Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description

Citation preview

HERMES

TYPICAL BATTLE SCENES IN THE ILIAD

ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR KLASSISCHE PHILOLOGIE STUDIES IN TH E NARRATIVE TECHNIQUES OF HOMERIC BATTLE DESCRIPTION VON

EINZELSCHRIFTEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

BERN A R D F E N IK

K A RL BÜCHNER - HERM ANN G U NDERT H E R B E R T N ESSELH A U F

H E F T 21

TYPICAL BATTLE SCENES IN THE ILIAD S T U D IE S I N T H E N A R R A T IV E T E C H N IQ U E S O F H O M E R IC B A T T L E D E S C R IP T IO N VON B E R N A R D F E N IK

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH · WIESBADEN

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG GMBH · WIESBADEN

1968

1968

CONTENTS

Page Introduction .................................................................................................... B o o k E ............................................................................................................ Book Λ ........................................................................................................... Book N ........................................................................................................... Book P ........................................................................................................... Book Π ........................................................................................................... Book © ............................................................................................................ Conclusion ...................................................................................................... In d e x ................................................................................................................

Alle R e d ite Vorbehalten Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages is t cs n ic h t ge­ s ta tte t, das W erk oder einzelne Teile d araus nachzudrucken oder auf photomechanischem W ege (Photokopie, M ikrokopie usw.) zu ver­ vielfältigen. G edruckt m it U n terstützung der Princeton University, Princeton N. J . © 19G8 by F ranz Steiner Verlag GmbH , W iesbaden. Gcsamtherstcllung: L im burger V crcinsdruckcrei GmbH , L im burg/L. P rinted in G ermany

I 9 78 US 159 190 219 229 240

TO INGEBORG

PREFACE All citations from the Homeric poems are made from the text of T. W. Allen's Oxford Edition. This study touches directly upon and has direct implications for certain important problems connected with the Homeric epics, but be­ cause of the nature and volume of the material to be handled it seemed best to concentrate almost exclusively on the analysis of the battle scenes themselves and to leave the implications of this analysis, should it prove to be valid, to be worked out separately. If the battle scenes are indeed typical, or formulaic, as I have tried to show, this fact will make itself strongly felt in the way it creates new criteria and modifies old ones that are applied to the problems of authorship, circumstances of composition and poetic tradition of the Homeric epics. These matters are all touched upon, briefly and tentatively, in various parts of the present study, but I have made no attem pt to deal with them systematically or in depth. To do so would have expanded the volume beyond all due measure and would also be premature. The results of this first, restricted investigation must first be tested and criticized before they can be applied profitably to the formidable traditional problems of Homeric scholarship. I wish to acknowledge here my gratitude to the American Council of Learned Societies, which subsidized part of the research and writing of this study with a most generous grant, and to Princeton University, whose Research Commit­ tee financed both the typing and a good share of the printing costs. I also wish to thank Professor David Furley and especially Professor T. James Luce Jr., who sacrificed much of their time to read the manuscript and who helped me greatly with advice and criticism. My warmest thanks are due as well to Professor Samuel D. Atkins, who aided me throughout in ways too numerous to mention. Finally, a special note of gratitude is due to Professor Dr. Hermann Gundert, who made possible the incorporation of this study into the Hermes Einzel­ schritt series. I-Iis unflagging interest and keen eye saw the text quickly through the various stages of proof, and lie made the necessary transatlantic collabora­ tion more simple and effortless than one would think possible.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS This book is a study of the repeated, recurrent details in the Iliad’s battle scenes. It consists of a line-by-line analysis of the battle description in six books of the Iliad, whereby each incident, each detail of action or description is compared with similar or identical details elsewhere in the poem. The result demonstrates th at almost all the Iliad's battle narrative consists of an exten­ sive, but limited, store of ''typical” or repeated details and action-sequences which undergo numerous and repeated combinations. The poet put together his battle description in much the same way as he constructed his verses and sentences, namely out of smaller, relatively unchanging "building blocks” — phrase and s e n te n c e fo r m u la e at o n e le v e l, typical descriptive details and actionsequences at another. Verse building and action narrative thus represent two aspects of basically the same compositional technique.

INTRODUCTION The researches of Milinan Parry and Walter Arend supplement each other in an important way. Arend, although he wrote without any acquaintance with Parry’s work, succeeded in demonstrating that certain narrative and descriptive sections in the Homeric poems, sections which he called “typical scenes,’’ recur again and again, and arc narrated each time in identical or close to identical language1. Although Arend's explanation of this pheno­ menon is not one that will hold wide-spread acceptance today, his basic fin­ dings are unassailable. It was Milman Parry who proved that the diction of the Homeric poems is “formulaic,’’ and created for use in oral recitation2. Parry's brilliant and revolutionary work has left us with the present controversy over tire extent to which free oral composition played a role in the creation of the two epic poems. In any case, the techniques of verse building and scene composition would seem to be similar in two important respects: ( 1) in both a larger structure is built out of smaller, relatively unchanging basic units: the formulae in the verse, the lines or blocks of lines in the scenes: (2 ) these smaller basic units are not restricted to a single appearance but are repeated frequent­ ly. Verse making and scene making would therefore seem to be two related aspects of a single and pervasive principle of composition: namely, the repe­ tition of standard units — individual phrase formulae at one level, typical situations related in essentially the same basic language at another. Aside from the suggested analogy between the techniques of verse and scene making, the mutual influence of diction and narrative style upon one another in the Iliad was pointed out by Parry himself. In his review of Arend’s book he writes: “The fixed action-patterns and the fixed formulas, of course, depend on one another: an action which each time took a new form would call for new words, and in the same way the formulas are useful only inasmuch as the singer uses the schemes of composition in which they are meant to serve3.” 1 Die typischen Szenen bei Homer (Berlin, 1033). 3 L'Épithète Traditionelle dans Homère (Paris, 1928) ; Les Formules et la Métrique d’Ho­ mère (Paris, 1928); "T he H omeric Gloss," TAPA 59 (1928), 233-4-7; "H om er and H o­ meric stylo,” HSCPk 41 (1930), 73-147; "T he H omeric L anguage as the language of oral P oetry,” HSCPk 43 (1932), 1-50; "T he T raditional M etaphor in H om er,” CPh 28 (1933), 30-43; "W hole Form ulaic Verses in G reek and Southsiavic H eroic Song,” TAPA 64 (1933), 179-97. 3 CPh 31 (1936), 357-60. I

Hcnncs-Eiuzclschrifwn, Hdt 2)

