Homer’s Iliad: Book IV 9783110610185

588 80 1MB

English Pages 278 Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Homer’s Iliad: Book IV

Citation preview

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

Book IV By Marina Coray, Martha Krieter-Spiro and Edzard Visser

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

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

ISBN 978-3-11-060829-8 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-061018-5 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-060871-7 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020934821 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Contents Preface to the German Edition Preface to the English Edition XI Notes for the Reader


24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 9 Overview of the Action in Book 4 11 Commentary 237 Bibliographic Abbreviations


Preface to the German Edition In Book 4 of the Iliad, after lengthy preliminaries, the actual fighting between the two enemy armies begins: the final third of the book contains the first battle descriptions in the Iliad. The complexity of the preceding storylines and of the portrayal of massed and individual fighting suggested that we should insert overviews in the commentary providing orientation (themeP in the portrayal of the course of the battle and embedding within the larger action of the Iliad) and introductory chapters concerning the history of research on Homeric battle descriptions. For the purposes of the commentary, we have divided the Book among ourselves into three coherent individual sections: the divine scene/Pandaros (1– 219), the Epipolesis (220–421) and the beginning of the fighting (422–544). As in previous volumes, the commentary is based on the Greek text of Martin L. West’s edition of the Iliad (Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 1998/2000).


The realization and publication of this commentary was made possible thanks to important help and support from various sources: First and foremost, we gratefully thank our esteemed teacher Prof. Joachim Latacz, who never tired of offering suggestions and assisting us up to the final version of the commentary. We are likewise grateful to Prof. Anton Bierl for his many suggestions and guidance in interpreting the text. We also thank our international team of experts for valuable suggestions and corrections: Rudolf Führer, Fritz Graf, Martin Guggisberg, Irene de Jong, Sebastiaan van der Mije, René Nünlist, Magdalene Stoevesandt, Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg and Rudolf Wachter. All of the above have once again facilitated our work with critical questions and suggestions. We thank Daniele Furlan for thought-provoking information regarding the driving technique of war chariots. In addition, we owe cordial thanks to our research assistants Luca Agnetti, Marie Besso, Doris Degen and Nathalie Reichel for meticulous proofreading, as well as to our colleague Claude Brügger for his assistance in producing and checking camera-ready copy. We also express our gratitude here to the long-standing sponsors of the project for their generous support: the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, the Hamburger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur and the University of Basel. We are likewise grateful for the lively academic exchange we were privileged to take part in in the ‘Rosshof’, the Center for Classical Studies at the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110610185-203


Iliad 4

University of Basel, as well as in inter-university colloquia at Zurich and Basel in 2016. We thank the staff at the library for Classical Studies and the Basel University Library for the timely provision of scholarly literature related to Homer, and the publishing house Walter de Gruyter, in particular Katharina Legutke and Serena Pirrotta, for their careful management of the publication of these volumes. Basel, March 2017

Marina Coray, Martha Krieter, Edzard Visser

Preface to the English Edition This is the slightly revised version of the German commentary from 2017 which we corrected wherever needed. The English edition would not have been possible without the generous support of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft (FAG) and the L. and Th. La Roche Stiftung as well as the publisher Walter de Gruyter, to all of whom we owe extraordinary gratitude. Many thanks are due as well to Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz and Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl, the two directors of the Homer Commentary, who have supported the translation into English. A very special thanks goes to the translators Dr. Benjamin W. Millis and Dr. Sara Strack, as well as Prof. Dr. S. Douglas Olson, the general editor of the English edition, for their excellent and diligent work. They have once again performed a Herculean labour and not only created a wonderful translation of an occasionally complex text, but also carefully corrected omissions and errors which had been overlooked. For her readiness to answer our questions we are obliged to our colleague Dr. Magdalene Stoevesandt Basel, January 2020


Marina Coray, Martha Krieter, Edzard Visser

Notes for the Reader 1.

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


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



Iliad 4


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

STR In addition: R refers to the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’ in the present commentary (below, pp. 1 ff.). 3. Textual criticism The commentary is based on the Teubner text of M. L. West. In some passages, the commentators favor decisions differing from that edition. In these cases, both versions of the lemma are provided; West’s text is shown first in square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary. 4. English lemmata The English lemmata in the commentary are taken from the translation of R. Lattimore. In places where the commentators favor a different rendering, both versions of the lemma are provided; the rendering of Lattimore is shown first in square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary. 5.

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

6. Formulaic language On the model of ‘Ameis-Hentze(-Cauer)’, repeated verses and verse-halves are usually noted (on this, cf. COM 30). Other formulaic elements (verse beginning and verse end formulae in particular) are only highlighted to the extent necessary to convey an overall impression of the formulaic character of Homeric language. 7.

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

Notes for the Reader


8. Abbreviations (a) Bibliographic abbreviations For the bibliographic abbreviations, see below pp. 237 ff. (b) Primary literature (on the editions used, see below pp. 240 f.) Aesch. Aeschylus (Ag. = Agamemnon; Sept. = Septem contra Thebas, ‘Seven against Thebes’) Anth. Pal. Anthologia Palatina Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius (Argon. = Argonautica) Arr. Arrian (Tact. = Tactica) Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the content of the ‘Epic Cycle’) Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Eur. Euripides (I.T. = Iphigenia among the Taurians) Eust. Eustathius Hdt. Herodotus Hes. Hesiod (Op. = Opera, ‘Works and Days’; Th. = Theogony) ‘Hes.’ Works ascribed to Hesiod (Sc. = Scutum, ‘Shield of Herakles’, fr. = fragment) h.Hom. A collective term for the Homeric Hymns h.Ap., Individual Homeric Hymns: to Apollo, h.Bacch., – to Bacchus/Dionysos, h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter, h.Merc., – to Mercury/Hermes and h.Ven. – to Venus/Aphrodite Il. Iliad Il. Pers. Iliou Persis, ‘Sack of Troy’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Od. Odyssey Oedip. Oedipodea Paus. Pausanias Pind. Pindar (Nem., Pyth. = ‘Nemean Odes, Pythian Odes’ [victory poems]) Procl. Proclus (see above under Chrest.) Quint. Smyrn. Quintus Smyrnaeus Schol. scholion, scholia schol. A (etc.) scholion in manuscript A (etc.) Stat. Statius (Theb. = Thebais) Titan. Titanomachia (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Xen. Xenophon (Mem. = Memorabilia)


Iliad 4

(c) Other abbreviations (Commonly used abbreviations, as well as those listed under 2 above, are not included here.) * reconstructed form < developed from > developed into | marks verse beginning or end ↑ in the elementary section, refers to the relevant lemma in the main commentary a/b after a verse number indicates the 1st/2nd verse half a/b after a verse number indicates additional verses listed solely in the app. crit. A 1, B 1 (etc.) indicate caesurae in the hexameter (cf. M 6) app. crit. apparatus criticus (West) fr., frr. fragment, fragments Gr. Greek I-E Indo-European imper. imperative impf. imperfect inf. infinitive instr. instrumental Introd. Introduction ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts n. note* sc. scilicet (i.e. ‘supply’ or ‘namely’) subjunc. subjunctive s.v., s.vv. sub voce, sub vocibus test. testimonium VB verse beginning VE verse end VH verse half v.l. varia lectio (i.e. ‘variant reading’) voc. vocative

* ‘77n.’ refers to the commentary on verse 77 in the present volume, whereas 1.162n. refers to the commentary on verse 162 of 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 those passages. (In the first example, the commentary entry may be found under 19.126–127; in the second, relevant information can be found under 24.229–234 and 24.229–231).

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) The following compilation of the characteristics of Homeric language emphasizes its deviations from Attic grammar. Linguistic notes are included only exceptionally (but can be found in the ‘Grammar of Homeric language’ [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, metric, prosody R2

2.1 2.2

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



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


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

4.1 4.2


19 27


4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

R5 5.1



5.4 5.5

5.6 5.7

Iliad 4

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



34 35

36 37


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


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. -έων. (Synizesis is indicated by a sublinear curved line connecting the affected vowels, 1.18: θε ͜οί.)


24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)



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).



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

9.1 9.2

R 10

10.1 10.2

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

17 18

49 f.

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



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);



70– 76


11.4 R 12 12.1 12.2 12.3

12.4 12.5

Iliad 4

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

R 13

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

R 14 14.1

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


77 57 53

53 53/ 77



24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)





R 15

15.1 15.2 15.3 R 16 16.1




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).


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).


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.





86/ 93



Iliad 4


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.

16.5 16.6


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


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);





24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)



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


R 21 21.1

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


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.


R 23

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


R 24 24.1

Particles are sometimes used in ways that differ from later usage: 101 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.


R 22 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5




Iliad 4


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).

24.5 24.6


24.8 24.9 24.10

24.11 24.12


Overview of the Action in Book 4 1–84 1–84

85–219 85–104 105–147 148–219

A scene among the gods Zeus raises for discussion the possibility of a peace settlement, but then in conversation with Hera sets in motion the continuation of the war. He instructs Athene to bring about a hostile act by the Trojans that violates the truce. Athene makes her way to the battlefield and joins the Trojans. The arrow-shot of Pandaros Athene appears in the guise of Laodokos, son of Antenor, and convinces Pandaros to shoot and kill Menelaos with an arrow. Pandaros’ bow and shot. Athene prevents Menelaos from sustaining a fatal injury. Agamemnon worries about his wounded brother and calls for the doctor Machaon, who treats the injury.

220–421 220–421

Epipṓlēsis The Trojans advance again; the Achaians arm themselves. Agamemnon walks along the Achaian frontline and urges the men on individually.


The four-day battle begins. Depiction of massed close combat The two army formations advance against one another; the different ways of advancing are illustrated via a contrasting pair of similes from a bird’s eye view. The frontlines clash (illustrated by another simile), and the head to head massed close combat begins. Seven individual duels or killings occur, with three Greeks and four Trojans dying.


446–456 457–544


Commentary 1 Summary In Book 4 – before which the Book-division has a particularly disruptive effect (on this, see STR 21 n. 22) – the first military confrontation between the armies of the besiegers and the besieged drawn up in the plain before Troy is picked up and, beginning at 422 (see the chart at 422–544n.), continued; it had been adjourned in its initial stages in Book 3 (111–115) and was then followed by 767 verses of retarding intermediary action that created a rich background for the action.

2 Retrospective At the end of Book 3, the narratorP maneuvers the course of various intermediary actions (ep-eis-hódia/episodes) into a critical situation that contradicts the expectations of the audience and thus heightens the suspense considerably: the supreme commanders of the two armies that have been drawn up, Agamemnon king of Argos/Mycenae and Priam king of Troy, ratify publicly in the space between the two armies and under oath, and thus bindingly, a truce that may lead to a peace treaty: of the two originators of the campaign against Troy undertaken on account of the abduction of Helen from Sparta – namely, Menelaos of Sparta, Helen’s husband and the aggrieved party, and Paris of Troy, Helen’s abductor and thus the party who caused the injury – whichever wins a decisive duel will receive Helen; the war will thus come to an end (or rather be called off, see Remarks on the ‘gradual reversion’ below). The duel begins, but in the middle of the ring Paris suddenly disappears from view. Menelaos, in a rage, thinks Paris had fled and searches the Trojan ranks for his opponent (3.449 f.). But the Trojans, who themselves hate their dandy compatriot (3.454), are unable to help. At this moment of general bewilderment, Menelaos’ brother Agamemnon takes charge, immediately declares in the presence of the Greeks and the Trojans that Menelaos is the victor and, accompanied by applause from his army, demands that the Trojans surrender Helen at once and pay an exorbitant compensation (3.455–461). This is the conclusion of Book 3: the narrator leaves the problem unresolved and holds the issue as a whole in suspense. Were Agamemnon completely sure of his case, he would have to instantly order an attack on Troy. But now he must wait uncertainly for an answer: agreement or opposition, war or peace? The listener/reader waits with Agamemnon in a similar state of anxiety, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110610185-003


Iliad 4

since he knows more than the charactersP, who consider an alternative ending to the story possible. The listener/reader is aware not only that it was divine intervention (by the love-goddess Aphrodite) that spirited Paris away from the ‘ring’, meaning that Paris did not flee (3.380), but also that already in Book 1 (1.524– 530) Zeus promised Achilleus’ mother Thetis that he would give the Trojans the upper hand until the Achaians restored the honor Agamemnon stole from her son (1.508–510). The listener/reader also knows beyond any doubt – a point stressed by Zeus himself at 1.526 f. – that a promise by the supreme god can never remain unfulfilled. But there can be no thought of the promise being fulfilled at the present moment in the narrative, since Achilleus is still filled with wrath. How could the war actually end at this point? How will the narrator extract himself from this dilemma of his own making?

3 Book 4 The narrator, having elicited these thoughts from the listener/reader, resolves the issue in a manner as elegant as it is consistent, not via a Trojan response and subsequent lengthy negotiations, but by a leap onto the divine plane: 3.1. The Book begins on Olympus. While agitation and confusion reign before Troy, the gods cheerfully sit down to a meal in Zeus’ golden home. Hebe pours nectar, and the gods drink one another’s health, all the while looking down on the scene bristling with weapons before Troy (2–4). The sight shows Zeus, who promised redress for Achilleus, that the honoring of his promise is endangered; a settlement between the opponents on earth, complete with a peace treaty, would nullify his word. The war for Troy must thus continue! In one of his famously provocative, mocking and testing speeches to Hera, he immediately argues – apparently sincerely – for a peace agreement and the continued existence of Troy (7–19). Hera angrily rejects the proposal (25–29), and by means of a barter – Troy for Argos, Sparta and Mycenae (51–54) – they ultimately agree once and for all on the fall of Troy and thus the continuation of the war (62–68). Athene, Hera’s ally, is tasked with provoking the Trojans into committing an obvious and thus indubitable breach of contract, thereby driving the Achaians, their behavior legitimized by this outrage, to immediately attack. 3.2. Athene flies down to earth like a flashing ‘star’ – neither Greeks nor Trojans can read the ‘sign’ (81–84) – and induces Pandaros, a Trojan ally, to shoot an arrow at Menelaos and thus violate the agreement (69–147). Pandaros hits his target – the first blood shed in the Iliad – and although Menelaos is only slightly injured, the Trojans are clearly guilty of continuing the conflict. The Achaians,



now entirely convinced that right is on their side, pick up their weapons again and prepare to attack. These two initial scenes in Book 4 illustrate in the first instance, on both the divine and the human planes, the uncertainty regarding the continuation of the action in: (a) fears voiced by Hera (25–29, 57) and Agamemnon (158–168, 172– 174a, 176–181) that the destruction of Troy and the return of Helen may retreat into the distance, (b) the two armies tensely anticipating whether the divine sign (the ‘star’ [i.e. probably a shooting star in modern terms]) signifies war or peace (75–85). For both the charactersP and the listener/reader, this uncertainty is brought to an end only by the obvious breach of contract represented by the ‘arrow shot by Pandaros’. 3.3. The Achaian front has reformed and is once more in position, fully armed. Agamemnon, in his role as supreme commander, conducts an inspection. His walk along the prómachoi (the men who fight first and in front), from ‘battalion to battalion’, accompanied by battle appeals (paraeneses) directed at their leaders, is designed by the narrator like a small mustering (222–421, a so-called epipṓlēsis; see 231n.). Agamemnon’s appeals to morale in battle, and the reaction of the ‘battalion commanders’ thus addressed, allow for a sensitive characterization of the characters (Agamemnon himself, as well as the commanders Idomeneus, Aias, Nestor, Odysseus and Diomedes) who play key roles in the subsequent narrative up until Patroklos’ intervention (16.2), and in particular illuminate the attitude of the various commanders toward the war and how Agamemnon is conducting it. Remarks on the ‘gradual reversion’ (for the term, cf. STR 22–23) The episode of the violation of the officially arranged truce after the duel, and the resultant culpability of the Trojans for the war, is superficially located in year 9/10 of the war, while logically it should stand at the very beginning of the invasion, i.e. in year 1 – which here is probably mirrored in a ‘gradual reversion’ (sc. of time), as is also the case for individual episodes in Books 2 and 3 (STR 22 [2] with fig. 2); see also 86–219n. [on the characterP Pandaros], 13–19n., end; on the phenomenon of ‘mirroring’ episodes from the first nine years of the war or even further back in the past, see also 2.362–368n., 3.67–75n., 3.121– 244n., as well as the Introductions to the commentaries on Books 3 and 6.

3.4. Typologically, the battle scenes that follow are part of a scheme characteristic of battle descriptions throughout the Iliad, i.e. a themeP (a detailed, systematic description and discussion: Latacz 1977); its occurrence in the final part of Book 4 (422 to end) is illustrated and explicated as a prime example in Latacz loc. cit. 82–90. The sequence as a whole in its ideal form is illustrated as a outline in the introduction to 422–544, where it is combined with a general overview of the state of research on battle depictions in the Iliad.


Iliad 4

The following lemmata in the commentary provide an overview of the action in Book 4 (see also the Overview above at p. 8f.): 1–72n., 85–104n., 105–147n., 148–187n., 188–219n., 220–421n., 422–544n. section II. B.2.–3., 457–544n. Individual details: on Homeric battle descriptions: 422–544n., 457–544n. on battle paraeneses: 232–250n., 509–514n. on individual charactersP: Agamemnon 155–182n., 169–182n., 176–182n., 220–421n., 223– 225n., 232–250n., 327–363n., 338–348n., 358–363n.; Apollo 101–102n., 507n.; Diomedes: 364–421n., 401–402n., 412–418n.; Machaon 193n., 213–219n.; Menelaos 98n., 183–187n.; Odysseus: 349–355n., 354n.; Pandaros 85–219n., 85–104n., 88–89n. on Thebes and the Thebais: 370–400n., 404–410n., 406n. on the motif ‘premature termination of the Troy campaign’: 1–72n., 17–19n., 169–182n. on the motif of revenge (punishment for breach of contract): 160–168n., 162n., 235–239n., 269–271n. on loyalty and solidarity: 242n., 251–271n., 338–348n., 370–400n., 412–418n. on the relationship between human beings and gods: 25–86n., 85–104n., 160–168n., 235– 239n., 370–400n. on the relationship between the generations (old age): 292–325n., 320n., 370–400n., 374– 375n., 404–410n. on similesP and comparisonsP: 75–81n., 130–131n., 140–147n., 141–142n., 243–246n., 253n., 275–282n., 422–432n., 422–426n., 433–438n., 436–438n., 452–456n., 462n., 471b n., 482n. on type-scenesP and themesP (in alphabetical order): arrival 86–92n., 220–421n.; change of location by a deity 69–92n.; delivery of a message 69–92n.; sequence of events in a pitched battle 422–544n. section II. on double motivationP 85–104n.; tis-speechP 81n., 176–182n.; ‘if-not’ situationsP 12n., 169–182n.

1–84 A scene among the gods: Zeus raises for discussion the possibility of a peace settlement, but then in conversation with Hera sets in motion the continuation of the war. He instructs Athene to bring about a hostile act by the Trojans that violates the truce. Athene makes her way to the battlefield and joins the Trojans. 1–72 The divine scene that begins here is preceded by the breaking off of the duel between Menelaos and Paris, in that the latter was spirited away to Troy (3.313–447); Agamemnon consequently declared Menelaos the victor and demanded the return of Helen and her possessions (3.455–461); further action is for the moment left in limbo (cf. 13–16). As now becomes evident, these events were observed by the gods (cf. 9–13). Within the narrative strategy, the scene has multiple functions: (1) divine assemblies frequently serve to foretell future action, see 64b–72 (on which, esp. 25–68n.), as well as 8.5–



40, 20.13–40 (for fundamental discussion of the composition of ‘predictions informed by foreknowledge’ [transl.] in narratives, Lämmert 1955, 139–191); (2) here it is also designed to guide the action back in the desired direction; from the point of view of the parties at war, an amicable settlement would thus be possible, especially given that the Trojan mood toward Paris ranges from grudging to hostile (3.451–454: 3.57n.), although the fighting must in fact continue, given both the ‘plot’ strategy of the Iliad (Zeus’ promise to Thetis in Book 1) and the set narrative tradition regarding the Trojan War (Kirk; Bassett [1938] 2003, 184; West 2011, 139); (3) the narratorP builds suspense by leaving the audience in the dark for an extended period of time (3.68–4.67) regarding the manner in which he will bring the action back to the theme of mḗnis (see STR 21 fig. 1 and 22 with fig. 2) and thus to the ‘course set by tradition’ (Rengakos 1999, 317 f. [transl.]; see also Duckworth 1933, 55 n. 123; on the present scene, also Pucci 2002, 22–26). The divine scene in which Zeus (apparently in all seriousness) considers ending the war is thus a variant of the motif ‘premature termination of the Trojan campaign’, which appears sporadically in the Iliad (see 17–19n., 169–182n.); in this way, the narratorP repeatedly illustrates in a variety of ways how the story might continue in a different version (Morrison 1992, 112 f.; Nesselrath 1992, 18–20). A notable characteristic of the present divine assembly is that even though Zeus calls for a general discussion regarding the continuation of the war (14 ff.), the matter is decided solely between Hera and himself (30–68; cf. the similar discussions with Athene at 22.166 ff., Od. 1.26 ff.). What is more, his opening speech (7–19) is characterized as pure provocation and maneuvering in regard to Hera (see esp. 5–6n., 13–19n.) and thus does not really express an honest desire for open discussion. – In the context of the Iliad, this is the second meeting of the gods; the first is described at 1.536–611 (1.533–535n., 1.571–611n.; on the function of this scene, see also West 2011, 97 [on 536– 611]). The narrator often inserts divine assemblies – which always take place in Zeus’ house on Olympus (cf. 74) – directly into a scene without an introduction, cf. 1.533 ff., 7.443 ff., 15.84 ff., 22.166 ff., 24.31 ff., Od. 1.26 ff., 5.1 ff., 12.376 ff. (Il. 8.1 ff. and 20.4 ff. [analogous with 19.40 ff.] are different): Kurz 1966, 52; see also 24.31–76n.; on such assemblies in the Odyssey, see de Jong on Od. 1.26–95. This notion of the community of gods assembling in the palace of the supreme divinity and of divine discussions – whereas the Greeks otherwise worshipped their gods individually in a variety of local cults – finds parallels in Akkadian and Ugaritic texts, as does the decision or endorsement of a suggestion by the supreme god (see 37 ff.). At the same time, it is not certain that this motif is adopted from the Near East (for discussion, see de Jong on Il. 22.166–187 with reference to West 1997, 177–181 and


Iliad 4

Kearns 2004 [esp. 60–64]; on assemblies of gods in I-E literature, West 2007, 150 f.). 1–4 A sketch of a convivial divine gathering: sitting together (1), toasting one another (2b–4a), observing (4b) and discussing (1b); for the verbs, 1n. and 3–4n. The change of scene from the human to the divine plane is made via the motif ‘character observes events playing out’, see 4b (on this, 16.124n.), here particularly Aphrodite’s preceding rescue operation and the cessation of the duel that follows, cf. 9–13 (AH; Faesi; for a list of examples, Richardson 1990, 229 n. 6). In the Iliad, the events before the besieged city of Troy are repeatedly observed by the gods and discussed in divine assemblies or conversations, cf. esp. 7.443 ff. (building of a wall), 22.166 ff. (Achilleus–Hektor duel), 24.23 ff. (desecration of Hektor’s body): 19.340n.; this often highlights crucial points in the action, here the issue of how the war for Troy should continue (14–19, 64–72): Griffin 1978; de Jong on Il. 22.166–187. 1 ≈ 7.443. — οἱ δὲ θεοί: The article with demonstrative function (‘but they, the gods’) highlights the contrast with 3.461 ἐπὶ δ’ ᾔνεον ἄλλοι Ἀχαιοί (G 99, 1.11n.); the narrator follows up the Achaian reaction to the end of the duel with that of a different group of spectators (Edwards 2002, 45; differently, Heiden 2000, 10 f. and 13–15; 2008, 59– 61: the transition is unusually abrupt). This switch from the human to the divine plane serves as a break for the (post-Homeric) Book division (for general bibliography on which, 19.1–39n., end). — ἠγορόωντο: ἀγοράομαι is a denominative from ἀγορή (on the epic diectasis, G 48); it is commonly used in the aor. meaning ‘speak, take the floor in an assembly’ (1.73n.), here durative with the present stem (likewise at 2.337, 8.230) ‘were speaking, debating’ (beside ἀγορεύων in 6) (Leaf; see also Porph. ad loc. § 1 MacPhail).

2 The gods’ possessions are frequently made of gold, here the floor, in 3 the cups (2.448n.; on gods and gold, also West 1997, 112; 2007, 153 f.). As material for the house, the gold signals in particular the magnificence of Zeus’ palace (similar to Poseidon’s palace at 13.21 f.): 18.370–371n.; cf. schol. D. Accounts of buildings this lavish appears to have been common (Helbig [1884] 1887, 115–117; see also 1.426n. and 14.173n. [on thresholds made of metal]). — Hebe: The goddess of youth, daughter of Zeus and Hera, appears among the gods in a subservient role elsewhere as well: she prepares the chariot for Hera and Athene (5.722 ff.) and helps Ares, healed of his wounds, to wash and dress (5.905): CG 38; HE s. v. Hebe. Already in antiquity, why it is she who serves as cupbearer here, rather than the Trojan prince Ganymedes whom Zeus abducted, cf. 20.232–235 (Aineias’ speech), 5.266 (Diomedes’

1 πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — Ζηνί: = Διΐ (R 12.5). 2 χρυσέῳ ἐν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — σφισι: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1).



speech), was thought to require explanation. But Ganymedes does not appear in divine assemblies in the Iliad: during the preceding communal feast of the gods, in one scene Hephaistos, full of ‘solemn flippancy’ (1.571–611n.), serves as cupbearer (1.584 f./596–600), an antithesis to the young and beautiful Ganymedes; in other assemblies, those who arrive are welcomed by Themis (15.85–88) or Hera (24.101 f.) with a cup (Erbse 1986, 42–45). In the present scene, Ganymedes’ presence would perhaps have complicated the subsequent discussion regarding the fate of Troy (schol. D, bT; Kirk). The choice of Hebe might also serve to juxtapose the existence of gods and humans: here the gods’ bliss, alluded to by the flower of youth personified; there the dark fate of human beings, illustrated by the ‘morbid deal’ between Zeus and Hera concerning the destruction of cities (Erbse loc. cit. 45 [transl.]). πότνια Ἥβη: a unique phrase, a variation of the inherited VE formula πότνια Ἥρη (25× Il., 4× h.Ap.: 1.551n.); on such sound associations, see FOR 25; on πότνια as a titlelike designation for goddesses, see LfgrE s. v. (with a list of goddesses at 1502.18 ff.).

3–4 2nd VH of 3 ≈ Od. 3.472; 1st VH of 4 ≈ Il. 9.671. — That ‘nectar’, the drink of the gods, should be understood as analogous with wine (19.38n. with bibliography) is often indicated; on the disputed etymology of the term, see below. — drinking-cups: There are several Greek words for drinking vessels; the term dépas used here, and attested already in Mycenaean texts (MYC), cannot be linked to a specific shape (24.101n.; for the shape of a drinking cup of Geometric date, see e.g. the so-called ‘cup of Nestor’: Latacz 2008, 68 f. with fig. 6). νέκταρ: The etymology is disputed (an I-E compound ‘overcoming death’? or an Egyptian loan word ‘divine’?), see 19.38n.; Beekes s. v.; for the doxography, Garcia 2013, 80 f. — ἐῳνοχόει: impf. with double augment of (ϝ)οινο-χοέω (on difficulties with the transmitted augmentation, Wackernagel [1885] 1953, 584 f.; West 1998, XXVII). The compound means ‘pour in’, its original sense (‘pour wine’) being faded here and at 1.598 and h.Ven. 204–206 (Kirk; LfgrE; Schw. 2.73; Chantr. 2.41; cf. COM 11). — δειδέχατ(ο): The verb, used in early epic with variously formed stems (δειδεχ-, δειδεκ-, δειδισκ-, δεικανο-), means approximately ‘greet respectfully, honor with a greeting’ and is used both for actual greetings and for mutual greeting and toasting during feasts, cf. the mention of drinking cups at 9.224, 9.670 f., 15.85 f., Od. 3.41, 18.121; it denotes a special form of paying respects, here a gesture with full cups (LfgrE s. v. δειδέχαται; Hentze 1902, 324 f.; Forssman 1978, 3–12, especially 11 with n. 21). The etymology in uncertain, as is whether the form is a present or perfect stem; it is

3 τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3). — χρυσέ͜οις: on the synizesis, R 7. — δεπάεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 4 δειδέχατ(ο): 3rd pers. pl. ‘they greeted, toasted’ (on the ending, R 16.2; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1). — εἰσορόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8.


Iliad 4

usually associated with the root of δείκ-νυμι (Forssman loc. cit. 7 f., 12–24; Beekes s. v. δειδίσκομαι; cf. Eust. 1482.8 ff. [on Od. 4.59]; with reservations, LIV 108 f. n. 6 and 111 n. 22). — Τρώων πόλιν: a formula after caesura B 1 (4× Il., 2× Od.).

5–6 1st VH of 6 = 5.419. — The narratorP clearly marks the speech as an illocutionary act: Zeus means to provoke Hera. Her reaction will help him restart action in the desired direction (62–72); the situation of stasis must thus be reversed, the war has to continue (introduction to Book 4, 2.–3.1; 1–72n.; Kirk; cf. schol. bT on 5; see also 7–19n.). – On the patronymic Kronídēs, CG 26. αὐτίκ(α): introduces the new beginning to the action, after a brief sketch of the meeting of the gods (Bonifazi 2012, 278 n. 36: ‘at that point’, an example for αὐτίκα with a ‘zooming-in effect’; similarly LfgrE s. v. 1601.54 ff.: ‘then’ [transl.], a linking of situation and action; Erren 1970, 26). — ἐπειρᾶτο … ἐρεθιζέμεν … | κερτομίοις ἐπέεσσι, … ἀγορεύων: A speech introduction formulaP with a participial verb of speaking is comparatively rare in Homer (3.350n.). In the present formulation, the emphasis is on the speaker’s intention of irritating with mocking words, i.e. on the tone and aim of the speech, stressed via enjambment in the four-word verse 6 (on this, 1.75n., 16.125– 126n.; for a list of four-word verses, Bassett 1919); on the marking of illocutionary and perlocutionary acts in general, de Jong (1987) 2004, 200–204. – ἐρεθίζω means ‘provoke, rile (to anger)’ (here successfully: χόλος 23 f.), e.g. 1.32 (Chryses provokes Agamemnon), 5.418 f. (Hera and Athene provoke Zeus), 24.560 (Priam provokes Achilleus: with n.), Od. 9.494 (Odysseus provokes the Cyclops): LfgrE; Thornton 1970, 85. – The adj. κερτόμιος, a metrically convenient variant of κέρτομος, means approximately ‘teasing, mocking, sneering’ (LfgrE s. v.); the word family κερτομ- signals a speaker’s intention to provoke, sometimes overtly and aggressively, sometimes in a covert fashion, ‘frequently with an element of pretence by the speaker and […] a violent reaction by the addressee’ (24.649–658n. [with bibliography]), see 15 ff. and 24 ff. — παραβλήδην: a Homeric hapax legomenonP, derived from the compound παραβάλλω (on the word formation, Risch 365 f.), which in early epic is used to mean ‘throw down’ (esp. fodder for animals: 5.369, 8.504, 13.35, Od. 4.41, 10.242), in the middle ‘risk, hazard’ (Il. 9.322). παραβλήδην is also attested in Apollonius Rhodius with the meaning ‘responding, replying’, sometimes with the implication ‘deceiving’ (Rengakos 1994, 125 f.). The present passage has been variously interpreted; most likely it means ‘throw down provocatively’, i.e. Zeus throws out snide remarks without directly addressing the person he is aiming them at (Bergold 1977, 136 f. n. 2, with reference to h.Merc. 54–56; LfgrE s. v., with reference to ἀμβλήδην ‘introducing’ [Il. 22.476] and ὑποβλήδην ‘interrupting’ [1.292]; similarly Leaf).

7–19 Aside from the challenge at 14, Zeus’ speech has no address, but instead begins with jibes aimed at Hera and Athene, which is even more insulting since he appears to be airing his thoughts concerning the goddesses’ perfor-

5 Κρονίδης: ‘son of Kronos’ = Zeus. — ἐρεθιζέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — Ἥρην: on the -ηafter -ρ-, R 2.



mance (on the missing address, cf. Bassett 1934, 145 f.); it closes with a suggestion addressed to the assembled gods that must incense the two (Schäfer 1990, 51–54): (A) Menelaos’ two helpers, Hera and Athene, look on passively while Aphrodite constantly cares for her charge Paris and has just rescued him once again (7–12): 9–11n.; (B) the victory in the duel is Menelaos’ (13); (C) Troy’s future is at issue: continuation of the war or instead a peace agreement with continued existence for Troy and a return home for Helen? (14– 19). – The fact that the narratorP composes Zeus’ snide remarks with the characterP grouping Aphrodite vs. Hera–Athene presupposes the ‘Judgement of Paris’ episode, which in the Iliad is mentioned only in Book 24 (on this, 24.27–30n. with bibliography; also 31–49n.); because of this decision by Paris, Hera and Athene relentlessly pursue the destruction of Troy (see esp. 20.313– 317), frequently acting together to benefit the Achaians, with Hera usually taking the initiative while leaving action to Athene (see 24 ff. and 64 ff.: 1.195n., 2.155–181n.; on Hera’s hatred for the Trojans, also 18.362–367 with n.); conversely, Aphrodite supports Paris in a variety of ways (CH 8 s. v. Paris; 3.373–382n.): Kullmann 1960, 238 f. 7 δοιαί: δοιοί (< δϝ-) is a metrical variant of δύο, here at VB also with greater emphasis on the number (two, not merely one): LfgrE.

8 = 5.908. — Hera … Athene: on the combination of the two goddesses, 7– 19n. Their chiastically arranged epithets, Argéiē and Alalkomenēís, probably indicate cult locations (Hḗrē Argéiē also at 5.908, Hes. Th. 11 f., Phoronis fr. 4 West; on Hera and Argos, also 51–53) and thus their position as deities who are called on and worshipped as protectresses by human beings (AH; Leaf; Kirk). In the case of Hera, the location in question is the Argive Heraion in the Argolid in the eastern Peloponnese, which was her major cult place especially in the post-Homeric period, but where the Hera cult is likely older than that (RE s. v. Hera col. 373 f.; BNP s. v. Hera; Burkert [1972] 1997, 182–189; [1998] 2001, 166 ff., esp. 172; on archaeological finds of Geometric and Archaic date, see Billot 1997, 12–39). In the case of Athene, a sanctuary is attested in Boeotian Alalkomenai (Paus. 9.33.5: AH, Anh. p. 28 f.; Leaf; BNP s. v. Alalcomenae); on the etymology of the epithet, see below. Ἀλαλκομενηΐς: Athene’s epithet, attested in early epic only here and in the iteratum, is derived from the place name Ἀλαλκομεναί, which in turn is a form of the part. of ἀλαλκεῖν (with typically variant accentuation): DELG s. v. ἀλέξω; Risch 142; Beekes s. v. ἀλκή. Here the epithet is primarily designed to point to the location of Athene’s cult – parallel with Ἀργείη (‘Athene of Alalkomenai’) (see above); but to the audience the connection to the verb ἀλαλκεῖν was likely perceptible, especially given that Athe-

7 θεάων: partitive gen. with δοιαί; on the declension, R 11.1.


Iliad 4

ne was considered a protectress of cities (6.86–101n.). Some interpreters thus understand the word as ‘protectress’ also here (Tsagarakis 1977, 47 n. 5; Nagy [1979] 1999, 147 n. 6; on the discussion in antiquity, see Erbse ad loc.).

9–11 Zeus aims to hurt Hera’s and Athene’s pride: via the verbs he employs, he underlines how they sit passively (nósphi kathḗmenai) during the duel, far from the action, as spectators (eishoróōsai), enjoying it (térpomai, cf. 20.22– 24; on this attitude in the audience, see Latacz 1966, 204 ff.) – an ironic jab. Zeus contrasts this on the one hand with their position as otherwise powerful helpers (see their epithets: 8n.), and on the other hand with Aphrodite’s supportive action in the middle of the fight (10–12: 12n.), even though her strength – alluded to by the epithet philommeidḗs (see 10n.) – is not actually located in the sphere of war (schol. b on 10; AH on 8; Boedeker 1974, 35; Bergold 1977, 137 f.; Friedrich 2007, 111). The generalization of Aphrodite’s care (‘forever’, in preparation for the present case in 12) uses rhetorical exaggeration to further tease the two goddesses (cf. exaggeration as a timeless strategy in the rhetoric of quarrelling [‘you always have to …’]: 1.106–108n., 24.63n.). — her man: Paris was last mentioned at 3.449–454 (Menelaos looks for him in vain on the battlefield). The fact that this curt reference is considered sufficient by the speaker is another indication that the company of gods followed the duel closely. 9 ἀλλ’ ἤτοι: The combination of particles is common in announcements or requests and often prepares a contrast (see τῷ δ’ αὖτε; also 13 f.: Ruijgh [1981] 1996, 522 f.; cf. 1.140n., 24.462n., each with bibliography). The contrast between the goddesses, already initiated in the present passage via δοιαὶ μέν (7), continues with the specification ταὶ … | τέρπεσθον (cf. Cuypers 2005, 63 f.). — καθήμεναι: in addition to a seated posture, the verb can signal lack of activity (1) and is sometimes used as a reproach (cf. Odysseus to Thersites at 2.255 with n.; similarly Achilleus in self-reproach: 18.104n., 24.542n.). 10 αὖτε: picks up the contrast begun in 7 (in chiastic arrangement: δοιαὶ μὲν Μενελάῳ vs. τῷ δ’ … φ. Ἀφροδίτη); on this function of αὖτε, Revuelta Puigdollers 2009, 92 ff.; Bonifazi 2012, 218 ff. (esp. 220 n. 110). — φιλομμειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη: a VE formula (5× Il., 1× Od., 2× Hes., 5× h.Ven.); the epithet is a compound of φιλο- and μειδάω and means ‘one who is characterized by laughing/to whom laughing is dear’ (3.424n.). 11 παρμέμβλωκε: perf. of παρα-βλώσκω (< *μλώσκω, related to the root of μολεῖν), with present meaning ‘stand by someone’ (LfgrE s. v. βλώσκω); the compound is attested

9 ἤτοι: R 24.4. — ταί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3). — εἰσορόωσαι: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 10 τέρπεσθον: 3rd pers. dual pres. of τέρπομαι, together with the two pl. forms καθήμεναι εἰσορόωσαι (R 18.1). — τῷ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17; Paris is meant. 11 αἰεί: = ἀεί.



elsewhere in early epic only at 24.73 of Thetis’ support for Achilleus (24.73n.; Chantr. 2.198). — αὐτοῦ: ἀμύνω is elsewhere not usually construed with a dat., but is occasionally used with an ablatival gen., see esp. 12.402 f. κῆρας ἄμυνεν | παιδὸς ἑοῦ. The ambiguity of αὐτοῦ, discussed since antiquity – gen. of the personal pronoun? or local adverb ‘on the spot’? (cf. 16.742a n.) – can here be decided in favor of the gen. (‘fended off from him’): AH; Leaf; Willcock; Chantr. 2.56. — κῆρας ἀμύνει: likewise at 12.402 (Zeus rescues his son Sarpedon); κήρ means ‘(fate of) death, doom’ (Sarischoulis 2008, 100–115; on the appellative and personification, 2.301–302n.); for additional formulations meaning ‘rescue from death’, 16.442n.

12 2nd VH = Od. 20.21; ≈ Il. 15.728. — Paris was saved by Aphrodite as Menelaos was dragging him by the helmet; she made the chin-strap break and removed Paris from the battlefield in a cloud (3.370–382 [with n.]). The present formulation is a variation of the ‘if-not’ situationP in the description of the duel at 3.373–375: whereas there the narrator-textP focuses on Menelaos’ superiority (‘he would have killed him, had not Aphrodite …’), here in Zeus’ speech the critical moment is told in secondary focalizationP from the point of view of the character saved by Aphrodite (‘thinking he was about to die’, oiómenon thanéesthai) (suggestion by de Jong). ἐξεσάωσεν: here and at 11.752, the verb is used pregnantly to denote rescue from death by removal from the battlefield, but is elsewhere used more generally of a rescue from danger or the recovery of casualties (LfgrE s. v. σαόω).

13–19 In the present passage, Zeus appears merely to be putting the future course of the war up for discussion, since the conquest of Troy by the Achaians is for him a settled matter (2.419 f. [with n.], 15.68–71; see also his guarded response to Thetis’ plea at 1.511–524; on Zeus’ intentions, 1–72n.; on the will of Zeus, also 1.5n., 16.103n.). Already when the two parties at war entered the contract prior to the duel between Menelaos and Paris, Zeus was not prepared to fulfill the hope for peace (cf. 3.302 with n.). This agreement between Greeks and Trojans, affirmed by oath, stipulated that (1) the death of one of the two warriors would be decisive (3.281/284) and that (2a) in the case of Menelaos’ death, the Achaians would return home with no further claims (3.281–283), whereas (2b) in the case of Paris’ death, the Trojans would have to pay restitution in addition to returning Helen (3.284–291): 3.275– 291n., 3.286n. Paris’ disappearance from the battleground creates a situation not foreseen in the contract, but both those involved and the spectators credit the superior Menelaos with the victory – at least in accord with the original suggestion by Paris and Hektor at 3.71/92: 3.403 f. and 3.429 Helen (allusion: 3.428–436n.), 3.439 Paris (on this, 3.438–446n.), 3.457/461 Agamemnon, who

12 καὶ νῦν: ‘〈and thus〉 now, as well’. — ἐξεσάωσεν: = ἐξέσωσεν (R 6). — θανέεσθαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

is applauded by the Achaians (a Trojan response to Agamemnon’s speech is not mentioned; on this, 3.461n.: there is at any rate no objection). Now the narratorP gradually turns toward the course of action expected by the audience (1–72n.): in the present passage, Zeus skillfully and successfully uses emotional manipulation (see also 5–6n.) to win Hera in particular over to his aim (the continuation of the war), at first by provoking her and Athene (9–11), by declaring Menelaos the victor (13) and finally by placing greater weight on one of the possible outcomes, namely an end to the war with a continued peaceful existence for Troy (16b–19); Hera thus argues passionately in favor of continuing the war (25 ff.). In the end, both Zeus and Hera achieve their goals in this manner (31–68) without any discussion among the gods. On the interpretation of the speech, see Owen 1946, 37 f.; Reinhardt 1961, 118; Bergold 1977, 138 f.; Erbse 1986, 229 f.; Schäfer 1990, 53 f.; Nesselrath 1992, 19 f. with n. 33; Taplin 1992, 132; Elmer 2012, 42 with n. 43. Some scholars see parallels with the peíra in Book 2, namely an attempt to manipulate the opposing side with the prospect of an end to the war: Agamemnon fails since the Achaian army reacts contrary to his expectations, whereas Zeus achieves his desired effect (Wilamowitz 1916, 298; Reinhardt loc. cit. 118 f.; Elmer 2013, 147 f. and 264 n. 5); regarding linguistic issues, cf. the verb forms epeiráto (5) and peirḗsomai (2.73 with n. [‘use pretense to provoke a (counter)reaction from an addressee […] and thus test their convictions’]) as leading expressions for the listener. All this, in combination with the fact that the pro-Trojan gods do not even feature here, counters the notion that this is an open discussion aimed at creating a consensus among all deities present (thus e.g. Flaig 1994, 20–22, esp. n. 27; older bibliography on this issue in Schäfer loc. cit. 51 f. with n. 121–126). – In reality, of course, a divine assembly with Zeus calling for debate over the fate of Troy (cf. 14–16) and with haggling over the destruction of the city (cf. 31 ff.) would not have taken place as late as year 10, but rather at the outset of the Trojan campaign; the present passage thus provides another example of the narrator’sP technique of recalling or ‘mirroring’ the beginning of the Trojan War (Finsler 1906, 439; Latacz [1985] 1996, 131; van Erp 2000, 388 f.; on the phenomenon of ‘mirroring’ elements from the past history of the Iliad, see the introduction to Book 4: 3.3. Remarks on the ‘gradual reversion’). But the present divine scene in general, and within it Zeus’ speeches in particular, is fashioned entirely to fit the narrative situation in the current action of the Iliad (which takes place only in year 9 or 10 of the war) (see above). 13 ≈ 3.457; 2nd VH ≈ 20× Il., 1× Od., 4× Hes. — ἀλλ’ ἤτοι … μέν: On the combination of particles, 9n.; here it prepares for ἡμεῖς δὲ φραζώμεθ(α) at 14 (on the emphatic posi13 νίκη … Μενελάου: sc. ἐστί (‘belongs to’).



tion of νίκη, Ruijgh [1990] 1996, 641). — ἀρηϊφίλου: a generic epithetP meaning ‘dear to Ares, a protégé of Ares’, used most commonly of Menelaos (25× early epic): 3.21n. 14 = 14.61; ≈ Od. 17.274, 23.117; 2nd VH = Il. 2.252, 20.116 (with φράζεσθον at 115), Od. 17.78. — ὅπως ἔσται: indirectly questioning and voluntative at the same time (‘how it should be 〈according to our wishes〉’), see the subjunc. forms in 16 (AH; Chantr. 2.297; LfgrE s. v. φράζω 1008.33 ff.).

15 ≈ 82 (nom.), Od. 24.475, Hes. Op. 161. — In the Iliad, fighting and war are often regarded, by humans in particular, as negative phenomena, e.g. at 82, 1.284, 13.225, 16.494, Od. 22.152 (see below for the formulae; additional examples and bibliography, 1.162n., 2.453–454n.; Eck 2012, 197–201). It is noticeable that in the present passage Zeus adopts this judgement, likely as part of his strategy of portraying the variant ‘peace’ as the preferable option. πόλεμόν τε κακὸν καὶ φύλοπιν αἰνήν: synonycm doubling with terms for ‘battle’ (on this, 1.492n.), comprising two inflectable formulae (nom./acc.): πόλεμόν τε κακόν before caesura C 1 (see iterata and Hes. Op. 14; the phrase also at Il. 1.284 [at VE], 13.225, 16.494, Od. 22.152); φύλοπιν αἰνήν at VE (in total 11× Il., 1× Od., 2× Hes., 1× h.Cer.). Elsewhere in early epic, πόλεμος usually means ‘fighting/battle’, but here it means ‘war’ as an antithesis to 16 φιλότης (LfgrE s. v. 1335.14 ff.); φύλοπις is ‘fight, battle’ with predominantly negative connotations (6.1n., 6.330n.; there also for the pejorative epithets with φύλοπις and πόλεμος). αἰνός is ‘horrible, dreadful’ (etymology unclear: DELG s. v.). 16 ≈ 83, Od. 24.476. — φιλότητα μετ’ ἀμφοτέροισι βάλωμεν: φιλότης is used here as an antonym to πόλεμος with the sense ‘unity, concord’, cf. the antithesis πόλεμος – εἰρήνη at 2.797, Hes. Op. 228 f. (LfgrE s. v.; Trümpy 1950, 184 f.; also the phrase φιλότητα ἑλέσθαι ‘broker a peace’ at 16.282n.). The combination with βάλλω is unique (cf. φιλότητα τιθέναι at 83, Od. 24.476) but comparable to the formulation of the opposite σφιν καὶ τότε νεῖκος ὁμοίιον ἔμβαλε μέσσῳ (444; Ἔρις is the subject) and ἔριδα προβαλόντες (Il. 11.529): Porzig 1942, 112 (based on the idea of an object ‘that one throws among the people so that they fight for it’ [transl.]); it is thus a striking formulation for ‘make peace between people’. Other expressions with (ἐμ-)βάλλω and abstract objects refer to mental states such as μένος, χόλος, ἵμερος (LfgrE s. v. βάλλω 30.31 ff.; Kloss 1994, 49). — μετ’ ἀμφοτέροισι: ‘in the midst among the two’ (Chantr. 2.117), i.e. so that the two warring parties come to an agreement.

17–19 A premature termination of the Trojan campaign is mentioned repeatedly by the narratorP, e.g. at 1.59 ff. (plague among the Achaian army), 1.169 ff. (Achilleus’ departure: 1.169–171n.), 2.155 ff. (Agamemnon’s testing of the army: 2.155–156n.), 3.71 ff. (offer of a duel: 3.71–75n., 3.159–160n.), 4.169 ff. (the feared death of Menelaos: 169–182n.), 7.345 ff. (Antenor’s suggestion that

14 τάδε (ϝ)έργα: on the prosody, R 4.3; τάδε points ahead to the alternatives provided at 15 f. 15–16 ἤ ῥ(α) … | … ἦ: ‘whether … or’; ῥ(α) used to avoid hiatus (R 24.1, cf. R 5.1). — αὖτις: = αὖθις. — ὄρσομεν: short-vowel aor. subjunc. of ὄρνυμι ‘excite, stir up’ (R 16.3); like βάλωμεν, it has a deliberative sense. — ἀμφοτέροισι: on the declension, R 11.2.


Iliad 4

they capitulate), 9.9 ff. (Agamemnon’s helplessness): Morrison 1992, 60–63; Nesselrath 1992, 19 f. Here Zeus introduces this option with an exaggerating formulation (‘sweet and pleasing to us all’: 17n.), which he must expect will meet opposition (see 29) – an indication that he means to continue the war, without making this too obvious (AH; Kirk; also 13–19n.). 17 2nd VH = 7.387; VE = Od. 24.435. — αὖ πως: Thus the text according to West following Aristarchus’ reading; αὖ picks up from the last-mentioned option and introduces a focus on it, see τόδε (Klein 1988, 270 [‘annunciatory value’]; for additional bibliography on this use of αὖ, 16.477n., also 10n. on αὖτε). The main tradition has αὔτως/ αὕτως: ‘to all in the same manner’ (LfgrE s. v. αὔτως 1682.31 ff.). — φίλον καὶ ἡδὺ γένοιτο: an expanded formulation in contrast to φίλον εἶναι, an expression for divine inclination or even capriciousness, cf. 2.116 (14.69n.). ἡδύ (‘sweet, pleasant’; derived from the root *σϝαδ-, also related to ἁνδάνω: 1.24n.) suggests a particular preference (LfgrE s.vv. ἡδύς and ἁνδάνω; Landfester 1966, 105, 107). Superficially, the suggestion thus appears rather restrained (cf. 7.387: Paris’ suggestion to the Achaians), but especially with the addition of πᾶσι it must sound like a taunt to Hera and Athene in particular.

18–19 2nd VH of 18 = 2.373, 4.290. — Helen: The return of the abducted Greek woman, should Paris be defeated, is part of the contract (3.285/458 f.). Her epithet ‘(woman) from Argos, Argive (woman)’, i.e. ‘Greek (woman)’ (2.161n.), may echo 3.458, where Agamemnon stresses the Greek claim to Greek Helen (on the depiction of Helen in Homeric epic, 3.121n.). ἤτοι μέν: an emphatic announcement, continued by αὖτις δ(έ) (cf. 9n.; also Denniston 389). — οἰκέοιτο … | … ἄγοιτο: The opt. in the apodosis has a potential sense (Chantr. 2.217), but approximates a wish (Leaf; following him Willcock and Kirk; cf. Lange 1872/73, 371 f.; Monro [1882] 1891, 271). οἰκέοιτο has a passive sense: ‘be inhabited’ (LfgrE; Jankuhn 1969, 87 f.). — Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος: a VE formula (7× Il., 1× Od.), also 1× Il. after caesura A 1.

20–25 = 8.457–462. — The narrator uses the same words to describe the indignation of the two goddesses at Zeus’ order to stay out of the battle (see also Zeus and Athene in 8.28–40). The two passages are connected in terms of content: both concern an argument between Zeus and Hera regarding momentuous decisions: in the present passage (on the first day of battle in the action of the Iliad), the aim of the war, whether Troy is to fall or not; in Book 8 (on the second day of battle) the actual fighting that might lead to the fall of Troy, but where the Achaians are to suffer setbacks in accord with Zeus’

17 καὶ ἡδύ: on the prosody, R 4.4 (↑). 18 Πριάμοιο (ϝ)άνακτος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Πριάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 19 αὖτις: = αὖθις. — Ἀργείην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — ἄγοιτο: ‘bring along (home)’; potential opt. without a modal particle (↑; R 21.1).



wishes, see 8.470–483 (STR 22 fig. 2; Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 96 f. n. 2, 99; Reinhardt 1961, 150 f.). 20 2nd VH = 5.418, 8.447, 9.254, 11.45. — ὣς ἔφαθ’, αἳ δ(έ): a speech capping formulaP (3× Il., 6× Od.), with the capping formula scheme ‘spoke’ and a reaction by the addressees (cf. 1.33n., 3.84n.). — ἐπέμυξαν: ‘muttered at it’, attested only here and in the iteratum at 8.457, a term for the muted indication of displeasure, see 22–24a (LfgrE s. v. ἐπιμύζω; cf. schol. D). μύζω is an onomatopoetic verb (‘make the sound μῦ’), which is semantically productive in two directions: ‘suck (noisily)’ (cf. 218–219n. on ἐκμυζήσας), and ‘mutter, mumble’ (Tichy 1983, 143 f., 149; DELG and Beekes s. v. μύζω 1 and 2).

21 On the reason for the hostility of the two goddesses toward the Trojans, 7– 19n., 31–49n. αἵ γ(ε): picks up αἳ δ(έ) in 20 and lends weight to the statement: these two once again act in common. — κακὰ … μηδέσθην: Expressions such as ‘devising evil’ do not contain moral criticism, but rather describe the effects of the actions – as intended by the originators – on those concerned (de Jong [1987] 2004, 138 with 241 nn. 100 and 102).

22–24 Emotions such as ‘anger’ (chólos) are frequently portrayed as seizing a character from the outside or entering into them (anger at 1.387n., longing at 3.446n.; on paraphrases of this kind in general, Porzig 1942, 90, 130–134; also 16.22n.). A variety of images describe anger spreading or increasing inside a person; here the chest can no longer contain it (24, cf. English ‘burst with anger’; hence Hera’s outburst of fury at 25 ff.); the chest also swells (9.553 f. and 9.646), anger spreads inside the chest like smoke (18.108–110, with n.) or is swallowed and thus suppressed (1.81 f.): Clarke 1999, 93; Cairns 2003, 24 f.; on the term chólos, 1.9n., 1.81–82n., 19.16a n. On the motif ‘divine anger’ (the anger of Zeus and Hera in the following conversation: 32– 36, 42), Irmscher 1950, 9 f., 40–42, 52–64; Fenik 1974, 208–230 (on the present passage, 219 f.); Yamagata 1994, 93–101; de Jong on Od. 1.19–21. 22 ἤτοι …: initiates a specification of 20b: handling suppressed anger (Ruijgh [1981] 1996, 527; cf. Cuypers 2005, 64). — ἀκέων ἦν οὐδέ τι εἶπεν: a rhetorical polar expressionP (Tzamali 1997, 132); ἀκέων is originally probably a part. that ossified in this form, since a feminine form would be expected in the present passage (cf. 8.459, Od.

20 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἔφαθ’: = ἔφατο, 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί (with elision [R 5.1] and assimilation of the aspiration); on the middle, R 23. — αἵ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), referring back to 8, with Ἀθηναίη τε καὶ Ἥρη as an appositive. 21 πλησίαι: ‘close to one another’. — ἥσθην … μεδέσθην: 3rd pers. dual impf. of ἧμαι and μέδομαι (R 18.1); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 22 Ἀθηναίη ἀκέων: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — οὐδέ: In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — τι (ϝ)εῖπεν: on the prosody, R 5.4.


Iliad 4

21.89), and is perhaps related etymologically to ak- ‘pointed, sharp’, i.e. ‘with pricked ears’, hence ‘(attentive and) quiet’ (1.34n. with bibliography).

23–24 2nd VH of 23 = Od. 8.304. — father: The designation of Zeus as father is inherited, cf. Latin Iu-piter (3.276n. with bibliography; also 68n.); here the phrasing reveals the image of a patriarchal family in which the daughter Athene contains her anger toward her father. σκυζομένη: ‘be angry at someone, be resentful toward’, denoting muted growling (Irmscher 1950, 18 f.); etymology uncertain (DELG s. v. σκύζομαι; Beekes s. v. σκυδμαίνω), as is whether it is connected with a sound (de Lamberterie 1994, 29 f.: ‘grumble’) and/or a facial expression (Cairns 2003, 44: ‘frown’). — χόλος … | … προσηύδα: The different effects of the anger are skilfully fashioned linguistically: via the polyptoton χόλος–χόλον, which is arranged chiastically in regard to the predicate (Walsh 2005, 132), and via the rhetorical polar expressionP οὐκ ἔχαδε …, ἀλλὰ προσηύδα, the second part of which appears rather abrupt because of προσηύδα being used absolutely (on the short before πρ-, 1.201n. [going back to Aeolic ποταύδα]). — Ἥρῃ: on the dat. of interest, Schw. 2.147; Chantr. 2.71 [‘possessive force’ (transl.)]). — ἔχαδε: thematic aor. of χανδάνω (‘hold, contain’); the subject is usually a delimited area (the shore at 14.34), an enclosed room (24.191 f. θάλαμος) or a cauldron or mixing vessel (23.268, 741 f.); στῆθος is thus imagined as a kind of container (like the head at 11.462) that does not offer enough room for the rage (AH; LfgrE s. v. χανδάνω; on the verbal root, Schw. 1.699; Risch 272).

25–68 In the action of the Iliad, Zeus’ supposed partisanship in favor of the Trojans is a repeated cause for strife between the divine couple (a list of examples at 18.356–368n.; also 1.541–543n.; on Hera’s position as Zeus’ wife and sister, 14.153–353n., end). In the present argument, Zeus and Hera seal Troy’s fate: not only does Hera accept the agreement suggested by Zeus (a city dear to her in exchange for his beloved Troy), she even offers three cities of her own accord in an attempt to keep Zeus well-disposed to her goal, since she recognizes his superiority and he seems conciliatory to her; he signals slight reservations and expresses scruples with regard to the Trojans (43–49 with n.), while she single-mindedly wants to launch the next steps (64b–67). Many interpretations of the present scene stress the monstrousness of the action and the gods’ ‘immoral’ behavior. Hera here does in fact appear horrifyingly relentless (O’Brien 1993, 84 f.; also 51–53n.). In addition, the narrator reveals human impotence; despite good behavior toward the gods (48 f.) and sympathy from them (46, 51), human beings are at the mercy of their overriding interests (see also 24.525–533 with 24.518–551n.): Griffin 1978, 17 (‘a nightmare picture for men’); Ahrensdorf 2014, 52–55 (with occasionally over-broad conclusions). At the same time, the dispute that precedes the first

23 μιν: = αὐτήν (R 14.1).



battle described in the Iliad (cf. STR 22 fig. 2) has additional narrative functions within the action of the poem as well: the narratorP (a) reminds the audience once more (after e.g. 2.67–70, 284–332, etc.) that the entire mḗnis storyline takes place before the background of Troy’s fate, as yet undecided, and shows (b) the couple’s first, fundamental argument concerning the city (prepared for at 1.518–521; for their final argument, see 18.356–368 [with n.]), (c) Hera’s limitless hatred for Troy (esp. at 35 f. with n., 51–53n.), and (d) Zeus’ superiority, in that he achieves his goal with even Hera contentedly affirming the general consensus (62–64a); the narrator thus masterfully retains control with regard to the narrative aim dictated by tradition – the destruction of Troy (see also Richardson 1990, 193; van Erp 2000, 400 f.; Pucci 2002, 28 f.). On a possible ‘mirroring’ of past history via this scene, 13–19n. 25–29 Hera’s outburst illustrates the manner in which she interprets Zeus’ portrayal of the two options, namely that he favors a peace agreement; his strategy has worked. The speech as a whole is characterized by her outrage in the face of the possibility that her efforts thus far might come to naught, see also 57–59 (Erbse 1986, 193 f. and 196 f.). – The speech finds linguistic and contextual parallels at 16.440–443 (with n.) and 22.178–181 (for details, esp. 25n., 29n., also 73n.): there Hera and Athene reject Zeus’ plan to change the course of events (namely by saving Sarpedon and Hektor from death). 25 = 1.552, 8.462, 14.330, 16.440, 18.361; 2nd VH = 8.209. — The formulaic verse is used solely in speeches by Hera in which she indignantly criticizes Zeus (for bibliography, 14.330n.). αἰνότατε: an expression of the highest indignation; other than in divine addresses, αἰνός is used only rarely in reference to living beings (16.440n.). — ποῖον … ἔειπες: an expression of opposition, always at the beginning of indignant speeches (cf. 16.49n. on the VE formula ποῖον/οἷον ἔειπες); μῦθον ἔειπες is an inflectable VE formula (33× Il., 20× Od., 3× Hes., 7× h.Hom.: 1.552n.; on the aor. ἔϝειπες, 19.76n.). 26 2nd VH ≈ 57. — πῶς ἐθέλεις: 24.203 (πῶς ἐθέλεις … ἐλθέμεν οἶος) is similar; an expression of bitter reproach: ‘How could you want … ?’ (AH; for additional similar formulations, 24.203n.). — ἅλιον … ἠδ’ ἀτέλεστον: Od. 2.273 is similar; emphasis via synonym doubling (on the phenomenon, 1.160n., 2.39n.): ἅλιος frequently marks something that misses its aim or purpose (18.324n., where also on the etymology), here Hera’s ‘futile’ efforts, elsewhere e.g. words that remain unfulfilled (158–159n.) or (with a negative) a missile that misses its mark (498 οὐχ ἅλιον βέλος); in the case of ἀτέλεστος, the emphasis is on the fact that something does not reach its goal (τέλος) or remains ‘unsuccessful’ (Gundert 1983, 161).

25 Κρονίδη: 5n. — ποῖον τὸν μῦθον ἔειπες: ‘What did you say? What are you talking about?’; ποῖον is predicative (‘as what kind’), τόν is deictic; ἔειπες = εἶπες. 26 θεῖναι: with double acc. ‘turn someone into something’. — ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4).


Iliad 4

27 Hera’s statement, highlighted via a figura etymologica (hidrṓ … hídrōsa), is an exaggeration born from her rage, a vivid image of her enormous exertion. Elsewhere in the Iliad, sweat and exhaustion are mentioned as the consequences of physical exertion by fighters and their horses (2.388–390n., 16.109–111a n.). Among the gods, only the divine smith Hephaistos sweats while working (18.372 with n. [s. v. ἱδρώοντα]). μόγῳ: Semantically, μόγος is close to πόνος (‘labor, effort’; schol. D: ταλαιπωρίᾳ, καμάτῳ); a Homeric hapaxP (also rare in post-Homeric literature: LSJ s. v.), but also attested as an element in derivations and compounds (LfgrE s.vv. μόγος and μογέω; 19.103n. on μογοστόκος).

28 1st VH ≈ 11.770. — The gathering of the Achaian warriors is a reference to the past history of the action of the Iliad (external analepsisP: gathering of the army in Aulis); during the drawing up of the Achaian force in Book 2 (2.445–452), Athene was the driving force (Bergold 1977, 20 n. 1, 140 with n. 2; on the long duration of the mobilization, schol. D on 24.765 and 24.765– 766n.; also Cypria, Procl. Chrest. § 4–6 West). λαόν: the term for ‘people’ in the Iliad; already attested in Mycenaean texts, it usually denotes – as conditioned by the topic – ‘the (male) people at arms, army’ (1.10n.; see also Mycenaean /lawagetas/ ra-wa-ke-ta: MYC s. v. λαός). — Πριάμῳ … τοῖό τε παισίν: a variant of the formula in 31 (see ad loc.); cf. 6.283 Πριάμῳ μεγαλήτορι τοῖό τε παισίν.

29 = 16.443 (see ad loc.), 22.181. — A verse with a defiant, threatening tone: ‘go ahead, do it!’ in the sense ‘Don’t do it, or you will suffer the consequences!’ The emphasis is on ‘not all’: Hera thus issues the threat that Zeus is risking discord and opposition (Elmer 2013, 148 f.); similarly Poseidon at 15.213–217 (he threatens opposition should Zeus spare Troy against his will and that of Athene, Hera, Hermes and Hephaistos). These announcements are expressions of helpless anger when protesting against Zeus; the gods are all well aware that they are powerless against him, see 1.560–569, 1.577–581. πάντες ἐπαινέομεν: an inflectable phrase in the verse middle (6× Il., 5× Od.); on ἐπαινέω as an expression for stating a consensus in assemblies, see LfgrE s. v. αἰνέω; Elmer 2013, 4–6, 146–149. — θεοὶ ἄλλοι: VE formula (63n.).

30 = 1.517 (see ad loc.); ≈ 7.454, Hes. Th. 558 (τόν); 1st VH (to caesura C 1) = Il. 8.208, 15.184, 18.97; ≈ 16.48, 17.18, 19.419, 22.14, Od. 4.30, 4.332, 15.325

27 ἱδρῶ: acc. of ἱδρῶς ‘sweat’. — καμέτην: 3rd pers. dual aor. of κάμνω ‘become tired’ (intr.), with ἵπποι as subj. (R 18.1): a team of two horses. 28 κακά: ‘to the detriment of’, in apposition to λαὸν ἀγορεύσῃ. — τοῖο: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17; on the declension, R 11.2) referring to Πριάμῳ: ‘whose’. 29 ἔρδ(ε): ‘do it!’ — ἀτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐπαινέομεν: on the uncontracted form, R 6.



(τόν). — A speech introduction formulaP (Kelly 2007, 224 f.; on their flexibility in general, 1.58n. [with bibliography]; Friedrich 2007, 42 f.). τὴν δὲ … προσέφη …: a speech introduction formulaP with a characteristic structure (τὸν/τὴν δέ + part. + προσέφη + noun-epithet formula); in Book 4 also at 183, 188, 349, 356, 411 (1.364n., 24.55n.). — ὀχθήσας: marks emotional agitation that erupts in response to behavior perceived as offensive or lacking in respect (Cairns 2003, 22; LfgrE s. v.: ‘irritated’). But Zeus’ anger – caused by Hera’s opposition and constant warmongering against the Trojans (31–36) – is part of his strategy to irritate her. — νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς: an inflectable VE formula common, as here, in speech introduction formulaeP (16.666n.); the (weather) epithet is the one most commonly used of Zeus (1.511n.; on Near Eastern analogies, West 1997, 115). The ending -ᾰ has probably been adopted from the voc. (1.175n.); on this development in epic language, Janko 2012, 23.

31–49 Zeus lets Hera have her will – supposedly reluctantly and on the condition that she is prepared to relinquish another city dear to her in compensation for her call for the destruction of Troy (37–43) – and thus conclusively achieves his goal. His speech is constructed as a ring-compositionP (Kirk; O’Brien 1993, 82–85): in the outer rings, Zeus describes the relationship he and Hera have with Troy by (A) highlighting her violent and incessant anger (31–36) while (A’) underlining his own benevolence (44–49), and he signals his yielding (B/B’: 37 f./43); the center (C) is formed by his condition (39–42), which makes Hera appear all the more vindictive, since she readily accepts it. At times Zeus creates the impression that the issue regarding Troy is actually of no great consequence to him (see esp. 37 f.), and he remains rather vague in his requirement that he be allowed to destroy a city at some point (40–42). At the same time, he insinuates limitless hatred for Troy on the part of Hera (31–36), but without specifying a reason for it. Her hatred can probably be traced back to the episode of the ‘Judgement of Paris’, which in the Iliad is mentioned explicitly only at 24.27–30 (see ad loc., with bibliography): 7–19n.; Kirk on 31–33; Reinhardt (1938) 1997; Erbse 1986, 196 f.; Kullmann (1991) 1992, 109; Pucci 2002, 25 f. What is more, it must be assumed that the narratorP designed the speech in such a manner that Zeus, well aware of why Hera hates Troy, deploys his supposed ignorance as another means of provoking her. 31 δαιμονίη: The adj., generally used in the voc., originally means ‘under the influence of a δαίμων’; the speaker uses it to express his bewilderment at an action/speech of another individual that is incomprehensible to him (‘you strange person’, see 32b– 33), although the precise nuance is often difficult to discern (1.561n., 2.190n., 6.326n.): here it is used with either an irritated (Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 29 f.; Bergold 1977, 141: pretense only) or a mocking tone (Minchin 2010, 390). Additional examples in conversations between spouses: 1.561 (Zeus to Hera), 6.407/486 (Hektor and Andromache to one another), 24.194 (Priam to Hekabe), Od. 23.166/174/264 (Odysseus and Penelope to one another). — τί νυ: ‘regarding what, but in what way’ (AH); in terms of


Iliad 4

tone, the question is impatient (K.-G. 2.119); on νυ in formulaic expressions, Ruijgh 1957, 60 ff. — Πρίαμος Πριάμοιό τε παῖδες: an inflectable VE formula (1.255, 3.288, 4.35; cf. Od. 19.414); a subtle echo, adorned with polyptoton, of the 2nd VH of 28 (Gygli-Wyss 1966, 48 f.). On the expanded formula, 35–36n. 32 2nd VH ≈ 22.10 (Achilleus), Od. 1.20 (Poseidon). — ὅ τ(ε): ‘motivates the preceding question’ (AH [transl.]; similarly Ruijgh 815), approximately ‘(as can be seen in the fact) that you …’ (6.126n.; Monro [1882] 1891, 243; Chantr. 2.286). — ἀσπερχὲς μενεαίνεις: ἀσπερχές means ‘zealously, violently’ (derived from σπέρχω/-ομαι ‘rush, hasten’, with copulative or intensive α: Schw. 1.433; DELG s. v. σπέρχομαι; Risch 216 n. 29; LfgrE s. v. ἀσπερχής); μενεαίνω is a denominative from μένος and denotes violent, angry striving (19.58n.; on μένος, 1.103n.: ‘aggressive energy specifically’); on the formulation, cf. the variants ἀσκελέως μενεαινέμεν at 19.68n. and σπερχνὸν … κοτέων at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 454.

33 = 8.288; ≈ 21.433 (ἐκπέρσαντες), cf. 2.133, 13.380 (with identical VB and VE Ἰλίου … πτολίεθρον); 1st VH ≈ 5.642; for similar expressions with ἐξαλαπάξαι, 14.251n. — Ilion: an alternative name for Troy (1.71n., FOR 24; on the original usage of the two names, Latacz [2001] 2010, 369–374). The four-word verse, here with epexegetic function (the content of Hera’s incessant efforts), emphatically calls attention to the content, the destruction of the city of Troy (cf. 5–6n.). — Ἰλίου … πτολίεθρον: On the explicative gen. of place names with πτολίεθρον (iterata), ἄστυ (103n.) or ἕδος (406), 24.144n.; Schw. 2.121 f.; Chantr. 2.62. — ἐϋκτίμενον πτολίεθρον: a VE formula describing various cities (7× Il., 3× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’): 2.501n.; on the compound ἐϋ-κτίμενον, G 91 (root pres.). 34 1st VH ≈ 14.169, h.Ven. 60; 2nd VH = Il. 22.507; ≈ 22.99. — πύλας καὶ τείχεα: The phrase describes fortifications, here of Troy as a picture of a fortified city (see also iterata); in the same position in the verse π. κ. τεῖχος of the encampment of ships (12.223, 13.679).

35–36 35b–36a ≈ 1.255 f.; 2nd VH of 35 ≈ 31 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH of 36 ≈ Od. 3.145. — raw: In Homeric epic, omophagia is characteristic of animals (LfgrE s.vv. ὠμηστής, ὠμόφαγος) – cannibalism is ascribed only to the Cyclops Polyphemus (Od. 9.287–298, 9.373 f.) and the Laistrygones (10.114–124) (Segal 1971, 41). The motif ‘eat one’s enemies raw’ is a graphic image for excessive thirst for revenge, used also by others in this rhetorical function, albeit in descriptions of one’s own thirst for revenge: menacingly by Achilleus toward Hektor (as an ‘impossible wish’: Il. 22.346 f., see de Jong ad loc.) and by Hekabe in her desire for revenge on Achilleus (24.212–213n. with bibliography; on the motif, Braund/Gilbert 2003, 278–280; Bierl 2016, 15–17 [with

32 33 34 36

τόσσα: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — κακὰ (ϝ)ρέζουσιν: on the prosody, R 4.5. πτολίεθρον: an epic word, an expansion of πόλις/πτόλις (on the word beginning, R 9.2). τείχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).



reference to Dionysos]). In the present passage, it is designed in a particularly realistic way via the notion of Hera, in her desire to destroy Troy, entering the city by its gate (34–36), thus serving as a means of provocation; Zeus insinuates that she is possessed by pathological, entirely disproportionate hatred (similarly Kirk; on the motif of omophagia as an accusation of particular barbarity, see Hekabe on Achilleus at 24.207 with n.). — Priam … | Trojans: Elsewhere in the Iliad, formulations like this are used to make clear that the population of Troy is affected by something in the same way as the royal family is (by divine anger, as here, also at 24.27 f., by war at 2.304, 4.164 f. = 6.448 f., 6.283, 21.103–105); on the formula system ‘Priam and the Trojans’, 2.160n. The potential clause is taken by West as a question: Zeus feigns that Hera’s anger is a mystery to him (31–33); he thus cannot suggest a cure, but can merely inquire about it (West 2001, 188). As a statement, this is a provocative, nasty insinuation with a pretence of disgust. — βεβρώθοις: opt. of the perf. of βιβρώσκω (‘eat, consume’); on the perfect suffix -θ-, Schw. 1.662; Chantr. 1.429 (in contrast, see the part. βεβρωκώς at 22.94, Od. 22.403). — Πρίαμον … παῖδας: 31n. — ἐξακέσοιο: ἐξ-ακέομαι means ‘heal, cure completely’ (here in the sense ‘satisfy entirely’); the prefix ἐξ- expresses the carrying of the action to its end (Schw. 2.462; Chantr. 2.97 f.). In addition to the healing of actual injuries, the verb is used in a metaphorical sense, similar to the present passage at 22.2 (quenching thirst), Od. 3.145 (the attempt to assuage Athene’s anger via hecatombs), as well as at Il. 9.507 (repairing damage caused), Od. 14.383 (fixing ships). 37 1st VH = Od. 13.145, 16.67, 24.481. — ἔρξον ὅπως ἐθέλεις: Zeus picks up Hera’s final word (29 ἔρδ’), as at 22.181/185 (catch-word techniqueP); for ancient Near Eastern parallels for the behavior of the supreme god, see West 1997, 179 n. 33. — ὀπίσσω: temporal ‘in the future, later’ (LfgrE s. v. 736.25 ff.). — τοῦτό γε νεῖκος: ‘this strife’, namely one concerning the affairs of mortals, which is thus characterized as normally of no concern to the gods (on this notion, cf. 1.574 f., 8.427–431, 21.462–467); in contrast, see 38 μέγ’ ἔρισμα (AH). Zeus pretends that the issue of the destruction of Troy is of little consequence to him. On τοῦτο as a reference to issues a speaker has at hand, Schw. 2.209 f.; Bakker [1999] 2005, 76 f.; de Jong 2012, esp. 71 ff. with n. 26); on γε (emphasizing the expression), Wakker 1994, 309 f.; Bonifazi 2012, 31. 38 2nd VH = 3.110. — ἔρισμα: a hapax legomenonP; like ἔρις, an abstract formation from the word family of ἐρίζω (on the formation, Risch 50). This word family is frequently employed in the context of fighting against enemies or rivals (cf. 1.8n., 18.535n.), the word family of νεῖκος (37) in the context of verbal confrontations (LfgrE s. v. νεῖκος): the quarrel regarding the affairs of mortals (37) is not supposed to escalate and become an occasion for a ‘major rift’ (schol. D: μεγάλης ἔχθρας … αἰτία; Porzig 1942, 187 f.; Hogan 1981, 29; LfgrE). For the terms ἔρις and νεῖκος in synonym doubling, 2.376 (with n.: in the pl. ‘petty squabbling’), 20.251, 21.513, Od. 20.267, Hes. Th. 782,

37 ὀπίσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — μή (+ aor. subjunc.): ‘just so that …’.


Iliad 4

‘Hes.’ fr. 43a.36 M.-W. (also Il. 17.384, 20.253 f.). — μετ’ ἀμφοτέροισι: ‘between, among the two of us’, supplementary with σοὶ καὶ ἐμοί (cf. 16n.).

39 = 1.297, 5.259, 9.611, 16.444, 16.851, 21.94, Od. 11.454, 16.281/299, 17.548, 19.236/495/570; ≈ h.Ap. 261; 1st VH = Il. 15.212, 23.82, Od. 24.248, h.Merc. 550; ≈ Od. 15.27, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 330; 2nd VH = Hes. Op. 107; ≈ 274. — The transitional formula allows the speaker to add emphatic stress to a subsequent statement (often warnings, threats or specific instructions) (16.444n.). ἐνὶ φρεσί: formulaic, almost always (80× early epic) between caesurae B 2 and C 2 (Jahn 1987, 267; on the prosodic variant with μετά, 245n.); φρήν/φρένες appears inter alia as the seat of mental impulses and intellectual processes, see 1.24n., 19.169–170n.; LfgrE s. v. φρένες 1017.10 ff. and 1028.1 ff.; Jahn loc. cit. 212 ff.

40–42 Although Zeus stresses his right to likewise act out his rage and be allowed to destroy one of Hera’s cities (stressed 1st-pers. pronouns in the Greek: 40 kai egṓ, 42 ton emón chólon), he remains vague and thus provokes her into generous concessions (51 ff.). 40–41 μεμαὼς … ἐξαλαπάξαι | … ἐθέλω: The part. of the perf. μέμονα (‘strive, be intent on’) is frequently combined with an inf. (LfgrE s. v. 122.58 ff; cf. 6.120n.), but ἐξαλαπάξαι is here connected with ἐθέλω, as is μεμαώς (with particular emphasis in enjambmentP: ‘I really want to …’: AH; Kirk). — πόλιν ἐξαλαπάξαι: a variable VE formula (also 2.367, 14.251, Od. 3.85, 4.176, Hes. Op. 189; see also 33n.). — τήν: demonstrative-anaphoric, pointing back at πόλιν and at the same time ahead to the relative ὅθι, similarly at 13.593 f. (AH; for additional examples, Chantr. 2.162). — φίλοι ἀνέρες: φιλεῖ/φίλος (predicative) often describes preferential treatment of a human being by a deity, see Hera’s reply at 51 (24.61n. [with bibliography], 16.94n. s. v. φιλεῖ); this also applies to the present passage (cf. LfgrE s. v. φίλος 933.15 ff.; differently, Landfester 1966, 31, 33). — ἐγγεγάασιν: ‘are born in’ → ‘dwell in’; English ‘indigenous’ (LfgrE s. v. γίγνομαι 154.56 ff.); on this perf. form, Schw. 1.767 n. 7, 769; Chantr. 1.425. 42 μή τι διατρίβειν …, ἀλλά μ’ ἐᾶσαι: A polar expressionP with imperatival infinitives (conative pres., ingressive aor.: AH; Chantr. 2.195): διατρίβω literally means ‘grind, wear away’, metaphorically ‘thwart, foil’ (LfgrE s. v. τρίβω); ἐάω means ‘let someone (do something), not prevent’ (LfgrE s. v. 383.77 ff.; Nussbaum 1998, 78). Imperatival infinitives were once interpreted as fut. imperatives, since they are often used beside prospective conditional or temporal clauses (here, 40 f.): AH; Tzamali 1996, 300 f., with older bibliography. But in contrast to the imper., the imperatival inf. contains less direct instructions, the implementation of which the speaker cannot influence directly;

39 τοι (ϝ)ερέω: on the prosody, R 4.4; τοι = σοι (R 14.1); ἐρέω = ἐρῶ (R 6), ‘I will say’. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — βάλλεο: 2nd-pers. sing. mid. imper. — σῇσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 40 ὁππότε: on the -ππ-, R 9.1. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 41 ἐθέλω, ὅθι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ὅθι: ‘where’. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1); dependent on φίλοι. — ἀνέρες: = ἄνδρες; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 42 τι: acc. of respect (R 19.1), strengthens μή: ‘in no way, not at all’.



in the present passage, this is a desirable pattern of behavior, analogous to the manner of expressions in agreements (Neuberger-Donath 1980, esp. 67: ‘obligative infinitive’; Allan 2010, 220 ff., esp. 228: ‘Agreement-script’; cf. 16.87n.). For the phenomenon, see e.g. German ‘Türen schließen!’, French ‘ne pas ouvrir les fenêtres!’, etc. — τὸν ἐμὸν χόλον: The article with an anaphoric demonstrative function refers back to 40 and marks the contrast with 36 (AH; Chantr. 2.162; cf. also G 99).

43–49 To Zeus, the conquest of Troy by the Achaians is a fact (13–19n.). He nonetheless signals via his formulation his reluctance to relinquish the city, since the Trojans and their ruling family always observed the appropriate sacrifices to him, an argument used by gods elsewhere (of Zeus also in the context of the fate of Hektor at 22.169b–172a, 24.66–70): 24.33–35n.; Kelly 2007, 223 f. At the same time, the statement at 43 is probably not a sign of a genuine inner conflict (thus Flaig 1994, 25 f.; Elmer 2013, 150, 153, 265 n. 8), but a means to deceive Hera: Zeus conceals his intentions by appearing to reluctantly concede (AH) and by informing Hera via the description of his close relationship with Troy (44–49, esp. 46 f.) that at some point she may have to pay a heavy price for the matter. 43 2nd VH ≈ 7.197. — δῶκα: used absolutely: ‘permit, allow’ the ‘action described in the context’ (LfgrE s. v. δίδωμι 296.25 ff. [transl.]); Zeus pretends to be generous and thus disguises his actual position on the matter (43–49n.). — ἑκών, ἀέκοντί γε θυμῷ: the combination ἑκών – ἀέκων also at 7.197 in reference to two different individuals (οὐ γάρ τίς με … ἑκὼν ἀέκοντα δίηται). In the present passage, the word playP describes the inner conflict (only feigned: 43–49n.) of one individual: Zeus signals that he is (supposedly) making Hera a voluntary offer that does not match his inclinations (Leaf; Kirk; Williams 1993, 51 f.; cf. schol. A, T; Porphyry ad loc. §§ 8–10 MacPhail). On antitheses with repetitions of the word stem, see Fehling 1969, 282 f.; on the oxymoron, loc. cit. 292. – θυμός can denote both the seat of emotions and spiritual energy, and the mental forces themselves (LfgrE s. v. 1081.51 ff. [for attributes, see 1083.56 ff.]; see also 152n., 1.24n.). 44 οὐρανῷ ἀστερόεντι: an inflectable VE formula (7× Il., 4× Od., 10× Hes.) with an ornamental epithetP; used in reference to both the daytime and the nighttime sky, as well as to the god Ouranos (6.108n.). On I-E formulations ‘under the sun’ and ‘under(neath) the sky’ in the sense ‘across the whole world’, West 2007, 86.

45 The adj. epichthónios (‘living on earth’) points to the limited existence (both spatially and chronologically) of human beings, and is one of the epithets used to highlight the contrast with gods (LfgrE s. v. ἄνθρωπος 890.3 ff.; on additional epithets with words for ‘human beings’, 1.266n., 19.22n.). A four-word verse (cf. 5–6n.). — ναιετάουσι: literally ‘live, inhabit’, here used intransitively with the location as a subject ‘be inhabited, situated’ (likewise at Od. 4.177,

44 αἵ: relative pronoun, picked up by τάων in 46. — ἠελίῳ: = ἡλίῳ. 45 πόληες: nom. pl. of πόλις (cf. R 11.3).


Iliad 4

9.23, cf. ναίουσι Il. 2.626); this usage perhaps derives from the participial VE formulae εὖ ναιεταούσας/ναιετάοντας (of houses and cities ‘where one lives well’): 6.370n.; DELG s. v. ναίω. — ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων: a VE formula, almost always in the gen. pl. (1× Il., 4× Od., 5× Hes. [of which 1× acc. pl.], 5× h.Hom.). 46–47 2nd VH 46–47 ≈ 164b–165 and 6.448b–449 (ὀλώλῃ), 8.551b–552 (in West only in the app. crit.) and 24.27b–28a (ἀπήχθετο). — μοι … τιέσκετο: iterative of the mid.pass. of τίω, ‘was appreciated, was honored’ (LfgrE), with dat. of persons involved (on which, Schw. 2.149 f.; Chantr. 2.72 f.; George 2005, 51–60, esp. 56 f. with n. 25). The idea expressed in the present formulation, that a god ‘honors’ a city along with all its inhabitants (47), is unique and appears to be emphatic (cf. LfgrE s. v. τίω); elsewhere the favoring of human beings by a god is described via φιλεῖ/φίλος (cf. 51; on this, 24.61n., 16.94n.). The past tense perhaps indicates that Zeus has put the matter out of his mind (AH). — περὶ κῆρι: In most cases, the expression (8× Il., 6× Od.; frequently after caesura A 4, as well as at VE and after caesura A 1) is to be resolved into adverbial περί (‘very much, more so than others’; see also 257) and locative κῆρι (‘in the heart’), as is the case here (schol. A, bT; Leaf; AH; Willcock; Chantr. 2.126; Hainsworth on Od. 5.36 [with reference to Il. 9.117]; cf. 24.61n.; on the variant πέρι, 18.549n.; differently Faesi; Fritz 2005, 258 f.: περί as preposition; considered by Kirk with reference to 53 [“deep in the heart”]). — Ἴλιος ἱρή: an inflectable VE formula (5× nom., 3× gen., 15× acc., in total 21× Il., 2× Od.); an ancient formula, the attribute ἱρή is probably related to Sanskrit iṣirá- (‘strong’) (Janko, Introd. 10, 19; for additional bibliography, Beekes s. v. ἱερός; on ἱερός as a generic epithetP of cities, also 1.38n., 16.100n. — Πρίαμος καὶ λαὸς … Πριάμοιο: λαός here denotes the people as a whole, including women and children (LfgrE s. v. 1636.31 ff.; in contrast to 28 [see ad loc.]), and the formulation overall is a paraphrase for ‘all inhabitants of Troy’ (see 35 f. with n.); the statement at 46 f. thus presents no contradiction to 20.306 (ἤδη γὰρ Πριάμου γενεὴν ἤχθηρε Κρονίων) (Kirk, contra schol. bT; see also Edwards on 20.306). On the polyptoton, see 31 (with n.) and 35. — ἐϋμμελίω: ‘with a good lance of ash’ (for the metonymic use of μελίη ‘ash’ for ‘lance’, LfgrE s. v.); on the contracted form of the gen., Schw. 1.252; Chantr. 1.64 f. A generic epithetP of heroes, in the Iliad only of Priam and the sons of Panthoos (LfgrE s. v.). On epithets referring to the arms of heroes or armies, 6.116n.; for I-E parallels, West 2007, 460.

48–49 = 24.69–70 (Zeus on Hektor). 48 2nd VH = 1.468, 1.602, 2.431, 7.320, 23.56, 24.69, Od. 16.479, 19.425; ≈ Il. 15.95. — ἐδεύετο: On δεύομαι for Attic δέομαι, G 61. — δαιτὸς ἐΐσης: a VE formula (see iterata) meaning ‘even(ly allocated) portion’, in the present context (sacrifice to Zeus) perhaps with the connotation ‘due portion’ (LfgrE s. v. ἶσος 1229.70 ff.; Ulf 1990, 195 n. 52; Bernsdorff 1992, 96 f.; Hitch 2009, 108; see also 24.69n.; on the epic by-form of ἶσος [with prothetic vowel or developed from erroneous division of πάντοσε ϝίσην], 1.306n. with bibliography).

46 τάων: partitive gen. — τιέσκετο (ϝ)ίλιος: on the prosody, R 4.3; on the iterative form (-σκ-), R 16.5. — ἱρή: = ἱερά. 47 ἐϋμμελίω: gen. of ἐϋμμελίης (↑). 48 ἐΐσης: = ἴσης.



49 1st VH ≈ 9.500. — A verse with epexegetic content: the ‘smell of fat’ (knísē) rising with the smoke from a sacrifice and the ‘libation’ (loibḗ ) are the share of the sacrifice to which the gods are entitled (géras) (24.70n. with bibliography; Hitch 2009, 102 f.; Naiden 2013, 111–113); on the sequence of events of a sacrifice, 1.447–468n. (type-sceneP), 1.460–461n. (preparation of thighbones and fat as the share for the gods); on the libation, 1.469–474n. (typesceneP). Zeus meets an enraged Hera with the same argument when he argues in favor of ending the maltreatment of Hektor’s body (24.65–70), but in the present passage no actual directions for action follow (cf. 43–49n.). λάχομεν γέρας: On the formulation, 24.70n.: γέρας can mean both ‘claim’ and concretely ‘(special) share’ (LfgrE s. v.; Clarke 1999, 183); λαγχάνω is construed with acc. or gen. with no distinction in meaning (Schw. 2.104; Chantr. 2.52).

50 = 1.551, 16.439, 18.360, 20.309; 1st VH (τὸν δ’/τὴν δ’): 48× Il., 24× Od., 2× h.Ven. (speech introduction formulaP: 1.121n.; Kelly 2007, 176 n. 1). — The replacement of the speech capping formulaP by the interlocutor’s speech introduction formulaP is common (19.28n.), e.g. also at 183, 188, 356, 411. βοῶπις πότνια Ἥρη: an inflectable noun-epithet formula of the 2nd VH (nom./voc.: 14× Il., 3× h.Ap.); on the epithet βοῶπις (meaning ‘ox-eyed’ in the sense ‘having large eyes’), on the VE formula πότνια Ἥρη (and its hiatus), and on the prosodically identical formula variant θεὰ λευκώλενος Ἥρη, 1.551n., 14.159n.

51–67 Hera’s speech is divided into two parts: part (1) picks up from the preceding speeches (51–64a), part (2) contains a suggestion for a future course of action (64b–67). In order to avoid the awkward topic, Hera does not respond to Zeus’ question regarding the cause of her hatred (31–36), but only to his demand (39 ff.) by (a) offering a quid pro quo, (b) stating the balance of power and justified claims, and thus (c) creating a consensus between the two parties; see the correspondences in content at 51 f./41b, 53 f./40–42, 55 f./42 f., 62–63a/37–38 (also VB 58/43). She also reaffirms her statements from the first speech, namely those concerning her outrage (57 ff./26 ff., esp. 57/26) and the attitude of the remaining gods (63b–64a/29b). On the sentence and verse structure of the speech, Kirk, Introd. 35 f. 51–53 Hera immediately signals to Zeus that she would be prepared, should he let her have her way now in the case of Troy, to allow him to destroy three

49 τὸ … γέρας: τό is anticipatory, γέρας predicative (‘as an entitlement, gift of honor’). — λάχομεν: aor. of λαγχάνω ‘be allocated, receive as a share’. — ἡμεῖς: stressed, ‘we gods’. 50 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17 (likewise τάς, τάων 53 f.). — Ἥρη: on the -η after -ρ-, R 2. 51 ἤτοι ἐμοί: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἤτοι: R 24.4. — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — πόληες: 45n.


Iliad 4

cities intimately associated with her, whenever in the future they should cause him displeasure; this illustrates her relentlessness and her hatred toward Troy (Willcock on 50; O’Brien 1993, 84 f.; on Greek phíltatos ‘dearest’, 24.61n.; LfgrE s. v. φίλος 947 f.36 ff.). The three cities mentioned are significant as centers of power from a mythological point of view: Sparta and Mykenai, the latter located in the northern Argolid, are considered the residences of Menelaos (Od. 1.285, etc.: 2.582n., 3.140n.) and Agamemnon (Il. 7.180; for the significance of Mycenae, see the epithet ‘rich in gold’ at 7.180, 11.46, Od. 3.305; also 2.569–580n., 2.569n.), respectively. Argos, a polis in the southern Argolid (mentioned at 2.559 in addition to Tiryns, at Od. 21.108 in addition to Pylos and Mycenae), is at any rate the main settlement in the territory of Diomedes (cf. Il. 6.224 f.: 2.108n., 2.559–568n.), the second most successful warrior in the Achaian army after Achilleus; see his aristeia in Books 5, 6, and 8 (CH 3; 6.12n., 6.96–101n.; on the significance of Argos, also 2.559n.; BNP and PECS s. v. Argos; on the relationships Mycenae–Argos and Agamemnon–Diomedes, Visser 1997, 456–458; in addition, 364–421n., 376– 381n., 401–402n.). Hera is thus relinquishing the cities of the Atreidai, i.e. her two favorites, the future conquerors of Troy (Nilsson [1940] 1967, 428; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 260 f.; see also Visser loc. cit. 482 f. n. 7). Argos in turn is intimately connected with the cult of Hera (8n.). Similar evidence is missing for Mycenae (PECS s. v. Mycenae), whereas in the case of Sparta, references are at least transmitted in Pausanias (shrine and wooden figure, a so-called xoanon, of Hera: Paus. 3.11.9, 3.13.8, 3.15.9; on the topography of Sparta according to the information in Pausanias, see BNP s. v. Sparta); on locations of cult for Hera, RE s. v. Hera col. 370–382, esp. 372–375. – The possible destruction of these cities is linked to events outside the Iliad, as well as to historical events, by some scholars: (a) a reminiscence of the destruction of Mycenaean palatial culture (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 162 f. n. 2; Hölscher 1994, 14 f.; Shear 2000, 136; Wilson 2002, 176 and 212 f. n. 45); (b) influence of the myth concerning the return of the Herakleidai (Wilamowitz 1916, 288; West 2011, 140, on 40–42; on the role of the descendants of Herakles in the Iliad, see 2.653n. and CH 6 with n. 25). 52 A tripartite list, with the third element augmented with an epithet (cf. ‘law of increasing parts’ at 1.145n.; West 2004 [esp. 45 f.]; 2007, 117–119). The adjective euryágyia (‘with wide streets’) is an ornamental epithetP, particularly of Troy, once each of Mycenae and Athens (Visser 1997, 85, 93 n. 25). 53 διαπέρσαι: an imperatival inf. (on which, 42n.); the subject is to be supplied from the context. — ὅτ’ ἄν τοι ἀπέχθωνται: The subjunc. form can be taken as an aor.

53 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).



meaning ‘incur someone’s hatred’ (from the pres. ἀπεχθάνομαι) or as a durative meaning ‘be hated’ (from ἀπέχθομαι), here approximately ‘whenever they become hated by you’ (Mutzbauer 1893, 97 f.; Risch 242 f.; LfgrE s. v. ἐχθάνομαι). — περὶ κῆρι: 46– 47n.

54 VE after caesura C 2 ≈ 7.408, Od. 2.235, 8.206, h.Merc. 465. — Hera’s readiness to let Zeus have his way (40–42) is highlighted linguistically via both the stressed personal pronoun egṓ and her statement that she will not resist him either inwardly or outwardly. πρόσθ’ ἵσταμαι: ‘stand in front of someone’; the phrase usually connotes ‘for protection’ (Kurz 1966, 92 with n. 37; Kelly 2007, 141 f.). — μεγαίρω: a denominative from the word family of μέγας, meaning originally ‘consider too large’ > ‘decline, deny’, and here picked up again by φθονέω in 55 (LfgrE s.vv. μεγαίρω and φθονέω; DELG s. v. μέγας).

55–56 2nd VH of 56 ≈ 1.169, 4.307, 6.158, 7.105, 8.144, 8.211, 10.557, 20.135, 20.368, 22.40, 5× Od. — The topic of how Hera’s resistance to Zeus is futile and how ultimately she is always defeated by him is broached occasionally in the Iliad, e.g. 1.544–569, 1.577–591, 15.13–52, 15.89–101, also Zeus’ superiority at 8.4–27 (Kirk on 58–61; Kelly 2007, 424 f. [with bibliography]). These verses were athetized by Aristarchus and others on the ground that Hera’s remarks diminish her offer and interfere with the train of thought. But they are essential because of 57 (success of her efforts, see ad loc.); what is more, they serve to flatter Zeus in response to his statement at 43 (he only makes concessions reluctantly): van Leeuwen; Leaf; Kirk; for discussion, also AH, Anh. p. 30 f.; van der Valk 1964, 391 f. — εἰ … φθονέω τε καὶ οὐκ εἰῶ διαπέρσαι: A reminiscence of the statement οὔ … πρόσθ’ ἵσταμαι οὐδὲ μεγαίρω (54 with n.) in chiastic arrangement via the formulations for ‘refuse’ and ‘prevent’ (φθονέω of a deity only here in early epic): LfgrE s. v. φθονέω. φθονέω and εἰῶ can be taken as indicative or subjunctive; the negative οὐκ (rather than μή) can be explained by positing that οὐκ ἐάω was felt to be a conceptual unity, cf. 20.138 f. (εἰ δέ κ’ … ἄρχωσι … καὶ οὐκ εἰῶσι): Schw. 2.593 f.; Chantr. 2.333 and 2.339; for additional examples, 24.296n.; on the form εἰῶ < *ἐάω (here restorable), Chantr. 1.356; Nussbaum 1998, 53–56. In the present passage, a subjunc. is perhaps to be assumed instead (AH [with future force]; Faesi; Willcock [prospective]; cautiously, Ruijgh 520: ‘an iterative and permanent fact’ [transl.]; favoring the indicative: Leaf [‘Hera is here stating a fact’]; Ruijgh 734). ἀνύω in the apodosis is interpreted as a pres. with future meaning (AH; Faesi; Leaf; Ruijgh 734; LfgrE s. v. ἄνυμαι). — ἦ: A speaker thus marks a statement as objectively true (cf. Wakker 1997, 227–229). — πολὺ φέρτερός ἐσσι: an inflectable VE formula (also 3rd-sing./pl., 1st-pl., inf.: in total 13× Il., 5× Od., 1× h.Cer.), as a statement regarding Zeus also at 8.144, 8.211, 15.165/181 (expanded via βίῃ). φέρτερος generally means ‘superior’ and is used synonymously with ἀμείνων (1.186n.; LfgrE).

54 τάων: dependent on πρόσθε, picks up τάς in 53; on the declension, R 11.1. 55–56 φθονέω: on the uncontracted form (likewise 56), R 6. — εἰῶ: = ἐάω. — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.3).


Iliad 4

57 2nd VH ≈ 26 (see ad loc.). — In a sense, Hera now insists on reciprocity: if Zeus can push through everything, she too should be allowed to pursue her interests, and her efforts should not be in vain either (stressed kai emón … pónon, cf. 40–42n.). 58–61 Hera justifies her claim with (a) the fact that she is one of the gods, (b) her descent (the same as Zeus’), and (c) her special status among the daughters of Kronos (see 59n. on πρεσβυτάτην) and especially as Zeus’ wife. The last point is perhaps a weak argument against Zeus, since this fact has only limited value in his view (see 1.545 f., 1.562 f., 5.892 f.). But Hera uses her formulation to point to the status both of them have among the gods, and thus to flatter Zeus as well. On the significance of descent, 6.145n., 6.152– 211n. (in speeches of challenge and triumph). 58 γένος … ἔνθεν ὅθεν σοί: sc. ἐστίν: nominal clauses with the adverbs ἔνθεν and ὅθεν used predicatively (cf. Schw. 2.414 f.; Chantr. 2.2, 9; Sommer 1977, 160 ff.; additional examples at 1.416n., 6.131n.).

59 2nd VH = h.Ven. 22, 42; ≈ Hes. Th. 137. — Kronos: On Kronos in the Iliad, CG 26; on his banishment to Tartaros, 14.203b–204n. πρεσβυτάτην: Among human beings, the epithet denotes the eldest in a group of siblings (6.24, 11.740, 13.429, 21.142 f.). In the present passage, it likely marks the one with the highest standing among the daughters of Kronos, which in Hera’s case is explained by both her birth and her position as the wife of the ruler of the gods; see 60 f. (LfgrE s. v. πρεσβύτερος: ‘most venerable’; similarly Leaf: ‘senior in dignity’; de Lamberterie 1990, 916 f.; Häussler 1995, 51), also the epithet πρέσβα ‘venerable’ in her designation as Ἥρη πρέσβα θεὰ θυγάτηρ μεγάλοιο Κρόνοιο (5.721, 8.383, 14.194, 14.243: 19.91n.; on the etymology, 14.194n.) and ἀρίστη in the similarly designed 18.364–366. Assuming that the word means ‘eldest’ (thus Kirk) creates a discrepancy with the tradition outside the Iliad (see also Od. 13.142 with Hoekstra ad loc.): Hestia is considered Kronos’ firstborn (h.Ven. 22, see also the list at Hes. Th. 454f: Hestia, Demeter and Hera, followed by Hades, Poseidon and Zeus), who at the same time is also the youngest (h.Ven. 23). This is interpreted as a consequence of the 2nd ‘birth’ from Kronos (Solmsen 1960, 2 f.): she was devoured first and disgorged last; Hera, as last-born daughter, was thus devoured last and disgorged first (cf. Hes. Th. 497): West on Hes. Th. 454 and 2011, 140; Faulkner on h.Ven. 22–23 and on 40–44; Olson on h.Ven. 22–23; see also Janko on 14.203–204; LfgrE s.vv. Ζεύς 860.66 f. and Ποσειδῶν 1472.13 ff. — τέκετο: In early epic, the aor. mid. of τίκτειν usually denotes the male act of begetting (for bibliography, 6.154–155n.). — Κρόνος ἀγκυλομήτης: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc.: 1× Il., 5× Hes., 2× h.Ven.); on the etymology and meaning of the Greek epithet (originally probably ‘with crooked sickle’, reinterpreted as ‘of crooked counsel, wily’), 2.205n.

57 θέμεναι: = θεῖναι (R 16.4). 59 τέκετο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.



