH, Anh. 5; Tsagarakis 1971, 272  f.).

32 περ: concessive (R 24.10). 33 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — ἀρείων: ≈ ἀμείνων (R 13).

28 

 Iliad 19

34 ≈ Od. 1.272. — Go then and …: Greek allá with the imperative marks the transition from argument to exhortation (1.127n., 2.360n.). — assembly: Achilleus also convened the military assembly at 1.53  ff., an action encouraged by Hera (cf. 40–276n.). — the fighting Achaians: Greek hḗrōes Achaioí is formulaic for the Greek army; cf. the mustering at 1.54. The narrator alternately uses the metrically convenient variants Achaioí, Danaoí (e.g. 78) and Argeíoi (e.g. 84) to denote the Greeks: 1.2n. On the use and connotations of the Greek term hḗrōs, see 1.4n., 6.34–35n.

ἀλλὰ σύ: a VB formula (1.127n.). — ἥρωας Ἀχαιούς: an inflectible VE formula (acc./ nom. pl.: 8x Il., 2x Od.).

35 refers to the key scene at 56  ff.: the implementation of this exhortation is stated by the narratorP at 75 (with n.) in an almost literal repetition and with echoes of 1.1. This leitmotif technique is a stylistic feature of predominantly oral epics (cf. 6.86–101n. [end] with bibliography). On the ‘wrath’ (Greek mēnis) motif, see 1.1n., 1.1–12a n., 1.247a n., 6.326n.

μῆνιν ἀποειπών: This form of the participle – hiatus that ‘makes position’ with an etymologically unjustified double digamma (ἀπο(ϝϝ)ειπών)  – occurs only here and may mark expressiveness; in elided form, it occurs at 75 (μ. ἀπειπόντος; on linguistic flexibility, G 41; Chantr. 1.135). The phrasing with a participle, and the consequently greater weight for the exhortation that follows (36: αἶψα μάλ’), is entirely in line with Achilleus’ ideas: the publicly demonstrated renunciation of the wrath is a precondition for what really matters to him, namely the preparations for battle. – On the basis of the expression here and at 75, Book 19 was labelled in antiquity μήνιδος ἀπόρρησις (cf. schol. D introduction; Eust. 1168.16). — Ἀγαμέμνονι ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectible VE formula (2.243n.); on the phrase ποιμένι/-α λαῶν as a title, see 1.263n., 2.85n.; West 2007, 421 (IE parallels); on λαοί ‘men at arms, warriors’, see 1.10n.

36 put your war strength upon you: This formulation (the combination occurs elsewhere only at 9.231, likewise of Achilleus) is formed in imitation of the strapping on of armor (e.g. 3.328, 16.129, 19.368, 19.371; see LfgrE s.v. δύνω 358.24  ff.) and the metaphor with the formulaic ‘clothed in force’ (7.164, 8.262, 18.157, 20.381, Od. 9.214, 9.514); it stresses the connection between armor and force in battle: schol. bT; Porzig 1942, 103; Edwards on 34–36; LfgrE s.v. ἀλκή; cf. 1.149n.; Semitic and Vedic parallels in West 1997, 239 and 2007, 92.

34 ἀγορήν: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. 35 ἀπō(ϝ)ειπών: from ἀπειπεῖν ‘retract, renounce’; on the prosody, ↑. — λαῶν: from λᾱϝός (= Attic-Ionic λεώς, cf. R 3). 36 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — θωρήσσεο, δύσεο: thematic imper. mid.; on the uncontracted forms, R 6.

Commentary 



 29

αἶψα μάλ(α): a VB formula (4x Il., 5x Od.); denotes rapid progress of an action (‘instantaneously’). — πόλεμον: in early epic usually means ‘battle/fighting’, less often ‘war’ (LfgrE s.v. 1335.41  ff.; 2.453n. with bibliography). — δύσεο: also at 16.129, Od. 17.276, καταδύσεο Il. 18.134; imperative of the thematic s-aorist δύσετο (cf. G 63), which may originally have been formed from the future δύσομαι, cf. δύσεαι 9.231 (3.262n. [βήσετο]; Schw. 1.788; Chantr. 1.417; Risch 250; Leumann [1953] 1959, 236  f.). — ἀλκήν: ‘fighting spirit’; denotes the spirit of resistance, the will to defense, that prevents a warrior from fleeing (3.45n.; LfgrE; Porzig 1942, 320; Latacz 1966, 25, 28; Benveniste 1969, 72  ff.).

37 1st VH = speech capping formulaP (12n.); 2nd VH ≈ 17.156, Od. 13.387. — drove the strength of great courage into him: The instilling of aggressive energy (Greek ménos is literally ‘energy, drive’, see 1.103n.) rouses or heightens activity (cf. Jahn 1987, 42  ff.). It serves to express, as often elsewhere, how a divinity affects a human being, especially in battle situations (e.g. 5.125, 17.569  f., 20.79  f.); in the present passage, it may also portray the effects of divine paraenesis (Kullmann 1956, 76; on divine impulses in general, 2.451b–452n.). μένος πολυθαρσές: formula after caesura B 2 (see iterata), always as an object of ἐν-ίημι, comparable with the phrase μένος καὶ θάρσος after caesura A 2 (Il. 5.2, Od. 1.321); on Vedic parallels, Schmitt 1967, 116; West 2007, 88. The possessive compound πολυθαρσής ‘having much courage’ is used in early epic as a distinctive epithetP only of μένος (Risch 83; LfgrE).

38–39 Introducing ambrosia and nectar through the nostrils to prevent decomposition vaguely recalls the Egyptian technique of embalming, particularly of the head, as described by Herodotus (2.86) (see LÄ s.v. Balsamierung; BNP s.v. Mummies). It is unclear to what extent Homer would have had knowledge of embalming techniques (in support: AH; Leaf 1902, 619; Edwards on 29–39; Kurtz/Boardman 1971, 186; Griffith 1994, 20  ff. with n. 17; Somville 1999, 80  ff.; cautiously Lorimer 1950, 99; Laser 1983, 24, 161 n. 424; Garland [1982] 1984, 16; Pulleyn 2006, 73 n. 118; in opposition: Mylonas 1962, 478  f.; Andronikos 1968, 5  f., cf. Kirk on 7.85; on Homer’s knowledge of Egypt, 3.6–7n.; HE s.v. ‘Egypt and Homer’). In Homeric epic, cremation is customary: 1.52n., 24.16n. — ambrosia and red nectar: Patroklos undergoes an unusual treatment meant to preserve his body particularly well (cf. 33): The divine foods ambrosia and nectar – in Homeric epic not stringently differentiated into food and drink (cf. Od. 5.93, 5.199, 9.359, Hes. Th. 640, 642, 796, h.Cer. 49, h.Ap. 124, h.Merc. 248) – are administered to a mortal only here and (as nourishment for Achilleus) at 347  f./353  f. (347–354n.; BNP s.vv. Ambrosia, Nectar; LfgrE s.vv. ἀμβρόσιος, νέκταρ; RE s.v. Ambrosia, especially col. 1811; on Indo-Iranian parallels for food and drink of the gods, see West 2007, 157  f.). But ambrosia (Greek ambrosíē, derived from ámbrotos ‘immortal’) has additional uses, in contrast to nectar (see BNP s.v.; LfgrE s.v. ἀμβρόσιος), and serves the same purpose here

30 

 Iliad 19

as at 16.670/680 and 23.186  f., where it denotes an ointment with which Apollo and Aphrodite prevent the decomposition of the bodies of the two major warriors on the Trojan side, Sarpedon (CM 10; 2.876n.) and Hektor (CM 8), until their respective burials (Edwards on 29–39).  – The color ‘red’ is either an indication that nectar, as the drink of the gods, is understood as analogous to wine (thus Od. 5.93, h.Ven. 206; cf. oínos/-on erythrós/-ón 7x Od. at VE, 1x h.Cer. before caesura B 2; see Edwards on 37–38), or as a (‘transfused’) substitute for blood serving to strengthen the dead body (Leaf; Schnaufer 1970, 153  f.). 38 VE = Od. 5.93, h.Ven. 206. — ἀμβροσίην: derived from the verbal adjective ἄμβροτος (cf. 2.57n.; on the word formation, G 15), a noun in -ίη meaning ‘food/ointment of the gods’ (Frisk, Beekes s.v. βροτός; Schw. 1.469; Schmitt 1967, 48–50; Pulleyn 2006, 62–65 with n. 74). — νέκταρ: The etymology is disputed (LfgrE s.v. with bibliography): inter alia, it is explained as a Semitic or Egyptian loan word (Griffith 1994: from Egyptian ntry: ‘divine’, borrowed later as νίτρον) or as an IE compound (Frisk, DELG; Beekes; Pulleyn 2006, 69–72: initial element νέκ- [related to νέκυς, νεκρός] and final element -ταρ [like Old Indian tár-ati] ‘transcending death’; for the doxography, see Garcia 2013, 80  f.).

39 ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 23(a).23 M.-W. — The exit of the goddess is tacitly understood (in contrast to 1.221  f. [with n.] but similar to 2.182, 3.426/447, etc.); Achilleus comes to the fore (40  ff.). The extra verse 39a (see app. crit.), transmitted in late mss., is probably an interpolation (Edwards on 37–38; Hellwig 1964, 70 n. 78; Kurz 1966, 106 n. 31).

κατὰ ῥινῶν: ‘down through the nostrils’; on the locative gen., Schw. 2.479, Chantr. 2.113. — ἵνα … εἴη: a final clause with opt. is a marker of secondary focalizationP; cf. Thetis’ announcement at 33 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 111; cf. 2.794n.).

40–281 The entire Achaian army witnesses the settlement of the quarrel between Achilleus and Agamemnon. A momentous assembly of the entire Greek army that brings about the turning point in the wrath-storyline and the return of Achilleus to the community of fighters. Its significance is highlighted structurally by (a) distinct parallels to the first assembly, likewise convened by Achilleus (1.54  ff.), which contained the beginning of the wrath of Achilleus (overarching composition: Lohmann 1970, 173  f.; cf. 1.54n. [end]), and (b) the assembly having an equivalent on the divine level in the assembly of gods at 20.4–32 (cf. particularly the emphasis

38 ἀμβροσίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. 39 στάξε: aor. of στάζω ‘drip/drizzle’. — κατὰ (ῥ)ῥινῶν: on the prosody, M 4.6.— ἵνα (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 31

on the [near] universality of participation: 19.42–54 and 20.7–9): Edwards on 42–45; Kurz 1966, 52; cf. further Bethe 1914, 70  f.; Arend 1933, 117  f.; Reinhardt 1961, 413  f.; Bannert 1987, 16  f.; Tsagarakis 1982, 100; Tsagarakis 1990, 116  f.; Elmer 2013, 125  f. – On the general course of a military assembly, 1.54n. with bibliography, in addition Hölkeskamp 2002, 311  ff.; Kelly 2007, 68–75. – The assembly is element (1) of the type-sceneP ‘armies joining battle’ (on which, see 2.86b–401n.). 40–75 Achilleus summons the Greeks to the assembly, where he publicly informs Agamemnon of the end of his wrath and asks him to send the troops into battle, in which he himself means to participate. 40 But he … walked: marks a break in the action and a change of scene (1.34n.). Setting out forms a contrast to Achilleus lying down near Patroklos’ body and expresses the beginning of activity (Kurz 1966, 103; cf. 4–6a n.). — along by the sea-shore: The shore serves as a link between individual sections of the camp (1.34n.); elsewhere, it also serves as a leitmotif denoting Achilleus’ isolation (1.350n., 24.12a n.).

αὐτὰρ ὃ βῆ: a VB formula (11x Il., 4x Od.); on the use of ὅ, cf. 6b n. (ἣ δέ); on the verse structure (anaphoric pronoun and noun-epithet formula at VE), see Bakker 1997, 92, 199. — παρὰ θῖνα θαλάσσης: likewise at Od. 4.432, 14.347; frequently expanded into a VE formula by πολυφλοίσβοιο preceding θαλάσσης (1.34n.). — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: on the VE formula and the meaning of δῖος, 1.7n.

41 crying his terrible cry, and stirred up: The unusual emphasis on the acoustic element, in contrast to other calls to assemble (cf. 1.54 [also Achilleus], 2.50  ff., 9.10  ff., 20.4  ff.), reflects Achilleus’ mood, which is animated by an urge for battle (cf. 16–18, 37), and is a kind of anticipated call to battle (Krapp 1964, 59  f.; Heath 2005, 126  f.). The VB formula Greek smerdaléa iáchōn (7x Il., 1x Od.) elsewhere refers to attacking cries in battle, with smerdaléa stressing the strength of the attacker’s emotions and the resulting volume (LfgrE s.v. ἰάχω; Kaimio 1977, 62  f.; 2.309n.; on ἰάχω, also 2.333a n.). ἰάχων: originally a reduplicated thematic present stem *ϝι-ϝαχ- (Frisk; Beekes; Schw. 1.690; Chantr. 1.139; Risch 270; LIV 665; differently Untermann on Il. 16.785). On the formation of formulae with ἰαχ-, see Hoekstra 1965, 53; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 22.81. — ἥρωας Ἀχαιούς: 34n.

40 ὃ … δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: ὅ is anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), to which δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς is in apposition. 41 σμερδαλέα (ϝ)ι(ϝ)άχων: on the prosody, R 4.3. — σμερδαλέα: ‘awful, terrible’ (adv.). — ὦρσεν: aor. of ὄρνυμι.

32 

 Iliad 19

42–46 The significance of this military assembly, which will set important events in motion, is signalled by the mention of exceptional participants, the stewards and the helmsmen, who (a) otherwise play no role in the Iliad (23.316 helmsmen only in a comparison), and (b) had so far remained absent from assemblies (42). Why they do not attend assemblies on other occasions cannot be deduced from this passage. Their presence here, however, can be explained by the special circumstances: Achilleus’ cry, signalling the longed-for return to battle, mobilizes not only the armed section of the Achaian army but also the rear (40–281n.; Ruzé 1997, 72). 42 τὸ πάρος γε: ‘on each previous occasion’, i.e. ‘otherwise, usually’, with the counterpart τότε γ(ε) at 45 (LfgrE s.v. πάρος 989  f.64  ff.); with the iterative form μένεσκον, it stresses the contrast between common practice and the present case. — νεῶν ἐν ἀγῶνι: the formulaP occurs elsewhere at 15.428, 16.500, also at 16.239 with νηῶν; on the meaning of ἀγών (‘assembly, rallying point’), Leaf on 15.428; LfgrE s.v.; Trümpy 1950, 265  f. n. 419. 43–44 οἵ τε … | καὶ …: τε … | καί connects the two relative clauses at 43 and 44, which are in apposition to the relative clause at 42; καὶ ἔχον οἰήϊα νηῶν in 43 is a complementary explanation for οἵ τε κυβερνῆται (sc. ἔσαν cf. 44): AH; Faesi; Ruijgh 424.

43 helmsmen: Homeric ships were steered by a helmsman with a single rudder. Helmsmen were experts in seafaring (cf. 23.316  f., Od. 3.279–283) and likely commanded an individual ship and its crew (cf. the figurative use of Greek kybernḗtēs ‘leader, ruler’ in post-Homeric Greek, as well as modern terms such as ‘cybernetics’, ‘government’); beside the warriors, who served as rowers during a journey, they seem to have formed a discrete professional class in the Achaian army (LfgrE s.v. κυβερνήτης; Casson 1971, 46., 300–304, 322; Kurt 1979, 209–211). ἔχον: ‘hold’ while ‘steering’, like the reins of a team of horses (LfgrE s.v. 840. 78  ff.). — οἰήϊα: denotes the ‘tiller’, a crossbar functioning as a handle at the upper end of the rudder’s shaft, which moved the rudder blade and thus set the ship’s course, cf. Od. 12.218 (also Od. 9.483, 9.540): Kurt 1979, 146  f.

42–45 οἵ … | οἵ … | … | … οἵ: in 42/43, relative pronouns; in 45, anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). 42 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1: avoidance of hiatus). — περ: intensifying (R 24.10). — μένεσκον: iterative (-σκ-: R 16.5). 43 ἔχον(ν) οἰήϊα: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — νηῶν: on the declension, R 12.1.

Commentary 

 33

44 stewards  … dispensers of rations: The unique mention of the stewards may prepare for the subsequent discussion of eating before battle (156  ff.; thus Leaf; Edwards on 42–45). ταμίαι: masc. formation beside feminine ταμίη (on this, 6.381n.); derived from the root ταμεῖν ‘to divide’ in a way that is formally unclear, and originally denoting the person who manages and apportions provisions, the term is also used metaphorically (e.g. at 224, with n.) for Zeus as allocator of immaterial goods (Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v. ταμία; LfgrE s.vv. ταμίη, ταμίης; Risch 118; Leukart 1994, 144, 236 with n., 269). 45a καὶ μάν: The particle combination is elsewhere always used in direct speeches (23.410, Od. 11.582, 11.593, 16.440, 19.487) to affirm a statement, and appears only here in narrator text; it serves to note emphatically the exceptional participants mentioned. — οἵ: referring to the groups of persons particularly stressed at 43  f., in anaphora with the relative pronoun οἵ at 42. — εἰς ἀγορήν: ‘assembly’ or ‘place of assembly’ (1.54n.; Ruzé 1997, 26).

45b–46 =  18.247  f., 20.42  f. — since now Achilleus | had appeared, after  … battle: gives the Achaians’ motive for action, i.e. their thoughts (secondary focalizationP; Edwards on 18.246–8; de Jong [1987] 2004, 233 n. 2; 1997, 178 with n. 5). The appearance of Achilleus mobilizes the Achaians weakened from battle; at the same time, it frightens the Trojans (18.243  ff., 20.42  ff.). – The return of the hero to the community after a long absence is a common epic motif (Nagler 1974, 131  ff.; Lord 1991, 140  f.; on the structure of the so-called ‘return song’, see Foley 1990, 361  ff. with bibliography). — after staying so long from the sorrowful battle: a kind of summary of Achilleus’ boycott of battle throughout the previous 17 Books (STR 22 fig. 2; cf. 18.125; on the summaryP-verse, 1.53n.): Achilleus has now been raging for 16 days, but has missed only three days of battle. The addition ‘for a long time’ (Greek dērón) was accordingly already regarded by the scholiasts as needing explanation (cf. schol. A, bT on 18.125). But given the events of Days 2 and 3, which were unfavorable to the Achaians (STR 21 fig. 1), even three days of battle without Achilleus represent a long stretch of time from their point of view (cf. 18.125 [Achilleus himself] and Edwards on 18.121–5). ἐξεφάνη: integral enjambmentP with emphatic effect, stressing the hero’s return to the community. — μάχης … ἀλεγεινῆς: Both the speeches by characters and the narrator text reveal that the attitude toward battle was ambiguous: epithetsP with negative con-

44 ἔσαν: unaugmented impf. of εἰμί (R 16.1, R 16.6). 45 καὶ μάν: emphatic ‘and indeed, and even’ (R 24.7). — ἴσαν: unaugmented (R 16.1) 3rd pl. impf. of εἶμι. — οὕνεκ(α): crasis from οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘because’. 46 δηρόν: adv., ‘for a long time’.

34 

 Iliad 19

notations predominate (6.330n.; further examples and bibliography on this at 1.162n., 2.453– 454n.), but in direct speeches μάχη is also linked with κυδιάνειρα, an epithetP with a positive connotation (Trümpy 1950, 135; de Jong [1987] 2004, 231  ff.; LfgrE s.v. μάχη).

47–53 Three assembly participants already mentioned together in the description of the previous day of battle (14.27–29, 14.379–381, 16.25  f.) are referred to by name: Diomedes the son of Tydeus (CM 3), who temporarily replaced the absent Achilleus as a warrior (6.96–101n.); Odysseus (CM 3), who appeared as the spokesman of the delegation sent to appeal to Achilleus in the failed attempt at reconciliation (9.192  ff.); and Agamemnon (CM 2), Achilleus’ opponent in the quarrel. On this occasion, their wounding during the previous day’s battle, and thus the crisis faced by the Greek army, is called to mind. In the case of Agamemnon, this is done in somewhat greater detail (51–53; on the repeated references to the wounding of the three leaders, see Reichel 1994, 202  f.). 47 two who came limping: Diomedes had sustained injuries to his foot (11.369– 378), Odysseus to his side (11.434–438) (AH).

Ἄρεος θεράποντε: ‘warrior’ (2.110n.); the remodelling of the VE formula θεράποντες Ἄρηος (e.g. 78) serves to avoid hiatus in the dual (Hoekstra 1965, 135; Lowenstam 1981, 6; on the declension of Ἄρης, G 53).

48 Tydeus’ son the staunch in battle, and brilliant Odysseus: The naming of the first two occurs in a whole-line verse  – with chiastic arrangement of the two names and epithets, as at 1.7 (see ad loc.) – with the personal name ‘Diomedes’ replaced by the patronymic ‘son of Tydeus’ (a common method, cf. 1.1n.). Elsewhere, all three wounded men are mentioned in a whole-line verse (14.29, 14.380; cf. 47–53n.). μενεπτόλεμος: a verb-noun compound, ‘persisting in battle’; the generic epithetP is used only here in reference to Diomedes and is elsewhere always placed after caesura B 2 (2.740n.); here it may have a pregnant sense (LfgrE): a reminiscence of his aristeia (Book 5) and endurance in this war (e.g. 8.90  ff., 8.253  ff., 9.46  ff., 9.696  ff., 14.110  ff.). — δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς: a VE formula (23x Il., 79x Od.), analogous with δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς (1.7n.).

47 τὼ  … σκάζοντε  … θεράποντε: duals; σκάζω: ‘limp’. — βάτην: =  (ἐ)βήτην (3rd dual aor. of βαίνω); here ingressive. —Ἄρεος: on the declension, R 12.4. 48 μενεπτόλεμος: on the πτ in -πτόλεμος, R 9.2.

Commentary 

 35

49 1st VH ≈ 14.38, Od. 10.170. — leaning on spears: Wounded warriors generally support themselves on their lance; thus all three already at 14.38. Carrying arms in an assembly is also common elsewhere (Gröschel 1989, 75  f.; van Wees 1998, 335  f. with n. 9).

γὰρ ἔχον: a lengthening of the vowel in the arsis (–⏖), cf. 2.39 (with n.), Od. 11.580, h.Cer. 57; whether the original initial h of ἔχω (from IE s-) is still prosodically effective here (thus 1.51n.) is debatable. — ἔχον ἕλκεα λυγρά: VE ≈ 15.393; ἕλκεα are usually recent injuries the victim has survived (LfgrE s.v. ἕλκος). Here and at 52, the phrasing may be meant to make the wounds received on the previous day seem fresh.

50 took their seats in the front rank: On the seating in the place of assembly and on the place of honor for the elite, see 1.54n., 2.99n. 51–53 Agamemnon’s appearance at the end guarantees that everyone pays attention to the wounds he sustained in battle. At the same time, he is likely signaling his aversion to a private conversation with Achilleus (Lateiner 1995, 54). The portrayal of this entrance and the reference to the events surrounding the wounding of Agamemnon may serve to prepare for 77 (with n.; cf. anticipation of scenes/motifsP; Edwards, Introd. 21). 51 lord of men: On the meaning of this title (probably originally Mycenaean), see 1.7n.

αὐτὰρ ὅ: On the structure of the verse, see 40n. — δεύτατος: predicative, ‘last, as the last one’ (likewise at Od. 1.286, 23.342); literally a superlative of δεύτερος (‘the second, the later’): LfgrE; Frisk, Beekes s.v. δεύτερος. — ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectible VE formula (36x nom., 11x voc.; in total 44x Il., 2x Od., 1x Hes.).

52 κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: an inflectible VE formula denoting a ‘forcefully, powerfully conducted battle’ (2.40n., with ἐνί 10x Il., 1x Od.). The hiatus results from declining the formula (M 14), which is common in the acc., where there is no hiatus (in total 20x acc. and 2x gen. sing. vs. 13x dat./nom. sing.).

53 Internal analepsisP: Agamemnon was wounded in the arm by Koön when the latter was trying to avenge his brother’s death, and he then killed his attacker (11.248–263). The choice of words in the Greek is reminiscent of formulaic

49 ἐρειδομένω· ἔτι: on the hiatus, R 5.6; ἐρειδομένω: dual. — γάρ: on the prosody, ↑. — ἕλκεα: neut. pl. of ἕλκος ‘wound’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 49 50 κὰδ … ἵζοντο: κάδ = κατά (R 20.1); on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — μετὰ πρώτῃ ἀγορῇ: πρώτῃ predicative, ‘at the front in the midst of the assembly’. — κιόντες: part. of the defective verb κίε ‘went’. 51 αὐτάρ: progressive ‘but, indeed’ (R 24.2). — ὅ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. 52 καὶ … τόν: ‘also this one’, cf. 51n. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: on the hiatus, ↑. 53 δουρί: dat. sing. of δόρυ (R 12.5).

36 

 Iliad 19

descriptions of wounding (Trümpy 1950, 92; Higbie 1990, 174  f.) and evokes memories of past battle scenes (on ‘lance’ and ‘spear’ as offensive weapons, 2.692n., 3.18n., 6.3n.; Buchholz 2010, 113–121; on the depiction of woundings, 6.9–11n. with bibliography). — Koön, the son of Antenor: bears a Greek name (related to koéō ‘behold’). His role in the Iliad is limited to the single attack on Agamemnon that forces the latter to retire from battle, temporarily giving the Trojans the upper hand (11.191  f., 11.267  ff.): von Kamptz; Wathelet s.v.; Strasburger 1954, 31; on Antenor and his sons, see CM 9, 2.822n., 3.122n. — bronze edge: literally ‘fitted with (a) bronze (tip)’; on the epithet and the question of the material used for weapons, see 6.3n. οὖτα: a root aorist, meaning ‘strike, wound (from nearby)’ (6.64n.). — χαλκήρεϊ δουρί: an inflectible VE formula (6.3n., with bibliography on the various noun-epithet formulae for ‘spear’).

54–276 The storylines that had for the most part been running separately since 1.306  ff. (Achilleus-Myrmidons, Agamemnon-main force) come together again in this military assembly in which the Achaians generally take part (1.306– 348a n.; STR 22). After the sequence of speeches and replies between Achilleus, Agamemnon and Odysseus (55–237), the handing over of gifts and the oath ritual (238–268) are designed to conclude the quarrel before the eyes of all assembled and thus to strengthen the camaraderie of the Achaian army as a whole (cf. Achilleus’ closing words at 275). On the reactions (or lack thereof) of the participants in the assembly, see Elmer 2013, 125–131. 54 1st VH = Od. 8.131; ≈ Il. 7.207, 14.187, 16.198, Od. 5.76, 6.227, 7.134, 8.282. — when all the Achaians were in one body together: The mention of the unusual participants (42–45) and the highlighting of the wounded leaders (47–53) is followed by a concluding statement that the assembling body is complete; cf. 1.57n. The opening of the assembly in fact takes place only when all concerned are present and thus becomes possible only with the arrival of Agamemnon (cf. 51–53n.). ἀολλίσθησαν: denominative from ἀολλέες ‘in a body, all together’ (190–191n.). In contrast to ἀγείρω (1.57, 2.52, etc.), which is often used in this context, it emphasizes the united coming together of all Achaians (πάντες) in one place (cf. LfgrE s.vv. ἀολλίζω and ἀολλέες; Edwards; on the formation, Risch 299): i.e., even those who at the beginning of the Iliad had ‘stood apart in conflict’ (1.6n.) have come.

54 αὐτάρ: progressive ‘but’ (R 24.2). — ἀολλίσθησαν: unaugmented aor. of ἀολ-λίζεσθαι ‘gather together’ (R 16.1).

Commentary 

 37

55 = 1.58 (see ad loc., also on speech introduction formulaeP generally); 1st VH =  9.52. — Achilleus of the swift feet  … spoke: Greek pódas ōkýs Achilléus is a VE formula (1.58n.).  – Achilleus speaks first, as also in the assembly in Book 1 that he convened (cf. 40–276n.). In a similar fashion, Agamemnon appears as the first speaker in the two major military assemblies he convened (2.50  f./99  ff., 9.9–12/13  ff.).— stood up: Normally the speaker arises and steps forward (1.54n., 2.278b–279n.). μετέφη: an introduction in speeches addressing a collective, usually together with the dat. pl.: ‘he spoke among …’; this contrasts with speeches prefaced by compounds in προσ-, which are directed at single individuals, e.g. in the present Book: 106/120 (προσηύδα), 145/ 154/198/215 (προσέφη), 184 (προσέειπεν), besides 76 (μετέειπεν), 100 (μετέφη), 269 (μετηύδα): LfgrE s.v. εἰπεῖν 479.39  ff. and 480.15  ff.

56–73 Achilleus’ speech directed at Agamemnon can be divided into three parts after the address (the same as at 1.59): (1) a brief summary of the preceding events in the form of a ring compositionP: (A) a rhetorical question concerning the benefit of the quarrel for both (56–58), (B) an expression of the wish that Briseïs had died earlier (59–62), (A’) the statement that the quarrel only conferred advantage on the Trojans (63–64); (2) transition: a turning away from the past (65–66); (3) a view ahead in ‘free string’ formP: (C) a renunciation of the wrath (67–68a), (D) a request to lead the army into battle with Achilleus himself as a fellow combatant (68b–71a), (E) the consequences for the Trojans (71b–73). On the structure of the speech, see Lohmann 1970, 32  f. with n. 49; Edwards. — At 58, Achilleus downplays the original cause for the quarrel (cf. 58n.) and keeps his words brief, as he is concerned not so much with redress from Agamemnon (cf. 147  f.) as with preparing for battle as rapidly as possible (cf. 68  f. ‘the more quickly …’, 148  ff. ‘immediately’, and the contrast with 46 ‘so long’), so that he can exact revenge (Taplin 1992, 205; Latacz [1995] 1997, 59; Wilson 2002, 116). 56–64 In the retrospective look at the quarrel, phrasing dominates that stresses the common ground (56–58, 64: ‘for both, for you and me, we  … together, between us’; Greek dual forms) between Achilleus and Agamemnon (on the meaning of the ‘we’ forms, cf. 1.59–67n.). In this way, as in his rhetorical question, Achilles expressly avoids allocating blame for the quarrel. He has long regretted the evil caused by quarrelling and rage (18.102  ff.; see van Wees 1992, 135). By linking major losses among the Achaians with his boycott of battle

55 τοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2. — δ(έ): can indicate a transition to a main clause (apodotic δέ: R 24.3). — πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

38 

 Iliad 19

(61  f.), he acknowledges his responsibility and prepares for the renunciation of his wrath at 67  f. (Edwards on 56–73). 56 Ἀτρεΐδη: 23x in the Iliad at the beginning of speeches; address by the patronymic alone, lacking a personal name and/or epithet, is common, e.g. 1.59, 3.250, 19.185, 20.200 (1.59n., 3.182n.; on the personal name Ἀτρεύς, see 1.7n., 3.36–37n.). — ἦ ἄρ τι: ‘somehow after all?’; ἦ (‘really?, somehow?’) may introduce, as here, a specious question that suggests a negative reply (AH; Faesi; Leaf; Schw. 2.564; Chantr. 2.10  f.; cf. 1.203n.). — ἄρειον: ‘better’, sc. than ‘the unexpressed opposite of the possibility mentioned’ (transl.); similarly e.g. 6.339, 24.52 (LfgrE s.v. ἀρείων 1226.15  ff.).

57 we, for all our hearts’ sorrow: Achilleus emphasizes their commonality in regard to a painful experience: both men had to return the ‘gift of honor’ awarded by the military community (Greek géras; on this, 1.118–129n.); this caused feelings of mortification, powerlessness and rage (on Greek áchnymai, 8n.), first for Agamemnon (1.103  ff., on this, 1.103n., 1.105–120n.), then for Achilleus (1.148  ff., 1.188  ff., 1.349  ff., on this, 1.149–171n.). ἔπλετο: VB ἔπλετ(ο) 6x Il., 5x Od.; aor. of πέλομαι in the sense ‘turn out to be’ (LfgrE s.v. 1135.10  ff., esp. 57  ff.). — ὅ τε: more likely to be written separatim with the meaning ‘that’, introducing a factual complementary clause of τόδε ‘that (thing) there’ (cautiously Chantr. 2.290; cf. West 1998, XXIX), than temporal ὅτε (AH [‘as’]; Ruijgh 816 [‘maintenant que’]; undecided Leaf; Monteil 1963, 262; on the issue in general, see 1.244n.). — ἀχνυμένω κῆρ: an inflectible VE formula (nom. sing./dual/pl., acc. sing.: 7x Il., 6x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’ Sc.); κῆρ is a verse-filling element with no context-specific meaning, used for mental processes, cf. 65 (Jahn 1987, 197  f., 208 with n. 42; 1.24n.).

58  quarreled: Quarrel (Greek éris) is a core motif of epic poetry; on the concept in the Iliad, see 1.8n., 1.173–187n. — for the sake of a girl: The reference is to Briseïs (cf. 1.336 [1.184n.]), who had been granted to Achilleus by the Achaians as part of his booty (1.162, 1.299, 1.392). The phrasing highlights the comparative triviality of the cause for the quarrel (AH; cf. 2.377 with n. [Agamemnon], 9.637  f. [Aias]): whereas in response to the Achaian offer of reconciliation, Achilleus stressed his love for Briseïs (9.341–343; cf. also 16.85  f.) and his loss of honor (9.644–648; cf. 1.355  f., 1.412) and otherwise repeatedly named the scandalous seizure of his gift as the cause for the quarrel (1.161, 1.356, 1.392, 9.367  f.,

56 Ἀτρείδη, ἦ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἄρ: R 24.1. — τόδ(ε): subj., looking forward to ὅ τε (57). — ἄρειον: ≈ ἄμεινον (R 13). 57 καὶ ἐμοί: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — νῶΐ: nom. dual of the personal pronoun of the 1st person (R 14.1); subj. of μενεήναμεν (58); for the combination of dual and plural, R 18.1. — περ: stresses the preceding word (R 24.10). — ἀχνυμένω: dual. — κῆρ: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 58 ἔριδι (μ)μενεήναμεν: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — εἵνεκα: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — κούρης: on the form, R 2, R 4.2.

Commentary 

 39

16.56), here he downplays the incident (similar to his withdrawal from the first assembly at 1.298  f.), since in the face of his grief for Patroklos and his thirst for revenge, all else has lost significance (Edwards 56–73; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 6 n. 1; Latacz 2008, 133). — soul-perishing: On the various versions of the common Greek metaphor ‘heart-eating’, see below (on θυμοβόρῳ) and 6.201–202n. θυμοβόρῳ: an epithet of ἔρις used only in the Iliad; similarly at VB 7.210 (θυμοβόρου ἔριδος μένει) and in the VE formula ἔριδος πέρι θυμοβόροιο (7.301, 16.476, 20.253). It is otherwise used in reference to duels on the battlefield and, as here, at 20.253 to a battle of words. A noun-verb compound ‘eating, consuming strength, the heart, the soul’ in the sense ‘draining the substance from’ (Risch 207; LfgrE s.v.; Clarke 1999, 91; cf. LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1082.48  ff.; differently AH on 7.210 and Edwards ad loc.: ‘life-destroying’; cf. θυμοφθόρος 6.169n. and θυμὸν ὀλέσσῃ 1.205n.). The same metaphor appears in other expressions in early epic, particularly ‘eating the heart’ from grief or rage (θυμοδακὴς μῦθος Od. 8.185, θυμοβορεῖν Hes. Op. 799, θυμοφθόρος Od. 4.716, phrased differently at Il. 1.491 [see ad loc.]., 6.202, 24.129, Od. 9.75, Hes. Th. 567, etc.). — μενεήναμεν: a denominative from μένος (Schw. 1.440; Frisk and Beekes s.v. μένος; DELG s.v. μέμονα), denoting a fierce or furious striving and raging; used in the aor. in verbal confrontations to mean approximately ‘flare up, burst out’ (LfgrE s.v.; Edwards on 56–58; Adkins 1969, 17  f.; cf. 1.103n. on μένος: specifically aggressive energy). — εἵνεκα κούρης: a VE formula, in the Iliad always of Briseïs (5x Il., 1x Od., 5x ‘Hes.’); on the metrical lengthening of εἵνεκα, 1.174n.

59–60 Given the present situation, it is understandable that Achilleus wishes that Briseïs had died the day they met (Taplin 1992, 215  f.; Bouvier 2002, 303; cf. 1.348a n.). On the death-wish motif in general, see 3.173a n. and the biblio­ graphy at 6.345–348n. 59 Artemis: see CG 7; she brings sudden death to women (exceptionally to men as well: Od. 5.123  f.) with her arrows (6.205n.; BNP s.v. Artemis). — beside the ships: i.e. in the camp (1.12b n.). ὄφελ(ε): denotes something unfulfillable/unfulfilled in the present and the past (1.353n., 6.345n.; Allan 2013, 3 and 16  ff.: ‘if only’; on the component of regret, Chantr. 2.228).

60  when I destroyed Lyrnessos: an external repetitive analepsisP (cf. 2.690  ff.); on the destruction of Lyrnessos, Briseïs’ native city, see 291–296n., 2.690n. (on Achilleus’ campaigns of conquest in general, 1.366n.; STR 23 fig. 3). — took her: Achilleus alludes to his deliberate choice of Briseïs (Greek emphatic per-

59 τήν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — νήεσσι: on the declension, R 12.1. — κατακτάμεν: athematic aor. act. inf. of κατακτείνω (R 16.4).

40 

 Iliad 19

sonal pronoun egṓn helómēn) during the distribution of booty in the camp (AH; 2.690n.; LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 356.55  ff., 358.15  ff.). At 9.330–334, he describes Agamemnon’s supervision of the distribution of the booty he himself had won (on the procedure in general, 1.118–129n., 1.162–168n.).

ἤματι τῷ, ὅτ(ε): a VB formula, usually a recollection of one’s own experiences (2.351n.); it often refers not to a particular day but to a specific situation, usually an incident in the past (Fränkel 1946, 132; Kelly 2007, 344–346).

61 2nd VH = 24.738, Od. 22.269. — would have bitten: ‘To bite the ground’ is a colloquial periphrasis describing a warrior’s death (2.418n.); on parallels in Sanskrit, West 2007, 490; on other paraphrases for ‘to die’, see 6.19n. τώ: ‘in that case, then’, an adverb formed from the old instrumental ending -ω, cf. οὕτω(ς) (2.250n.; Rix [1976] 1992, 170; on the acute accent, West 1998, XXII; Führer/­ Schmidt 2001, 20 n. 111 prefer the circumflex). — ὀδάξ: an adverb, in the Iliad usually in conjunction with ἕλον/εἷλον (see above), in the Odyssey (3x) also with the VE formula ἐν χείλεσι φύντες. The etymology is uncertain; it has been linked with ὀδών and δάκνω: ‘with the teeth’ and/or ‘biting’ (Frisk and LfgrE s.v. ὀδάξ; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 22.269; Beekes s.v.: ‘folk-etymological connection’). — ἄσπετον οὖδας: a VE formula (see iterata, also Od. 13.395), always used in connection with dying. ἄ-σπετος is commonly explained as a verbal adjective related to the root of ἔσπετε (2.455n.; LfgrE s.v. ἄσπετος: ‘unspeakably [large]’; on οὖδας ‘soil, ground, earth’, see Richter 1968, 95; LfgrE s.v.).

62 2nd VH = 9.426 (likewise of Achilleus). — when I was away in my anger: On Achilleus’ wrath, 1.1n.; he mentions only his own irreconcilable stance, but not that displayed by Agamemnon after the eruption of the quarrel in Book 1 and revealed at e.g. 1.247 and 1.285–291 (cf. 1.286–291n.). δυσμενέων: an emotionally charged term for opponents in a war, usually in character languageP (3.51n.). — ὑπὸ χερσίν: ὑπό with dat. with the meaning ‘under the influence of’ (2.374n.). — ἐμεῖ’ ἀπομηνίσαντος: on the spelling ἐμεῖ(ο) rather than ἐμεῦ, see GT 7, but also G 45 with n. 25; the prefix of ἀπο-μηνίζω can have an intensifying function (‘was wholly submerged in wrath’; cf. AH and Leaf) or may include a temporal aspect (‘was raging continually’; cf. 2.772n.). The gen. absolute with an aor. part. is uncommon in Homer (Chantr. 2.324 with collection of examples).

60 ἤματι τῷ: ≈ ἐκείνῳ τῷ ἤματι; on the demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — τῷ, ὅτ(ε): on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἑλόμην: sc. τήν (cf. 59). — ὀλέσσας: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 61 κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). — τόσσοι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 62 δυσμενέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἐμεῖ(ο): = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1). — ἐμεῖ’ ἀπομηνίσαντος: on the hiatus, R 5.1.

Commentary 

 41

63 Hektor: see CM 8, 1.242n. — better: Achilleus himself responds thus to the rhetorical question put at the beginning (56–58): so far, only the opposing army had got benefits and advantages. Nestor (CM 3) already pointed out in Book 1 that the Trojans would rejoice at a quarrel between the two men (1.255– 257): Edwards.

Ἕκτορι μὲν καὶ Τρωσί: a slightly modified VB formula (Ἕκτορι καὶ Τρώεσσι(ν) 3x Il.), a variant of the more common inflectible formula Τρωσίν τε καὶ Ἕκτορι that follows caesura A 4 (10x Il.). The common formulation ‘Hektor and the Trojans’ highlights him as the leader and focus of his people (Strasburger 1954, 103 with n. 3; Stoevesandt 2004, 199). — τό: refers to ὅ τε νῶΐ … | … μενεήναμεν εἵνεκα κούρης 57  f. — κέρδιον: a comparative derived from κέρδος (‘advantage, gain’), meaning ‘of which someone has a greater advantage’, i.e. ‘more advantageous, better’ (3.41n.); rare in a retrospective declarative fashion, as here, but elsewhere usually hypothetical (LfgrE s.v.). — αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιούς: an inflectible VE formula, only in the Iliad (12x nom., 7x acc., 2x dat., 1x gen.); on the beginning of a new sentence after caesura C 2, see 1.194n.

64 will  … long remember: In Achilleus’ view, the Achaian army will have to suffer the consequences of the quarrel for a long time to come, and the incident will accordingly endure in the Greeks’ memory. Via the reflection of the characterP on his own ‘fame’, the narrator may also be pointing toward the medium of such remembrance, i.e. epic poetry: AH; Edwards; Lowenstam 1993, 103 n. 110; cf. Helen’s reflection at 6.357  f. that her fate would provide material for future poets, and the appearances of the singers Phemios and Demodokos in the Odyssey. For further examples with bibliography, see 2.119n., 6.356–358n. ὀΐω: frequently serves to tone down a statement (‘I believe’; here likely understatement); on this and the variants between the active and middle variants, probably used only for metrical convenience, see 1.59n.

65–66 =  18.112  f. — Already at 16.60  f., Achilleus hinted with similar words to Patroklos at a possible abating of his wrath, and at 18.112  f., using the same words as here, he announced to Thetis the end of the quarrel and his decision to rejoin battle; with ‘now indeed’ (18.114, 19.67), he announces his further actions: in the conversation with Thetis, he emphasized revenge and death (cf. 18.95  ff.), in the military assembly, the renunciation of his wrath and his reentry into battle (Edwards on 65–68; de Jong [1987] 2004, 190; AH and Lohmann 1970, 32 n. 49 argue against the authenticity of the verses in the present passage). In what follows, Achilleus also implies that the end of

63 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — τό: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17; subj. of κέρδιον (sc. ἦν). — αὐτάρ: 54n. 64 δηρόν: 46n.

42 

 Iliad 19

the quarrel and his wrath has nothing to do with Agamemnon (cf. 66n.), but instead emanates solely from himself (cf. the stressed personal pronoun egṓ at 67). The wounding of his pride and Agamemnon’s humiliating behavior no longer play a role for him (58n.; Bouvier 2002, 417  f.; Kim 2000, 127  f.). 65 1st VH = 16.60; 2nd VH = 19.8, 24.523, Od. 16.147. — we will …, though it hurts us: 8n., cf. 57n. Achilleus will suffer from the death of Patroklos even after the cessation of the quarrel and his wrath. For the rest of the Achaian army, the renunciation of his wrath is a cause for joy; cf. their reaction at 74. προτετύχθαι ἐάσομεν: προ-τεύχω in early epic only in this form (likewise at 16.60, 18.112); although πρό in Homer rarely means ‘previously’ (Monro [1882] 1891, 192; Chantr. 2.130  f.; cf. Leaf ad loc.), 1.70 πρό τ’ ἐόντα is comparable (Schw. 2.506; Janko on 16.60); the perf. pass. inf. thus means approximately ‘to have happened previously, to be over’ (Janko on 16.60–61 [‘to exist in the past’]; Willcock on 16.60; LfgrE s.v. τεύχω 437.59: ‘to have been done in the past, be over and done’). On ἐάω with inf., see LfgrE s.v. 383.33  ff.: ‘to let be, leave in peace’; Nussbaum 1998, 77  f.; cf. ἐάσομεν … | κεῖσθαι 8  f. (with n.).

66 1st VH = 9.637, 14.316, Od. 21.87. — by constraint: i.e. in the face of the precarious situation within the army and the associated danger posed to a successful end to the undertaking. Because of Patroklos’ death, Achilleus feels compelled for personal reasons – and against significant mental resistance – to take the first step and to set aside the quarrel and his wrath. Although he generally highlights the enormous losses of the Achaian army in the present assembly (61  f., cf. 203  ff.), in his statement to Thetis he specifically mentioned his desire for revenge on behalf of Patroklos (AH and Edwards on 18.112  f.; LfgrE s.v. ἀνάγκη 770.36  ff., esp. 49  ff.). — anger: Greek thymós can denote the seat of emotions or the emotions themselves (2.196n.); here likely ‘agitation, anger’ (Böhme 1929, 78 with n. 1; LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1081.51  ff., especially 1082.14  ff.; further bibliography in Bremmer 1983, 54 n. 111). θυμὸν  … δαμάσαντες: The same expression with θυμός ‘agitation’ also at 9.496 in Phoinix’s admonition to Achilleus (δάμασον θυμὸν μέγαν), 18.113 Achilleus to Thetis, Od. 11.562 Odysseus’ plea to the deceased Aias to abandon anger and strife (δάμασον … ἀγήνορα θυμόν) (Hainsworth on 9.496); cf. the expression with ἐρητύω/ἐρητύομαι, 1.192n. — ἐνὶ στήθεσσι: ‘in my breast’, i.e. ‘inwardly’ (cf. 1.189n.). — φίλον: can function as a pure possessive pronoun (‘own’) or carry an affective meaning (‘dear, beloved’); see

65 τά: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἐάσομεν: short vowel aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). — περ: concessive (R 24.10). 66 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3, on the plural, R 18.2.

Commentary 

 43

1.20n., 3.31n. Here it likely means ‘dear, beloved’; cf. the separation of noun and epithet across both verse halves (cf. Robinson 1990, 107).

67–70 By publicly declaring the end of his wrath toward Agamemnon (cf. 35n.), Achilleus implicitly submits once more to his command (on his temporary rejection of Agamemnon’s authority, see 1.150n.); for his campaign of revenge against Hektor and the Trojans, he relies upon the Achaian army. His request to Agamemnon nonetheless appears impatient (68 ‘come on then! The more quickly  …’) and ill-considered: since catching sight of the new armor, he is driven by anger at Hektor to such a degree (16n.) that he takes into consideration neither the physical condition of individual leaders nor the fact that the army has thus far had no food (cf. 154  ff.). 67 1st VH = 23; VE = Od. 19.118. — νῦν δ’ ἤτοι μὲν ἐγώ: 23a n. — χόλον: denotes an emotional excitement that can suddenly befall an individual or rise up within him, but that can also be suppressed or stopped (1.81–82n.; Clarke 1999, 93–96; cf. ἔδυ χόλος 16n.); here almost synonymous with μῆνις (cf. also ἀπομηνίσαντος 62). The formulation in Thetis’ speech at 35 (with n.) and in narrator text at 75 (with n.) picks up the subject of the Iliad (see 1.1n.). — οὐδέ τί με χρή: a variant of the VE formula οὐδέ τί σε χρή (8x Il., 7x Od., 3x h.Hom.); this particular version always occurs in advice delivered to individuals, e.g. Phoinix’s appeal to Achilleus at 9.496  f. (Martin 1989, 199). 68 VE =  20.257. — ἀσκελέως: a hapaxP in the Iliad (ἀσκελέ[ε]ς 3x Od.). Etymology and meaning are unclear, perhaps related to σκέλλω ‘dry up, parch’ (Frisk; DELG; Beekes), in which case it means approximately ‘shriveled, parched, hard’ and thus ‘unbending, unrelenting’ (AH; Leaf; Edwards on 65–68; LfgrE; schol.  T: ἄγαν σκληρῶς); likewise in reference to emotions at Od. 1.68  f., 4.543  f., differently at 10.463 ἀσκελέες καὶ ἄθυμοι (‘sans force’ DELG; ‘weak’ Heubeck on Od. 10.463). Achilleus thus likely wants to create the impression in the assembly that his renunciation of his wrath should also be attributed to the plight of the Achaians and the various appeals for his help, e.g. 9.230  ff., 9.496  ff., 16.21–35, 16.202–207 (LfgrE). — μενεαινέμεν: ‘to be angry, rage’ (58n.). — ἀλλ’ ἄγε: a transition from the argument to instructions for action, 1.62, 2.72 (see ad loc.), etc. — θάσσον: on the accent, West 1998, XX, s.v. ἄσσον.

69 ≈ 2.51, 2.443; 1st VH ≈ 2.589, 17.383. — flowing-haired Achaians: a VE formula; on the long hair of the Achaians, 2.11n. πόλεμόνδε: a compound of the acc. and the enclitic particle -δε (1.54n. s.v. ἀγορήνδε; G 66).

67 ἤτοι: R 24.4. — μέν: emphatic (≈ μήν: R 24.6). — οὐδέ τι: ‘not at all, in no way’. 68 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — μενεαινέμεν: pres. inf. (R 16.4). — ἄγε: in origin, imper. of ἄγω; in combination with an imper. or subjunc., an expression of encouragement: ‘come!’. 69 κάρη: Attic τὸ κάρα (R 2), ‘head’; acc. of respect (R 19.1). — κομόωντας: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

44 

 Iliad 19

70 ≈ 20.352. — Trojans: On the use of this term for the entire force on the Trojan side (including allies), see 2.125–126n., 2.816n. ἔτι καί: points toward an earlier activity that has been interrupted until now, and should here be understood as approximately ‘once more, again’, in contrast to the otherwise common meaning (2.229n.: ‘besides’) (AH; Leaf). — πειρήσομαι: with an object and indirect question, means ‘test whether someone …’ (LfgrE s.v. πειράω). — ἀντίος ἐλθών: a variable VE formula (ἀντίος/-ον ἐλθών/-εῖν/-οι/-ω/ἦλθεν: 10x Il.); ἀντίος means ‘facing, opposite’, usually in combination with intransitive verbs of motion; also frequent in battle situations to denote an attack (‘confront, stand up against’): LfgrE s.v.; Kurz 1966, 125. The transmission vacillates between adverbial ἀντίον and the predicative adjective (app. crit.; schol. A ad loc. and schol. b on 6.54), but adjectival ἀντίος is better attested in comparable passages (2.185, 20.352, also e.g. 11.219, 21.150, 22.113; differently with the infinitive at 7.160 and in the VB formula ἀντίον ἐλθέμεναι, e.g. 17.67).

71a wish to sleep out by the ships: Despite the warnings of Polydamas (CM 9), the Trojans reaffirmed this once more after Hektor’s advice in their assembly (18.245–313, especially 18.254  ff.; cf. Hektor’s earlier demand at 8.497  ff. and the effect this tactic has on the Achaians at 9.230  ff.). Achilleus expects that they will no longer do so after the end of this day of battle (cf. 21.526  ff.).

αἴ κ’ ἐθέλωσ(ι): an indirect question, dependent on πειρήσομαι (AH; Faesi; Kelly 2007, 172); in effect a double question with an implicit second element (‘whether they …, ‹or not›’). For bibliography on this, 1.66–67n.; on ἐθέλω (here ‘desire’) in a threatening, sarcastic tone, LfgrE s.v. 414.51  ff. — ἰαύειν: ‘to pass the night’, as at 18.259, etc.; on the etymology and meaning of the underlying IE root (‘stay, linger, pass the night’), see LfgrE with bibliography; Strunk 1999, 271  ff., especially 272.

71b–73 Achilleus concludes his speech, confident that the opponents will fail in the imminent battle. 71b ἀλλά … οἴω: ἀλλά modifies the content of the preceding sentence (71a) with the following claim (LfgrE s.v. ἀλλά 528.21  ff.). οἴω is here an expression of one’s own superiority (LfgrE s.v. ὀΐω 628.26  ff.; cf. 64n.). — τιν(ά): collective ‘some, many a one’ (cf. Schw. 2.214).

72 2nd VH ≈ 7.118; VE ≈ 7.173. On different forms of the verse that depend on the preceding context, see Clark 1997, 124  f. — rest where they are: Greek góny

70 ὄφρ(α): ‘so that’ (R 22.5). — πειρήσομαι: short vowel aor. mid. subjunc. (Attic deponent pass.); on the form, R 16.3; its object is Τρώων. 71 αἴ κ(ε): αἰ = εἰ (R 22.1), κ(ε) = ἄν (R 24.5). — νηυσίν: on the declension, R 12.1. — οἴω: active with no recognizable difference in meaning from the middle (R 23). 72 αὐτῶν: partitive gen. dependent on τιν(ά) in 71. — φύγησιν: 3rd sing. subjunc. (R 16.3), effective aor. ‘escape’.

Commentary 

 45

kámpsein means ‘to bend the knee’, i.e. to settle down in order to rest after a successful escape, cf. Od. 5.453 (AH; Kirk on 7.117–119; LfgrE s.v. κάμπτω; differently LfgrE s.v. γόνυ 175.38  ff.: of a quick run [‘turn tail’]). ἀσπασίως: a deverbative from ἀσπάζομαι; an analogous formation is θαυμάσιος (from θαῦμα) and θαυμάζω (Frisk and Beekes s.v. ἀσπάζομαι; Risch 114). It literally means ‘in a welcome manner, gladly’; the adverb in the context of flight and escape from battle also at 7.118, 11.327, 18.270 (LfgrE s.v.). — φύγησιν: on the subjunc. ending -ησι (without ι subscr.), West 1998, XXXI. 73 1st VH = 7.119, 7.174, 17.189, 21.422. — δηΐου: used in Homer as an epithet of πῦρ, πόλεμος and ἀνήρ; here likely ‘hostile, destructive’; on the etymology and the development of the meaning, 2.415n. — ἐκ πολέμοιο: 36n. — ὑπ’ ἔγχεος: ‘under the influence of’ (Schw. 2.528; cf. 3.436n., 6.368n.; on the lance, 53n.). — ἡμετέροιο: On the emphatic and metrical function of the pl. possessive pronoun with sing. meaning, see Floyd 1969, 122, 129.

74–76 On the sequence ‘speech capping formulaP – audience reaction – speech introduction formulaP’, see 2.333–335n. with bibliography. 74 1st VH = 3.111. — strong-greaved Achaians: a VE formula; on greaves as military equipment, see 1.17n., 3.330n., 3.331n.

ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἳ δ(έ): a speech capping formulaP (45x Il., 35x Od., 1x Hes. Op., 1x h.Ap.); on the speech capping pattern ‘spoke’ + reaction of the listener/listeners (subject in noun-epithet formula), see 1.33n.; collection of examples of the pattern with a positive reaction in Finkelberg 1989, 182  f. — ἐχάρησαν: denotes an ‘emotional, joyful excitement’, here triggered by Achilleus’ longed-for announcement: Latacz 1966, 56  f., 232; cf. Elmer 2013, 241 n. 18.

75 2nd VH = 17.214, 18.226. — Within the structure of the Iliad, the storyline ‘wrath of Achilleus’ and the parallel storyline ‘pledge of Zeus’ are finally concluded (STR 22 with fig. 2; 34–36n., 35n., 1.488–492n.). — son of Peleus: On designating Achilleus by means of a patronymic, see 1.1n.

μῆνιν … Πηλεΐωνος: a four-word verse with epexegetic function: the cause for the joy is thus highlighted (1.75n.; Bassett 1919, 224). The verse contains echoes of 1.1 (see ad loc.) in word-choice and structure: the thematic word μῆνιν at VB, Achilleus in the gen. at VE, here in a periphrastic denominationP (on μῆνις in reference to Achilleus, see 1.247a n.).  — μῆνιν ἀπειπόντος: on the compound, 35n.; on the gen. absolute, 62n.  — μεγαθύμου Πηλεΐωνος: μεγάθυμος ‘great-hearted, with great passion’ is a generic epithetP (1.123n.; on θυμός, cf. 2.196n.), in reference to Achilleus also at 17.214,

73 πολέμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. — ἔγχεος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 74 ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο, impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), to which ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί is in apposition.

46 

 Iliad 19

18.226, 20.498, 21.153, 23.168, Od. 3.189. The word is here revitalized: on its importance in the context of this passage (the wrath is now directed at Hektor and the Trojans), see Edwards on 17.213–214; Shive 1987, 58  f. and 171 n. 19; on the problem of contextual sensitivity of epithets, see FOR 39.

76–144 Agamemnon tries to win sympathy for his behavior by bringing divine forces into play, and declares his willingness to publicly deliver the promised gifts of atonement to Achilleus. 76 = 3.455, 10.233. — τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπεν: a VB formula (8x Il., 8x Od.); μετ-έϝειπε is a reduplicated thematic aor. from dissimilated *-e-u̯ e-u̯ qu̯ - (Schw. 1.745; Rix [1976] 1992, 216). — ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: 51n.

77 VB ≈ Od. 13.56. — Because of the apparent contradiction with 79  f., this verse was athetized already in antiquity and/or suspected as an interpolation by Aristarchus; the speech introduction at 76 is occasionally transmitted in a different version (e.g. in Zenodotus, see app. crit. on 76  f.). But the verse is well attested, was read thus also by Aristophanes of Byzantium, and was likely imitated by Apollonius Rhodius (Erbse 1960, 54  ff.; Rengakos 1993, 74  f.; West 2001, 252  f.; cf. GT 9–12). The position in which Agamemnon de­livers the speech that follows is disputed: either standing up, as customary for speakers in an assembly (cf. 55, 79; on this custom, Arend 1933, 116  ff.; 1.54n.; 2.278b–279n.; 2.55n.), but near his seat, without stepping forward toward the middle, like Telemachos at Od. 2.37 (thus AH; Faesi; Leaf; Willcock; LfgrE s.v. αὐτόθεν; Erbse 1953, 243  ff.; Kurz 1966, 59  f.), or sitting down (Chantr. 2.99; Mazon 6  ff. n. 1; Edwards on 76–84; West 2001, 252; 2011, 355). His remaining seated during a speech is explained in various ways: (1) because of his injury; cf. 47–53n. (schol. A; Edwards; Reichel 1994, 203); (2) on the assumption that he is talking only to Achilleus and the small circle of leaders (schol. bT; Arend 1933, 118; van der Valk 1963, 582  f.; likewise Kurz 1966, 59  f.; West 2011, 355; similarly Elmer 2013, 127 and 261 n. 32: without ‘standing in the middle’, since this is a private conversation with Achilleus); (3) as a sign of his low regard for Achilleus (Clay 1995, 72  ff.; Lateiner 1995, 55 n. 4, 97  f.; Beck 2005, 223  ff.) or even as a reproach directed at Achilleus, since the latter interrupted him at 1.292  ff. (see ad loc.); cf. 79  f. (Rabel 1991, 109  ff.). (3) Sitting down as a sign of discourtesy would not be commensurate with the situation and would be directed at all those present; (2) is somewhat problematic: the settlement of

76 τοῖσι: on the declension, R 11.2. — μετέειπεν: = μετεῖπεν (↑). 77 αὐτόθεν: on the suffix, R 15.1. — ἕδρης: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. — οὐδ(έ): In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 47

the quarrel takes place publicly before the military assembly (34–36n., 139– 144n.; cf. 175); in contrast, (1) can be reconciled with Agamemnon’s remarks at 79 (79–80n.) and offers further possibilities of interpretation: the indirect reference to his impediment might (a) show that he too has become a victim of the situation (cf. his appearance in the assembly, 51–53n.), and (b) allow for leaving command of the imminent battle to Achilleus without losing face (139n.). For extensive discussion of the issue, and regarding 79, see Edwards on 76–84.

αὐτόθεν … οὐδ(έ) …: a kind of rhetorical polar expressionP (cf. e.g. 1.468n.; Tzamali 1997, 133). — ἐν μέσσοισιν: ‘in their midst’ (LfgrE s.v. μέσ(σ)ος 163.15  ff.).

78–144 In contrast to Achilleus’ opening speech (18 verses), Agamemnon’s reply is significantly longer (67 verses). It consists of two short framing sections (79–84: an appeal for attention, 139–144: a demand addressed to Achilleus) and an extended central section (85–138, cf. 86b–138n.) with an explanation of his behavior and, by granting material compensation, the implicit admission of a mistake (Lohmann 1970, 75–80). The addressees are all the Achaians (78, 83  f., cf. 41  ff.) as witnesses to the public settlement of the quarrel. The explanation is primarily addressed to Achilleus (83), to whose concession Agamemnon must react. But he responds to Achilleus’ main issue – the immediate setting out for battle – only briefly (139). Agamemnon’s behavior is determined by the unpleasant situation of having to admit a mistake, although without losing face; the speech and offer of gifts (137  f., 140–144) thus appear as a somewhat half-hearted apology to Achilleus (Leaf on 85; Edwards on 78–144; Lateiner 1995, 54  f.; Allan/Cairns 2011, 130–133; cf. 51–53n., 139–144n.). 78 = 2.110 (see ad loc.), 6.67, 15.733; 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ fr. 193.6 M.-W. — The wholeverse address is elsewhere used in battle paraeneses (6.67, 15.733; special case 2.110, see ad loc.). Although Agamemnon initially responds to Achilleus’ appeal to summon the army for battle (68  ff.), he lets the issue recede into the background – with the exception of 139. — Danaans: 34n.

