Homer's Iliad Homer's Iliad 9783110554151, 9783110558166, 9783110557190, 3110554151

Table of contents :
Table Of Contents......Page 6
Preface To The German Edition......Page 8
Preface To The English Edition......Page 9
Notes For The Reader......Page 10
24 Rules Relating To Homeric Language (R)......Page 14
Overview Of The Action In Book 16 (‘Patrokleia’)......Page 22
Commentary 1 – 366......Page 24
Commentary 367a – 867......Page 184
Bibliographic Abbreviations......Page 390

Citation preview

Homer’s Iliad The Basel Commentary

Homer’s Iliad The Basel Commentary

Editors Anton Bierl and Joachim Latacz Managing Editor Magdalene Stoevesandt General Editor of the English Edition S. Douglas Olson

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

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

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

ISBN 978-3-11-055415-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-055816-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-055719-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018939275 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Table of Contents Preface to the German Edition  VII Preface to the English Edition  VIII Notes for the Reader (including list of abbreviations)  IX 24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)  1 Overview of the Action in Book 16  9 Commentary  11 Bibliographic Abbreviations  377

Preface to the German Edition The writing and publication of the present commentary on Book 16 of the Iliad would not have been possible without the sympathetic support provided by numerous colleagues. First and foremost, I wish to offer warm thanks to the project directors – Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz and Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl – as well as to team members Marina Coray, Martha Krieter-Spiro, Magdalene Stoevesandt and Katharina Wesselmann for their cordial collaboration, which continued for the past six years of the project. My thanks are due our experts for innumerable valuable bits of advice, suggestions and corrections: Rudolf Führer, Fritz Graf, Martin A. Guggisberg, Irene J. F. de Jong, Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, René Nünlist, Jürgen v. Ungern-Sternberg, Rudolf Wachter and Martin L. West (†). The remaining gaps, inaccuracies and mistakes are of course fully my own responsibility. I thank my colleagues in the ‘Rosshof’, the joint premises for Classical Studies at Basel, for both lively academic exchange and all our shared moments ‘beside and without Homer’. I also wish to thank the team at the Classical Studies Library and the Basel University Library for easy collaboration. Thanks are due Xenia Buchwald and Elena Iakovou at the University of Göttingen for scrupulous corrections near the end of the project phase; they were referred to us by ‘our’ publishers de Gruyter (Berlin). For this, and for the careful printing process, I offer warm thanks to the responsible parties at the publishing house – among them Katharina Legutke and Serena Pirrotta. Enormous gratitude is due the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, the Hamburger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel, the FreyClavel-Stiftung Basel, the Max Geldner-Stiftung Basel and the University of Basel for their long-standing sponsorship of the Basel Homer Commentary. Last, but not least, I thank my family for their ‘Homeric’ patience over the course of my academic career, which is now coming to an end. In the present volume, which is based – as is the case throughout the series – on Martin West’s Greek text of the Iliad (Bibliotheca Teubneriana 1998/2000), relevant bibliographic items are frequently listed in rather large numbers; this is designed to enable readers to supplement, deepen or modify via their own reading the interpretations offered here. Even where not mentioned, Richard Janko’s commentary (Cambridge 1992)  – solid, full of acute observations and often playful – is always indispensable. Basel, March 2015

Claude Brügger

Preface to the English Edition Thanks are due the translation team, Dr. Sara Strack and Dr. Benjamin W. Millis with the editorship of Prof. Dr. S. Douglas Olson, not merely for translating with great diligence and expertise the German original (which is often linguistically complex) into English but also for correcting errors and omissions that had been overlooked in the German edition. I sincerely thank the above-mentioned for their pleasant collaboration and excellent work. The present English edition would not have been possible without the generous support of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft and the L. & Th. La Roche-Stiftung. The Walter de Gruyter publishing house in Berlin and Boston also contributed substantially to the happy completion of this book. For their long-standing and fruitful collaboration in the context of the Basel Homeric commentary, I warmly thank Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz and Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl as well as my colleagues Marina Coray, Martha Krieter-Spiro, Magdalene Stoevesandt and Katharina Wesselmann. Basel, December 2017

Claude Brügger

Notes for the Reader 1. In the commentary, four levels of explanation are distinguished graphically: a) The most important explanations for users of all audiences are set in regular type. Knowledge of Greek is not required here; Greek words are given in transliteration (exception: lemmata from LfgrE, see COM 41 [1]). b) More detailed explanations of the Greek text are set in medium type. These sections correspond to a standard philological commentary. c) Specific information on particular sub-fields of Homeric scholarship is set in small type. d) The ‘elementary section’, designed to facilitate an initial approach to the text especially for school and university students, appears beneath a dividing line at the foot of the page. The elementary section discusses Homeric word forms in particular, as well as prosody and meter. It is based on the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’, to which reference is made with the abbreviation ‘R’. Particularly frequent phenomena (e.g. the lack of an augment) are not noted throughout but are instead recalled ca. every 50 verses. — Information relating to Homeric vocabulary is largely omitted; for this, the reader is referred to the specialized dictionaries of Cunliffe and Autenrieth/ Kaegi.

Complex issues are addressed in the elementary section as well as the main commentary; they are briefly summarized in the elementary section and discussed in greater detail in the main commentary. Such passages are marked in the elementary section with an arrow (↑). In contrast, references of the type ‘cf. 73n.’ in the elementary section refer to notes within the elementary section itself, never to the main commentary.

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

X 

 Iliad 16

xxxP

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

STR In addition: R refers to the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’ in the present commentary (below, pp. 1  ff.). 3. Textual criticism The commentary is based on the Teubner text of M. L. West. In some passages, the commentators favor decisions differing from that edition. In these cases, both versions of the lemma are provided; West’s text is shown first in square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary. 4. English lemmata The English lemmata in the commentary are taken from the translation of R. Lattimore. In places where the commentators favor a different rendering, both versions are of the lemma are provided; the rendering of Lattimore is shown first in square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary. 5. Quotations of non-English secondary literature Quotations from secondary literature originally written in German, French or Italian are given in English translation; in such cases, the bibliographic reference is followed by the notation ‘transl.’ In the case of terms that are especially important or open to misinterpretation, the original is given in square brackets. 6. Formulaic language On the model of ‘Ameis-Hentze(-Cauer)’, repeated verses and verse-halves are usually noted (on this, cf. COM 30). Other formulaic elements (verse beginning and verse end formulae in particular) are only highlighted to the extent necessary to convey an overall impression of the formulaic character of Homeric language. 7. Type-scenesP For each type-scene, the commentary provides at the appropriate place an ‘ideal version’ by compiling a cumulative, numbered list of all characteristic elements of the scene that occur in the Iliad and/or Odyssey; the numbers of the elements actually realized in the passage in question are printed in bold. Each subsequent occurrence refers back to this primary treatment and uses numbering and bold print in accord with the same principle.



Notes for the Reader 

 XI

8. Abbreviations

(a) Bibliographic abbreviations For the bibliographic abbreviations, see pp. 377  ff.



(b) Primary literature (for the editions used, see pp. 380  ff.) Aesch. Aeschylus (Ag. = Agamemnon, fr. = fragment) Apollod. Works ascribed to Apollodorus (Bibl. =  Bibliotheke, Epit. = Epitome) Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius Apoll. Soph. Apollonius Sophista Arat. Aratus (Phaen. = Phaenomena) Certamen Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi, ‘Contest of Homer and Hesiod’ Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the ‘Epic Cycle’) Et.M. Etymologicum Magnum Eust. Eustathius Hdt. Herodotus Hes. Hesiod (Op. = Opera, ‘Works and Days’; Th. = Theogony) ‘Hes.’ Works ascribed to Hesiod (Sc. = Scutum, ‘Shield of Herakles’, fr. = fragment) hom.h. A collective term for the Homeric hymns  h.Ap., Individual Homeric hymns: to Apollo,  h.Bacch., – to Bacchus/Dionysus,  h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter,  h.Mart., – to Mars/Ares,  h.Merc., – to Mercury/Hermes and  h.Ven. – to Venus/Aphrodite Il. Iliad Il. parv. Ilias parva, ‘Little Iliad’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Il. Pers. Iliou Persis, ‘Sack of Troy’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Nost. Nostoi, ‘Returns’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’) Od. Odyssey Procl. Proclus (see above s.v. Chrest.) schol. scholion, scholia schol. A (etc.) scholion in manuscript A (etc.) Soph. Sophocles (fr. = fragment) Thuc. Thucydides Vit. Hom. Her. Vita Homeri Herodotea, ‘Herodotean Life of Homer’ Xen. Xenophon

XII 

 Iliad 16

(c) Other abbreviations (Commonly used abbreviations, as well as those listed under 2, 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 only in the app. crit. an additional verse A 1, B 1 (etc.) indicates caesurae in the hexameter (cf. M 6) app. crit. apparatus criticus (West) fr., frr. fragment, fragments Gr. Greek I-E Indo-european imper. imperative Introd. Introduction loc. locative ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts n. note1 sc. scilicet (i.e. ‘supply’ or ‘namely’) subjunc. subjunctive s.v., s.vv. sub voce, sub vocibus VB verse-beginning VE verse-end VH verse-half v.l., vv.ll. varia lectio, variae lectiones (i.e. ‘variant readings’) voc. vocative

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

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).

R 1 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 R 2

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

5–8

R 3

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

39  f.

R 4

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

2.1 2.2

4.1 4.2

19 27

2 

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 R 5 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4 5.5

5.6 5.7

 Iliad 16

In Addition, digamma can often be deduced in Homer on the basis of the meter; thus in the case of hiatus (see R 5) without elision (1.7: Ἀτρεΐδης τε (ϝ)άναξ); hiatus without shortening of a long vowel at word end (1.321: τώ (ϝ)οι, cf. R 5.5); a single consonant ‘making position’ (1.70: ὃς (ϝ)είδη). Occasionally, digamma is no longer taken into account (1.21: υἱὸν ἑκηβόλον, originally ϝεκ-). Hiatus: The clash of a vocalic word end with a vocalic word beginning (hiatus ‘gaping’) is avoided through: elision: short vowels and -αι in endings of the middle voice are elided (1.14: στέμματ’ ἔχων; 1.117: βούλομ’ ἐγώ; 5.33: μάρνασθ’ ὁπποτέροισι), occasionally also -οι in μοι/σοι (1.170; hiatus that results from elision is left unchanged (1.2: ἄλγε’ ἔθηκεν); ny ephelkystikon (movable ny): only after a short vowel (ε and ι), esp. dat. pl. -σι(ν); 3rd sing. impf./aor./perf. -ε(ν); 3rd sing. and pl. -σι(ν); the modal particle κε(ν); the suffix -φι(ν), cf. R 11.4; the suffix -θε(ν), cf. R 15.1; ny ephelkystikon also provides metrically convenient variants; contraction across word boundaries (noted as crasis: τἄλλα, χἡμεῖς). – Hiatus is admissible predominantly in the case of: loss of digamma (cf. R 4.3); so-called correption: a long vowel/diphthong at word end is shortened (1.17: Ἀτρεΐδαι τε καὶ ἄλλοι ἐϋκνήμιδες; 1.15 [with synizesis: R 7]: χρυσέῳ  ͜ ἀνὰ σκήπτρῳ); metrical caesura or more generally a semantic break; after words ending in -ι and ‘small words’ such as πρό and ὅ.

22 21 24 26

30/ 37

33

31

34 35

36 37

R 6

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

R 7

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

46



24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

R 8

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).

R 9

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

9.1 9.2 R 10

10.1 10.2

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

 3

48

17 18 49  f.

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

11.2

11.3

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

68

69

70– 76

4 

11.4 R 12 12.1 12.2 12.3

12.4 12.5

 Iliad 16

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

R 13

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

R 14 14.1

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

66

77 57 53

53 53/ 77

79

81



14.2

14.3

14.4

14.5

R 15

15.1 15.2 15.3 R 16 16.1

16.2

16.3

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

 5

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

84

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

66

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

83

82

83

85

86/ 93

89

6 

 Iliad 16

16.4

16.5 16.6

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

87

60 90

Syntax R 17

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

R 18 18.1

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

18.2 R 19 19.1

19.2

R 20 20.1

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

99

97

97

59

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 

 7

20.2

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

98

R 21 21.1

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

100

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

101

R 23

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

100

R 24 24.1

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

101



21.2 R 22 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5

24.2

24.3

8  24.4

24.5 24.6

24.7

24.8 24.9 24.10

24.11 24.12

24.13

 Iliad 16

ἦ: ‘really, actually’; almost exclusively in direct speech. – Weakened in the compounds ἤτοι (e.g. 1.68), ἠμὲν … ἠδέ ‘on the one hand … on the other hand’ and ἠδέ ‘and’. κε(ν): = ἄν (cf. R 21.1). μέν: used not only to introduce an antithesis (with a subsequent δέ) but also commonly in its original, purely emphatic sense (≈ μήν, μάν; e.g. 1.216). μήν, μάν: emphatic; when standing alone, almost always in negative sentences (e.g. 4.512) or with imperatives (e.g. 1.302); otherwise it strengthens other particles, esp. ἦ and καί (e.g. 2.370, 19.45). οὐδέ/μηδέ: these connectives can occur after affirmative clauses, not only after negative ones as in Attic. οὖν: almost always in conjunction with temporal ἐπεί or ὡς, ‘(when) therefore’ (e.g. 1.57). περ: stresses the preceding word; specifically concessive, esp. with participles (1.586: κηδομένη περ ‘although saddened’); intensive (1.260: ἀρείοσι ἠέ περ ὑμῖν ‘with even better men than you’); limitative-contrasting (1.353: τιμήν περ ‘at least honor’). ‘epic τε’: occurs in generalizing statements (e.g. 1.86, 1.218), esp. common in the ‘as’ part of similes (e.g. 2.90). τοι: ethical dat. of the 2nd pers. personal pronoun fossilized as a particle (and often not clearly distinguishable from it); appeals to the special attention of the addressee, roughly ‘imagine, I tell you’. τοιγάρ: ‘so then’ (to be distinguished from τοι ≈ σοι; the initial element belongs to the demonstrative stem το-, cf. τώ ‘therefore’); in Homer, it always introduces the answer to a request (e.g. 1.76).

Overview of the Action in Book 16 (‘Patrokleia’) 1–100 1–100

Patroklos and Achilleus Full of worry about the Achaians’ situation, Patroklos returns from his reconnaissance mission. After his urgent pleas, he receives instructions from Achilleus that he and the Myrmidons are to assist the fighters and drive the Trojans away from the ships.

101–277 101–123

Arming of Patroklos and departure of the Myrmidons The Achaians are in dire straits: Aias is forced to retreat before Hektor, and the Trojans set fire to the first ship. Patroklos dons Achilleus’ armor and has Automedon harness the horses to the chariot; Achilleus mobilizes the Myrmidons. Catalogue of leaders. Achilleus addresses the Myrmidons with a battle paraenesis, pours a libation to Zeus and asks him to give Patroklos success and a safe retun from battle. Zeus grants only the first part of the wish. Departure of the Myrmidons and their attack under the leadership of Patroklos.



124–197



198–256



257–277

278–418 278–357

358–418

419–683

419–430



431–461



462–507

Trojan flight The Trojans panic at the sight of Patroklos (in Achilleus’ armor) and engage the Greeks in a rearguard action. Individual duels. The Trojans flee across the ditch back toward the city. Patroklos cuts off their escape route. Duel between Patroklos and Sarpedon; battle over the corpse of Sarpedon. Sarpedon faces Patroklos and temporarily halts the latter’s advance. Zeus and Hera agree that Sarpedon will fall at the hands of Patroklos. Patroklos and Sarpedon attack one another. The dying Sarpedon calls on his comrade Glaukos for aid.

10 

 Iliad 16



508–562



563–665



666–683

684–867

684–783



784–867

Glaukos beseeches Apollo to heal his wound and exhorts the Trojans to rescue Sarpedon’s body. Patroklos, for his part, calls on the Greeks to capture Sarpedon’s body. The battle for Sarpedon’s body rages back and forth, with losses on both sides, interspersed with banter between Aineias and Meriones. Zeus induces Patroklos to attack Troy; the Trojans and their allies retreat. At this point, the Greeks manage to capture Sarpedon’s armor. Zeus instructs Apollo to begin preparations for the burial of Sarpedon. Hypnos and Thanatos convey the body to his homeland of Lykia. Patroklos advances successfully to the city walls of Troy and falls, attacked by Apollo, Euphorbos and Hektor Apollo stops Patroklos’ deadly and victorious onslaught at the walls of Troy. Patroklos kills Kebriones, Hektor’s charioteer. Patroklos and Hektor fight over Kebriones’ body, which is eventually captured by the Greeks. Patroklos is killed by Apollo, Euphorbos and Hektor; dialogue between the dying Patroklos and Hektor, his slayer; prophecy of Hektor’s death.

Commentary The events of Book 16 of the Iliad (the aristeia of Patroklos, the so-called ‘Patrokleia’) take place on Day 3 of the battle depicted in the epic (i.e. on Day 26 of the overall storyline of the Iliad); the account of the battle extends across 8 Books (Books 11–18: STR 21  f. with figs. 1 and 2; cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 58–60) and is held together by a great arc of suspense: in Book 11, Zeus promises Hektor that the latter will on that day advance victoriously to the Achaian ships (11.185–213). In this way, Zeus fulfils Achilleus’ plea that the god help the Trojans and push the Achaians back to their ships in a battle for life or death in order to make Aga­ mem­non realize his mistake (1.407–412; cf. Achilleus’ oath at 1.233–247; Achilleus repeats and hardens his stance toward the Achaian embassy: ‘I will not fight again before Hektor has reached the ships of the Myrmidons’ [9.646–655]; on the origin and development of the ‘anger’-motif in the Iliad, see Latacz [1985] 1996, 90–106). In fact, Agamemnon, Diomedes, Odysseus, Machaon and Eurypylos are forced to leave the battle due to injury, while Aias must retreat in the face of Trojan dominance (11.248  ff.). At this point, Achilleus, who is following the events on the battlefield from afar (11.599–601), expects a change: ‘Now, the Achaians will beg me on their knees; their distress has become intolerable’ (11.609  f.). He sends his companion Patroklos to Nestor to inquire whether Machaon the physician is one of those leaving the battle (11.611–615); this errand will become ‘the beginning of the end’ for Patroklos (11.604: prolepsisP). Nestor advises Patroklos to convince Achilleus to rejoin battle or, alternatively, to ask him to allow Patroklos to fight with the Myrmidons in Achilleus’ place (11.796–803). On his way back, Patroklos experiences the Achaian distress up close when he encounters and treats the wounded Eurypylos (11.806–848). In the meantime, the battle at the fortifications by the encampment of ships continues to rage, until Hektor manages to force open one of the gates (Book 12). The battle at the ships follows. Under divine influence, the battle surges back and forth (Books 13–15). Given the perilous situation, Patroklos finally leaves Eurypylos and hopes to persuade Achilleus to fight (15.390–404). Patroklos returns to Achilleus at the moment Hektor is standing at the stern of Protesilaos’ ship, as Aias alone is still managing to keep the Trojans from setting fire to the ship (15.704–746). Shocked and with tears streaming, Patroklos stands next to Achilleus (16.1  ff.). Although the Trojans have not quite reached Achilleus’ ships  – i.e. given his announcement at 9.646–655 (esp.  655: ‘at my shelter and my ship’), Achilleus does not yet consider himself in a position to intervene in battle without losing face (16.61b–63) – he at least gives in to Patroklos’ plea to let the latter join the battle with the Myrmidons. At the same time, Aias is forced to retreat; the first Achaian ship catches fire (16.102–123). The aristeia of Patroklos begins and is recounted in detail (777n.).

12 

 Iliad 16

This great arc of suspense has been the subject of much criticism up to the present day (detailed discussion including older bibliography in AH, Anh. on Il.  11, pp.  68–82; Eichholz 1953; Alden 2000, 182–185; West 2011, 51–58; particularly sharp criticism in Jachmann 1958, 56–77, 80  f.). Two bones of contention are highlighted here: (1) In Book 11, Achilleus is again awaiting an embassy and an offer of reconciliation from the Achaians – as though a delegation of leaders had not made representations shortly before in Book 9 (the so-called Presbeia) (Page 1959, 304–310, but see the interpretation of Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 81 (transl.): ‘In I [= Book 9], the Achaians did not beseech Achilleus ‘on their knees’, i.e. at all costs, but had instead offered to settle’; cf. Tsagarakis 1971, 257–263; Lloyd-Jones 1981, 25–27; Reichel 1994, 118–120 [with bibliography at n.  23]; 72b–73n.; on the links between Books 9 and 16 in detail, see 3–4n., 48–100n., 60–63n., 72b–73n., 83–96n.); (2) the wounded Machaon (see above) is not mentioned again in Book 16 after Patroklos returns to Achilleus, not even in the catalogue of the wounded at 25–27 (Wilamowitz 1916, 118 [transl.]: ‘One should not be surprised that no rhapsode inserted the Machaon of whom Patroklos had to speak’, but see the interpretation of Bethe 1914, 143–150 [transl.]: ‘It is thus Nestor’s counsel that matters to the poet, while Achilleus’ question regarding Machaon only serves to motivate Patroklos’ visit to Nestor’ [loc. cit. 144]; similarly, Rothe 1910, 342  f.; Reinhardt 1961, 264; Lesky [1962] 1966, 74  f.). The underlying function of Patroklos’ errand is to keep Achilleus present in the narrative (or at least mentioned) and to set up the Patrokleia (Von der Mühll 1952, 238; on the latent presence of Achilleus, cf. Latacz [1985] 1996, 122–125; [1995] 2014, 304  f.; on setting up the Patrokleia, AH, Anh. on Il. 11, p. 50); narratologically, this goal is achieved via an effective picking up and interconnecting of storylines, as well as via ‘covering’ scenesP: in the present Book, see e.g. 1n., 101n., 102–123n., 124n. (Schadewaldt loc. cit. 74–79, 94; cf. schol. bT on 15.405 [on which, Nünlist 2009, 83–85]; Hellwig 1964, 98–100, 103; Kurz 1966, 163; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 247 n. 22; Rengakos 1995, 29  f.).

An overview of the action of Book 16 (see also the tabulated overview, p. 8  f.) is facilitated by the following commentary entries among others:



5–100n. (with 7–19n., 21–45n., 48–100n., 60–63n., 83–96n.), 102–123n. (with 122–123n.), 130–277n./130–144n., 168–197n., 198–209n., 231–252n. (with 249–252n.), 255–256n., 268– 277n., 278–418n., 306–357n., 358–418n. (with 394–418n. and 399–418n.), 419–683n. (with 431–461n., 492–501n., 508–536n., 563–568n., 569–592n., 608–632n., 633–683n.), 684–867n. (with 712–783n., 777–804n., 784–867n.).

•

Details: on Patroklos: the character of Patroklos and its genesis, 2n. (on P.’s function in the Iliad in general, see the brief but thorough treatment in LfgrE s.v.); apostrophes by the narrator addressed to P., 20n.; the designation of P.  as

Commentary 

 13

nḗpios ‘fool’, 46–47n., 684–691n. and 833n.; P. designated as therápōn ‘battle companion’, 165n.; exchange of weapons motif (P. puts on Achilleus’ armor), 130–144n. and 278–283n.; the ‘chain of events’ Sarpedon–Patroklos–Hektor– Achilleus, 419–683n. (esp. on the motif of battling over a corpse, 496n., 569– 592n., 754–782n., 762–763n., 781–782n.; on the parallels between the deaths of Patroklos and Hektor, 818–863n.); evaluation of P.’s conduct prior to his death, 684–867n., 684–691n., 685n., 745–750n. and 784–867n.; • on other characters: Apollo, 94n., 513n., 666n., 700n., 715–726n., 791n., 844–850n.; Euphorbos, 806b–815n., 808n., 810–811n.; Sarpedon, 419n., 456–457n., 502–505 with n., 663–665n., 666–683n.; • on similesP (selection): 7–11n., 155–167n., 259–267n., 297–302an., 384–393n., 406–410n., 428–430n., 589–592n., 633–637n., 742b–743n., 751–754n., 756– 761n., 765–771n., 823–828n.; • on type-scenesP, themesP etc. (in alphabetical order): ABC-scheme, 287– 290an.; androktasíē (killing) scene, 306–357n. (also at 399–418n., 692–697n.); aristeia 130–683n.; arming, 130–144n.; battle scene, 284–290an.; contemplation of two options, 646b–655n. and 713–732n.; duel, 419–683n.; libation, 220b–254n.; ‘pattern of rebuke’, 538–583n.; prayer, 231–252n. and 513–529n.; preparations for battle, 130–277n.; speeches of triumph, 830–842n.; ‘thrice – the fourth time’, 702–711n.; • on the names ‘Achilleus’ and ‘Achaian’, 21–22n.; on the ‘multiple uses’ of personal names, 345n.; on the ditch and wall of the encampment, 369n.; on neoanalytic interpretations, 419–683n., 684–867n., 806b–815n. (in each case at the end); on alternative storylines, ‘if–not’ situations and the notion of fate in epic, 431–461n., 434n., 646b–655n., 707n., 779–780n.; on drops of Zeus’ blood and the darkness on the battlefield, 459–461n., 567–568n. 1–100 Patroklos and Achilleus: Full of worry about the Achaians’ situation, Patroklos returns from his reconnaissance mission. After his urgent pleas, he receives instructions from Achilleus that he and the Myrmidons are to assist the fighters and drive the Trojans away from the ships. 1 ‘The battle for the one ship is, at the same time, a battle for the encampment as a whole’ (Faesi [transl.]). The reference is to the ship of Protesilaos (2.698– 709), who had been killed at the very beginning of the war, as is clear from 15.704–717; in the Iliad, it occasionally serves as a topographic fixed point

1 ὥς: = οὕτως. — οἵ: = οὗτοι; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — νηός: = νεώς (R 12.1). — ἐϋσσέλμοιο: = εὐσέλμου; on the -σσ-, R 9.1; on the declension, R 11.2. — μάχοντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

14 

 Iliad 16

(286n.). – Insofar as the death of Protesilaos represents a ‘poetically significant event within the overall story’ (2.698n.), there is a transfer of a motif here from Protesilaos to his ship: he is the first Greek to have been killed by the Trojans – prōt-, the initial element of his name, means ‘first’ (probably ‘the first of the men’) –, and his ship is likewise the first to be set on fire by the Trojans: von Scheliha 1943, 192; Heubeck (1950) 1991, 469; Schein 1984, 42 n. 43; a similar transfer of a motif occurs in the lithification in the Niobe myth in Book 24 (24.599–620n.). On the name and character of Protesilaos in general: LfgrE s.v. (with bibliography). — The first verse of Book 16 is a summaryP. Its characteristic introduction – Greek hōs hoi men …: ‘thus they (fought)’ (frequently also in the sing. hōs ho men …) – commonly prepares for a change of sceneP, as here (1.304n., 1.318an.; ‘appositive summary’: Richardson 1990, 31–33 with n. 37 [p. 213]; de Jong on Od., Introd. XII; observed already in the scholia, the socalled paragraphḗ: Nünlist 2009, 60  f.). In addition, the expression here and at the beginning of Books 9, 12, 18, 20, 22, 23 and Od. 6 and 7 serves as a marker for the (post-Homeric) Book-divisions (schol. bT ad loc.; Nannini 1995, 19–25; Nünlist loc. cit.; on the division into Books in general, see the bibliography at 19.1–39n., end). The changes in scene at 101  f. (battle action) and 124  f. (again Achilleus/Patroklos) are of the same kind: an interlocking of the two settings (Shear 2000, 115; Rinon 2008, 32).

περί: ‘over, for’, in a metaphorical sense with a verb of fighting/competing, i.e. in order to win or defend something (Schw. 2.502; Chantr. 2.128). — νηὸς ἐϋσσέλμοιο: an inflectable formulaP in various positions in the verse; starting with the 3rd foot, as here, in the gen./acc. sing. or dat. pl. in total 7× Il., 3× Od. On ἐΰσσελμος, 2.170n. (‘with good rowing-benches’ or ‘with a good deck’); on ship epithets in general, 1.12bn. — μάχοντο: The impf. signals that events described consecutively (1  ff.) happen simultaneously (1.318an.).

2 2nd VH = 5.570, 19.251. — Patroklos is the son of Menoitios (14n.) and comradein-arms (20n.) and friend of Achilleus (19.4–6an. with bibliography). On the character of Patroklos, see 1.307n.; CH 2; Janko, Introd. on Il. 16, p. 313  f.; LfgrE s.v. 1062.21  ff., 1063.11  ff. (Patroklos is of such central importance for the story of the Iliad that the question, frequently discussed and thus far unresolved, concerning the genesis of the character – i.e. whether Patroklos is part of a myth tradition predating the Iliad, or whether he was made who he is only by the poet of the Iliad – is somewhat pointless). On Patroklos as Achilleus’ ‘proxy’, see 165n. (Patroklos in this function has a parallel in Enkidu, the friend of

2 Ἀχιλῆϊ: on the single -λ-, R 9.1; on the declension, R 11.3. — παρίστατο (impf.): ‘stood beside someone, drew near someone’.

Commentary 

 15

Gilgamesh in the homonymous Babylonian epic: NTHS 56 with bibliography). On pictorial representations, see the bibliography in LfgrE loc. cit. 1061.64  ff. (and cf. 784–867n., end). – Patroklos is probably an abbreviated form related to Patrokléēs (7, 125 etc.; post-Homeric Patroklḗs). The name is also attested historically (LGPN) and likely means ‘he who brings fame to his father’ (Tichy 1990, 132; LfgrE); the final element is part of several personal names already in Mycenaean (MYC s.v. κλέος; Risch 1987, 6  f.). — 2 represents an abbreviated type-scene ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n.): (4) the character approaches (Patroklos, namely after having left Eurypylos at 15.405). Element 5 (the character speaks) is replaced by Patroklos’ tears (West 2011, 313).

Πάτροκλος δ(έ): a typical sentence beginning, 18× Il. at VB, 5× after ὣς φάτο (caesura A 3); a total of 14× of which are in Book 16. — ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectable VE formulaP (dat./acc.), frequently used as a generic epithetP of rulers and military leaders (44× Il., 12× Od., 9× Hes., 1× each in Il. Pers. [fr. 6 West] and Asius [fr. 1.3 West]; bibliography: 1.263n.; Haubold 2000, 17  ff.); commonly of Agamemnon (2.243n.), of Achilleus elsewhere only at 19.386 (there without the personal name). Given the ubiquity of the formula, a context-specific meaning is unlikely, but in the only two cases where it refers to Achilleus – here the phrase is separated from the name by an intervening word – it cannot be excluded (thus e.g. Alden 2000, 66: ‘a significant description by the poet to the audience of Achilles [the shepherd] who is needed to defend the troops [flocks]’; similarly Haubold loc. cit. 65  f., 80  f.; slightly differently Shive 1987, 74  f.: ‘Patroclus came to Achilles as a man comes to the shepherd of his people […], a child to a parent’). On the criteria for a context-specific interpretation of an epithet, see de Jong on Il. 22, Introd. 27  f. – On λαοί ‘men, men-at-arms, warriors’ (and sing. λαός ‘servicemen’), see 1.10n; 24.1n.

3–4 ≈ 9.14  f. (3b–4 = 9.14  f.). — The spring simileP illustrates the quantity of tears shed without inhibition; this in turn correlates with the hopelessness of the situation Patroklos recognized on his way through the Achaian camp. At the beginning of Book 9, Agamemnon finds himself in a comparable situation (the Trojans advancing, the Achaians retreating) – he too ‘cries like a spring’ (9.14  f. with almost identical wording). Both passages bring Achilleus into play again: in Book 9 via the – unsuccessful – embassy, here in Book 16 via Patroklos’ – semi-successful, as it were – plea (insofar as the Myrmidons will be led back into battle, albeit not by Achilleus himself but by Patroklos as his proxy). It is thus conceivable that the narrator deliberately used the same simile twice in order to create a connection between the two widely separated situations (Whitman 1958, 279  f.; Scott 1974, 130  f.; Moulton 1977, 103  f.; Beye 1984, 8; Létoublon 2007, 140  f.; Ready 2011, 172  f.; Macleod, Introd. 45; on another example of a possible connection between widely separated passages, cf. 297– 302an.). On repeated comparisons and – less frequently – similes in general,

16 

 Iliad 16

Edwards, Introd. 24 n. 29 (collection of examples; in Book 16 also at 482–486); in greater detail, Scott loc. cit. 127–140; Beye loc. cit.; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 148–151; cf. 6.506–514n.

3–4 are artfully structured: the two corresponding terms δάκρυα and ὕδωρ form a frame at VB (3) and VE (4); the stem ὑδρ- (2x VE, cf. 160  f.) and the verb χέω are repeated. 3 twice contains the sequence noun-adjective, 4 twice adjective-noun (suggestion by Führer).

3 ‘Tears are not contradictory to the Homeric heroic ideal’: 19.5–6an. If Achilleus nevertheless later criticizes Patroklos’ weeping, this is not a fundamental criticism, and he is instead rejecting tears shed on account of the Achaians; see 7–19n. — In contrast to the modern conception, spring, river and drinking water generally are called ‘clear’ comparatively rarely in early epic (leukós: 23.282, Od. 5.70, Hes. Op. 739; aglaós: Il. 2.307, 21.345, Od. 9.140) and more commonly, as here, ‘dark, black’ (3: mélas, 4: dnopherós); aside from the present VE formula (see below for examples), see also Il. 2.825 (Aisepos), 21.202 (Skamandros), Od. 4.359 (the water supply aboard a ship), 6.91 (water for washing clothes) and 13.409 (spring from which Eumaios’ swine drink). Ancient and modern attempts to explain the reasons for this color association vary: (a) an absence of light irradiation (i.e. shade), (b) a dark or contrasting background, (c) very deep water (and a correspondingly large mass of it), (d) moving water surface, (e) natural cloudiness of the water (cf. modern river names such as German Schwarzbach, Schwarzwasser, English Blackwater, French Eau Noire, Turkish Karadere – all of which occur multiple times), (f) origin of the spring water in the depths of the earth. Interpretations (a), (b), and (c) (which are not far apart factually) are maintained most frequently, see e.g. schol. A and D on 9.14 and 16.3; Irwin 1974, 196–198 (interpretations a and c); Leaf on 9.14 and Janko on 16.3–4, end (b); Handschur 1970, 220, and Sifakis 1998, 178  f. (b and c); Arnould 1994, 19–21 (c); also AH, Anh. on Od. 4.359 (d); Herzhoff 2008, 116 n. 54 (e); Grand-Clément 2011, 385  f. (f); a summary of the concept of ‘dark’ water in ancient (natural) philosophy is provided by Ferrini 1995. – In addition to physical explanations, two further aspects must be taken into account: (g) a transfer of formulaic language for the color of the sea, regularly termed ‘dark’ (see above c/d), to other bodies of water (Moreux 1967, 257–259; on the sea epithets, cf. 24.79n. with bibliography); (h) the color is a metaphorical reflection of the character of the situation, here Patroklos’ ‘dejected, dark’ mood (suggestion by de Jong; cf. 66n.).

3 ὥς τε: ‘like’; on the ‘epic τε’, R 24.11.

Commentary 



 17

δάκρυα θερμὰ χέων: an inflectable half-verse formula (= 18.17, 18.235 [Antilochos and Achilleus weep over Patroklos]; ≈ 7.426, Od. 4.523, 24.46) and an expansion of –⏕ δάκρυ χε- (8× Il./Od.); on the formula system ‘shed tears’ as a whole, see Horrocks 1980, 6–8. The piling up of the formula in the Patroklos-episode may underscore its ‘dramatic intensity’ (Monsacré 1984, 174  f. [transl.]).  – The epithetsP of δάκρυ(ον) are θερμός (in addition to the iterata, also at Od. 19.362), as well as θαλερός (2.266n.) and τέρην (11n.), cf. Monsacré loc. cit. 174–182; all these epithets are generic.  — ὥς τε: a frequent introduction to similes (2.289n. with bibliography). — κρήνη μελάνυδρος: an inflectable VE formula (nom., gen., dat., acc.), in the Iliad always in similes (9.14 = 16.3 [with δνοφερὸν … ὕδωρ in the following verse], 16.160 [with μέλαν ὕδωρ in 161], 21.257), also Od. 20.158, h.Hom. 19.20.

4 = 9.15; 1st VH (to caesura C 1) ≈ 13.63, h.Hom. 19.4; VE = 385. — The relative clause further explains the epithet ‘(spring) of dark water’ (3b); on the explanatory and clarifying function of relative clauses modifying compounds, cf. 24.479n. (with additional examples). — The association of tears and rock may recall the mourning Niobe, turned into stone, ‘the iconic lamenter of Greek myth’, cf. 24.602–617 (Dué 2010, 291).

αἰγίλιπος: according to the traditional interpretation ‘(rising) steeply, straight’, 4× an epithet of πέτρη, 1× an island name (2.633, Odysseus’ contingent); cf. ἠλίβατος (35n.), προβλής and ὑψηλός (407n.); Elliger 1975, 93 (epithets of πέτρη in similes). But the etymology of αἰγίλιψ is uncertain (LfgrE and Beekes s.v.; Manessy-Guitton 1988, 426–428; interpretation with the sense ‘moistened by water’ in Janda 2014, 448–459). — δνοφερόν: see 3n.

5–100 As at 1.201–219 (Achilleus/Athene) and 24.193–227 (Priam/Hekabe), the dialogue between Achilleus and Patroklos follows the pattern A–B–A’ (Blom 1936, 41). This is the most extensive dialogue in direct speech involving these two characters in the Iliad. 11.605–615 contains merely a brief conversation, while all other passages (1.337  f., 9.201–204, 16.124–129) have Achilleus alone talking (directions for Patroklos); after Patroklos’ death, a conversation also takes place between his ghost and Achilleus (23.68–108): Kahane 1994, 138– 141. The present dialogue, ‘as scarcely any other, reveals Homer’s mastery in portraying emotions: Achilleus, conflicted between the desire to grant his friend’s wish and his still festering rage against Agamemnon, and Patroklos, animated by his wish to help the Achaians without violating Achilleus’ honor – a feat that seems virtually impossible – in this dialogue battle against one another, as it were, and at the same time each of them against himself’ (von Scheliha 1943, 257 [transl.]). The intimacy between the two characters is also

4 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — πέτρης: on the form (-η- after -ρ-), R 2. — χέει ὕδωρ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — χέει: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

18 

 Iliad 16

expressed by the fact that the dialogue shares elements of language and content with conversations between Thetis and Achilleus (i.e. mother and son) in Books 1 and 18: ‘why are you crying?’ (7 ≈ 1.362 = 18.73), ‘tell me!’ (19 = 1.363 ≈ 18.74), followed by the response – ‘sighing deeply’ (20 ≈ 1.364 = 18.78) – with a detailed account of the most recent events (21  ff., 1.365  ff., 18.79  ff.) and a plan of action, delivered in the form of an urgent plea or an objective (36  ff., 1.393  ff., 18.88  ff./114  ff.), that crucially shapes the subsequent story (battle boycott in Book 1, departure of the Myrmidons led by Patroklos in Book 16, abandonment of the boycott in Book 18). On the parallels between Il. 1 and 16, see also Ledbetter 1993 and Rabel 1997, 154  ff. (both with sometimes speculative interpretations); on the friendship between Achilleus and Patroklos, see 19.4– 6an. (with bibliography) and 195n. (‘companion’). 5 =  23.534 (Achilleus, when Eumelos is the last to reach the finish-line in the chariot race); ≈ 11.599 (Achilleus spots the wounded Machaon from afar); 1st VH = 11.814 (Patroklos encounters the wounded Eurypylos); cf. 16.431. — The formulation ‘B spots A’, either thus or in a similar form, is frequently used in changes of sceneP with the entrance of a character (here Achilleus, already introduced in 2): 124n. — In the Iliad, Achilleus’ humane attitude (here: ‘he felt pity’) frequently takes a backseat to his anger at Agamemnon and his desire for revenge on Hektor, but is always present as a fundamental trait; in addition to the iterata, see Achilleus’ magnanimity toward slain opponents (Eëtion: 6.417–419an.; 24.580–595n.) and especially the events in Book 24 (Achilleus’ pity for Priam), which to some extent are prepared for by the present passage. Bibliography: 24.33–54n., end; Kim 2000, esp.  28–31, 58–65, 118–120, 173  f.; Most 2003, 67  f.

τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν ᾤκτιρε …: a recurrent verse structure filled out in various ways: τὸν/τοὺς/ τὴν δὲ/μὲν, ἰδών/ἰδοῦσ’, γήθησε/ἐλέησε/νείκεσσε/ἐνόησε/ῥίγησε/ᾤκτιρε, followed by the subject as verse-completing (noun-epithet) formula (13× Il., 2× Od.; cf. 1.33n.). In the subsequent verse, a speech introduction formulaP follows, as it does here, at 4.255  f., 4.336  f., 11.345  f., 11.814  f., 15.12  f., 16.431  f., 23.534  f., Od. 24.504  f.  — ᾤκτιρε: ‘felt pity, emotion, compassion’ (24.516n.). — ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: 21× Il., always at VE. On ποδάρκης (a distinctive epithetP of Achilleus), see 1.121n., 24.668n.; on δῖος as an epithet of heroes, 1.7n. (cf. 365n.).

6 A speech introduction formulaP (see 1.201n. and below). — The ‘winged words’ (Greek épea pteróenta) represent the most common noun-epithet formula in

5 τόν: = τοῦτον (R 17). — δὲ (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3 (cf. Lat. videre). 6 μιν … ἔπεα … προσηύδα: double acc. object. — ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 19

early epic: Dee 2010, 285. On the interpretation of ‘winged’ in the sense ‘flying steadily and thus unerringly’, see 1.201n. with bibliography; also LfgrE s.v. πτερόεις; Reece 2009, 315–319.

καί μιν φωνήσας: an inflectable VB formula (μιν/σφεας, φωνήσας/φωνήσασ’: 21× Il., 31× Od. [of which 2× probably interpolated], 3× h.Hom.), always in combination with the present 2nd VH except at Od. 14.439. — ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα: an inflectable VE formula (προσηύδα/-ηύδων: 55× Il., 59× Od. [of which 3× probably interpolated], 3× ‘Hes.’, 8× h.Hom.); on its use as a speech introduction formulaP (in the 1st VH often with a part. indicating the speaker’s state, intention or location), see Parry (1937) 1971; Edwards 1970, 9, 10  f., 14; Kelly 2007, 143–148. – On πτερόεις, see also 773n.

7–19 Achilleus’ speech is ‘a delicate combination of friendship and irony’: Willcock (similarly von Scheliha 1943, 257  f.; Owen 1946, 146; Macleod, Introd. 41; Minchin 2010, 395; Porter 2010, 452  f.; on the irony, see also 12– 18n.). The speech is designed to (a) initiate the conversation (inter alia via the leading questions at 12–18: Danek 1988, 191  f.; a similar function occurs e.g. in the speeches at 24.362–371 and 24.379–385 [Hermes addressing Priam, see ad loc.]) with Patroklos, who is standing there weeping – i.e. also speechless: schol. bT on 3 – while (b) creating an atmosphere of intimacy and openness, especially via the topic of the shared homeland at 12–16 and the request to express himself openly (19 with AH; Minchin 2007, 184  f.), and at the same time (c) to suggest Achilleus’ point of view to Patroklos – and thus indirectly to the audience (18: the Achaians are in distress ‘because of their own transgression’). In 5, the narrator may be hinting at the way he wishes the speech to be understood (ṓiktire): as an expression of compassion for Patroklos (Wilamowitz 1916, 117; Burkert 1955, 93  f.; Scodel 2014, 70  f.). At the same time, Patroklos’ reply in 22 (mē nemésa: ‘don’t take offence!’) suggests that the speech also carries a disapproving tone, esp. at 17  f., but probably already in the simile (7–11n.): the Achaians do not deserve to be pitied; this gives expression to Achilleus’ lingering ‘anger’ (1.1, 1.488) at the Achaians (17–18n.; Bonnafé 1983, 94; Ledbetter 1993, 486  f.; on the relationship of 22 to the statement in 17  f. cf. schol. bT and AH on 22; Edwards 1987, 257; differently Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 22  f.: via mē nemésa, Patroklos apologizes in anticipation of the serious reproach he offers at 29  ff.). 7–11 Homeric epic contains well over two dozen similesP in which children play a role (cf. 259–267n.); a kóurē (‘girl’) is explicit also at 2.872 (of gold-bedecked Nastes, the leader of the Karian contingent). These similes – like many other Homeric similes – offer a glimpse of ‘non-heroic’ daily life at the time of the poet of the Iliad (Lesky 1967, 37; Edwards 1987, 103  f.; Edwards, Introd. 35  f.; scholia: Richardson 1980, 276). The focus of the present passage is on the child’s helplessness, dependency and attachment; whether she will obtain

20 

 Iliad 16

her goal of being picked up by her mother remains open. Similes with comparable themes: 4.130  f. (a mother chases away a fly), 8.271 (a child snuggles up to its mother), 12.433–435 (a mother’s wearying exertion for her children’s benefit), Od. 5.394–397 (children rejoice at their father’s recovery), as well as often in animal similes (a parent feeds its young or protects them from enemies, e.g. Il. 9.323  f., 12.167–170, 16.259–265, 17.4  f., 17.133–136). The same motifs – weeping, tugging at a cloak, seeking physical proximity to the mother/father – also occur outside of similes: 21.493–514 (Aphrodite, defeated by Hera, seeks refuge with Zeus), 22.490–504 (Astyanax’s imagined humiliating existence as an orphan; tugging at the cloak is there also the gesture of a beggar). Given the military context (which stands in stark contrast to the present simile: 633–637n.), an additional connotation is not unimportant here: the child as an image representing weak, unwarlike humans (2.289  f., 2.337  f., 7.235  f., 11.389  f., etc.). This may convey a gentle rebuke directed at the – notably elder (11.787) – Patroklos, perhaps ‘get a grip on yourself!, stop making a fuss!’ (‘more an encouragement to firmness than an insult proper’: Monsacré 1984, 81  f. with n. 18 [p. 219; transl.]; ‘a friendly rebuke’: Janko on 7–19; mistaken are Reucher 1983, 308 [transl.]: ‘condescendingly and with a mocking tone’; Schein 1984, 117: ‘makes fun of him’; differently Jachmann 1958, 302–304, who rules out a critical tone altogether). On the present simile in general, see the detailed remarks of Porter 2010; also Coffey 1957, 129; Moulton 1977, 103  f.; Le Meur 2009, 64  f.; Ready 2011, 180  f.; an idiosyncratic interpretation in Gaca 2008 (portrayal of the mother as a war refugee); on child similes overall, Fränkel 1921, 90–95; Scott 1974, 73  f.; Ingalls 1998, 17–21; Kelly 2007, 265–267; Pratt 2007, 31  f.  – Similes in direct speechP are markedly less frequent in the Iliad than those in narrator-textP (2.289n. with bibliography; also Ready 2011, esp. 31  ff.; here both types, referring to the same event, occur a few verses apart: 3  f. narrator, 7  ff. direct speech; see de Jong [1987] 2004, 125  f.: ‘two very different pictures’; similarly at 12.131  ff./167  ff., 16.742/745  ff. [745–750n.]). Achilleus is the only characterP in the Iliad to employ two similes, the first at 9.323  f. (a mother bird cares for her young to the point of exhaustion), the second here: ‘the peculiar power of Achilles’ two similes […] places them among the gems of this epic, and hence of world literature’ (Friedrich/Redfield 1978, 273); there are in addition a number of comparisons (Moulton 1977, 100  f. and Edwards, Introd. 39). All of these are expressions of the poet’s desire to confer a distinct style of speech on Achilleus (Griffin 1986, 53; Hainsworth on 9.323–4; in general, Martin 1989, 146  ff.; cf. 24.544–545n.). In terms of content, Achilleus also appears responsible for the well-being of his people in both similes  – despite the fact that he will not be able to save Patroklos, of all people, from death (see esp. 18.100–106;

Commentary 

 21

on the motif of the mother’s role/‘parental care’ in similes and in reference to Achilleus: Moulton loc. cit. 100–106; Schein 1984, 107; Ledbetter 1993, 483–485; Mills 2000, esp. 8, 13–15; Pratt loc. cit. 35–38). 7 ‘Weeping/tears’ (dakry-) is the cue for the following simile, picked up again in both the ‘as’-part (v. 10) and the ‘so’-part (v. 11): Fehling 1969, 145  f.; Edwards, Introd. 31. On the ring-compositionP structure of similes, achieved via these cues, e.g. 2.87/91, 2.459/464, 2.480/483, 2.781/784, 16.259/267, 16.352/356, 16.406/409, 16.641/644, 24.482–484; van Otterlo 1948, 49  ff.; Fehling loc. cit. 145  f. On the structure of the present simile: Kahane 1994, 110; Benediktson 2013, 30–32.

τίπτε δεδάκρυσαι: τίπτε (= τί ποτε, ‘what then?, why on earth’) can signal rebuke or disconcertment (e.g. 1.202, 16.721, 22.8, 24.90). In contrast e.g. to the more empathic τί κλαίεις (Thetis addressing Achilleus: 1.362, 18.73), the present expression probably contains a gentle reproach (LfgrE s.v. τίπτε) or may even be ironic (12–18n.); cf. 7–11n. — δεδάκρυσαι: an intensifying perfect, ‘dissolve into tears’ (human), ‘flooded with tears’ (cheeks), ‘be tear-stained’ (eyes): δεδάκρυνται δὲ παρειαί 22.491, Od. 20.353, ὄσσε Od. 20.204. — Πατρόκλεις: The form Πατροκλέης is attested in early epic only in the voc., gen. and acc., while the abbreviated form Πάτροκλος (2, etc.) occurs in all cases and is noticeably more frequent overall (by a ratio of ca. 5:1); the situation in Homeric epic is the same for Ἐχεκλέης (189, gen.) and Ἔχεκλος (694, acc.) (although these are two distinct characters); see also G 56; Meier-Brügger 1992, 42. The three vocative forms Πατρόκλεις (15× Il.), Πάτροκλε (9× Il.) and Πάτροκλ’ (830) ensure metrical flexibility (Kahane 1994, 109  f.). – On the contracted vocative form -εις, see West 1998, XXV; in contrast, Visser 1987, 151 n. 213 and Blanc 2008, 203  f. argue for uncontracted -εες. — ἠΰτε: ‘as, like’ (2.87n.).

8 νηπίη, ἥ …: With an attribute (or an appositive) in enjambmentP and a relative clause following, simple comparisons (here ἠΰτε κούρη, cf. 2.872) transition fluidly into more detailed similes, cf. 156  f., 582  f.: Lee 1964, 10  f.; Edwards, Introd. 26. On adjectives in progressive enjambment in general, La Roche 1897, 171–173 (collection of examples). – νήπιος here probably has the neutral meaning ‘small’ (in the sense ‘dependent, childlike’) but will later (46) be employed as an evaluative narrator comment in reference to Patroklos (‘the fool!’): 46–47n.; Tsagarakis 1982, 13; Edmunds 1990, 55, 67  f.

7 ἠΰτε: ‘as’ (in comparisons). 8 νηπίη, ἥ: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — νηπίη: on the form (-η after -ι-), R 2. — θ’: = τε (4n.). — ἅμα: with dat. ‘together with …’, here ‘beside …’. — θέουσ(α): from θέω ‘run’; on the elision, R 5.1. — ἀνελέσθαι: mid. ‘pick up, take into the arms’; inf. dependent on ἀνώγει. — ἀνώγει: plpf. of the present perf. ἄνωγε, ‘demands, tells (someone to do something)’ (sc. ‘her mother’, to be supplied from μητρί).

22 

 Iliad 16

9 2nd VH ≈ 6.518, Od. 15.73. — εἱανοῦ: a women’s garment (3.385n.); on the metrical lengthening at VB, Chantr. 1.103. — ἁπτομένη … κατερύκει: The choice of words indicates that the pres. forms are conative, in contrast to e.g. 3.385 χειρὶ … ἑανοῦ ἐτίναξε λαβοῦσα (sc. Aphrodite regarding Helen’s dress), 22.493 χλαίνης ἐρύων (sc. Astyanax begging a friend of his father); see LfgrE s.v. ἅπτω 1122.2  ff. (‘by attempting to grasp her by her dress, …’). On the conative pres. in general, K.-G. 1.140–142 (on the part in particular., 141  f.); Schw. 2.259. — καί τ(ε): καί here probably has a coordinating function, whereas τε is generalizing (‘epic τε’), in a simile also at 160, 22.31, etc.; cf. 24.335n.; Ruijgh 764  f.; Chantr. 2.343. AH (transl.) ‘καί with ἐσσυμένην in a concessive sense’ is probably mistaken. 10 ποτιδέρκεται: δέρκομαι means ‘look’ in the pregnant sense ‘have a certain look, gaze with a certain expression’, here probably ‘look at beseechingly’: AH; Snell (1939) 1975, 13  f.; cf. 3.342n. — ὄφρ(α): provides the purpose behind the imploring look: ‘so that’ (cf. Baker 2014, 30  f.); differently, namely temporal ‘until’, schol. b; Janko on 7–10, end; Wathelet 1999, 374.

11 2nd VH ≈ 19.323, Od. 16.332. — The verse concludes the simile in the manner of a ring-composition; like 7, it contains the following elements: comparison word ‘as, like’, vocative ‘Patroklos’, catchword ‘you are crying’ (on which, 7n.). The repetition of the address carries particular emphasis (2.284n., 6.429–430n.; cf. 29n., 241n. [in a prayer]).

τῇ ἴκελος: as introduction to the ‘so’-part of a simile also at Od. 4.249, 5.54, Hes. Op. 535, Sc. 392 (τῷ ἴκελος/οι). — τέρεν κατὰ δάκρυον εἴβεις: an inflectable formula for ‘cries, cried’ after caesura B 2 (see iterata); variant after B 1: θαλερὸν κατὰ δάκρυον εἰβ- (Il. 24.9, Od. 11.391), starting at the 3rd foot: πυκνὸν ὑπ’ ὀφρύσι δάκρυον εἰβ- (Od. 4.153), after caesura A 4: ἐλεεινὸν ὑπ’ ὀφρύσι δάκρυον εἰβ- (2× Od.), and finally after C 1: κατὰ δάκρυον εἰβ- (2× Od.); additional variants: inflectable (κατὰ) δάκρυ χέουσ(α)/χέον­τ(ος) (1.413n.). – δάκρυον εἰβ- is a secondary formation related to δάκρυα λειβ- (3× Il., 6× Od.; Haslam 1976, 203–207; Reece 2009, 158  f.); on the collective sing. δάκρυον, see Schw. 2.41; Chantr. 2.29; on the generic epithetP τέρεν, 3.142n. and 19.323n. (sense, usage; cf. 3n. on δάκρυα θερμὰ χέων).

12–18 The attitude behind Achilleus’ questions is a matter of dispute: are they ‘sincerely meant’ (Jachmann 1958, 305  f. [transl.]; likewise de Jong [1987] 2004, 170) or is ‘Achilleus acting’ (Reucher 1983, 308 [transl.]; likewise van Leeuwen on 7–19; Scodel 2014, 62  f.)? Both interpretations may be too extreme: Achilleus had deliberately sent Patroklos to scout out the situation among the 9 εἱανοῦ: = ἑανοῦ ‘gown, dress’ (initial syllable metrically lengthened: R 10.1). — ἁπτομένη: with gen. ‘grasp someone by something’. — ἐσσυμένην: perf. part. of σεύομαι ‘hurry, be in a hurry’. 10 μιν: = αὐτήν (R 14.1). — ποτιδέρκεται: = προσδέρκεται (R 20.1). 11 τῇ (ϝ)ίκελος: on the prosody, R  4.4; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — κατὰ … εἴβεις: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

Commentary 

 23

Achaian forces (11.605–617; on the connection of Book 16 with Book 11, see the introduction, p. 11  f.). If he now asks whether Patroklos is crying because he is conveying bad news from the homeland, this signifies that Achilleus would only consider that type of news worth crying over, but not the (actually expected) information that the Achaians are in dire straits – since Achilleus wishes to gain personal rehabilitation via just that situation (1.407–412). In this sense, the questions at 12  f. (and the opening question in 7 ‘why are you in tears?’) are to be taken as ironic (cf. schol. bT on 12–13 and 14–16; Ledbetter 1993, 485  f.; Heiden 2008, 200  f.; Porter 2010, 452; Minchin 2010, 395). – A series of two or more suppositions (in the form of questions) is common in Homeric epic (6.438–439n. with examples, cf. esp. Od. 2.28–32; Janko on 7–19), here clearly structured via the anaphoric ēé … ēé … ḗe … at VB of 12/13/17 (on which, cf. 6.378–380n.; Göbel 1933, 27  f.). The final guess is the correct one in each case (Kakridis 1949, 119  f.; Macleod, Introd. 41; cf. 50–55n.).

ἠέ … ἠ(έ) … | ἠέ … | (3 vv.) | ἦε: a disjunctive question; these are in essence three questions: 12 (with a double question), 13 and 17, with 12/13 more similar thematically, whereas the final question (17) represents a true alternative (cf. West 2001, 235; 6.378–380n.). On ἦε in general, Schw. 2.565  f. — ἠέ τι … | ἠέ τιν(ὰ) … | ζώειν … | ζώει …: an emphatic sequence of (here somewhat varied) anaphoric verse beginnings (e.g. 1.436  ff., 2.382  ff., 7.238  ff., 16.25  ff.; in general, see Fehling 1969, 192  ff.). Especially at 14  f., the anaphora highlights the suggestive power of the speech (cf. 7–19n.): ‘it is hardly imaginable that you have sad news from home, as our fathers are still alive’.

12 VE ≈ 22.451, 24.732, Od. 3.49, 4.177, 9.421, 23.253. — The name ‘Myrmidons’ denotes the inhabitants of Phthia (13n.) and hence Achilleus’ contingent in the Trojan War (2.684n.; CH 2 with n. 11).

πιφαύσκεαι: literally ‘make, let shine’ (related to φάος, reduplicated), usually of words: ‘illuminate, set forth, reveal’ (LfgrE s.v. with bibliography). — ἠ’ ἐμοὶ αὐτῷ: stands emphatically at VE, occasionally as an antithesis in the same verse, as here; ‘for X and/or/ but for my(your/him)self’ (also at 3.51, 15.226, 23.126, 23.342, Od. 9.421, 15.168, 22.214, 23.253). Achilleus skillfully uses the 1st and 2nd person in antitheses: 12 ‘for me’, 13 ‘you alone’, 16 ‘we’, 17 ‘you’, 19 ‘both of us’ (suggestion by Führer).

13–16 In the Iliad, Achilleus repeatedly thinks of his elderly father Peleus, who remained behind at home, and voices ‘how both men fear a message reporting that the other has died’ (19.322–337n.; cf. 24.486–489n.).

12 ἠέ … ἠ(έ): ≈ πότερον … ἤ. — Μυρμιδόνεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. — πιφαύσκεαι: 2nd pers. sing. pres., conative (‘you plan, are about to report’); on the uncontracted form, R 6.

24 

 Iliad 16

13 1st VH ≈ Od. 1.408, 2.30. — The region of Phthia is part of Thessaly. As Peleus’ domain and Achilleus’ home, it is an emotionally charged place name and as such is almost always found in direct speech, as here (exception: 2.683 in the Catalogue of Ships, see ad loc.; Mackie 2002, 166  f.).

οἶος: ‘alone’, ‘so that the rest of us are unaware of it’ (AH [transl.]; differently Janko on 12–16: ‘a message from Phthia ⟨that concerns you⟩ alone’).

14 2nd VH ≈ 11.785 (nom.). — In the Iliad, Menoitios is mentioned exclusively in his role as Patroklos’ father (CH 2). Originally from Locrian Opūs (in the Iliad ‘Opoeis’: 2.531n.), Menoitios flees together with his son, who as a boy commits manslaughter, to Peleus in Phthia, where Patroklos grows up together with Achilleus (more on the character of Menoitios: BNP; cf. 18.326n.). The name is frequently attested historically, also in the form Menoitēs/-tās (LPGN); on its ambiguous etymology, von Kamptz 209.  – Aktor is a common speaking name of heroes (‘leader’), frequently of minor characters, here and at 11.785 of Menoitios’ father and Patroklos’ grandfather, at 16.189 of Echekles’ father (RE; LfgrE; cf. 2.513n. [father of Astyoche who was conceived by Ares – a context similar to that of 16.189]).

μάν: highlights the preceding word, here in addition with an adversative function (rarely detectable in Homer: Denniston 334; see also Schw. 2.569  f.). — Μενοίτιον Ἄκτορος υἱόν: ≈ 11.785, echoing the half-verse formula Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμος/-ον υἱός/-όν (on which, 278n.); cf. 1.35n. (on ἀπάνευθε κιών); FOR 25. – The structure of the 2nd VH is common: personal name + patronymic in the gen. + υἱός/ν (or patronymic in the gen. + adjective + υἱός/ν), e.g. 2.638, 2.727, 2.736, etc., in Book 16 also at 177, 278, 401, 586; see Kahane 2005, 82 with n. 59 (p. 91) (an incomplete list).

15 Aiakos, son of Zeus, is the father of Peleus and grandfather of Achilleus. In the Iliad, both descendants bear the patronymic Aiakídēs, Peleus here, at 18.433 and at 21.189, Achilleus at 16.134, etc. (see ad loc.). The positioning of the patronymic before the personal name (e.g. also ‘Tydeus’ son Diomedes’: 25, 74) is considered poetic; ‘more ordinary’ is the order name–patronymic, as at e.g. 14 (‘Menoitios, son of Aktor’) and 21 (‘Achilleus, Peleus’ son’) (Wackernagel [1943] 1953, 198  f.; West 2007, 76  f.). On the function of the patronymic in general, 1.1n. (on ‘Peleus’ son Achilleus’); Horn 2014, 42  f. – Achilleus confers an official character on his statement by designating his and Patroklos’ fathers

13 Φθίης ἔξ: = ἐκ Φθίης (R 20.2). 14 ζώειν: = ζῆν. — μάν: = μήν (R 24.7), here adversative: ‘but, yet’. — ἔτι: to be taken with ζώειν. — φασί: ‘they say, it is said’. 15 μετά (+ dat.): ‘in the midst of, among’.

Commentary 

 25

with their respective personal names (rather than ‘my father and yours’ vel sim.) (cf. AH).

μετὰ Μυρμιδόνεσσιν: a VE formula (5× Il., 1× Od., of which 3× with preceding πολέσιν [240, etc.], similarly at 4.388/13.661 πολέσιν μετὰ Καδμείοισιν/Παφλαγόνεσσιν).

16 ἀκαχοίμεθα: a reduplicated aor. related to ἄχνυμαι/ἄχομαι; the active (ἤκαχε: 822) has a causative function (‘make sorrowful’), the middle a corresponding reflexive function, cf. 24.513n. on τετάρπετο. The aor. ought probably to be taken here as ingressive: ‘come to be sorrowful, dismayed’ (Mutzbauer 1893, 323; AH; LfgrE s.v. ἄχνυμαι 1773.7  ff.). More on the meaning of the verb: 19.312n. with bibliography; a context similar to here at e.g. 822 (death of Patroklos), 23.223 (simile: death of a child), Od. 1.236 (death of a father), 15.356  f. (death of Laërtes’ wife), 16.342 (bad news).

17–18 Achilleus now poses the ‘correct’ question (7–19n., 12–18n.); in his reply, Patroklos will implicitly affirm it (22  ff.).  – Achilleus had already indicated in Book 1 that while he assigns the main responsibility for his dishonor to Agamemnon himself, he considers all the other Greeks complicit (thus including them in his plea for revenge: 1.407–410), since officially the collective is involved in the decision to distribute the booty (1.162; see 1.162–168n.) but did not intervene against the removal of Briseïs in the case in question (AH; de Jong [1987] 2004, 170; van Wees 1992, 135 with n. 145 [p. 370]; Hammer 2002, 100). Cf. Achilleus’ statements at 1.231  f. (Agamemnon rules over good-for-nothings) and 1.299 (‘you have taken what you had given me’), on which 1.231n., 1.293n., 1.299n. (as well as the allusion at 9.315  f.). 17 In addition to ‘Achaians’ and ‘Danaans’, the ethnic ‘Argives’ is a term used to designate the ‘Greeks’ (1.2n.; Latacz [2001] 2004, 133  ff.; [2011] 2014, 150  ff.).

σύ γ(ε): emphatic ‘you’ in contrast to Achilleus himself; implication: ‘not I’ (suggestion by Nünlist). — ὀλοφύρεαι: The semantic range of the verb spans (inwardly) ‘feel sympathy’ to (audibly) ‘lament’; here, both aspects appear to be present, cf. 7 δεδάκρυσαι, 16 ἀκαχοίμεθα (LfgrE s.v. 661.6  ff.). The same likely applies to 11.815  ff./15.398  ff., where Patroklos displays real empathy in his speeches to Eurypylos (with ὀλοφυρόμενος in the respective speech introductions). Nestor, in contrast, uses the verb ironically at 11.656: Achilleus ὀλοφύρεται υἷας Ἀχαιῶν  – but in reality Δαναῶν οὐ κήδεται οὐδ’ ἐλεαίρει (11.665; cf. AH ad loc.). On the thematic links between the passages, Kim 2000, 106– 108. — ὡς: an indirect exclamatory clause, ‘how (much) …’ or ‘that they thus …’ (≈ ὅτι οὕτως; discussion in Monro [1882] 1891, 238  f.; K.-G. 2.370  f.; Monteil 1963, 354  f.). —

16 κε  … ἀκαχοίμεθα: potential; κε =  ἄν (R  24.5).  — μάλ(α): to be taken with ἀκαχοίμεθα.  — ἀκαχοίμεθα: ‘become sad’, + gen. (τῶν) ‘about/because of’. — τεθνηώτων: ≈ ‘if they were dead’; on the form, R 3. 17  f. ἦε: ‘or’. — νηυσὶν ἔπι: = ἐπὶ νηυσίν (R 20.2); on the declension, R 12.1. — γλαφυρῇσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. — σφῆς: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4).

26 

 Iliad 16

ὀλέκονται: ὀλέκω occurs in early epic only in the pres. stem and thus displays forms complementary to (usually non-present) ὄλλυμι (LfgrE). In and of itself, the κ-present denotes ‘the «successful» conclusion of the verbal process’ (cf. ἐρύκω): 1.10n.; DELG s.v. ὄλλυμι. 18 νηυσὶν ἔπι γλαφυρῇσιν: an inflectable VB formula: dat. pl. (with γλαφυρῇσ(ι[ν])) 12× Il. (and 2× in verse middle), acc. pl. 16× Il., gen. sing. 1× Od. – Variants: with ἀνά 3× Il. (acc. pl.; references: 295–296n.), ἐνί/παρά/ὑπέρ 4× Od. – On γλαφυρός as a (common) epithet of ships, see 2.454n. (with bibliography).  — ὑπερβασίης ἕνεκα σφῆς: As an evaluative term, ὑπερβασίη is part of character languageP, ‘transgression, offence, culpable comportment’, elsewhere in the Iliad 2× of young people’s high spirits (3.105–110, 23.587–590), in the Odyssey 4× of the suitors and the goatherd Melanthios (LfgrE; de Jong on Od.  1.224–229 [semantic field] and 13.190–193); cf. also Il. 9.501 (ὅτε κέν τις ὑπερβήῃ καὶ ἁμάρ­τῃ), Od. 1.7 (σφετέρῃσιν ἀτασθαλίῃσιν ὄλοντο).

19 = 1.363 (see ad loc.); 1st VH = 18.74. — Cf. 5–100n., 7–19n. 20 ≈  1.364, 18.78 (Achilleus talking to Thetis); 2nd VH =  744, 843. On the characteristic structure of the present speech introduction formulaP, see 1.58n. and 24.55n. (both with bibliography; Friedrich 2007, 40–43). As is often the case in dialogues, the speech introduction doubles as the conclusion of the preceding speech (19.28n.). — The address of the narratorP to one of his charactersP (‘then you said  …, Patroklos’) is among the very rare moments in Homer when the narrator turns to face a ‘you’ (the so-called apostrophes); similar cases are present – albeit without crossing the boundary to the level of the characters – in the (anonymous) words to the narrateeP (cf. 638–640n.) and in invocations of the Muses (2.484–493n.; 112–113n.; on the ‘visibility’ of the narrator in the Iliad, see in general de Jong [1987] 2004, 18–20). In addition to Patroklos (8× Il., only in Book 16), also Menelaos (7× Il.), Eumaios (15× Od.), Achilleus and Melanippos (1× each Il.), as well as the god Apollo (‘Phoibos’, 2× Il.), are given an apostrophe (collection of examples in e.g. Richardson 1990, 237  f. n. 5  f.). These addresses by the narrator occur for the most part in the following contexts: as here, in a speech introduction formulaP (also at 744 and at 843, as well as in the Eumaios apostrophes in the Odyssey), after a simile (e.g. 584, 754), in the introduction of a catalogue of the slain (692) or in the description of a life-threatening situation for the hero (e.g. 787, 812; cf. 843) (Henry 1905, 7  f.). The significance of these apostrophes is disputed; three broad lines can be distinguished in the scholarship. (1) Formulaic or metrical conditioning: a vocative rather than a nominative allows (1a) the positioning of personal names in certain positions in the verse 19 νόῳ, ἵνα (ϝ)είδομεν: on the prosody, R 5.6 and 4.3. — νόῳ: = νῷ (from νοῦς), R 6. — εἴδομεν: short-vowel subjunc. (R 16.3) of οἶδα. — ἄμφω: dual (nom., with predicate in pl.: R 18.1). 20 βαρύ: adverbial.

Commentary 

 27

(cf. M 10; the three most commonly used names are of the form ⏕ — ×), (1b) the traditional formation of noun-epithet formulae (like the present one) and (1c) provisions for other metrical or prosodic requirements (in detail, Bonner 1905; Matthews 1980; cf. Hoekstra 1965, 138–140; Visser 1987, 151  f.; Yamagata 1989; on the Greek forms of the name Patroklos, see 7n.); (2) an expression of a special relationship between narrator and character (cf. Dubel 2011), either (2a) affective: the narrator’s sympathy with ‘his’ character, with a transfer of the sympathy effect to the audience (Parry 1972, 9  ff.: ‘Menelaus, Patroclus, and Eumaeus are all […] treated with particular concern by the poet; are represented as unusually sensitive and worthy of the audience’s sympathy’; similarly the scholia [esp. bT on 16.787; additional examples in Richardson 1980, 272, and de Jong (1987) 2004, 13]; Block 1982, esp. 9, 15–17; 1986, 160  f.; Edwards 1987, 37  f.; Richardson 1990, 170–174; Kahane 1994, 104–113; Collobert 2011, 207–210; de Jong on Od. 14.55) or (2b) narrative: enhancement of the character’s status by turning him into an exemplary member of the audience (Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 21–27; Bakker 1997, 172  f.; cf. Martin 1989, 235  f.); (3) a dramaturgical design element: the apostrophes addressed to Patroklos occur only in Book 16, i.e. in the context of his aristeia and death (which will lead to Achilleus abandoning his boycott of battle); they provide a structure for Patroklos’ appearance, intensify toward the end of the Book (20, 584  f., 692  f., 744, 754, 787  f., 812, 843) and thus heighten the pathos of the narrative (Parry loc. cit. 14: ‘crisis of the action’, 15: ‘crucial moment’; Baltes 1983, 47  f.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 42– 45; Friedrich 2007, 102  f.; see also Allen-Hornblower 2012 [the narrator prepares for Achilleus grieving for Patroklos via the apostrophes]). Interpretation (1) is rarely given priority today; instead, a deliberate use of the apostrophes is posited (interpretations 2 and 3). Overview of the scholarship: Kahane loc. cit. 153–155; de Jong 2009, 93–97; specifically on Eumaios, Steiner on Od. 17.272. — The noun-epithet formula ‘charioteer Patroklos’ suggests that Patroklos used a chariot on the battlefield, as is usual for numerous Homeric warriors (mentioned explicitly at 145  ff., 377  ff., 427, 684  f., 733; on the use of chariots in general, see 2.384n. and 24.14n. with bibliography; also LfgrE s.v. ὄχεα 896.65  ff.; Luce 1975, 111–119; Buchholz 2010, 29–38; cf. Raaflaub 2011). In the narrator’s imagination, Patroklos likely serves as Achilleus’ charioteer until the latter’s boycott and he in turn, after his ‘promotion’ to acting leader, names Automedon (CH 4) as his own charioteer (145, 219, 279, 472–475, 684, 864  f.); after the death of Patroklos, the substitute Automedon will move up again to become Achilleus’ charioteer: 19.392n.; Krischer 1992. – A Corinthian aryballos dated to the final third of the 7th cent. B.C. depicts Patroklos, named in the inscription, as a warrior standing on a chariot behind an (unnamed) charioteer: Snodgrass 1998, 104  f.; Wachter 2001, 36 (COR 3; with additional bibliography).

28 

 Iliad 16

βαρὺ στενάχων: an inflectable formula after caesura A 2 (nom.: 1.364n.; dat.: 18.70n.), usually modifying information in speech introduction formulae (Kaimio 1977, 40  f.). — Πατρόκλεις ἱππεῦ: ἱππεύς appears in the sing. only in Book 16, namely as an epithet of Patroklos (20, 744, 812, 843, always in an apostrophe): ‘an honorific address’ (Delebecque 1951, 37 [transl.]); elsewhere regularly in the pl. as a general term for ‘charioteers’. – Epithets of similar meaning: ἱπποκέλευθος (126n.), ἱππότα (2.336n.; in Book 16 of Peleus: v. 33), ἱππηλάτα (19.311n.; of Phoinix: v. 196), ἱππιοχάρμης (24.257n.); see Delebecque loc. cit. 36  ff., 162  ff. – Additional epithets used for Patroklos: διογενής (49n.), μεγαλήτωρ (257–258n.); on the economy of the noun-epithet formula system in the case of Patroklos, Collins 1998, 8  f.; Yamagata 2012, 457  f. (and in general FOR 32). – On the form Πατρόκλεις, see 7n.

21–45 Patroklos makes the third attempt overall – after Nestor at 1.254  ff. and the embassy in Book 9 – to mediate between Achilleus and the Achaians (cf. LynnGeorge 1988, 167  f.: Patroklos representing all Achaians). His speech is comprised of three sections, each of which focuses on an affected person or group of persons (Greeks, Achilleus, Patroklos): 21–29a (the alarming situation of the army), 29b–35 (harsh criticism of Achilleus’ unbending attitude), 36–45 (suggestion for a solution). In the first section, Patroklos responds matter-of-factly, if insistently, to Achilleus’ ironic questions (7–19), in the second section, he no longer hides his emotions, in the third, he takes up Nestor’s advice (which tragically will lead to his own death: 46–47n.). The significant distance from Book 11 notwithstanding, the speech appears as a messenger speech because of the partial literal repetition of Nestor’s words from 11.656–803 (see 23–27n., 36–45n.), with Patroklos replacing the paradigmP from Nestor’s youth with his own personal statement in the middle section. – Similarly severe criticism of Achilleus’ attitude is also expressed by, among others, the Myrmidons (203  ff., see ad loc.), Aias (9.628  ff.) and Apollo (24.33  ff., see 24.33–54n., 24.41b–44n., with bibliography; cf. 33n.). On the interpretation of the speech as a whole, see schol. bT passim; Janko; Erbse 1983, 13  f.; Schein 1984, 117  f.; Bouvier 2002, 410–414; on the structure, Lohmann 1970, 275; on the repetition of passages from Book 11, Fingerle 1939, 268; Reichel 1994, 139  ff.; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 277; Kelly 2007, 325  f., 329; on repetitions as narrative conventions in general, 6.86–101n. with bibliography; on the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’, 1.320–348an.  – On the rhetorical arrangement of the speech, see also 21–22n., 23–27n., 23n., 29n., 42n., 43n., 44n. 21–22 ὦ Ἀχιλεῦ  …, μέγα φέρτατ’ Ἀχαιῶν,  |  … ἄχος βεβίηκεν Ἀχαιούς: The semantic field ἄχος, as well as the names Ἀχιλλεύς and Ἀχαιοί, are naturally well-represented in the Iliad. Occasionally, as here, where ἀχ- four times begins a word, the impression of word playP arises: with his battle boycott, Achilleus causes the Achaians áchos (etymologizingP, cf. Rank 1951, 41–43; Louden 1995, 33  f.); on ἄχος ‘(emotional) pain (due

Commentary 

 29

to external events)’, see 2.169–171n. Additional passages where a connection of one or both names with ἄχος is conceivable: 1.240  f. (Achilleus’ oath: Ἀχιλλῆος ποθὴ ἵξεται υἷας Ἀχαιῶν | …· … ἀχνύμενός περ [sc. Agamemnon]), 2.694 (τῆς [sc. Briseïs] ὅ γε κεῖτ’ ἀχέων [sc. Achilleus]; similarly 18.446), 9.249  f. (Odysseus speaks: αὐτῷ τοι μετόπισθ’ ἄχος ἔσσεται, οὐδέ τι μῆχος | … ἐστ’ ἄκος εὑρεῖν), 11.656–658 (Nestor speaks: τίπτε … Ἀχιλεὺς ὀλοφύρεται υἷας Ἀχαιῶν | …; οὐδέ τι οἶδεν | πένθεος …), 16.55 (Achilleus on his dishonor: αἰνὸν ἄχος τό μοί ἐστιν), 16.599 (death of a Myrmidon: πυκινὸν δ’ ἄχος ἔλλαβ’ Ἀχαιούς), 16.822 (Patroklos’ death: μέγα δ’ ἤκαχε λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν), etc. (18.61  f., 20.293  ff., 22.424  f., 23.46  f., 23.136  f., 23.222  ff., Od. 11.486; the etymologizing of Odysseus’ name in the Odyssey via ὀδύρομαι, ὀδύσσομαι and δυσ-compounds is similar: Rank loc. cit. 51  ff.; de Jong on Od. 1.48–62). – Although the name Achaioi appears to have been only rarely (cf. Eust. 640.31  ff. on Il. 6.255 [see ad loc.]) linked explicitly in antiquity to ἄχος (according to myth, the Achaians derive their name from Achaios, the son of Xuthos the Athenian, see e.g. schol. D on 1.2), the name Achilleus was interpreted in e.g. the following way: διὰ τὸ ἄχος … ἐπενεγκεῖν τοῖς Ἰλιεῦσιν (schol. D on 1.1; similarly Et.M. s.v.: … ἐπενεγκεῖν τῇ μητρὶ καὶ τοῖς Ἰλιεῦσιν). The connection with ἄχος was picked up again in the modern period: initially as a derivation from an adjective *ἀχ-ίλος, similar to ὀργίλος from ὀργή, cf. Πενθ-ίλος (thus Kretschmer 1913), subsequently as a hypocoristic of *Ἀχί-λα(ϝ)ος, ‘having an army that has ἄχος’ (possessive compound; morphological analysis in Palmer 1963, 78–80; 1979, 256–258; contextual interpretation vis-à-vis Achilleus’ role in the Iliad with extensive implications in Nagy [1979] 1999, 69–71, 79–81, 111  f.; Clay 1983, 64  f.; Nagy 1994; Casali 2008, esp. 286  ff.; NTHS 43; objections and modifications in Létoublon 1994, 289  f., and Holland 1993). But in the end, the etymology of Ἀχιλλεύς remains obscure from a linguistic standpoint (DELG s.v. [transl.]: ‘unknown’; cf. the various hypotheses in von Kamptz 348; Holland loc. cit. 24  f.; Bader 1999, 41–45; Nikolaev 2007); the name is attested already in Mycenaean (a-ki-re-u, dat. a-ki-re-we, see DMic s.v.).

21 = 19.216, Od. 11.478 (whole-verse address; in both parallel passages, the speaker is Odysseus). — The phrasing ‘by far the greatest among the Achaians’ recalls the confrontation between Achilleus and Agamemnon in Book 1, esp. 1.186 and 281, where Agamemnon designates himself as phérteros ‘greater’ or is thus called by Nestor (see 1.173–187n., 1.244n., 1.275–284n., 2.761–779n.). The phrase appears in key passages in the Iliad: here  – and at 271/274 with the synonymous term áristos (1.186n.) – prior to the reentry of the Myrmidons into battle (while the other ‘greatest ones’ are no longer able to fight: v. 23), at 19.216 prior to Achilleus’ own reentry (see ad loc.), and additionally in the Catalogue of Ships at 2.769; cf. Postlethwaite 1989; Friedrich 2007, 101  f. On phérta-

21 ὦ Ἀχιλεῦ: on the hiatus, R 5.7; on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — Πηλῆος: = Πηλέως; on the declension, R 11.3 (cf. R 3). — υἱέ, (μ)μέγα: on the prosody, M 4.6; note also the caesura. — μέγα: adverbial, ‘by far’.

30 

 Iliad 16

tos ‘the best’, see 1.186n., 2.769n.; on the characterization of Achilleus as ‘the greatest’, Latacz (1995) 2014, 322  f. n. 122. – ‘(Patroclus’) formula of address is itself an argument’ (Sheppard 1922, 153), i.e. Patroklos suggests that Achilleus, as ‘the best of the Achaians’, has the means to turn the currently difficult situation to the better. On the signalling character of whole-verse addresses, see 1.36n.; lists of whole-verse addresses in Parry (1928) 1971, 63; Wendel 1929, 49–51.

ὦ Ἀχιλεῦ: Whether, and to what extent, the interjection ὦ signals emotional involvement is disputed (1.74n. and 1.442n. with bibliography). — Πηλῆος υἱέ: Although the spelling Πηλῆος requires shortening the initial syllable of υἱέ (to be read as ὑ-yέ), it is ‘preferable in terms of the rhythm’ than Πηλέως (less commonly Πηλέος) υἱέ (with synizesis Πηλέως), ͜ as transmitted in the majority of manuscripts: AH, Anh. on Od. 11.478 [transl.] (similarly Debrunner 1923, 32 n. 8; Chantr. 1.228); correption in midword occurs occasionally elsewhere in early epic (West on Hes. Th. 15; Chantr. 1.168). Additional bibliography: 1.489n., 6.130n., 19.216n.

22 = 10.145 (Nestor to Odysseus). — μὴ νεμέσα: ‘do not take offense, sc. that I weep; my tears are justified’ (cf. Ledbetter 1993, 487). The word family of νέμεσις denotes ‘indignation’ at a moral lapse (3.156n. with bibliography) and is part of character languageP; ‘μὴ νεμέσα seeks to override indignation which is acknowledged as justified with reference to some more pressing need’, cf. 10.145, 15.115 (Cairns 2003, 34; 7–19n.). — τοῖον γάρ: On the transitional function of τοῖον γάρ within the argument, cf. 24.153n.: it supports what has been said before (μὴ νεμέσα) and is in turn specified by the following statement (23  ff.).  — βεβίηκεν: a so-called resultative perfect: ‘has overpowered and holds in its power’ (attested relatively rarely in Homer: Schw. 2.263  f.; Chantr. 2.199; Meister 1921, 122–124; Tzamali 1996, 426). – The combination of abstracts (esp. designations of physical-emotional states) with verbs of seizing, coming, etc. is common in Greek, cf. 1.387n., 24.5n. (with additional examples; cf. also 30n., 52n., end; esp. on the combination with ἄχος, Mawet 1979, 317  f.; Rijksbaron 1997, 233–237; on paraphrases of this type in general, Porzig 1942, 130–134). The acc. object in these expressions is provided by the person as a whole, as here (and e.g. at 599), or – more commonly – lexemes of the semantic field ‘soul-mind’ (e.g. 52): 2.171n.

23–27 23 VE to 27 = 11.658–662 (Nestor to Patroklos), 23  f. = 11.825  f. (Eurypylos to Patroklos), 23 VE ≈ Od. 8.36. — A catalogueP of those wounded on the third day of battle: Diomedes (6.12n.; CH 3) was wounded in the right foot by one of Paris’ arrows (11.369–400, esp. 376  f.), Eurypylos (2.736n.; CH 4) was injured in the right thigh (11.580–595, esp. 582–584); Odysseus (CH 3) was hit in the chest with a lance by Sokos (11.428–488, esp. 434–437), Agamemnon (CH 2) in the arm by Koön (11.251–283, esp. 251–253). Only Eurypylos’ injury is described pre-

22 βεβίηκεν: perf. of βιάζω.

Commentary 

 31

cisely by Patroklos, since he treated Eurypylos himself (11.806–848). Machaon is no longer mentioned, since he is less important as a warrior (see schol. D on 25; Introduction, p.  11  f.; also Janko).  – The catalogue has an emphatic function (Gaertner 2001, 299  f.). 25–27 in particular (list of names) are distinguished rhetorically by parallelism (predicate – particle – name) and slightly varied anaphora at VB (‘here emphasizing the urgency, overwhelmingness of the situation’: Nestle 1942, 57 [transl.]; cf. 12–18n.). Additional references to Diomedes, Odysseus and Agamemnon together: 14.27–29, 19.47–53 (see ad loc.). 23–24 Patroklos, who spent an extended amount of time with Eurypylos, cannot know that in the meantime, Agamemnon, Diomedes and Odysseus – albeit without having recovered entirely – have held another consultation and drawn up the army for battle (esp. 14.27  ff., 378  ff.; Reichel 1994, 97  f., 203; differently, West 2011, 312  f.). But the formulations ‘all those who were before the bravest in battle’ and ‘they are lying up among the ships with wounds’ nevertheless sound to the audience like dramatizing hyperboles, designed to make Achilleus see the urgency of the matter and thus cause him to relent (schol. bT; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 63  f.; the same is the case for 28: treatment of the wounded by healers). 23 μὲν γὰρ δή: In the other three attestations of this combination of particles (11.825 [iteratum], 14.55, Od. 6.242), μέν correlates immediately with δέ in each case (cf. 14.55n.). Here μέν is taken up again, as it were, in 28 after the list of names, and is only then continued with δ(έ) in 29 (cf. Graziosi/Haubold on 6.127: ‘δέ signals the main point after two μέν clauses’). – On δή, cf. 127n. — ἄριστοι: means ‘best, greatest’ in a general sense (1.91n.), but can be specified more closely by the respective context, here ‘most capable in battle’ (cf. Ulf 1990, 24–32). 24 = 11.659, 11.826; 2nd VH = 13.764. — ἐν νηυσίν: i.e. ‘in the encampment of ships’ (cf. 1.12bn.). — βεβλημένοι οὐτάμενοί τε: βάλλω means ‘strike with a missile’ (in distance fighting), οὐτά(ζ)ω ‘strike with a thrusting or slashing weapon’ (in close combat; exception: 467  f. ἔγχεϊ); at 25–27 with emphatic anaphora (on which, 12–18n.), they correspondingly refer to the hero in question (see 23–27n.) (Trümpy 1950, 92  f., 104–107; Latacz 1977, 205; Saunders 2004, 5; the divergent choice of words was noted already in antiquity, esp. by Aristarchus: Lehrs [1833] 1882, 51  ff.). — οὐτάμενοι: probably an old part. related to the athematic root aor. οὖτα with a passive function; pres. οὐτάω and οὐτάζω with the forms of a sigmatic aor. (οὔτησε/οὔτασε [317n.]), aor. pass. (οὐτηθείς, in early epic only at 8.537) and perf. pass. (οὔτασται/οὐτασμένος) are in contrast likely secondary (6.64n. with bibliography). 25 = 11.660; ≈ 8.532. — ὁ Τυδεΐδης κρατερὸς Διομήδης: variants: Τυδεΐδης ‒ ‒ κρατερὸς Διομήδης (3× Il. after caesura A 3), Τυδεΐδεω Διομήδεος (inflectable: 74n.; on placing

24 κέαται: = κεῖνται (R 16.2).

32 

 Iliad 16

the patronymic in front, 15n.). κρατερὸς Δ. occurs in total 19× at VE, 1× in verse middle; in addition, κρατερός is occasionally a generic epithetP for other heroes (LfgrE s.v. 1522.54  ff.). – On the article, 358n. (with Τυδεΐδης only here and in the iterata; additional parallels for articles with patronymics: 11.614, 13.698, 14.460, 23.303, Od. 11.519). 26 =  11.661.  — δουρικλυτός: a generic epithetP of heroes between caesurae B 1 and C 2 (Parry [1928] 1971, 64–67; 2.645n.), in all cases after the personal name; in Book 16 of Odysseus, as well as of Automedon in 472 and Meriones in 619. – A contextually significant meaning of the epithet in relation to Odysseus appears possible especially in Book 11 (battle description) (11.396/401/661); it likely continues to have an effect here as well: Cosset 1983, 195; Friedrich 2007, 86, 117; cf. Bouvier 2002, 410 n. 165.

27 = 11.662 (where suspect as a concordance interpolation: West 2001, 13 n. 31, 214); also VE =  11.583/810 (likewise of Eurypylos).  — The thigh is a typical location for injuries caused by arrows or spears; examples: LfgrE s.v. μηρός 194.49  ff.; see also Hainsworth on 11.263; Morrison 1999, 143  f. (list of lethal injuries arranged by their location). 28–29 In addition to the known healers Machaon and Podaleirios, who are primarily rulers and warriors like the other Greek heroes (in the Catalogue of Ships: 2.729–733; in battle: 4.202–204, 11.505–520, 11.833–836), mention is made here and at 13.213 (and perhaps 11.835) of unnamed, likely ‘professional’ medics. In the civilian world of the Odyssey, they are among the demioergoí, the ‘public workers’, who are held in high regard (Od. 17.383–386; cf. Il. 11.514). Bibliography: 2.732n.; Laser 1983, 96–102. On the treatment of men injured in war in detail, see Laser loc. cit. 104  ff.; Salazar 2000, 126  ff.  – Patroklos may mention the healers here not on the basis of factual information (which in any case no longer entirely applies: 23–24n.) but for the sake of contrast: ‘the physically injured heroes can be healed, but the emotionally wounded Achilleus has proven to be immovable’ (schol. bT on 29; Martin 1983, 18  f.; see also 29n.). 28 μέν τ(ε): The function of solitary τε in μέν τε is unclear, cf. 4.341, 13.47, etc. (usually after pronouns): Ruijgh 759 (in the manner of a generalizing statement); Chantr. 2.342 (transl.: a ‘contingent force’ in the sense ‘here and there, as far as possible’); cf. 836n. on δέ τε. – Here μέν prepares for the antithesis (σὺ) δέ (cf. 23n.). — πολυφάρμακοι: an Iliadic hapaxP, ‘who possess many (kinds of) cures’; at Od. 10.276 and Vit. Hom. Her. § 32 West of Kirke (φάρμακον there has the sense ‘magic potion’). On the use of medicine in the Mycenaean period and in Homer, Laser 1983, 119  ff.; Tzavella-Evjen 1983.  — ἀμφιπένονται: in the same context (treatment of someone injured) also at 4.220, 13.656.

26 Ὀδυσεύς: on the single -σ-, R 9.1. — δουρικλυτος: on δουρι-, cf. R 12.5. — ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). 28 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 33

29 2nd VH ≈ 10.167. — The reproachful tone is intensified (11n.) by the repetition of the address ‘Achilleus’ (21 and here).

ἀμήχανος ἔπλε(ο): ‘there was no getting to you’ (suggestion by Führer). ἀμήχανος is an element of character languageP and means ‘someone whom there is no means of getting at’ (passive): schol. A (on which, Nünlist 2012, 209), 19.273an. (‘inaccessible, obstinate, unswayable’); on occasion a vacillating act.-pass. meaning is posited: ‘you will do nothing and nothing can be done with you’ (Sheppard 1922, 153; similarly Bouvier 2002, 411).

30 Patroklos finally refers to the events in Book 1 via chólos ‘anger’ (internal analepsisP), the effects of which continue to this point in time (the boycott); the expression ‘the chólos of Achilleus’ occurred at 1.192, 224, 283 (cf. 1.1, 1.488: mḗnis ‘wrath’).

μὴ ἐμέ γ’ οὖν οὗτός γε: i.e. ‘not me and not this (such an) anger’, cf. 5.258 εἴ γ’ οὖν ἕτερός γε φύγησιν, 5.827 μήτε σύ γ’ Ἄρηα τό γε δείδιθι (on doubled γε, Denniston lxii). Like Attic γοῦν, γ’ οὖν corresponds to intensified γε, ‘at any rate, in any case’ (Denniston 448, 450; Reynen 1958, 91  f.; Patillon 1999, 731  f.). On the emphasis in Patroklos’ formulation, see Walsh 2005, 130; the passage also contains a pathetic asyndeton (suggestion by Führer). — οὗτός γε: οὗτος can contain a pejorative or hostile undertone (Chantr. 2.169; cf. AH). — λάβοι χόλος: On verbs of seizing (or attacking, overcoming), see 22n. on βεβίηκεν and 1.387n. on χόλος λάβεν (with bibliography; Gruber 1963, 23); on χόλος ‘(violent) anger’, 1.81–82n.; Clarke 1999, 92  ff.; Cairns 2003, passim (esp. 24– 26, 29–31).  — φυλάσσεις: ‘retain, maintain (a certain attitude), be intent (on)’, as at 24.111 (cf. 686n.); here of anger: ‘nurse’ (pejorative: ‘you persist in your anger’). – VE ὃν σὺ φυλάσσεις = Od. 2.350 (wine ‘kept’ by Eurykleia).

31 With a reference to posterity, Patroklos calls on Achilleus to be a role model via his actions for the benefit of the community and at the same time to thus gain fame for himself. The motif of posterity here thus contains two lines of meaning: (a) exemplary actions (cf. the characterization of the exemplary revenge at 3.286  f., 3.351–354, 8.512–516), (b) expectations of personal fame (Greek kléos, a core value of IE societies; cf. 7.87–91, 22.304  f., Od. 1.298–302). The medium that transmits Achilleus’ exploits to later generations is epic itself (this is thus a case of so-called self-referentiality; cf. NTHS 62).  – On aspects of posterity, fame and self-referentiality in pertinent passages of the Iliad, see 2.119n., 2.325n., 3.287n., 6.356–358n., de Jong on Il. 22.304–5 (all with bibliography);

29 ἕλκε’ ἀκειόμενοι and ἔπλε’, Ἀχιλλεῦ: on the hiatus after elision, R 5.1; ἀκειόμενοι is conative: ‘try to heal’. — ἔπλε’: = ἔπλεο (< *ἔπλεσο), 2nd pers. sing. aor. of πέλομαι ‘prove to be, be’. 30 μὴ ἐμέ: on the hiatus, R 5.7. 31 τί … ὀνήσεται: ‘what will he gain from you?, how ought he to be pleased with you?’. — σε’: = σεο (R 14.1).

34 

 Iliad 16

on the exemplary function of the Iliad in general, see Howie 1995; Grethlein 2006, 322–328.

αἰναρέτη· τί σε’ ἄλλος ὀνήσεται: noteworthy similarities in language and content with 11.763 (Nestor to Patroklos about Achilleus): oἶος ἧς ἀρετῆς ἀπονήσεται (AH [transl.]: ‘your valor will be of use to no one but yourself’; Janko; Nagler 1974, 144  f.; Lowenstam 1993, 105  f.); Patroklos probably picks up on Nestor’s thoughts deliberately (cf. 36–45 with n.). — αἰναρέτη: ‘hero of misfortune’ (cf. AH), voc., hapaxP (elsewhere the name of Aiolos’ wife [BNP]). Used of one who, although possessing ἀρετή, employs it αἰνῶς ‘in a terrible manner’, i.e. deleteriously: an oxymoron (schol. bT; Fehling 1969, 287; Janko [with reference to similar formations]). Syntactically, the address can either be included with the preceding clause (30 σύ) or constitute a new one (thus West 2001, 235: ‘new expostulation’). — περ: The exact function here is disputed: either intensifying ‘especially one who will be alive in the future’ (AH [transl.]: ‘calculated to aim at Achilleus’ love of glory’; Denniston 482: ‘attention momentarily concentrated on posterity’) or concessive ‘although he may not have been born yet’ (i.e. those living neither now nor in the future, cf. Chadwick 1996, 242); less likely Bakker 1988, 260  f.: ‘minimal linguistic significance’.

32 2nd VH = 9.495; ≈ 1.341, 1.398, 1.456; VE in total ≈ 14× Il. (inflectable). — The expression ‘avert the ignominious downfall’ is used repeatedly in reference to Achilleus’ boycott: at 1.341, Achilleus uses the same words to warn that one day he will be needed just to ‘avert the downfall’ of the Greeks. In the present passage, the narrator’s intention is perhaps to imply via Patroklos’ choice of words that this time has now come (cf. 74  f.). At the same time, Achilleus is still refusing to cooperate (18.450 in Thetis’ summary); he will at least send Patroklos into battle for this particular purpose at 16.80  f. (the same VE formula again in 80). Cf. Nagy (1979) 1999, 75  f.; Blickman 1987, 3.

ἀεικέα: ‘ignominious’, part of character languageP (1.97n.).

33–35 Lineage is an important means of identification for epic heroes (6.145n.; Alden 2000, 153–167, esp.  156–158). By provocatively replacing Peleus (he had explicitly called Achilleus Peleus’ son in the address at 21) and Thetis with non-anthropomorphic ‘parents’ in his ‘thought-game’, Patroklos denies Achilleus any humanity (33: ‘merciless’, 35 ‘devoid of clemency, hard’). The effect of the reproach is all the greater as the parents are depersonalized into raw elements: Thetis, the Nereid, hyperbolically turns into the sea (where she lives; cf. CG 20), Peleus, whose original home is supposed to have been Mt. Pelion (cf. 143  f.), into a rock. Bibliography: schol. b on 34  f.; Marg 1938, 74–76; Burkert 1955, 74  f., 94; Most 1993; Pötscher 1998, 103–105; Kim 2000, 116;

32 αἴ κε: = ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5). — Ἀργείοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2.

Commentary 

 35

Bouvier 2002, 412; a parallel from Akkadian mythology, albeit of an animal, in West 1997, 386. – A somewhat different accusation of a lack of humanity follows at 203 (Thetis nursed Achilleus on gall rather than mother’s milk), again in combination with the designation ‘merciless one’ (204).

πατὴρ … Πηλεύς | οὐδὲ Θέτις μήτηρ, γλαυκὴ … θάλασσα | πέτραι τ’ ἠλίβατοι: The rhetorical composition highlights the emotionality of the statement: the four subjects have a chiastic arrangement in relation both to their predicate nouns and their attributes to one another (Πηλεύς  : πέτραι  / Θέτις  : θάλασσα, with the same initial sound respectively).

33 Not only Patroklos, but also Phoinix (9.496  f.), Aias (9.632) and the Myrmidons (16.204, reported by Achilleus himself) designate Achilleus as nēleḗs ‘merciless’ (similarly Nestor at 11.665, Apollo at 24.44). Aside from Polyphemus (Od. 9.272 etc.), Achilleus is the only being in early epic to receive this designation (the positive use at 19.229 has a different context, see 19.228–229n.). In each case, the implication is of course an appeal to renounce his hard-heartedness, cf. Odysseus at 9.301  f. (LfgrE s.v.; Paul 1969, 49; Friedrich 1975, 145  f.; Griffin 1986, 39  f.; Kim 2000, 28, 32, 178–181; cf. 24.33–54n., 24.44n.; a list of similarly harsh accusations in Homeric epic in Classen 2008, 116 n. 66).

νηλεές: ‘pitiless’ (vocative); on the formation of the word, 3.292n.  — οὐκ ἄρα  … ἦν: Translate as pres.: ‘by no means, ⟨as I now see,⟩ is it the case that …’; ‘the familiar idiom with the imperfect, used when one realizes that one has been under a misapprehension’, cf. 60: West on Hes. Th. 560; Schw. 2.279  f.; LfgrE s.v. ἄρα 1160.55  ff.; Denniston 36  f.; in greater detail, Wackernagel (1920) 1926, 185; Hooker (1992) 1996, 49–51; see also 3.183n. (on τοι … δεδμήατο). On the affirmative variant ἄρα + impf., see 203n. — ἱππότα Πηλεύς: ἱππότα is a generic epithetP, see 2.336n. for word formation and usage (the ending -τᾰ is likely adopted from the voc.; on such developments in poetic language, see also Janko 2012, 23). At 23.89, the epithet is again used of Peleus (speaker: Patroklos’ ghost), otherwise predominantly of Nestor.

34 1st VH = 18.332. — γλαυκή: as an adjective a Homeric hapaxP, as a personal name common in Homer (Glaukos [CH 10], as well as the Nereid Glauke at 18.39); a substantive in Hes., ἡ γλαυκή ‘the sea’ (Th. 440; cf. 24.341n., end). The sense of γλαυκός is disputed: (a) purely a color term (in the range of greyish blue, light blue), see Janko on 33–35; Pötscher 1998, 97  f., 105  ff.; (b) a term denoting sheen: ‘lustrous, shiny’ (with the connotation ‘rigid, hard’ or ‘menacing, dangerous’, cf. schol. D), see LfgrE s.v.; Göbel 1855, 527; Handschur 1970, 67  ff.; Elliger 1975, 96; wavering Leaf (a or b); (c) a character trait: ‘terrible, wild’, see Leumann 1950, 148  ff. (unlikely). The epithets of the sea (on which in general, 24.79n.) frequently refer to its color, hence here (a) or (b).

33 ἱππότα: nom. sing. 34 τίκτε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

36 

 Iliad 16

35 1st VH = Od. 13.196; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 23.484, Od. 18.381. — ἠλίβατοι: The meaning is uncertain (Beekes; LfgrE: ‘precipitous’; older explanations in AH, Anh. ad loc.), 10× epithet of πέτρη (cf. 4n.). — ὅτι: ‘that’ in the sense ‘I say/ask this because’ or ‘I conclude from this that’ (24.239–240n. with bibliography; also Bonifazi 2012, 193–195). — ἀπηνής: ‘hard, indifferent’, also ‘opinionated, high-handed’ (LfgrE; Clarke 1999, 100 n. 101).

36–45 ≈ 11.794–803 (Nestor to Patroklos, cf. 21–45n.; most modifications affect the forms of pronouns and verbs; alteration of the phrasing only at 796/38, 798/40; cf. Reichel 1994, 141  f.); 41b–43 =  18.199b–201 (cf. 42–43n.).  — Patroklos demands that Achilleus at least allow him to enter battle, together with the Myrmidons, and let him have Achilleus’ armor (the so-called exchange of arms motif: 278–283n.) in order to achieve a short-term success by deceiving the enemy. Patroklos adopts Nestor’s strategic suggestions literally (see iterata; on Nestor’s role as a counselor, cf. 2.362–368n.) but without naming the author (on similar cases, 6.269–278n.; de Jong on Od. 5.1–42). Reasons for his silence on the matter could lie on both (a) the character plane and (b) the narrator plane: (a) the fear ‘that Achilleus would reject anything coming from the Achaians’ (Reichel 1994, 141 [transl.]; similarly de Jong [1987] 2004, 282 n. 73; Rabel 1997, 157  f.); (b) the narrator’s objective of having Patroklos ‘live in the audience’s fantasy as a hero who in the future will actively intervene’, rather than as a mere mediator (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 89 [transl.]; similarly Μπεζαντακοσ 1996, 217) – i.e. Patroklos appropriates Nestor’s advice (Alden 2000, 255–257; Dentice di Accadia 2012, 215; cf. 46–47n.).

εἰ δὲ … | …, | ἀλλ’ ἐμέ περ πρόες: ‘if not you, at least I’ (Fränkel 1925, 9; Denniston 483  f.; Chadwick 1996, 245; cf. 523n.). Similarly at 9.300–302, 12.348  f.; see also 1.81– 82n.; 264–265n. (οἳ δέ).

36 ≈ 11.794. — That Thetis sends a prophecy to her son is not unusual; in general, these concern Achilleus’ brief life and his death after killing Hektor (1.352, 1.415–418, 9.410–416, 18.95  f. [see ad loc.], 21.275–278), as well as the death of Patroklos (17.400–411, 18.8–11 [see ad loc.]). Additional prophecies by Thetis, transmitted outside the Iliad, likewise warn Achilleus of his downfall; he is thus not to be the first to go ashore after landing on the Trojan coast (Apollod., Epit. 3.29) nor is he to kill certain opponents lest he in turn be killed himself (loc. cit. 3.26; Aethiopis, Procl. Chrest. § 2 West); see Janko on 49–50; Edwards on 18.95–96, end; Slatkin (1991) 2011, 35; Burgess 2009, 17–19. Patroklos (like Nestor before him at 11.794) probably assumes the existence of such a prophecy (death on the battlefield), but this serves primarily as a rhetorical argument,

35 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — νόος: = νοῦς (R 6). 36 σῇσι: = σαῖς (R 11.1).

Commentary 

 37

i.e. as a provocative foil for the actual reason: Achilleus’ hard-heartedness (Sheppard 1922, 153  f.; Kakridis 1949, 110  f.; Reinhardt 1961, 46; Willcock 1977, 48  f.; cf. Kullmann 1956, 112  f. [transl.]: divine instructions as a ‘typical form of action’; West 2011, 223  f.: ‘a poetic device and variable to suit different contexts’). At 50  f., Achilleus will accordingly reject Patroklos’ assumptions and cite the real reason from his perspective: the violation of his honor (50– 55n., 52–59n.; Willcock on 50–51; Lloyd-Jones 1971, 19  f.; Barth 1989, 21  f.; Wilson 2002, 111; Burgess loc. cit. 52  f.). Other, scarcely plausible interpretations: Nestor and Patroklos implicitly charge Achilleus with cowardice, in that he is trying to avoid death on the battlefield by heeding the prophecy (schol. bT on 36  f. and 41, end; Janko on 21–45, end; Jahn 1987, 215); they tactfully allow him to invoke higher powers in the shape of said prophecy (Reinhardt 1920, 269  f.; Alden 2000, 250, 260). 37 ≈  11.795, 16.51; 2nd VH ≈  Od. 10.549.  — καί: explicative/specifying (AH and Leaf on 11.795; Barth 1989, 22; cf. 24.390n. with bibliography). — πότνια μήτηρ: a VE formula designating goddesses and venerable women (21× Il., 13× Od., 3× h.Cer.), used 9× as a periphrastic denominationP for Thetis (1.357n., 6.264n.). 38 ≈ 11.796, Panyasis fr. 19.8 West; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 18.452 (see ad loc.; on similar expressions, cf. Haubold 2000, 199  f.). — ὦχ’: ὦκα ‘swift’ often appears to be said with particular urgency (cf. 2.244n., 24.37bn., 24.133n.); here it is ‘inserted’ by Patroklos for emphasis: 11.796 ἀλλὰ σέ περ προέτω > ἀλλ’ ἐμέ περ πρόες ὦχ’ (differently Eide 1999, 107  f.: verse-filler).

39 ≈ 11.797; 2nd VH (after caesura A 4) ≈ 8.282. — ‘Light’ is a metaphor for ‘rescue’ (6.6n.; West 2007, 482), of Patroklos also at 95; here implicitly in contrast to Achilleus’ mercilessness (Kim 2000, 114  f.). Light and fire play a major role in the Patroklos narrative – as also in the aristeiai of other heroes – cf. 70b–72an. (the helmet’s gleam), 80–82n. (Trojan attack with fire), 122–123n. (a burning ship), 777–780 (position of the sun). Bibliography: Whitman 1958, 135–137; Bremer 1976, 59–73.

αἴ κεν: ‘if I might …’, i.e. ‘in the hope that; so that perhaps’ (1.207n., 6.94n.; Chantr. 2.282  f.; in detail, Wakker 1994, 365–379); likewise at 41.

37 τινά: sc. θεοπροπίην. — πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — Ζηνός: gen. of Ζεύς (R 12.5). — ἐπέφραδε: ἐ-πέφραδε, reduplicated root aor. of φράζω ‘show, point out, announce’. 38 ἀλλ(ὰ) … περ: ‘but at least’. — πρόες: aor. imper. of προίημι, sc. into battle. — ὄπασσον: aor. imper. of ὀπάζω ‘send (with)’ (causative of ἕπομαι); on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 39 φόως: on the diectasis (φάος > φῶς > φόως), R 8.

38 

 Iliad 16

40 Cf. 11.798 and 16.64 (the repetition at 64 is to be interpreted as an affirmation on the part of Achilleus’: Arend 1933, 11); 2nd VH ≈ 8.530, 11.49, 11.725, 12.77, 18.277, 18.303. — Donning the armor follows at 130–144 (greaves, cuirass, sword, shield, helmet, spears). The formulation ‘around the shoulders, at the shoulders’ is a typifying generalization in the context of putting on and removing pieces of armor, despite the fact that only the cuirass, sword and shield are worn around the shoulders (3.328n.; Trümpy 1950, 76–79, with corrections in Sommer 1977, 92–99; LfgrE s.v. τεῦχος 425.55  ff.).

τὰ σὰ τεύχεα: cf. 64 ἐμὰ … τεύχεα (Achilleus speaks); what follows undoubtedly refers to Achilleus’ armor, even where a personal pronoun or genitive object is absent: 129, 130, 248, 279, 17.125, 130, etc. (on the lack of ambiguity in the references, see Reinhardt 1961, 310–314).

41 ≈ 11.799; 2nd VH = 14.78, 18.199 (cf. 42–43n.). — The initial deception of the Trojans via Patroklos’ appearance in Achilleus’ armor – the apparent function of the exchange of weapons motif (cf. 36–45n.) – is narrated at 16.278–283 (see ad loc.). – Warriors are identified by their armor (5.450, 16.278–283), commonly by their shield, helmet or horses (5.181–183, 11.526  f.; see AH; Kirk on 5.182– 183; Hainsworth on 11.798–799; Patzer 1996, 173). On the powerful effect of Achilleus’ appearance, cf. 19.374–383n., 20.41–46, 22.131–144, also 18.203–231 (without armor, but with divine enhancement; see 18.203–221n.), 19.14–17 (his new armor; see ad loc.), 20.441–443 (loud cry). πολέμοιο: an action noun, i.e. ‘the fighting, the fight’ (2.453n. with bibliography; LfgrE s.v. 1335.41  ff.).

42–43 = 11.800  f., 18.200  f. (on the three instances of this pair of verses, see de Jong [1987] 2004, 283 n. 84: ‘partly due to similarity of situation […] and partly to common knowledge’, but the third passage is eliminated as a concordance interpolation by West [18.200–201n.]); 2nd VH of 42 also = 4.114, 20.317, 21.376, Od. 23.220. — The prime example of the urgent Achaian need for a ‘breather’ is Aias: under duress, he is given no opportunity to draw a breath (109–111). The welcome interruption of the battle finally happens at the moment the fire on the ship is being extinguished and the Trojans pushed back (293, 301  f.; see 293n.; Reinhardt 1961, 345–347). But the fighting subsequently continues. On the motif ‘pause in the fighting’, see 19.201n. (nominal, here at 43), 19.227n. (verbal, here at 42).

40 ὤμοιϊν: dat. dual of ὦμος ‘shoulder’ (cf. R 18.1); locative dat. without preposition (R 19.2). — τὰ σὰ τεύχεα: acc. object of δός. — θωρηχθῆναι: final-consecutive inf. 41 σοὶ (ϝ)ίσκοντες: on the prosody, R 4.4; (ἐ)ίσκω (+ dat.) is the factitive pres. of ἔοικα: ‘compare, equate, consider to be’.

Commentary 

 39

42 Τρῶες  … Ἀχαιῶν: an emphatic antithesis of VB and VE (Higbie 1990, 38  f.; e.g. 24.360n.); similarly striking is the placement of antitheses next to one another in 69 Ἀργεῖοι. Τρώων δέ …, 277  f. Ἀχαιῶν. | Τρῶες δ(έ) … (cf. 2.352n., 24.469n.; Edwards 1966, 143). — ἀρήϊοι: ‘linked to Ares, war-like’; a generic epithetP, 7× in the present formula, also of various warriors (among others, 9× of Menelaos [310–311n.] and 1× each of Achilleus, Eudoros and Peisandros [all three in Book 16: 166, 179, 193]) and of sets of armor. — υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectable VE formula and a periphrastic collective denomination, cf. the Biblical expression ‘sons of Israel’ (1.162n.; additional bibliography: LfgrE s.v. υἱός 701.3  ff.; Graziosi/Haubold on 6.255). 43 τειρόμενοι: related to the IE root *ter- ‘grate, drill’ (Latin terere), hence ‘wear down’, both physically ‘exhaust’ and mentally ‘put pressure on, beset’ (LfgrE; Frisk). — ὀλίγη δέ τ’ ἀνάπνευσις πολέμοιο: according to Mazon [transl.] ‘to catch one’s breath requires only a short time in war’ (similarly La Roche on 11.801 [transl.]: ‘respite in war is brief, i.e. it need not be long’; Faesi and AH on 11.801 [transl.]: ‘even a short rest is at least a rest’). The expression has a proverbial character (de Jong, loc. cit.). Gnomic statements frequently serve to underline items of advice (Stenger 2004, 6–9). Typical in such cases is: (a) laconic phrasing via a nominal clause, cf. 630 (Lardinois 2001, 99 with n. 32; abstract verbal nouns are particularly suitable: Jones 1973, 14  f.), (b) picking up the verb via a noun with a related stem: ἀναπνεύσωσι – ἀνάπνευσις (Lardinois 1997, 218; in general, Porzig 1942, 31  ff.), and (c) the position of the gnome at (or near) the end of the speech (1.218n.; Ahrens 1937, 23, 52; Lohmann 1970, 24, 66  f., 72; Stenger loc. cit. 9).

44 =  11.802.  — ‘We unwearied’ refers to Patroklos and the Myrmidons, who at Achilleus’ behest have not participated in battle since the events in Book 1 (2.771  ff., 24.394  f.).

ἀκμῆτες κεκμηότας: The antithesis of two terms sharing a stem placed next to one another (both terms are related to κάμνω: verbal adj. and part.) creates the impression of a gnomic saying and thus underlines the statement. Similar word playsP: φρονέων/ ἄφρων (Theognis 625), θνητός/ἀθάνατος (e.g. 154, Od. 5.213, Hes. Th. 942); see Fehling 1969, 282  f.; West 2007, 110  f.

45 ≈ 11.803, 14.146, 16.376; 1st VH ≈ 16.655; 2nd VH = 2.91 etc. — ὤσαιμεν: The meaning of the potential oscillates between ‘ability’ (‘we would be capable of pushing them back’) and ‘likelihood’ (‘we would probably push them back’): Willmott 2008, 246. — νεῶν

42 ἀναπνεύσωσι: with 43 τειρόμενοι, ‘take a deep breath after the difficulty’ (construction with part., as with verbs of stopping). — υἷες: on the declension, R 12.3. 43 τειρόμενοι· ὀλίγη: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 44 ῥεῖα: = ῥᾳδίως. — ἀϋτῇ: ‘battle-cry, battle’, causal dat. with κεκμηότας. 45 ὤσαιμεν: from ὠθέω ‘push, force’.  — προτὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R  4.3; προτί =  πρός (R 20.1). — νεῶν ἄπο: = ἀπὸ νεῶν (R 20.2). — κλισιάων: on the declension, R 11.1.

40 

 Iliad 16

ἄπο καὶ κλισιάων: a VE formula (8× Il., 2.91n.); metrical variant: μελαινάων ἀπὸ νηῶν (304n.; Hoekstra 1965, 127).

46–47 Patroklos’ imminent death (777–863, esp. 855) is repeatedly alluded to or announced in the Iliad (internal prolepsisP) either by the narrator himself, as here (likewise at 11.604, 16.684–687; in the apostrophe to Patroklos at 16.693, 16.787), or by Zeus as the supreme god (8.475  f., 15.64–67: direct speeches; 16.250–252: response to Achilleus’ prayer; 16.647: deliberation scene; cf. Apollo at 16.724  f.). The accumulation of prolepses in Book 16 heightens the expectations of the audience and underlines the significance of the event for the fabulaP of the Iliad; see Rutherford 1982, 153  f.; de Jong (1987) 2004, 85; Richardson 1990, 136  f.; Grethlein 2006, 210–214; Edwards, Introd. 9. – In the narrator commentary here and at 686, Patroklos is designated as a (méga) nḗpios ‘(great) fool!’, i.e. he misreads the circumstances, he does not assess the situation objectively and thus judges incorrectly; these misguided expectations usually lead to the death of the person concerned, as they do in the case of Patroklos: dramatic ironyP, here intensified via mutually referential ‘pleading’/‘begging for death’ (lissómenos/litésthai) and the strong reflexive pronoun hoi autṓi ‘his own’ (on nḗpios in detail, see 2.38n. with bibliography; also Duckworth 1933, 77; de Jong loc. cit. 86  f.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 26–32; Ingalls 1998, 32–34; Grethlein loc. cit. 217–223; Kelly 2007, 205–208; esp. on ‘his own’ as ‘tragic reflexivity’, Jeremiah 2012, 78, 141  ff.). The narrator commentary here thus does not fulfil the function of judging Patroklos (negatively) as much as it demands sympathy for him: Patroklos becomes a tragic figure (Richardson loc. cit. 156; Di Benedetto loc. cit. 30; cf. Griffin 1986, 40). 46 1st VH ≈  h.Cer. 324.  — ὣς φάτο λισσόμενος: a speech capping formulaP with part. specifying the aim of the speech ‘plead, implore’ (not expressed in the speech introduction at 20), likewise at 21.73/97  f., 22.81/90  f.: de Jong (1987) 2004, 202; similarly ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχόμενος at 249, etc.; for cases where the aim of the speech is named both in the speech introduction and capping formulae, see 2.224n. with bibliography – On the varied types of speech capping formulae in general, see Patzer 1972, 15–22.  — μέγα νήπιος: ‘very foolish’, in the narrator commentary here almost exclamatory ‘the great fool!’; an inflectable expression, also at Od. 9.44 (Odysseus’ companions continue their stay in the Kikonian land rather than depart), Hes. Op. 131 (literally of a ‘great child’ in the Age of Silver), 286 and 633 (the address μέγα νήπιε Πέρση). Linking adverbial μέγα with an adj. is common in early epic in expressions noting an outstanding quality (especially with comparatives and superlatives, e.g. in Book 16 at 271 μέγ’ ἄριστος), but rare with other adjectives (also at 1.158 μέγ’ ἀναιδές, h.Cer. 486 μέγ’ ὄλβιος, h.Merc. 30

46 φάτο: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — μέγα: adverbial, ‘very’.

Commentary 

 41

μέγ’ ὀνήσιμον; post-Homeric examples in Bissinger 1966, 257  f.).  — ἦ γάρ: ‘truly, indeed’, an expression from character languageP, only here and at Od. 4.232 in the narrator-textP, introducing an evaluation by the narrator (de Jong 1988, 188; cf. 1.355n.). ἦ occurs in Homeric epic in total only 8× in the narrator-text (in Book 16 also at 362 and 687): Cuypers 2005, 50–52. — ἔμελλεν: A determination of fate in the past, ‘he should have  …’; of ‘facts known only to the gods/fate, and which the omniscient narrator is able to announce in his narrative, thanks to his retrospective point of view’ (LfgrE s.v. μέλλω 113.42  ff. [transl.]; de Jong [1987] 2004, 87), in combination with νήπιος here and at 2.36–40, 12.112–115, 17.495–498, 20.466, Od. 3.146; Od. 24.469–471 is similar. 47 οἷ αὐτῷ: 46–47n. — θάνατόν τε κακὸν καὶ κῆρα: a synonym doubling (cf. 1.160n.), formulaic (also at 21.66, Od. 22.14); expressions of similar meaning, including θάνατον καὶ κῆρ(α/ας) (2× Il., 12× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’ fr., 1× h.Cer.): 2.352n.; 333–334n., 687n.; on κήρ ‘death, doom’, see 2.301–302n. with bibliography. – κακός beside λιτέσθαι here has the effect of an oxymoron (likewise at 3.173 beside ἁδεῖν, at 16.494 beside ἐέλδεσθαι, see AH [transl.]: ‘contrasting’); 6× an epithet of θάνατος (3.173an.). — λιτέσθαι: a resultative/summarizing aor., ‘beg, plead for something’, cf. the aor. ἐπαμῦναι after ἔμελλον at 18.98  f. (AH; Basset 1979, 71–73). Word playP with 46 (φάτο) λισσόμενος.

48–100 Torn between conflicting emotions (anger, pity) and motifs (honor, recompensation, hardship in war, passion for battle), Achilleus agrees to Patroklos’ plea (indirectly fulfilling Menoitios’ prophecy that Achilleus will follow Patroklos’ advice: 11.785–789). He makes the fatal decision to send Patroklos into battle – the latter’s only, and final, battle in the Iliad. In this way, the present speech has ramifications similar to those of Achilleus’ statements in Books 1 (discord with Agamemnon, beginning of the battle boycott) and 9 (rejection of the embassy); the latter in particular is repeatedly referenced here (namely 52–63 → 9.646–655). For detailed interpretation of the speech, see 5–100n., 52–59n., 53–54n., 60–63n., 64–82n., 83–96n., 97–100n.; bibliography on the speech: Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 135  f.; Howald 1946, 77–79; Owen 1946, 147–155; Whitman 1958, 197–200; Lohmann 1970, 274  f.; Edwards 1987, 257–259; Ledbetter 1993, 488  f.; Gill 1996, 200–202; Rinon 2008, 32–34; specifically on the links between Books 9 and 16 (previously disputed, but generally accepted today), Eichholz 1953; Tsagarakis 1971; Scodel 1989; Reichel 1994, 118–120. – The speech consists of three sections: (a) Achilleus gives his reasons for continuing to boycott the battle (49–63), (b) orders Patroklos to join the fighting (64–82) and (c) provides him with instructions regarding his behavior (warnings) (83–100). Sections 2 and 3 are each structured as a ring-compositionP (64–82n. [with examples of additional stylistic characteris-

47 οἷ αὐτῷ: = ἑαυτῷ (R 14.1); on the hiatus, R 5.7.

42 

 Iliad 16

tics of the present speech], 83–96n.; Lohmann 1970, 60–65; Janko on 49–100, 49–63, 64–82, 83–100). 48 = 19.419, 22.14; ≈ 18.97; for additional iterata (1st VH), see 19.419n. — Speech introduction formulaP (1.517n.; Kelly 2007, 224  f.; on the formula as a flexible type, see 1.58n. with bibliography).  – On the VE formula ‘swift-footed Achilleus’, see 24.138n. (speed as Achilleus’ fundamental characteristic). On the comic effect of these fixed epithetsP on a modern audience, 1.58n.

ὀχθήσας: The verb encompasses several degrees of emotional agitation (Cairns 2003, 22  f.; LfgrE); here most likely ‘«outraged» by misunderstanding and recollection of the offense’ (LfgrE s.v. 904.11  f. [transl.] with reference to 50  f. and 54  f.); different interpretations: Audiat 1947, 51–53 (with no connotation of anger or rage: ‘moved, affected’ [transl.], namely by the words of his best friend: 52); Scully 1984, 21 (an expression of Achilleus’ awareness of the significance of his decision at 64  ff., as in the case of Zeus at 1.517). – Speeches introduced by ὀχθήσας have a strong beginning (frequently with ᾤ μοι or ὦ πόποι) that corresponds to the agitation: LfgrE loc. cit. 903.37  ff.

49 ‘Descended from Zeus’ (diogenḗs) is a generic epithetP of heroes (1.337n.); of Patroklos only in the present vocative formula.

ᾤ μοι: expresses a variety of negative emotions, here likely indignation (1.149n.; 48n. on ὀχθήσας); on the spelling of ᾤ (with iota), see West 1998, XXXVII.  — διογενὲς Πατρόκλεις: 5× Il. (1.337, 11.823, 16.49/126/707), always after caesura A 3. On the vocative Πατρόκλεις, 7n. — οἷον ἔειπες: ‘what are you saying!, what did you say!’, together with the prosodic alternative ποῖον ἔειπες (initial consonant) 5× Il., 4× Od., always at VE, with an exclamatory function (in addition 3× Il. as an object clause at VE). Always in the first verse of a speech and expressing an objection: ‘you are incorrect’ (Kelly 2007, 185  f.; cf. 440n.). On the verse structure with an interjection, address and the present expression, cf. 7.455, 8.152, Od. 13.140; without an interjection: Il. 13.824, 22.178, Od. 2.85, 2.243, 17.406. An asyndetic connection with the explanatory verse that follows also at 7.455  f., 22.178  f., Od. 13.140  f., 17.406  f.

50–55 Achilleus disputes Patroklos’ assumptions (36  f.) with partially identical wording and anaphoric oúte … oúte ‘neither … nor’; in the manner of a priamel, the anaphora concludes with the correct information at 52  ff. (allá ‘rather …’): 6.383–385n. with bibliography and collection of examples; Janko on 7–19. 50 ≈ Od. 1.415, 2.201; cf. Il. 1.85. — Whether Achilleus fundamentally denies the existence (or at least his knowledge) of such a prophecy (thus Faesi, Janko) or whether he merely disputes that his attitude is influenced by such a prophecy (thus Leaf; Barth 1989, 21  f.;

48 πόδας: acc. of respect, with ὠκύς (R 19.1). 49 ᾤ μοι: ‘woe is me’. — διογενές: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἔειπες: = εἶπες ( φῶς > φόως), R 8; on the suffix, R 15.3. — ἠελίου (ϝ)ίδεν: on the prosody, R 4.4; ἠελίου = ἡλίου, ἴδεν = εἶδεν (on the unaugmented form, R 16.1); subject: Eudoros. 189 τὴν μέν …: sc. Πολυμήλην (and at 191 τὸν δ(έ) sc. Εὔδωρον).

96 

 Iliad 16

phrase of the personal name (abstract for concrete, thus here =  ‘Echekles, son of Aktor’). Archaic sounding descriptions of this sort usually contain an association with ‘strength’, as e.g. ἱερὸν μένος Ἀλκινόοιο 7× Od. (with initial vowel in contrast to consonantal κρατερόν), βίη Ἡρακληείη 2.658n. (‘formulaic titulature’), Πυλαιμένεος λάσιον κῆρ 2.851n., Πατροκλῆος λάσιον κῆρ 553–554n.; they facilitate the versification of metrically awkward personal names or serve to fill out verses (frequently with a generic epithetP at VE; here – fitting the genealogical context – with a patronymic): Böhme 1929, 86 with n. 4; Snell (1939) 1975, 28  f.; Ruijgh 1995, 82  f.; West on Od. 2.409; differently Schmitt 1967, 109–111: ‘the Greeks  […] believed their rulers to be in possession of a particular μένος’ (110  f. [transl.]). – But the noun-epithet formula does have a pregnant meaning at 10.479 (πρόφερε κρατ. μένος), 17.742 (κρατ. μ. ἀμφιβαλόντες), Od. 11.220 (πυρὸς κρατ. μ.), ‘Hes.’ fr. 33(a).34 ([θῆ]κεν κρατ. μ.), and probably also – the personal name notwithstanding – at Il. 7.38: Ἕκτορος ὄρσωμεν κρατ. μένος. 190 1st VH = Od. 15.238; 2nd VH = 22.472, Od. 11.282. — See 177–178n., 178n. 191 1st VH ≈ 22.25 (Priam; cf. 13.368), 22.37, h.Merc. 201 (without personal name); 2nd VH ≈  Od. 19.354, ‘Hes.’ fr. 165.6 M.-W. (ἔϋ τρέφ-, sing.); Il. 14.202, 14.303 (ἔϋ τρέφ-, pl.); Od. 5.135, 7.256, 23.335 (ἠδὲ ἔφασκεν/ον). — ὁ γέρων: ‘the old man’, elsewhere commonly of Nestor, Phoinix, Priam (24.164n.; where also on the definite article). — ἔτρεφεν ἠδ’ ἀτίταλλεν: synonym doubling (24.60n.). On the content, see 177–178n. 192 1st VH ≈ h.Cer. 290, 436; 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 180.2 M.-W. — ὡς εἴ θ’ ἑὸν υἱὸν ἐόν­τα: ‘as though it were his own son’; on ὡς εἰ + part., see 24.328n. with bibliography (and add to the examples ‘Hes.’ Sc. 198); cf. ὡς εἰ + substantive: 58–59n.

193 On the iterata, cf. 179n. — Peisandros (‘he who convinces the men’, i.e. makes them obey) occurs only here as a leader of the Myrmidons. But the name is used in early epic for two Trojans (both of whom die in battle; on their role as ‘extras’, see Strasburger 1954, 81; cf. CH 12; 306–357n.), as well as for one of Penelope’s suitors (who is likewise killed: Od. 22.268). On historical bearers of this name, see RE/BNP. 194 2nd VH (from caesura A 4 on) ≈  Od. 17.213, 20.174; (from caesura B 2 on) = Il. 16.596; also 2.579. — Maimalos, the name of the father, is a hapaxP as a literary name but is attested as a historical name at Delphi (4th/3rd cent.: LGPN IIIB s.v.). Here probably to be understood as a formation related to Greek maimáō ‘strive, rage’ (of aggressive internal urges): the ‘stormer’, an expression of the leader’s military qualities highlighted at 194  f. (on this, 173n.; on the name, cf. von Kamptz 245).

190 δώματ(α): on the plural, R 18.2. — μυρία (ϝ)έδνα: cf. 178n. 192 ἀμφαγαπαζόμενος: on the middle, R 23. — θ’ = τε (‘epic τε’: R 24.11). — ἑόν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person. — ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6). 193 τῆς δὲ τρίτης: sc. στιχός (173/179), likewise 196 τετάρτης, 197 πέμπτης.

Commentary 



 97

Μαιμαλίδης, ὅς …: patronymic in enjambment as a transition to the relative clause, e.g. Τυδεΐδης, ὅς … 5.362 (6.13n. with bibliography).

195 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ fr. 25.2 M.-W. — Patroklos is Achilleus’ companion par excellence (schol. bT; Kakridis 1963, 63); on his common periphrastic denominationP as hetáiros ‘companion, comrade’, see 24.4n. – The present ranking refers to the contingent of Myrmidons currently setting out into battle; in reference to the Greek army as a whole, Achilleus himself is considered the standard (met’ amýmona Pēleḯōna ‘after the noble son of Peleus’ 2.674, etc.; cf. 2.768  f.).

ἔγχεϊ: metonymy for ‘in battle’, likewise at 808  f., 834  f. (always in combination with μεταπρέπω vel sim.): Bakker (1991) 2005, 20. — μάρνασθαι: an archaic term, synonym­ ous with μάχεσθαι (24.395n.; cf. 96n.); the inf. is dependent on μετέπρεπε (K.-G. 2.14  f.; Schw. 2.360; Chantr. 2.302  f.).

196 1st VH ≈ 2.623, 12.98; 2nd VH = 9.432; ≈ 19.311. — Phoinix is Achilleus’ tutor and counselor. He appears most importantly in Book 9 (as part of the embassy) and only sporadically thereafter (aside from here, also at 19.311, 23.360; at 17.555  ff., Athene assumes Phoinix’ appearance); see CH 5; 19.311n. (where also on the epithet hippēláta ‘charioteer’). Like Alkimedon (197n.), Phoinix is nowhere else in the Iliad depicted in a leading position: both are part of Achilleus’ closest circle of confidantes and perhaps appear in the present cata­ logue of Myrmidons for precisely that reason (cf. LfgrE s.v. Phoinix 981.4  ff.; 168–197n., end). 197 cf. 17.467.  — Together with Automedon (145), Alkimedon (‘he who prevails with military strength’; hypocoristic: Alkimos) is de facto the most important warrior in the Myrmidon contingent after Achilleus and Patroklos (19.392n.; his warlike appearance at 17.466  ff.). He is mentioned here for the first time in the Iliad – and only here as a leader (cf. 168–197n., end, 196n.). Whether the characterP was set by tradition and thus was part of the permanent cast of the story of Troy (Heubeck [1949] 1984, 119  f.; Kullmann 1960, 133  f.), or whether the narrator introduced him ad hoc (Janko on 193–197; West 2011, 316) is disputed; a similar discussion regarding Patroklos: 2n. (with reference to 1.307n.); basic thoughts on the difficulties of declaring a character traditional or invented in von Scheliha 1943, 64  f.; CH 1 n. 3. — The name Laërkes means ‘he who provides shelter for or from the men (laói)’ (von Kamptz 88; on the final element, cf. 3.229 [Aias] hérkos Achaiṓn ‘bastion of the Achaians’). He is the son of a certain Haimon (17.467; Haimon is the name of several characters in the Iliad – in later Greek literature, Antigone’s fiancé bears this name). The name

196 ἱππηλάτα: nom. sing.

98 

 Iliad 16

Laërkes occurs elsewhere only at Od. 3.425  f. (a smith in Nestor’s realm) and is not otherwise attested in either literary or historical sources. 198–256 Achilleus addresses the Myrmidons with a battle paraenesis, pours a libation to Zeus and asks him to give Patroklos success and a safe retun from battle. Zeus grants only the first part of the wish. 198–209 Achilleus’ battle paraenesis is part of the themeP ‘preparations for battle’ (130–277n.; on typical motifs, see 200–201n., 209n.). It is unusual that the paraenesis is given in the early phase of lining up and by a leader who is not involved in the battle – Patroklos as the actual leader only speaks to his men, as is normal, immediately before the attack: 268  ff. (Hainsworth 1966, 164  f.; Mπεζαντακοσ 1996, 83). This fact, as much as the clever reference to the accusations, demonstrate that Achilleus has a firm grip on his troops (Ulf 1990, 106 with n. 50; Karavites 1992, 143  f.; van Wees 1992, 140  f.; Hellmann 2000, 56  f.).  – The speech is a ring-compositionP: 200/209 current demand (both with 3rd pers. imper. at VE; on the frequency of imperatives, cf. 2.381–393n.), 201  f./207  f. the timing of the battle boycott, in the center the ‘speech within a speech’ (203–206; see ad loc.; Lohmann 1970, 21). On battle paraeneses in general, 268–277n. 198 1st VH ≈ 7.207, 14.187, 19.54, also 7× Od., 2× h.Hom. 199 2nd VH =  1.25, 1.326, 1.379; VE =  Od. 23.349.  — κρίνας: κρίνω ‘organize, divide’, as at 2.362, 2.446. — κρατερὸν δ’ ἐπὶ μῦθον ἔτελλεν: The speech introduction (like the speech itself) recalls events in Book 1, where it is used three times in Agamemnon’s speeches (see iterata; 1.25n.). At that time, Achilleus withdrew from the fighting force because of Agamemnon; explicitly mentioning his battle boycott (esp.  202), he now sends his men back into battle. But in contrast to Agamemnon’s vile abuse of the priest Chryses (1.25 =  1.379) and uncompromising orders to the heralds (1.326), Achilleus’ κρατερὸς μῦθος here is to be understood as a constructive comment in accord with the paraenetic function of the address to the troops thus introduced: a ‘powerful speech’ (LfgrE s.v. κρατερός 1524.60  f.; similarly AH: ‘emphatic warning’ [transl.]); ἐπιτέλλω thus means ‘give advice for the road (to someone departing)’ (LfgrE s.v. 386.2  f.; 9.252/259, 11.785/790 are similar: Fingerle 1939, 104).

200–201 A return to threats (or boasts) uttered against the enemy is a popular motif in battle paraeneses (8.229–234, 13.219  f., 20.83–85, 21.475–477; Fenik

198 αὐτάρ: ‘but, yet’ (progressive, ≈  ‘and’: R  24.2).  — ἅμ(α): with dat. ‘together with’.  — ἡγεμόνεσσιν: the leaders named above are meant; on the declension, R 11.3. 199 στῆσεν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἔϋ: = εὖ. — δ(έ): ‘apodotic δέ’ (R 24.3). — ἐπὶ … ἔτελλεν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. 200 μοι ἀπειλάων: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἀπειλάων: on the declension, R 11.1.

Commentary 

 99

1968, 129; Slatkin [1988] 2011, 122  f.; Martin 1989, 72  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 304; West 2007, 478).

μή τις  … λελαθέσθω: μή with 3rd pers. imper. is common in Greek from Homer onward (Schw. 2.343); by contrast, μή with aor. imper. is rare (in both the 3rd pers. [elsewhere only at Od. 16.301 μή τις … ἀκουσάτω] and the 2nd pers. [on this, 18.134n. with biblio­graphy]).  – λελαθέσθω is a reduplicated aor., likely with a causative sense, i.e. ‘make oneself forget, deliberately suppress’ (19.136n. with bibliography; on the stock of forms for the reduplicated root aor. in Homer: Chantr. 1.395–398). — ἀπειλάων … | … ἀπειλεῖτε: a figura etymologica; both words are also used in the same verse position (after caesura B 2).

201 1st VH ≈ 14.57, 16.547, 21.135, also 13.84 (παρά). — νηυσὶ θοῇσιν: a noun-epithet formula (12× early epic; in addition to after caesura A 3, also at VE, usually with preposition); on the sing. νηῒ θοῇ, 122–123n. (where also on the epithet); on additional variants, 24.1n. 202 ὑπὸ μηνιθμόν: ὑπό + acc. here and at 22.102 νύχθ’ ὕπο τήνδ’ ὀλοήν is temporal: ‘during’, reinforced by πάνθ’ (Schw. 2.532; Chantr. 2.144). On μηνιθμός, 61–62n.

203–206 The present ‘speech within a speech’ (‘embedded speech’; on which in general, de Jong [1987] 2004, 171–179; Nünlist 2002; Beck 2008; 6.164–165n.) is functionally related to tis-speechesP: it is a representative statement, repeated in the same or a similar form by a group of anonymous individuals (202: ‘each of you’, 207: ‘said repeatedly’; Fingerle 1939, 293; Schneider 1996, 146). The literal repetition of statements by others (here Achilleus’ own men) is particularly effective rhetorically (similarly, but in indirect speech, Apollo to Aineias at 20.83–85); it appeals to a sense of duty, credibility and consequence with persuasive intent (cf. Odysseus repeating Kalchas’ prophecy at 2.323–332, see ad loc.; Martin 1989, 72  f.; also 207n.). On the narrator plane, the quotation forms a completive internal analepsisP (cf. 19.86an.); the Myrmidons’ restlessness – mental and physical – after having been prevented from fighting by Achilleus is also expressed at 2.778  f., 24.394  f., 24.403  f. (‘are ill-humored’) in particular.

Like direct speeches, ‘speeches within a speech’ are set apart by speech introduction and speech capping formulaeP (Nünlist loc. cit. 222, 226  f.), although here in a unique manner: neither αἰτιάομαι (202) nor βάζω (207) fulfils this function elsewhere in Homeric epic (schol. A on 203; Edwards 1970, 25; Nünlist 2009, 106); here they are significant as terms from character languageP: Achilleus perceives the Myrmidons’ words as ‘accu-

201 νηυσὶ θοῇσιν: on the declension, R 12.1 and 11.1. — ἀπειλεῖτε: impf.; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 202 πάνθ’ ὑπὸ μηνιθμόν: i.e. ‘during the entire time of my wrath’.  — καί μ’ ᾐτιάασθε: a loose paratactic addition to the relative clause. — ᾐτιάασθε (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3; on the diectasis, R 8.

100 

 Iliad 16

sations’ and ‘pestering’ (impf.; cf. LfgrE s.vv.). Similarly, ταῦτα occurs in only three capping formulae (after narrated speech, as here, Od. 12.389, also at Il. 12.173: Führer 1967, 38). – The present speech is structured as a ring-compositionP: χόλος-motif at 203/206, ‘keep back by the ships’ vs. ‘return with the ships’ at 204  f.

203 It is not without irony (directed at himself) that Achilleus cites the Myrmidons’ own – reproachful – address ‘you terrible son of Peleus’ (cf. Friedrich 2007, 100).

σχέτλιε: belongs to character languageP, ‘obstinate, hard, cruel, terrible’, in an accu­ satory tone as at 2.112, 24.33 (see ad locc.), of Achilleus also at 9.630 (spoken by Aias) and probably at 22.41 (spoken by Priam, see de Jong ad loc.). — Πηλέος υἱέ: an inflectable formula (voc./nom.) before caesura B 2 (6× Il., 1× Od.), with an epithet preceding also at Od. 24.36 (ὄλβιε; cf. 18.18–19n.). On the short-vowel form Πηλέος, Chantr. 1.223  f.; Crespo 1994; G 76. — χόλῳ ἄρα σ’ ἔτρεφε: χόλος usually means ‘anger’ elsewhere in early epic (also in the present context: 206), so that the text would be translated ‘has raised you for anger’ (cf. Thetis to Achilleus at 1.418: σε κακῇ αἴσῃ τέκον [see ad loc.]; 23.141  f. Achilleus ἀπεκείρατο χαίτην, | τήν ῥα Σπερχειῷ ποταμῷ τρέφε) or more freely ‘has raised you to anger’. But the assumption since antiquity  – probably correct  – is that χόλος here actually means ‘bile, gall’ (post-Homeric χολή, related etymologically to English ‘gall’) and that the dative is to be understood as instrumental: ‘has raised you with bile’ (rather than mother’s milk; the sense is of course the same: Achilleus’ propensity to anger): schol. A; Leaf; Laser 1983, 46  f.; West 2001, 237; Hanson 2003, 185  f., 187  f.; also de Jong on Il. 22.94 (χόλος there possibly = ‘snake venom’). On the accusation of inhumanity, cf. 33–35n. – It must remain an open question whether, beyond the unique use of χόλος ‘bile, gall’, the following witty allusions must also be reckoned with: (a) according to ancient custom, nursing mothers weaned their infants by cover­ing their nipples with bitter-tasting substances – e.g. bile – (Diphilus fr. 75 Kassel/Austin; Soranus, Gynaec. 2.47; Eustathius, Orationes in sanctam Quadragesimam, 5.886  f.; see Padel 1992, 23  f.: ‘[…] a paradox: Achilles was nourished by what is used to turn a baby away’; cf. Clarke 1999, 93 n.  82); (b) according to an ancient mythological tradition (not reflected in the Iliad), Cheiron fed the infant Achilleus on the entrails of wild ani­ mals (lions, bears): Janko with reference to Apollod., Bibl. 3.13.6 (on this, cf. schol. D on 16.36); Roussel 1994, 558–563; differently Il. 18.57: Achilleus is raised by Thetis. — ἄρα: ‘as it turns out’, signals a conclusion based on the current situation (cf. 24.750n.), occasionally explanatory in reference to an evaluative adjective (here σχέτλιε), cf. 3.182  f. (μάκαρ … ὀλβιόδαιμον), 8.177  f. (νήπιοι), 11.816–818 (δειλοί), 17.142 (εἶδος ἄριστε), 22.477  f. (δύστηνος). – On the negative variant οὐκ ἄρα + impf., see 33n.

204 The verse brings into focus the consequences of Achilleus’ anger for the Myrmidons themselves: against their will, they are prevented from fighting. –

203 χόλῳ ἄρα: on the hiatus, cf. M 12.2. 204 ἔχεις ἀέκοντας: ‘you hold them back against their will’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 

 101

On nēleés ‘pitiless one!’, see 33n.; here an emphatically inserted vocative at the beginning of a speech of rebuke, as at 21.583–585 ‘fool!’, 22.261 ‘odious one!’, in the middle of a speech at 17.149–151 ‘reckless one!’ (Higbie 1990, 47). 205 (to C 2) = 2.236; (from the 3rd foot on) ≈ 3.283, 13.381; 2nd VH = 3.283. — As regards wording, this is the same rebellious, provocative call as that of Thersites in Book 2 (2.236). The threat contains a demand that the addressee do something about the unpleasant situation (in actual terms: set aside his anger and return to battle with the Myrmidons). This ultimately reflects Achilleus’ own threat to return home without achieving anything if Agamemnon does not back down (1.169  f., 9.356–363; cf. Janko on 199–209). On the motif of the premature (or foiled) return home, see 1.169–171n.; Reinhardt 1961, 107–109; Maronitis 2004, 63–76.

οἴκαδέ περ: περ conveys an emphatic contrast with παρὰ νηυσὶν ἔχεις (cf. 2.236n.): ‘off home!’.  — ποντοπόροισιν: an ornamental epithetP of ships (1.439n., 1.421n.); in contrast to 2.236, the verse-filling function of the epithet at VE is apparent.

206 2nd VH ≈  9.436, 14.207, 14.306 (ἐπεὶ χόλος ἔμπεσε θ.); also 17.625 (δέος), Od. 12.266 (ἔπος), Thebaïs fr. 2.6 West (κακόν). — κακὸς χόλος: a unique phrase, κακός ‘bad’ in the sense ‘deleterious, ominous’ (similarly at 9.636  f. ἄλληκτόν τε κακόν τε | θυμόν, likewise in reference to Achilleus). Additional evaluative attributes with χόλος in connection with Achilleus’ anger are ἀργαλέος (10.107), ἐπιζάφελος (9.525), θυμαλγής (4.513, 9.260), all in direct speech. — θυμῷ: On the localization of Achilleus’ grievance in his θυμός, φρένες, κῆρ or ἦτορ, see Jahn 1987, 196  ff.: the individual lexemes are semantically interchangeable (examples and statistics loc. cit. 196); cf. 1.188n.

207 Achilleus highlights the unanimity and frequency of the protests – both commit the Myrmidons to a corresponding deployment (cf. 203–206n.).

ταῦτά μ’ … ἐβάζετε: a unique speech capping formulaP, see 203–206n., end. Elided μ’ can be taken as με or μοι (schol. A vs. schol. T). Both possibilities allow the following translation: ‘this you said to me’ (on a double acc. with με, e.g. the speech introduction formulaP καί μιν φωνήσας ἔπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα [6, etc.]); the acc. με could also suggest the expression – albeit still rare in Homeric epic – ‘say something good/ bad to someone’ (Od. 4.690 οὔτε τινὰ ῥέξας ἐξαίσιον οὔτε τι εἰπών, Od. 22.313  f. is similar). Bibliography: AH and La Roche 1861, 245–247 (double acc. with verbs of address); K.-G. 1.323  f. and Schw. 2.81 (say something good/bad); Leaf and LfgrE s.v βάζω (either με or μοι is possible; LfgrE loc. cit.: ‘you pestered me about this’). — νῦν δέ: Achilleus

205 ποντοπόροισιν: on the declension, R 11.2. 206 αὖτις: = αὖθις. — ῥα: = ἄρα, suggests obviousness (R 24.1), ‘in fact, indeed’. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἔμπεσε: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 207 θαμ(ά): adv., ‘often, again and again’.  — πέφανται: 3rd pers. sing. perf. of φαίνομαι, ‘is shown’.

102 

 Iliad 16

returns to the present: ‘now you may prove that you meant what you said the entire time’; the expression is typical of Achilleus’ language (elsewhere mostly metaphorical: 1.354b–356n.; cf. 2.82n.).

208 The expression ‘a great work of that fighting’ is an antithesis to both the Myrmidons’ threats to return home (205  f., 207 ‘said repeatedly’) and the idleness imposed upon them; see Barck 1976, 134 (antithesis ‘word–deed’).  – Similar formulations at 11.734 (battle between the Pylians and Epeians), 12.416 (battle at the wall), Od. 22.149 (battle of the suitors).

φυλόπιδος: one of the Homeric terms denoting ‘fight, battle’ (6.1n.). — ἕης: functions as a relative pronoun; a unique formation by analogy to either neut. ὅου (thus the vulgate at 2.325; see AH; Schw. 1.104; Chantr. 1.83) or the possessive pronoun ἑός (Schw. 1.610; Janko). — τὸ πρίν: emphatic in the sense ‘in all earlier times’ (6.125n. with biblio­ graphy; also de la Villa 2013, 230–233), here and at 5.54, 13.105 strengthened by γε. — ἐράασθε: ‘desire passionately’ (in Homer and Hesiod properly of sexual desire), an exaggerated phrasing, as at 9.63  f. (ἀθέμιστος …, ὃς πολέμου ἔραται ἐπιδημίοο) or 16.89 (λιλαίεσθαι πολεμίζειν; see Kloss 1994, 31  f.); contrast the more factual ἐσσυμένους πολέμου (24.404, 11.717 is similar), μέμασαν πολεμίζειν (7.3, 13.214  f. is similar). On the ‘erotic depiction of combat’, see Monsacré 1984, 63  ff. – ἐράασθε is a secondary, thema­ tic inflected form (via diectasis) related to athematic ἔραμαι, like ἀγάασθε at Od. 5.119 vis-à-vis ἄγαμαι (Schw. 1.681; Risch 320; LfgrE s.v. ἔραμαι).

209 The speech closes with a motif typical of battle paraeneses, namely a call ‘to remember your own battle strength’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 300 [transl.] with n. 897 [collection of examples]). – Defensive and offensive prowess (alkḗ, here in the noun-epithet formula ‘heart of strength’) is a theme in Book 16 (157– 158n.); it is picked up again in the speech capping formulaP at 210: ‘strength and courage’ (as well as in the transition from simile to narrator-text at 264/266).

ἔνθα: ‘then, at that, under these circumstances’ (24.25n.; AH).  — τις: used with the 3rd pers. imper., this means ‘everyone’ and corresponds to ἑκάστου at 210; also with a negative imper. (‘no one’, e.g. at 200). Characteristic of battle paraeneses, cf. 2.382– 384, 17.227  f., 17.254  f., Callinus frr. 1.5 and 1.9 West, Tyrtaeus frr. 10.31 and 11.29  f. West (see 2.355n.; Fingerle 1939, 98). — ἄλκιμον ἦτορ ἔχων: ≈ 2nd VH of 264, h.Hom. 27.9; Il. 5.529 ἄ. ἦ. ἕλεσθε is similar. – In the Iliad, ἄλκιμον ἦτορ is always used in military contexts, of warriors (here and at 5.529, 21.571  f.) or of animals in similes (264, 17.111  f., 20.169). On the meaning of ἄλκιμος/ἀλκή, see 157–158n.  – In the iteratum 264, ἦτορ ἔχοντες is subsequently picked by κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἔχοντες (266; cf. here 210 ὤτρυνε μένος καὶ θυμόν); on the semantic interchangeability of ‘soul-spirit’ lexemes, see Jahn 1987, 203, 206. — Τρώεσσι μαχέσθω: an inflectable VE formula (11× Il., 2× Od.), part of character languageP (10× direct speech, 3× secondary focalizationP, thus e.g. at 576).

208 μέγα (ϝ)έργον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἕης: = ἧς. — ἐράασθε: on the diectasis, R 8.

Commentary 

 103

210 = 6.72, etc. (see ad loc.). Ιn the Iliad, only after battle paraeneses: the speech has the desired effect (so too at 275). — ὣς εἰπών: an inflectable VB formula and speech capping formulaP: 19.130n.

211–217 The second simile in the theme ‘preparations for battle’ (on the structure of which, see 130–277n.). It illustrates the effects of the battle paraenesis: the soldiers improve their formation – dense and without gaps, impenetr­able and resistant to attack (cf. Reucher 1983, 314, in reference to 155–167: ‘the wolf-like savageness is here remolded into military discipline’ [transl.]). The simile is one of a number, comparatively rare in early epic, with content related to arts or crafts (Moulton 1977, 91 [collection of examples in n. 8]; cf. esp. 23.712  f. [wellbuilt house], 24.317–319 [door, see ad loc.] and, in the present Book, 482–484 [wood cutting/ship building]). As is common in Homer, the technical details (212  f.) are not depicted via a static description but rather via a dynamic narrative (process of manufacture; on this, see 24.266–274n.). The image of density and stability corresponds to the formal structure (with a tight sequence of subject-clause 211, as-clause 212  f., and – reduplicated – so-clause 214  ff./217), as well as to the linguistic composition with its (a) repetition of relevant key phrases (3× ararískō ‘join, interlock’, 2× pyk(i)nós ‘dense, close’ [framing the simile]; 3× anḗr ‘man’, 4× kórys ‘helmet’, 3× aspís ‘shield’), (b) chiastic order (man [212] – helmet – shield [214] | shield – helmet – man [215]) and (c) multiple polyptota (215, in tripartite composition; at the same time, a purely dactylic verse); 13.130–133 is similar, also 11.150  f. – Bibliography: Fränkel 1921, 38; Janko; Hofmeister 1995, 302  f.; Rougier-Blanc 2002, 105  f., 106  f.; on the repetition of words in simile and narrative, esp. van Otterlo 1948, 51; Lee 1964, 14; Edwards, Introd. 27  f., 31; 7n.; on the polyptoton, Gygli-Wyss 1966, 54  f., 91; Fehling 1969, 229 (‘one of the most powerful and beautiful means of embellishment available to poetic language’ [transl.]); Edwards loc. cit. 59; West 2007, 114  f. 211 On the term stíches ‘rows, lines’, cf. 173n. The closed formation described here is designated as a kind of synaspismos (‘shield to shield’), a special form of the phalanx that was adopted only in specific circumstances (Latacz 1977, 64  f., 201; Schwartz 2009, 157–167; cf. 215–217n.); it is thus frequently offered as an indication that the narrator projected the techniques of hoplite warfare – known in his own time – back onto the heroes of his epic (Latacz 1977, esp. 251–255; Raaflaub 1993, 53  f.; Kullmann [1995] 2002, 38; 2002a, 89; Janko

210 ὥς: = οὕτως. 211 ἄρθεν: = ἤρθησαν (R 16.1–2), 3rd pers. pl. aor. pass. of ἀραρίσκω, ‘join together’. — βασιλῆος: on the declension, R 11.3 (cf. R 3).

104 

 Iliad 16

on 13.126–135; Schwartz loc. cit. 108–115; additional discussion with sometimes divergent conclusions in e.g. Hainsworth 1966, 164  f.; Hope Simpson/ Lazenby 1970, 2  f. [narrative embellishment]; Sears 2010 [the Myrmidons represent special troops]; Snodgrass 1993; van Wees 1994; 1997, 674  f.; Hellmann 2000, 100–112 [cannot be interpreted as hoplite technique]).  — ‘King’ is a periphrastic denominationP for Achilleus from the perspective of the Myrmidons (similarly at 1.331, 2.778, 24.449 with nn.; on Achilleus’ position, cf. 198–209n.). On the (Mycenaean and Homeric) term basiléus in general, 1.9n. with bibliography (also Shear 2004 [on Homer, esp. 69  ff.]; Horn 2014, 36  ff.; on the etymology, Janko 2014).

μάλλον: on the accent, West 1998, XX (s.v. ἄσσον).  — ἄκουσαν: ‘listen (to)’ implies ‘listen to someone’, cf. 2.98; 249n., end.

212–213 2nd VH of 212 ≈  Hes. Op. 624 (cf. 1st VH of 24.798); 213 =  Il. 23.713 (comparison).  — Different types of stone construction are described in early epic: entire buildings here and at Od. 10.210  f. (Kirke); parts of buildings at Il. 6.244/248, Od. 23.192  f. (livingrooms/bedrooms of Priam’s children and of Odysseus); free-standing walls at Od. 6.266  f./9.184  f./14.5–10 (assembly place of the Phaiakians, courtyards of Polyphemos and Eumaios). All these descriptions serve to highlight the aesthetic or technical properties of the masonry (here clearly the latter: 213; cf. Plommer 1977, 78). Archaeological classification of the buildings described is thus difficult: the average dwelling during the Mycenaean, Geometric and Archaic periods is a (single-story) wattle-and-daub or mudbrick construction (stones were used only for the foundations; rarely – e.g. at Zagora on Andros in the 9th/8th century  – for entire houses), while mason­ry with carefully cut stones (polygonal masonry) is attested archaeologically only from the 7th century onward: Drerup 1969, 106–108, 132 (who considers the use of small stones [‘Kleinsteinigkeit’] to be the main characteristic); Müller 1974, 85  f.; Müller-Wiener 1988, 64–74; Hiesel 1990, 6–8; RougierBlanc 2005, 321–324; Zagora: Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 149  f.; a brief overview of Greek architecture from the Mycenaean through Geometric periods in Reber 2008; on the possible influence of Phoenician ashlar masonry techniques, cf. Seybold/von Ungern (1993) 2009, 71 with bibliography in n. 98.

ὡς δ’ ὅτε: a common introduction to a simile, with the ind. or  – as here  – subjunc. (with or without modal particle); see 2.147–148n. (and on the subjunc. also 260n.). — πυκινοῖσι  … ὑψηλοῖο: attributes of ‘house’ or parts of a house (19.355–356n. and 24.281n.).

213 ὑψηλοῖο: on the declension, R 11.2. — ἀλεείνων: conative pres. part. (‘attempting to ward off, repulse’).

Commentary 

 105

214 ≈ Od. 19.32. — On ‘shields with bosses’, see 19.360n. with bibliography; also Shear 2000, 39  f.