60–61 = 18.365–366; 2nd VH of 61 ≈ 12.242, 14.94, Od. 7.23, Hes. Th. 506. — In the iteratum, Hera uses the same words to substantiate her claim that φημι θεάων ἔμμεν ἀρίστη (18.364). Such literal repetition by the same character in different dialogues can serve to clarify the links between the passages; cf. 25–68n. (the couple’s first and last argument regarding the fate of Troy) and the parallel sequence of events in the dispute: (1) Zeus provokes Hera because of her actions against the Trojans or in favor of the Achaians (31–36 and 18.357–359); (2) Hera insists on achieving her goal, namely maximum damage to the Trojans (57–61/18.364–367): de Jong (1987) 2004, 189 and 284 n. 92. At the same time, it has been suggested that the present passage is a concordance interpolation (van Leeuwen; West 2001, 13 n. 31). — ἀμφότερον: ‘in two ways’, in apposition to the clause that follows (‘which applies on the basis of both’): Schw. 2.617; see also 3.179n. — τε καί: links the parts of the clause that are closely connected in terms of content but construed differently in terms of syntax (19.336n.). — γενεῇ: here in reference to her birth because of 58 f. (LfgrE s. v. 127.8 ff.). — σὴ παράκοιτις | κέκλημαι: on similar formulations in VE formulae, 14.267–268n.; on the word formation of παράκοιτις (‘woman with whom one sleeps, bedfellow, wife’), a possessive compound (Risch 32: ‘having a bed beside’), cf. ἄκοιτις (3.138n.; Risch 216).

62–64a Hera now looks for a consensus of the two of them, which is to be achieved by the ‘principle of postponed quid pro quo’ (53) and is meant to forestall the resistance threatened by some of the gods (29) (Flaig 1994, 25 [transl.]; Elmer 2012, 43). 62 ἀλλ’ ἤτοι μέν: used in announcements or demands (9n.); here it prepares for the juxtaposition σὺ δέ at 64b (AH). — ὑποείξομεν: short-vowel aor. subjunc. (by contrast, see the fut. mid. at 1.294, 23.602, Od. 12.117): ‘let us yield’, i.e. Hera appeals to Zeus to accept as a joint agreement his willingness to let her act in accord with her wishes (37 f., 43) and her meeting his conditions (53–56) (Faesi; LfgrE s. v. εἴκω; Christensen 2010, 561 f.; favoring the fut.: AH and AH, Anh. p. 32; Mutzbauer 1893, 343). 63 1st VH (to caesura A 4) ≈ 10.292, 16.498, 24.437, 24.595, Od. 3.382; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 12.349. — σοὶ μὲν ἐγώ, σὺ δ’ ἐμοί: emphasizes the reciprocity (ἀλλήλοισιν) via parallelism (you–I) and chiastically arranged antithesis (for additional examples, Fehling 1969, 304 f.). — θεοὶ ἄλλοι: a VE formula (likewise at 29): 11× Il., 8× Od., 1× Hes. Th., of which 10× after καὶ/ἠδ’ ἀθάνατοι (18.115–116n.), only here with ἀθάνατοι following in enjambmentP. – Hera flatteringly insinuates that Zeus will also satisfy all the other gods with his agreement – another benefit for him.

64b–72 Hera’s suggestion that Athene initiate a hostile action by the Trojans must be carried out ‘at once’ (thásson 64b, aipsa mal’ [‘without delay’] 70;

60 γενεῇ: causal dat., ‘due to my birth’; on the -η after -ε-, R 2. — οὕνεκα: crasis for οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘because’. 61 μετά (+ dat.): ‘among’. — ἀθανάτοισιν: initial syllable metrically lengthened, likewise VB 64 (R 10.1); on the declension, R 11.2. 63 ἐμοί· ἐπί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἐπὶ … ἕψονται: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.


Iliad 4

see also autík’ [immediately’] 69), since the Trojans must respond immediately to Agamemnon’s demands (3.455–461) (West 2011, 140 [on 75–78]). On the narrative scheme employed here (‘A proposes to B that he send C, B does so’) in Babylonian epic, see West 1997, 357; also loc. cit. 195. 64b θάσσον: ‘as quickly as possible, immediately’, except at h.Merc. 212 always in requests or statements of intent (LfgrE s. v. ταχύς 340.29 ff.). On the accent, West 1998, XX (s. v. ἄσσον). — Ἀθηναίῃ: a metrically convenient variant of Ἀθήνῃ, also 69 and 73 (cf. 6.88n.); on the form, also attested in inscriptions, Wachter 2001, 263. — ἐπιτεῖλαι: an imperatival inf. (on which, 42n.); the usage here corresponds to that in instructions to a messenger (cf. 18.142n.; Allan 2010, 218 f.).

65 ≈ 5.379, 16.256; 2nd VH ≈ 6.1. — The ethnic ‘Achaians’, together with ‘Argives’ and ‘Danaäns’, is one of the Homeric terms for ‘Greeks’ (1.2n.; FOR 24; Latacz [2001] 2004, 133–136; [2011] 2014, 490–492). Τρώων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectable phrase in various positions in the verse (16.256n.): here after caesura A 4 (in total 11× Il., 1× Od.), in 70 at VE (in total 9× Il.). — φύλοπιν αἰνήν: a VE formula (15n.). φύλοπις is here used as a general term for ‘battle, war’ (cf. 15).

66–67 = 71–72. — The possibility that one of the Trojans might violate the truce settled with an agreement under oath was implied already during the oath ceremony, see 3.105–107 (also the cursing of the oath-breakers at 3.279, 3.299–301: 3.279n.). — first: Just as the war started with Paris’ violation of hospitality (see 3.87, 3.100, 3.351 f., 7.374), so now it is the Trojans who are meant to carry out the first hostile act and thus break the truce (105–221). On the human plane, a continuation of the war is thus initially legitimate, especially from the point of view of the Achaians, and its outcome is justified; see 268–271 (van Erp 2000, 400 f.; also Latacz [1985] 1996, 131). 66 πειρᾶν δ’, ὡς: ‘try’ in the sense ‘endeavor’, with a final clause (LfgrE; Kirk: ‘«to try how», i.e. «try to arrange it that»’; similarly Willcock; Bergold 1977, 149 f.). — κεν Τρῶες: The transmission of the ny ephelkystikon is often uncertain (on the phenomenon for the purpose of ‘making position’, 1.388n., G 33); on why it is placed here but not at 95, West 2001, 188: to fill the ‘slightly longer duration’ in the biceps as compared to the longum (see also West 1998, XXVf.). — ὑπερκύδαντας Ἀχαιούς: a variant, attested only here and in the iteratum, of the metrically and prosodically equivalent, frequently used inflectable VE formula ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς (in total 37× early epic: 80n.). The compound ὑπερ-κύδ-αντ- (the nom. is not attested) means ‘in high spirits, proud beyond measure’ (likewise at Hes. Th. 510, of Menoitios, a brother of Prometheus); its second element is the root of κῦδος, a proud exhilaration based on (military) superiority (95n.), and its composition shows a ‘probably analogous trans-

64 Ἀθηναίῃ: on the -η after -ι-, R 2. — Ἀθηναίῃ ἐπιτεῖλαι: on the hiatus, M 12.2. 65 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). 66 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).



fer from other formations in -αντ-’ like ἀκάμας, ἀδάμας (Risch 27 [transl.]; see also Leaf; DELG s. v. κῦδος). The choice of epithet reveals Hera’s thoughts: after the agreement to a truce and the result of the duel (cf. 13), the Achaians are in the best of moods and await the fulfillment of the agreement, cf. 3.455–461 (similarly schol. bT: Achaians triumphing since they claim that the victory is theirs; also de Jong 1998, 127 f.). But since Paris has not suffered a visible defeat, but has disappeared from the battleground, there is a moment of hesitation; this is Hera’s chance. 67 ≈ 3.299, 4.236, 4.271; 2nd VH ≈ 3.107 (reminiscences of the curse formulae in Book 3). — ἄρξωσι πρότεροι: The legally relevant question ‘Who started it?’ is doubly stressed: via πρότεροι ‘first’ (see iterata; in a similar context, 3.351, 19.183, 24.369, Hes. Th. 166, etc.) and via ἄρχω, inter alia a technical legal term (cf. 2.378, Od. 4.667, Hes. Op. 709, h.Ap. 312): LfgrE s. v. ἄρχω 1384.60 ff.; cf. 3.100n. — ὑπὲρ ὅρκια: ‘(going) outside the oaths, against the oaths’, cf. ὑπὲρ αἶσαν, ὑπὲρ θεόν (AH; Chantr. 2.136). ὅρκια means ‘matters related to the oath’, and denotes the agreements supported by the oath, on the one hand, and the sacrificial animals slaughtered during the oath ceremonies, on the other (LfgrE); on the various phrases for the violation of treaties, 3.299n. — δηλήσασθαι: ‘injure, destroy’; used in reference to property, life and limb, and treaties (LfgrE).

68 = 16.458; 1st VH (a speech capping formulaP) also 19× Il., 2× Od., 2× h.Cer. (with different subjects); for 2nd VH, see below. — It is often noted when a characterP follows instructions without further discussion, here by means of a speech capping formulaP, which is used after issuing instructions regardless of the difference in authority. The formula does not serve to paint Zeus as defeated in the quarrel, but to indicate his agreement; see his subsequent orders at 69 ff. (1.345n.; on the litotes oud’ apíthēse [‘did not oppose, agreed’], 24.300n.). — father: 23–24n.; together with the polar expressionP ‘of men and gods’, this forms a periphrastic denominationP of Zeus that emphasizes his authority (24.103n.; Nesselrath 2014, esp. 41–43; on Near Eastern parallels, West 1997, 108 f.). – Zeus watches over oaths and treaties and was invoked multiple times in prayers during the preceding oath ceremony (3.276, 298, 320, 351; see 3.103–104n., 3.298n.); the fact that in this case he will not support their observation has already been alluded to by the narrator, see 3.298–302 for his response to cursing potential oath breakers (3.302n.). πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε: a formula after caesura B 2 (12× Il., 3× Od., 18× Hes., 1× Titan., 1× h.Bacch.): 1.544n.; metrically equivalent to the formula at 75 (see ad loc.); for additional VE formulae for Zeus, 16.88n.

69–92 The type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (1.320–348a n.): (1) issuing orders (69–73), (2) departure (74), (3) arrival (79 f., 86–88), (4) finding the person

67 πρότεροι ὑπέρ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 68 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί (cf. R 5.1); on the middle, R 23. — ἀπίθησε: unaugmented (R 16.1) aor. of ἀπιθέω.


Iliad 4

sought (with a description of the situation: 89–91), (5) approach (92a), (6) speech introduction (92b) and speech (93 ff.). This example also contains elements (3)–(5) of the type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (1.43–52n.): description of the route (74); simile (75–78); arrival (79–80, 86); and realization of the aim of the intervention (87 ff.). 69 = 5.713, 21.419; ≈ 8.351, 19.341. — αὐτίκ(α): used in speech introduction formulae to facilitate a close connection with the action (LfgrE s. v. 1601.22 ff.; Bonifazi 2012, 277 f. with n. 35; cf. 5–6n.). — ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα: a speech introduction formulaP (55× Il., 59× Od. [of which 6× προσηύδων], 3× ‘Hes.’, 8× h.Hom.): 16.6n.; on the meaning of πτερόεντα (‘feathered’, i.e. ‘flying steadily, unerring like an arrow’), 1.201n. with bibliography; LfgrE s. v. πτερόεις; Reece 2009, 315–319; on προσηύδα, 23–24n. 69a ≈ 515. — The additional verse, transmitted in the present passage in only a single papyrus (West’s app. crit.), is evidently an interpolation intended to make the speech begin with an address (Apthorp 1980, 73).

70–72 In accord with epic convention, the order is repeated in much the same words when it is carried out (6.86–101n. with bibliography), as is also the case with the demands conveyed by the message (2.28–32n. with bibliography). In the present case (64b–67/70–72), Zeus’ speech repeats the aim of the order literally, with changes only to the syntax: here in direct speech, at 65–67 in indirect speech (on this, de Jong [1987] 2004, 182 f. and 281 n. 72), i.e. Zeus appears to Athene to be the sole originator of the order (for additional examples, 6.269–278n.). The outrageous act of violating the treaty by the Trojans is particularly stressed not merely by the detailed description in the narratortext (73–147), but also by repeated mention in the speeches in Book 4: here on the divine plane (Hera’s orders to Zeus, Zeus’ to Athene), subsequently on the human plane (157 Agamemnon to Menelaos and at 236 to the Achaian army, 271 Idomeneus to Agamemnon); for examples of triple repetition, 2.60– 70a n., 16.666–683n., 24.118–119n. 70 1st VH = 24.112; 2nd VH = 3.264, 7.35, 11.533, 17.458, 20.24. — αἶψα μάλ(α): ‘immediately’; a VB formula (4× Il., 5× Od.). 71–72 = 66–67 (with n.). — πειρᾶν: a change from the imper. (ἐλθέ) to an imperatival inf. (on which, 42n.), in accord with the formulation of instructions to messengers (cf. Allan 2010, 218 f. and 228 [‘messenger-script’]; also 18.142n.).

73 = 19.349, 22.186, Od. 24.487. — before this: This was made clear already at the beginning of the scene (20 f.). The iterata similarly concern Zeus giving

69 ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 70 αἶψα μάλ(α): = μάλ’ αἶψα. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — μετά (+ acc.): ‘among, to’. 71–72 = 66–67n. 73 πάρος: ‘already earlier’. — μεμαυῖαν: fem. of μεμαώς, part. of the perf. μέμονα (‘strive, have the urge’).



Athene orders that she entirely agrees with: namely to strengthen Achilleus prior to his departure for battle, to initiate Hektor’s death, to support Odysseus in his campaign for revenge. ὣς εἰπὼν ὤτρυνε: an inflectable VB formula (εἰπών/εἰποῦσ’: 13× Il., 2× Od.; for references, 6.72n.); the action of εἰπών coincides with that of ὤτρυνε (Schw. 2.301 f.); ὣς εἰπών (speech capping formulaP) is an inflectable VB formula (nom./acc., usually nom.: in total, 74× Il., 42× Od., 3× Hes., 11× h.Hom.).

74 = 2.167, 7.19 (ῥα), 22.187, 24.121, Od. 1.102, 24.488; ≈ Il. 1.44 (see ad loc.). The verse functions simultaneously as element 3 of the type-sceneP ‘divine journey’ and as element 2 of the type-scene ‘delivery of a message’ (69–92n.). — Olympos: In Homeric epic, the Thessalian/Macedonian Olympos is regarded as the residence of the gods (1.18n.); occasionally the heavens are mentioned as their dwelling place instead (e.g. 1.194 f.). For the blending of the ideas, Schmidt 1976, 82 n. 36; Noussia 2002, 491 ff.; de Jong on 22.187; for additional bibliography, LfgrE s. v. Ὄλυμπος. βῆ δὲ κατ(ά): a VB formula for a deity descending (10× Il., 2× Od.). — βῆ … ἀΐξασα: ‘she quickly went down’ (see 78 f. ἤϊξεν … | κὰδ δ’ ἔθορ(ε)). The movements described by ἀΐξασα and βῆ coincide temporally; the verbs illustrate different aspects of the overall action (cf. 73n.).

75–81 ComparisonsP and similesP in changes of location by deities usually illustrate the speed of the descent to earth; the flight of birds (esp. birds of prey) is used in particular for this, but so are snow in the wind and the drop of a lead ball (2.764n., 19.350–351a n., 24.80–82n. [each with bibliography]). In the present passage, the image is of a brightly shining ‘star’ moving down across the sky and followed by a trail of sparks; this is likely inspired by the idea of a fast-moving meteor visible for only a brief period of time. At the same time, the simile illustrates not only speed and movement, but also the observation of signs in the sky (at 76 by sailors or an army), i.e. what charactersP might be able to see when Athene descends (secondary focalizationP): her leap down from Olympos to the earth (74, 78–79a) creates an impression of falling light and fire (77), comparable to the flight of a meteor; the extraordinary celestial phenomenon triggers emotions in the spectators (79b–80) and gives rise to the sense that this is a sign from Zeus (prepared for in accord with the situation by the narrator at 75 f.: Athene was sent by Zeus) that requires interpretation (81–85): Leaf on 75; Kirk on 75–78 and 78–84; Fränkel 1921, 29 f.; Stockinger 1959, 142 f.; Bergold 1977, 150 f.; de Jong 1987, 73 n. 19; (1987) 2004, 134 f.; Bannert 1988, 63 f.; West 2011, 140 f. Ob-

74 βῆ: on the unaugmented form, 16.1. — Οὐλύμποιο: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἀΐξασα: from ἀΐσσω ‘hurry, rush’; likewise ἤϊξεν in 78.


Iliad 4

serving the miraculous apparition creates an atmosphere of suspenseful expection regarding how the story will continue (Scott 1974, 98 f.; Tsagarakis 1982, 140 f.). For additional similes with secondary focalization, see de Jong (1987) 2004, 135 f.; on Near Eastern parallels for the comparison (a goddess descends like a star) and on the interpretation of meteors as omens, see West 1997, 49, 358 f.; on stars as signs for sailors, 18.486n. In the present passage, the narrator uses the rarely visible phenomenon of meteors as a symbol for the significance of the situation, in which everything is balanced on a knife edge. – In other comparisons, the shining of a star signifies beauty (6.295n., 6.401n.), the imposing and menacing appearance of an armed warrior (19.381b n.), or Apollo’s shining epiphany (h.Ap. 440 ff.). 75 1st VH ≈ 22.317; for 2nd VH, see below — Kronos: 59n. οἷον δ’ ἀστέρα: anticipatory introduction to the simile, syntactically continued by τῷ (≈ τοίῳ ἀστέρι) in 78 (Ruijgh 526, 538; Monteil 1963, 183 f.). — ἧκε: In Homeric similes, aor. forms are usually augmented; like the pres. (here ἵενται 77), they perhaps not only express timeless facts (thus traditionally the so-called ‘gnomic aor.’), but also represent the narrator’s effort to illustrate the facts (for bibliography, 16.299– 300n.). Aside from this, in the present passage the aor. marks a single immediate action (Ruijgh 264). The hiatus before ἧκε could be avoided by reading ἀστέρ’ ἕηκε (Leaf; Ruijgh 538 n. 22; cf. 14.182n.). — Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτε͜ω: a VE formula (7× Il., 1× Od.: 2.205n.; for the epithet, cf. Hes. Th. 546, Op. 48 [of Prometheus]), metrically equivalent with πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε (68n.); here it was perhaps used as an echo of 59 (see ad loc.). 76 2nd VH ≈ 209 (with n.). — τέρας: the term for signs sent by the gods (usually Zeus), on the basis of which human beings attempt to discern the divine will (cf. 81–85); used of a rainbow, thunder, storm (6.183n.; LfgrE s. v.), here a meteor as a sign for sailors or armies, also constellations of stars (18.485 [with n.]). — λαῶν: 28n. 77 σπινθῆρες: ‘sparks’; a Homeric hapaxP, although note the derivative σπινθαρίδες at h.Ap. 442 in a similar context. The noun cannot be associated securely with an I-E root (Frisk, DELG and Beekes s. v.). 78 Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη: a VE formula (23× Il., 18× Od., 4× Hes., 1× Cypr.), beside Παλλὰς Ἀθηναίη as inflectable VB formula (4× Il., 8× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 2× h.Hom.); on the disputed interpretation of Παλλάς, 1.200n.

79b–80 = 3.342b–343 (during the Paris–Menelaos duel). — Particular weight is attributed to the fact that people in both armies observe the relevant event

75 οἷον: refers to ἀστέρ(α). — ἀγκυλομήτε͜ω: on the declension, R 11.1; on the synizesis, R 7. 76 ναύτῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — τέρας(ς) ἠέ: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura: M 8). — ἠέ: = ἤ. 77 λαμπρόν: sc. ἀστέρ(α). — τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), dependent on ἀπὸ … ἵενται, ‘shoot [down] from something’ (on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 4.11). 78 τῷ (ϝ)εἰκυῖ(α): on the hiatus (twice), R 4.4 and 5.1.



(on this, 75–81n.) and that this observation triggers the subsequent speech (81–84); 148 ff. is similar (de Jong [1987] 2004, 105–107, 267 n. 18). 79 2nd VH = 3.342; ≈ 24.482 (ἔχει), ‘Hes.’ fr. 75.8 M.-W. (πάντας ὁρῶντας), cf. Il. 23.815, Od. 3.372 (also 5× Od. σέβας μ’ ἔχει εἰσορ.). — ἐς μέσσον: in the middle between the two encamped armies (541n.); see 3.67–91, 3.266, 3.341. — θάμβος: denotes a reaction to an unexpected or eerie apparition (thus e.g. bafflement, amazed disbelief, spellbound fascination), here befitting a celestial phenomenon caused by a deity (LfgrE s. v.; see also 3.342n.). — ἔχεν: on the notion that emotions ‘have a grip’ on and control characters, 22–24n.

80 = 3.343; ≈ 3.127, 3.131, 3.251 (gen. Ἀ. χαλκοχιτώνων); 2nd VH = 3.156; ≈ 3.86, 7.67 (nom.). — The verse is comprised of two inflectable half-verse formulae: 1st VH (to caesura B 1) in total 13× Il.; 2nd VH (from caesura B 2) 31× Il., 5× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; on the epithet eüknḗmis (‘with good greaves’) and on the realia, 1.17n., 3.330n., 3.331n., 18.613n. ἱπποδάμους: a generic epithetP of heroes and of the Trojans (LfgrE s. v.), literally ‘horse-tamers’; recent excavations in Troy (since 1988) have shown that this is based on historical fact, so that it should now be rendered ‘horse-breeder/horse-trainer’ (2.230n.; Latacz [2002] 2014, 459 with n. 57 [more recent bibliography]; detailed discussion in Korfmann/Zidarov 2006; on the archaeological finds, also Uerpmann 2006, 284).

81 = 2.271, 22.372, Od. 8.328, 10.37, 13.167, 18.72, 18.400, 21.396; in addition, 1st VH = 6× Il., 6× Od.; ≈ 3× Il., 3× Od. (85n.). — The glance at one’s neighbor is characteristic of the collective character of this type of tis-speechP: ideas are exchanged in the crowd (2.271n., with reference to de Jong on Od. 20.373– 384); on tis-speeches, also 176–182n., 176n. τις εἴπεσκεν … πλησίον ἄλλον: The iterative is used here for simultaneous statements by different characters (2.271n.; on the suffix, G 60). Collectively, τις means ‘some’ (Schw. 2.214) and, beside ἄλλον, is used almost like ἄλλος ἄλλον (LfgrE s. v. ἄλλος 554.23–32); combined with substantival πλησίον ‘neighbor’ (2.271n.; LfgrE s. v. πλησίος). πλησίον can also be understood adjectivally, ‘some … to one near him’ (de Jong on Il. 22.372).

82–83 ≈ 15 f. (see ad loc.); 2nd VH of 83 ≈ 3.321 (object τάδε ἔργα, see ad loc.), Od. 3.136 (object ἔριν), 24.546 (object ὅρκια). — The nearly literal repetition of 15 f. highlights the contrast between the divine and the human planes in regard to knowledge and options for discussion and action (dramatic ironyP):

79 κὰδ δ’ … ἔθορε: ‘jumped down’; aor. of κατα-θρώσκω; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2 (κάδ with apocope: R 20.1). — ἐς μέσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — εἰσορόωντας: on the epic diectasis, R 8. 81 τις (ϝ)είπεσκεν: on the prosody, R 4.5. 82–83 ἤ … | … ἦ: a double question ‘… or …?’ — ῥ(α): used to avoid hiatus (R 24.1, cf. R 5.1). — αὖτις: = αὖθις. — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6).


Iliad 4

warriors on both sides vacillate between fear and hope in the face of the sign they interpret as indicating that Zeus is making his decision; they are unaware that the gods have already decided, namely to continue the war (de Jong [1987] 2004, 283 n. 86.; Schneider 1996, 85–87). In comparing the alternative here with the type-sceneP ‘weighing two options’, in which the second option is frequently chosen (see esp. 5.671–676, 14.20–24, 16.646–655, 22.174–185, Od. 6.141–147, 10.49b–54a, 18.90–94, 22.333b–339, 24.235–240), it can be assumed that the narrator has human beings expect a decision in favor of peace (on the type-scene, 1.888b–194n., 16.646b–655n.; Arend 1933, 109 f.; de Jong on Od. 4.117–120); Pandaros’ shot must accordingly be all the more suprising for most of them. τίθησιν: The phrase φιλότητα τιθέναι (here and at Od. 24.476) means ‘establish, make peace’ (LfgrE s. v. τίθημι 483–484.45 ff., on the present passage, 484.32 f.).

84 = 19.224. — On the characterP plane, the term ‘steward of war’ (thus with an exclusive right to decide issues of all sorts) fits the mood of the human beings, who interpret the phenomenon in the sky as a sign from Zeus, and who feel subjected to his will both generally and regarding the war in particular (argument functionP); see the statements by Odysseus at 19.223 f. and by Achilleus at 24.527–533 (on this, 19.223b–224n., 24.529–530n.; also de Jong on Il. 22.208–13 on the image of Zeus’ scales of fate). The term also refers the listener/reader back to the preceding divine scene (key functionP). 85–219 The arrow-shot of Pandaros. The narratorP uses this scene to complement the chain of events leading to the destruction of Troy (Judgement of Paris – abduction of Helen – siege of Troy), and develops it from the action of the Iliad itself. As in the case of the abduction of Helen (a violation of hospitality), the Trojans are now put irrevocably in the wrong with Pandaros’ shot, fired during the truce sealed by oath between the two parties and before Zeus and all the gods (a violation of the oath and of contract law, see esp. 3.299): the continuation of the siege and the eventual fall of Troy (cf. 3.300 f.) are now legitimized once and for all. The characterP Pandaros shares two traits with Paris: skill in archery (Paris is depicted as an archer: 3.17n.) and the fact that he, like Paris, violates fundamental laws; this makes Pandaros, who comes not from Troy itself but from Zeleia (88–89n.), appear to be a variant of Paris (24.27–30n.; Schadewaldt

84 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἀνθρώπων: dependent on ταμίης πολέμοιο (‘war steward’), i.e. ‘for men’. — πολέμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. — τέτυκται: 3rd pers. pl. perf. pass. of τεύχω (‘make’), here in the faded sense ‘is’.



[1938] 1966, 110, 154 f. with n. 1; Kullmann 1960, 252; Latacz [1985] 1996, 132; Taplin 1992, 104 f. and 109; on reminiscences of the Judgement of Paris, 7– 19n., 31–49n.; on the ‘mirroring’ of elements from the past history of the Trojan War, see the introduction to Book 4: 3.3. Remarks on the ‘gradual reversion’). 85–104 Athene appears in the guise of Laodokos, son of Antenor, and convinces Pandaros to shoot and kill Menelaos with an arrow. For the execution of Zeus’ orders, Athene deliberately searches for a warrior in the Trojan army (88) who fits her plan (an unexpected shot at Menelaos from ambush), namely an archer (94 with n.). The characterP Pandaros is portrayed by the narrator as particularly suitable: (1) he was already introduced as an archer in the catalogue of Trojans, where his bow receives considerable emphasis since it is a gift from Apollo (2.827 [with n.]; see also 105–111, 5.245 f.); (2) both the word play in 104 and the continuation of the action at 105 ff. illustrate that he can be easily persuaded by arguments involving personal gain (95–99) to act without considering possible consequences of violating the truce that everyone had confirmed by oath. The narrator thus has human and divine action mesh, in accord with the principle of double motivationP (see 104 with n.): although the deed (the shot at Menelaos and thus the violation of the oath) is planned and triggered by the gods, Athene uses a human being whose mindset makes him likely to display a readiness to act in the desired way. Pandaros is thus not simply rendered as a victim of divine caprice, but remains responsible for his actions (Kullmann 1956, 106 f.; Lesky [1961] 1999, 401; Schmitt 1990, 82–84, 256 n. 255; Taplin 1992, 104–109; Sarischoulis 2008a, 32–40; for older bibliography, see Schmitt loc. cit. 255 f. n. 252). But ultimately Pandaros is a minor character, whom the narrator has introduced merely as a tool of the goddess Athene: the narrator has the crime itself condemned repeatedly by a variety of characters (Agamemnon at 155–168, Diomedes at 7.401–403; on the Trojan side, Antenor at 7.351b–353), but with no mention of the perpetrator. After the shooting, Pandaros will appear again only in the following Book, without reference to his deed, where he falls fighting Diomedes (5.95–296; on the effective design of the scene, see Kirk on 5.291–293). 85 ≈ 3.297, 3.319 (ὧδε δέ), 7.300; 1st VH = 17.423, 22.375, Od. 4.772, 13.170, 23.152; ≈ Il. 4.81; 2nd VH: an inflectable VE formula (10× Il.). — τις εἴπεσκεν: 81n.

86–92 These verses contain elements (3) through (5) of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (69–92n.); this is a special form of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (on which, 1.496b–502n.), in which an arrival is usually described from the point

85 see 81n.


Iliad 4

of view of the individual arriving in secondary focalizationP (1.329–333n., 2.169–171n.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 107 ff.): (2) the characterP arrives (86–88, with particular emphasis on the deliberate search), (3) finds the individual in question (89–90a: description of the situation: standing up); (3a) bystanders are mentioned (90b–91); (4) the characterP approaches (5) and speaks (92). 86–87 2nd VH of 86 (from caesura C 1) ≈ 10.231, 10.433, 10.545, 13.307, 15.299, Od. 15.328; 2nd VH of 87 (from caesura C 1) ≈ Il. 3.179. — Laodokos: When gods appear before human beings, they often take the form of relatives or acquaintances in order to gain their trust; the visitor can also be a character invented ad hoc who appears only in this context (2.21n., 16.715–726n.). Athene, for example, appears in the guise of Hektor’s brother Deiphobos (22.226 f.), Phoinix (17.555), Penelope’s sister Iphthime (Od. 4.796 f.) and Nausikaa’s friend, the anonymous daughter of Dymas (6.22 f.), as well as of Mentes and Mentor (e.g. 1.102 ff. and 2.399 ff., 3.12 ff., 22.205 ff., 24.502 ff.); cf. the goddess Iris in the shape of a daughter of Priam and daughter-in-law of Antenor named Laodike (Il. 3.122–124: 3.124n.). The characterP Laodokos son of Antenor appears only in the present passage (possibly also on a Chalkidian vase depicting the battle for Achilleus’ body: Wachter 2001, 312; in addition, 17.699 mentions an Achaian by the same name: CH 9 with n. 35), and he appears to have been designed wholly for the sake of Athene’s action. Lao-dokos, attested already in Mycenaean texts (DMic s. v. ra-wo-do-ko), is comprised of two elements common in Greek names, lao- ‘people’ and dok- related to the verb déchomai/dékomai ‘receive’ (see also MYC s. v. λαός); the name thus means approximately ‘receiving people’, with two possible interpretations: ‘to welcome people/warriors’ and ‘to receive warriors in battle’ (von Kamptz 37, 73; Kanavou 2015, 143 f.). The name was perhaps selected by the narratorP with a view to the role of the character’s father Antenor (Mühlestein 1969, 78; Danek 2006, 10 f.): this member of the Trojan council of elders and representative of the peace party hosted the Greek negotiators – among them Menelaos and Odysseus – who before the outbreak of war in Troy demanded the return of Helen (3.203–211, 11.123–125, 11.138–141; Cypr., Procl. Chrest. § 10 West; on this embassy, 3.205–224n., CH 9; West 2013, 117; on the phenomenon of sons named for their fathers’ characteristics or duties, see 354n. [Telemachos],

86 ἥ: refers back to Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη in 78; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἀνδρὶ (ϝ)ικέλη: on the prosody, R 5.4; ↑. — κατεδύσεθ’: = κατεδύσετο, with elision (R 5.1) and assimilation of the aspiration. 87 Λαοδόκῳ Ἀντηνορίδῃ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — κρατερῷ αἰχμητῇ: on the hiatus, cf. M 12.2.



6.402–403n. [Astyanax]; for additional names, von Kamptz 31 f.; Kanavou 2015, 144 ff.; cf. Eust. 1479.53 ff. [on Od. 4.11]). In the following verse, the information ἀνδρὶ ἰκέλη (‘resembling a man’) is lent emphasis by: the designation of this character filling the verse (an indication of his significance: 1.36n.); a four-word verse (on this, 5–6n.), a tripartite construction in accord with the law of increasing parts (on this, 52n.). — ἀνδρί: In Homer, the dat. ending -ι is occasionally scanned long, often before a caesura, as here (24.119n.; see also 24.472n. for the ancient I-E dat. ending in -ei). — κατεδύσεθ’ ὅμιλον: (κατα)δύνω here of the immersion of a god into a human crowd, into which the god sinks and is thus removed from sight (his or her presence otherwise perhaps being a cause for question) (LfgrE s. v. δύνω 358.50 ff.; Kurz 1966, 108, 148); on the development of the thematic s-aorist, 3.262n. (on βήσετο), 19.36n. (on δύσεο). — αἰχμητῇ: on the word formation, cf. ἀσπιστάων 90n.

88–89 ≈ 5.168–169 (διζήμενος). — Pandaros … | … Lykaon: Pandaros the son of Lykaon (89, 93) is introduced as a leader of a Trojan contingent from Zeleia, which lies on the river Aisepos at the foot of Mt. Ida (2.824–827, 4.91, 4.103 = 4.121) – i.e. to the southeast of Troy in the Troad – and is part of countryside around Troy (2.824n., 2.825n., 2.826n.); he dies in the battle that follows (5.290–296: 85–104n., end). His native land, called Lykíē in Book 5 (5.105 und 5.173), which is apparently not far from Troy (5.199–204: he came to Troy by foot, without a chariot), cannot be identical with Lykia on the river Xanthos (2.877), the homeland of Sarpedon and Glaukos, the captains of the Lykian contingent of allies (Kirk on 90–91; LfgrE s. v. Λυκίη II; Bryce 1977; 2006, 137; Benda-Weber 2005, 268–270; West 2011, 64 with n. 41; on the ‘Lykians’ in the Troad according to the Iliad, see the address formula Trṓes kai Lýkioi kai Dárdanoi anchimachētái [a three-party alliance in the Troad basin]: 475n., 6.78n.; Latacz [2002] 2014, 460 f. with n. 59; on the region Lukkā and its inhabitants, and on problems arising from the vague use of the terms ‘Lykian/Lykia’ in the Iliad, see 2.877n.; BNP s. v. Pandarus; Jenniges 1998, 125–127, 131–141 [esp. 139]; Bachvarova 2016, 442 f. [each with additional bibliography]). Pandaros is probably a non-Greek name with the final element -(d)aros originating in Asia Minor (for additional examples, 16.328n.); the interpretation is unclear: perhaps a derivation from a location, i.e. ‘the one from Panda’ or ‘the one from Pandion’ (von Kamptz 129, 361; Wathelet s. v.), perhaps associated with the Lykian local adj. pñtreñni (e.g. Jenniges loc. cit. 132–135 [rather guardedly on this, BNP loc. cit.]; on the Lykian adj. pñtreñni, Neumann 2007, 278 f.) or with the Luwian term for ‘manliness, masculinity’ (Neumann loc. cit. 279). The name of his father, about whom nothing else is known (2.826n.; for the son of Priam by the same name, CH 12), can be associated with the Asia Minor ethnic Lykáones, although this is first attested in Xenophon (von Kamptz 162, 327).


Iliad 4

According to schol. A, 88 in Zenodotus’ text ended with εὗρε δὲ τόνδε, with 89 omitted (likewise a papyrus of Ptolemaic date). The shorter, more condensed version (searching and finding in the same verse, with object at VB and VE) may be derived from a correction by a rhapsode, triggered by criticism of the notion that the goddess could be in doubt about finding the individual in question (schol. A; West 2001, 26); alternatively, the aim might have been to avoid echoes of 5.168 f. (Aineias looking for Pandaros) (Nickau 1977, 101–103; see also Rengakos 1993, 58 f.; Bird 2010, 50–52 [on the coexistence of long and short versions in type-scenesP]). 88 2nd VH ≈ 5.168, 13.760, Od. 5.439. — ἀντίθεον: ‘in place of a god, god-like’; a generic epithetP used of several heroes (LfgrE; Dee 2000, 497; also 16.321n.). 89 ≈ 21.546; 2nd VH from υἱόν = 5.169, 18.55, h.Ap. 100; from ἀμύμονα = Hes. Th. 1013, ‘Hes.’ frr. 141.14, 171.6 M.-W. — διζημένη: δίζημαι means ‘search, look for’ and is perhaps related etymologically to Attic ζητέω (DELG and Beekes s. v. δίζημαι); in early epic, it is usually used in a participial form between caesurae B 1 and C 2 (5× Il., 6× Od., 2× Hes., 4× h.Merc.). — ἀμύμονά τε κρατερόν τε: a generic epithetP: ἀμύμων is one of the most frequently employed epithets in epic language (1.92n.) and is conventionally rendered ‘blameless’ (6.22–23n., where also on the disputed etymology); on the generic epithet κρατερός, e.g. 87, 90, 401 (with n.), 462.

90 = 201; 2nd VH ≈ 13.680. — It is noted frequently in element 3 of the typescene ‘arrival’ (86–92n.), i.e. the description of the situation, that the character arriving finds the person they are looking for standing or seated (VB Greek hestaót[a]: 2.169 f., 4.200 f., 4.328, 4.366 etc.; hḗmenon: 1.329 f., 1.498 etc.); bystanders are also mentioned occasionally (examples and bibliography: 24.83–86n.). Both pieces of information here prepare for the action that follows. Whereas observation of the duel – with a few exceptions (3.378, 3.449 ff.) – took place while seated (3.326–327n.), this has changed with the new situation (end of the duel, celestial phenomena) in expectation of the consequences (see also Kurz 1966, 67 f.). στίχες ἀσπιστάων: an inflectable VE formula (see iterata, also in hyperbaton at 221 = 11.412), complemented by λαῶν in enjambment only here and 201. ἀσπιστής means ‘(shield-carrying/bearing) footsoldier, warrior’ (LfgrE s. v.) and – like αἰχμητής at 87, κορυστής at 457 – is one of the denominatives or deverbatives in -(τ)ής used as designations for the fighters (Risch 34); at 113, the shields are used to cover the ambush. On the meaning of στίχες in the context of battle descriptions, 254n.; for detailed discussion, 427n.

91 1st VH = 202. — Aisepos: a river on the eastern border of the Troad, the modern Gönen Çayı (2.825n.; also 88–89n.). λαῶν: 28n. 88 διζημένη, εἰ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 90 ἑσταότ(α): = ἑστῶτα, perf. part. of ἵσταμαι (cf. R 6). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἀσπιστάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 91 οἵ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἕποντο ἀπ(ό): on the hiatus, R 5.6. — Αἰσήποιο: on the declension, R 11.2.



92 = 5.123, 18.169, 22.215, 22.228; ≈ (masc.) 4.203, 13.462, 14.356, 16.537, Od. 4.25, 17.552, 22.100; ≈ (fem. pl.) h.Cer. 112. — ἀγχοῦ δ’ ἱσταμένη: an inflectable VB formula (masc./fem.: 18× Il., 6× Od., 2× h.Cer.), always with a verb of speaking in the 2nd VH; frequently used as element 5 of the type-scene ‘delivery of a message’, as here (Kurz 1966, 87 f.; cf. 69–92n.). — ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα: 69n.

93–103 By promising Pandaros personal gain (95–99), while appealing indirectly to his fighting spirit (VE 93) and ambition (VB 94, 95, 97), Athene-Laodokos needs only a few words to convince him to shoot his bow (the right words to the right man: Schmitt 1990, 83; Taplin 1992, 105; on a prompt to action in combination with an offer, see Bedke 2016, 92–94, 243–250). The speech is comprised of the following components: (1) an address (93); (2) the prompt to action, arranged in a ring-compositionP: (A/A’) a shot at Menelaos (94/98– 100) and (B) an incentive to commit the act (95–97); (3) a recommendation on how to succeed and return home safely (oath to Apollo at 101–103). The prompt to action is designed with elements resembling those of battle paraeneses: (2a) an appeal to fight; on the formal structure, Fingerle 1939, 125 f.: occasionally, a question at the beginning (sometimes provocative; here 94), an exhortation at the end (here 100); (2b) argumentation: increased prestige and material compensation (95–97). Bibliography on battle paraeneses: 232– 250n.; on positive incentives in battle paraeneses, esp. Stoevesandt 2004, 290–292 (booty) and 298–304 (honor); on Agamemnon’s paraenesis via provocation, cf. 338–348n. An increasing effort to direct the addressee’s activity is detectable over the course of the speech: 93–96, a cautious presentation of a possibility (optative); 97–99, an insinuation of obviousness (δή: 97n.); 100–103, a prompt to act (ἀλλ’ ἄγ’: 100n.).

93 1st VH to caesura B 2 = 7.48, 14.190; to caesura A 4 = 6.215, 18.394, 19.315; ≈ 3.183, 10.401. — Lykaon: 88–89n. ἦ ῥά νυ … πίθοιο: The speech begins with emphasis (on ἦ ῥά νυ, 6.215n.) and a suggestive question that signals that a prompt to action will follow; the opt. with no modal particle is to be taken as a potential verging on a wish (AH; Leaf; Kirk on 94– 95; Schw. 2.324; Chantr. 2.216 f.), with the particle ῥα indicating that the speaker presupposes agreement: ‘surely you are with me?’ (an illocutionary act: 14.190n.; Grimm 1962, 30; Wilmott 2007, 136; on the use of the potential as an order, Bedke 2016, 92–94, 111–124 [on the present passage, 119 f.]). — Λυκάονος υἱὲ δαΐφρον: a voc. variant of the nom. VE formula Λυκάονος ἀγλαὸς υἱός (5.95, 5.101, 5.179, 5.229, 5.276, 5.283); cf. formulaic addresses with υἱὲ δαΐφρονος before caesura C 2 (6× Il.). δαΐφρων is a generic epithetP, usually of men; originally, it probably meant ‘intelli-

92 ἱσταμένη (ϝ)έπεα: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 93 ἦ: emphatic (R 24.4). — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — τι: ‘in some way, somehow’, acc. of respect (R 19.1).


Iliad 4

gent’ (related to the root of δαῆναι), but was later interpreted secondarily as ‘brave in battle, whose mind is turned to battle’ (on δαΐ ‘in battle’: 6.161–162n.). 94–99 94 is to be taken as an interrogative sentence (see the punctuation in West; in addition, on the form of the paraenetic section (2a) of the speech, 93–103n.); it is to be understood as an introduction to 95–99, and thus as a paratactically formulated protasis to a conditional structure in the potential, i.e. τλαίης κεν … ; | for εἰ τλαίης …, | … κε … ἄροιο … (on the phenomenon, 3.52–53n.).

94 In the Iliad, bows and arrows are used predominantly for competitions and hunting; they have less significance in war (2.774–775a n. with bibliography). On the Greek side, the characters considered outstanding archers are Teukros, the son of Telamon and half-brother of Aias (13.313 f.: CH 4), and Odysseus (cf. 354n.; see the contest of the bow and the killing of the suitors in Books 21–22 of the Odyssey); on the Trojan side, it is Paris. Archers act from under cover, in an ambush or in battle crouched behind heavily armed warriors (113b–115n.), which is why archery is regarded in Homeric epic as fundamentally ambiguous (3.17n. with bibliography; for additional bibliography, Kelly 2007, 263 n. 1). – On archers in I-E literature, West 2007, 485; on archaeological evidence for bow and arrows of Mycenaean and Archaic date, Lorimer 1950, 276–300; Baitinger 2001, 5–30; Buchholz 2010, 234–297; Steinmann 2012, 57–62; on the bow as a symbol of rulership in the Near East, Buchholz 2012, 241 f. Μενελάῳ ἔπι προέμεν: thus the text in West following Aristarchus (schol. A, bT), with the simple compound προ-ίημι ‘send off’ and ἐπὶ Μενελάῳ as an indication of the target of the hostile act (likewise AH, Anh. ad loc.; Leaf); others prefer the double compound ἐπιπροέμεν, which is also transmitted (LfgrE s. v. ἵημι 1154.67).

95 2nd VH ≈ 14.365, 16.84, 17.287, 17.419, Od. 22.253. — kýdos means ‘success, reputation, fame’ and denotes the prestige that results from achieving success – frequently in a military context (Latacz 1966, 128–133; in contrast to kléos ‘fame’ as ‘knowledge, information’ that spreads beyond the here and now: 19.204n.; de Jong on Il. 22.205–207); cháris means ‘effect or achievement giving joy’, here specifically on a social plane ‘popularity’ (Latacz loc. cit. 85; LfgrE s. v. χάρις; the two terms are combined also at Od. 15.320). Athene-Laodokos thus promises Pandaros comprehensive social recognition among all Trojans, of course without reference to the violation of the oath associated with the arrow-shot. Why killing Menelaos would provide the

94 τλαίης: opt. of τλῆναι, ‘to achieve, to get involved’. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5), likewise in 95, 97 f. — Μενελάῳ ἔπι: = ἐπὶ Μενελάῳ (R 20.2). — προέμεν: aor. inf. of προ-ίημι ‘send out, send off’ (on the form, R 16.4). 95 Τρώεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — ἄροιο: aor. mid. opt. of ἄρνυμαι ‘acquire, win’.



shooter with great prestige becomes clear after the shot, in Agamemnon’s speech at 155 ff., esp. 169–182 (with n.): the Greek troops would no longer be motivated to fight for Helen and would return home (Bergold 1977, 166). πᾶσι … Τρώεσσι: ‘among all Trojans’, see also 9.303 (unaccompanied dat. σφι … ἄροιο) in contrast to 17.16 (ἐνὶ Τρώεσσιν ἀρέσθαι) (AH; Leaf); on the locative dat. with no preposition with a designation of persons in the pl., Schw. 2.155; Chantr. 2.80. — κῦδος ἄροιο: an inflectable VE formula (11× Il., 1× Od., 1× Hes.); on the formula system, 3.373n., 16.84n.

96 1st VH = Od. 2.433.— prince: Whereas among the Achaians the title basileús is assigned to several leaders (1.9n., with the Mycenaean precedents and bibliography; for more recent bibliography, 18.556b–557n.), on the Trojan side it is reserved almost exclusively for Priam and allied leaders (Pylaimenes, Rhesos, Sarpedon); among the sons of Priam, only Paris/Alexandros here receives it (Dee 2000, 507 f.). In this way, Athene-Laodokos identifies him as a member of the royal family (basíleia used of Alkinoös’ daughter Nausikaä at Od. 6.115 is similar) and of the Trojan elite (cf. Il. 20.83 f.): LfgrE s. v. βασιλεύς 42.11 ff.; Horn 2014, 39; differently Carlier 1984, 143, 223 (Athene-Laodokos exaggerates Paris’ position). — Alexandros: on Paris/Alexandros as metrically convenient variants, 3.16n.; HE s. v. Alexandros. 97 That Paris offer royal rewards for actions that serve his interest was already apparent earlier, when he gave gold to Antimachos, who prior to the outbreak of the war argued against surrendering Helen and attacked the Greek ambassadors (11.123–125, 11.138–141). τοῦ … πάρ(α): Since the mid. of παρα-φέρω is unattested in early epic, a rhetorical bridging of the metrical caesura B 2 must be posited (cf. M 6 n. 10; similarly, 18.191 with n.). — δή: The speaker uses the particle to imply that his observation is obvious and is surely shared by the addressee (Bakker 1997, 75 [‘no less socializing than evidential’], 78 f.); Cuypers 2005, 55 f. — ἀγλαὰ δῶρα: a noun-epithet formula, in the present position in the verse 2× Il., 4× Od., elsewhere at VE (19.18–19n.); the epithet ἀγλαός (‘shining, attractive, alluring’: 1.23n.) is especially appropriate here.

98 ≈ 195, 205; 2nd VH after caesura A 4 = 115; ≈ 17.79 (nom.). — Here and at 100, Athene-Laodokos fittingly characterizes Menelaos with epithets that indicate a warlike attitude or success in battle (see below and at 100n.) and emphatically mentions him by name (AH).

96 μάλιστα Ἀλεξάνδρῳ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — βασιλῆϊ: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. 97 τοῦ … πάρ(α): = παρὰ τοῦ (R 20.2); on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — πάμπρωτα: adv., ‘first of all, especially’. 98–99 αἴ κεν ἴδῃ: prospective subjunc., αἰ = εἰ (R 22.1), κεν = ἄν (R 24.5). — Μενέλαον … | … ἐπιβάντα: acc./part. construction dependent on ἴδῃ; δμηθέντα (aor. pass. part. of δάμνημι/ δαμνάω ‘overcome, kill’) complements Μενέλαον.


Iliad 4

Μενέλαον ἀρήϊον: an inflectable formula after caesura A 4 (nom./acc. 9× Il. [see also 115, 195, 205]); ἀρήϊος (‘associated with Ares, warlike’) is a generic epithetP of a variety of warriors (16.42n.). There is a certain discrepancy between the frequency of formulae describing Menelaos as ‘warlike’ (see also ἀρηΐφιλος at 13n., κυδάλιμος at 100n., and βοὴν ἀγαθός at 2.408n.) and the comparatively minor evidence for his achievements as a warrior in the Iliad; over the course of the action of the Iliad, the narrator repeatedly inserts allusions to the fact that, while Menelaos’ engagement for the cause is great, as a fighter he is not equal to all opponents, see esp. 7.104 ff., 17.89 ff. and 17.553 ff. (also 3.30 ff.: Paris seeks to avoid a direct confrontation with Menelaos): 2.588–590n.; Willcock 2002; in the pre-Homeric narrative tradition, Menelaos may indeed have been a great warrior (Willcock 2004, 52 f.). — Ἀτρέος: a short-vowel gen. of Ἀτρεύς (the original form of the name was perhaps *Atresion/-ias vel sim., related to ἄτρεστος ‘not shaking, standfast’): 3.37n. with bibliography.

99 2nd VH ≈ 9.546. — The expression ‘climb the pyre’, a euphemism meaning ‘meet one’s death, be killed’, is comparable to English ‘go to one’s grave’ (cf. 9.546 ‘send to the pyre’ for ‘kill’); on cremation, customary in Homeric epic, see 24.38n., 24.777–804n. Additional euphemisms for (a) ‘be dead’: ‘the earth is holding him’ (18.332n.); for (b) ‘die’: ‘go to Hades / into the house of Hades’, ‘go beneath the earth’, ‘bite/grab the dust’ (6.19n., 3.322n., 18.329n.). The present formulation allows an introduction of the aspect of observation, and thus of the point of view of Paris, whom the spectacle is supposed to put in a mood particularly favorable to the perpetrator (similarly Bergold 1977, 153). δμηθέντα: always before caesura B 2 or B 1, frequently in the shape of the compound ὑποδμηθεῖσα/-δμηθέντα (in total 2× Il., 16× Hes., 1× h.Hom.); the form δαμέντ- at VE is more common (19× Il., 1× Od., 1× Hes.; cf. 479n.): AH; Classen [1851–1857] 1867, 132. 100 ἀλλ’ ἄγ(ε): transition from the argument to directions for action (2.72n.). — ὀΐστευσον: ‘shoot an arrow’, with gen. of destination, as with other derivations from terms for weapons and with verbs of aiming (Schw. 2.104; Chantr. 2.54). — Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο: a VE formula (7× Il., 7× Od.); κυδάλιμος is a generic epithetP of several warriors, a derivation from κῦδος (‘elation, [military] superiority’: 95n.); on the meaning (‘valiant’ or ‘in high spirits’) and formation (on -άλιμος, Risch 105), 6.184n.

101–103 ≈ 119–121. — The recommendation of a sacrifice to Apollo can be explained in a variety of ways: he formerly gave the bow to Pandaros (2.827), he himself prefers to carry this weapon (101–102n.) and should thus be called on for assistance, as the archer Meriones does during a contest (23.870–873; cf. 1.64 ff. for fear of the god’s anger, should he feel neglected). The formulation reveals elements of the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n.): (2) a verb of praying, (3) naming of the deity, (5) the deity’s cult title, (6) mention of bene-

100 ἄγ(ε): originally the imper. of ἄγω, fossilized as a particle in requests with an imper. or subjunc.: ‘come!’.



fits contributed or received in the past, here a pledge linked to the fulfilment of the plea. The plea itself (element 7) remains unspoken (elsewhere phrased with the formula da et dabo [10.291–294, Od. 3.380–384] or da ut dem [6.308a n., 14.233–241n.]). But the prayer is probably to be understood such that the promised sacrifice will be given in return for a successful shot, as in the case of the archer at Il. 23.872 f.; see also the mention of prayers in battle before the decisive shot or thrust at 3.351–356, 5.174–178, 17.45–50, and in a contest before the footrace at 23.768–770 (West 2011, 135). 101–102 ≈ 119–120; 102 = 23.864 (an interpolation, according to West), 23.873; 2nd VH of 102 ≈ 7.450, 12.6, 23.146. — to Apollo: In the Iliad, Apollo is the god who most actively supports the Trojan side: he strengthens them in battle (esp. at 507 ff., 15.220 ff., 15.306 ff.) and repeatedly ensures that Troy does not fall before its time at the hands of either Patroklos (16.698 ff.) or Achilleus (21.544 ff.): CG 5; 16.94n. with bibliography. – Association with a number of words has been posited since antiquity to interpret his epithet Lykēgenḗs (cf. schol. A, bT, D; Leaf; Graf 2009, 132): use of it only in reference to Pandaros, whose homeland is said to be a region called ‘Lykia’ (esp. 5.103–105: 88– 89n.), might suggest that it was taken by the narrator to mean ‘born in Lykia’, although the earliest literary tradition already mentions the island of Delos as his place of birth (AH; Kirk; LfgrE s. v. Λυκηγενής; Tsagalis 2012, 240; West 2013a, 258). This discrepancy is perhaps to be explained by the fact that the individual praying invokes the god with reference to his or her local manifestation in his own homeland (thus Apollo at 1.37 ff., 16.514; cf. 24.291n. on Zeus). Apollo’s supposedly original provenance from Lykia or Asia Minor (thus e.g. Beekes 2003) cannot be proven either by the above passage or by sources from Asia Minor (CG 5; 16.513n. with bibliography; Erbse 1986, 177 n. 7; Bryce 1990/91, 144–148; Egetmeyer 2007; Graf loc. cit. 136 f.). Other scholars suggest an etymological link between the epithet and terms for ‘light’ or ‘wolf’, interpreting it as ‘light-born’ (AH; West loc. cit. 260 f.) or ‘wolf-born’ (Leaf; cf. Graf loc. cit. 120 f. on post-Homeric Lýkeios). On the compound, see below. – The second epithet, klytótoxos (‘the one with the famous bow’: also at 15.55, Od. 17.494, 21.267), refers to Apollo’s most important attribute – besides the lyre – namely his bow and arrows (see also his designation as ‘the one with the silver bow’ at Il. 1.37 etc.); the term fits here with Pandaros’ actions, and elsewhere points in particular to Apollo’s role as a god who brings evil, namely disease or sudden death, see 24.758 f., Od. 3.278–281, 15.409–411 (1.37n., 1.43–52n.; Graf loc. cit. 14–16). On I-E parallels

101 εὔχεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

for a god or hero with a special weapon, West 2007, 460 f. — of lambs: Sheep are common sacrificial animals; young animals most likely meet the requirement that victims be without blemish (lambs for Apollo also at 1.64–67, 23.872 f.): 1.66n.; LfgrE s. v. ἀρήν 1243.57 ff. εὔχεο … | … ῥέξειν: εὔχομαι generally means ‘make an official statement’, then specifically ‘solemnly affirm’, promissorily ‘vow, pledge’, with a fut. inf. also at Od. 17.50 f. (1.91n., 6.304n.; LfgrE s. v. (ἐπ)εύχομαι 820.23 ff.; Latacz 1969, 352 f.; Muellner 1976, 53–56). — Λυκηγενέϊ: A compound with the final element -γενης (cf. διο-γενής ‘descending from Zeus’, 358n.); both the original meaning of the initial element λυκηand the compositional vowel -η- are explained in a variety of ways (West 2013a, 257– 262, with older bibliography): (a) related to the geographic term Λυκίη in its Hittite form Lukka, -η- for metrical reasons (DELG s. v. Λυκηγενής; Beekes 2003, 15; contra West 2013a, 258: the expected form in that case would be locative *Λυκαι-; on the problem with claims of a Lykian origin for Apollo, see above); (b) related to *λύκη ‘light’ (cf. ἀμφι-λύκη at 7.433 and DELG s. v. *λύκη), with an ancient instrumental ending *lukē (cf. Vedic rucā́), ‘born by means of light’ (Egetmeyer 2007, 212 f.; West loc. cit. 261, with reference to Ἰφι-γένεια); (c) related to λύκος ‘wolf’ (‘born from a wolf’), with a connecting vowel -η- rather than -ο- as in ἐλαφη-βόλος (Leaf; contra Nilsson [1940] 1967, 536 f.; West loc. cit. 259: versions of the myth in which a wolf or lupine figure occurs during Apollo’s birth are attested only late). — πρωτογόνων: ‘firstborn, firstling’ i.e. among the lambs born first in a given year; in addition to the present passage and the iterata, also at Hes. Op. 543, 592, of goat kids, cf. πρόγονος at Od. 9.221 (schol. bT; LfgrE s. v.; Richter 1968, 55; cf. West on Op. 543; differently Stengel 1910, 2: ‘just born, newborn’; undecided, Leaf). — κλειτὴν ἑκατόμβην: an inflectable VE formula (7× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’; also ἀγακλ. ἑκ. 2× Od.), a prosodic variant of the inflectable VE formula ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην (4× Il., 5× Od.). Although the possessive compound ἑκατόμβη originally meant ‘involving 100 oxen’, it is used for any sacrifice of large numbers of animals of any species (1.65n.).

103 = 121. — Zeleia: mentioned only here and at 2.824, and only as Pandaros’ native land; on its location, 88–89n. οἴκαδε νοστήσας: an inflectable VB formula (5× Il., 7× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’); νοστέω (attested in early epic only in the fut. and the aor.) means ‘come away unscathed, return home’ (LfgrE s. v.); on the motif ‘returning home’ in the Iliad, Maronitis 2004, 64 ff. – This addition contains information primarily about the place and time, and only indirectly about the condition, for the promised sacrifice (cf. Od. 11.132, 23.279). The safe return home is tied to a successful shot and thus to the hoped-for end to the fighting (Corlu 1966, 63; Muellner 1976, 55 f. with n. 77; Reynen 1983, 35; for the interpretation of the prayer, 101–103n.). — ἱερῆς … ἄστυ Ζελείης: On the explicative gen. of the place name (with ἄστυ also at 14.281, 21.128, Od. 18.1 f., 22.223), 33n. On ἱερός as an epithet for towns, 46–47n.

103 ἱερῆς … Ζελείης: on the -η- after -ρ- and after -ι-, R 2. — ἄστυ Ζελείης: ζ- occasionally does not ‘make position’ (M 4.5).



104 1st VH = 21.423, 22.224, Od. 2.296, 22.224, 24.533, 24.545; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 16.842. — The narrator commentary in the 2nd VH (phrénas áphroni peíthen) contains a word playP with a formal, oxymoron-like paradox: ‘she persuaded the senses of one who was without sense’, i.e. Pandaros lacked a mind independent and assured enough to allow him to think logically and clearly (at 16.842 Hektor uses the same phrase to mock the dying Patroklos [see ad loc.]; on phrénes as a seat of rationality, see below). It also illustrates the double motivationP that underlies the action: the goddess suggests the deed, while Pandaros lets himself be talked into it via the promise of fame and fortune and without considering the consequences (85–104n.; Sullivan 1988, 144 f.; Schmitt 1990, 84; on the word play, also Snell 1977, 49; LfgrE s.vv. ἄφρων and φρένες 1027.11 ff.). On judgemental narrator commentary in general, 2.38n.; de Jong on Od. 4.772; Edwards, Introd. 4–7; Richardson 1990, 236 n. 29 (list of examples). φρένας ἄφρονι πεῖθεν: Although the lexemes of the semantic field ‘soul-spirit’ are often interchangeable (1.24n.), phrases with πείθειν show that φρένας as obj. points to the character’s seat of rationality (also 12.173, Od. 1.42 f.), while θυμόν by contrast points to the seat of emotions (van der Mije 2011, 450, 453; see also Böhme 1929, 40 n. 8). The possessive compound ἄ-φρων (‘without φρένες’; on the formation, Risch 55, 184) belongs to character languageP and appears in the narrator-text only here (Griffin 1986, 38); on its connotations (‘foolish, unthinking, without regard’), see LfgrE s. v. ἄφρων 1728.71 ff. The impf. with ‘verbs of speaking in both a narrower and wider sense’ can be explained as an expression of their ‘lasting effect on the actions of another’ (Schw. 2.277 f. [transl.]; Chantr. 2.192 f.; see also Rijksbaron [1984] 2002, 18: the impf. has aorist force, but in addition directs attention to the consequences).

105–147 Pandaros’ bow and shot. Athene prevents Menelaos from sustaining a fatal injury. In a manner corresponding to the significance of the moment for the future course of the action of the Iliad, the entire passage is designed in accord with the principle of elaborate narrationP and is expanded to heighten suspense via an external analepsisP (story of origin), a comparisonP and a simileP (Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 64 f.; cf. schol. bT on 113 and Nünlist 2009, 78): although the action begins immediately after the speech of Laodokos-Athene, when the bow is reached for (105), it is immediately interrupted by the object description of the bow combined with the story of its origin (106–111; cf. pauseP); the narrative pace is decreased by additional actions in preparation for the shot (retardationP; Rengakos 1999, 313–315): Pandaros prepares the

104 ὥς: = οὕτως. — φάτ(ο): impf. of φημί (cf. R 5.1); on the middle, R 23; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.


Iliad 4

bow and takes position (112–115), readies the arrow (116–118), prays to Apollo (119–121) and stretches the bow (122–124), then the bow and string produce a noise, and the arrow searches for its target (125 f.). The wounding of Menelaos is similarly delayed via a description of the arrow’s path: its flight is directed by Athene (127–129), a comparison (130 f.), the arrow pierces several layers of protective clothing (132–139), blood is spilled (140), a simile (141– 147). While the story of the bow’s origin is designed with references similar to the shooting scene (105–111n.), the comparison and the simile with their images of life in peacetime represent a marked contrast with the actual situation in war (care by a mother: 130–131n.; an ivory treasure embellished with royal purple: 140–147n.). – The description of the bow, arrow and shot contains motifs also represented in Sanskrit literature: prayer, the feathered arrow (116 f.), the bow drawn in a circle (124), the noise of the shot (125), and the missile’s urge to find its target (126): West 2007, 462, 485. Linguistically, the passage includes numerous unusual phrases (hapax legomena, technical terms): 105–106n., 109n., 110–111n., 116–117n., 125n., 126n.; Kumpf 1984, 114 f. 105–111 The bow, as an important object in the action, is presented with great thoroughness, with the story of its origin taking up the most space – as is often the case in Homer. After an initial glance at the object (105), the description immediately transitions to action (a hunting scene and craftwork, 106b–111), i.e. what is being described is not the object, but the manner in which it came to look as it does, interspersed with elements of object descriptions: (a) quality (‘well smoothed’: 105, 111a), (b) material and composition (105–106a, 110 f.), (c) story of origin (106b–111): Friedrich 1975, 48 f.; Becker 1995, 57–59; de Jong 2012a, 32 f.; Tsagalis 2012, 409–411; additional bibliography, 18.478–482n.; for additional object descriptions, 2.101–108n., 18.478– 608n., 24.266–274n. (all with bibliography); for a collection of examples, Richardson 1990, 219 n. 46 and Minchin 2001, 107. But the narrator does not describe the actual technique of bow-making nor does he describe either the processing of horns into a bow or the size of the finished object (Canciani 1984, 34; Buchholz 2010, 241 f. [with older bibliography]; on the construction of the bow, 110–111n.); instead, he stresses the material (horn), its harvesting and processing (105b–110), since the origin story (killing the hegoat) allows him to prepare for the shot at Menelaos (106b–108n.). This results in a contradiction with 2.826 f., where the narrator indirectly prepares for Pandaros’ role as an archer by terming his bow a gift from Apollo, even though he uses the hunting scene in the present passage to illustrate Pandaros’ outstanding abilities in archery (2.827n.; Kullmann 1956, 58; Schein 1984, 56 f.). On the motif ‘a hero’s special weapon’, 6.319n., 19.387–391n.; de Jong on Il. 22.133–134; Ready 2011, 83 f.; on bow and arrows, also 94n.



105–106a αὐτίκ(α): initiates the action that immediately follows (cf. 5–6n.): here, after the order, the immediate reaching for the bow, at 140 the blood pouring out after the impact of the arrow; in both passages, the flow of the action is then interrupted again immediately (106–111 the story of the origin of the bow, 141–147 a simile): Erren 1970, 34 f. — ἐσύλα: The verb is attested in early epic only in the Iliad and, aside from here and 116 (σύλα πῶμα φαρέτρης), is always used in the context of despoiling defeated opponents, where it means ‘take away (arms as booty)’ (on the VB and VE formulae, 16.500n.). Here the use of the verb is likely meant to suggest Pandaros’ hurried, violent movement when he grasps the bow (Bravo 1980, 708 f.; Pritchett 1991, 116), perhaps also the withdrawing of the bow from a sheath by analogy with pulling an arrow from the quiver at 116b (ἐκ δ’ ἕλετ’ ἰόν) (van Leeuwen; Faesi; Leaf; Kirk; on the verbs used elsewhere for grasping bows, LfgrE s. v. τόξον 579.36 ff.); for references to bowcases, see Od. 21.53–56 (Penelope takes Odysseus’ bow out of [ἐκ δ’ ᾕρεε τόξον] its casing [γωρυτός]) and the archaeological evidence (Buchholz 2010, 260–262). — τόξον ἐΰξοον: a formula before caesura C 2 (2× Il., 7× Od.); ἐΰξοος (‘well smoothed, polished’) is a generic epithetP predominantly of wooden objects (with the metrically convenient variant ἐΰξεστος), esp. with τόξον, but also with ἅρμα, δίφρος, δόρυ, τράπεζα, etc. (LfgrE s. v. ἐΰξοος; Plath 1994, 153–157). — ἰξάλου: a hapax legomenonP of unknown origin (Anatolian?, pre-Greek?) and meaning (DELG and Beekes s. v.), see also the paraphrases in scholia b and D: inter alia τέλειος, πηδητικός, τομίας (LfgrE s. v.; Risch 108 f. [a term for an animal, a loanword]; Kirk [‘full grown’]; Buchholz et al. 1973, 56 [most likely ‘leaping well’]; post-Homeric. ἰξαλῆ, the term for the coat of the animal in question, is derived from it (see below; LSJ s. v. ἰξαλῆ). — αἰγός | ἀγρίου: There are divergent opinions concerning the precise identity of the animal αἶξ, which is characterized by ἄγριος (3.24, 15.271, Od. 9.118 f., 14.50) or ἀγρότερος (17.295) (wild goat, chamois, ibex: 3.24n.; LfgrE s. v. αἶξ); the horns of male wild goats (Capra aegagrus) have been thought suitable for use in bow construction (Buchholz et al. 1973, 55 f.; Buchholz 2010, 241); on the specification of material via brachylogy in a manner analogous to the gen. of material (‘from ⟨horn of the⟩ he-goat’), also 7.222 f. σάκος … | ταύρων, 3.375 and 23.684 ἱμάντα(ς) … βοός (Leaf; AH).

106b–108 The arrow shot at the goat anticipates the shot at Menelaos, as it were; the lying in wait under cover that is typical of stalking deer (107) corresponds to Pandaros’ acting from ambush by hiding behind his companions’ shields (113–115): see ad loc.; Dué/Ebbott 2010, 59. The killing of the animal is designed as an echo of descriptions of killings in battle scenes (on the association of hunting and war, Burkert [1972] 1997, 59). This can be seen in three aspects: (a) the use of the characteristic structure ‘he struck him in this part of his body; the one struck then fell’, with an indication of the direction of the fall (onto the back or face) and the place the struck individual is falling toward (cf. 16.289–290n.); (b) the motif ‘strike in the chest’ (here at 106b/108a, framing the stalking from cover), a reference to the attacker facing the opponent from the front, as at e.g. 480 (see ad loc.), 528, 5.19, 11.144,

105 ἰξάλου αἰγός: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.


Iliad 4

15.650, Od. 9.301, 22.286 (LfgrE s.vv. στέρνον and στῆθος; see also the lion simile at 16.753 with n.); (c) echoes of formulations from killing scenes in the concluding 108 (see ad loc.). This type of description enhances the suspense regarding what will follow, since the marksmanship and efficiency of the shooter are stressed (cf. schol. bT on 106). 106b ὅν ῥά ποτ(ε) …: a relative pronoun + ποτε is a common introduction to analepsesP (6.21n.); the acc. is dependent ἀπὸ κοινοῦ on τυχήσας and βεβλήκει at 108, both with an indication of the part of the body that is hit, with this information arranged chiastically (LfgrE s. v. τυγχάνω; somewhat differently AH; Leaf; Chantr. 2.52: ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τυχήσας parenthetic); for such combinations of the part. of τυγχάνω with a verb of striking, e.g. 5.98 f., 5.580/582, 12.189, 15.581, 16.623 (with n.). — ὑπὸ στέρνοιο: ‘on the lower chest’ (Schw. 2.527), picked up again by πρὸς στῆθος at 108; both are terms for the chest, but in the gen. sing. only στέρνοιο is usable (LfgrE s. v. στέρνον). 107 δεδεγμένος ἐν προδοκῇσιν: a figura etymologica with the root δεκ-/δοκ- (DELG s. v. δέχομαι; Risch 200; Porzig 1942, 250 f.; Kirk): perf. part. of δέχομαι ‘expecting’ in the sense ‘waylaying, ambushing’ (cf. 8.296 of archers in battle, δέγμενοι at 18.524 in a description of an ambush), in combination with the action noun προ-δοκή, a hapax legomenonP which is probably the term for the ‘blind’ or ‘stand’ used in hunting deer (cf. schol. D; on the metrically useful ‘poetic plural’, 2.588n.); the word play thus describes the shooter’s strategy of sitting or standing under cover while waiting for his prey (cf. Buchholz et al. 1973, 73). 108 ≈ 11.144; 1st VH = Od. 22.286; ≈ Il. 16.753; 2nd VH ≈ 522, 7.145, 7.271, 12.192, 13.548, 15.434, 16.289. — βεβλήκει: The plpf. frequently occurs at VB, probably for metrical reasons, since the aor. forms ἔβαλ(ε), βάλ(ε) were not usable in that position. The exact nuance of meaning is disputed; the most likely explanation, based on context, is that of Schw. 2.288 (transl.): ‘[…] a verbal action is […] portrayed via the pluperfect as already completed in the past’ (similarly Chantr. 2.200): the arrow-shot as a surprise attack at lightning speed. — ὕπτιος ἔμπεσε πέτρῃ: ἔμπεσε πέτρῃ in chiastic arrangement picks up the 1st VH of 107. ὕπτιος is elsewhere always used in reference to human beings, usually of a warrior who falls after being struck by a shot or a blow. The formulation as a whole is a variation of a formulaic phrase in battle scenes: see the iterata for the 2nd VH, including some with the enjambment ὕπτιος ἐν κονίῃσιν | κάππεσεν (522 f., 13.548 f., 16.289 f.; also 15.434 f. ὕπτιος ἐν κονίῃσιν | … πέσε), as well as the formula πέσεν ὕπτιος between caesurae B 1 and C 2 (15.647, 17.523, Od. 9.371, 18.398): LfgrE s. v. ὕπτιος.

109 The measurement of the horns (‘a length of sixteen palms’, i.e. ca. 125– 130 cm) is first and foremost a reference to the imposing appearance of the

106 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). 107 προδοκῇσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 108 βεβλήκει … ἔμπεσε: on the unaugmented forms, R 16.1. 109 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), dependent on κεφαλῆς. — κέρα ἐκ: on the hiatus, R 5.5 or 5.1 (see ↑).



goat killed by Pandaros and only secondarily to the specialness of the bow fitted with them and of its bearer. κέρα: a pl. form of κέρας, also at Od. 19.211 (nom.), 21.395 (acc.), in both cases of ‘horn’ as a material. In Mycenaean texts, it is attested in the form ke-ra-a (MYC; DMic s. v. ke-ra I); the Homeric form can thus be interpreted as either κέρᾱ with correption or κέρα(α) with elision (Schw. 1.515 f.; DELG and Beekes s. v. κέρας; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 21.395). — ἑκκαιδεκάδωρα: a hapax legomenonP, an indication of measurement with -δωρος also at Hes. Op. 426 (δεκαδώρῳ ἁμάξῃ); δῶρον in a measurement of length is the term for the width of a palm across four fingers (schol. D: ὁ παλαιστής, ὅ ἑστιν ἔκτασις τῶν τῆς χειρὸς τεσσάρων δακτύλων; LSJ s. v. δῶρον).

110–111 The focus is not on the technique used to construct the bow, but on the care taken in processing the materials, as well as the fact that these were expertly and artfully joined by a specialist to make an outstanding product (perhaps also with a metapoetic reference). Of the materials used to make the bow, only those that make the bearer of the weapon stand out are mentioned explicitly: the horn obtained in a hunt (105–111n.), and the even more valuable gold as its decoration; such golden parts of weapons (here the hook for attaching the string) likely serve to elevate the bearer poetically (for examples, LfgrE s.v χρύσε(ι)ος 1264.33 ff.). – Since a bow assembled from nothing but two large horns would be unusable, this is probably a composite bow, i.e. one with a wooden core, horn strips for reinforcement, and a sinew-covering as the wrapping (see also the horn on Odysseus’ bow at Od. 21.393–395); wood as material is perhaps implied by certain terms in the Greek (see below on τέκτων and 105–106n. on τόξον ἐΰξοον). Concerning the actual appearance of the bow, especially the question of whether it is a recurve bow (cf. Buchholz et al. 1973, 54 fig. 11 and 74 fig. 29), nothing specific can be inferred from this passage (von Luschan 1898, 189–193; 1899, 230 f.; Lorimer 1950, 290–299; Stubbings 1962, 518–520; Buchholz 2010, 236–238, esp. 238). ἀσκήσας: ἀσκέω (‘work diligently’) is used in particular for the expert, skilful work of specialists (14.179n. [Athene], 18.592n. [Daidalos]). — κεραοξόος: a Homeric hapaxP; the verbal final element of the compound is derived from ξέω (‘smooth, polish’), here with an active meaning ‘polishing horn’, as opposed to passive ἐΰξοος at 105 (see ad loc.; on the formation of verb-noun compounds, Risch 196–198). The initial element κεραο- is a unique form of a compound with κέρας (κερασ-/κερο- is more common; on this, DELG s. v. κέρας [transl.]: ‘influenced by metrical convenience and by κεραός’ [adj. ‘horned’: 3.24n.]). — τέκτων: In early epic, this denotes a craftsman who produces objects from solid materials (esp. wood), i.e. a carpenter, ship-wright, etc.; the term is here specified via the epithet as a designation for a specialist in bow construction (Eckstein 1974, 3 n. 12, 23–26; Canciani 1984, 103; LfgrE s. v.). —

110 ἤραρε: thematic aor. of ἀραρίσκω. 111 πᾶν: refers to the bow (τόξον), likewise τό in 112.


Iliad 4

κορώνην: means ‘hook’, here the term for one at the upper end of the bow to which the bow-string is attached via an eyelet or loop (Kirk; Canciani 1984, 34 n. 128; Buchholz 2010, 239; cf. 1.170n. for the ship epithet κορωνίς)

112–113a 1st VH of 112 ≈ 3.293, 6.473, 24.271, Od. 9.329, 13.20, 13.370, h.Merc. 63, 134. — Bows were not stretched until immediately before use; the string was kept loose to preserve the bow’s tone (Buchholz 2010, 238 f.). Pandaros is thus getting the bow ready to shoot by setting it on the ground and bending it to attach the string to the hook mentioned at 111 (on the interpretation of the formulation in the Greek, see below). On the various techniques of stretching, depending on the size of the bow, see von Luschan 1898, 190– 193; Fernández-Galiano, Introd. 138; Buchholz 2010, 239 f. τανυσσάμενος, ποτὶ γαίῃ | ἀγκλίνας: τανύω designates the stretching of the bow (‘after he stretched his bow’: LfgrE s. v. τανύω 311.35 ff.; similarly with transitive middle, see h.Merc. 51 [Hermes tightens the strings of the phorminx he built]). ἀνακλίνω means ‘bend back’ (esp. in order to open a passage at 5.751, 8.395, Od. 11.525, 22.156) or ‘lean back, lean against’ (at Od. 18.102 f., Odysseus with the beggar Iros: μιν ποτὶ ἑρκίον αὐλῆς | εἷσεν ἀνακλίνας), and is here an explication of τανυσσάμενος (interpreted by some scholars as the term for bending a so-called reflex bow, which when untensioned is not straight but curved in the opposite direction: Lorimer 1950, 291; Kirk). Syntactically, ποτὶ γαίῃ is probably associated with ἀγκλίνας (see the punctuation in West), in which case ‘bend it back on the ground’ (LfgrE s. v. κλίνω) or ‘push it against the ground’ (AH; Faesi); on the locative dat. of destination with verbs of movement, Schw. 2.513; on the sense break after the longum in the 5th foot and after a long, ‘heavy’ word (τανυσσάμενος), 14.175n. Others refer ποτὶ γαίῃ to κατέθηκε (‘he set/laid it down on the ground well’), in accord with the iterata in the Iliad and at Od. 6.75 with ἐπί + gen./dat. (Willcock; Kirk; preferred by Leaf). At any rate, the process being described can be interpreted such that Pandaros pushes one end of his bow onto the ground in order to bend it into the appropriate shape for stringing (Fernández-Galiano, Introd. 138; Buchholz 2010, 239).

113b–115 The surprise attack from a hiding place is an element of the themeP ‘ambush’ (Dué/Ebbott 2010, 58–60; cf. 18.513n.). Even during a field battle, archers operate from under cover: Teukros behind the shield of Aias (8.266– 272, successfully: 8.274 ff.), Paris behind a grave stele (11.369–372/379), the Lokrians in a long-range battle from the rear (13.712–722, esp. 721): Mackie 1996, 50 f.; Dué/Ebbott loc. cit. 113b σάκε͜α: Homer appears to use the two terms for ‘shield’, σάκος und ἀσπίς (cf. 90), interchangeably or at least with no consistent differentiation between long and round

112 τανυσσάμενος: transitive mid.: one’s own bow; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ποτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — γαίῃ: = γῇ. 113 ἀγκλίνας: aor. part. of ἀνα-κλίνω (on ἄν with apocope, R 20.1). — πρόσθεν: local: ‘in front’, i.e. ‘in front of him’. — σάκε͜α: on the synizesis, R 7.



shields (18.458n.). Long shields would be more appropriate as protective screens for individuals handling bows (on this, 6.117–118n.). — σχέθον: σχεθ- is used as an aor. stem of ἴσχ-, ‘held’ (Chantr. 1.329; 14.428n.). — ἐσθλοὶ ἑταῖροι: an inflectable VE formula (nom. pl./acc. sing.: in total 5× Il., 7× Od.), with ἐσθλός meaning ‘proficient, splendid’ (16.327n. with bibliography).

114 2nd VH = 11.800, 16.42, 18.200 (interpolated; see ad loc.), 20.317 (athetized by West), 21.376, Od. 23.220. — Most of the warriors on both sides have been following the duel while sitting, i.e. in a position of passive observation (90n.); the Achaians leaping to their feet would be a sign that they can see Pandaros’ preparations and are rushing to attack (Kurz 1966, 77). ἀρήϊοι: a generic epithetP of warriors (including Menelaos: 98n., 115), here (and in the iterata) expanding a VE formula. — υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectable VE formula and collective periphrastic denomination of the Achaians, likely an old Semiticism, cf. the Biblical phrase ‘sons of Israel’ (1.162n.; additional bibliography: LfgrE s. v. υἱός 701.3 ff.; Graziosi/Haubold on 6.255). 115 2nd VH after caesura A 4 = 98 (with n.). — πρίν: in Homer with an inf. also after a negative main clause or, with a change of subject, in an acc.-inf. construction (Schw. 2.654 f.; Chantr. 2.315). — βλῆσθαι: root aor. mid. of βάλλω with passive meaning (‘be hit’): Chantr. 2.181; Jankuhn 1969, 63. — Ἀτρέος υἱόν: is here the main transmission; it picks up 98, perhaps an indication of secondary focalizationP (the point of view of Pandaros and his men); on the v.l. ἀρχὸν Ἀχαιῶν, 195n.

116–117 2nd VH of 117 ≈ 191, 15.394. — quiver: Homeric epic does not offer information regarding the material and appearance of quivers, except that they were closed with a lid (also 1.45 with n., Od. 9.314). Archaeological evidence shows that they were made from leather and/or wood (and thus are only rarely preserved) and were occasionally equipped with metal fittings (Buchholz 2010, 262–268). — arrow | feathered: ‘Feathered’ arrows are also mentioned at 5.171, 16.773, 20.68; the fletching served to stabilize the flight, see also 69n. on the formulaP ‘feathered words’ (not: ‘winged words’). On the appearance of the wooden arrow shafts and the type of fletching, Buchholz 2010, 269–274. — dark: The adj. mélas is used inter alia to describe the physical pain associated with injuries (191, 15.394); it evokes associations with descriptions of blood (140, 149) and with phrases describing a loss of consciousness after an injury (Mawet 1979, 45–48; Neal 2006, 32; cf. 14.438– 439n. [on night and darkness as metaphors for unconsciousness]). σύλα: 105–106a n.; here with an unaccompanied (ablatival) gen. φαρέτρης, elsewhere construed with ἀπό (AH; LfgrE s. v. συλάω; Bravo 1980, 711). — ἰόν | … πτερόεντα:

114 πρίν: adv., but in 115 the conjunction (‘earlier …, | before; sooner …, | than’). — ἀναΐξειαν: aor. opt. of ἀναΐσσω ‘leap up’. — υἷες: on the declension, R 12.3. 116 αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2). — ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — σύλα: impf. of συλάω (cf. R 16.1), ‘took away’. — ἐκ … ἕλετ(ο): on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.


Iliad 4

πτερόεις is generally used in early epic in a metaphorical sense as an epithet with ἔπεα (69n.), in addition 4× Il. with the two terms for ‘arrow’, ἰός and ὀϊστός (instances, 16.773n.). — ἀβλῆτα: ἀβλής is a Homeric hapaxP meaning ‘unthrown’, i.e. characterizing an arrow as unused and thus as completely straight and likely to fly perfectly (schol. A, D; on the formation with suffix -τ-, Risch 18, 196; on the Homeric use of βάλλω and derivations, Trümpy 1950, 104–107); on the emphasis on the quality of objects via an indication that they have never been used, e.g. 5.194, 15.469, 24.267 (LfgrE s.vv. νεόστροφος, πρωτοπαγής). — μελαινέ ͜ων ἕρμ’ ὀδυνάων: a unique description of an arrow via what it causes (cf. 140 αἷμα κελαινεφές, 149 μέλαν αἷμα); a modification of the VE formula μελαινάων ὀδυνάων (see iterata, in addition ὀδυνάων always at VE: 15.60, Od. 4.812, 19.117, h.Hom. 16.4) with epichoric-Ionic gen. pl. ending in -έων (G 68). The meaning of ἕρμα in the present passage has remained a crux since antiquity (Aristarchus athetized the verse as a result); Apoll. Rhod. omits ἕρμα in his imitation of the formulation: Argon. 3.279 ἀβλῆτα πολύστονον ἐξέλετ’ ἰόν (Leaf; AH, Anh. pp. 34–35; LfgrE s.vv. ἕρμα III and ὀδύνη; Mawet 1979, 57 f.; Rengakos 1993, 105). In early epic, two etymologically distinct terms ἕρμα are used (see Frisk and DELG s.vv. ἕρμα and εἴρω): (a) a technical term for the base (beams or stones) on which ships pulled up on land are set, i.e. ‘support’ (1.486n., metaphorical with the positive connotation ‘a support for the city’: 16.549n.; hence schol. bT ἔρεισμα; Kirk and Mawet [loc. cit.] consider this interpretation for the present passage); (b) a term for earrings (pl. ἕρματα, a derivation from εἴρω ‘string [up]’: 14.182n.; AH, Anh. p. 35 thus contemplates the meaning ‘string, chain of pains’); (c) in post-Homeric texts, it is also a term for ‘ballast, burden’ (an expansion of meaning (a): Porzig 1942, 266; DELG s. v. ἕρμα; thus LSJ s. v.: ‘freight of dark pains’; preferred by Leaf); (d) a different interpretation: ‘cause of pains’, with a vocalization, attested only here, of ἕρμrelated to ὁρμάω/ὁρμή, although the suffix with -μ- in ἕρμα is different from that of ὁρμάω/ὁρμή (AH ad loc.; preferred by Willcock). Contextually, interpretations (a) and (b) fit best: Pandaros’ arrow as the basis or source of pain (causal relationship), i.e. the actual effect on the person wounded (cf. Neal 2006, 27 f.). 118 κατεκόσμει: κοσμέω is inter alia a technical military term for the arrangement of troops (1.16n.); here it signals the particular care taken when nocking the arrow, contrast the formulations at 8.323 f. (θῆκε δ’ ἐπὶ νευρῇ), 23.871 (ἴθυνεν), Od. 21.419 (ἐπὶ πήχει ἑλών). — πικρὸν ὀϊστόν: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc. sing.: 10× Il., 1× Od.); in the Pandaros scene also at 134 and 217 (the arrow strikes Menelaos and is pulled out). πικρός as an epithet of missiles means ‘pointed, sharp’, ‘piercing’ when applied to the pain they cause (LfgrE s. v. πικρός).

119–121 ≈ 101–103 (see ad loc.). — The pledge to Apollo is repeated verbatim (on this phenomenon during the execution of an order, 70–72n.), with the repetition positioned between the nocking of the arrow and the drawing of the string to heighten suspense (cf. 105–147n.). 122 The wooden arrow shaft was fletched at the back (116–117n.) and featured indentations (Greek glyphídes): (a) a notch at the rear end to position the

119–121 ≈ 101–103 (see ad loc.).



arrow on the bowstring (the so-called nock; here pl. in the Greek: two intersecting notches?) and/or (b) two indentations meant to provide support for the shooter’s fingers when drawing the string and arrow (LfgrE s. v. γλυφίς; on the Greek terms for the components of an arrow, Fernández-Galiano, Introd. 139 f.). It is almost impossible to decide which of the two is referenced in the process described here (favoring (a): Kirk; cautiously Leaf; LfgrE s. v. γλυφίς; favoring (b): AH; Lorimer 1950, 293 f.; Buchholz 2010, 274). νεῦρα βόεια: νεῦρα (neut. pl. of νεῦρον) means ‘sinews’, here from oxen, at 16.316 human sinews (see ad loc.); the bowstring, elsewhere called νευρή (118, 123 and esp. Od. 21.419), appears to have been made by twisting animal sinews (Lorimer 1950, 293; Buchholz 2010, 239 f.; LfgrE s. v. νευρή).

123 Iron arrowheads are unusual in Homeric epic, the material being elsewhere said to be bronze (13.650, 13.662, 15.465, Od. 1.262, 21.423); other weapons are almost always made of bronze as well and only rarely of iron (club, knife: Il. 7.141, 18.34, 23.30, Od. 16.294, 19.13): this suggests a situation in which iron was still rare and valuable (6.3n., 6.48n.; LfgrE s. v. σίδηρος). In the present passage, the unusual material matches the significance of the shot, and its hardness matches the impact of the arrow, which will pierce several protective layers of metal (134–138, cf. 187); some scholars consider the use of iron in the context of Pandaros’ origin in Asia Minor, since iron weapons had been in use in Asia Minor for some time (Lorimer 1950, 119, 294; Shear 2000, 60; on the distribution of the socketed arrowheads introduced from Anatolia in the 7th cent., cf. Baitinger 2001, 28 f.; differently Kirk: more likely for metrical reasons). – For archaeological finds of iron arrowheads, Popham/Lemos 1995, 152 f. and Nijboer 2008, 367 f. (Lefkandi tomb 79); Baitinger loc. cit. 5–8 (Olympia); Buchholz 2010, 288; on the shape and nature of arrowheads in general, Baitinger loc. cit. 8–30 (esp. 28 f. with n. 304); Buchholz loc. cit. 274–293. 124–126 The shot is described step by step with highly expressive formulations (see below): (a) the bow is stretched into a circular shape (kykloterés), a reference to the shooter’s powerful draw, the force of which will be transferred to the arrow, and which explains the power of the impact (134–138); (b) the bow and string emit acoustic signals, similar to Apollo’s bow at 1.49 as he spreads pestilence in the Achaian camp (see ad loc.), and to the string of Odysseus’ bow at Od. 21.411 f., which he subsequently uses to perform the master shot and then kill the suitors (Krapp 1964, 307; Kaimio 1977, 21; see also de Jong on Od. 21.411); (c) the arrow ‘having the urge’ (meneaínōn) to fly toward its aim describes the force of the launch when the arrow leaves the string, on the one hand, while this ‘anthropomorphization’ of the weapon transfers the shooter’s intentions to his weapon, on the other (schol. bT on 126; on which,


Iliad 4

Nünlist 2009, 210 f.); also of lances, cf. Il. 8.111, 11.571/574, 15.314/317, 16.75; for additional bibliography on this phenomenon, 16.75n. (on μαίνεται); for discussion of Homer’s animistic conception of the world, de Jong 2012a, 36. 124 αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δή: a common phrase introducing a subsidiary clause at VB (16.187n.). 125 The decisive moment is designed to be linguistically striking, in a verse with three predicates and a chiastic arrangement of the subjects (bow, string, arrow), the third being expanded by an epithet (in enjambment). — λίγξε βιός: βιός probably originally denoted the bowstring; in early epic, it is used synonymously with τόξον, see also 123 f. (LfgrE and DELG s. v. βιός; Buchholz 2010, 240). λίγξε, the term for the sound made by the bow when it recoils into its original shape during the launch, is a hapax legomenonP, perhaps an onomatopoetic formation (Tichy 1983, 60; cf. schol. bT); an association is sometimes posited with the adj. λιγύς, which describes a bright, frequently piercing note (e.g. of the wind, of a phorminx) (DELG and Beekes s. v. λιγύς; cf. 19.5n.). — μέγ’ ἴαχεν: An intensification vis-à-vis the preceding sound, see also the string in Odysseus’ bow contest at Od. 21.411 (καλὸν ἄεισε, χελιδόνι εἰκέλη αὐδήν). The phrase μεγα(-λα) + ἰάχω (‘scream loudly’) usually denotes a particularly intense human cry, less frequently a noise produced by an inanimate object (18.29n., 19.41n.; Kaimio 1977, 20–22, 88). — ἄλτο δ’ ὀϊστός: the notion of an arrow ‘leaping’ off the string also at 15.313 f. and 15.470 (θρῴσκ-), 16.773 (θορ-), a spear that ‘leaps’ from the hand at 14.455 is similar (see ad loc.); on the accent on ἄλτο, West 1998, XX. 126 ὀξυβελής: a Homeric hapaxP; the compound, consisting of ὀξυ- (‘sharp’) and βέλος (related to the root of βάλλω), is probably a possessive compound, in which case it means approximately ‘having a sharp (i.e. a sharply pointed) missile’; see βέλος ἐχεπευκές at 129n. (Risch 185; LfgrE s. v.). The epithet, stressed via its position (progressive enjambmentP), highlights the danger posed by the missile, which makes Athene’s easy deflection of it all the more impressive. — καθ’ ὅμιλον: ‘through the crowd’ (Schw. 2.476; Chantr. 2.114), 11× Il. before caesura B 2; a phrase that recurs repeatedly, also in the form ἀν’/ἐς ὅμιλον, used preferentially for the chaos of massed battle (melee), in addition a mere indication of location ‘in, through the crowd’, in which case it denotes any ‘crowd of warriors/men’ (ὅμιλος λαῶν, ἀνδρῶν). — μενεαίνων: a denominative related to μένος, which denotes a violent striving and raging (32n.); with the exception of the present passage, always with an individual as subject (LfgrE s. v.). μαιμώωσα (5.661, 15.542) and μαίνεται (8.111, 16.75) used of weapons are similar: LfgrE s. v. μαιμάω.

127–133 Athene retains control over the action at all times; her intervention is narratologically necessary, since Menelaos is meant to be wounded but not killed (cf. ‘if-not’ situationP), as well as contextually plausible, since she acts on Zeus’ orders to direct the entire process of the violation of the treaty (70– 72, 86–104), and since she appears as the protectress of the Achaians overall

124 αὐτάρ: ‘but, indeed’, here progressive ‘and’ (R 24.2). — κυκλοτερές: predicative, ‘circular, into a circular shape’ (proleptic). 126 ἐπιπτέσθαι: thematic aor. of ἐπι-πέτομαι ‘fly there’.



(19.342n.): Willcock; West 2011, 141. This results in the only superficially absurd situation that Athene brings about the attack on Menelaos, the actual cause for this campaign, so that the Greeks must react, but by directing the flight of the arrow also takes care to protect him, ensuring that he is injured as lightly as possible (139, 185–187). On additional depictions of gods rendering weapons ineffective or foiling strikes in order to save their proteges, 6.306n., 16.114–118n.; Kullmann 1956, 133; Kelly 2007, 291 f. 127 2nd VH ≈ 14.143, Od. 12.61, 14.83, 18.134. — you: An address by the narratorP to one of his charactersP (a so-called apostrophe) can be an expression of the narrator’s special relationship with the character and/or a narrative designelement (on the phenomenon of apostrophe in Homer, 16.20n. with bibliography). Menelaos is addressed thus 7× (Richardson 1990, 237 n. 5); here, at 146 and at 7.104, the address is used in the description of a situation that threatens him (also 13.603, 17.679, 17.702, 23.600), as is also often the case in apostrophes directed at other charactersP. In the present passage, the two apostrophes – the first in the Iliad – at the point of greatest drama within the shooting scene (at 125 f. the beginning of the shot, at 139 f. its conclusion) serve to put the focus on the victim (and simultaneously on his helper) and both heighten the pathos at this significant moment of the action of the Iliad (Hoekstra 1965, 139; Parry 1972, 15; di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 42–45) and signal the narrator’s sympathy for Menelaos, while evoking it in the audience (schol. bT; Willcock; Edwards 1987, 38; Kahane 1994, 107 f.; Collobert 2011, 209; Dubel 2011, 129, 141; see also Parry loc. cit. 9). θεοὶ μάκαρες: a formulaic phrase after caesura B 2, as here; see iterata (in addition, μακαρ. θ. in various positions in the verse: 1.406n., 14.73n.). The adj., mostly used as an epithet of the gods, likely has in particular the connotation ‘living safe and carefree’ (1.339n.); here this notion is further illustrated by the additional epithet ἀθάνατοι in enjambment. — λελάθοντο: a reduplicated thematic aor. of λανθάνομαι (on this type of aor. formation, Chantr. 1.395–398) with a causative meaning ‘make oneself forget, disregard’ (19.136n. with bibliography; LfgrE s. v. λανθάνω 1630.47 f.), here with a negative in the sense ‘worry about’. 128 2nd VH = Od. 13.359. — Διὸς θυγάτηρ ἀγελείη: this combination also at Od. 3.378, 13.359, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 197. Διὸς θυγάτηρ is used formulaically for a variety of goddesses (3.374n.); ἀγελείη is a cult title of Athene that has been interpreted as ‘driver of the spoil’, but is perhaps to be understood instead as ‘leader of the people at war’ (6.269n.).

127 οὐδέ: In Homer, connective οὐδέ also occurs after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — σέθεν: = σοῦ (R 14.1, cf. R 15.1), dependent on λελάθοντο. 128 ἀθάνατοι: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἀγελείη: on the -η after -ι-, R 2.


Iliad 4

129 πρόσθε στᾶσα: cf. 54n. — βέλος ἐχεπευκές: in early epic only here and at 1.51 (Apollo’s arrow). The verb-noun compound ἐχε-πευκής likely means ‘having a point, pointed’ (Schw. 1.441; Frisk, DELG s. v. and Beekes s. v. πεύκη; cf. schol. D on 1.51); on the metrical structure of βέλος in this phrase (‫)– ۽‬, 1.51n., M 13.2, G 14.

130–131 ComparisonsP and similesP with a mother-child theme stress both solicitous behavior (of a goddess also at 23.782 f. [Athene and Odysseus], 18.358 f. [Hera and the Achaians], see ad loc.) and the helplessness of the individual protected (on comparisons and similes with children, 16.7–11n. with bibliography). The comparison of the mother brushing a fly off her sleeping child offers an image of peaceful daily life, representing a stark contrast with the current situation of the charactersP in war. It illustrates Athene’s care for the unsuspecting Menelaos and especially the ease with which she retains control and slightly alters the arrow’s path; to prevent greater damage, she directs it to an area protected particularly well by multiple layers of protective clothing (the abdomen: 137n., 186–187n.), which ultimately makes it plausible that Menelaos is only lightly wounded (139, 185–187): Fränkel 1921, 12, 92; Scott 1974, 74, 112; Edwards 1987, 104; Ready 2011, 182 with n. 81. For additional similes with flies (representing loud, rebellious crowds on the move), 2.469–473n., 16.641–644a n.; for a general collection of similes involving insects, 2.87–94n. τόσον μὲν ἔεργεν: continued in 132 with αὐτῇ δ’ … ἴθυνεν (τόσον is used adverbially: ‘although thus far …, but’). All this explicates the process of βέλος ἄμυνεν (129), described in detail at 132–139: Athena pushes the missile aside only to the extent that it strikes where its impact can be arrested to a greater degree by the protective clothing (AH, Anh. p. 36 f.; Willcock; on the formulation with τόσον μὲν … δέ, cf. 18.378n.). On words repeated in the comparison and the narrative text (ἔεργεν, ἐέργῃ), 16.211– 217n. with bibliography — χροός: denotes both the skin (139: superficial injury) and the (vulnerable) body (skin with flesh, see 137): 19.27n.; Gavrylenko 2012. — ὡς ὅτε: a common introduction to similes, with ind. or – as here and at 141 – subjunc. (with and without modal particle): Ruijgh 627; Edwards, Introd. 26–28.

132–139 The narrator allows the audience to follow in quasi-slow motion how the arrow pierces three layers of protective clothing (134–139n.). This description contains the detailed version of an element of the themeP ‘duel’ in which

129 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἄμυνεν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 130 ἥ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ἔ(ϝ)εργεν: impf. of εἴργω ‘push aside’; on the uncontracted form, R 6 (likewise in 131). — χροός: = χρωτός, gen. of χρώς. 131 παιδός: ablatival gen., dependent on ἐέργῃ (cf. 130). — ἐέργῃ: In generalizing (iterative) comparative and temporal clauses in Homer, the subjunc. is often used by itself (R 21.1). — ὅθ’: = ὅτε ‘when’, with elision (R 5.1) and assimilation of the aspiration. — λέξεται: short-vowel aor. subjunc. (R 16.3) of λέχομαι ‘lay oneself (down)’, here confective, with ὕπνῳ ‘lies in sleep, lies sleeping’.



spears or lances pierce several parts of the armor, namely element (3aβ) ‘a missile penetrates several layers of armor, but is arrested before it can inflict a lethal injury’ (3.340–382n., 3.360n.; Fenik 1968, 102–104): see esp. 3.355– 360 ≈ 7.249–254 through shield, corselet and chiton (an undergarment worn underneath the corselet), where Paris and Hektor manage to swerve in time; 11.434–438 through Odysseus’ shield and corselet (Athene prevents fatal injury); also 5.537–539 ≈ 17.517–519 through shield and belt (fatal injuries). This narrative technique illustrates the danger posed by the shot and heightens the drama (van der Valk 1964, 424 f.; similarly Kirk ad loc.; see also 105– 147n.). In the present passage, the process is adapted to the situation: (1) no duel but rather an attack from ambush, hence an arrow shot; (2) the victim is unsuspecting, unprepared to fight and thus unable to take cover behind a shield or evade the shot (thus Paris at 3.360b and Hektor at 7.254b); (3) the narrator presents Athene’s circumspection and precision in maintaining a firm grip on Pandaros’ action and directing the shot to a triply protected area, so that Menelaos, although visibly wounded, survives (139 ff.). On passages in which an armored warrior is wounded or killed by an arrow, Farron 2003, 172 f.; for a collection of examples with fatal injuries in the chest or abdominal area, Morrison 1999, 144. 132–133 2nd VH of 132–133 = 20.414 f. — Homeric warriors wear a breastplate (thṓrēx), which is made either entirely of metal or from layers of linen reinforced with leather and/or metal plates (a corselet made of two cast halves or scale armor), and a belt (Greek zōstḗr) that is frequently designed as a prestige object (here with golden buckles) but has a protective function as well, see 186 and the wounding of Agamemnon at 11.236. The zōstḗr is probably meant to protect the particularly vulnerable lower part of the torso (in battle scenes, missiles penetrate the zōstḗr to hit the abdomen: 5.538 f., 5.615 f., 17.519): 3.332n., 6.219–220n.; Brandenburg 1977, 121 f., 127 f.; Bennett 1997, 70–73; Shear 2000, 46–48; on the archaeological evidence, see Buchholz 2010, 214–226 (esp. 216 f.); Steinmann 2012, 65–69. The description ‘layered doubly’ (diplóos) in the 2nd VH of 133 clarifies right at the start that the missile’s point of entry has multiple protections; in reality, the statement is difficult to understand and has given rise to a variety of interpretations (LfgrE s. v. διπλόος with bibliography; Edwards on 20.413–415; Catling 1977, 100 f.): (1) of parts of protective clothing as a whole, i.e. either (1a) zōstḗr + corselet, (1b) corselet + mítrē (137n.) or (1c) zōstḗr + mítrē; (2) as an

132 ὅθι: ‘there, where’. 133 σύνεχον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — διπλόος: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

attribute of the breastplate alone, in which case (2a) of the overlapping metal parts (Shear 2000, 47 f.), (2b) of the two halves of the corselet (although the doubly overlapping metal plates of the corselet would be expected to be located not at the front of the abdomen but to the side beneath the arms: Willcock; Kirk on 132–133 and 135–136) or (2c) of the leather or cloth base layers and metal plates. αὐτῇ δ’ αὔτ’: thus West’s text, with (1) αὐτῇ δ’ (‘but there’) in contrast to τόσον μέν at 130 and correlative with ὅθι (with reference to the indications of location at 24.362 πῇ … ἰθύνεις; and at 20.479 τῇ) and (2) αὐτ(ό) picking up βέλος in 129 (West 2001, 188 f.). But adverbial αὐτῇ is not attested elsewhere in early epic. The transmission suggests αὐτὴ δ’ αὖτ(ε) (‘she herself again’), as at 3.383 (see also VB of 13.642, 17.706, Od. 3.402), a strongly emphasised link to ἣ δέ at 130 in order to bridge the inserted comparison. A statement along the lines of ‘but she at least directed it to where’ (i.e. rather δ’ αὖτε) would be expected. — ὀχῆες | … σύνεχον: a figura etymologica: ὀχεύς denotes a mounting, here probably the belt buckle, συνέχω is used intransitively (‘meet’) here (and at 20.415, 20.478): LfgrE s.vv. ἔχω 849.44 f. and ὀχεύς. — ἤντετο: literally ‘approached someone’, here approximately ‘faced’, i.e. ‘there, where the armor stood opposite in two layers’. The form ἤντετο is usually understood as an aor. (Monro [1882] 1891, 37: Mutzbauer 1893, 91), here beside σύνεχον occasionally also as an impf. (schol. D; LfgrE s. v. ἀντέσθαι: ‘the only example that supports ἤντετο being an impf.’); on the use of the form and the word formation of ἄντομαι, 16.788n.