ὦ φίλοι: a VB formula (21x Il., 21x Od.). ὦ φίλοι is frequently used as an address for a large group and implies familiarity; in reference to the military assembly in its entirety, as here, at 2.299 (see ad loc.), etc.; on ὦ with voc., 1.442n. — θεράποντες Ἄρηος: cf. 47n.

79–84 Agamemnon indirectly phrases his appeal for calm listening, a kind of captatio benevolentiae, as a general statement in the shape of gnomes: 79–80a a positively and negatively phrased statement, 81–82a a question, 80b and 82b

78 Ἄρηος: on the declension, R 12.4.

48 

 Iliad 19

statements that correspond rhythmically and in terms of content (Ahrens 1937, 32; Lohmann 1970, 76; Lardinois 1997, 227 with n. 64). The substantiation of a statement by means of gnomes is typical of a speaker with a claim to authority (1.274n.). Here the phrasing might indicate that Agamemnon is anxious to claim the authority that befits a man in his position, since at the moment he is weakened both physically and mentally. The somewhat tortuous introduction might also be a sign of nervousness: it likely stems from the fear of noise and interjections in the unusually crowded assembly whose participants – as he well knows (cf. 86a n.) – did not at all approve of his conduct in the confrontation with Achilleus and harbor considerable sympathy for the previous speaker (AH; Leaf on 85; Edwards on 78–84 and 80–82; Hammer 2002, 156; differently Minchin 2007, 231  f.: reaction to the joyous noise produced by the Achaians). In addition, 79  f. may contain an allusion to the last encounter between Achilleus and himself in the assembly described in Book 1 (1.292 [see ad loc.]), during which Achilleus interrupted him in a breach of the etiquette of the agorḗ (Greek hybbállein) (Leaf; Edwards on 76–84). Cf. also Agamemnon’s loss of authority in the assembly of Book 2, during which Odysseus eventually had to call for order (2.182–335; on this, 2.42–47n., 2.139–141n., 2.186–187n.), as well as the course of the action of the Iliad in general (1.150n.). – That no speaker is interrupted is a major rule for an assembly’s success; calls for listening calmly are therefore frequent (e.g. 2.280–282, 3.86, 7.67, 8.5; further examples in Wille 2001, 89  f.; on order in the assembly, Hölkeskamp 2002, 312  f.). 79–80  79  f. (especially 79a) reflect the ideal case: the speaker, standing up in accord with common convention, is entitled to (and receives) undivided attention: on terms for what is appropriate according to ‘common opinion’ (Greek kalón and éoiken), see 1.119n.; LfgrE s.v. καλός 1312.33  ff.; Yamagata 1994, 230. Agamemnon may thus also be hinting at the contrast, disadvantageous to himself, between Achilleus, who spoke while standing, and he himself, who was wounded in battle and is thus weakened (and likely sitting down) (Edwards on 76–84; Heath 2005, 127; cf. 77n.). ἑσταότος μέν: μέν prepares for δ(έ) at 81; the meaning is probably approximately: ‘when one is standing (as Achilleus was), everyone listens, but when one is sitting (as I am), it is difficult to make one’s voice heard before a great crowd’, particularly given the

79 ἑσταότος: = Attic ἑστῶτος, perf. of ἵσταμαι (cf. R 6); object of ἀκουέμεν. — καλόν: sc. ἐστι. — ἀκουέμεν: pres. inf. (R 16.4). — οὐδὲ (ϝ)έ(ϝ)οικεν: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οὐδέ: ‘and not at all’; in Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 80 ὑββάλλειν: =  ὑποβάλλειν (cf. R 20.1), ‘interrupt’. — χαλεπόν: sc. ἐστι, ‘it (i.e. ὑββάλλειν) is troublesome, tiresome’. — περ: concessive (R 24.10). — ἐόντι: = ὄντι (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 49

audience’s reaction to the preceding speech (Edwards on 76–84 and 80–82). — οὐδὲ ἔοικεν: a VE formula (5x Il., 5x Od.). — ὑββάλλειν: The compound occurs only here with the meaning ‘to interrupt (a speaker)’ (LfgrE s.v. βάλλω 35.35  ff.; cf. ὑποβλήδην 1.292n.), differently at Od. 10.353 (‘put beneath’). — ἐπισταμένῳ περ ἐόντι: an adjectival use of the participle ἐπιστάμενος ‘versed, experienced’ (adverb at 7.317) with a predicative function (LfgrE s.v. ἐπίσταμαι; Schw. 2.408; Chantr. 2.321); the dative is the v.l. of Aristarchus; the acc. found in the main tradition is interpreted as part of an incomplete acc.inf. construction (Faesi; Leaf with reference to 16.620; van der Valk 1963, 582 n. 111).

81–82  81  f. reflect Agamemnon’s situation: obstruction by noise, and consequently the fear of being unable to make himself heard as a speaker (Martin 1989, 117; Dickson 1995, 27). Remarkably, Agamemnon at first speaks from the point of view of a listener (81): an indirect appeal to those present to listen to his explanation. ὁμάδῳ: As at 2.96, this denotes noise and the buzz of the voices of the assembled crowd, elsewhere mostly the noise and tumult of the fray of battle (LfgrE; Krapp 1964, 12; Kaimio 1977, 79). 82 2nd VH = 2.246 (see ad loc.); ≈ 1.248, 4.293, Od. 20.274. — βλάβεται: an old thematic root present, as also at 166, Od. 13.34, beside βλάπτ-, the pres.-stem with suffix (Schw. 1.685, 704; Hoekstra on Od. 13.34). In Homer, the medio-pass. βλάπτομαι often means ‘trip, lose one’s footing’, here applied to interrupted speech: the voice no longer cuts through the noise; cf. λιγύς περ … (AH; LfgrE s.v. βλάβομαι with reference to ἐπιτροχάδην of the quick flow of words [3.213n.]). — λιγύς περ ἐὼν ἀγορητής: λιγύς (‘speaking in clear tones, resonant’) is a positive characterization of a speaker based on his clearly audible voice (1.248n., 3.151–152n.).

83 I shall address the son of Peleus: With the exception of 139–144, Agamemnon only speaks of Achilleus in the third person (likewise at 89, 188  f., 194  f.; differently Achilleus, see 56–64n.; on the patronymic, 1.1n.), nor will he reply directly to any of Achilleus’ speeches until the end of the Iliad. Agamemnon’s detachment was already revealed on the occasion of the embassy in Book 9; he avoided calling Achilleus by name (9.118–161, cf. Hainsworth on 9.118). The narrator may thus be illustrating the estrangement between the quarrelling parties, and particularly Agamemnon’s inability to directly confront Achilleus, which the latter had already observed at 9.372  f. (Lohmann 1970, 76 n. 133; Edwards). This demeanor corresponds to the entire tenor of Agamemnon’s speeches and actions in this assembly: they are not aimed primarily at Achilleus but at the military assembly as a whole (Taplin 1992, 206; cf. 139–144n., 238–276n.).

81 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 82 ἢ (ϝ)είποι: on the prosody, R 4.4. 83 ἐγών (before a vowel): = ἐγώ. — αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2).

50 

 Iliad 19

ἐνδείξομαι: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘declare oneself to someone, turn to someone’, similarly δείξατο h.Merc. 367 (LfgrE s.v. δείκνυμι), Hdt. 8.141.2, clarified by τὴν ἑωυτῶν γνώμην (Leaf); on its signaling function, Christensen 2010, 554  f. — αὐτὰρ οἱ ἄλλοι: a VE formula (6.402, Od. 8.40), cf. 15n.; οἱ ἄλλοι is to be connected with the vocative Ἀργεῖοι, cf. 11.75, Od. 8.40–42 (Schw. 2.63; Chantr. 2.36 n. 3; Basset 2006, 117).

84 Argives: On this designation for the ‘Greeks’, see 2.79n.

σύνθεσθ’ … τ’ εὖ γνῶτε: a demand for attention, intensified by connecting terms of similar meaning, that precedes the main statement at 86  ff.: σύνθεσθε ‘listen well, give hear to!’ (Willcock: “pay attention!”; cf. 1.76n.), εὖ γνῶτε ‘mark well!’ (AH: ‘understand precisely!’). Similar to a synonym doubling (on this, 1.160n., 2.39n.), this implies mental reception alongside acoustic reception (Snell 1978, 44); cf. 2.26n. (emphasizing the mental: Snell 1924, 27 [identification of the train of thought] and LfgrE s.v. γιγνώσκω 159.34  ff. [recognition of veracity]).

85 Agamemnon refers loosely to Achilleus’ comments regarding the quarrel’s devastating consequences for the Achaian army (56–58, 61–63, cf. 56–64n.), but remains vague: he appears to be taken by surprise by Achilleus’s course of action, as well as embarrassed by the need to explain himself in front of the military assembly (Leaf). μῦθον ἔειπον: a VE formula (1.552n.); on the form ἔειπον, 76n.

86a found fault with me: The narrator makes clear that Agamemnon was criticized repeatedly (85 ‘often’, 86 Greek iterative form) by the Achaians vis-à-vis his behavior and his actions in the quarrel with Achilleus (internal completive analepsisP; cf. Myrmidons  – Achilleus 16.202). Thersites did so at 2.239  f. in an abusive tone (2.221–222a n., 2.225–242n.), but Nestor too uttered criticism: cautiously at 1.254–284 (see ad loc.) and in no uncertain terms at 9.108–111. The general resentment toward Agamemnon is mentioned at 13.108–113 and 14.49–51 (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 122  f.).

καί τε: expresses a climax (1.521n.). — νεικείεσκον: ‘scold, abuse’, here probably ‘criticize’ (LfgrE s.v. νεικέ(ί)ω; Edwards on 85–86: ‘kept finding fault with’).

86b–138 Agamemnon prefaces his offer of compensation and his explanation for what has come to pass with a terse statement that the fault for the whole affair is not to be sought with him, and justifies that insistence with the claim, typical for him (86b–88n.), that he fell victim to divine forces (86b–88 and 136  f.). In his reflections on what occurred (section A: 86b–94 / A’: 134–137), Agamemnon embeds a myth of Zeus as a victim of delusion (section B: 95–133)

84 σύνθεσθ(ε): aor. imp. of συντίθεσθαι. — γνῶτε (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3. 85 ἔειπον: = εἶπον. 86 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — νεικείεσκον: iterative (-σκ-: R 16.5); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 51

in order to gain sympathy for his conduct (ring-compositionP; paradeigmaP with argument functionP; Alden 2000, 30–37, especially 36  f.; on exempla-narratives in the Iliad in general, Grethlein 2006, 46–63; 2012, 18  f.; Scodel 2008, 118–121). The aetiological narrative of the banning of Ate, personified ‘Delusion’ (CG 38), from Olympus is supposed to explain how delusion/ Delusion entered the world and thus also how the rift between Achilleus and himself could come about (Priess 1977, 78, 188; Held 1987, 256; Davies 1995, 5  f.). The links between Agamemnon and Zeus are brought out by the parallel structure of the two sections: (A) Agamemnon: a Delusion caused by Zeus, Moira (Destiny) and Erinys (86b–88) b point of time (89) c conclusion from events not portrayed here: impotence in the face of divine power (90) d aition: Ate’s workings among humans (91–94) (B) Zeus: a’ Zeus’ delusion and Hera’s ploy (95–97) b’ point of time (98–99) c’ Zeus’ delusional actions and their consequences (100–125) d’ aition: Ate’s banishment and fall from Olympus to down among human beings (126–131) e’ Zeus’ lamenting of Ate in light of Herakles’ fate (132–133) (A’) Agamemnon: e Agamemnon’s realization of his delusion in light of Achaian casualties (134–137).

This clear structure counters doubts expressed in older commentaries on Homer (e.g. AH) regarding the meaning and authenticity of this section, as well as various suggestions for athetesis. Thorough discussion and further bibliography in Edwards on 85–138 and 95–133; Dodds 1951, 1–27; Lohmann 1970, 75–80; van Erp 1971, 57–60; Schmitt 1990, 85–89; Taplin 1992, 206–209; Davies 1995; Sarischoulis 2008, 46–54; Cairns 2012, 14  ff.; Dentice 2012, 226–229 (with emphasis on the rhetorical qualities of the speech); cf. 95–133n. 86b–88 It is characteristic of Agamemnon that here, as earlier (2.111–115n., 2.375– 380n., 8.236  ff., 9.18  ff.), he attributes his conduct to the influence of Zeus. But the gods usually induce human beings to perform actions they are otherwise disposed toward (on the present case: 88n., 89n.): cf. double motivationP; 1.55n., 1.188–222n., 2.169–171n.; on the issue of individual responsibility in Homer in general, see Schmitt 1990, 100–110. — yet I am not responsible | but Zeus is, and …: Despite this statement, Agamemnon cannot and does not want to evade all responsibility, since he has recognized his wrongdoing

52 

 Iliad 19

(2.375–380 [see ad loc.], 9.115–119, 19.89) and is accordingly prepared to give satisfaction (137  f.); the qualifying references to higher powers are an attempt to save face and win sympathy from the army (Edwards on 85–138; Willcock; Kullmann 1956, 110  f.; Adkins 1960, 50–52; Lesky [1961] 1999, 398  ff.; LloydJones [1971] 1983, 22  f.; Schmitt 1990, 87  f.; Taplin 1990, 75  ff.; Williams 1993, 52  ff.; Teffeteller 2003, 17  ff.; Rinon 2008, 78–80; Sarischoulis 2008a, 55–61; Scodel 2008, 118–120; Collobert 2011, 116  f.; Versnel 2011, 163–179 [especially 169  f.]). Agamemnon also attempts to render his hostile action against Achilleus less harsh; cf. the latter’s reaction at 270  ff. (van Wees 1992, 113, 362 n. 110). – That gods are regarded as originators of evil can also be seen at 409  f. (Achilleus’ death), 3.164  f. (Trojan War; on Helen’s acknowledgement of her culpability, see 3.164–165n.), 13.222  ff. (Achaian defeat), etc. (cf. also 6.357–358n.). 86b αἴτιος: ‘who has done something (to someone)’; denotes the author of a particular evil, in the first instance without moral evaluation; with a negation it frequently specifies one who deserves no blame (1.153n.; LfgrE).

87 a verse constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ and consisting of three personal names, with the third expanded by an epithetP (on the IE origin of this stylistic device, 1.145n.; West 2004; 2007, 117–119; examples and bibliography on triple combinations of deities, 2.478–479n.). This enumeration of divine predominance, in contrast to 95–97 (Zeus had only Hera to deal with, albeit with one of her subterfuges), serves in particular to gain the audience’s sympathy (Lohmann 1970, 78 with n. 135, 199; Erbse 1986, 14; Versnel 2011, 170–174). — Destiny: The divine force that allocates a fate to all human beings (Greek móira, literally ‘[apportioned] share’: Risch 137; Frisk, Beekes s.v. μείρομαι); it is manifested either as an immutable course of events, as here, or as the fate of death (409  f.; Erbse 1986, 275  f.; BNP, KlP and HE s.v.; on personifications, cf. CG 29; Dietrich 1965, 203; on the concept of fate in the Iliad, 2.155n.). — Erinys the mist-walking: This characterization points to her unexpected, often eerie appearance: Erinys punishes violations of the elemental order and can bring delusion to human beings, as here and at Od. 15.234. Elsewhere in Homer, she generally occurs as a collective (cf. 259n.), and as an individual deity only here in the enumeration beside Zeus and Moira, at 9.571 (myth of Meleagros), Od. 15.234 (episode involving the seer Melampus) and ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.9 M.-W. (CG 13; Heubeck 1986, 155  f.; Johnston 1999, 141  f.). Moira and Erinys, who frequently occur together, especially in post-Homeric literature, are the guarantors of divine order together with Zeus (Dietrich 1965, 91  ff., 203  f.; Dodds 1951, 7  f.; Erbse 1986, 14). Agamemnon offers no reason for their interference. The naming of the three divine forces is thus largely an attempt to gain sympathy among the audience: he was powerless against them

Commentary 

 53

(cf. also 90 [see ad loc.]). It is nonetheless noteworthy that Erinys is mentioned here. In the context of the quarrel, her appearance may perhaps be explained via a possible etymological connection with Greek éris (‘strife’) (see below), but she is primarily seen as the avenger of wrongdoing. Agamemnon’s mention of her may thus be taken as an expression of a certain sense of guilt (cf. 86b– 88n.) – or perhaps merely as a covert pointer by the narrator toward the background of Agamemnon’s delusion: according to the story told by Phoinix in Book 9 (9.502–512), those who disregard the Litaí (‘pleas’) are punished with Ate (‘delusion’); and the Iliad began with Agamemnon dishonoring the priest Chyses and brusquely rejecting his plea for the return of his daughter (1.11n., 1.17–21n., 1.26–32n.); his quarrel with Achilleus was thus an indirect consequence of this misconduct (somewhat differently, West 2011, 355: associative link with 9.504  ff. and 9.571). ἠεροφοῖτις: a distinctive epithetP of Erinys (likewise at 9.571), feminine of a nomen agentis in -της (Risch 142; Heubeck 1986, 160  f.), probably meaning something like ‘she who comes clothed in ἀήρ (literally mist)’, i.e. ‘who comes unseen’ (schol. D: ἡ διὰ τοῦ σκότους φοιτῶσα, ἡ ἀόρατος; Dietrich 1965, 204; LfgrE s.v.; Hainsworth on 9.571; Beekes s.v. φοιτάω). On the transmitted variants, particularly εἰαροπῶτις (schol. T; Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v. ἔαρ), and the post-Homeric image of the ‘blood-drinking’ Erinys, see Hainsworth loc. cit.; van der Valk 1963, 457; Rengakos 1993, 147  f.; Johnston 1999, 141 with n. 48. — Ἐρινύς: a theonym attested already in the Mycenaean period (MYC s.v.), with an uncertain etymology; possibly a compound of ἔρι- ‘strife’ and a final element related to the verbal root *sneh1- ‘spin’ (*eri-snh1-u- ‘turning/spinning quarrels’): Neumann 1986, 48  f.; on the root, LIV 571  f.; contra: Beekes s.v. Ἐρινύς.

88 in assembly: The assembly in question is that in Book 1 (1.54  ff., esp. 1.103  ff.). — delusion (Greek átē): induces human beings to act foolishly with catastrophic consequences and causes them to overlook the possible effects of their actions. This explanation for retrospectively incomprehensible conduct is frequently offered by the charactersP themselves (1.412n. with bibliography; Edwards on 85–138; HE s.v. Ate). At the same time, Agamemnon’s behavior is ascribed to delusion by others as well (Achilleus: 1.411  f., 19.270  ff., similarly 9.377; Patroklos: 16.273  f.), but by Agamemnon himself only in a moment of great hopelessness at 9.115  ff., without recognizing the depth of the conflict; cf. 9.158  ff. (Hainsworth on Il. 9.116; Hershkowitz 1998, 129  ff.; on the core of the conflict, 1.173–187n.). An earlier insight into his own misconduct remained entirely without consequences (2.375–380n.). From the beginning, the Iliad

88 μοι  … φρεσὶν: σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος, here in the dat. (cf. R 19.1). — εἰν: =  ἐν (R 20.1). — ἀγορῇ: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. — ἄγριον: here a two-termination adj., referring to ἄτην.

54 

 Iliad 19

makes it clear that Agamemnon is prone to misjudging situations and may thus easily fall prey to delusion (1.139n., 1.175n., 1.343n., 2.26b–27n., 2.36–40n., 2.38n., 2.73–75n., 2.111–115n., 2.142–154n., 2.411–420n.; Schmitt 1990, 88, 262 n. 285). φρεσίν: beside θυμός (9.537, 11.340, Od. 23.223), a seat of mental processes upon which ἄτη acts (16.805, Od. 15.233  f., 21.301  f.; cf. Il. 9.119), thus also in the eruption of the quarrel at 1.103  ff. in a moment of violent agitation (Sullivan 1988, 151; on the interchangeability of soul/spirit lexemes, 1.24n.). — ἔμβαλον: often used in reference to divine impulses, elsewhere frequently with the objects μένος (5.513 etc.) and σθένος (e.g. 11.11) or emotions such as fear, joy, etc. (Porzig 1942, 112; Kullmann 1956, 73  f.; Kloss 1994, 49; on divine impulses in general, 2.451b–452n.). — ἄγριον: ‘wild, untamed’ (here, as normally, a two-termination adj.; the feminine form only at Od. 9.119). It serves to chracterize wild animals, warriors (6.97n.) and dangerous creatures such as giants, the Cyclops, Skylla and others, in addition to anger (χόλος), aggression (μένος) and forces that cannot be controlled (Il. 17.398 battle fray, 17.737 fire); here it denotes ἄτη’s irrepressibility and uncontrollability (LfgrE s.v. ἄγριος; Kastner 1967, 24).

89 I myself stripped from him the prize of Achilleus: Agamemnon confesses to the high-handed behavior (Greek autós: AH; Leaf; Scodel 1999, 74) he confidently and menacingly announced at 1.184  f. and 324  f. (on the actual execution of these actions, 1.318b–325n., 1.356n.). In contrast to Achilleus at 56  ff., he explicitly mentions the cause of the quarrel, the main point of his deluded action. References to the seizure of the gift of honor have previously been repeated in the manner of a leitmotif, and on occasion it has been called to mind with literal echoes (1.356 [with n.], 430, 507, 2.240, 9.107, 111, 131, 273, 344): Lohmann 1970, 227; van Wees 1992, 309. — prize of Achilleus: Having had to return his own gift of honor, Agamemnon attempted to obtain a replacement by seizing this gift (cf. 57n.). This revealed maladroitness in attempting to save face and defend both his status and his property (cf. 1.118–129n., 1.119n., 1.275–284n.).

ἤματι τῷ, ὅτ(ε): 60n. — Ἀχιλλῆος: either an ablatival genitive with ἀπηύρων, as at 1.430 (see ad loc.), Od. 18.273 τῆς … ὄλβον ἀπηύρα (Faesi; LfgrE s.v. ἀπηύρων 1022.41  f.; cf. K.-G. 1.328), or a attribute of γέρας in the genitive (AH). — ἀπηύρων: always in the 1st pers. sing. at VE (also 9.131, 23.560, 808, Od. 13.132), in the 3rd pers. pl. before caesura C 2 (Il. 1.430, ‘Hes.’ fr. 10(a).57 M.-W.). Root aorist of a defective verb (‘I took away’), formed like an imperfect of *ἀπαυράω or *ἀπευράω (but cf. aor. act. part. ἀπούρας < *ἀπόϝρᾱς 1.356n.).; details of the development of the form are disputed (LfgrE s.v. ἀπηύρων with bibliography; Untermann on Il. 16.828).

89 ἤματι τῷ, ὅτ(ε): 60n. — Ἀχιλλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.

Commentary 

 55

90 VE = 18.328; ≈ Od. 3.62. — Yet what could I do?: Agamemnon suggests that, given the superiority of divine power, it was impossible for him to act differently (cf. 137: Zeus’ intervention). κε: on the form without ny ephelkystikon, West 1998, XXVI. — θεὸς … τελευτᾷ: Identification of θεός and the punctuation at VE are disputed: (1) θεός is the same as Ἄτη in 91 (hence the comma at VE in West; cf. LfgrE s.v. πρέσβυς), and the statement is a transition to the first explanatory section (d) (Ate’s effects on human beings: 86b–138n.): Ahrens 1937, 32; Labarbe 1949, 219  f. with reference to Plat. Symp. 195d (Ὅμηρος γὰρ Ἄτην θεόν τέ φησιν εἶναι καὶ ἁπαλήν …, citing 19.92  f.); Dietrich 1965, 203 n. 2; Erbse 1986, 15; Heitsch (2000) 2001, 48 n. 42; Davies 2006, 586  f. (2) θεός refers to 87, and the statement conclusively summarizes 86b–89 (full-stop at VE, thus schol. A, bT on 90–91): Leaf (‘divine power, is not to be taken as identical with Ate’); AH (‘generalizing: the deity’ [transl.]); West 2011, 355 (‘unspecific’); Versnel 2011, 176–178 (retrospective: Zeus, Moira and Erinys; prospective: Ate); somewhat differently Edwards on 89–90 (reference to 18.328: subject Ζεύς); LfgrE s.v. θεός 1004.72 (‘sc. Zeus’); Tsagarakis 1977, 80. (1) could be contradicted by the fact that technically Ate is a mere tool of Zeus and other divine forces (88) and can hardly be interpreted as the divinity who ‘accomplishes all things’; compare to that relevant statements concerning Zeus: e.g. 18.328, Od. 4.237. In the case of (2), 91 reprises the statement from 87  f., with an asyndetic introduction to the aetiological narrative, and elaborates it further after 90b: Zeus’ tool is his own daughter (nominal clause with Ἄτη as subject and πρέσβα … θυγάτηρ predicative; cf. AH; Faesi; on the explanatory function of the asyndetic clause, K.-G. 2.344; Schw. 2.701; Maehler 2000, 421  f.; cf. 1.105n.). — διὰ … τελευτᾷ: tmesis of a compound, attested here only, with the meaning ‘perform, bring to completion’ (Ebeling s.v. διά; AH; Leaf; Chantr. 2.95; LfgrE s.v. τελευτάω).

91–94 Soft feet, her lack of contact with the ground, and her residence in the region of the head all symbolize the nature of Ate, the personification (CG 28) of ‘delusion’ (1.412n. with bibliography; BNP s.v.): she approaches humans unnoticed and affects them via ‘osmosis’; her corporeality remains entirely vague in what follows – with the exception of 126 (schol. bT on 92; AH; Leaf; Edwards on 92–94; Stallmach 1968, 84–88; Erbse 1986, 12  f.; Burkert 2003, 177  f.). Phoinix’ narrative in the course of the embassy in Book 9 stresses other characteristics (9.502–512): speed, strength and the contrast with other daughters of Zeus, namely the ‘Pleas’ (Litaí), disregard of whom is punished by Zeus via Ate (Fränkel [1951] 1962, 69  f.; Padel 1995, 181  f.). In Hesiod (Th. 230), she appears among the descendants of Eris (‘strife’) beside Dysnomíē (LfgrE s.v.:

90 τί κε (ϝ)ρέξαιμι: past potential (on κε R 24.5); on the prosody, R 4.5. — διὰ … τε-λευτᾷ: socalled tmesis (R 20.2).

56 

 Iliad 19

‘Lawlessness’, i.e. a degraded condition of basic social norms); on post-Homeric Ate, Stallmach loc. cit. 89–91; Padel loc. cit. 189  ff. 91 2nd VH ≈ 129, 136. — For filling an entire verse with the epithets of a character significant for the subsequent narrative, cf. 1.36n. — [elder] venerable daughter of Zeus: emphasizes her power (Fränkel [1951] 1962, 70); Greek Diós thygátēr (‘Zeus-daughter’) is formulaic (3.374n.; before caesura B 1: 3x Il., 3x Od., 1x Hes.); for this expression in IE poetic language, Schmitt 1967, 171  f.; West 2007, 186. πρέσβα: in the Iliad, only an epithet of θεά or θυγάτηρ in apposition to a divine name; aside from here also in formulaic whole-verse denominations of Hera as a daughter of Kronos (5.721, 8.383, 14.194, 14.243) and at Od. 3.452 of Nestor’s wife Eurydike. The word means ‘venerable’, perhaps in reference to rank and dignity in the case of the goddesses (LfgrE s.v.; cf. schol. bT; the use of γέρον as an address with a positive connotation [see 1.26n.] is analogous); the meaning ‘eldest’ (Od. 3.452 πρέσβα … θυγατρῶν with AH and West ad loc., cf. Il. 4.59 on Hera) may be heard here as well (Edwards; Janko on 14.194–197; Padel 1995, 182). — ἀᾶται: Forms of the verb are interspersed in the manner of a motif throughout Agamemnon’s explanation (91  ἀᾶται, 95 ἄσατο, 113 ἀάσθη, 129 ἀᾶται, 136 ἀάσθην, 137 ἀασάμην). – Only this form of the present tense is attested (thematic *ἀϝά-εται): here and at 129 in a relative clause that explains the divine name (*Ἀϝάτη) and describes the nature of the goddess (LfgrE s.vv. ἀάτη, ἀάω 11.56  ff., 11  f.77  ff.; Edwards on 88; on the stylistic figure, 1.238n., 2.197n., 2.212–213n.; on the implicit interpretation of the name [cf. etymologizingP], see Rank 1951, 41; Fehling 1969, 261  f.); Kanavou 2015, 23–25; a secondary formation related to the sigmatic aor. *ἄϝασα/*ἀϝασάμην (Frisk s.v. ἀάω; Schw. 1.682; Nussbaum 1998, 27–31) with transitive-causative meaning ‘cause someone to act in a deluded manner’, in contrast to the forms of the aor. mid. (cf. LfgrE s.v. ἀάω; Jankuhn 1969, 50). 92 οὐλομένη: ‘in the manner of an exclamation’ (AH [transl.], cf. Leaf); as at 1.2 (see ad loc.), emphasized by its position at VB in progressive enjambmentP (Higbie 1990, 109 and 149 n. 41). On the meaning of the participle (‘accursed’; aside from 1.2 and Od. 10.394, character languageP vocabulary in Homer), see 1.2n. — μέν: prepares for κατὰ δ’ οὖν … ἐπέδησεν in 94 (AH): a contrast between gentle appearance and powerful effect; the etymologically related words πόδες and ἐπέδησεν suggest a connection in terms of content (DELG, Frisk, Beekes s.v. πέδη; cf. 94n.). — ἁπαλοὶ πόδες: The phrase ‘delicate feet’ is elsewhere used only of the feet of girls (Hes. Th. 3, h.Cer. 287) and of the new-born Hermes (h.Merc. 273); ἁπαλός elsewhere in Homer is an epithet of other body parts, e.g.

91 πρέσβα: fem. of πρέσβυς ‘venerable’. 92–93 οὐλομένη: initial syllable is metrically lengthened (R 10.1); from ὄλλυμαι. — τῇ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17 (likewise 93 ἥ). — θ’: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἐπ(ὶ) … | πίλναται: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — οὔδει: cf. 61n. — ἄρα: ‘indeed’ (R 24.1). — κράατα: acc. pl. of κάρη ‘head’ (↑, cf. 69n.).

Commentary 

 57

δειρή (3.371, 13.202, 18.177, 19.285), αὐχήν (17.49, 22.327, Od. 22.16), παρειή (Il. 18.123), ἦτορ (11.115), χείρ (Od. 21.151) (LfgrE). Contrast Il. 9.505 Ἄτη  … ἀρτίπος ‘with straight feet/legs’. 93 πίλναται: means ‘come into contact with, touch’, with the dative χθονί/οὔδει also ‘touch the ground’ (LfgrE s.v. πελάζω 1122.18  ff.); on the verbal stem πιλνα-, G 61; on the dat. of direction, Schw. 2.142; Chantr. 2.68. — ἄρα ἥ: additional examples with hiatus before the 3rd metron in Führer/­Schmidt 2001, 27 n. 166 (cf. 2.87n.); attempts at emendation: app. crit. — κατ’ ἀνδρῶν κράατα βαίνει: κατά denotes a horizontal extent ‘across, through’, as also with groups of people (Schw. 2.476; cf. 3.217n., 1.10n. [ἀνὰ στρατόν]); the phrase describes Ate’s field of action, comparable to that of Eris at 4.443–445 (ἐπὶ χθονὶ βαίνει. | … | ἐρχομένη καθ’ ὅμιλον), thus likely ‘above the heads’ (AH; Willcock; LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 18.70  f.; differently RE s.v. Ate 1899.29  ff.: ‘in the heads’, cf. schol. bT). – κράατα: a less common (also 14.177 κράατος, Od. 22.218 κράατι), possibly older (Aeolic) form (cf. DMic s.v. ka-ra-a-pi) beside the more frequent κάρηνα (cf. Rix [1976] 1992, 73; Janko on 14.175–177; further bibliography: LfgrE s.v. κάρη).

94 1st VH =  9.507 (likewise of Ate). — The verse forms the hinge between the aetiology and the myth of Zeus’ delusion, and describes the effect of Ate: the person concerned has their flexibility restrained, i.e. becomes unable to break free from a pattern of behavior or action. βλάπτουσ(α): ‘harm’, in connection with movement also ‘trip, make stumble’ (e.g. at 7.271 βλάψε … γούναθ(α), 23.782 μ’ ἔβλαψε θεὰ πόδας), thus also with the sense ‘confuse, deceive’, occasionally clarified by the object φρένας (15.724, Od. 14.178; on φρένας, 1.115n.), with Ate as agent also at 9.507/512, likewise Zeus, Apollo or wine (LfgrE s.v.). — κατὰ δ’ οὖν ἕτερόν γ’ ἐπέδησεν: The particle combination δ’ οὖν occurs only here in Homer, but is common in Hdt. and Attic Greek (Denniston 460), where οὖν is frequently used with gnomic aorists, in the case of compound verbs especially between preverb and verb, as here (Wackernagel [1924] 2009, 616). ἕτερος is frequently emphasized by γε (LfgrE s.v. ἕτερος 757.6  f.; another solution, considered by Ruijgh 672: οὖν is to be linked with following γ(ε), comparable with γοῦν). – As a rule, ἕτερος denotes one of two; it denotes the other one, in the sense ‘an additional one’, only rarely in Homer and almost exclusively in enumerations (LfgrE s.v.). Given the occasion for the speech – the settlement of a quarrel – several possible interpretations exist (Edwards on 92–94): (1) one of two opponents in a dispute, in this context either Agamemnon or Achilleus (schol. bT; AH; Faesi; Leaf with reference to 5.258; Willcock; LfgrE s.v. 757.13  f.: ‘at least the one’; Roemer 1912, 138), but on this cf. AH (transl.): ‘a relationship that is not obvious, however, given the general depiction of Ate in what precedes’; (2) ‘‹also› one other ‹than me›’, sc. Zeus, as a transition to the following myth (Roemer loc. cit. 139 n. 1; schol. bT and Erbse on schol. 94 a; LfgrE s.v. πεδάω; Davies 2006, 583 with n. 9 with reference to verse 134: ‘I am not alone’ ~ ‘I as well’, as a variation of the motif ‘you are not

94 κατὰ … ἐπέδησεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

58 

 Iliad 19

alone in suffering this’ from consolation literature). If κατὰ δ’ οὖν … ἐπέδησεν is read as a gnomic aor. (thus Schw. 2.283; Chantr. 2.185; AH; Willcock), ἕτερον is undefined and only implicitly present in reference to Zeus (cf. Edwards: ‘Zeus’s entrapment too is already in mind’). On the unjustified athetesis of the verse by ancient commentators, see Lührs 1992, 64  ff.  – πεδάω originally means ‘bind, shackle the feet’ (denominative from πέδη) and is subsequently used metaphorically in the sense ‘tie up, enmesh’, usually with a deity or μοῖρα as agent (4.517, 13.435 etc.): LfgrE s.v.; on the similar use of δέω, 2.111n.; on the issue of the augment, West 1998, XXVIf.; Führer/­Schmidt 2001, 22; cf. G 85.

95–133 The parallels between the behavior of the ruler of the gods and the top Achaian military leader illustrate how Agamemnon uses the narrative of Zeus and Ate (external analepsisP) to reflect on his own conduct (Reinhardt 1961, 19): a proud appearance and a demonstration of power (19.100–105 / 1.106–120, 1.131–139, 1.287–291); both are or perceive themselves to be attacked (19.107 / 1.133  f.), and are driven to rash action without considering the consequences (19.112  f.: oath / 1.173–187, 1.318–326: seizure of the gift of honor); the opponent reacts with grave consequences (19.118–124: Hera’s intervention in the order of birth / 1.223–19.73: Achilleus’ boycott of battle) that will be suffered by others (19.132  f.: Herakles / 1.409–412, 19.134  f.: the Achaians). But there is a significant difference between the human and divine levels: Zeus can remove Ate from his environment (19.126  ff.); on this, Hebel 1970, 106  f.; Schmitt 1990, 87  ff. On the characterP-level, the comparison with the supreme god, who also fell victim to Ate (cf. 95  f., 134), serves to plead for sympathy from the audience (a conclusion a maiore ad minus; argument functionP: 86b–138n.). At the same time, this also shows that Agamemnon (1) fails to realize that Zeus does not come off particularly well and (2), like Zeus, has no sense of how ridiculous a boastful demeanor is (cf. 100n., 101n.). The narrator thus provides a further example of Agamemon’s lack of judgment (cf. 88n.) and his predilection for excuses (cf. 86b–88n.). The comparison with Zeus (esp. at 134) may therefore also be read as indicating Agamemnon’s inflated sense of self-importance (key functionP: schol. bT on 95; Austin 1975, 125  f.; Andersen 1987, 6  f.). Another parallel with Agamenon can be seen in part in the myth of Herakles, in this instance with Eurystheus (both are rulers of Mycenae: CM 2; 116n., 123n.), since the core of the confrontation between Agamemnon and Achilleus  – a social hierarchy based on god-given power rather than personal achievement (1.173–187n., 1.226–230n., 2.761–779n.)  – is present in the myth of Herakles as well, and since Achilleus compares himself to Herakles at 18.117–121 (Davidson 1980, 200; Lowenstam 1993, 64 with n. 12, 110  f.; cautiously Edwards on 85–138; on the comparison Achilleus – Herakles in general, see Galinsky 1972, 14  f.; Schein 1984, 134; on Herakles, CM 6; BNP s.v.; on stray allusions to the myth

Commentary 

 59

of Herakles in the Iliad, see 133n.; on allusions to myth cycles outside the story of Troy and their function in the Iliad in general, see Schwinge 1991, 497  f. with bibliography; collection of examples in Burgess 2001, 209 n. 1). – It is unclear to what extent the story told here was dictated by tradition or was an ad hoc invention by the poet of the Iliad for the sake of the Zeus-Agamemnon parallel (Scodel 2002, 150); on additional possible inventions of this type, see 1.262–270n., 1.396–406n., 6.218–221n., 24.599–620n. section (2). It thus remains open to question (1) whether Ate is a Homeric creation, a so-called ad hoc personification (CG 31) (thus Erbse 1986, 11–14); via Ate’s connection with Hera’s delay of the birth of Herakles, which is missing e.g. in the complete account of the myth of Herakles in Diodorus Siculus (4.9.4  f.), Agamemnon is made to articulate a parallel with his own ‘delusion’, although one in which Hera plays the actual lead (Kullmann 1956, 26; de Jong [1987] 2004, 172  f.; cautiously Edwards on 95–133; Willcock [1964] 2001, 443  f. and 1977, 44 with n. 16: Ate’s fall from Olympus is a Homeric invention); and (2) whether the myth of the birth itself is a set part of the myth of Herakles (Kullmann loc. cit. 25  f.) or is an entirely Homeric invention that in this fashion explains the dominant theme of the myth of Herakles – ‘the stronger must serve the weaker’ – as a result of Zeus’ mistaken actions under the effects of delusion, creating a parallel with Agamemnon (Erbse loc. cit. 15–17). In the Old Testament, Gen. 27 is comparable: Rebecca uses deception to convince her husband Isaac that the elder son, Esau, should serve the younger, Jacob (West 1997, 459  f.). 95–96 1st VH of 96 = 13.632. — the highest: Greek áristos is a common epithet of the supreme god, usually emphasizing his position among the others (similarly 15.107  f., cf. 13.154, 19.258, 23.43, Od. 19.303, h.Hom. 23.1; without reference to a group at Il. 14.213, h.Cer. 21); on the use of Greek áristos, 1.91n. (‘greatest of all’); LfgrE s.v. ἄριστος 1295.70  ff. — of gods and mortals: Greek andrṓn ēdé theṓn is a formulaic polar expressionP stressing Zeus’ exceptional position, usually with emphasis on the second term (Kemmer 1903, 81; cf. 1.548n.). The Greek word anḗr ‘(hu)man’ as a term complementary to ‘god’ here indicates that the speaker is considering his own situation: ‘even the supreme god was not immune to Ate, so how should I, a man, withstand her?’ (cf. LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 834.37  ff.).

95–96 τόν περ … | … φασ(ι): ‘of whom they say …’; τόν with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5); on περ, R 24.10. — ἀνδρῶν … θεῶν: partitive gen. with ἄριστον. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). — ἄρα: ‘indeed’ (R 24.1). — τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17.

60 

 Iliad 19

καὶ γάρ: introduces a concrete example as an illustration of a preceding general statement (2.377n.); cf. the transition to the actual case of the speaker ὣς καὶ ἐγών at 134. — νυ: ‘yes indeed’, ‘lightly links what follows’ to the present situation (Schw. 2.571 [transl.]), used especially by speakers in an ‘agitated frame of mind’ (K.-G. 2.118  f. [transl.]). — Ζεὺς ἄσατο: the reading preferred by Aristarchus, who makes Zeus the subject, as opposed to the main transmission Ζῆν’ (schol. A); this is in accord with the use of the middle aorist (on the present, 91n.), which is elsewhere consistently intransitive, approximately ‘acted under delusion’ (Edwards; LfgrE s.v. ἀάω 10.30  f., 11.62  ff.; cautiously Jankuhn 1969, 50; differently Erbse 1986, 15). On additional passages in which contracted forms of ἀάτη/ἀάω cannot be replaced by uncontracted ones, as is otherwise common, see Edwards on 88; on contracted beside uncontracted forms in general, G 43  f. — τόν περ: a relative clause, highlighting a person with particularly outstanding characteristics: ‘even Zeus who …’ (Bakker 1988, 78; Davies 2006, 584  f.). — φασ(ί): marks generally accepted facts (mostly in speeches, as here), here Zeus’ supreme position (Leaf; de Jong [1987] 2004, 237  f.; cf. 2.783n.); the phrasing in Menelaos’ prayer at 13.631  f., which highlights Zeus’ superior understanding, is comparable (Edwards on 95–99).

97 1st VH ≈ 23.409. — deluded even Zeus: Hera’s penchant for deceiving her husband is repeatedly touched on in the Iliad, esp. 14.159–353, 15.14–33; on this character trait of Hera and her role in the myth of Herakles, see CG 16; O’Brien 1993, 175–177; on the present scene, Schäfer 1990, 110–115. Additional examples of the motif ‘one god outwits another’ occur in early epic: Hephaistos tricks Ares and Aphrodite (Od. 8.266–366), Prometheus tricks Zeus (Hes. Th. 535–551 and Op. 47–59), Hermes tricks Apollo (h.Merc. 73  ff.): Janko on 14.153–353; de Jong on Od. 8.266–366; Deichgräber (1940) 1952, 108–113, 123–126, 151–153. θῆλυς: usually denotes the sex of domesticated animals; of humans only in the comparative θηλύτεραι (but Od. 6.122 of female voices) and of a goddesss only here, along with the form θήλεια/θήλειαι (Il. 8.7 and Hes. Th. 667, beside ἄρσην/ἄρσενες) in the explicit mention of all gods of both sexes (Kirk on 8.7–9; LfgrE s.v. θῆλυς; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 7  f.; on the forms θῆλυς, θήλεια, Frisk and Beekes s.v. θῆλυς; DELG s.v. θήλη; Kastner 1967, 22); the expression θῆλυς ἐοῦσα is here likely somewhat pejorative, as at 23.409 (of a horse) (schol. b; AH; Edwards on 95–99; Lohmann 1970, 78 n. 134). — δολοφροσύνῃς: the main characteristic of Hera’s actions; cf. 106 δολοφρονέουσα, 112 δολοφροσύνην; similarly 14.197, 300, 329 δολοφρονέουσα; also 15.14 κακότεχνος … σὸς δόλος. The abstract occurs only here, at 112, and of Hermes at h.Merc. 361; it emphasizes the devious mindset (‘cunning, malice’) underlying the actions (in contrast to simple δόλος): LfgrE s.v.; Luther 1935, 80; on the metrically convenient ‘poetic plural’, cf. 2.588n. — ἀπάτησεν: denotes deception, intentional misdirection and swindling; it is often used, as here, as a verbal expression of δόλος (‘trick, outwit’, cf. 15.14 and

97 Ἥρη: on the -η after -ρ-, R 2. — ἐοῦσα: = οὖσα (R 16.6). — δολοφροσύνῃς: on the declension, R 11.1. — ἀπάτησεν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 61

15.31–33), here emphasized by δολοφροσύνῃς (LfgrE s.v.; Luther 1935, 97–101; on the link between ἀπάτη and ἄτη, Stallmach 1968, 43  ff.; Dawe 1968, 100  f.).

98–99 Agamemnon makes clear from the start that Herakles’ birth did not take place as intended: Greek émelle (‘was about to’) frequently characterizes an expected action whose realization is hindered or prevented, here the birth delayed by Hera; see 117–119 (LfgrE s.v. μέλλω 112.61  ff.; de Jong on Od. 6.110– 11: ‘interruptive μέλλω’). — strong wall-circled Thebe: situated in Boeotia and considered a foundation of Kadmos (cf. 2.498n. [s.v. Mykalessos]); on the historical significance of Thebes, see 2.494–510n. and 2.505n. The epithetP refers to the well-fortified walls of ‘seven-gated Thebes’ (cf. 4.406  f.; CM  6 s.v. Tydeus). — Herakles: the son of Zeus and Alkmene, who was the wife of Amphitryon of Thebes (14.323  f., cf. 5.392–396), a granddaughter of Perseus and thus a great-granddaughter of Zeus (CM 6; BNP s.v. Alcmene). For Zeus’ offspring with mortal women, see his enumeration at 14.317–325 as well as the list in LfgrE s.v. Ζεύς 872  f.

ἤματι τῷ, ὅτ(ε): a VB formula, elsewhere in direct speech usually to recount a memory of one’s own experiences (60n.). — βίην Ἡρακληείην: a formulaic periphrasis of the name (an inflectible VE formula: 6x Il., 1x Od., 16x Hes.), common also in the case of other heroes, perhaps a titulature originating in the Mycenaean period (2.658n. with bibliography; on possessive adjectives in -ιος, 2.20n.), approximately ‘his power (~ excellency) Herakles’ (cf. also Πριάμοιο βίην 3.105n.). — ἐϋστεφάνῳ: always after caesura B 2 (2x Il., 4x Od., 9x Hes., 7x h.Hom.); mostly an epithet of goddesses (Aphrodite, Artemis, Demeter) and women (inter alia the heroine Mykene Od. 2.120); of Thebes here and at Hes. Th. 978, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 80: ‘with a good circle of walls’ (Leaf; LfgrE s.v. ἐϋστέφανος). — Θήβῃ: a place name attested in both sing. and pl. (e.g. 6.223) (cf. Μυκήνη/Μυκῆναι, e.g. 4.52 and 2.569), in the sing. also at 4.378, 406, etc. (LfgrE s.v. Θῆβαι, Θήβη). The sing. fits the association of a wreathed woman (see above); on this, cf. the metaphorical use of κρήδεμνα/-ον at 16.100, Od. 13.388 (Τροίης κρ.), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 105 (Θήβης κρ.): Hoekstra on Od. 13.388; Richardson on h.Cer. 151; LfgrE s.v. κρήδεμνον.

100 Zeus’ announcement to all the gods of the birth of his son is stamped with paternal pride (schol. A; LfgrE s.v. (ἐπ)εύχομαι 823.56; Corlu 1966, 50; Muellner 1976, 78, 93  f.); on the use of Greek eúchomai (here ‘proudly say [of

98 ἤματι τῷ, ὅτ(ε): 60n. — τῷ, ὅτ(ε): on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἔμελλε: governs τέξεσθαι (V. 99), the fut. mid. inf. of τίκτω: ‘she was about to give birth’. — βίην Ἡρα-κληείην: = Herakles (↑); on the forms in -η-, R 2. 99 ἐϋστεφάνῳ ἐνί: on the bridging of hiatus by non-syllabic ι (ëustephánōy ení), M 12.2. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 100 ἤτοι ὅ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἤτοι: R 24.4. — πάντεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — θεοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2.

62 

 Iliad 19

oneself]’), see 1.91n., 6.211n.; on characterizing the nature of a subsequent speech in the speech introduction in general, see 2.224n.

ἤτοι ὅ γ(ε): a VB formula (7x Il., 1x Od.); elsewhere – except at 11.94 – in a formulaic verse with speech capping formula and a transition to the next speaker (1.68n.; Visser 1987, 148 n. 207), here in the transition between introducing the individuals involved and the speech of the previously mentioned main character.

101–105 The literal rendering of divine speeches within direct speech (‘speech within a speech’) here and at 107–111, 121–124 reinforces the rhetorical impact of the external analepsisP and produces vividness: the narrative appears authentic and one can see how Zeus became a victim of his ill-considered words (Priess 1977, 182, 188; de Jong [1987] 2004, 172  f.; Heiden 1991, 2–4; Beck 2012, 38  f.; cf. 2.323–332n., 6.164–165n.; on the omniscience of a characterP when narrating myths in general, see de Jong 2004, 20  f.). 101 =  8.5, h.Ap. 311; 2nd VH =  8.20, Od. 8.341. — The same solemn address is found at the beginning of the assembly of gods in Book 8, where it is followed by a clear demonstration of power by Zeus (8.5–27; on this, Reinhardt 1961, 171). In the present passage, it has a strongly emphatic effect and makes his later defeat appear even more drastic (cf. 112, 132  f.): Edwards.

κέκλυτέ μοι: a VB formula at the beginning of a speech (3.86n., there also on the conjecture μοι [with genitive function] for the transmitted μευ). — θέαιναι: in early epic only in the voc. pl. at VE in an address to all gods on the occasion of a divine assembly (see iterata): LfgrE s.v. (an extended form at VE); Risch 139.

102 ≈ 7.68, 7.349, 7.369, 8.6 and 5x Od., 2x Hes.; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 16.141. – The formulaic verse always follows κέκλυτε with the vocative and, with the exception of the present line, always with κελεύει at VE (present here as a v.l.; see app. crit.). — θυμός: as the subject of an action, the driving force behind a mental impulse (2.276n. with bibliography). — ἀνώγει: here a secondary present (cf. κελεύει in the iterata) from the perf. with present sense ἄνωγα (6.439n.).

103 2nd VH = 16.187, h.Ap. 97, 115; ≈ 11.270. — This day: The specification of time (cf. 105n.), which is significant for the further course of the story, is emphasized by its position at the beginning of the sentence (Edwards). — Eileithyia: literally ‘she who comes’ or ‘she who makes come’ (related to Greek elyth-), goddess of birth labor, daughter of Hera (CG 11; BNP s.v.; on the name, already attested in Mycenaean, Frisk; DELG; Beekes).

102 ὄφρ(α) (+ subjunc.): final (R 22.5). — τά: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν: 66n. 103 σήμερον: = Attic τήμερον ‘today’. — φόωσδε: ‘to the light’ (cf. 2n.; on the suffix -δε, R 15.3), to be taken with ἐκφανεῖ (‘bring forth into the light’).

Commentary 

 63

φόωσδε: likewise of a birth at 16.188, 19.118, h.Ap. 119, cf. h.Merc. 12; on this use of φόως, cf. the formulaic expression ὁρᾶν/ὄψεσθαι φάος ἠελίοιο for ‘to live, be alive’ at 5.120, etc. (Bremer 1976, 37; IE parallels, West 2007, 86  f.; cf. also 6.6n. on the metaphor light/life). — μογοστόκος: literally ‘giving birth to trouble’, consisting of an initial element μόγο- and a final element related to τεκεῖν. An epithet of Eileithyia (see iterata; cf. 119n.), in this context it means (cf. 11.269–271) approximately ‘bringing pangs (of labor)’ (Hainsworth on 11.270: ‘by some ill-defined process whereby the literal force of τόκος colours the sense of μόγος’); this ‘likely means that they are present «in the pains of giving birth»’ (Wickert-Micknat 1982, 107 [transl.]). Regarding the initial element, the compound is not formed in the usual manner with the stem alone (i.e. μογο-τόκος), since that form would not fit in the hexameter, but perhaps with the acc. pl. *μόγονς (*μογονσ-τοκ- > μογοστοκ-): Leaf; Bechtel 1914, 228  f.; Chantr. 1.95; Frisk s.v. μογέω; Risch 220, cf. 200; LfgrE s.v.; cf. 1.238n. on δικασ-πόλοι; contra Beekes s.v. μογέω; on the word formation in general, G 49. 104 ≈ 109. — περικτιόνεσσιν: ‘dwellers/dwelling round about’, an old type of nomen agentis (Risch 56) related to *κτίσ(σ)αι (LfgrE), always after caesura B 2 (in total 4x Il., 1x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’, 1x h.Ap.); as a noun elsewhere at 18.212, otherwise an epithet of ἐπικούρων (17.220) or ἀνθρώπων/-ους (Od. 2.65, ‘Hes.’ fr. 144.2 M.-W., h.Ap. 274). — ἀνάξει: On ἀνάσσω with the dative, see 1.38n.; LfgrE s.v. 794.74  ff.

105 Zeus’ phrasing is so vague that it might also refer to offspring in a wider sense; in this form, it thus does not apply only to Herakles, who is both Zeus’ son and his great-grandson (on this, 98–99n.). It is this precise point that Hera uses for her ruse, by making Zeus commit to an ambiguous phrasing (108  ff.); since Eurystheus, whose birth will take place on this day due to Hera’s manipulation, is also a great-grandson of Zeus (116n.), the descriptions ‘of my blood’ (Greek haímatos ex emoú) and ‘of the blood of your generation’ (Greek sēs ex haímatos genéthlēs 111 [see ad loc.]) apply to him as well (as subsequently VB 124 ‘your generation’ [Greek son génos]): 107–111n.; Leaf on 111; Edwards; Reinhardt 1961, 204; Schäfer 1990, 111  f.

τῶν ἀνδρῶν γενεῆς, οἵ θ(ε): The article τῶν lends emphasis to the antecedent preceding the relative clause (Chantr. 2.162); οἵ θ’ here introduces not a generalizing but a determinative relative clause (Ruijgh 416  f.). γενεῆς, dependent on ἄνδρα at 103, here means very generally ‘lineage, descent’ (LfgrE s.v. 128.18  ff.). — αἵματος ἐξ ἐμοῦ: a metaphorical use of αἷμα with the sense ‘blood, lineage, descent’; elsewhere in the genitive with no preposition, cf. 6.211 (with n.), 20.241, Od. 4.611, 16.300 (LfgrE s.v.). The main transmission offers a specification via the personal pronoun ἐξ ἐμεῦ, cf. 5.896 (ἐκ  … ἐμέο), 6.206 (ἐκ τοῦ), 21.189 (ἐκ Διός) (thus in AH; Faesi; Erbse 1986, 16; cf. schol. A.;

105 τῶν ἀνδρῶν: attribute of γενεῆς (on the form, R 2); this in turn is an explication of ἄνδρα (103), ‘a man … from the line of the men who …’.

64 

 Iliad 19

on the form, G 81); this is an amalgam of the constructions αἵματος ἐμοῦ and ἐξ ἐμεῦ (Leaf: ‘who are of me by blood’; Edwards; Ruijgh 417 with n. 55). But according to a different tradition found in Apollonius Dyscolus, the word was complemented by the possessive pronoun ἐμοῦ (see West app. crit.), which amplifies the ambiguity (‘who are of my blood’; cf. 111n.). 106 = 14.300, 14.329; ≈ 14.197. — δολοφρονέουσα: serves in the Iliad especially to characterize Hera’s speeches in the speech introductions (see iterata and cf. 97n.), elsewhere only of Aphrodite (3.405); also of Odysseus at Od. 18.51 and 21.274, of Kirke at 10.339, and of Prometheus at Hes. Th. 550. Via ring-compositionP with 112 (δολοφροσύνη together with speech capping), the speech is marked as part of Hera’s ruse (suggestion by Führer). — προσηύδα: 20n. — πότνια Ἥρη: On the hiatus in the ancient VE formula, see 1.551n.

107–111 Zeus’ inclination to pride (cf. 100n.) is cleverly exploited by Hera: by means of a minor provocation, she induces him to swear an oath, while she herself subsequently intervenes in the sequence of births (114  ff.). Via the oath, she places Zeus under the obligation of fulfilling his announcement – that the one born on this day will rule – without regard for the altered order of births (105n., 109–111n.). 107 2nd VH ≈ 20.369. — ψεύστης εἰς: a reading of the secondary transmission preferred by West with the less common 2nd sing. εἰς (G 90) and the nomen agentis ψεύστης (VB elsewhere at 24.261 in Priam’s speech of reprimand directed at his sons [see ad loc.]). In reference to Zeus’ announcement, it is thus ‘you are a liar’, i.e. ‘you are one who does not abide by his promises’ (Leumann 1950, 36; West 2001, 253; LfgrE s.v. ψεύστης), as opposed to ψευστήσεις (perhaps influenced by the future ἐπιθήσεις), the reading of Aristarchus and the main transmission of the mss., ‘you will prove to be a liar’ (schol. T), the future of an otherwise unattested denominative of ψεύστης (thus Leaf; preferred by Edwards as the lectio difficilior; Risch 321; Luther 1935, 83; Levet 1976, 220  f.). The generalizing phrase in the present (‘you are a braggart’, cf. Macleod 1982, 111 [on 24.261]: ‘big talkers and poor doers’; Luther loc. cit. 85) contains the more pointed provocation and better serves Hera’s intentions (on the rhetoric of quarrel, 1.106–108n.). — οὐδ’ … ἐπιθήσεις: On τέλος μύθῳ ἐ. (‘give fulfillment to one’s word’, i.e. ‘fulfill one’s word’), cf. 20.369  f., where the realization of Achilleus’ threatening announcement is called into question; similar combinations of μῦθος-τέλος at 9.56, 16.83 (Barck 1976, 113, 138–140 [collection of examples of ‘word-deed’]).

106 δολοφρονέουσα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — προσηύδα: 3rd sing. impf. of προσαυδάω, ‘she addressed’. 107 οὐδ’ αὖτε: ‘and again not, and never’; in Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 65

108–113 The type-sceneP ‘oath’ in abbreviated form: (1) a character invites someone to swear an oath (108); (2) he/she first recites it (109–111); (3) the oath is sworn (indirect speech, rarely repeated verbatim); (4) the completion is noted and/or commented on (113): Arend 1933, 122  f.; Janko on 14.271–279; de Jong on Od. 5.177–191. Zeus does not notice the trick and swears the oath without considering that Hera has power over birth (Leaf on 111; Erbse 1986, 16  f.; on the motif of the precipitate oath in folk tales, Davies 1995, 4; a Near Eastern parallel with an invitation to an oath in the service of a deception in West 1997, 181; on oaths in general, 1.86n., 19.254b–265n.).

108 VE = 127. — εἰ δ’ ἄγε … ὄμοσσον … | … ἀνάξειν: an oath that refers to the future (promissory, not assertory); the action promised is usually in the fut. inf. in such oaths (1.76n.); on the interjectional function of εἰ with the imperative, 6.376n. — Ὀλύμπιε: an address after caesura B 2 (1.508n.); likewise without a supplement but as a second address (after Ζεῦ or Κρονίδη) at 15.375, Od. 1.60; on the formation of the word, 1.399n. — καρτερὸν ὅρκον: a VE formula (2x Il., 4x Od., 1x h.Merc.); καρτερός is a common epithet of warriors, gods, animals, body parts and deeds, but also of powerful, overwhelming forces; it marks the oath as particularly binding, like ὄμοσεν μέγαν ὅρκον at 113 (AH; LfgrE s.vv. κρατερός, ὅρκος); on the form (καρ- rather than κρα- as a metrical variant), G 15.

109–111 Zeus’ announcement (birth of a future ruler) occurs with slight alterations (cf. 103–105) to the oath formula, particularly in emphasis: Hera phrases it in a way that primarily records a claim to authority: he who is born today shall rule (cf. 105n., 111n.). 109 ≈ 104 (with n.). — ἦ μέν: an Ionic oath particle, cf. 1.77 (with n.), 10.322, 14.275 (Wakker 1997, 228  f.).

110 shall fall between the feet of a woman: indicates giving birth in a squatting or kneeling position, thus h.Ap. 117  f. for Leto giving birth to Apollo and Artemis: AH; Willcock; Edwards; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 106; cf. Allen/ Halliday/Sikes on h.Ap. 117; West on Th. 460; ibid. 2007, 87; on giving birth in antiquity in general, BNP s.v. Birth. ἐπ’ ἤματι τῷδε: ‘on this day’ (cf. 103), so too at 13.234, similarly 11.431/444, 15.252, 21.584, Od. 20.116 (AH; Schw. 2.468; de Jong [1987] 2004, 236; but cf. ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε 60n.).

108 εἰ δ’ ἄγε: emphatic introduction to the imper.: ‘come’. — ὄμοσσον: aor. imper. of ὄμνυμι ‘swear’ (on the -σσ-, R 9.1). — Ὀλύμπιε: in the sing. only of Zeus. 109 ἦ μέν (≈ μήν): ‘certainly’, introduces emphasis; esp. in direct speeches (R 24.6–7). — τόν: with anaphoric demonstrative function (R 17). 110 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — ποσσί: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

66 

 Iliad 19

111 The verse is just as ambiguous as Zeus’ announcement at 105 (see ad loc.), but is phrased with a minor difference: Hera’s ‘born of the blood of your generation’ generally encompasses all Zeus’ offspring (cf. Heiden 1991, 3  f.).

σῆς ἐξ αἵματός … γενέθλης: ἐξ is to be connected either with αἵματος, modified by γενέθλης, hence ‘who are of the blood of your lineage’ (Leaf; Erbse 1986, 16  f.; Heiden 1991, 3; cf. αἵματος ἐξ ἐμοῦ 105n.), or with γενέθλης, as at Od. 13.130, hence ‘who are of your lineage by blood’ (AH; Faesi; Willcock; Edwards; Chantr. 2.99).