ἄραρον: After ἀράρῃ at 212 (thematic aor. subjunc.), the form recalls an aor. active but is here intransitive (thus elsewhere only at Od. 4.777) and functions as a plpf. – ἀραρitself might be interpreted as a (weak) perf. stem (Risch 243; Hackstein 2002, 152  f. [both with older bibliography]); cf. LfgrE s.v. 1176.40  ff. (transl.): ‘the complex paradigm of the verb, which perhaps has only limited currency colloquially, may perhaps have led to uncertainty in the creation of the form’ (similarly West on Od. 4.777; Janko on 211–217). — ἀσπίδες ὀμφαλόεσσαι: an inflectable VE formula (6.117–118n.); on its use in conjunction with frequently mentioned items of armor, see Parry (1928) 1971, 116  f.

215–217 = 13.131–133. The image of a (more or less) compact battle formation is frequently evoked elsewhere in the Iliad as well: 4.427  f., 7.61  f., 12.105, 13.800, 15.618  f., 17.267  f., 19.359–361. — On the stylistic arrangement of 215, cf. 211–217n. (multiple polyptota). 216 On the helmet crest, cf. 135–138n. (with reference to 3.337n., 6.469n.).

ψαῦον: used absolutely (‘touched one another’) rather than with gen. object νευόντων (on ψαύω + gen., cf. 23.519, 23.806): Nägelsbach 1834, 313 (cf. 217n.). φάλοισιν is an instrumental dat. with this (‘touched one another with the plates’). — ἱππόκομοι: a possessive compound, literally ‘fitted with horsehair’, an epithetP of ‘helmet’, like ἵππουρις, ἱπποδάσεια and others, attested only in Books 12, 13 and 16 (here, 338 and 797). On the system of helmet epithets in general, Düntzer (1864) 1979, 98; Gray 1947, 114–119; Paraskevaides 1984, 27–30; on the Greek terms for ‘helmet’, 70b–72an. — φάλοισιν: a term disputed since antiquity, probably metal plates that reinforce the (leather) helmet, hence described with the epithet λαμπροῖσι as ‘lustrous’ (3.362n.; Janko on 13.132–133 [both with bibliography]).

217 = 13.133; 2nd VH = 15.703. — νευόντων: The reference is to warriors moving their heads from side to side (or up and down) (=  subject of the following sentence). The gen. is either dependent on κόρυθες (possessive gen.; Willcock on 13.133) or is a sort of gen. absolute (Classen 1867, 173  f.; AH on 13.133).

218–220a Toward the end of preparations for battle, the leaders – here Patroklos and Automedon, at 2.477  ff. Agamemnon, at 19.362  ff. Achilleus – are emphatically singled out from the crowd (cf. 19.362–364n.; Richardson 1990, 120  f.): 218 ‘before all others’, ‘two men’; 219 ‘of the same mind’; 220 ‘before the Myrmidons’. 218 2nd VH ≈ 12.421. — θωρήσσεσθον: denotes here, as frequently elsewhere, the production of mental readiness for battle: ‘they steeled themselves for battle’ (impf.; see LfgrE

214 ἄραρον: ‘joined to one another’ (intransitive). 215 ἔρειδε: here ‘bumped into’. — ἀνέρα … ἀνήρ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); likewise 218 ἀνέρε.

106 

 Iliad 16

and 2.11n.; similarly Bekker 1872, 40; AH: ‘prepared to go to battle’); physical readiness has already been attained by donning armor at 130  ff. 219 2nd VH (from caesura C 1 on) = 15.710, 17.267; ≈ 13.487; also Od. 3.128 (1st VH). — ἕνα θυμόν: not of unanimity as a basic characteristic, but of unanimous action in a specific situation (at 15.710 the two opposing parties are termed ἕνα θ. ἔχοντες, contrast 20.32 δίχα θ. ἔχ.). Examples: iterata; similarly ἶσον θυμόν at 13.704, 17.720 (VB). Bibliography: Marg 1938, 47–50; Snell 1965, 34–43 (esp. 35–38); Clarke 1999, 119  f. — θυμὸν ἔχοντες: an inflectable VE formula, usually with an attribute preceding (8× Il., 4× Od., 7× Hes., 6× h.Hom.); also at VB (1× Hes.) and after caesura A 3 (5× Il., 1× Od., 1× h.Hom.).

220b–254 An extended variant of the type-sceneP ‘libation by an individual’ (24.283–321n.): the type-scene ‘visit to the treasury’ (220b–227n.) here takes the place of (1) invitation to offer a libation; it is followed by (2) cleaning the cup and washing hands (228–230a, stressed via repetition of the verb for ‘washing’ at 229  f. [on this type of emphatic repetition, cf. 84n.]), (3) pouring the libation of wine (230b, 231b), (4) prayer (231–248), (5) response by the god (249–252), followed by a return to quarters and replacing the cup in the chest (253  f.; forms a frame for the scene together with 220  ff.). – Libation is a characteristic ritual of the world of heroes and elites (Burkert [1991] 2001, 88); frequently, as here, it is combined with a prayer  – esp.  231, 253  – (24.287n.; Citron 1965, 56  ff.; Corlu 1966, 71  f., 75  f.) and takes place prior to a dangerous venture (24.70n.; Janko on 225–227). Here the libation also replaces, as it were, a farewell scene between Achilleus and Patroklos – the elaboration and solemnity of the description are a sign of the ‘significance of this moment’: Arend 1933, 77  f. [transl.]; von Scheliha 1943, 260  f.; Whitman 1958, 250; cf. 225–227n. 220b–227 An adaptation of the type-sceneP ‘visit to the treasury’ (24.191–237an.): (1) entering the hut (instead of descent into the chamber): 220b–221a, (3) description of the chest and the contents kept in it: 221b–224 (with external analepsisP: Achilleus’ departure for Troy, cf. 18.58  f.), (6/7) history and particular value of the object selected: 225–227; (8) return, implied at 231. The fact that the chest and its contents are described in detail at this point, since an object from it will become significant for the narrative, corresponds to the principle of ‘ad hoc narration’P (with the history of the origin of the object: 2.101–108n. with bibliography; also Grethlein 2008, 35  ff., 47  f.). 220 αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: 124n., end.

218 πάντων  … προπάροιθε: preposition (here postpositive) with gen., ‘before all’, i.e. ‘at the head, in front’ (likewise 220 πρόσθεν). — ἀνέρε θωρήσσεσθον: dual. 220 πολεμιζέμεν: final inf.; on the form, R 16.4.

Commentary 

 107

221 1st VH ≈ 19.241. — Chests are used for storing and transporting textiles and precious objects (24.228n.).

βῆ ῥ’ ἴμεν: an inflectable VB formula (24.95n.; perhaps formed by analogy with imper. βάσκ’ ἴθι: Yates 2014; on the doubling of the verb, see also 2.8n.). The expression likely has ceremonial connotations (6.296n.). – Given the repeated occurrence of the formula in the middle of sentences – also at e.g. 12.299, 20.484, Od. 17.604 – ῥ(α) probably has a purely metrical function (avoiding hiatus). Differently Ruijgh (1990) 1996, 643–645; Bakker 1997, 101; Allan 2009, 146: ‘but Achilleus – he went …’ (‘Achilleus’ is a thematic word [278n.], ῥ(α) ‘marks an intonational boundary’ [Bakker loc. cit.]). — κλισίην: On Achilleus’ quarters in the encampment, 24.448–456n., 24.448n. — ἀνόειγεν: on the form, 24.228n.

222–224 Achilleus here takes care of his companion Patroklos in the same way Thetis took care of her son when he went to war: the libation with the chosen cup is meant to ensure the best possible protection (Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 49  f.; Hofmeister 1995, 303  f.); in this regard, the reference in the present passage to protective clothing likely has a ‘high functional value’ (Kullmann 1960, 264 [transl.]). It is of course a duty of those who stay behind (usually the mother or wife) to pack the ‘bags’ for the departing individual, e.g. at Od. 19.255  ff. (de Jong on Od. 5.263–268 with examples). – In the narrator’s imagination, Thetis was still dwelling in Phthia before and during Achilleus’ departure for Troy (24.83n.; Janko on 220–232).

καλῆς δαιδαλέης: an inflectable VB formula (19.380n.). Achilleus’ possessions are frequently characterized as ‘elaborate’ (24.597n.; on the elements of object descriptions in general, Minchin 2001, 109  f.). – On the asyndetic series of epithets, see 183n., end. — Θέτις ἀργυρόπεζα: an inflectable VE formula, aside from 16.574 (acc.) always in the nom. (in total 10× Il., 1× Hes., 1× h.Ap., usually with θεά preceding: 19.28n.). On the distinctive epithetP ‘silver-footed’, 1.538n.

223–224 On the variety of Homeric terms in the semantic field of textiles, 24.229– 231n. and 24.230–231n.; on male garments, 24.163n.; on bed clothes, 24.644– 648n.

221 βῆ ῥ’ ἴμεν: ‘strode out in order to walk’, i.e. ‘started his journey’; ῥ’ = ἄρα (R 24.1), ἴμεν = ἰέναι (R 16.4). — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — κλισίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — χηλοῦ … ἀπό: = ἀπὸ χηλοῦ ‘from the chest’; modified by καλῆς δαιδαλέης. — ἀνόειγεν: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἀνοίγω ‘open, lift off (the lid)’. 222 δαιδαλέης: on the -η- after -ε-, R 2. — τήν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 223 νηός: on the declension, R 12.1. — ἄγεσθαι: final inf. (θῆκε ἄγ. ≈ ‘gave him to take on the ship’).

108 

 Iliad 16

χιτώνων  | χλαινάων τε: χιτών and χλαῖνα frequently occur together in early epic (Shear 2000, 61 with n. 4 [collection of examples]).

224 The wind motif recalls the imagery of the simile at 212  f.: protection from the wind symbolizes protection in battle (Hofmeister 1995, 303  f.).

A verse structured with strict chiasmus, with semantically complementary attributes in the middle. — ἀνεμοσκεπέων: ‘providing protection from the winds’, a Homeric hapaxP (attested elsewhere only in late antiquity [Nonnos]), cf. ἀλεξάνεμος (Od. 14.529, of Eumaios’ χλαῖνα, with related ‘prehistory’ at 14.457  ff.), χειμάμυνα (Aesch. fr. 449 Radt, Soph. fr. 1112 Radt), φάρμακον αὐρᾶν (Pindar, Ol. 9.97), also σκέπας … ἀνέμοιο (4× Od. of locations protected from the wind); on the word formation, LfgrE (formally a possessive compound, but a final element with verbal function, as in χαμαιεῦναι: 235n.).

225–227 The cup is placed at the end of the description of the chest’s contents as a climax: in what follows, it – like other containers in the Iliad – will play a particular role; what is more, its use demonstrates the strong emotional bond between the cup and its owner, as well as the significance of the present occasion (in itself strongly emotional): Edwards 1980, 2; Griffin 1980, 17  f.; 24.234–237an. (there: Priam before visiting Achilleus). On the Greek term dépas – a type of drinking vessel also suitable for libations – cf. 24.101n.; LfgrE s.v.; Hölscher/Krauskopf 2005, 191  ff. – Here the cup is described no further, but given its status, it is likely to be imagined as made of precious metal (cf. 24.285: golden).

οὐδέ τις ἄλλος | οὔτ’ ἀνδρῶν πίνεσκεν … | οὔτέ τεῳ σπένδεσκε θεῶν: a description via negation: ‘The more negatives, the more the relevant issue stands out’ (Arend 1933, 15  f. [transl.; quotation: 16]; de Jong on Od. 9.116–141 [with bibliography in n.  23]).  – Change of construction in 227: nom. τις → dat. τεῳ; the subject of σπένδεσκε is Achilleus (contrast e.g. 18.403  f. οὐδέ τις ἄλλος  | εἴδεεν οὔτε θεῶν οὔτε θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων). ‘[F]or the violent metaphor of a god drinking from the cup there is substituted the literal libation which typified the gods’ draught’ (Leaf; cf. AH).

225 ἔσκε: On the productivity of the formation with -σκ- (also at 226, 227; likewise 550  f.), 24.12an. with bibliography (also Schw. 1.710–712; Pagniello 2007); the iterative-frequentative function is expressed especially in ‘no one drank, no one poured (libations)’, while ἔσκε ‘was’ has instead a durative function (3.180n.; cf. Bühler 1960, 135  f.; on ἔσκε as an inherited primary stem, see Rix [1976] 1992, 229). — τετυγμένον: ‘produced, made (by hand)’, with no further qualification (14.9n.); of vessels also at 23.741, Od.

224 ἀνεμοσκεπέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 225 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἔσκε: ≈ ἦν (R 16.5); an iterative form, like 226 πίνεσκεν, 227 σπένδεσκε. — τετυγμένον: perf. pass. part. of τεύχω. — οὐδέ: in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 109

4.615, 9.223, 15.115, 20.153. — οὐδέ τις ἄλλος: an inflectable VE formula (nom. masc./ fem.: 4× Il., 9× Od., 1× h.Cer.; dat. masc.: 1× Il.; acc. masc./fem.: 3× Od.). 226 αὐτοῦ αἴθοπα: on the hiatus, 24.641n.  — αἴθοπα οἶνον: an inflectable VE formula (24.641n.), in Book 16 once more at 230.

227 In the Iliad, a close relationship between Achilleus and Zeus is repeatedly revealed (Erbse 1986, 234; Stanley 1993, 372  f. n. 6): in Book 1, Thetis successfully pleads with Zeus in favor of her son; at 9.608, Achilleus confidently states his trust in Zeus’ support (cf. 16.88); in Book 19, Zeus has Achilleus strengthen­ed with ambrosia and nectar (19.340  ff.); in his speech of triumph over Asteropaios at 21.184–199, Achilleus refers to his descent from his great-grandfather Zeus; at 21.272–283, he prays directly to Zeus for a second time (distress in the battle at the river); in Book 24, Zeus initiates a (conciliatory) solution, favorable to Achilleus, for the return of Hektor’s body (esp. 24.110, 561).

ὅτε μή: ≈  εἰ μή; elsewhere always with the predicate in the opt. (13.319, 14.248, Od. 16.197, 23.185): AH; Leaf on 13.319; Monteil 1963, 280  f.; Vergados on h.Merc. 93. — Διὶ πατρί: a formula in various positions in the verse (24.100n.; on the meaning, 3.276n.). In addition, the vocative Ζεῦ πάτερ represents a common invocation of Zeus in prayer (1.503n.).

228 Sulfur, a yellow non-metallic solid, is itself odorless but forms sulfur dioxide when it comes in contact with air and during combustion; the gas is colorless and has an acrid smell. The disinfectant properties (bacteriostatic, fungicide) of sulfur were employed in antiquity via burning, especially for cultic cleansing, cf. Od. 22.481–494: cleaning of the room after the death of the suitors. Sulfur deposits in antiquity: Melos, Nisyros (Aegean), Aeolian islands, Naples, Capua. Bibliography: Fernández-Galiano on Od. 22.481; Paoletti 2004, 21  f. (with additional bibliography); Blümner 1887, 23–25; Parker 1983, 227  f.; Wilson 2006, 473; cf. 14.415n.

τό ῥα τότ(ε): A return to the main storyline after a digression (here the keyword χηλός at 221/228), cf. 10.318, 11.231, 13.646, 15.644, 16.577, Od. 20.291, Hes. Th. 635 (with West ad loc.), Sc. 77. – Neuter τό as a relative/demonstrative pronoun is used elsewhere only at 7.224 (τὸ πρόσθε) and 22.307 (τό (ϝ)οἱ) at VB. Whether the long scansion of τό here is to be explained (a) by a doubling of the initial consonant of ῥα (M 4.6) or (b) as a metrical licence at VB (M 15) (Aristarchus argues for simple ῥ-) has been debated since antiquity: schol. A and T (with Erbse ad loc.); La Roche 1866, 389  f., 391  f.; AH; Janko on 228–230,

226 αἴθοπα (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3. 227 τεῳ: = τινι, with θεῶν as a partitive gen. — ὅτε μή: ‘except for, aside from’. 228 τό: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R  17).  — ἐκάθηρε: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of καθαίρω ‘clean’. — θεείῳ: ‘sulfur’.

110 

 Iliad 16

end; de Jong on Il. 22.307; on (a), cf. Od. 22.327 | κείμενον ὅ ῥ’ Ἀγέλαος, on (b), Il. 21.352 | τὰ περὶ … 229 πρῶτον, ἔπειτα δ(έ): a VB formula (6.260n.); on the explicitly sequential structure, see 495–497an. — ὕδατος καλῇσι ῥοῇσιν: ‘with the pouring of pure water’, a unique solemn, ceremonial term for the more common ὕδατι, as at 7.425, 11.830/846, Hes. Op. 739, h.Ap. 120 (some with attributes); cf. ποταμοῖο ῥοῇσιν (669 ≈  679 and Od. 6.216: cleaning of Sarpedon’s body, cleaning of Odysseus on Scheria). καλός as an epithet of water in cultic use likely connotes ‘clean, pure’ (h.Ap. 120  f., cf. Hes. Op. 739 ὕδατι λευκῷ; of washing clothes, Od. 6.86  f.).

230 The ritual cleaning of the hands (on which, 1.449n. with bibliography; furthermore Laser 1983, 148  f.) represents element 2 of the type-scene ‘libation’ (220b–254n.).

αὐτός: ‘does himself what he has earlier done with something or someone else’, e.g. 7.172  f. ὀνήσει  … Ἀχαιούς,  | καὶ δ’ αὐτὸς ὃν θυμὸν ὀνήσεται, likewise with alternation between active/middle (LfgrE s.v. 1655.21  ff., 1662.77  ff.; Hahn 1954, 264 n. 216).

231–252 Formally, Achilleus’ prayer to Zeus closely follows the type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n. with bibliography; also de Jong on Od. 2.260–267; Kelly 2007, 250– 253): (1) prayer gesture (here libation and gazing at the sky, 231b–232a), (2) verb of praying (231a), (3) naming the deity (indirectly at 227 and 232b), (5) invocation of the deity (invocatio/epiclesis, with mention of the title of the deity, his lineage, attributes and cult places: 233–235), (6) services rendered or – as here – received earlier (236–238), (7) plea (239–248), (8) formulaic conclusion (249a), (9) response of the deity (249b–252, see 249–252n.). In terms of content, however, the present prayer – classified vis-à-vis its intention as a ‘plea for divine help’ (Jones 1996, 112  f., with collection of examples in n. 14) and as an ‘intercession’ (Beckmann 1932, 15–19; Corlu 1966, 69; Jakov/Voutiras 2005, 114) – has a strongly individual cast (Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 53  f.), e.g. in its length (unmatched in Homeric epic), the exceptional invocation of Zeus of Dodona (233–235 with nn.), and the complexity of the plea (in two parts: at 239  ff. a plea for military success and at 246  ff. one for safe return; similarly at 7.202–205; see Ferrari 1986, 38  f.; Lateiner 1997, 261; Janko on 233–248, end). The prayer reflects Achilleus’ current, problematic circumstances (cf. 83–96n. and 60–63n.) – and via his, those of Patroklos as well – as is shown in particular by references to his own statements from the past: (a) Thetis’ plea (1.503  ff., here 236) demanded the undivided support of Zeus for the Trojans, but he is now supposed to aid the Achaians (or Myrmidons) (Schein 1984, 120; Nimis 1987, 40  f.; Haubold 2000, 77  f.) – in a way a revocation of Thetis’ plea (Mülder

229 ἔνιψ(ε): from νίπτω/νίζω ‘wash’ (here act., 230 mid.).

Commentary 

 111

1929, 40  ff., esp. 42  f.; Kelly loc. cit. 253  f.); (b) Patroklos’ orders (64  f./80–96, here 240  f.) are to drive the Trojans away from the ships and immediately return to the encampment while preserving Achilleus’ fame and prestige; now, conversely, according to Achilleus’ conception, Patroklos should enjoy victory himself and with Zeus’ help prove his military superiority over Hektor  – although this endangers the second part of Achilleus’ plea, namely the safe return of his companion (something he never doubts until he receives news of Patroklos’ death): Reucher 1983, 315; Alvis 1995, 39–41; Hofmeister 1995, 313  f.; Janko on 242–248; cf. 17.404–411, 18.13  f. (see ad loc.), 19.328–333n. The narrator commentary at 249–252 (Zeus’ response) ‘corrects’ Achilleus’ pleas (see ad loc.; Hofmeister loc. cit. 302; on attempts to address apparent inconsistencies via text-critical interventions, see AH, Anh. on 16, Einl. p. 17  f.; Janko on 236–238; West 2001, 237 [and 12 n. 28]). 231–232a = 24.306–307a (see ad loc.); 232a ≈ 7.423, Hes. Th. 761. — Achilleus steps out into the open from his hut and performs his prayers ‘in the courtyard’, i.e. in a private setting as a friend of Patroklos (Donnay 2005; Pucci 2012, 440  f.). An association of the Greek term hérkos ‘enclosure, yard’ with so-called ‘Zeus Herkeios’, the protector of house and farmstead, is here unlikely (differently schol. bT on 231), since Achilleus is invoking the – distant – Zeus of Dodona. On ‘Zeus Herkeios’, cf. Od. 22.334  f. (with altar); see also 24.306–307an.

ηὔχετ(ο): In Homer, εὔχομαι can introduce direct speech by itself – without a subsequent verb of speaking: Corlu 1966, 84  f.; Edwards 1970, 18 (contrast e.g. the parallel passage 24.306  f. ηὔχετ(ο) … καὶ φωνήσας ἔπος ηὔδα); taken up again indirectly in the middle of the speech via ἐμὸν ἔπος ἔκλυες εὐξαμένοιο (236); subsequently in the speech capping formulaP at 249 as the part. of ἔφατ(ο) (designating the point of the speech: 46n.).

232 Looking up at the sky is a common prayer pose (3.364n. with bibliography; also Pucci 2012 [ad loc. 440  f.]). – Zeus’ attention is captured when the cup, reserved for him, comes into use, and he observes the scene; see 24.331n. with parallels (on this, also LfgrE s.v. λανθάνω 1628.60  ff.). By stating already before the speech begins that the addressee is listening, the narrator creates suspense: Janko on 231–232; parallels are found especially in assembly scenes (8.4 gods, 8.492 Trojans in the field, 19.256 Greeks).

231 ηὔχετ’ …, λεῖβε δέ: the libation is an accompaniment to the prayer, and δέ is thus to a certain extent subordinate (cf. 237 μὲν … δέ). — ἕρκεϊ: specification of place without a preposition (R 19.2).

112 

 Iliad 16

Δία … τερπικέραυνον: The inflectable VE formula Ζεὺς τερπικέραυνος (24.529–530n.) occurs in early epic in total 5× with the words separated; on the weather epithets of Zeus, 1.354n. (cf. 298n.).

233–235 The description of Zeus of Dodona in the invocatio paints a picture of one of the most ancient, primeval and thus venerable cult gods in Greece, lending an extremely solemn character to the prayer (Janko on 233–248; see Pötscher 1966, 124  f.; Parke 1967, 6  f.; Keil 1998, 48–52 [‘a religious ar­chaism that thus also entails linguistic archaisms’: loc. cit. 51 (transl.)]; Dieterle 2007, 35; cf. Herodotus 2.52). Details of the present passage were the subject of pure speculation already in antiquity (sources in Dieterle loc. cit. 276  ff.; Velardi 2012, 57  ff.; esp. scholia, Strabo, Stephanus of Byzantium). By contrast, Od. 14.327–330 conveys the familiar image of Dodona as a cult place (with Zeus’ oracle and oak tree as key elements). For details of the current state of research concerning Dodona, see Parke 1967; Dieterle 2007; Quantin 2008; with necessary brevity, BNP s.v. – The invocation of a specific local deity lends particular urgency to the plea (514–516n., 24.291n.). In his speeches, Achilleus frequently employs ethno-geographic details (‘rhetorical expansion’: 24.544– 545n. with bibliography; cf. West 2011, 317). 233 A solemn whole-verse address (2.412n.; on the frequency of epithets in prayer language, see 6.305n., with bibliography). The term (w)ánax, commonly translated ‘lord’, is a title for rulers that was current in Mycenaean but faded in Homeric epic; an epithet of humans and gods (among the latter predominantly of Zeus, Apollo and Poseidon): 1.7n., 2.102n.  — The name ‘Pelasgian’ is used in different contexts in early epic: (1) a designation for the territory of the Myrmidons (‘Pelasgian Argos’, 2.681 [see ad loc.], with the region ‘Hellas’ at 2.683; Visser 1997, 644–661; cf. 234n. on the Selloí/Helloí); (2) allies of the Trojans, not clearly located geographically (2.840–843 with n., 10.429, 17.288  f.); (3) a Cretan people (Od. 19.177). It is tempting to associate Zeus’ present designation with (1), although admittedly Dodona (in modern Epirus [northwest Greece]) and Achilleus’ homeland (in modern northeast Central Greece) are located some distance from one another, while in the Iliad Dodona is part of the contingent of Gouneus (2.748–755 [see ad loc.], with the tribal names Enienes and Perrhaibians). Since ‘Hes.’ fr. 319 M.-W. also calls Dodona the ‘domain of the Pelasgians’, an expanded use of the name should probably be posited: (4) inhabitants of the area near Dodona. Attempts to identify (or invent) a second Dodona in the territory of the Myrmidons should be rejected, given the attested fame of the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona. Further discussion: LfgrE

233 Ζεῦ (ϝ)άνα: on the prosody, R 4.4; ἄνα is the vocative of ἄναξ.

Commentary 

 113

s.v. Pelasgós; BNP s.v. Pelasgi; Parke 1967, 3–7 (Pelasgian here in the sense ‘far away to the north’; cf. Loptson 1981; Hofmeister 1995, 310); Dieterle 2007, 28–30 (in the sense ‘pre-Greek, prehistoric’; thus also the regular use of the term by later Greek authors, with the additional connotation ‘autochthonous’, see BNP loc. cit. with examples; check-list of ancient attestations in LochnerHüttenbach 1960, 97  ff.).

ἄνα: an old vocative form beside ἄναξ, found only in addresses to the gods, in the combination Ζεῦ ἄνα 3× Il./Od. at VB (2.102n., 3.351n.; Beckmann 1932, 33; Keil 1998, 48  f.). — τηλόθι ναίων: a unique variant of the VE formula αἰθέρι ναίων, likewise used of Zeus (2.412n., where also an address in a prayer; cf. Od. 12.135 VE τηλόθι ναίειν; anti­ thesis: ἐγγύθι ναίει VE 1× Od., 3× Hes. Op.). τηλόθι refers to the distance between Troy and Greece (cf. the – pathetic – motif of ‘dying far from home’: 461n.) and is often used in the context of (or in speeches by) Achilleus: 18.99, 24.86, 24.541 (Griffin 1986, 55).

ναίων: ναίων (again at 235 ναίουσ(ι)) could also represent an allusion to the cult title of Zeus of Dodona, ‘Naios’ (cf. the similarly twofold ναίω at ‘Hes.’ fr. 240 M.-W. in a similar context); at the same time, this cult title is safely attested only from the 4th century onward (with its sense being ultimately obscure): Lhôte 2006, 407–420; Quantin 2008, 29–33 (related to ναίω ‘dwell, inhabit’); differently Pötscher 1966, 126–135 (related to νάω ‘flow’ [in reference to the springs in the area]); Janko on 234–235.

234 The identification of the Selloi is problematic for two reasons in particular: (1) regarding the spelling, the name is transmitted as both Selloí and Helloí. Selloí is the uniform reading in the Vulgate and is not to be doubted in the present passage (West 2001, 237); it is moreover linked with a river named Sellḗeis (2.659n.; schol. A on 15.531 and 16.234). But Helloí has been brought into play due to echoes of Hellopíē (the name of the area around Dodona according to ‘Hes.’ fr. 240 M.-W.), Hellás/Héllēnes, etc. (examples in Janko on 234–235 and Reece 2009, 204  ff.). All these names might be connected: the different initial sounds (s-/h-) could be acceptable linguistically. (2) As regards the name itself, Selloí could be either the name of a people (from whom the oracle’s priests originate) or the name of the priesthood; the characterization at 235 indicates the latter (specific designation of function). – Detailed discussion on (1) and (2): schol. A, D and T ad loc.; RE s.v. Helloí (Suppl. V, 963–965); LfgrE s.v. Helloí; Friederich 1935, 8–19; Hammond 1967, 367  ff.; Dieterle 2007, 30  ff.; Reece loc. cit. 201  ff.; Velardi 2009, 67  ff.

μεδέων: ‘ruling over (Dodona)’, in prayer invocations with the gen. of what is ruled over: Schw. 2.109; LfgrE.  — δυσχειμέρου: ‘with hard winters, icy cold’ vel sim., in the Iliad a distinctive (and geographically-meteorologically appropriate) epithetP of Dodona, which is situated in a plain on the north slope of Tomaros and is surrounded by largely snow-capped peaks (2.750n.; Jebb 1892, 201; Parke 1967, 3; Visser 1997, 725  f.; LfgrE s.v. δυσχείμερος; cf. Hammond 1967, 16–18). On the v.l. polypídakos ‘rich in springs’ (which Callimachus must have known: schol. T), see Rengakos 1993, 83  f. — ἀμφὶ δὲ …:

114 

 Iliad 16

transition from a participial construction (ναίων, μεδέων) to parataxis with a finite verb (ναίουσ(ι)): AH.

235 Unwashed feet and lying on the bare floor are likely expressions of the cult’s strong connection to the earth. The taboo on foot washing was perhaps designed to ‘preserve […] the magical powers derived from contact with the earth’ (LfgrE s.v. ἀνιπτόποδες [transl.], with bibliography; Pötscher 1966, 143–145; Janko on 234–235; similarly Dieterle 2007, 32  f.; parallels in Parke 1967, 23– 27; on ancient interpretations, Rengakos 1992, 32  f.). This contrasts with the Homeric custom of ensuring the necessary cleanliness before all cult-related actions (cf. 228–230; esp. evident at 6.266–268: Hektor refuses to pour libations for Zeus with dirty hands): Keil 1998, 50; cf. the complete reinterpretation of the verse by the comic poet Eubulus (fr. 137), who apparently associates the attributes with freeloading philosophers: Montanari (1976) 1995.

σοί: The interpretation is disputed; probably a possessive pronoun in the nom. pl. (AH and Leaf, going with ὑποφῆται) rather than a personal pronoun in the dat. sing. (in which case either with ἀμφί [LfgrE s.v. ναίω 296.53  ff.] or as a dat. of advantage [Ebeling s.v. ἀμφί II.A.a]); see also the discussion in Reece 2009, 203. — ὑποφῆται ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαιεῦναι: A concentration of Homeric hapax legomenaP (cf. Keil 1998, 20); on the archaic style, 233–235n. – As is the case with ὑποκριτής/ὑποκρίνεσθαι (‘explain’ in the sense ‘inform, give notice, respond’ or ‘explicate, interpret’), the initial element ὑπο- in ὑποφῆται cannot be interpreted with complete certainty: ‘deputy speaker, proclaimer’ (of the deity) or ‘interpreter’ (of the oracle); see the somewhat divergent interpretations in Wackernagel (1924) 1928, 239  f.; Fascher 1927, 27–32, 51–54 (≈  προ-φήτης); Else 1959, 100; Parke 1967, 10; LfgrE s.v.; esp. on ὑπο-, Patzer 1970, 645  f. – ἀνιπτό-ποδες is a tripartite compound whose ‘initial element […] is itself a compound’: ‘unwashed’ (Risch 229 [transl.]). The negative form underlines the unusual nature of the conduct, like ἀμετροεπής and ἀκριτόμυθος in reference to Thersites (2.212/246), ἀμιτροχίτων of the Lykians (419, see ad loc.). – χαμαιεῦναι is formally a possessive compound with a locative initial element (χαμαί + εὐνή, ‘having one’s bed on the ground’), but is functionally a verb-noun compound (‘sleeping on the ground’): Rüedi 1969, 37–43 (esp. 39  f.) and 49  f.; Risch 210 (on the locative, loc. cit. 220).

236–238 = 1.453–455 (1.453 with slight variation); in addition, 236 ≈ 14.234 (with the VE of 14.234 = VB of 16.238); 2nd VH of 236 ≈ 9.509, Od. 2.30/42; 2nd VH of 237 ≈ 822; 2nd VH of 238 = 8.242, ≈ 1.41, etc. (see ad loc.). — The almost literal repetition of three verses from Chryses’ prayer to Apollo after the return of Chryseïs in Book 1 is perhaps designed to direct attention to the differences in attitude between Chryses and Achilleus in their respective conflicts with the Achaians: while Chryses declares the conflict (sc. with the Greeks about Chryseïs) over

235 χαμαιεῦναι: to be scanned ⏑⏑–⏑ with shortening of the internal hiatus (cf. R 5.5).

Commentary 

 115

in his prayer, Achilleus ultimately allows the conflict (sc. between himself and Agamemnon) to continue (esp. 239) (Mülder 1929, 42  f.; Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 234  f. with n. 127; Lowenstam 1993, 113 n. 132; Alden 2000, 258  f. with n. 192; Janko on 233–248; cf. Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 375; a list of repeated speeches or parts of speeches in de Jong [1987] 2004, 243–245). – On the justification of a plea in accord with the principle of da quia dedisti, see Beckmann 1932, 48; Lang 1974/75, 311–314; Pulleyn 1997, 5 n. 10 (collection of examples); loc. cit. 19 and 27 n. 15 (non-Greek parallels); on the typical elements of prayer speech, 1.453n., 1.455n. 236 ‘You listened (sc. to me)’ refers to Achilleus’ request conveyed by Thetis at 1.503  ff., which in retrospect is considered Achilleus’ own prayer, as also from the perspective of Zeus (15.72  ff.) and of Thetis at 18.75 (see ad loc., with bibliography; also Combellack 1965, 51  f. n. 7; Nickau 1977, 82; Reichel 1994, 120  f.).

εὐξαμένοιο: gen. in agreement with the possessive pronoun ἐμόν (as if ἔπος μου had been used), see 3.180n. (on κυνώπιδος). On the VE formula, cf. 236–238n. (iterata) and 76n.

237 = 1.454; 2nd VH ≈ 16.822. — Timḗ ‘honor’ is held in such high esteem in heroic society that it is defended and pushed for even at the expense of one’s own people: Ulf 1990, 7; Haubold 2000, 50, 76  f.; Holmes 2007, 51  f. with n. 11; see also 1.11n., 1.159–160n. On Achilleus’ ‘self-sufficient’ attitude, cf. his wish at 97–100 (with n.).

τίμησας: frequently pregnant in reference to Achilleus, ‘restore honor, gain satisfaction’, as also at 1.505, 1.559 (LfgrE s.v. 516.14  ff.; cf. 84n.). — λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectable formula (6.223n.).

239 1st VH ≈ 13.49, Od. 16.132; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 19.42. — Achilleus’ continued absence from the battle is signalled by his plan to remain in the encampment of ships (1.492, 14.367, 18.64 are similar, also of Agamemnon at 9.332).

γάρ: signals the transition from the introduction of the prayer to the plea; 517 is similar. — νηῶν ἐν ἀγῶνι: ‘in the encampment of ships’, 19.42n. (where νεῶν has a secondarily shortened -ε- rather than -η-, which is still present here: Hoekstra 1965, 127  f.).

240–241a In the prayer, Achilleus summarizes his intention of sending Patroklos into battle (cf. 38  f., 64  f., 126/129). On the character plane, this serves an informational purpose – namely, as the basis for the subsequent plea to Zeus –

236 ἠμέν: correlative with 238 ἠδ(έ), ‘on the one hand … on the other hand’ (R 24.4), here in the sense ‘as … so’ or ‘if … then’. — ἐμὸν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. 238 τόδ(ε): prospective.  — ἐπικρήηνον: 2nd pers. sing. aor. imper. of (ἐπι)κραίνω (originally *κρᾱαίνω), ‘fulfil’ (ἐπι- is intensive). 239 μενέω: fut.; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

116 

 Iliad 16

while on the narrator plane, it is an assurance just before the intention is brought to fruition. 240 2nd VH = 23.60, Od. 11.495 (see 15n., end); ≈ Il. 4.388, 13.661. 241 A second address within the same speech  – generally shorter, as here  – under­lines the plea: ‘Zeus of the wide brows’ (Beckmann 1932, 40–42; on emphatically repeated addresses in general, 11n.).

μάρνασθαι: final inf., similar in sense to 18.237  f. ἔπεμπε … ἐς πόλεμον, 18.452 πέμπε … πόλεμόνδε (both passages likewise in connection with Patroklos).  — τῷ κῦδος ἅμα πρόες: a unique formulation, insofar as προίημι is used nowhere else in reference to abstracts (except for something spoken, such as ἀγγελίαι, ἔπος, etc.), but rather in reference to people and weapons (at 38, Patroklos to Achilleus: ἀλλ’ ἐμέ περ πρόες; κῦδος is thus here perhaps ‘superiority, success, triumph’ as a kind of companion in battle, cf. Leaf with reference to 4.415 κῦδος ἅμ’ ἕψεται, 17.251 κῦδος ὀπηδεῖ). On the common combinations with κῦδος, 24.110n. (mostly δίδωμι, ὀπάζω; e.g. 88, 730). – On asyndeton at the transition to a request, 129n. (on δύσεο, with bibliography); here the demonstrative pronoun τῷ establishes the thematic link. — εὐρύοπα Ζεῦ: a vocative variant of the inflectable VE formula εὐρύοπα Ζεύς/Ζῆν (24.296n.), attested only here; similarly μητίετα Ζεῦ at 1.508 (elsewhere only in the nom.): Kahane 1994, 104 n. 75. The epithet in direct speech may have a contextually relevant meaning here: may ‘Zeus of the wide brow’ keep an eye on Patroklos (Cosset 1990, 11–13).

242–245 A ‘complex prayer’, in the terminology of Lang 1974/75, 309  f.: prayers expanded via specification of their purpose – here ‘so that Hektor, too, would learn whether …’ – ‘provide fuller explanation of the speaker’s situation and state of mind’ (Lang loc. cit. 310), so too at 524–526. Here it functions as a signal of Achilleus’ problematic situation (see 231–252n., where also for biblio­ graphy on the modern athetesis of 242–245, which is not adopted in the present interpretation). 242 ≈ 19.169. — ἦτορ ἐνὶ φρεσίν: 19.169–170n.; on the ἦτορ of warriors, 209n.

243 2nd VH ≈ 2.611, 13.223, also 13.238. — That Patroklos ‘also knows how to fight by himself’ may allude to his function as charioteer (on which, 20n.; Krischer 1992, 99  f.): elsewhere, the charioteer always acts in the background vis-à-vis the hero (in general, 3.262n.; van Wees 1986, 288). At the same time, the present passage illustrates the high regard in which Achilleus holds his own mili­

240 ἕταρον: = ἑταῖρον. — πολέσιν: = πολλοῖς (R 12.2). 241 τῷ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), = Patroklos. — πρόες: aor. imper. of προίημι. 242 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ ἦτορ: ‘the heart for him’ (with dat. of advantage), ≈ ‘his heart’; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). 243  f. εἴσεται: fut. of οἶδα, ‘will find out’. — ἤ … | … ἦ: ‘whether … or (whether)’. — ἦ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.4.

Commentary 

 117

tary abilities, which is among the basic premises of the storyline of the Iliad, see e.g. 2.768–770.  – On Greek therápōn ‘battle companion’ (244), see 165n. with reference to 24.396n.

εἴσεται: Expressions with pregnant uses of verbs of knowing (as here), seeing (ἰδεῖν) or understanding (γιγνώσκειν) are often sarcastic: ‘experience something oneself, see for oneself’; they occur at e.g. 1.185  f., 1.302  f., 2.237  f. (additional examples: 24.242n.; LfgrE s.v. οἶδα 540.51  ff.). – The future (εἴσεται) is dependent on ὄφρα (as with Attic ὅπως), in early epic also at 8.110  f. (same wording) and Od. 17.6  f. Bibliography: Schw. 2.651; Chantr. 2.273; on the proximity of fut. and (short-vowel) subjunc. in Homeric epic in general, G 100; K.‑G. 1.217–219 (cf. below on ἐπίστηται). — οἶος: ‘alone, on one’s own, without support’ (in battle), as at 13.79  f., 13.457, 20.26  f., 22.39 (LfgrE).  — ἐπίστηται: subjunc. with fut. (hypothetical) sense, whereas at 245 the pres. ind. μαίνονται conveys a known fact (AH). On the v.l. ἐπιστέαται – likely an Ionicism – see Rengakos 1993, 79  f. n. 1; Kidd 1997, 458 (on Arat. Phain. 817).

244 In Homeric epic, hands frequently represent (successful) activity in battle, e.g. 1.165  f., 2.373  f.; in Book 16 also 420, 624, 630 (Gross 1970, 373; Monsacré 1984, 53  f.).

ἡμέτερος θεράπων: ἡμέτερος in the sense ἐμός is characteristic of Achilleus’ charac­ ter languageP, cf. 19.73, 24.567, etc. (Floyd 1969, 122–124); its connotation (royal we, sociative plural or plural of modesty) is difficult to ascertain (in favor of sociative pl., Slotty 1927, 353; in favor of pl. of modesty, Zilliacus 1953, 17; additional bibliography: 24.556n.). — τότε: corresponds to ὁππότ(ε) at 245, with a limitative sense: ‘only if, then …’; similarly at 9.702  f. (Achilleus has rejected Agamemnon’s gifts): τότε δ’ αὖτε μαχήσεται, ὁππότε κέν μιν | θυμὸς … ἀνώγῃ ‘he will only fight again when …’, 21.340  f. (Hera demands that Hephaistos set fire to the river Xanthos): μηδὲ πρὶν ἀπόπαυε τεὸν μένος, ἀλλ’ ὁπότ’ ἂν δὴ | φθέγξομ’ ἐγὼν ἰάχουσα, τότε σχεῖν ἀκάματον πῦρ ‘only when I call loudly, …’. — χεῖρες ἄαπτοι: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc., 10× Il., 3× Od., 4× Hes.; the present continuation μαίνονται has a parallel at 13.77  f. μαιμῶσιν). Originally the epithet probably meant ‘unpronounceable’, but was later understood ‘untouchable’ > ‘overwhelming, terrible’ (1.567n.). The expression also characterizes Hektor’s opponent at 7.309, 13.77  ff., 13.318 (Aias), but Hektor himself at 17.638 (cf. 13.49  ff.); see Gross 1970, 366 n. 5; Eide 1986, 11  f. (bibliography in n. 9); Kelly 2007, 338  f.

245 μαίνονθ’: 75n.  — μῶλον ἄρηος: a VE formula (4× Il., with μετά preceding also at 7.147), see 2.401n. (also on the meaning of μῶλος: probably ‘exertion’ > ‘battle’). On the so-called metonymic use of Ἄρης/ἄρης, cf. 543n. 246 2nd VH ≈  12.35.  — ἀπὸ ναῦφι: on the suffix, 139–140n. (on παλάμηφιν); here ablative. — μάχην ἐνοπήν τε: ἐνοπή ‘noise, battle cries’ (3.2n.) is frequently found in com-

245 μαίνονθ’: =  μαίνονται (R  5.1).  — ὁππότ(ε): with subjunc., iterative (R  21.1); on the -ππ-, R 9.1. — ἐγώ περ: ‘I myself, I also’ (cf. R 24.10). — μετά (+ acc.): ‘into (the middle of) …’. — ἄρηος: on the declension, R 12.4.

118 

 Iliad 16

bination with semantically similar terms: 3.2 κλαγγή, 10.13 ὅμαδος, 24.160 γόος (Kaimio 1977, 81; in general, 63n. on ἀϋτή τε πτόλεμός τε). This may again allude to the noisy behavior of the Trojans (76–79, see ad loc.; cf. 782n.). — δίηται: only here with an inanimate object – unless one were to understand μάχην ἐνοπήν τε concretely: ‘noisy forces’, cf. LfgrE s.v. μάχη 48.46  ff.; similarly 251 ἀπώσασθαι πόλεμόν τε μάχην τε (on which, Graz 1965, 150 [transl.]: ‘the warriors are perceived impersonally and collectively in the action itself’; Trümpy 1950, 268 n.  465), as well as 301 ἀπωσάμενοι δήϊον πῦρ (Graz loc. cit. 151 [transl.]: ‘the fire appears with the aspect of a concrete danger in the form of the anonymous mass of arsonists’). But ἀπώσασθαι is connected with abstracts also at 12.276 and 15.503: νεῖκος and κακά. – In the case of the defective verb δίημι/δίω, the pres. and aor. cannot always be clearly distinguished; here probably an aor. (AH; LfgrE; cf. 18.162n.). 247 ≈ Od. 15.447; 2nd VH ≈ 17.622. — ἀσκηθής: ‘without damage’, always in the context of a return from battle or a journey by ship (LfgrE; Edwards 1985, 65  f.). — θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας: an inflectable formula after caesura B 2 (24.1n.). — ἱκέσθω: i.e. ‘let him return’. In Homeric epic, the plea in a prayer can be expressed either with the imper. (predominant in the Iliad) or the opt. (predominant in the Odyssey), with the imper. likely signalling greater self-confidence (Beckmann 1932, 49–52; Pulleyn 1997, 150  f.). Both forms are transmitted in the present passage (vulgate ἵκοιτο, some manuscripts and papyri ἱκέσθω); the imper. is preferred by Cauer (1895) 1921, 20  f. (a better fit for Achilleus) and West 2001, 237 (lectio difficilior; cf. also loc. cit. 87 n. 9). 248 2nd VH = Carmen Naupactium fr. 6.4 West. — τεύχεσι … ξὺν πᾶσι: ‘in full armor’, i.e. entirely unscathed (schol. bT; LfgrE s.v. τεῦχος 427.28  ff.; in this sense probably also at 368); elsewhere usually ‘armed completely’ (for battle): 3.29n. – On the narrator plane, the expression here probably contains an allusion to the fact that Patroklos is going to battle in the armor of Achilleus (i.e. τεύχεσι = ‘with my armor’: 40n.) and that he will lose it there: dramatic ironyP (cf. AH; Reinhardt 1961, 313  f.). — ἀγχεμάχοις: ‘close combat warriors’, an epithet of ἕταροι (see iteratum), θεράποντες (272, 17.165; in reference to Achilleus and the Myrmidons, as here) and of ethnic names (13.5, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 25); a similar formation: ἀγχιμαχηταί (2.604n.). On the difference between close combat and distance fighting, 24n. (βάλλω/οὐτάζω).

249–252 The conclusion of the prayer and the response of the deity  – the two final elements of the type-scene ‘prayer’ (231–252n.) – initially correspond to the norm, leading to the expectation that the plea will be fulfilled, as is usual in Homeric epic (249 with iterata [see below]; cf. 232 ‘he did not escape Zeus’; Morrison 1991, 149). But a key modification occurs at 250–252: Zeus grants the expulsion of the Trojans (≈ 239–246 in the prayer) but not Patroklos’ return unharmed (≈ 247  f.) – ‘the arrangement of generalization […] followed by sig-

246 κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). — ναῦφι: gen. pl. (R 11.4). — δίηται: 3rd pers. sing. subjunc., ‘chase (away)’. 248 ξύν: = σύν (R 20.1). — πᾶσι: to be taken also with ἑτάροισιν.

Commentary 

 119

nificant exception […] is a rhetorical device designed to produce both emphasis and surprise’: Kirk on 5.131–132 (similarly Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 22; Janko on 249–252; regarding function, e.g. the motif ‘all are asleep – X does not sleep’ is comparable: 2.1–2an.). The explicit rejection of a prayer anticipated by the narrator is comparatively rare in Homeric epic (also 2.419  f., 3.302, 6.311 [with nn.], 12.173  f. is similar; Lateiner 1997, 260  f.; Kelly 2007, 251–253; somewhat more common are prayers that remain unfulfilled implicitly [see loc. cit.]). The rejection can be explained by the incompatibility of human wishes and divine plans (i.e. ultimately by the narrator’s plan for the story): Patroklos’ death is fixed, as the audience already knows from multiple prolepsesP and as is confirmed here once more (46–47n.; Mikalson 1989, 96; Morrison loc. cit. 150  f.; Parker 1998, 116  f.); this conclusively seals his fate (a turning point in the storyline of the Iliad: Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 54; Di Benedetto loc. cit.; Lateiner 1997, 248, 265–267). ‘That knowledge sets Achilles’ prayer in an ironic perspective that renders it tragic’: Schein 1984, 120; similarly Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 109; Mueller (1984) 2009, 55. 249 = 24.314, Od. 20.102 (Priam’s/Odysseus’ plea for a sign); ≈ Il. 15.377 (μέγα δ’ ἔκτυπε); with different subjects in the 2nd VH: 1.43/1.457/16.527 (Apollo), 5.121/23.771/Od. 3.385/6.328 (Athene), Od. 9.536 (Poseidon); 1st VH only =  Il. 5.106, 8.198, 20.393, Od. 2.267, h.Ap. 370; ≈ Il. 6.311 (fem.), 10.295 (pl.); 2nd VH ≈ 1.357, h.Cer. 39 (mother). — On the speech capping formula, see 46n. (ὣς ἔφατ’/φάτο + part.); 231–232an. (εὐχόμενος); 1.43n. (formulaic after prayers). κλυεῖν with a deity as subject generally means ‘hear and answer (a prayer)’ (cf. 211n., end, 236, 514n.; on the ambiguity of the present passage, see Pulleyn on 1.43). On the VE formula μητίετα Ζεύς, 1.175n.

250–252 For the idea that Zeus gives one thing but not another, cf. 9.37–39, 20.242  f., 24.527  ff. (with 24.529–530n.).

The verses are characterized by a clear structure: 250 is arranged in a parallel manner within itself (ἕτερον μὲν ἔδωκε, ἕτερον δ’ ἀνένευσεν, an anticipatory summary, as it were: schol. T on 249  f.); 251  f. via μὲν … δῶκε, … δ’ ἀνένευσε picks up the preceding verse with the same parallelism and repetition of the specifying predicates (e.g. 11.243  f.: πολλὰ δ’ ἔδωκεν· πρῶθ’ ἑκατὸν βοῦς δῶκεν …).

250 τῷ δ(έ): logically, this refers to Achilleus rather than to Patroklos, even if subsequently at 251  f. Πάτροκλον should be added as subject acc.: Achilleus was the one praying, and Zeus grants or rejects his plea. On the repetition of the demonstrative pronoun in an oblique case (249 τοῦ δ’, 250 τῷ δ’) with the same subject, cf. h.Cer. 250  f. (and Od. 4.819  f., albeit there emphatic), with a different subject Il. 2.643  f., 2.700  f., 6.342  f., Od.

249 ἔφατ(ο): 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — τοῦ: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17. — μητίετα: nom. sing., ‘rich in μῆτις’.

120 

 Iliad 16

24.533  f., etc. — ἀνένευσεν: On throwing back the head as a gesture of rejection (still current in modern Greece), 6.311n. 251 1st VH cf. 301. — πόλεμόν τε μάχην τε: an inflectable VE formula (acc. as here, but with initial πτόλ-: 13.11; nom. pl. at 1.177, 5.891, Hes. Th. 926, Thebaïs fr. 2.10 West; with the order of the nouns inverted, Il. 7.232, etc., 12.436, etc.). On synonym doubling, 63n. 252 σόον: on the form, 1.117n. — μάχης ἒξ ἀπονέεσθαι: = 20.212, ≈ 5.763 (μ. ἐξ ἀποδίωμαι), also 2.84 βουλῆς ἒξ ἦρχε νέεσθαι (see ad loc.); on the VE formulae with lengthened ᾱπο-,  ᾽ see Hoekstra 1978, 18–23.

253–254 A summarizing conclusion of the scene (cf. 220b–254n.) with a natural and broadly chiastic organization of the steps of the action: 221 walk to the quarters, 228 vessel inside the chest, 231 prayer and libation – 253 libation and prayer, 254a return to quarters, 254b vessel back inside the chest. 253 2nd VH ≈ 3.350, 17.46, 17.498, Od. 13.51. — ἤτοι ὃ μέν: one of the numerous (probably mostly metrically conditioned) particle groups that contain the elements ‘subject’ and ‘connection of clauses’: Visser 1987, 147  f., 187  f.; 6.404n. (16× Il. at VB). ἤτοι frequently assumes the function of μέν (399n.) or is added to μέν for reinforcement, as here (Ruijgh [1981] 1996). — σπείσας τε καὶ εὐξάμενος: ≈ Od. 3.45, also Il. 24.253, Od. 15.258. On the traditional combination of the two verbs, Muellner 1976, 34  f.; cf. 220b–254n. 254 1st VH ≈ 11.623.

255–256 Achilleus falls back into spectator mode: he stands in a specific location and observes the battle action with a mix of longing and apprehension (Janko on 253–256: ‘mingled longing and concern’) without getting involved himself (thus already at 11.600  f., namely from the stern of his ship; cf. 127 ‘I see fire’); Achilleus will come back into view as an active character only at the beginning of Book 18, specifically ‘in front of the ships’ (cf. 18.3–5n.; in the meantime also in the narrator commentary at 17.404–411 on Achilleus’ naivete regarding Patroklos’ fate, as well as the multiple mentions of his name in connection with Patroklos, his horses, his armor, etc.). — The narrator provides an interpretation or explanation of the action just recounted via ‘since he still wanted to …’ (Richardson 1990, 148  f. [with a collection of examples at p. 235]); the narrator’s interpretation and secondary focalizationP are here not always strictly distinguishable (cf. de Jong [1987] 2004, 110–113). 255 VB =  Od. 16.166 (and στῆ δ(έ) at VB 49× Il., 20× Od., 2× h.Hom.); VE =  21.65, 21.177, 24.236 (see ad loc.), ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.54 M.-W.; ≈ Il. 9.177, 17.702, Od. 3.342, 3.395, 7.184, 7.228, 13.40, 18.427, 21.273 (θυμός, nom.). — στῆ: ‘placed himself’; Achilleus’ upright stance

251 μέν (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἀπώσασθαι: the subject acc. is Πάτροκλον (likewise 252). 252 σόον: =  σῶν ‘safe, unharmed’; on the diectasis, R  8.  — μάχης ἔξ: =  ἐκ μ. (R  20.2).  — ἀπονέεσθαι: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 

 121

indicates his heightened attention (Hellwig 1964, 62; Kurz 1966, 56  f., 65  f.) – a midway point between mere sitting (inactivity: 1.349n.; 19.4–6an.) and active standing up (18.203–204n.). On the motif ‘someone positions himself before something/someone’ in general, see Kelly 2007, 141–143.  — ἔτι: ‘still, furthermore’: Achilleus maintains his stance as observer, cf. 11.600  f., 16.127. Overview of the different meanings of ἔτι in Bäumlein 1861, 118  f.; Cunliffe s.v. — δ(έ): ≈ γάρ (90n.). — θυμῷ: indicates ‘that the action portrayed is proceeding particularly intensively’, here in reference to Achilleus’ desire to watch (Tzamali 1996, 70  f. [transl.; with bibliography]; there also on whether the dat. is to be understood as locative or instrumental: probably the former).

256 ≈ 4.65, 5.379; 2nd VH ≈ 6.1. — The narrator directs the view of the audience, together with that of Achilleus, to the battlefield (257  ff.), see Richardson 1990, 114 with n. 10 (p. 229).

εἰσιδέειν: The aor. inf. in -έειν is part of Homeric poetic language and occurs only with monosyllabic aor. stems (in Book 16 also at 383 βαλέειν, 761 ταμέειν). Current bibliography: Nikolaev 2013. — Τρώων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectable phrase in various positions in the verse (gen. after caesura A 4 in total 11× Il., 1× Od. and at VE 1× Il.; nom. after caesura A 1 2× Il. [including 770], at VE 1× Il.; acc. 7× Il. at VE). — φύλοπιν αἰνήν: an inflectable VE formula (15× early epic), see 6.1n.; on αἰνός, also 52n.

257–277 Departure of the Myrmidons and their attack under the leadership of Patroklos. The final element of the themeP ‘preparations for battle’, again uniformly structured by action, simile and speech (130–277n.) and framed by a ring-composition (257  f. ≈ 276: Trojan attack) (Janko on 210–256). 257–258 2nd VH of 258 ≈  10.486, 16.783.  — The sentence connects both backward and forward: beyond the prayer scene, it links up with the preceding arming and lining up of the army (198  ff.; esp. 211 stíches ‘rows’, here éstichon ‘marched off’; 218  f. the key words ‘Patroklos’, ‘to arm’ in contexts similar to here; see Hainsworth 1966, 160) and anticipates in summary fashion the explication that follows in 259–277 (AH; on these types of ‘headings’ in general, 6.156–159n. with a collection of examples and bibliography).

μεγαλήτορι  … μέγα φρονέοντες: ‘spirited, with great energy’ and ‘high-spirited, filled with fighting spirit’ – Patroklos and the Myrmidons move out in the same fierce, confident mood. μεγαλήτωρ could thus have a contextually relevant meaning here, but it is elsewhere a generic epithetP (6.283n.), of Patroklos also after his death at 17.299 (cf. in addition 16.818 Πατροκλῆα μεγάθυμον, during his retreat; on Patroklos’ epithets

255 πάροιθ(ε): preposition with gen. (κλισίης). — ἐλθών: ≈ ἐξελθών. 256 εἰσιδέειν: inf. (R 16.4). 258 ἔστιχον: ‘marched forward, moved out’. — ὄφρ(α): temporal, ‘until’ (R 22.2).

122 

 Iliad 16

in general, 20n., end; on μεγαλήτωρ and μεγάθυμος as metrical complements, Parry [1928] 1971, 86, 90). – μέγα φρονέων/-έοντε(ς) regularly denotes the attitude of an attacker, either Greek or Trojan (in similes occasionally in reference to predatory animals); frequent in Book 16 (also 758, 824; in total 8× Il., of which 7× after caesura B 2, as here; Böhme 1929, 49; Kelly 2007, 369  f.). — ἐν Τρωσὶ … ὄρουσαν: ‘fell upon the Trojans, pushed forward into the Trojan ranks’, similarly at 783 (Patroklos) Τρωσὶ κακὰ φρονέων ἐνόρουσεν.

259–267 The wasp simileP – the third simile in the context of the themeP ‘preparations for battle’ (cf. 130–277n., 155–167n.) – illustrates the departure of the Myrmidons; the keyword ‘they swarmed forth’ (259) picks up ‘they marched off’ (258) and is repeated as a specification in the so-part (267: ‘poured out from the encampment of ships’). Beyond the swift mass movement, the simile – in a continuation of the wolf simile at 155  ff.  – illustrates the attitude of those departing: they are belligerent and determined to ward off the enemy (like the wasps and bees of the simile at 12.167–170: defence against passing hunters or gatherers of honey; cf. Di Benedetto 1987, 263  f. n. 3). Their aggressive attitude is built up in two steps: (1) the boys wantonly provoke the wasps (on the boys’ behavior, cf. 15.362–364: a boy destroys his sandcastle in boisterous play), (2) they therefore attack any passer-by. The hinge between (1) the initial situation and (2) the consequence is represented by 262 with its pregnant pronouncement ‘an evil common to many’ (cf. 329 ‘an evil to many men’ [the Chimaira], also Archilochus fr. 93a.7 West ‘shared evil’, in a positive expression Tyrtaeus fr. 12.15 West ‘a good common to town and inhabitants’, Herodotus 7.53 ‘shared good for all’, also Certamen § 11 West ‘[justice creates] a common benefit via individual input’; Snell 1969, 21  f.). The simile thus obtains a political character in the broadest sense, while the wasps for their part reveal ‘a strikingly anthropomorphic touch’: 261 ‘houses’, 264 ‘fierce heart’, 265 ‘they defend themselves for the sake of their children’: Kirk 1976, 6  f.; similarly Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 31; on so-called imagery interaction in general, 2.87n. Whether, and to what extent, additional details of the simile can be related to the current situation (e.g. provoking boys ≈ attacking Trojans; unsuspecting wayfarer ≈ Trojans taken by surprise by the counter-attack; protecting the wasp children ≈ defending the ships) is disputed; they probably represent instead a natural element of the imagery and need not faithfully depict, or anticipate, events – at least not primarily and not in every case. – Bibliography on the simile overall and on the relationship between parts (1) and (2): Kakridis (1960) 1971; Krischer 1971, 46  f.; Scott 1974, 157–159; Kirk loc. cit. 6–8; Latacz 1977, 252–255; Hofmeister 1995, 311  f.; Erbse 2000, 266–268; Le Meur 2009, 61; Janko on 259–265. On the disputed expanded interpretation of the details (in various ways e.g. in Tsagarakis 1982, 146; Hofmeister loc. cit. 312  f.; Scott 2009, 160), see the

Commentary 

 123

reservations in e.g. Reucher 1983, 315  f.; Lowenstam 1993, 5  f.; Erbse loc. cit. On a possible proleptic function of the simile – the Trojans will be successfully repelled – see Duckworth 1933, 14  f. (more on proleptic similes at 751–754n. with bibliography). On child similes, see 7–11n. (frequently including the motif ‘parents protect their offspring’: ‘vivid comparisons to an audience whose fighting men too often had to do just that’ [Hainsworth on 12.167–170]); on insect similes, 2.87–94n. with bibliography (also Ready 2012, 75–77). Wasps also occur at 12.167  ff. as a comparison motif; a Biblical parallel is included at West 1997, 249.

Matters of style: on the alliteration (5× ε- 259  f., 3× π- 265), cf. 155–167n. (paragraph c). On the near rhyme at the VE of 259–261 (and near internal rhyme at 261), cf. 174n. On the frequency of enjambmentP, Kirk loc. cit. 153  f. On the ring-composition structure of similes with repeated keyword, see 7n. (here (ἐξ)εχέοντο at 259/267).

259 The aggressive behavior of irritated wasps (especially when their nest is disturbed) is as well known today as in the past, cf. in addition to 264 ‘fierce heart’ also e.g. Aristophanes’ Wasps 1104  f., etc. (Marcovich 1962, 289  f.; Davies/Kathirithamby 1986, 75  f.; report from experience in Hampe 1952, 10  f.; Kakridis [1960] 1971, 140; Erbse 2000, 267  f.).

αὐτίκα: often used as an intensifier with actions that in turn express a beginning or an attack: Erren 1970, 35  ff. (ad loc. 37) and 56. — σφήκεσσιν ἐοικότες: a typical comparative formula before caesura C 2 (-σιν ἐοικότ- 16× Il., 4× Od., 2× Hes. Th.): Hoekstra 1981, 49  f. — ἐξεχέοντο: ‘they poured forth’, a characteristic verb indicating mass movement, cf. the pouring forth at 19.356  ff. (with snowflake simile: 19.357–361n.): Kurz 1966, 140; Fenno 2005, 478  f.

260 The reference to the location of the wasps’ nest at the side of the road is stressed (runover word; subsequent specification at 261 [see ad loc.]): it prepares for the motif of the wayfarer, cf. 6.15 (a wealthy man lives near a road and takes in travellers), 7.142–144 (Lykourgos kills Areïthoos in a narrow pass), 12.167–170 (wasps at the roadside defend themselves against hunters); Becker 1937, 16, 47.

οὓς … ἐριδμαίνωσιν: Subordinate clauses in Homeric similes sometimes have the ind. and sometimes, as here, the subjunc. (on relative clauses with subjunc., see Ruijgh 399–403; Chantr. 2.245; on temporal clauses, 2.147–148n.; on the subjunc. in subordinate clauses in general, Schw. 2.312  f.). — ἐριδμαίνωσιν: causative ‘cause aggression, provoke to fight’ (LfgrE); a Homeric hapaxP beside ἐριδαίνω (16.765, etc.), perhaps a denominative of ἔρισμα (4.38) like ὀνομαίνω/θαυμαίνω < ὄνομα/θαῦμα vel sim. or, alter­ natively, related to ἐρίζω as σκυδμαίνω is to σκύζομαι (Risch 290; Chantr. 1.343).  —

260 εἰνοδίοις: = ἐν-οδίοις; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

124 

 Iliad 16

ἔθοντες: The meaning is uncertain and is often linked with ἔθος/εἴωθα, i.e. ‘habitually, as is their custom’; in contrast, the meaning ‘stirring, stinging’ is more pregnant (schol. D: βλάπτοντες; in that case perhaps related to ὠθέω), also at 9.539  f. of the Calydonian Boar that is devastating the fields of Oineus, and at Call. fr. 55 Pfeiffer of the Nemean Lion (Frisk, DELG, Beekes and LfgrE s.v.; Hainsworth on 9.540; Tosi 1997, 232–234). 261 The verse constitutes an explication, as it were, of the terms εἰνόδιος, ἐριδμαίνω, ἔθων (260) that rarely occur in early epic; elsewhere such ‘self-explanatory’ amplifications (epexegeses) – here a participial construction – usually take the form of relative clauses and add emphasis (24.479n., end, with additional examples).  — κερτομέοντες: Cf. 24.649–658n. on the meaning ‘provoke’, which is probably also intended here (Erbse 2000, 267; similarly LfgrE: ‘tease’), even if the verb denotes a non-verbal provocation only in the present passage – one of several reasons why Aristarchus and Aristophanes of Byzantium athetized the verse (in addition to the above-mentioned repetitive character of 261 after 260: schol. A; arguments contra the athetesis in van der Valk 1964, 448  f.; Scott 1974, 158  f.; Lührs 1992, 93; Erbse loc. cit. 266  f.).  — οἰκί’ ἔχοντας: an inflectable VE formula (1× Il., 2× Od., 3× Hes.). οἰκίον of animal dwellings also at e.g. 12.168 (wasps; cf. 12.169 δόμος), 12.221 (eagle), h.Merc. 555 (bees); see 259–267n. on the anthropomorphism.

262 On the proverbial character of the verse, 259–267n.

νηπίαχοι: a (perhaps expressive) subsidiary form of νήπιος (Risch 175  f.; 2.338n.), but used – in contrast to the latter – only of children (‘small, silly’, 3× Il.; cf. 8n.; Graziosi/ Haubold on 6.408); like νήπιος in 46, it functions here as narrator commentary (see 46–47n.). — ξυνὸν δέ …: justifies the assessment of the boys as νηπίαχοι (AH; Kakridis [1960] 1971, 140; on substantiating δέ, see 90n.; esp. after νήπιος, etc.: Race 1999/2000, 222–224). On the use of ξυνός in early epic, 18.309n. — τιθεῖσι: an Ionic form, common in early epic, of the 3rd pers. pl. pres. (< *τίθεντι): G 92; Chantr. 1.298. Cf. διδοῦσιν 19.265n.

263 τοὺς δ(έ): placed in initial position to clarify the reference to σφῆκες (as at 11.116 ἣ δ’ εἴ περ τε relative to 113 ἐλάφοιο, 22.191 τὸν δ’ εἴ πέρ τε relative to 189 κύων: AH and de Jong on 22.191); at the same time, this represents the transition to the second part of the simile: representation of the consequences that follow from irritating the wasps (cf. 259–267n.). — εἴ περ: ‘if (only)’, concessive (to be linked mentally with παρά ‘past them’ and esp. ἀέκων ‘inadvertently’) with iterative subjunc.: Hentze 1907, 358; Fränkel 1925, 9; Ruijgh 519  f. — τίς τε: ‘any’, intensified τις (like Latin quisque: 14.90n.,

261 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — ὁδῷ ἔπι: = ἐφ’ ὁδῷ (R 20.2). — ἔπι (ϝ)οικί’ ἔχοντας: on the prosody, R 4.3 and 5.1. 262 ξυνόν: = κοινόν. — πολέεσσι: = πολλοῖς (R 11.3, 12.2). — τιθεῖσιν: = τιθέασιν; the subject is παῖδες. 263 τούς: sc. the wasps; anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), picked up in 264 by οἳ δ(έ). — παρὰ … κιών: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); κιών is the part. of a defective verb that means ‘go’. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 125

with bibliography; cf. AH, Anh.); alternatively, τε can be connected with εἴ περ (as e.g. in the two examples cited above on τοὺς δ(έ); cf. the related considerations in Ruijgh 711–714). — κιών: Despite the aor. form, the defective verb usually has an imperfective sense: LfgrE s.v. κίε; Kölligan 2007, 162  f. — ἄνθρωπος ὁδίτης: formally a typical combination of generic term and functional specification (2.474n. with bibliography); the use of ἄνθρωπος rather than ἀνήρ is unusual: only in combination with ὁδίτης (also at Od. 13.123 in the pl.; use of ἄνθρωπος in the singular is uncommon in early epic overall [e.g. at 315]); see LfgrE s.v. 903  f.; Leaf; Benardete 1963, 2.

264–265 The narrator makes reference to Achilleus’ battle paraenesis (209) via the wording ‘with fierce heart’: at this point, the attack is imminent. On the theme ‘military strength/fighting spirit’, 157–158n.; on the transference of human terms to the animal kingdom, 488n.; on anthropomorphism in the present simile in general, 259–267n.

κινήσῃ: either objective ‘put into motion, mobilize’ (Kakridis [1960] 1971, 139  f.) or subjective ‘disturb, startle’ (AH; LfgrE); cf. 280. — ἀέκων: here ‘unintentionally’ (LfgrE; Williams 1993, 186 n. 4); elsewhere in this sense only at ‘Hes.’ fr. 171.8 M.-W. (Apollo inadvertently kills Hyakinthos). — οἳ δ’ … ἔχοντες | … πᾶς πέτεται: a distributive apposition with πᾶς rather than the usual ἕκαστος (e.g. 351: AH; on distributive apposition in general, K.-G. 1.286  f.; Schw. 2.616). On the congruence of the predicate with the apposition rather than with the subject, see K.-G. 1.287 (with post-Homeric examples); Hahn 1954, 201; Chantr. 2.15. — οἳ δ(έ): ‘apodotic δέ’ can have an adversative sense after conditional and concessive clauses (‘all the same’) and in this case frequently occurs with a (stressed) pronoun, as also at 1.137, 4.261–263, 12.245  f., Od. 13.143  f. (AH); similarly ἀλλά at 38 (36–45n., end). — ἄλκιμον ἦτορ ἔχοντες: 209n. — πρόσσω: frequently in the context of an attack (‘storm ahead’, with ἵεμαι etc., also of humans and weapons; see LfgrE), as here and at 382 (horses). – On the p-alliteration, 259–267n., end. — οἷσι τέκεσσιν: VE =  17.133 (lion in a simile), Od. 10.61; ≈  Od. 2.178, 8.243 (σοῖσι), 3× ‘Hes.’ (σφετέροισι), also Il. 12.222 (τεκέεσσιν ἑοῖσιν). – τέκος 4× Il. of a young animal.

266 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Op. 340. — τῶν … κραδίην καὶ θυμόν ἔχοντες: introduction of the so-part without a comparative particle (cf. 752n.). — κραδίην καὶ θυμόν: at 52 purely the seat of mental processes (see ad loc., also on the formulaic nature), here pregnant of the ‘ethos, mental attitude’ (with gen. τῶν ‘their ethos’, i.e. ‘of the wasps’), cf. 1.225 (Achilleus to Agamemnon) κραδίην δ’ ἐλάφοιο sc. ἔχων, 16.219 ἕνα θυμὸν ἔχοντες (see ad loc.).

267 ≈ Epigoni fr. 7.2 Bernabé / fr. adesp. 2.6 Davies; 2nd VH = 11.500, 11.530 (where in the perf.), 13.169, 13.540; ≈  Od. 24.48, Hes. Th. 849, also Il. 11.50 (in verse middle). — On picking up 259 (‘poured forth’) as a frame, see 259–267n. – The attacking cries are a ‘tactical means for the mutual encouragement of the 265 πρόσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἀμύνει (ϝ)οῖσι: on the prosody, R 4.4; οἷσι is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4).

126 

 Iliad 16

warriors and deterrence of the enemy’: Stoevesandt 2004, 88 (transl.; see also Krapp 1964, 68–76); after the battle paraenesis, the echo at the ships (276  f.) adds further intensification; additional examples in Book 16: 428–430 Patroklos and Sarpedon, 565  f. the two opposing armies, 784  f. Patroklos. The epithet ásbestos ‘unquenchable’, actually an attribute of flames (e.g. at 123), is used metaphorically also of laughter (1.599, etc.) and of (battle) cries (see iterata): ‘a statement of the volume and intensity of sounds, of their overwhelming force, and probably also of their temporal and spatial extent’ (Krapp loc. cit. 227 [transl.]; cf. Kaimio 1977, 54; LfgrE); on the synaesthesia of fire and sounds, cf. 2.93 with n. (of a rumor spreading like wildfire).

βοὴ … ὀρώρει: cf. 633 ὀρυμαγδὸς ὄρωρεν, etc. (2.810n.).

268–277 Patroklos’ battle paraenesis represents the final element of the themeP ‘preparations for battle’ (130–277n.). A typical structure: speech introduction formulaP ‘he called loudly’ vel sim. (268 with iterata) – address to the troops (269) – appeal to battle (270 with iterata) – arguments (271–274: honor; trust in one’s own courage as well as that of the military leader) – speech capping formula and response of the troops (275–277). Patroklos subordinates the imminent combat mission to Achilleus’ official ‘doctrine’, as is indicated by the stressed use of the terms ‘honor’ and ‘greatest’ (271, 274), as well as by the literal repetition of the consequences Agamemnon was supposed to suffer from Achilleus’ boycott of battle (273  f. = 1.411  f., also 274 ≈ 1.244): having the Myrmidons gain honor for Achilleus via the successful repulsion of the Trojans also sets up the restitution of his honor by Agamemnon, while by actively proving their capabilities at this point, the Myrmidons demonstrate the extent of the military loss their absence represented (Muellner 1996, 134; cf. schol. bT on 273–274; Reucher 1983, 316; Latacz [1995] 2014, 324  f.; Kim 2000, 26). – General bibliography on battle paraeneses: Fingerle 1939, 82–129 (‘commander’s speeches’, ‘calls to battle’); Stoevesandt 2004, 275–304; Beck 2005, 152  f.; a list of battle paraeneses in Latacz 1977, 248–250, and Hellmann 2000, 85  f. n. 68.

Modern Homeric studies have rejected the speech (or parts thereof) due to the numerous iterata, the supposedly inappropriate repetition of 1.411  f. (there functioning as a threat), and the apparently smooth transition from 267 or 258 to 278 (AH, Anh. on Il. 16, p. 18  f.; Leaf on 259 and 273; Wilamowitz 1916, 126  f.). Contrast the interpretation provided above (and on the typology of battle paraeneses with their iterata in particular, Fingerle 1939, 110 n. 21).

267 ὀρώρει: 3rd pers. sing. plpf. of ὄρνυμι; intransitive, ‘arose’.

Commentary 

 127

268 1st VH =  9.658; 2nd VH =  6.66, 6.110, 8.172, 11.285, 15.346, 15.424, 15.485, 17.183.  — A speech introduction formulaP used in battle paraeneses; aside from here (Patroklos) and 6.66 (Nestor), 7× of Hektor (6.66n.; Fingerle 1939, 87; Kelly 2007, 200  f.). The formula occurs frequently, as here, in combination with the formulaic 270 (see ad loc. the iterata).

ἑτάροισιν ἐκέκλετο: = 18.343, Od. 14.413, h.Bacch. 16; here combined with the VE formula ἐκέκλετο μακρὸν ἀΰσας (9× Il.). – (ἐ)κέκλετο is a reduplicated root aor. of κέλομαι (cf. λελαθέσθω 200–201n.); κέλομαι has the basic meaning ‘urge on’ and is probably related to κέλλω ‘have a ship run onto the beach, land a ship’ (also related are κέλης ‘race horse’ at Od. 5.371, Latin celer ‘swift’); the secondary meaning ‘call out to, hail’ present in Homeric epic (e.g. here) is perhaps conditioned by the phonetic proximity to καλέω ‘call’; see Frisk and Beekes s.v. κέλλω. – On the term hétaros ‘comrade’, 24.4n.

269 2nd VH =  1.1, 1.322, 9.166, 16.653, 24.406, Od. 11.467, 24.15; ≈  Od. 8.75.  — A whole-verse address (21n.), fittingly coming from Patroklos in his function as stand-in for Achilleus (cf. Friedrich 2007, 103). On the ‘official’ patronymic formula ‘Peleus’ son Achilleus’, 1.1n. (cf. 24.406n.).

Μυρμιδόνες, ἕταροι: on the prosody (originally an initial digamma in ἕταρος?), 19.345n.

270 = 6.112 (vulgate text), 8.174, 11.287, 15.487, 15.734, 17.185. A typical appeal in battle paraeneses (Kelly 2007, 202–204); aside from here (Patroklos) and 15.734 (Aias), 5× in speeches by Hektor (Mackie 1996, 91  f.).  — The exhortation ‘Be men!’ is an appeal for solidarity with one’s own companions and for courage in the fight against the enemy; in addition to the iterata, also at 5.529, 15.561/661 (Bassi 2003, 33  f.; Graziosi/Haubold 2003, 68  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 300; Pagani 2008, 335  f.). — The expression ‘recall your fighting spirit, think of your fierceness!’ is a common way of denoting aggressiveness and courage, in reference to both mental attitude and the combat mission itself; antithesis: ‘forget your fighting spirit/fierceness (i.e. let go)!’ (357, see ad loc.), negated ‘they did not let their fighting spirit go, but attacked determinedly’ (601  f.).

μνήσασθε: ‘direct one’s thoughts/attention to, recall’ (see 357n.). — θούριδος ἀλκῆς: a VE formula (21× Il., 1× Od.), always after verbs of recalling, knowing, forgetting or diminishing (Collins 1998, 78  f.); cf. the VE θοῦριν ἐπιειμένοι ἀλκήν (18.157n.). – On ἀλκή, 157–158n.; on the epithet θοῦρις ‘impetuous, unruly’, 18.157n. (related to θορεῖν ‘spring, jump’).

268 ἐκέκλετο (+ dat.): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘urge, order, shout to’. — μακρόν: adv., ‘so as to be widely heard, loudly’. 269 Πηληϊάδεω  ͜ Ἀχιλῆος: on the declension, R 11.1 and 11.3; on the synizesis, R 7. 270 ἀνέρες: = ἄνδρες; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

128 

 Iliad 16

271 VE = 17.164 (and 272 = 17.165), Od. 22.29; ≈ Il. 6.209, Od. 23.121, h.Hom. 15.1. — The term ‘honor’ both renders Achilleus’ orders at 84 and alludes to Achilleus’ ‘dishonoring’ (to be remedied) by Agamemnon (274; see 84n., 237n.). On the phrasing ‘the greatest by far’, 21n.

Πηλεΐδην: The patronymic (picked up from 269) used by itself stands in for the personal name (and does so in more than two-thirds of the examples in Homeric epic: LfgrE); similarly Μενοιτιάδης in 438.  — τιμήσομεν: τιμάω in the sense ‘warriors gain honor for their king by their courageous actions’, likewise in reference to Agamemnon at 1.159 (τιμὴν ἀρνύμενοι), 1.174  f. (ἄλλοι, | οἵ κέ με τιμήσουσι): AH; LfgrE s.v. 517.4  ff.

272 = 17.165 (Glaukos on Achilleus and the Myrmidons); 1st VH = 22.89, Od. 1.61; ≈ Il. 2.725, 8.183; 2nd VH (from caesura B 2 on) ≈ 248, Od. 1.109. — καὶ ἀγχέμαχοι θεράποντες: sc. ἄριστοί εἰμεν, i.e. ‘… who is the greatest … as we, companions practiced in close combat ⟨are the greatest⟩’ or ‘… who is the greatest … together with us, his comrades practiced in close combat’ (‘expansion of the subject ὅς’: AH [transl.]; cf. schol. T). θεράποντες (cf. 165n.) here refers to all Myrmidons, Achilleus’ ‘military retinue’ as it were – a symbolic designation that aims ‘in an emotional way at the subordination of the soldiers under (their) leader’ (LfgrE s.v. 1019.22  ff. [transl.]; cf. Muellner 1996, 134). – On ἀγχέμαχοι, 248n.

273–274 =  1.411  f. (Achilleus to Thetis; in the narrator’s imagination, Patroklos learned the words from Achilleus himself: de Jong [1987] 2004, 283 n. 83); additionally 1st VH of 273 ≈ 24.688; 274 ≈ 1.244 (Achilleus’ initial threat); cf. 268– 277n. — On the term átē ‘delusion’ and on the characterization of Agamemnon’s actions, 1.412n., 19.88n.

Ἀτρεΐδης εὐρὺ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων: a ‘long formula’ 10× Il., 1× Od., of which 3× as a whole-verse formula with VB ἥρως, used in both direct speech and narrator-textP (1.102n.; cf. 58–59n.); possibly with an ironic note (1.355n.). — ὅ τ(ε): here likely factual ‘that’ (see 1.244n. with discussion).

275 = 210 (etc., see ad loc. [formulaic verse]). In the present context, the shared final verse ties together the battle paraeneses of Achilleus and Patroklos both formally and in terms of content (the battle paraenesis of the stand-in Patroklos evokes the same response in the soldiers as that of the commander). 276a The Myrmidons proceed to a united attack (picking up from the action at 257  f.: moving out the troops; see Latacz 1977, 252  f. on the connection between wasp simile, battle paraenesis and attack).

271 ὡς ἄν (+ subjunc.): final (in Homeric epic also with a modal particle: R 21.1). — τιμήσομεν: short-vowel aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). — μέγ(α): adv., ‘by far’. 274 ἥν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — οὐδέν: ‘in no way, not at all’; acc. of respect (R 19.1). 276 ἐν … ἔπεσον: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

Commentary 



 129

ἐν δ’ ἔπεσον: as Achilleus ordered at 81: ἔμπεσ’ ἐπικρατέως (schol. bT). — ἀολλέες: ‘densely packed, as a unit’, of the attack formation, as at 211  ff., cf. 12.77  f., 13.39  f., 13.136 etc. (LfgrE).

276b–277 = 2.333b–334 (for additional iterata, see ad loc. and 2.334n.). — The aggressiveness correlates with the acoustic intensity, reinforced by the echo at the ships (2.333–335n.; cf. 19.41n.); on cries of attack, 267n.

σμερδαλέον: ‘terrible, awful’, of acoustic or optical impressions, always at VB (2.309n. with bibliography; also Kelly 2007, 135  f.; LfgrE). — ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (8× Il.; cf. 303n.); the ‘Achaians’ here refers either to the Myrmidons alone (AH; cf. schol. T on 276) or indeed to all Achaians, who ‘in turn find new courage and hurry to attack, especially since a little further on, the «Danaans» (295, 301) and «Achaians» (303) are mentioned continually’ (Krapp 1964, 298 n. 2 [transl.]; in this sense also Janko on 266–277).

278–418 Trojan flight. Patroklos’ counter-attack and the Trojan rearguard action and flight are portrayed via motifs that are conventional for epic battle depictions: fright at spotting the hero (here Patroklos; 278–283 [see ad loc.]); the hero’s first individual success and the retreat of the enemy (284–305, with concluding simile); Achaian superiori­ty (catalogue of killings, so-called androktasiē scene: 306–357, with concluding simile); Trojan leader under duress (358–363; the skirmish between Aias and Hektor recalls their duel near Protesilaos’ ship [15.674  ff., 16.102–123]); flight of the Trojans and their horses to the ditch and across it (364–393, with initiating and concluding simile); additional victories by Patroklos (394–418, continued at 419  ff. in the duel with Sarpedon). This structure of the action finds a close paral­ lel – albeit with a different cast – at 5.1–94 (Strasburger 1954, 63–65; Fenik 1968, 9  f., 191  f.; on the present passage in detail, loc. cit. 191–200). – The Trojan position gradually deteriorates: panic and wavering at the front (280/283), a move toward flight begins in the area of the fought-over ship (294–296), a rearguard action along the entire front (303–305, exemplified by the androktasiē scene at 306  ff.), flight (356  f.; even Hektor is able to stand fast only for a short time: 362  f.), chaos and panic at/in the ditch (men, horses, chariots: 366  ff.); cf. the paraphrase in Albracht (1886) 2005, 85  f., as well as the structural sketches in Fenik 1968, 194; Latacz 1977, 106  f.; Stanley 1993, 171; Stoevesandt 2004, 373. On the phases of flight as narrative elements in the Iliad in particular, 6.1–72n. with bibliography; also Latacz loc. cit. 212–214; Kelly 2007, 117–121; Pagani 2008, 401–406. – The five similes serve to convey structure and sense to the present passage (especially the series of weather similes, see 297–302an.): Krischer 1971, 53  f.; Moulton 1977, 33–38; Nimis 1987, 87–92 (a somewhat one-sided interpretation); Stanley loc. cit. 170  f.

130 

 Iliad 16

278–357 The Trojans panic at the sight of Patroklos (in Achilleus’ armor) and engage the Greeks in a rearguard action. Individual duels. 278–283 The sight of an opposing hero can trigger terror: 3.30  f. (Menelaos), 5.571  f. (Menelaos and Antilochos), 11.345, 15.279  f. (Hektor), 12.331 (Sarpedon and Glaukos), 20.44–46 (Achilleus). This is the effect provoked here (41n.): Nestor recommended that Patroklos put on Achilleus’ armor for just this purpose (11.798–803 ≈ 16.40–45 [36–45n.]). – The deception of the enemy aimed at (and achieved) here plays no further role in the action that follows (it is merely alluded to one more time in the encounter of Sarpedon/Patroklos at 423–425 [cf. 278n., 279n., 424–425n., 492–501n.]); already at 543, Glaukos names Patroklos as self-evidently the victor over Sarpedon. The story of the exchange of weapons was accordingly judged a later addition by analytical Homeric scholarship (e.g. Bethe 1914, 80–86, 95) and in oral poetry studies was considered a ‘slight imperfection’ on the part of the narrator, who merged two versions (Kirk 1962, 220  f.). But the exchange of weapons as such is closely linked to events in Books 16–22 and is not only recalled repeatedly but exploited for the action and its interpretation, esp. in the case of Patroklos’ death, where Apollo strips him of the armor (793–804n.), in Hektor taking the armor (17.186  f./201–208 etc.), in the ‘ordering’ of new armor in Book 18 (18.130–137 [see ad loc.], etc.), and in the death of Hektor at the hands of Achilleus (22.322  f./368  f.); see Kakridis 1961, 295  f. with n. 4; Reinhardt 1961, 330; Reichel 1994, 128–135 (with a collection of examples). ‘The exchange thus proves to be […] a fatal half-measure with multiple refractions’ (Marg [1957] 1991, 202 [transl.]): Patroklos is overly confident in Achilleus’ armor and, tripped up by a god, loses his life (784  ff.; cf. 130–144n.); Hektor wears Achilleus’ armor in his arrogance (17.198  ff.) and falls in battle against its former owner (22.330  ff.)  – and Hektor’s death in turn seals Achilleus’ own death. ‘A quasi-cycle of revenge is created by these weapons making the rounds […], each time as a treacherous promise of victory and temptation leading to death, that ultimately falls back on Achilleus’: Reinhardt loc. cit. 309  f. [transl.]; additional bibliography: Marg loc. cit. 202  f.; Armstrong 1958, 349; Reinhardt loc. cit. 318–329; Bergold 1977, 107; Edwards 1987, 256; Taplin 1992, 186; Ready 2011, 82–85; Männlein-Robert 2014, 200–202; Janko, Introd. on Il. 16, p. 310  f. (The aspect of the exchange of weapons as a ‘protection and safeguard of the hetairos sent into danger by his master’ remains quite marginal: Reinhardt loc. cit. 317 [transl.], 318; Kakridis loc. cit. 289 n. 3; Shannon 1975, 25  f.; cf. 14.370–382, 17.210–212. The Homeric narrator largely avoids mentioning such magical phenomena: 793–804n.). – Given the far-reaching implications of the exchange of weapons, the deception motif must increasingly recede into the background: if the Trojans were to

Commentary 

 131

‘consider [Patroklos] to be Achilleus the entire time, too much of the effect of the actual return to battle by the son of Peleus would have been anticipated’ (Reichel loc. cit. 130 [transl.]), and statements on the Trojan side such as ‘This isn’t Achilleus, it’s only Patroklos’ would ‘diminish Patroklos’ aristeia’ and its fateful consequences (Marg loc. cit. 202 n. 2 [transl.]; so too Reinhardt loc. cit. 317 [cf. loc. cit. 314]; Bowra 1962, 50; Edwards loc. cit. 255). 278 1st VH ≈ 15.379, 17.724; 2nd VH, see below; cf. 818. — On the present type of change of scene (a character observes something), 124n. That the armor conceals Patroklos (rather than Achilleus) is initially known only to the narrator and the audience (paralepsisP; cf. the mention of Hermes at 24.353 [24.352n.]); 420 is similar: in the narrator-text ‘Patroklos’, in Sarpedon’s speech at 423  f. ‘so I may learn who the man is who is as superior as this’; see schol. bT (on this, Nünlist 2003, 64  f.; 2009, 127); de Jong (1987) 2004, 104  f.; also Reinhardt 1961, 316; differently e.g. AH on 281 (the Trojans conclude ‘from Patroklos’ appearance that Achilleus too […] will soon show up on the battlefield himself’ [transl.]).

Τρῶες δ(έ): a thematic word at the beginning of the sentence, but at the same time an emphatic antithesis of 277 VE ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν (42n.); 419 Σαρπηδὼν δ(έ) (in opposition to the following Πατρόκλοιο in 420) is similar. Bibliography: Bakker 1997, 100 (and 177  f. on verse 818); Allan 2009, 141–149. — Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμον υἱόν: a periphrastic denominationP of Patroklos (on Menoitios, 14n.); an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc., 12× Il.; in Book 16 also at 307, 626, 665, 827); on the structure of the 2nd VH, 14n., end. – ἄλκιμος/ν υἱός/ν occurs 15× Il. (Patroklos, Automedon, Diomedes, Meges), 5× Hes. (Herakles), 1× h.Merc. (Hermes); on the epithet, 139–140n.

279 ≈ 13.331; 1st VH = 6.18 (Axylos/Kalesios), 13.331 (Idomeneus/Meriones); 2nd VH ≈ 6.418/13.719, 12.195. — ‘He himself and his companions in battle’ in reality refers to Patroklos and Automedon, who the Trojans take to be Achilleus and Patroklos (a pairing that may have been normal in Trojan War battles before Achilleus’ battle boycott, cf. 20n.).

σὺν ἔντεσι: ἔντεα is a prosodic alternative for τεύχεα ‘weapons, armor’ (6.418n.); σύν is sociative-comitative ‘what is worn on the body’ (Schw. 2.489; Trümpy 1950, 251 n.  194) or instrumental (AH, Leaf), cf. 156 σὺν τεύχεσιν (θώρηξεν) on the one hand, 13.801 (Trojans) χαλκῷ μαρμαίροντες on the other hand; also ἐν ἔντεσι 19.384n.  — μαρμαίροντας: ‘glittering, sparkling’, perhaps onomatopoetic, usually of light reflecting off metal: 3.397n.; cf. 663  f. Here with an internal quasi-rhyme (θεράποντα σ-; similarly at 13.801) and a ‘heavy’ spondeic VE: the ominous glare of Patroklos’ appearance in Achilleus’ armor is perhaps also expressed in the language, similarly of Aphrodite at 3.397 (on comparable stylistic devices, 384n., 484–485n., 636n.; Graziosi/Haubold

278 εἴδοντο: on the middle, R 23.

132 

 Iliad 16

on 6.232–233; on Homeric rhymes, 174n.). On the radiance of epic weapons in general, 70b–72an.

280 1st VH =  5.29, 18.223; cf. 16.509.  — The Trojans’ behavior shows signs of a stress response (‘fight or flight’, mass panic): detection of a threat – real or supposed – (278), mental block and emotional agitation (280a), uncontrolled and uncoordinated flight (280b, 283), survival instinct (283). – In Homeric epic, the expression ‘to cause someone to become agitated, to rouse, to incite’ (Greek thymón orínein) is frequently used to describe great agitation after a speech or apparition (cf. 2.142n., 3.395n., 18.223n.); it is usually stressed by way of amplification that ‘all’ are affected: 2.143n.

ὀρίνθη: ‘was stirred up, agitated’; on the metaphorical use of the verb (with emotions), 24.467n.  — φάλαγγες: ‘battle lines, divisions’, i.e. parts of larger military formations (including ‘common’ soldiers), in Homeric epic frequently used synonymously with στίχες (173n.) (Latacz 1977, 48  f.; additional bibliography in LfgrE s.v. and in Raaflaub 1993, 54 n. 49; Buchholz 2010, 97–103). Detailed description of an (orderly) deployment of φάλαγγες: 4.422–432.

281 ≈ 8.474. — On the indirect rendering by the narrator of the thoughts and emotions of the mass (‘they thought …’), 6.108–109n.

ἐλπόμενοι: constructio ad sensum in reference to the soldiers belonging to the φάλαγγες (facilitated by the after-effect of the thematic word Τρῶες in 278): schol. A, D and T on 280  f.; Leaf; on the phenomenon in general, Schw. 2.602  f.; Chantr. 2.20  f.; parallels in van Leeuwen on 5.638. – On ἔλπομαι ‘reckon, expect’ (of an erroneous assumption), 3.112n. — παρὰ ναῦφι: ‘by the ships’ (a variable formula before caesura B 2: ἀπὸ/παρὰ ναῦφι: 5× Il., 1× Od.). Under the influence of ἀπορρῖψαι, to be understood literally as an ablative, like 8.474 πρὶν ὄρθαι παρὰ ναῦφι … Πηλεΐωνα, 18.305 παρὰ ναῦφιν ἀνέστη δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: Schw. 2.172  f.; Thompson 1998, 224 (with examples). On the suffix -φι, 139–140n. (on παλάμηφιν). — ποδώκεα Πηλεΐωνα: an inflectable VE formula (acc. 10× Il., dat. 2× Il.): 24.458n.; cf. 134n., end.

282 The verse may reflect a commonplace (suggestion by Führer). The parallelism of the sentence construction (2× obj. +  inf.) underlines the antithesis in content, likewise e.g. 7.93, 14.192, 16.701 (14.192n. with bibliography; cf. Lausberg [1960] 1990, 359  ff., esp. 361). μηνιθμόν: 61–62n. — ἀπορρῖψαι: a metaphorical use of the verb also at 9.517 in a similar context (Phoinix’ speech); additional phrases meaning ‘cease holding a grudge’: μ. καταπαυσέμεν 62, μῆνιν ἀποειπών 19.35/75. — φιλότητα ἑλέσθαι: this likely means ‘broker a peace, reconcile’. φιλότης in the sense ‘(official, contractual) reconciliation, agreement, peace settlement’ occurs occasionally as an antithesis of πόλεμος (4.15  f.,

280 ἐκίνηθεν: = ἐκινήθησαν, ‘began to move, waver’ (R 16.2). 281 ἐλπόμενοι: ‘expecting, suspecting’.

Commentary 

 133

Od. 24.475  f., etc.) and in combination with ἀρθμός/ἀρθμῆσαι ‘agreement, union’ (Il. 7.301  f.: Hektor and Aias with an exchange of weapons after a break in the fighting; h.Merc. 524  f.: reconciliation of Apollo and Hermes) or ὅρκια πιστά ‘contract signed under an oath sacrifice’ (Il. 3.73  f., etc.; Od. 24.476/483 [as well as loc. cit. 486 εἰρήνη]): LfgrE s.v. ἀρθμῆσαι; Trümpy 1950, 184  f.; Kakridis 1963, 44  f. (where the present passage would be better classified under ‘reestablishment of understanding between two parties’); somewhat differently Benveniste 1969, 341  ff., and Karavites 1992, 48  ff. (both focussing on the aspect of personal relationships in the Homeric use of φιλότης: ‘bond of friendship, hospitality’). – The meaning of ἑλέσθαι (with an abstract object) is difficult to determine here, either mentally ‘choose (something), opt for’ (cf. Telemachos at Od. 16.148  f.: ‘if men could choose everything themselves, πρῶτόν κεν τοῦ πατρὸς ἑλοίμεθα νόστιμον ἦμαρ’) or concretely ‘accept, take (from someone), receive’ (cf. Od. 4.746 ἐμεῦ δ’ ἕλετο μέγαν ὅρκον [Il. 22.119 is similar]; Il. 7.482, etc. κοιμήσαντ(ο) … καὶ ὕπνου δῶρον ἕλοντο). The antithesis ἀπορρῖψαι – ἑλέσθαι, etc. could thus be rendered as follows: ‘to reject – to choose’ or ‘to cast off – to accept’.

283 =  14.507 (Trojan response to atrocities perpetrated by Peneleos), Od. 22.43 (where preserved only in few manuscripts); 2nd VH ≈ Il. 6.57, Od. 1.11, 9.286, 12.287/446, 17.47.  – Aristotle is said to have considered this verse ‘the most terrify­ing’ (deinótaton) in Homer: schol. T; Richardson 1980, 276.

πάπτηνεν: ‘peer around, look out’, frequently from fear or in danger (Kelly 2007, 264  f.; LfgrE). — αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc., in total 13× Il., 10× Od., also 1× each Il./Od. after caesura A 3). On αἰπύς ‘suddenly’, 6.57n. (an emotional word, here in secondary focalizationP).

284–305 ‘The killing of a leader exerts a shock effect on his contingent  […], it is the signal for the flight of an entire section of the front’ (Latacz 1977, 211 [transl.]; cf. West 2011, 318 [on 294–296]), but for the successful party it acts as a liberating strike; these instances regularly stress the prowess of the one who is killed, e.g. 6.5–11, 11.744–746 (Strasburger 1954, 50  f.; Latacz loc. cit.; Hellmann 2000, 154; West 2007, 490; 6.5–11n.; similarly already schol. bT on 290–291). – Formally, the present passage breaks down into a description of details (284–292), a summaryP from a birds-eye view (293–296) and a concluding simile with repeated summary (297–305), a rhythm largely retained also in what follows (again at 306–357, 358–376 and 377–393); cf. Richardson 1990, 16  f. 284–290a A Homeric duel scene generally contains the following elements (Niens 1987, XII–XIV; Tsagalis 2004, 179–181): (1) naming the attacker and (2) the attacked, (3) differentiated designation of the action (with one or more

283 δὲ (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ὅπῃ: ‘in which way, in what direction, where’. — φύγοι: opt. as an indication of indirect speech.

134 

 Iliad 16

verbs), (4) weapons employed, (5) designation of the body part struck, (6) effect of the missile or consequences of the injury, (7) depiction of the approaching death (where elements (6) and (7) may merge, as here). The following elements can be added by way of expansion: (2a) details of the victim’s biography, (3a) details of the circumstances of the duel, (6a) simile (not realized here). In the present case, this amounts to: ‘(1) Patroklos (3) first [on which, 284n.] hurled (4) his spear, (3a) straight into the middle …, and (3) struck (2) Pyraichmes, (2a) who led the Paionians; (3) he struck him (5) on the right shoulder, (6) and the other fell backward into the dust with a cry (7 implicit)’. In terms of form and content, the scene has an exemplary function for the story that follows (Trojan retreat, androktasiē scene): Beye 1964, 353. – Additional bibliography on the elements of Homeric duel scenes (in part with different terminology and/or classifications): Strasburger 1954, 15–42; Visser 1987, 44–57; Morrison 1999. On entire sequences of duel scenes (so-called androktasiē scenes), see 306–357n. 284 ≈ 13.502, 14.402 (to caesura C 2; both passages are depictions of duels); 2nd VH = 14× Il. (of which 11× in Books 13–17), also ≈ 399. — The specification ‘first’ does not indicate the beginning of fighting (factual) so much as the beginning of the detailed description of the fighting (narrative) within a particular phase of battle, while highlighting individual heroes: prṓtos ‘first’ initiates the ‘exemplification of the course of the battle’ as a ‘selection signal’ (Latacz 1977, 83  f. [transl.]; Visser 1987, 232; de Jong [1987] 2004, 50  f. [‘zooming in’]; de Jong/ Nünlist 2004, 77  f.; West 2011, 148; see also 6.5n.); in Book 16 also at 307 and 593 of the attacker, 399 of the victim; similarly 112  f. ‘as … at first’ (see ad loc.), as well as the rhetorical question ‘whom did X kill first?’ (692n.). — In battle scenes within Homeric epic, the spear is the weapon used most frequently (statistics in Stoevesandt 2004, 112  f.).

δουρὶ φαεινῷ: a VE formula (22× Il., with increased frequency in Books 13–17 [Hainsworth 1976, 84], in Book 16 at 284, 399, 409, 466, 477). In contrast to its variants (see below), the expression is usually connected with a verb of aiming (or of missing the mark): ‘a spear in its quality of being thrown (i.e. not yet entering a body) is typically «shining», and not «sharp»’ (Bakker [1992] 2005, 28 n. 20; cf. loc. cit. 34 n. 33; differently e.g. Ciani 1974, 103 [transl.]: ‘the attribute appears stiff and lacks expressiveness’; similarly Hainsworth loc. cit. 84  f.; statistically, φαεινός with 50 examples [LfgrE] is attested as an epithet of weapons almost as often as ὀξύς, see LfgrE s.v.). – In contrast, use of the variants of the formula reveal the following tendencies: (a) ὀξέϊ δουρί (in Book 16 at 317 [see ad loc.], 806), with initial vowel, of individual, actually executed killings

284 δουρί: on the declension, R 12.5.

Commentary 

 135

(see the quotation above by Bakker), and (b) ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ, in static-generic statements (Bakker loc. cit. 29  ff.; 24.393n.; here at 623, 819); (c) νηλέϊ χαλκῷ, metrically equivalent to δουρὶ φαεινῷ, but with ‘an overtone of menace and imminent terror’ (Bakker loc. cit. 35  f.; 3.292n., 6.31–32n.; in Book 16 at 345, 561, 761), finally (d) ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ, metrically equivalent to ὀξέϊ δουρί and related in use (5× Il., 2× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’; not in Book 16); see 139–140n. for the difference between δόρυ/ἔγχος – which is not always relevant (although χαλκός can be used via metonymy for any weapon with metal parts in (b) and (c)). Additional bibliography: Parry (1928) 1971, 183; Paraskevaides 1984, 23  f.; Bakker (1991) 2005, 8  f.; Friedrich 2007, 125.

285 ≈ 5.8; 1st VH ≈ 4.541, 5.67, 13.652; 2nd VH ≈ 11.148, 15.448. — The ‘center’ is where the battle rages most fiercely and where an attack is most effective (cf. schol. bT on 286); similarly at 5.8  ff. (Diomedes rushes right into the crowd and kills Phegeus), 11.148  ff. (Agamemnon in massed combat), 15.445  ff. (Teukros shoots Kleitos, who is coming to the aid of the Trojans ‘where most lines were clustering’), 16.377  f. (Patroklos drives into the turmoil of the fleeing Trojans). In the present passage, Patroklos fires his spear ‘seemingly at random’ and hits – ‘naturally’ – one of the leaders (Janko on 284–292); 4.494  ff. (Odysseus throws his spear, ‘looking about’, and hits a son of Priam) is similar, as is 15.573  ff. (Antilochos hits Melanippos, a cousin of Hektor, in the same manner) (Fenik 1968, 192).

κλονέοντο: ‘cluster, lump together’, refers to the throng and scrum (κατὰ μέσσον, ὅθι πλεῖστοι) during battle and especially in the flight (LfgrE; 18.7n.).

286 1st VH = 7.383, 10.35, Od. 15.223; 2nd VH = Il. 2.706. — The name of Protesilaos, the first Greek killed after landing at Troy (1n.), appears in the Iliad after the Catalogue of Ships (2.695  ff.) only in combination with his ship as a topographic fixed point (here and at 13.681, 15.705; the military contingent from Phylake has been headed since then by Podarkes). On the motif of the ship’s stern, 124n.

μεγαθύμου: ‘with great energy/passion, high-spirited’, a generic epithetP of heroes and peoples (of Protesilaos also at 2.706), once of an animal (488n.). It is common, as here, before caesura C 2 with a subsequent personal name or patronymic (e.g. μεγ. Πηλεΐωνος: 19.75n.) or with a personal name preceding (e.g. 571 Ἀγακλῆος μεγ.); see Hoekstra 1965, 24.

287–290a A brief scene in the ABC-schemeP: section A (287a) anticipates in the manner of a summary the events described in more detail in section C (289– 290a), section B (287b–288) introduces the individual affected by the event (the victim) in more detail via a characteristic ‘obituary’ motif (cf. 284–290an.,

285 μέσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὅθι: ‘where’ (cf. R 15.2). 286 νηῒ πάρα: = παρὰ νηΐ (R 20.2).

136 

 Iliad 16

element 2a), namely that of ‘homeland’ (6.12–19n. with bibliography; Beye 1964, esp. 346–349; Visser 1987, 48–50, 56; collection of examples of such biographical details in Richardson 1990, 44  f. with n. 14 [p. 215]; Stoevesandt 2004, 128). Formally, sections A and C are linked in the manner of a ring-compositionP via picking up a keyword (here: ‘struck’ 287/289; similarly at 570/577) (6.9n.). 287 Pyraichmes is the leader of the Paionians (2.848). He is one of the characters mentioned in the Catalogue of Trojans and is killed in the course of the action of the Iliad (Shear 2000, 92  f. with n. 141 [p. 217]; Asteropaios becomes leader in his place: 21.139  ff.). His speaking name means either ‘whose lance is of fire (or: like fire)’ or ‘the one with fire and lance’ (2.848n.; LfgrE with bibliography): his death anticipates the ‘quenching of the fire at the ships’ (Wiessner 1940, 81 [transl.]; similarly Eust. 1060.15  ff.; Whitman 1958, 132; Lowenstam 1981, 120  f.; Stanley 1993, 170). Additional information on the character: Wathelet s.v. – Pyraichmes is the first war victim mentioned by name in Book 16 (list of opponents killed by Patroklos in Singor 1991, 53 n. 110; a complete list of all slain warriors in the Iliad in Stoevesandt 2004, 388  ff.). He is depicted, with Kleoboulos (330n.) among others, on a late Corinthian hydria (2nd quarter of the 6th cent.) that shows in an abbreviated manner the battles in Book 16: Wachter 2001, 90  f. (COR 82), 308  f.; LIMC s.v. Pyraichmes; explicitly rejecting the Iliad as the model for the vase painting: Lowenstam 1997, 35–39. — The Paionians are the westernmost Trojan allies, likely an Illyrian tribe, and inhabit the area around the Axios, the major river in Macedonia (the modern Vardar); their capital city Amydon cannot be located (2.848n., 2.849n., LfgrE s.v.). In the battles depicted in the Iliad, they come to the fore only here and in Book 21 (duel between Achilleus and Asteropaios); cf. West 2011, 318.

καὶ βάλε: a VB formula (17× Il., 1× Od.), after ἀκόντισε δουρὶ φαεινῷ (here 284 VE) also at 5.612, 11.578, 17.348, after τιτύσκετο δουρὶ φ. at 13.160, 13.371. — Παίονας ἱπποκορυστάς: a noun-epithet formula of the 2nd VH (also at 21.205; Μῃόνες ἱππ. 10.431, ἀνέρες ἱππ. 2.1, 24.677, ἱππ. with a personal name at ‘Hes.’ fr. 10(a).52 M.-W.). Variant: Παίονας ἀγκυλοτόξους Il. 2.848 (and in the nom. at 10.428).  – On the meaning of the epithet ἱπποκορυστής, see 2.1–2an. (reference to crests made from horse hair; on the function of crests, cf. 3.337n.); prosodic variant (with initial consonant): χαλκοκορυστής (358n.).

288 ≈ 2.849 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH = 21.157; ≈ 21.141.

289–290 Typical structure of the depiction of a killing: ‘he struck him in this part of his body; and the latter fell (vel sim.)’; in Book 16, cf. 465, 606  f. (Visser 1987, 292–294, 297  f.). – The right shoulder is a common place to be struck for both

287 βάλε: ‘hit’.

Commentary 

 137

humans and animals (horse: 468; boar: Od. 19.452), in both the Iliad (always in military contexts) and the Odyssey (including 3× in the duel Odysseus–Iros); here the blow is fatal (likewise at 321–325, 342–344; Kirk on 5.46). The right shoulder is less well protected than the left, because the shield is worn on the left (cf. 106  f.) (Lorimer 1950, 203). The majority of injuries around the shoulder and clavicle in Homeric epic are fatal (esp. 8.325  f., 22.324  f.; Tsagarakis 1976, 4–6; collection of examples in Hainsworth on 11.263 and Morrison 1999, 143  f.). – ‘In about two-thirds of the duels depicted in the Iliad, the fall of the stricken warrior is mentioned as having a fatal result’: Kurz 1966, 31  f. [transl.]; cf. 284–290an. (element 6). The fall is often embellished with further details: mention is made of its direction (onto the back or the face [e.g. at 310  f.]), the place in which the warrior collapses (into the dust, onto the ground [loc. cit.], on top of a warrior killed earlier [579n.]), the cry of pain (290 with iterata), the noise produced by the armor (325n.): Kurz 1966, 19  f.; Morrison 1999, 130; on the motif ‘dust/ground’ in particular, 486n.; on the cries of pain, Stoevesandt 2004, 122–124. Flight by companions (290) is another typical motif in the context of the death of a leader, e.g. 11.744  ff. (West 2007, 490, with additional parallels). 289 2nd VH = 4.522, 13.548, 15.434; ≈ Od. 18.398 (also Il. 4.108, 7.145/11.144/12.192, 7.271). — δεξιὸν ὦμον: phrase after caesura A 3 (only here and 468) and at VE (6× Il., 4× Od.). — ἐν κονίῃσιν: phrase at VE (16× early epic), at VB (5×), after caesura A 3 (22×) and in the 4th/5th foot (1×); frequently in the context of objects falling to the ground or of humans or animals that plunge to the earth after a fatal injury (in Book 16 also at 469 and 471 of a horse, at 741 of eyes); cf. ἐν στροφάλιγγι κονίης (775–776n.). 290 1st VH ≈ 5.68, 20.417 (likewise of dying warriors); 2nd VH, cf. 18.37. — κάππεσεν: 17× in Homeric epic at VB, of which 6× in Book 16 alone (290, 311, 414, 580, 662, 743); beside κὰδ δ’ ἔπεσ(εν) at 469, etc. (see ad loc. on the iterata). — οἰμώξας: of the scream that accompanies physical or mental pain (24.591n.; cf. 289–290n.); on the temporal coincidence of the aor. part. with the predicate, 24.170n. (φθεγξαμένη).  — ἕταροι δέ μιν ἀμφ(ί): The connection of ἕταροι (on which, 24.4n.) with ἀμφί (and compounds) is common in early epic (see the formulae at 2.417, 18.233, 19.212, all with iterata); the word gives expression to not only the spatial but also the emotional proximity of ‘those who surround’ to the leader, especially on occasions of grief or death. — ἐφόβηθεν: ἐφόβηθεν is the consequence of ἐν γὰρ Πάτροκλος φόβον ἧκεν (291, a ‘paratactic indication of agency’, so to speak, for the passive ἐφόβηθεν: Jankuhn 1969, 109  f.), and is repeated at 294 (VE): ‘they fled, startled’ (LfgrE; 6.41n.). The emphasis created by the repetition of the word stem φοβ- (15.326  f. is similar) may be amplified onomatopoeti-

289 τὸν … δεξιὸν ὦμον: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); τόν = Pyraichmes.

138 

 Iliad 16

cally at 291 by the triple use of πα- (Παίονες, Πάτροκλος, ἅ-πασιν; cf. 118n.: frequency of the kh-sound).

291 The ‘since’ clause provides an interpretation by the narrator (255–256n.).  

ἐν … φόβον ἧκεν: ‘scare someone and cause them to flee’, likewise at 15.326  f., similar objects at 11.538  f. κυδοιμόν, 16.729  f. κλόνον, also 16.656 ἀνάλκιδα θυμόν (on which, cf. 355n.). The subject of this type of phrase is more commonly a deity than a human being, cf. 449n. (Kullmann 1956, 76  f.; Graz 1965, 180  f.).

292 ≈ 11.746; 2nd VH = 6.460; ≈ 16.551, 17.351. — ‘Dying warriors are often emphatically termed the «best» of their group’ (6.7–8n.; litotes ‘not the worst’: 570). In this way, they prove even at the end of their lives bound by the code of behavior of Homeric heroes, namely ‘to be always the best’, cf. 6.208, 6.460, 7.90, 11.784 (6.208n.; Strasburger 1954, 31  f.; Ulf 1990, 47  f.; LfgrE s.v. ἀριστεύω). 293 1st VH ≈ 87; 2nd VH ≈ 21.381. — The literal echo of 87 (‘drive from the ships’, there in a speech by Achilleus) suggests that Achilleus’ orders are now fulfilled (cf. 83–96n.; AH); there are similar echoes in what follows: ‘beat back from the ships’ at 301 ≈ 251 (Zeus’ pledge), ‘breathe for a little’ at 302 ≈ 42  f. (Patroklos’ speech =  11.800  f. Nestor’s speech).  — Together with 301, the quenching of the fire represents the final mention of the motif of burning ships (80–82n.; 122–123n.): the danger emanating from the burning ship has been conclusively averted.

ἐκ νηῶν δ(έ): on δέ in third position after a combination of closely linked words (here preposition + substantive), 24.273–274n., end. — αἰθόμενον πῦρ: a unique acc. variant of πυρὸς αἰθομένοιο (81n.) rather than the common VE formulae (a) ἀκάματον πῦρ (prosodically equivalent, 122–123n.) or (b) θεσπιδαὲς πῦρ (with initial consonant, 7× Il., 1× Od.). The initially obvious assumption that (a) the epithet ἀκάματος (here attested by schol. A as a v.l.) would be inappropriate at the moment the fire is extinguished cannot be accepted, since the word is used in a similar context at 21.341: σχεῖν (‘inhibit’) ἀκάματον πῦρ (Graz 1965, 78 n. 1, even argues in favor of ἀκάματος as the lectio diffi­ cilior: ‘an epithet expressing intensity’ [loc. cit. 260; transl.]). At the same time, a paral­ lel exists for (b) at 21.381: κατέσβεσε θεσπιδαὲς πῦρ (admittedly, in the present passage two attributes with identical word components would follow in ἡμι-δαής [294] and θεσπ-εσίῳ [295]; on avoidance of this kind of repetition, see 298n. on στεροπηγερέτα

290 κάππεσεν: = κατ-έπεσεν (R 20.1, 16.1). — μιν ἀμφ(ί): = ἀμφ’ αὐτόν (R 20.2, 14.1). — ἐφόβηθεν: = ἐφοβήθησαν (R 16.2); φοβέομαι in Homeric epic has the meaning ‘flee’. 291 ἐν … ἧκεν: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.1. 292 ἀριστεύεσκε: an iterative form (R 16.5). 293 νηῶν: on the declension, R 12.1. — ἔλασεν: = ἤλασεν (on the unaugmented form, R 16.1); sc. Τρῶας. — κατὰ … ἔσβεσεν: ‘caused to be extinguished’ (on the so-called tmesis, R 20.1).

Commentary 

 139

Ζεύς). One must thus assume a ‘violation’ of formular economy (Janko on 293–296; cf. FOR 32).

294 The realistic detail of a half-burnt ship remaining behind on the spot lends the scene enormous vividness and emotion, its brevity notwithstanding (schol. b and T on 293/294; Richardson 1980, 277, 278; cf. Janko on 293–296). Beyond this, there may be a connection with 2.700  f., where the house of the same Protesilaos is termed ‘half-built’ because of his early death before Troy (2.701n., end: ‘is among the touching elements’; cf. Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 111  f.). Both adjectives (‘half-burnt’, ‘half-built’) are hapax legomenaP in Homeric epic. 295–296 295b–296 ≈ 12.470  f. (with 296 = 12.471), with reversed polarity: Danaans fleeing after the Trojans breach the wall (cf. Mueller [1984] 2009, 171; Clark 1997, 146  f.); also 1st VH of 296 =  15.488; 2nd VH of 296 ≈  2.797.  — θεσπεσίῳ ὁμάδῳ  …  |  … ὅμαδος δ’ ἀλίαστος: ὅμαδος denotes the noise and commotion in battle, occasionally also battle itself (thus likely here at 296, cf. esp. 2.797 πόλεμος δ’ ἀλίαστος ὄρωρεν): 19.81–82n. with bibliography; LfgrE. – θεσπέσιος ‘with overwhelming effect, enormous’, frequently of noise (2.457n.); an attribute of ὅμαδος also at 13.797 (where of a storm), also e.g. of ἀλαλητός at 18.149 (of fleeing, as here, see ad loc.), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 382  f. (of the Herakles– Kyknos duel); cf. 357n. (on δυσκελάδου). – ἀλίαστος ‘inescapable, unevadable’, in military contexts in the iterata as well as at 14.57 (μάχη), 20.31 (πόλεμος) (LfgrE). — Δαναοί: i.e. probably all the Greeks: 276b–277n., end. (cf. 17n.).  — ἐπέχυντο: here ‘crowded, pushed back’, likewise at 15.654 (AH; Kurz 1966, 140; cf. 259n., end).  — νῆας ἀνὰ γλαφυράς: = 12.471, 15.488; see 18n.

297–302a The weather similesP in the Iliad show considerable variation in their composition (clouds, wind, storm, frequently in combination with the surge of the sea) and function (comparison images for crowds of people and their reactions or movements; for threats and despair; for noise); lists in Lee 1964, 69 and Scott 2009, 200  f.; cf. Mueller (1984) 2009, 106. In these cases, ‘fine’ weather is rare: here chasing away the clouds illustrates repelling the Trojans and the danger they represent from the encampment of ships, while the brighten­ing of the sky suggests the Greeks’ relief at this; the present simile thus portrays ‘events and emotions’ (Fränkel 1921, 22 [transl.]) and conveys a picture of the mood, cf. the English metaphors ‘brightening (of a mood), ray of hope’; 7.4–7 is similar (the fair wind facilitates the work of the sailors), as is 8.555–561 (with 557  f. = 16.299  f.: the watch-fires of the Trojans, camping in high spirits in the plain, are as bright and numerous as the stars in a cloudless, calm sky that

294 λίπετ(ο): aor. mid. with pass. sense, ‘remained behind’. — αὐτόθι: ‘there, on the spot’ (cf. R 15.2). — τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 14.3), with Τρῶες as an appositive. 296 ἀνά: ‘throughout, along’. — ἐτύχθη: aor. pass. of τεύχω ‘cause, make’.

140 

 Iliad 16

delight a shepherd in the fields), also 5.522–527 (the Greeks persist in the same way a lack of wind holds the clouds in place). Bibliography: Cauer (1895) 1923, 471  f.; Fränkel loc. cit.; Elliger 1975, 91–93; Bremer 1976, 64–66; Reucher 1983, 316  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 245  f.; Willcock and Janko on 297–300. – In the Patroklos scene at 284  ff., weather motifs occur with great frequency and intensify in step with the increasing drama of the action, culminating in the disastrous storm (climax): what follows is: 364–367 increasing cloud cover → Trojans begin to flee (simile, see ad loc.), 374  f., dust swirls up all the way to the clouds (narrator-text), 384–393 a fall storm with flooding → Trojans flee with their horses (simile). The similes, three in total, ‘represent the sequential stages of the Trojan flight’ (Krischer 1971, 54 [transl.]) and thus underline the progress of the story (cf. 2.455–483n., point 5); in addition, in each case Zeus appears as the ‘weather maker’ (298, 365, 386): he fulfills the request of Achilleus and Patroklos that he drive the Trojans away from the ships, cf. 250– 252 (Wilamowitz 1916, 134 [‘corresponding similes’; transl.]; Whitman 1958, 151  f.; Krischer loc. cit. 53–55; Scott 1974, 113  f.; Moulton 1977, 33–35, 37  f., 42; Thalmann 1984, 18; Scott 2009, 160; on the linguistic parallels in the three similes in particular, Di Benedetto 1987, 267  f.).  – Whether any connection exists with the similar simile at 8.555  ff. (see above) (there the Trojans have advanced to the Achaian camp; here they must withdraw) is disputed, not least due to the uncertain constitution of the text (see 299–300n.): Bowra 1930, 93  f. (‘the repetition is too slight […] to be immediately obvious to any listener’; thus also Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 98  f. n. 4); confident Moulton loc. cit. 34; Di Benedetto loc. cit. 267; Janko loc. cit.; on repeated similes in general, 3–4n. 297 = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 374; 1st VH ≈ Od. 10.104, Hes. Th. 632; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 9.481, h.Hom. 33.4. — On mountains as a scene for similes, see 157–158n.

ὡς δ’ ὅτ(ε): 212–213n. (here with subjunc. [298] and ind. [299  f.]).  — ἀφ’: pregnant ‘away from …’ (κινήσῃ, picked up again by ἀπωσάμενοι in the so-part of the simile). — ὑψηλῆς κορυφῆς ὄρεος μεγάλοιο: a chiastic arrangement of the nouns syntactically dependent on one another, as at e.g. Od. 5.52 δεινοὺς κόλπους ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο (suggestion by Führer), with the attributes in the middle, as at e.g. Il. 16.687 κῆρα κακὴν μέλανος θανάτοιο, and parallel to 1.499 ἀκροτάτῃ κορυφῇ πολυδειράδος Οὐλύμποιο, 14.17 λιγέων ἀνέμων λαιψηρὰ κέλευθα, 16.165 ἀγαθὸν θεράποντα ποδώκεος Αἰακίδαο, etc.; frequent in descriptions of natural forces, as here (19.267n. with bibliography).

298 On Zeus as weather god, see CG 24; on the present motif of Zeus as ‘cloud-gatherer’, esp. 5.522  f., Od. 12.405  f.

298 κινήσῃ: here with 297 ἀφ’ ‘remove, move out of the way’; generalizing subjunc. without a modal particle (R 21.1). — στεροπηγερέτα: nom. sing.

Commentary 



 141

πυκινήν: epithet of ‘cloud’ also at 5.751 =  8.395, Hes. Op. 553, also associative at 11.305/309.  — στεροπηγερέτα Ζεύς: a unique noun-epithet formula for Zeus, metrically equivalent to (a) νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς (666n.) and (b) Ζεὺς τερπικέραυνος (232n.), cf. the list in Parry (1928) 1971, 39. (a) is here probably impossible for stylistic reasons, due to the preceding νεφέλην; in the present passage, Zeus also repels the cloud (cf. the discussion regarding αἰθόμενον πῦρ at 293n.): Leaf; Parry loc. cit. 187  f.; Combellack 1976, 54; Lowenstam 1981, 7–9; 1993, 33–35; Edwards 1997, 273; Friedrich 2007, 82. At the same time, (b) appears to have been used only in certain contexts, at least in the nom. (‘Zeus’ strict or harsh nature’: Lowenstam 1981, 25  f.; 1993, 33  f.; cf. 24.529–530n., also 2.781n.). Whether στεροπηγερέτα Ζεύς is a traditional formula that simply occurs only once, or a phrase invented ad hoc, cannot be determined with any certainty: that in this context the epithet remains without a pregnant meaning (Leaf; Parry loc. cit.; Lowenstam 1981, 8 n. 24) initially favors traditionality, but the fact that ‘lightning-gatherer’ represents a formation analogous (if factually incorrect) to ‘cloud-gatherer’ suggests an ad hoc invention: Mueller (1984) 2009, 148.

στεροπηγερέτα: The final element is related to ἀγείρω according to opinion current since antiquity: Risch (1954) 1981, 337 (cf. schol. D on 1.511/517, schol. on Od. 1.63, both on νεφεληγερέτα). But Apoll. Soph. s.v. interprets it as derived from ἐγείρω: ‘he who stirs up lightning’, perhaps in order to make sense of the compound in this manner; likewise AH, Anh. ad loc.; Fraenkel 1910, 32 n. 1; Leukart 1994, 291. On the confusion of ἀγείρω/ἐγείρω, cf. 24.789n. On the ending -τᾰ, 33n., end. (ἱππότα).

299–300 = 8.557  f. (the authenticity of 8.557  f. is disputed: Lührs 1992, 219–222; Rengakos 1993, 70; West 2001, 204  f.; Kelly 2007, 406  f.); ≈ h.Ap. 22, 144; 2nd VH ≈ 12.282 (where the 1st VH ≈ 16.297). — ἔκ τ’ ἔφανεν … | … ὑπερράγη: In general, aor. forms are augmented in Homeric similes; like the pres. forms (e.g. at 156  ff., 259  ff.; combination of pres. with aor.: 352–357 [see ad loc.]), they perhaps express the narrator’s attempt to visualize and illustrate (Bakker [2001] 2005, 131  f., 133–135) rather than known, timeless facts (the traditional conception of the so-called gnomic aor., e.g. Chantr. 2.185  f.). Different again is AH (transl.): ‘the aor. of the onset of action’ (‘emerge clearly … breaks out underneath’). — ἄσπετος αἰθήρ: In Homeric epic, αἰθήρ denotes the sphere of the sky, especially as the scene of meteorological events: ‘atmosphere’ (cf. 1.412n.); used pregnantly, αἰθήρ can designate the ‘fair, clear, bright sky’ (aside from here, also at 365, 17.371). When designating a location, αἰθήρ is sometimes synonymous with οὐρανός, sometimes differentiated from it (i.e. as ‘airspace’ beneath the sky, probably thus here and at 365; cf. expressions such as δι’ αἰθέρος οὐρανὸν ἷκεν [2.458: radiance, 17.425: noise]). Bibliography: Leaf Appendix H, vol. 2, p. 599  ff.; Kopp 1939, 318–321. – For the phrase (= 8.558), cf. 8.556 νήνεμος αἰθήρ (VE). 301 2nd VH ≈ 18.13, also 9.347, 9.674. — On the literal echoes of 251 (Zeus’ pledge), 293n. — ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἀπωσάμενοι … πῦρ: 246n. — δήϊον: 127n.

300 οὐρανόθεν: on the form, R 15.1. — ὑπερράγη: intransitive aor. of ὑπορρήγνυμι, here ‘emerge from the cloud cover that is breaking up’.

142 

 Iliad 16

302 2nd VH = 17.761 (cf. Hes. Th. 876). — The ‘breathing’ takes place as hoped for by Nestor and Patroklos: 42–43n., 293n. Why the men only breathe ‘a little’ is explained straightaway at 302b–304.

πολέμου δ’ … ἐρωή: πολέμου is to be understood as an objective gen. analogous to verbal expressions at 723, etc. (on which, 722–723n., end), i.e. ‘slackening in battle’ (Porzig 1942, 25; LfgrE). Thus πολέμου δ(έ) is used here as a contrast to the verbal action νηῶν μὲν ἀπωσάμενοι … πῦρ (301).

303–305 The antithesis ‘not flight, but retreat while resisting’ serves to heighten suspense, cf. 5.700–702, 22.250–253; on ‘standing up to as an act of resistance’, see Kurz 1966, 91 (transl.); on the differentiation between and judgement of retreat and flight in the Iliad in general: Latacz 1977, 194  ff.; Rinon 2008, 98  ff.

The supposed contradiction between 303  f. (‘as the Trojans were not yet fleeing’) and 280, 283, 290  f., 294  f. (where increasing mention is made of the fear and flight of the Trojans and their allies) has resulted in parts of the section 297–376 being dismissed as later additions; the purpose of these additions was supposedly to introduce the androktasiē scene at 306–357 in order to illustrate Greek superiority (in this sense already schol. bT) and to bring the major heroes to the fore again (just as at 358  ff. Aias and Hektor also appear again after having been the focus at the beginning of the Book): AH, Anh. on Il. 16, Einl. p. 20–22; Niens 1987, 79–83; West 2011, 318  f. (all with older biblio­ graphy); similarly Fenik 1968, 193–195 (‘unwelcome intrusion’: loc. cit. 194). In contrast, efforts have been made to identify a line of development with gradual changes in the battle situation in the present section, based specifically on the climactic sequence of similes (on which, 297–302an.); emphasis is on ‘the Trojans not yet running away helter-skelter’: Latacz 1977, 106  f. (‘disintegration of the front’ [transl.]); Moulton 1977, 37; Reucher 1983, 317  f.; cf. the paraphrase at 278–418n. (and the two above-mentioned parallels at 5.700  ff., 22.250  ff.). Differently Pagani 2008, 401 n. 202 (transl.): ‘quick anticipation of the next defeat’.

303 ≈ 6.73, 17.319; 2nd VH also = 17.336. — ἀρηϊφίλων ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (4× Il., see iterata); on ἀρηΐφιλος, 2.778bn. (a generic epithetP, but usually of Menelaos [on this, 3.21n.]); on the VE formula ὑπ’ Ἀχαιῶν, 276b–277n. 304 cf. 5.700; 2nd VH = 17.383, 24.780. — προτροπάδην: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘(fleeing) precipitately, helter-skelter’, related to προτρέπομαι (5.700). For more detail on the word formation and usage, see LfgrE. — μελαινάων ἀπὸ νηῶν: a VE formula (3× Il.; cf. 45n.); similarly μελ. ἐπὶ νηῶν (3× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’).

302 γίνετ’: = ἐγίγνετο (imperfects also in 303–305). 303 οὐ … πω: = οὔπω. — τι: acc. of respect (R 19.2), ‘in some regard’; strengthens the negative, thus here ‘in no way, not at all’.

Commentary 

 143

305 ἀλλ’ ἔτ’ ἄρ(α): = Od. 22.237 (where also after οὔ πω); ἄρα underlines the contrast between οὔ πώ τι and ἀλλ’ ἔτ(ι), English ‘even’ (LfgrE s.v. ἄρα 1149.63  ff.; cf. 308n.).

306–357 An androktasiē scene: a catalogueP of individual killings in accord with the typical scheme of Homeric fighting scenes (284–290an.), it exemplifies the course of the battle. Parallels: 5.37  ff., 6.5  ff.; briefer 14.508  ff., 15.328  ff. (the present passage is especially similar to the one in Book 5: Strasburger 1954, 63–65; Fenik 1968, 9  f.). In no case do victims survive in such scenes – there is only ‘victory or annihilation’ (Marg 1976, 13  f. [transl.]; similarly van Wees 1996, 38  f.; Salazar 2000, 128, 131). ‘(S)uch detailed sequences of battle scenes were part of what the audience paid to hear, comparable, perhaps, to the violence and special effects which are at present a great attraction in film. If we think of our sports telecasting analogy, such a scene could be compared to the case when a particularly elegant moment is replayed numerous times: not so the action will become more clear, but just so the viewers can savour the delicious moment again and again’: Nimis 1987, 89; similarly Latacz (1985) 1996, 133. – The present androktasiē scene is framed at the beginning and end by summariesP with similar phrasing (306  f./351; 2.760n. [Catalogue of Ships]; van Otterlo 1948, 68; Niens 1987, 78) and concludes with a simile (352–357; Krischer 1971, 61). It is comprised of nine individual killings (although whether narrator or audience ‘counted along’ remains unprovable). The typi­ cal numberP nine appears to signal incompleteness, i.e. that the fighting will continue (cf. 399–418n. with bibliography); another nine killings at 415–418, 694–696 (lists of the slain), thrice nine at 785 (only reported); on lists of nine in general, 2.96n., 24.249–251n.; on the number nine in military contexts, Singor 1991, 39–41, 50–55.

1. Patroklos against Areïlykos 2. Menelaos against Thoas 3. Meges against Amphiklos 4. Antilochos (son of Nestor) against Atymnios 5. Thrasymedes (son of Nestor) against Atymnios’ brother Maris 6. Aias against Kleoboulos 7. Peneleos against Lykon 8. Meriones against Akamas 9. Idomeneus against Erymas

305 ἀλλ’ ἔτ’ ἄρ’ ἄνθ’: = ἀλλὰ ἔτι ἄρα ἄντα; ἄρα ‘even’ (R 24.1), ἄντα ‘against, opposite’ (adv.). — νεῶν δ’ ὑπόεικον: ‘they drew back from the immediate area of the ships, they drew back from the ships a bit’.

144 

 Iliad 16

Four of the Greeks already had a joint appearance in an androktasiē scene in Book 5: Idomeneus, Menelaos, Meriones, Meges (5.43–75); eight (all except Meges) appear again within a single context in Book 17 (the Greeks retreat, retrieve Patroklos’ body and notify Achilleus): Reichel 1994, 297 (on a similar grouping, 535–536n.). Among the Trojans, all but Akamas are mere extras who appear only here and do so only to die immediately (‘minor warriors’: Strasburger 1954, 11  f.; Griffin 1980, 103  f.; ‘literary cannon-fodder’: Beye 1964, 358; ‘morituri’: Hellmann 2000, 92, 166  f.; cf. 345n.).  – The nine individual scenes display several connecting elements (many of them typical: Strasburger loc. cit. 64  f.; Kirk 1962, 79): the first two victims leave themselves exposed in flight or retreat and are hit in the respective spot (308n., 312n.); victims # 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 have body parts crushed, cut through or severed; victims # 3 and 5 attack, but their opponents forestall them and wound them in the thigh and upper arm, ‘darkness covers the eyes’ of both; victims # 4 and 5 are a pair of brothers, defeated by a pair of brothers (317–329n.); victims # 6 and 7 are fatally injured by a sword blow to the neck; victims # 6 and 8 are caught by a Greek and killed while fleeing (cf. # 1 and 2). The middle and end of the catalogue are highlighted by special motifs: the middle (# 4/5) by the ‘obituary’ (Niens loc. cit. 78; cf. 326–329n.), the end (# 9) by the detailed, graphic description of injuries. The increasing severity of injuries reflects the increasingly desperate situation in which the Trojans find themselves (van der Valk 1964, 432  f. n. 258; on the more outlandish descriptions of injuries in the Iliad, see 404b–410n. with bibliography). At the same time, there is a lively variatio in the use of anatomical detail and in the way death is depicted (schol. A and bT on 16.339 [on which, Nünlist 2009, 199  f.]; Janko on 306–357; Mueller [1984] 2009, 80  f.; cf. 312n., 316n., 325n.). Despite the essentially paratactic style, the narrative is complex and dense: ‘There is a good chance, then, that […] we see the technical brilliance of Homer himself’ (Kirk 1998, 44; similarly ibid. 1976, 167–169; Hainsworth 1991, 27  f. with n. 9 [p. 157]; Rengakos 1995, 29  f.). – A more detailed interpretation of the present passage (motifs, diction) in Fenik 1968, 195–198; Niens 1987, 71–79; a general characterization of Homeric androktasiē scenes in Marg 1976, 10–14; Patzer 1996, 142–146; Hawkins 1998, 181–188; Horn 2014, 81–84. 306 =  15.328.  — A typical introduction to an androktasiē scene (‘man fights against man’), aside from 15.328, cf. 4.457, 5.37, 8.256, 13.170: Beye 1964, 352  f.

ἔνθα δ(έ): ἔνθα in a broad temporal sense (‘there, then’) is frequent in battle descriptions and occasionally, as here, marks a new start in the narrative, with a focus on in-

306 ἕλεν: = εἷλεν (on the unaugmented form, R 16.1).

Commentary 

 145

dividual heroes (selection signal; thus also e.g. at 692 ἔνθα τίνα πρῶτον … [with iterata], also 7.8, 8.78, 12.182, etc.). But often its function can barely be differentiated from a conjunctive particle such as δέ (in Book 16 at 337, 399, 659; amplified ἔνθ’ αὖ at 477 [see ad loc.], 603; in the sense of τότε after a temporal subsidiary clause with ὅτε at 463, 787). Bibliography: Bolling 1950, 372, 373  f.; Visser 1987, 212, 244  f.; Bakker 1997, 69 n.  36; LfgrE; on ἔνθα in ‘if-not’-situationsP, 698n.  — ἀνὴρ  … ἄνδρα: repetition of the same word giving expression to continuity and reciprocity, as also at 4.472, 16.215, 20.355 (Fehling 1969, 221  ff. [ad loc. 225]; West 2007, 111–114 [ad loc. 113]). — ἕλεν: In this context, ἑλεῖν means ‘overcome’, occasionally even ‘kill’: LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 348.13  ff.; Tsagarakis 1976, 7–11; Saunders 2004, 10. — κεδασθείσης ὑσμίνης: The meaning of this phrase is elucidated by the battle developments in Book 15: after Thoas’ request that they stop and face Hektor (15.296  f.), the Achaian leaders reorganize to form a front: ὑσμίνην ἤρτυνον (15.303; similarly at 11.215  f.); Hektor attacks, with the Achaians initially persisting: ὑπέμειναν ἀολλέες (15.312; on ἀολλέες, 276an.); Apollo intervenes, the Achaians take fright and begin to flee: ἐφόβηθεν (15.326; here 290/294); this is followed by the verse also present here, opening the androktasiē scene (15.328  ff., Trojans prevailing). As a result, κεδασθείσης ὑσμίνης refers to the closed ranks breaking up and thus the transition from fighting in orderly groups to indiscriminate pursuit of those fleeing; in this sense already schol. bT on 15.328: τῆς τάξεως διαλυθείσης τότε γὰρ ἄλλοι ἄλλῃ φέρονται (similarly schol. D; AH on 15.328; Janko on 15.326–342 [‘one side’s line breaks and the other scatters in pursuit’]; Latacz 1977, 213; list of similar expressions in Albracht [1886] 2005, 63  f.). – Like δαΐ, ὑσμίνη is an archaic term for ‘battle’ (attested only in the dat.), frequently used synonymously with μάχη and πόλεμος; the etymology (related to an IE root meaning ‘begin to move, fight’) suggests a basic meaning ‘fray of battle’ (Latacz loc. cit. 138; DELG; LfgrE; on additional connotations – e.g. ‘front [on the move]’ – see Trümpy 1950, 162–165).

307 1st VH = 5.38; 2nd VH ≈ 278 etc. (see ad loc.). — With the detail ‘first’, the narrator starts afresh after 284 (see ad loc.).

ἡγεμόνων: partitive gen. with ἀνήρ, cf. 5.37  f. ἕλε δ’ ἄνδρα ἕκαστος | ἡγεμόνων.

308 VE cf. 11.583.  — Areïlykos is a Greek determinative compound (‘a wolf via Ares’, or metonymic-locative ‘a wolf in battle’; the initial element occurs also in Areïthoös [7.8], the final element in Autolykos [Odysseus’ grandfather]; on the wolf, 155–167n.). The name is used here for a Trojan, at 14.450  f. for the father of the Greek Prothoënor (on names used multiple times, see 345n.); it is not attested historically. For additional information, see LfgrE and Wathelet s.v.; von Kamptz 93, 105, 184.  – Areïlykos is the first of a total of 27 named opponents killed at the hands of Patroklos in Book 16 (list in Singor 1991, 53 n. 110); in addition, another 27 nameless victims receive summary mention

307 Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμος: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

146 

 Iliad 16

(785); on the number nine, 306–357n. — In the Iliad, it is mostly Trojans who are struck in the stance portrayed here – turned to flee, presenting the back to the pursuing enemy (similar to here: 5.40  f., 5.56  f., 8.257–259, 11.446–448, 13.545  f., 17.578  f., 20.401  f., 20.487–489; in addition, 12.427–429 in a general battle description, 20.413  f. of a careless Trojan, 8.94  f., 13.288–291 and 22.283 hypothetically in direct speech; see Fenik 1968, 225; Mackie 1996, 48  f.; Pagani 2008, 381–386 [with tabulated collection of examples]; on Trojan losses during flight phases in general, Stoevesandt 2004, 103–105). – The present scene at 306–357 contains regular reminders that the Trojans are in retreat (element 3a of a typical fighting scene: ‘circumstances of the fight’ [284–290an.]), as also at 312 (insufficient cover by the shield), 331 (flight prevented by the crush), 342 (caught by the pursuer), 343 (about to mount a chariot [see ad loc.]): Fenik loc. cit. 15 (on 5.37–84, where the Trojan flees in every individual fight); cf. 6.36n. – The thigh is one of the potentially unprotected spots of a fleeing warrior (312n.; cf. 27n.).

αὐτίκ’ ἄρα: αὐτίκα specifies the temporal relationship between the predicate (βάλε) and the part. (στρεφθέντος): ‘Areïlykos had barely turned around when Patroklos hit him in the thigh’; likewise at 9.453  f., 24.226, etc. (AH; LfgrE s.v. αὐτίκα 1608.75  ff.). – ἄρα marks ‘details […], that are repeated to modify or add precision to something mentioned previously’, here in reference to 306; similarly 4.397  f., 14.508–512, 18.37b–46 (Grimm 1962, 10 [transl.]; cf. LfgrE s.v. ἄρα 1148.52  ff.: ‘concreteness via mentioning the name’ [transl.]; differently Bakker 1997, 101 [see 221n.]; Bonifazi 2012, 274  ff. [‘discourse marker’]). – The late occurrence of ἄρα in the sentence prompted Nikanor to punctuate at the end of 307 (rather than after ἡγεμόνων). But this is counterindicated by the sentence structure at 5.38–41, similar overall, which appears to be represented here in an abbreviated form; the beginning of the sentence at 307 πρῶτος δὲ … υἱός likely serves as a thematic word (schol. A; Leaf; West in the app.crit.; Bakker loc. cit. with n. 28; on the term ‘thematic word’, 278n.).

309 2nd VH =  13.388, 15.342, 16.821, 17.579, Od. 22.295; ≈  Il. 5.538, 17.518, Od. 24.524. — When a weapon pierces the body in its entirety, this usually results in death for the warrior concerned (Niens 1987, 41  f. n. 4, with a collection of examples).

ἔγχεϊ ὀξυόεντι: an inflectable noun-epithet formula, only here and at Od. 19.33 (ἔγχεα τ’ ὀξ.) at VB, elsewhere always at VE (dat. 6× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; acc. 1× Il.); a metrical variant of ἔγχεϊ χαλκείῳ (3.380an.): Bakker (1991) 2005, 9  f. – ὀξυόεις is epic vocabulary, an epithet of e.g. δόρυ (14.443) and βέλος (Batrachomyomachie 194), likely used as a

308 Ἀρηϊλύκου: possessive gen. with μηρόν. 309 ἔγχεϊ ὀξυόεντι: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — ἔλασσεν: = ἤλασεν (3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἐλαύνω, here ‘push, drive’); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 147

metrically convenient variant of ὀξύς, like e.g. φαιδιμόεις < φαίδιμος, cf. the VE formula ὀξέϊ δουρί 317 (schol. bT on 7.11; Risch 154; Kirk on 5.48–50). Whether ὀξυόεις is originally derived from ὀξύη ‘beech’ (i.e. ‘of beech wood’) is unclear, cf. μείλινον ἔγχος (114n.): schol. D on 5.50; DELG; Janko on 13.584–585. — διάπρο: ‘all the way through’; on the spelling, West 1998, XVIIIf. — χαλκὸν ἔλασσεν: an inflectable VE formula (also 3rd pers. pl. and inf.); in addition to the identical iterata, also at 13.607, 13.647, 24.421.

310–311 2nd VH of 310 + VB of 311 ≈ 413  f., 579  f., 21.118  f.; only 2nd VH: ≈ 15.543, 17.300.  — Battle descriptions frequently mention pierced or crushed bones, usually skulls or extremities, cf. 324, 347, 740  f. (Laser 1983, 6). – On the motif ‘the stricken warrior falls’, 289–290n.  — Thoas is a common Greek name (related to thoós ‘fast’) and is used several times in the Iliad: (a) a Trojan (only here), (b) a leader of the Aitolian contingent (2.638n.), and (c) a ruler of Lemnos (14.230n.). The name is mentioned both here and at 19.238  f. (where in reference to the Greek) together with Meges son of Phyleus (here at 313) and the sons of Nestor (here at 317): Janko on 311–312. – Additional mythological examples of characters called Thoas: BNP s.v.; historical examples: LGPN; see also LfgrE and Wathelet s.v.

ῥῆξεν δ’ ὀστέον ἔγχος: The sentence structure predicate-object-subject is relatively rare in Greek: Fraser 2002, 60  f., 74  f. — πρηνὴς ἐπὶ γαίῃ | κάππεσ(ε): = 413  f., ≈ 579 (πρηνὴς ἐπὶ νεκρῷ [sc. Sarpedon]  | κάππεσεν), 17.300 (πέσε πρηνὴς ἐπὶ νεκρῷ [sc. Sarpedon]  |), 21.118 (πρηνὴς ἐπὶ γαίῃ  | κεῖτο).  – πρηνής and πίπτω, as well as the intransitive aor. ἤριπε (319), generally refer to a dying or dead (English ‘fallen’) warrior, rarely to a non-fatal collapse (6.43, 14.418; unclear 16.378  f. [see ad loc.]); on πρηνής, 2.414n. with bibliography; on πίπτω, Kurz 1966, 19  f.; LfgrE s.v. 1259.32  ff., 54  ff.; Purves 2006, 182  f. — Μενέλαος ἀρήϊος: an inflectable noun-epithet formula after caesura A 4 (nom./acc., 9× Il.), cf. 3.339n.; on ἀρήϊος in particular, 42n. – Multiple epithets describe Menelaos’ warlike attitude: ἀρηΐφιλος (3.21n.), βοὴν ἀγαθός (2.408n.), κυδάλιμος (4.100, etc.). — οὖτα: a root aor. (24n. with reference to 6.64n.); a lance is to be imagined as the weapon (Niens 1987, 73).

312 =  400.  — The shield is normally held in front of the chest  – or more generally in front of the torso (7.224, 20.162  f., 22.313  f.). During retreat, or due to clumsy handling, it leaves parts of the body open that it otherwise protects effectively, as also at e.g. 4.468  f. (side of the torso), 11.423–425 (abdomen), 12.389 (arm), 16.400 (chest [iteratum]), ‘Hes.’ Sc. 460  f. (thigh, probably also to be imagined at 308  f. in the case of Areïlykos): AH on 308; Janko on 311–312;

310 ὀστέον: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — γαίῃ: = γῇ; on the -η after -ι-, R 2. 311 κάππεσ(ε): 290n. — ἀτάρ: ‘but, yet’, here progressive: ‘then’ (R 24.2), in a wider sense correlative with 307 πρῶτος. — οὖτα: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of οὐτά(ζ)ω.

148 

 Iliad 16

Hainsworth on 11.375  ff.; on the role of the shield in duels in the Iliad in general, cf. Bershadsky 2010, 7  f., 10  f., 15. – As a rule, Homeric warriors wear a corselet (made of metal, cloth and/or leather) (3.332n. with bibliography; in addition Shear 2000, 46–48; Buchholz 2010, 214  ff.); the narrator omits the fact that it is hewn or pierced through by a hit as obvious: 4.480  f., 5.18  f., 5.145, etc. (Lorimer 1950, 203  f. [with a collection of examples in nn. 2–4]; van Wees 1994, 135  f.); but cf. 14.404–406n. (Aias fights with a bare chest).

στέρνον: ‘chest’ in a general sense, in early epic notably less frequent than the synonymous στῆθος; in the sense ‘breastbone, sternum’ (a technical medical term) only in Galen. – A list of fatal injuries to the chest in Morrison 1999, 144. — λῦσε δὲ γυῖα: a VE formula (7× Il., also 2× ὑπέλυσε δὲ γυῖα, 3× λύντο δὲ γυῖα, 1× ὑπέλυντο δὲ γυῖα [341], 1× λύθεν δ’ ὕπο φαίδιμα γυῖα [805]), ‘cause to go limp, cause to collapse’, in the active usually a euphemism for ‘kill’, mid.-pass. commonly of psychosomatic processes (e.g. 805; exception: 341); cf. 332n. (λῦσε μένος), 6.27n. (ὑπέλυσε μένος καὶ … γυῖα), 24.498n. (γούνατ’ ἔλυσεν); additional bibliography: Hainsworth, Introd. 12  f.; Morrison 1999, 131; Saunders 2004, 10  f.

313 2nd VH ≈  13.545 (with the same sentence structure).  — The son of Phyleus is named Meges and is a grandson of Augeias (2.627n.; CH 4). As leader of a contingent of 40 ships (2.625  ff.) and with appearances in Books 5, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 19, Meges is among the characters who play significant minor roles. – Amphiklos is an abbreviated form of Amphiklḗs, ‘he who is famed all around’; in the Iliad only here, but both forms are well attested historically (LGPN). — Shooting at the approaching enemy is a typical motif in battle scenes (element 3a: ‘circumstances of the battle’ [284–290an.]): 5.98  f., 11.95  f., 12.387– 389, 13.182  f., 13.190  f., 16.411  f., 20.386  f., also 5.238, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 333–335 (direct speeches).

Φυλεΐδης δ’ Ἄμφικλον: The sequence subj. – δέ – obj. (alternatively obj. – δέ – subj.) is a common pattern at VB at the beginning of descriptions of individual fights (in the present scene also at 330, 342, 345; 335 is similar); cf. Visser 1987, 93–99.

314 1st VH = 322 (‘phrase-cluster’: Hainsworth 1976, 86). — The motif ‘a warrior preempting the attack of another’ is ‘among the recurrent elements of battle descriptions in the Iliad’; subsequently again at 322 (Stoevesandt 2004, 166  f. [transl.], with a collection of examples). — The specification of details, as here (‘where the thigh muscle is greatest’), lends an apparently realistic appearance to injuries, but ultimately has the function of poetic exaggeration in the sense

312 στέρνον: acc. of respect (R  19.1), with γυμνωθέντα (‘naked’ in the sense ‘uncovered, exposed’). — παρ’ ἀσπίδα: ‘beside the shield’. 313 δοκεύσας: with acc. + part., ‘wait for the right moment when someone …’.

Commentary 

 149

‘exactly in the lethal spot’, thus esp. 5.305  f., 8.81–86, 13.545–549, 13.567–575, 16.481, 22.325 (Friedrich [1956] 2003, 34  f., 41  f.; Salazar 2000, 130; collection of examples: Kelly 2007, 126  f.). From a medical point of view, a thigh injury can lead to death via severe blood loss, but not immediately: ‘Very few wounds in the Iliad would cause sudden death, yet most Homeric fighters seem to die that way or very rapidly. It is simply a convention, and not only an ancient one. Before modern cinematic realism made death unpleasantly bloody, cowboys would drop dead tidily with an Apache arrow impacted in the shoulder-blade’ (Saunders 2003, 132; see also loc. cit. 148  f.; 1999, 359–361; Grmek 1983, 59  f.).

ὀρεξάμενος  … σκέλος: In early epic, mid. ὀρέγομαι is connected with an acc. only 3× (also 322  f. ὦμον and 23.805 χρόα, in all cases in participial constructions with φθάνειν ‘forestall’). The interpretation is disputed: (a) intransitive, with acc. of desti­ nation (‘reach back with the lance, stretch/reach for, aim at’: Sommer 1977, 107  ff., esp. 114–127; the element ‘striking’ would in this case be contained in φθάνειν, also explicitly at 322 οὐδ’ ἀφάμαρτεν); (b) transitive, with acc. obj. (‘hit’: de Boel 1988, 117  ff., esp. 120  f.). – On the temporal coincidence of the aor. part. with the predicate (ἔφθη), 24.170n. (φθεγξαμένη). — πρυμνὸν σκέλος: ‘the (upper) end, the starting point of the leg’, in a broader sense ‘thigh’, analogous to 323 (and 13.532) πρυμνὸς βραχίων of the ‘upper arm’ (at the shoulder joint); on πρυμνός denoting the base or the wider end, cf. 14.31–32n. with reference to LfgrE s.v. (the ancient interpretation as ‘lower leg’ – thus e.g. schol. bT – is factually incorrect: Erbse ad loc.; Rengakos 1994, 136). – σκέλος is a Homeric hapaxP, but is a common technical term in the Corpus hippocraticum (LfgrE). — πάχιστος: cf. 473 παχέος παρὰ μηροῦ (see ad loc.); several powerful muscle strands run through the thigh (LfgrE s.v. σκέλος; Saunders 1999, 359  f.; 2003, 148 [where also on older opinions that the reference is to the musculus glutaeus maximus, the gluteus; but Amphiklos is hit in the front]). – On the VE, cf. 4× Il. ἔνθα μάλιστα (esp. 13.568  f. in a similar context).

315 VE ≈ 20.416. — μυών: ‘muscle’, in early epic only here and 324; on the uncertain spelling (v.l. μυιών), West 2001a, 130.  — ἔγχεος αἰχμῇ: an inflectable VE formula (nom. 20.416, acc. 16.505 [with the words separated]); a prosodic alternative to δουρὸς ἀκωκή 323n. (cf. Edwards on 20.416–418).

316 2nd VH = 6.11, etc. (see ad loc., in total 11× Il., 1× h.Hom.). — The expression ‘darkness enveloped his eyes’ is a formulaic phrase denoting the moment of death (cf. 503n.) in contrast to the phrase ‘see the light’ = ‘live, be alive’ (188n.). It is formulated from the perspective of the dying individual, like English ‘everything went black’ (Marg 1976, 12: an ‘internal result’). – ‘Envelop’ (and ‘pour around’: 344n.) is a common way to express changes in the state of con-

314  f. ἔνθα πάχιστος  | μυὼν ἀνθρώπου πέλεται: πάχιστος predicative, ‘where the muscle of a person is thickest’; πέλεται = ἐστίν.

150 

 Iliad 16

sciousness up to and including loss of consciousness (death, fainting, sleep, emotions): 2.19n. with bibliography; also Bremer 1976, 40–42; Clarke 1999, 241  f.; cf. 18.22n.

νεῦρα: The basic meaning is ‘sinews, ligaments’, only here of the human body; in the present context perhaps ‘muscle strands’ (Laser 1983, 11). ‘The aim is probably to add another gruesome detail to the description’: Niens 1987, 73  f. [transl.] — διεσχίσθη: intransitive ‘tear apart’, a hapaxP in the Iliad (cf. Od. 9.70  f. of the wind that rips apart sails). — τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσ’ ἐκάλυψεν: On the numerous variants for the expression ‘darkness came over his eyes’, see 6.11n. (with bibliography; also Mueller [1984] 2009, 84  f.; Turkeltaub 2005, 179  f.). Like σκότος, ἀχλύς, νύξ, νεφέλη and θανάτου μέλαν νέφος also occur as terms related to darkness in the context of death (LfgrE s.v. ἀχλύς 1763.77  ff.). In what follows, cf. 325, 333  f., 344, 350 (see 349–350n.), 414, 502  f., 607, 687.

317–329 Fighting pairs of brothers (and their revenge for one another, their deaths) are a typical motif in epic, although the present passage, with one pair of brothers fighting against another, is unique in the Iliad (Fenik 1968, 11, 196; Janko on 317–329 [p. 358]; 6.21–28n., with bibliography; on avenging a brother in particular, Fenik loc. cit. 12, 88; Hellmann 2000, 113; on the revenge motif in general, 398n.). – The appearance of the Lykians Atymnios (317n.) and Maris (319n.) anticipatesP the major and likewise deadly appearance of Sarpedon himself at 419  ff. (Wiessner 1940, 81; Aceti 2008, 90  f.; Janko on 317–329 [p. 357  f.]; on this type of anticipation in general, Edwards, Introd. 19  ff.).

On a linguistic level, the double battle of brothers is reflected by the complex syntactic structure and the switch of subjects: Νεστορίδαι δ’ ὃ μὲν … Ἀντίλοχος – weapon (318) – ἤριπε δὲ …· Μάρις δ(ὲ) … · τοῦ δ’ … Θρασυμήδης – weapon (323  f.) – δούπησεν δὲ …; in addition, ἄφαρ has an unusual position at the end of the sentence (323n.), and there is an increased frequency of predicates at VB and VE in 322/324/325. Cf. the analysis in Bakker 1997, 101  ff.

317 In Homeric epic, Nestor has a total of seven sons; six are named in the list at Od. 3.413–415 (minus Antilochos, who dies in the Trojan War: Od. 4.187  f.), with only four of them appearing in the sacrifice scene there. More significant roles are played by Peisistratos (friend of Telemachos) in the Odyssey and Thrasymedes (14.10n) and especially Antilochos (CH 4) in the Iliad; the latter two frequently act jointly, as they do here (19.238–240n.). — The Lykian Atymnios is fighting together with his brother Maris (319n.) in Sarpedon’s contingent (327). Amisodaros, the father of the two, is supposed to have raised the Chimera in Lykia (328  f.; post-Homeric evidence for possible additional links between the myths are discussed in Aceti 2008, 205–210). In the Iliad, 316 τὸν … ὄσσ(ε): acc. of the whole and the part; τόν is an anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); ὄσσε = ‘eyes’ (dual).