134–139 Verse by verse, the narrator follows the path of the arrow: the impact, piercing three layers, entering the outermost layer of the body (chrṓs: skin and flesh); on linguistic aspects, see below. He thus creates drama, while at the same time clarifying by the mention of three layers that the arrow hits a part of the body where the warrior’s clothing ensures the greatest possible protection (132–139n.). The fact that the narrator later varies the enumeration of the three parts of armor (here zōstḗr, thṓrēx, mítrē; 186 f. ≈ 215 f.: zōstḗr, zṓma, mítrē) has given rise to debate, as have the Greek terms, which are sometimes difficult to identify accurately, but which will have been familiar to a contemporary audience (132–133n., 137n., 186–187n.; Lorimer 1950, 248– 250; Brandenburg 1977, 120–123; Bennett 1997, 68–73; older bibliography in Bergold 1977, 158 n. 1). The path of the arrow upon impact is traced step by step via prepositions from the outermost layer to the innermost (ἐν … ἔπεσε – διά – διά – διάπρο – ἐπ-έγραψε); in the audience’s perception, its speed is decreased by the numerous verb forms, while the process itself is signalled as already complete via the use of the aor. and plpf. (aor. ἔπεσε – plpf. ἐλήλατο and ἐρήρειστο – aor. εἴσατο): Bergold 1977, 158 f.; on the plpf., 108n. 134 ἀρηρότι: The part. ἀρηρώς (and ἀραρυῖα) is elsewhere usually combined with an adv. or dat. or prepositional phrase. Used absolutely of the belt (here and at 213), it

134 ζωστῆρι ἀρηρότι: on the hiatus, R 5.7.



means ‘attached closely’ or ‘joined’ in the sense ‘close-fitting’ (AH; Kirk on 213); on intransitive ἀραρίσκω ‘abut, join, adhere’ (cf. 13.800 and 15.618 of battle formations of warriors who advance ‘in close formation’): LfgrE s. v. 1179.30 ff. — πικρὸς ὀïστός: 118n. 135 διά: an unusual position of διά at VB (with metrical lengthening of ι) with a rhetorical function; the placement signals that the two prepositional phrases here and at 136 correspond (‘There it passed through … | and there through … | and …’), likewise at 3.357, 7.251, 11.435 (3.357n.; Wyatt 1969, 215 f.). — δαιδαλέοιο: ‘skilfully decorated’, probably with metal parts among other things (see 186/215 παναίολον: 186–187n.); on the word family δαιδαλ-, 19.13n. (with bibliography). 136 = 3.358, 7.252, 11.436. — The verse has been suspected as a concordance interpolation, since the θώρηξ is no longer mentioned when the wound is treated at 215 f. (nor at 186 f. by Menelaos), and since at 137 f. the μίτρη is stressed as offering the best protection (Fenik 1968, 102), but see 134–139n. — πολυδαιδάλου: 135n.

137 The appearance and function of the part of the armor termed mítrē are obscure, as is the distinction from Menelaos’ zōstḗr and zṓma at 186 f./215 f. (some scholars interpret all three terms as designations for a type of strap). In early epic, mítrē is attested only here and in a battle scene in Book 5; in post-Homeric texts, mítrē denotes a piece of clothing wrapped around the head or torso. Menelaos’ mítrē is what gives his torso the best protection against spears, and it is made (at least partially) from bronze (187/216); he seems to wear it as an inner layer beneath the corselet. This observation fits with the adjectives aiolomítrēs (‘with shimmering mítrē’: 5.707) and amitrochítōnes (‘who wear the chitṓn without the mítrē’: 16.419 with n.). According to 5.857 f. (Diomedes pierces Ares’ mítrē with the help of Athene), its place is on the lower part of the torso, perhaps starting at the lower edge of the corselet. It is thus interpreted as a type of metal strap, perhaps also in the shape of a bronze plate, which reinforces or lengthens the corselet, protecting the interior organs in the abdomen (Kirk; Brandenburg 1977, 119–126; van Wees 1994, 135 f.; Bennett 1997, 115–123; Buchholz 2010, 216). For additional attempts to explain the terms, 186–187n. ἕρκος ἀκόντων: VE = 15.646 (cf. the echo of the VE formula ἕρκος ὀδόντων, ‘a fence of teeth’: 3× Il., 7× Od.; cf. FOR 25). The basic meaning of ἕρκος is ‘(protective) enclosure’, metaphorically ‘bulwark’, esp. of warriors (299n., 1.283b–284n.; among others, VE formula ἕ. Ἀχαιῶν 3× Il.), of weapons also at 5.316 (Aphrodite’s garment as protec-

135 μὲν ἄρ: continued by 139 δ’ ἄρ’; ἄρ: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἐλήλατο: plpf. of ἐλαύνομαι, ‘had struck through’. — δαιδαλέοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 136 θώρηκος: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. — ἐρήρειστο: plpf. of ἐρείδομαι, ‘had squeezed, permeated’. 137 θ’: = τε. — ἐφόρει ἔρυμα: on the hiatus, R 5.6; φορέω is a frequentative of φέρω, ‘carry (habitually)’. — χροός: 130n.


Iliad 4

tion for Aineias), 15.567 (the weapons used to defend the ships), 15.646 (a shield): LfgrE s. v. ἕρκος. 138 ≈ 5.538, 17.518, Od. 24.524. — ἥ … ἔρυτο: an epexegetic relative clause for ἔρυμα in 137, which is attested elsewhere in early epic only at Hes. Op. 536, although more frequently in later periods; ἔρυμα is thus additionally and emphatically specified after ἕρκος ἀκόντων (Bergold 1977, 158 f. n. 3, contra the reading ἔλυμα by Zenodotus and Aristophanes, see schol. A, T); on such explicatory amplifications, 1.238n., 24.479n.; cf. etymologizingP. For bibliography on the wealth of forms for the verb ἔρυμαι (‘protect, save’), 14.406n., 24.499n. — διάπρο: ‘through and through’, here a preposition with gen., as at 5.281, 14.494 (14.494–495a n.; on the spelling, West 1998, XVIIIf.). — εἴσατο: aor. of (ϝ)ῑ´ εμαι ‘rush, strive’, cf. the future formation εἴσομαι (Chantr. 1.142 f., 293 f.; DELG s. v. εἴσομαι 3; 24.462n. with bibliography). 139 ἐπέγραψε: The basic meaning of γράφω is ‘scratch, carve’; in Homeric epic it is used predominantly in the context of injuries (except at 6.169 [see ad loc.], 7.187).

140–147 The first bloodshed in the Iliad. Menelaos’ blood, which will lead to further deaths and injuries (see esp. 451b), is mentioned repeatedly (haíma at 140, 146, 149, 218) and is described here in terms of its visibility (Taplin 1992, 105 f.; Neal 2006, 48). This event, actually quite terrible, is illustrated by the narratorP via a simileP (ivory embellished with royal purple) especially for its aesthetics, namely with regard to (a) the color contrast red on white (141; but cf. the ‘dark blood’ at 140 and 149; see also Od. 18.196: Penelope’s ivory-like skin), (b) the value and beauty of the object (144 f.; cf. the beauty of Menelaos’ thighs and ankles at 147), (c) the attention drawn by the fascinating sight (143b–144a; cf. Agamemnon’s dismay when he sees the blood at 148 f.): Fränkel 1921, 54 f.; Scott 1974, 112; Bergold 1977, 160–162; Peigney 2007. By highlighting Menelaos’ beauty, and by conjuring up the image of a little ‘treasure’ (ágalma) made by a woman (141–142n.), his stylized brush with death is lent a strongly aestheticized component (Kirk on 141–147: ‘one of the most striking and unusual of Iliadic similes’; cf. the beautiful sight of a slain young man at Il. 22.71–73, Tyrtaeus fr. 10.27 ff. West; on the concept ‘the beautiful dead’, Vernant (1982) 2001, esp. 325–328). For other depictions of hemorrhaging after injury, 16.333–334n.; Neal 2006, 48–60; Holmes 2007, 60 ff. (collection of examples of similes and comparisons for injury and death: Stoevesandt 2004, 422 f.). Some scholars also consider the simile a characterization of Menelaos (Moulton 1977, 93 n. 14: with conspicuous emphasis on the unwarlike; Kirk on 141–147 and on 147: highlighting Menelaos’

138 ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ … ἔρυτο: ‘was protection for him’; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — πλεῖστον: adverbial ‘the most’. 139 χρόα: acc. of χρώς (‘skin’), modified by ἀκρότατον, i.e. the outermost layer of the skin.



value to the Achaians; Neal 2006, 46–48: a battle decoration and honorable distinction for the wounded man). 140 αὐτίκα: 105–106a n. — αἷμα κελαινεφές: a noun-epithet formula; before caesura C 2 also at 21.167, Od. 11.36, 11.153 (in addition κελαινεφὲς αἷμα 3× Il. after caesura B 2). κελαινεφής means literally ‘with dark (thunder) clouds’ and is used as an epithet for Zeus (1.397n.), with αἷμα in a metaphorical sense as a ‘metrical extension’ of κελαινόν (16.667–668n.; LfgrE s. v.). Blood is usually described as ‘dark’ or even ‘black’ (149), evoking the contrast between it and both pale skin and ‘dark’ death (1.303n., 16.529n.; LfgrE s. v. αἷμα 306.30 ff.; collection of examples: Neal 2006, 296). — ἐξ ὠτειλῆς: an inflectable VE formula (sing. 6× Il., 1× Od.; pl. 1× Od.); ὠτειλή denotes both a fresh, frequently fatal wound and the same on a dead body (19.25n.; on the weapons causing them, LfgrE s. v.).

141–142 Material and color identify this cheek-piece from a horse harness as a luxury object. (a) In Homer, ivory (eléphas, attested already in Mycenaean texts: MYC) frequently occurs in combination with other precious materials and is often associated with Asia Minor, as here: in the Iliad, it is mentioned as material on horse harnesses (here and at 5.583 that of a charioteer from Paphlagonia in Asia Minor), perhaps in awareness of similarly luxurious equine equipment from Asia Minor (Foltiny 1967, 14 f.; Crielaard 2000, 253 f.; on the different materials used in harnesses, Crouwel 1981, 101–107, 111; 1992, 46–51, 73); in the Odyssey, it is a material used for embellishments on a sword or on furniture and domestic items (LfgrE s. v. ἐλέφας; HE s. v. Ivory; Foltiny 1967, esp. 12–16; Wiesner 1968, 108). (b) Coloration with royal purple (phoínix, already attested in Mycenaean texts: MYC) is generally an indication of the value of an object (in Homeric epic especially of leather and textile items): LfgrE s. v. φοῖνιξ; on purple dyeing and royal purple as status symbols, Blum 1998, esp. 32–34, 68–75; Buchholz 2012, 105–108, esp. 107 (with bibliography). It is worth noting that in the present simile – in contrast to other similes and comparisons from the sphere of crafts – a craft practiced by a woman is in question (140–147n.; for a collection of examples of crafts in similes, Moulton 1977, 91 with n. 8; also 16.211–217n., 18.600–601n.); textile crafts in particular are considered typical women’s work (spinning and weaving: on the female Phoenician weavers from Sidon, 6.289–291n., also 3.125n., 3.387–388n., 6.90–91n.). – In ancient texts, the Maionians are often equated with the Lydians, while the settlement area of the Karians is located in southwest Asia Minor (between the Maionians and the Lykians, according

141 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μιήνῃ: aor. subjunc. of μιαίνω (cf. 131n.; on the -η- after -ι-, R 2). 142 ἠέ: = ἤ ‘or’. — ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4); final-consecutive inf. — ἔμμεναι ἵππων: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.


Iliad 4

to the Catalogue of Trojans especially the region of Miletos); both are Trojan allies (2.864n., 2.867n.; BNP s. v. Maeonia). ὡς δ’ ὅτε τις: a VB formula (7× Il., 3× Od.; cf. ὡς ὅτε τις before caesura B 1: 6× Il., 2× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’); on ὡς ὅτε, 130–131n. — μιήνῃ: The verb is used only here meaning ‘dye’ in a technical sense, elsewhere in Homeric epic in the passive with the sense ‘be smeared’, namely with blood or dust (146, 16.795 ff. as a result of injury, 17.439 during mourning, 23.732 of wrestlers): Kirk; LfgrE s. v. μιαίνομαι; on word repetitions in similes and in the narrative text (μιήνῃ/μιάνθην), 130–131n. The most that can be adduced for the meaning ‘dye’ is the use of the adj. μιαρός (‘smeared, sullied’: 24.420a n.) in Mycenaean texts, which perhaps means ‘dyed’ as an attribute of textiles (DMic s. v. mi-ja-ro-; DELG s. v. μιαίνω [with more recent bibliography]). — Μῃονὶς … Κάειρα: on the form of the ethnics, 2.864n. (Homeric Μῃον-, later Μηϊον-) and Risch 135 (feminine form of *Κάερες with suffix -i ̭a). — παρήϊον: ‘cheek ornament’ (related to παρειά), the cheek piece on a horse harness (Wiesner 1968, 20, 108; Plath 1994, 360–363). Purple dyeing is associated explicitly with these two ethnic groups only in the present passage (for bibliography, Buchholz 2012, 107). But the simile perhaps – along with other passages in the Iliad – provides a pointer to the homeland (in Asia Minor) of the poet of the Iliad (Kirk; Latacz [2011] 2014, 74 no. 4).

143–145 A change from hypotaxis to parataxis ‘for aesthetic and pathetic effect’ (Kirk); τε in 143 (rather than a repetition of δέ) signals the contextually close relationship of κεῖται and ἠρήσαντο (Ruijgh 261, 779). 143 1st VH ≈ 24.600. — κεῖται: on the use in the sense ‘lie in storage’, LfgrE s. v. 1362.5 ff. — θαλάμῳ: denotes a private room within the house: bedroom, women’s day room or – as here – storeroom, treasury (6.316n.; LfgrE s. v.). — ἠρήσαντο: In Homer, ἀράομαι is usually used as a verb of praying (1.35n.; LfgrE), here the secular ‘make a request, wish’ (likewise at 13.286, Od. 1.366 = 18.213). 144 ἱππῆες: in a military context the term for ‘charioteer’, cf. 297 (on this, 2.336n.); here for owners of horses generally (LfgrE). — ἄγαλμα: means ‘showpiece, ornament’, a derivation from ἀγάλλομαι (‘enjoy proudly’), i.e. a designation for something meant to impress and impart pleasure (Frisk and DELG s. v. ἀγάλλομαι). A hapaxP in the Iliad, in the Odyssey it denotes an especially valuable object meant as a gift for a deity or for a male or female ruler (Od. 3.274, 3.438, 4.602, 8.509, 12.347, 18.300, 19.257), later also a cult object or an item that serves as a quasi-status symbol and can sometimes have almost magical properties (on this, Gernet 1968, 97–99, 130–137). 145 ἀμφότερον …: the same verse structure with chiamus as at 3.179: ἀμφότερον (nom.) is in apposition to what follows (3.179n.; Schw. 2.617). — ἐλατῆρι: means ‘driver, beater’; a nomen agentis related to ἐλαύνω, of charioteers, in addition to the present passage, also at 11.702, 23.369 (both during chariot races) and h.Ap. 232, also of cattle

143 δ(ὲ) … τε: connective. — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2). — μιν: = αὐτό (R 14.1). 144 ἱππῆες: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. — φορέειν: cf. 137n. (on the uncontracted form, R 6); with the bridle as obj.: ‘to bring, lead along’. 145 ἵππῳ ἐλατῆρι: on the hiatus, R 5.6.



thieves (LfgrE s. v. ἐλατήρ; on the suffix -τήρ, Risch 28–30; Chantraine 1933, 322 f.). — κῦδος: 95n.

146–147 The gaze is directed not at the wound, but rather at the visible blood (prepared for by the simile): like the arrow making its way though three layers of armor (135–137), the blood flows down across three parts of Menelaos’ legs (Laser 1983, 15 f., where also on mērói, knḗmai, sphyrá for thigh, lower leg and ankle). — Menelaos, your …: 127n. μιάνθην: 3rd-pers. pl. aor. pass., likely the long-vowel version of the form in -θεν (rather than -θησαν: G 86): Schw. 1.279, 664 with n. 5; Chantr. 1.471 f.; on the meaning, 141–142n. — εὐφυέες: means ‘well developed’, in early epic only here and at 21.243 (of a tree). — ἰδέ: ‘and’, a metrical variant of ἠδέ (2.511n.).

148–219 Agamemnon worries about his wounded brother and calls for the doctor Machaon, who treats the injury. 148–187 The sequence of events after Menelaos is wounded is developed explicitly from the perceptions of the charactersP, triggering their emotions and speeches. After the initial shock (148/150), the narrator has the responses by the two brothers turn out very differently: Agamemnon sees the blood (149, cf. 140) and is overwhelmed by emotion (155 ff.), while Menelaos perceives important details on the arrow (151), gains confidence (152) and stays collected and objective (184 ff.; for 185–187, cf. 134–138). On such passages in secondary focalizationP, see de Jong (1987) 2004, 105 f.; also 79b–80n.; specifically in wounding scenes, Neal 2006, 72–74. The critical point of the moment is portrayed not from the point of view of the wounded man, but from that of Agamemnon, who acts both as his brother and as the supreme commander of the Achaian army (see the epithets at 148, 153): he is afraid of losing not just his brother (155, 169 f.), but also the justification for the Trojan undertaking as a whole (170–181; cf. 95n.). On the character portrayal in this scene, 155–182n. and 183–187n. 148 = 11.254 (Agamemnon when wounded himself). — ῥίγησεν δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα: a variant of a formulaic VB (usually with τ’ ἄρ’, here v.l.), in which emotional responses are mentioned (additional examples at 3.398n.). ῥιγέω (‘tremble’) is one of the terms for feeling a chill, by means of which fright is described as a psychosomatic reaction (LfgrE s. v. ῥιγέω; 19.325n.; for additional terms, 6.344n.; LfgrE s. v. στυγέω). — ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: an inflectable VE formula (nom./voc.: 44× Il., 2× Od., 1× Hes.); on the origin of the title ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν, 1.7n. (probably a Mycenaean title for the lord of the manor and supreme commander, see MYC).

146 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — τε ἰδέ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 148 ἔπειτα (ϝ)άναξ: on the prosody, R 4.3.


Iliad 4

149 ≈ 5.870. — μέλαν αἷμα … ἐξ ὠτειλής: 140n. – μέλαν αἷμα is a formulaic phrase in various positions in the verse (16.529n.); the epithet reinforces the contrast of blood on pale skin (see the simile: 140–147n.). 150 1st VH see 148n.; 2nd VH see 13n.

151 Menelaos realizes that the arrow did not penetrate deeply; parts of its front section, identified by the fastening (neúron, i.e. made from a sinew) and the barbs (ónkoi) of the iron head are ‘outside’, i.e. probably outside the wound (Kirk on 214; Laser 1983, 109 f.; Buchholz 2010, 290). For possible archaeological equivalents of the arrowhead mentioned here, see Buchholz 2010, 288–291, 246 fig. 153–156 and 158; on the types (head with tang or socket), see Koppenhöfer 1997, 312–314 with fig. 6 (from Troy VIh/VIIb); Baitinger 2001, 8 f., 12 f. 152 ἄψορρον: adverbial, ‘going back(ward)’; a compound with the initial element ἄψ (‘back’, namely to the point of departure: cf. LfgrE s. v. ἄψ 1782.4 ff.), the second element ὀρρ- likely being related to ἔρρω ‘walk away’ (thus Forssman 1980, 185 ff.; Beekes s. v. ἄψορρος) rather than to ὄρρος ‘rear’ (thus DELG s. v. ἄψ; Frisk s. v. ἄψορρος), which is an Attic form (contrast 3.33 παλίν-ορσος). — θυμὸς … ἀγέρθη: an echo of the phrase ἐς φρένα θυμὸς ἀγέρθη, a formulation for awakening from unconsciousness (22.475, Od. 5.458, 24.349); ἐσαγείρετο θυμόν after an injury (Il. 15.240, 21.417) is similar. In the present context, θυμός denotes vital energy, while the addition ἐνὶ στήθεσσι contains the information ‘internally’, i.e. vital energy is once more accumulating inside him; the process thus corresponds more or less to English ‘pull oneself together’, here after the shock (Böhme 1929, 101; Bremmer 1983, 56; see also de Jong on Il. 22.475; somewhat differently LfgrE s. v. θυμός 1080.52 ff.: after Menelaos’ unconsciousness; on θυμός, also 43n., 1.24n.). – θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσι is an inflectable phrase (nom./acc.) beginning at the 3rd foot and at VB (20× Il., 24× Od., 4× Hes., 1× h.Hom.).

153–154 153 ≈ 2.411; 2nd VH of 154 ≈ 18.315/355, 19.301, 19.338, 22.429, 22.515, 23.211, 24.722, 24.746, Od. 9.467, 10.55. — The speech introduction formulaP contains motifs also found in the context of laments: touching the dead to increase pathos, here a sign of care and compassion, also 7.106–108 (Tsagalis 2004, 59; also Arnould 1990, 77 f.), and the bystanders joining in the lament (see below; Tsagalis 2004, 64 f.). Premature laments occur in the Iliad, but the heroes mourned are those who will in fact be killed in the war, namely Hektor (6.497–502n.) and Achilleus (18.37–72n.). — companions: The

149 καταρρέον: uncontracted (R 6) part. of καταρέω; acc./part. construction αἷμα καταρρέον dependent on εἶδεν. 151 δὲ (ϝ)ίδεν: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἐόντας: = ὄντας (R 16.6). 152 οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3; on the plural, R 18.2. 153 τοῖς: demonstrative (R 17), pointing ahead to ἑταῖροι in 154. 154 χειρός: partitive gen. for the designation of a body part that is touched.



term hetaíroi/hétaroi denotes both ‘(war) comrades’ in general (see 113) and a leader’s close confidantes and friends in particular (19.305n., 24.4n.). τοῖς δὲ … μετέφη …: a speech introduction formulaP with a characteristic structure (τοῖσ(ι) + part. + noun-epithet formula): 24.55n.; on μετέφη with dat. pl. in speeches addressing a collective (‘he spoke among …’), 19.55n. — βαρὺ στενάχων: an inflectable formula after caesura A 2 (8× Il.: examples, 1.364n.). — κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: a VE formula (40× Il., 1× Od., 1× Il. Pers.), the generic epithetP κρείων means ‘ruling, commanding’ (1.102n.; cf. the personal names Κρείων, post-Homeric Κρέων, Κρέουσα, Latin Creūsa). — ἐπεστενάχοντο δ’ ἑταῖροι: echoes formulations from the context of laments for the dead (see iterata): (a) cf. the formulaic phrase ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο + subject as a response after a preceding speech of mourning (19.301n., 24.722n.), here denoting the companions’ reaction to στενάχων before the speech; (b) an echo of the VE description of lament ἀνεστενάχοντο γοῶντες (on which, 18.315n.): Derderian 2001, 26 n. 46.

155–182 Two themes run through Agamemnon’s speech like a leitmotif: concern for the brother for whom he feels responsible (155 f., 169 f., 174b–175, 181b) and fear that the entire campaign may have been in vain; see esp. the formulations for ‘to (not) complete’ (tel- 160, 161, 168, 175, 178) and, as a frame, the term ‘futile’ (hálion 158, 179). Examples of Agamemnon’s solicitous behavior toward his brother are also found elsewhere in the Iliad when he intervenes to prevent Menelaos from being confronted with too great a danger (7.107– 119, 10.234–240), defends him against others (10.120–125) or offers him advice (6.53–62, 10.36–72): Rousseau 1990, 336 f.; Reichel 1994, 243 f. – In the present speech, the speech introduction, as well as the content and structure, shows similarities with laments; these are usually tripartite and structured as a ring-composition (19.286–339n., 24.725–745n., 24.749–750n.): part (1) with address and mourning reflexion; part (2) a narrative section that establishes a connection between the person mourned and one’s own fate, and that laments the changed circumstances and one’s own lot; part (3) returns to the general lament, which is picked up by bystanders. Agamemnon’s speech consists of two parts (the companions’ lament is anticipated at 154b): part (1) is dominated by the topic of the violation of the oath and its punishment (155–168), with Agamemnon’s conviction that Troy will fall placed in the center (163–165); 169–171 conclude this part in the manner of a ring-compositionP (a return to the lament for Menelaos) and form a transition to the more personal part (2); the latter revolves around the possible breaking-off of the Trojan campaign, the inglorious return home and the triumph of the victor (172– 182a), thus illustrating the future fate of addressee and speaker, the spatial separation from the dead (174b–175, 180 f.) and the death wish of the survivor (182b): Tsagalis 2004, 42, 76 f., 90–94, 112–118; Kelly 2012, 234–236; on the internal structure of the speech, Lohmann 1970, 43 f.; Schneider 1996, 101– 103. By means of the structure of the speech, which is characterized by a


Iliad 4

blend of mourning and anger, the two parts, perceived as contradictory by some scholars, and the wavering between optimistic and pessimistic visions of the future can be linked with one another (cf. Taplin 1992, 105). Agamemnon’s gloomy vision, especially in the second part of the speech, has two narratological functions: (a) with its strongly self-pitying tone and defeatist attitude, it serves to characterize Agamemnon, especially via contrast with Menelaos’ composed, rational attitude, see 150–152, 183–187 (Lohmann loc. cit. 44 n. 72; Griffin 1980, 71 f.; Kirk on 155–182 and 171–175; Zanker 1994, 5 f.; Gagliardi 2007, 128–132; see also 176–182n., 183–187n.); (b) in addition, this is another variant of the motif ‘premature abandonment of the Trojan campaign’, which the narratorP uses to imagine a possible course for the Trojan War different from the one dictated by epic narrative tradition, creating a moment of uncertainty with the audience and heightening suspense (on this, 169–182n.). 155 1st VH = 5.359, 21.308. — φίλε κασίγνητε: an address with two prosodic peculiarities: a short in the longum of the 1st foot in φίλε at VB (Chantr. 1.103; on metrical licence in this position, M 15; cf. 135n.; hardly to be explained as by Wyatt 1969, 212– 214); a short in the longum before a caesura in the case of κασίγνητε, θάνατον (M 8); for metrical-prosodic peculiarities of vocative forms, 2.8n., 19.400n., 24.88n. – φίλος here means ‘dear’; in a less prominent position, also with designations of kinship, it can function as a mere possessive pronoun (1.20n., 3.31n., 19.4n.). — θάνατόν … ὅρκι’ ἔταμνον: θάνατον is a substantive appositive that designates the result of ὅρκι’ ἔταμνον, ‘fatal to you I have …’ (Schw. 2.618 f.; Chantr. 2.14 f.). ὅρκια τάμνειν is the formulaic phrase that designates an oath ceremony similar to the one conducted by Agamemnon and Priam in Book 3: ὅρκια denotes the sacrificial animals, as well as metaphorically – as here – the sworn agreements affirmed via their slaughter (2.124n., 3.73n.), i.e. the expression is used ‘to conclude the contract’ (LfgrE s. v. τάμνω 298 f., esp. 299.37 ff.). — νυ: ‘now’ (colloquially ‘then’), used particularly by speakers ‘in an agitated frame of mind’ (K.-G. 2.118 f. [transl.]; Ruijgh 1957, 57 ff.). 156 οἶον προστήσας … μάχεσθαι: ‘in that I set you out in front all by yourself …’; οἶος means ‘(all) alone, all on one’s own’, together with προ-στήσας πρὸ …, it stresses spatial separation (LfgrE s. v. οἶος 599.37 ff.) and thus the contrast with the position of the πρόμαχοι in the first line of the phalanx (on which, 341n., 458n.). The continuation πρὸ Ἀχαιῶν Τρωσὶ μάχεσθαι, moreover, is a periphrasis for the term πρόμος, the designation for the warrior representing the community in a ceremonial duel (on this, 3.44n.), cf. 7.116 πρόμον ἄλλον ἀναστήσουσιν Ἀχαιοί (Schw. 2.506; Chantr. 2.130 f.; Bergold 1977, 162). — Τρωσὶ μάχεσθαι: a variant of the inflectable VE formula Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι (11× Il., 2× Od.: 304n.); VE at 17.94 is similar.

157 Because Pandaros is hidden behind his companions’ shields, the Greeks are unable to identify the shooter, and he remains incognito (196 f.). The arrow

155 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 157 κατὰ … πάτησαν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.



shot by this individual is considered a collective violation of the treaty by all Trojans, for which the entire city bears responsibility (164 f.; on collective punishment in general, cf. Hes. Op. 240 ff.), corresponding to the collective character of the oath ceremony (3.297–302a): Louden 2006, 195–197. ὥς σ’ ἔβαλον: to be understood as explaining 155 θάνατον … ἔταμνον, either as a dependent ‘indirect question’ with ὡς … (‘in accord with which how …’, ‘how it turns out from this that …’: Faesi [transl.]; likewise La Roche; Monteil 1963, 358 f., with reference to Chantr. 2.287; see the punctuation of West: comma after the preceding μάχεσθαι) or as an independent statement ὥς … (‘thus … ’, as a conclusion from 156: AH and Schadewaldt). — ὅρκια πιστά: ‘oath sacrifices that create trust’ (cf. 3.73n.). — κατὰ … πάτησαν: ‘and they have trampled on’; a more expressive and more emphatic formulation (cf. English ‘trample underfoot’) than that in 67 (see ad loc.); on the image, Sommerstein/Torrance 2014, 56 with n. 26.

158–159 159 = 2.341. — The two verses contain a list of common elements in oath ceremonies (cf. 2.339–341), namely the elements visible to all which the participants employ to commit themselves: oath and blood of the sacrificial animals, libation of unmixed wine, handshake (AH, Anh. p. 7 f.; Sommerstein/Torrance 2014, 138–149; see also Kitts 2005, 79–84; cf. 2.341n., 3.292–302n.). The handshake aside, these are also described in the ceremony conducted by Agamemnon and Priam: the oath formula at 3.276–291, sacrifice of lambs at 3.245–274, 292–294, libation at 3.295 f. 159 has been suspected, although it is transmitted in all mss. (West 2001, 12 n. 28, 189: 159 is among the ‘rhetorical expansions’; for older bibliography, see AH, Anh. p. 7 f. and 38), since ἐπέπιθμεν refers to the concrete act in Book 3 where the handshake is missing (hence Kirk: here to be taken only metaphorically; but see schol. bT: gapP in Book 3). 158–161 can be understood perfectly well as a general statement, albeit one meant to contain a certain reference to the speaker’s circumstances (Ruijgh 268 f.). — οὐ μέν πως: a strong negation (‘not at all’); on this use of πως, Schw. 2.580. — ἅλιον … ὅρκιον: ὅρκιον (the sing. only here in early epic) means literally ‘that which is affiliated with the oath’ (2.124n.) and here denotes an agreement affirmed by an oath (similarly Od. 19.302 ἔμπης δέ τοι ὅρκια δώσω) as one part of the ceremony as a whole; see the pl. ὅρκια at 155 and 157 (AH; Bergold 1977, 163; LfgrE s. v., where also a different possibility: ὅρκιον as heading, and a subsequent tripartite list). – ἅλιος characterizes something that misses its mark (26n.), here words that remain unfulfilled (see also divine instructions at Il. 24.92/224, a promise at 5.715): 18.324n. (where also on the possible etymology). — πέλει: πέλω/πέλομαι is frequently used as a metrically convenient variant for εἰμί or γίγνομαι (Waanders 2000, esp. 266 f. [ad loc.]; Allan 2003, 207 with n. 358); in comparison with 24.92/224 with fut. ἅλιον … ἔσσεται, the statement here appears to be timeless. — σπονδαί τ’ ἄκρητοι: on the expression ‘pouring of unmixed wine’ (a term for libations, meta-

158 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). 159 ᾗς: = αἷς (R 11.1).


Iliad 4

phorically the treaty), 2.341n. — ἐπέπιθμεν: an intrans. plpf. of πείθω; on the form and the ablaut, 2.341n.

160–168 The notion that the gods, and particularly Zeus as guardian of oaths, punish oath-breakers and bring to pass the curse the oath-takers imposed on themselves (160–162) is also part of the two major oath scenes in the Iliad; see 3.276–280 and 3.298–301, 19.258–260 and 19.264 f. (3.292–302n., 19.258– 260n., 19.259n.; on Near Eastern parallels, West 1997, 125 f.; Latacz [2001] 2004, 110; Kitts 2005, 205–210). On the idea that Zeus will mete out punishment sooner or later, see also Solon fr. 13.25–32 West and Aeschylus, Agamemnon (Kirk on 160–162; West 2011, 142). Over the course of the action of the Iliad, this idea is thus associated by various charactersP with the oath taken before the truce and is linked to the destruction of Troy: by (a) Agamemnon, initially as punishment in the indeterminate future (163–168; on the motif of late fulfillment, see the narrator-commentary at 3.302 [with n.], also in the bird omen at 2.324–329 regarding the conquest of Troy), later as the concrete outcome of this war (235–239 [with n.]); (b) Idomeneus (270 f.); (c) the Trojan Antenor (7.351–353); (d) Diomedes (7.400–402); but Hektor suppresses the connection (7.69–72). On the notion of divine punishment, also 16.384–393n. (on the interpretation of the simile, 16.384 ff.). To Agamemnon, who – in contrast to the audience – is oblivious to the gods’ intrigues, the universal statement (160–162) is followed quite naturally by the certainty that the violation of the oath arouses Zeus’ anger (168) and that Troy’s inhabitants will face punishment, even if the Achaians’ Trojan campaign should end with Menelaos’ death (172 ff.) (Tsagarakis 1977, 20 f.; Gagné 2010, 372 f.). But the narratorP does not have the gods act in accord with moral values, instead envisioning them as the source of impetus for the action (see also 85–104n. on Pandaros): since the fall of Troy is dictated by narrative tradition, the narrator has Zeus order the violation of the oath so that fighting breaks out again (van Erp 2000, 400–402; thus, but too broadly, Ahrensdorf 2014, 51 and 55 [Homer’s lesson for the audience is that human concerns are of no consequence to the gods]). 160–161 εἴ … τε … οὐκ ἐτέλεσσεν, | … τε … τελεῖ, … τε … ἀπέτεισαν: a conditional clause of generalizing content with a gnomic aor. (schol. A; Chantr. 2.184, 356; Leaf; Willcock; Kirk; Tabachovitz 1951, 25–29; West 2001, 189; cf. 1.81–82n.; differently

160 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — Ὀλύμπιος: in the sing. only of Zeus. — ἐτέλεσσεν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1 (contrast τελέσει(ε) in 178). 161 ἔκ … τελεῖ: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — καὶ ὀψέ: concessive, ‘even if late’. — τε (μ)μεγάλῳ ἀπέτεισαν: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἀπέτεισαν: from ἀπο-τίνω ‘pay (a penalty)’.



AH and Wackernagel [1920/24] 2009, 228 f.: everything is related to the actual situation, with reference to 9.412 f. [aor. in relation to events in the future]; cautiously, Ruijgh 520 f., 726, 832 n. 8: τε … τε at 161 is connective); the negation οὐκ forms a conceptual unit with the verb, cf. 168 (AH: ‘has left unfulfilled’; on the phenomenon, 55–56n.). — αὐτίκ’ … | … ὀψέ: shows Agamemnon’s confidence: should the Trojan campaign end with the death of Menelaos (172–175, 180 f.), the realization of the selfimposed curse cannot follow immediately after the violation of the oath (on αὐτίκα, 105–106a n.), but it will definitely follow (164–168). — ἐτέλεσσεν, | ἔκ … τελεῖ: on τελέω (‘realize, put into action’) in the context of oaths, 7.69, h.Ven. 26. Here the contracted form τελεῖ is to be taken as a fut. (schol. bT and D; AH; Schw. 2.282; Fehling 1969, 265 [a stylistic figure with past and future, see esp. Il. 2.117 f. = 9.24 f., also 15.140]; Bergold 1977, 163 n. 3; Kirk; pres. is considered by Leaf, since the fut. of τελέω is uncontracted elsewhere in Homer; on the formation of the fut., Chantr. 1.450 and Risch 351). — σὺν μεγάλῳ: ‘with a great prize, with valuable things’ (Kirk; LfgrE s. v. μέγας 76.10 ff.), listed at 162; on this, 3.300 f.: with their own lives and those of their children, and with the enslavement of their wives. — ἀπέτεισαν: on the reading ἀπέτισαν, 3.28n.

162 The punishment for violating the oath that is exacted on the violators and their families corresponds to the self-cursing in the oath ceremony at 3.299– 301; on this, see also ‘Hes.’ fr. 30.19 f. M.-W.; on the cursing of multiple generations, Gagné 2010 (esp. 362–370, 374–377). σὺν σφῇσιν κεφαλῇσι: σῷ δ’ αὐτοῦ κράατι τείσεις at Od. 22.218 is similar; for the head as representative of the person as a whole, 18.81–82a n.; Clarke 1999, 174.

163–165 ≈ 6.447–449 (Hektor’s speech); see ad loc. for the prolepsesP of Troy’s end and for the effect of repeated verses on the audience; on the present instance: the repetition of verses leads one to consider ‘the city’s doom from the Greek point of view as well as the Trojan one’; for additional contextual and formal similarities of the two passages, Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 184– 187. In Agamemnon’s speech, the words express great subjective confidence (163) that intensifies to objective certainty (168b), a strong contrast to the second part of his speech (155–182n.). 163 = Od. 15.211; ≈ Il. 6.447. — κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ θυμόν: means approximately ‘deep in the heart’, a VE formula (10× Il., 11× Od., 1× h.Ap.) with various mental antecedents; with metrically convenient synonym doubling (6.447n.).

164–165 = 6.448–449; VH 164–165 ≈ 46b–47 (see ad loc.). — Priam, and …: 35– 36n.

162 σφῇσιν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4); on the declension, R 11.1 (likewise κεφαλῇσι). — τεκέεσσιν: = τέκνοις; on the declension, R 11.3. 163 τόδε (ϝ)οῖδα: on the prosody, R 4.3. 164 ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6), likewise 168 f. — ἦμαρ: = ἡμέρα. — ὀλώλῃ (ϝ)ίλιος: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ὀλώλῃ: perf. subjunc. of intransitive ὄλλυμαι ‘perish’. — ἱρή: = ἱερά.


Iliad 4

166 1st VH = 9.236; ≈ 2.111, 5.756, 9.18; 2nd VH = Hes. Op. 18, ‘Hes.’ fr. 343.9 M.-W. — Ζεὺς … Κρονίδης: separation of the inflectable noun-epithet formula (see also the iterata); on its formula system, 16.845n. — ὑψίζυγος: an epithet of Zeus; always used in the same position in the verse; when in combination with Κρονίδης, it produces a formula before caesura C 2 (likewise at 7.69, 18.185, Hes. Op. 18, ‘Hes.’ fr. 343.9 M.W.). Semantically obscure (LfgrE), perhaps ‘who is enthroned on high’ (18.185n.).

167 aegis: The function and appearance of the aegis are variously interpreted depending upon context; it often appears to be a kind of shield or protective cloak (2.446b–454n., 2.448n., 24.20n.). The aegis is mostly worn by Zeus (on his epithet, see 1.202n.), but occasionally also by Athene or Apollo; the deity can use it to inspire confidence or to frighten one of the sides in the war (18.203–204n.). In the present passage, the ‘dark aegis’ is a potent symbol of the threat emanating from the punishing god (cf. Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 31 f.). 17.593 ff. is comparable: together with lightning and clouds, the aegis is part of a storm sent by Zeus to frighten the Achaians (Edwards on 17.593– 596). 168 κοτέων: The word family κοτέω/κότος denotes simmering anger or wrath (1.81– 82n.; on words of anger, also 1.1n.); the part. here thus describes the persistent antipathy Zeus will feel for the oath-breaking Trojans until their city is annihilated (cf. the wrath of the punishing Zeus at 16.385 f.): Cairns 2003, 30 f.; Louden 2006, 229.

169–182 The second part of Agamemon’s speech contains a number of elements that resemble those in laments for the dead: connections between the speaker and the (deceased) addressee (169 f., 174 f.) with the motif ‘dying’ and ‘not returning home’ (171 vs. 175, cf. 180 f.): 155–182n. But the weighting of the grief is shifted markedly toward worry about the loss of face the addressee’s death would cause for the speaker (169–172); because of a lack of loyalty among the troops, he would have to (a) abandon Helen (173–174a, 181a), (b) leave his brother behind unavenged (174b–175a, 181b), (c) terminate the campaign without success (175b, 178 f.), and (d) himself become a laughing-stock for the enemy (176–182a). These are all reasons why he would be despised in his native land (171). Linguistically, the formulations alternate between certainty (Greek fut.: 169 suffering due to Menelaos’ death, 172 wish by the Achaians to return home, 174 Menelaos’ bones in Trojan soil, 176/182 tisspeechP) and possibility (Greek optative: 171 ignominious return, 173 loss of

166 σφι: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — Κρονίδης: ‘son of Kronos’ = Zeus. — αἰθέρι: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). 167 ἐπισσείησιν: 3rd pers. sing. pres. subjunc. (R 16.3) with fut. sense (cf. R 21.2), from ἐπισσείω ‘shake, swing at or against’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 168 τῆσδ’ ἀπάτης: causal gen., dependent on κοτέων. — κοτέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6.



Helen to the Trojans): AH on 171. – Agamemnon’s gloomy vision of the future is a variation of the narrative device ‘if-not’ situationP, with the narratorP here having a characterP bring an alternative storyline into play, as well as being an additional version of the motif ‘premature end to the Trojan campaign’, on which also 1.169–171n. (Achilleus’ departure), 2.155–156n. (Agamemnon’s testing of the army), 3.71–75n. (offer of a duel), in addition 17–19n. (Zeus’ suggestion): Morrison 1992, 60–63; Nesselrath 1992, 18–20. 169 1st VH ≈ 8.147, 15.208, 16.52, Od. 18.274. — grief: áchos denotes an abruptly occurring mental anguish accompanied by feelings of helplessness, anger and aggression; a typical situation is the death of a comrade in battle and a triumphant speech by the victor (173, 176 ff.) triggering áchos and entailing an act of revenge (2.169–171n.). In the present situation, the looming end of the Trojan campaign, which renders appropriate revenge impossible, aggravates Agamemnon’s frustration; see 182 (Mawet 1979, 298). αἰνὸν ἄχος: a formula between caesurae A 3 and B 1 (8× Il., 1× Od.) and in additional positions in the verse (16.52n.). — αἰνόν: an epithet inter alia of violent agitations; aside from ἄχος, also of κότος, χόλος and μῆνις, as well as of war (φύλοπις αἰνή 15n.): 16.52n. — ὦ Μενέλαε: VE = 189, 10.43, 17.716, Od. 4.26, 4.561. Whether, and to what extent, ὦ with the voc. signals emotional involvement, or whether it is metrically conditioned, is a matter of dispute; see Agamemnon’s first address φίλε κασίγνητε at 155 and Μενέλαε at 127, 146 (1.74n. and 1.442n.). 170 μοῖραν ἀναπλήσῃς βιότοιο: thus the main transmission (imitated by Apoll. Rhod. 1.1035 and 1323 with the expression μοῖραν ἀνέπλησεν/ἀναπλήσειν: Rengakos 1993, 160); according to Didymos, Aristarchus read πότμον rather than μοῖραν, i.e. a formulation corresponding to 11.263 πότμον ἀναπλήσαντες (schol. A; additional objects with ἀναπίμπλημι: κακὸν οἶτον, κακὰ πολλά, κήδεα). In combination with the gen. βιότοιο, μοῖρα perhaps fits better as an object of ἀναπίμπλημι (‘fulfil the share of life allotted by fate’): West 2001, 189 with reference to Hdt. 3.142.3 and 4.164.4 ἐξέπλησε μοῖραν and to Eur. IT 913 f. πότμον | … βιότου (‘the way one’s life turns out’). μοῖρα means literally ‘(allotted) share, part’ (related to μείρομαι), metaphorically ‘what is allotted by fate’, also ‘the share of life-time’, and is also used in the sense ‘fate of death’; πότμος means ‘lot’ (related to πίπτω) in a metaphorical sense (‘fate’), usually ‘allotment of death’, frequently in the combination (θάνατον καὶ) πότμον + ἐπισπεῖν ‘to reach, attain one’s allotted death’ (2.358–359n., 6.412n.): LfgrE s.vv. μοῖρα and πότμος; Dietrich 1965, 212 f. and 270 f.; Sarischoulis 2008, 42–72 and 116–121.

171 Argos: here denotes Agamemnon’s realm in the Peloponnese, the Argolís (cf. 1.30n., 3.75n.; on this as a designation of the Greek fatherland in contrast to Troy, 2.287n).

169 σέθεν: = σοῦ (R 14.1, cf. R 15.1); causal gen., dependent on ἄχος. 170 αἴ κε: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5). — βιότοιο: βίοτος = βίος; on the declension, R 11.2. 171 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — πολυδίψιον Ἄργος: acc. of direction without a preposition (R 19.2).


Iliad 4

ἐλέγχιστος: literally ‘most depraved’, then ‘(complete) failure’, a superlative related to the noun ἔλεγχος (2.285n.; G 79); here it denotes a person who is publicly exposed for his pretensions (as a ‘cad’) (176 ff.; a similar context at 2.285). — πολυδίψιον: ‘much-thirsty’; a Homeric hapaxP attested elsewhere only in Thebais fr. 1 West (Ἄργος ἄειδε, θεά, πολυδίψιον, ἔνθεν ἄνακτες) and Quint. Smyrn. 3.570 (Σπάρην εἰς ἐρίβωλον ἢ ἐς πολυδίψιον Ἄργος). At the same time, the presence of the river Inachos means that the Peloponnesos is not devoid of water; the epithet is perhaps based on myths regarding drought and water in the Peloponnese, cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 128 M.-W. Ἄργος ἄνυδρον ἐὸν Δανααὶ θέσαν Ἄργος ἔνυδρον (schol. A, D; Eust. 461.1 ff; Leaf; Kirk; LfgrE s. v. πολυδίψιος; Davies 2014, 44). But alternative meanings have been sought since antiquity as well (equivalent to πολυπόθητος ‘for which one greatly thirsts’, a misspelling of πολὺ δ’ ἴψιον [related to ἶπος ‘press’ and the verbal stem ἰψ- ‘press, beset’] in the sense πολυβλαβές ‘heavily damaged’ or βλαβερόν ‘destructive’: schol. A, bT). — Ἄργος ἱκοίμην: an inflectable phrase at VE (likewise at 24.437) and after caesura A 3 (4× Il.); the potential here and at 173 beside fut. forms (169, 172, 174) expresses the change from certainty to conjecture (169–182n.).

172 Agamemnon’s fear that the Achaians might want to return home immediately is justified: after his deceptive speech to the military assembly in Book 2, they at once begin preparations for the journey home (2.110–162). Achilleus too clarifies that Menelaos’ claims on Helen – his lawful wife and queen of Sparta – are the only reason for the campaign of the Greek alliance against Troy; see 1.152–160, 9.337–339, 19.324f. πατρίδος αἴης: a gen. variant of an inflectable VE formula (6× Il., 10× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Ap.; dat./acc. with γαῖα [180n.], nom. with ἄρουρα): 2.140n., FOR 23.

173–174a ≈ 2.160–161a (λίποιεν), 2.176–177a (λίποιτε). – An echo of the first neartermination of the Trojan campaign with the testing of the army in Book 2, when Hera (a speech addressed to Athene) and Athene (a speech addressed to Odysseus) seek to prevent the premature return of the Achaians. — Helen: On allusions to Helen’s abduction as the cause of the war, CH 8 with n. 30, 2.356n. (abduction or voluntary accompaniment?: e.g. Sappho fr. 23.5–13 Voigt); Latacz 2007, 89–92; on her epithet (‘woman of Argos’ ≈ ‘Greek woman’) – here used pointedly – also 18–19n. 173 εὐχωλήν: ‘object of triumph, reason for boasting’, related to εὔχομαι in the sense ‘(proudly) state of oneself, boast’ (2.15n. [on εὖχος], 2.160n.). — Πριάμῳ καὶ Τρωσί: a formula after caesura B 1 (iterata and 2.304): see 35–36n. on the expanded form.

174b–175 2nd VH of 175 ≈ 258, Od. 16.111. — A variation of the otherwise common motif ‘to die far from one’s homeland’ (on which, 2.162n.; Griffin 1980, 173 κὰδ … λίποιμεν: = καταλίποιμεν (R 20.1–2). — εὐχωλήν: predicative with Ἑλένην, ‘as an object of boasting, for triumph’. 174 σέο: = σοῦ (R 14.1). — πύσει: fut. of πύθω, causative act. ‘cause to rot, leave to decay’. 175 κειμένου ἐν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀτελευτήτῳ ἐπί: on the hiatus, M 12.2. — ἐπὶ (ϝ)έργῳ: on the prosody, R 4.3.



106 ff.), with Agamemnon employing a more drastic image. The burial current in Homeric epic is cremation, with the surviving ‘bones’ (ostéa) carefully collected and placed in a vessel, the vessel set into the ground, and a grave monument erected above it (177); see the burials of Patroklos at 23.237–257, Hektor at 24.785–799 and Achilleus at Od. 24.67–84 (24.777–804n., 24.795n.). σέο: In Homer, use of the gen. of the personal pronoun rather than the possessive pronoun is rare; it produces greater emphasis (Chantr. 2.155; cf. Schw. 2.201). — πύσει ἄρουρα: The drastic image reveals Agamemnon’s apprehension that he might be unable to bury his dead brother with the appropriate honors (differently at 177); see mid.-pass. πύθεται of unburied deceased persons or their bones at 11.395, Od. 1.161, 12.46, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 153, also h.Ap. 363–374 (LfgrE s. v. πύθω). — ἀτελευτήτῳ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ: ≈ ‘with the work undone’ (LfgrE s. v. ἔργον 677.48 ff.), ἐπί here ‘with’, ‘of the prevailing circumstances’ (Schw. 2.468 [transl.]).

176–182 One of eight tis-speechesP in the Iliad imagined by a characterP: five by Hektor, one each by Agamemnon, Menelaos, and Sarpedon (6.459–463n.). Agamemnon imagines how the enemy will jump about on Menelaos’ grave, desecrating it, and how he will triumph and mock not the slain warrior but Agamemnon himself, thus expanding the image of dishonor in his native land (170 f.) to that in enemy territory. Comparison with similar situations allows conclusions to be drawn regarding the sketching of characters by the narratorP: (a) the situation described by Agamemnon (victor’s gesture of triumph and tis-speech) is graphically laid out in the killing of Hektor, where the Achaians abuse the deceased man and maltreat his body (22.369–375); (b) in two of the tis-speeches imagined by Hektor, his pride in his posthumous fame is shown: in his conversation with Andromache, Hektor envisions her cruel fate should he die and be no longer able to protect her, and at the same time envisions with pride his fame as Troy’s greatest defender (6.459– 463); he imagines how, at the grave of a warrior he has killed, posterity will commemorate not his vanquished opponent but himself (7.87–91). The narrator uses the present tis-speech to illustrate character traits that Agamemnon reveals throughout his mourning speech (155–182n., end; on details, also 178–181n.): self-centeredness, a tendency to be emotional, a certain insecurity and helplessness in situations where the troops need strong leadership; see Menelaos’ reaction at 184 (on the narratological functions of tis-speeches, Schneider 1996, 98–109; Tsagalis 2004, 116–118). Over the course of the action of the Iliad, this weakness in Agamemnon, and his resultant loss of authority with the troops, is also illustrated repeatedly (1.150n., 2.186–187n., 14.42–51n., end, 19.79–84n.), as is his fear of losing face in the case of an unsuccessful abandonment of the Troy campaign (2.114 f., 2.119–122, 9.18–22); on negative ‘posthumous fame’, 6.356–358n.; in general on the great signifi-


Iliad 4

cance of posthumous fame in heroic epic, 2.325n., 3.287n., 16.31n.; de Jong on Il. 22.304–305. 176 κε … ἐρέει: a prospective fut. with modal particle rather than a prospective subjunc. (1.139n.; Schw. 2.351 f.; Chantr. 2.225 f.; on the functional proximity of fut. ind. and subjunc., 6.459n. with bibliography; G 100); a variation, adapted to the situation, of the tis-speechP speech introduction formulaP ὧδε δέ τις εἴπεσκε(ν) (Schneider 1996, 21–31, esp. 23). — ὑπερηνορεόντων: usually rendered ‘arrogant’ (literally ‘beyond the measure of a man’); a denominative of ὑπερήνωρ, attested exclusively in participial form (in nom./acc. sing.), similar to ὑπερηφανέων, ὀλιγοδρανέων, ὀλιγηπελέων (on these, Risch 308 f. [transl.]: ‘verse-filling’; Schw. 1.731; Chantr. 1.349). It always occurs at VE (2× Il. [gen. sing./pl.], 12× Od. [nom./gen./acc. pl.]); in the Odyssey, it is used as an epithet of the collective of suitors (frequently in the VE formula νέων ὑπερηνορεόντων, where ὑπερήνωρ was metrically impossible) and once of the Cyclopes, and has a rather negative connotation (LfgrE s.vv. ὑπερηνορέων and ὑπερήνωρ). Its use in the present passage illustrates Agamemnon’s view of the Trojans; the verse-filling formula with gen. pl. Τρώων after caesura B 1 is elsewhere Τρώων … τ’/ἠδ’ ἐπικούρων (5× Il.), at VE the formula takes the shape Τρώων ἀγερώχων (5× Il.: 16.708n.): Kirk.

177 The envisioned antics of a Trojan on top of the grave mound occur in place of the triumphant gestures that usually follow immediately after a killing (esp. 22.372–375) and the abuse of the dead body threatened by victorious warriors in their speeches of triumph (Schneider 1996, 100, 108 f.; Camerotto 2009, 216 n. 76; on this motif, 24.22n.; de Jong on Il. 22.337–354). — tomb: Hektor too speaks of a burial monument in the Troad for a slain Achaian and, based on that, of posterity’s judgement regarding his own achievements (7.84–90); Hektor talks about his fame, Agamemnon about his infamy (on formal parallels between the two passages, Schneider 1996, 107–109). On burial monuments in the Troad, on grave mounds as monuments for the deceased as a sign of fame, and on the controversy regarding the phenomenon of hero cult in Homeric epic, 6.419a n., 16.456–457n., 24.16n., NTHS 50–53 (each with bibliography). A four-word verse, ‘adding picturesque details’ (Bassett 1919, 224) in the shape of a participle construction; suspected by West (2001, 189 f.) as a interpolation by a rhapsode on the ground that the addition is inappropriate and atypical of an introduction to a tis-speechP, but it provides details that are significant for the situation (see above and Schneider 1996, 108 f.). — ἐπιθρῴσκων: on the orthography (with ι subscr.), West 1998, XXXI. — Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο: 100n.

178–181 The narratorP has Agamemnon make the imaginary Trojan say what Agamemnon himself feels: his personal shame that results from his failure in his role as military commander. Linguistically, the enemy’s triumph is

176 ἐρέει: fut. ‘will say’ (Attic ἐρεῖ, cf. R 6).



marked in two ways: (a) the derisive wish at 178 that illustrates how ineffectually Agamemnon’s anger fizzled out; those powerful enough to act do not rest until their rage is satisfied, see 1.80–82 (Kalchas on the anger of the powerful), 4.34–36 (Zeus on Hera’s anger); on chólos, 22–24n.; (b) the formulation of a comparative wish ‘if only x could be/happen like y’ at 178–181, which the speaker uses to express the certainty of event y, here the campaign ending in failure (for bibliography, 18.464–467n.). 178 οὕτως: perhaps points to one of the movements by the imaginary Trojan, a dismissive gesture (cf. de Jong 2012). — χόλον τελέσει(ε): ‘satisfy his anger’; on the formulation, cf. 1.81 f. (with n.): ἔχει κότον, ὄφρα τελέσσῃ. 179 ἅλιον στρατόν: perhaps an echo of formulaic phrases with οὐχ ἅλιον βέλος ἧκεν (e.g. 498 f. [see ad loc.]), i.e. of a missile that was not launched in vain and thus did not miss its mark. In terms of content, this corresponds to the formulation ἀτελευτήτῳ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ at 175b (cf. 26 with n.): tis-speechesP imagined by charactersP frequently adopt elements from the surrounding direct speeches; see also 158, 160 f., 168 (de Jong 1987, 83). 180 ≈ 2.158, 2.174, 5.687, Od. 5.204, 10.562; 2nd VH in total 16× Il., 13× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’. — δή: 97n. — πατρίδα γαῖαν: an inflectable VE formula (2.140n.: 68× acc. in early epic; on the gen. variant, 172n.; cf. FOR 23); in this formula, the attribute φίλην serves as a possessive pronoun (16.832n.; Nussbaum 1998, 108).

181 with ships empty: Not only would Agamemnon return home without Helen (173 f.), he would also bring no other war booty; on the significance of booty, see also Odysseus’ arguments at 2.295–298 and Agamemnon’s demands at 3.284–291 for reparations in the case of Menelaos’ victory in the duel. λιπὼν ἀγαθὸν Μενέλαον: a variation of the inflectable VE formula βοὴν ἀγαθὸν Μενέλαον (nom./acc.: 16× Il., 9× Od.); βοὴν ἀγαθ. serves as a generic epithetP (25× with Menelaos, 21× with Diomedes [also at 10.559 without βοήν], 5× with other characters): 2.408n.; Dee 2000, 475. In the present ‘speech within a speech’, the phrase does not signal irony by the Trojan regarding Menelaos, but rather contains as a positive characterization the final blow against the speaker, Agamemnon himself: the enemy praises Menelaos and indirectly mocks the one who is suffering a great loss (AH; LfgrE s. v. ἀγαθός 26.10 ff.; de Jong 1987, 79; Schneider 1996, 100; differently schol. bT: either irony by the Trojan or a eulogy by Agamemnon).

182 1st VH = 6.462, 7.91; ≈ 6.479, 22.106, 22.108, Od. 21.324; 2nd VH = Il. 8.150. — let … open: Agamemnon concludes his lament with great pathos. In compar-

178 αἴθ(ε): = εἴθε. — ἐπὶ πᾶσι: ‘against all’. — τελέσει(ε): on the elision, R 5.1. 179 ἅλιον: ‘fruitlessly’, predicative with στρατόν. 180 οἶκόνδε: = οἴκαδε; on the form, R 15.3. — ἐς: = εἰς. 181 κεινῇσιν: = κεναῖς ‘empty’; < *κενϝ- (R 4.2; on the declension, R 11.1). — νηυσί: on the declension, R 12.1. 182 χάνοι: thematic aor. opt. of χαίνω ‘gape, open up’.


Iliad 4

ison to Hektor’s death wish at 6.464 or to formulations for dying such as ‘go under the earth’, his wish appears much more dramatic: moi chánoi … chthṓn means ‘may the earth open up for me’ and contains the image of the earth as a gaping mouth, expressing a wish to disappear from its surface (the same image also at 6.281 f. [Hektor cursing Paris], 8.150, 17.416 f.) (Clarke 1999, 179 f.; LfgrE s. v. χανεῖν; cf. 99n.). His death wish stems from frustration and from a fear of shame in the face of the fact that he will look like a failure as a military leader and as his brother’s guardian, since he cannot protect the latter’s grave monument and memory from the triumphant antics of the enemy. – The motif of a death wish occurs in similar situations as an expression of supreme desperation: (a) due to looming infamy: 8.148–150 (Diomedes, when Hektor might accuse him of cowardice), also at 6.464 f. (Hektor because of Andromache’s suffering), 7.129–131 (Peleus because of the cowardice of the Achaians), 17.415–419 (the Achaians if they give up Patroklos’ corpse); (b) due to the death of a beloved person: 6.410 f. (Andromache, should Hektor be killed), 18.98 f. (Achilleus, since Patroklos is dead). On the different forms of the death wish motif, 24.224b–227n. (with bibliography); in laments specifically, Tsagalis 2004, 42–44. εὐρεῖα χθών: a VE formula (4× Il., 2× Hes., 3× h.Hom.); on the formulations for the ‘wide earth’ in I-E poetry, Schmitt 1967, 181; West 2007, 178 f.; on correspondances in Akkadian, West 1997, 221.

183–187 The composition of Menelaos’ reaction serves the character drawing in this scene, where the narrator has the two brothers’ reactions differ greatly (Salazar 2000, 149 f.): Agamemnon is overcome by emotion that pours forth in a speech of lament, in which self-pity shines through at multiple points (155–182n., 176–182n., 182n.). This impression is amplified by the contrast between his extended lament and Menelaos’ brief speech that immediately follows. For Menelaos, responsibility for the troops is a priority (184), his omission of an address illustrates the urgency of his aim to avoid panic among the troops (Bassett 1934, 143 f.); via a brief description of the facts (185–187), he makes Agamemnon act with sense and purpose (190–207); for additional examples illustrating Menelaos’ sense of responsibility toward the Achaians, Willcock 2002, 222–224. The differences, criticized by many scholars, in the terms for Menelaos’ protective clothing, i.e. the different linguistic composition of the passages, can be explained by their poetic function: in the narrator-text at 135–137, the focus is on the process (the arrow penetrates three layers), creating drama (132–139n., 134–139n.); Menelaos’ speech contains an undramatic and apparently sober enumeration (186 f.: three parts fulfilled their purpose) meant to prevent mindless panic. The same words are used by the narrator at 215 f., where he recounts objectively how Machaon the phy-



sician removes Menelaos’ protective clothing and expertly treats his wounds (the suspense subsides at the end of the scene: 188–219n.). 183 fair-haired: a generic epithetP used in early epic predominantly of Menelaos (see below). Fair hair was considered particularly beautiful (1.197n.) and is a characteristic of several heroes in I-E myth (West 2007, 427 f.). τὸν δ’ … ξανθὸς Μενέλαος: on the speech introduction formulaP, 30n.; ξανθὸς Μενέλαος is an inflectable VE formula (16× Il., 15× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’). 184 1st VH ≈ 10.383, Od. 4.825, h.Ven. 193. — μηδέ τί πω: τι (‘in some way’) intensifies the negative, πω here has a modal meaning (Leaf), and the phrase as a whole is approximately ‘and not in any way at all and under no circumstances’ (LfgrE s. v. πω 1670.14 f.; similarly AH), while a temporal nuance with the sense ‘not yet’ might be present (cf. 3.302n.). — δειδίσσεο: pres. imper. of δειδίσσομαι, a deverbative of δείδω/ δέδοικα with factitive meaning, ‘intimidate, frighten someone’; the negated pres. imper. (rather than the aor. subjunc.) signals that the action is not designed to be continued, i.e. ‘don’t frighten ⟨any longer⟩…!’ (Schw. 2.343; Chantr. 2.230 f.). — λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectable formula (nom./acc., only in the Il.), usually at VE (19× Il.): 6.223n. 185 οὐκ ἐν καιρίῳ … πάγη βέλος: The asyndetic sentence substantiates the request at 184 (AH); it means ‘did not stick in a decisive place’. The phrase ἐν καιρίῳ … πάγη echoes formulations for the location of blows, see esp. 528, 5.616, 10.374, 20.486, 22.276 (ἐν … + (ἐ)πάγη), likewise 20.283 (ἄγχι πάγη βέλος). – καίριον is derived from καιρός (‘the key point’), which is not attested in Homeric epic (LfgrE s.vv. and West on Hes. Op. 694), and the etymology of which is obscure (related to κείρω, κεράννυμι?: DELG and Beekes s. v.). In early epic, the derivation is always used in the context of fatal injuries to specifically mentioned parts of the body: 11.439 οὔ τι βέλος κατὰ καίριον ἦλθεν (a situation similar to the present one: Odysseus realizes that the missile has not injured him fatally, something he owes to Athene; cf. 135–139 with 11.435– 437); in addition 8.84 = 8.326 μάλιστα δὲ καίριόν ἐστι (a missile has struck a crucial part of the body). In post-Homeric literature, it is an attribute of inter alia πληγή and σφαγή (‘lethal’: LSJ s. v.; Trédé 1992, 25–31). — πάροιθεν: perhaps temporal ‘before, earlier’ (AH; Leaf) rather than local ‘before, in front of’ (Faesi: with εἰρύσατο ‘a protective element formed in front’; undecided, Kirk; LfgrE s. v.).

186–187 ≈ 215 f. — Echoes of the description of the arrow’s impact and path through three layers of armor (see 134–137: 132–139n., 134–139n.) might create

183 τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. 184 μηδέ: In Homer, the connectives οὐδέ/μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — δειδίσσεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 185 καιρίῳ ὀξύ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — πάγη: ‘got stuck’; mid.-pass. aor. of πήγνυμι; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 186 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’; on the elision, R 5.1. 187 μίτρη: on the -η after -ρ-, R 2. — τήν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — χαλκῆες: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. — κάμον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.


Iliad 4

the impression that this path is repeated here and at 215 f. and that the order of the layers is retained. But this interpretation, which attempts to reconcile the formulations in 135–138 (‘through zōstḗr, thṓrēx and mítrē’) and 186 f. (‘zōstḗr, zṓma and mítrē’), creates difficulties in terms of the realia (132– 133n., 137n. and the following). An accurate enumeration of the layers of a warrior’s armor is scarcely intended by the narratorP; rather, this is an indication that the arrow comes to rest somewhere in the lower abdominal area (cf. 146 f.: blood flows across the thigh, lower leg and ankle) and that the body is protected there by three layers, rendering it plausible to all that Menelaos is not wounded fatally. Thus in both passages the narrator lists three specific terms from the sphere of protective clothing, which give the audience an idea of the area of the body that was struck. The linguistic variation is perhaps linked to the poetic function of the composition of this group of three (on this, 132–139n. and 183–187n.; cf. van der Valk 1964, 424 f., contra: the assessment by Lorimer 1950, 205 [‘the chaos of the wounding of Menelaos’]; Morris 1992, 4 f.); the substitution of zṓma for thṓrēx might alternatively be due to metrical considerations (see the versions in the acc. at 216). The use of different terms is sometimes also explained via the assumption that elements of armor from the Mycenaean period and the period contemporary with the production of the epic are combined (the so-called amalgamation theory: LfgrE s. v. μίτρη; Brandenburg 1977, 123, 142 f.; Bennett 1997, 119, 122 f.); on the two explanatory approaches in general, Raaflaub 2011, 10– 14. – On the realia: the two elements of armor termed zṓma te kai mítrē can no longer be identified precisely. The mítrē with metal parts (or fittings) (187b) is probably to be imagined as a kind of metal strap that protects the organs in the lower abdomen (137n.); in the case of zṓma (literally ‘what is tied around’), the other Homeric examples indicate a textile item, a loincloth or a belt-like garment (at 23.683 a boxer’s loincloth [Richardson ad loc.; for depictions in Minoan-Mycenaean art, Marinatos 1967, 22–24]; at Od. 14.482 a garment of unknown size wrapped around the body [LfgrE s. v. ζῶμα]). The formulation thus comprises a textile part and a metal part or protective clothing for the groin and/or lumbar area, both of which are located beneath the zōstḗr (‘belt’) (Lorimer loc. cit. 375–377; Brandenburg loc. cit. 122 f.; Shear 2000, 68; see also Page 1955, 220 f., on the list of armor parts in Alcaeus fr. 140.13 Voigt; cf. schol. D on 187: zṓma is a type of chitṓn [on which, 2.42n., 18.25n.]); different interpretations: zṓma is a [leather?] base for the zōstḗr (Bennett loc. cit. 70 n. 15) or an alternative term for the corselet (see 136) or part of it – perhaps made of leather (schol. A and T on 133 and schol. A on 187; Leaf, Appendix B, p. 581; Helbig 1887, 287 n. 1 [the lower edge of the corselet], 293 n. 5; Bergold 1977, 158 n. 2).



τε … ἠδ(έ): a secondary combination corresponding to τε καί (Ruijgh 196). — παναίολος: means ‘shimmering all over’ (in early epic always between caesurae B 2 and C 2) and is an epithet of belts (ζωστήρ: in addition to the current passage also at 10.77, 11.236) and shields (ἀσπίς/σάκος: 11.374, 13.552, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 139): LfgrE s. v.; it refers to the gleam of the metal, cf. possessive compounds with elements of armor and with the adjective αἰόλος, as e.g. αἰολοθώρηξ (16.173n.), αἰολομίτρης, κορυθαιόλος (6.116n.). — χαλκῆες … ἄνδρες: on the combination of occupations and gender terms (ἀνήρ, γυνή), 2.474n. with bibliography; LfgrE s. v. ἀνήρ 862.20 ff. (with examples). — κάμον: κάμνω used transitively means ‘create something with effort (i.e. meticulously, skilfully)’ and is used of a variety of crafts (LfgrE s. v.; Eckstein 1974, 6 f.).

188–219 Agamemnon’s relief (cf. 189) immediately results in pragmatic action (190–197). The narratorP has the suspense and drama abate via the order to fetch the doctor Machaon and the description of the professional treatment of the injury, before again building up suspense with a change of scene and the response of the armies (220 ff.) (a different weighting to the treatment of the wound: the description serves to heroize the injured character [Salazar 2000, 126 ff.; Neal 2006, 33 ff. and 89 f.]). 188 = 1.130, 1.285, 2.369, 10.42; 1st VH (irrespective of τόν/τήν) 36× Il., 68× Od., 1× h.Ap.; 2nd VH = Il. 4.356, 7.405, 14.41. – on the verse structure, 30n. — κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: 153–154n. 189 VE = 169 (with n.). — φίλος ὦ Μενέλαε: The nom. φίλος beside the voc. is probably employed for metrical reasons (Chantr. 2.36); in other addresses, the voc. φίλε is used as an attribute (155n.), or the nom. φίλος occurs as a free-standing address, e.g. 9.601, 21.106, 23.313, Od. 1.301 etc. Kirk); on the phenomenon of nom. rather than voc., also Schw. 2.63; Meier-Brügger 1992, 148 f.; on the address with ὦ, 169n. 190 ἰητήρ: on the suffix -τηρ, 145n. — ἐπιμάσσεται: μαίομαι means ‘seek’ and ‘touch’ (base meaning perhaps ‘discern by touch’), and the compound ἐπι-μαίομαι here with the obj. ἕλκος is likely ‘examine, palpate’ (Laser 1983, 126 n. 337a), cf. Od. 9.446 (the blinded Polyphemos uses his hands to examine the ram [see 9.415–417]); this serves as an approximate description of medical examination, which is comprised of removing the arrow (213 f.) and assessing the wound (see also 195/205 and 217): LfgrE s. v. μαίομαι; Salazar 2000, 150 f.

191 ≈ 15.394; 2nd VH ≈ 117 (see ad loc.). — In Homeric epic, heroes’ physical pain is discussed only in the case of non-fatal injuries (16.518n. with bibliography).

189 αἲ γάρ: = εἰ γάρ (cf. R 22.1), εἴθε. — οὕτως: on the hiatus, R 5.7. 190 ἰητήρ: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — ἐπιμάσσεται: fut. of ἐπιμαίομαι; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἠδ(έ): 186n. 191 φάρμαχ’: = φάρμακα, with elision (R 5.1) and aspiration. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — παύσησι: 3rd pers. sing. pres. subjunc. (R 16.3), prospective. — μελαινάων ὀδυνάων: on the declension, R 11.1.


Iliad 4

φάρμαχ’, ἅ: φάρμακον generally denotes a substance (medication as well as poisons, drugs or magical cures) that can be applied externally or taken orally. Where it designates medication, the intended medicinal effect is usually indicated by attributes (ἤπια at 218 [see ad loc.], ὀδυνήφατα [‘pain-killing’], ἀκέσματα), here via a relative clause with a detailed description of the desired effect. The etymology of the term is disputed (LfgrE s. v. [with bibliography]; Laser 1983, 126 f.) — παύσησι … ὀδυνάων: a technical term for ‘relieve pain’, cf. 16.528 (Mawet 1979, 49 f.), the subjunc. is prospective (‘which will relieve …’); on the spelling of παύσησι, G 89; West 1998, XXXI; on the expression μελαινάων ὀδυνάων, 116–117n.

192–208 Type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (on which, 69–92n.), containing elements (1) issuing of orders (192–197), (2) departure (198–200a), (4) finding the individual in question (with description of the situation: 200b–202), (5) approach (203a), (6) speech introduction (203b) and speech (204–207). 192 He spoke, and …: a brief, formulaic speech capping formulaP with unchanged subject that allows the action to be continued in the same verse; the search for the doctor begins immediately (193 ff.) (cf. 19.238–240n.; a second direct speech also at 20.353, 20.428, Od. 5.28, 6.198, 14.494, etc.; on the succession of two direct speeches by the same character, 1.513n.).— Talthybios: belongs to Agamemnon’s personal retinue, serves as his herald and appears to enjoy his particular confidence: he fetches Briseïs from Achilleus’ hut for Agamemnon (1.320 ff.), seconds him during oath sacrifices in Books 3 and 19 (3.118 ff., 19.196 ff.) and keeps the trophy for him (23.896 f.); at the same time, he also acts independently as the ‘herald of the Achaians’ (1.320– 321n., 19.196–197n.; LfgrE s. v. Ταλθύβιος). On his name (‘with flourishing life’ or ‘brimming with power’), 1.320n. — herald: A herald (kḗryx) in the service of a king acts as his servant and companion (24.149n., 18.558n.). In addition, heralds are charged with calling assemblies and ensuring their orderly conduct (2.50–52n.), as well as with mediating between members of different communities, and as occupants of public office they are placed under the special protection of Zeus; see 8.517, also 1.334, 7.274–280, 10.315 (CG 24, 1.334n.; LfgrE s. v. θεῖος: an epithet of human beings with occupations protected by a deity). κήρυκα: attested already in Mycenaean texts (ka-ru-ke), where it appears to denote a religious dignitary; an I-E heritage word (1.321n., 24.149n., both with bibliography). — προσηύδα: 23–24n.

193–197 The need for haste notwithstanding, and even though all bystanders should be aware of what has happened (see 211 f.), Agamemnon issues precise directions and specifies, in addition to the person sought (the doctor),

192 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’.



additional details that will be repeated by the messenger (195–197/205–207), namely the identity of the injured character (Menelaos, commander), the kind of injury (caused by an arrow) and the seriousness of the incident. In this manner, the narrator underlines the urgency of the order and the significance of the moment (on the ancient discussion regarding this level of detail, Lührs 1992, 245 f.). 193 Machaon: Together with his brother Podaleirios, likewise a doctor, he leads a Thessalian contingent (2.729–733, 4.200–202); both actively participate in fighting (11.504–520, 11.833–836). Machaon is the most important surgeon in the Iliad (cf. 11.512–515, Iliou Persis fr. 2 West, schol. bT on 193) and in the present passage is described multiple times as the son of the medically skilled Asklepios (194 f., 204, 219): 2.732n., CH 5; Laser 1983, 97–100; LfgrE s. v. Μαχάων; on the medical profession in Homeric epic (both warriors and ‘professional’ doctors deliver treatment), 16.28–29n. 194 ≈ 11.518; 1st VH to caesura C 2 ≈ 21.546. — Asklepios: a hero versed in healing and a pupil of the centaur Cheiron (219); also regarded as the son of Apollo, and later worshipped as god of healing (2.731n.; BNP s. v. Asclepius; Laser 1983, 96 f.). φῶτ’ … υἱόν: Both are in apposition to the personal name at 193 (Leaf; Willcock; LfgrE s. v. φώς 1082.2 ff.). — ἀμύμονος: 89n. — ἰητῆρος: 190n. 195 ≈ 98 (see ad loc.), 205. — ὄφρα ἴδῃ: an inflectable VB formula (8× Il., 2× Od.), also after caesura A 3 (3× Il., 1× Od.) and at VE (6× Il., 4× Od.). ἴδῃ here (and at 205, 217) denotes a medical examination, cf. English ‘look someone over, have a look at someone’ (Bechert 1964, 69–71; LfgrE s. v. ἰδεῖν 1125.28 ff.; Kirk); for another paraphrastic description of this examination, 190n. — Μενέλαον, ἀρήϊον: 98n. — ἀρχὸν Ἀχαιῶν: ἀρχός + gen. pl. of an ethnic is the designation for the commander of a contingent, with Ἀχαιῶν only here of Menelaos and at Od. 4.496 (ἀρχοὶ … δύο μοῦνοι Ἀχαιῶν) of several of the leading heroes before Troy, esp. Aias and Agamemnon (LfgrE s. v. ἀρχός 1374.45 ff. and 1375.19 ff. [esp. 25 ff.]). ἀρχὸν Ἀχαιῶν is here the reading of the main tradition, Ἀτρέος υἱόν a subsidiary tradition; at 115, by contrast, the latter is the main tradition (narrator-text, focalized: an echo of 98 in the speech by Athene-Laodokos), with the v.l. ἀρχὸν Ἀχαιῶν. In the present passage, the deviation from 98/115 makes sense: Agamemnon, son of Atreus, does not call his brother ‘son of Atreus’, but rather terms him ‘commander’, imparting a more official tone to the urgent order; he is well aware of Menelaos’ significance for the whole undertaking (172 ff.): cf. Rousseau 1990, 339; differently AH, Anh. p. 39 (Ἀτρέος υἱόν since brotherly love is more relevant). At the same time, the VE of 205 (speech of the messenger), where both versions are transmitted, is also debated: a messenger commonly repeats orders with close linguistic echoes of the original (70–72n.); this would support ἀρχὸν Ἀχαιῶν in both

193 ὅττι τάχιστα: = ὡς τάχιστα; on the -ττ-, R 9.1. — κάλεσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 195 ὄφρα (ϝ)ίδῃ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ὄφρα (+ subjunc.): final (R 22.5).


Iliad 4

passages (thus West 2001, 188); contra: Janko 2000, 3: the variants at 195/205 could be reflections of oral poetry; Führer/Schmidt 2001, 28 and Apthorp 2005, 53–56: at 205, the tradition on balance supports Ἀτρέος υἱόν (in the repetition of orders, the formulation can be altered beyond grammatically necessary adjustments: de Jong [1987] 2004, 184, 282 n. 75; see e.g. 3.88–94n., 6.269–278n.).

196–197 = 206–207; 1st VH of 197 ≈ 6.78. — The verses illustrate that the Achaians are unaware of the shooter’s identity. — Lykian: in the phrase ‘Trojan or Lykian’, the word here denotes the warriors from Lykia in southwest Asia Minor, the militarily most important and proficient Trojan ally (Leaf; Kirk; 2.877n.; cf. 88–89n.). — glory … sorrow: Agamemnon briefly mentioned the possible consequences of the shot, a reference to the urgency of the order: kléos literally denotes ‘what is heard about someone, tidings’ (on the etymology, 2.742n.), the ‘fame’ disseminated beyond the here-and-now and also beyond death (2.325n.); Pandaros had been lured by Athene-Laodokos with promises of kýdos (‘regard, fame, prestige’ after a successfully completed task: 95n.; on ‘fame’ in I-E poetry, West 2007, 401–410). pénthos denotes protracted mourning (frequently in reference to a collective), usually after the loss of a relative, but also the suffering caused by shame after a defeat; see also the juxtaposition with kýdos – pénthos at 415–417 (1.254n.; Mawet 1979, 276, 278). On the transmission of the verses, which are absent from a small number of papyri and mss., Apthorp 2003, 3–5, 7 f.; 2005, 56, 58. — τόξων εὖ εἰδώς: a VE formula (6× Il.) and a generic epithetP of archers (Pandaros also at 5.245, in addition Philoktetes and Teukros). εὖ εἰδώς is an inflectable VE formula (15× Il., 10× Od., 3× h.Hom.; also at VB: 1.385n.), frequently expanded via a partitive gen., as here (Schw. 2.107 f.; Chantr. 2.55 f.). — Τρώων ἢ Λυκίων: an inflectable VB formula (elsewhere καί rather than ἤ; overall 14× Il.): 6.78n.; for examples, 16.564n. — κλέος … πένθος: predicative, the clauses are in apposition to ὅν … ἔβαλεν (AH; Chantr. 2.15 and 2.48; Ruijgh 151; Mawet 1979, 91, 276, 278). 198 = 12.351; VB (ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἄρα) = 2.419, 15.236, 16.676, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 368. — a variant of ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε + noun-epithet formula (68 with n.), the more common speech capping formulaP after speeches issuing orders. Emphasis is put on the addressee receiving the orders via ἀκούσας in the 2nd VH (de Jong [1987] 2004, 285 n. 10).

199–203 Elements (3)–(5), or elements (2)–(5), respectively, of the type-scenes ‘delivery of a message’ (69–92n.) and ‘arrival’ (86–92n.). The description of an errand involving a targeted search for a specific individual in the crowd

196 εἰδώς: with gen. ‘being versed in’. 197 τῷ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — ἄμμι: = ἡμῖν (R 14.1). 198 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί (cf. R 5.1); on the middle, R 23. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ. — ἀπίθησε: unaugmented (R 16.1) aor. of ἀπιθέω.



of the troops recalls, in both content and linguistic echoes, Athene’s errand at 86–92 (see esp. 90–92 and 201–203) and concludes the Pandaros scene in the manner of a ring-compositionP (Kurz 1966, 67–69; Bergold 1977, 170 f.). 199 ≈ 2.163; 2nd VH after caesura A 4 ≈ 15.56. — βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: literally ‘strode out in order to walk’, i.e. ‘started his journey’; a variable VB formula (βῆ/βῆν/βάν, δ’/ῥ’, ἰέναι/ ἴμεν(αι)): 29× Il., 41× Od., 4× h.Hom.; also 3× Il. after caesura A 3; the phrase is more expressive and ceremonial than βῆ without inf. (6.296n.). — κατὰ λαόν: cf. 126n.; on λαός (‘people at arms, troops’), 28n. — Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων: a VE formula (22× Il., 2× Od., 1× Hes.); χαλκοχίτωνες ‘with bronze corselet’ is a generic epithetP with ethnic names, usually of the Achaians (1.371n.; LfgrE s. v.). 200 παπταίνων … ἐνόησεν: For the combination of the two verbs, see also 12.333–336a, 17.115 f., 22.463, Od. 19.552. παπταίνω means ‘peer about, keep a lookout’, frequently in precarious situations (Kelly 2007, 264 f.; LfgrE); ἐνόησε was thus chosen in place of ηὗρε, which is more common in this type of scene (cf. 89 f.) (Arend 1933, 55; de Jong [1987] 2004, 267 n. 23). — ἥρωα: a generic epithetP of various major and minor characters (6.34–35n. [where also for discussion of the social connotations]; Horn 2014, 14 f.).

201–203 ≈ 90–92 (see ad loc.). 202 Trikka: corresponds to modern Trik(k)ala at the western edge of the west Thessalian plain (2.729n.). On evidence for horse breeding in Thessaly, Richter 1968, 75 n. 542. Τρίκης ἐξ ἱπποβότοιο: an echo of the VE formula Ἄργεος ἰπποβότοιο (7× early epic: 2.287n.); Τρίκη is a metrically conditioned variant in place of Τρίκκη (2.729), adapted to the verse structure of 91/202 (cf. G 17). ἱππόβοτος is a generic epithetP of regions, meaning ‘horse-pasturing’ (ἵππος + βόσκω: 6.152n.).

204–207 A speech issuing orders is usually repeated almost literally by the messenger (70–72n.), frequently with an additional indication of the individual giving the orders, as here (on detailed messenger speeches, 2.23–34n.); on the present abbreviated form (204: request, address and person giving the orders; 205–207 content), Bedke 2016, 188–191. This is Talthybios’ only speech in the Iliad; for other characters who appear multiple times but speak only once, 19.286–300n. (end). 204 ὄρσ(ο) … καλέει: ≈ 3.250, 24.88 (see ad locc. on the explanatory asyndeton). ὄρσ(ε)ο at VB (followed by an address) is a typical request at the beginning of a speech (6× Il., 2× Od., 1× h.Ven.); emphasis is put on haste, independent of whether the addressee is sitting down or already standing (201): 19.139n.; LfgrE s. v. ὄρνυμι 799.54 ff. — κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: 153–154n.

201–203 90–92n. — ἱπποβότοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 204 ὄρσ(ο): athematic aor. imper. of ὄρνυμαι ‘arise, set out’ (cf. R 5.1). — καλέει: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

205–207 ≈ 195–197 (see ad loc.). 208 = 11.804, 13.468; ≈ (τῇ) 3.395, Od. 17.150; ≈ (τοῖσι δέ) Il. 2.142; ≈ (VE ἔπειθεν) 6.51 (see ad loc.); cf. 17.123. – A speech capping formulaP, it generally serves as a transition to the action triggered by the speech; orínō originally meant ‘set in motion, stir up’ and here describes the arousing of emotions (thymós): 2.142n.; LfgrE s. v. ὀρίνω. θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν: 152n.; an expansion of the inflectable VE formula θυμὸν ὄρινεν (8× Il., 3× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’: 24.467n.); on θυμός, 43n. 209 1st VH ≈ 199 (see ad loc.), 11.469. — καθ’ ὅμιλον: 126n. — ἀνὰ στρατὸν εὐρὺν Ἀχαιῶν: a variable VE formula (Il. only; 4× with κατά, 1× each with ἀνά/μετά/ἔσω; examples: 1.229n.); ἀνὰ στρατόν (in total 7× Il. after caesura B 2) denotes a horizontal spatial extension – similar to the phrase with initial consonant κατὰ στρατόν (21× Il.); στρατός is primarily the encamped army (1.10n.). 210 1st VH to ὅθι = 5.780; ≈ 10.526, 18.520; Od. 15.101. — ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: a VB formula (52× Il., 53× Od., 6× Hes., 5× h.Hom.); it marks a new point in the action (a transitional formula), frequently upon arrival in a specific location, as here (1.493n.). — ξανθὸς Μενέλαος: 183n. The present passage and 183 aside, Menelaos’ epithets in Book 4 refer to his prowess in war or his position among the troops, in both the narrator-text and in speeches (13, 98, 100, 115, 150, 177, 181, 195, 205, 220), i.e. to characteristics less likely to compel empathy. 211 2nd VH after caesura A 4 ≈ Od. 11.388, 24.21. — βλήμενος ἦν: βλήμενος is a part. of the mid. root aor. βλῆτο with a pass. sense, i.e. ‘was struck’ (Chantr. 1.380; Allan 2003, 169 f.). The paraphrase part. + ἦν rather than the simple verb form stresses the subject’s state (cf. K.-G. 1.38 f.; AH: ‘finds himself wounded’ [transl.]). 212 2nd VH ≈ 11.644, 23.677, Od. 20.124. — κυκλόσ(ε): a local adverb, attested only here and at 17.392, related to κύκλος, with the suffix -σε as an indication of direction (‘in a circle’); a formation analogous to τηλόσε, κεῖσε, πάντοσε, πόσε, etc. (Chantr. 1.246; Risch 360, 367). This creates an image recalling the shooter Pandaros, who was given cover for his shot (113) by his companions (90). — ἐν μέσσοισι: ‘in their midst’; on the construction, LfgrE s. v. μέσ(σ)ος 163.15 ff. — ἰσόθεος φώς: a VE formula (12× Il., 2× Od.), used of various heroes without a specific profile, sometimes – as here – in place of the personal name (2.565n.).

205–207 195–197n. 208 φάτο: cf. 198n.; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3; on the plural, R 18.2. 209 βάν: 3rd pers. pl. root aor. (= ἔβησαν: R 16.1, 16.2). 210 ῥ(α): used to avoid hiatus (R 24.1, cf. R 5.1). — ὅθι: ‘where’. 211 ἀγηγέραθ’: = ἀγηγέρατο, with elision (R 5.1) and aspiration; 3rd pers. pl. plpf. pass. of ἀγείρω, ‘were gathered’ (on the ending, R 16.2). — ὅσσοι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 212 ὃ δ(έ): apodotic δέ (R 24.3); ὅ is an anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), with ἰσόθεος φώς as an appositive; Machaon is meant. — μέσσοισι: on the declension, R 11.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.



213–219 The steps of expert wound management for injuries caused by missiles: removal of the missile (in 213 by extracting it; elsewhere also by cutting it out), inspection of the wound (217; perhaps also via palpation: 190), cleaning and application of analgetic and hemostatic agents (218). The procedure is described in similar terms in Book 11 (at 11.828–836 Eurypylos, struck by Paris’ arrow, asks Patroklos to take care of his wound, since no doctor is available; performed at 11.844–848, 15.392–394); in the Odyssey, singing to a wound to stanch blood flow is also attested (Od. 19.455–458 with Russo ad loc.). In the present passage, Machaon’s professionalism is explicitly based on healing skills of superhuman origin; as a son of Asklepios, he has access to remedies known to the centaur Cheiron (194n., 218–219n.). On the treatment of wounds in Homeric epic, Laser 1983, 106–117 (esp. 109–111), 125–127; Tzavella-Evjen 1983, 186 f.; Salazar 2000, 138–158; Neal 2006, 34–36; on the initial treatment of the wounded during battle, also 14.421–439n.; on the external application of plant-based remedies (phármaka) in the Mycenaean period and in Homeric epic, Laser loc. cit. 119–127. 213 ἀρηρότος: 134n.

214 That the barbs on the arrow break off when being extracted from the belt, i.e. the uppermost layer of protective clothing, might seem slightly contradictory vis-à-vis 151. But there the focus is on Menelaos’ realization that the barbs did not penetrate his body; it would indeed be dangerous, if the arrow had penetrated more deeply, for them to break off now (151n.; Kirk on 214; Salazar 2000, 141 f.; Buchholz 2010, 290). πάλιν ἄγεν: πάλιν (‘back’) indicates the direction opposite to the movement of the arrow being extracted, thus here ‘broke off backward’ (AH; Kirk; LfgrE s. v. πάλιν; on the aor. of intransitive ἄγνυμαι, Chantr. 1.400; Risch 251).

215–216 ≈ 186–187; 1st VH of 215 ≈ 16.804 (Apollo unfastens Patroklos’ corselet). — The almost literal repetition stresses the presence of three layers (186– 187n.). The initial inspection of the point of entry is now followed by the removal of the layers to inspect the wound (215–217). 217 αὐτὰρ ἐπεί: 124n. — πικρὸς ὀïστός: 118n.

218–219 2nd VH of 218 ≈ 11.515, 11.830; 2nd VH of 219 ≈ 16.143, 19.390. — he sucked the blood: This manner of wound cleaning is mentioned only here 214 τοῦ … ἐξελκομένοιο: dependent on ὄγκοι, ‘its (sc. the arrow’s) barbs …, as it was being pulled out’. — πάλιν (ϝ)άγεν: on the prosody, R 4.5; ἄγεν = ἐάγησαν, 3rd pers. pl. aor. of intransitive ἄγνυμαι, ‘broke, snapped’ (R 16.1, 16.2). 215 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4. — οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). 216 187 n. 2. 218–219 ἐπ’ … | πάσσε: ‘sprinkled on it’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — φάρμακα (ϝ)ειδώς: on the prosody, R 4.3. — τά: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1); ethical dat., with the double dat. οἵ … πατρί in the sense ‘his father’. — πόρε: defective verb πορεῖν, ‘provide, give’.


Iliad 4

in Homeric epic; elsewhere the blood is wiped off (5.416, 5.795–798) and/or washed away with water (11.829 f., 11.845 f.) (Kirk; Laser 1983, 110). Sucking the wound clean after an iron arrow head (123n.) has pierced several layers of material seems perfectly plausible. Some scholars nevertheless assume that the special procedure in the present passage implies fear of a poisoned arrow (thus e.g. Tzavella-Evjen 1983, 187). But poisoned arrows are mentioned explicitly only at Od. 1.260–262 and ‘Hes.’ Sc. 130–132 (on this, West on Od. 1.257 ff.), while in the case of Pandaros’ shot, the assumption is not supported by the further course of the scene (the adj. pikrós at 217 means literally ‘pointed, sharp’ [118n.], in reference to the sensation caused by it ‘piercing’ [of pain e.g. at Il. 11.269–272], or ‘bitter’ [of medicine at 11.846]): LfgrE s. v. πικρός; Dirlmeier 1966, 9; Laser 1983, 110 n. 296 (faith in the healing properties of saliva, or a makeshift solution due to the circumstances). — healing medicines: The employment of crushed healing herbs (phármaka) is mentioned frequently, see 5.401, 5.900, 11.515 and esp. 11.830– 832: Eurypylos asks Patroklos to treat his wound with phármaka (phármaka of Achilleus, who in turn had received instruction in healing from Cheiron), followed by 11.846–848: Patroklos crushes a bitter root over the wound (Laser 1983, 125–127; Hainsworth on 11.842–848; additional bibliography at 213–219n.). — Cheiron: In Homeric epic, Cheiron occupies a special position among the centaurs: he is considered the ‘most righteous’ among them and appears as a teacher of healing (see also 11.830–832: instruction of Achilleus); in addition, his connection to Achilleus’ father Peleus is alluded to (he gave him the lance now being used by Achilleus: 16.143 = 19.390): 2.744n., 19.390n. (with bibliography); LfgrE s. v. Χείρων; on allusions to myths concerning the centaurs, 1.262–270n., 2.740n. ἐκμυζήσας: an aor. formation related to the pres. μύζειν, the compound means ‘suck (out)’; contrast the aor. ἐπ-έμυξαν at 20 (with n.; Tichy 1983, 103 f.; Tucker 1990, 219). — ἤπια φάρμακα: With φάρμακα, the epithet means ‘soothing, alleviating’; elsewhere it usually marks individuals or their behavior toward others (‘accommodating, friendly’): LfgrE s. v. ἤπιος; on φάρμακα, 191n. — εἰδώς: signals competence (‘versed in’); the VE echoes the VE formula εὖ εἰδώς (10× Il., 1× Od.; expanded with a gen. at 196–197n., 310n.) or VE formulae with an acc. obj. such as μήδεα εἰδώς (24.88n.). — φίλα φρονέων: an inflectable formula after caesura B 2 (2× Il., 6× Od.) meaning ‘in a friendly manner’ (LfgrE s. v. φίλος 1042.21 ff.; Landfester 1966, 108). — Χείρων: The name is frequently attested in vase inscriptions in the form Χῑ´ ρōν, but was understood early on as a formation related to χείρ or χείρων (Wachter 2001, 263 f.).



220–421 The Trojans advance again; the Achaians arm themselves. Agamemnon walks along the Achaian front line and urges the men on individually. 220–421 In the space of a few words, a change in circumstances is narrated (220–222), and this represents the basis for the events described in what follows up to 421: the Trojans begin advancing, and the Achaians accordingly arm themselves (221 f.). The situation is recalled again and again subsequent to the transition as well: individual Achaian leaders exhort their men (253 f., 294 ff.) and arm themselves (274), and certain divisions already start moving (274 ff.), whereas others remain in place and wait, some of them on their chariots (328 ff., 366 f.): West 2011, 143. Only at 422 ff. does the description of the deployment of the two armies begin. Up to that point, therefore, no fighting takes place (Rengakos 1995, 23 f.; on supposed indications of fighting, see 240n. on the linguistic issues). To encourage the troops to fight after the violation of the oath by Pandaros, the supreme commander Agamemnon addresses everyone again by walking along the front. This inspection of the troops, the so-called Epipṓlēsis (on the term, 231n.), is now presented in great detail in a variation of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (223–421). After a kind of prooimion (223–231n.) and an introductory overview (232–250n.), Agamemnon is depicted in a refrain compositionP in five individual scenes as inspecting the contingents of Idomeneus and Meriones (251–271), Aias and Teukros (272– 291), Nestor (292–325), Odysseus and Menestheus (326–363), and Diomedes and Sthenelos (364–421). The narrative structure, made rhythmic by Agamemnon’s walking, is underlined via recurrent elements: the scenes are initiated with the announcement of his arrival and his response to the battle preparations of the various contingents (first three times positively: 255, 283, 311, then twice angrily: 336, 368; on this refrain compositionP, with additional examples, Van Otterlo 1944, 161–163; on the elements of the varied typesceneP ‘arrival’, Arend 1933, 30; 255n., 256n., 274n., 292–325n.; on typescenes generally, 86–92n.). This is followed by a corresponding speech; a response by the addressees (an affirmation of loyalty or a justification) is succeeded by a transitional verse that in some cases expresses Agamemnon’s mood when he departs for the next contingent (272, 292, 326, 364): Latacz 1966, 137; Bannert 1988, 125–128. The five scenes allow a pleasant symmetry that places Nestor, the oldest commander, in the center; it may also reflect the organization of military units observable elsewhere (16.171n.). The sequence of addressees also finds parallels elsewhere: (a) as in the cataloguelike teichoskopia, Idomeneus stands near Aias and is listed last (3.230 ff.); this is perhaps the reason why here, in the narration of the Epipṓlēsis which begins relatively soon after the teichoskopia, he is found in the very first scene (Von der Mühll 1952, 86), again in the vicinity of Aias (who appears


Iliad 4

in the next scene; AH on 251). In addition, (b) later on, during the battle, Diomedes stands near Odysseus (8.91 f., 11.312 ff.: AH on 365), as in the Epipṓlēsis: close to Odysseus’ front line (since when he leaves Odysseus’ contingent, Agamemnon reaches Diomedes’ men). What is more, the present order at the front more or less corresponds to the order of the leaders’ huts and ships in the encampment of ships (as is also taken for granted in Book 10): Cuillandre 1943, 77; Clay 2011, 48 f. The reason why Odysseus’ and Diomedes’ contingents are not yet advancing and are thus reprimanded is perhaps also explained by their position: they may be stationed slightly further away from the scene of the action (i.e. the shot by Pandaros and the ensuing events) than the leaders mentioned previously are, and are thus less well informed (La Roche on 332; cf. the sketch in Janko on 13.681; 331–335n.; schol. bT on 240 and schol. A on 331; Cuillandre loc. cit. 78–86). They accordingly await the battle cry (331–335n., 332n.). But the individual scenes are varied not only by differences in Agamemnon’s reaction, but also by other means: (a) their inconsistent but increasing length (lending particular weight to the scene with Diomedes, in accord with its function; see below); (b) the number of speeches (possible responses by the addressees and replies by Agamemnon: 2/1/3/3/3); (c) the number of addressees (2/2/1[Nestor only]/ 2/2); (d) the different motifs employed in the speeches (Trojan violation of the oath: 235–239n., 269–271n.; loyalty and individualism, sometimes vs. preferential treatment during honorific feasts: 259–263n., 285–291n., 301– 307n., 338–348n.; the age of the addressee(s): 313–316n.; the relationship between generations as well as between gods and human beings: 364–421n.). Variety is also provided by a lengthy simileP (275–282n.). The Epipṓlēsis is thus a very deliberately structured piece that is also well integrated with the framing narrative: as a retarding and thus suspense-creating prelude to the first major battle in the Iliad, it forms part of the themeP ‘preparations for battle’ that begins at 2.86 (422–544n., 2.86b–401n.; Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 29 f.). Once again, major Achaian leaders are presented in a cataloguelike manner, although, in contrast to the Catalogue of Ships (2.484–759 with n.) and the teichoskopia (3.121–244n.), which is complemented by the Epipṓlēsis (schol. bT on 251; West loc. cit. 143), they are portrayed via their speeches (Postlethwaite 2000, 81); some, like Aias and Diomedes, are given substantial space here for the first time (AH, Anh. p. 5, 10; Robert 1901, 210). The mustering of the troops results from the violation of the oath by the Trojans, which is mentioned repeatedly (see above) and prepares for the corresponding defensive reaction by the Achaians, as well as the slaying of the oathbreaker Pandaros at the hands of Diomedes in Book 5. It is thus also designed with a view toward the outbreak of battle and Diomedes’ successes, his ari-



steia: Diomedes, with his loyalty and readiness for battle (364–421n.), is portrayed as a temporary replacement for Achilleus. In addition to this main function, the Epipṓlēsis serves to characterize the other leaders (Μπεζαντακοσ 1996, 267), primarily Agamemnon. Each of his meetings with another leader is described from Agamemnon’s point of view (secondary focalizationP, 232n.). On the one hand, he appears secure in his role as the supreme commander who effectively takes the initiative and assumes his duty to spur his men on to battle via praise and reprimand (223–225n., 231n., 412–418n.; Lowenstam 1993, 80 f.; cf. 2.480–483n.); on the other hand, however, his exaggerated, unjustified criticism, which is met by strong reactions (349– 355n., 404–410n.), evidently illustrates a mistrust that may feed on the experience of the unsuccessful testing of the army (Donlan 1971, 112 f.; similarly Kelly 2007, 270) and a timidity (232–250n.) already revealed in the aftermath of the wounding of Menelaos (176–182n., 183–187n.). His giving in vis-à-vis Odysseus (358–363n.) might thus attest to a certain weakness and an initially erroneous assessment of his counterpart (Bergold 1977, 77; going too far, Stanley 1993, 71; Beck 2005, 154 f., 164). The leaders mentioned are likewise carefully characterized via their actions and speeches: Idomeneus as an older, loyal warrior; Aias and Teukros as active and thus uninterested in responding; Nestor as an experienced warrior and strategist plagued by old age; Odysseus as eloquent and quick to respond; Sthenelos as a passionate companion; and finally the deliberate, superior Diomedes, raring for battle (Beck loc. cit. 164). The technique of adapting the speeches in the Epipṓlēsis, esp. the battle paraeneses, to their respective addressees was to become typical of post-Homeric epic and historiography (Dentice di Accadia 2012, 145 f.). 220–222 Picking up from the previously described care of the wound (220), the narrative focuses on the Trojan side (221), which was left behind after Pandaros’ shot at 127, to immediately return attention to the Achaian response (222– 421). 220 Menelaos: The narrator reveals the effectiveness of these efforts at 5.50: Menelaos again appears as a powerful warrior. ἀμφεπένοντο: in a similar context (treatment of an injured warrior) also at 13.656, 16.28, Od. 19.455 (LfgrE). — βοὴν ἀγαθὸν Μενέλαον: on the inflectable VE formula, 181n. The generic epithetP βοὴν ἀγαθόν (25× of Menelaos) probably refers to a leader’s powerful voice of command (2.408n.).