Introduction

The work of these two men, however, differs in one important respect, which in turn strictly limits any conclusions that can be drawn on the basis of their similarity. Parry showed that the language of the Iliad and Odyssey is for­ mulaic from beginning to end, but the great bulk of the poem remained unaffec­ ted by Arend's investigation. The typical scenes that he described such as armings, banquets, arrivals and departures make up only a small part of the epics and cannot therefore support any conclusions about them as wholes. The subject of larger recurrent units in epic poetry has been treated by A. Lord in his book, T h e S in g e r o f T a lc s (Cambridge, 1960). Lord showed in admirable fashion the important role played by the "them e'’ in modern oral poetry; how certain favorite situations like armings and assemblies are frequently repeated both from poem to poem and within the same poem. These themes act as fundamental action units around which the rest of the incidents group themselves. Lord's analysis of the use of themes in Yugoslav oral poetry, like so much else in his book, is extremely valuable and illuminating both for its own sake and for the light it casts on many of the problems connected with the Homeric poems. But because Lord's themes, like Arend’s typical scenes, make up only a small part of the poems, they again provide us with only a partial, though important, confirmation of the suggested analogy between verse making and scene making. G. Kirk adopted Lord’s terminology in a brief but interesting section of his book, T h e S o n g s o f H o m e r, where he points out many of the recurrent battle motifs, which he calls "themes,” to be found at the beginning of the Patrocleia4. Kirk does not, however, cite the parallel occur­ rences in the Iliad of the "themes” which he picks out, and his list is incomplete and undifferentiated. Nonetheless, it is an important initial contribution to the whole question. With the help of Parry and Arend, therefore, along with Lord and Kirk, it is possible to say that the use of themes and type scenes sug g ests an analogy between the techniques of line and scene composition: namely, that both are based on the combination and repetition of basic recurrent elements. Just how thorough-going is this similarity ? The question can best be answered by exten­ ding Arend's and Lord’s approach to the mass of incidents which do not fall into the categories of type scenes and themes and which do not therefore bear any immediate or obvious similarity to dictional formulae in structure or in use. The battle scenes in the Iliad are probably the most useful vehicle for comparison and cross-reference; they describe a single kind of action, appear with great frequency, and are often extensive and detailed. We are able, as so often, to make comparisons only within the poem itself, in the absence of other works from the same time and tradition. Anyone who has read a single book of Homeric battle narrative is aware th at certain incidents tend to repeat themselves. At the simplest level there 1 pp. 77-80.

Introduction

are the formulaic lines, such as "he fell to the ground with a thud and his armor rattled around him,” which merely show th at the fighting is described in the same formular diction as the rest of the poem. But larger action segments also recur. A spearman misses his mark and kills the enemy’s charioteer instead. A man is struck in the back as he is running away. A single warrior on foot slays two in a chariot. A fighter avenges himself on the slayer of his friend. On the face of it, this sort of thing need not be particularly significant either, since, except for the totally unique incidents, the poet's range of choice in describing woundings and slayings is not unlimited. A certain amount of repetition would seem tobe inevitable. But just as the use of formulae goes far beyond the repetition of a few convenient phrases, so the repetition in the battle scenes is so pervasive that mere accident and coincidence seem hardly sufficient to explain it. In addition to the familiar smaller details, there are many longer repeated sequences. For example: (1) a Trojan sees an enemy wreaking havoc among his men; (2) he goes to a friend and suggests they make a joint attack; (3) the second Trojan agrees and they charge; (4) the Greek, either alone or with a friend, sees them coming, expresses fear, but holds his ground just the same; (5) he may call for help; (6 ) the Trojans are beaten off. This pattern occurs four times in the Iliad’s fighting. A similar one, in which the second item is replaced by a rebuke of one Trojan by another, occurs with much greater frequency — six times in books Π — P alone. Multiple appearances of lengthy sequences like this suggest that the poet had certain favorite combat situations which he described in a standard way. The question to be answered, therefore, is how much of the battle narrative is composed of stock situations and re­ peated smaller details. The observation that certain things repeat themselves in the battle scenes is certainly not new. Aside from the innumerable comparisons made by the commentators and analysts, the stylized, repetitive nature of the Homeric battle narrative has long been known and studied. E. Drerup (D a s fü n f t e B u c h der I lia s , Paderborn, 1913) observed many of the repetitions of phrase and situation in Book E, although he was most interested in demonstrating the existence of a consciously planned structure there. C. Hentze described the standard structure of the "Chorreden” and monologues in two outstanding articles in P hilologus (63, 12—30; 64, 254—68). Probably the most valuable of all the studies of the Iliad’s battle scenes is H. Jordan’s D er E rzä h lu n g ss lil i n d e n K a m p fs s c e n e n der I l i a s (Diss. Zürich, 1904). This short work is filled with pointed arid accurate observations on the narrative techniques th a t are used to describe armed combat. The author devoted considerable attention to the repetition both of detail and of stylistic features in general. In another impor­ tant study of B o o k E (K o m p o s itio n u n d p o e tis c h e T e c h n ik der Διομήδους’Αριστεία, Gotha, 1911), F. Lillge showed more thoroughly and more clearly than anyone

Introduction

else the extent to which the action is described in terms of typical details and recurrent scene patterns. Lillge’s book is a startling anticipation of more recent studies on this subject, including the present work. Smaller contributions were made by W. Marg (“Kampf und Tod in der Ilias”, D ie A n tik e 18, 167—79) and P. Miniconi (É tu d e des T h è m es 'G u erriers' d e la P o ésie É p iq u e GrécoR o m a in e , Paris, 1951). The latter concerns himself chiefly with things like the advance to battle, the clatter of arms, harangues, the aristeia, but he goes into little detail. Another important contribution to our understanding of the battle descriptions is F. von Trojan’s H a n d lu n g s ty p e n i m E p o s . D ie h om erische I lia s (München, 1928), as is F. Winter's dissertation D ie K a m p fs z e n e n i n den G esängen M N O der I lia s (Frankfurt, 1956). Among older studies, F. Albracht's two works are still worth reading : K a m p f u n d K a m p fs c h ild e r u n g bei H o m e r, I : Progr. Schulpforta, 1886; II: Progr. Domgymn. Naumburg, 1895. Certain specific kinds of scenes have been treated in a rather large number of studies, of which H. Stockinger’s D ie V o rze ich e n im h o m erisch e n E p o s (St. Attilien, 1959) is an outstanding example. G. Strasburger’s splendid dissertation, D ie k le in e n K ä m p fe r d e r I lia s (Frankfurt, 1954) is particularly meritorious. The present work owes much to it. In none of these studies, however, or in any others of which I am aware (for a bibliography on the subject, see FI. J. Mette’s 'F orschungsbericht in L u s tr u m 1956, pp. 42—47), has an attem pt been made to describe and list a ll of the repeated elements in the battle scenes, or to study in detail whether some pattern or system underlies their multiple appearances. I t seems worth­ while, therefore, to investigate just how much repetition there is, both of single items such as the way spear thrusts are exchanged, and the combinat ions of single items into larger units that have a fixed and repeated sequence. This book is therefore an attem pt to write a kind of "Poetics” for the Iliad’s battle scenes. Specifically, it attempts to answer the following question: if the dic­ tion of the Iliad is formulaic — i. e. made up of repeated, relatively unchanging basic units — are larger elements of the action in the poem composed according to a related principle ? Just as, say, a single line may be constructed out of two or even more single formulae, are entire scenes and narrative sections put together out of individual action segments which the poet treated as discrete units and repeated elsewhere ? Are the specific combinations of these elements ever repeated and, if so, according to what principles? The task is to isolate and identify the individual narrative elements, both singly and in their differ­ ent combinations, and to investigate how often and under what circumstancees they are repeated. It will be clear from the above that I am not going to investigate type scenes of the kind that Arend did : those easily definable narrative blocks such as the arming scenes, departures, arrivals, and chariot journeys. These scenes have, of course, an important place in the total picture of Homeric narrative technique.