Commentary 

 151

the name Atymnios also occurs in the patronymic of the Paphlagonian Mydon (5.580  f.: Atymniades, likewise killed by Antilochos [Beye 1964, 356  f.]; on the Paphlagonians, 2.851n.); the name also appears to be Karian, as is suggested by names such as Tymnes, father of Histiaios, the ruler of Karian Termera (Herodotus 5.37, 7.98) as well as Tymnessos and Tymnos, two Karian cities (Steph. Byz. τ 220/221; on Tymnos, see BNP with bibliography; on Tymnessos – attested in Greek on coins, in Lykian by inscriptions [tuminehi] – Borchhardt et al. 2003; Neumann 2007, 388  f.). The component -ymn- likely comes from Asia Minor, thus e.g. in the names of the town Methymna and of Mount Lepetymnos on Lesbos, as well as in the Lykian personal name A-/Ermedymnos (cf. von Kamptz 165; Scherer 1976, 42  f.). Should the prefix a- indicate association, Atymnios would be ‘the one from Tymnos’ (von Kamptz 288  f.; Scherer loc. cit.). Additional bibliography: von Kamptz 287  f.; Wathelet s.v.; Janko on 16.317–329 (p. 358  f.).

Νεστορίδαι ὃ μὲν  …: a distributive apposition (with nom. of the whole [thematic word]: 3.211n.). The construction is breached by Μάρις δ(έ) at 319; ὃ μέν is actually only picked up by τοῦ δ’ ἀντίθεος Θρασυμήδης … at 321, 12.400–404 is similar (schol. A; AH; Chantr. 2.15  f.; Hahn 1954, 207  f.). — ὃ μέν: with Ἀντίλοχος as an appositive in enjambment (318; similarly 339  f., 479  f.). The combination of a demonstrative anaphoric pronoun with a name (or noun-epithet formula) in the same case is a typical phenomenon of oral narration: Bakker 1997, 91  f., 198  f.; cf. schol. A, b, T on 3.18. — οὔτασ(ε): likely a secondary formation related to the athematic root aor. οὖτα (24n., end; Meister 1921, 103  f.; Tucker 1990, 211  f.). — ὀξέϊ δουρί: an inflectable VE formula (dat. 11× Il., acc. pl. ὀξέα δοῦρα 3× Od.; also nom./acc. pl. 4× Il. in verse middle [including at 772]). On the use of the formula, 284n.; on the synonymous use of δόρυ and ἔγχος (318), 139–140n.; on the related VE formula οὔτασε δουρί, 597n.

318 λαπάρης: ‘loins’; additional terms localizing injuries in the abdominal area are γαστήρ (465n.), κενεών (821n.), νηδύς ‘abdomen’, ζώνη ‘hip’, βουβών ‘groin’, πρότμητις (-σις) ‘area of the navel’ (Laser 1983, 33  f.; cf. 481 φρένες [see ad loc.], and 13.568 αἰδοίων τε μεσηγὺ καὶ ὀμφαλοῦ – where injuries are thought to be particularly painful [13.568  f.]). A list of deadly abdominal injuries in the Iliad at Morrison 1999, 144. — χάλκεον ἔγχος: a VE formula (nom./acc. 17× Il., 5× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’; also 1× Il. at VB; 3.317n.). The expression is normally used in the context of a successful or nearly successful hit (in case the opponent dodges in time: 610), whereas the metrically equivalent μείλινον ἔγχος is used for misses or when the missile is withdrawn from the wound (6.65n.; Parry [1928] 1971, 183; Cosset 1983, 196–198; cf. 309n.). – The attribute refers to the bronze lance head, cf. 118 αἰχμὴ χαλκείη (3.380an.; cf. 345n., end).

317 δουρί: on the declension, R 12.5. 318 λαπάρης: gen. dependent on δι-ήλασεν, ‘right through the loins’; on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2.

152 

 Iliad 16

319 1st VH = 20.456; ≈ 5.58, Od. 22.296. — Like Atymnios (317n.), Maris is a name from Asia Minor, attested in Phrygia and Cilicia (Scherer 1976, 43); in the form Mares, it belongs to a mythological character in the pseudo-Hesiodic epic Melampodia (‘Hes.’ fr. 271.1 M.-W.); see also von Kamptz 328; Wathelet s.v.; LfgrE s.v.

ἤριπε: an intransitive aor. of ἐρείπω, ‘fell to the ground’, i.e. ‘fell (dead), died’ (310– 311n.; cf. 289–290n.); almost always at VB (20× Il., 1× Od., 2× Hes.; exceptions: simile at 482 with iterata, as well as 3× compounds of ἤριπε). Atymnios is the subject.  — αὐτοσχεδά: a by-form, attested only here, of αὐτοσχεδόν (9× early epic), ‘in/from the immediate proximity, in close combat’, always with verbs of fighting, attacking or striking (thus also σχεδόν alone: 828, etc., σχεδόθεν 807, etc.; see Trümpy 1950, 92, 98, 107). A deverbative adv. related to ἔχω/ἔσχον in the sense ‘holding on to, ensuing’ > ‘close by’ (Frisk s.v. σχεδόν; cf. 160n. on ἀγεληδόν). On the form in -α: LfgrE and Rau 2006, 216  f. (‘pluralization’); additional bibliography on adverbs in -δόν: 2.89n.

320 1st VH ≈ 13.550, 15.579; 2nd VH ≈ 4.494, 13.660, 18.337, 23.23. — Anger triggering a counterattack is a typical motif in vengeance scenes: 4.494, 13.660/662, 16.546, 16.553, 16.585, 24.736 (Stoevesandt 2004, 233; Walsh 2005, 175–182); on the motif of revenge in general, 398n. – ‘Brother’ is a periphrastic denomi­ nationP in secondary focalizationP by Maris; together with ‘two brothers’ at 326, it underlines the pair of brothers motif (suggestion by de Jong; cf. 317–329n.).

A four-word verse (125–126n.). — Ἀντιλόχῳ ἐπόρουσε: The hiatus is perhaps due to a ‘formula modification’ of Ἀντίλοχος δ’ ἐπόρουσε (13.550, 15.579).

321 Stepping in front of the corpse connotes an ‘intention to protect’, as also at 4.129, 11.396  f. (Kurz 1966, 92; Kelly 2007, 141  f.); also ‘around the dead’: 4.532, 5.299, 17.4/267/355/359.

τοῦ: a possessive gen. with ὦμον (323), as at 308 Ἀρηϊλύκου with μηρόν: Sommer 1977, 124–127; De Boel 1988, 120 with n. 10. — ἀντίθεος Θρασυμήδης: a noun-epithet formula at VE, also at Od. 3.414; prosodically equivalent variant: αἰχμητὴς Θρ. ‘Hes.’ fr. 35.10 M.-W.; metrical variants: ὑπέρθυμος Θρ. Od. 3.448, μενεπτόλεμος Θρ. Il. 10.255, Od. 3.442; acc. Θρασυμήδεα ποιμένα λαῶν Il. 9.81, gen. Θρασυμήδεος ἱπποδάμοιο 14.10 (see ad loc.). – ἀντίθεος ‘god-like’ is a generic epithetP of numerous heroes (LfgrE s.v.; Dee 2000, 497; most frequently of Sarpedon [648–649n.] and Odysseus; also in the pl., including 2× of the Lykians [421n.]). On the use next to one another of the metrically equivalent epithets ἀντίθεος and ἱππόδαμος (Thrasymedes) and ἀντίθεος and ἴφθιμος (Lycians), see Parry (1928) 1971, 185–187 (epithets ‘applicable’ to several heroes); Sacks 1987, 154–161 (differences occasioned by the case).

319 προπάροιθε: here adv., ‘forward’. — δουρί: dat. of accompaniment, ‘with spear in hand’. 320 κασιγνήτοιο: causal gen. with χολωθείς; on the declension, R 11.2. 321 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).

Commentary 

 153

322 1st VH = 314 (see ad loc.). — ‘Hit and not miss’ is a rhetorical polar expressionP (general bibliography: 3.59n., end). — οὐδ’ ἀφάμαρτεν: a VE formula (4× Il.; also 2× in verse middle after καὶ βάλεν); similarly at VB 3.215 οὐδ’ ἀφαμαρτοεπής. 323 On the shoulder, see 289–290n. — ἄφαρ: with ἔφθη ὀρεξάμενος, ‘quickly (before …)’ (πρὶν οὐτάσαι); an adv. at the end of a sentence is rare in early epic (e.g. θοῶς at 5.533): AH; LfgrE s.v. 1695.73  ff., 1698.23  ff. (with additional examples from post-Homeric lyric texts). — πρυμνὸν … βραχίονα: 314n.; on the word formation of βραχίων, cf. 821n. (on κενεῶνα). — δουρὸς ἀκωκή: an inflectable VE formula (nom./dat. 6× Il., 1× Od.); variant: 315n.

324 ‘The Homeric spear does not inflict a neat puncture but an extensive wound’: Hainsworth on 11.95–96; skeptical Saunders 2003, 159  f.: discrepancy of weapon and injury.

δρύψ’ ἀπὸ μυώνων: either ‘tore off the arm from the muscles’ (thus schol. D; Leaf; Hahn 1954, 269 n. 335) or ‘stripped the arm from the muscles, peeled the arm from out of the muscles’ (AH; Laser 1983, 10); cf. LfgrE: ‘shred off from’. — ἄχρις: here probably = ‘wholly’ (LfgrE; Kirk on 4.522). — ἀπὸ … ἄραξεν: ‘struck down, struck off’ (sc. the humerus from the shoulder joint): LfgrE; Saunders 1999, 361; 2003, 159. – Double ἀπὸ in the verse underlines the force of the blow: everything happens very quickly.

325 ≈ 15.578 (concordance interpolation); 2nd VH ≈ 6.11, etc. (see ad loc.; 316n.). — δούπησεν δὲ πεσών: a VB formula (19× Il., 2× Od.), always of warriors fatally hit (element 6 of typical fighting scenes: 284–290an., 289–290n.), in reference to the dull impact on the ground and perhaps also the rattling of the armor during the fall (6× Il. and 1× Od., in each case stated explicitly in the 2nd VH with ἀράβησε δὲ τεύχε’ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ): Krapp 1964, 189; cf. 822n. – On the variatio in the combination and phrasing of the two elements (a) ‘fell crashing to the ground’ and (b) ‘died’ (e.g. also 344, 599), see Kirk on 5.42 and 5.58; Mueller (1984) 2009, 84  f.; Pagani 2008, 387 (a collection of examples). — κατὰ δὲ …: in place of the more common τὸν/τὴν δὲ … (316n.; κατὰ δέ elsewhere only as v.l. at 15.578), perhaps because τὸν δέ is rare with an unchanged logical subj. after δούπησεν: 250n. (Bekker 1872, 162  f.; Kelly 2007, 395  f.; cf. Higbie 1990, 162  f.).

326–329 Biographical details pertaining to the dead warrior – so-called ‘obituaries’ – are a typical expansion of Homeric fighting scenes; here the focus is on the motif ‘genealogy of the victim’ (287–290an.). 326 ὣς τὼ μὲν …: a summaryP (1n.), as frequently at the end of a fight (5.84, 5.627, 11.309, etc.; similar summaries – likewise after the death of a pair of brothers – at 5.559  f. and 11.262  f.), but with this much detail only here (with additional information regarding the characters concerned): Fenik 1968, 88; Richardson 1990, 213 n. 37. – The dual τώ

322 οὐδ(έ): in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 323 ὦμον: acc. object of ὀρεξάμενος. 324 ἀπὸ … ἄραξεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); likewise 325 κατὰ … ἐκάλυψεν.

154 

 Iliad 16

connotes ‘the two brothers’, in correlation with δοιοῖσι κασιγνήτοισι (pathetic: Janko on 326–329). — κασιγνήτοισι δαμέντε: on the dat. of agent with δάμνημι, 3.183n.

327 2nd VH ≈ 5.663/692. — ‘Erebos’ is a term for ‘darkness’ derived from an IE root, usually in indications of direction or provenance (‘into/from Erebos’), synonymous with the ‘underworld’ where Hades dwells with the dead (an image of death rarely employed in Homeric narrator-text: 625n.); in Hesiod’s genealogy, an offspring of ‘Chaos’: DELG; LfgrE; West on Hes. Th. 123.

βήτην εἰς Ἔρεβος: a singular, powerful expression for ‘they died’ (Janko on 326–329). On similar expressions, 3.322n. (δῦναι δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω), 6.19n. (γαῖαν ἐδύτην); also Od. 20.356 ἱεμένων Ἔρεβόσδε (of the εἴδωλα), Hes. Op. 153 βῆσαν ἐς εὐρώεντα δόμον κρυεροῦ Ἀΐδαο (of men of the Bronze race). — ἐσθλοὶ ἑταῖροι: an inflectable VE formula (nom. pl./acc. sing., in total 5× Il., 7× Od.), prosodic variant of πιστὸς/ὸν ἑταῖρος/ον (18.235n., with bibliography). ἐσθλός ‘is largely descriptive («competent», «valorous», «useful») not moralistic («good»)’ (de Jong on Il. 22.359–360; 19.122n. with bibliography; also Yamagata 1994, 192  ff.).

328 Like the names Atymnios and Maris, Amisodaros is non-Greek and attested only here. The final element -daros recalls other Lykian names like Pandaros (whose homeland is not the well-known Lykia but an area by the same name northeast of Troy [LfgrE s.v. Λυκίη; West 2011, 64]) and Pixodaros (also Karian; Zgusta 1964, 431  f.; Neumann 2007, 269  f.; BNP), but also names attested in Linear B, e.g. qa-si-da-ro, tu-*56-da-ro, etc. (Heubeck 1961, 57; Mühlestein [1965] 1987, 6; Billigmeier 1970, 178  f., 182; Scherer 1976, 41  f.; von Kamptz 347; DMic s.vv.).  – Amisodaros’ role as the Chimera’s tutor is attested only in the present passage; the post-Homeric references (few in number) to this character accordingly remain mysterious (schol. T cites an interpretation by the historian Xenomedes, according to whom Amisodaros was the ruler of Karia and father-in-law of Bellerophontes [who elsewhere, however, is called Iobates: 6.170n.]; according to a different hypothesis loc. cit., the mention of the tutor is merely designed to lend historical plausibility to the story of the Chimera); see also RE s.v. – On the Chimera, 6.179–182n.

ἀκοντισταί: ‘spear-thrower’, a hapaxP in the Iliad, later a technical term for a division of lightly armed warriors, here probably generalizing = ‘warrior’; cf. 167n. (on ἀσπιδιώτης).

329 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Th. 570; cf. Op. 223. — On the expression ‘an ill for many men’, cf. 262 (wasp simile, see 259–267n.). 326 ὥς: =  οὕτως.  — τὼ  … δαμέντε: dual; τώ is an anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R  17); δαμέντε is the aor. pass. part. of δάμνημι/δαμά(ζ)ω. 327 βήτην: dual, ‘they went’. 328 υἷες: on the declension, R 12.3. — ῥα: = ἄρα, ‘as is well known, indeed’ (R 24.1). 329 πολέσιν: on the declension, R 12.2. — κακόν: predicative, ‘as an evil/disaster for …’.

Commentary 

 155

ἀμαιμακέτην: an epithet of uncertain etymology and manifold use, perhaps ‘of tempestuous character’ (6.179n.; Graziosi/Haubold on 6.179); on the fem. ending, see 122–123n. (on ἀσβέστη).

330 2nd VH ≈  13.541.  — The so-called ‘Lesser Aias’, the son of Oïleus (CH 3; 2.527n.), is usually outshone in the Iliad by his namesake, the son of Telamon, and has few individual appearances, in some of which he creates an ambivalent impression (e.g. at 13.202  ff.: he hurls an opponent’s severed head at Hektor’s feet, 14.520  ff.: specializes in the pursuit of fleeing opponents, 23.748  ff.: is defeated by Odysseus in a race when Athene makes him slip; but portrayed positively at 14.442  ff. [14.442n.]). Here he captures – thanks to his speed? – a Trojan who had become stuck in the throng, and kills him: schol. bT; Whitman 1958, 164  f.; 14.520n.  — The name Kleoboulos occurs only here in early epic, but subsequently is common throughout the Greek world (cf. Wathelet s.v. [with n. 3]; LGPN s.v.; an inscription on a late Corinthian hydria depicting the duels from Book 16, bibliography on this at 287n. [on Pyraichmes]), and likely means ‘with famous counsel’ (or ‘he who is famed for his counsel’): von Kamptz 87; on the initial element, cf. in the Iliad the name Kleopatra (9.556). Nothing else is known about the character. 331 Warriors who are accidentally unfit to fight (like Kleoboulos) or are surprised by their opponents in an unarmed state, are initially captured alive, giving them a chance to plead for their lives; thus Adrestos who fell from his chariot (6.37  ff.; VB of 331 ≈ 6.38), Peisandros and Hippolochos after losing control of their team of horses (11.122  ff.), Lykaon who set aside his weapons in exhaustion (21.34  ff., esp. 49  ff.). Here the plea for mercy is to be supplied, either in the sense of a gapP (although the plea remains unfulfilled, as in the parallel passages mentioned) or, more likely, Kleoboulos has no opportunity to utter it: he is killed ‘on the spot’ (Janko on 330–334; Fenik 1968, 197; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 33–37; Stoevesandt 2004, 149  f.; 6.37–65n.; cf. Gould 1973, 81).

βλαφθέντα κατὰ κλόνον: ‘tangled in the chaos’ (LfgrE s.v. κλόνος), ‘wedged in the crowd’ (Kurz 1966, 22 n. 23); in Homeric epic, βλάπτομαι frequently means ‘get out of step’ vel sim. (6.39n.). The phrase κατὰ κλόνον also at 713, 789 and 21.422 (always in the same position in the verse). — αὖθι: ‘on the spot’, frequently in the context of a killing, cf. esp. τοῦ δ’ αὖθι λύθη (ψυχή τε) μένος (τε) (5.296, 8.123, 8.315, 17.298).

332 2nd VH ≈  20.475.  — An opponent frequently receives his final, fatal injury from a sword; those dealing out the sword blows are usually famous heroes, like Aias here (Niens 1987, 31  f.; Shear 2000, 49  f.; cf. 115n.). The neck is a typi-

330 Κλεόβουλον: acc. object of ζωὸν ἕλε, not ἐπορούσας (which is construed with the dat.). 331 ἀλλά (ϝ)οι: on the hiatus, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ.

156 

 Iliad 16

cal spot for (fatal) injuries from a sword, spear, arrow or thrown stone (Grmek 1983, 55  f.; examples: Morrison 1999, 143 n. 65); cf. 339n. on decapitation by sword.

λῦσε μένος, πλήξας ξίφει: a hysteron proteron vis-à-vis the arrangement of sentence elements (implication: everything is happening very quickly); a similar phrasing, but in the ‘correct’ sequence, occurs at 11.240: ‘struck with the sword into his neck and loosened his limbs’ (Janko on 330–334; Clarke 1999, 240 n. 21). On the temporal coincidence of the aor. part. (πλήξας) with the predicate (λῦσε μένος), 24.170n. (φθεγξαμένη). — λῦσε μένος: like λῦσε δὲ γυῖα (312n.), an expression for ‘kill’; μένος means ‘energy, vigor, vitality’: Böhme 1929, 11–19 (on the phrase μένος λύειν, loc. cit. 13  f. with a collection of examples in n. 2); Redfield (1975) 1994, 171–174; Bremmer 1983, 57–60; Jahn 1987, 40–45; LfgrE; cf. 1.103n., 6.27n. — κωπήεντι: always at VE in the Iliad (iteratum and at 15.713), probably not merely ‘fitted with a sword grip’ but pregnantly ‘fitted with a handsome, strong sword grip’ (Ebeling; Risch 153; cf. Lorimer 1950, 275  f.). On sword grips in general, 1.219n. with bibliography; on the system of sword epithets, Düntzer (1864) 1979, 105; Paraskevaides 1984, 20–22; Trümpy 1950, 62  f.

333–334 = 20.476  f. (cf. 332n.); from caesura C 2 on = 5.82  f.; also 334 = Il. parv. fr. 29.5 West; on the 2nd VH of 334, 24.132n. (in total 6× early epic). — Blood flowing or spurting from a wound, or warming, drenching, smearing or coloring an object (weapon, body part, the ground, etc.), is a graphic detail in depictions of wounding, cf. 5.100 (corselet spattered with blood), 5.113 (blood spurts through clothing), 16.348  f. (eyes filled with blood), 16.795  f. (crest smeared with blood), 17.51  f. (hair drenched with blood), 20.470  f. (fold of garment filled with blood), etc. (Neal 2006, 203–209; Holmes 2007, 60–62; cf. 159n.). In comparison with the explicit phrasing at 340 (‘the sword sank deep inside’), the depth and therefore the lethalness of the injury is evoked indirectly here: ‘the entire sword turned warm’ (schol. bT on 11.534  f. and 20.476  f. [with Nünlist 2009, 209  f.]; Friedrich [1956] 2003, 36; on the fact that metal is usually cold, see 5.75 with schol. D ad loc.). – In the phrase ‘death seized someone’, death appears ‘as a figurative victor who always comes after his mortal counterpart and completes the former’s work’: Tsagalis 2004, 181  f.

ὑπεθερμάνθη: The prefix ὑπο- has been interpreted in various ways: (a) ‘gradually, little by little’, perhaps developed from the locative meaning ‘from below (i.e. from the tip)’: Sommer 1934, 8 n. 3; Schw. 2.524; Chantr. 2.138; (b) ‘somewhat, partially’ (with an attenuation of the main idea): LSJ; Kretschmer 1935/36, 207  f. (‘warmed up’); (c) relating to effect, ‘in this way, in the process, from that’: La Roche 1861a, 43; Leaf; Else 1959, 97. Given its negligible significance in this context, interpretation (c) is probably the least appropriate. – Similar issues occur at 5.502 (winnowed chaff on the threshing floor): αἳ δ’ ὑπολευκαίνονται ἀχυρμιαί, (a) ‘gradually turns white’ or (b) ‘turns somewhat white (whiteish)’; Od. 7.126 (of ripening grapes): ὑποπερκάζουσιν, (a) ‘are gradually turning dark’ or (b) ‘turn partially dark’; see LfgrE s.vv. ἀχυρμι(ή) and ὑποπερκάζω; Dürbeck

Commentary 

 157

1985, 35–37. — τὸν δὲ κατ’ ὄσσε: VE = 5.82, 20.476; similarly τὼ δέ οἱ ὄσσε 19.365n., ἐν δέ οἱ ὄσσε 19.16n., verb + δέ οἱ ὄσσε 16.792 (≈ Od. 12.232, 20.204). On the image, 316n. — ἔλλαβε … θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα: sing., since the two nouns were perceived as a single term (63n.): ‘fate of death’ in the sense ‘inevitable death’ vel sim., likewise at 24.132 παρέστηκεν θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα (see ad loc.). – On verbs of seizing with physical and mental processes, see 22n. on βεβίηκεν, 30n. on λάβοι; in a similar context: 607 στυγερὸς δ’ ἄρα μιν σκότος εἷλεν (Clarke 1999, 242  f.). — πορφύρεος θάνατος: πορφύρεος can denote color and/or movement (‘purple colored, iridescent, undulating’: 24.645n.; likewise the verb πορφύρω at 14.16n.). Since the present formulaic verse in the Iliad always follows immediately after a mention of blood (5.82 αἱματόεσσα δὲ χεὶρ πεδίῳ πέσε, here and at 20.476 ὑπεθερμάνθη ξίφος αἵματι), the meaning ‘blood-red, bloody’ is likely (at 17.360  f. πορφύρεος is itself an attribute of αἷμα): Dietrich 1965, 198 n. 12; Kirk on 5.82–83; Grand-Clément 2004, 130  f. A metaphorical meaning ‘dark, gloomy’ is also possible, as with other epithets of death, night, et sim. (AH on 5.83; Moreux 1967, 263–268). Differently Tichy 1983, 282  f. n. 150, and Longo 1998, 127  f.: the reference is to ‘blackness descending before the eyes’ (cf. 316n.); Eck 2012, 187–193: a change of color in the eyes of dying individuals; Kelly 2007, 236  f.: signals a threat. – On the epithets of θάνατος in general: Vermeule 1979, 39, 219  f. — μοῖρα κραταιή: a VE formula (24.132n.); κραταιή is the most common epithet of μοῖρα beside ὀλο(ι)ή (Dietrich 1965, 194  f.; cf. 849n.).

335–341 Formally, the scene is structured in a broader sense in accord with the ABC-schemeP (287–290an.), with section B (335b–336) containing not characterizations of characters but the immediately preceding events on the battlefield (namely in the manner of synonym doubling in a hysteron proteron: ‘they had missed each other and had shot in vain’, cf. 187–188n.). Section C (337–341) is introduced by the keyword ‘they collided’ from 335 and describes events in brief, paratactically arranged and strongly enjambed clauses (Friedrich [1956] 2003, 122 n. 28; Kirk 1976, 102  f. [‘violent and staccato action’]; Bakker 1997, 154  f.; Janko on 335–336; cf. 60–63n., end. and 345–350n., end). – In terms of the course of the fighting, the scene follows the themeP ‘duel’ (3.340–382n.; 419–683n.); the following elements are realized: (3) first round of fighting, conducted with spears, here characterized by unsuccessful throws on both sides (‘initial miss’: Fenik 1968, 145  f.) and (4) second round of fighting, conducted with different weapons (here swords), here characterized by the simultaneous attack of the two opponents (‘simultaneous attack’: loc. cit.), in which the Trojan merely manages to damage his opponent’s armor, whereas the Greek lands a lethal blow with his sword. Closest (albeit more detailed) parallel: 13.601  ff.  – Bibliography: Fenik loc. cit. 145  f., 197; Mueller (1984) 2009, 79; Stoevesandt 2004, 170  f.; Janko on 335–341.

335 ἔγχεσι μέν: the contrast follows in 337 (τὼ δ’ αὖτις ξιφέεσσι).

158 

 Iliad 16

335 Peneleos is the most prominent Boiotian leader (2.494n.). At 14.487  ff. (see ad loc.), he also kills his opponent (Ilioneus) with a sword blow to the neck – after first unsuccessfully attacking Akamas, who dies here at 342  ff. at the hands of Meriones. At 17.597–600, Polydamas inflicts a slight injury on Peneleos. The name is likely related to ‘Penelope’ (related to pēnélops, name of a water bird; LfgrE with bibliography). — The name Lykon occurs only here in early epic, but is common later throughout the Greek world (cf. Wathelet s.v.; LGPN s.v.). It is probably in origin an abbreviated form of a compound such as Lykophontēs, Lykophrōn vel sim. (‘wolf-’). Nothing else is known about the character (Wathelet loc. cit.).

συνέδραμον: resultive aor., ‘they collided’; the compound is attested in early epic only in the present episode (335, 337). Cf. συνίτην 476n.

336 ἤμβροτον …, μέλεον δ’ ἠκόντισαν: see 335–341n. 337 ξιφέεσσι: picked up again by φάσγανον in 339; on the interchangeability of ξίφος, φάσγανον and ἄορ in Homeric epic, 115n. – On the form, G 70. 338 1st VH (to caesura C 2) ≈ 13.614. — ἱπποκόμου κόρυθος φάλον: 216n. — ἀμφί: probably adverbial in the sense ‘broke in two upon it (sc. on the helmet)’, cf. 3.362  f. ἀμφὶ δ’ ἄρ’ αὐτῇ (sc. κόρυθι) | … διατρυφὲν (sc. ξίφος) ἔκπεσε χειρός. — καλόν: καλός is an epithet of φάσγανον also at 15.713, 23.807  f., here with the reference word in enjambment (simi­ larly at 13.611 εἵλετο καλὴν | ἀξίνην, see 104–105n.): perhaps an emphatic contrast bet­ ween the beauty of the sword and its destruction. – On the v.l. καυλόν, cf. 115n. (literally the socket of the spear head; here probably the extension of the sword blade enclosed by the sword grip, namely the tang; i.e. the sword broke where the grip is attached. Discussion and bibliography in LfgrE s.v.; Janko on 338–340).

339 VE ≈ 20.481. — Swords (here and at 3.362  f.), spears (13.161  f., 16.801, 17.607) and arrows (11.584) can break in battle: a tangible sign of failure (cf. 3.363n.; Bergold 1977, 111). The fact that immediately afterward a sword can cut (almost) entirely through Peneleos’ neck (a complete decapitation at e.g. 20.481– 483) underlines the contrast between victor and victim.  – In Homeric epic, sword blows to the neck regularly cause decapitation (10.455–457, 11.146  f., 14.496–498 [where also Peneleos], 20.481  f., Od. 22.326–329; cf. 332n.); on decapitation scenes in general, Mueller (1984) 2009, 82. – Blows ‘below the ear’ (or ‘below the jaw and ear’) are always fatal (Il. 13.177  f., 13.671, 16.606, 17.617; so too ‘at the ear’/’above the ear’ at 11.109 and 15.433; Morrison 1999, 143  f.): ‘the helmet left the lowest section of the neck unprotected’ (AH [transl.]). 336 ἤμβροτον: aor. of ἁμαρτάνω ‘miss’ (with gen.). — μέλεον: adv., ‘futilely, unsuccessfully’. 337 τὼ … συνέδραμον: dual and plural forms can be combined freely (R 18.1). — ξιφέεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3. 338 ἤλασεν: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἐλαύνω ‘hit, strike’.

Commentary 

 159

Odysseus also strikes Iros ‘on the neck below the ear’ with his fist (Od. 18.96 with Steiner ad loc.).

ὃ δ(ὲ) …: with a personal name following in enjambment (317n. on ὃ μέν), here with a character introduced earlier (named already at 335): Bakker 1990, 16; 1997a, 296. — θεῖνεν: ‘slashed, struck (lethally)’; in military contexts, usually of sword blows/thrusts (Trümpy 1950, 97  f.). Beside the reduplicated thematic root aor. ἔπεφνον ‘killed’, the sigmatic aor. ἔθεινα (< *ἔ-θεν-σα) is considered secondary (both related to the IE root *gu̯ hen- [3.281n.]): Schw. 1.755; Chantraine (1945) 1961, 180  f.

340–341 The description of the sword ‘plunging in entirely’ finds a close parallel at 21.117  f. (Achilleus kills Lykaon); cf. 333–334n. The head, hanging by only a bit of skin, is ‘a highly affected idea […] without parallel in Homer’ (Niens 1987, 76 [transl.]; similarly Friedrich [1956] 2003, 20  f.; differently Saunders 2003, 144: ‘If one accepts that the neck can be severed by a single sword blow, clearly it can be almost severed, which is what is described here’). The atrocity is intensified in the next but one (and thus last) killing in this androktasiē scene (345  ff., see ad loc.) and then increasingly so in the further course of the story of the Iliad (Segal 1971, 20 with n. 3).

ἔσχεθε: absolute ‘persisted, stood his ground, was standing still’ (AH; Leaf; van Leeuwen [with parallels]); 740  f. οὐδέ οἱ ἔσχεν | ὀστέον (a stone throw) is similar.

341 δέρμα: elsewhere in early epic usually of the ‘flayed animal skin’; of human skin, sepa­rated from the body, elsewhere only at Od. 13.431  f. (Athene gives Odysseus the skin of an old man). Cf. LfgrE s.vv. δέρμα and ῥινός. — ὑπέλυντο δὲ γυῖα: 312n.

342 2nd VH (from caesura C 1 onward) =  h.Merc. 225 (cf. Nost. fr. 12.1 West [at verse middle]); ≈ Il. 16.809 (cf. 1st VH of 22.166). — Meriones is a Kretan lieutenant (CH 4; where also on the name [n. 17]) and frequently emerges victorious from battle scenes (in Book 16 again at 603  ff.). As a follower of Idomeneus, he often acts jointly with him, including here (Idomeneus at 345  ff.; see Michel 1971, 68  f.); what is more, his involvement in battle is here described largely in the same words as that of Idomeneus at 5.45–47. On the embeddedness of Meriones in the epic narrative tradition, 2.651n. and 19.238–240n. — Two characters in the Iliad bear the name Akamas, both on the Trojan side; the one referred to here is a leader of the Dardanians (together with Aineias) and son of Antenor (2.822  f.). Although he escapes the onslaught of Peneleos (335n.) at

339 ἐρραίσθη· ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — οὔατος: = ὠτός, ‘ear’ (gen.). 340 ἔσχεθε: poetic by-form of ἔσχε. — οἶον: ‘only, alone’. 341 παρηέρθη: ‘fell/hung to the side’. — κάρη· ὑπέλυντο: on the hiatus, R 5.6; κάρη (= τὸ κάρα) ‘head’. — ὑπέλυντο … γυῖα: the predicate of a neut. pl. can be sing. or pl. 342 κιχείς: aor. part., ‘catch up’.

160 

 Iliad 16

14.488  f., he does not manage to flee now: Meriones catches up with him and kills him. The other Akamas is a Thracian leader (2.844n.) who falls at 6.5–11 at the hands of Aias. On the name (itself Greek), see 2.823n. and 176n. (‘the indefatigable’). — On the motif ‘A catches up with B and kills him’, cf. 5.65  f. and 13.567  f. (in both examples A = Meriones, as here; on this, Fenik 1968, 18), 16.597  f.; on the motif of Trojans killed while fleeing, 308n.

κιχείς: originally from *κίχημι, like τιθείς from τίθημι. But the forms of the ancient reduplicated pres. stem *κίχημι were misunderstood as an (athematic, i.e. 1st) aor. (e.g. subjunc. κιχείω at 1.26, etc.); the part. κιχείς is attested only here. *κίχημι itself was replaced by the secondary pres. κιχάνω, which in turn gave rise to a thematic (i.e. 2nd) aor. (ἔκιχον; the metrically equivalent part. κιχών at Od. 15.157). Bibliography: Schw. 1.688, 1.698; Frisk; DELG; Ruijgh/van Krimpen 1969, 114  ff.

343 = 5.46 (and 1st VH of 344 = 5.47); in addition, 2nd VH (from caesura C 1 onward) = 5.98, 11.507, 22.133, Od. 19.452; ≈ Il. 14.450, Od. 17.462, 17.504, 18.95 (without κατά). — Mounting the chariot implies an intention to flee, as at 5.38–41, 5.45–47, 7.13–16, 8.256–260.

νύξ(ε): of close combat, usually ‘thrust, stab with the lance’ (cf. 345  f., 404  f.), less frequently with zeugma ‘with sword and lance’ (cf. 637) or with no weapon (‘push with the hands/elbow’: 704n., Od. 14.485): Trümpy 1950, 96  f.; LfgrE.

344 1st VH = 5.47, 5.294, 8.122, 8.260, 8.314, 15.452, 17.619, 20.487; 2nd VH = 5.696; ≈ Od. 22.88 (and 1st VH of Il. 20.421). — On expressions meaning ‘fell to the ground and died’, cf. 325n.; on ‘darkness descends over the eyes’, 316n. — The verb ‘pour forth’ (here with ‘darkness’ as the subject) vividly describes the process of a change of state of consciousness (including death, likewise at 414): 2.19n. with bibliography; similar usage: ‘envelop’ (316n.). 345–350 A unique description of the perforation of the skull, with echoes of the usual type, as at 11.95–98, 12.182–186 and 20.395–400 (Thornton 1984, 93– 100): the opponent thrusts his lance forward (here at 345  f.), the helmet does not withstand it (here not stated explicitly), the point of the lance penetrates the skull and shatters it (346  f.), the brain is injured as well (cf. here at 347). On injuries to the teeth and eyes, see 348n. and 349–350n. – Bleeding from the mouth and nose and hemorrhages in the eyes (or eye sockets) are characteristic symptoms of skull injuries (differently Saunders 1999, 361  f., who disputes any coherence in the present description). On head injuries in Homeric battle

343 νύξ(ε): aor. of νύσσω ‘stab, strike’. — ἵππων ἐπιβησόμενον: ‘him as he was about to climb onto the chariot’. 344 κατὰ … κέχυτο: 123n.

Commentary 

 161

scenes in general, Mueller (1984) 2009, 81  f.; in detail, Mylonas et al. 2008; a collection of examples in Morrison 1999, 143, and Mylonas et al. loc. cit.

A purely paratactic structure, linked via δέ, is typical of oral narration; an interpretation in terms of production aesthetics in Bakker 1997, 68  f.: ‘What we have here are not so much narrative statements asserting temporal sequence as descriptive visual details as they pass through the speaker’s consciousness’ (like a sequence of different camera angles in a film).

345 Idomeneus is the captain of the Kretans; he belongs to the inner circle of Greek leaders (CH 3; 2.645n.), and Meriones is his follower (342n.). – Erymas is the name of two members of the Trojan party, who die in battle a mere 70 verses apart (here fighting against Idomeneus, at 415 against Patroklos [there likely a Lykian from among Sarpedon’s troops, cf. 419  f.]). This illustrates how the narrator draws on stock names to designate extras (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 59 n. 1; Singor 1991, 52  f.; Minchin 2001, 82–84; Saunders 2004, 6–8; cf. 2.851n. [Pylaimenes]; on names used multiple times in general: schol. bT on 13.643; Friedländer 1860, 817  ff.; Bowra 1930, 77–79; Beye 1964, 354  f.; Wathelet 1989, 29  f.; Nünlist 2009, 240–242; on the term ‘extras’ [morituri], 306–357n.). These names are often derived from place names (a list in PerdicoyanniPaléologou 2001, 334–337) or are semantically suited to the context (cf. 173–195n., 175n., 180n., 399n.; Lehrs [1833] 1882, 454–458; Mühlestein [1969] 1987 passim, e.g. 35  f.; Minchin loc. cit.). Both are possible here: derivation (1) from the Pamphylian city Erymna/Orymna or perhaps from the Arkadian mountain range Erymanthos (Zgusta 1964, 175; LfgrE s.v. ‘Erymas’); (2) from the Greek stem ery- ‘protect, save’ (in this case as an abbreviated name related to Erymachos – admittedly unattested – vel sim.: von Kamptz 193; Risch 27; Wathelet s.v.; cf. Erylaos, with compositional elements that are clearly Greek, at 411, only a few verses before the second mention of Erymas at 415). – Nothing further is known of Erymas, nor is the name attested historically.

νηλέϊ χαλκῷ: on the use of the noun-epithet formula, 284n.; here of the thrusting lance: δόρυ χάλκεον (346).  – χαλκός literally denotes the material of the lance head (318n., end), but is frequently used as pars pro toto for the weapon as a whole (14.28n., end).

346 ≈  Od. 10.162 (Odysseus kills a stag).  — On the description of the weapon piercing the body, cf. 4.481  f., 5.99  f., 20.416 etc.; in the Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel 2:23: ‘wherefore Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib, that the spear came out behind him.’

346 τὸ δ(έ): to be taken with δόρυ χάλκεον.

162 

 Iliad 16

δόρυ χάλκεον: a noun-epithet formula for polearms fitted with bronze heads after caesura B 1 or C 1 (5× Il. [of which 3× in Book 16], 2× Od.); metrically equivalent: δόρυ μείλινον (114n.; Parry [1928] 1971, 183); synonymous: χαλκήρεα/-ϊ δοῦρα/δουρί (6.3n.), δοῦρε … κεκορυθμένα χαλκῷ (3.18n.), χάλκεον ἔγχος (318n.).

347 ὀστέα λευκά: a noun-epithet-formula in various positions in the verse (24.793n., where also on the ornamental epithet ‘white[ish]’). ὀστέα here likely refers to the ‘base of the skull’ (Laser 1983, 6).

348 The teeth are frequently mentioned in head injuries (5.74  f., 5.290  f., 16.404  f., 17.617  f.) but nowhere to the same extent as here (‘smashed out of’, elsewhere merely ‘pierced’ or ‘knocked out’): Friedrich (1956) 2003, 20  f.; Fenik 1968, 198.

οἱ: a sympathetic dat. (Schw. 2.189; Chantr. 2.71  f.; Tzamali 1996, 270  f.), almost possessive ‘his eyes’ (thus also termed an ‘external possessor’ in linguistics); e.g. 435, 517, 519.

349–350 Eye injuries occur in the Iliad also at 13.616  f. (with Janko ad loc.), 14.493  ff. (see ad loc.) and 16.741  f. (740–741n.). Blood in the eyes anticipates death, as it were, cf. 316 ‘darkness enveloped his eyes’: Neal 2006, 206  f.; cf. 792n. – On the image of the black cloud, 66n., 316n.

τὸ δ’ ἀνὰ στόμα καὶ κατὰ ῥῖνας  | πρῆσε: ‘he spurted blood up through his mouth and down from his nostrils’, i.e. ‘he bled from mouth and nose’, similarly Od. 18.97 (Iros), 22.18  f. (Antinoos) (AH; Chantr. 2.114; somewhat differently Janko on 345–350: ‘he vainly blows the blood from his nose and mouth, gaping as he gasps for breath’). On the inflectable formula στόμα τε ῥῖνές τε, 14.467–468n.; cf. κατὰ ῥινῶν (gen.) ‘down through the nostrils’ 19.39n. – πρῆσε may be based on the notion of an expanding motion (Graz 1965, 224–226; LfgrE; cf. 2.415n.), here in reference to blood, meaning ‘cause to gush/spurt forth’ (similarly ἀναπρήθω of tears: 9.433, Od. 2.81), elsewhere usually ‘set on fire’ (see 82n.). — θανάτου δὲ μέλαν νέφος ἀμφεκάλυψεν: ≈ θανάτοιο μ. ν. ἀ. (Od. 4.180), θάνατος δέ μιν ἀμφ. (Il. 5.68), θανάτου τέλος ἀμφ. (Hes. Op. 166), τέλος θανάτοιο κάλυψεν (502n.), νεφέλη δέ μιν ἀμφεκάλυψεν | κυανέη (20.417  f.); not of death: νέφος ἀμφικαλύψ- at 14.343 (invisibility) and Hes. Op. 555 (rain cloud); cf. 6.11n.; 316n. On notions of death as ‘dark, gloomy’, 333–334n.

351 1st VH (to caesura C 1) =  2.760; ≈  2.487.  — SummaryP, as at 306, with literal echoes (ring-compositionP); see 306–357n.  — οὗτοι ἄρ(α): strongly deictic: ‘There you have

347 κέασσε: from κεάζω ‘splinter, shatter’ (the pres. is not attested in Homeric epic). 348 ἐκ … ἐτίναχθεν: 3rd pers. pl. aor. pass. (R 16.2), likewise ἐνέπλησθεν; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 349 τὸ δ(έ): sc. αἷμα (acc.). 350 πρῆσε: ‘spurted’ (subject: Erymas). — χανών: ‘with open mouth’. — ἀμφεκάλυψεν: sc. ‘him’ (Erymas).

Commentary 

 163

them; those were the leaders of the Danaans’ (Bakker [1999] 2005, 80  f.).  — ἕλον  … ἕκαστος: distributive apposition (cf. 264–265n.).

352–357 As at 155–167 (see ad loc.), the wolf simile illustrates the Greek fighting spirit and strength, although here these traits are brought out less by the wolves’ behavior itself than by the deficits on the side of the prey and the Trojans: they are ‘without fighting spirit’ (Greek análkida thymón, 355) and ‘let go of their strength’ (alkḗs) and turn to ‘flight’ (356  f.); the fact that the young animals are not guarded by the shepherd and are bereft of their mothers intensifies the impression of an imbalance of power conveyed in detail in the preceding androktasiē scene: the Greeks are far superior, the Trojans virtually helpless (AH; Fränkel 1921, 92; Reucher 1983, 317; Bonnafé 1984, 56  f.; Mainoldi 1984, 99; on the structuring function of similes in depicting the course of battle, 278– 418n., end). – The shepherd’s carelessness (354) is a common motif in predator similes (Fränkel loc. cit. 7  f., 60; Janko on 15.323–325; see also 3.11n., 18.161– 164n.), here matching the hunting strategy of the wolves, which prefer to pursue unguarded and isolated prey (Xen. Hipparchicus 4.18  f.); similarly typical is the selection ‘lambs or kid goats’ (352): several objects for comparison are common in animal similes in particular (2.460n., 2.800n.; cf. 2.474–477n. [a list of goat and sheep similes]). Formally, the simile is characterized by the structural agreement of the as- and so-clauses (352/356), with repetition of the key word ἐπέχραον (on this in general, 7n.). – As already in the first wolf simile (155–167n., end), so here the embedding of the simile and the details of the image used for comparison have been criticized, including for the fact that 358 links seamlessly with 351, whereas the motif of the careless shepherd does not fit at all with the role of Hektor, who is characterized by ‘skill in battle’ (359) and by protecting his people (363) (West 2001, 238; 2011, 319 [with older bibliography]; opposed, Shorey 1922, 250  f.: ‘There is no reason for excising it except the bare possibility of making continuous sense without it’; on the shepherd motif, which is well embedded in the image used for comparison, cf. above, as well as Reucher 1983, 317; fundamentals in 259–267n.: the natural component of the imagery depicted). 352 1st VH (to caesura C 2) ≈ 356. — ἄρνεσσιν … ἠ’ ἐρίφοισιν: a dat. variant of the phrase ‘lambs and kid goats’ (only here); gen. ἀρνῶν ἠδ’ ἐρίφων (24.262, etc. [see ad loc.], always at VB), acc. ἐρίφους τε καὶ ἄρνας (Od. 9.226, VE). — ἐπέχραον: a defective verb in the aor. (*χραϝ-), ‘attack, fall upon’ (Chantr. 1.393; LfgrE s.v. χραεῖν). 353 VE ≈ 12.146, 14.290. — σίνται: ‘predators’ (related to σίνομαι ‘harm’), only here and 2× of lions (11.481, 20.165), always in similes and in enjambment at VB (Mainoldi 1984,

351 ἄνδρα (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3. 352 λύκοι (ϝ)άρνεσσιν: on the prosody, R 4.4; on the declension of ἄρνεσσιν, R 11.3 (likewise 353 ὄρεσσιν). — ἠ’ ἐρίφοισιν: on the hiatus, R 5.1; ἠ(έ) = ἤ.

164 

 Iliad 16

101). — ὕπεκ μήλων αἱρεόμενοι: ͜ The use of ὕπεκ here is on the border between (a) a literal (local) meaning ‘out from underneath, away from underneath’ and (b) a meta­ phorical meaning ‘ab-’ (as in ‘abscond’); in early epic meaning (a) is attested elsewhere at only a few places, e.g. 8.503  f. ἵππους  | λύσαθ’ ὕπεξ ὀχέων (La Roche 1861a, 48  f.; Else 1959, 93  f.; Chantr. 2.145  f.). On the orthography of ὕπεκ (compound, accent), West 1998, XVIIIf.  — αἱρεόμενοι: ͜ In the transmission, contracted -εο- is regularly written with the Ionian articulation -ευ-; on the restoration of -εο- in the Homeric text, West 1998, XXII; GT 7; reservations on this: G 45 with n.  25; Passa 2001 (ad loc. 398 n. 1). — μήλων … αἵ: The relative pronouns follows the natural gender of the subject (ewes): AH. Whether a phonetic echo of μήλων was perceived in μητέρων must remain open (Ruijgh 365 n. 9; cf. Leaf). Inverse combination at 5.137/140: ὄϊες → τὰ (μῆλα); cf. 11.244  f. with Hainsworth ad loc. 354 1st VH ≈ 5.649. — ἀφραδίῃσι: on the shepherd’s ‘carelessness’, 352–357n.; on the ‘poe­ tic plural’ in abstracts of a-stems, 2.588n. — διέτμαγεν: The scattering of the small livestock forms a seedP for the dispersal of the Trojans in both the narrator-text (374 τμάγεν) and the simile (390 ἀποτμήγουσι, destruction of the landscape during a storm tide): a cue for the collapse of order (Nimis 1987, 89). – Formally, διέτμαγεν is an aor. pass. of τμήγω ‘cut, separate’ (a by-form of τέμνω) used intransitively (Pulleyn on 1.531). — οἳ δὲ ἰδόντες: a VE formula (24.320–321n.). 355 2nd VH ≈ 656. — διαρπάζουσιν: parallels for the frequent combination of pres. and aor. in similes (here ἐπέχραον, διέτμαγεν) in Chantr. 2.186; cf. 299–300n. — ἀνάλκιδα θυμὸν ἐχούσας: antithesis at 264 ἄλκιμον ἦτορ ἔχοντες. ἄναλκις does not mean ‘cowardly’ (in the sense of a permanent trait) but in the present situation ‘without fighting/ resisting spirit’, likewise of Hektor at 656 (6.74n.; on the term ἀλκή, 157–158n.). – θυμὸν ἐχ- is an inflectable VE formula (219n.). 356 1st VH ≈ 5.527, 15.622; (to caesura C 2) ≈ 352. 357 2nd VH =  15.322.  — δυσκελάδου: a Homeric hapaxP, of a flight (φόβος) accompanied by ‘horrible noise’ (soldiers calling and screaming, noise from weapons, etc.), cf. 294  f. ἐφόβηθεν | … θεσπεσίῳ ὁμάδῳ, 366 ἰαχή τε φόβος τε (similarly at 373), 18.149  f. (Achaians) θεσπεσίῳ ἀλαλητῷ | φεύγοντες (schol. bT; Krapp 1964, 66  f.; Kaimio 1977, 75  f.). Sounds continue to dominate subsequent events: 361, 366, 373, 393. — μνήσαντο, λάθοντο δέ: a pregnant juxtaposition (in a sense, a rhetorical polar expressionP, cf. 322n.), with chiastic arrangement φόβοιο δυσκελάδου – θούριδος ἀλκῆς. On the phrasing with μιμνήσκομαι and λανθάνομαι, 19.147–148n., end (‘turn one’s thoughts/attention toward, recall’) and 6.265n. (‘cease to think about, let go’) with bibliography; in Book

353 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 354 ἀφραδίῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — διέτμαγεν: ‘were separated, scattered’ (intransitive aor., cf. R 16.2; -τμ- related to τέμνω). — δὲ (ϝ)ιδόντες: on the prosody, R 4.3. 355 αἶψα: i.e. ‘at once, as soon as they saw them’ (ἰδόντες). 356 ὥς: = οὕτως.

Commentary 

 165

16, cf. 270 μνήσασθε δὲ θούριδος ἀλκῆς, 601  f. οὐδ’  … ἀλκῆς ἐξελάθοντο, 697 φύγαδε μνώοντο, 771 μνώοντ’ ὀλοοῖο φόβοιο, 776 λελασμένος ἱπποσυνάων. — θούριδος ἀλκῆς: a VE formula, see 270n.

358–418 The Trojans flee across the ditch back toward the city. Patroklos cuts off their escape route. After the individual duels at 306  ff. (androktasiē scene), the story now focuses on the main military characters of Book 16: Aias, Hektor and Patroklos. Their behavior (and the associated similes) mirror events on the battlefield: final attempts at Trojan resistance to the Greeks (Hektor/Aias), the Trojan flight to the ditch and across it (Hektor), pursuit by the Greeks (Patroklos). The individual elements are typical of descriptions of flights, as can be seen by comparison with e.g. 11.148–180 (cf. Hainsworth ad loc.; Fenik 1968, 85; Latacz 1977, 212–214). The present portrayal – esp. in 358–393 – comes to life via rapid, repeated shifts between resistance and flight, Greeks and Trojans, humans and horses, narrative and simile, embodying the prevailing chaos (Reinhardt 1961, 198–200; Fenik loc. cit. 194  f.; Thalmann 1984, 18; Stanley 1993, 170  f.; cf. 278–418n., 364–393n.); to this end, the narrator employs different signals for summary and iterative actions (358 ‘always’, 370 ‘many’; a high frequency of imperfects, esp. at 358–363, 367, 369, 378  f.; see Richardson 1990, 21–23). The scene increasingly shifts away from the encampment of ships toward the plain and the town (cf. Hellwig 1964, 25; 394–418n.). – With Patroklos’ victorious run (394–418, see ad loc.), the battle finally reaches its temporary climax (prior to the Patroklos–Sarpedon duel); in this manner, the beginning and end of the Trojan flight are highlighted via a catalogue of individual duels – and thus a multitude of Trojans mentioned by name (306  ff. at the encampment of ships, 394  ff. before the walls of Troy). At the same time, Hektor – who in battle is increasingly forced into the role of a man under attack (by Aias at 358  f., by Patroklos at 382  f.) – recedes more and more into the background in the narrative as well, until he encounters Patroklos directly at 712  ff. (Stanley loc. cit. 170; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 222  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 214  f.). 358–393 The portrayal of Hektor’s conduct has given offence: ‘Hector, who was just now [363] being celebrated as the protector of his men, in 367 is suddenly ahead of all others in flight’ (Friedrich [1956] 2003, 102); criticism has also frequently been directed at the supposedly ‘obscure’ simile at 364  ff. (e.g. Leaf on 364 and 365) and the mention of the ditch that was levelled by Apollo in Book 15 but has once again turned into a nearly insurmountable obstacle (e.g. AH on 369); 358–363 (Fenik 1968, 193  f.; Moulton 1977, 34  f.), 364–371 (Leaf on 364; Von der Mühll 1952, 246), 369–371 + 377–383 (Wilamowitz 1916, 130; West 2011, 320 [‘secondary insertion’]) or 380–383 (Leaf on 380; Von der Mühll loc. cit. 246  f.) have thus variously been called into question. But for possible interpretations of the section in its entirety, 358–418n., 358–363n., 367b–368n. (course

166 

 Iliad 16

of the battle and Hektor’s role), 364–367an. (simile) and 369n. (function of the ditch within the narrative); general criticism of possible deletions in e.g. Reinhardt 1961, 200  f. n. 13.

358–363 ‘The flight becomes more and more general; Hector alone stays his ground, although he sees that all is lost, and slowly retreats from the enemy to cover the withdrawal of his men’ (Albracht [1886] 2005, 85). A significant inversion of the situation at 114–123: in contrast to 114  ff., Aias once again has the upper hand vis-à-vis Hektor, now that the ships have been saved from the fire (but, as at 13.190–192, he fails to injure Hektor, who is protected by his shield), and Hektor is forced to ‘realize’ (362) – like Aias at 119  ff. – that luck in the fight is turning against him. On Aias’ achievements in the Iliad, 102–123n. (with bibliography). 358–361 A so-called gamma acrostich with the name ‘ΑΙΑΣ’ (horizontally at VB of 358, vertically as an acrostich at 358–361), probably produced via coincidence; deliberately arranged acrostichs are unlikely in poetry produced in an oral tradition (Hilton 2013, esp. 91  f.; cf. 24.1–5n. on the acrostich ΛΕΥΚΗ).

358 ‘The great Aias’ (the son of Telamon, leader of the contingent from Salamis: CH 3; 102–123n.) is still designated thus today, in contrast to the so-called ‘lesser Aias’, whose last appearance was at 330  ff. (330n.). Aias’ physical size is mentioned both in noun-epithet formulae and in individual descriptions: 3.227n.

Αἴας δ’ ὁ μέγας: Adnominal ὁ/ἡ/τό occurs occasionally in Homeric epic in the combination of personal name (or noun) and attribute (adjective or patronymic), both when the attribute precedes and when it follows (e.g. 25 ὁ Τυδεΐδης κρατερὸς Διομήδης; a list of possible combinations in Basset 2006, 109–113; a collection of examples in Stummer 1886, 37–41). Whether ὁ/ἡ/τό in this case has a function beyond that of a definite article (later common), is disputed (‘highlights deictically’, thus magnus ille Aiax: Schw. 2.22 [transl.]; ‘places the stress on the determinative and restrictive force of the adjective’: Basset loc. cit. 113 [transl.], 119 [similarly Chantr. 2.163]; conversely, in favor of a function as the pure article, Schmidt 2004, 18–20; cf. G 99; 24.164n.). A decision is also difficult here; there are parallels both (a) with and (b) without ὁ, with no obvious fundamental difference in meaning: (a) 14.459  f. Αἴαντι δὲ … | τῷ Τελαμωνιάδῃ, (b) 9.169 Αἴας τε μέγας, 3× Il. Αἴαντα μέγαν Τελαμώνιον υἱόν, 12× Il. μέγας Τελαμώνιος Αἴας etc. It should thus be assumed that ὁ is not absolutely needed here to distinguish between the Greater and the Lesser Aias (330  ff.) (although it might aid differentiation: schol. A, T; AH; 14.460n.), since other passages also lack ὁ in such sequences (e.g. 13.681 → 13.695/701 → 13.702; 17.235/237 → 17.256 → 17.279). At the same time, ὁ need not be deleted, since

358 ὁ (μ)μέγας: on the prosody, M 4.6. — αἰέν: = ἀεί. — ἐφ’ Ἕκτορι: ἐπί + dat. for specification of destination.

Commentary 

 167

there are parallels – albeit only a few (conjecture Αἴας δὲ μέγας: Nauck [app.crit.]; Leaf; Janko on 358–363). — Ἕκτορι χαλκοκορυστῇ: an inflectable VE formula (dat. 5× Il., acc. 3× Il.; of which 6× Il. 13–16); additional variants (metrically equivalent): Ἕκτορα ποιμένα λαῶν (2× Il.), Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο/ἱπποδάμοιο (77n., 717n.); prosodic variant of the epithet (with identical final element): ἱπποκορυστής (287n.).  – χαλκοκορυστής probably means ‘with a bronze helmet’ (6.199n.; similarly χαλκοχίτων ‘with bronze corselet’ [1.371n.]); except at 6.199 (Sarpedon), the adjective is always used in the Iliad of Hektor (i.e. virtually a distinctive epithetP: Camerotto 2009, 120  f.); perhaps it is linked, like κορυθαιόλος, to Hektor’s ‘helmet episode’ at 6.466  ff. (LfgrE s.v. χαλκοκορυστής; cf. 6.466–473n.). 359 1st VH = 13.585. — ἵετ’ ἀκοντίσσαι: On the formulation, cf. in addition to the iteratum (Menelaos against Helenos) 383 ἵετο γὰρ βαλέειν (Patroklos against Hektor), 761 ἵεντ’ ἀλλήλων ταμέειν χρόα (again Patroklos/Hektor), also 8.301/310 βαλέειν δέ ἑ ἵετο θυμός (Teukros aims at Hektor twice), 13.386  f. (Asios against Idomeneus). The infinitives ἀκοντίσσαι and βαλέειν have a resultative meaning here: ‘hit, strike’.  — ἰδρείῃ πολέμοιο: As the performance at 360  f. (handling of the shield) shows, the term ἰδρείη refers to actual skill in war-craft and military ‘know-how’ (Barck 1976, 63; LfgrE; cf. 243 ἐπίστασθαι πολεμίζειν), likewise at 7.237–241 (in Hektor’s own words); antitheses: ἀφραδίῃ πολέμοιο (2.368n.), βίῃ (7.197  f.).

360 2nd VH = h.Merc. 217; ≈ Od. 22.488, h.Ap. 450. — On Homeric shields being covered with leather, 18.481n.; on the protection the shield affords the shoulders, 289–290n. (and for the formulation, cf. 17.492, Od. 14.479).

ἀσπίδι ταυρείῃ: an inflectable noun-epithet formula (likewise at VB at 13.163, with the words separated at 13.160  f.; both in the acc.); additional variants (metrically equivalent): ἀσπίδος/-ας εὐκύκλου(ς) (5× Il., of which 4× at VB), ἀσπίδος ἀμφιβρότης (3× Il., always at VB). — εὐρέας ὤμους: an inflectable VE formula (3.210/227, Od. 22.488, h.Ap. 450, h.Merc. 217; nom. Od. 18.68; dual εὐρέε τ’ ὤμω Il. 16.791, 23.380).

361 The noise (of weapons) indicates the intensity of the fight (105n.); arrows and spears are typical weapons of attack (mentioned together also at e.g. 8.514, 11.191, 13.584  f., 15.313  f., 16.772  f., 21.113).

ὀϊστῶν τε ῥοῖζον καὶ δοῦπον ἀκόντων: stylistically notable phrasing: chiasmus, frequency of o-sounds, onomatopoetic sound-words (‘buzz’ and ‘dull thud, boom’: schol. b and T; Platt 1921, 142; Richardson 1980, 285; Tichy 1983, 92–94, 96  f.; on δοῦπος, cf. 325n.). In addition, the combination of the two sound-words with σκέπτομαι (‘scout, look out for something’) can be understood as synaesthesia: Krapp 1964, 286; Wille 2001, 78  f. – δοῦπον ἀκόντων is a VE formula (also at 11.364, 20.451).

359 ἀκοντίσσαι· ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.6; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — δὲ (ϝ)ιδρείῃ: on the prosody, R 4.3. 360 ὤμους: acc. of respect (R 19.1) with κεκαλυμμένος. 361 σκέπτετ(ο): here in the sense ‘pay attention to, protect oneself from’. — τε (ῥ)ροῖζον: on the prosody, M 4.6.

168 

 Iliad 16

362 2nd VH = 7.26, 8.171; VE also = 17.627, Od. 22.236. — On the motif of a character ‘recognizing’ (and accepting) a change in the action, cf. 119–122an. (where conveyed by a divine signal, but here only via insight into the altered circumstances: Greek supremacy; similar but with Trojan supremacy: 17.626  f.). — The description of victory as changing hands during battle is based on the notion of dynamic interchanges between superiority and inferiority, cf. the formulation ‘the battle was evenly drawn’ (stalemate, 12.436), ‘turn the tide of battle’ (14.510, see ad loc.), ‘Zeus, who reigns as the master of war, lets the scale-pans fall’ (19.223  f. with n.; cf. 658n.), ‘tighten the rope in turns’ (13.358–360), ‘vari­ able (or: changing this way and that) Ares’ (Greek alloprósallos, 5.830–834), ‘victory goes back and forth between men’ (6.339; similarly 3.439  f.).

ἦ μὲν δή: a particle combination lending strong emphasis, aside from the present passage always in direct speech (2.798n.); according to Cuypers 2005, 46  f., ἦ μὲν δή (like μάν/μήν/μέν more generally) serves to anticipate objections from the addressee, here the recipient: ‘«Did Hector not realize, then, that the Trojans were losing this battle?» (Yes, he did, but even so  …)’ (accidentally referring to Aias rather than Hektor in Cuypers’ original wording); approximately ‘he of course recognized  …, but  …’; cf. Wakker 1997, 228  f. — ἑτεραλκέα νίκην: The noun-epithet formula (see iterata above) designates the ‘changing victory’, i.e. a turn in battle in favor of ‘the other’ party (ἑτερ-), which had thus far been weaker but now achieves victory via ‘defensive force’ (here the Achaians); see AH; Leaf on 7.26; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 22.236. Less likely is the interpretation ‘victory that comes about via the aid of «others» (namely the gods)’: ἑτερ- scarcely denotes ‘another’ – i.e. external, third – party (but thus Casabona 1967; Janko on 358–363; Kelly 2007, 200). Further discussion with divergent conclusions in Trümpy 1950, 273  f.; LfgrE s.v.

363 Selflessly standing up for others is a common motif later in the polis ethics of Archaic elegies, but is attested already in the Iliad: 3.9n.; 18.129n. (with bibliography); Latacz 1977, 213  f.; Kullmann (1995) 2002, 37  f.; Classen 2008, 184  f.; see also 496n. (on solidarity with fallen comrades).

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὧς: i.e. despite the insight into the changed circumstances; a VB formula (80– 82n.). — σάω: 3rd pers. sing. impf., also at 21.238; as 2nd pers. sing. imper. at Od. 13.230 and 17.595; likely from athematic *σάωμι ‘rescue, keep alive’ (AH; Janko on 358–363, end, and Steiner on Od. 17.595 with reference to Chantr. 1.307). Bibliography on earlier opinions that the word was based on contracted *σάοε (from thematic σαόω) and was thus to be written *σάου in Leumann (1957b) 1959, 267 n. 2. — ἐρίηρας ἑταίρους: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc. pl. 5× Il., 14× Od.; nom. sing. Il. 4.266; in verse middle

362 γίνωσκε: ‘gradually recognized, must have recognized’. 363 ὧς: = οὕτως. — ἀνέμιμνε, σάω: conative impf., ‘attempted to stand fast / to save’.

Commentary 

 169

at 3.47). Whether and to what extent the epithetP (‘reliable, dear’: 3.47n.) can be understood as contextually relevant is unclear (LfgrE s.v.; Roisman 1984, 43).

364–393 This section is designed as a ring-compositionP (also containing a parallel construction AB, cf. the structure of the Niobe paradigm at 24.599–620n.), see Thalmann 1984, 17  f.; Janko: 1 weather simile (Trojan flight at the ditch) (364–367a) 2 Hektor escapes with his team of horses (367b–369a) 3 the Trojans fail with their chariots (369b–371) 4 A Patroklos pursues the Trojans (372–373a) 5 B chaotic flight, the horses escape (373b–376) 4’ A’ Patroklos pursues the Trojans (377–378a) 3’ B’ the Trojans fail with their chariots (378b–379) A” Patroklos pursues Hektor (380–383a) 2’ B” Hektor escapes with his team of horses (383b) 1’ weather simile (horses’ flight across the plain) (384–393) ‘At the center of the pattern (373–376), and so accorded particular emphasis, stands the definitive statement of the Trojans’ retreat, «back to the city from the ships and huts»’ (Thalmann loc. cit. 18). 364–367a The simileP illustrates the noise and terror during the Trojan flight. The ‘as’ part is kept very brief; the motif ‘noise and terror’ must be gathered from the ‘so’ part and combined with general ideas regarding the effects of a thunderstorm (from which everyone flees to safety in a disorganized fashion): an ‘elliptical’ simile (Edwards, Introd. 32; so too Cauer [1895] 1923, 471 n. 5; Krapp 1964, 265; Willcock on 364–365; on elliptical similes in general, Edwards loc. cit.; Lee 1964, 6–8; differently Fränkel 1921, 22; Shorey 1922, 248; Scott 1974, 114: clouds rolling past = fleeing Trojan army). The present simile is the second in a series of weather similes that reference one another (on this in detail, 297–302an. with bibliography; also 278–418n., end); in addition, it forms a ‘balancing pair’ with the immediately preceding wolf simile at 352  ff. (there the Greek attack, here the Trojan flight): Edwards loc. cit. 40. 364 Olympus refers on the one hand to the mountain as a scene of meteorological events – clouds naturally accumulate on mountains, cf. 297  f. (schol. A [on which, Snipes 1988, 214; Nünlist 2009, 296]; AH; Sale 1984, 13  f.) – but there is probably also an allusion to the mythical dwelling place of the weather god, Zeus, who is in fact named in the following verse (cf. Janko on 364–365: ‘Zeus’ mountain-top’; 93n.).

364 Οὐλύμπου: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — οὐρανὸν εἴσω: = εἰς οὐρανόν.

170 

 Iliad 16

ὡς δ’ ὅτ(ε): 212–213n. — ἀπ’ Οὐλύμποιο: a formulaic phrase (93n.). — οὐρανὸν εἴσω: ‘into the heavens’ (cf. AH; Leaf, Appendix H, p.  599  f.; 3.3n., end); VE formula (also 8.549, 11.44).

365 1st VH (to caesura B 1) = h.Cer. 70. — αἰθέρος ἐκ δίης: ‘immediately after bright skies’ (LfgrE s.v. αἰθήρ 294.8  ff.), ‘after clear weather’ (Janko on 364–365). On temporal ἐκ (‘immediately after’), see Kopp 1937, 321 n.  2; Schw. 2.464; Janko on 364–365; differently (origin: ‘from … out’) AH, Anh.; Chantr. 2.99. – On αἰθήρ, 299–300n. — δίης: δῖος is the Homeric epithet par excellence; its application is extraordinarily varied and usually purely ornamental (1.7n., 1.141n.; LfgrE). But as an epithet of αἰθήρ (also at Od. 19.540, h.Cer. 70; post-Homeric examples in West on Hes. Th. 697), it evokes the original meaning of διϝ-: ‘sky, day’ (IE *dieu-/diu̯ -; from this root also ‘Zeus’ as god of the skies, Latin dies ‘day’, Sanskrit divyá ‘heavenly’), i.e. ‘bright as day, fair’ (cf. LfgrE loc. cit.; Janko loc. cit.; post-Homeric εὐδία ‘fair weather’). — ὅτε τε … τείνῃ: Dependent clauses in similes frequently use the subjunc. (with iterative ὅτε τε also at 2.782, 5.500  f.): Ruijgh 491  f.; Chantr. 2.256. The form τείνῃ could be either pres. or aor., but since it would be the only example of a pres. form of this verb in early epic, the aor. is more likely (thus also aor. subjunc. in the similar expression at 17.547  f. ἶριν … τανύσσῃ); differently Kösling 1998, 191  f. (durative pres.). — λαίλαπα τείνῃ: cf. English ‘a storm stretches over the land’. Weather and celestial phenomena are ‘stretched out (across something), extended’ (τείνω/τανύω; see LfgrE s.vv.; Moulton 1979, 290–293), also e.g. rainbows (Il. 17.547  f.), fog (Hes. Op. 549) and night (567 [see ad loc.], Od. 11.19 [eternal night of the Cimmerians]), with Zeus as subject also at 567, 17.547  f. (cf. the image of the ‘tension of battle’ because of Zeus at 662n.). – λαῖλαψ is ‘the storm roaring toward [them], wrapping everything in black clouds and pouring out rain’, esp. fall storms with their terrible consequences: 384  ff. (Kopp 1939, 270  f. [transl.]; Tichy 1983, 315  f.; LfgrE). 366 ≈  4.456 (likewise after a simile); 2nd VH (from caesura B 1 onward) =  4.456, 12.144, 15.396. — On the noise produced during the flight, 357n.; on the noise of the Trojans, 76–79n. — ἐκ νηῶν: ‘(flight) from the encampment of ships’ (cf. 24n.). — γένετο ἰαχή τε φόβος τε: periphrasis for ‘they clamored and fled in terror’, i.e. ‘they fled with great noise’. On the sing. of the predicate γένετο, 63n. (on ἀφίκηται): ‘a single concept’, here ἰαχή τε φόβος τε ‘noise of flight’, in a broader sense synonym doubling, as at 63 ἀϋτή τε πτόλεμός τε (see ad loc.), Hes. Th. 708 ἰαχήν τ’ ἐνοπήν τε (cf. LfgrE s.v. φόβος 970.43  ff.). On the meaning of φόβος, 291n. – ἰαχή τε φόβος τε is an inflectable VE formula (nom. see iterata, dat. 373). — γένετο ἰαχή: (ϝ)ι(ϝ)αχή (19.41n.) often makes position, in Book 16 also at 373 and 785 (a collection of examples in Chantr. 1.139  f.). At the same time, γένετο regularly occurs before caesura C 1 (with the following word usually beginning with a double consonant, in Book 16 also at 508 and 581).

365 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 366 τῶν: sc. Τρώων; anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).

Commentary 

 171

367a The reference to the lack of order represents the implicit fulfillment of both Polydamas’ warning prediction at 12.223–227 (esp.  225: ‘we will return the same way from the ships ou kósmōi  – without order’) and Aias’ threatening prediction of Hektor’s flight at 13.817–820 (Stockinger 1959, 35–37, 40).

οὐδὲ κατὰ μοῖραν: κατὰ μοῖραν, with the metrical form ⏑––– (*κατὰ μμ- < *κατὰ σμ-), characterizes a multitude of actions that require an orderly process (usually with preceding πάντα [6× Od. at VB]): cutting up a sacrificial animal (Od. 3.457), readying ships for departure (Od. 4.783, 8.54), milking goats (Od. 9.245, etc.); here with a nega­tive of a ‘random, chaotic, precipitate’ flight (LfgrE s.v. μοῖρα 248.45  ff.; Finkelberg 1987, 137  f.; Sarischoulis 2008, 44  f.; differently Dietrich 1965, 208  f.: ‘(not) in order, either according to rank or according to their tribes’, although this hardly agrees with the use of the expression elsewhere). On further uses of κατὰ μ., 1.286n. (with a verb of speaking), 19.255–256n., end (ritual). — πέραον: a rarely attested ending for the 3rd pers. pl. impf. of verbs in -άω (elsewhere only at Od. 12.436 κατεσκίαον and 16.5 ὕλαον); elsewhere contracted (φοίτων Il. 2.779, (ἐ)νίκων 9.130, etc., τόλμων 12.51, etc.) or with the secondary ending -εον (ἤντεον 7.423, μενοίνεον 12.59, ὀμόκλεον 15.658). Discussion of the forms in Meister 1921, 76  f.; Chantr. 1.52  f., 78  f., 361; Shipp (1953) 1972, 35  f.

367b–368 After his desperate attempt to stand up for his people (363), Hektor mounted his chariot to flee as one of the last to do so (Faesi on 363; Albracht [1886] 2005, 85). The portrayal of his flight, ‘his swift horses carrying him away’, so that he at least crosses the ditch unharmed, as the other Trojans behind him fail to do with their chariots, finds an antithesis in the portrayal of Patroklos’ attack at 377–383, which Hektor manages to avoid (with 383b ≈ 367b–368a): ‘This is the first encounter between the main opponents of the Patrokleia. The flight at the beginning indicates the reversed fortunes at the end’ (namely, Hektor’s victory; Reinhardt 1961, 199 [transl.]); cf. 364–393n. – The narrative leaves open exactly how Hektor’s flight should be envisioned in light of the prevailing chaos at the ditch. Does his team of horses leap across the ditch, as Patroklos’ will do at 380, and as Hektor himself boastfully announced at 8.178  f. (cited in 369n., end) (where the reference, however, is to the conquest of the Achaian camp)? Thus West 2011, 320 (the narrator meant to save the description of clearing the ditch for Patroklos, and thus omitted it here); differently Mannsperger 1995, 348  f. with n. 65 (Hektor used a location convenient for driving across). Fundamental discussion of the fictitiousness of the event, Delebecque 1951, 77  f. (realistically, clearing the ditch with a chariot and team of horses is impossible); Raaflaub 2011, 23  f. (the use of chariots during a flight phase serves to create special effects). On the ditch in general, 369n. 367 πέραον: impf. of περάω ‘cross, get across’ (sc. over the ditch [369]).

172 

 Iliad 16

Ἕκτορα δ’ ἵπποι | ἔκφερον ὠκύποδες: cf. 383 = 866 τὸν δ’ ἔκφερον ὠκέες ἵπποι (simi­ larly Od. 3.496), Il. 23.376 ποδώκεες ἔκφερον ἵπποι, all in the 2nd VH. ἵπποι refers to the team of horses along with the war chariot. On the use of chariots in Homeric epic, see the information at 20n. (in the context of Patroklos as a ‘chariot fighter’).  – The inflectable noun-epithet formula ἵπποι ὠκύποδες frequently occurs in enjambmentP and/or with the words separated; 10.568  f., 12.50  f., Od. 23.244  f. (Edwards 1966, 150  f.; Janko on 366–369) are similar. On horse epithets in general, 2.383n.  — Ἕκτορα δ’ ἵπποι: on entrances of new characters and changes of scene after caesura C 2, 1.194n. (cf. αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς 124n.). — σὺν τεύχεσιν: 156n.; here probably with the connotation ‘unharmed’ (248n.; cf. Faesi; differently Leaf: ‘in spite of the weight of his armour’). — λεῖπε: λείπειν is spatial ‘leave behind’ (LfgrE s.v. 1659.38  f.), the impf. perhaps in the sense ‘had to leave behind’. On the combination with λαόν, cf. 15.218 (Poseidon) λίπε λαὸν Ἀχαιϊκὸν (‘abandoned’).

369 In accord with Nestor’s suggestion (7.337b–343), the Greeks fortified their encampment of ships with a wall and a ditch (7.436b–442; after the Greeks depart, the gods will ensure that the structures are levelled: 12.10–35). The wall is interrupted by gates, through which (Greek) chariots can pass (7.339  f./438  f.; cf. 12.120–123); the ditch is reinforced with vertical stakes and is meant to prevent (enemy) chariots from crossing (7.341  f./440  f.; cf. 12.49–59). Reference to these constructions is inserted by the narratorP whenever relevant to the course of the story of the Iliad: in Book 8, the Greeks let themselves be crowded together between ditch and wall (8.213  ff.) until Diomedes first manages to drive his team ‘from out of the ditch’ (8.255); a little later, they flee to their ships again after having ‘come through the stakes and the ditch’ (8.343); in Book 12, Hektor urges his people to ‘cross the ditch’, but the horses balk: due to its steep sides and stakes, the ditch can be neither jumped across nor driven through (12.49  ff.); the Trojans thus leave their chariots behind in front of the ditch, attack on foot (12.75  ff.) and storm the walls for the first time (12.469  f.); during their flight at the beginning of Book 15, ‘they pass through the stakes and the ditch’ (15.1  f.); during their next attack, Apollo hurries ahead of them, levels part of the ditch and tears down the wall (15.260  f./355  ff.), allowing the Trojans, along with their chariots, to storm the encampment of ships (15.384  f.); during the Trojan retreat from the encampment, which commences with the present passage, the ditch once more – as in Book 12 – represents an obstacle that is difficult to overcome (16.368b–371) except for Hektor (367  f.) and Patroklos (377–383); and in Book 24, Priam would be unable to pass the ditch, wall and guards unnoticed without Hermes’ help (24.443–447, see ad loc.). The ditch and the wall thus only come into the narrator’s view during special events – and in each case

369 οὕς: constructio ad sensum. — ἀέκοντας: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

Commentary 

 173

they are relevant to the situation (Delebecque 1951, 103–109; Mannsperger 1995 passim); likewise e.g. the bolts of the same wall (on which, 24.446n.), the ford across the Skamandros (24.351n.), and more generally individual topo­ graphic fixed points such as tomb monuments, trees, etc. (2.793n., 24.349n.), as well as the Skaian Gate and various buildings in Troy (Mannsperger 1992, 234  f., 236  f.; cf. Bowra 1962, 49  f.: ‘technique of mentioning only what is rele­ vant to the plot’; see also Clay 2011, 56  ff.). The narrator’s selective handling of (wall and) ditch has not always been understood: ‘Many find […] the ditch a deeper obstacle than did the Trojans’ (Janko on 364–393), thus e.g. AH, Anh. on Il. 16, p. 22; Leaf on 364; Fenik 1968, 193  f.; Blössner 1991, 105; on the various atheteses, see 358–393n. Additional attempts at a constructive interpretation in Bethe 1914, 140 (the events at the ditch ‘result in a vivid, moving image’ [transl.]); Reinhardt loc. cit. (see the quotation in 367b–368n., followed by: ‘When the ditch disappears, so too do Patroklos and Hektor’ [transl.]); Boyd 1995, 194–196, 202–205 (the wall serves as a replacement for the main defender of the encampment of ships, Achilleus); West 2011, 320 (‘[t]he causeway that Apollo made in 15.357 is naturally ignored in this context’; cf. loc. cit. 205  f. on 8.213  f.); Porter 2011 (the ditch as a fictional object). General bibliography on Homer’s compositional liberties in van der Valk 1964, 158  f. with n. 335.

Τρωϊκόν: The adj. is attested in early epic only 5×: 3× with λαός (here and 17.723  f., 21.295  f., likewise in enjambment), 2× with πεδίον (10.11, 23.464); elsewhere Τρώϊος/Τρῳός (e.g. 393), Τρωϊάς/Τρῳάς (e.g. 831). — οὓς ἀέκοντας: pl. after sing. λαόν (368): constructio ad sensum (schol. T; cf. 281n. with bibliography). — ὀρυκτὴ τάφρος ἔρυκεν: perhaps a (purely phonetic) word playP with ὀρυκ-/ἔρυκ-; both terms in the same sentence also at 7.341  f. (Nestor): βαθεῖαν ὀρύξομεν … τάφρον, | ἥ χ’ ἵππον καὶ λαὸν ἐρυκάκοι, 8.178  f. (Hektor): τὰ δ’ οὐ μένος ἁμὸν ἐρύξει·  | ἵπποι δὲ ῥέα τάφρον ὑπερθορέονται ὀρυκτήν. An additional word play at 370  f. ἐν τάφρῳ ἐρυσάρματες  …  |  … ῥυμῷ λίπον ἅρματ(α) (likewise with increased frequency of the syllable -ρυ-, also 2× ἁρματ-). – ὀρυκτή is a distinctive epithet of τάφρος (7× Il.) and means ‘dug, excavated’, i.e. ‘man-made’ (LfgrE s.v. ὀρύσσω/ὀρυκτή).

370 ἐρυσάρματες ὠκέες ἵπποι: a combination of two VE formulae: ὠκέες ἵπποι (148n.), ἐρυσάρματας ἵππους (15.354, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 369), see Hainsworth 1968, 77. The epithetP (ϝ)ερυσάρματες has a prosodic alternative in ἐριαύχενες (18.280n.); whether it has an ornamental or a contextually relevant function is disputed (ornamental: Lesky 1951, 204; Hainsworth loc. cit.; specifically of draft horses: Parry [1928] 1971, 113 n.  1; Delebecque 1951, 153). In any case, the two examples in the Iliad show contextually related correspondences: in the passage surrounding 15.354, the Trojans cross the ditch and invade the encampment of ships; here they attempt to flee the same way. – On the

174 

 Iliad 16

frequency of ὠκέες ἵπποι in this context (also 380, 383), cf. 5.240/257/261/275 (a so-called formula ‘cluster’).

371 1st VH (to caesura C 1) = 6.40; 2nd VH = 507 (see ad loc.). — On the break of the connection between yoke and shaft – here facilitated by the uneven ground – see 6.40n. with bibliography.

ἄξαντ(ε): The expression was likely designed for one chariot (in the iteratum dual ἵππω [6.38]) and is here applied without adjustment to a multitude of them (Leaf; Janko on 370–371; Debrunner 1926, 15  f.; Plath 1994, 318). — ἀνάκτων: i.e. the horses’ ‘lords, masters’ (2.777b–778an.; Yamagata 1997, 3).

372 ≈  11.165 (Agamemnon; cf. 11.154); VE also ≈  13.361, 15.687, 15.732.  — Like Agamemnon in Book 11 (165), Patroklos sets out to pursue the Trojans all the way to the walls of Troy – and at the climax of their victorious runs, the parallel between the two is drawn indirectly via a verse that is identical except for the personal name: 11.180 ≈ 16.699 (Peters 1922, 114  f.).

σφεδανόν: ‘violently, impetuously’, an adverbial acc., related to Attic σφόδρα (Frisk). Always found in pursuit scenes (3× Il.), but whether it is to be connected with (a) ἕπετο (thus evidently at 21.542 ἔφεπ(ε)) or (b) κελεύων is unclear; favoring (a) e.g. Kurz 1966, 132, favoring (b) LfgrE s.v. κελεύω 1376.58  ff. (with reference to 17.356 πολλὰ κελεύων); according to schol. A on 11.165, it might also be ἀπὸ κοινοῦ (cf. Espermann 1980, 146).

373 2nd VH ≈ 366 (see ad loc.). — κακὰ φρονέων: Expressions meaning ‘be hostile, cause harm’ (also e.g. ὀλοὰ φρονέων at 701, ἀείκιζεν at 24.22n.) do not contain an absolute moral criticism, but are related to the effects of the event on those involved: here the Trojans (dative), who suffer ‘damage’ or ‘disaster’ at Patroklos’ hands but not ‘injustice’ (de Jong [1987] 2004, 138  ff.).  – An inflectable formula after caesurae A 2 (in total 5× early epic) and B 2 (6× early epic); referring to Patroklos and the Trojans also at 783.

374 The dust raised as a result of mass movements reveals the dynamics of the process (3.13n.); thus also of the Greeks’ retreat to their ships at 2.150  f., of the approaching Greeks at 3.13  f., of horses in the thick of battle at 5.502  ff. (cf. 13.334  ff.: simile for the thick of battle).

πάσας  … ὁδούς: i.e. every potential path of flight (Becker 1937, 17; LfgrE s.v. ὁδός 495.48  ff.). — ἐπεὶ ἄρ: mostly in character languageP and similes; in narrator-textP only here, at 8.269 and h.Ap. 158 (24.42–43n.). — τμάγεν: 354n.

370 τάφρῳ (ϝ)ερυσάρματες: on the prosody, R 4.4. 371 ἄξαντ(ε): dual aor. part. of ἄγνυμι ‘break apart’ (transitive); for the juxtaposition of dual and pl., R 18.1. — ἐν πρώτῳ ῥυμῷ: ‘at the front of the pole’. — ἅρματ’ ἀνάκτων: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with ἄξαντ’ and λίπον; the initial digamma of ἀνάκτων is disregarded (R 4.6). 372 κελεύων + dat.: ‘shout to, urge on’. 373 ἰαχῇ τε φόβῳ τε: dat. of manner (‘with panicked cries’; cf. 366n.). 374 τμάγεν: ‘were scattered’ (cf. 354n.). — ἀέλλη: here ‘whirl of dust, dust-cloud’.

Commentary 

 175

375 After the loss of the chariots (complete with warriors and charioteers, cf. 378  f.), the horses flee back toward Troy; in this sense probably also at 393 (at most, the horses there represent the Trojan army in its entirety).

μώνυχες ἵπποι: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc., 19.424n., where also on the meaning ‘single-foot’); prosodic alternative: ὠκέες ἵπποι (148n.).

376 ≈ 45, etc. (see ad loc.); 1st VH = 12.74 (cf. 3.313 ≈ 24.330 ἄψορροι προτὶ Ἴλιον, in verse middle); on the 2nd VH, 45n.

377–378a On the center of the battle, cf. 285 with n.

ὀρινόμενον: ‘move chaotically’ (14.14n.). — τῇ ῥ(α): τῇ is often followed by an intensify­ ing particle (ῥα, δή, περ): LfgrE s.v. 446.32  f., 63  ff., 447.62  ff.; Grimm 1962, 25.

378b–379 Whether 378b–379 are (a) a consequence of Patroklos’ attack or (b) an accompanying circumstance is initially unclear. A possible paraphrase for the sense of possibility (a): ‘The men fell head-first from their chariots, struck or rammed by Patroklos, and got beneath the axles of his (i.e. Patroklos’) chariot; their chariots, now empty, rattled away’, or for (b): ‘The men fell head-first from their chariots, driving across the ground strewn in bodies and chariots, and got beneath the axles of their own (or their compatriots’) chariots; the chariots fell over with a racket’. Possibility (a) is supported by the parallel at 11.177–180 (the pursuer kills in turn whichever fleeing warrior is hindmost, who thus falls head-first from his chariot) and by the corresponding indication in schol. bT on 378  f., end; on the axles being those of Patroklos’ chariot, see Willcock and LfgrE s.v. πρηνής. Possibility (b) is supported by parallels at 6.38–43 (an obstacle causes the warrior to fall from his chariot) and 18.230  f. (in panicked flight, Trojans are killed ‘by their own chariots’ [see ad loc.]), as well as by paraphrases of 378  f. and 379 in schol. bT; on the chariot to which the axles belong, see Faesi and AH (‘his own chariot’); similarly Eust. 1065.13  f. (in each case, the chariot of the Trojan following behind). All in all, (b) appears more plausible in the present context – where Patroklos’ main aim is to pursue the fleeing Hektor without being impeded by the remaining Trojans: this is an additional detail in the description of the prevailing chaos (like 366  f., 370  f., 373b–376; cf. 358–418n., 364–393n.), and is thus epexegetic with the statement 375 σκίδναθ’: = σκίδνατο (impf.), ‘spread out’. — ὑπαί: = ὑπό (R 20.1); here together with ὕψι (374) ‘high up to just under the clouds’. — τανύοντο: ‘ran at a full gallop’. 376 προτὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R  4.3; προτί =  πρός (R  20.1).  — νεῶν ἄπο: =  ἀπὸ νεῶν (R 20.2). — κλισιάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 377 ᾗ: ‘in which direction, where’.  — πλεῖστον: predicative, ‘most numerous’.  — ὀρινόμενον (ϝ)ίδε: on the prosody, R 4.5. 378 τῇ: ‘there’.  — ἔχ(ε): ‘steer’ (intransitive).  — ὀμοκλήσας: ‘urge on (sc. the horses) with a shout’. — φῶτες: ‘men’ (sing. ὁ φώς).

176 

 Iliad 16

‘where he saw the troops in their greatest number in agitated motion’ (377). Additional (much more gruesome) descriptions of the crowd on the ground across whom the chariots are driving: 11.531  ff. ≈ 20.495  ff., 20.394  f.

ὑπὸ δ’ ἄξοσι: Axles – an IE term (e.g. Mycenaean a-ko-so-ne [nom. pl.], Latin axis) – were generally made of wood and located in the middle or rear part of the chariot, and extended well beyond the width of the chariot and were fastened securely to the chariot (i.e. the wheels turned about the axles): LfgrE; Wiesner 1968, 46, 68; Crouwel 1981, 78  ff.; 1992, 34; Plath 1994, 297–300. ὑπό is used with a locative dat. ‘also with verbs of motion, proleptic’, i.e. ‘they fell beneath the axles’: Schw. 2.525 [transl.]; Chantr. 2.140. — φῶτες: ‘the men’, picks up λαόν from 377 (the reference is to the Trojans). A poetic word of unknown etymology (DELG/Suppl.; Beekes); a prosodic alternative for ἄνδρες, used synonymously: 2.164n.  — ἔπιπτον  | πρηνέες: generally used of dying/ dead warriors, but here perhaps only of the fall from the chariot, without simultaneous death (310–311n.; Broccia 1963, 40 n. 57; LfgrE s.v. ὄχεα 898.39  ff.: ‘unclear’). — ὀχέων, δίφροι: used synonymously, together with ἅρμα and ἵπποι, for ‘war chariot’ (LfgrE s.v. ἅρμα 1315.16  ff., ὄχεα 896.22  ff.); on ἅρμα in particular, 2.775bn.; δίφρος (literally the chariot ‘body’) 3.262n.; ἵπποι 167n.; ὄχεα 3.29n.  — ἀνακυμβαλίαζον: A hapaxP, pro­ bably – as preferred above in paraphrase (b) – ‘fall over causing a racket/turn over’ (cf. Leaf), with echoes of κύμβαλον (a percussion instrument, ‘cymbal’), κύμβαχος ‘forward’ (5.585  f.) and perhaps κυβιστάω ‘jump, turn a somersault’ (745n.); on the imitative, ono­ matopoetic character of the word, schol. bT on 379: ἅμα δὲ καὶ βομβῶδες ὂν τὸ ῥῆμα ἔδωκεν ἔμφασιν τῇ ἀνατροπῇ (on which, Richardson 1980, 285  f.); on the motif of the toppling chariot, cf. 23.435  f. (chariot race). By contrast, limitation to the purely acoustic aspect in Tichy 1983, 206  f.; Apthorp 1990, 6 n. 33; Kölligan 2007, 436; LfgrE s.v.: of the ‘rattling’ of the (empty) chariots, as at 11.159–161, 15.452  f.; cf. above paraphrase (a). – Both interpretations already at schol. D; additional discussion in LfgrE loc. cit. and in Janko on 377–379.

380 The horses referred to are those of Achilleus, which are driven by Patroklos, as 382b–383a (pursuit of Hektor) make clear. ‘(T)he easy jump across the ditch by the immortal horses constitutes the right contrast to the unholy confusion of the Trojan vehicles […] and prepares the further miracles of the Patrocleia’: Friedrich (1956) 2003, 98 (cf. 367b–368n. on Hektor’s crossing of the ditch, 369n. on the ditch as an obstacle); on the motif ‘jump across the ditch’, cf. 8.179, 12.52  f.

ἀντικρύ: ‘straight’, also modal ‘completely’; frequently of weapons (in Book 16 at 116 of a sword, at 285 and 346 of lances), thus here perhaps with the connotation ‘straight as an arrow’ (LfgrE s.v. 938.50  ff.). The etymology of the final element is unclear (DELG; Beekes). — ὠκέες ἵπποι: a VE formula (148n.); on the increased frequency of it in the present context, 370n., end.

380 ὑπέρθορον: from ὑπερθρώσκω ‘leap over’. — ἵπποι: sc. of Patroklos.

Commentary 

 177

381 The verse is missing from the papyri and most manuscripts and is considered a concordance interpolation from 16.867 (with 866 = 383): ἄμβροτοι, οὓς Πηλῆϊ θεοὶ δόσαν ἀγλαὰ δῶρα. The interpolation was likely meant to clarify whose horses are described at 380. But since the narrator expicitly mentioned a third, mortal horse in Patroklos’ team (Pedasos), both before (152–154) and afterward (467–469), 381 would be factually inappropriate; for details, see Apthorp 1990; also Leaf; Janko on 380–383; West 2001, 13. 382 1st VH ≈ 13.291 (of a prómachos), 15.543 (of a spear head). — ἐπὶ δ’ Ἕκτορι †κέκλετο θυμός†: If the reading κέκλετο, transmitted unanimously with the exception of one papy­rus (v.l. κεκλυτο), is taken to be meaningful, it would have to be interpreted as a shortened construction without acc.-inf.: ‘his heart urged ⟨him to rush out⟩ against Hektor’, cf. 12.300  f. (κέλεται δέ ἑ θυμὸς … ἐλθεῖν), Od. 17.554  f. (μεταλλῆσαί τί ἑ θυμὸς … κέλεται): schol. T (παρεκελεύετο γὰρ αὐτοὺς κατὰ τοῦ Ἕκτορος ὁρμᾶν) and Leaf on 380. On the ellipsis of a verb of motion, van Leeuwen; K.-G. 2.563  f.; on the ellipsis of the acc. object, 24.154n.; on the variety of ways to express the idea ‘my heart drives me’, Pelliccia 1995, 100  f. – West 2001, 238 conjectures κέκλιτο: ‘his heart was set towards Hector’. 383 =  866: Here Patroklos pursues the fleeing Hektor, there Hektor is attacking Automedon  – both characters being pursued escape (cf. Janko on 864–877).  — ἵετο γὰρ βαλέειν: an interpretation by the narrator (255–256n.). On similar formulations, 359n.; on the ending -έειν, 256n.

384–393 The third weather simile represents a climax within the scene of Trojan flight (297–302an.) and stands out due to its expansiveness (it is one of the longest Homeric similes overall, cf. the list in Minchin 2001a, 35 n. 33) and its ‘moral’ content. The simile is focused on the acoustic aspects of the flight process, which were already central to the second simile (364–367an.): in Greek, the roaring of the rivers bursting their banks corresponds literally to the snorting of the horses dashing away (391 stenáchousi ≈ 393 stenáchonto: simile keyword, cf. 7n.). In the process, the simile evokes the catastrophic extent of the flight via the depiction of flooding and devastation as divine punishment (the mass of the Trojans is overrun by the pursuing Achaians, and they perish in the chaos that spreads across the entire plain). In addition, it may enable a meaning on a moral plane: the Trojan defeat, indeed the destruction of Troy as a whole, could be seen as punishment for the abduction of Helen and/or for the breach of contract in Book 4 (i.e. for areas protected by Zeus Xenios and Zeus Horkios [see below]; the simile at 21.522–525 is more general: Achilleus spreads death among the Trojans like divine anger setting a city on fire). On this interpretation of the simile, see Cauer (1895) 1923, 470  f.; van der Valk

382 ἱέμενοι· ἐπί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — κέκλετο: reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘urge’ (↑). 383 βαλέειν: inf. (R 16.4). — τὸν δ(έ): sc. Hektor.

178 

 Iliad 16

1964, 475; Krischer 1971, 54  f.; Moulton 1977, 35–37, 100  f.; Janko; similarly Bonnafé 1984, 27 (to be linked proleptically to the destruction of Troy); against the notion that the simile implies punishment of the Trojans in any way (since 387  f. refer to ‘crooked judgements in the assembly’ in general rather than to specific instances of contempt for guest-friendship): van Erp Taalman Kip 2000, 396  f.; an intermediate position: Stoevesandt 2004, 246–249 (the destruction of Troy is ‘partially conditioned by the merciless harshness’ of the gods in their revenge on the Trojans [transl.]); unlikely Scott 2009, 160, who assigns the wrong to the Greeks; additional interpretations in Fränkel 1921, 27  f. (the languishing of the earth represents the Trojans’ ‘pain and suffering’ [transl.]); Krapp 1964, 255 (as humans and animals flee from floods, so the Trojans flee from Patroklos); Kaimio 1977, 98 (‘general confusion of a mass of people in flight trampling on all objects in their path’; similarly Faesi on 393; West 2011, 320  f.). – In any case, the motif of divine punishment serves to amplify the impression of the flood’s power and noise (Nagler 1974, 149  f.; West 1997, 386; cf. Zeus’ devastating rain in the simile at 5.87–92). At the same time, the depiction, with this degree of clarity, of a (blanket) punishment of human beings by Zeus is unique in the Iliad (with the exception of the plague sent by Apollo against the Greek troops in Book 1 for specific reasons); the closest paral­lels are passages such as 13.623–627 (punishment for displaying contempt of guest-friendship) and 19.258–260 (punishment for perjury), as well as the essence of the Litai narrative at 9.510–512 (punishment for pitilessness; similar messages are more common in the Odyssey, esp. pregnant at 9.270  f., 13.213  f., 14.83  ff.). In these cases, Zeus usually appears specifically as the protector of guest-friendship (Zeus Xenios or Hikesios) or oaths (Zeus Horkios), although his general role as the guardian of justice and order is not unparalleled: the Achaian lords ‘charged with the administration of justice’ must ‘preserve’ the ‘statutes handed down by Zeus’ (Il. 1.238  f.; similarly at 9.98  f.). Also to be considered, finally, are passages where Zeus’ anger is made manifest via extraordinary meteorological events, as here: 2.780  ff. (Typhoeus, 2.782n.), 7.478  ff. (nocturnal thunder during the construction of the wall), Od. 12.415  ff. (after the sacrilege committed against the cattle of Helios). Bibliography on Zeus and on divine punishment: Nilsson (1940) 1967, 419–421; Chantraine 1954, 73–76; Dietrich 1965, 324  f.; Lloyd-Jones 1971, 4–8; Burkert (1977) 1985, 249; Mueller (1984) 2009, 133  f.; Graf 1991, 352–354; Allan 2006, 10  f.; specifically on Zeus Xenios/Hikesios/Horkios, 3.103–104n., 19.258–260n., 24.157–158n.; Ancient Near Eastern parallels in West 1997, 124–128; against the assumption that a concept of just divine punishment exists in Homeric epic: Wilamowitz 1931, 356  f.; Gill 1980; Winterbottom 1989; van Wees 1992, 146  f.; Heath 2005, 164  f.  – The topic ‘law and justice in politics and society’ is discussed

Commentary 

 179

in detail in Hesiod’s Works and Days; the similarity of the present passage to Hes. Op. 219–224 and 250  f., including some literal echoes, is obvious (Dike is abducted by the kings, crooked judgements are passed down, human beings suffer evil, the threat of divine retribution is ignored; cf. Hes. Op. 256–264: Dike informs her father Zeus of the injustice of the kings). 386–388 or 387  f. are thus frequently suspected as later interpolations influenced by Hesiod (e.g. Leaf ad loc.; Munding 1961, 165–168; Blössner 1991, 19–26). As with many similes, however, the implicit appeal to divine justice within the aristocratic world of Homeric epic may provide insight into the day-to-day life and thought of (ordinary) human beings (a sociological-political interpretation as a ‘cry from the depths’ by Finsler [1908] 1924, 182 [transl.]; Nilsson loc. cit. 421; Lesky 1967, 40). Thus in favor of the priority of the Homeric text (sometimes with divergent arguments): Wilamowitz 1928, 66  f.; Bertelli 1966/67; Lloyd-Jones loc. cit.; Erler 1987, 15  f.; Yamagata 1994, 19  f., 90  f.; Hammer 2002, 231 n. 71; neutral, Walcot 1963, 17–20; Thalmann 1984, 192  f. n. 48; Janko ad loc., end (Homer and Hesiod independently refer to a general concept). 384 ὑπὸ λαίλαπι … βέβριθε χθών: ‘The earth lies there in darkness beneath the oppressive force of the storm’ (AH). The connotations of the verb βρίθω likely result from its use on the one hand for earth that is ‘heavily’ laden with fruit, flowers, etc. (18.561 [shield description], h.Cer. 472  f., h.Hom. 30.9), and on the other hand for the suffocating force of rain (a typical motif in similes: 5.87  ff., 12.278  ff.; esp. ὅτ’ ἐπιβρίσῃ Διὸς ὄμβρος at 5.91, 12.286). The spondeic VE may imitate the pressure of the load (cf. 279n., end).  – On ὑπό + dat. ‘under the influence, the effect of’ with active verbs, Schwyzer (1943) 1983, 30–33 (and Schw. 2.526); frequently used in the combination ‘at the hands of someone’ (ὑπὸ χερσίν, etc.: 420, 438, 698  f., etc.) and with verbs meaning ‘die’ vel sim. (e.g. 489), cf. Aliffi 2002; Untermann on 699.  — κελαινὴ  … χθών: κελαινός is an attri­ bute of e.g. κῦμα (3× early epic), λαῖλαψ (11.747), χθών (only here), αἶα (‘Hes.’ Sc. 153), likely with emotional meaning (mostly found in direct speech, inserted narratives and similes), similarly ἐρεμνός (epithet of e.g. λαῖλαψ, γαῖα): ‘dark, gloomy, shady’, namely due to the storm, here in predicative position ‘the earth lies there in darkness’ (AH; Moreux 1967, 261; Handschur 1970, 193–197; LfgrE). On the ‘switch’ of epithets vis-à-vis 11.747 (κελαινῇ λαίλαπι, here λαίλαπι … κελαινὴ … χθών), cf. 22.309/5.864 (διὰ νεφέων ἐρεβεννῶν and ἐκ νεφέων ἐρεβεννὴ φαίνεται ἀήρ; de Jong on Il. 22.309). 385 1st VH ≈ 12.279, Hes. Op. 524 (ἤματι χειμερίῳ, ὅτ’); Il. 21.5 (ἤματι τῷ προτέρῳ, ὅτ’); 5.5 (ἀστέρ’ ὀπωρινῷ); also the VB formula ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε (2.351n.). — The specification ‘on a fall day’ refers to harvest time, when losses caused by flooding are especially painful. — ἤματ(ι): Elision of -ι is comparatively rare in early epic (24.26n. with bibliogra-

385 ἤματ(ι): τὸ ἦμαρ = ἡ ἡμέρα. — ὀπωρινῷ, ὅτε: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ὀπωρῑνῷ: on the metrical lengthening, R 10.1.

180 

 Iliad 16

phy; also La Roche 1869, 110  ff.). — ὅτε: functions as a relative with ἤματ’ ὀπωρινῷ, ‘on a fall day during which …’; in contrast, ὅτε at 386 is a temporal conjunction, with iterative subjunc. without modal particle: ‘always when, whenever’ (Ruijgh 40, 490). — λαβρότατον: predicative with ὕδωρ; implication: ‘when it is raining hardest’ (LfgrE; cf. 2.147–148n.).

386 2nd VH = Od. 5.147; ≈ Od. 19.83. — Zeus is considered the source of precipitation (19.357n.). The divine name, frequently postponed in Homeric epic for emphasis (Tzamali 1996, 427), is here at the same time placed at VB as a runover word: Zeus is the hinge between the storm motif and the punishment motif in the present simile. – ‘Men’ refers primarily to the gérontes or basilḗes who bear the responsiblity for rendering judgement in their communities (18.503  ff., Hes. Th. 81  ff., Op. 225  ff.): Carlier 1984, 172–177; Verdenius on Hes. Op. 38; Yamagata 1997, 11; cf. 18.502–503n.

δή: can result in hiatus, correption or synizesis before an initial vowel; the particles attested in parts of the transmission (ῥ’, τ’; see app.crit.) to avoid hiatus are thus unnecessary, e.g. 13.633, 23.374, Od. 6.110, 13.383 (all with δὴ ἀ-): Janko on 386–388. – On δή in the narrator-text, cf. 112–113n. — κοτεσσάμενος χαλεπήνῃ: κοτεσσάμενος is related to κότος ‘resentment’, i.e. not of a fit of rage but of a (persistent) mental attitude (1.81–82n., 2.222b–223n.; LfgrE; Cairns 2003, 30  f.). By contrast, χαλεπαίνω of aggressive behavior (‘Zeus makes the humans feel his wrath, treats them harshly’): AH; LfgrE s.v.; Irmscher 1950, 25  f.; Cairns loc. cit. 23  f., 31; cf. 24.369n.

387 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Th. 85, Op. 221. — The agorḗ ‘assembly place, market’ is ‘at the same time the location of justice, courts and the peaceful resolution of disputes’ for the respective communities, cf. the court scene in the shield description (18.497  ff.; similarly at Od. 12.439  f.): Hölkeskamp 1997, 9–12 (quotation: 10 [transl.]); 2002, 315–318 (with additional bibliography in n. 70); see also 1.54n.

βίῃ: ‘by force’, i.e. ‘exploiting a position of power’ (LfgrE s.v. 60.51  f.; West on Hes. Op. 274–275), the antithesis of δίκη/Δίκη (388), as at Hes. Op. 275 δίκης ἐπάκουε, βίης δ’ ἐπιλήθεο (similarly 213 ἄκουε δίκης μηδ’ ὕβριν ὄφελλε). — σκολιὰς … θέμιστας: The image of ‘crooked’ and ‘straight’ judgements is common, thus e.g. Hes. Op. 221 σκολιῇς δὲ δίκῃς κρίνωσι θέμιστας, 261  f. λυγρὰ νοεῦντες  | ἄλλῃ παρκλίνωσι δίκας σκολιῶς ἐνέποντες, on the one hand, and Il. 18.508 δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι, Hes. Op. 9 δίκῃ δ’ ἴθυνε θέμιστας, Th. 85  f. διακρίνοντα θέμιστας | ἰθείῃσι δίκῃσιν, on the other; cf. English ‘bend the rules’; Ancient Near Eastern parallels in West 1997, 230. Hypotheses about the origin of this notion in West on Hes. Th. 85–86 (line of boundary stones), Verdenius on Hes. Op. 7 (carpenter’s ‘guide-line’). — κρίνωσι θέμιστας: θέμιστας is an internal acc.,

386 ὅτε  … χαλεπήνῃ: generalizing subjunc. without a modal particle (R  21.1), likewise 387.  — κοτεσσάμενος: aor. mid. of the pres. act. κοτέω (R 23). 387 εἰν: = ἐν (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 181

i.e. ‘issue verdicts, make judgements’: LSJ s.v. κρίνω; Hirzel 1907, 34 n. 3 (albeit with an erroneous interpretation of θέμιστες); Verdenius on Hes. Op. 221. – On the subjunc. in relative clauses in similes, see 260n. (here facilitated by the preceding ὅτε clause with a subjunc. [385n.]). 388–393 The passage is striking stylistically because of the repetition (‘rhymes’) at VE in 388  f. ἀλέγοντες/ῥέοντες, 389/391 -ουσι ῥέοντες/-ουσι ῥέουσαι, 390  f. -ουσι χαράδραι/ -ουσι ῥέουσαι, 391/393 μεγάλα στενάχουσι ῥέουσαι/μεγάλα στενάχοντο θέουσαι (cf. 174n.). There is also alliteration of p in 389–390a, as similarly at Od. 17.436 (cf. 155–167n. [sub-section c]).

388 2nd VH = Hes. Op. 251 (in a similar context, cf. 384–393n., end). — The scope of the Greek term díkē in Homer and Hesiod has been much discussed (biblio­ graphy in LfgrE s.v. δίκη and Sullivan 1995, 174 n. 1). Although the concrete sense ‘verdict, judgement’ is frequently expressed (cf. 542, 18.508 [see ad loc.]), individual passages can display notional or moral content: ‘righteousness, rectitude, justice’, thus esp. here and at Od. 14.83  f., Hes. Op. 9, 217, 269, 275; see Dickie 1978 (ad loc. 98); Verdenius on Hes. Op. 9; Sullivan loc. cit. 177–190 (ad loc. 179); somewhat differently LfgrE and Lesky 1985, 17–28: ‘law’ as a ‘general […] principle of organization’ (LfgrE s.v. δίκη 304.49 [transl.]), ‘law as such’ (Lesky loc. cit. 21 [transl.]). – In conjunction with ‘expel, cast out’, díkē can here be understood as a personification of the goddess Dike (analogous with the use of the verb at 6.158, Od. 16.381  f., Hes. Th. 820: Bellerophon/the suitors/the Titans are driven from their homeland; at Hes. Op. 220  f./224, Dike is ‘captured by force’ and ‘driven out’). Dike is considered a daughter of Zeus and Themis; she and her sisters together are the Horai (Hṓrai: Hes. Th. 901  f.; CG 35). On Dike as a goddess, see Hirzel 1907, 138  ff.; Ehrenberg 1921, 67  ff.; BNP s.v.; LIMC s.v. (with bibliography); on the issue of personifications in early epic, CG 28  ff.; West on Hes. Op. 213.

θεῶν ὄπιν: ὄπις is likely ‘gaze’ (from ὀπ- as in ὄπωπα), 6× in early epic of the gods’ watchful gaze at human beings with retribution subsequently taken for faults committed (similar notions: εὐρύοπα Ζεύς 241n., Διὸς ὀφθαλμός Hes. Op. 267 [with West ad loc.], in the Hebrew Bible at Proverbs 15:3 ‘The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good’, also Helios at Il. 3.277 [see ad loc. with bibliography; also West 2007, 171  f.]). It may have been associated with ὄπισθεν in folk etymology (‘the punishment afterward’): Od. 5.146  f. (Hermes to Kalypso) Διὸς δ’ ἐπ-οπί-ζεο μῆνιν, | μή πώς τοι μετ-όπι-σθε κοτεσσάμενος χαλεπήνῃ (≈ here 386; on the association ὄπις/μῆνις, Muellner 1996, 36 with n.  16). Bibliography: DELG; Griffin 1980, 181  f.; Burkert (1981) 2001, 97–100 (with an unlikely interpretation; objections in Verdenius on Hes. Op. 187 n. 456); Rakoczy 1996, 67–69; LfgrE s.v. ὄπις (with bibliography).

389 2nd VH =  Od. 19.207.  — Flooding rivers occur as a motif in similes also at 4.452, 5.87  f., 11.492  f., Od. 19.207. The events described cover the entire land

182 

 Iliad 16

from the mountains to the sea, including the ‘works (i.e. cultivated land) of men’ (392): Elliger 1975, 78.

τῶν δέ τε: τῶν refers to the unjust ἄνδρες, i.e. ‘the rivers in their lands’ (schol. T; Leaf). On the paratactic continuation of the simile, see Scott 1974, 155  f.

390 κλειτὺς … ἀποτμήγουσι χαράδραι: The ambiguity of the words impedes a precise determination of the process described: (1) χαράδρη means both (1a) ‘gorge, cleft’ and (1b) ‘river running through a gorge, torrent’ (LSJ; LfgrE; meaning (b) is here more likely because of ῥέουσαι in 391); (2) κλειτύς (literally ‘slope’, related to κλίνω; on the form, see app.crit. and Wackernagel 1916, 74  f.) is either (2a) ‘mountain slope, hill’ (thus most interpreters since the scholia) or (2b) ‘embankment’ (LfgrE s.v. with reference to Od. 5.470: Odysseus at the river mouth ἐς κλειτὺν ἀναβάς, although this is less plausible here because of πολλάς); (3) ἀποτμήγω is either (3a) ‘cut off’ (AH; Reinhardt 1961, 200 n. 13 [who also posits this meaning at 354 and 374: ‘be cut off (from the others)’]; Janko on 389–392) or (3b) ‘cut through’ (Leaf; LfgrE s.v. τμήγω 561.23  ff.). Most likely is the notion of torrents (1b) that eat through the neighboring slopes (2a) and create fissures in the landscape (3b); plantations are thus damaged by erosion or flooding (392). 391 2nd VH ≈ 393, also 2.784 (in addition to μεγάλα στοναχ-/στεναχ- at VE at 23.172, Od. 14.354). — ἅλα πορφυρέην: ἅλς mostly designates, as here, the part of the sea close to the coast (Page 1959, 228; LfgrE). πορφύρεος (24.645n. with bibliography; cf. 333– 334n.) is an epithetP of ‘sea’ only here (cf. the likewise unique metrically equivalent ἅλα μαρμαρέην at 14.273 [Janko on 14.271–274]). The combination κῦμα πορφύρεον (6× early epic, 1.482n.) is very close, thus perhaps ‘darkly surging sea’ (cf. 14.16 ὡς δ’ ὅτε πορφύρῃ πέλαγος [see ad loc.] and the various sea epithets meaning ‘dark’ at 24.79n.), probably in a faded, ornamental use (Ferrini 2000, 66–71). — στενάχουσι ῥέουσαι: ‘flowed with a roar/thunderously’ (Kaimio 1977, 89); the (human) connotation ‘moan’ of στενάχω is ini­tially less obvious here than at e.g. 2.95/781/784 of the earth resounding with the noise of creatures moving and moaning under the strain (2.95n.); at 23.230 of the sea roaring and moaning with grief over Patroklos’ death; at 24.79 of the sea that roars and moans when Iris dives into it (LfgrE s.v. στένω). Cf. 393n.

392 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Op. 409. — On the notion that injustice leads to ruin and justice to flourishing, cf. Od. 19.109–114, Hes. Op. 225–247; West on Hes. loc. cit.; Erler 1987; West 1997, 321  f., and 2007, 422–424 (all with parallels).

ἐπικάρ: either ‘headlong, suddenly, precipitate’ (thus the traditional understanding, related to κάρη ‘head’; on the adverbialization, Nussbaum 1986, 75–94; see also Janko on 389–392) or ‘down’ (ἐπικατα- with assimilation to ῥέουσαι: Forssman 1967; cf. Nussbaum loc. cit. and 261–266; DELG s.v. κάρ). — ἔργ’ ἀνθρώπων: a VE formula (also

389 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 390 κλειτύς: acc. pl., ‘slopes’. 391 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — πορφυρέην: on the -η- after -ε-, R 2. — μεγάλα: adv., ‘loudly’. 392 μινύθει: intransitive, ‘disappear, are destroyed’. — τε (ϝ)έργ(α): on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 183

at 19.131, Od. 6.259, 14.84); on the meaning, cf. 19.131n. (‘cultivated fields, agricultural plantations’).

393 1st VH ≈ 23.291 (but there of ‘horses [from the breed] of Tros’); 2nd VH ≈ 391 (see ad loc.). — Cf. 375n.

ἵπποι Τρῳαί: Feminine ἵππος is comparatively rare in early epic, sometimes (a) with the pregnant meaning ‘mare’ (in which cases generally from a famous breed or with special characteristics, like e.g. the race horses in Book 23, see 2.763n.), sometimes (b) generically of a ‘horse’ or pl. ‘team of horses’ with no discernible difference vis-à-vis the sex, e.g. here after masc. ὠκέες/μώνυχες ἵπποι at 370/ 375 and similarly at 8.104 (masc.)/113 (fem.) (Willcock on 8.113; Hainsworth on 11.597), also the variant ἵππων ὠκειάων 2× Il. at VE (and 1× with the words separated) beside the more common ὠκέες ἵπποι/ὠκέας ἵππους (148n.). Given the combination with θέουσαι, however, an association with (a) race horses cannot be entirely excluded in the present case. — στενάχοντο θέουσαι: more likely of the ‘groaning, gasping, snorting’ of the horses themselves (thus e.g. AH; Krapp 1964, 144  f., 255) than of the ‘booming, thundering’ of their hooves (thus LfgrE s.v. στενάχω, end); cf. 489 of a groaning steer. On the typical picking up of the simile keyword (391), 7n.

394–418 ‘Now Patroclus tries above all to catch up with Hector, 382, and therefore drives after his opponent, who is galloping away from him, through the ranks of the fleeing Trojans; by doing this he, like the fleeing Hector, comes to be in front of the foremost ranks of the Trojan foot-soldiers, whom he […] drives back to the ships, barring their way to the city. […] Then Patroclus leaps off his chariot […] and rages devastatingly among the fleeing ranks’ (Albracht [1886] 2005, 85  f.; on leaping off the chariot, 398n.). The flight toward the city is stopped dead by Patroklos (Fenik 1968, 114; cf. 8.343–347, 11.181–217, 21.1–5); the plain thus turns into the scene for the duel between Patroklos and Sarpedon that follows (419  ff.), while Patroklos’ renewed (but to him, ultimately fatal) advance on Troy (684  ff.) is set up (Krischer 1971, 29  f.; similarly Wiessner 1940, 81). – At 394–398, the current situation on the battlefield – which has developed further with Patroklos’ rush forward during the flight described by the simile at 384  ff. (cf. covering sceneP) – is described summarily from a bird’s eye view, then exemplified (399–418) in a catalogue-like description and finally by a list of Patroklos’ individual combats. These exempla in turn represent precursors to the crowning duel between Patroklos and Sarpedon: Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 10; Strasburger 1954, 60  f.; Fenik loc. cit. 22  f.; Kühlmann 1973, 35.

393 στενάχοντο: on the middle (after act. στενάχουσι in 391), R 23.

184 

 Iliad 16

394 ἐπεὶ οὖν: The sentence ‘performs […] a synoptic interpretation, while at the same time it exceeds somewhat what has been said so far. […] the action thus far (is) concluded, and a new action is introduced’ (Reynen 1957, 21 [transl.]; similarly Bakker 1997, 115). — ἐπέκερσε φάλαγγας: Implication: Patroklos breaks through the lines, thus getting in front of the fleeing troops and cutting off their path to the city (395  f.; on the meaning ‘cut off’, cf. the v.l. ἀπέκερσε: schol. D; Leaf); similarly 6.6 ῥῆξε φάλαγγα ‘break through the lines’ (Faesi; Mutzbauer 1909, 53; Benveniste 1969a, 80; cf. 120n., where ἐπικείρω has the metaphorical sense ‘thwart’). – On the term φάλαγγες, 280n. 395 παλιμπετές: probably related to πέτομαι, i.e. ‘back without delay’ (Schmitt 1967, 233; LfgrE s.v.; differently schol. bT and D: related to πίπτω, ‘falling backward’), in early epic only here and at Od. 5.27 (Zeus: ‘may the suitors return home παλιμπετές’). 396 ἐπιβαινέμεν: ‘enter (a city)’, with gen. πόληος/πόλιος also of the city of the Phaiakians at Od. 6.262 (AH; Leaf; Janko on 394–398, end); similarly Ἴλιον εἰσανέβησαν of the fleeing Trojans at Il. 6.74, etc.

397 The verse is constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (on which in general, 1.145n.; additional bibliography: 24.60n.) and describes the boundaries of the battlefield and thus of the Trojan distress (in this sense AH, Anh. ad loc.). The most significant indication of location in the present context is set emphatically at VE and is provided with an epithet (the walls of Troy toward which the Trojans are fleeing and from which Patroklos is pushing them back again); the Greek encampment of ships – opposed to the walls both in its placement in the verse and in the narrator’s imagination – is placed at VB. On the topography of the battlefield, 6.4n., 14.30–36n. (with appendix), 24.351n. (where also on the designation ‘river’ = Skamandros/Xanthos and on its location).

τείχεος ὑψηλοῖο: a noun-epithet formula at VE (also 12.388, 16.702, 21.540) and at VB (16.512), of Troy’s walls here and at 702, 21.540, of the walls of the Greek camp at 12.388, 16.512 (AH; Janko on 394–398).

398 2nd VH ≈ Od. 23.312 (Odysseus’ revenge on Polyphemos). — The expression ‘he killed while rushing from behind’ assumes that Patroklos has climbed off his chariot and is pursuing the Trojans on foot, as becomes clear later at 404 ‘stepped close’ (chariots are only used for fast movement around the battlefield, not for battle itself: 2.384n.; cf. 20n.). Climbing on and off the chariot is a process so self-evident that mention of it is frequently omitted (schol. bT on 411; Lorimer 1950, 325; Janko on 411–414; Edwards on 20.495–502); the reference to Patroklos leaping off his chariot at the beginning of his duels with Sarpedon 395 ἔ(ϝ)εργε: impf. of εἴργω ‘force (back/away)’. — πόληος: gen. with πόλις (R 11.3, R 3). 396 ἱεμένους: ‘although they tried their best to do so’ (concessive). — ἐπιβαινέμεν: inf. (R 16.4), with gen. of specification of destination.

Commentary 

 185

(427 [426n.]) and Hektor (733) is thus all the more significant: Willcock on 378. — Avenging fallen comrades (or relatives, see 317–329n.) is a familiar motif in Homeric fighting scenes; the revenge is usually exacted not on the ac­tual perpetrator but on a random enemy, e.g. 581  ff.: Patroklos takes vengeance on Sthenelaos for Epegeus (Fenik 1968, 139; Stoevesandt 2004, 233  f. with additional bibliography; cf. 14.459–464n.). Only rarely are killings explicitly designated as poinḗ ‘atonement, retribution’, as here, or paraphrased verbally via (apo)tínō/tínymai ‘(make) atone’: 13.414–416, 14.482–484, 17.34  f.; retribution is not achieved: 13.659 (3.290n.; Treston 1923, 29–31; Wilson 2002, 30). The revenge motif turns into a prominent topic in the final third of the Iliad: Achilleus avenges Patroklos’ death (explicitly at 18.91–93, 21.133–135, 22.270– 272, also 21.27  f. of the twelve youths Achilleus will sacrifice at Patroklos’ grave [on which, 18.336–337n.]; Rabel 1997, 160).

μεταΐσσων: ‘rushing from behind, attacking’; μετ(α)- has a local and intentional connotation, i.e. ‘(rush) right into the midst of the Trojans’ and ‘(rush, i.e. chase) after them’ (Kurz 1966, 133 n. 35, and AH). — ἀπετείνυτο: On the spelling with -ει- rather than the traditional -ι-, 3.278b–279an.

399–418 An androktasiē scene (306–357n.) in the manner of an aristeia (i.e. a series of victories by the hero: Stoevesandt 2004, 97): Patroklos kills 1. Pronoös, 2. Thestor, 3. Erylaos, 4. Erymas, 5. Amphoteros, 6. Epaltes, 7. Tlepolemos, 8. Echios, 9. Pyris, 10. Ipheus, 11. Euippos, 12. Polymelos (on groups of twelve warriors, cf. 18.230–231an.). The structure of the scene with three detailed descriptions of killings (399–414) and nine slain warriors merely listed (415–418) corresponds to the tendency of catalogues to become more terse toward the end (168–197n.; 6.5–36n.); at the same time, the narrative speed increases, working up to the entrance of Sarpedon (schol. bT on 415–417; Strasburger 1954, 60  f.; Niens 1987, 87  f.; Janko on 399–418; Minchin 2001, 92  f.; Aceti 2008, 91; cf. 394–418n., end, 692–697n.). This lead-up to the climax, the duel with Sarpedon, is perhaps supported by the imagined sequence ‘nine – the tenth’ at 415  ff. (Singor 1991, 40, 43; Rabel 1997, 160; on the sequence ‘nine – the tenth’ in general, 2.326–329n.; Graziosi/Haubold on 6.174; on the number nine, 306–357n.). Lists similar to the present one (415–418) are found repeatedly in the Iliad (11.299  ff., 16.694  ff., 24.249  ff.; with six characters: 5.703  ff.; with seven characters: 5.677  f., 13.91  ff., 21.209  f.; with eight characters: 8.273  ff.); they often conclude with a formulaic verse – here 418 (see ad loc.) (Broccia 1963, 29–32; Fenik 1968, 68  f., 120; Edwards 1980a, 99; Janko on 415–418; Kelly 2007, 267; West 2011, 166 [on 5.677  f.]). The names of the victims are Greek in origin, the

398 πολέων …: i.e. ‘took revenge for the many Achaian dead’; πολέων = πολλῶν (R 12.2).

186 

 Iliad 16

characters appear as mere extras (cf. 306–357n.; for details, see in the relevant nn. below); 419  f. (Sarpedon watches ‘his companions’ fall) sub­sequently suggests that the twelve warriors killed were Lykians, i.e. Trojan allies. 399–414 Patroklos’ fight against Pronoös and Thestor is depicted as one coherent scene: that Thestor remains on the chariot (402  ff.) suggests that he serves as Pronoös’ charioteer (schol. bT on 399  f.; Willcock on 401); the joint death of a hero and his charioteer is a typical motif (6.17–19n.; Fenik 1968, 60–62), here also closely linked by ‘first’ at 399 and ‘for the second time’ at 402. The detailed description and the simile intensify the second part (401b–410) vis-à-vis the first (399–401a), while the subsequent third killing appears even slightly more horrific in terms of the weapon and the wound (411–414n.); on the ‘dynamic development of the sequence as a whole’, see Niens 1987, 83–86 (quotation: 84 [transl.]); cf. Visser 1987, 147 (quoted at 399n.). 399 2nd VH ≈  284.  — Pronoös (‘he who is provident, circumspect’: LfgrE with bibliography) is attested as a name in early epic only here, in the post-Homeric period multiple times in both mythological and historical sources (RE s.v.; Wathelet s.v.; LGPN s.v.). In the present context, the name might have an ironic effect in association with prṓtos (2× pro-) (Stanley 1993, 170; Janko on 399–400 with reference to Eustathius): the clever one dies first; in a similar manner, seers and their sons go to war despite relevant inauspicious signs or warnings and perish (2.831  ff., 2.858  ff.; Stoevesandt 2004, 142). On the use of personal names that fit the context, cf. 175n., 179n. and esp. 345n. (with additional bibliography). — On the detail ‘first’, cf. 284n. (but here, in contrast to 284, in reference to the first victim rather than the first attacker; likewise at 11.420, 12.191, 17.597: de Jong [1987] 2004, 51).

ἔνθ’ ἤτοι: ἤτοι has the same function as μέν; in this way, ‘the audience [is] prepared for another important killing scene (the demise of Thestor, described at 401–410)’ (401 ὃ δέ), likewise 463 ἔνθ’ ἤτοι Πάτροκλος → 466 Σαρπηδὼν δ(έ) (Visser 1987, 146–148 [quotation: 147 (transl.)], based on Ruijgh [1981] 1996 [cf. 253n.]; in this sense already AH on 463). On ἔνθα as a selection signal, 306n.; the combination ἔνθ’ ἤτοι occurs only here and at 463 (Bakker 1997, 107 n. 40: ‘a good case of clustering’). — βάλε δουρὶ φαεινῷ: a unique combination of the common phrases βάλε δουρί (8× VE, 3× after caesura A 4, only here after C 1; see Higbie 1990, 167  f.) and δουρὶ φαεινῷ (284n.), a short form, as it were, of the frequent VE formula ἀκόντισε δουρὶ φαεινῷ (14× Il.).

400 = 312 (see ad loc.). 401–405 The fact that the sentence is constructed out of small parts with grammatical inconcinnity (401 ὃ δέ =  Patroklos, 402 ὃ μέν =  Thestor [with a parenthetic remark

400 στέρνον: acc. of respect (R 19.1) with γυμνωθέντα.

Commentary 

 187

at 402b–404a], 404 ὃ δ(έ) again =  Patroklos, picked up from 401; also ellipse of the predicate at 401  f., sc. ‘struck’ vel sim.) can be interpreted as a particularly strong mani­ festation of spoken language, i.e. of oral narration: Russo 1994, 382; detailed interpretation in Bakker 1993, esp.  4–6, 9–13; similarly Ferrari 1986, 40 (who identifies the uncommon use of the expression δεύτερον ὁρμηθείς in particular as the cause of these irregularities [402n.]). Parallels for the ellipse of the predicate at 401  f. occur at 13.427/434, 15.430/433, 16.463/465, 17.610/617 (in all cases in the ABC-schemeP, cf. 463–465n.): Bakker 1993, 10  f.; 1997, 107  f.; Janko on 15.429–435. On ὃ μέν introducing a paren­thetic remark, Bakker 1993, 12; 1997, 84 n.  76 (examples: 8.257b, 15.447–451, 16.789  f., 20.463–469, Od. 10.159  f.; τὸ μέν: Il. 2.101). – On the beginning of the sentence at 401 with ὃ δέ (= warrior in the lead role, here Patroklos) after caesura B 1, cf. 20.472, 20.474 (Achilleus); Visser 1987, 194 n. 268; Bakker 1993, 9 n. 20.

401 1st VH = 325, etc. — Three separate characters in the Iliad are designated by the name Thestor: (a) a Trojan or Trojan ally (only here), (b) the father of Kalchas the seer (1.69, patronymic; in post-Homeric literature one of the Argonauts), (c) the father of the Greek Alkmaon, killed by Sarpedon (12.394, patronymic). At least in the case of (b), Thestor ‘he who prays’ is a speaking name used pointedly. There are multiple historical attestations of the name (1.69–73n.; von Kamptz 266; RE s.v.; Wathelet s.v.; LGPN s.v.). – In Greek, Enops is also an adj. (ḗnops ‘shining’) that occurs in the present context (408; on the association, see ad loc.). The name is not attested historically (Wathelet s.v.); in early epic, Enops is ‘a nobody dignified by the repetition of his name’ (Janko on 14.442–448): he also appears as the father of Satnios (a Trojan ally, 14.443– 445) and of Klytomedes (Nestor’s opponent in boxing at the funeral games for Amaryngkeus, 23.634 [narrative by Nestor]), also as v.l. for Oinops at Od. 21.144 (father of the augur Leodes).

δούπησεν δὲ πεσών: 325n. — Ἤνοπος υἱόν: VE = 23.634; ≈ Od. 21.144 (v.l. Οἴνοπος υἱ-), Il. 5.152, 17.312 (Φαίνοπος υἱ-). On the structure of the name in the 2nd VH, 14n.

402 1st VH ≈  467.  — δεύτερον ὁρμηθείς: here of a ‘second’, ‘next’ attack by the same warrior (Patroklos) on a new opponent; elsewhere of a switch within a duel: A strikes first, opponent B attacks next (with ὁρμάομαι or ὄρνυμαι and nom. δεύτερος: 3.349, 5.855 [after 3.346/5.851 πρόσθε(ν)], 16.467, 17.45, 21.595  f.; similarly 5.17, 16.479 [ὕστερος]; with a verb of throwing: 7.248  f., 7.268  f., 20.273, 21.169  f.; Beye 1964, 351; Kurz 1966, 101; Ferrari 1986, 40). The present adaptation probably serves to link the killing scenes involving Pronoös and Thestor (399–418n.). — ὃ μέν: 401–405n. — εὐξέστῳ ἐνὶ δίφρῳ: an inflectable noun-epithet formula (gen. ἐϋξέστου ἐπὶ δίφρου: Od. 17.602, 24.408; dat. as here, but with different epithets: Il. 17.464 ἱερῷ ἐνὶ δ., 23.335 ἐϋπλέκτῳ ἐνὶ δ. [cf. ‘Hes.’

401 ὃ δέ: Patroklos; picked up in 404 via ὃ δ’. — Θέστορα, (Ϝ)ήνοπος: on the prosody, R 4.3. 402 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1).

188 

 Iliad 16

Sc. 306 ἐϋπλεκέων δ’ ἐπὶ δίφρων]; at VB: Od. 19.101 δίφρον ἐΰξεστον). εὔξεστος is tri­ syllabic only here (Plath 1994, 218, 224  f.); on the epithet in general, 24.271n.; on δίφρος ‘chariot (body)’, 378b–379n. and esp. 3.362n.

403–404a Frightened by the death of his leader, Thestor lets go of the reins and hides in the body of the chariot: in the Greek text, the narrator pushes the last item (hiding) forward, since it conditions further events (404b–410); the fact that Thestor in fear (‘psychological’ cause) released the reins (first ‘reaction’) is added in an explanatory ‘since’ clause with anaphoric ek ‘from’. Both motifs are typical of fighting scenes: Fenik 1968, 62, 83; Kelly 2007, 163  f.; Janko on 401–410 (parallels for the charioteer taking fright: 13.394–401, 18.225; for releasing the reins: 5.582  f., 8.137, 11.128, 17.619).  – Elsewhere in the Iliad, a crouching stance is usually assumed by warriors, the idea being to avoid an incoming spear (see 611–612n.). Thestor’s crouch is a ‘sign of fright and helplessness’ (Kurz 1966, 55 [transl.]).

ἐκ … πλήγη φρένας: like English ‘he was robbed of his wits, he lost his head’, namely through fright (post-Homeric ἐκπλήττομαι ‘take fright’); this implies the loss of presence of mind and of normal responsiveness, similarly 13.394–401, 16.805  f. (see ad loc.): Snell 1977, 46–48; Sullivan 1988, 122  f.; LfgrE s.v. πλήσσω 1293.6  ff.; on φρένες as the location of intellectual processes – ‘intellect, (right) mind’ – in particular, 1.115n.; Laser 1983, 42  f.; van der Mije 2011; LfgrE s.v. φρένες 1017.10  ff. – Similar expressions: 6.234, 19.137 (Zeus deprives a man of his wits, see ad loc.), 13.434  ff., 16.805  f. (someone’s mind becomes numb, see ad loc.). — ἐκ δ’ ἄρα χειρῶν: an inflectable VE formula (= 5.582, 17.298; sing. χειρός 11.239, 13.529, Od. 22.83; ἐν δ’ ἄρα χειρί 6.318, 8.493). — ἡνία ἠΐχθησαν: A pl. predicate is usual with the subj. ἡνία (Plath 1994, 352  f.); on the θη- aor. of ἀΐσσω, 24.97n.; on the hiatus, cf. 17.734 πρόσσω ἀΐξας (VB; that the word originally began with a consonant is not demonstrable: DELG).

404b–410 One of the cruelest and most unusual killing scenes in the Iliad, with the fishing simile (406–410n.) providing a key part of its graphic nature: Fenik 1968, 61  f., 199  f.; Niens 1987, 84  f.; criticism of the ‘fantastic’ descriptions, Friedrich (1956) 2003, 7  f.; attempt at an anatomically plausible interpretation of the injury in Saunders 2003, 137  f.; short paraphrases of all un­usual killing scenes in Vermeule 1979, 97–99; Mueller (1984) 2009, 81–83; cf. esp. 5.580  ff. (charioteer is stuck head first in the ground), 16.737  ff. (charioteer falls from the chariot head-first like a vaulter/diver).

403 ἧστο (ϝ)αλείς: on the prosody, R  4.3; ἀλείς aor. part. of εἰλέομαι ‘cower’.  — ἐκ  … πλήγη: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — φρένας: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 404 ἠΐχθησαν: from ἀΐσσω, here ‘slip, fall’.

Commentary 

 189

404b The lateral position of the attacker is reflected in the injury to the (cowering) victim: ‘on the right jaw’ (405; 20.472–474 is similar: through one ear and out the other; Kurz 1966, 95).

νύξε παραστάς: of close combat; on νύξε, 343n.; on παραστάς, 114n. (and 398n.).

405 2nd VH ≈ 5.291. — The jaw is the location of injuries elsewhere only in the expression ‘below the jaw and the ear’ (13.671, 16.606, 17.617 [all fatal]; at 17.617  f., the lance also knocks out the teeth and cuts through the tongue). On the teeth, 348n.

διὰ δ’ αὐτοῦ πεῖρεν ὀδόντων: Descriptions of a body part that is pierced mostly use πείρω or περάω and a preposition: διά also at 4.502, 20.479, εἴσω 4.460, 6.10, ἀμφί Hes. Op. 205 (by contrast, acc. without preposition at 5.291), i.e.: ‘pierced his teeth (rows of teeth)’. On analogy with 20.479  f. τόν γε (sc. Deukalion) φίλης διὰ χειρὸς ἔπειρεν (sc. Achilleus) | αἰχμῇ, Patroklos is still to be understood as the subj. (rather than the weapon, as at e.g. 4.460, 4.502, 6.10), and the instrumental dative ἔγχεϊ is to be supplied from 404. As already at 404  f. νύξε … γναθμόν (‘struck him on the jaw’) and later at 406 εἷλκε, τόν is also ‘tacitly assumed’ (LfgrE s.v. νύσσω 449.62  f. [transl.]); what is more, αὐτοῦ, common in Attic but rare in early epic, corresponds to Homeric φίλος at 20.479 in its function as an unstressed possessive pronoun, namely in reference to the ‘proprietor’ of the injured body part. Discussion of the construction (with various and sometimes divergent interpretations) in Döderlein 1853, 122; AH with Anh.; Leaf; Trümpy 1950, 120; de Boel 1988, 149.

406–410 Patroklos ‘fishes’ Thestor from the chariot: the simileP illustrates the wounding and death of a warrior; similes having the same function elsewhere in Book 16: 482  ff./487  ff. (Sarpedon), 742/745  ff. (Kebriones), 823  ff. (Patroklos) (list in Stoevesandt 2004, 422  f.). The simile is placed in the exact middle of the androktasiē scene 399–418 (Stanley 1993, 170  f.; cf. Strasburger 1954, 60). The parallelism between the action in the simile and the action being compared is remarkable, underlining the bizarre character of the process (schol. bT on 406–409; Fränkel 1921, 87; Strasburger loc. cit. 39; SchnappGourbeillon 1981, 81; Moulton 1977, 104; Janko on 401–410; similarly Od. 12.251  ff.: killing of Odysseus’ companions by Skylla [Leaf on 406]). As in 3  f. (spring) and 7–11 (girl), Patroklos’ behavior is compared to motifs that are altogether unwarlike and quotidian; his action in the battle thus appears effortless, whereas the behavior of the victim seems contemptible, as is also expressed by the different sitting postures at 403 vs. 407 (Kurz 1966, 55; Scott 2009, 161; cf. Strasburger loc. cit.); the comparison to a diver at 742  ff. (with explicit mockery, see 745–750n.) is similar.  – Fishing and the consumption of fish are largely omitted from early epic, with the exception of comparisons (24.80–82, Od. 10.124, 12.251–254, 22.384–388; perhaps also Il. 5.487): Homeric heroes generally consume meat (24.80–82n. and Janko on

190 

 Iliad 16

16.407–408 with additional bibliography; also Shear 2000, 143  f.; Berdowski 2008). 406 1st VH, cf. 3.78, 7.56, 8.72, 22.212. — εἷλκε: a simile keyword, repeated in the manner of a ring-composition in the ‘so’ part at 409 (7n.). — δουρὸς ἑλών: like ‘holding by the hand’, etc.; ‘the lance sticking in his (sc. Thestor’s) mouth is considered part of him’: AH (transl.). — ἄντυγος: ‘edge of the chariot’, i.e. ‘the bar of the chariot seat which forms the upper curved edge of the railing’ (LfgrE s.v. ἄντυξ [transl.]; Wiesner 1968, 15  f., 104; Plath 1994, 292  ff.). — ὡς ὅτε τις …: elsewhere always after caesura A 3; sometimes followed by monosyllabic words (e.g. at 482 δρῦς), as here. – The predicate is missing in the ‘as’ part, but is present as simile keyword (see above) before and after; on the ellipsis of the predicate in similes (also at 8.306  ff., Od. 11.413  ff.), see Ruijgh 637  f.; Scott 1974, 160  f.

407 In Homeric similes, embankments ‘are considered throughout as cliffs. The towering rock, the sudden cliff is encountered again and again’, e.g. at 2.394  ff.: Lesky 1947, 173 (transl.).

πέτρῃ ἔπι προβλῆτι: a unique phrase, ≈ h.Hom. 7.3 ἀκτῇ ἔπι προβλῆτι; metrical variants: πέτρῃ ἔφ’ ὑψηλῇ (429, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 406), πέτρῃ ἔπ’ ἠλιβάτῳ (h.Merc. 404). — ἱερὸν ἰχθύν: On ἱερός combined with terms that at first glance are not endowed with ‘sanctity’, see 24.681n. with bibliography. None of the ancient or modern interpretations of the present usage are really convincing: (a) like a sacred or sacrificial animal ‘large, strong’; (b) in accord with Vedic iṣirá- ‘alive, kicking’; (c) ‘sacred’ in the sense ‘sacred to a specific deity, namely Poseidon’ or ‘removed from the human sphere of control’; (d) designation of a particular fish species (a list of fish recognized in antiquity in Rengakos 1992, 25). The assumption that ἱερός is ‘merely a metrically useful filler’ thus has much in its favor: Janko on 407–408 (cf. Wülfing-von Martitz 1960, 299, with reference to Friedrich [1956] 2003, 8, 125 n. 56, who assumes a severe degradation of the term). Bibliography on the most commonly favored meanings: (a) ‘large’ schol. A; Lesky 1947, 20; Rengakos loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v. ἱερός 1143.47  ff.; (b) ‘wriggling’ Locher 1963, 62; Benveniste 1969a, 196; Clarke 1995a, 300  f., 305; similarly Hooker 1980, 20 (‘perpetually darting through the water’); (c) suggestion by Graf (fishing as ‘transgression’); Martínez 1997.

408 θύραζε: metaphorically ‘from out of the water’, as at 21.29, 21.237, Od. 5.410, 12.254 and θύρηθι at Od. 14.352. — λίνῳ καὶ … χαλκῷ: i.e. with string and metal hook (fishhook).  — ἤνοπι χαλκῷ: a VE formula, only in ‘civilian’ contexts, also at 18.349 and Od. 10.360 (of a cooking vessel); variants in military contexts: αἴθοπι χαλκῷ (12× early epic, of which 11× of armor, 1× of a part of a weapon), νώροπι χ. (130n.; always of armor or parts thereof). The meaning of ἦνοψ is obscure (traditionally rendered ‘gleaming’: 18.349n.). On the likely associative connection with Enops (401n.), cf. Von der Mühll

406 δουρός: gen. dependent on ἑλών (‘take hold of someone by something’); on the declension, R 12.5. — φώς: ‘man’. 408 θύραζε: generally ‘out’ (sc. pull). — καὶ (ϝ)ήνοπι: on the prosody, R 4.4.

Commentary 

 191

1952, 247 (‘Patroklos […] kills […] Enops’ son ἤνοπι χαλκῷ’ [transl.]); Janko on 401–410 (Enops ‘is soon reforged back into an epithet for bronze’). 409 κεχηνότα: ‘with open mouth’ (like a fish on the hook: AH); on the form with -η- (beside aor. χανών at 350), see Hackstein 2002, 229  f. — δουρὶ φαεινῷ: 284n.

410 Thestor falls on his face as Adrestos did when thrown from his uncoupled chariot (6.42  f.).  – In Homeric epic, death is often depicted as a process of separation (here ‘the life force left him’), elsewhere in Book 16 esp. 453, 505, 856 (and of an animal at 469). The departing element is called thymós, psychḗ vel sim. (‘breath, force of life, «soul»’). Bibliography: Warden 1971, 99, 102; Bremmer 1983, 74  f.; Saunders 2004, 9  f.; in detail, Garland 1981, esp. 47  ff. and 56; Jahn 1987, 32  ff.; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 56  ff.; Clarke 1999, 129  ff.; Eck 2012, 179  ff.

λίπε θυμός: as at 4.470; aside from θυμός, ψυχή and/or αἰών can be the subj. (453n.; cf. esp. Od. 18.91 μιν ψυχὴ λίποι αὖθι πεσόντα), and the personal object (here μιν) can be replaced by ὀστέα (742b–743n., end) or ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην (857n.); also similar are 469 ἀπὸ δ’ ἔπτατο θυμός, 606  f. θυμὸς | ᾤχετ’ ἀπὸ μελέων (see ad loc.). On θυμός in the sense ‘life force, vital energy, life’, cf. θυμὸν ἀΐσθων 468n., θυμὸν ἀποφθινύθουσι 540n., ἀπὸ θυμὸν ἕλοιτο 655n., θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι 861n.

411–414 The third killing scene  – the last before the catalogue of the fallen at 415–418  – represents yet another intensification in comparison to the two preceding scenes (399–414n.), especially in the use of a rock as a (substitute) weapon (411) and in the extent of the injuries (shattering of the skull, 412): Niens 1987, 86  f. 577–580 (with 578–580 ≈ 412–414) is a close parallel: Hektor hits Epegeus in the head with a stone; by means of this parallel, the narrator brings the strands of the storylines of Patroklos and Hektor ever closer to­gether (and they indeed merge at the end of the Book) (Mueller [1984] 2009, 171; Niens 1987, 93  f.). 411 1st VH ≈ 415, 696; 2nd VH = 20.288; ≈ 4.527, 16.511, Od. 5.428. — Erylaos is a Trojan (or Trojan ally) and is mentioned only here. The name (‘he who protects the men at arms’) appears to be an ad hoc creation (cf. 345n. on Erymas); it occurs once more in post-Homeric epic, but is not attested historically (except in the longer form Erysilaos): Wathelet s.v. Erylaos; LGPN s.v. Erysilaos. – On the motif ‘shooting at approaching enemies’, 313n. Rocks are used as weapons especially by the stronger heroes, in Book 16 namely by Patroklos (here, at 586  f. and 734  f.) and Hektor (577  f.; see Neal 2006, 25  f.). On rocks as missiles – not

410 κὰδ δ’ … ἔωσε: aor. ‘shoved down, flung to the ground’, so-called tmesis (R 20.2; κάδ with apocope, R 20.1, cf. 412 κάκ). — ἐπὶ στόμ(α): ‘on his face’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 411 ἐπεσσύμενον: perf. part. of ἐπι-σεύομαι ‘rush against, fall upon’.

192 

 Iliad 16

necessarily lethal – in general, see 3.80n. with bibliography; also Pritchett 1991, 1–67, esp. 3–6, 66  f.; Saunders 2003, 163  f. n. 10; Kelly 2007, 294  f.

αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ(α): a typical connection of sentences in narrative: 24.273–274n.; on its use in killing scenes in particular, Visser 1987, 168–170 (αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα, as it were, substitutes for the subject, who remains the same and thus need not be mentioned again).

412–414 ≈ 578–580. — The k alliteration in 412  f. probably accentuates the violence of the process: Higbie 1990, 118. 412 = 20.387; ≈ 578; 1st VH = 20.475. — Cf. 345–350n. with bibliography on head injuries in the Iliad. — πᾶσα κεάσθη: ‘broke apart completely’; πᾶς is predicative, as at 801 πᾶν … ἄγη … ἔγχος.

413 ≈  579; also 2nd VH =  21.118; ≈  15.543, 16.310, 17.300 (see 310–311n.).  —The assumption by AH that the helmet remains undamaged but that ‘the cranium shatters due to the horrific shock within it [i.e. the helmet]’ (transl.) is unlikely in reality as imagined; moreover, the Greek text need not necessarily be under­ stood this way – the helmet could just as well be broken as well. In fighting scenes, helmets are frequently mentioned when they fall down, are pierced or shattered by a weapon or prove incapable of preventing a (fatal) head injury (Shear 2000, 196 n. 551; LfgrE s.v. κόρυς 1493.47  ff.).

κόρυθι βριαρῇ: an inflectable noun-epithet formula after caesura A 1 or A 4 (with ἐν, as here, also at 579; in the dat. alone, 20.162; acc. 11.375, 18.611, 22.112). The epithetP is only used with terms for helmet (κόρυς, τρυφάλεια [19.380b–381an.]); its meaning ‘heavy, solid’ likely suggests – as do other helmet epithets (χαλκείη, χαλκήρης, χαλκοπάρῃος) – helmets made of metal or at least fitted with metal elements (LfgrE s.v. κόρυς 1493.29  ff.; on early metal helmets, Buchholz et al. 2010 and Mödlinger 2013; bibliography on the system of helmet epithets: 216n.).

414 = 580; ≈ 13.544. — On the verb ‘pour forth’, 344n.

ἀμφὶ δέ μιν: thus also at 580, in contrast 13.544 ἀμφὶ δέ οἱ: ἀμφί with the acc. and with the dat. are largely synonymous (Labarbe 1949, 84  f.: ‘a natural enough va­riant’ [transl.]; Schw. 2.437; LfgrE s.v. ἀμφί 661.57  ff.).  — θυμοραϊστής: ‘life-destroying’ (18.220n.), an epithet of θάνατος (always of fatal head injuries, see iterata) and of δήϊοι (591, 18.220). – The triple occurrence of this conspicuous compound in Book 16 (414, 580, 591) suggests a ‘phrase-cluster’ (Hainsworth 1976, 85).

415–417 On lists of nine, 399–418n. and in general 306–357n. Each verse names three killed warriors; filler is provided at 415 by the sentence connection ‘and then’ (autár épeita, 411n.), at 416  f. by patronymics (in chiastic position: name/

412 κάκ: 410n. 413 βριαρῇ· ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

Commentary 

 193

patronymic – name – name | name – name – patronymic/name); see LfgrE s.vv. Tlepolemos and Pyris (each with parallels). 415 On Erymas, 345n. The Trojan or Trojan ally Amphoteros – perhaps with the sense ‘the ambidextrous one’ (von Kamptz 234) – has his only appearance in the present scene. The name occurs once more in Greek mythology (a son of Alkmaion; see Wathelet s.v.) and is attested historically multiple times (LGPN s.v.). Epaltes is probably a variant of Ep(h)ialtes (a giant who, together with his brother Oros, held Ares captive and who wanted to storm Olympus: 5.385  ff., Od. 11.307  ff.), i.e. ‘he who jumps on’ (von Kamptz 77); an alternative: related to the name Altes (king of the Leleges who are allied with the Trojans: 21.86  f.), ‘provider, preserver’ (von Kamptz 261). The form Epaltes is attested only here. 416 Tlepolemos is a common Greek name (‘he who endures in war’; also attested historically), in the Iliad only here as a Trojan or Trojan ally, elsewhere the son of Herakles and leader of the Rhodian contingent (2.653n.) who is killed by Sarpedon (5.655  ff. – Sarpedon’s name will also emerge soon in the present passage: 419). In the Odyssey, Damastor (‘conqueror’) is the name of the father of the suitor Agelaos (Od. 22.212, etc., likewise a patronymic), as also as of vari­ ous post-Homeric mythological characters (Wathelet s.v.); histori­cally, it is attested only in the form Damastes/-as (LGPN s.v.). – Echios is a short form of Echekles (189n.), Echepolos vel sim. (Risch 118; von Kamptz 117; Wathelet s.v.; G 56; Mycenaean e-ki-wo contains a digamma and is not completely under­ stood, see DMic with bibliography). In the Iliad, the name Echios is borne by several characters: (1) a Trojan or Trojan ally (only here), (2) the father of Mekisteus (8.333, 13.422; cf. 15.339, where an Echios and Mekisteus – son and father? – are killed simultaneously [Janko on 13.422]). Not attested historically.  – Pyris can be explained as both (1) a Greek name, namely a short form of a name containing pyr- ‘fire’, like e.g. Pyraichmes at 287 (von Kamptz 113; Wathelet s.v.; Wachter 2001, 218), and (2) a Lykian name (von Kamptz 362; Scherer 1976, 43). In favor of (1) is the fact that all other names in the present catalogue appear to be of Greek origin (cf. LfgrE s.v.) and that Pyris is attested already in Mycenaean (pu-ri: DMic s.v.) and again in the historical period (LGPN I s.v. [Thasos, 5th/4th century]). 417 A verse constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (on which, cf. the references at 397n.).  – Ipheus is a unique short form of a name containing iphi- ‘with might’ (Iphidamas, Iphikle[e]s; G 56; von Kamptz 201  f.); cf. Iphitos (2.518, 17.306), the female variant Iphis (9.667). Not attested historically. Euippos (‘he who has good horses’, also attested as an adj.: h.Ap. 210, etc.) is a common Greek name and is frequently attested in both mythology and historical sources; as a designation of a Trojan or Trojan ally only here (von

194 

 Iliad 16

Kamptz 193; Wathelet s.v.; LGPN s.v.). On the name Polymelos (‘he who has many flocks’), 180n. The patronymic Argeades suggests Argeas as the name of the father (related to argós ‘white, gleaming’ [1.50n.]). The name Argeas is attested historically (LGPN IIIB s.v. [Thessaly, Hellenistic]); the Argeadai were also the ruling dynasty in Macedonia (Wathelet s.v.; genealogy in BNP s.v.).

Ἰφέα: On the short-vowel ending, cf. Πηλέος 203n. — Ἀργεάδην Πολύμηλον: phonetically related to the VE formula Ἀρκαδίης πολυμήλου attested in the post-Homeric period (h.Merc. 2, etc.).

418 = 8.277 (omitted from the text by West) and 12.194; 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Op. 510, fr. 165.16 M.-W. — A dactylic verse concluding a catalogue of fallen warriors with the implication: ‘the hero is so powerful and capable that he killed one after the other all those listed’ (Strasburger 1954, 53  f. [transl.]). In addition, the expression ‘all in a row’ is here constructed as a ring-composition with 398 (‘exacted revenge for many’): this is the basic message of the catalogue per se.

πέλασε χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ: ‘send to the ground’ in the sense ‘kill, bring down’ (similar to ‘fall’ = ‘perish’: 310–311n.), ‘a grim formular paraphrasis, […] pathetic combination of creation and destruction’ (Hainsworth on 12.194, with reference to 3.243 [see ad loc. on φυσίζοος, end]). Whether the phrasing is originally derived from cutting down trees or from subduing a wrestling opponent (cf. English ‘to floor’) remains open (Grethlein 2006, 92  f., and Kurz 1966, 23).  — χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ: an inflectable VE formula (3.89n.).

419–683 Duel between Patroklos and Sarpedon; battle over the corpse of Sar­ pedon. Zeus’ son Sarpedon (CH 10; 2.876n.; Wathelet s.v.; Wathelet 1989, 80–84), together with Glaukos, leader of the Lykians, has three major appearances in the Iliad: in Book 5, he kills Tlepolemos son of Herakles (5.627–698); in Book 12, he tears down the parapet of the wall surrounding the Greek camp (12.290–435); and in the present episode, he is killed fighting against Patroklos. He finds himself in danger already in the two earlier passages: at 5.660–662 he is injured in the leg by Tlepolemos (and faints at 5.696–698 when the weapon is removed) and at 12.400– 405 he is hit on his shield and its strap by Aias and Teukros; in both instances, the narrator notes that ‘Zeus still fends off his death’ (cf. also at 5.674  f.) – a prolepsisP of the now inevitable death that Zeus himself has unequivo­cally announced at 15.65–68 (438n.; cf. the discussion between Zeus and Hera at 431  ff.): Eberhard 1923, 39–41; Morrison 1992, 55; Reichel 1994, 259  f. (loc. cit. 258  ff. on additional links between Books 5, 12 and 16); Neal 2006, 122–125. Sarpedon’s ‘near-death’

418 πουλυβοτείρῃ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary 

 195

(fainting, cf. 502–505n.) in Book 5 in particular can be considered an anticipationP of the present scene: Wiessner 1940, 83; Merz 1953, 17–19; Neal loc. cit. 123  f.; Barker 2011. For pictorial depictions of Sarpedon, see e.g. the east frieze of the Siphnian treasury at Delphi (525 B.C., Sarpedon as fallen warrior in the Trojan War), as well as the famous red-figure calyx-krater by Euphronios (recovery by Hypnos and Thanatos, end of the 6th cent.; LIMC s.v. Sarpedon; Saraçoğlu 2005, 63  ff.; Tsingarida 2009). – The duel with Sarpedon represents a mark of distinction for Patroklos in his role as stand-in for Achilleus: ‘The extent to which Patroklos’ aristeia is enhanced by the hetairos facing a local ruler and son of Zeus goes without saying’ (Reinhardt 1961, 341  f. [transl.]; similarly Wilamowitz 1916, 136; Owen 1946, 158; Kirk 1998, 45  f.; Janko on 419–683 [p.  370]). At the same time, Patroklos’ fate takes its course: stirred up by the victory (and by Zeus at 653  ff./691), he advances against the gates of Troy in high spirits and there meets his death (see 684–867n.). — The confrontation between Patroklos and Sarpedon is fashioned in accord with the themeP ‘duel’ (3.340–382n.; on the position of duels within descriptions of battle, see 3.15–37n.): (1) the opponents approach one another (419–430, esp. 426  ff.), (2) a dialogue between gods takes the place of challenges (431–461n.), (3) a first, indecisive round of battle (462–475), (4/5) a second round of battle with Patroklos’ victory and the final words of the dying Sarpedon (476–503a), (7) extraction of the spear from the body (503b–507). This is followed by a detailed description of the battle for Sarpedon’s corpse (508  ff., cf. esp. 532  f., 559  f.), the despoliation of the dead warrior (element (8), actually only at 663–665) and the transfer of the body to Lykia (666–683). – Element (3) contains two instances of the narrative motif of so-called substitute killings (the doubling is unique in the Iliad): Patroklos first hits Sarpedon’s charioteer Thrasydemos (that Patroklos actually aimed at Sarpedon is not said, i.e. this is an implicit substitute killing, as at 13.506: in his duel with Aineias, Idomeneus hits Oinomaos; 16.737: Patroklos hits Hektor’s charioteer Kebriones); next, Sarpedon misses Patroklos and instead hits the latter’s trace-horse Pedasos (explicit substitute killing, victim is ‘only’ an animal); Patroklos is thus depicted as su­perior already in the first round (even if shown by the loss of Pedasos to be vulnerable) (cf. 145–154n.). Element (4) presents the decisive moment: Sarpedon again misses Patroklos (477 ≈ 466; two successive missed shots also by Teukros: 8.300  ff./309  ff.), and Patroklos strikes and kills him. The second round of fighting is not, as is common, conducted with different weapons (e.g. swords), but with spears like the first. The description of the moment of death (502  ff.) is protracted (485n.) via two similes (482–491) and Sarpedon’s speech (492–501); overall, the episode is expanded and thus marked out via a clustering of elements typical of fighting scenes and a wealth of detail (e.g. 466–475). Bibliography: Fenik 1968, 203  f.; Kirk 1976, 75  f.; Tsagarakis 1982, 112–114; Niens 1987, 89  f., 92  f.; Bannert

196 

 Iliad 16

1988, 30  f.; Lossau 1991, esp. 8  f., 15  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 161  ff. (esp. 163, 171, 187); Aceti 2008, 113  f., 115  f., 118; West 2011, 322  f.; Janko on 462–475 and 476– 507; specifically on the weapons used, Mueller (1984) 2009, 79  f. Interpretation of the episode as a whole via paraphrase in Aceti loc. cit. 90–154. — The portrayal of (A) Sarpedon’s final appearance and death shows multiple commonalities in motifs and language with the deaths of (B) Patroklos at 16.684  ff. and (C) Hektor at 22.131  ff.; this emphasizes the chain of events underlying the Iliad (cf. 15.65–68): Sarpedon is killed by Patroklos, Patroklos by Hektor, Hektor by Achilleus, and – outside the story of the Iliad – Achilleus by Paris (Fenik 1968, 205, 217  f.; Segal 1971, 41  f., 43; Leinieks 1973/74, 104–106; Ciani 1974a, 116–118; Rutherford 1982, 152  f.; Mueller [1984] 2009, 28–30; Thalmann 1984, 45–47; Aceti 2008, 122  f., 130  f.; de Jong on Il. 22, Introd. 13–15; additional details, esp. on B and C, in Mueller loc. cit.; Richardson on 22.330–367; 818–863n.). The most conspicuous commonalities: • Dialogue between gods (Zeus pities Sarpedon and Hektor and wishes to save both from death; Hera and Athene argue against this; Zeus acquiesces): A 16.431–461, C 22.166–187 (with 16.441–443 = 22.179–181, 16.450 ≈ 22.169); in B, Apollo repeatedly intervenes directly in battle (16.700–711, 729  f., 788–804). – Idiomatic expression ‘the gods summon him to death’: B 16.693, C 22.297. • The two opponents leap from their chariots and attack; the first victim on both sides is a charioteer (Thrasydemos and Kebriones; so-called substitute killings): A 16.426  f., B 16.732  f./755; cf. 712–783n. • A simile illustrates the martial equality of the opponents: A 16.428–430, B 16.756–761. • The victor hits his opponent only on his second attempt: A 16.462–481, C 22.273–327. • Lion simile follows the fatal injury: A 16.487–491, B 16.823–828; in C, cf. 22.262 (Achilleus: there is no peace between lions and men). • With great effort, the dying warrior utters his final words: A 16.491–501, B 16.843–854, C 22.337–343/355–360. He foretells death for the victor: B 16.851– 854, C 22.358–360. • The moment of death, when the life force escapes: A 16.502–505, B 16.855– 857, C 22.361–363 (with 16.502 = 16.855 = 22.361). • The victor puts his foot on the corpse and pulls out his weapon: A 16.503–505, B 16.862  f., C 22.367. • Despoiling of the victim: A 16.495–501 (appeal to prevent despoiling) and 16.663–665 (actual despoiling), B 16.793–804 (premature removal of armor by Apollo) and 17.556–559 (appeal), with 16.498–501 ≈ 17.556–559 (disgrace); in C, cf. 22.339–343 (plea for a return of body to parents).