220 ὄφρα: ‘while, so long as’ (R 22.2), with τόφρα as a correlative (221). — τοὶ ἀμφεπένοντο: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3); sc. the Achaians. — βοήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1).


Iliad 4

221 = 11.412; to caesura C 2 = 17.107. — The observation that the Trojans are starting to advance picks up from the description of their approach at 3.1–14 (220–421n. on the sequence of events; on the chain of action, see the introduction to this Commentary and 1–72n.). The fact that the reason for their motivation is not stated explicitly has been interpreted in various ways since antiquity, thus e.g. with the obvious explanation that one can assume that the Trojans are trying to exploit the agitation in the Achaian camp after the wounding of Menelaos (schol. bT; on the dangers of a panic, 183–187n.; on analytical explanations, [revisions]: AH, Anh. p. 17–19; Heitsch 2008, 236– 238; cf. 220–421n.). In any case, the attack is sufficiently motivated: via Pandaros’ shot, the Trojans have turned into aggressors, and this irreversible situation necessarily leads to their renewed advance (cf. 85–219n.; AH, Anh. p. 19, although not as a sufficient explanation; Kirk: possible); indeed, the Trojans are blamed collectively for the violation of the oath (160–168n., 235– 239n.; the narrative also states that Pandaros’ companions provided cover to the shooter, thus abetting him in the violation, 113 f.). The focus of the narrative, in any case, is on the Achaian response to the shot – the treatment of Menelaos, Agamemnon’s speech – analogous to the manner in which only the Achaians’ reaction to Agamemnon’s speech after Paris’ rescue by Aphrodite is mentioned (3.461n.; reference to this passage in AH, Anh. p. 18; cf. gapP). ἐπὶ … ἤλυθον: The aor. has been thought inappropriate for the lengthy process of advance (Leaf, followed by West 2011, 143, with analytical conclusions regarding the Epipṓlēsis). But τόφρα is to be understood with the sense of ὅτε, as in the iterata (where also an aor. after an impf.), ‘in the meantime’, which here fits with an ingressive aor. signaling the new action. The Achaian reaction follows immediately (222 aor. ἔδυν, μνήσαντο); only then is a broader description of their preparations added via ἔνθα (223) (220–421n.). — στίχες … ἀσπιστάων: 90n.

222 The Achaians also arming themselves signals the conclusive end of the truce. Everyone had put down their weapons prior to the duel between Paris and Menelaos (3.114n.). αὖτις: stresses the repetition (cf. κατὰ τεύχε᾿ ἔδυν with 3.114 τεύχεα τ᾿ ἐξεδύοντο). — μνήσαντο δὲ χάρμης: an inflectable VE formula (7× Il., 1× Od.). On the common combinations of μιμνήσκομαι ‘turn one’s thoughts/attention toward, think of’ with χάρμη ‘zeal for battle, aggression’, 6.265n. and 19.147–148n. The concentration on the

221 δ(έ): ‘apodotic δέ’ (R 24.3). — ἐπὶ … ἤλυθον: ‘began approaching’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ἤλυθον: = ἦλθον. — ἀσπιστάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 222 οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17; sc. the Achaians. — κατὰ … ἔδυν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — τεύχε᾿ ἔδυν: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — ἔδυν: = ἔδυσαν (R 16.2). — μνήσαντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.



battle is immediately revealed by Agamemnon’s enthusiastic efforts (223–225: Latacz 1966, 31 f.); it is appealed to again and again in what follows (234, 418: Bannert 1988, 125).

223–231 A sort of prooimion to the inspection of the troops proper: a summary characterization of Agamemnon that is developed from 222 (with n.; 223– 225), a description of his preparations (226–230), a report of the action now beginning (231). The introductions to both the divine battles at 21.385–390 and the funeral games at 23.257–261 show a similar structure (Nicolai 1973, 119 f.). 223–225 Agamemnon’s regained strength is explicitly stressed in summary form by first correcting a possibly erroneous impression via multiple negations (Richardson 1990, 176): the supreme commander is not asleep now (223), as he was accused of being in the dream sent by Zeus at 2.23–25 (see ad loc.; the motif ‘to sleep rather than to act’ is echoed; Buchan 2012, 19); similarly, he is not shirking, but is ready to fight (224) and thus far from the attitude Achilleus reproachfully insinuated (see ad 1.226–228, esp. 1.228n.). A tripartite list with negated participles (223 f.), which is juxtaposed to an affirmative statement (225) for an emphatic effect similar to 8.78–80, Od. 6.43–45: Arend 1933, 15; Göbel 1933, 29. 223 βρίζοντα: βρίζω ‘doze, be sleepy’, elsewhere only in tragedy (LSJ), ἀποβρίζω Od. 9.151, 12.7 (Odysseus and his companions after coming ashore); here with the connotation ‘slacking’ and used in a manner analogous to μεθίημι at Il. 4.516, 13.229 (LfgrE). — ἴδοις: a past potential; always with κε(ν)/ἄν, ‘you would have been able to see’ (3.220n.). This rhetorical figure directs attention more closely to what follows: the narrateeP is meant to imagine and admire Agamemnon, like the warrior Diomedes at 5.85 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 56, 58; Collobert 2011, 184). — Ἀγαμέμνονα δῖον: an inflectable VE formula (2.221–222a n.). δῖος is an ornamental generic epithetP (1.7n.). 224 καταπτώσσοντ(α): (κατα)πτώσσω ‘crouch (with fear)’, also at 340, 371, etc., is derived from the same root as aor. πτῆξαι (‘push down, crouch down’: 2.312n., 14.40n.), πτώξ (‘one who crouches, hare’, 17.676, 22.310) and πτωσκάζω (‘keep in the background’: 372n.): Frisk and Beekes s. v. πτήσσω. The verb is always used with a negative connotation, concretely ‘duck, crouch’ (21.14, 21.26, Od. 22.304), metaphorically ‘stay in the background in a cowardly manner’ rather than be among those fighting at the front (340, cf. 341 and 372 f.), in general ‘shirk, be a shirker’ (Il. 5.476, 5.634, 7.129, 20.427, with the exception of the present passage always in direct speech) (LfgrE s. v. πτώσσω; Wissmann 1997, 28 f.). — οὐκ ἐθέλοντα μάχεσθαι: a formulaic phrase (14.51n.). οὐκ ἐθέλοντα is frequently used in the sense ‘reluctantly’ in reference to a lack of commitment in battle (6.522–523a n.); here it forms a litotes in conjunction with οὐδ(έ) and is subsequently phrased positively via σπεύδοντα (225) (de Jong [1987] 2004, 56).

223 βρίζοντα (ϝ)ίδοις: on the prosody, R 4.3.


Iliad 4

225 2nd VH = 12.325; ≈ 6.124, 7.113, 8.448, 13.270, 14.155, 24.391. — σπεύδοντα μάχην ἐς κυδιάνειραν: comes about from the concentration on battle (222n.). μάχην ἐς κυδιάνειραν is a VE formula (variants μάχῃ/μάχην ἔνι/ἀνὰ κυδιανείρῃ/κυδιάνειραν; see iterata); κυδιάνειρα means ‘that brings men great honor’; ‘it is interesting to note that this adjective, one of the few downright positive qualifications of war, is used almost exclusively by characters’ (de Jong [1987] 2004, 233 n. 3; on the evaluation of battle and war, also 15n.); on the word formation, Tronci 2000, 282 f.

226–230 More distinguished warriors own a chariot drawn by a pair of horses and use it as a means of transport in particular: they drive to the battlefield on it or use it in flight and pursuit, as well as to recover injured characters (2.384n.). They generally dismount to fight (on this so-called apobates technique, 2.384n.), although in that case the charioteers must keep the chariot ready close-by in order to be able to pick them up again immediately (11.339 f., 13.384–386, 16.145–147 [with n.]; Latacz 1977, 218; Hellmann 2000, 114 f., 144 f.; for an artistic depiction on a Geometric vase of an apobates contest as training for battle, Reber 1999, 134–141). Here the supreme commander climbs down before the battle in order to more easily approach his people and spur them on (231). His order to the charioteer has often been judged a somewhat inappropriate insertion by the narrator (thus Kirk 229–230), but as at e.g. 2.455–483, 3.182–190 (see ad locc.), it is designed to highlight the size of the Achaian army: the front is so long that pacing it off would be exhausting, even more so in heavy armor (similarly Paduano/Mirto 913; on the length of the front, Latacz loc. cit. 54. 61; in general on driving as an aid for warriors wearing armor, 2.384n.; Hellmann loc. cit. 146 with n. 54). 226 ≈ 10.322; 2nd VH = 10.393, h.Ven. 13. — gleaming with bronze: The facing of chariot superstructures with sheets of metal is likely for the Mycenaean and Geometric periods and is attested early on in the Near East (Wiesner 1968, 14, 47, 82, 102f.; on the Mycenaean tablets, Ventris/Chadwick [1956] 1973, 371, 375). ἔασε: ‘left (behind), left standing’, ‘seems to imply no more than that he descended from the chariot’ (Kirk): Agamemnon now proceeds on foot (231), but the charioteer is charged with keeping the horses ready in the vicinity (229 f.). — ἅρματα: denotes one chariot, as in most cases (2.775b n.). — ποικίλα χαλκῷ: formulaic at VE, combined with ἅρματα (see above) or τεύχεα (14.420n.). ποικίλος ‘artful, embellished, colorful’ is an epithet of chariots and must refer to bronze fittings (14.431–432n.). 227 to caesura C 2 ≈ 11.341. — θεράπων: ‘servant, companion’ (1.321n.), frequently of charioteers in action (LfgrE s. v. θεράπων 1017.49 ff.). — ἀπάνευθ(ε): ‘away off to the

225 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). 226 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἔασε: = Attic εἴασε. 227 τούς: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — φυσιόωντας: on the epic diectasis, R 8.



side’ (LfgrE); likely referring to behind the respective battle lines Agamemnon is talking about (AH). — φυσιόωντας: ‘snorting’ (16.506n.), considered a sign of an impatient fighting spirit (223–225; AH; West 2011, 144 with reference to Aesch. Sept. 393; a Biblical parallel at Job 39:20: West 1997, 556).

228 Eurymedon: mentioned only here; Nestor’s companion of the same name is similarly occupied with horses at 8.114, 11.620 (West 2011, 144; for another namesake, LfgrE). — Ptolemaios: mentioned only here. A typical four-word verse in which kinship is described via a personal name, with a gen. in -ου before the bucolic diairesis, as at e.g. 2.705, and with the specification of three generations by means of a patronymic at VE, as at 17.467, 19.123, Od. 1.429, 2.347, 20.148 (16.174n.; LfgrE s. v. Πειραΐδης; in general on four-word verses, 5–6n.). — Εὐρυμέδων: a compound from εὐρύς and μέδομαι ‘take care of, mind’; cf. the formulaic εὐρὺ κρείων (1.102n.; von Kamptz 84; Risch 211). — Πτολεμαίου: A derivation with the suffix -αιος from π(τ)όλεμος ‘battle, war’: ‘warrior’ (von Kamptz 38, 119, 217); on the word beginning, G 18 and LfgrE s. v. πόλις 1345.64 ff., with bibliography; derivations from πτόλεμος are already attested in Mycenean names, among them poto-re-ma-ta /Ptolemātās/ (see MYC). — Πειραΐδαο: A patronymic in -ίδης from Πείραιος (< *Πειραιϝίδης); likely a speaking name meaning ‘adventurer’ (derived from πεῖρα ‘risk, venture’ [Doric πῆρα], first attested at Alcman fr. 125 Page: LfgrE; Risch 126, 149; more cautious, von Kamptz 118 f., 243), semantically combined with the name of Eurymedon’s father, Ptolemaios (‘Fighter son of Venture’), analogous to other groups of names, e.g. Amyntor (related to ἀμύνω) son of Ormenos (related to ὄρνυμι) at 9.448. These combinations probably correspond to actual naming practices within families and are based on I-E customs; cf. the names of the kinsmen Laodamas and Laodokos assigned by the narrator (86–87n.): von Kamptz 36–38; HE s. v. Names; also 3.124n. on Laodike. 229 1st VH ≈ 9.179, Hes. Th. 995. — μάλα πόλλ᾿ ἐπέτελλε: A formula, elsewhere placed at VE, for an urgent warning (‘impress upon most strongly): 6.207n.

230 might take hold: The linking of abstract nouns (esp. terms for physical or mental states) with verbs of grasping, coming, etc. is common in Greek; cf. 1.387n., 24.5n. (with additional examples), with exhaustion as an agent also e.g. 13.711, Od. 1.192, 5.457 (LfgrE s. v. κάματος). λάβῃ: The use of the prospective subjunc. rather than the opt. after the past tense ἐπέτελλε at 229 results from the narrator slipping into the role of the speaker, as it were, for whom the action takes place in the future (Leaf; in general on this use of the form in direct speech, K.-G. 2.449, 555; on the comparatively free use of the two modes in subordinate clauses after a past tense form, Chantr. 2.223). — πολέας διὰ κοιρανέοντα: on the three-syllable form πολέας without synizesis, Chantr. 1.220 f.

228 Πειραΐδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. 229–230 παρισχέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — ὁππότε: = on the -ππ-, R 9.1. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — μιν | γυῖα: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 230 πολέας: on the declension, R 12.2. — κοιρανέοντα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

(Ionic origin); Wachter 2012, 73 n. 21 (most likely Aeolic). In a military context, κοιρανέω, related to κοίρανος ‘military leader’ (2.204n.), means ‘order, command’ in the sense ‘organize, urge on’ (2.207a n.). διά is probably a preverb (Schw. 2.448 n. 5); the spatial meaning ‘through, across’, as also at 2.40, is rare with the acc. outside early epic (LSJ; Wackernagel [1920/24] 2009, 667).

231 1st VH = 11.230; ≈ 11.721; 2nd VH = 250 (see 232–250n.), 11.264, 11.540; ≈ 3.196, 15.279. — The action beginning here, which will continue until 421, is announced briefly (223–231n.). The inspection and encouragement of their men is a tactic common to all leaders, both before fighting (as here) and during battle (6.104n.; Agamemnon: 5.528–532, 8.218–244). Pacing off the front in its entirety is commensurate with Agamemnon’s role as supreme commander, and thus highlights him in his function (Deger 1970, 109 with n. 425; Carlier 1984, 170 f.). πεζός: pregnant ‘on foot’, i.e. not on the chariot, which is nevertheless kept on standby; here prior to battle, at 11.341, 13.385 of warriors who had climbed off their chariots during a scuffle: on the special use of the chariot here, 226–230n. πεζός can also mean simply ‘footsoldier, infantryman’, functioning as an adjective or a substantive (274, 298, etc.): 24.438n.; LfgrE s. v. 1090.64 ff. (both also on the meaning ‘by land’). As an adjective, πεζός is always used predicatively; the part. ἐών is thus probably added merely for metrical reasons (LfgrE loc. cit. 1091.4 f. with additional examples); here πεζός is also linked with αὐτάρ (see the half-verse iterata; at VE also at 11.341). — ἐπεπωλεῖτο: On the basis of the verb ἐπιπωλέομαι, meaning ‘pace off’ for the purpose of scrutiny, Alexandrian scholars labelled this entire scene the Epipṓlēsis (3.196n., with bibliography; cf. κοιρανέοντα in the preceding verse [with n.], which designates the encouragement following the inspection). The subsequent narrative is thus structured by reference to Agamemnon’s tour of inspection (250 f., 272 f., 292, 326, 364). — στίχας ἀνδρῶν: a VE formula (3.196n.); on the meaning of στίχες, 90n.

232–250 The inspection and encouragement of the troops announced at 231 is initially portrayed in a general form (232–250), before the examination of individual units is reported (251–421), much like battle descriptions in which an overview is often presented prior to the narration of individual confrontations (e.g. 446–456 with n., 12.175–180, 13.333–344, 15.405–414; West 2011, 144); on this narrative style, which allows the audience to contextualize the details, Krischer 1971, 132–136, specifically on the present passage, 133 f. The first, more general section is bracketed by a frame (231, 250) comprised of two speeches (234–239, 242–249), each with an introduction (232 f., 240 f.). Here iterative verb forms in the speech introduction formulaeP (233, 241; Edwards 1970, 22) indicate that the two paraeneses represent a multitude of similar speeches (such as the pair of speeches at 2.188–206, see ad loc. for

231 αὐτάρ: ‘but, indeed’ (progressive, ≈ ‘and’: R 24.2). — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6).



additional examples and bibliography): the first as an address of encouragement directed at those ready to fight (232), the second as a battle paraenesis of reprimand addressed at negligent individuals (240); the introductions, which feature parallel structures, further highlight the contrast. The individual parts are accordingly different: the address is neutral (234) or contains a rebuke (242 with n.), the battle appeal (234) and argument (235–239) of the first speech are replaced in the second by provocative questions (242–245, 247–249), a simile (243–245) and a statement (246), all of which express criticism (see ad locc.; cf. 12.267 f.; in general on battle paraeneses and the elements of address, appeal, argument, see 16.268–277n., on battle paraeneses of reprimand, 16.421–425n., each with bibliography; Wissmann 1997, 54–62; Bedke 2016, 197–226). Shared motifs connect the two speeches: the prospect of victory and spoils, and divine support for an aggressive attitude, is contrasted with a vision of destruction far from home, with no divine rescue, that will result from a reluctance to fight (235–239n., 238–239n., 247–249n.; similarly Μπεζαντακοσ 1996, 257). The image of the victors bringing home spoils at the end of the first speech (238 f.) forms an effective contrast with the immediately following image of helpless, fearful fawns (243–245, with n.). Agamemnon is thus portrayed as a supreme commander who is up to his responsibilities, namely either to encourage the troops prior to battle via his authority or to provoke and urge them on with invective; the structural similarities between the present scene and that in Book 2, where Odysseus assumes these tasks and successfully directs the crowd, may stress Agamemnon’s authority even further (on the portrayal of Agamemnon in the Epipṓlēsis generally, 220–421n.; on his responsibilities, 231n.; Patzer 1996, 185 f.; Wissmann loc. cit. 57 f., 62 f.; on the structure of the two scenes, 2.188– 206n., 2.207a n., see above; on the comparison with Odysseus, Bergold 1977, 77). Although there is no verbal response, as is usual after paraeneses (Beck 2005, 152, 155), the Achaian successes on the first day of battle hint at the effects of the speeches (422–end of Book 7, see 422–445n., 431b–432n., 505– 516n., as well as the overview in Stoevesandt 2004, 384 ff.). At the same time, the scene alludes to Agamemnon’s limitations: he reacts based on his perception (on the focalization, 232n.), which is not necessarily right (cf. 338–348n.: basis for his provocation of Odysseus), and his assessment of divine support will prove inaccurate for a long time (235–239n., 247–249n.), much as he is deceived by his dream (2.36–40n.); his concern regarding the ships also betrays his deep-seated fear of failure since Achilleus’ boycott, which later manifests itself again and again (14.42–51n.; on provocative questions, like those in 247–249, that characterize the speaker, Scodel 2012, 324).


Iliad 4

232 2nd VH ≈ 15.320. — he found: signals secondary focalizationP, as at 240, 255, 283, 311, 336, 368 (de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 71), followed by the speech triggered by this perception (3.154n.). οὕς: The addition of τις (as at 240) in relative clauses with a generalizing and distributive sense is still optional in Homer and serves especially as a metrically convenient variant (Monteil 1963, 138–140; Ruijgh 18, 326 f.). — ἴδοι: in the context of the inspection (LfgrE s. v. ἰδεῖν 1123.23 f., 37 f.) almost in the sense ‘come upon, find’ (cf. 2.198 ἴδοι βοόωντα τ᾿ ἐφεύροι: Bechert 1964, 135 n. 3). — Δαναῶν ταχυπώλων: an inflectable VE formula, likewise at 257 (in total 1× nom., 9× gen.). The epithet, a possessive compound, likely refers to a particularly good (i.e. young and powerful) team in front of the chariot (24.295n.). 233 2nd VH = 3.249; ≈ Od. 7.341.

234 2nd VH = 12.409, 13.116. — The exhortation shows that in the eyes of the supreme commander a willingness to fight (222) is seemingly not present everywhere to the same degree (on the focalization, 232n.); at the end of the scene, Diomedes thus makes the appeal once more (418, with n.; Bannert 1988, 125 f.). — Argives: 65n. μή πώ τι: ‘in no way at all’ (AH); πω is modal, as frequently with the imper., e.g. also in speeches at 184 (see ad loc.) and 15.426, 17.422: LfgrE s. v. πω 1670.17 f. — μεθίετε: In combination with a concrete acc. object, μεθίημι means ‘let go, release’ (e.g. a missile: 21.72, cf. 1.48n.), metaphorically ‘drop’ (3.414n.), ‘leave over’ (cf. 14.364n.). In combination with a gen., as here, it is used in the sense ‘cease, desist from’ (e.g. with μάχης at 12.268, πολέμοιο 240, 351, 6.330, βίης 21.177; on the combination with θούριδος ἀλκῆς, as here, see the half-verse iterata): LfgrE s. v. ἵημι 1155.24 ff. When used this way in battle paraeneses, it naturally serves as a key word to recall one’s own prowess in fighting or to forestall a lack of initiative or resignation (6.330n.; likewise in Callinus fr. 1.3 West; Wissmann 1997, 29, 55; additional similar formulations in Stoevesandt 2004, 300 with n. 897). As at 24.560, etc., the present tense in the negative order is durative (Chantr. 2.230); on the metrical lengthening of the initial syllable of the stem in active forms such as μεθῑ´ ετε, further facilitated by ῞ῑ εμαι, which was felt to be the relevant middle form, Wyatt 1969, 155 with n. 27. — θούριδος ἀλκῆς: a VE formula (21× Il., 1× Od.), always after verbs of recalling, knowing, forgetting, striving or easing (likewise at 418, cf. above): 16.270n. ἀλκή means ‘fighting spirit, mettle’ (3.45n., 19.36n.); on the epithet θοῦρις ‘impetuous, eager’, 18.157n.

235–239 Zeus is the guarantor of law (3.103–104n.; Tsagarakis 1977, 19 ff.); thus both parties at war repeatedly express their expectation that he will punish the guilty: the Achaians count on divine punishment for Paris and the collectively implicated Trojans, since the prince violated the rules of hospitality

232 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). 233 τούς: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), picks up οὕς (232). — θαρσύνεσκε: iterative of θαρσύνω (R 16.5). — παριστάμενος (ϝ)επέεσσιν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἐπέεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3.



when he abducted Helen (3.103–104n., 3.351 [with n.], 13.623 ff.; Thalmann 1984, 86 with n. 21 [p. 212]); together with the Trojans, they also plead for the punishment of oath-breakers in a curse that follows the contractual agreements regarding the duel between Paris and Menelaos (3.302n.). After the betrayal of the agreement by Pandaros, it is repeatedly recalled that the Trojans, as the party breaking the oath, will now definitely be struck by divine punishment (160–168n.); on the collective responsibility for the breaking of the oath, which is underlined by the oath ceremony, 162n., 271–274n.; cf. Hes. Op. 240 f. (Louden 2006, 196). The fact that Agamemnon is here the speaker giving voice to this belief fits his self-image as a representative of the injured party, as well as his vengeful character (6.55–60n.), on the one hand, and suits the situation, on the other: like other commanders, he tries to hearten his warriors with a reminder that their victory corresponds to divine will and thereby boost their confidence (see this strategy at e.g. 2.299–330, 2.350–353, 8.175 f., 15.719 f.; schol. T on 235–239; Stoevesandt 2004, 278–281, with additional examples). Although Agamemnon’s words may contain a degree of dramatic ironyP, given the long duration of the fighting, divine caprice does not preclude justice in the long run (160–168n., 3.302n.): Troy will be destroyed, as the narrative’s audience knows (Thalmann loc. cit. 86 f.). For that reason, the present passage is to be understood with the statement’s paraenetic function in mind rather than as criticism of religious conviction (Ahrensdorf 2014, 47, 51, 55 goes too far; on this, also 160–168n.). 235 father: 23–24n.; on the notion of Zeus as a family patriarch with obligations, Nesselrath 2014, 43. ἐπὶ [ψεύδεσσι] ψευδέσσι: The meaning of the two words, and thus the accentuation of the noun, has been disputed since antiquity (on the transmission, see app. crit. in West): (1) Some read ψευδέσσι, from ψευδής, and refer ἐπί to ἀρωγός (‘Since Zeus will not be on the side of the deceptors/liars’ or ‘will not be with the deceptors/liars as a helper’), with reference to ἐπὶ Τρώεσσιν ἀρῆξαι at 1.408 (see ad loc.: ἐπί reinforces the dat.) and ἐπάρωγος at Od. 11.498: app. crit. in West; schol. A and T, schol. D; AH; LfgrE s. v. ψευδής (undecided are Kirk; Risch 80). (2) Others read ψεύδεσσι (thus West), from ψεῦδος, dependent on ἐπί as a preposition with the sense ‘on the basis of/in case that’ (‘Since Zeus the father will not be a helper based on deceptions/ lies’: schol. A and T; Wackernagel 1889, 37; Fraenkel 1910a, 202 f.; Leaf; Chantr. 2.109; Luther 1935, 89 n. 2; similarly Sommer 1977, 166 f.; a different approach with ἐπιψευδής, although the word is not attested anywhere, Maas [1938] 1973, 197 f.; followed by Leumann 1950, 136 f., LfgrE s. v. ἀρωγός; Levet 1976, 217–219). Reading (2) is usually combined with criticism of (1) and is supported specifically by the argument that almost all adjectives in -ής are compounds, with the simplexes being predomi-

235 ἔσσετ(αι): = ἔσται (R 16.6).


Iliad 4

nantly later derivations from them (Fraenkel loc. cit.; Wackernagel loc. cit.). But there are exceptions (e.g. ὑγιής, φραδής: Risch loc. cit.), and ψευδής is already attested at Hes. Th. 229 in some mss. (ψευδέας beside ψεύδεα, see West ad loc.). Aside from this, the link between the abstract ψεύδεσσι and the following ἀλλ᾿ οἵ περ (236) would be inappropriate (LfgrE loc. cit.). (1) is thus to be preferred. 236 ≈ 3.299, 4.67 (see ad loc.), 4.72, 4.271. — δηλήσαντο: 67n. 237–238 τῶν ἤτοι … | … αὖτ(ε): In what follows, τῶν is differentiated via ἤτοι and αὖτε functioning like μέν and δέ; similar differentiations at 5.724 τῶν ἤτοι … αὐτάρ, 11.24, etc. (Ruijgh [1981] 1996, 528; on the use of ἤτοι, cf. 9n., 2.813–814n., 16.399n.; on the reading αὖτε without δ(έ), see app. crit. in West and cf. 3.323n.). In this manner, αὐτῶν τέρενα χρόα is contrasted with ἀλόχους τε φίλας καὶ νήπια τέκνα following at 238 (sc. αὐτῶν); both acc. objects frame the subjects γῦπες (237) and ἡμεῖς in a chiastic position (AH).

237 Becoming a victim of scavenging birds (and dogs) as a corpse without burial is a horrifying thought for Homeric heroes (1.4n., 24.22n. with bibliography). At the same time, the motif is found time and again in speeches, as in the present passage (threats directed at the opposing party and concern for one’s own people: 2.393n., 16.836n.; but cf. 11.162 on Agamemnon’s victims), and in the paraenesis it serves merely to reinforce the actual statement: the enemy will be defeated. Cf. Polydamas’ image of the unburied Achilleus in his speech to the Trojans at 18.283 and Athene’s appeal to Hera at 8.379. τέρενα χρόα: a noun-epithet formula, always in the acc. and after caesura B 1. χρώς means ‘skin, body’, τέρην ‘delicate’ in the sense ‘vulnerable’ (14.406n.). — γῦπες ἔδονται: an inflectable VE formula (γ. ἔδονται/ἔδοιεν): 4× Od.

238–239 Taking away women (and children) as prisoners of war and enslaving them (1.31n., 6.57b–60n., 16.831–832n., 24.731–735n. with bibliography) corresponds to Homeric customs of war: this is illustrated by frequent threats directed at the enemy, and on the opposing side by the concern of those attacked for the well-being of their families, but also by the occasional use of the motif, as here, where warriors are spurred on via the prospect of live booty (likewise Nestor at 2.354 ff. [see ad loc.], 8.286 ff.; cf. Agamemnon’s offer to Achilleus at 9.121 ff.): Schein 1984, 172; Stoevesandt 2004, 290. The special function of the motif within the paraenesis explains why the killing of children, which is threatened elsewhere even though it does not bring material gain to the victor, is not mentioned (but see in the curse: 3.301n.; in one of Agamemnon’s speeches characterized by a thirst for revenge: 6.57b– 60n., with bibliography).

236 περ: stresses οἵ (R 24.10). — πρότεροι ὑπέρ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — δηλήσαντο: sc. ἡμᾶς. 237 ἤτοι αὐτῶν: on the hiatus, R 5.6; ἤτοι: R 24.4. — χρόα: = χρῶτα, acc. of χρώς.



238 from caesura A 4 ≈ 5.688, 6.366, 18.514, 24.730. — ἀλόχους τε φίλας καὶ νήπια τέκνα: an inflectable formula expanded by the epithet φίλος (5× Il.: 2.136n.), always in the context of the endangerment of the civilian population of a city under siege (24.729b– 730n.); elsewhere, with the exception of 18.514, in speeches by Trojans. ἄλοχοί τε φίλαι is an inflectable formula after caesura A 4 (8× Il., 1× Od.; of which 6× followed by a further term of kinship: 6.366n.). φίλος is here likely meant as possessive (‘their wives’; Landfester 1966, 19; on φίλος in general, 1.20n.; LfgrE s. v. φίλος 937. 31 ff.). νήπια τέκνα is a VE formula (11× Il., 3× Od.: 2.311n., where also on νήπιος ‘small, childlike, inexperienced’). 239 1st VH ≈ 8.166, 16.832, cf. 23.829; 2nd VH ≈ 2.228, Od. 9.165. — ἄξομεν: on the meaning ‘lead away by force’ after the conquest of a city, 1.139n.; similarly ἐκ δὲ γυναῖκας ἄγον καὶ νήπια τέκνα at Od. 14.264, 17.433, also Il. 8.165 f., 9.594, 20.193 f. (LfgrE s. v. ἄγω 119.53 ff.). — ἐν νήεσσιν: an expression used almost always after caesura A 3 (14× Il., 6× Od., 1× Hes.).

240 ≈ 6.330; cf. 12.268 and the 2nd VH of 4.516, 13.229. — he might see: 232n. οὕς τινας: 232n. — αὖ: in a correlative relationship with μέν at 232, approximately ‘analogously’, likewise before a second speech at 2.198, 17.420 (2.188n.; Klein 1988, 266; Bonifazi 2012, 224 f. with n. 125). — μεθιέντας … πολέμοιο: on μεθίημι, a key term in battle paraeneses, 234n. πόλεμος here, as usually, means ‘fight, battle’ (15n.). Only here and at 351 is it linked with μεθιέναι in a context outside a phase of battle (6.330: reference to the battle taking place at the same time; see ad loc.). On the basis of the present passage, 351 (πολέμοιο μεθιέμεν) and 246 (οὐδὲ μάχεσθε; likewise 17.332 at the VE), it has sometimes been concluded that the advance and battle must be imagined as taking place at the same time as the inspection (Zielinski 1899/1901, 435; Finsler [1916] 1918, 41; cf. AH on 240; Tichy 2010, 88 f.). But it becomes clear that the battle does not start until after the Epipṓlēsis (220–421n.; 252 impf. θωρήσσοντο; 252n.). The passages listed above do not refer to an actual battle situation that has not yet taken place, but anticipate in a generalizing way a type of behavior that, as is common in paraeneses, is designed to provoke objections by the addressees and spur them to action (Bedke 2016, 208 n. 260; cf. 242n. on sarcastic questions). — στυγεροῦ πολέμοιο: πόλεμος is predominantly linked with negative epithets (6.1n.), here with στυγερός ‘horrifying, loathsome’, at 1.284 in the metrical variant at VE πολέμοιο κακοῖο (6.330n.; Friedrich 2007, 20). 241 ≈ 15.210, Od. 22.26, 22.225; cf. Il. 2.277, Hes. Op. 332. — νεικείεσκε … ἐπέεσσιν: an inflectable formula used as a speech introduction; with a form of νεικείω or the metrical variant νεικέω ‘censure, abuse’ usually found at VB (3.38n., 19.86a n.). The accumulation of occurrences of νεικείω/νεικέω in scenes featuring Odysseus and Diomedes (336, 359, 368) illustrates the significance of Agamemnon’s paraeneses of rebuke in the Epipṓlēsis. — χολωτοῖσιν: an adj. derived from χόλος with the suffix -το- (Ammann 1956, 21f.; Tucker 1990, 297–303): ‘full of anger, irate’; attested only as part of

239 νήεσσιν: on the declension, R 12.1. 240 πολέμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 241 νεικείεσκε: iterative of νεικείω (R 16.5). — χολωτοῖσιν (ϝ)επέεσσιν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — χολωτοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2.


Iliad 4

the phrase χολωτοῖσιν ἐπέεσσιν with a form of νεικέω (see above), another 2× Od. in reference to direct speeches that follow (LfgrE).

242 1st VH = 14.479; 2nd VH ≈ 24.239. — Like other battle paraeneses, the speech begins with a reproach (16.421–425n.): the combination of two disparaging addresses highlights the discrepancy between earlier boasting and the current actual lack of engagement in battle (similarly belittling addresses at 5.787, 8.228 [cf. 829], 13.95; cf. 2.235 in a speech of rebuke and 14.479 in a speech of triumph [see ad locc.]; Wissmann 1997, 55; in general on criticism in paraeneses, Stoevesandt 2004, 299–304, with an extensive collection of examples in the nn. [esp. 900 and 904 on the issues of negligence and boasting]). The subsequent rhetorical question relates this kind of behavior to the value of aidṓs, the consideration of others, i.e. here of fellow combatants, and to a fear of criticism by them, resulting in an appeal to a sense of honor and to solidarity (likewise Callinus fr. 1.2 West; direct appeals at e.g. 15.561, 16.544, 16.498–500 [see ad loc.]; similarly 14.364 ff., where see ad loc. for additional examples; LfgrE s. v. σέβομαι; Mackie 1996, 136; Wissmann loc. cit. 56; on the meaning of aidṓs, 6.442n.). This type of indignant or sarcastic question, of which the question concluding the present speech is also an example (247–249), is common (also e.g. 2.174 f., 5.464 f.; 16.422n.; Bedke 2016, 209 f., 212 f.). In combination with an address, they render a defense impossible and thus have a provocative effect (Mackie loc. cit.; Wissmann loc. cit. 55 f.). ἰόμωροι: likely means ‘braggarts, loudmouths’ (14.479n.). — ἐλεγχέες: ‘those deserving reproach’, here likely in the sense ‘idlers’ (as at Hes. Th. 26). On the interpretation of the unusual form, 24.239–240n.; on the formation of the non-compound adj. in -ής, cf. 235n. on ψευδής. — οὔ νυ: introduces an impatient, reproachful question after caesura C 2 (24.33n.). — σέβεσθε: The verb σέβομαι, attested only here in early epic, and σεβάζομαι (6.167, 6.417; Risch 248), derived from σέβας, mean ‘have scruples, shy away from’ (LfgrE; it is close in meaning to αἰδέομαι, see 6.167n. with bibliography).

243–246 In early epic, the deer is always portrayed as a victim, very often in similes where it appears as in flight when hunted by predators or human beings, with the connotation ‘loser, weakling’ (at 1.225 even as a term of abuse, see ad loc.; Moulton 1977, 79; Wissmann 1997, 23; examples: 3.24n.; LfgrE s. v. ἔλαφος; Near Eastern and Sanskrit parallels in West 1997, 248; 2007, 495). Fawns in particular represent helplessness (8.247–249, 15.579, 22.189, Od. 4.335–339, 17.126–130, 19.228–231), while does, as here (244), represent weakness and timidity (Il. 11.113–119, 13.102–104, 16.757 f., Od.: see

242 Ἀργεῖοι ἰόμωροι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἰόμωροι ἐλεγχέες: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἐλεγχέες: on the uncontracted form, R 6.



above; Lonsdale 1990, 29 f.). The formula used at 243 tethēpótes ēúte nebrói (and variants, see ad loc.), ‘petrified like fawns’, is used in all attested examples in a context concerned with panic and subsequent flight and exhaustion (Tsagalis 2008, 202). The Iliad frequently uses animals to symbolize the Trojans (e.g. at 8.248 f., 11.113, 15.271–278, 15.579–583, 22.1, 22.188–193, in a battle paraenesis addressed to the Achaians at 13.102; on this, Latacz 1966, 25). Here the simile of the startled fawns in the form of an indignant question serves as an expansion and amplification of the initial, challenging question that follows a provocative address (242; similarly AH on 243): it illustrates standing about, i.e. inaction, lack of engagement and the lack of a willingness to fight (243, 245, 246, ‘stand’). The derogatory question is meant to shake up the Achaians after the violation of the truce, to release them from their paralysis and to awaken their alkḗ, their readiness for fighting (245, of the fawns; this may be an example of imagery interaction, i.e. a transposition of a term from the human sphere to the animal sphere; on this, 2.87n.; 18.320n.; Heath 2005, 46; on their fighting spirit, cf. 234): Postlethwaite on 242–245; Wissmann 1997, 56. The expansion at 244 f. with the motif of the young animals’ run and exhaustion implies the flight and particular weakness of the warriors, amplifying the insult (in brief, schol. bT on 243–245; Scott 1974, 149; cf. 247–249n.; on the realism of the image, Kirk on 243– 246). Short comparisons are often expanded via a relative clause (2.145n.), as in 243; this highlights the animals’ female gender (244 αἵ, see above), stressing their mental state in a polar expression much as at 245 f. (245/246 is parallel: ἑστᾶσ᾿, ἔστητε – οὐδ᾿ … τις … γίνεται ἀλκή / οὐδὲ μάχεσθε): Scott 1974, 142 f., 148 f.; Giannakis 1997, 191 f. 243 ≈ 246, cf. Od. 24.392, h.Ap. 456; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 21.29; from caesura C 2 on = 22.1. — For a Sanskrit parallel for such questions in a battle paraenesis, West 2007, 478. τίφθ᾿ οὕτως: τίπτε frequently signals reproach and disconcertment (16.7n.), here with οὕτω(ς), as at 8.447, Od. 23.98, etc., meaning ‘why then?’ (LfgrE s. v. τίπτε 537.55). — ἔστητε: Impatient questions sometimes use the aor. ind. in a present sense, thus also at e.g. 2.323, 20.178 f., 22.122 (Chantr. 2.184). — τεθηπότες: a part. of the perf. τέθηπα with the same root as the aor. part. ταφών and like θάμβος, θαμβέω (θηπ- is interpreted as a root with secondary lengthening or with a further extension of the ablaut: Hackstein 2002, 237; LIV 143); it means ‘rigid, as if paralysed’ (24.360n. on ταφών), here with fright, as frequently, e.g. 21.29. Verbs from this root are frequently used, as here, in combination with στῆναι in a semantically appropriate fashion (perf. also at 246, Od. 24.392; formulaic at VB στῆ δὲ ταφών at Il. 11.545, 16.806, 24.360). — ἠΰτε: an archaic comparative particle (2.87n.). — νεβροί: perhaps an echo (repetition of εβ) of σέβεσθε, which in the preceding verse is likewise found at VE: LfgrE s. v. σέβομαι.

243 τίφθ’: = τίπτε. — ἠΰτε: ‘like’ (R 22.4).


Iliad 4

244 2nd VH ≈ 23.475, 23.521; cf. 5.597. — αἵ τ᾿ ἐπεὶ οὖν: a formulaic, inflectable phrase at VB; likewise at 3.4, 15.363; variant with δ(έ) 11× Il., 12× Od., h.Ven. 161. οὖν directs attention to what follows (3.4n.). — πολέος πεδίοιο: literally ‘across much plain’, i.e. ‘across a large stretch of the plain’ (LfgrE s. v. πολύς 1413.21 ff.); on the partitive gen., 2.785n. with bibliography. 245 2nd VH ≈ 15.490, Hes. Th. 876. Cf. 21.528 f., Od. 22.305 f. οὐδέ τις ἀλκή | γίνεθ᾿/ γίνεται and the simple VE formula οὐδέ τις ἀλκή (3.45n.). — ἑστᾶσ(ιν): emphatically at VB. — μετὰ φρεσί: ‘internally’, a formula between caesurae B 2 and C 2 (with or without -ν: 11× Il., 8× Od., 6× Hes., 6× h.Hom.; cf. the prosodic variant with ἐνί at 39n.): Jahn 1987, 267; on φρένες as the seat of mental processes, 1.24n., 19.169–170n.; LfgrE s. v. φρένες 1017.10 ff. and 1018.62 ff.; Jahn loc. cit. 187; on the transference to animals, 16.157–158n. — ἀλκή: 234n.; ἀλκή in combination with φρένες also at 3.45 (see ad loc.), 16.157 f., 17.111; cf. 13.104 ἀνάλκιδες of does (Kirk on 243–246). 246 ≈ 243 (see ad loc.), cf. Od. 24.392, h.Ap. 456; 2nd VH from caesura C 2 on = Il. 17.332.

247–249 The provocative question represents an amplification of the two that preceded it in 242–245: it insinuates that the addressees are not only cowards, but also naïve due to their lack of fighting spirit (245). Because of their attitude, a Trojan offensive all the way to the ships is looming (and thus also an Achaian retreat, which perhaps finds an echo in the simile involving the fawns’ flight: Reucher 1983, 94). Concern for the ships is a leitmotif (particularly in later Books), since they facilitate the return home (1.12b n., 16.64– 82n., 19.135n.). Other paraeneses thus recall them in similar ways, e.g. 13.105–110, 15.504 f. (Kirk). Here the motif is linked to the notion that the gods only support those who help themselves, and that they are thus not simply to be relied on; 17.327 ff., 17.335 ff. are similar (schol. on 247; Stoevesandt 2004, 278 n. 826). Since the audience is cognisant of Zeus’ plan for the Achaians to suffer setbacks (and thus be pushed back to the ships) for the sake of Achilleus (1.503 ff.), Agamemnon’s words appear to be characterized by dramatic ironyP; in fact, Zeus will have the Trojans enter the encampment of ships and subject the Achaians to massive pressure until Patroklos intervenes (Books 12–16; in brief, Kelly 2007, 80). At the end of the general section of the Epipṓlēsis (250n.), the narratorP thus recalls to great effect the premise under which he has his charactersP act until the death of Patroklos (see also e.g. 14.52–63n., 14.65–81n., 14.139–146n.).

244 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἔκαμον: aor. of κάμνω, to be taken with the part. θέουσαι: ‘having run oneself ragged, having stopped running’. — πολέος: on the declension, R 12.2. 245 ἑστᾶσ(ι): = ἑστήκασι. — σφι: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — μετά (+ dat.): ‘in (the midst of)’. 246 ὥς: = οὕτως. — οὐδέ: In Homer, the connectives οὐδέ/μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).



247 ἦ: introduces an ironic question by insinuating the addressee’s motivations for his actions (likewise at 1.133, see ad loc. with bibliography), here after provocative questions, as at 15.130–134 (where after a question); cf. Achilleus’ indignant questions at 9.337–340 (Scodel 2012, 321). — μένετε: ‘wait’, with an acc.-inf. construction as at Od. 1.422, 4.786, 6.98, 18.305 (AH; LfgrE s. v. μένω 149.64 ff.); used as the antithesis of ἐλθέμεν (Létoublon 1985, 223). — σχεδὸν ἐλθέμεν, ἔνθα: σχεδόν ‘near’ in the context of fighting is frequently linked with ἐλθεῖν, in a physical, aggressive sense (‘nose to nose’), at e.g. 13.810, 17.600 (LfgrE s. v. σχεδόν 275.5 ff.); here it is probably picked up by ἔνθα (Ruijgh 479). 248 2nd VH = Od. 11.75; from caesura C 1 on ≈ Od. 2.260, 6.236, 16.358, 22.385, from caesura C 2 on ≈ 11× Od. — εὔπρυμνοι: a possessive compound attested only here in early epic, ‘with good sterns’, likely in the sense ‘with well-made sterns’; this is how the ships appear to the Trojans from the landward side, since they are oriented with their prows to the sea (cf. 15.716 and 14.31–32 [with n.]; LfgrE; Cauer 1923, 450). — πολιῆς: πολιός ‘mottled black and white, streaked with gray’ is often combined formulaically with terms for the sea (with θάλασσα, see iterata); the addition of ἐπὶ θινί here is a variant at VE of θίν᾿ ἐφ᾿ ἁλὸς πολιῆς at VB in 1.350, 13.682, 14.31. Originally the phrase ‘gray-streaked sea’ probably referred to the foam on top of agitated sea water (1.350n.; LfgrE s. v. πολιός 1344.21 ff.; Handschur 1970, 42).

249 2nd VH = Od. 14.184; ≈ Il. 5.433, ‘Hes.’ fr. 302.2 M.-W. (1967); cf. Il. 24.374. — The image of a god’s protective hand is wide-spread (24.374n., with bibliography). — Kronos’ son: Zeus (CG 24 and 26). ὄφρα ἴδητ(ε): an inflectable VB formula (195n.). — ἴδητ᾿ αἴ: ἰδεῖν in combination with εἰ in the sense ‘verify, check that’ (LfgrE s. v. ἰδεῖν 1125.28), expressing an ironic expectation also at 15.32, Od. 18.375 (Lange 1872/73, 116 f.).

250 1st VH = 2.207; 2nd VH = 231 (see ad loc.). — As at 2.207, a concluding verse after two contrasting speeches of warning (232–250n.). Within the sequence of speeches, however, the verse also announces a transition from the exemplary to the more specific, individual speeches (with the addressee changing from the entire army to individual contingents), like the change of scene as marked at 7.169, 11.82 f., 11.262 f., 20.54f (Richardson 1990, 32 f. and 213 n. 40 [collection of examples]). κοιρανέων: picks up κοιρανέοντα at 230, forming a frame that surrounds the two speeches at 234–239/242–249, in conjunction with the half-verse iterata 231/250 (Kirk).

247 μένετε Τρῶας … ἐλθέμεν: ‘are you waiting for …’ (acc.-inf. construction). — ἐλθέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 248 εἰρύατ(αι): on the ending, R 16.2; perf.: ‘lie after being pulled up’. — πολιῆς: on the -ηafter -ι-, R 2. 249 ὄφρα (ϝ)ίδητ(ε): on the prosody, R 4.3. — ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1). — κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). — ὔμμιν: = ὑμῖν (R 14.1). 250 κοιρανέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

251–271 The scene illustrates the mutual esteem in which Agamemnon and Idomeneus hold each other (Beck 2005, 155 f.): Agamemnon’s satisfaction regarding Idomeneus’ fighting spirit (255) becomes apparent in his own recollection of the particularly noble treatment Idomeneus received as a guest (259–263n.), which now creates an obligation for outstanding military achievements, like those to which the latter continually referred (264). His warm speech is to be understood as encouragement rather than rebuke, as becomes clear already in the introductory formula (255; 264n.; Kelly 2007, 270; Corlu 1966, 42; Beck 2005, 155). Idomeneus thus immediately (266– 271) responds with an affirmation of his loyalty (Latacz 1966, 139; on the parallelism, Corlu loc. cit. 42) and a reference to the additional motivation that results from the Trojan violation of the treaty (269–271n.). 251 ≈ 273; 2nd VH from caesura C 1 on = 20.113; from caesura C 2 on = 20.379. In each case, the verse provides a transition to the next group (Bannert 1988, 251) and represents elements (1) ‘the character sets out’ and (2) ‘arrives’, of the modified type-scene ‘arrival’ (Arend 1933, 30; on the scene in general, 220–421n.). ἦλθε … ἐπὶ Κρήτεσσι: ‘reached the Cretans’ (AH [transl.]); verbs of movement are frequently combined with ἐπί with a dat. of person as an indication of direction, usually when employed in a hostile sense, e.g. at 3.15, 16.751, etc. (Chantr. 2.109). — ἀνὰ οὐλαμόν: οὐλαμός, derived from the same root as εἰλέω ‘crowd together’, is formed with the suffix -αμος (as e.g. ποταμός) and means ‘crowd, scrum’; it is attested only in the present VE formula (see above). Similar to κιὼν ἀνὰ οὐλαμὸν is ἀν᾿ ὅμιλον ἐφοίτα at 5.528 (in verse middle; LfgrE), said of Agamemnon giving courage to his men, albeit already during the battle in that case.

252 On the arms, 221n., 222n.; mention of this is an indication that battle has not yet begun (Latacz 1977, 147). — Idomeneus: leader of the Cretans (2.645), he belongs to Agamemnon’s inner circle (1.145, 2.404 ff., 4.257 ff., see 259– 263n.); he was already singled out in the teichoskopia (3.230n.): CH 3; 2.645n.; Michel 1971, 69 f. δαΐφρονα: 93n.; Idomeneus is also described as δουρίκλυτος (2.645, 2.650, etc.), ἀρήϊος (11.501).

253 ≈ 17.281; 2nd VH from caesura C 2 on = 18.154; ≈ 13.330. — boar: The boar is considered a courageous and ferocious animal prone to attack (16.823– 828n.; Camerotto 2009, 141–168); the comparisonP (likewise at 17.281, al-

251 κιών: part. of a defective verb ἔκιον ‘go’. — ἀνὰ (ϝ)ουλαμόν: on the prosody, R 4.3. 252 Ἰδομενῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. — θωρήσσοντο: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 253 Ἰδομενεύς: sc. ὤτρυνε φάλαγγας from 254. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — συῒ (ϝ)είκελος: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ἀλκήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1).



though there expanded into a simile) thus mentions its alkḗ, readiness for fighting, as the point of comparison (on this in general, 234n.). Idomeneus demonstrates his readiness to fight by standing at the front (see below) and actively spurring on his men (253 f.); he thus reveals his zeal with more than words (264n., 269–271n.). He is subsequently successful in battle repeatedly despite being somewhat older than most of the other characters (5.43, 6.435 ff., 11.501, aristeia at 13.298 ff.), and is again compared to a staunch boar, this time in a simileP (13.470–477). The warrior resembling a boar thus appears in contrast to the neglectful Achaians whom Agamemnon has just charged with behaving like fawns, being devoid of defensive spirit, alkḗ (243–246n.). Bibliography on the comparison: AH; Kirk on 252–254; Camerotto loc. cit. 157. — champions: Idomeneus is standing among the warriors in the first row of the phalanx formation, who will later have to attempt to break through the enemy front, i.e. to achieve something special, and are thus among the best fighters (3.16n.; Latacz 1977, 147 f.: ‘front-line fighter’). 254 2nd VH ≈ 13.90. — Just as Agamemnon as the supreme commander urges on the army as a whole, the leaders of the individual contingents encourage their men prior to battle (287 Aias, 294 Nestor, 16.200–209, 16.269–274 Achilleus and Patroklos): Franz 2002, 91. — Meriones: son of Molos, companion of Idomeneus, under whose command he leads the Cretans (CH 4; 2.651n.); he frequently emerges victorious from fighting scenes (16.342n.). On the anchoring of Meriones in the epic narrative tradition, 2.651n. and 19.238–240n.; West 1997, 612; Latacz (2001) 2004, 261–263; (2001) 2010, 385 f.; more recent discussion in Kanavou 2015, 53 f. πυμάτας … φάλαγγας: φάλαγγες ‘battle lines, divisions’ is a technical term often used synonymously with στίχες (90n., 427n., 3.77n., 6.6n., 16.280n. with bibliography). Meriones is thus spurring on the warriors in the rear lines (πυμάτας φάλαγγας), while Idomeneus by contrast spurs on those in the front row of the overall formation (ἐνὶ προμάχοις), much as Hektor urges on now the front ranks, now the rear ranks before battle (11.64 f.): LfgrE s. v. πύματος; Latacz 1977, 54. — ὤτρυνε: a specific term for encouragement to fight (Fingerle 1939, 101, 125; Krapp 1964, 87 ff.).

255 ≈ 283, 311, 336, 8.278; 1st VH to caesura B 2 ≈ 10.190, Od. 5.486, 13.226, 22.207, 24.504. — The sight of the commanders and their contingents ready for battle (253–255) fills the supreme commander with a satisfaction that is immediately voiced in his warm speech (256); his satisfaction continues as he departs (272 gēthósynos ‘pleased’): Latacz 1966, 139. After his earlier ex-

254 ἄρα (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 255 δὲ (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3.


Iliad 4

periences with the battle weariness of his troops (2.48 ff., with n.), Idomeneus’ thirst for battle is particularly gratifying (Kelly 2007, 270). τοὺς δὲ ἰδὼν γήθησεν …: a recurrent verse structure that can be filled out in various ways: τὸν/τοὺς/τὴν δὲ/μὲν ἰδών/ἰδοῦσ(α) γήθησε/ἐλέησε/νείκεσσε/ἐνόησε/ῥίγησε/ ᾤκτιρε, followed by the subject as verse-completing (noun-epithet) formula (13× Il., 2× Od.; cf. 1.33n.); with a speech introduction formulaP in the following verse (256), as here, also at 336 f., 11.345 f., 11.814 f., 15.12 f., 16.5 f., 16.431 f., 23.534 f., Od. 24.504 f. Verses with this structure (here, at 283 snd 311 with γήθησεν, at 336 and 368 with νείκεσσεν) represent ‘a keynote of the review’ (West 2011, 144; on the type-scene, Arend 1933, 30) as element 4 of the type-scene ‘arrival’, which is repeated in the Epipṓlēsis in somewhat modified form (220–421n.). — ἰδὼν γήθησεν: a formulaic expression, not only here in the present verse structure after caesura A 2 (see above; also in reverse order after A 4), but also after caesura B 2 (1.330, 7.189), similarly at VB or after caesura A 2 at Il. 13.344 and Od. 12.88 γηθήσειεν ἰδών. — ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: 148n. 256 2nd VH = 6.343, Od. 20.165, 21.192; ≈ Od. 9.363, 11.552; cf. Il. 17.621 at VE Ἰδομενῆα προσηύδα and 6.214, 17.431 in verse middle μειλιχίοισι προσηύδα. In speech introduction formulaeP, προσηύδα/προσηύδων is combined with an acc. of the person addressed and an instrumental dat. (see iterata), likewise in the variant with κερτομίοισι at 1.539 (at VB), Od. 9.474, 20.177 (as here at VE) or with only ἐπέεσσι (Il. 5.30, Od. 11.99, 12.36, 18.244) or μύθοισι (Hes. Th. 169, h.Merc. 253). On προσηύδα in other speech introductions and on its initial sound (with πρ- not ‘making position’), 1.201n. The verse represents element 5 of the type-scene ‘arrival’ (Arend 1933, 30). — μειλιχίοισιν: sc. ἔπεσι/μύθοις (the same ellipse at 6.214, see ad loc. and the iterata above); ‘gentle, sweet’, here ‘kind, amicable’ (6.214n.; LfgrE); gives expression to Agamemnon’s pleasure and gratification at the zeal for fighting displayed by Idomeneus and Meriones (255) and contrasts with χολωτοῖσιν ἐπέεσσιν, i.e. his anger at the idlers (241): LfgrE; Latacz 1966, 139. 257 ≈ 8.161. — περί: adverbial, ‘especially, particularly’ (AH), as e.g. in the iteratum or at 46 (see ad loc.) and 18.549 (see ad loc., with bibliography, also on the accent). — μέν: highlights περί (Schw. 2.570) and introduces the first part of the speech (257– 263) that prepares for the request (ἀλλ(ά) … ) at 264 (AH). — Δαναῶν ταχυπώλων: A gen. of comparison with adverbial περί (see above), as after a comparative: ‘before the Danaäns / more than the Danaäns with quick horses’ (AH; Leaf); on the VE formula and the meaning of ταχύπωλος, 232n.

258 2nd VH ≈ 175, Od. 16.111. — What is meant is on the one hand probably preferment in the distribution of booty in appreciation of valiant fighting (schol. bT), and on the other hand something as honorable as the leadership of a delegation like the embassy to Chryse (1.144 ff.; Idomeneus is mentioned as a candidate at 1.145) or participation in a sacrificial feast (259–263n.): AH.

258–259 ἠμὲν … ἠδ(έ) … | ἠδ(έ): ‘on the one hand … on the other hand … or’ (R 24.4). 258 πτολέμῳ: on the word beginning, R 9.2. — ἀλλοίῳ ἐπί: on the hiatus, cf. M 12.2. — ἐπὶ (ϝ)έργῳ: on the prosody, R 4.3.



ἀλλοίῳ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ: ‘in some other sort of business’ (AH); for the meaning of ἔργον, cf. Hes. Op. 801 ἐπ᾿ ἔργματι (LfgrE s. v. ἔργον 675.56).

259–263 feast: daís (literally a ‘share’ of a communal meal) is a term for a festive communal meal (1.5n., 18.558n.; Bierl 2011, 125 ff., 133 ff.). Agamemnon reminds Idomeneus of his invitations to feasts, something offered only to particularly intimate confidantes and considered an honor (2.404–409n.). Like Nestor, Idomeneus here likely enjoys the supreme commander’s particular appreciation due to the leadership skills he acquired in the course of growing so old (2.21n.). The equal allocation of portions of meat and wine is the rule (1.468n.; 262 daitrón ‘portion’); the reference to the always filled cup at 261–263 (as at 8.161 f., 12.311) is probably to be understood as Agamemnon stressing his particular attendance on his guest and thus the degree to which he honors him (Kirk on 261–263). Participation in the feast is connected with an obligation to produce particular achievements, which are recalled here, as also at 341–346 (on such honors in general and on this passage, Carlier 1984, 155–157; Ulf 1990, 87; Horn 2014, 117, 124). 259–260 2nd VH of 259 = Od. 13.8; 1st VH of 260 = Il. 10.539, Od. 1.211, 11.524; 2nd VH of 260 ≈ Od. 3.390. — The adj. geroúsios marks the wine as special, namely as designated for the gérontes (literally ‘elders’), i.e. for the members of the elite, who are termed hoi áristoi ‘the best’ at 260; they are awarded this privilege by the dḗmos for their participation in the council (17.248–250, Od. 13.8 f.): Ulf 1990, 166; Gschnitzer 1991, 195; on the technical term gérontes, 2.53n.; on the term áristoi, 3.250n. ὅτε … τε … | … κέρωνται: on the (iterative) subjunc. after ὅτε, Ruijgh 496 f.; Chantr. 2.256; cf. 2.782n. — γερούσιον αἴθοπα οἶνον: αἴθοπα οἶνον is an inflectable VE formula, here and in the half-verse iteratum (see above) expanded by γερούσιον. The adj., derived from γέρων (Risch 125), means ‘befitting the gérontes’ (LfgrE), whereas exactly what αἶθοψ refers to (‘the color of embers’, ‘sparkling’?) is disputed: 24.641n. — ἐνὶ κρητῆρσι κέρωνται: a figura etymologica, with the same root here as at VE in Od. 3.390, VB in Od. 20.253 and verse middle in Od. 3.393, 7.179, 13.50, 18.423 (Fehling 1969, 159). The plural κρητῆρσι in the main tradition (see West’s app. crit.) can refer to a meal with many guests, but can also be understood more generally (in reference to various occasions; on this type of general plural, 18.491b–496n., end), which is why Aristarchus and Kirk are not to be followed in reading κρητῆρι (Leaf). κέρωνται is probably the 3rd pers. pl. pres. subjunc. of an unreduplicated athematic pres. stem *κέραμαι ‘have mixed for oneself’, similar to δύναμαι (beside the frequent thematic κεράω): Chantr. 1.457.

259 δαίθ᾿: = δαιτί, dat. sing. of δαίς, δαιτός. — περ: stresses ὅτε (R 24.10). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — αἴθοπα (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3.


Iliad 4

261 1st VH = 12.245. — Achaians: the council members mentioned at 260; on the Achaians’ long hair, 2.11n. εἴ περ γάρ τ(ε): ‘since even if’ (AH), with iterative subjunc. and generalizing τε (Chantr. 2.279); cf. 160–161n. and 1.81–82n. — κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί: an inflectable VE formula (at 268 in the acc.): 2.11n.

262 portion: 259–263n. — cup: 3–4n. δαιτρόν: A derivation in -τρο- from δαίνυμι ‘share, apportion’ (Risch 42), ‘portion’, a hapaxP (LfgrE). — δέ: ‘apodotic δέ’ with adversative sense (‘nevertheless’), placed, as is common, after the stressed pronoun, here σόν (similarly at 16.264 f. [see ad loc.]; AH). 263 2nd VH ≈ 8.189, Od. 8.70. — πιέειν: a final-consecutive inf. with ἕστηχ᾿ (Schw. 2.362 f.). — θυμὸς ἀνώγοι: on the inflectable VE formula and the formula system as a whole with its variants, as well as on θυμός as a subject, here meaning ‘desire’ (to drink), 18.89b–90n.; Pelliccia 1995, 100–103. The iterative opt. ἀνώγοι after ἕστηχ᾿, i.e. not after a form of the past tense (as in the iterata), is likely meant to encompass both past and future with a slightly hypothetical bent; see the comparable temporal clauses with a hypothetical coloring at 3.54, Od. 24.254, 24.344 (Chantr. 2.259, who translates: ‘lorsque par hasard ton cœur t’y invite’ [‘when by chance your heart invites you’]); the reading ἀνώγῃ (see app. crit. in West) is thus not to be preferred (differently AH; sceptical Leaf).

264 1st VH = 19.139. — The appeal to the addressees to now honor their own claims to achievement in battle is frequently used as encouragement, as also at e.g. 16.200 f. (see ad loc.). Agamemnon’s reference to Idomeneus’ statements after his comment on Idomeneus’ honorable status (257–263n.) is thus to be regarded as merely encouraging him, rather than an indelicacy (Corlu 1966, 42; Reynen 1983, 113; differently Kirk). —allá with an imper. marks the transition from argument to request (1.127n., 2.360n.). ὄρσε͜ο: The speaker emphatically urges haste: ‘get yourself to battle!’ (LfgrE s. v. ὄρνυμι 799.54 ff.); on the form ὄρσε͜ο (bisyllabic), its formation and the spelling, 19.139n. (with examples). — οἷος: predicative vis-à-vis the subject contained in ὄρσεο, similarly pregnant in 16.557 (see ad loc.): ‘so ⟨brave⟩ as’ (AH; Leaf). — πάρος: πάρος with a pres. tense, here εὔχεαι, is used for actions that continue on an ongoing basis from the past: ‘since forever’ (LfgrE s. v. εὔχομαι 987.6 ff.; cf. 1.553n., 18.385–386n.): ‘so (fearsome in battle) as you always say you are/as you proudly claim to be’; this probably corre-

261 περ: stresses εἰ (R 24.10). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — κομόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8 (likewise κομόωντας in 268). 262 πίνωσιν: generalizing subjunc. without a modal particle (R 21.1). — πλεῖον: = πλέον (cf. R 13). — αἰεί: = ἀεί. 263 ἕστηχ’: = ἕστηκε, with elision (R 5.1) and assimilation of aspiration. — περ: stresses ὡς (R 24.10). 264 ὄρσε͜ο: thematic aor. imper. of ὄρνυμαι ‘rise, set out’; on the uncontracted form, R 6; on the synizesis, R 7. — πόλεμόνδ(ε): ‘for battle’ (R 15.3). — εὔχεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6.



sponds to τὸ πρῶτον in Idomeneus’ response (267 with n.; LfgrE loc. cit. 988.25 ff.). That πάρος relates to εἶναι is thus less likely (‘as you claim to have been [in the past]’, with impf. εἶναι: thus AH; as a possibility in LfgrE loc. cit. 988.25 ff.); it would likewise be difficult to imagine that in his speech of encouragement, Agamemnon would reference statements by Idomeneus in which he talked about the past this way. — εὔχεαι εἶναι: an inflectable VE formula (15× Il., 18× Od., 3× h.Hom.; frequently in other positions in the verse as well; also with ἔμμεναι). On εὔχομαι ‘formally state something about oneself, claim proudly of oneself’, 1.91n. with bibliography. 265 = 13.221, 13.259, 13.274, 13.311; ≈ 5.217, 5.647, 23.482, h.Ap. 463, 525. — τὸν δ᾿ αὖτ᾿ … ἀντίον ηὔδα: A speech introduction formulaP with various subjects (noun-epithet formulae), also with τήν or αὖ, usually as a formula of response within dialogues (16.619n., 24.333n.). The adversative particle αὖτε denotes the change of character (3.58n.). — Κρητῶν ἀγός: ἀγός, usually with an objective gen., as here and in the iterata, denotes membership in the leadership corps (3.231n.).

266–267 The promise likely refers to the captains’ voluntary oath of allegiance to Agamemnon and Menelaos, in which they committed to loyalty (2.762n.); an allusion to the ‘Tyndaric oaths’ made by Helen’s former suitors, including Idomeneus (‘Hes.’ fr. 204.56 f. M.-W.), attested only in post-Homeric literature, is unlikely (Taplin 1990, 69; Karavites 1992, 25 f. with n. 21, contra Kirk on 267; on the ‘Tyndaric oaths’ in general, 2.339–341n.). 266 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ 318. — Ἀτρεΐδη: in the Iliad 23× at the beginning of a speech; an address with only the patronymic, without personal name and/or epithet, is not disrespectful (1.59n.). — μάλα: ‘in emphatic initial position’ (LfgrE s. v. μάλα 22.27 f. [transl.]), as at 318 (AH). — ἐρίηρος ἑταῖρος: an inflectable VE formula (16.363n.); ἐρίηρος means ‘reliable’ (3.47n.). ἑταῖρος frequently designates someone participating in a joint military enterprise, here in the campaign against Troy under Agamemnon’s supreme command: ‘comrade in arms’; on the voluntarism, and on the mutual obligations between Idomeneus and Agamemnon, 266–267n. and 259–263n.; on the term ἑταῖρος in general, 153–154n. with bibliography; on this passage specifically: LfgrE s. v. ἑταῖρος 747.56 ff.; Pinsent 1983, 318. 267 2nd VH ≈ 2.112, 9.19, 12.236, 13.368, 15.374, Od. 4.6, 13.133, 24.335, h.Merc. 521. — τὸ πρῶτον: in conjunction with ὡς ‘as once’, stresses the irrevocability of the promise (1.319n., cf. 1.6n.) and perhaps in its reference to the past picks up πάρος (264n.). The article likely intensifies πρῶτον (Chantr. 2.163). — ὑπέστην καὶ κατένευσα: a variant of the inflectable VE formula ὑπέσχετο καὶ κατένευσεν (1.514n.), with ὑπέστην ‘I promised’ rather than the metrically unworkable ὑπεσχόμην; on the synonym doubling, 1.160n.

268 ≈ 9.45. — The verse prepares for Agamemnon’s further action (West 2011, 144). κάρη κομόωντας Ἀχαιούς: 261n.

266 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐγών: = ἐγώ. 267 ἔσσομαι, ὡς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἔσσομαι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.


Iliad 4

269–271 The motif of the violation of the oath is picked up again (235–239n.). Like Agamemnon, Idomeneus (perhaps a witness to the shot by Pandaros?; see 220–421n. on his position at the front) is shown to be convinced of the culpability of the Trojans and their imminent destruction, and is thus ready for battle (269a). The numerous dactyls in 269 perhaps paint a picture of the eagerness; the words Τρῶες (270) and ἔσσετ(αι) (271), emphatically placed in enjambment, highlight the irrefutability of the misdeed and its consequences for the perpetrators (on the rhythm of 269–271, Kirk). 269 ὄφρα τάχιστα: only here at VB, elsewhere 2× Il., 1× Od. after caesura A 3 and 5× Il., 7× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 2× h.Hom. at VE. — σύν γ᾿ ὅρκι᾿ ἔχευαν: on ὅρκια, 67n.; σύν … ἔχευαν means ‘they poured/threw together’, i.e. ‘destroyed’; with ὅρκια as object ‘they broke the agreement’, similar phrases for treaty violations at 157, 3.299 (see ad locc.). On the root aor. ἔχευα from χέ(ϝ)ω, 3.10n. – γε stresses the sentence as a whole (AH; Leaf). 270 From caesura C 1 onward = 22.488; ≈ 5.156, 7.204, 10.92, 21.525, Od. 14.137. — αὖ: ‘again’, links the cause mentioned in the previous sentence with its effect by highlighting the identity of those designated τοῖσιν and Τρῶες: it is the perpetrators of the treaty violation who will be punished later; similarly at 415 τούτῳ μέν … 417 τούτῳ δ᾿ αὖ (LfgrE s. v. αὖ 1526.1 ff., 25 ff.). — θάνατος καὶ κήδε(α): κῆδος means ‘bereavement, sorrow’ (1.445n.); as at 5.156, 19.302, etc., the reference is to grief after killings, while the otherwise unattested linkage with θάνατος likely represents an echo of the formulaic θάνατον καὶ κῆρα(ς) (in combination with inflected ἀλύσκω/ φεύγω, 2× Il., 6× Od., 1× h.Hom.) and θάνατον καὶ κῆρα μέλαιναν (4× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’): LfgrE s. v. κῆδος 1399.5 ff. — ὀπίσσω: temporal (37n.).

271 ≈ 3.299, 4.67 (see ad loc.), 72, 236. — A statement identical to 269, although here the legal aspect gets more emphasis (próteroi ‘first’ stressed after caesura A 4; on this, 66–67n. and 67n.: AH. 272 = 326 (speech capping formula, 220–421n. on the structure); from caesura C 2 on = 18.557. — γηθόσυνος κῆρ: cf. the VE formula ἀχνύμενος κῆρ; κῆρ is a verse filling element (19.57n.). γηθόσυνος, related to γηθέω, means ‘glad’; it picks up γήθησεν (255): ‘The intense feeling of happy gratification and satisfaction as a result of γήθησε is a general reaction to the situation as found; it is intensified further via the [ … ] immediately preceding speech by the leader praised previously’ (on 266–271; Latacz 1966, 154 [transl.]).

273 ≈ 251 (see ad loc.); 1st VH ≈ 12.353; 2nd VH from caesura C 1 on = 20.113; from caesura C 2 on = 20.379. — The dual and plural forms of the name Aias

269 σὺν … ἔχευαν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. 271 πρότεροι ὑπέρ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 272 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; mid. with no discernible difference in meaning from the act. (R 23). — κῆρ: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 273 Αἰάντεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — κιών: 251n. — ἀνὰ (ϝ)ουλαμόν: on the prosody, R 4.3.



usually denote Aias the Salaminian son of Telamon and the homonymous Locrian son of Oïleus (CH 3). The former is the best Achaian warrior after Achilleus (2.557n., 6.5n.). But in the present scene, here, 280 and 285, as well as in several other passages, and certainly 7.164 und 13.197, the reference is evidently to Salaminian Aias and his half-brother Teukros (CH 4; 2.406n., with bibliography; CH 3 n. 15): only the latter two jointly command one contingent (on Aias’ and Teukros’ close, likely inherited connection in battle, Nappi 2002, 226); moreover, the Locrian division under the command of Oïleus’ son Aias consists of light-armed warriors with bow and arrows (13.713–722), which does not fit with the arming with shields and lances (282), as well as corselets (285), mentioned here: Wackernagel (1877) 1953, 542; Page 1959, 237. The use of the dual Αἴαντε (285) (including plural forms used as dual, e.g. Αἰάντεσσι, 273, 280) is inherited: the elliptical dual for an unequal pair, where the dual of the more important term or name represents the whole (here Aias for Aias and Teukros), is also found e.g. in Sanskrit (Wackernagel loc. cit. 538, 545; Schw. 2.50). The old designation Αἴαντε for Aias and Teukros is preserved in only a few passages in the Iliad, where it probably represents a very old poetic tradition (Nappi loc. cit.); whether the poet of the Iliad employed the inherited term deliberately must remain undecided (West 2011, 144; contra: Chantr. 2.29; Page loc. cit. 235; doxography and discussion of various theories concerning the connections between the pair Aias and Teukros in Kanavou 2015, 39–41).

274 2nd VH = 23.133. — The description of the sight caught by Agamemnon on his arrival at the Salaminian contingent represents element 3 of the varied type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (220–421n.; Arend 1933, 30; Richardson 1990, 52: ‘tableau’; on the typical secondary focalizationP, 275–282n. and, in general, 86–92n.). — cloud: a metaphor for an ‘(innumerable, dense, swelling and ebbing) crowd’ (LfgrE s. v. νέφος 352.12 ff. [transl.]), of foot soldiers also at 16.66, 23.133 (16.66n., with bibliography); in a similar fashion, a tightly closed formation is compared to clouds at 5.522 (Latacz 1977, 58 with n. 28). 275–282 Agamemnon’s impression of the warriors as a cloud (274) is picked up and developed further in a simileP (275–279) before the effect of the contingent on the viewer is described again (280–282). The focus is on the sight (278 phaínet’, ‘appears’) of black thunder clouds approaching, inexorably and threateningly, from across the sea (276–278; AH); on this type of wind and sea simile, 14.16–22n.; on the motif of the cloud that frequently appears

274 τώ: nom. dual (R 18.1); on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — κορυσσέσθην: 3rd pers. dual impf. mid.; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — δὲ (ν)νέφος: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura: M 8).


Iliad 4

ominous and can even be a metaphor for death, 16.66n.; an Assyrian parallel for the comparison of an army to storm clouds in West 1997, 244 f. The image of a cloud thus stresses the secondary focalizationP: it heralds a thunderstorm and so appears terrifying (the herdsman is deeply frightened: 279), as do the tightly packed, heavily armed Achaian lines to their opponents, filling Agamemnon with deep satisfaction (283; the contingent surrounding Aias is accordingly successful in battle: Ulf 1990, 146): Latacz 1977, 58. In a similar manner, 7.214 f. evokes the reaction of both sides to Aias (de Jong [1987] 2004, 272 n. 73; Stoevesandt 2004, 240 n. 713). The simile is followed by another three in Book 4, all of which illustrate the readiness for battle and aggressiveness of the armies via motifs that are picked up and varied again and again (422–432n., 452–456n., 471b n.; Moulton 1977, 42 f., 56); in the context of the Epipṓlēsis, the simile offers variation: it replaces dialogue, as in the scene between Meriones and Idomeneus (who is only briefly compared to a boar), or a more extensive description with two speeches, as in the subsequent scene involving Nestor (Scott 1974, 32; Moulton 1977, 56). 275 to caesura C 1 ≈ Od. 4.524. — Elsewhere as well, an observation point helps herdsmen in the mountains keep an eye out for imminent danger (5.770 f., 8.555 ff.): Elliger 1975, 315 f. – Goats were kept for their milk, meat and skins (in the Odyssey, Melanthios is mentioned particularly as a goatherd): Richter 1968, 60–62. Similes elsewhere also show herdsmen during their difficult work in the mountains, in inclement weather also at 3.10 ff., 4.452–456, cf. 8.555–559: 3.11n., 18.161–164n. with bibliography. The herdsman here is no mere cipher: like other observers of natural phenomena in similes, his reaction illustrates the mood (14.415–417n.; Kurz 1966, 160). εἶδεν: a so-called gnomic aor. (75n.). — νέφος: The metaphor at 274 turns into a simile (schol. A, bT on 274); on repetition of a term of comparison or its verbal stem, also e.g. 3.2 f. (κλαγγή), 7.62 f. (stem φρισσ-), 11.268 f., see 130–131n. — αἰπόλος ἀνήρ: on the occupation term as an appositive, 186–187n.

276 west wind: The Zéphyros is cold and stormy (2.147–148n.). ὑπὸ Ζεφύροιο ἰωῆς: on the obscure sense (‘effect’ or ‘blowing’?), 16.127n.

277 1st VH ≈ 2.27, 2.64, 23.452, 24.174. — As in the simile at 455 (see ad loc.), the herdsman is still at a remove from the danger (áneuthen ‘from afar’; Kirk). —

275 σκοπιῆς: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. 276 κατὰ πόντον: ‘across the sea’. — Ζεφύροιο (ϝ)ιωῆς: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Ζεφύροιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 277 τῷ: referring to αἰπόλος ἀνήρ (275). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11) (likewise in 278). — ἐόντι: = ὄντι (R 16.6). — ἠΰτε: ‘like’ (R 22.4).



pitch: obtained from the resin of tapped conifers (André 1964, 86 f.), it is used for tarring ships (1.141n.), barrels, roofs and walls; proverbially black (cf. English ‘pitch black’); mentioned elsewhere in early epic only at ‘Hes.’ fr. 270 M.-W. (LfgrE). The blackness of the cloud forecasts concentrated danger and disaster (Elliger 1975, 102), as it does at 16.66 (see ad loc.). μελάντερον ἠΰτε πίσσα: ἠΰτε is always used in the sense ‘like’ (2.87n.); the comparative μελάντερον, like other comparatives (and as also in Latin), must thus have been intended as intensive, ‘completely, properly black’ (cf. σαώτερος at 1.32, ‘still more or less in one piece’, with n., Od. 10.72 θᾶσσον ‘rather quickly’); this is also how the passage was understood by Callimachus, who imitated it at fr. 260.58 Pfeiffer (= fr. 74.17 Hollis; Rengakos 1994, 96 f.): LfgrE s. v. ἠύτε; Schw. 2.184, 671.

278 1st VH cf. 276: the repetition serves to intensify the image of the cloud’s ominous approach (Elliger 1975, 86). λαίλαπα πολλήν: at VE also at h.Hom. 7.24, σὺν λαίλαπι πολλῇ at 17.57. λαῖλαψ denotes a severe storm, foul weather (16.365n.).

279 2nd VH ≈ Od. 9.237, 9.312, 9.337. — The herdsman is starting to get frightened, and foresees immediate danger for his flock (Zink 1962, 18 n. 46). ῥίγησεν: 148n. — τε … τε: both coordinate and point to the respective direct consequences (to the cloud’s appearance, φαίνετ(αι) in 278, and to the fright, ῥίγησεν in 279; Ruijgh 779). — ἰδών: After the variation with φαίνετ(αι), the participle picks up εἶδεν in 275 (Bechert 1964, 298). 280 2nd VH = 2.660. — τοῖαι: as terrifying as the cloud in the simile (275 ff.), described in greater detail at 281 f. (AH; Latacz 1977, 58). — διοτρεφέων αἰζηῶν: αἰζηός is ‘strong, lusty, vigorous’, here as a noun: ‘warrior’ (2.660n.). διοτρεφής ‘nourished, reared by Zeus’ is a generic epithetP of heroes and gods, as well as of βασιλεῖς, and is found only here and in the iteratum with αἰζηός, perhaps in an ancient formula (LfgrE).

281 1st VH ≈ 5.117 (with ἐν); 7.119, 7.174, 17.189, 19.73, 21.422 (with ἐκ); 2nd VH ≈ 5.93, 13.145, Hes. Th. 935; from caesura C 1 onward = 332, 427, cf. 16.280. — close compacted: condensed like a cloud; the compactness of battle formations is commonly evoked (see iterata; 16.215–217n.). For discussion as to whether this is a reference to hoplite technique, 16.211n. The compactness suggests a considerable depth to the lines (Albracht [1886] 2005, 30). δήϊον: An epithet of πόλεμος, probably ‘hostile, destructive’ (19.73n.); on the etymology and the development of the meaning, 2.415n. — κίνυντο: κίνυμαι is related to

278 279 280 R 6. 281

φαίνετ(αι): on the elision, R 5.1. τε (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. τοῖαι ἅμ(α): on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — διοτρεφέων: on the uncontracted form, ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — κίνυντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.


Iliad 4

ἔκιον, ‘be in motion’ (14.173n.), like the rapidly approaching cloud (Kirk on 280– 282). — φάλαγγες: 254n. 282 2nd VH = 7.62. — κυάνεαι: ‘dark, black’ (18.564n.); the reference is likely to the appearance of the crowd from a distance, with the sunny, dusty plain in the background (Irwin 1974, 86). At the same time, the term primarily evokes menace and underlines the comparison with the black cloud (277, schol. A; Handschur loc. cit.; Irwin loc. cit. 86 f.), cf. 16.66 κυάνεον Τρώων νέφος (with n.) and the heavily armed phalanxes compared at 7.63–66 to the black sea. — σάκεσίν τε καὶ ἔγχεσι πεφρικυῖαι: πεφρικυῖαι is from φρίσσω ‘stand out, bristle with’, of battle lines with weapons held upwards, sticking up from the human bodies, as also at 7.62 (LfgrE; Albracht [1886] 2005, 30); the combination with σάκεσιν is an example of zeugma (on zeugma in general, 16.505n.). 283 ≈ 255 (see ad loc.), 311, 8.278; 1st VH to caesura B 2 ≈ 10.190, Od. 5.486, 13.226, 22.207, 24.504. — γήθησεν: a response in opposition to ῥίγησεν (279): 275–282n.; Erbse (2000) 2003, 144 n. 19. — κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: 153–154n. 284 = 337, 10.191, Od. 4.77, 10.430, h.Ap. 451; ≈ Il. 15.145; 15× Il. (including 312, 369), 15× Od., 1× h.Merc. with μιν rather than σφε͜ας. — ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα: 69n.

285–291 The speech, delivered with satisfaction at a delightful sight (275–282n., 283n.), contains unconditional praise, as in Agamemnon’s previous speech addressed to Idomeneus (288–291), rhetorically amplified via the comment that a paraenesis would be unnecessary for such reliable people, i.e. that they thus function as role models (286 f.; cf. 268; similar praise for encouraging troops at 13.229). Describing a call to battle as superfluous is normal, albeit elsewhere in narrative or in reassurances by addressees (16.562n.). Here there is no reply to Agamemnon’s words, which is not necessarily an indication of their negative effect: a speech by Aias or Teukros would have unnecessarily prolonged the scene that has already been extended with a simile (Steinrück 1992, 102; on the additional characterization via silence, 220–421n.). 285 = 12.354; to caesura C 2 = 17.508, 17.669. A four-word verse (5–6n.) with a vocative (on this in general, 16.125–126n.) and a whole verse address, which underlines the importance of the addressees (cf. 1.36n.; for lists of such verses, 16.21n.). Ἀργείων … χαλκοχιτώνων: A variant with separation of the inflectable VE formula Ἀχαιῶν χαλκοχιτώνων (199n.). 286 σφῶϊ: with κελεύω (sc. μάχεσθαι), which is elsewhere also construed with an acc. without an inf., e.g. 359, Od. 8.153 (Faesi, AH); not with ὀτρυνέμεν, which is to be set

283 τούς: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17); acc. obj. of ἰδών. — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). 284 σφε͜ας: = αὐτούς (R 14.1); on the synizesis, R 7. — ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 285 Αἴαντ(ε) … ἡγήτορε: voc. dual (R 18.1). 286 σφῶϊ: personal pronoun of the 2nd pers. dual in the acc. (R 14.1). — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἔοικ(ε): ‘it is appropriate’ (sc. for me). — ὀτρυνέμεν: on the form, R 16.4.



within a parenthetic remark (schol. A, b). — γάρ: substantiates in the first instance what follows (AH), here in a parenthesis, as at 24.223 (see ad loc.), Od. 1.301 (on this in general, Denniston 68). 287 ἀνώγετον: 2nd pers. dual; whether the thematic form belongs with a pres. ἀνώγω probably already attested in Homeric epic or to the perf. ἄνωγα is unclear (LfgrE s. v. ἄνωγα 960.62 ff.; cf. 19.102n. on ἀνώγει). — ἶφι μάχεσθαι: a VE formula (7× Il.); since it means ‘compare one’s ἴς to that of an opponent in an out and out confrontation’ (LfgrE s. v. ἴς 1224.8 ff.), it is most commonly found in paraeneses, as here (2.720n.). 288–291 288/290 f. = 2.371/373 f. The iterata characterize Agamemnon as a leader intent on the destruction of Troy (2.371/373 f. n.). The recognition already expressed before is now articulated with an invocation of the gods in the form of an unrealizable wish (Kirk). — αἴ γάρ … | τοῖος ̣ … γένοιτο· | τώ κε τάχ᾿ ἠμύσειε: an unrealizable wish clause with the subsequent conclusion as potential, similar to 16.722 f. (see ad loc.).

288 = 2.371, 7.132, 16.97, Od. 4.341, 7.311, 17.132, 18.235, 24.376; 2nd VH also ≈ Il. 8.540 = 13.827. — An invocation of the gods that serves as an affirmative exclamation and introduces a comparative wish (16.97n.; Kahane 1994, 102 f.); on the trio of gods who are of particular significance in the pantheon (CG 5, 8 and 24), 2.371n., 2.478–479n.; Beckmann 1932, 29; Tsagarakis 1977, 27. — Father: 235n. Ἀθηναίη: 64b n.; Kahane 1994, 102. 289 πᾶσιν: stressed. — θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσι: The θυμός as the seat of mental processes (fundamentals: 1.24n.) is frequently located within the chest, i.e. among the internal organs (309, 360, etc.): 43n.; cf. 152n. 290 = 2.373; 2nd VH = 4.18; ≈ 7.296, 17.160, 21.309, Od. 3.107; from caesura C 1 on = Il. 6.451. — τώ: ‘thus, in that case’ (Schw. 2.579; on the accent, West 1998, XXII). — ἠμύσειε: metaphorical ‘tilt, bow’ (2.373n.). — Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος: 18–19n. 291 = 2.374, 13.816; 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 367. — χερσὶν ὕφ᾽ ἡμετέρῃσιν: ‘under the influence of …’ (2.374n.).

292–325 The structure of this type-sceneP ‘arrival’ is largely the same as in the remaining scenes of the Epipṓlēsis (292n., 293–310n., 311n.; on these scenes within the Epipṓlēsis generally, 220–421n.). But this central scene (the third of five) is expanded via a lengthy description of the situation (293–310n.; cf. the expansion via a simile in the scene with Aias and Teukros: Bannert 1988, 127). In contrast to the two preceding scenes, only one person encoun-

287 αὐτώ: nom. dual, ‘yourselves’. — μάλα: ‘eagerly’. — ἶφι: ‘instrumental’ (-φι: R 11.4) of (ϝ)ίς (cf. Latin vis) ‘by force, might, violence’. 288 αἲ γάρ: = εἰ γάρ (cf. R 22.1), εἴθε. 289 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 290 κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — Πριάμοιο (ϝ)άνακτος: on the prosody, R 4.3. 291 ἡμετέρῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1.


Iliad 4

tered by Agamemnon, namely Nestor, is mentioned, and this character delivers two speeches that frame Agamemnon’s brief address. All these variations prepare for the longer scenes that follow with three speeches apiece (327– 363 and 364–421; Steinrück 1992, 102), while simultaneously highlighting Nestor’s status as a prudent advisor, perhaps also in contrast to Agamemnon: the latter ineptly stressed the negative aspects of old age (314 f.), something Nestor offsets with his experience. In this way, the present scene also introduces a topic significant in the two subsequent scenes involving Odysseus and Diomedes, namely the difference between the achievements of younger and older generations (Lentini 2006, 36). 292 = 364; ≈ 18.468; Od. 17.254; to caesura C 2 ≈ Il. 11.99. — The formulaic phrase suggests the beginning of movement and a change of scene (Kurz 1966, 103 f.; cf. 1.428n.) and here forms elements (1) and (2) of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’: departure (292a) and arrival (292b). βῆ δὲ μετ(ά): ‘he walked toward’; a formulaic phrase (6.21n.).

293–310 Element 3 of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’; encountering a person and a description of the situation (including mention of the bystanders: 293 f.) are here expanded via a detailed portrayal of Nestor’s actions and a speech (303– 309, Arend 1933, 30; Thornton 1970, 6 with p. 131 n. 40). This turns the calm description of the situation into a movement-filled narrative of an action, before it is concluded at 311 by recalling the focalization via Agamemnon (idṓn, ‘when he saw him’, Od. 4.1–22 is similar; Richardson 1990, 56 f.). 293 2nd VH ≈ 1.248, 2.246, 19.82, Od. 20.274. — Nestor: on the name, 1.247b n.; 14.1n.; Kanavou 2015, 63–67. — of Pylos: refers to the settlement of Pylos in Nestor’s realm; on the disputed localization and on the Mycenaean center of Pylos, 1.248n., 2.591n. ἔτετμε: ‘encountered’, a reduplicated thematic aor. (6.374n., where also on a possible link with the present tense τέμει). Arrival scenes like the present one usually use ηὗρ(ε) (89 f., 200n.); the variant ἔτετμεν/τέτμε(ν) is attested elsewhere only at Od. 5.81/Il. 6.374, Od. 5.58, h.Cer. 342 (sometimes with a negative). — λιγὺν … ἀγορητήν: The elderly Nestor is characterized as an easily audible speaker already at 1.248, there prior to his speech before the military assembly, here as his contingent’s leader, who effectively spurs on his people before battle (294 f., 303–310); on λιγύς (‘penetrating, sonorous’), 1.248n.; on the relationship between advanced age and accomplished oratory, 1.247b–252n. 294 ἑτάρους: ‘comrades in arms’ (266n.), here the Pylian contingent (LfgrE s. v. ἑταῖρος 748.44 ff.; Pinsent 1983, 316). — ὀτρύνοντα: 254n. (ἐπ-)οτρύνω, because of its mean-

293 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). 294 οὕς: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4.). — ἑτάρους: = ἑταίρους.



ing, is frequently used in the Iliad with μάχεσθαι in an inflectable VE formula: another 7× as here and at VB in 414.

295–296 The catalogue lists the names of Nestor’s five captains, around whom the men are gathered. Nestor urges them all on (294), since he alone commands the Pylian contingent in its entirety (2.601n.). It is assumed elsewhere as well that such contingents are subdivided into units led by captains, e.g. at 3.231 (Idomeneus is standing among the Kretans together with their other leaders): Janko on 16.168–197; West 2011, 144. The subdivision into five units is a recurring principle (2.494 f. Boiotian troops, 11.56–60, 12.86–104, 12.139– 140 Trojan troops; 16.171 the Myrmidons, see ad loc. with bibliography), and the structure of the Epipṓlēsis in five scenes is perhaps based on this as well (220–421n.): van Wees 1997, 675. In this instance, the enumeration as a whole likely reflects Nestor’s power and importance, lending weight to the aged, experienced leader’s instructions that follow at 297–310 and further illuminating the central arrangement of the dialogue, with Nestor in the middle of the Epipṓlēsis (on catalogues in oral epic poetry in general, 2.494–759n. p. 147; catalogueP). The function of the catalogue, namely to highlight Nestor, may also explain why his sons Thrasymedes and Antilochos are not listed even though during the attack Antilochos occupies a central place in the narrative (457n.; criticized by e.g. Scodel 2002, 113; on Thrasymedes, 14.10n.): unlike Priam, Nestor has not passed military command on to his sons. CharactersP obviously invented on an ad hoc basis are accordingly listed in their stead: with the exception of Alastor, they appear only here in early epic (although Chromios is perhaps also attested outside the Iliad); at least some of them have speaking names that are appropriate before an account of an attack (Chromios ‘thunderer’, Bias ‘assertiveness’); and all have namesakes who are as insignificant as they are (Chromios has five! 295n., 296n.): Kirk. Additional evidence for these names being used multiple times for invented extras is provided on the one hand by the association of the names Chromios and Alastor at 5.677, as here, and the combination with similar names such as Haimon at 8.275 f., 17.467/17.494, and on the other hand by the striking frequency of the names in Books 5 and 8 (Schoeck 1961, 127; Kirk). For a comparable list of names invented ad hoc, 16.173–195n.; in general, 16.345n. 295 2nd VH = 5.677. — For the verse structure with ἀμφί and three names, cf. 3.146, 9.83, 16.415, 16.696, 18.39, h.Merc. 57 (LfgrE s. v. Πελάγων). — ἀμφί …: complements οὓς ἑτάρους (Faesi): Nestor’s comrades in arms, who are standing near their respective leaders. — μέγαν Πελάγοντα: The Pylian has the same name as a Lykian (5.695) and probably as the father of Asteropaios (21.141 gen. Πηλεγόνος, perhaps a metrical vari-

295 Πελάγοντα Ἀλάστορα: on the hiatus, R 5.6.


Iliad 4

ant of the present name). Asteropaios is the leader of the Paionians, who were probably originally Illyrians (21.155; on the Paionians, 2.848n.) and in whose vicinity in northern Greece the Pelagonians must have dwelt; the name is of non-Greek origin and is likely an ethnic in origin, perhaps similar to Mycenaean pe-ra-ko-no and as in a post-Homeric historical attestation. Like ἴφθιμος at 5.695, the emphatic epithet μέγαν might be linked to a notion of the Pelagonians as giants (Wathelet 76, 1482). On the name, LfgrE; von Kamptz 330; DMic. s. v. pe-ra-ko-no. — Ἀλάστορα: The Pylian is mentioned elsewhere at 8.333 (as a companion of Telamonian Aias) and at 13.422; one Trojan namesake and one Lykian are attested at 20.463 and 5.677. The etymology of the name, formed as a nomen agentis ending in -τωρ, is uncertain (LfgrE; von Kamptz 79; Frisk s. v. ἄλαστος). — Χρομίον: The name means ‘thunderer, bellower’ and is derived from the I-E root *ghrem- ‘thunder, boom, rage’ formed with the suffix -ιο- (χρεμετίζω ‘neigh’, at 12.51; Old High German ‘gram’): LfgrE; von Kamptz 114; LIV 204. The Pylian captain mentioned here appears to be relatively young and can thus hardly be identical with a brother of Nestor mentioned at Od. 11.286 and ‘Hes.’ fr. 33a.12 M.-W. (LfgrE; BNP s. v. Chromius; differently but without argumentation, von Kamptz 254). The same name also occurs on the Trojan side: a son of Priam (Il. 5.159 f.), a Lykian (5.677), another Trojan (8.275) and a Mysian (17.218, 17.494, 17.534, called Χρόμις at 2.858). 296 Αἵμονα: The same name, a short form of composites such as Ἀνδρ-αίμων, Πολυαίμων, is borne by another two Achaians, a Theban (394n.) and the grandfather of one of the Myrmidons (17.467): LfgrE. On short forms of Homeric names generally, G 56; Risch 229 f.; Neumann 1991, 315, 317. — κρείοντα: 153–154n. — Βίαντα: Βίας is probably a short form of a compound, i.e. of a name like Βι-ήνωρ (G 56; von Kamptz 167 f. with n. 92; cf. 1.320n. on Ταλθύβιος). The captain, mentioned only here, has multiple namesakes, an Athenian (13.691) and a Trojan (20.460), as well as the brother of the Pylian hero Melampus and Nestor’s brother-in-law (‘Hes.’ fr. 37.5 ff. M.-W., mentioned without a name at Od. 15.237), with whom he is unlikely to be identical because of his age (LfgrE). — ποιμένα λαῶν: on this phrase as a title with I-E and Near Eastern parallels, 1.263n.; Haubold 2000, 17–20; West 2007, 421 (I-E parallels).

297–310 Nestor, fittingly for his age and consequent experience (310), repeatedly delivers strategic advice (2.362–368n.). His instructions in the context of the paraenesis are a combination of shrewd tactics (297–300n.) and brief explanations that allude to the dangers of disregarding his orders, but also offer the prospect of fame by calling to mind the battles fought by their ancestors (cf. the function of epic poems: Crielaard 2002, 278): in brief, schol. bT on 308(c). Nestor’s advice is important: it is key to a sense of cohesion and suggests deep insight (301–307n.); his age is treated as a positive (310, 320–325, with n.). This scene thus stands in for an aristeia of Nestor, which would not have been feasible due of his advanced age. Nestor’s expertise, underlined by reference to his extensive military experience (310), explains Agamemnon’s deep satisfaction (311–316): Latacz 1966, 143; Ulf 1990, 146.



297–309 Both Nestor’s arrangement of his contingent (297–300) and his instructions (301–309) are noteworthy: there is no real parallel in Homeric epic for the notion of a closed formation of fighters in chariots (297 hippḗas), including in the description of the subsequent battle (422 ff.). Nestor lining up the chariots in front of the foot soldiers (298 pezóus) does not match in any way the foot soldiers fighting in phalanx-like formation described in countless passages, and specifically does not fit with the first phase of the battle during which the fighters at the front, pró-machoi, leap out from the front line in an attempt to break through the enemy lines with their spears (cf. also 422– 544n.; on the historicity of such battles, which is supported by the elegies of Callinus and Tyrtaeus, Latacz 1977, 224 ff.): chariots and foot soldiers would have got in one another’s way in the narrow metaíchmion, the space between the front lines. Whenever chariots are described elsewhere as in use during battle, they are almost exclusively employed in their standard fashion during retreats and pursuits (uses as common as carrying fighting men to the place of battle: 226–230n.). The present passage is thus generally not understood as a realistic reflection of contemporary military tactics in the area where the Homeric epic circulated (different attempts at explanation, already in Aristotle [Hintenlang 1961, 80] and recently by van Wees 1994, 12 f., are based on an analysis of the meaning of isolated terms and phrases that goes too far). The immediate audience of the poet of the Iliad must thus already have understood these instructions as the tactics of earlier generations, even more so since he places them in the mouth of the aged Nestor and thereby underpins them with memories (308 f.; Nestor’s battle narration at 11.737 ff. should probably also be evaluated this way); consistent with this notion are Nestor’s title hippóta, ‘chariot-fighter’ (likewise at 317), and his particular knowledge of charioteering (2.336, with n., 23.305–348; Luce 1975, 116 with p. 188 n. 41; Wiesner 1968, 26; Whallon 1969, 22 f.; on Nestor’s age, repeatedly stressed, see 292–325n., 313–316n.). There is no clear evidence for the military use of chariots in the Geometric period; if they were used at all, they were probably only employed as transport (apobates technique, see 226–230n.; Wiesner loc. cit. 91 f.; Crouwel 1992, 105 f.; on the iconography, albeit in a specific motif, Vonhoff 2008, 250). Scholars have accordingly thought this passage might be a distant reminiscence of the chariot battles common in the Bronze Age, which are not only attested for Near Eastern cultures (Hittites, Egyptians), but also appear to have played a role in the Mycenaean world, as can be inferred from Linear B tablets found at Knossos and Pylos, as well as from other archaeological finds. Moreover, fighting with lances from chariots (306 f., with n.) corresponds to Bronze Age battle techniques rather than to contemporary Assyrian methods of archers attacking on chariots, although familiarity with


Iliad 4

the latter could have complemented and influenced the increasingly distant memory of Bronze Age chariot battles in oral poetry. What is more, from the Bronze Age to the time of the poet of the Iliad and his audience, chariots had been a status symbol of the elite; in a corresponding manner, individual warriors in chariots are usually celebrated in epic as heroes of times past, as in the present passage (albeit only here as a formation with a leader), and are somehow special: here before the start of the first battle, elsewhere in aristeiai, sometimes also in association with gods in scenes featuring unrealistic elements (e.g. 5.275–291, 5.835 f., 11.529 f., 16.810–811 [with n.], 20.326 f.; Raaflaub 2011, 18–25). Key bibliography: Lorimer 1950, 325 f.; Wiesner loc. cit. 26–29, 58–97, 135 f.; Latacz loc. cit. 215–223, with bibliography; Crouwel 1981, 143–145, 150 f.; 1992, 105–107; LfgrE s. v. ὄχεα 896.65 ff.; Hellmann 2000, 141– 149; Vonhoff loc. cit. 187–189, 242 f., 249 f.; Steinmann 2012, 76 f.; see also 2.384n., 16.20n., 24.14n. On the arrangement of the contingent, on tactics, and on Nestor’s reminiscences of the ancestors in detail, 297–300n., 301–307n., 308n. 297–300 The placement of chariots at the fore of the frontline is very unusual in terms of both formations (297–309n.) and the use of individual teams: evidence listed by Leimbach (1980, 424) for a ‘continual presence and availability of the chariots particularly at the forefront of battle’ (transl.) merely supports the deployment of chariots during phases of retreat and pursuit, as well as the ‘apobates technique’. There is no description anywhere of warriors on chariots breaking through frontlines in an attack like that of the prómachoi of the infantry. In Nestor’s line-up, they are covered from behind by experienced foot soldiers (whose characterization at 299 as a ‘bulwark’ is to be understood as more general: Kirk on 299). The kakoí, i.e. the inferior footsoldiers with little motivation to fight (cf. the designations at 224, 234, 240), are placed between the lines of the braver men, which probably also indicates that the formation of infantry troops is at least three rows deep (Albracht [1886] 2005, 30 f.). In this way, the cautious too must move forward (cf. Poseidon’s instructions at 14.370–377, with n.), although they have less immediate contact with the enemy than the warriors in the fore; at the same time, the weaker warriors are kept from fleeing backwards. This old and repeatedly recommended tactic (Xen. Mem. 3.1.8, Arr. Tact. 12.11) stabilizes the middle while preventing the back lines from dissolving (Schwartz 2009, 172). Everyone is supposed to act jointly during battle, as is stressed repeatedly in the Epipṓlēsis (e.g. 253 f., 286–289, 340–342, 372 f.) and is also advised by Nestor elsewhere (2.362–368 [see ad loc.] is based on the same principle; Erbse [1993] 2003, 81; Ulf 1990, 147; cf. 17.381–383: on Nestor’s orders, two captains keep an eye out against flight by their comrades: Pagani 2008, 417).