112–113 In the case of Zeus’ delusion, unlike that of Agamemnon, the ruse staged by an adversary is the central point: Zeus does not realize that Hera speaks with deceitful intent (cf. 107–111n.); this lack of attention leads him to swear willingly. His delusion lies, on the one hand, in his misjudging Hera’s nature (deceit) and powers (birth), and on the other hand in his overlooking the extent of the oath formula’s ambiguity in reference to the person affected. Zeus thus becomes the inadvertent cause of Herakles’ hard fate (see 132  f. [cf. 95–133n.]), whereas otherwise he often acts as a power of fate himself (cf. 273b–274n.). – Additional examples of Zeus’ inattentiveness in the Iliad are 13.7–9 (Poseidon intervenes in battle by using a moment when Zeus’ eyes are averted from the battlefield before Troy), 14.294–353, cf. 15.4–33 (Hera seduces Zeus and distracts him), although there Zeus is still able to nullify the consequences (cf. 15.54  ff.): Schmitt 1990, 87 and 261 n. 283. — swore a great oath: Although elsewhere, according to Zeus’ statement, a nod is his binding indication of consent to a promise (1.525–527), he here repeats the oath formula provided by Hera. – For the most strongly binding oaths, the gods elsewhere swear by the earth, the heavens and the waters of Styx (Hera 15.36–38, Kalypso Od. 5.184–186, Leto h.Ap. 84–86); on divine oaths, see West on Hes. Th. 400; Janko on 15.36–46. δολοφροσύνην: 97n.; picks up 106 (see ad loc.) in the manner of a ring-compositionP. — ἔπειτα δὲ … ἀάσθη: is variously interpreted: (1) ἔπειτα refers back to ὄμοσεν with the meaning ‘therein, since, in this case’: AH; Leaf with reference to 10.243; Edwards with reference to 1.547; Cunliffe s.v.; cf. Ebeling s.v.; West on Od. 1.65 (‘after all this, i.e. in these circumstances’); (2) ἔπειτα means ‘subsequently’ as ‘a designation of the progression from one action to another’ (Jankuhn 1969, 51 with n. 4 [transl.]), in which case ἀάσθη refers to the continuation of the story (Dawe 1968, 98: ‘and thereafter he paid heavily for his mistake’; Cairns 2012, 5); (a) the aorist in -θη- has, as usual, an intransitive meaning ‘was in a deluded condition’ (thus e.g. 16.685, 19.136 [see ad loc.], Od. 4.503, 4.509, etc.): Untermann on Il. 16.685; West on Od. 4.503 (‘acted under the influence of ἄτη’); ingressive AH (‘fell prey to powerful enchantment’ [transl.]); (b) ἀάσθη

112 ἔφατο: 74n. — οὔ τι: ‘not at all’. 113 πολλόν: adv. ‘very’; on the declension, R 12.2.

Commentary 

 67

has a passive meaning ‘was deceived’ (LfgrE s.v. 11.73  f.; Jankuhn loc. cit. 50  f.; cf. 136n.) or ‘was harmed (by delusion)’ (Stallmach 1968, 43 with n. 35 and 47 n. 47; Cairns loc. cit.). Combination (1a) has the most elements in its favor: linguistically, the intransitive meaning of the aorist in -θη- is common in Homer (Monro [1882] 1891, 44  f.; on this aspect of the θη-aorist in general, Schw. 1.756  f.; Chantr. 2.181  f.; Rix [1976] 1992, 219; Meier-Brügger 1992, 2.59 with bibliography; Allan 2003, 148–154 and, in terms of context, 112  f. better represent a self-contained situation and conclude the Zeus-scene by way of a comment on it (cf. the embedding in the manner of a ring-compositionP by means of ἄσατο [95] and ἀάσθη): the deluded actions are taking place at this moment, in the end the injured party is Herakles in particular (133). — πολλόν: denotes intensity, cf. h.Ven. 253 μάλα πολλὸν ἀάσθην (LfgrE s.v. 1424.29  f.; quantity for the designation of intensity: see 1.35n., 6.207n.).

114–119 In this secondary storyP in accelerated pace, Hera’s changes of location are only mentioned at points of significance for the progress of the story: departure from Olympos, speed, arrival in Argos, target person and portrayal of the situation, implementation of the intent of the intervention; cf. the type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (1.43–52n.) and ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n.); on rapid changes of location by deities, see 24.80–82n.; on more extensively narrated divine journeys, Janko on 14.225–230. 114 = 14.225. — Olympos: on the dwelling place of the gods, 1.18n., 1.499n.

ῥίον Οὐλύμποιο: likewise at 8.25, 14.225; cf. 14.154. ῥίον is a toponym of uncertain etymology (*ϝριο- or rather *σριο-, cf. Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v.), perhaps already attested in Mycenaean ri-jo (in which case εἴη, rendered ἰείη for the sake of clarity; but cf. Sommer 1977, 199  ff.). — βρῶσις: The form accords with that of an action noun (Risch 38  f.), but the word commonly denotes food, as here (LfgrE; cf. 205n.); always used in connection with πόσις in Homer, in the Iliad only here, in the Odyssey e.g. 8x in the VE formula βρῶσίς τε πόσις τε (nom./acc.).

211–213a Achilleus picks up from the situation prior to the military assembly (212  f. hetaíroi | mýrontai ≈ 5  f. hetaíroi | mýronth’) and describes a background story taking place in a different location (‘in the tent’): the laying out of Patroklos and the lament by his companions (18.351–355, 19.4–39; on Achilleus’ quarters in the encampment before Troy [Greek klisíē], see 1.185n., 24.448–456n.). Even though the joint lament is interrupted during the military assembly, in which all participate, and is only resumed after the battle that follows (23.4–23, 23.109  f.; the funeral banquet as the conclusion of the day of battle, 23.26–34), for Achilleus lament is continually present. – The laying out of the corpse (on the ‘prothesis’, 5–6a n.) with the feet, and thus also the gaze, toward the door is probably ritually determined (schol. bT; cf. Leaf with reference to the Roman custom in Persius 3.105, Plin. Nat. hist. 7.46, Sen. Epist. 12.3), but is not attested elsewhere in Homeric epic (Andronikos 1968, 9), although it is found later on black-figure terracotta plaques with depictions of ‘prothesis’: the deceased lies facing the arriving visitors (Kurtz/Boardman 1971, 144; Garland 1985, 24; Huber 2001, 94–100; a different interpretation at schol. D on 212: the custom is supposed to prevent the deceased from returning after having departed; on Homeric funeral rites in general, see also Garland [1982] 1984). 211 2nd VH ≈ 18.236, 19.283, 19.292, 22.72. — δεδαϊγμένος: 203n. — ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (25x Il., 11x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’), χαλκός (literally ‘bronze’: 25n.) is a metonymy for ‘weapon’ (1.236n.). 212 πρόθυρον: ‘entrance area’, elsewhere mostly of door or gate areas of large building complexes; cf. 24.323n. Achilleus’ quarters may have consisted of several rooms (24.448n.). — ἀμφὶ δ’ ἑταῖροι: a VE formula (4x Il., 4x Od.).

211 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — κλισίῃ: on the -ῃ- after -ι-, R 2. — δεδαϊγμένος: 203n. 212 ἀνὰ πρόθυρον: ‘toward the entrance’. — ἀμφί: adverbial.

Commentary 

 101

213 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Op. 531. — μύρονται: 6a n. — τό: an adverbial acc., ‘wherefore’ (Chantr. 2.160). — μετὰ φρεσί: a metrical filling element after caesura B 2 (LfgrE s.v. μέλω 117.34  ff.; cf. 29n.).

214 A verse constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’, with the third noun expanded by attributes (on the stylistic figure, 87n.). Comparable are the descriptions of the crush of battle at 11.163  f. and the bloody traces of battle at 10.298, both spoken by the narrator (Edwards). In accord with Achilleus’ own statement, his thinking is entirely oriented toward battle until Patroklos is avenged (cf. his desire for battle and being sated with Hektor’s blood at 20.75– 78, 22.266  f.). This single-minded focus on battle – which in principle benefits the community during a war – can cause risks for a community in exceptional situations such as the present one (Lowenstam 1993, 71 with n. 35; Crotty 1994, 64–66; cf. 1.177n. on Agamemnon’s accusation that any kind of battle and strife are dear to Achilleus). Odysseus will thus attempt in 216  ff. to contain the risks without withholding the respect due the great fighter Achilleus (cf. 221–224n.).

στόνος ἀνδρῶν: ≈ 4.445, likewise of the moaning of wounded warriors, στόνος also in a slightly varied formulaic verse (10.483, 21.20, Od. 22.308, 24.184, cf. 23.40  f.) that describes the effects of raging by individual characters (cf. στονόεντα βέλεα Il. 17.374 and στονόεντες ὀϊστοί Od. 21.12). The epithet ἀργαλέος has ‘purely affective value’ (Kaimio 1977, 59–67, on the present passage: 65; cf. Mawet 1979, 213).

215 = 154 (see ad loc.). 216–237 Odysseus’ response demonstrates his diplomatic skill vis-à-vis Achilleus, as well as the imperturbability that comes from awareness of his own strengths: he objectively lists both Achilleus’ qualities (217  f.: ‘you are stronger  …’) and, a bit more guardedly, his own (218  f.: ‘yet I in turn might overpass you …’ [Greek potential]); illustrates his concerns with a metaphor (221–224); argues matter-of-factly against Achilleus’ conduct in mourning and urgent desire for battle, the consequences of which in the present case would have a negative impact on the entire army (cf. 214n.); and pleads for a reasonable preparation for battle (225–233a). In the concluding paraenesis, he attempts to strengthen the army’s resolve (233b–237) – and thus also placates Achilleus, by indicating that ‘postponed is not abandoned’. On the characterization of Odysseus, 154n.; Edwards; Reinhardt 1961, 417  f.

213 οὔ τι: 182n. — ταῦτα: i.e. eating and drinking. — μέμηλεν: perf. of μέλει with pres. sense.

102 

 Iliad 19

216 =  16.21, Od. 11.478. — Odysseus uses his address to pay Achilleus respect as the outstanding hero among the Achaians; on Achilleus as the best of the Achaians, see 2.761–779n. as well as his own self-assessment at 1.244; a collection of positive evaluations of Achilleus by friends and enemies, as well as by gods, can be found at Latacz (1995) 1997, 95  f. n. 122. ὦ Ἀχιλεῦ: formulaic (5x Il., 1x Od.) at the beginning of speeches; the interjection ὦ before a vocative may express strong emotional involvement (1.74n., but cf. 1.442n.), here e.g. resentment at Achilleus’ closing words. — Πηλῆος υἱέ: on the prosody (– – ⏖ –) with iambic υ-yε, see 1.489n., 6.130n.; M 4.6 (reduplication of the initial sound of the following word [μ]μέγα; here also at a caesura); differently Janko on 16.21 with reference to the v.l. Πηλέος υἱέ (on this, West 1998, XXXIV). — φέρτατ(ε): is largely used as synonymous with ἄριστος (1.186n., 2.769n.; LfgrE s.v. φέρτερος; cf. 1.244). 217 κρέσσων: on the spelling, West 1998, XX s.v. ἄσσων. — φέρτερος: The comparative, which is parallel with κρέσσων and explained by ἔγχει (in enjambment at 218), contrasts Achilleus’ physical superiority with the intellectual superiority of the speaker at 218  f. — οὐκ ὀλίγον περ: likewise after a comparative at Od. 8.187; reinforced by litotes, the counterpart of πολλόν in enjambment at 219 (LfgrE s.v. ὀλίγος: ‘significantly’).

218–219 Odysseus’ evaluation agrees with Achilleus’ own insight at 18.105  f. (cf. 1.244 with n.). – War and assembly are important areas in which to prove oneself; although mastery of both is aspired to (cf. 9.442  f.), no individual hero achieves it (1.258n. with bibliography, 2.370n.); on the distribution of different skills, cf. 4.320, 13.730–734, 23.670  f. (Carlier 1984, 200  f.). The superiority of elders due to their greater life experience is accepted in Homeric society (1.259n., 3.108–110n., cf. 1.26n.) and thus also in the relationship between Achilleus and Phoenix at 9.438–443 and between Achilleus and Patroklos at 11.786–789: Odysseus brings this generally valid rule to the fore (Lowenstam 1993, 109; on hints of a rivalry between Achilleus and Odysseus, see Nagy [1979] 1999, 56–58; Clay 1983, 105–107; de Jong on Od. 11.482–91). νοήματι: ‘thought, thinking’, sometimes ‘insight, understanding’, as here (thus used like νόος; likewise e.g. ‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).51 M.-W.: νοήματά τε καὶ πραπίδας τε); used in opposition to ἔγχει: the tools for assembly and war; differently at e.g. 18.252: μύθοισι vs. ἔγχεϊ (Porzig 1942, 185; LfgrE s.v. νόημα; on expressions of intellectual superiority, see 1.115n. [φρένας]; on Odysseus’ intelligence, cf. Od. 12.211 with de Jong ad loc.). —

216 ὦ Ἀχιλεῦ: on the prosody, R 5.7; on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — Πηλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3. 217 εἰς: = Attic εἶ ‘you are’. — ἐμέθεν: gen. of comparison; on the form, R 14.1 (cf. R 15.1). — περ: stresses the preceding word (R 24.10). 218 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1). 219 πολλόν: adv. ‘very much’; on the declension, R 12.2. — γενόμην: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — πλείονα (ϝ)οῖδα: on the prosody, R 4.3. — πλείονα: = πλέονα (cf. R 13).

Commentary 

 103

προβαλοίμην: only here with the meaning ‘exceed, be superior to’; the concrete sense of ‘throwing further forward’ in reference to missiles may still resonate, cf. 23.572 τοὺς σοὺς (sc. ἵππους) πρόσθε βαλών (Clarke 1999, 123 n. 157). — ἐπεὶ  … οἶδα: likewise at 21.440 (Poseidon to Apollo), similarly 13.355 (the narrator on Zeus as compared to Poseidon). Od. 7.156  f. is also comparable; age confers knowledge because of what one observes (on this, 2.485n.). 220 1st VH = 23.591. — τώ: ‘therefore’ (61n.). — τοι ἐπιτλήτω κραδίη …: cf. Od. 1.353 σοὶ δ’ ἐπιτολμάτω κραδίη … (AH; Faesi); on the expression, cf. 178n.

221–224 Odysseus appeals to the young, impatient leader Achilleus to recall his sense of responsibility and not drive the warriors into battle hungry, but instead to allow them nourishment – even if Achilleus does not believe that he himself needs any (cf. 155  f.) – to fortify them for physical exertion and not endanger the success of the undertaking (cf. 231  f.). To elicit understanding from Achilleus, he calls to mind a general experience of life (cf. 218  f. with n.): warriors rapidly have enough of fighting (221 with n.). By means of the harvest metaphor (222  f.), he indicates indirectly that warriors must be fortified and motivated for the hardships of battle, since otherwise the strong, persistent strain wears them out too quickly (cf. 157  f. and 227 with n.); cf. the simileP of the woodcutter who interrupts his work for refreshment, exhausted from the constant felling of trees (11.86–89), and the provisions for the workers in the images of plowing and harvesting on Achilleus’ shield (18.541–560). Reaping as a metaphor for killing on the battlefield also occurs in the simile at 11.67–71, where Achaians and Trojans mow one other down like men reaping corn (on Near Eastern parallels, see West 1997, 228  f.). The enormous number of cut stalks represents the fallen warriors (222, cf. 226  f.). The second part of the metaphor (223  f.) has been a matter of dispute since antiquity, with different meanings attached to the Greek amētós ‘harvest’ (on which, 223a n.) (detailed explanation in Combellack 1984; Edwards on 221–224; Grethlein 2005, 270–272): (1) ‘crop-yield’: (a) the yield for the warriors is generally small, the reward for the risky mission is limited, success is in the end uncertain (AH; Faesi; Willcock; Edwards; Grethlein loc. cit. 271  f.; Lentini 2006, 144–151, esp. 145 n. 3); (b) the material gain, namely weapons and armor taken from slain opponents, cannot be significant during battle itself (Fränkel 1921, 42; cautiously Leaf; cf. Combellack loc. cit. 250, 252; on so-called spoliation, see 6.28n.; on booty as an aim of war, see 1.154–157n.); (c) the number of survivors after battle is small (Porph. ad loc. §§ 3  f. MacPhail; Moulton 1979, 285  f.). (2)

220 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐπιτλήτω: 3rd sing. aor. imper. of ἐπιτλῆναι (‘bear, tolerate’) with dat. object μύθοισιν ἐμοῖσιν.

104 

 Iliad 19

‘the reaping, harvesting’: ‘harvest time’, i.e. the time of killing and looting at the turning point in battle, when the defeated army flees, lasts only a short while if the victors are weakened by hunger (Eust. 1181.55  ff.; Combellack loc. cit. 250–256; cf. Ebeling s.v. ἄμητος). The metaphor remains vague and thus allows for a variety of associations (Edwards; Combellack loc. cit. 256  f.). (1c) can be safely excluded, since survivors do not fit the image of harvesting cut stalks. The interpretation as a general metaphor for the toils of battle (1a) is probably the most convincing: when Zeus lowers the balance of the scale and the battle is decided (223  f. with n.), the return for the soldiers does not correspond to the effort and risk expended, especially since individual warriors, like reapers in a field, do not ‘work’ for themselves but always in the service of another (cf. the harvest scene at 18.550–557). Odysseus thus paints a realistic image of battle (222  f.): it is destructive, and the individual gets no great gain from it (on battle as hard labor, see 1.162n., 2.401n.). The image of harvesting may here also evoke associations with the meal the military assembly is awaiting (Edwards; Grethlein loc. cit. 270 n. 51). 221 A general experience of life: weariness with fighting will set in over time (cf. Menelaos’ outrage at the insatiable Trojans at 13.620  f., 630–639 and Janko on 13.620–639), but this will happen particularly quickly without nourishment beforehand. The performance in battle of a refreshed army is contrasted with this at 231  ff.

αἶψά τε: so too at Od. 1.392 (cf. Hes. Th. 87 and West ad loc.); τε here is either a generalizing ‘epic τε’ (Leaf; Chantr. 2.341) or a ‘preparatory coordinator’ connecting the first argument (recourse to the previous speech at 162  f. and 165  f.) with the second at 225–227, introduced with anacoluthon via δέ (rather than καί) (Ruijgh 837  f.). — φυλόπιδος: 158n. — πέλεται: frequently in aphoristic phrases, here ingressive ‘usually comes about’ (LfgrE s.v.1131.23  ff.; Waanders 2000, 263  f.). — κόρος: a verbal noun related to κορέσαι ‘sate’, i.e. ‘satiety’, or even ‘aversion to’; of battle, cf. also 13.635 φυλόπιδος κορέσασθαι and adjectival ἀ-κόρητος 7.117, 12.335, 13.621, 639, 14.479, 20.2 (Latacz 1966, 181  f.; Helm 1993/94, 5–7).

222 πλείστην μὲν καλάμην: a chiastic antithesis of ἀμητὸς δ’ ὀλίγιστος (223). καλάμη occurs elsewhere at Od. 14.214; etymologically related to Latin culmus and Engl. ‘haulm’, it is likely the result of vowel assimilation from *κολαμᾱ and is a collective singular for the mass of cut stalks with the grain-ears (Ebeling; DELG, Frisk, Beekes s.v. κάλαμος; Fränkel 1921, 43 n. 3). — χθονί: dat. of attained position of rest with verbs of laying, throwing, etc. (Schw. 2.155; Chantr. 2.79). — χαλκός: literally ‘bronze’ (25n.), often metonymic for individual tools and weapons (1.236n.) and thus appropriate here on

222 ἧς: sc. φυλόπιδος. — τε: ‘epic τε’, likewise at 224 (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 105

both metaphorical (‘sickle’) and concrete (‘weapon’; cf. 233) levels. — ἔχευεν: root aor. of χέω (3.10n.), here as a gnomic aor. in the dependent clause (Schw. 2.283; Chantr. 2.185); on the augmented aor. in similes (signaling visualization), Bakker (2001) 2005, 131–135. 223a ἀμητός: a Homeric hapaxP and deverbative of ἀμάω ‘cut, reap’, either a verbal adjective in -τός (‘the harvested’, i.e. ‘crop-yield’) or a verbal noun meaning ‘reaping’ or ‘harvest time’ (Porzig 1942, 190, 245, 342  f.; Risch 26). The word is transmitted sometimes as oxytone, sometimes as proparoxytone, with ancient grammarians distinguishing between ‘yield’ (ἀμητός ~ ὁ καρπός) and ‘harvest time’ (ἄμητος ~ ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἀμᾶν); see schol. bT, A and h, Erbse in the testimonia apparatus on 221–224, conversely schol. D on 223 (West 2001, 253). In Hes., it occurs with the meaning ‘reaping, harvesting’, with reference to harvest time (Op. 383  f. Πληιάδων … ἐπιτελλομενάων | ἄρχεσθ’ ἀμήτου, 575 ὥρῃ ἐν ἀμήτου), similarly at Hdt. 2.14.2 (τὸν ἄμητον … μένει) and 4.42.3 (μένεσκον τὸν ἄμητον), with the meaning ‘yield’ not recurring before Aratus (1096  f. περιδείδιε  … | ἀμητῷ, also 1061: σήματ’ … ἀμήτοιο). — ὀλίγιστος: The superlative occurs elsewhere in early epic only at Hes. Op. 723 (with δαπάνη), with a clear temporal reference not before Plat. (Leg. 2.661c) and (‘Xen.’) Ath. pol. (14), but cf. ὀλίγον χρόνον at 19.157, 23.418 and ὀλίγη … ἀνάπνευσις πολέμοιο 11.801, etc. (LfgrE s.v.; Combellack 1984, 248  f.).

223b–224 224 = 4.84. — when Zeus has poised his balance: The scales of Zeus are mentioned elsewhere in the context of portrayals of actual battle: at 8.69–74 before the defeat of the Achaian army and at 22.208–213 before Hektor’s death (cf. Hektor’s realization at 16.658 and the simileP of the balanced scales at 12.432–438). When Zeus has distributed the lots of two parties into the pans of the scales, the sinking of one side indicates that the moment of decision has arrived and that one party (actually already determined, cf. 1.503–530 and 22.168–185) will now be defeated; in the present passage, however, Zeus is depicted as the one setting the scales in motion and thus controlling the distribution of victory and defeat in battle (Edwards on 221–224; Dietrich 1965, 294–296; Combellack 1984, 250–252; KlP s.v. Kerostasia; LfgrE s.v. τάλαντον with bibliography; de Jong on Il. 22.208–213; on similar ideas of scales of fate in the ancient Near East, see West 1997, 393  f.). This implies that when Zeus disturbs the equilibrium of the scales in favor of one party, the yield (or the time for capturing booty) for individual members of the victorious party will be limited (221–224n.). — who is administrator to men in their fighting: points to Zeus as a dominant, divine force in war; the same notion at e.g. 4.84, 8.175  f., 13.632, Od. 18.376 (Leaf; Edwards; Tsagarakis 1977, 11  f.; Erbse 1986, 230  f.;

223 ἀμητὸς δ’ ὀλίγιστος: sc. ἐστι. — ἐπήν: 208n. — κλίνησι: 3rd sing. aor. subjunc. (R 16.3;). 224 ἀνθρώπων: dependent on ταμίης πολέμοιο, ‘steward of the fighting’, i.e. ‘the  … for humans’. — τέτυκται: perf. pass. of τεύχω, here ‘is’.

106 

 Iliad 19

Grethlein 2005, 272 n. 56; on his role in the Trojan War, see 1.5n.; CG 24); cf. 24.529  f., where Zeus allocates good and bad to human beings. The image of Zeus as a ‘steward’ (Greek tamíēs) handling scales evokes an association with individuals entrusted with the distribution and control of certain objects, cf. at 44 the ‘stewards’ (Greek tamíai) who distribute bread as quartermasters (44n.), Aiolos at Od. 10.21, who distributes the winds, and Endymion at ‘Hes.’ fr. 10a.62 M.-W., who is granted decision-making power over his own aging and death (LfgrE s.v. ταμίης). ἐπήν: on the form, 208n. — κλίνησι: here ‘incline, lower, let sink’, of scales as a sign of someone’s defeat or victory. The form could be either pres. or aor.; here it is to be taken as aor., cf. Hes. Th. 711 ἐκλίνθη δὲ μάχη (Willcock; Mutzbauer 1909, 61; Chantr. 1.463); on the ending -ησι (without ι subscr.), West 1998, XXXI. — τάλαντα: a derivation from ταλα- ‘carry’, interpreted as a participial formation with the suffix ντ (‘the carriers’), with a secondary singular formation τάλαντον (Risch 13); a general term for weighing-pans (cf. 12.433) and subsequently for a unit of weight (on this, 24.232n.): LfgrE, Frisk and Beekes s.v.; DELG s.v. ταλάσσαι. — ταμίης: 44n.

225–233a Odysseus switches from the metaphorical to the concrete and points out the difficult situation within the army, i.e. the heavy losses it has suffered and the need to concentrate forces. For his argumentation, he employs ‘common sense and unsentimental facts of physiology’ (Taplin 1992, 210). The verses are constructed in ring-compositionP: (A) the Achaians cannot grieve with their bellies – i.e. by fasting – (225); (B) since many die every day, battle demands the survivors’ all (226–227); (C) they are supposed to bury the dead and mourn them for one day only (228–229); (B’) those who have survived thus far (230) (A’) should think of food and drink in order to regain their readiness for battle (231–233a); this last point forms the transition to the paraenetic closing section of the speech (Edwards on 216–237; Lohmann 1970, 68  f.). – In the Odyssey, the shipwrecked Odysseus frequently advocates for the needs of the stomach (examples in Russo on Od. 18.44), but in the present passage this is done to improve the army’s readiness for battle (Crotty 1994, 60–62; Heath 2005, 162). 225 1st VH ≈ Od. 17.286. — γαστέρι: used here for the digestive organ and the seat of sensations of hunger, as in a wolf simile – admittedly textually problematic – at 16.156–163; elsewhere the word refers either to the abdomen as a wounded body part (4.531, 5.539, etc.) or the womb (6.58). In the Odyssey, γαστήρ is also used for the drive of hunger that can induce a person to behave irrationally, e.g. at Od. 6.133, 15.344, 17.286  ff., 18.53  f.

225 οὔ πώς ἐστι: governs the acc.-inf. construction πενθῆσαι Ἀχαιούς ‘the Achaians cannot mourn’; πενθῆσαι takes the acc. object νέκυν.

Commentary 

 107

(cf. γαστέρες as a term of abuse at Hes. Th. 26): LfgrE s.v.; Pucci 1987, 168, 173. — οὔ πώς ἐστι: ‘it is not possible’; accent was not used in antiquity to differentiate between the use of ἐστι as a copula and as a full verb (6.267n.). — πενθῆσαι: ‘to mourn (for)’ via visible signs and actions (Mawet 1979, 290  f.; LfgrE s.v.). 226 ἐπήτριμοι: ‘in rows, in succession’; elsewhere at 18.211 of signal fires, 18.552 of stalks falling during reaping; here it refers back to the falling stalks at 222. The etymology is uncertain; according to ancient scholarship, the adjective is related to ἤτριον ‘warp’ (schol. AbT; opposed Arbenz 1933, 26; cf. Frisk, LfgrE, Beekes s.v.). — ἤματα πάντα: a VE formula (7x Il., 19x Od., 5x Hes., 11x h.Hom.); distributive ‘day by day’ (IE parallels in West 2007, 91). 227 ἀναπνεύσειε πόνοιο: ≈ 15.235, denotes the panting that occurs after hard work. πόνος likely does not refer to fasting during mourning (thus AH; Faesi; Leaf; LfgrE s.v. πνέω 1301.7  f.; cf. Cicero’s translation in Tusculanae disputationes 3.65 maerore vacare), but primarily to battle (schol. b; van Leeuwen; Edwards; Lehrs [1833] 1882, 74; LfgrE s.v. πόνος 1447.7  ff.); on battle as ‘toil’, see 1.162n., 2.401n., 6.77n.

228–229 Burial of fallen warriors, usually carried out as rapidly as possible – i.e. via cremation – during a pause in the fighting, is described at 7.328–335, 408– 410, 417–436 (on the reasons for speedy burial in general, see 24.37b n.). Apollo thus deplores Achilleus’ unusual behavior in his mourning at 24.44–49; additional passages with calls for balanced grief, including some in later literature, in Arnould 1990, 108–113. — harden our hearts: Given the number of the dead, control of emotions is necessary for the good of the community (Crotty 1994, 60; cf. 7.427–429). Merciless behavior (Greek nēléa ‘pitiless, heartless’) is strongly condemned elsewhere and sometimes held against individuals, especially Achilleus (9.496  ff., 628  ff, 16.33, 203  f.): Edwards; cf. LfgrE s.v. νηλεής. χρή: here has the force of a necessity resulting from the general situation (Ruijgh 269; on χρή in gnomes, see 2.24n.). — τὸν μέν: antecedent of the following ὅς κε (on which, Chantr. 2.232 and 236), corresponding to ὅσσοι δ(έ) (230 [with n.]) and preparing for the antithesis ‘deceased – surviving’. — θάνησιν: cf. κλίνησι 223b–224n. — νηλέα θυμόν: The expression occurs elsewhere in the VE formula νηλέϊ θυμῷ Od. 9.272, 287, 368 (of Polyphemos); cf. the VB formula νηλεὲς ἦτορ ἔχειν/ἔχων Il. 9.497 (of Achilleus), Hes. Th. 456 (of Hades), as well as the VE formulae νηλεὲς ἦμαρ and νηλέϊ χαλκῷ (266n.). On the etymology of νηλεής (privative particle *n̥ , the second element from ἔλεος) and the hyphaeresis (-εεα > -εα), see 3.292n.; G 42 and Schw. 1.252. — ἐπ’ ἤματι: ‘on a single

226 ἤματα: from τὸ ἦμαρ ‘day’. 227 κέν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — ἀναπνεύσειε (+ gen.): from ἀναπνέω ‘breathe deeply, recover from’. 228–231 χρή: 67n.; the inf. καταθάπτειν (228) and μεμνῆσθαι (231) are dependent on it; as subject-acc. supply first Ἀχαιούς (cf. 225), to which ἔχοντας, … δακρύσαντας (229) is predicate, then τούτους (as antecedent of ὅσσοι in 230). — θάνησιν: 3rd sing. subjunc. (R 16.3).

108 

 Iliad 19

day, a single day long’, a formulaic expression (after caesura B 2); elsewhere at 10.48, Od. 2.284, 12.105, 14.105, Hes. Op. 43 (AH; van Leeuwen; Leaf; Edwards; cf. Verdenius 1985, 42  f.). 230 πολέμοιο: 36n. — στυγεροῖο: ‘abominable, loathsome, hated’, see 2.385n.; cf. στυγεροῦ πολέμοιο at 4.240, 6.330 (with n.). — περὶ … λίπωνται: with genitive ‘be left over from’ in the sense ‘survive something’; denotes the survivors of the most recent battles and forms a contrast with ὅς κε θάνησιν 228, cf. λείπομαι ‘remain alive’ beside ‘die’ at 11.693, 12.14 (athetized by West), 23.247  f. (Edwards on 230–2; LfgrE s.v.).

231–233a With these words, Odysseus refers back to the beginning of his argument (221 and 225) and, by including all those present (‘so that … | we may’ 231  f., cf. 236  f.), transitions to the paraenetic final section of his speech (225– 233a n.): as already in Book 2 (2.188–206n.), he tries to motivate the army and strengthen its will for battle by all means possible. A motif typical of battle paraeneses is the call for perseverance (6.80–82n.), here  – in an attempt to reawaken a will for battle in the weakened army – suggested by ‘forever relentless’ and ‘with the weariless bronze’, and heightened by ‘all the more strongly | we may fight’ (additional elements of battle paraeneses: 233b–237n.). 231 μεμνῆσθαι: in the case of physical needs ‘to be mindful of, give heed to’ (likewise in the case of χάρμη, ἀλκή, etc., cf. 147–148n.). — πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος: a formula occurring before caesura C 2, elsewhere usually in the formulaic verse 1.469 (see ad loc.) indicating the end of a meal; on its function in terms of the content here, see 155–183n. — ὄφρ’ ἔτι μάλλον: a VE formula (2x Il., 2x Od.); on the accent of μάλλον, see West 1998, XX, s.v. ἄσσον. 232 ἀνδράσι δυσμενέεσσι: 168n. — νωλεμὲς αἰεί: a VE formula (4x Il., 2x Od.), cf. esp. 9.317, 17.148. The etymology of νωλεμές (compound with privative particle *n̥ ) is uncertain (Frisk, DELG, Beekes, LfgrE s.v.; schol. D ad loc.: ἀδιαλείπτως). 233a χαλκὸν ἀτειρέα: in the same position in the verse at 20.108, otherwise a VE formula χαλκὸς ἀτειρής used of weapons (5.292, 7.247, 14.25), also of the material used in forging weapons at 18.474 and of containers at Od. 13.368. ἀτειρής (likely α privativum + root of τείρω, Lat. terere) is literally ‘not to be worn away’; as an epithet of objects ‘indestruc­ tible’, of persons ‘dauntless, relentless’ (LfgrE s.v.; 3.60n.).

230 ὅσσοι: on -σσ-, R 9.1. — περὶ … λίπωνται: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 231 μεμνῆσθαι: dependent on χρή (228), sc. τούτους as the subject-acc. (228–231n.). — πόσιος: on the declension, R 11.3. — ὄφρ(α) (+ subjunc.): final (R 22.5). 232 δυσμενέεσσι: 168n. — νωλεμές: adv. ‘unceasingly, incessantly’. 233 ἑσσάμενοι: aor. mid. part. of ἕννυμαι ‘put something on’. — χροΐ: locative dat. without pre­ position (R 19.2). — ἀτειρέα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — μηδέ: In Homer, connective οὐδέ/ μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 109

233b–237 Odysseus makes it clear that Achilleus’ call to depart for battle is to be obeyed (148–153, 205  f.; Agamemnon’s transferral of the supreme command at 139 with n.) and that there will be no further orders regarding this matter (233– 235). The army in fact obeys the instructions immediately after the dissolution of the assembly, which is accomplished by Achilleus (275  f., cf. 171–180n.), and the consumption of a meal (277, 345  f., 351  f., 357–364, 20.1  f.). In closing, Odysseus invokes the unity of the community of warriors (236  f.). – The passage contains typical elements of battle paraeneses: an appeal to one’s own people in the 3rd sing. imper. at 234 (examples and bibliography, 2.381–393n.), and threats against potential shirkers at 235  f. (examples, 2.391–393n.). 233b μηδέ τις ἄλλην: on the beginning of a new sentence after caesura C 2, see 1.194n. 234 2nd VH ≈ Od. 7.161. — a four-word verse with an increasing number of syllables and/or morae (1.75n.). — λαῶν: 35n. — ὀτρυντύν (‘order’) is an action noun related to the nasal pres. ὀτρύνω (cf. 156, 205), only here and at 235, but cf. the personal name Ὀτρυντεύς 20.384 (Porzig 1942, 183; Risch 40  f.; Edwards); otherwise attested only in Antimachus of Colophon (schol. bT on 233–4; cf. Antimachus fr. 172 Matthews). — ποτιδέγμενος: Athematic δέγμενος usually has the durative meaning ‘expecting’ and replaces the form δεχόμενος, which does not fit in hexameter (2.137n.). — ἰσχαναάσθω: ἰσχανάω is a metrical variant beside ἰσχάνω, possibly with a stronger durative sense (LfgrE s.vv. ἰσχάνω, ἰσχανάω; Chantr. 1.359  f.; Risch 321): it stresses the expectations of the men who stay behind beside the ships. 235 ἥδε  … ὀτρυντύς· κακόν: a completed, elliptical nominal clause (‘since this is the order’) and an asyndetic new sentence beginning with κακόν (cf. app. crit.): AH; Leaf; Edwards. — ὅς κε: a relative clause with no preceding demonstrative (literally ‘for all who’), in the sense of a prospective conditional clause (Leaf on 14.81; K.-G. 2.441  f.; Chantr. 2.238; cf. 3.109n.).

236–237 a call for a united advance against the enemy; on the solidarity of the Achaian community of warriors, see 3.9n. 236 1st VH = 12.246; ≈ 24.298, cf. the VB formula νηυσὶν ἔπι γλαφυρῇσ(ι[ν]) 12x Il.

237 = 4.352; ≈ 8.516, 19.318; 1st VH ≈ 8.110, 17.230 (also in the gen./acc. without preposition at 2.230, etc. [see ad loc.] and at 3.343, etc. [see ad loc.]). —

234 λαῶν: partitive gen. dependent on τις; on the form, 35n. — ποτιδέγμενος: = προσδεχόμενος (↑; on the prefix, R 20.1). — ἰσχαναάσθω: 3rd sing. imper. of ἰσχανάομαι ‘hold back’; on the epic diectasis, R 8. 235 ἥδε  … ὀτρυντύς: sc. ἐστι. — κακόν: neut. sing. subst., here ‘trouble’. — ἔσσεται: =  ἔσται (R 16.6 and 9.1). 236 νηυσὶν ἔπ(ι): = ἐπὶ νηυσίν (R 20.2), on the declension of νηυσίν, R 12.1. 237 Τρωσὶν ἔφ’: = ἐπὶ Τρωσίν (R 20.2); ἐπί here with a dat. of direction. — ἐγείρομεν: short-vowel aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). — ἄρηα: on the declension, R 12.4.

110 

 Iliad 19

breakers of horses: on the generic epithetP and the archaeological finds in Troy, see 2.230n.

ἐγείρομεν ὀξὺν ἄρηα: a VE formula (5x Il.: 2.440n.); ἐγείρω is also used metaphorically of awakening a fight with the objects μάχην, πόλεμον and φύλοπιν (LfgrE s.v. ἐγείρω); on the metonymic use of Ἄρης/ἄρης (referring to both the god and his sphere of action), see 2.381n.

238–281 Agamemnon has the gifts for Achilleus brought, presents them amidst the assembly, and conducts an oath ritual. The assembly is dissolved, and the gifts and Briseïs are taken to the Myrmidon camp. 238–276 The closing scene of the assembly is comprised of elements similar to those in the return of Chryseïs and reconciliation with Apollo at 1.430b–474: public openness, speeches by the characters involved in making reparations, prayers (or oaths) to appease the offended party, animal sacrifice, a subsequent meal (Edwards on 238–356; on the plot-pattern ‘assembly  – purification – feast – mediation’, see Foley 1991, 175–180; 1999, 173  f.). But here the narratorP makes the distance between the adversaries clear: (1) Agamemnon does not address Achilleus with words or gestures (cf. 1.440–447a, the handshake at 2.339–341 [2.341n.], 6.233 [with n.], 24.671  f.; also Kitts 2005, 79  ff.), but instead stages the presentation of gifts and return of Briseïs, as well as the oath ritual with animal sacrifice, primarily for the military assembly (249b– 268a n.; on rituals and their performative aspect, Graf [1994] 1997, 207: ‘any rite has theatrical aspects’, in particular on oath rituals, 208–210, 212; Bierl 2001, 25–28); (2) Achilleus ignores the gifts (cf. 147  f.) and the oath (270–275 [with n.]) and evades the invitation to a joint meal after the assembly (303– 309n.). On the arrangement of this ‘scene of reconcilitation’, see Reinhardt 1961, 414  f., 419  f.; Elmer 2013, 128  f. 238–240 He spoke, and: a speech capping formulaP with the subject remaining that of the preceding speech, allowing the plot to continue within the same verse (1.219n.): Odysseus, who had urged that the gifts be brought to the assembly (172–174), acts at once (see also 242, 245 [‘immediately’]) without waiting for Achilleus’ response; he tacitly assumes the latter’s agreement. — went away with …: The enumeration of the young men presented by Odysseus for the handing over of the gifts increases the impression of hurried

238 ἦ: 3rd sing. imper. of ἠμί ‘say’. — υἷας: on the declension, R 12.3. — ὀπάσσατο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — κυδαλίμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 239–240 Φυλεΐδην  … Κρειοντιάδην: patronymics: ‘son of Phyleus’ and ‘son of Kreion’. — Λυκομήδεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 

 111

industriousness (the naming of those – again seven in number – who execute an order is similar at 9.79–84; on this function of lists of names, see Minchin 2001, 92  f.; Gaertner 2001, 302; additional groups of seven individuals: 6.421 [Andromache’s brothers], 9.128 [women from Lesbos], 24.399 [Priam’s sons]; on the use of the typical numberP seven, see Blom 1936, 202–206). Catalogues of names are elsewhere frequently found in battle scenes in the form of lists of slain opponents (5.677  f., 5.705–707, 8.274–276, 11.301–303, 16.415–417, 16.694– 696), also at 12.93–102 (Trojan leaders), 13.790–792 (fighting Trojans), in a different context e.g. at 14.317–327 (lovers of Zeus), 18.39–49 (Nereïds [athetized by West]); on catalogues in epic poetry in general, see catalogueP with n. 9; Kelly 2007, 122–124.  – In accord with Agamemnon’s instructions (193–195), Odysseus selects representatives of the younger generation (Jeanmaire 1939, 32–34; van Wees 1992, 276, 407 n. 5). — the sons of … Nestor: The reference is to Antilochos, a friend of Achilleus (23.556, Od. 24.77  f.) and Menelaos (23.602– 611), and to Thrasymedes; the two are subordinate leaders of the Pylians and frequently act together (16.317  ff., 17.377  ff., 17.703  ff.): CH 3; CH 4. — Meges: leader of the contingent from Doulichion (2.625n.); he plays an important if subsidiary role in the Iliad, cf. 5.69  ff., 10.108  ff., 15.301  ff., 15.520  ff., 16.313  ff. (2.627n., CH 4). — Thoas: leader of the Aitolian contingent and granted a certain authority (2.638n.). — Meriones: son of Molos, follower of Idomeneus, under whose command he leads the Kretans; he is likely a figure from an old epic narrative tradition (2.651n., CH 4 s.v.; LfgrE s.v. ὀπάων; Latacz [2001] 2004, 261–263). — Lykomedes: first mentioned at 9.84 along with Thrasymedes, Meriones and others as a leader of the guards along the walls of the encampment of ships. — Melanippos: shares his name with three Trojans who are all killed in battle (see Prolegomena, Character Index s.v.). The Achaian character is mentioned only here; his name likely serves to complete the verse at the end of the catalogueP, as do those of the Trojans at the end of the lists of names at 8.274–276 and 16.694  f. (Edwards). ὀπάσσατο: belongs to the root ἕπομαι (Frisk, Beekes s.v.; DELG s.v. ὀπάων); causative ὀπάζω is literally ‘make, cause to follow’, in the mid. with a person as object ‘bring someone along (as a companion)’ (LfgrE). — κυδαλίμοιο: a generic epithetP derived from κῦδος (204n.) and used for various heroes (including Menelaos, Achilleus, Aias, and Odysseus) and with κήρ (6.184n.). — Μέγητα: In addition to this acc. form, Μέγην is found at 15.302 (von Kamptz 144, 228; on a possible Mycenaean attestation of the short form [gen. sing. Me-ka-o], Leukart 1994, 220; DMic s.v.).

112 

 Iliad 19

241 ≈ 2.9 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH = 1.203 (see ad loc.), 3.193, 7.176, 9.178, 14.137, 4x Od. — βὰν δ’ ἴμεν: ‘they strode out in order to walk’, i.e. ‘they set off’, signals the initiation of movement in a scene (Kurz 1966, 96  f.); a variable formula, more ‘emphatic […], expressive […] and solemn’ than mere βῆναι (LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 10.61  ff. [transl.]; cf. 6.296n.); here it refers to the solemn act introducing the departure of Odysseus and his helpers. 242 αὐτίκ’ … μῦθος: likely refers to an order – not explicitly stated – issued by Odysseus to his companions (AH; differently LfgrE s.v. αὐτίκα 1604.21  ff.: reference to Agamemnon’s order at 192  ff.; on αὐτίκα, 2.442n.). — ἅμα μῦθος ἔην, τετέλεστο δὲ ἔργον: a chiastic rendering of a proverbial saying, with adverbial ἅμα used correlatively; in the second clause, δέ is progressive, cf. 7.465 (τ. δὲ ἔ. Ἀχαιῶν), Od. 22.479 (τ. δὲ ἔ.) (Schw. 2.534  f.; West 2001, 253); on the saying (English: ‘no sooner said than done’, German: ‘gesagt, getan’), cf. the formulations at h.Merc. 46: ὣς ἅμ’ ἔπος τε καὶ ἔργον ἐμήδετο, Hdt. 3.135.1: καὶ ἅμα ἔπος τε καὶ ἔργον ἐποίεε, 9.92.1: ταῦτά τε ἅμα ἠγόρευε καὶ τὸ ἔργον προσῆγε, Apoll. Rhod. 4.103: ἔνθ’ ἔπος ἠδὲ καὶ ἔργον ὁμοῦ πέλεν (Edwards).

243–248 The same reparation was offered to Achilleus by the failed embassy in Book 9 (9.122–132a ≈ 264–274a), if he would re-enter the community of warriors (cf. 9.135a/277a): Reichel 1994, 126; on repetitions in epic, see 6.86–101n. end. But the present version has been altered in certain ways: (1) Agamemnon’s comments on the quality of the horses (9.124–127) and the beauty of the captured women (9.130) are omitted; (2) the prospect of goods held out in the case of the sack of Troy and a safe return home – a share of the booty (9.135–140 ≈ 277–282), one of Agamemnon’s daughters as wife, and appropriate endowment with power and wealth (9.141–156 ≈ 283–298) – remain unmentioned because of the situation here (Willcock 1977, 48); (3) the sequence of the list is altered, in that the ten talents of gold, for which Odysseus is personally responsible, are mentiond only after the women; this may be designed to highlight Odysseus’ role as organizer of the entire enterprise (Edwards). The narrator uses the re­ petition of the list to illustrate for the audience once more the large number of gifts, thus indirectly characterizing Agamemnon as one for whom material recompense for the offended party is paramount (Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 201 [transl.]: ‘too many gifts and not enough words’; Latacz [1995] 1997, 96  f. n. 133 and 135; Gaertner 2001, 300; on Achilleus’ lack of interest in reparations, see 147–154n.). This impression is supported by variation in the narrative pace: the speedy execution of the order is followed by the catalogueP of gifts; the latter is followed in turn by a brief description of the preparations for the ceremony at 249–251 (suggestion by Führer). – Additional catalogues of gifts: 8.290  f.,

241 βάν: 3rd pl. root aor. (= ἔβησαν: R 16.1, 16.2). — ἴμεν: inf. of εἶμι (R 16.4). — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — κλισίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — Ἀτρεΐδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. 242 ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). — δὲ (ϝ)έργον: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 113

24.229–235, Od. 4.128–135, 8.392  f., 9.202–205, 24.274–279 (Hainsworth on 9.121–30; on catalogues, see also 238–240n.). 243–244 244 = 9.123, 9.265. — tripods … | … shining cauldrons: Cooking pots were set over the fire on a tripod; both pot and tripod were usually made of bronze (Bruns 1970, 37–39; Canciani 1984, 38  f; Hiller 1991, 75  f.). Tripods and/or cauldrons are also offered as gifts elsewhere, e.g. 8.290  f., 24.233, Od. 4.129, 13.13, 13.217, 15.84, or as prizes, e.g. Il. 11.700, 22.164, 23.259, etc. (BNP s.v. Tripod; LfgrE s.vv. τρίπος and λέβης; Hainsworth on Il. 9.121–130; on the typical numberP seven, 238–240n.). — those Agamemnon | had promised: internal analepsisP, cf. Agamemnon’s references to keeping his promise at 140  f., 194  f. (140–141n.). — horses: Horses were bred by the elite for war and hunting in particular, and were a sign of their wealth (2.762n.; Wiesner 1968, 23 with n. 77). αἴθωνας: an adjectival formation etymologically related to αἴθω (‘burn’), epithet of metals, aside from the iterata and 24.233 also in a VE formula with σίδηρος; also used of animals. The meaning encompasses ‘gleaming brownish’ for newly made bronze objects not yet blackened by fire (see 9.122), ‘brown’ (especially of animals: 2.839n.), and ‘gleaming, glittering’ of iron (Dürbeck 1977, 177–186, esp. 182; Edgeworth 1983, 34  f. 38–40). — ἐείκοσι: on the prothetic vowel, G 25; Schw. 1.412 and 591; Chantr. 1.182.

245 ≈ 9.128, 9.270, Od. 24.278, ‘Hes.’ fr. 197.1 M.-W.; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 23.263, Hes. Th. 264. — women: They may be gifts or prizes – in addition to objects and animals, mostly horses (e.g. at 8.290  f., 22.164, 23.259–265, Od. 24.274–279); on Agamemnon’s promise, see 194–195n. — the work  …: particularly while spinning and weaving: female captives are valued especially for their labor (1.31n.; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 43  f.; on wool-working in general, 3.387–388n., 6.90–91n.). ἀμύμονα: ‘blameless, excellent’, a generic epithetP of persons, but also of statements, activities and so forth; the etymology is disputed (6.22–23n.). — ἔργ’ εἰδυίας: an inflectible VE formula (sing.: nom./dat./acc., pl.: nom./acc.; in total 4x Il., 4x Od., 5x Hes.), in addition to ἀμύμονα ἔ. (see iterata) also in the variants ἀγλαὰ ἔ. (3x Od.) and περικαλλέα ἔ. (3x Hes.); it serves to highlight women with particular skills (‘knowledgeable in’: LfgrE s.v. οἶδα 549.48  ff.); on the spelling ἔργ’ εἰδυίας rather than ἔργα ἰδυίας, see West on Hes. Op. p. 62; Hoekstra on Od. 13.417.

243 οἱ ὑπέστη: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ὑπέστη: 195n. 244 ἐείκοσι: = εἴκοσι (↑). 245 ἐκ … ἄγον: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — ἀμύμονα (ϝ)έργ(α): 242n.

114 

 Iliad 19

246 and the eighth of them: The ordinal number marks the climax and conclusion of a list (2.313n., cf. 2.326–329n.); additional lists with ‘seven … the eighth’: 7.222  f., 245  f. (layers of a shield), Od. 3.305  f., 7.259–261, 14.285–287 (years); on the typical numberP seven, see 238–240n. Briseïs also received special mention in Book 9 (9.128–132/270–274, cf. 9.632–638). — Briseïs of the fair cheeks: a VE formula (1.184, 323, 346: 1.184n.). The name of the woman who became the trigger for the quarrel had thus far not been mentioned by any of the speakers, cf. 58–60, 89, 176 (58n., 194–195n.). – Briseïs is a patronymic (‘daughter of Briseus’, cf. 9.132) used as a personal name to be linked with the placename ‘Brisa’ on Lesbos (although Brisa, as Briseïs’ home town, plays no role in the Iliad). She was captured in Lyrnessos, where she had gone to be married (1.184n., 1.392n., 19.291–296n.). The generic epithetP kallipárēos designates one of the signs of female beauty of mortal women and goddesses (1.143n.). ὀγδοάτην: a metrically convenient variant of ὄγδοος (G 80).

247 ≈ 24.232; VE ≈ 2nd VH 9.122, 9.264. — ten full talents of gold: Gold is often found alongside other goods among gifts, prizes, ransom payments, etc. The weight of the Homeric talent (always of gold) cannot be determined, but was likely smaller than that of talents from later periods (25 kg and more): Hainsworth on 9.121–130; Richardson on 23.269; LfgrE s.v. τάλαντον; on the function of gold in Homeric epic, see Brown 1998; Seaford 2004, 31–33. στήσας: ἵστημι means here ‘weigh out’, likewise at 22.350 (gifts as ransom), 24.232 (gold). — Ὀδυσεύς: on the shortening of the consonant (σ rather than σσ), 3.191n. — δέκα πάντα τάλαντα: πᾶς in the pl. in connection with numbers means ‘whole, entire’, thus here ‘ten whole talents’ (LfgrE s.v. 1017.35  ff., on this passage 1018.8  f.). 248 ἦρχ(ε): used absolutely with the meaning ‘go ahead, precede’, as at 1.494  f. (ἴσαν … πάντες ἅμα, Ζεὺς δ’ ἦ.), 9.656  f. (οἳ δὲ  … ἴσαν πάλιν, ἦ. δ’ Ὀδυσσεύς), Od. 24.9  f. (ἅμ’ ἤϊσαν, ἦ. … Ἑρμείας): 1.495–496a n.; LfgrE s.v. ἄρχω 1381.2  ff., 39  ff. — κούρητες: 193n.

249a into the midst of assembly: so that everyone can see the gifts, see 172–174, 190  f. (190–191n.). 249b–268a The oath ceremony is element (3) of the type-sceneP ‘oath’ (108– 113n.), the elements (1) invitation to swear an oath and (2) specification of the oath formula are anticipated at 175  f. (175–178n.). The content of the oath refers to Agamemnon’s personal conduct in the past (261–263; a so-called assertive

246 ἀτάρ: ‘and’ (progressive: R 24.2). 248 ἅμα … φέρον: ‘they carried at the same time’, i.e. ‘they followed him carrying’. 249–250 τά: anaphoric demonstrative, referring to δῶρα (248) (R 17). — μέσσῃ ἀγορῇ: on the ­hiatus, R 5.6. — μέσσῃ: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἀγορῇ: on the -ῇ after -ρ-, R 2. — ἂν … ἵστατο: socalled tmesis (20.2); ἄν = ἀνά (R 20.1). — αὐδήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

Commentary 

 115

oath). The significance of the action for the community is underlined by the arrangement of the whole as a solemn ritual including animal sacrifice (principle of elaborate narrationP), in a manner similar to the actions accompanying the peace treaty between Achaians and Trojans at 3.267  ff. (on this more elaborate oath ritual, see 3.245–302n., 3.292–302n.); the ritual is also meant to strengthen the morale of the warriors via its community-building nature (cf. Odysseus’ demand for public openness at 175) (cf. 190–191n., 196–197n. [also on boar sacrifices in general]; Arend 1933, 78, 123; Kitts 2005, 116–119, 123; Hitch 2009, 77–92, 186  f.; cf. 238–276n.). In contrast to the oath scene in Book 3, in which a treaty is entered into by two hostile groups by means of a promissory oath, here the individual actions that usually symbolize a commitment between the partners in the contract are missing – this is Agamemnon’s personal oath, with which he intends to offer Achilleus satisfaction (see 252– 254a n., 255–256n.; on forms of public and private oaths, see Graf 2005, 237  f., 243  f.). – The animal sacrifice accompanying the public oath is rendered as an element of the type-sceneP ‘sacrifice’ (on which, 1.447–468n.; on element (1), see 196–197n.); the following elements are realized: (3) leading in the sacrificial animal (250  f.); (6) description of the knife (252  f.); (8) cutting the animal’s hair (254a); (12) prayer by the participant (254b–265); (18) cutting the animal’s throat with the knife (266).

ἂν … | ἵστατο … | … παρίστατο … | … | ηὔχετο: The framing of imperfect forms (250, 251, 255) by aorists (249a θέσαν, 257 εἶπεν) aids the vivid vizualization of the solemn ceremony that plays out before the spectators (255  f. εἵατο … ἀκούοντες), cf. 3.267–275 (suggestion by Führer; cf. 2.42n.; Schw. 2.275 [transl.]: ‘Via the imperfect, things in the past are described as participatory and lingering’).

250 2nd VH ≈ Od. 1.371, 9.4. — stood up: prepares Agamemnon’s solemn appearance, which is all the more effective as he had been speaking from a seated, or at least unusual, position at the beginning of the assembly, contrary to custom (77n., 79–80n.). Standing up is also explicitly mentioned at 3.267 at the beginning of the oath ritual (see ad loc.). — in voice like an immortal: In case of heralds like Talthybios (196–197n.), the expressiveness and quality of the voice is often stressed (cf. 2.50n.); to perform a herald’s functions, they – like singers (Od. 1.370  f., 9.3  f.)  – need a clearly audible voice and distinct articulation (1.321n. [κήρυκε]; 2.50–52n.; on the particularities of divine voices, see Krapp 1964, 136  f.). ἐναλίγκιος: ‘resembling’; a poetic word of uncertain etymology (Frisk, DELG, LfgrE, Beekes s.v. ἀλίγκιος); in addition to the present formula (see iterata), cf. θεῷ/θεοῖσ’ ἐναλίγκιος/-ον ἄντην (3x Od.). — αὐδήν: In Homeric epic, this denotes the human voice as opposed to a divine one; the formula θεῷ/θεοῖσ’ ἐναλίγκιος αὐ. thus marks a person whose voice has superhuman qualities (Clay 1974, 133  f.).

116 

 Iliad 19

251 2nd VH = 5.570, 16.2. — boar: 196–197n. ἔχων ἐν χειρί: means ‘holding in one’s hand’, elsewhere the objects are weapons, implements, garments, wine and so forth; the VB is formulaic: – ⏑ ἔχων/ἔχουσ’ ἐν χειρί/ χερσίν (6x Il., 5x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’: e.g. 1.14, 15.443, 17.604, 24.284, Od. 3.443, etc.; collection of examples for ἔχων in Kelly 2007, 237  f.). There are no parallels in Homeric language for understanding ἐν as instrumental, which at first sight would appear more reason­ able here (Schw. 2.458); Il. 21.531 (πεπταμένας ἐν χερσὶ πύλας ἔχετ’) is comparable to the action here, in that only part of an object is held with the hand in order to control its movement; cf. 23.780 στῆ δὲ κέρας μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχων βοός. — ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectible VE formula, a title of rulers and military commanders (35n., 1.263n., 2.85n.).

252–254a After its hair is cut (usually from the head), the sacrificial animal is no longer intact; the act thus marks the beginning of the slaughter (likewise at 3.273, Od. 3.446, 14.422; cf. Eur. El. 810–812). The cutting of the hair may be interpreted as anticipating the killing of the animal; it serves to enhance the obligation of the oath. In such cases, the hair is not thrown into the fire (as in sacrifices that are to be eaten in the Odyssey), but is held in the hand by the participants in the oath as a sign of their commitment (e.g. in the mass oath at 3.273  f.): those taking the oath equate their fate with that of the sacrificed animal in case the oath is violated (3.271–274n. with bibliography). By analogy, it can be assumed that in the present passage Agamemnon retains the hair in his hands, as he alone is taking the oath; the assembled Achaians are not included in the ritual (Nilsson [1940] 1967, 140). 252–253 = 3.271–272. — hung ever beside the great sheath of his war sword: on swords, scabbards and straps, see 2.45n. χείρεσσι: probably a metrical filler (3.271n.). — μάχαιραν: ‘knife, dagger’ (of bronze: 266), here and at 3.271 hanging next to the sword, in early epic used not as a battle weapon but in ritual, as here, or as a surgical implement (3.271n.). — ἄωρτο: related to ἀείρω (‘lift’): in terms of its present state, ‘was hanging’; the formation is uncertain (3.272n.). 254a ἀπὸ τρίχας ἀρξάμενος: ἀπ-/ἐπ-/κατ-άρχομαι is a technical term for the initiation of a ritual act (sacrifice or libation). The acc. τρίχας is probably to be explained via the loss of a form of (ἀπο-)τάμνειν, cf. 3.273 τάμνε τρίχας and similar phrases for a preliminary sacrifice at Od. 3.445  f. (χέρνιβά τ’ οὐλοχύτας τε κατήρχετο, … | ἀπαρχόμενος … τρίχας …

252 δὲ (ϝ)ερυσσάμενος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐρυσσάμενος: aor. of ἐρύω ‘draw’, mid.: his own knife; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — χείρεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. 253 ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1); to be taken with κουλεόν. — ξίφεος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — κουλεόν: = κολεόν, ‘sheath’; the initial syllable is metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — αἰέν: = ἀεί. 254 ἀπὸ … ἀρξάμενος: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); on the construction, ↑.

Commentary 

 117

βάλλων), 14.422 (ἀπαρχόμενος κεφαλῆς τρίχας … βάλλεν), Il. 1.471 with n. (ἐπαρξάμενοι δεπάεσσιν): AH; Leaf; LfgrE s.v. ἄρχω 1388.5  ff., 57  ff.; Rudhardt (1958) 1992, 219  f.

254b–265 The swearing of the oath, which is often merely summarized (cf. de Jong [1987] 2004, 186  f. and 283 n. 81), is here described in detail with elements from the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (on which, 1.37–42n., 2.411–420n., 6.304–311n.), as is Agamemnon’s public oath at 3.275  ff.: (1) prayer gesture (254b, 257b); (2) verb of praying (255a, 257a); (4/5) invocation of the gods as witnesses and the listing of their names (258–260). The assertive oath (261–263) and self-imprecation in case of violation of the oath follow (264  f.): Lateiner 1997, 253–255. – This is Agamemnon’s final speech in the Iliad, and the oath ritual is the last scene – aside from his appearance at Patroklos’ funeral and the games that follow (23.49  ff., 155  ff., 233  ff., 272, 887  ff.) – in which he plays the dominant role (Kurz 1966, 75; Taplin 1990, 77: ‘not exactly his finest hour’). 254b lifting his hands up: a common posture for prayer, designed to connect with the gods (3.275n.); here linked with an upward glance (257), i.e. in the direction of the deity.

χεῖρας ἀνασχών: an inflectible VE formula χεῖρας ἀνασχών/ἀνέσχον/ἀνασχεῖν (9x Il., 4x Od.).