Commentary 

 197

• Defacing of the corpse with blood, dust, dirt, etc.: A 16.638–640, C 22.401– 405; cf. B 16.795–797 (of the helmet). • Entirely different is what happens to the three bodies afterward: A 16.666  ff. (Sarpedon’s body is removed from the fight and transported to Lykia by Hypnos and Thanatos [sleep and death] for burial), B 17.1  ff. (Patroklos is the center of a lengthy description of a fight over a corpse); C 22.395  ff. (Achilleus ties Hektor’s body to his chariot and drags him back to the Greek camp; in Book 24, it is retrieved by King Priam for a ransom). The structure of the action in the present episode has in addition close parallels to the story of Memnon in the Aethiopis, a poem in the Epic Cycle that was written down in the post-Homeric period and is known only from paraphrases and pictorial representations (cf. STR 23 with fig. 3): a Trojan ally with divine parentage who has come from afar (Sarpedon from Lykia and son of Zeus; Memnon from Aithiopia and son of Eos, goddess of dawn) dies in accord with a divine decision (dialogue between Zeus and Hera; weighing of the souls by Zeus) at the hands of a Myrmidon (Patroklos and Achilleus, respectively), who himself a little later on falls prey to a Trojan (Hektor and Paris, respectively) aided by Apollo. The body receives special treatment (Sarpedon is transported to his homeland by Hypnos and Thanatos and worshipped there; Memnon is recovered by Eos and made immortal). Whether the parallels are based on (a) the dependence of one narrative on the other – namely the Iliad on the Aethiopis – (thus the representatives of neo-analytic scholarship) or (b) general narrative patterns, is much disputed. Bibliography: Janko, Introd. on Il. 16 (p. 312  f.); ibid. on 419–683 (p. 372); Heubeck (1950) 1991, 463  f.; Howald 1951; Schadewaldt (1952b) 1965, 160, 165  f., 169; Schoeck 1961, 23–26, 58–61; Dihle 1970, 17–20; Clark/Coulson 1979; West 2003, 1–7; Kullmann 2005, 21; Currie 2006, 31–39; Aceti 2008, 231–262; Burgess 2009, 77  f. Fundamental for discussion of the relationship between Iliad and Aethiopis, e.g. West loc. cit.; Allan 2005, 11–16; Kullmann loc. cit.; Currie loc. cit.; on the relationship between neo-analysis and oral poetry, Finkelberg 2011; Tsagalis 2011. For additional passages that are a focus of neo-analysis, see 684–867n., end, 18.17n., 18.95–96n. 419–430 Sarpedon faces Patroklos and temporarily halts the latter’s advance. 419 1st VH ≈ 14.440. — The verb of perceiving (‘when he saw’, observation of the preceding action) serves as a signal for a change of scene (124n. with biblio­ graphy), frequently in introducing a counterattack, as here (Kirk on 5.95; Fenik 1968, 19, 71, 200; Aceti 2008, 92  f.; West 2011, 155). – The narrator uses the designation ‘companions’ to belatedly create the impression that Atymnios and Maris were not the only Lykians to die in the fight against the Achaians

198 

 Iliad 16

(317–329) but rather that there were additional Lykian victims, especially in the preceding list of fallen warriors (cf. 399–418n.); this justifies Sarpedon’s appearance (West 2011, 321). The designation ‘companions’ may also have an emotive function (secondary focalizationP), motivating Sarpedon’s intervention on the plane of character psychology (suggestion by de Jong; similarly 581).

Σαρπηδὼν δ(έ): theme word (278n.; cf. Wiessner 1940, 81). The name ‘Sarpedon’ is attested historically from ca. 400 B.C. on (LGPN); it already occurs numerous times earlier in geographic designations (e.g. the island of the Gorgons [Cypria fr. 30 West] and the name of the Thracian foothills at the mouth of the Hebros in the northeast Aegean, as well as of a cape on the Mediterranean coast of Cilicia [Herodotus 7.58.2: Sarpēdoníē ákrē; schol. on Apoll. Rhod. 1.211–215; Wathelet and BNP s.v.; Janko on 419–683 [p. 372]; on the suffix -ēdōn in place names, see von Kamptz 159  f.). — ὡς οὖν: usually combined with a verb of perceiving, as here (ἴδε), and ‘links […] the end of one strand of action to the beginning of the next’ (Reynen 1958, 67  ff. [quotation: p. 70 [transl.]; ad loc. 73  f.]; de Jong [1987] 2004, 105 with n. 12 [p. 266]). — ἀμιτροχίτωνας: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘who wear a χιτών without a μίτρη’, although the details of the appearance and function of the mítrē are obscure. Perhaps it is a (strap-like) bronze panel that strengthens the corselet in the area of the abdomen (discussion including older bibliography: LfgrE s.v. μίτρη; van Wees 1994, 135  f.; Bennett 1997, 115–123, esp.  118; Aceti 2008, 92 n. 199). In that case, the death of Thrasydemos, who is the next Lykian to die from being hit in the abdominal area (465), would be the result of his ‘insufficient’ equipment (Lorimer 1950, 250). On unique epithets used for specificity, cf. 235 ἀνιπτόποδες (see ad loc.); in any case, the VE formula ἐϋκνήμιδας ἑταίρους could be considered a more general (and metrically equivalent) counterpart (Od. 10.203, 23.319; Janko on 419–421).



The etymology of ‘Sarpedon’ is unclear; some attempts to narrow it down: (a) Mycenaean sa-ra-peda, although this is instead probably the designation of a particular estate (related to Greek pédon ‘ground, fields’; see DMic); (b) the Lykian masculine personal name Serpodis, cf. zrppedu in an obscure context on the so-called Xanthos stele (Zgusta 1964, 462; Jenniges 1998, 130  f.; Neumann 2007, 439); (c) Hittite šarpa- ‘elegant chair; implement’, also the name of an Anatolian mountain (Börker-Klähn 1994, 321  f.); (d) Carian šar- ‘above, at the top’ in the sense ‘occupying an elevated position’ (Durnford 2008; Yakubovich 2012, 132  f.), ≈ Lycian hri- (Neumann loc. cit. 97  f.).

420 ≈ (with different variations) 434, 438, 452 (‘a kind of «refrain»’: Aceti 2008, 94  f. [transl.]); 1st VH ≈  490, 543 (and with the opposite word order, 699); VB+VE ≈ 21.208; cf. also 5.559/564, 16.854, 22.446. — At this point, Sarpedon does not know that he is facing Patroklos: 423  f.; see 278n. with bibliography

419 ἴδ(ε): = εἶδε; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 199

(on the present passage, esp. Aceti loc. cit. 93  f.).  – On the verb ‘overcome’, 103n.

χέρσ’ ὕπο: on ὑπό ‘under the effect, influence of’, 384n. (on ὑπὸ λαίλαπι  …).  — Πατρόκλοιο Μενοιτιάδαο: a ‘long’ (extending across four feet) noun-epithet formula (5× Il. [of which 3× in Book 16: 420, 434, 452], 1× Od., always after caesura A 3); with the words separated, 18.93 Π.  … Μενοιτιάδεω; ͜ in reverse order, 16.554 Μενοιτιάδεω ͜ Πατροκλῆος. – On his father Menoitios, 14n.

421–425 A censorious battle paraenesis by Sarpedon. In this type, a rebuke precedes the actual appeal to fight (here ‘For shame …! Where are you fleeing to?’; Fenik 1968, 48  f.); the act of reprimand is perhaps already alluded to in the speech introduction (421n.). The response of the troops to the speech is not portrayed (as often elsewhere) (Fingerle 1939, 89). On battle paraeneses and their elements in general, 268–277n. with bibliography; on the related form of the speech of rebuke, 2.225–242n. with bibliography (also Minchin 2007, 23  ff. [esp. 27–38], 150–152). – Sarpedon’s declaration of his intent to put a halt to the enemy’s raging sets up a new phase of the battle (Fingerle loc. cit. 99; Scheibner 1939, 83  f.; collection of examples of such declarations of intent in battle paraeneses in Pagani 2008, 332  f., 336  f.; cf. 20.360  ff.). Sarpedon’s attack therefore immediately follows his speech (426). At the same time, the decision to face the enemy here implies his own death (Clay 2009, 36). 421 ≈  12.408 (likewise a speech introduction to one of Sarpedon’s battle paraeneses; cf. 268n.).  — ἀντιθέοισι  … Λυκίοισιν: The Lykians are referred to as ἀντίθεοι only here and in the iteratum 12.408, elsewhere ἴφθιμοι (659 [see ad loc.], a metrically equivalent epithet in the same verse position as here: 321n. with bibliography) and ἀσπισταί (in a gen. pl. VE formula, 490, etc.). – On the internal rhyme, 174n. — καθαπτόμενος: ‘talk to someone, appeal to their conscience, urge someone’ (1.582n.), here used absolutely (dat. Λυκίοισιν with κέκλετο). The precise connotation is hard to identify, regularly ‘reprimanding’ (AH) rather than ‘(gently) reminding’ (LfgrE s.v. ἅπτω 1124.57  ff.: ‘Sarpedon [wants] also to reassure those frightened at the death of so many comrades’ [transl.]).

422 A typical opening in a battle paraenesis (Kelly 2007, 243  f.), more commonly of the Greeks ‘aidṓs, Argives!’ (5.787, 8.228, 13.95, 15.502, all VB). In this expression, aidṓs (literally ‘shame, awe, respect’: 24.44n.) is a nominative exclamation (Schw. 2.65  f.) and does not mean ‘shame on you!’ but rather appeals to the warriors’ solidarity and sense of honor (in order to enhance their readiness

420 χέρσ’ ὕπο: = ὑπὸ χερσί (R 20.2). — Πατρόκλοιο Μενοιτιάδαο: on the declension, R 11.2 and 11.1. 421 κέκλετ(ο): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘shout to, warn, urge’ (with dat.). — ἄρ(α): ‘thus, of course’ (signals that something is evident: R 24.1). — ἀντιθέοισι … Λυκίοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2.

200 

 Iliad 16

for combat); it means: ‘watch out for your comrades (and kinsmen) and avoid reproaches they could make against you for cowardice!’, cf. 15.561–564, 15.661– 666 (LfgrE s.v.; Verdenius 1945, 52–55; Schein 1984, 177–179; Cairns 1993, 68– 70; Kemper 1993, 27  f.; Pagani 2008, 353–356). – The rhetorical question ‘where are you fleeing to?’ forms a paraenetic topos, cf. 8.94 (Diomedes to Odysseus), Od. 6.199 (Nausikaa to her servants); Sanskrit parallels in West 2007, 478; lists of similarly indignant questions in battle paraeneses in Fingerle 1939, 97 and Stoevesandt 2004, 299  f. n. 894. This is the only verse in the Iliad that contains three complete, asyndetic sentences: ‘Sarpedon uses the opening sentences to get the attention of his men (and Homer may use them to recapture his audience) and explains in his next sentence what he intends to do’ (Higbie 1990, 106  f.; cf. Eust. ad loc.). By contrast, verses with three sentences linked by δέ occur frequently, namely in speech-capping formulaeP (e.g. 5.352, 14.270, 15.442, 17.33, 21.423, 23.12, 24.358 [suggestion by Führer]). — νῦν θοοὶ ἔστε: θοός, literally ‘swift’ (related to θέω ‘run’), can have the meaning ‘agile, ready for battle’ etc. as an attribute of warriors or Ares (cf. 494), thus ‘now (do not flee, but rather) be aggressive!’ An ironic allusion to speed itself is also possible: ‘now you are fast (sc. in flight) – rather, be quick in the attack!’, with the imper. ἔστε understood as an indicative (θοοί ἐστε) (thus Buttmann 1825, 62  f.; LfgrE s.v. θοός 1054.31  ff.). Although the second interpretation heightens the mockery, it is less plausible: (1) the asyndeton present in νῦν θοοὶ ἔστε occurs especially in requests and antitheses (cf. 129n. on δύσεο and K.-G. 2.342); (2) the sentence that follows in 423, ἀντήσω γὰρ ἐγώ ‘since I will face …’, is better after a (sincere) imper. than after a mocking statement (schol. bT; Leaf; Janko on 422–425; Pagani 2008, 347).

423 Sarpedon’s decision to face Patroklos has a prolepticP character: ‘programm­ ing the major encounter’ (West 2011, 321).

τοῦδ’ ἀνέρος: strongly deictic, picked up again at 424 (ὅδε; 5.174  f. τῷδ’ … ἀνδρὶ …, | ὅς τις ὅδε … is similar; cf. 424–425n.). Gen. with ἀντ(ι)άω ‘face someone in battle, be a match for someone’, as at 7.231, Od. 16.254 (LfgrE s.v. ἀντάω 921.22  ff.; somewhat differently Leaf: gen. rather than the dat., ‘meeting an opponent’). — ὄφρα δαείω: VE = 10.425, Od. 9.280; ≈ Il. 2.299. – On the form -είω, 83n. (on θείω).

424–425 = 5.175  f. The action in the passages in Books 5 and 16 is structured in a similar manner: a Greek kills numerous Trojans (androktasiē scene: Book 5, Diomedes; Book 16, Patroklos), after which a Trojan ally (there Aineias, here Sarpedon) appeals for resistance to the superior opponent  – whose identity remains unknown at this point (like Patroklos, Diomedes is a kind of stand-in

422 πόσε: ‘where?’. — θοοὶ ἔστε: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 423 ἀνέρος: = ἀνδρός; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ὄφρα: final (R 22.5). — δαείω: subjunc. of the defective verb δαῆναι (aor.), ‘figure out, discover from experience’.

Commentary 

 201

for Achilleus: 74–77an., end, with reference to 6.96–101n.). In contrast to e.g. 1.453–455 = 16.236–238 (see ad loc.), a direct contextual reference between the two passages and their iterata should not be considered (Fenik 1968, 27; de Jong [1987] 2004, 185  f.): uncertainty regarding the identity of the opponent is conventional, but given the motif ‘deception by an exchange of weapons’ (278– 283n. with bibliography), it is likely not without a point for the audience in the present passage (Stanley 1993, 172; Aceti 2008, 97; differently e.g. Edwards 1987, 261). 424 = 5.175; 1st VH ≈ 21.315; 2nd VH = 8.356; VE κακὰ πολλά ⏑ – ×: 5× Il., 9× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’. — ὅδε: predicative, to be translated ‘here’: AH; Kirk on 5.175–176. — κρατέει καὶ … κακὰ πολλὰ ἔοργε: with a strongly subjective coloring: ‘In a word like κακά the emotional involvement and subjective interpretation of [Sarpedon] as a focalizer surfaces’ (de Jong 1987a, 107). In direct speech, κρατέει has a pejorative tone (LfgrE s.v.) and means ‘exploit one’s superiority’: ‘is acting violently’ (Kirk on 5.175–176). On the (summarizing) perf. ἔοργε beside the aor. (of present circumstances) ἔλυσεν (425), see 2.272n. with bibliography, as well as AH on 5.175: ‘… commited many evils ⟨up until now⟩, since he ⟨recently⟩ killed …’. 425 = 5.176; similarly 15.291, Od. 14.69, 14.236. — πολλῶν τε καὶ ἐσθλῶν: an inflectable phrase, frequently in the context of the deaths of one’s own people (6.452n. with examples; gen. pl. also at 5.176, 22.44, as here). — γούνατ’ ἔλυσεν: an inflectable VE formula (24.498n.), a euphemism for ‘kill’ (312n. with bibliography).

426 = 4.419; from caesura A 3 onward = 3.29, 5.494, 6.103, 11.211, 12.81, 13.749. — Leaping off a chariot is a typical battle motif: Arend 1933, 91 n. 2; Tsagarakis 1982, 94; Mueller (1984) 2009, 170. By leaping, Sarpedon and Patroklos (427) signal their readiness to fight (6.103n.; Kurz 1966, 149; Aceti 2008, 97); on Patroklos’ imitative response to Sarpedon’s leap (427 ‘when he saw’), cf. 12.80–83 (Hektor/Trojans).

ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formulaP with unchanged subject (24.302n.).  — σὺν τεύχεσιν: i.e. ‘fully armed’ (156n.). — ἄλτο χαμᾶζε: a VE formula (12× Il., see 24.469n.); on the accent on ἄλτο, West 1998, XX.

427 1st VH =  9.666, 11.647, 16.733, 16.763.  — δ’ ἑτέρωθεν: frequently marks the second of two parallel actions, combined with a change of perspective and usually after a personal name or a collective term (1.247an.); in Book 16 also at 733, 763 (iterata) and 755

424 ὅς τις: =  ὅστις.  — κρατέει: on the uncontracted form, R  6.  — πολλὰ (ϝ)έ(ϝ)οργεν: on the prosody, R 4.3 (cf. (ϝ)έργον). 425 γούνατ(α): on the declension, R 12.5. 426 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ὀχέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἄλτο: aor. of ἅλλομαι ‘leap’. 427 ἐπεὶ (ϝ)ίδεν: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἔκθορε: aor. of ἐκθρῴσκω ‘leap off …’.

202 

 Iliad 16

(δ’ αὖθ’ ἑτέρωθεν). — ἐπεὶ ἴδεν: an inflectable phrase after caesura B 2 (9× Il., 9× Od., 2× h.Hom.; Mugler 1943, 42  f.). — ἔκθορε δίφρου: a variable phrase at VE (2× ‘Hes.’ Sc. θόρε δίφρου, Il. 5.39 ἔκβαλε δ., 5.585/13.399 ἔκπεσε δ.).

428–430 = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 405–406 + 412; 428 = Od. 22.302; 1st VH of 428 ≈ Od. 16.217; 2nd VH of 429 ≈ 758, 824, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 176; 1st VH of 430 ≈ Od. 14.30; 2nd VH of 430 = Il. 14.401, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 436; ≈ Il. 15.726. — The first of three similesP in the present duel scene: (1) Patroklos and Sarpedon attack one another like vultures; (2) Sarpedon falls to the ground like a tree cut down (482–486); (3) Patroklos kills Sarpedon as a lion kills an ox (487–491); at the same time, the first purely military simile in reference to Patroklos after 3  f., 7  ff., 406  ff. (still to come are 582  ff., 752  ff., 756  ff.; Moulton 1977, 104  f.). – Birds of prey are a typical comparative motif for the description of warriors, so also at e.g. 582–585, 22.139–143 (Fenik 1968, 140, 189, 207; Scott 1974, 78; de Jong on Il. 22.138–44; on bird similes in general, 2.459–466n.). The present simile illustrates via direct comparison the cries of attack by the two opponents (on this, 267n.); in addition, it hints at how dangerous they are (the claws and beaks of the vultures) and the fact that they are evenly matched (a fight between two animals of the same species; thus in the Iliad only at 756–761, again of Patroklos: duel with Hektor over the body of Kebriones [Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 46; cf. 756n.]). But the subsequent scene among the gods (with the attack implied in the simile continuing in the background until 462: ‘covering’ sceneP [Krischer 1971, 64]) will anticipate the outcome of the duel – as already in the prolepsisP at 15.67 (438n.): Patroklos will prevail (in giving this sense, the third simile in the sequence is finally unequivocal: 487  ff.; cf. Scott loc. cit. 43  f.; Aceti 2008, 120; Scott 2009, 162  f.). Detailed interpretation of the simile in Baltes 1983, 36–38; Aceti loc. cit. 98  f.; Johansson 2012, 148  f.; Janko; on similes illustrating a tie: Krischer 1971, 61–67; Stoevesandt 2004, 414  f. (collection of examples). 428 For iterata, 428–430n.  — οἳ δ’, ὥς τ(ε): a simile introduction (7× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’). — αἰγυπιοί: ‘vultures’, probably the ‘bearded vulture’ (LfgrE s.v.; Arnott 2007, 11; Johansson 2012, 147  f.). — γαμψώνυχες: an epithet of αἰγυπιοί, ‘with curved claws’, only here and in the iterata. — ἀγκυλοχεῖλαι: an epithet of birds of prey, ‘with curved beaks’ (v.l. ἀγκυλοχῆλαι ‘with curved claws’, less appropriate since it is synonymous with γαμψώνυχες; an attribute of crabs at Batrachomyomachia 294). Bibliography on both readings and on the word formation: LfgrE s.v.; Janko; West 2001, 238  f.; McNelis/ Sens 2011.

428 οἵ: = οὗτοι; on the anaphoric demonstrative function, R 17. — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 203

429 On mountains as the scene in a simile, 157–158n.; here potentially also preparation for the subsequent scene on the divine mountain Ida at 431  ff.

πέτρῃ ἔφ’ ὑψηλῇ: noun-epithet formula; 407n. — κλάζοντε: pres. of κλάζω only here and ‘Hes.’ Sc. 406 in early epic, elsewhere usually perf. (430 κεκλήγοντες). — μάχωνται: The verb rarely has an animal as the subject in early epic and is thus here likely transferred from the human to the animal sphere – matching the situation (likewise at 758, 824) – whereas κλάζειν (here κλάζοντε/κεκλήγοντες) is used equally of human beings and animals, indicating that it belongs inherently to both spheres (so-called imagery interaction: 2.87n., similarly at 259–267n.; on the passage, esp. Silk 1974, 16  f.; Lonsdale 1990, 2  f.). – On the subjunc. in similes, 260n.; the mss. frequently offer the indicative as a v.l., as here (Schw. 2.669; Ruijgh 594).

430 For iterata, 428–430n. — κεκλήγοντες: repetition of the simile keyword (cf. 7n.). An intensifying perf.; on the form in -οντες, see the bibliography in LfgrE s.v. 1431.61  ff., also West 2001, 164  f.

431–461 Zeus and Hera agree that Sarpedon will fall at the hands of Patroklos. Just before Patroklos and Sarpedon meet, the narrator inserts a retardingP scene among the gods (Gundert 1983, 119 with n. 2; Aceti 2008, 99) that can be considered a themeP in light of the parallels at 20.288–325 (Poseidon and Hera negotiate the fate of Aineias) and 22.166b–187 (Zeus and Athene negotiate the fate of Hektor): ‘a duel between two important warriors is interrupted for a scene on Olympus where the fate of one of the men is discussed’ (Fenik 1968, 37, 202  f. [quotation: 203]). Moved by pity for the beloved hero (here Sarpedon), a god (here Zeus) puts his fate forward for debate (to rescue him or let him perish); a different deity (here Hera) responds deprecatingly; the hero is saved (in Book 20) or dies (here and in Book 22): de Jong on Il. 22.166–187; Fenik loc. cit.; Paul 1969, 35  f.; Pattoni 1998, 12–15 (with detailed comparison of passages in Books 16 and 22); Aceti loc. cit. 100–103. – The present divine dialogue proves to be a mix of typical speech types in Homeric battle scenes transferred to the divine sphere: (1) structurally, it is inserted in the position of speeches of challenge common before duels, e.g. 5.630  ff. Tlepolemos/Sarpedon, 6.121  ff. Diomedes/Glaukos, 20.176  ff. Achilleus/Aineias, 21.148  ff. Achilleus/Asteropaios, 22.248  ff. Hektor/ Achilleus (all introduced with the formulaic verse that here follows immediately after the divine scene: 462; Kirk 1962, 373 [brief allusion]; Létoublon 1983, 36;

429 πέτρῃ ἔφ’: = ἐπὶ πέτρῃ (R 20.2); on the -η after -ρ-, R 2. — μεγάλα: adv., ‘loudly’. — κλάζοντε μάχωνται: dual and plural forms can be combined freely (R 18.1). — μάχωνται: generalizing subjunc. without a modal particle (R 21.1). 430 ὥς: = οὕτως.

204 

 Iliad 16

West 2011, 321  f.; on speeches of challenge in the Iliad in general: Létoublon loc. cit.; Stoevesandt 2004, 305  f.); (2) the speech introductionP at 432 (‘Zeus spoke to Hera’) notwithstanding, in a certain sense the dialogue is a monologue of decision making, in which warriors convince themselves to resist in difficult conditions: an address to the self (interjection ōi moi egṓn – literally ‘ah me, myself!’ – at the beginning of the speech [433], no reference made to a ‘you’), vacillation between ‘withdrawing from battle’ and ‘facing battle’ (435–438, rendered in conditional clauses in the actual monologues: ‘if on the one hand … if on the other hand’), decision in favor of (and only exceptionally against) fighting (parallels: 11.403  ff. Odysseus, 17.90  ff. Menelaos, 21.552  ff. Agenor, 22.98  ff. Hektor; bibliography: Voigt 1934, 97  f.; Pattoni loc. cit. 8–15; Aceti loc. cit. 103–106; on variation in Homeric monologue in general, Fenik loc. cit. 96–98; Russo 1968, 288–294; Fenik 1978; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 158–170; Pelliccia 1995, 121–128). The portrayal of the vacillation and decision is in accord with the type-sceneP ‘weighing two options’ (646b–655n.): (1) Zeus considers whether he should (2) rescue Sarpedon from the battle or (3) let him die fighting; (5) in accord with Hera’s advice (439–457), he decides to choose (4) the second option (458, carried out at 666  ff.). Elements (1)–(3) (435–438), which the narrator elsewhere generally renders in indirect speech (e.g. at 646  ff.), are here spoken by Zeus himself. A divine intervention (5) is common in these scenes; here it is represented by Hera’s urgent speech (namely god to god). The second option for action is usually preferred (4), as here, but an essential component of the first option is at the same time preserved here in the form of a compromise, namely Sarpedon’s transfer to Lykia: he is meant not simply to die before Troy but also to receive an appropriate burial in his homeland (Taplin 1992, 238, 262  f.: ‘compromise’; Schäfer 1990, 106: ‘substitute action’; Aceti loc. cit. 107–109; Heiden 2008, 205). – This result implies that the debate surrounding Sarpedon’s death (settled at 15.65–68 at the latest: 438n.) is fundamentally not theological (even if it must justify the death of the half-divine Sarpedon at the hands of the human Patroklos: Schäfer loc. cit.; Aceti loc. cit. 95 n.  204; cf. 433–438n., 441n.) but rather serves to lend significance and pathos to the portrayal of Sarpedon’s doom (schol. bT [on which, Nünlist 2009, 270 with n. 14]; Edwards 1987, 262; West 1997, 179  f. [with parallels]; Janko; the divine dialogue at 22.166b–187 regarding Hektor is similar: de Jong on Il. 22.166– 187). The discussion of alternative actions makes the actual course of action appear deliberate on the part of the narrator and as fitting within the set frame of the myth (radically formulated by e.g. Eberhard 1923, 20 [transl.]: ‘Homeric fate is […] a universal poetic means of motivation’; Owen 1946, 158  f.: ‘fate is here what the poem demands’; see also Redfield [1975] 1994, 133–135; Hooker [1980] 1996, 358–360; Schein 1984, 63  f.; Richardson 1990, 193  f.; Elmer 2013, 152; Janko, Introd. 5  f.; 2.155n.). The audience, with its thoughts and emotions, is included:

Commentary 

 205

‘The poet constantly reminds the audience that the events cannot be changed, but that the audience can understand and judge them’ (Scodel 2002, 192  f.; simi­ larly Owen loc. cit.); at the same time, the audience can share Zeus’ pity, especially given that the burial will only take place after a prolonged ‘ordeal’ for the corpse (666  ff.; see Bassett 1930, 144  f.; Di Benedetto loc. cit. 283  f.; Pucci 2002, 29  f.). – In addition to the motif of compassion (on which, 431n.), the father-son motif, which will likewise continue to increase in importance in the final third of the Iliad (here Zeus/Sarpedon; see 19.322–337n., 24.362–439n.; 459–461n.), is introduced here. 431–432 Starting at 11.181  ff., Zeus is on Mt. Ida, from which he is observing events on the battlefield (thus already 8.48–443) – his position is implicitly confirmed at 677 and 17.594 – but at 18.356 he appears to be back on Olympus. Hera, for her part, already returned from Ida to Olympus at 15.78  f.; her current presence on Ida is tacitly assumed: divine changes in location are not always noted explicitly in the narrative – likewise the availability of divine messengers (2.7n.) and other points that are self-evident (cf. 398n., 532–547n., end) – cf. 666 (gapP; schol. A and T on 432 with reference to Zenodotus’ athetesis of 432–458; schol. A on 666; Faesi, Introduction 10–12; Meinel 1915, 50  f.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 43; Nünlist 2009, 157–161; Mackie 2014 [ad loc. 11]; on Zenodotus’ – unnecessary – athetesis in particular, see Lehrs [1833] 1882, 336; AH, Anh. p. 23  f.; Janko on 431–461 [p.  375]; in detail, while defending Zenodotus’ position, Nickau 1977, 140–154). 431 1st VH ≈ 8.350, 15.12 (and cf. 16.5); 2nd VH, see below. — A change of scene in accord with the type ‘character observes the preceding action’ (124n. with biblio­graphy). On the motif of gods as spectators, 19.340n. Zeus’ appearance was prepared for by the preceding weather similes, in which he plays a significant role (297  ff., 364  ff., 384  ff.) (Sheppard 1922, 163: ‘climax’; cf. 297–302an.). – Divine mercy (esp. of Zeus) frequently manifests itself in the context of a hero’s death (Schadewaldt 1965, 309; Fenik 1968, 170; Paul 1969, 22  f.; Kim 2000, 175–178; Edwards on 17.194–209), esp. in the parallel passage 22.166b–187 prior to Hektor’s death (where ‘the tone is somewhat more muted’: Burkert 1955, 84 [transl.]; Paul loc. cit. 35  f.), and it appears as a motif in Book 24 (24.19n.).

τοὺς δὲ ἰδὼν ἐλέησε: Since Zeus shows pity primarily for Sarpedon, the object τούς here probably goes with ἰδών alone, not with ἐλέησε as well (as typically in this phrase elsewhere: 8.350, 15.44, 17.441, 19.340) (AH; Paul 1969, 36 n. 5; cf. West 2011, 322). — ἐλέησε: In early epic, the Greek word family ele- goes beyond the emotion of the subject

431 δὲ (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἀγκυλομήτεω: ͜ on the declension, R 11.1; on the syni­ zesis, R 7.

206 

 Iliad 16

(‘pity’) and designates the impulse for action (‘show mercy’) that arises from it: 19.340n., 24.44n. — Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω: ͜ a VE formula (7× Il., 1× Od.; see 2.205n., also for the epithet). Here in place of the metrically equivalent variant πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε (458n.), which is markedly more frequent in early epic; cf. esp.  15.12 for combination with the present 1st VH. The ‘substitution’ came about either via the echo of 428 ἀγκυλοχεῖλαι (Janko on 431–432; West 2011, 322) or because in the present context Zeus is primarily Sarpedon’s father rather than the father of all men and gods (suggestion by Führer); cf. also Hainsworth, Introd. 30.

432 ≈ 18.356; 1st VH ≈ 21.497, Od. 8.334 (personal name in acc.; cf. also 2nd VH of Il. 8.138, 10.340), Il. 1.224, 10.81 (personal name in acc. without de), 22.278 (personal name in nom.); 2nd VH = 18.356, h.Hom. 12.3; ≈ h.Ven. 40, also 4.441, 11.257, 12.371, ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.21 M.-W. (and also Il. 16.456 with iterata). — The fact that the narrator has Zeus ask pro-Achaian Hera of all people for advice in a situation concerning the rescue of a Trojan ally (and also the stepson of Hera) might be justified on the grounds that (a) the problem affects Zeus personally to such a degree that he wishes to speak about it with his closest confidant (here explicitly introduced as his ‘sister and wife’) (like e.g. Priam with Hekabe at 24.193  ff.: 24.193–227n.; a similar designation of kinship: 14.155–156n.) or (b) Zeus continues to seek cooperation with Hera after their dialogue at the beginning of Book 15 (cf. 15.49  f.). There is perhaps a further reason on the narrator-plane: (c) Hera is the ‘right’ person to contradict Zeus on analogy with disputes between the two regarding support for one warring party or the other, e.g. at the end of Book 1 or the beginning of Book 4 (Erbse 1986, 214  f.; Schäfer 1990, 94–96, 105; Heiden 2008, 170  f., 197; cf. 440–443n.). 433–438 Homeric gods do not wield ultimate power over life and death (18.464  f. [affirmative formula: 18.464–467n.], Od. 3.236–238; Voigt 1934, 83  f.; Chantraine 1954, 72  f.; Burkert 1955, 82  f.; on the relationship between deity and fate in general: Nilsson [1940] 1967, 364–366; von Fritz 1955, 317  f.; Burkert [1977] 1985, 129  f.; Erbse 1986, 284–292; cf. 434n.). Zeus thus has no real choice here, as Hera will clarify at 441–449 with reference to a kind of ‘unwritten law’ or ‘cosmic order’: Erbse loc. cit. 201  f., 287  f.; Graziosi/Haubold 2005, 90–92; Allan 2006, 7  f.; Neal 2006, 129  f. The discussion of the two alter­natives serves rather to emotionalize the scene (see 431–461n.). 433 ᾤ μοι ἐγών: a VB formula (8× Il., 6× Od.) expressing grief and/or desperation, often in monologues (on this, cf. 431–461n.; Pelliccia 1995, 123 n. 23; Pattoni 1998). On the spelling ᾤ (with iota), see West 1998, XXXVII. — φίλτατον ἀνδρῶν: the same combi432 προσέ(ϝ)ειπε: = προσεῖπε. 433 ἐγών: =  ἐγώ.  — ὅ τε: =  causal or factive ὅτι, explains the exclamation ᾤ μοι ἐγών (cf. R 22.3). — μοι: ethical dat.

Commentary 

 207

nation at 15.111, likewise of the son of a deity (Askalaphos, son of Ares), similarly 5.378 (Aineias, son of Aphrodite), cf. 94n. on φιλεῖ. Here a contextually relevant epithetP in contrast to the metrically equivalent ornamental χαλκοκορυστήν of Sarpedon at 6.199 (Friedrich 2007, 107). While considering rescuing Hektor, Zeus calls him φίλον ἄνδρα in a similar manner (22.168, see de Jong ad loc.; Hektor has of course curried favor especially via sacrifice: Aceti 2008, 102 n.  225). Given the imminent death of a person designated as ‘dear(est)’, the expression takes on a tragic tone: Griffin 1980, 195. 434 ≈ 420, etc. (see ad loc.). — μοῖρ(α): ‘Beside the agent or goddess Moira [on whom, see 24.49n.], the poet of the Iliad knows an impersonal moira in the phrase μοῖρά (ἐστιν), which is imagined as static or as a general force well advanced from the concept of a divine figure of death. This impersonal moira […] still solely concerns death, but tends to become a figure of speech when it is equivalent in meaning to «must»’: Dietrich 1965, 200 (and 220); similarly Mueller (1984) 2009, 130  f.; Sarischoulis 2008, 57  f.; on the notion of fate in the Iliad in general, 2.155n. — ὑπὸ Πατρόκλοιο … δαμῆναι: An example of the use, rare in Homeric epic, of ὑπό + gen. for the agent with a passive (6.134n. with bibliography; used here in place of χέρσ’ ὕπο Π. 420/452 or ὑπὸ χερσί 438), as well as for the passive function of the aor. in -(θ)η- (‘be defeated’ rather than intransitive ‘lose’: Jankuhn 1969, 67  f., 97  f.; Aliffi 2002, 413–415; George 2005, 15  f.; LfgrE s.v. δάμνημι 213.40  ff.).

435–438 On the type-sceneP ‘weighing two options’, 431–461n. 435 2nd VH ≈ 10.4, Od. 3.151, 4.843. — διχθὰ … μέμονε: διχθά ‘twofold, in two directions’ is typical of scenes of considering options and prepares for the alternatives (ἤ … ἦε): 14.21n. – μέμονε means literally ‘strive (toward/after something)’ (etymologically related to μένος), here in combination with διχθά as a replacement for the metrically unsuitable μερμηρίζειν (like ὁρμαίνω a typical verb of deliberating): ‘vacillates between two decisions’ (AH); see Bertolín Cebrián 1996, 22; Pattoni 1998, 9–11; Aceti 2008, 105 with n. 233. — μοι: a sympathetic dative (348n.). — κραδίη μέμονε φρεσὶν ὁρμαίνοντι: In the context of a process of consideration/deliberation, a seat of mental processes is frequently named in early epic as the agent (here κραδίη, with μέμονε) or localization (here φρεσίν, with ὁρμαίνοντι); in actuality, this means nothing more than ‘ponder something by oneself’ vel sim. On the present formulation, cf. 1.188  f. ἐν δέ οἱ ἦτορ  | στήθεσσιν … διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν, 21.551, etc. πολλὰ δέ οἱ κραδίη πόρφυρε μένοντι, Od. 18.344  f., etc. ἄλλα δέ οἱ κῆρ | ὥρμαινε φρεσὶν ᾗσιν (Jahn 1987, 191, 284  f.; frequently also θυμός, e.g. 646 φράζετο θυμῷ: Sullivan 1995, 55  f.; on the mutually interchangeable seats of mental processes in general, 1.24n.).

434 μοῖρ(α): sc. ἐστίν, with acc. and inf. construction (Σαρπηδόνα δαμῆναι). 435 κραδίη: = καρδία; on the -η after -ι-, R 2.

208 

 Iliad 16

436 2nd VH ≈ 13.765. — μάχης ἄπο δακρυοέσσης: a variant with initial consonant of ἀπὸ κρατερῆς ὑσμίνης (on which, 447n.). — δακρυοέσσης: ‘full of tears’, used literally of individuals (10), metaphorically as an epithet of μάχη, πόλεμος, etc. in the sense ‘causing tears’; cf. πολύδακρυς (3.132n.). It is the negative antithesis of the metrically equivalent κυδιάνειρα, as is commensurate with Zeus’ point of view (Janko on 433–439). On (pejorative) epithets for war in general, 6.1n., end, 6.330n. (in Book 16, cf. also 494 πόλεμος κακός); on the often negative evaluation of war in the Iliad overall, 1.162n., 2.453–454n.; Monsacré 1984, 138; Eck 2012, 197  ff.

437 2nd VH = 514; ≈ 673, 683. — Lykia is repeatedly depicted in the Iliad as fertile and prosperous: 5.481, 6.174, 12.313  f., 12.319  f. (2.877n.; Aceti 2008, 164  f.); on the identification of Lykia as a ‘distant homeland’ and thus a ‘counterweight to Troy’, see Haubold 2011 (quotation: 385 [transl.]); on Lykia in general, Bryce 2006, 144–150. – On the motif of the untimely return home (here intimated via ‘carrying away’), cf. 205n.

θείω: on the form, 83n. — ἀναρπάξας: (ἀν/ἐξ)αρπάζω is the usual term for gods transporting a hero away from a dangerous situation in battle (24.24n.); on the motif in general, Kullmann 1956, 125–131; Stoevesandt 2004, 222; West 2007, 484. — ἐν πίονι δήμῳ: an inflectable VE formula (ἐν + dat.: 3× Il., 3× Od., 1× Hes. Th.; ἐς + acc. 2× Od., 1× Hes. Th., 1× h.Hom.), always in conjunction with geographical or ethnic names; phonetically related to VE formulae that contain the word δημός ‘fat’, differentiated by the accent: πίονι δημῷ  / πίονα δημόν  / πίονα δημῷ (7× early epic; West on Hes. Th. 971; Nagler 1974, 5  ff., 37  ff.; Ceccarelli et al. 1998, 49  ff.; on formula systems of this type generally, see FOR 25). – On δῆμος ‘area of residence, community, land’, 2.198n.

438 1st VH ≈ 6.368, 10.310, 10.397; 2nd VH ≈ 420, etc. (see ad loc.). — Sarpedon’s death is foretold at 15.65–68 (internal prolepsisP, spoken by Zeus) and confirmed at 460  f. (narrator commentary). His death may already be suspected on the basis of subtle insinuations at 5.662 (‘his father fended destruction away from him’), 5.674  f., 5.685–688, 12.322–328 and 12.402  f. (419–683n.; Edwards, Introd. 9; Morrison 1992, 85; Neal 2006, 122–125).

ἤδη: ‘now, immediately’, in the sense ‘the time has come to …’, cf. 648 (see also 3.98n.; K.-G. 2.120  f.; Wakker 2002, 8  ff.). — Μενοιτιάδαο: The patronymic by itself stands for the personal name (used thus in 11 of 20 examples of this patronymic: 1.307, 9.211, etc.; in Book 16 [6 examples in total] only here); cf. 271n. — δαμάσσω: Zeus employs the 1st person pathetically (with causative function); Hera will echo the statement with a neutral formulation: ἔασον … δαμῆναι (451  f.) (Aceti 2008, 102  f.; cf. 543n.).

436 ἤ: ‘whether’ (and 438 ἦε ‘or whether’). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6). — μάχης ἄπο: = ἀπὸ μάχης (R 20.2). 437 θείω: deliberative subjunc. in indirect speech; τίθημι ἐν is here ‘move, bring to …’. 438 ἦ’ ἤδη: on the hiatus after elision, R 5.1. — δαμάσσω: deliberative subjunc.; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 209

439 = 1.551, 4.50, 18.360, 20.309 (in some cases with the same verse as the one that follows here, see 440n.); 1st VH (τὸν δ’ / τὴν δ’): 48× Il., 24× Od., 2× h.Ven. (speech introductory formulaP: 1.121n.; additional bibliography: 24.372n.; Kelly 2007, 176 n.  1).  — βοῶπις πότνια Ἥρη: an inflectable noun-epithet formula of the 2nd VH (nom./voc.: 14× Il., 3× h.Ap.), see 1.551n. and in detail 14.159n. (also for the epithet βοῶπις ‘large-eyed’, the VE formula πότνια Ἥρη, the hiatus and the formulaic variant θεὰ λευκώλενος Ἥρη).

440–443 The beginning of Hera’s speech has parallels at 4.25–29 and 22.178–181 in terms of both language and content (cf. the following nn.): Hera and Athene respectively strongly reject Zeus’ plan, which involves altering the course of events (4.14  ff.: peace agreement between Greeks and Trojans; 22.174  ff.: rescue of Hektor from death at the hands of Achilleus; see Morrison 1992, 113; Pucci 2002, 28  ff.); the parallelism of the passages underlines the interweaving of the fates of Sarpedon, Patroklos and Hektor, which is fundamental to the Iliad (419–683n.). 440 = 1.552, 4.25, 8.462, 14.330, 18.361; 2nd VH = 8.209. — The exclamation ‘what sort of thing have you spoken!’ is always directed at Zeus by Hera, with one exception (8.209 Poseidon to Hera): 14.330n.; Pucci 2002, 28; Kelly 2007, 225  f.; cf. 49n.

αἰνότατε Κρονίδη: an emotional expression of indignation; other than in speeches by gods (see iterata + 8.423 [Iris to Hera]; Kirk on 1.552), αἰνός is rarely used in reference to living creatures (also at Od. 10.219 of Kirke’s predatory animals, 11.427 Agamemnon regarding Klytaimestra; on usage elsewhere, 52n.). Hera picks up αἰνός at 449 (of the repercussions of Zeus’ behavior, as it were). — μῦθον ἔειπες: an inflectable VE formula (1.552n.).

441–443 =  22.179–181 (in a similar situation before the death of Hektor); 1st VH of 441 ≈ 24.537; 2nd VH of 441 ≈ 15.209; 443 = 4.29, 22.181.

441 Mortality is a basic element of human existence even when one of the parents of a hero is a deity, as is the case for Sarpedon, Askalaphos and Achilleus (448– 449an.): sooner or later, he will have to die (cf. 12.322–328, 15.140  f., 18.464  ff., 21.108–113, Od. 3.236–238; Redfield [1975] 1994, 99–102; Sarischoulis 2008, 41).

πάλαι: ‘from long ago, long since’ (cf. LfgrE s.v. 935.21  ff.).  — πεπρωμένον αἴσῃ: πεπρωμένον (also 3rd pers. sing. πέπρωται/-το) is generally connected with the IE root perh3- ‘provide’ (LIV 474  f.) and is thus related to Greek πορεῖν ‘give, lend’: ‘given over/ assigned/doomed to fate’ (AH); with subj. and dat. obj. reversed at 3.309 ὁπποτέρῳ θανάτοιο τέλος πεπρωμένον ἐστίν, Cypria fr. 9 West Κάστωρ μὲν θνητός, θανάτου δέ οἱ

440 ποῖον: originally predicative, ‘as what sort of …’. — τόν: on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17.

210 

 Iliad 16

αἶσα πέπρωται, in impersonal construction with acc.-inf. at Il. 18.329 ἄμφω … πέπρωται ὁμοίην γαῖαν ἐρεῦσαι (see ad loc.). – Like μοῖρα (434n.), αἶσα is frequently used in the context of death and dying, where it signifies, with a pregnant sense, ‘fate, destiny, fate of death’ (e.g. 24.224, 24.428; cf. 1.418n.). The expression ὁμῇ πεπρωμένον αἴσῃ occurs in a completely different context at 15.209: specifically ‘endowed with the same destiny’, in reference to the equal division of power between the gods Zeus, Hades and Poseidon. – Bibliography: Leitzke 1930, 31, 37  f.; Bianchi 1953, 106–108; Sarischoulis 2008, 38  f.; Janko on 15.209–211; somewhat differently, Dietrich 1965, 251  f., 265  f. (αἶσα =  ‘span of life’); speculatively Onians (1951) 1988, 382–386 (πεπρωμένον related to hypothetical *περόω ‘bind’, like ὀλέθρου πείρατ’ ἐφῆπται [7.402, etc.], here as antithesis of 442 ἐξαναλῦσαι). 442 ἄψ: ‘back’, ‘cancelling, as it were, the determination of fate’ (AH [transl.]), intensive with ἐξαναλῦσαι; on ἄψ expressing the restoration of an original state, 19.138n. — θανάτοιο δυσηχέος: a noun-epithet formula (also at 18.464, 22.180, always in speeches by gods). θάνατος here in a word playP with (ἄνδρα) θνητὸν (ἐόντα): a mortal simply cannot escape mortality (Janko on 441–443). – δυσηχής elsewhere 7× Il. as an epithet of πόλεμος (in the gen.; always in the same verse position as here), likely understood as a compound with ἠχέω (cf. h.Ap. 64 ‘of bad repute’), i.e. with reference to the noisy charac­ter of war, ‘ringing horribly’ (cf. 63, 105 [with n.], 357; Krapp 1964, 15  f.); applied to the cries of the dying by schol. D on 7.376, which would also fit with θάνατος. Apoll. Soph. s.v. and modern interpretations alternatively consider a derivation from ἄχος (‘with terrible suffering’); see DELG and LfgrE s.v. — θανάτοιο … ἐξαναλῦσαι: perhaps ‘free from the snares of death’, only here and the iteratum 22.180, like Od. 12.200 ἐμέ τ’ ἐκ δεσμῶν ἀνέλυσαν (Odysseus after the episode with the Sirens). On the metaphor, cf. 6.143n., end; Psalms 18:5. Od. 10.286 (Hermes to Odysseus) σε κακῶν ἐκλύσομαι ἠδὲ σαώσω is similar, as are the following expressions (the subj. is in each case a deity): ἐκ θανάτοιο σαῶσαι (Il. 22.175, Od. 4.753; similarly Il. 4.12), ὕπεκ θανάτου ἀγαγεῖν (20.300), θανάτοιο νόσφιν ἀποκρύψαι (18.464  f.), κῆρας ἀμύνειν (4.11, 12.402; similarly 21.548). – On verbs with two prefixes, see Chantr. 2.144  f.

443 = 4.29 (likewise Hera), 22.181 (Athene). — The defiantly threatening verse – the sense is ‘do it; you will come to feel the consequences of your actions!’ – occurs in the iterata at the end of a speech (Janko on 441–443). Here Hera follows up with an explanation of the likely consequences of Zeus’ intervention and identifies a possible solution (450  ff.).

πάντες ἐπαινέομεν: an inflectable phrase in verse middle (iterata and 7.344, 9.710, 23.539, Od. 4.673, 7.226, 8.398, 13.47, 18.66). — θεοὶ ἄλλοι: a VE formula (11× Il., 8× Od., 1× Hes. Th., of which 10× after ἀθάνατοι [18.115–116n.] and 5× after καί [14.120n.]).

444 =  1.297, 4.39, 5.259, 9.611, 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; 443 ἔρδ(ε): ‘do it!’. — ἀτάρ: ‘but, yet’ (R 24.2). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 211

≈ Od. 15.27, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 330; 2nd VH = Hes. Op. 107; ≈ 274. — The present transitional formula is not employed by the speaker to introduce a fundamentally new point but rather to ‘speak plainly’ and formulate a concrete command, warning or threat that results from what precedes; approximately ‘I should also say, and by the way …, and what is more, watch out!’: 1.297n.; Pulleyn on 1.297; Mugler 1969, 8  f.; Christensen 2010, 552  f.

ἐνὶ φρεσί: formulaic, always between caesurae B 2 and C 2 (Jahn 1987, 267); on the meaning of φρένες, 403–404an.

445 ζών: The formation of ζώς (also at 5.887) is disputed; a contraction of ζωός (at 436 in the same position in the verse) is often posited (Chantr. 1.48; Janko on 444–449), but this may be an original form (a so-called root noun: Schw. 1.424; Risch 6  f.; cf. Meister 1921, 92). — πέμψῃς: Hera chooses this verb, which recurs as a motif in 447 and 454 (and 671/681), in order to move away from the notion of ‘abduction, rapture’ (thus Zeus at 437 ἀναρπάξας) and toward the notion of a ‘transfer’ (of the dead warrior): Aceti 2008, 108  f. — ὅνδε δόμονδε: The doubling of the allative particle -δε is striking, perhaps an ‘inflection’ of gen. οἷο δόμοιο (Od. 1.330, etc.): Schw. 1.624; Hoekstra on Od. 14.424; Fehling 1969, 86  f. – On -δε with a possessive pronoun, cf. ἡμέτερόνδε/ὑμέτερόνδε (5× early epic, always without δόμονδε); the particle is in general used widely in Homeric epic (list in Lejeune 1939, 56). 446 φράζεο, μή: ‘consider, lest  …; make sure that not  …; take into account that’ (cf. Bertolín Cebrián 1996, 126  f.). — τις … καὶ ἄλλος: implication: ‘everyone else as well’ (24.768n.). — ἔπειτα: either ‘subsequently, at a later date, in the future’ (Ebeling s.v.) or ‘then, in that case’ (Cunliffe s.v.; cf. 667–668n.). 447 ὃν φίλον υἱόν: on the phrase and its use, 19.4n.; here likely pregnant ‘his dear son’ (picks up φίλτατον ἀνδρῶν from 433): Mueller (1984) 2009, 146; Nussbaum 1998, 110 n.  44.  – φίλον/-ος υἱόν/-ός is an inflectable noun-epithet formula after caesurae A 4 (36× early epic: 19.117n.) and C 1 (7× Il./Od.: 19.132n.), as well as at VE (31× early epic: 586n.). — ἀπὸ κρατερῆς ὑσμίνης: an inflectable formula for a ‘battle conducted power­ fully, forcefully’ (2.40n.); with ἀπό, as here, also at 18.243 (VE) and 16.645 (after caesura A 2 [see ad loc.]); with ἐνί + dat. at 451, 648, 788, etc., with dat. alone at 567 (19.52n.); with acc. alone at 764 (and iteratum 14.448; see 764n.). Frequently, but not exclusively, in character languageP (in Book 16 here and at 451 in direct speech; at 567, 645 and 648 probably in secondary focalizationP; at 788 in an apostrophe by the narrator; at 764 in pure narrator-text). – On the meaning of ὑσμίνη, 306n., end.

444 τοι (ϝ)ἐρέω: on the prosody, R 4.4; ἐρέω = ἐρῶ (R 6), ‘will say’. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — βάλλεο: 2nd pers. sing. imper. mid., cf. Engl. ‘take something to heart’. — σῇσιν: R 11.1. 445 αἴ κε: = ἐάν (R 22.1, 24.5). — ζών: = ζωόν. — πέμψῃς: here and at 447 ‘escort under divine protection, rescue’. — Σαρπηδόνα (ϝ)όνδε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ὅνδε δόμονδε: on the form, R 15.3; ὅς is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). 446 ἐθέλησι: pregnant ‘have the wish, desire’; 3rd pers. sing. subjunc. (R 16.3).

212 

 Iliad 16

448–449a The statement that ‘many sons of immortals’ are fighting before Troy is exaggerated: there are comparatively few heroes with a divine parent (lists in schol. bT on 449 and – more comprehensively – in Janko on 444–449; see also Kullmann 1956, 87  f.). Preferential treatment due to divine parentage is debated in the Iliad in regard to Askalaphos (15.110  ff.; Thalmann 1984, 45  f.) and Achilleus (20.86  ff., 24.56  ff. [24.57n., 24.58–59n., 24.72b–73n.]; the manufacture of new armor in Book 18 can also be considered preferential treatment) in addition to Sarpedon. Aineias is the only one who repeatedly experiences it directly during battle (5.311  ff., 5.344  ff., 20.92  f., 20.318  ff.; he is destined to survive the Trojan War: 20.332  ff.; cf. also 16.620–622). Finally, Eos was able to gain immortality for her slain son Memnon in the Aethiopis (Procl. Chrest. § 2 West; on which, West 2013, 148  f.). – In terms of content, Hera’s argument is related to the consolation ‘even other, more courageous heroes must die’ (15.139–141 [with Janko ad loc.], 18.117  f. [18.117–121an.], 21.107). 448 ≈ 2.803; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 5.106. — περὶ ἄστυ: with a local meaning (not ‘fight for’): AH; 6.256n. On ἄστυ as a topographic term, 24.327n. — ἄστυ μέγα Πριάμοιο: an inflectable formula (also Πριάμου) at VB, after caesura A 3 or in the 3rd foot, 6× with preposition, as here (2.332n.). 449 2nd VH ≈ 8.449. — κότον: 386n. — αἰνόν: 52n., 440n. — ἐνήσεις: Gods usually ‘instill’ courage or energy in humans (cf. 19.37n.); here uniquely of a negative mood among the gods themselves, cf. 291n. with bibliography (where also an unusual use with a reversed connotation: fear among humans). 450–454 The protasis ‘if he is dear to you’ (450) is followed, at first contrary to expectation, by ‘let him die’ (451  f.); the actual apodosis is found at 453  f. (‘if he is dear to you, let him be transferred to his homeland after his death’): Aceti 2008, 108  f.; Janko on 450–455; on the paratactic construction of 451–454 (ἤτοι μὲν – αὐτάρ), AH on 451 with reference to 1.182–184 (see ad loc.). 450 1st VH ≈ 1.541, Od. 14.378 (and 2nd VH of Od. 7.320, 10.66); 2nd VH ≈ 22.169. Cf. also 23.548. — εἴ τοι φίλος ἐστί: goes back to ‘the dearest’ at 433: catch-word techniqueP (AH).  — ὀλοφύρεται ἦτορ: On the (emotional) connotation ‘compassion’, see 17n.; Paul 1969, 38; Kim 2000, 107 n. 105. On the construction with a soul-spirit lexeme as agent, cf. 22.169 (Zeus referring to Hektor) and 8.202 (Poseidon referring to the Achaians: ὀλ. ἐν φρεσὶ θυμός); 206n., 209n.

448 περὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4. 449 υἱέες: on the declension, R  12.3.  — ἀθανάτων: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — τοῖσιν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); refers to ἀθανάτων. 450 τεόν: = σόν (R 14.4).

Commentary 

 213

451 ἤτοι μέν: corresponds to intensified μέν, continued by αὐτάρ at 453: Ruijgh (1981) 1996, esp. 523–526. — ἐνὶ κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: 447n. 452 ≈ 420, etc. (see ad loc.). 453 1st VH = 187, etc. (see ad loc.). — λίπῃ ψυχή τε καὶ αἰών: The synonym doubling ψυχή τε καὶ αἰών is also attested at Od. 9.523 (gen.), similarly ψυχή τε μένος τε at Il. 5.296, etc., θυμοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς 11.334, etc., always in connection with death; in addition, ψυχή and αἰών occur individually in combination with λείπειν: 5.696 τὸν δ’ ἔλιπε ψυχή and 5.685 (etc.) με … λίποι αἰών. Additional expressions: 410n. with bibliography (λίπε θυμός); on expressions with ψυχή specifically, 24.168n.; Jahn 1987, 32  ff. On the meaning of ψυχή, 1.3n. and 24.168n. (‘life’), on αἰών ‘life force’, 19.27n. with bibliography (also Collobert 2011, 72–75).  – On the occasional use of subjunc. without modal particle in temporal clauses in Homer (also in e.g. the iteratum 11.478), see Chantr. 2.256. 454–457 ≈ 671–675 (and 681–683), with 456  f. = 674  f. (Zeus uses Hera’s words).

454 Death (Thánatos) and Sleep (Hypnos) are twins and, as such, complement­ ary personifications (14.231n. with bibliography). Being escorted by them signifies a hero’s dignified burial also in post-Homeric iconography (SourvinouInwood 1995, 326  f.; on vase paintings, Vermeule 1979, 145  ff.; Shapiro 1993, 132  ff.; Willinghöfer 1996).

πέμπειν μιν Θάνατόν τε φέρειν καὶ … Ὕπνον: The syntactic assignment of the accusatives is disputed: (a) ‘send Death and Sleep so that they may take him’ (in this sense Mutzbauer 1893, 110; Janko on 450–455); (b) ‘send him so that Death and Sleep (subject acc.) take him’ (Faesi; AH). (a) is to be preferred: in accord with IE rules of word order, enclitics (here μιν) are placed, independent of syntactic reference (here with φέρειν), in the second position in the clause wherever possible; at the same time, (b) is contradicted by the fact that a dat. would be expected for the specification of a destination with πέμπειν, i.e. Θανάτῳ τε καὶ Ὕπνῳ (‘send him to someone’), as at 671/681 (simi­ larly 575), Od. 24.418  f.: Leaf; Janko loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v. πέμπω 1144.43  ff. – πέμπειν is an imperatival inf. (87n.), φέρειν a final inf. (act. in contrast to mid. φέρεσθαι at 671/681). — νήδυμον Ὕπνον: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc. 5× Il., 3× Od.; after caesura A 3 1× each Il./Od.). In Homeric epic, νήδυμος is a distinctive epithetP of ὕπνος with uncertain meaning, perhaps related to ἡδύς ‘sweet’ with the attraction of a preceding ny ephelkystikon due to loss of digamma (2.2n. with bibliography; in summary, Reece 2009, 41–45) – ‘Sarpedon is borne away in a death as gentle as sleep, just as Odysseus is taken home in a sleep as heavy as death (Od. 13.80)’: Janko on 669–673.

455 VE ≈  6.225, Od. 14.126.  — On the motif of a warrior’s return home, cf. 205n. with biblio­graphy. — Λυκίης εὐρείης: an inflectable noun-epithet formula (gen./dat.) after

451 ἤτοι: R 24.4. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 453 τόν: sc. Sarpedon. 454 πέμπειν: imperatival inf. — μιν: acc. object of φέρειν (↑). — φέρειν: final-consecutive inf.

214 

 Iliad 16

caesura A 4 and at VE, 6× Il. (and ‘Hes.’ fr. 141.16 M.-W. [restored]). εὐρύς is a generic epithetP of towns and regions (6.137–174n.; Létoublon 2003, 29, 38  ff. [collection of examples]). On Λυκίης εὐρείης δῆμον, cf. Λυκίης ἐν πίονι δήμῳ at 437n.

456–457 = 674  f.; also 1st VH of 456 ≈ 7.85, 2nd VH = Od. 15.273, ≈ Il. 6.239 (acc.), also Od. 15.16; 2nd VH of 457 = Il. 23.9, Od. 24.190, 24.296 (in some cases with a relative pronoun rather than a demonstrative pronoun). — ‘The immediate family – i.e. parents, wives and brothers – were solely responsible for the organization of burials’ (Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989, 26 [transl.]); generalizing double designations, as here (‘brothers and other close kin’), also occur at 15.350 ‘male and female relatives’, 24.793 ‘brothers and companions’. (In the Iliad, Sarpedon is considered the son of Zeus and Laodameia [6.198  f.]; no brothers are mentioned elsewhere. In the canonical genealogy attested in Hesiod, Sarpedon is the son of Zeus and Europa, and thus the brother of Minos and Rhadamanthys [‘Hes.’ fr. 140 M.-W.; cf. Il. 14.321  f.]. On the relationship, difficult to reconcile, between the two variants of the myth, see CH 10 n. 36; 6.198b–199n.; Janko on 419–684 [p. 371]; BNP s.v. Sarpedon.) The expression ‘this is the honor of the dead’ (cf. English ‘pay last respects to someone’) paraphrases the obligations – social, ritual, etc. – of the bereaved toward the dead and includes in particular the entire death ritual, from washing the body to burying it and the funeral feast (Garland [1982] 1984; Cerchiai 1984, 61  ff.; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 129  f.; Clarke 1999, 183  f.; cf. 24.580–595n. with bibliography; on géras ‘honor, privilege, entitlement’, cf. 24.70n.). — Funerary monuments are visible testimony to the veneration of a hero after his death: 6.419an. (with bibliography), 24.16n.; Andronikos 1968, 32  ff.; Nagy 1990, 132  ff. This function is doubled, in a way, by the mention in epic: it is not only the monument that allows the hero to live on in memory, but also epic itself that tells the story of said hero; in this regard, the narrator constructs a quasi-historical bridge via reference to the (actual or imagined) funerary monument, linking the heroic past with the audience’s present (Janko on 674–675; Schein 1984, 47  ff.; Patzek 1992, 162  ff.; Derderian 2001, 49  f.; de Jong 2006, 198  ff.). On the historically attested cult of Sarpedon in Lykia, see Janko on 419–683 (p. 372); Keen 1998, 186  ff., 208  ff.; Lateiner 2002, 53  f.; Aceti 2008, 109  ff., 210  ff., 267  ff. It is of course impossible to discern whether the present phrasing ‘grave mound and stḗlē (literally ‘pillar of stone’)’ is meant to evoke a typically Lykian grave type, namely the pillar monument (thus Watkins 2008, 136  f.).

455 εἰς ὅ κε: ‘until’ (temporal clause); κε = ἄν (R 24.5). — δῆμον: specification of direction without preposition (R 19.2). 456 ἔνθά (ϝ)ε, τε (ϝ)έται: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 



 215

ταρχύσουσι: ‘inter solemnly’, in the Iliad also in the iteratum 674 as well as at 7.85 (of Hektor’s potential opponent in a duel, likewise with construction of a grave monument). The etymology is obscure; a connection to ταρῑχεύω ‘embalm’ is linguistically unlikely (Kirk on 7.85; DELG); a derivation from IE *terh2 ‘overcome, cross’ (LIV 633  f.) is usually posited, either (a) in the sense ‘cause to overcome death, make immortal’ (Bader 2002, 11  f., 18  f.) or (b), by taking into account Lycian tarḫu ‘god’ (literally ‘he who overcomes, the strong one’), ‘worship like a god, furnish with hero cult’ (Kretschmer 1940, 104  f., 112; Heubeck [1949/50] 1984, 111; Schein 1984, 48; Nagy 1990, 131  f., 139; 2012, 61–66; West 1997, 386); additional discussion and bibliography: Clarke 1999, 187 n. 61; Aceti 2008, 110  f. n. 252 and 254; LfgrE s.v.; cf. 666–683n. — ἔται: literally ‘one’s own people’ (6.239n.), i.e. probably close relatives (see above); differently van Wees 1992, 272: ‘fellow citizens’ (as at 22.346 in the context of Hektor’s burial: ‘the Trojans and their wives’). — τὸ γάρ: The introduction to the sentence via a pronoun and γάρ is characteristic of aphoristic statements (Ahrens 1937, 40  f.).

458 = 4.68; 1st VH also (with various subjects) 19× Il., 2× Od., 2× h.Cer. (speech capping formulaP); 2nd VH, see below. — ‘Father of men and gods’ represents a periphrastic denominationP of Zeus via a polar expressionP that emphasizes his authority (24.103n.; Ancient Near Eastern parallels in West 1997, 108  f.; on Zeus’ designation as father in general: 3.276n.).

οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε: ‘he did not oppose, did not say no, agreed’; a formulaic expression denoting the execution of an order or the observation of a piece of advice (independent of any discrepancy in authority between speaker and addressee: 1.345n., 6.102n.). Since the action is carried out only later in the story, the expression here serves to mark its acceptance (Kelly 2007, 152  ff.). — πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε: a VE formula (12× Il., 3× Od., 16× Hes., 1× h.Hom., 1× Titan.; also 2× Hes. πατὴρ δ’ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε).

459–461 The Homeric narrator highlights special (imminent or current) battle situations by having Zeus interfere with the normal course of nature via extraordinary weather or natural phenomena: (a) before the second, major day of battle, there is thunder throughout the night (causing great fear among the warriors: 7.478–481), (b) in the early hours of the third day of battle, a bloody dew falls (presaging the death of many heroes: 11.52b–55), (c) before the battle for the camp walls, a storm drives a dust cloud toward the Achaians (with Zeus addling their senses: 12.252b–255), (d) during the fight for Sarpedon’s corpse, Zeus covers the battlefield with ‘night’ (with the intention of hampering the fight and thus honoring Sarpedon: 16.567  f. [see ad loc.]), (e) during the fight for Patroklos’ body, fog arises in the spot where he is lying (with Zeus urging on the Achaians in their defensive actions: 17.268b–273), (f) the entrance

457 γέρας: predicative. 458 ἔφατ(ο): 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23.

216 

 Iliad 16

of the gods into battle is accompanied by thunder and earthquakes (20.54  ff.) (Griffin 1980, 40  f.; the weather similes at 297–302, on the one hand, and the sunset forced by Hera at 18.240 [see ad loc.], on the other, are similar). As in (d) and (e), in the present passage the sympathies of the weather god for the hero concerned play a role: here he wants to ‘honor his dear son’, at (d) to impede the fight ‘over his dear son’, at (e) to prevent the Trojans from capturing the body of Patroklos – to whom ‘he was never hostile through all this time’. In the imitation of the present passage at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 384  f., Zeus uses drops of blood to create a ‘signal for battle’ in favor of his son Herakles. For interpretation of these phenomena, cf. Kakridis 1971a, 95: ‘the very presence of the super­natural darkness [=  (d)]  […] is an expression of honour and mourning for the Lycian hero, as was the shower of bloody raindrops  […]. Such miracles do not happen every time a warrior is killed on the battlefield of Troy’ (similarly Stockinger 1959, 44; Paul 1969, 39–43; Lateiner 2002, esp. 60  f.; Fenno 2008/9). The intensity of Zeus’ pain and grief for Sarpedon is almost comparable to that of Thetis for Achilleus (see 460n., 461n.): Neal 2006, 130; Rinon 2008, 135. – On a narrative plane, such phenomena (prodigies) have an omen-like function: Stockinger loc. cit. 120  f.; Fenik 1968, 80; Paul loc. cit. (on historically attested natural phenomena in the context of ancient wars, see Ducrey 2012, 197  ff.). — The ‘bloody drops’ represent a symbolic image of Zeus’ sorrow regarding the human bloodshed on the battlefield, similarly the ‘dew dripping with blood’ at 11.53  f. (see above; Homeric gods do not of course have ordinary ‘blood’ [haíma] flowing through their veins but ichṓr: 5.339  ff.). In what follows, Sarpedon’s death is described explicitly and repeatedly as bloody: 485  f. (Sarpedon falls and ‘claws at the bloody earth’), 638–640 (his body is ‘covered with missiles, blood and dust’), 667  f. (Zeus orders Apollo to cleanse the body of blood); see Neal 2006, 198–203; on references to blood in the Iliad in general, 159n. – The rain of blood is a prodigy motif prevalent in historio­ graphy, poetry, prophecy and mythology, e.g. Livy 34.45, Ovid Metamorphoses 15.788, Nonnus Dionysiaka 27.12–14, Oracula Sibyll. 12.55–57; ancient and medieval examples in Tatlock 1914; Cook 1940, 478–481; McCafferty 2008; parallels from Sanskrit and Nordic epic in Paul 1969, 42, and West 2007, 408. The motif may be based on rain mixed with particles (of sand, dust or other matter) (thus already Cicero De divinatione 2.58: ‘ex aliqua contagione terrena’). Additional bibliography: Lateiner 2002; Bächtold-Stäubli 2006, 1445–1447.

ψιάδας: ψιάς ‘drop’ is a Homeric hapaxP (elsewhere only in the imitation at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 384) and is part of a group of nouns in -αδ- that are often technical terms and/or de­ signate collectives (in Homeric epic, e.g. ἰκμάς ‘moisture’, κεμάς ‘young stag’, νεκάδες ‘pile of corpses’, νιφάδες ‘snowflakes’, post-Homeric ψακάς/ψεκάς ‘drops, drizzle’): Chantraine 1933, 349  ff., esp. 351, 352  f.; Risch 146. — ψιάδας κατέχευεν ἔραζε: de-

Commentary 

 217

notes precipitation (12.156–158 νιφάδες … πίπτον ἔραζε, | ἃς τ’ ἄνεμος … | … κατέχευεν ἐπὶ χθονί, also at 16.385 Zeus χέει ὕδωρ), on the one hand, and tears (formula (κατὰ) δάκρυ χέουσα [1.413n.], also Od. 16.191 δάκρυον ἧκε χαμᾶζε), on the other; discussion in Lateiner 2002, 48–50. — κατέχευεν ἔραζε: an inflectable VE formula, in the present variant only here, elsewhere with tmesis κατὰ δ(ὲ) / ἀπὸ δ(ὲ) … χεῦεν ἔραζε (1× Il., 3× Od.), also πίπτε(ι)/-ον ἔραζε (3× Il., 1× Od.). 460–461 These two verses reveal Zeus’ intent and motivation: secondary focalizationP (de Jong [1987] 2004, 119  f.; Aceti 2008, 112  f.); typical elements: periphrastic denominationP (παῖδα φίλον), explicatory relative clause, ethical dat. οἱ, τηλόθι πάτρης (an expression largely limited to character languageP): 24.85–86n., 24.86n.; Janko on 458– 461). – The relative clause τόν οἱ Πάτροκλος … contains an internal prolepsisP (438n.).

460 Timḗ ‘honor’ occupies an exceptional position in the Homeric system of values (1.11n.; cf. 83–96n.) and is used interactively with philía ‘friendship, affection’ (here contained in paída phílon ‘his dear son’: Muellner 1996, 149). In the present passage, the honoring has two aspects. (1) ‘Opening ceremony’: as when Athene and Hera open the aristeia of Agamemnon in Book 11 with a thunderclap ‘to honor the king’ (11.45  f.), Zeus introduces Sarpedon’s appearance with the drops of blood (Stockinger 1959, 170). (2) Compensation: as when Thetis demands unconditional honor for her son Achilleus in compensation for his brief life (1.505  ff.), Zeus has his son experience honor shortly before death, especially given that it is impossible for him to help (the living) Sarpedon: Paul 1969, 39–43; Crotty 1994, 97; Lateiner 2002, 50–52, 60  f. (Zeus does not generally intervene personally in events: Erbse 1986, 218  f.).

παῖδα φίλον: an inflectable formula at VB and after caesura A 3 (acc./dat., masc./fem.: 2× Il. [likewise at 1.447], 4× Od., 3× Hes., 2× h.Cer.); here beside τιμῶν, likely pregnant of the ‘dear son’ (82n., also 1.20n.); cf. 447n. (ὃν φίλον υἱόν), 460–461n. — ἔμελλεν: 46n.

461 ≈ 24.86 (and on 460, cf. 24.85): ‘The fact that the phrase […] is reused later in the poem of Thetis crying over the imminent death of Achilleus […] gives an idea of the intensity of Zeus’ emotions that the poet wishes to evoke over the course of Book 16’ (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 284 [transl.]; similarly Aceti 2008, 113). — The motif ‘far from home’ produces pathos (2.162n., 24.86n.).

ἐν Τροίῃ ἐριβώλακι: an inflectable formula (24.86n.).

460 τόν (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5; τόν is an anaphoric demonstrative pronoun with the function of a relative (R 14.5); οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).

218 

 Iliad 16

462–507 Patroklos and Sarpedon attack one another. The dying Sarpedon calls on his comrade Glaukos for aid. 462 = 3.15, 5.14, etc. (in total 11× Il.); ≈ 23.816 (ἀλλ’ ὅτε); 1st VH ≈ Od. 10.156, 12.368. A formulaic verse for introducing duels (3.15n.). Here it picks up the action on the battlefield after the divine intermezzo, with literal echoes of 430 in the 2nd VH (Aceti 2008, 114; West 2011, 322; cf. 419–683n.). 463–465 A fighting scene in the ABC-schemeP (287–290an. with bibliography), here as at 401–405 with an apparent ellipsis of the predicate in section A (463; see 401–405n. with bibliography; on the present passage in particular, Visser 1987, 46 n. 76, 145–155 [conditioned by versification]; Bakker 1997, 107  f. [characteristic of oral narration]). The predicate follows in section C (465 βάλε) while picking up the object via τόν. – On the motif of substitute killings (here implicit), 419–683n. 463 ἔνθ’ ἤτοι: 399n.  — ἀγακλειτόν: a generic epithetP (18.45n.; on the prosodic equi­ valents, Janko on 463–465; on synonymous ἀγακλεής, 738n., on ἀγακλυτός, 6.436– 437n.).  — Θρασύδημον: Personal names with the final element -δημος/-δαμος are attested already in Mycenaean (Eury-, Iphidamos, etc.; see MYC; Landau 1958, 166), but occur only here in Homeric epic. Thrasydemos/-damos (‘he who has courageous people’) is attested several times as a historical personal name (LGPN). Conversely, there are no historical examples of the reading Θρασύμηλον, with the exception of the derivative Thrasymēlidas (the name of a Spartan attested at Thuc. 4.11.2), but several epic names in -μηλος/-μήλη (e.g. Polymele at 180, Polymelos 417, Eumelos 2.714). Due to the nonsensical (or at least ironic/caricaturing) meaning of Θρασύμηλος – ‘the courage­ ous wether’ or ‘he who has a courageous flock’ – the reading Θρασύδημον is probably to be preferred; it is attested at e.g. schol. A and as a v.l. or correction in Venetus A (in margine) and in a 1st-cent. A.D. papyrus (Janko on 463–465; differently Wathelet s.v. [Θρασύμηλος is the lectio difficilior]; cf. Leaf; von Kamptz 10).

464 1st VH ≈ 653. — On the joint death of the hero and charioteer, 399–414n.

ἠΰς: ‘good, capable, valiant’, an archaic term (24.6n.). — ἄνακτος: a generic epithetP of heroes (cf. 2.566n.), of Sarpedon also at 12.413/414 (as commander of the Lykians). In the contrast ἄναξ – θεράπων also at 11.322 (Thymbraios – Molion).

465 2nd VH ≈ 21.406. – On the verse structure, 289–290n. — νείαιραν … γαστέρα: ‘lower section of the belly’; νείαιρα in early epic and the Corpus Hippocraticum is always found in combination with γαστήρ; perhaps, like νείατος ‘the lowest’ (821), related to νειός ‘fallow land’ (LfgrE s.v. with bibliography; also Beekes s.v. νειός).  – On the terms for ‘abdomen’, cf. 318n. (with bibliography on abdominal injuries; on inadequate armor as a likely cause of abdominal injuries, 419n., end). — λῦσε δὲ γυῖα: a VE formula (312n.).

466–475 A similar incident occurs in Book 8 (8.80  ff.; see 152n.): Nestor’s tracehorse – a third horse led alongside on a long rein – is struck in the head by

464 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 219

Paris; it rears up in pain and rolls around on the ground; the draft horses balk; Nestor cuts the trace-horse’s reins. Here, the two draft horses (Xanthos and Balios, 148  f.) make an abrupt move to the side to break away when the tracehorse (Pedasos) goes to the ground bellowing; the resulting tension makes the wooden yoke creak and the reins become loose, fouled and/or tangled up with those of the trace-horse. After Automedon intervenes (he slashes through these reins with his sword), the horses stand up straight again (aligned with the shaft) and pull, so that the reins tighten.  – The narrative pace picks up markedly at Pedasos’ fall and the confusion of the draft horses (short cola in 468–471), only to settle down again after Automedon’s fortunate intervention (472–474 = one sentence; 475 many spondees). – On the motif of so-called substitute killings (here of a horse), 419–683n. 466–468a 466 ≈ 477, cf. 15.521; 1st VH of 467 ≈ 402. — δεύτερος ὁρμηθείς: designates the change from one attacker to the other in a duel (402n.). — αὐτοῦ μὲν ἀπήμβροτε … | …, ὃ δὲ Πήδασον οὔτασεν ἵππον: In early epic, αὐτός frequently underlines the difference between a person and his body, possessions or other surroundings; commonly, as here, of a horse driver/owner as opposed to his horse or team, e.g. 3.113, 10.567/572, 16.833  ff., 23.334  f., 23.435  ff., Od. 4.35  f. (LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1650.40  ff., esp. 1653.31  ff.; see also 1.4n., 2.317n.). – Strictly speaking, Πήδασον δέ should be expected as antithesis after αὐτοῦ μέν (schol. A), but a ‘shifting’ of δέ often occurs, especially in the case of formulaic ὃ δέ with no change of subject: K.-G. 1.656  f., 2.268; Schw. 2.208; Chantr. 2.159. — δουρὶ φαεινῷ | … | ἔγχεϊ: used synonymously of throwing weapons (139–140n.); on the VE formula δουρὶ φαεινῷ, 284n. — οὔτασεν ἵππον | ἔγχεϊ: an irregular use of οὐτάζω that occurs elsewhere only in the context of injuries sustained in close combat (with slashing or thrusting weapons) but not in cases involving thrown weapons (24n.; AH; Leaf; Janko on 467–469; for the ancient discussion, cf. West 2001, 58, as well as app.crit.).

468 On the right shoulder as a location of injuries, 289–290n.

ἔβραχε: an onomatopoetic verb (19.13n. with bibliography), here: ‘yelped, shouted’ (like the wounded Ares at 5.859–863); cf. μακών 469n. — θυμὸν ἀΐσθων: like English ‘draw one’s last breath’, of the state immediately before death; in Homeric epic also at 20.403 (Hippodamas) θυμὸν ἄϊσθε καὶ ἤρυγεν, similarly θυμὸν ἀποπνείων (4.524, 13.654); in contrast, of fainting φίλον ἄϊον ἦτορ (15.252), ἀπὸ δὲ ψυχὴν ἐκάπυσσεν (22.467). On the obscure etymology and meaning of ἀΐσθω (probably ‘exhale’, cf. ἄσθμα), see Böhme 1929, 99  f.; Clarke 1999, 130  ff. with n. 1 (with bibliography), 139  f.; Kölligan 2007, 430; Janko on 15.252–253. On the use of θυμός in epic expressions meaning ‘die’ in general, 410n.

469 =  Od. 10.163 (stag), 19.454 (wild boar); 1st VH (to caesura C 1) =  Od. 18.98 (Iros); (to caesura B 2) ≈  Il. 12.23, 15.538 (parts of armor); VB =  11.676, Od.

467  f. ἵππον | … ὦμον: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1).

220 

 Iliad 16

24.540.  — On the fall and shout of a warrior who is killed, 289–290n.  – The pictorial conception of the ‘soul’ – to use a modern term – flying away at the point of death and leaving behind the lifeless body is old and wide-spread; the body opening through which the breath of life escapes is sometimes explicitly named: mouth (9.409), fatal wound (14.518  f., see ad loc.), from the body generally (16.856). Bibliography: Vermeule 1979, 7  ff., 17  ff., 25  f., 28  ff.; Bremmer 1983, 17, 74  f.; Ross 2006; West 2007, 490; cf. 410n.

ἐν κονίῃσι: 289n.; again at 471 (cf. the concentration in 5.583/586/588).  — μακών: ‘screaming’ vel sim. (cf. 468 ἔβραχε), a kind of death cry (on which, LfgrE s.v. μακεῖν with bibliography; cf. the iterata).  — ἀπὸ δ’ ἔπτατο θυμός: in this phrasing only of animals, also 23.880 ὠκὺς δ’ ἐκ μελέων θυμὸς πτάτο (dove); in contrast, of humans at 13.671  f./16.606  f. ὦκα δὲ θυμὸς | ᾤχετ’ ἀπὸ μελέων (Euchenor/Laogonos), 16.856/22.362 ψυχὴ δ’ ἐκ ῥεθέων πταμένη (Patroklos/Hektor), also Od. 11.222 ψυχὴ δ’ ἠΰτ’ ὄνειρος ἀποπταμένη πεπότηται (state of the ψυχή at death), 24.1  ff. (comparison of ψυχαί with bats). Bibliography: Caswell 1990, 15  f.; Clarke 1999, 148  ff. (ad loc. 152  f.); Morrison 1999, 131  f.; on Homeric expressions for the death of animals in particular, Heath 2005, 47  f.

470 κρίκε: ‘make the noise «krick»’, cf. English ‘creak, screech, crack’, a unique onomato­ poetic formation (hapaxP), post-Homeric κρίζω/κέκριγα: Krapp 1964, 195; Tichy 1983, 58. 471 παρήορος: ‘trace-horse’ (literally ‘harnessed beside’, from παρά + ἀείρω in the sense ‘link’: DELG; Beekes); on the horse itself, 152n. 472 Automedon is Patroklos’ charioteer (20n.). — τοῖο … ηὕρετο τέκμωρ: ‘found a solution, put an end to it’ (AH), cf. Od. 4.466  f. οὐδέ τι τέκμωρ | εὑρέμεναι δύναμαι (Menelaos is stuck on the island of Pharos). — δουρικλυτός: 26n. 473 = Od. 10.439, 11.231; cf. Il. 14.385. — τανύηκες: A possessive compound, ‘with elongated point’ (Hoffmann 1940, 76; Risch 190  f.; LfgrE). The quasi-distinctive epithet of ἄορ and ξίφος denotes ‘the long and slender sword-blade that gradually tapers toward the tip’ and indicates the weapon’s effectiveness (Foltiny 1980, 238 [transl.]; on sword epi­ thets in general, 332n.; on ἄορ, 115n.; cf. ταναήκεϊ χαλκῷ 24.754n.). Also 1× of branches (768 τανυήκεας ὄζους after 767 τανύφλοιόν τε κράνειαν), probably meaning ‘with long, thin tips’ (in a simile, possibly in association with attack weapons: Janko on 765–769; with botanical accuracy, Herzhoff 1990, 266 n. 32 [transl.]: ‘meant are the budding tips

469 κὰδ δ’ ἔπεσ(ε), ἀπὸ δ’ ἔπτατο: so-called tmesis (R  20.2; assimilated κάδ with apocope, R 20.1). — μακών: part. with the aor. μακεῖν ‘shriek, bleat’. — ἔπτατο: aor. of πέτομαι. 470 τὼ … διαστήτην: dual, ‘the two went/sprang to the side, stood apart’; the two horses of the team are meant. — σφι: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). 471 σύγχυτ(ο): ‘(reins) tangled one another’, middle root aor. of συγ-χέω. 472 τοῖο: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), neut., refers to the situation described. 473 σπασσάμενος: aor. mid. of σπάω ‘pull, draw’ (on the -σσ-, R 9.1).

Commentary 

 221

of branches’). — παχέος παρὰ μηροῦ: Like τανύηκες, παχύς ‘sturdy, muscular’ also has an emphatic meaning: ‘a powerful physique […] as prerequisite for a powerful action’ (LfgrE s.v. παχύς 1082.18  f. [transl.]); the emphasis is underlined via the antithesis ‘pointed – thick’. – παρὰ μηροῦ is a VE formula (3× Il., 9× Od., always in participial clauses with σπασσάμενος or ἐρυσσάμενος of drawing a sword). 474 οὐδ’ ἐμάτησεν: ματάω is attested only in Homer and later epic poets (Apoll. Rhod., Oppian), and in Aeschylus and Sophocles. Two interpretations have been mooted since antiquity: (a) ‘hesitate, tarry’, (b) ‘do something in vain, be unsuccessful, miss something’. Meaning (a) probably applies especially at 23.510 (likewise at VE; Sthenelos ἐσσυμένως λάβ’ ἄεθλον after the chariot race at 23.511) and cannot be entirely excluded in the present passage (‘without hesitation’), but (b) is more plausible: ‘and he did not miss, i.e. was successful’, cf. the related VE formula οὐδ’ ἀφάμαρτεν (322n.); highlighting the success of Automedon’s intervention (rhetorical polar expressionP). Bibliography on (a): AH; LSJ; Meier-Brügger 1989, 44; Rengakos 1994, 111  f.; on (b) schol. T; Faesi; Döderlein 1850, 112 (albeit with an untenable etymology); LfgrE s.v. ματῆσαι. 475 The re-establishment of order in the team of horses that was disturbed at 470  f.: διαστήτην → ἰθυνθήτην, ἡνία σύγχυτ(ο) → ἐν ῥυτῆρσι τάνυσθεν (AH); cf. 466–475n. — ἐν δὲ ῥυτῆρσι τάνυσθεν: ῥυτῆρες only here in connection with horses, literally ‘straps’; on their use, 19.393n. (where λέπαδνα). Implication: the horses stood in such a way that the straps were again taut (Plath 1994, 364–366). But an equation with ἡνία is also possible (470), with the result that ῥυτῆρες here has the faded meaning ‘reins’ (schol. D; AH; Leaf; Wiesner 1968, 19); undecided Delebecque 1951, 184; LfgrE s.v. ῥυτήρ.

476–486 The second round of fighting (element 4 of the theme ‘duel’: 419–683n.), with numerous echoes of the first round in 462–475 (477 ≈ 466: Sarpedon misses; repetition of additional individual motifs such as the shoulder, fall with death cry, team of horses). 476 2nd VH = 7.301, 20.253. — συνίτην: a technical term denoting a simultaneous attack by two warriors or armies, e.g. 4.446  f., 20.159  f. (examples: LfgrE s.v. εἶμι 468.57  ff.); cf. συνέδραμον 335n. — ἔριδος … θυμοβόροιο: On the formula and the metaphor (with the sense ‘eating away at the heart’), see 6.201–202n. and esp. 19.58n.; epithets of ἔρις are frequently pejorative (662n.). — ἔριδος πέρι: final or modal, i.e. ‘to/in quarrel, fight, duel’, like the dat. ἔριδι at 20.66 ≈ 21.390 (θεῶν ἔριδι ξυνιόντων); similarly with a verb of fighting at 7.301 ἐμαρνάσθην ἔριδος πέρι: LfgrE s.v. θυμοβόρος; Hogan 1981, 26 n. 8. 477 ≈ 466; 1st VH = 5.471. — See 466–468an. — ἔνθ’ αὖ: 5× Il. at VB (also 5.1, 5.471, 12.182, 16.603). On ἔνθα as a selection signal, 306n. (focus on a single hero). The particle αὖ often has a continuing, linking function (cf. 2.768n.) and is here added to ἔνθα as an intensifier (Düntzer [1868] 1872, 583–585; Klein 1988, 255  f.; Bonifazi 2012, 238  f. [‘zoom-

475 ἐν … ῥυτῆρσι τάνυσθεν: literally ‘harnessed in the straps’; τάνυσθεν = ἐτανύσθησαν (R 16.1–2); on the juxtaposition of pl. and dual (ἰθυνθήτην), R 18.1. — δὲ (ῤ)ῥυτῆρσι: on the prosody, M 4.6. 476 τὼ … συνίτην: dual; sc. Patroklos and Sarpedon. — ἔριδος πέρι: = περὶ ἔριδος (R 20.2).

222 

 Iliad 16

ing-in technique’]; on αὖ in general, in addition to the bibliography already mentioned, see LfgrE s.v.; Revuelta Puigdollers 2009). 478–481a ≈  5.16–19a (referring to Diomedes in Book 5: Τυδεΐδεω/-ης rather than Πατρόκλου/-ος; cf. Kirk on 5.16–17; Clark 1997, 177  f., 223  f.). On 478, cf. 10.373.

478 On missed shots going over the left shoulder, 106n.; on weapons flying past an opponent, 611–612n.

ἤλυθ’ ἀκωκή: a VE formula (5× Il., 1× Od.).

479 = 5.17; 2nd VH ≈ 3.349, 17.45 (ὃ δὲ δεύτερος …). — ἔβαλ(ε): Whether the weapon or the warrior is the subject is unclear, cf. 405 (see ad loc.), 481. Formulations with a weapon as the agent are not unusual in early epic (in the present context at 478, 480): de Boel 1988, 135  ff. — ὃ δ(ὲ) …: On the combination of pronoun and personal name in apposition (and in enjambment: Πάτροκλος 480), 317n. (on ὃ μέν). — ὕστερος: 402n. (on δεύτερον ὁρμηθείς).  — ὤρνυτο χαλκῷ: denotes the attack as an action ‘prior to the subsequent actual use of the weapon’ (here 481 ἔβαλ(ε)); χαλκῷ is thus probably to be understood as instrumental (LfgrE s.v. χαλκός 1127.31  ff.): ‘attacked with the spear’, cf. 497 VE μάρναο χαλκῷ. – χαλκός (on which, 345n., end) is picked up in what follows by 480 βέλος, 504 δόρυ, 505 ἔγχος.

480 ≈ 5.18; 2nd VH = 11.376. — The expression ‘the missile did not fly in vain’ is always combined with ‘(instead) he struck …’ (here at 481): a rhetorical polar expressionP (likewise at 737).

οὐχ ἅλιον βέλος: in addition to the present formulaic verse, also 11.380 (after caesura A 3): οὐδ’ ἅλιον βέλος ἔκφυγεν (without χειρός), 4.498/15.575 (2nd VH): ὃ δ’ οὐχ ἅλιον βέλος ἧκεν; in reference to ἔγχος at 13.410 (οὐδ’ ἅλιόν ῥα βαρείης χειρὸς ἀφῆκεν); with ἁλιόω at 16.727 οὐδ’ ἁλίωσε βέλος. — ἔκφυγε χειρός: a VE formula (5× Il., 1× Hes. Th.), always in conjunction with an expression for ‘(not) unsuccessful’ (ἅλιος, ἐτώσιος), in the Iliad only of missiles.

481 Anatomical details  – ‘where the phrénes (see below) enclose the heart’  – serve to add emphasis (314n.). Lethal injuries in the thorax area are common in the Iliad, in Book 16 also at 597  f. (collection of examples in Morrison 1999, 144; albeit without the present passage).

φρένες: in early epic rarely of a body part in an anatomical sense (also at 504, Od. 9.301), but then either specifically =  ‘diaphragm’ (schol. D on 504: ‘Homer always calls the diaphragm φρένες’; the same applies to the use of the term in the Corpus Hippocraticum; Böhme 1929, 3  ff.; Laser 1983, 42  ff. [ad loc. 45]) or generally of the organs/entrails in the middle section of the abdomen surrounding the diaphragm (thorax/upper abdomen),

478 ἤλυθ(ε): = ἦλθε. 479 οὐδ(έ): in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). 481 ἔνθ(α): relative pronoun, ‘where’.  — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R  24.11), likewise 483 (in a simile).  — ἔρχαται: ‘(where the φρένες) connect to (the heart)’; on the inflection, R 16.2.

Commentary 

 223

cf. Od. 9.301 στῆθος, ὅθι φρένες ἧπαρ ἔχουσι (Ireland/Steel 1975, esp. 193  f.; Sullivan 1988, 21  ff., esp.  26  ff. [both with detailed discussion of divergent interpretations]; cf. 1.103n.); differently e.g. Janko and Clarke 1999, 74  ff.: ‘lungs’ (supported by the hypothesis put forth by Onians [1951] 1988, 23  ff.); cf. Saunders 2003, 160  f. — ἔρχαται: probably from εἴργω (3rd pers. pl. perf. pass.) in the sense ‘enclose, envelop tightly’: Chantr. 1.136, 421; Beekes 1969, 63; Hoekstra on Od. 14.73. — ἀμφ’ ἁδινὸν κῆρ: VE = Od. 19.516. – κῆρ only here of the heart as a physical organ, cf. 660 ἦτορ (Jahn 1987, 9). ἁδινόν ‘dense, crowded’ probably in reference to the consistency – i.e. ‘solid, powerful, muscular’ (schol. bT; AH; Laser 1983, 36  f.; cf. Jahn loc. cit. 13) – rather than in reference to frequency (‘beating violently, pounding’: LfgrE; Leaf on 2.87; Pucci [1993] 1998, 99).

482–491 Sarpedon’s death is ‘narrated’ by a series of two similes P (482–486, 487–491): he falls (482), lies on the ground bleeding (485  f.), cries out in anger and pain (death throes, 486/489; on the hinge function of the cry, 486n.), and utters his last wish (491); i.e. the action progresses via the similes. Both similes indirectly portray Sarpedon as a worthy if defeated opponent (he ­earlier appeared as an equal in the vulture similes at 428–430): the tall tree  – is cut down, the bull, leader of the herd (2.481) – is killed (cf. 487–491n.). The tree and lion/bull similes both are characteristic of depictions of the death of a warrior. Bibliography: schol. bT on 487–489; Wilamowitz 1916, 138; Bowra 1930, 125  f.; Jachmann 1958, 332  f.; Krischer 1971, 72–75; Baltes 1983, 38  f.; Reucher 1983, 322; Aceti 2008, 120  f.; Scott 2009, 162  f.; cf. 428–430n. and, on series of similes in general, 2.455–483n. (the combination of tree and lion similes occurs in a different arrangement also at 5.554–560, 16.756–771 and 17.53–69). 482–486 =  13.389–393 (see below).  — Homeric similes frequently list multiple objects for comparison (2.800n. with bibliography; esp. Scott 1974, 154  f.). Enumerations of three species of tree (here oak, poplar, pine) occur (not only in similes) also at 767, 21.350, Od. 5.64, 5.239. The mighty trees implicitly render Sarpedon tall and strong and paint his fall as tremendous (on the fall of slain warriors in general, 289–290n.); in general, trees in similes and comparisons often represent warriors in battle, namely (a) falling (e.g. also 4.482–489, 5.559  f.) and (b) standing firm (e.g. 12.131–136); in the case of (a), the preceding injury is regularly located in the head or thorax, as here. Bibliography: Strasburger 1954, 38  f.; Fenik 1968, 126; Scott loc. cit. 70  f.; Baltes 1983, 38; Stoevesandt 2004, 268–273, 422  f.; Aceti 2008, 118–120; Rood 2008, 24–30; Janko on 13.178–180, 13.389–393 and 13.389–391; Sanskrit parallels: West 2007, 495. Cf. also 633–637n. – The present simile also occurs at 13.389  ff., with the same wording and in a similar context: the Trojan ally Asios and his cha­rioteer die in battle against Idomeneus and Antilochos (a comparison of the two passages [characterized by an analytic mentality] in Friedrich [1956] 2003, 89–91; correcting, Janko on 482–486; on repeated similes in general, 3–4n.

224 

 Iliad 16

with bibliography). – The details provided in the relative clause at 483b–484 (carpenters, axes, ship beams) ‘are necessary to us if we ourselves are to interpret and respond to the scene which we visualize. […] The introduction of men and their purposeful and productive occupations points up, by contrast, the pathos of the target scene: the wasteful killing, on the battlefield, of one of the bold Trojan allies. […] The simile, therefore, vivid because of its detailed imagery, gains further affective force’: Minchin 2001, 146  f. (quotation: 147); similarly Kurz 1966, 23  f. (‘tragedy of the death of warriors’); Porter 1972, 14  f., 18  f.; Mueller (1984) 2009, 106.

δρῦς … ἀχερωΐς | … πίτυς βλωθρή: a sequence arranged in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (on which, see the references at 397n.).

482 =  13.389; ≈  ‘Hes.’ Sc. 421; 1st VH ≈  Il. 4.462.  — ἤριπε δ’ ὡς  … ἤριπεν: The repetition of the predicate in the simile is ‘curiously expressive’: ‘he fell like an oak falls’ rather than ‘he fell like an oak’: Fehling 1969, 134  f. (transl.); cf. Silk 1974, 16  f.; 211– 217n. – On ἤριπε at VB, 319n. — δρῦς: ‘oak’, in early epic occasionally given the epithets ὑψικάρηνος and ὑψίκομος due to its impressive size, although it is of only limited usefulness for ship-building (wood with good resistance to water but of high density, i.e. heavy): Müller 1974, 67 with n.  283; Meiggs 1982, 117  f. (both with references to Theophrastus); on the use of wood in ancient ship-building in general, Buchholz 2004, 89  ff. — ἀχερωΐς: a type of poplar, traditionally taken to be ‘silver poplar’ (LfgrE s.v.), recently occasionally identified as ‘aspen’ (Herzhoff 1990, 266  f. n. 34, with additional bibliography). The wood of the poplar is also unsuitable for ship-building (due to its softness and limited resistance to water); here the tree appears to have been selected on the basis of its tall, slender form (cf. 482–486n.; Meiggs loc. cit. 108  f.; different interpretation: the smooth bark of the poplar evokes the gleam of the hero’s armor [Aceti 2008, 119 with n. 278]). 483 = 13.390; 2nd VH ≈ 13.571. — πίτυς: ‘pine’ (commonly identified as ‘black pine’), attested as building material also at Od. 9.186 and suitable for ship-building: LfgrE s.v. with bibliography. — βλωθρή: an epithet of trees (in post-Homeric epic also of other plants); the etymology and meaning are obscure, usually understood here as ‘tall’ (elsewhere heroes also occasionally fall like tall trees: 4.482  ff. [esp. 484], 5.560). Attempts at interpretation: scholia on 13.390; Leaf on 13.390; Janko on 13.389–391; on the etymology: Bechtel 1914, 82 (related to βλαστεῖν ‘sprout, shoot’; cf. Frisk s.v. βλαστάνω); Beekes 1969, 193, 215  f. (non-Greek word). For discussion of whether βλωθρή has an ornamental or contextual (pregnant) function, see schol. loc. cit.; LfgrE s.v.; Herzhoff 1990, 266  f. n. 34 (‘is eminently suitable for this tallest species of the pine’ [transl.]). — τήν: refers grammatically to the last-mentioned tree; contextually, it is likewise most appropriate

482 ἠ(έ): = ἤ. 483 τήν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — οὔρεσι: specification of place without preposition (R 19.2); initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary 

 225

for πίτυς (see the preceding nn.; Müller 1974, 67). — τέκτονες ἄνδρες: a VE formula (iteratum and 6.315). In early epic, τέκτων can also refer to ship-builders, cf. 15.410  f., Od. 9.126  f. (6.314b–315n.). On the linking of generic and functional terms, 2.474n. with bibliography. 484–485 The arrangement of the verses may be onomatopoetic/imitating: 484 dactylic (tree-felling), 485 spondaic (Sarpedon is lying on the ground); a concentration of assonance in πελέκεσσι νεήκεσι νήϊον (-κεσσι -κεσι; νεή- νή-): Leaf on 13.391; word-playP; cf. 279n., end. 484 ἐξέταμον: in the sense ‘cut down, fell’, cf. 4.485  f. (Mutzbauer 1893, 317; LfgrE s.v. τάμνω 304.13  ff.).  — νήϊον: sc. δόρυ, ‘construction wood, ship’s beam’ (3.62n.); in the Iliad only as a detail in similes (3.60  ff., 13.389  ff., 15.410  f., 17.742  ff.).

485 = 13.392; 1st VH (to caesura B 1) ≈ 8.100, 8.134, 13.385; VE = 20.483. — The description of a fallen warrior ‘lying down’ is one of the typical elements of Homeric battle scenes  – naturally usually at the end, cf. 284–290an. (Kurz 1966, 18  f., 33  f.). Here the scene is drawn out via a second simile, Sarpedon’s speech to Glaukos, and the retrieval of the spear by Patroklos (retardationP: the onset of death is specified only at 502  ff.). This results in a concentration of expressions meaning ‘kill/die/lie there dead’ (485, 487, 489, 491, 502, 505), which lend intensity and pathos to the portrayal of Sarpedon in his death throes (cf. Niens 1987, 90  f.; Aceti 2008, 113  f.; Eck 2012, 181  f.; 419–683n.).

πρόσθ’ ἵππων καὶ δίφρου: The team of horses has been standing without a master since the death of Thrasydemos (463–465). On the phrase, cf. 5.107 πρόσθ’ ἵπποιϊν καὶ ὄχεσφιν (2nd VH), Od. 4.590 τρεῖς ἵππους καὶ δίφρον (1st VH). — κεῖτο τανυσθείς: ‘lay prostrate’, i.e. ‘lengthwise’ (cf. κεῖτο μέγας μεγαλωστί 776n.) and ‘stiff and motionless’: Marg 1976, 13. – A VE formula (also at 13.392, 20.483); at VB κεῖτο ταθείς (13.655, 21.119); with the words separated, τανυσθεὶς  | κεῖτο (Achilleus reacting to the message of Patroklos’ death, 18.26  f. [see ad loc.]), κεῖτ(ο)  … τανυσσάμενος (the sleeping Polyphemos, Od. 9.298).

486 =  13.393.  — On the expression ‘clawing at the ground’, cf. the formulae ‘grasped the ground with clenched hands’ (14.452n.) and ‘bit the dust’ (2.418n.), on the one hand, and expressions signifying ‘blood reddened the earth’ (e.g. 11.394, 13.655, 17.360  f.), on the other. The combination of the motifs ‘blood’ and ‘dust, soil’ (also at e.g. 13.614  f., 15.118, 16.639 [again Sarpedon, see ad loc.], 16.795  f.) graphically evokes disfigurement and death (Neal 2006, 196  f., 200–202; cf. Janko on 13.392–393). On mentions of blood in Book 16 in general,

484 νεήκεσι: from νε-ήκης, ‘with a fresh point, freshly sharpened’ (cf. 473 τανύ-ηκες). — εἶναι: final-consecutive inf. (with the predicate νηΐον ‘ship timber’). 486 κόνιος: on the declension, R 11.3. — δεδραγμένος: from δράσσομαι (with gen.), ‘claw into, clutch at something’; perf. with intensive meaning.

226 

 Iliad 16

159n.; in the Sarpedon scene in particular, 459–461n.; on sullying with blood, 333–334n.

A four-word verse (additive participial clause: Bassett 1919, 223  f.; cf. 125–126n.; on the frequency of asyndetic participles ‘in vivid descriptions’ [transl.], see K.-G. 2.103  f.). — βεβρυχώς: ‘bellowing’, an onomatopoetic perf. stem like e.g. μεμυκώς at 18.580n. (Tichy 1983, 63). The two participles βεβρυχώς and στενάχων (489, see 489–491an.) are mutually referential in terms of content, and thus form a hinge between the two similes; ‘the bull «groans» like a man in 489, whereas «roaring» of Sarpedon in 486 is more appropriate in ordinary language to the bull’ (Kirk 1976, 76; similarly Lonsdale 1990, 3: ‘the poet creates a hybrid that reflects the bestial and human aspects of human nature’; Aceti 2008, 121). – On cries of pain by dying warriors, 289–290n. — αἱματοέσσης: sc. ‘(ground) that was being bloodied by Sarpedon’s own wound’ (schol. bT on 13.393).

487–491 Bulls (or cows, cattle) repeatedly appear as prey for a lion in comparisons and similes describing dying warriors: 5.161  f., 5.554  ff., 12.293, 17.61  ff., 17.542, also in the description of the shield at 18.579  ff.; in addition, bulls as animals for slaughter/sacrifice: 17.520  ff., 20.403  ff. The present simile illustrates Sarpedon’s agony (he groans and rouses himself for a speech): 482–491n. with bibliography (esp. Baltes 1983, 38  f.; Aceti 2008, 120–122; also Fraenkel 1921, 83; Bonnafé 1984, 68  f.; Janko on 487–489). The description of the bull at 488 highlights Sarpedon’s status: he was the commander of the Lykians and one of the most important Trojan allies (Friedrich [1956] 2003, 89). Patroklos, for his part, is implicitly equated with the victorious lion. – On cattle similes in general, 2.480–483n.; on lion similes in detail, 3.23n. 487 ἠΰτε: as a conjunction (7× Il. with ind., 1× with subjunc.) always asyndetic at the beginning of the sentence (Ruijgh 853–855; cf. 2.87n.). — ἔπεφνε: a reduplicated thematic root aor. (339n., end). On the visualizing function of the aor. in similes, 299–300n. 488 αἴθωνα μεγάθυμον: cf. the inflectable VB formula αἴθωνες μεγάλοι (2.839n.; of βόες at Od. 18.372). In reference to animals, αἴθων probably means ‘brown’ (2.839n., 18.161n., with bibliography). μεγάθυμος is used of an animal only here (286n.), but Homeric similes frequently assign human characteristics (especially of a mental or emotional nature) to animals, e.g. περὶ φρέσιν 157 (see 157–158n.), μέγα φρονέοντε 758/824, and esp. θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ (12.300, etc.): 24.42–43n. with bibliography; also Lonsdale 1990, 45. — ἐν εἰλιπόδεσσι βόεσσιν: an inflectable noun-epithet formula in various positions in the verse (Hoekstra 1965, 67  f.); at VE also at ‘Hes.’ fr. 240.2 M.-W. (dat., as here), Il. 15.547, Od. 8.60, h.Merc. 216/370 (acc.). εἰλίπους is a distinctive epithetP of βοῦς (6.424n. with bibliography).

487 ἠΰτε: ‘as’ (R 22.4). — ἀγέληφι: on the form, R 11.4; here dat. with μετελθών. 488 αἴθωνα (μ)μεγάθυμον: on the prosody, M 4.6.  — εἰλιπόδεσσι βόεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3.

Commentary 

 227

489–491a Chiasmus at the transition from the ‘as’ part to the ‘so’ part: predicate – part. – ὑπό + dat. | ὑπό + dat. – part. – predicate. — στενάχων: of an animal also at 391 (horse); μεμυκώς (18.580, 21.237), ἐρεύγομαι (18.580 [adj. ἐρύγμηλος], 20.403  ff.), ἀναβραχεῖν (Od. 21.48) and ἐριβρύχης (Hes. Th. 832) are used of bulls elsewhere; cf. 486 βεβρυχώς. — ὑπὸ γαμφηλῇσι … | ὣς ὑπὸ Πατρόκλῳ: parallel in terms of content, even if the exact syntactic function of the two prepositions is difficult to determine: possibilities range from local meaning to agent with the pass., cf. ὑπὸ χερσί, etc. ‘under the influence of …’ (384n. with bibliography); see the considerations in Schw. 2.526; Jankuhn 1969, 85 n. 75; Aliffi 2002, 420; George 2005, 61–67. – On the use and etymology of γαμφηλαί ‘jaws’, 19.394n. 490 2nd VH = 541, 593. — Λυκίων ἀγὸς ἀσπιστάων: a periphrastic denominationP of both Sarpedon (at 541 in apposition to the personal name; 5.647 is similar) and Glaukos (593; abbreviated variant: Λυκίων ἀγὸς ἀνδρῶν 7.13, 17.140). – ἀσπισταί are the (shield-bearing) ‘foot soldiers, warriors’ (LfgrE; cf. 167n.); on epithets of the Lykians, see 421n.

491 2nd VH ≈ 10.522, 23.178, 24.591 (τ’ rather than δ’); see 24.591n. (‘a formulaic verse for emotional situations’). — ‘Heroes often do their utmost to dissimulate their pains and to preserve a heroic attitude’ (van der Valk 1964, 99); 843 is similar: introduction to Patroklos’ final speech. His fatal injury notwithstanding, Sarpedon pulls himself together mentally and is able not only to shout and groan like other dying heroes (e.g. Asios, injured in the throat: 13.393; Hippodamas, struck in the back: 20.403) but also to speak articulately (like Patroklos, struck in the back: 16.843; Hektor, pierced through the neck: 22.329; cf. 492–501n.). A non-verbal alternative for attracting the attention of comrades to one’s plight is to stretch out one’s hands (4.523 [with AH and Kirk ad loc.], 13.549).

κτεινόμενος μενέαινε: formally perhaps a variant of the VE formula (κατα-)κτάμεναι μενεαίνων (6× Il., 2× Od., also 1× Od. κτεῖναι μενεαίνετε; Janko on 490–491). But μενέαινε is here used absolutely and probably means ‘reared up mentally, struggled’ (thus  – somewhat divergent in detail – LfgrE; Leaf; Janko loc. cit.; Adkins 1969a, 17  f. [the verb implies ‘a powerful positive forward drive’]; Aceti 2008, 122; on the use of the verb, see also 19.58 and 24.22 with nn.). Differently Ebeling, AH and various translations: ‘was full of rage, snorted for revenge’. – Like all middle forms of κτείνω, κτεινόμενος is passive: Chantr. 2.180; Jankuhn 1969, 84–86. The present perhaps has the connotation ‘in the throes of death’.

492–501 Sarpedon’s speech just before his imminent death is part of the ‘final words of a dying warrior’ – like the corresponding speeches by Patroklos and Hektor at 16.843  ff. and at 22.337  ff./355  ff., respectively (cf. 419–683n.); the three heroes (and only these three in the Iliad) are paid tribute one last time, while the

490 ὑπὸ Πατρόκλῳ: to be taken with κτεινόμενος. — ἀσπιστάων: on the declension, R 11.1.

228 

 Iliad 16

scenes of dying are lent particular weight (Mueller [1970] 1978, esp. 106, 108  f.; Μπεζαντακος 1996, 222  ff.; Aceti 2008, 122  f.; RAC s.v. Abschiedsreden; BNP s.v. Ultima verba; cf. 24.744n.). Formally, however, the speech is a battle paraenesis with a central plea for the recovery of the body; in this regard, the speech is related especially to Sarpedon’s speech after his injury in Book 5 (5.684  ff.) and to Glaukos’ speech that follows here at 16.538  ff.: ‘as much a rallying cry as a plea for aid’ (Segal 1971, 39 n. 1; see also Fenik 1968, 69, 205; Latacz 1977, 249 [table]; Tsagarakis 1982, 113  f.; additional parallels in Hellmann 2000, 86 n. 70). The narrator avoids an untimely revelation of Patroklos’ identity in Achilleus’ armor (exchange of weapons motif, 278–283n.) by omitting a dialogue between the dying warrior and the victor (as takes place in the case of Patroklos and Hektor): Marg (1957) 1991, 202 n. 2; Edwards 1987, 262; Janko on 476–507. – The speech is ‘well formed’ (AH on 491): 492–494 (3 verses) an address to Glaukos with a captatio benevolentiae and general appeal (with triple polem- ‘fight/ fighter’ and double nyn ‘now’); 495–497 (3 verses) a call to battle with concrete instructions ‘first … second’; 498–500 (3 verses) an argument (concept of honor), 501 a concluding warning (with intensification: ‘with all your strength’, ‘the whole army’): Janko; Fingerle 1939, 126–128; Aceti 2008, 125  f.; on the structure of battle paraeneses in general, 268–277n. – Appeals to the prowess and sense of honor of soldiers and leaders play ‘a key role […] in calls to battle at all periods’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 298–304, with additional examples [quotation: 298, transl.]). The standards of the code of honor are particularly high on the Lykian side, e.g. 2.315  f. (Sarpedon to Glaukos regarding the duties of the commanders): ‘we must now stand among the first ranks of the Lykians and pitch ourselves against the fiery battle’, 16.549/551: Sarpedon ‘was always a pillar for the city’ and ‘the greatest in battle’ (on Sarpedon’s lived heroism, see Mueller loc. cit.; Redfield [1975] 1994, 99–103; Clay 2009). Via the reference to a lifelong loss of honor, Sarpedon morally obliges Glaukos to do everything he can to prevent Sarpedon’s body from falling into the hands of the enemy, which would deprive him of a proper burial (17.556  ff., 18.178  ff. are similar: it would be a disgrace if Patroklos’ body were left to the dogs to feed on or were disfigured in a different manner). In this way, the narrator has Sarpedon ‘involuntarily’ support Zeus’ plan to transport his body home for burial after the battle. 492 Glaukos stands behind Sarpedon as the second leader of the Lykians, an eager and conscientious warrior, albeit minimally successful; shortly after Sarpedon’s battle paraenesis to him personally (12.309  ff.), he is wounded in the shoulder by one of Teukros’ arrows and withdraws from the front, mortified (12.387  ff.). This injury initially prevents him from defending Sarpedon’s body (508  ff., see 508–536n.); after Apollo heals him (527  ff.), Glaukos manages

Commentary 

 229

at any rate to withstand the attacking Achaians and kill one of the Myrmidons (593  ff.); Patroklos will nevertheless take possession of Sarpedon’s armor (663  ff.). On the character of Glaukos in general, see CH 10; 6.119n.; Graziosi/ Haubold, Introd. 38  f.; Hainsworth on 12.387–388; Stoevesandt 2004, 187  f. On the ‘narrative availability’ of characters (the narrator here takes Glaukos’ presence for granted), 532–547n. and cf. 14.426n.

Γλαῦκε πέπον: a familiar address, approximately ‘my dear Glaukos’ (6.55n.). ‘The speaker uses this vocative in order to bring a moral influence to bear upon […] a brother in arms when he calls upon him for help’ (Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 55  f.). πέπον ususally occurs in the combination ὦ πέπον at VB (thus e.g. Sarpedon to Glaukos at 12.322), less frequently after a trochaic name, as here (15.437 Τεῦκρε πέπον, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 350 Κύκνε π., also Od. 9.447 κριὲ π.), or at a later position in the verse, and is common in battle paraeneses (Fingerle 1939, 123). — πολεμιστὰ μετ’ ἀνδράσι: πολεμιστής elsewhere is always at VE and with an epithet (thus e.g. in the following 493; repetition of the term as at 22.267/269); here pregnant ‘valiant warrior’ (like αἰχμητήν at 493, cf. 3.49n.), underlined via the addition μετ’ ἀνδράσι in the sense ‘the greatest among men’ (‘a type of superlative’: Faesi [transl.]; ‘a compliment’: Janko on 556–562), cf. 13.461 ἐσθλὸν ἐόντα μετ’ ἀνδράσιν, 16.557 οἷοί περ πάρος ἦτε μετ’ ἀνδράσιν ἢ καὶ ἀρείους, 24.258 θεὸς μετ’ ἀνδρ., Od. 17.354 ἐν ἀνδρ. ὄλβιον (schol. A; AH; Leaf); on terms for ‘warrior’ in -τής in general, 167n., end. — νῦν σε μάλα χρή: a VE formula (also 13.463, 22.268; similarly 11.409, 18.406 τὸν δὲ / τώ με μάλα χρεώ). On χρή in military orders, cf. 631, 721: ‘The transition from opus est to oportet is in reality always fluid in the Iliad’ (Nestle 1942, 75 n. 1 [transl.]).

493 =  5.602, 22.269 (with VE 492 =  22.268), all of Hektor; 1st VH ≈  Od. 16.242; 2nd VH ≈  21.589.  — αἰχμητήν  … πολεμιστήν: emphasis via synonym doubling (1.160n.; cf. 63n.). — θαρσαλέον: in the Iliad always with a positive connotation (‘brave, courage­ ous’) and only in military contexts (cf. 19.169–170n.). 494 ἐελδέσθω: ‘let it be desired’; ἐ(ϝ)έλδομαι is elsewhere always used after caesura B 2 and in the mid., whereas here it is either pass. (Hentze 1910, 123; LfgrE) or intransitive with the sense of μελέτω, as at 24.152 μηδέ τί τοι θάνατος μελέτω (Kloss 1994, 147  f.). — πόλεμος κακός: an inflectable noun-epithet formula (6.254n.). On pejorative attributes with terms for ‘battle’ in Homeric epic, 436n.; here in contrast to ἐελδέσθω (AH; cf. 3.173 ὡς ὄφελεν θάνατός μοι ἁδεῖν κακός). — εἰ θοός ἐσσι: The implication is ‘if you really are swift (sc. show us and) get to war’ (Pulleyn 2000, 260). θοός is an epithet of πολεμιστής at 5.571 and 15.585; on the meaning, 422n. (‘agile in battle, fit for war’).

495–497a = 532–534. The execution of the orders is related in an almost literal repetition, as is common in epic (here merely with adaptation of the predicate

493 ἔμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4). 494 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἐσσι: = εἶ (R 16.6).

230 

 Iliad 16

at 495 ‘rouse’ → 532 ‘he roused’): 6.86–101n., end, with bibliography – Glaukos himself uses a similar expression in his prayer: 525  f.

πρῶτα μὲν … | … | αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα: an explicitly sequential structure, as at Od. 22.448/452 (where in narrator-text); with μὲν πρῶτα in the first element at e.g. Il. 11.301/304, 16.694/696 (in arming scenes μὲν πρῶτα  … δεύτερον αὖ at 3.330/332, etc.), with μὲν πρῶτον at 1.50  f., with μὲν πρώτιστα at 2.405  f., etc.; in the antithetical position πρῶτον, ἔπειτα δέ 6.260, 11.167, 16.229, 17.64 (cf. Alberti 1959).

495 ≈ 532; 2nd VH also ≈ 11.687. — ὄτρυνον: a specific expression of encouragement (167n.). Here aor. imper. beside pres. imper. ὄτρυνε in 501: ‘will urge on’ vs. ‘continues to urge’ (Chantr. 2.196). Picked up again by Glaukos at 525 and realized at 532. — ἡγήτορας ἄνδρας: a combination of generic and functional terms (2.474n. with bibliography); on hēgḗtores ‘leaders’, 164n.

496 = 533; 1st VH also ≈ 5.508, 6.81, 10.167. — The use of his own name (‘Sarpedon’) rather than the 1st person produces rhetorical emphasis: Sarpedon as the most important man among the Lykians (1.240n.; Kelly 2007, 84  f.; on Sarpedon’s self-confidence, cf. 500n.). At the same time, it facilitates the repetition of the verse in narrator-textP at 533 (schol. A [on which, Nünlist 2009, 325 n. 30]). – Solidarity among comrades in arms is part of Homeric ethics (363n.). This includes in particular the willingness to recover the body of a fallen comrade so that he (and his armor: 500n.) is not captured by the enemy and so that he receives an orderly burial; in Books 16/17, three battles over corpses are described in detail: for Sarpedon, Kebriones (751  ff.) and Patroklos (17.1  ff.)  – a type of motif that reverberates up to the end of the Iliad (Hektor’s corpse); see Kirk on 5.298–299; Fenik 1968, 232  f.; Mueller (1984) 2009, 100  f.; Patzer 1996, 172–174, 176–178; Hellmann 2000, 113  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 228–231; Pagani 2008, 347  f.; 781–782n.

A four-word verse (125–126n.): inf. in enjambment (Bassett 1919, 222). — ἐποιχόμενος: 155n. — ἀμφιμάχεσθαι: with gen. ‘fight over (around) someone’ in the sense ‘fight to protect someone, over the possession of someone’ (cf. 1n. on περί), i.e. the local and metaphorical meanings of ἀμφί converge, likewise at e.g. 825 πίδακος ἀμφί, 18.20 νέκυος ἀ., with the dat. ἀμφὶ νέκυι at 16.526, with the acc. 775 ἀμφ’ αὐτόν (in early epic, dat. and acc. are noticeably more common with ἀμφί, cf. Chantr. 2.87  f.; Janko on 825; Luraghi 2003, 259; Hettrich 2012, 55  f., 60).

497 καὶ αὐτός: ‘you yourself’, sc. ‘after you have spurred on the (other) leaders to battle’. — πέρι μάρναο: synonymous with ἀμφιμάχεσθαι above (cf. 195n.). — χαλκῷ: 479n.

496 πάντῃ: ‘everywhere’. 497 ἐμέο ͜ πέρι: = περὶ ἐμοῦ (R 20.2, 14.1); on the synizesis, R 7.

Commentary 

 231

498–499 2nd VH of 498 = 17.556 (and VB of 499 ≈ 17.557, 501 = 17.559; there Athene in the guise of Phoinix addresses Menelaos during the battle for Patroklos’ body); VE of 499 ≈ 4.415, 15.498. — καὶ ἔπειτα … | … ἤματα πάντα διαμπερές: Accumulations of terms denoting a permanent effect or consequence are common in early epic (Richardson on h.Ap. 485), e.g. h.Merc. 291  f. τοῦτο γὰρ οὖν καὶ ἔπειτα μετ’ ἀθανάτοις γέρας ἕξεις·ἀρχὸς φηλητέων κεκλήσεαι ἤματα πάντα, h.Ven. 247  f. αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ μέγ’ ὄνειδος ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν | ἔσσεται ἤματα πάντα διαμπερὲς εἵνεκα σεῖο as well as the VE formula διαμπερὲς ἤματα πάντα (Od. 4.209, h.Ap. 485, h.Ven. 209). – καὶ ἔπειτα: ‘also in the future, even later’ (AH), as at Od. 2.60  f. (καὶ ἔπειτα  | λευγαλέοι τ’ ἐσόμεσθα), 21.131 (καὶ ἔπειτα κακός τ’ ἔσομαι), 24.432 (καὶ ἔπειτα κατηφέες ἐσσόμεθ’ αἰεί); similarly Il. 15.140. – On διαμπερές, cf. 618n. — κατηφείη καὶ ὄνειδος | ἔσσομαι: ‘will be a cause of shame and disgrace’ (synonym doubling). On the characterization of humans via abstracts such as ‘disgrace, doom, suffering, joy, benefit, fame’, see Porzig 1942, 146  f.; 3.50–51n.; on the personal construction with a predicate noun, see Mawet 1979, 92  ff. (with πῆμα as an example); LfgrE s.v. κατηφείη. – On the semantic field ‘disgrace’ in early epic, see Hoffmann 1914, 37  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 301  f.; on κατηφείη ‘disgrace’ in particular, 3.51n.

500 = 15.428 (Hektor after the death of his cousin Kaletor); 1st VH see below. — The Greeks only manage to capture Sarpedon’s armor after extended fighting (663–665; cf. 545, 560). On the motif of spoliation, see 6.28n. with bibliography; also Patzer 1996, 172–174.  – In Books 12, 15 and 16, Sarpedon’s role in battle is so important – at 12.397–399, he completely demolishes the parapet of the camp in one location with his bare hands – that he can confidently say of himself that he died ‘in the encampment of ships’ (strictly speaking, the action of the battle shifted from the camp toward the plain after the intervention of Patroklos: 364  ff., 394  ff.). Patroklos also speaks about Sarpedon in this way (558): ‘who was the first to storm the Achaian wall’ (a phrasing the narrator used at 12.438 of Hektor, who actually managed to enter the Achaian camp; on Sarpedon’s role, Stoevesandt 2004, 184  f.). A similar over-weighting of the battle at the encampment of ships relative to the actual course of action occurs at 8.475  f.: Zeus announces a battle for Patroklos’ body ‘at the rear of the ships’, whereas Patroklos will fall at the walls of Troy (698  ff.), where battle will initially continue (17.403  f.); only later will the Achaians manage to transport his body to the vicinity of the encampment of ships (Reichel 1994, 91  f., 96, 258, 261). – Alternative interpretations: Faesi and Leaf (‘a rhetorical reproach: it is more shameful that he should be despoiled just when he has stormed the enemy’s stronghold’ [quotation Leaf]); Willcock and Aceti 2008, 126 n. 303

499 ἔσσομαι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἤματα: τὸ ἦμαρ = ἡ ἡμέρα. — εἴ κε: = ἐάν (R 24.5).

232 

 Iliad 16

(according to 395, battle had actually shifted back toward the encampment of ships).

τεύχεα συλήσωσι: an inflectable VB formula (8× Il.; also 5× VE τεύχε’ ἐσύλα 650n., 3× with the words separated), part of an elaborate formula system denoting spoliation (Hoekstra 1981, 21  f.; cf. 559–560n. τεύχεα … ἀφελέσθαι). — νεῶν ἐν ἀγῶνι: 239n.

501 = 17.559; 2nd VH ≈ 15.695. — On the motif ‘do something oneself and have all others do the same (or something similar)’, e.g. 2.191, 5.482  f./485  f., 5.822  f., 10.108/146, 11.189  f./204  f., 13.56, 13.230, 15.475, 16.657  f., 19.139, 24.156/185, 24.370  f. – Calls to stand firm are among the most frequent elements of battle paraeneses (Stoevesandt 2004, 300  f.).

ἀλλ(ά): a typical introduction to the calls that conclude battle paraeneses, cf. 544, etc. (Fingerle 1939, 127).  — ἔχεο: ‘withstand’, mid. in this sense, rather than the usual intransitive act., only here (on this, 24.27n.): Leaf; LfgrE s.v. 846.33  ff.; cf. ἑστάμεναι κρατερῶς at 11.410, 13.56.  — ὄτρυνε: without inf. (as at e.g. 167) or sc. Σαρπηδόνος ἀμφιμάχεσθαι (495  f.). Differently AH (sc. κρατερῶς ἔχεσθαι). — λαὸν ἅπαντα: a VE formula, 3× Il., 2× Od.

502–505 Sarpedon’s death has a thematic prelude in the (non-fatal) wounding of the hero in Book 5: at 5.694  f., the spear is pulled from the wound, at 5.696 the psychḗ (‘breath of life’) leaves Sarpedon, followed by darkness pouring across his eyes (= fainting): 419–683n. – On the ostensible impression that after 485  f. Sarpedon is dying ‘once more’ at 505 (Wilamowitz 1916, 138; likewise AH on 505), 485n.: a forceful depiction of the throes of death. 502 = 855 (Patroklos), 22.361 (Hektor); 1st VH see below; 2nd VH = 5.553. A periphrastic formulaic verse for the death of the three heroes Sarpedon, Patroklos and Hektor (419–683n.).

ὣς ἄρα μιν εἰπόντα: an inflectable speech capping formulaP (acc./dat., in total 7× Il./ Od.); variant: τὸν/τὼ μὲν ἄρ’ ὣς εἰπόντα/-ε 2× Il.; cf. ὣς εἰπών 210n. — τέλος θανάτοιο: a formulaic expression (8× Il./Od., of which 6× after caesura B 2, as here; 1× gen. θανάτου; 6× Il./Od./Hes. θανάτοιο/-ου τέλος or θανάτοιο τέλοσδε; θανάτοιο τελευτήν at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 357). When it is the subject, the expression is mostly connected with (ἀμφε)κάλυψεν (5×, cf. 316n.), as here, or with forms of κιχεῖν (3×). – The reference is probably to the ‘final death’ (like ἥβης μέτρον ‘full maturity’, ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ ‘in old age’ [24.487n.]), with two basic meanings possible: (1) static, ‘the end (that exists) in death, the deadly end’, i.e. θανάτοιο is a gen. of quality (or a gen. of material or an appositional gen.) (3.309n.; Ambrose 1965, 51  f.; Heubeck [1972] 1984, 89  f.; Russo on Od. 17.476; LfgrE s.vv. θάνατος and τέλος) or (2) dynamic, ‘the completion of the process of dying’ (AH; K.-G. 1.265; Waanders 1983, 48–51; Clarke 1999, 242  f. n. 26; Eck 2012, 184  f.).

502  f. μιν … | ὀφθαλμοὺς ῥῖνάς θ’: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); μιν = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — μιν (ϝ)ειπόντα: on the prosody, R 4.5. — θ’: = τε. — στήθεσι: on the plural, R 18.2.

Commentary 

 233

503 2nd VH =  13.618 (and ≈  1st VH of 6.65).  — The mention of ‘eyes and nose’ represents a unique, emphatic expansion of 502 (enjambment) and since anti­ quity has generally been interpreted as the loss of vision and the cessation of breathing (schol. A, D), i.e. all signs of life are extinguished. Most closely related is the common expression ‘darkness envelops the eyes’ (on which, 316n.; similarly ‘seizes the eyes’ at 333  f., ‘pours across the eyes’ at 344). — Stepping onto the chest of a fallen opponent to withdraw one’s weapon more easily (on this, 504n.) is at the same time a gesture of triumph: 6.65n. 504 1st VH cf. 814.  — ‘A common element in wounding scenes, the removal of an embedded weapon is a spectacle for the poem’s audience’ (Neal 2006, 85; see also Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 59; Fenik 1968, 144; van Wees 1996, 55; Shear 2000, 53 with n. 445  ff.). The motif – element 7 of the themeP ‘duel’ (419– 683n.)  – forms the triumphant conclusion of the duels Patroklos–Sarpedon (here), Hektor–Patroklos (862  f.) and Achilleus–Hektor (22.367  f.), and seals the death of the fallen opponent, as at 6.64  f., 12.394  ff., 13.177  ff., 13.574  f.; it also occasionally signals the intention of despoiling an opponent: 5.620  f., 13.509  ff., 22.367  f. (and perhaps 13.618  f.). The motif occurs without a death immediately afterward at 4.527  ff., 5.859, 13.528  ff., 16.814, as well as in first-aid measures conducted by the wounded warriors themselves (11.456  ff.) or their comrades (5.112  f., 5.694  ff., 11.397  f.), always with an emphasis on the pain (518n.), bleeding or fainting linked to the operation (Fenik loc. cit. 104; Neal loc. cit. 85  f.). – The description of the phrénes (on which, 481n.) being ripped out of the body together with the spear is part of a group of rather extravagant portrayals: ‘There is an almost baroque magnificence in the physical ruin of Homers’s heroes […]. For Homer the human body is a marvellous network of connecting parts he can pierce or sever or use for pictorial and emotional effects’ (Vermeule 1979, 96  f.; similarly Saunders 2003, 149; cf. 404b–410n.). Along similar lines are descriptions like 17.297  f. ‘bloody brain matter gushed up from the wound along the socket’ (i.e. along the shaft of the spear: 115n.), 4.525  f. = 21.180  f. ‘entrails spilled onto the ground’, 13.507  f. = 17.314  f. ≈ 14.517  f. ‘(the weapon) caused the entrails to pour out’, 20.418/420 ‘(the victims) grasped the entrails with their hands’, 20.470  f. ‘the liver slipped out’, 20.482  f. ‘bone marrow spurted from the cervical vertebrae’ (after a decapitation): Friedrich (1956) 2003, 35  ff. (with reference to Xen. Anabasis 2.5.33 [loc. cit. 113  f. n. 35]); Saunders loc. cit. 149  ff., 160  f. (with reference to Ovid Met. 6.250  ff.); 14.517n.

χροός: can denote the (vulnerable) ‘body’ in its entirety: 19.27n.; Gavrylenko 2012. — δόρυ: used synonymously with ἔγχος (505), see 139–140n.  — φρένες: here probably

504 χροός: = χρωτός. — προτί: = πρός (R 20.1); adv., ‘in addition’. — αὐτῷ: the spear.

234 

 Iliad 16

used as an anatomical term, as at 481 (see ad loc.). — ἕποντο: At 12.395  f., the stricken warrior himself ‘follows’ the spear and falls to the ground dead (implicitly so also at 13.177–181). 505 This stylistically striking verse marks the end of Sarpedon’s death throes: (a) while the imperfects at 504 – εἷλκε ‘pulled’, ἕποντο ‘followed’ – illuminated the entire process of extracting the spear (Mutzbauer 1893, 44), the aorist ἐξέρυσ(ε) ‘pulled out’ describes the completion and is underlined by (b) the chiasmus at 504/505 (εἷλκε δόρυ + φρένες ἕποντο || ψυχήν + ἔγχεος ἔξερυσ’ αἰχμήν) and (c) the vivid zeugma ‘pull out spear-head and life’. On (c), cf. 5.296, etc. λύθη ψυχή τε μένος τε (cf. 332n.), 16.625, etc. εὖχος ἐμοὶ δοίης, ψυχὴν δ’ Ἄϊδι (see ad loc.; LfgrE s.v. ψυχή 1313  f.; Faesi; Fehling 1969, 278  f.; Warden 1971, 97  f.; additional examples of zeugma in the Iliad: 1.533n., 3.73n., 24.8n.; van Leeuwen on 4.282). — ψυχὴν … ἐξέρυσ(ε): In the present zeugma, psychḗ is probably to be understood simply ‘life’: ‘tore out the lance and thus took his life’ (Warden loc. cit.). Other descriptions specify the body opening from which the ψυχή escapes: 469n. – Unique formulations are frequently attested for ψυχή (cf. 453n., 625n., 24.168n.; Jahn 1987, 32  ff.); closest parallels: ψυχὴν ἐξ-/ἀφελέσθαι (22.257, 24.754, Od. 22.444).

506–507 Abandoned horses fall to the enemy (in the Iliad always to the Achaians) and are generally led away by the victor’s companions like any other war booty: 13.640  f., 16.664  f., 17.130  f. (Fenik 1968, 12; van Wees 1986, 288; Stoevesandt 2004, 228  f.).  – The capture of Sarpedon’s team of horses by the Myrmidons forms a kind of counterpart to Sarpedon’s killing of Pedasos (466  ff.). 506 φυσιόωντας: ‘snorting’, at 4.227 ‘with impatience’ (AH ad loc. [transl.]), here probab­ ly in panic (507), perhaps at the same time an expression of resistance (Krapp 1964, 144  f.; Janko on 506–507). 507 2nd VH = 371 (see ad loc.). — φοβέεσθαι: ‘flee after being frightened’ (cf. 290n.), with horses ‘balk, shy away’ (Kurz 1966, 31). — λίπον ἅρματ’ ἀνάκτων: ‘This is an example of a formulaic phrase (found in 371 above) used casually, without care for its exact meaning’ (Willcock): at 371, this caused the horses to come loose from the chariot after the shafts broke, but here the chariot is simply empty, since both Sarpedon and his chario­ teer (here jointly termed ἄνακτες ‘lords, masters’ [371n.]) have been killed  – at most, the horses would have to have pulled free from the chariot (gapP: AH). These ‘moments of carelessness’ are probably signs of oral narration, likewise e.g. 13.423, where the Achaians carry the dead Hypsenor, βαρέα στενάχοντα (VE formula), into the encampment of ships (Janko on 13.419–423; van der Valk 1964, 74  f.; also Combellack 1965). Neither the ancient v.l. λίπεν (according to Aristarchus 3rd pers. pl. aor. pass. [schol. A and T]) nor the modern conjecture ἅρμα(τ’) ἀνάκτες are fully satisfactory (Leaf; van

505 τοῖο: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17; on the declension, R 11.2); the gen. is either possessive with ψυχήν or in the sense ἐκ τοῖο with ἐξέρυσ(ε); Sarpedon is meant. 506 αὐτοῦ: ‘there, on the spot’.  — σχέθον: poetic by-form of ἔσχον, ‘held fast, held back’.  — ἵππους: sc. of Sarpedon. — φυσιόωντας: on the diectasis, R 8.

Commentary 

 235

der Valk loc. cit.; Kurz 1966, 31 n. 43; West 2001, 239; on the v.l., cf. Schw. 1.759, on the conjecture, AH, Anh. ad loc.).

508–562 Glaukos beseeches Apollo to heal his wound and exhorts the Trojans to rescue Sarpedon’s body. Patroklos, for his part, calls on the Greeks to capture the body. 508–536 The narrator picks up a strand of the story from Book 12 via an unexpected twist (511–512n.) in order to explain the ‘non-action’ on the side of the Trojans/Lykians, namely the injury sustained by Glaukos at 12.387  ff. from Teukros’ arrow that currently prevents him for coming to Sarpedon’s aid (14.426n.; Reichel 1994, 261; on the ‘presentation through negation’ at 509 ‘could not contribute anything to fend off death’, see 130–144n. and Aceti 2008, 135  f.). His capacity to act is restored only when he is healed and shifts to a positive mood (530  ff. ‘was glad … urged on … went’). Book 5 contains a parallel for this ‘reuse’ of an injury to provide a motivation: Diomedes is wounded by Pandaros (5.95  ff.), Athene gives him strength after his prayer (114  ff., albeit without curing him), Diomedes is weakened by his wound, the Achaians are in distress (780  ff.), Athene mounts the chariot beside Diomedes and drives to battle with him (835  ff.) – the wound is no longer mentioned (Erbse 1961, 172  f. [transl.]: ‘a merely auxiliary motif that guarantees the continuation of an action in the intended direction’; cf. Mueller [1984] 2009, 78  f.). – Glaukos’ suffering, prayer and healing render Sarpedon’s death even more dramatic and initiate a change in the battle, with the balance between Achaians and Trojans restored due to Glaukos’ fitness for fighting (which in turn causes the battle for the corpse to sway back and forth for a lengthy period of time: retardationP). At the same time, the scene serves ‘to foreground the theme of heroic fellowship: if one has to die in battle, then it is best to die like Sarpedon in the company of a friend’ (Mueller loc. cit. 58) – conversely, Achilleus will have to accuse himself of having been no help to Patroklos (18.98  ff.; Mueller loc. cit.; Aceti 2008, 135  f., 137). – The change of perspective to that of the losing party has a parallel in the scene after the death of Patroklos at 855  ff., where, after the extraction of the lethal weapon (503  ff./862  ff.) and the (attempted) capture of the horses (506  f./864  ff.), the response of the opponents is likewise shown, whereas the victorious hero is temporarily consigned to the background (508  ff./17.1  ff.); cf. Edwards on 17.9–42.

The significance of the injury for the present passage is underlined via multiple repetitions of relevant terms and motifs: ‘(physical or mental) pain’ (508, 510b, 516, 518, 524, 528), ‘wound’ (511, 517 and 523 ‘this grave wound’, 528), ‘to be (un)able’ (509, 515, 519, 520), ‘to defend, help’ (509, 512, 522), ‘fight’ (520, 525, 526, 533); a fourfold description of

236 

 Iliad 16

the wound and its healing (509  f., 517  ff., 523  f., 528  f.), twofold repetition of Sarpedon’s orders (495  ff. → 524b–526 and 532–536). 508 In syntax and word choice, this verse has similarities with 12.392, where Sarpedon experiences pain when Glaukos leaves the battlefield with an injury (interlocking of the two scenes, while at the same time reversing the situations).  — αἰνὸν ἄχος: a noun-epithet formula (52n.). ἄχος denotes sudden mental pain, a moment of terror accompanied by feelings of helplessness, frequently caused by the death of a comrade (here Sarpedon), a trigger for a counterreaction (usually a revenge attack, e.g. 13.581  ff., 16.581  ff., 16.599  ff.; here the prayer for the cure of the injury is conditioned by the si­ tuation): 2.169–171n. with bibliography (e.g. Mawet 1979, 297). — ἄχος γένετο: a peri­ phrastic phrase in verse middle, 8× Il./Od.; at 13.402  ff., 13.417  f., 14.458  f. and 14.486  f. followed by an expression for internal agitation (ὀρίνω; 1.188  f. μερμήριξεν is similar), as here. — φθογγῆς ἀϊόντι: Nowhere else in early epic do the two terms refer to articulated speech or the contents of a speech; rather, they are used of a sound or a voice and its tone and expressiveness (AH; LfgrE s.vv. ἄϊον and φθέγγομαι; on φθογγή/φθέγγομαι in general, Fournier 1946, 231  f.; Führer 1967, 26  ff.; of a death cry at e.g. 10.457, Od. 22.329). Even so, reference of the present expression exclusively to Sarpedon’s death cry at 486 (βεβρυχώς) is contrived; it is in fact his final words in particular (492–501) that stir up Glaukos and make him realize that he can do nothing (509). – VE ≈ Od. 12.41, 23.326. — ἀϊόντι: aor. part. of ἄϊον; the present forms (ἀΐω) are secondary (West 1998, XX; DELG and Beekes). 509 ὠρίνθη δέ οἱ ἦτορ: ‘was agitated, churned up’, at 24.585 of Achilleus, at Od. 17.46  f. of Telemachos; on ὀρίνω with emotions, 24.467n. (usually in combination with θυμός, e.g. 280). — προσαμῦναι: The prefix appears to have a pregnant (additive) function in the two parallel passages at 2.238 and 5.139, where the verb occurs in the present tense (LfgrE s.v. ἀμύνω 657.1  ff.; cf. Schw. 2.509; Chantr. 2.132): 2.238 (indirect question) ἤ ῥά τί οἱ χἠμεῖς προσαμύνομεν ‘contribute something to the fight (in defense)’, 5.139 ἔπειτα δέ τ’ οὐ προσαμύνει ‘further fend off’, here in the (summarizing) aor., thus ‘contribute to fending off death’; in an attenuated sense, Mutzbauer 1909, 169: ‘bring support’.

510–511 The depiction of a hero suffering from his wounds enhances his stature, cf. 5.794–798, 11.264–274. Here the suffering is also expressed via a direct speech (517–519n.); see Salazar 2000, 146  ff.; Neal 2006, 27  ff., 65  ff. – Squeezing his arm reflects a natural response by the affected character immediately after he is wounded, as at e.g. 5.795–798 (Diomedes lifts the shield strap off his wound and wipes away the blood): Salazar 2000, 146. Here the narrator treats the wound as acute once more, as it were: the reflexive grasping of the injured body part is probably an expression of the pain that once more overcomes Glaukos,

508 γένετο: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἀϊόντι: aor. part. of ἀΐω + gen. ‘hear something’. 509 δέ (ϝ)οι ἦτορ: on the prosody, R 4.3 and R 5.5 (so-called correption). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ὅ τ(ε): = causal or factive ὅτι (cf. R 22.3).

Commentary 

 237

just as at the moment of wounding. Somewhat differently, Faesi (‘temporary relief’ [transl.]), AH (‘abatement of pain’ [transl.]); more concretely in Leaf: ‘to relieve the tension of the inflamed part, or perhaps to vent his vexation at the wound’ and Janko: ‘trying to stop the bleeding (cf. 518  f.) and relieve the pain’. – The ‘since’ clause (510b–511) represents the narrator’s explanation (255–256n.).

τεῖρε: frequently of the suffering of an injured warrior: Neal 2006, 28 with n. 43.

511–512 An extraordinarily precise internal analepsisP with literal echoes of the injuring at 12.388 (Mueller [1984] 2009, 180; Richardson 1990, 95–99 with n. 17 p. 227; de Jong 2007, 20; specifically in reference to fighting in the Iliad: Hellwig 1964, 46  f.). 511 2nd VH ≈ 4.527, 16.411, 20.288; cf. also 1st VH of 12.388. — Teukros, the best archer among the Achaians (13.313  f.), is the son of Telamon and half-brother of Aias (358n.), and frequently appears in battle beside the latter (CH 4). In Book 8, he kills several Trojans and is wounded by Hektor; at 12.387  ff., he renders Glaukos unfit for combat with a shot (an action referred to here) and strikes Sarpedon’s shield strap. On Teukros’ appearances in the Iliad: LfgrE s.v.

ὃ … μιν … βάλεν: a double acc., as at 5.795, with οὔτασεν at 5.361 (ὅ can be understood as an obj. of the result or an internal acc.: LfgrE s.v. βάλλω 33.74  ff.; Schw. 2.79; Chantr. 2.42; cf. 14.518–519an., 24.151n.). — δή: ‘as is known’ (cf. 112–113n.).

512 τείχεος ὑψηλοῖο: with ἐπεσσύμενον, probably to be understood as a partitive gen., i.e. ‘storm a part of the wall’, like πεδίοιο at 14.147, 22.26 (cf. Leaf on 12.388; Schw. 2.111  f.; Chantr. 2.58  f.); in contrast to the acc. τεῖχος at 12.143. – On the noun-epithet formula, 397n. — ὑψηλοῖο, ἀρήν: Hiatus in caesura B 2 is not uncommon in early epic: 24.264n. — ἀρήν: ‘harm, doom’, frequently in conjunction with a form of ἀμύνειν (24.489n.).

513–529 The type-sceneP ‘prayer’ with a plea for divine support (231–252n.): (2/3) a verb of praying and naming of the deity (513), without (1) prayer gesture, perhaps because Glaukos is unable to raise his arms due to his injury (Kelly 2007, 250, although some other prayer scenes also lack the gesture), (4/5) ‘hear, Lord!’, epiklesis with mention of the title and cult locations (514–515a), (6) services rendered previously (515b–516, namely in somewhat different form: 514–516n.), (7) plea with detailed description of the praying character’s distress (517–526), finally (8/9) formulaic conclusion of the prayer (527a) and response by the deity (527b–529). – The prayer itself is tripartite, as is common

511 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἐπεσσύμενον: perf. part. of ἐπι-σεύομαι ‘set upon, assail’, with gen. τείχεος as specification of direction. — ἰῷ: from ἰός ‘arrow’. 512 τείχεος: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ὑψηλοῖο, ἀρήν: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ὑψηλοῖο: on the declension, R 11.2. — ἑτάροισιν: = ἑταίροις (on the declension, R 11.2).

238 

 Iliad 16

in Homeric epic: (A) invocation (514–516), with transition at 515b–516 to (B) legitimation of the plea (517–522), (C) plea (523–526) (1.37–42n.; Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 199  f., 218  ff.; Janko on 514–526; Jakov/Voutiras 2005, 116  f.). The plea is in turn also tripartite (‘heal the wound, relieve the pain, give me strength!’: Pulleyn 1997, 145); the detailed legitimation (B) interlocked with the plea via the repeated expression ‘this grave wound’ (517/523) prepares the expectation of a complete recovery (Reynen 1983, 61 [transl.]: ‘it almost sounds like a patient describing his symptoms to the doctor while providing a case history’; Aubriot-Sévin loc. cit. 216  f.: ‘plea’). Finally, parts (A) and (C) are connected via repetition of the address ánax ‘Lord’ (514/523, likewise Od. 5.445/450; see 241n.; AH on 523; Janko on 514–516). 513 1st VH = Od. 7.330; ≈ Il. 19.257. — On Apollo as the god of the Trojans, 94n. with bibliography. His links with Lykia (514) are multilayered: at h.Ap. 179–181, he is the lord of Lykia (and Maionia, Miletus, Delos); in the Iliad, he is referred to as Lykēgenḗs in connection with Pandaros (4.101/119, probably to be understood ‘born in Lycia’; cf. 5.105), post-Homeric Lýkeios. He has cults under this title in e.g. Athens (the so-called Lýkeion/Lyceum with a gymnasion by the same name) and in Lykian Xanthos (the so-called Lētōon); the hypothesis formed on this basis, that the god and his name originally derived from Lykia or from Asia Minor more generally, is today disputed due to a lack of early evidence from Lykia; pro: Beekes 2003; Brown 2004; Beekes s.v.; contra: CG 5; Bryce 1990/91; Graf 2009, 12, 120  ff., 132  ff.; see also Erbse 1986, 177 with n. 7; Aceti 2008, 135  f. n. 324. On the etymology of Lykēgenḗs, West 2013a, 257–262 (originally perhaps ‘born with light’, i.e. ‘whose birth was accompanied by light’). – It is similarly unclear whether Apollo is here invoked (a) specifically as a healer or (b) as a (Lykian) local deity; favoring (a): Nilsson (1940) 1967, 540  f.; Laser 1983, 88–90; Reucher 1983, 323 (‘helper in emergencies’); favoring (b): Tsagarakis 1977, 39  f.; Graf loc. cit. 15  f., 79–81; West 2011, 323. (b) is suggested by Apollo’s role in Book 1, where he functions primarily as the god of the island of Chryse and of the priest Chryses, whereas in early epic the function of a healing god is expressly assigned to Paian (Paiḗōn) (for whose relationship with Apollo, see CG 21; Graf loc. cit. 81–84; Jouanna/Lambrinoudakis 2011, 225  f.); cf. 514–516n.

εὐχόμενος δ’ ἄρα εἶπεν: a speech introduction formulaP with a variable indication of the speaker’s attitude (3× Il./Od. εὐχόμενος/εὐξάμενος [iterata], 13× ὀχθήσας); picked

513 ἄρα (ϝ)εῖπεν: on the prosody, R 4.3; ἄρα suggests that something is evident, ‘thus, indeed’ (R 24.1). — ἑκηβόλῳ Ἀπόλλωνι: on the so-called correption, R 5.5; the initial syllable of Ἀπ. is metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary 

 239

up again by 527 ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχόμενος in the capping of the speech (46n.). — ἑκηβόλῳ Ἀπόλλωνι: an inflectable VE formula (gen./dat./acc., 6× Il., 2× Hes., 4× h.Hom.). The epithet is commonly interpreted ‘striking from afar’: 1.14n. with bibliography; Beekes s.v. – On the variants of the formula, 94n., end.

514–516 Naming the cult locations or abodes of the deity invoked is a typical component of an invocation, here as a relative predicate (cf. 1.37  f. [likewise a relative clause], 3.276 [participle], 16.233  f. [attributes, participles]: Adami 1900, 242  f.; Norden 1913, 168  f.; Beckmann 1932, 33, 36  f.). The person praying expects a particular effect from invoking a local deity: 24.291n. Listing his residences deprives the deity of the possibility of evading the prayer (on the assumption of permanent divine attention, cf. 3.277, 24.291: Helios and Zeus see all); these lists are also common in post-Homeric and other IE poetry (Adami loc. cit. 227–229 [collection of examples]; Aubriot-Sévin 1992, 96 with n. 246, 149 with n.  88; West 1997, 272; 2007, 322  f.; Janko).  – The sentence ‘you are able to hear a troubled man from anywhere’ is a so-called dynamic predication and means ‘you are just the right deity for my issue’, cf. 24.334  f. (Zeus to Hermes), Od. 5.25 (Zeus to Athene): Norden 1913, 154, 221; Beckmann 1932, 38; Lateiner 1997, 254; West 1997, 273; 2007, 324. Functionally, the statement corresponds to the principle of da quia dedisti (236–238n.): Lang 1974/75, 312. 514 VB = Od. 5.445; 2nd VH = 437 (see ad loc.). — κλῦθι: a prayer invocation formula (1.37n.) corresponding to ἔκλυε at 527 (1.43n.); κλυεῖν ‘hear’ in a prayer implies ‘heed’ (LfgrE s.v.; Beckmann 1932, 25–27; differently Muellner 1976, 22 n. 11: neutral ‘hear’). — ἄναξ: in reference to Apollo repeatedly both in character languageP and in the narrator-textP (Yamagata 1997, 8; on ἄναξ as an address in prayers, cf. 233n.). — που: part of character languageP with a modal meaning, ‘probably’ (24.488n. with bibliography; also Wakker 1997, 229  f.). In invocations of gods also in the iambic poet Ananius fr. 1: Ἄπολλον, ὅς που Δῆλον ἢ Πυθῶν’ ἔχεις … (followed by additional place names) (suggestion by West). 515 εἶς: The emphatic runover word (enjambmentP) prepares the contrast to πάντοσ’ ἀκούειν: ‘wherever you are – you can hear a praying person everywhere’ (Macleod on 24.407; Steiner on Od. 17.159). On the linguistic explanation of the form εἶς (or εἰς at 538), see Hackstein 2002, 103  ff. (Ionian colloquial language?). — πάντοσ(ε): ‘(hear) from anywhere’; a reversal of the perspective (‘sound reaches everywhere’), as at 4.455 τηλόσε δοῦπον … ἔκλυε, 11.21 πεύθετο … Κύπρονδε … κλέος (2.456n.; Leaf and Kirk on 4.455). 516 VE = 13.464, 15.245. — ἀνέρι κηδομένῳ, ὡς νῦν ἐμὲ κῆδος ἱκάνει: a ὡς clause of specification containing a term with a stem related to a word in the previous clause, as at 6.262  f.; the repetition of terms has an emphatic and epexegetic function (on epexegetic

514 κλῦθι, (ϝ)άναξ: on the prosody, R 5.4; κλῦθι is the 2nd pers. sing. aor. imper. 515 εἶς: = εἶ. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — ἀκούειν: with dat. ‘listen to, give ear to someone’.

240 

 Iliad 16

repetition, Fehling 1969, 165  f.). – As is illustrated by the continuation of the prayer, κῆδος ‘sorrow’ implies both the ‘pain’ caused by the wound and the ‘grief’ for the dead Sarpedon (Anastassiou 1973, 106; Mawet 1979, 364  f.; 24.417 is similar [see ad loc., with additional parallels]). — ἀνέρι: the dat. with a verb of hearing (here ἀκούειν) is very rare in Greek: ‘heed someone, lend someone an ear’ (24.335n.; Chantr. 2.70; Corlu 1966, 78); on ἀκούειν + gen., 531n.

517–519 In the Iliad, no other warrior complains about his own wounds; in Book 5, Diomedes – injured in a similar manner – asks Athene not for a cure but for an opportunity to exact revenge. Glaukos’ behavior thus appears less heroic, which fits with the narrator’s somewhat pro-Achaian tendencies (5.95  ff.; Salazar 2000, 147  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 122  ff.; Neal 2006, 67  ff.; Holmes 2007, 57  f.). The pathetic intensity is underlined by the paratactic style with enjambments, the frequency of terms for body parts and the repetition of the personal pronoun ‘me’ (esp. clear in comparison with the description by the narrator at 510–512): Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 61  f.; cf. 6.386–389n. 517 ἕλκος … καρτερόν: καρτερός/κρατερός appears only here and at 523 as an epithet of a ‘severe’ injury, cf. κρατέρ’ ἄλγεα ‘strong pain’ at 2.721, etc. Other epithets used of ἕλκος: κακός at 2.723, ἀργαλέος at 528, etc., λυγρός at 19.49, etc. (Benveniste 1969a, 78  f.). The epithet is placed ‘emphatically’ in hyperbaton, as at e.g. 7.299 δῶρα … περικλυτά and 14.66 τεῖχος … τετυγμένον (in contrast to 523 καρτερὸν ἕλκος): AH. — μὲν γάρ: μέν correlates with δέ in 521 (ἀνὴρ δ’ ὥριστος ὄλωλεν): AH. — μοι: a sympathetic dat. (348n.).