297 1st VH ≈ 301, 23.262; 2nd VH = 5.219, 9.384, 12.119, 18.237, ≈ 5.107, 5.794. — ἱππῆας: ‘charioteers’ (2.336n., 16.20n.), in contrast to foot soldiers (πεζούς 298). — ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν: formulaic at both VE (see above) and VB (12.114, Od. 4.533), probably originally in reference to only one chariot, as at Il. 5.107 (Hoekstra 1965, 93). τὰ ὄχεα, always in the pl., means ‘chariot’, like ἅρματα (226): 18.224n. 298 πολέας τε καὶ ἐσθλούς: an inflectable phrase (6.452n.); on the form πολέας, 230n. ἐσθλός means ‘excellent’ (19.122n.), in the Iliad largely in battle, as here; frequent in Homeric epic in reference to members of the elite, although not exclusively so; in the present passage and in the same phrase at 13.709, it also includes individuals of lower status (here foot soldiers): LfgrE s. v. ἐσθλός 735.49 f.; Calhoun 1934, 302; SteinHölkeskamp 1989, 55. 299 1st VH ≈ 5.316. — ἕρκος: The basic meaning is ‘(protective) enclosure’, metaphorically ‘bulwark’ (1.283b–284n.), of defensive arms (137n.) and of warriors, usually of Aias (6.5n.), here of competent foot soldiers, highlighting the influence of the mass of troops, and not just individual heroes, on the course of battle (Hellmann 2000, 152; on massed battle generally, Latacz 1977, 94 f. and passim). — ἔμεν: a secondary form from the Aeolic inf. ἔμμεν, used as a less common metrical variant (G 61; Chantr. 1.486 with a collection of examples). — ἐς μέσσον: sc. only τῶν πεζῶν (297–300n.); the reference is not to the middle ground between the chariots and the infantry, since in that case precisely the weakest warriors would make up the front line of the infantry (Albracht [1886] 2005, 31). 300 οὐκ ἐθέλων: perceived as a single term and thus not negated with μή (Chantr. 2.334); as at 224 (see ad loc.), in reference to a lack of exertion in battle.

301–307 The instructions not to leave the closed formation of the fleet of chariots and to advance evenly (301–305) are probably also the principle behind the tactics of Egyptian and Hittite charioteers in the battle of Qadeš in 1274 B.C. as it is depicted in reliefs (Wiesner 1968, 84, 96; cf. 9.384: LfgrE s. v. ὄχεα 897.18 ff.); at the same time, it is important mutatis mutandis in battle paraeneses addressed to foot soldiers in the Iliad (e.g. 17.356 ff.), as well as e.g. in Tyrtaeus (cf. frr. 10.15 and 11.11 West): ‘A brave warrior unthinkingly rushing ahead endangers the group no less than the flight of a coward’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 102 n. 348 [transl.], with reference to Latacz 1977, 236; there also on Tyrtaeus). The fact that excessive individualism is condemned precisely at the center of the Epipṓlēsis, prior to the start of battle in the Iliad, thus likely points toward the violations of this principle that occur later in the narrative and lead to the deaths of overly bold individual war-

297 ἱππῆας: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. — πρῶτα: adv., ‘first’. — ἵπποισιν: on the declension, R 11.2. — ὄχεσφιν: dat. pl. (R 11.4). 298 ἐξόπιθε: epic by-form of ἐξόπισθεν, ‘behind, in the back’. — πολέας: 230n. 299 ἔμεν: = εἶναι (R 16.4). — μέσσον ἔλασσεν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 300 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — καί: ‘also, and even’, like καίπερ. — ἀναγκαίῃ: ‘by necessity’.


Iliad 4

riors, first and foremost in Patroklos’ much too dangerous advances (cf. 16.218–220 and Achilles’ admonitions at 16.83 ff.; seedP). Whether the reference also concerns an episode in the Aethiopis (Od. 4.187; Aethiopis, Procl. Chrest. § 2 West; Pindar Pyth. 6.28 ff.; briefly considered by Fenik 1968, 177), where Nestor, alone in his chariot, must ask his son Antilochos for support in battle, is quite uncertain, given that the story is alluded to in detail only in Pindar. – The cohesion of the formation is important, since 306 f. appears to refer to an ‘attack in a squadron by lance-carrying chariot-fighters’ ‘who […] are supposed to shatter the corresponding lines of the enemy and break into the ranks in the rear with a shock effect’ (Wiesner 1968, 26 [transl.]). An attack of this type is probably also referred to at Il. 11.735–749 (Nestor’s reminiscences), but elsewhere in epic chariots are rarely used as mobile platforms for warriors casting lances in individual combat (e.g. 5.12–15, 5.275–294, 17.605–609; 15.384 ff. is a special case: battle at the encampment of ships: Hellmann 2000, 143). It is noteworthy that epic contains no indications that warriors could access more than one lance in their chariots (e.g. from a carrying-case attached to the chariot), which agrees with archaeological findings from the Aegean of the Mycenaean and Geometric periods (no corresponding depictions; Mycenaean tablets list swords but no supplies of long-range weapons). This might indicate that an attack from a chariot was only feasible for a brief charge and, at most, pursuit; after that, warriors had to descend and use their swords in close combat (Wiesner loc. cit. 28, 96; at least this limited deployment of chariots is suggested by a depiction on a Mycenaean seal: a warrior on a chariot wields a lance, illustration in Crouwel 1981, pl. 11). Warriors were initially able to confuse their opponents with shots aimed from the chariot; only the use of missiles is to be supposed here, due to technical problems when a thrusting technique is employed (e.g. maintaining one’s balance on a moving chariot; Littauer/ Crouwel 1983), on the one hand, and because the passages listed above repeatedly indicate throws (e.g. 5.12–15), but never thrusts (cf. the collection of examples in Greenhalgh 1973, 8 f.), on the other. The present passage also need not refer to thrusting (the preparation to throw a lance at 306 is not unequivocal, nor is the proximity of the two lines of chariots; differently Kirk on 301–309). For all these reasons, a historical background and a certain dose of realism cannot be precluded here (297–309n.), and it is not absolutely necessary to assume a later transposition of these verses from a different passage where the instructions referred to foot soldiers (allusions in this direction by Leaf on 303, with reference to similar instructions at 17.356 ff.) or to interpret them as merely a backward projection by the poet of the Iliad to a glorious past featuring warriors on chariots that forms a



contrast to contemporary ‘infantry-focussed’ reality (considered by Plath 1994, 419). 301–302 ἐπετέλλετο (‘gave directions to’) at 301a introduces the speech beginning at 303; inserted in between, in the manner of a parenthesis, is a preparatory summary of what follows at 303 f. in indirect speech, dependent on ἀνώγει (301b–302). Cf. the comparable sequence without the usual speech introduction formulaP, evidently considered superfluous, at 20.365, and the switch from indirect to direct speech at 18.167 (see ad loc., with bibliography): LfgrE s. v. τέλλω 384.61 ff.; schol. bT on 303; Edwards 1970, 22. 301 1st VH = 23.262; ≈ 297. — ἱππεῦσιν μὲν πρῶτ(α): In contrast to the very similar verse beginning at 297, μὲν πρῶτ(α) is not followed by antithetical δέ with a description of Nestor spurring on the foot soldiers: rather, he is first adressed by Agamemnon (312 ff.): Kirk; West 2011, 145. — ἀνώγει: a more recent plpf. formation in -ει from the present perf. ἄνωγα (287n.) with the older preterite in the 3rd pers. sing. ἄνωγεν (1.313n., 6.170n.); in contrast to the more general ἐπετέλλετο in the same verse, it introduces specific instructions (302): LfgrE s. v. ἄνωγα 962.72 ff. and 967.11 ff. 302 ἐχέμεν: As illustrated by the explanation in 304 f., here this means ‘hold back’, i.e. ‘prevent from pressing forward across the battle lines and keep in order’ (LfgrE s. v. ἔχω 840.1 ff.; AH). — κλονέεσθαι ὁμίλῳ: κλονέομαι means ‘be massed together, entangled’ (18.7n.), here with chariots among enemy troops (ὁμίλῳ ‘in the crowd’), i.e. ‘get tangled up in the crowd’ (LfgrE s. v. κλονέω). 303 μηδέ: connects the subsequent specific instructions in direct speech with the more general ones in indirect speech at 302 (AH; on the sequence, 301–302n.). — ἱπποσύνῃ: ‘driving skills’ (Schadewaldt), i.e. of the charioteer ‘skill in steering a team and chariot’ (16.776n.), of the chariot’s owner ‘skill in providing instructions to the charioteer regarding direction, tactics etc. in battle’, here and at 11.503 (where of Hektor): LfgrE. — ἠνορέηφι: ἠνορέη is an abstract derived from ἀνήρ with the suffix -ίη (with Aeolic -ρε- rather than -ρι-) and means ‘manliness’ (cf. Latin vir-tus), frequently in the sense ‘courage’ (LfgrE; Risch 133). — πεποιθώς: frequently employed at VE in combination with abstracts (6.505n.; cf. 17.329 πεποιθότας ἠνορέῃ τε at VE).

304 2nd VH ≈ 5.135. — The localization refers to the position in front of the battle lines, before other warriors from the same contingent (van Wees 1997, 676). μεμάτω: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of μέμονα (‘strive, be driven to’); μέμονα is often combined with an inf. meaning ‘fight’ (cf. 6.120n.) or ‘kill’ and in military contexts designates a ‘vigorous, aggressive urge’ (LfgrE s. v. 122.61 ff. [transl.]). — Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι: an inflectable VE formula of character speechP (16.209n.).

301 πρῶτ(α): 297n. — τοὺς μέν: parallel with μέν πρῶτ(α). — ἀνώγει: plpf. of the pres. perf. ἄνωγα ‘bid, order’ (with acc.-inf. construction). 302 σφούς: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4). — ἐχέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — μηδέ: 246n. 303 μηδέ: negates μεμάτω (304). — ἠνορέηφι: dat. sing. (R 11.4). 304 πρόσθ(ε): = πρόσθεν.


Iliad 4

305 give ground: i.e. retreat behind the battle lines (AH). — weaker: sc. than if you follow my advice, i.e. both elements of the instructions (303–305; AH). The same verse structure as at 307: instructions in the 3rd pers. sing. are followed, after caesura B 1, by a very general reason for them (Kirk). — ἀλαπαδνότεροι: ἀλαπαδνός is an adjective in -νο- related to ἀλαπάζω (*ἀλαπάδ-ι ω) ‘empty, rob, destroy’ (33, 40 etc.); it means ‘emptied, weak’ (LfgrE; Risch 97 f.; Schw. 1.489). 306 ὃς δέ κ᾿ ἀνήρ: = 14.376, 19.167. — ἀπὸ ὧν ὀχέων: stressed: ‘from his chariot’, namely between others in the battle line, not in front of it (303 f.): Faesi; Leaf. — ἅρμαθ᾿: on the designation of a single enemy chariot with the pl. ἅρμαθ᾿, 226n.

307 2nd VH ≈ 56 (see ad loc.). — this: emphasizes the advantages in contrast to fighting from a chariot in front of the battle line (303 f.): AH. ἔγχει ὀρεξάσθω: ὀρέγω in the middle frequently means ‘stretch’, here as at 5.851 f. with the lance (ἔγχει instr.): ‘pull (sc. the arm) back (to throw)’; similarly at 13.190 (δουρί): LfgrE s. v. ὀρέγω 762.59 ff., 763.24 ff. — ἐπεὶ ἦ: ‘since indeed’ (AH); on ἦ, 55– 56n. — φέρτερον: On the meaning of φέρτερος, 55–56n.; in impersonal expressions, as here, it designates the more advantageous alternative (also at 1.169, Od. 12.109, 21.154).

308 It was impossible to conquer a fortified city via an attack with a fleet of chariots in either the Aegean or the Near East (Yadin 1963, 69; Crouwel 1992, 107 n. 562). The destruction of cities must thus refer more generally to a victory in a war like that against Troy (Kirk on 301–309), with the reference to the past perhaps contributing to elevating the action to the superhuman level (cf. 297–309n., end). — So: ‘referring back to the preceding, explicated by 309’ (AH [transl.]). οἱ πρότεροι: Men of earlier times and generations; with a positive connotation, as at 5.637, Od. 8.223, 11.630, as well as Hes. Th. 100, Op. 160, where πρότερος refers to heroes such as Herakles and Theseus (LfgrE s. v. πρότερος 1574.34 ff.). — πόλιας καὶ τείχε(α): almost a single conceptual unit: walls are necessarily part of the notion of a city (Scully 1990, 48). This rather contradicts the hypothesis that πόλις originally meant ‘stronghold, fortress’ (on which in general, LfgrE s. v. πόλις 1345.33 ff. [contra]; West 2007, 452 f. [pro]). — πόλιας: acc. pl. of the i-stem πόλις, with an ending of the consonantal inflection; serves as a metrical variant beside πόλῑς and πόλεας (bisyllabic or trisyllabic; here less well attested, see app. crit. in West) and is also attested at Od. 8.560, 8.574 and h.Cer. 93: G 74; Chantr. 1.218. — ἐπόρθε͜ον: πορθέω is an intensive of πέρθω ‘destroy’ (in a compound at 2.691, outside the Iliad another 2× Od., 1× h.Hom.): LfgrE; Risch 309. On the reading ἐπόρθε͜ον with synizesis and without contraction, G 43 and 45; app. crit. in West; Kirk on 308–309; Sommer 1958, 159 f.

305 ἀναχωρείτω· ἀλαπαδνότεροι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 306 κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). — ἀπὸ (ϝ)ῶν: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ὧν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4). — ἵκηται: with acc. obj., ‘approaches, meets’. 307 ὀρεξάσθω, ἐπεί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἦ: ‘really, actually’ (R 24.4). 308 τείχε᾿ ἐπόρθε͜ον: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the synizesis, R 7.



309 νόον καὶ θυμόν: The reference is to Nestor’s strategic instructions (Jahn 1987, 74), his tactics, which earlier generations recognized as correct and therefore followed (Marg 1938, 46); in the present phrase, attested only here, νόος refers more to the rational, intellectual aspect, θυμός probably to the will, the intention that leads to practical action (courage, activity): ‘calculation and fighting spirit’ (LfgrE s. v. νόος 427.32 ff.; Jahn loc. cit. 74 f.; Gaskin 1990, 6). — ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν: on the localization of the θυμός, 289n.; the νόος is also located within the chest elsewhere, e.g. 3.63, 9.554, 13.732, 3× Od., Hes. Th. 122 (cf. 24.41, with n.): Clarke 1999, 65.

310 1st VH ≈ 73 (see ad loc.). — A speech capping formulaP that clarifies how the battle paraenesis is meant to be understood (‘illocution’: 5–6n., 2.224n.) by highlighting the speaker’s experience; elsewhere, these recommendations are usually found in the speech introduction formula, e.g. 1.73 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 199, 202). On the notion that war craft can be learned, 16.811n. Nestor acquired knowledge early on (pálai ‘long since’, cf. 11.719), but his age reinforces his experience (gérōn ‘old man’ perhaps stressed: de Jong loc. cit. 285 n. 6). In general, lived experience is valued highly, and age and wisdom are often linked: 322–323n., 1.259n., 3.108–110n.; see also 13.355, 21.440, (Roisman 2005, 113, 117 n. 24). πολέμων … εἰδώς: on the partitive gen. with εἰδώς ‘knowledgeable about’, 196–197n.

311 ≈ 255, 283 (see ad locc.), 8.278; 1st VH to caesura B 2 ≈ 10.190, Od. 5.486, 13.226, 22.207, 24.504. — Element (4) of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ is varied, as at 255 (see ad loc.) and 283: it is not the approach of the characterP that is mentioned, but his reaction. The verse thus calls to mind that Agamemnon is watching and listening (293–310n.), while at the same time preparing for his speech (element (5): 312–316), in which the commander voices satisfaction with Nestor’s prudence and assures him, as elsewhere (297–310n., 2.404– 409n.), of his particular esteem. 312 ≈ 284 (see ad loc.).

313–316 The two unattainable wishes serve to express praise, similar (and partially in the same words) to that offered to the Aiantes at 288 f. (Kirk on 313– 316). Agamemnon thus pays respect to the aged leader Nestor by juxtaposing a wish and reality, as at 2.371–376 (315a allá ‘but…’), and concludes with another unattainable wish (315b–316; Lohmann 1970, 59 with n. 102). Agamemnon’s nostalgic look back at the past corresponds to that of Nestor (318 f., 7.132 f./157, 11.670, 23.629), although the latter does not use his look

309 310 311 312

νόον: = νοῦν. εὖ (ϝ)ειδώς: on the prosody, R 4.4. τόν: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17); acc. obj. of ἰδών. μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).


Iliad 4

back as a conclusion (322–325n.). For discussion of waning abilities in battle and decreasing physical strength, 24.368–369n., 24.486–489n.; on a wish for greater bodily strength, cf. 16.722–723n. and Bierl 2016a, 316–319. 313–314 313 ≈ 360; cf. 289 (with n.). 2nd VH of 314 ≈ 7.157, 11.670, 23.629, Od. 14.468, 14.503. — knees: The mobility of these facilitates fighting; they are thus considered the center of power (19.166n.). ὦ γέρον: a deferential address (1.26n.) — εἴθ(ε) … | … ἕποιτο: In Homer, the cupitive opt. can also be used with unattainable wishes (16.722–723n.), e.g. in a similar wish voiced by Nestor at 11.670. By contrast, the unattainable wish that follows at 315 f. is expressed with ὡς ὄφελεν + inf. (see ad loc.). — θυμός: stresses the ‘mental aspect’: perhaps ‘experience in battle and tactical skills’ (Jahn 1987, 227 [transl.]), which would fit with the prudence with which Nestor proceeds (293–310), although the reference can also be merely to one’s underlying will or energy, as in the similar 289, for which physical powers are no match (314; Böhme 1929, 35; Clarke 1999, 57 n. 5; the same juxtaposition at 19.164–166, see ad loc.). — φίλοισιν: serves as a possessive pronoun (3.31n.). — ἕποιτο: ‘follow, befit’, here in the sense ‘obey’, so that someone can avail himself of something; Od. 20.237 δύναμις καὶ χεῖρες ἕπονται and Il. 4.415 (see ad loc.) are similar: LfgrE s. v. γόνυ 175.63; s. v. ἕπομαι 656.60 ff. — βίη: ‘physical strength’ (3.45n.), here in contrast to θυμός (313); that Nestor has it is denied also at 8.103 (by Diomedes; Vernant [1982] 2001, 324 f. n. 20). — ἔμπεδος: ‘firm, reliable’; here, as commonly elsewhere, of healthy, youthful strength, ‘(still) present (and undiminished)’ (see the half-verse iteratum): LfgrE s. v. ἔμπεδος. 315 τείρει: ‘wears down, plagues’, of age as the cause also at 24.489 (see ad loc.); age is similarly an agent to which a person is exposed in Nestor’s reply at 321 ἱκάνει, as well as at 1.29, 8.103, 18.515, 23.623 (Vivante 1970, 188; Kelly 2007, 149). — ὁμοίιον: ‘jointly, communally’ in the sense ‘involving all, sparing none’ (18.242n.). Old age as a life stage is frequently judged even more negatively and characterized as στυγερός (19.336, h.Ven. 233), χαλεπός (8.103, 23.623, Od. 11.196), ὀλο(ι)ός (Hes. Th. 604, h.Ven. 224), λυγρός (Il. 10.79; Od. 24.250) vel sim., in most detail (including also ὁμοίιος) at h.Ven. 244–246 (LfgrE s. v. γῆρας; Falkner [1989] 1995, 9). — ὡς ὄφελεν: ὡς underlines the regret (3.173a n.); on ὄφελον expressing unrealizable wishes, 1.353n. 316 1st VH ≈ Od. 11.176. — ἔχειν: sc. γῆρας as the object, as at Od. 24.249 f. γῆρας | λυτρὸν ἔχεις (AH). — κουροτέροισι: ‘younger’, substantival and putting more emphasis on the difference in age than κοῦρος would (Chantr. 1.257); with the suffix -τερος, which from time immemorial has indicated a contrast (cf. Latin dex-ter, sinis-ter, al-ter etc.), while the other part of the pair of opposites often remains in the positive, e.g. παῖδας and γέροντας beside θηλύτεραι δὲ γυναῖκες at 8.518 ff. (G 79; Risch 92 with n. 79). 317 = 8.151, 9.162, 10.102, 10.128, 10.143, 11.655, 14.52, Od. 3.102, 3.210, 3.253. — τὸν δ᾿ ἠμείβετ᾿ ἔπειτα: a speech introduction formulaP for a reply speech (14.52n.). — Γερήνιος ἱππότα Νέστωρ: a VE formula (in total 21× Il., 10× Od., 1× Hes.). On the origin and meaning of Γερήνιος (probably an adj. related to Gerenia or Gerenos, the

313 ὡς: ‘to the extent that, as’. — στήθεσσι: on the plural, R 18.2. 314 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — γούναθ’: = γόνατα (R 12.5).



name of a Messenian town), 2.336n.; Frame 2009, 12 n. 6; ἱππότα (approximately ‘chariot-knight’) is an epithet of heroes from an older generation, with the nom. ending -ᾰ probably adopted from the voc. (2.336n.; Frame loc. cit. 15 f. with n. 15); here in the context of warriors on chariots perhaps sensitive to the context (cf. 297–309n. and 322; Delebecque 1951, 165).

318–319 Nestor picks up Agamemnon’s wish and confirms that it is his own as well (313–316n.). In contrast to other occasions when Nestor bemoans his lost physical powers (7.132 f., 11.670 f., 23.629 f.), the present passage is followed by only a brief reference to a past deed (319): a lengthy narrative would not have a paradigmatic function (319n.; cf. schol. bT on 319: not an appropriate moment; Falkner [1989] 1995, 18; Vester 1956, 64) and would have extended the scene unnecessarily (West 2011, 145). 318 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ 266 (see ad loc.). — ἐθέλοιμι: a potential as a polite statement of a desire, as at 3.41, 23.594, etc. (Schw. 2.330). The reading τοι present in the majority of mss. is perhaps based on the influence of 266 (app. crit. in West); for that reason, West reads the somewhat less well attested κεν, although a modal particle with the potential is unnecessary in Homeric epic (Schw. 2.324).

319 Ereuthalion: At 7.132–156, Nestor delivers an elaborate retelling of his killing of the Arcadian champion, whose challenge none of the Pylians with the exception of the young Nestor dared confront. To what extent the myth of the battle between the Arcadians and the Pylians is based on historical events (e.g. the collapse of the Mycenaean palatial administration in Pylos), and whether it is part of a Pylian myth cycle like the stories at 11.670 ff., 23.629 ff. or is an ad hoc invention, is a matter of debate (Willcock 1964 [2001], 146; West 1988, 160; Kirk on 7.123–160; Alden 2000, 75, 83 f. n. 31). Here, at any rate, the killing of Ereuthalion (which appears almost rash in the narration at 7.132 ff.) can serve both to illustrate the gnome that follows at 320 (similarly Barck 1976, 97; Lowenstam 1993, 134 f.) and to facilitate a transition to the second part of the speech that points to the equivalent and complementary service of the two generations of warriors. ὣς … ὡς: with ὡς sc. ἦν (AH); on the adv. used as a predicate, 58n.; ἔμεν is a full verb. — δῖον: 223n. — Ἐρευθαλίωνα: The name, which is not historically attested, is likely derived from the Argive toponym Ἐρευθαλίων, a denominative formation related to ἐρυθρός, ‘red’ (von Kamptz 134, 289) — κατέκταν: root aor. of κατακτείνω, commonly in the 3rd pers. sing. (κατ)έκτα (e.g. 2.662, Od. 1.300); the sing. forms are secondary formations by analogy with the plural, which is attested in ἔκταν, ἔκταμεν (Il. 10.526, 3× Od.): Chantr. 1.381.

320 1st VH = 13.729; to caesura A 4 = 7.217, 17.354; ‘Hes.’ fr. 43a.52 M.-W. – The notion that the gods – the general cause of things and not specified more 318 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — ἐγών: = ἐγώ. 320 δόσαν: so-called gnomic aor.


Iliad 4

closely here (cf. Jörgensen’s principleP) – bestow gifts, albeit not the same to everyone nor all virtues to one person at once, occurs repeatedly in Homeric epic (1.178n., 19.218–219n., 24.529–530n.). At issue here is specifically physical strength (bíē, 325), which is only granted to youths, as well as level-headedness (boulḗ, 323), which is limited to older warriors (Kemper 1960, 18 f.; van der Mije 1987, 257; cf. Von der Mühll 1952, 86 [transl.]: ‘deed in youth and word in age’ is meant). Although a certain agreement with the previous speech and a note of resignation, as elsewhere in Nestor’s reminiscences of his lost youthful strength, can thus be detected, there is at the same time a clear indication of the benefits of age and a defense against disparagement of it. By illustrating the wisdom acquired over the course of his life via a gnome (as is common in other speeches: 1.274n.) at the center of his speech, Nestor defends his function as a counselor, which he discusses even more plainly at 322 ff. (322 allá kái hōs ‘But even so …’): Ahrens 1937, 15; van der Mije loc. cit. 257; for parallels for gnomes in the center of a speech, see Lohmann 1970, 67 n. 112. The plural anthrṓpoisin ‘to human beings’ perhaps implicitly includes Agamemnon, who is a capable younger warrior, but who does not always display good sense (Lardinois 1997, 226; cf. Nestor’s visible scepticism that Agamemnon’s dream can be fulfilled, 2.80–82n.). Aristarchus athetized the verse on the ground that it was transposed from 13.729 (schol. A; app. crit.). ἅμα there means ‘in one and the same person’, whereas here it remains uncertain whether to understand it ‘at the same time’ or ‘anything and everything’ (with πάντα); both are plausible (van der Mije loc. cit.). The transition to 321 with its youth-old age juxtaposition was apparently also considered inappropriate, and the passage was perceived as devaluing age (as an undesirable gift of the gods; Lührs 1992, 186 f.). But the end of the speech (322–325) clarifies that the gnome is not to be understood that way at all (see above): Kirk on 320–321; Lührs loc. cit.; Kemper loc. cit. 321 The verse complements and clarifies the preceding one: Nestor makes clear that he was able to prove himself in both stages of life. The verse is thus not superfluous (app. crit. in West; Kirk on 320–321). — εἰ: not conditional, but rather comparative, as at 15.724 f.: ‘εἰ here serves to state a fact in the past in order to contrast it with a fact in the present’ (AH [transl.]). — ἔα: 1st-pers. sing. impf. of εἰμί (G 90), a variant of ἦα attested elsewhere only at 5.887, Od. 14.222, 14.352; likely formed via quantitative metathesis (Chantr. 1.71), although here lengthening of the -α of the unaugmented form before the caesura is also possible (Leaf; on the other passages, Wyatt 1969, 144 f.). — ἱκάνει: thus almost all mss.; Aristarchus’ reading ὀπάζει (‘pursues me, harasses me’) reinforces the negative view of old age, which does not fit with the preceding gnome (above and 320n.): Lührs 1992, 186 n. 128; see also the reference in West’s app. crit. to the same or similar vacillation in the transmission of 8.103 and 23.623.

322–323 Nestor’s role is based on both the value placed on the experience of the elders and a general recognition of their superiority in the council and in tactical decisions (310n., 1.259n.). They are entitled to be heard; since youn-



ger men are less experienced, they cannot provide equally valuable advice and must prove themselves in battle instead (324 f.). While Nestor no longer participates actively in fighting (2.601n. with bibliography; on his role, also Hellmann 2000, 45 f.), his leadership skills are highly esteemed (311–314; 2.21n.); he has just proven this again (293–310). 322 1st VH = 11.720; to caesura A 4 8× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes. 323 1st VH = Od. 13.298, 16.420, h.Merc. 467; 2nd VH = Il. 9.422; ≈ 16.457, 16.675, 23.9, Od. 24.190, 24.296; from caesura C 2 on ≈ Od. 24.255. — μύθοισι: here, as in the iterata, beside βουλή and having the connotation ‘plan’ (3.212n.; on μῦθος as a word of authority and effectiveness used by Nestor, Martin 1989, 104 f.). — τὸ γάρ: a characteristic introduction for aphoristic statements (16.457n.; see the half-verse iterata and e.g. 9.706, 19.161). τό summarizes the preceding κελεύσω βουλῇ καὶ μύθοισι. — γέρας: ‘entitlement, privilege, duty’ (24.70n.; LfgrE s. v. γέρας 135.49 ff.); that the poet of the Iliad is using the term in its original sense ‘privilege of the elders’ is illustrated by the present jingle with the etymologically related γερόντων (Rank 1951, 82; on the etymology, LfgrE loc. cit. 134.32 ff.). 324 αἰχμὰς … αἰχμάσσουσι: αἰχμάζω (‘throw a lance’), attested only here in early epic, is a denominative of αἰχμή, with which it is here combined in a probably emphatic figura etymologica (LfgrE; Risch 297; Chantr. 2.41). — νεώτεροι: as at Od. 3.49 etc., not to be understood as a comparative, but as in contrast to γερόντων at 323: ‘the younger ones’ (Wittwer 1970, 61, with reference to schol. A on 324–325; on the suffix -τερος, 16n.). — οἵ περ: ‘who indeed’: substantiates the main clause and appeals to the addressee’s experience (2.286n.; AH). 325 1st VH, cf. h.Cer. 116; 2nd VH ≈ 12.135, 12.153, 12.256. — ὁπλότεροι: ‘younger’ (14.267– 268n.); probably originally ‘armed’, i.e. ‘stronger’ (2.707n.). — γεγάασι: 40–41n. 326 = 272 (see ad loc.).

327–363 The scene as a whole is comprised of four parts: description of the situation (327–331a) with a subsequent explanation (331b–335), Agamemnon’s speech (336–348), Odysseus’ reply (349–355), and Agamemnon’s rejoinder (356–363). The scene is one of the final ones in the Epipṓlēsis in which Agamemnon severely scolds the addressees, Odysseus together with Menestheus, and Diomedes together with Sthenelos, respectively (336, 368). Already before this, echoes of Odysseus’ earlier speech to the Achaians when they wanted to go home were probably meant to imply that Agamemnon himself is once again able to fulfil his paraenetic tasks as supreme leader; this is now reinforced (232–250n.; Bergold 1977, 77; Haft 1989/1990, 103). Agamemnon’s

322 323 324 325 326

ὧς: = οὕτως. — μετέσσομαι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. τό: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), subj. of the predicate γέρας ἐστί. ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 16.4). γεγάασι: 3rd pers. pl. perf. of γίγνομαι. = 272 (see ad loc.).


Iliad 4

behavior – his apparently entirely unjust rebukes – has repeatedly been judged in a very negative way (338–348n., 358–363n.; Taplin 1990, 66). But the present situation represents the special case of ‘before battle’, when the troops must be motivated by means of (occasionally excessive) praise and censure (338–348n.; cf. Diomedes’ defense of the leader at 413, with n.); the subsequent reply shows that Agamemnon achieves his goal (354n.). Agamemnon’s criticism also highlights the well-considered reaction of Odysseus, who unlike Diomedes does not blame Agamemnon later (9.32 ff.): Reichel 1994, 215. Altogether, the scene offers a complex image of Agamemnmon: he appears more flexible here than at the beginning of the Iliad, in that in his second speech – perhaps realizing that he had attacked Odysseus too severely – he avoids a conflict and immediately attempts to preserve Odysseus’ loyalty. 327 Element (3) of the arrival scene (69–82n., 86–92n., 292–325n.). — Menestheus: The leader of the Athenian contingent (328, 2.546 ff.); in the Iliad, as in myth, of little importance (2.552n.), a fact that is variously explained (LfgrE with bibliography: his role derived from an obscure inherited tradition?; Wilamowitz 1916, 273 n. 1: an Attic interpolation; specifically on his mention in the Catalogue of Ships, 2.546–556n., 2.552n.; West 2001, 178 f.: probably already mentioned by the poet of the Iliad, Attic expansions; on Attic interpolations generally, HT 5). Here too he remains mute, although he is addressed directly by Agamemnon (338). Why he appears together with Odysseus in an individualized scene is unclear. A later Attic addition of the character would have necessitated a radical reworking of the entire scene (not merely the addition of a few verses) and is thus unlikely. A better assumption is that Menestheus was put beside Odysseus as a practical secondary character, similar to Sthenelos in the subsequent scene (367n.) and to Meriones (254n.), Teukros (273n.) and Nestor’s lieutenants (295–296n.), who accompany Agamemnon’s chief addressees in the preceding scenes. It is perhaps because of the comparison with Nestor at 2.553 ff. that the poet of the Iliad chose him as the character with the right associations to follow a scene involving Nestor (Kirk on 327– 329; West 2011, 145). On the VB, cf. 365 (on ηὗρε, 200n.). On the common asyndeton and the structure of the verse with enjambment, Kirk on 363–365; Clark 1997, 70. — υἱὸν Πετεῷο: an inflectable phrase (after caesura A 1, as here, also at 338, 13.690; at VE, 2.552, 12.331, ‘Hes.’ fr. 200.3 M.-W. [restored]; cf. 12.355). On the form Πετεῷο, 2.552n. — Μενεσθῆα: Μενεσθεύς is an abbreviated form, as a metrically convenient variant of Μενεσθένης (16.173n.; Kakridis 1981, 50). — πλήξιππον: a verb-noun compound related to

327 Πετεῷο: on the declension, R 11.2. — Μενεσθῆα: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.



πλήττω (Risch 192), ‘striking horses’ (i.e. whipping them), of charioteers (LfgrE; Delebecque 1951, 41); a generic epithetP of heroes and peoples (2.104n.).

328 standing: It is common in arrival scenes to encounter someone standing (90n., 2.170n.), although here this is stressed and the scene uses a form of hestēkénai ‘to stand’ a total of 4×, also at 329, 331 and 334, here and in the two latter passages enjambed: Agamemnon does not encounter Menestheus and Odysseus, and later Diomedes and Sthenelos (366 f.), on the move, as he does Idomeneus and Meriones (252–254), Aias and Teukros (274–282), and Nestor (294). Together with their troops, Menestheus and Odysseus are standing ready for battle (Kurz 1966, 62); the narrator’sP explanation of why they are not in motion follows at 331b–335. He then has Agamemnon criticise their attitude as idly standing by (336–348; 340 aphéstate ‘you stand to the side’): 331–335n. ἀμφί: adverbial, as at 330 (‘on both sides’, i.e. of Menestheus), sc. ἕστασαν (AH). — μήστωρες ἀϋτῆς: literally ‘master, inciter of the fray of battle’, subsequently probably faded to ‘warrior experienced in battle’, an epithet of leaders (16.759n.; LfgrE s. v. μήστωρ), here of the Athenian troops, perhaps in reference to their valor despite their hesitation (cf. 330n.). μήστωρ literally means ‘he who knows how to achieve things through cleverness and skill’: 6.97n.; LfgrE. On the inflection with -ωρ-, 14.318n.

329 resourceful: A standard epithet for Odysseus, who is characterized by his ability to think strategically (3.200n.). 330 Kephallenian ranks: Odysseus’ followers as a whole, who hail from both the islands and the mainland (2.631–632n.). Being described as ‘not weak’ (litotes) indicates the valor of the men; what follows explains the reason they are still standing motionless (331b–335): schol. bT. στίχες: 90n. — οὐκ ἀλαπαδναί: on the sense, 305n.; frequently, as here, formulaic at VE with a negative (τῶν τε σθένος οὐκ ἀλαπαδνόν 5.783, 7.257, Od. 18.373; Hes. Op. 437 is similar; also h.Merc. 334).

331–335 The narratorP immediately foregrounds the reason the Athenians and Kephallenians are still standing about, so that Agamemnon’s reproaches that follow at 340 can be accurately interpreted by the audience at once: in their hyperbolic acerbity, they are not justified by the situation proper (cf. 347n.). The function of an authorial explanation of facts unknown to the charactersP

328 ἑσταότ(α): = ἑστῶτα, perf. part. of ἵσταμαι (cf. R 6). 329 ὃ … Ὀδυσσεύς: ὅ is an anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), with Ὀδυσσεύς as an appositive. — ἑστήκει: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 330–331 πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1), adv., ‘beside’. — ἀμφὶ … | ἕστασαν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; ἕστασαν = εἱστήκεσαν. — σφιν: αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — ἀκούετο: middle (R 23), with the objective gen. ἀϋτῆς.


Iliad 4

at 22.326–329 (wounding of Hektor) is comparable: Richardson 1990, 147 f. Since the troops notice the departure for battle of several sections of the armies on both fronts (332 f., cf. 347 f.; on their position, perhaps removed somewhat from the action, 220–421n.), they listen for cries (331, 334) as an indication that battle has begun after the approach of these contingents (331, 335) in order to similarly set out and join the battle after the advance of just one more formation (334). But the narrator has the approach of the two large armies continue during the epipṓlēsis, only subsequently describing it in detail in accord with its significance at 422–544n., 422–445n. The battle, together with the noise of the fray, only commences afterward (reference to the noise: 450, 456). In accord with the narrative, Odysseus and his men are not yet able to hear the sound of the battle. 331 σφιν: ethical dat.; the reference is to Odysseus and Menestheus, who command their divisions (λαός) (Faesi; on the meaning of λαός, 28n.). — ἀκούετο: the sole attestation of a mid. impf.. of ἀκούω (but mid. fut. at 15.96, 15.199, h.Merc. 334, 566): LfgrE s. v. ἀκούω 432.17 f. Middle forms frequently occur before the bucolic diaeresis as metrically convenient variants with a meaning elsewhere represented by active forms (likewise e.g. διώκετο at 21.602, Od. 18.8; Hoekstra 1965, 106; Erbse 1980, 243; in brief, Allan 2003, 207 f.). — ἀϋτῆς: here a sign of battle, ‘battle cries’ (the reference is neither to cries during the approach nor to a signal for attack): LfgrE s. v. ἀϋτή 1594.63 ff.

332 from caesura C 1 on = 281 (see ad loc.), 427, cf. 16.280. — set in motion: syn-orinómenai ‘jointly set in motion’ (of both Trojans and Achaians): ‘As a rule, the […] contingent as a whole advances synchronously’; in the case of very long front lines, ‘the […] forward movement […] propagates itself [along the front line] with a delaying effect’ (Latacz 1977, 54 [transl.]). 333 to caesura C 2 ≈ 3.127, 3.131, 3.251, 8.71; 1st VH = 2.230, 4.355, 6.461, 11.568; ≈ 8× Il. — ἱπποδάμων: on the generic epithetP ‘horse taming’ (also 352 and 355), 80n. 334 πύργος: concretely denotes a tower (3.149n.), here and at 347 metaphorically a tightly closed formation of warriors that forms a bulwark of sorts, a ‘flat tower’ (at 12.43, 13.152, 15.618, the adv. πυργηδόν is used to refer to a dense formation of men): LfgrE s. v. πύργος 1663.5 ff.; Latacz 1977, 52; Leaf. 335 Τρώων ὁρμήσειε: ὁρμάω with gen. of destination (likewise 14.488, see ad loc.); as at 2.794 (see ad loc.), an opt. as an indication of indirect discourse expressing secondary focalizationP. — ἄρξειαν πολέμοιο: The subject is either μένοντες (333; AH) or πύργος, which is to be understood as a collective term (Faesi; Kirk on 333–335).

332 νέον: adv., ‘just now’. — κίνυντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 333–335 μένοντες | … ⟨εἰς τότε⟩, ὁππότε … | … ὁρμήσειε: ‘awaiting the time at which … would set out’ (opt. as an indication of indirect discourse). 333 καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — οἵ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. 334 ὁππότε: 229n. — ἐπελθών: ‘advanced’.



336 ≈ 368; 1st VH = Od. 17.215. On the verse structure, 255n. (with νείκεσσεν ἰδών also at Il. 3.38, 6.325). In combination with 368, the verse forms a contrast with 255/283/311 (Latacz 1966, 143) and illustrates a switch to disapproval. ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Ἀγαμέμνων: 148n. 337 = 284 (see ad loc.). The verse is absent from four papyri (see app. crit. in West) and after 336 (νείκεσσεν) is a redundant speech introduction formula that should be athetized (3.389n.; Apthorp 1999; West 2001, 12 f., 190).

338–348 After addresses that are sometimes quite abusive in their effect, Agamemnon points out a discrepancy between the behavior of the addressees and their obligations toward the community (341–348): their participation in feasts paid for by the group as a whole (344 ephoplízōmen ‘we prepare’, i.e. Agamemnon together with the dḗmos, 259–260n.) is an honor that obliges elite warriors at the front to make as great a military commitment as possible (341 f.; 259–263n.). Their zeal in eating and drinking (343 f.) is not appropriately matched by waiting and standing aside in battle (340, 347 f.). In a similar manner (in part with the same words, 341b–342 = 12.315b–316), the Lykian Sarpedon reminds his compatriot Glaukos of the obligations they have incurred from the privilege of participating in feasts (12.310–321); a reference to honors of which one must prove oneself worthy also reverberates at 8.161– 163, 8.229–235, 17.225 f., 17.249 f., 20.83–85: Carlier 1984, 155 with n. 74, 156 with n. 78; Stoevesandt 2004, 304 n. 903. But the accusation that the Athenians and Kephallenians are standing aside together with their leaders and letting others go first (340, 347 f.) is unjustified, as the audience is well aware (331–335: there are other reasons for waiting): Kirk on 339; Wissmann 1997, 57. Together with the fact that Agamemnon insultingly provokes Odysseus, of all people, to whom he is indebted for enormous earlier assistance (Odysseus dissuades the troops from returning home and restores Agamemnon’s authority, 2.182–335), the speech has often been judged a disconcerting indication of his deficiencies as a leader (AH on 339; Beck 2005, 159 f.; Kelly 2007, 148). But the criticisms appear to be unjust by design, as a way of provoking a counterreaction, i.e. an increased will to fight, as is in fact achieved (349– 355n.; this is also indicated by Agamemnon’s reaction to Odysseus’ speech: 358–363n.). Riling warriors as a means of incitement is among a leader’s duties (Krapp 1964, 79; cf. schol. T on 340: the accusation is protreptic; Scodel 2002, 203; 2008, 60; Horn 2014, 75), and being accused of cowardice strikes at a hero’s most vulnerable side (cf. 13.246–273; Wissmann loc. cit. 60).

336 δὲ (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. — νείκεσσεν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 337 = 284 (see ad loc.).


Iliad 4

338 ≈ 5.464, 12.355. — As in the address to Diomedes, naming someone’s father is not unusual in itself, but it is perhaps a reminder that he must prove himself worthy of his paternity (Horn 2014, 43; aside from his connection to Menestheus, nothing is known of Peteos). υἱὲ Πετεῷο: short in longum before caesura A 4 (M 8), frequently in the vocative (24.88n.), here likely due to the transfer of the inflectable formula (327n.) to a case with a short end syllable (cf. 155n.). — διοτρεφέος βασιλῆος: an inflectable VE formula (24.803n.). διοτρεφής (‘nourished by Zeus’) is a generic epithetP of heroes (mostly Menelaos) and with appellatives, as here (24.553n.). 339–340 The alliteration of k-sounds likely emphasizes the abuse (on alliteration generally, 2.50–52n.).

339 In contrast to Menestheus (338), Odysseus is bellowed at in an insulting fashion and without use of his name; he alone therefore reacts to Agamemnon’s speech (349 ff.): Martin 1989, 70; Steinrück 1992, 102; on the theory that Menestheus is a later addition, 327n. The address makes reference to the situation at hand: Odysseus is presented as engaged in schemes designed to avoid fighting at the front. Cunning action is characteristic of Odysseus (e.g. Od. 9.19 f. about himself: ‘I am Odysseus … known before all men / for the study of crafty designs’; his epithet is polýmētis ‘endowed with much cleverness’, see 349n.). This trait is treated ambivalently (3.202n.), here negatively, by adding an attribute to the term dólos ‘guile’, which in itself does not have exclusively negative connotations (LfgrE s. v. δόλος; Luther 1935, 117). κακοῖσι δόλοισι κεκασμένε: κεκασμένος is a part. of the perf. κεκάσθαι ‘distinguish oneself, exceed’ (14.124–125a n., 16.808n.), with the instrumental dat. κακοῖσι δόλοισι, similarly of a negative quality at Od. 19.395 f. ἐκέκαστο | κλεπτοσύνῃ θ᾿ ὅρκῳ τε (Leaf). — κερδαλεόφρον: a possessive compound (Risch 184), ‘the sense of which is directed toward one’s own benefit’ (1.149n.); explained by the accusations directed at Odysseus and Menestheus which follow at 340 ff., namely that they go easy on themselves and their men during battle, while at the same time wanting to benefit from honors (Luther 1935, 76).

340 is contextually relevant in the speech, as at 2.23 (with n.), in reference to the description at 333–335: de Jong (1987) 2004, 109, 268 n. 27. The line thus immediately recalls the accusation made in other speeches (14.363–377n.) of not becoming involved in battle and standing to the side. τίπτε: 243n. — καταπτώσσοντες: 224n.

338 διοτρεφέος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — βασιλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3. 339 κακοῖσι δόλοισι: on the declension, R 11.2. 340 μίμνετε: ≈ μένετε.



341 ≈ Od. 6.60; 2nd VH = Il. 12.315. — μέν: ‘really’, stresses σφῶϊν: ‘via adversative predicates the identity of the subject’ is thus emphasized (AH) by μετὰ πρώτοισι ἐόντας | ἑστάμεν ἠδὲ … ἀντιβολῆσαι (341 f.), on the one hand, and by καταπτώσσοντες ἀφέστατε, μίμνετε (340), on the other. At the same time, μέν prepares for the contrast νῦν δέ (347): AH; Leaf; on the transition from the dat. σφῶϊν to the acc. ἐόντας as characteristic of oral language, Slings 1994, 420f. — ἐπέοικε: in Homeric epic only in direct speech; digamma (earlier form: *ἐπι(ϝ)έ(ϝ)οικε) is always disregarded (G 26). With dat. of person (‘is appropriate, fitting for’) only here and at 22.71: LfgrE s. v. ἔοικα 622.45 ff., ad loc. 59 ff. — πρώτοισιν: ‘the first’, i.e. ‘the foremost’, as at 5.536, 9.709, 12.321, 20.338, etc.; also called πρόμαχοι ‘fighters at the front’ (354) (Latacz 1977, 151); these fight in the front row of the phalanx formation and are among the best men, as their achievements attest; they are not an elite formation (3.16n.). On the expression μετὰ πρώτοισι ἐόντας, cf. the VE formula μετὰ/ἐνὶ πρώτοισι μάχεσθαι/μάχονται at 5.536, 9.709, 12.321, 20.338, and simple μετὰ/ἐν(ὶ) προμάχοισι after caesura A 2 at 458, 11.188, 11.203, 11.744, etc. (the switch πρόμαχοι/πρῶτοι is driven by metrical necessity).

342 = 12.316. — blaze of battle: in the sense ‘murderous battle’; fire frequently serves as a metaphor for the rage of battle (6.328 f.: war and rage of battle have been ignited, see ad loc.; 18.1: fight in the manner of a fire, see ad loc.; warriors are compared to a fire: 18.154, see ad loc. with bibliography). ἑστάμεν: ‘withstand’, as in the iteratum and at 11.410, in contrast to ἀφέστατε (340): AH; Kurz 1966, 63. — καυστειρῆς: ‘burning’ (related to καίω), attested elsewhere only in the iteratum (LfgrE). The accent on the final syllable in the gen. from a nom. *καύστειρα corresponds to the inherited change in accent in μία, μιᾶς: Wackernagel (1914) 1953, 1175 f.; Fraenkel 1910, 13 f.; West 1998, XXI. — ἀντιβολῆσαι: ἀντιβολέω, a denominative from *ἀντίβολος (Schw. 2.97; on the accent, Risch 197), a verb-noun compound related to intransitive βάλλω (‘one who throws himself in the way of’), means ‘get in the way of, face, stand against’, e.g. 7.114, 16.847, here with gen. μάχης καυστειρῆς ‘find in order to participate in’ (LfgrE s. v. ἀντιβολέω 932.22 ff.; 933.50 ff.), with the notion of movement complementing that of standing (ἑστάμεν) (Kurz 1966, 63).

343 Although Menestheus is included via the address as a participant in the feast, he is evidently not among the guests at 2.404–409 (schol. A; on Menestheus in the present scene, also 327n.). At the same time, Agamemnon’s speech is chiefly addressed to the more important Odysseus, as can also be deduced from the explanation at 358 ff., which is directed at him only; more-

341 σφῶϊν: personal pronoun of the 2nd pers. dual in the dat. (R 14.1). — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μετά (+ dat.): ‘with’. — ἐόντας: = ὄντας (R 16.6), to be connected with σφῶϊν; subject acc. of the two inf. in 342. 342 ἑστάμεν: = ἑστάναι (R 16.4). — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). — καυστειρῆς: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. 343 πρώτω: nom. dual (R 18.1). — ἀκουάζεσθον: 2nd pers. dual pres. mid. of ἀκουάζομαι ‘listen to’. — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1).


Iliad 4

over, the number of guests is left unspecified, so that additional guests can be invited to a feast by the supreme commander to honor them (10.217): AH, Anh. on 343 f. πρώτω: ‘placed first for emphasis with reference to μετὰ πρώτοισιν in 341’ (AH [transl.]). — δαιτὸς ἀκουάζεσθον ἐμεῖο: ἀκουάζομαι (elsewhere only at Od. 9.7, 13.9, act. ἀκουάζοντα at h.Merc. 423) is a denominative from ἀκουή and means ‘listen to a cry, sound emanating from something (ἀκουή)’ (Risch 297; LfgrE). The syntactic connection to the two genitives ἐμεῖο and δαιτός was considered odd already in antiquity (on the ground that, in terms of the meaning, δαιτός with the possessive ἐμεῖο does not work as a gen. object for ἀκουάζεσθον: Leaf). Aristarchus, on the other hand (schol. A), followed by a majority of scholars, assumed an ellipsis of περί before δαιτός and connected both genitives with ἀκουάζεσθον: ‘from the meal/with regard to the meal/at mealtime you hear me’, i.e. ‘when there are the sounds of a meal and I then call on you, you are the first to heed me’ (LfgrE; AH; Faesi; Leaf; for details of the various attempts to explain the passage, AH, Anh. on 343 f.). Because of these difficulties, Nauck read καλέοντος rather than καὶ δαιτός (app. crit. in West); although not transmitted, this would fit well (Leaf). On possible origins for the verse (originally δαιτός thought of as dependent on ἀντιβολεῖτον), West 2001, 190.

344 1st VH ≈ 9.70. — The meals are arranged for the elite, here referred to as the ‘elders’, at the expense of the community as a whole (259–260n.). ἐφοπλίζωμεν: frequently of preparing a meal (19.172a n.).

345 2nd VH ≈ 22.347. — flesh: The central component of the honorific meal (Bruns 1970, 46). ὀπταλέα: adj. from ὀπτός, ὀπτάω with a Caland suffix in -αλέος: ‘roasted’ (LfgrE; Risch 104). — κρέα: < *κρέϝασα; with two shorts likewise at 8.231, 9.217, 22.347, Od. 12.395, 20.348, elided κρέ᾿ at Od. 3.65, 9.297; γέρᾰ is thus likely analogous (2.237n.): Sommer 1957, 145–151.

346 1st VH ≈ 12.320. — cups: The shape of the drinking vessel termed kýpellon is not altogether clear (24.101n.; nor is that of the dépas: 3n.). οἴνου … μελιηδέος: an inflectable formula, here with hyperbaton; μελιηδής means ‘honeyed, tasty’ (6.258n.). — ὄφρ᾿ ἐθέλητον: iterative; 263 πιέειν ὅτε θυμὸς ἀνώγοι is similar (Faesi).

347 ten: a hyperbolic number (2.489n.); Agamemnon is speaking mockingly and suggesting that Odysseus is waiting too long; in fact, he is only waiting for the departure of one other formation (333 f.). φίλως: ‘gladly’, in conjunction with ὁρῷτε, like ἀσπασίως ἴδε at Od. 8.450; picks up φίλ(α) in the same position in the verse at 345 and thus appears especially provocative

345–346 φίλ(α): predicate noun, ἐστί is to be supplied. — ἔδμεναι … | … πινέμεναι: final inf., dependent on φίλα (on the form, R 16.4). — ὄφρ(α): ‘as long as’ (R 22.2). — ἐθέλητον: 2nd pers. dual pres. act. subjunc. of ἐθέλω (R 18.1). 347 χ’: = κ(ε) = ἄν (R 24.5). — ὁρόῳτε: on the epic diectasis, R 8.



(AH). — εἰ: The subsidiary clause functions as an object of ὁρῷτε (Bäumlein 1861, 151; Lange 1872/73, 473). — πύργοι: 334n. 348 νηλέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula, usually in battle contexts; νηλεής means ‘merciless, relentless’, χαλκός is used via metonymy for any weapon with metal components (3.292n., where also for the form νηλέϊ).

349–355 Only Odysseus responds to the speech, since he has been attacked directly (339n., 343n.; on Menestheus’ role, also 327n.). Agamemnon’s provocation (338–348n.) has succeeded: Odysseus is outraged (349n.). He does not even address the accusations in detail, but, like other heroes facing accusations of cowardice, confidently refers to the courage he is about to demonstrate (351–355; cf. 13.270 f., 13.775 ff., 17.179 ff.; see also the passages in Stoevesandt 2004, 286 n. 850); he also turns the tables and accuses Agamemnon of secretly shirking (353n.), while at the same time he uses wordplay (354n.) to display his rhetorical skills, in which he appears superior vis-à-vis the supreme commander’s speech (355): Fenik 1968, 169; Martin 1989, 70 f. 349 = 14.82, Od. 8.165, 18.14, 22.60, 22.320; ≈ 18.337, 19.70, 22.34; 1st VH (with slight variations) 17× Il. (including 411), 9× Od. — The side-long glance (literally a ‘look from below’), always mentioned in speech introduction formulaeP, conveys indignation at the violation of social norms (14.82n.); here it expresses anger at the unjust criticism and the veiled accusation of cowardice (338–348n.) that assails a hero’s honor (timḗ). The verse thus prepares for the contents of the speech. — resourceful: 329n. ὑπόδρα: on the word formation, 1.148n. 350 = 14.83; ≈ Od. 1.64, 3.230, 5.22, 19.492, 21.168, 23.70. — The formulaic verse, always at the beginning of a speech, expresses a sharp rebuke (14.83n.). — Ἀτρεΐδη: 266n. — ἕρκος ὀδόντων: ‘fence of teeth’ (on the basic meaning of ἕρκος, 299n.); a VE formula (see iterata; 14.83n.). 351–353a There are two punctuation options (schol. A on 351–353): (1) a semicolon after μεθιέμεν (351) and a comma after ἄρηα (352; preferred by schol. A loc. cit.; AH; Faesi; West), or (2) a comma after μεθιέμεν and a semicolon after ἄρηα (Leaf; Kirk). Although in the first case the subsidiary clause introducing an extended period begins in the middle of the verse, there are parallels for ὁππότε at 13.271, Od. 14.217 (app. crit. in West); in this case, the subjunc. ἐγείρομεν is prospective with ὄψεαι (353). Furthermore, this results in a contrast with 344 and preparation for 354 (the battle at the front). Finally, ὄψεαι is in this case not asyndetic (Il. 9.359 is not a true parallel). In the second case, the subsidiary clause is dependent on μεθιέμεν, with the subjunc.

348 ὑμείων: = ὑμῶν (R 14.1), with προπάροιθε. — μαχοίατο: on the ending, R 16.2. 349 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — ὑπόδρα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. 350 σε … ἕρκος: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). — σε (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.3.


Iliad 4

being iterative, although this does not fit as well in terms of meaning: the issue at hand is staying behind rather than the respective preparations. Discussion of the punctuation in AH with Anh. for reference to the argument in schol. A on 351–353. 351 πῶς: 26n. — μεθιέμεν: sc. ἡμᾶς; on the meaning, the combination with πολέμοιο and the metrical lengthening of the initial syllable of the stem, 234n. 352 = 19.237; ≈ 8.516, 19.318; 1st VH ≈ 8.110, 17.230 (also gen./acc. without preposition: 80n., 333n). — ἐγείρομεν ὀξὺν ἄρηα: a VE formula (5× Il.: 2.440n.); ἐγείρω is used metaphorically of the rousing of battle also with the objects μάχην, πόλεμον and φύλοπιν (LfgrE s. v. ἐγείρω); on the so-called metonymic use of Ἄρης/ἄρης for the god’s domain, also 2.381n.

353 = 9.359; 1st VH ≈ 8.471, Od. 24.511; cf. Od. 20.233, h.Merc. 181. — ópseai ‘you will see’ is placed emphatically at VB, in contrast to phḗs ‘you say, claim’ (351; AH); for similar prophecies of a particular sight, 14.145n. with bibliography — In a manner similar to 9.359 (where Achilleus announced his return home), ēn ethélēstha ‘if you wish’ is highly derisive: it implies that Agamemnon is gutless and will wisely wish to avoid the frontline where Odysseus is fighting (354; schol. bT; Kirk). — if you care: intensive: suggests that Agamemnon is not really concerned about the issue. ἤν: This form (Chantr. 2.279–282) makes it possible to avoid double κ(ε) (on preventing repetition of this type, van der Valk 1964, 313 f.); the combination of the two modal particles ἤν κ(ε) transmitted in two mss. (see app. crit. bei West) would be abnormal (1.168n.).

354 2nd VH from caesura C 1 ≈ 5.134, 8.99, 13.642, 15.457; Od. 18.379. — The use of his own name, and especially the periphrastic denominationP via a ‘paidonymic’, here ‘dear father of Telemachos’, has an emphatic effect (1.240n., 2.260n.; LfgrE s. v. Τηλέμαχος 458.31 f. with an Arabic example; Kelly 2007, 84). This paraphrasis for Odysseus is found elsewhere only at 2.260, and it is unclear if it alludes to a specific narrative tradition, e.g. Odysseus’ feigned madness during the enlistment for the Trojan campaign, whose falsity is only revealed after his young son is involved (Cypria: Procl. Chrest. § 5 West) (2.260n. with bibliography; Scodel 2002, 15; West 2011, 107). The emphasis in the denomination, at any rate, indicates that Telemachos was familiar to

351 μεθιέμεν: = μεθιέναι (R 16.4). — ὁππότ(ε): on the -ππ-, R 9.1; in a prospective sense, without ἄν (R 21.1). 352 Τρωσὶν ἔφ’: = ἐπὶ Τρωσίν (R 20.2). — ἐγείρομεν: short-vowel subjunc. (R 16.3). — ἄρηα: on the declension, R 12.4. 353 ὄψεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἐθέλῃσθα: on the ending, R 16.2. — αἴ κεν: ≈ ἐάν (R 22.1, R 24.5). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — τά: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — μεμήλῃ: perf. of μέλει with pres. sense (‘should you be interested’). 354 μιγέντα: aor. part. (ingressive) of μείγνυμαι ‘mingle among’.



the audience from earlier poetry (West 2011, 107; cf. schol. A: this assumes the Odyssey – which goes too far). Moreover, the passage may contain an etymological wordplayP involving the meaning of the name: Tēlé-machos means ‘distance fighter’, i.e. archer. The son is named for a characteristic of the father, like e.g. Astyanax (6.402–403n.; von Kamptz 31 f.). Although the bow is tied to Odysseus in the Odyssey almost exclusively in the contest of the bow, this does not contradict Odysseus’ depiction as a hoplite in the Iliad (Dihle 1970, 158 n. 38, with bibliography). Odysseus here asserts that as incontrovertible as it is that he is the father of Tēlé-machos, so too will he go among the Trojan fighters in the front ranks (pro-máchoisi) and fight against them (Risch [1947] 1981, 309; Rank 1951, 69 f.; West 2011, 145 f.; Kanavou 2015, 108 f.). — champion: against the foremost Trojans, i.e. at the front line, where the elite are fighting, as Agamemnon expects (341n., 373). Odysseus can indeed be found at the front line later, when he kills Demokoön (494 ff., with n.): Lentini 2006, 24. 355 1st VH = 333 (see ad loc.). — The statement that Agamemnon is uttering empty words effectively concludes the speech: ‘The sentence repeats the accusation contained in the question at 351’ (AH [transl.]). ἀνεμώλια βάζεις: an inflectable VE formula (elsewhere also at Od. 4.837, 11.464). βάζω means ‘speak’, frequently in conjunction with an internal acc. (14.92n.), here with the predicative ἀνεμώλια. This term, related to ἄνεμος even if the specific word formation is obscure (LfgrE; Frisk), means ‘windy, wind-like’, metaphorically of speech, as here and at Od. 4.837, 11.464 ‘plucked from thin air, bogus, incorrect, unfounded’ (Near Eastern parallels in West 1997, 253). Odysseus thus rejects as unfounded Agamemnon’s accusations, especially given that the battle has not even begun (LfgrE s. v. ἀνεμώλιος).

356 ≈ 8.38, 10.400, Od. 22.371; h.Ap. 531; 2nd VH = Il. 1.130, 1.285, 2.369, 4.188 (see ad loc.), 7.405, 10.42, 14.41. — On the substitution of the speech-capping formulaP with the speech introduction formulaP of the reply, 50n. — laughing: probably since Agamemnon has achieved his goal – deliberate irritation (338–348n.) – on the one hand, while signalling friendliness toward Odysseus, on the other (Arnould 1990, 89; Zanker 1994, 26; Scodel 2008, 60). 357 2nd VH = Od. 13.254. — A verse explicating what follows, inserted between a speech introduction formulaP and direct speech, as at e.g. Il. 2.790 (see ad loc.). χωομένοιο: sc. αὐτοῦ; dependent on γνῶ, which as a verb of perception sometimes takes a partitive gen.: ‘when he noted that he was angry’ (Schw. 2.105 f.), gen. as at Od. 21.36, 23.109 (in each case in the majority of mss.; AH). — πάλιν … λάζετο μῦθον:

357 γνῶ: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — λάζετο: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of λάζομαι ≈ λαμβάνω.


Iliad 4

‘seized’, i.e. ‘turned words in the opposite direction’: he switched from rebuke to recognition (LfgrE s. v. πάλιν 944.13 ff.; schol. D). Much as at 15.660, 20.15 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 204), the expression signals the tone of what follows, which the address at 358 (see ad loc.) in fact instantly distinguishes from the earlier speech at 339 (AH).

358–363 Agamemnon is aware that Odysseus is fundamentally loyal (360–361n.), but also that he is bound only by a voluntary pledge of allegiance (266–267n.) and might consider Agamemnon’s speech an assault on his honor (timḗ) that in the worst case would require comprehensive satisfaction and a violent solution (Horn 2014, 129). He thus begins by addressing him respectfully (358n.). The subsequent parts of the speech have sometimes been considered ambivalent due to the absence of an explicit apology and a genuine offer of reparations (Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 9 f., 14; Kirk on 359; Scodel 2008, 100– 102). The emphasis he places on not being too negative in his speech (359) could sound defensive (Scodel loc. cit. 101), but it also appeals to the situation (the call to battle) and, in what follows, to the close relationship between the two men (Kullmann 1956, 120). But the conclusion of the speech (362 f.) sounds somewhat impersonal (eírētai passive: ‘has been said’) or evasive (aressómeth’ fut. ‘we will set these matters right between us’), making it appear that the commander is unwilling to openly take responsibility for his words before Odysseus’ men. Odysseus does not respond, which is likely meant to indicate that at least outwardly he accepts this speech as redress. But his intense engagement in what follows points to him wanting to prove himself (354n.). He also participates in the embassy to Achilleus and speaks up for Agamemnon (9.180 f., 223 ff.); when he later attacks the supreme commander, the issue is the matter at hand (14.83–102n.), even if his words are harsh and could even indicate a certain degree of resentment. 358 = 2.173, 8.93, 9.308, 9.624, 10.144, 23.723 and 15× in the Odyssey. — The address to Odysseus is likely meant to form a contrast with Agamemnon’s previous address at 339: via a four-word verse (228n.) that is also a whole verse address (285n.), Odysseus’ importance is highlighted before his men (cf. Agamemnon’s address at 14.104 within the small group of counselors after Odysseus’ criticism: mere ‘Odysseus!’). In place of the bare sý ‘you’ at 339, the choice now is a patronymic (‘son of Laertes’) in combination with an epithet (diogenḗs ‘born from Zeus’) that is a generic epithetP of heroes (1.337n.). Odysseus’ intelligence is also no longer characterized as something negative (cunning): poly-mḗchanos (‘resourceful’), beside polý-mētis and poikilo-mḗtēs, is one of the distinctive epithets of the hero that highlight his

358 διογενές: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).



cleverness and ingenuity (2.173n.; cf. 1.311n., 2.169n.): Wiessner 1940, 22 (scarcely convincing is Kirk and, following him, LfgrE s. v. πολυμήχανος 1400.30 ff.: the epithet is ambivalent, the insult thus merely toned down). Λαερτιάδη: patronymic from Λαέρτης, a name formed from λαός and ὄρνυμι with the meaning ‘he who spurs on the men’, likely similar to Mycenaean e-ti-ra-wo (/Ertilaos/; DELG s. v. Λαέρτης); a link between the name and Odysseus’ role in Book 2 cannot be entirely ruled out (von Kamptz 33, 77).

359 The speaker indicates that he recognizes the effect, that is the illocutionary force, of his words, much as is done concerning a speech by the speaker or by another at 184, 5.492, 15.665, 21.74 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 202; see also 5– 6n.). His aim, he says, is not an unduly harsh attack on the experienced leader. This is thus not an attempt to cloud his responsibility for his speech with vague words (thus Kirk): the criticism per se is not denied. νεικείω … κελεύω: ‘the presents are of an intention continuing into the future; we would say «I will have rebuked»’ (AH [transl.]). — περιώσιον: from περί with the suffix -σιος, by analogy with ἐτώσιος ‘ineffective’ (Chantraine 1933, 42) it means ‘in excess, overly’; elsewhere only at Od. 16.203, h.Cer. 362, h.Hom. 19.41; here adverbial acc.: LfgrE.

360–361 Agamemnon indicates to Odysseus that he is aware of the latter’s loyalty (LfgrE s. v. ἤπιος 930.52 f.). He knows that Odysseus has internalized the code of the nobility (14.83–102n.), and shows that he is aware of Odysseus’ importance. This probably includes Odysseus’ efforts to prevent the troops from a precipitate return home (2.182–335): Bergold 1977, 77; Kirk. When Agamemnon stresses their close connection (361), the friendly tone defuses the accusations, somewhat similar to Athene in her address to Diomedes (5.826; Kullmann 1956, 120 f.). 360 ≈ 313, Od. 8.178, 23.215. — οἶδα γάρ, ὡς: an inflectable VB formula (also Od. 5.423, 10.267, 11.69; with οἶσθα: Il. 24.662, Od. 23.60). — θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσι: on the inflectable phrase, 152n. The θυμός, as the subject of intellectual activity with an emotional component, is in this instance a periphrasis for the person (LfgrE s. v. θυμός 1085.58 ff.; Clarke 1999, 69; cf. 2.851n.); for the localization within the chest, 289n. — φίλοισιν: 313n. 361 2nd VH ≈ Od. 7.312. — ἤπια δήνεα οἶδε: at Hes. Th. 236 at VE. δήνεα (neut. pl.), probably related to δαῆναι, διδάσκω, means ‘plans, intentions’; elsewhere at Od. 10.289, 23.82 and Hes. Th. 236 (LfgrE). ἤπιος means ‘beneficial to the interest (of

360 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — στήθεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3; on the plural, R 18.2. 361 δήνεα (ϝ)οῖδε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — δήνεα … φρονέεις: on the uncontracted forms, R 6. — τά: demonstrative (cf. R 17), pointing ahead to the relative clause. — περ: stresses ἐγώ (R 24.10).


Iliad 4

others), obliging, friendly, loyal’ (LfgrE s. v. ἤπιος 930.22 ff.). εἰδέναι can denote a moral attitude or social behavior (2.213n.); in conjunction with ἤπια also at Il. 16.73 (Agamemnon’s behavior toward Achilleus), Od. 13.405, 15.39, 15.557 (Eumaios toward Odysseus and Telemachos), Hes. Th. 236. The repetition οἶδα (360, at VB) – οἶδε (361, before caesura B 2) may reinforce the emphasis on common ground. — φρονέεις: ‘be minded, be of a mind, intend something’, here τά, ἅ: ‘agree’, as at Od. 7.312, similarly Il. 15.50 (LfgrE s. v. φρονέω 1040.61 ff.). — τ(ε): probably used as metrical filler (Ruijgh 421 f.). 362 ≈ 6.526. — ἀλλ᾿ ἴθι: a VB formula, ‘well then’ (i.e. ‘into battle!’), with assuring ἀρεσσόμεθ(α): 14.267–268n.; Faesi. — ταῦτα: specified in the subsequent conditional clause: what has been said (AH). — ὄπισθεν: ‘later’, as now is the time to fight (AH). — ἀρεσσόμεθ(α): a short-vowel aor. subjunc. or fut. ind. related to the root ἀρε-; it literally means ‘join something so that it fits’, in the middle with an acc. of a person ‘reconcile someone with oneself’, here with neut. ταῦτα ‘put in order together’ (6.526–527a n.; scarcely in the guise of actual compensation [thus Scodel 2008, 89]).

363 At the end of his speech, Agamemnon picks up Odysseus’ criticism (355 anemṓlia windy; 363 metamṓnia ‘gone with the wind’) and thus affirms that Odysseus is indeed to consider his words ‘windy’ or idle. — gods: not used in a vague way as a mere figure of speech, but considered in their full majesty, even if not specified more closely (cf. Jörgensen’s principleP): Tsagarakis 1977, 59; Chantraine 1954, 68. τὰ δὲ πάντα: designated by ταῦτα at 362 f. and explicated in the conditional clause (AH). — μεταμώνια: μεταμώνιος is dissimilated from *μετ-ανεμώνιος (Schw. 1.263) and means ‘gone with the wind’, i.e. ‘void, vain, resulting in nothing’, here ‘gone and forgotten’, with no effect on the relationship between Agamemnon and Odysseus; a similar notion at Od. 8.408 f. ἔπος δ᾿ εἴ περ τι βέβακται | δεινόν, ἄφαρ τὸ φέροιεν ἀναρπάξασθαι ἄελλαι. In the Iliad only here, elsewhere 5× Od. The reading μεταμώλια is based on confusion, attested already in antiquity, with ἀνεμώλιος (355n.; Rengakos 1993, 131): LfgrE.

364–421 The final scene of the Epipṓlēsis is the longest. Agamemnon’s expansive, skilfully crafted speech (370–400) is followed by two replies similar to the preceding scene involving Odysseus. But here it is not the character addressed by Agamemnon – Diomedes – who speaks first, but his charioteer Sthenelos (401–410); Diomedes in turn reacts to the latter’s words (411–421; on the tripartition, Blom 1936, 41; comparison with a similar sequence at 5.628–662 in Fenik 1968, 66). The breadth of the scene is a result of its design as the climax of the Epipṓlēsis (220–421n.; Von der Mühll 1952, 86 f.). As was already the case with Odysseus and Menestheus, Agamemnon’s detailed criticism is entirely unnecessary (366n.) and especially harsh toward Diomedes (cf. esp. 370 ff., 399 f., see ad locc.), and he seems both to barely heed

362 ἀρεσσόμεθ(α): on the -σσ-, R 9.1.



Odysseus’ criticism (349–355) and to interfere in an overly clumsy fashion with the more junior Diomedes (Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 10). But the criticism serves as a foil on which the stature of the character of Diomedes, who is introduced here, can be increased even more clearly in the subsequent narrative, preparing for his significant role in the Books that follow (Edwards 1987, 198). Agamemnon’s insinuation that Diomedes is a worse fighter than his father is immediately proved wrong, first by Sthelenos’ speech and then by the well-considered, deliberate reaction of the man attacked: he points to the circumstances of the criticism and follows up his words with achievements in battle of such importance that for a time he is the most successful (aristeia in Book 5) at filling the void created by Achilleus’ withdrawal from battle (Andersen 1978, 33; Reichel 1994, 217 f.). Agamemnon’s comparison between father and son also places new weight on the question of the relationship both with the previous generation and with the gods. In the subsequent Books, this issue is closely linked with Diomedes (370–400n.). At the same time, the criticism and replies, especially those of Sthenelos, again echo the conflict between Agamemnon and the other participants in the campaign (in Books 1 and 2: the conflict with Achilleus, the failed attempt to spur on the troops via subterfuge, the Peíra: Louden 2006, 147; cf. 401–402n.); perhaps in the background to the contrast between Agamemnon and Diomedes is the rivalry between Mycenae and Argos hinted at in myth (Visser 1997, 457). Diomedes’ composed reaction (412–418n.) saves Agamemnon from a loss of face and prevents an escalation, as well as allowing Agamemnon to successfully conclude his epipṓlēsis – Diomedes throws himself into battle (419–421). These positive consequences of Diomedes’ reaction also contribute to increasing the stature of the son of Tydeus. On the scene as a whole, see Christensen/Barker 2011 (in detail, but with numerous inaccuracies). 364 = 292 (see ad loc.); ≈ 18.468, Od. 17.254. — The formulaic expression signals the beginning of movement and a change of scene (292n.), albeit here not by the characters encountered (Odysseus and Menestheus stay behind) but by the arriving character (Agamemnon); in this way, the verse provides a transition to the final scene in the epipṓlēsis, which in turn is concluded by Diomedes setting out (419): Kurz 1966, 69. 365 ≈ 5.376, 5.881; cf. 23.472. — Diomedes: The leader of an Achaian contingent from the region of Argos and Tiryns (2.559 ff.), where his father had migrated

364 ὥς: 272n. — τούς: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — λίπεν … βῆ: on the unaugmented forms, R 16.1.


Iliad 4

(14.114n.); he temporarily replaces Achilleus (aristeia in the battle that follows): CH 3; 2.563n., 6.12n.; HE s. v. Diomedes. Τυδέος υἱόν: an inflectable formula, also at 370 (2.406n.; on the metrical system, LfgrE s. v. Τυδείδης); on the short-vowel gen. (also at 370, from which dat. Τυδέϊ at 372), like Ἀτρέος (98), and on the origin of the name, 6.96n. —ὑπέρθυμον: An epithet of various heroes, as well as of the Trojans, it usually has a positive connotation (‘high-spirited, confident’), but can also be used with a negative sense (‘arrogant, wanton’; Aphrodite and Ares of Diomedes, who wounded her, at 5.376, 5.881); here it is probably ornamental (2.746n.; differently Friedrich 2007, 109: positive, in contrast to Agamemnon, who is cast in a negative light). — Διομήδεα: from Διο- ‘from Zeus’ (like Διοκλέης, Διώρης, Διομήδη) and -μήδης related to μήδομαι (cf. Ἑκαμήδη 14.6n., Θρασυμήδεος 14.10; von Kamptz 89); the name means ‘he who is counseled by Zeus’, ‘one with divine counsel’. The meaning is perhaps not simply of a general nature (on such names, von Kamptz 39 f.), in that it specifically matches Diomedes’ role in the narrative tradition as it can be pieced together from the Iliad (Kanavou 2015, 48–50; on Diomedes’ mental acuity, also 412–418n.).

366 = 11.198; ≈ 23.286, Od. 17.117; 1st VH ≈ Il. 13.261, 20.245, 24.701, Od. 11.583, 24.204, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 61 (ἑσταότ’ ἐν …). — This arrival scene also stresses standing (366 f.; 328n.), albeit with no further explanation; this is probably meant to be understood simply as standing on the chariot ready for battle. Diomedes and Sthenelos would then have driven forward while the armies were approaching (221). At 371 (see ad loc.), Agamemnon criticizes their stance as standing about and probably also as a readiness to flee with the chariot (on its function during a retreat, 297–300n.). Diomedes accordingly leaps off his chariot (419) immediately after the speeches as evidence of his willingness to engage with the enemy: schol. bT on 365–366; Albracht [1886] 2005, 40 f.; Kurz 1966, 62. ἵπποισι καὶ ἅρμασι: The connection of ἵπποι in the sense ‘team of horses, chariot’ with ἅρμα, the latter here in the metrically convenient plural (226n.), usually forms a hendiadys meaning ‘chariot (with horses in harness)’ (LfgrE s. v. ἅρμα 1315.51 ff.); 419 indicates that what is meant is that Diomedes is standing on the chariot rather than between the horses and the chariots (Leaf). — κολλητοῖσιν: ‘securely joined’ from multiple parts, i.e. solid, sturdy; the means of joining are dowels or pegs, perhaps in combination with glue; in combination with ἅρμασι, the term forms a VE formula (19.395n.; Delebecque 1951, 172; Pöhlmann/Tichy 1982, 300 f.). On the word formation (a verbal adj. from κολλάω ‘join with pegs’ or possibly ‘glue’), LfgrE; Plath 1994, 237.

367 Kapaneus’: mentioned in early epic only as Sthenelos’ father (LfgrE); he is one of the Seven against Thebes (2.564n.), while his son is one of the so-called

366 ἑσταότ(α): = ἑστῶτα, perf. part. of ἵσταμαι (cf. R 6). — ἵπποισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — καὶ ἅρμασι: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 367 πάρ: 330–331n. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).



Epigoni, the sons of the Seven, who also laid siege to Thebes but conquered it, in contrast to their fathers (405 ff.; 403n., 404–410n.). — Sthenelos: along with Diomedes, a leader of the contingent from the southern Argolid (2.559 ff.); here he is standing beside Diomedes as the latter’s charioteer, as also in the subsequent battle (5.108 ff., 5.241 ff., 5.319 ff., 5.835 ff.): CH 4; 2.563–565n.; LfgrE. On the meaning of the name, 16.586n.; on a charioteer’s duties in general, 226–230n. Καπανήϊος υἱός: Καπανήϊος is one of the rare patronymics with the affiliative suffix -ιος, like Τελαμώνιος (473; on the name, 14.409n.): G 56. As at 5.108 and 5.241, it is here combined with Σθένελος and together with υἱός forms a variant of the patronymic Καπανηϊάδης (5.109) and the gen. Καπανῆος in conjunction with υἱός (403): 2.564n.

368 ≈ 336 (see ad loc.); 1st VH = Od. 17.215. — him: ‘Diomedes as the important figure’ (AH [transl.]). κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: 153–154n. 369 ≈ 284 (see ad loc.). Although the verse is absent from only one papyrus and one ms. (and added there in the margin, see app. crit. in West), it contains a redundant speech introduction formula and – like 337 – should be considered an interpolation that ought to be athetized (Apthorp 1999, 19–22).

370–400 Agamemnon’s speech to Diomedes is designed as a ring-compositionP: the reproachful comparison between Tydeus the father and Diomedes his son within one ring (370–375 indirect comparison, 399 f. direct comparison: Andersen 1978, 39) contains two narratives regarding Tydeus as a role model, his sojourn in Mycenae with Polyneikes (376–383) and, as an intensification, his journey alone to Thebes as an ambassador (384–398): Steinrück 1992, 103 (with further connections between the individual parts). In a similar manner, an accusation frames a positive counter example at 5.633–646 (Tlepolemos to Sarpedon) and 7.124–160 (Nestor to the Achaians): Lohmann 1970, 27 n. 37. The structure reinforces the appellative function of the speech, which it shares with other exemplar narratives (see paradigmP; 6.127–143n. with bibliography; Sanskrit and Germanic parallels in West 2007, 479): the speaker’s aim is to illustrate for the addressee Tydeus’ loyalty, fearlessness (stressed in enjambment at 387 f.: oudé … | tárbei ‘nor did he have fear’) and courage (by himself against many/all: 385 poléas ‘many’, 388 moúnos ‘alone’, 389 pánta ‘in all’, 397 pántas ‘all’), as Athene too does when addressing Diomedes at 5.800–813 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 155; Vetten 1990, 99). On the narrative level, prior to Diomedes’ introduction in the story and his aristeia in Book 5, a background is created as the basis on which he can distinguish himself (Reichel

368 νείκεσσεν: 336n. 369 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

1994, 217; West 2011, 146). Diomedes thus appears later as a hero who not only preserves his father’s fame (a common exhortation: 6.209n.), but manages to exceed it (a less frequent occurrence: 6.479n.; on the notion of later generations being worse than earlier ones, 404–410n.). Like Telemachos in the Odyssey, the son of Tydeus is repeatedly measured against his father and compares himself to him (also at 5.116, 5.800–813, 10.284–294, 14.113 f.; a topic of the genealogy in the dialogue between Glaukos and Diomedes at 6.119 ff.), even if he barely knows him (374–375n.): Andersen 1978, 34; Edmunds 1990, 35, 38. ‘In the case of no other hero does the image of the father play as significant a role as with Diomedes’ (Andersen loc. cit. [transl.]). In accord with the paradeigmatic purpose of the narrative, Tydeus is also depicted as a pious hero supported by Athene; Diomedes thus invokes the protection of the goddess during an undertaking (in Book 10, the so-called Doloneia) that resembles that of his father Tydeus before Thebes (10.284–294; cf. 5.125 f.: Athene instils his father’s energy in him). Negative aspects of Tydeus’ life are withheld, as in Diomedes’ speech at 14.113–125 (see ad loc.), and only the mention of inauspicious signs (381) perhaps alludes to the unfortunate end of the campaign of the Seven against Thebes (Alden 2000, 120, 140 with n. 57). Repeated hints at divine signs and support (381, 390, 398) prepare for the topic of the relationship between Diomedes and the gods in Book 5 (376–381n.). – The present narrative is among the references to the myth of the Theban war, which is mentioned only in connection with Tydeus; this in turn is occasioned by Diomedes’ special position in the epic (14.113–125n., 14.114n.). A variety of allusions likely presuppose a general knowledge of this war (cf. 6.152–211n. on the fragmentary nature of secondary storiesP), while Tydeus’ embassy to Thebes presumably contains a seed already present in earlier narratives, albeit perhaps in different contexts (similar to the post-Homeric cyclic epic Thebais). The material was then adapted to its paradeigmatic purpose by the poet of the Iliad (see in detail 376–381n., 384–398n., 391–398n., 394n., 395n., 397–398n.): Willcock (1964) 2001, 440 f.; Davies (1989) 2001, 22; 2014, 34–39 (with history of scholarship); West 2011, 29 with n. 2, 146. The connection of the Iliad with narratives surrounding a war at Thebes has long been debated and is significant for understanding oral epic poetry. The Theban myth was apparently very important, since the poet of the Iliad in many passages makes allusions to it and assumes that his audience possesses the background knowledge necessary to understand them (see above; BNP s. v. Thebais). The wide dissemination of the Theban stories in performances was probably due to the historically attested significance of Thebes during the Bronze Age, which oral poetry saved from oblivion (2.494–510n.; BNP loc. cit. with bibliography; Latacz [2001] 2004, 238–241; differently Burkert [1981] 2001, 157, 161). The significance of the material is likely indicated also by a Thebais praised by Pausanias, which according to him was attributed to ‘Homer’ by Callinus of Ephesus (ca. 650 B.C.) (Latacz [2011] 2014, 45 f.). How this attribution to the elegaic poet is to be judged is uncertain:



whether or not the reference is to the poet of the Iliad and whether he actually wrote such an epic – which would entail having to expect allusions to his own treatment of the Theban material within the Iliad or even quotations derived from his own poetry (tending from skepticism to rejection, Wilamowitz 1914, 104 f.; Davies 1989, 22; 2014, 27–33, 39–43, with history of scholarship; cautious regarding the links between the poet of the Iliad and the Theban myth generally, West 2011, 146; Davies 2014, 42).

370 ≈ 8.152; cf. 23.472; 2nd VH = 2.23, 2.60, 4.370, 11.450. — Although the address contains formulaic elements (cf. 338 with n.), it emphatically refers to the addressee’s father – Tydeus, the hero of the subsequent narrative (376– 398) – via two epithets and makes it clear from the start that the speech will focus on a comparison between father and son (371–375, 399 f.; 370–400n.): AH; Andersen 1978, 34. δαΐφρονος: 93n. — ἱπποδάμοιο: a generic epithetP for the Trojans (80n.) and individual heroes (2.23n.), of Tydeus also at 23.472. The asyndetic sequence of epithets likely has an emphatic effect (cf. 3.182 with n.; general bibliography on this: 2.23n.).

371 Cf. 20.427. — A verse constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (Kirk; on which in general, 1.145n.) with two indignant questions, common in speeches, that appeal to a sense of honor (242n.). The insinuation that the addressee is hanging back out of cowardice is also found in Tlepolemos’ challenge to Sarpedon (5.633 f.; Fenik 1968, 66). Here it is occasioned by the fact that Diomedes has not yet descended from his chariot (366n.), and is designed to spur him on to outstanding achievements (Wissmann 1997, 43). τί … τί: On the emotional effect of the repeated interrogative pronoun, as at 1.362, Fehling 1969, 189. — πτώσσεις: 224n.; the same accusation as at 340; picked up once more in the following verse (see ad loc.). — ὀπιπεύεις: related to *ὀπ- (ὄψομαι), with intensifying/factitive reduplication (on the disputed word formation in detail, Giannakis 1997, 278 f.): ‘spy on’, always with a negative connotation, here ‘you peek out (timidly) at’ (LfgrE). — πολέμοιο γεφύρας: a VE formula, with variant ἀνὰ πτολέμοιο γεφύρας at 8.378, 11.160, 20.427, ἐπὶ πτ. γεφύρῃ 8.553. γέφυρα, of uncertain origin (a new etymology in Reece 2009, 301–314, following J. Puhvel), is used elsewhere in early epic only at 5.88 f. in the sense ‘dam’; γεφυρόω means ‘construct a dam’ at 15.357 and 21.245. The formula was explained variously already in antiquity. Possibilities are (1) ‘dam-like formations of warriors’ (cf. ἕρκος πολέμοιο: 1.283b–284n.; Fränkel 1921, 26 f.) and (2) ‘dam-like empty spaces between the formations of an army’ or ‘between two opposing armies’, and thus the actual ‘battlefield, battle’ (AH, Leaf, Kirk). Meaning (1) is more appropriate for 20.427, meaning (2) for 8.378, 8.553, 11.160 (LfgrE s. v. γέφυρα; Reece loc. cit. 301–303). Here both interpretations are possible: Diomedes is accused of observing the πρόμαχοι to gauge if they resist, or of slyly watching the battlefield or the open spaces within his own army so as to be able to flee if necessary (schol. D; Fränkel loc. cit. 27; Reece loc. cit. 301).

370 ἱπποδάμοιο: on the declension, R 11.2.


Iliad 4

372–373 Agamemnon sees in Tydeus the embodiment of the self-representation of the elite, the prómachoi (on whom, 354n.): ‘The ἀρετή of a man is […] discernable […] in his willingness to take risks and is demonstrated in whether he is prepared to fight among the promachoi’ (Latacz 1977, 153 [transl.]). This claim is repeatedly made and fulfilled (e.g. by Agamemnon at 11.216 f.; see also 12.315 f., 22.459) by Diomedes in his aristeia, in which he proves himself worthy of his father (explicitly at 8.99); on I-E parallels, West 2007, 458 f. By employing a general reference to Tydeus’ bravery, the narrator avoids, here and later, mention of his deeds in the war against Thebes, since the glory of that expedition is clouded by Tydeus’ cruelty at the end as much as by the failure of the campaign as a whole (14.113–125n.). 372 Tydeus’: Repetition of the name (here rather than ‘your father’) after the occurrence of it in 370 puts additional emphasis on the role model (AH on 370). φίλον: especially provocative: used as a predicate, as here, it often denotes a characteristic propensity or inclination (as also indicated by the iterative πτωσκαζέμεν: Landfester 1966, 105 with n. 38); cf. 1.107n. and 345. — πτωσκαζέμεν: a hapax legomenonP, perhaps from πτώσσω (371: 224n.), but likely derived directly from the root πτωκ- with a combination of iterative -σκ- and intensive -αζ- (on the common dissimilation -κσκ- > -σκ-, Lejeune 1947, 58), analogous to the semantically similar ἀλυσκάζω derived from ἀλυ- (6.443n.); the suffixes further intensify the abuse after the attack with τί πτώσσεις; at 371 (Faesi): ‘tend to keep (timidly) in the background’: LfgrE; Chantraine 1931, 125; Frisk s. v. πτήσσω.

374–375 In an oral society, speakers frequently refer to hearsay (14.125n.). Here the appeal serves the purpose of general authentification (de Jong [1987] 2004, 278 n. 29): Tydeus is a hero who died young in the war against Thebes and thus was not known personally to any of the warriors before Troy; his son does not remember him either, since he was young when Tydeus set out against Thebes (6.222 f.): Drerup 1921, 372; Alden 2000, 119; in detail, albeit one-sided, on Diomedes as a ‘fatherless’ son, Pratt 2009. As the remote hero of a different myth cycle (370–400n.), Tydeus is particularly well suited to serve a paradeigmatic function (Andersen 1978, 34). At the same time, his superiority (375) is called into question later by Sthenelos (404n.). The notion of a distance between generations is an example of historical awareness (Deger 1970, Part 2, 10; Kullmann [1988] 1992, 158; on this in general, Gehrke 2014, 40 ff.); it is also picked up at Mimnermus fr. 14.1–3 West (echoing the present passage? West 2011, 146).

372 ὧδε: with πτωσκαζέμεν. — πτωσκαζέμεν: on the form, R 16.4. — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6). 373 πολύ: with πρό, ‘far’. — ἑτάρων: = ἑταίρων.



374 from caesura C 2 on = 17.502, 23.469, Od. 4.193, 4.200, 7.208, h.Merc. 309. — ὡς: in the majority of mss. without an accent and after a comma (app. crit. in West) in the sense ‘as’; elsewhere in Homeric epic, only a combination of accented ὥς ‘thus’ with φημί after a full stop is attested (thus read that way here by AH and Leaf), whereas here the preceding statement regarding Tydeus’ achievements would be highlighted as subjective, lending too much weight to what follows (the absence of autopsy). — ἴδοντο: The middle, rather than act. ἴδον, as at 375, is here likely metrically occasioned, much like the switch between voices at 1.262 (see ad loc.; Ellendt [1861] 1979, 77; differently Bechert 1964, 312; LfgrE s. v. ἰδεῖν 1118.4 ff. and 1125.8 ff.). — πονεόμενον: πονέομαι ‘labor, toil’ (2.409n.), here and at 5.84, 5.627, 13.288, 20.359 in battle, which is frequently portrayed as onerous work (1.162n., 2.401n.; 6.77: πόνος ‘the toil of battle’, see ad loc.): LfgrE s. v. πονέομαι 1443.17 ff.; Leaf. 375 = Od. 4.201.

376–381 Polyneikes (377), one of the two sons of Oidipous, who was fighting his brother Eteokles for sovereignty over Thebes and was preparing for a campaign against the city at the residence of his father-in-law Adrestos in Argos, organized a recruitment drive together with his brother-in-law Tydeus (on the earlier history of the latter, 14.114n.), in this case in Mycenae, much as Nestor, Odysseus and Menelaos did prior to the campaign against Troy (9.252–259, 11.767–770, Od. 24.115–119), because of a relationship founded on guest-friendship (377 xéinos, ‘as a guest-friend’; on this in general, 3.207n.; on the recruitment of troops, Hellmann 2000, 51). On the significance of Mycenae, inter alia as Agamemnon’s residence, 51–53n. The narrative of the visit to this place was probably invented by the poet of the Iliad, like other secondary storiesP recalling an obligation: Diomedes, like the Mycenaeans, is supposed to have been ready for action (Andersen 1978, 35 with p. 44 n. 7; this may also be an indication of how Agamemnon knows about Tydeus [374 f.]: West 2011, 146). The divine signs (381), not attested elsewhere, explain why, according to the myth, the Mycenaeans did not participate, while also casting an unfavorable light on the doomed campaign of the Seven against Thebes (perhaps already in an older story in a different context) and introducing the topic of Tydeus’ and Diomedes’ piety (cf. 390n., 397–398n.; during battle in Book 5): Andersen loc. cit. 36; Davies 2014, 36. 376 not in war: after the explanation regarding Tydeus’ fitness for battle (373 f.), a transition to his arrival in Mycenae with peaceful intentions, as a guest-friend (377): AH; Kirk. 374 οἵ: = οὗτοι, οἵ. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἴδοντο: mid. with no discernible difference in meaning from the act. (R 23; ↑). — πονεόμενον: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 375 ἤντησ(α): ‘encountered’ (sc. ‘him’). — οὐδὲ (ϝ)ίδον: on the prosody, R 4.3; sc. πονεόμενον (374). — περὶ … γενέσθαι (+ gen.): ‘surpass’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. 376 ἤτοι: R 24.4. — πολέμου εἰσῆλθε: on the hiatus, R 5.6.


Iliad 4

γάρ: ‘introduces the narrative that follows, which is designed to prove Tydeus’ prowess in battle’ (AH [transl.]). — Μυκήνας: The plural form, more common in later texts, is found elsewhere in early epic only at 2.569, where also in the acc. 377 ἀντιθέῳ: 88n. — Πολυνείκεϊ: a speaking name formed as a possessive compound from νεῖκος (‘man of much conflict’: LfgrE; von Kamptz 29, 89). — λαὸν ἀγείρων: an inflectable formula at VE (in total 6× early epic) and at VB (28, 11.770); ἐσαγείρετο λαός at Od. 14.248 is also at VE (Haubold 2000, 198 f.).

378 1st VH ≈ 3.187; cf. Od. 10.445. — Thebe: in Boeotia, considered a foundation of Kadmos (2.498n. [s. v. Mykalessos]); on the historical significance of Thebes, 2.494–510n., 2.505n. ἐστρατόωνθ᾿: a denominative from στρατός; ‘were in the field’ (3.187n.), here with πρός ‘to be on a campaign (against)’: LfgrE, where also with bibliography on the word formation, the details of which are disputed (factitive or instrumentative? base form in -όομαι?). — ἱερά: ἱερός is a generic epithet of cities (46–47n.; of Thebes at h.Ap. 226) and thus also of their walls, here those of Thebes, at 16.100 those of Troy (see ad loc.; 24.681n.). — τείχεα Θήβης: the identical VE formula at 2.691, where of socalled Hypoplakian Thebes in the southern Troad (2.691n.). On the sing. Θήβης (beside the likewise attested pl.), 19.98–99n.; cf. 376n. on Μυκήνας. 379 κλειτοὺς ἐπικούρους: an inflectable VE formula (5× Il., 1× Hes.; at 6.227, 18.229 the variant κλειτοί τ᾿ ἐπίκουροι): 6.227n.

380 2nd VH ≈ 23.539, Od. 4.673, 7.226, 8.398, 13.47. — they: the inhabitants of Mycenae, together with their leader Thyestes, who reigned before Agamemnon (2.106 f.): AH. ἔθελον: ‘were prepared, ready (to)’ (on the range of meaning of ἐθέλω, 1.112n.): LfgrE s. v. ἐθέλω 416.20 ff. — ἐκέλευον: κελεύω can also mean ‘request, ask (to)’ (24.599n.); the subject is Polyneikes and Tydeus. 381 2nd VH ≈ 2.353, 9.236, ‘Hes.’ fr. 141.25 M.-W.; from caesura C 2 on ≈ Od. 21.413, h.Hom. 7.46. — ἔτρεψε: in a metaphorical sense, as at 6.61 (see ad loc.): ‘dissuaded them from their decision’ (LfgrE s. v. τρέπω 603.61 ff.). — παραίσια: only here; from παρά in a rarely attested metaphorical sense ‘beyond, against’ (Chantr. 2.123) and αἶσα, ‘with unfavorable premonitions, indicating ill fortune’ (LfgrE); the opposite is ἐναίσιμα (2.353n.). 382 ἰδέ: ‘and’; a rare metrical variant of ἠδέ (2.511n.). — πρὸ ὁδοῦ ἐγένοντο: γίγνομαι in the sense ‘come’ always occurs in the aor. (LfgrE s. v. γίγνομαι 151.71 ff.), here with

377 ξεῖνος: = ξένος (< ξένϝος: R 4.2). 378 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17); Tydeus and Polyneikes are meant. — ἐστρατόωνθ᾿: = ἐστρατόωντο, with elision (R 5.1) and aspiration; on the epic diectasis, R 8. 379 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — μάλα (λ)λίσσοντο: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — δόμεν: = δοῦναι (R 16.4). 380 δόμεναι: = δοῦναι (R 16.4). 382 οἵ: Tydeus and Polyneikes. — ὤχοντο ἰδέ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — πρὸ ὁδοῦ: on the hiatus, R 5.7.



adverbial πρό, i.e. ‘go forward’ (LfgrE loc. cit. 155.2 ff.), as at 18.525 προγένοντο (see ad loc.). ὁδοῦ is a partitive gen., an indication of the space within which movement is taking place (‘of the way, on the way’), as frequently in the case of πεδίοιο (on which, 2.785n.) and likewise with πρό at 17.667 and Hes. Op. 579: Wackernagel (1920/24) 2009, 665; Schw. 2.112, 507.

383 Asopos: A river south of Thebes, mentioned in the same context also at 10.287; it probably formed the border of the city’s territory (LfgrE). βαθύσχοινον: A compound from βαθύς and σχοῖνον ‘(a bed of) rushes’ (this at Od. 5.463: at a river estuary on the Phaiakian coast): ‘lined with tall rushes’, of marshy river banks, as at h.Hom. 9.3 (LfgrE). — λεχεποίην: A compound from an initial verbal element (*λέχομαι, aor. λέκτο, ‘lie (down)’) and ποίη ‘grass, meadow’ in a rather free syntactical relationship (intransitive/locative) (Risch 190 with n. 9); understanding it as a possessive compound (LfgrE) is hardly feasible. It must mean ‘grassy, rich in grass’, here characterizing the marshy banks of the Asopos, like the previous epithet (LfgrE); conversely in the case of cities, as at 2.697, h.Ap. 224, h.Merc. 88, characterizing the fertility of the soil (2.697n.).

384–398 The subsequent story of Tydeus’ embassy, also mentioned both in Athene’s paraenesis to Diomedes at 5.802–808 and in the latter’s prayer to the goddess at 10.286–290, contains common motifs of tales and epics also found in the Odyssey in particular (387–388n., 389–390n., 391–398n., 395n., 397–398n.): Kirk on 385–398; on the differences between 5.802–808 and 10.208–210, which reflect the context, Drerup 1921, 371; Andersen 1978, 44 n. 9; di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 84; in general on differences in analepses of this sort, de Jong 2007, 36. Attempts to use embassies to resolve conflicts by peaceful means before the outbreak of war appear elsewhere as well (Menelaos and Odysseus in Troy, 3.205 f. [with n.], 11.140): AH; Andersen loc. cit. 36. But it is unusual that Tydeus undertakes the embassy alone; nor is it said what Tydeus aims to achieve with the Thebans (perhaps the abdication of the ruling Eteokles in favor of his brother Polyneikes: Kirk on 384). Diomedes’ father thus forms the center of a narrative that the poet of the Iliad either invented or adapted in accord with its paraenetic function within the speech (Andersen loc. cit.). 384 Achaians: Here, as at 5.803, 6.223 (see ad loc.), etc., this denotes the Argives (i.e. the attacking army led by Adrestos) in contrast to the Thebans. ἀγγελίην: As at 3.206 (see ad loc., with bibliography), whether the word is to be understood as masc. (‘messenger’, in which case it is predicative with Τυδῆ; AH) or as an abstract fem. (‘message’) is unclear; the latter is also possible here: the empha-

383 λεχεποίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. 384 ἔνθ᾿ αὖτ(ε): introduces the main clause. — ἐπὶ … στεῖλαν: ‘sent out’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.


Iliad 4

sis on the message as an important assignment for Tydeus is appropriate; in that case, ἀγγελίην is an nomen actionis as an internal acc. with ἐπὶ … στεῖλαν (‘for a message’), as with ἐλθόντα and ἐξεσίην at 11.140 and with ἐλθεῖν at 24.235 (see ad loc.): Kirk; Hainsworth on 11.140; Janko on 13.251–253. — Τυδῆ: -ῆ is a rare acc. sing. ending contracted from -εα, as in Μηκιστῆ (15.339), Ὀδυσῆ (Od. 19.136): G 44 and 76; Chantr. 1.34 (differently Schw. 1.575; Mahlow 1926, 375: -ῆ < -ῆα).