255–256 The behavior of the military assembly’s participants is – in accord with the ceremonial scene – different from that at the beginning of the assembly: they listen silently to Agamemnon, the order he demanded (79) having been established (Montiglio 2000, 51  f.; Wille 2001, 50; cf. 79–84n.). In contrast to the oath ritual in Book 3, where all those present are partners in the treaty and thus participants in the oath (3.275–302, esp. 296  ff.), here they are passive spectators who serve as witnesses (Edwards; cf. 249b–268a n.). — stayed fast at their places | in silence: Sitting (Greek heíato) is the stance of spectators; it indicates inactivity (LfgrE s.v. ἧμαι 910.71  ff.) and here lends a theatrical element to the scene. — king: used in a pregnant sense of Agamemnon as the supreme basileús who leads the entire undertaking (1.278–279n.; for his position, see 1.9n., 1.238–239n., 2.203–205n.). ηὔχετο: (‘make an official statement regarding oneself’: 1.91n.), in oaths with the implication ‘affirm solemnly and bindingly’ (3.296n.). The integral enjambmentP after three participles and a relative clause, and the repetition of the verb in 257 emphasize Agamemnon’s active role and the contrast with the audience (Edwards on 252–255). —

255–256 τοὶ δ’ ἄρα πάντες … | Ἀργεῖοι: πάντες … | Ἀργεῖοι is in apposition to the demonstrative anticipatory τοί (= οἵ: R 14.3; R 17). — ἐπ’ αὐτόφιν: = ἐφ’ ἑαυτῶν/-οῖς ‘by themselves’ (↑; on the ending, R 11.4). — εἵατο: = ἧντο, 3rd pl. plpf. (≈ impf.) of ἧμαι (on the ending, R 16.2). — βασιλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.

118 

 Iliad 19

ἐπ’ αὐτόφιν: -φι(ν) is used here for a locative gen./dat. pl. (G 66); the pronoun αὐτός likely refers to the individual participants in the assembly and thus has the reflexive meaning ‘by themselves’, i.e. ‘sat by themselves’ in the sense ‘each in his own place’, cf. 7.194  f. εὔχεσθε … ἐφ’ ὑμείων (AH; Faesi; Edwards; Willcock; cautiously Leaf; Schw. 1.550; LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1666.27  ff.: ‘for himself’; on ἐπί ‘[close] by’, with reflexive pronoun ‘each man for himself’, see Schw. 2.470; on the comparatively rare reflexive use of αὐτός by itself, see Schw. 2.195  f. and Chantr. 2.157  f.); according to others (Chantr. 1.239 following schol.  T on 255), in reference to Agamemnon and Talthybios (‘with them’) emphasizing their fellowship with those making the sacrifice. — εἵατο: on the spelling εἵατο (rather than ἥατο), 2.137n. — σιγῇ: attested in Homer only in the adverbial dat. (‘quietly, silently’); on the difference from σιωπῇ, see 3.8n. — κατὰ μοῖραν: means ‘in the right measure, as befits someone/something’, here likely of the silence, analogous with the VE formula κατὰ μοῖραν ἔειπε/-ς (1.286n.), thus ‘silent in accord with the situation and the norms’, cf. the ritual silence requested for the prayer at 9.171  f. (LfgrE s.v. μοῖρα 248.40  ff.; Kitts 2005, 126  f.; cf. ἐν μοίρῃ 19.186n.); a different interpretation: of sitting ‘in order’ (thus Willcock; Dietrich 1965, 209, with reference to 16.367: ‘either according to rank or according to their tribes’).

257 1st VH ≈ 16.513, Od. 7.330; 2nd VH = Il. 3.364, 7.178, 7.201, 21.272; ≈ 5.867. — gazing into the wide sky: on the posture of prayer, 254b n., 3.364n.; Pucci 2012, 437  f. εὐξάμενος: coincides with εἶπεν (‘by praying’), similarly Od. 14.463 (εὐξάμενος  … ἐρέω), contains the main statement of the sentence (Edwards; Schw. 2.300  f.; Chantr. 2.187– 189) and picks up on 255; the second participle ἰδών is logically subordinate to the first (similarly 2.269 [see ad loc.]). — οὐρανὸν εὐρύν: an inflectible VE formula (acc.: 6x Il., 1x Od., 1x Hes.; nom.: 1x Hes.).

258–260 Zeus, the guardian of oaths and guarantor of legal order, is singled out as the highest god and explicitly called on ‘first’ (1st VH 258; cf. 3.298n.); Earth (CG 38 s.v. Gaia), the sun god Helios (CG 38) and the Erinyes (CG 13) represent the cosmos in a formulaic tripartite division (earth, heaven, underworld), comparable to the oath-gods in the treaty confirmed by oath at 3.276  ff.; in a similar manner, the goddesses Hera (15.36  ff.), Kalypso (Od. 5.184  ff.) and Leto (h.Ap. 84  ff.) swear by the earth, heaven and the waters of Styx (on the oathgods and ancient Near Eastern parallels, 3.103–104n., 3.276–279n., 19.259n.). Agamemnon thus lends weight to his sworn statement that he never touched Briseïs and thus did not violate Achilleus’ honor (cf. 176n.). 258 = Od. 19.303, 20.230; 1st VH = Od. 14.158, 17.155; ≈ Il. 10.329; 2nd VH = 23.43; ≈ h.Cer. 21. — Zeus … highest of the gods and greatest: a shorter version of

257 ἄρα (ϝ)εῖπεν: on the prosody, R 4.3. 258 ἴστω: 3rd sing. imper. of οἶδα. — πρῶτα: neut. pl. as adv.

Commentary 

 119

the accumulation of epithets otherwise common in prayer language (cf. the whole-verse addresses at 2.412n., 6.305n.; on IE parallels for epithets in the superlative [e.g. Latin Iuppiter Optimus Maximus], see West 2007, 129  f.). The epithets refer to Zeus’ preeminent position (95–96n.; cf. 1.18n. on the notion that Zeus’ palace is situated on top of Olympus; on his cult on mountain tops [as mentioned at 22.170  ff.], see DDD s.v. Zeus 934; Near Eastern parallels for the concept that the most powerful god is to be found on high in West 1997, 114). ἴστω νῦν: a formulaic invocation of the oath-god to be a witness (in addition to the iterata, also 15.36, Od. 5.184, h.Ap. 84; cf. Il. 7.411, h.Cer. 259; LfgrE s.v. οἶδα 541.28  ff.; Benveniste 1969, 173; 3.280n.); on the agreement between the verb and the closest subject, see Schw. 2.610; Chantr. 2.18  f. — ὕπατος: usually a predicate of Zeus (in addition to the iterata, also 5.756, 8.22/31, 17.339, Od. 1.45 = 1.81 = 24.473), elsewhere in early epic only as an epithet of πυρή (Il. 23.165, 24.787) and ὄρος (h.Bacch. 8). ὕπ-ατος is etymologically related to ὑπέρ and ὑπό, derivations from *up-, and shows as its basic meaning both ‘below’ and ‘over, on’ (likely originally ‘from below, upwards’) and is closely related to Sanskrit upamá- and Latin summus (Schw. 2.522  f.; DELG and Beekes s.v. ὕπατος; on the Greek suffix -ατος, Risch 93).

259 VB ≈ 3.104. — Sun: The sun god Helios is an oath-god since he sees and hears everything (3.277n.). — Furies: As keepers of the fundamental order of things (87n., 404–418n.), they ensure that the self-imprecation is fulfilled in the case of violation of an oath; their connection with oaths and perjury is also mentioned by Hesiod (Op. 803  f. with West ad loc.; on their role as keepers of order, cf. Heraclitus [VS 22 B 94]). Whether punishment by the Erinyes is to be imagined as taking place already during a person’s lifetime or only in the underworld is disputed, since the phrasing both here and at 264  f. is ambiguous (see below): 3.278  f. (see ad loc.) suggests punishment after death. But elsewhere punishment for violating an oath is expected during one’s lifetime, e.g. at 3.300  f., 4.158  ff. (Schnaufer 1970, 110  f.), and the Erinyes are in fact able to punish the living, e.g. at 9.454–456, 9.571  f., 19.87 (see ad loc.), Od. 15.231  ff. The intended meaning might also be that they punish humans in both life and death (cf. 3.278b–279a n., end; Hainsworth on 9.454; punishment during life: Kirk on 3.278–279 with reference to Aeschylus, Eumenides; Edwards on 257–260; Johnston 1999, 252 n. 6; punishment in the underworld: Dodds 1951, 137 and 158 n. 10; Burkert [1977] 1985, 197; Tsagarakis 1977, 22; SourvinouInwood 1983, 36). Alternatively the reference could be to punishment by death (see below (3) and cf. 3.300  f.): Bergold 1977, 96; Heubeck 1986, 146  f.; Karavites 1992, 102; Kitts 2005, 112.

259 Ἠέλιος: = Ἥλιος. — θ’: = τε, ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

120 

 Iliad 19

ὑπὸ γαῖαν: The location is variously interpreted; most likely this is an acc. of spatial extent (Schw. 2.530; Chantr. 2.144): either (1) with ἀνθρώπους τείνυνται supported by 3.278  f. ὑπένερθε καμόντας | ἀνθρώπους τείνυσθον, i.e. they punish the dead in the underworld (AH; Leaf on 258; LfgrE s.v. ἄνθρωπος 880.3  ff. and 901.4  ff.; Fritz 2005, 334), or (2) as information regarding the general place of residence of the Erinyes (cf. 9.572), in contrast to Γῆ and Ἠέλιος (van Leeuwen ad loc. [transl.]: ‘‹existing› under the earth’; Edwards on 257–260), similar to dwelling ὑπ’ ἠῶ τ’ ἠέλιόν τε (5.267), ὑπ’ αὐγὰς ἠελίοιο | φοιτῶσ’ (Od. 2.181  f., etc.); (3) differently Bergold 1977, 96, Heubeck 1986, 147: acc. of destination (Bergold loc. cit. [transl.]: ‘they send them under the earth by way of punishment’, i.e. they let them die, cf. 18.333, Od. 10.191, h.Cer. 431).

260 ≈ 3.279. — τείνυνται: athematic mid. τ(ε)ινυ- ‘make pay’ (G 61); on τει- vs. τι-, see West 1998, XXXVf., following Wackernagel 1916, 77–81, esp. 80; differently LfgrE s.v. τίνω. — ὅτις: a relative clause with no preceding demonstrative (cf. 235n.), which here defines the relevant subgroup of ἄνθρωποι. On the form ὅτις (prosodic variant of ὅστις), see 3.279n. — ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ: an inflectible VE formula (ὀμόσσῃ/ὀμόσσας: 2x Il., 2x Hes.); ἐπίορκος/-ον is throughout the object of (ἐπ-)όμνυμι (cf. 188a n.), except at 264 and Hes. Op. 804 (of persons, ‘oath-breakers’), almost always used in the context of a potential punishment by the gods (3.279n.).

261–265 Agamemnon expands the oath formula that he himself provided and that was adopted by Odysseus (9.133  f./275  f., 19.176 [with n.]), and supplements it with a self-imprecation (264  f.). A conditional curse of this sort, linked with violation of the oath, is a set part of oath rituals; the punishment the oathbreaker should suffer is often formulated very generally, as here (cf. 3.298–302 [only after the animal sacrifice, during the libation]): Graf 1996, 145; 2005a, 249  f., 261; cf. 3.292–302n. This part of the oath is used in place of elements (6) pledge in reference to services rendered earlier and (7) plea of the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (254b–265n.). 261 μὴ μὲν … ἐπένεικα: μὴ μέν is a negative particle of swearing, ‘in no way at all’ (cf. ἦ μέν 1.77n.); with the indicative also at 10.330, 15.41  f., h.Merc. 275, elsewhere often in connection with the infinitive, cf. 176 (Denniston 389  f.; Leaf on 10.330). The ind. ἐπένεικα, well attested in the manuscripts, is here to be preferred to the inf. of the main transmission, since the form is linked to a subject in the nom. (AH; Leaf; Edwards); differently Faesi, K.-G. 2.31 and Schw. 2.376: stressed nom. with infinitive rather than acc.-inf. construction, construed on analogy with ὄμνυμι μή (but the only other attestations for this are post-Homeric).  – χεῖρας ἐπιφέρω: means ‘lay hands on someone/ something, forcibly take possession’; μὴ … ἐπένεικα here is thus tantamount to ‘I did not touch her’ (1.89n.).

260 ὅτις: = ὅστις. — κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). 261 μέν: emphatic (≈ μήν: R 24.6). — κούρῃ: on the form, R 2, R 4.2. — ἐπένεικα: = ἐπ-ήνεγκον.

Commentary 

 121

262 Female captives had to be available as both workers and bedfellows (245n., 2.355n.), something Agamemnon emphasized in the case of Chryseïs in particular (1.31 with n., 1.111  ff.). He may have intended the same fate for Briseïs at the beginning of the confrontation (1.184  f.), and in the embassy at 9.134 (taken up by Odysseus at 9.276) he still indicates that this would have been natural (cf. Hainsworth on 9.133–134: ‘he would only have been acting normally’). It is notable that Agamemnon refrained from this final step, which would have lessened the chance of an amicable settlement (Mauritsch 1992, 31  f.). He assuredly recognized early on the problematic aspects of his actions and took into account the necessity of reconciling with Achilleus if the overall undertaking was to be successful (2.377–380 with 2.375–380n.; cf. 9.116–120).

οὔτ’ εὐνῆς … οὔτέ τε’ ἄλλου: epexegetic to the actual oath, negated with μή, the main point being contained in 261 and 263 (Briseïs was left alone the entire time) (Edwards). The addition hints at the sexual duties usually expected of captive women, and possibly also other tasks such as bathing and anointing (on which, Wickert-Micknat 1982, 57–61). — εὐνῆς πρόφασιν κεχρημένος: The expression is linguistically complicated; the meaning of πρόφασιν is unclear, as is the syntactic integration of εὐνῆς and then τέ(ο) (on εὐνή, 176n.). πρόφασιν, attested elsewhere in early epic only at 302 and ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.99 M.-W., is an adverbial acc. of a verbal noun that likely belongs to the root φαν- rather than φημί (DELG, Frisk, Beekes s.v. φαίνω; Chantr. 2.48; Holt 1941, 44, 88; Robert 1976, 340 [transl.], on verse 302: ‘that which is visible, that which is obvious’; LfgrE s.v.: ‘evidently’; undecided, Jones 1973, 26 n. 37); in post-Homeric literature it mostly indicates a visible – actual or ostensible – reason or cause (Rawlings 1975, 21–33; Robert loc. cit. 320–339). Suggestions for translation vary, depending on how εὐνῆς is integrated syntactically by the interpreters: (1) dependent on πρόφασιν, in which case ‘her’ (αὐτῆς) is to be understood as the object of κεχρημένος (‘desiring her’, see below): πρόφασιν ‘due to, on the basis of’ (AH: ‘on the grounds of sharing a bed’; Leaf; Willcock; Edwards; Rawlings loc. cit. 26; Robert loc. cit. 340  f.; Thalmann 1984, 105 and 216  f. n. 63; differently Pearson 1952, 207 with n. 11: ‘pretext’, i.e. sexual desire as a pretext for the intended insult to Achilleus)  – but πρόφασιν with gen. is attested only occasionally in early literature (2x Pind., 1x Hdt.: Rawlings loc. cit. 24); (2) dependent on κεχρημένος, the perf. part. taking a gen. in the manner of a verb of desire (cf. Od. 1.13, 22.50 [with comparable verse structure: οὔ τι γάμου τόσσον κ. οὐδὲ  …]), thus approximately ‘desiring neither the bed (i.e. intercourse)’, beside absolute use of πρόφασιν (as at 302): ‘evidently, as anyone can notice’ (Faesi; LfgrE s.v. πρόφασιν; differently Ebeling s.v. πρόφασιν: ‘on that occasion’; Kloss 1994, 128  f. with n. 34: ‘in accord with the occasion’); (3) dependent on both ἀπὸ κοινοῦ (Chantr. 2.54 with reference to Mazon’s translation).

262 τε(ο) ἄλλου: τεο = τινός (R 14.2); on the hiatus, R 5.1.

122 

 Iliad 19

263 ἀπροτίμαστος: a Homeric hapaxP; a negated verbal adjective related to (προτι-) μαίομαι (‘seek, grasp’) with the meaning ‘untouched’ (LfgrE; Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v. μαίομαι; Edwards: ‘unsought-out’). Agamemnon emphasizes once more that Briseïs was left alone the entire time.

264–265 may the gods give me many | griefs: These ‘griefs’ (Greek álgea) refer in particular to circumstances of fate that cause physical or mental suffering (6.450–454n. on álgos). Thus the gods punish e.g. human hybris with blindness (2.595  ff., 6.138  f.), homelessness (6.200–202), killing one’s children (24.602  ff.) or early death (6.130  ff., Od. 8.226  ff.): 2.595n., 6.138–140n., 6.139n., 6.200–205n.; de Jong on Od. 8.223–8; on the punishment for oath-breaking, see 259n., 261–265n. ἐπίορκον: the noun ‘violation of an oath’ is otherwise the object of ὄμνυμι (260n.). — πολλὰ μάλ(α): a VB formula (8x Il., 5x Od., 1x h.Hom., 1x Hes.). — ὅτις … ἀλίτηται ὀμόσσας: a variation of 260 ὅτις … ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ. The aor. part. is coincident with ἀλίτηται (+ acc. ‘offend someone, transgress against someone/something’; cf. 257n.); in early epic, this usually denotes contempt for divine commandments that works to the detriment of another person and for one’s own ruin, thus at 24.570 and 586 of commandments by Zeus, Od. 4.378, 5.108, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 80 of commandments by the gods (LfgrE s.v. ἀλιτεῖν; Tichy 1977, 165  f.; cf. 3.28n. [ἀλείτην]). On ὅτις, 260n. — σφ(ε): refers to the θεοί at 264, which likely denotes the oath-gods at 258  f.; although the word usually refers to two individuals in Homer (11.111, 115, Od. 8.271, 21.192, 206), it is plural in form and here in meaning as well (cf. ἄμμε Il. 1.59, 14.62, 18.268 etc.): G 81; Chantr. 1.267. διδοῦσιν: also Ionic, derived from athematic *didonti (IE *di-dh3-enti), cf. Mycenaean /didonsi/ (G 92; Rix [1976] 1992, 252; differently Hackstein 2002, 112: a thematic formation because of the accent; but cf. also τιθεῖσιν 16.262).

266–276 The oath scene concludes with the killing and immediate disposal of the animal, whose flesh – in contrast to sacrifices meant to be eaten – is neither consumed nor offered to the gods, but destroyed by various means (2.341n., 3.103–104n.; Callaway 1990, 100; Graf 2005, 244; cautiously Burkert [1977] 1985, 252). The libation, frequently mentioned elsewhere, during which unmixed wine is poured out in the course of an oath ceremony (on which, 3.292–302n.), is lacking. The oath and the disposal of the dead boar (267  f.) is immediately followed by Achilleus’ dissolution of the assembly (on the

263 ἔμεν’: =  ἔμενε (sc. Βρισηΐς). — ἐνί: =  ἐν (R 20.1). — κλισίῃσιν ἐμῇσιν: on the declension, R 11.1, on the plural, R 18.2. 264 εἰ … ἐπίορκον: sc. ἐστιν. 265 διδοῦσιν: = διδόασιν; sc. τούτῳ. — ὅτις: = ὅστις. — σφ(ε): = αὐτούς (R 14.1), sc. θεούς. — ἀλίτηται: subjunc. (aor. mid. of ἀλιταίνω) in a generalizing relative clause, which in Homer can occur with no modal particle (R 21.1).

Commentary 

 123

type-sceneP ‘oath’, 108–113n.; Callaway loc. cit. 101  f.), with no indication of any reaction by the invoked deity (on which, 2.419–420n., 3.302n., 6.311n.). 266 ≈ 3.292. — So he spoke, and: 238–240n. In the perception of the audience, the ritual act immediately following the oath reinforces its message, since the individual actions in a ritual as performative act serve to clarify and enhance the spoken word (Graf [1994] 1997, 208–210; 1996, 187–189; cf. 3.292–302n.). — cut the boar’s throat: Letting the animal bleed out is an important part of an oath sacrifice: 3.292n.; LfgrE s.v. τάμνω 298.43  ff. στόμαχον: derived from στόμα; only here and at 3.292 in reference to the ‘throat’ of a sacrificial animal, at 17.47 the ‘throat’ of Euphorbos, pierced by a lance; in post-Homeric literature particularly as a technical medical term denoting the ‘esophagus, opening of bladder and womb/uterus, cardia’ (Frisk s.v.). — νηλέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (11x Il., 8x Od., 2x Hes.), elsewhere generally used in connection with the killing or wounding of a human, of the killing of sacrificial animals also at 3.292, Od. 10.532 ≈ 11.45 (3.292n.; there also on the form νηλέϊ). χαλκός ‘bronze’ is used by metonymy for the μάχαιρα mentioned at 252 (see ad loc.; on the metonymy, 1.236n.).

267–268a Although the boar was intended for the oath-gods Zeus and Helios (197), its flesh is not offered to them in sacrifice (266–276n.). Disposal at sea may be designed to avoid defilement emanating from the sacrificial animal, which was considered cursed via the oath (Edwards with reference to 1.314; Kirk on 3.310; Callaway 1990, 98 and 140 n. 91  f.; cf. 1.314n. [λύματα]). Some scholars discern a reference to the situation of the person swearing, and accordingly interpret the manner of disposal as an additional pointer for the audience: it indicates the final disposal of the mḗnis (Burkert [1991] 2001, 88) or of Ate (by analogy with her fall from Olympus at 19.130: Wyatt 1982, 258 n. 14; differently Faraone 1993, 75  f.: reference to the fate of the oath-breaker, i.e. death without burial). 267 πολιῆς ἁλός: a formulaic expression for the sea near the coast with its gray-white crested waves (1.350n.). — μέγα λαῖτμα: VE = Od. 9.323, h.Ap. 469, a variant of the VE formula μέγα λαῖτμα θαλάσσης (3x Od., 1x h.Hom., 1x Hes.). λαῖτμα (‘maw, depths’) is a hapaxP in the Iliad and only rarely attested in post-Homeric literature; it is used exclusively for the sea and may have been formed with expanded suffix -τ-μα from the same root as λαι-μός (‘throat’) (Chantraine 1933, 181; Risch 51; LfgrE s.v.; West on Op. 164: ‘the great greedy gulp’); beside βόσιν ἰχθύσιν, it makes vivid the disappearance of the animal’s body without a trace. – The parallel word order of the expressions in the 2nd VH, each consisting of an adjective and noun (πολιῆς ἁλὸς and μέγα λαῖτμα), lends par-

266 ἦ: 238n. — ἀπὸ … τάμε: so-called tmesis (R 20.2.). — νηλέϊ: dat. sing. of νηλεής. 267 τὸν μέν: sc. κάπρον; answered by αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς 268. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).

124 

 Iliad 19

ticular weight to the object described; the same word order occurs in descriptions of natural forces at 14.17 ≈ 15.620, Od. 11.400 = 407 (winds), Il. 17.749, Hes. Op. 737 (rivers), Hes. Th. 566 (fire); of other objects at Il. 24.276 ≈ 579 (ransom for Hektor’s body), 5.693 (Zeus’ oak), Hes. Th. 815 (Zeus’ allies): Bühler 1960, 215. 268 ῥῖψ’ ἐπιδινήσας: likewise at 3.378 of a helmet (with ἧκ’ at 7.269 and Od. 9.538 of throwing a stone, Il. 23.840 a disk); to throw the entire boar into the sea, Talthybios must first draw his arm back in order to gather momentum. — βόσιν: a Homeric hapaxP, as an action noun literally ‘feeding’ (cf. βόσκει of fish at Od. 12.97), here specifically ‘fodder’ (Risch 39; Porzig 1942, 336; LfgrE s.v.; cf. βρῶσις 209–210n.). — αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (15n.).

269 2nd VH =  23.5. — a four-word verse (on which, 1.75n.); transition from the oath scene (256: Greeks as spectators) to the situation of the military assembly prior to departure for battle (Kurz 1966, 73): the epithet philoptolémoisi (‘battle-loving’) recalls the key topic of the preceding speeches, i.e. preparation for battle. ἀνστάς: always at VB (here and Od. 15.58, 96); in contrast, ἀναστάς is usually at VE (1.387n.). — φιλοπτολέμοισι: in the Iliad, an epithet of Greeks and Trojans; usually after caesura B 2, as here; on the meaning of φιλο-compounds, Landfester 1966, 114– 120.

270–275 Rather than reacting formally and appropriately to the gifts and the oath (cf. Chryses on the return of his daughter at 1.446  ff., Priam after the conclusion of the treaty reinforced by an oath at 3.304  ff.), Achilleus recognizes the ceremonial moment of the ritual only by addressing Zeus (270) and proceeds immediately to the point that concerns him: Agamemnon’s delusion (cf. 1.411  f. with nn.). By taking up the latter’s explanation in a general way (87  ff.) and interpreting the incident accordingly, he accepts the apology rather casually (AH, Faesi, Edwards; Gruber 1963, 56; cf. 270n.). The tone of the speech is interpreted variously: generous politeness and diplomacy (van Leeuwen; Edwards with reference to 23.890  ff.; Taplin 1992, 209); careless indifference toward Agamemnon, since the cause for the strife no longer matters to Achilleus (van Erp 1971, 60; Scodel 2008, 122  f.); or ironic brevity after Agamemnon’s verbose explanation (Donlan 1993, 169). While Achilleus shows some restraint toward Agamemnon, in that – as already at the beginning of the assembly (esp. 57  f., 64, cf. 56–64n.) – he avoids explicitly allocat-

268 ἐπιδινήσας: ‘turn, whirl about’. — βόσιν: predicative ‘as food, fodder’. — αὐτάρ: ‘but, moreover’ (R 24.2). 269 ἀνστάς: =  ἀναστάς (R 20.1). — Ἀργείοισι φιλοπτολέμοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — φιλοπτολέμοισι: on the -πτ-, R 9.2. — μετηύδα: 3rd sing. impf. of μετ-αυδάω (+ dat. pl.) ‘speak among’.

Commentary 

 125

ing blame, he gives the impression here too – as already at 149  f. – that in his disdain for Agamemnon and his thirst for revenge he is unwilling to engage any further with Agamemnon’s account of the situation (but cf. 270n.). In addition, Achilleus exhibits his detachment by avoiding direct address. The conflict between the two men has thus not been entirely resolved. But Achilleus signals consensus with the two previous speakers by referring to Zeus’ role (270–274) and the call for a meal (275) (cf. 86–137 and 160  f., 230–233), and can thus conclude the assembly (cf. elements (6) and (7) of the type-sceneP ‘assembly’: 1.54n., 1.305n.; on Achilleus’ desire for a speedy conclusion to the assembly, see 56–73n., 67–70n., 147–154n.). Additional examples of the switch between invocations of Zeus and general speech: 8.228–244, 13.620–639, 17.19– 32, 629–647 (Lohmann 1970, 23  f. with n. 30). 270 The impersonal phrasing has led to different interpretations: (1) Achilleus includes his own conduct (his mḗnis), as a sign of courtesy or even as an apology on his own part (as at 56–62): Faesi; Cauer (1895) 1923, 585; Stallmach 1968, 22 n. 50, also 35 with n. 13 (reference to schol. bT), 39; Lloyd-Jones (1971) 1983, 23; Edwards on 270–275; Cairns 2012, 31  f.; (2) Achilleus only aims at the delusion of Agamemnon, of whose action he speaks at 271–273, and omits mention of his own: Tsagarakis 1971, 268; Adkins 1982, 307  f.; van Wees 1992, 369 n. 142; Finkelberg 1995, 23  f. with n. 34; West 2011, 358; (3) via the storyline of the Iliad, the narratorP makes clear that the statement is also true for Achilleus, who has brought about the death of Patroklos by refusing the offer of reconciliation in Book 9: Wyatt 1982, 256; Hooker (1988) 1996, 529; Cairns loc. cit. 32. But Achilleus’ behavior – in contrast to that of Agamemnon (1.411  f., 9.377; cf. 86b–88n., 88n., 137n.) – is connected only indirectly with delusion sent by Zeus (Greek átē), namely in Phoinix’ account at 9.505  ff.; his explosive reactions are ascribed to his passion by both himself and others: his spirit (Greek thymós) was excited by Agamemnon’s actions (271, also 18.107–113, 19.66 [see ad loc.], 19.178, cf. 9.496, 9.628  f., also 9.646  f.): Adkins loc. cit. 307 n. 33; Pelliccia 1995, 207 n. 176; de Jong on Il. 22, Introd. 16–18. The verse – together with 271–274 – may express a superficial acceptance of 87–90. Ζεῦ πάτερ: 121n. — ἄτας: In addition to this statement, which is reminiscent of a gnome, the pl. also occurs at 9.115, where Agamemnon summarizes the mistakes Nestor has accused him of making with the phrase ἐμὰς ἄτας, at 10.391 (Hektor’s promises), and 3x Hes. Op. (Gruber 1963, 59 n. 1); μεγάλας emphasizes the magnitude of the impact (LfgrE s.v. 74.28  ff., 75.50  f.). — ἄνδρεσσι: The use of ἄνδρες rather than ἄνθρωποι in this

270 ἦ: emphatic, ‘actually, indeed’ (R 24.4). — ἄνδρεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — δι-δοῖσθα: 2nd sing. pres. ind. of δίδωμι; on the ending, R 16.2.

126 

 Iliad 19

generalizing statement perhaps implies a reference to the concrete instance that has befallen a person (LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 834.39  ff.). — διδοῖσθα: a form attested only here, an expansion of διδοῖς (9.164) by analogy with οἶσθα (cf. εἶσθα 10.450, τίθησθα Od. 9.404, 24.476): G 86; Chantr. 1.470.

271–273a A brief summary of Agamemnon’s behavior in Book 1, by means of which he stirred up Achilleus’ feelings and brought about his mḗnis: a provocative and uncompromising appearance at 1.131–139, 1.173–189, 1.287–291 (cf. 1.286–291n., 1.287–289n.) that culminated in the taking of Briseïs 1.318–348a (1.429 [with n.]).

οὐκ ἂν … | … ὤρινε … | ἦγεν: The impf. in a past contrary to fact condition highlights the entire course of the action, including its effects reaching into the present (Mutzbauer 1893, 7, 29; cf. Schw. 2.348); with a paratactic start to the protasis: the conditional clause is represented by either 270 (‘you confer powerful delusions …; ‹otherwise› he would never have …’; Willcock) or 273  f. ἀλλὰ … (AH, Leaf, Edwards).

271 2nd VH ≈ Od. 14.169. — θυμόν: ‘heart’ (LfgrE s.v. 1086.11  ff.; cf. 66n.).

272 taken … away: From the point of view of Achilleus, the taking of Briseïs was an act of violence (1.430 with n.). The Greek verb ágō (VA 273) can mean ‘lead away forcibly’, particularly in reference to human booty (women, children) taken from a conquered city. Agamemnon threatened at 1.139 and 184 to take away another man’s captive woman as a replacement for Chryseïs (1.139n.). ὤρινε: originally ‘set in motion physically, agitate’; transferred to the emotional level, it denotes eliciting a feeling that triggers an action, often via a speech (LfgrE s.v. ὀρίνω 772.57  ff.; cf. 2.142n.). — διαμπερές: a compound used adverbially and having an originally locative sense ‘through the middle, from one end to the other’; here approximately ‘through and through, entirely’ (AH; LfgrE s.v. διαμπερές). The word is composed from διά and ανα-περ- (Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v. διαμπερές with reference to ἀμπερές [11.377, 17.309, Od. 21.422] and ἀμπείρω ‘skewer, impale’ [Il. 2.426]), thus originally meaning something like ‘piercing’ (on the adjective structure with initial element, verbal element and suffix -ης/-ες, see Risch 81–83; Schw. 1.513  f.); differently Szemerényi 1972, 250  f.: from *δια-περες, related to δια-περάω ‘pass through’ (with nasalization δια-μπερ- from double consonant *δια-ππερ-).

273a against my will: Achilleus further stresses that the taking of Briseïs was against his will, thus referring to the cause of the conflict (but he expressed himself differently at 57  f. [see ad loc.]). His remarks are the counterpart to the

271 ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν: 66n. 272 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). 273 ἐμεῖ’ ἀέκοντος: gen. absolute; ἐμεῖ(ο) = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1); ἀέκοντος < ἀϝέκοντος, = ἄκοντος. — ποθι: = που (cf. R 15.2); ‘somehow, probably’.

Commentary 

 127

narratorP commentary at 1.428–430; the two passages frame the portrait of Achilleus’ boycott of battle (1.430a n.). ἀμήχανος: a possessive compound, ‘without means’, the word means either ‘helpless’ or ‘for which there is no means for a solution’ (Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v. μηχανή); in the Iliad, it is used of characters who are not susceptable to rational counsel or argument (10.167 Nestor, 13.726 Hektor, 15.14 Hera, 16.29 Achilleus), thus approximately ‘impervious, obstinate, unswayable’ (Janko on 13.726–728: ‘describes someone incorrigible’; Martin 1983, 12  ff.: ‘persons unable to be dealt with’). Achilleus likely refers to Aga­ memnon’s obstinate attitude during and after the assembly in Book 1 (cf. 1.340) (AH; LfgrE s.v.; cautiously Edwards; differently schol. A, bT on 273–274: ‘helpless’ in the face of Zeus’ power).

273b–274 Both Agamemnon (2.114–116 =  9.21–23, 14.65–69) and Idomeneus (13.225–227) also suspected that the Achaian defeat was intended by Zeus (additional comparable pointers to Zeus as a power of fate [co]responsible for human failure or suffering: 14.119  f., 19.86b–88n., Od. 17.424, etc.; cf. Jörgensen’s principleP). Achilleus tacitly concedes that he accepts not only Agamemnon’s explanation regarding Ate brought forth by Zeus, but also the associated notion that Zeus is the trigger for an unfortunate chain of events leading to the death of many Achaians, including his friend Patroklos (270–275n., 270n.). At the same time, he does not comment on the fact that he himself prompted the god to bring about an Achaian defeat (cf. 1.408n., 1.411n.). – On the level of the narratorP, the will of Zeus was already introduced in the prooimion (1.3–7) and at 2.37–40 as a factor directing the action (1.5n., 2.36–40n.; Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 134; Barck 1976, 45 n. 123); on the idea that the Trojan War in its entirety was caused by Zeus as a means of reducing the human numbers, see Cypr. fr. 1.3–7 West (cf. 1.5n.).

ἀλλά … Ζεύς | ἤθελ(ε): here approximately in the sense ‘it pleased/suited Zeus’, similarly at 14.120, Od. 9.262, 17.424, 19.80 (LfgrE s.v. (ἐ)θέλω 414.75  ff.); on the VE, cf. 1.128n.

275 = 2.381. — dinner (Greek déipnon): denotes the ‘meal during the day’, here as nourishment before battle (2.381n.): Achilleus bows to Odysseus’ suggestion (and also his choice of words) (in contrast, see 208n.); on the themeP ‘armies joining battle’, see 155–183n.

ξυνάγωμεν ἄρηα: on the so-called metonymic use of Ἄρης/ἄρης and on similar phrases denoting the onset of battle, see 2.381n., 2.440n.

274 πολέεσσι: = πολλοῖς (R 12.2). 275 ξυνάγωμεν ἄρηα: ‘commence battle’ (↑); on ξυν- = συν-, R 20.1. — ἄρηα: on the declension, R 12.4.

128 

 Iliad 19

276 =  Od. 2.257; 1st VH =  Il. 10.465, 6x Od. — The final speaker frequently dissolves an assembly (1.305n., 2.808n.); here it is Achilleus, who (a) is urging a quick conclusion (149  f.), (b) has been instructed to issue the necessary orders to the army (139, 171  f.: 171–180n.), and (c) has convened the assembly in his own interest (34  f., 67–71). λῦσεν: coincides with ἐφώνησεν and specifies the function of the final sentence of the speech (AH). — αἰψηρήν: an adjectival formation related to αἶψα, used predicatively with the meaning ‘immediate/quick to dissolve’ (AH; Leaf: ‘quick to disperse at his word’; West on Od. 2.257): the Achaians thus comply immediately with Achilleus’ urgent wish (cf. 148  ff.) (differently schol. bT: ἀντὶ τοῦ ταχέως; Edwards: ‘quickly’).

277 = 23.3; ≈ Od. 2.258. — these scattered away each man to …: This explicit reference to the parting at the end of the assembly and the glance from the so-called panorama point of view of the narratorP at the characters’ different directions of movement (277–281) signal the end of the scene (1.487n.; Richardson 1990, 119  f. and 230 n. 24). The switch to the new scene ‘the Myrmidons’ quarters’ (282  ff.) is created by the transition at 278–281, with the narratorP accompanying the characters to their new setting (de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 69, 73  f.). ἕκαστος: on ἕ. as a distributive appositive, 2.775b n.

278–281 The careful description directs attention to the handing over of the gifts; this procedure seals Achilleus’ acceptance of them, which had been left unmentioned. After the general movement (278  f.), 280 marks a moment of rest (Greek thésan, káthesan: ‘they deposited, they let be seated’) from which a new storyline can proceed (1.487n.). 278 2nd VH = 13.656. — μεγαλήτορες: ‘with much energy, great-hearted’; a generic epithetP of male characters and peoples (6.283n.); in addition to the Myrmidons, also of the Trojans (8.523, 21.55), the Phlegyes (13.302), the Paphlagonians (13.656) and the Eteokretans (Od. 19.176): Dee 2000, 558  f. — ἀμφεπένοντο: ‘took care of’ (cf. 200n.), always with persons or animals as an object. 279 Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο: θείοιο (originally scanned ⏖–⏑) is a metrical variant of δίου (2.335n. with bibliography); the VE Ἀ. θ. is attested elsewhere only at 19.297 (cf. Hainsworth, Introd. 27  f. [Clustering]; also Πηλείδαο ⏑–⏖–⏑ θείοιο 17.199); additional genitive formulae for ‘Achilleus’ in the 2nd VH after caesura B 2 are ἀμύμονος Αἰακίδαο (16.140,

276 ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). 277 ἐσκίδναντο (ϝ)εήν: on the prosody, R 4.3; σκίδνημι is a by-form of σκεδάννυμι. — ἑήν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — νῆα (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3; on the declension of νῆα, R 12.1. 279 βάν: 241n.

Commentary 

 129

16.854) and, with initial consonant, ποδώκεος Αἰακίδαο (2.860n.; Edwards; Shive 1987, 56  f.); on the metrically equivalent dat./acc. formulae, see 24.108n. 280 κάθεσαν: on the form (as opposed to κάθισαν, the reading of the main transmission), see Leaf (‘The assonance θέσαν κάθεσαν is probably intentional’) and West 1998, XXXI. 281 θεράποντες: 143–144n., 24.396n. — ἀγαυοί: a generic epithet of humans and gods of uncertain meaning (possibly ‘admirable’, or perhaps ‘calling loudly’): 3.268n.

282–339 The mood in the Myrmidon camp is dejected: Briseïs mourns the death of Patroklos and her own fate; Achilleus continues to refuse food and gives himself over to mournful remembrance of his time with his friend; he is simultaneously concerned for his elderly father Peleus. 282–302 Briseïs’ return does not bring about a reunion with Achilleus; the focus is on her mourning for the slain Patroklos who, since his body was recovered, has been laid out in Achilleus’ quarters and mourned by his companions (on the ‘prothesis’, see 5–6a n., 211–213a n.). The sight of the corpse triggers a behavior in Briseïs that is typical of women perceiving dead kinsmen or friends in Homeric epic: a spontaneous scream (284), gestures of mourning (284  f.), lament (286–302) (additional examples in Derderian 2001, 53  f.). Briseïs’ deep attachment to the deceased becomes clear from her account (295–299). Her lament, and its adoption by the other women present (anticipationP of the motif: 18.28–31, 18.339–342), stands in for lament by the female relatives of the deceased comparable to the lament over Hektor’s body by Andromache, Hekabe and Helen at 24.723–776 (schol. bT on 282–302; Andronikos 1968, 9–14; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 239; Alexiou [1974] 2002, 10  f.; cf. HE s.v. ‘Lament’; comparison to the laments over Patroklos and Hektor in Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 291–293; Tsagalis 2004, 27–51). Briseïs’ lament on the occasion of her return has additional functions: it (1) elucidates the enormity of the loss for Achilleus, rendering his grief more comprehensible, (2) raises awareness of the connections between the fate of Briseïs and the death of Patroklos, as well as the imminent death of Achilleus, (3) likely represents an anticipatory hint at the lament for Achilleus himself (see 284–285n. on Briseïs’ gestures of mourning, cf. the lament of Thetis and the Nereids at 18.37–64; on premature lament, see 6.497–502n.), and (4) illustrates Patroklos’ mediating role between Achilleus and Briseïs, thus offering an overall characterization of Patroklos (cf. Menelaos on Patroklos’ amicable nature at 17.670  f.): Edwards on 282–302.

280 κάθεσαν: from καθίζω, transitive: ‘let sit down’.

130 

 Iliad 19

282 in the likeness of golden Aphrodite, Briseïs: On the one hand, the comparison brings to mind Briseïs’ exceptional appearance and emphasizes the contrast with Patroklos as he is laid out (283); on the other hand, it highlights her appearance on the only occasion when she has a direct speech – similar to Kassandra’s sole appearance at 24.699  ff. (Scott 1974, 69  f.; on comparisons with gods in general, see 2.478–479n.; on parallels in Sanskrit, West 2007, 97; on the attribute ‘golden’, 2.448n., 3.64n.). Prior to her return to Achilleus (246 with n.), Briseïs last appeared in the scene in which she was conducted away by Agamemnon’s heralds (1.346–348). Since then, she has remained in the background and was only a topic of discussion in the embassy in Book 9 (de Jong 1987, 110–113). ἰκέλη χρυσῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ: =  24.699, ‘Hes.’ fr. 30.25 M.-W., similarly Od. 17.37, 19.54 (Ἀρτέμιδι ἰ. ἠὲ χ. Ἀ. of Penelope); the hiatus in the VE formula χρυσῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ (7x in early epic) is likely due to declension of the formula (M 14): elsewhere 15x gen./acc. without hiatus, 2x nom. with hiatus (on the possibility of non-syllabic -y in -ῇ bridging the hiatus, see M 12.2). On the formula and the contracted form χρυσῇ, 3.64n. 283 2nd VH = 18.236, 19.292; ≈ 19.211, 22.72. — δεδαϊγμένον: 203n. — ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ: 211n.

284–285 Mourning gestures of the most intense sort: at 4  f. Achilleus mourns in a similar fashion by embracing Patroklos’ corpse, at Od. 8.526  f. a woman throws herself onto the body of her dying husband (cf. Andromache with Hektor at Il. 24.723  f.); the scratching of the face or cheeks is in early epic a mourning gesture of widows in particular (2.700, 11.393, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 243), here perhaps an indication that the intense grief for Patroklos is another anticipation of the mourning for Achilleus; on images of scratching one’s body bloody in scenes of mourning, see Neumann 1965, 86  ff., esp. 89; Huber 2001, 92  f., 119, 203  f.; self-harm as a mourning gesture in the Old Testament: Leviticus 19:28 and 21:5, Deuteronomy 14:1, Jeremiah 16:6 (on this, Kutsch [1965] 1986, 79 with n. 18). Additional gestures of aggression and self-disfigurement include beating the chest (18.31 captive women, 18.51 Nereids) and pulling the hair (18.27 Achilleus, 22.77 Priam, 22.406 Hekabe, 24.711 Hekabe and Andromache [24.711–712n.]), covering oneself with ash, dust or excrement (18.23–25 Achilleus, 22.414 and 24.640 Priam, Od. 24.316  f. Laërtes): Grajew 1934, 14; Alexiou (1974) 2002, 6; Sourvinou-Inwood 1983, 37; Huber loc. cit. 14  f., 33, 86; BNP s.v. Mourning.

282 ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). 283 ἴδε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 131

284 until caesura C 2 ≈ Od. 8.527. — λίγ’ ἐκώκυε: The expression occurs only here and at Od. 4.259, 8.527, of the piercing screams of women on receiving news of the fallen, and of women on seeing their dying husbands (on λίγα ‘shrill’, see 5n.; Kaimio 1977, 44). As at Od. 19.541, the impf. perhaps expresses intensity, whereas the aor. of κωκύω, used more commonly in the Iliad, describes instead a woman’s spontaneous cry, usually upon seeing a deceased loved one, e.g. 22.407 (Hekabe with Hektor), 24.702  f. (Kassandra with Hektor), similarly 18.37 and 71 (Thetis’ reaction to Achilleus’ lament for Patroklos as an anticipated lament for Achilleus: 282–302n.), 24.200 (Hekabe fearing for Priam): LfgrE s.v. κωκύω; Krapp 1964, 38  f.; Tichy 1983, 266; Spatafora 1997, 12  f.; Derderian 2001, 28 n. 56. 285 VE = Od. 8.85, 15.332, h.Ven. 183. — ἁπαλήν: in the case of parts of the body, often used for the sake of the contrast, like καλός, when they are disfigured; ἁ. highlights their vulnerability (LfgrE s.vv. ἁπαλός, καλός 1308.21  ff.; 92n.) — ἰδέ: ‘and’; a metrical variant of ἠδέ (2.511n.).

286–339 Briseïs’ speech (287–302) has a tripartite, ring-compositionP structure also identifiable in other speeches of mourning by women, comparable to the mourning speeches of Andromache, Hekabe and Helen at 24.725–776, consisting of (A) an address to the deceased and reflection on the situation with contrasting ‘then – now’ (287–290), (B) a narrative section, establishing a relationship between the deceased and one’s own destiny and bemoaning it (291–299), (A’) a return to general mourning (300) adopted by the bystanders (301  f.): Alexiou (1974) 2002, 132  f. with n. 7  f., 165–171; Foley 1991, 168–170; Tsagalis 2004, 30–32, 44  f.; cf. 24.725–745n.; on epic laments in general, Reiner 1938, 12  ff., 22  ff., 30  ff.; Fingerle 1939, 162  ff.; Petersmann 1973; Easterling 1991; Derderian 2001, 35–52; Tsagalis loc. cit. 27–50, 139–143; West 2007, 498  f. In the present scene, the speeches of mourning by Briseïs and Achilleus (315–339) are particularly coordinated in regard to structure and especially topic (cf. 6.407–465n.): (1) mourning for the deceased with an emphatic address (with superlative) and contrasting ‘then – now’ (287–290 / 315–321); (2) comparison with earlier or imagined grief for relatives (291– 294: husband, brothers / 322–327: father, son); (3) hopes shattered by the death of Patroklos (295–299 / 328–333); (4) further lament for Patroklos, or fears for an elderly father (300 / 334– 337); (5) subsequent lament by the women or men present for their own sorrows (301  f. / 338  f.).

284 ἀμφ’ αὐτῷ χυμένη: aor. mid.-pass. part. of χέω, here approximately: ‘draped over him’. 285 στήθεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἠδ(έ): ‘und’ (R 24.4). — δειρήν: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. — πρόσωπα: on the plural, R 18.2.

132 

 Iliad 19

Detailed discussion of the correspondences in content: Lohmann 1970, 102– 105; 1988, 13–23; Pucci (1993) 1998, 99–112; Tsagalis loc. cit. 139–143, 148–151; on the disputed authenticity of 326  ff., see 326–337n. Another parallel for the content of Briseïs’ lament is found in Helen’s lament for Hektor (24.762–775): the painful loss of a sympathetic friend in an alien environment (Reinhardt 1961, 421; Schein 1984, 191; Reichel 1994, 270  f.; Tsagalis loc. cit. 162–164); on parallels with Andromache’s speech at 6.411  ff., see 291–296n.; on images of mourning scenes with different groups of mourners, see Huber 2001, 64  ff. – The mourning scene also links indirectly with topics from the preceding assembly: the appearance of Briseïs with the conclusion of the reconciliation by Agamemnon, Achilleus’ two speeches (esp. 303–309 and 315–321a) with the discussion regarding the meal before battle: Edwards on 287–300. 286–300 This is Briseïs’ sole speech in the Iliad, triggered by the sight of Patroklos’ corpse. It is noteworthy that a captive slave, who remains silent while being led away in Book 1 (1.346–348), speaks up here (de Jong 1987, 113: ‘Briseis is […] a «semi-silent» character’; cf. 282n.). But laments elsewhere in the Iliad also offer a frame in which women can speak in public and formulate their perspectives (Monsacré 1984, 119–123; Easterling 1991, 146  f.; Kahane 2005, 184; on the function of the speech, see 282–302n.). – There are also other characters in the Iliad who appear on multiple occasions but only speak once, especially subordinate commanders and so-called ‘minor fighters’ (CH 12) in battle scenes, as well as Achilleus’ tutor Phoinix (9.432–605; at 17.555–559 Athena speaks in his guise), the herald Talthybios (4.204–207: messenger speech), and a nameless servant (6.382–389, with n.). 286 2nd VH =  11.638; ≈ h.Ven. 153. — The woman  … spoke to him: a speech introductory formulaP unique in its form (Edwards 1970, 26). — The woman like the immortals: a periphrastic denominationP of Briseïs, who is introduced by name at 282 and compared to Aphrodite. The narratorP similarly varies her designation in her first appearance in the Iliad, when she is being led away from Achilleus’ tent by Patroklos (1.346/348, cf. the conclusion of the scene at 1.429). The appellation ‘woman’ (Greek gynḗ) is perhaps used in reference to one of the main themes of her speech, her status as a wife (291  f., 295–299): de Jong (1987) 2004, 198; Dué 2002, 74  f.; cf. 284–285n.; on the other hand, the designation might also be linked to the fact that she is among the female captives given out as gifts by Agamemnon and thus part of the only group of ‘women’ present in the Achaian camp (Greek nom./acc. pl. gynaíkes

286 γυνὴ (ϝ)εικυῖα: on the prosody, R 4.4. — θεῇσιν: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary 

 133

and gynaíkas: 195, 245, 280, 301), in which case the addition ‘like the immortals’ elevates her among this group (cf. LfgrE s.v. γυνή 189  f.76  ff.; Ndoye 2010, 198, 203–205; on the comparison with gods, see 282n.). In speeches by men (1.275, 298, 336, etc.) and by Thetis (18.444), however, Briseïs is designated by the Greek word koúrē (‘girl, daughter’); likewise in the reasons given for Achilleus’ absence at 2.689 in the catalogue of ships (additional examples in Dee 2000, 149  f.).

εἰκυῖα θεῇσιν: a VE formula (3x Il., 1x Od., 1x h.Ven.), joined with γυνή/γύναι at 11.638, h.Ven. 153.

287–300 The narrator opens a view into the experiences and perspectives of the otherwise silent Briseïs via her lament (286–300n.). The portrayal of her situation illustrates the threat of being carried off and enslaved after the loss of a protector, a fate particularly common among women during wartime, and which threatens the women of Troy as well (on the fate of captive women, 262n., 291–296n., 1.13n., 2.355n., 6.57b–60n., 6.450–458n.). Additional bibliography on Briseïs’ mourning speech: Farron 1979, 27  ff.; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 5  f., 31  f.; de Jong 1987, 110–113; Taplin 1992, 212  ff.; Murnaghan 1999, 206  ff.; Dué 2002, 67–81; Tsagalis 2004, 139–143; Dentice 2012, 238–242. 287 Πάτροκλε: only here with the scansion –⏖, differently at VB 16.830 (on the so-called correptio attica, see M 4.5; Chantr. 1.108  f.). — μοι: Although the position of the enclitic after a vocative, already noticed by ancient commentators (cf. Erbse’s commentary ad loc. in his edition of the scholia; Leaf), is otherwise rare (e.g. h.Ven. 1; see West app. crit.), it is consistent with IE rules of word order: enclitics often stand in second position in a clause (Wackernagel [1892] 1953, 11; cf. 2.7n.). The laments for Hektor at 22.431, 477, 24.725, 748, 762 likewise start with an address at VB. — δειλῇ: ‘miserable, wretched’ (1.293n.). Thetis too refers to herself in this manner (18.54: after news of the death of Patroklos), as does Hekabe (22.431: at the sight of the slain Hektor) in her lament for her son (LfgrE s.v. δειλός). — κεχαρισμένε θυμῷ: a VE formula (5x Il., 1x Od., 1x h.Hom.) comparable to the formulaic address (τῷ) ἐμῷ κ. θ. directed at Diomedes (by Sthenelos, Athene and Agamemnon: 5.243 = 5.826 = 10.234) and at Patroklos (by Achilleus: 11.608). The address, usually directed at a close friend in an extraordinary situation, indicates emotional attachment, with the participle κεχαρισμένος (‘pleasing’) emphasizing appreciation of past behavior; here it is explicitly justified by Patroklos’ actions (295–299, cf. 300n.): Latacz 1966, 118  f. On the superlative (πλεῖστον κ. θ.), cf. Achilleus’ address at 315 φίλταθ’ ἑταίρων and the addresses in the lament for Hektor at 24.748 (ἐμῷ θυμῷ … πολὺ φίλτατε παίδων) and 24.762 (ἐμῷ θυμῷ δαέρων πολὺ φίλτατε πάντων): Lohmann 1970, 112; on θυμός as the seat of emotions, 1.24n.

287 πλεῖστον: adverbial ‘most’.

134 

 Iliad 19

288–290a Briseïs refers to her unwilling departure when Patroklos led her away from Achilleus’ quarters to hand her over to the heralds (1.345–348), and via the contrast ‘alive … | … fallen’ (cf. the chiastic word order of the Greek zōón … se and se tethnēóta at 288  f.) stresses the difference between ‘then’ and ‘now’, a characteristic theme of laments; cf. 22.436, 24.749  f. (Alexiou [1974] 2002, 165–177; Tsagalis 2004, 30, 44  f.; cf. 286–339n.).  – The participles ‘going away … coming back’ (Greek ioúsa … an-ioús[a]) span Days 10 through 27 of the action of the Iliad (STR 21 fig. 1). σε ἔλειπον: The imperfect frequently occurs in ‘vivid visualizations of the past’ (AH  [transl.]; cf. 2.42n.); on the hiatus at this point in the verse, see 3.46n.; Schw. 1.399  f.  — ὄρχαμε λαῶν: a generic epithetP, elsewhere of Menelaos (formulaic verse: 17.12 and 6x Od.), Agamemnon (Il. 14.102), Achilleus (21.221) and Odysseus (Od. 10.538). The VE formula (4x Il., 7x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’) is a vocative variant of the inflectible VE formula ὄ. ἀνδρῶν; the etymology of ὄρχαμος ‘leader, chief’ is uncertain (2.837n.; Witte [1912] 1979, 113  f.; on λαοί, 35n.).

290b The conclusion of the first part of the speech of mourning, via a summary of Briseïs’ life experience, which has been an endless concatenation of catastrophes (cf. her crying at 297, 300). She sets this out at 291  ff. in her description of her previous experiences, which correspond to those at 322  ff. in Achilleus’ speech (cf. 286–339n.). Briseïs relates the ‘now’ (Patroklos’ death) to the losses she has already suffered of persons close to her (husband, brothers); Achilleus, who has no comparable experience, relates it to losses anticipated in the future (father, son): Edwards on 287–300; Lohmann 1970, 103  f.; Tsagalis 2004, 150.

δέχεται κακὸν ἐκ κακοῦ: an intransitive construction of δέχομαι: ‘one evil takes over from another evil’, i.e. ‘supersedes the other’ (LfgrE s.v. δέχομαι 263.3  ff.), with poly­ ptoton expressing continuity, as at Hes. Th. 800 (ἄλλος δ’ ἐξ ἄλλου δέχεται χαλεπώτερος ἄεθλος), Il. 16.111 is similar (κακὸν κακῷ ἐστήρικτο); on the polyptoton, cf. also Od. 17.217 (κακὸς κακὸν ἡγηλάζει), h.Ap. 354 (φέρουσα κακῷ κακόν), ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.105 M.-W. (ἄλγος ἐπ’ ἄλγει): Janko on Il. 16.106–111; Gygli-Wyss 1966, 92; IE parallels in West 2007, 112  f. — αἰεί: Along with the polyptoton, this emphasizes the continuing series of evils (LfgrE s.v. 283.5  ff.).

291–296 Briseïs was captured by Achilleus during the conquest of Lyrnessos (in the southern Troad: 2.690n.); see 2.689–693 and Achilleus’ allusion at 19.59  f. (60n.); on this technique of scene preparation, see Edwards, Introd.

288 κλισίηθεν: on the form, R 15.1. 289 τεθνηῶτα: = τεθνεῶτα (for metrical reasons, without shortening of the internal hiatus: R 3). 290 ἄψ: (‘back’) strengthens ἀνα- in ἀνιοῦσ(α). — ὡς: ‘how …!’ (exclamation). — κακοῦ αἰεί: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — αἰεί: = ἀεί.

Commentary 

 135

21  f.; cf. seedP. The story of her abduction establishes links with Chryseïs and Andromache: (1) during a raid in the vicinity of Troy, Achilleus also conquered Andromache’s home town, Thebe (2.691), from which Chryseïs was abducted (1.366–369, cf. 1.389–392 with n. and the allusions at 9.328–336, 20.191–194); on the parallel functions of Chryseïs and Briseïs, see 1.184n., 1.366n.; (2) Briseïs’ description has similarities to Andromache’s account of the destruction of her homeland (6.413  ff.: 6.394–399n.), i.e. the killing of father and brothers, or of husband and brothers, and the abduction of the women (the mother or, as implied here, Briseïs herself). On a narratological level, these reports of Achilleus’ raids (external analepsesP) anticipate the fate of Troy’s inhabitants (287–300n.; Edwards on 291–294; Reinhardt 1961, 52  f.; Zarker [1965] 1987, 148–151; Taplin 1986, 18  f.; on the killing of adult men during the conquest of a city, see 6.57b–60n.). 291 2nd VH =  6.413, 6.429, 9.561, 11.452, 13.430, 22.239, 22.341, 4x Od. — The husband: It becomes clear only here that Briseïs, the ‘daughter of Briseus’ (1.392; on the name, 1.184n.), was previously married (cf. the principles of ‘ad hoc narration’P and external completive analepsisP). By means of this reference, the narratorP illustrates the tragedy of Briseïs’ life, which will continue in the future (Edwards on 291–294). μέν: emphatic (R 24.6), or to be connected with τε at 293 (Denniston 375). — πότνια μήτηρ: on the honorific title πότνια for goddesses and prominent women, and on the VE formula, see 1.357n., 6.264n.

292 2nd VH = 283 (with n.). — Via the literal echo of 283, the narratorP may allude to the fact that the sight of the slain Patroklos has awakened the memory of Briseïs’ slain husband (Edwards on 282–285 and 291–294; de Jong 1987, 113). The situation is comparable to the one Andromache will experience after the duel between Achilleus and Hektor (22.462  ff.). 293 2nd VH ≈ 3.238. — three brothers: Should Briseïs, in the poet’s imagination, have come from Brisa (cf. 1.184n.), the presence of her brothers in the homeland of her in-laws might seem unusual (in contrast to the death of Andromache’s brothers in their home city at 6.421  ff.). This is sometimes explained as a relic of a pre-Homeric version of the myth, in which Briseïs was originally captured in her home town Brisa on Lesbos (Reinhardt 1961, 52–57; Heitsch [1980] 2001, 79  ff.). But it might also represent a typical motif, here used in an ad hoc

291 ᾧ ἔδοσαν: on the prosody, R 5.7. 292 πτόλιος: on the declension, R 11.3; on the πτ-, R 9.2. 293 τρῖς: = τρεῖς. — τούς: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5).

136 

 Iliad 19

manner by the narrator to underline the parallel with Andromache’s fate: the detail illustrates the vulnerability of women who have lost their male relatives (cf. 291–296n.; on the use of typical motifs in the ‘biographies’ of subsidiary characters, see Fenik 1968, 150–152). – Three is a typical numberP (1.53n.). τρῖς: on the form, West 1998, XXXVI. — μία: ‘one and the same’ (3.238n.). — τούς μοι … γείνατο μήτηρ: on the epexegetic relative clause, 1.238n.; on the VE formula γείνατο μήτηρ, 1.280n.; on the transitive aor. ἐγεινάμην, 26n. 294 κηδείους: occurs in this form only here in Homer and is derived from κῆδος ‘death, bereavement, sorrow, mourning for kinsmen’ (302n., 1.445n., 6.240–241n.), also ‘concern’ (for the lives of kinsmen, cf. κήδομαι 1.196n.); the word denotes persons toward whom one has particular obligations (approximately ‘cherished, cared for, dear’, cf. κήδιστος 9.642 and in the Odyssey), here perhaps ‘with overtones of mourning’ (Edwards on 292–294; Mawet 1979, 360 n. 11, 372; LfgrE s.vv. κῆδος, κήδε[ι]ος; cf. 6.59–60n. [ἀκήδεστος]). — ὀλέθριον ἦμαρ ἐπέσπον: The phrase occurs also at 409 (ἦμαρ ὀλέθριον) in the prophecy by the horse Xanthos regarding the death of Achilleus; comparable are αἴσιμον ἦμαρ (e.g. 21.100, 22.212), μόρσιμον ἦμαρ (15.613, Od. 10.175) and the VE formula νηλεὲς ἦμαρ (Il. 11.484, etc.): LfgrE s.v. ἦμαρ 917.34  ff.; Schw. 2.177  f. – ἐπι-σπεῖν (effective aor. of ἐφ-έπειν ‘follow, pursue something’) is often used metaphorically in combination with πότμος and so means ‘fulfil, reach (one’s fate)’ or ‘touch (one’s fate)’ (2.358–359n., 6.412n.), thus here ‘reach the day of doom’.

295–297a 2nd VH of 296 ≈ 14.230. — The reason for Briseïs’ deep grief for Patroklos becomes clear; she particularly stresses the comforting compassion he repeatedly showed her after the loss of her home and her guardians (cf. also 300, the concluding thought of the speech). This is supported linguistically by the emphatic doubling of the negative at the VB of 295 (Greek oudé men oudé), the emphatic runover word ‘sorrow’ (Greek klaíein) at 297a (integral enjambmentP) and the Greek iterative forms at 295, 297 (Edwards on 295–297). — That Mynes, king of Lyrnessos (cf. 2.692n.), was Briseïs’ husband (thus schol. bT on 296) is not said explicitly; but see below s.v. θείοιο Μύνητος.

οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδέ: a variable VB formula (5x Il., 1x Od.). — ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς: a shortened version of the more common VE formula πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς (1.58n.), also at 21.211, 22.188, 22.229 in the context of ‘battle’ as here; in addition at 23.218, 24.621, ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.92 M.-W.; the formulae referred originally to Achilleus’ speed in battle (cf. 22.8, 22.173, 230; revitalization here is considered by Pucci [1993] 1998, 102: an allusion

294 κηδείους: attribute of κασιγνήτους 293. — ἦμαρ: ‘day’. 295–297 οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδέ μ’ ἔασκες: emphatic negation (‘no, you would also not let me’), governs κλαίειν 297 (on οὐδέ after an affirmative clause, R 24.8); μέν is answered by ἀλλά in 297, which connects ἔασκες and ἔφασκες (iterative forms of ἐάω and φημί: R 16.5). 296 πέρσεν: aor. of πέρθω ‘sack’. — θείοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

Commentary 

 137

to his imminent death by reference to ὠκύμορος at 1.417; but see FOR 39). — θείοιο Μύνητος: as a genitive attribute of πόλιν, a specification of the town’s ruler (LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1358.8  ff.), linked by chiasmus with Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο at 297, which in turn is a genitive attribute of κουριδίην ἄλοχον at 298 (on θεῖος, see 279n.). Some scholars interpret this as a vague indication that Mynes is to be identified as Briseïs’ husband (Reinhardt 1961, 53; Pucci [1993] 1998, 102  f.; Dué 2002, 13 with n. 36; guardedly Leaf; Edwards on 291–294; Wathelet s.v. Μύνης 1439 n. 6).

297b–299 The plan for a wedding between Achilleus and Briseïs is probably an ad hoc invention on Homer’s part (Willcock 1977, 52  f.). Be that as it may, the passage is further evidence of the significant emotional relationship between Achilleus and Briseïs, which was also evident earlier in the story of the Iliad, e.g. in her reaction to being led away (1.348 [with n.], cf. 1.429  f.) and in Achilleus’ speech at 9.336/341–343 (Taplin 1992, 213–216). The question of whether Briseïs – as a captive – was even in a position to become Achilleus’ wife (Leaf; Willcock; consideration of the legal situation in WickertMicknat 1982, 84; Weinsanto 1983, 49  f.) – cf. Achilleus’ remarks to the contrary at 9.393–397 – is probably less relevant, since the motif fulfils primarily narratological functions: (1) the hopes – perhaps unrealistic – that Patroklos aroused in Briseïs in order to console her are linked with his friendliness and compassion (295–297a n.) in order that they can serve as praise for the dead and make his death appear even worse (282–302n.; Edwards on 298–299; Hebel 1970, 122  f.; Farron 1979, 29 n. 43; Ferrari 1986, 68; cf. schol. bT on 298–299). (2) The mention of a wedding in Achilleus’ homeland serves to illustrate the distance between the two characters; it contrasts with Achilleus’ interest in Briseïs, which has since cooled, and reveals the different levels of knowledge the two characters possess: Briseïs cannot know that Achilleus has chosen death (cf. 328–333, 420–423) and that there will be no future together in his homeland (Scully 1990, 123  f.; Taplin 1992, 216). She will only be reunited with Achilleus at the end of the Iliad (24.676), when he can return to ‘normality’ after having effected his revenge (de Jong 1987, 113; cf. 24.673–676n.). (3) That Patroklos was meant to conduct the bride to the groom and arrange the official wedding celebration (298  f.) – normally the task of the parents, i.e. the ones who give the bride away (Wickert-Micknat 1982, 95  f.) – may emphasize once more the special trust Achilleus places in him. (4) On the characterP-level, the emphasis on Patroklos’ compassion perhaps represents an indirect appeal to Achilleus (a sort of three-way conversationP) attempting to remind him of his friend’s promise (suggestion by Nünlist and van der Mije). In that case, the two speeches of mourning would need to be imagined as temporally consecutive (cf. 303n.).

138 

 Iliad 19

297b ἔφασκες: to be taken as parallel to ἔασκες at 295; on the augmented iterative form, see Chantr. 1.319  f. — Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο: 279n. 298 κουριδίην ἄλοχον: an inflectible VB formula (gen./dat./acc. sing.: 3x Il., 2x Od., 1x h.Ven.). ἄ-λοχος is a possessive compound (< *ἅ-λοχος with α copulativum [ha- < *sm̥‘one and the same’, cf. Latin simul, English same]: ‘who shares the same bed’; cf. ἄκοιτις 3.138n.); in conjunction with the epithet κουριδίη, the word elsewhere denotes the lawful wives of Agamemnon (1.114), Menelaos (7.392, 13.626), Odysseus (Od. 14.245) and Laërtes (15.356). The etymology of κουρίδιος (related to κούρη) and the meaning thus derived from it (‘maidenly’) have occasionally been used to cast doubt on the authenticity of this passage on the ground that the expression is inappropriate for a widow (schol. D; guardedly Leaf; references to atheteses in West in the app. crit.), but the meaning has likely faded to ‘wedded’, emphasizing the lawfulness of the relationship: 1.114n.; LfgrE s.vv. ἄλοχος and κουρίδιος with bibliography; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 82 with n. 443. — θήσειν ἄξειν τ(ε): Patroklos is to be thought of as the subject of both, as also of δαίσειν in 299 (Willcock; Edwards; differently AH and Leaf: a change of subject to Achilleus in the case of ἄξειν with v.l. δ’ rather than τ’; but cf. LfgrE s.v. ἄγω 121.30  ff.: used in the middle with the groom as the subject; on expressions for ‘to wed’, see ­Wickert-Micknat 1982, 95, and Weinsanto 1983, 55  f. n. 2).

299 Phthia: Achilleus’ homeland (2.683n., cf. 19.14n.).

δαίσειν δὲ γάμον: denotes the arrangement of a wedding celebration, as at Od. 4.3  f. (Menelaos for son and daughter), h.Ven. 141 (the groom himself), cf. δαινύναι τάφον 23.29, Od. 3.309 (LfgrE s.v. δαίνυμι; AH; Wickert-Micknat 1982, 96).

300 1st VH ≈ 24.773. — kind always: Patroklos’ helpfulness and compassion are repeatedly stressed elsewhere in the Iliad as well (11.814–848, 15.390– 404, 16.2–46, 17.204 ≈ 21.96, 17.670–672, 23.281  f.) and form a contrast with Achilleus’ rigid intransigence (Monsacré 1984, 91  f.; Zanker 1994, 40  f.; Most 2003, 67–70). The same motif – memories of the deceased’s friendliness and helpfulness – occurs in Helen’s lament for Hektor (24.767–775). τώ: ‘so … then, therefore’ (61n.). — ἄμοτον: an adverbial accusative (‘violently, vehemently’), elsewhere usually linked to a form of μέμονα in a figura etymologica; but the etymology is uncertain (negated verbal adjective of the root *men- ‘think, strive’: Forssman 1986, 329–339, esp. 333  ff.; ChronEG 5 s.v.; or ‘indefatigable’ related to the root of μῶλος, Latin moles: LIV 425 n. 1). — τεθνηότα: on the metrical variants τεθνηο-, τεθνεω- and τεθνηω- (289), see G 95. — μείλιχον αἰεί: VE = Hes. Th. 406; the adjective μείλιχος is used in early epic to characterize only Patroklos (also 17.671), the goddesss Leto (Hes. Th. 406, 408), and Hypnos (Hes. Th. 763) (LfgrE; on the etymology, 6.214n.).

297 Ἀχιλλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. 298 κουριδίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — νηυσίν: on the declension, R 12.1. 299 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — Μυρμιδόνεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3.

Commentary 

 139

The addition of αἰεί indicates that this general character trait of Patroklos was repeatedly apparent in specific actions; cf. the iteratives at 295, 297 (LfgrE s.v. αἰεί).

301 =  22.515, 24.746; ≈ 19.338, 22.429, 24.776; 1st VH =  22.437; ≈ 24.760; 2nd VH =  24.722. — A speech capping formulaP of laments, thus also in the laments for Hektor in Books 22 and 24 (282–302n.; on the speech capping formula, see 74n.): those present respond to the preceding speech of mourning with wailing (Reiner 1938, 31  f.; Alexiou [1974] 2002, 135). — the women: This does not necessarily refer only to the seven women brought to Achilleus’ quarters together with Briseïs (245  f.), who were unacquainted with Patroklos (thus schol. AT; AH); laments of captive women in the Myrmidon camp are mentioned already at 18.28  ff. (Leaf; Edwards). ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο: ἐπί ‘thereupon’, i.e. wails in response to the preceding speech (Derderian 2001, 26 n. 46; Tsagalis 2004, 48  f. n. 153, 66 n. 205). στ. is elsewhere used intransitively in the speech capping formulaeP of laments (see iterata), likewise here at first, with the acc. obj. only added at 302 (Πάτροκλον … κήδε[α]) ‘mourn for someone/ something’; similarly but with preceding acc. obj. and γοῶντες: 18.315/355 (Πάτροκλον ἀνεστενάχοντο γ.), Od. 9.467 (τοὺς δὲ στενάχοντο γ.), in addition act. at Il. 23.211 (τὸν … ἀναστενάχουσιν), cf. 19.132 (τὴν αἰεὶ στενάχεσχ’): Ebeling s.vv. ἀναστενάχω, στενάχω.

302 Awareness of changed circumstances and mourning for one’s own fate as it follows from bereavement are set motifs in laments (286–339n.). The sight of the slain Patroklos and the mourning for him trigger a lament by the women, into which is merged sorrow for their own suffering; similarly, among men, Achilleus’ remembrance of Patroklos, and in particular his worry for his father and son, lead to anxious thoughts of what has been left behind in the homeland (326–339): Leaf; Edwards on 287–300 and 301–302; Alexiou (1974) 2002, 231 n. 7; Crotty 1994, 49; Derderian 2001, 30  f.; cf. 290b n., 292n., 339n. πρόφασιν: on the meaning, see 262n.; here it elucidates a discrepancy between an external, visible action (LfgrE s.v.: ‘evidently, as anyone could see’ [transl.]; Robert 1976, 340: ‘officiellement’) and an internal motivation: the lament for Patroklos is the cause (or mere excuse) for mourning for one’s own losses (cause: Leaf; Edwards; Heiden 1991, 7  f.; Most 2003, 59; mere excuse: schol. D; Lohmann 1988, 21; Pucci [1993] 1998, 104; cautiously Rawlings 1975, 26: because of the absence of μέν, the contrast between mourning for Patroklos and personal grief is only implicit).  – Πάτροκλον πρόφασιν became proverbial (Eust. 1185.35  f.), e.g. Plut. Mor. 546  f, Ach. Tat. 2.34.7, Charito 8.5.2 (cf. Leutsch 1851, 606). — σφῶν … αὐτέ‿ων: reflexive pronoun of the 3rd pers. used as a possessive gen. and amplified by αὐτός (G 81; Schw. 2.206; Chantr. 1.268; Jeremiah

301 ἔφατο: impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — ἐπὶ … στενάχοντο: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. 302 αὐτέ‿ων: on the synizesis, R 7. — κήδε(α) ἑκάστη: on the prosody, R 5.1, R 4.6 (cf. 277n.).

140 

 Iliad 19

2012, 52–54); on the form in -ε‿ων, see Wackernagel 1916, 4–6. — κήδε(α): ‘sorrow’ (1.445n.), here particularly that caused by the loss of kinsmen (AH; Faesi; Ebeling s.v. κῆδος; LfgrE s.v.; cf. 6.240–241n.; differently Anastassiou 1973, 110  f.; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 6; Tsagalis 2004, 67: also generally of grief due to being enslaved). — ἑκάστη: 277n.

303–309 The pleas of the ‘elders’ (Greek gérontes) and Achilleus’ refusal refer to the meal typically taken between assembly and battle (155–183n.) and to the institution of the council of ‘elders’ (Hainsworth 1966, 162; cf. 2.53n., 2.194n., 19.303n.). Achilleus himself will not eat, but will be refreshed by Athena at 340–356. The joint meal, an important element of Odysseus’ suggestions for the process of reconciliation (179–180n.), will take place only after the battle, at 23.35  ff. (Edwards on 303–339; cf. 24.3n.). 303 The view shifts abruptly from Briseïs and the mourning women: ‘about him’ (Greek autón amphí) at the beginning of the sentence points to Achilleus, who was mentioned by name in Briseïs’ speech (295/297; his last action was dissolving the assembly at 276). The position at VB and the unusual word order (see below) highlight this: next to Briseïs and the mourning female captives, he is the central, dominant person who forms the focal point of another group (on the use of αὐτός, 120n., 1.4n.; Bonifazi 2009, 12  f.; Jeremiah 2012, 54  ff.). The unexpected transition can also be taken to indicate that the two groups have lined up next to one another at the same time: here Briseïs (with the other women in her wake), who in her mourning speech mentions Achilleus (295–299), there Achilleus, around whom are gathered the Achaian ‘elders’, who wish to persuade him to join the meal (cf. Lohmann 1988, 23). — Greek gérontes ‘the elders’ is a technical term for the elite, regardless of the age of individual members (see 309 basilḗas): 1.26n., 2.53n. ἠγερέθοντο: from ἀγείρω (‘they assembled’), the formation is not entirely clear (2.303– 304n.); ἀμφί is a ‘postposition’ (G 98) only here, elsewhere always a preposition: LfgrE s.v. ἠγερέθομαι.

304 The verse combines several pleas of similar content in the form of indirect speech (on this, Richardson 1990, 73  f.; Beck 2012, 87  f.); it serves as a speech introduction for the following direct speech and points to Achilleus’ dismissive attitude as well as his mood (Edwards 1970, 26 and on 304–308; de Jong [1987] 2004, 115  f.; but cf. the speech introduction formulaP at 1.364 [with n.]). λισσόμενοι: denotes insistently delivered pleas (1.15n.), cf. 306 μὴ  … κελεύετε. — στοναχίζων: on the usage (moaning from sorrow or pain) and the spelling, 2.95n.; LfgrE s.v. στεναχίζω, στοναχίζω.

304 ὅ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17.

Commentary 

 141

305 ≈ 17.154; 2nd VH ≈ 11.616. — companion: The Greek term hétaroi/hetaíroi denotes (a) friends who stand in a close relationship with one another (cf. 209– 210n.), (b) a group of ‘companions, comrades’ linked as participants in a joint enterprise (LfgrE s.v. ἑταῖρος; van Wees 1992, 335 n. 67; on the Achaian commanders as hetaíroi, see Spahn 2006, 176). By designating the leading characters in the Achaian army his hetaíroi, Achilleus signals that he feels himself to be part of their group, even if he is currently resisting their insistent pleas to rejoin the common undertaking (LfgrE s.v. 750.25  ff.). In the embassy in Book 9, he was accused by Aias of having turned his back on the friendship among the commanders when he rejected the proposal for reconciliation (9.630  f.). τις: collective, ‘any (who may be considered)’ (AH; Schw. 2.214  f.).

306–308 Achilleus argues much as he did in the military assembly at 200–214 (on which, 199–214n., 203–214n., 214n.), but in a more restrained manner, in accord with the situation: by mentioning the sating of his heart, he perhaps implies that he means first to sate it with bloody battle (cf. 209–214, 213  f. with n., 22.346  f.) and laments (cf. e.g. 23.10  f., 23.157, 24.513); his assertion that he does not intend to eat or drink before sunset, i.e. that he will continue to fast until the end of the battle (308n.), suggests that for him, revenge is a priority (cf. 207n.). On ‘food and drink’, cf. 161n. 306 μή … πρίν: ‘not before’, adverbial πρίν, is defined more closely in terms of content only at 308 via δύντα δ’ ἐς ἠέλιον, with a change from the expected construction πρὶν ἠέλιον δῦναι, similarly at 16.62  f. (Leaf; Edwards on 304–308: ‘altered to a more vivid expression’; cf. AH on 16.62); in this way, Achilleus’ drive to persevere comes to the fore in 308 (with n.).

307 strong sorrow: Greek áchos denotes a suddenly occurring mental anguish, followed by rage and aggression (125n.), e.g. in the following typical situation: death of a battle companion – áchos – act of revenge (2.169–171n.). For Achilleus, this ongoing anguish means that he suffers from any delay in taking his revenge and thus will tolerate no distraction (cf. 147–153, 213  f., 312  f.), but instead pursues his goal inexorably (365–368 [athetized by West], 419  ff., 20.75  ff.). ἄσασθαι: here and at 9.489, of physical satiety; elsewhere usually in a military context, of satiety of the blood and flesh of warriors (the subjects are scavenging dogs and – with ἄ. in a metaphorical sense – Ares and lances) or of having one’s fill of battle (402, 423) or lament (LfgrE s.v. ἄμεναι; Latacz 1966, 181  f.; Arnould 1986, 271  f.). — φίλον ἦτορ: cf. φίλον … λαιμόν 209n. ἦτορ is semantically equivalent to κῆρ at 319  f. (1.188n.; Jahn 1987, 206); on the meaning of φίλος in this expression (here possessive), 3.31n.

305 ἐπιπείθεθ’: = ἐπιπείθεται (R 5.1) from ἐπιπείθεσθαι ‘follow’, here approximately ‘obey, comply with a wish’.

142 

 Iliad 19

308 till the sun goes down: on specifications of the duration of battle, see 157n., 162n.

μενέω καὶ τλήσομαι: stresses Achilleus’ firm determination to wait for his meal until the end of the battle and to endure until evening without food or drink; elsewhere the phrase refers to perseverance in battle, cf. 2.299 Odysseus’ appeal to the army, 11.317 Diomedes’ assurances to Agamemnon (LfgrE s.v. τλῆναι 555.23  ff.).

309–310 the rest  …, | but the two  …: a variant of the antithetical motif ‘the others … x, A (on their own) … y’ (1.198n., 2.1–6n.): Achilleus is not yet alone with his grief, since a few men stay behind to comfort him, while the majority leave to eat. Only after Achilleus’ lament do all except Achilleus go refresh themselves (345  f.). — the two sons of Atreus: Agamemnon and his brother Menelaos, the two chief initiators of the Trojan expedition (1.16n., CH 2). Agamemnon, who avoided direct conversation with Achilleus during the assembly, notably remains behind as well and joins in the attempt to cheer the grieving hero (312). This and the fact that Achilleus allows him to do so likely indicate that both men are concerned to achieve a certain degree of mtutal understanding. ἀπεσκέδασεν: here active ‘he dismissed’, as in the dissolution of assemblies at 19.171, 23.158, 23.162, elsewhere of assemblies usually in the mid.-pass. ‘dispersing (themselves)’ (1.487, 2.398, 19.277, 24.2, Od. 1.274, 2.258, cf. Il. 15.657, 23.3  f.): LfgrE s.v. (σ) κεδάσσαι, σκίδν(ημι), (σ)κίδναμαι; on the ny ephelkystikon that ‘makes position’, G 33, 1.388n. — δοιὼ δ’ Ἀτρεΐδα: δοιώ is a metrical variant of δύο (3.236n.); on the dual with the addition of the number ‘two’, Schw. 2.48  f., Chantr. 2.25. — μενέτην: ‘endure’, as at 308 (LfgrE). — δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς: 48n.

311 2nd VH ≈ 9.432, 16.196. — a verse constructed according to the ‘law of increasing parts’ (87n.). — Nestor, the wise counsellor (1.247b–252n., 2.601n.), and Idomeneus, the Kretan leader (CH 3; 2.645n.), like the elderly Phoinix, Achilleus’ tutor and advisor (CH 5; cf. 9.434–605), are among the older generation of heroes. All the individuals listed at 310  f., with the exception of Phoinix, belong to Agamemnon’s inner circle of advisors (cf. 2.404–409 with n.; on Odysseus, see also 155–183n.). The mention of Phoinix is likely an echo of the embassy in Book 9, where he similarly attempts to influence Achilleus; he rarely appears elsewhere in the Iliad (Edwards on 310–313; Reichel 1994, 126 n. 28; West 2011, 218  f. [on 9.168]).

308 ἠέλιον: = ἥλιον. — μενέω: fut.; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἔμπης: ‘nevertheless, in any case’. 309 βασιλῆας: on the form, R 3; cf. R 11.3. 310 δοιὼ … Ἀτρεΐδα μενέτην: dual (R 18.1); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 143

Νέστωρ: Asyndeton at VB within a list of names is not unusual; it marks the beginning of a new series: AH on 2.498; West on Hes. Th. 245 (collection of examples). — ἱππηλάτα: usually linked formulaically with γέρων after caesura C 1; an epithetP of heroes of the older generation; aside from Phoinix, also of Peleus (7.125, 9.438, 11.772, 18.331), Oineus (9.581), Tydeus (4.387 without γέρων) and Nestor (Od. 3.436, 3.444). On the nom. in -ᾰ and the meaning of the title-like epithet (‘charioteer’), see 2.336n. on the synonym ἱππότα. — Φοίνιξ: on the accent, West 1998, XXI. 312 τέρποντες: denotes the attempt to cheer and console Achilleus by any means possible (Latacz 1966, 194, 214, 219; LgfrE s.v. τέρπω). — πυκινῶς ἀκαχήμενον: ἀκαχήμενος serves as the perf. part. of ἄχνυμαι and, in contrast to the pres. and aor., emphasizes a continuing state of mind (‘sad, gloomy’; cf. 307 pres. ἱκάνει) that results from a preceding stroke of fate, cf. ἄχος 307n. (LfgrE s.v. ἄχνυμαι, esp. 1771.66  ff.; Anastassiou 1973, 45–47; Mawet 1979, 336  f.). πυκινῶς (‘tightly, closely, much’) stresses the intensity of emotion (cf. LfgrE s.v. πυκινός 1632.46  ff., used inter alia with ἄχος: ‘overwhelming’; on the portrayal of intensity in the emotional sphere, cf. Snell [1939] 1999, 254  f.; differently Anastassiou 1973, 52  f., 62  f.: πυκινὸν ἄχος ‘confinement, stifling’); the phrase occurs also at Od. 19.95, 20.84, 23.360, and similarly in expressions for ‘sigh, groan’, as at Il. 10.9, 18.318, 21.417 (Krapp 1964, 31; Kaimio 1977, 52); on the metaphorical use of πυκινός, 2.55n.; LfgrE s.v. 1632.46  ff. — οὐδέ τι θυμῷ: a variable VE formula (οὐδέ/μηδέ: 5x Il., 4x Od.; in addition with acc. θυμόν 1x Od.); θυμός is here used pregnantly of the intensity of a mental process: deeply felt joy (Jahn 1987, 227).

313 went into the jaws of the bleeding battle: The metaphor ‘jaws of bleeding battle’ likely derives from the notion of a predator’s jaws, similarly at 10.8, 20.359 (Achilleus’ battle paraenesis): Leaf; Edwards; LfgrE s.v. στόμα; cf. the image of Ares being sated with the blood of slain warriors, 5.289, 20.77  f., 22.267 (Fränkel 1921, 62). This is an amplification of the otherwise common expression of terms for battle (fray) with Greek dýnō ‘plunge into, enter’ (on which, 6.185n.). πρίν: 169–170n.; on the differing prosodic effect of πρ- here (short at a syntactic break) and at 306 (‘making position’ in the case of closely connected words), see Tichy 1981, 29. — αἱματόεντος: elsewhere usually an attribute of body parts, garments, weapons, etc.; of πόλεμος at 9.650 and of ἤματα at 9.326, both in direct speeches by Achilleus, the only characterP who uses the adjective metaphorically. This may indicate that the narratorP is reporting Achilleus’ thoughts in the πρίν clause, which is probably already anticipated in οὐδέ … θυμῷ | τέρπετο (secondary focalizationP; Edwards on 310–313; Griffin 1986, 52; de Jong [1987] 2004, 119; additional epithets with πόλεμος: see LfgrE s.v. 1334.54  ff.).

312 τέρποντες: ‘attempting to cheer’ (conative). — οὐδέ: ‘but not’; in Homer connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 313 δύμεναι: inf. of the root aor. ἔδυν; on the form, R 16.4.

144 

 Iliad 19

314 VB ≈ 339 (with n.). — Remembering: Achilleus attempts to recreate the familiar intimacy via remembrance of his friend, a remembrance that, according to his own words, is meant to accompany him beyond the grave (22.387–390); cf. also Achilleus’ memories during a sleepless night at 24.3–11. Parallels in the epic of Gilgamesh: the grieving Gilgamesh recalls adventures undertaken jointly with his friend Enkidu (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 314; West 1997, 345  f.; cf. NTHS 54–57).

ἁδινῶς ἀνενείκατο: ἁδινῶς originally meant ‘close to one another’ (cf. 2.87n.), in the context of laments ‘repeated, continuous’, and characterizes intense, repeatedly uttered wails, cf. adverbial ἁδινὸν/-ὰ στενάχω/στοναχίζω at 23.225, 24.123, Od. 7.274, 24.317, also Il. 24.510 with κλαῖε, adjectival with γόοιο at 18.316, 22.430, 23.17, 24.747 (Krapp 1964, 30  f.; Kaimio 1977, 49  ff.; Watkins [1979] 1994, 622  f.); ἀνενείκατο is here thus used similarly to στενάχω/στοναχίζω (cf. also Hdt. 1.86.3 ἀνενεικάμενόν τε καὶ ἀναστενάξαντα), i.e. ‘brought up (sc. breath)’, probably in the sense ‘sighed deeply’ (AH; Leaf; Edwards; LfgrE s.v. ἐνεῖκαι; Krapp 1964, 31; Rengakos 1994, 50  f.; differently schol. bT: the object is the voice, cf. Apoll. Rhod. 3.635; on the formation of the stem, 194–195n.).

315–339 On the content and structure of the speech, see 286–339n. (also for bibliography on mourning speeches in general). 315–321a Section (A) (contrasting ‘then – now’) is linked to the theme of eating, which has already been reprised at 304  ff., and to the actual situation prior to departure for battle: (1) remembering Patroklos’ services as a friend during the morning meal, (2) adherence to Achilleus’ renounciation of food and drink (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 134 n. 2; cf. 286–339n. end). 315 dearest of all my companions: a periphrastic denominationP representing Achilleus’ perspective (secondary focalizationP; cf. 209–210n.); the same phrase (in the nom.) occurs at 17.411 ≈ 655 in indirectly reported messages meant to inform Achilleus of the death of Patroklos. ἦ ῥά νυ: an emphatic beginning to a speech (6.215n.). — δυσάμμορε: an ‘intensifying contamination’ of ἄμμορος (literally ‘without a share’, subsequently ‘unfortunate, miserable’: 6.408n.) and δύσμορος (‘with a bad fate’: 22.481), thus ‘very unfortunate’ (Risch 214, 229; LfgrE s.vv. δύσμορος, δυσάμμορος; on -μμ-, see G 16); in early epic only in the Iliad, always in the context ‘lament’, also at 22.428 (Priam on Hekabe) and 22.485a = 24.727a (Andromache on herself and Hektor). — φίλταθ’ ἑταίρων: on the superlative, cf. 287n. The same address occurs at 13.249 (Idomeneus to Meriones) and Od. 24.517 (Athena in the guise of Mentor to Laërtes).

314 ἀνενείκατο: Attic = ἀν-ηνέγκετο. 315 ἦ ῥα: ‘indeed’, ἦ emphatic (R 24.4, on ῥα R 24.1).

Commentary 

 145

316 Patroklos and other ‘companions, comrades’ (Greek hétaroi/hetaíroi) of Achilleus serve as assistants for domestic tasks also elsewhere in the Iliad: food preparation (9.201–220: Patroklos and Automedon; 24.474  f.: Automedon and Alkimos; 24.622–626: Automedon and others), preparation of quarters for the night (9.620  f., 658–661: Patroklos as organizer; 24.643–648: companions and female servants): LfgrE s.v. ἑταῖρος, esp. 750.8  ff.; Spahn 2006, 175–183, esp. 177–179. αὐτός: Together with καὶ σύ (315), the word stresses the fact that his friend at times rendered this service ‘in person’ (LfgrE s.v. 1641.44  ff.). — λαρόν: ‘pleasant to the taste’ (schol. D, A and T: ≈ ἡδύ); *λαϝαρός/λαϝερός is likely related to (ἀπο-)λαύω ‘enjoy, savor’ (Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v.). — δεῖπνον: 275n.

317 quickly and [expertly] swiftly: The hurried bustle is parallel to the haste of the departing Achaians (‘were urgent’), the image as a whole is representative of Achilleus’ current urging to depart for battle. On the synonym doubling (aípsa kai otraléōs: ‘quickly and swiftly’), 1.160n., 2.39n. 318 = 8.516; ≈ 19.237; 1st VH = 4.352; ≈ 8.110, 17.230; 2nd VH ≈ 3.132. — breakers of horses: 237n. ἔφ’ … φέρειν … ἄρηα: ‘to attack someone’; on this expression, and on the metonymic use of ἄρης/Ἄρης, 237n., 3.132n. — πολύδακρυν: an epithet with ἄρης, πόλεμος, μάχη, ὑσμίνη (3.132n.); elsewhere only said by Trojans (3.132 Iris-Laodike, 3.165 Priam, 8.516 Hektor, 22.487 Andromache; 17.192 and 544 in the narrator text); perhaps used here by the narrator in reference to the speaker’s situation (Pucci [1993] 1998, 107; cf. 313 πολέμου … αἱματόεντος [with n.]).

319 But now: forms a transition to a portrayal of the current situation with a contrasting ‘then – now’, as at 289 (cf. 288–290a n.). This is characterized by the comparison ‘you – I’ (319, 321); on this pattern in laments, see Alexiou (1974) 2002, 171–177; Tsagalis 2004, 90–102. δεδαϊγμένος: 203n.; a reprise of Achilleus’ description in the military assembly at 211  f. (with n.). — αὐτὰρ ἐμὸν κῆρ: a VE formula (1x Il., 3x Od.). The use after caesura C 2 (on which, 1.194n.) causes enjambmentP and thus emphasizes the runover word ἄκμηνον (Edwards); on κῆρ, 307n.

316 παρὰ … ἔθηκας: so-called tmesis (R 20.2), to which μοι 315 belongs: ‘you set beside me’. 317 σπερχοίατ(ο): iterative opt.; on the ending, R 16.2. 318 ≈ 237 (s.d.). — ἱπποδάμοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — φέρειν: final/consecutive inf. 319 αὐτάρ: ‘but’, answers μέν (R 24.2).

146 

 Iliad 19

320 ἄκμηνον: 163n. — πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος: 231n. — ἔνδον ἐόντων: a VE formula (1x Il., 4x Od.), here either concessive in relation to πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος (AH, Faesi) or partitive (Leaf: ‘of the store that is in my hut’). 321a σῇ ποθῇ: action noun related to ποθέω (‘miss, long for’) in the dat. of cause, with the possessive pronoun functioning as an objective gen., cf. 336  f. (ἐμὴν … ἀγγελίην), Od. 11.202 (σός … πόθος): AH; Edwards; Schw. 2.203; Porzig 1942, 71; LfgrE s.v.: ‘because I miss you’; cf. 6.362n. The phrase – stressed by progressive enjambmentP – also gives an additional reason why Achilleus cannot eat: the loss of his intimacy with Patroklos, whom he does not wish to replace with anyone else (Nimis 1987, 37; on the sentence structure with enjambments, Allan 2009, 143  ff. [esp. 147]).

321b Transition to the narrative section, analogous to 290b, with an amplification of emotion: worse suffering is unimaginable for Achilleus; cf. 23.46  f., similarly Hektor at 6.450–455 (with n.).

κακώτερον ἄλλο: a variable formula (masc./neut.) after caesura B 2 (2x Il., 3x Od.).

322–337 Achilleus’ anxiety for his elderly father Peleus, and the image of how both men fear a message reporting that the other has died, frame sections (2)– (4) (ring-compositionP), in which all three generations are mentioned (see VE 322 and 337); on the structure, see 286–339n.; on the potentially expressive alliteration of p-sounds in these sections, see Martin 1989, 65; on the disputed authenticity of 326  ff., see 326–337n. The motif of fearing a message from home reporting that someone close has died is found already at 16.13–16. But now, after the death of Patroklos, Achilleus gives it a different weight: his mourning for his friend cannot be compared with his grief for another person close to him. – From the memories of Achilleus and others scattered throughout the Iliad, one can form an image of the absent Peleus, the wealthy and powerful ruler of the Myrmidons, who gave parting advice to his son but would now have to rely on the latter’s help due to his own advanced age (e.g. 7.125  f., 9.252–259, 393  f., 400, 11.783–790, 24.534–542; cf. Achilleus’ worries in the underworld at Od. 11.494  ff.; genealogy: Il. 21.188  f.): Crotty 1994, 24–41, 80  f.; on this ‘scattering technique’ in general, Friedrich 1975, 80  f.; Latacz (1995) 1997, 90 n. 107. In Book 24, Priam deliberately evokes the memory of Achilleus’ equally aged father in order to soften him – and succeeds in this (24.486–492, 507–512, 515  ff., prepared for at 22.418–422). From Book 22 on, the father-son motif is also picked up via the figure of Priam and is gradually brought to a climax in

320 ἄκμηνον: sc. ἐστίν. — ἐόντων: = ὄντων (R 16.6). 321–322 οὐ … πάθοιμι, | οὐδ’ εἴ κεν … πυθοίμην: κεν = ἄν; potential, with the modal particle in the dependent clause rather than the main clause (R 21.1; ↑). — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — τοῦ … πυθοίμην: with gen. of person (‘of, for’) and part.

Commentary 

 147

Book 24 (cf. 22.38–76, 22.416–428, 24.362–439n.); cf. also 23.222  ff.: Achilleus weeps for Patroklos as a father does for his child (Zanker 1994, 15  f.). This is anticipated on the divine level by Zeus’ mourning for his son Sarpedon at 16.431  ff. (Edwards, Introd. 10). 322 VB = 22.220, 22.349, 22.351, 23.346, Od. 14.140. — οὐδ’ εἴ κεν … πυθοίμην: οὐδ’ εἰ marks the so-called ‘«not even + hyperbole» motif’ (cf. de Jong on Od. 4.595–598). εἰ with κεν makes clear the potential (1.60n., 2.123n.), particularly given the absence of the modal particle in the main clause here (Schw. 2.324; Chantr. 2.217; on the absence of modal particles, Willmott 2008, 248–250). — τοῦ πατρός: an article functioning as a demonstrative for emphatic effect, ‘the father’ in the sense ‘my father’ (Chantr. 2.164; Nussbaum 1998, 115  f.; differently AH, Leaf, Edwards with Brugmann’s conjecture: οὗ as a reflexive possessive pronoun, here for the 1st person). 323 2nd VH (after caesura B 2) ≈ 16.11, Od. 16.332 (after caesura B 1 with θαλερόν rather than τέρεν: 24.9, Od. 11.391). — που: in direct speeches, signals a degree of uncertainty (here also at 327, 335) ‘in assertions, the accuracy of which one is certain about, but without being able to prove it’ (Wackernagel [1895] 1953, 701 [transl.]; cf. Denniston 490  ff.: ‘I suppose, I think’): on balance, Achilleus assumes that Peleus is still alive. — τέρεν κατὰ δάκρυον εἴβει: τέρεν (‘smooth, tender’) is a generic epithetP of δάκρυ(-ον) (collective singular: ‘stream of tears’), also of χρόα, φύλλα and ἄνθος/ἄνθεα; on the etymology and formulaic use, see 3.142n. (κατὰ) δάκρυον εἴβει is a variable VE formula (3x Il., 7x Od.); on additional variants, 1.413n., 3.142n. (δάκρυ χέουσα); Haslam 1976, 203–207 (δάκρυα λείβ-).

324 1st VH ≈ 6.463. — land: On Greek dḗmos, which denotes in part a land and the area inhabited by a community, and in part the inhabitants themselves, see 2.198n.

χήτει τοιοῦδ’ υἷος: χήτει is an ossified dat. sing. (‘lack’) used as a preposition (‘in the absence of’): 6.463n.; the entire phrase expresses a certain self-assurance: implied is the thought of how a father might miss a ‘son of such qualities’ (Staten 1993, 356). — ὃ δ(έ): anaphoric with τοιοῦδ’ υἷος, but simultaneously the subject of πολεμίζω (325) with the attraction of the expected πολεμίζει to the person of the speaker: via the switch from the 3rd to the 1st person and the fact that he puts the thought in an exclamation-like main clause (rather than a subsidiary clause), Achilleus stresses the circumstances, painful also for himself, of a warrior in a foreign land (AH; cf. Edwards). — ἀλλοδαπῷ: ‘foreign, distant’ (3.48n.), cf. Od. 8.211, 9.36 (δήμῳ/γαίῃ ἐν ἀ.).

323 Φθίηφι: locative; on the form, R 11.4. — κατὰ … εἴβει: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 324 χήτει: causal dat.: ‘from the lack of, because … is lacking’. — υἷος: gen. sing. dependent on χήτει; on the declension, R 12.3. — ἀλλοδαπῷ ἐνί: on the hiatus-bridging non-syllabic ι (allodapṓy ení), M 12.2.

148 

 Iliad 19

325 for the sake of accursed Helen: The idea of the elderly father who must do without his son’s support awakens Achilleus’ displeasure with the person for whose sake the war is being conducted. He had already made clear in Book 1 that he had no real reason to go to war against the Trojans (1.152–157, cf. also 9.337–339). – This is the only passage in the Iliad in which Helen is characterized negatively by an Achaian (AH; on the Achaians’ evaluation of her, see 2.356n.: Helen as the innocent victim of an abductor); Hera and Athene at 2.161  f., 2.177  f. (2.161n.) phrase this more neutrally. But Achilleus’ frankness is understandable, given the loss of his friend. Helen herself, in her frequent instances of self-abuse, speaks far more savagely (on this, 3.172–180n., 6.344– 358n.); cf. the ambivalent assessment by the Trojan elders at 3.156–160 (with 3.158n.) and Helen’s awareness at 24.775 of her effect on the Trojans. On the criticism of Helen in the Odyssey, see de Jong on Od. 4.121–136. ῥιγεδανῆς: one of the imprecations used exclusively by Achilleus (Griffin 1986, 52); a Homeric hapaxP, attested very rarely in the post-Homeric period. An adjectival formation related to ῥῖγος/ῥιγέω with the suffix -δανο-, approximately ‘causing a (cold) shudder’; cf. ῥίγιον at Hes. Op. 703 (DELG s.v. ῥῖγος; Risch 106; LfgrE s.vv. ῥιγεδανός, ῥιγέω; schol. AT and b: στυγητῆς; on expressions for sensations of cold in the psychosomatic range, see 6.344n.; LfgrE s.v. στυγέω; cf. also 3.404 στυγερήν and 24.775 πεφρίκασιν [Helen on herself]).

326–337 Neoptolemos is mentioned by name only here in the Iliad; the allusion to a son of Achilleus at 24.467 is perhaps to be understood generally, since it may refer to one of the authorities commonly named in an imploring appeal (24.466–467n.: father, mother, child). Additional mentions are found in the Odyssey and the epic cycle: on the island of Skyros, Achilleus marries Deidameia, daughter of King Lykomedes (Cypr., Proclus Chrest. § 7 West); the couple’s son is first called Pyrrhos by Lykomedes, but later ‘Neoptolemos’ (‘he for whom war is new’ or ‘who goes to war young’) by Phoinix, according to one source because he went to war so young, according to others because Achilleus had done so (Cypr. fr. 19 West; cf. schol. b on 326 and Cycl. fr. 4 Davies [p. 75]; on the naming of children after their fathers’ attributes, cf. 6.402–403n.); after the death of Achilleus, Odysseus brings Neoptolemos from Skyros to Troy; during the sack of the city, Neoptolemos kills numerous Trojans, including Priam (Od. 11.508–532; Il. parv., Proclus Chrest. § 3 West; Il. Pers., Proclus Chrest. § 2 West; cf. Soph. Phil.); he receives Andromache as a prize and returns home unharmed (Od. 3.188  f., 11.533–537; Il. Pers., Proclus Chrest. § 4 West; Nost., Proclus Chrest. § 4 West); he is meant to marry the daughter of Menelaos (Od. 4.4  f.). – There

325 εἵνεκα: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1).

Commentary 

 149

are various versions of the reason for Achilleus’ sojourn on Skyros: a storm during the journey to Troy (Cypr., Proclus Chrest. § 7 West; Il. parv. fr. 4 West, cf. schol. T on 326); a measure taken by Peleus or Thetis to prevent Achilleus’ participation in the war against Troy and thus his early death (schol. D and T on 326; on this, West 2013, 103  f.). On these episodes, see LfgrE and BNP s.v. Neoptolemus; Burgess 2001, 21, 24; Tsagalis 2008, 258–261; West 2013, 108, 184  f. — The passage has been suspected as an interpolation for linguistic reasons (among others, the connective in 326 [see ad loc.]: Blössner 1991, 79–84) and matters of content: (a) Neoptolemos otherwise receives no mention in the Iliad, (b) a son of Achilleus – who went to war very young (cf. 9.438  ff.) – is seen as inappropriate for the Iliad, particularly since Achilleus’ words at 24.538–540 suggest that he has no offspring, because Peleus has no prospect of an heir (AH on 326 and Anh. 19  f., 22  f.; Leaf on 327; Von der Mühll 1952, 289; Blössner loc. cit. 80 with n. 330; West 2001, 12; 2011, 359). Arguments in favor of retaining the passage are: (1) the thematic agreement with Briseïs’ lament and the structural parallels between the two speeches, cf. 286–339n. (Lohmann 1970, 102–105 with n. 21); (2) the unlikeliness that in the Iliad Achilleus was meant to remain without a son given that a son was likely specified in the myth of Troy (Kullmann 1960, 197  f., 339, 374  f.; Reinhardt 1961, 418 n. 3; external analepsisP); he was suppressed in the Iliad to lend more emphasis to the motif of Achilleus’ isolation (Priess 1977, 117). Phoinix’ statement that Achilleus joined the war young does not necesarily mean that he had not yet fathered a son. On (a), cf. the fact that other heroes’ young sons Telemachos (2.260, 4.354) and Orestes (9.142  f./284  f.), who are not present at Troy, are also mentioned only briefly (2.260n.; Hainsworth on 9.142; left unmentioned is Nestor’s son Peisistratos, on whom see West on Od. 3.36). On Homer’s adaptation of traditional narratives to his own aims, see Edwards on 326–327 and Introd. 15–19; Lohmann 1970, 104  f.; 1988, 24  f. Additional source-critical considerations in Kullmann loc. cit. 190  ff. (priority of the material contained in the epic cycle vis-à-vis the present passage); Blössner loc. cit. 75–80 (priority of Od. 11.488–540 vis-à-vis the present passage). – At any rate, the use of the father-son motif here fits well within the overall scene: Achilleus’ concern for the well-being of his father and son with regard to his own death fits with his sense of abandonment (cf. 321) and his abjectly sad mood, which renders him inaccessible to consolation (cf. 312  f.): van der Valk 1964, 404  f.; Schein 1984, 144; Crotty 1994, 49.

150 

 Iliad 19

326 Skyros: an island east of Euboia; it is doubtful whether it is identical with the Skyros mentioned at 9.667  f., ‘the city of Enyeus’, which was conquered by Achilleus (Latacz 2002, section ‘The Catalogue of Ships’, item (4); on the discrepancies with the epic cycle, Hainsworth on 9.663–665).

ἠὲ τόν: a return to the protasis of 322: dependent on πυθοίμην with a change of construction from gen. to acc. and ellipsis of inf. or part. ἀποφθίμενον (AH; Leaf; Edwards; LfgrE s.v. πεύθομαι 1205.3  ff.; Blössner 1991, 79 n. 319). If 326  ff. are retained, the sentence at 324b–325 is to be understood as a parenthetical remark (i.e. with no full stop at VE of 325).

327 1st VH =  Od. 14.44, 20.207; ≈ Od. 4.833. — The verse was athetized by Aristophanes and Aristarchus on the ground that Achilleus’ doubts regarding his son’s well-being are incomprehensible, particularly given the limited distance between Skyros and Troy; but cf. van der Valk 1964, 404: the strange, exaggerated concern serves to convey Achilleus’ mood. — εἰ που: ‘if at all’, as at 11.366, 20.453, Od. 11.458  f., etc.; cf. 323n. — θεοειδής: a formulaic (VE) generic epithetP (2.623n.); on the common use of epithets meaning ‘god-like’, etc., see 2.565n.

328–333 Achilleus has long since realized that he himself will die before the walls of Troy (9.410  ff., 18.94  ff.), but he had not reckoned with the premature death of his friend, especially given that he provided the latter with clear instructions and warnings regarding battle at 16.87–96 and prayed to Zeus for his friend’s happy return at 16.239  ff. (for Zeus’ reaction, see 16.250–253). His hopes were based on the suppression and erroneous interpretation of signs: 18.9–11, and cf. the narratorP commentary at 17.404–411 (Edwards on 17.404–411; Pelliccia 1995, 245  f.); on the expression in laments of wishes that remain unfulfilled, see Alexiou (1974) 2002, 178; Tsagalis 2004, 42–44. – The Iliad includes a series of increasingly concrete external prolepsesP of Achilleus’ death: frequently in his own words, at first vaguely at 1.352 (see ad loc.) and 9.410  ff., more concretely after Patroklos’ death and often in direct reference to it: 18.88  ff., 98  ff., 329  ff., 19.421  f., 21.110  ff., 277  f., 23.144  ff., 24.540 (indirectly at 23.125  f.); by gods at 1.415  ff., 505, 16.709, 18.95  f., 440  f., 464  f., 20.127  f., 337  f., 24.131  f., indirectly in Thetis’ laments at 18.51  ff., 24.84  ff.; also by the horse Xanthos at 19.416  f. (see ad loc.), the dying Hektor at 22.359  f., the deceased Patroklos who appears in Achilleus’ dream at 23.80  f.; and in the narratorP commentary at 17.197 (409–410n.; Edwards on 17.404–411 and on 18.95–96; Duckworth 1933, 29; Schadewaldt [1936] 1997, 163–165; Lesky 1967, 93; Schein 1984, 92  f.; Morrison 1992, 142 n. 41; on Achilleus’ awareness of his imminent death, see

326 ἠέ: ‘or (also)’. — τόν: on the demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἐνιτρέφεται: = ἐντρέφεται (cf. R 20.1); intrans. ‘grow up in’.

Commentary 

 151

Griffin 1980, 95, 163; Zanker 1994, 78; de Jong on Il. 22, Introd. 16; on parallels in the epic of Gilgamesh, West 1997, 341). 328 2nd VH (from θυμός on) = Od. 20.328, 21.96; ≈ 24.313. — πρίν: adverbial; resumes once more the portrayal of the ‘then’ at 315  ff. — μοι θυμὸς … ἐώλπει: plpf. (with impf. sense) of ἔολπα (a perf. with present sense), from ἔλπομαι ‘expect, reckon with’ (1.545n.; Schw. 1.701; as here, of an erroneous assumption at 3.112 [with n.]). On θυμός as the subject substituting for ‘I’ in general, Pelliccia 1995, 59  f.).

329 ≈ 9.246; 2nd VH = 2.287. — The thought of death is frequently linked to the notion that a person will not return to his or her father or family; in reference to Achilleus at 18.101, 330  f., 23.150 (Griffin 1980, 123–127; Crotty 1994, 35  f.). The motif of dying far from home and family is illustrated by repeated reference to the spatial distance between Achilleus and his father (323  f., 329  f., 336  f.) and between him and his son (326, 330–332) (Tsagalis 2004, 86). — alone: i.e. Patroklos would not also die before the walls of Troy; cf. 330  ff. — far away from … Argos: On the one hand, ‘Pelasgian Argos’ is the term for the entire Myrmidon realm (2.681n.); on the other hand, in the context of remoteness generally, ‘Argos’ may denote the Greek homeland in contrast to Troy (2.287n.). φθείσεσθαι: on the spelling φθει- (vs. φθι-), West 1998, XXXVI; 2001, 30. — ἱπποβότοιο: a generic epithetP of regions (‘horse-nourishing’), 14x of Argos in early epic; on the present VE formula, 6.152n.

330–333 Achilleus apparently hoped that Patroklos would fill the void he would leave, and intended that after the Trojan War his friend would be the executor of his will and a substitute father-figure for Neoptolemos, whom Patroklos was meant to accompany home (332  f.). This hope, no longer realizable, corresponds to that of Briseïs at 297  ff. At the same time, the distance between the two figures is increased by Achilleus’ advance knowledge of his early death (297b–299n.). 330 1st VH = 2.237, 18.330, Od. 18.266. — win back again: The Greek term néesthai means literally ‘escape unscathed, return home unharmed’ (cf. German genesen), and is in contrast to 329 ‘waste, die’ (LfgrE s.v. νέομαι). Τροίῃ: refers to the region of the ‘Troad’ (cf. 2.141n.). — δέ τε: ‘the most difficult example of δέ τε’ (Ruijgh 699 [transl.] with conjecture δ’ ἔτι).

328 ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν: 66n. 329 ἀπ(ό): here ‘far from’. — Ἄργεος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 330 αὐτοῦ: adv., ‘on the spot, here’. — Φθίηνδε: on the suffix -δε, R 15.3. — νέεσθαι: pres. inf. with fut. sense (cf. 329 φθείσεσθαι); on the uncontracted form, R 6.

152 

 Iliad 19

331 2nd VH = Od. 3.61, 10.332; ≈ Il. 1.300 (with n.), Od. 15.258, h.Ap. 497, 511 (παρά); Od. 2.430, 10.244, h.Bacch. 35 (ἀνά/ἐπί + acc.). — in a fast black ship: on epithets of ships, 1.12b n., 1.141n.

ὡς ἄν: final, with potential opt.; similarly Od. 15.538, 16.297, etc. (Chantr. 2.272). — μοι τὸν παῖδα: the possessive function of the article (Leaf; Edwards; Chantr. 2.164; Nussbaum 1998, 114; cf. 322n.), rather than anaphoric with 326 (AH). — σὺν νηῒ μελαίνῃ: formulaic (σὺν/ἐν/παρὰ ν. μ.: 3x Il., 12x Od., 1x Hes. Op., 2x h.Ap.); νηῒ μελαίνῃ is an inflectible VE formula (1.300n.).

332 Skyros: 326n., 326–337n. 333 = Od. 7.225, 19.526; VE = Il. 5.213, Od. 4.15. — δμῶας: elsewhere in the Iliad only the fem. pl. δμῳαί, here masc. as a collective for all Achilleus’ servants (schol. b; LfgrE s.v. δμώς); δμῶας and δῶμα are part of a tripartite enumeration (cf. the ‘law of increasing parts’ 87n.), and the verse as a whole is in apposition to ἕκαστα (Gschnitzer 1976, 46–52, esp. 50  f.; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 140, 155–157 with n. 19; ­Schmidt 2007, 245, 248  f.; cf. the punctuation in West; differently Hainsworth on Od. 7.225; Ramming 1973, 9  f.; Jones 1973, 23: δμῶάς τε … δῶμα in apposition to κτῆσιν). — ὑψερεφές: an epithet of δῶ(μα) (in addition to the iterata, 8x Od.) and θάλαμος (Il. 9.582); a compound from ὕψ-ι and ἐρέφω (‘roof over’, cf. 1.39n.), i.e. ‘with a high roof’, a characteristic of the large, airy houses of the wealthy or the gods (3.423n.; on ὑψηρεφέος [9.582], the metrically alternative form for the gen., and on the juncture of the compound elements [-ερ-/-ηρ-], Risch 226; Chantr. 1.111). — μέγα δῶμα: a VE formula (2x Il., 6x Od., 1x h.Cer.).

334–337 Of the two possibilities regarding his elderly father (deceased  – still alive), Achilleus elaborates on the second, which probably seems more likely to him: he imagines Peleus weighed down by old age and worn out by the endless wait for news of his son (cf. the women waiting back home at 2.136  f. [with n.] and Penelope in the Odyssey); he knows that in the end the news will be of his own death. In Book 24, Priam too will use the image of the waiting father, although there the image is positive because of the lack of knowledge: in contrast to Priam, Peleus could look forward to the return of his son (24.490–492, cf. Achilleus’ reaction at 24.511): Edwards on 334–337. 334 πάμπαν: literally ‘wholly, entirely’ (1.422n.), frequently an ‘expanded form used to reach the VE or the caesura κατὰ τρίτον τροχαῖον [= B2]’ (LfgrE s.v. 951.57 [transl.]); κατὰ π. | τεθνάμεν is a contrast to τυτθὸν ἔτι ζώοντ’ in 335. 335 που: 323n. — ἀκάχησθαι: serves as the perf. inf. of ἄχνυμαι (cf. 312n.) and here has a strong durative character (Mawet 1979, 340  f.); the state of mind is doubly motivated, as

332 Σκυρόθεν: on the suffix, R 15.1. — καὶ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἕκαστα: ‘all individually’. 334–335 Πηλῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. — κατὰ … | τεθνάμεν: perf. inf. (R 16.4); on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — τυτθόν: ‘a little’, with ζώοντ(α).

Commentary 

 153

is expressed by the causal dat. and the pres. part. (336 γήραΐ τε … καὶ … ποτιδέγμενον … | λυγρὴν ἀγγελίην).

336 2nd VH ≈ 10.123; VE ≈ Od. 9.545, 22.380, 24.396. — hatefulness of old age: Old age, accompanied by failing strength and increasing dependency, is made even worse by a lack of children, especially of a son who might function as a protector, cf. 5.20  ff., especially 23  f., 5.152–158, 24.487–489, 540–542, Od. 11.494–503 (Preisshofen 1977, 24  f., 29).

τε … καί: connects sentence parts that are closely linked in content (reason) but are in different syntactic constructions (here dat. and part.), similarly 4.60 = 18.365 (dat. and causal clause), cf. also Od. 8.429, h.Ven. 232 (dat. and part.): Ebeling s.v. καί 626. — στυγερῷ: ‘causing dread, hateful’ (2.385n.), cf. στυγερὸν … γῆρας h.Ven. 233; additional epithets with γῆρας at LfgrE s.v., end. — ἐμήν: a possessive pronoun functioning as an objective gen. (‘news of me’), cf. 321a n. — ποτιδέγμενον: 234n.

337 λυγρὴν ἀγγελίην: The phrase also occurs at 17.642, 686, 18.18  f. (news of Patroklos’ death); is emphasized via integral enjambmentP, anticipated by ἐμήν (Edwards on 334–337; Higbie 1990, 55  f.). — ἀποφθιμένοιο πύθηται: echoes 322 (ἀποφθιμένοιο πυθοίμην) but with a change of perspective from the hypothetical death of Achilleus’ father to his own anticipated death, and in terms of content frames sections (3) and (4) in the manner of a ring-compositionP (322–337n.; Lohmann 1970, 103; Nagy [1979] 1999, 185 n. 1; Tsagalis 2004, 151; on Achilleus’ knowledge of his own death, 328–333n.).

338 ≈ 301, 22.429, 22.515, 24.746, 24.776; 1st VH ≈ 22.437, 24.760; 2nd VH ≈ 24.722. — a speech capping formulaP of laments with responses by the individuals present, as also in the laments of the women and Priam for Hektor (301n.). — the elders: 303n. 339 2nd VH ≈ Od. 4.734, 11.68. — remembering each those …: an echo of 314 (see ad loc.) ‘lost in memory’ (Greek mnēsámenos or mnēsámenoi); analogous to 302 in terms of content: both passages reveal a discrepancy between the occasion (mourning for Patroklos) and the content of the individual laments (personal matters) (302n.). In the present passage, a common point of reference immediately results from Achilleus’ speech: all of them have left relatives behind in their homeland. — in his own halls: The Greek term mégaron literally denoted the main room of the Homeric house (3.125n.); at the same time,

336–337 ἐμὴν ποτιδέγμενον  … |  … ὅτ(ε)  … πύθηται: ποτιδέγμενον =  προσδεχόμενον (↑; on the prefix, R 20.1) ‘awaiting’, with acc. object and temporal clause with a prospective subjunc. (‘when he will learn’); in Homer also without a modal particle (R 21.1). — ἀποφθιμένοιο: sc. ἐμοῦ. 338 ≈ 301 (see ad loc.). 339 τὰ (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 5.4. — τά: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἐνὶ (μ) μεγάροισιν: on the prosody, M 4.6.

154 

 Iliad 19

the formulaic expression ‘in one’s chamber’ is often synonymous with (emotionally connotative) ‘at home’ (24.209a n.). ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν: formulaic after caesura B 2 and between caesurae A 2 and B 1/2 (1.396n.).  — ἔλειπον: the reading preferred by West, as also at LfgrE s.v. ἕκαστος 497.60  ff. (‘what they, each of them, had left behind’; similarly 5.878, 10.215, Od. 8.392, h.Merc. 431), contra the main transmission ἔλειπε(ν) (thus Leaf, Edwards); on the appositive ἕκαστος, cf. 2.775b n.; K.-G. 1.286; Hahn 1954, 202.

340–424 In accord with orders from Zeus, Athene nourishes Achilleus with nectar and ambrosia, while the Achaians prepare to march forth into battle. As the troops leave the ships and converge, Achilleus arms himself as well and has his horses harnessed. In a colloquy with him, the immortal horse Xanthos alludes to the circumstances of his coming death. 340 ≈ 17.441 (Zeus feels pity for Achilleus’ horses, whom he sees weeping for Patroklos); 2nd VH ≈ 15.44, 24.332. — as he watched: a gliding change of sceneP via the introduction of a character B (here Zeus), who sees a different character A (here the mourners in the Myrmidon camp), especially in a transition to the divine level, where the gods appear as spectators, confer about the action, and sometimes intervene; cf. e.g. 5.711–772 (plight of the Achaians), 7.442–464 (building a wall), 16.428–461 (death of Sarpedon), 17.432–456 (grief of Achilleus’ horses), 22.165–187 (Achilleus pursues Hektor), 24.22–77 (abuse of Hektor’s corpse), 24.329–339 (Zeus sends Hermes to Priam): Kullmann 1956, 83–85; Griffin 1980, 179  ff.; Richardson 1990, 111–113, 229 n. 6; de Jong/ Nünlist 2004, 74. — took pity: The Greek word family ele- (‘pity’) denotes both a character’s emotion (‘compassion’) and the resulting impulse for action that focuses on a specific object (human, animal, god), and often justifies divine intervention (2.27n.; Paul 1969, 12  f., on the present passage, 45  f.; Scott 1979, 8–10, 13  f.; Kim 2000, 67). — son of Kronos: CG 26. 341–356a The scene shares similarities with the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (1.320–348a n.): (1) issuing of orders with their rationale (341–349), (2) departure (350–351a), (4) description of the situation (here in part contained in element 1): the character searched for (reported in 344  f. from the perspective of Zeus), (4a) the characters surrounding him (345  f., with emphasis on Achilleus’ isolation, 351b–352a), (6) completion of the instructions and return (352b–356a): cf. Edwards on 351–352. The absence of elements 3 (the

340 μυρομένους: predicative with ἰδών. — τούς: refers back to the subject of 338; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — γε (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐλέησε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 155

character arrives) and 5 (approaches), as well as the modification of element 6 (the messenger conveys the instructions), is here conditioned by the context: no direct encounter or conversation follow, the instructions are carried out swiftly and silently without being noticed by Achilleus (Arend 1933, 56  f.; on such modifications of this scene type, see 2.786–808n.; cf. also 19.1–39n.; on appearances of gods in general, see 1.197–198n.; de Jong on Od. 1.29–324). 341 = 8.351; ≈ 4.69, 5.713, 21.419. — Ἀθηναίην: is a metrically convenient variant of Ἀθήνην (6.88n.). — ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα: speech introductory formulaP (20n.).

342–346 Zeus spurs his daughter to immediate action with the ironic insinuation that Athene seems indifferent to Achilleus and with a description of the latter’s physical and mental state – as though Athene were ignorant of this (cf. 349). In a similar manner, Zeus provokes Hera and Athene at the beginning of Book 4 with ironic comments in order to prompt the desired course of the action after the duel between Paris and Menelaos (4.5–73, esp. 4.7–19; cf. his scolding at 8.446–457). It is already evident at 18.166  ff. that Athene knows independently of Achilleus’ needs: when Iris, at Hera’s behest, asks him to assist in the battle for Patroklos’ corpse, Athene is immediately at hand to facilitate a forceful appearance for Achilleus, who has lost his armor (18.203  ff.). 342 the man of your choice: in the sense ‘your protégé’: like Hera, Athene supports the Achaian side (CG 8) and repeatedly appears as Achilleus’ protectress and aide: 1.193  ff. (in the quarrel with Agamemnon), 18.203  ff. (342– 346n.), 20.94  ff. and 438  ff. (in battle), 21.284  ff. (when he is threatened by the Skamandros), 22.214–223 and 276  f. (in the battle with Hektor); in addition, she assists Odysseus (2.172  ff., etc., esp. in the Odyssey), Diomedes (5.1  ff., etc.), Menelaos (e.g. 4.127  ff.) and other heroes (LfgrE s.v. Ἀθηναίη 214.19  ff.).