518 A hero’s physical pains are mentioned in Homeric epic only in the case of non-fatal injuries (causing a temporary inability to fight) and usually when they are alleviated, e.g. 4.191, 11.268: the warriors affected display good morale (Benardete 1968, 15; Neal 2006, 27  ff.; cf. 504n.). In addition, bleeding (518  f.) and a sense of heaviness (paralysis, 519) are among the typical elements of non-fatal injuries.

ὀξείῃς ὀδύνῃσιν ἐλήλαται: metaphorically, as of the blow of a weapon (the attri­ bute in a literal sense at e.g. 317 ὀξέϊ δουρί, the verb at e.g. 338 ἤλασεν), similarly 5.399 κῆρ ἀχέων, ὀδύνῃσι πεπαρμένος, of mental anguish 9.3 πένθεϊ δ’ ἀτλήτῳ βεβολήατο πάντες (cf. 9.9, Od. 10.247), 19.125 τὸν δ’ ἄχος ὀξὺ κατὰ φρένα τύψε: LfgrE s.v. ἐλαύνω 518.54  ff. (‘a special case’ [transl.]); Mawet 1979, 42  f. The present noun-epithet formula

516 ἀνέρι: = ἀνδρί; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — κηδομένῳ, ὡς: on the hiatus, R 5.6 (cf. M 12.2). — ὡς: ‘as (for example)’. 517 τόδε: ‘this (wound) here’, namely on his arm. — καρτερόν: = κρατερόν. — ἀμφί: ‘all around’ (sc. around the wound), i.e. ‘everywhere’. — χείρ: ‘arm’, = 510 βραχίων. 518 ὀξείῃς ὀδύνῃσιν: on the declension, R  11.1.  — ἐλήλαται: perf. pass. of ἐλαύνω, ‘has been struck, hit, pierced’. — οὐδέ: in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 241

also occurs at 11.268/272 (in a simile with βέλος ὀξύ); on ὀξύς describing physical pain, 19.125n.; Mawet loc. cit. 41  f.

519 On depictions of bleeding in the Iliad in detail, Neal 2006, 45  ff.; Holmes 2007, 60  ff.; on staunching (literally ‘drying’) bleeding in particular, cf. 11.267/848.

βαρύθει: of an inner sensation of heaviness, ‘is paralyzed’; likewise at 11.583  f., 20.480, with a different verb (νάρκησε) at 8.328  f. (AH; LfgrE s.v. βαρύνω; cf. 19.164–165n.).

520 σχεῖν ἔμπεδον: either ‘securely aim (for a target)’ (AH; Mutzbauer 1873, 79) or better ‘firmly grasp (and then hold on to)’, as at 107 (Aias) ἔμπεδον αἰὲν ἔχων σάκος (Mader 1970, 69 [transl.]: ‘one can almost see how Glaukos flinches even at the mere attempt to grasp the lance’; LfgrE s.vv.).  — οὐδὲ μάχεσθαι: an inflectable VE formula (7× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’); in place of οὐδέ also μηδέ or ἠδέ (11× Il., 1× Od.), in place of the verb also the adj./noun μαχήμων/μαχητής (4× Il./Od.). Usually in redundant phrasings (e.g. πολεμίζειν ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι at 2.121, etc.; Hainsworth, Introd. 18  f.), but here perhaps as a climax: ‘I cannot handle the weapon, much less join in battle’. 521 2nd VH ≈ 24.384 (Hektor; cf. 17.689 Patroklos). — ἐλθών: pregnant ‘come following a call for help, come personally’, here with μάχεσθαι ‘go there and fight’ in the sense ‘actively engage in battle’ (cf. LfgrE s.v. ἐλθεῖν 535.44  ff., 536.42  ff., 537.68  ff.). — δυσμενέεσσιν: character languageP (3.51n.).  — ἀνὴρ δ’ ὥριστος: The combination of generic ἀνήρ + attribute with a specifying personal name at the beginning of the next verse (enjambmentP, here Sarpedon at the beginning of 522) is a rhetorically effective epic stylistic figure (19.122n.), in Book 16 also at 570  f., 798  f., 806  f. – On emphatic ἄριστος with the article (frequently in the context of the death of a hero), see Edwards 1984, 66–71; 24.242n.

522 1st VH = 5.683. — Glaukos is unaware of Zeus’ efforts to safeguard Sarpedon’s life (431  ff.) and subsequently his corpse (666  ff.); his bitter lament ‘Zeus does not even help his own son’ is an expression of his current mental state. Ultimately, Glaukos is of course correct: Sarpedon was destined to die (Bassett 1938, 135  f.). On invective by characters against the gods in general, 2.111–115n.; de Jong on Il. 22.14–20 and Rutherford on Od. 20.201 (bibliography).

Διὸς υἱός: an epithet of Sarpedon also at 5.672/675 (acc.) and 5.683 (nom., as here), elsewhere usually of Apollo (1.9, 1.21, 5.105, etc.; VE formula Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων at 720n.) and Herakles (14.250n.). — ᾧ παιδὶ ἀμύνει: ἀμύνω ‘help, succor’ is generally constructed with a dat. of the person; the v.l. οὗ παιδός, albeit supported by Aristarchus (schol. A; Matthaios 1999, 599  f.), is poorly attested in the transmission (van der Valk 1964,

519 τερσῆναι: intransitive aor. inf. of τερσαίνω, ‘dry, be dried’.  — βαρύθει: ‘be heavy, paralyzed’. — ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ: i.e. ‘from the effect that follows from the wound (ἕλκος)’. 521 δυσμενέεσσιν: dat. with μάχεσθαι; on the declension, R 11.3. — ὥριστος: = ὁ ἄριστος (R 5.3). 522 ὅ: sc. Zeus (anaphoric demonstrative pronoun: R 17). — οὐδ’ ᾧ: οὐδ(έ) = ‘not once’; ᾧ is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4); on the prosody, R 4.6 (the digamma of ᾧ is not taken into account, originally from *swos, cf. Lat. suus). — παιδὶ ἀμύνει: on the hiatus, R 5.7.

242 

 Iliad 16

162  f.; Janko; in favor of the gen., Leaf; cf. Chantr. 2.56/70  f.; 561n.); an analogous case occurs at 18.171 (see ad loc.). 523 ἀλλὰ σύ: A VB formula, usually in orders (1.127n.; in particular on ἀλλά in the concluding section of a speech, 2.360n.). — σύ περ: i.e. ‘if Zeus does nothing, at least you [should]’ (36–45n. with bibliography, end). — ἄναξ: 514n. — τόδε καρτερὸν ἕλκος: cf. 517n. 524–525 κοίμησον: metaphorically ‘calm, allay’; used thus in early epic also at 12.281 (winds), Od. 12.169 (waves), in post-Homeric literature e.g. Sophocles Philoctetes 650 (a wound). In the answer to the prayer (narrator-textP), it is rendered by παῦσ’ ὀδύνας (528). — δός: an unsurprisingly frequent expression in prayer (Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26; Pulleyn 1997, 218; Jakov/Voutiras 2005, 118). — κράτος: ‘physical strength’ and thus (as usual in early epic) ‘strength for battle’; in conjunction with δίδωμι also at 17.562, as well as at 11.319, 13.743, 15.216, 20.121 – implying ‘superiority, victory’ (the subject is always a deity); cf. Benveniste 1969a, 75  f.; Breuil 1989, 20–22, 49. — ὄφρ(α) …: a ‘complex prayer’ with a statement of purpose (242–245n.). — ἑτάροισιν | κεκλόμενος: typical vocabulary for introducing a battle paraenesis (cf. 268n.). – On the VB κεκλόμενος + dat., cf. 11.91, 15.353; the dat. Λυκίοισι(ν) is in turn combined with a form of κέλομαι in six of eight examples (e.g. 421).  — ἐποτρύνω πολεμίζειν: A variant of ἐποτρύνει μαχέσασθαι (16.690, 17.178, 20.171) and ἐποτρύνοντα μάχεσθαι (13.767, 17.117, 17.683), all at VE. — 525 is a four-word verse, in enjambment (see 125–126n.). 526 ≈ 565. — ἀμφὶ … μάχωμαι: 496n., end. — νέκυι: On the diphthongization of -υι (likewise at 24.108), see Chantr. 1.50. — κατατεθνηῶτι: a (literally redundant) epithet of νέκυς/νεκρός (12× Il./Od., cf. 18.173n.). On the form with -ηω-, see G 95; Chantr. 1.430  f.

527–531 The healing of a wounded warrior by a deity is described four times in the Iliad: 5.95–143 (Diomedes, struck by Pandaros, prays to Athene and is strengthened by her [see 508–536n.]), 5.445–448/512–516 (Aineias, spirited away by Apollo, is cared for by Artemis and Leto), 15.239–262 (Hektor, struck by Aias at 14.409  ff., gradually recovers and is strengthened further by Apollo), 16.508  ff. (Glaukos prays to Apollo, who immediately heals his wound); see Fenik 1968, 21  f.; Mueller (1984) 2009, 118  f.; Salazar 2000, 135  f. – In principle, the present ‘miracle cure’ is merely a sped-up variant of regular medical treatment (care for a wound, pain management) and is used by the narrator to render the character concerned available for the next combat operation (Saunders 2003, 134; cf. Salazar loc. cit. 136). This is matched by Apollo here probably being

523 περ: limitative (R 24.10). — μοι, ἄναξ: on the prosody, R 4.6 (cf. 514n.). — ἄκεσσαι: aor. imper. of ἀκέομαι ‘heal’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 525 κεκλόμενος: reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘urge, exhort, call on’. — ἐποτρύνω: the acc. object is to be supplied from ἑτάροισιν … Λυκίοισιν. 526 κατατεθνηῶτι: on the form, R 3.

Commentary 

 243

envisaged as ‘acting from afar’, whereas at 5.95  ff. and 15.239  ff. Athene and Apollo come to help personally (Kullmann 1956, 89 n. 2; Neal 2006, 94 n. 92; Kelly 2007, 253). ‘The dividing line between the actually miraculous and that which is only almost or possibly miraculous cannot be clearly drawn in the Iliad. Many divine interventions are on the border, just on this side or barely on that one. And where this border is crossed, we do not immediately enter an entirely alien world’: Fränkel (1951) 1962, 79 (transl.); cf. 793–804n. 527 = 1.43, 1.457; additional iterata: 249n. — Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων: a VE formula (32× Il., 2× Od., 4× Hes., 12× h.Hom.; also 1× h.Hom. in verse middle). The inflected variants always appear at VB (gen. Φοίβου Ἀπόλλωνος 10× early epic, acc. Φοῖβον Ἀπόλλωνα 2× early epic), also nom. Ἀπόλλων Φοῖβος in verse middle (700n.); see Higbie 1990, 183–187. – On the meaning of the epithet Phoibos, 667–668n.

528–529 Prayer pleas are generally fulfilled instantly in early epic (Morrison 1991, 148, 150; Janko on 508–531; cf. 249–252n.). Here the fulfillment of all three individual pleas is specified (Morrison loc. cit. 148 with n. 15): pain alleviated at 524a/528a, wound healed at 523b/528b–529a, strength restored at 524b/529b. 528 2nd VH = 11.812 (and VB 528 = 11.813). — αὐτίκα: on asyndetic αὐτίκα with the fulfillment of a plea, 2.442n. — παῦσ’ ὀδύνας: a common phrase for ‘alleviate pain’, cf. 4.191, also a technical term in the Corpus Hippocraticum (Mawet 1979, 49  f.). — ἀργαλέοιο: 109n.

529 A deity instilling strength vel sim. in a hero – here ménos in the sense ‘energy, vigor’ – is a typical epic motif prior to the beginning of battle (e.g. 2.450–452), in battle (e.g. 5.1–3) and/or after a prayer, as here (Daraki 1980, 9; Louden 2006, 18  f.; Neal 2006, 38–40, 92–94; cf. 2.451b–452n. [in particular for the underlying double motivationP], 19.37n.).

αἷμα μέλαν: a noun-epithet formula at VB and in the 3rd foot (4× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc.); variant: μέλαν αἷμα 8× early epic in various positions in the verse (as well as 1× with the words separated [7.262]; similarly αἰνὸν ἄχος/ἄχος αἰνόν at 52n.). Blood is commonly described in Greek as ‘dark’ (1.303n.; collection of examples: Neal 2006, 296). The epithet evokes (a) the actual contrast between (dark) blood and (pale) skin and (b) metaphorically ‘dark, gloomy’ death: μέλας θάνατος 687n., θανάτου μέλαν νέφος 349–350n., πορφύρεος θάνατος 333–334n. (LfgrE s.v. μέλας 99.43  ff. with bibliography). — μένος … ἔμβαλε θυμῷ: The statement ‘a deity lends energy’ occurs in a variety of versions in early epic: 5.513 ἐν στήθεσσι μένος βάλε ποιμένι λαῶν, 10.366 μένος ἔμβαλ’ Ἀθήνη, 11.11/14.151/21.304 σθένος ἔμβαλ’ ἑκάστῳ/Ἀθήνη, 17.451 ἐν γούνεσσι βαλῶ

527 ὥς: = οὕτως. — ἔφατ(ο): 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. 529 τέρσηνε: here transitive (contrast 519n.).  — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R  4.3.  — οἱ  … θυμῷ: σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος in the dat. (cf. R 19.1); οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).

244 

 Iliad 16

μένος ἠδ’ ἐνὶ θυμῷ, 21.547 ἐν μέν οἱ κραδίῃ θάρσος βάλε. Alternative verbs with μένος as object: ἐνίημι (656n., 19.37n.), ἐμπνέω (19.159n.), ὄρνυμι (2.451b–452n.), τίθημι (21.145, etc.). Bibliography: Kullmann 1956, 72–79; Mugler 1963, 42  f., 176–180; on the use of ἐμβάλλω in particular, 19.88n.; on μένος ‘energy’, 332n.; on the interchangeability of the seats of mental authority (θυμός, κραδίη, στήθεα, φρένες), 2.451b–452n.; Jahn 1987, 44 with n. 56. — ἔμβαλε θυμῷ: a VE formula (3× Il., 2× Od., 3× h.Ven. [examples: 3.139n.]; with present stem ἐμβάλλεο/-ετε θυμῷ 2× Il., 1× Od.), generally in the context of affects and realizations/advice.

530 ≈  22.296; from caesura A 3 onward ≈  1.333, 8.446, also h.Ap. 375. On the manifold uses of the verse, see 1.333n. with bibliography, also Kelly 2007, 336  f. — Glaukos’ ‘realization’ and ‘joy’ are based on his perception of divine intervention, as at 119 ‘Aias knew … and shivered’ (see 119–122an.), but here with a positive response ‘rejoiced’, as frequently elsewhere with omens – thus esp. 24.314–321 and Od. 20.102–121 after a prayer – or after personal encouragement by a deity (Il. 22.224, Od. 24.545); additional examples in Latacz 1966, 71, 74  f., 150; see also Jones 1996, 110 with n. 11; de Jong on Il. 22.224.

ᾗσιν ἐνὶ φρεσί: in combination with a verb of recognition potentially has a pregnant meaning: ‘with his own mind, on his own accord’. ‘Even without Apollo appearing to announce the response to the plea, Glaukos recognizes the god’s actions purely via the physical phenomena he is seeing’ (Jahn 1987, 239 [transl.]; similar examples: 1.333 [see ad loc.], 22.296, 24.563 [see ad loc.]). — γήθησέν τε: The verb denotes ‘glad satisfaction’ in response to the divine aid (Latacz 1966, 144  ff., esp. 145  f.). On the combination aor. + τε at VE, 119n.

531 The clause provides the substance of Glaukos’ realization and the cause of his joy: secondary focalizationP (de Jong [1987] 2004, 110  ff. with n. 34); signals: ‘swift’, ‘the great god’, ‘answered’ (the same verb as at 515 in direct speech).

οἱ … ἤκουσε … εὐξαμένοιο: Although a dat. object with ἀκούω is unequivocally attested at 515  f. (516n.), the pronoun οἱ can have a genitival function – like μοι in κλῦθί μοι – so that it corresponds to εὐξαμένοιο: Wackernagel (1924) 1928, 77  f.; on genitival οἱ/μοι in general, 1.37n.; Schw. 2.189  f.; Meier-Brügger 1986. Differently (οἱ dat., εὐξαμένοιο gen. absolute): AH; Chantr. 2.70, 322  f. — μέγας θεός: of Apollo also at 5.434 (Diomedes does not heed him), 19.410 (initiator of Achilleus’ death). μέγας in these cases appears to be contextually relevant: ‘powerful’. On ‘great’ as a divine epithet, 19.409–410n.; Bissinger 1966, 64  ff.

532–547 The portrayal of Glaukos setting the troops in motion is constructed climactically: first he addresses his immediate adherents collectively (Lykians;

530 ἔγνω (ϝ)ῇσιν: on the prosody, R 4.4; ᾗσιν is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4; on the declension, R 11.1). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). 531 ὅττί (ϝ)οἱ: on the prosody, R 5.4; on the -ττ- in ὅττι, R 9.1. — ὦκ(α): ‘swift’.

Commentary 

 245

indirect speech), then individual Trojans and Dardanians (list of names; cf. 535–536n.), among them especially Hektor (battle paraenesis in direct speech, representative of his previously mentioned exhortations directed at everyone). On the ‘narrative availability’ of leaders in the midst of the confusion of battle, see Jordan 1905, 99: ‘The poet commands; they are present’ (the gods and their messengers are similar: 431–432n.). 532–533 ≈  495  f. (see ad loc.).  — The present summary description (‘urged on’, without direct speech) is exemplified by the third part of the speech addressed to Hektor (544–547). 534 Walking with great strides is always a demonstrative sign of courage and strength in the Iliad (Kurz 1966, 136; Bremmer 1991, 16  f.), here probably of the self-confidence (or even sense of purpose) of the recovered Glaukos (differently, albeit with reservations, LfgrE s.v. βιβάς: ‘expression of haste’ [transl.]).

μετὰ Τρῶας: elsewhere only in the VE formula μετὰ Τρῶας καὶ Ἀχαιούς (6× Il.: 3.264n.; variant: μετὰ Τρῶας μεγαθύμους 10.205). — μακρὰ βιβάσθων: an inflectable VE formula (nom. at 13.809, 15.676 and here; acc. μακρὰ βιβάντα at 3.22 [see ad loc.]); βιβάσθων is probably an artificial nominative formation at VE (beside μακρὰ βιβάς/βιβᾶσα 5× Il./Od. in verse middle), perhaps analogous with θυμὸν ἀΐσθων at 468 (Pisani 1943/44, 535–537; Fraenkel 1952, 144  f.; Shipp [1953] 1972, 90). On the use of the suffix -θω, Schw. 1.703  f.; Risch 278  f.

535–536 Polydamas, Agenor, Aineias and Hektor represent, in a manner of speaking, the Trojan leadership (also including Glaukos and Sarpedon). Polydamas and Agenor are Trojan captains, whose fathers Panthoös and Antenor are both members of the Trojan council of elders (CH 9; Stoevesandt 2004, 174–176; on Polydamas’ role in the Iliad, see also 18.249–253n., on Panthoös, 3.146n.). Aineias, son of Anchises and Aphrodite, is the leader of the Dardanians and is considered the second man in Troy after Hektor (CH 8; 2.820n.; Stoevesandt 2004, 189–192). On Hektor, 114–115n.  – The four characters mentioned here occur together elsewhere in the Iliad in two other passages: at 11.57–59 the Trojans array themselves for battle under their leadership (with the addition of two of Agenor’s brothers), while at 14.425  f. Polydamas, Agenor and Aineias (with Glaukos and Sarpedon) protect Hektor after he is struck by a rock (14.425

532 πρῶτα: = πρῶτον ‘first of all’. 534 αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα: ‘but then, and then’ (progressive: R 24.2). — μετά + acc. (collective term): ‘in the midst of, among’. — κίε: preterite of a defective verb with the meaning ‘go’. — μακρά: adv., ‘widely’. 535 Πουλυδάμαντ’ ἔπι: = ἐπὶ Π. (R 20.2); initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 536 μετ(ά) + acc. (individual): ‘behind, to’.

246 

 Iliad 16

≈ 16.535 [14.425–426n.]); on a similar grouping, 306–357n. On the joint mention of Aineias and Hektor, cf. 6.75–80n.

Ἀγήνορα δῖον: a noun-epithet formula at VE (here and at 11.59, 13.490; Ὑψήνορα δῖον 5.76 is similar), as well as after caesura B 2 (21.545); in the nom. δῖος Ἀγήνωρ (3× Il., always at VE). θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ (26× early epic) and καὶ ἀγήνορα/ι θυμόν/ῷ (24.42, Od. 11.562) are analogous. — βῆ δὲ μετ(ά): a VB formula, always followed by one or more personal names in the acc. (5× Il.); also 4× Il./Od. at VE βῆ δὲ μετ’ ἄλλους/ἄλλας/αὐτούς. — Αἰνείαν τε καὶ Ἕκτορα: an inflectable phrase, in the dat. in the same position in the verse at 6.75 and 17.758, in the voc. at VB 6.77, in the nom. at VB 17.513 and 17.534 (with reversal of the names: Ἕκτωρ Αἰνείας τ(ε)), finally with the names separated at 17.754 (Αἰνείας τ’ Ἀγχισιάδης καὶ φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ). — Ἕκτορα χαλκοκορυστήν: 358n.

537 =  4.203, 13.462, 14.356, Od. 4.25, 17.552, 22.100; ≈  (fem. sing.) Il. 4.92, 5.123, 18.169, 22.215, 22.228 (Od. 10.377 is similar); ≈ (fem. pl.) h.Cer. 112; ≈ (different predicate) Od. 17.349; on the 2nd VH, 6n. — The proximity signals familiarity between speaker and addressee: ‘introduces intimate, secretive, or (feigned) affectionate words’ (de Jong on Il. 22.215; similarly Kurz 1966, 95); here the urgency with which Glaukos makes his case is highlighted (cf. 6.75n.).

ἀγχοῦ δ’ ἱστάμενος: an inflectable VB formula (masc./fem.: 18× Il., 6× Od., 2× h.Cer.), always with a verb of speaking in the 2nd VH (speech introduction formulaP); cf. Kurz 1966, 87  f.

538–683 ‘Almost all of the action from Π 538 to the end of Ρ is sustained by a sixfold […] repetition of the same pattern of Trojan rebuke (or consultation), charge and repulse. Moreover, this six-fold repetition occurs, with only one ex­ception (16.721), in connection with a fight over the body of a fallen warrior’ (Fenik 1968, 205: so-called ‘rebuke pattern’; the repetitions mentioned: 16.684  ff., 17.1  ff., 17.132  ff., 17.319  ff., 17.533  ff.). Elements of this themeP: (1) Greek success (here killing Sarpedon); (2) Glaukos (or Apollo) censures Hektor (or Aineias) (538–547); (3) Hektor mounts a counter-attack (548–553a); (4) the Greeks gather, sometimes with Aias’ help, to fight back (553b–562); (5) the Trojans initially drive the Greeks back (563–580); (6) after a battle that rages this way and that, the Greeks win control of the corpse (581–665; here Zeus and Apollo intervene and transport Sarpedon’s body to Lykia: 666–683). The battle is often hindered by suddenly falling darkness (here at 567  f. [see ad loc.]) (Fenik loc. cit. 49  f., 53, 159  f., 205  f., 209  f.; Janko on 534–561). 538–562 Two successive battle paraeneses of the two warring factions (one to the Greeks, the other to the Trojans) introduce dramatic moments in the action: 11.276–279/286–290, 15.486–499/502–513, 17.220–232/238–245+248–255,

537 ἱστάμενος (ϝ)έπεα: on the prosody, R 4.5. — προσηύδα: as an object sc. αὐτόν.

Commentary 

 247

20.354–363/366–372, etc. (Fingerle 1939, 86, 118; Μπεζαντακος 1996, 84  f.). The reciprocal referentiality of the two speeches is underlined by parallelism in structure and content: (a) address and reference to the urgent (538/556 nýn ‘now’) necessity of intervening (540 epamýnein, 556 amýnesthai), (b) current situation: Sarpedon has been killed (541/558 ‘lies there, dead’), (c) summons to action (at 544/559 introduced by allá, followed by the motif ‘despoiling and desecration of the corpse’; at the end of the speeches at 547/561 an expression for ‘kill with a weapon’): Lohmann 1970, 124  f.; Rabel 1997, 161; Janko on 538– 547; additional details on speeches with parallel structures at 2.188–206n., 19.286–339n. It should be assumed here that the two speeches and the related movements of troops occur contemporaneously in the narrator’s imagination; the two strands of the action (532–553a/553b–562) merge at 563  f. (Lohmann loc. cit. 129  f.; Richardson 1990, 225  ff. n. 14). 538–547 A censorious battle paraenesis by Glaukos (on the type, 421–425n.; cf. Belfiore 2009, 19–24). The switch in address (538/544) serves, as elsewhere, ‘as a rhetorical and compositional device’ (Lohmann 1970, 51 n. 89 [transl.]; cf. schol. bT on 544; Fingerle 1939, 124; 2.225–242n., 19.185–197n., 24.56–63n., 24.725–745n.): the targeted criticism of Hektor (538  ff.) via the argument’s hinge in the middle section (541  ff.) leads to the general battle appeal directed at the Trojans at the end of the speech (544  ff.; battle paraeneses in early epic commonly conclude with calls to action: Fingerle loc. cit. 126). The complimentary characterization of Sarpedon paints Hektor’s behavior in an even more reprehensible light and is designed to motivate Trojan resistance yet further (Martin 1989, 74: ‘juxtaposition of praiseworthy foil with blameworthy addressee’; Belfiore loc. cit. 20). On the content and tripartite structure of the speech, see Lohmann loc. cit. 124  f.; Aceti 2008, 138  f.; on the central topic of the battle paraenesis, the protection of the corpse, 492–501n. – Hektor, as the greatest Trojan hero, is frequently the target of criticism, cf. the parallels mentioned at 538–540n. (6.75–80n.; Bassett 1938, 186; Farron 1978, passim [summary 55  ff.]; Stoevesandt 2004, 200  f.). 538–540 Tensions in the relationship between the supreme commander and the allies manifest themselves in difficult military situations, both on the side of the Greeks (namely between Agamemnon and Achilleus) and on that of the Trojans (namely between Hektor and the Lykians). Recurrent motifs in the confrontations are the allies’ long journey, their extended absence from home, their selfless action for the benefit of others, and the limited reward they receive for it (up to the point of feeling abandoned by the supreme commander). Glaukos repeats the present criticism at 17.142–168 (cf. Moulton 1981); parallels of course occur in Achilleus’ speech to Agamemnon and in Sarpedon’s to

248 

 Iliad 16

Hektor at 1.149–168 and 5.472–492, respectively. Bibliography: Kirk on 5.471; Fenik 1968, 51  f., 169; Donlan 2002, 157  f., 159, 161–163; cf. 2.762n. 538 νῦν δή: emphatic, the implication being ‘now it has come to the point’ or ‘now in regard to us’ (cf. 2.284n., 24.641n.). — λελασμένος εἰς: a serious accusation, cf. 5.834 (Athene accuses Ares of forgetting the Achaians despite his pledge, i.e. of having abandoned them), 23.69 (the dead Patroklos’ spirit accuses Achilleus of having forgotten him). The periphrastic perf. perhaps underlines this accusation (on the original expressive character of the periphrastic perf., see K.-G. 1.38  f.; Schw. 1.811  f.).

539 2nd VH (from the 3rd foot onward) = 11.817, Od. 19.301, 24.290, h.Ap. 526. — On the pathetic motif ‘far from home’, 461n.; on the stressful separation of the warriors at Troy from their families, cf. 2.136–137an.

οἳ σέθεν εἵνεκα: a variable VB formula (οἵ/οὕς/καί, σέθεν/ἕθεν: here and at 3.128, Od. 19.377, 23.304). — πατρίδος αἴης: an inflectable VE formula (2.140n.; cf. 832n.).

540 2nd VH cf. 13.109. — The accusation ‘you do not want to help, are not prepared to help’ reveals Glaukos’ considerable agitation: he insinuates that Hektor is acting deliberately or at least that he has failed.

θυμὸν ἀποφθινύθουσι: ‘they exhaust, lose their lives’, cf. Od. 15.354 θυμὸν ἀπὸ μελέων φθίσθαι as well as the usages at 410n. (with bibliography). – φθινύθω is a regular formation from φθίν(ϝ)ω +  suffix -θω (Risch 271; Tucker 1990, 350  f.; LfgrE s.v.; on the suffix, cf. 534n., end). — σὺ δ(έ): picks up σέθεν, with an adversative function: AH. — οὐκ ἐθέλεις: ‘you show no willingness’; negated ἐθέλειν is frequently used of a lack of engagement in battle (6.522–523an.). — ἐπαμύνειν: ‘come to the aid of, support in defending’; ἀμύνειν is a common keyword in battle paraeneses, cf. 556, 561.

541 ≈  5.647; 2nd VH see 490n.; on filling out a verse via an appositional denomination of a character, cf. 126n.  — κεῖται Σαρπηδών: ‘Asyndeton gives bad news maximum impact’, almost like a newspaper headline  – in bold print and with an exclamation mark  – (Janko on 541–547; likewise AH and 18.20–21n.); cf. κεῖται ἀνήρ at 5.467 and 16.558 (similarly in battle paraeneses), with further examples in Lohmann 1970, 125 with n. 53. – On κεῖται ‘has fallen, is lying there dead’, 485n.

542 The terms ‘judgements’ and ‘strength’ represent successful activity as a (civilian) head of state and (military) commander, both internally and externally, in times of peace as well as war, cf. 3.179 ‘a good king and a strong spearfighter’ (see ad loc.), also Od. 19.109  ff., Hes. Op. 225  ff., h.Cer. 150–152 (schol. b; AH; Janko on 541–547; LfgrE s.v. σθένος 113.12  ff.; Mader 1970, 216  f.; van Wees 1992, 82; Aceti 2008, 139). 538 λελασμένος εἰς: periphrastic perf. (εἰς = εἶ), ‘you do not think (any longer) of’. 539 σέθεν εἵνεκα: = σοῦ ἕνεκα (R 15.1, 10.1). — φίλων: ‘their own, dependents’. 541 ἀσπιστάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 542 ᾧ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person.

Commentary 



 249

εἴρυτο: plpf. functioning as an impf. of ἔρυμαι ‘protect, preserve’ (24.499n.). — δίκῃσι: in the plural, specifically ‘the verdicts, judgements’, collectively ‘the principles manifest in these decisions: «law, justice»’ (LfgrE s.v. 303.78  ff. [transl.]), cf. h.Cer. 151  f. κρήδεμνα πόληος | εἰρύαται βουλῇσι καὶ ἰθείῃσι δίκῃσιν, Od. 3.244 περίοιδε δίκας ἠδὲ φρόνιν; see LfgrE loc. cit. 303.72  ff.; 388n. (where personified sing. Δίκη); 19.179–180n. — σθένεϊ ᾧ: In early epic, σθένος means in the first instance ‘physical strength’ but can also take on the sense ‘leadership’ or specifically ‘military power’ (18.274n.; de Decker 2014, 121). Possessive ὅς derives from *su̯ os: σθένεϊ ᾧ = ⏖–– (24.36–37an., with parallels).

543 The phrasing ‘a god (here Ares) kills X by the hand or weapon of Y (here Patroklos)’ is based on the Homeric notion that divine workings and human action can coincide (6.228n. with bibliography; 103n.). While mentioning the god responsible by name is natural in the narrator-textP (thus 13.434 Poseidon, 22.446 Athene; similar formulations at 15.613  f., Od. 18.155  f., in both cases again Athene), it is unusual in character speech, especially given that Ares does not even appear in person in the present scene. Hektor, for example, design­ates ‘the gods’ generally as originators (6.368: Jörgensen’s principleP) in a similar expression referring to his death ‘at the hands of the Achaians’, whereas Zeus (22.175  f.) and Achilleus (22.270  f.) specifically name Athene (Achilleus is thus informed by Athene herself). In another parallel passage, Menelaos pleads for Zeus’ support for his revenge on Paris (3.351  f.: ‘Zeus, … defeat him [sc. Paris] via my hands!’). Given this background, the mention of Ares is probably to be understood as rhetorical, perhaps as an attempt by Glaukos to diminish Patroklos’ achievements in his victory over Sarpedon (suggestion by van der Mije); ‘Ares’ is here on the cusp of a metonymical use (on which, 2.381n., 6.203–204n.).  – The name ‘Patroklos’ is used as if self-evident; the narrator does not pursue the motif of the attempted deception, connected to the exchange of weapons (Patroklos in Achilleus’ armor), any further (on which in detail, 278–283n.). – On the verb ‘defeat’, 103n.

ὑπὸ Πατρόκλῳ: on ὑπό ‘under the influence of’, 384n. — χάλκεος Ἄρης: a VE formula (5× Il.); in the remaining examples (5.704/859/866, 7.146) unequivocally of Ares in persona (the situation with θοῦρος Ἄρης at 24.498n. is similar). Prosodic variant: ὄβριμος Ἄρης 613n. – χάλκεος means ‘bronze-armored’, cf. χαλκοκορυστής/-χίτων (358n.).

544–545 Verses with similar word order (two verbs chiastically in verse middle, caesura B 2).

544 2nd VH ≈ 2.223, 17.254, Od. 1.119, 4.158. — On solidarity with a fallen comrade, 496n. On the change in addressee, 538–547n.

544 πάρστητε: = παράστητε (R 20.1).

250 

 Iliad 16

ἀλλά: 501n. — φίλοι: here an address to a select group of comrades-in-arms (named at 534–536), as at 2.56 (council of the Greek military leaders) and 13.481 (list of names at 478  f.). On this and other uses of the vocative φίλοι, see Kakridis 1963, 8  ff.; Opelt 1978, 181–184. — νεμεσσήθητε δὲ θυμῷ: parenthetic, subordinate to πάρστητε, as it were; νεμεσ(σ)άω here and at 17.254  f. (similar context), Od. 2.64, 2.138 (the suitors’ conduct) denotes concern about the indignation one’s own behavior may evoke in others, almost = ‘shame on you!’; so too the similarly paraenetic exclamation αἰδώς at 422n. (von Erffa 1937, 33  f.; Verdenius 1945, 49  f.; Cairns 1993, 83  ff.; 2003, 35  f.; Belfiore 2009, 22  f.; LfgrE). On νέμεσις, 22n.

545 2nd VH = 19.26. — The actions worried about correspond to the typical reactions of a victorious epic hero after he kills an opponent, cf. 559  f. with literal echoes (the Greeks will not inflict disfigurements as such on Sarpedon’s body; it will instead be affected by the violent fighting around it: 638–640). On the common practice of disfigurement of corpses (in the Iliad usually only feared, as here, or threatened), 24.22n.

ἀπὸ τεύχε’ ἕλωνται: an inflectable phrase, elsewhere always at VE (559–560n.).

546–547 Glaukos illustrates the danger to Sarpedon’s corpse by pointing to the increasing violence of the fighting on the 3rd day of battle (Aceti 2008, 140  f.); at the same time, the emphasis on their own superiority probably has an encouraging effect on the addressees of the speech (suggestion by van der Mije). – The mention of the Myrmidons alone indicates that, once they rejoin battle, they will be considered the main actors on the Greek side, especially from the point of view of the affected Lykians (cf. 564). – On anger as the reason for revenge, 320n.; cf. esp. 398 ‘Patroklos avenged many’, 24.736–738 ‘from anger …, because many Achaians have died at Hektor’s hands’. 547 ≈  21.135; 1st VH ≈  201, etc. (see ad loc.).  — τοὺς  … ἐπέφνομεν: epexegetic relative clause after 546 ὅσσοι ὄλοντο (AH); ‘we’ probably refers not to the Lykians alone but to all Trojans and their allies (Janko). – On the reduplicated root aor. ἐπέφνομεν, 339n.

548–553a Glaukos’ speech has an impact; the Trojan response to the news of Sarpedon’s death follows a typical pattern: (1) affect (here 548 ‘grief’), (2) impulse to action (here 552  f. counterattack); cf. Fenik 1968, 163 (‘response to bad news’); Aceti 2008, 142; 2.142n., 18.22n. 548 κατὰ κρῆθεν: probably a reinterpretation of *κατ’ ἄκρηθεν ‘from top (to bottom), entirely’ > ‘from the head down’ (supposedly related to κάρη ‘head’); additional examples:

545 μὴ ἀπό: on the hiatus, R 5.7; ἀπό in tmesis with ἕλωνται (R 20.2). — τεύχε’ ἕλωνται: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — ἀεικίσσωσι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 546 Δαναῶν: causal gen. with κεχολωμένοι. — κεχολωμένοι: intensifying perf. 547 τούς: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun with the function of a relative (R 14.5).

Commentary 

 251

Od. 11.588 (fruit above Tantalos’ head), Hes. Th. 574, h.Cer. 182 (Pandora and Demeter clothed with veils), ‘Hes.’ fr. 23a.23 M.-W. (Artemis trickles ambrosia onto Iphigenia’s head), also ἀπὸ κρῆθεν at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 7 (Alkmene’s radiance). An actual reference to the head is less believable in the present passage, since πένθος is elsewhere localized in the usual seats of mental authority such as the φρένες, κραδίη, στήθεα, θυμός (divergent: Il. 11.249  f. κρατερόν ῥά ἑ πένθος | ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐκάλυψε κασιγνήτοιο πεσόντος). Conversely, in the Iliad the original form κατ’ ἄκρης always designates the ‘wholesale’ destruction of Troy (24.728–729an.), while at Od. 5.313 a wave crashes over Odysseus ‘from above’ (ἔλασεν μέγα κῦμα κατ’ ἄκρης). Ultimately, neither meaning can be excluded here: (a) ‘from the head’, (b) ‘completely’. In favor of (a): Aristarchus (schol. A); Chantr. 2.113; West 2001, 239 (‘the Trojans had heads but not ἄκραι’); favoring (b): Leumann 1950, 56–58 (‘terribly’); LfgrE s.v. ἄκρηθεν (‘«entirely» in emotive intensification’ [transl.]); Janko on 548–553 (‘utterly’); Castellaneta 2012, 20  f. Detailed discussion in Lejeune 1939, 58, 81  ff.; Reece 2009, 249  ff.; Castellaneta loc. cit. – The form *κατ’ ἄκρηθεν is to κατ’ ἄκρης as ἀπ’ οὐρανόθεν is to ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ, etc. (on the suffix -θεν, see G 66). — λάβε πένθος: On verbs of grasping/affecting (only here with πένθος), cf. 22n., 30n. πένθος refers to the ‘pain, grief’ at the death of Sarpedon.

549–551 The emphasis on Sarpedon’s crucial role in the Trojan alliance is an ana­ lepsisP; it serves to explain the current violent Trojan reaction (Richardson 1990, 103 with n. 29 p. 228; Aceti 2008, 142; cf. 24.6–8n.).

There are accordingly signals of secondary focalizationP: the dat. σφισιν in reference to the logical subject (‘for them’, implied ‘from their point of view’) and the character language ἀλλοδαπός (550n.); similarly subjectively colored passages: 460  f., 531, 24.27–30, 24.85–86 (all with n.); cf. Stoevesandt 2004, 184 n. 562. – On the increased frequency of enjambment and short clauses as an expression of emotion and bustle here and in the following verses (552–555), see Kirk 1976, 165  f.; Higbie 1990, 118–120; Bakker 1997, 155; cf. 335–341n. 549 and 550 are also purely dactylic.

549 1st VH ≈ 2nd VH of 5.892. — The expression ‘buttress of the city’ has a parallel at Od. 23.121: the young people of Ithaca (killed in the battle with the suitors). Labelling a hero a ‘support, pillar, bastion’ of a community is a widespread epic metaphor (Schmitt 1967, 282  f.; West 2007, 454  f.), so too of e.g. Achilleus at 1.283  f. and Aias at 6.5 (see ad loc.) and Od. 11.556. – On Sarpedon’s import­ ance in the Trojan War, 419–683n., 558n.

ἄσχετον, οὐκ ἐπιεικτόν: the same epithet combination at 5.892 (of the μένος of Hera and her son Ares; cf. Mawet 1979, 270  f.). On ἄσχετος ‘irresistible, overwhelming’, 24.707–709n. (24.708 πάντας γὰρ ἀάσχετον ἵκετο πένθος). οὐκ ἐπιεικτός probably means ‘unyielding, impenetrable’ (related to ἐπι-(ϝ)είκω; always negated in early epic): LfgrE; Frisk; Graz 1965, 97 n. 3; Kelly 2007, 89  f.; different interpretation in Blanc 2012, 82  ff.:

549 σφίσιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — πόληος: gen. of πόλις (R 11.3).

252 

 Iliad 16

from ἐπι-hεκτός (related to ἔχω) ‘unstoppable’. — ἕρμα πόληος: a metaphorical use of the nautical technical term ἕρματα ‘support beam’ (used to stabilize a ship pulled up on land: 1.486n.), i.e. ‘support, supporting pillar of the city’. On the personal construction with a predicative noun, cf. 498–499n.; on the common predicative use of nouns in -μα in particular, 3.50–51n. with bibliography. 550 VE ≈ 661. — ἔσκε: 225n. — ἀλλοδαπός: belongs to character languageP (always in direct speech in early epic except here), ‘originating from a different country’ (3.48n.).

551 1st VH = 2.578 (and VB also = 13.492, 13.710); 2nd VH (from caesura B 2 onward) = 6.460, 11.746, 16.292, 17.351. — The qualification as ‘the best in battle’ is part of the epic aristocratic code: 292n. 552 1st VH (to caesura C 2) ≈ 12.106 (ῥ’ rather than δ’, after preceding subclause). — ἰθὺς Δαναῶν: ‘straight toward the Danaäns, against the Danaäns’, cf. 584 ἰθὺς Λυκίων (after 582 ἴθυσεν), 602 ἰθὺς … αὐτῶν. On prepositional ἰθύς, 24.471n. — λελιημένοι: ‘full of desire, eager, determined’ (4× Il., always in military contexts); an isolated perf. part. with obscure etymology: Wackernagel (1920) 1926, 169; Tichy 1983, 230  f. n. 7; Hainsworth on 12.106; Beekes.  — ἦρχε δ’ ἄρά σφιν: VE =  Od. 24.9, also after caesura A 3 4× Il., 1× h.Ap. – Variant ἦρχε δ’ ἄρ’ Ἕκτωρ (VE) at 13.136, 15.306, 17.107, 17.262 (Higbie 1990, 75  f.). — ἄρά σφιν: on the accent, West 1998, XVIII.

553–554 On anger as a motivation for revenge, 320n. On the sentence structure, cf. 4.514  f. αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοὺς  | ὦρσε Διὸς θυγάτηρ κυδίστη Τριτογένεια, 13.154 ὦρσε θεῶν ὥριστος, ἐρίγδουπος πόσις Ἥρης, 16.126 ὄρσεο, διογενὲς Πατρόκλεις ἱπποκέλευθε (18.170 is similar); on filling a verse via the paraphrase of a personal name, cf. 126n. — αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιούς: an inflectable VE formula (22× Il.): 19.63n.; similarly αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς (124n.). — Μενοιτιάδεω ͜ Πατροκλῆος: On this reading as preferable (to Μενοιτιάδαο Πᾰτροκλῆος), see West 2001, 239  f., 246; on the Ionian gen. -εω in general, G 40. On the noun-epithet formula, 420n. — Πατροκλῆος λάσιον κῆρ: a seemingly archaic paraphrase of the personal name, with λάσιον κῆρ also of Pylaimenes at 2.851 (see ad loc.; in general, 189n.). The hairy male chest probably symbolizes strength, with the hairiness applied to κῆρ as an internal organ, cf. English ‘have hair on one’s chest’ (1.189n.; Körner 1929, 27  f.; Treu 1955, 34  f.). The extent to which this was taken to suggest strength must remain an open question (Sullivan 1996, 13: ‘energetic eagerness for battle’; cf. pregnant Ἀχιλλῆος ὀλοὸν κῆρ 14.139).

555 = 13.46. — Both the greater and the lesser Aias have already come to the fore in Book 16: at the beginning of Book 16, the greater Aias (son of Telamon) kept 550 ἔσκε: ἦν (R 16.5); the subject is Sarpedon. — καὶ … περ ἐών: = καίπερ … ὤν (R 24.10, 16.6). — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2). — ἅμ(α): with dat. ‘together with’. 551 ἐν: adverbial, ‘among them’. — ἀριστεύεσκε: iterative form (R 16.5). 552 βάν: = ἔβησαν (R 16.1–2). — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). 554 ὦρσε: aor. of ὄρνυμι. — Μενοιτιάδεω ͜ Πατροκλῆος: on the declension, R 11.1 and 11.3; on the synizesis, R 7.

Commentary 

 253

up the defence of the Greek ships until the end (102  ff.; see 102–123n.) and later encountered Hektor again (358  ff.); the lesser Aias (son of Oïleus) was successful against Kleobulos at 330  ff. (androktasiē scene; see 330n.). But within the Sarpedon episode, the two Aiantes make no further appearance, Patroklos’ battle paraenesis notwithstanding: here they merely form a worthy counterpart to Hektor as the addressee of Glaukos’ battle paraenesis at 538  ff. (West 2011, 323  f.; cf. 538–562n.); in addition, they – or the greater Aias alone – are repeatedly called on jointly for help in emergency situations: 11.465  ff., 12.354  ff., 17.120  ff., 17.508  ff. (Janko on 554–555, with reference to the so-called ‘rebuke pattern’ also present here [538–683n.], in which Aias regularly plays a role).

Αἴαντε πρώτω: Asyndeton occurs repeatedly in clauses with πρῶτος: 1.105, 13.91, 24.710, etc. (Nägelsbach 1834, 275; Janko on 13.46). — Αἴαντε: The dual generally denotes the two heroes named Aias (son of Telamon, son of Oïleus): 2.406n. with biblio­ graphy; also Janko on 13.46; Nappi 2002; West 2011, 270. — μεμαῶτε καὶ αὐτώ: an inflectable VE formula (3× Il.; also 1× σπεύδοντα καὶ αὐτόν [8.293]; καὶ αὐτός in the sense ‘already on one’s own’). Picked up again in the speech capping formulaP at 562: καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀλέξασθαι μενέαινον (see ad loc.).

556–561 On the structure of Patroklos’ battle paraenesis and its parallels with the preceding speech by Glaukos, cf. 538–562n.; in addition, the speech has a number of points in common with Poseidon’s speech (in the guise of Kalchas) addressed to the two Aiantes in Book 13: speech introduction at 555 = 13.46, ‘Aias and Aias, you two  …’ 556 ≈  13.47, challenge to bravery at 557 ≈  13.48, Trojan attack across the camp walls at 558 ≈ 13.50. 556 Αἴαντε, νῦν: Lengthening of the short final vowel before νῦν is attested also at 15.99, 22.303, 23.602 and Od. 4.685; cf. M 4.6. — φίλον ἔστω: Like the attribute φίλος itself (82n.), the phrase φίλον ἐστίν contains both a possessive and an affective connotation: ‘something is one’s own’ and ‘something is dear to one’, frequently in the sense of a characteristic inclination: ‘is typical of him’ (1.107n., 14.69n.)  – which in a sense applies here as well: defensive battle is a strength of the greater Aias in particular (cf. 102–123n.). Together with the imper. ἔστω, the phrase perhaps means ‘make it your job, let it be in your interest’ (‘placeat’: La Roche; ‘resolution’: Fränkel [1951] 1962, 91  f.; ‘vestri esto’: Rosén [1967] 1984, 34; cf. the various proposed translations of similar passages in LfgrE s.v. φίλος 948.28  ff.).

557 1st VH ≈ Od. 11.394; VE ≈ 19.33. — The memory of earlier successes is meant to inspire peak performances, cf. 4.264, 13.228, 17.720  f.: ‘an appeal to out-

555 Αἴαντε πρώτω …: acc. dual. — μεμαῶτε: part. of μέμονα ‘strive, be eager’. 556 σφῶϊν: ‘for you two’ (R 14.1). 557 οἷοί περ: περ is intensive (R  24.10), ‘be already/truely such as  …’.  — ἀρείους: nom. (= ἀρείονες), comparative of ἄριστος: ‘better, stronger, bolder’.

254 

 Iliad 16

do oneself’ (LfgrE s.v. ἀρείων 1224.64 [transl.]; similarly Stoevesandt 2004, 298  f.).

οἷοί περ πάρος ἦτε  …, ἢ καὶ ἀρείους: predicative specification of the subject contained in ἀμύνεσθαι (σφώ ‘you two’ to be understood from σφῶϊν): ‘to resist ⟨as bravely⟩ as earlier or even more bravely’ (AH); ἀρείους is probably a (predicative) acc. with ⟨σφὼ⟩ ἀμύνεσθαι. — ἦτε: formed by analogy from ἦμεν (rather than ἦστε): Schw. 1.677; Chantr. 1.287; West 2001, 240. — μετ’ ἀνδράσι: in the sense ‘the bravest among the men’ (492n. on πολεμιστά). — ἀρείους: The contracted comparative forms (-ω, -ους) are repeatedly present in Homeric epic, even if less common overall than the uncontracted ones (-ονα, -ονες/ας): Chantr. 1.255.

558 From caesura A 4 onward =  12.438 (of Hektor). Sarpedon’s role (already important) in the battle for the encampment of ships in Book 12 (where he tears down the battlements of the camp wall) is magnified in hindsight, see 500n. ‘The slight inaccuracy may serve a rhetorical purpose […]. Recalling the storming of the wall is doubtless meant to instil in Aias complete readiness for battle; it is thus in this situation that the «second best of the Achaians» found in Sarpedon his most powerful opponent’: Stoevesandt 2004, 186  f. (transl.; similarly schol. bT); additional discussion in Hainsworth on 12.438; Andersen 1990, 30; Aceti 2008, 144.  – Much like Glaukos highlighting the importance of Sarpedon for his own people (the Lykians) at 541  f., Patroklos does the same from the Greek point of view; on this shift of perspective, see de Jong (1987) 2004, 151  f.

κεῖται ἀνήρ: 541n. — ἐσήλατο: aor. of εἰσ-άλλομαι ‘storm (the walls)’. This aor. form occurs only here and in the iteratum at 12.438 (as well as in the subjunc. at 11.192/207 and 21.536), elsewhere always root aor. ἄλτο (Hainsworth on 12.438). — τεῖχος Ἀχαιῶν: a noun-epithet formula at VE and before caesura C 2 (7× and 3× Il.).

559–560  Patroklos indirectly proves Glaukos’ concerns at 545 legitimate (see ad loc. on the handling of a slain opponent): heightening of suspense.

Σαρπηδών: emphatic VB position in enjambment.  — ἀλλ’ εἴ μιν ἀεικισσαίμεθ’: a wish clause with εἰ as a weakened form of a command, or in the 1st person, as here, as a declaration of intent: ‘come, let’s disfigure him!’, cf. the hortatory subjunctive in a similar context at 5.467/469 κεῖται ἀνὴρ … ἀλλ’ ἄγετ’ ἐκ φλοίσβοιο σαώσομεν (24.74n. with bibliography; Tabachovitz 1951, 115  f.). – ἀλλά frequently appears with requests at the end of speeches, marking the transition to action (2.360n.). — τεύχεά τ’ ὤμοιϊν ἀφελοίμεθα: ‘Take the armor off the shoulders’ can be said in various ways in early epic: in Book 16, ἀπό τ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕληται 650 (see ad loc.), ἀπ’ ὤμοιϊν Σαρπηδόνος ἔντε’ ἕλοντο 663 (see ad loc.), ἀπ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕλοντο 782, etc. (iterata, see ad loc.); without mention of the shoulders at 500, 545. On the formula system for despoliation

559 εἰ … ἀεικισσαίμεθ(α): wish clause; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

Commentary 

 255

in general, Hoekstra 1981, 21  f. — ὤμοιϊν: Lengthening of the (usually short) dual ending -ιν is common in Homeric epic and is metrically conditioned (Deplazes 1991, 175 n. 624; loc. cit. 172  ff. on oblique dual forms in Greek in general; also Rix [1976] 1992, 141; Meier-Brügger 1992, 68  f.). — τιν’ ἑταίρων: ‘some of the companions’; on τις ‘some’, see Schw. 2.214. 561 αὐτοῦ ἀμυνομένων: ἀμύνομαι ‘defend someone, fight for someone’ is constructed in early epic with a gen. alone (also at 12.155, etc.) or with περί + gen. (18.173, etc.). — νηλέϊ χαλκῷ: 284n.

562 =  15.565 (where also after a battle paraenesis by a Greek leader); 2nd VH ≈  1.590, 5.779.  — That the call to battle falls on open ears (‘they themselves were pushing for defending against the attack’) is often said: 4.286  f., 5.519  ff., 8.293  f., 13.73  f./77  ff., 15.603  f., 16.555.

ἀλέξασθαι: ‘fend off an attack’ (AH); in early epic largely synonymous with ἀμύνεσθαι (at 556 used absolutely, as here; cf. 24.369/371; see LfgrE s.v. ἀμύνω 651.39  ff.; Christensen 2012/13).

563–665 The battle for Sarpedon’s body rages back and forth, with losses on both sides, interspersed with banter between Aineias and Meriones. Zeus induces Patroklos to attack Troy; the Trojans and their allies retreat. At this point, the Greeks manage to capture Sarpedon’s armor. 563–568 The beginning of the depiction of the battle proper for Sarpedon’s corpse. For such moments, the narrator has a preference for generalized descriptions from a bird’s eye view (Fenik 1968, 79  f.; Richardson 1990, 33; see also 3.1–14n. with additional bibliography on the ‘panorama scenes’) as well as for special elements such as divine omens, similes vel sim. (Beye 1964, 353: ‘picturesque introductions’), as also at 4.446  ff., 14.388  ff., 17.262  ff. (on the last mentioned scene in Book 17, cf. 569–592n.). In the present passage, the narrator creates the impression of a tremendous battle (number of warriors involved: 563  f.; noise: 566; duration and intensity: 567  f.; cf. Aceti 2008, 145  f.). Four duels with victories alternating between the sides follow (569–607): Hektor kills Epegeus, Patroklos Sthenelaos, Glaukos Bathykles, and Meriones Laogonos (14.440–505n. [‘chain of fighting’]; Niens 1987, 93  ff.; Janko on 563– 644; cf. 569–592n., 593–602n.). 563 1st VH ≈  3.340, 23.813; 2nd VH =  11.215, 12.415, Hes. Th. 676 (in each case with hetérōthen ‘on the other side’ preceding). — A ‘strengthening of the lines’

560 ὤμοιϊν: gen. dual of ὦμος ‘shoulder’ (cf. R 18.1). 563 οἳ δ(έ): with the names in 564 as appositives.  — ἀμφοτέρωθεν: ‘from/on both sides’ (cf. R 15.1).

256 

 Iliad 16

occurs with the warriors moving closer together and providing cover for one another: formation of a front, cf. 211–217 (esp. 215–217n.). – On the phálanges ‘lines’, 280n. 564 1st VH =  8.173, 11.286, 13.150, 15.425, 15.486, 17.184; ≈  16.685 (acc.); ≈  6.78 (gen.), 4.197/207 (gen., with ἤ); ≈ 11.285, 15.424, 15.485 (dat., with τε καί). — A chiastic verse with the key contingents in the scene placed in the center: Trojans – Lykians | Myrmidons – Achaians (AH). The phrase ‘Myrmidons and Achaians’ is unique; the reference is to ‘the Myrmidons and the rest of the Greeks’ (cf. 2.684n., end). — Τρῶες καὶ Λύκιοι: an inflectable VB formula (see iterata, usually in the voc. in combination with καὶ Δάρδανοι ἀγχιμαχηταί). 565 ≈ 526 (see ad loc.). — σύμβαλον … μάχεσθαι: cf. 12.377 σὺν δ’ ἐβάλοντο μάχεσθαι (middle), 3.69  f. ἐμ(ὲ) … καὶ … Μενέλαον | συμβάλετ(ε) … μάχεσθαι (transitive). On the intransitive use of the active here, cf. 21.578 ξυμβλήμεναι ἠὲ δαμῆναι (approximately = ‘fight’), with dat. object at Od. 21.15 ξυμβλήτην ἀλλήλοιϊν; see Leaf; Schw. 2.219. — ἀμφὶ νέκυι: on the construction, 496n., end.

566 1st VH ≈ 14.401. — On the combination of cries of attack (267n.) and noise created by weapons or armor (105n.) as a ‘characterisation of the overall battle’, see Krapp 1966, 185 (transl.; with parallels: 4.446–451, 12.337–340).

δεινὸν ἀΰσαντες: δεινόν ‘terrible’ in the original sense, ‘fear-inducing (causing fright in others)’, cf. 706 (Krapp 1964, 238; Kaimio 1977, 60  f.; 105n.). — μέγα δ’ ἔβραχε τεύχεα φωτῶν: μέγα δ’ ἔβραχε is a phrase after caesura B 1 (also at 5.838: chariot axle, h.Bacch. 45: Dionysos as a lion), βράχε τεύχεα elsewhere likewise after caesura B 1 (12.396, 13.181, 14.420, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 423); τεύχεα φωτῶν is a VE formula (also at 23.15). – On the aor. ἔβραχε ‘resound’ (cf. English ‘crack, crash’), 19.13n.

567–568 It would normally be expected at this point that Zeus, following Hera’s advice at 450  ff., would arrange for the transfer of his dead son to Lykia. But by having the two warring parties fight over the body (namely until it is unrecognizable: 638  ff.), Zeus attempts to increase Sarpedon’s ‘value’ (Reucher 1983, 324; Aceti 2008, 146). – Whenever a god covers the battlefield in darkness (or lifts the darkness again), the consequences need not be exclusively practical (in the sense that warriors cannot see anything or conversely can see once again), but can also have symbolic significance: ‘here, the darkening is evidently conceived of as linked to toil and dying’; moreover, like the drops of blood, the night is an expression of Zeus’ mourning for his son: Fränkel (1951) 1962, 80  f. (quotation: 80 [transl.]); Kakridis 1971a, 95; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 245; Edwards on 17.268–273; 459–461n. Parallels: Ares aids the Trojans by ‘wrapping night around the battle’ (5.506  f.); when the Achaians fight for

566 μέγα: ‘loud’. — φωτῶν: ‘of the men’ (nom. sing. ὁ φώς).

Commentary 

 257

Patroklos’ corpse, Zeus ‘pours much fog about the helmets’ (17.268–270, 17.366– 373, 17.643–650 [but this passage emphasizes the impairment of vision]); when Achilleus battles at the Skamandros, Hera ‘spreads dense/deep fog’ (21.6  f.); lifting of darkness: 15.668–670, 17.649  f.; outside Homeric epic: collection of examples in West 1997, 139  f.; 2007, 480. Additional bibliography: Fenik 1968, 22, 52  f. (part of the so-called ‘rebuke pattern’: 538–683n.); Kakridis loc. cit., esp. 93–96 (in detail on the composition and function of the motif); Kirk on 5.127–130; Edwards loc. cit.; also 1.47n. On the related motif of fog providing invisibility, 3.380b–381n.

A number of elements indicate secondary focalizationP on the part of Zeus: ὀλοός (character languageP, twice [567n.]), κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ (character language [447n.]), φίλῳ περὶ παιδί (periphrastic denominationP), ὄφρα  … εἴη (opt. indicating indirect discourse) (suggestions by de Jong and Führer).

567 1st VH ≈ Od. 11.19; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 17.543. — ἐπὶ νύκτ’ … τάνυσε … ὑσμίνῃ: cf. Od. 11.19 ἐπὶ νὺξ ὀλοὴ τέταται … βροτοῖσι (among the Kimmerians), Hes. Op. 549 ἀὴρ … τέταται μακάρων ἐπὶ ἔργοις (in winter); on the use of τανύω in this context, 365n. (λαίλαπα τείνῃ). Whether ἐπί is here (a) to be linked with τανύω as a preverb in tmesis (AH; thus probably also at Od. 11.19; Od. 18.137 of Zeus is analogous: οἶον ἐπ’ ἦμαρ ἄγησι, cf. Hes. Th. 176 of Ouranos: νύκτ’ ἐπάγων) or (b) goes with ὑσμίνῃ as a preposition (LfgrE s.v. τανύω 315.1; thus probably also ἐπὶ ἔργοις at Hes. Op. 549) cannot be determined with any certainty; the number of parallels, as well as the word order, point to (a). — νύκτ’ ὀλοήν: ὀλοός ‘bringing doom’ is character languageP (de Jong [1987] 2004, 141  f.; 1992, 9; on Od. 3.130–85), here in reference to the intended ὀλοὸς πόνος (568, see ad loc.). ὀλοός is an epithet of the night (also 22.102, Od. 11.19; Nyx: Hes. Th. 224, 757) and other natural phenomena (fire, wind), as well as of fate, death, suffering and war (e.g. 568 πόνος [see below], 771 φόβος, 849 μοῖρα) and of characters (24.39n.): Graz 1965, 127– 129; Schein 1984, 166 n. 48; LfgrE. On the epithets of the night in general, Mureddu 1983, 64–66; de Jong 1998, 130–133. — κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: on the formula, 447n. 568 περὶ παιδί: περί with (local) dat. denoting the object being fought over is less common overall than περί with gen. (Leaf; Schw. 2.501; on περί + gen., 18.195n.). — ὀλοὸς πόνος: The repetition of the attribute underlines the direct link between νύξ and πόνος (Janko on 567–568; Fehling 1969, 263; Segal 1971, 18  f.). On πόνος ‘labor of battle’, 6.77n. (here explicitly with gen. μάχης; similarly 17.41  f. πόνος … | … ἤ τ’ ἀλκῆς ἤ τε φόβοιο). – An emotive high frequency of o-sounds and liquids occurs together with ὀλοός in the context of war also at 3.133 ὀλοοῖο λιλαιόμενοι πολέμοιο, 16.771 μνώοντ’ ὀλοοῖο φόβοιο.

569–592 The battle surging to and fro over Sarpedon’s corpse is depicted via the example of two complementary scenes, each comprised of 12 verses (Niens 1987, 93–96, 97  f.): (1) 569–580 Trojans advance, Hektor kills a Myrmidon (Epegeus)

568 ὄφρα: final (R 22.5).

258 

 Iliad 16

with a rock; (2) 581–592 Patroklos responds, killing a Trojan (Sthenelaos), likewise with a rock, and the Trojans retreat. Both scenes are expanded: (1) via an ‘obituary’ (572–576), (2) with similes (582  f., 589  ff.). The troop movements at the beginning and the end of the section are related to each other clearly as well (bird’s eye view): 569 ‘first, the Trojans pushed back the Achaians’ – 592 ‘the Achaians pushed back the Trojans’ (Kurz 1966, 33; on indecisive phases of battle in general: 6.2n.; Stoevesandt 2004, 98–103; Kelly 2007, 106–108). In the middle, a repeated interchange between ‘zooming out’ (total view) and ‘zooming in’ (detailed view) results, similar to that in the Glaukos-Bathykles scene that follows: 569 / 570  ff. / 582  ff. / 586  f. / 588  ff. / 593  ff. / 599  ff. (Richardson 1990, 121  f.; de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 78  f.; de Jong 2007, 32; Raaflaub 2007/8, 475; cf. 754–782n.). – The depiction of the battle for Patroklos’ body at 17.274  ff. will pick up the present section in various details beyond the traditional re­ pertoire (anticipation of scenesP): 16.569 = 17.274 (introductory verse), 16.577  ff. ≈ 17.288  ff. (during the attempt to secure the body, one warrior apiece is killed by Hektor and Aias [577n.]; both die of head injuries and fall on top of the corpse being fought over [VE of 16.579 = 17.300]), 16.582  f. ≈ 17.281  f. (a simile illustrates the Greeks’ attack), 16.588 = 17.316 (Trojan retreat); see 419–683n.; Peters 1922, 109  f. n.  4; Fenik 1968, 173  f., 206; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 100; Janko on 563–644 (taking into account the motif of darkness, cf. 567–568n.). – On the function of the parallelism of 411–414 and 577–580 (in part with literal repetitions), 411–414n. 569 = 17.274. — ἑλίκωπας Ἀχαιούς: an inflectable VE formula (6× Il.: 1.389n.); on the obscure meaning of the generic epithet, 1.98n.

570–580 Battle scene in an ABC-schemeP (287–290an. with bibliography): (A) ‘Epegeus has been hit’, (B) so-called obituary, (C) ‘he hit this one …’ (with a demonstrative pronoun and repetition of the predicate). – The obituary motif ‘exile as a result of manslaughter’ (572–576, see 24.480–484n. with biblio­ graphy) serves to add emotion to the scene, cf. Patroklos’ response at 581/585 (Merz 1953, 15  f.; Priess 1977, 166; Stoevesandt 2004, 135  f.; de Jong 2007, 21). Epegeus’ fate mirrors that of Patroklos: both (1) find refuge with the hospitable Peleus after killing someone (Patroklos: 23.84–90; so too incidentally does Phoinix: 9.447–484); (2) are sent to Troy together with Achilleus (on the placement of such refugees as ‘companions’, e.g. also Lykophron in Aias’ re­ tinue at 15.430–432 and Adrestos with Kroisos at Hdt. 1.41  ff.; Trypanis 1963, 293  ff.; Gschnitzer 1976, 83 with n.  181); and (3) die before Troy. In this regard, Epegeus’ death probably anticipates Patroklos’ imminent passing (cf. 569 ὦσαν: from ὠθέω ‘push, press’. — Τρῶες (ϝ)ελίκωπας: on the prosody, R 4.5.

Commentary 

 259

569–592n.). Bibliography: Strasburger 1954, 30; Schlunk 1976, 202–204, 206; Sacks 1987, 133  f.; Stanley 1993, 173 with n.  18; Giordano 1999, 104  f.; Nünlist 2009a, 630. 570 The narrator places an explanation for the Achaian retreat described in the preceding verse emphatically at the beginning of the sentence: ‘since … had been hit’; likewise VB at 17.598.  — ‘By no means the least man (among the Myrmidons)’ is a litotes, likewise of Nestor’s son Antilochos (specified as ‘superior in race and battle’: Od. 4.199–202) and of the suitor Antinoos (‘not the least, but the greatest, like a king’: Od. 17.415  f., ironic); similarly Il. 15.11 ‘not the weakest’ of Aias. Patroklos is elsewhere considered ‘the greatest’ (18.10n.) of the Myrmidons – with the exception of Achilleus; hence Janko on 570–574: ‘Do we fear for a moment that Patroklos is dead?’. At the same time, other slain warriors are also often designated ‘the greatest’: 292n. – On the effective stylistic figure that delays mentioning the name, 521n. 571 1st VH ≈  17.602.  — Filling an entire verse with only the denomination of a person signals the significance of the character within the narrative (1.36n.): here the first Greek victim mentioned by name since Patroklos’ intervention. The postposition of the personal name creates additional suspense (6.7–8n. with parallels: ‘delayed for effect’; cf. Tsagarakis 1982, 130  f.: ‘Dislocation of information […] does not seem to happen at random’). — Agakles is attested as a mythological figure only here, but is common as a historical name; it means ‘he who has great fame, is very renowned’, also used as an adjective (738n.). Epēgeus, like Menesthios, Eudoros, Peisandros (173–195n.) and later Bathykles (594), is probably a name invented ad hoc for a Myrmidon (attested nowhere else; on the ‘extras’ of the Iliad, 306–357n.).

μεγαθύμου: 286n. — δῖος: a generic heroic epithetP, in the present verse position predominantly of Achilleus (5n., end) and Odysseus, less commonly of Eumaios; of other characters, as here, only 1–3× each (Foley 1999, 214  f. with n. 36 p. 311). — Ἐπηγεύς: this is the spelling in the majority of manuscripts (including Venetus A), while Eustathius, followed in most modern editions and translations, writes Ἐπειγεύς/Epeigeus. Probably based on ἐπείγω ‘urge’, the name is to be interpreted as ‘«besieger» of enemies, or because he (beset and) killed his cousin’: Bosshardt 1942, 99 (transl.); Risch 158.

572 Several alternatives were suggested in antiquity for the geographical position of the town Boudeion, which can no longer be located: (1) in Thessaly (schol. D), namely either (a) in Phthiotis proper, i.e. close to Phthia, which was under the rule of Peleus (schol. bT), or (b) in Magnesia, the coastal area of Thessaly (Steph. Byz. β 136); (2) in Boiotia

570 βλῆτο: ‘was struck’, middle root aor. of βάλλω with a pass. meaning. — οὔ τι: τι strengthens the negative (303n.), ‘in no way’ (here with κάκιστος in litotes). — μετά + dat.: ‘among’.

260 

 Iliad 16

(alternative in schol. bT); (3) Boudeia in Phrygia (Steph. Byz. loc. cit., mentioned only for the sake of completeness). (1) is indicated by both multiple attestations and the fact that an Athene Boudeia was worshipped in Thessaly (Steph. Byz. loc. cit.; Trümpy 1994). The objection raised by schol. bT especially regarding (1a) – that a murderer would not generally go into exile in his own country (schol. bT) – may perhaps be refuted by the fact that Epegeus himself was an ánax ‘ruler’ (cf. Janko on 570–574) and thus had less to fear. — εὖ ναιομένῳ: ‘where the living is good’ (LfgrE s.v. ναίω 297.57  ff.); a generic epithet of places and of the appellative ‘city’ (11× Il., 1× Od.; also 1× Il. VE).

573 The phrase ‘before, but then/now’ modifies after the fact the statement just made (which describes the original state) and initiates a change instrumental to the current situation, cf. 6.124  f. (Diomedes to Glaukos: all this time I have not seen you, but now you have come to the fore), 13.439  ff. (Alkathoös’ armor had always held up until now), Od. 4.517  f. (the story of Agamemnon’s return home: where Thyestes once ruled, now Aigisthos rules), 15.225  ff. (Melampus fled his homeland Pylos and came to Argos), h.Cer. 450  f. (the land, up to this point always fertile, remains barren because of Demeter’s influence); both in the present passage and at Od. 15.228, ‘then’ does not refer to the narrated present, as normally, but to an indefinite moment in time before that (Barth 1989, 17  f. with n. 48; Clark 1997, 89  f.; Richardson on h.Cer. 450–451; Janko on 570–574; Graziosi/Haubold on 6.125 [‘«corrective» enjambment’]).  – In early epic, the murder of kinsmen is mentioned only in retrospectives and paradigmatic mythological stories: also at 2.662  f. (Tlepolemos kills Likymnios, his father’s uncle), 9.566  f. (Meleagros kills one of his mother Althaia’s brothers), 15.335  f. (Medon kills one of his stepmother’s close relatives), Od. 1.29  ff., etc. (Agamemnon is killed by Klytaimestra and Aigisthos and is avenged by Orestes), 11.273 (Oidipus kills his father), 19.522  f. (Aëdon kills her son and is transformed into a nightingale). Bibliography: Seaford 1994, 11  f.

τὸ πρίν· ἀτὰρ τότε γ(ε): VB = h.Cer. 451, ≈ Od. 4.518 (without γε); τὸ πρίν ἀτὰρ (μὲν) νῦν Il. 6.125, Od. 4.32, h.Ap. 476. On τὸ πρίν, 208n. — ἐσθλὸν ἀνεψιόν: ἐσθλός ‘excellent’ (327n.) frequently serves as an epithet with designations of kinship, patronymics, ἑταῖρος, etc.; with ἀνεψιός also at 10.519 (LfgrE s.v. ἐσθλός 735.76  ff.). — ἐξεναρίξας: one of the standard verbs in epic meaning ‘kill’ (originally ‘take the armor off a slain opponent’; 1.191n., 6.20n.).

574 On Thetis in Phthia, 222–224n. — ἐς Πηλῆ’ ἱκέτευσε: i.e. ‘came to Peleus as a suppliant’, cf. 9.479  f. (Phoinix in a similar situation) Φθίην δ’ ἐξικόμην … | ἐς Πηλῆα ἄναχθ’,

572 ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — Βουδείῳ εὖ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. 573 ἀτάρ: ‘but, yet’ (R 24.2). 574 Πηλῆ(α): on the declension, R 11.3.

Commentary 

 261

‘Hes.’ Sc. 13 (Amphitryon) ἐς Θήβας ἱκέτευσε … Καδμείους; de Boel 1988, 103. — Θέτιν ἀργυρόπεζαν: an inflectable VE formula, only here in the acc. (222–224n.). 575 Ἀχιλλῆϊ ῥηξήνορι: 146n. 576 = Od. 14.71; ≈ Od. 11.169. — Ἴλιον εἰς εὔπωλον: a VB formula (2× Il., 3× Od.); the epithet is attested only in this formula and at Il. parv. fr. 1.1 West (VE Δαρδανίην εὔπωλον). Troy was famous for its horses, cf. ἱππόδαμος as an epithet for the Trojans (2.230n. with bibliography; also Bowra 1960, 18). — ἵνα: ‘so that there’ (final/local): 24.382n. with bibliography; also Monteil 1963, 380; Willmott 2007, 158–160. — Τρώεσσι μάχοιτο: 209n.

577 Whenever a warrior is attempting to recover or capture a corpse (usually by dragging it by the foot: 762–763n.), his attention is naturally limited, his body less well protected by the shield; being killed at this moment is a typical motif of Homeric epic: 4.467  ff., 11.257  ff., 17.288  ff. (Fenik 1968, 174, 206, 233; Horn 2014, 105; Hainsworth on 11.258; Edwards on 17.288–303).  – A list of the Greeks killed by Hektor is provided by Singor 1991, 54 n. 113.

τόν ῥα τόθ’: 228n. — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: a VE formula (29× Il., of which 11× in Books 16– 18 [Patroklos storyline]); prosodic alternative (initial vowel): ὄβριμος Ἕκτωρ (4× Il.). – φαίδιμος is a generic epithetP of heroes (and body parts), most commonly of Hektor, less frequently of Achilleus, Aias, Odysseus, etc. It probably has a merely ornamental meaning (‘radiant, magnificent’): 6.144n.; de Jong on Il. 22.274–275; Camerotto 2009, 88. – The view of Sacks 1987, 105  ff., 131  ff. (the epithet is used for contrast in a pejorative context: ‘The shine loses its luster’ [loc. cit. 150]; cf. Bouvier 2002, 207  f.) is not very plausible.

578–580 ≈ 412–414 (see 411–414n.); 578 also ≈ 20.387. — On rocks as weapons, 411n.

579 ≈ 413 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH + VB 580 ≈ 310  f., 413  f.; 2nd VH ≈ 15.543, 21.118; VE = 17.300. — On the motif ‘the stricken warrior falls’, 289–290n.; a warrior dying on top of a corpse in the battle for that corpse is also reported at 4.493 and 17.300 and summarily described at 16.660–662 (569–592n.; Fenik 1968, 174). 580 = 414 (see ad loc.); ≈ 13.544. 581–587 Patroklos (who here reemerges into the limelight for the first time after killing Sarpedon) takes revenge on Sthenelaos for Epegeus (on this motif, 398n.; on the scene as a whole, also 569–592n., 588n.).

575 ἅμ(α) … πέμπον ἕπεσθαι: ‘they sent him to accompany (Achilleus) to war, they sent him (as a follower) to war’ (ἕπεσθαι inf.); cf. 671. — Ἀχιλλῆι (ϝ)ρηξήνορι: R 4.5. 576 Ἴλιον εἰς: = εἰς Ἴλιον (R 20.2). 577 τόν ῥα: ‘and so him’ (sc. Epegeus). — ἁπτόμενον: The part. corresponds to a conative impf., ‘as he was trying to put his hand on the corpse’. — νέκυος: sc. of Sarpedon. 578 κεφαλήν: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

262 

 Iliad 16

581–585 are a ring-compositionP, with double mention of Patroklos: emotion (ἄχος  … ἑτάροιο) – ἴθυσεν – simile – ἰθὺς … ἔσσυο – emotion (with intensification: κεχόλωσο κῆρ ἑτάροιο) (Janko on 581–585).

581 Verse structure (dat. + ἄχος γένετο + gen. with part.) ≈ 12.392. — ἄχος γένετο: 508n. (where of Glaukos after the death of Sarpedon). — φθιμένου ἑτάροιο: on the prosody (originally initial digamma in ἕταρος?), 19.345n.

582–583 Comparison of warriors with birds is typical of epic (428–430n.); on the bird of prey hunting smaller birds, esp. 15.690  ff., 17.460, 22.139  ff., Od. 22.302  f. (reverse perspective, i.e. the birds that are preyed on flee from the predator: Il. 17.755  ff., 21.493  ff.). The present simile illustrates the speed of the attack as well as the aggressiveness and superiority of the attacker (Hampe 1952, 17  f.; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 52–54; Johansson 2012, 150–154; Janko on 582– 583: ‘deadly speed’; on the comparison ‘swift as a bird’ in general, 2.764n.). 582 1st VH = 17.281 (likewise with a simile folllowing); 2nd VH (after caesura C 1) = 15.237. — Prómachoi ‘fighters at the front’ refers to the first row of the Greek troop formation (3.16n.; Latacz 1977, 147, 159  f.). The Trojan prómachoi in 588 are complementary.

ἴθυσεν δὲ διὰ προμάχων: = 17.281, an intensifying variant of the VB formula βῆ δὲ διὰ προμάχων (9× Il.), usually of successful warriors; in contrast, θῦνε διὰ προμάχων (5.250, 11.342, 20.412, only in the middle of a sentence) of warriors whose death is imminent. On ἰθύω ‘to advance’, 6.2n. — ἴρηκι: Like German ‘Falke’/English ‘hawk’, ἴρηξ (Attic ἱέραξ) appears to be a generic term for various species of raptors; given the prey mentioned in 583, the predator here may be the peregrine falcon – known for its speed – or the sparrowhawk (LfgrE; Pollard 1977, 80  f.; Arnott 2007, 66  ff.; Johansson 2012, 152). Discussion regarding the obscure etymology of the word at 18.616–617n.

583 The speed of the írēx (‘hawk’) is often highlighted in early epic: 13.62, 13.819, 15.237  f., Od. 13.86  f., Hes. Op. 212. – Jackdaws and starlings occur together also at 17.755  ff. in a similar context. They tend to appear in larger flocks; jackdaws are also conspicuous because of their varied, usually shrill calls. On the basis of these associations, the Trojans and Lykians appear here as a disorganized, shrieking crowd, cf. 3.2  ff. (schol. A and T on 17.755; Pollard 1977, 27  f., 38  f.; Arnott 2007, 104  f., 200  f.; Johansson 2012, 152, 154).

ὠκέϊ, ὅς τ(ε): Attributes and relative clauses have an expanding function in similes and are frequently enjambed, as here (8n.).  — ἐφόβησε: On augmented aor. forms in similes, 299–300n.  — ψῆρας: The manuscripts transmit two different spellings of

581 ἑτάροιο: = ἑταίρου; causal gen. with ἄχος. 582 ἴρηκι (ϝ)ε(ϝ)οικώς: on the hiatus, R 4.3. 583 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).

Commentary 

 263

the word stem: here (and in Quintus Smyrnaeus) ψηρ-, at 17.755 (and in the majority of post-Homeric literature) ψᾱρ-. According to views mooted in the scholia, the form ψᾶρας (with the two alphas having different quantities) was avoided for reasons of aural aesthetics (schol. T ad loc. and on 17.755); linguistically, the difference has not been explained with any certainty (DELG s.v. ψάρ; Janko on 582–583; West in the app.crit.).

584–585 Partially a literal repetition of the simile introduction at 581  f. (7n.). As at 754, the apostrophe follows an (attack) simile, probably with a dramatizing and/or emotionalizing effect (20n.; cf. Janko on 581–585, end). On anger as the trigger for a counter-attack, 320n. (revenge motif: 581–587n.).

ἰθύς: 552n.  — Λυκίων  …  |  … καὶ Τρώων: a conspicuous separation of words across predicate and verse boundaries, with Λυκίων and Τρώων in the same position in the verse, perhaps imitating Patroklos’ ‘forward rush’; a similar arrangement at Hes. Th. 3  f. and 253  f. On the phrase ‘Trojans and Lycians’, 564n. with iterata. — Πατρόκλεις ἱπποκέλευθε: 126n. — κεχόλωσο … κῆρ: κῆρ is one of the interchangeable soul-spirit lexemes; χολόομαι thus occurs in conjunction with θυμόν also at 4.494, ἦτορ at 14.367, φρένα at Od. 6.147, κραδίην at h.Ap. 256 (1.24n., 1.44n.; Jahn 1987, 288  f.). On the various expressions for ‘rage in the heart/internally’, cf. 61 κεχολῶσθαι ἐνὶ φρεσίν (prepositional phrase) and (with χώομαι) 616 θυμὸν ἐχώσατο (see ad loc.). – For bibliography specifically on χόλος, 30n. — δέ: substantiating (AH; see 90n.).

586 in terms of structure (VB + ‘X, son of Y’) ≈ 15.445; VB also = 13.651, 21.591; ≈ 4.459, 6.9, 14.465, 15.433 (τόν ῥ’). — After an apostrophe (here at 584  f.), the narrator regularly returns to use of the 3rd person, here ‘and then he struck …’; likewise at 697, 789, 17.681, 17.705, 23.601 (and in any case after an apostrophe in a speech introduction formula): schol. A (on which, Matthaios 1999, 391). — Sthenelaos is a Trojan or Lykian who appears only here (on the ‘extras’ in the Iliad, 306–357n.). The same name (in the abbreviated form Sthenelos) is borne by (a) one of the leaders of the contingent from the southern Argolid (2.564, see 2.563–565n.) and (b) the son of Perseus and Andromeda (19.116n.). The Greek name likely means ‘he with strong men’ and is attested historically (von Kamptz 68, 221; Wathelet and LfgrE s.v.; LGPN s.vv. Sthenelaos, Sthenelas, Sthenelos). Ithaimenes likewise occurs only here in early epic (on the meaning, see below); in the post-Homeric period, this is the name of a mythological character on a painting by Polygnotos (Pausanias 10.25.3) and is also attested

585 ἔσσυο: root aor. (2nd pers. sing.) of σεύομαι ‘hurry, rush, dash’. — Ἰθαιμένεος: gen. sing.; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — κεχόλωσο: 2nd pers. sing. plpf. mid. (κεχόλωμαι intensifying perf.). — κῆρ: ‘heart’ (acc. of respect: R 19.1). 586  f. Σθενέλαον … | αὐχένα: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1). — ῥῆξεν … ἀπό: ‘tore off, ripped apart’ (on the position of ἀπό, cf. R 20.2; likewise 588 χώρησαν … ὑπό ‘retreated’). — τοῖο: i.e. τοῦ αὐχένος (anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17).

264 

 Iliad 16

historically (LGPN). – On filling out the verse with an appositive, 126n. — Given the injuries (587), the strike is probably fatal even if that is not stated explicitly by the narrator (Saunders 2004, 11  f.).

Ἰθαιμένεος: formally like Πυλαιμένης 2.851n., Ταλαιμένης 2.865n. – The initial element is unclear (*ἰθα- ‘here’ like ἔνθα ‘there’? or related to ἰθαρός ‘bright, clean’?), cf. ἰθα(ι) γενής Od. 14.203 ‘indigenous’ or ‘lawfully, of legitimate birth’. The short ῐ- means that it is not related to  ῑ´ θύς. Perhaps originally non-Greek (from Asia Minor?) and subsequently hellenized. Bibliography: Risch 217; von Kamptz 76  f., 103, 199; Wathelet s.v.; DELG s.v. ἰθαιγενής; Scherer 1976, 44; Meissner 2006, 19. — φίλον υἱόν: an inflectable VE formula (nom./acc.: 10× Il., 17× Od., 3× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom.; cf. 447n.); with a patronymic in the gen. preceding, as here: 9× Od. (Ὀδυσσῆος), ‘Hes.’ fr. 257.1 M.-W. (Ἀρίσβαντος); with patronymic + epithet at Il. 2.564 (Σθένελος, Καπανῆος ἀγακλειτοῦ φίλος υἱός), 12.355 (of Menestheus); cf. 14n., end.

587 Patroklos kills Sthenelaos in a manner similar to that by which Hektor earlier killed Epegeus: with a rock to the throat (Niens 1987, 95  f.; cf. 569–592n.). On the throat as a typical location for a fatal injury, 332n.; on rocks as weapons, 411n.

ῥῆξεν δ’ ἀπὸ τοῖο τένοντας: ἀπό (ἄπο) probably with ῥῆξεν, τοῖο a possessive gen., i.e. ‘he tore apart its (i.e. the throat’s) tendons’, cf. on the one hand 15.537 ῥῆξε δ’ ἄφ’ ἵππειον λόφον αὐτοῦ, on the other hand 14.466 ἀπὸ δ’ ἄμφω κέρσε τένοντε (Reeve 1998, 253; additional parallels: LfgrE s.v. ἀπό 1089.1  ff.). — τένοντας: part of the musculoskeletal system, not always clearly defined: ‘sinews, ligaments, muscles’ (LfgrE; Saunders 1999, 358; Bolens 2000, 23–26), a part of the throat also at 10.455–457, 14.465–468 (14.466n.), Od. 3.449  f., ‘Hes.’ Sc. 418–420 (all killing scenes).

588 = 4.505, 17.316. The repeated verse describes how the Trojans, in a battle raging to and fro, begin to retreat under attack from a Greek hero: in Book 4, the attacker is Odysseus (avenging a fallen companion, like Patroklos here), in Book 17, Aias (after a Trojan advance at 17.274 = 16.569) (Albracht [1886] 2005, 56; Fenik 1968, 175; cf. 569–592n.). The retreat happens across only a short distance and is temporary: Glaukos turns to attack again at 593  f.; cf. 6.107n.

φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: a noun-epithet formula (577n.); 7× Il. with καί preceding.

589–592 The simile describes, from a Greek perspective, the (limited) distance across which the Trojans are retreating; it has close parallels in terms of content and language at 15.358  f. and 23.431  f. (on comparisons of distance in general, see 3.12n. with bibliography; Scott 1974, 20  f.). A spear throw is a common unit of distance in early epic (ca. 40–80 meters): 10.357, 15.358  f., 21.251, 23.529; cf. Janko on 15.358–361; Latacz 1977, 125. – The image derives from the same sphere as the context of the action (14.147–152n. with parallels): spear throws are a part of war  – but also of sport, cf. the athletic spear-throwing contest between Aias and Diomedes at 23.798  ff. (2.774–775an.); the combina-

Commentary 

 265

tion of war and sport is also found at e.g. 808  f. (Euphorbos is victorious in javelin throwing, chariot racing and running), 15.641  f. (Periphetes excels at running and wrestling), 22.159  ff. (running and chariot racing as comparisons for Achilleus pursuing Hektor): Visa-Ondarçuhu 1999, 43–45, 50–52. 589 A similar verse structure with identical VB and VE: 24.317. — αἰγανέης: αἰγανέη denotes a light spear with a throwing strap used in hunting and sports (2.774–775an. with bibliography).  — ῥιπή: here ‘flight’ (basic meaning. ‘momentum, force’: 19.358n.).  — ταναοῖο: ‘long, elongated’, a hapaxP in the Iliad (on the etymology, LfgrE s.v. with biblio­graphy; also Meissner 2006, 62; Beekes). The adj. with two termination is attested only here and 1× in Euripides (Ba. 831), here perhaps by analogy with the VE -οιο τέτυκται found elsewhere (6× Il./Od.): Kastner 1967, 28  f. 590 ἥν ῥά τ(ε): The relative clause with ὅς ῥά τε + subjunc. serves to expand the simile (11× Il.: Ruijgh 441–443; cf. 8n.). On ὅς ῥά τε in general, Ruijgh 353, 439  ff. — ἀφέῃ: aor. subjunc. of ἀφίημι with shortening rather than -ήῃ (ἀφήῃ 17.631, ἀνήῃ 2.34); see 83n. on θείω; Schw. 1.792.  — πειρώμενος: sc. σθένεος, as in the parallel passage at 15.359: ‘test his strength’; likewise at Od. 21.282 (Odysseus prior to the contest of the bow): Laser 1987, 14  f., 55; Janko on 15.358–361. — ἀέθλῳ: can denote both fighting in war (3.126n.) and competition in sports; here the reference is to the latter, in combination with πειρώμενος. 591 2nd VH = 18.220. — The verse is deleted by West, following Fick 1886, 501 (who considers 590  f. ‘absolutely pointless’ [transl.]) and especially Leaf (‘awkward line’), as a ‘rhetorical expansion’ (West 2001, 12). The 1st VH ἠὲ καὶ ἐν πολέμῳ was wrongly added on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of πειρώμενος ἠ’ ἐν ἀέθλῳ (‘in training or competition’ would be correct, but see 590n. on πειρώμενος), while the 2nd VH was adopted from 18.220 (with loosely connected ὑπό): Leaf. But listing several objects for comparison is a typical element of similes (482–486n.); see also 589–592n. on the association of sport and war. — δηΐων ὕπο: The man hurled the spear ‘under pressure from the enemy, beset by enemies’ (AH; Chantr. 2.143); on the prosody of δηΐων, 6.81–82n. — θυμοραϊστέων: ͜ 414n. 592 On the structure of the action, 569–592n. — ἐχώρησαν: repetition from 588 of the keyword of the simile in the manner of a ring-composition (7n.). — ὤσαντο: The etymology of ὠθέω is disputed; it is thus unclear if an initial digamma is to be posited (DELG and Beekes).

589 ὅσση: ‘as far’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1 (likewise 592 τόσσον). — τέτυκται: 3rd pers. sing. perf. pass. of τεύχω ‘prepare, make’, here ‘is carried out’, weakened to mean ‘is’ (ῥιπὴ τέτυκται is periphrastic for ῥίπτεται vel sim.). 590 ἠ(έ): = ἤ. — ἀέθλῳ: = ἄθλῳ (on the uncontracted form, R 6). 591 δηΐων ὕπο: = ὑπὸ δηΐων (R 20.2). — θυμοραϊστέων: ͜ on the declension, R 11.1; on the synizesis, R 7. 592 Τρῶες(ς), ὤσαντο: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura); on the middle, R 23.

266 

 Iliad 16

593–602 Glaukos lends renewed courage to his people with a surprise counter-attack and halts the retreat, but the Greeks quickly overcome the scare of losing a man and give as good as they get. – 593–599 represent a fighting scene in an ABC-schemeP (see 287–290an. with bibliography). The ‘obituary’ (section B, 595  f.) contains typical motifs (‘genealogy’, ‘homeland’ and ‘wealth’ of the fallen warrior) and serves to lend pathos to the victim. Section C (597  ff.) is linked to section A (594) via a demonstrative pronoun and synonymous verbs (‘turn around’, ‘kill’) (cf. 812). 593 2nd VH = 490 (see ad loc.), 541. — On the specification ‘first’, 284n. 594 That a single hero turns around unexpectedly during a retreat and kills his pursuer on the spot is unique in the Iliad (schol. bT on 594 [on which, Nünlist 2009, 310–312]; Fenik 1968, 110, 207  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 167; Janko on 593–599). In this way the narrator fulfills the expectations raised by Glaukos’ prayer to Apollo (524  ff.): ‘Glaukos must have at least one success in the battle for the body; this is it’ (West 2011, 324; cf. Stoevesandt loc. cit. 187  f.). — The name Bathykles means ‘he with deep (i.e. great) fame’ (≈ Agakles, see 571n.; cf. Pindar Ol. 7.53: kléos bathý ‘deep fame’), exemplified in the relative clause at 595  f. ‘who stood out in wealth’ (etymologizingP of the name: Rank 1951, 88). Here a name invented ad hoc for a Myrmidon (cf. 571n. on Epegeus); it is attested historically several times (LGPN). – In Book 16, Bathykles is the second Greek victim after Epegeus to be mentioned by name and is again a Myrmidon.

ἔτραπετ(ο): here absolute ‘turned around ⟨to face his pursuers⟩’, cf. perf./plpf. τετραμμένος/τέτραπτο meaning ‘facing the enemy’ (5.605 πρὸς Τρῶας, 13.542 ἐπὶ οἷ, 14.403 πρὸς ἰθύν [see ad loc.], 17.227 ἰθύς, 17.598 πρόσω). The aor. in the present passage perhaps implies the suddenness of Glaukos’ movement (cf. 598). – In this case, στρεφθείς (598) is the expression used for a single fighter turning around in the middle of retreat: formulaic verse στῆ δὲ μεταστρεφθείς 11.595, 15.591, 17.114, with 17.732  f. simi­ lar; ὑποστρεφθείς 11.567 (Kurz 1966, 82). On picking up τρέπομαι via στρέφομαι, cf. 18.138  f. (Thetis πάλιν τράπε(το) … | καὶ στρεφθεῖσ(α) …). — Βαθυκλῆα μεγάθυμον: a personal name in -κλῆα + μεγάθυμον also at 5.547 (Διοκλῆα), 12.379 (Ἐπικλῆα), 16.818 (Πατροκλῆα), Od. 15.243 and ‘Hes.’ fr. 136.16 M.-W. (Ὀϊκλῆα); similarly loc. cit. 70.33 (Ἵπποκλον μεγ.). On the epithet, 286n.

595 Chalkon is the name of various mythological characters (RE s.vv. Chalkodon and Chalkon) and is also attested historically (LGPN). It is either (a) an abbreviated form of a compound such as Chalkodon (2.541n.) or Chalkenor or (b) a denominative of chalkós ‘bronze’ (in which case meaning ‘with bronze armor’

593 ἀσπιστάων: on the declension, R 11.1. 594 Βαθυκλῆα (μ)μεγάθυμον: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the form in -ῆα, R 3.

Commentary 

 267

or ‘smith’). Here perhaps alluding to the family’s wealth (596) as a speaking name in the sense ‘rich in bronze’. Bibliography: schol. T on 594  f.; RE loc. cit.; von Kamptz 267, 279; Janko on 593–599; LfgrE.  – In a narrow sense, Hellas designates a part of the realm of the Myrmidons in the immediate neighbourhood of Phthia (2.683n.); the homeland of Phoinix (9.447  f./478–480).

Χάλκωνος φίλον υἱόν, ὅς: The antecedent of a relative pronoun is unclear at many points in Homeric epic (cf. 2.872n.): either (a) the son (i.e. with υἱόν, here = Bathykles) or (b) the father (here Chalkon); in terms of content, the difference is negligible in the present passage (since the family is just as wealthy and famous in either case). But given the reference to the main character (pathos) and the etymologizing of the name, (a) ὅς = Bathykles is probably preferable (594n.; cf. Sulzberger 1926, 384, 393; LfgrE s.v. Χάλκων). — οἰκία ναίων: an inflectable VE formula (8× part., 1× 3rd pers. sing. impf.: 5× Il., 4× Od.); an equivalent variant: δώματα ναί-/δώματ’ ἔναι- (1× Il., 6× Od., 5× Hes.). On the obituary motif ‘homeland’, 593–602n.



Two further disputed examples concerning the relative pronoun: (1) 5.59  f. Φέρεκλον … Τέκτονος υἱὸν | Ἁρμονίδεω, ὃς … (Phereklos or Tekton, ‘who knew how to make all kinds of works of art’); here (a) is supported by the fact that in the context, Phereklos is in turn the main character (AH on 5.60; cf. 2.872n.); the text subsequently states (5.62–64) that ‘this one’ constructed Paris’ fateful ships – a role unequivocally assigned to Phereklos by post-Homeric accounts of the myth (West 2011, 154; cf. Leaf on 5.59: ‘the craft is represented as hereditary in three generations’). But (b) is indicated by the word order (the relative pronoun follows immediately after the enjambed Ἁρμονίδεω at VB) and the etymologizingP of the name (Tekton, ‘the carpenter’, constructed the ships: a speaking name [van Leeuwen on 5.63  f.; Kirk on 5.59–64]); the scholia also point to the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP in support of (b) (schol. A on 5.60; schol. bT on 5.60–62; on which in detail, Nünlist 2009, 326  ff.). (2) 16.717–719 Ἀσίῳ, ὃς μήτρως ἦν Ἕκτορος … | …, υἱὸς δὲ Δύμαντος, | ὃς … (Asios or Dymas, ‘who lived in Phrygia’); both interpretations are possible here, since a strict differentiation does not alter the meaning: the family originates in Phrygia. In the remaining passages, the content usually provides the decisive factor in favor of one of the two possibilities; (a) in reference to the son: 5.43  f. Φαῖστον … Μῃόνος υἱὸν | Βώρου, ὃς … (Phaistos, ‘who had come to Troy from Tarne’), 5.69  f. Πήδαιον … Ἀντήνορος υἱὸν, | ὃς … (Pedaios, ‘who was borne out of wedlock’), 5.612 Ἄμφιον Σελάγου υἱὸν, ὃς … (Amphios, ‘who lived in Paisos and whom fate brought to Troy’), 23.288  f. Εὔμηλος | Ἀδμήτου φίλος υἱὸς, ὃς … (Eumelos, ‘who excelled in the discipline of chariot racing’); (b) in reference to the father: 15.638  f. Περιφήτην, | Κοπρῆος φίλον υἱόν, ὃς … (Kopreus, ‘who used to visit Herakles as Eurystheus’ messenger’), 16.604 Λαόγονον, θρασὺν υἱὸν Ὀνήτορος, ὃς … (Onetor, ‘who was a priest of Zeus’; moreover, the patronymic is here placed immediately before the relative pronoun; likewise at 5.77 of Dolopion, the priest of Skamandros). – On φίλον υἱόν, 447n.

595 Ἑλλάδι (ϝ)οικία: on the hiatus, R  5.4; Ἕ. is a specification of place without preposition (R 19.2); οἰκία is a plural in Homeric epic.

268 

 Iliad 16

596 ≈  24.536 (Peleus); also 1st VH =  Od. 14.206; ≈  h.Merc. 529 (and 2nd VH of Hes. Op. 637).  — ὄλβῳ τε πλούτῳ τε: synonym doubling (1.160n.), ‘wealth and prosperity’ (24.536n.). Cf. 594n.

597 2nd VH (from caesura B 1 onward) = 13.438, 15.523 (15.528 is similar). — On injuries to the unshielded chest, 312n.

τὸν μὲν ἄρα: a VB formula, elsewhere always with elided ἄρ’ (in total 7× Il., 4× Od., 2× Hes. Th.). With alternative forms of the demonstrative pronoun (nom./gen./acc., sing./ dual/pl.): 35× Il., 26× Od., 1× h.Ap., 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc. — οὔτασε δουρί: a VE formula (12× Il., also 1× Il. in verse middle [Higbie 1990, 174–176; 14.443n.]). On οὐτά(ζ)ω, 24n.

598 ≈ 5.65 (Meriones catches up with Phereklos and kills him [Meriones will also make an appearance in the present context: 603  ff., with 605 ≈ 5.78]). — στρεφθείς: 594n.

599–602 The emotionality of the event is formally underlined via the chiastic juxtaposition: Achaians (599b–600a: ‘overwhelming grief’) – Trojans (600b: ‘were elated’) | Trojans (601a: gathering) – Achaians (601b–602: gathering and attack). 599 ≈ 822; 1st VH see 325n. — πυκινόν: in the sense ‘overwhelming’ (24.480n.), cf. Od. 11.88 πυκινὸν … ἀχεύων (of Odysseus coming face to face with his dead mother Antikleia), 19.516  f. πυκιναὶ … μελεδῶναι (of Penelope’s concerns). — ἄχος … Ἀχαιούς: 21–22n. — ἄχος ἔλλαβε: the same expression also at 14.475 (object: the Trojans). The impulse to action regularly triggered by ἄχος is here described in 601b–602: Mawet 1979, 297 (cf. 508n.). On verbs of seizing with physical and mental processes, 22n. and 30n. 600 ὡς ἔπεσ(ε): ὡς is likely causal with ἄχος ἔλλαβε (thus already schol. A on 599  f.), but a temporal sense cannot be excluded (Schw. 2.665; Reynen 1958, 67  f. with n.  4; contra AH, Anh.). — ἐσθλὸς ἀνήρ: a paraphrase for Βαθυκλῆα μεγάθυμον (594); with ἐσθλός ‘excellent’ (327n.) justifying the violence of both parties’ response.  — μέγα  … κεχάροντο: a reduplicated aor. ‘developed great joy, rejoiced’, connoting gloating (Latacz 1966, 62  f., 71  f.; cf. 1.255–256n.). On adverbial μέγα (6× in early epic as adv. with χαίρω), 3.76n. 601 στὰν δ’ ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ἰόντες ἀολλέες: Even if reference of ἀμφ’ αὐτόν to the slain Bathykles (600 ἐσθλὸς ἀνήρ) is more obvious grammatically, reference to the main charac­ter Glaukos (last mentioned at 597) is more appropriate contextually (schol. bT; Faesi; AH): the Trojans have renewed their courage and are now crowding around their

596 Μυρμιδόνεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. 597 τόν … στῆθος: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); τόν is an anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἄρα: ‘thus’ (R 24.1). — δουρί: on the declension, R 12.5. 598 ἐξαπίνης: = ἐξαίφνης. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — κατέμαρπτε: impf., ‘was about to catch’ (subject: Bathykles). 599 δούπησεν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἔλλαβ(ε): on the -λλ-, R 9.1. 601 στάν: = ἔστησαν (R 16.2). — ἀολλέες: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — οὐδ(έ): occurs in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 269

successful leader in order to renew the attack (continuation: ‘did not let go of their fighting spirit’; on ἀμφί +  acc. ‘surrounding a leader/hero’, e.g. 4.90, 13.126, 16.165; on ἀολλέες in the context of a concerted attack, 276an.). In contrast, it is unusual in Homeric epic to surround the corpse of an opponent in malicious joy or in triumph (although it is common to stand before a corpse from one’s own party in order to protect it: 321n.; in that case, ἀμφί is constructed with the dat.: 5.299 etc.). στὰν … ἰόντες means ‘they hurried ⟨to his side⟩ and positioned themselves around him’, cf. 8.280 στῆ δὲ παρ’ αὐτὸν ἰών (and spoke to him).

602 On the expression ‘(not) let go of one’s fighting spirit’, cf. 270n. and 357n.

ἀλκῆς: ‘defense, battle’ (3.45n.). — μένος δ’ ἰθὺς φέρον αὐτῶν: i.e. ‘the Achaians attacked the Trojans’: in military contexts, μένος denotes ‘battle rage, fighting spirit’ (on μένος in general, 332n.); similar expressions: 5.506 (Achaians and Trojans) μένος χειρῶν ἰθὺς φέρον, 10.479 (Odysseus to Diomedes:) πρόφερε κρατερὸν μένος, also 4.447 σύν ῥ’ ἔβαλον ῥινούς, σὺν δ’ ἔγχεα καὶ μένε’ ἀνδρῶν, 20.374 τῶν δ’ ἄμυδις μίχθη μένος. – On ἰθύς + gen., 552n. On periphrastic expressions with φέρειν, Porzig 1942, 118  f.

603–607 Another battle scene in an ABC-schemeP (287–290an.) with a typical ‘obituary’ theme in part B, in this case ‘son of a priest’ (604–605n.; Merz 1953, 58–60; Strasburger 1954, 25  f.; Fenik 1968, 11; Stoevesandt 2004, 142–144). 603 corresponds to 5.541 in terms of verse structure; 2nd VH = 4.457, 8.256 (all with the personal name of the slain warrior in the verse that follows: Visser 1987, 226–230).  — On Meriones, 342n.; aside from Patroklos, he is the only Greek hero to enjoy a victorious appearance between the deaths of Sarpedon and Patroklos: Scheibner 1939, 84  f. n. 2; West 2011, 324 (on 603–632).

ἔνθ’ αὖ: 477n.  — κορυστήν: ‘helmeted’ in the sense ‘warrior in armor’ (18.163n.; cf. 167n.); compounds: ἱππο-/χαλκοκορυστής (287n. and 358n.).

604–605 The motif of the death of the son of a priest (generally Trojan) – here Laogonos, son of Onetor – occurs repeatedly in the Iliad (cf. the bibliography at 603–607n.). Implication: neither service to the gods nor elevated status will necessarily save a man from his doom. Parallels: 5.9  ff. Diomedes kills Phegeus, son of Dares, the priest of Hephaistos (Phegeus’ brother Idaios is saved from certain death by Hephaistos), 5.76  ff. Eurypylos kills Hypsenor, son of Dolopion, the priest of Skamandros, 5.148  ff. Diomedes kills Abas and Polyïdos, sons of Eurydamas the dream-interpreter, 11.328  ff. Diomedes kills Adrestos and Amphios, sons of the seer Merops (mentioned already in the cata­ logue of Trojans: 2.830  ff.), 13.663  ff. Paris kills Euchenor, son of the Korinthian seer Polyïdos. (The list of Trojans ‘clerics’ in the Iliad is completed with the

602 ἰθὺς … αὐτῶν: ‘toward them’. 603 Τρώων: partitive gen. with ἄνδρα. — ἕλεν: = εἷλεν (R 16.1), cf. 607.

270 

 Iliad 16

augur and seer Helenos [CH 8] and Theano, the priestess of Athene [CH 9].) – Laogonos is one of many names containing the element -la(w)o- ‘people, men’ and likely means ‘he who was born among the people of war’ (von Kamptz 73, 205  f.; Wathelet s.v.). In the Iliad, it is the name of two Trojans (also 20.460: son of Bias and brother of one Dardanos, killed by Achilleus; on names used multiple times, 345n.); attested historically only 1× (Leōgonos: LGPN I). Onetor is a speaking name of a priest: ‘promoter, helper’, formed with the suffix -tōr typical of nomina agentis, like Aktor ‘leader’ (14n.), Hektor ‘protector’ (6.402– 403n., end), Kaletor ‘caller’ (24.577n.), Thestor ‘prayer’ (401n.), etc. (von Kamptz 171  f.). Menelaos’ steersman Phrontis is likewise the son of a certain Onetor (Od. 3.282); both the name itself (Onētor, Onātor) and the patronymic (Onetorides) are attested historically (LGPN). – Zeus Idaios is the title of the local incarnation of Zeus with a cult place on Mt. Ida (24.291n.). 604 θρασὺν υἱόν: θρασύς in the Iliad 11× of individuals (always Trojan), of which 7× of Hektor and 3× of Hektor’s charioteer (24.71–72an.; Camerotto 2009, 129); only here of an ‘extra’ and also only here as an attribute of υἱός rather than the noun-epithet formula φίλον υἱόν usual in this position of the verse (447n.; particularly similar is Od. 3.398 Τηλέμαχον, φίλον υἱὸν Ὀδυσσῆος θείοιο [also often in the nom.]) beside 4× νόθον/ος υἱόν/ός (738n.) and 2× ἐμὸν/ὸς υἱόν/ός (Il. 24.227, Hes. Op. 271 [direct speech]). φίλον υἱόν is perhaps avoided here for the sake of variatio (after 586 and 595); at the same time, schol. T suggests precisely the reading φίλον υἱόν for contextual reasons (cf. Janko on 603–607). — ῑ ´ρεύς: restored form, in accord with the form common in East Ionian dialect (without aspiration) rather than the form  ῑ῾ ρεύς (with aspiration) transmitted by the majority of the witnesses (West 1998, XVII; cf. Locher 1963, 5–10).

605 ≈ 5.78; 2nd VH = 5.78, 10.33, 13.218; ≈ 11.58, Od. 14.205. — ‘Worshipped like a god by the people’ is probably an ancient, hyperbolic expression denoting high prestige and special esteem, and likely coincides with material prosperity (in the present case of a priest due to levies from the cult of Zeus: Webster 1962, 455  f.; Burkert [1977] 1985, 96  f.; Donlan 1981/82, 160); 2× of priests (here and at 5.78 [of Dolopion, priest of Hephaistos]), 2× of kings (10.33 Agamemnon; 13.218 Thoas, Aitolian ruler), 2× of other respected individuals (11.58 Aineias; Od. 14.205 Kastor, a wealthy Cretan and a character in one of Odysseus’ false stories); similar expressions: active ‘worship someone like a god’ (Il. 9.155, etc. of Achilleus, Od. 5.36, etc. of Odysseus), ‘look on someone like on a god’ (e.g. Il. 12.312 of Sarpedon and Glaukos, Od. 7.71 of Arete), ‘heed someone as one does a god’ (Od. 7.11 of Alkinoos), ‘pray to someone as to a god’ (e.g. Il. 22.394 of Hektor, Od. 8.467 Odysseus to Nausikaa), ‘greet someone as one does a god’ 604 ἰρεύς: = ἱερεύς. 605 ἐτέτυκτο: ≈ ‘was’ (589n.). — θεὸς … ὥς: = ὡς θεός. — δήμῳ: dat. of agent.

Commentary 

 271

(Il. 22.434  f. of Hektor), ‘someone is a god among men’ (24.258 of Hektor [see ad loc.]). Cf. Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 130–132; Hainsworth on Il. 10.32–33 and Od. 8.467; de Jong on Il. 22.394.

θεὸς δ’ ὥς: on the postpositive ὥς, 156n.

606–607 = 13.671  f. (where of the son of a Greek seer: Fenik 1968, 148); also 1st VH of 606 (to caesura C 2) = 17.617; 2nd VH of 607 = 5.47. — The depiction of the death is comprised of conventional elements: localization of the blow below the jaw and ear (405n.), the life force escapes (410n.), darkness as a formulaic expression for the moment of death (316n.).

ὦκα: either (a) modal in reference to the movement ‘quick’ (thus at any rate at 23.880 ὠκὺς δ’ ἐκ μελέων θυμὸς πτάτο) or – more likely – (b) temporal of the sequence of events ‘immediately’ (cf. LfgrE). The interpretations of Grmek 1983, 55 with n. 84 (quick death due to an injury to the carotid artery) and Clarke 1999, 153 (quick death as the breath of life evaporates immediately via the mouth forced open by the spear) are probab­ly overly naturalistic. — ᾤχετ(ο): The ‘swift vanishing of the soul from the body’ is also described as ἔσσυτ’ ἐπειγομένη (14.519) or ἐκ ῥεθέων πταμένη … βεβήκει (16.856): Kurz 1966, 112 n. 42 (transl.). — ἀπὸ μελέων: ‘away from the body’ (cf. 110n.), always of the process of dying (also 7.131, 13.672, Od. 15.354); cf. 469n. — στυγερός: ‘terrible’, an epithet of terms for death, sickness, grief, fighting, etc. (2.385n.; LfgrE). — σκότος εἷλεν: cf. 334 ἔλλαβε … θάνατος (333–334n.).

608–632 Aineias’ attempt to take revenge on Meriones for Laogonos fails: Meriones swerves (610–613). Aineias failed previously in the same way in his fight with Idomeneus (13.502  ff.; on Aineias’ significance in general, 535– 536n.). – In his anger, Aineias addresses a brief, sneering threatening speech to his opponent (617  f.), who responds in a longer, more pointed way (620–625, see ad loc.). ‘This kind of banter […] is part of the typical behavior of two opponents, from the heroes of Homer or the lay of Hildebrand to military confrontations between modern states’ (Barck 1976, 98 [transl.]; see also West 2007, 476  f.), in the narrative always linked to a pause in the fighting (Raaflaub 2007/8, 480  f.). Meriones’ speech replaces, as it were, his military counter-attack (which he merely mentions as an option [623–625]): ‘verbal replacement for action’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 310 [transl.]; cf. Reynen 1983, 166  f.; Parks 1990, 61; van Wees 1996, 72 n.  95). Speeches that follow missed shots have similarities with the usual speeches of triumph (on which, 14.454–457n. with bibliography) and also occur at 11.362  ff. (Diomedes to Hektor), 11.380  ff. (Paris

606 γναθμοῖο: on the declension, R 11.2. — καὶ οὔατος: = καὶ ὠτός; on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 607 ἀπὸ (μ)μελέων: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

272 

 Iliad 16

and Diomedes), 22.279  ff. (Hektor to Achilleus); see Μπεζαντακος 1996, 126, 135; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 190, 307, 310. – After the verbal exchange, Patroklos intervenes and reprimands Meriones for having engaged in the oral repartee (627–632). The duel Aineias–Meriones finds its premature conclusion in this way (the intervention of the two Aiantes at 17.530  ff. is similar) – the narratorP ‘solves in a novel way the recurrent problem of concluding a duel between heroes who must both survive’ (West 2011, 324 [on 616–632; cf. loc. cit. on 603–632]; similarly Janko on 603–632) and immediately proceeds to observe the two armies from a bird’s eye view (633  ff.), in which Patroklos’ challenge ‘it is time for fighting’ (631) is realized in globo; what is more, Patroklos’ mention of the ‘corpse’ (629) brings the actual fight over the body once again into focus (633  ff.) (somewhat at a loss in interpreting the present scene: Fenik 1968, 157, 208; Tsagarakis 1982, 109  f.). 608 2nd VH ≈ 13.247. — ἐπὶ … ἧκεν: cf. 812 ἐφῆκε. — δόρυ χάλκεον: 346n., 610n.

609 2nd VH ≈ 13.158 (Deïphobos, attacked by Meriones), 13.807 (Hektor). — Under the cover of his shield, Meriones ventures forth from the protection provided by his fellow warriors (cf. iterata). The expression is perhaps based on the use of the Mycenaean long shield that protects the full length of the body (6.117  f. [see ad loc.], 15.645  f.; Helbig [1884] 1887, 317; contra Trümpy 1950, 26–28). But the description of the situation – Aineias hopes to hit Meriones, who bends forward (611) – demonstrates that the narrator is imagining the more recent, smaller round shields common in the Iliad (Janko on 13.156–158, end). On the two types of shields, 18.478–608n., section B.2.a, with bibliography; on the amalgamated character of the Homeric epics (intermingling elements from different periods and origins), see the bibliography at 6.117–118n., end.

ἔλπετο γὰρ …: interpretation by the narrator (255–256n.). — προβιβάντος: a restored form in place of the universally transmitted προβιβῶντος (3.22n. with bibliography; also Hackstein 2002, 111  f.; cf. 534n.).

610–613 =  17.526–529; also 610 =  13.184, 13.404, 13.503, 17.305; 1st VH of 610 (to caesura C 2) ≈  22.274; 1st VH of 612 ≈  17.437; 2nd VH of 612 ≈  13.443; 613 =  13.444.  — The depiction of Meriones evading the weapon that becomes lodged in the ground contains several typical elements found repeatedly in the Iliad in different combinations (see the following nn.). 610 ἀλλ’ ὃ μέν: a VB formula (14× Il., 10× Od.; also 1× Od. after caesura C 2; in the neuter ἀλλὰ τὸ μέν at VB 2× Il., 2× Od.). — ἄντα ἰδών: ‘gazing in the face’, i.e. ‘looking toward’

608 ἐπὶ Μηριόνῃ: ἐπί + dat. for specification of destination. 609 ὑπασπίδια: adv. with προβιβάντος. — προβιβάντος: sc. αὐτοῦ (i.e. Meriones). 610 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἄντα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3.

Commentary 

 273

and thus spotting the danger approaching, meaning that he is observing the trajectory of the spear in order to avoid it (cf. iterata as well as 22.274  f.). On ἄντα, see 24.630n. — χάλκεον ἔγχος: a VE formula (318n.); here it picks up the chiastic word order δόρυ χάλκεον in 608 and is continued at 611 by δόρυ μακρόν (Janko on 609–613). On the synonymous use of δόρυ and ἔγχος, 139–140n.

611–612 For iterata, 610–613n. — Homeric heroes avoid blows (a) by making themselves smaller, i.e. by ducking somehow, as here (also 13.405/408, 15.520  f., 20.276  ff.; cf. 403–404an.), or even crouching (22.274  f.), or (b) by side-stepping, namely with either a small turn or twist (3.360, etc. [see ad loc.]) or a leap to the side (14.462  f.); see Kurz 1966, 55, 147. On the depiction of the weapon missing the opponent (and landing in the ground ‘behind the back’ of the warrior), cf. the comparable situations at 13.408, 22.275 (a spear flies past the opponent), 5.16, 16.478 (over the left shoulder [106n.]), 10.373 (over the right shoulder). The weapon explicitly driving into the ground is a common motif illustrating the failure of the shot: 10.373  f. (deliberate throw past the opponent), 11.351  f./357  f. (glancing off the helmet), 11.377  f. (arrowshot through the opponent’s foot), 11.573  f. = 15.316  f. (missed shots), 13.504  f. (the opponent swerves), 16.772  f. (missed shots with spears and arrows), 17.527  f. (iterata related to the present passage), 20.276  ff. (through the shield, but the opponent evades the shot), 21.69  f. (Lykaon kneels to plead with Achilleus), 21.167  f. (after a superficial hit on the arm), 21.171  f. (missed shot), 22.275  f. (the opponent evades the shot); see Danek 1988, 139  f. Rather than landing in the ground, as here, the missile may strike another, uninvolved warrior after the opponent evades the shot (so-called substitute killings: 13.184  ff., 13.404  ff., 14.462  ff., 15.520  ff., 17.305  ff.; Stoevesandt 2004, 161  f., 164  f. [additional biblio­graphy, loc. cit. 161 n. 502]). – The vivid detail of the spear shaft ‘quivering/swaying back and forth’ finds parallels at 13.504  f., 17.528  f. (spear in the ground), 17.523  f. (spear in the body of the slain warrior); a bizarre variant at 13.442–444 (spear in the heart of the warrior who was struck): Kirk 1962, 177  f.; Fenik 1968, 133  f.; de Jong 2005, 10  f.).

δόρυ μακρόν: an inflectable noun-epithet formula at VE and after caesura A 4 (nom./ acc. in total 9× Il.), metrical variant of δόρυ χάλκεον/μείλινον (cf. 608). In the dat. δουρί τε μακρῷ 3× Il. and 1× ‘Hes.’ (all at VE), in the pl. δούρατα μακρά 1× Il., 3× Od. (after caesura A 3 and at VE). — οὐρίαχος: likely related to οὐρά ‘tail’, i.e. the end of the spear

611 πρόσσω: on the -σσ-, R  9.1.  — τὸ δ(έ): to be taken with δόρυ μακρόν, ‘but it, the long spear …’. — ἐξόπιθεν: epic by-form of ἐξόπισθεν, ‘to the rear, behind him’. 612 οὔδει: from οὖδας ‘ground’. — ἐνισκίμφθη, ἐπί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἐνισκίμφθη: ‘buried itself in the earth, stuck fast in the earth’; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1). — ἐπί: adv., ‘thereby’. — πελεμίχθη: ‘quivered’.

274 

 Iliad 16

shaft, perhaps also the ‘spear-butt’ (a pointed metal fitting that allowed the end of the weapon to be rammed into the ground: 10.152  f. [where called σαυρωτήρ]); see schol. D; Trümpy 1950, 58  f.; additional bibliography (also on archaeological finds): LfgrE s.v. σαυρωτήρ; Shear 2000, 194 n. 495. — πελεμίχθη: 107–108n.

613 For iterata, 610–613n.  – The phrase ménos aphiénai means ‘let go of one’s energy, let one’s momentum recede, exhaust oneself’ and is attested solely in the context of a spear coming to rest after being thrown (also in the iterata at 13.444, 17.529). It recalls phrases such as ménos lýein ‘loosen the energy’ in the sense ‘kill’ (332n.), on the one hand, and the opposite ‘deity lends energy to someone’ (529n.), on the other. The use of ménos to refer to the dynamics of inanimate objects is striking (in early epic the word is largely used of living things; elsewhere also of fire, sun, winds and streams: 6.182n.; see also Jahn 1987, 41–44; Clarke 1999, 111). Whether the phrase is accordingly based on an ancient animistic notion is accordingly unclear; the rhetorical ‘anthropomorphization’ of weapons, at any rate, is frequently attested in Homeric epic: 75n. – Ares appears here as an ancient power immanent in the weapon, cf. the similarities in the descriptions of Ares and of weapons, e.g. the epithet óbrimos ‘tremendous’ (see below) and a thirst for blood (‘satiate Ares with blood’ at 5.289, etc., ‘the spear craves to sate itself with flesh’ at 11.574, etc., 21.70); at 17.210–212, ‘Ares, the terrible Enyalios’ (CG 6) inhabits the armor at the same time Hektor puts it on. For discussion of how Ares is to be understood in these contexts, see AH and Leaf on 13.444; LfgrE s.v. 1256.20  ff.; Kullmann 1956, 131  f.; Griffin 1980, 33–35; Hoekstra 1981, 68 with n. 12  f.; Erbse 1986, 167  f.; cf. 543n.

ἔνθα δ’ ἔπειτ(α): a formulaic combination found in different positions within the verse (5× Il., 6× Od.); in these instances, ἔνθα retains its local meaning (always after locations, here οὔδει in 612; on temporal ἔνθα, 306n.). — ὄβριμος Ἄρης: a VE formula (6× Il.; prosodic variant: χάλκεος Ἄρης 543n.). In the present formulaic verse (dynamics of the thrown spear), ὄβριμος ‘powerful, tremendous’ likely has a pregnant sense (cf. 14.44n. ὄβριμος Ἕκτωρ), especially given that it can also be an epithet of the spear itself (3.357n.). On ὄβριμος in general, LfgrE s.v.; Camerotto 2009, 122–125.

614–615 = 13.504  f. (in both cases, Aineias fails to hit his opponent as the latter ducks the missile: 610 = 13.503). This is a doublet incompatible with the process described at 611–613 and attested in only a few late manuscripts either in the text or as marginalia: a concordance interpolation (AH; Janko; West 2001, 13).

613 μένος: sc. of the spear. — ἀφίει: 3rd pers. sing. impf., ‘(gradually) loosed’.

Commentary 

 275

616 Anger at one’s self after a missed shot or some other loss of a weapon is experienced also by Meriones (13.165  f.) and Hektor (14.406  f. and 22.291  f.): 14.406n.; cf. Adkins 1969, 13  f., 17; Cairns 2003, 29  f.

θυμὸν ἐχώσατο: like θυμὸν … χώεται at 20.29; on the linking of verbs meaning ‘rage at’ with soul-spirit lexemes, 584–585n. — φώνησέν τε: a VE formula (24.193n.).

617 The contrast between battle and dance is a popular rhetorical motif (24.260– 262n. with bibliography). Aineias ostensibly refers to Meriones’ deft evasive movement (610  f.), but is ultimately venting his own frustration at the missed shot via his sneering comparison. The mockery may derive a particular point from the fact that the Cretans – Meriones hails from Crete (2.645  ff.) – were (and still are) generally considered excellent dancers (schol. b and T; Willcock; Janko on 617–619; bibliography on archaeological evidence for dancing on Crete at 18.591n.). 618 κατέπαυσε: ‘stop, put an end to’, here in the sense ‘kill’ (AH: ‘put a stop to’).  — διαμπερές: literally ‘right through the middle, through and through’ (19.272n.), here with κατέπαυσε either temporal (‘forever’: schol. A; AH) or modal (‘entirely, altogether’: LfgrE s.v., end); perhaps a contamination with the idea ‘if I had hit you right through the middle’ (with ἔβαλον), cf. 5.284, 5.657  f., 17.309  f. (Luther 1935, 155; above, 309n.).  — εἴ … περ: ‘if only’, as part of a contrary to fact condition (Leaf; cf. 263n.). 619 ≈  13.254, 13.266 (likewise Meriones), Od. 15.544 (Peiraios).  — τὸν δ’ αὖ  … ἀντίον ηὔδα: a speech introduction formulaP used with various subjects (noun-epithet formulae), also with τήν and αὖτε (24.333n.; Fingerle 1939, 343; Kelly 2007, 217–220). — Μηριόνης δουρικλυτός: a unique noun-epithet combination beside 2× the prosodically equivalent Μηριόνης πεπνυμένος (iterata). The present phrase is possibly the ‘actual’ albeit less common noun-epithet formula for Meriones – in the Iliad, he distinguishes himself as a warrior rather than as an astute speaker – whereas in Book 13 δουρικλυτός has been ‘replaced’ by πεπνυμένος because Meriones’ spear had been broken immediately beforehand (13.159  ff.; due to its frequent combination with ἀντίον ηὔδα, πεπνυμένος suggested itself as a substitute: 3.203n.); see LfgrE s.v. πέπνυμαι 1161.10  ff. In a similar adaptation to the context, during the preparations for Patroklos’ burial in Book 23 Meriones is called θεράπων ἀγαπήνορος Ἰδομενῆος (23.113/124) rather than ἀτάλαντος Ἐνυαλίῳ ἀνδρειφόντῃ (4× Il.): Friedrich 2007, 107. – On δουρικλυτός, 26n.; on πεπνυμένος, 3.148n. and 24.377n.

620–625 Meriones’ response breaks down into two sections of equal length (620–622/623–625) that linguistically and contextually refer to both (a) Aineias’

616 θυμόν: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 617 τάχα: ‘quickly, soon’. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5), contrary to fact. — καὶ … περ ἐόντα: = καίπερ … ὄντα (R 24.10, 16.6). 619 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).

276 

 Iliad 16

threatening speech at 617  f. (catchword-techniqueP) and (b) one another (Martin 1989, 77: ‘Meriones has performed a poetic coup’; Janko on 620–626): (a) 620 address, ‘although you are strong’ ≈ 617 address, ‘although you are a dancer’

621 ‘quench the strength’ ≈ 618 ‘put an end to’

623  ff. ‘were I to hit you, I would kill you’ ≈ 618 ‘I would have killed you, had I hit you’ (b) 620 ‘although you are strong’ ≈  624 ‘although you are strong and feel confidence in your hands’ 622 ‘you also are made mortal’ (end of part 1) ≈ 625 ‘give the «soul» to Hades’ (end of part 2). The second half of the speech follows the first asyndetically: Meriones counters Aineias’ powerlessness with his own confidence of victory, highlighting Aineias’ mortality (622) by threatening him with death (625; similar threats of death at 5.652–654 = 11.443–445). – The sentiment that even the strongest cannot do anything against many is uttered – albeit in a different context – by Sarpedon and Achilleus as well (12.410  ff. and 20.356  ff., there in battle paraeneses: Edwards on 20.353–9); also similar are 15.140  f., Od. 17.12  f., 20.313 (Foley 1999, 226). 620 2nd VH = Hes. Op. 704; ≈ Il. 12.410, 20.356 (dat.), Hes. Th. 698 (gen. pl.). — The formulation ‘it will be hard for you …’ is an understatement for ‘it will be impossible for you’, clarified by the concession ‘even if you are strong’ (620), the hyperbole ‘all men’ (621) and the sneering remark ‘you, too, are created mortal’ (622).

χαλεπόν: usually, as here, in reference to the limited abilities of human beings (schol. b; LfgrE s.v. 1105.14  ff. with additional bibliography).  — ἴφθιμον: Even if the absence of initial digamma renders a connection with ἶφι (ϝῖφι) ‘with force’ unlikely from a linguistic point of view, the adj. was probably always understood as ‘powerful, strong’. In the present passage, this sense fits without reservation (cf. 1.3n.; 659n.). Scholia and bibliography: LfgrE s.v.

621 1st VH = 15.141; ≈ h.Ap. 162; also as VE formula πάντων τ’ ἀνθρώπων (14.233n.) and 3× Od. in enjambment (πάντων | ἀνθρώπων). — πάντων ἀνθρώπων …, ὅς κε: ‘of all men, whoever …’, implication: ‘one after the other’, cf. 15.730  f. (sing. relative pronoun in generalizing relative clause after pl. antecedent: Chantr. 1.21). — σβέσσαι μένος: ‘extinguish the fighting spirit’, an emphatic paraphrase meaning ‘kill’ (cf. 332n.); cf.

620 χαλεπόν: sc. ἐστιν (+ acc. and inf. construction: σε … σβέσσαι). 621 σβέσσαι: aor. inf. of σβέννυμι; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὅς κε: ≈ ὅστις ἄν (R 24.5). — σε’ ἄντα: ‘toward you’ (in a hostile sense); σε’ = σεο = σου (R 14.1); on the hiatus, R 5.1.

Commentary 

 277

22.96 ἄσβεστον  … μένος of Hektor’s spirit of resistance and 9.678 ‘Achilleus does not want to σβέσσαι χόλον’ (likewise an abstract object).

622 Aineias is mortal despite being the son of Aphrodite (cf. 448–449an.).

νυ: ‘used by a speaker in an agitated state, with the result that it must be translated differently depending on the content of the speech’ (K.-G. 2.119 [transl.]), here somewhat ironic ‘surely, I think’ (AH); cf. 859n. τί νυ.  – On νυ in general (esp. its formularity), Ruijgh 1957, 57  ff.

623 σε βάλοιμι τυχὼν μέσον: In Homeric epic, the part. of τυγχάνω frequently occurs as clarification in conjunction with a verb of striking/wounding and a specification of the body part wounded, e.g. 5.98  f., 12.189; with predicative μέσον also at 13.396  f. — ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (24.393n.; cf. 284n. on δουρὶ φαεινῷ). 624 αἶψα: an emphatic introduction to the consequences (‘immediately’), cf. 13.486, 17.159/162. — καὶ κρατερός περ ἐών: thus also at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 101, at VB Il. 15.195, with οὐδέ rather than καί at 15.164; always in reference to physical strength. — χερσὶ πεποιθώς: VE ≈ Od. 16.71, 21.132 (χ. πέποιθα); variant βαρείῃ χειρὶ πιθήσας at Il. 11.235, 17.48 (Od. 21.315 is similar); in verse middle at Il. 12.135 (χείρεσσι πεποιθότες), Od. 8.181 (πεποίθεα χερσί); on the phrases with πεποιθώς in general, 6.505n. – On the importance of (arms and) hands in battle, 244n.

625 ≈  5.654, 11.445.  — The journey of the ‘soul’ to the underworld (‘Hades’) is an image for death used predominantly in character languageP (Clarke 1999, 168  f.; it occurs less frequently in the narrator-text, e.g. 1.3, 16.326  f., 16.856).

εὖχος ἐμοὶ δοίης, ψυχὴν δ’ Ἄϊδι: an antithetical parallelism, with the predicate in the center. The combination of διδόναι with (a) εὖχος and (b) ψυχήν (‘life, breath of life, soul’) forms a zeugma (cf. 505n. with bibliography); combination (a) is common (the subject is the defeated opponent or a god supporting the victor [725n.]; overview of the largely formulaic expressions in Muellner 1976, 108  f.), but combination (b) is attested only in the present formulaic verse, although it has parallels in expressions such as ψυχὰς Ἄϊδι προΐαψεν at 1.3 (see ad loc.); cf. 16.856n. (ψυχὴ  … Ἄϊδόσδε βεβήκει). — εὖχος: belongs to character languageP (whereas objective κῦδος occurs also in narrator-text, cf. 725/730), ‘occasion to εὔχεσθαι «boast», vaunting, cry of victory’; the precondition for εὖχος is a (deserved) victory over an opponent, usually anticipated in hypothetical wording as here (and at 725) (Steinkopf 1937, 31  f.; Corlu 1966, 173  ff. [esp. 180: ‘the pronouncement of victory that the hero states in praise of himself’ (transl.)]; LfgrE). The associated verb is used e.g. to introduce a speech of triumph (e.g. at 829: Hektor on the dying Patroklos; see ad loc.). — Ἄϊδι: an ancient athematic form for ‘Hades’; on the etymology – likely ‘the invisible’ – 3.322n. with bibliography; also DELG Suppl. — κλυτοπώλῳ: ‘with famous foals/horses’ (in Homeric epic, exclusively

622 ἀμυνόμενος: probably final, ‘in order to defend himself’. — τέτυξαι: ‘you are’ (589n.). 623 καὶ ἐγώ: ‘I too, I for my part’. — μέσον: predicative with σε, ‘in the middle of the body’.

278 

 Iliad 16

of Hades in the present formulaic verse; at ‘Hes.’ fr. 10(a).23 M.-W. of Ion, at Pindar fr. 243.2 of Poseidon). The background for the epithet is obscure; speculation in Nilsson (1940) 1967, 453  f. and Richardson on h.Cer. 18 (among other possibilities, allusion to chthonic horse sacrifices or to Persephone’s abduction by Hades with his team of hor­ ses); cf. 19.407–417n., end.

626–632 Patroklos’ speech of rebuke is ultimately a battle paraenesis (421–425n.; Μπεζαντακος 1996, 113–115; on the speech introduction with eníptō ‘rebuke’, cf. the battle paraeneses at 15.552  ff., 17.141  ff.; on the speech capping, 632n.). Speeches of rebuke frequently begin with an indignant question, as here (cf. 15.552  ff., 23.473  ff.), and conclude with a call to action (2.225–242n.). – Given the subsequent events, Patroklos’ speech is not without dramatic ironyP (‘pre­ lude to his tragedy’: Sheppard 1922, 165): on the one hand, Patroklos himself will be provoked into taunting an opponent with an abusive speech – related in content via the motif of the ‘dancer/leaper’ (744  ff.: Kebriones)  – and will shortly thereafter die due to his arrogance (781  ff.); on the other hand, it will be Meriones who, together with Menelaos, will snatch Patroklos’ body from the hands of the enemy (17.717  f./722  ff.; on the motif of the retrieval of corpses, cf. in the present speech 628  f.); see Janko on 627–632; Kelly 2007, 192. 626 In the battle for Sarpedon’s body, Patroklos is again brought to the fore as the main character after 581  ff. (continuation of his appearance: 684  ff.); on the ‘narrative availability’ of the leaders, 532–547n., end.

ὣς φάτο· τὸν δ’ ἐνένιπε: Speech capping formulaeP with ὣς φάτ(ο)/ἔφατ(ο) and a renewed speech introduction in the same verse are comparatively rare: in addition to the examples listed at 3.181n. and the first-person narratives in the Odyssey (e.g. Menelaos at Od. 4.375, 4.382, 4.394, 4.398, etc. [1st and 3rd pers. sing.]), only at Od. 17.374, 21.175, h.Cer. 74, 118, as well as h.Bacch. 25 – with the verb of speaking ‘reprimand’, as here. — Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμος υἱός: 278n.

627 2nd VH =  Od. 17.381 (Eumaios to Antinoos); Il. 2.246, 19.82, Od. 20.274 are similar; also 1st VH structurally ≈ Il. 3.399, 20.87, Od. 4.465, 4.492, 8.153, 11.463, 24.478. — The speaker expresses disconcertment regarding the inappropriate behavior of the character concerned via the concessive-adversative expression ‘as esthlós «capable» as you may be’ or ‘even though you are as esthlós «cap­able» as this’ – he has acted contrary to his better knowledge and ability (630  f.); cf. 1.131n., 1.275n., 24.53n.

626 ὥς: = οὕτως. — φάτο: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23; on the unaugmented form, R 16.3. — ἐνένιπε: reduplicated aor. of ἐνίπτω ‘rebuke’. 627 τί: adv., ‘why?’, here ‘how do you come to this?’.

Commentary 



 279

ταῦτα: usually pejorative in character language in reference to a statement just made: ‘this here’ (de Jong [1987] 2004, 287 n. 25).

628 2nd VH = 1.519 (see ad loc.), 2.277, 21.480, Od. 18.326. — ὦ πέπον: ‘my dear’, with reproachful overtones (492n.). — οὔ τοι: emphatic at the beginning of a sentence (AH). — ὀνειδείοις ἐπέεσσιν: a typical noun-epithet formula with numerous alternatives (with attributes meaning ‘sneering’, ‘evil’ and ‘friendly’; list in Walsh 2005, 159 n. 19; LfgrE s.v. ἔπος 662.6  ff.). Originally probably ὀνειδείοισι (ϝ)έπεσσι (24.771–772n. with biblio­ graphy).

629 2nd VH ≈ Od. 13.427, 15.31. — The formulation ‘first the earth will hold tight many’ is a rhetorical adynaton and means ‘there will soon be more Trojans dead than retreating’ (24.550–551n.). Patroklos crushes Meriones’ assumed hope with a veiled threat – Meriones could also end up among the many dead (8.166 and iterata are similar; LfgrE s.v. πάρος 987.46  ff., 988.50  ff.; Janko on 627–632). But the dramatic ironyP demands that it is Patroklos himself who will soon be one of the dead (626–632n.). – On the paraphrase denoting death (‘the earth holds someone tight, covers someone’ = ‘someone is dead’), see 18.332n. with bibliography; also Sacks 1987, 73  ff.; West 1997, 236 (parallel in the Epic of Gilgamesh). 630–631 The pair of polar expressionsP ‘act (esp. fight) vs. talk’ (twice here) and ‘war vs. assembly’ occur in numerous forms in Homeric epic (see e.g. 1.77n., end, 1.258n., 2.201–202n., 2.370n., 18.106n.; additional examples: 9.53  f., 9.443, 12.213  f.); here the two pairs are combined in a pregnant gnome (with concrete ‘interpretation’ at 631); on gnomes in general, 43n. – The request to fight rather than produce many words is also found at 2.435, 13.292–294, 19.148–150, 20.244–258, 22.126–129, Od. 16.242. 630 The formal chiasmus ἐν χερσὶ – τέλος πολέμου | ἐπέων (τέλος) – ἐνὶ βουλῇ is overlapped by a semantic parallelism on the contextual plane: χερσὶ | ἐπέων and πολέμου | βουλῇ (Ahrens 1937, 28  f.). In addition, chiasmus is present in conjunction with 631: πολέμου  – ἐπέων  | μῦθον ὀφέλλειν  – μάχεσθαι (suggestion by Führer). On the connotation of ‘hands’, 244n.  — τέλος πολέμου: ‘the result/goal/end of the war’, i.e. in the present context ‘military decision, success, victory’, similarly 15.741 ἐν χερσὶ φόως … πολέμοιο (schol. D; AH; Ambrose 1965, 55; LfgrE s.v. τέλος; somewhat differently Waanders 1983, 52: ‘performance’). — ἐπέων δ’ ἐνὶ βουλῇ: with ἐπέων sc. τέλος, i.e. ‘words fulfil their purpose, obtain their goal (only) in the assembly’; less likely is a criss-crossing of the terms, i.e. literally ἐν ἔπεσι τέλος βουλῆς (by analogy with the first

628 τοι: particle, strengthens the negative (R 24.12). 629 νεκροῦ: gen. of separation; Sarpedon’s corpse (last mentioned at 577) is meant. — πάρος: adv., ‘rather, beforehand’. — τινα: collective ‘many a one’. 630 ἐπέων: sc. τέλος; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1).

280 

 Iliad 16

half of the gnome), ‘the action of an assembly lies in speeches’. Discussion of the two alternative readings of the passage in Leaf; Ambrose loc. cit. 56  f.; Waanders loc. cit. 53  f.; Christensen 2009, 147; cf. in a different context μύθου τέλος 83n. 631 χρή: 492n., end. — μῦθον ὀφέλλειν: ‘make many words’ (AH; on ὀφέλλειν, cf. 651n.). — ἀλλὰ μάχεσθαι: a VE formula (also at 13.253, 15.508; similarly 5.801 ἀ. μαχητής). 632 = 11.472 (Menelaos/Aias), 15.559 (Hektor/Melanippos): a formulaic verse after a (successful) call to active battle by a hero (in a civil context, Od. 1.125). ‘Plural variant’ (between commander and troops or some other relationship): Il. 12.251, 13.833, Od. 2.413, 8.46, 8.104 (Kurz 1966, 130); 1st VH, cf. 726n. — ὣς εἰπὼν ὃ μέν …: continued by X δέ vel sim., emphatically portraying the action or reaction by the speaker and addressee immediately after the speech (e.g. 726; fem. ἣ μὲν ἄρ’ ὣς εἰποῦσ’ 5.133, etc.). On the VB formula ὣς εἰπών, 210n. — ἅμ’ ἔσπετο: a formulaic phrase between caesurae B 2 and C 2 (10× early epic); on the form ἔσπετο without aspiration, see West 1998, XVII. — ἰσόθεος φώς: a VE formula used of various heroes (2.565n. with bibliography; also Hoekstra 1965, 22  f.), sometimes in place of the personal name, as in the present formulaic verse (here Meriones), sometimes in apposition to the personal name.

633–683 The battle for Sarpedon’s corpse enters its final phase: the Trojans flee (656  ff.) and the Achaians take possession of Sarpedon’s armor (663  ff.). While the events themselves are depicted in a comparatively static manner and summarily (from a bird’s eye perspective throughout), select narrative units provide the necessary emphasis: similes (633  ff., 641  ff.), introduction of a narrateeP (638  ff., see ad loc.), divine scenes (type-scene ‘weighing two options’: 644  ff., divine dialogue: 666  ff.), repetition of verses (transportation of Sarpedon’s corpse to Lykia: 668  ff. ≈ 678  ff.); cf. Fenik 1968, 208  f. (also 177  f., 215); Richardson 1990, 15. 633–637 The simileP illustrates in the first instance the intensity of the noise of battle and thus the intensity of the battle overall (which is here undecided); this type of simile occurs several times in Homeric epic (also at e.g. 4.452–456, 14.394–401: Krischer 1971, 64  f.; Kaimio 1977, 93–95; on descriptions of the noise of battle in general, 105n.). The simile secondarily suggests the ‘cutting down’ of warriors (trees) and the regular blows of the swords (axes), cf. the reaper simile at 11.67  ff. (schol. bT on 633  f. [on which, Nünlist 2009, 288]; Müller 1974, 23; Kaimio loc. cit. 95; West 2011, 324). The lumberjack motif also occurs at 11.86–90 (woodcutters’ midday break as an indication of time) and implicitly in the comparison of falling warriors to falling trees (482–486n.); it creates a non-military, nature-based contrast to the main action, as often in similes – here again shortly afterward in a fly simile at 641  ff. (2.455–483n.,

631 τὼ οὐ: on the hiatus, R 5.7; τώ = ‘for that reason’.

Commentary 

 281

3rd + 4th item; Krapp 1966, 250–254; Scott 2009, 163  f.). – The present simile occupies an important position in the narrative strategy: (1) together with the simile at 482  ff. (Sarpedon falls like a tree), it forms a motif framework surrounding the episode of Sarpedon’s death on the battlefield (Wiessner 1940, 83; Stanley 1993, 173); (2) together with the bird’s eye perspective (not unusual in battle descriptions), it prepares for the mention of Zeus at 644  ff.: Fränkel 1921, 36 n. 1; de Jong 1985, 263 (‘practically an Olympian location’ [transl.]); Richardson loc. cit. 121–123 (‘a sign of his [sc. the narrator’s] godlike status with relation to the story’). The simile is characterized by (a) close correspondences between the ‘as’ and ‘so’ parts and (b) onomatopoetic elements. On (a): τῶν δ’ ὥς – ὣς τῶν; ἀνδρῶν ὀρυμαγδὸς ὄρωρεν – τῶν ὤρνυτο δοῦπος; οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃς – ἀπὸ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης (cf. 634n.); (b): increased frequency of o-sounds (esp. 633, 635  f.); alliteration ὀρυμαγδὸς ὄρωρεν | οὔρεος (633  f.); homoeoteleuton τῶν … δρυτόμων ἀνδρῶν, χαλκοῦ τε ῥινοῦ τε, βοῶν τ’ εὐποιητάων, ξίφεσίν  … ἔγχεσιν ἀμφιγύοισιν (Bonnafé 1984, 18 [transl.]: ‘the hubbub is here rendered acoustically’; in general, cf. Guilleux 2007; on rhymes in particular, 174n.). 633 τῶν δ’, ὥς τε: VB = 2.459, 12.278, 17.755. To whom τῶν refers becomes clear only in the simile: the warriors of both armies (similarly e.g. 11.67  ff., 15.271  ff., 16.641  ff., 17.755  ff.). — δρυτόμων: ‘lumberjack, woodcutter’, attested already in Mycenaean (du-ru-to-mo: MYC; DMic); additional evidence for early woodcutting activities in Buchholz 2004, 26  f. On the combination with ἀνδρῶν, 170n. (ἄνδρες … ἑταῖροι). — ὀρυμαγδὸς ὄρωρεν: a VE formula (7× early epic, elsewhere always with πολὺς δ’ preceding and specifically of the noise of battle, also at 21.313 transitive πολὺν δ’ ὀρυμαγδὸν ὄρινε; see 2.810n.; Kelly 2007, 105  f.). ὄρωρεν: The plpf. ὀρώρει transmitted by the majority of manuscripts raises suspicions, since plpf. (and impf.) forms are uncommon in Homeric similes. Available alternatives are the perf. ind. ὄρωρεν (thus e.g. West in the text; attested in schol. A and a few manuscripts) or the perf. subjunc. ὀρώρῃ (perhaps replaced by ὀρώρει via itacism; cf. both readings at 11.477). Analogous cases: 4.483 πεφύκει, 17.435 ἑστήκει. Bibliography: K.-G. 1.162; LfgrE s.v. ὄρνυμι 798.11  ff.; van der Valk 1964, 634; West 2001, 190.

634 ≈  2.456.  — The spatial diffusion of sound is of course a gauge of its inten­ sity (24.512n.; Krapp 1964, 228  f.; Kaimio 1977, 83  f.; Wille 2001, 52  ff.); on loud echoes in the mountains in particular, cf. 4.455 (likewise in a simile). The adjective ‘with broad streets’ in the ‘so’ part of the simile (635) ‘adds width to the height’ (Wille loc. cit. 54 n. 310 [transl.]).

633 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 634 οὔρεος: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R  10.1).  — βήσσῃς: on the declension, R 11.1. — γίνετ’: = γίγνεται.

282 

 Iliad 16

οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃς: an inflectable VB formula (βήσσῃσ(ι[ν]); 5× Il., 3× Hes., 1× h.Merc.) that evokes a densely wooded, wild landscape (157–158n.), in connection with δρυτόμος also at 11.86  f. — ἕκαθεν … ἀκουή: from the perspective of the audience (rather than ‘widely audible’): 2.456n.; Janko on 633–634. – ἀκουή is here ‘sound’ (a hapaxP in the Iliad), in the Odyssey ‘news, message’ (Od. 2.308, etc.).

635–637 The generalizing (‘impartial’) depiction of events creates the impression that the battle is evenly balanced, as also at 641 (parallels in Latacz 1977, 189  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 414  f.; Kelly 2007, 106  f.).

τῶν … δοῦπος … | χαλκοῦ τε ῥινοῦ τε βοῶν τ’ …, | νυσσομένων: The type of noise is specified in a tripartite climax (cf. 24.479n., 24.614–617n.): (1) the noise of the two armies (635 τῶν), (2) specifically the dull booming of iron, leather and shields (636, in turn comprised of three elements; cf. 12.339  f.), (3) namely when swords and lances hit (637; on participial constructions in descriptions of noise – here conjunctive part., occasionally also gen. absolute – cf. inter alia 4.450  f., 9.573  f., 10.483  f., 10.523  f., 12.339  f., Od. 14.412, 22.308  f.). – δοῦπος denotes the dull noise of objects, especially weapons and armor, hitting something (325n., 361n.; LfgrE with bibliography); the crashing of χαλκός is occasionally mentioned specifically, e.g. 12.151  f., 13.497–499, 14.25  f. (with 14.26 = 16.637). — ἀπὸ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης: a VE formula (also κατὰ, ὑπὸ, μυχῷ), in the Iliad only here, elsewhere 3× Od., 7× Hes., 1× h.Ap.; variants: (ἐπὶ) χθόνα πουλυβότειραν, (ἐπὶ) χθονὶ πουλυβοτείρῃ (418n., end).  – The final element of the epithet probably derives from ἕδος (i.e. ‘wide-ranging’, cf. Hes. Th. 117 Γαῖ’ εὐρύστερνος, πάντων ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεί and 634n. on the diffusion of sound), but was linked with ὁδός in the Homeric period (i.e. ‘with broad streets’ or ‘with widely extending streets’ [Verdenius on Hes. Op. 197], cf. εὐρυάγυια, an epithet of cities [2.12n.], h.Cer. 16 of χθών). Bibliography: Schmitt 1967, 246–248; Richardson on h.Cer. 16; DELG Suppl. s.v.

636 A largely spondeic verse with rhyming -οῦ τε … -οῦ τε and -ῶν … -ων, as well as emphatic polysyndeton: a representation of the force of the noise (cf. 279n., end). A list of metrically identical verses in Ludwich 1866, 26  f. and Dee 2004, 488. In contrast, 637 is purely dactylic: brisk activity of the warriors. — χαλκοῦ τε ῥινοῦ τε βοῶν τ(ε): The designations of material are used via metonymy or as pars pro toto for the weapons themselves, as e.g. μελίη (19.390n.). – Cow-hide is a common component of Homeric shields (360; see 18.481n. with bibliography). The juxtaposition of the terms ‘leather’ and ‘cow-skins’ is probably to be interpreted as a pleonasm, cf. the similar number of terms at 4.447  f. and 5.452  f. (schol. A; Janko on 635–637; Aristarchus argues for the deletion of the τ’ after βοῶν, cf. 13.406 ῥινοῖσι βοῶν καὶ νώροπι χαλκῷ [schol. A]; differently AH and Willcock [‘bronze’ and ‘leather equipment’ as the ‘principal components of the armor’, with only βοῶν in reference to the shields], Shear 2000, 42 [ῥινοῦ τε βοῶν τε as two different types of shield]). Even if shields generally have additional metal

635 τῶν: repeated from 633. — εὐρυοδείης: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. 636 τε (ϝ)ρινοῦ: on the prosody, R 4.5.

Commentary 

 283

fittings (3.357n.), the mention of χαλκός in the present verse need not refer to the shields alone, but probably represents instead (the noise produced by) weapons and armor in a general sense, cf. 637 (Leaf). — εὐποιητάων: 106n. 637 = 14.26; ≈ 13.147, 15.278, 17.731. — νυσσομένων: generally interpreted as a reciprocal middle, in reference to τῶν at 635 (‘the warriors stab at one another with swords and lances’: AH; Schw. 2.233). But since use of the reciprocal middle is very limited in Greek, a passive should be assumed instead (in detail, van der Mije 2004, 198–200): the depiction is of the noise created by armor struck by swords and lances (literally ‘when they are struck with/hit by swords’). On the basic meaning of νύσσω, 343n. (‘thrust, stab’); on the iterative-durative pres., 704n. — ἀμφιγύοισιν: ‘with curved, lanceolate points’ (14.26n.).

638–640 The dramatic motif of a wounded or slain warrior as no longer identifi­ able due to his disfigurement (here prepared for by the simile at 633  ff.) also occurs at e.g. 7.424 (dead on the battlefield), Sophocles Electra 755  f. (supposed death of Orestes), Euripides Medea 1196 (princess killed by Medea), Aristophanes Lysistrata 636 (threat toward the leader of the male semi-chorus); cf. Griffin 1980, 137  f.; Neal 2006, 198–203 (also on the present passage in detail). – ‘The unbearable demands a solution’ (Reinhardt 1961, 343 [transl.]): a little later, Sarpedon – on top of whom more corpses have piled up in the meantime (661  f.) – is carried away, unnoticed, by Apollo from the hail of missiles and cleansed of blood (beginning of the burial ritual: 666–683n.) in order to be transported to Lykia (667  ff./678  ff.; cf. 7.425  f.; Janko on 666–683; Aceti 2008, 154; West 2011, 324). Sarpedon’s body, like Hektor’s (24.18–21n.), is protected by a deity, all the disfigurement notwithstanding; Glaukos’ fears at 545 are thus not fulfilled. – ‘Even a perceptive man would no longer have re­ cognized Sarpedon’ is a pathetic rhetorical expression with a narrateeP; alternative designations: ‘imaginary spectator’ (Leaf on 13.343; West 2011, 150 [on 4.539–544]), ‘virtual witness’ (Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 67 [transl.]; similarly Clay 2011, 23–26), ‘anonymous focalizer’ (de Jong [1987] 2004, 54–60 [quotation: 58] with a collection of examples; de Jong 2014; similarly Richardson 1990, 239  f.). The audience/reader is thus drawn into the midst of the action (Richardson loc. cit. 158  f.; Clay loc. cit.).

οὐδ’ ἂν  …  | ἔγνω: aor. ind. with modal particle can serve as a past potential: K.-G. 1.212  f.; Schw. 2.346  f.; Chantr. 2.227. — φράδμων: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘attentive, perceptive, shrewd’; cf. συμφράδμων 2.372, φραδής 24.354. — Σαρπηδόνα δῖον: a noun-ep-

637 νυσσομένων: to be taken with 636 χαλκοῦ τε ῥινοῦ τε βοῶν τ(ε).  — ἀμφιγύοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2. 638 οὐδ’ … ἔτι: ≈ καὶ οὐκέτι (on οὐδέ after affirmative clauses: R 24.8). — φράδμων περ: ‘one so astute, even an astute one’ (concessive-intensive: R 24.10).

284 

 Iliad 16

ithet formula at VE (also at 15.67), as well as 1× each after caesurae A 1 (‘Hes.’ fr. 141.14 M.-W., restored) and B 1 (Il. 16.678); together with ἀντιθέῳ Σαρπηδόνι (648–649n.), the only more common noun-epithet formula for Sarpedon. – That one can read into δῖος, a ‘run of the mill’ epithet (365n.), any contextually relevant sense  – the god Zeus is keeping an eye on his dead son Sarpedon (644  f.) – is doubtful (but thus Griffin 1980, 84, with the conclusion: ‘The epithet helps to bring out the human pathos, and also to underline the contrast of the human […] and the really divine’).

639 2nd VH ≈ 15.118, Od. 22.383, as well as 1st VH of Il. 16.796; cf. 21.325. — ‘With missiles and blood and dust’ represents a polysyndeton (cf. 636) with mild zeug­ma (‘envelop/cover’ is more appropriate for blood and dust than for missiles): van Leeuwen on 4.282; cf. 505n. (zeugma). – On the image of the badly battered corpse, e.g. 22.371 ‘no one approached Hektor who did not stab at him’ and 24.421 ‘many stabbed their weapons into him’ (on the possible motives underlying this custom, de Jong on Il. 22.371–375: to ensure death occurred, to practice collective retaliation, to display one’s own superiority). On the combination ‘blood and dust’, 486n.; on the frequent mention of blood in Book 16 generally, and especially in the Sarpedon-scene, 159n. and 459–461n.  – The smearing with soil links the deaths of Sarpedon, Patroklos (794–800: his helmet rolls across the ground) and Hektor (22.401–404: his head is dragged across the ground); see de Jong on Il. 22.401–404 and, in general, 419–683n., 793–800n. 640 The expression ‘from head to toe’, still common today, emphatically designates the body as a whole, cf. 18.353 (see ad loc.), 23.169. 641–644a Insect similes illustrate the (noisy) mass movement of armies, here especially the recalcitrance of the warriors crowding around the corpse (2.87– 94n. with bibliography; also Ready 2012, 75–77; on fly similes in particular, 2.469–473n.). Even more than the lumberjack simile does (633–637n.), the present simile contains an unwarlike note, which it of course immediately loses because of the obvious association ‘flies surrounding the overflowing milk pails’ → ‘flies on corpses covered in blood’ (Janko; Fränkel 1921, 71; Porter 1972, 13; Neal 2006, 199  f.; Aceti 2008, 148  f.; Scott 2009, 163  f., 169; on the image of flies on a corpse, cf. 19.25  f.). The fly simile has a parallel in Ancient Near Eastern epic: the gods sit around the sacrifice like flies (West 1997, 249). – On dairy farming in early epic, see 2.471n. with bibliography.

639 κονίῃσιν: on the declension, R 11.1. 640 εἴλυτο: 3rd pers. sing. plpf. mid.-pass., ‘was enveloped’. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 285

641 1st VH = 17.412; ≈ 644 (to caesura C 2). — οἵ: the warriors of both armies (633n.). — περὶ νεκρὸν ὁμίλεον: picked up again in the manner of a ring-composition in the ‘so’ part at 644 (7n.). 642–643 σταθμῷ ἔνι: VB = 19.377, Od. 16.45, Hes. Th. 294. — περιγλαγέας κατὰ πέλλας | … ὅτε τε γλάγος ἄγγεα δεύει: The temporal indication at 643 also contains a concep­tual explanation of the technical term περιγλαγέας κατὰ πέλλας (cf. 261n., 24.479n.): the pots are full to the brim with milk.  – ἄγγος is a general term for ‘pot, container’ (in early epic used predominantly for milk, water, wine and grain; perhaps attested already in Mycenaean a-ke-a2 [DMic.]), while πέλλα is the (wooden) ‘milking pail’ or the ‘pot in which the milk is set aside to coagulate’ (called γαυλοί τε σκαφίδες τε by Polyphemos at Od. 9.223): Bruns 1970, 41  f.; Rengakos 1994a, 123  f.; Keil 1998, 54  f. – περιγλαγής and πέλλα are Homeric hapax legomenaP, and περιγλαγής is in fact an absolute hapax (on the word formation, Risch 187  f.: possessive compound, ‘having milk all around’, i.e. ‘full to the brim with milk’); the archaic γλάγος ‘milk’ is likewise attested only here and in the iteratum 2.471 (on the elevated frequency of hapax words in similes, see Edwards, Introd. 38). — βρομέωσι: onomatopoetic, ‘hum, buzz’, a Homeric hapax (Tichy 1983, 85  f.). On the subjunc. in similes, 260n.