385 Kadmeians: a term used in the Iliad exclusively for the Thebans; secondarily, it was linked to the legendary founder of Thebes (14.321n.), Kadmos (LfgrE s. v. Καδμείωνες und Καδμεῖος). αὐτὰρ ὃ βῆ: a VB formula (11× Il., 4× Od.). — πολέας: 230n. — Καδμείωνας: derived from the place name *Κάδμη with denominative -ίων, ‘a VE form that is metrically complementary’ with Καδμείους (LfgrE), like Δαρδανίωνες with Δάρδανοι (1.570n.). The metrical system Καδμεῖοι (388, 391, 5.807, 10.288, 1× Od., 2× Hes.) / Καδμείωνας (also 5.804, 23.680) as a designation for the inhabitants of Thebes, corresponding to Ἀργεῖοι / Ἀργείωνες for the attackers, likely derives from inherited oral epic concerning the Theban myth (Beck 1988, 5–7).

386 1st VH = Od. 2.247; ≈ 1.228; cf. 4.15. — Tydeus encounters the Thebans at a festive communal meal in the house of Eteokles (Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 271 n. 52; cf. 259–263n.). βίης Ἐτεοκληείης: Ἐτεοκληείης, with metrical lengthening, since contracted Ἐτεοκλείης < Ἐτεοκλε(ϝ)ε(σ)ίης would have been inconvenient (Werner 1948, 33; Ruijgh 1995, 82 f.); attested already in Mycenaean texts as a possessive adj. in -ιος (2.20n.) from the name Ἐτεοκλῆς (see MYC s. v. Ἐτεοκλῆς), the name is a compound of ἐτεός and κλέος meaning ‘with true fame’ (von Kamptz 88, 193). It is probably also borne by the brother of a king of Achijawa mentioned in a Hittite text, Tawakalawas (Latacz [2001] 2010, 420). Together with βίη, with which the gen. is likewise combined, the adj. produces a formulaic paraphrase of the name at VE (forming a versus spondeiazon), a titulature perhaps going back to the Mycenaean period (2.658n.).

387–388 The motif ‘single-handed combat’, by which the hero wins particular fame (16.97–100n.), is here combined with the opposition ‘alone’ vs. ‘many/ all’, which is also employed at 15.611, Od. 20.30, 22.13 and has I-E parallels (de Jong on Od. 16.117–121; West 2007, 481). 387 ξεῖνος: here not in the sense ‘guest-friend’, as at 377 (see ad loc.), but ‘stranger’ (LfgrE s. v. ξεῖνος 467.6 ff.), with the connotation ‘in a difficult and dangerous situation’, since as Polyneikes’ envoy he is actually an enemy of the Thebans (Leaf; Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 118). On the risks faced by strangers, the protection afforded by Zeus and guest-friendship generally, 3.207n. — ἱππηλάτα: an epithetP of heroes of the older generation, usually combined formulaically with γέρων, which is here replaced by ἐών (19.311n.; Delebecque 1951, 38). On the noun in -ᾰ and the meaning (‘chariot-knight’), 2.336n. s. v. ἱππότα.

385 αὐτάρ: progressive (R 24.2). — ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — πολέας: 230n. 387 περ: concessive (R 24.10), with οὐδέ: ‘not even’. — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6).



388 2nd VH ≈ 5.804, 13.661, 16.240, 23.60, Od. 11.495. — τάρβει: ‘take fright, despair’ (1.331n.). — πολέσιν μετὰ Καδμείοισιν: similarly 16.240, 23.60, Od. 11.495 πολέσιν μετὰ Μυρμιδόνεσσιν (16.15n.); on Καδμείοισιν, 385n. on Καδμείωνας.

389–390 Combat sports after a meal are a common motif (also at Od. 8.98 ff.) and here might have been taken from a story (West 2001, 147). The fact that Tydeus excelled in competitions is also recalled by Athene in her provocative paraenesis to Diomedes at Il. 5.800–813, which evidently represents a brief allusion to the current passage (Drerup 1921, 371; Andersen 1978, 44 n. 9). It is always dangerous when a stranger challenges the local elite in the presence of their men, raising the possibility that they may make fools of themselves (Od. 8.209–211): Scodel 2002, 184; Horn 2014, 58 f. Both passages thus focus on Tydeus’ fearlessness, which is meant to be paradeigmatic (Andersen loc. cit. 37; on the relationship between the speeches, also Erbse 1986, 134). The narrator’s commentary about Euryalos (Il. 23.677–680) also shows that people generally remember and transmit to posterity tales about significant victories in competitions: Scodel 2008, 37. 389 2nd VH = 5.807; ≈ 3.19, 7.150. — προκαλίζετο: ‘call forth’, thus ‘call out, challenge’ (3.19n.). — πάντα … ἐνίκα: πάντα is acc. of respect; ‘he excelled in all areas’ (i.e. in all competitive disciplines), ‘he ran the table’ (LfgrE s. v. νικάω 403.29 ff.).

390 ≈ 5.808. — Athene also supports young men elsewhere: in competitions, as here, when she protects her proteges Diomedes and Odysseus during the funeral games in honor of Patroklos (23.388 ff., 23.768 ff.) and Odysseus during his sojourn with the Phaiakians (Od. 8.193 ff.; Richardson 2007, 122), as well as in battle (e.g. Il. 20.98, 21.215 Achilleus, cf. Hes. Th. 925 f.), as do other deities (e.g. 5.603 Hektor; on Athene’s role in battle and in particular her function as protectress of those fighting to defend a polis, which in the story of the Iliad can only be touched upon negatively, CG 8; 6.86–101n.; Burkert [1977] 2011, 218). The achievements of the heroes are thus not diminished by the reference to divine support (AH with Anh.; Willcock). Athene also appears to protect Tydeus and his family in particular, thus also Diomedes in Book 5, something probably being prepared for here (389–390n.), when she mentions Tydeus’ victory to incite his son (reference to her support in 5.808, although the verse is athetized by West; on this in detail, Erbse 1986, 133 f.); she is thus invoked by Diomedes during a dangerous undertaking (10.285; on this, Bierl 2012, 147): Tsagarakis 1977, 52. τοίη: In early epic, τοῖος is frequently used to stress the power of the gods (also 5.808, 5.828 of Athene, 13.677 of Poseidon, 15.254 of Apollo, 21.289 of Poseidon and

388 μοῦνος: = μόνος (μόνϝος: R 4.2). — πολέσιν: on the declension, R 12.2. 390 ῥηϊδίως: = ῥᾳδίως. — τοίη (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἦεν: 372n.


Iliad 4

Athene). — ἐπίρροθος: from ῥόθος ‘(rushing) noise’, this means approximately ‘rushing toward’; elsewhere only at 23.770, where likewise of Athene lending aid during a competition, metaphorically at Hes. Op. 560 (LfgrE s.vv. ἐπίρροθος and ῥόθος).

391–398 Why the Thebans become infuriated (391) is not said unequivocally, whether it is due to their defeat in the competitions (389 f.), in reaction to Tydeus’ message, out of fear of their weakness being reported back to Argos, or most likely for a combination of all the reasons above (schol. bT on 392; Andersen 1978, 37; Kirk). Given that Tydeus was an envoy, they could not attack him openly (Horn 2014, 98 n. 452), but the ambush also violated norms (Andersen loc. cit.; cf. 3.207 and 11.139: Menelaos in danger as an envoy to Troy). Ambush, variously judged as a tactic in Homeric epic (1.226– 227n., 18.513n., 24.779n., each with bibliography; Horn 2014, 96–98), is a typical motif of tales and epics (6.178–195n.; on the themeP ‘ambush’, 18.513n.). The same applies to the typical number fifty (393n.) and the hyperbolic claim that Tydeus killed almost all his attackers (396 f.). It thus cannot be entirely precluded that the story was originally set in a different context; here it serves to highlight the victorious hero, like the story of Bellerophon at 6.187–190 (Andersen loc. cit. 37, 44 n. 10; on points of contact with the Bellerophon narrative and the literal echoes, 6.187–190n.; Fornaro 1992, 45– 48, with a collection of examples). 391 1st VH ≈ 2.599, 9.538, 20.253 (pronoun in the nom.); ≈ 3.413, 6.205, 23.482, 24.55, Od. 18.25, Hes. Op. 53 (pronoun in the acc.), h.Cer. 251 (pronoun in the dat.); ≈ Il. 15.68 (pronoun in the gen.); also Od. 12.348 (εἰ δὲ χ.). – These half-verses have the basic structure ‘pronoun + δέ (Il. 20.253 τε) + χολωσάμενος (-η, -οι, -αι)’, which may be continued at will (2.599n.; as speech introduction formula: 24.55n.). — κέντορες ἵππων: similarly at VE also at 5.102. The nomen agentis κέντωρ is a back-form in -τωρ from κέντρον (Risch 29) and means ‘driver, inciter’. It is less common than πλήξιππος (327n.) and, in contrast to the latter, does not really fit charioteers whipping their horses; it was perhaps originally said of herdsmen directing their animals with long goads (LfgrE s. v. κέντωρ and κένσαι; Delebecque 1951, 41; Page 1959, 294 n. 113 for this reason imagines I-E origins for the epithet). 392 ≈ 6.187. — ἀναερχομένῳ: The hiatus at the juncture of the compound elements in this reading, attested in good mss. (app. crit. in West), has parallels (G 41; on the readings without hiatus, AH with Anh.). — πυκινόν: ‘densely manned, strong in numbers’, also referred to by κούρους πεντήκοντα at 393 (24.779n.; AH, Anh.; Dué/Ebbott 2010, 244; cf. 281n.). — λόχον εἷσαν: εἷσαν is a transitive aor. of ἕζομαι, ‘made to sit down’; λόχος here denotes the group forming the ambush (6.189n.). — εἷσαν ἄγοντες: also at VE in 23.698 and Od. 3.416; ἄγοντες has the sense ‘lead, command’ (LfgrE s. v. ἄγω 118.12 ff.).

391 χολωσάμενοι: ingressive aor.: ‘get angry’. — οἳ … Καδμεῖοι: οἵ anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), with Καδμεῖοι as an appositive.



393–395 A type of miniature catalogueP prior to the description of the battle (Scott 1974, 36 f.); on this in general, 16.168–197n. 393 fifty: a typical numberP (6.244–246n., 16.168n., both with bibliography). — two: The same number of leaders command some of the contingents in the Catalogue of Ships (2.512, 2.517, 2.650 f., 2.678, 2.731, 2.740 ff.: Kirk; see the overview at 2.494–759n., p. 146), and two leaders are common in the themeP ‘ambush’ (e.g. Odysseus and Telemachos against the suitors in the Odyssey; Dué/Ebbott 2010, 70 f.). The number two is also occasionally linked elsewhere to the number fifty, e.g. at 11.748, Od. 8.35 ff., 16.247 ff. (Nagler 1974, 211). 394 A four-word verse (228n.); 2nd VH = Od. 15.414, 21.14, ‘Hes.’ fr. 10(a).64 M.-W. (restored); ≈ Il. 11.60, Od. 21.37, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 182, h.Ven. 219, h.Hom. 31.7 (ἐπιείκελον ἀ.). — The comparison with the gods might stress the importance and strength of the opponent of Diomedes’ father, highlighting Tydeus’ achievement (Ready 2011, 34); on comparisons with gods in general, 2.478– 479n., 2.565n. — Maion: The meaning of the name is unclear. It is perhaps created ad hoc for an invented character (see below), although the idea that Maion is taken from tradition is supported both by his important function within the narrative (397–398n.) and by the fact that his father’s name, Haimon, is borne by another Theban, the son of Kreon in the myth of Oidipous (Oedip. fr. 3 West; in Sophokles’ Antigone the fiance of the titular heroine): Willcock (1964) 2001, 441; Andersen 1978, 44 f. n. 14. Μαίων: a name attested here only; perhaps formed as a nomen agentis from μαίομαι meaning ‘he who strives for, pursues’, then probably a speaking name created ad hoc like the subsequent Αὐτόφονος and Λυκοφόντης (395); in a manner similar to the pair of names at 395, it would form together with Αἱμονίδης (see below) a unit meaning approximately ‘Cupidus, son of Rapax’ (von Kamptz 26; Kirk; Kanavou 2015, 147). — Αἱμονίδης: a patronymic in -ίδης (on the formation, G 56) from the name Αἵμων (296n.); the meaning ‘who hunts, seizes, rapax’, echoing αἵμονα θήρης at 5.49, would be suitable here, but is uncertain (von Kamptz 237). — ἐπιείκελος ἀθανάτοισιν: an inflectable VE formula (see iterata). 395 Αὐτοφόνοιο: a name formed from αὐτός and φόνος; the initial element is already found in a Mycenaean name (au-to-te-qa-jo, see MYC s. v. αὐτός) and in Αὐτόλυκος (10.267, Od. 19.394 ff.), as well as in numerous historical names (Bechtel 1917, 89 f.); the final element is likewise Mycenaean (ra-wo-qo-no, /Lāwo-kwhonos/, a personal name, see MYC s. v. θείνω) and is attested in the name Ἀντίφονος (Il. 24.250). It is uncertain whether the element αὐτός offers no change to the meaning of the verbal final element, or at most intensifies it, or whether the name means ‘killer of himself

393 κούρους: appositive with λόχον. 394 ἀθανάτοισιν: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).


Iliad 4

or of relatives’ or ‘killing himself, with his own hand’; since it fits well with both the name of the son, Λυκοφόντης, and the situation, this could be a character invented by the poet of the Iliad or an earlier poet (LfgrE; on the age of the story, 391–398n.). Such combinations of speaking names can be found also at e.g. 5.59 (Φέρεκλος, son of Τέκτων), 10.314 (Δόλων, son of Εὐμήδης), 17.323 f. (Περίφας, son of Ἤπυτος): von Kamptz 26; Rank 1951, 132. Like Λυκοφόντης and ἐπιείκελος ἀθανάτοισιν at 394, the name highlights the murderous opposition of Tydeus’ enemies in the ambush (394n.). — μενεπτόλεμος: a verb-noun compound meaning ‘persisting in battle’; a generic epithetP that is used especially with personal names whose prosodic scheme is a rising ionic (here Λυκοφόντης) after caesura B 2 (2.740n.; LfgrE). Like the preceding characterization of Maion (394n.), it signals the prowess of one of Tydeus’ enemies. — Λυκοφόντης: formed from λύκος ‘wolf’, like Λυκομήδης (19.240), Λυκόοργος (6.130) and Λυκόφρων (15.430), with a final element -φόντης related to θείνω (on which, see above on Αὐτοφόνοιο): ‘wolf-slayer’; the final element of Ἀργειφόντης (2.103n.) and Βελλεροφόντης (6.155n.) was interpreted in the same way. A Trojan by the same name at 8.275 and a mention of the name by Statius at Theb. 2.610 supports the version of it transmitted in virtually all mss. (which also fits well with the context of the ambush: on the wolf motif, see Bierl 2012, 152–155); the variant Πολυφόντης ‘slayer of many’ (AH; Faesi; Kirk) is perhaps somewhat better suited to the other names, as well as to the context (LfgrE s. v. Πολυφόντης), but is found in only a single ms. (app. crit. in West) and has no parallels in Homeric epic (only in ‘Hes.’ fr. 261 M.-W., as the name of a Messenian), although the name is given to one of the Seven against Thebes by Aeschylus (Sept. 448) and to a herald of Laios by the mythographers (Willcock [1964] 2001, 440). In any case, it is eminently possible that one of the two names transmitted for the second leader was invented to fit the situation of the planned killing of Tydeus, much like the preceding names (whether this was done by the poet of the Iliad or earlier poets remains an open question; on the age of the Theban material generally, 370–400n.; on characters in the Iliad with names invented ad hoc, Higbie 1995, 192). 396 2nd VH = Od. 4.339, 17.130; ≈ Od. 4.340, 17.131, 19.550 (with different forms of ἐφίημι); 2.250, 22.317, 22.416 (ἀ. π. ἐπίσποι/ἐπέσπον). — καί: does not indicate that he killed the previously defeated competitors (thus schol. bT; cf. 389), but only that he also outclassed those lying in ambush for him, much to their shame (ἀεικέα) (AH; Kirk). — ἀεικέα: ‘ignominious’, belongs to character languageP (1.97n.). — πότμον ἐφῆκεν: ‘inflicted a deadly fate’, i.e. ‘killed’; ἐφίημι is also linked with abstracts elsewhere: e.g. 1.445, 21.524 with κήδε(α), 10.71 with κακότητα (LfgrE s. v. ἵημι 1154.55 ff.).

397–398 The motif of the lone survivor is exceedingly common and also occurs e.g. in the narrative of Odysseus’ rescue from the sea (Od. 12.403–450), in the context of mass slaughter inter alia in the myths of the Danaids and the women of Lemnos: Kirk; BNP s.vv. Lynceus 2; Thoas. One person must report the massacre and possibly issue a warning, thus also increasing the hero’s reputation (Medeon survives for similar reasons, Od. 22.373 f.; at Il. 12.73 con-

396 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6), emphasizes Τυδεύς (R 24.7). — τοῖσιν: on the declension, R 11.2; anaphoric demonstrative (R 17).



cern is voiced about a Trojan defeat without even a messenger returning to the city): AH; Kelly 2007, 91; Horn 2014, 140 n. 652. It is unclear why it is one of the leaders, Maion, who is spared, nor does the very brief reference to divine signs in the context of Tydeus’ behavior toward Maion explain anything further. As at 381, 408 and 6.183, the mention resembles a summary of pre-existing narratives useful to the poet of the Iliad and probably assumes knowledge on the part of the audience. Other possible reasons for sparing Maion have been offered. The idea of Maion being a priest of Apollo or a herald, or burying Tydeus in Thebes (Stat. Theb. 4.598; schol. D on 395; Paus. 9.18.2, cf. 14.114n.), could have developed later on the basis of the Iliad (AH, Anh. on 394; Andersen 1978, 38), but it cannot be entirely precluded that he had to survive since he was the ancestor of the Maionians (2.864n.) (LfgrE s. v. Μαίων); it is in any case unclear whether Maion is an inherited character (394n.). It is significant that the hero’s relationship with the gods, which is picked up by Sthenelos (408n.) and plays an important role in Diomedes’ aristeia in Book 5, reverberates here as a motif (398); it serves to portray Tydeus as a model of piety, which provokes Sthenelos’ contradiction (Andersen loc. cit. 38; Vetten 1990, 106). 397 1st VH ≈ 6.190 (on the echoes of the Bellerophon narrative, 391–398n.), 6.423. — ἔπεφν(ε): a reduplicated aor. of θείνω ‘kill’ (6.12n.); ‘coincident in time with ἐφῆκεν, thus the asyndeton’ (AH [transl.]). — ἵει: The impf. beside the aor. forms ἔπεφν(ε) and προέηκε (398) indicates the course of a secondary circumstance (Chantr. 2.193 f.). — οἶκόνδε νέεσθαι: an inflectable VE formula (2.290n.). 398 2nd VH = 6.183; cf. 408 (see ad loc.). — ἄρα: suggests that ἵει (397) is picked up by προέηκε, while at the same time highlighting the relevant new information, i.e. Μαίον(α) at the beginning of the sentence (Grimm 1962, 27); 16.308 (see ad loc.) is similar. — τεράεσσι: 76n.; the signs are here left vague, as at 6.183 (see ad loc.; LfgrE). — πιθήσας: an intransitive s-aor. beside ἐπιθόμην, frequently in reference to externalities, here ingressive: ‘relying on’ (likewise at 6.183, see ad loc.).

399–400 In the conclusion of the speech, Diomedes is directly compared to his father (the contrast is summed up; on the father-son relationship, 370– 400n.) in battle and in council, the two most important arenas for proving oneself (1.258n., 18.106n., both with bibliography). The statement concerning his abilities in council (400b) is here meant not as praise but as mockery, but this favoring of military abilities is dependent on context: Diomedes is to be stirred up for battle, which has an effect on both him and Sthenelos (cf.

397 ἵει (ϝ)οικόνδε: on the prosody, R 4.4. — οἶκόνδε: ‘home(ward)’ (R 15.3). — νέεσθαι: finalconsecutive inf.; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 398 προέηκε: aor. of προίημι ‘let go, dismiss’ (ἕηκε is a by-form of ἧκε). — τεράεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3.


Iliad 4

404n., 418 ff. with n.). In addition, Agamemnon’s characterization of Diomedes serves to prepare for the latter’s function as an important advisor at 9.31 ff. and 14.109 ff. On the passage: Barck 1976, 98 f.; Andersen 1978, 39; Vetten 1990, 107. The effect of the statement is underpinned via integral enjambmentP at 400, the frequency of ει/η-sounds in the longum of each of the six dactyls, and the antithetical chiasmus χέρεια μάχῃ, ἀγορῇ ἀμείνων at 400 (Kirk; Fehling 1969, 296).

399 Aitolian: Tydeus is from Aitolia (14.114 ff., with n.); like other heroes, he is here (like his son at 23.471) designated in terms of his origins (2.336n.). τοῖος: frequently serves to characterize illustrious persons (e.g. also 24.384, Od. 1.257): Marg 1938, 58; similarly to stress special power at 390 (see ad loc.). — τὸν υἱόν: ὁ, ἡ, τό can be used possessively (as at 21.412, 23.75; Schw. 2.22; Leaf), but τόν here can also mark the contrast, as ὁ, ἡ, τό frequently does elsewhere (2.217n.): ‘but this one, his son’ (Schw. 2.21; Chantr. 2.161). 400 2nd VH cf. 18.106. — γείνατο: from trans. ἐγεινάμην beside intrans. ἐγενόμην (19.26n.). — εἷο: on the reflexive, G 81; Schw. 2.194; Chantr. 2.154. — χέρεια: acc. sing. masc. (also at Od. 14.176) beside dat. sing. masc. χέρηϊ (Il. 1.80, with n.), nom. pl. masc./fem. χέρηες (Od. 15.324) and nom./acc. pl. neut. χέρεια (Il. 14.382, Od. 18.229, 20.310; on the switch ει/η, Werner 1948, 84 f.); the word means ‘weaker’, derived from the same root as χερείων/χείρων but morphologically not a comparative (Leumann [1945] 1959, 216; Egli 1954, 77); of personal qualities, as at Il. 2.248 χερειότερον (see ad loc.), and likewise of the younger generation at Hes. Op. 127 χειρότερον. — τ(ε): on the unusual use of τε, Ruijgh 698. — ἀμείνων: The reading preferred by Aristarchus, AH, Leaf and West with the nom. ἀμείνων in a paratactic concessive clause presupposes an ellipsis of both ἐστί and the subject. ‘[T]he omission […] is harsh’ (Leaf), but the expression as a sentence has a parallel in 18.106 (see above on the 2nd VH). A sentence also better illustrates the fact portrayed by the speaker than would a further predicative addition with ἀμείνω, the reading in most mss. (app. crit. in West), parallel with χέρεια μάχῃ; on the contracted acc. form ἀμείνω (< ἀμείνονα), 3.11n.

401–402 Diomedes’ reaction to Agamemnon’s speech is shown in multiple ways: via his silence (401 f.), his speech to Sthenelos (412–418n.), his subsequent leap off the chariot (419–421n.) and later his aristeia (in Book 5), as well as his speeches to Agamemnon (9.34–36, 14.126, 14.110–132n.). His immediate silence is explained by his respect (aidṓs) for Agamemnon’s age and status: this is the commander of the campaign against Troy (the respect is stressed by aidestheís, ‘since he showed respect’ and the additional adj. aidoíoio describing Agamemnon: ‘awe-inspiring, honorable’): Cairns 1993, 96. The considered restraint is contrasted with Sthenelos’ impulsive response, which Diome-

399 ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). 400 εἷο: ἑαυτοῦ (R 14.1); comparative gen. — μάχῃ, ἀγορῇ: on the hiatus, R 5.6; locative.



des counters with his understanding of Agamemnon’s words (Schouler 1980, 2 f.; Cairns loc. cit. 97; 2001a, 210). He realizes that the supreme leader expects deeds, not words, in response to his speech and is relying upon him (412–418; Montiglio 2000, 58), and he will thus refute the latter’s accusations via his conduct in battle (Andersen 1978, 39). This provides him with the opportunity later to reject the criticism as unjustified (9.34 ff.; 412–418); his silence thus need not be explained as shame (thus e.g. Hooker [1987] 1996, 524; Montiglio loc. cit. 57; cf. Diomedes’ advice about the function of Agamemnon’s speech, 412–418n.). His considerate, diplomatic manner particularly highlights Diomedes as a young, deferential hero, all the more so as he has just been described as a skilled speaker (399–400n.), while earlier Odysseus (albeit older than Diomedes: schol. bT on 401) responded with irritation to Agamemnon’s accusations (327–363n.; cf. Reichel 1994, 219: a pattern of ‘speech of rebuke and reply’ split in the scene involving Diomedes). This ought probably also to be viewed in light of the escalating conflict between Agamemnon and Achilleus, whose absence from battle the young man must compensate for to some extent in the test of his mettle that follows (among others, Schofield 2001, 257 and Taplin 1992, 135 briefly and rather superficially compare Achilleus and Diomedes with regard to their responses to Agamemnon; in general on Diomedes as a kind of replacement character for Achilleus, 6.96– 101n.). 401 1st VH to caesura C 1 = 5.689, 6.342, 8.484, Od. 20.183; ≈ Il. 1.511, 21.478; 2nd VH = 411, 5.251, 5.286, 5.814, 10.369, 10.446, 11.316, 11.361, 11.384; from caesura C 1 on = 5.143, 7.163, 8.532, 10.536, 11.660, 16.25, 23.290, 23.472, 23.812. The formulaic verse (Near Eastern parallels: West 1997, 198) is the negated version of a speech introduction formulaP (Higbie 1990, 97). The explicit mention of a lack of an answer appears in a variety of circumstances (cf. 1.511n., 6.342n.); it is included here since an answer would be expected from the provoked Diomedes, but Sthenelos responds (403) in his stead. In a similar manner, Helen responds to a speech rather than Hektor (6.342 f.), and Artemis rather than Apollo (21.478 f.) (West 2011, 183, on 6.342). — κρατερός: an epithet of Diomedes, 19× at VE (see iterata), 1× in verse middle (16.25n.). That it is contextually relevant here and at 411 cannot be excluded altogether: Diomedes is no useless warrior and is not inferior to Tydeus, as Agamemnon has just insinuated (399 f.): schol. bT on 402. 402 A four-word verse (5–6n.), likely underlining the significance of Diomedes’ deferential behavior. — αἰδεσθείς: with acc. as at Od. 2.65 (aorists in -η/θη- are elsewhere usually intrans.: 3.208n.), meaning ‘showed respect for’ (LfgrE s. v. αἴδομαι 271.56 f.; Kirk). — βασιλῆος: A periphrastic denominationP in secondary focalizationP (2.778b n. with bibliography) with a particular function in the context: Diomedes is

401 ὣς φάτο: 272n. — τόν: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). 402 βασιλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3, R 3.


Iliad 4

respectful toward Agamemnon as the supreme leader (in a similar manner, deference is expected toward Chryses as a priest: 1.23n.): Kirk; de Jong (1987) 2004, 104. — αἰδοίοιο: ‘awe-inspiring, honorable’ (3.172n.), in secondary focalizationP, which is further stressed by the repetition of the word stem αἰδ- at the beginning and end of the verse (Kirk; de Jong [1987] 2004, 142).

403 1st VH ≈ 5.319. — Since, in accord with the narrator’s overall plan, Diomedes is prevented by his respect for Agamemnon from responding immediately to the provocation (401–402n.), this task is assumed by Sthenelos, who is present (367) and has heard everything (Steinrück 1992, 103). His indispensable function as a charioteer, who must also be responsible for protecting the warrior during a retreat (cf. 5.241–250; 226–230n.), and who for that reason and like other charioteers (e.g. Meriones: 13.249) has a close relationship with his partner in battle (Deger 1970, 78 n. 406; Hellmann 2000, 71; cf. 16.20n. on Patroklos), makes him predestined for the role of defender and causes him to feel addressed as well, in particular as a son of one of the Seven against Thebes and as himself one of the Epigoni (367n.), like Diomedes; in a similar manner, Diomedes includes his charioteer in a later speech to Agamemnon (9.48; a reference to this passage already in schol. bT on 407). – ‘Son of Kapaneus’, the periphrastic denominationP for Sthenelos (367n.), is here likely designed to stress his function in recalling the campaign conducted by his father and the other members of the Seven against Thebes (404–410) (de Jong [1987] 2004, 198); a similar preparation for a genealogy appears at 6.144 (see ad loc.). In addition, a reference to his descent from Kapaneus, portrayed as a braggart in the myth, perhaps foreshadows the cocky tone of the son’s speech (Aesch. Sept. 422 ff.; for additional sources, Davies 2014, 71 f.; on this, also 404–410n.; West 2011, 147 ad loc. mentions Kapaneus’ character). τὸν … ἀμείψατο: a speech introduction formulaP with no parallel, with the aor. form ἀμείψατο attested only here (Chantr. 2.192); perhaps used to put the designation for Sthenelos, υἱός Καπανῆος, in a more prominent position within the 1st VH rather than at VE in e.g. *τὸν δ᾿ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη Καπανήϊος υἱός (on the underlying common speech introduction, 188n.). Emphasis is thus given to the fact that Sthenelos, rather than Diomedes, is the one who answers (401n.): Edwards 1970, 22. — υἱὸς Καπανῆος: 367n. — κυδαλίμοιο: 100n.

404–410 In Sthenelos’ brief but vehement response to Agamemnon’s provocation, the address is followed by a curt rejection (404), which is in turn followed by an counter-assertion (405) combined with a somewhat longer explanation (406–409, with a rhetorically shaped climax at 408, see ad loc.), and finally, forming a ring with 405, the repeated repudiation at 410 (briefly, Hebel 1970, 83). The short sentences without enjambment (i.e. whole verse sentences; Kirk) at the beginning of the speech perhaps paint a picture of



the speaker’s indignation, which is matched by the urgent, appellative toi ‘mark you’ at 405 and moi ‘me’ at 410. The structure and rhetorical shape of the speech underline its function: it prepares first (1) Diomedes’ response at 411–421 and second (2) the hero’s aristeia in Book 5 and his role in the events that follow (on this, 401–402n., also 220–421n.). (1) Sthenelos’ passionate reaction in and of itself is obvious: Agamemnon has attacked his timḗ ‘honor’ as well (403n.; Cairns 1993, 96 f.; for discussion of timḗ, 24.57n.). Odysseus also responds indignantly to Agamemnon’s words (349n.), but he occupies a different rank than Sthenelos (cf. 232–250n.) and does not explicitly accuse the supreme commander of deliberately misjudging and distorting facts (404n.); moreover, he shows that he has understood the point of the paraeneses and promises to fight successfully (351–355). Sthenelos’ simple, sharp rejection (404, 410), exacerbated by his cocky tone (see below), is thus unusual and serves as a foil for Diomedes’ considered restraint (401 f.) and avoidance of an indignant attitude (413) (Sthenelos’ only other speech, at 5.243–250, similarly serves to characterize Diomedes): the positive evaluation of Diomedes’ reaction (401–402n.) is thus reinforced (von Scheliha 1943, 136; Strasburger 1954, 107; Andersen 1978, 40). (2) The speech is also used to remind the audience that Diomedes is one of the Epigoni, and so a conqueror and destroyer of Thebes (406), explaining his prowess in the aristeia and the battles narrated after that. The speech thus takes for granted knowledge of the myth of the Epigoni, otherwise known only in outline, which is elsewhere barely mentioned (Andersen loc. cit. 40, 45 f. n. 20, also on analytical criticism). At 2.504 f., the destruction of Thebes is presupposed (see ad locc.), and at 2.565 f. and 23.677–680 Euryalos is mentioned as one of the Epigoni. Only a few post-Homeric fragments are otherwise preserved, and Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes in particular provides our best sense of the myth; an introduction and collection of all fragments with commentary and translation in Davies 2014, 107 ff.; 143–145; briefly [1989] 2001, 29–31. – Within the speech, Diomedes’ image is built up via a differentiation from Tydeus and his generation, whose lack of military success is explained through their lack of piety (406–409). The son’s natural competitiveness vis-à-vis his father, which is reinforced by the educational ideal of sons imitating, or even surpassing, their fathers (1.272n., 6.209n., 6.479n.), is the prime motivator of this differentiation; this is matched by the fact that Sthenelos’ speech is designed as a boast and a challenge to Agamemnon (whose narrative about Tydeus is thereby expanded on) and that it finds a counterpart in Sthenelos’ subdued suggestion to retreat at 5.243–250 (a parallel with the roles reversed in Tlepolemos’ boasting speech at 5.633– 646, where he invokes his father as an earlier destroyer of Troy). But high-


Iliad 4

lighting the younger generation beside Diomedes is likely meant secondarily to bring more attention to the fighters before Troy generally, and thus to the heroes of the Iliad, in the same way that the epic elsewhere occasionally stresses their superiority vis-à-vis other heroes of the past (1.272n.); here particularly in contrast to Theban epic, where the Seven apparently act in an especially wicked fashion (Wilamowitz [1891] 1937, 75; Reucher 1983, 99 f. with n. 1; on the myth: on Tydeus 14.113–125n.; on Kapaneus and the downfall of the Seven generally, Davies 2014, 70 ff.; in addition Nagy [1979] 1999, 163; on the possible mythological remodelling of the Seven based on chthonic monsters or Near Eastern demons, Davies loc. cit. 67–71 with bibliography). A radical questioning of educational ideals in Sthenelos’ speech (Wöhrle 1999, 43, 149) is thus unlikely, especially given that Diomedes repeatedly invokes Tydeus (370–400n.); at the same time, there may be a metapoetic function to the differentiation from the generation of his father and the poetry that concerns them (on such functions generally, NTHS 60–63), all the more so as the problematic relationship between gods and humans had already been hinted at by Agamemnon (381, 390, see ad locc.) and plays a major role in Diomedes’ aristeia, and since Diomedes is ultimately portrayed as a restrained warrior who obeys the gods. Aristarchus’ athetesis of 407–409 is accordingly misguided: the divine support during the conquest of Thebes by the Epigoni does not diminish the achievement of the latter, but does the opposite; cf. 390 (with n.): Andersen loc. cit. 41; for an additional argument for the athetesis, see 407n. On the evaluation of the generations in the speech, Andersen loc. cit. 40–42; Schouler 1980, 2; Fuchs 1993, 45; a Near Eastern parallel for a son having greater military success in West 1997, 359. 404 2nd VH ≈ Od. 4.730. — As is shown concretely in the speech that follows, Sthenelos accuses Agamemnon of ‘an erroneous, incomplete description of the battles for Thebes’, from which the latter has drawn the wrong conclusions (405; quotation from LfgrE s. v. ψεύδομαι [transl.]; in detail, Levet 1976, 111 f.). In accord with his aim of spurring on Diomedes to battle (Sthenelos’ speech is presumably to be understood that way), Agamemnon has against his better judgement (404b) withheld adverse facts (409: the end of the campaign of the Seven against Thebes, only alluded to at 381, 376–381n.; the reference is perhaps also to Tydeus’ cruelty, see 372–373n.). Echoing throughout the criticism may be the notion that this omission was facilitated by the

404 ψεύδε’, ἐπιστάμενος: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — ψεύδε(ο): on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἐπιστάμενος: concessive. — σάφα (ϝ)ειπεῖν: on the prosody, R 4.3.



reality that no one before Troy, not even Tydeus’ son, has personal memories of the heroes (374–375n.; cf. Alden 2000, 119 f.). μὴ ψεύδε᾿, ἐπιστάμενος σάφα εἰπεῖν: In general, ψεύδε᾿ is understood as an elided pres. mid. imper. of ψεύδεο (‘do not say what is false!’), with concessive ἐπιστάμενος, to which an obj. inf. is subordinated, with σάφα ‘truly’ used adverbially (see e.g. AH; Kirk; LfgrE s.vv. σάφα and ψεύδομαι). Since σάφα εἰπεῖν is not used absolutely elsewhere in Homeric epic (Luther 1935, 63; at Od. 3.89 an indirect question follows as the object), and since both the word formation and the etymology of σάφα are obscure (Risch 363; LfgrE s. v.), ψεύδε᾿ and σάφα are occasionally (e.g. Faesi; Benveniste 1935, 93; Carlisle 1999, 59) understood nominally as neut. acc. pl. forms, i.e. as objects respectively of εἰπεῖν (in which case an inf. with imper. sense) and, parallel to it, of ἐπιστάμενος, together with omission of the comma after ψεύδε(α) (‘don’t speak lies even though you know the truth’). This reading conflicts with both the word order (Leaf) and the meaning of σάφα, ‘in a reliable, precise, clear manner’ (LfgrE; in early epic, the adj. σαφής is first attested at h.Cer. 149 and h.Merc. 208: Frisk), which is put with εἰπεῖν at VE to form an antithetis with ψεύδε(ο) placed before caesura B 2 (LfgrE s. v. ψεύδομαι). In addition, a demand in the imper. (‘don’t say wrong things!’) at the very beginning is far more effective than the inf. εἰπεῖν at the end of the verse (cf. Hera to Zeus at VB of Il. 19.107: ψεύστης εἰς). 405 ἡμεῖς: stressed at VB, like the anaphoric pronoun in the following verse; μέν, usually in the initial element of the anaphora, is here replaced by the more emphatic τοι (Fehling 1969, 205). — εὐχόμεθ᾿ εἶναι: on the VE formula, 264n.; εὐχόμεθ(α) reinforces the emphatic ἡμεῖς: ‘we may proudly say of ourselves / call on the fact that we’ (Latacz 1969, 350); εὔχεσθαι is frequently used elsewhere in reference to descent (6.211n.).

406 ≈ Od. 11.263; cf. h.Apoll. 225. — seven-gated: There has been much discussion as to whether this characterization, exclusive to Boeotian Thebes (also at Od. 11.263, Hes. Op. 162, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 49), is based on historical fact. Since Thebes regained hegemonic significance only very late in the Geometric period, and since the Catalogue of Ships mentions only the lower town, memory of the Kadmeia, the acropolis of Thebes that was destroyed at least twice in the Mycenaean period, would have to be assumed (2.505n.; Mylonas 1966, 217). While this is possible (404–410n.), the large number of gates surely lacks any historical basis, since it would have been excessively risky and is thus not attested archaeologically anywhere (RE s. v. Thebai [Boeotia], col. 1429; Simpson 1965, 116; Iakovides 1977, 213). At the same time, it seems likely that the epithet is designed to highlight the significance of Thebes as a strongly fortified, important city (on analogy with epithets such as eustéphanos, ‘well crowned with walls’, see 19.98–99n.), and is thus to be seen in the context of the narrative of the seven attackers and their sons (the Seven

405 τοι: affirmative, approximately ‘mark you’ (R 24.12). — μέγ(α): adv., with ἀμείνονες.


Iliad 4

against Thebes and the Epigoni) whose attacks, spread out across the gates, could be described to great effect (as in Aesch. Sept. 375 ff.; Wilamowitz [1891] 1937, 58–64; Friedländer [1914] 1969, 38 f.; Hutchinson on Aesch. Sept. 369–652). This fits with seven being a typical numberP (Blom 1936, 205, with a Near Eastern parallel from late antiquity; Singor 1992, 408 f. with earlier Near Eastern examples; cf. the interpretation of the number already in schol. T ad loc.) recalling the hyperbolic epithet ‘hundred-gated’ of Egyptian Thebes at Il. 9.383. It is thus unnecessary to assume a historical reminiscence of sequences of Mycenaean gates, as e.g. at Tiryns and Athens, which would also be inconsistent with myth as presupposed by e.g. Aeschylus (the theory is evaluated and preferred by LfgrE s. v. ἑπτάπυλος; Robert 1907, 93; contra Friedländer loc. cit. 38 n. 52). At the same time, the poet of the Iliad likely encountered the formulaic term as a preexisting part of epic language (West on Hes. Op. 162; 2011, 147; Meier 1976, 176), and neither contemporary nor earlier Near Eastern influences on the origin of the term can be entirely precluded (on such influences on epic construction of fortifications generally, Iakovides loc. cit. 221). Doxography of the issue: Davies 2014, 66 f. A paratactically connected second part of the anaphora, as also at e.g. 9.69, Od. 15.65 f. (Fehling 1969, 215), that serves to substantiate the first part (AH). — καί: ‘also’, with εἵλομεν, stressing the conquest of the city by the Epigoni in contrast to the mere besieging by their fathers, the Seven against Thebes (AH). — Θήβης ἕδος: ἕδος is related to ἕζομαι, literally the ‘sitting down’, usually ‘seat, residence, location’, frequently of Olympus as the abode of the gods (LfgrE). On expressions with a place name in an appositive gen., 33n. For a locality as the subject of a nomen actionis with this sense, see AH and cf. 45n. on ναιετάουσι. — ἑπταπύλοιο: a possessive compound with a numeral as the initial element (Risch 220 f.), ‘with seven gates’ (see above).

407 The achievements of the Seven against Thebes are compared with those of the Epigoni in two ways: the army was smaller, the walls even better fortified. Comparisons are often doubly reinforced for rhetorical purposes, as here (e.g. 7.124–160, 24.599–620: Lohmann 1970, 78 f. n. 135; Andersen 1978, 45 n. 19). That the army of the Epigoni was less numerous than that of their fathers is not attested elsewhere (Kirk) and may be due to the function of the speech (404–410n.). The verse is constructed chiastically (a central participle and nouns with preceding and following epithets), while its emphatic effect is further reinforced by the comparatives παυρότερον and ἄρειον at VB and VE (Kirk). — παυρότερον λαόν: παυρότερον means ‘lesser, fewer’ (positive παῦρος at 2.675, related to Latin parvus, pauci): LfgrE s. v. παῦρος. On λαόν ‘men at arms, army’, 28n. — ἀγάγονθ᾿: The dual was considered

407 λαὸν(ν) ἀγαγόνθ’: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — ἀγαγόνθ᾿: = ἀγαγόντε, with elision (R 5.1) and aspiration; nom. dual aor. act. part. (R 18.1, ↑).



problematic already in antiquity, since in the myth regarding the sons, as in the story of their fathers, the Seven against Thebes, numerous Epigoni led the conquest of Thebes (a variety of versions: a minimum of seven; listed by name in schol. T on 406): schol. A. But the dual is explained by the context: the speaker speaks only for himself and Diomedes, who has been attacked and with whom in a parallel fashion he likewise forms a unit against Agamemnon at 9.48 f. when Diomedes wants to conquer Troy with the help of Sthenelos alone (schol. bT, highlighted by Roemer 1912, 171 f.; Andersen 1978, 45 n. 19; cf. 403n. on Sthenelos as speaker). — ὑπὸ τεῖχος: the reference is to a position before the walls of the Kadmeia, the acropolis of Thebes (406n.), like ὑπὸ Ἴλιον at 2.216 (see ad loc.) ‘beneath the walls of Ilion, before Ilion’. — ἄρειον: a comparative, from ἀρείων ‘better’; originally this neut. form was probably from an adj. ἄρειος with no comparative meaning, and the forms ἀρείων etc. (n-stem) were formed from it (DELG s. v. ἀρείων; Seiler 1950, 119). The sense is ‘more solid, stronger’, as at 15.736: the reference must be to the wall having been fortified after the failed assault by the Seven against Thebes (AH; Leaf), a plausible notion (cf. Troia VI and VIIa: Iakovides 1977, 215 f.; Klinkott 2004, 80) albeit one about which we are not informed elsewhere (Kirk). The explanation that the comparative is meant to compare the walls of Thebes to those of Troy (schol. A; considered by Scully 1990, 174 n. 15) takes into account the challenging tone of the speech, but not the contrast between the generations of fathers and sons that characterizes Agamemnon’s speech and even more so that of Sthenelos (404–410n.): Leaf. The equation of ἄρειον with ἀρήϊον ‘war-like, protective’ is entirely mistaken (it is inappropriate for the speaker as former besieger) and banal, as well as problematic in terms of the word formation (related to Ἄρης; schol. A, T; Faesi; preferred by LfgrE, albeit with discussion of the issues): Leaf; Seiler loc. cit. 119 n. 1.

408 1st VH: cf. the 2nd VH of 398 (with n.), 6.183. — As already at 381 and 398, the type of divine signs is left open; in any case, the reference is to auspicious signs that, likely at the beginning of the campaign, presage an advantageous outcome for the attacking Epigoni, like events in Aulis prior to the voyage to Troy (2.303–335n., 2.350–353n.; cf. Od. 2.146 ff., before Odysseus’ return), and that are perhaps based on a traditional narrative (Pindar, Pyth. 8.48 ff. may allude to this): Stockinger 1959, 88 f. It is here stressed – in particular by picking up terms central to Agamemnon’s speech (see above, catch-word techniqueP) – that Diomedes and Sthenelos were as pious as Tydeus was in Agamemnon’s account (390, 398); at the same time, the difference is highlighted by the reference to Zeus’ help: the Epigoni let themselves be guided by Zeus, while Tydeus met with Zeus’ rejection from the beginning (381): Alden 2000, 120. πειθόμενοι: gives the reason for the conquest (406); durative, in the sense ‘trusting’, like πεποιθότες, likewise with τεράεσσι, at 12.256 (LfgrE s. v. πείθω 1099.60 ff.); an intensifying echo of πιθήσας at 398 (ingressive: Tydeus was not continually pious): Alden 2000, 120.

408 Ζηνός: = Διός (R 12.5).


Iliad 4

409 ≈ Od. 1.7, 10.437. — κεῖνοι: emphatic at VB, in contrast to ἡμεῖς (405, 406, see ad loc.). — σφετέρῃσιν: a comparatively rare variant of the possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. pl. from the personal pronoun σφε- with the suffix -τερος, as in ἡμέτερος, attested also in Attic (G 82; Chantr. 1.273). Here and at Od. 1.7 it is in an emphatic position between caesurae A 4 and B 2; the possessive pronoun at VB in Il. 1.205 (see ad loc.) and Od. 1.34 is similar. — ἀτασθαλίῃσιν: ‘recklessness, blindness’ (in Homeric epic only in the pl.: also at 22.104, 9× Od., in addition 3× Hes. sing./pl.), usually caused ‘by a miscalculation of the situation and the consequences of one’s own actions’ and/or ‘an overestimation of one’s own abilities […], frequently in a context that provokes this (e.g. a power vacuum in Odysseus’ household), so that thoughts to the contrary and warnings go ignored’; also at 22.104, Od. 1.7, 1.34 with an intensifying possessive pronoun emphasizing culpability (LfgrE s. v. ἀτασθαλίη 1483.64 ff., quotation from 1483.65–72 [transl.]). On the relationship between ἀτασθαλίη and the quasisynonomous term ἄτη in detail, Cairns 2012, 33–49. –Expressions from the word family ἀτασθαλ- are characteristic of character languageP: de Jong on Od. 1.32–43. 410 2nd VH ≈ 1.278. — τώ: ‘therefore, for that reason’ (14.35n.); on the accent, West 1998, XXII; others prefer the circumflex, e.g. Führer/Schmidt 2001, 20 n. 111. — μή … ποθ᾿ ὁμοίῃ: ‘never the same’, i.e. always lesser; cf. οὔ ποθ᾿ ὁμοίης, a type of litotes, at 1.278 (with n.; AH). — μὴ … ἔνθεο: a rare negated aor. imper. rather than an aor. subjunc., likewise with ἔνθεο in the same position in the verse at Od. 24.248; for additional examples and explanations with bibliography, 18.134n.; Smith 1979, 46 f. (metrical reasons: reference to the position in the verse of ἔνθεο and the metrically inconvenient subjunc. form ἔνθηαι); Strunk 1988, 298 with n. 4. — μοι … ποθ᾿: on the position, still rare in Homeric epic, of the two enclitics respectively before and after the stressed word (so-called dienklisis or split cliticization) Ruijgh (1990) 1996, 639 n. 25, 641 f.; Janse 1997, 107; this perhaps contributes to emphasizing πατέρας. — μοι: in its appellative function, this corresponds to τοι at 405 (similarly, Corlu 1966, 25). — ὁμοίῃ ἔνθεο τιμῇ: ‘put in the same rank’ (sc. as us sons, the Epigoni); on the notion, attested with ἐντίθημι only here, of an abstract sphere into which someone is placed, cf. the passive ἐν δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ ἠμέν at 9.319, also τιμὴν τιθέναι with a dat. of person (24.57, see ad loc.): LfgrE s.vv. τίθημι 488.44 ff.; τιμή 522.21 ff. 411 = 5.251, 10.446; 1st VH = 349 (see ad loc.). — κρατερὸς Διομήδης: 401n.

412–418 Diomedes silences his charioteer (412): he is displeased (411) and does not address the comparisons to the generation of their fathers made by Agamemnon and Sthenelos in any way (Andersen 1978, 41; Beck 2005, 163); this fits with his treatment of Tydeus as a role model, as is illustrated later (370–400n.). But initially his address to Sthenelos expresses his close relation (412n.) with the latter, who defended him (403n., 404–410n.), and marks an attempt to calm the situation, as in his subsequent explanation of Agamemnon’s behavior (413–417). Here he firmly distances himself from Sthene-

409 κεῖνοι: = ἐκεῖνοι. — σφετέρῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1; ↑. 410 ποθ’: = ποτέ, with elision (R 5.1) and aspiration. — ὁμοίῃ ἔνθεο: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 411 ὑπόδρα (ϝ)ιδών: 349n.



los’ indignation: ou nemesṓ ‘I do not blame’ (413). Giving expression to his indignation is prevented by his aidṓs, his respect for Agamemnon’s rank (401–402n.; Cairns 1993, 96 f.; 2001, 210; Redfield [1975] 1994, 116: ‘Diomedes’ annoyance with Agamemnon the man is inhibited by his respect for the royal office’). In contrast to Sthenelos, who placed his individual timḗ, his honor, above all else, Diomedes takes account of his place within the community; his loyalty is portrayed as ideal. At the same time, ou nemesṓ makes it clear that it would be entirely normal, as in Sthenelos’ case, to perceive an attack or violation of his own timḗ, i.e. a lack of aidṓs toward him on the part of Agamemnon. Diomedes’ words thus show a considered, deliberate reaction that takes the circumstances into account (see below), but they nevertheless hint at a long-lasting pique that will eventually lead to hyperbolic accusations and insults, as well as subsequent justifications and corrections vis-à-vis Agamemnon (9.34 ff.; 14.110–132n.; Cairns 1993, 96 f. with n. 145; Reichel 1994, 218; Scodel 2008, 63). At this point, after Pandaros’ attack on Menelaos, it is Agamemnon’s prerogative and duty to spur on the warriors, and his accusations are a tactical measure (231n., 242n., 338–348n.): 414 more or less summarizes the main motif of the epipṓlēsis (Beck 2005, 162). Emphasis is placed on the weight of responsibility borne by Agamemnon (415–417), thereby acknowledging and strengthening his position, as already at the beginning of the epipṓlēsis (Bergold 1977, 171 n. 3; 223–225n.); this also recalls the shared goal of conquering Troy, which would bring great profit for Agamemnon, on the one hand (14.365n.; on the acquisition of kȳdos, success, as an ideal, cf. 95 and see 3.373n.), but would also confer fame and material benefit on the other participants in the campaign, on the other (238–239n.). In reference to this shared goal, now is the time ‘to justify via […] action the claim to greater respect’ (Ulf 1990, 30 [transl.]; see also Cauer 1923, 493): see 418. Agamemnon’s speech has fulfilled its purpose (419–421n.; on the success of speeches of rebuke in general, Belfiore 2009, 21 ff.). Only when Agamemnon is in danger of losing sight of the conquest as the aim is Diomedes no longer prepared to subordinate himself to him (9.34 ff.; Scodel 2008, 62). Diomedes’ speech has the same length as Sthenelos’ reply (7 verses) and is likewise composed of shorter sentences at its beginning and end (412–414, 418) that frame a more extensive period (415–417; in contrast to 405, introduced with γάρ), but his speech appears calmer and better proportioned: via longer sentences (413 f., 415 f.) and a parallelism (τούτῳ μέν … τούτῳ δ᾿ αὖ 415/417, rather than the pounding ἡμεῖς 405 f.): Kirk on 412–418; di Benedetto 2000, 26. 412 ≈ 1.565; from caesura C 1 on ≈ 1.33, 1.273, 24.571, Od. 17.177. — A Near Eastern parallel for the request to be silent and heed the words that follow in West 1997, 359. — τέττα: 412 σιωπῇ ἧσο: on the hiatus, cf. M 12.2. — ἧσο, ἐμῷ: on the hiatus, R 5.6.


Iliad 4

hapaxP; voc., a Lallwort with syllable duplication and α like τατᾶ (Anth. Pal. 11.67), πάππα ‘papa’ (Od. 6.57, similarly ἄττα, Il. 9.607, 17.561; 6× Od.), and Sanskrit and Latin tatá/tata ‘father’, albeit formed with an e-vowel in the first syllable like e.g. Lithuanian tetà (DELG s. v. τᾱτᾶ). The precise meaning and thus emotional content in this passage have been obscure since antiquity (schol. AT), but the tone is at any rate likely cordial (412–418n.; thus also schol. A, D; Leaf), and Diomedes is probably using the address to appeal to the close relationship between himself and his charioteer (on this, 403n.); a difference in age between the two, not mentioned in epic, is not necessarily implied (cf. British English ‘old boy’): LfgrE. — σιωπῇ ἧσο: σιωπῇ is an adverbial dat. of manner, elsewhere always at VE: ‘while being silent’ (after a request: on the differentiation from σιγῇ, 3.8n.); i.e. ‘without argument’ (LfgrE s. v. σιωπῇ). ἧσο does not imply a seated position, which here, just before battle, would make little sense (Diomedes and Sthenelos are already standing: 366 f.), but merely connotes a lack of activity, as elsewhere (2.255n., 3.134–135n., 24.542n.); it is ingressive with σιωπῇ in reference to the dialogue: ‘keep still!’ (LfgrE s. v. ἧμαι 910.71 ff.). 413 2nd VH = 2.254, 2.772, 7.230, 19.35, 24.654, Od. 3.156, 14.497; ≈ Il. 2.243 (see ad loc.), 10.3, 11.187, 11.202, 14.22, Od. 4.532. — οὐ … νεμεσῶ: νεμεσ(σ)άω denotes immediate indignation at a moral failing that is to be condemned, and belongs to character languageP (2.222b–223n.), here of oneself and with a dat. of person of the target of indignation, as at e.g. 13.119. — Ἀγαμέμνονι ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectable VE formula (2.243n.); on the expression ποιμένι/-α λαῶν as a title, 296n.; here perhaps pregnant (stressing Agamemnon’s responsibility, cf. 415–417). 414 A four-word verse (5–6n.) that highlights the significance of Agamemnon’s responsibilities, while at the same time summarizing the contents of the epipṓlēsis (412– 418n.). — ὀτρύνοντι: on the meaning and the combination with μάχεσθαι, 254n.; the part. has a causal nuance: it substantiates οὐ νεμεσῶ (Faesi). — ἐϋκνήμιδας Ἀχαιούς: 80n. 415 2nd VH from caesura C 2 on = 15.498; ≈ 16.499. — τούτῳ: As at 270 (see ad loc.), the demonstrative pronoun underlines the identity of the named individual and is further reinforced by its position at VB and the anaphoric repetition at 417; cf. the anaphora at 6.227/229 (AH). — κῦδος: ‘high spirits’, also further ‘prestige’ (on the meaning, 95n.), here in contrast to πένθος at 417 (like the juxtaposition at 197 and 207 of κλέος and πένθος, see ad loc.); both abstracts are highlighted linguistically as subjects, as if they were companions of Agamemnon, in a manner similar to the phrases κῦδος ὀπηδεῖ (17.251) or τιμή + ἕπομαι (9.513 f., Hes. Th. 418, ‘Hes.’ fr. 141.18 M.-W.): 16.241n.; LfgrE s. v. ἕπομαι 656.60 ff. 416 Ἴλιον ἱρήν: 46–47n. 417 αὖ: emphasizes the identity of the character designated with τούτῳ (415 and 417) (cf. 415n. on τούτῳ) and thus reinforces, together with the δ(έ) that follows the μέν

413 νεμεσῶ Ἀγαμέμνονι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 415 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). 416 δῃώσωσιν: from δῃόω, ‘slaughter, kill’, 417 in the passive. — τε (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἱρήν: = ἱεράν. 417 Ἀχαιῶν δῃωθέντων: gen. absolute.



at 415, the adversative parallelism, similar to e.g. 8.324, Od. 3.88 (Klein 1988, 256 f.). — πένθος: sc. ἅμ᾿ ἕψεται from 415 or simply ἔσσεται, as at 169 with ἄχος (Faesi; AH); on the meaning of πένθος, 196–197n. — Ἀχαιῶν δῃωθέντων: parallel with the conditional clause at 415b–416.

418 = 5.718; 1st VH to caesura C 2 = 24.618. — On the one hand, the verse recalls both the Achaians’ broader efforts to ready themselves for battle (222) and Agamemnon’s relevant warnings (234, cf. 362), and thus renews the connection between the scene and the events as a whole that come back into focus a little later (422 ff.); on the other hand, it prepares for the actual consequences of Diomedes’ demand, his leap off the chariot (419) and his fight, the aristeia in Book 5 (Bergold 1977, 171 n. 3; Bannert 1988, 125 f.). μεδώμεθα θούριδος ἀλκῆς: μέδομαι means ‘think of, dedicate oneself’, i.e. ‘recall’, with a semantically comparable gen. πολέμοιο also at e.g. 9.650 (LfgrE s. v. 81.53 ff.); on θούριδος ἀλκῆς, 234n., and on the repeated combination with μιμνήσκομαι, 16.270n.; cf. 222n. on μνήσαντο δὲ χάρμης.

419–421 Diomedes’ leap off his chariot underlines both his readiness for battle and his loyalty to Agamemnon, which he has already demonstrated via his respect (401 f.) and his reprimand of his charioteer (412–418). This heralds his aristeia in Book 5, where he proves himself a son worthy of his father Tydeus (AH on 421; Camerotto 2009, 62) and the aim Agamemnon pursued in his inspection of the troops is accomplished (220–421n.); Agamemnon’s departure is thus not even mentioned (Finsler [1916] 1918, 44). The significance of the leap off the chariot is further stressed by the reference to the warrior’s complete armor (419) and how it clinks as he moves rapidly (420). The motif of this noise, which repeatedly underlines the intensity of events on the battlefield (16.105n.), provides a transition to the description of the clash of the two armies and then to Diomedes’ aristeia (Krapp 1964, 308); its psychological effects (421b) in particular forecast the danger Diomedes poses to his opponents, much as one of the Trojans will later call him ‘strong inciter of flight’ (kraterón mḗstōra phóboio, 6.97, see ad loc.). 419 = 16.426; from caesura A 3 on = 3.29, 5.494, 6.103, 11.211, 12.81, 13.749. — Leaping off the chariot (on which Diomedes is standing: 366n.) is a typical battle motif signalling readiness to fight (16.426n.). Diomedes thus appears fighting on foot when he next comes into the narrator’s view (5.13; Faesi). ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formula with the subject unchanged (24.302n.). — ἐξ ὀχέων: for the meaning of ὀχέων, 297n. — σὺν τεύχεσιν: a formulaic expression after

418 νῶϊ: personal pronoun of the 1st pers. dual in the nom. (R 14.1). 419 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ὀχέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἄλτο: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἅλλομαι ‘leap’. — χαμᾶζε: adv., ‘to the ground’.


Iliad 4

caesura B 1 (25× Il., 1× Od.); τεύχεα includes armor as well as weapons, and σὺν τεύχεσιν thus means approximately ‘fully armed’, i.e. here, as often elsewhere, pregnantly ‘ready for battle’ (3.29n., 16.156n.). — ἄλτο χαμᾶζε: a VE formula (12× Il.): 24.469n., where also for the word formation of χαμᾶζε; on the accent of ἄλτο, 125n.

420 ≈ 12.151; 2nd VH ≈ 9.490, 21.254, 23.727. — Achilleus’ corselet emits similar noises when he rushes out at 21.254 f. δεινόν: emphatic at VB: ‘terrible’ in the original sense, ‘fear-inducing (causing fright in others)’, likewise at 16.566 (see ad loc.). — ἔβραχε: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of a defective verb with the meaning ‘boomed, crashed’, as at 16.566 of the sound of armor in movement; on the onomatopoetic aor., 19.13n. — χαλκός: here used for the bronze armor (ἐπὶ στήθεσσιν), as at 14.25 (see ad loc.). — ἄνακτος: The designation, frequently used elsewhere as a title (255n.), here serves as a variant for the name, as also at 5.794 of Diomedes and frequently of Odysseus (4× Od.): LfgrE s. v. ἄναξ 790.8 ff.; cf. Deger 1970, 32 n. 209 (possibly ‘a use stripped of meaning’ [transl.]; cf. English ‘master/mister’).

421 An urgent rhetorical expression with a narrateeP, which lends a superlative sense to the statement regarding Diomedes’ momentum, while drawing the audience/readers into the action and letting them share in reacting (16.638– 640n. with bibliography; Bakker 1988, 70); cf. Paris’ shock when Menelaos leaps off his chariot, 3.29 ff. ὀρνυμένου: emphatic in enjambment, meaning ‘as he swung himself down’ (AH; since Diomedes is standing on the chariot, 366n., and does not have to rise first). — ὑπό: a preverb with εἷλεν (tmesis), as in the formulaic ὑπὸ χλωρὸν δέος εἷλε(ν) at 8.77, Od. 22.42, etc. and ὑπὸ τρόμος εἷλεν at Il. 5.862, or as with ἔλλαβε et al. at 3.34/ 14.506 ὑπό (τε) τρόμος ἔλλαβε γυῖα (LfgrE s. v. αἱρέω 367.53 ff.; AH): fear weakens the knees below (3.34n.). These parallels amount to arguments against a causal ὑπό ‘thereby’ (i.e. by the clanging mentioned in the previous verse, thus Faesi and Leaf). — κεν … δέος εἷλεν: on the formulaic, inflectable VE δέος εἷλεν (in total 4× Il., 6× Od., h.Cer. 190), see above and 14.506n.; on the combination of abstract nouns with verbs of seizing, 230n.; a paratactically joined consecutive sentence (AH) with aor. ind. and modal particle, a past potential (‘could have seized’), as also at e.g. 16.638 (see ad loc.). — ταλασίφρονα: related to τλῆναι, ‘steadfast (in mind)’; an epithet of Odysseus at 11.466, 11× Od. and Hes. Th. 1012. The shortened variant ταλάφρων is used at 13.300 in a manner similar to the present passage (of Φόβος as subject: ὅς τ᾿ ἐφόβησε ταλάφρονά περ πολεμιστήν): LfgrE.

420 δεινόν: adv. — στήθεσσιν: 313n. 421 ὀρνυμένου· ὑπό: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — περ: stresses ταλασίφρονα, concessive (R 24.10).



422–544 The four-day battle begins. Depiction of massed close combat. I. Overview of the history of scholarship on battle depictions in the Iliad Battle depictions in the Iliad have long been a topic of intense discussion; an extensive history of the scholarship is provided by Latacz 1977, 30–42, an outline by Hellmann 2000, 14–17. Two fundamental questions and positions relating to them intersect here: (1) Can the existence of something like a phalanx, i.e. a formation of battle lines acting as a unit (‘batallion’), be assumed already in Homer? (2) If so, what is the relationship between individual and massed battle? In a pioneering study (‘a cornerstone of modern scholarship’: Hellmann loc. cit. 14 [transl.]), Latacz developed the theory that in the Iliad massed battle exists and must be assumed as ultimately decisive for which of the two parties is victorious at the end of a day of battle. Phalanxes, which form the basis for battle depictions in the Iliad and can be regarded as precursors of the later phalanx, are crucial in massed battle. Since the tactical significance of phalanxes can be gleaned from battle depictions in the Iliad only via close scrutiny, a superficial reading might leave the impression that the key elements in such events are individual duels with no tactical order. But the emphasis on individual duels has a poetic basis: as its name suggests, heroic epic (the key word hḗrōs appears already at the beginning of the epic in 1.4) foregrounds individual warriors rather than the crowd – whose actions the poet (like modern war correspondents before the development of the ‘battle of matériel’, which is determined by technology) can only depict in broad terms (approach, clash of frontlines, massed battle, breakthrough by one frontline and flight of the other) – so that in battle descriptions the narrator’s gaze must focus on individual frontline fighters (‘heroes’) who thus get an opportunity to prove themselves individually (which is what the audience of the genre ‘heroic epic’ primarily wants to hear about). The predominant (albeit not exclusive) view in earlier scholarship – that the poet of the Iliad had no clear idea of the sequence of events and overall action on the battlefield and dreamed up the battle scenes however he was inclined – is an optical illusion. (As late as 1994, van Wees [see below] committed unreservedly to this view: ‘The apparent isolation of individual «champions» is thus to some extent an optical illusion, produced by the poet’s habit of focusing on the actions of a few famous heroes amidst the general melée’: van Wees 1994, 6; see also Raaflaub 1991, 226 f., also quoted in Buchholz 2010, 98 [trans.]: ‘He [sc. Latacz] demonstrates that Homeric battle descriptions, as much as they focus on leading characters for obvious poetic reasons, are consistent throughout and are based on a reality of battle in which decisive actions are brought about by the phalanx-like order of the masses rather than by chivalrous champions with loosely grouped mobs of followers.’). – This view, represented already in an-


Iliad 4

tiquity and then at the beginning of the 20th century by ancient military historians in particular (Lammert 1921, 1931, 1938; Kromayer/Veith 1928, who cites Albracht 1886 as one of his key sources), and which has now been freshly grounded in a detailed, systematic analysis of all battle scenes in the Iliad, initially met with almost uniform approval (see esp. Pritchett, who as an ancient historian specializing in military history regards the new view as an obvious link – even if modified in accord with poetic needs – in the development of Mediterranean military history, from Assyria, Egypt, the Hittites and Israel, via Greece and Etruria, to the Roman Empire and beyond, to modern battles such as that at Gettysburg in 1863; he concludes with the statement: ‘The general impression created by the poem is one of hoplites fighting in mass formation’: Pritchett 1985, 33, with other similar bibliography). The late 1980s witnessed the beginning of a countermovement to Latacz’s interpretation; this was headed in particular by H. van Wees in several studies (van Wees 1986, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1997). The acknowledgement of arguments put forth by the new view (see above) and a statement of his intention of finding a middle ground notwithstanding, van Wees ultimately returned to the old interpretation: in his opinion, the armies of Homeric epic are comprised of numerous small contingents (‘war-bands’) that include ‘front-line warriors’ who conduct individual battles with missiles or in close combat; an ever-changing string of frontline warriors emerges from the crowd, whereas the most important leaders occasionally find themselves in retreat. At first glance, Van Weesʼ theory appears to have at least one advantage, in that the order of the Achaian army as portrayed in the Catalogue of Ships was also represented in battle. But upon close scrutiny, the expectation of this order is, for all intents and purposes, met by a scene such as Agamemnon’s epipṓlēsis (‘inspection of the front’) in Book 4, which is discussed in the present commentary (see 220–421n.; cf. the marching of the Myrmidons at 16.257–277). In addition, van Wees apparently overlooks the fact that the preeminent importance he attributes to his changing leaders of ‘war-bands’, albeit present in the narrative of the Iliad, is awarded repeatedly to the same ca. 15 ‘superheroes’ (and their entourages) and must be awarded to these characters since, to the poet of the Iliad, they are the protagonists of the real focus of his narrative, the mḗnis storyline. (The poet is not primarily recounting the war, but a specific episode within the war; the battles merely represent the – admittedly indispensable – base on which the overall story plays out as on a stage. On the so-called mḗnis storyline, see STR 22 with fig. 2.) There can thus be no question of switching between multiple front-line fighters within one group in the Iliad. Whenever one main character is wounded in battle and thus must withdraw from action, the poet switches to a different scene, where a different protagonist is distinguishing himself. (On the Achaian and Trojan protagonists and their significance for the events in battle as manifested pri-



marily via the number of their victories in individual duels, Visser 1997, 217– 224.) – Pritchett responded with a rejection as concise as it was severe to van Wees’ ‘revisionist’ view (Pritchett 1991a, 181–190); this can be regarded as the definitive conclusion for the present, since in the meantime the same arguments have merely been repeated (cf. 13 years later de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 76 f.: ‘[…] one of the more obstinate misconceptions in scholarship: Homeric warfare was thought to consist of individual duels only, not of mass fighting. This was corrected once and for all by […] Joachim Latacz ⟨who⟩ made a thorough analysis of the Homeric battle-scenes and among other things established the narrative principles which guide their description’). – Certain inconsistencies within the battle scenes (recognized long ago as a result of the amalgamated character of Homeric epic) are pointed out by H.W. Singor in largely derivative and repetitive remarks (Singor 1991, 1995); the issue at hand is less the poetic depiction than the historical reality: Singor is concerned not with the image that Homer himself developed in an individual synthesis of tradition and contemporary reality, but with the links between the Homeric depiction and the historical realities prevailing in the Mycenaean and Geometric periods, which in his opinion are juxtaposed in the Iliad in an unconnected and thus inconsistent manner. In and of itself, the amalgamated character of Homeric poetry is important, but here, where the concern is with the consistency of poetic depiction, it is secondary and not really relevant to the debate. – Finally, Hellmann too made attempts at ‘bridge-building’, although this was in turn rejected as an abject failure in an acerbic critique by van Wees (van Wees 2003; other relevant bibliography must remain unmentioned in the present context; the studies cited provide ample guidance). Given the state of research, the present commentary, like that on 3.1–115 (see ad loc.), is based on Latacz’s view of the fundamental structure of battle depictions (loc. cit. 55–59 on the approach of the armies, 75–81 on the sequence and methods for depicting massed close combat, 82–89 for description of the variant depictions of massed close combat in the present context, 182–184 for an overview of the variant depictions of massed close combat: a table with the 15 descriptions of a first battle-phase in the Iliad); different interpretations are incorporated where necessary or useful. II. The themeP ‘sequence of events in a pitched battle’ / ‘pitched battle’ (Pritchett 1985, 33 and passim) (the verse-numbers for the relevant situation in this part of the Iliad are given in parentheses) A. Preparation of the front formation 1. Speeches of encouragement (so-called harangues) by military leaders to the army as a whole in a military assembly (agorḗ): (1) Odysseus (2.283–332), (2) Nestor (2.336–368), (3) Agamemnon (2.369–393).

186 2.

Iliad 4

Assembling of geographic (see the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ and ‘Trojan Catalogue’) contingents (’battalions’) before their accommodations (tents, huts): 2.441–454. 3. Advance of the army to the battlefield. Similes: (1) like fire across a plain, (2) like flocks of birds, (3) like flies in a cowshed (2.455–473). 4. Formation of the frontline: arrangement of the approaching units into successive horizontal rows of varying number (stíches, phálanges; in the modern period until the 19th century: ‘line infantry’), whose geographically unified parts each formed a block (‘infantry square’, in Homer pýrgos ~ ‘tower/ bulwark’) commanded by one or two leaders (officers) (2.474–483). After arranging themselves internally, the pýrgoi position themselves closely together horizontally. The first row comprises the pró-machoi ~ ‘foremost fighters’, who at the beginning of the battle act as fighters with throwing weapons (modern period: ‘marksmen’ or ‘light infantry’) and either leap back into the front row after a throw (‘shot’) or, after a hit, try to penetrate the enemy frontline. Insertion (ep-eis-hódion → Episode): composition of the two opposing army formations = the so-called ‘Catalogue of Ships’ and ‘Trojan Catalogue’: 2.484–877 (end of Book 2). B. Sequence of events in the battle 1. Approach of the two army formations toward each other until they reach throwing distance (approximately = frontline distance, i.e. ca. 40 m; on this, see Latacz loc. cit. 125 with n. 9; also 3.1–14). 2. Fighting with throwing weapons (fighting by the pró-machoi; here alluded to at 3.15–17 and 3.79–83). Insertions: (1) offer of a duel by the Trojans: Paris–Menelaos, the Achaians accept (3.86–115); (2) a truce agreement with an option for a peace treaty is prepared (3.116–120); (3) insertion into (2): teichoscopia (3.121– 244); (4) a truce agreement between Priam and Agamemnon is made via oaths (3.245–312); (5) the Paris–Menelaos duel; Paris is spirited away to his bedchamber by Aphrodite (313–382); (6) the Paris–Helen ‘bedchamber scene’ (383–447); (7) Menelaos searches for Paris, Agamemnon announces Menelaos’ victory in the duel and demands that the provisions of the agreement (return of Helen, reparations) be fulfilled: 3.448–461 = end of Book 3; (8) divine council on Olympus (4.1–72); (9) Pandaros shoots an arrow at Menelaos, in an obvious breach of the agreement: consequences (4.73–219); (10) Achaian troops again line up for battle; inspection of the battle-ready troops by Agamemnon (Epipṓlēsis): 220–421. 3. Approach of the two armies and the beginning of massed close combat (422–544 = end of Book 4).



4. Retreat or flight of one of the two formations (here: 5.37 ff.). 5. Advance or pursuit by the opposing formation. 6. (frequent, often repeated) halt and formation of a new front by those fleeing (followed by repetition of the sequence beginning with 1.). 7. Abandonment of battle because of nightfall. Collection of the dead. 422–445 The two army formations advance against one another; the different ways of advancing are illustrated via a contrasting pair of similes from a bird’s eye view. 422–445 In Book 3, the themeP ‘sequence of events in a pitched battle’ was interrupted during the initial stages of the missile fight of the prómachoi by Hektor and Agamemnon issuing orders to stop (3.76–83). Prior to the duel between Paris and Menelaos, the two armies took their places (3.326–327n.) and lowered their weapons (3.111–115; 3.114n.). Only after Pandaros’ shot and its consequences did they again pick up their weapons and once more line up in battle formation (220–222, see ad loc.). The Trojan front slowly began to advance (220 f.). After the subsequent epipṓlēsis, with Agamemnon’s paraeneses embedded therein, and after Diomedes’ call to battle, which concluded the epipṓlēsis (418), the Achaians all advance as well. In their case, the manner of advancing is illustrated via an often used wave simile (422– 428; on this, Fränkel 1921, 16–19); concerning the forward movement, the simile should apply to the Trojans in equal measure, cf. 13.795–801 (on this, Latacz 1977, 95–97). The narrator puts particular emphasis on the difference in discipline between the two armies: the Achaian troops march silently, aside from the necessarily loud commands of their leader, while the Trojans and their allies proceed with great hullaballoo (436–438n.), which is rendered audible in a separate, unflattering simile (433–436) (on this, see Stoevesandt 2004, 81, where however the approach is wrongly characterized as chaotic, although the ‘line infantry’ also exists on the Trojan side [447, 453; 13.795– 801]; the description refers merely to the buzz of voices and the resulting volume is only from the various commanders of the Trojan allies speaking in different languages). – The similes function as a deliberately means to use a bird’s eye view to visualize events in a programmatic way. They refer exclusively to the advancing of the frontlines before the clash. 422–432 Wave similes appear to be a traditional means to describe troops approaching battle. They visualize the appearance, manner of movement (forward rolling motion), power, and intimidating effect of the approach of a phalanx formation on the opponents (shock, fear). – The present variant largely agrees with the wave simile at 13.795–801 (where the subject of the simile is


Iliad 4

the Trojans). Wave similes in military contexts give rise to a wealth of sensory impressions (appearance [piling up, crown of spray at the crest of the waves], staggered arrangement, continuity and apparent infinity of numbers, noise, threat, etc.; cf. ‘tsunami’): a ‘dynamic aspect of a dangerous, continuously self-replenishing concentrated power. […] a vivid image of its [sc. the phalanx formation’s] nature’ (Latacz 1977, 56 [transl.]). – Extensive treatment of the type ‘wave simile’: Kirk on 422–428; for marine similes generally, also 14.16– 22n. with bibliography. 422–426 As is often the case, what is compared in the simileP is not merely illustrated (‘as this …, just so that’), but also enriched with additional aspects: in the present ‘as’ part, begun to illustrate the clash between the two opposing fronts (~ waves and the coast) (422), the subsequent description of the path of the waves from the high sea toward the coast focusses on the ‘form of forward movement’ as the point of comparison (epassýteron 423: staggered arrangement), a point retained in the subsequent ‘so’ part (epassýterai 427). At the same time, this prevents a premature equation of the breaking of the waves (waves–coast collision) with the clash of the Greek frontline (front–opposing front collision) – but without foregoing the latent anticipatory reference ‘thus (sc. with a collision) the approach will end!’: ‘This clearly illustrates the difficulty of placing many similes: they apply to larger parts of the story, but can only be inserted in one place’: Fränkel 1921, 18 (transl.). 422 In the present simile, the adj. ‘much resounding’ (poly-ēchḗs) has an expressive effect in the sense of danger hinted at via the ‘thundering’ roaring of the water when it hits the coast. This does not represent a contrast with the silence of the approaching Achaians (429), since the tertium comparationis is the noise produced by hitting an obstacle (coast ~ enemy frontline) rather than that which occurs while rolling in/marching. ὡς δ’ ὅτ(ε): 130–131n. — πολυηχέϊ: a hapaxP in the Iliad. The exact sense is obscure (which components of sound precisely?). Od. 19.521 (song of the nightingale), the other example in Homer, provides no more information; ancient natural historians favored replacing the vulgate πολυηχέα here with πολυδευκέα (~ ‘much/very sweet/ pleasant’) (see app. crit. in Von der Mühll). In both cases, the reference is likely to the polytonal (~ varied) noise; when the sea is calm, the noise is monotonous/soporific. — κῦμα θαλάσσης: a formula at VE (4× Il., 1× h.Hom.) and in verse middle (4× early epic); a traditional collective expression for conveying the concept ‘waves’ (on the sing., Schw. 2.41; Chantr. 2.29).

422 πολυηχέϊ: on the uncontracted form, R 6.



423 The comparison with the power of the ceaselessly rolling surf characterizes the approach of the Achaian troops as a quasi-natural event, illustrating the universal dimension of present events; 2.396 f. is similar. — [west wind] Zephyr: zéphyros, the wind from a westerly and north-westerly direction, is linked in early Greek epic not to warmth/gentleness but to intense energy (cf. 276: extremely dangerous; 2.147–148n.: cold and stormy; 9.5 f.: coming from Thrace; 19.415 f.: the swiftest wind; Pighi 1975–1976). Comparison with this wind can only have its full effect when the narrateeP is looking west or northwest. A viewing point on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor can thus be assumed as the most likely (Gray 1974, 12; Latacz [2011] 2014, 73: presumably the homeland of the narrator). ἐπασσύτερον: An adj. (neut., referring to the collective term κῦμα), perhaps formed from ἄγχι, comparative ἆσσον: ‘in close/dense succession’ (AH; LfgrE s. v.; on the uncertain etymology, DELG; Beekes). The analogue in the ‘so’ part: ἐπασσύτεραι 427.

424 ≈ 442. — cresting (korýssetai): This is based on the notion of the wave (kýma) putting on a helmet (kórys) of foam, i.e. the item of armor that comes last (Fränkel 1921, 17; Trümpy 1950, 88 f.), thereby establishing its complete ‘readiness for battle’ (Faesi: ‘gets armed as for battle’; similarly LfgrE). The wave can now engage in combat with the land. In this manner, the simile provides the first link to the military ‘so’ part via korýssetai (cf. Fränkel loc. cit. 17 f.; LfgrE s. v. κορύσσω; less convincingly, AH; Kirk on 424–426: the wave ‘raises its head’: this would remove the military connection). αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα: a formula at VB, VE (also at 442) and after caesura A 3: a characteristic paratactic clause construction (24.273–274n.).

425 The mainland in the image corresponds to the Trojan frontline in (imagined) reality. μεγάλα: The adverb is almost exclusively used with verbs denoting noisy/loud sounds (likewise with βρέμειν/-εσθαι at 2.210 and 14.399); at 13.282 inside the body (κραδίη μ. … πατάσσει): the heart ‘is beating, pounding’ (‘the heart was hammering [from fear, joy, etc.]’). — ἄκρας: The reference is to cliffs rather than a ‘promontory’ (as at 14.36) or even a ‘headland’ (Kirk on 424–426); Od. 9.285 (‘cliff’: Schadewaldt) is similar. There is clearly no equation with the opposing πρόμαχοι (Fränkel 1921, 18, counter to his own warning in principle against one-to-one equations). 426 κυρτόν: ‘curved, bent (forwards), concave’. An adj. from the same root as Latin curvus (LfgrE), English ‘curve’; of a wave also at 13.799; of Thersites, 2.218: he has (a

423 ὄρνυτ’: = ὄρνυται. — Ζεφύρου ὕπο: = ὑπὸ Ζεφύρου (R 20.2). 424 πόντῳ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — κορύσσεται, αὐτάρ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 425 χέρσῳ: locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). — μεγάλα: adverbial acc. (‘loudly’). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11), probably placed here to avoid hiatus.


Iliad 4

humped back and) shoulders ‘bent forward’ (κυρτώ). – Close to the shore, the towering, storm-driven waves break forward, ‘bend’ and look to the spectator like a cave or vault (cf. the verb κυρτόω at Od. 11.243 f.: the grotto for the tryst of Poseidon and Tyro, shaped by a ‘curved wave as tall as a mountain’, κῦμα … οὔρεϊ ἶσον, | κυρτωθέν). — κορυφοῦται: a Homeric hapaxP; it denotes the ‘peaking, climbing’ of the wave without a military reference (related to κορυφή ‘([mountain] peak’), in contrast to κορύσσεται at 424 (related to κόρυς ‘helmet’); cf. German ‘Koryphäe’ (LfgrE). — ἀποπτύει: ‘disgorge’. On the ‘anthropomorphization’ of animals, plants and objects in early epic, see de Boel 1993; cf. 14.394n. On these linguistic universals, e.g. English ‘the volcano/dragon spits fire’, ‘the fountain spits water’. Here this is merely a side effect of the wave’s cresting; as in the case of ἄκρας at 425 (see ad loc.), there is no analogue in a military context, although use of the word does reinforce the notion of something to be avoided. — ἄχνην: ‘foam, spray’ (in threshing, also ‘chaff’); originally probably ‘something that is whisked up high under pressure’ (cf. LfgrE s. v. ἄχνη). In the Iliad, 3× of spray on waves rolling in, breaking, and then climbing high (‘head of foam’); in addition to the present passage, also at 11.307 (κῦμα κυλίνδεται, ὑψόσε δ᾿ ἄχνη | σκίδναται ἐξ ἀνέμοιο … ἰωῆς); 15.626; and Od. 5.403 (where also at VE: ἁλὸς ἄχνῃ) is similar.

427–432 The lines of Danaans (= Achaians) move toward the battle(field) staggered like waves that rise up when they move from the high sea toward the coast. – The simileP is not based on a one-to-one symmetry (422–426n.), but places different emphases on the subjects of the action (waves ~ lines), their movement and the shape of their movement (a staggered arrangement). Mobility thus takes the place of stasis. 427 Danaans: cf. 65n. — close battalions: phálanges, adopted into e.g. English, French, Italian and Spanish in the sing. (‘phalanx’); in the Iliad, this is a technical military term for a battle formation arranged in horizontal rows (see below). – The phalanxes (~ masses) are the basis of the battle action depicted in the Iliad (Latacz 1977, 45–67 [with older bibliography]; Pritchett 1985, 7– 33; de Jong 1987, 114 f.; Pritchett 1991, 185 f.; Hanson 1991; cf. Calhoun 1934, 307). ἐπασσύτεραι: 423n. — κίνυντο φάλαγγες: a VE formula, 3× Il., all in Book 4, see 281n. (where also with an indication of direction: ἐς πόλεμον rather than πόλεμόνδε (428), and with φάλαγγες more closely specified via πυκιναί ‘tight[ly closed]’); 332n. (there φάλαγγες | Τρώων … καὶ ᾿Αχαιῶν: both parties are arranged in identical formations). — κίνυντο: 281n.; likely a technical military term (rather than ‘went, ran, advanced’ etc.); cf. English ‘troop movements’. — φάλαγγες: basic meaning: ‘(wooden) beams’ (Frisk; DELG; Latacz 1977, 49 [differentiation from στίχες]). As a technical military term: ‘horizontal rows of warriors, stacked vertically multiple times’ (‘aligned ranks of an army [Il., etc.]’: DELG; Pritchett 1985, 22; 1991, 190). The phalanxes are

426 κυρτόν: predicative with ἰόν. — κορυφοῦται: middle (‘peaks’). 427 κίνυντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.



the precursors of the Greek ‘phalanx’, evidently introduced on a larger scale only in the post-Homeric period (ca. 650), this being based on a technological innovation, as is the case with all tactical reforms: the place of the earlier round shield with one central grip, as assumed in the Iliad, was taken by the double-grip shield with a central loop (to receive the lower left arm: πόρπαξ) and a grip at the right inner edge of the shield: ἀντι-λαβή (Lorimer 1947; on this, Latacz loc. cit. 35 f.; Höckmann 1980, 316 with n. 1897). The shield, which in its previous iteration could be swivelled right and left, but which also swung in all directions as the result of enemy blows, was now fixed firmly to the arm, with the result that, in addition to greater defensive security, each man in the phalanx was able to use the left side of his shield to cover/ protect the right side of his left-hand neighbor. By making the lines of warriors move closely together, this also provided the possibility for an συν-ασπισμός, ‘shielding’ (described several times in the Iliad: dense, compact and massive like a wall; see the wall simile at 16.212–217; 215: ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾿ ἀσπίδ᾿ ἔρειδε, κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ᾿ ἀνήρ; on this, Latacz loc. cit. 63 f.); on the συν-ασπισμός generally: 16.211n.; Latacz loc. cit. 63–65. The narrator of our Iliad, living in a transitional period (Latacz 2017), presumably was most familiar with the old phalanx’s formation (esp. from oral tradition), but also knew the beginnings of the phalanx proper (still in use, albeit in forms changed to suit evolving weapons technology, until WWI – ‘storm troops’).

428–429a 2nd VH of 428 ≈ 13.230, 20.353; from caesura C 2 on = 2.775, 8.544, 11.731, 23.371. — steadily: No end can be seen to the swell of the sea: placed at the VB, the adj. stresses the enormous size of the Achaian army. Via the designation of the aim ‘into battle’, the (integral) enjambmentP opens the detailed description of the formation of the Greek attackers that follows. νωλεμέως: The etymology is uncertain (19.232n.). — πόλεμόνδε: an acc. with the enclitic particle -δε (1.54n. s. v. ἀγορήνδε; G 66). πόλεμος is here used in its original meaning ʽbattleʼ (cf. 15n.) still clearly recognizable in contrast to ʽwarʼ (as the state of enmity between two peoples) (Trümpy 1950, 129 f.; for the etymology, Frisk; DELG). — κέλευε δὲ οἷσιν ἕκαστος | ἡγεμόνων: ~ 23.371; refers back to the arrangement in the form of geographically based πύργοι: 334n. For basic information, 422– 544n., section II. A. 4.

429b–431a silently: The silence indicates particular focus and decisiveness; cf. 3.1–14n., end, 3.8–9n. As in Diomedes’ preceding speech (412–418), which began with ‘Quiet! Sit down!’, the narrator has this dictate the mood of the army as a whole: ‘Enough talking! To action!’ ἀκήν: elsewhere usually in the formulaic verse ὣς ἔφαθ᾿· οἳ δ᾿ ἄρα πάντες ἀκὴν ἐγένοντο σιωπῇ (10× Il., 5× Od.): 3.95n.; cf. Od. 2.82 (ἔνθ᾿ ἄλλοι μὲν πάντες ἀκὴν ἔσαν, οὐδέ

428 νωλεμέως: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δὲ (ϝ)οῖσιν: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἷσιν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4) used substantively (‘his men’). 429 ἴσαν: = ᾖσαν (‘they went’); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — οὐδέ: In Homer, the connectives οὐδέ/μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). 430 τόσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἕπεσθαι ἔχοντ(α): on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 431 δειδιότες: part. of δέδια (= δέδοικα), < *δεδϝιότες (R 4.2).


Iliad 4

τις ἔτλη). Placed emphatically as a single word after caesura B 2, as here, the word is particularly expressive, probably in the sense ‘attentive’, ‘mindful’, ‘collected’, ‘concentrated’ (see 1.34n. on ἀκέων: ‘sharply, pricking up one’s ears’), with reference back to κέλευε (428) and ahead to δειδιότες σημάντορας (431). The separability from the formula component σιωπῇ, which logically enough follows here only at 431 (σιγῇ) and is likewise strongly emphatic (VB), clarifies that each of the words has its own meaning; in combination, approximately ‘in concentrated silence’. — οὐδέ κε φαίης: likewise at VE at 3.392, 17.366, Od. 3.124 (for parallels for such involvement of the audience/ reader in the action, 3.220n., 16.638–640n. with bibliography). — ἔχοντ᾿ ἐν στήθεσιν αὐδήν: ‘with their voice suppressed/held back within their chest’. They are sufficiently disciplined to remain silent in order to hear the orders (428: κέλευε) of their σημάντορες (431). — σιγῇ: stressed at VB: ‘in silence!’: ‘holding back one’s voice’ does not mean that one could not still whisper, for example. — δειδιότες: The extent to which the leaders can instill fear in their warriors has just been demonstrated to them by Agamemnon’s speeches. — σημάντορας: The leaders, here functioning as signalers (κέλευε 428): τοῖσιν ἕκαστος ἀνὴρ σημαινέτω, οἷσί περ ἄρχει 2.805 (see ad loc.; there in reference to the variety of languages used by the Trojan coalition troops; here in reference to the individual Greek ‘battalions’ according to the Epipṓlēsis: οἷσιν 428).

431b–432 The narrator complements the acoustic threat (collective silence) with a visual one: the gleam of weapons (resembling fire) announces the proximity of danger. On this in detail, 2.455–458n., 19.362–364n., 19.374–383n. – The silence, the shining armor signalling a threat, and the marching in closed formation (‘rank and file’) convey almost tangibly to the audience/reader the momentum of the Achaian advance and their military determination. τεύχεα: ‘equipment’; as a technical military term: ‘armor’, i.e. all the elements that cover the body, from the helmet to the greaves, usually including the shield (thus everything that can shine in a particularly visible fashion): 3.29n. — τεύχεα ποικίλ(α): a VE formula (4× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’): τεύχεα ποικίλα χαλκῷ; at VB (without χαλκῷ) only here. What is meant is probably ‘armor embellished with manifold bronze fittings’ (esp. helmet and corselet); see 6.504n., 14.420n. — ἐστιχόωντο: related to στείχω, or a denominative from *στίξ, gen. στιχός (2.92n.), originally ‘steps’ (~ ‘stairway’), i.e. succession, sequence, rank, line. – As a technical military term: ‘hike/walk/march in rows’ (already schol. D on 2.92: ἐν τάξει παρεγένοντο, with τάξις ~ ‘military order’). – This corresponds to κίνυντο φάλαγγες in 427, while offering more specificity, and in the manner of a ring-composition brings the (expanded) wave simile (ἐπασσύτερον ~ ‘one wave after the other’, 423) to a powerful, march-like (entirely dactylic!) conclusion. (The second half of 432 is thus anything but ‘little more than padding’ [Kirk on 431–432].)

433–438 The energetic illustration of the Achaian advance via a storm and wave simile is followed by a contrasting simile, languid and devoid of energy, for the Trojans’ conduct: having been faced with an Achaian approach that rolls

432 τά: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5), acc. of respect (R 19.1), dependent on εἱμένοι. — ἐστιχόωντο: on the epic diectasis, R 8.



in silently and with gleaming weapons, the audience/reader find themselves in the middle of a pen with bleating sheep being milked = the Trojans. The main point of comparison, however, is acoustic: the disciplined silence of the Achaians versus the jumble of cries by the Trojans (AH; Stoevesandt 2004, 85); an animal species other than sheep might have been chosen (e.g. birds, see 3.2n.: 2.463, on which Fränkel 1921, 72), but the narrator here picks sheep in order to highlight a secondary aspect of ‘superior strength/courage’ versus ‘inferiority/weakness/helplessness’ (e.g. 22.263: wolves against lambs; on this, Fränkel loc. cit. 62). At the same time, more far-reaching interpretations, such as ‘Poor communication within the polyglot army […] prevents the men and leaders from coming together as an orderly troop and from remaining so during the march’ (Fränkel loc. cit. 76 [transl.]), are misguided in light of 446 f. (see ad loc.): the frontline of the Trojan coalition is also compact when the frontlines clash. – Since the pair of similes is positioned immediately before the first military encounter between the enemies and is likely programmatic for the outcome of the battle (Stoevesandt loc. cit. 88; 3.8–9n.) (or even the Iliad as a whole: cautiously, Stoevesandt loc. cit. 85, with the scholia), a subtle irony cannot be excluded: the first day of battle, begun in the spirit of this pair of similes (Achaian superiority versus Trojan inferiority), will end with fortunes reversed; at the close of the day, the ‘sheep’ will have forced the ‘wolves’ into panicked defensive action (construction of a wall, 7.433–482; STR 21, fig. 1). 433 Τρῶες δ(έ): As the subject of the contrasting simile beginning here, Τρῶες is placed at VB in clear juxtaposition to Δαναῶν (427); it is picked up again in anacoluthon by ὣς Τρώων (436), likewise at VB. On the anacoluthon, cf. Od. 13.81/84 (ἣ δ᾿, ὥς τ᾿ … | [2 verses] | ὣς ἄρα τῆς πρύμνη μὲν ἀείρετο; 15.271/277, 17.755/758: AH); cf. also, particularly clearly, Od. 1.275 f.: μητέρα δ᾿, εἴ οἱ θυμὸς … | ἂψ ἴτω ἐς μέγαρον … . — πολυπάμονος: a Homeric hapaxP. A deverbative possessive compound from πάομαι ‘acquire (for oneself)’ (first at Solon fr. 13.7 West χρήματα … ἀδίκως … πεπᾶσθαι | οὐκ ἐθέλω), hence: ʽhaving many acquisitions/much property’ (Risch 52; 148). For sheep as a measure of wealth, and sheep in similes in general, 18.588n.; Richter 1968, 56. 434 μυρίαι: a typical numberP: ‘innumerably many’; on the numeral, 1.2n. – There may be a reference to the enormous number of warriors in the Trojan coalition. — ἑστήκωσιν: with no military reference: sheep can only be milked when they stand still; this thus means approximately ‘were there’ (the Trojan front is not standing still, but rather advancing: 221). On the subjunc. marking a generalization, Chantr. 2.253. — ἀμελγόμεναι: an I-E inherited term (root *h2melĝ-); cf. Latin mulgeo, English ‘milk’, etc. (Frisk; DELG; Beekes s. v. ἀμέλγω; LIV 279). The participle, originally middle, has acquired a passive sense (AH; LfgrE; cf. Schw. 2.236–241); here it merely

433 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ὄϊες: from ὄϊς ‘sheep’ (Latin ovis). 434 γάλα λευκόν: acc. of respect (R 19.1).


Iliad 4

designates the situation, while the ‘predicate proper’ is found in μεμακυῖαι (AH; similarly Faesi). – Why the ewes should be ‘waiting to be milked’ (Scott 1974, 109; subsequently Kirk on 433–435) can be ascertained, if need be, from a reading of the subsidiary tradition (μεμαυῖαι rather than μεμακυῖαι, see app. crit. here and in Leaf); see also Od. 9.439 and 435n. — γάλα λευκόν: likewise at VE (in the gen., with reversed word order) at Od. 9.246, in verse middle also at Il. 5.902; a linguistic universal, in purely logical terms redundant or pleonastic (‘reddish sorrel’, ‘golden palomino’, etc.; cf. διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν) with emotional visualizing stress on ‘[wonderfully] white!’

435 bleat: Unless there is an error in the transmission (see 434n. on ἀμελγόμεναι), the supposedly interminable bleating during milking makes little objective sense (in reality, milking calms sheep, see Od. 9.439 f.: the ewes are bleating because their udders are full and they want to be milked, while during the process they are relieved and stay calm). Here, the ewes bleat during milking (amelgómenai) because they can hear their lambs calling (akoúousai ópa arnṓn); this in itself appears odd (which is likely also the reason for the v.l., see 434n.). That the lambs in turn are bleating because they crave the remaining milk (Fränkel 1921, 76) is entirely at odds with reality, since after lambs are born they must naturally receive the first milk for a while so as not to die. At most, they are bleating because they are separated from the ewes during milking. – All in all, the passage is scarcely comprehensible from the point of view of modern sheep-breeding; at the same time, the details of ancient sheep-keeping are unknown to us. In any case, the narrator is here probably less concerrned with specialist knowledge of this sort than with the main point of comparison: the Trojans ‘bleat’ like sheep. ἀζηχές: etymologically obscure, see DELG; LfgrE. Based on other attestations in the Iliad (15.658, 17.741: of persistent human calls; 15.25: of persistent psychological suffering), it likely means ‘incessant’. — μεμακυῖαι: perf. part. of μηκάομαι (attested in early epic only in the aor. and the perf. part.); originally poetic ‘bleat’, then like English to suit particular animals ‘bleat’ (sheep), ‘squeak’ (hares), etc. (LfgrE s. v. μακεῖν). Here this is the main point (~ central comparison, see 433–438n.).

436–438 The ‘so’ part of the simile has, qua simile, the same structure as the ‘as’ part: the main point of comparison (acoustics, noise, volume of crowds) is initially picked up in a strictly analogous form (onomatopoetic expressions for the noise produced by sheep and men). But the reasons for the noises have different levels of explanation: the sheep are noisy because they hear the sound made by their lambs (435b) – no explanation is offered as to why the lambs are bleating – while the Trojan coalition is noisy because there are two ways in which their constituent parts lack a single (identical) basis for communication (437), and they lack this basis because they do not speak the

435 ἀκούουσαι (ϝ)όπα (ϝ)αρνῶν: on the prosody, R 4.4 and 4.3.



same language (438). The noise of the Trojan coalition is thus explicitly justified logically, unlike the noise of the ‘army’ of sheep in the ‘as’ part: there is a diversity of languages in the Trojan coalition. – This detailed, logical, pragmatic explanation is in turn not offered out of a desire for logical perfection, but in pursuit of a broader goal: appearing initially as mere denigration of the enemy (a ‘screaming’ lack of discipline, disorder, confusion, therefore decreased prowess in battle), the issue is highlighted as an objective military disadvantage for the enemy – which nevertheless appears to grant the Achaians considerable strategic superiority from the beginning, since the efficiency of the Trojan command is hindered by linguistic conditions. – On the diversity of languages within the Trojan defensive coalition, 2.867n., 2.802– 806n. and esp. Stoevesandt 2004, 80–88 (with bibliography). 436 ἀλαλητός: post-Homeric ἀλαλή, cf. ἀλαλαί and ἀλαλαλαί: onomatopoetic interjections, Italian alalà!, German Halali, etc. (‘war whoops’, ‘battle cries’), i.e. approximately ‘cries of ἀλαλαί’ (2.149n. with additional examples and bibliography). — ἀνὰ στρατὸν εὐρύν: 209n. 437 θρόος: a Homeric hapaxP (compound: ἀλλόθροος; see Od. 1.183 etc.), cf. post-Homeric θόρυβος; both are related to θρέομαι ‘call, hail’ (LfgrE). This perhaps refers to the passing on of orders (in different languages) (‘chain of command’). — ἴα: The etymology is disputed; in particular, it is unclear whether this is a dialect form of μία (DELG s. v. ἰός). ἴα is not a numeral (part of the sequence of cardinal numbers or an indefinite numeral), but rather explicitly stresses unity in contrast to duality or plurality (21.569 ἐν δὲ ἴα ψυχή [in a human being]: ‘only one ψυχή’) or the identity of two or more entities (thus predominantly in Homer), as here: ‘they do not all have one and the same [manner of speaking vel sim.]’; for more, see LfgrE. — γῆρυς: A Homeric hapaxP, the word cannot be clearly distinguished semantically from θρόος due of a shortage of examples (both are Homeric hapax legomena) – as is demonstrated by the volume of speculation (Kirk on 437–438); it is similarly ambiguous in post-Homeric texts. In any case, the two terms here do not denote ‘language’, but specific manifestations of language, since ‘language’ as a generic term is not employed until 438 (γλῶσσ[α]). 438 γλῶσσ᾿ ἐμέμικτο: γλῶσσα, the actual term for ‘language’ and as in English a transferral from ‘tongue’ (‘sharp-tongued’, ‘double-tongued’, etc., cf. 1.249, Od. 3.332), is here used as the generic term encompassing θρόος and γῆρυς (see above). The concept of a ‘mixture of languages’ is familiar to us as well. In the Odyssey, it is spelled out concretely: there are 90 cities on Crete, and ἄλλη δ᾿ ἄλλων γλῶσσα μεμιγμένη, sc. Achaians, Eteocretans, Kydonians, Dorians and Pelasgians (Od. 19.175–177). The reference there is to pre-Greek languages as well as Greek dialects, while in the present passage in the Iliad it is to the ca. 15 individual languages from Asia Minor

436 ὀρώρει: plpf. of ὄρνυμαι ‘was (roused and thus) present’. 437 πάντων: not referring to θρόος, but rather to be understood as an indication of area (‘to all’). — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6). 438 ἐμέμικτο: plpf. mid. of μίσγω (‘was mixed’). — ἔσαν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.


Iliad 4

listed in the Catalogue of Trojans (Il. 2.816–877) – the speakers of which are πολύκλητοι ‘called from many places’ (LfgrE s. v. πολύκλητος).