Introduction

I t is significant th at Flomer should repeat certain actions, and do so in essen­ tially the same language. The basic validity of Arend’s observations will be assumed and shown to fit into a much larger picture of typical composition in the Iliad. I shall not attem pt, either, to demonstrate simply the existence of certain “themes" or motifs such as a hero's anger, the wrath of a god, or quarrels between warriors. These, too, are a part of typical composition, but they are often hard to define precisely, and they appear so infrequently that it is difficult to ascertain their exact importance in epic composition as a whole. I have chosen to work with the battle scenes because their bulk and detailed narration best furnish the kind of statistical material which is necess­ ary for the proposed analysis. We will try to find out how many of a ll the details in these scenes are typical : manner of fighting, way of introducing the fighters, changes of scene, combat patterns, attack, retreat, use of similes — in short, everything that Homer uses to describe the fighting. When I call something "typical” I mean that it is repeated at least twice in the Iliad. For example, it is typical for a fighter to throw his spear at an enemy, miss, and kill the man’s charioteer instead. This incident occurs with great frequency and is clearly one of the poet’s favorites. It is the kind of event that can be inserted into almost any battle scene; only the names of the combatants vary. It will be necessary to explain this aspect of my method with some care, since it is likely to seem improper if misunderstood or even seem to involve special pleading. As stated just above, I intend to examine almost all the details in the battle scenes, even those which are so small and frequently occurring that at first sight they do not seem to be significant at all. In any description of fighting as lengthy as that in the Iliad, repetition of certain items is obviously inevitable. The main weapons employed, for example, are spears, swords, bows and stones, and it is only to be expected that they be used time and again. It is not surprising that many persons are killed by spears driven through their chests or backs. The frequent use of such details does not prove by itself th at the Iliad's narrative is typical any more than the repetition of certain common words and phrases proves that its diction is formulaic. The real proof that all these repetitions are the result of a genuinely formulaic style lies in two things: ( 1) the first is the repetition of groups of details in more or less fixed sequences. It is the particular repeated ordering of words and or descriptive details th at reveals the existence of a system. A small detail, therefore, whose frequent appearances are not in the least surprising, becomes significant when it is found to be part of a larger cluster of items, or if it is always or usually found at a certain specific, definable juncture in the action. (2) The second proof is the accumulative weight of the evidence, and for this the reader will have to wait until he has read a fair amount of the analysis. The existence of just a few repeated patterns does not prove that the Iliad's battle scenes arc all “typical”, and even if it can be successfully demonstrated

Introduction

that almost everything in a single book is repeated m a te r ia l, i t c a n n o t be immediately assumed that the same is true of another. Consistently repeated patterns and type scenes in a representative number of books must first be demonstrated. In addition, the frequently appearing smaller details, even though they follow no observable system, will add considerable weight of their own. We are not surprised, and cannot make any far-reaching conclusions about the style of the Iliad, if many fighters die from a sword-thrust in the chest. But at the same time the repeated use of such stock incidents takes on additional importance when it is seen to exist side by side with continuous and large scale repetition of genuine patterns and type scenes of a kind that are not simply inevitable and only to be expected. We have to do here, I think, with a style whose chief characteristic is repetition of all kinds. One aim of this study is to establish the extent to which a certain store of repeatable action units appears in the battle description. If some such store can be shown to exist, and to be employed consistently and systematically, then it is easy to see that the more random repetition of smaller details is probably not unconnected with it. They represent a related, though less firmly systematized, aspect of the same style. Further, the variety of these smaller details in the fighting is not nearly as great as one might imagine. There is, for example, nothing unusual in the fact that at Λ 108 f. Agamemnon kills Isos with his spear and then Isos' brother, Antiphos, with his sword. B ut tins sequence of spear followed by sword in two quick slayings appears with great frequency — it is a “typical” incident. It is, of course, also "natural" and unremarkable, but the poet never describes the slaying of two enemies in quick succession with a spear. Such a thing would be neither impossible nor unlikely — it would be just as natural as the spear — sword sequence — but the poet never does it. The only variation that he allows himself is that sometimes a stone precedes the sword instead of a spear. There is, moreover, no single example of a fight where both men attack each other with their swords or engage in a long sword fight. The closest thing to it is the notice at H 273 that Aias and Flector w o u ld have attacked each other with their swords had they not been separated. Rocks arc frequently used as wea­ pons, but there is never more than a single exchange with them. A frequently occurring combat pattern is this: 1. A throws at B and misses. 2. B strikes A’s shield or body armor, but fails to pierce it. 3. A slays B. It is surely no accident that items (1) and (2) are never reversed: 1. A throws at B, strikes his shield or body armor, bùt fails to pierce it. 2. B throws at A and misses. 3. A succeeds the second time in slaying B, either with spear or sword.

Introduction

There is nothing impossible about such a sequence; it would not call forth any comment if it appeared. But it does not. Consider the following pattern : 1. A strikes B, but fails to pierce his armor. 2. A tries to withdraw to safety. 3. He is wounded or slain by a third party, C. A is always a Trojan, never a Greek. The latter do on occasion fail to pierce a Trojan's armor, but items 2 and 3 never then follow. Similarly, a Trojan never misses on his first spear cast and then succeeds with his second after his opponent has also been unsuccessful. In this particular sequence it is always the Greek who first misses and is then successful on his second try. These minor combat patterns, then, unremarkable as they seem, reveal something important about the poet's technique. Fie p re fe r s t o repeat certain standard favorites rather than invent an almost endless series of variations. Many more examples could be cited. Of those slayings which contain unique details, why are almost all of them grisly and hideous? Wounds in the groin cannot have been uncommon in real battle, and there is more than one of them in the Iliad. But why does Homer assign almost all of them to one man ? Cruel, ugly, painful slayings must occur in all large scale fighting, but why are they given almost exclusively to one certain class of warriors in the Iliad ? The single details, in other words, are natural enough and only to be expected to recur many times in a long fight, but any observable ordering and distribution of them must be deliberate. It is also one thing that in a real fight the same sort of slayings would occur again and again, and quite another that a poet de­ scribing the battle would allow himself the same kind of repetition. Other poets, at other times, would seek rather for variation, and although they might describe the fighting quite realistically, they would nevertheless avoid the kind of repetition of incident that is in fact characteristic of a real battle. The reason why certain things keep appearing again and again, therefore, must lie at least to some extent with the poet and not only with the nature of his sub­ ject. Of course, even the most ingenious of writers would be hard put to compose as much battle description as the Iliad contains without repeating himself sometime, but the amount even of random repetition of small details there can hardly be attributed solely either to the length of the poem or to the nature of the material. My method of analysis will be a line by line, section by section examination of certain books, in which I will compare everything that happens with similar or identical incidents and details elsewhere in the poem. I have chosen to treat the material by books rather than by subjects in the interests of simplic­ ity and thoroughness. I have picked those books for analysis that I consider to be either especially representative, important, or difficult. Of the books not treated, Δ,Ζ, Η, M, and O show no important variations from the others, while Y, though for the most part fully typical, does have some oddities; Φ, of