643 =  2.471; 1st VH =  Od. 18.367, 22.301.  — Spring is the season of vitality and abundance (2.471n.). 644a 1st VH ≈ 641 (see ad loc.). — ὣς ἄρα τοί: a common introduction to the ‘so’ part in similes (with inflectable pronoun: 9× Il., 6× Od.); at the same time, a concluding summaryP with subsequent change of scene (Richardson 1990, 31 with n. 37). – ἄρα picks up from the key clause at 641: AH; Grimm 1962, 25 n. 1.

644b–646a Zeus ‘never averting his eyes, but always watching’ represents in terms of content a variant of the motif of the observing gods (19.340n.) and is in formal terms a rhetorical polar expressionP (322n.). In addition, the narrator may be signalling that the supreme god has learned from his mistakes, as it were; at 13.3–7, he turned away his gaze (similar wording) – with grave consequences (Janko on 644–651). – In the narrator’s imagination, Zeus is probably still located on Mt. Ida, cf. 431  f., 677 (431–432n.; Faesi on 644; Hellwig 1964, 67  f.). 645 ἀπὸ κρατερῆς ὑσμίνης: The expression (447n.) has been displaced from its usual position at VE (cf. 648 VE) to verse middle by the VE formula ὄσσε φαεινώ (ὑσμίνη

641 αἰεί: = ἀεί. 642 σταθμῷ ἔνι: = ἐν σταθμῷ (R 20.1–2). 643 ὥρῃ: on the -η after -ρ-, R 2. — εἰαρινῇ, ὅτε: on the hiatus, R 5.6; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — γλάγος: by-form of γάλα. — ἄγγεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — δεύει: ‘wets, dampens’, i.e. ‘fills’. 644 τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the form, R 14.3. 645 ὄσσε φαεινώ: acc. dual.

286 

 Iliad 16

elsewhere only at 13.713, 20.245 in this position in the verse, with different attributes): Hainsworth, Introd. 8  f. — ὄσσε φαεινώ: On the use and meaning of the VE formula, 14.236n. 646a κατ’ αὐτοὺς  … ὅρα: καθοράω and ὁράω κατά always of Zeus, who from Mt. Ida observes (and intervenes in) events on the battlefield or keeps an eye on (and protects) certain lands: also 11.336  f., 13.3–6, 24.290  f. (24.291n.; Bechert 1964, 400  ff.).

646b–655 The type-sceneP ‘weighing two options’ (1.188b–194n.; 14.20–24an.; collection of examples in Pelliccia 1995, 127  f.; Kelly 2007, 193; de Jong on Od. 4.117–120): (1) Zeus considers whether to choose (2) action A (648–650) or (3) action B (651, described only briefly) (here really point in time A or B: should he let Patroklos die now or a little later? – that he must die is a necessity, even and especially for Zeus [e.g. at 15.65–67, 16.250–252]); (4) Zeus picks B (now described in more detail: 653–655). In scenes of this type, variant A tends to be determined by instinct and geared toward a short-term solution, whereas B is more rational and long-term; generally, B is chosen (Arend 1933, 109  f.; de Jong on Od. 4.117–120; Steiner on Od. 17.235–237). – Scenes of deliberation – including contemplation of the best course of action (2.3–7n.) – are set in secondary focalizationP and create a ‘moment of particular suspense before key events or decisions’ (Arend loc. cit. 109 [transl.]); here Zeus grants Patroklos a period of grace (17.198–209 in reference to Hektor is similar), creating the conditions – together with Hektor’s retreat at the same time (656–658) – for the Achaians to capture Sarpedon’s armor and for Patroklos to start his victory run, going beyond Achilleus’ orders (and in this way meeting a death that is not merely determined by the gods but also justified by his own misconduct). ‘This reprieve serves to retard the death of Patroclus but emphasizes its inevi­ tability’ (Duckworth 1933, 67  f.; see retardationP; in the same sense, Voigt 1934, 45; Reinhardt 1961, 330  f.; Fenik 1968, 170; Reucher 1983, 325  f.; West 2011, 324  f.; on the prolepsesP of Patroklos’ death, 46–47n.). At the same time, scenes of deliberation provide insight into the narrator’s possible alternatives to the action (Rothe 1910, 136  f.; Fränkel [1951] 1962, 82  f. with n. 16; van Wees 1992, 14  f.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 280–285; West loc. cit.; cf. 24.25–26n.). – It is usually human beings, and rarely gods, who are depicted in type-scenes of deliberation in early epic (Zeus also at 2.3  ff.; in the case of humans, a divine intervention often influences the decision: 713–732n.). At any rate, other individual scenes of divine decision-making echo the form of the present one with an ‘either-or’ alternative: 435–438 (Sarpedon’s fate), 22.174–176 (Hektor’s fate)

646 κατ’ αὐτοὺς … ὅρα: ‘looked down upon them’. — αἰέν: = ἀεί.

Commentary 

 287

(Richardson 1990, 193 with n. 63; de Jong on Il. 22.166–187; on Zeus’ role, cf. 431n.). 646b–651 Zeus does not make the decision lightly, as the narrator shows by both the length of the scene (3 verses for action A [648–650], 1+3 verses for action B [651, 653–655]) and the fullness of expression (e.g. 646b–647 rather than the usual ‘he pondered’ [cf. 435n.]; 648  f. three specifications of location ‘in battle’ + ‘there’ + ‘on top of Sarpedon’; 651 ‘to multiply the sudden distress in battle’; spondeic VE at 647 and 648); cf. Janko on 650–651.

The syntactic references are not unequivocal, but the indirect double question at 648– 651 is likely dependent on φράζετο, while πολλά (as at Od. 1.427, 20.10) is associated with μερμηρίζων as an adverbial acc. (La Roche on 647; Voigt 1934, 34  f.; LfgrE s.v. φράζω 1009.42  ff.; differently, AH). On φράζομαι rather than the more common μερμηρίζω as the predicate preceding the deliberative question, cf. inter alia 9.619, Od. 16.238, 16.260 (in each case in direct speech and with a subjunc. in the interrogative clause); on the connection of φράζομαι and μερμηρίζω, cf. Od. 16.237  f. (Il. 14.20 ὥρμαινε δαϊζόμενος is similar); on the semantic proximity of the two verbs, Od. 15.167/169, 16.256  f., 24.127  f. (Voigt loc. cit. 31  f., 34  f.; Pelliccia 1995, 129). – Dependent double questions in scenes of deliberation are put in the subjunc. in direct speech, but usually in the opt. in the narrator-text; δῃώσῃ and ἕληται (650) here are thus an exception (subsequently at 651 opt. ὀφέλλειεν). Possible explanations for this exception: (a) φράζομαι is elsewhere also almost always combined with the subjunc. (opt. only at Od. 3.129 and 15.202: ὅπως, h.Ap. 388  f.: οὕς τινας); (b) the two sub-questions have different subjects (Hektor/Patroklos) and do not coincide with the subject of the main clause (Zeus): Zeus ponders what others should do in accord with his wishes (AH Anh. on 650  f.); (c) there is a difference between the ‘most obvious idea(s)’ (subjunc.) and a ‘consideration added only later’ (opt.) (K.-G. 2.538 [transl.]; Chantr. 2.294; similarly Voigt 1934, 35  f. But the juxtaposition of the two moods can also be seen as unproblematic, cf. 18.308bn. and 24.586n.); (d) an error in transmission (see app.crit.: δῃώσαι/ει’ and ἕλοιτο; Monro [1882] 1891, 270  f.).

646b VE ≈ Od. 15.202, 17.595, h.Cer. 313. — φράζετο θυμῷ: on designations of the seat of mental authority in the process of deliberation, 435n. – VE in -ετο/-ατο/-εο/-αο θυμῷ is common in early epic (23× Il., 23× Od., 4× Hes., 2× h.Hom.). 647 πολλὰ μάλ(α): a VB formula (8× Il., 5× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Hom.).  — ἀμφὶ φόνῳ: In early epic, the preposition ἀμφί is used mostly with a local sense or in the expression ‘to fight over’ (496n.), rarely in the (metaphorical) function of Attic περί, Latin de (as at 20.17 περὶ Τρώων … μερμηρίζεις), e.g. also 13.381  f. συνώμεθα … | ἀμφὶ γάμῳ, Od. 5.286  f. μετεβούλευσαν θεοὶ … | ἀμφ’ Ὀδυσῆϊ (Porzig 1942, 167; Chantr. 2.88).

648–649 Mention of the three heroes in one sentence (‘that one [sc. Patroklos] … Sarpedon … Hektor’) evokes the interconnection of their fates (419–683n.).

648 ἠ’ ἤδη: ἠ(έ) = ἤ ‘whether’ (and 651 ἦε ‘or whether’); on the hiatus, R 5.1. — κεῖνον: = ἐκεῖνον.

288 

 Iliad 16

ἤδη: ‘now, immediately’ (438n.), contrast at 651 ἔτι ‘furthermore’. — καὶ κεῖνον: The demonstrative pronoun belongs to character languageP (here secondary focalizationP) and generally expresses spatial or chronological distance (2.330n., 3.391n.). In this regard, it is here somewhat unexpected: Patroklos is present both in the text (in the preceding verse) and in the action (on the battle field [last at 626  ff.], as well as in Zeus’ thoughts); it thus probably serves  – together with καί ‘also’ (AH)  – to emphatically juxtapose Patroklos with the already slain Sarpedon; cf. Od. 2.182–184 (Eurymachos wishes death for Halitherses): Ὀδυσσεὺς | ὤλετο τῆλ’, ὡς καὶ σὺ καταφθίσθαι σὺν ἐκείνῳ | ὤφελες. At the same time, it may give expression to Zeus’ mental detachment from his son’s opponent (Janko on 650–651: a mere pronoun rather than a noun-epithet formula); Bonifazi 2012, 60  f. (‘negative social distance’).  — ἐνὶ κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: 447n.  — ἀντιθέῳ Σαρπηδόνι: an inflectable noun-epithet formula after caesura A 3 (dat./acc., in total 6× Il.). On the epithet, 321n. — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: 577n.

650 1st VH ≈ 8.534, 11.153, 12.227, 17.566, 23.176, Od. 4.226, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 67 (always of cutting down enemies; 8.534 and Sc. 67 with the motif of despoiling in the 2nd VH, as here). — ἀπό τ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕληται: a variant of the VE formula ἀπ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕλ-, see the iterata at 782n.; on the wording in general, 559–560n. — τεύχε’ ἕληται: an inflectable VE formula (also at 7.122, 16.782, 16.846, 19.412, all with ἕλοντο; in verse middle, 545); variant: τεύχε’ ἐσύλα (5.164, 6.28, 15.524, 17.60, 22.368). 651 2nd VH ≈ Od. 2.334. — ὀφέλλειεν: Patroklos is the subject (mutatis mutandis = 653– 655): AH (on 650); Leaf; Janko on 650–651; LfgrE s.v. πόνος 1447.26  ff. – An Aeolic formation from sigmatic aor. *ὀφέλσειεν (Ionian ὀφείλειεν): Risch 249; Chantr. 1.173. On the etymology of ὀφέλλω ‘increase, intensify’ in general, DELG Suppl. and Beekes s.v.  — πόνον αἰπύν: a noun-epithet formula (Il. 11.601 in verse middle), ‘heavy toil’. Implication: ‘even more warriors are meant to die in battle’. On the phrase πόνον ὀφέλλειν, cf. 2.420, Od. 2.334; on πόνος ‘labor of battle’, 568n. On the metaphorical use of the adj., cf. χόλον αἰπύν 15.223, φόνον αἰπύν 17.365, Od. 4.843, 16.379, βρόχον αἰπύν Od. 11.278, δόλον αἰπύν 2× Hes., 1× h.Merc.; on the epithet, 283n. (character languageP).

652–658 Hektor’s retreat toward the city is a means to an end for Zeus to create the breathing space much needed by the Greeks (646b–655n.); at the same time, this once again retardsP the direct encounter between Hektor and Patroklos (cf. 367b–368n.). The narrator takes this in stride in order to paint Hektor in a somewhat negative light (656): ‘without fighting spirit’ (Rothe 1910, 136; Reinhardt 1961, 341; Farron 1978, 47  f.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 222  f.; Rinon 2008, 102  f.; cf. 114–118n., end). – The flight of an individual hero, brought about by Zeus, is a prominent motif in the Iliad (Nestor and Diomedes at 8.133  ff., Aias 11.544  ff., Peneleos 17.593  ff.; cf. 15.320  ff. Apollo/Achaians):

649 αὐτοῦ: ‘there, on the spot’, namely over Sarpedon’s body (ἐπ’ … Σαρπηδόνι).

Commentary 

 289

Schadewaldt 1965, 304; Pagani 2008, 392–395; on the flight phases in the Iliad (here continuing until 725) generally, see the references at 278–418n. 652 = 13.458, 14.23, Od. 15.204, 18.93, 22.338, 24.239; ≈ Od. 5.474, 6.145, 10.153. A formulaic verse expressing the decision between two alternative courses of action (646b–655n.); a justification for the choice is generally not provided (exceptions: Od. 6.147, 18.94; see Hentze 1904, 22  f.). The designation of the chosen alternative as the ‘better’ one usual­ ly implicitly anticipates its implementation (Steiner on Od. 18.93; on the prolepticP function of scenes of deliberation in general, Duckworth 1933, 16). — δοάσσατο: ‘appeared’ (14.23n.). — κέρδιον εἶναι: an inflectable VE formula (inf., impf., opt.: 10× Il., 16× Od.). On κέρδιον ‘more advantageous’, see 3.41n., end (character languageP, here secondary focalizationP).

653–655 A more detailed explication of action variant B (646b–655n.). 653 ≈ 24.406; 1st VH ≈ 464 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH = 269, etc. (see ad loc.). On contextually and formally similar verses, cf. 865n. — ὄφρ(α): A final clause rather than inf. after the formulaic verse at 652 is unusual, here probably conditioned by the change in subject (Zeus →  Patroklos). A final clause occasionally occurs after verbs of desiring vel sim. (6.361n.; Chantr. 2.296–298; Kalén 1941, 28–30; a development into regular ‘that’ is argued for by Baker 2014, 24–27). – Differently van Leeuwen on 652–656 and Bolling 1949, 383: the ὄφρα clause represents a parenthesis, the content of the decision is expressed paratactically at 656 (cf. Leaf).

654 Hektor, here mentioned in one breath with all the ‘Trojans’, ‘usually directly joins in the Trojan movements, pointing the way himself. He is thus on each occasion the symbol of Trojan power or powerlessness, not merely a leader but also the center or «soul» of his people’ (Strasburger 1954, 102  f. [transl.]); it is thus sufficient for Zeus to chase off ‘Hektor as the very first’ (656), cf. 657  f. (‘if Hector flees, they all will’: West 2011, 325).

ἐξαῦτις: ‘anew’, i.e. after the Trojans retreat at 364–398 (esp. 376 ‘back to the citadel’). — Τρῶάς τε καὶ Ἕκτορα: an inflectable phrase after caesura A 4 (acc. also at 13.1, 13.129, 15.42; dat. 10.318, 13.720 and – uniquely after caesura B 1 – 17.719; dat. with δέ rather than τε at 12.255, 15.327, 16.730; nom. Τρῶές τε καὶ Ἕκτωρ at 8.158 and 15.589, both at VE); see 19.63n. with bibliography — Ἕκτορα χαλκοκορυστήν: 358n.

655 ≈ 5.691 (Hoekstra 1965, 118); 1st VH ≈ 45, etc. (see ad loc.). — Gaining ground and decimating the enemy are signs of a victorious attack.  — The expres-

652 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 653 Πηληϊάδεω: ͜ on the declension, R 11.1; on the synizesis, R 7. — Ἀχιλῆος: on the single -λ-, R 9.1. 655 ὤσαιτο: on the middle, R 23. — προτὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4; προτί R 20.1. — πολέων: ͜ on the inflection, R 12.2; on the synizesis, R 7. — ἀπὸ … ἕλοιτο: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

290 

 Iliad 16

sion ‘push back toward the city’ recalls 16.45 with literal echoes (Patroklos to Achilleus, ≈ 11.803 Nestor’s advice).

ἀπὸ θυμὸν ἕλοιτο: an inflectable VE formula (ἀπὸ/ἐκ), only in final, cupitive, hypothetical or prospective clauses (inf., subjunc., opt.): 13× Il., 4× Od.  – On θυμός ‘life’, 410n.

656 2nd VH ≈ 355. — Instilling defenselessness is the antithesis of the more common motif ‘a deity instills strength vel sim.’ (529n.).

πρωτίστῳ: ‘as the very first’; on the accumulation of suffixes, G 80; Seiler 1950, 105; Risch 95.  — ἀνάλκιδα θυμόν: 355n.  — θυμὸν ἐνῆκεν: More common objects with ἐνίημι are e.g. φόβον (291, see ad loc.) and κλόνον (729  f., see ad loc.); the v.l. φύζαν would fit well with this semantic field (as at 15.62 ἀνάλκιδα φύζαν ἐνόρσας, 15.366 φύζαν ἐνῶρσας), whereas θυμόν is perhaps to be explained as a near-homoeoteleuton after VE θυμὸν ἕλοιτο in 655. At the same time, the phrase is here qualified merely by the attribute ἀνάλκιδα (approximately ‘instill defenselessness’). – A similar case occurs at 691 (see ad loc.). Bibliography: Leaf; Janko on 653–657; Kullmann 1956, 76  f.; van der Valk 1964, 105  f.; Pelliccia 1995, 93 n. 155.

657 1st VH = 22.399 (of Achilleus, who has tied the dead Hektor to his chariot: Mueller [1984] 2009, 29  f.); ≈ Od. 3.483; VE = Od. 4.37. — On the use of chariots in Homeric epic, see the references at 20n. — ἐς δίφρον δ’ ἀναβάς: a variable VB formula (iterata), also with a pronominal subject (5.364/837 ἣ δ’ ἐς δ. ἔβαινεν), with inverse word order (23.352) or an alternative verb (11.273, 11.399, 13.657, 17.130 [all with the prefix ἀν-], Od. 14.280). — φύγαδ’ ἔτραπε: sc. ἵππους (8.157, 8.257), implicit in (ἐς) δίφρον. On the increased frequency of terms meaning ‘flee’ (658 φευγέμεναι, 659 ἐφόβηθεν), 290n. – φύγαδε is derived from a zero-grade deverbative root noun (Risch 6; on the suffix, cf. 445n., end). — κέκλετο: on the form, 268n.

658 Hektor probably ‘recognized’ Zeus’ intervention because a feeling of demoralization suddenly came over him (119–122an.; AH; Onians [1951] 1988, 326 n. 2; Pelliccia 1995, 93; Kelly 2007, 113). – The sacred scales are an image of Zeus’ control over events in the war (19.223  f.) found once again in conjunction with Hektor shortly before his death (22.208  ff.); here in a metaphori­cal, abstract sense: ‘decision’ (in reference to 652  ff.), h.Merc. 324 is similar (Zeus is supposed to settle the fight between Hermes and Apollo; see LfgrE s.v. τάλαντον; Leaf; Voigt 1934, 85  f.; Schadewaldt 1965, 310). On the image of Zeus’ scales in general, 19.223b–224n.; de Jong on Il. 22.208–213 (all with bibliography).

Διὸς ἱρὰ τάλαντα: The brief, pregnant phrasing suggests that the image of Zeus’ scales is familiar (i.e. probably ancient), cf. 8.69  ff., 19.223  f., 22.208  ff. (Nilsson [1940] 1967, 366  f.). The attribute ἱρά in particular probably points to an original concrete use of

657 κέκλετ(ο): reduplicated aor. of κέλομαι ‘call on, urge’. 658 φευγέμεναι: inf. (R 16.4). — γνῷ: = ἔγνω (R 16.1). — ἱρά: = ἱερά.

Commentary 

 291

the phrase ἱρὰ τάλαντα (i.e. in the sense ‘the scales belonging to the god’, cf. χρύσεια τάλαντα at 8.69, 22.209; LfgrE s.v. ἱερός 1142.69  f.). Via the metaphorical meaning ‘decision’, it here stresses ‘the inevitability of divine will’ (Wülfing-von Martitz 1960, 292 [transl.]).  – The dissyllabic form ῑ῾ ρός, attested inter alia in the VE formula Ἴλιος ἱρή (6.96n.), is originally Aeolic (Locher 1963, 9  f.; Wathelet 1970, 356  f.; Janko).

659–662 In the battle over Sarpedon’s corpse, the narrator repeatedly alludes to the particular efforts by Glaukos and the Lykians for their slain leader: starting with the healing of Glaukos solicited from Apollo (508  ff.), to his explicit appeal to the Lykians to fight for Sarpedon (532  f.; cf. 564, 584  f.), to Glaukos’ resistance during one phase of the Trojan flight (593  f.). In the present passage, the Lykians would also not have given in to the Trojan pressure to flee (656– 658), had the battle over Sarpedon not been so brutal and full of casualties (at 661  f., the description of the savage fight at 633–644a is taken for granted). The battle for the corpse concludes with this final, once again intensified image of the Lykian hero (‘dead beneath many dead’): what follows is the despoiling at the hands of the Greeks and the retrieval and washing by Apollo (cf. Janko: ‘Homer needed to re-establish his focus on Sarpedon’s corpse’).

Objections have been made to the fact that, after the Trojan flight caused by the demoralization of Hektor, a different cause is specified for the Lykian flight, namely the sight of their slain leader (660–662) (cf. Pagani 2008, 405  f.). Attempts were made to remove this supposed discrepancy, either (a) by rejecting 508–658 as later additions and reading 659  f. as the direct response of the Lykians to Sarpedon’s death, on analogy with passages such as 11.744–746 (the Epeians flee immediately after the death of Moulios) or 16.287–292 and 21.206–209 (the Paionians flee after the death of Pyraichmes [284–305n.] and Asteropaios) (Leaf; Wilamowitz 1916, 139  f.; cf. Fenik 1968, 210), or (b) by linking the periphrastic denominationP basileús ‘king’ with Hektor (‘disturbed in his heart’) rather than with Sarpedon (‘wounded in the heart’) (interpreting ‘all’ [660] in the sense ‘all Trojans and allies’ and deleting 661  f. as a later, erroneous addition) (see app.crit.; West 2001, 12 n. 28; 2011, 325). But Hektor is never referred to as basileús in Homeric epic – the reference to Sarpedon in the Lykian context here is far more natural, cf. 12.318  f. (Leaf). Attempts to interpret the passage without deleting verses in van Leeuwen on 659  f.; Janko; van der Valk 1964, 579 n. 19; Wilson 2000, 14; cf. above.

659 οὐδ’ … μένον, ἀλλ’ ἐφόβηθεν: On the rhetorical polar expressionP (322n.), cf. 5.498 ὑπέμειναν  … οὐδ’ ἐφόβηθεν; on the ‘presentation through negation’ (οὐδ’  … μένον), 130–144n. – On ἐφόβηθεν, 290n. — ἴφθιμοι Λύκιοι: on the epithets for Lykians, 421n.; the present noun-epithet formula appears only here and at 12.417, in both cases with a negative and impf. (‘the Lykians were unable to …’), so that the epithetP could be understood contextually: ‘not even the Lykians were strong enough to resist’ (on the meaning of ἴφθιμος, 620n.); this would also be supported by the analogous VB at 4.387 ἔνθ’ οὐδὲ ξεῖνός περ ἐών … (concessive). The epithet may also have a pregnant meaning at 12.376 ἴφθιμοι Λυκίων ἡγήτορες (VB, in a positive context: scaling of the wall).

659 ἐφόβηθεν: = ἐφοβήθησαν (R 16.2).

292 

 Iliad 16

660–661a βασιλῆα: ‘their king, commander’; a periphrastic denominationP in secondary focalizationP (2.778bn. with bibliography), with a particular function in this context: the Lykians flee because their commander is dead (cf. van Leeuwen on 659  f.). — ἴδον βεβλαμμένον ἦτορ  | κείμενον ἐν νεκύων ἀγύρει: The main message resides in κείμενον; subordinate to this is βεβλαμμένον (in the sense ‘wounded in the heart’ = ‘dead’): ‘they saw that he was lying dead among a pile of dead’ (on the subordination of one of the participles, see Nägelsbach 1834, 283  f.; Classen 1867, 127–132; K.-G. 2.103  f.). — βεβλαμμένον: to be preferred as the lectio difficilior (also attested in a papyrus), even if the meaning ‘damage, injure’ is barely attested for βλάπτω in Homeric epic (cf. 331n.; Cheyns 1979, 607  f.). Parts of the transmission ‘simplified’ the reading to βεβλημένον and βεβολημένον (VE βεβολημένος ἦτορ also at 9.9, albeit of mental anguish) or replaced it with δεδαϊγμένον in accord with 17.535  f. (δεδαϊγμένον ἦτορ  | κείμενον) and Od. 13.320; see van der Valk 1964, 579  f.; Janko on 659–662; differently Cheyns 1979 (pro βεβλημένον).  — ἦτορ: probably concrete ‘heart’ in the anatomical sense: Patroklos struck Sarpedon in the area of the heart (481 φρένες  … ἀμφ’ ἁδινὸν κῆρ), cf. 22.452 πάλλεται ἦτορ ‘the heart is beating/pulsating’ (Jahn 1987, 9). — κείμενον ἐν: an inflectable VB formula (Il./Od. 9× acc., 1× gen.; also 1× Il. in verse middle), frequently, as here, of warriors lying dead (18.235  f., 21.201  f., 24.702) or of other dead creatures (12.208  f., Od. 3.259  f., 11.576  f.) and dependent on a verb of seeing (also Il. 12.208  f., 18.235  f., 24.702, Od. 11.576  f.). — ἐν νεκύων ἀγύρει: literally ‘among the accumulation of bodies’, ‘a bold and vigorous expression’ (Leaf), cf. 24.141 (νηῶν ἀγ., see ad loc.).

661b VE ≈ 550. — This is one of the few passages in Homeric epic in which warriors fall ‘anonymously’, i.e. with no mention of their names; in Book 16 also at 785 (‘thrice nine men’): Visser 1987, 42  f.; Morrison 1999, 133 with n.  23; Pagani 2008, 416 n. 252 (all with collections of examples); also 18.230–231an.

πολέες γὰρ …: explains the expression ‘accumulation of corpses’ (Richardson 1990, 146, who characterizes such ‘explanations’ as ‘a technique of composition, an alternative way of relating events’). – On the motif of a warrior fallen ‘on top of’ another, 579n.

662 2nd VH ≈ 11.336. — The metaphor of the ‘tensioning of the battle’ denotes an escalation (‘in-ten-sification’, Latin (in)tendere ≈  Greek tanýein) of the fighting and implies that there will be many dead: 14.389n. with bibliography and paral­lels.

εὖτ(ε): ‘after this, since’. In Homeric epic, εὖτε is usually employed as a temporal conjunction, as here (a prosodic alternative for ὅτε): Chantr. 2.255; see also the biblio­ graphy at 3.10n. — ἔριδα κρατερήν: like κρατερὴ ὑσμίνη (447n.), of the ‘tremendous, powerful battle’; an inflectable noun-epithet formula, also at 13.358 (likewise in a context with τανύω), 20.48 (personification of Eris, cf. 11.3  f. Ἔριδα … | ἀργαλέην). ἔρις is un-

660 βασιλῆα (ϝ)ίδον: on the prosody, R 4.3; on the inflection, R 11.3; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — ἦτορ: acc. of respect (R 19.1). 662 κάππεσον: = κατ-έπεσον (R 20.1, 16.1). — ἐτάνυσσε: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 293

surprisingly often linked with pejorative attributes, including 3.7 κακή (see ad loc., with bibliography), 14.389 αἰνοτάτη, 16.476 θυμοβόρος (19.58n.), 20.55 βαρεῖα. — ἐτάνυσσε Κρονίων: The combination of a predicate (usually in the aor.) + Κρονίων is a common structure at VE (14× Il., 14× Od., 4× Hes., 2× h.Hom.). – On τανύω in combination with an abstract acc. object, 14.389n.

663–665 The despoiling of Sarpedon’s corpse is the final element of the themeP ‘duel’ (419–683n.); the corpse itself does not fall into Greek hands, of course, but is transported to Lykia by Apollo (666  ff.)  – apparently unbeknownst to all (as can be gleaned from Glaukos’ statement at 17.150  f. in particular; see Janko on 666–683; Aceti 2008, 154). For additional bibliography on the motif of spoliation, 500n. – The removal of the booty is regularly performed by the companions of the victorious hero, as here (506–507n.). 663 ≈ 19.412; 1st VH ≈ 8.194. — οἳ δ’ ἄρ(α): signals a change in topic, almost = ‘the others, however’ (here of the opposing party), cf. at VB 2.780, 3.8, 8.53, 12.154 and frequently after the VB formula ὣς ἔφαθ’ (e.g. 24.265n.). — ἀπ’ ὤμοιϊν Σαρπηδόνος ἔντε’ ἕλοντο: ἔντεα represents a variant of τεύχεα (with initial vowel), cf. 19.412 ἀπ’ ὤμοιϊν Πατρόκλου τεύχε’ ἕλοντο (on the VE formula τεύχε’ ἕλοντο, 650n. and, in general, 559–560n.).

664 1st VH = 18.131 (to caesura C 1), 23.27. — Asyndetic sequences of epithets – here ‘bronze, gleaming’ – add emphasis (183n., end). On descriptions of corselets with reference to material and appearance, cf. 134n.; on marmáironta ‘glitter­ing, gleaming’ in particular, 3.397n.; Ciani 1974, 143  f.

τὰ μέν: 60n.; μέν here perhaps with an implicit differentiation between Sarpedon’s armor, on the one hand, and his corpse (to be supplied mentally as αὐτὸν δέ), on the other: the Achaians do not capture the latter; cf. Janko on 663–665. — κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας: an inflectable VE formula (acc. pl. 10× Il., 1× Od.; gen. sing. 2× Od.; also dat. pl. with ἐνί 2× Il., 4× Od.; dat. sing. with παρά 1× Od.) and after caesura B 1 (acc. pl. 3× Il. [with Ἀχαιῶν]; dat. pl. 4× Il.; gen. sing. 3× Od.; acc. sing. 3× Od.; acc. sing. with ἀνά 1× h.Ap.; dat. sing. with παρά 3× Od. [and in other positions in the verse 2× Il.]); see 24.336n.

665 2nd VH = 278, etc. (see ad loc.).

666–683 Zeus instructs Apollo to begin preparations for the burial of Sarpedon. Hypnos and Thanatos convey the body to his homeland of Lykia. Before the Greeks can drag Sarpedon’s corpse to their camp, Zeus initiates the recovery of the dead warrior in accord with Hera’s advice (450  ff.) (on the motif of carrying away heroes, 437n.); in his orders to Apollo, he uses words identical or at

663 οἵ: i.e. Patroklos and his men; on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — ὤμοιϊν: gen. dual (cf. 560n.). 665 ἑτάροισι: = ἑταίροις; dative indirect object of δῶκε.

294 

 Iliad 16

least similar to those of Hera (454–457 ≈ 671–675), but without mentioning their origin: he makes her advice his own (for an analogous case, 36–45n.). Sarpedon’s burial is lent emphasis by being mentioned three times (1. Hera to Zeus, 2. Zeus to Apollo, 3. narrator-text, i.e. in the manner of a messenger scene) (on multiple re­ petitions of such passages, 24.118–119n.; Fingerle 1939, 261; Μπεζαντακος 1996, 210  f.). – The scene, supernatural in a way, is ‘a very welcome breathing-space of beauty and compassion in the midst of the savage slaughter […]. The incident may be a digression within the episode, but it is structural in the poem. It gives us the emotional clew that serves to guide our feelings in what is to come […], the most terrible part of the story, the slaying of Hector […]. We go through by anticipation, in a miniature as it were, the range of emotions we are to experience on a greater scale through the conclusion of the poem. Here we have a death which we resent followed by a merciful picture of the broken body laid reverently in its native earth. There, in the closing books […], [we have] the final scene in which the poor abused body of Hector is at last borne home’ (Owen 1946, 159–161; cf. Schein 1984, 187; anticipation of scenes/motifsP). – The actions the god Apollo was instructed to undertake, and which he then carried out, correspond to Homeric burial rites, as also depicted, with partially similar phrasing, in the cases of Patroklos (18.343  ff.) and Hektor (24.580  ff.) (see 18.343–355n. and 24.580–595n. with bibliography; cf. Achilleus’ burial at Od. 24.58  ff.). The elements that recur here are: washing, anointing, dressing and burial (including construction of a burial monument). Due to the circumstances, this series of actions is here preceded by recovery of the body; regarding its transportation to Sarpedon’s homeland, the present scene has much in common with that in Book 24 (Hektor; for detailed comparison, Maronitis 2004, 69  ff.). – In all this, Sarpedon, as the son of Zeus (who himself ordered this), receives a special distinction, as compensation as it were, for suffering the loss of his life (cf. 460  f.): he is anointed with ambrosia and clothed in divine (ámbrota) garments (word-playP: emphatic repetition of the same word stem). The text does not specify whether the treatment with ambrosia implies that Sarpedon will be made immortal (like Iphigeneia after she was sacrificed in the version of the myth at ‘Hes.’ fr. 23(a).21  ff. M.-W.; on the uses of ambrosia, 670n.). Such a notion would probably be un-Homeric: after death, Homeric warriors go to Hades (Griffin 1980, 167). What is more, most parallels for achieving immortality with ambrosia refer to living heroes (among them Demophon at h.Cer. 237, Aristaios at Pindar, Pythian 9.63, Achilleus at Apoll. Rhod., Argonautica 4.871; further examples in Richardson on h.Cer. 237; Clay 1981/82, 114–116; on the cult of Sarpedon in Lykia, 456–457n.). – Additional bibliography on the present passage: Janko on 669–673; Somville 1999, 74  f.; Delattre 2006, 265–270; Aceti 2008, 150–154.

Commentary 

 295

666 =  15.220 (Zeus instructs Apollo to spur on Hektor and to strike terror into the Greeks with the aegis); similar verse structure: 7.405, Od. 7.178, 13.49, 23.247; 1st VH (to caesura C 1) =  Il. 21.228; ≈  21.435.  — As in the case of the healing of Glaukos, how Apollo is suited to the task at hand (cleansing Sarpedon’s corpse) cannot be determined with any certainty: whether as a local Lykian deity (513n.) and/or as the god of cultic purity (24.18–21n. with bibliography); see also Janko on 666–683; Nickau 1977, 210–212; Aceti 2008, 151 n.  364; Clay 2009, 37.  – On the constant ‘availability’ of the gods (Zeus, who continually monitors events [644–646], immediately addresses Apollo), 431–432n.

καὶ τότ(ε): frequently as the start of divine activities or interventions (in the Iliad also at 1.426, 1.494, 8.69, 13.206, 15.220, 17.593, 20.375, 21.228, 22.209, 24.32). — νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς: an inflectable VE formula (nom. 22× Il., 8× Od., 3× Hes., 2× h.Hom., 1× in an epic fragment of uncertain source [Titan. fr. 5.2 Bernabé]; gen. Διὸς νεφεληγερέταο 6× Il., 4× Hes., 1× h.Ap.); frequently, as here, the subject in speech introduction formulaeP (24× early epic). νεφεληγερέτα is the most common epithet of Zeus (1.511n.; equivalent formulae: 298n.); on Ancient Near Eastern equivalences, West 1997, 115. On the ending -ᾰ, 33n. (ἱππότα).

667–668 1st VH of 667 ≈ 15.221; on 668, see 668–673n. — The origin and meaning of Apollo’s epithet ‘Phoibos’ are obscure – in antiquity it was usually understood as ‘pure’ (or ‘radiant’), which would in fact be appropriate for the present context (cleansing) (1.43n. with bibliography). Epithets can be used independently, as here and at 788, for the name of the deity (cf. 24.360n.); on the more common phrase ‘Phoibos Apollo’, 527n. – Washing the corpse is an integral component of the burial ritual (666–683n.), here further justified by the situation: it is smeared with blood and dirt (639n.; on the blood motif, 459–461n.).

εἰ δ’ ἄγε νῦν: ‘come now!, let’s go!’ (also at 19.108, Od. 1.271), an interjection with the character of a request (variants: εἰ δ’ ἄγε (δή), ἀλλ’ ἄγε (νῦν/δή), νῦν δ’ ἄγε); Foley 1999, 224  f. At the beginning of a speech, as here: 6.376, Od. 12.112, 23.35 (and after a voc. at Il. 17.685, Od. 2.178, 22.391). On εἰ in this function, 6.376n.; δ(έ) is formulaically ossified (Graziosi/Haubold on 6.376).  — φίλε Φοῖβε: attributive φίλε with a personal name only here and in the iteratum (in both cases Apollo), elsewhere always with an appellative (usually a kinship term): Opelt 1978, 182–184. — κελαινεφὲς αἷμα: a noun-epithet formula, also at 5.798, 14.437, as well as 4× Il./Od. αἷμα κελαινεφές before caesura C 2. On blood designated as ‘dark’, 529n. – κελαινεφής is in origin probably an epithet of the

667 κάθηρον: aor. imper. of καθαίρω, here ‘cleanse someone of something, wash something off someone’. 668 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).

296 

 Iliad 16

weather god Zeus (‘with dark clouds’: 1.397n.; cf. 666 νεφεληγερέτα); how the transfer to blood came about is in the end unclear, but the word serves in any case as a ‘metrical extension’ for αἷμα κελαινόν (see LfgrE s.v. κελαινεφής, with relevant bibliography). — αἷμα κάθηρον | … Σαρπηδόνα: a double acc. with verbs of cleaning, by analogy with verbs of removing (24.419n.). — κάθηρον | ἐλθὼν ἐκ βελέων: The import of ἐλθών is unclear; either (a) with κάθηρον, in the sense ‘rush to the aid’ (‘go there and wash him out of range’) or (b) with ἐκ βελέων, in the sense ‘go away’ (‘clean him after you walk out of range ⟨with him⟩’). (a) is supported by the common usage of ἐλθών ‘go there and …’ (521n.; Chantr. 2.99), (b) by logic: Apollo must retrieve the corpse from the battlefield before he can clean it (thus unequivocally at 678: ἐκ βελέων Σαρπηδόνα … ἀείρας) (AH; Willcock; Janko; West 2011, 325). – On ἐκ βελέων, 122–123n. — καί μιν ἔπειτα …: In Homeric epic, ἔπειτα can, in addition to its purely temporal meaning (‘since, therefore, accordingly, in this case’), function to clarify logical consequences, frequently thus after a conditional clause, a causal clause or in a summary of the action (cf. 19.112–113n., 24.290n., 24.356n.; AH [with Anh.] and West on Od. 3.62; Cunliffe s.v.; Klingner 1940, 364–366). The non-temporal interpretation is perhaps more satisfactory in the present passage as well (‘clean Sarpedon of the blood and thereby wash him in the river’), rather than assuming a twofold cleansing of the corpse  – first a ‘rough clean’, followed by washing with water (thus e.g. Faesi; cf. the discussion in Aceti 2008, 151  f.). At any rate, the portrayal at 678  f. makes no mention of two cleanings. The instruction αἷμα κάθηρον thus contains the starting point, which is then given greater specificity; cf. καὶ … ἔπειτα at 14.255 = 15.28 (Hera raises a storm and thereby makes Herakles reach Cos), Od. 14.233 (Odysseus as a ‘Cretan’: ‘my estate rapidly increased, and thus I became powerful and respected’), 21.215 (Odysseus to Melanthios and Eumaios: ‘I will procure holdings and houses for you in my vicinity, and thereby you shall become friends and brothers to Telemachos’). 668–673 ≈ 678–683 (with 672 = 682; 669–671/673 and 679–681/683 are distinct merely in terms of the the verb forms [direct speech and narrator-text]; cf. Janko on 669–673). On the description of instructions and their execution with literal repetitions, 495–497n.

669 ≈ 679; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 6.216. — In the Iliad, the Skamandros is often simply called ‘the river’; on its location at the edge of the battlefield, 24.351n.

ἄποπρο: on the orthography as a single word and on the accent, West 1998, XVIIIf.; cf. Schw. 2.428; LfgrE s.v. — φέρων: The pres. stem tends to mean ‘carry’, the aor. stem ‘bring’, and thus the pres. part. is employed here regardless of the anteriority (AH) (cf. the classification in Mutzbauer 1893, 136  ff.). — ποταμοῖο ῥοῇσιν: a common poetic expression, in addition to the iterata also at 11.732, Od. 6.85, 9.450, 10.529, 12.1; here ‘(wash) with river water’. ῥοαί also occurs in conjunction with various other genitives, cf. 229, 719; 3.5n.

669 πολλόν: adverbial acc. with ἄποπρο, ‘far away’.

Commentary 

 297

670 ≈  680; 1st VH ≈  h.Cer. 237; 2nd VH ≈  Od. 7.265, 24.59 (burial of Achilleus), h.Hom. 6.6; also VE (from caesura C 2 onward) ≈ Il. 5.905, Od. 10.542, 14.320, 14.516, 15.338. — The gods use ambrosia as anointing oil (here and at 680) or cleansing oil (14.170), as well as for nourishment; it keeps the skin beautiful and preserves the corpse from decomposition, like the ‘ambrosian rose oil’ Aphrodite applies to Hektor’s corpse at 23.186  f. Thetis trickles nectar and ambrosia into the nostrils of the dead Patroklos for the same purpose (19.38n.). – On dressing the body, 24.588n.; on the implicit motif ‘clothes make the man’ in early epic, Foley 1999, 259  f. (esp. evident in the Odyssey: on Scheria Odysseus is a guest of honor thanks to Nausikaa’s clothes, on Ithaka he is a beggar on account of his rags; here the motif probably serves to honor the body).

A chiastic verse with two imperatives in -σον and two words from the stem ἀμβρο-: χρῖσον ἀμβροσίῃ – ἄμβροτα … ἕσσον (an accumulation of ἀμβρο- also at 5.338  f. [Aphrodite], 14.177  f. [Hera], h.Ven. 62  f. [Aphrodite]); also the figura etymologica at VE: εἵματα ἕσσον (although this is a very common phrase in early epic). On the ‘smooth and musical flow of the lines’, see Edwards 1987, 263 (with reference to the figura etymologica also in 671: πέμπε … πομποῖσιν). — ἄμβροτα εἵματα: a noun-epithet formula (iterata as well as at h.Ap. 184 [at VB]); ἄμβροτα εἵματα are always provided by gods (e.g. by Kalypso to Odysseus, by the Nereids to the dead Achilleus) or worn by the gods themselves, so that ἄμβροτος is ‘belonging to the gods (or presented by them)’. – ἄμβροτος is a privative compound related to βροτός ‘mortal, human’ (*mr̥ -tó-, Latin mortuus, Vedic mr̥ tá, negated a-mŕ̥ ta): LfgrE s.v.; Frisk and Beekes s.v. βροτός.

671–672 = 681  f. (in the narrator-text, 3rd person); cf. 454  f. (see ad loc. on the sentence construction); 1st VH of 672 ≈ Hes. Th. 759. — On sleep and death, 454n. A chiastic verse in a broader sense: πέμπε  … πομποῖσιν  |  … κραιπνοῖσι φέρεσθαι (cf. 670n.). — κραιπνοῖσι: as an attribute elsewhere only of the winds (e.g. Od. 6.171) and of feet (e.g. Il. 6.505), as an adverb also in clauses with a divine (or human) subject (e.g. 14.292). — διδυμάοσιν: = διδύμοις ‘twins’, a formation analogous to substantives (and personal names) in -άων, e.g. ὀπάων ‘companion, escort’: Chantraine 1933, 162  f.; Risch 57. 673 ≈ 437 (see ad loc.), 683. — Λυκίης εὐρείης: 455n. — πίονι δήμῳ: 437n.

674–675 =  456  f. (see ad loc.).  — Completion of the burial by the family is not mentioned in the report at 676–683; the narrator instead returns in 684 to the main storyline (cf. de Jong [1987] 2004, 288 n. 33).

670 περὶ … ἕσσον: so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ἄμβροτα (ϝ)είματα (ϝ)έσσον: on the prosody, R 4.3. 671 πέμπε  … ἅμα  … φέρεσθαι: ‘hand him over for transport’; φέρεσθαι is a transitive middle (‘take with, bring home’) and final inf. with πέμπε … μιν πομποῖσιν; cf. 575. 672 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ὦκα: adv., ‘swiftly’.

298 

 Iliad 16

676–683 A short type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (1.43–52n.): (1) cause of the intervention (676), (3) description of the route (677), (5) realization of the intent of the intervention (678  ff.); cf. Kurz 1966, 104  f. – On Mt. Ida as the standard location of the gods, 431–432n. 676–677a =  15.236  f. (execution of the orders at 15.220 [cf. 666n.]); VB of 676 (ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἄρα) =  2.419, 4.198, 12.351, 15.236, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 368.  — 676 represents an alternative (attested only here and in the iteratum) to the more common speech cappingP and ob­ edience formula at 458 ὣς ἔφατ’· οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε(ν) … (see ad loc.). The narrator perhaps uses πατρός to stress the close relationship between the father Zeus and his son Apollo (‘filial obedience’: Janko on 15.236–243). On Apollo’s role as ‘heeder’, cf. 531 (in the context of Glaukos’ prayer). — ἀνηκούστησεν: ‘not listen to, fail to obey’, via litotes ‘willingly obey’ (LfgrE); in early epic only here and in the iteratum (attested frequently in post-Homeric literature). A denominative verb in -έω from a negated verbal adjective (ἀνήκουστος, attested only in post-Homeric texts), like ἀελπτέω ‘not have expected something’ (7.310) from ἄελπτος, ἀπιστέω ‘doubt’ (Od. 13.339) from ἄπιστος, also in the form νηκουστέω (Il. 20.14, with negative prefix as in νηλεής ‘merciless’, etc.): Tucker 1990, 82–84. 677 1st VH (to caesura C 1) =  11.196, 15.79, 15.169 (all with subsequent ἐς/εἰς), 15.237; ≈ 8.410. — κατ’ Ἰδαίων ὀρέων: a formulaic phrase after caesura A 2 (6× Il., also 3× ἀπ’, 1× ἐξ). — φύλοπιν αἰνήν: 256n. (with reference to 6.1n.). 678–683 ≈ 668–673 (see ad loc.).

678 cf. 668. — After the extended ‘period of suffering’ for the corpse, the speed of its recovery and burial are now stressed: ‘immediately’ (also 671/681 ‘swift escorts’, 672/682 ‘quickly’); cf. 24.37bn.: a speedy burial is required for practical reasons.

αὐτίκα δ’ ἐκ βελέων: cf. VB αὐτίκα δ’ ἐξ ὀχέων 5× Il. — Σαρπηδόνα δῖον: 638–640n.

684–867 Patroklos advances successfully to the city walls of Troy and falls, attacked by Apollo, Euphorbos and Hektor. After the burial of Sarpedon, the story picks up from exactly where it was interrupted: Zeus allows Patroklos to advance further, whereas Hektor retreats to the city together with the Trojans and Lykians (652  ff. →  684  ff./692  ff./698  ff./71 2  ff.; Fenik 1968, 38, 209; Clay 2011, 89). This episode, like the previous one, largely follows the ‘rebuke pattern’ (538–683n.), onto which is added the depiction of Patroklos’ death at 783  ff.: (1) Hektor retreats to the city walls after a Greek advance (684  ff./712  ff.), (2) Apollo censures Hektor (battle paraenesis: 715–726),

676 οὐδ(έ): in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).

Commentary 

 299

(3/4) Hektor’s counter-attack and Greek resistance (727–750), (6) fight over the body of Kebriones (751–782). The endpoint of the storyline, the duel between Patroklos and Hektor (818  ff.) – uneven, since Hektor cannot fall yet – and the death of Patroklos, is prepared for and simultaneously retardedP by the substitute killing of Kebriones and the fight over his body (712–783n.). The names of the two main heroes, Patroklos and Hektor, occur with above average frequency, e.g. 2× each at 730–733, 4× ‘Patroklos’ at 812–818, both names in a single verse at 760 and 818, across two verses at 762  f. and 839  f. (827  f. is similar). – The narrator explains unambiguously via an extended commentary that Patroklos’ (final) triumph will now at last be followed by his fall (684–691n.; on the chain of events Sarpedon – Patroklos – Hektor – Achilleus, 419–683n.). The thrill of victory that follows the vanquishing of Sarpedon is characteristic of Patroklos’ actions, i.e. a miscalculation of the situation and an overestimation of his own abilities. This development is expressed in the evaluation of Patroklos’ actions as a mistake (685  f.), the spurring on by Zeus (688  ff.), the killing of first nine, then later three times nine opponents (692  ff., 784  ff.), the attack on the walls of Troy (698  ff.), the two interventions by the god Apollo (698  ff., 784  ff.), the onset of the battle against Hektor, who is supported by Apollo (726  ff.), the killing and mocking of Hektor’s charioteer Kebriones (737  ff.), the Achaian superiority ‘contrary to fate’ (779  ff.), the sudden disarming of Patroklos by Apollo (784  ff.), Hektor’s speech of triumph (829  ff.) and Patroklos’ boasts in reply (847  f.). What happens next is exactly what Achilleus warned of at 87  ff.: Patroklos’ arrogance and intoxication with victory, brought about by his success, Zeus’ urging and Apollo’s intervention. Bibliography: Whitman 1958, 200  f.; Reinhardt 1961, 339, 347  f.; Gundert 1983, 121–124; Bannert 1988, 42  f., 161–163; Nesselrath 1992, 1  f.; Taplin 1992, 182–184; Alden 2000, 100  f., 256  f.; Leuzzi 2008, 280  f.; Karakantza 2014. – Thetis will summarize the events in the present passage briefly and pregnantly in her speech to He­phaistos at 18.453–456: battle at the Skaian Gate (here mentioned in 712), death at the hands of Apollo and Hektor (see 18.453–456n., with bibliography).  – Formally, the passage is framed by a ring-compositionP in a broader sense (684  ff./864  ff.: charioteer Automedon) and characterized by numerous recurrent (1) motifs and (2) sequences. (1): (a) charioteer and chariot, (b) 9  / 3×9  / 20 slain opponents, (c) interventions by Apollo; (2): (a) spurring on the charioteer (684  ff./727  ff.), (b) three times – the fourth time (702  ff./784  ff.), (c) disembarking from a chariot (733/755; cf. 712, 810), (d) ‘duels’ (in a loose sense) between Patroklos and Hektor (756  ff./818  ff.). The following graph illustrates how these motifs and sequences are interlaced (complex ring-composition).

300 

 Iliad 16

684  ff. Patroklos spurs on his charioteer Automedon and pursues the Trojans. 692  ff. Patroklos (kills 9 Trojans, attack on the city walls [three times – the fourth time], intervention by Apollo).

712  ff. Hektor (stops his chariot, intervention by Apollo).

727  f./731  f. Hektor spurs on his charioteer Kebriones and pursues Patroklos. 733  ff. Patroklos disembarks from his chariot and kills Kebriones.

755 Hektor disembarks from his chariot.

756  ff. ‘Duel’ between Patroklos and Hektor over the body of the charioteer. 783  ff. Patroklos (kills 3×9 Trojans, attack on the city walls [three times – the fourth time], intervention by Apollo).

806  ff. Euphorbos (who cast 20 Greeks from their chariots).

818  ff. ‘Duel’ between Patroklos and Hektor, death of Patroklos. 864  ff. Hektor attacks the charioteer Automedon.

Alternative graphs of the structure in Fenik 1968, 209; Stanley 1993, 169. – Neoananalysis traces the present portrayal of Patroklos’ death to other possible epic models: (1) the death of Patroklos at the hands of Apollo, Euphorbos and Hektor is modelled on the death of Achilleus as described in the Aethiopis: ‘Achilleus chases off the Trojans and pursues them into the city, but is killed by Paris and Apollo’ (Procl. Chrest. § 3 West; see Kullmann [1991] 1992, 115–118; Willcock 1997, 176–178, 188; Janko, Introd. to Il. 16 [p. 312  f.]). (2) The chain of events ‘Antilochos is killed by Memnon, Memnon in turn by Achilleus’, likewise attested in the Aethiopis, served as a model for the present chain of events ‘Patroklos is killed by Hektor, Hektor by Achilleus’ in accord with the maxim ‘Achilleus takes vengeance on the enemy for the death of his friend and thus seals his own fate’ (Schadewaldt [1952b] 1965, 175  f.; Kullmann loc. cit.; Bouvier 2002, 379–399; on the friendship between Achilleus and Antilochos, cf. the allusions at 23.556 and Od. 24.78  f.). But the extent of the parallels is disputed in both cases, as is their relevance for the interpretation of the Iliad (Burgess 1997 with additional neoanalytic bibliography; Burgess 2009, 79–81), even if the Iliad is not taken to be earlier than the Aethiopis/Memnonis (thus West 2003; for additional biblio­ graphy on the relationship between the Iliad and the Aethiopis, 419–683n., end; where also further discussion of neoanalysis). 684–783 Apollo stops Patroklos’ deadly and victorious onslaught at the walls of Troy. Patroklos kills Kebriones, Hektor’s charioteer. Patroklos and Hektor fight over Kebriones’ body, which is eventually captured by the Greeks.

Commentary 

 301

684–730 The narrator sets the stage for both warring sides regarding the death of Patroklos: Patroklos advances as far as possible (to the walls of Troy: 702), Hektor retreats as far as possible (to the Skaian Gate: 712). Apollo averts the conquest of Troy via a complementary intervention: he stops Patroklos (700  ff.) and spurs on Hektor to stand fast (715  ff.). Patroklos must die first, before it is the turn of Hektor (whose death will likewise be initiated at the Skaian Gate: 22.5  f.). 684–691 ‘Patroklos forgets Achilleus’ warnings, gets carried away chasing the Trojans and thus hurtles to his death’ (Stallmach 1968, 35 [transl.]). Via the (narrative strategy) ‘dilemma’ – after killing Sarpedon, Patroklos can neither return to the Achaian camp nor conquer Troy, because of the (over-)eagerness characteristic of him (already apparent at the beginning of Book 16, cf. 46  f.), on the one hand, and the ‘will of Zeus’, on the other – the narrator elicits sympathy for the character Patroklos who, in accord with his plan, is ultimately doomed to fail. The audience’s attitude toward this is manipulated via an accumulation of the narrator’s means of representation (de Jong [1987] 2004, 18  f.; parallel: 12.110  ff. on Asios): (1) judgmental comments at 685 (‘made a grave mistake’) and 686 (‘the fool!’); (2) (affirmatively phrased) variant of an ‘if-not’ situationP at 686  f.; (3) internal prolepsisP: Patroklos will die (implied at 687); (4) gnome at 688–690; (5) double motivationP at 691. Bibliography: FrontisiDucroux 1986, 56  f.; Edwards 1987, 263  f.; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 30  f.; Collobert 2011, 169  f.; esp. on (1): 46–47n. and 685n.; on (3) likewise 46–47n.; on (4) 688–691n.; on (5) Deichgräber 1952, 114  f.; Kullmann 1956, 144 with n. 2; Lesky 1961, 22; Stoevesandt 2004, 190 n. 578. 684–685 The text does not clarify whether Patroklos chases the fleeing Trojans (a) with his chariot or (b) on foot, i.e. whether he directs his charioteer (a) to drive him (thus Hektor explicitly to Kebriones at 727  f.) or (b) to accompany him during the chase. (a) is indicated by the normal use of a chariot to cover distances quickly during flight or pursuit (nor is mounting and dismounting a chariot reported with any regularity [398n.]  – at 733, Patroklos dismounts ‘again’); (b) by the androktasiē scene that follows immediately at 692  ff. (in the Iliad, fighting takes place on foot), as well as by the non-specific wording here. Bibliography in favor of (a): Latacz 1977, 218; Shear 2000, 44; in favor of (b): AH; Janko on 684–687.

ἵπποισι καὶ Αὐτομέδοντι: a unique phrase beside the more common ἵπποισι καὶ ἅρμασι (6× Il., 4× ‘Hes.’; also Il. 24.442 ἵπποισι καὶ ἡμιόνοις [on which, 24.350n.]).

684 ἵπποισι: on the declension, R 11.2. — καὶ Αὐτομέδοντι: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — κελεύσας + dat.: ‘call on, urge’.

302 

 Iliad 16

685 1st VH ≈ 564 (see ad loc.); VE = Od. 4.503; ≈ Od. 4.509, cf. h.Cer. 246. — The Greek term átē ‘delusion’ (here the verbal form aásthē) is difficult to define; it usually occurs in character languageP (although 2× in the narrator-text in Book 16, here and at 805; statistics in Cairns 2012, 17 n. 37) and characterizes a thoughtless action with catastrophic consequences, here Patroklos’ death (1.412n. with bibliography): his personal victory and the Trojan retreat cause Patroklos to rashly continue his attack on Troy; in this context, he disregards not only Achilleus’ instructions but also the limits imposed on him as a human being (on which, cf. 705n.). In so far as Patroklos’ death is intended by the gods, his delusion is also indirectly and in part caused by them, as is perhaps intimated here via the mention of Zeus at 688  ff.: Otto (1929) 1947, 274  f.; Bremer 1969, 102–104; additional bibliography at 684–867n., as well as in Cairns 2012 (esp. 12  ff. on ‘external agents’ of átē).

μετεκίαθε: ‘walked/drove behind, followed after, pursued’; a compound, limited to epic, from the defective preterite ἔκιε (Kölligan 2007, 492  f.). The expansion -αθ- probably has the function of an aor. (Chantr. 1.328; Risch 278; Hainsworth on 11.51–2); - ῑ´ - is likely a metrical lengthening (Untermann). On μετα- in the sense ‘chase’, see Kurz 1966, 132  f. — καὶ μέγ’ ἀάσθη: ‘was greatly deluded in this regard, acted under great delusion, made a grave mistake in this’ – ‘καὶ μέγ’ ἀάσθη νήπιος is the summary of the events portrayed [sc. 684  f.], not their precondition’: Gruber 1963, 59 (transl.). On the intransitive meaning of the aor. ἀάσθη, 19.112–113n. (‘was in a deluded condition’).

686–687 The motif of a warrior dying due to his disregard of a warning occurs also at 2.831  ff., 11.328  ff. and 13.663  ff. (prophecies of seers to their sons before the war); 20.407  ff. is similar (Polydoros’ father would not have let him go to war because of his youth): Strasburger 1954, 85; Wöhrle 1999, 66 n. 65. – Counter-examples (during battle, a warrior follows the warning of a colleague or a god; see Schmitt 1990, 190): 7.108  ff./120  f. (Menelaos), 8.130  ff./157  f. (Diomedes), 20.375  ff./379  f. (Hektor); even Patroklos himself temporarily at 16.705–711. 686 On the narrator commentary nḗpios ‘the fool!’, 46–47n. and 684–691n.

δέ: explanatory (≈  γάρ) after νήπιος, likewise at 833: Race 1999/2000, 222–224 (cf. 90n.). — ἔπος: specifically referring to a certain speech/set of instructions within the Iliad, as at 2.807, 10.540, 15.566 (internal analepsisP); here: Achilleus’ orders at 87  ff. — Πηληϊάδαο: the ‘long form’ of the patronymic; on the ‘Aeolian’ ending (2× -αο beside 10× ‘Ionian’ -εω), cf. the bibliography at 134n., end. — φύλαξεν: ‘keep (in one’s heart), be concerned about, observe’ (cf. 30n.).

685 μέγ(α): adv., ‘very’. 686 δὲ (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Πηληϊάδαο: on the declension, R 11.1. — φύλαξεν: on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.

Commentary 

 303

687 ἦ τ(ε): affirmative, ‘most certainly’, in Homeric epic 9× in the apodosis of a conditional sentence (Ruijgh 795–803, esp. 800  f.; de Jong on Il. 22.49–50); on other uses, 3.56n. (‘otherwise, else’), 18.13n. (‘and yet’). A phrase belonging to character languageP, only here and at 17.236 in the narrator-text (in both examples after νήπιος); see 46n. on ἦ γάρ (with bibliography). — κῆρα κακὴν μέλανος θανάτοιο: a dense, expressive paraphrase for ‘death’, with epithets of negative connotations and with the chiasmus noun  – adj.  | adj.  – noun (on which, cf. 297n.); similarly θάνατόν τε κακὸν καὶ κῆρα μέλαιναν (21.66, Od. 22.14; on which, 47n., and on the VE formula, 2.859n.), ὑπέκφυγε κῆρα μέλαιναν (Il. 5.22 VE). On expressions with φυγεῖν (here ὑπέκφυγε), see Clarke 1999, 245; additional expressions meaning ‘escape death’ in Morrison 1999, 135  f. n.  36.  – κὴρ/κῆρε/κῆρες  … θανάτοιο is an inflectable phrase (2.302/834, 8.70, 11.332, 12.326, 22.202/210, Od. 11.171/398, 14.207); on κῆρα κακήν, cf. κακὰς … κῆρας Il. 12.113, Od. 2.316, 23.332; on the term κήρ, 2.301–302n. with bibliography (also Dietrich 1965, 243  ff.): usually employed with the abstract meaning ‘doom, death’, as here. – μέλανος θανάτοιο is a VE formula (in total 5× early epic: 2.834n.; on the underlying notion, also 316n.; Bremer 1976, 42  f.). On the epithets of θάνατος, see the bibliography at 333–334n., end (on πορφύρεος θάνατος). 688–691 The impossibility of the preceding hypothesis (686  f.) is underlined with a gnomic statement regarding Zeus’ omnipotence: Zeus acts in accord with his own will  – so also in the case of Patroklos (691; see Ahrens 1937, 29; similar gnomes: 15.490  ff., 20.242  f., 24.525  ff., Od. 16.211  f., Hes. Th. 442  f., Op. 5  ff.). But the use of the gnome is somewhat paradoxical: Zeus spurs on Patroklos to fight – although not in order to grant him victory, but rather to drive him to his death (cf. the following n.).  – Gnomes are comparatively rare in the narrator-text (3× Il., 2× Od.); all are concerned with the relationship between gods and human beings: Lardinois 1997, 230–232. The impression conveyed by the gnome (and already earlier in the narrator commentary at 685  f.) of strong emotional involvement by the narrator lends special emphasis to the turning point in the action (Richardson 1990, 144  f.; cf. 684–691n.). 688–690 ≈ 17.176–178 (Hektor to Glaukos, who charged him with cowardice). 689  f. are absent from several papyri and numerous manuscripts and are thus generally regarded as a concordance interpolation from 17.177  f. (La Roche; Janko; Von der Mühll 1952, 249 n. 37; West 2001, 13 with n. 31). But in the context, the interpolation is not entirely nonsensical: to the alternative ‘to obey or not obey Achilleus’ orders’ (686) is added a second, analogous alternative on the divine plane: ‘Zeus may frighten off Patroklos or spur him on to battle’, adding yet another tragic note to Patroklos’ fate (van der Valk 1964, 29; Edwards on 17.176–178). 688 Διὸς  … νόος: ‘will of Zeus’, cf. 103n.  — κρέσσων: On the spelling with -ε-, see West 1998, XX (s.v. ἄσσον).  — ἠέ περ: ‘than’; περ is here a mere intensification of ἤ (Denniston 487; Bakker 1988, 251).

688 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11) (also 689). — νόος: = νοῦς (R 6).

304 

 Iliad 16

689–690 = 17.177  f.; 2nd VH of 690 = 20.171. — ‘A god’s power is often emphasized by saying that he can do either of two opposite things’ (West on Hes. Th. 442– 443), e.g. 24.343  f., Od. 10.22, Hes. Th. 447 and the gnomes listed at 688–691n.; in reference to concrete situations: Il. 8.141  ff., 14.71  ff., 22.18  f. Divine actions are frequently described as ‘easy’: 3.381n., 24.446n. (on ‘quickly’). On the motif ‘confer or remove victory’, 121n. – The notion that even a courageous warrior can be frightened and routed occurs also at 13.300.

φοβεῖ καὶ ἀφείλετο: On the combination of (timeless) pres. and (gnomic) aor., see K.-G. 1.159  f.; Rijksbaron (1984) 2002, 32; frequent in similes: 355n. — ῥηϊδίως: in early epic always at VB (cf. M 10.2); as a runover word it is emphatic. — ὁτὲ δ’ … ἐποτρύνει μαχέσασθαι: the most plausible restoration of the text, which is transmitted in several variants (also 17.178, 20.171); see app.crit.; Janko; differently Ruijgh 835  f. — αὐτός: ‘highlights the identity of the subject in the case of opposing actions’, here approximately ‘then again’ (AH [transl.]; cf. LfgrE s.v. 1648.78  ff.).

691 VB = 15.534 (likewise an application to the current situation); 2nd VH = 17.570 (simi­ lar motif).  — On the double motivationP, 684–691n.  — θυμὸν  … ἐνῆκεν: perhaps an allusion to 656 Ἕκτορι … ἀνάλκιδα θυμὸν ἐνῆκεν: Zeus there causes Hektor’s retreat, here Patroklos’ attack. There is a causal link beyond the parallelism: Hektor’s retreat is the reason for Patroklos’ further advance (Gundert 1983, 122  f.). – On the motif ‘instill strength vel sim.’, 529n. The θυμός immanent in human beings cannot of course actually be ‘instilled’ but merely ‘incited, driven’ (ὀρίνω, ὀτρύνω); at 5.676, Athene ‘turns’ (τράπε) Odysseus’ θυμός. The majority of the tradition thus offers θυμὸν … ἀνῆκεν here (beside the v.l. ἐνῆκεν; cf. the parallels in LfgrE s.v. ἀνίημι 1152.8  ff. [but elsewhere always with an acc. of the person]; 656n. with bibliography). — θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν: a phrase beginning at the 3rd foot, as well as at VB, with θυμός in the nom./acc. (20× Il., 24× Od., 4× Hes., 1× h.Hom.).

692–697 A brief androktasiē scene (306–357n.), strongly typified: introduction in the form of a question (692  f.); catalogue of the fallen; conclusion in the form of a ring-compositionP containing the statement ‘these he killed’ at 697 (Minton 1962, 207  f.; Visser 1987, 50, 57 [‘Type C’]). The passage depicts in summary form the consequences  – fatal, for the time being, only to the Trojans – of Patroklos’ ‘actionism’ portrayed earlier at 684–691 by the narrator, and at the same time covers the time span – which appears brief, due to the rapid pace of the narrative – until his arrival at the walls of Troy (698  ff.); Patroklos’ apparent success is here darkened by the reference to his imminent

689 καὶ ἄλκιμον ἄνδρα: intensive ‘a man so war-like indeed’ or concessive ‘even so war-like a man’. — ἀφείλετο: so-called gnomic aorist. 690 ῥηϊδίως: = ῥᾳδίως. — ὁτέ: ‘when (some other time)’ (here with no correlative). 691 ὅς (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1).

Commentary 

 305

death (693): victory for now, i.e. Patroklos’ aristeia is a precondition of his death. By contrast, the first (formally very similar) catalogue of fallen warriors (415–417) marks the real climax of Patroklos’ aristeia, immediately before his successful duel against Sarpedon (Strasburger 1954, 56  f.; Friedrich [1956] 2003, 100  f. [‘finale’]; Bannert 1988, 161  f.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 44). – The list at 694–696 of the nine slain warriors provides in a broader sense a transition to the fight against the implicit tenth and most important opponent: Hektor (whose charioteer Kebriones will die in his place; see Singor 1991, 40, 43; 306–357n., 399–418n.). – The scene finds close parallels in the catalogues, similarly introduced with questions, at (a) 5.703–710, (b) 8.273– 277, and (c) 11.299–304, see the iterata for 692 (Strasburger loc. cit.; Fenik 1968, 68  f.; Bouvier 1997, 91; West 2011, 166): in each case, the superiority of the hero has a basis in divine influence, and three of the four catalogues contain lists based on the number three (a: 6, b: 8, c: 9, here: 9); furthermore, both (a) and (c) have Hektor as the subject (the reference to the Trojan hero is here established in the continuation of the action at 712  ff. and is affirmed by picking up the 2nd VH of 693 at 22.297: ‘the gods call Patroklos/Hektor to his death’); the present passage has similarities in particular with (c): both second verses contain more specific information on the circumstances (11.300: ‘when Zeus gave him [sc. Hektor] fame’), an identical syntactic and metrical structure at 11.301  f. and 16.694  f. (including ‘at first’ as well as a patronymic), ‘reuse’ of the name Autonoös in the same position (similarly Melanippos here and in (b), and a summary in the form of a ring-composition in the final verse (11.304/16.697). 692 ≈  5.703 (3rd pl.), 11.299 (3rd sing.); 1st VH =  8.273 (3rd sing.); cf. also Od. 9.14. — A question, subsequently answered by the narrator himself, as an emphatic introduction to an androktasiē scene, related in terms of subject matter to invocations of the Muses (112–113n.), like those in key situations within the action (immediately prior to Patroklos’ death), and here boldly connected with the apostrophe addressed to Patroklos (693); on the resulting amalgamation of the planes Muse/narrator/character/audience, see de Martino 1977, 2; Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 21  f.; de Jong (1987) 2004, 49  f.; Perceau 2002, 173  f.; Clay 2011, 20  f.; on Greek and non-Greek parallels, West 2011, 82  f. – The polar question regarding the ‘first’ and the ‘last’ opponent is aimed not so much at a specific sequence of killings as at their (large) number (exemplified in the subsequent catalogue), highlighting the hero’s achievement: Kemmer 1903, 139; Beye 1964, 352; de Jong 1992, 2; de Jong on Od. 9.3–15 (‘«aporia» motif’); on the designation ‘as the first’ in particular, cf. 284n. (selection signal). – On éntha ‘then, at that’, 209n.

306 

 Iliad 16

693 2nd VH (from caesura B 2 onward) = 22.297 (monologue by Hektor; on paral­ lels between the deaths of Patroklos and Hektor in general, 419–683n. and 818–863n.; on the interpretation of the iteratum, e.g. Stoevesandt 2004, 225: Hektor goes to his death with full awareness); ≈ 20.4, 20.16; also VE ≈ Od. 2.348, 11.410. — On the apostrophes addressed to Patroklos, 20n.

ὅτε … θεοὶ θάνατόνδ’ ἐκάλεσσαν: a pathetic formulation for imminent death, spoken by the omniscient narrator, only in the context of Patroklos and Hektor (iteratum, where in character languageP); 13.602 τὸν δ’ ἄγε μοῖρα κακὴ θανάτοιο τέλοσδε, 14.464 τῷ γάρ ῥα θεοὶ βούλευσαν ὄλεθρον are similar. The wording has a paradoxical relationship to the preceding verse: Patroklos’ ‘aristeia is actually an expression of his death-wish’ (Gundert 1983, 123 [transl.]; see also Griffin 1980, 42–44; Clay 2002, 15 [‘deeply ironic’]; de Jong on Il. 22.297; prolepses of Patroklos’ death: 46–47n.).

694–696 Each verse names three slain warriors in the acc. (likewise 415–417, see ad loc., also on the filling with an adverb [‘as the first’, ‘and then’] and patronymic [‘son of Megas’]). The subject and predicate, with the sense ‘he killed’, are to be supplied from 692 (picked up again immediately afterward at 697 at VB; on lists without predicates, see Edwards 1980a, 99 n. 41).

The names of all nine Trojans can be interpreted as Greek (on the details, see the indivi­ dual nn.); three of them are hypochoristics (Echeklos, Perimos, Elasos). Six names are used of two or more characters in early epic (including Adrestos and Melanippos 4× each; see the ‘charts’ in Shear 2004, 151 n. 554; on multiple uses of names in general, 345n.); the names Perimos, Epistor, Elasos are used once only (on the role of the charac­ ters as ‘extras’, 306–357n.). All the names begin with A (2×), E (3×), M (3× incl. patronymic) or Π (2×), perhaps a characteristic of oral narration (the accumulation of specific initials in the following lists is similar: 5.705  ff. O/T, 8.274  ff. O, 11.301  ff. A/O, 16.415  ff. E/Π; cf. Strasburger 1954, 19  f.). — μὲν πρῶτα … | …, | αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ(α): a sequential structure (495–497an.; μὲν πρῶτα in lists of the slain also at 8.274, 11.301: πρῶτα picks up πρῶτον from the preceding question [here at 692]).

694 ≈ 11.301; cf. 8.274. — In the Iliad, Adrestos is the name of three Trojans and one Greek in total (see 6.37–38n., also for the etymology); it is also attested historically (LGPN). – Autonoös occurs twice in lists of the slain: 11.301 as a Greek lieutenant (killed by Hektor), here as a Trojan (cf. 692–697n., end); in addition the name of a hero at Delphi (Wathelet s.v.); also attested historically (LGPN). The name is a possessive compound meaning ‘he with his own mind’ (von Kamptz 74  f., 185). Echeklos is a short form of Echekl[e]ēs (189n.); it is not attested historically, but is used for two characters in the Iliad: at 20.472–477, ‘another’ Echeklos (son of Agenor)  – as well as a Moulios (here at 696)  – is killed, both at the hands of Achilleus. 693 θάνατόνδ(ε): on the form, R 15.3. — ἐκάλεσσαν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 307

695 On the structure of the verse, cf. 11.302, 16.416; with a patronymic in the first position, 12.140, 19.239.  — Perimos is a hypochoristic, probably from Perimēdēs, ‘he with abundant plans’ or ‘he whose advice ranks above all others’ (von Kamptz 216; Untermann; cf. Alkimos/Alkimedon at 197n.). Perimos and Perimedes are attested in Mycenaean (DMic s.vv.), Perimedes also historically (LGPN) as well as multiple times in early epic (15.515, Od. 11.23, 12.195, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 187 [catalogue of names]; female form Perimede at ‘Hes.’ fr. 10(a).34 M.-W.). – Megas, ‘the great one’, attested both in literary (Pindar, Nem. 8.16/44) and historical sources (Wathelet; LGPN) in the post-Homeric pe­riod, here an invented character. Whether, given the patronymic ‘the great one’, Perimos was also understood in folk etymology as ‘over-long’ in the sense ‘giant’ (etymologizingP; Wathelet and LfgrE s.v. Perimos) must remain an open question. – Epistor (literally Epi-ístōr) means ‘he who is competent at something’ (thus as an adj. at Od. 21.26; on the meaning, LfgrE; Rengakos 1994, 87; Wathelet). A unique personal name. – Melanippos (‘he with black horses’, a possessive compound) is the name of various mythological characters (BNP); in the Iliad three times a Trojan and once a Greek (19.238–240n.), of which three times in a catalogue of names at VE (8.276, 16.695, 19.240: Fenik 1968, 147  f.; cf. 692–697n., end). Historically attested numerous times as well (LGPN). 696 On the structure of the verse, cf. Od. 4.457. — Elasos is a short form of the name Elasippos ‘driver of horses’ (like Damasos at 12.183 vis-à-vis Damasippos ‘tamer of horses’): von Kamptz 155. The long form is attested in both literary (Plato, Critias 144c; Quintus Smyrnaeus, Posthomerica 1.229) and historical sources (LGPN), the short form at Pausanias 10.26.4 (description of Polygnotos’ painting of the conquest of Troy: Elasos is killed by Neoptolemos; cf. Wathelet). – In the Iliad, Moulios is the name of two Trojans (here and at 20.472 [see 694n.]) and one Greek (11.739, in Nestor’s story); in the Odyssey, the name of Amphinomos’ herald and servant (Od. 18.423  f.). The etymology of the name is uncertain; at least in the latter example, there might be a link with Greek moléin ‘run’ (with metrical lengthening of the -o-): ‘walker, runner’ (a speaking name: LfgrE with additional bibliography). – Pylartes likely means ‘closer, warden of the gate’ (a verb-noun compound, with the final element related to ararískō ‘join together, close [the door]’: von Kamptz 77). Used three times in Homeric epic as an epithet of Hades (8.367, 13.415, Od. 11.277) and twice as the name of a Trojan (11.491 and here, in each case at VE and at the end of a list). The name is not attested historically, but may be present in Mycenaean (pu-ra-ta: DMic; Leukart 1994, 85  f.).

696 αὐτάρ: ‘but, yet’ (progressive, ≈ ‘and’: R 24.2). — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4).

308 

 Iliad 16

An argument has sometimes been made for the pointed use of the speaking name Pylartes both (1) at 11.490  f. (the names mentioned there, Pandokos, Lysandros, Pyrasos and Pylartes, can all be connected to death/burial or even with Hades itself) and (2) in the present passage: either (a) again with a reference to Hades  – e.g. because of Patroklos’ imminent death – or (b) in reference to ‘Troy with the tall gates (hypsípylos)’ (698). On (1): Emperius 1842, 448; Usener (1897) 1913, 226  ff. (esp. 228, 231); Wathelet 1989, 164; on (2a): Wathelet s.vv. Pylartes and Adrestos III; Lowenstam 1981, 68 n. 1; on (2b): LfgrE s.v. Pylartes; Lowenstam loc. cit. Whether and to what extent these associations were realized is difficult to say: van Leeuwen on 11.490  f.; Janko on 692–697 (‘Quests for meaning in such lists are clearly vain’); but cf. at least Hainsworth on 11.490–491 (‘There is some irony in the names’). 697 τοὺς ἕλεν: one of the shortest sentences in the narrator-textP of the Iliad (similarly ὣς φάτο, etc., 18.516 οἳ δ’ ἴσαν: Higbie 1990, 97–99), asyndetically concluding the cata­ logue at 694–696. – Patroklos is the subject (on the return to the 3rd person after an apostrophe, 586n.). On ἑλεῖν ‘kill’, 306n. (but in the following verse ‘capture, conquer a city’). — φύγαδε μνώοντο: φύγαδε (657n.) implies a verb of walking (‘they turned to flee’, similarly at 5.252 μή τι φόβονδ’ ἀγόρευ’; on the ellipsis, 382n. with bibliography); μνώοντο describes the mental component (‘they were concerned with, remembered flight’, cf. 357n.): Leaf; Janko on 692–697, end; Bartolotta 2002, 134. — ἕκαστος: a distributive appositive, cf. 351 (264–265n.).

698–701 The allusion to an ‘untimely’ conquest of Troy, in comparison to the tradition (‘if-not’ situationP: 2.155–156n., 6.73–76n.), underscores the violence and speed of Patroklos’ attack – and thus also his ‘delusion’ (685  f.), his uncontrolled ‘raging’ (699): schol. D on 699; Faesi on 698  ff.; Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 54 (‘a feature that half admiringly, half concernedly characterizes the excessive audacity’ [transl.]); Krischer 1979, 43  f.; de Jong (1987) 2004, 73, 79 (‘a clear sign, indeed the climax, of this infatuation’: 73); Nesselrath 1992, 1  f. (the scene has ‘an almost tragic character’ [transl.]). The divine intervention is a poetic device to avoid what ‘must not be’ (Kullmann 1956, 44, 142; Whitman 1958, 229); Apollo has a similar function also at 5.436  ff., 17.319  ff., 21.515  ff., 21.544  ff. (Fenik 1968, 175  f.; overall, more than half of all ‘almost – ifnot’ situations are resolved via divine intervention: Louden 1993, 184). 698 = 21.544 (and 1st VH of 700 = 21.545); 2nd VH ≈ 16.56. — ἔνθά κεν: a common introduction to an ‘if-not’ situation (2.155–156n. with bibliography); on ἔνθα, 306n.; on the accent, West 1998, XVIII. — ὑψίπυλον: a generic epithetP of (besieged or conquered) cities: 6.416n. with additional references.

697 τούς: =  τούτους; on the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R  17.  — μνώοντο (ϝ)έκαστος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — μνώοντο: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of μιμνήσκομαι; on the diectasis, R 8. 698 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — Τροίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — υἷες: on the declension, R 12.3.

Commentary 

 309

699 ≈  11.180 (Agamemnon, likewise shortly before a divine intervention; see 372n.); 1st VH ≈ Od. 18.156, 24.97, h.Merc. 158 (cf. 420n. on the iterata). — ὑπὸ χερσί: ‘underneath the (killing) hands’ or faded ‘under the guidance’ (cf. 708n. σῷ ὑπὸ δουρί). – On (literally instrumental) ὑπό + dat. with active processes (here ἕλον), 384n. with bibliography (more natural with the passive: πόλις … | χερσὶν ὑφ’ ἡμετέρῃσιν ἁλοῦσα 2.374). — ἔγχεϊ θυῖεν: an inflectable VE formula, ‘typically used of warriors wreaking havoc amongst their opponents’, also at 11.180, 22.272 (de Jong ad loc.); on the spelling of θυίω, see West 1998, XXXI.

700 1st VH = 21.545 (cf. 698n.); 2nd VH ≈ 12.154, 22.195, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 242. — Apollo is here characterized by two special traits: he is the protector of Troy (on this, 94n.), on the one hand, and he repeatedly puts human beings (especially the Greeks) in the Iliad in their place, on the other: at 1.9  ff. Agamemnon, 5.440  ff. Diomedes, 22.8  ff. and 24.33  ff. Achilleus, 24.605  ff. Niobe (Irmscher 1950, 35; Mueller [1984] 2009, 123  f.; cf. 698–701n.). – On the use of the Greek term pýrgos ‘tower’ in early epic and on the archaeological evidence, 3.149n.

Ἀπόλλων Φοῖβος: a noun-epithet formula (also 20.68, 21.515, 21.545, ‘Hes.’ fr. 307.1 M.-W.), always in the same position in the verse (with the end of the word Ἀπόλλων occurring in a position where a word end is generally avoided: M 11.1); notably more common is the VE formula Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων (527n. with bibliography). — ἐϋδμήτου ἐπὶ πύργου: a variable VE formula, 10× early epic (sing./pl., ἐΰ-/θεόδμητος, various pre­ positions and cases, πύργος/τοῖχος/βωμός). ἐΰδμητος is a generic epithetP of (sturdy) structures and cities; in the present context – attack on a city wall – perhaps to be understood as contextually relevant (as a reference to the defensive qualities of the fortifications), cf. 1.129n.; de Jong on 22.195.

701 The antithesis (on which, 282n.) anticipates the result of Apollo’s intervention – Patroklos will retreat, Hektor will turn to fight – by way of a hint; Patroklos’ death of course occurs only during Apollo’s subsequent intervention at 783  ff. (where Patroklos is in turn called ‘hostile toward the Trojans’: kaká phronéōn [783; cf. 373n.]).

ὀλοὰ φρονέων: ‘be hostile toward someone, be bent on someone’s destruction’; cf. 373n. — Τρώεσσι δ’ ἀρήγων: an inflectable formula (14.192n., where also on the meaning of ἀρήγω: usually of a deity supporting one of the warring parties).

702–711 The hero’s repeated attempts, represented by the typical numberP three (and thus summarily portrayed), come to naught in the end  – ‘the fourth time’: (1) Patroklos three times sets down his foot on a ledge or protrusion of

699 Πατρόκλου ὑπό: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — πέριπρο: ‘all around before them, in front on every side’. 701 ἔστη: literally ‘(if he) had (not) placed himself’. — τῷ ὀλοά: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — τῷ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — φρονέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

310 

 Iliad 16

the wall (702  f.), (2) three times he is fended off by Apollo, who pushes against his shield (703  f.); (3) ‘but when he attacks, god-like, a fourth time’ (705), (4) Apollo stops him verbally (706  ff.); (5) Patroklos retreats (710  f.). The conquest of Troy, along with Patroklos’ death, are thus postponed (retardationP; Janko on 698–711: ‘We hold our breath when Apollo thrice thrusts Patroklos back, expecting a fatal blow the fourth time […]: but the poet prolongs the fighting, with agonizing suspense, until he repeats this motif at 784  ff.’). – The function of the ‘thrice’ pattern is to be found in increased drama; it is usually linked to either a pro­minent turning point in the action or, as here, at least a pause in it. The extended form ‘thrice – thrice – the fourth time’ occurs a total of 5× in the Iliad: (a) 5.436  ff., (b) here, (c) 16.784  ff., (d) 20.445  ff., (e) 21.176  ff.; the abbreviated form ‘thrice – the fourth time’ at (f) 13.20, (g) 22.165  ff./208  ff. (collection of ex­amples, also without ‘the fourth time’, in Germain 1954, 11  f., 28  f.; Richardson 1990, 212 n.  33; Kelly 2007, 194 with n.  1). Passages (a), (b), (c) and (d) are similar in several ways: the attacker is a Greek protagonist (Diomedes, Patroklos, Achilleus, although both Diomedes and Patroklos can be regarded as ‘proxies’ for Achilleus: 74–77an., end), Apollo acts as the divine opponent, element (3) is indicated with the identical formulaic verse (here 705). In detail: (a) Diomedes attempts to kill Aineias, Apollo wards him off and stops him, Aineias is carried away (the structure and wording largely resemble the present passage); (c) Patroklos successfully attacks the Trojans, Apollo intervenes (if only at the fourth attempt), Patroklos loses consciousness, Hektor strikes the fatal blow; (d) Achilleus attacks Hektor, who has already been carried away by Apollo, strikes empty air and gives a speech mocking Hektor. Passage (g) is also well known: Achilleus chases Hektor around the city three times, but the fourth time Zeus’ scales of fate indicate death for Hektor, who is accordingly abandoned by Apollo. Finally, passages (a), (b) and (d) lead to the rescue of a hero (Aineias, Patroklos, Hektor); (c), (e) and (g) to the death of a hero (Patroklos, Asteropaios, Hektor).  – Bibliography: Göbel 1933, 1–15 (analytical in tendency); Fenik 1968, 46  f., 212  f.; Bannert 1988, 40–57; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 227–229, 278  f.; Louden 2006, 25  f.; Kelly loc. cit. 194–197; Kirk on 5.436–439; Janko on 702–706; Biblical parallels in Louden loc. cit. 26.; over-arching treatment of the 1,2,3/4 scheme in e.g. Brandt 2014. 702 ‘It is left to our imagination to speculate how Patroclus would have got up the wall itself. With these words the poet does not intend to describe a way of taking the city by storm; he merely wants to recount a supremely powerful, superhuman feat by his hero’: Albracht (1895) 2005, 119. – On the motif of scaling walls in the Iliad, cf. 6.433  ff. (similarly a triple attempt); on portrayals

Commentary 

 311

of city sieges in art and literature in general, see 18.509n. with bibliography; also Morris 1989; Hainsworth on 12.108–172.

ἀγκῶνος  … τείχεος: ἀγκών can denote different kinds of ‘bends’, especially the ‘elbow’. Which specific wall element is referred to here cannot be determined with any certainty: (a) a (protruding) corner, ledge (cf. 22.97 πύργῳ ἔπι προύχοντι, Hdt. 1.180); (b) an (inward pointing) nook, recess; (c) a (horizontal) ledge, edge, step (cf. 12.258 κρόσσας … πύργων … καὶ … ἐπάλξις; Hdt. 2.125); see schol. bT; Leaf; on (c) in particular: Lorimer 1950, 433; van Wees 1992, 323 n. 8; Hainsworth on 12.258–260; Janko on 702–706. — τείχεος ὑψηλοῖο: 397n.

703 The expression ‘push back three times’ is used in a similar manner at 5.437 (Apollo against Diomedes, with inclusion of the shield, as here at 704) and 18.157  f. (the two Aiantes against Hektor, in the fight for Patroklos’ corpse).

ἀπεστυφέλιξεν Ἀπόλλων: perhaps deliberate alliteration stressing the pushing away, cf. 9.309 ἀπηλεγέως ἀποειπεῖν, 15.31 ἵν’ ἀπολλήξῃς ἀπατάων, 21.452 ἀπειλήσας δ’ ἀπέπεμπεν.

704 1st VH = h.Cer. 253. — A god in his/her own form occasionally ‘lays hands on’ a human being (Gross 1970, 366  ff.): 791  f. (again Apollo against Patroklos, ‘with the flat of his hand’), 1.197 (Athene grasps Achilleus by the hair), 4.541  f. (on the battlefield, Athene accompanies an unnamed man [hypothetical situation in the potential]), 5.835  f. (Athene pulls Sthenelos off his chariot), 15.694  f. (Zeus spurs Hektor on to the attack, perhaps to be understood metaphorically: Moulton 1979, 284  f.), 20.326  f. (Poseidon transports Aineias to the edge of the battlefield). The use of the hands can sometimes only be deduced, e.g. in the parallel passage at 5.437 (see 703n.), as well as at 3.375 (Aphrodite undoes the chin strap on Paris’ helmet), 23.384 (Apollo knocks the reins from Diomedes’ hand).

The chiastic word order χείρεσσ’ ἀθανάτῃσι – φαεινὴν ἀσπίδα underlines the clash bet­ ween god and human. — χείρεσσ’ ἀθανάτῃσι: a variable VB formula (in the present form also at h.Cer. 253; χερσὶν τ’ ἀθ. h.Cer. 232, ἀθανάτῃσιν χερσίν h.Ap. 125, in verse middle ἀθανάτῃς χερσίν at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 339). As an attribute of divine body parts or objects, ἀθάνατος assumes the meaning ‘belonging to a god’ in Homeric epic only at 1.530, 14.177 (Zeus’ head), 13.19 (Poseidon’s feet); frequently in Hesiod and h.Hom. On the feminine ending of the otherwise two-termination adj. ἀθάνατος, see Schw. 2.38.  — φαεινὴν ἀσπίδα: a noun-epithet formula, also at 5.437 and 22.97, as well as with the words sepa­ rated at 3.357/7.251/11.435. On the synonymous usage of ἀσπίς and σάκος (designation of Patroklos’ shield at 16.136), 3.335n.; φαεινός is thus also an epithet of σάκος: 8.272, 13.342. The attribute probably refers to metal fittings on the shield (cf. 636n.). — νύσσων: ‘push’, with a shield as the target also at 7.260, 11.565, 12.404 (in each case with a lance),

704 ἀθανάτῃσι: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the declension, R 11.1.

312 

 Iliad 16

here ‘push against, push back’ with the hands (cf. 343n.); pres. with iterative-durative implication (‘again and again, stubbornly’, cf. 637).

705 =  5.438, 16.786, 20.447 (where a concordance interpolation); also 1st VH = 22.208; 2nd VH = 5.459, 5.884, 21.227. — On the expression ‘the fourth time’, 702–711n. — The VE formula daímoni ísos ‘equal to a divinity’ (9× Il., 1× h.Cer.) is always used in the Iliad of heroes in their aristeia, usually in a frantic battle against a deity (Diomedes in Book 5, Patroklos in Book 16, Achilleus in Book 20/21): ‘The battle lust […] is not equated with that of a god […], but it does surpass the human scale and causes dread’ (Erbse 1986, 261 [transl.]; simi­ larly Dietrich 1965, 310  f.; Wilford 1965, 221; Daraki 1980, esp.  4  f., 16  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 266  f.; Louden 2006, 26  f.). The comparison daímoni ísos thus connotes a transgression of boundaries, in contrast to e.g. the unconditional praise theós hṓs ‘like a god’ or theoeíkelos ‘god-like’; in reference to Patroklos, cf. 11.604 and 16.784 ‘like Ares’ (784n.; Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 127– 132; Dietrich 1965, 310  f.; Graziosi/Haubold 2005, 127  f.; Muellner 1996, 12–16; cf. 2.478–479n.). On the Homeric term ‘daimon’ in general, 3.420n. with bibliography; also Brenk 1986, 2071  ff.

ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: a VB formula: 53× Il., 53× Od., 6× Hes., 5× h.Hom. (24.31n.).

706 = 20.448 (Achilleus, after three times fruitlessly attacking Hektor, who had been carried away); ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 445; 1st VH = 5.439 (Apollo to Diomedes after the latter’s fourfold attack); 2nd VH = 6, etc. (see ad loc. on the VE formula). — δεινά: 566n. — ὀμοκλήσας: frequently in a speech introduction formula specifying the intent of the speech: scolding, warning, threatening (6.54n.).

707–709 After pushing Patroklos back three times, Apollo changes tack to a final – verbal – intervention (‘menacing warning’: Kullmann 1956, 142 [transl.]). The brevity of the speech is perhaps an expression of Apollo’s indignation. Apollo’s words remind the audience of the instructions of Achilleus (87  ff.), who is here also named explicitly as a ‘point of reference’ (‘a psychologically clever step’: Barth 1989, 15 [transl.]; cf. 709n.). The speech contains indirect references to the deaths of Patroklos and Achilleus before the conquest of Troy (Thalmann 1984, 50; Taplin 1992, 197  f.; on the prolepsesP of Patroklos’ death in general, 46–47n., on the prolepses of Achilleus’ death, 19.328–333n.); on the fact that Achilleus and Patroklos will not capture Troy either singly or jointly, 97–100n.

705 ἐπέσσυτο: root aor. of ἐπι-σεύομαι ‘charge at, fall upon’. — δαίμονι (ϝ)ῖσος: on the hiatus, R 5.4. 706 δ(έ): apodotic (R 24.3). — προσηύδα: the subject is Apollo.

Commentary 

 313

707 Apollo’s mention of ‘fate’ (Greek áisa) (namely that Patroklos is not destined to capture Troy) has the same function as the ‘if-not’ situationP on the narrator plane (the Achaians would have almost captured Troy, were it not for  … [698  ff.]): a situational grounding of the event (Andersen 1978, 72  f.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 81). On the concept of ‘fate’ as the course of the story determined by myth and adopted by epic, 431–461n. – The present request by a god to yield has parallels in content and language at 5.440 (Apollo to Diomedes) and ‘Hes.’ Sc. 336 (Athene to Herakles) (Nannini 1995, 139  f. n. 26).

διογενὲς Πατρόκλεις: 49n. — οὔ νύ τοι αἶσα: ‘in no way is it determined by fate that …’ (τοι here probably a particle: Forssman 1997, 38 n. 6 [differently Untermann]; on νυ, 622n.). On αἶσα, cf. 441n.; the formulaic character of the VE: Hoekstra 1965, 122  f.

708 ≈ 21.584. — σῷ ὑπὸ δουρί: ὑπὸ δουρί elsewhere is always specifically in reference to defeating a human opponent (e.g. at 848 [see ad loc.], 861), at 699 ὑπὸ χερσί used more loosely of the conquest of a city, as here (18.341  f. βίηφί τε δουρί τε μακρῷ  | πιείρας πέρθοντε πόλις is similar).  — πέρθαι: aor. mid. inf. with passive meaning, a unique form (beside 3rd pers. sing. aor. mid. πέρθετο [12.15]). Perhaps a metrically conditioned Homeric neologism (cf. iteratum) analogous to e.g. ὄρθαι (related to ὄρνυμαι) or δέχθαι (related to δέχομαι): Forssman 1997; DELG Suppl. — Τρώων ἀγερώχων: a VE formula (5× Il.); on the generic epithetP ἀγέρωχος, 2.654n. (the meaning is obscure, usually rendered ‘magnanimous, proud’).

709 2nd VH ≈ 7.114 (of Achilleus, as here), 21.107 (of Patroklos). — On labelling Achilleus ‘the greatest’, 21n.; here this is employed as an argumentum a fortiori (‘if not even Achilleus is allowed to conquer Troy, you will certainly not either’; cf. Bakker 1988, 79  f.).

ὑπ’ Ἀχιλλῆος: ὑπό with gen. of origin, parallel with 708 σῷ ὑπὸ δουρί. — Ἀχιλλῆος, ὅς: The lengthening of the final syllable of Ἀχιλλῆος can be explained by the freedom of caesura B 1 (Hartel 1873, 103, 118); it is perhaps also conditioned by analogy with forms with quantitative metathesis (i.e. Ἀχιλλέως): Crespo 1977, 42  f.

710–711 ≈ 5.443  f., with 711 = 5.444 (Apollo/Diomedes), ≈ 19.75 (four-word verse; see 125–126n., 486n. [additive participial clause]).  — Patroklos’ reaction to Apollo’s speech suggests that he has recognized the speaker (similarly Hektor at 20.375  ff.) – but how he did so is left open by the narrator (Pelliccia 1995, 276 n. 295; Turkeltaub 2007, 66  f., 69).

707 διογενές: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — αἶσα: ἐστίν is to be supplied. 708 δουρί: on the declension, R 12.5. 709 οὐδ(έ): ‘not even’. — ὅς περ: ‘who indeed’ (R 24.10). — σέο: = σοῦ (R 14.1). — πολλόν: adv., ‘much, far, by a lot’ (similarly 710); on the form, R 12.2.

314 

 Iliad 16

710 A speech capping formulaP with immediate execution of the instructions (130n. with bibliography). – In the parallel passage at 5.443, Diomedes merely retreats ‘a little’, as does Sarpedon from Aias at 12.406  f. and Aias from the Trojans at 15.728; at 18.160, Hektor retreats ‘not at all’ from the two Aiantes. Patroklos retreating ‘far’ may serve here less to characterize the hero than to create sufficient actual space for what remains of the Patroklos story (which has by now reached the city walls of Troy). Different interpretations in schol. A; Schadewaldt (1944a) 1965, 304; Muellner 1996, 15 with n. 22; Fuchs 2000, 16; West 2001, 240.

ἀνεχάζετο: literally picks up the order χάζεο (707) (with intensifying prefix ἀνα- and additional adverb ὀπίσσω).

711 Homeric gods usually respond with ‘anger’ to human defiance, Apollo also e.g. after his priest Chryses is dishonored (1.75) or against Niobe after her boasts (24.606); cf. 24.53n., 24.116n.; Irmscher 1950, 7; Muellner 1996, 8  f.

μῆνιν: on the term, 1.1n. (in the Iliad only of gods and Achilleus).  — ἀλευάμενος: a declarative aor., ‘and thus/in this manner he escaped, eluded …’ (Untermann; LfgrE s.v. ἀλέομαι 475.47  ff.). — ἑκατηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος: an inflectable VE formula (gen. here and at 1.370, 5.444, Od. 20.278; acc. Il. 17.333; voc. ἑκατήβολ’ Ἄπολλον Od. 8.339 and 6× h.Ap.). On the epithet, 513n. (and 1.14n.). On the variants of the formula, 94n., end.

712–783 The narrator turns his gaze to the Trojans, who find themselves in great distress due to Patroklos’ advance but are strengthened by Apollo (Nesselrath 1992, 5 n. 3; cf. 684–867n. with graph; 684–730n.). The expected duel between Hektor and Patroklos is starting to come into view (esp. 724  f., 731  f., 733–736, 755, 761), but is postponed for the time being via the substitute killing of Kebriones and the subsequent fight over his corpse: anticipationP, retardationP (cf. 367b–368n., 652–658n.; the death of Sarpedon’s charioteer Thrasydemos in the duel Patroklos–Sarpedon at 462  ff. [419–683n.] is similar); see AH on 783; Janko on 684–776; Strasburger 1954, 81  f.; Reinhardt 1961, 344; Fenik 1968, 61, 210, 221  f.; Fenik 1974, 101; Stoevesandt 2004, 163  f.; Kelly 2007, 150  f.; Leuzzi 2008, 282  f.; West 2011, 326 (on verse 755); on deaths of charioteers in general, 399–414n.

710 ὥς: = οὕτως. — φάτο: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί (on the middle, R 23). — ὀπίσσω: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 711 ἀλευάμενος (ϝ)εκατηβόλου: on the prosody, R 4.5. — Ἀπόλλωνος: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).

Commentary 

 315

712 1st VH ≈ 6.237. — The location ‘at the Skaian Gate’ indicates a retreat to the walls of Troy (684–730n.). The Skaian Gate repeatedly serves as the scene of action (3.145  ff., 6.237  ff., 22.5  ff., 22.359  f.). In Thetis’ review of the present episode (18.453) it is likewise mentioned explicitly (684–867n.). On the location of the gate, 3.145n. (and see the appendix in the commentary on Book 14).

μώνυχας ἵππους: 375n.

713–732 The type-sceneP ‘weighing two options’ (646b–655n.), as often in the context of military or tactical matters (5.671  ff., 8.167  ff., 10.503  ff., 13.455  ff.); here with the same elements as at 646  ff. and the additional element (5): a divine intervention influences the decision (on which, esp. 1.188b–194n.; Arend 1933, 110  f.). Whereas Athene appears in her own form at 1.194 and 10.507, Apollo here takes the guise of Asios (715–726n.). As at 13.455  ff., the decision is taken in favor of the alternative considered first (variant A; elsewhere, variant B is more commonly preferred); at the same time, the decision is modified somewhat in light of Apollo’s advice (724  f.): in the fight against the Greeks, Hektor will focus on Patroklos (the decision is carried out at 727  f., 731  f. [with 724 ≈ 732]). – On Hektor’s indecisiveness in difficult situations, cf. 538  ff. (Stoevesandt 2004, 95). 713 δίζε γάρ: an interpretation by the narrator (255–256n.). δίζε ‘was undecided’ (a Homeric hapaxP, related to δίς) here replaces the verb μερμηρίζειν, which is more common in scenes of deliberation (cf. 646b–651n.). — κατὰ κλόνον: 331n.; here with ἐλάσσας (in the sense ‘rejoin the fray’: LfgrE s.v. κλόνος).

714 ‘To crowd behind the walls’ is the usual expression for Trojan flight (24.662– 663n. with collection of examples). 715–726 Gods prefer to appear to human beings in the guise of a close relative or acquaintance in order to gain trust and authority with the addressee (cf. schol. bT on 717); the shape assumed is nonetheless frequently that of a character invented ad hoc (or at least one that occurs only in the context in question), who for this purpose is described in a more or less detailed fashion (with ring-compositionP: 716 ≈ 720), in the case of Apollo also at 17.71  ff. (Mentes, leader of the Kikonians), 17.322  ff. (Periphas, Anchises’ herald), 17.582  ff. (Phainops [717n.]). On these ‘epiphanies’ in the Iliad and Odyssey, Scott 1912, 69  ff.; Merz 1953,

712 πύλῃς: plural used of a single gate (in reference to the two wings of the door, cf. Lat. fores). — ἔχε: ‘halted, stopped’. 713 ἠέ: = ἤ, ‘whether’ (and 714 ἦ ‘or whether’). — μάχοιτο: here ‘fight further’. — ἐλάσσας: aor. part. of ἐλαύνω, intransitive ‘steer, drive (his team of horses)’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 714 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — ὀμοκλήσειεν: here with acc. and inf. construction, ‘call to, call on’. — ἀλῆναι: ‘crowd together, gather together’ (aor. pass. inf. of εἰλέω).

316 

 Iliad 16

66  ff.; Kullmann 1960, 99  f.; Erbse 1980, 260  f.; Fuchs 1993, 22 with n. 38; de Jong on Od. 1.96–324; cf. 2.21n. – In his role as Asios, Apollo plays a double game: (a) ‘The seemingly vague hint […] of possible support by Apollo [725] is actually a promise, since it is given by the god himself’, similarly Athene at Od. 4.826  ff.: Fuchs 2000, 20 (transl.) (cf. prolepsisP [46–47n.]); (b) the comparison at 722 inverts the actual circumstances: Apollo is far more superior to Hektor than he can pretend to wish for in his role as Asios (Nagy 1990, 300; Kelly 2007, 174; Janko on 722–725; cf. dramatic ironyP). The underlying pattern of thought Asios : Hektor = Hektor : Apollo, known in mathematics as the ‘golden mean’ (a : b = b : c), has parallels in e.g. the Iliad (e.g. 9.480–495 Peleus : Phoinix = Phoinix : Achilleus) and especially in a pregnant use in Heraclitus (VS 12 B 79 child : adult = adult : god, loc. cit. 83 ape : human = human : god): Fränkel (1951) 1962, 435  f.; Lohmann 1970, 189  f. with n. 6. – On the narrator plane, by contrast, Apollo, i.e. the god, is always spoken of explicitly (715, 720, 726): Voigt 1934, 62  f. After his successful speech, he disappears unnoticed (Faesi on 726) and thus unrecognized (Kullmann 1956, 123; cf. 24.460–461n.). 715 1st VH ≈ Od. 5.474, 6.145. — Walking up to someone signals familiarity bet­ween the speaker and the addressee (537n. with bibliography); frequently in introductions to advice and battle paraeneses addressed to Hektor, as here (6.75n.).  

A unique combination of ὣς ἄρα οἱ φρονέοντι δοάσσατο κέρδιον εἶναι, the usual formulaic verse for decision making (2× Od.; more often ὧδε δέ οἱ/μοι  … 8× Il./Od. [see 652n.]), and the VE παρίστατο + noun-epithet formula in the nom. (2.244, 4.212, 18.70 [where likewise in the dat. after a part.], 19.6, Od. 3.222). In contrast to ὥς/ὧδε ‘thus’ (of the decision taken), reflexive ταῦτα ‘this’ denotes continued deliberation, analogous with the formulaic verse ἕως ὃ ταῦθ’ ὥρμαινε κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ θυμόν (1.193n.) usual­ly employed in such scenes with (divine or human) ‘aides in decision making’; cf. Pelliccia 1995, 231 (on the formulaic verse); Bakker (1999) 2005, 88  f. (on ταῦτα). — Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων: 527n.

716 ≈ h.Ap. 449 (likewise Apollo); 1st VH = 17.73, 21.213; ≈ 5.785, 20.224, Od. 11.241. — αἰζηῷ τε κρατερῷ τε: approximately ‘sprightly and strong’, synonym doubling (the etymo­ logy of αἰζηός is obscure: 2.660n.; Beekes s.v.); cf. the phrase θαλεροὶ αἰζηοί (14.4n.), ἀρηΐθοοι αἰζηοί (2× Il. in the gen.). – κρατερ(ός) τε occurs in various phrases at VE, e.g. ἀμύμονά τε κρατερόν τε (18.55, etc.).

717 The multiple uses of the name Asios in Homeric epic (in general, cf. 345n.) produce a complex constellation: Apollo here appears as the Phrygian Asios, 715 ἄρα (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; on ἄρα, R 24.1; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). 716 ἀνέρι (ϝ)εισάμενος: on the hiatus, R 5.4. — ἀνέρι: = ἀνδρί; initial syllable metrically lengthen­ed (R 10.1). — εἰσάμενος: from εἴδομαι ‘take the form of someone, resemble someone’. 717 Ἀσίῳ, ὅς: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.

Commentary 

 317

son of Dymas, at 17.582  f. as Phainops, son of Asios, from Abydos; he is here Hektor’s uncle, there his closest guest-friend. Asios, son of Hyrtakos, from Arisbe, who is mentioned in the catalogue of Trojans (2.835  ff.; CH 10), is perhaps identical with the above-mentioned father of Phainops (Hellespont contingent); in this case, the ‘Adamas, son of Asios’ fighting at the latter’s side in Book 12/13 (13.759/771) would be the brother of Phainops. The Asios mentioned in the present passage is thus the only one outside the genealogy of the Asios family from the Hellespont. He shares a descent from Dymas (likewise found only here in the Iliad) with an identity Athene assumes in a dream to Nausikaa: ‘daughter of Dymas’ (Od. 6.22). – On the origins of the name Asios, cf. 2.461n. (attested in Mycenaean, but likely originating in Asia Minor).

Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο: a noun-epithet formula (at VE also at 22.161, 22.211, 24.804, at VB 24.724 [v.l.]; on its use beside the prosodically equivalent Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο, 24.509n.; de Jong on Il. 22.161; on the meaning of the epithet, 24.230n.).

718 This is the only mention of Hekabe between Books 6 and 22 (far-ranging conclusions in Louden 2006, 108: ‘briefly suggests Hektor’s meetings with his female family members’, while the retreat to the city which is being considered closely approximates Andromache’s advice at 6.431  ff.). In a fragment of the Epic Cycle transmitted in a papyrus, Dymas probably also appears as Hekabe’s father (West 2013, 86; see also 717n.); other sources mention Kisseus as Hekabe’s father (e.g. Euripides, Hecabe 3; see schol. A and T; Wathelet s.v. Hekabe). The origin of the name Dymas – Greece or Asia Minor? – is obscure (Wathelet s.v.).

Ἑκάβης: on the initial digamma, 24.193n.

719 On the relationship between Troy and Phrygia, 24.544–545n.; on Phrygia’s geographical location, 2.862n. Sangarios is a Phrygian border stream, the mo­ dern Sakarya, third longest river in Turkey (3.187n.). 720 = 17.326, 17.585 (with v.l. of the epithet), 20.82 (West 2001, 12  f. deletes all parallel passages as redundant speech introductions, some also on the basis of the state of their transmission; cf. 3.389n.); ≈ 2.22 (dream), 2.795 (Iris); also 2nd VH = h.Ap. 531. — τῷ … ἐεισάμενος: an asyndetic picking up of 716  f.  — ἐεισάμενος: used only of deities in human form (2.22n.).  — Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων: a noun-epithet formula at VE (7× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 5× h.Hom.; of which 10× with ἄναξ preceding [804n.]) and 1× h.Ap. in

718 αὐτοκασίγνητος (Ϝ)εκάβης: on the prosody, R 4.5. 719 Φρυγίῃ: specification of place without preposition (R  19.2).  — ναίεσκε: an iterative form (R 16.5) with a durative meaning. — ῥοῇς ἔπι: = ἐπὶ ῥοαῖς (R 20.2, 11.1). 720 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1), acc. with προσέφη. — ἐεισάμενος: = εἰσάμενος (prothetic vowel).

318 

 Iliad 16

verse middle; in total 8× in a speech introduction formulaP, as here. Cf. 94n. (ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων), 522n. (Διὸς υἱός).

721–725 A battle paraenesis of rebuke by Apollo/Asios (on the type, 421–425n.; cf. schol. bT on 721), the function of which is to direct the action (‘stage directions’). A threat (722  f.) is inserted between the address and reluctant question, on the one hand, and the actual appeal, on the other (722  f.); on reluctant questions, see the bibliography at 422n. On threats (of death) directed at shirkers, cf. 2.391–393n.; Janko on 13.232–234. – Apollo’s criticism refers to Hektor stopping before the Skaian Gate (712) and the mental indecision he thus expresses (713  f.): Pelliccia 1995, 231  f.; on the critical depiction of Hektor, 538–547n., 652–658n., 713–732n., end. 721 The verse contains a literal ‘reminder’ of Zeus’ announcement, according to which Hektor ‘would not abandon battle’ until Achilleus returned to the battlefield after Patroklos’ death: 8.473  ff.

τίπτε: 7n. — οὐδέ τί σε χρή: sc. ἀποπαύεσθαι. A VE formula in a paraenetic context (rebuke or advice): 8× Il., 7× Od., 3× h.Hom. (of which in total 6× after a verb in -εαι); see Martin 1989, 198–200. On χρή, 492n., end.

722–723 2nd VH of 722 ≈ 17.168; 1st VH of 723 = Od. 21.374 (with VE 722 = Od. 21.373), 23.23. — On the overall interpretation, 715–726n. On the motif of personal inferiority, cf. Il. 7.457, 19.217, 20.434; on the desire for greater physical strength, e.g. 4.313 (with ‘as  … so’), 7.157  f. and esp. Od. 21.372  ff. (Telemachos to the suitors, in combination with a threat, as here). — αἴθ’, ὅσον …, τόσον …· | τώ κε τάχα στυγερῶς …: Syntactically the two sentences are independent, but in terms of content they form a conditional structure (‘if – then’). αἴθε + opt. introduces a wish clause (considered unrealizable by the speaker, but rather ironic in the present context [715–726n.]), τώ κε τάχα is the subsequent conclusion as a potential (similarly 2.371  ff., 4.288  ff., 7.157  f., 22.41  ff. [with de Jong ad loc.], Od. 15.536  f., 17.163  f., 19.309  f., 21.372  ff.; as a contrary to fact at Od. 23.21  ff.). In Homeric epic, the cupitive opt. is used independently of the distinction ‘realizable vs. unrealizable wish’: Chantr. 2.214  f. (and Schw. 2.320  f.). – στυγερῶς means ‘in a terrible manner, with horrible consequences’ in the sense ‘then you would pay a heavy price for the fact that …’, likewise at Od. 21.374, 23.23, similarly Il. 1.186  f. (AH; Edwards on 18.463–467; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 21.374; van Erp Taalman Kip 2012, 547  f.).  — ἥσσων  … φέρτερος: ‘weaker … stronger, inferior … superior’, in combination with ὅσον … τόσον ‘a powerful antithesis’: Janko on 722–725. — φέρτερος εἴην: an inflectable VE formula (frequently with πολύ preceding): 17× Il., 9× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Cer.; with a superlative 4×

721 τίπτε: = τί ποτε, ‘what/why then?’. — ἀποπαύεαι: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — οὐδέ: in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — τι: strengthens the negative (303n.) 723 τώ: ‘thus’. — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — τάχα: ‘soon’. — ἀπερωήσειας: 2nd pers. sing. aor. opt. of ἀπερωέω ‘refrain from something’.

Commentary 

 319

Il., 1× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’ (Labarbe 1949, 72  ff.). — πολέμου ἀπερωήσειας: a variatio of 721 μάχης ἀποπαύεαι, variant of the VE formula ἐρωῆσαι πολέμοιο (19.169–170n.). 724 ≈ 732; 2nd VH ≈ 5.329. — Apollo’s instructions to Hektor are carried out at 732, with similar phrasing (495–497an.; cf. Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 50  f. [transl.]: the addition of 731 signals that Hektor realizes the instructions ‘with passionate commitment’). — ἔφεπε: ‘steer the horses toward something, drive the chariot there in order to attack’: 24.326n. — κρατερώνυχας ἵππους: a VE formula (5.329, 16.724/732). A contextually re­ levant use of the epithetP is unlikely (strong hooves as a precondition for a swift attack?), but cf. 24.277n. (mules), de Jong on Od. 10.212–219 (lions); LfgrE.

725 ≈ 7.81 (Hektor himself speaks); 2nd VH ≈ Od. 21.338, 22.7, also (with Athene as subj.) Il. 7.154, Od. 9.317 (Muellner 1976, 108  f.). — The motif ‘Apollo gives victory to the Trojans vel sim.’ (here repeated at 730) also occurs at 7.20  f., 15.326  f. and 16.844  f. (Apollo together with Zeus); on the motif ‘a god bestows fame, etc.’ in general, Kullmann 1956, 60–62.

αἴ κεν: ‘in the hope that’ (39n.). — ἕλῃς: ‘overcome, kill’, cf. 306n.; μιν ἕλῃς here in a chiasmus with δώῃ δέ τοι εὖχος (AH). — εὖχος: ‘victory cheer, victory’ (625n.).

726–733 The structure of these verses reflects the brisk activity of everyone involved on the battlefield: a closely intertwined parallel formP A–B–A’–B’ with A =  Apollo (726 and 728b–730) and B =  Hektor (727–728a and 731  f.), transitioning in the second part (728b–733) to a ‘continuity of thought’ principleP (indicated with arrows in what follows): Apollo – [Greeks] – Hektor → Hektor (731) – [Greeks] – Patroklos → Patroklos (733). 726 = 13.239, 17.82 (and cf. 14.361); 1st VH = 15.572, Od. 11.627, ‘Hes.’ fr. 31.6 M.-W.; cf. 632n. — A formulaic verse for a god exiting unrecognized (715–726n., end; comparison of the relevant scenes in Kurz 1966, 107  f.). The illusion is skilfully made the most of: ‘the god returned to the battle of men’, with a stressed contrast ‘god – men’ (Faesi; Edwards on 17.82).

ὣς εἰπὼν ὃ μέν  …: 632n.  — αὖτις: locative ‘farther back’; differently Bonifazi 2012, 268  f. (‘discourse marker’, intensive with ὃ μέν). — πόνον: i.e. ‘fight’ (568n.).

727 1st VH ≈ 8.318. — Kebriones is an extramarital son of Priam (738) and thus Hektor’s half-brother (8.318) as well as his third charioteer (after Eniopeus and Archeptolemos, both of whom died in Book 8: 8.118  ff., 8.311  ff. [Bannert 1988, 35, 38  f.]). Kebriones also appears at 11.521  ff., 12.88  ff., 13.789  ff. and is depicted in vase paintings dating to the 6th century B.C. (LIMC; Friis Johansen 1967, 81  f., 219  ff.). The name is not attested historically; it is connected to the Anatolian place and river name Kebren (both located in the Troad)

725 ἔλῃς, δώῃ: respectively 2nd and 3rd pers. sing. aor. subjunc. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). 726 ὃ … θεός: θεός is an appositive, ‘he, the god’. — ἄμ: = ἀνά (R 20.1).

320 

 Iliad 16

(Hainsworth on 11.521; on the town of Kebren, see Cook 1973, 327  ff.); differently von Kamptz 293 (Thracian name).

Κεβριόνῃ  … δαΐφρονι: δαΐφρων is a generic epithetP (6.161–162n.), only here of Kebriones; the verse structure with a personal name at VB + δαΐφρονι before caesura C 2 also occurs at 5.181, 13.418, 14.459, 14.487 (with different personal names). — ἐκέλευσε: summary order (with indirect speech): 24.302n. — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: 577n.

728 ἵππους ἐς πόλεμον πεπληγέμεν: The high frequency of p sounds perhaps imitates onomatopoetically the crack of the whip or the sound of the galloping of the horses (Packard 1974, 243  f.; cf. 118n. on kh sounds). – πεπληγέμεν is a reduplicated aor. with iterative meaning (18.31n. with bibliography), here ‘beat ⟨with the whip⟩, spur on ⟨with whip-lashes⟩’ (cf. 23.362  f. πέπληγόν θ’ ἱμᾶσιν). — αὐτὰρ Ἀπόλλων: a VE formula (also at 21.538 and 3× h.Merc.).

729–730 Apollo’s intervention in the action of the battle  – here designated as ‘terrible confusion, a muddle’ – initially remains inconspicuous in what follows (in constrast to his actions with the aegis at 15.220  ff., esp. 15.326  f./365  f.); the Trojans at least experience a recovery (727  f., 731  f.; a stalemate: 777  f.) after their retreat (712  ff.). But the present passage ultimately prepares for Apollo’s key intervention against Patroklos at 788  ff. (cf. on the one hand 725: Hektor’s prospective victory cheer over Patroklos, on the other hand 788  f.: Apollo attacks Patroklos amid the confusion of battle): seedP (Janko on 726–732; Finsler [1916] 1918, 171; Kurz 1968, 108).

δύσεθ’ ὅμιλον: on this type of phrase, 6.185n. (‘throw oneself into’); δύσετο: a thematic s-aor. (3.262n.). — ἐν δὲ κλόνον …: on similar expressions, 291n. (esp. 11.538  f. ἐν δὲ κυδοιμὸν  | ἧκε κακόν); κλόνος means ‘throng, turmoil’, here ‘confusion’ (LfgrE; Untermann).

730 ≈  12.255, 15.327; VB =  11.539; 2nd VH ≈  18.456, 19.414.  — Τρωσὶν δὲ καὶ Ἕκτορι: 654n. — κῦδος ὄπαζεν: an inflectable VE formula (7× Il., 3× Od., 1× Hes.; also 1× Il. in verse middle; intransitive variant κῦδος ὀπηδεῖ 1× Il., 1× Hes.); on the possible archaism of the formula, see 14.358n., on κῦδος in particular, 19.204n. (‘prestige, success’). 731 ἔα οὐδ’ ἐνάριζεν: ‘left the Greeks alone and did not try to kill them’ (a rhetorical polar expressionP: 322n.); in the context of battle, ἐάω elsewhere usually means ‘let lie without despoiling (and attack the next opponent)’, thus at 5.148, 11.148  f., 11.426, 20.456  ff. 732 ≈ 724 (see ad loc.).

728 πεπληγέμεν: aor. inf. (R 16.4) of πλήττω. 729  f. δύσεθ’ ὅμιλον ἰών: ‘went away and mixed in with the crowd’. — ἐν … | ἧκε: from ἐνίημι ‘inspire, inject’, so-called tmesis (R 20.2). 732 On the anaphoric demonstrative function of ὅ, ἥ, τό, R 17.

Commentary 

 321

733–750 A congenial paraphrase in Janko: ‘Kebriones’ fall is related in a full style with vivid details and powerful suspense. Patroklos has his spear in his left hand, saving it to use later […]. He grabs a stone: we see its shine and jagged edge. His cast is not in vain – he hits Hektor’s … driver, Priam’s bastard son (what a coup!). After this blend of headline and biography comes the usual coroner’s report. The stone hits Kebriones between his eyes, which fall out and land by his feet; he falls out and lands on his head! Complaints over his eyes’ absurd trajectory, especially when conjoined with his own, miss the wit, which begins before Patroklos’ jest and overrides naturalistic concerns. But this is Patroklos’ – and our – last laugh, as the fearsome peripeteia nears.’ 733 ≈ 755 (Hektor); 1st VH = 427, etc. (see ad loc.); 2nd VH ≈ 24.469, etc. (see ad loc.). — Leaping off the chariot is a typical battle motif and signals readiness for fighting (426n.; mounting and dismounting are not fully reported: 398n.).

ἀφ’ ἵππων: ‘from the chariot’ (167n.), a phrase after caesura B 2 (5× Il.) and at VE (4× Il./ Od.).

734 1st VH ≈  21.393 (and cf. 17.604).  — The ‘continuing main action’ is usually carried out with the right hand (LfgrE s.v. σκαιός [transl.] with bibliography; cf. 1.501n.). On the intensifying variatio of the weapons employed (here spear +  rock), 399–414n.; Niens 1987, 100 (‘intensification’ via ‘doubling of the param­eter «weapon»’ [transl.]). On rocks as weapons, 411n. 735 1st VH ≈ 12.380, Od. 9.499. — Rocks used by heroes are frequently described in detail, e.g. also at 5.302  ff. ‘so large that two men of the modern generation may not lift it’, 7.264  f. ‘dark, rough, large’, 7.270 ‘like a mill stone’, 12.380  ff. ‘so large that …’, 12.445  ff. ‘thick at the base, pointed at the top.’ – On the idea of weapons sitting well in one’s hand, cf. 139.

μάρμαρον ὀκριόεντα: It is unclear whether μάρμαρον is here to be understood (a) as an adj. with πέτρον (‘shimmering brightly, sparkling’) or (b) as a noun (‘white rock’, in apposition to πέτρον) (LfgrE with bibliography; DELG); (b) is suggested by its use as a noun in the iterata.  – Injuries caused by rocks characterized as ὀκριόεις ‘sharpedged, pointed’ always have devastating consequences: 4.518  ff., 8.324  ff., 12.378  ff., Od. 9.498  f. — τόν οἱ: The initial digamma of the personal pronoun οἱ is rarely neglected in early epic, cf. 6.90n./6.101n.; Janko on 13.561. On the sympathetic dative οἱ, 348n.

733 ἄλτο: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἅλλομαι ‘leap’. 734 σκαιῇ, ἑτέρηφι: sc. χειρί; on ἑτέρηφι, R 11.4. — λάζετο: impf. with aor. sense, ≈ λάβε. 735 τόν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5), here ≈ ‘so large that …’. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — περὶ … ἐκάλυψεν: ‘grasped’, so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

322 

 Iliad 16

736 ἐρεισάμενος: used absolutely ‘brace oneself’, i.e. ‘take a big swing, tense up the body and throw with all one’s force’; the same process with similar phrasing at 7.269 (ἧκ’ ἐπιδινήσας, ἐπέρεισε δὲ ἶν’ ἀπέλεθρον, likewise at Od. 9.538), 12.457  f. (ἐρεισάμενος βάλε  …, εὖ διαβάς); schol. D.  — οὐδὲ †δὴν ἅζετο† φωτός: The reading transmitted by the majority of manuscripts is disputed, since ἅζομαι ‘shrink from’ is used only in religious contexts in the Iliad (with an obj. in the acc., e.g. 1.21 ἁζόμενοι … Ἀπόλλωνα). Although the reading χάζετο attested in Eustathius fits with the gen. φωτός with no great difficulty and has a parallel – albeit a similarly incomprehensible one – at 11.539 (μίνυνθα δὲ χάζετο δουρός: ‘Hektor desisted from the [fight with the] spear only a little’ or ‘retreated only a little from the [enemies’] spear’), it is a lectio facilior found only in isolated instances in the manuscripts. Concerning δήν (‘long, a long time’), an uncommon locative sense is occasionally posited: ‘far’ (Von der Mühll 1932, 137). This results in the following possibilities for translation (1) for ἅζετο: (a) ‘and he did not allow himself to be impressed by the man (Hektor) for long’ (thus Mazon; similarly schol. A, D); (b) ‘and he did not stay far away from Hektor in awe’ (Von der Mühll loc. cit.); (2) for χάζετο: (c) ‘and he immediately attacked Hektor, went at Hektor’ (litotes οὐδὲ δήν: Hainsworth on 11.538–539; Cunliffe s.v. χάζω); (d) ‘and he did not go far from the enemy’ (LfgrE s.v. χάζομαι 1090.24  ff.). In this regard, the sentence – however restored – probably expresses once again, like ἧκε δ’ ἐρεισάμενος, Patroklos’ intense efforts (with the sense ‘he threw the rock without hesitation’ vel sim. [van Leeuwen; AH]). Alternatively (albeit without any direct basis in the transmitted wording): ‘Patroklos did not shoot far past Hektor, the rock narrowly missed Hektor’, echoing related passages such as 8.118  ff. (esp. 119), 8.309  ff. (311), 17.608  ff. (609); thus LSJ; Faesi; West 2001, 240. Additional discussion: La Roche in his appendix ad loc.; Leaf; Janko; Kurz 1966, 146 n. 81; West loc. cit.; Stoevesandt 2004, 164 n. 508.

737 VE =  8.312 (of Archeptolemos).  — An implicit substitute killing: Kebriones dies in Hektor’s place (419–683n.).

οὐδ’ ἁλίωσε βέλος: cf. οὐχ ἅλιον βέλος (480n.); together with βάλε δ(έ), a rhetorical polar expressionP (as at 480  f.). — βάλε δ’ Ἕκτορος: The suspense that has been building since 733 concerning Patroklos’ throw comes to an end here: up to and including βάλε δ’ Ἕκτορ-, the narrator maintains the expectation that Patroklos will now hit Hektor (Ἕκτορα) – only with -ος ἡνιοχῆα is that expectation disappointed: Niens 1987, 100; cf. Janko at 733–750n.

738 On the designation of a character used to fill out a verse, 126n. It was stated already at 8.318 that Kebriones is one of Hektor’s brothers; the present specification increases the importance of the victim: Richardson 1990, 215 n. 13. — The motif of the illegitimate son – generally the son of a noble hero – occurs numerous times in the Iliad, usually at the moment of his death (Strasburger

736 οὐδὲ δ(ϝ)ήν: on the prosody, R 4.5. — φωτός: gen. of φώς ‘man’ (sc. Hektor). 737 ἁλίωσε: here ‘threw in vain’. — ἡνιοχῆα: on the declension, R 11.3.

Commentary 

 323

1954, 23  f.; Fenik 1968, 18; Kelly 2007, 278  f.; list of Priam’s illegitimate sons in Stoevesandt 2004, 131 n. 429). On the only marginally reduced status of illegitimate children in Homeric epic, 24.495–498n.

νόθον υἱόν: an inflectable formula in verse middle (4× Il. nom./acc.) and at VE (1× Il. nom.); cf. 604n. — ἀγακλῆος: a generic epithetP (of Priam only here, also 2× of Menelaos, 1× of Hephaistos; on the synonymous ἀγακλειτός, 463n.; the personal name Agakles, 571n.). ἀγακλῆος Πριάμοιο is a unique, metrically equivalent variant for ἐϋμμελίω Πρ. (4.47, 4.165, 6.449); on the ‘violation’ of formulaic economy, Shannon 1975, 66  f. (ἐϋμμελίω Πρ. limited to a specific formulaic verse); in general, FOR 32. – On the spelling -κλῆος (rather than -κλεέος), see Untermann; Nussbaum 1998, 156; Blanc 2008, 222  f.

739 1st VH =  8.121 (of the charioteer Eniopeus on the occasion of his death); ≈ 8.319 (of Kebriones); 2nd VH ≈ 11.95. — The remark that Kebriones ‘was holding the horse’s reins’ implies that he died while directly carrying out the task he was entrusted with, i.e. ‘in the line of duty’ (as already his predecessor, Eniopeus, at 8.121); the reference will be picked up again at the end of the episode in the manner of a frame: ‘no longer considering the skill of the chario­ teer’ (776).  – In the Iliad, blows to the forehead always result in fatal head injuries (4.460  f., 6.10  f., 11.95  ff., 13.615  ff.; in the last mentioned passage, the eyes fall out, as they do here). On head injuries in general, 345–350n. with bibliography

ἡνί’ ἔχοντα: etymologizing with 737 ἡνιοχῆα (Untermann: ‘updating’ [transl.]).  — μετώπιον: either a predicative adj. with ἡνιοχῆα (‘on the forehead’) or a noun derived from the adj. (as a metrically convenient variant of μέτωπον; acc. of respect): Risch 115; Untermann; Nussbaum 1986, 180  f.; LfgrE.  — ὀξέϊ λᾶϊ: a unique phrase: the epithet renders the severity of the injury plausible (a stone is also referred to as ὀξύς at 12.446  f.). Cf. the VE formulae ὀξέϊ δουρί and χαλκῷ (284n.).

740–741 The eyes slipping out after a skull fracture is a ‘bizarre motif’ (Friedrich [1956] 2003, 21  f. [transl.]): the eyeballs do not simply lie in the bone eye sockets, but are held in place by several sets of muscles; the doubling of the fall (first the eyes before Kebriones’ feet, then Kebriones from the chariot [742  f.]) underlines the drastic (and fantastic) nature of the event, which has a parallel at 13.614–618 (Friedrich loc. cit.; Saunders 1999, 351  f. ≈ 2003, 145  ff.; additional information on eye injuries in the Iliad: 349–350n.; on the more outlandish descriptions of injuries in general: 404b–410n. with bibliography [at 404  ff., Patroklos is likewise the cause of the injury]). 739 λᾶϊ: dat. sing. of λᾶας ‘stone’. 740 σύνελεν: from συν-αιρέω, here ‘crush, smash’. — οὐδέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἔσχεν: intransitive, ‘(with)stand’.

324 

 Iliad 16

741 2nd VH = 5.583 (reins), 13.617 (likewise eyes). — χαμαὶ πέσον: an inflectable phrase in verse middle (6× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc.). — ἐν κονίῃσιν: 289n. 742a 1st VH = Od. 22.4; ≈ Il. 21.601. — αὐτοῦ πρόσθε ποδῶν: ‘immediately/just before his feet’. The grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus (De Adverbiis 176.13  ff.) discusses the ambiguity of αὐτοῦ: (a) a personal pronoun in the gen. (in which case, ‘before Kebriones’ own feet’, unlikely ‘before Patroklos’ feet’); (b) a locative adv. (‘on the spot’); similar discussions in schol. T on 4.11, A on 16.561, bT on 16.742 (cf. Erbse on the passages; Bühler 1961, 125; Matthaios 1999, 150, 534). Interpretation (b) is here probably more pregnant and should thus be preferred (cf. AH; Janko on 740–744).

742b–743 ≈ 12.385  f. (Aias kills Epikles with a rock; Epikles falls down from the tower); Od. 12.413  f. (the mast falling during a storm kills the helmsman, who falls from the quarterdeck; the ship motif also has echoes in the present context: 746  ff.). – 2nd VH of 743 (from caesura C 1 onward) = Od. 3.455. — The VE formula ‘like a diver’ is also attested at Il. 12.385 and Od. 12.413 (on comparisons occurring in both Iliad and Odyssey, Moulton 1977, 119). A charioteer falling to the ground headfirst also occurs at 5.585  f. On additional ‘comparisons with […] novel motifs’, see Stoevesandt 2004, 270  f. (transl.); in addition to the iterata, e.g. 11.147 log, 14.499 poppy head, 16.406  ff. fish. The present comparison initiates a series of similes in the course of the depiction – which is thereby expanded and enhanced – of the fight over Kebriones’ corpse (752  ff., 756  ff., 765  ff.; on sequences of similes, 297–302an., 482–491n.; cf. Janko on 751–776).  – The depiction of warriors falling headfirst (from chariots, off besieged city walls, etc.) is attested early on, e.g. on a fresco from the so-called megaron at Mycenae (Rodenwaldt 1921, 32  f., 55  f.), on Egyptian reliefs dating to the reign of Ramesses II (battle of Qadesh: Desroches Noblecourt 1996, 171; battle of Dapur: loc. cit. 261  f.) and on Assyrian palace reliefs (Barnett/ Forman 1959, fig. passim); also during a hunt for bulls (golden Vapheio cup) or during bull-leaping (fresco from Knossos). – ‘X falls from the chariot’ (here) or ‘A pushes X off the chariot’ (at 810) is a typical battle motif: Kurz 1966, 19, 23; Fenik 1968, 15.

ἀρνευτῆρι: ‘one who jumps headfirst, who takes a plunge’, i.e. ‘leaper’ (on land), ‘diver’ (in the water), perhaps related to ἀρνειός ‘ram’ (‘one who leaps like a ram’: Frisk on the basis of ancient interpretations [among them schol. D]; Hainsworth on 12.384–386; reservations in Beekes). The posture with the head pointing downward is also assumed in post-Homeric examples: Arat. Phaen. 655  f. (the constellation Cassiopeia is standing on its head), Herodas 8.42  f. (a fall onto the forehead during ‘askoliasmos’ [hopping on an inflated bag]). — κάππεσ’ ἀπ’ εὐεργέος ͜ δίφρου: ≈ 2nd VH of 5.585, 13.399 (εὐεργέος

742 ἀρνευτῆρι (ϝ)ε(ϝ)οικώς: on the prosody, R 4.3. 743 κάππεσ(ε): = κατ-έπεσεν (R 20.1, 16.1). — εὐεργέος: ͜ on the synizesis, R 7.

Commentary 

 325

ἔκπεσε δίφρου, likewise of charioteers); εὐεργής is a generic epithetP (24.396n.), with δίφρος only in these three passages. – The present prosodic usage of εὐεργέος is unique in two respects: the prefix εὐ- is placed in the longum, as is the ending -εος (syni­zesis); this may indicate an adaptation of the formula (from εὐεργέος ἔκπεσε δίφρου): Bolling 1923, 173; Shipp (1953) 1972, 184; Plath 1994, 212  f.; Passa 2001, 406; Blanc 2008, 139  ff. — λίπε δ’ ὀστέα θυμός: = 12.386, Od. 3.455; VE λίπε δ’ ὀ. θ. ἀγήνωρ Od. 12.414, λίπ’ ὀ. θ. ἀγήνωρ Il. 20.406, λίπῃ λεύκ’ ὀστέα θυμός Od. 11.221. On the meaning of the phrase, 410n. 744 ≈  24.649 (Achilleus to Priam), Od. 22.194 (Eumaios mocks the ‘hanged’ Melanthios; with an apostrophe, as here); 2nd VH = 20 (see ad loc.), 843. — The apostrophe here and at 754 frames the mocking of Kebriones (‘«triumphant» verse’: Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 43  f. with n.  14 [transl.]).  — ἐπικερτομέων: ‘provoking, mocking, sneering’ (24.649–658n.), of the intent of the speech, here and at Od. 22.194 of the victor’s sarcastic speech of triumph (elsewhere generally introduced by a form of ἐπεύχομαι: 829n.; Fingerle 1939, 212).

745–750 The narrator has Patroklos in his speech pick up the motif of a person jumping headfirst used in the preceding comparison (742) (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 9  f.; Rabel 1997, 162; cf. 7–11n. [similes in the narrator-text as well as in character language referring to the same event]); he savors it with a mix of triumph and mockery, in a highly expressive manner given his generally restrained comportment (Fingerle 1939, 157  f., 212; Bowra 1952, 499  f.; Mueller [1984] 2009, 90; Parks 1990, 60; Μπεζαντακος 1996, 37; Kyriakou 2001, 264– 267; Stoevesandt 2004, 324  f.; similarly 13.374  ff., 13.414  ff., 14.454  ff., 21.122  ff.; on speeches of triumph in general, 14.454–457n.; collection of ex­ amples in Fingerle loc. cit. 151; Μπεζαντακος loc. cit. 141  f.; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 424  ff.). Even if the imagery employed strongly recalls similes – civil life, nature and culture, catching marine animals – the passage is formally not a simile but a caricaturing, derisive metaphor (Moulton 1979, 287; Slatkin [1988] 2011, 137  f.; Edwards, Introd. 50; de Jong on Il. 22.286); in terms of motifs and scurrility, it displays similarities to the comparison to a fish at 406  ff., the label ‘dancer’ at 617  f. and the comparison to a trick-rider at 15.679  ff. (406–410n., 617n.; Kurz 1966, 24  f.; Krischer 1971, 75; Scott 2009, 165). The entire speech is shot through with a multi-layered, almost sarcastic irony (schol. T on 745 and bT on 22.373  f.; Minchin 2010, 535); in the broadest sense, it juxtaposes vitality and death, skill and failure (agile jump vs. awkward fall, livelihood vs. ruin, successful dive vs. fall to the ground, survival on the stormy sea vs. unwilling death on the battlefield): Strasburger 1954, 39  f.; Kurz loc. cit.; Moulton loc. cit.; on the contrast dance – fight in particular, 617n. – A victor does not often address his victim by name (collection of examples in Fingerle loc. cit. 155; on the literary fiction of a conversation with a dead person, Jordan 1905, 124;

326 

 Iliad 16

Stoevesandt 2004, 306 with n. 916), but Patroklos’ reference to Kebriones in the 3rd person throughout, and his generalizing application of the acrobat motif to the Trojans as a whole in his final point (750), suggest that he is addressing all of them generally (a kind of three-way-conversationP; Gottesman 2008, 10) – a further indication of his arrogance just before his own fall, especially given that a little earlier (626  ff.) he himself dissuaded Meriones from delivering provocative speeches during battle. At the same time, it is this overwhelming triumph that establishes Patroklos as an equal opponent for Hektor (cf. 428–430n.; interpretations with different nuances in Reinhardt 1961, 347  f.; Kelly 2007, 221; Scodel 2008, 26; Scott loc. cit.; Janko on 745–750). The mockery is stressed by both the motif-like repetition of the stem κυβιστ- (VE 745 = 749 ῥεῖα κυβιστᾷ [ring-composition] and 750 κυβιστητῆρες) and the scornful deictic ἀνὴρ ὅδε (747, prepared for at 745 by ἦ μάλ’ ἐλαφρὸς ἀνήρ); the abuse is intensified by an accumulation of technical terms: κυβιστάω/-ητήρ, τήθεα, διφάω, δυσπέμφελος (the final three are Homeric hapax legomenaP; Pelliccia 1995, 169; 24.266–274n.). 745 VE = 749. — ὦ πόποι, ἦ μάλ(α): a VB formula (also at 22.297, 22.373 and 10× Od., usually followed by δή), character languageP. ὦ πόποι usually expresses negative surprise (1.254n.; LfgrE s.v. πόποι), and precisely for that reason it here highlights Patroklos’ irony (mock admiration). On ἦ, cf. 46n. (‘verily, indeed’), 6.255n.; on the frequent use of ἦ in ironic statements, Hunt 1890, 49–51. — ὡς ῥεῖα κυβιστᾷ: can be interpreted (a) as an exclamation (‘how light indeed …!’) or (b) as a factual explanation of ἐλαφρὸς ἀνήρ (‘since he so lightly …’), cf. 17n. In support of (a): AH; punctuation by West; translation by Schadewaldt; in support of (b): La Roche; Schw. 2.665; compromising between the two: Chantr. 2.287; cf. 749n. — κυβιστᾷ: here ‘jump, leap’. The etymology and meaning of κυβιστάω and κυβιστητήρ (750) cannot be determined with any certainty; they refer to acrobatic motion like dances, jumps, somersaults, handsprings, etc. (18.603–606, Od. 4.18  f.); also of fish leaping up in panic from a burning river (21.353–355). Bibliography: 18.605b–606n.; Kurz 1966, 22, 137  f.; Pötscher 1994, 109  f.; on the etymology in particular, Frisk and Beekes. 746 καὶ πόντῳ ἐν: sc. in contrast to ἐν πεδίῳ at 749.  — πόντῳ ἐν ἰχθυόεντι: a formulaic expression, cf. Od. 10.458 ἐν πόντῳ πάθετ’ ἄλγεα ἰχθυόεντι (also VB πόντον ἔπ’ ἰχθυόεντα at Il. 19.378, 4× Od.; VB πόντος τ’ ἰχθυόεις h.Hom. 27.9; 2nd VH πόντον ⏑–⏖ ἰχθυόεντα Il. 9.4, 5× Od., h.Cer. 34). A contextually relevant interpretation of the epithet ‘full of fish’ suggests itself here: the diver will have a profitable catch (747; AH). In contrast, a reference to the dangers of the sea to humans – ‘a sea swarming with predatory fish’  – cannot be detected (thus nonetheless e.g. Göbel 1855, 538  f.; Buchholz et al. 1973, 131; Sacks 1987, 45  ff.): Hainsworth on 9.4; LfgrE s.v.

745 ῥεῖα = ῥᾳδίως (Homeric ῥηϊδίως). 746 εἰ δή που … γένοιτο: ‘assuming he was perhaps …’.

Commentary 

 327

747 In early epic, the consumption of fish and marine animals takes place almost exclusively in similes, etc. (406–410n., end); in the present, sarcastic context, the idea of the way in which marine animals are caught and eaten probably increases the notion of something base and unheroic (mikroprepés: schol. A; Janko on 745–750; cf. Ready 2011, 160  ff.).

τήθεα: a Homeric hapax, probably ‘sea-squirts’ (ascidia; molluscs living on the sea floor; some species are edible): DELG; Beekes; LfgrE; Janko on 747–748; Dalby 2003, 296. — διφῶν: a Homeric hapax, ‘search(ing) after something deeply hidden’: Verdenius on Hes. Op. 374; cf. van Leeuwen.

748 1st VH ≈ 2.702 (of Protesilaos landing on the shore of the Troad), 8.515 (νηὸς ἐπιθρ.). — ἀποθρῴσκων: The pres. perhaps has an iterative function (Nägelsbach 1834, 281; AH). — δυσπέμφελος: a Homeric hapax, probably in reference to πόντος (746): ‘stormy, rough’, likewise at Hes. Th. 440. Additional discussion on meaning and etymology in the scholia ad loc.; Frisk; West on Hes. Th. 440; Janko on 747–748; LfgrE. 749 ὣς νῦν …: generally taken as an independent sentence (ὡς νῦν), substantiating (AH; Kalén 1941, 11) rather than exclamatory (Monteil 1963, 353): ‘as he now …’ in the sense ‘judging by how …’. Interpreted as an independent asyndetic ‘so’ clause by West. 750 ἦ ῥα καὶ ἐν Τρώεσσι: a generalizing conclusion with the sense ‘you Trojans are acrobats rather than warriors’, implying ‘you too will soon be dead’; in contrast, probably too narrowly interpreted in Janko (reference to the ‘dancer’ Meriones at 617  f., with older bibliography) and in Pelliccia 1995, 155  f. n.  90 (reference to the divers in the sea); cf. 745–750n. – A formally similar passage: 23.103  f. (Achilleus after the appearance of the dead Patroklos) ὦ πόποι, ἦ ῥά τίς ἐστι καὶ εἰν Ἀΐδαο δόμοισιν | ψυχή (ὦ πόποι here already at 745).

751–754 Patroklos rushes at Kebriones’ corpse in order to drag him to his own side and capture the armor (spoliation; on which, see the bibliographical re­ ferences at 500n.). The intensity of Patroklos’ impetuous movement is illu­ strated by a lion simile: a wounded lion is especially aggressive and dangerous (5.136–143, 20.164–175, 21.573–582; see Janko; Neal 2006, 40  f.; on lion similes in general, 3.23n.). Comparable similes with lions that (a) break into the stables to snatch an animal for prey and (b) come to harm themselves: 5.554–560 (with 1st VH 5.557 ≈ 2nd VH 16.752; cf. Di Benedetto 1987, 260  f.), 12.299–308; first (b), then with increased aggression (a): 5.136  ff. – The wounding and final rearing up of the lion anticipates Patroklos’ death: like the lion, he will perish because of his own strength (753). Rarely is the prolepticP function of

747 πολλούς: sc. human beings.  — κορέσειεν: aor. opt. of κορέω/κορέννυμι ‘sate’.  — διφῶν: part. of διφάω ‘search’. 748 νηός: on the declension, R 12.1. 750 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἔασιν: = εἰσίν (R 16.6).

328 

 Iliad 16

a simile as obvious as here: schol. bT on 753 (on which, Snipes 1988, 213  f.; Nünlist 2009, 297  f.); Duckworth 1933, 14  f.; Krischer 1971, 60; SchnappGourbeillon 1981, 82 (‘the image plays on the two registers of the present and the future’ [transl.]); Baltes 1983, 41  f. (with detailed interpretation); Mueller (1984) 2009, 111; Lonsdale 1990, 114  f.; Scott 2009, 157  ff. (ad loc. 166); Janko; Edwards, Introd. 31  f.; de Jong on Il. 22, Introd. 24; cf. 259–267n., 18.318b–322n. – Formally, the simile is framed by a ring-composition (751 ≈ 754; see 7n.) and concluded by an apostrophe directed to Patroklos, which here has an especially pathetic effect (Lonsdale loc. cit. 12; Beck 2012, 174  f.). 751 1st VH ≈  754, (756 and) 759; 2nd VH ≈  17.137, 17.706 (fight for Patroklos’ corpse).  — Warriors frequently turn to the corpse after a speech of triumph (Fingerle 1939, 155): 11.456, 13.383, 13.640, 17.540, 21.200, always with a brief speech capping formulaP.

ὣς εἰπών: 210n. — ἐπὶ Κεβριόνῃ … βεβήκει: cf. 69–70an. On the iterative plpf. in the sense ‘stride, take (long) strides’, Wackernagel (1920) 1926, 167.  — ἥρωϊ: a generic epithetP (6.35n.) functioning as a verse filler (iterata and 781, 22.298, 23.893).

752 οἶμα λέοντος ἔχων: an introduction to a simile without a comparative particle, likewise at 21.252  ff. αἰετοῦ οἴματ’ ἔχων – τῷ εἰκώς …, 17.570  ff. καί οἱ μυίης θάρσος ἐνῆκεν – τοίου μιν θάρσεος πλῆσε (Lee 1964, 64; Ruijgh 865). Additional metaphor-like ex­pressions, especially from the animal kingdom: 1.225 (eyes of a dog, heart of a deer), 16.266 (τῶν [sc. the wasps’] … κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἔχοντες [in the ‘so’ part of a simile]), 17.20 (μένος of a panther, lion, wild boar [in a simile with ὅσσον – τόσσον]), 17.565 (Hektor πυρὸς αἰνὸν ἔχει μένος), Hes. Th. 832  f. (voice of a bull, lion) (Graz 1965, 285  f.). — οἶμα: ‘momentum, vigor’, pejoratively ‘impetuousness’, specified by ἄλσο at 754, cf. 21.252/254 (of Achilleus) αἰετοῦ οἴματ’ ἔχων … ἤϊξεν (Porzig 1942, 87  f.; AH; LfgrE).

753 1st VH ≈ 4.108, Od. 22.286. — Animals in similes frequently display anthropomorphic traits (cf. 259–267n.); parallels from the human realm for the motif ‘sustain a hit in the chest’ at 11.144, 15.250, Od. 9.301, 22.286; on the motif of alkḗ ‘fighting strength, prowess’, see the collection of examples in Lonsdale 1990, 133.  – Someone perishing as a result of his own behavior is a typical epic motif: 1.205 (see ad loc.), 4.409, 6.407 (see ad loc.), 12.46, Od. 1.7, 10.437, 22.317/416, 23.67; also Il. 22.104. Thematically, the present passage is closely related to 6.407 (Andromache to Hektor: ‘your ménos «drive» will kill you’) and 12.46 (boar or lion resisting the hunter: ‘his valor kills him’): Clarke 1995, 150  f. On the reference to Patroklos himself, 751–754n.

752 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). 753 ἔβλητο: 3rd pers. sing. aor. mid. (root aor.), with pass. meaning. — ἑή: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4), ‘his own’.

Commentary 



 329

ἑή: On the indirect reflexive pronoun (referring to μιν), see the bibliography in LfgrE s.v. ἑός (cf. 24.36–37an.). — ἔβλητο … ὤλεσεν: on augmented aor. forms in similes, 299– 300n. — ὤλεσεν ἀλκή: ὄλλυμι with an abstract noun also at Od. 21.284 ἄλη τ’ ἀκομιστίη τε (‘wandering about and poor rations’), Hes. Op. 372 πίστεις … καὶ ἀπιστίαι (‘trust and mistrust’); cf. Porzig 1942, 133  f.

754–782 The depiction of the fight for Kebriones’ body broadens into an overall description of the situation on the battlefield. The fight over the corpse forms the narrative core – like the fight over Sarpedon previously (569–592n.) – in the alternation between detail (‘zooming in’) and overview (‘zooming out’): 754–763a  / 763b–771  / 772–776  / 777–780  / 781  f. (cf. Lynn-George 1996, 19). At the same time, it represents the course of the battle: at first an extended draw (754–778), followed by a sudden advantage for the Achaians (779–782). Bibliography on phases of stalemate in battle: 569–592n.

The narrator stresses the stalemate, and the continuous confrontation between the two parties more generally, by means both content-related and formal (Parry 1971a, LIII; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 89  f.): 754/755 Πατρόκλεις, ἄλσο / Ἕκτωρ δ’ αὖθ’ ἑτέρωθεν … ἄλτο, 756  ff. simile of the two lions, 756  ff./765 increased frequency of duals, 760 mention of two opponents in a single verse, 761/765/768/770 increased frequency of ἀλλήλ(cf. 771 οὐδ’ ἕτεροι, 778 ἀμφοτέρων), 762  f. Ἕκτωρ μὲν κεφαλῆφιν  / Πάτροκλος δ’ ἑτέρωθεν  … ποδός, 764/770 Τρῶες καὶ Δαναοί  / Τρῶες καὶ Ἀχαιοί, 765  ff. simile of the two winds, 772  ff./778 the weapons rather than the warriors are the subject, 772/774 anaphoric πολλὰ δέ, 777  f. an indication of time for the uniform progress of the action – events only change direction with the coming of evening (779  ff.).

754 1st VH ≈  751.  — ἄλσο: 426n.  — μεμᾱώς: ‘eagerly, keenly, swiftly’, a metrically con­venient variant for μεμᾰώς (2.818n. with bibliography; Hoekstra 1978, 4  ff.; Untermann; Janko on 754–755). 755 ≈ 733; 2nd VH ≈ 24.469, etc. (see ad loc.). — δ’ αὖθ’ ἑτέρωθεν: a metrical variant (‘extension’) for δ’ ἑτέρωθεν (427n.), always after caesura A 3 (8× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc.; 1× Il. without δ’).

756–761 The present lion simile shares the motif of two evenly matched opponents with the simile at 428  ff. (two birds of prey: Patroklos and Sarpedon, see 428–430n.). The animals chosen for the comparison – lions rather than birds of prey – and the point in the action that is compared – a fight over prey rather than a cry of attack – represent an intensification vis-à-vis 428  ff.: hungry lions are aggressive and obstinate (3.25n.), they ‘fight with great courage / filled with fighting spirit’ (méga phronéonte máchesthon: 758), whereas the birds of prey ‘fight, shrieking loudly’ (megála klázonte máchōntai: 429). Hektor is compared to a lion 6× (in addition to the present passage, also at 12.41  ff., 15.271  ff., 754 μεμαώς: part. of μέμονα ‘strive, be eager’.

330 

 Iliad 16

15.630  ff., 16.823  ff. and 18.161  ff. – in the penultimate passage, he kills Patroklos as a lion kills a wild boar in a fight for water; in the final passage, he cannot be driven away from Patroklos’ corpse any more than a hungry lion from his prey), Patroklos 3× (at 487  ff. in the battle against Sarpedon, and twice in a row in the present context: 751  ff. and here; given this immediate succession, the audience may wonder whether the death of the lion announced in the preceding simile [753] will occur now in the confrontation with the other lion, i.e. whether now is the time for the battle during which Patroklos will meet his predicted death – an erroneous assumption, as will become evident in the course of the fight, long a stalemate, over Kebriones’ corpse). Kebriones himself, finally, is fittingly marked as a victim by being equated with a hind. Bibliography: Moulton 1977, 104  f.; Baltes 1984, 40–42; Mueller (1984) 2009, 109, 110; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 143; Scott 2009, 165  f.; Beck 2012, 174  f.; Janko on 756–758; on the stag in Homeric similes, 157–158n. – An imitation of the present simile at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 402  ff. 756 1st VH ≈ 759. — That two animals of the same kind (here lions) fight against each other (elsewhere only at 428–430 [see ad loc.]; uncertain, 7.256  f.) is an uncommon simile motif and thus characteristic of the present context. Elsewhere, the animals always work in unison: 5.554  ff., 10.297, 13.198  ff. (lions), 11.324  f. (wild boars), 15.323  ff. (two wild animals not designated more closely); also two lions in the description of the shield at 18.579  ff.; see Fenik 1968, 58; Janko on 756–758.

λέονθ’ ὥς: an inflectable phrase after caesura B 2 and at VE (also λέων ὥς, in total 7× Il., 2× ‘Hes.’); on ὥς, 24.572n. — δηρῑθήτην: probably the original form, like ἱδρ ῡθησαν  ´ (3.78n. with bibliography). The form δηρινθήτην transmitted by the majority of manuscripts is problematic because of the -ν-: either formed by analogy with verbs in -ίνω (such as κλινθη-, κρινθη-, ὀρινθη-) or an amalgamation of δῆριν θήτην (in accord with δῆριν ἔθεντο at 17.158; at the same time, word end after a bisyllabic word in the 5th metron is undesirable, while the form θήτην is not attested elsewhere). Discussion in Janko; Reece 2009, 36. – On the meaning, 96n.

757 1st VH = 824 (cf. 758n.); ≈ 3.10, 13.179; 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 402 (ἀμφὶ …). — The text does not make clear whether one of the lions killed the deer itself (as Patroklos has killed Kebriones; thus LfgrE s.v. κτείνω 1561.9  ff.) or whether hunters are responsible (thus AH in analogy with 3.23, 11.475). Contrary to 756 τώ: = Patroklos and Hektor (anaphoric demonstrative pronoun: R 17); on the dual, R 18.1. — λέονθ’ ὥς: =  ὡς λέοντε (dual).  — δηριθήτην: 3rd pers. dual aor., probably ingressive: ‘began fighting’. 757 ὥ: dual of the relative pronoun.  — κορυφῇσι: specification of place without preposition (R 19.2).

Commentary 

 331

earlier doubts (e.g. schol. T on 756), it has now been demonstrated that lions both fight over prey (Schaller 1972, 132  ff.) and feed on carrion (3.23n., end). – Mountains are a typical scene for similes set in the wild (157–158n.); similarly the following simile (765  ff.).

ὄρεος κορυφῇσι: a formulaic expression in different positions in the verse (3.10n.). — κταμένης: ‘killed’, mid. root aor. of κτείνω, with pass. meaning (Untermann; cf. 491n.).

758 2nd VH = 824. — ἄμφω πεινάοντε, μέγα φρονέοντε: The parallelism and internal rhyme perhaps evoke the back and forth of battle (a similar onomatopoetic effect of the internal rhyme possibly also at 4.223–225, 11.188, 22.2; cf. 174n.). – On the lengthening of the -α- in πεινάοντε, G 49. On the meaning of μέγα φρονέων, 257–258n.; on the application of human attitudes to animals, 488n.