439–445 In the divine assembly at the beginning of Book 4, the two supreme gods, Zeus and Hera, agreed that the postponed beginning of the war, and ultimately the destruction of Troy, should be resumed (30–49: 31–49n.). Zeus himself sent his daughter Athene into the plain before Troy as an agent provocateur. In accord with the orders she was given, she brought about the breach of the truce (Pandaros’ shot). As a result, the two armies again prepared for battle (see the introduction to Book 4: 3.4.) and have now advanced against each other. At this key moment, the gods intervene once more, preventing any further delay by having the armies strike immediately. The Achaians are supported by Athene, the Trojans by Ares. Both deities have helpers whipping up the crowds: Terror, Fear (Deimos and Phobos, helpers or even sons of the war god Ares) and Strife (Eris, sister of Ares). Eris’ powerful effect is described in special detail, and it is thus she who steps directly between the frontlines and ignites the battle. – By means of the divine assembly at the beginning of Book 4, which is crucial for the course and outcome of the war before Troy, the narrator – incorporating his own evaluation – makes it clear to the audience/reader that the fall of Troy is very important to the supreme gods Zeus and Hera: Hera pledges Greece’s most important centers of power, Argos, Sparta and Mycenae, as surety against Troy (51 f.: 51–53n.) – and Zeus accepts. It is thus clear: both sides on Olympus must mobilize their greatest powers in support of the human beings on earth. These powers are Ares and Athene – Ares on the Trojan side, Athene on the Achaian. Ares, the ultimate incarnation of war – particularly brave warriors are called ‘Ares-like’, but never ‘Athene-like’ – thus makes the first move via his kin (sons and sister, see 440n.); Athene will follow (515). On the linking of Ares and Athene as supporters of warring parties, also 18.516n. 439 Ares: On the nature, function and significance of the god generally, CG 6. – Ares, attested already in Mycenaean texts (DMic s. v. a-re), and a son of Zeus and Hera according to Hesiod (Hes. Th. 921 f.), has thus far featured in the Iliad only indirectly, as a venerated personification of warlike ability and as a friend and assistant courted by warriors (cf. 13n. on the epithet ‘dear to Ares’). He now appears in person. The symbolism is evident: the battle for Troy has begun. — Athene: Athene is likewise attested already in Mycenaean texts (DMic s. v. a-ta-na-po-ti-ni-ja). – She ‘is the most important divine actor, along with Zeus and Apollo’ and will defeat Ares in a duel (21.403–414): CG

439 τοὺς μὲν … τοὺς δέ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17.



8. Her first appearance in the Iliad is immediately decisive for the action; she prevents Achilleus from committing regicide (1.194n.; 1.195n.) and thus facilitates the mḗnis storyline. Although she is the daughter of Zeus (born from his head: Hes. Th. 886–900, 924 f.), in the Trojan war she works tirelessly in support of the Achaians (7–19n.) together with Hera, with whom she has a connection after both are spurned by the Trojan prince Paris in the Judgement of Paris (on which, 24.27–30n.). γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη: an inflectable VE formula, predominantly in the nom. (2.172n.); on the distinctive epithet γλαυκῶπις, which probably means ‘with bright/shining eyes’, 1.206n.

440 2nd VH ≈ 5.518. — Terror … Fear … [Hate] Strife: CG 38 and CG 30. – The first two (Deímos, Phóbos) are similarly mentioned together at 11.37 with Gorgo on the shield of Agamemnon and at 15.119 as helpers of Ares; in Hes. Th. 933 f., they are both sons of Ares, while Homer calls only Phobos explicitly Ares’ ‘dear son’ (13.299). Phobos is scarcely the personification of ‘flight’ (CG 38), but rather of the ‘fear that causes flight’ (LfgrE s. v. φόβος, Φόβος 969.25 [transl.]). For Eris, 441n. (genealogy) and 18.535n. (on her role). All three beings are connected via τ᾿ to Ἀθήνη at 439, but are associated with both deities and not exclusively with Athene (Faesi, AH), ‘spreading the spirit of war among both sides equally’ (Kirk on 440–441); the connection is thus loose and approximates a gapP (‘and drivers were also’). — Δεῖμος: on the secondary word formation related to δεῖμα, Schw. 1.492, 2.37. — τ᾿ ἠδέ: 186–187n. — ἄμοτον μεμαυῖα: a formulaic inflectable expression in various positions in the verse, here and at 5.518 at VE (in the fem.), at 13.40 and 13.80 after caesura B 1, also at 22.36 and Od. 17.520 (‘Hes.’ Sc. 361 ἄμοτον μενεαίνων is similar). The two terms may be closely related etymologically (on the controversial etymology, 19.300n.; Beekes s. v.) and are always used of highly excited emotion (desire). The uncertain etymology notwithstanding, the meaning of ἄμοτον (adverbial acc.) is clear: ‘violently, extremely’ (19.300n.), as is that of μεμαυῖα (related to the stem men-, from which also μενεαίνω, μένος, ‘excitedness, agitation’ [Snell (1939) 1999, 256 f.], also ‘unbridled energy, lively vigor, spontaneous urge’, etc.: LfgrE s. v. μένος 137.27 ff.). The basis for the expression is likely an attempt to describe a no longer controllable urge to do something specific (or anything at all). 441 2nd VH ≈ 24.793. — The verse was originally missing from cod. T (written in 1059 CE) and was added by a later hand; in cod. R (12th cent.), it is missing altogether, see app. crit. in West. The reason is apparently the unusual gen. form Ἄρεος rather than Ἄρηος (likewise at 19.47, Od. 8.267, 3× ‘Hes.’ Sc.; on the forms, Kirk on 440–441, end, and G 53) in combination with the anomalous genealogy (Eris as a sister of Ares). The combination of κασιγνητ- and ἑτα(ι)ρ- occurs only here and at Od. 21.216 (Τηλεμάχου

440 ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4). — Ἔρις(ς) ἄμοτον: on the prosody, M 4.6. — μεμαυῖα: fem. perf. part. of μέμονα ‘strive, have an urge’. 441 Ἄρεος: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the declension, R 11.3.


Iliad 4

ἑτάρω τε κασιγνήτω, i.e. κασίγνητος not used in a genealogical sense), also Il. 24.793 in a list (κασίγνητοί θ’ ἕταροί τε). — ἀνδροφόνοιο: a generic epithetP derived from I-E poetic language (6.134n.). — κασιγνήτη ἑτάρη: The absence of correption is likely explained by the original initial consonant of ἑτάρη (see 19.345n. on ἕταρος).

442–443 442 ≈ 424 (see ad loc.). — ‘This and the next verse give a graphic allegory of the power of Eris: first she is small, then immense’: Kirk on 442, who assumes that the wave simile at 424 is the model for the present image, although the notion of strife beginning small and growing ever larger is in fact quite ancient (cf. in English ‘small causes can have large effects’, ‘escalate a conflict’ [related to Latin scala ‘ladder’], etc.); cf. Kirk himself on 444– 445: ‘the phraseology is too general to argue for a model–copy relationship exactly’. The passage served as model for Virgil’s image of Fama at Aen. 4.173 ff. (Faesi; AH; Leaf; Kirk on 442). κορύσσεται: 424n. — οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε κάρη καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ βαίνει: στηρίζω is related etymologically to στερεός ‘solid, hard, rigid’ (DELG), here with the locative dat. οὐρανῷ, i.e. literally: ‘fastened, fixed her head to the heavens’. This creates the image of a column stretching from the ground to the sky, symbolizing Eris’ universal potency, power and stability (Near Eastern parallels in West 1997, 359 f.). The complementary contrast is ‘and all the while she walks along on the earth’, i.e. she drives everything between heaven and earth in front of her: once the war has begun, everything on earth comes little by little under its spell. This is a timeless image for the inescapable consequences of beginning a war – as just described here – and is programmatic for the subsequent story of the Iliad and beyond until the fall of Troy. 444 σφιν … νεῖκος … ἔμβαλε μέσσῳ: For the notion that ‘strife’ is tossed in the middle like an object, cf. 16n. on φιλότητα … βάλωμεν; on the middle as the place for the confrontation, cf. 3.69 = 3.90. On ἐμβάλλω in reference to divine impulses, 19.88n.; on similar constructions, 2.451b–452n. — καὶ τότε: ‘there, too; also in this case’: the universal norm will here be exemplified immediately. — νεῖκος: 3.87n. (stresses the confrontation in a specific case, in contrast to πόλεμος; on the distinction from ἔρις [no psychological connotation, denotes the objective side of a confrontation], Gruber 1963, 49). — ὁμοίιον: ‘«the commonality» that affects all things without distinction’ (AH [transl.]; on the meaning, use and aspiration, 18.242n. with bibliography). 445 1st VH = 516. — καθ᾿ ὅμιλον: 126n. — ὀφέλλουσα: ‘intent on increasing’ (AH; on the meaning and etymology of the word, 1.510n., 16.651n.). — στόνον ἀνδρῶν: ≈ 19.214 (see ad loc.), where similarly of the moaning of wounded warriors.

442 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — πρῶτα: adverbial acc. 443 οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε: indication of direction without a preposition (R 19.2). — κάρη: ‘head’ (neut. sing.). 444 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — μέσσῳ: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.



446–456 The frontlines clash (illustrated by another simile), and the head-tohead massed close combat begins. The ‘comprehensive description’ from a bird’s eye view simultaneously provides the ‘frame’ for the subsequent description of individual close combat (hand-to-hand fighting) that must be retrojected into this ‘frame’ (Latacz 1977, 187–200). 446–451 = 8.60–65. — Toward the end of the 19th century, the repetition of these verses in Book 8 led to a discussion regarding precedence and athetization that occupied three pages in the leading commentary at the time (AH, Anh. pp. 25–27) and reveals the complete confusion in Homeric philology in that period (which has left traces down to the present day, see Kirk ad loc.). The text is one of the set pieces that must have been available at all times, given the concentration of pre-Homeric rhapsodic poetry on the topic of war (from the sphere of religion, for example, cf. the sacrificial scene at 1.458– 468 [with the insertion of 461–465 = Od. 3.458–462] = Il. 2.421–431; on this in principle: type-sceneP). Here the section is indispensable, as the end point of a lengthy run-up (422–544n. II. B. 3.), while in Book 8 it is factually necessary, but appears comparatively abrupt; at the same time, this is inescapable with type-scenes, since a seamless adaptation to the context is not always achievable. – ‘The crash of the phalanxes on the battlefield (chṓros 446) with its accompanying effects – battle cries and the clash of weapons, moaning and triumphant howls, destruction and bloodshed – is initially described directly in eleven verses (446–451), and then its elemental violence is mirrored once more in the simile of the mountain streams colliding (symbálleton … hýdōr 453 ~ syn r’ ébalon rhinóus 447) and roaring (dóupon 455 ~ orymagdós 449) in a narrow mountain gorge. The entire comprehensive description of massed close combat is in no way designed merely to describe the events at the moment of the crash itself; rather, it is also meant to illustrate visually and acoustically the subsequent lengthy grappling of the massed close combat, thus providing the extended frame that will be filled with the descriptions of individual fights that follow (457 ff.)’ (Latacz 1977, 82 f. [transl.], slightly modified; for additional bibliography on the bird’s eye view and on similes at the beginning of a battle, 16.563–568n.). 446 οἳ δ’ ὅτε δή: a VB formula (21× Il., 3× Od.); cf. 130–131n. 447 2nd VH after caesura C 2 = Od. 4.363. — σύν ῥ᾿ ἔβαλον: because of ἔπληντ(ο) following in the next verse, likely not (yet) ‘clashed (together)’, but initially ‘directed, 446 οἵ: cf. 444n. — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — ἵκοντο: on the unaugmented form (short ι-), R 16.1. 447 σύν … ἔβαλον: so-called tmesis (R 20.2) — ῥ(α): here metrically conditioned (cf. R 24.1). — ἔγχεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — μένεʼ ἀνδρῶν: on the hiatus, R 5.1.


Iliad 4

steered (together, against each other)’ (as when one is throwing at a target), ‘turned against each other’ (cf. ‘ballistics’ ~ ‘shooting/throwing technology’, not ‘attacking technology’). The phalanxes stride ahead with shining shields (i.e. they reflect the light particularly well) held in front of them (432). On the anaphora of σύν, Fehling 1969, 194; West 2007, 108 f. — ῥινούς: ‘shields’. The material (leather) represents the object as a whole (cf. ἀσπίδα … | ῥινοῖσιν πυκινήν at 13.803 f.; in English cf. ‘pigskin’ = ‘football’). On the material used for the shields, 18.481n. — ῥινούς … ἔγχεα … μένε(α): ‘the shields, pikes and drive’, i.e. the exterior and interior arms, cf. English ‘with heart and hand’. – The pl. μένεα is attested in early epic only here, in the iteratum and in the formula μένεα πνείοντες (‘snorting courage, breathing aggression, snorting with rage’: 2.536 [with n.], 3.8, 11.508, 24.364; cf. English ‘breathing fire’: Grimm s. v. ‘athmen’); on the sing., 1.103n., 2.387n. (μένος ἀνδρῶν at the end of the battle: ‘(aggressive) energy, urge, warlike momentum’. 448 χαλκεοθωρήκων: a possessive compound ‘with iron cuirass’; on the formation, Risch 183, 218; on the object, LfgrE s. v. — ἀσπίδες ὀμφαλόεσσαι: an inflectable VE formula (10× Il., 1× Od.); the bosses serve to decorate and reinforce the center of the shield (6.117–118n.). 449 ἔπληντ’ ἀλλήλῃσι … ὀρυμαγδός: ‘The shields came close together’, which is elsewhere rendered ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾿ ἀσπίδ᾿ ἔρειδε (13.131, 16.215, where, however, meant horizontally), i.e. ‘shield butted on shield’, and at the moment of the crash arose πολὺς … ὀρυμαγδός: ‘a loud crashing, a loud bang’. The grappling man-to-man has begun. — πολὺς … ὀρώρει: a VE formula (4× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc.): 2.810n. (where see also for variants). 450 ἅμ᾿ οἰμωγή τε καὶ εὐχωλὴ πέλεν ἀνδρῶν: ‘and there arose the men’s cries of woe as well as triumph …’; on εὐχωλή, 173n., on πέλεν, 158–159n. 451 ὀλλύντων τε καὶ ὀλλυμένων: ‘… as they slew and were slain’. οἰμωγή and ὀλλυμένων / εὐχωλή and ὀλλύντων correspond: chiastic position (on the antithesis with active–passive polyptoton, Fehling 1969, 266, 278; West 2007, 111. — ῥέε δ᾿ αἵματι γαῖα: likewise at 8.65; after caesura B 1 with VE μέλαινα: 15.715, 20.494. – A kind of poetic synaesthesia: bloods flows / water flows – streams of blood / streams of water, both on the ground: ‘and the ground streamed with blood’; an apparently ancient image that became formulaic (there are similar images in English: ‘the rivers ran red with blood’ etc.). Images of this kind are detached from logic (in principle: Fränkel 1921, 4); they are ‘of a grim beauty’: the aethetics of horror.

452–456 The elemental force of the clash of the two armies, which has thus far only been narrated, is now – immediately after the transition provided by the ‘blood image’ (451) – made physically visible and audible via a simile image that irresistibly overwhelms the eyes and ears: two streams, swollen with rain

448 ἀτάρ: = αὐτάρ, progressive (R 24.2). 449 ἔπληντ(ο): root aor. of intransitive πελάζω (‘approach closely’). — ἀλλήλῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — ὀρώρει: 436n. 450 πέλεν: impf. of πέλω/πέλομαι. 451 ῥέε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; on the uncontracted form, R 6.



and snowmelt in the wintertime, plunge down from enormous ponds of spring water and ‘throw’ together their immense masses of liquid in a narrow mountain gorge, producing sounds that can be heard even at a great distance. ‘Homer pictures rushing, swelling, violent rivers rather than more lyrical, placid streams. Such images are suited to war with its active and vigorous panorama and its struggles of powerful men’ (Scott 1974, 76 [where also on other river similes]). 452 χείμαρροι: a nominal compound from χεῖμα with a verbal final element related to ῥέω, from the same I-E root as the one that produces χιών ‘snow’ (DELG s. v. χεῖμα; Risch 203); generally translated ‘(rain-)swollen’ (LfgrE), but given the likely origins of the poet of the Iliad in northern Asia Minor (Latacz [2011] 2014, 73 item (1) and 75 item (8)), the reference may also include snow (covering the peaks of the Ida range in the Troad during winter), which still today transforms the Skamandros plain into a large lake with its snowmelt rushing down in numerous rivers in the spring. 453 2nd VH after caesura C 2 = h.Merc. 519. — μισγάγκειαν: a Homeric hapaxP; a compound from μίσγω ‘mix’ and ἄγκος ‘narrows’ (Schw. 1.430 n. 3; Risch 190 f.), i.e. literally ‘merging strait’; scarcely ‘gorge, valley’, since the μ. is itself already positioned ἔντοσθε χαράδρης (454), i.e. within a ‘gorge’ (thus in any case not the first part of a valley). The interpretation ‘where two (or more) gorges (rivers) merge’ seems preferable (insofar as one understands overflowing streambeds to mean ‘gorges’ here): LfgrE s. v.; schol. D probably explains the hapaxP correctly: εἰς κοῖλον τόπον, ἔνθα ὁμοῦ συμμίσγεται τὸ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ διαφόρων τόπων. Other opinions on the word formation and meaning: LfgrE s. v. – The stress is on the ‘merging’, as the repetition of the word stem in μισγομένων at 456 illustrates; only at this precise moment does the δοῦπος (455) sound, which is the primary concern of the simile. — συμβάλλετον: 446–451n. — ὄβριμον: approximately ‘enormous’, ‘massive’, as when used as an attribute of the war god Ares or exceptional heroes (Hektor, Achilleus); for bibliography, 3.357n. and 16.613n. – What crashes together here are ‘enormous’ amounts of water – thus the extremely loud, dull (δοῦπον 455) boom that is widely audible (and which, as the audience/reader only really ‘grasps’ now, represents the noise produced during the clash of the two frontlines). 454 κρουνῶν: denotes large spring areas or watering holes, as is shown not only by the attribute μεγάλων, but also but by 22.147: these are extended, shallow watering places which, as at 22.147–156, are fed by the two famous springs (πηγαί) of the Skamandros, one hot and one cold, that serve as washing pits for the women of Troy; on this, schol. D on 22.147: κυρίως μὲν αἱ ἀρχαὶ τῶν ῥευμάτων· νῦν δὲ οἱ τόποι ὅπου πλύνουσι (LfgrE s. v. κρουν(ός)). — κοίλης ἔντοσθε χαράδρης: χαράδρη is a term for a river bed, of uncertain etymology (perhaps related to χέραδος ‘scree’: DELG s. v. χαράδρα; Frisk and Beekes s. v. χέραδος). The reference is to a hollow, narrow mountain gorge, as κοίλης makes clear (cf. English ‘hollow way’). A syntactically garbled construction: it is of course not the κρουνοί that are in the χαράδρη, but the μισγάγκεια.

452 κατʼ ὄρεσφι: = κατʼ ὀρῶν (‘down from the mountainsʼ); on the declension, R 11.4. 453 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — συμβάλλετον: 3rd pers. dual pres. act., with ποταμοί as subject (R 18.1).


Iliad 4

455 The herdsman also serves elsewhere as a ‘resonance plain’ for natural events taking place far away, since in contrast to the city dweller, farmer or vintner, he travels in remote, deserted areas with his flocks (cf. 275n.). Here he serves as a ‘gauge’ for the enormous volume of the sound. He functions as a ‘proxy’ for the audience/reader, who ‘overhears’, as it were, the explosive booming noise with him (Fränkel 1921, 26). τηλόσε … ἔκλυε: like English ‘harken to’; in Greek, the ear does not receive the sound, but ‘heeds’ it. 456 ≈ 16.366; 2nd VH (from caesura B 1 on) = 12.144, 15.396, 16.366. — μισγομένων: The word signals the conclusion of the illustration (acoustically and visually) of the elemental force of the two fronts clashing, via a reference back to the multiply stressed ξυν-/σύν in 446/447 (and to μισγ-άγκειαν at 453n.); cf. 446–451n. – ‘to mix’ (μίσγεσθαι, μεῖξαι, etc.) is ‘the most general term for a melee […]: «to come into or have contact with one another», «to meet the enemy»’. This aspect was already specified here via ἀσπίδες … | ἔπληντ᾿ ἀλλήλῃσι in 448 f., while at the beginning of other melees, the same happens via e.g. αὐτοσχεδίῃ μεῖξαι χεῖράς τε μένος τε in 15.510 (Latacz 1977, 191 f. [quotation p. 191; transl.]). Man-to-man massed close combat thus begins. — γένετο ἰαχή τε φόβος τε: ἰαχή τε φόβος τε is an inflectable VE formula (nom. see iterata, dat. 16.373); approximately ‘cries and fear’; for more, 440n. (on the personification of φόβος). On linguistic aspects and on the prosody (final syllable of γένετο in a longum), 16.366n. This broad description of human reactions does not merely refer to the moment of the clash, but as a conclusion to the ‘frame’, i.e. the comprehensive description of massed close combat, it also refers to the entire subsequent depiction of instances of individual close combat.

457–544 Seven individual duels or killings occur, with three Greeks and four Trojans dying. The portrayal of individual close combat exemplifies the framing ‘comprehensive description’ that has just been described as an overall image from a bird’s eye view. A description of individual close combat can take one of three forms: (a) a catalogue, (b) a non-ceremonial duel, (c) an aristeia (for more details: Latacz 1977, 77). The present passage is rendered in catalogue form (on a catalogueP of individual killings, 16.306–357n.; for bibliography on catalogues as elements of oral poetry, 2.494–759n. section 1.). It can be described as follows: ‘Greek kills Trojan – Trojan kills Greek – Greek kills Trojan, and so on. The numerous possibilities for variation and expansion of this form (various types of injury and death, imbedded geneaologies and biographies of the victims, speeches and responses by opponents before throwing or thrusting, a speech

455 τῶν: picks up ποταμοί in 452. — τ(ε): ‘epic τεʼ (R 24.11). — οὔρεσιν: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).



of triumph by the victor after the fact, etc.) provide the rhapsode with opportunities for tension-filled compositions’ (Latacz loc. cit. [transl.]). In the present case, the sequence of events can be schematically illustrated as follows: A The Trojan Echepolos is killed by the Greek Antilochos (457–462). B The Greek Elephenor (who is trying to remove the dead man’s armor) is killed by the Trojan Agenor (463–470a). Insertion 1: partial massed battle (1) for Elephenor’s body (470b–472). C The Trojan Simoeisios is killed by the Greek Aias (473–489a). Insertion 2: Simoeisios’ biography (474b–482a); Insertion 3: simile describing the manner of Simoeisios’ death (482b– 489a). D The Greek Leukos (a companion of Odysseus) is killed by the Trojan Antiphos (489b–493). E The Trojan Demokoön is killed by Odysseus; his death is elaborately described (494–504). Switch to bird’s eye view I (505–516): Insertion 4: The Trojans retreat, the Greeks gain ground (505–507a); Insertion 5: Apollo’s battle paraenesis to the Trojans (507b–514a); Insertion 6: Athene’s battle appeal to the Greeks (514b–516). F The Greek Diores is killed by the Trojan ally (a Thracian) Peirōs (517–526). G The Trojan ally Peirōs is killed by the Greek Thoas (527–532a). Insertion 7: partial massed battle (2) for Peirōs’ body (532b–538). Switch to bird’s eye view II (539–544): Inspection of the battlefield by an anonymous character guided by Athene (539–542), with concluding remarks by the narrator (543 f.). This will be followed by the aristeia form of massed close combat: Diomedes’ triumph (5.1–36: Latacz loc. cit., item (c)). As a result, the Greek front achieves a breakthrough, and the Trojans flee (5.37a ‘while the Danaans bent back [in a military context: forced into retreat] the Trojans’): STR 21 fig. 1 and 22 fig. 2. The structuring (of this and all 22 other descriptions of massed close combat in the Iliad, listed by Latacz loc. cit. 181–183 = table II) consists largely of a chainlink technique (‘chain-reaction fight’: Fenik 1968, 10; another possibility is ‘themeP’): ʽA kills Bʼ, ʽC acts against Aʼ, etc. To this end, the perspective regularly switches back and forth between the two warring parties: Greek kills Trojan – Trojan kills Greek – Greek kills Trojan, etc. This alternating perspective is conveyed via a variety of motives (greed/self-aggrandizement [an attempt to capture a slain enemy’s armor; thus above at A–B], avenging a friend [above, D– E], angry refusal of companions fighting in the vicinity of a slain warrior to leave his body to the enemy = fight for a corpse [above, B–C], etc.). In formal


Iliad 4

terms, the chain is generally established via demonstrative pronouns that refer backward (ton de at 463, 527, ton men at 470, tou d[e] at 489, 494), frequently also by simple énth(a) ‘there’ (473, 517), but also via enjambment (489/490). Fundamentally important for understanding the structural function of these ‘serial fights and killings’ is the recognition that they do not represent the action as a whole, but serve as locally limited battle sequences within the overall action (thus already Strasburger 1954, 43–47). The long, elaborate introduction of the present description of individual close combat, comprised of 35 verses (422–456) including a description of the approach, similes and the clash of the two frontlines, would be devoid of meaning if in the end it resulted only in seven dead. The concluding remarks of the narrator at 543 f. (‘For on that day many men of the Achaians and Trojans lay sprawled in the dust face downward beside one another [sc. across the entire battlefield: 541 f.]’) in particular would be absurd for the same reason. This leads to the conclusion that the seven dead are merely ‘representatives’ (‘one recognizes that their fighting and death were narrated as representative of the overall battle’: Strasburger loc. cit. 46 [transl.; italics original) and that they were selected in order to exemplify events in close combat across the entire frontline (thus already Strasburger loc. cit. 48, etc.; also ‘the great battle […] rendered in a concrete manner’ loc. cit. 46 [transl.]). These are events the narrator can hardly grasp, let alone retell (see his recognition regarding the issue of ‘mass : individual’, 2.484–493). Rather than using unknown characters, he will therefore understandably choose in the first instance the main characters of his mḗnis-storyline, who are deeply embedded in the battle for Troy, i.e. characters who during a battle stand at the front as prómachoi. Various aspects of this conclusion can be summed up as follows: ‘Of particular importance for the present topic was the insight that the singling out of individual heroes is a process of selecting from a large mass of fighters (called «Selektion» by Latacz [1977: 81–84 and passim]). After presenting the battlefield and the two clashing armies in their entirety from a panoramic standpoint, the narrator would, as it were, jump into the mêlée and perceive individual fighters from a scenic standpoint. This process of selection seems to «forget» the larger masses. They are, however, assumed to keep fighting themselves (and not to watch the heroes fighting it out on their behalf). – Occasionally, the narrator seems to stretch the limits of realism a little when he makes the «selected» combatants hold an extended conversation (mostly speeches of challenge or triumph) e.g. Il. 5.632–655, 13.809–833, 17.11–43, 20.177–259. – Indeed, the narrator regularly recedes to the panoramic standpoint and describes the larger picture in short summaries, from where he then jumps back in, and so forth’ (de



Jong/Nünlist 2004, 77; a graphic representation of this narrative technique as exemplified by the variant discussed here in Latacz 1977, 90). In terms of content, these ca. 90 verses set the tone for all subsequent descriptions of massed close combat: they illustrate the cruelty and pitilessness of the war, sometimes with strong emotional empathy. In the present passage, this is made vivid with memorable exemplarity in the character of Simoeisios: coming from a world of peace and consideration, the young man immediately perishes in the world of war – while the mercilessness of its practice is both bluntly revealed and sympathetically mourned in an almost tender simile (cf. Friedrich [1956] 2003, 53 f.) of a slender poplar tree standing tall and proud at the river bank that is cut above the root without much ado by a cost-benefit oriented wagonwright, and that is now drying out lying beside the river. All humane feeling aside, the sometimes horrific anatomical realism of the descriptions of wounding and killing – the killing scenes involving Peirōs–Diores/Thoas–Peirōs (525–531) are especially gruesome – unequivocally attunes the audience/ reader to the significance of the grander aim at stake here: the destruction, or deliverance, of Troy. Beginning already in antiquity, large and diverse commentary has been offered on the scenes of wounding and killing (a bibliography, albeit somewhat dated: LaÍser 1983, 179–186). The most recent extensive subject-specific studies were conducted by a scholar of Ancient Greek, who based his work on stylistic criteria in particular following the Analytic tradition of the 19th century (Friedrich 1956, English 2003), a classical philologist and archaeologist (Laser 1983), and an American professor of medicine (Saunders 1999; 2003; 2004) who went beyond the anatomical to contribute to the debate the physiological discoveries of the 21st century (muscles, nerves, cell structures, circulatory system, etc.: Saunders 2003, 131; also forensic autopsy, microscopy, and imaging procedures). But all three approaches only capture individual components of a much greater complex that is ultimately of a poetic nature. A poetology of Homeric scenes of wounding and killing, which would have to include the role of the primary recipients and their relevant knowledge, experiences and expectations, is still awaited. Scholarship to date has given too little consideration to the historical situation of the work: the Iliad was not written for an audience of the 5th century B.C. (which was already advanced in some aspects of medicine), much less for modern readers and specifically members of the medical profession, but primarily for an elite audience (with experience that was largely military, with no medical competency) in ca. 700 B.C. (Attempts at this differentiated, self-critical prespective: Saunders 2003, 162.) The enormous amount of description of this kind within the Iliad (especially in Books 12, 13, 14, 15, 17) suggests that the audience took particular pleasure in


Iliad 4

the genre as a result of their own experiences and expertise – a pleasure constantly fulfilled by new variations produced by generations of singers; the narrator of our Iliad will thus have inherited a wealth of relevant typological and linguistic (formulaic) variants, which he probably expanded with his own inventions. It is difficult to gauge whether he (and his audience) took all the variants, which frequently include highly unrealistic and exotic details (‘often curious or even grotesque’: Saunders 1999, 345) with complete seriousness. Many scenes have been understood as resembling those in modern ‘Western’ or ‘fantasy’ films (‘Homer […] is not theatrical. He is cinematic’: Saunders loc. cit. 363). The line between seriousness and, as macabre as it may sound, playing with the fascination of the audience and their ‘excitement’ (Saunders loc. cit.), which is sometimes titillating, sometimes disgusted or taking refuge in irony, frequently appears fluid (on this, also 16.306–357n.). A typology of the descriptions of killings in the Iliad from the point of view of versification is provided by Visser 1987, 41–65. The following commentary on the relevant scenes is limited to what is apparent and in general forgoes specialist knowledge (to which – nota bene – Homer had as little access as anyone else at the time). But this is all the easier in 457–544, since the types of woundings and killings portrayed here – with the exception of the Diores-Peirōs scene at 517–527 – are (still) among those that have been termed the ‘strict style’ (Friedrich [1956] 2003, 53–70). In the subsequent battle descriptions – at least according to the criteria applied so far – the categories ‘pseudo-realism’ and ‘phantasmata’ are added (Friedrich loc. cit. 7 ff., esp. 18– 20, 34 ff. and 59 f.). At those points, the commentary must go into detail. 457–462 Individual close combat description A: the Trojan Echepolos is killed by the Greek Antilochos. 457 2nd VH = 8.256, 16.603. — Antilochos: Why the narrator picked Nestor’s son Antilochos (CH 4) of all people to be the first actor and thus the character to open the battle for Troy has been asked since antiquity, and astonishing explanations have been contrived (e.g. schol. A: ‘since Aias, who really was predestined for this role, was too slow’; on which Kirk: ‘wholly unpersuasive’). Speculation continued in 20th-century Neoanalysis (e.g. Kullmann [1981] 1992, 79 f.; 2005, 17 f. [transl.]: ‘most likely it around a hero who plays a role elsewhere in the myth, and thus has a story and is known to some of the audience, since he appears so often’ [namely 14×]). But such speculation is irrelevant for understanding the present section of the Iliad narrative (as are, according to Kullmann, the remaining appearances of Antilochos in the Iliad: ‘of no consequence for the Iliad as a whole’ [1992 loc. cit.;



transl.]; ‘〈plays〉 a role in rather incidental battle scenes’ [2005 loc. cit. 17; transl.]). In any case, a connection (assumed by Kullmann and others) with the post-Homeric, summarizing Aethiopis, which is based on pre-Homeric material, is problematic: one would have to ask why the scholiasts needed to invent curious explanations if they had access to the complete Aethiopis for centuries before Proclus (2nd century A.D.), who could still read it. For recent bibliography discussing Neoanalysis, 16.419–683n., end. — first: ‘The «first» formula (aside from here also at 5.38 [agent: Agamemnon], 6.5 [Aias], 8.256 [Diomedes], 11.92 and 11.217 [Agamemnon], 13.170 [Teukros], 14.402 [Hektor], 14.511 [Aias], 16.284 and 16.307 [Patroklos], 21.392 [Ares]) does not of course pretend to depict the (fictional) «real» beginning of the «real» events, but rather signals the beginning of the detailed storyP; it is not saying «the first actually to leap into action was …», but rather «the first one, about whom I am now going to talk in detail, was …»’ (Latacz 1977, 83 f. [transl.]; slightly modified; followed by de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 77 f.). ‘Counting’ (‘the second was, the third was’, etc.) does not and cannot occur: this would be impossible, given the length of the frontline imagined by the narrator in the epipṓlēsis (226–230n.). Rather, to mark a beginning the narrator picks one individual from the crowd of those he had just lined up in two long battle lines ‘shield against shield’ (448 f.). He is obviously not about to have the innumerable other fighters within the clashing lines watch with curiosity, but rather has them fight man-to-man in their respective locations (anḗr d’ ándr’ ednopálizen 472, in funerary games). He thus operates with a technique of selection – here at the beginning of the battle, as much as during the battle itself (457–544n.) – which is unavoidable, given the circumstances; cf. the cinematic technique of the ‘panoramic’ or ‘bird’s eye view’ vs. ‘close-up’ staging (Latacz loc. cit. 78; de Jong/Nünlist loc. cit. 77 n. 24; additional bibliography, 16.284n.). ἄνδρα κορυστήν: κορυστής appears in the Iliad only as part of the compound χαλκοκορυστής (18.163n.), with the exception of the present passage and the iterata, where it has the sense of a functional designation (‘helmet man’→ ‘armed individual, warrior’: LfgrE s. v. ἀνήρ 862.19 ff.); it is used as a pars pro toto for a complete set of armor (LfgrE). Alternatives: αἰχμητής (e.g. 87), ἀσπιστής (e.g. 90 [with n.]), θωρηκτής, stressing other elements of the armor (lance, shield, cuirass).

458 1st VH = 17.590. — The prómachoi are not a specially assembled elite formation, but rather ‘the physically and mentally strongest warriors, who form the front row of the phalanxes at the beginning of battle’ (Latacz 1977, 160 [transl.]; substantiation of this definition at loc. cit. 141–160, esp. 151; see also 341n. on πρώτοισιν). The slain Echepolos, mentioned only here, stands out

458 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — προμάχοισι: on the declension, R 11.2.


Iliad 4

among these prómachoi for his special ‘proficiency, bravery’ (see his epithet esthlós). Echepolos is the son of the otherwise unknown Thalysios; he is one of the ‘minor fighters’, invented solely so that they can die in battle (morituri) (Strasburger 1954, 11 f.; cf. CH 12). Θαλυσιάδην: on patronymics, 1.1n., end; on the formation, G 56.

459–461 = 6.9–11 (see ad loc. for this typical element in battle scenes). 459 τόν ῥ’ ἔβαλε: a VB formula (4× Il.). — φάλον: usually rendered ‘helmet crest’; a term whose meaning has been disputed since antiquity, it likely denotes a specific metal part/plate on the helmet (3.362n.). — ἱπποδασείης: on the horse-hair plume, 6.9n. and 6.469n. (status symbol and protective function). 461 = 503, 6.11; 2nd VH in total 11× Il., 1× h.Ap. — αἰχμὴ χαλκείη: an inflectable VB formula (only Il.: 10× nom., 1× dat.), always in integral enjambmentP. — τὸν δὲ σκότος …: With the exception of the present passage and the killing of Demokoön described a few lines below (503), this phrase always represents the conclusion of a dying scene (metrically equivalent variants at 6.11n.; additional phrases and bibliography, 16.316n.). The deviation from the rule here is probably to be explained by the intention of adding a comparisonP, achieving an intensifying illustration in the passage where, for the first time in this battle, a warrior is killed.

462 1st VH ≈ 13.389, 16.482, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 421 (in each case, δρῦς); 2nd VH = 10× Il., 1× Od. — Comparisons of warriors falling to the ground after being struck with tall objects are generally employed for injuries to the head or chest (480–482, 13.177 f., 13.387–389, 13.437 f., 16.481–483), probably because it has always been the case that such injuries usually mean instant death (Strasburger 1954, 38 f.). On comparisons and similes for falling warriors in general, 16.482– 491n., 16.482–486n. ἤριπε: an intransitive aor. of ἐρείπω, ʽfell to the ground (dying or dead)’; generally found (like κάππεσε[ν]) at VB (20× Il., 1× Od., 2× Hes.). On comparable expressions, 16.290n. — ὡς ὅτε πύργος: Falling warriors are elsewhere always compared to tall trees falling, only here to a tower. A model might be the formulaic verse of Aias carrying a tall shield (7.219, 11.485, 17.128: Αἴας δ’ ἐγγύθεν ἦλθε, φέρων σάκος ἠΰτε πύργον). The shield and the man were apparently equated already at an early date, since at Od. 11.555 f., in a scene in the underworld, the narrator has Odysseus say to Aias’ ψυχή: τὰ δὲ πῆμα θεοὶ θέσαν Ἀργείοισι· | τοῖος γάρ σφιν πύργος ἀπώλεο (on the tower as a metaphor for protection, 3.149n.) and at Il. 13.47 Poseidon calls on the two Aian-

459 τόν … φάλον: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἱπποδασείης: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. 460 πῆξε: sc. his spear (cf. 461). — πέρησε: from περάω (‘traverseʼ); on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. — ὀστέον εἴσω: = εἰς ὀστέον; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 461 χαλκείη: on the metrical lengthening (-ει- rather than -ε-), R 10.1. — τὸν … ὄσσ(ε): acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); ὄσσε is dual, ‘eyes’. 462 κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: on the hiatus, M 14.



tes to come to the rescue in the greatest distress of battle in this manner: σφὼ μέν τε σαώσετε λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν. It can be surmised that our ‘winged’ word of the ‘tower in battle’ developed from this and many more epic passages than have been transmitted over the course of a long, convoluted line of tradition regarding Aias (Von der Mühll [1930] 1976). — κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: an inflectable VE formula, in the dat. (with and without ἐνί) 11× Il., 1× Od. (16.447n.); ὑσμίνη is an I-E word for ‘tumult (of battle)’ (DELG s. v.: ‘mêlée’; LfgrE s. v.: ‘battle as action’; for additional bibliography, 16.306n., end).

463–470a Individual close combat description B: the Greek Elephenor (who is trying to strip the armor off of the dead man) is killed by the Trojan Agenor. 463 Elephenor: mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships (2.540 f.) as the leader of the contingent of Abantes, who were from the island of Euboea and were notable for their military abilities (2.540n.). κρείων: a generic epithetP, ‘lordly’ (1.102n.).

464 = 2.541, ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.53 M.-W.; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 15.519. — Chalkodon: on the possible derivation of the name from the place name ‘Chalkis’ on Euboea (cf. 463n.), 2.541n. — Abantes: mentioned in the Iliad only in order to designate the settled area of Euboea (Visser 1997, 415 f.); for discussion of their role in the settlement of Euboea and the relevant sources, RE and BNP s. v. Abantes; cf. 2.536n. μεγαθύμων: a generic epithetP with a variety of names of heroes and peoples, approximately ‘with great energy/passion, high-spirited’ (LfgrE; 16.286n.).

465–466 2nd VH of 465 = 5.690. — On the motif ‘despoiling’ (captured armor usually as a prestigious trophy, but also as an object with monetary value), 6.28n., 14.477n.; on putting oneself in danger when one pulls at a corpse, 16.577n. (typical motif). ὑπὲκ βελέων: During massed close combat, all available melee weapons and perhaps also any distance weapons (with the exception of bow and arrows; thus lances) that remain or are stuck in the ground after a missed throw are employed (αἰχμή ‘lance’ 461, δόρυ/ξυστόν ‘spear’ 490/469, χερμάδιον ‘field stone’ 518, ξίφος ‘sword’ 530). The sword is generally the final option (used when in immediate proximity), but prior to that, warriors are still throwing from a short distance (cf. AH ad loc. [transl.]: ‘from the spear battle, as at Σ 232; in contrast, ἐκ βελέων «out of shooting range»: Ξ 130’), generally with a spear with a bronze head (on spears and lances, Buchholz

463 ποδῶν: partitive gen. as an indication of the part of the body touched. 465 εἷλκε: conative impf. — ὑπέκ: ‘from underneath, away from under’. — ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). 466 μίνυνθα: adv., ‘briefly, for a short while only’. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — γένεθ’: = γένετο (with elision [R 5.1] and assimilation of the aspiration). — ὁρμή: ‘unrestrained onslaught’.


Iliad 4

2010, 113 [transl.]: ‘used as both melee weapons and distance weapons’). – On the orthography of ὑπέκ (compound, accent), West 1998, XVIIIf. — λελιημένος, ὄφρα … | … συλήσειε: ‘full of eagerness to take away’; the verb of wishing (λιλαίομαι) is followed not by an inf. but by a wish clause/final clause with ὄφρα, which (like ἵνα) can introduce subsidiary clauses with the optative after secondary tenses (here λελιημένος with the impf. εἷλκε) (on this, Schw. 2.651 f.), see 5.690, 16.653/655 (AH; Chantr. 2.297 f.; for more, 16.653n.). — τεύχεα συλήσειε: on the inflectable VB formula (8× Il.) and the formula system denoting despoliation, 16.500n.

467 Agenor: one of the Trojan captains (16.535–536n.), son of Antenor (CH 9). μεγάθυμος: 464n. 468 πλευρά: a collective neut. pl. of πλευρή ‘rib’: ‘the pl. of the entire ‘«flank»’ (AH [transl.]), cf. the Latin pl. latera. — παρ᾿ ἀσπίδος ἐξεφαάνθη: ‘became visible (exposed) from the shield, from the side of the shield’ (Faesi [transl.]; similarly AH); on the motif, 16.577n. 469 = 11.260. — ξυστῷ: substantival verbal adj. in the neuter (related to ξύω ‘scrape, smooth, polish’), sc. δόρυ, i.e. ‘polished wood’ (for the spear shaft), ‘smooth wood’ → ‘spear’ (for bibliography, LfgrE s. v. ξυστόν). — λῦσε δὲ γυῖα: a VE formula (7× Il., for variants of the formula, 16.312n.); it means ‘loosened his limbs’, i.e. ‘made them go slack, collapse’ (in this traditional expression, collapse or death are understood as the dissolution of the organic cooperation of the limbs): Snell (1939) 1999, esp. 244– 246; Hainsworth, Introd. 12 f.; Morrison 1999, 131, Saunders 2004, 10 f. A euphemism for ‘took his life’. 470a τὸν … λίπε θυμός: similarly at 16.410. θυμός here – acting as ‘agent/patient of actions or emotions’ – is likely imagined as ‘the vital […] and psychological mental drive/energy that human beings feel within themselves’ (LfgrE s. v. θυμός 1080 f., quotation: 1080.38 f., 1080.29 f. [transl.]); it often overlaps with ψυχή, particularly in descriptions of death; cf. 1.3n., 16.410n.

470b–472 Insertion 1: after the two killing scenes A and B, there is a brief return to the bird’s eye view: a partial massed close combat for Elephenor’s body. The change in perspective (‘zooming-out’ by the ‘camera’) is not abrupt; rather, ‘smooth transitions from one scene to the next are the general rule’ (de Jong/ Nünlist 2004, 73). These ‘smooth transitions’ follow the pattern ‘hōs + anaphoric pronoun […] + particle + verb’ (de Jong/Nünlist loc. cit. 74 n. 19); thus also here: hōs + ton + men + lípe = ‘so – him – for its part – [the vital energy] left’ – continuing in the same verse: ‘but next to him arose the work of battle’

467 γὰρ (ϝ)ερύοντα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.5 and 4.3. — ἐρύοντα: τοῦτον (sc. Elephenor) is to be supplied as the referent. 468 πλευρά: acc. of the part (R 19.1), connected with ἐρύοντα as acc. of the whole. — τά: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — τά (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3 (cf. 466n.). — ἐξεφαάνθη: aor. pass. of ἐκ-φαείνω; on the epic diectasis, R 8. 469 χαλκήρεϊ: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 470a τόν: sc. Elephenor; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17.



[then VE and an integral enjambmentP in the subsequent verse], ‘a hard one, by the Trojans and Achaians’. One-and-a-half verses further on, after a brief overview of this ‘hard work’ by the two warring parties, the narrator ‘zooms’ back to the ‘scenic standpoint’ via ‘there’ (éntha). – These brief ‘appositive summaries’ between two ‘close-up’ descriptions dominate much of the battle scenes: ‘[…] the generally rare close-up standpoint is found regularly in the battle scenes, which at the same time contain a relatively high number of scenes described from a panoramic standpoint’ (de Jong/Nünlist loc. cit. 78; see e.g. 16.569–592n., 16.754–782n.). Although this technique should be familiar today, having been closely interwoved with cinematography for ca. 100 years and with television for ca. 70 years, this knowledge was not applied for a long time to works of literature like the Iliad. This is probably the cause of the sense, prevalent for decades, that Homeric battle scenes are a confused hodgepodge of fantasy. In reality, the narratorP uses frequent zooming back and forth between a view of the overall action, or even a broader section of the action, on the one hand, and an immersion in select individual events, such as massed close combat, and then more closely man-to-man fighting, and even more closely the use of weapons, the types of blows, and the manners of wounding and killing, on the other hand, in an attempt to continually confront the audience/reader with the whole including all of its parts; i.e. he is not trying to cause confusion, but conversely to create order. As soon as this intention and the technique underlying the portrayal are understood, Homeric battle depictions become transparent. 470b–471a weary: Although the adj. argaléos can sometimes be rendered ‘grievous, painful’, e.g. as an attribute of a word like ásthma ‘wheezing’ (15.10, 16.109), the area of its application as a whole makes clear that it is not uttered out of (pitying) empathy by the narratorP for the sensation experienced by the wheezer. (In narratological terms, this would be an example of ‘implicit embedded focalization’ by the narratorP: de Jong [1987] 2004, 118– 122). Rather, this is an objective, direct evaluation of the ‘work of battle’ (érgon) by the narrator himself: it is ‘hard’ (‘hard work’). This objectively negative evaluation is the same in all attributes assigned to battle/war by the narrator (see de Jong loc. cit. 231 f., Appendix I: ‘adjectives of war/fighting’; also 15n.): for him, battle/war is an evil. (This is why, at the beginning of Book 3 – which reflects the beginning of the confrontation ten years earlier in a ‘gradual reversion’ [see the Introduction to Book 4: 3.3. Remarks on the ‘gradual reversion’] – he describes in extraordinary detail the attempts of

470b ἐτύχθη: aor. pass. of τεύχω, ‘prepare’.


Iliad 4

both parties to avoid war by means of a peace treaty.) But once battle/war has broken out, something that among human beings is ultimately inescapable, it is portrayed in a (largely) pragmatic manner – albeit pragmatic to the extent that this triggers or intensifies feelings of disapproval on the part of the audience/reader. Contrary to the seemingly ineradicable common prejudice, the Iliad does not glorify war. ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ: hardly ‘over him’ (AH) – since this is factually unimaginable and also ‘impious’ – but ‘next to him’; fighting for corpses regularly takes place ‘surrounding the corpse’ (e.g. περὶ νεκρόν at 16.641, 16.644, 17.412). Few things are feared more than one’s corpse being disfigured (1.4n., 1.5n.; cf. the universal beautification of the corpse, here particularly clear in the case of Hektor’s corpse at 24.582–585a). — ἔργον: ‘labor of battle’ (AH; see also LfgrE s. v. ἔργον 677.34 ff.); on fighting as ‘laborious work’, 1.162n. — Τρώων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: not ‘of the Trojans and Achaians’ but rather ‘by Trojans and Achaians’: not all the Trojans and Achaians have congregated around Elephenor’s body (which would be impossible in any case, given the presumably large number of fighters), but only those on the two sides who are fighting in this section of the frontline: the present passage is a description of partial massed close combat (see the outline at 457–544n.).

471b VE = 11.72, 16.156. — wolves: ‘The wolf appears in similesP in the Iliad as an aggressive, bloodthirsty predator that hunts in packs’: 16.155–167n.; wolf similes illustrate ‘groups of men in battle fury’: Scott 1974, 71 (whereas the lion serves as an animal comparison for a lone heroic fighter; cf. English ‘he fought like a lion’, never ‘he fought like a wolf’). λύκοι ὥς: for bibliography on the prosody (long scansion of the syllable preceding ὥς), 2.190n., 16.156n. 472 ἀνὴρ δ᾿ ἄνδρ(α): similarly 15.328 = 16.306, 13.131 = 16.215, 20.355 (LfgrE s. v. ἀνήρ 845.64–76; for comparable phrasing in I-E poetry, West 2007, 113 ff.). This is a typical expression characterizing massed close combat (cf. 16.215–217n., 16.306n. [with bibliography]) and with a reciprocal function (‘man kills man’). The phrase functions as an anticipatory indication of selection: what follows will contain examples of this man-to-man fighting, which – as the epipṓlēsis (where the supreme commander Agamemnon had to have a chariot stand by in case he became exhausted: 226–231) demonstrated – takes place across a considerable stretch of frontline, not only in the fight over a corpse. — ἐδνοπάλιζεν: attested only here and at Od. 14.512 (τὰ σὰ ῥακέα δνοπαλίξεις); a word of uncertain meaning and etymology, here perhaps ‘pummel’ (LfgrE and DELG s. v. δνοπαλίζω).

473–489a Individual close combat description C: the Trojan Simoeisios is killed by the Greek Aias. The scene is designed in accord with the ABC-schemeP. – After the wolf simile, which illustrates the relentlessness of the battle, the

471 καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — λύκοι ὥς: = ὡς λύκοι; on the prosody, ↑. 472 ἐπόρουσαν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.



narrator uses an individual case as an example to reveal the destructive consequences of the war for the private human sphere: a young man, brought up full of hope by his parents, is torn from life in his first encounter with war, like a young, slender poplar tree that is unfeelingly severed from its roots with one stroke of an axe by a wagonwright. Short biographies of this type – narrated without anguish, but with tangible empathy – permeate the battle descriptions of the Iliad in large numbers and again and again offer a momentary glimpse of the world of peace as the normal background to the events of war (on the story of Simoeisios specifically: Schein [1976] 2016, 5– 9; cf. the story of Satnios at 14.443n., 14.444–445n.; classified typologically: Strasburger 1954, 29; for bibliography on the so-called ‘obituaries’, also 6.12–19n.). 473 There: éntha normally points as a deictic locative adverb to a specific place, but in a sequential narration of events it serves merely as a connective between the individual elements of the chain, similar to English ‘at that point’ (‘at that point the following happened’). That ‘there’ still refers to the preceding battle for the corpse is unlikely, given 480 (see ad loc.) (even less so if one follows Aristarchus’ arrangement of the encampment of ships in his Περὶ τοῦ ναυστάθμου: Elephenor’s Euboean contingent would have camped – and thus probably also have been arranged at the front – almost to the extreme right, next to Menestheus’ Athenian contingent, while the contingent of Telamonian Aias was at the extreme left edge of the encampment [473]; see the sketch in Janko on 13.681). If the narrator has his fictitious scenery in mind (‘Deixis am Phantasma’, see Appendix topographica in the Commentary on Book 14, p. 252), he probably subsequently performs another implicit change of location here via ‘there’. — Anthemion: The name, derived from ánthos/ anthemóeis (‘blossom, flower’ and ‘flowery’) (von Kamptz 134, 279) and occurring only here, sets the tone for the subsequent short biography: already in the subsequent verse, Anthemion’s son is introduced as a ‘flourishing’ (thalerós, cf. Thalia) young man. υἱόν: on the prosody (to be read hu-jon), 6.130n. — Τελαμώνιος Αἴας: a VE formula (21× Il.); on Τελαμώνιος, 14.409n. (epithet and patronymic).

474 Simoeisios: Anthemion’s son is named after the second largest river in the Troad, the Simóeis; see the explanation at 475–477 (etymologizingP; von Kamptz 302; on the river, see Appendix topographica in the Commentary on Book 14, p. 260 f. with n. 6). ‘Personal names derived from names of rivers are common’: 6.402–403n.; for additional examples, see ad loc. and on 14.443n. (including Skamandrios, the name of Hektor’s and Andromache’s son, who probably received his better known name Asty-anax ‘Prince of the city’ as an epithet); for thoughts regarding the differences between Trojan and Achaian


Iliad 4

naming practices, Stoevesandt 2004, 130 f. – Simoeisios is one of the morituri (for whom, 458n.). ἠΐθεον: ‘young man, youth’, frequently mentioned in conjunction with παρθένος ‘young woman’, as a couple; both of marriagable age, but still flirting/playing (18.567n.). Σιμοείσιον: The custom of naming one’s offspring for fixed points in the coastal Troad in Asia Minor may have survived for centuries in the area that in the meantime came to be settled by Greeks: for the father of the poet Sappho, born on the island of Lesbos, which lies opposite the coast, Greek tradition records the name Σκαμανδρ-ώνυμος, a mixed Troadic-Greek formation (Latacz [1991] 2004, 395 f.; for attestations, Sappho test. 252–256 Voigt).

475 2nd VH ≈ Od. 6.97. — from Ida: The Idē range surrounds the Trojan plain (Troás) in a semicircle to the east/southeast, 10–20 km distant from Troy; the tallest peaks reach ca. 1800 m (see map in the Commentary on Book 14, Appendix fig. 1; 2.821n., 14.292n.). – In times of peace, the slopes of the Ida range with their small settlements are part of the realm of the king of Troy, Priam; the inhabitants (in particular the Dárdanoi from Dardaníē, the home territory of the Trojans in the Ida mountains, which at the time of the events in the Iliad is ruled by Aineias [CH 8], and after which the Dardanelles are named) are among the closest allies of the urban Trojans because of their kinship (20.215 ff.). In official consultations and important military actions, the Trojans together with their allies are addressed with the triple address formula Trṓes kai Dárdanoi ēd’ epíkouroi or Trṓes kai Lýkioi kai Dárdanoi anchimachētái by the most eminent representatives of the two warring parties (3.456 [Agamemnon], 7.348 [Antenor], 7.368 [Priam], 8.497 [Hektor] and 8.173, 11.286, 13.150, 15.425, 15.486, 17.184 [all Hektor]): 2.819n., CH 8 s. v. ‘Aineias’ with n. 34. Prior to the Greek invasion, the herds of these mountain dwellers frequently grazed in the Trojan plain of the Skamander-Simoeis region. At the time, Simoeisios’ pregnant mother came down together with her parents to inspect the herds and gave birth to her son on the banks of the Simoeis; the narrator does not give names either for her or for Simoeisios’ father, both of whom are referred to simply as ‘parents’ (tokéusin 477): they are irrelevant to the invented story (fiction within fiction). 476 ἅμ’ ἔσπετο: a formulaic phrase (16.632n.); on the unaspirated ἔσπετο, West 1998, XVII.

475 Ἴδηθεν: on the form, R 15.1. — ὄχθῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 476 γείνατ(ο): aor. of γείνομαι, by-form of γίγνομαι. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἅμ’ ἔσπετο: ‘went with’; ἔσπετο = ἕσπετο. — ἰδέσθαι: final inf. (on the mid., R 23).



477b–479 = 17.301b–303. — The motif of ‘a son gratefully repaying the efforts made by his mother/parents in raising him’ probably has a long tradition (which lives on in modern European social security legislation). It plays a role not only in the parallel passage (where the victim, young Hippóthoös from Lárisa, is also killed by Aias), but implicitly in all parental laments for unfortunate or slain sons; this is especially clear in the speeches of lament by Thetis, mother of Achilleus, that permeate the Iliad as a whole (passages: 18.52–53n.). All of these are governed by the motto ‘Why did I give birth to you, in great pain, and why did I raise you (like a precious plant), ⟨for you to suffer greatly / to die so young / to die without having anything good / anything from life⟩?’ ‘Repayment for upbringing’ (thréptra/threptḗria) thus includes not only material compensation and caregiving (thus in Hes. Op. 187 f.), but also parental pride and the happiness that prospering sons give their parents by way of thanks (with the proportion of the material and the immaterial naturally dependent on social status); for additional examples and bibliography, 24.541n. 479 μεγαθύμου: 464n. — δουρὶ δαμέντι: an inflectable VE formula (10× Il.).

480–481 2nd VH of 480 (from caesura B2 on) = 8.121, 8.313, 15.577; ≈ 17.606, Od. 22.82. — the nipple | of the right breast: Fatal injury via a spear thrust to the chest is the rule in killing scenes (an overview of the locations of injuries in Saunders 2004, based on Frölich [1879]), here ‘beside the nipple, | the right one’: the emphasis on ‘the right one’ at VB 481 may be due to the fact that the shield was held with the left hand, leaving the right side of the chest in greater danger (and frequently bare, as here) than the left, since the throwing or thrusting arm was operating above the right side (likely the reason, or one of them, for the development of the double-grip shield and thus the classic phalanx; see 427n.; cf. 16.312n.). πρῶτον … ἰόντα: Simoeisios is placed in the front row of the Trojan formation, and Aias sees him approaching as the first among the ‘first’ (thus already Faesi); in the context of massed close combat, πρῶτος is synonymous with πρόμαχος (341n.). On

477 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — κάλεον: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; on the uncontracted form, R 6. 478 οὐδέ: In Homer, the connectives οὐδέ/μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ R 14.1. 479 ἔπλεθ᾿: = ἔπλετο, 3rd pers. sing. aor. indicative of πέλομαι, ‘was’. — δουρί: dependent on ὑπό (‘under the influence of …’); on the declension, R 12.5. — δαμέντι: to be linked with οἱ in 478. 480 πρῶτον: predicative, to be linked with ἰόντα. — βάλε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — μιν … στῆθος: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1): ‘struck him in the chestʼ. 481 χάλκεον: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

the recession of social background as a criterion in favor of military ability (which is probably why Simoeisios is allowed to stand among the πρόμαχοι/πρῶτοι): 458n.; Latacz 1977, 151 ff. — ἀντικρύ: ‘straight’; on the use of the word in battle depictions, 3.359n., 16.116n.

482 poplar: The scholiasts already wondered why a ‘poplar’ in particular is mentioned; aígeiros is attested only here in the Iliad, while the other five warriors who fall ‘like a tree’ in the Iliad (Scott 1974, 70: Krethon and Ortilochos 5.560, Imbrios 13.178, Asios 13.389 and Sarpedon 16.482) fall like a ‘fir/ ash/oak’ or an ‘aspen or pine’, but not like a ‘poplar’. The answer was likely already sensed by schol. bT: ‘the man born on the riverbank compared to the tree on the riverbank’ (Fränkel 1921, 36). This interpretation was treated ironically from antiquity on, but the scholiast appears to refer to something fundamentally relevant and merely phrased matters too curtly: in the other cases mentioned above, the simile aims only at the “tragedy […]. For us as well, the tree was just now a towering proud giant of royal stature, a dying hero’ (Fränkel loc. cit. 35 [transl.]). But the narratorP of the present simile evidently has more to say: in the Odyssey, the poplar has a specific aura of associations and emotional appeals: at the side of the road leading to Alkinoös’ palace stands a grove of poplars sacred to Athene (Od. 6.291 f.); in Alkinoös’ palace, overflowing with riches, the weavers sit side by side ‘like the leaves of the tall/slender poplar’ (7.106); the shallow shore of the Acheron in the underworld is grown about with groves sacred to Persephone, Hades’ wife (CG 22), ‘and tall poplars and willows’ (10.510). The emphasis is thus initially on the length of the trunk and the densely leaved crowns of the trees, in addition to the moist/wet ground at the edge of the water (a spring at 6.291 f.); willows are ‘related’ to poplars (10.510). Notions of freshness, coolness (in the heat of summer, beside the flowing, emerging water), and also of youthful slenderness, high spirits, even sanctity (the groves of goddesses!), but at the same time of transitoriness (the meadow banks of the Acheron), are thus associated with the ‘poplar’. The narrator may have envisaged the image thus: Simoeisios was born beside the Simoeis, perhaps beneath the poplars, grew up in the mountains like one of these slender, smooth trees with high crowns, returned in high spirits to the place of his birth, the plain of the Simoeis, there was ‘felled’ at the first encounter, and now withers long before his time, like a tree. Additional ‘subleties’ of interpretation are left up to the audience/reader (thus also Fränkel loc. cit. 37 n. 1). The narratorP placed this especially long, sensitive simile (482–487) at the

482 ὅ: i.e. Simoeisios; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — κονίῃσι: κονίη = Attic κόνις (‘dust’). — αἴγειρος ὥς: = ὡς αἴγειρος; cf. 471n.



beginning of the four-day battle. One can well imagine what he meant to say regarding war and peace with it. – Cf. also 16.482–491n., 16.482–486n. on similes illustrating the death of a warrior. ἐν κονίῃσιν: an expression used in various verse positions, frequently in battle descriptions when someone is struck and falls; in Book 4 also at 522, 536, 544 (after caesura A 3: 18× Il., 3× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’): 16.289n. 483 ἐν εἱαμενῇ ἕλεος μεγάλοιο: approximately ‘in the low spot of the great meadow’; the reference is to a meadow sloping gently down toward a river (‘flood plain’: LfgrE s.vv. εἱαμενή and ἕλος), where poplars grow particularly well and densely (botanical terminology: ‘riparian forest’). — πεφύκῃ: perf. with present sense: ‘has grown’ and thus ‘is standing there’ (cf. 17.434 f. ὥς τε στήλη μένει ἔμπεδον, ἥ τ᾿ ἐπὶ τύμβωι | ἀνέρος ἑστήκῃ τεθνηότος). On the transmission of the text (plpf. indicative; subjunc. conjectured by Hermann 1827, 44; perf. conjectured by Düntzer) see app. crit.; West 2001, 190, and cf. 16.633n. (on ὄρωρεν); on the subjunc., Chantr. 2.245 (transl.): ‘at Δ 483 it is necessary to correct πεφύκει to πεφύκῃ (cf. Π 633, Ρ 435)’; a ‘generalizing sense’ is particularly appropriate in ‘comparisons, especially with ὅς τε’ (as also here: ἥ ῥά τ᾿). 484 λείη: Only here of a tree trunk, used elsewhere in early epic to describe the ground (‘even, smooth’); see esp. 12.30 (Poseidon clears the ground of the remains of the wall surrounding the encampment of ships and levels it: λεῖα δ᾿ ἐποίησεν παρ᾿ ἀγάρροον Ἑλλήσποντον). The association likely points in the direction of ‘a smooth (i.e. unlined, beardless) face’, i.e. ‘still very young’. 485 ἁρματοπηγὸς ἀνήρ: ‘chariot-assembly man, wagonwright’. On the meaning and function of these phrases (cf. English ‘fisherman’, etc.), see LfgrE s. v. ἀνήρ 862.20 ff., the present passage at 862.63; also 186–187n. The ἁρματοπηγὸς ἀνήρ is not an occasional laborer, but a professional craftsman ‘with the qualifications of a real craft trade’ (Eckstein 1974, 3 n. 12 [transl.]); chariot construction is ‘probably established as a discrete craft, as is implied by ἁρματοπηγὸς ἀνήρ’ (Eckstein loc. cit. 39 [transl.]). Beginning in the Mycenaean period, the chariot (used for war, transportation or sport) attracted intense attention and care (see the Mycenaean compounds in MYC s. v. ἅρμα; Plath 1994, esp. 115 f.). — αἴθωνι σιδήρῳ: an inflectable VE formula (dat./ acc.: 3× Il., 1× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Merc.). Regarding αἴθων, the scholia already note: ἢ λαμπρόν, ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴθοντος πυρός (schol. DEHJM1Vs on Od. 1.184 Pontani). In the case of metals (in contrast to animals: ‘brownish red’ 16.488n., 18.161n.), the meaning ‘bright, glittering, shining’ is much more obvious (bibliography: 19.243–244n.).

483 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — εἱαμενῇ ἕλεος: on the prosody, R 5.6. — μεγάλοιο: on the declension, R 11.2. 484 λείη: on the -η after -ι-, R 2. — ἀτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — τε (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῇ (R 14.1), sc. the poplar. — ὄζοι ἐπ᾿: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀκροτάτῃ: to be linked with οἱ. — πεφύασι: = πεφύκασιν. 485 τήν: = anaphoric demonstrative (R 17). — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6).


Iliad 4

486 VE ≈ 5.20, Od. 20.387. — iron: on use of the word, LfgrE s. v. σίδηρος 120.6– 8: ‘freq. in metaphors and similes […], since these tend to reflect the everyday life of the poet and his audience’; here particularly clear in the comparison of the present verse with 481, where the tip of Aias’ lance is made from bronze: there the (Bronze Age) Trojan War, here the (Iron Age) daily life around 700 B.C.; on this phenomenon, also 123n.; 6.3n. ἐξέταμ(ε): ‘cut off (from the root system)’. At VB the word appears particularly callous and brutal; possible associations might be e.g. 3.292 ≈ 19.266 ἀπὸ … τάμε (cut the sacrificial animal’s throat to let the blood run out: see ad locc.) and similar atrocities committed against human beings (for examples, LfgrE s. v. τάμνω 304.3 ff.). — ἴτυν κάμψῃ: ἴτυν is resultative: ‘bend ⟨the wood⟩ into a wheel (= make a wheel)’, which was then fitted with wooden or metal hoops (5.724 f.: AH; Wiesner 1968, 14); the basic technique has in principle remained the same to this day (although the materials and mode of manufacture [machines] have changed). The wood of the poplar, soft and malleable, but also tough and even-grained, was particularly appropriate for products of this type. — δίφρῳ: ‘chariot body’ or ‘chariot’; on this and the different types of wagon (for war, travel, racing, transportation), 3.262n. In the present simile, the reference is scarcely to a war chariot.

487 VE = 18.533, ‘Hes.’ fr. 13.1 M.-W. — The tree is lying there ‘drying, wilting’ (azoménē), since its trunk is no longer needed (Faesi); the reference to Simoeisios is clear. παρ’ ὄχθας: a VE formula with a preceding gen. (5× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’): cf. 18.533n.

488–489a Aias: The name ‘Aias’ concludes the ring-compositionP in quasi-exemplary form: at the beginning of the duel episode, ‘Aias’ was used as the agent at verse end (473); at the end of the episode, he is placed at the beginning of the verse, expressly called to mind via integral enjambmentP (cf. ABCschemeP). – On Aias’ significance within the Iliad, 273n. τοῖον ἄρ(α) …: ‘Thus was the Anthemid Simoeisios whom Aias killed’ (namely, like the poplar, stretched out lengthwise and wilting): AH. — Ἀνθεμίδην: a patronymic (cf. 458n.): the son of Anthemion (473); on the formation, Risch 147 f. — ἐξενάριξεν: Literally ‘pull away/off the ἔναρα [armor]’, but over the course of the rhapsodic tradition this becomes a mere metrical variant in the reservoir of synonyms for ‘kill’ (Visser 1987, 68, 75 f., 161 f.; for a list of the verbs, 6.12n.). In the present passage, however, a deliberate link between ἐξέταμ(ε) and ἐξενάριξεν (taken literally) is possible. — Αἴας διογενής: an inflectable VB formula (5× Il.); in addition to its ornamental function (on which, 1.337n.), the generic epithetP διογενής here likely serves to make the episode as

486 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — περικαλλέϊ: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 487 ἣ μέν: cf. 485n. 488 τοῖον: predicative (‘as such a oneʼ). 489 διογενής: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17).



a whole conclude coincident with the main caesura B 1 in order that the poet can begin the next episode in the recital with renewed strength after drawing his breath and thus signalling a new beginning to the audience.

489b–493 Individual close combat description D: the Greek Leukos (a companion of Odysseus) is killed by the Trojan Antiphos. – From within the crush of the crowd, Antiphos, son of Priam, aims at the successful Aias, but misses and instead hits one of Odysseus’ companions, Leukos, who is about to drag Simoeisios’ body toward the Greek side. Leukos falls. The motif of the errant shot (‘A aims for B, but hits C’) is one of the most important means of linking events in descriptions of massed close combat; as here, it frequently serves both to spare the opponent aimed at (who is often one of the protagonists of the epic) and to bring into ‘play’ a new character (frequently the companion of another protagonist in the epic) via the accidentally stricken warrior (usually a moriturus: on whom, 458n.) (in detail, Fenik 1968, 125–139). 489b–490 Antiphos: a nondescript name; its bearer is probably, but not necessarily, identical with the moriturus at 11.101 ff. The addition Priamídēs demarcates him from two namesakes (2.678, 2.864; on the stress of the patronymic, see 2.817n.), while at the same time reinforcing the integral enjambmentP at 489 f.; on the reinforcing and bridging function of enjambment, 1.2n. (participle), 6.13n. (patronymic). αἰολοθώρηξ: a possessive compound, ‘with shining armor’; on the element αἰολοand the use of the epithet, 16.173n. — καθ᾿ ὅμιλον: 126n. — ὀξέϊ δουρί: an inflectable VE formula (dat. sing./acc. pl.: 11× Il., 3× Od.); a filler phrase that, depending on metrical necessity, alternates with χαλκήρεϊ δουρί (6.3n.), δουρὶ φαεινῷ (496n.), etc. (specific studies: Bakker/van den Houten 1992; Bakker [1991] 2005, 7 ff.; additional bibliography at FOR 43; 16.284n.

491 1st VH ≈ 15.430; cf. 8.119, 21.171. — Leukos: another moriturus, appearing only here (cf. 458n.). Ὀδυσσέος: on the short-vowel gen., G 76. — ἐσθλὸν ἑταῖρον: 113b n.

492 Although the two fronts have largely merged and turned into a closepacked throng, Greeks and Trojans are still facing one another man-to-man at all points on the front; the Trojan Antiphos meant to hit the Greek Aias, but instead hit a different Greek, Leukos, who was about to drag the body of

490 Πριαμίδης: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἀκόντισεν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 491–492 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17), emphasizing the subj. of ἅμαραθ’ and βεβλήκει. — Λεῦκον … ǀ … βουβῶνα: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). — βεβλήκει: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἐρύοντα: durative/conative (‘he was in the process of dragging’).


Iliad 4

Simoeisios to the other (hetérōs[e]), sc. Achaian, side in order to despoil it (for which activity, 465–466n.). In the course of this, death overtook him. βεβλήκει: on the meaning of the plpf. form, 108n.; on the present passage, Schw. 2.288: ‘but as soon as he had hit, was he hit’. — βουβῶνα: a Homeric hapax legomenonP, a term for the groin area (regio inguinalis) that borders the pubic area (regio pubica); this type of injury is usually immediately fatal (cf. Saunders 2004, 8). For other terms for the localization of injuries in the abdominal region, 16.318n.; a list of examples in Morrison 1999, 144. 493 2nd VH ≈ 8.329, 15.421, 15.465, Od. 14.31, 14.34, 22.17; from caesura C 2 on = Il. 3.363. — ἀμφ᾿ αὐτῷ: ‘over across him’ (Faesi); ‘around him himself’, ‘i.e. over his body’ (AH [transl.]); ‘a common motif’ (Kirk; additional examples, 16.579n.); cf. ἀμφ᾿ αὐτῷ χυμένη ‘stretched out over him’ (mourners over a corpse) at 19.284, Od. 8.527; thus, ἀμφί there means ‘(throwing oneself) horizontally across him’. In the present case – Leukos drags away the body of the Trojan ally Simoeisios while walking backward (otherwise an injury in the groin area would be impossible) – a horizontal falling across the corpse is inconceivable: the first clear example for the traditional character of such killing scenes and thus for their largely arbitrary applicability (thus also Kirk on 495–498).

494–504 Individual close combat description E: the Trojan Demokoön is killed by Odysseus. His death is elaborately illustrated. 494 ≈ 13.660. — Angry revenge for a slain comrade (picked up again at 501) is a common motif in battle descriptions (14.459–464n., 16.398n.). μάλα θυμὸν … χολώθη: ‘became very/mightily angry inside’. θυμός is one of the interchangeable soul/spirit lexemes combined with χολόομαι (16.584–585n.; Jahn 1987, 186, 288 f., 291).

495 = 5.562, 5.681, 17.3, 17.87, 17.592, 20.111; 1st VH = 5.566, 17.124; 2nd VH = 20.117, Od. 21.434; ≈ Il. 13.305. — among the champions: i.e. throughout the confrontation at the very front (cf. 458n.). The throng of close combat, initially between the fighters in the foremost rows of both sides across a broad front, requires carving out a path through the crowd even when a man is changing his location only a bit. κεκορυθμένος αἴθοπι χαλκῷ: an inflectable formula of the 2nd VH (see iterata), literally ‘helmeted with shining bronze’, then ‘encased in shining armor’; on the part. (of κορύσσω, a denominative from κορυθ-), 3.18n.; on the VE formula αἴθοπι χαλκῷ (iterata, also 18.522, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 135), 24.641n. (αἴθοπ- ‘shining, glittering’?) and LfgrE s. v. χαλκός 1125.63 ff. (term for the armor as a whole; cf. ῥινός for ‘shield’, 447n.).

493 ἤριπε: intransitive aor. of ἐρείπω, ‘fell to the ground’, i.e. ‘fell, died’. — δέ (ϝ)οι ἔκπεσε: on the prosody, R 4.3; on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 494 τοῦ … ἀποκταμένοιο: aor. mid. part. of κτείνω, with pass. meaning; the gen. is dependent on χολώθη, with a causal sense. — Ὀδυσεύς: on the single -σ-, R 9.1.



496 = 5.611, 17.347; ≈ 11.577; 1st VH = 11.429, 12.457; 2nd VH from caesura B 1 on = 13.403, 15.573, 17.574; from caesura B 2 on = 13.183, 13.516, 14.461, 15.429, 16.284, 17.304, 17.525. — μάλ’ ἐγγὺς ἰών: Because of the τοῦ δ(έ) that follows at 494 immediately after the death (493) of his companion Leukos (Ὀδυσσέος … ἑταῖρον 491), the person Odysseus aims at ‘standing close’ here cannot be Antiphos (thus Kirk, ‘presumably’), but only Leukos (AH). — ἀκόντισε δουρὶ φαεινῷ: a formula of the 2nd VH (see iterata); δουρὶ φαεινῷ is a VE formula (22× Il.). On the broader formula system containing this expression, 489b–490n. 497 = 15.574 (in a different situation; see Janko ad loc.). — ἀμφὶ ἓ παπτήνας: The repetition (see iteratum) shows that the expression was formulaic. In the iteratum passage, it makes sense as denoting a cautious look around before throwing by the πρόμαχος who leaps ahead into the μεταίχμιον (the space between the two fronts during the stage of combat that involves missiles); here in massed close combat, by contrast, this is probably merely the standard ‘thrower formula’: other explanations (e.g. ‘He looks around […] in a threatening way’ Kirk) are unconvincing. On the use of παπταίνω elsewhere, 200n.; on the reflexive ἕ (< *ϝϝέ), G 22 and 81; Schw. 2.194; Chantr. 2.154. — ὑπὸ … κεκάδοντο: ‘they retreated’; the etymology is uncertain (probably not related to χάζομαι); for hypotheses, LfgrE s. v. κεκαδ-, end; Janko on 15.573–575; Beekes s. v. κεκαδών. 498 = 15.575. — οὐχ ἅλιον βέλος ἧκεν: ‘not as a futile one did he dispatch the missile’ (on ἅλιος, 26n.). οὐδ’ ἅλιόν ῥα … ἀφῆκεν (13.410) and οὐχ ἅλιον βέλος ἔκφυγε (χειρός), etc. (16.480; see ad loc. for additional examples) are similar: formulae that create suspense (‘whom will he hit?’), always in combination with the report ‘(instead,) he struck’ (here 499): a rhetorical polar expressionP.

499 Demokoön: This son of Priam, mentioned only here, is another moriturus (for whom, 458n.); on the motif of the illegitimate son, 16.738n. (usually mentioned at the point of his death); on Priam’s illegitimate children, 24.495– 498n. 500 Abydos: Demokoön’s domain in life is located at the narrowest point of the Dardanelles (2.836n.; BNP s. v. Abydus). παρ’ ἵππων ὠκειάων: ‘from the racehorses’, an epexegetic addition to the 1st VH: since Aristarchus, it has been linked to the town of Abydos and interpreted as a stud farm located there and supposedly belonging to Priam (schol. A, bT). For other interpretations of the phrase, Kirk on 499–500. – ἵππων ὠκειάων is a version in the gen. (likewise at 7.240 and 7.15, with the words separated) of the inflectable VE formula ὠκέες ἵπποι (nom./acc.: 3.263n. with bibliography). ἵπποι is usually masculine; the feminine is sometimes used in the context of famous stud farms or racehorses, al-

497 ἀμφὶ (ϝ)έ: on the prosody, R 4.3; ἕ = ἑαυτόν (cf. R 14.1). — ὑπὸ … κεκάδοντο: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 498 ἀνδρὸς ἀκοντίσσαντος: gen. absolute; on the -σσ- in ἀκοντίσσαντος, R 9.1. 500 ὅς (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — Ἀβυδόθεν: on the form, R 15.1. — ὠκειάων: on the declension, R 11.1.


Iliad 4

though occasionally the gender alternates with no discernible difference of meaning (2.763n., 16.393n.). 501 βάλε δουρί: a VE formula (8× Il., also β. δ. φαεινῷ at 16.399 [see ad loc.]). 502 κροτάφοιο: here used synonymously with κόρση, as is indicated by ἑτέροιο (for passages with injuries to the ‘temple’, Morrison 1999, 143 n. 68). The spear thus struck him from the side (Kirk on 501–504) – possible only at the stage of massed close combat, and not during distance fighting – and passed through both temples. 503 = 461 (see ad loc.). — αἰχμή: literally ‘lance head’, also used pars pro toto for the entire lance (LfgrE s. v.), here in the VB formula αἰχμὴ χαλκείη (461n.). In the VE formula at 501, the same missile was termed δουρί (see ad loc.): the different terms are metrically conditioned. 504 = 5.42, 5.540, 13.187, 17.50, 17.311, Od. 24.525; 1st VH in total 19× Il., 2× Od.; 2nd VH = Il. 5.58, 5.294, 8.260. — There is no apparent reason at this point for a continuation of 503 (moment of death; see 461n.) by means of this formulaic verse, which is missing from several papyri. Assumption of an interpolation, requiring athetization, is thus likely justified (concordance interpolation: West 2001, 13 with n. 31). On linguistic issues, 16.325n., Kirk on 501–504, end.

505–516 Switch to bird’s eye view I: the Trojans retreat, the Achaians collect their dead and make significant territorial gains (505–507a). At this point, the gods intervene: from the acropolis of Troy (‘Pergamos’), Apollo addresses a battle paraenesis to the Trojans (507b–514a), and Athene personally enters the fray and spurs on the slackening Achaians to engage in pursuit (514b– 516). 505 = 16.588 (see ad loc., with bibliography), 17.316. — Hektor: It is perhaps not by chance that the initial mention of him in the first battle description occurs in the context of a retreat (Strasburger 1954, 103 n. 3). χώρησαν δ᾿ ὑπό: ὑπό in tmesis alludes to the circumstances, ‘but they retreated from/ under the influence of/in response to’ (sc. the success of Odysseus versus Demokoön: AH); cf. 497 ὑπὸ … κεκάδοντο (before Odysseus’ imminent throw) and 509 μηδ᾿ εἴκετε (LfgrE s. v. χωρέω 1295.22 and 40 ff.). — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: a noun-epithet formula (29× Il.), 7× Il. with preceding καί. φαίδιμος is a generic epithetP of heroes, most often of Hektor, probably with a purely ornamental sense (‘radiant, imposing’): 16.577n., with bibliography.

501–502a τόν … | κόρσην : ‘whom … struck at the temple’, acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — Ὀδυσεύς: on the single -σ-, R 9.1. 502 ἥ: demonstrative looking ahead to αἰχμή in 503 (R 17). — ἑτάροιο χολωσάμενος: cf. 494n. — πέρησεν: here intransitive: ‘pierced throughʼ. 503 χαλκείη: on the metrical lengthening (-ει- rather than -ε-), R 10.1. — τὸν … ὄσσε: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); ὄσσε is dual, ‘eyes’. 505 χώρησαν δ᾿ ὑπό: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.



506 = 17.317. — The outcry is a ‘response to the visible success (triumph at retreat of the enemy)’: LfgrE s. v. ἰάχω 1113.34–36 (transl.). On the battle for the bodies, cf. 492 with n. μέγα ἴαχον: on the expression, 125n.; an initial digamma sometimes lengthens the preceding syllable (here of μέγα, as also at 14.421 etc., elsewhere of σμερδαλέα: Chantr. 1.139). ἴαχον is likely an onomatopoetic aor.: ‘cry out’ (LfgrE s. v. ἰάχω 1111.53 ff.; 1113.31 ff.; Kaimio 1977, 20–22). On the disputed formation of the aor., 14.148–149n.; LfgrE loc. cit. 1111.48 ff.

507 2nd VH ≈ 8.198 (of Hera). — Apollo: see CG 5; he has not appeared as an actor since Book 1 (where he almost destroyed the Achaians, by sending them a pestilence as punishment for the humiliation of his priest Chryses at the hands of Agamemnon, but was placated for the time being by a hecatomb: 1.43–52, 1.430b–487), but he was asked for support by Pandaros during the latter’s truce-violating shot at Menelaos (101–103n.). His subsequent battle paraenesis is an open declaration of war on the Achaians (who are of course listening). ἴθυσαν: ‘they advanced straight ahead, they rushed ahead forward’ (LfgrE s. v. ἰθύω; 6.2n.). The two frontlines are thus still largely intact, the Trojans retreating step-bystep while fighting; the Trojan frontline will turn to flee only at 5.37: Τρῶας δ᾿ ἔκλιναν Δαναοί. — νεμέσησε δ᾿ Ἀπόλλων: ‘Apollos held ⟨this⟩ against ⟨them⟩’ (on νεμέσησε, 413n.).

508 1st VH = 7.21. — Pergamos: Pergamos/-on (6× Il.) is a name, attested in Asia Minor, Thrace and Crete, for places with high elevations (perhaps related etymologically to German ‘Berg’ or ‘Burg’: DELG s. v. πύργος); in the Iliad, the name is used for the acropolis of Troy, which housed inter alia a temple of Apollo (6.512n.; Kirk on 508). κέκλετ᾿ ἀΰσας: = 21.307. Apollo ‘spurred on/encouraged with loud shouting’: a speech introduction formula in (battle) paraeneses; it usually occurs in the form ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας (9× Il., to intensify an attack, 6.66n., with bibliography); cf. ἐπηύξατο μακρὸν ἀΰσας (4× Il.) introducing triumph speeches.

509–514a Apollo’s battle paraenesis to the Trojans. The aim of the appeal is the creation or reinforcement of a spirit of resistance: persevere and resist! To this end, Apollo uses two arguments: (1) the Achaians’ bodies too are not made of stone (líthos) or iron (sídēros), 511–513; (2) Achilleus is not joining in the fight, but is still stewing in anger, 512 f. (the characters in the Iliad by

506 μέγα (ϝ)ίαχον, (ϝ)ερύσαντο: on the prosody, R 4.3, ↑ and R 4.5; here note the caesurae in both cases. — μέγα: adv., ‘loud’. 507 προτέρω: ‘further, forward’, i.e. here: ‘toward the enemy’. 508 Περγάμου ἐκκατιδών: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — Τρώεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — κέκλετ(ο): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘call out to, caution, urge on’ (with dat.).


Iliad 4

and large speak of Achilleus’ ‘anger’ [chólos], but the narrator knows better: rather than anger, this is a grudge, as he announces with the first word of the epic, mḗnis: 1.1n.). – This paraenesis will immediately (514b ff.) be countered by Athene. The battle subsequently continues without a resolution. Bibliography on the paraeneses in general: Fingerle 1939; on this first attempt at a formal historical analysis of Homeric battle paraeneses, Latacz 1977, 410–413; a table with a list of the 65 (somewhat longer) battle paraeneses in the Iliad (including this speech as no. 8) with explication (purpose, aim of the appeal, extent of success) in Latacz loc. cit. 246–250; for recent bibliography on Homeric battle paraeneses, 16.268–277n. 509–510a to caesura C 1 = 12.440; ≈ 5.102. — ὄρνυσθ(ε): approximately: ‘get up! rise up!/move!’; at VB, with the exception of the present passage, the iteratum verse and 5.102, it occurs another 3× Il. in Book 23 and at Od. 21.141 (an appeal in a sporting competition). — ἱππόδαμοι: 80n. — μηδ᾿ εἴκετε χάρμης | Ἀργείοις: ‘and do not evade the Argive lust for battle’ (Latacz 1966, 38, with analysis of the meaning of χάρμη loc. cit. 36–38; LfgrE s. v. χάρμη 1149.60–62: ‘don’t retreat from battle before the Greeks’; cf. 16.823n.); for a different expression with χάρμη in the gen. (μνήσασθαι/ λήθεσθαι/παύειν χάρμης), 222n.

510b–511 The same notion of Achaian vulnerability occurs in Agenor’s internal monologue at 21.568 (Kirk on 510–511). On the equation of metals with the body, cf. 3.60 (with n.); on the invulnerability of heroes as a I-E motif, West 2007, 444–446. – Because of the close juxtaposition of ‘iron’ and ‘bronze’, as well as the obvious knowledge of the greater hardness of iron, the passage incidentally seems to confirm an assumption of Homeric archaeology, namely that iron was already known at the end of the Bronze Age, but was more valuable than bronze (23.826–835 [an iron diskos provides a landowner with 5 years of wages for two agricultural laborers]; Buchholz 1980, 236 and passim; 2010, 107; Eckstein 1974, 39 and passim); at the same time, the smith is still called a chalkeús, related to chalkós ‘bronze’. 510b χρώς: for the semantic field, 130–131n. Here clearly ‘body’ (LfgrE s. v. χρώς 1284.45– 48), as is also suggested by 24.414 (see ad loc.), where the attribute ἔμπεδος ‘solid, immutable’, used elsewhere with χρώς (19.33/39), is explained (a reference to decomposition). – Cf. English phrases such as ‘save one’s skin’ that likewise refer to the body as a whole. 511 A four-word verse (1.75n.) of the type with final inf., as at 13.635, 23.489, 4× Od. (Bassett 1919, 222), with parts of increasing length. — χαλκὸν ἀνασχέσθαι ταμεσίχροα: ‘so that ⟨their bodies⟩ be able to withstand [i.e. repel] the ⟨otherwise⟩ flesh-

509 μηδ(έ): In Homer, the connectives οὐδέ/μηδέ also occur after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 510 σφι: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — χρώς: subj. of the nominal clause. 511 βαλλομένοισιν: to be linked with σφι in 510; on the declension, R 11.2.



cutting (bronze) weapons’. — χαλκόν: on the sense ‘weapon’, 348n. — ταμεσίχροα: a verb-noun compound from the sigmatic aor. stem of τάμνειν and χρώς, thus ‘skincutting’; attested only in the acc., also at 13.340 and 23.803, as an epithet of weapons (LfgrE; Risch 192, also on the infix -σι-; Tronci 2000, 295).

512 from caesura A 4 on = 16.860. — Achilleus: This is the first mention of Achilleus (and his guiding significance – as designed by the poet of the Iliad – for the war against Troy) since 2.763 ff. (see STR 22 [1], with fig. 2: ‘Achilleus remains absens praesens’, and ‘both narrator and audience always remain conscious of the temporary nature of the […] military balance of power’). Θέτιδος πάϊς ἠϋκόμοιο: for the formation of the appositive and on the striking matronymic, 16.860n., with bibliography. On the goddess Thetis and her function, CG 20. — ἠϋκόμοιο: a generic epithetP of women: ‘with beautiful hair/locks’; see 1.36n., 24.466n.

513 2nd VH ≈ 9.565 (of Meleagros), ‘Hes.’ fr. 318 M.-W. — The narrator makes it clear that all his characters, both human and divine, Greek and Trojan, are well aware of Achilleus’ current situation as it was described by the narrator in Book 1 (1.488–491a): he is sitting near his ships and joins in neither assemblies nor indeed the fighting. At the same time, the narrator has (almost) everyone fundamentally misread the hero’s emotional state in this situation: they all believe, with attitudes ranging from reproach to anger, that Achilleus is enjoying his boycott. They are not aware that he is suffering from it (1.491b– 492), something known only to three characters: Achilleus himself, his mother Thetis and Zeus (in addition to the audience). The anger is characterized as self-destructive; at the same time, the majority of these characters do not recognize that Achilleus knows this full well and is suffering all the more since he cannot act differently, and they thus misunderstand him (as will become particularly clear in Book 9, where at 9.260 his anger is characterized in the same way as here by Odysseus). μάρναται: In Homer, μάρνασθαι is frequently used as a metrical variant of μάχεσθαι and πολεμίζειν (Trümpy 1950, 167 f.). — θυμαλγέα: a compound from θυμός and ἀλγέω (LfgrE), ‘bringing suffering to the soul’; the notion is thus that someone who nurses his anger for a long time is harming himself. — πέσσει: etymologically related to Latin coquo, English ‘cook’; with the basic meaning ‘boil until soft’, the simplex is always metaphorical in Homer (in reference to a person’s anger, as here and in the iteratum half-verse, ‘ruminating’ over one’s tribulations at 24.617, 24.639; cf. English ‘boiling with anger’: 1.81–82n., 24.617n., with bibliography; LfgrE). Here likely meant in a pejorative sense: ‘lets simmer’, i.e. ultimately ‘keeps alive’, ‘is nursing’ his anger.

512 μάν: strengthens the negative statement (R 24.7). — Ἀχιλεύς: on the single -λ-, R 9.1. 513 νηυσί: dat. pl. of ναῦς (R 12.1). — θυμαλγέα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.


Iliad 4

514b–516 Athene’s counter action: Athene (CG 8), who also has a temple on the Trojan acropolis (6.269–311: 6.88–94n.), has supported the Achaian side since the Judgement of Paris (7–19n.), which turned out badly for her (and Hera) (see her role in the shot of Pandaros, 64–133: 85–104n., 127–133n.). She tries to outdo Apollo by personally mingling with the (Achaian) warriors and, where necessary, spurring them on individually (516) rather than addressing an entire (Trojan: 508) army from a distance. For the sentence structure of 514b–515, cf. 13.154, 16.126, 16.553 f.; on filling a verse (here 515) with a paraphrasis of a personal name, 16.126n. 514 from caesura B 1 on ≈ Hes. Th. 933. — αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιούς: an inflectable VE formula (22× Il.; 19.63n.), this introduces a change in scene after caesura C 2, as often (1.194n., 24.3n.; Bakker 1997, 100 f., 109 f., 111). 515 ≈ Od. 3.378, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 197. — Διὸς θυγάτηρ: 128n. — κυδίστη: superlative of κυδρός ‘vested with extreme κῦδος (strength, charisma, authority)’, outside of direct speech (1.122n.) only here and at Hes. Op. 257 (κυδρή). On κῦδος, 95n.; on the use of superlatives in -isto- as divine epithets (I-E religious language), 2.412n.; West 2007, 129 f. — Τριτογένεια: an epithet of Athene used in place of the proper name (3× Il., 1× Od., 3× Hes.; h.Hom. 28.4 West Τριτογενῆ), derivation and exact meaning uncertain; ‘apparently «she who was born at the Triton»’ (a river in Boeotia), on analogy with e.g. Κυπρο-γένεια ‘born on Cyprus’ (= Aphrodite): LfgrE s. v.; quotation 632.25 [transl.]); additional speculation in Kirk on 513–516; West on Od. 3.378, both with bibliography. 516 1st VH = 445 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH ≈ 12.268, 13.229. — μεθιέντας ἴδοιτο: 240n.

517–526 Individual close combat description F (see the overview at 457–544n.): the Greek Diores is killed by the Trojan ally (Thracian) Peirōs. – The Thracian Peirōs responds to Apollo’s paraenesis: he crushes the Epeian (from the northwest Peloponnese) Diores’ right ankle and lower leg with a large field stone and then kills the fallen man with a thrust of the spear to the abdomen. – In the killings depicted at F and G, which offer evidence of an increasing will to destroy, the violence of the fighting becomes wild and even brutal: a single blow no longer suffices. The enemy is first incapacitated with a preparatory throw (F: rock, 518; G: spear, 527) and is then stabbed or slaughtered from up close with a stab (F: abdomen, 525) or sword blow (G: middle of the stomach, 531; on the motif ‘the opponent dies only after a second hit’, as also at 5.580 ff., 14.487 ff., 20.457 ff., 20.478 ff. [in each case, the killing ultimately occurs by means of a sword] and intensified at 16.784–867, see

514 ὣς φάτ(ο): on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; on the middle, R 23. — πτόλιος: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2; on the declension, R 11.3. — αὐτάρ: adversative (R 24.2). 516 ὅθι (μ)μεθιέντας: on the prosody, Μ 4.6 (note also the caesura: M 8). — ὅθι: ‘where’; to be understood as introducing an objective clause with ὦρσε. — μεθιέντας: to be linked with Ἀχαιούς. — ἴδοιτο: iterative opt.; on the middle, R 23.



Fenik 1968, 23, 61; Mueller [1984] 2009, 79; Saunders 2004, 4. 6). The level of detail in describing the injuries increases: intestines spill out (F, 525 f.), a spear becomes stuck in a lung (G, 528). The horror intensifies. The announcement made with the wolf simile at 471 f. – ‘they leapt at each other like wolves’ – is illustrated in a concrete fashion. These are images of the brutalization of human beings. Their message: this is war! 517 Diores: The son (or grandson: 2.622n.) of Amarynkeus, Diores is the third of four captains of the Epeian contingent (2.620–624n.). Amarynkeus is the ruler of the Epeians in the northwest Peloponnese (on the Epeians, 2.619n.; on Amarynkeus, 2.622n.). ἔνθ(α): ‘there’ (473n.). — Ἀμαρυγκείδην: a patronymic (cf. 458n.). — μοῖρ(α): on the meaning, 170n. — ἐπέδησεν: a denominative of πέδη (related to πούς ‘foot’) ‘shackles’, thus literally ‘shackled him at the feet’, i.e. robbed him of his freedom of movement (causing him to fall to the ground at 522 f. and thus become an easy victim for the enemy); for μοῖρα as the agent, likewise at VE at 22.5 (of Hektor, as here), Od. 11.292 (κατὰ μοῖρα πέδησε). On the metaphorical meaning ‘ensnare, tie up in a certain manner of thinking/acting/ideology’ > ‘blind’ (accomplished e.g. by ‘Ate’, the goddess of delusion), 19.94n., end; I-E parallels in West 2007, 489.

518 boulder: Rocks are often used as weapons after spears have been thrown; on rocks as the (not always lethal) weapons of more powerful heroes, 16.411n., with bibliography; on the description of such rocks, 16.735n. Injuries caused by sharp rocks ‘always have devastating consequences’ (with additional examples): 16.735n. χερμαδίῳ: ‘rock, fieldstone’ (on the almost exclusive position of the word at VB, Kirk on 518). — ὀκριόεντι: ‘pointed, jagged’ (LfgrE); on the word formation with expanded suffix -όεις attached to a noun ὄκρις ‘point’ first attested in Hippokrates (LSJ; cf. ἄκρος), Risch 152; Heubeck (1960) 1984, 492.

519 2nd VH from caesura C 1 on ≈ 7.13, 17.140. — lord of the Thracian warriors: The Thracians are allies of the Trojans; on their overall negligible role in the fighting and on their territory, 2.844n. κνήμην δεξιτερήν: ‘the right shin’ (Laser 1983, 16); the shin is struck also at 21.591 (although thanks to divine defence, no second, lethal attack takes place there). — ἀγός: 265n.

520 ≈ 5.44, 17.350, 20.485 (of Rhigmos, son of Peirōs). — Peiros: called Peiroös at 2.844; son of an otherwise unknown Imbrasos, together with Akamas the

518 βλῆτο: aor. mid. with pass. meaning (‘he was struckʼ). 519 κνήμην: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 520 Αἰνόθεν: on the form, R 15.1. — εἰληλούθει: = plpf. of ἐλθεῖν; on the metrical lengthening of the υ in the perf. stem ἐληλυθ-, R 10.1.


Iliad 4

leader of the Thracians from west of the Hellespont (= Dardanelles): 2.844n. — Ainos: a very old town attested only here in early epic, the modern Turkish Enez in the estuary of the river Hebros (= modern Greek Έβρος/Evros, Bulgarian Maritza), which today forms the border between Greece and Turkey (BNP s. v. Ainus). 521 ἀμφοτέρω … τένοντε: ‘both tendons, the pair of tendons’ (from τένων, originally aor. part. of τείνω, and meaning ‘tendon, ligament, muscle’: 16.587n. with bibliography; LfgrE); the tendons that hold the head and the hip joint in place are similarly mentioned in pairs (10.456, 14.466, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 419 and Il. 5.307 ἄμφω κέρσε/ῥῆξε τένοντε at VE; also 22.396 of the Achilles tendons; Faesi; Kirk). It is impossible to tell to what extent the present scene is based on actual anatomical knowledge of the muscoloskeletal system; what is striking is a ‘certain propensity for a formulaic use of the dual ἄμφω τένοντε’, and the author of the passage ‘appears [to rest] the «pair of tendons» more on the anatomically interesting sounding formula than on concrete knowledge’ (Laser 1983, 11 [transl.]). — λᾶας ἀναιδής: on the form λᾶας with diectasis, 3.12n. The possessive compound ἀναιδής means ‘ruthless, without qualms, irreverent’ (on αἰδώς, 1.149n., 6.442n.); as an epithet of λᾶας also at Od. 11.598 (likewise at VE) in reference to Sisyphos: the stone he rolls up keeps rolling back down once he gets it to the peak. Together with ἀναιδέος … πέτρης at Il. 13.139 (of rockfall), this suggests the special meaning ‘unrestrained’ for ἀναιδής (LfgrE s. v. ἀναιδής); cf. μενεαίνων at 126 of the urge of a weapon (124–126n.). Whether the anthropomorphization here was sung/recited in all seriousness or – the macabre aspect notwithstanding – for a moment with a slightly amused shake of the head, could be known only by someone seeing or hearing the singer/rhapsode in person. 522 2nd VH = 13.548, 15.434, 16.289; ≈ Od. 18.398 (also Il. 4.108, 7.145/11.144/12.192, 7.271). — ὕπτιος ἐν κονίῃσιν: on the formulaic expression in battle scenes, 108n.; ἐν κονίῃσιν is used in various positions in the verse (16.289n.). — ἄχρις: The meaning is disputed, since in post-Homeric texts ἄχρις is a preposition in the form ἄχρι (usually with the gen.), almost like μέχρι, and evidently means ‘until, up to’. But at 16.324, as here, the word can only be understood as an adverb with the sense ‘entirely, completely’ (LfgrE; an explanation of the development of meaning in Kirk). — ἀπηλοίησεν: from ἀλοιάω ‘strike’ (elsewhere only at 9.568); with intensifying ἀπό: ‘hack off’ (LfgrE s. v. ἀλοιάω); in combination with ἄχρις, it highlights the force of the rock (schol. D), likely ‘shatter entirely’.

523 = 13.549; cf. 14.495, 21.115, Od. 5.374, 9.417, 24.397. — Warriors who are badly injuried when struck, and who stretch out their arms and seek support while sinking to the ground generally represent (despairing) helplessness and resignation just before death (14.495b–496a n.); this is likely foregrounded here as well, even if the warrior falls over backward and the gesture perhaps also

521 ἀμφοτέρω … τένοντε: duals, beside the pl. ὀστέα: dual and plural forms can be combined freely (R 18.1). 523 κάππεσεν: = κατ-έπεσεν (R 20.1, R 16.1). — ἄμφω χεῖρε: acc. dual. — πετάσσας: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.



contains an appeal to his comrades to retrieve his body (thus AH; cautiously, Kirk). A related yet somewhat different nuance of the underlying mood is revealed by the gesture at 21.115 f.: Lykaon, reminded by Achilleus of the transitoriness of even those who are greatest, strongest and most beautiful, when the latter is ready to deal out the lethal blow, accepts his fate and lets himself be killed (cf. Thornton 1984, 138 f.: ‘Lycaon understands and complies. When he lets go of the spear and the «knees» in spreading out his arms he gives up his claim to life, and accepts death willingly, and Achilles kills him.’). κάππεσεν: 17× in Homeric epic at VB (16.290n., with variant). — ἑτάροισιν: dat. of destination (Chantr. 2.68). 524 1st VH = 13.654; 2nd VH ≈ 5.617. — θυμὸν ἀποπνείων: likewise at VB in 13.654; 16.468, 20.403 (θ. ἀΐσθων/ἄϊσθε) are similar. Breathing is here linked to consciousness and life; cf. ἀμπνύθη in the context of recovering from a faint at e.g. 14.436 (Hektor), 22.475 (Andromache): LfgrE s. v. πνέω 1301.33 ff. θυμός is here used in its original sense ‘(warm) breath of life’ (cf. Sanskrit dhumah ‘smoke’; English ‘breathe one’s last (breath)’): 16.410n. with bibliography.