τέκνον ἐμόν: on the address, 8n. — δή: an unusual position, at the beginning of the sentence after the address (likewise at 15.437); the word lends emphasis to the statement that follows (‘thus, as one can see’): Denniston 228. — πάμπαν: ‘wholly, entirely’ (< παν-παν, see 1.422n.). — ἑῆος: linked with παιδός/υἷος elsewhere in the Iliad (1.393 [with n.], 15.138, 24.422, 550), in the Odyssey with φωτός (Od. 14.505) and, as here, with ἀνδρός (15.450). The etymology and sense have been disputed since antiquity: the word is related either to ἐΰς ‘good’ or to the possessive pronoun ἑός (ChronEG 4 s.v. ἐύς, ἑῆος; Nussbaum 1998, 87  ff., 147  ff.: related to ἐΰς, in part a reinterpretation of the possessive pronoun of the 2nd person as a metrically convenient variant of τεοῖο; Forssman 2001,

341 Ἀθηναίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — προσηύδα: 3rd sing impf. of προσαυδάω, with double acc. (Ἀθηναίην … ἔπεα) ‘say something to someone’. 342 ἀποίχεαι (+ gen.): here in the sense ‘abandon someone’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἀποίχεαι ἀνδρός: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

156 

 Iliad 19

115  f. [transl.]: ‘These constructions are thus used here, at least mutatis mutandis, for «of your noble hero/son»’; cf. 1.393n., G 82). Interpretations of the present passage differ: ‘your man’ (in the sense ‘protégé’, see above), Schw. 2.198; LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ 859.2  ff.; Leaf and Willcock with Zenodotus’ variant ἑοῖο; cautiously Edwards (‘probably understood as a 2nd-person possessive pronoun’); differently Nussbaum loc. cit. 93–96 and 102  f., with reference to the passages in the Odyssey: ‘good, noble’ with no possessive component. By the interpretation ‘your man’ the acerbity of the ironic reproach regarding the lack of assistance would be increased. 343 ἦ νύ τοι: ἦ (‘indeed?’) frequently introduces a rhetorical question (56n.); the combination of particles is similarly used ironically at 15.128, 20.184, 22.11. — μετὰ φρεσί: 213n. — μέμβλετ(αι): perf. with present sense of μέλω (AH; Edwards; Chantr. 1.426, 432; LfgrE s.v. [transl.]: ‘does not really move you anymore?’); likewise at Hes. Th. 61, cf. μέμβλετο at Il. 21.516, Od. 22.12 beside the more frequent active μέμηλ-. The explanation of the ‘mysterious ε’ (thus Risch 342) before -ται is disputed, but perhaps this is a thematic perfect formation μέ-μβλ-ε-ται (Schw. 1.767  f.; Strunk 1957, 104  f.; additional possibilities in Hackstein 2002, 222  f.).

344–346 Description of the situation (341–356a n.): The general departure took place at 275/277, the statement ‘while all the others | have gone to take their dinner’ (345  f.) likely now includes the ‘elders’ as well: Achilleus remains alone with his grief. The contrasting Greek verb forms placed at VB of 345/346 hḗstai – oíchontai (‘he sits there’ – ‘they have left’) and the antithetical pattern ‘A ‹alone›  … x, all the others  … y, but A  … z’ (cf. 1.198n, 2.1–6n.) highlight Achilleus’ rigid refusal to eat and his continued separation from the community (Létoublon 1985, 99; Nimis 1987, 37; Kölligan 2007, 151; cf. 24.2b–13n.; on the refusal of food, 306–308n.). The fact that 344 is nearly identical with 18.3, element 4 of the delivery of a message by Antilochos, who on the previous day informed Achilleus of Patroklos’ death, may also indicate that little has changed in regard to Achilleus’ isolation even after the assembly. In addition, Achilleus’ passivity is illustrated by his being seated; cf. 1.421/488, 18.104 (1.349n., 2.137n.; LfgrE s.v. ἧμαι 910.76  ff. and 911.44  ff.). 344 ≈ 18.3. — before the … ships: On the position of the ships within the Achaian encampment, see 1.12b n. κεῖνος: predicative (‘as someone there’ → ‘there’), specified further by προπάροιθε νεῶν, signals locational distance (Schw. 2.179, 210  f.; Chantr. 2.170; Bonifazi 2012, 51–53; cf. 3.391n.). — ὅ γε: picks up again the subject of 343 (Ἀχιλλεύς) (cf. 1.97n.). — νεῶν ὀρθοκραιράων: a plural variant of the VE formula νεὸς κυανοπρῴροιο (1x Il., 8x Od.) (Edwards on 18.3–4). ὀρθόκραιρος is a possessive compound ‘with upright horns’,

343 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — μέμβλετ’: = μέμβλεται (↑); on the middle, R 23. 344 ὀρθοκραιράων: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary 

 157

elsewhere an epithet of cattle (8.231, 18.573, Od. 12.348, h.Merc. 220); attested in reference to ships only here and at 18.3 (likewise of Achilleus’ contingent), it refers either to the upward pointing prow and stern (LfgrE s.v.) or to projecting parts of the ships in general (Nussbaum 1986, 225–229, 232–234: ‘ships with straight projections’ [quote p. 226], i.e. yards, masts, etc.; cf. 1.170n. [κορωνίσιν]; somewhat differently Kurt 1979, 62–65, esp. 64  f.: in reference to the front section of the ship, ‘with straight [vertical] head’; other possibilities in Shear 2000, 80: painted-on horns as emblems of Achilleus’ ships in particular; on ship epithets generally, see 1.12b n.; Gray 1974, 96–98).

345 1st VH = Od. 16.145. — beloved companion: 209–210n. φίλον: here probably with the affective connotation ‘dear, beloved’ (4n.); cf. additional passages in connection with the loss of his friend: in direct speeches 17.642, 655, 18.80, 22.390; in narrator text 17.411, 23.152, 23.178, 24.4, 24.51, 24.416, 24.591. — οἳ δὲ δὴ ἄλλοι: A break, with a new sentence beginning or a change of scene after caesura C 2 (1.194n.), here with a change in the point of view, is characteristic of Homeric poetics.

ὀδυρόμενος ἕταρον: The apparent short syllable in the longum before caesura B 1 (cf. M 8; also before ἕταρος at Od. 10.225, 15.529, before caesura A 4 at Il. 16.269, 23.137) may be explained either via ‘position-making’ /s/ or as an after-effect of the digamma: (1a) final position -ς as a double consonant (M 4.6); (1b) prevocalic /s/ that was originally present and was potentially still prosodically meaningful (M 13.2) with ἕταρος derived from the IE reflexive *se- (etymology according to Frisk, DELG, Beekes, LfgrE s.v. ἑταῖρος; Risch 92); (2) after-effect of the digamma in ἕταρος/ἑταῖρος as a derivation from the IE reflexive *swe- (on this, ChronEG 4 s.v. ἕ, ἑ: cf. ἔτης 6.239n.); although ϝ is not attested in inscriptions for ετα(ι)ρ-, it would explain not just the ‘irregular shorts’ but hiatus without shortening before ἑταρ-/ἑταιρ- (10.235, 242, 16.581, 23.748, 24.4, 416, Od. 3.432, 10.436, 11.113, etc.) (Wachter 2001, 235  f.).

346 οἴχονται μετὰ δεῖπνον: ‘have gone away to eat’ (LfgrE s.v. οἰχνέω, οἴχομαι 623.31  f.; Létoublon 1985, 98  f., 104; on μετά as a specification of direction with a final connotation, Schw. 2.486). — ἄκμηνος καὶ ἄπαστος: emphasis via synonym doubling (on this, 1.160n.) and repetition of the negation (1.99n., 1.415n., 2.447n., 3.40n.). On ἄκμηνος, see 163n.; ἄπαστος is a negated verbal adjective of πάσασθαι (‘who is not partaking/has not partaken of food’), an Iliad hapaxP, elsewhere in conjunction with the gen. (ἄ. ἐδητύος ἠδὲ ποτῆτος: Od. 4.788, h.Cer. 200, variation ἐδητύος ἦεν ἄπαστος: Od. 6.250): LfgrE s.v. ἄπαστος.

347–354 By having Achilleus nourished with nectar and ambrosia, the narrator achieves a prolongation of his separation and refusal of food, while nonetheless keeping the hero’s enormous stamina in battle, unimpaired by hunger, plausible (Nimis 1987, 37  f.; Karsai 1998, 46  f.; cf. 348n.). In addition, this allows links to be drawn to two other scenes in the Iliad: (a) the feeding with nectar and ambrosia by a goddess recalls Thetis’ care for the dead Patroklos at

345 ἕταρον: = ἑταῖρον. 346 ἄκμηνος: ‘unfed, fasting’.

158 

 Iliad 19

38  f. (Nagler 1974, 156; Taplin 1992, 210 n. 12); (b) Achilleus’ refreshment by Athene before battle finds a parallel in Diomedes’ refreshment before his aristeia at 5.1–7 (Edwards on 340–354; on the relationship Achilleus – Diomedes, see 6.96–101n.). The special refreshment given Achilleus (in Homer, he is the only living mortal to receive nectar and ambrosia) illustrates his proximity to the gods (Schein 1984, 140; cf. 11n.). In contrast to post-Homeric poets, in whom nectar and ambrosia are administered to mortals to render them immortal (examples in Richardson on h.Cer. 237; BNP s.v. Nectar), in the present passage Achilleus’ mortality is not removed, but is instead explicitly mentioned in what follows (409, 416  f., 420–422) (Edwards on 352–354; on nectar and ambrosia, 38n.). – The theme of strength conferred by divine foods finds a parallel in the Old Testament (1.Kings 19:5–8): the prophet Elijah receives food from an angel before a strenuous journey (Louden 2006, 169  f.). 347 ≈ h.Ap. 124; 2nd VH = 353, Hes. Th. 642, ‘Hes.’ fr. 23(a).22 M.-W. (restored). — ἀλλ’ ἴθι: with an imperative following (here 348 στάξον), often ‘fossilized so as to be like a particle’ (1.32n.), although it may here have a more intimate connection to the situation, in which Zeus sends his daughter off on an errand (‘go ‹to him›’, cf. Sommer 1977, 206  f.), and corresponds to the formulaic order βάσκ’ ἴθι in the sending of messengers (2.8n.; on asyndeton with imperatives, cf. Schw. 2.633). — νέκταρ τε καὶ ἀμβροσίην ἐρατεινήν: ἐρατεινός is a generic epithetP of geographical designations (2.532n.), persons, and abstracts (3.175n.), also of the divine food ambrosia (see iterata) and foods in general (δαῖτ’ ἐρατεινήν Od. 8.61, 20.117). On νέκταρ and ἀμβροσίη, see 38n.

348 1st VH ≈ 353. — A variation of the forms of divine impulse common elsewhere (cf. 37n., 159n.): rather than ‘power’ (Greek ménos, thársos), as in Thetis’ appearance at 37, Achilleus is here given the contextually relevant divine foods nectar and ambrosia ‘inside his chest’ (Kullmann 1956, 71; Louden 2006, 18  f.).

ἐνὶ στήθεσσ(ι): On the dat. of an attained position of rest with verbs meaning ‘lay, set, throw’ etc., see Schw. 2.155  f. — λιμὸς ἵκηται: cf. 164–165n. (κιχάνει).

349 = 4.73, 22.186, Od. 24.487: In contrast to other speeches containing instructions (2.166n.), here a specific speech capping formulaP follows Zeus’ orders (Arend 1933, 57). In it, the narrator hints that Zeus’ snide remarks were actually unnecessary (cf. 342–346n.): a readiness to act is already present in the

347 ἴθι (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 348 ἐνί: =  ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσ(ι): on the declension, R 11.3; on the plural, R 18.2. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 349 πάρος: ‘already previously’. — μεμαυῖαν: fem. of μεμαώς, part. of the perf. μέμονα (‘strive, be eager’).

Commentary 

 159

goddess – as is often the case with Athene, see iterata (cf. double motivationP in the case of human beings).

ὣς εἰπὼν ὤτρυνε: a variable VB formula (13x Il., 2x Od.), usually as the conclusion of a battle paraenesis; εἰπών is temporally coincident with ὤτρυνε (6.72n.).

350–351a Great speed by human beings or animals is often illustrated in early epic via bird comparisonsP (2.764n.). In the case of gods, however, who move through the air ‘like a bird’ (13.62 Poseidon, 15.237 Apollo, 18.616 Thetis, Od. 1.320 and 3.372 Athene, 5.51 Hermes) or observe an event from an elevated position (tree, roof) (Il. 7.59, 14.290, Od. 22.240), it is disputed whether this represents mere comparison or if a metamorphosis is implied (Fränkel 1921, 81  f.; Coffey [1957] 1999, 325, 336 n. 29; Scott 1974, 77–79; Erbse 1980; Tsagarakis 1982, 135–138; de Jong on Od. 1.319–324; summary of positions in Carter 1995, 287–290; Near Eastern and IE parallels in West 1997, 185; 2007, 152  f.). The present passage is most likely a comparison: the image of a bird of prey’s rapid swoop serves to illustrate Athene’s swift, targeted change of location toward Achilleus in the encampment of ships (element 4 of the type sceneP ‘divine journey’, cf. 114–119n.): AH; Dirlmeier 1967, 24  f., 31 n. 41; Bannert 1978, 37 n. 27; 1988, 67  f.; Edwards, Introd. 29  f.; more cautiously Edwards on 350–351; Johansson 2012, 178–181 (esp. 180  f.: no indication of velocity); differently Kullmann 1956, 91, 93: Athene appears in the guise of a bird (although with no indication that the Achaians or Achilleus notice her arrival or her actions); moderated in Erbse loc. cit. 263  f. on the basis of 4.75–81: the image of the bird is meant to show what ‘the listeners would be able to perceive if they were witnesses’ [transl.]. ἅρπῃ: a Homeric hapaxP, a term for an unidentified bird, perhaps a bird of prey (suggestions collected in LfgrE s.v. ἅρπη II; Johansson 2012, 180  f. [bearded vulture]) or, according to Aristot. Hist. an. 609a24, a marine bird (Edwards). The name of the bird is either identical with ἅρπη ‘sickle’ (cf. Latin sarp[i]o), from which are derived e.g. ἅρπαξ, ἁρπάζω (Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v.), presumably because of its sickle-shaped talons, or is related to an IE root *(h1)rep- (cf. Latin rapio) (LfgrE s.vv. ἅρπη, ἅρπυια). — τανυπτέρυγι: The bird-epithet occurs elsewhere only at 12.237, in addition to the metrical variants τανύπτερος (Hes. Th. 523, h.Cer. 89) and τανυσίπτερος (2x Od., 2x Hes., 2x h.Hom.); it means either ‘spreading the wings’ (a verb-noun compound) or ‘with outstretched wings’ (a possessive compound) (Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v. τανυ-; Untermann on 16.767; LfgrE s.vv. τανύπτερος, τανυπτέρυγι). — λιγυφώνῳ: ‘with shrill, piercing voice’, also at Hes. Th. 275 and 518 of the song of the Hesperides, h.Merc. 478 of the lyre; on the cry of birds, cf. Il. 14.290 ὄρνιθι λιγυρῇ ἐναλίγκιος (LfgrE; on λιγύς, 5n.). Of bird

350 ἅρπῃ (ϝ)εικυῖα: on the prosody, R 4.4. — τανυπτέρυγι (λ)λιγυφώνῳ: on the prosody, M 4.6.

160 

 Iliad 19

noises, the Iliad describes only piercing cries and loud screeching (Krapp 1964, 158  f.; Wille 2001, 39  f.); here the high-pitched call of the bird underlines the image of it in the air, but is irrelevant to the rest of the action (Kaimio 1977, 44  f.: ‘the mention of the voice is purely decorative’). — ἐκκατέπαλτο: athematic aor. of the compound ἐκ-κατεπι- + ἄλτο (from ἅλλομαι) (on such compounds, see Schw. 2.428  f.); in addition to the starting point (ἐκ-) and the direction (κατα-), it denotes the purposefulness (ἐπι-) of the bird and the goddess: Leaf, Willcock, Edwards: ‘leap out down towards’; Chantr. 2.145; LfgrE s.v. ἅλλ(ομαι) 547.24  ff. Cf. ἄλτο in Thetis’ journeys from Olympos at 1.532, 18.616 (on οὐρανός and Olympos, 128–130n.). Differently AH, Faesi: double compound ἐκ-κατα- + πάλλομαι (‘swung herself down’). On the accent and the merging of ἐπ-αλτο and ἐ-παλτο, West 1998, XX. — δι’ αἰθέρος: αἰθήρ in Homer denotes the sky as the sphere of wind and clouds (2.412n.).

351b–356a In accord with the speed and secrecy of the action as a whole, the goddess’ arrival receives no special notice; instead, the surroundings are briefly mentioned (description of the situation at 351b–352a) before the execution of the orders is reported (352b–356a): 341–356a n. When Athene arrives, the Achaians are busy preparing for battle; this process continues in what follows (356b–364) and is only concluded at 20.1  f. (356b–20.3n.). The verses added after 351 and transmitted in a commentary preserved in a papyrus are likely meant to bridge the abrupt transition from Athene’s journey to the arming of the Achaians (see app. crit. on 351; Edwards on 351–352; Haslam 1998, 39  f.). 351b αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοί: an inflectible VE formula (63n.). 352 αὐτίκα: probably signals contemporaneity with Athene’s arrival (LfgrE s.v. 1600.53  ff.: ‘at the same moment (as another reported event)’ [transl.] and 1601.54  ff.: ‘in this [the same] moment, they were about to …’ [transl.]), rather than the army’s eager obedience (‘immediately’ after the meal: AH; Edwards on 351–352).

353–354 1st VH 353 ≈ 348 (with n.). The execution of the order is described – in accord with epic narrative convention (on this, 6.86–101n., end) – with a nearly literal repetition of 347  f. The expansion in the final clause creates an echo of 165  f. in Odysseus’ argument. — knees: 166n. ἀτερπής: an Iliad hapaxP (but see 6.285n.) and a term from character languageP; a compound related to τέρπω with α privativum (‘unsatisfactory, unpleasant’); on the formation and its use (‘as a type of active or passive verbal adjective’ [transl.]), Schw. 1.513; Risch 81  f., 86. Here the word characterizes the ‘hunger «that renders man dissatisfied» by weakening him physically and mentally’ [transl.] (Latacz 1966, 218 n. 33, with refer-

351 αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2). 352 Ἀχιλῆϊ: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1. 354 μιν … γούναθ’: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). — γούναθ’: = γούνατα; on the declension, R 12.5.

Commentary 

 161

ence to 161  ff.); the expression also occurs at Hes. Op. 647; elsewhere 1x with δαῖτα (Od. 10.124) and 2x with χῶρον (Od. 7.279, 11.94). — ἵκηται: A (final) subjunc. is common in Homer even after an aor. (Chantr. 2.269); here it represents an echo of 348 and is to be preferred to the weakly attested v.l. ἵκοιτο (Edwards on 352–354).

355–356 The departure of divine visitors often remains unmentioned (39n.). Here the rapid change of perspective – away from Athene, who returns to her father’s house (i.e. to Olympos), and toward the army arming and gathering for battle – points to the concurrence of two events (refreshment of Achilleus, arming of the Achaians): Kurz 1966, 111 with n. 41; cf. 303n. αὐτή: cf. 120n. — πατρὸς ἐρισθενέος: likewise at Od. 8.289 (π. ἐ. Κρονίωνος) and ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.123 M.-W. (restored at VB). ἐρισθενής (‘exceedingly strong, mighty’, a possessive compound) is an epithet of Zeus and Poseidon (LfgrE s.v.; on the initial element ἐρι-, see Willi 1999, 94  ff. [‘high above’]). — πυκινὸν δῶ: a shorter variant of the VE formulae χαλκοβατὲς δῶ (1.426n.) and ὑψερεφὲς δῶ (3x Od.), and a variant of the inflectible expression (nom./gen./dat.) πυκινὸς δόμος (after caesura B 1: 1x Il., 2x Od., 2x h.Hom.; after caesura C 1: 1x Il., 1x Od.). πυκινός ‘dense’ is inter alia a characteristic of a massive building complex (cf. πυκινοῖσι λίθοισιν | δώματος 16.212  f.), as here of Zeus’ palace or the dwellings of Amyntor, Erechtheus, and Alkinoos (LfgrE); on the etymology of δῶ ‘house’, 1.426n.

356b–20.3 After Athene’s departure, the narrator first unfolds a panoramic view of the gathering army. 364 narrows the view down to Achilleus, whose arming is described in more detail, and widens it once more only at the beginning of Book 20, when both armies are referenced. At 20.4  ff., the action is located on the divine level: Zeus responds to the gathering of the armies that has been observed by the gods (on the assembly of gods, 40–276n.). The detailed description of the arming, gathering and departure of the Achaian force (element 3 of the type sceneP ‘armies joining battle’: Hainsworth 1966, 160  f.; cf. 155–183n.) is expanded by several similes that illustrate mass movement and the gleam of weapons (357–361n., 364b–391n.), as well as by Achilleus’ extraordinary conversation with his horse (399–403n.). On this type of panoramic scene, see 3.1–14n. with bibliography; on the present scene, Fränkel 1921, 32; Krischer 1971, 47; de Jong 1985, 263 with n. 24; Richardson 1990, 120  f. 356b ≈ 17.403. — ἀπάνευθε νεῶν: a formula before caesura C 1 (1.35n.). — ἐχέοντο: ‘they poured forth’, cf. the similar portrayal at 2.464  f.; on ‘flowing, pouring’ as terms of mass movement, Kurz 1966, 140. — θοάων: 1.12b n.

355 ἐρισθενέος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 356 τοί: =  οἵ (R 14.3), an anaphoric demonstrative (R 17) that refers back to Ἀχαιοί in 351. — ἀπάνευθε: a composite preposition (basis: ἄνευ) with gen., ‘away from’ (likewise at 374, 378).

162 

 Iliad 19

357–361 The snowflake simileP primarily illustrates the dense crowd and the incessant movement of the converging armed warriors, whose weapons gleam in the light (359, 362  f.): via the description of the thick, cold flurries of snow driven by the north wind, an ominous mood is created and the visual effect of the countless, moving bits of armor and weaponry is illustrated (Edwards on 356–364; Jachmann 1958, 289  f.; Bradley 1967, 39  f.; Rosenmeyer 1978, 214  f.; on word repetition in the simile and in the context [357/359], Edwards, Introd. 27  f. and 31; on snow similes in general, 3.221–222n.). 357 the snowflakes of Zeus come fluttering: As a weather god, Zeus causes snow (10.6  f., 12.279  f.) and especially rain (e.g. 12.25, 16.385  f., Od. 14.457  f., Hes. Op. 415  f., 488) to fall (LfgrE s.v. Ζεύς 864.44  ff.). Here the name should probably not be understood merely as a designation for the sky (thus AH, Leaf, Willcock); Boreas seems to be similarly personified in 358 (Edwards; cf. CG 24).

ὡς δ’ ὅτε: a common introduction for similes (2.147–148n.). — ταρφειαί: a derivation from τρέφω that in the collective plural denotes a large number of simultaneously occurring (as here) or closely spaced units: ‘dense, numerous’ (LfgrE s.v. ταρφ[ύς]; of weapons in a snow simile also at 12.158); on the accent, West 1998, XXI. — νιφάδες: ‘snow flakes’, only in similes (3.221–222n.). — ἐκποτέονται: an iterative form of ἐκ-πέτομαι (Schw. 1.719; Tucker 1990, 130 n. 176; LfgrE s.v. ποτάομαι, ποτέομαι; cf. 2.90n.).

358 ≈ 15.171. — Boreas is a wind bringing cold and snow that blows from the direction of Thrace (15.170  f., Hes. Op. 505  ff., 547  ff.; cf. West on Op. 553) and is considered very strong (CG 37).

ὑπὸ ῥιπῆς: formulaic before caesura B 1 (4x Il., 1x Od., 1x h.Ap.); ῥιπή (‘force, rush’) is related to ῥίπτω; always with the gen. of that which triggers the movement (god, wind, human) or in the gen. of the object set in motion whose force is propagated (stone, lance, discus, fire): LfgrE s.v.; here the words introduce an explanation of ψυχραί. — αἰθρηγενέος: a compound formed with αἰθρη- ‘clear sky’ and -γενης, attested only here and at 15.171, aside from the metrically conditioned nom. form αἰθρηγενέτης at Od. 5.296; a distinctive epithetP of Boreas. The sense is either passive ‘born in the air’, like most adjectives in -γενής (Edwards; Leaf on 15.171; Janko on 15.170–171; Hainsworth on Od. 5.296; comparable is διο-γενής ‘sprung from god’: 1.337n.), or active ‘creating clean, cold air’ (schol. b and T ad loc.; LfgrE s.vv. αἰθρηγενέτης and αἰθρηγενής; undecided Risch 246).

357 Διός: dependent on ἐκποτέονται (‘are flying from Zeus’). 358 ὑπὸ (ῥ)ῥιπῆς: on the prosody, M 4.6. — Βορέαο: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary 

 163

359–361 In accord with the principle of elaborate narrationP, at this point in the narrative, when the Achaians can finally go into battle once more supported by Achilleus, the individual parts of their arms and armor are named. 359 VE ≈ 13.265. — γανόωσαι: The verb γανάω is etymologically related to γάνος (‘gleam, delight’) and γάνυμαι (‘rejoice, delight in’), belongs to the root *γαϝ- (cf. Lat. gaudeo, gavisus), and means ‘gleam, be in full glory’; here and at 13.265 of arms/armor, Od. 7.128 of flower beds, h.Cer. 10 of the narcissus (LfgrE; Latacz 1966, 156–158; Clarke 2005, 40  f.).

360 shields massive in the middle: Round shields of the Geometric period were fitted with a central boss for the purpose of decoration and reinforcement (Borchhardt 1977, 36. 50); on the two shield types described in the Iliad (long and round shields), see 2.388–389n., 3.335n. (σάκος), 6.117–118n., end (ἀσπίδος ὀμφαλοέσσης). ἐκφορέοντο: φορέω is an iterative related to φέρω (Schw. 1.720), usually denoting inter alia the habitual wearing of particular garments or arms (e.g. at 7.147, 149, 15.530, 533, 19.11); here, on analogy with the iterative ἐκποτέονται (357n.), it emphasizes the large number of armed Achaians. The form may be understood as an intransitive mediopass. (LSJ s.v.: ‘move forth’; Cunliffe s.v.: ‘advance from’; LfgrE s.v. φορέω: ‘push out’; cf. intransitive φέρεσθαι ‘move, throw oneself’; Schwyzer [1942] 1983, 55 with n. 3; Jankuhn 1969, 115 n. 2; LfgrE s.v. φέρω 852.23  ff.) or as passive (Leaf; Ebeling s.v.; Mutzbauer 1909, 122). — ἀσπίδες ὀμφαλόεσσαι: an inflectible VE formula (6.117– 118n., end).

361 corselets: On the materials and function of Homeric body armor, and on the archaeological evidence generally, see 3.332–333n.; Buchholz 2010, 214–226. The enumeration concludes with a verse with chiastic structure. — κραταιγύαλοι: ‘with strong γύαλα’, attested only here; γύαλον denotes unidentifiable sections of body armor, possibly the curved part (chest and back plate) or metal reinforcements on the shoulders (LfgrE s.v. γύαλον; Catling 1977, 76–78, 100; Franz 2002, 58  f.), or smaller, movable metal parts on the shoulders and the lower section of the armor (Shear 2000, 48); on the initial element κραται-, see LfgrE s.v. κρατύς. — μείλινα δοῦρα: likewise at VE in 13.715; the epithet refers to the ash-wood shafts of the spears. The VE formulae μείλινον ἔγχος (6.65n.) and χαλκήρεα δοῦρα (6.3n.; see there on the noun-epithet formulae for ‘spear’ in general) are more common.

362–364 Visual and acoustic impressions are effectively combined in a manner similar to that of the departure of the Achaian army in Book 2 (2.455  ff.); in the same way that the gathering of the Achaian army concludes with the gaze

359 λαμπρόν: adverbial acc. — γανόωσαι: pres. part. of γανάω; on the epic diectasis, R 8. 360 νηῶν: on the declension, R 12.1. 361 μείλινα: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1). — δοῦρα: on the declension, R 12.5.

164 

 Iliad 19

directed toward Agamemnon (2.477–483), here, after the image of the massed army pouring forth, it concludes with a gaze toward Achilleus, who will play the leading role in the battle to come (cf. 2.455–483n., 2.780–785n.). The motif of the widely visible gleam of weapons, frequently used in connection with movements of armed warriors (Kurz 1966, 155), indicates the destructive force of the army, as at 2.458 (2.455–458n.). But here the metaphorical use of Greek gélasse ‘laughed’ (362 [with n.]) lends in addition a positive mood to the scene (Krischer 1971, 47). The motif ‘the earth thundering beneath their feet’ (as at 2.465  f. and 2.780–784; on the motif, 2.95n., and cf. 2.459–466n.) is repeated at 20.157  f. when the two armies clash after the scene with the gods. By means of the overall impression created by these motifs, the narrator constructs a background against which the view focusses on Achilleus from 364 on. 362 οὐρανὸν ἷκε: of the gleam of weapons also at 2.458; on the formulaic expression, including with different subjects, see 2.153n.; on IE parallels, West 2007, 91. — γέλασσε: With animate subjects, the sense is ‘laugh’ (on the etymology, cf. LIV 162), with inanimate subjects, as here, h.Cer. 13  f. (subject οὐρανός, γαῖα and οἶδμα θαλάσσης) and Hes. Th. 40  ff. (subject Zeus’ δώματα) it is metaphorically ‘laugh, shine’ (LfgrE s.v.; Leaf; Arnould 1990, 138  f. with additional post-Homeric examples; Clarke 2005, 39  f.; cf. the etymologically related γαλήνη: DELG s.v.). — πέρι: thus West, following Heyne; the mss. offer adverbial περί (G 98; Chantr. 2.83, 125). 363 1st VH ≈ 11.83, Od. 4.72, 14.268, 17.437. — στεροπῆς: Here and in the iterata (aside from Od. 4.72), this refers to the flashing of metal weapons in motion (LfgrE s.v. [ἀ]στεροπή 1443.15  ff., esp. 32  ff.). A comparable image of weapons in motion occurs at Il. 11.80– 83, where Zeus observes the warring armies from Olympos. — ὑπό: adverbial ‘below, underneath’; despite the wide separation, it adds a note of specification to ποσσίν (AH; 2.465b–466n.).

364b–391 This is the final realization of the type-sceneP ‘arming’ (3.328–338n.) in the Iliad. This passage has a special place within the series of major arming scenes, since individual elements are expanded by unusual additions: (1) the general announcement (364, 368) is expanded by physical signs of aggression in Achilleus (365–367; on the disputed authenticity of the verses, 365–368 with n.); after putting on (2) greaves, (3) corselet and (4) sword (369–373a), his strapping on his (5) shield and putting on his (6) helmet are expanded via comparisonsP to (different sorts of) light and a simileP (373b–383: 374, 375–380a, 381b–382a); and after a test of his ability to move in the new armor (384–386), his grasping his (7) lance is expanded by the story of its prove-

362 ἷκε: impf. of ἵκω ‘reach’. — γέλασσε … πέρι: on the so-called anastrophe and tmesis, R 20.2 and ↑; on -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 165

nance (387–391). These expansions stress the dynamism of the scene and thus prepare for Achilleus’ special role and exceptional aristeia (374–383n.). The expectations thus awakened are fulfilled by the hero’s achievements in battle and his victory over Hektor in Books 20–22 (Edwards on 364–424; Arend 1933, 94  f.; Krischer 1971, 23  ff., esp. 27  f.). – Two other arming scenes offer signi­ ficant parallels: (a) that of Agamemnon at 11.16b–45a, which contains expansions of comparable size, albeit with specific descriptions of the value of the materials and the decoration of the armor and shield; (b) that of Patroklos at 16.130–144, which ends with a reference to the absence of the lance of Peleus and is followed – as here in 392  ff. – by harnessing the horses that originally belonged to Peleus (16.145–154). The echoes of (b), the arming of Patroklos before his final fight against Hektor, point tentatively toward the chain of deaths Patroklos – Hektor – Achilleus and bring to the fore the tragic fate of the warrior now singled out (Patzer 1972, 38–40; Shannon 1975, 69–71; Heath 1992, 396, 399; Patzer 1996, 114  f.). 364 ἐν … μέσοισι: 77n. — κορύσσετο: picked up at 397, at the end of the arming scene (Edwards). — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: 40n.

365–368 As Achilleus’ aggression flared up at his initial glimpse of his new equipment (16  ff.), so it does again at the moment when he first puts it on (cf. 12–19n., 16n., 17n.). The unusual addition to element 1 of the type-sceneP ‘arming’ has been suspected repeatedly since antiquity as an interpolation: Aristarchus found it overly ridiculous – a judgment he is said to have later revised (schol. A; Erbse’s commentary on schol. 365–368; AH, Anh. 23; Leaf; Edwards), whereas West judged it a rhetorical addition that interrupts the generally expected progression of the scene, with the result that the interpolator had to start anew with 368 (West 2001, 12 n. 28, 253  f.). But the following might argue for authenticity: (1) the verses provide an acoustic and visual counterpart to 362  ff. by picking up the gleaming armor and noise of the marching army in the gnashing of Achilleus’ teeth and the gleaming of his eyes (Danek 2003, 285); (2) via a brief summary in 368, they explicitly mention the new armor (as a set), with a detailed description at 369  ff., as in the arming of Paris at 3.328  f. (a so-called ‘header’ device, cf. 6.156–159n.; on the reference to Hephaistos, see 19.383n.); (3) they illustrate the effects of Athene’s refreshment on Achilleus’ person (cf. the peculiarity of the glow that emanates from him at 375–383, 398, 20.46; for additional examples, see 17n.) (AH; Edwards); (4) they create a special atmosphere of aggression that emerges around Achilleus as, supremely impatient,

364 μέσοισι: on the declension, R 11.2.

166 

 Iliad 19

he waits for battle (Armstrong 1958, 350). Together with the conversation with Xanthos after the arming scene proper (392  ff.), the verses give expression to the anger, grief and death of Achilleus, allowing the narrator to create ‘a moment of great power and intensity in the poem’ (Armstrong loc. cit. 353  f.). 365–366 1st VH 365 up to πέλε ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 164. — A clash went from the grinding of his teeth: This is the only passage in Homer in which Greek kanachḗ is used for a noise produced by a human being (of teeth elsewhere only at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 160 [Ker, goddess of death] and 164 [snakes]); elsewhere it denotes the sound of objects hitting metal (16.105, Od. 19.469) or of hooves (Il. 16.794): LfgrE s.v. καναχή. The best parallels for the present passage are the sharpening of teeth – sometimes together with a fiery look – as a sign of aggressiveness in animals: 11.416  f., 12.149  f., 13.474  f., ‘Hes.’ Sc. 388 (comparisons of warriors to attacking boars), 235 (snakes on the shield), 404 (lions fighting); for human beings, in contrast, only the chattering of teeth as a sign of fear is mentioned elsewhere (Il. 10.375, 13.283): LfgrE s.v. ὀδ(ών); Tichy 1983, 185  f. — his eyes glowed | as if they were the stare of a fire: on this sign of aggressiveness, see 17n.

τὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε | λαμπέσθην: = 15.607  f.; τὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε is a VE formula (6x Il., 2x Od.); cf. also VE 16 ἐν δέ οἱ ὄσσε (with n.). — ὡς εἰ … σέλας: 17n.; σέλας recurs as a theme in the description of the shield that follows (374, 375, 379; see Armstrong 1958, 351  f.). — ἐν δέ οἱ ἦτορ: a VE formula (3x Il.): 1.188n.

367 1st VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 33(a).24 M.-W. — sorrow: Greek áchos denotes mental pain in conjunction with anger and aggression (125n., 307n.; cf. Achilleus’ reaction when first seeing his armor at 12–19n., 16n.).

δῦν’ ἄχος: cf. ἔδυ χόλος 16n. — ἄτλητον: related to τλῆναι ‘bear, endure’, in early epic only here and at 9.3, ‘Hes.’ fr. 33(a).24 M.-W., in each case characterizing mental suffering. On the short syllable in the longum before the caesura, cf. M 8 and M 15. — ὃ δ(έ): picks up the subject of 364 (κορύσσετο … Ἀχιλλεύς) and together with 368 leads to the detailed description of the arming. — μενεαίνων: 58n.; here with the dat. ‘filled with rage at’ (LfgrE [transl.]).

368 2nd VH ≈ 2.101 (with n.), 7.220, 8.195. — the gifts of the god: 3n. — that Hephaistos …: cf. 369–371n.

365–367 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17); dependent on ὀδόντων. — πέλε: ‘there was’; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — τὼ … ὄσσε | λαμπέσθην: dual; ὄσσε: ‘eyes’. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ὡς εἴ τε πυρὸς σέλας: ‘as (if) the glow of the fire ‹shines›’. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἐν … | δῦν(ε): ‘entered’; so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — ἦτορ: acc. of direction without preposition (R 19.2). 368 τά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4. — τά: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — κάμε τεύχων: ‘he produced with toil, effort (i.e. with care)’; κάμε is aor. of κάμνω.

Commentary 

 167

δύσετο: recalls δῦν’ at 367, where an emotion enters a character from outside, as it were, and in terms of content picks up κορύσσετο at 364; on ‘sinking, diving into’ armor and the so-called thematic s-aorist, see 36n. (δύσεο δ’ ἀλκήν).

369–371 = 3.330–332 (see ad loc.), 11.17–19, 16.131–133; verse 371 = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 124. — In the three other major arming scenes in the Iliad, additional information is provided about the corselet (3.333 and 16.134: the actual owner; 11.20–28: provenance and appearance); in the case of Achilleus’ armor, provenance and workmanship are already known (18.468–613, the corselet at 610). On greaves, ankle protectors and corselets in general, see 3.330n., 3.331n., 3.332–333n.; Buchholz 2010, 209–226. 370 καλάς, …: on the sentence structure (VB 380 is similar), cf. 11n.

372 = 2.45 (see ad loc.), 3.334 (see ad loc.), 16.135; ≈ 11.29, Od. 8.416; 1st VH = Il. 5.738. — Achilleus’ sword gets no special mention (in contrast to Agamemnon’s at 11.29–31); there is no reference whatsoever to it in the account of the forging of the armor in Book 18 (on this, Edwards on 18.609–613). The narrator devotes more attention to Achilleus’ lance, which Patroklos did not take when he departed for battle (387–391n., 388–389n.) and which will find frequent use in the fighting to come (e.g. 20.273–277, 21.161  ff., 22.319–330). 373 = 3.335 (with n.), 16.136; 2nd VH = 18.478, 18.609, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 319; from caesura C 1 = Il. 22.307; ≈ 11.10, Od. 3.322, h.Ap. 401. — The composition and decoration of the shield were described in detail at 18.478–609, where the beginning and end of the passage are framed with the same formulaic half-verse as here. σάκος: originally denotes the long shield, occasionally – as perhaps here (374n.) – the round shield; in contrast to ἀσπίς, σάκος may have had a more poetic and heroic sound (­Schmidt 2006, 441; cf. 3.335n.).

374–383 The motif of gleaming weapons is another sign of the aggressive energy and threat emanating from Achilleus and is a harbinger of great achievements in battle (cf. 362–364n.); an aristeia is frequently preceded or accompanied by a simile for the gleaming weapons (e.g. 5.4–7 Diomedes, 11.44  f. Agamemnon, 11.62–64 Hektor): 19.12–19n.; 6.513n.; Krischer 1971, 27, 38; Ciani 1974, 136– 144; Patzer 1996, 117. The comparisonsP and the fire simileP clustered effectively in the present arming scene (366, 374, 375–380a, 381b–382a, 398: fire and stars; 386: wings) direct attention to Achilleus’ impressive, dynamic appearance, which will have its effect on the enemy in 20.44–46 and thus singles

369 πρῶτα: adverbial, ‘first of all’. — κνήμῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 371 στήθεσσιν: on the plural, R 18.2. 372 ἀμφὶ … βάλετο: on the so-called tmesis, R. 20.2. — ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). 373 αὐτάρ: ‘but’, here progressive (R 24.2).

168 

 Iliad 19

him out even further (after 364) from the mass of Achaian soldiers (Bremer 1976, 82–84; Moulton 1977, 108; Scott 2009, 174–176; see also 17n. on additional light similes in reference to Achilleus’ appearance; on fire and star similes in general, Fränkel 1921, 47–52; Scott 1974, 66–68). The situation after Patroklos’ death thus changes in one respect: Achilleus, who lamented at 18.102  f. that he had been no ‘light’ for Patroklos and his companions (i.e. no savior; on the metaphor, 6.6n.), is now the radiant center amid the Achaians ready for battle (cf. 364, 20.1  f., 20.42  f.). 374 as from the moon: The comparison may highlight the shield’s perfect shape as well as the effect of the light (cf. Armstrong 1958, 351; on shield types, 360n.). Thus at 23.455 the full moon is an image for a horse’s circular blaze (LfgrE s.v. μήνη; Edwards ad loc. and pp. 201–205). In the Odyssey, the clear gleam of the moon is used to describe the visual effect of the palaces of Menelaos and Alkinoos (Od. 4.45 = 7.84) and of a garment woven by Penelope (24.148): these shine like the sun or the moon (AH, Anh. 40).

The verse is athetized by West, following Heyne, since the sentence ends elliptically with the formulaic 373 in the parallel passages (cf. 3.335, 16.136). Here an interpolator may have completed it via a predicate in enjambment and have filled out the remainder of the line with the comparison (Leaf; West 2001, 12 with n. 29). In addition, the short comparison has been modified in the fire simileP that immediately follows at 375  ff., but without adding another aspect to the gleam of the shield (cf. σέλας 375, 379) (Leaf). On the other hand, the moon comparison fits well with the two other short comparisons for the gleam of weapons (star 381, sun 398; cf. the depiction of heavenly bodies on the shield at 18.484  ff.) (schol. bT on 381; Fränkel 1921, 48; Edwards, Introd. 25  f. and 41), and on occasion elsewhere a short comparison is picked up by a subsequent longer one that merely amplifies a previously mentioned aspect (Moulton 1977, 19  ff.; cf. also 2.455–483n. and Edwards, Introd. 40; Ready 2011, 87  ff., on series of similes). Here the special gleam emanating from the shield is perhaps emphasized by the perfect form (moon, see above) and the intensity of the shining (fire). — σέλας: elsewhere of fire or a ray of light from a divine source, of moonlight only here, but cf. σελήνη < *selas-nā (Ciani 1974, 14–18, 92). — ἠΰτε: ‘as’ (2.87n.).

375–380a The fire simileP depicts the intense, far-reaching ray of light that shines forth from Achilleus’ shield, and is expanded by an image of stricken sailors, whose connection with the arming scene has been understand in several ways: (1) the sailors’ fearful glance at the unreachable fire refers to the longing looks of the Achaians as they observe Achilleus’ long-awaited preparations for battle (Fränkel 1921, 49  f.; Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 46 n. 1; de Jong 1985,

374 τοῦ … ἀπάνευθε: ‘out from it’ (cf. R 17).

Commentary 

 169

276; Edwards on 372–380; Scott 2005, 48  f. n. 19); a reference to the mood of the Achaians is not obvious however, given that their mood appears instead to be optimistic, cf. 362–364n. (AH on 378; Friedrich 1982, 125  f.; Erbse 2000, 268  f.). (2) The glow of the fire, like the gleam of Achilleus’ shield, draws the attention of the observers, since in both situations (distress at sea, departure for battle) it is particularly meaningful to them (Leaf; Erbse loc. cit. 269  f.). While other distress at sea similes prioritize the joy in the face of help or rescue (7.4–7: the appearance of Hektor and Paris in the Trojan battle lines; Od. 23.233– 240: Odysseus’ return to Penelope), here the sailors drift out to the open sea, away from their loved ones (377b–378), amplifying the significance of the fire visible on land. (3) The stable (377, cf. LfgrE s.v. σταθμός) is used by the narrator to suggest security and a peaceful world within the context of war, creating a contrast with the remaining images of battle preparations by Achilleus and the army, which are dominated by menace and aggression (362–364n., 365–368n., 374–383n.; Scott 1974, 101  f., 109  f.; similarly Clay 2011, 10  f., with reference to the images of the shield). As a result, the light of the fire is connected to the hope for rescue in a manner similar to 18.207  ff. (signal fires of a city under threat); but other fire similes frequently highlight the power and destructiveness of a conflagration (e.g. 11.155  ff., 15.605  f., 17.737  ff., 20.490  ff.; for additional examples, see 2.455–458n.; cf. also Stoevesandt 2004, 238–240 on the watchfires at 8.553  ff.; Scott 2009, 49  f.). 375–378 φανήῃ | … τό τε καίεται … | … φέρουσιν: On the transition from the subjunc. (hypotaxis) to the ind. (parataxis) in Homeric similes, see 2.147–148n.; Chantr. 2.355  f. 375 ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἄν: a prosodic variant of the simile introduction ὡς δ’ ὅτε at 357 (see ad loc.; Ruijgh 634; Chantr. 2.258). — ἐκ πόντοιο: indicates the perspective of the sailors, who are themselves at sea, i.e. ‘from the sea’ (Leaf; Chantr. 2.99; for similar instances, see 2.456n.; on πόντος ‘the open sea’ in contrast to ἅλς, see 1.350n.; LfgrE s.v. πόντος). 376 καιομένοιο … καίεται: Word repetition as a means of explaining or supplementing a participial statement is common in epic language, e.g. 8.215 (εἰλομένων· εἴλει), 16.105 (βαλλομένη  …, βάλλετο), 18.227 (δαιόμενον· τὸ δ’ ἔδαιε): AH and Kirk on 8.215 with additional examples; Fehling 1969, 144. Here the source of the widely visible flame is mentioned: a fire burning high above near a stable.

375 ὡς: ‘as’, correlative to ὥς ‘so’ in 379. — πόντοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. — φανήῃ: aor. subjunc. of φαίνομαι; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 376 τό: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ὑψόθ(ι): ‘on high’; on the suffix -θι, R 15.2. — ὄρεσφιν: ≈ ἐν ὄρεσι, locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2); on the declension, R 11.4.

170 

 Iliad 19

377 1st VH ≈ 13.473, 17.54. — οἰοπόλῳ: ‘lonely, deserted’, literally ‘where one dwells alone’ (from οἶος and πέλομαι); epithet of geographical terms highlighting their distance from settlements (χῶρος 13.473, 17.54; ὄρος 24.614, Od. 11.574): LfgrE s.v. οἰοπόλος I. 378 1st VH = Od. 4.516, 5.420, 9.83, 23.317; ≈ h.Hom. 27.9. — φίλων: refers to the relatives (Landfester 1966, 71; de Jong 1997a, 301). 379 ≈ 18.214 (of the flame springing from Achilleus’ head). — αἰθέρ’ ἵκανεν: a variable VE formula (αἰ. ἵκανεν/ἵκηται: 5x Il., 1x Hes. with hyperbaton); the impf. has the function of the aor. (1.431n.: confective). On αἰθήρ, see 350–351a n.; on the use of the verb with οὐρανόν, 362n. 380a καλοῦ δαιδαλέου: an inflectible VB formula (6x Il., 3x Od.), also at 22.314 of Achilleus’ shield; here in progressive enjambmentP, singling out the shield as a special, lavishly decorated marvel (11n., 13n.). 380b–381a τρυφάλειαν: a term for the helmet, literally ‘fitted with four φάλοι (metal plates?: 3.362n.)’, cf. τετρά-φαλος (τρυ-: zero-grade of τέσσαρες [Frisk; DELG; Beekes]): 3.372n.; LfgrE s.v.; on additional words denoting the helmet, see 3.316n. (metrical vari­ ants); on the formulae used in arming scenes to describe putting on the helmet, see 3.336  f. with nn. — βριαρήν: an epithetP of helmets, elsewhere formulaic in the phrase κόρυθα/-ι β. (LfgrE s.v. βριαρ(ός)), but here with hyperbaton τρυφάλειαν … | … βριάρην.

381b–382 2nd VH of 382 ≈ 22.315. — helmet crested with horse-hair: on the function of the horsehair plume (a status symbol and some degree of protection from sword blows), see 3.337n., 6.469n.; Shear 2000, 57–59; Buchholz 2012, 196–198. — like a star: byword for a particularly beautiful gleam (cf. 6.295, 401 both with n.); the comparison points to Achilleus, who stands out among his men in the same measure (Fränkel 1921, 47  f.), but may also signal the threat emanating from him, as in the duel with Hektor (22.26  ff., 317  f.); likewise of Diomedes at 5.5  ff. and Hektor at 11.62  ff. (374–383n., 375–380a n., end; de Jong on Il. 22.25–32). — the golden fringes: likewise in reference to the manes of the horses of Zeus and Poseidon at 8.42, 13.24. The attribute ‘golden’ is characteristic of divine things in particular (2.448n.; IE parallels in West 2007, 153  f.). ἔθειραι: a less common word for hair, in early epic it denotes only the hair of the horses of Zeus or Poseidon (8.42 = 13.24), that on Achilleus’ two helmets (16.795 and here), and that of Tithonos (h.Ven. 228): LfgrE; on the uncertain etymology (‘those which shake themselves’?), see Frisk, Beekes s.v.; Chantr. 1.151.

377 οὐκ ἐθέλοντας: pred., ‘against their will’. 378 πόντον ἔπ’: = ἐπὶ πόντον (R 20.2). — φίλων ἀπάνευθε: cf. 356n. 380–381a περὶ … | … θέτο: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ἀείρας: aor. part. of ἀείρω (= Attic αἴρω). — κρατί: dat. of κάρη ‘head’. — βριαρήν: on -η- after -ρ-, R 2. 381b–382 ἀστὴρ ὥς: = ὡς ἀστήρ. — περισσείοντο: ‘bobbed, jiggled all the way around’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 171

383 = 22.316. — Hephaistos: The two references to the divine armorer here and at 368 form a frame around the main section of the arming scene (Achilleus puts on the armor newly made by the god); only the grasping of the lance follows separately, since it is not among the newly forged arms. ἵει λόφον ἀμφί: ‘he had let hang down to both sides of the plume’ ([transl.]: LfgrE s.vv. ἀμφί 665.26  ff., ἵημι 1151.60  ff. and λόφος; on ἀμφί in anastrophe, Schw. 2.436  f. n. 1). The plume fixed to the top of the helmet is probably bordered by golden threads (cf. 18.612); alternatively, additional tufts of horsehair interwoven with gold are affixed to the sides of the helmet (Franz 2002, 56). — θαμειάς: an adj. formation from the adv. θαμά (Risch 363), it means ‘in close succession, close together’, of regular spatial arrangement (LfgrE s.v. θαμέες); on the accent, West 1998, XXI.

384–386 Testing the agility after putting on the armor is described only here, and is necessary since everything has been newly made and is being worn for the first time. That armor fits is elsewhere explicitly mentioned at 3.332  f., where Paris appears in a corselet borrowed from his brother Lykaon (3.332–333n.), and at 17.210, where Hektor dons Achilleus’ armor after taking it from the body of Patroklos. The comparison with wings underscores the ease with which Achilleus can move (Fränkel 1921, 53; Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 47). This is an amplification of the effect that putting on Achilleus’ armor had on Hektor (17.192–214, esp. 210–212): Edwards on 384–386 and 17.210–212. 384 πειρήθη: with reflexive pronoun as gen. object, literally ‘he put himself to the test in his armor’ (on the construction, Wakker 1994, 370  f.). — δὲ ἕ’ αὐτοῦ: a conjecture by Heyne; the main transmission (δ’ ἕο αὐτοῦ) lacks the after-effect of the ϝ in the reflexive pronoun (West 2001, 254; Chantr. 1.147  f.; but see also G 22); on the reflexive pronoun and its reinforcement, see G 81; Schw. 2.195; Chantr. 2.157. — ἐν ἔντεσι: ἐν ἔντεσι(ν) also at 11.731, 17.197 and σὺν ἔ. at 5.220, 16.279 in the same position in the verse, in addition to the VE formula σὺν ἔ. δαιδαλέοισιν. ἔντεα is a prosodic variant of τεύχεα, cf. 6.504 (with n.), 13.181 etc. (6.418n.). — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: 40n. 385 ἐφαρμόσσειε: with an intransitive sense (‘fit’) like ἥρμοσε, also used of putting on unfamiliar armor at 3.333 (see ad loc.) and 17.210 (Hektor in Achilleus’ armor); ἔντεα is to be understood as the subject: LfgrE s.v. ἁρμόζω 1321.64  ff.; Willcock; differently AH, Leaf: transitive ‘whether he had fitted the armor to himself, i.e. had put it on so it fit’ (transl.). — ἐντρέχοι: The compound is a Homeric hapaxP, attested elsewhere only rarely; the subject is ἀγλαὰ γυῖα (‘move in it [swiftly/without hinderance]’: LfgrE [transl.]). The fact that Achilleus can move nimbly in the new armor (cf. schol. D) will be evident in the battle that follows (21.595–22.24, 22.138–166, 188–201); on Achilleus’

384 δὲ ἕ’: = δὲ (ϝ)έο, ἕο + αὐτοῦ = ἑαυτοῦ (R 14.1;); on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἕ’ αὐτοῦ: obj. of πειρήθη; on the hiatus, R 5.1. 385 εἴ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4; εἰ: ‘if, whether’; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).

172 

 Iliad 19

swiftness generally, 24.138n. — ἀγλαὰ γυῖα: only here, a prosodic variant of the VE formula φαίδιμα γυῖα (7x Il., 1x Hes.; cf. the VE formula ἀγλαὸς/φαίδιμος υἱός 2.736n. and 6.144n.); the gleam of the armor is here perhaps transferred to the γυῖα (LfgrE s.v. ἀγλαός 76.69  ff.; on γυῖα ‘arms and legs’, 3.34n.). 386 εὖτε: only here and at 3.10 in a comparative sense: ‘like’, elsewhere temporal (‘as soon as’): 3.10n. — ἄειρε: continues the comparison to wings: the armor does not weigh him down, but lifts him up, i.e. lends him wings, as it were (AH; Leaf). — ποιμένα λαῶν: an inflectible VE formula, a title of rulers and military commanders (35n.), of Achilleus also at 16.2.

387–391 The lance is the only remaining part of Achilleus’ old equipment inherited from Peleus (and was likewise a gift from the gods: 17.194–197, 18.84  f.); he did not give it to Patroklos to use in battle (16.140–144, 19.388–391) because only he himself can wield it (16.141  f., 19.388  f., with n.). With this comment, the narrator identifies Achilleus as a son worthy of Peleus, while at the same time explaining the availability of the lance when Achilleus reenters battle. The narrator further underlines the significance of the lance for the continuing action (the slaying of Hektor at 22.317  ff.) by stating its provenance (external analepsisP) and referring to its deadly properties (cf. seedP). The description of the lance contains core elements of an ekphrasis: value (387n.), size (388  f.), material (390) and function in connection with the history of its provenance (390  f., cf. 387): Minchin 2001, 106–112; on the form and function of descriptions of objects, see 2.101–108n., 2.447–449n.; on the significance of object histories, see Grethlein 2008, 36  ff. – In the Cypria, additional gods are involved in the manufacture of the lance (Cypr. fr. 4 West): on the occasion of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, Cheiron cut a lance shaft from ash wood as a present; Athene and Hephaistos worked it further. In the time of Pausanias, a ‘lance of Achilleus’ was kept in the temple of Athene at Phaselis (Paus. 3.3.8): Edwards on 387–391; Willenbrock (1944) 1969, 47  f.; Armstrong 1958, 352; Kullmann 1960, 232–236; Shannon 1975, 27, 70  f.; Bannert 1988, 164  ff.; on variants of the myth concerning Peleus’ lance, see Janko on 16.130–154; on the allusions in the Iliad to Peleus’ wedding, see 24.59–63n. 387 Instead of the formulaic verse for grasping the lance (3.338 etc., with n.), the present passage contains an allusion to its origin and express advice regarding its careful storage and thus its particular value (Arend 1933, 93  f.; cf. the principle of elaborate narrationP). Whereas other warriors frequently arm themselves for battle with two lances (examples at 3.18n.), Achilleus carries only this single, special lance (cf. Paris and Menelaos at 3.338  f. [with n.], Hektor at 22.291–293). – Thrusting lances usually measured ca. 2–3 m in length, while throwing spears were significantly shorter; nonetheless, lengths of 11 cubits

Commentary 

 173

(≈ 5 m) and more (6.319n.) are mentioned for the weapons of Hektor and Aias (on lances and spears, cf. 53n.). σύριγγος: denotes here a tube-shaped container for the lance; elsewhere in early epic it is a term for a flute (10.13, 18.526, h.Merc. 512, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 278): LfgrE s.v. At Od. 1.128, Odysseus’ lances are kept in a rack called a δουροδόκη. 388–391 = 16.141–144. Aristarchus athetized the verses here, whereas Zenodotus athetized 16.141  ff. But here the lines are designed to recall the scene with Patroklos in Book 16; on this, see Lührs 1992, 159–161.

388–389 The idiosyncracies of the lance and its owner are conveyed in two ways: (1) a description with the same asyndetically connected epithets as were used for Athene’s lance (where special mention is also made of its deadly purpose: 5.746  f. = 8.390  f. = Od. 1.100  f., cf. Il. 19.391b) and for Patroklos’ at the moment it breaks (16.802); on asyndetic lists of epithets as an element of epic style, see La Roche 1897, 175  ff., 181  ff.; K.-G. 2.341  f.; (2) by means of the common motif ‘another could not do what the hero does with ease’ (cf. the failure of Asteropaios at 21.174–178). This motif occurs in Homer in a number of variants and usually serves to emphasize an object’s size and weight and thus the almost superhuman strength of the hero who can handle it (Edwards on 387– 391; de Jong on Od. 9.240–243). The two basic patterns are: (a) ‘others could not achieve, or only achieve with difficulty, what the hero can do easily’: likewise of Achilleus at 10.402–404, 17.76–78 (handling of horses) and 16.140–144 (spear), also 11.636  f. (Nestor, cup), 12.378–383 (Aias, stone), in an expanded form in Od. 21 (the contest of the bow, esp. 73  ff., 124  ff., 149  ff., 184  ff., 245  ff., 404  ff.); cf. Il. 14.166–169 (the lock to Hera’s bedroom cannot be opened by any other god, see Janko ad loc.), 16.225–227 (no one receives wine from Achilleus’ cup but Zeus), Od. 23.184–189 (Odysseus’ marital bed cannot be moved from its location by anyone); (b) ‘two others could not do what the hero does by himself and with ease’: Il. 5.302–304, 12.445–453, 20.285–287 (stone throwing scene: Diomedes, Hektor, Aineias, in each case with a reference to the superiority of the generation of heroes, see 1.272n.); cf. 24.454–456 (the bar on the door to Achilleus’ quarters can only be moved by three Achaians), Od. 9.240– 243, 304  f., 313  f. (the stone in front of Polyphemos’ cave could not be moved aside even with 22 carts). Examples of this narrative motif outside Homer in West 2007, 426; Thompson D1651 (‘magic object obeys master alone’); on IE parallels for a hero’s special weapon, see West, loc. cit. 460–462, esp. 460 n. 37 on weapons made of ash-wood.

389 μιν: = αὐτό, sc. τὸ ἔγχος (R 14.1). — οἶος: ‘alone’.

174 

 Iliad 19

βριθύ: used only in this formulaic list (β. μέγα στιβαρόν) as an epithet for a lance; like the epithet of helmets βριαρός (380b–381a n.), this is an adjective formation from the root of βρίθω (‘be heavily laden’) and refers primarily to weight, in contrast to στιβαρόν ‘solid, massive’ (Risch 74; LfgrE s.v. βριθ(ύς)). — οὐ δύνατ’ … ἐπίστατο: inability as a result of physical weakness vs. ability (LfgrE s.vv. δύναμαι, ἐπίσταμαι). — πάλλειν … πῆλαι: ‘shake’ in order to provoke the opponent (3.19n.); the phrase gains particular emphasis from the repetition of the infinitive and the word playP (assonance) with Πηλιάδα and Πηλίου (VB 390/391). The name of the mountain range also reverberates in the personal name Πηλεύς, an association prepared by ‘father’ at 390 (LfgrE s.vv. Πηλεύς, Πηλιάς).

390 Pelian: a mountain range in Thessaly considered the home of the Centaurs (2.744n.) and the location of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis (Cypr. fr. 4 West; cf. 387–391n.). — Cheiron: in Homer, the ‘most just’ of the Centaurs (Leaf on 11.832: ‘in modern phrase «the most civilized»’), who instructed Asklepios and Achilleus in the art of healing (4.219, 11.830–832). In the post-Homeric period, Cheiron was considered the tutor of Achilleus (‘Hes.’ fr. 204.87–89 M.-W.; in the Iliad, this function is fulfilled by Phoinix: Il. 9.485  ff.) and several other heroes, including Iason, Aktaion and Herakles (BNP s.v. Chiron; Janko on 16.141–144; West on Hes. Th. 1001; de Jong on Il. 22.133–134; Priess 1977, 108). Πηλιάδα μελίην: a formulaic term for the lance Achilleus inherited from his father (VB = 16.143 = 21.162; cf. 22.133; nom. with hyperbaton at 20.277): LfgrE s.v. Πηλιάς); on the adj. formation Πηλιάδ- from Πήλιον (‘coming from Pelion’), see Meier 1975, 61  f. – μελίη (‘ash’), actually the material out of which the lance shaft is fashioned (cf. μείλινον ἔγχος 6.65n.), is often used via metonymy for the lance as a whole; in the Iliad, used of Achilleus’ lance (without Π. also at 20.322, 21.169, 174, 22.225, 328) and the lances of the Abantes (2.543): LfgrE s.v. μελίη; Shannon 1975, 71  ff.). — πόρε: The main transmission offers τάμε, corresponding to the version from Cypr. fr. 4 West (μελίαν εὐθαλῆ τεμὼν εἰς δόρυ παρέσχεν, cf. 387–391n.), and πόρε is transmitted as a v.l.; the situation is the reverse at 16.143 (cf. also VE 4.219).

392–424 As in the arming of Patroklos, putting on the armor is followed by harnessing the immortal horses (16.145–154; see 364b–391n.), who wept after Patroklos’ death (17.426–440) and were therefore pitied by Zeus (17.443–456): Edwards 392–395; Armstrong 1958, 353.  – The description follows the type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’; the following elements are included: (1) harnessing the horses (392–395a), (2) mounting the chariot, (3) grasping the reins and/or the whip, here (2) and (3) are in reverse order and are expanded via a comparison to light (395b–398), (4) spurring on the horses, here expanded by a retar-

390 Πηλιάδα (μ)μελίην: on the prosody, M 4.6. — τήν: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). 391 ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4); final-consecutive inf.