759–761 A stylistically hyper-elevated formulation for ‘in this manner the two fought over Kebriones’: 759 is an archaic formula mḗstōres aÿtḗs (generally translated ‘master of battle’ vel sim., see below), 760 a whole verse naming Patroklos and Hektor (with chiastic position of names and epithets), 761 a graphic paraphrase for ‘kill’. Cf. AH on 759  ff.; on the juxtaposition of the two names, 684–867n.; on the structure of 760, e.g. 1.7, 5.704, 17.754, 19.48. 759 1st VH ≈ 756. — μήστωρες ἀϋτῆς: an epithet of both leaders (here and at 13.93, 13.479) and entire military contingents (4.328), always at VE (nom./acc.), probably with the faded meaning ‘battle-hardened warrior’ (schol. D on 4.328: ἐπιστήμονες μάχης). μήστωρ literally means ‘who knows how to effect something by cleverness and skill’: 6.97n.; LfgrE. On the archaic inflection with -ωρ-, 14.318n. 760 Πάτροκλός τε Μενοιτιάδης: a noun-epithet formula attested elsewhere only in the gen. (420n.). — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: 577n. 761 = 13.501 (Aineias and Idomeneus); 2nd VH (after caesura C 1) = 12.427, 13.553. — ἵεντ(ο): 359n. — ταμέειν χρόα: ‘cut through the skin, cut into the flesh’, cf. ταμεσίχρως (spear epithet at 4.511, 13.340, 23.803); LfgrE s.v. χρώς 1286.38  ff.; Civiletti 2012, 68  ff.  – On χρώς, 504n.; on -έειν, 256n. — νηλέϊ χαλκῷ: i.e. ‘with the spear’ (284n.).

762–763 A corpse being dragged this way and that by two warring parties is described in a graphic simile at 17.389–397 (battle for the body of Patroklos: comparison with stretching out a newly flayed cowhide). Several vase paintings are preserved from the middle of the 6th century that show warriors attempting to drag away the fallen by their arms and/or legs (including the less well-known of the images around the handles of Exekias’ famous Dionysos cup; see Friis Johansen 1967, 192  ff.; Willinghöfer 1996, 68 with n.  246; Giuliani 2003,

758 πεινάοντε, φρονέοντε: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — μάχεσθον: 3rd pers. dual pres. 761 ἵεντ(ο): 3rd pers. pl. impf. — ταμέειν: inf. (R 16.4).

332 

 Iliad 16

282  f.). – A fallen warrior being dragged away ‘by the foot/leg’ or ‘by the feet/ legs’ – either by his comrades in order to rescue him or by his opponents in order to capture him – is a typical motif in Homeric depictions of fights over corpses (Hainsworth on 11.258; Janko on 13.383–385; cf. 496n.): in addition to the present passage, also at 4.463, 10.490, 11.258, 13.383, 14.477, 17.289, 18.155 (also the death demon Ker in the description of the shield at 18.537). Dragging by the head, however, is unique (at 3.369  f., Menelaos grabs Paris by the helmet and drags him away alive, see 3.370n.); here it is an expression of the intense back and forth (stressed by 762 ‘did not let go of him’).

On the parallels in content and language between 762/763, see 754–782n.

762 ≈ 15.716 (πρύμνηθεν). — κεφαλῆφιν: on the suffix -φι(ν), 139–140n.; here a partitive gen. — οὔ τι: On the reading οὔ τι here and in the iteratum, rather than οὐχί, which is transmitted by the majority of sources but is virtually unattested in Homer, see Bekker 1863, 152; Wackernagel 1916, 31 n.  1; Janko in 15.716–717. The similar VE 21.72 οὐδὲ μεθίει is textually undisputed.

763 1st VH = 427, etc. (see ad loc.). — The narrator’s gaze once again widens to take in the entire battlefield: ‘the others, however  …’ (see 754–782n.). In the meantime (after 712  ff.) the Trojans have been strengthened to such an extent that they can resist the Greeks (the battle is a draw).

οἱ δὲ δὴ ἄλλοι: a VE formula (also 11.524, 19.345, 20.23, Od. 1.26, 14.24); on a sentence beginning after caesura C 2, see 19.345n. – On δή as a signal for a parallel storyline that is naturally to be expected, see Cuypers 2005, 56 (‘of course’); cf. 112–113n.

764 =  14.448; ≈  2.40.  — Τρῶες καὶ Δαναοί: an inflectable VB formula (nom./gen./dat.: iterata and 3.417, 8.431, Od. 8.82). — σύναγον … ὑσμίνην: like Latin pugnam committere (2.381n.). — κρατερὴν ὑσμίνην: a VE formula (10× Il., of which only here and at 14.448 in the acc. by itself, elsewhere with κατά preceding); on inflected variants, 447n.

765–771 As in the previous simile at 756  ff. (Patroklos–Hektor), the present passage describes a draw in battle, but now – in a complementary manner – on the plane of the two armies (on the combination of lion and tree similes, cf. 482–491n., end). ‘The deep battle lines, the deep forest, the sharply projecting branches, the bristling with sharp lances, the crashing and splintering and falling, the tremendous noise – a comprehensive, extensive overall process that cannot be grasped in detail, gathered up in a curt simile that does not embellish the story but replaces it by way of anticipation’: Hampe 1952, 16 (transl.); similarly Krapp 1964, 262; Baltes 1983, 42  f. (with a tendency to over-interpret); Janko on 765–769. The present simile has much in common with the lumberjack simile at 635  ff. in terms of both motifs (trees, noise, listing 762 κεφαλῆφιν: gen. sing. (R 11.4). — λάβεν: sc. Κεβριόνην. — οὔ τι: strengthens the negative.

Commentary 

 333

of weapons [here at 772  ff.]) and position within the action (fight over a corpse). The ‘actors’ (winds, trees) here appear almost anthropomorphic.  – The tremendous force of winds is frequently described in similes, also at e.g. 2.144  ff., 9.4  ff., 11.304  ff., 13.795  ff.; on competing winds, cf. Od. 5.330–332 (the winds drive Odysseus’ raft back and forth). 765 1st VH ≈  Od. 5.295; 2nd VH ≈  Il. 22.128, Od. 18.38.  — The east wind (Greek Euros) is mentioned in the Iliad only here and at 2.145 (likewise in a storm simile), in both cases together with Notos, the south wind that brings storms (2.395n.). As the subjects of ‘competing’, the winds are probably to be imagined as personified (CG 37).

Εὖρός τε Νότος τ(ε): in the same position in the verse at Od. 5.295; VE Il. 2.145, Od. 12.326. — ἐριδαίνετον: ‘compete’ (in early epic, the verb is never used of military battle); with inf. (here πελεμιζέμεν) also at Od. 18.38 and (with epexegetic inf.) at Od. 15.321  ff.

766 οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃς: 634n. — βαθέην … ὕλην: a noun-epithet formula at VE with the words separated (also at 5.555, 15.606, 20.491, always in similes; also at Od. 17.316). βαθύς, here ‘dense’, refers to the number of trees, cf. 768 (schol. bT; LfgrE). – The form βαθέην (ending in a long vowel beside 7× βαθεῖᾰν), attested only here in early epic, probab­ly developed by analogy with the gen. βαθέης (formula modification): 5.555 βαθείης τάρφεσιν ὕλης > 15.606 βαθέης ἐν τάρφεσιν ὕλης (cf. 5.142 βαθέης ἐξάλλεται αὐλῆς) > βαθέην πελεμιζέμεν ὕλην: Hoekstra 1965, 119 (on the shortening of the diphthong -ει-, cf. ὠκέα Ἶρις and others: G 39; Chantr. 1.73). Later Ionian authors such as Herodotus and Hippocrates continue to use such nom./acc. forms in -η(ν) with adjectives in -υς: Schw. 1.474 n. 2; Rosén 1962, 97  f. — πελεμιζέμεν: 107–108n. (here perhaps with echoes of πολεμίζω). 767 A verse constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (for which, cf. the references at 397n.). The three types of trees (all in the collective sing.) are used epexegetically with the generic term ὕλην (AH; 14.347  f. [14.347n.] is similar); on the listing of three species of tree, 482–486n. — φηγόν: a species of oak (cf. δρῦς 482n.); on the possible identification as Macedonian oak (Quercus trojana), see Herzhoff 1990. — μελίην: ‘ashtree’, cf. 114n. — τανύφλοιόν τε κράνειαν: Like the ash-tree, the ‘cornelian cherry’ produces a durable wood suitable for the production of spear and lance shafts (Buchholz 2004, 50  f.); the two tree species may be mentioned here for precisely that reason: their branches beating against each other (768  f.) represent the spears used in battle (LfgrE s.v. κράνεια). The exact meaning of the epithet τανύφλοιος (a Homeric hapaxP) is obscure, perhaps ‘with elongated, thin bark’ (cf. 473n.) – the bark of the Cornelian cherry

765 ἐριδαίνετον ἀλλήλοιϊν: dual. 766 οὔρεος: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R  10.1).  — βαθέην: =  βαθεῖαν (cf. R  2).  — πελεμιζέμεν: inf. (R 16.4), ‘cause to shake’. 767 τε (μ)μελίην: on the prosody, M 4.6

334 

 Iliad 16

peels off in flakes; in post-Homeric literature, the term is used in reference to a variety of tree species. Doxography in LfgrE s.vv. κράνεια and τανύφλοιος. 768 ἔβαλον: aor. after pres. (765 ἐριδαίνετον) in a simile: 355n.; on the augmented aor. in similes in particular, 299–300n. — τανυήκεας: ‘with elongated point’ (473n.). 769 ἠχῇ θεσπεσίῃ: a VB formula (in total 7× Il., 2× Od.), namely at 23.213 of the roaring of the winds and at 8.159, 12.252, 13.834, 15.355, 15.590 of the Trojan cries of attack – both contexts (wind and war) reverberate here (Kaimio 1977, 31; cf. 2.209n.). On θεσπέσιος, see Ford 1992, 184  f., and 2.457n. (‘with overwhelming effect, enormous’). — πάταγος: The onomatopoetic term denotes a ‘high-pitched, piercing  […] sound, caused by the repeated smashing together (cf. πατάσσω) or breaking off of hard objects’ (e.g. 13.283 of chattering teeth), here ‘noise, crashing, racket’ in contrast to the ‘dull booming (ἠχῇ) of the branches smashing against one another’: LfgrE (transl.). 770–771 = 11.70  f., where in the ‘so’ part of a reaper simile (also 778 ≈ 11.85); 2nd VH of 770 ≈  3.15, etc. (see ad loc.).  — Τρῶες καὶ Ἀχαιοί: 256n.  — μνώοντ’ ὀλοοῖο φόβοιο: On the expression, cf. 357n. (ὀλοός 567n., φόβος 291n.); on the increased frequency of o sounds, 568n., end.

772–775a Summarizing depiction of a massed missile battle as explication of 771 ‘they slaughtered’ (Latacz 1977, 123  ff.). The intensity of the battle becomes apparent in the innumerable attacking weapons used, some of which become embedded in the ground, while others hit protective armor and some (albeit not mentioned in the present passage) penetrate enemy bodies, thus at 11.571– 574, 15.313–317; on missed shots striking the ground, esp. 611–612n. The passage is framed by references to the embattled Kebriones: ‘about K.’ at 772, ‘over his body’ at 775. On the stylistic subtleties of the passage, 754–782n.  — πολλὰ δὲ  …: anaphora with πολύς (here at 772/774) occurs frequently (Fehling 1969, 199  f.; cf. anaphora with concrete figures: 24.229–234n.). — ὀξέα δοῦρα: a noun-epithet formula (317n., end). 773 2nd VH ≈ 15.580. — ἰοί τε πτερόεντες: In early epic, πτερόεις is usually an epithet of ἔπεα (in a metaphorical sense: 6n.), also 4× Il. of ‘feathered’ arrows (here and at 4.117, 5.171, 20.68 in different phrases), at 5.453 and 12.426 of λαισήϊα (a kind of protective gear, precise meaning obscure: Hainsworth on 12.425–426; LfgrE s.v. λαισήϊον), at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 220 of Perseus’ winged shoes. On the fletching of ancient arrows, see Buchholz 2010, 272–274. — πτερόεντες … θορόντες: on the internal rhyme, 174n. – Arrows ‘leap’ off

769 πάταγος: sc. γίνεται (cf. 13.283). — τε (ϝ)αγνυμενάων: sc. ‘trees’ (on the prosody, R 4.3). 770  f. θορόντες: aor. part. of θρώσκω ‘leap, charge’ (773: ‘fly’).  — δῄουν: from δῃόω ‘slay, slaughter’. — oὐδ’ ἕτεροι: ‘and no one from either side’ (R 24.8). 772 Κεβριόνην ἀμφ(ί): = ἀμφὶ Κεβριόνην (R 20.2). — δοῦρα: on the declension, R 12.5. — πεπήγει: unaugmented plpf. act. used intransitively, ‘were stuck, stuck fast’. 773 ἀπὸ (ν)νευρῆφι: gen. pl. (R 11.4); on the prosody, M 4.6, likewise 774 χερμάδια (μ)μέγαλ(α).

Commentary 

 335

the bow also at 4.125 (ἄλτο), 15.314 and 15.470 (θρῳσκ-); θορόντες has also only just appeared at 770. 774 χερμάδια μεγάλ(α): a variant of the noun-epithet formula μεγάλοισί τε χερμαδίοισιν (VE 11.265, 11.541, 13.323), cf. χερμάδιον … μέγα ἔργον (5.302  f., 20.285  f.).

775–776 ≈ Od. 24.39  f. (Achilleus’ death); cf. Il. 18.26  f.; also 2nd VH of 775 ≈ 21.503; VB of 776 = 12.381, ≈ h.Ap. 359. — Into the midst of the intense battle action enters the contrasting image of the dead warrior who is lying at full length on the ground and has departed from all human activity. This ennobling image, used elsewhere only of Achilleus (18.26, Od. 24.40), creates pathos and, via the glorification of Kebriones, marks the final highlight of Patroklos’ aristeia before his downfall: Kakridis (1956) 1971, 57; Kurz 1966, 34; Parry 1971a, LIIf.; Griffin 1980, 106; de Romilly 1983, 26–28; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 60 n. 7; Lynn-George 1996, 19  f.; on the motif ‘lying down’ in particular, 485n. – For discussion of the relationship between the three passages (here, 18.26 and Od. 24.40), see 18.26–27n. with bibliography; West 2011, 326 (the ‘forgetting chariot-driving’ suits Kebriones; the reference to size, Achilleus).

ἀμφ’ αὐτόν: on the meaning of ἀμφί, 496n., end. — ἐν στροφάλιγγι κονίης: a pathetic paraphrase for ‘on the ground, in the dust’, cf. ἐν κονίῃσιν 289n. – στροφάλιγξ ‘whirl’ (related etymologically to στρέφω) is a term largely limited to epic language; on the overall rarity of nouns in -ιγγ-, Risch 175.

776 ≈  Od. 24.40.  — The increasing ‘weight’ of the words (two/four/five syllables, cf. the ‘law of increasing parts’ at 397n.), as well as the repetition of words and sounds (mégas megalōstí, lelasménos: 3× -e-a-), lends a certain solemnity to the purely dactylic verse. — κεῖτο μέγας μεγαλωστί: a word playP with paronomasia, similarly 7.39 οἰόθεν οἶος, etc. (on which, Stefanelli 2005); these ‘constructions are easier to translate than to understand linguistically’ (Schwyzer [1940] 1983, 446 n. 1 [transl.]), e.g. ‘great in his greatness’ (Heubeck on Od. 24.39–40), ‘mightily in his might’ (Edwards 1987, 123) or ‘large in a large space’ (AH following schol. D), cf. 18.26  f. μέγας μεγαλωστὶ τανυσθείς | κεῖτο (485n.). On the accumulation of suffixes in μεγαλωστί (-ως +  -τί as in post-Homeric νεωστί), cf. πρώτιστος (656n.); bibliography on the adverbial suffix -τί: 24.409n. (μελεϊστί). — λελασμένος: cf. 357n. — ἱπποσυνάων: i.e. skill in steering the horses and chariot (739n.); on the pl., 354n.

777–804 Toward the end of the Patroklos episode, the narrator begins a ‘crescendo’, a flourish of pathetic motifs: time of day motif (777–780n.), ‘thrice – the fourth time’ (784–789n.), apostrophes (787n., 812, 843), intervention by Apollo (784–867n.), helmet motif (793–800n.), etc. (Fenik 1968, 216; Parry 1972, 13  f.; Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 25). 775 μαρναμένων: gen. dependent on δοῦρα, ἰοί, χερμάδια (or gen. absolute). 776 λελασμένος: from (ἐπι)λανθάνομαι, ‘no longer thinking of, no longer having knowledge of’.

336 

 Iliad 16

777–780 References to the time of day and/or the position of the sun serve not so much to place events on a set timescale, as to define a phase in the action (esp. a turn of fortunes in battle). Doubling the indication of time stresses the change (here at 779  f.) after the action has progressed evenly (777  f.); likewise at 8.66  ff. (morning/noon; Zeus picks up his scales, the Trojans gain the upper hand), 11.84  ff. (morning/mealtime; Achaian breakthrough, as here); similarly 15.318  ff. (no indication of time per se, but Apollo deploys the aegis). Moreover, the (chronological) parallelization of a regular occurence (end of the day/end of the working day, mealtime: 779n.) creates a suspenseful contrast with an unexpected turn of events (or with a unique event). Bibliography: Janko on 777; Hölscher 1939, 54; Fenik 1968, 81; Radin 1988, passim, esp.  299–301; Kelly 2007, 111  f.; Leuzzi 2008, 289–291. 777 ≈ 8.68 (and 778 = 8.67), Od. 4.400 (ἦμος δ’). — The center of the sky marks the peak position of the sun during the day (midday). The current day of the action (Day 26 of the Iliad, 3rd day of battle) began with the sunrise at 11.1  ff. and will conclude with the sunset at 18.239  ff. In between are the indications of time at 11.86  ff. (morning) and in the present passage (afternoon); the narrative time thus appears notably longer than the narrated time: Janko; Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 44; Bowra 1952, 314; Reichel 1994, 54; on the lengthy duration of the fighting in accord with the demands of epic, see Raaflaub 2007/8, 481  f.

ὄφρα μέν: In early epic, asyndetic ὄφρα frequently introduces a summaryP (examples in Bolling 1955, 227).  — ἀμφιβεβήκει: literally ‘stood with legs spread over/across’ (1.37n.).

778 = 8.67, 11.85, 15.319 (all after ὄφρα μέν in the preceding verse). A formula denoting an evenly matched massed missile battle, the aim of which is the (indiscriminate) decimation of enemy forces (Latacz 1977, 120  f.; Lossau 1991, 6  f. n. 9; Janko on 15.318–319). The formula does not designate a particular phase of battle here, but summarizes recent progress in the fighting (which certainly comprised close combat and duels) in terms of a draw (754–782n.). — μάλα: probably to be associated with the predicate, as at 16 (i.e. here with βέλε’ ἥπτετο, in the sense ‘in large numbers’), cf. Untermann; differently AH (with ἀμφοτέρων, ‘certainly from both sides’). — βέλε’ ἥπτετο, πίπτε δὲ λαός: chiasmus with an increased frequency of p/t sounds in the predicates; ἀμφοτέρων is to be associated with both subjects. — ἥπτετο: used absolutely of missiles: ‘hit’, in contrast to ‘fly past’ (LfgrE); in addition to the iterata, also at 17.631. The impf. has an iterative function (likewise πίπτε). — πίπτε: on the accent, West 1998, XXI.

777 ὄφρα: temporal (R  22.2), corresponds with 778 τόφρα ‘so long’.  — ἠέλιος: =  ἥλιος.  — ἀμφιβεβήκει: plpf. with the function of an impf.; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. 778 βέλε’ ἥπτετο: on the hiatus, R 5.1; βέλε’ = βέλεα (on the uncontracted form, R 6).

Commentary 

 337

779–780 The Homeric narrator frequently reports that something would almost have happened ‘contrary to fate’ (literally ‘beyond the alloted share’) or that there are fears to that effect (2.155n.); the present passage is the only one in Homeric epic where, according to the narrator’s description, something does in fact happen ‘contrary to fate’. aísa ‘fate’ here probably refers to the plan of action initiated by the will of Zeus (1.5), according to which the Achaians are to be brought to the brink of defeat for the sake of Achilleus’ honor (103n.). The fact that they nonetheless enjoy temporary success is based on Patroklos being granted a heroic run of victories prior to his death (which follows all the more abruptly afterward) (aristeia, cf. 651–655): Eberhard 1923, 52  f.; Fränkel (1951) 1962, 83; Heubeck 1954, 72  f.; Nimis 1987, 44; Sarischoulis 2008, 86  f.; West 2011, 327; Janko on 784–786. In this context, mention of the evening (779) lends particular point to the phrase ‘contrary to fate’: on the one hand, the indication of time recalls Zeus’ promise to grant the Trojans under Hektor’s leadership superiority over the Achaians on this day until nightfall (11.192–194), while on the other hand, the approaching end of the day symbolizes the imminent doom of Patroklos, who is behaving arrogantly (784  ff.; Fenik 1968, 216; Bremer 1976, 66  f.; Rutherford [1996] 2013, 111; cf. Taplin 1992, 156). – Alternative interpretations (‘against fate’ in the sense ‘contrary to expectation’ with reference to the exceptional courage of the Greeks) in Leaf; Dietrich 1965, 286; Erbse 1986, 291  f. 779 = Od. 9.58 (+ VB 780 = Od. 9.59); 1st VH (to caesura B 1) = Il. 1.475, etc. (see ad loc.). — Times of the day can be characterized by regular human activity, as here (unyoking the oxen): in the evening, work in the fields stops and the evening meal is taken (‘end of the working day’), described in more detail in the ploughing simile at Od. 13.28–35; animals are brought in from the pastures (h.Ven. 168  f.); court proceedings are concluded (Od. 12.439  f.); the midday break of the lumberjack at Il. 11.86  ff. is similar. Cf. Sanskrit samgava ‘morning‘ (literally ‘the time at which the cows are rounded up for milking’), Irish búarach ‘morning’ (literally ‘milking time’): Leaf; Hermann 1914, 50; Nilsson 1920, 27  f., 30–33; West 2007, 184.

μετενίσετο: ‘was about to return’ (namely from the zenith back to the horizon: Untermann), ‘sunk’ (LfgrE); on the form νίσομαι (related to νέομαι, probably a reduplicated pres.), 18.566n. — βουλυτόνδε: generally understood temporally as a point in time when ‘the oxen are unyoked’, i.e. ‘toward evening’, on analogy with other terms with the suffix -to-: ἄμητος ‘harvest (time)’, ἄροτος ‘ploughing (time)’, etc. (Risch 26; Porzig 1942, 342  f.), but a locative interpretation in Radin 1988, 298  f. (‘to the place

779 ἦμος: temporal, ‘when’ (R 22.2). — βουλυτόνδε: on the form, R 15.3.

338 

 Iliad 16

where one unyokes the oxen’). On the use of the word in general, LfgrE; DELG s.v. βοῦς; Rengakos 1994, 67. 780 καὶ τότε δή: a VB formula (10× Il., 27× Od., 4× Hes., 1× h.Ap.; of which, here and 23.822, Od. 7.143, 24.149 with prosodically conditioned ῥ’); it occurs sometimes at the beginning of a sentence, sometimes after a temporal dependent clause (in which case, καί is apodotic, cf. Bakker 1997, 79). — ὑπὲρ αἶσαν: for interpretation, 779–780n.; on similar expressions, 2.155n. (esp.  17.321 ὑπὲρ Διὸς αἶσαν); on the term αἶσα, 441n.  — φέρτεροι ἦσαν: a VE formula (722–723n.). 781–783 The linking of two actions via μέν – δέ can indicate simultaneity (Rengakos 1995, 7  f.; Seeck 1998, 139  f. [‘achronous simultaneity’ (transl.)]): the Greeks have barely taken possession of the corpse when, significantly, Patroklos begins the next advance against the Trojans.

781–782 The fighting over corpses in Books 16 and 17 turns out in various ways: in the case of Sarpedon, the Achaians manage to capture the armor but not the corpse; in the case of Kebriones, they get their hands on both armor and corpse; in the case of Patroklos, they rescue the body but not the armor (that of Achilleus, which will continue to play a role: 17.192  ff.) (Janko on 684–776). 781 ἐκ  … βελέων: 122–123n.  — ἥρωα: 751n.  — ἔρυσσαν: a technical term for retrieving corpses of one’s own men or capturing those of the enemy, cf. 17.581, 18.152, 18.540. 782 1st VH = 17.714; 2nd VH (from caesura B 2 on) = 7.122, 16.846; ≈ 650 (ἕληται), 6.28, 15.524, 22.368 (ἐσύλα [500n.]), similarly ‘Hes.’ Sc. 468. — Τρώων ἐξ ἐνοπῆς: ‘from the thick of battle, from the Trojan lines’, adding specification to ἐκ βελέων (cf. Untermann on 781–782). Whether the basic meaning ‘battle cries’ was also heard in the term ἐνοπή (thus Krapp 1964, 54: ‘how violently the Trojans resist the loss of the corpse by shouting can almost be heard’ [transl.]) must remain open (cf. 246n.; schol. A on 17.714; Trümpy 1950, 154). — ἀπ’ ὤμων τεύχε’ ἕλοντο: 559–560n.; on the VE formula τεύχε’ ἕλ-, 650n. 783 2nd VH ≈ 10.486 (subjunc.). — κακὰ φρονέων: 373n. — ἐνόρουσεν: 257–258n., end.

784–867 Patroklos is killed by Apollo, Euphorbos and Hektor; dialogue between the dying Patroklos and Hektor, his slayer; prophecy of Hektor’s death. Patroklos’ victorious run is definitively  – and radically  – stopped. Once again (as at 700–711), Apollo confronts Patroklos ‘the fourth time’ (784–789n.), but this time (in contrast to the earlier occasion) without warning and from behind (791n.; on the pathos lent the scene by the divine intervention, see Griffin 1980, 152  f.; Mueller [1984] 2009, 118; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 278  f.). The apprehension Achilleus expressed when he sent Patroklos is thus fulfilled: 93  f. (see 91–94n.). –

780 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — φέρτεροι ἦσαν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. 781 ἐκ: to be taken with βελέων. — ἥρωα (ϝ)έρυσσαν: on the prosody, R 4.3; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.

Commentary 

 339

The manner of Patroklos’ death (the fact that he will die has long been obvious, not least due to the repeated prolepses: 46–47n.) lends an ambivalent tone to his character: on the one hand, he managed to lead the army before the walls of Troy and in the process almost entered into a duel with Hektor; for precisely this same reason, divine intervention is needed to stop him, and killing him in fact requires three agents: Apollo, Euphorbos and Hektor (849  f.) – an intensification of the motif ‘opponent dies only after a second strike’ (on which, Fenik 1968, 23, 61; Mueller loc. cit. 79). On the other hand, Patroklos suffers the consequences both of exceeding his competence in his attack on Troy and Hektor and of acting contrary to the wishes of his friend Achilleus (83–96n.): Apollo takes him down both literally and metaphorically – he exposes him (793–804n.) and delivers him to his enemies, in a manner much more pronounced than in situations in which a deity renders a hero’s weapons ineffectual (on which, 114–118n.) or immobilizes the hero himself, as at 13.434  ff. (Otto [1929] 1947, 196; Reinhardt 1961, 319–321; Reucher 1983, 330  f.; Bannert 1988, 162  f.; Muellner 1996, 16  f.; Patzer 1996, 115  f.; Sarischoulis 2008, 224; comparison with the scene of Sarpedon’s heroic death in Mueller loc. cit. 57  f.). At the same time, this somewhat diminishes the achievement of Hektor (who is in turn now doomed to die, in accord with the narrator’s plan: 799  f., 851  ff.): although in Homeric epic there is no shame in divine support per se, the defenseless Patroklos is ultimately easy prey. ‘Henceforth, elevation and delusion remain combined in the character of Hektor’; the narrator appears to feel a mix of ‘admiration, annoyance and pity’ for him: Schadewaldt (1936) 1965, 258 (transl.); see also Krischer 1971, 34  f.; Farron 1978, 48; Edwards 1987, 265; Bannert loc. cit. 15  f., 166  f.; Patzer loc. cit. 173  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 215–219, 339 (a nuanced evaluation of Hektor’s achievements); 830–842n.; on the further fate of Achilleus’ armor, see Edwards on 17.123–139/183–187/205–206; Taplin 1992, 185  ff.; Allan 2005, 6  ff.; cf. 850n. – The detailed, emotionally stirring description of Patroklos’ doom prepares the audience for the violent response Achilleus will display after the loss of his companion: ‘Homer […] is motivating the terrific fury and grief of Achilles’ (Owen 1946, 163; similarly Edwards 1987, 265.). – A possible depiction of Patroklos’ death is found on a late Archaic metope from the Heraion of Foce del Sele (Friis Johansen 1967, 277  f.; LIMC Suppl. s.v. Patroklos). 784–789 The pattern ‘three times – three times – the fourth time’ (702–711n.) is here taken to the extreme: to kill nine men at once in each attack is indeed godlike, i.e. super-human, cf. Jordan 1905, 102; Roscher 1907, 30  f.; 705n. (‘transgression of boundaries’). The narrator hints at the fact that Patroklos will die because of his ‘Ares-like’ behavior (cf. 786  f.)  – i.e. ultimately because of his interference in the battle – already at 11.604, where Patroklos rushes ‘Ares-like’

340 

 Iliad 16

from their quarters after Achilleus’ call: ‘this was to him the beginning of his doom’ (Whitman 1958, 200; Nagy [1979] 1999, 293  f.).  – The ‘three times’ is implicitly mirrored (and in a way caricatured in comparison to Patroklos’ 27 victims) in the three attacks that follow against one man, namely Patroklos: 1. Apollo, 2. Euphorbos, 3. Hektor (cf. Niens 1987, 101 and 784–867n.). 784 1st VH = 5.436, 20.445; ≈ 11.462. — In the Iliad, ‘Ares-like’ (Greek atálantos Árēï) is an epithet of Aineias and Idomeneus (pl., 1×), Automedon (1×), Hektor (2×), Meges (2×), Meriones (3×), Patroklos (only here) and Pylaimenes (1×), usual­ly in battle situations or during preparations for battle. The expression has particular pregnancy here and at 13.295 via a second comparison with gods (786 ‘like a god’, 13.298  ff. Ares simile). Bibliography: Janko on 13.295–297; Camerotto 2009, 131  f.

τρὶς μὲν ἔπειτ’ ἐπόρουσε …: explication of 783 (with asyndeton and echo of ἐνόρουσεν). On ἔπειτα, cf. 667–668n. — θοῷ ἀτάλαντος Ἄρηϊ: an inflectable VE formula (nom./ acc.: here and at 8.215, 13.295/328/528, 17.72/536; in addition, ἀτάλ. Ἄρηϊ without θοῷ: 4× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’). An ancient and archaic formula, like Διὶ μῆτιν ἀτάλαντος (2.169n.) and ἀτάλαντος Ἐνυαλίῳ ἀνδρειφόντῃ (2.651n.; Latacz [2001] 2010, 381  f., 384–386), mostly used attributively, predicative only here (and likely at 8.215  f.) (LfgrE s.v. ἀτάλαντος). – On θοῷ hατάλαντος with prosodically relevant /h-/, see 2.169n. with bibliography.

785 ‘Homer has Patroclus kill twenty-seven men in four words’ (Benardete 1968, 35; on the structure of the verse, see Visser 1987, 45  f., 206  f.). The multiplication of typical numbersP (here ‘thrice nine’) characterizes in intensified form ‘Patroklos’ impetuous drive forward’ (Reucher 1983, 330 [transl.]). Up to this point, Patroklos has already killed 27 named opponents in his aristeia (308n.; on the rare occurrence of ‘anonymous’ victims in the Iliad, 661bn.). On groups of nine slain, 306–357n. (on a parallel with 3×9 victims in Irish epic, West 2007, 482; on parallels for the present ‘multiplication’ in Greek literature in general: van Leeuwen). The next victim, in the sense of the progression ‘nine  – the tenth’ (cf. the brief reference on this at 399–418n.), will be Patroklos himself.

σμερδαλέα ἰάχων: a VB formula (7× Il., 1× Od.; inflected h.Hom. 28.11) denoting a loud cry of attack: 19.41n. (where also on the complex morphology of ἰάχων). On σμερδαλέα, 276b–277n.; on the lengthening of the final vowel at caesura A 4, see 24.7n. (with biblio­ graphy).

786 = 705, etc. (see ad loc.).

784 Ἄρηϊ: on the declension, R 12.4. 785 σμερδαλέα (ϝ)ι(ϝ)άχων: on the prosody, R  4.3; σμερδαλέα is an adverbial acc.  — φῶτας: ‘men’ (nom. sing. ὁ φώς). — ἔπεφνεν: ‘he killed’ (aor. form from θείνω). 786 ἐπέσσυτο: 705n. — δαίμονι (ϝ)ῖσος: on the hiatus, R 5.4.

Commentary 

 341

787–792 Apollo’s intervention is introduced via an epic regressionP (Bakker 1997, 113  f.): (C) Patroklos must die; (B) Apollo approaches him; (A) Patroklos does not spot the approaching god; (B’) Apollo steps behind him unseen and (C’) strikes him (in a broader sense, all the subsequent action up to the end of Book 16 is part of C’). 787 ≈ 7.104 (of Menelaos, in an ‘almost’ situation). — The final notice of Patroklos’ death, in combination with the apostrophe addressed to the affected character, appears especially pathetic, cf. 693 (schol. bT [translated in Janko on 787–790]; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 178; Rutherford [1996] 2013, 112; on the frequent prolepsesP in Book 16, 46–47n.). At the same time, it serves as a dramaturgical clue to the significance of the following scene and thus increases suspense (cf. Bakker [1997b] 2005, 103  f.). – The iteratum 7.104 is part of a conditional clause in a contrary-to-fact; Agamemnon there manages to dissuade Menelaos from risking his life against Hektor. Here, by contrast, Patroklos’ destruction at the hands of Hektor is definitive: no one – not even Achilleus, his companion – saves him from it; what is more, Apollo even attacks his victim unseen from behind (Allen-Hornblower 2012 [in n. 54–58]; cf. Dubel 2011, 142).

ἔνθ’ ἄρα: on temporal ἔνθα, 306n. — βιότοιο τελευτή: ‘the end of life’, cf. 4.170 μοῖραν ἀναπλήσῃς βιότοιο, on the one hand, and μιν … τέλος θανάτοιο κάλυψεν 502n., on the other.

788 ἤντετο: The verb has the neutral meaning ‘approach someone, visit someone’ (of an intended encounter); only the context clarifies whether this happens in a friendly manner (thus Apollo toward Hektor at 22.203  f.) or with hostile intent (here made clear by ἐνὶ … ὑσμίνῃ and δεινός): Leuzzi 2008, 292  f. – ἄντομαι is a denominative of the root noun ἄντ(α) ‘face’ (on which, 24.630n.). Whether ἤντετο is an impf. or aor. is disputed: in favor of the impf., e.g. Mutzbauer 1893, 91 (in the sense ‘stood across from you, was facing you’) and Untermann (‘was coming toward’); in favor of the aor., Monro (1882) 1891, 37 (‘always with clear aor. meaning’) and LfgrE. The aor. is also supported by the context: all predicates at 784–792 are in the aor. (suggestion by Führer). — ἐνὶ κρατερῇ ὑσμίνῃ: 447n.

789 While Patroklos probably recognized the god in their previous encounter at 698  ff. (710–711n.), the narrator here stresses that he did not notice him (on the ‘presentation through negation’, de Jong [1987] 2004, 62  f.; cf. 130–144n.); the explanation follows at 790: Apollo was invisible. The failure to notice the god ‘corresponds to Patroklos’ failure to realize his situation after he exceeded his competence and and was thus long doomed to die’: Kurz 1966, 108 (transl.). 787 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — βιότοιο: βίοτος = βίος; on the declension, R 11.2. 788 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — κρατερῇ: on the -η after -ρ-, R 2. 789 ὅ: = οὗτος/Patroklos, τόν = τοῦτον/Apollo. — κατὰ κλόνον: to be taken with ἰόντα.

342 

 Iliad 16

δεινός: The position of the attribute in enjambment underlines Apollo’s ‘menacing, dangerous’ character – not least due to his invisibility – in the present situation (Untermann; Edwards 1966, 142; Tsagarakis 1982, 16  f.; Rutherford [1996] 2013, 112); similarly 5.739 of the aegis, Od. 12.106 of the undertow of Charybdis, Hes. Th. 935 of Phobos and Deimos, h.Hom. 11.2 of Athene. On δεινός of gods in general, see 6.379–380n. — ὃ μέν: a return to the 3rd person after the apostrophe (586n.). — κατὰ κλόνον: 331n.

790 ‘Fog’ (Greek ēḗr/aḗr) is a Homeric image for ‘invisibility’ (West on Hes. Th. 9), usually in combination with the verb ‘veil’, ‘pour over’ or ‘cloak’; both of gods (14.282n.; of Apollo again at 21.549 and perhaps at 15.307  f.) and of heroes (during transportation by the gods: 3.380b–381n.; also Odysseus visiting the Phaiakians [Od. 7.14–17/39–42] and during his arrival on Ithaka at 13.189  ff.); see also Bouvier 1986, 238–240; Fenno 2008/9, 4  f.

ἠέρι  … πολλῇ κεκαλυμμένος: a combination of the VB formula ἠέρι καὶ νεφέλῃ κεκαλυμμένοι/αι (Od. 8.562 Phaiakian ships, 11.15 Kimmerians) and the VE formulae (ἐ)κάλυψε δ’ ἄρ’ ἠέρι πολλῇ (Il. 3.381, 11.752, 20.444, 21.597)  / κεκάλυπτο δ’ ἄρ’ ἠέρι πολλῇ 21.549 (Apollo while supporting the Trojan Agenor) / κεκαλυμμέναι ἠέρι πολλῷ Hes. Th. 9 (Muses). — ἠέρι … πολλῇ: a variable noun-epithet formula (12× in early epic).

791 VB = 1.197, 17.486; 2nd VH = 23.380 (nom.); ≈ 2.265 (see ad loc.), Od. 8.528. — Apollo stepping behind Patroklos and striking him in the back implies that the attack takes place surreptitiously and unexpectedly, thereby triggering the subsequent unnatural (or supernatural) events at 792b–806a. The motif ‘attack from behind’ is here employed in an unusual fashion in two regards: (1) with benign intent, Athene approaches Achilleus from behind (1.197; she tugs at his hair and appears to him in her own form) and Zeus approaches Hektor (15.694  f.; he propels him forward with a hand from behind; cf. Ares at 5.595; see in detail Pucci [1985] 1998, 72  f.); (2) usually, fleeing warriors are struck from behind (308n.). The present passage thus appears extraordinary: Apollo sends Patroklos to his death with a blow, as the god will likewise depart and abandon Hektor to his fate at 22.213 – the character Patroklos has fulfilled its role in the story of the Iliad and can now be ‘eliminated’. Scholars have accordingly talked of a sacrifice (Ciani 1974a, 122–124; Muellner 1996, 16  f.) or even an execution (Leuzzi 2008, 293  f.), but at least of a ‘ritual’ in the broadest sense (Willcock on 791–822; Collins 1998, 41–45; cf. 165n.) – although the degree to which such talk is justified is dubious, due to the absence of any clear indication of the idea; depictions on Attic vase paintings that show the recently killed Patroklos as a ram (with his name labelled) may likewise render such

᾽ 790 ἠέρι: dat. of   ᾱήρ. 791 στῆ δ’ ὄπιθεν: ‘approached (him) from behind’. — εὐρέε … ὤμω: dual.

Commentary 

 343

ritual ideas (Griffiths 1985; Collins loc. cit. 44  f.; Tarenzi 2005, 34–38). – A gesture similar to the present one occurs in Odysseus’ humiliating threat directed at Thersites at 2.265  f. (a blow with his staff to the back; Thersites doubles over) and in Athene’s punishment of Aphrodite at 21.424  f. (a blow to the chest; Aphrodite sinks to the ground).

εὐρέε τ’ ὤμω: a VE formula (360n.).

792 For the 1st VH, see below. — On the god ‘laying hands on’ someone, 704n. – The rolling of the eyes is the externally visible result of the violent blow to the back and signals an inability to act, the numbing ‘shock’ felt by Patroklos (‘as struck by a blow’). The eyes are linked elsewhere as well to changes in consciousness: (a) Poseidon bewitches the eyes of Alkathoös and paralyzes him so that he is unable to flee (13.435; see Turkeltaub 2005, 168); (b) phrases such as ‘darkness covered his eyes’ etc. (316n.) represent metaphors for a loss of consciousness and death (schol. D; Muellner 1996, 17); cf. 349–350n.

χειρὶ καταπρηνεῖ: formulaic for ‘flat hand, palm of the hand’ (literally ‘turned downward’) in a variety of gestures performed by both gods and human beings, usually at VB (in the sing. also at h.Ap. 333 [prayer] and Od. 13.163  f. [petrification of the Phaiakian ship]; in the pl. of slapping one’s thighs [125n. with bibliography]: 15.113  f., 15.397  f., Od. 13.198  f.), once in verse middle (Eurykleia touches Odysseus’ scar: Od. 19.467  f. [pl.]); see schol. bT; Untermann; Janko on 791–792. Alternative interpretations of καταπρηνής in Leumann 1950, 77  f.: ‘coming down, slapping down’.  — στρεφεδίνηθεν: English ‘he rolled his eyes (backward)’; the expressive Homeric hapaxP (imitated at Quintus Smyrnaeus 13.7) reflects the ‘violence of the blow’ (schol. bT); probably a so-called dvandva (copulative compound) ‘turn and whirl’ like e.g. modern Greek ἀνοιγοκλείνω ‘open and shut’ (Fraenkel 1913, 31–33; Schw. 1.645; differently Leaf, Untermann, Risch 181: denominative of a compound *στρεφεδίνης ‘turning whirls’; cf. στροφοδινέομαι with nominal initial element at Aeschylus Agam. 51).

793–804 The disarming of Patroklos at the hands of Apollo (who is mentioned explicitly at the beginning and end of the episode: 793, 804) is depicted in approximately the reverse order of the arming (130–144): there greaves – corselet  – sword  – shield  – helmet  – two spears (with stress on the final piece of equipment), here helmet  – lance  – shield  – corselet (with stress on the first piece of equipment: 793–800n.); see Bannert 1988, 162  f.; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 278  f.; Leuzzi 2008, 294. As is apparent from the mention of Achilleus at 796  ff. as the original bearer of the helmet, the exchange of weapons motif is here taken for granted (278–283n.; Reinhardt 1961, 319  f., 326  f.; Reichel

792 στρεφεδίνηθεν: = ἐστρεφεδινήθησαν (R 16.1–2). — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ὄσσε: ‘eyes’, nom. dual; on the use with a pl. predicate, R 18.1.

344 

 Iliad 16

1994, 131); this includes the fact that the portions of Achilleus’ armor worn by Patroklos (helmet, shield, corselet) merely fall down, whereas the lance, which does not originate from Achilleus, is destroyed (801–802n.). Probably also implied is that Achilleus’ armor, which the gods gave Peleus on the occasion of his marriage to Thetis (17.194–197, 18.83–85), has magical properties and renders its wearer invulnerable due to its impenetrability; removal of the armor by a deity would thus be a precondition for a Homeric hero being able to wound and kill Patroklos (when killing Hektor – who by this time will be wearing Achilleus’ armor – Achilleus will therefore have to search for an unprotected spot on his body: 22.321–325). At the same time, the Homeric narrator largely avoids pointing out such magical or mysterious phenomena (Kakridis 1961, 297; Griffin 1977, 40; Mueller [1984] 2009, 118; Edwards 1987, 68, 255  f., 296; cf. 527–531n., end). In the present case, the supernatural qualities can only be gleaned indirectly from Homeric epic, as well as from post-Homeric iconographic and literary sources, see Kakridis loc. cit. passim; Edwards 1990, 316–321; Janko on 130–154, end; Edwards on 18.84–85 and Introd. on Il. 18, p. 140  f.; de Jong on Il. 22.322.

ἀπὸ μὲν κρατὸς κυνέην βάλε … Ἀπόλλων· | 7 Vv. | … ἄγη … ἔγχος | … | ἀσπὶς̣  … πέσε …· | λῦσε δέ οἱ θώρηκα … Ἀπόλλων: ‘All this occurs instantaneously, but the poet must describe one detail after another […]. To the highly imaginative listener it must have been a thrilling moment’ (Bassett 1923, 119), ‘the effect is almost that of seeing a sequence of events in slow motion’ (Rutherford [1996] 2013, 112; cf. de Jong 2007, 32; Janko on 791–804; similarly 114–118 [on which, 112–113n.]). In the narrator’s imagination, Apollo has with one blow also knocked off the helmet with no further manipulations, etc.: Reichel (1894) 1901, 78  f. (albeit making an exception for the corselet); Kurz 1966, 28  f. (‘the effect of Apollo’s crushing blow is shown primarily in the failure and dropping of the weapons’ [transl.]); Bannert 1988, 162 (‘piece by piece, the weapons fall […] from him’ [transl.]); LfgrE s.vv. θώρηξ 1099.34  ff., λύω 1727.60  f.; differently Shear 2000, 178 n. 113 (Apollo manually opens the chin-strap of the helmet and the leather straps of the corselet). – The portrayal has a chiastic structure: Apollo as the subject and active pre­ dicates for the first and last piece of armor, intransitive predicates (ἄγη, πέσε) for the two central pieces.

793–800 In an emotional comment (de Jong [1987] 2004, 18; Richardson 1990, 163–165 with n. 33), the narrator turns the helmet into a symbol of the doom of Patroklos, Hektor and ultimately also Achilleus, son of the goddess Thetis (who has thus far remained undefeated, just as the helmet – which originated from the gods [17.194–196] – remained undamaged; cf. 798n.): ‘The item that is usually worn high up, and is even further elevated by the proudly nodding crest (16.138), now rolls beneath the feet of the horses, that which otherwise gleams and gives radiance is now smeared with dust and blood’ (Patzer 1972,

Commentary 

 345

37 [transl.]). The symbolic character is underlined by packing in various pathetic motifs that are used one way or another also elsewhere in the Iliad: (a) the helmet is thrown to the ground (793), (b) it produces noise (794), (c) it rolls between the legs of the horses (which are no longer mentioned in the context of hand-to-hand combat) (794), (d) the hairs of the helmet’s crest are covered in blood and dirt (795  f.); (e) in addition, the contrast between an earlier ideal state and the current changes (brought about by Zeus) are stressed (the helmet that earlier protected Achilleus’ graceful forehead is now lying on the ground and passes on to Hektor) (796–800), while (f) an explicit link between Achilleus and Hektor is established via Patroklos (with prolepsisP of Hektor’s death, namely at the hands of Achilleus) (800). The parallels for (a): 13.577  f. (Helenos knocks the helmet off Deïpyros’ head), 14.497  f. and 20.481  f. (Peneleos and Achilleus slash off the heads, complete with helmet, of Ilioneus and Deukalion, respectively); for (b): 105n.; for (c): 13.578  f. (Deïpyros’ helmet rolls between the feet of the fighters, where it is picked up by one of the Achaians), 14.410  f. (Aias hits Hektor with a rock that rolls around at the feet of the fighters); for (d): 15.537  f. (Dolops’ helmet – the crest of which was newly dyed with royal purple – falls to the dirty ground), 17.51  f. (the locks of the slain Euphorbos turn wet with blood); for (e): 22.401–404 (Zeus allows the Greeks to drag Hektor; the previously graceful head lies on the dusty ground); for (f): 419–683n. and 799b–800n. – General bibliography: Leinieks 1973/74, 105; Griffin 1980, 134  ff., esp. 136  f.; Edwards 1987, 264  f.; Lynn-George 1988, 211  f.; van Nortwick 1992, 60; Brillet-Dubois 1999/2000, 14  f.; specifically on (a): Longo 1996, 45; on (d): 639n., end; Fenik 1968, 163; Segal 1971, 41  f.; Thalmann 1984, 48; (e): Segal loc. cit. 793 VB =  5.292, 10.458, 15.125, Od. 22.475.  — 793 has parallels in terms of content and language  – in addition to those listed at 793–800n. (a)  – at 6.472 (Hektor takes away the helmet from the startled Astyanax), 10.458 (Diomedes and Odysseus take the helmet from Dolon), 15.125 (Athene prevents Ares from intervening in the battle by taking off his armor), Od. 14.276 (false story by Odysseus, who as a supplicant supposedly laid down his helmet and the entire suit of armor).

κυνέην: used synonymously with τρυφάλεια (795) and πήληξ (797) for ‘helmet’ (70b–72an.; on the original meaning ‘dog-skin, pelt’, 3.316n.). — Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων: 527n.

794 1st VH ≈ 24.165. — The k alliteration (already at 793) and the frequency of other ‘hard’ sounds likely imitate the rattling of the helmet (Janko; Lynn-George 1988, 211).  —

793 τοῦ: = Patroklos (anaphoric demonstrative pron.: R 17); gen. dependent on κρατός (or ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with κρατός and κυνέην). — κρατός: gen. of τὸ κάρα (Homeric κάρη 798), ‘head’.

346 

 Iliad 16

καναχὴν ἔχε: 104–105n. — ποσσὶν ὕφ’ ἵππων: Whether this locative designation is to be associated (1) with κυλινδομένη (in the sense ‘rolled between the hooves of the horses’) or (2) with καναχὴν ἔχε (‘rattled underneath the hooves of the horses’) is unclear (insofar as one has not already assumed an association ἀπὸ κοινοῦ). The word order and locative dat. notwithstanding, interpretation (1) probably appears more natural given the facts of the matter (cf. 13.578 μετὰ ποσσὶ κυλινδομένην, likewise of a helmet; see item (c) at 793–800n.) – in that case approximately ‘rolled under the hooves, rattling’ – whereas (2) could at most be supported by the motif ‘the ground resounding underneath the feet of men and horses’ (2.465  f., 20.157  f.).

795 2nd VH ≈ 23.732 (and cf. 16.797). — The crest was already highlighted in the (admittedly formulaic) arming scene (137  f.). On the function of the horse-hair crest, see the references at 135–138n. – The emphatic repetition of the expression ‘besmirched with dust/soil’ in the similarly constructed 797 (1st VH a noun-epithet formula for helmet, 2nd VH verb ‘besmirch’) underlines the impropriety of the process.

αὐλῶπις τρυφάλεια: A formula with an archaic noun (3.372n.) and an epithet obscure already in antiquity (at VB again at 13.530, at VE in the dat. at 5.182, with the words separated at 11.352  f.) – ‘the metaphor, not the name, of a helmet’ (Whitman 1958, 126). In early epic, αὐλῶπις is the only adj. in -ωπις that does not describe a living creature, and is thus difficult to interpret; it refers either to the section of tubing (αὐλός) to which the crest was attached or, in the broadest sense, to cylindrically shaped eye-holes: Stubbings 1962, 515; in detail, LfgrE s.v.; additional bibliography in Kirk on 5.182– 183. — δὲ ἔθειραι: Because of its obscure etymology, whether ἔθειραι originally had an initial digamma is unknown (Frisk; Beekes); hiatus also occurs at 22.315. On the use of the term in early epic, 19.382n.

796 1st VH = 2nd VH of 639, etc. (see ad loc.); 2nd VH ≈ 18.386/425, 24.642, Od. 5.88. — On ‘blood and dust/soil’, 486n.; on blood-stained objects, 333–334n.

οὐ θέμις ἦεν: The expression ‘it is/was (not) thémis’ (or ‘as it is/was thémis’) is part of character languageP; it occurs in the narrator-textP only here, at 14.386 and ‘Hes.’ Sc. 22 (Griffin 1986, 38). thémis is usually interpreted ‘divine will, divine order’, with a view to the mention of Zeus at 799, which fits with the above-mentioned parallel passages at 14.386 (‘it is not thémis to encounter Poseidon and his lightning-like sword in battle’) and ‘Hes.’ Sc. 22 (ὃ … Διόθεν θέμις ἦεν); moreover, the former owner (Achilleus) of the helmet is himself here called ‘divine’ (798; see e.g. Benveniste 1969, 103  f.; Yamagata 1994, 74; Janik 2003, 60  f.). An even more broadly conceived interpretation understands thémis with a view to the underlying, broad connections (the chain of events Patroklos–

794 ἣ δέ: with τρυφάλεια as an appositive (795). — ποσσὶν ὕφ’: ὑπὸ ποσίν (R 20.2; R 9.1). 796 κονίῃσι: on the declension, R 11.1. — πάρος γε: namely, as long as Achilleus himself had worn the helmet (798  f.). — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἦεν: = ἦν (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 347

Hektor–Achilleus, see 793–800n.) as ‘world order’ (Sampson 2009, 51–56: ‘natural or cosmic order’ [56]; cf. Pelloso 2012, 72–76 ‘theo-physical order’ [transl.]). 797 cf. 795. — A four-word verse (496n.). — ἱππόκομον: 216n. 798 ἀνδρὸς θείοιο: In contrast to the probably formulaic Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο (19.279n.), the attribute in the present periphrastic denominationP is likely significant and ambivalent at the same time: as at 17.198–202, it marks the ‘contrast with the doomed Hektor’ (who moreover will not benefit from Achilleus’ armor: LfgrE s.v. θεῖος 988.3  ff. [transl.]; Leaf; Janko on 794–795), on the one hand, and signifies that Achilleus’ divinity is fading in the face of his now unstoppable death, on the other (Thalmann 1984, 48  f.: ‘irony and incongruity’). — χαρίεν: The adj. means ‘delightful, attractive’ and in Homeric epic is occasionally used in contrast to soiling (here of the helmet); it thus hints at the transitoriness of the character concerned (of Achilleus again at 18.23  f. [πρόσωπον], of Hektor at 22.402  f. [κάρη]): 18.24n. with bibliography. – As an attribute of μέτωπον in early epic also at Aristeas fr. 6 Bernabé / 2 (iii) Davies (of the one-eyed Arimaspians). 799a ῥύετ’ Ἀχιλλῆος: Emphatic enjambmentP with subsequent mention of the personal name after ἀνδρὸς θείοιο: an effective stylistic figure (521n.; Edwards 1966, 153).

799b–800 Hektor’s imminent death is also connected at 17.198–208 and 18.132  f. with donning Achilleus’ armor (18.132–133n.); more generally, Hektor’s death is repeatedly announced explicitly after 15.68 (internal prolepsesP; in Book 16 here and at 852–854; see 18.92n. with bibliography). The present passage stands out due to its particular pathos (cf. 793–800n.): 800 combines Hektor’s greatest triumph – he will wear Achilleus’ helmet (1st VH) – with his destruction (2nd VH; see Rutherford 1982, 154; [1996] 2013, 113). The notion that Zeus gives the helmet to Hektor precisely because he will soon die – ‘a sign of glory but also of imminent death’ (Leuzzi 2008, 286 [transl.]) – also occurs at 15.610  ff. (Zeus honors Hektor because he has only a short while left to live [considered an interpolation by West]) and 17.206  ff. (after Hektor has also put on the other parts of Achilleus’ armor, Zeus lends him strength as compensation for the fact that he will not return from battle): Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 107; Richardson 1990, 137; Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 300; Race 1999/2000, 218  f.

σχεδόθεν δέ οἱ ἦεν ὄλεθρος: similarly 19.409 (the horse Xanthos to Achilleus): ἀλλά τοι ἐγγύθεν ἦμαρ ὀλέθριον, 18.133 (Thetis to Achilleus concerning Hektor): φόνος ἐγγύθεν αὐτῷ. The ablatival function of the suffix -θεν is frequently faded in σχεδόθεν/ἐγγύθεν (Lejeune 1939, 316, 321). — δέ: ≈ γάρ (90n.; AH on 799; Race 1999/2000, 218  f.).

799 ῥύετ(ο): impf. of ἔρυμαι/ῥύομαι ‘protect’; durative impf.: ‘always protected’. 800 ᾗ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — κεφαλῇ: locative dat. without a preposition (R 19.2). — φορέειν: frequentative of φέρειν; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — σχεδόθεν: here = σχεδόν ‘near’ (but 807 ‘from nearby, at close range’). — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).

348 

 Iliad 16

801–802 At the moment that Patroklos’ lance breaks via Apollo’s intervention, five attributes are used to characterize it as large and massive (a characterization further underlined by the sheer number of attributes); the core message ‘powerful weapon breaks’ appears almost as an oxymoron. The contrast is reinforced by an implicit reference to Achilleus’ famous lance (141: ‘heavy, large, massive’) (in its place, Patroklos had merely picked up ‘two sturdy spears’; cf. 130–144n.). This reference results in an ‘ironic deeper meaning’ (Patzer 1972, 37 [transl.]), a ‘hidden irony’ (Bannert 1988, 160  f., 163 [quotation: 163, transl.]); see also Lord 1995, 83–85; de Jong 2012, 32; general bibliography on series of epithets: 183n., end; on the increased frequency of attributes, cf. Od. 1.99  f. (Athene’s lance), 9.425  f. (Polyphemus’ ram), 12.118  f. (Skylla), 15.405  f. (island of Syria), 18.372  f. (cattle). 801 ≈ 3.367. — πᾶν … ἄγη: predicative πᾶν, as at 412 (κεφαλὴ) πᾶσα κεάσθη. — δολιχόσκιον ἔγχος: a VE formula (3.346n.). 802 βριθὺ μέγα στιβαρόν: an accumulation of epithets designating the lance of Patroklos (here), of Achilleus (141, 19.388) and of Athene (5.746, 8.390, Od. 1.100): 19.388–389n. Cf. the VE formula μέγα τε στιβαρόν τε as an epithet of σάκος (5× Il., 1× Hes.) and φάσγανον (22.307 with de Jong ad loc.). — κεκορυθμένον: literally ‘helmeted’, i.e. furnished with a (bronze) tip (3× VE formula δοῦρε δύω κεκορυθμένα χαλκῷ): 3.18n.; Untermann.

803 The (leather) carrying strap of the shield was generally worn across the left shoulder, that of the sword across the right, so that the two straps crossed at chest level (14.404–406n., 18.479b–480n. with bibliography; Anselmi 1998, 76  f.; cf. Herodotus 1.171.4; Diomedes, by contrast, appears to have worn the shield strap across his right shoulder: 5.98/5.796–798).

τερμιόεσσα: a hapaxP in the Iliad, elsewhere τερμιόεντα χιτῶνα at Od. 19.242 (gift of a host), Hes. Op. 537 (winter clothing), Mycenaean te-mi-dwe-ta *τερμίδϝεντα (common attribute of chariot wheels, see below). The formation is like μητιόεις ‘rich in μῆτις’ (Risch 152 with n. 139). The ancient interpretors understood ‘reaching down to the feet, (sufficiently) long/large, fitting’ (e.g. schol. D; Hesychius s.vv. τερμιόεν/-εντα/-εσσα). The Mycenaean long shield has sometimes been thought of in this connection (Trümpy 1950, 24; Anselmi 1998, 69  f.; cf. ἀσπὶς ποδηνεκής 15.645  f.; on the long shield in general, 2.388–389n.), at other times a connection has been made with the aprons (probably made of textile) that provided a downward extension to the (round) shield (depicted on the so-called Clazomenian sarcophagi [~550–450 B.C.]: Picard 1955; Borchhardt 1977, 3; West on Hes. Op. 537; but these are probably post-Homeric inventions: Cook 1981, 124). On the basis of the root word τέρμα ‘end’ (cf. τέρμιος ‘the ultimate, outer-

801 χείρεσσιν: on the declension, R 11.3. — ἄγη: intransitive aor. of ἄγνυμαι ‘break (apart), shatter’. 802 αὐτάρ: progressive, ‘but, and’ (R 24.2).

Commentary 

 349

most’), the following interpretation provides an alternative: ‘furnished with a rim’, i.e. ‘with a wide (or embellished or in a different manner specially made) rim (or hem)’: Helbig (1884) 1887, 174  f., 320; Lejeune 1958, 20; Marinatos 1967, 8; Meier 1975, 75; Untermann; DELG s.v. τέρμα; LSJ Suppl.; Janko; esp. on shield rims: Franz 2002, 49  f.; 18.479b–480n. Less likely is ‘rich at the ends’ in the sense ‘equipped with tassels’ (Göbel 1858, 18  f.; Leaf; on the tassels of the aegis, 2.448n.; cf. the VE of the plus-verse 3.338a ἄσπιδα τερσανόεσσαν, perhaps an error for θυσανόεσσαν or τερμιόεσσαν [Leaf on 3.334; West app.crit. on 3.338a]).

The sense of Mycenaean te-mi-dwe-ta is disputed, and the use of the term in Homeric epic is thus not particularly illuminating; (a) based on a gloss in Hesychius (τέρμις = πούς): ‘fitted with supports, braced’ in reference to the attachment of the spokes to the wheel rim (in contrast to o-da-twe-ta ‘dovetailed’; both techniques can be recognized in the Linear B ideograms for ‘wheel’); (b) oriented more closely to the basic word τέρμα ‘end’: ‘fitted with a (flat) hoop’ (in contrast to o-da-twe-ta ‘fitted with studs’); (c) on the basis of additional information on materials such as ‘of ivory’, ‘with horn’: designation of an embellishment to the wheels that cannot be determined more closely. Favoring (a) Ruijgh (1979) 1991, 142–144; Plath 1994, 82–87; DMic s.vv.; favoring (b) Ventris/Chadwick (1956) 1973, 370, 517; Chadwick/Baumbach 1963, 248; with no decision: Crouwel 1981, 87  f.; Duhoux 2008, 276. – Bibliography on the less likely variant (c): Lejeune loc. cit. 21; Crouwel loc. cit. 88; Luján/Bernabé 2012, 630.

804 1st VH ≈  4.215 (Machaon opens Menelaos’ belt; cf. h.Ven. 164).  — ἄναξ Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων: a VE formula (4× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ fr. 235.1 M.-W., 4× h.Hom.; also inflect­ able ἄναξ Διὸς υἱός after caesura A 2: 1× Il., 2× h.Hom.; on Διὸς υἱὸς Ἀπόλλων, 720n.). The formula reflects Zeus’ role in the present scene (Janko on 804–805). Metrically equi­ valent formula: ἄναξ ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων (2× Il., 1× Od., 6× h.Hom.; see 94n.).

805–806a Patroklos’ physical and mental state, here described in a tripartite sequence (at 805 also chiastic), is usually seen as a result of Apollo’s blow (i.e. as a continuation of 792 ‘he rolled his eyes’), namely in the sense of incapacitation (defenselessness), as in the case of Alkathoös, who is numbed and paralyzed by Poseidon at 13.434  ff. (Reinhardt 1961, 322; Sullivan 1988, 140  f.; Patzer 1996, 107  f.; Hershkovitz 1998, 151  f.; West 2007, 488  f. [with four additional parallels]). At the same time, this may be a second response by Patroklos, this time no longer to the blow but to the loss of his armor, which he recognizes as a divine intervention, in the same way that e.g. Aias recognizes the destruction of his lance (119–122an.) as a sign from Zeus: Deichgräber 1952, 115  f. 805 2nd VH ≈ 18.31, Od. 18.341. — ἄτη: In contrast to e.g. 685 (see ad loc.), here there is no ‘delusion’ caused in part by the character affected (rash action) but rather a physical

804 θώρηκα (ϝ)άναξ: on the prosody, R 4.3. 805 τὸν … φρένας: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); τόν = τοῦτον (R 17). — λύθεν … ὕπο: = ὑπελύθησαν (R 16.1–2, 20.2); in Homeric epic the predicate of a neut. pl. (here γυῖα) can be sing. or pl.

350 

 Iliad 16

deactivation of consciousness: ‘stupor, numbing’ (AH; Stallmach 1968, 37, 40; Doyle 1984, 7  f.); similarly ἐκ … πλήγη φρένας at 403–404an. (where also on φρένες in general; specifically on the localization of ἄτη within the φρ., 19.88n.). On the combination of abstract (ἄτη) + verb of seizing, cf. 22n., 30n. (similarly 24.480 ἄνδρ’ ἄτη … λάβῃ). — λύθεν δ’ ὕπο φαίδιμα γυῖα: 312n. (here in the sense ‘slacken, lose control, become weak/ paralyzed’). φαίδιμα γ. is a VE formula (7× Il., 1× Hes.); on the epithet, cf. 577n. 806a VB =  11.545 (Aias is frightened by Zeus), 24.360 (Idaios spots a man approaching in the darkness); similarly 22.293 (Hektor has thrown his last spear). — ταφών: ‘as if paralyzed’ (24.360n.).

806b–815 A fighting scene in the ABC-schemeP (287–290an. with bibliography); that the B part is dedicated to the attacker (Euphorbos) rather than to the attacked (who is of course sufficiently well-known in this case) is unusual. In the process, the narrator paints an ambivalent picture of Euphorbos: despite attacking from a short distance and from behind, Euphorbos merely wounds the disarmed Patroklos; he then retrieves his spear and withdraws into the crowd without fighting further (parts A and C; similarly in the Nibelungenlied of Hagen of Tronje, who stabs Siegfried from behind and flees [Janko on 777–867, p. 409]). But the B part (808–811) highlights Euphorbos’ military ability (809n.) and his successes in war (810–811n.) (the positive characterization is continued in his duel against Menelaos at 17.9  ff., esp. at 17.51  f./53  ff./80  f.). The appearance of this ambivalent character enables the narrator to depict Patroklos’ opponent as neither too weak nor too strong, on the one hand, and to qualify Hektor’s victory to some extent, on the other (on this, 784–867n.). This subsequently provides an opportunity for Menelaos to take revenge on Euphorbos – a proxy for Hektor, as it were – for Patroklos (a direct confrontation between Menelaos and Hektor with fatal consequences for the latter would be unthinkable – the revenge against Hektor is reserved for Achilleus): schol. T on 810  f., end (on which, Nünlist 2009, 56); Bassett 1923, 119  f.; Merz 1953, 51; Strasburger 1954, 34  f.; Scodel 2002, 95  f.; Burgess 2003, 80; Stoevesandt 2004, 145  f. (‘The hero who strikes the first blow against Patroklos and is killed shortly thereafter […] must not be a nobody’ [transl.]); Allan 2005, 4–6; Willcock on 808; on the narrative function of this type of character description in general, see Richardson 1990, 37  f. (‘add something to our assessment of the scene. […] aid in the evaluation of the scene at hand’); collection of examples of the motif of incapacitation in descriptions of characters: Stoevesandt loc. cit. 128.

Neoanalytic interpretations (cf. 419–683n., 684–867n.) consider Euphorbos a cha­racter ‘doublet’ of Paris, who together with Apollo will kill Achilleus (Mühlestein [1972]

806 δουρί: on the declension, R 12.5.

Commentary 

 351

1987; Janko on 808–811), or even of Achilleus himself, who in a way is responsible for Patroklos’ death (Lowenstam 1981, 122–124; Nickel 2002); contra: Allan 2005, who demonstrates that the character Euphorbos can be explained solely on the basis of the present context; in summary, see also Horn 2014, 237 n. 1035.

806b–807 2nd VH of 806 = 20.488; ≈ 5.40, 8.95, 8.258, 11.447, 22.283 (always of fleeing people, cf. 308n.). — ‘The deed of Euphorbos is the human continuation of divine action’ (sc. of Apollo), as is underlined by literal echoes: close position of the attacker, attack from behind, blow to the back and shoulder (Kurz 1966, 84 [with n. 18, transl.], 92; Leuzzi 2008, 296; cf. 791n.). On the ambivalence of Euphorbos’ role, 806b–815n. At the same time, the double blow to the back is used to illustrate the entire tragedy of Patroklos’ fate, especially given that it is nowhere stated that he had turned to flee (the usual situation when a warrior is struck from behind: 308n.); Renehan 1987, 109; Salazar 2000, 157; Kelly 2007, 140; Leuzzi loc. cit.

ὀξέϊ δουρί: 317n. — ὤμων μεσσηγύς: a VB formula, elsewhere always continued by διὰ δὲ στήθεσφιν ἔλασσεν (5.41, 5.57, 8.259, 11.448, Od. 22.93); in the present passage, the blow merely results in a non-fatal injury (Kelly 2007, 139 with n. 1). — σχεδόθεν βάλε: σχεδόθεν only here in combination with βάλλω, the technical term for distance fighting  – typical for Euphorbos (806b–815n.); only 17.600 ἔβαλε σχεδὸν ἐλθών (see 24n., 319n.; Trümpy 1950, 107; Rengakos 1993, 73) is similar. — βάλε Δάρδανος ἀνήρ: Predicate and subject (designation of origin) are placed at the end of the sentence to increase suspense, the personal name is moved to the following VB as an appositive in enjambment (521n.; Ammann 1922, 35; Untermann on 807  f.; elsewhere, βάλλω + δουρί are generally closely linked: 399n., end, with bibliography).  — Δάρδανος ἀνήρ: The attribute ‘Dardanian’ is here used synonymously with ‘Trojan’, cf. 17.80 Euphorbos ‘best of the Trojans’ (see 2.701n. [where of the victor over Protesilaos who remains nameless in the Iliad]; West 2011, 327).

808 2nd VH ≈ 13.431, Od. 2.158. — Panthoös is a member of the Trojan council of elders and the father of Euphorbos and Polydamas, among others: 535–536n. – Euphorbos (806b–815n.) appears only in the present episode; he is killed by Menelaos at 17.1  ff. The name Euphorbos means ‘he who has good pasture’ (possessive compound) or ‘he who lets (the flocks) graze well, feed well’ (verb-noun compound) (Mühlestein [1972] 1987, 79; Wathelet s.v.; Untermann); attested several times in historical sources (LGPN; Wathelet). The final element (related to phérbō ‘graze’) is attested in Mycenaean: MYC. — ἡλικίην ἐκέκαστο: The group of persons compared in κεκάσθαι ‘stand out, excel’ is usually put in the acc., as here; in this context, ἡλικίη serves as a

807 ὤμων μεσσηγύς: = μεταξὺ ὤμων. — ἄνηρ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 808 ἡλικίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2.

352 

 Iliad 16

collective (= ὁμηλικίη, see iterata): ‘age cohort, contemporaries’. On κεκάσθαι, 24.535n.; Le Feuvre 2008, 314  f.; on ἡλικίη, Porzig 1942, 206  f.

809 1st VH =  11.503; 2nd VH ≈  342 etc. (see ad loc.).  — A verse constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ and containing an epithet with the third noun (397n.).  — ‘Lance, chariot-driving and swift feet’ denote military and athle­tic categories (589–592n.; in this context, ‘lance’ could be used via metonymy for military ability in general: ‘in fighting’ [195n.]). In the present context, the three skills are manifest in different ways: Euphorbos hits Patroklos with a spear (806  f.) and has already employed his chariot successfully a number of times (810  f.); his abilities as a runner, finally, are mirrored in his father’s name: Panthoös = ‘completely swift’. The following heroes, among others, are also designated in the Iliad as outstanding (a) warriors, (b) charioteers and (c) runners: (a) the lesser Aias at 2.530, the greater Aias at 7.289 and Tydeus at 14.124  f., (b) Eumelos at 23.289, (c) Priam’s son Polydoros at 20.410 and Antilochos at 23.756. On the combination (a)+(c), 186n. (Eudoros, Antilochos, Achilleus). – The emphasis on superiority based on three criteria also occurs at 3.431 (Helen on Paris: strength, arms, lance) and 13.432 (Anchises’ daughter Hippodameia: beauty, work, intelligence), even based on four criteria at Od. 8.253 (Alkinoös on the Phaiakians: seafaring, feet, dance, song); on linking the concrete (here lance, feet) with the abstract (here chariot-driving), see Porzig 1942, 128  f. (similarly at e.g. Il. 24.546 ‘wealth and sons’). 810–811 Euphorbos is given the profile of a hero who, like e.g. Nestor (who killed 100 men in their chariots in his first battle: 11.683  f./717–721/748  f.), accomplishes exceptional deeds at a young age: West 2007, 428  f., with parallels (cf. also the duel Nestor–Ereuthalion at 7.132  ff.; on the elevated characterization of Euphorbos in general, 806b–815n.). Euphorbos’ youth is also expressed in the simile of the young olive tree at 17.53  ff. At the same time, the physical achievement mentioned here in the style of a hero’s biography is placed during a (not clearly definable) earlier period, perhaps an earlier phase of the Trojan War (see the discussion in schol. A on 810 and bT on 810  f.; Erhardt 1894, 310  f.). 810 Twenty is a typical numberP for specifying a large round number, i.e. ‘fully twenty’; here as a foil for Patroklos, who himself recently killed 27 opponents (785) and will claim to Hektor that he could easily have dealt with 20 attackers like Hektor – had he not been incapacitated by Apollo (847  f. [see ad loc.]): LfgrE s.v. ἐείκοσιν; Waltz 1933, 18  f.; Reinhardt 1961, 489. Aside from Patroklos, only Nestor (810–811n.), as well as Hektor and Achilleus, records a better ‘hit

809 καρπαλίμοισιν: on the declension, R 11.2. 810 ἐ(ϝ)είκοσι: = εἴκοσι. — βῆσεν: causative, ‘made them alight’.

Commentary 

 353

rate’ in the Iliad than Euphorbos (list of slain opponents in Singor 1991, 53  f. n. 110/112/113). — Homeric warriors generally fight on foot, the chariot being used merely for transportation (e.g. during flight: 343n.; additional references on the use of chariots: 20n.). It nonetheless occasionally happens in epic that not only the charioteer but also the warrior appear to be struck while on their chariot in the midst of battle: in addition to the parallel passages listed below, also e.g. 5.608  f., 8.312  f.; in the present passage, ‘pushing off from the chariot’ probably implies in a pregnant fashion the death of the enemy concerned.

καὶ γὰρ δή ποτε: καὶ γάρ, sometimes intensified by δή as here, introduces a concrete example illustrating a preceding, more generally phrased statement (19.95n.; de Jong on Il. 22.46); the temporal adv. (here ποτε, 19.95 νυ, Od. 22.29 νῦν) underlines the concreteness.  — φῶτας ἐείκοσι: The same phrase, but with the order inverted, also 3× Od. (ἐείκοσι φῶτας / εἴκοσι φῶτες); in these cases, the verse position of the numeral remains unchanged (word end with caesura C 2; thus also the majority of the remaining examples of (ἐ)είκοσι and more generally words of a similar prosodic form; cf. Hainsworth 1968, 63  f.). — βῆσεν ἀφ’ ἵππων: ‘brought them down from their chariot’, elsewhere usually as element (6) ‘fall of a warrior’ in typical battle scenes (289–290n.): 5.163  f. ἐξ ἵππων … | βῆσε κακῶς ἀέκοντας, 5.19 ὦσε δ’ ἀφ’ ἵππων, 11.143/320 ἀφ’/ἐξ ἵππων ὦσε χαμᾶζε, 11.109 ἐκ δ’ ἔβαλ’ ἵππων, 20.489 ἀπὸ δ’ ἅρματος ὦσε, an exception at 5.835 ἀφ’ ἵππων ὦσε χαμᾶζε: Athene pushes Sthenelos from Diomedes’ chariot alive (Kurz 1966, 23; cf. 742b–743n.). – On the VE formula ἀφ’ ἵππων, 733n.

811 1st VH ≈ Od. 10.154. — The common notion that the skills of war can be learned also occurs at 2.823, etc. (‘knowledgeable of every type of battle’), 9.440–443 (Phoinix on Achilleus), 11.719 (Neleus on Nestor), 16.359 (Hektor’s ‘knowhow’), 21.487  f. (Hera on Artemis); additional examples: Ready 2011, 131  f.

διδασκόμενος πολέμοιο: On the partitive gen. with expressions for learning, knowing or capability, see Schw. 2.107  f.; Chantr. 2.55  f.; it corresponds to the inf. at Tyrtaeus fr. 11.27 West διδασκέσθω πολεμίζειν.

812–813a Qualifying statements, as here in the sense ‘struck but did not kill’, play with the audience’s expectations, similarly 5.188/191; additional examples of such ‘negative statements’ in de Jong (1987) 2004, 64  f. with n. 52 (p. 261). – The specification ‘first’ serves both to describe a character and to give directions to the audience: it (1) underlines Euphorbos’ youthful foolhardiness, (2) prepares the audience for Hektor’s – i.e. the second attacker’s – lethal blow (818  ff.). – On the apostrophe ‘Patroklos’, 20n., 777–804n.

811 πρῶτ(α): ‘for the first time’. — ἐλθών: to be translated temporally (‘when’) or concessively (‘although’).  — ὄχεσφι: dat. pl. of ὄχεα ‘chariot’; on the declension, R  11.4.  — διδασκόμενος: explanatory with πρῶτ’ ἐλθὼν …, ‘whereby he first learned the art of war generally’. 812 ὅς: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

354 

 Iliad 16

ὃς … ἐφῆκε βέλος: In the ABC-scheme, part C frequently picks up from part A via a demonstrative pronoun and a quasi-synonymous predicate (there 807 βάλε): 593–602n. — Πατρόκλεις ἱππεῦ: 20n.  — οὐδ’ ἐδάμασσ(ε): δαμάζω ‘conquer’ can mean ‘kill’ in a pointed sense, i.e. here (with a negative): the warrior struck is merely wounded (similarly at 5.106, 5.138 [simile], 5.191, 5.278; only the armor is struck at 3.368). Differently at 816 δαμασθείς: ‘conquered’ in the sense ‘defeated, put out of action’. Cf. 103n.

813b–815 2nd VH of 813 = 11.354. — The attacker striking the opponent (or his shield) without lethal effect and subsequently withdrawing into the mass of the troops in order to avoid an immediate counterattack (although he is in danger of being killed precisely during the retreat) is a common Homeric battle motif, so too at e.g. 11.434  ff. (Sokos), 13.159  ff. (Meriones), 13.526  ff. (again Meriones who, like Euphorbos, is retrieving his weapon), 13.560  ff. (Adamas), 13.646  ff. (Harpalion), 17.43  ff. (again Euphorbos); cf. 14.408n.; Fenik 1968, 102, 217; Pagani 2008, 383, 384  f., 393, 395. But in the present context, the retreat appears ambivalent (806b–815n.), if not outright cowardly (Stoevesandt 2004, 145, 272  f.; Pagani loc. cit. 397).

αὖτις ἀνέδραμε, μίκτο δ’ ὁμίλῳ: On the description of a warrior’s retreat, cf. the formulaic 817 (see ad loc.), as well as the various formulations at 3.36 αὖτις καθ’ ὅμιλον ἔδυ, 5.599 ἀνά τ’ ἔδραμ’ ὀπίσσω (simile), 7.217  f. ἀναδῦναι | ἂψ λαῶν ἐς ὅμιλον, 11.354 (as here, but without αὖτις), 17.533 ἐχώρησαν πάλιν αὖτις, 20.379 αὖτις ἐδύσετο οὐλαμὸν ἀνδρῶν and others. — μίκτο: a mid. root aor. related to μίσγομαι/μείγνυμαι ‘mix oneself (among), merge oneself (into)’ (Schw. 1.751; Chantr. 1.383; cf. Risch 234, 236  f.); attested only here, in the iteratum 11.354 and at Od. 1.433 (with augment), rare in later epic (cf. Hoekstra 1965, 136); on the spelling with -ῐ-, West 1998, XXXII.

814 1st VH ≈ 504. — A hero ‘not daring to resist’ is a typical battle motif: 14.488  f. (Akamas during Peneleos’ attack), 15.582  ff. (Antilochos when facing Hektor), 22.136  f./251  f. (Hektor before Achilleus): Pagani 2008, 396  ff. – On pulling out the weapon, 504n.

ἁρπάξας: In contrast to neutral ἕλκω etc., ἁρπάζω is here used ‘of the fearful, i.e. hasty and thus violent «ripping out» of the lance’: LfgrE s.v. 1343.17  ff., 1345.22  ff. (transl.). — δόρυ μείλινον: 114n.

815 VB + VE = 17.2. — γυμνόν περ ἐόντ(α): ‘[T]his brief comment […] emphasizes what the narrative already suggests to be the narrator’s judgment on the action’ (namely the ambivalence of Euphorbos’ role in view of Patroklos’ inability to defend himself [806b–815n.]): Richardson 1990, 160  f. (with parallels at p. 236 n. 28). — ἐν δηϊοτῆτι: cf. 91–92n.

813 οὐδ(έ): in Homeric epic also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἐδάμασσ(ε): on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὃ μέν: prepares for 816 Πάτροκλος δέ. 814 χροός: = χρωτός. — μείλινον: ‘of ash’; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). 815 γυμνόν περ ἐόντ(α): = καίπερ γ. ὄντα (R 24.10, 16.6), ‘without weapons, defenceless’.

Commentary 

 355

816 On the combination of divine and human influence – the latter here represented by the spear – cf. Patroklos’ wording in his upcoming final speech at 844–846 and 849  f., as well as more generally 103n.

πληγῇ καὶ δουρί: The action noun πληγή picks up πλῆξεν from 791, the concrete δουρί is repeated from 806 (Porzig 1942, 37). — δουρὶ δαμασθείς: an inflectable VE formula (10× Il.; cf. 3.436n.). On the meaning of δαμάζω, 812–813an., end.

817 ≈  (ἂψ δ’) 3.32 (see ad loc.), 11.585, 13.566, 13.596, 13.648, 14.408; 1st VH (to caesura C 2) = 13.165; ≈ (ἂψ δ’) 13.533; also 3.35, etc. (VB formula, see ad loc.). – A formulaic verse, elsewhere always in reference to the Trojans, denoting the retreat of a warrior to the safety of his military unit (14.408n.; Kurz 1966, 144  f.), here as at 11.585 and 13.596 due to an injury just sustained; Patroklos does not of course get far – in contrast to Eurypylos and Helenos in the two above-mentioned examples  – and is killed by Hektor while still retreating: 818  ff. (death during retreat also befalls Adamas at 13.566  ff. and Harpalion at 13.648  ff., who  – in contrast to Patroklos  – have withdrawn immediately after a failed attack [813b–815n.]; similarly Hektor at 14.408  ff., who is however merely wounded during his retreat).

ἔθνος: ‘military host, crowd’ (2.87n., 3.32n.). — κῆρ’ ἀλεείνων: conative (14.408n.).

818–863 The parallels in content and structure between the portrayal of Patroklos’ death and that of Hektor (cf. 419–683n.) are sufficiently close and numerous that the narrator surely wanted to ensure that the two scenes were explicitly related to one another – the extent to which they are based on typical elements with subsequent speeches of triumph notwithstanding (see below); in this regard, the second of the two scenes is likely designed as an expansion and intensification of the first (five rather than three speeches; on the present speech sequence A–B–A’, see the collection of examples in Blom 1936, 41). To this are added further similarities between the characters: they disregard their counselors’ strategically important advice (Patroklos/Achilleus: 16.684–687; Hektor/ Polydamas: 18.249–309, 22.99–103); Apollo and Athene decisively weaken the position of Patroklos and Hektor, respectively (16.784  ff., 22.226  ff.; comparison of the two passages in Mueller [1984] 2009, 122  f.); the scene of the downfall of both is set before or at least close to the Skaian Gate (16.712, 22.6). At the same time, Patroklos, in contrast to Hektor (and other Trojans), does not ask that his corpse (or life) be spared (on which, cf. schol. bT on 847  f.; Bassett 1933, 50  f.; West 2011, 328 [on 844–854]; de Jong on 22.337–354 and 337–343). Detailed in-

816 δουρί: sc. of Euphorbos. 817 ἄψ: ‘back’. — ἑτάρων: = ἑταίρων. — ἐχάζετο: conative impf., ‘was attempting/was about to retreat’.

356 

 Iliad 16

terpretations and/or tabulated overviews in: Richardson on 22.330–367; de Jong on 22.326–366; Bassett 1923, 121; Fingerle 1939, 160  f.; Fenik 1968, 217  f.; Lohmann 1970, 159–161 (‘overarching composition’); Parks 1990, 61  f.; Taplin 1992, 243–247; de Romilly 1997, 42–45, 157–162; Aceti 2008, 124 n. 294. 16.818–863 Death of Patroklos

22.322–366 Death of Hektor

818–828 Hektor aims at Patroklos and inflicts a fatal injury to the abdomen; Patroklos falls to the ground.

322–330a Achilleus aims at Hektor and inflicts a fatal injury to the neck; Hektor falls to the ground.

829 Introduction to the speech of triumph (ἐπευχόμενος); a dialogue with three speeches, including Patroklos’ ‘last words’, follows.

330b Introduction to the speech of triumph (ἐπηύξατο); a dialogue with 5 speeches, including Hektor’s ‘last words’, follows.

830–833a ‘You thought you could conquer Troy, you fool’ (που ἔφησθα, νήπιε).

331–333a ‘You thought you could kill Patroklos without consequences, you fool’ (που ἔφης, νήπιε).

833b–836a Hektor as the successful defender of Troy (μεταπρέπω).

333b–335a Achilleus as Patroklos’ successful avenger (μέγ’ ἀμείνων).

836b ‘The vultures will feed on you’.

335b–336 ‘The dogs and birds of prey will carry you off’.

843 Patroklos responds with his last breath (τὸν δ’ ὀλιγοδρανέων προσέφης).

337 Hektor responds with his last breath (τὸν δ’ ὀλιγοδρανέων προσέφη).

844–850 The gods surrendered Patroklos to Hektor; otherwise, not even 20 Trojans would have been able to overcome P.

345–354 Hektor’s corpse will not be surrendered to his parents for even a 20-fold ransom.

851–854 ‘Beware!’: prophecy of death addressed to the victor.

358–360 ‘Beware!’: prophecy of death addressed to the victor.

855–857 Death of Patroklos (identical wording).

361–363 Death of Hektor (identical wording).

858 Hektor’s comment (τὸν καὶ τεθνηῶτα προσηύδα).

364 Achilleus’ comment (τὸν καὶ τεθνηῶτα προσηύδα).

859–861 Rejection of the prophecy of death.

365  f. Acceptance of the prophecy of death.

862  f. Pulling out the weapon [the armor has already been removed: 846].

367–369a Pulling out the weapon and the removal of the armor.

‘This kind of repetition […] is a means towards embodying the tragic design of the whole poem, in which victory includes the sure promise of death for the greatest victors’: Macleod, Introd. 44 (on the tragedy, see also Faesi on 841; de Romilly loc. cit.). – The depiction of the killing of Patroklos follows the themeP

Commentary 

 357

‘duel’ (on which, 419–683n.): (4) a final round of fighting (818  ff.), (6) speech of triumph by the victor (829  ff.), (5) final words of the dying warrior (843  ff.), (7) pulling the spear from the corpse (862  f.); element (8), despoiling the defeated opponent, was already performed by Apollo (793  ff., 846). 818–828 A short battle scene of the type ‘warrior attacks opponent on the retreat’ (cf. the passages cited at 813b–815n.; Janko on 818–822; Stoevesandt 2004, 219), with a simile following. On the typical elements that are also present here in general, 284–290an.; on the description of the fall, 822n.; on the simile, 823–828n.  – The scene contains elements of a ring-composition: naming of Hektor and Patroklos (818/827  f.), ‘kills from close by with a spear’ (820/828), the ‘violence’ of the lion against the boar (simile at 823/826) (van Otterlo 1948, 36; Baltes 1983, 45  f.). 818 1st VH = 15.484; ≈ 11.284, 15.422, 20.419; cf. also 16.278. — On the juxtaposition of the names Hektor and Patroklos, 684–867n.

Ἕκτωρ δ’ ὥς: a VB formula (7× Il., of which 5× in combination with a verb of perception [iterata]). ‘Hektor’ functions as a theme word (278n. with bibliography). — Πατροκλῆα μεγάθυμον: On the phrase, see 594n., end. – μεγάθυμος is a generic epithetP (286n.), only here of Patroklos (at 18.335 μεγαθύμου σεῖο φονῆος it is unclear whether it is associated with Patroklos or with Hektor [see ad loc.]); cf. 257–258n. on μεγαλήτορι.

819 1st VH ≈ 17.47, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 336, also Il. 7.264, 13.740, 21.403, Od. 7.280; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 13.212, Od. 11.535 (nom.). — ‘The neat chiasmus in 819 sums up and inverts 816  f.’: Janko on 818–822. — On retreat after an injury, 817n.; on the warrior ‘walking backward’ – Hektor will hit Patroklos from the front – see Kurz 1966, 145  f.; 14.409n.

ἂψ ἀναχαζόμενον: The formulaic verse at 817 is frequently picked up by a synonymous part., as it is here (13.566  f., 13.648  ff., 14.408  f.: ἀπιόντα/-ος). — ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ: 623n.

820 1st VH ≈ (with δέ οἱ rather than ῥα οἱ) 4.529, Od. 15.95; (with δέ σφ’ rather than ῥα οἱ) Il. 24.283, Od. 8.300, 15.57, 20.173, 24.99, 24.439, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 325. The formula of the 1st VH denotes a hostile intention only here and at 4.529. — ἀγχίμολον: ‘close (to him)’; Hektor’s attack from close quarters is subsequently described with οὐτάω, the usual verb for close combat (differently Euphorbos at 807 σχεδόθεν βάλε, see 806b–807n.). Picked up again at 828 σχεδὸν ἔγχεϊ θυμὸν ἀπηύρα. — κατὰ στίχας: ‘along the lines, through the lines, into the lines’ (of battle action: here and at 5.590, 11.91, 11.343, 17.84; differently at 3.326 ‘in rows, serially’). On the meaning of στίχες, 173n. — οὖτα δὲ δουρί: a variant of the VE formula οὔτασε δουρί (597n.). On the athematic root aor. οὖτα, 24n. 818 Πατροκλῆα (μ)μεγάθυμον: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the declension, R 11.3. 819 ἀναχαζόμενον, βεβλημένον: = ὅτι ἀνεχάζετο βεβλημένος. 820 ῥα (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), dat. dependent on ἀγχίμολον, ‘near to him’. — οὖτα: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of οὐτά(ζ)ω.

358 

 Iliad 16

821 ≈ Od. 22.295 (cf. also Il. 13.388); 1st VH = 5.857, 11.381; 2nd VH = 309, etc. (see ad loc.). — νείατον: ‘outermost, lowermost’; on the word formation, 2.824n. — κενεῶνα: ‘the side’ (related to κενός: the ‘empty space’ between ribs and pelvis; suffix -ων frequently of body parts, e.g. ἀγκών ‘elbow’, ἀνθερεών ‘chin’, βραχίων ‘upper arm’: Risch 58), the Homeric designation for the abdominal area (318n.; cf. also νείαιραν κατὰ γαστέρα 465n.). — διάπρο: 309n.

822 ≈  599; 1st VH =  325, etc. (see ad loc. on the VB formula); 2nd VH ≈  1.454, 16.237. — The present VB formula for the dull sound produced by the fall of a mortally wounded body is frequently followed by a statement that the armor clatters upon impact with the ground (6× Il., 1× Od.: 325n.) or that the victor is removing the armor from the slain opponent (5.617  f., 15.524): both are avoided here, since Patroklos has already lost his armor (schol. bT; Krapp 1964, 303; Edwards 1987, 265; Leuzzi 2008, 298).  – The 2nd VH produces pathos: the Achaians have lost the one who is currently their greatest leader (17.689  f.; see schol. bT). On the train of thought, cf. also 599  f. (death of Bathykles).

ἤκαχε: ‘cast the troops into sorrow’, see 16n.; on the possible word playP of ἄχος and Ἀχαιοί, 21–22n. — λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν: 237n.

823–828 ‘Once again in a key passage in Book 16, two typical aggressive animals face one another, although they are no longer two evenly matched animals, but a lion and an inherently inferior boar. Hektor has remained the lion, as it were, as which he fought against Patroklos in the simile at 756  ff. [sc. in the duel over Kebriones’ corpse], while Patroklos has become the inferior boar […]. The two similes mark the beginning and end point of the battles between Hektor and Patroklos, climax and end of the Myrmidon leader’s aristeia’: Baltes 1983, 44  f. (transl.). In terms of specifics, the following links between 823  ff. and 756  ff. should be mentioned: (a) 824 = 1st VH of 757 + 2nd VH of 758 (scene set in the mountains, relentless battle, dual); (b) battle motif: 825 thirst, 758 hunger; (c) fight for a desirable object: 825 spring, 757 hind. There may also be a connection to the simile at 487  ff. (Sarpedon’s death): while the bull (Sarpedon) there perishes without a struggle (the focus is on the bull’s bellowing), the boar (Patroklos) here fights with all its might (823 ‘indefatigable’, 826 ‘breathing heavily’ sc. with exertion). More generally, the boar is considered a powerful, courageous, staunch animal, capable of defending itself, particularly in comparison with lions (esp. 7.256  f., 13.471–475, 17.20–22; post-Homeric sources in Janko on 823–826). Wild boars and lions are frequently paired as objects for comparison (e.g. at 7.256  f., 8.338, 11.293), but duels between the two are de-

821 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — ἔλασσεν: = ἤλασεν (R 16.1; R 9.1). 822 μέγα: adv., ‘greatly, violently’.

Commentary 

 359

picted in early epic only here and in the shield description at ‘Hes.’ Sc. 168–177 (the remaining boar similes are usually rendered as hunting scenes; the death of the boar is not described in any of them). The imagery interaction (2.87n.; 429n.) thus conveys the image, beyond the preceding ambivalent description of Patroklos’ death (cf. 784–867n.), of a strong Patroklos, long undefeated (similarly the twins Krethon and Ortilochos in the lion simile at 5.554  ff.), affirmed also by the reference to the numerous slain opponents in the ‘so’ part (827), on the one hand, and to the victorious Hektor, on the other. The present similes have been treated numerous times and in various ways: schol. bT on 823; Krapp 1964, 263; Krischer 1971, 74  f.; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 46, 82  f.; Baltes loc. cit.; Stoevesandt 2004, 269  f., 345; Beck 2005, 179  f.; Camerotto 2009, 164  f.; Ready 2011, 211  f.; Hainsworth on 11.292–293; Janko loc. cit.; see also 406–410n., 419–683n. (in the list of parallels), 756–761n. On boars in Homeric epic, as well as in early artistic depictions, in general, Buchholz et al. 1973, 30  ff.; Scott 1974, 58  ff., 181; Vermeule 1979, 88  ff. On the ring-compositionP structure of the ‘as’ part 823/826 (esp. ἐβιήσατο χάρμῃ  / ἐδάμασσε βίηφιν, aor.), with a focus on the description of the details (824  f., pres.), 818– 828n.; on the combination of pres. and aor. in the simile, 355n. 823 ὡς δ’ ὅτε: 212–213n. — ἀκάμαντα: 176n. — χάρμῃ: ‘aggressiveness, belligerence’, generalized ‘fight’; here the former connotation is likely (in which case, an instrumental dat.), although the latter is not impossible (locative dat.); see the discussions in Porzig 1942, 172  f.; Latacz 1966, 25  f.; Untermann; LfgrE. 824 1st VH = 757 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH = 758 (see ad loc.). — Cf. 823–828n.

825 The ‘meager spring’ (where the thirsty animals accidentally meet) does not offer enough space or water for two (schol. bT). Water as a motif in similes: 160n.

πίδακος: ‘mountain spring’ (a Homeric hapaxP; formed on the basis of the same stem: πιδήεις 11.183, πολυπῖδαξ 14.157–158n.). The etymology is obscure, here perhaps interpreted by way of a folk etymology in the word playP πίδακος ἀμφ’ / πιέμεν ἄμφω (Janko; LfgrE). — ἀμφ(ί): ‘(fight) over’ (496n.). — ἐθέλουσι: ἐθέλω of animals also at 5.233 (direct speech), 13.572 (simile, as here), 17.433 (narrator-text), Hes. Op. 209 (animal fable). On the application of human emotions to animals in similes, 24.42–43n. with bibliography (so too μέγα φρονέοντε μάχεσθον at 824, cf. 823–828n.). — πῑέμεν: The -ῑ- is metrically lengthened (attested in early epic also at Od. 16.143 and 18.3, but πῐέμεν at Od.

824 ὥ: dual of the relative pronoun; refers to λέων and σῦν. — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11), likewise 826.  — κορυφῇσι: specification of place without preposition (R  19.2); on the plural, R  18.2.  — φρονέοντε μάχεσθον: dual (pres.). 825 ἐθέλουσι: dual and pl. can be combined freely (R 18.1). — πιέμεν: inf. (R 16.4).

360 

 Iliad 16

15.378 and h.Cer. 209): Untermann; in general on the forms of πίνω, Leumann (1957a) 1959; DELG. 826–827 πολλὰ … ἀσθμαίνοντα …, | ὣς πολέας πεφνόντα: The word playP with rhyme before caesura B 2 underlines the similarities between the ‘indefatigable’ boar who had to ‘pant a lot’, and Patroklos who ‘killed a lot’ (AH; Leaf; Janko on 823–826); πολέας πεφνόντα also recalls Zeus’ announcement at 15.66, according to which Hektor will kill Patroklos πολεῖς ὀλέσαντ’ αἰζηούς.  – ἀσθμαίνοντα denotes breathlessness during strenuous exertion, ‘panting’, as at 109 of Aias (109–111an.); the present death scene may also allude proleptically to the ‘death rattle’ of the dying warrior (as at e.g. 5.585, 21.181  f.): schol. bT; Krapp 1964, 163; LfgrE.

827–828 At the climax of their confrontation, the opponents are referred to by their patronymics: son of Menoitios, son of Priam (emphasis). On the juxtaposition of Patroklos and Hektor, 684–867n. 827 ≈ 18.455. — Μενοιτίου ἄλκιμον υἱόν: 278n. 828 2nd VH ≈ 20.290 (‘if-not’ situationP), 21.179 (Achilleus kills Asteropaios and delivers a speech of triumph over the fallen warrior, as Hektor does here; cf. 502–505n.; Janko on 823–826, end).  — Ἕκτωρ Πριαμίδης: an inflectable VB formula, only Il. (7× nom., 5× acc., 3× dat.); also 7× in enjambment (name and patronymic split across two verses). — σχεδόν: i.e. ‘in close combat’, 820n. — ἔγχεϊ: synonymous with δουρί at 820 (139–140n.). — θυμὸν ἀπηύρα: an inflectable VE formula (6.17n., end). On the root aor. ἀπηύρα, 19.89n., end. 829 ≈ 21.409 (fem.), 21.121 (ἀγόρευεν), 21.427 (fem., ἥ δ’ ἄρ’, ἀγόρευεν); 1st VH ≈ h.Ap. 370 (ὣς φάτ’); 2nd VH = 6, etc. (see ad loc. on the VE formula). – The alternation between προσηύδα and ἀγόρευεν in speech introduction formulaeP with ἔπεα πτερόεντα is conditioned by the target audience: προσηύδα introduces speeches directed to an individual character (as here), ἀγόρευεν speeches or dialogues in a collective (Edwards 1970, 10  f.); the manuscripts frequently offer both verbs, as here (see app.crit.).  — ἐπευχόμενος: ἐπεύχομαι is the typical verb in speech introduction formulaeP for speeches of triumph (Fingerle 1939, 153  f.; cf. 625n.). As a participle, it specifies the intention of the speech (similar examples at 46n., 706n.), here of the triumphant, boastful exultation over the defeated enemy (Patroklos will perceive it precisely that way: 844 ἤδη νῦν  … μεγάλ’ εὔχεο; likewise 11.379/388 Paris/Diomedes, cf. Corlu 1966, 51).

826 πολλά: adv. ‘a lot, heavily’.  — ἀσθμαίνοντα: sc. σῦν.  — βίηφιν: instrumental dat. sing. (R 11.4). 827 ὥς: = οὕτως. — πολέας: ͜ = πολλούς (R 12.2); on the synizesis, R 7. — πεφνόντα: part of the aor. πεφνεῖν ‘kill’. 828 Πριαμίδης: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἀπηύρα: ‘took something away from someone’ (with double acc.), root aor. of a defective verb (cf. 831 part. ἀπούρας). 829 καί (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R  4.4; οἱ =  αὐτῷ (R  14.1), with ἐπ-ευχόμενος ‘triumphing over him’. — ἐπευχόμενος (ϝ)έπεα: on the prosody, R 4.5.

Commentary 

 361

830–842 In only a few Homeric speeches of triumph (on which, 14.454–457n. with bibliography) the victor puts himself at the center of attention as self-­ assuredly as Hektor does here (even if he is in fact Troy’s greatest defender: 6.402–403n.); similarly also Achilleus triumphing over Asteropaios at 21.184  ff. and over Hektor at 22.331  ff. That Hektor mentions his own name in the 3rd person twice (833 and – in an imagined speech by Achilleus – 840) fits with this tone. At the same time, awareness of the course of action – Patroklos was easy prey, Hektor’s own death is imminent – leads the audience to suspect that this self-confidence is probably better understood as arrogance or even delusion (schol. b on 833  f.; Lohmann 1970, 116  f.; Redfield [1975] 1994, 149  f.; Schein 1984, 185  f.; de Romilly 1997, 143  f.; Grethlein 2006, 244; Scodel 2008, 26; Janko on 830–863; see 837–842n. and 784–867n.). Hektor uses two insinuations that serve to mock the inferior opponent; one concerns Patroklos and is within the realm of actual fact (830  ff. → 698  f.: attack on Troy, if subjectively colored: Scodel 2012, 326), the other concerns Achilleus and is diametrically opposed to the narrator’s report, see 837–842n. – The following typical elements of speeches of triumph are present: vocatives (here with increased frequency, always at VB: 830, 833, 837; ‘characteristic of the acerbic tone’: Fingerle 1939, 155 [transl.]), mockery of the opponent’s failure and accusations of naivety (830  ff., 837  ff.), (predicting/threatening) reference to the opponent’s death (836); especially similar motifs occur at 11.450  ff., 21.410  ff., 21.583  ff., 22.331  ff. (cf. Fingerle loc. cit. 156  f.; Pelliccia 1995, 158  f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 319  ff.). In addition, there are close contextual parallels with the subsequent speech by Patroklos (844–854), which in a way represents a reply to Hektor’s speech: accusation of empty boasting (830/844), Hektor’s significance or insignificance (833  ff./847  f.), confrontation with reality (‘but you’/‘you, however’: 836/850), Achilleus and the addressee’s death (837  ff./851  ff.); see Lohmann loc. cit. 115  f. – Interpretive paraphrase of the present speech in Leuzzi 2008, 309–312. 830 Hektor speaks of Troy as ‘our city’ (pro ásteos hēmetéroio; on pólis/ásty, cf. 24.327n.) also at 15.351, Sarpedon at 5.489 and 5.686 of ‘your city’ (pólin hymḗn and en pólei hymetérēi), Aias at 13.815 likewise of ‘your city’ (pólis hymḗ, in reference to its destruction, as here). The phrase ‘city of the Trojans’ (Trṓōn pólis: 69–70an.) is thus adapted to different situations (in speech). – On the destruction of Troy as a motif, 100n.

Πάτροκλ(ε): the only attestation of elided Πάτροκλε (beside unelided Πάτροκλε at VB 19.287, where however  –⏖), subsequently in Hektor’s second speech Πατρόκλεις

830 ἦ: ‘certainly, surely’ (R 24.4), here ἦ που ‘didn’t you?’. — ἔφησθα: φημί is subjective ‘think, believe, hope, imagine’. — κεραϊξέμεν: fut. inf. of κεραΐζειν (R 16.4). — ἁμήν: = ἡμετέραν (R 14.4).

362 

 Iliad 16

(859): metrical variants (7n.). — ἦ που ἔφησθα: The speaker here insinuates that the addressee has a certain intention, hope or idea, only to immediately expose it as naive, cf. 5.473 (Sarpedon to Hektor, νείκεσεν) φῆς που, 21.583 (Agenor to Achilleus, μέγ’ ἀΰτει) ἦ δή που μάλ’ ἔολπας, 22.280 (Hektor to Achilleus after the latter shot and missed) ἤτοι ἔφης γε, 22.331 (Achilleus to Hektor, ἐπηύξατο) ἀτάρ που ἔφης. – ἦ που corresponds to English ‘didn’t you?’; see Bolling 1929, 101; Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993, 61  f.; on που in general, 514n. — κεραϊξέμεν: a generally accepted conjecture by Bekker (app.crit.) in place of the transmitted pres. κεραϊζέμεν, analogous to the fut. ἄξειν at 832: Leaf; Janko on 830–831; Chantr. 1.307. — ἁμήν: on the form, 6.414n.

831–832 It is in accord with Homeric (and later) military custom to lead away women (and children) as prisoners of war and enslave them; similar expressions: 4.238  f., 6.454  f., 8.165  f., 20.193  f., 24.731–735 (see ad loc.); WickertMicknat 1983, 40–45. 831 ≈ 20.193; 1st VH = 9.139, 9.281; 2nd VH = 6.455, 20.193. — ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ: ‘(day of) freedom’ (6.454–455n.), here in contrast to ἦμαρ ἀναγκαῖον at 836 (see ad loc.; on the framing function of the two expressions, Janko on 830–831). 832 ≈ 9.428, 9.691; cf. Od. 23.221; 1st VH ≈ Il. 4.239, 8.166; cf. 23.829. — ἐν νήεσσι: 95n. — φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν: a VE formula (16× Il., 13× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; of which, in total 10× with a form of νηῦς in the 1st VH). φίλος here means ‘your’ (cf. 1.20n., 24.4n.; on the use of the present formula for the various grammatical persons [‘my’, ‘your’, ‘his’, etc.], see Nussbaum 1998, 106–111). – On the shorter variant πατρίδα γαῖαν, 2.140n. (one of the most common noun-epithet formulas in early epic: Dee 2010, 285).

833–836 Hektor underlines his self-portrayal as the protector of Troy (on which, 6.402–403n., 24.499n.) via (a) the use of his own name (cf. 496n.; of Hektor again at 7.75; in a speech of triumph also of Polydamas son of Panthoös at 14.454), (b) the doubling ‘I and my team of horses are engaged with all our might’, (c) the hyperbolic image of horses in full gallop (834) and (d) the reference to his own excellence in battle (similarly at 7.237–241).

834  f. each contain two ‘weighty’ words before caesura C 2 (ὀρωρέχαται πολεμιζέμεν, φιλοπτολέμοισι μεταπρέπω, in which is 2× π(τ)ολεμ-): fitting with Hektor’s self-portrayal?

833 2nd VH = 8.88 (in the narrator-text). — The vocative ‘you fool!’ (Greek nḗpie) is an emphatic runover word (Edwards, Introd. 43) and has a qualifying function with regard to 830 ‘you thought/hoped’. Implication: ‘you bought in to an illusion!’, see 46–47n. with bibliography; also (with collection of examples): 18.295n. (nḗpie as a vocative in direct speech); Stoevesandt 2004, 320 n. 956 (nḗpios in speeches on the battlefield); Kelly 2007, 207  f. (nḗpios in di832 νήεσσι: on the declension, R 12.1. 833 τάων: sc. γυναικῶν, with πρόσθ(ε) ‘before, for the protection of someone’ (sc. fight).

Commentary 

 363

rect speeches by Hektor, with Hektor in turn erring in each case: here with his mistaken assumption concerning Achilleus’ orders for Patroklos at 837  ff.); LfgrE s.v. φημί 894.19  ff. (nḗpios in a context with phēmí ‘think’ [here at 830], cf. esp. 22.331  ff.).

νήπιε· τάων: The VB-position of νήπιε is all the more emphatic (see above) since τάων is itself always placed at VB elsewhere in early epic, i.e. it was displaced from there in the present passage (Schw. 2.21). — δέ: 686n. — ὠκέες ἵπποι: 148n.

834 ποσσὶν ὀρωρέχαται: ‘a bold designation for a movement via the posture taken during its execution’ (Untermann [transl.]), perf. ‘are in full gallop, are racing along’ (schol. and AH; 375 τανύοντο δὲ μώνυχες ἵπποι is similar); cf. the plpf. 11.26 ὀρωρέχατο (snakes on Agamemnon’s corselet) ‘were extended, were rearing up’ (AH ad loc.), on the one hand, and 13.20 ὀρέξατ’ ἰών (Poseidon) ‘strode out’, 23.99 ὠρέξατο χερσί (Achilleus) ‘grasped after (Patroklos’ dead spirit), tried to catch hold of him’ (LfgrE s.v. ὀρέγω 762.53  ff.), on the other. On the formation of the perf., Untermann; it is attested in Greek literature only here and at 11.26. – Mid. ὀρέγομαι + final inf. (here πολεμιζέμεν) also at h.Cer. 15  f. — ἔγχεϊ: ‘in battle’, 195n. — αὐτός: ‘I myself’, to distinguish the speaker from the horses (466–468an.). 835 1st VH =  90, 17.194.  — φιλοπτολέμοισι: 65n.; here perhaps pregnantly as an argumentum a fortiori: if the Trojans are already happy with the fighting, how much more so must Hektor be (Sale 1994, 84  f.; cf. 833–836n., end). — μεταπρέπω: cf. Nestor, who states of himself ἱππεῦσι μετέπρεπον ἡμετέροισιν (11.720) and μετέπρεπον ἡρώεσσιν (23.645).  — ὅ: likely =  factual ὅτι ‘related to the fact that’ (Monro [1882] 1891, 242; Chantr. 2.285). An interpretation as a relative pronoun is also possible: ‘I who …’ (thus also Schadewaldt in his translation).

836 2nd VH ≈  Od. 22.30 (τῶ σ’  …).  — Leaving the corpse exposed as prey for carrion birds (and dogs) is a common motif in threats to the opposing party (or in apprehension concerning one’s own people): 1.4n.; Segal 1971, 19; Stoevesandt 2004, 312. It occurs repeatedly in reference to Patroklos (de Romilly 1997, 177–180): 17.127/241/255/272/558, 18.179 (cf. also 18.175–177). As is usually the case, the threat has no consequences (or the concern is unwarranted): Patroklos’ corpse will be saved by the Greeks (18.231  ff.).

ἦμαρ ἀναγκαῖον: a unique phrase, synonymous with δούλιον ἦμαρ, i.e. ‘captivity, enslavement’ (at 6.463 after ἐλεύθερον ἦμαρ [6.455, here 831]): schol. bT; Santiago 1962, 147  f.; Gschnitzer 1976, 9; Raaflaub 1981, 188  f.; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 40; cf. 6.454– 455n.; 831n.  — δέ τ(ε): In the majority of the Homeric examples, δέ τε signals ‘a permanent fact’ (Ruijgh 648  ff. [transl.]), which is not the case e.g. here (loc. cit. 695  ff.);

834 ὀρωρέχαται: 3rd pers. pl. perf. (R 16.2) of ὀρέγομαι ‘stretch out’. 835 ὅ: = ὅτι (R 22.3). — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). 836 ἔδονται: 3rd pers. pl. fut., ‘they will eat’.

364 

 Iliad 16

a satisfactory explanation is lacking (avoidance of hiatus; erroneous transmission for δ’ ἔτ(ι); ‘potential force’ [thus Chantr. 2.342 (transl.)]). Discussion: Denniston 531; Ruijgh 696, 699  f.; Chantr. loc. cit. — ἐνθάδε: emphatic, ‘on the spot’, in contrast to the return home (832): AH. — γῦπες ἔδονται: an inflectable VE formula (fut./opt., 4× Il., 1× Od.).

837–842 A ‘speech within a speech’ (‘embedded speech’: 203–206n.; where also see end for the common use of speech introduction and speech capping for­mulae in such speeches [838/842]). The imagined speech is based on the motif ‘paternal warnings at the departure of a warrior’ (6.207–210n.); typical elements: ‘warn urgently’ (838), ‘departure from home’ (838), contents of the warning (839–841), ‘(not) convince’/‘(not) obey’ (842). The orders for Patroklos imputed to Achilleus by Hektor deviate wholly from the actual orders (87  ff.) – as is easily recognized by the audience (Scodel 1999, 64, with parallels) – but are a fairly close match for what Patroklos de facto intended to do contrary to Achilleus’ wishes (684  ff.): ‘There is a certain irony in the fact that Hektor’s speculations […] recall for the dying man the actual words of his friend, and they must make him painfully aware of his own delusion’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 322 [transl.]). The pain is probably all the greater since Hektor insinuates at the same time that Achilleus accepted the possibility of Patroklos’ death (837, 842; de Jong [1987] 2004, 176  f.; Mπezantakos 1996, 232  f.). The way Hektor phrases this deliberate barb against his opponent at the end of his speech of triumph simultaneously says something about the speaker: in his craze to be cleverer and stronger than Patroklos and Achilleus, Hektor is revealed as deluded himself (Wiessner 1940, 86; Lohmann 1970, 116  f., 159; Janko on 830–863; additional discussion in Mπezantakos loc. cit.; Stoevesandt loc. cit. n. 963; Beck 2008, 169 n. 32). Individual formulations in this context show striking similarities to the diction of Achilleus and other Greeks: 839n., 840n., 841n. – Hektor frequently uses imagined speeches: also at 6.460  f. (see 6.459–463n.), 6.479, 7.89  f., 7.301  f., 22.107 (with de Jong ad loc.). 837 On the pathetic motif ‘X was unable to protect Y’, see Griffin 1980, 113–115. In retrospect, Achilleus will feel the same – albeit for different reasons than the ones assumed by Hektor here: he was unable to assist his friend (18.98–100; see ad loc.). On the expression ‘as esthlós «capable» as he is’, 627n.

ἆ δείλ’: an inflectable VB formula (24.518n.), usually expressing genuine compassion, but expressing mockery in speeches directed at defeated opponents, as also at 11.452 in a speech of triumph by Odysseus (Hainsworth on 11.441: ‘offensively patronizing’; Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 44  f.; Opelt 1978, 180  f.). Patroklos is called δειλός another 4×:

837 οὐδέ: ‘not once’. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1), likewise 838. — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6).

Commentary 

 365

17.670, 23.65/105/221. — χραίσμησεν: ‘could protect you, save you from harm’, always used with a negative (LfgrE); etymology obscure (Beekes). 838 που: 514n.; here ‘of the supposed actions of those absent’ (24.488n. with bibliography), repeated at 842. — μάλα πολλὰ … ἐπετέλλετ(ο): a phrase for an urgent warning (‘impress upon urgently’): 4.229, 5.197, 6.207, 21.230, Od. 12.268/273; see 6.207n.; LfgrE s.v. τέλλω. Here as an introduction to the ‘speech within a speech’, as at 9.252, 11.785. — μένων … ἰόντι: a pointed contrast (‘remain behind’ – ‘go forth’: AH), similarly 5.198 ἐρχομένῳ ἐπέτελλε δόμοις ἔνι. Hektor uses this to underline his conclusion that Achilleus, by remaining absent from battle, was unable to offer Patroklos protection (837). 839 μή μοι … ἰέναι: ἐπιτέλλω is often followed by an imperatival inf.: Pearce 1996, 294 with n. 18; on the imperatival inf. generally, 87n. – ἰέναι is the same verb form employed by Achilleus in his orders to Patroklos: 87.  — πρίν: in early epic sometimes scanned short (e.g. 573), sometimes long (also e.g. 840): 24.245n. – Negative πρίν clauses are frequently used in the context of Achilleus, e.g. at 9.650  ff. (Wilson 1991). — Πατρόκλεις ἱπποκέλευθε: used of Achilleus at 126 (see ad loc.), here ascribed to Achilleus by Hektor: Kahane 1994, 110. 840 νῆας ἔπι γλαφυράς: 18n. — πρίν: as a conjunction in early epic, also after negative main clauses, usually with the inf. (here δαΐξαι): 2.355n.  — Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο: Achilleus himself uses this noun-epithet formula elsewhere to portray Hektor as threaten­ing and dangerous (1.242, 9.351, 16.77 [see ad loc.]). That it is here foisted on him by Hektor, especially given that Hektor has now actually ‘killed’ the ‘man’ Patroklos, thus has an ironic effect (Sacks 1987, 166  f.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 138). The position at VE with χιτῶνα, the word it depends on, in enjambment creates emphasis, cf. 18.334  f. (see ad loc.; Edwards 1966, 132). 841 2nd VH (starting with χιτῶνα) = 2.416 (see ad loc.). Hektor has Achilleus utter the same graphic expression that Agamemnon used at 2.416  f.; cf. Leaf. — αἱματόεντα: cf. 13.640 ἔντε’ … αἱματόεντα, 22.368  f. τεύχε’ … | αἱματόεντ’ (with de Jong ad loc.). The attribute has a proleptic function here (AH), i.e. ‘so that the undergarment will be bloodied’. — περὶ στήθεσσιν: 133n.

842 2nd VH ≈ 4.104. — The 2nd VH contains a paradoxical expression with an oxymoron and word playP: ‘he persuaded the mind of you who are mindless’ (Greek phrénas áphroni péithen), thus also in the narrator-textP at 4.104 (after Athene’s orders to Pandaros to shoot at Menelaos, i.e. to break the truce).

838 τοι: dative object of ἐπετέλλετ(ο), with attributive part. ἰόντι. — ἐπετέλλετ(ο): mid. with no difference in meaning from the act. ἐπιτέλλω (R 23). 839 πρίν: adv., ‘earlier’ (840 is the conjunction: ‘before’). — ἰέναι: pregnant ‘return’. 840 νῆας ἔπι: = ἐπὶ νῆας (R 20.2); on the declension, R 12.1. 841 στήθεσσι: on the declension, R 11.3; on the plural, R 18.2. — δαΐξαι: aor. inf. of δαΐζω ‘tear apart’.

366 

 Iliad 16

Hektor’s sneering conjectures ex eventu are a confirmation of the narrator’s conclusion at 684  ff. that Patroklos acted rashly earlier: Sullivan 1988, 144  f., 146  f.; on the paradox and on áphrōn (here ‘foolish, deluded’), Snell 1977, 49; on the use of the term phrénes to denote a decidedly rational faculty, 403– 404an. with bibliography (esp. van der Mije 2011, 450); on the word play, cf. Od. 20.227  f.; see also LfgrE s.vv. ἄφρων and φρένες 1027.11  ff.

ὥς πού σε προσέφη: the sole example in early epic of the compound προσφάναι in a speech capping formulaP (rather than ὣς φάτο vel sim.), likely conditioned by character languageP, elsewhere always in speech introduction formulae (20, 48, etc.), as well as in the expression ‘said nothing to him’ (1.511, etc.; entirely independent of direct speech only at Od. 11.565, 23.106).  — πεῖθεν: ‘Verbs of speaking in a narrower and broader sense […] (occur) frequently in the imperfect’; they denote the ‘lasting effect’ of ‘someone else’s actions’: Schw. 2.277  f. (transl.) with older bibliography; Chantr. 2.192  f.

843 ≈ 15.246 (Hektor, on waking from unconsciousness), 22.337 (Hektor, mortally wounded by Achilleus); 2nd VH = 20 and 744. — The introduction to Patroklos’ final speech establishes a connection not only with his first speech in Book 16 (20, see ad loc.) but also with Hektor’s death (22.337): 818–863n.; FrontisiDucroux 1986, 25 (‘a formula symmetrical with that which introduced the series’ [transl.]); Kahane 1994, 154 (with bibliography); Di Benedetto (1994) 1998, 43  f.; Friedrich 2007, 102  f.

ὀλιγοδρανέων: a modifying part. in the speech introduction, in early epic only here and in the iterata 15.246/22.337, literally ‘who can only accomplish little (δράω)’ (Untermann with additional bibliography), i.e. ‘weak, with one’s last breath’, perhaps suggestive of the voice breaking (Krapp 1964, 17  f.; similarly Heath 2005, 89  f.).

844–854 Patroklos’ speech immediately before his death – like the corresponding speeches by Sarpedon and Hektor at 16.492  ff. and 22.337  ff./355  ff., respectively – belongs to the ‘final words of dying warriors’ (492–501n. with biblio­ graphy; on the parallelism of the scenes, cf. 818–863n.). It is characterized by an almost preternaturally clear insight into past and future events (cf. 851– 854n.) and thus confirms the chain of events Sarpedon–Patroklos–Hektor– Achilleus (419–683n.): Mueller (1984) 2009, 58 (Patroklos ‘in his death regains his mental composure’); Hershkovitz 1998, 157 (‘sudden perceptiveness’); Beck 2005, 182 (‘awareness of the broader framework’).  – Patroklos qualifies Hektor’s triumphant behavior, and thus his victory, in two regards: first, Hektor was only able to defeat him because of the ‘preparatory work’ of Apollo and Euphorbos; second, Hektor’s death is also imminent, namely at the hands of Achilleus (on the interpretation as ‘qualification’, see Corlu 1966, 51  f.; Reynen 1983, 139  f.; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 59  f.; Allan 2005, 6). At the same time, Patroklos is probably concerned, like e.g. Diomedes at 5.601  ff. or Aineias at 20.97  f., with having ‘his own defeat appear less ignominious’

Commentary 

 367

(Stoevesandt 2004, 217  f. [transl.]; cf. van der Mije 1987, 244  f.; on the rejection of triumphant words in the Iliad in general, 858–861n.). – The speech is comprised of two parts: the first (844–850) contains a ring-compositionP (my death – the imagined death of the others – my death), on which is superimposed the parallelism 844  ff. gods / 847  f. human beings / 849 gods / 850 human beings; the second part (851–854) is introduced by the formulaic 851. The name Hektor appears at the beginning of the speech, the name Achilleus at its end (‘Aptly, he [sc. Patroklos] dies with Akhilleus’ name on his lips’: Janko on 843–854). The motifs ‘defeating the opponent’ (845, 848, 854) and the fate of death are present: ‘The moira in the prophecy [sc. 853] corresponds to the moira in the Ecce of the dying man [sc. 849]’: Reinhardt 1961, 323  f. (quotation: 324 [transl.]). Overall, the speech has numerous parallels to the speech of Hektor that precedes it (see 830–842n., end, with bibliography). – Interpretive paraphrase of the speech in Leuzzi 2008, 312  f. 844–850 On the divine side, Patroklos lists (a) Zeus, (b) Apollo and (c) Moira (‘portion, lot, fate’) as those primarily responsible for his death. (a) The audience has been explicitly aware since 15.65 that Zeus has firmly planned on Patroklos’ death (Zeus’ announcement: in Book 16, cf. 250  ff., 644  ff., 688  ff., indirectly also at 799  f.), but Patroklos? Already the scholia (bT on 844  f.) solve the issue by positing a paralepsisP (Adkins 1960, 15; de Jong 2005, 14; on the scholium, Nünlist 2009, 123  f.). A generalizing interpretation of Zeus as the omnipotent god, to be equated in the broadest sense with Moira at 849, would also be possible (schol. T; Janko on 849–850; Leuzzi 2008, 312  f.; cf. Jörgensens’ principleP); this might also be supported by the predicate in the sing. (844  f. ‘Zeus with Apollo has granted you victory’, as at 849 ‘Moira with Apollo has killed me’). (b) Patroklos could scarcely recognize Apollo at the moment of the attack (789–792, 805  f.), but on the one hand it is no secret that Apollo is involved on behalf of the Trojans (thus also e.g. Achilleus in his warning at 94), and on the other hand Patroklos has already had an unpleasant encounter with Apollo during his attack on the city walls (698–711, cf. 710–711n.): ‘he has put two and two together’ (Jones 1996, 111  f.; see also Tsagarakis 1977, 43; Pelliccia 1995, 276  f. n. 295; Turkeltaub 2007, 57; Leuzzi loc. cit.; West 2011, 328 [on 845]); similarly 1.64 (see ad loc.), 5.105 (with Kirk ad loc.), 11.363/20.450 (with Hainsworth on 11.362–7; additional parallels in Jörgensen 1904, 368  f.). (c) ‘In the mind of the hero, Moira is conceived to have an equally valid power of interference in his life as the gods; therefore if a person’s death can be directly attributed to a particular god, then beside him is ranged Moira, the goddess responsible for the fate of death’: Dietrich 1965, 199, 201  f. (a clear distinction between Moíra as a deity and moíra as an abstract

368 

 Iliad 16

authority [434n.] is often impossible in these cases; cf. CG 29; Bianchi 1953, 120  f.; Chantraine 1954, 71; Pötscher 1960, 24–28; Tsagarakis loc. cit. 126  f.; Erbse 1986, 276); similarly 18.119 Moira and Hera, 19.410 a god and Moira (see ad loc.). In the present context, the additional mention of Zeus and Moira further detracts from Hektor’s achievement by stressing the superhuman powers involved (Jones loc. cit.; Eck 2012, 193; cf. 844–854n.). 844 The concessive-ironic tone of the exclamation ‘you triumph loudly indeed!’ prepares for the objections that follow (AH; Reinhardt 1961, 324; Corlu 1966, 52).

ἤδη νῦν: an expression belonging to character languageP, always in combination with the imper. (1.456n.). In the remaining examples, the expression suggests that ‘now’ is the right time to do something (1.456: Chryses pleads with Apollo to end the plague; Od. 10.472: the companions remind Odysseus of the return home; 15.65: Telemachos wishes to depart from Sparta; 16.168: Athene calls on Odysseus to identify himself to Telemachos). ἤδη νῦν here thus reinforces the ironic effect: ‘you picked just the right time for triumphing noisily … first, you owe your victory to someone other than yourself, and second, you too will die soon’. On ἤδη ‘now’, 438n. — μεγάλ’ εὔχεο: corresponds to ἐπευχόμενος at 829 (see ad loc.). The phrase is mostly used of prayers (4× Il., 1× Od. μέγα δ’ εὔξατο, always in the same position in the verse), only here and at Od. 23.59 μέγ’ ἐπεύχεο of cheers of victory. – μεγάλα means ‘loudly’, here perhaps pejoratively: ‘raucously’ (cf. Kaimio 1977, 24  f.). — ἔδωκεν: ‘gave (victory)’ in the sense ‘provided superiority, granted success’, cf. 7.203, 17.596; in addition to νίκην διδόναι, νίκην βούλεσθαι also occurs, always with a deity as the subject (121n.; cf. 725n.; related expressions with κῦδος at 241n., with εὖχος at 625n.). – On the agreement of the predicate with the subject closest to it, see Schw. 2.610  f.; Chantr. 2.18  f.; but in the subsequent relative clause, pl. οἳ … ἐδάμασσαν occurs.

845 On Zeus and Apollo, 844–850n.; both gods in one verse also at 22.302, Od. 15.245; cf. 97n. On the verb ‘conquer, overcome’, 103n. (subsequently picked up again at 848 [Patroklos’ fictitious opponents] and 854 [Hektor]).

Ζεὺς Κρονίδης: an inflectable noun-epithet formula before caesura B 1 (dat. 9.172, acc. h.Merc. 57; nom./acc. with the words separated Il. 4.166, 5.756, 9.18, 9.236), at VB (11.289, Hes. Th. 412, Op. 138, 158, 168) and in a number of variants in the 2nd VH (cf. Dee 1994, 62  f.).

846 2nd VH = 782 etc. (see ad loc. and 650n.). — The runover word ‘easily’ ‘explains the implications of ‘subdue’; it is only the following sentence that highlights the ironic contradiction, the disparity between the actions of the gods and Hektor’s claim’: Reinhardt 1961, 324 (transl.; with reference to 6.480  f.).

844 μέγαλ(α): adv., ‘loudly’. — εὔχεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6. 846 ῥηϊδίως: = ῥᾳδίως.

Commentary 

 369

On the ‘ease’ of divine action, 689–690n.  – The reference to the removal of armor is made to the process described at 793  ff. The phrase ‘take the armor off someone’s shoulders’ is elsewhere used to denote despoiling a slain opponent. 847–848 Patroklos’ hypothesis is a barb against ‘Hektor’s proud self-portrayal’ at 840  f. (Lohmann 1970, 116 [transl.]; cf. Reinhardt 1961, 324 [transl.]: ‘response to Hektor’s triumph’). ‘His [sc. Patroklos’] claim that he would have been able to kill twenty heroes of Hektor’s stature on the spot, if only the gods had not turned against him, is  […] easily exposed as a rhetorical exaggeration: the preceding events demonstrated that Hektor is in fact Patroklos’ equal. But only barely – and thus Patroklos’ exaggerated claim contains a grain of truth: the impression remains that, without Apollo, the fight could easily have had a different result’: Stoevesandt 2004, 218 (transl.); cf. Janko on 843–847. 847 On twenty as a typical number, 810n. — τοιοῦτοι δ(έ): ‘such (people) ⟨as you⟩, however’, emphatic at the beginning of the sentence (AH), in contrast to the gods just mentioned (the present predicate ἀντιβολέω also recalls Apollo’s attack on Patroklos: 790 VE ἀντεβόλησεν). – The omission of ‘as you’ after τοιοῦτοι is ‘a harsh ellipse’ (Janko on 843–847). A deictic gesture toward the imaginary addressee (thus Boegehold 1999, 36  f.) is hardly to be considered, given that the singer, holding the phorminx (his instrument), would scarcely have been able to gesticulate during his recital (de Jong 2012a: deictic pronouns serve primarily to illustrate the narrative). 848 2nd VH = 11.749; ≈ 5.653, 11.444; on the VE formula, 816n. — πάντες: like τοιοῦτοι, emphatic at VB; the sentence core πάντες ὄλοντο δαμέντες is stressed via the assonance of triple -ντ(ες). — αὐτόθ’ ὄλοντο: an inflectable phrase (3rd pers. pl. or aor. inf.), elsewhere always at VE (3.428, Od. 9.496, 10.132, 15.327). — ἐμῷ ὑπὸ δουρί: a phrase after caesurae A 2 (4× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’, followed each time by τυπείς [see 861]) and B 2 (2× Il., also 2× Il. ἐμῷ δ’, followed each time by δαμέντες/-α); cf. 708 σῷ ὑπὸ δουρί. On ὐπὸ δουρί ‘by the effect of …’, 3.436n.; 384n.

849 ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.2 M.-W. — On the collocation ‘fate and Apollo’, 844–850n.

Μοῖρ’ ὀλοή: a noun-epithet formula after caesura A 3 (here and in the iteratum) and at VB (21.83 and 5× Od.); in addition, sporadically in different verse positions ὀλοιὴ μοῖρα at Il. 22.5, with the words separated ὀλοὴ … μοῖρα at Hes. Op. 745. On the attribute ὀλοός, 567n. — Λητοῦς … υἱός: a variable phrase in the 2nd VH; aside from the iteratum, cf. h.Merc. 314 Λ. ἀγλαὸς υἱός (and loc. cit. 500 at VB), 4× h.Hom. Λ. (δ’) ἐρικυδέος υἱός, 3× h.Hom. and 1× ‘Hes.’ Sc. Διὸς καὶ Λητοῦς υἱ-, Il. 1.9 Λητοῦς καὶ Διὸς υἱός (VB, see ad

847 εἴ περ: concessive, ‘even if’; on περ, R 24.10. 848 κ(ε): =  ἄν (R  24.5).  — αὐτόθ(ι): ‘on the spot, right here’ (meant is: ‘where I also fell’).  — ὄλοντο ἐμῷ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — δαμέντες: aor. pass. part. of δάμνημι/δαμά(ζ)ω.

370 

 Iliad 16

loc.).  — ἔκτανεν: sing., as at 844 ἔδωκεν (see ad loc., end), in the iteratum ὤλεσεν, 18.119 ἐδάμασσε (Moira and Hera); cf. Janko.

850 Patroklos mentions his opponent Euphorbos by name; the opponents are acquainted with each other in accord with epic convention (de Jong 2005, 14–17). There is no suggestion anywhere in the depiction of the Euphorbos– Patroklos encounter (805  ff.) that a verbal exchange took place between the two (rather the opposite: Euphorbos retreats as quickly as possible; cf. AH on 846–850).  – From Patroklos’ viewpoint, Hektor is the ‘third’ opponent after Apollo (in association with Moira) and Euphorbos. Implied is ‘a diminished personal glory  […], if a human comrade-in-arms had attacked an opponent first’, so too at 89  f., 22.206  f. (Stoevesandt 2004, 218 [transl.]). Euphorbos, conversely, will brag that he was the first Trojan to strike Patroklos (17.14  f.). – On the significance of the number three in the ‘Patrokleia’, 784–789n.

ἐξεναρίζεις: literally ‘remove the armor’, frequently generalized ‘kill’ (6.20n.); here perhaps with deliberate ambiguity, given that ἔκτανεν is explicitly said in the case of both Apollo and Euphorbos, on the one hand, and that Hektor will later wear the armor originally belonging to Achilleus, even though he did not take it off Patroklos on his own (17.125, 17.187, 17.205  f., 22.323), on the other. Cf. the discussions in Reinhardt 1961, 323, 331  f.; Bannert 1988, 166  f.; Allan 2005, 6 with n. 27 (‘as if to imply that he [sc. Hector] has merely reaped the rewards of other people’s efforts’); additional bibliography on Achilleus’ armor: 784–867n. – The present tense likely in the sense ‘you are the third who …’.

851–854 Gods, seers and the dying are among the characters in narratives whose predictions have a high degree of assurance of fulfillment (especially when prolepsesP occur repeatedly, as in the case of Hektor’s death, see 799b–800n.): Duckworth 1933, 18  ff., 60  ff.; Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 59  f.; Morrison 1992, 133 n. 29; de Jong 2007, 27. The notion that the dying have prophetic gifts is repeatedly attested in antiquity, e.g. Plato, Apology 39c: schol. AT on 854; Dietrich 1965, 200 n. 1; Rutherford 1982, 153 n. 38; Janko on 852–854 (all with – partially overlapping – collections of examples). – In the Iliad, not only Patroklos but also the dying Hektor predicts the death of his opponent (22.358– 360; cf. 818–863n.); beyond linking with other events, both prophecies have at the moment of their utterance the effective function of ‘verbal self-assertion’: Stoevesandt 2004, 310 (transl.). (The passage is interpreted as a pure threat with no proleptic claim by Johnston 1999, 16 n. 40: ‘Patroclus is sure that his friend will avenge his death and wishes to frighten Hector with that certainty.’). — 851 = 444, etc. (see ad loc.).

850 ἀνδρῶν: partitive gen., ‘of/from men’. — Εὔφορβος: sc. ἔκτανεν.

Commentary 

 371

852–853 (from caesura B 1 onward) =  24.131  f. (see ad loc.; on the relationship between the passages in Books 16 and 24, Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 310 (transl.): ‘a significant link between Hektor and Achilleus in terms of the theme of death’); 2nd VH of 853 = 334, etc. (see 24.132n.). — The prediction of Hektor’s death ‘being imminent already’ will turn out to be accurate on the next day of the action of the Iliad (22.361  ff.).

θην: ‘certainly, indubitably’, with οὐ 5× VB (2.276n., 14.480n.; West 2011, 328: ‘used in confident surmises’). — βέε(αι): ‘you will live’, originally probably a short-voweled subjunc. related to the root βίος/ζώω, used as a fut. in Homeric epic (24.131b–132n.).

854 On the emphatic position of the name Achilleus at the end of the speech, 844–854n.

χερσὶ δαμέντ(ι): an inflectable phrase in various positions in the verse (also at 3.352, 10.452, 23.675, Hes. Th. 490), at VB only here. Elision of -ι is rare in early epic (G 30; additional bibliography: 24.26n.); but the repeated τοι in 851/852 leaves no doubt that δαμέντ’ is to be understood as a dat. (Guilleux 2001, 74–76). On the verb ‘conquer, overcome’, 103n. — Ἀχιλῆος ἀμύμονος Αἰακίδαο: a unique combination of two formulae for Achilleus with conspicuous alliteration: Ἀχ. ἀμ. (also at 17.186, 22.113) and ἀμ. Αἰ. (140; 134n., 139–140n.).

855–857 =  22.361–363 (and 858 ≈  22.364). The narrator perhaps reserved this striking passage deliberately for the portrayal of the deaths of Patroklos and Hektor (Mueller [1984] 2009, 28, 141; Edwards 1987, 297; Janko 1998, 9  f.; Létoublon 2007, 146; on the connection between the two scenes generally, 419–683n., 818–863n.; interpretive paraphrase in Leuzzi 2008, 320  ff.). 855 = 502, 22.361. — See 502n. 856 On death as a process of separation (‘life force leaves the body’ vel sim.), 410n.; on the journey of the ‘soul’ to Hades, 625n. (for the present wording, cf. esp. 7.330, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 254). In the present context, and in contrast to e.g. 453 (see ad loc.) and probably also 505, the Greek word psychḗ denotes not only ‘life’ in the abstract but also specifically the ‘medium’ of life, the ‘breath of life’ or the ‘soul’ (although not in the modern psychological sense); 14.518  f. is similar. In personified form, psychḗ is the ‘life spirit’ that in the underworld turns into the ‘death spirit’ or the ‘soul of the deceased’ (e.g. at Od. 24.1  ff.): Jahn 1987, 27–38; additional discussion of the term: 1.3n., 24.168n. (with bibliography). On depictions of souls in Greek iconography, see the bibliography at 469n.; loc. cit. on the motif of the ‘soul’ flying away.

852 οὐδ’ αὐτός: ‘nor also you yourself’ (sc. just as little as I). 855 μιν (ϝ)ειπόντα: on the prosody, R 4.5; μιν = αὐτόν (R 14.1). 856 πταμένη: aor. part. of πέτομαι. — Ἄϊδόσδε: on the form, R 15.3.

372 

 Iliad 16

ἐκ ῥεθέων: The word ῥέθεα is attested in early epic only here, the iteratum 22.362 (of Hektor’s ψυχή) and 22.68 (Priam on his own, gloomy future: ἐπεί κέ τις ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ  | τύψας ἠὲ βαλὼν ῥεθέων ἐκ θυμὸν ἕληται [22.67  f.]). According to the ancient grammarians, in the Aeolian dialect ῥέθος originally meant ‘face’ (see the scholia on 22.68). Since at the moment of death the ψυχή leaves the body via an opening, sometimes explicitly so – at 9.408  f. through the mouth, at 14.518  f. via a wound (cf. 469n.) – the meaning ‘mouth’ or ‘nose’, derived from ‘face’, was also posited for the present passage (thus e.g. Dionysius Thrax in schol. loc. cit.; Clarke 1999, 133  f.). But by analogy with expressions such as ὦκα δὲ θυμὸς | ᾤχετ’ ἀπὸ μελέων at 606  f. (see on the iteratum as well as on ἀπὸ μελέων), a generalized meaning ‘limbs, body’ – as continues to be attested in post-Homeric literature  – is to be assumed instead (thus e.g. schol. A on the present passage; Linke 1977, 57  f.; Erbse 1993, 130–133). Additional presentations of the issue in Beekes and LfgrE s.v. (including older bibliography); Sider 1997, 180; Stefanelli 2011 (whose interpretation of ῥέθεα as ‘words’, however, is scarcely persuasive); collection of post-Homeric examples: Massimilla 2010, 337  f. — Ἄϊδόσδε βεβήκει: a VE formula (also at Od. 3.410, 6.11; with κατῆλθεν vel sim. at Il. 7.330, 20.294, Od. 10.560, 11.65, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 254).  — Ἄϊδόσδε: ‘into ⟨the house⟩ of Hades’, gen. of specification (Schw. 2.120; Chantr. 2.59; Untermann); on the suffix -δε, G 66. — βεβήκει: ‘was already on the way (to Hades)’, cf. Kurz 1966, 111  f.; 606–607n. on ᾤχετ(ο) (‘swift vanishing’).

857 Male identity is tightly linked to the body: ‘having left behind physical manhood and vitality’; cf. the dichotomy at 1.3  f. ‘souls of heroes’ vs. ‘they themselves’, as well as at 24.6, where Achilleus mourns for the dead Patroklos’ ‘manhood and vigor’, i.e. for the traits the corpse now lacks (Clarke 1999, 205  f.). In this regard, the present expression could represent a secondary focalizationP, as at 24.6, and reproduce the contents of the lament (see 24.6–8n.; a hint in Krause 1936, 145 n. 1). – On the motif of an early death, 24.725n.

A chiastic verse with two asyndetic participles in the center. — πότμον: ‘lot’, usually in the sense ‘death’ (18.95–96n.; Dietrich 1965, 270  f.). — γοόωσα: In the Iliad, γοάω/γόος almost always denotes the ritual, clearly audible lament (24.160n.). The present expression is perhaps influenced by the notion, frequently present in γοάω/γόος, that the hero, because of his death, will no longer be able to return home and will cause sorrow to the family left behind: the force of life will not return to the body anymore (Derderian 2001, 33). — ἀνδροτῆτα: ‘physical manhood’, likely an archaic word, only in the present formulaic verse and once more of Patroklos at 24.6 (see ad loc. with bibliography and linguistic explanation of the unusual prosody; more recent detailed treatment of the state of scholarship and new, unproven hypotheses: Barnes 2011 [ἀνδροτῆτα formed by

857 ὅν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R  14.4).  — γοόωσα: on the diectasis, R  8.  — λιποῦσ(α): substantiating γοόωσα. — ἀνδροτῆτα: in terms of the prosody, the initial syllable is to be read as short: ⏖–⏑.

Commentary 

 373

analogy from *ἀμ(β)ροτῆτα; Avestan parallel]; Maslov 2011 [epenthetic -δ- is prosodically irrelevant, -νρ- does not make position]).

858–861 Hektor’s reply to the now deceased Patroklos belongs to the type ‘rejection of words of triumph and threat’ (Stoevesandt 2004, 325  f., with collection of examples), and in the course of action corresponds to Achilleus’ reply to the deceased Hektor at 22.364–366 (818–863n.). At the same time, the attitude of the two speakers could hardly be more different: whereas Hektor, who has just reproached Patroklos for his delusion, now himself has hopes of evading death and defeating Achilleus, Achilleus accepts his fate with only minor reservations (namely concerning the time of his death). The narrator also foregrounds Hektor’s fatal overconfidence inter alia in the response of the latter to Aias’ speech of challenge at 13.824  ff. and to Polydamas’ counsel at 18.285  ff. (on this, 18.285–309n.) and foregrounds Achilleus’ certainty regarding death in his reply to the prophecy of the horse Xanthos at 19.420  ff. (19.420– 423n. with bibliography; de Jong on Il. 22.365–366; Lohmann 1970, 117, 160  f.; Schein 1984, 182  f.; Stoevesandt loc. cit. 220  f. [with additional bibliography in n.  652]; Leuzzi 2008, 322  f., 325; on the dramatic ironyP that results from Hektor’s attitude, Gaertner 2001, 304 n. 37; on speeches directed to the deceased generally, Pelliccia 1995, 154–161). 858 ≈ 22.364 (Achilleus; cf. 818–863n.); 2nd VH ≈ 6.144, 21.97. — Speeches expli­ citly addressed to dead individuals strictly speaking have no addressee on the character plane (except when others overhear them, e.g. 745–750n.); they thus serve to characterize the speaker on the narrator plane (cf. Pelliccia 1995, 180).

τεθνηῶτα: on the form with -ηω-, 526n., end. — φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ: 577n.

859 Cf. 19.420 (Achilleus to Xanthos) τί μοι θάνατον μαντεύεαι; (on the parallel, cf. 858– 861n.). — τί νυ: ‘but why, but for what?’, here in an impatient question (1.414n.; on νυ in particular, 622n.). — αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον: 283n. 860 τίς δ’ οἶδ’, εἴ κ(ε): = 11.792, 15.403, Od. 2.332, 3.216. A rhetorical question, always uttered with a confident attitude (de Jong on Od. 3.216–217): ‘but who knows if not perhaps …’ (AH). — εἴ κ(ε): In Homeric epic, κε with a prospective subjunc. can also occur in indirect questions (Chantr. 2.295).  — Ἀχιλεύς, Θέτιδος πάϊς ἠϋκόμοιο: =  4.512 (spoken by the Trojan god Apollo). The apposition, attested only twice, was perhaps formed by analogy with formulae such as Ἑλένης πόσις ἠϋκόμοιο and Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω (Parry [1928] 1971, 81), and – after Ἀχιλῆος ἀμύμονος Αἰακίδαο at 854 – serves to mockingly highlight Achilleus’ divine parentage; it is perhaps to be translated almost concessively: ‘although he is the son of a goddess’ (AH; Higbie 1995, 50  f.; cf.

858 καὶ τεθνηῶτα: = καὶ τεθνεῶτα περ (concessive); on the form τεθνηῶτα, R 3.

374 

 Iliad 16

Shive 1987, 39–41). The expression is all the more striking since matronymics are rare in early epic (cf. West on Hes. Th. 1002; Matthaios 1999, 82, 265; Horn 2014, 43). – On the generic epithet ἠΰκομος, 24.466n.

861 ≈ 11.433, 12.250, 18.92, spoken with a menacing attitude (cf. 18.92n.; Kelly 2007, 132), although here addressed to the deceased Patroklos. — Hektor picks up Patroklos’ formulation from 848 (Trojans ‘defeated under my spear’) with reversed polarity: Achilleus ‘struck by my spear’ (Janko on 859–863; cf. catchword-techniqueP).

φθήῃ  … τυπεὶς  … ὀλέσσαι: φθάνειν +  inf. is attested only sporadically in post-Homeric literature; φθήῃ here is thus properly to be connected with the part. (τυπείς) and ὀλέσσαι is to be understood as a consecutive inf.: ‘whether Achilleus is not struck before so that he loses his life’ (K.-G. 2.76; Leaf), sc. ‘ere doom hits me’ (AH). — ἐμῷ ὑπὸ δουρί: 848n. — ἀπὸ θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι: an inflectable VE formula (7× Il., 1× Od., also at Il. 1.205 without ἀπό [see ad loc.]). On θυμός ‘life’, 410n.

862–863 Pulling out the weapon from the corpse is a typical Homeric battle motif (504n., 818–863n., end); here Hektor takes his spear back as though to reaffirm his threats at 860  f. (at 861–864, the spear is mentioned a total of four times). On the gesture ‘put a foot on the chest’, 503n., end. 862 2nd VH =  Od. 10.164 (and VB 863 ≈  Od. 10.165).  — ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας: an inflectable VB formula as a speech capping formulaP (24.468n.). — δόρυ χάλκεον: 346n. — ἐξ ὠτειλῆς: an inflectable VE formula (sing. 6× Il., 1× Od.; pl. 1× Od.). ὠτειλή generally denotes a fresh, bleeding, fatal wound, also wounds on a corpse (thus Patroklos at 18.351): 19.25n. 863 1st VH ≈ 5.620. — εἴρυσε: the aor. of (ϝ)ερύω ‘pull, retract’; εἴ- via either contraction of ἐϝε- or metrical lengthening (Chantr. 1.30). — λάξ: adv., ‘with the foot’; on the word formation, 6.65n. — ὕπτιον ὦσ’ ἀπὸ δουρός: ὕπτιον is proleptic, ‘he pushed him away from the spear back onto his back’ (La Roche; AH). On the notion of a body ‘following’ a weapon, cf. the examples cited at 504n. (‘followed’).

864–867 Although capturing the horses of a defeated opponent is a typical Homeric battle motif (506–507n.), here it serves primarily to remove Hektor from the scene of action proper; in this manner the narrator creates space for the description of Menelaos’ revenge on Euphorbos at 17.1  ff., cf. 508–536n. and 806b–815n. (Janko; Kakridis [1956] 1971, 56; Reinhardt 1961, 332; Stoevesandt 2004, 22  f.; West 2011, 328).  – This is the only attempt in the Iliad by a Trojan to capture a team belonging to the enemy. It is doomed to fail from the outset, as the emphasis on the horses’ extraordinary qualities (867n.) 861 φθήῃ: aor. (prospective) subjunc. of φθάνω; τυπείς is taken with it: ‘is struck beforehand’. — ἀπὸ … ὀλέσσαι: consecutive inf.; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. 863 προσβάς: aor. part., ‘stepping against’. — ὦσ(ε): aor. of ὠθέω ‘push’.

Commentary 

 375

hints: at 17.70  ff., Apollo will advise Hektor against the pursuit; at 17.481  ff., the Greeks conclusively thwart Hektor’s intentions (cf. Kurz 1966, 31; a prelude to the present scene occurs in the ‘Doloneia’ [10.390  ff.]). This may be yet another reference to Hektor’s overconfidence (858–861n.): Reucher 1983, 333; Heath 1992, 393; Stanley 1993, 172. – The motifs ‘Automedon/team of horses/pursuit’ link to the beginning of the description of Patroklos’ death (684  ff.): ring-compositionP (see table at 684–867n.). 864–865 Automedon’s role as Patroklos’ charioteer (20n.) is again highlighted meaningfully: a whole-verse denomination at 865 (145–148n.; on verse-filling designations in general, 126n.). 20.407  f. is similar: αὐτὰρ ὃ βῆ (Achilleus) σὺν δουρὶ μετ’ ἀντίθεον Πολύδωρον  | Πριαμίδην. 864 αὐτίκα: 259n.  — ξὺν δουρί: a phrase after caesura A 4 (4× Il., only here with ξύν rather than σύν); ‘with spear in hand’ (Schw. 2.489).  — μετ’  … βεβήκει: ‘strode out toward Automedon’ (LfgrE s.v. βαίνω 10.7  ff.; cf. 751n.); on μετά cf. 6.21n. 865 ≈ 165, 17.388; 1st VH = 11.322; 2nd VH = 134, etc. (see ad loc. on the VE formula). — A four-word verse (125–126n.) with parallelism; verses similar in content and form (aside from iterata): 653, 23.113/124, Od. 4.23/217. — ἀντίθεον: a generic epithet (321n.). 866 = 383 (see ad loc.). — τόν: sc. Automedon. — ἔκφερον: ἐκ- in the iteratum 383 is pregnant ‘out from the encampment of ships’, here generalizing ‘(carry) away’ (sc. from danger).

867 = 381 (where probably a concordance interpolation); from caesura A 4 onward = 18.84, 24.534. — On the occasion of Peleus’ marriage to Thetis, the gods gave him two immortal horses (Balios and Xanthos, cf. 148  ff., 17.443  f., 23.277  f. [where Poseidon is named as the one who gave them]), as well as the armor that was later passed on to Achilleus, Patroklos and Hektor (cf. 17.194–197, 18.83–85); that the horses were a wedding gift is not stated explicitly anywhere in the Iliad, but the situation has been understood thus since antiquity (schol. T [see below]; 19.399n. with bibliography; also Kullmann 1960, 233  f.; Wilson 1974). On the myth of Peleus and Thetis in the Iliad generally, 24.59–63n. with bibliography. – The attribute ‘the immortal (horses)’ represents an emphatic runover word (Edwards 1968, 268). Implication: they cannot be mastered by ordinary people (thus explicitly Apollo to Hektor 17.76  ff.).

ἀγλαὰ δῶρα: a VE formula (24.278n.). — The plus verse cited in schol. T, which echoes 18.85 and contains an explicit reference to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis (ἤματι τῷ, ὅτε γῆμε Θέτιν λιπαροκρήδεμνον), is attested nowhere else in the transmission and is thus to be interpreted as a later, pedantic addition (Janko; Apthorp 1980, 37

867 ἀγλαὰ δῶρα: predicative, ‘as a … gift’.

376 

 Iliad 16

with n. 10). – Although the Book division at 16.867/17.1 coincides with a change of scene (Menelaos comes into view), the main storyline does not experience a significant cae­ sura (Patroklos is mentioned again already at 17.2): Janko; Taplin 1992, 291; cf. 19.1–39n.

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

Homers Ilias. Erklärt von K.F. Ameis u. C. Hentze, Leipzig/Berlin 11868– 1884 (Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze); most recent editions: vol. 1.1 (Books 1–3) 71913, rev. by P. Cauer; vol. 1.2 (4–6) 61908; vol. 1.3 (7–9) 5 1907; 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); most recent editions: 1st part (1–3) 31896; 2nd part (4–6) 21882; 3rd part (7–9) 21887; 4th part (10–12) 21888; 5th part (13–15) 21897; 6th part (16–18) 21900; 7th part (19–21) 11883; 8th part (22–24) 11886. AH on Od. Homers Odyssee. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von K.F. Ameis (and, from the 5th ed. on, by C. Hentze), Leipzig 11856–1860; most recent editions (rev. by P. Cauer): vol. 1.1 (Books 1–6), Leipzig/Berlin 131920 = 141940; vol. 1.2 (Books 7–12) 111908 = 121922 = 131940; vol. 2.1 (Books 13–18) 91910 (reprint 1928); vol. 2.2 (Books 19–24) 101911 (reprint 1928). (Reprint Amsterdam 1964.) AH, Anh. on Od. Anhang zu Homers Odyssee. Schulausgabe von K.F. Ameis, Leipzig 11865– 1868; most recent editions (rev. by C. Hentze): 1st part (1–6) 41890; 2nd part (7–12) 31889; 3rd part (13–18) 31895; 4th part (19–24) 31900. 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 Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden and Boston 2009. (2 vols.) BNP Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, transl. by C.F. Salazar. Leiden 2002–2011. (German original: Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart and Weimar 1996–2003.) Chantr. Chantraine, P. Grammaire homérique6. Paris 1986–1988 (11942–1953). (2 vols.) Companion Morris, I. and B. Powell (eds.). A New Companion to Homer. Leiden etc. 1997. Cunliffe Cunliffe, R.J. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. London etc. 1924. DELG Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Nouvelle édition avec, en supplément, les Chroniques d’étymologie grecque (1–10). Paris 2009 (11968–1980). Denniston Denniston, J.D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934). DMic Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 vols.). Ebeling Ebeling, H. Lexicon Homericum. Leipzig 1885. (2 vols.) Edwards Edwards, M.W. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. V: Books 17–20. Cambridge 1991. Faesi Homers Iliade4. Erklärt von J.U. Faesi. Leipzig 1864–1865 (11851–1852). (2 vols.) Faulkner Faulkner, A. 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.)

378  Frisk

 Iliad 16

Frisk, H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1960– 1972. (3 vols.) Garvie Garvie, A.F. Homer, Odyssey Books VI–VIII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1994. Graziosi/Haubold Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold (eds.). Homer, Iliad Book VI. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. Hainsworth on Il. Hainsworth, B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge 1993. Hainsworth on Od. Hainsworth, B., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.) Heubeck Heubeck, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1983); vol.  III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.) Hoekstra Hoekstra, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI. Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1984.) HTN Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer. Tradition und Neuerung. Wege der Forschung 463. Darmstadt 1979. Janko Janko, R. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge 1992. de Jong on Il. de Jong, I. J. F. (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book XXII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2012. de Jong on Od. de Jong, I. J. F. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001. von Kamptz Kamptz, H. von. Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und historische Klassifikation. Göttingen and Zurich 1982. (Originally diss. Jena 1958.) K.-G. Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904. (Reprint Hanover 1992.) (2 vols.) Kirk Kirk, G.S. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge 1985; vol. II: Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990. Leaf The Iliad2. Ed. with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices by W. Leaf. London 1900–1902 (11886–1888). (2 vols.) van Leeuwen Ilias. Cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentariis exegeticis ed. J. van Leeuwen. Leiden 1912–1913. (2 vols.) LfgrE Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Founded by Bruno Snell. Prepared under the authority of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen and edited by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Göttingen 1955–2010. (4 vols.) LGPN Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, ed. by P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews. Oxford 1987–2013. (7 vols.). http://www. lgpn.ox.ac.uk/database/lgpn.php (retrieved 01.03.2015). LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed. by H.C. Ackermann and J.R. Gisler. Zurich etc. 1981–1999. (18 vols.) LIV Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen, ed. by M. Kümmel, Th. Zehnder, R. Lipp, B. Schirmer under the direction of H. Rix and with the collaboration of many others. Second, expanded and improved edition ed. by M. Kümmel and H. Rix. Wiesbaden 2001 (11998). LSJ Liddell, H.R., R. Scott and H.S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon9. Oxford 1940. (Reprint with revised Supplement 1996.) Macleod Macleod, C.W. (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book XXIV. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1982.



Mazon

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 379

Homère, Iliade. Tome III (Chants XIII–XVIII). Texte établi et traduit par P. Mazon. Paris 1938. MHV Parry, M. The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Edited by Adam Parry. New York and Oxford 1971. (Reprint 1987.) NTHS Bierl, A. ‘New Trends in Homeric Scholarship.’ Homer’s Iliad. The Basel Commentary: Prolegomena, ed. by A. Bierl and J. Latacz, pp. 177–203. Berlin and Boston 2015. Olson S.D. Olson (ed.). The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite and Related Texts: Text, Translation and Commentary. Texte und Kommentare 39. Berlin and Boston 2012. Pulleyn Pulleyn, S. (ed.). Homer, Iliad Book One. Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by S.P. Oxford 2000. RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, ed. by Th. Klauser, E. Dassmann et al. Stuttgart 1950–. RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition, ed. by G. Wissowa with the cooperation of numerous specialists. Stuttgart 1894–2000. Richardson on Il. Richardson, N.J. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge 1993. Richardson on h.Cer. Richardson, N.J. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford 1974. Richardson on h.Ap., h.Merc., h.Ven. Richardson, N.J. Three Homeric Hymns. To Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. Risch Risch, E. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2. Berlin and New York 1974 (11937). Ruijgh Ruijgh, C.J. Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam 1971. Russo Russo, J., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1985.) Rutherford Rutherford, R.B. Homer, Odyssey Books XIX and XX. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1992. Schadewaldt Homer, Ilias. Neue Übertragung von W. Schadewaldt. Insel Taschenbuch 153. 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.) Steiner Steiner, D. (ed.). Homer, Odyssey Books XVII–XVIII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010. ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, ed. by the Fondation pour le Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles 2004–2014. (8 vols. and 1 index vol.) Untermann Untermann, J. Einführung in die Sprache Homers. Der Tod des Patroklos, Ilias Π 684–867. Heidelberg 1987. Verdenius Verdenius, W.J. A Commentary on Hesiod, Works and Days, vv. 1–382. Mnemosyne Supplement 86. Leiden 1985. Vergados Vergados, A. (ed.). The Homeric Hymn to Hermes. Introduction, Text and Commentary. Texte und Kommentare 41. Berlin and Boston 2012.