Introduction

course, is full of them. I will have something to say about the very "untypical" fighting in the final chapter. It has become fashionable in certain quarters to emphasize the atypical or unique features in the Iliad on the ground that this is, after all, where Ho­ mer’s particular excellence lies. A study of Homer’s poetic technique must have as its goal the discovery of his variations on formular material and the special effects that he achieves with them. Some eminently worth-while work has already been done along this line. An especially fine example is J. Armstrong’s study of the arming scenes, in which he showed the effect th a t is achieved by a slight change in a typical arming sequence6. But it is one thing to do this for a relatively small, homogeneous group of scenes, and quite another to attempt it amid the welter of smaller incidents in the rest of the fighting. It should be clear to anybody who is the least bit familiar with the problem that we still have only a very fragmentary idea of what is typical in the Iliad and what is not. We cannot pick out the unique element in a passage, the significant vari­ ation, unless we have some means of identifying it, and we can do this only if we have first established, at least so far as is possible, what is typical. The primary task, therefore, is to discover and describe the repeated, formulaic details in the battle scenes and to analyze the technique according to which they are used. I will devote my attention almost exclusively to the typical, but this is not to be construed as reflecting a particular theory of criticism. I will ignore for the most part the question of variations of the typical and the special effects that may be achieved with them, not because I consider the subject to be unimportant, or less important than the one I am treating, but simply because space does not permit me to do both. I iiope that the material which I have assembled will allow us to pursue this other question with greater thoroughness and precision than has heretofore been possible. 5 "T he A rm ing Motif in the Iliad,” A JPh 79 (1958), pp. 337-54.

BOOK E I shall begin my analysis at the beginning of Book E ; although the battle has been underway for some one hundred and twenty lines, the action enters a new phase with the appearance of Diomedes. 1—9 4 . 'Elie basic events in the section are the following : Diomedes, described by a simile, kills an opponent. Following a short scene between Athena and Ares, each of six other Greek heroes also quickly slays a Trojan. Diomedes then reappears. He is described by another simile and wreaks havoc among the enemy (no specific combats are related) until he is shot and wounded by Pandaros. The section as a whole has three main parts: (1) the initial slaying by Dio­ medes, (2) the slayings by the other six Greeks, (3) the reappearance and woun­ ding of Diomedes. Something very similar is found at Π 257. The Myrmidons, under Patrocios, rush into battle to the accompaniment of an elaborate simile. Patroclos slays a Trojan, an encounter that is described in some detail (284— 93). Just as here in E (27—29) the Trojans panic and flee when they see their man killed (290—96). This corresponds to the first part of the E passage. The slaughter then begins in earnest. Patroclos quickly disposes of another man, and then eight other Achaians slay opponents, just as at E 37—83. Patroclos then Teenters the scene after a brief delay (372) and drives the Trojans in disorder; but then he attracts the attention of Sarpedon, and the battle enters a new phase (419). This matches the third section of E, 85—94. If the E and Π passages look rather alike in outline, they show considerable differences in detail. (1) The parainesis of Patroclos (Π 268) has no counterpart in the E section. (2) The interlude at E 29—36 has no parallel in ΓΙ. (3) The simile at E 5—7 describes Diomedes alone, while the simile in the corresponding part of Π pictures the Myrmidons as a group. (4) In the scries of slayings that follows Patroclos' first victory (Π 306) Patroclos himself again kills the first man (307). (5) The individual combats in the two sections are for the most part, though not entirely, different. (6 ) At Π 352 we do not return immediately to Patroclos; he re-appears only at 372 after an intervening section of further general description. Thus both E (29—36) and Π (352—71) contain material which the other lacks. In their general outlines, then, the two passages are quite similar. In detail they are different, although some of the differences are scarcely important : e.g.,

Book E

whether a simile describes a single warrior or the group he is leading, or wheth­ er the leader slays one or two opponents before he temporarily drops out of the picture. This outline, or skeletal framework, of each section is what I will call a p a tte m , whenever it can be shown to appear at least twice in the poem. What now remains to be seen is whether the single incidents and individual details within the pattern are also typical1. A scries of androktasiai, however, by Greeks or Trojans, one after the other, is a typical occurrence by itself, and is not necessarily connected with the appearance or re-appearance of a major hero in the midst of his aristeia. Among the many different kinds of fights in the Iliad there are two which contrast especially strongly with each other. One is the ‘‘chain-reaction" fight, in which Greeks and Trojans slay each other alternately, each man avenging himself, or trying to, on the slayer of the previous victim. Cf. Δ 473—S07, N 361—539, Ξ 442—507, etc. The other is a series of uninterrupted, easy slayings by one side, of the sort th at we find in the E and ΓΙ passages. Such series, with the Greeks on the offensive, occur again at Z 5 and Ξ 511; the Trojans enjoy two at H 8 , and 0 328. Both these types of battles are thus typical. A series of slayings by one side is what we can call a simple pattern. It consists of more than one incident, and has an easily definable beginning and end, but all of its elements are identical (a series of slayings). In the E and Π passages a simple pattern is part of a large pattern, but at other times it can stand by itself or, as we shall see on another occasion, in a different large pattern. E 1—94 has, then, three sections: 1—29, 29—84, and 85—94. In the first of these Diomedes is attacked by two brothers, who fight from their chariot. He kills one of them, but the other is rescued by Hephaistos. 1. The encounter begins with a fully typical introduction in which Athena gives Diomedes μένος. Divine aid of this kind is too common in the Iliad to require any discussion here, but Athena's action has a special importance for E. She helps Diomedes twice more within this same book, and each time this initiates a nesv and important phase of the action — E 121 and 793. 2. Fire leaps from Diomedes’ helmet and shield. The only incident at all similar to this is found a Σ 205, where flames surround the head of Achilles. The detail does not occur elsewhere. 3. One of the most common functions of the simile is to describe, as here, a warrior who is just entering, or re-entering, the action. Cf. E 87, E 136, Z 506 { — 0 263), Λ 67, Π 259, etc. 1 T he II section will bo analyzed by itself in a later chapter. G. S tra s u u r g e r , Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias (Diss. Frankfurt, 1954), p p . 63fï., especially p. 65, compares E 37— 84 w ith Π 306— 51, and n eatly points o u t the m ost im p o rtan t sim ilarities and differences betw een the two. H er analysis of th e different effects achieved w ith typical m aterial is especially interesting.