525–526 525: 2nd VH = 21.180; 526 = 21.181; 2nd VH = 461, 503, 6.11, 13.575, 14.519, 15.578, 16.316, 20.393, 20.471; ≈ 16.325, h.Ap. 370. — and all his guts poured | out: Expert opinion is divided: ‘[…] less believable, but ethnographically verifiable, after a blow from a lance’ (Laser 1983, 51 [transl.], see also n. 116 [reference to an indigenous report: ‘After being cut with a lance, he also had his intestines fall out. The indigenous doctors first cleaned his intestines, put them back in his abdominal cavity’]). Cf. an opinion to the contrary: ‘Guts can come out of the belly through an open slash which gapes open, most likely the small bowel, loops of which are mobile anterior in the abdominal cavity. But they cannot come out through a puncture wound, and surely not through a puncture wound which is still plugged by the spear’ (Saunders 2003, 151). Saunders loc. cit. 147–151 thus classifies the present description as ‘pseudorealism’, as had Friedrich 1956, 60 before him. For additional descriptions of unusual physical consequences of an injury with graphic effects, 16.504n. (with bibliography). οὖτα δὲ δουρί: here in verse middle, at 16.820 at VE as a variant of the formula οὔτασε δουρί (12× Il. at VE, 14.443 in verse middle, as here after caesura A 3; Higbie 1990, 174–176; 14.443n.). οὐτάω means ‘strike with a thrusting or slashing weapon’ (in close combat; 16.24n. on the difference from βάλλω), here ‘inflict a wound (with

524 ἀποπνείων: on the metrical lengthening (-ει- rather than -ε-), R 10.1. — περ: emphasizes ἔβαλεν (R 24.10). 525–526 οὖτα: 3rd pers. sing. aor. (↑). — ἐκ … ǀ χύντο: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); ‘poured out from, oozed out of’. — τὸν … ὄσσ(ε): 503n.


Iliad 4

a thrust of the spear)’, indicating massed close combat. On the athematic root aorist οὖτα, 6.64n. — παρ᾿ ὀμφαλόν: i.e. in the abdomen; on παρά with acc. indicating the area of the body that sustains the injury, Chantr. 2.122. — χύντο χαμαὶ χολάδες: The alliteration likely underlines the effect. — σκότος ὄσσ᾿ ἐκάλυψεν: 461n.

527–531 Individual close combat description G: Peirōs, a Thracian ally of the Trojans, is killed by the Greek Thoas. – A sword is used for the first time (530); taken together with the reference to proximity (529), this again points to massed close combat. 527 2nd VH ≈ 16.411, 16.511, 20.288. — Thoas: The leader of the Aitolian contingent, he has no special role but does possess a certain authority (on Thoas, with an explanation of his position, 2.638n.; on the territory of the Aitolians, 2.638–644n.). ἐπεσσύμενος βάλε δουρί: on the expression βάλε δουρί linked with a preceding part., 501n. ἐπεσσύμενος is a perf. part. of ἐπισεύομαι ‘rush forward’; on the accent, Chantr. 1.190; on the transmission, which vacillates between the nom. (here only Aristarchus) and the acc., as also in the half-verse iterata, see West’s app. crit.

528 1st VH ≈ 5.145, 11.108; 2nd VH ≈ 20.486; cf. 5.616. — above the nipple: on chest injuries, 480–481n. The subsequent specification of the location on the body is common (so too in the case of injuries: 480, 5.291, 7.12, 11.579, 13.388, 15.433; LfgrE s. v. μαζός) and contributes to the vividness of the scene (525– 526n.). στέρνον: 106b n. — πλεύμονι: an inherited word related to Latin pulmo, and a Homeric hapaxP (LfgrE); for discussion of the predominant terms for the lungs, 16.481n. (on φρένες) and 24.514n. (on πραπίδες); on the spelling with λ, West 1998, XXXIV. — χαλκός: the bronze tip including the socket (3.348n.; Franz 2002, 66); the spear is thus deeply embedded in the lung. 529 1st VH = Od. 15.95; ≈ (with ῥα οἱ) Il. 16.820; (with δέ σφ᾿) 24.283, Od. 8.300, 15.57, 20.173, 24.99, 24.439, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 325. The formula in the 1st VH designates hostile intent only here and at 16.820. — ὄβριμον ἔγχος: a VE formula (in total 13× Il.); the epithet means ‘large, massive, powerful’ (453n.). 530 2nd VH ≈ 12.190, 14.496, 20.284, 21.116. — ξίφος ὀξύ: an expression used in the Iliad only at VE (see half-verse iterata, in addition Od. 21.431), also 11× Od. in verse middle; frequently in conjunction with ἐρυσσάμενος.

528 στέρνον: acc. of respect (R 19.1). — πάγη: ‘got stuck’; mid.-pass. aor. of πήγνυμι; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 529 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1); dat. dependent on ἀγχίμολον, ‘close to him’. 530 στέρνοιο (ϝ)ερύσσατο: on the prosody, R 4.3; note the caesura. — ἐρύσσατο: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.



531 1st VH ≈ 21.180; cf. the VE of 17.313. — γαστέρα τύψε μέσην: on often lethal injuries to the lower abdomen and the Greek terms for their localization, 492n. (on βουβῶνα); the particularly exposed middle of the body is also highlighted elsewhere (13.372, 13.398, 13.506, 17.313). — ἐκ δ᾿ αἴνυτο θυμόν: αἴνυμαι means ‘take’ (αἰτέω is a cognate; LfgrE; Frisk); on the meaning of θυμός, 524n. This variant of the VE formula ἐξαίνυτο θυμόν (5.155, 5.848, 20.459; αἴνυτο θ. only at h.Merc. 434, with a different meaning) is a paraphrase for ‘kill’. The repeated ἐκ in tmesis before caesura C 2, as at 529, likely serves to intensify the emphasis rhetorically (cf. the anaphora of ἐκ at VB at 1.436–439, with n.).

532–535 On the motif of spoliation, 465–466n.; on fighting over a body (which those on the dead man’s side are trying to keep from being desecrated), 16.492–501n. (battle paraenesis), 16.538–683n. (examples). 532 οὐκ ἀπέδυσε· περίστησαν γὰρ ἑταῖροι: The juxtaposition of the two verbs ‘(but) he did not remove (the armor) – around him the comrades gathered’ represents the clash and recoil in the battle for the body. 533 2nd VH = 9.86; ≈ Hes. Th. 186, Il. 7.255. — ἀκρόκομοι: a hapaxP in the Iliad, and attested elsewhere only in Hipponax fr. 115.6 West, likewise of the Thracians; a possessive compound, formed from the elements ἄκρος and κόμη, likely meaning ‘having hair (only) on top of the head’, i.e. with a topknot (man bun) on top of the head (LfgrE) or with a tuft above an otherwise shorn or shaved skull (cf. 2.542 ὄπιθεν κομόωντες of the Abantes, i.e. with short hair in front; Marinatos 1967, 3). — δολίχ᾿ ἔγχεα: δολιχός ‘long’ is an epithet of ἔγχος in the present half-verse formula (see above) and of δόρυ at 13.162, 17.607 (in each case ἐν καυλῷ ἐάγη δ. δ.) and 15.474, Od. 19.448 (LfgrE); on the much more common metrical variant δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος (used especially as VE formula), 3.346n. 534 = 5.625 (of Aias, likewise in the context of spoliation). — Emphatic polysyndeton intensifying the contrast with the subsequent ὦσαν (535) (AH; parallels: 16.636, 16.639, see ad locc.). — ἴφθιμον: likely always understood as ‘powerful, strong’ (LfgrE, with scholia and bibliography). — ἀγαυόν: a generic epithetP; very positive of friends and enemies, but also used of gods; the basic meaning (related to ἄγαμαι ‘wonder’) is likely ‘admirable’, but moves beyond that in the direction of Latin nobilis, ‘noble’, approximately ‘distinguished’; often designating the Trojans (16.103n.).

535 = 5.626, 13.148; 1st VH ≈ 13.688. — thrust: against Thoas’ shield with the lances mentioned at 533 (AH). πελεμίχθη: πελεμίζω is literally ‘cause to shake, waver’, of persons in the iterata, as here and at 16.108, as well as of spears (16.107–108n.; 16.611–612n.); here pass. with χασσάμενος likely ‘staggered back and forth’ (without being killed): LfgrE s. v. πελεμίζω.

531 μέσην: predicative (‘in the middleʼ). — ἐκ … αἴνυτο: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 532 περίστησαν: = περιέστησαν (on the unaugmented form, R 16.1). 534 οἵ (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — περ: concessive (R 24.10). — ἐόντα = ὄντα (R 16.6). 535 σφείων = ἑαυτῶν (R 14.1). — χασσάμενος: aor. of χάζομαι (‘retreatʼ); on the -σσ-, R 9.1.


Iliad 4

536–538 Conclusion of individual close combat descriptions F and G: Thoas has staggered to safety. Two dead warriors remain on the ground: Diores and Peirōs. The two leaders (538) lie ‘peacefully’ stretched out side-by-side in a ‘hero’s death’, an image that is unique in the Iliad: ‘[…] the tableau is strongly pictorial […] their symbolic opposition and union in death are stressed by the formal antithesis of 537’ (Kirk). 536 ≈ 544. — ἐν κονίῃσι: 522n. — τετάσθην: (medio-)pass. of τείνω, meaning ‘be/lie stretched out’ of a corpse; aside from 544, also at 13.655 (comparison with a worm), 21.119 (Lykaon): LfgrE s. v. τείνω 345.59 ff. – Given that the plural (τέταντο, as at 544) would also have been possible, the dual, which lacks external motivation, registers with both regret and consolation the equality of all in death. 537 2nd VH ≈ 11.694. — The same structure with ἤτοι ὃ μὲν … ὃ δ(ὲ)… occurs at 14.391 (likewise in an overview), 14.405 (where also after τετάσθην); additional verses with the disjunctive juxtaposition ὃ μὲν … ὃ δ(ὲ) … in Visser 1997, 571 n. 28. — ἤτοι ὃ μέν: a VB formula (16× Il., 3× ‘Hes.’). — χαλκοχιτώνων: 199n.

538 2nd VH ≈ 15.224. — The concluding remarks merely reference the two final individual duels F and G: many more corpses surrounded the leaders of the Thracian (Peirōs) and Epeian (Diores) contingents. Thus nothing has been said so far regarding the entire first phase of battle of the mḗnis storyline, which up to this point has been laid out in an entirely logical and purposeful fashion. The strands of the story have now been revealed. In his paraenesis, Apollo made clear by noting that Achilleus is not fighting for the time being (512 f.). The question remains: what will happen next? The answer follows at 5.1 ff., with the beginning of Diomedes’ aristeia. 539–544 Switch to bird’s eye view II (see the table at 457–544n.): a view over the battlefield by an anonymous character guided by Athene (539–542), and preliminary concluding remarks by the narrator (543 f.). – Aspects of this section have been fiercely debated since Bentley and Heyne, i.e. since the late 18th century: are 543 f. authentic? (athetesis of 543 f.: app. crit. in West; 543n.). And could the entire section 539–544 be inauthentic? perhaps an exhausted epilogue by a rhapsode needing a break? The debate over authenticity until ca. 1880 is summarized by Carl Hentze in 1882 (AH, Anh., introduction to Book 4, p. 26 f.), who joins the proponents of athetesis. A century later, in 1985, Kirk came to a similar conclusion, citing inter alia the anticlimax if 539–544 are retained (Kirk on 539–544, end). West (2011, 150 [on 539– 544 and 543–544]) suggests that the six verses were ‘probably’ inserted later

536 ὥς: = οὕτως. — τώ: nom. dual; anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3). — τετάσθην: 3rd pers. dual perf. mid.-pass. of τείνω (‘both lay there prostrateʼ). 538 περί: here used adverbially (‘all aroundʼ).



by the original poet himself as a ‘panoptic summary of the situation’ for a ‘more striking’ variant for his original concluding verses 536–538 – but subsequently also calls attention (without explicit commentary) to Wilamowitz’ view that the verses were added ‘by rhapsodes for the purpose of rounding out Δ’ (Wilamowitz 1916, 282 n. 2 [transl.]). A compilation of Athene’s appearances narrated since 74 appears to justify doubts about the authenticity of the entire section 539–544 in its present position within the narrative: (1) Athene makes Pandaros break the truce between the two encamped fronts (74–104); (2) when the previously interrupted fighting resumes, when the fighting turns favorable for the Greeks in massed close combat (significant ground is gained by the Greeks: 507a) and Apollo in consequence calls emphatically on the Trojans to resist (507b–514a), Athene enters the midst of the throng (ἐρχομένη καθ’ ὅμιλον 516) and encourages each warrior individually – whereupon massed close combat erupts once more and on occasion results in exemplary killings, narrated at length, which are concluded by the narrator’s πολλοὶ δὲ περὶ κτείνοντο καὶ ἄλλοι (538). (3) Since the outcome of the battle is still undecided across the front as a whole, Athene determines six verses later to intervene again: she selects the Greek Diomedes as a ‘wave breaker’, instills him with fighting spirit and courage (5.1–2), and thus drives him to a solo advance (‘aristeia’) that sets an example for the remaining Greeks (Diomedes straightaway eliminates the sons of Dares, Phegeus and Idaios: 5.9 ff.); this greatly encourages the Greeks and leaves the Trojans so disheartened (5.27–29) that they turn to flight (5.37). (4) In the long subsequent Trojan flight phase, Athene repeatedly acts as an instigator to the Greeks (her name is mentioned explicitly 28 times in Book 5 alone; see Index nominum in West s.vv. Ἀθηναίη, Ἀθήνη). (5) When Hektor, via a fiery paraenesis, makes the Trojans stop, turn around and reform their front (5.497), Athene (in conjunction with Hera) again personally intervenes in the continuing battle and makes Diomedes wound the pro-Trojan war god Ares, ousting him from the battle (5.793 ff.) – whereupon the fighting of the frontline in the plain picks up once more and surges this way and that (6.1–4: ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθ’ ἴθυσε μάχη πεδίοιο 6.2). (6) When the Greeks finally drive the Trojans back almost to the Skaian Gate and Hektor sees no way out other than asking his mother Hekabe in town to bring a sacrifice for Athene to the Pergamos, and when this sacrifice has been offered, Athene categorically refuses any help (ἀνένευε δὲ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη 6.311). – This (much abbreviated) outline reveals a strictly logical, purposeful narrative strategy in which the narrator across 1291 verses (4.72–6.311) presents the character Athene as the fully concentrated driver of the main storyline who is focussed on the events in battle. It is unimaginable that in the meantime (4.539–544) the same narrator would have this action-driving Athene character serve as a sort of communications officer behaving like a tour guide for a ‘frontline reporter’ (noted in passing also by West 2011, 150 [on 543–544]) – and what is more, during a battle phase not even present in the passage in question; since here, there is no ‘middle’ between the frontlines (κατὰ μέσσον 541 [see ad loc.]) that could be crossed by missiles (βελέων … ἐρωήν 542), since the two armies are already at the stage of massed close combat and no longer engaging in distance combat. (Beginning at 220, via the Epipṓlēsis and the lengthy description of the approach beginning at 422, the narrator consistently worked toward the preceding clash of the frontlines [446–451].) 539–544 thus cannot have originated from this narrator, who has been operating purposefully. At the same time, they are


Iliad 4

not an original invention by the rhapsodes. Rather, these verses, ‘poetically’ inserted at some later date, are a variant of an apparently ancient oral poetic set piece, two additional variants of which have been preserved (see Kirk at 539) at 13.126–128 (φάλαγγες | καρτεραί, ἃς οὔτ’ ἄν κεν Ἄρης ὀνόσαιτο μετελθών | οὔτέ κ’ Ἀθηναίη λαοσσόος) and 17.397–399 (μῶλος ὀρώρει | ἄγριος οὐδέ κ’ Ἄρης λαοσσόος οὐδέ κ’ Ἀθήνη | τόν γε ἰδοῦσ’ ὀνόσαιτ[ο]). Furthermore, the extent to which this set piece variant, inserted here and expanded by an anonymus person, was not fashioned professionally is illustrated inter alia by the two highly disputed errors it contains, namely at 542 (αὐτάρ uniquely [with the exception of 23.694, but there also objected to since antiquity] has αὐ- in the unmarked position rather than the marked position, as normally) and at 543 (ἤματι κείνῳ; see ad loc.). If 539–544 is eliminated on the basis of these irregularities, 5.1 follows with ἔνθ(α) from the conclusion of the close combat scene at 538 in accord with the norm just as above 473 followed 472 in the same way (ultimately in agreement: Kirk on 543–544). – The reason for the insertion of 539– 544 may (as Leaf proposed on 543 with reference to P. Knight) have been a rhapsode’s desire to conclude a segment of the recitation (‘a rhapsodist’s «tag» […] of a day’s recitation’). This would be supported by the fact that the verse we call 5.1 initiated a new, apparently widely recognized unit of rhapsodic recitation known as the Διομήδεος ἀριστείη (Hdt. 2.116.3), which according to Herodotus may have run at least through today’s 6.311 (on this verse, see above), since he cites 6.289–292 as coming from this section. Accordingly, depending on the mood of the rhapsode and his audience, the recitation might have concluded with the ‘tag’ 539–544 or continued without the ‘tag’ (likewise in principle West loc. cit.: ‘The text would be satisfactory without 536–8 or without 539–44’). The Alexandrians, finally, will have adopted the ‘tag’, for rhapsodes to use or not, from the manuscripts available to them and thus transmitted it to posterity.

539 2nd VH ≈ 13.127. — A seasoned ‘war correspondent’ would have been satisfied with the results of the phase of the battle to be assessed. – It is normally the gods who are portrayed as experts in war, regardless of their partisanship in the Trojan War. But here what is portrayed is a critical assessment by a fictional human observer, much like – albeit in a different context – 6.521 f. (on Paris’ fitness for war). As with phrases with a narrative addresseeP (223n., 421n.), the audience/reader is connected to the observer, drawn into the events and thus led to a specific assessment (de Jong [1987] 2004, 58–60; collection of examples: LfgrE s. v. ἀνήρ 856.50 ff. and 72 ff.). ἔνθά κεν: on the accent, West 1998, XVIII. — οὐκέτι: criticized already in the scholia and replaced with οὔ κέ τι (Leaf; see app. crit. West); οὐκέτι is in fact unintelligible in the present context: had an anonymus person inserting this section already objected to ἔργον? — ἔργον: 470n. — μετελθών: μέτ-ειμι/μετ-ελθεῖν is literally ‘follow, pursue (someone)’, then metaphorically ‘investigate a matter, pursue an issue (searchingly/investigatively, but also as an observer)’; thus here (and at 13.127, as well

539 κεν … ὀνόσαιτο: past potential; κεν = ἄν (R 24.5). — οὐκέτι (ϝ)έργον: on the prosody, R 4.3.



as – previously unnoted – 14.334: ‘who pursued that’): the ἀνὴρ … | ὅς τις ‘observed (from the outside)’ the events as a whole (and is thus still uninjured/whole: 540). 540 ἄβλητος … ἀνούτατος: injured neither by a shot in distance battle nor by a thrust in close combat, thus so far (ἔτι) uninvolved in the fighting and therefore neutral. – The stems of the two negated verbal adjectives are linked at 14.424 (οὐτάσαι οὐδὲ βαλεῖν) and especially in the VE formula βεβλήμενοι οὐτάμενοί τε (4× Il.) (Trümpy 1950, 92; Latacz 1977, 205). On the emphatic reduplication of the negation, 2.447n. (with bibliography); I-E parallels in West 2007, 110. Both adjectives are Homeric hapaxesP; for additional derivations from οὐτά(ζ)ω and on the variant ἄουτος, 18.536– 537n. — ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (25× Il., 11× Od., 1× Hes.); on its usage especially in structural/generic contexts (here generalizing δινεύοι), Bakker 2005, 29–33.

541 1st VH ≈ 5.8, 16.285; 2nd VH ≈ 10.245, 22.270, Od. 17.243, 21.201. — Athene’s: West already pointed out that Athene here inconsistently appears in a completely different role than just below at 5.1 (2011, 150 [on 543–4]): ‘Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη in Ε 1 comes oddly after 541 if composed in direct succession to it.’ δινεύοι: δινεύω, like the more common δινέω, is related to δίνη ‘whirl, vortex’; always intransitive, it means ‘turn, roam about’ (LfgrE). — κατὰ μέσσον: The reference is to the middle between the two frontlines, similar to ἐς μέσον ἀμφοτέρων συνίτην μεμαῶτε μάχεσθαι at 6.120, 20.159, 23.814 (cf. 9.87); the post-Homeric technical military term is: μετ-αίχμιον (first attestation: Hdt. 6.112.1). – ‘into/across the middle of the massed close combat’ is normally expressed καθ᾿/ἀν᾿ ὅμιλον, see 516 [on this, 126n.]). — Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη: 78n.

542 2nd VH ≈ 17.562. — Since 539–544 have evidently been designed as a ‘panoptic summary of the situation’ (West 2011, 150 [on 539–44]) (see 539–544n.), an ‘inspection of the scene of the crime’ between the frontlines during continuing, sustained fire is an extravagant idea, even if it takes place while one is holding the hand of a protective deity. Moreover, the notion does not fit with the current stage of battle (more information at 539–544n.). χειρὸς ἑλοῦσ(α): a formulaic expression, at VB also at 5.30, at VE 15.126 ἐκ χειρὸς ἑλοῦσα (in each case of Athene), after caesura A 3: 21.416, Od. 12.33, 15.465; in the masc. in total 3× Il., 2× Od. 543 πολλοὶ γάρ: a VB formula (also 2.803, 5.383, 7.328, 16.448). — Τρώων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: 65n. — ἤματι κείνῳ: a VE formula (5× Il., 2× Hes.): ‘on that day’; signals the distant past from the point of view of the speaker – who with the exception of 18.324 always = narrator (18.324n.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 235: ‘on that remote day’). Since the day described here is not even close to an end, the formula would be entirely inappropriate if the narrator had 5.1 follow immediately after 544.

541 (ϝ)ε: 542 543

δινεύοι: potential, likewise ἄγοι and in 542 ἀπερύκοι. — μέσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — δέ on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). αὐτάρ: progressive (R 24.2). — βελέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. ἤματι: = ἡμέρᾳ. — κείνῳ: = ἐκείνῳ.


Iliad 4

544 ≈ 536 (see ad loc.); 1st VH = 2.418, 6.43, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 365. — πρηνέες: πρηνής generally refers to dying or dead warriors who fall headlong to the ground or (less commonly) are lying with their face to the ground, as here, 2.418 and 21.118 (LfgrE).

544 πρηνέες: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — τέταντο: 3rd pers. pl. plpf. of τείνω (cf. 536n.).

Bibliographic Abbreviations 1 Works cited without year of publication (standard works) 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.) AH, Anh. Anhang zu Homers Ilias. Schulausgabe von K. F. Ameis, Leipzig 11868– 1886 (commentary on Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze); cited in this volume: Heft 2 (on Il. 4–6) 21882. ArchHom Archaeologia Homerica. Die Denkmäler und das frühgriechische Epos. Edited by F. Matz and H.-G. Buchholz under the authority of the DAI. Göttingen 1967–. Beekes Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assistance of L. van Beek. Leiden Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden and Boston 2010. (2 vols.) BNP Brill’s New Pauly, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, transl. by C. F. Salazar; online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-newpauly (retrieved 18. 09. 2019); print edition Leiden 2002–2011. (Original German ed.: Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart and Weimar 1996–2003.) CG Graf, F. ‘Cast of Characters of the Iliad: Gods (CG).’ In Prolegomena, 122–139. CH Stoevesandt, M. ‘Cast of Characters of the Iliad: Human Beings (CH).’ In Prolegomena, 140–150. Chantr. Chantraine, P. Grammaire homérique6 Paris 1986–1988 (11942–1953). (2 vols.) DELG Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Nouvelle édition avec, en supplément, les Chroniques d’étymologie grecque (1–10). Paris 2009 (11968–1980). Denniston Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934). DMic Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 vols.) Edwards Edwards, M.W. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. V: Books 17–20. Cambridge 1991. Faesi Homers Iliade4. Erklärt von J. U. Faesi, Leipzig 1864–1865 (11851–1852). Faulkner Faulkner, A. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Oxford 2008. Fernández-Galiano Fernández-Galiano, M. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) FOR Latacz, J. ‘Formularity and Orality (FOR).’ In Prolegomena, 39–64. Frisk Frisk, H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1960– 1972. (3 vols.) G Wachter, R. ‘Grammar of Homeric Greek (G).’ In Prolegomena, 65–115. Graziosi/Haubold Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer Iliad Book VI. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. AH




Iliad 4

Hainsworth on Il. 9–12 Hainsworth on Od. 5–8 HE Hoekstra HT HTN Hutchinson Janko de Jong on Od. de Jong on Il. 22 von Kamptz

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



Hainsworth, J.B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge 1993. Hainsworth, J. B. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I– VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.) The Homer Encyclopedia, ed. by M. Finkelberg. Chichester 2011. (3 vols.) Hoekstra, A. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI, Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1984.) West, M.L. ‘History of the Text (HT).’ In Prolegomena, 27–38. Latacz, J. (ed.) Homer. Tradition und Neuerung. Wege der Forschung 463. Darmstadt 1979. Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas, ed. with Introduction and Commentary by G. O. Hutchinson. Oxford 1985. Janko, R. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge 1992. Jong, I.J.F. de. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001. Jong, I.J.F. de. Homer Iliad Book XXII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2012. Kamptz, H. von. Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen and Zurich 1982. (Originally diss. Jena 1958.) Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904. (Reprint Hanover 1992.) (2 vols.) Kirk, G.S. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge 1985; vol. II: Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990. Homers Ilias, für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von J. La Roche. Theil 1: Gesang I – IV. Berlin 1870. The Iliad2. Ed. with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices by W. Leaf. London 1900–1902 (11886–1888). (2 vols.) Ilias. Cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentariis exegeticis ed. J. van Leeuwen. Leiden 1912–1913. (2 vols.). Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Founded by Bruno Snell. Prepared under the authority of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen and edited by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Göttingen 1955–2010. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Ed. by M. Kümmel, Th. Zehnder, R. Lipp and 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.) Nünlist, R. ‘Homeric Meter (M).’ In Prolegomena, 116–121. Wachter, R. ‘Homeric – Mycenaean Word Index (MYC).’ In Prolegomena, 236–258. Bierl, A. ‘New Trends in Homeric Scholarship (NTHS).’ In Prolegomena, 177–203. Olson, S.D. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts. Text, Translation and Commentary. Texte und Kommentare 39. Berlin and Boston 2012.

Bibliographic Abbreviations

P (superscript)


Nünlist, R. and I. de Jong. ‘Homeric Poetics in Keywords (P).’ In Prolegomena, 164–176. Paduano/Mirto Omero, Iliade. Traduzione e saggio introduttivo di G. Paduano. Commento di M. S. Mirto. Testo greco a fronte. Biblioteca della Pléiade. Turin 1997. PECS The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, ed. by R. Stillwell et al. Princeton 1976. Prolegomena Homer’s Iliad. The Basel Commentary: Prolegomena, ed. by A. Bierl, J. Latacz and S. D. Olson. Berlin and Boston 2015. RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition, ed. by G. Wissowa with the cooperation of numerous specialists. Stuttgart 1894–2000. Richardson Richardson, N.J. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge on Il. 21–24 1993. Risch Risch, E. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2. Berlin and New York 1974 (11937). Ruijgh Ruijgh, C.J. Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam 1971. Russo Russo, J. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1985.) Schadewaldt Homer Ilias, neue Übertragung von W. Schadewaldt. Frankfurt am Main 1975. Schw. Schwyzer, E., A. Debrunner, D. J. Georgacas and F. and S. Radt. Griechische Grammatik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.1.1–4. Munich 1939– 1994. (4 vols.) STR Latacz, J. ‘The Structure of the Iliad (STR).’ In Prolegomena, 151–163. ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, ed. by the Fondation pour le Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles 2004–2014. (8 vols. and indices.) Wathelet Wathelet, P. Dictionnaire des Troyens de l’Iliade. Université de Liège. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres. Documenta et Instrumenta 1. Liège 1988. (2 vols.) West Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M. L. West. Stuttgart etc. 1998–2000. (2 vols.) West on Hes. Op. Hesiod, Works and Days. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford 1978. West on Hes. Th. Hesiod, Theogony. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L. West. Oxford 1966. West on Od. 1–4 West, S. In A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1981.) Willcock Homer, Iliad. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by M. M. Willcock. London 1978–1984. (2 vols.)


Iliad 4

2 Editions of ancient authors and texts


Alcaeus (Voigt) in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971. Alcman (Calame) Alcman. Fragmenta edidit, veterum testimonia collegit C. Calame. Rome 1983. Callimachus • Callimachus, vol. 1: Fragmenta, ed. R. Pfeiffer. Oxford 1949. • Hecale also in Callimachus ‘Hecale’2, ed. with introduction and commentary by A. S. Hollis. Oxford 1997 (11990). Callinus (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol. 2, ed. M. L. West. Oxford 1992 (11972). ‘Epic Cycle’ • in Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. M. Davies. Göttingen 1988. • in Poetarum epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta, pars I2, ed. A. Bernabé. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1996 (11987). • in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge Mass. and London 2003. ‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.) • in: Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta3, edd. R. Merkelbach et M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970). • in Fragmenta Hesiodea, edd. R. Merkelbach et M. L. West. Oxford 1967. Hipponax (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol. 1, ed. M. L. West. Oxford 1992 (11972). Mimnermus (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol. 2, ed. M. L. West. Oxford 1992 (11972). Oedipodeia (West) in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge Mass. and London 2003. Phoronis (West) in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge Mass. and London 2003. Porphyrius (MacPhail) in Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Text, Translation, Commentary by J. A. MacPhail Jr. Texte und Kommentare 36. Berlin and New York 2011. Proclus (West) in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge Mass. and London 2003. Sappho (Voigt) in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971.

* Included are editions only of works for which different editors offer different verse, paragraph or fragment numbers.

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Scholia on the Iliad • Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), rec. H. Erbse. Berlin 1969–1988. (7 vols.) • Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manu scriptos. Proecdosis aucta et correctior, ed. H. van Thiel. Elektronische Schriftenreihe der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln 7. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/ (retrieved 18. 09. 2019). Scholia on the Odyssey (Pontani) Scholia graeca in Odysseam, ed. F. Pontani. Pleiadi 6. Rome 2007–. Solon (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol. 2, ed. M. L. West. Oxford 1992 (11972). Thebais (West) in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge Mass. and London 2003. Tyrtaeus (West) in Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol. 2, ed. M. L. West. Oxford 1992 (11972).

3 Articles and monographs Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique.* Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus). Halle. Ahrensdorf 2014 Ahrensdorf, P.J. Homer on the Gods and Human Virtue: Creating the Foundations of Classical Civilization. Cambridge. Albracht (1886) 2005 Albracht, F. Battle and Battle Description in the Iliad: A Contribution to the History of War. Transl. by P. Jones, M. Willcock and G. Wright. London. (German original: Kampf und Kampfschilderung bei Homer. Ein Beitrag zu den Kriegsaltertümern. Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Königlichen Landesschule Pforta 1886. Naumburg an der Saale 1886.) Alden 2000 Alden, M. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford. Allan 2003 Allan, R.J. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 11. Amsterdam. Allan 2010 Allan, R.J. ‘The infinitivus pro imperativo in Ancient Greek: The Imperatival Infinitive as an Expression of Proper Procedural Action.’ Mnemosyne 63: 203–228. Ammann 1956 Ammann, H. ‘Zum griechischen Verbaladjektiv auf -τος.’ In ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer 2. Mai 1866 – 9. Mai 1956, ed. by H. Kronasser, vol. 1, pp. 10–23. Vienna. Andersen 1978 Andersen, Ø. Die Diomedes-Gestalt in der Ilias. Symbolae Osloenses Suppl. 25. Oslo. Ahrens 1937

* A cumulative list can be found at: https://about.brepolis.net/lannee-philologique-aph/ (retrieved: 18. 09. 2019).

242 André 1964

Iliad 4

André, J. ‘La résine et la poix dans l’ antiquité. Technique e terminologie.’ AC 33: 86–97. Apthorp 1980 Apthorp, M.J. The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. 2.71. Heidelberg. Apthorp 1999 Apthorp, M.J. ‘Homer’s Winged Words and the Papyri: Some Questions of Authenticity.’ ZPE 128: 15–22. Apthorp 2003 Apthorp, M.J. ‘Iliad 4.188–213: P.Alex. inv. 80 + P.Berol. inv. 7119 Col. I.’ APF 49: 1–12. Apthorp 2005 Apthorp, M.J. ‘Some Aberdeen Fragments of Iliad 4 Newly Joined to Fragments of Berlin and Alexandria.’ APF 51: 40–58. Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin. Arnould 1990 Arnould, D. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon. Collection d’études anciennes, Série grecque 119. Paris. Bachvarova 2016 Bachvarova, M.R. From Hittite to Homer: The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic. Cambridge. Bäumlein 1861 Bäumlein, W. Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln. Stuttgart. Baitinger 2001 Baitinger, H. Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia. Olympische Forschungen 29. Berlin and New York. 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 (1991) 2005 Bakker, E.J. ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics.’ In Bakker 2005, 1–21. (Originally published as ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics in Homeric Diction: The Case of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ Mnemosyne 44 [1991] 63–84.) Bakker (1999) 2005 Bakker, E.J. ‘The Poetics of Deixis.’ In Bakker 2005, 71–91. (First published in CPh 94 [1999] 1–19; also in Nagy 2001, vol. 2, 313–331.) Bakker 2005 Bakker, E.J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Hellenic Studies 12. Cambridge Mass. and London. Bakker/van den Houten 1992 Bakker, E.J. and H. van den Houten. ‘Aspects of Synonymy in Homeric Diction: An Investigation of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ CPh 87: 1–13. Bannert 1988 Bannert, H. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Beispiele für eine Poetik des Epos. Wiener Studien, Beiheft 13. Vienna. Barck 1976 Barck, C. Wort und Tat bei Homer. Spudasmata 34. Hildesheim and New York. Bassett 1919 Bassett, S.E. ‘Versus tetracolos.’ CPh 14: 216–233. Bassett 1934 Bassett, S.E. ‘The Omission of the Vocative in Homeric Speeches.’ AJPh 55: 140–152. Bassett (1938) 2003 Bassett, S.E. The Poetry of Homer. New Edition, ed. with an introduction by B. Heiden. Sather Classical Lectures 15. Lanham etc. (11938). Bechert 1964 Bechert, J. Die Diathesen von ἰδεῖν und ὁρᾶν bei Homer. Munich. Bechtel 1917 Bechtel, F. Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit. Halle. Beck 2005 Beck, D. Homeric Conversation. Cambridge Mass. and London. Beck 1988 Beck, W. ‘Ἀργειώνη in the Hesiodic Catalog and Antimachos.’ ZPE 73: 1–7.

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Becker, A.S. The Shield of Achilles and the Poetics of Ekphrasis. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham. Beckmann 1932 Beckmann, J.T. Das Gebet bei Homer. Würzburg. Bedke 2016 Bedke, A. Der gute Ton bei Homer. Ausprägung sprachlicher Höflichkeit in Ilias und Odyssee. Orbis antiquus 49. Münster. Beekes 2003 Beekes, R.S.P. ‘The Origin of Apollo.’ Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3: 1–21. Belfiore 2009 Belfiore, E. ‘Rebuke and Anger in Plato’s Apology.’ Anais de Filosofia Clássica 5: 16–29. Benda-Weber 2005 Benda-Weber, I. Lykier und Karer. Zwei autochthone Ethnien Kleinasiens zwischen Orient und Okzident. Asia Minor Studien 56. Bonn. Bennett 1997 Bennett, M.J. Belted Heroes and Bound Women: The Myth of the Homeric Warrior-King. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Benveniste 1935 Benveniste, E. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris. Bergold 1977 Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos (Zu Ilias Γ 1 – Λ 222). Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klassische Philologie 28. Bonn. Bernsdorff 1992 Bernsdorff, H. Zur Rolle des Aussehens im homerischen Menschenbild. Hypomnemata 97. Göttingen. Bierl et al. 2004 Bierl, A., A. Schmitt and A. Willi (eds.). Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Festschrift für Joachim Latacz anläßlich seines 70. Geburtstages. Munich and Leipzig. Bierl 2011 Bierl, A. ‘Fest und Spiele in der griechischen Literatur.’ In ThesCRA 7: 125– 160. Bierl 2012 Bierl, A. ‘Orality, Fluid Textualization and Interweaving Themes. Some Remarks on the Doloneia: Magical Horses from Night to Light and Death to Life.’ In Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry, ed. by F. Montanari, A. Rengakos and C. Tsagalis, pp. 133–174. Trends in Classics Supplementary Volume 12. Berlin. Bierl 2016 Bierl, A. ‘Lived Religion and the Construction of Meaning in Greek Literary Texts: Genre, Context, Occasion.’ RRE 2: 10–37. Bierl 2016a Bierl, A. ‘Visualizing the Cologne Sappho: Mental Imagery Through Chorality, the Sun, and Orpheus.’ In The Look of Lyric: Greek Song and the Visual. Studies in Archaic and Classical Greek Song, vol. 1, ed. by V. Cazzato and A. Lardinois, pp. 307–342. Leiden. (More detailed version: ‘Der neue Sappho–Papyrus aus Köln und Sapphos Erneuerung. Virtuelle Choralität, Eros, Tod, Orpheus und Musik.’ online 2009 http://www.chs.harvard.edu/ CHS/article/display/2122) Billot 1997 Billot, M.-F. ‘Recherches archéologiques récentes à l’Héraion d’Argos.’ In Héra. Images, espaces, cultes. Actes du colloque International du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Lille III et de l’Association P.R.A.C., Lille 29–30 novembre 1993, ed. by J. de la Genière, pp. 11–81. Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 15. Naples. Bird 2010 Bird, G.D. Multitextuality in the Homeric Iliad: The Witness of the Ptolemaic Papyri. Hellenic Studies 43. Cambridge Mass. and London. Blom 1936 Blom, J.W.S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I. Triaden, hebdomaden en enneaden. Nijmegen. Blum 1998 Blum, H. Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt. Antiquitas, Reihe 1: Abhandlungen zur Alten Geschichte 47. Bonn. Becker 1995


Iliad 4

Boedeker, D.D. Aphrodite’s Entry into Greek Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 32. Leiden. de Boel 1993 Boel, G. de. ‘À propos des sujets inanimés chez Homère.’ In Miscellanea linguistica Graeco-Latina, ed. by L. Isebaert, pp. 37–69. Collection d’études classiques 7. Namur. Böhme 1929 Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin. Bonifazi 2012 Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Hellenic Studies 50. Washington, D.C. Bopham/Lemos 1995 Bopham, M.R. and I. S. Lemos. ‘A Euboean Warrior Trader.’ OJA 14: 151– 157. Brandenburg 1977 Brandenburg, H. ‘Μίτρα, ζωστήρ und ζῶμα.’ ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 119–143. Göttingen. Braund/Gilbert 2003 Braund, S. and G. Gilbert. ‘An ABC of Epic ira: Anger, Beasts, and Cannibalism.’ In Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, ed. by S. Braund and G. W. Most, pp. 250–285. Yale Classical Studies 32. Cambridge. Bravo 1980 Bravo, B. ‘Sulân. Représailles et justice privée contre des étrangers dans les cités grecques (Étude du vocabulaire et des institutions).’ Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Cl. di Lettere e Filosofia 3.10: 675–987. Bremmer 1983 Bremmer, J.N. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton. Brunius-Nilsson 1955 Brunius-Nilsson, E. ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ: An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature. Uppsala. Bruns 1970 Bruns, G. ‘Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten.’ ArchHom chap. Q. Göttingen. Bryce 1977 Bryce, T.R. ‘Pandaros, a Lycian at Troy.’ AJPh 98: 213–218. Bryce 1990/91 Bryce, T.R. ‘Lycian Apollo and the Authorship of the Rhesus.’ CJ 86: 144–149. Bryce 2006 Bryce, T. The Trojans and Their Neighbours. London and New York. Buchan 2012 Buchan, M. Perfidity and Passion: Reintroducing the Iliad. Madison. Buchholz 2010 Buchholz, H.G. ‘Kriegswesen, Teil 3: Ergänzungen und Zusammenfassung.’ ArchHom chap. E 3. Göttingen. Buchholz 2012 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Erkennungs-, Rang- und Würdezeichen.’ ArchHom chap. D. Göttingen. Buchholz et al. 1973 Buchholz, H.-G., G. Jöhrens and I. Maull. ‘Jagd und Fischfang.’ ArchHom chap. J. Göttingen. Burkert (1972) 1997 Burkert, W. Homo Necans. Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen2. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 32. Berlin and New York (11972). Burkert (1977) 2011 Burkert, W. Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche2. Die Religionen der Menschheit 15. Stuttgart (11977). Burkert (1981) 2001 Burkert, W. ‘Seven against Thebes: An Oral Tradition between Babylonian Magic and Greek Literature.’ In Burkert 2001, 150–165. (First published in Poemi epici rapsodici non omerici e la tradizione orale. Atti del convegno di Venezia, 28–30 settembre 1977, ed. by C. Brillante, M. Cantilena and C. O. Pavese, pp. 29–48. Padua.) Burkert (1998) 2001 Burkert, W. ‘La cité d’Argos entre la tradition mycénienne, dorienne et homérique.’ In Burkert 2001, 166–177. (First published in Les Panthéons des cités des origines à la Périgèse de Pausanias. Actes du Colloque organisé à l’université de Liège du 15 au 17 mai 1997 [2e partie], ed. by V. PirenneDelforge, pp. 47–59. Kernos Supplement 8. Liège 1998.) Boedeker 1974

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Burkert, W. Kleine Schriften I. Homerica, ed. by C. Riedweg. Hypomnemata Suppl. 2. Göttingen. Cairns 1993 Cairns, D.L. Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford. Cairns 2001 Cairns, D.L. (ed.) Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford. Cairns 2001a Cairns, D.L. ‘Affronts and Quarrels in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, 203–219. Cairns 2003 Cairns, D.L. ‘Ethics, Ethology, Terminology. Iliadic Anger and the CrossCultural 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 2012 Cairns, D.L. ‘«Atē» in the Homeric Poems.’ Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 15: 1–52. Calhoun 1934 Calhoun, G.M. ‘Classes and Masses in Homer.’ CPh 29: 192–208, 301–316. Camerotto 2009 Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: compositione e racconto nell’epica greca arcaica. Padua. Canciani 1984 Canciani, F. ‘Bildkunst, Teil 2.’ ArchHom chap. N 2. Göttingen. 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. Carlisle 1999 Carlisle, M. ‘Homeric Fictions: Pseudo-Words in Homer.’ In Nine Essays on Homer, ed. by M. Carlisle and O. Levaniouk, pp. 55–91. Lanham etc. Catling 1977 Catling, H.W. ‘Panzer.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (‘Kriegswesen, Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten’), pp. 74–118. Göttingen. Cauer 1923 Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3. Zweite Hälfte, ed. by E. Bruhn, Leipzig (11895). Chantraine 1931 Chantraine, P. ‘Notes homériques.’ RPh 57: 122–127. Chantraine 1933 Chantraine, P. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Collection linguistique 38. Paris. Chantraine 1954 Chantraine, P. ‘Le divin et les dieux chez Homère.’ In La notion du divin depuis Homère jusqu’ à Platon, pp. 47–94. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 1. Vandœuvres and Geneva. Christensen 2010 Christensen, J.P. ‘First-Person Futures in Homer.’ AJPh 131: 543–571. Christensen/Barker 2011 Christensen, J.P. and E. T. E. Barker. ‘On not Remembering Tydeus: Agamemnon, Diomedes and the Contest for Thebes.’ Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 66: 9–43. Clark 1997 Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Lanham etc. Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Classen (1851–1857) 1867 Classen, J. Beobachtungen über den Homerischen Sprachgebrauch. Frankfurt am Main 1867. (Originally published as five individual studies that appeared in the Frankfurt Gymnasialprogrammen in 1854–57 and in a Lübeck Programm in 1851.) Clay 2011 Clay, J.S. Homer’s Trojan Theater: Space, Vision, and Memory in the Iliad. Cambridge. Collobert 2011 Collobert, C. Parier sur le temps. La quête héroïque d’immortalité dans l’épopée homérique. Collection d’études anciennes 143. Paris. Burkert 2001


Iliad 4

Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux tragiques. Paris. Crielaard 2002 Crielaard, J.P. ‘Past or Present? Epic Poetry, Aristocratic Self-Presentation and the Concept of Time in the Eight and Seventh Centuries BC.’ In Montanari 2002, 239–296. Crouwel 1981 Crouwel, J.H. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amsterdam. Crouwel 1992 Crouwel, J.H. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 9. Amsterdam. Cuillandre 1943 Cuillandre, J. La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques. En concordance avec la doctrine pythagoricienne et avec la tradition celtique. Paris. Cuypers 2005 Cuypers, M. ‘Interactional Particles and Narrative Voice in Apollonius and Homer.’ In Beginning from Apollo: Studies in Apollonius Rhodius and the Argonautic Tradition, ed. by A. Harder and M. Cuypers, pp. 35–69. Caeculus 6. Leuven etc. Danek 2006 Danek, G. ‘Antenor und seine Familie in der Ilias.’ WS 119: 5–22. Davies (1989) 2001 Davies, M. The Greek Epic Cycle. London 22001 (11989). Davies 2014 Davies, M. The Theban Epics. Hellenic Studies 69. Cambridge Mass. 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 etc. Deger 1970 Deger, S. Herrschaftsformen bei Homer. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 43. Vienna. Delebecque 1951 Delebecque, E. Le cheval dans l’Iliade. Paris. Dentice di Accadia 2012 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. Omero e i suoi oratori. Tecniche di persuasione nell’Iliade. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 302. Berlin and Boston. Derderian 2001 Derderian, K. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Literacy. Mnemosyne Supplement 209. Leiden etc. Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero2. Turin (11994). Di Benedetto 2000 Di Benedetto, V. ‘Anafore incipitarie nell’Iliade.’ Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi di testi classici 45: 9–41. Dietrich 1965 Dietrich, B.C. Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer. University of London Classical Studies 3. London. Dihle 1970 Dihle, A. Homer-Probleme. Opladen. Dirlmeier 1966 Dirlmeier, F. Die Giftpfeile des Odysseus (Zu Odyssee 1.252–266). Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse 1966.2. Heidelberg. Donlan 1971 Donlan, W. ‘Homer’s Agamemnon.’ CW 65: 109–115. Drerup 1921 Drerup E. Das Homerproblem in der Gegenwart. Prinzipien und Methoden der Homererklärung. Homerische Poetik 1. Würzburg. Dubel 2011 Dubel, S. ‘Changements de voix: sur l’apostrophe au personnage dans l’Iliade.’ In Vox poetae. Manifestations auctoriales dans l’épopée grécolatine. Actes du colloque organisé les 13 et 14 novembre 2008 par l’Université Lyon 3, ed. by E. Raymond, pp. 129–144. Paris. Corlu 1966

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Duckworth, G.E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epic of Homer, Apollonius, and Vergil. Princeton. Dué/Ebbott 2010 Dué, C. and M. Ebbott. Iliad 10 and the Poetics of Ambush: A Multitext Edition with Essays and Commentary. Hellenic Studies 39. Cambridge Mass. and London. Eck 2012 Eck, B. La mort rouge. Homicide, guerre et souillure en Grèce ancienne Collection d’ Études Anciennes. Série grecque 145. Paris. Eckstein 1974 Eckstein, F. ‘Handwerk, Teil 1: Die Aussagen des frühgriechischen Epos.’ ArchHom chap. L 1. Göttingen. Edmunds 1990 Edmunds, S.T. Homeric Nēpios. Harvard Dissertations in Classics. New York and London. Edwards 1970 Edwards, M.W. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions.’ HSCPh 74: 1–36. Edwards 1987 Edwards, M.W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London. Edwards 2002 Edwards, M. E. Sound, Sense, and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Poetry. Princeton and Oxford. Egetmeyer 2007 Egetmeyer, M. ‘Lumière sur les loups d’Apollon.’ Res Antiquae 4: 205–219. Egli 1954 Egli, J.E. Heteroklisie im Griechischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Fälle von Gelenkheteroklisie. Zurich. Ellendt (1861) 1979 Ellendt, J.E. ‘Einiges über den Einfluss des Metrums auf den Gebrauch von Wortformen und Wortverbindungen im Homer.’ In HTN, 60–87. (First published as Programm Königsberg 1861; also in J. E. Ellendt. Drei Homerische Abhandlungen, pp. 1–34. Leipzig 1864.) Elliger 1975 Elliger, W. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15. Berlin and New York. Elmer 2012 Elmer, D.F. ‘Building Community across the Battle-Lines: The Truce in Iliad 3 and 4.’ In Maintaining Peace and Interstate Stability in Archaic and Classical Greece, ed. by J. Wilker, pp. 25–48. Studien zur Alten Geschichte 16. Mainz. Elmer 2013 Elmer, D.F. The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad. Baltimore. Erbse 1980 Erbse, H. ‘Zur normativen Grammatik der Alexandriner.’ Glotta 58: 236–258. Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York. Erbse (1993) 2003 Erbse, H. ‘Nestor und Antilochos bei Homer und Arktinos.’ In Erbse 2003, 75–93. (First published in Hermes 121 [1993] 385–403.) Erbse (2000) 2003 Erbse, H. ‘Beobachtungen über die Gleichnisse der Ilias Homers.’ In Erbse 2003, 136–153. (First published in Hermes 128 [2000] 257–274.) Erbse 2003 Erbse, H. Studien zur griechischen Dichtung. Stuttgart. van Erp 2000 van Erp Taalman Kip, A.M. ‘The Gods of the Iliad and the Fate of Troy.’ Mnemosyne 53: 385–402. Erren 1970 Erren, M. ‘αὐτίκα «sogleich» als Signal der einsetzenden Handlung in Ilias und Odyssee.’ Poetica 3: 24–58. Falkner (1989) 1995 Falkner, T.M. ‘On the Threshold. Homeric Heroism, Old Age and The End of the Odyssey.’ In T. M. Falkner. The Poetics of Old Age in Greek Epic, Lyric and Tragedy, pp. 3–51. Norman. (First published in Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature, ed. by T. M. Falkner and J. de Luce, pp. 21–67. Albany 1989.) Duckworth 1933


Iliad 4

Farron, S. ‘Attitudes to Military Archery in the Iliad.’ In Literature, Art, History: Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition in Honour of W. J. Henderson, ed. by A. F. Basson and W. J. Dominik, pp. 169–184. Frankfurt am Main. Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias. Berlin. Fenik 1968 Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Descriptions. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden. Fenik 1974 Fenik, B. Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden. Fingerle 1939 Fingerle, A. Typik der Homerischen Reden. Munich. Finsler 1906 Finsler, G. ‘Das dritte und vierte Buch der Ilias.’ Hermes 41: 426–440. Finsler (1916) 1918 Finsler, G. Homer. Zweiter Teil: Inhalt und Aufbau der Gedichte2. Leipzig and Berlin (11916). Flaig 1994 Flaig, E. ‘Das Konsensprinzip im homerischen Olymp. Überlegungen zum göttlichen Entscheidungsprozess Ilias 4.1–72.’ Hermes 122: 13–31. Foltiny 1967 Foltiny, S. ‘The Ivory Horse Bits of Homer and the Bone Horse Bits of Reality.’ BJ 167: 11–37. Fornaro 1992 Fornaro, S. Glauco e Diomede. Lettura di Iliade VI 119–236. Venosa. Forssman 1978 Forssman, B. ‘Homerisch δειδέχαται und Verwandtes.’ Sprache 24: 3–24. Forssman 1980 Forssman, B. ‘Ein unbekanntes Lautgesetz in der homerischen Sprache?’ In Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der 6. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 24.–29. September 1978, ed. by M. Mayrhofer, M. Peters and O. E. Pfeiffer, pp. 180–198. Wiesbaden. Fraenkel 1910 Fraenkel, E. Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agentis auf -τήρ, -τωρ, -της (-τ-). Erster Teil: Entwicklung und Verbreitung der Nomina im Epos, in der Elegie und in den außerionisch-attischen Dialekten. Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 1. Strasbourg. Fraenkel 1910a Fraenkel, E. ‘Beiträge zur griechischen Grammatik.’ ZVS 43: 193–219. Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen (= 21977: unaltered reprint with an afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch; translated in part 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]). Frame 2009 Frame, D. Hippota Nestor. Hellenic Studies 37. Cambridge Mass. Franz 2002 Franz, J.P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europäischen Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt am Main. Friedländer (1914) 1969 Friedländer, P. ‘Kritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Heldensage.’ In P. Freidländer. Studien zur antiken Literatur und Kunst, pp. 19–53. Berlin. (First published in RhM N.F. 69 [1914] 299–341.) Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theorie der epischen Gattung. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. 2.55. Heidelberg. Friedrich 2007 Friedrich, R. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches. Hermes Einzelschriften 100. Stuttgart. Friedrich (1956) 2003 Friedrich, W.-H. Wounding and Death in the Iliad: Homeric Techniques of Description, transl. by P. Jones and G. Wright, with a new appendix by K. Saunders. London. (German original: Verwundung und Tod in der Ilias. Homerische Darstellungsweisen. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 3.38. Göttingen.) Farron 2003

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Fritz, M.A. Die trikasuellen Lokalpartikeln bei Homer. Syntax und Semantik. Historische Sprachforschung Ergänzungsheft 44. Göttingen. Fuchs 1993 Fuchs, E. Pseudologia. Formen und Funktionen fiktionaler Trugrede in der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Heidelberg. Führer/Schmidt 2001 Führer, R. and M. Schmidt. ‘Homerus redivivus.’ Review of Homerus, Ilias, vol. 1. recensuit/testimonia congessit M. L. West. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998. GGA 253: 1–32. Gagliardi 2007 Gagliardi, P. I due volti della gloria. I lamenti funebri omerici tra poesia e antropologia. Bari. Gagné 2010 Gagné, R. ‘The Poetics of exôleia in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 63: 353–380. Garcia 2013 Garcia Jr., L.F. Homeric Durability: Telling Time in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies 58. Cambridge Mass. and London. Gaskin 1990 Gaskin, R. ‘Do Homeric Heroes Make Real Decisions?’ CQ 40: 1–14. Gavrylenko 2012 Gavrylenko, V. ‘The «Body without Skin» in the Homeric Poems.’ In Blood, Sweat and Tears – The Changing Concepts of Physiology from Antiquity into Early Modern Europe, ed. by M. Horstmanshoff et al., pp. 481–502. Intersections 25. Leiden and Boston. Gehrke 2014 Gehrke, H.-J. Geschichte als Element antiker Kultur. Die Griechen und ihre Geschichte(n). Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Werten 2. Berlin and Boston. George 2005 George, C.H. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge. Gernet 1968 Gernet, L. Anthropologie de la Grèce antique. Préface de Jean-Pierre Vernant. Paris. Giannakis 1997 Giannakis, G.K. Studies in the Syntax and Semantics of the Reduplicated Presents of Homeric Greek and Indo-European. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 90. Innsbruck. Göbel 1933 Göbel, F. Formen und Formeln der epischen Dreiheit in der griechischen Dichtung. Stuttgart. Graf 2009 Graf, F. Apollo. Gods and Heroes of the Ancient World. London and New York. Gray 1974 Gray, D. ‘Seewesen.’ ArchHom chap. G. Göttingen. Greenhalgh 1973 Greenhalgh, P.A.L. Early Greek Warfare: Horsemen and Chariots in the Homeric and Archaic Ages. Cambridge. Griffin 1978 Griffin, J. ‘The Divine Audience and the Religion of the Iliad.’ CQ 28: 1–22. (Shorter version in Griffin 1980, 179–204.) Griffin 1980 Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. Griffin 1986 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers.’ JHS 106: 36–57. Grimm 1962 Grimm, J. ‘Die Partikel ἄρα im frühen griechischen Epos.’ Glotta 40: 3–41. Gruber 1963 Gruber, J. Über einige abstrakte Begriffe des frühen Griechischen. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 9. Meisenheim am Glan. Gschnitzer 1991 Gschnitzer, F. ‘Zur homerischen Staats- und Gesellschaftsordnung: Grundcharakter und geschichtliche Stellung.’ In Latacz 1991, 182–204. Gundert 1983 Gundert, B. τέλος und τελεῖν bei Homer. Kiel. Gygli-Wyss 1966 Gygli-Wyss, B. Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung Ergänzungsheft 18. Göttingen. Hackstein 2002 Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morphologischer Variabilität in literarischen Frü hformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, Sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden. Fritz 2005


Iliad 4

Häussler, R. Hera und Juno. Wandlungen und Beharrung einer Göttin. Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang GoetheUniversität Frankfurt am Main, Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe 10. Stuttgart. Haft 1989/1990 Haft, A.J. ‘Odysseus’ Wrath and Grief in the Iliad: Agamemnon, the Ithacan King, and the Sack of Troy in Books 2, 4, and 14.’ CJ 85: 97–114. Handschur 1970 Handschur, E. Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den homerischen Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 39. Vienna. Hanson 1991 Hanson, V.D. ‘Hoplite Technology in Phalanx Battle.’ In V. D. Hanson (ed.). Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, pp. 63–84. London and New York. Haubold 2000 Haubold, J. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge. 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 2000 Heiden, B. ‘Narrative Discontinuity and Segment Marking at Iliad 3/4, 7/8, and 10/11, and Odyssey 4/5, 17/18, and 23/24.’ Classica et Mediaevalia 51: 6–16. Heiden 2008 Heiden, B. Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad. Oxford and New York. Heitsch 2008 Heitsch, E. ‘Zur Genese unserer Ilias. Ein Beispiel.’ RhM 151: 225–244. Helbig (1884) 1887 Helbig, W. Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert. Archäologische Untersuchungen2. Leipzig (11884). Hellmann 2000 Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart. Hentze 1902 Hentze, C. ‘Die Formen der Begrüssung in den homerischen Gedichten.’ Philologus 61: 321–355. Hermann 1827 Hermann, G. Opuscula, vol. 2. Leipzig. (Reprint Hildesheim 1970.) Heubeck 1984 Heubeck, A. ‘Zu den griechischen Ortsnamen mit -ṷent-Suffix.’ In A. Heubeck. Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Sprache und Literatur, pp. 491– 497. Erlanger Forschungen, Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften 33. Erlangen. (First published in Beiträge zur Namenforschung 11 [1960] 4–10.) Higbie 1990 Higbie, C. Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad. Oxford. Higbie 1995 Higbie, C. Heroes’ Names, Homeric Identities. Albert Bates Lord Studies in Oral Tradition 10. New York and London. Hintenlang 1961 Hintenlang, H. Untersuchungen zu den Homer-Aporien des Aristoteles. Munich. Hitch 2009 Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Royal Authority in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies 25. Cambridge Mass. and London. Höckmann 1980 Höckmann, O. ‘Lanze und Speer.’ In ‘Kriegswesen. Teil 2: Angriffswaffen, ed. by H.-G. Buchholz (with contributions by S. Foltiny and O. Höckmann).’ ArchHom chap. E 2, pp. 275–319. Göttingen. Hoekstra 1965 Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modification of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the Development of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, N.R. 71.1. Amsterdam. Häussler 1995

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Hogan 1981 Hogan, J.C. ‘Eris in Homer.’ GB 10: 21–58. Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I.M. Manners in Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 63. Leiden. Holmes 2007 Holmes, B. ‘The Iliad’s Economy of Pain.’ TAPhA 137: 45–84. Hölscher 1994 Hölscher, U. ‘Kontinuität als epische Denkform. Zum Problem der «dunklen Jahrhunderte».’ In U. Hölscher. Das nächste Fremde. Von Texten der griechischen Frühzeit und ihrem Reflex in der Moderne, ed. by J. Latacz and M. Kraus, pp. 6–22. Munich. Hooker (1987) 1996 Hooker, J.T. ‘Homeric Society: A Shame-Culture?’ In J. T. Hooker. Scripta Minora: Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek Subjects, ed. by F. Armory, P. Considine and S. Hooker, pp. 521–525. Amsterdam. (First published in G&R 34 [1987] 121–125.) Horn 2014 Horn, F. Held und Heldentum bei Homer. Das homerische Heldenkonzept und seine poetische Verwendung. Classica Monacensia 47. Tübingen. Iakovides 1977 Iakovides, S. ‘Vormykenische und mykenische Wehrbauten.’ In Buchholz, H.-G. and J. Wiesner. ‘Kriegswesen Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten.’ ArchHom chap. E 1, pp. 161–221. Göttingen. Irmscher 1950 Irmscher, J. Götterzorn bei Homer. Leipzig. Irwin 1974 Irwin, E. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto. Jahn 1987 Jahn, T. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele–Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83. Munich. Janko 2000 Janko, R. ‘West’s Iliad.’ Review of Homerus, Ilias, vol. 1. recensuit/ testimonia congessit M. L. West. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998. CR 50: 1–4. Janko 2012 Janko, R. ‘πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατον αἰεὶ ἀείδειν: Relative Chronology and the Literary History of the Early Greek Epos.’ In Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, ed. by Ø. Andersen and D. T. T. Haug, pp. 20–43. Cambridge. Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 21. Göttingen. Janse 1997 Janse, M. Review of J. N. Adams. Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical Latin. Cambridge Philological Society Supplement 18. Cambridge 1994. Kratylos 42: 105–115. Jenniges 1998 Jenniges, W. ‘Les Lyciens dans l’Iliade: sur les traces de Pandaros.’ In Quaestiones Homericae. Acta Colloquii Namurcensis 1995, ed. by L. Isebaert and R. Lebrun, pp. 119–147. Louvain and Namur. de Jong 1987 Jong, I.J.F. de. ‘The Voice of Anonymity: tis-Speeches in the Iliad.’ Eranos 85: 69–84. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 258–273.) de Jong (1987) 2004 Jong, I.J.F. de. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987). de Jong 1998 Jong, I.J.F. de. ‘Homeric Epithet and Narrative Situation.’ In Homerica: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposion on the Odyssey (1.– 5. September 1996), ed. by M. Païsi-Apostolopoulou, pp. 121–135. Ithaka. de Jong 1999 Jong, I.J.F. de (ed.). Homer: Critical Assessments. Vol. 2: The Homeric, World; Vol. 3: Literary Interpretation; Vol. 4: Homer’s Art. London and New York. de Jong 2007 Jong, I.J.F de. ‘Homer.’ In Time in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Narrative, vol. 2, ed. by I.J.F. de Jong and R. Nünlist, pp. 17–37. Mnemosyne Supplement 291. Leiden and Boston.


Iliad 4

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. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, NF 21. Berlin and Boston. de Jong 2012a Jong, I.J.F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Space in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, ed. by I.J.F. de Jong, pp. 21–38. Mnemosyne Supplement 339. London and Boston. de Jong/Nünlist 2004 Jong, I.J.F. de and R. Nünlist. ‘From Bird’s Eye View to Close-Up: The Standpoint of the Narrator in the Homeric Epics.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 63–83. Kahane 1994 Kahane, A. The Interpretation of Order: A Study in the Poetics of Homeric Repetition. Oxford. Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki. Kakridis 1981 Kakridis, J.T. ‘Zur epischen Onomatologie.’ In Gnomosyne. Menschliches Denken und Handeln in der frühgriechischen Literatur. Festschrift für Walter Marg zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by G. Kurz, D. Müller and W. Nicolai, pp. 47– 52. Munich. Kanavou 2015 Kanavou, N. The Names of Homeric Heroes: Problems and Interpretations. Sozomena 15. Berlin and Boston. Karavites 1992 Karavites, P. (with the collaboration of T. Wren). Promise-Giving and TreatyMaking: Homer and the Near East. Mnemosyne Suppl. 119. Leiden etc. Kearns 2004 Kearns, E. ‘The Gods in the Homeric Epics.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Homer, ed. by R. Fowler, pp. 59–73. Cambridge. Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Kelly 2012 Kelly, A. ‘The Mourning of Thetis: «Allusion» and the Future in the Iliad.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, 221–265. Kemper 1960 Kemper, H.D. Rat und Tat. Studien zur Darstellung eines antithetischen Begriffspaares in der klassischen Periode der griechischen Literatur. Bonn. Kitts 2005 Kitts, M. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society: Oath-Making Rituals and Narratives in the Iliad. Cambridge. Klein 1988 Klein, J.S. ‘Homeric Greek αὖ: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Study.’ HSF 101: 249–288. Klinkott 2004 Klinkott, M. ‘Die Wehrmauern von Troia VI – Bauaufnahme und Auswertung.’ Studia Troica 14: 33–85. Kloss 1994 Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgriechischen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen. Koppenhöfer 1997 Koppenhöfer, D. ‘Troia VII – Versuch einer Zusammenschau einschließlich der Ergebnisse des Jahres 1995.’ Studia Troica 7: 295–353. Korfmann/Zidarov 2006 Korfmann, M.O. and P. Zidarov. ‘Trensenknebel in Troia.’ In Grundlegungen: Beiträge der europäischen und afrikanischen Archäologie für Manfred K. H. Eggert, ed. by H.-P. Wotzka, in collaboration with J. Bofinger et al., pp. 676–690. Tübingen. Krapp 1964 Krapp, H.J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich.

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Munich. Kromayer/Veith 1928 Kromayer, J. and G. Veith. Heerwesen und Kriegsführung der Griechen und Römer. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 4.3.2. Munich. Kullmann 1956 Kullmann, W. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Entstehung des homerischen ‘Götterapparats’. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft 1. Berlin. Kullmann 1960 Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Einzelschriften 14. Wiesbaden. Kullmann (1981) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Zur Methode der Neoanalyse in der Homerforschung.’ In Kullmann 1992, 67–99. (First published in WS 15 [1981] 5–42.) Kullmann (1988) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘«Oral tradition/oral history» und die frühgriechische Epik.’ In Kullmann 1992, 156–169. (First published in Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung, ed. by J. von Ungern-Sternberg and H. Reinau, pp. 184–196. Colloquium Rauricum 1. Stuttgart 1988.) Kullmann (1991) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung zu Homer (Neoanalyse).’ In Kullmann 1992, 100–134. (Shorter, earlier version in Latacz 1991, 425–455.) Kullmann 1992 Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R.J. Müller. Stuttgart. Kullmann 2005 Kullmann, W. ‘Ilias und Aithiopis.’ Hermes 133: 9–28. Kumpf 1984 Kumpf, M.M. Four Indices of the Homeric Hapax Legomena. Alpha – Omega, Reihe A 46. Hildesheim etc. Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. 2.11. Heidelberg. de Lamberterie 1990 Lamberterie, C. de. Les adjectifs grecs en -υς. Sémantique et comparaison. Bibliothèque des cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 54–55. Louvain-la-Neuve. (2 vols.) de Lamberterie 1994 Lamberterie, C. de. ‘Grec ΣΚΥΖΑΝ, ΣΚΥΖΕΣΘΑΙ et les grognements d’ Héra.’ REG 107: 15–44. Lammert 1921 Lammert, F. ‘Schlachtordnung.’ RE 2.3: coll. 436–494. Lammert 1931 Lammert, F. ‘Synaspismos.’ RE 2.7: coll. 1328–1330. Lammert 1938 Lammert, F. ‘Phalanx.’ RE 19.2: coll. 1625–1646. Lämmert 1955 Lämmert, E. Bauformen des Erzählens. Stuttgart. Landfester 1966 Landfester, M. Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen. Spudasmata 11. Hildesheim. Lange 1872/73 Lange, L. Der homerische Gebrauch der Partikel εἰ. Abhandlungen der Phil.Hist. Klasse der Sächsischen Gesellschaft 6.4 and 6.5. Leipzig. Lardinois 1997 Lardinois, A. ‘Modern Paroemiology and the Use of Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ CPh 92: 213–234. Laser 1983 Laser, S. ‘Medizin und Körperpflege.’ ArchHom chap. S. Göttingen. Latacz 1966 Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. 2.17. Heidelberg. Latacz 1969 Latacz, J. Review of A. Citron. Semantische Untersuchungen zu σπένδεσθαι – σπένδειν – εὔχεσθαι. Winterthur 1965. Gnomon 41: 347–353. Latacz 1977 Latacz, J. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Zetemata 66. Munich. Krischer 1971


Iliad 4

Latacz (1985) 1996 Latacz, J. Homer: His Art and His World, transl. by J. P. Holoka. Ann Arbor. (German original: Homer. Der erste Dichter des Abendlands. Munich and Zurich 1985; Düsseldorf 42003.) Latacz 1991 Latacz, J. (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homerforschung. Rückblick und Ausblick. Colloquium Rauricum 2. Stuttgart. Latacz (1991) 2004 Latacz, J. Archaische Periode. Die griechische Literatur in Text und Darstellung3, vol. 1, ed. by H. Görgemanns. Stuttgart (11991). Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery, transl. 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 2001; Munich and Zurich 42003; expanded ed. Leipzig 62010.) Latacz (2001) 2010 Latacz, J. Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels6. Leipzig (Munich and Berlin 12001.) Latacz (2002) 2014 Latacz, J. ‘Troia – Wilios – Wilusa. Drei Namen für ein Territorium.’ In Latacz 2014, 443–468. (First published in Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, ed. by R. Aslan et al.., vol. 3, pp. 1103–1121. Remshalden-Grunbach.) Latacz 2007 Latacz, J. ‘A Battlefield of the Emotions: Homer’s Helen.’ In Άθλα και Έπαθλα στα Ομηρικά Έπη (Contests and Rewards in the Homeric Epics). Από τα Πρακτικά του Ι’ Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια (15.–19. 9. 2004), ed. by M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, A. Rengakos and C. Tsagalis, pp. 87–100. Ithaka. Latacz 2008 Latacz, J. ‘Der Beginn von Schriftlichkeit und Literatur.’ 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. ;62–69. Munich. Latacz (2011) 2014 Latacz, J. ‘Zu Homers Person.’ In Latacz 2014, 41–85. (First published in Homer-Handbuch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung, ed. by A. Rengakos and B. Zimmermann, pp. 1–25. Stuttgart and Weimar 2011.) Latacz (2011a) 2014 Latacz, J. ‘Strukturiertes Gedächtnis. Zur Überlieferung der TroiaGeschichte durch die «Dunklen Jahrhunderte».’ In Latacz 2014, 469–511. (First published in Der Orient und die Anfänge Europas. Kulturelle Beziehungen von der Späten Bronzezeit bis zur Frü hen Eisenzeit, ed. by H. Matthäus, N. Oettinger and S. Schröder, pp. 135–166. Wiesbaden 2011.) Latacz 2014 Latacz, J. Homers Ilias. Studien zu Dichter, Werk und Rezeption (Kleine Schriften II), ed. by T. Greub, K. Greub-Frącz and A. Schmitt. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 327. Berlin and Boston. Latacz 2017 Latacz, J. ‘Vom unbekannten Anfang bis zum bekannten Ende. Das VersEpos im Überblick.’ In Anfänge und Enden. Narrative Potentiale des antiken und nachantiken Epos, ed. by C. Schmitz et al., pp. 37–60. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. 2.154. Heidelberg. Leimbach 1980 Leimbach, R. Review of Latacz 1977. Gnomon 52: 419–425. Lejeune 1947 Lejeune, M. Traité de phonétique grecque. Collection de philologie classique 3. Paris. Lentini 2006 Lentini, G. Il ‘padre di Telemaco’. Odisseo tra Iliade e Odissea. Pisa. Lesky 1961 (1999) Lesky, A. ‘Motivation by Gods and Men’, transl. by H. M. Harvey. In de Jong 1999, vol 2, pp. 384–403. (Abridged version of Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-Hist. Klasse 1961.4. Heidelberg 1961.)

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Létoublon, F. Il allait, pareil à la nuit. Les verbes de mouvement en grec: supplétisme et aspect verbal. Études et commentaires 98. Paris. Leumann (1945) 1959 Leumann, M. ‘Unregelmässige griechische Steigerungsformen.’ In M. Leumann. Kleine Schriften, zum 70. Geburtstag am 6. Okt. 1959, ed. by H. Haffter, E. Risch and W. Rüegg, pp. 214–229. Zurich and Stuttgart. (First published in MH 2 [1945] 1–14.) Leumann 1950 Leumann, M. Homerische Wörter. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 3. Basel 1950. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.) 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. Littauer/Crouwel 1983 Littauer, M.A. and J. H. Crouwel. ‘Chariots in Late Bronze Age Greece.’ Antiquity 57: 187–192. Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York. (English translation of pp. 12–40 as ‘The «Inner Composition» of the Speeches in the Iliad.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, 71–102.) Lonsdale 1990 Lonsdale, S.H. Creatures of Speech: Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 5. Stuttgart. Lorimer 1947 Lorimer, H.L. ‘The Hoplite Phalanx with Special Reference to the Poems of Archilochus and Tyrtaeus.’ ABSA 42: 76–138. Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H.L. Homer and the Monuments. London. Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Lowenstam 1993 Lowenstam, S. The Scepter and the Spear: Studies on Forms of Repetition in the Homeric Poems. Lanham. Luce 1975 Luce, J.V. Homer and the Heroic Age. London. Lührs 1992 Lührs, D. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias und zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien. Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 11. Hildesheim etc. von Luschan 1898 Luschan, F. von. ‘Über den antiken Bogen.’ In Festschrift für Otto Benndorf zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden und Fachgenossen, pp. 189–197. Vienna. von Luschan 1899 Luschan, F. von. ‘Zusammengesetzte und verstärkte Bogen. Vortrag an der Sitzung vom 18. Februar 1899 der Berliner Gesellsch. für Anthropologie, Etnologie und Urgeschichte.’ Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 31: 221–240. Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig. Maas (1938) 1973 Maas, P. ‘Zum griechischen Wortschatz (ἐπιψευδής, πατερίων, ὤρα).’ In P. Maas. Kleine Schriften, ed. by W. Buchwald, pp. 197–200. Munich. (First published in Mélanges Émile Boisacq, vol. 2, pp. 129–132. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 6. Brussels 1938.) Mackie 1996 Mackie, H. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Mahlow 1926 Mahlow, G. Neue Wege durch die griechische Sprache und Dichtung. Sprachgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Berlin and Leipzig. Marg 1938 Marg, W. Der Charakter in der Sprache der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Semonides, Homer, Pindar). Kieler Arbeiten zur klassischen Philologie 1. Würzburg. Marinatos 1967 Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung.’ ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen. Létoublon 1985


Iliad 4

Maronitis, D.N. Homeric Megathemes: War – Homilia – Homecoming. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Martin 1989 Martin, R. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. 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 1976 Meier, W.D.M. Die epische Formel im pseudohesiodeischen Frauenkatalog. Eine Untersuchung zum nachhomerischen Formelgebrauch. Zurich. Meier-Brügger 1992 Meier-Brügger, M. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin and New York. (2 vols.) Michel 1971 Michel, C. Erläuterungen zum N der Ilias. Heidelberg. van der Mije 1987 Mije, S.R. van der. ‘Achilles’ God-Given Strength: Iliad A 178 and Gifts from the Gods in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 40: 241–267. van der Mije 2011 Mije, S.R. van der. ‘πείθειν φρένας – πείθειν θυμόν – A Note on Homeric Psychology.’ Mnemosyne 64: 447–454. Minchin 2001 Minchin, E. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford. Minchin 2010 Minchin, E. ‘From Gentle Teasing to Heavy Sarcasm: Instances of Rhetorical Irony in Homer’s Iliad.’ Hermes 138: 387–402. Monro (1882) 1891 Monro, D.B. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect2. Oxford (11882). 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 C. Tsagalis (eds.). Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretaion of Oral Poetry. Trends in Classics Supplementary volume 12. Berlin and Boston. Monteil 1963 Monteil, P. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa formation, son développement, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle a.C. Études et commentaires 47. Paris. 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. Morrison 1999 Morrison, J.V. ‘Homeric Darkness: Patterns and Manipulations for Death Scenes in the Iliad.’ Hermes 127: 129–144. Moulton 1977 Moulton, C. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Hypomnemata 49. Göttingen. Μπεζαντάκος 1996 Μπεζαντάκος, Ν.Π. Ἡ Ῥητορικὴ τῆς Ὁμηρικῆς μάχης. Athens. Muellner 1976 Muellner, L.C. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through its Formulas. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 13. Innsbruck. Mühlestein 1969 Mühlestein, H. ‘Redende Personennamen bei Homer.’ SMEA 9: 67–94. (Also in H. Mühlstein. Homerische Namenstudien, pp. 28–55. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 183. Frankfurt am Main.) Mutzbauer 1893 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der homerische Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache. Strasbourg. Mylonas 1966 Mylonas, G. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton. Nagler 1974 Nagler, M.N. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley etc. Maronitis 2004

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Nagy, G. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry2. Baltimore and London (11979). Naiden 2013 Naiden, F.S. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods. Oxford. Nappi 2002 Nappi, M.P. ‘Note sull’uso di Αἴαντε nell’Iliade.’ RCCM 44: 211–235. Neal 2006 Neal, T. The Wounded Hero: Non-Fatal Injury in Homer’s Iliad. Sapheneia 11. Bern etc. Nesselrath 1992 Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike. Stuttgart. Nesselrath 2014 Nesselrath, H.-G. ‘«Vater Zeus» im griechischen Epos.’ In The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity, ed. by F. Albrecht and R. Feldmeier, pp. 37–55. Themes in Biblical Narrative 18. Leiden and Boston. Neuberger-Donath 1980 Neuberger-Donath, R. ‘The Obligative Infinitive in Homer and Its Relationship to the Imperative.’ Folia Linguistica 14: 65–82. Neumann 1991 Neumann, G. ‘Die homerischen Personennamen. Ihre Position im Rahmen der Entwicklung des griechischen Namenschatzes.’ In Latacz 1991, 311–328. Neumann 2007 Neumann, G. Glossar des Lykischen, revised and seen through the press by J. Tischler. Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 21. Wiesbaden. Nickau 1977 Nickau, K. Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 16. Berlin and New York. Nicolai 1973 Nicolai, W. Kleine und große Darstellungseinheiten in der Ilias. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. 2.47. Heidelberg. Nijboer 2008 Nijboer, A.J. ‘A Phoenician Family Tomb, Lefkandi, Huelva and the Tenth Century BC in the Mediterranean.’ In Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, ed. by C. Sagona, pp. 365–377. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 28. Leuven etc. Nilsson (1940) 1967 Nilsson, M.P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion3. Vol. 1: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 5.2.1. Munich (11940). (Reprint 1992.) Noussia 2002 Noussia, M. ‘Olympus, the Sky, and the History of the Text of Homer.’ In Montanari 2002, 489–503. Nünlist 2009 Nünlist, R. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge. Nussbaum 1998 Nussbaum, A.J. Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Hypomnemata 120. Göttingen. O’Brien 1993 O’Brien, J.V. The Transformation of Hera: A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the Goddess in the Iliad. Lanham. van Otterlo 1944 Otterlo, W.A.A. van. ‘Untersuchungen über Begriff, Anwendung und Entstehung der griechischen Ringkomposition.’ Mededeel. der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, N.R. 7.3: 131–176. Owen 1946 Owen, E. T. The Story of the Iliad. London. Pagani 2008 Pagani, L. ‘Il codice eroico e il guerriero di fronte alla morte.’ In Eroi nell’ Iliade. Personaggi e strutture narrative, ed. by L. Pagani, pp. 327–418. Rome. Page 1955 Page, D. Sappho and Alcaeus: An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry. Oxford. (Reprint 1979.) Nagy (1979) 1999


Iliad 4

Page, D.L. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Parry, A. ‘Language and Characterization in Homer.’ HSCPh 76: 1–22. (Also in A. Parry. The Language of Achilles and Other Papers, pp. 310–325. Oxford 1989.) Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe 12. Stuttgart. Peigney 2007 Peigney, J. ‘La blessure de Ménélas et la bossette de mors (Iliade IV, 141– 147): Quelques remarques.’ In Troïka. Parcours antiques. Mélanges offerts à Michel Woronoff, ed. by S. David and E. Geny, vol. 1, pp. 101–109. Besançon. Pelliccia 1995 Pelliccia, H. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Hypomnemata 107. Göttingen. Pighi 1975–1976 Pighi, G.B. ‘Ζεφυρος. Ζοφος. Sāfôn.’ RAIB 64: 169–185. Pinsent 1983 Pinsent, J. ‘ΕΤΑΙΡΟΣ / ΕΤΑΡΟΣ in the Iliad.’ In Mélanges Edouard Delebecque, pp. 313–318. Aix-en-Provence. Plath 1994 Plath, R. Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76. Nuremberg. Pöhlmann/Tichy 1982 Pöhlmann, E. and E. Tichy. ‘Zur Herkunft und Bedeutung von κόλλοψ.’ In Serta Indogermanica. Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by J. Tischler, pp. 287–315. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 40. Innsbruck. (pp. 300–304 also in: E. Tichy. Kleine Schriften ed. by A. Metzger, pp. 191–197. Bremen 2018.) Porzig 1942 Porzig, W. Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im Indogermanischen. Unters. zur idg. Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 10. Berlin. Postlethwaite 2000 Postlethwaite, N. Homer’s Iliad: A Commentary on the Translation of Richmond Lattimore. Exeter. Pratt 2009 Pratt, L. ‘Diomedes, the Fatherless Hero of the Iliad.’ In Growing up Fatherless in Antiquity, ed. by S. R. Huebner and D. M. Ratzan, pp. 141–161. Cambridge. Pritchett 1985 Pritchett, W.K. The Greek State at War, Part IV. Berkeley etc. Pritchett 1991 Pritchett, W.P. The Greek State at War, Part V. Berkeley etc. Pritchett 1991a Pritchett, W.K. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, Part VII. Amsterdam. Pucci 2002 Pucci, P. ‘Theology and Poetics in the Iliad.’ Arethusa 35: 17–34. Raaflaub 1991 Raaflaub, K.A. ‘Homer und die Geschichte des 8. Jh.s v. Chr.’ In Latacz 1991, 205–226. Raaflaub 2011 Raaflaub, K. ‘Riding on Homer’s Chariot: The Search for a Historical «Epic Society».’ Antichthon 45: 1–34. Rank 1951 Rank, L.P. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus (Etymologizing and Related Phenomena in Homer). Assen. Ready 2011 Ready, J.L. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge. Reber 1999 Reber, K. ‘Apobaten auf einem geometrischen Amphorenhals.’ Antike Kunst 42: 126–141. Redfield (1975) 1994 Redfield, J.M. Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector2. Durham and London (Chicago 11975). Reece 2009 Reece, S. Homer’s Winged Words: The Evolution of Early Greek Epic Diction in the Light of Oral Theory. Mnemosyne Supplements 313. Leiden and Boston. Page 1959 Parry 1972

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Reichel 1994 Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. ScriptOralia 62. Tübingen. Reinhardt (1938) 1997 Reinhardt, K. ‘The Judgement of Paris.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, 170– 191. (First published as Das Parisurteil. Wissenschaft und Gegenwart 11. Frankfurt 1938; also in K. Reinhardt. Von Werken und Formen, pp. 11–36. Godesberg 1948; also in K. Reinhardt. Tradition und Geist. Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. by C. Becker, pp. 16–36. Göttingen 1960; also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 47–65.) 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. Rengakos 1999 Rengakos, A. ‘Spannungsstrategien in den homerischen Epen.’ In Euphrosyne: Studies in Ancient Epic and its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maronitis, ed. by J. N. Kazazis and A. Rengakos, pp. 308–338. Stuttgart. Reucher 1983 Reucher, T. Die situative Weltsicht Homers. Eine Interpretation der Ilias. Darmstadt. Revuelta Puigdollers 2009 Revuelta Puigdollers, A.R. ‘The Particles αὖ and αὖτε in Ancient Greek as Topicalizing Devices.’ In Bakker, S. and G. Wakker (eds.). Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, pp. 83–109. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 16. Leiden and Boston. Reynen 1983 Reynen, H. ΕΥΧΕΣΘΑΙ und seine Derivate bei Homer. Bonn. Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville. Richardson 2007 Richardson, S. ‘The Games in Book θ of the Odyssey.’ In Contests and Rewards in the Homeric Epics. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on the Odyssey (15–19 September 2004) (Centre for Odyssean Studies), ed. by M. Paizi-Apostolopoulou, A. Rengakos and C. Tsagalis, pp. 121–127. Ithaka. Richter 1968 Richter, W. ‘Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter,’ with a contribution ‘Landwirtschaftliche Geräte’ by W. Schiering. ArchHom chap. H. Göttingen. Rijksbaron (1984) 2002 Rijksbaron, A. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction3. Amsterdam (11984). Risch (1947) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Namensdeutungen und Worterklärungen bei den ältesten griechischen Dichtern.’ In E. Risch. Kleine Schriften zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. by A. Etter and M. Loser, pp. 294–313. Berlin and New York. (First published in Eumusia, Festgabe für Ernst Howald zum sechzigsten Geburtstag am 20. April 1947, pp. 72–91. Erlenbach 1947.) Robert 1901 Robert, C. Studien zur Ilias. Berlin. Robert 1907 Robert, C. ‘Topographische Probleme der Ilias.’ Hermes 42: 78–112. Roemer 1912 Roemer, A. Aristarchs Athetesen in der Homerkritik (wirkliche und angebliche). Eine kritische Untersuchung. Leipzig and Berlin. Roisman 2005 Roisman, H. ‘Old Men and Chirping Cicadas in the Teichoskopia.’ In Approaches to Homer, Ancient and Modern, ed. by R. J. Rabel, pp. 105–118. Swansea.


Iliad 4

Rousseau 1990

Rousseau, P. ‘Le deuxième Atride. Le type épique de Ménélas dans l’Iliade.’ In Mélanges P. Lévêque, ed. by M.-M. Mactoux and É. Geny, vol. 5, pp. 325– 354. Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 429. Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 101. Paris. Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C.J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen. Ruijgh (1981) 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘L’emploi de ΗΤΟΙ chez Homère et Hésiode.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 519–534. (First published in Mnemosyne 34 [1981] 272–287.) Ruijgh (1990) 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘La place des enclitiques dans l’ordre des mots chez Homère d’après la loi de Wackernagel.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 627–647. (First published in Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie. Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute (Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 13.– 15. Oktober 1988 in Basel), ed. by H. Eichner and H. Rix, pp. 213–233. Wiesbaden 1990.) Ruijgh 1995 Ruijgh, C.J. ‘D’Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique. Analyse dialectologique du langage homérique, avec un excursus sur la création de l’alphabet grec.’ In Homeric Questions: Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology, Including the Papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens (15. 5. 1993), ed. by J. P. Crielaard, pp. 1–96. Amsterdam. Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C.J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Salazar 2000 Salazar, C.F. The Treatment of War Wounds in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Studies in Ancient Medicine 21. Leiden etc. 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. Saunders 1999 Saunders, K.B. ‘The Wounds in Iliad 13–16.’ CQ 49: 345–363. Saunders 2003 Saunders, K.B. ‘Appendix.’ In Friedrich (1956) 2003, 131–167. Saunders 2004 Saunders, K.B. ‘Frölich’s Table of Homeric Wounds.’ CQ 54: 1–17. Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938). (Reprint Darmstadt 1987.) Schäfer 1990 Schäfer, M. Der Götterstreit in der Ilias. Stuttgart. Scheid-Tissinier 1994 Scheid-Tissinier, É. Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pratiques. Nancy. Schein 1984 Schein, S.L. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. Berkeley etc. Schein (1976) 2016 Schein, S.L. ‘The Death of Simoeisios: Iliad 4.473–489.’ In S. L. Schein. Homeric Epic and its Reception: Interpretive Essays, pp. 5–9. Oxford. (First published in Eranos 74 [1976] 1–5.) von Scheliha 1943 Scheliha, R. von. Patroklos. Gedanken über Homers Dichtung und Gestalten. Basel. Schmidt 1976 Schmidt, M. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias. Zetemata 62. Munich. Schmitt 1990 Schmitt, A. Selbständigkeit und Abhängigkeit menschlichen Handelns bei Homer. Hermeneutische Untersuchung zur Psychologie Homers. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse 1990.5. Mainz and Stuttgart.

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Schmitt, R. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Schneider 1996 Schneider, H. Der anonyme Publikumskommentar in Ilias und Odyssee. Philosophie 25. Münster. Schoeck 1961 Schoeck, G. Die homerische Assoziationstechnik als Basis der Erfindung. Beobachtungen an der Ilias. Zurich. Schofield 2001 Schofield, M. ‘Euboulia in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, 220–259. Schouler 1980 Schouler, B. ‘Dépasser le père.’ REG 93: 1–24. Schwartz 2009 Schwartz, A. Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece. Historia Einzelschriften 207. Stuttgart. Scodel 2002 Scodel, R. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor. Scodel 2008 Scodel, R. Epic Facework: Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. Swansea. Scodel 2012 Scodel, R. ‘ἦ and Theory of Mind in the Iliad.’ In Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon, ed. by M. Meier-Brügger, pp. 319–334. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, N.F. 21. Göttingen. Scott 1974 Scott, W.C. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Mnemosyne Supplements 28. Leiden. Scully 1990 Scully, S. Homer and the Sacred City. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Segal 1971 Segal, C. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad. Mnemosyne Supplements 17. Leiden. Seiler 1950 Seiler, H. Die primären griechischen Steigerungsformen. Leipzig. (Also published as Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft 6.) Shear 2000 Shear, I.M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and Athens. Simpson 1965 Simpson, R.H. A Gazetteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites. BICS Supplement 16. London. Singor 1991 Singor, H.W. ‘Nine Against Troy: On Epic φάλαγγες, πρόμαχοι, and an Old Structure in the Story of the Iliad.’ Mnemosyne 44: 17–62. Singor 1992 Singor, H.W. ‘The Achaean Wall and the Seven Gates of Thebes.’ Hermes 120: 401–411. Singor 1995 Singor, H.W. ‘Eni prôtoisi machesthai: Some Remarks on the Iliadic Image of the Battlefield.’ In Crielaard 1995, 183–200. Slings 1994 Slings, S.R. ‘Een tandje lager. Aanzetten voor een orale grammatica van Homerus.’ Lampas 27: 411–427. Smith 1979 Smith, P.M. ‘Notes on the Text of the Fifth Homeric Hymn.’ HSCPh 83: 29–50. 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 europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen4, pp. 13–29. Göttingen 1975.) Snell 1977 Snell, B. ‘φρένες — φρόνησις.’ Glotta 55: 34–64. Solmsen 1960 Solmsen, F. ‘Zur Theologie im grossen Aphrodite-Hymnus.’ Hermes 88: 1–13. Sommer 1957 Sommer, F. ‘Homerica.’ In ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift für Paul Kretschmer 2. Mai 1866 – 9. Mai 1956, ed. by H. Kronasser, vol. 2, pp. 142– 151. Vienna. Schmitt 1967


Iliad 4

Sommer, F. ‘λ 11.’ In Sybaris. Festschrift Hans Krahe, zum 60. Geburtstag am 7. Februar 1958, dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, pp. 146– 163. Wiesbaden. Sommer 1977 Sommer, F. ‘ἔσται.’ In F. Sommer. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B. Forssman, pp. 154–177. Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, N.F. 1. Munich. Sommerstein/Torrance 2014 Sommerstein, A.H. and I. C. Torrance. Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, with contributions by A. J. Bayliss, J. Fletcher, K. Konstantinidou and L. A. Kozak. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 307. Berlin and Boston. Stanley 1993 Stanley, K. The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad. Princeton etc. Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989 Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft. Studien zum griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Steinmann 2012 Steinmann, B.F. Die Waffengräber der ägäischen Bronzezeit. Waffenbeigaben, soziale Selbstdarstellung und Adelsethos in der minoischmykenischen Kultur. Philippika 52. Wiesbaden. Steinrück 1992 Steinrück, M. Rede und Kontext. Zum Verhältnis von Person und Erzähler in frühgriechischen Texten. Habelts Dissertationsdrucke. Reihe Klassische Philologie 39. Bonn. Stengel 1910 Stengel, P. Opferbräuche der Griechen. Leipzig and Berlin. Stockinger 1959 Stockinger, H. Die Vorzeichen im homerischen Epos. Ihre Typik und ihre Bedeutung. St. Ottilien. Stoevesandt 2004 Stoevesandt, M. Feinde – Gegner – Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den Kampfszenen der Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 30. Basel. Strasburger 1954 Strasburger, G. Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias. Frankfurt am Main. Strunk 1988 Strunk, K. ‘Zur diachronischen Morphosyntax des Konjunktivs.’ In In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s ‘Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe’, Amsterdam 1986, ed. by A. Rijksbaron, H. A. Mulder and G. C. Wakker, pp. 291–312. Amsterdam. Stubbings 1962 Stubbings, F.H. ‘Arms and Armour.’ In Wace, A.J.B. and F. H. Stubbings (eds.). A Companion to Homer, pp. 504–522. London and New York. Sullivan 1988 Sullivan, S.D. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrēn. Ottawa. Tabachovitz 1951 Tabachovitz, D. Homerische εἰ-Sätze. Eine sprachpsychologische Studie. Lund. Taplin 1990 Taplin, O. ‘Agamemnon’s Role in the Iliad.’ In Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature, ed. by C. Pelling, pp. 60–82. Oxford. Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford. Thalmann 1984 Thalmann, W.G. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Baltimore and London. Thornton 1970 Thornton, A. People and Themes in Homer’s Odyssey. London. Thornton 1984 Thornton, A. Homer’s Iliad: its Composition and the Motif of Supplication. Hypomnemata 81. Göttingen. Tichy 1983 Tichy, E. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. SAWW 409. Vienna. Sommer 1958

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Tichy, E. Älter als der Hexameter? Schiffskatalog, Troerkatalog und vier Einzelszenen der Ilias. Bremen. Trédé 1992 Trédé, M. Kairos. L’à-propos et l’occasion (Le mot et la notion, d’Homère à la fin du IVe siècle avant J.-C.). Études et commentaires 103. Paris. (Shorter, earlier version of pp. 25–31 in REG 97 [1984] XII–XIV.) Tronci 2000 Tronci, L. ‘Eredità indoeuropea e innovazione nel greco omerico: l’elemento -ι° come ‘marca’ caratterizzante di primi membri di composto.’ SSL 38: 275–311. Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel. Tsagalis 2004 Tsagalis, C. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 70. Berlin and New York. Tsagalis 2008 Tsagalis, C. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics. Hellenic Studies 29. Washington D.C. Tsagalis 2012 Tsagalis, C. From Listeners to Viewers: Space in the Iliad. Hellenic Studies 53. Cambridge Mass. and London. 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. Tucker 1990 Tucker, E.F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Historische Sprachforschung, Ergänzungsheft 35. Göttingen. Tzamali 1996 Tzamali, E. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, N. F. Beiheft 16. Dettelbach. Tzamali 1997 Tzamali, E. ‘Positive Aussage plus negierte Gegenaussage im Griechischen. Teil I: Die ältere griechische Dichtung.’ MSS 57: 129–167. Tzavella-Evjen 1983 Tzavella-Evjen, H. ‘Homeric Medicine.’ In The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B. C. Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1–5 June, 1981, ed. by R. Hägg, pp. 185–188. Stockholm. Uerpmann 2006 Uerpmann, M. ‘Von Adler bis Zahnbrassen – Der Beitrag der Archäozoologie zur Erforschung Troias.’ In Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels, ed. by M. O. Korfmann, pp. 283–296. Mainz. Ulf 1990 Ulf, C. Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung. Vestigia. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 43. Munich. van der Valk 1964 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 2. Leiden. Ventris/Chadwick (1956) 1973 Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. Documents in Mycenaean Greek2. Cambridge (11956). Vernant 1982 (2001) Vernant, J.-P. ‘A «Beautiful Death» and the Disfigured Corpse in Homeric Epic.’ In Cairns 2001, 311–341. (French original: ‘La belle mort et le cadavre outragé.’ In La mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes, ed. by G. Gnoli and J.-P. Vernant, pp. 45–76. Cambridge etc. 1982; also in J.-P. Vernant, L’individu, la mort, l’amour. Soi-même et l’autre en Grèce ancienne, pp. 41–79. Paris.) Vester 1956 Vester, H. Nestor. Funktion und Gestalt in der Ilias. Tübingen. Tichy 2010


Iliad 4

Vetten, C.-P. Das mythische Vorbild in der Ilias. Bonn. Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Europäische Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main etc. Visser 1997 Visser, E. Homers Katalog der Schiffe. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Vivante 1970 Vivante, P. The Homeric Imagination. Bloomington. Von der Mühll (1930) 1976 Von der Mühll, P. ‘Der Grosse Aias.’ In P. Von der Mühll. Ausgewählte kleine Schriften, ed. by B. Wyss, pp. 435–472. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 12. Basel. (First published as Rektoratsprogramm der Universität Basel für das Jahr 1930, Basel 1930.) Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 4. Basel. Vonhoff 2008 Vonhoff, C. Darstellungen von Kampf und Krieg in der minoischen und mykenischen Kultur. Internationale Archäologie 109. Rahden. Waanders 2000 Waanders, F.M.J. ‘Πέλομαι: to be … or to become?’ ZAnt 50: 257–272. Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wachter 2012 Wachter, R. ‘The Other View. Focus on Linguistic Innovations in the Homeric Epics.’ In Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, ed. by Ø. Andersen and D. T. T. Haug, pp. 65–79. Cambridge. Wackernagel (1877) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Zum homerischen Dual.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 538–546. (First published in KZ 23 [1877] 302–310.) Wackernagel (1885) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik: 3. ēv im Ionischen und Attischen.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 573–591. (First published in KZ 27 [1885] 262–280.) Wackernagel 1889 Wackernagel, J. Das Dehnungsgesetz der griechischen Composita. Basel. Wackernagel (1914) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Akzentstudien III: Zum homerischen Akzent.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 1154–1187. (First published in GN 1914, 97–130.) Wackernagel (1920/24) 2009 Wackernagel, J. Lectures on Syntax with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Edited with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford. (German Original: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Erste Reihe2 Basel 1926 (11920); Zweite Reihe2. Basel 1928 (11924). Wackernagel 1953 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vols. 1–2, ed. by the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Göttingen. 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 Thukydides.’ In Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts, ed. by E. J. Bakker, pp. 215–250. Mnemosyne Supplements 171. Leiden etc. Walsh 2005 Walsh, T.R. Fighting Words and Feuding Words: Anger and the Homeric Poems. Lanham etc. van Wees 1986 Wees, H. van. ‘Leaders of Men? Military Organisation in the Iliad.’ CQ 36: 285–303. van Wees 1988 Wees, H. van. ‘Kings in Combat and Heroes in the Iliad.’ CQ 38: 285–303. van Wees 1992 Wees, H. van. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam. van Wees 1994 Wees, H. van. ‘The Homeric Way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx.’ G&R 41: 1–18, 131–155. (Pp. 1–18 also in de Jong 1999, vol. 2, 221– 238.) Vetten 1990 Visser 1987

Bibliographic Abbreviations


Wees, H. van. ‘Homeric Warfare.’ In A New Companion to Homer, ed. by I. Morris and B. Powell, pp. 668–693. Leiden etc. van Wees 2003 Wees, H. van. Review of Hellmann 2000. Gnomon 75: 577–580. Werner 1948 Werner, R. η und ει vor Vokal bei Homer. Freiburg. West 1988 West, M.L. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic.’ JHS 108: 151–172. (Also in Greek Literature. Vol. 1: The Oral Traditional Background of Ancient Greek Literature, ed. by G. Nagy, pp. 191–212. New York and London 2001.) 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, vol. 1. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M.L. W., pp. V–XXXVII. Stuttgart and Leipzig. West 2001 West, M.L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich and Leipzig. West 2004 West, M.L. ‘An Indo-European Stylistic Feature in Homer.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 33–49. West 2007 West, M.L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 2011 West, M.L. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary. Oxford. West 2013 West, M.L. The Epic Cycle: A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics. Oxford. West 2013a West, M.L. ‘λυκάβας, λυκηγενής, ἀμφιλύκη.’ Glotta 89: 253–264. Whallon 1969 Whallon, W. Formula, Character, and Context: Studies in Homeric, Old English and Old Testament Poetry. Cambridge Mass. Wiesner 1968 Wiesner, J. ‘Fahren und Reiten.’ ArchHom chap. F. Göttingen. Wiessner 1940 Wiessner, K. Bauformen der Ilias. Preisschriften, gekrönt und hrsg. von der fürstlich Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft 55. Leipzig. Wilamowitz (1891) 1937 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. ‘Die sieben Tore Thebens.’ In Kleine Schriften, ed. by P. Maas et al. Vol. V.1: Geschichte, Epigraphik, Archäologie, pp. 26–77. Berlin. (First published in Hermes 26 [1891] 191–241, Nachtrag 241 f.). Wilamowitz 1914 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Aischylos. Interpretationen. Berlin. Wilamowitz 1916 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin. Willcock (1964) 2001 Willcock, M.M. ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, 435–455. (First published in CQ 14 [1964] 141–154; also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 385–402.) Willcock 2002 Willcock, M. ‘Menelaos in the Iliad.’ In Epea pteroenta. Beiträge zur Homerforschung. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by M. Reichel and A. Rengakos, pp. 221–229. Stuttgart. Willcock 2004 Willcock, M. ‘Traditional Epithets.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 51–62. Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers Ilias. Marburg/Lahn. (Originally diss. Marburg 1944.) Williams 1993 Williams, B. Shame and Necessity. Sather Classical Lectures 57. Berkeley etc. (Reprint 2008.) Willmott 2007 Willmott, J. The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge. Wilson 2002 Wilson, D.F. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge. Wißmann 1997 Wißmann, J. Motivation und Schmähung. Feigheit in der Ilias und in der griechischen Tragödie. Drama Beiheft 7. Stuttgart. Wittwer 1970 Wittwer, M. ‘Über die kontrastierende Funktion des griechischen Suffixes -τερος.’ Glotta 47: 54–109. van Wees 1997


Iliad 4

Wöhrle, G. Telemachs Reise. Väter und Söhne in der Ilias und Odyssee oder ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Männlichkeitsideologie in der homerischen Welt. Hypomnemata 124. Göttingen. 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. Yadin 1963 Yadin, Y. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study, vol. 1. New York etc. Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Supplements 131. Leiden. Zanker 1994 Zanker, G. The Heart of Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Zielinski 1899/1901 Zielinski, T. ‘Die Behandlung gleichzeitiger Ereignisse im antiken Epos.’ In Philologus Suppl. 8, pp. 405–449. (Abridged English translation in de Jong 1999, vol. 4, 317–327.) Zink 1962 Zink, N. Griechische Ausdrucksweisen für warm und kalt im seelischen Bereich. Heidelberg. Wöhrle 1999