380 

 Iliad 16

Voß Voß, J.H. Homer, Ilias, Odyssee. Insel Taschenbuch 1204. Frankfurt am Main 1990. [and other editions by other publishers.] 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 on Hes. Op. Hesiod, Works & 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. 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.)

2 Editions of ancient authors and texts* Aeschylus, fragments (Radt) in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 3, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1985. Ananius (West) in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol. 2, ed. M. L. West. Oxford 1992 (11972). Archilochus (West) in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol. 1, ed. M. L. West. Oxford 1989 (11971). Certamen (West) in Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 496. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. Diphilus (Kassel/Austin) in Poetae Comici Graeci, vol. 5, ed. R. Kassel and C. Austin. Berlin and New York 1986. ‘Epic Cycle’ • Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. M. Davies. Göttingen 1988. • Poetarum epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta2, pars I, ed. A. Bernabé. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1996 (11987). • Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. Heraclitus (VS) in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6, vol. 1, Griechisch und deutsch von H. Diels, hrsg. von W. Kranz. Berlin 1951 (11903). ‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.) in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta3, ed. R. Merkelbach and M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970). Callimachus (Pfeiffer) Callimachus, vol. I: Fragmenta, ed. R. Pfeiffer. Oxford 1949.

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



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 381

Panyassis (West) in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003. Porphyry (MacPhail) Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Text, Translation, Commentary by J. A. MacPhail Jr. Texte und Kommentare 36. Berlin and New York 2011. 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. 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, 2014. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/5586/ (12000, kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1810/) (retrieved 01.03.2015). • Aristarch, Aristophanes Byzantios, Demetrios Ixion, Zenodot. Fragmente zur Ilias, ge­sammelt, neu herausgegeben und kommentiert von H. van Thiel. Berlin etc. 2014. (4 vols.) Scholia on the Odyssey (Pontani) Scholia Graeca in Odysseam, ed. F. Pontani. Pleiadi 6. Rome 2007–. Sophocles, fragments (Radt) in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta2, vol. 4, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1999 (11977). Tyrtaeus (West) in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, vol.  2, ed. M.  L.  West. Oxford 1992 (11972). Vita Homeri Herodotea (West) in Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 496. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003.

3 Articles and monographs Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique. Aceti 2008 Adami 1900 Adkins 1960 Adkins 1969 Adkins 1969a Adkins 1972 Ahrens 1937 Alberti 1959

Aceti, C. ‘Sarpedone fra mito e poesia.’ In Eroi nell’Iliade. Personaggi e strutture narrative, ed. by Lara Pagani, pp. 1–269. Rome. Adami, F. De poetis scaenicis Graecis hymnorum sacrorum imitatoribus. Leipzig. Adkins, A. W. H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford. Adkins, A. W. H. ‘εὔχομαι, εὐχωλή and εὖχος in Homer.’ CQ NS 19: 20–33. Adkins, A. W. H. ‘Threatening, Abusing and Feeling Angry in the Homeric Poems.’ JHS 89: 7–21. Adkins, A. W. H. ‘Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society.’ JHS 92: 1–19. Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus). Halle. Alberti, G. B. ‘L’uso delle particelle nella formula di correlazione πρῶτον … ἔπειτα.’ Maia 11: 44–62.

382 

 Iliad 16

Albracht (1886) 2005 Albracht, F. Battle and Battle Description in the Iliad: A Contribution to the History of War, transl. by P. Jones, M. Willcock and G. Wright. London. (German original: Kampf und Kampfschilderung bei Homer. Ein Beitrag zu den Kriegsaltertümern. Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Königl. Landesschule Pforta 1886. Naumburg an der Saale 1886.) Albracht (1895) 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. II. Teil. Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Domgymnasiums zu Naumburg a/S. Naumburg an der Saale 1895.) Alden 2000 Alden, M. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford. Aldrete et al. 2013 Aldrete, G. S., S. Bartell and A. Aldrete. Reconstructing Ancient Linen Body Armor: Unraveling the Linothorax Mystery. Baltimore. Aliffi 2002 Aliffi, M.  L. ‘Le espressioni dell’agente e dello strumento nei processi di «morte violenta».’ In Montanari 2002, 409–423. Allan 2009 Allan, R. J. ‘Orale elementen in de Homerische grammatica. Intonatie-eenheid en enjambement.’ Lampas 42: 136–151. 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. Allan 2005 Allan, W. ‘Arms and the Man: Euphorbus, Hector, and the Death of Patroclus.’ CQ 55: 1–16. Allan 2006 Allan, W. ‘Divine Justice and Cosmic Order in Early Greek Epic.’ JHS 126: 1–35. Allan 2008 Allan, W. ‘Performing the Will of Zeus: The Διὸς βουλή and the Scope of Early Greek Epic.’ In Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, ed. by M. Revermann and P. Wilson, pp. 204–216. Oxford. Allen-Hornblower 2012 Allen-Hornblower, E. ‘Revisiting the Apostrophes to Patroclus in Iliad 16.’ In Donum natalicium digitaliter confectum Gregorio Nagy sep­tuagenario a discipulis collegis familiaribus oblatum. A Virtual Birthday Gift Presented to Gregory Nagy on Turning Seventy by his Students, Col­leagues, and Friends. Online publication of Center of Hellenic Studies 2012, http://chs.harvard.edu/ CHS/article/display/4702 (retrieved 01.03.2015). Alvis 1995 Alvis, J. Divine Purpose and Heroic Response in Homer and Vergil: The Political Plan of Zeus. Lanham. Ambrose 1965 Ambrose, Z. P. ‘The Homeric Telos.’ Glotta 43: 38–62. Ammann 1922 Ammann, H. Untersuchungen zur homerischen Wortfolge und Satzstruktur. Erster, allgemeiner Teil. Freiburg. Ammann 1927 Ammann, H. ‘Die ältesten Formen des Prohibitivsatzes im Griechischen und Lateinischen.’ IF 45: 328–344. Anastassiou 1973 Anastassiou, I. Zum Wortfeld ‘Trauer’ in der Sprache Homers. Hamburg. Andersen 1978 Andersen, Ø. Die Diomedesgestalt in der Ilias. Symbolae Osloenses Supplement 25. Oslo etc. Andersen 1990 Andersen, Ø. ‘The Making of the Past in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 93: 25–45. Andrewes 1961 Andrewes, A. ‘Phratries in Homer.’ Hermes 89: 129–140. Andronikos 1968 Andronikos, M. ‘Totenkult.’ ArchHom chap. W. Göttingen. Anselmi 1998 Anselmi, L. ‘Lo scudo di Aiace: note archeologiche e letterarie.’ Aevum(ant) 11: 51–126.



Apthorp 1980

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 383

Apthorp, M. J. The Manuscript Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N. F. 2.71. Heidelberg. Apthorp 1990 Apthorp, M. J. ‘Some Neglected Papyrus Evidence Against the Authenticity of Iliad 16.381.’ ZPE 81: 1–7. Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin. Armstrong 1958 Armstrong, J. I. ‘The Arming Motif in the Iliad.’ AJPh 79: 337–354. Arnott 2007 Arnott, W. G. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z. London etc. Arnould 1994 Arnould, D. ‘L’eau chez Homère et dans la poésie archaïque: épithètes et images.’ In L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le monde grec. Actes du col­loque organisé à Paris du 25 au 27 nov. 1992 par le Centre de recherche ‘Archéologie et systèmes d’information’ et par l’URA 1255 ‘Médecine grecque’, pp. 15–24. BCH Supplément 28. Athena and Paris. Aubriot-Sévin 1992 Aubriot-Sévin, D. Prière et conceptions religieuses en Grèce ancienne jusqu’à la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C. Lyon etc. Audiat 1947 Audiat, J. ‘Une formule homérique: μέγ’ ὀχθήσας.’ REA 49: 41–57. Bächtold-Stäubli 2006 Bächtold-Stäubli, H. (ed.). Handwörterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens. With the collaboration of E. Hoffmann-Krayer. Digitale Bibliothek 145, vol. 1. Berlin. (article ‘Blutregen’ also online: www.schauungen.de/prophwiki/ images/c/cf/Blutregen.pdf [retrieved 01.03. 2015].) Bader 1999 Bader, F. ‘Homère et le pélasge.’ In Langues en contact dans l’Antiquité. Aspects lexicaux, Actes du colloque Rouenlac III (06.02.1997), ed. by A. Blanc and A. Christol, pp. 15–56. Études anciennes 19. Nancy. Bader 2002 Bader, F. ‘L’immortalité des morts dans l’Iliade: autour de grec ταρχύω.’ In Donum grammaticum. Studies in Latin and Celtic Linguistics in Honour of Hannah Rosén, ed. by L. Sawicki and D. Shalev, pp. 11–28. Orbis Suppl. 18. Leuven etc. Baker 2014 Baker, R. ‘The Diachronic Development and Distribution of ὄφρα in the Homeric Poems.’ Glotta 90: 3–45. Bakker 1988 Bakker, E. J. Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and the Description of the Particle ‘per’. Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Bakker 1990 Bakker, E. J. ‘Homeric Discourse and Enjambement: A Cognitive Approach.’ TAPhA 120: 1–21. Bakker (1991) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics.’ In Bakker 2005, 1–21. (First published as ‘Peripheral and Nuclear Semantics in Homeric Diction: The Case of Dative Expressions for «Spear».’ Mnemosyne 44 [1991] 63–84.) Bakker (1992) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘Formula, Context, and Synonymy.’ In Bakker 2005, 22–37. (First published as ‘Aspects of Synonymy in Homeric Diction: An Investigation of Dative Expressions for «Spear»’ [together with N. van den Houten]. CPh 87 [1992] 1–13.) Bakker 1993 Bakker, E.  J. ‘Discourse and Performance: Involvement, Visualization and «Presence» in Homeric Poetry.’ ClAnt 12: 1–29. Bakker 1997 Bakker, E.  J. Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Bakker 1997a Bakker, E. J. ‘The Study of Homeric Discourse.’ In Companion, 284–304. Bakker (1997b) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘Storytelling in the Future.’ In Bakker 2005, 92–113. (First published in Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance and the Epic Text, ed. by E. J. Bakker and A. Kahane, pp. 11–36. Cambridge 1997.)

384 

 Iliad 16

Bakker (1999) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘The Poetics of Deixis.’ In Bakker 2005, 71–91. (First published as ‘Homeric οὗτος and the Poetics of Deixis.’ CPh 94 [1999] 1–19.) Bakker (2001) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘Similes, Augment, and the Language of Immediacy.’ In Bakker 2005, 114–135. (First published in Watson 2001, 1–23.) Bakker (2002) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘Remembering the God’s Arrival.’ In Bakker 2005, 136–153. (First published in Arethusa 35 [2002] 63–81 [slightly revised].) Bakker 2005 Bakker, E. J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric Poetics. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Bakker/Wakker 2009 Bakker, S. and G. Wakker (eds.). Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 16. Leiden and Boston. Baltes 1983 Baltes, M. ‘Zur Eigenart und Funktion von Gleichnissen im 16. Buch der Ilias.’ A&A 29: 36–48. 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. Barker 2011 Barker, E. T. E. ‘The Iliad’s Big Swoon: A Case of Innovation within the Epic Tradition?’ Trends in Classics 3: 1–17. Barnes 2011 Barnes, T. G. ‘Homeric ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην.’ JHS 131: 1–13. Barnett/Forman 1959 Barnett, R. D. and W. Forman. Assyrian Palace Reliefs. London and Prague. Barth 1989 Barth, H.-L. ‘Achill und das Schicksal des Patroklos: zum angeblichen Widerspruch zwischen 17.410f. u. 18.9–11.’ Hermes 117: 1–24. Bartolotta 2002 Bartolotta, A. L’occhio della mente: un’eredità indoeuropea nei poemi omerici. Palermo. Basset 1979 Basset, L. Les emplois périphrastiques du verbe grec μέλλειν. Lyon. Basset 2006 Basset, L. ‘La préfiguration dans l’épopée homérique de l’article défini du grec classique.’ In Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek (Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’, Madrid, 18.– 21.06.2003), ed. by E. Crespo, J. de la Villa and A. R. Revuelta, pp. 105–120. Louvain-La-Neuve. Bassett 1905 Bassett, S. E. ‘Notes on the Bucolic Diaeresis.’ TAPhA 36: 111–124. Bassett 1919 Bassett, S. E. ‘Versus tetracolos.’ CPh 14: 216–233. Bassett 1923 Bassett, S. E. ‘Hector’s Fault in Honor.’ TAPhA 54: 117–127. Bassett 1930 Bassett, S. E. ‘The Pursuit of Hector.’ TAPhA 61: 130–149. Bassett 1933 Bassett, S. E. ‘Achilles’ Treatment of Hector’s Body.’ TAPhA 64: 41–65. Bassett 1938 Bassett, S.  E. The Poetry of Homer. Sather Classical Lectures 15. Berkeley. (New edition with an Introduction by B. Heiden, Lanham etc. 2003.) Bassi 2003 Bassi, K. ‘The Semantics of Manliness in Ancient Greece.’ In Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. by R. M. Rosen and I. Sluiter, pp. 25–58. Mnemosyne Supplement 238. Leiden etc. Battezzato 2000 Battezzato, L. ‘Gli aggettivi in -πετης: senso, accento e teorie bizantine nei vocabolari moderni.’ Glotta 76 (published 2002): 139–161. Bäumlein 1861 Bäumlein, W. Untersuchungen über griechische Partikeln. Stuttgart. Bechert 1964 Bechert, J. Die Diathesen von ἰδεῖν und ὁρᾶν bei Homer. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Beiheft F. Munich. Bechtel 1914 Bechtel, F. Lexilogus zu Homer. Etymologie und Stammbildung homerischer Wörter. Halle. Beck 2005 Beck, D. Homeric Conversation. Cambridge, Mass. and London.



Beck 2008

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 385

Beck, D. ‘Character-Quoted Direct Speech in the Iliad.’ Phoenix 62: 162– 183. Beck 2012 Beck, D. Speech Presentation in Homeric Epic. Austin. Becker 1937 Becker, O. Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im frühgriechi­ schen Denken. Hermes Einzelschriften 4. Berlin. Beckmann 1932 Beckmann, J. T. Das Gebet bei Homer. Würzburg. Beekes 1969 Beekes, R. S. P. The Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek. The Hague and Paris. Beekes 1972 Beekes, R. S. P. ‘On the Structure of the Homeric Hexameter: «O’Neill» Interpreted.’ Glotta 50: 1–10. Beekes 2003 Beekes, R. S. P. ‘The Origin of Apollo.’ Journal of Ancient Near East Religions 3: 1–21. Bekker 1863 Bekker, I. Homerische Blätter, vol. 1. Bonn. Bekker 1872 Bekker, I. Homerische Blätter, vol. 2. Bonn. Belfiore 2009 Belfiore, E. ‘Rebuke and Anger in Plato’s Apology.’ Anais de Filosofia Clássica 5: 16–29. Benardete 1963 Benardete, S. ‘Achilles and the Iliad.’ Hermes 91: 1–16. Benardete 1968 Benardete, S. ‘The «Aristeia» of Diomedes and the Plot of the Iliad.’ Agon 2: 10–38. Benediktson 2013 Benediktson, D.  T. ‘Ring Structures in Five Homeric Similes.’ QUCC 105: 29–44. Bennett 1997 Bennett, M.  J. Belted Heroes and Bound Women: The Myth of the Homeric Warrior King. Lanham etc. Benveniste 1969 Benveniste, É. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 1: Éco­ nomie, parenté, société. Paris. Benveniste 1969a Benveniste, É. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol.  2: Pouvoir, droit, religion. Paris. Berdowski 2008 Berdowski, P. ‘Heroes and Fish in Homer.’ Palamedes 3: 75–91. Bergold 1977 Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos (Zu Ilias Γ 1 – Δ 222). Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klassische Philologie 28. Bonn. Bershadsky 2010 Bershadsky, N. ‘The Unbreakable Shield: Thematics of sakos and aspis.’ CPh 105: 1–24. Bertelli 1966/67 Bertelli, L. ‘Note critiche ad Hom., 16.384–93 e ad Hes., Erga 221, 224, 264.’ AAT 101: 371–393. Bertolín Cebrián 1996 Bertolín Cebrián, R. Die Verben des Denkens bei Homer. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft Sonderheft 97. Innsbruck. Bethe 1914 Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage. Vol. 1: Ilias. Leipzig and Berlin. Beye 1964 Beye, C. R. ‘Homeric Battle Narrative and Catalogues.’ HSCPh 68: 345–373. Beye 1984 Beye, C. R. ‘Repeated Similes in the Homeric Poems.’ In Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eigthieth Birthday, ed. by K. J. Rigsby et al., pp. 7–13. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs 10. Durham, N. C. Bianchi 1953 Bianchi, U. Διὸς αἶσα. Destino, uomini e divinità nell’epos, nelle teogonie e nel culto dei Greci. Studi pubblicati dall’Istituto italiano per la storia antica 11. Rome. Billigmeier 1970 Billigmeier, J.  C. ‘An Inquiry into the Non-Greek Names on the Linear B Tablets from Knossos and Their Relationship to Languages of Asia Minor.’ Minos 10: 177–183.

386 

 Iliad 16

Bissinger 1966

Bissinger, M. Das Adjektiv μέγας in der griechischen Dichtung. MSS Beiheft K. (2 vols.) Blanc 2008 Blanc, A. Les contraintes métriques dans la poésie homérique. L’emploi des thèmes nominaux sigmatiques dans l’hexamètre dactylique. Collection linguistique 94. Leuven and Paris. Blanc 2012 Blanc, A. ‘Étymologies grecques: formes en -εικ- (ἀεικέλιος, μενοεικής, ἐπιεικτός).’ Glotta 88: 54–98. Blanc/Dupraz 2007 Blanc, A. and E. Dupraz (eds.): Procédés synchroniques de la langue poétique en grec et en latin. Langues et cultures anciennes 9. Brussels 2007. Blickman 1987 Blickman, D. R. ‘The Role of the Plague in the Iliad.’ ClAnt 6: 1–10. Block 1982 Block, E. ‘The Narrator Speaks: Apostrophe in Homer and Vergil.’ TAPhA 112: 7–22. Block 1986 Block, E. ‘Narrative Judgment and Audience Response in Homer and Vergil.’ Arethusa 19: 155–169. Blom 1936 Blom, J. W. S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I. Triaden, hebdomaden en enneaden. Nijmegen. Blößner 1991 Blößner, N. Die singulären Iterata der Ilias. Bücher 16–20. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 13. Stuttgart. Blümner 1887 Blümner, H. ‘Technologisches (Schwefel, Alaun und Asphalt im Alterthum).’ In Festschrift zur Begrüssung der vom 28.09.–1.10.1887 in Zürich tagenden XXXIX. Versammlung deutscher Philologen …, pp. 23–39. Zurich. (also online: www.solami.com/asphalt.htm [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Boedeker 1974 Boedeker, D. Aphrodite’s Entry into Greek Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 32. Leiden. Boegehold 1999 Boegehold, A. L. When a Gesture Was Expected: A Selection of Exam­ples from Archaic and Classical Greek Literature. Princeton. Bohen 1988 Bohen, B. Die geometrischen Pyxiden. With a contribution by N. Schlager. Kerameikos 13. Berlin and New York. Böhme 1929 Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin. Bolens 2000 Bolens, G. La logique du corps articulaire. Les articulations du corps humain dans la littérature occidentale. Rennes. Bolling 1923 Bolling, G. M. ‘A Peculiarity of Homeric Orthography.’ CPh 18: 170–177. Bolling 1929 Bolling, G. M. ‘The Meaning of που in Homer.’ Language 5: 100–105. Bolling 1933 Bolling, G. M. ‘On the Dual in Homer.’ Language 9: 298–308. Bolling 1944 Bolling, G. M. The Athetized Lines of the Iliad. Baltimore. Bolling 1949 Bolling, G. M. ‘ὄφρα in the Homeric Poems.’ Language 25: 379–387. Bolling 1950 Bolling, G. M. ‘ἔνθα in the Homeric Poems.’ Language 26: 371–378. Bolling 1955 Bolling, G. M. ‘Ionic Forms in Homer.’ Language 31: 223–231. Bonifazi 2009 Bonifazi, A. ‘Discourse Cohesion Through Third Person Pronouns: The Case of κεῖνος and αὐτός in Homer.’ In Bakker/Wakker 2009, 1–19. Bonifazi 2012 Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric: The Evocative Power of Ancient Greek Epic Word-Making. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Bonnafé 1983 Bonnafé, A. ‘Quelques remarques à propos des comparaisons homériques de l’Iliade: critères de classification et étude statistique.’ RPh 57: 79–97. Bonnafé 1984 Bonnafé, A. Poésie, nature et sacré. Vol. 1: Homère, Hésiode et le sentiment grec de la nature. Lyon. Bonner 1905 Bonner, C. ‘The Use of Apostrophe in Homer.’ CR 19: 383–386.



Borchhardt 1977

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 387

Borchhardt, H. ‘Frühe griechische Schildformen.’ In ArchHom chap. E 1 (Kriegswesen Teil 1: Schutzwaffen und Wehrbauten), pp. 1–56. Göttingen. Borchhardt et al. 2003 Borchhardt, J., G. Neumann and K. Schulz. ‘Tuminehi/Tymnessos.’ Adalya 6: 21–89. (Summary: www.akmedadalya.com/ozet_en.php?catagoryID=6&articleID=88 [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Börker-Klähn 1994 Börker-Klähn, J. ‘Neues zur Geschichte Lykiens.’ Athenaeum 82: 315–334. Bosshardt 1942 Bosshardt, E. Die Nomina auf -ευς. Ein Beitrag zur Wortbildung der griechi­ schen Sprache. Zurich. Bouvier 1986 Bouvier, D. ‘La tempête de la guerre. Remarques sur l’heure et le lieu du combat dans l’Iliade.’ Métis 1: 237–257. Bouvier 1997 Bouvier, D. ‘Mémoire et répétitions dans la poésie homérique.’ In Hommage à Milman Parry. Le style formulaire de l’épopée homérique et la théorie de l’ora­ li­té poétique, ed. by F. Létoublon, pp. 79–92. Amsterdam. Bouvier 2002 Bouvier, D. Le sceptre et la lyre. L’Iliade ou les héros de la mémoire. Grenoble. Bowra 1930 Bowra, C. M. Tradition and Design in the Iliad. Oxford. (Corrected reprint 1950.) Bowra 1952 Bowra, C. M. Heroic Poetry. London. Bowra 1960 Bowra, C. M. ‘Homeric Epithets for Troy.’ JHS 80: 16–23. Bowra 1962 Bowra, C. M. ‘Composition.’ In Wace/Stubbings 1962, 38–74. Boyd 1995 Boyd, T. W. ‘A Poet on the Achaean Wall.’ Oral Tradition 10: 181–206. Brandt 2014 Brandt, R. (ed.). Die Macht des Vierten. Über eine Ordnung der europäischen Kultur. Hamburg. Braund/Most 2003 Braund, S. and G. W. Most (eds.). Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen. YClS 32. Cambridge. Bremer 1969 Bremer, J. M. Hamartia: Tragic Error in the ‘Poetics’ of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy. Amsterdam. Bremer 1976 Bremer, D. Licht und Dunkel in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Interpretationen zur Vorgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte Suppl. 1. Bonn. Bremmer 1983 Bremmer, J. N. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton. Bremmer 1991 Bremmer, J. ‘Walking, Standing, and Sitting in Ancient Greek Culture.’ In A Cultural History of Gesture: From Antiquity to the Present Day, ed. by J. Bremmer and H. Roodenburg, pp. 15–35. Cambridge. (also on-line: http:// theol.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/1991/125/ [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Brenk 1986 Brenk, F.  E. ‘In the Light of the Moon: Demonology in the Early Imperial Period.’ In ANRW II 16:3, pp. 2068–2145. Berlin and New York. Breuil 1989 Breuil, J.-L. ‘κράτος et sa famille chez Homère: étude sémantique.’ In Études homériques. Séminaire de recherche sous la direction de Michel Casevitz, ed. by M. Casevitz, pp. 17–53. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 17. Lyon. Briand 1997 Briand, M. ‘Sur αἵμονα θήρης (Iliade 5.49).’ Mètis 12: 129–160. Brillet-Dubois 1999/2000 Brillet-Dubois, P. ‘Les dons divins faits aux Troyens.’ Gaia 4: 9–16. Broccia 1963 Broccia, G. Struttura e spirito del libro VI dell’Iliade. Contributo allo studio del problema omerico, Parte prima: dalle androctasie del preludio alla homilia. Sapri. van Brock 1959 Brock, N. van. ‘Substitution rituelle.’ RHA 17: 117–146. Brown 2004 Brown, E. L. ‘In Search of Anatolian Apollo.’ In ΧΑΡΙΣ: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, ed. by A. P. Chapin, pp. 243–257. Hesperia Supplement 33. Princeton.

388 

 Iliad 16

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 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. Buchholz 2004 Buchholz, H.-G. Der Werkstoff Holz und seine Nutzung im ostmediter­ranen Altertum. Beiheft zum Tagungsband ‘Althellenische Technologie und Technik, Ohlstadt 2003’. Weilheim. Buchholz 2010 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Kriegswesen. Teil 3: Ergänzungen und Zusammenfassung.’ ArchHom chap. E 3. Göttingen. Buchholz et al. 1973 Buchholz, H.-G., G. Jöhrens and I. Maull. ‘Jagd und Fischfang.’ ArchHom chap. J. Göttingen. Buchholz et al. 2010 Buchholz, H.-G., H. Matthäus and M. Wiener. ‘Helme mit Berücksichtigung eines unbekannten altägäischen Bronzehelms.’ In Buchholz 2010, 135– 209. Bühler 1960 Bühler, W. Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Hermes Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden. Bühler 1961 Bühler, W. Rev. of Erbse 1960. ByzZ 54: 117–126. Burgess 1997 Burgess, J. S. ‘Beyond Neo-Analysis: Problems with the Vengeance Theory.’ AJPh 188: 1–19. Burgess 2001 Burgess, J. S. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle. Baltimore and London. Burgess 2009 Burgess, J. S. The Death and Afterlife of Achilles. Baltimore. Burkert 1955 Burkert, W. Zum altgriechischen Mitleidsbegriff. Erlangen. Burkert (1977) 1985 Burkert, W. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass. (German original: Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stuttgart 1977.) Burkert (1981) 2001 Burkert, W. ‘Θεῶν ὄπιν οὐκ ἀλέγοντες. Götterfurcht und Leumannsches Missverständnis.’ In Burkert 2001, 95–104. (First published in MH 38 [1981] 195–204.) Burkert (1991) 2001 Burkert, W. ‘Homer’s Anthropomorphism: Narrative and Ritual.’ In Burkert 2001, pp. 80–94. (First published in New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, ed. by D. Buitron-Oliver, 81–91. Washington, D.C.) Burkert 2001 Burkert, W. Kleine Schriften I. Homerica, ed. by C. Riedweg. Hypomnemata Suppl. 2. Göttingen. Burkert 2010 Burkert, W. ‘Horror Stories. Zur Begegnung von Biologie, Philologie und Religion.’ In Gewalt und Opfer. Im Dialog mit W. Burkert, ed. by A. Bierl and W. Braungart, pp. 45–55. Berlin and New York. Buttmann 1825 Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung, hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod, vol. 2. Berlin. Buxton 1994 Buxton, R. Imaginary Greece: The Contexts of Mythology. Cambridge. Cairns 1993 Cairns, D. L. Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature. Oxford. Cairns 2003 Cairns, D. L. ‘Ethics, Ethology, Terminology: Iliadic Anger and the Cross-Cultural Study of Emotion.’ In Braund/Most 2003, 11–49. Cairns 2012 Cairns, D. L. ‘«Atē» in the Homeric Poems.’ In Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 15, ed. by F. Cairns, 1–52.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 389

Cairns/Scodel 2014 Cairns, D. and R. Scodel (eds.) Defining Greek Narrative. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 7. Edinburgh. Calame 1977 Calame, C. Les choeurs de jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque. I: Morphologie, fonction religieuse et sociale. Filologia e critica 20. Rome 1977. (English transl.: Choruses of young women in Ancient Greece. Lanham 1997.) Calhoun 1938 Calhoun, G. M. ‘The Poet and the Muses in Homer.’ CPh 33: 157–166. Cambitoglou et al. 1988 Cambitoglou, A., A. Birchall, J. J. Coulton and J. R. Green. Zagora 2. Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros. Excavation Season 1969; Study Season 1969–1970. Athens. Camerotto 2009 Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: composizione e racconto nell’epica greca arcaica. Padua. 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 des Strasbourg 6. Strasbourg. Casabona 1967 Casabona, J. ‘ἑτεραλκής.’ AFLA 43: 1–11. Casali 2008 Casali, S. ‘The King of Pain: Aeneas, Achates and «achos» in Aeneid 1.’ CQ 58: 181–189. Castellaneta 2012 Castellaneta, S. ‘Demetra velata (H. Hom. Cer. 182): a proposito di κατ’ ἄκρηθεν/κατὰ κρῆθεν.’ Eikasmos 23: 15–30. Caswell 1990 Caswell, C. P. A Study of ‘Thumos’ in Early Greek Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 114. Leiden etc. Cauer (1895) 1921 Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3, vol. 1 Leipzig (11895). Cauer (1895) 1923 Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3, vol. 2, ed. by E. Bruhn. Leipzig (11895). Cavallini 2009 Cavallini, E. ‘Patroclo «capro espiatorio»: osservazioni sul libro XVI dell’ Iliade.’ Mythos 16: 117–129. Ceccarelli et al. 1998 Ceccarelli, P., F. Létoublon and M. Steinrück. ‘L’individu, le territoire, la graisse: du public et du privé chez Homère.’ Ktèma 23: 47–58. Cerchiai 1984 Cerchiai, L. ‘Geras thanonton: note sul concetto di «belle mort».’ AION (archeol) 6: 39–69. Chadwick 1996 Chadwick, J. Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the lexicography of Ancient Greek. Oxford. Chadwick/Baumbach 1963 Chadwick, J. and L. Baumbach. ‘The Mycenaean Greek Vocabulary.’ Glotta 41: 157–271. Chantraine 1933 Chantraine, P. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Collection linguistique 38. Paris. Chantraine (1945) 1961 Chantraine, P. Morphologie historique du grec2. Paris etc. (11945). 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. Vandoeuvres and Geneva. Cheyns 1979 Cheyns, A. ‘L’emploi des verbes βάλλω, βλάπτω et δαΐζω dans la poésie homérique.’ AC 48: 601–610. Christensen 2009 Christensen, J. ‘The End of Speeches and a Speech’s End: Nestor, Diomedes, and the telos muthôn.’ In Reading Homer: Film and Text, ed. by K. Myrsiades, pp. 136–162. Madison and Teaneck. Christensen 2010 Christensen, J. P. ‘First-Person Futures in Homer.’ AJPh 131: 543–571. Christensen 2012/13 Christensen, J. P. ‘Innovation and Tradition Revisited: The Near-Synony­my of ἀμύνω and ἀλέξω as a Case Study in Homeric Composition.’ CJ 108: 257–296.

390  Ciani 1974

 Iliad 16

Ciani, M.  G. ΦΑΟΣ e termini affini nella poesia greca. Introduzione a una fenomenologia della luce. Florence. Ciani 1974a Ciani, M. G. ‘Destini di morte (Gli eroi dell’Iliade).’ RCCM 16: 115–130. Citron 1965 Citron, A. Semantische Untersuchung zu σπένδεσθαι – σπένδειν – εὔχεσθαι. Winterthur. Civiletti 2012 Civiletti, M. Il corpo lacerato dell’eroe. Funzioni narrative e simboliche del sangue nell’Iliade. Atene e Gerusalemme 3. Rome. Clader 1976 Clader, L. L. Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradition. Mnemosyne Supplement 42. Leiden. Clark 1997 Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Lanham etc. Clark/Coulson 1978 Clark, M. E. and W. D. E. Coulson. ‘Memnon and Sarpedon.’ MH 35: 65–73. Clarke 1995 Clarke, M. ‘Between Lions and Men: Images of the Hero in the Iliad.’ GRBS 36: 137–159. Clarke 1995a Clarke, M. ‘The Wisdom of Thales and the Problem of the Word ἱερός.’ CQ 45: 296–317. Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford. Classen 1867 Classen, J. Beobachtungen über den homerischen Sprachgebrauch. Frankfurt am Main. Classen 2008 Classen, C. J. Vorbilder – Werte – Normen in den homerischen Epen. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 260. Berlin and New York. Clay 1981/82 Clay, J. S. ‘Immortal and Ageless Forever.’ CJ 77: 112–117. Clay 1983 Clay, J. S. The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey. Princeton. Clay 2002 Clay, J. S. ‘Dying is Hard to Do.’ ColbyQ 38: 7–16. Clay 2009 Clay, J. S. ‘How to be a Hero: The Case of Sarpedon.’ In Ἀντιφίλησις. Studies on Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek Literature and Culture. In Honour of John-Theophanes A. Papademetriou, ed. by E. Karamalengou and E. Makrygianni, pp. 30–38. Stuttgart. Clay 2011 Clay, J.  S. Homer’s Trojan Theater: Space, Vision, and Memory in the Iliad. Cambridge. Coffey 1957 Coffey, M. ‘The Function of the Homeric Simile.’ AJPh 78: 113–132. Collins 1998 Collins, D. Immortal Armor: The Concept of Alkē in Archaic Greek Poetry. Lanham etc. Collobert 2011 Collobert, C. Parier sur le temps. La quête héroïque d’immortalité dans l’épopée homérique. Collection d’Études Anciennes. Série grecque 143. Paris. Combellack 1965 Combellack, F.  M. ‘Some Formular Illogicalities in Homer.’ TAPhA 96: 41– 56. Cook 1940 Cook, A. B. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion. Vol. 3: Zeus, God of the Dark Sky (Part 1). Cambridge. Cook 1973 Cook, J. M. The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study. Oxford. Cook 1981 Cook, R. M. Clazomenian Sarcophagi. Kerameus 3. Mainz. Corlu 1966 Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux tragiques. Études et commentaires 64. Paris. Cosset 1983 Cosset, É. ‘Choix formulaire ou choix sémantique? La désignation d’Ulysse et de la lance (ἔγχος) dans l’Iliade.’ REA 85: 191–198. Cosset 1990 Cosset, É. ‘Les formules de Zeus au vocatif dans l’Iliade.’ AC 59: 5–16.



Crespo 1977

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 391

Crespo, E. Elementos antiguos y modernos en la prosodia homérica. Minos Suppl. 7. Salamanca. Crespo 1994 Crespo, E. ‘El origen de la flexión del tipo de Τυδέος, -έα en Homero.’ In Actas del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Madrid 23.–28.9.1991, ed. by the Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos, pp. 87–92. Madrid. Crielaard 1995 Crielaard, J. P. (ed.). 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). Amsterdam. Crotty 1994 Crotty, K. The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Crouwel 1981 Crouwel, J.  H. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amsterdam. Crouwel 1992 Crouwel, J. H. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Allard Pierson Series 9. Amsterdam. Currie 2006 Currie, B. ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition.’ In Epic Interactions: Perspectives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to Jasper Griffin by Former Pupils, ed. by M. J. Clarke, B. G. F. Currie and R. O. A. M. Lyne, pp. 1–45. Oxford. 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. Dalby 2003 Dalby, A. Food in the Ancient World from A to Z. London. Danek 1988 Danek, G. Epos und Zitat. Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee. Wiener Studien Beiheft 22. Vienna. Danek 2006 Danek, G. ‘Die Gleichnisse der Ilias und der Dichter Homer.’ In La poésie épique grecque: métamorphoses d’un genre littéraire, ed. by F. Montanari and A. Rengakos, pp. 41–77. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 52. Geneva. Daraki 1980 Daraki, M. ‘Le héros à menos et le héros daimoni isos. Une polarité homé­ rique.’ ASNP 10: 1–24. Davies/Kathirithamby 1986 Davies, M. and J. Kathirithamby. Greek Insects. London. De Boel 1988 De Boel, G. Goal Accusative and Object Accusative in Homer: A Contribution to the Theory of Transitivity. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Acad. voor Wetensch., Letteren en Schone Kunsten 125. Brussels. Debrunner 1923 Debrunner, A. ‘Metrische Kürzung bei Homer.’ In ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Festschrift, Jacob Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres am 11.12.1923 gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen, pp. 28–40. Göttingen. Debrunner 1926 Debrunner, A. ‘Zum erweiterten Gebrauch des Duals.’ Glotta 15: 14–25. de Decker 2014 Decker, F. de. ‘The Etymology of Greek σθένος.’ Glotta 90: 114–138. Dee 1994 Dee, J. H. The Epithetic Phrases for the Homeric Gods (Epitheta Deorum apud Homerum). A Repertory of the Descriptive Expressions for the Divinities of the Iliad and the Odyssey. New York and London. Dee 2004 Dee, J. H. Repertorium Homericae Poiesis Hexametricum. A Repertory of the Hexameter Patterns in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Pars II: Repertorium Versuum Forma Dispositum. Alpha-Omega 238.2. Hildesheim. Dee 2010 Dee, J. H. Iuncturae Homericae: A Study of Noun-Epithet Combinations in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Part I: Repertories I-III. Hildesheim.

392 

 Iliad 16

Deichgräber 1952 Deichgräber, K. Der listensinnende Trug des Gottes. Vier Themen des griechi­ schen Denkens. Göttingen. Delattre 2006 Delattre, C. ‘Entre mortalité et immortalité: l’exemple de Sarpédon dans l’Iliade.’ RPh 80: 259–271. 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. Deplazes 1991 Deplazes, N. Der griechische Dativ Plural und oblique Dual, untersucht anhand des ältesten inschriftlichen Materials sowie ausgewählter Literatur. Europä­i­ sche Hochschulschriften 21.103. Bern etc. Derderian 2001 Derderian, K. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Literacy. Mnemosyne Supplement 209. Leiden etc. Desroches Noblecourt 1996 Desroches Noblecourt, C. Ramsès II. La véritable histoire. Paris. Di Benedetto 1987 Di Benedetto, V. ‘Formularità interna e paragoni nell’Iliade.’ RFIC 115: 257– 287. Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero2. Turin (11994). Dickie 1978 Dickie, M. W. ‘Dike as a Moral Term in Homer and Hesiod.’ CPh 73: 91–101. Dieterle 2007 Dieterle, M. Dodona. Religionsgeschichtliche und historische Untersu­chungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums. Spudasmata 116. Hildesheim etc. Dietrich 1965 Dietrich, B. C. Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer. London. Dihle 1970 Dihle, A. Homer-Probleme. Opladen. Döderlein 1850 Döderlein, L. Homerisches Glossarium, vol. 1. Erlangen. Döderlein 1853 Döderlein, L. Homerisches Glossarium, vol. 2. Erlangen. Döderlein 1858 Döderlein, L. Homerisches Glossarium, vol. 3. Erlangen. Donlan 1981/82 Donlan, W. ‘Reciprocities in Homer.’ CW 75: 137–175. Donlan 2002 Donlan, W. ‘Achilles the Ally.’ Arethusa 35: 155–172. Donnay 2005 Donnay, G. ‘Εὔχετ’ ἔπειτα στὰς μέσῳ ἕρκεϊ (Iliade 16.231, 24.306).’ In Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ. Les cadres ‘privés’ et ‘publics’ de la religion grecque antique. Actes du IXe colloque du Centre International d’Études de la Religion Grecque Antique (Fribourg, 8.–10. September 2003), ed. by V. Dasen and M. Piérart, pp. 1–11. Kernos Suppl. 15. Liège. Doyle 1984 Doyle, R. E. Ἄτη. Its Use and Meaning: A Study in the Greek Poetic Tradition from Homer to Euripides. New York. Drerup 1921 Drerup, E. Homerische Poetik, vol. 1: Das Homerproblem in der Gegenwart. Würzburg. Drerup 1969 Drerup, H. ‘Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit.’ ArchHom chap. O. Göttingen. Dubel 2011 Dubel, S. ‘Changements de voix: sur l’apostrophe au personnage dans l’Iliade.’ In Raymond 2011, 129–144. Duckworth 1933 Duckworth, G. E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollonius, and Virgil. Princeton. Ducrey 2012 Ducrey, P. ‘La guerre dans le monde grec.’ In ThesCRA VIII, pp. 193–212. Los Angeles. Due 1965 Due, O. S. ‘The Meaning of the Homeric Formula χρυσηλάκατος κελαδεινή.’ C&M 26: 1–9.



Dué 2010

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 393

Dué, C. ‘Agamemnon’s Densely-Packed Sorrow in Iliad 10: A Hypertextual Reading of a Homeric Simile.’ Trends in Classics 2: 279–299. Duffy 2008 Duffy, W. ‘Aias and the Gods.’ College Literature 35: 75–96 (also in Approaches to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, ed. by K. Myrsiades. American University Studies Ser. XIX, 38. New York etc., pp. 149–170. 2010.) Duhoux 2008 Duhoux, Y. ‘Mycenaean Anthology.’ In A Companion to Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World, vol. 1, ed. by Y. Duhoux and A. Morpurgo Davies, pp. 243–393. Louvain-la-Neuve. Düntzer (1864) 1979 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Ausdruck.’ In HTN, 88–108. (Slightly abridged; originally published in JbbClassPhil 10 [1864] 673–694; also in Düntzer 1872, 517–549.) Düntzer (1868) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Über αὖ, αὖτε, αὖτις, αὖθις.’ In H. Düntzer. Homerische Abhandlungen, pp. 579–592. Leipzig. (First published in Berliner Zeitschrift für das Gymnasialwesen, N. F. 2 [1868] 463–470.) Durante 1971 Durante, M. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Parte prima: Continuità della tradizione poetica dall’età micenea ai primi documenti. Incunabula Graeca 50. Rome. Durante 1976 Durante, M. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Parte seconda: Risultanze della comparazione indoeuropea. Incunabula Graeca 64. Rome. Dürbeck 1977 Dürbeck, H. Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeichnungen. Bonn. Dürbeck 1985 Dürbeck, H. ‘Die Entstehung des Bildetypus ὑπόλευκος und einzelne Gebrauchsweisen.’ MSS 46: 29–45. Durnford 2008 Durnford, S. P. B. ‘Is Sarpedon a Bronze Age Anatolian Personal Name or a Job Description?’ AS 58: 103–113. Eberhard 1923 Eberhard, E. Das Schicksal als poetische Idee bei Homer. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 13.1. Würzburg. Eck 2012 Eck, B. La mort rouge. Homicide, guerre et souillure en Grèce ancienne. Collection d’Études Anciennes. Série grecque 145. Paris. Edmunds 1990 Edmunds, S. T. Homeric Nēpios. Harvard Dissertations in Classics. New York and London. Edwards 1984 Edwards, A. T. ‘Aristos Achaiōn: Heroic Death and Dramatic Structure in the Iliad.’ QUCC 46: 61–80. Edwards 1985 Edwards, A. T. Achilles in the Odyssey. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 171. Königstein/Ts. Edwards 1966 Edwards, M. W. ‘Some Features of Homeric Craftmanship.’ TAPhA 97: 115–179. Edwards 1968 Edwards, M. W. ‘Some Stylistic Notes on Iliad XVIII.’ AJPh 89: 257–283. Edwards 1970 Edwards, M. W. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions.’ HSCPh 74: 1–36. Edwards 1980 Edwards, M. W. ‘Convention and Individuality in Iliad 1.’ HSCPh 84: 1–28. Edwards 1980a Edwards, M. W. ‘The Structure of Homeric Catalogues.’ TAPhA 110: 81–105. Edwards 1987 Edwards, M. W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London. Edwards 1997 Edwards, M. W. ‘Homeric Style and Oral Poetics.’ In Companion, 261–283. Ehrenberg 1921 Ehrenberg, V. Die Rechtsidee im frühen Griechentum. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der werdenden Polis. Leipzig. Eichholz 1953 Eichholz, D. E. ‘The Propitiation of Achilles.’ AJPh 74: 137–148. Eide 1986 Eide, T. ‘Poetical and Metrical Value of Homeric Epithets: A Study of the Epithets Applied to χείρ.’ SO 61: 5–17. Eide 1999 Eide, T. ‘Reformulated Repetitions in Homer.’ SO 74: 97–139.

394 

 Iliad 16

Elliger 1975

Elliger, W. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15. Berlin and New York. Elmer 2013 Elmer, D. F. The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad. Baltimore. Else 1959 Else, G. F. ‘ὑποκριτής.’ WS 72: 75–107. Emperius 1842 Emperius, A. ‘Analecta Critica.’ RhM 1: 447–466. Erbse 1961 Erbse, H. ‘Betrachtungen über das 5. Buch der Ilias.’ RhM 104: 156–189. Erbse 1980 Erbse, H. ‘Homerische Götter in Vogelgestalt.’ Hermes 108: 259–274. (Reprinted in Erbse 2003, 120–135.) Erbse 1983 Erbse, H. ‘Ilias und «Patroklie».’ Hermes 111: 1–15. (Reprinted in Erbse 2003, 44–58.) Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New York. Erbse 1993 Erbse, H. ‘Nestor und Antilochos bei Homer und Arktinos.’ Hermes 121: 385– 403. (Reprinted in Erbse 2003, 75–93.) Erbse 2000 Erbse, H. ‘Beobachtungen über die Gleichnisse der Ilias Homers.’ Hermes 128: 257–274. (Reprinted in Erbse 2003, 136–153.) Erbse 2003 Erbse, H. Studien zur griechischen Dichtung. Stuttgart 2003. von Erffa 1937 Erffa, C. E. von. αἰδώς und verwandte Begriffe in ihrer Entwicklung von Homer bis Theokrit. Philologus Suppl. 30.2. Leipzig. Erhardt 1894 Erhardt, L. Die Entstehung der homerischen Gedichte. Leipzig. Erler 1987 Erler, M. ‘Das Recht (δίκη) als Segensbringerin für die Polis. Die Wandlung eines Motivs von Hesiod zu Kallimachos.’ SIFC 80: 5–36. van Erp Taalman Kip 2000 van Erp Taalman Kip, A. M. ‘The Gods of the Iliad and the Fate of Troy.’ Mnemosyne 53: 386–402. van Erp Taalman Kip 2012 van Erp Taalman Kip, A. M. ‘On Defining a Homeric Idiom.’ Mnemosyne 65: 539–551. Erren 1970 Erren, M. ‘Αὐτίκα ‘sogleich’ als Signal der einsetzenden Handlung in Ilias und Odyssee.’ Poetica 3: 24–58. Espermann 1980 Espermann, I. Antenor, Theano, Antenoriden. Ihre Person und Bedeutung in der Ilias. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 120. Meisenheim am Glan. Fantuzzi/Sens 2006 Fantuzzi, M. and A. Sens. ‘The Hexameter of Inscribed Hellenistic Epigram.’ In Beyond the Canon, ed. by M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit and G. C. Wakker, pp. 105–122. Hellenistica Groningana 11. Leuven etc. Farron 1978 Farron, S. ‘The Character of Hector in the Iliad.’ AClass 21: 39–57. Fascher 1927 Fascher, E. προφήτης. Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Giessen. Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias. Berlin. Fenik 1968 Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesbaden. Fenik 1974 Fenik, B. Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden. Fenik 1978 Fenik, B. ‘Stylization and Variety: Four Monologues in the Iliad.’ In B. Fenik (ed.). Homer: Tradition and Innovation, pp. 68–90. Leiden. Fenno 2005 Fenno, J. ‘«A Great Wave Against the Stream»: Water Imagery in Iliadic Battle Scenes.’ AJPh 126: 475–504. Fenno 2008/9 Fenno, J. ‘The Mist Shed by Zeus in Iliad XVII.’ CJ 104: 1–9.



Ferrari 1986

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 395

Ferrari, F. Oralità ed espressione: ricognizioni omeriche. Biblioteca di MD 4. Pisa. Ferrini 1995 Ferrini, M. F. ‘Μέλαν ὕδωρ: concezioni e interpretazioni.’ Rudiae 7: 211–229. Ferrini 2000 Ferrini, M. F. ‘La porpora e il mare.’ AIV 158: 47–94. Fick 1886 Fick, A. Die homerische Ilias nach ihrer Entstehung betrachtet und in der ursprünglichen Sprachform wiederhergestellt. Göttingen. Fingerle 1939 Fingerle, A. Typik der Homerischen Reden. Munich. Finkelberg 1987 Finkelberg, M. ‘Homer’s View of the Epic Narrative: Some Formulaic Evidence.’ CPh 82: 135–138. Finkelberg 1989 Finkelberg, M. ‘Formulaic and Nonformulaic Elements in Homer.’ CPh 84: 179–197. Finkelberg 2011 Finkelberg, M. ‘Homer and His Peers: Neoanalysis, Oral Theory, and the Status of Homer.’ Trends in Classics 3: 197–208. Finley (1954) 1977 Finley, M. I. The World of Odysseus2. London (1New York 1954). Finsler (1908) 1924 Finsler, G. Homer. Erster Teil: Der Dichter und seine Welt. Zweite Hälfte: Die hom. Welt; die hom. Poesie3. Leipzig and Berlin (11908). Finsler (1916) 1918 Finsler, G. Homer. Zweiter Teil: Inhalt und Aufbau der Gedichte2. Leipzig and Berlin (11916). Fischetti 1970 Fischetti, G. ‘Amore e parto nella poesia greca antica (a proposito dei «Nuovi papiri fiorentini»).’ Maia 22: 41–47. Floyd 1969 Floyd, E. D. ‘The Singular Uses of Ἡμέτερος and Ἡμεῖς in Homer.’ Glotta 47 (published 1970): 116–137. Foley 1999 Foley, J. M. Homers’s Traditional Art. University Park, PA. Foltiny 1980 Foltiny, S. ‘Schwert, Dolch und Messer.’ ArchHom chap. E 2 (Kriegs­wesen, Teil 2: Angriffswaffen, ed. by H.-G. Buchholz), pp. 231–274. Göttingen. Ford 1992 Ford, A. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca and London. Forssman 1967 Forssman, B. ‘ἐπὶ κάρ und ἀνὰ κάρ.’ Glotta 45: 1–14. Forssman 1997 Forssman, B. ‘Homerisch πέρθαι. Mit einem Anhang: πέρθετο 12.15.’ In Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in Honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, ed. by A. Lubotsky, pp. 37–45. Amsterdam and Atlanta. Fournier 1946 Fournier, H. Les verbes ‘dire’ en grec ancien (exemple de conjugaison supplétive). Collection linguistique 51. Paris. Fraenkel 1913 Fraenkel, E. ‘Graeca-Latina.’ Glotta 4: 22–49. Fraenkel 1952 Fraenkel, E. ‘Griechisches und Italisches.’ IF 60: 131–155. Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen (= 21977: unaltered reprint with an afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch.) Fränkel 1925 Fränkel, H. ‘Griechische Wörter.’ Glotta 14: 1–13. Fränkel (1951) 1962 Fränkel, H. Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts2. Munich (11951). Franz 2002 Franz, J.  P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europäische Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt am Main. Fraser 2002 Fraser, B. ‘Word Order in Greek Stichic Verse: Subject, Verb, and Object.’ Glotta 78 (published 2004): 51–101. Frazer 1983 Frazer, R. M. ‘Ajax’s Weapon in Iliad 15.674–16.123.’ CPh 78: 127–130.

396 

 Iliad 16

Friedländer 1860 Friedländer, L. Zwei homerische Wörterverzeichnisse. Jahrbücher für classische Philologie Suppl. 3, pp. 713–830. Leipzig. (Also published as a ‘separate printing’.) Friederich 1935 Friederich, J. Dodonaica. Beiträge zur Religions- und Kultgeschichte Dodonas. Fribourg. Friedrich/Redfield 1978 Friedrich, P. and J. Redfield. ‘Speech as Personality Symbol: The Case of Achilles.’ Language 54: 263–288. 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 2000 Friedrich, R. ‘Homeric Enjambement and Orality.’ Hermes 128: 1–19. 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 G. Wright and P. Jones; appendix by K. B. 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 1956.) Friis Johansen 1967 Friis Johansen, K. The Iliad in Early Greek Art. Copenhagen. v. Fritz 1955 Fritz, K. v. Review of La notion du divin depuis Homère jusqu’à Platon. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 1. Vandoeuvres and Geneva 1954 (see Chantraine 1954). Gnomon 27: 315–323. Frontisi-Ducroux 1986 Frontisi-Ducroux, F. La cithare d’Achille. Essai sur la poétique de l’Iliade. Biblioteca di QUCC 1. Rome. Fuchs 1993 Fuchs, E. Pseudologia. Formen und Funktionen fiktionaler Trugrede in der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Heidelberg. Fuchs 2000 Fuchs, E. ‘Helden auf der Flucht. Kämpferisches Fehlverhalten und soziale Kontrolle in der Ilias.’ SPhV 4: 13–40. Führer 1967 Führer, R. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der frühgriechischen Lyrik. Zetemata 44. Munich. Gaca 2008 Gaca, K. L. ‘Reinterpreting the Homeric Simile of Iliad 16.7–11: The Girl and Her Mother in Ancient Greek Warfare.’ AJPh 129: 145–171. Gaertner 2001 Gaertner, J. F. ‘The Homeric Catalogues and Their Function in Epic Narrative.’ Hermes 129: 298–305. Garland 1981 Garland, R. ‘The Causation of Death in the Iliad: A Theological and Biological Investigation.’ BICS 28: 43–60. Garland (1982) 1984 Garland, R. ‘Γέρας θανόντων: an Investigation into the Claims of the Homeric Dead.’ AncSoc 15–17 (1984–1986) 5–22. (Originally published in BICS 29 [1982] 69–80.) 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. George 2005 George, C. H. Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek. Cambridge. Germain 1954 Germain, G. La mystique des nombres dans l’épopée homérique et sa préhistoire. Paris. Gill 1980 Gill, D. ‘Aspects of Religious Morality in Early Greek Epic.’ HThR 73: 373–418.



Gill 1996

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 397

Gill, C. Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy: The Self in Dialogue. Oxford. Giordano 1999 Giordano, M. La supplica. Rituale, istituzione sociale e tema epico in Omero. AION Quaderni 3. Naples. Giuliani 2003 Giuliani, L. Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der griechischen Kunst. Munich. Göbel 1855 Göbel, A. ‘Das Meer in den homerischen Dichtungen. Eine philologische Unter­suchung.’ ZG 9: 513–545. Göbel 1858 Göbel, A. De epithetis Homericis in -εις desinentibus. Vienna. (also on-line: http://www.mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10215179-3 [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Göbel 1933 Göbel, F. Formen und Formeln der epischen Dreiheit in der griechischen Dichtung. Stuttgart. Goldstein 2009 Goldstein, D. M. Review of Willmott 2007. BMCR 2009.01.29, bmcr. brynmawr. edu/2009/2009-01-29.html. Gottesman 2008 Gottesman, A. ‘The Pragmatics of Homeric kertomia.’ CQ 58: 1–12. Gould 1973 Gould, J. ‘Hiketeia.’ JHS 93: 74–103. (Also in J. Gould. Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange: Essays in Greek Literature and Culture, pp.  22–77. Oxford 2001.) Graf 1991 Graf, F. ‘Religion und Mythologie im Zusammenhang mit Homer: For­schung und Ausblick.’ In Latacz 1991a, 331–362. Graf 1991a Graf, F. ‘Gestures and Conventions: The Gestures of Roman Actors and Orators.’ In A Cultural History of Gesture: From Antiquity to the Present Day, ed. by J. N. Bremmer and H. Roodenburg, pp. 37–58. Cambridge. (also on-line: irs.ub.rug.nl/dbi/4358f42e72bcf [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Graf 2009 Graf, F. Apollo. London and New York. Grand-Clément 2004 Grand-Clément, A. ‘Histoire du paysage sensible des Grecs à l’époque archaïque: Homère, les couleurs et l’exemple de πορφύρεος.’ Pallas 65: 123–143. Grand-Clément 2011 Grand-Clément, A. La fabrique des couleurs. Histoire du paysage sensible des Grecs anciens (VIIIe – début du Ve s. av. n. è.). Paris. Gray 1947 Gray, D. H. F. ‘Homeric Epithets for Things.’ CQ 41: 109–121. (Also in The Language and Background of Homer: Some Recent Studies and Controversies, ed. by G. S. Kirk, pp. 55–67. Cambridge 1964.) Gray 1974 Gray, D. ‘Seewesen.’ ArchHom chap. G. Göttingen. Graz 1965 Graz, L. Le feu dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. PUR: champ d’emploi et signification. Études et commentaires 60. Paris. Graziosi/Haubold 2003 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. ‘Homeric Masculinity: ΗΝΟΡΕΗ and ΑΓΗΝΟΡΙΗ.’ JHS 123: 60–76. Graziosi/Haubold 2005 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer: The Resonance of Epic. London. Grethlein 2006 Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänomenolo­ gischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Göttingen. Grethlein 2008 Grethlein, J. ‘Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ JHS 128: 27–51. Griffin 1977 Griffin, J. ‘The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer.’ JHS 97: 39–53. Griffin 1980 Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford. Griffin 1986 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers.’ JHS 106: 36–57.

398 

 Iliad 16

Griffith 1997 Griffiths 1985 Grimm 1962 Grmek 1983 Gross 1970 Gruber 1963 Gschnitzer 1976

Guilleux 2001 Guilleux 2007 Gundert 1983 Gygli-Wyss 1966 Hackstein 2002

Hahn 1954 Hainsworth 1966 Hainsworth 1968 Hainsworth 1976

Hainsworth 1991 Hajnal 1995 Hammer 1998 Hammer 2002 Hammond 1967 Hampe 1952 Handschur 1970

Hanson 2003 Hartel 1873 Haslam 1976

Griffith, R. D. ‘Homeric διιπετέος ποταμοῖο and the Celestial Nile.’ AJPh 118: 353–362. Griffiths, A. ‘A Ram Called Patroklos.’ BICS 32: 49–50 (with addenda in BICS 36 [1989] 139.) Grimm, J. ‘Die Partikel ἄρα im frühen griechischen Epos.’ Glotta 40: 3–41. Grmek, M. Les maladies à l’aube de la civilisation occidentale. Paris. Gross, K. ‘Götterhand und Menschenhand im homerischen Epos.’ Gymnasium 77: 365–375. Gruber, J. Über einige abstrakte Begriffe des frühen Griechischen. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 9. Meisenheim am Glan. Gschnitzer, F. Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. Zweiter Teil: Untersuchungen zur älteren, insbesondere homerischen Sklaventermino­ logie. Wiesbaden. Guilleux, N. ‘Le i bref de datif singulier athématique: Les règles d’une élision homérique et tragique.’ RPh 75: 65–82. Guilleux, N. ‘Allitérations et assonances associées à l’emploi des impressifs de sonorité dans la langue homérique.’ In Blanc/Dupraz 2007, 95–102. Gundert, B. τέλος und τελεῖν bei Homer. Kiel. Gygli-Wyss, B. Das nominale Polyptoton im älteren Griechisch. Göttingen. Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morpholo­ gischer Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel, Sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden. Hahn, E. A. ‘Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative.’ TAPhA 85: 197–289. Hainsworth, J. B. ‘Joining Battle in Homer.’ G&R 13: 158–166. Hainsworth, J. B. The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula. Oxford. Hainsworth, J. B. ‘Phrase-Clusters in Homer.’ In Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics, offered to L. R. Palmer, ed. by A. Morpurgo Davies and W. Meid, pp. 83–86. Innsbruck. Hainsworth, J. B. The Idea of Epic. Berkeley etc. Hajnal, I. Studien zum mykenischen Kasussystem. Berlin etc. Hammer, D. C. ‘The Cultural Construction of Chance in the Iliad.’ Arethusa 31: 125–148. Hammer, D. The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought. Norman. Hammond, N. G. L. Epirus: The Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and the Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas. Oxford. Hampe, R. Die Gleichnisse Homers und die Bildkunst seiner Zeit. Tübingen. Handschur, E. Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den ho­me­ ri­schen Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 39. Vienna. Hanson, A.  E. ‘«Your Mother nursed you with bile»: Anger in Babies and Small Children.’ In Braund/Most 2003, 185–207. Hartel, W. Homerische Studien. Beiträge zur homerischen Prosodie und Metrik2. Berlin. Haslam, M. W. ‘Homeric Words and Homeric Metre: Two Doublets Examined (λείβω/εἴβω, γαῖα/αἶα).’ Glotta 54: 201–211.



Haubold 2000 Haubold 2011

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 399

Haubold, J. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge. Haubold, J. ‘Lykien (und Kilikien) in der Ilias.’ In Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias, ed. by C. Ulf and R. Rollinger, pp. 375–390. Darmstadt. Hawkins 1998 Hawkins, A. H. ‘Confronting Mortality: The Iliad’s Androktasiai.’ Literature and Medicine 17: 181–196. Heath 1992 Heath, J. ‘The Legacy of Peleus: Death and Divine Gifts in the Iliad.’ Hermes 120: 387–400. Heath 2005 Heath, J. The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge. Hebel 1970 Hebel, V. Untersuchungen zur Form und Funktion der Wiedererzählungen in Ilias und Odyssee. Heidelberg. Heiden 2008 Heiden, B. Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad. Oxford and New York. Heitsch 1990 Heitsch, E. ‘Homerische Dreigespanne.’ In Der Übergang von der Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, ed. by W. Kullmann and M. Reichel, pp. 153– 174. ScriptOralia 30. Tübingen. (Reprinted in E. Heitsch. Gesammelte Schriften I. Zum frühgriechischen Epos. Munich and Leipzig 2001.) Helbig (1884) 1887 Helbig, W. Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert. Archäolo­ gische Untersuchungen2. Leipzig (11884). Hellmann 2000 Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart. Hellwig 1964 Hellwig, B. Raum und Zeit im homerischen Epos. Hildesheim. Hendry 1997 Hendry, M. ‘A Coarse Pun in Homer? (Il. 15.467, 16.210).’ Mnemosyne 50: 477– 479. Henry 1905 Henry, R. M. ‘The Use and Origin of Apostrophe in Homer.’ CR 19: 7–9. Hentze 1902 Hentze, C. ‘Der imperativische Infinitiv in den homerischen Gedichten.’ BKIS 27: 106–137. Hentze 1904 Hentze, C. ‘Die Monologe in den homerischen Epen.’ Philologus 63: 12–30. Hentze 1907 Hentze, C. ‘Der homerische Gebrauch der Partikeln εἰ, εἴ κε und ἤν mit dem Konjunktiv.’ ZVS 41: 356–378. Hentze 1910 Hentze, C. ‘Der homerische Gebrauch des Imperativs 3. Person.’ ZVS 43: 121– 129. Hermann 1914 Hermann, E. Sprachwissenschaftlicher Kommentar zu ausgewählten Stücken aus Homer. Heidelberg. (Reprint 1965.) Hershkovitz 1998 Hershkovitz, D. The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius. Oxford. Herzhoff 1990 Herzhoff, B. ‘Φηγός. Zur Identifikation eines umstrittenen Baumnamens.’ Hermes 118: 257–272 and 385–404. Herzhoff 2008 Herzhoff, B. ‘Der Flußkatalog der Ilias (12.20–23) – ältestes literarisches Beispiel geometrischer Raumerfassung?’ In Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption, vol.  XVIII, ed. by J. Althoff, S. Föllinger and G. Wöhrle, pp. 101–138. Trier. Hettrich 2012 Hettrich, H. ‘Präpositionalausdrücke bei Homer.’ In Meier-Brügger 2012, 45–61. Heubeck (1949) 1984 Heubeck, A. ‘Homerica.’ In Heubeck 1984, 115–127. (First published in Gymnasium 56 [1949] 242–254.)

400 

 Iliad 16

Heubeck (1949/50) 1984 Heubeck, A. ‘Die homerische Göttersprache.’ In Heubeck 1984, 94–115. (First published in WJA 4 [1949/50] 197–218.) Heubeck (1950) 1991 Heubeck, A. ‘Studien zur Struktur der Ilias (Retardation – Motivübertragung).’ In Latacz 1991, 450–474. (First published in Gymnasium Fridericianum. Festschrift …, vol. 2, pp. 17–36. Erlangen.) Heubeck 1954 Heubeck, A. Der Odyssee-Dichter und die Ilias. Erlangen. Heubeck 1961 Heubeck, A. Praegraeca. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zum vorgriechisch-­ indogermanischen Substrat. Erlangen. Heubeck (1972) 1984 Heubeck, A. ‘Nochmal zur «innerhomerischen Chronologie».’ In Heubeck 1984, 79–93. (First published in Glotta 50 [1972] 129–143.) Heubeck 1984 Heubeck, A. Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Sprache und Literatur. Erlanger Forschungen Reihe A: Geisteswissenschaften 33. Erlangen. Hiesel 1990 Hiesel, G. Späthelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architekturgeschichte des griechischen Festlandes in der späten Bronzezeit. Mainz. Higbie 1990 Higbie, C. Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the Iliad. Oxford. Higbie 1995 Higbie, C. Heroes’ Names, Homeric Identities. New York and London. Hilton 2013 Hilton, J. ‘The Hunt for Acrostics by Some Ancient Readers of Homer.’ Hermes 141: 88–95. Hirschberger 2004 Hirschberger, M. Gynaikōn Katalogos und Megalai Ēhoiai. Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten zweier hesiodeischer Epen. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 198. Munich and Leipzig. Hirzel 1907 Hirzel, R. Themis, Dike und Verwandtes. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Rechtsidee bei den Griechen. Leipzig. 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),’ pp. 275–319. ArchHom chap. E 2. Göttingen. Hoekstra 1965 Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the Development of Greek Epic Diction. Amsterdam. Hoekstra 1969 Hoekstra, A. The Sub-Epic Stage of the Formulaic Tradition: Studies in the Homeric Hymns to Apollo, to Aphrodite and to Demeter. Amsterdam and London. Hoekstra 1978 Hoekstra, A. ‘Metrical Lengthening and Epic Diction.’ Mnemosyne 31: 1–26. Hoekstra 1981 Hoekstra, A. Epic Verse Before Homer. Amsterdam etc. Hoenigswald 1991 Hoenigswald, H. M. ‘The Prosody of the Epic Adonius and its Prehistory.’ ICS 16: 1–15. Hoffmann 1914 Hoffmann, M. Die ethische Terminologie bei Homer, Hesiod und den alten Elegikern und Jambographen. I: Homer. Tübingen. Hoffmann 1940 Hoffmann, O. ‘Ἀλέξανδρος.’ Glotta 28 (published 1939): 21–77. Hofmeister 1995 Hofmeister, T. P. ‘«Rest in Violence»: Composition and Characterization in Iliad 16.155–277.’ ClAnt 14: 289–316. Hogan 1981 Hogan, J. C. ‘Eris in Homer.’ GB 10: 21–58. Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I. M. Manners in the Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne Supplement 63. Leiden. Hölkeskamp 1997 Hölkeskamp, K.-J. ‘Agorai bei Homer.’ In Volk und Verfassung im vorhellenistischen Griechenland. Beiträge … zu Ehren von K.-W. Welwei, ed. by W. Eder and K.-J. Hölkeskamp, pp. 1–19. Stuttgart.



Holland 1993 Holmes 2007 Hölscher 1939

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 401

Holland, G. B. ‘The Name of Achilles: A Revised Etymology.’ Glotta 71: 17–27. Holmes, B. ‘The Iliad’s Economy of Pain.’ TAPhA 137: 45–84. Hölscher, U. Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee. Szenenwechsel und gleichzeitige Handlungen. Hermes Einzelschriften 6. Berlin. Hölscher/Krauskopf 2005 Hölscher, T. and I. Krauskopf. ‘Kultinstrumente.’ In ThesCRA V, pp. 147–420. Los Angeles. Holt 1939 Holt, J. ‘Die homerischen Nomina actionis auf -μός.’ Glotta 27: 182–198. Hooker (1979) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Three Homeric Epithets: αἰγίοχος, διιπετής, κορυθαίολος.’ In Hooker 1996, 437–443. (First published in IF 84 [1979] 113–119.) Hooker 1980 Hooker, J. T. ἱερός in Early Greek. Innsbruck. Hooker (1980) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Indo-European Themes in Homer.’ In Hooker 1996, 455–471. (First published in American Indian and Indoeuropean studies: Papers in Honor of M. S. Beeler, ed. by K. Klar et al., pp. 357–373. The Hague etc. 1980.) Hooker (1992) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Some Uses of the Greek Imperfect.’ In Hooker 1996, 703–721. (First published in Historical Philology. Greek, Latin and Romance, ed. by G. Brogyanyi and R. Lipp, pp. 47–65. Amsterdam 1992.) Hooker (1987) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Homeric φίλος.’ In Hooker 1996, 499–520. (First published in Glotta 65 [1987] 44–65.) Hooker 1996 Hooker, J. T. Scripta Minora: Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric and Classical Greek Subjects, ed. by F. Amory, P. Considine and S. Hooker. Amsterdam. Hope Simpson/Lazenby 1970 Hope Simpson, R. and J. F. Lazenby. The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford. Horn 2014 Horn, F. Held und Heldentum bei Homer. Das homerische Heldenkonzept und seine poetische Verwendung. Tübingen. Horrocks 1980 Horrocks, G.  C. ‘The Antiquity of the Greek Epic Tradition: Some New ­Evidence.’ PCPhS 26: 1–11. Howald 1946 Howald, E. Der Dichter der Ilias. Zurich. Howald 1951 Howald, E. ‘Sarpedon.’ MH 8: 111–118. Howie 1995 Howie, J. G. ‘The Iliad as Exemplum.’ In Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality, ed. by Ø. Andersen and M. Dickie, pp. 141–173. Papers from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 3. Bergen. Howie 1996 Howie, J. G. ‘The Major Aristeia in Homer and Xenophon.’ In Roman Poetry and Prose, Greek Poetry, Etymology, Historiography, ed. by F. Cairns and M. Heath, pp. 197–217. Leeds. Hunt 1890 Hunt, W. I. ‘Homeric Wit and Humor.’ TAPhA 21: 48–58. Ingalls 1998 Ingalls, W. B. ‘Attitudes Towards Children in the Iliad.’ EMC 52 (n.s. 17): 13–34. Ireland/Steel 1975 Ireland, S. and F. L. D. Steel. ‘Φρένες as an Anatomical Organ in the Works of Homer.’ Glotta 53: 183–195. Irmscher 1950 Irmscher, J. Götterzorn bei Homer. Leipzig. Irwin 1974 Irwin, E. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto. Jachmann 1958 Jachmann, G. Der homerische Schiffskatalog und die Ilias. Cologne and Opladen. Jahn 1987 Jahn, T. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele–Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83. Munich. Jakov/Voutiras 2005 Jakov, D. and E. Voutiras. ‘Das Gebet bei den Griechen.’ In ThesCRA III, pp. 105–141. Los Angeles.

402 

 Iliad 16

Janda 2014

Janda, M. Purpurnes Meer. Sprache und Kultur der homerischen Welt. ­Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, NF 7. Innsbruck. Janik 2003 Janik, J. Terms of the Semantic Sphere of δίκη and θέμις in the Early Greek Epic. Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Studies of the Commission on Classical Philology 30. Krakow. Janko 1981 Janko, R. ‘Equivalent Formulae in the Greek Epos.’ Mnemosyne 34: 251–264. Janko 1982 Janko, R. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction. Cambridge. Janko 1998 Janko, R. ‘The Homeric Poems as Oral Dictated Texts.’ CQ 48: 1–13. Janko 2012 Janko, R. ‘πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατιον αἰὲν 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. Janko 2014 Janko, R. ‘The Etymologies of βασιλεύς and ἑρμηνεύς.’ CQ 64: 462–470. Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur ZVS 21. Göttingen. Jebb 1892 Jebb, R. C. (ed.) Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments, Part V: The Trachiniae. Cambridge. 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. Jeremiah 2012 Jeremiah, E. T. The Emergence of Reflexivity in Greek Language and Thought: From Homer to Plato and Beyond. Philosophia Antiqua 129. Leiden and Boston. Johansson 2012 Johansson, K. The Birds in the Iliad: Identities, Interactions and Functions. Gothenburg Studies in History 2. Gothenburg. Johnston 1999 Johnston, S. I. Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece. Berkeley etc. Jones 1973 Jones, H. ‘Homeric Nouns in -sis.’ Glotta 51: 7–29. Jones 1996 Jones, P. V. ‘The Independent Heroes of the Iliad.’ JHS 116: 108–118. de Jong 1985 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Fokalisation und die homerischen Gleichnisse.’ Mnemosyne 38: 257–280. de Jong (1987) 2004 Jong, I. J. F. de. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987). de Jong 1987a Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Silent Characters in the Iliad.’ In Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Recent Trends in Homeric Interpretation, ed. by J. M. Bremer, I. J. F. de Jong and J. Kalff, pp. 105–121. Amsterdam. de Jong 1988 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers: An Addendum.’ JHS 108: 188– 189. de Jong 1992 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘The Subjective Style in Odysseus’ Wanderings.’ CQ 42: 1–11. 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.–5.9.1996), ed. by M. Païsi-Apostolopoulou, pp. 121–135. Ithaka. de Jong 1999 Jong, I. J. F. de (ed.) Homer: Critical Assessments. Vol. 1: The Creation of the Poems; Vol.  2: The Homeric World; Vol.  3: Literary Interpretation; Vol.  4: Homer’s Art. London and New York. de Jong 2004 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 1, ed. by I. J. F. de



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 403

Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie, pp. 13–24. Mnemosyne Supplement 257. Leiden and Boston. de Jong 2005 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Convention versus Realism in the Homeric Epics.’ Mnemosyne 58: 1–22. de Jong 2006 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘The Homeric Narrator and His Own Kleos.’ Mnemosyne 59: 188–207. 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. de Jong 2009 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Metalepsis in Ancient Greek Literature.’ In Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature, ed. by J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos, pp. 87–115. Trends in Classics Suppl. 4. Berlin and New York. de Jong 2012 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. Leiden and Boston. de Jong 2012a Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘Double Deixis in Homeric Speech: On the Interpretation of ὅδε and οὗτος.’ In Meier-Brügger 2012, 63–83. de Jong 2014 Jong, I. J. F. de. ‘The Anonymous Traveller in European Literature: A Greek Meme?’ In Cairns/Scodel 2014, 314–333. 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 Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Festschrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages, ed. by A. Bierl, A. Schmitt and A. Willi, pp. 63–83. Munich and Leipzig. Jordan 1905 Jordan, H. Der Erzählungsstil in den Kampfscenen der Ilias. Breslau. Jörgensen 1904 Jörgensen, O. ‘Das Auftreten der Götter in den Büchern ι–μ der Odyssee.’ Hermes 39: 357–382. Jouanna/Lambrinoudakis 2011 Jouanna, J. and V. Lambrinoudakis. ‘Santé, maladie et médecine dans le monde grec.’ In ThesCRA VI, pp. 217–250. Los Angeles. Kahane 1994 Kahane, A. The Interpretation of Order: A Study in the Poetics of Homeric Repetition. Oxford. Kahane 2005 Kahane, A. Diachronic Dialogues: Authority and Continuity in Homer and the Homeric Tradition. Lanham. Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki. Kakridis 1963 Kakridis, H.  J. La notion de l’amitié et de l’hospitalité chez Homère. ­Thessaloniki. Kakridis 1949 Kakridis, J. T. Homeric Researches. Lund. Kakridis (1956) 1971 Kakridis, J.Th. ‘Ἀεὶ φιλέλλην ὁ ποιητής?’ In Kakridis 1971, 54–67. (First published as ‘Homer, ein Philhellene?’ WS 69 [1956] 26–32.) Kakridis (1960) 1971 Kakridis, J.Th. ‘Σφήκεσσιν ἐοικότες ἐξεχέοντο (Π 259–267).’ In Kakridis 1971, 138–140. (First published as ‘Das Wespengleichnis im Π der Ilias.’ Hermes 88 [1960] 250–253.) Kakridis 1971 Kakridis, J.Th. Homer Revisited. Lund. Kakridis 1971a Kakridis, J.Th. ‘The Motif of the Godsent Mist in the Iliad.’ In Kakridis 1971, 89–107. Kakridis 1971b Kakridis, J.Th. ‘Neugriechische Scholien zu Homer.’ Gymnasium 78: 505–524.

404 

 Iliad 16

Kakridis 1961 Kalén 1941

Kakridis, Ph.J. ‘Achilleus’ Rüstung.’ Hermes 89: 288–297. Kalén, T. Selbständige Finalsätze und Imperativische Infinitive im Griechi­ schen. Skrifter utgivna […] i Uppsala 34.2. Uppsala and Leipzig. Karakantza 2014 Karakantza, E. D. ‘Who is Liable for Blame? Patroclus’ Death in Book 16 of the Iliad.’ In Crime and Punishment in Homeric and Archaic Epic: Pro­ceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the Odyssey, pp. 117–136. Ithaka. Karavites 1992 Karavites, P. (with the collaboration of T. Wren). Promise-Giving and Treaty-Making: Homer and the Near East. Leiden etc. Kastner 1967 Kastner, W. Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ος. Heidelberg. Keen 1998 Keen, A. G. Dynastic Lycia: A Political History of the Lycians and Their Relations with Foreign Powers c. 545–362 B. C. Leiden etc. Keil 1998 Keil, D. Lexikalische Raritäten im Homer. Ihre Bedeutung für den Prozeß der Literarisierung des griechischen Epos. Trier. Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford. Kemmer 1903 Kemmer, E. Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur. Würzburg. Kemper 1993 Kemper, C. Göttliche Allmacht und menschliche Verantwortung. Sittlicher Wert bei archaischen Dichtern der Griechen. BAC 14. Trier. Kidd 1997 Kidd, D. (ed.). Aratus, Phaenomena. Edited with Introduction, Trans­lation and Commentary. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 34. C ­ ambridge. Kim 2000 Kim, J. The Pity of Achilles: Oral Style and the Unity of the Iliad. Lanham. Kirk 1962 Kirk, G. S. The Songs of Homer. Cambridge. Kirk 1976 Kirk, G. S. Homer and the Oral Tradition. Cambridge. Kirk 1998 Kirk, G. S. ‘The Search for the Real Homer.’ In McAuslan/Walcot 1998, 38–52. (Originally Inaugural lecture given at Bristol, 1972.) Klein 1988 Klein, J. S. ‘Homeric Greek αὖ: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Comparative Study.’ HSF 101: 249–288. Klingner 1940 Klingner, F. ‘Über die Dolonie.’ Hermes 75: 337–368. Kloss 1994 Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgrie­ chischen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen. Koller 1967 Koller, H. ‘Αἷμα.’ Glotta 45: 149–155. Kölligan 2007 Kölligan, D. Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft 6. Bremen. Kopp 1939 Kopp, J. V. Das physikalische Weltbild der frühen griechischen Dichtung. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der vorsokratischen Physik. Fribourg. Körner 1929 Körner, O. Die ärztlichen Kenntnisse in Ilias und Odyssee. Munich. Körner 1932 Körner, O. Die Sinnesempfindungen in Ilias und Odyssee. Jena. Kösling 1998 Kösling, P. Die griechischen primären Jotpräsentien. Untersucht und dar­ gestellt nach Formenbestand, Aktionsarten und Etymologie. Hamburg. Krapp 1964 Krapp, H. J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich. Krause 1936 Krause, W. ‘Die Ausdrücke für das Schicksal bei Homer.’ Glotta 25: 143–152. Kretschmer 1913 Kretschmer, P. ‘Mythische Namen.’ Glotta 4: 305–309. Kretschmer 1935/36 Kretschmer, P. ‘Nochmals die Hypachäer und Alaksandus.’ Glotta 24: 203– 251. Kretschmer 1940 Kretschmer, P. ‘Die Stellung der lykischen Sprache (Fortsetzung).’ Glotta 28: 101–116. Krischer 1971 Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Munich.



Krischer 1979

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 405

Krischer, T. ‘Die Rolle der irrealen Bedingungssätze in der Geschichte des griechischen Denkens.’ Glotta 57: 39–61. Krischer 1992 Krischer, T. ‘Patroklos, Der Wagenlenker Achills.’ RhM 135: 97–103. Kühlmann 1973 Kühlmann, W. Katalog und Erzählung. Studien zu Konstanz und Wandel einer literarischen Form in der antiken Epik. Freiburg im Breisgau. Kullmann 1956 Kullmann, W. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Entstehung des homerischen ‘Götterapparats’. Berlin. Kullmann 1960 Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Einzelschriften 14. Wiesbaden. Kullmann (1965) 1992 Kullmann, W. Rev. of Reinhardt 1961. In Kullmann 1992, 170–197. (First published in GGA 217 [1965] 9–36.) Kullmann (1991) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung zu Homer (Neoanalyse).’ In Kullmann 1992, 100–134. (Original, shorter version in Latacz 1991a, 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 (1995) 2002 Kullmann, W. ‘Homers Zeit und das Bild des Dichters von den Menschen der mykenischen Kultur.’ In Kullmann 2002, 27–43. (First published in Homer’s World: Fiction, Tradition, Reality, pp. 57–75. Bergen 1995.) Kullmann 2002 Kullmann, W. Realität, Imagination und Theorie. Kleine Schriften zu Epos und Tragödie in der Antike, ed. by A. Rengakos. Stuttgart. Kullmann 2002a Kullmann, W. ‘Historische Realität und poetische Imagination in den home­ ri­schen Epen.’ In Kullmann 2002, 75–96. Kullmann 2005 Kullmann, W. ‘Ilias und Aithiopis.’ Hermes 133: 9–28. Kurt 1979 Kurt, C. Seemännische Fachausdrücke bei Homer. Unter Berücksichtigung Hesiods und der Lyriker bis Bakchylides. Göttingen. Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften N. F. 2.11. Heidelberg. Kyriakou 2001 Kyriakou, P. ‘Warrior Vaunts in the Iliad.’ RhM 144: 250–277. Labarbe 1949 Labarbe, J. L’Homère de Platon. Liège. Landau 1958 Landau, O. Mykenisch-griechische Personennamen. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 7. Gothenburg and Uppsala. Lang 1974/75 Lang, M. L. ‘Reason and Purpose in Homeric Prayers.’ CW 68: 309–314. Lardinois 1997 Lardinois, A. ‘Modern Paroemiology and the Use of Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ CPh 92: 213–234. Lardinois 2000 Lardinois, A. ‘Characterization through Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ Mnemosyne 53: 641–661. Lardinois 2001 Lardinois, A. ‘The Wisdom and Wit of Many: The Orality of Greek Proverbial Expressions.’ In Watson 2001, 93–107. La Roche 1861 La Roche, J. Homerische Studien. Der Accusativ im Homer. Vienna. La Roche 1861a La Roche, J. Beobachtungen über den Gebrauch von ὑπό bei Homer. Vienna. (Offprint from Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien, 1861; on-line: books.google.ch/books?id=HFKHuBbQKSwC [retrieved 01.03.2015].) La Roche 1866 La Roche, J. Die Homerische Textkritik im Alterthum. Leipzig. La Roche 1869 La Roche, J. Homerische Untersuchungen. Leipzig. La Roche 1897 La Roche, J. ‘Die Stellung des attributiven und appositiven Adjectives bei Homer.’ WS 19: 161–188.

406 

 Iliad 16

Laser 1983 Laser 1987 Latacz 1966

Laser, S. ‘Medizin und Körperpflege.’ ArchHom chap. S. Göttingen. Laser, S. ‘Sport und Spiel.’ ArchHom chap. T. Göttingen. Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften N. F. 2.17. Heidelberg. Latacz 1977 Latacz, J. Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios. Zetemata 66. Munich. Latacz (1985) 1996 Latacz, J. Homer: His Art and His World, transl. by J. P. Holoka. Ann Arbor. (German original: Homer. Der erste Dichter des Abendlands. Munich and Zurich 1985; Düsseldorf 42003.) Latacz 1991 Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer. Die Dichtung und ihre Deutung. Wege der Forschung 634. Darmstadt. Latacz 1991a Latacz, J. (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homerforschung. Rückblick und Ausblick. Colloquium Rauricum 2. Stuttgart. Latacz (1995) 2014 Latacz, J. ‘Achilleus. Wandlungen eines europäischen Heldenbildes.’ In Latacz 2014, 267–346. (Originally published as Lectio Teubneriana 3. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1995 = 21997.) Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery, transl. by Kevin Windle and Rosh Ireland. Oxford. (German original: Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Munich and Berlin 2001; Munich and Zurich 42003; latest ed. Leipzig 62010.) Latacz (2001) 2010 Latacz, J. Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels10. Leipzig (Munich and Berlin 12001). Latacz (2001) 2014 Latacz, J. ‘Homer und die Ilias: Streit um Adelsideale.’ In Latacz 2014, 251–259. (First published in Damals. Das aktuelle Magazin für Geschichte und Kultur 4 [2001] 10–19.) Latacz (2011) 2014 Latacz, J. ‘Strukturiertes Gedächtnis. Zur Überlieferung der Troia-Geschichte 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 Frühen 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 Alter­ tums­kunde 327. Berlin and Boston. Lateiner 1997 Lateiner, D. ‘Homeric Prayer.’ Arethusa 30: 241–272. Lateiner 2002 Lateiner, D. ‘Pouring Bloody Drops (Il. 16.459): The Grief of Zeus.’ ColbyQ 38: 42–61. Lausberg (1960) 1990 Lausberg, H. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft3. Stuttgart (Munich 11960). Ledbetter 1993 Ledbetter, G. M. ‘Achilles’ Self-Address: Iliad 16.7–19.’ AJPh 114: 481–491. Lee 1964 Lee, D. J. N. The Similes of the Iliad and the Odyssey Compared. Melbourne. van Leeuwen (1894) 1918 Leeuwen, J. van. Enchiridion dictionis epicae2. Leiden (11894). Le Feuvre 2008 Le Feuvre, C. ‘La forme homérique καμμονίη, le parfait κέκασμαι et le groupe des skr. śáṃsati «louer».’ RPh 82: 305–320. Lehrs (1833) 1882 Lehrs, K. De Aristarchi studiis Homericis3. Leipzig (11833). Leinieks 1973/74 Leinieks, V. ‘A Structural Pattern in the Iliad.’ CJ 69: 102–107. Leitzke 1930 Leitzke, E. Moira und Gottheit im alten griechischen Epos. Sprachliche Untersuchungen. Göttingen.



Lejeune 1939 Lejeune 1958

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 407

Lejeune, M. Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux. Lejeune, M. ‘Études de philologie mycénienne. III: Les adjectifs mycéniens à suffixe -went-.’ REA 60: 5–26. Le Meur 2009 Le Meur, N. ‘Les enfants dans l’Iliade.’ In Reconstruire Troie. Permanence et renaissances d’une cité emblématique, ed. by M. Fartzoff et al., pp. 41–72. Besançon. Lesky 1947 Lesky, A. Thalatta. Der Weg der Griechen zum Meer. Vienna. Lesky 1951 Lesky, A. ‘Forschungsbericht Homer I / II.’ AAHG 4: 65–80 and 195–212. Lesky 1961 Lesky, A. Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos. SHAW 1961.4. Heidelberg. Lesky (1962) 1966 Lesky, A. ‘Zur Eingangsszene der Patroklie.’ In Lesky 1966, 72–80. (First published in Serta Philologica Aenipontana. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 7/8 [1962] 19–26.) Lesky 1967 Lesky, A. Homeros. Sonderausgaben der RE. Stuttgart. (also in RE Suppl. 11 [1968] 687–846.) Lesky 1985 Lesky, A. ‘Grundzüge griechischen Rechtsdenkens.’ WS 98: 5–40. Létoublon 1983 Létoublon, F. ‘Défi et combat dans l’Iliade.’ REG 96: 27–48. Létoublon 1985 Létoublon, F. Il allait, pareil à la nuit. Les verbes de mouvement en grec: supplétisme et aspect verbal. Études et commentaires 98. Paris. Létoublon 1993 Létoublon, F. Les lieux communs du roman. Stéréotypes grecs d’aventure et d’amour. Mnemosyne Supplement 123. Leiden etc. Létoublon 1994 Létoublon, F. Rev. of Nagy (1979) 1999 (in French transl. 1994). RPh 68: 285– 290. Létoublon 2003 Létoublon, F. ‘Ilion battue des vents, Troie aux larges rues: la représentation de Troie dans l’Iliade.’ In La naissance de la ville dans l’antiquité, ed. by M. Reddé et al., pp. 27–44. Paris. Létoublon 2007 Létoublon, F. ‘À propos de quelques répétitions non formulaires dans l’Iliade.’ In Blanc/Dupraz 2007, 139–149. Leukart 1994 Leukart, A. Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und -ās. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den Nomina auf -eús). Mykenische Studien 12. Vienna. (Originally diss. Zurich 1973.) Leumann 1950 Leumann, M. Homerische Wörter. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertums­ wissenschaft 3. Basel. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.) Leumann (1957a) 1959 Leumann, M. ‘Aor. *ἔπῑν und Tempusstämme von gr. πίνειν.’ In Leumann 1959, 260–266. (First published in MH 14 [1957] 75–80.) Leumann (1957b) 1959 Leumann, M. ‘σάος und σῶς.’ In Leumann 1959, 266–272. (First published in ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, vol. 2, pp. 8–14. Vienna 1957.) Leumann 1959 Leumann, M. Kleine Schriften, ed. by H. Haffter, E. Risch and W. Rüegg. Zurich. Leumann 1975 Leumann, M. ‘Griech. στίχος Vers und στίχες Reihen.’ MSS 33: 79–84. Leuzzi 2008 Leuzzi, D. ‘La morte dell’eroe nell’Iliade: scene e sequenze narrative.’ In Eroi nell’Iliade. Personaggi e strutture narrative, ed. by L. Pagani, pp. 271–325. Rome. Lhôte 2006 Lhôte, É. Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone. Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Roman 36. Geneva. Linke 1977 Linke, K. Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Dionysios Thrax. SGLG 3, pp. 1–77. Berlin and New York.

408 

 Iliad 16

Lloyd-Jones 1971 Lloyd-Jones 1981

Lloyd-Jones, H. The Justice of Zeus. Berkeley etc. Lloyd-Jones, H. ‘Remarks on the Homeric Question.’ In History and Imagination: Essays in Honor of H. R. Trevor-Roper, ed. by H. Lloyd-Jones, V. Pearl and B. Worden, pp. 15–29. London. Locher 1963 Locher, J. P. Untersuchungen zu ἱερός hauptsächlich bei Homer. Bern. Lochner-Hüttenbach 1960 Lochner-Hüttenbach, F. Die Pelasger. Vienna. Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York. Longo 1996 Longo, O. ‘Le héros, l’armure, le corps.’ DHA 22.2: 25–51. Longo 1998 Longo, O. ‘Porpora e sangue. Da Omero a Shakespeare.’ In O. Longo (ed.). La porpora. Realtà e immaginario di un colore simbolico. Venice. Lonsdale 1990 Lonsdale, S. H. Creatures of Speech: Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 5. Stuttgart. Lonsdale 1993 Lonsdale, S.  H. Dance and Ritual Play in Greek Religion. Baltimore and London. Loptson 1981 Loptson, P. ‘Pelasgikon Argos in the Catalogue of Ships (681).’ Mnemosyne 34: 136–138. Lord (1960) 2000 Lord, A. B. The Singer of Tales2 (ed. by S. Mitchell and G. Nagy). Cambridge, Mass. and London (11960). Lord 1995 Lord, A. B. The Singer Resumes the Tale (ed. by M. L. Lord). Ithaca and London. Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H. L. Homer and the Monuments. London. Lossau 1979 Lossau, M. ‘Achills Rache und aristotelische Ethik.’ A&A 25: 120–129. Lossau 1991 Lossau, M. ‘Ersatztötungen – Bauelemente in der Ilias.’ WS 104: 5–21. Louden 1993 Louden, B. ‘Pivotal Contrafactuals in Homeric Epic.’ ClAnt 12: 181–198. Louden 1995 Louden, B. ‘Categories of Homeric Wordplay.’ TAPhA 125: 27–46. Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore. Lowenstam 1981 Lowenstam, S. The Death of Patroklos: A Study in Typology. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 133. Königstein/Ts. Lowenstam 1993 Lowenstam, S. The Scepter and the Spear: Studies on Forms of Repetition in the Homeric Poems. Lanham. Lowenstam 1997 Lowenstam, S. ‘Talking Vases: The Relationship Between the Homeric Poems and Archaic Representations of Epic Myth.’ TAPhA 127: 21–76. Luce 1975 Luce, J. V. Homer and the Heroic Age. London. Luce 1998 Luce, J. V. Celebrating Homer’s Landscapes: Troy and Ithaca revisited. New Haven and London. Ludwich 1866 Ludwich, A. Quaestionis de hexametris poetarum Graecorum spondiacis capita duo. Halle. Lührs 1992 Lührs, D. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias und zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exeget. Scholien. Hildesheim etc. Luján/Bernabé 2012 Luján, E. R. and A. Bernabé. ‘Ivory and Horn Production in Mycenaean Texts.’ In Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. by M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, pp. 627–638. Aegaeum 33. Leuven and Liège. Luraghi 2003 Luraghi, S. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig. Lynn-George 1988 Lynn-George, M. Epos: Word, Narrative and the Iliad. Basingstoke and London. Lynn-George 1996 Lynn-George, M. ‘Structures of Care in the Iliad.’ CQ 46: 1–26.



Mackie 1996

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 409

Mackie, H. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc. Mackie 2002 Mackie, C. J. ‘Homeric Phthia.’ ColbyQ 38: 163–173. Mackie 2008 Mackie, C. J. Rivers of Fire: Mythic Themes in Homer’s Iliad. Washington, D.C. Mackie 2014 Mackie, C. J. ‘Zeus and Mount Ida in Homer’s Iliad.’ Antichthon 48: 1–13. Mader 1970 Mader, B. Untersuchungen zum Tempusgebrauch bei Homer (Futurum und Desiderativum). Hamburg. Maehler 1996 Maehler, H. ‘Griechische Pferde und ihre Namen.’ In Worte, Bilder, Töne. Studien zur Antike und Antikerezeption. Bernhard Kytzler zu Ehren, ed. by R. Faber and B. Seidensticker, pp. 15–22. Würzburg. Magnelli 2004 Magnelli, E. ‘Monosillabo finale e parola metrica da Omero all’età ellenistica.’ In L’esametro greco e latino. Analisi, problemi e prospettive, ed. by E. Di Lorenzo, pp. 17–32. Naples. Mainoldi 1984 Mainoldi, C. L’image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne d’Homère à Platon. Paris. Manessy-Guitton 1988 Manessy-Guitton, J. ‘Les champs sémantiques de la racine *H2ei-g- en grec.’ In Languages and Cultures: Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé, ed. by M. A. Jazayery and W. Winter, pp. 419–438. Berlin etc. Männlein-Robert 2014 Männlein-Robert, I. ‘Die Waffen Achills oder Homers archaische Modernität.’ WJA 38: 183–208. Mannsperger 1992 Mannsperger, B. ‘Troia und das Skäische Tor bei Homer und Heinrich Schliemann.’ In Troia. Brücke zwischen Orient und Okzident, ed. by I. Gamer-Wallert, pp. 230–263. Tübingen. Mannsperger 1995 Mannsperger, B. ‘Die Funktion des Grabens am Schiffslager der Achäer.’ Studia Troica 5: 343–356. Marcovich 1962 Marcovich, M. ‘On the Iliad, 16.259–265.’ AJPh 83: 288–291. Marg 1938 Marg, W. Der Charakter in der Sprache der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Semo­ nides, Homer, Pindar). Würzburg. Marg (1957) 1991 Marg, W. ‘Homer über die Dichtung. Der Schild des Achilleus.’ In Latacz 1991, 200–226. (Excerpt; originally published as vol.  11 in the series Orbis Antiquus. Münster 21971 [11957].) Marg 1976 Marg, W. ‘Kampf und Tod in der Ilias.’ WJA N. F. 2: 7–19. (Older version in Antike 18 [1942] 167–179.) Marinatos 1967 Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung.’ ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen. Maronitis 2004 Maronitis, D. N. Homeric Megathemes: War – Homilia – Homecoming, transl. by D. Connolly. Lanham. Martin 1983 Martin, R. P. Healing, Sacrifice and Battle: Amechania and Related Con­cepts in Early Greek Poetry. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 41. ­Innsbruck. Martin 1989 Martin, R. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Martínez 1997 Martínez, S. ‘El peix sagrat [katalanisch].’ Faventia 19: 7–16. de Martino 1977 Martino, F. de. ‘Omero fra narrazione e mimesi. Dal poeta ai personaggi.’ Belfagor 32: 1–6. Maslov 2011 Maslov, B.  P. ‘The Metrical Evidence for Pre-Mycenaean Hexameter Epic Reconsidered.’ Indoevropeiskoe iazykoznanie i klassicheskaia filologiia 15: 376–389. (also on-line: http://www.academia.edu/669547/_The_metrical_

410 

 Iliad 16

evidence_for_pre-Mycenaean_hexameter_epic_reconsidered._ [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Massimilla 2010 Massimilla, G. Callimaco, Aitia, libro terzo e quatro. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a cura di G. M. Pisa and Rome. Matthaios 1999 Matthaios, S. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpretation zur Wortartenlehre. Hypomnemata 126. Göttingen. Matthews 1980 Matthews, V. J. ‘Metrical Reasons for Apostrophe in Homer.’ LCM 5: 93–99. Mauritsch 1992 Mauritsch, P. Sexualität im frühen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zu Norm und Abweichung in den homerischen Epen. Vienna etc. Mawet 1979 Mawet, F. Recherches sur les oppositions fonctionnelles dans le vocabulaire homérique de la douleur (autour de πῆμα – ἄλγος). Brussels. Mawet 1981 Mawet, F. ‘La fonction prédicative des dérivés grecs en -μα.’ Sprache 27: 141– 166. McAuslan/Walcot 1998 McAuslan, I. and P. Walcot. Homer. G&R Studies 4. Oxford. McCafferty 2008 McCafferty, C. ‘Bloody Rain Again! Red Rain and Meteors in History and Myth.’ International Journal of Astrobiology 7: 9–15. McNelis/Sens 2011 McNelis, C. and A. Sens. ‘Lycophron, «Alexandra» 261–2 and Homeric ἀγκυλοχήλης.’ CQ 61: 754–755. Meier 1975 Meier, M. -ίδ-. Zur Geschichte eines griechischen Nominalsuffixes. Ergän­zungs­ hefte zur ZVS 23. Göttingen. Meier-Brügger 1986 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Homerisch μευ oder μοι?’ In O-o-pe-ro-si. Fest­schrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by A. Etter, pp. 346–354. Berlin and New York. Meier-Brügger 1989 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Zu griechisch μάτη «Unbesonnenheit» und Sippe.’ Glotta 67: 42–44. Meier-Brügger 1992 Meier-Brügger, M. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft, vol II: Wortschatz, Formenlehre, Lautlehre. Berlin and New York. Meier-Brügger 2012 Meier-Brügger, M. (ed.). Homer, gedeutet durch ein großes Lexikon. Akten des Hamburger Kolloquiums vom 6.–8.10.2010 zum Abschluß des Lexikons des frühgriechischen Epos. Berlin and Boston. Meiggs 1982 Meiggs, R. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford. Meinel 1915 Meinel, R. Κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον. Ein Grundsatz der Homererklärung Aristarchs. Programm des […] Gymnasiums in Ansbach. Ansbach. Meissner 2006 Meissner, T. S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European: A Diachronic Study in Word Formation. Oxford. Meister 1921 Meister, K. Die homerische Kunstsprache. Leipzig. Merz 1953 Merz, F. Die Heldenbiographie als Stilmittel Homers. Muri. 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 2004 Mije, S. R. van der. ‘Zum Vogelzeichen im zweiten Buch der Odyssee.’ Glotta 80 (published 2005): 193–210. van der Mije 2011 Mije, S.  R. van der. ‘πείθειν φρένα(ς), πείθειν θυμόν – A Note on Homeric Psychology.’ Mnemosyne 64: 447–454. Mikalson 1989 Mikalson, J. D. ‘Unanswered Prayers in Greek Tragedy.’ JHS 109: 81–98. Mills 2000 Mills, S. ‘Achilles, Patroclus and Parental Care in Some Homeric Similes.’ G&R 47: 3–18.



Minchin 2001

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 411

Minchin, E. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford. Minchin 2001a Minchin, E. ‘Similes in Homer: Image, Mind’s Eye, and Memory.’ In Watson 2001, 25–52. Minchin 2007 Minchin, E. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford. Minchin 2010 Minchin, E. ‘From Gentle Teasing to Heavy Sarcasm: Instances of Rhetorical Irony in Homer’s Iliad.’ Hermes 138: 387–402. Minton 1960 Minton, W.  W. ‘Homer’s Invocations of the Muses: Traditional Patterns.’ TAPhA 91: 292–309. Minton 1962 Minton, W. W. ‘Invocation and Catalogue in Hesiod and Homer.’ TAPhA 93: 188–212. Mödlinger 2013 Mödlinger, M. ‘From Greek Boar’s-Tusk Helmets to the First European Metal Helmets: New Approaches on Development and Chronology.’ OJA 32: 391– 412. Monro (1882) 1891 Monro, D. B. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect2. Oxford (11882). Monsacré 1984 Monsacré, H. Les larmes d’Achille. Le héros, la femme et la souffrance dans la poésie d’Homère. Paris. Montanari (1976) 1995 Montanari, F. ‘Una glossa omerica pre-alessandrina? (Schol. Il. 16.235 – Eub. fr. 137 PCG).’ In F. Montanari. Studi di filologia omerica antica II, pp. 3–11. Pisa. (First published in RIL 110 [1976] 202–211.) 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. 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. Paris. Moore 1982 Moore, M. B. ‘The Death of Pedasos.’ AJA 86: 578–581. Moreux 1967 Moreux, B. ‘La nuit, l’ombre, et la mort chez Homère.’ Phoenix 21: 237–272. Morris 1989 Morris, S. P. ‘A Tale of Two Cities: The Miniature Frescoes from Thera and the Origins of Greek Poetry.’ AJA 93: 511–535. Morrison 1991 Morrison, J. V. ‘The Function and Context of Homeric Prayers: A Narrative Perspective.’ Hermes 119: 145–157. Morrison 1992 Morrison, J. V. Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Morrison 1994 Morrison, J.  V. ‘Thematic Inversion in the Iliad: The Greeks under Siege.’ GRBS 35: 209–227. Morrison 1999 Morrison, J.  V. ‘Homeric Darkness: Patterns and Manipulation of Deaths Scenes in the «Iliad».’ Hermes 127: 129–144. Most 1993 Most, G. W. ‘Die früheste erhaltene griechische Dichterallegorese.’ RhM 136: 209–212. Most 2003 Most, G.  W. ‘Anger and Pity in Homer’s Iliad.’ In Braund/Most 2003, 50– 75. Motzkus 1964 Motzkus, D. Untersuchungen zum 9. Buch der Ilias unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Phoinixgestalt. Hamburg. Moulton 1977 Moulton, C. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Göttingen. Moulton 1979 Moulton, C. ‘Homeric Metaphor.’ CPh 74: 279–293. Moulton 1981 Moulton, C. ‘The Speech of Glaukos in Il. 17.’ Hermes 109: 1–8. Μπεζαντάκος 1996 Μπεζαντάκος, Ν.Π. Ἡ Ῥητορικὴ τῆς Ὁμηρικῆς μάχης. Athens.

412 

 Iliad 16

Mueller (1970) 1978 Mueller, M. ‘Knowledge and Delusion in the Iliad.’ In Essays on the Iliad: Selected Modern Criticism, ed. by J. Wright, pp. 105–123. Bloomington. (First published in Mosaic 3: 86–103.) Mueller (1984) 2009 Mueller, M. The Iliad2. London (11984). Muellner 1976 Muellner, L.  C. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι Through Its Formulas. ­Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 13. Innsbruck. Muellner 1996 Muellner, L. The Anger of Achilles: Mênis in Greek Epic. Ithaca and London. Mugler 1963 Mugler, C. Les origines de la science grecque chez Homère. L’homme et l’uni­ vers physique. Études et commentaires 46. Paris. Mugler 1969 Mugler, C. ‘L’«alterité» chez Homère.’ REG 82: 1–13. Mugler 1943 Mugler, K. ‘Zur homerischen Sprachtechnik.’ Hermes 78: 22–51. Mühlestein (1969) 1987 Mühlestein, H. ‘Redende Personennamen bei Homer.’ In Mühlestein 1987, 28–55. (First published in SMEA 9 [1969] 67–94.) Mühlestein (1972) 1987 Mühlestein, H. ‘Euphorbos und der Tod des Patroklos.’ In Mühlestein 1987, 78–89. (First published in SMEA 15 [1972] 79–90.) Mühlestein 1987 Mühlestein, H. Homerische Namenstudien. Frankfurt am Main. Mülder 1929 Mülder, D. ‘Götteranrufungen in Ilias und Odyssee.’ RhM 78: 35–53. (Continued in RhM 79 [1930] 7–34.) Müller 1974 Müller, D. Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 51. Meisenheim am Glan. Müller-Wiener 1988 Müller-Wiener, W. Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike. Munich. Munding 1961 Munding, H. ‘Die Bewertung der Rechtsidee in der Ilias.’ Philologus 105: 161– 177. Mureddu 1983 Mureddu, P. Formula e tradizione nella poesia di Esiodo. Rome. Mussies 1996 Mussies, G. Rev. of Giannakis 1997. Mnemosyne 52: 214–218. Mutzbauer 1893 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der home­ ri­sche Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache, vol. 1. Strasbourg. Mutzbauer 1909 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der homerische Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechi­ schen Sprache, vol. 2. Strasbourg. Mylonas et al. 2008 Mylonas, I., F. H. Tzerbos, A. C. Eftychiadis and E. C. Papadopoulou. ‘Cranio-Maxillofacial Injuries in Homer’s Iliad.’ Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 36: 1–7. Nägelsbach 1834 Nägelsbach, C.  F. Anmerkungen zur Ilias (Α. Β 1–483) nebst Excursen über Gegenstände der homerischen Grammatik. Nuremberg. Nagler 1974 Nagler, M. N. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer. Berkeley etc. Nagy (1979) 1999 Nagy, G. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry2. Baltimore and London (11979). Nagy 1990 Nagy, G. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca and London. Nagy 1994 Nagy, G. ‘The Name of Achilles: Questions of Etymology and «Folk-Etymo­ logy».’ ICS 19: 3–9. Nagy 2012 Nagy, G. ‘Signs of Hero Cult in Homeric Poetry.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, 27–71. Nannini 1995 Nannini, S. Nuclei tematici dell’Iliade. ‘Il duello in sogno’. Florence. Nappi 2002 Nappi, M. P. ‘Note sull’uso di Αἴαντε nell’Iliade.’ RCCM 44: 211–235.



Neal 2006

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 413

Neal, T. The Wounded Hero: Non-Fatal Injury in Homer’s Iliad. Sapheneia 11. Bern. Neal 2006a Neal, T. ‘Blood and Hunger in the Iliad.’ CPh 101: 15–33. Nesselrath 1992 Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im grie­ chischen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike. Stuttgart. Nestle 1942 Nestle, W. ‘Odyssee-Interpretationen I.’ Hermes 77: 46–77. Neuberger-Donath 1980 Neuberger-Donath, R. ‘The Obligative Infinitive in Homer and Its Relationship to the Imperative.’ Folia Linguistica 14: 65–82. Neumann 2007 Neumann, G. Glossar des Lykischen. Überarbeitet und zum Druck gebracht von 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 etc. Nickel 2002 Nickel, R. ‘Euphorbus and the Death of Achilles.’ Phoenix 56: 215–233. Niens 1987 Niens, C. Struktur und Dynamik in den Kampfszenen der Ilias. Heidelberg. Nikolaev 2007 Nikolaev, A. ‘The Name of Achilles.’ In Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, ed. by C. George et al., pp. 162–173. PCPhS Suppl. 32. Cambridge. Nikolaev 2013 Nikolaev, A. ‘The Aorist Infinitives in -έειν in Early Greek Hexameter Poetry.’ JHS 133: 81–92. Nilsson 1920 Nilsson, M. P. Primitive Time-Reckoning: A Study in the Origins and First Development of the Art of Counting Time among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples. Lund etc. Nilsson (1940) 1967 Nilsson, M.  P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol.  1: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft3. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 5.2.1. Munich (11940; reprint 1992). Nimis 1987 Nimis, S. A. Narrative Semiotics in the Epic Tradition: The Simile. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Norden 1913 Norden, E. Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. Berlin. van Nortwick 1992 Nortwick, T. van. Somewhere I Have Never Travelled: The Second Self and the Hero’s Journey in Ancient Epic. New York and Oxford. Noussia 2002 Noussia, M. ‘Olympus, the Sky, and the History of the Text of Homer.’ In ­Montanari 2002, 489–503. Nünlist 2002 Nünlist, R. ‘Speech within Speech in Menander.’ In The Language of Greek Comedy, ed. by A. Willi, pp. 219–259. Oxford. Nünlist 2003 Nünlist, R. ‘The Homeric Scholia on Focalization.’ Mnemosyne 56: 61–71. Nünlist 2009 Nünlist, R. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge. Nünlist 2009a Nünlist, R. ‘The Motif of the Exiled Killer.’ In Antike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen, ed. by. U. Dill and C. Walde, pp. 628–644. Berlin and New York. Nussbaum 1986 Nussbaum, A. J. Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin etc. Nussbaum 1998 Nussbaum, A. J. Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Hypomnemata 120. Göttingen. Okarma/Langwald (1997) 2002 Okarma, H. and D. Langwald. Der Wolf. Ökologie, Verhalten, Schutz2. Berlin and Vienna (11997).

414 

 Iliad 16

O’Neill 1942

O’Neill Jr., E. G. ‘The Localization of Metrical Word-Types in the Greek Hexameter. Homer, Hesiod and the Alexandrians.’ YClS 8: 103–178. Onians (1951) 1988 Onians, R. B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate: New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and Kindred Evidence, also of Some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs2. Cambridge (11951). Opelt 1978 Opelt, I. ‘Gefühlswörter bei Homer und in den Argonautika des Apollonios Rhodios.’ Glotta 56: 170–190. van Otterlo 1948 Otterlo, W.  A.  A. van. De ringcompositie als opbouwprincipe in de epische gedichten van Homerus. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akad. van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 51.1. Amsterdam. Otto (1929) 1947 Otto, W. F. Die Götter Griechenlands. Das Bild des Göttlichen im Spiegel des griechischen Geistes3. Frankfurt (Bonn 11929). Owen 1946 Owen, E. T. The Story of the Iliad. London. Packard 1974 Packard, D. W. ‘Sound-Patterns in Homer.’ TAPhA 104: 239–260. Padel 1992 Padel, R. In and Out of the Mind: Greek Images of the Tragic Self. Princeton. 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 1959 Page, D. L. History and the Homeric Iliad. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Pagniello 2007 Pagniello, F. J. ‘The Past-Iterative and the Augment in Homer.’ IF 112: 105–123. Palmer 1963 Palmer, L. R. The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford. Palmer 1979 Palmer, L. R. ‘A Mycenaean «Akhilleid»?’ Serta Philologica Aenipontana III, ed. by R. Muth and G. Pfohl, pp. 255–261. Innsbruck. Paoletti 2004 Paoletti, O. ‘Purificazione. Mondo greco.’ In ThesCRA II, pp.  3–35. Los Angeles. Paraskevaides 1984 Paraskevaides, H. A. The Use of Synonyms in Homeric Formulaic Diction. Amsterdam. Parke 1967 Parke, H. W. The Oracles of Zeus: Dodona, Olympia, Ammon. Oxford. Parker 1983 Parker, R. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford. Parker 1998 Parker, R. ‘Pleasing Thighs: Reciprocity in Greek Religion.’ In Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, ed. by C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford, pp. 105–125. Oxford. Parks 1990 Parks, W. Verbal Dueling in Heroic Narrative: The Homeric and Old English Traditions. Princeton. Parry 1971a Parry, A. ‘Introduction.’ In MHV, IX–LXII. (Part also in HTN, 499–528.) Parry 1972 Parry, A. ‘Language and Characterization in Homer.’ HSCPh 76: 1–22. (Also in A. Parry. The Language of Achilles and Other Papers. Oxford 1989, pp. 310–325.) Parry (1928) 1971 Parry, M. ‘The Traditional Epithet in Homer.’ In MHV, 1–190. (French original: L’Épithète traditionnelle dans Homère. Essai sur un problème de style homérique. Paris.) Parry (1929) 1971 Parry, M. ‘The Distinctive Character of Enjambement in Homeric Verse.’ In MHV, 251–265. (Originally published in TAPhA 60 [1929] 233–247.) Parry (1930) 1971 Parry, M. ‘Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making. I. Homer and Homeric Style.’ In MHV, 266–324. (Originally published in HSCPh 41 [1930] 73–147.) Parry (1937) 1971 Parry, M. ‘About Winged Words.’ In MHV, 414–418. (First published in CPh 32 [1937] 59–63.)



Passa 2001

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 415

Passa, E. ‘L’antichità della grafia ευ per εο, εου nell’epica: a proposito di una recente edizione dell’Iliade.’ RFIC 129: 385–417. Patillon 1999 Patillon, M. ‘Γοῦν et δ’οὖν dans les «Vies» de Diogène Laërce. Note de lecture.’ REG 112: 731–733. Pattoni 1998 Pattoni, M. P. ‘ᾤ μοι ἐγώ, (τί πάθω;). Una formula omerica e i suoi contesti.’ Aevum(ant) 11: 5–49. Patzek 1992 Patzek, B. Homer und Mykene. Mündliche Dichtung und Geschichtsschreibung. Munich. Patzer 1955 Patzer, H. ‘Zum Sprachstil des neoterischen Hexameters.’ MH 12: 77–95. Patzer 1970 Patzer, H. Rev. of B. Zucchelli. ὑποκριτής. Origine e storia del termine. Brescia 1963. Gnomon 42: 641–652. Patzer 1972 Patzer, H. Dichterische Kunst und poetisches Handwerk im homerischen Epos. Wiesbaden. (Excerpts also in Latacz 1991, 33–55.) Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geistes­ wissenschaftliche Reihe 12. Stuttgart. Paul 1969 Paul, A. Die Barmherzigkeit der Götter im griechischen Epos. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 32. Vienna. Pearce 1996 Pearce, T. E. V. ‘The Imperatival Infinitive in Homer, With Special Reference to A 20.’ Mnemosyne 49: 283–297. Pelliccia 1995 Pelliccia, H. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Hypomnemata 107. Göttingen. Pelloso 2012 Pelloso, C. Themis e dike in Omero. Ai primordi del diritto dei Greci. ­Alexandria. Perceau 2002 Perceau, S. La parole vive. Communiquer en catalogue dans l’épopée ho­mé­ rique. Bibliothèque d’études classiques 30. Louvain etc. Perceau 2011 Perceau, S. ‘Voix auctoriale et interaction de l’Iliade à l’Odyssée: de l’engagement éthique à la figure d’autorité.’ In Raymond 2011, 33–56. Perdicoyanni-Paléologou 2001 Perdicoyanni-Paléologou, H. ‘The Anthroponymic System of the Greeks and Trojans in Homer.’ PP 56: 328–350. Peters 1922 Peters, H. Zur Einheit der Ilias. Göttingen. Picard 1955 Picard, C. ‘Ἀσπὶς τερμιόεσσα et χιτὼν ποδήρης.’ RA 46: 68–71. Pisani 1943/44 Pisani, V. ‘Glottica Parerga, 7. Graeca minora.’ RIL 77: 529–570. 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. Platt 1921 Platt, A. ‘On Homeric Technique.’ CR 35: 141–413. Plommer 1977 Plommer, H. ‘«Shadowy Megara».’ JHS 97: 75–83. Pollard 1977 Pollard, J. Birds in Greek Life and Myth. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. London. Porter 1972 Porter, D. H. ‘Violent Juxtaposition in the Similes of the Iliad.’ CJ 68: 11–21. Porter 2010 Porter, D. ‘The Simile at Iliad 16.7–11 Once Again: Multiple Meanings.’ CW 103: 447–454. Porter 2011 Porter, J. I. ‘Making and Unmaking: The Achaean Wall and the Limits of Fictionality in Homeric Criticism.’ TAPhA 141: 1–36. Porzig 1942 Porzig, W. Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im Indoger­manischen. Untersuchungen zur indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissen­schaft 10. Berlin.

416 

 Iliad 16

Postlethwaite 1989 Postlethwaite, N. ‘μέγα φέρτατ’ Ἀχαιῶν: Odyssey 11.478.’ LCM 14: 106–108. Pötscher 1960 Pötscher, W. ‘Moira, Themis und τιμή im homerischen Denken.’ WS 73: 5–39. Pötscher 1966 Pötscher, W. ‘Zeus Naios und Dione in Dodona.’ Mnemosyne 19: 113–147. Pötscher 1994 Pötscher, W. ‘Der Sinn von γλαυκιόων in der Ilias 20.172 und in der Aspis 430.’ Glotta 72: 105–118. Pötscher 1998 Pötscher, W. ‘Γλαύκη, Γλαῦκος und die Bedeutung von γλαυκός.’ RhM 141: 97–111. Powell 1991 Powell, B. B. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge. Pratt 2007 Pratt, L. ‘The Parental Ethos of the Iliad.’ In Constructions of Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy, ed. by A. Cohen and J. B. Rutter, pp. 25–40. Hesperia Supplement 41. Princeton. Priess 1977 Priess, K. A. Der mythologische Stoff in der Ilias. Mainz. Prince 2002 Prince, C. K. ‘A Note on τύνη.’ Gaia 6: 11–23. Pritchett 1991 Pritchett, W. K. The Greek State at War, Part V. Berkeley etc. Psyrouki-Tombrou 1993 Psyrouki-Tombrou, M. ‘Three Homeric Passages.’ Habis 24: 7–9. Pucci (1982) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘The Proem of the Odyssey.’ In Pucci 1998, 11–29. (First published in Arethusa 15 [1982] 39–62.) Pucci (1985) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘Textual Epiphanies in the Iliad.’ In Pucci 1998, 69–80. (Italian origi­ nal: ‘Epifanie testuali nell’Iliade.’ SIFC 78 [1985] 170–183.) Pucci (1993) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘Antiphonal Lament between Achilles and Briseis.’ In Pucci 1998, 97–112. (First published in ColbyQ 29 [1993] 253–272.) Pucci 1998 Pucci, P. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. Lanham etc. Pucci 2002 Pucci, P. ‘Theology and Poetics in the Iliad.’ Arethusa 35: 17–34. Pucci 2012 Pucci, P. ‘Iterative and Syntactical Units: A Religious Gesture in the Iliad.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, 427–443. Pulleyn 2000 Pulleyn, S. J. ‘The Supposed Causal εἰ in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 53: 257–266. Purves 2006 Purves, A. ‘Falling into Time in Homer’s Iliad.’ ClAnt 25: 179–209. Quantin 2008 Quantin, F. ‘Recherches sur l’histoire et l’archéologie du sanctuaire de Dodone. Les oikoi, Zeus Naios et les Naia.’ Kernos 21: 9–48. Raaflaub 1981 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Zum Freiheitsbegriff der Griechen. Materialien und Unter­ suchungen zur Bedeutungsentwicklung von ἐλεύθερος/ἐλευθερία in archaischer und klassischer Zeit.’ In Soziale Typenbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, vol. 4, ed. by E. C. Welskopf, pp. 180–405. Berlin. Raaflaub 1993 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homer to Solon: The Rise of the Polis. The Written Sources.’ In The Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium … (1.–4.7.1992), ed. by M. H. Hansen, pp. 41–105. Copenhagen. Raaflauf 2007/8 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Homeric Warriors and Battles: Trying to Resolve Old Problems.’ CW 101: 469–483 (expanded German version: ‘Homerische Krieger, Protohopliten und die Polis: Schritte zur Lösung alter Probleme.’ In Krieg – Gesellschaft – Institutionen, ed. by B. Meißner, O. Schmitt and M. Sommer, pp. 229–266. Berlin.) Raaflaub 2011 Raaflaub, K. A. ‘Riding on Homer’s Chariot: The Search for a Historical «Epic Society».’ Antichthon 45: 1–34. Rabel 1997 Rabel, R. J. Plot and Point of View in the Iliad. Ann Arbor. Race 1999/2000 Race, W. H. ‘Explanatory δέ-Clauses in the Iliad.’ CJ 95: 205–227.



Radin 1988 Rakoczy 1996

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 417

Radin, A. P. ‘Sunrise, Sunset: ἦμος in Homeric Epic.’ AJPh 109: 293–307. Rakoczy, T. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter. Eine Untersu­ chung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur. Classica Monacensia 13. Tübingen. Rank 1951 Rank, L.  P. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus (Ety­ mologizing and Related Phenomena in Homer). Assen. Rau 2006 Rau, J. ‘The Greek Adverbs in -δην -δον -δα.’ Glotta 82 (published 2007): 211– 220. Raymond 2011 Raymond, E. (ed.). Vox poetae. Manifestations auctoriales dans l’épopée ­gréco-latine (Actes du colloque …). Paris. Ready 2007 Ready, J. L. ‘Toil and Trouble: The Acquisition of Spoils in the Iliad.’ TAPhA 137: 3–43. Ready 2011 Ready, J. L. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge. Ready 2012 Ready, J. ‘Comparative Perspectives on the Composition of the Homeric Simile.’ In Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World, ed. by E.  Minchin, pp.  55–87. Mnemosyne Supplement 335. Leiden and Boston. Reber 2008 Reber, K. ‘Die Architektur – Häuser für Menschen und Götter.’ In Homer. Der Mythos von Troia in Dichtung und Kunst (Ausstellungskatalog Basel / Mannheim), ed. by J. Latacz et al., pp. 48–55. Munich. 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 Supplement 313. Leiden and Boston. Reeve 1998 Reeve, M. D. ‘An Inflexion and a Deflection.’ PCPhS 44: 251–253. Reichel (1894) 1901 Reichel, W. Homerische Waffen. Archäologische Untersuchungen2. Vienna (11894). Reichel 1994 Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. Tübingen. Reinhardt 1961 Reinhardt, K. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, ed. by U. Hölscher. Göttingen. Reinhardt 1920 Reinhardt, L. ‘Herkommen und Höflichkeit in Homers Ilias.’ Sokrates. Zeitschrift für das Gymnasialwesen 8: 268–271. Renehan 1987 Renehan, R. ‘The «Heldentod» in Homer: One Heroic Ideal.’ CPh 82: 99–116. Rengakos 1992 Rengakos, A. ‘Homerische Wörter bei Kallimachos.’ ZPE 94: 21–47. Rengakos 1993 Rengakos, A. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Einzel­ schriften 64. Stuttgart. Rengakos 1994 Rengakos, A. Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererklärung. Zetemata 92. Munich. Rengakos 1994a Rengakos, A ‘Lykophron als Homererklärer.’ ZPE 102: 111–130. 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/Wakker 2009, 83–109.

418 

 Iliad 16

Reynen 1957 Reynen 1958

Reynen, H. ‘Die Partikel οὖν bei Homer.’ Glotta 36 (published 1958): 1–47. Reynen, H. ‘Die Partikel οὖν bei Homer. Fortsetzung.’ Glotta 37: 67–102; ‘Schluß.’ Glotta 37: 182–204. Reynen 1983 Reynen, H. ΕΥΧΕΣΘΑΙ und seine Derivate bei Homer. Bonn. Richardson 1980 Richardson, N. J. ‘Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A Sketch.’ CQ 30: 265–287. Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville. Rijksbaron (1984) 2002 Rijksbaron, A. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction3. Amsterdam (11984). Rijksbaron 1997 Rijksbaron, A. ‘Further Observations on Expressions of Sorrow and Related Expressions in Homer.’ In Atti del Secondo Incontro internazionale di Linguistica greca, ed. by E. Banfi, pp. 215–242. Trento. Rinon 2008 Rinon, Y. Homer and the Dual Model of the Tragic. Ann Arbor. Risch 1987 Risch, E. ‘Die ältesten Zeugnisse für κλέος ἄφθιτον.’ ZVS 100: 3–11. Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2. Darmstadt (11976). Robinson 1990 Robinson, D. ‘Homeric φίλος: Love of Life and Limbs, and Friendship with One’s θυμός.’ In ‘Owls to Athens’. Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, ed. by E. M. Craik, pp. 97–108. Oxford. Rodenwaldt 1921 Rodenwaldt, G. Der Fries des Megarons von Mykenai. Halle. Rohde (1876) 1914 Rohde, E. Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer3. Leipzig (11876). Roisman 1984 Roisman, H. Loyalty in Early Greek Epic and Tragedy. Königstein. de Romilly 1983 Romilly, J. de. Perspectives actuelles sur l’épopée homérique ou comment la recherche peut renouveler la lecture des textes. Paris. de Romilly 1997 Romilly, J. de. Hector. Paris. Rood 2008 Rood, N. ‘Craft Similes and the Construction of Heroes in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 104: 19–43. Roscher 1907 Roscher, W. H. Enneadische Studien. Versuch einer Geschichte der Neunzahl bei den Griechen, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des ält. Epos, der Philo­ sophen und Ärzte. ASG 26.1. Leipzig. Rosén 1962 Rosén, H.  B. Eine Laut- und Formenlehre der herodotischen Sprachform. ­Heidelberg. Rosén (1967) 1984 Rosén, H.  B. Strukturalgrammatische Beiträge zum Verständnis Homers2. Munich (Amsterdam 11967). Ross 2006 Ross, T. Winged Representations of the Soul in Ancient Greek Art from the Late Bronze Age through the Classical Period. Diss. University of Victoria (http:// hdl.handle.net/1828/2143 [retrieved 01.03.2015]). Rothe 1910 Rothe, C. Die Ilias als Dichtung. Paderborn. Rougier-Blanc 2002 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Maisons modestes et maisons de héros chez Homère. Matériaux et techniques.’ Pallas 58: 101–116. Rougier-Blanc 2005 Rougier-Blanc, S. Les maisons homériques. Vocabulaire architectural et sémantique du bâti. Études d’Archéologie Classique 13. Nancy and Paris. Roussel 1994 Roussel, M. ‘Interprétations anciennes du nom d’Achille.’ In Mélanges François Kerlouégan, ed. by D. Conso et al., pp. 555–564. Paris. Rüedi 1969 Rüedi, E. H. Vom Ἑλλανοδίκας zum ἀλλαντοπώλης. Eine Studie zu den verbalen Rektionskomposita auf -ας/-ης. Zurich. Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C. J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 419

Ruijgh (1979) 1991 Ruijgh, C.  J. ‘Faits linguistiques et données externes relatifs aux chars et aux roues.’ In C. J. Ruijgh. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 1, ed. by J. M. Bremer, A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders, pp. 138–151. Amsterdam. (First published in Colloquium Mycenaeum, ed. by E. Risch and H. Mühlestein, pp. 207–220. Neuchâtel and Geneva.) 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 Eichner/Rix 1990, 213–233.) 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 Crielaard 1995, 1–96. Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by A. Rijksbaron and F. M. J. Waanders. Amsterdam. Ruijgh/van Krimpen 1969 Ruijgh, C. J. and N. van Krimpen. ‘L’histoire et la préhistoire de κιχάνω. Problèmes morphologiques et sémantiques.’ Mnemosyne 22: 113–136. Russo 1968 Russo, J. A. ‘Homer against His Tradition.’ Arion 7: 275–295. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 4, 125–141.) Russo 1994 Russo, J. ‘Homer’s Style: Nonformulaic Features of an Oral Aesthetic.’ Oral Tradition 9: 371–389. Rutherford 1982 Rutherford, R.  B. ‘Tragic Form and Feeling in the Iliad.’ JHS 102: 145–160. (Also in Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad, ed. by D. L. Cairns, pp. 260–293. Oxford 2001.) Rutherford (1996) 2013 Rutherford, R. B. Homer2. G&R New Surveys in the Classics 41. Cambridge (1st ed. published as G&R New Surveys in the Classics 26. Oxford 1996.) Sacks 1987 Sacks, R. The Traditional Phrase in Homer: Two Studies in Form, Meaning and Interpretation. Leiden etc. Salazar 2000 Salazar, C.  F. The Treatment of War Wounds in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Studies in Ancient Medicine 21. Leiden etc. Sale 1984 Sale, W. M. ‘Homeric Olympus and Its Formulae.’ AJPh 105: 1–28. Sale 1994 Sale, W.  M. ‘The Government of Troy: Politics in the Iliad.’ GRBS 35: 5– 102. Sampson 2009 Sampson, C.  M. ‘Themis’ in Sophocles. Diss. Michigan (http://hdl.handle. net/2027.42/63633 [retrieved 01.031.2015]). Santiago 1962 Santiago, R. A. ‘Observaciones sobre algunos usos formularios de ἦμαρ en Homero.’ Emerita 30: 139–150. Saraçoğlu 2005 Saraçoğlu, A. ‘Hero Concept in the Light of Homer’s Iliad and the Death of Sarpedon, Lycian Warrior.’ Anadolu (Anatolia) 29: 57–79. (dergiler.ankara. edu.tr/dergiler/14/719/9099.pdf [retrieved 01.03.2015]). Sarischoulis 2008 Sarischoulis, E. Schicksal, Götter und Handlungsfreiheit in den Epen Homers. Palingenesia 92. Stuttgart. 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 (1936) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Die Entscheidung des Achilleus.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 234–267. (First published in Die Antike 12 [1936] 173–201.)

420 

 Iliad 16

Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938; reprint Darmstadt 1987). Schadewaldt (1944) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Die Gestalt des homerischen Sängers.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 54–86. (Original contribution to the 1st ed. of 1944.) Schadewaldt (1944a) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hektors Tod.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 268–351. (Original contribution to the 1st ed. of 1944.) Schadewaldt (1952a) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Die homerische Gleichniswelt und die kretisch-mykenische Kunst. Zur homerischen Naturanschauung.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 130–154. (First published in EPMHNEIA, pp. 9–27. Heidelberg 1952.) Schadewaldt (1952b) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Einblick in die Erfindung der Ilias. Ilias und Mem­ no­nis.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 155–202. (First published in Varia variorum. Fest­ gabe für Karl Reinhardt …, pp. 13–48. Münster etc.) Schadewaldt 1965 Schadewaldt, W. Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur homerischen Frage4. Stuttgart (11944). Schäfer 1990 Schäfer, M. Der Götterstreit in der Ilias. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 15. Stuttgart. Schaller 1972 Schaller, G. B. The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations. Chicago and London. Scheibner 1939 Scheibner, G. Der Aufbau des 20. und 21. Buches der Ilias. Borna. 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. von Scheliha 1943 Scheliha, R. von. Patroklos. Gedanken über Homers Dichtung und Gestalten. Basel. Scherer 1976 Scherer, A. ‘Nichtgriechische Personennamen der Ilias.’ In Studien zum antiken Epos, ed. by H. Görgemanns and E. A. Schmidt, pp. 32–45. Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 72. Meisenheim am Glan. Schlunk 1976 Schlunk, R. R. ‘The Theme of the Suppliant-Exile in the Iliad.’ AJPh 97: 199– 209. Schmid 1964 Schmid, U. Die Priamel der Werte im Griechischen. Von Homer bis Paulus. Wiesbaden. Schmidt 1976 Schmidt, M. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias. Zetemata 62. Munich. Schmidt 2004 Schmidt, M. ‘All about Iliad (Rev. of Homers Ilias, Gesamtkommentar, hrsg. von J. Latacz).’ GGA 256: 1–22. Schmitt 1967 Schmitt, R. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Schmitt 1990 Schmitt, A. Selbständigkeit und Abhängigkeit menschlichen Handelns bei Homer. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Psychologie Homers. AbhMainz 1990.5. Mainz and Stuttgart. Schwyzer (1940) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Syntaktische Archaismen des Attischen.’ In Schwyzer 1983, 443–456. (First published in APAW 1940:7. Berlin 1940.) Schwyzer (1943) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Zum persönlichen Agens beim Passiv, besonders im Grie­ chischen.’ In Schwyzer 1983, 3–79. (First published in APAW 1942:10. Berlin 1943.) Schwyzer 1983 Schwyzer, E. Kleine Schriften, ed. by R. Schmitt. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 45. Innsbruck.



Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 421

Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981 Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations de l’animal chez Homère. Paris. Schoeck 1961 Schoeck, G. Die homerische Assoziationstechnik als Basis der Erfindung. Beobach­tungen an der Ilias. Zurich. Schulze 1892 Schulze, W. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh. Schwartz 2009 Schwartz, A. Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece. Historia Einzelschriften 207. Stuttgart. Scodel 1989 Scodel, R. ‘The Word of Achilles.’ CPh 84: 91–99. Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimilitude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Scodel 2002 Scodel, 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 Meier-Brügger 2012, 319–334. Scodel 2014 Scodel, R. ‘Narrative Focus and Elusive Thought in Homer.’ In Cairns/ Scodel 2014, 55–74. Scott 1912 Scott, J. A. ‘Phoenix in the Iliad.’ AJPh 33: 68–77. Scott 1974 Scott, W. C. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Mnemosyne Supplement 28. Leiden. Scott 2009 Scott, W. C. The Artistry of the Homeric Simile. Hanover, NH and London. Scully 1984 Scully, S. ‘The Language of Achilles: The ὀχθήσας Formulas.’ TAPhA 114: 11–27. Scully 1990 Scully, S. Homer and the Sacred City. Ithaca and London. Seaford 1994 Seaford, R. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing CityState. Oxford. Sears 2010 Sears, M. ‘Warrior Ants: Elite Troops in the Iliad.’ CW 103: 139–155. Seeck 1998 Seeck, G. A. ‘Homerisches Erzählen und das Problem der Gleichzeitigkeit.’ Hermes 126: 131–144. Segal 1971 Segal, C. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad. Mnemosyne Supplement 17. Leiden. Seiler 1950 Seiler, H. Die primären griechischen Steigerungsformen. Leipzig 1950. (Also published as Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft 6.) Seybold/von Ungern (1993) 2009 Seybold, K. and J. von Ungern-Sternberg. ‘Amos und Hesiod. Aspekte eines Vergleichs.’ In Griechische Studien, ed. by J. von Ungern-Sternberg, pp. 45–78. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 266. Berlin and New York. (First published in Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike, ed. by K. Raaflaub, pp. 215–239. Munich.) Shannon 1975 Shannon, R. S. The Arms of Achilles and Homeric Compositional Technique. Mnemosyne Supplement 36. Leiden. Shapiro 1993 Shapiro, H. A. Personifications in Greek Art. The Representation of Abstract Concepts 600–400 B. C. Kilchberg and Zurich. Shapiro et al. 2004 Shapiro, H. A. ‘Dance (with contributions by Z. D. Papadopoulou et al.).’ In ThesCRA II, pp. 299–343. Los Angeles. Shear 2000 Shear, I. M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and Athens. Shear 2004 Shear, I. M. Kingship in the Mycenaean World and Its Reflections in the Oral Tradition. Philadelphia.

422 

 Iliad 16

Sheppard 1922 Sheppard, J. T. The Pattern of the Iliad. London. Shipp (1953) 1972 Shipp, G. P. Studies in the Language of Homer2. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge (11953). Shive 1987 Shive, D. Naming Achilles. New York and Oxford. Shorey 1922 Shorey, P. ‘The Logic of the Homeric Simile.’ CPh 17: 240–259. Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993 Sicking, C. M. J. and J. M. van Ophuijsen. Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage: Lysias and Plato. Mnemosyne Supplement 129. Leiden etc. Sider 1997 Sider, D. The Epigrams of Philodemos. Introduction, Text, and Commentary. New York and Oxford. Sifakis 1998 Sifakis, G. M. ‘Homeric Survivals in the Medieval and Modern Greek Folksong Tradition?’ In McAuslan/Walcot 1998, 171–185. (First Published in G&R 39 [1992] 139–154.) Silk 1974 Silk, M. S. Interaction in Poetic Imagery with Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry. London and Cambridge. 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 1995 Singor, H. W. ‘Eni prôtoisi machesthai. Some Remarks on the Iliadic Image of the Battlefield.’ In Crielaard 1995, 183–200. Sinos 1980 Sinos, D.  S. Achilles, Patroklos and the Meaning of philos. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 29. Innsbruck. Sittl 1890 Sittl, C. Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer. Leipzig. Slatkin (1988) 2011 Slatkin, L. M. ‘Les Amis Mortels.’ In Slatkin 2011, 120–138. (First published in L’Écrit du Temps 19 [1988] 119–132.) Slatkin (1991) 2011 Slatkin, L. M. ‘The Power of Thetis: Allusion and Interpretation in the Iliad.’ In Slatkin 2011, 17–95. (1st ed. Berkeley etc. 1991.) Slatkin 2011 Slatkin, L. M. The Power of Thetis and Selected Essays. Cambridge, Mass. and London. Slotty 1927 Slotty, F. ‘Die Stellung des Griechischen und anderer idg. Sprachen zu dem soziativen und affektischen Gebrauch des Plurals der ersten Person.’ IF 45: 348–363. Snell (1929) 1975 Snell, B. ‘Die naturwissenschaftliche Begriffsbildung im Griechischen.’ In Snell 1975, 205–218. (First published as ‘Zur naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung im Griechischen.’ Philosoph. Anzeiger 3 [1929] 243–260.) Snell (1939) 1975 Snell, B. ‘Die Auffassung des Menschen bei Homer.’ In Snell 1975, 13–29. (First published as ‘Die Sprache Homers als Ausdruck seiner Gedankenwelt.’ NJAB 2 [1939] 393–410; English transl. in de Jong 1999, vol. 2, 241–259.) Snell 1965 Snell, B. Dichtung und Gesellschaft. Studien zum Einfluß der Dichter auf das soziale Denken und Verhalten im alten Griechenland. Hamburg. Snell 1969 Snell, B. Tyrtaios und die Sprache des Epos. Göttingen. Snell 1975 Snell, B. Die Entdeckung des Geistes. Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen4. Göttingen. Snell 1977 Snell, B. ‘φρένες – φρόνησις.’ Glotta 55: 34–64. Snipes 1988 Snipes, K. ‘Literary Interpretation in the Homeric Scholia: The Similes of the Ilias.’ AJPh 109: 196–222. Snodgrass 1993 Snodgrass, A. M. ‘The «Hoplite Reform» Revisited.’ DHA 19: 47–61. Snodgrass 1998 Snodgrass, A. M. Homer and the Artists: Text and Picture in Early Greek Art. Cambridge.



Sommer 1934 Sommer 1977

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 423

Sommer, F. Aḫḫijavāfrage und Sprachwissenschaft. ABAW NF 9. Munich. Sommer, F. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B. Forssman. MSS Beiheft 1. Munich. Somville 1999 Somville, P. ‘Cadavres exquis.’ Kernos 12: 73–83. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period. Oxford. Stallmach 1968 Stallmach, J. Ate. Zur Frage des Selbst- und Weltverständnisses des frühgriechischen Menschen. Meisenheim am Glan. Stanley 1993 Stanley, K. The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad. Princeton etc. Stefanelli 1995 Stefanelli, R. ‘Αἰγύπτοιο διιπετέος ποταμοῖο.’ In Studi Linguistici per i 50 anni del Circolo Linguistico Fiorentino e i secondi mille dibattiti 1970–1995, pp. 229– 258. Florence. Stefanelli 2005 Stefanelli, R. ‘Homerica: οἰόθεν οἶος, αἰνόθεν αἰνῶς, ἄλλοθεν ἄλλος.’ Qua­ derni del Dipartimento di Linguistica (Università di Firenze) 15: 123–137. Stefanelli 2011 Stefanelli, R. ‘Ῥέθεα. Le parole sulle labbra.’ QUCC 98: 155–179. Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989 Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft. Studien zum griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Steinkopf 1937 Steinkopf, G. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Ruhmes bei den Griechen. Halle. Stenger 2004 Stenger, J. Poetische Argumentation. Die Funktion der Gnomik in den Epinikien des Bakchylides. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 69. Berlin and New York. 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. Stubbings 1962 Stubbings, F. H. ‘Arms and Armour.’ In Wace/Stubbings 1962, 504–522. Stummer 1886 Stummer, A. Über den Artikel bei Homer. Programm der Königlichen Studienanstalt zu Münnerstadt. Schweinfurt. (on-line: http://openlibrary.org/ia/ 4737855 [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Sullivan 1979 Sullivan, S. D. ‘A Person’s Relation to φρήν in Homer, Hesiod, and the Greek Lyric Poets.’ Glotta 57: 159–173. Sullivan 1988 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrēn. Ottawa. Sullivan 1995 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological and Ethical Ideas: What Early Greeks Say. Leiden etc. Sullivan 1996 Sullivan, S. D. ‘The Role of Kēr in Homer and the Homeric Hymns.’ Euphrosyne 24: 9–31. Sulzberger 1926 Sulzberger, M. ‘Ὄνομα ἐπώνυμον. Les noms propres chez Homère et dans la mythologie grecque.’ REG 39: 381–447. Tabachovitz 1951 Tabachovitz, D. Homerische εἰ-Sätze. Eine sprachpsychologische Studie. Lund. Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford. Tarenzi 2005 Tarenzi, V. ‘Patroclo θεράπων.’ QUCC 80: 25–38. Tatlock 1914 Tatlock, J. S. P. ‘Some Mediaeval Cases of Blood-Rain.’ CPh 9: 442–447. Thalmann 1984 Thalmann, W. G. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry. Baltimore and London.

424 

 Iliad 16

Thompson 1998

Thompson, R. ‘Instrumentals, Datives, Locatives and Ablatives: The -φι Case Form in Mycenaean and Homer.’ PCPhS 44: 219–250. 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. Tichy 1990 Tichy, E. Rev. of Untermann J. Einführung in die Sprache Homers. Der Tod des Patroklos, Ilias Π 684–867 (Heidelberg 1987). Kratylos 35: 130–133. Tosi 1997 Tosi, R. ‘Callimaco e i Glossografi omerici.’ Eikasmos 8: 223–240. Treston 1923 Treston, H.  J. Poine: A Study in Ancient Greek Blood-Vengeance. London etc. (online: http://www.archive.org/details/poinestudyinanci00tresuoft [retrieved 01.03.2015].) Treu 1955 Treu, M. Von Homer zur Lyrik. Wandlungen des griechischen Weltbildes im Spiegel der Sprache. Zetemata 12. Munich. Trüb 1952 Trüb, H. Kataloge in der griechischen Dichtung. Oberwinterthur. Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchungen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel. Trümpy 1994 Trümpy, C. ‘Athena Boudeia.’ ZPE 100: 407–412. Trypanis 1963 Trypanis, C.  A. ‘Brothers Fighting Together in the Iliad.’ RhM 106: 289– 297. Tsagalis 2004 Tsagalis, C. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 70. Berlin and New York. Tsagalis 2011 Tsagalis, C. ‘Towards an Oral, Intertextual Neoanalysis.’ Trends in Classics 3: 209–244. Tsagarakis 1971 Tsagarakis, O. ‘The Achaean Embassy and the Wrath of Achilles.’ Hermes 99: 257–277. Tsagarakis 1976 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Pylaimenes’ Tod und Auferstehung: ein Widerspruch in der Ilias?’ Hermes 104: 1–12. 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. Tsingarida 2009 Tsingarida, A. ‘The Death of Sarpedon: Workshops and Pictorial Experiments.’ In Hermeneutik der Bilder. Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Interpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei, ed. by S. Schmidt and J. H. Oakley. Beihefte zum Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum IV, pp. 135–142. Munich. Tucker 1990 Tucker, E. F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen. Turfa/Steinmayer 1993 Turfa, J.  M. and A.  G. Steinmayer. ‘In Defence of Patroklos: A Plea to Common Sense.’ Antichthon 27: 1–12. Turkeltaub 2005 Turkeltaub, D. ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Homeric Glowing Eyes: Iliad 1.200.’ AJPh 126: 157–186. Turkeltaub 2007 Turkeltaub, D. ‘Perceiving Iliadic Gods.’ HSCPh 103: 51–81. Tzamali 1996 Tzamali, E. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. MSS Beiheft 16. Dettelbach. Tzavella-Evjen 1983 Tzavella-Evjen, H. ‘Homeric Medicine.’ In The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B. C.: Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium …, ed. by R. Hägg, pp. 185–188. Stockholm.



Ulf 1990

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 425

Ulf, C. Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung. Vestigia. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 43. Munich. Usener (1897) 1913 Usener, H. ‘Der Stoff des griechischen Epos.’ In H. Usener. Kleine Schriften, vol. 4: Arbeiten zur Religionsgeschichte, pp. 199–259. Leipzig and Berlin. (First published in SAWW 137 [1897] 1–63.) van der Valk 1949 Valk, M. van der. Textual Criticism of the Odyssey. Leiden. van der Valk 1964 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 2. Leiden. Velardi 2012 Velardi, R. ‘L’oracolo di Dodona in Omero. Critica omerica antica e tradizioni locali.’ In Tradizioni mitiche locali nell’epica greca. Convegno internazionale di studi in onore di Antonio Martina …, ed. by G. Cerri, A.-T. Cozzoli and M. Giusepetti, pp. 51–81. Rome. Ventris/Chadwick (1956) 1973 Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. Documents in Mycenaean Greek2. Cambridge (11956). Verdenius 1945 Verdenius, W. J. ‘αἰδώς bei Homer.’ Mnemosyne ser. 3 12: 47–60. Vermeule 1979 Vermeule, E. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley etc. de la Villa 2013 Villa, J. de la ‘Πάλαι/τὸ πάλαι, πρίν/τὸ πρίν, παραχρῆμα/τὸ παραχρῆμα.’ Glotta 89: 222–241. Visa-Ondarçuhu 1999 Visa-Ondarçuhu, V. L’image de l’athlète d’Homère à la fin du Ve siècle avant J.-C. Collection d’études anciennes 126. Paris. Visser 1987 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. Visser 2002 Visser, E. Rev. of LfgrE, Lieferungen 16–17, 1997–99. Gnomon 74: 97–101. Visser 2011 Visser, E. Rev. of Friedrich 2007. Gnomon 83: 1–10. Voigt 1934 Voigt, C. Überlegung und Entscheidung. Studien zur Selbstauffassung des Menschen bei Homer. Berlin. Von der Mühll 1932 Von der Mühll, P. ‘Zwei griechische Wörter.’ IF 50: 135–139. (Also in P. Von der Mühll. Ausgewählte kleine Schriften, ed. by B. Wyss, pp. 397–401. Basel 1976.) Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 4. Basel. Waanders 1983 Waanders, F. M. J. The History of τέλος and τελέω in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Wace/Stubbings 1962 Wace, A. J. B. and F. H. Stubbings (eds.). A Companion to Homer. London. Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford. Wackernagel 1916 Wackernagel, J. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Forschungen zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 4. Göttingen. (Reprint 1970.) Wackernagel (1920) 1926 Wackernagel, J. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, Erste Reihe2. Basel (11920). (English transl.: Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic, edited with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford 2009.) Wackernagel (1924) 1928 Wackernagel, J. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, Zweite Reihe2. Basel (11924). (English transl.: see Wackernagel [1920] 1926.) Wackernagel (1943) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Indogermanische Dichtersprache.’ In J. Wackernagel. Kleine Schriften, vol. 1, ed. by the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, pp. 186–

426 

 Iliad 16

204. Göttingen. (First published in Philologus 95 [1943] 1–19; also in Indogerman. Dichtersprache, ed. by R. Schmitt, pp. 83–101. Darmstadt 1968.) Wakker 1994 Wakker, G. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Wakker 1997 Wakker, G. ‘Modal Particles and Different Points of View in Herodotus and Thucydides.’ In Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts, ed. by E. J. Bakker, pp. 215–250. Mnemosyne Supplement 171. Leiden etc. Wakker 2002 Wakker, G. ‘Une première description de ἤδη chez Xénophon.’ Syntaktika 23: 1–14. Walcot 1963 Walcot, P. ‘Hesiod and the Law.’ SO 38: 5–21. Walsh 2005 Walsh, T.  R. Fighting Words and Feuding Words: Anger and the Homeric Poems. Lanham etc. Waltz 1933 Waltz, P. ‘L’exagération numérique dans l’Iliade et dans l’Odyssée.’ REHom 3: 3–38. Warden 1971 Warden, J. ‘ψυχή in Homeric Death-Descriptions.’ Phoenix 25: 95–103. Wathelet 1970 Wathelet, P. Les traits éoliens dans la langue de l’épopée grecque. Incunabula Graeca 37. Rome. Wathelet 1989 Wathelet, P. Les troyens de l’Iliade. Mythe et histoire. Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 252. Paris. Wathelet 1999 Wathelet, P. ‘Les subordonnées introduites par ὄφρα dans l’épopée homé­ rique.’ In Les complétives en Grec ancien. Actes du colloque international (3.–5.9.1998), ed. by B. Jacquinod, pp. 367–382. Saint-Étienne. Watkins (1977) 1994 Watkins, C. ‘A propos de μῆνις.’ In C. Watkins. Selected Writings, vol. 2: Culture and Poetics, ed. by L. Oliver, pp. 565–587. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 80. Innsbruck. (First published in BSL 72 [1977] 187–209.) Watkins 2008 Watkins, C. ‘«Hermit Crabs», or New Wine in Old Bottles: Anatolian and Hellenic Connections from Homer and Before to Antiochus I of Comma­gene and After.’ In Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Proceedings …, ed. by B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova and I. C. Rutherford, pp. 135–141. Oxford. Watson 2001 Watson, J. (ed.). Speaking Volumes: Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World. Mnemosyne Supplement 218. Leiden etc. Webster 1962 Webster, T. B. L. ‘Polity and Society: Historical Commentary.’ In Wace/Stubbings 1962, 452–462. van Wees 1986 Wees, H. van. ‘Leaders of Men? Military Organisation in the Iliad.’ CQ 36: 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 and 131–155. van Wees 1996 Wees, H. van. ‘Heroes, Knights and Nutters: Warrior Mentality in Homer.’ In Battle in Antiquity, ed. by A. B. Lloyd, pp. 1–86. London. van Wees 1997 Wees, H. van. ‘Homeric Warfare.’ In Companion, 668–693. Wegner 1968 Wegner, M. ‘Musik und Tanz.’ ArchHom chap. U. Göttingen. Wendel 1929 Wendel, T. Die Gesprächsanrede im griechischen Epos und Drama der Blütezeit. Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft VI. Stuttgart.



Werner 1948 West 1966 West 1997

Bibliographic Abbreviations 

 427

Werner, R. η und ει vor Vokal bei Homer. Freiburg. West, M. L. ‘Conjectures on 46 Greek Poets.’ Philologus 110: 147–168. West, M. L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford. West 1998 West, M.  L. ‘Praefatio.’ In Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit M. L. W., vol. 1, pp. V–XXXVII. Stuttgart and Leipzig. West 2001 West, M.  L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich and Leipzig. West 2001a West, M. L. ‘Some Homeric Words.’ Glotta 77 (published 2003): 118–135. West 2003 West, M. L. ‘Iliad and Aethiopis.’ CQ 53: 1–14. (Also in M. L. West. Hellenica: Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought. Vol. I: Epic, pp. 242–264. Oxford 2011.) 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. White 2002 White, H. ‘Notes on Greek Lexicography.’ Myrtia 17: 327–330. Whitman 1958 Whitman, C. H. Homer and the Heroic Tradition. Cambridge, Mass. Wickert-Micknat 1982 Wickert-Micknat, G. ‘Die Frau.’ ArchHom chap. R. Göttingen. Wickert-Micknat 1983 Wickert-Micknat, G. Unfreiheit im Zeitalter der homerischen Epen. Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 16. Wiesbaden. Wiesner 1968 Wiesner, J. ‘Fahren und Reiten.’ ArchHom chap. F. Göttingen. Wiessner 1940 Wiessner, K. Bauformen der Ilias. Preisschriften, gekrönt und hrsg. von der fürstlich Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft 55. Leipzig. Wilamowitz 1916 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin. Wilamowitz 1928 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Hesiodos Erga. Berlin. Wilamowitz 1931 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Der Glaube der Hellenen. Berlin. Wilford 1965 Wilford, F. A. ‘Δαίμων in Homer.’ Numen 12: 217–232. Willcock 1977 Willcock, M. M. ‘Ad Hoc Invention in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 81: 41–53. Willcock 1990 Willcock, M.  M. ‘The Search for the Poet Homer.’ G&R 37: 1–13. (Also in McAuslan/Walcot 1998, 53–64.) Willcock 1997 Willcock, M. M. ‘Neoanalysis.’ In Companion, 174–189. Wille 2001 Wille, G. Akroasis. Der akustische Sinnesbereich in der griechischen Literatur bis zum Ende der klassischen Zeit. Tübinger phänomenologische Bibliothek. Tübingen. (2 vols.; originally Tübingen Habilitationsschrift 1958.) Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers Ilias. Marburg/Lahn. (Originally diss. Marburg 1944.) Williams 1993 Williams, B. Shame and Necessity. Berkeley etc. Willinghöfer 1996 Willinghöfer, H. Thanatos. Die Darstellung des Todes in der griechischen Kunst der archaischen und klassischen Zeit. Marburg. Willmott 2007 Willmott, J. The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge. Willmott 2008 Willmott, J. ‘The «Potential» Optative in Homeric Greek.’ PCPhS 54: 237– 251. Wilson 1974 Wilson, J. R. ‘The Wedding Gifts of Peleus.’ Phoenix 28: 385–389. Wilson 1991 Wilson, J. R. ‘Negative πρίν Clauses and the Rhetoric of Achilles.’ Glotta 69: 175–183.

428 

 Iliad 16

Wilson 2000

Wilson, J. Sense and Nonsense in Homer: A Consideration of the Inconsistencies and Incoherencies in the Texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey. BAR International Series 839. Oxford. Wilson 2002 Wilson, D. F. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge. Wilson 2006 Wilson, N. G. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. New York and London. van Windekens 1961 van Windekens, A. J. ‘Réflexions sur la nature et l’origine du dieu Hermès.’ RhM 104: 281–301. Winterbottom 1989 Winterbottom, M. ‘Speaking of the Gods.’ G&R 36: 33–41. Wöhrle 1999 Wöhrle, G. Telemachs Reise. Väter und Söhne in Ilias und Odyssee oder ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Männlichkeitsideologie in der homerischen Welt. Hypomnemata 124. Göttingen. Wülfing-von Martitz 1960 Wülfing-von Martitz, P. ‘Ἱερός bei Homer und in der älteren griechi­ schen Literatur.’ Glotta 38: 272–307. Yakubovich 2012 Yakubovich, I. Rev. of I.J. Adiego. The Carian Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Leiden and Boston 2007. JNES 71: 131–133. Yamagata 1989 Yamagata, N. ‘The Apostrophe in Homer as Part of the Oral Technique.’ BICS 36: 91–103. Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Supplement 131. Leiden. Yamagata 1997 Yamagata, N. ‘ἄναξ and βασιλεύς in Homer.’ CQ 47: 1–14. Yamagata 2012 Yamagata, N. ‘Epithets with Echoes: A Study on Formula–Narrative Interaction.’ In Montanari et al. 2012, 445–468. Yates 2014 Yates, A. D. ‘Homeric βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: A Serial Verb Construction in Greek?’ Lecture at the APA Annual Meeting 2014, Handout: https://www.academia.edu/ 5331425/ (retrieved 01.03.2015). Zgusta 1964 Zgusta, L. Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prague. Zilliacus 1953 Zilliacus, H. Selbstgefühl und Servilität. Studien zum unregelmässigen Nume­ rus­gebrauch im Griechischen. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 18.3. Helsinki. Zink 1962 Zink, N. Griechische Ausdrucksweisen für warm und kalt im seelischen Bereich. Heidelberg.