11

4. Further, the gleam of a warrior’s armor is never compared to anything else b u t fire or a celestial body. Cf. B 455, K 153, T 374, etc .2 Diomedes is thus intro­ duced in almost fully typical fashion. rHv δέ τις έν Τρώεσσι Δάρης, άφνειάς άμύμων

9

This manner of introducing an opponent is not frequent in the Iliad. Usually a man’s past or ancestry is related only a fte r he has been struck — cf. Δ 474, E 60, Λ 123, and passim3. But the present passage is not the only exception; we find the same order again at N 663 (ήν δέτις) and P 575 (έσκεδ’ ΙνΙΤρώεσσι). Also compare K 314. Our E passage, however, is the only case where a victim's father is introduced before he is. As for the information given about the young men, two very familiar motifs are combined here; ( 1) victims who are the sons of priests or soothsayers (cf. E 77, E 149, A 329, N 663, ΙΊ 604), and (2) pairs of brothers. Two brothers are frequently slain together. Sometimes they both fall quickly, one after the other (E 148, E 152, Λ 101, Y 460), at other times the fight is a little more complicated, or is at least related in greater detail (Λ 122, Λ 221, Λ 426, Π 317)4. The fight itself proceeds in standard fashion, one man on foot facing two in a chariot. This is a common sight — cf. E 159, E 239, E 608, Λ 101, Λ 126. The combat pattern is also a familiar one : A throws at B and misses, or fails to pierce B ’s armor. B then kills A. The examples are extremely numerous; as samples, cf. E 280 (Pandaros-Diomedes), E 850 (Ares-Diomedcs. Ares is of course only wounded, not slain), P 43 (Euphorbos-Meneiaos), X 289 (HectorAchilles). Significantly, this pattern is never found in a combat where a Tro­ jan is the victor. I t allows only one major variation, whereby B wounds or flings back A after the latter’s unsuccessful attack (cf. Ξ 402, Hector and Aias). Never, for example, does A wound B only then to be slain by his disabled ene­ my, nor does it ever happen that both parties miss on their first attem pt and then complete the pattern on the second. Both of these would be acceptable variations, but the poet does not use them. ! T he source for item s 3 and 4 is the as y e t unpublished Princeton dissertation of W. Scour The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile (1964), pp. 48ff., 80R., 129. E n tran c e or re-entrance of a person into tire narrativ e is described by a sim ile fifty tim es in the Iliad, th irteen tim es in th e Odyssey. a Pointed o u t by H . J o r d a n , Der Erzilhlungssiil in den Kampfsscenen der Hias (Diss. Zurich, 1904), p, 22. 4 T he brother pairs in Book Λ arc discussed by K. R e in h a r d t Die Ilias und ihr Dichter (Göttingen, 1961), p. 252. Cf, also R. H e in /.e , Virgils epische Technik (Leipzig, 1914), p, 220, footnote 1. T he brother, half-brother and first cousin pairs have been exam ined in some detail by C. T rypanis in Rhein. Mus. 106 (1963), pp. 289—97.

Book E

After the slaying of Phegeus Idaios leaps down from his chariot and turns to flee. He would have been slain, too, but is rescued by Hephaistos who does not wish the young man’s father to lose both his sons. 1. Idaios' flight is quite unusual and has no completely satisfactory parallel in the poem. I t is unusual because one of the most frequently occurring battle incidents is the attem pt of one brother to avenge the death of the other (cf. Λ 248, Λ 428, Ξ 476, Π 319, Y 419). The following partial parallels can be cited: (A) I t is a regular occurrence for a second man in a chariot, whether he is a fighting companion or a charioteer, to try to flee after his friend or leader has been killed; he usually fails in the attem pt. Cf. E581, Y 487. (B) There are also many occasions where the body of a slain man is not protected — cf. Θ 125 and P 619 (in this last example the fact is just assumed, not related). The unusual thing about Idaios’ behavior, then, is that he deserts his own brother. Only one other brother does the same thing, at A 145. Two brothers plead for their lives, but are refused and slain by Agamemnon. After the first is killed, the second rushes down from tire chariot — άπόρουσε — (cf. E 20) — presum­ ably to flee, but is then also slain5*. The parallel is not entirely satisfactory, however, not only because the action is hastily and unclearly related, but mainly because the rest of the incident is entirely different from the one here in E. Idaios and Phegeus engage Diomedes in combat before Idaios flees, whereas the two brothers in Λ immediately ask Agamemnon for mercy. That one of them should therefore try to flee is not surprising. 2. Idaios is rescued by Hephaistos. Such rescues are frequent in the Iliad (Γ 380, Y 318, Y 443, Φ 596). There is another major divine rescue in E (311), where Aeneas is saved by Aphrodite and Apollo. I will return to it shortly0. 3. Naturally enough, the Iliad refers frequently to the misfortune of parents whose sons are killed in battle. It is a familiar, or typical, motif. Priam is the major example (cf. X 25, Ω 493), but Peleus suffers a like fate (cf. Ω 486, Ω 534), and the misfortune from which Hephaistos preserves Dares here is realized fully by Phainops (E 148) and Pylaimenes (N 658). 4. Diomedes seizes the young men's horses and hands them over to his atten­ dants to drive back to the ships. Capture of the enemy’s horses is a frequent sequel to successful combat (cf. E 319, E 589), and often it is the man’s atten­ dants who, as here, bring whatever is taken back to the camp — cf. N 640, Π 664, P 130. 5 άπόρουαβ is also used of a warrior jum ping dow n from his ch ario t to fight — E 297 — or of one sim ply leaving his ch ario t — E 836, M 83, P4S 3. B u t in th e Λ scone Hippolochos m ust be trying to flee since lie had shown no inclination w hatever to fight. 4 H ephaistos saves a T ro jan here, even though he norm ally sup p o rts the Greeks. A t Y 290 Poseidon, another G reek supporter, saves Aeneas. A t O 113 Ares, who fights for the Trojans, has to be p revented from avenging the d e ath of his son A skalaphos, a Greok.