Commentary 

 175

dationP in the guise of a dialogue with the horse Xanthos (399–423), (5) departure, movement of the horses (424) (24.189–328n.; Arend 1933, 86–91 [esp. 90]; Tsagarakis 1982, 90–94; Kelly 2007, 92–96; de Jong on Od. 3.474–485). 392 Automedon and Alkimos: After Achilleus and Patroklos, these are the most important warriors in the Myrmidon contingent (cf. 24.574  f.) and also serve as aides in Achilleus’ household (23.563  f., 24.473–476, 573  ff.; additional references: 19.316n.). Since Patroklos’ death, Automedon (CH 4) has in a sense been his replacement and serves as Achilleus’ charioteer, cf. 395–397 (Strasburger 1954, 82  f.). He entered battle with Patroklos as the latter’s charioteer, but was able to escape thanks to the swift horses (16.145–147, 472–475, 684, 864–867). In the fighting that followed, he was supported by Alkimedon/Alkimos, who stood in as charioteer (17.463–506). Ἄλκιμος: hypocoristic of Ἀλκι-μέδων (‘he who rules with stength’), perhaps to avoid the near repetition of Αὐτομέδων: the short form occurs only when both characters are mentioned in the same verse (LfgrE s.v. Ἄλκιμος; Janko on 16.11; Kanavou 2015, 123, 142); it is formed in accord with the pattern initial element (ἀλκι-) + initial consonant of the final element (μ-): Risch 229  f.; cf. von Kamptz 16–20, 138. — ἀμφιέποντες: ‘to concern oneself with something, take care of someone/something’ (LfgrE s.v. ἕπω [transl.]); summarizing 393–395 in advance.

393 breast straps: The horses were harnessed to the yoke by means of straps (Greek lépadna, elsewhere in early epic only at 5.730) placed around their shoulders and chests (Leaf pp. 627  f. [Appendix M]; Wiesner 1968, 18  f., 107; Plath 1994, 357–360, 406). ζεύγνυον: thematic form of the 3rd pl. impf., beside which the athematic ζεύγνυ-σαν also exists at 24.783; on the coexistence of athematic and thematic forms of verbal stems in -nū/nu-, Schw. 1.698; Rix (1976) 1992, 210. — ἀμφὶ … ἕσαν: ‘put on on both sides’ (LfgrE s.v. ἵημι 1151.60  f. [transl.], cf. schol. T); cf. the harnessing of the horses to Athene’s chariot at 5.730  f. (ἐν δὲ λέπαδνα | κάλ’ ἔβαλε χρύσει(α)). — χαλινούς: ‘­ bridle-bit, snaffle’, in early epic only here (but e.g. Eur. Alc. 492, Xen. Equ. 3.2, 6.7, etc.): Wiesner 1968, 19  f.; Plath 1994, 366–368.

394 2nd VH ≈ 3.261, 3.311. — the reins back: The reins are pulled tautly backward and tied to the front rail while the chariot is standing, cf. 5.262, 322 (3.261n.; on fastening the bit, Wiesner 1968, 108).

392 καὶ Ἄλκιμος: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 393–394 ζεύγνυον: Attic = ἐζεύγνυσαν (↑); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἀμφὶ … ἕσαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2.), likewise ἐν … | … ἔβαλον and κατὰ … τεῖναν. — ἕσαν: aor. of ἵημι (Attic = εἷσαν, cf. R 16.1). — γαμφηλῇς: on the declension, R 11.1. — ὀπίσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

176 

 Iliad 19

γαμφηλῇς: ‘jaws’, elsewhere in early epic only at 13.200 and 16.489, of lions holding prey in their mouths; the etymology is uncertain (perhaps related to γόμφος ‘wooden peg’: Frisk, DELG s.v.).

395 chariot: on the use of chariots in Homer, 2.384n., 24.14n.; Buchholz 2010, 29–38; Raaflaub 2011, 18–20, 24.

κολλητὸν ποτὶ δίφρον: a variant of the VE formula ἅρμασι κολλητοῖσι (3x Il., 1x Od., 7x ‘Hes.’); κολλητός ‘closely joined together’ (by means of stakes, pegs or glue) is an epithet of wooden objects that are joined from several parts and exhibit a certain degree of stability: chariots, door leaves, and especially long ship-lances (LfgrE s.v.; Plath 1994, 172–176, 237  f.). On δίφρος, the ‘body’ of the two-wheeled chariot, see 3.262n. — μάστιγα φαεινήν: an inflectible VE formula (dat./acc.: 3x Il., 1x Od., 1x h.Merc.); φ. probably refers to embellishments (made of metal?) of the leather at the ends of the whip or wrapped around its grip (Hainsworth on Od. 6.316; Handschur 1970, 90  f.; LfgrE s.v. φαεινός; Buchholz 2012, 324–326).

396 χειρὶ λαβὼν ἀραρυῖαν: χ. is here perhaps to be taken ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with λαβών (thus LfgrE s.v. ἀραρίσκω 1180.63  f.) and ἀραρυῖαν (thus schol. bT; AH, Edwards with reference to 3.338; Willcock): χειρὶ/χερσὶ λ. is a VB formula (4x Il., 1x Hes.), ἀραρυῖα (aside from here, always at VE) elsewhere always supplemented by a dat. or an adv. — ἐφ’ ἵπποιιν: The dual and plural of ἵππος are frequently used in Homer in the sense ‘war-chariot’ (6.232n.); on the dat. of obtained position of rest, see 348n.

397 The verse is framed by the names of Automedon and Achilleus, the two characters who will now go into battle together; this is achieved via the wide separation between Greek hó dé ‘but he’ (395), which begins the sentence, and the name Automedon, which clarifies it but does not occur until the beginning of 397. A war-chariot (Greek díphros) is always manned by two individuals, a charioteer and a warrior, see e.g. 11.102–104, 23.131  f. (AH; 3.262n.). κορυσσάμενος: signals the completion of the arming of Achilleus, cf. 364n.

398 ≈ 6.513 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH ≈ h.Ap. 369. — After the comparison of individual parts of the armor to fire (18.610: corselet, 19.375  ff.: shield), the moon (374 with n.: shield) and a star (381  f. with n.: helmet), Achilleus’ overall appearance is compared in a climactic conclusion to the sun god, an image of his proud appearance in full armor (cf. 22.134  f. and Paris at 6.512  ff.):

395 ποτί: =  πρός (R 20.1.). — ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), with Αὐτομέδων (397) as an appositive. — δὲ (μ)μάστιγα: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura: M 8). 396 ἵπποιιν(ν) ἀνόρουσεν: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ἀνόρουσεν: ‘jumped on’, 397 βῆ (for ἀνέβη) is parallel to this. 397 ὄπιθεν: = ὄπισθεν. 398 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 177

schol. bT; Fränkel 1921, 48; Moulton 1977, 94 with n. 17; cf. 374–383n. — like the sun: Greek Ēléktōr is an epithet of the sun god (here and at h.Ap. 369); at Il. 6.513, it is used as a term for the sun, likewise in a comparison of the gleam of weapons to the sun’s shining. The etymology and meaning are uncertain, but since antiquity the word has been associated with Greek ḗlektron (on the one hand, an alloy of gold and silver; on the other hand, amber) (6.513n.). — when he crosses above us: Greek Hyperíōn is another name for the sun god Helios (CG 38), in the Iliad only here and at 8.480, where both names are used in conjunction, as also at Od. 1.8, 12.133, 263, 346, 374; as a synonym for Helios also at Od. 1.24; on the etymology of the name, see below. The name of the sun god is here used for the sun via metonymy (cf. CG 28). – From Hesiod’s Theogony and the Homeric hymns onward, Hyperion is also the name of Helios’ father (Hes. Th. 371–374, h.Cer. 26, h.Hom. 28.13): Kirk on Il. 8.480; West on Th. 134; LfgrE s.v. Ὑπερίων with bibliography. παμφαίνων: reduplicated φαίνω, but the prefix παμ- was probably interpreted as the neuter of πᾶς (2.458n., 6.513n.). — ὥς τ(ε): an introduction to comparisonsP and similesP (2.289n.). — Ὑπερίων: probably mistakenly understood in antiquity as ὑπεριών (cf. schol. A on 8.480: τοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ὄντος ἡλίου; schol. D on 8.480 and bT on 19.398: ὑπεράνω ἡμῶν); variously explained by modern scholars as: (1) a comparative of ὕπερος (cf. Lat. superior): Schulze 1892, 304  f.; RE s.v. Hyperion; AH, Anh. on Od. 1.8; Richardson on h.Cer. 26; West on Od. 1.8; Ruipérez 1972, 232–235; Wathelet 1996, 45; reservations in Schw. 1.536 n. 1; (2) a name formed in -ίων by analogy with patronymics and terms for inhabitants of places (e.g. οὐρανίωνες, cf. Lat. superi), the long ι and inflection -ονος being metrically conditioned (Risch 57). In both cases, a later interpretation of Ὑπερίων as a patronymic can be assumed because of the contamination of the suffixes -ίων and -ίδης (Ὑπεριον-ίδης Od. 12.176, h.Cer. 74, Hes. Th. 1011), e.g. Κρονίων/ Κρονίδης (Risch 148; Ruipérez loc. cit. 232  f.; Wathelet loc. cit. 50).

399–403 In contrast to other examples of the type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (392– 424n.), here the spurring on of the horses (element 4) is expanded via a direct speech that contains elements of a rebuke (challenge and criticism, together with naming the misconduct, see 403: Edwards on 399–403; on the type ‘rebuke’, 2.225–242n.) and evokes an objection by the horse Xanthos; additional battle paraeneses directed at horses: 8.184–197, in a contest at 23.402– 416 and 442–445. The speech directed at the horses here replaces the otherwise common paraenetic speech by the commander when he draws up the troops (cf. element 4 of the themeP ‘armies joining battle’ 2.86b–401n.); according to Odysseus in his address to the assembled Achaians (233b–237n.), such a speech is no longer to be expected from Achilleus. In addition, the appearance of the horses and the content of the dialogue recall the close connection between the fate of Patroklos and that of Achilleus.

178 

 Iliad 19

399 ≈ 23.402; 1st VH to caesura C 2 ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 341. — the horses of his father: They are immortal and – like the armor captured by Hektor (17.194–197, 18.82–85) and the lance from Mt. Pelion (19.390  f., cf. 387–391n.) – a divine gift to Peleus (from Poseidon: 23.277  f.; from all the gods: 16.867, 17.443  f.), perhaps a wedding gift (cf. schol. T on 16.867; Janko on 16.130–154 and 16.867; Richardson on 23.277–278); they occasionally display human characteristics (weeping for Patroklos: 17.426  ff., 23.279  ff.; ability to speak: 19.404  ff., cf. 404–418n.) and play a significant role in the battle for Patroklos’ corpse (17.426–506): Edwards on 399–403; Heath 1992, 392  f. – Elsewhere in the Iliad, only Eumelos (2.763– 767, with n.) and the Trojan Aineias (5.265  ff.) own special horses that were gifts from gods (Aineias loses them to Diomedes): Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 173–178. σμερδαλέον: elsewhere in acoustic contexts often a characteristic of cries of attack (41n.); also in the introduction to a paraenetic rebuke, as here, at 8.92. — ἐκέκλετο: used to spur on horses in battle or a race in speech introductions at 8.184, 23.402, 442, also at h.Cer. 88, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 341 (cf. Il. 23.371  f.); in the formula ἐ. μακρὸν ἀΰσας a speech introduction for battle paraeneses (6.66n.; LfgrE s.v.). — πατρὸς ἑοῖο: a VE formula (4x Il., 1x Od., 2x Hes., 1x h.Ap.); on ἑοῖο, G 82, 2.662n.

400 Xanthos, Balios: Names of horses are frequently derived from colors: Greek xanthós denotes a pale yellow to pale grey coat (cf. ‘dun’), baliós a white-dappled coat (cf. ‘piebald’: LfgrE s.vv. Ξάνθος I, Βαλίος; Dürbeck 1977, 103; cf. Richter 1968, 73  f.). Xanthos and Balios are offspring of the wind god Zephyros, the swiftest of the winds (cf. 2.147–148n.; CG 37), and of the Harpy Podarge, who in the Iliad seems to appear in the guise of a horse (16.150  f.) and has a speaking name (Pod-árgē: ‘foot-fast’, i.e. ‘fast of foot’, cf. the horse name ‘Podargos’ at 8.185, 23.295; LfgrE s.v. Πόδαργος and 1.50n. [s.v. ἀργούς]; Schmitt 1967, 240  f.; West 2007, 466). In the Odyssey (1.241, 14.371, 20.77) and Hesiod’s Theogony (267  f.), the Harpies are storm gods, the personified force of storms (BNP s.v. Harpies; LfgrE s.v. ἅρπυια; Janko on 16.149–150; on IE parallels for the linking of winds and horses, see West loc. cit. 264). Xanthos takes up Achilleus’ implied reference to their hereditary speed by naming Zephyros at 415  f. The superiority of the two horses is also mentioned elsewhere (2.769  f. by the narrator, 23.274–276 by Achilleus).

399 σμερδαλέον: ‘frightening, terrible’ (adv.). — ἵπποισιν: on the declension, R 11.2. — ἐκέκλετο (+ dat.): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘exhort, urge’. — ἑοῖο: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4); on the declension, R 11.2.

Commentary 



 179

Βαλίε, τηλεκλυτά: a short syllable in the longum before the caesura (M 8; specifically on a vocative before the caesura, Wyatt 1992, 22  f.). Perhaps this is the lasting effect of an inflected formula – which is attested only once more in early epic, cf. Ξάνθον καὶ Βαλίον 16.149 (M 14; cf. 2.8n. on hiatus in the case of a vocative explicable as an inflected formula: οὖλε Ὄνειρε); alternatively, the address might originally have consisted of a name in the vocative and a second name in the nominative, in accord with the IE model for addressing gods (suggestion by West; cf. 3.277n.; West on Th. 964). — τηλεκλυτά: on the epithet and additional phrases for the notion ‘wide-spread fame’, see 6.111n.

401 ἄλλως δή: ‘differently’, i.e. ‘better’ (sc. than the last time, see 403) (AH, Leaf, Edwards); emphatically strengthened by δή (Denniston 204, 206). — σαωσέμεν: a thematic s-aorist (as at 9.230 σαωσέμεν ἦ’ ἀπολέσθαι: Willcock; Chantr. 1.491); on the formation from the fut., see 6.52–53a n. (s.v. καταξέμεν). — ἡνιοχῆα: literally ‘holder of reins’, usually a warrior’s charioteer, here Achilleus himself (cf. 424); cf. the reference to Patroklos (403), who had been Achilleus’ charioteer and is accordingly designated as such at 17.427, 17.439 and 23.280, although he too was accompanied by Automedon as the actual charioteer (16.218  f.): Edwards on 399–403; LfgrE s.v. ἡνίοχος. ἡνιοχῆα/-ες (always at VE) are metrical variants for the equivalent forms of ἡνίοχος (Risch 157; cf. Myc. a-ni-o-ko: DMic s.v.).

402 By means of the formulation héōmen polémoio (‘we sate ourself with battle’), Achilleus takes up the motif of satiety that played a central role in the discussion of the departure for battle (155  ff., 221  ff.). From the start, he made it clear that satisfying hunger and thirst was of secondary importance to him, since he first wanted to have enough of battle and blood (213  f., 306–308: 203–214n., 306–308n.). He can only achieve this after he has taken revenge for Patroklos on Hektor and the Trojans (cf. 18.114–125 to Thetis) and when ‘the Trojans have had enough of my fighting’ (19.423). The metaphor ‘satiated by battle’ is thus used as a sign of tiring warriors in the sense ‘weary of battle’ at 423 as well as 221 (see ad loc.; on the meaning of the underlying Greek verbs koréssasthai and ásasthai, see Latacz 1966, 181  f.). The designation ‘insatiable in battle’ is used of heroes (akórētos e.g. 7.117, 12.335, 20.2), of Achilleus and Hektor (átos 13.746 and 22.218), and especially of Ares, the god of war (6.203n.).

ἕ‿ωμεν πολέμοιο: from athematic ἄ-μεναι (cf. 21.70), ἕ‿ ωμεν is originally a short-vowel subjunctive form with Ionic vowel quality that originated from quantitative metathesis (*ἥομεν < *sā-o-men; cf. G 89), thus ‘sate oneself with battle, have enough of battle’ (cf. 19.307 [with n.] and 36n.): Schw. 1.792; Chantr. 1.21, 71, 457; Rüsing 1962, 163  f.; LIV 520  f.; cf. G 40; on the spiritus (< *s-, cf. Lat. satis, Engl. sate), G 14; Chantr. 1.185  f.

401 σαωσέμεν: aor. inf. (R 16.4; ↑). — ἡνιοχῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. 402 ἄψ: ‘back’, with σαωσέμεν ‘bring back unharmed’. — ἐς: =  εἰς (R 20.1). — χ’: =  κε =  ἄν (R 24.5). — ἕ‿ωμεν: on the synizesis, R 7. — πολέμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.

180 

 Iliad 19

403 In his phrasing here and at 401, Achilleus insinuates that the horses deserted the dead man (cf. 399–403n.). Initially, they did indeed flee the battlefield together with Automedon after Patroklos’ death (16.864–867, 17.426  ff.), but then – strengthened by Zeus – they allowed themselves to be driven back into the fray to fetch the corpse (17.456  ff.). Cf. the exaggerated accusations in the rhetoric of quarrels: 1.106–108n.

μηδ’ ὡς … λίπετ(ε): an introduction to an elliptically phrased comparison, in the sense ‘and ‹act› not as ‹before, when› you left behind’, cf. the similar uses of οὐχ ὡς at Od. 21.427, 24.199 (Bekker 1863, 89  f.; AH; Leaf; Willcock).

404–418 Nowhere else in the Homeric epics do animals either talk to one another (as in fables, e.g. Hes. Op. 203  ff.; cf. schol. T on 407) or speak to human beings (exception: the eagle in Penelope’s dream at Od. 19.545  ff.). Overall, fantastic or fairy tale-like narrative motifs are rare in Homer (Griffin 1977); the horses’ ability to speak is thus expressly traced to the actions of a god at 407 (Priess 1977, 153 n. 4; Wathelet 2000, 181  f.); cf. a parallel in the Old Testament (Numbers 22:28–30): God enables Balaam’s donkey to speak, without Balaam being surprised (West 1997, 391; on speaking horses in heroic epics, see Bowra 1952, 157–170, esp. 166  ff.; in fairy tales, see ATU no. 531–533; Priess loc. cit. 81 [Grimm no. 89, 126]; in addition, the themes ‘speaking animals’ and ‘helpful horse’ in Thompson B133, B210, B211 and B401). The prophetic function of animals is elsewhere in Homer limited to their appearance and behavior (e.g. snake portents at 2.308–320n. and 2.308n., bird signs at 13.821, 24.292–294 [24.219n.]). But Xanthos’ speech is not only another prediction of Achilleus’ death – both he and the audience already know about it (328–333n.) – but also a response to Achilleus’ reproachful request to perform better this time (assenting reassurance: 408; defense against reproaches: 409b–416a). Achilleus and the audience can be confident from this that (1) Achilleus will return from this battle unharmed (408; likewise Hektor at 7.43  ff. before his formal duel with Aias), even though it had already been prophecied that his death would be closely connected to the killing of Hektor (18.96, Thetis), (2) he will nevertheless have to die soon afterward (409  f., 416b–417), and (3) like Patroklos (413  f.), he will fall prey to the joint action of a mortal and a god (410, 417); on the structure of the speech, see 408–417n.; on the function of prophecies in general (‘structuring of audience expectation’), see 1.37–42n. Such an announcement of impending death perhaps normally took place before the hero’s departure

403 μηδέ: in Homer also used after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — αὐτόθι: ‘on the spot’, i.e. where he had fallen; on the suffix -θι, R 15.2. — τεθνηῶτα: = τεθνεῶτα (without shortening of the internal hiatus for metrical reasons: R 3).

Commentary 

 181

for his final battle, in which he was destined to fall (Edwards on 404–417 and Introd. 18  f.; cf. Mackie 2008, 75  f., 223 n. 19). But in the case of Hektor as well, the narrator offers early indications of the hero’s imminent death in battle (6.447  ff. and 497  ff.: 6.497–502n.). In the present passage, Achilleus’ tragic fate is presented to the audience via the stark contrast between the proximity to the gods just indicated (nourishment with ambrosia at 347–354n., armor from Hephaistos at 368/383, comparison with the sun god at 398, immortal horses) and his mortality, whereas the divine intervention framing Xanthos’ speech (407, 418) indicates the extraordinary nature of the situation and the special position of the character (Whitman 1958, 270  f.; Kirk 1962, 348  f.; Scully 1990, 38; Heath 1992, 399; Aubriot 2001, 24). On other issues discussed in conjunction with this episode, see 407–417n. 404 The speech introduction formulaP is comparable to 1.148 (see ad loc.) and 19.419 (see ad loc.) in terms of structure and word choice, with both having the VE formula pódas ōkýs Achilléus (‘swift-footed Achilleus’: 1.58n.). The narrator clearly indicates the extraordinary nature of the situation in his structuring of the dialogue between human and horse (cf. 404–418n.): the first speech is thus followed immediately and without speech capping – as is typical in dialogues – by the introduction of the reply (cf. 28n.), which is not – as is likewise typical – immediately followed by the speech itself, but instead by a description of the horse’s posture (405  f.) and an explanation of its ability to speak (407): Fingerle 1939, 375; Führer 1967, 46 n. 7; on expanded speech introductions, cf. 2.790n., 3.386–389n. αἰόλος: In the case of animals, this means ‘alive, mobile’ (wasps 12.167, maggots 22.509, a snake 12.208 and Hes. Th. 300, a horsefly Od. 22.300, cf. αἰολό-πωλος ‘with quick-moving colts’ 3.185 [with n.]), whereas of weapons it is ‘glinting lively, flickering’ (LfgrE s.v.); cf. in addition the derivation αἰόλλω ‘shift rapidly to and fro’ at Od. 20.27, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 399. Epithets of horses usually refer to speed, their most important characteristic, and the quality of their hooves (2.383n. s.v. ὠκυπόδεσσιν); the adjective may thus combine the notion of swift movement with the pale gleam of the hooves, cf. Ποδάργη 400n. (Buttmann 1825, 74–77; Leaf; Edwards on 404–407).

405 The lowering of the head at 17.437  ff. – together with the soiling of the mane – is a sign of grief for Patroklos (Edwards on 17.437–440), and here is likely a mark of sorrow over Achilleus’ imminent death (cf. 23.283  f. the manes of the grieving horses): Edwards on 404–407.

404 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ὑπὸ ζυγόφι: ‘from under the yoke’; on the form, R 11.4. — πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 405 καρήατι: dat. sing. of κάρη ‘head’.

182 

 Iliad 19

ἄφαρ: ‘in the same moment’ (1.594n.; LfgrE s.v.). — ἤμυσε καρήατι: intransitive ἠμύω means ‘tilt, bow’ (LfgrE; cf. 2.373n.); 8.308 ἤμυσε κάρη with acc. of respect (Kirk ad loc.) is comparable. The oblique cases καρήατος/-ι/-α always come before caesura C 2 (4x Il., 2x h.Hom., 2x Hes.), but κάρητος/-ι always comes at VE (cf. also κράατα 93n.).

406 ≈ 17.440. — pad: Greek zéuglē, denotes the padded section of the yoke that rests above the withers on the horse’s neck (Wiesner 1968, 19; Plath 1994, 347–350). ἵκανεν: 379n.

407–417 In the modern discussion of this passage (for the basics, see 404–418n.), two further issues are addressed (detailed presentation with references to older literature in Dietrich 1964 and Heath 1992): (1) Why are (a) Hera and (b) the Erinyes involved? (2) Why does a horse speak of the imminent death of its master? Regarding (1): (a) Hera appears as the protectress of the Achaians from the beginning and in this regard frequently acts in conjunction with Athene (1.55n., 1.195n., 2.155–181n.); she influences Achilleus’ actions (1.55, 1.195  f., 18.166  ff. and 184) and worries about his interests (20.112–131: Achilleus’ safety during battle, 21.328  ff.: renewed concern for Achilleus, 24.55  ff.: taking sides); after Athene strengthens Achilleus’ body (349  ff.), Hera uses Xanthos to bring about a certain mental strengthening for the imminent battle by giving Achilleus the certainty of a safe return (cf. 9.254  f.: Peleus on Athene and Hera as Achilleus’ helpers): LfgrE s.v. Ἥρη; Erbse 1986, 203  f.; Heath 1992, 398. (b) The Erinyes punish violations of the fundamental order (259n.; CG 13); they therefore remove the ability of the horse to speak, which had been lent it for only this special moment (407), thus restoring its original state (Edwards on 418; Heath 1992, 397  f.; Pelliccia 1995, 103–108, 167  f., 309; Heath 2005, 39  f.; differently Dietrich 1964, 9  ff.; Johnston 1992, 86  ff.: a close relationship between Hera and/or the Erinyes and horses). On (2): On the one hand, this reflects the motif of the close connection between horse and hero also found outside the Homeric epics (Bowra 1952, 162–170, esp. 169  f.; Puhvel 1987, 269–276; West 2007, 465–468, 490  f.); it is particularly prominent in the Theban myth cycle in relation to Arion, Adrastos’ divine horse (Il. 23.346  f. with Richardson ad loc.), which was descended from an Erinys (schol. D on Il. 23.346 [Theb. fr. 11 West]) or a Harpy (schol. T on 23.347) and was likewise meant to save its owner in battle. That this horse was also given the ability to speak is attested only in the post-Homeric tradition, although the detail may go back to pre-Homeric oral sources; at the same time, this horse is not nec-

406 ἐξεριποῦσα: strong aor. of ἐξ-ερείπω (+ gen.) ‘fall out from’.

Commentary 

 183

essarily a model for Xanthos (Heath 1992, 397; Pelliccia 1995, 106  f.). On the other hand, there are indications in early epic of connections between horses and chthonic deities: Hades’ epithet ‘with splendid colts’ (5.654, 11.445, 16.625; see on this LfgrE s.v. κλυτόπωλος); Erinys and Poseidon as parents of the horse Arion in the epic cycle (Theb. fr. 11 West): Edwards on 404–417; Richardson on h.Cer. 18. 407 of the white arms: characterizes female beauty (1.55n.).

The verse was athetized by Aristarchus (schol. A), who considered it superfluous (after 404) and thought the mention of Hera contradicted 418, where the Erinyes restore a normal state of affairs. The line can nevertheless be justified on the basis of its content: the fact that a horse is talking necessitates an expanded speech introduction (404– 418n., 404n.; van der Valk 1964, 408  f.; Lührs 1992, 141–144). — αὐδήεντα: ‘speaking, gifted with speech’ (Iliad hapaxP), in contrast to other adjectives with the suffix -(ϝ)εντ(‘richly adorned with something’), here based more on the verb (αὐδάω) than the noun (αὐδή) (Risch 154; Clay 1974, 132): the position at VB, together with αὐδήν at VE of 418 (see ad loc.), marks the exceptional event of a speaking animal. In the Odyssey, the word is used as an epithet of human beings (Od. 5.334, 6.125) and of the goddesses Kirke and Kalypso: LfgrE s.v.; Krapp 1964, 24; Ford 1992, 174–179. — θεὰ λευκώλενος Ἥρη: noun-epithet formula in the 2nd VH (19x Il., 3x Hes.; the abbreviated form λ. Ἥ. 5x Il., 5x h.Hom.): 1.55n., 24.55n. The choice between this VE formula and the prosodically identical βοῶπις πότνια Ἥρη was likely driven by the context: β. never occurs when other animals are mentioned (Beck 1986, 484  f.; Friedrich 2007, 78–80).

408–417 A ring-compositionP speech that switches between future (408– 410/415–417) and past (411–414) (Edwards on 408–417): (A) certainty regarding the outcome of the imminent battle and Achilleus’ death by divine intervention (408–410), (B) the horses’ abilities (411  f.), (C) Patroklos’ death at the hands of Apollo and Hektor (413  f.), (B’) the horses’ speed (415–416a), (A’) Achilleus’ death at the hands of a god and a human being (416b–417). 408 καὶ λίην: a VB formula (3x Il., 8x Od.), always in direct speech; signals emphatic agreement (1.553n.: ‘yes, certainly’), although here with the qualification νῦν γε; this is followed by the stressed contrast ἀλλά at 409. — ὄβριμ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ: ὄβριμος probably means ‘large, mighty’ and links size with power (3.357n.); elsewhere in the Iliad, this is an epithet only of Ares and Hektor (as well as of ἔγχος), in Hesiod of the hunter Orion, the Hundred-handers and the Bronze Race. In the response to the unexpected reproach, the address may have been chosen for its somewhat critical nuance. The variant of this VE formula beginning with a consonant is φαίδιμ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ (4x Il., 1x Od.): LfgrE s.v. ὄβριμος; Edwards; Shive 1987, 110; Camerotto 2009, 122  ff.

407 Ἥρη: on the -η after -ρ-, R 2. 408 σαώσομεν: = σώσομεν.

184 

 Iliad 19

409–410 Over the course of the Iliad, the details regarding Achilleus’ death (external prolepsesP) grow increasingly concrete (paralipsisP: ‘piecemeal presentation’): 1.352 (Achilleus) and 1.416–418 (Thetis): early death; 18.95  f. (Thetis): immediately after Hektor; 19.417 (Xanthos): effected by a god and a man; 21.276  ff. (Thetis): by Apollo’s arrows; 22.359  f. (Hektor): by Apollo and Paris at the Skaian Gate; 23.80  f. (revelation in the dream of Patroklos): at the foot of the wall; 24.131  f. (Thetis): death is now close; additional instances: 328–333n.; de Jong on Il. 22.358–360; cf. 6.367–368n. on the prolepsesP of Hektor’s death. The Aithiopis (Proclus Chrest. § 3 West) reports Achilleus’ death at the hands of Paris and Apollo, Od. 24.36–94 describes events after his death (sources collected in Burgess 2005, 120  f.). — a great god: Greek mégas (‘mighty’) is an epithet of several gods, including Zeus, Kronos, Poseidon and Apollo; it becomes apparent that the reference is to Apollo, protector of the Trojans (CG  5), only at 21.277  f., where Achilleus mentions a prophecy made by his mother (the same expression for Apollo used here also at 5.434, 16.531: LfgrE s.v. μέγας 71.2  ff; Dee 1994, 39, 153). — and powerful Destiny: Moira, who brings about fated deaths, appears here beside the god as an active force (cf. 87n.; Dietrich 1965, 199; on personifications, CG 29; Erbse 1986, 275  f.; on the concept of fate in the Iliad in general, see 2.155n.).

409b–410 corresponds to 416b–417 in content and verse structure: death under divine influence; beginning of sentence after caesura C 2 (οὐδέ τοι ἡμεῖς | and ἀλλὰ σοὶ αὐτῷ |) and emphatic placement of αἴτιοι and μόρσιμον at VB (Edwards, Introd. 44 n. 56). — ἀλλά τοι  … οὐδέ τοι: an emphatic repetition of the dat. (Denniston 548). — ἦμαρ ὀλέθριον: cf. 294n. — αἴτιοι: 86b n. — Μοῖρα κραταιή: a VE formula (9x Il., 1x ‘Hes.’), elsewhere frequent (6x Il.) in the synonym doubling θάνατος καὶ μ. κ. κραταιή is probably a feminine formation from κρατύς, masc. κραταιός is a secondary formation derived from it (Risch 74; Breuil 1989, 39 n. 51).

411–414 The summaryP of events surrounding the death of Patroklos, depicted at 16.786–17.197, is connected to a strong rejection of Achilleus’ main accusation at 403: at 411 via the synonym doubling ‘slowness and tardiness’ (on this in general, 1.160n., 2.39n.) and via the phrasing ‘not a, but rather b’, highlighting the relevant facts at 413  f. (on this pattern, 6.383–385n.). Only now does Achilleus learn of Apollo’s actions, about which he warned Patroklos (16.93– 96): Apollo made his armor slip off during the duel (16.788–804), and Hektor then took it and delivered it to the Trojans (17.120–131) (Edwards).

409 τοι … τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐγγύθεν: ‘near’. — ἦμαρ: = ἡμέρα. — οὐδέ: In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἡμεῖς: sc. ἐσμέν. 410 κραταιή: on the -η after -ι-, R 2.

Commentary 

 185

411 βραδυτῆτι: a Homeric hapaxP; derived from βραδύς in accord with the inherited IE formation type in -τητ-, but rare in Homer; its antonym ταχυτής (23.740, Od. 17.315: performance according to which a horse or dog is judged) beside the neuter τάχος is analogous (Risch 150; Porzig 1942, 248; Meissner 2006, 99  ff.). — νωχελίῃ: a Homeric hapaxP of unknown etymology, rare in post-Homeric literature, where also exists an adjective νωχελής; glossed βραδυτῆτι, ἀσθενείᾳ in schol. D (LfgrE; Porzig 1942, 204: in reference to the inadequacy of the will). On τε … τε at VE, see 2.39n. 412 describes the spoliation in formulaic language: ἀπ’ ὤμοιιν Πατρόκλου τεύχε’ ἕλοντο is a variant of the half-verse ἀπ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕλοντο (7.122, 16.782, 16.846), as at 16.663 (ἀ. ὤ. Σαρπηδόνος ἔντε’ ἕ., see 384n. on ἔντεα); on the formulaic system, Hoekstra 1981, 21  f.

413 2nd VH = Od. 11.318, h.Ap. 178; ≈ Il. 1.36. — Filling an entire verse with the designation of a person signals the individual’s significance for the narrative (cf. 1.36n.). — that high god: It is remarkable that Achilleus’ horse calls Apollo, protector of the Trojans and particularly of Hektor (CG 5; 1.9n., 24.18– 21n.), the best (gr. áristos): on the one hand, this serves to deflect Achilleus’ accusation, since in the face of the ‘best among the gods’, Xanthos and Balios are powerless (LfgrE s.v. ἄριστος 1296.7  f.); on the other hand, it may imply that Patroklos’ defeat is no disgrace (cf. Patroklos himself at 16.844–850 and on this point, Stoevesandt 2004, 216  f.). — the child of lovely-haired Leto: a periphrastic denominationP for Apollo, cf. 1.9n.; on Leto, CG 18; on the generic epithetP ēúkomos, 1.36n. 414 = 18.456. — among the champions: on the warriors in the front row of the phalanx formation, see 3.16–17n.

κῦδος ἔδωκεν: 204n.

415 blast of the west wind: Zéphyros, the fastest of the winds, is the father of the two immortal horses (400n.).

ἅμα πνοιῇ Ζεφύροιο: i.e. ‘as fast as our father’ (cf. AH on Od. 1.98 [transl.]: ‘as in a race’); elsewhere frequently ἅμα πνοιῇ ἀνέμοιο for the speed of horses and birds (LfgrE s.v. πνοιή).

411 βραδυτῆτι … νωχελίῃ: causal dat., ‘on the basis of, because of’. 412 ὤμοιιν: gen. dual. — τεύχε’ ἕλοντο: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 413 ὥριστος: crasis of ὁ ἄριστος (R 5.3). 414 ἔκταν(ε): strong aor. of (ἀπο)κτείνω. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 415 νῶϊ: nom. dual of the personal pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.1). — καί κεν ἅμα πνοιῇ … θέοιμεν: ‘we could in fact together with the wind …’, i.e. ‘we could in fact as fast as the wind …’. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — πνοιῇ: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1).

186 

 Iliad 19

416–417 by a god and a mortal: The unequivocal identification of the man is made only at 22.359 by the dying Hektor (‘Paris and Phoibos Apollo’), although Thetis already informs Achilleus about Apollo’s role at 21.277  f.; cf. 409–410n.; Edwards on 415–417. φασ(ι): marks generally known facts, here in a formulation similar to that at 96 (see ad loc. and cf. 2.783n.): the speed of the wind (Leaf). — σοὶ αὐτῷ: contrasts Achilleus with the speaker, i.e. ‘yourself (without us being part of it)’: AH, Faesi, Leaf; differently LfgrE s.v. 1661.53  ff.: ‘you for your part’ in comparison to Patroklos. — μόρσιμον: a derivation from μόρος (cf. 421n.) meaning ‘allotted, determined as fate’; impersonal with an inf. following also at 5.674, 20.302 (LfgrE s.v. μόρσιμος, μόριμον). — θεῷ τε καὶ ἀνέρι: on the dat. of the person involved with the pass. of δάμνημι, 3.183n. — ἶφι δαμῆναι: a variable VE formula (2x Il., 2x Od., 2x ‘Hes.’).

418 stopped the voice in him: The phrasing does not make explicit whether the Erinyes remove the ability to speak from the animal primarily in order to restore its original state (i.e. to put an end to its ability to talk after it has finished doing so: thus Edwards, Willcock; for further bibliography, see 407– 417n.) or whether they interrupt its speech primarily in order to prevent further revelations regarding the future (thus AH; LfgrE s.v. αὐδή 1542.40  ff.; Heubeck 1986, 154, 163; undecided Nagler 1974, 146).

ὣς ἄρα φωνήσαντος: an inflectible VB formula (speech capping formulaP), elsewhere always in the nom. (φωνήσας/φωνήσασ(α) and φωνήσαντε/-ες): 1.428n. — ἔσχεθον αὐδήν: means ‘bring the speech to a stop’ (cf. 119 τόκον: LfgrE s.v. ἔχω 845.73  ff.); αὐδή can denote both the act of speaking and the ability to speak (LfgrE s.v. αὐδή 1541.9  ff.; Clay 1974, 131  f.).

419 = 16.48, 22.14; ≈ 18.97 (τήν); 1st VH (to caesura C 1) = 7.454, 17.18, Od. 4.30, 4.332, Hes. Th. 558; ≈ Il. 1.517 (see ad loc.), 4.30, 8.208, 15.184 (τήν), Od. 15.325. — μέγ’ ὀχθήσας: a sign of Achilleus’ frustration and bitterness: he responds gruffly to Xanthos and appears determined in the face of his immutable fate (LfgrE s.v. ὀχθῆσαι; Scully 1984, 21  f.; cf. 1.517n.). — πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (30x Il.): 1.58n.

420–423 The speech contains clear echoes of 16.859–861: there Hektor reacts with similar words, albeit in a different tenor, to Patroklos’ prophecy of his imminent death at the hands of Achilleus (16.851  ff.). Whereas Hektor speaks

416 τήν περ: τήν functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5), cf. 95–96n.; on περ, R 24.10. — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). 417 ἀνέρι (ϝ)ῖφι: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ἀνέρι: metrically lengthened initial syllable (R 10.1); = ἀνδρί. — ἶφι: ‘instrumental’ (-φι: R 11.4) of the nominal root (ϝ)ίς (cf. Lat. vis), ‘with force, power, might’. — δαμῆναι: aor. pass. inf. of δάμνημι. 418 ἔσχεθον: poetic byform of ἔσχον. 419 μέγ(α): adv., ‘very’.

Commentary 

 187

with fatal confidence, Achilleus faces his death determinedly: he accepts his fate (by persisting at Troy, he has chosen a notable but brief life [cf. 9.410  ff.]) and insists on his desire for revenge (so too at 18.98  ff., cf. his reaction to Hektor’s warning at 22.365  f.), emphasizing the tragedy of his fate before his departure for battle (Edwards; Fenik 1968, 217  f.; Macleod 1982, 10; Taplin 1992, 220  f., 247; Grethlein 2006, 120  f.; 2012, 31  f.). 420 οὐδέ τί σε χρή: a VE formula (67n.). 421 νύ: 95–96n. — οἶδα καὶ αὐτός: elsewhere an inflectible VE formula (4x Il., 3x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’, 2x h.Merc); the placement in the 1st VH and the addition of εὖ (cf. εὖ νυ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν 8.32, 8.463, 18.197) add to the emphasis. By means of the phrasing, the speaker acknowledges a statement as legitimate, while at the same time preparing a contrast, see ἀλλά … 422  f., cf. also 8.32  f., 24.105  f. (AH ad loc. and on Od. 10.457; on Achilleus’ knowledge, 328–333n.). — μόρος: ‘(allotted) fate’, frequently in reference to death, cf. μόρσιμον (416–417n.) and Μοῖρα (409–410n.): LfgrE; Janko, Introd. 5; Sarischoulis 2008, 76.

422 VE = 2.297. — far from my beloved father and mother: The common motif of dying as not returning to one’s father (329n.) or one’s homeland (2.162n.) is here varied by mentioning the mother as well in order to heighten the pathos (likewise at 18.330–332). 423 on the notion of ‘satiation by battle’, see 402n. οὐ  …, πρὶν  … ἐλάσαι: 169–170n. — ἅδην ἐλάσαι πολέμοιο: ἅδην ‘satiety, surfeit’, used metaphorically also at 13.315 (ἅδην ἐλόωσι  … πολέμοιο), Od. 5.290 (ἅδην ἐλάαν κακότητος); probably an ossified acc. of a noun related to the root of ἄ-μεναι used adverbially (‘into a surfeit of battle’), cf. 307n., 402n. (Schw. 1.508; Edwards: ‘before driving the Trojans to satiety of war’; Janko on 13.315–316; cf. LfgrE s.v. ἐλαύνω 517.61  ff. [transl.]: ‘drive them so that they have had enough of battle’; Latacz 1966, 181; on the word formation [noun or deverbative adverb], see also Risch 365; Leaf on 13.315; LfgrE s.v. ἄδη).

424 VE = 5.829, 5.841, 8.139, 11.513, 16.712, 23.398, 23.423. — The Book ends with Achilleus’ signal to depart for battle. Book 20 picks up immediately with the arming and gathering of the Achaian army around their commander Achilleus (20.1  f., cf. 19.352a and 364) and introduces the opponent in the battle (20.3); a gathering of the gods follows (20.4  ff.). The scene, which began at 351bf., does not conclude until the phrase ‘so these now … were arming | around you’ at 20.1 (Greek VB formula hōs hoi men followed by a verb in the impf.: 1.318a n.),

420 μαντεύεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — οὐδέ τι: ‘not at all, in no way’. 421 τοι: on the particle, R 24.12. — ὅ: = ὅτι. — μόρος: sc. ἐστίν. 422 μητέρος: = μητρός. — ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔμπης: ‘but all the same’. 424 ἦ: 3rd sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1).

188 

 Iliad 19

i.e. beyond the (likely post-Homeric: 1–39n., end) Book-division, with a brief summary and preparation of the change of scene: 351b–356a n., 356b–20.3n.; Edwards on 20.1–3; Kelly 2007, 102  f. — in the foremost: 414n. — single-foot: The Greek adjective ‘single-hooved’ is a distinctive epithetP of horses (cf. today in the Order ‘odd-toed ungulates, perissodactyla’: Equidae or ‘single-hoofers’); horse epithets generally refer to the speed and/or quality of the hooves: in the present VE formula, the ‘single-hooved’ horses that were carefully bred and of particular value among domestic animals are highlighted in contrast to other domestic animals such as cattle (cf. ‘lumbering’ at 6.424n.) (Delebecque 1951, 149  f.; on the special status of horses, see Richter 1968, 70–76; Wiesner 1968, 30–32; cf. 243–244n.). ἰάχων: 41n. — ἔχε: with horses as the object, ‘steer’ (LfgrE s.v. 840.53  ff. [transl.]: ‘i.e. give them a direction’), sometimes with a specification of direction (3.263, 5.240, 829/841, 8.139, 11.513, 760). — μώνυχας ἵππους: an inflectible VE formula (33x Il., 1x Od., 1x ‘Hes.’; of these 27x acc., 8x nom.) after a vocalic word-end, cf. also the VE formula ὠκέες/-ας ἵ. after a consonant (3.263n.; Düntzer [1864] 1979, 101). μ. is a possessive compound with the zero-grade of the numeral ‘one’ as the initial element (IE *sem/sm̥, cf. εἷς, μία, ἕν, Latin semel): *σμ-ῶνυξ (LfgrE, Frisk, DELG, Beekes s.v. μῶνυξ).

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

Homers Ilias. Erklärt von K. F. Ameis und C. Hentze, Leipzig and Berlin 1868–1884 (Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze); most recent editions: vol. 1.1 (Books 1–3) 71913, rev. by P. Cauer; vol. 1.2 (4–6) 6 1908; 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); cited in this volume: Heft 7 (on Il. 19–21) 1883. Homers Odyssee. Erklärt von K. F. Ameis und C. Hentze, Leipzig and Berlin 1 1856–1860; cited in this volume: vol. 1.1 (Books 1–6), rev. by P. Cauer, 131920. Anhang zu Homers Odyssee. Schulausgabe von K. F. Ameis, Leipzig 11867; cited in this volume: Heft 1 (on Od. 1–6), rev. by C. Hentze, 31883. Allen, Th.W. Homeri Ilias, Oxford 1931. (3 vols.) Allen, Th.W., W. R. Halliday and E. E. Sikes. (edd.) 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–. The Types of International Folktales: A Classification and Bibliography. Based on the System of A. Aarne and S. Thompson, by H.-J. Uther (FF Communications, 284–286). Helsinki 2004. (3 vols.) Autenrieth, G. and A. Kaegi. Wörterbuch zu den Homerischen Gedichten14. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1999 (= reprint of 131920, with a Preface by J. Latacz and an Introduction by A. Willi; Leipzig 11873.) Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assistance of L. van Beek (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, 10). Leiden/ Boston 2010. (2 vols.) Brill’s New Pauly, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, transl. by C. F. Sala­ zar; online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-newpauly (retrieved: 12.  03. 2016); print edition Leiden 2002–2011. (Original German ed.: Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart and Weimar 1996–2003.) 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 4, RPh 73 (1999) 79–108; ChronEG 5, RPh 74 (2000) 257–286; ChronEG 6, RPh 75 (2001) 131–162. Chantraine, P. Grammaire homérique6. Paris 1986–1988 (11942–1953). (2 vols.) Morris, I. and B. Powell (edd.). A New Companion to Homer. Leiden and New York 1997. Cunliffe, R. J. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. Expanded Edition with a New Preface by J. H. Dee. Norman 2012 (11924). 1

AH, Anh. on Il.

AH on Od. AH, Anh. on Od. Allen Allen/Halliday/ Sikes ArchHom

ATU

Autenrieth/Kaegi

Beekes

BNP

ChronEG

Chantr. Companion Cunliffe

190  DDD

 Iliad 19

van der Toorn, K., B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst (edd.). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible2. Leiden etc. 1999 (11995). DELG Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Nouvelle édition avec, en supplément, les Chroniques d’étymologie grecque (1–10). Paris 2009 (11968–1980). Denniston Denniston, J. D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934). DMic Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 vols.) Ebeling 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). Fernández-Galiano Fernández-Galiano, M. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) Frisk Frisk, H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1960–1972. (3 vols.) Hainsworth Hainsworth, J. B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge on Il. 9–12 1993. Hainsworth Hainsworth, J. B. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. on Od. 5–8 Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.) HE Finkelberg, M. (ed.). The Homer Encyclopedia. Chichester 2011. (3 vols.) Heubeck Heubeck, A. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. on Od. 9–12 Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1983.) Heubeck Heubeck, A, In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII– on Od. 23–24 XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) Hoekstra Hoekstra, A. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1984.) HTN Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer: Tradition und Neuerung. Wege der Forschung 463. Darmstadt 1979. Janko Janko, R. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge 1992. de Jong on Od. Jong, I. J. F. de. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001. Jong, I. J. F. de (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book XXII. Cambridge Greek and Latin de Jong on Il. 22 Classics. Cambridge 2012. von Kamptz Kamptz, H. von. Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen and Zürich 1982. (Originally diss. Jena 1958.) K.-G. Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904. (Reprint Hanover 1992.) (2 vols.) Kirk Kirk, G. S. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge 1985; vol. II: Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990. KlP Ziegler, K. and W. Sontheimer (edd.). Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike in fünf Bänden. Stuttgart and Munich 1964–1975. (Reprint Munich 1979.) (5 vols.) LÄ Helck, W. and E. Otto (edd.). Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden 1975–1989. (7 vols.) Leaf The Iliad2. Ed. with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices by W. Leaf. London 1900–1902 (11886–1888). (2 vols.)



van Leeuwen LfgrE

LIMC LIV

LSJ Mazon RAC

RE

Richardson on Il. 21–24 Richardson on h.Cer. Risch Ruijgh Russo Stanford Schw.

ThesCRA

Thompson

Untermann

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 191

Ilias. Cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentariis exegeticis ed. J. van Leeuwen. Leiden 1912–1913. (2 vols.) Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Founded by Bruno Snell. Prepared under the authority of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen and edited by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Göttingen 1955–2010. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed by H. C. Ackermann and J. R. Gisler. Zurich etc. 1981–1999. (18 vols.) Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Ed. by M. Kümmel, Th. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer under the direction of H. Rix and with the collaboration of many others. Second, expanded and improved edition ed. by M. Kümmel and H. Rix. Wiesbaden 2001 (11998). Liddell, H. R., R. Scott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon9. Oxford 1940. (Reprint with revised supplement 1996.) Homère, Iliade. Tome 4: Chants 19–24. Texte établi et traduit par P. Mazon avec la collaboration de P. Chantraine et al. Paris 1947. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Ed. by Th. Klauser, E. Dassmann et al. Stuttgart 1950–. Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition, ed. by G. Wissowa with the cooperation of numerous specialists. Stuttgart 1894–2000. Richardson, N. J. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge 1993. Richardson, N. J. (ed.) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford 1974. Risch, E. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2. Berlin and New York 1974 (11937). Ruijgh, C. J. Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam 1971. Russo, J. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII– XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1985.) Homer, Odyssey2. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by W. B. Stanford. London 1958–1959 (11947–1948; reprint Bristol 1996). (2 vols.) Schwyzer, E., A. Debrunner, D. J. Georgacas and F. and St. Radt. Griechische Grammatik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.1.1–4. Munich 1939– 1994. (4 vols.) Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, ed. by the Fondation pour le Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles 2004–2014. (8 vols. and one index vol.) Thompson, S. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: A Classification of Narrative Elements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaux, Jest-Books and Local Legends2. Copenhagen 1955–1958 (11932–1936). (6 vols.) Untermann, J. Einführung in die Sprache Homers. Der Tod des Patroklos, Ilias Π 684–867. Heidelberg 1987.

192 

 Iliad 19

Wathelet

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

Wathelet, P. Dictionnaire des Troyens de l’Iliade. Université de Liège. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres. Documenta et Instrumenta 1. Liège 1988. (2 vols.) Hesiod, Works and Days. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford 1978. Hesiod, Theogony. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford 1966. West, S. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1981.) Homer, Iliad. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by M. M. Willcock. London 1978–1984. (2 vols.)

2 Editions of Ancient Authors and Texts1 Antimachus of Colophon (Matthews) Antimachus of Colophon. Text and Commentary by V. J. Matthews. Mnemosyne Supplement 155. Leiden etc. 1996. ‘Epic Cycle’ (West) or (Davies) • in Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. M. Davies. Göttingen 1988; • and in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. Heraclitus (VS) in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6, Greek and German text by H. Diels, ed. by W. Kranz, vol. 1. Berlin 1951 (11903). ‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.) in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et dies, Scutum3, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta, edd. R. Merkelbach et M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970). Pindar, fragments in Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis, pars II: Fragmenta, Indices, ed. H. Maehler. Leipzig 1989. Porphyry (MacPhail) Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Text, Translation, Commentary by J. A. MacPhail Jr. Texte und Kommentare 36. Berlin and New York 2011. Scholia on the Iliad (Erbse) Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), rec. H. Erbse. Berlin 1969–1988. (7 vols.) Scholia on the Iliad (van Thiel) Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manu scriptos. Proecdosis aucta et correctior 2014., ed. H. van Thiel. Elektronische Schriftenreihe der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln 7. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/ (retrieved: 12. 03. 2016). Simonides (Page) in Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page. Oxford 1962.

1 Included are editions only of works for which different editions offer differing verse-, paragraph- or fragment-numbers.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 193

3 Articles and Monographs Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique.2 Adkins 1960 Adkins 1969

Adkins, A. W. H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford. Adkins, A. W. H. ‘Threatening, Abusing and Feeling Angry in the Homeric Poems.’ JHS 89: 7–21. Adkins, A. W. H. ‘Values, Goals, and Emotions in the Iliad.’ CPh 77: 292–326. Adkins 1982 Ahlberg G. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art. SIMA 32. Göteborg. Ahlberg 1971 Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus). Ahrens 1937 Halle. Alden, M. J. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford. Alden 2000 Alexiou (1974) 2002 Alexiou, M. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition2. Greek Studies. Lanham etc. (11974). Allan 2003 Allan, R. J. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 11. Amsterdam. Allan 2009 Allan R. ‘Orale elementen in de Homerische grammatica. Intonatie-eenheid en enjambement.’ Lampas 42: 136–151. Allan 2013 Allan, R. J. ‘Exploring Modality’s Semantic Space: Grammaticalization, Subjectification and the Case of ὀφείλω.’ Glotta 89: 1–46. Allan/Cairns 2011 Allan, W. and D. Cairns. ‘Conflict and Community in the Iliad.’ In Competition in the Ancient World, ed. by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, pp. 113–146. Swansea. 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 1987, pp. 1–13. Andronikos 1968 Andronikos, M. ‘Totenkult.’ ArchHom chap. W. Göttingen. Apthorp 1980 Apthorp, M. J. The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.71. Heidelberg. Arbenz 1933 Arbenz C. Die Adjektive auf -ΙΜΟΣ. Ein Beitrag zur griechischen Wortbildung. Zurich. Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin. Armstrong 1958 Armstrong, J. I. ‘The Arming Motif in the Iliad.’ AJPh 79: 337–354. Arnould 1986 Arnould, D. ‘τήκειν dans la peinture des larmes et du deuil chez Homère et les tragiques.’ RPh 60: 267–274. Arnould 1990 Arnould, D. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon. Collection d’études anciennes, Série grecque 119. Paris. Aubriot 2001 Aubriot, D. ‘Humanité et divinité dans l’Iliade à travers le personnage d’Achille.’ In: Dieux, héros et médecins grecs. Hommage à Fernand Robert, ed. by M. Woronoff, S. Follet and J. Jouanna, pp. 7–27. Besançon. Austin 1975 Austin, N. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odyssey. Berkeley etc.

2 A cumulative list can be found at: http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/Thesaurus/APh_List.pdf ­(retrieved: 12. 03. 2016).

194 

 Iliad 19

Bakker 1988

Bakker, E. J. Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and the Description of the Particle ‘per’. Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Bakker 1997 Bakker, E. J. Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Bakker (1999) 2005  Bakker, E. J. ‘The Poetics of Deixis.’ In Bakker 2005, pp.  71–91. (First published in CPh 94: 1–19; also in Nagy 2001, vol. 2, pp. 313–331.) Bakker (2001) 2005  Bakker, E. J. ‘Similes, Augment, and the Language of Immediacy.’ In Bakker 2005, pp. 114–135. (First published in Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World, ed. by J. Watson, J., pp.  1–23. Mnemosyne Supplement 218. Leiden etc.) Bakker (2002) 2005  Bakker, E. J. ‘Remembering the God’s Arrival.’ In Bakker 2005, pp. 136–153. (First published in Arethusa 35: 63–81.) Bakker, E. J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Bakker 2005 Poetics. Hellenic Studies 12. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Bannert 1978 Bannert, H. ‘Zur Vogelgestalt der Götter bei Homer.’ WS 12: 29–42. Bannert, H. ‘Versammlungsszenen bei Homer.’ In Bremer 1987, pp. 15–30. Bannert 1987 Bannert 1988 Bannert, H. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Beispiele für eine Poetik des Epos. Wiener Studien Beih. 13. Vienna. Barck 1976 Barck, Chr. Wort und Tat bei Homer. Spudasmata 34. Hildesheim and New York. Barrett, D. S. ‘The Friendship of Achilles and Patroclus.’ CB 57: 87–93. Barrett 1981 Bartoněk 2003 Bartoněk, A. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Indogermanische Bibliothek, Reihe 1. Heidelberg. Basset, L. ‘La préfiguration dans l’épopée homérique de l’article défini Basset 2006 du grec classique.’ In Word Classes and Related Topic in Ancient Greek: Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’ held in Madrid on 18–21, June 2003, ed. by E. Crespo, J. de la Villa and A. R. Revuelta, pp. 105–120. Louvain-la-Neuve. Bassett, S. E. ‘Versus tetracolos.’ CPh 14: 216–233. Bassett 1919 Bechtel 1914 Bechtel, F. Lexilogus zu Homer. Etymologie und Stammbildung homerischer Wörter. Halle. Beck, W. ‘Choice and Context: Metrical Doublets für Hera.’ AJPh 107: Beck 1986 480–488. Beck, D. Homeric Conversation. Hellenic Studies 14. Cambridge, Mass. and Beck 2005 London. Beck, D. Speech Presentation in Homeric Epic. Austin. Beck 2012 Becker, O. Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im früh­grie­chi­ Becker 1937 schen Denken. Hermes Einzelschriften 4. Berlin. Beckmann, J.Th. Das Gebet bei Homer. Würzburg. Beckmann 1932 Beekes, R. S. P. The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Beekes 1969 Greek. Janua linguarum, Series practica 42. The Hague and Paris. Bekker, I. Homerische Blätter, vol. 1. Bonn. Bekker 1863 Benedetti, M. ‘Il composto omerico ΙΠΠΙΟΧΑΡΜΗΣ.’ RAL 34: 169–185. Benedetti 1979 Benveniste 1969 Benveniste, E. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, vol. 2: pouvoir, droit, religion. Paris. Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos. Zu Ilias Γ 1–Δ 222. Habelts Bergold 1977 Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klass. Philol. 28. Bonn.



Bethe 1914 Bierl 2001 Bierl et al. 2004 Blanc 2002 Blanc 2003 Blom 1936 Blößner 1991 Böhme 1929 Bonifazi 2009

Bonifazi 2012 Borchhardt 1977 Bouvier 2002 Bowra 1952 Bradley 1967 Bremer 1976

Bremer 1987 Bremmer 1983 Breuil 1989

Brown 1998 Brown 2006 Bruns 1970 Buchholz 2010 Buchholz 2012 Bühler 1960

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 195

Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage, vol. 1: Ilias. Leipzig and Berlin. Bierl, A. Der Chor in der Alten Komödie. Ritual und Performativität. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 126. Munich. Bierl, A., A. Schmitt and A. Willi. Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Festschrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages. Munich. Blanc, A. ‘Disguised Compounds in Greek: Homeric ἈΒΛΗΧΡΟΣ, ἈΓΑΥΟΣ, ἌΚΜΗΝΟΣ, ΤΗΛΥΓΕΤΟΣ and ΧΑΛΙΦΡΩΝ.’ TPhS 100: 169–184. Blanc, A. ‘La faute et le parricide en grec, le dommage indo-iranien et la peine germanique. Formes de la racine *h2ley-.’ REG 116: 17–53. Blom, J. W. S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I: Triaden, hebdomaden en enneaden. Nijmegen. Blößner, N. Die singulären Iterata der Ilias. Bücher 16–20. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 13. Stuttgart. Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin. Bonifazi, A. ‘Discourse Cohesion through Third Person Pronouns: The Case of ΚΕΙΝΟΣ and ΑΥΤΟΣ in Homer.’ In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, ed. by S. Bakker and G. Wakker, pp.  1–19. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 16. Leiden and Boston 2009. Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word Making. Hellenic Studies 50. Washington, D. C. Borchhardt, H. ‘Frühe griechische Schildformen.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 1–56. Göttingen. Bouvier, D. Le sceptre et la lyre. L’Iliade ou les héros de la mémoire. Collection HOROS. Grenoble. Bowra, C. M. Heroic Poetry. London. Bradley, E. M. ‘Hector and the Simile of the Snowy Mountain.’ TAPhA 98: 37–41. Bremer, D. Licht und Dunkel in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Interpretationen zur Vorgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, Suppl. 1. Bonn. Bremer, J. M., I. J. F. de Jong and J. Kalff (edd.). Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation. Amsterdam. Bremmer, J. N. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton. Breuil, J.-L. ‘ΚΡΑΤΟΣ et sa famille chez Homère. Étude sémantique.’ In Études Homèriques. Séminaire de recherche 1984–1987 sous la direction de M. Casevitz, pp. 9–53. Travaux de la maison de l’orient 16. Lyon. Brown, A. ‘Homeric Talents and the Ethics of Exchange.’ JHS 118: 165–172. Brown, H. P. ‘Addressing Agamemnon. A Pilot Study of Politeness and Pragmatics in the Iliad.’ TAPhA 136: 1–46. Bruns, G. ‘Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten.’ ArchHom chap. Q. Göttingen. Buchholz, H. G. ‘Kriegswesen, Teil 3: Ergänzungen und Zusammenfassung.’ ArchHom chap. E 3. Göttingen. Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Erkennungs-, Rang- und Würdezeichen.’ ArchHom chap. D. Göttingen. Bühler, W. Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Hermes Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden.