13

5. As was pointed out above, the panic and retreat of the Trojans after they see what has happened to the sons of Dares corresponds to the Trojan retreat in the parallel scene at Π 290. Other cases where an army of followers turns and flees after the death of their leader are found at A 744, Φ 206, and, after a delay, Π 659b 6 . F. Lillge has distinguished two kinds of combats8. In type “A” two men face each other on foot. Type “B” pits one man against two, where frequently the one is on foot, the other two in a chariot9. But he correctly notes th at the quick, uncomplicated slaying of two men, one after the other, by a single oppo­ nent is not a type "B ”, but only a variation of type "A” . Thus he says of the Dio­ medes — Phegeus, Idaios encounter : "Tatsächlich sind also zwei verschiedene Formen des Typus A anemandergerückt." The same is true of, say, the Dio­ medes — Pandaros, Aeneas combat at E 275. A true type B encounter, where all three persons are involved simultaneously, would be the Diomedes, Athena — Ares fight at E 850. Lillge’s distinction is valid enough, although I do not think that the nature of the Iliad's fighting best reveals itself through this category. Curiously, Lillge does not even mention the best cases of his type "B ” . E 561 can stand as an example, where Menelaos and Aeneas face each other, but Aeneas quickly retreats when Antilochos hurries to Menelaos' aid. The two best examples are found at FI 791, where Apollo, Euphorbos and Hector combine to slay Patroclos, and O 525 where Meges and Menelaos join to kill Dolops. We can also compare M 400, where Aias and Teucer simultaneously attack the advancing Sarpedon, although they fail to kill him. In any case, lines 1—29 are almost one hundred percent typical in all important details. The one doubtful point of any weight is Idaios’ flight after his brother’s death. Before we leave this scene, still another general comparison is in order. At E 275 Diomedes is attacked by Pandaros and Aeneas. That encounter proceeds as follows: 1. Diomedes, on foot, is attacked by two Trojans in a chariot. 2. The first Trojan's spear-cast fails. 3. He is then killed by Diomedes. 4. The second Trojan leaps down to defend the body of the first. ’ T he problem of II 659 is of course well known. I have no solution to offer (one has a wide choice among those already suggested), b u t th e reader will find a brief discussion of the passage, from th e standpoint of this study, in th e II chapter. 8 Komposition und -poetische Technik in der Διομήδους 'A piatsia (Gotha, 1911), pp. 86ff. “ Lillge proceeds, p. 87: “ Dieses Grundschem a e rlaubt in verschiedenen R ichtungen V ariationen; 'zunächst indem die Verw undungen in der m annigfachsten W eise wechseln . . ferner, indem über die Persönlichkeit de r Angegriffenen m ehr oder w eniger genaue An­ gaben gem acht worden.“ This is true enough, b u t a b it vague. I think it c an be shown th a t tho num ber of variations is lim ited and th a t they fall som etim es into distinct, and some­ tim es into interrelated groups.

15

Book E

Book E

5. In the ensuing fight he is wounded, but then rescued by Aphrodite and Apoilo. 6 . Sthenelos captures the Trojan horses according to Diomedes’ instructions. The first combat in E looks like this: 1. Diomedes, on foot, is attacked by two Trojans in a chariot. 2. The first Trojan’s spear-cast fails. 3. He is then killed by Diomedes. 4. The second Trojan turns to flee. 5. He is rescued by Hephaistos. 6 . Diomedes captures the Trojans’ horses. The two combats thus follow a similar pattern, just as do the larger passages at E 1—94 and Π 257—428. The major difference between the two is that Aeneas tries to defend Pandaros’ body, whereas Idaios tries to run away. As the ensuing discussion will show, it is Aeneas' behavior that is typical in the Iliad, not Idaios’, and we recall that the latter’s flight is the only major atypical feature in the first twenty-nine lines of E. Other important differences between the two passages are that the Diomedcs-Pandaros, Aeneas duel is introduced by conversations on both sides {171—238, 243—273), and the divine rescues are entirely different. The conversations in the later scene tie it firmly to anoth­ er group of combats with which it is even more closely related than with E 12—26. A more detailed treatment of this scene will have to wait until we come to E 166. On the other hand, E 12—26 and E 275 ff. are the only two fights in the Iliad that share items 1—3 and 5—6 as they arc listed above. With the exception of Idaios’ flight, therefore, this first encounter in E is typical in its pattern as well as its details. It is also not to be forgotten that it is part of a larger pattern, so that it is typical on several levels. 29—36. Athena, seeing that her side is winning, persuades Ares that they both should obey Zeus and refrain from joining in the fighting. The scene closest to this is at H 17, where Athena and Apoilo decide to call a truce by stopping the fighting for the day instead of each intervening for his respective side. The same motif of opposing gods holding to an uneasy truce receives a different form at Y 133, where Poseidon persuades the nervous Plera not to interfere unless the gods friendly to the Trojans make the first step. Besides this, the opposition of Athena and Ares runs throughout the poem (cf. Δ 439, E 765, Y 48, Φ 391). At 0 121 Athena again prevents Ares from entering the fight, and with the same reason she uses here — to avoid Zeus’ wrath. In 0, of course, she is genuinely worried. We seem, then, to be on fully typical ground in lines 29—36. 3 7 —84. This is the second part of the large pattern. It consists of six indivi­ dual encounters in which six Trojans are slain. The section as a whole has certain striking features:

1. The Trojans are all in flight, so that each Greek slays an enemy who is fleeing10. This also happens in the related passages (see above, p. 10) at Ξ 511 and O 328. 2. The six slayings fall into two groups of three each. In the first, three major Greek warriors appear: Agamemnon, Idomeneus, and Menelaos. In the second, fighters of a distinctly second rank are involved: Meriones, Meges, and Eurypylos. 3. These two groups are also distinguished by the way they slay their opponents. The first three slayings are quick and simple; the second three are brutal and grisly. W. Friedrich has pointed out that this latter type of slaying is associated most of the time with warriors of the second rank11. 4. I t may not be entirely accidental that there is some vague association between these same three minor figures elsewhere in the poem. Meriones and Eurypylos appear together in a list of names at H 166 f. and Meriones and Meges are together at T 239. Agamemnon slays Odios (38—42). As usual, we hear who was the first in any new phase of the battle to dispose of an opponent; cf. Δ 457, Z 5, Λ 91, N 170, Π 284, etc. The rest of this brief encounter is fully typical. Agamemnon knocks his man from the chariot (cf. E 19, Λ 143, Π 743, Y 461, etc., and also Θ 403) as lie is turning to flee (M 427, N 545, Π 308, P 578, Y 488, etc.). In addition, 40—42 are repeated lines (cf. Θ 258, Λ 447). Idomeneus next kills Phaistos (43—48) 1. Lines 46—7 are repeated; cf. II 343, E 294, N 672. 2. We frequently hear where a slain man came from. I will discuss this shortly in another connection. With simple είληλούθει cf. Δ 520, Λ 230, N 364, etc. 3. Idomeneus’ retainers strip the armor from the slain enemy. There is only one other place in the Iliad where this is done. At Π 663—65 several unspeci­ fied persons strip the armor from Sarpedon. The normal practice is for the victor to strip the dead man himself, or for his comrades first to draw the body away. The next man slain, Skamandrios the hunter (49—58), belongs to a rather large family of victims, all of whom are distinguished by some outstanding

10 N oted by J o r d a n , F.rzählungsstil, p. 20. I t is explicitly sta te d in e very case b u t one th a t the victim was in (light. Pedatos (60) is n o t described as running away, b u t wo can presum e th a t he was since Meges’ spear strikes him in the back of the head (y.v.-à iviov). “ Verwundung und Tod in der Ilias (Oöttingcn, 1956), p. 77 : "W ir linden also unseren alten V erdacht be stätigt: die G reuolproblematik h a t eine Vorliebe für H elden zweiten Ranges . . . . N icht Aias oder K oktor, wohl aber Meriones und Ponclcos w aren darauf ange­ wiesen, durch A bsonderlichkeiten auf den H örer zu wirken.” Of the m ajor heroes only A gam emnon and Achilles are given horrible slayings w ith any consistency.

17

Book E

Book E

skill or excellence, but who perish nonetheless. Another good example is found at Z 12:

This observation of Beye's is valuable, for it has to do with a genuine and oft-repeated stylistic feature. According to Beye's own count it occurs in twenty out of twenty-nine items in the Greek catalogue, and in twenty-one battle scenes throughout the Iliad. As an example of this pattern in a battle scene Beye offers the slaying of Skamandrios by Menelaos. Basic information :

’Άξυλον S’ άρ’ έπεφνε βοήν αγαθός Διομήδης Τευθρανίδην, δς έναιεν έϋκτιμένη έν Άρίσβη άφνειές βιότοιο, φίλος δ’ ήν άνΟρώποισιν πάντας γάρ φιλέεσκεν όδω ί η ι οικία ναίων. άλλά οί ου τις των γε τότ’ ήρκεσε λυγρόν δλεΟρον.

15

Others who belong to this group are Ennomos (B 858) and Nomion (B 871). We might also compare Λ 120 and 0 449, where men are killed while their com­ panions are unable to save them. G. Strasburger would see a relation between the above type and those warriors whose excellence is pointed out, but without the explicit remark that they perished in spite of it12.1 think that the similarities between these arc too general to be of any use here. Many fighters in the Iliad have remarkable ability, but it makes some difference whether the pathos of their deaths is left to the hearer to imagine himself, or whether the poet under­ lines it with a specific and typically phrased reference. This is the place to call attention to an interesting and informative study by C. R. Beye, who has pointed out a narrative pattern in the battle scenes that is directly related to a type of Homeric cataloging13. He observes that a cata­ logue entry is usually divided into three parts: "basic information”, "anec­ dote”, and "contextual information” . As an example of what these designations mean and how the system works, take B 511— 16: o', δ’ Άσπληδόνα ναΐον ίδ’ Όρχομενόν Μινύειον, των ήρχ’ Άσκάλαφος καί Ίάλμενος, υϊες ’Άρηος. This is the "basic information” — who the persons are. It is followed by the "anecdote” — i. e. some further information about the persons just named: ους τέκεν Άστυόχη δόμω ’Άκτορος Άζεΐδαο, πάρΟενος αίδοίη, υπερώιον εΐβαναβασα, "Αρη! κρατερω1 ό 3έ οί παρελέξατο λάΟρη. The final item is the "contextual information” : τοΐς δέ τριήκοντα γλαφυραί νέες έστιχόωντο. 15 Kleine Kämpfer, p p . 32— 36. She refers to the following: E 533, O 638, Y 407 (d . E 59, N 427). As uncertain cases, N 170, O 546 (cf. E 325). 13 “H omeric B attle N arrative an d Catalogues," HSCP 68 (1964), p p . 345—73.

υίδν δέ Στροφίοιο Σκαμάνδριον, αίμονα Οήρης, Άτρεΐδης Μενέλαος έλ’ εγχεϊ όξυόεντι.

50

The anecdote: έοΟλον θηρητηρα- δίδαξε γάρ "Αρτεμις αύτή βάλλειν άγρια πάντα, τά τε τρέφει ούρεσιν ύλη. άλλ’ ου οί τότε γε χραϊσμ’ "Αρτεμις ΐοχέαιρα, ούδέ έκηβολίαι, ήσιν το πριν έκέκαστο. The contextual information : άλλά μιν ’Ατρεΐδης δουρικλειτος Μενέλαος πρόσΟεν εΟεν φεύγοντα μετάφρενον οΰτασε δουρί ώμων μεσσηγύς, διά δέ στήΟεσφιν έ'λασσεν, ήριπε δέ πρηνής, άράβησε δέ τεύγε’ έπ’ αύτω.

55

Beye proceeds14: "We may very quickly see how the whole passage can be so arranged if A can stand for the basic information, B for the anecdote, and C for the contextual information. The name of the slayer precedes the slain in this scheme.” 1. Agamenmon/Odios: A 38—39; C 40—42 2. Idomcneus/Phaistos: A 43; B 44; C 45—48 3. Menelaos/Skamandrios: A 49—50; B 51—54; C 55—58 4. Mcriones/Phcreklos: A 59; B 60—64; C 65—68 5. Meges/Pedaios: A 69; B 70—71 ; C 72—75 6 . Eurypylos/Iiypsenor: A 76; B 77—78; C 79—83 Prom now on I will refer to this scheme as the ABC pattern. There is also another, much less frequently occurring pattern, whereby the anecdote conies at the end of the scene. Examples of this are found at P 288—311 and P 348— 351. Λ 221—247 presents a mixture of the two types. Iphidamas is introduced with information about his family and place of birth according to the ABC pattern, but after he is slain by Agamemnon the poet ends the incident by adding some further details about his past. In the Λ and the first P passages the closing anecdote adds a strong note of pathos. >« Ibid., p. 347.

Book E

The next victim is Phereklos (59—6 8 ). His special skill may connect him with the group discussed just above, although in that case the motif is invert­ ed. He dies not in spite of his skill, but because of it. The scene follows the ABC pattern. If we take 8 ς in line 60, with Aristarclios, as referring to Pherek­ los' father, the anecdote would be related to the one a t Λ 122 (138) where the sons of Antimachos have to pay for the sins of their father, and perhaps to that at Z 55 as well, where a suppliant is killed because all Trojans must bear equal guilt for the sin of Paris. I t is also typical for an anecdote to tell about a victim's father; cf. 0 639, ΓΙ 328. If the relative pronoun refers to Phereklos the incident cannot be paralleled in the Iliad. That is to say, nobody else is slain for some previous crime th at he himself committed. Pandaros might be a candidate, but the poet himself makes no remark of any kind to connect Pandaros’ death with his violation of the truce. Hector does not fit either, for his “crime" is of a different kind15*. As was noted at the beginning of this section, all six Trojans are slain while fleeing. Although we are told at another place (Ξ 520) that Oilean Aias is the grand champion at killing men while they are running away, in practice it is actually Meriones whom we most often find doing it. The way he slays Pherek­ los is thus especially typical for him. Compare his performances at N 567, N 650, Ξ 514 and II 342. In addition he has, it seems, a special talent for striking his victims in the groin area, as here and in the two N passages just cited15. The Phereklos slaying is thus almost fully typical. A second brutal slaying follows the first in which Pedaios meets his death (69—75). He was the bastard son of Antenor, but the latter’s wife, Tlieano, reared him like one of her own children as a favor to her husband. There are two very common motifs combined here in the story of Pedaios: (1) The bastard son: cf. Δ 499, Λ 102, Λ 490, N 694, Ο 333, Π 738. There is also a bastard daughter of Priam at N 173. As Strasburgcr points out, the father of such νόθοι is always a noble or a king. So Antenor here17. (2) The second motif here is that of rearing a young person not one's own, or treating a stranger witli all the honor due to a natural child: I 481, N 176, O 551. Compare ’•F 84 as well and, as variations, E 535 and Ο 43818*. The first of these two motifs may furnish us witii a clue to their continued use in the cycle. In his A n d ro m a c h e Euripides has Hector’s widow relate how 15 For an interesting discussion of th e Phereklos story, see Λ. Severyns, Le Cycle Épique dans l'École d'Aristarque (Liège-'Paris, 1928), pp. 365 ft. F ried rich , Verwundung und Tod, pp. 52 ff. 17 Kleine Kämpfer, pp. 23 f. Of course, the sam e could be said for alm ost a n y other warrior mentioned in th e Iliad. 15 Both I 4SI and hi 694 belong to another m otii-group as well: namely, th e fugitive who finds welcome and protection a t another m an's house. These stories will bo examined