196 

 Iliad 19

Burgess 2001

Burgess, J. S. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore and London. Burgess 2005 Burgess, J. S. ‘The Death of Achilles by Rhapsodes.’ In Approaches to Homer, Ancient and Modern, ed. by R. J. Rabel, pp. 119–134. Swansea. Burgess 2006 Burgess, J. S. ‘Neoanalysis, Orality, and Intertextuality: An Examination of Homeric Motif Transference.’ Oral Tradition 21: 148–189. 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.) Burkert (1991) 2001 Burkert, W. ‘Homer’s Anthromorphism: Narrative and Ritual.’ In W. Burkert. Kleine Schriften 1: Homerica, ed. by Chr. Riedweg et al., pp.  80–94. Hypomnemata, Supplement 2. Göttingen. (First published in New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, ed. by D. Buitron-Oliver, pp. 81–91. Washington, D. C.). Burkert 2003 Burkert, W. ‘Hesiod in Context: Abstractions and Divinities in an AegeanEastern Koiné.’ In W. Burkert. Kleine Schriften 2: Orientalia, ed. by M. L. Gemelli Marciano et al., pp. 172–191. Hypomnemata, Supplement 2. Göttingen. Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung, Buttmann 1825 hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod, vol. 2. Berlin. 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, D. L. ‘Affronts and Quarrels in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 203–219. Cairns 2001a Cairns, D. L. ‘Ethics, Ethology, Terminology: Iliadic Anger and the Cross-CulCairns 2003 tural Study of Emotion.’ In Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, ed. by S. Braund and G. W. Most, pp. 11–49. Yale Classical Studies 32. Cambridge. Cairns, D. L. ‘Atē in the Homeric poems.’ PLLS 15: 1–52. Cairns 2012 Calhoun, G. M. ‘Classes and Masses in Homer.’ CPh 29: 192–208, 301–316. Calhoun 1934 Callaway 1990 Callaway, C. L. The Oath in Epic Poetry. Diss. Univ. of Washington. Camerotto 2009 Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: compositione e racconto nell’epica greca arcaica. Padua. Canciani, F. ‘Bildkunst, Teil 2.’ ArchHom chap. N 2. Göttingen. Canciani 1984 Carlier 1984 Carlier, P. La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre. Études et travaux publiés par le groupe de recherche d’histoire romaine de l’université des sciences humaines de Strasbourg 6. Strasbourg. Carter, J. B. ‘Ancestor Cult and the Occasion of Homeric Performance.’ In The Carter 1995 Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, ed. by J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris, pp. 285–312. Austin. Casson 1971 Casson L. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton. (Reprint with addenda and corrigenda Baltimore and London 1995.) Catling H. W. ‘Panzer.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutz­ Catling 1977 waffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 74–118. Göttingen. Cauer (1895) 1923 Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3, vol. 2. Leipzig (11895). Chantraine 1933 Chantraine, P. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Collection linguistique 38. Paris.



Chapa 1998

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 197

Chapa, J. Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. Papyrologica Florentina 29. Florence. Christensen 2010 Christensen, J. P. ‘First-Person Futures in Homer.’ AJPh 131: 543–571. Ciani 1974 Ciani, M. G. ΦΑΟΣ e termini affini nella poesia greca. Introduzione a una fenomenologia della luce. Università di Padova, Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia 51. Florence. Clark 1997 Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Clarke 1978 Clarke, W. M. ‘Achilles and Patroclus in Love.’ Hermes 106: 381–396. Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. J. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Clarke 2005 Clarke, M. J. ‘On the Semantics of Ancient Greek Smiles.’ In Body Language in the Greek and Roman Worlds, ed. by D. Cairns, pp. 37–53. Swansea. Clarke et al. 2006 Clarke, M. J., B. G. F. Currie and R.O.A.M. Lyne. Epic Interactions: Perspectives on Homer, Vergil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to Jasper Griffin by Former Pupils. Oxford. Clay 1974 Clay, J. ‘Demas and Aude: The Nature of Divine Transformation in Homer.’ Hermes 102: 129–136. Clay 1983 Clay, J. S. The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Princeton. Clay 1995 Clay, J. S. ‘Agamemnon’s Stance (Il. 19.51–77).’ Philologus 139: 72–75. Clay 2011 Clay, J. S. Homer’s Trojan Theater: Space, Vision and Memory in the Iliad. Cambridge. Coffey (1957) 1999 Coffey, M. ‘The Function of the Homeric Simile.’ In de Jong 1999 vol. 3, pp. 322–337. (First published in AJPh 78: 113–132.) Collobert 2011 Collobert, C. Parier le temps. La quête héroïque d’immortalité dans l’épopée homérique. Collection d’études anciennes 143. Paris. Combellack 1984 Combellack, F. M. ‘A Homeric Metaphor.’ AJPh 105: 247–257. Considine 1966 Considine, P. ‘Some Homeric Terms for Anger.’ AClass 9: 15–25. Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux Corlu 1966 tragiques. Paris. Crotty, K. The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Myth and Crotty 1994 Poetics. Ithaca and London. Currie, B. ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition.’ In Clarke et al. 2006, pp. 1–45. Currie 2006 Currie, B. ‘The Iliad, Gilgamesh, and the Neoanalsysis.’ In Montanari et al. Currie 2012 2012, pp. 543–623. Danek, G. Studien zur Dolonie. WS Beiheft 12. Vienna. Danek 1988 Danek, G. Review of West 2001. WS 116: 281–286. Danek 2003 Davidson, O. M. ‘Indo-European Dimensions of Herakles in Iliad 19.95–133.’ Davidson 1980 Arethusa 13: 197–202. Davies/Kathirithamby 1986 Davies, M. and J. Kathirithamby. Greek Insects. London. Davies, M. ‘Agamemnon’s Apology and the unity of the Iliad.’ CQ 45: 1–8. Davies 1995 Davies, M. ‘Feasting and Food in Homer: Realism and Stylisation.’ Davies 1997 Prometheus 23: 97–107. Davies 2006 Davies, M. ‘«Self-Consolation» in the Iliad.’ CQ 56: 582–587. Dawe, R. D. ‘Some Reflections on Ate and Hamartia.’ HSPh 72: 89–123. Dawe 1968 Debrunner 1956 Debrunner, A. ‘Δέγμενος, ἑσπόμενος, ἄρχμενος.’ In ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, ed. by H. Kronasser, vol. 1, pp. 77–84. Vienna.

198 

 Iliad 19

Dentice 2012

Dentice di Accadia Ammone, St. Omero e i suoi oratori. Tecniche di persuasione nell’ Iliade. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 302. Berlin and Boston. 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 Human Characters of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Alpha-Omega, Reihe A 212. Hildesheim. Degani 1961 Degani, E. ΑΙΩΝ da Omero ad Aristotele. Università di Padova, Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia 37. Padua. Deichgräber (1940) 1952 Deichgräber, K. ‘Der listensinnende Trug des Gottes.’ In K. Deichgräber. Der listensinnende Trug des Gottes. Vier Themen des griechischen Denkens, pp. 108–141, 151–155. Göttingen. (First published in NGG N. F. 4: 1–38.) Delebecque 1951 Delebecque, E. Le cheval dans l’Iliade. Paris. Derderian, K. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Derderian 2001 Literacy. Mnemosyne Supplement 209. Leiden etc. Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero2. Turin (11994). Dietrich 1964 Dietrich, B. C. ‘Xanthus’ Prediction: A Memory of Popular Cult in Homer.’ AClass 7: 9–24. Dietrich 1965 Dietrich, B. C. Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer. University of London Classical Studies 3. London. Dickson 1995 Dickson, K. Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. New York and London. Dirlmeier 1967 Dirlmeier, F. Die Vogelgestalt homerischer Götter. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1967.2. Heidelberg. Dodds 1951 Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Donlan 1993 Donlan, W. ‘Duelling with Gifts in the Iliad: As the Audience Saw It.’ ColbyQ 29: 155–172. Dover, K. J. ‘The Portrayal of Moral Evaluation in Greek Poetry.’ JHS 103: Dover 1983 35–48. Duckworth 1933 Duckworth, G. E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epic of Homer, Apollonius, and Vergil. Diss. Princeton. Dué, C. Homeric Variations on a Lament by Briseis. Greek Studies: InterdisciDué 2002 plinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Düntzer (1864) 1979 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Ausdruck.’ In HTN, pp.  88–108. (Slightly abridged; first published in JbbClassPhil  10: 673–694; also in H. Düntzer. Homerische Abhandlungen, pp. 517–549. Leipzig 1872.) Dürbeck, H. Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeichnungen. Bonn. Dürbeck 1977 Easterling P. E. ‘Men’s κλέος and Women’s γόος: Female Voices in the Iliad. Easterling 1991 Journal of Modern Greek Studies 9: 145–151. Edgeworth 1983 Edgeworth, R. J. ‘Terms for «Brown» in Ancient Greek.’ Glotta 61: 31–40. Edwards 1970 Edwards, M. W. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions.’ HSPh 74: 1–36. Edwards, M. W. Sound, Sense and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Edwards 2002 Poetry. Princeton.



Elmer 2013 Elmiger 1935 Erbse 1953 Erbse 1960 Erbse 1980 Erbse 1986 Erbse 2000 van Erp 1971 Faraone 1993 Farron 1979 Fehling 1969 Fenik 1968 Ferrari 1986 Fingerle 1939 Finkelberg 1989 Finkelberg 1995 Fittschen 1969 Floyd 1969 Foley 1990 Foley 1991 Ford 1992 Forssman 1966 Forssman 1986 Forssman 2001 Fränkel 1921

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 199

Elmer, D. F. The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad. Baltimore. Elmiger, J. Begrüssung und Abschied bei Homer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des antiken Grusses. Fribourg (Switzerland). Erbse, H. ‘Bemerkungen zu Homer und zu seinen Interpreten.’ Glotta 32: 236–247. Erbse, H. Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien. Zetemata 24. Munich. Erbse, H. ‘Homerische Götter in Vogelgestalt.’ Hermes 108: 259–274. Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York. Erbse, H. ‘Beobachtungen über die Gleichnisse der Ilias Homers.’ Hermes 128: 257–274. van Erp Taalman Kip, A. M. Agamemnon in epos en tragedie. De persoonsuitbeelding als component van het epische en dramatische werk. Amsterdam. Faraone, C. A. ‘Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals: Sympathetic Magic in Near Eastern and Early Greek Oath Ceremonies.’ JHS 113: 60–80. Farron, S. ‘The Portrayal of Women in the Iliad.’ AClass 22: 15–31. Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias. Berlin. Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden. Ferrari, F. Oralità ed espressione. Ricognizioni omeriche. Biblioteca di Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 4. Pisa. Fingerle, A. Typik der Homerischen Reden. Munich. Finkelberg, M. ‘Formulaic and Nonformulaic Elements in Homer.’ CPh 84: 179–197. Finkelberg, M. ‘Patterns of Human Error in Homer.’ JHS 115: 15–28. Fittschen, K. Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den Griechen. Berlin. Floyd, E. D. ‘The Singular Uses of ἡμέτερος and ἡμεῖς in Homer.’ Glotta 47: 116–137. Foley, J. M. Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song. Berkeley etc. Foley, J. M. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Ford, A. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca and London. Forssman, B. Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars. Klassisch-Philologische Studien 33. Wiesbaden. Forssman, B. ‘Homerisches êmoton.’ In o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by A. Etter, pp. 329–339. Berlin and New York. Forssman, B. Review of A. J. Nussbaum. Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Hypomnemata 120. Göttingen 1998. Kratylos 46: 113–117. Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen (=  21977: unaltered reprint with an afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch). (Abridged Engl. transl. in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 301–321 [= Fränkel 1921, pp. 16–35] and Wright/Jones 1997, pp. 103–123 [= Fränkel 1921, pp. 98–114]).

200 

 Iliad 19

Fränkel 1946

Fränkel, H. ‘Man’s «Ephemeros» Nature According to Pindar and Others.’ TAPhA 77: 131–145. Fränkel (1951) 1962 Fränkel, H. Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts2. Munich (New York 11951). Franz 2002 Franz, J. P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europ. Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt am Main etc. Friedrich/Redfield 1978 Friedrich, P. and J. Redfield. ‘Speech as Personality Symbol: The Case of Achilles.’ Language 54: 263–288. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 4, pp. 231–261.) Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theorie der epischen Gattung. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.55. Heidelberg. Friedrich 2007 Friedrich, R. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches. Hermes Einzelschriften 100. Stuttgart. Friedrich 1982 Friedrich, W. H. ‘Von den homerischen Gleichnissen und ihren Schicksalen.’ A&A 28: 103–130. Friis Johansen 1967 Friis Johansen, K. The Iliad in Early Greek Art. Copenhagen. Fritz 2005 Fritz, M. A. Die trikasuellen Lokalpartikeln bei Homer. Syntax und Semantik. Historische Sprachforschung, Ergänzungsh. 44. Göttingen. Frontisi-Ducroux (1975) 2000 Frontisi-Ducroux, F. Dédale. Mythologie de l’artisan en Grèce ancienne2. Paris (11975). Führer 1967 Führer, R. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der früh­grie­chi­ schen Lyrik. Zetemata 44. Munich. Führer/­Schmidt 2001 Führer, R. and M. ­Schmidt. ‘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. Galinsky 1972 Galinsky, G. K. The Herakles Theme: The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth Century. Oxford. Garcia Jr., L. F. Homeric Durability: Telling Time in the Iliad. Hellenic Garcia 2013 Studies 58. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Garland (1982) 1984 Garland, R. S. J. ‘Γέρας θανόντων: an Investigation into the Claims of the Homeric Dead.’ Ancient Society 15–17: 5–22. (First published in BICS 29: 69–80). Garland R. The Greek Way of Death. Ithaca. Garland 1985 George, A. R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition George 2003 and Cuneiform Texts, vol. 1. Oxford. George, C. H. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge Classical George 2005 Studies. Cambridge. Giuliani, L. Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der griechischen Giuliani 2003 Kunst. Munich. Gottschall 2008 Gottschall, J. The Rape of Troy: Evolution, Violence, and the World of Homer. Cambridge. Graf (1994) 1997 Graf, F. Magic in the Ancient World. Revealing Antiquity 10. Cambridge, Mass. and London. (French original: La magie dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine. Idéologie et pratique. Paris.)



Graf 1996 Graf 2005 Graf 2005a Grajew 1934 Gray 1974 Graz 1965 Grethlein 2005 Grethlein 2006 Grethlein 2008 Grethlein 2012

Griffin 1977 Griffin 1980 Griffin 1986 Griffith 1994 Grimm 1962 Gröschel 1989 Gruber 1963 Gschnitzer 1976

Gundert 1983 Gygli-Wyss 1966 Hackstein 2002

Hahn 1954 Hainsworth 1966 Hammer 2002 Handschur 1970

Haslam 1976

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 201

Graf, F. Gottesnähe und Schadenzauber. Die Magie in der griechisch-römi­ schen Antike. Munich. Graf, F. ‘Eid.’ In ThesCRA 3: 237–246. Graf, F. ‘Fluch und Verwünschung.’ In ThesCRA 3: 247–270. Grajew, F. Untersuchungen über die Bedeutung der Gebärden in der griechi­ schen Epik. Freiburg. Gray, D. ‘Seewesen.’ ArchHom chap. G. Göttingen. Graz, L. Le feu dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. ΠΥΡ: champ d’emploi et signification. Études et commentaires 60. Paris. Grethlein, J. ‘Eine Anthropologie des Essens: Der Essensstreit in der Ilias und die Erntemetapher in Il. 19.221–224.’ Hermes 133: 257–279. Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänomenologischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Hypomnemata 163. Göttingen. Grethlein, J. ‘Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ JHS 128: 27–51. Grethlein, J. ‘Homer and Heroic History.’ In Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History without Historians, ed. by J. Marincola et al., pp. 14–36. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 6. Edinburgh. Griffin, J. ‘The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer.’ JHS 97: 39–53. (Also in Nagy 2001, vol. 2, pp. 97–111.) Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers.’ JHS 106: 36–57. Griffith, R. D. ‘Nektar and Nitron.’ Glotta 72: 20–23. Grimm, J. ‘Die Partikel ἄρα im frühen griechischen Epos.’ Glotta 40: 3–41. Gröschel, S.-G. Waffenbesitz und Waffeneinsatz bei den Griechen. Europ. Hochschulschriften 38.23. Frankfurt am Main etc. Gruber, J. Über einige abstrakte Begriffe des frühen Griechischen. Beitr. zur Klass. Philologie 9. Meisenheim am Glan. Gschnitzer, F. Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. Zweiter Teil: Untersuchungen zur älteren, insbesondere homerischen Sklaventermino­ logie. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 7. Wiesbaden. Gundert, B. τέλος und τελεῖν bei Homer. Kiel. Gygli-Wyss, B. Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch. ZVS, Ergän­ zungsh. 18. Göttingen. Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morphologischer Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, Sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden. Hahn, E. A. ‘Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative.’ TAPhA 85: 197–289. Hainsworth, J. B. ‘Joining Battle in Homer.’ G&R 13: 158–166. Hammer, D. The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought. Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 28. Norman. Handschur, E. Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den homerischen Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 39. Vienna. Haslam, M. W. ‘Homeric Words and Homeric Metre: Two Doublets Examined (λείβω/εἴβω, γαῖα/αἶα).’ Glotta 54: 201–211.

202 

 Iliad 19

Haslam 1998

Haslam, M. W. ‘4452. Commentary on Iliad XIX.’ In Oxyrhynchus Papyri 65: 29–45. Haubold 2000 Haubold, J. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge. Häussler 1995 Häussler, R. Hera und Juno. Wandlungen und Beharrung einer Göttin. Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe 10. Stuttgart. Heath, J. ‘The Legacy of Peleus: Death and Divine Gifts in the Iliad.’ Hermes Heath 1992 120: 387–400. 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 1991 Heiden, B. ‘Shifting Contexts in the Iliad.’ Eranos 89: 1–12. Heitsch (1980) 2001 Heitsch, E. ‘Der Anfang unserer Ilias und Homer.’ In Heitsch 2001, pp. 66–84. (First published in Gymnasium 87: 38–56.) Heitsch (2000) 2001 Heitsch, E. ‘«Homer» eine Frage der Definition.’ In Heitsch 2001, pp. 9–65. (First published in Zur Überlieferung, Kritik und Edition alter und neuerer Texte. Beiträge des Colloquiums zum 85. Geburtstag von Werner Schröder [Mainz, 12.–13. März 1999], ed. by K. Gärtner, H.-H. Krummacher, pp. 37–93. Mainz.) Heitsch 2001 Heitsch, E. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 1: Zum frühgriechischen Epos. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 152. Munich and Leipzig. Held, G. F. ‘Phoinix, Agamemnon and Achilleus: Parables and ParadeigHeld 1987 mata.’ CQ 37: 245–261. Helm, J. J. ‘Koros: From Satisfaction to Greed.’ CW 87: 5–11. Helm 1993/94 Hellwig, B. Raum und Zeit im homerischen Epos. Spudasmata 2. Hildesheim. Hellwig 1964 Hermary/Leguilloux 2004 Hermary, A., M. Leguilloux et al. ‘Les sacrifices dans le monde grec.’ In ThesCRA 1: 59–134. Hershkowitz 1998 Hershkowitz, D. The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius. Oxford. Heubeck, A. ‘ἐρινύς in der archaischen Epik.’ Glotta 64: 143–165. Heubeck 1986 Higbie, C. Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Higbie 1990 Iliad. Oxford. Hiller 1991 Hiller, S. ‘Die archäologische Erforschung des griechischens Siedlungs­ bereiches im 8. Jh. v. Chr.’ In Latacz 1991, pp. 61–88. Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad. Hellenic Hitch 2009 Studies 25. Cambridge Mass. and London. Hoffmann 1914 Hoffmann, M. Die ethische Terminologie bei Homer, Hesiod und den alten Elegikern und Jambographen. I: Homer. Tübingen. Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modification of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in Hoekstra 1965 the Development of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akad. van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, N. R. 71.1. Amsterdam. Hoekstra 1981 Hoekstra, A. Epic Verse before Homer: Three Studies. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akad. van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, N. R. 108. Amsterdam.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 203

Hölkeskamp 2002 Hölkeskamp, K.-J. ‘«Ptolis» and «Agore»: Homer and the Archaeology of the City-State.’ In Montanari 2002, pp. 297–342. Holt 1941 Holt, J. Les noms d’action en -ΣΙΣ (-ΤΙΣ). Etudes de linguistique grecque. Acta Jutlandica Suppl. 13.1. Copenhagen. Hooker (1980) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘The Meaning of ἔκλυον at ζ 185.’ In Hooker 1996, pp. 475–481. (First published in ZVS 94: 140–146.) Hooker (1987) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Homeric φίλος.’ In Hooker 1996, pp. 499–520. (First published in Glotta 65: 44–65.) Hooker (1988) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Odyssey and Iliad: Folly and Delusion.’ In Hooker 1996, pp. 527–531. (First published in ZA 38: 5–9.) Hooker (1989) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Gifts in Homer.’ In Hooker 1996, pp. 539–550. (First published in BICS 36: 79–90.) Hooker (1990) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Cult-Personnel in the Linear B Texts from Pylos.’ In Hooker 1996, pp. 295–311. (First published in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, ed. by M. Beard and J. North, pp. 157–174. London.) Hooker 1996 Hooker, J. T. Scripta minora: Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek Subjects. Edited by F. Amory, P. Considine and S. Hooker. Amsterdam. Huber 2001 Huber, I. Die Ikonographie der Trauer in der Griechischen Kunst. Peleus 10. Mannheim and Möhnesee. Iakovides 1977 Iakovides, S. ‘Vormykenische und mykenische Wehrbauten.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 161–221. Göttingen. Jachmann 1958 Jachmann, G. Der homerische Schiffskatalog und die Ilias. Wiss. Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 5. Cologne and Opladen. Jahn 1987 Jahn, Th. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele–Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83. Munich. Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur ZVS 21. Göttingen. Jeanmaire, H. Couroi et Courètes. Essai sur l’éducation spartiate et sur les rites Jeanmaire 1939 d’adolescence dans l’antiquité hellénique. Lille. Jensen, M. S. Writing Homer: A Study Based on Results from Modern Fieldwork. Jensen 2010 Scientia Danica, Series H Humanistica 8.4. Copenhagen. Jeremiah, E. T. The Emergence of Reflexivity in Greek Language and Thought: Jeremiah 2012 From Homer to Plato and Beyond. Philosophia Antiqua 129. Leiden and Boston. Johansson, K. The Birds in the Iliad: Identities, Interactions and Functions. Johansson 2012 Gothenburg Studies in History 2. Göteborg. Johnston, S. I. ‘Xanthus, Hera and the Erinyes (Iliad 19.400–418).’ TAPhA 122: Johnston 1992 85–98. Johnston, S. I. Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Johnston 1999 Ancient Greece. Berkeley etc. Jones 1973 Jones, H. ‘Homeric Nouns in -sis.’ Glotta 51: 7–29. Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Fokalisation und die homerischen Gleichnisse.’ Mnemo­de Jong 1985 syne 38: 257–280. de Jong 1987 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Silent Characters in the Iliad.’ In Bremer 1987, pp. 105–121.

204 

 Iliad 19

de Jong (1987) 2004 Jong, I. J. F. de. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987). de Jong 1997 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘ΓΑΡ Introducing Embedded Narratives.’ 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.  175–185. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 7. Amsterdam. de Jong 1997a Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Narrator Language versus Character Language: Some Further Explorations.’ In Hommage à Milman Parry. Le style formulaire de l’épopée homérique et la théorie de l’oralité poétique, ed. by F. Létoublon, pp. 293–302. Amsterdam. de Jong 1999 Jong, I. J. F. de (ed.). Homer: Critical Assessments. Vol. 1: The Creation of the Poems; vol. 2: The Homeric World; vol. 3: Literary Interpretation; vol. 4: Homer’s Art. London and New York. de Jong 2004 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 Supplement 257. Leiden and Boston. de Jong/Nünlist 2004 Jong, I. J. F. de and R. Nünlist. ‘From Bird’s Eye View to Close-up: The Standpoint of the Narrator in the Homeric Epics.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 63–83. de Jong 2007 Jong I. J. F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Time in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, ed. by I. J. F. de Jong and R. Nünlist, vol. 2, pp. 17–37. Mnemosyne Supplement 291. Leiden and Boston. de Jong 2012 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Double Deixis in Homeric Speech: On the Interpretation of ὅδε and οὗτος.’ In Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon. Akten des Hamburger Kolloquiums vom 6.–8. Oktober 2010 zum Abschluss des Lexikons des frühgriechischen Epos, ed. by M. Meier-Brügger, pp. 63–83. Abh. der Ak. der Wiss. zu Göttingen, NF 21. Berlin and Boston. Kahane 2005 Kahane, A. Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition. Lanham etc. Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. CommentaKaimio 1977 tiones Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki. Kanavou, N. The Names of Homeric Heroes: Problems and Interpretations. Kanavou 2015 Sozomena 15. Berlin and Boston. Kannicht (1979) 1996 Kannicht, R. ‘Dichtung und Bildkunst. Die Rezeption der Troia-Epik in den frühgriechischen Sagenbildern.’ In R. Kannicht. Paradeigmata. Aufsätze zur griechischen Poesie, ed. by L. Käppel and E. A. ­Schmidt, pp.  45–67. SHAW, Phil.-hist. Kl., Suppl. 10. Heidelberg. (First published in Wort und Bild. Symposion des Fachbereichs Altertums- und Kulturwissenschaften der Universität Tübingen zum 500-jährigen Bestehen der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen 1977, ed. by H. Brunner et al., pp. 279–296. Munich.) Karavites 1992 Karavites, P. (with the collaboration of Th. Wren). Promise-Giving and TreatyMaking: Homer and the Near East. Mnemonsyne Supplement 119). Leiden etc. Karsai 1998 Karsai G. ‘Achilles and the Community.’ In Epik durch die Jahrhunderte. Internationale Konferenz Szeged 2.–4. Oktober 1997, ed. by I. Tar, pp. 38–58. Acta antiqua et archaeologica 27. Szeged.



Kassel 1958

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 205

Kassel, R. Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationslite­ ratur. Zetemata 18. Munich. Kastner 1967 Kastner, W. Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ. Heidelberg. Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Kemmer 1903 Kemmer, E. Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur. Beiträge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache 15. Würzburg. Kim 2000 Kim, J. The Pity of Achilles: Oral Style and the Unity of the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Kirk 1962 Kirk, G. S. The Songs of Homer. Cambridge. Kirk 1970 Kirk, G. S. Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. Cambridge. Kitts 2005 Kitts, M. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society: Oath-Making Rituals and Narratives in the Iliad. Cambridge. Kloss 1994 Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgriechi­ schen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen. Kölligan 2007 Kölligan, D. Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft 6. Bremen. Krapp 1964 Krapp, H. J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich. Krischer 1971 Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Munich. Kullmann 1956 Kullmann, W. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Entstehung des homerischen ‘Götterapparats’. Deutsche Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswiss. 1. Berlin. Kullmann 1960 Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Einzel­ schrif­ten 14. Wiesbaden. Kullmann 1984 Kullmann, W. ‘Oral Poetry and Neoanalysis in Homeric Research.’ GRBS 25: 307–323. (Reprinted in de Jong 1999, vol. 1, pp. 145–160.) Kullmann 1991 (1992) Kullmann, W. ‘Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung zu Homer (Neoanalyse).’ In Kullmann 1992, pp. 100–134. (Original, shorter version in Latacz 1991, pp. 425–455.) Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Kullmann 1992 Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R. J. Müller. Stuttgart. Kumpf, M. M. Four Indices of the Homeric Hapax Legomena. Alpha – Omega, Kumpf 1984 Reihe A 46. Hildesheim etc. Kurt, C. Seemännische Fachausdrücke bei Homer. Unter BerücksichtiKurt 1979 gung Hesiods und der Lyriker bis Bakchylides. Ergänzungsheft zur ZVS 28. Göttingen. Kurtz/Boardman 1971 Kurtz, D. C. and J. Boardman. Greek Burial Customs. London and Southampton. Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek Kurz 1966 der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.11. Heidelberg. Kutsch (1965) 1986 Kutsch, E. ‘«Trauerbräuche» und «Selbstminderungsriten» im Alten Testa­ ment.’ In E. Kutsch. Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by L. ­Schmidt and K. Eberlein, pp. 78–95. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 168. Berlin and New York. (First published in Theologische Studien 78: 23–42.)

206 

 Iliad 19

Labarbe 1949

Labarbe, J. L’Homère de Platon. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 117. Liège. Landfester 1966 Landfester, M. Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen. Spudasmata 11. Hildesheim. Lardinois 1997 Lardinois, A. ‘Modern Paroemiology and the use of Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ CPh 92: 213–234. Lardinois 2000 Lardinois, A. ‘Characterization through Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ Mnemosyne 53: 641–661. La Roche 1897 La Roche, J. ‘Die Stellung des attributiven und appositiven Adjectives bei Homer.’ WS 19: 161–188. Laser, S. ‘Hausrat.’ ArchHom chap. P. Göttingen. Laser 1968 Laser, S. ‘Medizin und Körperpflege.’ ArchHom chap. S. Göttingen. Laser 1983 Latacz 1966 Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der Klass. Altertumswiss., N. F. 2.17. Heidelberg. Latacz 1977 Latacz, J. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Zetemata 66. Munich. Latacz, J. (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homerforschung. Rückblick und Ausblick. Latacz 1991 Coll. Raur. 2. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Latacz (1995) 1997 Latacz, J. Achilleus. Wandlungen eines europäischen Heldenbildes. Lectio Teubneriana 3. Stuttgart and Leipzig (= 21997; also in Latacz 2014, pp. 267–364). Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery. Translated from the German by K.  Windle and R.  Ireland. Oxford. (German original: Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels Munich and Berlin; Munich and Zurich etc. 42003 [Munich and Zurich 12001]; expanded German edition: Leipzig 62010.) Latacz 2002 Latacz, J. Response on Kullmann (Gnomon 73, 2001, 657–663). BMCR 2002.02.15 (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002–02–15.html) (retrieved: 14. 03. 2016). 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. (Also in Latacz 2014, pp. 191–235.) Latacz, J. Homers Ilias. Studien zu Dichter, Werk und Rezeption. (Kleine Latacz 2014 Schri­ften II), ed. by T. Greub et al. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 327. Berlin and Boston. Lateiner, D. Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behaviour in Homeric Epic. Ann Arbor. Lateiner 1995 Lateiner, D. ‘Homeric Prayer.’ Arethusa 30: 241–272. Lateiner 1997 Leaf, W. ‘Homeric Burial Rites.’ In Leaf, vol. 2, pp. 618–622. Leaf 1902 Lehrs (1833) 1882 Lehrs, K. De Aristarchi studiis Homericis3. Leipzig (11833). Lentini 2006 Lentini, G. Il ‘padre di Telemaco’. Odisseo tra Iliade e Odissea. Pisa. Lesky (1961) 1999 Lesky, A. ‘Motivation by Gods and Men.’ Translated from the German by H. M. Harvey. In de Jong 1999, vol. 2, pp. 384–403. (German Original: Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos. SHAW 1961.4, pp. 22–44. Heidelberg; abridged English version in Cairns 2001, pp. 170–202.) Lesky 1967 Lesky, A. Homeros. Sonderausgaben der RE. Stuttgart. (Also in RE Suppl. 11, 1968, 687–846.)



Létoublon 1985

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 207

Létoublon, F. Il allait, pareil à la nuit. Les verbes de mouvement en grec: supplétisme et aspect verbal. Études et commentaires 98. 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. Schweiz. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 3. Basel. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.) Leumann (1953) 1959 Leumann, M. ‘«Aoristi mixti» und Imperative vom Futurstamm im Griechischen.’ In M. Leumann. Kleine Schriften zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H. Haffter, E. Risch and W. Rüegg, pp. 234–241. Zurich and Stuttgart. (First published in Glotta 32: 204–213.) Leutsch 1851 Leutsch, E. L. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, vol. 2. Göttingen. (Reprint Hildesheim 1958.) 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. Lloyd-Jones (1971) 1983 Lloyd-Jones, H. The Justice of Zeus2. Sather Classical Lectures 41. Berkeley etc. (11971). Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York. (Translated in part in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 239–257 [= Lohmann 1970, pp. 12–30].) 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, pp. 305–331.) Lord 1991 Lord, A. B. Epic Singers and Oral Tradition. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H. L. Homer and the Monuments. London. Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Lowenstam 1981 Lowenstam, S. The Death of Patroklos: A Study in Typology. Beiträge zur Klas­ sischen Philologie 133. Königstein/Ts. Lowenstam 1993 Lowenstam, S. The Scepter and the Spear: Studies on Forms of Repetition in the Homeric Poems. Lanham. Ludwich, A. Aristarchs homerische Textkritik, vol. 2. Leipzig. Ludwich 1885 Lührs, D. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias und zu ihrer Lührs 1992 Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien. Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 11. Hildesheim etc. Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig. Luther 1935 Mackie, C. J. Rivers of Fire: Mythic Themes in Homer’s Iliad. Washington, D. C. Mackie 2008 MacLeod, C. W. (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book XXIV. Cambridge Greek and Latin MacLeod 1982 Classics. Cambridge. Mader, B. Untersuchungen zum Tempusgebrauch bei Homer. Futurum und Mader 1970 Desiderativum. Hamburg. Maehler 2000 Maehler, H. ‘Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch des Satz-Asyndetons bei Bak­ chylides und Pindar.’ In Poesia e religione in Grecia. Studi in onore di G. A. Privitera, ed. by M. C. Fera and S. Grandolini, pp.  421–430. Naples. (2 vols.)

208 

 Iliad 19

Marinatos 1967 Marinatos 1967a Martin 1983

Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung.’ ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen. Marinatos, S. ‘Haar- und Barttracht.’ ArchHom chap. B. Göttingen. Martin, R. P. Healing, Sacrifice and Battle: Amechania and Related Concepts in Early Greek Poetry. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 41. Inns­bruck. Martin 1989 Martin, R. P. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Martinez 2012 Martinez, D. G. ‘Achilleus’ Vow of Abstinence: Iliad XIX, 205–210.’ Mètis, N. S. 10 (Dossier: Serments et paroles efficaces): 37–49. Mauritsch 1992 Mauritsch, P. Sexualität im frühen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zu Norm und Abweichung in den homerischen Epen. Alltag und Kultur im Altertum 1. Vienna etc. Mawet 1979 Mawet, F. Recherches sur les oppositions fonctionnelles dans le vocabulaire homérique de la douleur (autour de πῆμα  – ἄλγος). Académie Royale de Belgique, mémoires de la classe des lettres, 2e série 63.4. Brussels. Meier 1975 Meier, M. -ίδ-. Zur Geschichte eines griechischen Nominalsuffixes. Ergänzungs­ hefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 23. Göttingen. Meier-Brügger 1992 Meier-Brügger, M. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin and New York. (2 vols.) Meissner 2006 Meissner, T. S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European: A Diachronic Study in Word Formation. Oxford. Minchin 2001 Minchin, E. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford. Minchin, E. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford. Minchin 2007 Monro (1882) 1891 Monro, D. B. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect2. Oxford (11882). Monsacré 1984 Monsacré, H. Les larmes d’Achille. Le héros, la femme et la souffrance dans la poésie d’Homère. Paris. Montanari 2002 Montanari, F. (ed.). Omero. Tremila anni dopo. Atti del congresso di Genova, 6.–8. 7. 2000. Storia e letteratura 210. Rome. Montanari et al. 2012 Montanari, F. A. Rengakos and Chr. Tsagalis (eds.). Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry. Trends in Classics Supplement 12. Berlin and Boston. Monteil, P. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa formation, son développeMonteil 1963 ment, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle a.C. Études et commentaires 47. Paris. Montiglio 2000 Montiglio, S. Silence in the Land of Logos. Princeton. Morris 1992 Morris, S. P. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton. Morrison 1992 Morrison, J. V. Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor. Most 2003 Most, G. W. ‘Anger and Pity in Homer’s Iliad.’ In Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, ed. by S. Braund and G. W. Most, pp. 50–75. Yale Classical Studies 32. Cambridge. Moulton 1977 Moulton, C. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Hypomnemata 49. Göttingen. Moulton 1979 Moulton, C. ‘Homeric Metaphor.’ CPh 74: 279–293. Muellner 1976 Muellner, L.Ch. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through Its Formulas. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 13. Innsbruck.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 209

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. Mutzbauer 1893 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der home­rische Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechi­ schen Sprache, vol. 1. Strasbourg. Mutzbauer 1909 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der homerische Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der ­griechischen Sprache, vol. 2. Strasbourg. Mylonas 1962 Mylonas, G. E. ‘Burial Coustoms.’ In A Companion to Homer, ed. by A. J. B. Wace and F. H. Stubbings, pp. 478–488. London and New York. Nagler 1974 Nagler, M. N. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley etc. Nagy (1979) 1999 Nagy, G. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry2. Baltimore and London (11979). Nagy 2001 Nagy, G. (ed.). Greek Literature. Vol. 1: The Oral Traditional Background of Ancient Greek Literature; vol. 2: Homer and Hesiod as Prototypes of Greek Literature. New York and London. Ndoye 2010 Ndoye, M. Groupes sociaux et idéologie du travail dans les mondes homérique et hésiodique. Besançon. Neumann 1965 Neumann, G. Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst. Berlin. Neumann 1986 Neumann, G. ‘Wortbildung und Etymologie von Ἐρινύς.’ Sprache 32: 43–51. Nilsson (1940) 1967 Nilsson M. P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. 1: Die Religion Grie­chen­lands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft3. Handbuch der Altertumswiss. 5.2.1. Munich (11940). (Reprint 1992.) Nimis 1987 Nimis, S. A. Narrative Semiotics in the Epic Tradition: The Simile. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Noussia 2002 Noussia, M. ‘Olympus, the Sky, and the History of the Text of Homer.’ In Montanari 2002, pp. 489–503. Nünlist 1998 Nünlist, R. Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 101. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Nussbaum A. J. Head and Horn in Indo-European. Untersuchungen zur Nussbaum 1986 Indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 2. Berlin and New York. Nussbaum, A. J. Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Hypomnemata Nussbaum 1998 120. Göttingen. Nussbaum 2002 Nussbaum, A. J. ‘Homeric ΟΡΗΑΙ (Od. 14.343) and ΟΜΕΙΤΑΙ (Il. 9.274): Two of a Kind?’ ColbyQ 38: 175–196. O’Brien, J. V. The Transformation of Hera: A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the O’Brien 1993 Goddess in the Iliad. Lanham. Onians, R. B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Onians 1951 Soul, the World, Time, and Fate: New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and Kindred Evidence, also of Some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs. Cambridge. (Reprint 1988.) Padel 1995 Padel, R. Whom Gods Destroy: Elements of Greek and Tragic Madness. Princeton.

210 

 Iliad 19

Patzer 1972

Patzer, H. Dichterische Kunst und poetisches Handwerk im homerischen Epos. Wiesbaden. (Abridged Engl. transl. in de Jong 1999, vol. 4, pp. 155–183 [= Patzer 1972, pp. 10–40].) Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wiss. Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geisteswiss. Reihe 12. Stuttgart. Paul 1969 Paul, A. Die Barmherzigkeit der Götter im griechischen Epos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 32. Vienna. Pearson 1952 Pearson, L. ‘Prophasis and Atia.’ TAPhA 83: 205–223. Pelliccia, H. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Hypomnemata 107. Pelliccia 1995 Göttingen. Perceau 2002 Perceau, S. La parole vive. Communiquer en catalogue dans l’épopée homérique. Bibliothèque d’études classiques 30. Louvain etc. Peters 1987 Peters, M. Review of Danek 1988. Die Sprache 33: 233–242. Petersmann 1973 Petersmann, G. ‘Die monologische Totenklage der Ilias.’ RhM 116: 3–16. Plath, R. Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen. Sprachliche Plath 1994 Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76. Nuremberg. Porzig 1942 Porzig, W. Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im Indogerma­ni­ schen. Untersuchungen zur idg. Sprach- und Kulturwiss. 10. Berlin. Postlethwaite 1998 Postlethwaite, N. ‘Akhilleus and Agamemnon: Generalized Reciprocity.’ In Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, ed. by C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford, pp. 93–104. Oxford. Preisshofen 1977 Preisshofen, F. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Greisenalters in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Hermes Einzelschriften 34. Wiesbaden. Priess, K. A. Der mythologische Stoff in der Ilias. Mainz. Priess 1977 Pucci, P. Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Pucci 1987 Iliad. Ithaca and London. Pucci (1993) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘Antiphonal Lament between Achilles and Briseis.’ In P. Pucci. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer, pp. 97–112. Lanham etc. (First published in ColbyQ 29: 253–272.) Pucci 2012 Pucci, P. ‘Iterative and Syntactical Units: A Religious Gesture in the Iliad.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, pp. 427–443. Puhvel, J. Comparative Mythology. Baltimore and London. Puhvel 1987 Pulleyn, S. ‘Homer’s Religion.’ In Clarke et al. 2006, pp. 47–74. Pulleyn 2006 Raaflaub, K. ‘Die Anfänge des politischen Denkens bei den Griechen. Das Raaflaub 1988 8. und frühe 7. Jahrhundert.’ In Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen, ed. by I. Fetscher and H. Münkler, vol. 1, pp. 189–224. Munich. Raaflaub, K. ‘Riding on Homer’s Chariot: The Search for a Historical «Epic Raaflaub 2011 Society».’ Antichthon 45: 1–34. Rabel, R. J. ‘Agamemnon’s Iliad.’ GRBS 32: 103–117. Rabel 1991 Race 2000 Race, W. H. ‘Explanatory δέ-Clauses in the Iliad.’ CJ 95: 205–227. Ramming, G. Die Dienerschaft in der Odyssee. Erlangen. Ramming 1973 Rank, L.Ph. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus (EtyRank 1951 mologizing and Related Phenomena in Homer). Assen. Rawlings, H. R. A Semantic Study of Prophasis to 400 B. C. Hermes EinRawlings 1975 zelschriften 33. Wiesbaden.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 211

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). Reichel 1994 Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. ScriptOralia 62. Tübingen. Reiner 1938 Reiner, E. Die rituelle Totenklage der Griechen. Tübinger Beitr. zur Altertumswissenschaft 30. Stuttgart and Berlin. Reinhardt 1961 Reinhardt, K. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, ed. by U. Hölscher. Göttingen. Rengakos 1993 Rengakos, A. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Einzelschriften 64. Stuttgart. Rengakos 1994 Rengakos, A. Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererklärung. Zetemata 92. Munich. Rengakos 1995 Rengakos, A. ‘Zeit und Gleichzeitigkeit in den homerischen Epen.’ A&A 41: 1–33. Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville. Richter 1968 Richter, W. ‘Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter.’ Mit einem Beitrag «Landwirtschaftliche Geräte» von W. Schiering. ArchHom chap. H. Göttingen. Rinon 2008 Rinon, Y. ‘A Tragic Pattern in the Iliad.’ HSCP 104: 45–91. Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2. Darmstadt (11976). Robert 1976 Robert, F. ‘Prophasis.’ REG 89: 317–342. Robinson 1990 Robinson, D. ‘Homeric φίλος: Love of Life and Limbs, and Friendship with One’s θυμός.’ In ‘Owls to Athens’: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, ed. by E. M. Craik, pp. 97–108. Oxford. Roemer 1912 Roemer, A. Aristarchs Athetesen in der Homerkritik (wirkliche und angebliche). Eine kritische Untersuchung. Leipzig and Berlin. Rosenmeyer 1978 Rosenmeyer, T. G. ‘On Snow and Stones.’ CSCA 11: 209–225. Roth 1973 Roth, C. P. ‘Thematic S-Aorists in Homer.’ HSPh 77: 181–186. Roth 1990 Roth, C. P. ‘Mixed Aorists’ in Homeric Greek. New York and London. Rothe 1910 Rothe, C. Die Ilias als Dichtung. Paderborn. Rudhardt (1958) 1992 Rudhardt, J. Notions fondamentales de la pensée religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grèce classique2. Paris (Geneva 11958). Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C. J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen. Ruijgh 1967 Ruijgh, C. J. Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam. Ruijgh (1981) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘L’emploi de ΗΤΟΙ chez Homère et Hésiode.’ In Ruijgh 1996, pp. 519–534. (First published in Mnemosyne 34: 272–287.) Ruijgh (1985) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Problèmes de philologie mycénienne.’ In Ruijgh 1996, pp. 43–105. (First published in Minos N. S. 19: 105–167.) Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Ruipérez 1972 Ruipérez, M. S. ‘Sur ἠλέκτωρ et ἤλεκτρον, «ambre».’ In Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie grecques offerts à Pierre Chantraine, ed. by A. Ernout, pp. 231–241. Études et Commentaires 79. Paris. Rundin 1996 Rundin, J. ‘A Politics of Eating: Feasting in Early Greek Society.’ AJPh 117: 179–215. Rüsing 1962 Rüsing, T. ‘Zu ἄμεναι.’ Glotta 40: 162–164.

212  Ruzé 1997

 Iliad 19

Ruzé, F. Délibération et pouvoir dans la cité grecque de Nestor à Socrate. Histoire ancienne et médiévale 43. Paris. Sarischoulis 2008 Sarischoulis, E. Schicksal, Götter und Handlungsfreiheit in den Epen Homers. Palingenesia 92. Stuttgart. Sarischoulis 2008a Sarischoulis, E. Motive und Handlung bei Homer. Göttingen. Sbardella 1994 Sbardella, L. ‘Tracce di un epos di Eracle nei poemi omerici.’ SMEA 33: 145–162. Schadewaldt (1936) 1997 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Achilles’ Decision.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, pp. 143–169. (German original: ‘Die Entscheidung des Achilleus.’ Die Antike 12: 173–201; reprint in Schadewaldt 1965, pp. 234–267.) Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938). (Reprint Darmstadt 1987.) Schadewaldt (1943) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hektors Tod.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, pp.  268–351 (written 1943). Schadewaldt 1965 Schadewaldt, W. Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage4. Stuttgart (11944). Schäfer 1990 Schäfer, M. Der Götterstreit in der Ilias. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 15. Stuttgart. Scheid-Tissinier 1994 Scheid-Tissinier, E. Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pratiques. Travaux et mémoires, Études anciennes 11. Nancy. Schein 1984 Schein, S. L. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. Berkeley etc. ­Schmidt 1976 ­Schmidt, M. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias. Zetemata 62. Munich. ­Schmidt 2006 ­Schmidt, M. ‘Some Remarks on the Semantics of ἄναξ in Homer.’ In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, ed. by S. DegerJalkotzy and I. S. Lemos, pp.  439–447. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh. ­Schmidt 2007 ­Schmidt, M. ‘Odyssee τ 526  – Sklaven als Besitz oder ein Komma zu viel?’ Glotta 83: 243–254. Schmitt 1990 Schmitt, A. Selbständigkeit und Abhängigkeit menschlichen Handelns bei Homer. Hermeneutische Untersuchung zur Psychologie Homers. AbhMainz 1990.5. Mainz and Stuttgart. Schmitt, R. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Schmitt 1967 Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981 Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations de l’animal chez Homère. Textes à l’appui, Histoire classique. Paris. Schnaufer, A. Frühgriechischer Totenglaube. Untersuchungen zum TotenglauSchnaufer 1970 ben der mykenischen und homerischen Zeit. Tübingen. Schulze, W. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh. Schulze 1892 Schwinge, E.-R. ‘Homerische Epen und Erzählforschung.’ In Latacz 1991, Schwinge 1991 pp. 482–512. Schwyzer (1942) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Zum persönlichen Agens beim Passiv, besonders im Grie­chi­ schen.’ In E. Schwyzer. Kleine Schriften, ed. by R. Schmitt, pp. 3–79. Innsbr. Beitr. zur Sprachwiss. 45. Innsbruck. (First published in APAW 1942.10. Berlin 1943.) Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimilitude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart and Leipzig.



Scodel 2002 Scodel 2008

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 213

Scodel, R. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor. Scodel, R. Epic Facework: Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. Swansea. 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 Supplement 28. Leiden. Scott 2005 Scott, W. C. ‘The Patterning of the Similes in Book 2 of the Iliad.’ In Approaches to Homer, Ancient and Modern, ed. by R. J. Rabel, pp. 21–53. Swansea. Scott 2009 Scott, W. C. The Artistry of the Homeric Simile. Hanover, N. H. and London. Scully 1984 Scully, S. ‘The Language of Achilles: The ΟΧΘΗΣΑΣ Formulas.’ TAPhA 114: 11–27. Scully 1990 Scully, S. Homer and the Sacred City. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. 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 Supplement 17. Leiden. Shannon 1975 Shannon, R. S. The Arms of Achilles and Homeric Compositional Technique. Mnemosyne Supplement 36. Leiden. Shear 2000 Shear, I. M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and Athens. Shive 1987 Shive, D. Naming Achilles. New York and Oxford. Slatkin (1991) 2011 Slatkin, L. M. The Power of Thetis and Selected Essays2. Cambridge Mass. and London 2011. (The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad1. Berkeley etc.) Snell 1924 Snell, B. Die Ausdrücke für den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie (σοφία, γνώμη, σύνεσις, ἱστορία, μάθημα, ἐπιστήμη). Philolog. Unters. 29. Berlin. Snell (1939) 1975 Snell, B. ‘Die Auffassung des Menschen bei Homer.’ In B. Snell. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen4, pp.  13–29. Göttingen. (Revised version of ‘Die Sprache Homers als Ausdruck seiner Gedankenwelt.’ NJAB 2: 393–410.) Snell (1939) 1999 Snell, B. ‘Homer’s View of Man.’ In B. Snell. The Discovery of the Mind: the Greek Origins of European Thought. Transl. by T. G. Rosenmeyer. Oxford 1946; reprinted in de Jong 1999, vol. 2, pp.  241–259. (German original: ‘Die Sprache Homers als Ausdruck seiner Gedankenwelt.’ NJAB 2: 393–410; revised version reprinted as ‘Die Auffassung des Menschen bei Homer.’ In B.  Snell. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europä­ ischen Denkens bei den Griechen4, pp. 13–29. Göttingen 1975.) Snell 1978 Snell, B. Der Weg zum Denken und zur Wahrheit. Studien zur frühgriechischen Sprache. Hypomnemata 57. Göttingen. Snodgrass 1998 Snodgrass, A. Homer and the Artists: Text and Picture in Early Greek Art. Cambridge and New York. Sommer 1948 Sommer, F. Zur Geschichte der griechischen Nominalkomposita. ABAW, N. F. 27. Munich. Sommer 1977 Sommer, F. Schriften aus dem Nachlass, ed. by B. Forssman. Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, NF 1. Munich. Somville 1999 Somville, P. ‘Cadavres exquis.’ Kernos 12: 73–83.

214 

 Iliad 19

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 Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1–5 June, 1981, ed. by R. Hägg, pp. 33–48. Stockholm. Spahn 2006 Spahn, P. ‘«Freundschaft» und «Gesellschaft» bei Homer.’ In Geschichte und Fiktion in der homerischen Odyssee, ed. by A. Luther, pp.  163–216. Zetemata 125. Munich. Spatafora, G. ‘Esigenza fisiologica e funzione terapeutica del lamento nei Spatafora 1997 poemi omerici. Studio sul significato di κλαίω, γοάω, στένω, οἰμόζω/ κωκύω, ὀδύρομαι.’ AC 66: 1–23. Stallmach 1968 Stallmach, J. Ate. Zur Frage des Selbst- und Weltverständnisses des frühgriechischen Menschen. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 18. Meisenheim am Glan. Staten, H. ‘The Circulation of Bodies in the Iliad.’ New Literary History 24: Staten 1993 339–361. Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989 Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft. Studien zum griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Stoevesandt 2004 Stoevesandt, M. Feinde – Gegner – Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den Kampfszenen der Ilias. Schweizerische Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 30. Basel. van Straten 1995 Straten, F. T. van. HIERA KALA: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 127. Leiden etc. Strasburger 1954 Strasburger, G. Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias. Frankfurt am Main. Strunk, K. Die sogenannten Äolismen der homerischen Sprache. Cologne. Strunk 1957 Strunk, K. ‘«(Ver)weilen» und «übernachten».’ In Gering und doch von Herzen. Strunk 1999 25 indogermanistische Beiträge Bernhard Forssman zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by J. Habisreitinger, R. Plath and S. Ziegler, pp. 271–279. Wiesbaden. Sullivan, S. D. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrēn. Ottawa. Sullivan 1988 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological and Ethical Ideas: What Early Greeks Say. Sullivan 1995 Mnemosyne Supplement 144. Leiden etc. Szemerényi 1972 Szemerényi, O. ‘Etyma Graeca III.’ In Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie grecques offerts à Pierre Chantraine, ed. by A. Ernout, pp. 243–253. Études et Commentaires 79. Paris. Szlezák, Th. A. ‘Ilias und Gilgamesch-Epos.’ In Troia. Von Homer bis heute, Szlezák 2004 ed. by H. Hofmann, pp. 11–33. Tübingen. Taplin 1986 Taplin, O. ‘Homer’s Use of Achilles’ Earlier Campaigns in the Iliad.’ In Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios (1984), ed. by J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson, pp. 15–19. Oxford. Taplin, O. ‘Agamemnon’s Role in the Iliad.’ In Characterization and IndividuTaplin 1990 ality in Greek Literature, ed. by C. Pelling, pp. 60–82. Oxford. Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford. Taplin 1992 Teffeteller, A. ‘Homeric Excuses.’ CQ 53: 15–31. Teffeteller 2003 Thalmann 1984 Thalmann, W. G. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Baltimore and London. Tichy, E. ‘Griechisch ἀλειτηρός, νηλειτής und die Entwicklung der Wortsippe Tichy 1977 ἀλείτης.’ Glotta 55: 160–177. Tichy, E. ‘Hom. ἀνδροτῆτα und die Vorgeschichte des daktylischen Tichy 1981 Hexameters.’ Glotta 59: 28–67.



Tichy 1983

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 215

Tichy, E. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. SAWW 409. Vienna. Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel. Tsagalis 2004 Tsagalis, Chr. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 70. Berlin and New York. Tsagalis 2008 Tsagalis, Chr. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics. Hellenic Studies 29. Washington, D. C. Tsagarakis 1971 Tsagarakis, O. ‘The Achaean Embassy and the Wrath of Achilles.’ Hermes 99: 257–277. Tsagarakis 1977 Tsagarakis, O. Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in Homer. Amsterdam. Tsagarakis 1982 Tsagarakis, O. Form and Content in Homer. Hermes Einzelschriften 46. Wiesbaden. Tsagarakis 1990 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Das Untypische bei Homer und literarische Komposition.’ In Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, ed. by W. Kullmann and M. Reichel, pp. 111–124. ScriptOralia 30. Tübingen. Tzamali 1997 Tzamali, E. ‘Positive Aussage plus negierte Gegenaussage im Griechischen. Teil I: Die ältere griechische Dichtung.’ MSS 57: 129–167. Tucker 1990 Tucker, E. F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Historische Sprachforschung, Ergänzungsh. 35. Göttingen. Ulf 1990 Ulf, Chr. Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung. Vestigia, Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 43. Munich. van der Valk 1963 van der Valk, M. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 1. Leiden. van der Valk 1964 van der Valk, M. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 2 Leiden. Verdenius 1985 Verdenius, W. J. A Commentary on Hesiod Works and Days, vv. 1–382. Mnemosyne Supplement 86. Leiden. Versnel, H. S. Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology. Versnel 2011 Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 173. Leiden and Boston. Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Visser 1987 Europäische Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main. Vivante (1979) 1987 Vivante, P. ‘Rose-Fingered Dawn and the Idea of Time.’ In Critical Essays on Homer, ed. by K. Atchity et al., pp. 51–61. Boston. (First published in Ramus 2: 125–136.) Vivante, P. The Epithets in Homer: A Study in Poetic Values. New Haven and Vivante 1982 London. Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beitr. zur Altertumswiss. 4. Basel. Vos H. ‘ἀλιταίνω, ἠλιτόμενος und ἀπτοεπής.’ Glotta 34: 287– 295. Vos 1955 Waanders, F. M. J. ‘Πέλομαι: to be or … to become?’ ZAnt 50: 257–272. Waanders 2000 Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wackernagel (1892) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung.’ In Wackernagel 1953, pp. 1–104. (First published in IF 1: 333–436.)

216 

 Iliad 19

Wackernagel (1892) 1979 Wackernagel, J. Review of L. Sütterlin. Zur Geschichte der Verba denominativa im Alt-Griechischen, 1. Teil: Die Verba Denominativa auf -άω, -έω, -όω. Strasbourg 1891. In J. Wackernagel. Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, ed. by B. Forssman, pp. 1602–1606. Göttingen. (First published in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 12: 1110–1113.) Wackernagel (1895) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik.’ In Wackernagel 1953, pp. 680–741. (First published in KZ 33: 1–62.) Wackernagel 1916 Wackernagel, J. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 4. Göttingen. (Reprint 1970.) Wackernagel (1924) 2009 Wackernagel, J. Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Edited with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford. (German original: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Zweite Reihe2. Basel 1928 [11924].) Wackernagel 1953 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vol. 1. Edited by the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Göttingen. Waern 1985 Waern, I. ‘Der weinende Held.’ Eranos 83: 223–229. Wakker 1994 Wakker, G. C. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Wakker 1997 Wakker, G. C. ‘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 Supplement 171. Leiden etc. Wathelet 1970 Wathelet, P. Les traits éoliens dans la langue de l’épopée grecque. Incunabula Graeca 37. Rome. Wathelet 1996 Wathelet, P. ‘Le soleil et les héros solaires dans l’épopée homérique.’ In Les astres. Actes du colloque international de Montpellier, 23–25 mars 1995, vol. 1: Les astres et les mythes, la description du ciel, ed. by B. Bakhouche et al., pp. 37–51. Montpellier. Wathelet 2000 Wathelet, P. ‘Dieux et enchantements dans l’épopée homèrique.’ In La magie. Actes du colloque international de Montpellier, 25–27 mars 1999, vol. 2: La magie dans l’antiquité grecque tardive. Les mythes, ed. by A. Moreau et al., pp. 169–184. Montpellier. Watkins (1979) 1994 Watkins, C. ‘Old Irish saithe, Welsh haid: Etymology and Metaphor.’ In C. Watkins. Selected Writings, vol. 2: Culture and Poetics, ed. by L. Oliver, pp. 622–625. Innsbr. Beitr. zur Sprachwiss. 80. Innsbruck. (First published in Etudes Celtiques 16: 191–194.) van Wees, H. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. van Wees 1992 Amsterdam. van Wees, H. ‘Greeks Bearing Arms: The State, the Leisure Class, and the van Wees 1998 Display of Weapons in Archaic Greece.’ In Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, ed. by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, pp. 333–378. London. van Wees 1998a van Wees, H. ‘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. Weinsanto 1983 Weinsanto, M. ‘L’évolution du mariage de l’Iliade à l’Odyssée.’ In La femme dans les sociétés antiques, ed. by E. Lévy, pp. 45–58. Strasbourg.



West 1988

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 217

West, M. L. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic.’ JHS 108: 151–172. (Also in West 2011a, pp. 35–73; Nagy 2001, vol. 1, pp. 191–212.) West 1997 West, M. L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 1998 West, M. L. ‘Praefatio.’ In Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M. L. West, vol. 1, pp. V–XXXVII. Stuttgart and Leipzig. West 2001 West, M. L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich and Leipzig. West 2001a West, M. L. ‘Some Homeric Words.’ Glotta 77: 118–135. West 2003 West, M. L. ‘Iliad and Aethiopis.’ CQ 53: 1–14. (Also in West 2011a, pp. 242–264.) West 2004 West, M. L. ‘An Indo-European Stylistic Feature in Homer.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, pp. 33–49. West 2007 West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 2011 West, M. L. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary. Oxford. West 2011a West, M. L. Hellenica: Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought. Vol. I: Epic. Oxford 2011 West 2013 West, M. L. The Epic Cycle: A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford. 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. Willcock (1964) 2001 Willcock, M. M. ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, pp. 435–455. (First published in CQ 14: 141–154; also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, pp. 385–402.) Willcock 1977 Willcock, M. M. ‘Ad hoc Invention in the Iliad.’ HSPh 81: 41–53. Willcock 1997 Willcock, M. ‘Neoanalysis.’ In Companion, pp. 174–189. Wille, G. Akroasis. Der akustische Sinnesbereich in der griechischen Literatur Wille 2001 bis zum Ende der klassischen Zeit. Tübinger phänomenologische Bibliothek. Tübingen. (2 vols.; originally Habilitationsschrift Tübingen 1958.) Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers Ilias. Marburg/Lahn. (Originally diss. Marburg 1944.) Willi, A. ‘Zur Verwendung und Etymologie von griechisch ἐρι-.’ HSF 112: Willi 1999 86–100. Williams, B. Shame and Necessity. Berkeley etc. (Reprint 2008.) Williams 1993 Willmott, J. ‘The «Potential» Optative in Homeric Greek.’ PCPS 54: 237–251. Willmott 2008 Wilson, D. F. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge. Wilson 2002 Witte (1912) 1979 Witte, K. ‘Zur Flexion homerischer Formeln.’ In HTN, pp.  109–117. (First published in Glotta 3: 110–117; also in K. Witte. Zur homerischen Sprache, 34–41. Darmstadt 1972.) Wöhrle, G. Telemachs Reise. Väter und Söhne in Ilias und Odyssee oder ein Wöhrle 1999 Beitrag zur Erforschung der Männlichkeitsideologie in der homerischen Welt. Hypomnemata 124. Göttingen. Wöhrle 2002 Wöhrle, G. ‘Sexuelle Aggression als Motiv in den homerischen Epen.’ In Epea pteroenta. Beiträge zur Homerforschung. Festschrift für W. Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by M. Reichel and A. Rengakos, pp. 231–238. Stuttgart.

218 

 Iliad 19

Worman 2002 Worman, N. The Cast of Character: Style in Greek Literature. Austin. Wright/Jones 1997 Homer: German Scholarship in Translation. Transl. by G. M. Wright and P. V. Jones, with introduction by P. V. Jones. Oxford. Wyatt 1969 Wyatt Jr., W. F. Metrical Lengthening in Homer. Incunabula Graeca 35. Rome. Wyatt 1982 Wyatt Jr., W. F. ‘Homeric Ἄτη.’ AJPh 103: 247–276. Wyatt 1992 Wyatt Jr., W. F. ‘Homeric Hiatus.’ Glotta 70: 20–30. Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Suppl. 131. Leiden etc. Zanker 1994 Zanker, G. The Heart of Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Zarker (1965) 1987 Zarker, J. W. ‘King Eëtion and Thebe as Symbols in the Iliad.’ In Critical Essays on Homer, ed. by K. Atchity et al., pp. 146–152. Boston. (First published in CJ 61: 110–114.)