she nursed her husband’s bastard children so as not to cause him any bitterness (222—25). Euripides might have found this in a cyclic poem where the motif had been transferred to Hector and Andromache. The grisly details of the death blow are an example of what Friedrich has called “niederer Realismus1®.” Ho two grisly descriptions in the Iliad arc alike — probably because they require a rather free-ranging imagination — and it is therefore not surprising that a dying man does not “bite the cold bronze with his teeth" elsewhere. It is, however, not at all unusual for a man’s teeth to be knocked out; cf. E 291, Π 405, P 617. The death of Hypsenor (76—83) is fully typical. It contains the ABC pat­ tern, the victim is the son of a priest (see above, p. 11 ), he is killed while fleeing, and verses 78, 80—83 are repeated lines or half-lines. A man’s arm is not cut off frequently, but Hippolochos loses both of his to Agamemnon (Λ 145). Line 84 seems unassuming enough, but it is an example of an interesting and recurrent feature of the Iliad’s narrative style: 'Ώ ς οι |.ιέν πονέοντο κατά κρατεοήν υσαίνην. Every reader of the poem is aware that the battle scenes consist largely of individual encounters related one after the other, and that general or mass scenes of the armies as a whole arc relatively rare. At the same time, these single combats do not follow each other in an unending, unbroken chain. One of the many ways the poet breaks or divides the battle scenes up is to organize series of incidents into discrete groups. Such groups are sometimes regular patterns, sometimes they are not. They are usually brought to a close in one of two ways: ( 1) someone on the other side "sees” (ϊδε) or “notices” (ένόησε) what is happening (usually an enemy’s great success) and moves to stop him. In this way the action takes a fresh turn, and the previous pattern or series of incidents ends. As an example, compare E 166, a line that closes a series of slayings by Diomedes and introduces a long scene in which Pandaros and Aeneas try to stop him. Some other examples are found at E 669, E 679, Λ 343, Π 419, P 483. (2) The present scene is an example of the second type, whereby a bit of general battle description serves as the bridge between two sections of single combats. This general description can be contained in a single line, or may last for many lines. Compare, as only a brief sampling, Δ 470—72, E 627, Z 1—4, Λ 211—16, Λ 291—98, Λ 336—37, N 491—501, N 540, N 673. The present example is tiius a typical transition used to lead us to Diomedes and away from the six preceding slayings. The third part of the large pattern (85—94) is introduced by a simile de­ scribing Diomedes’ attack. He returns to and dominates the scene until PanI» Verwundung und Tod, pp. 52 ff.

21

Boole E

Book F.

davos wounds him and forces him to withdraw for a short time. As for the simile, both Diomedes here and Patroclos at his return to the scene in the corresponding Π passage (384) are compared to raging water (storms, torrents, rivers). This is in fact one of the two most common subjects for a simile that describes the destructive sweep of a warrior (cf. Λ 492)20. The other is fire ; cf. Λ 155, Y 490. At the same time a single warrior's ferocious and successful sweep over the battlefield is a typical battle incident. Diomedes leaps in where the ranks are thickest, a regular tactic (cf. ΓΙ 377), and fights so far out in front that one could not tell whether he is among the Greek or the Trojan ranks. Tin’s particular detail is unparalleled, although at Ξ 57—60 the two armies arc mixed in this same way:

These three passages establish that (1) the attem pt on an enemy’s life, plus (2) premature boasting, plus (3) either a scornful reply or a comrade’s help in drawing out the arrow, taken together, form a typical incident or scene. Looking a little farther, however, we find th at a scornful reply to an unsuccess­ ful attack is a typical detail by itself, even if the assailant lias made no boast of any kind. Compare Odysseus’ reply to Sokos at A 441 and Hector’s to Achilles at X 279. Further, although the E and A passages are the only places where a man pulls an arrow from the body of a wounded comrade (Δ 213 is a different case), it is normal practice for one or more friends to minister to a wounded fighter: cf. E 6 6 3 (692), N 533, Ξ 423. I n addition, arrow woundings are a common event in the Iliad. Paris himself also wounds Machaon at A 505 and Eurypylos at A 581, Teucer wounds Glaucos at M 387 and Pandaros wounds Menelaos a t Δ 105. The passages illustrate well how typical scenes are formed. The example in E is put together out of a group of details, most of which occur also in other combinations, or by themselves, elsewhere : ( 1) arrow wounding, (2) unsuccess­ ful attack, (3) premature boast, (4) scornful reply following a boast or unsuccess­ ful attack, (5) ministry to a wounded friend. Two or more of these details are combined two or more times into a single scene. This kind of type scene is therefore a recurring combination of certain independently typical details. Most battle scenes in the Iliad belong to this category. H. Erbse compares Pandaros’ failure here in E not only with Paris’ later in A, but also with the disastrous endings of the two short aristeiai of Teucer at Θ 266 and Ο 44221. The point of Erbse's comparison is th at bowmen are generally held in low esteem in the Iliad and are never given much success. B ut such comparisons are only of secondary importance here, since the Teucer scenes have no structural likeness to those just discussed and only a vague thematic rela­ tionship. The similarity between Θ 320 and N 581 is more interesting. Each of these is a duel between a bowman and a spearman (even though in & R e c to r uses a rock), and in both cases the spearman comes out the winner. Botii these scenes will be discussed in greater detail in their respective chapters. At 114—132 Diomedes prays to Athena for help, and she immediately comes to give him new strength. The healing of a mortal by a god is familiar (cf. E 447, O 253), but the closest resemblance to the E passage is found at II 508. Glaucos cannot defend Sarpedon’s body because he is wounded. He therefore prays to Apollo, who immediately heals him22. Also similar, though not identical, are those scenes where a mortal prays for aid to iiis army and is promptly answered with a sign from Zeus: Θ 236—52, O 370—78, P 645—50.

ol S ' èret νηυσΐ θοησι μάχην άλίαστον εχουσι νωλεμές' ούδ’ άν £τ>. γνοίης μάλα περ σκοπιάζων οπποτέρωΟεν ’Αχαιοί ορινόμενοι κλονέονται, f., compares Diomedes' words here w ith Helen’s address to A phrodite a t I’ 399 an d again w ith A thena's sarcastic remarie a t II 421. In this last one god is talking to another. T he closest example to th e oth er tw o is Achilles’ frustrated th ro at to Apollo a t X 14. Asios’ com plaint to Zeus a t M 162 does n o t belong to this category.

51 R e in h a r d t, Ilias und ihr Dichter, p. 255, footnote 3.

42

Book E

Book E

The Ares scene thus belongs to the same category as the other two35. But, although these three scenes arc indeed similar, is it likely that they are typical in the same sense as the battle passages ? Their subject matter seems, after all, specifically connected with the plot and with action of the Iliad itself. One need change only the names and the same battle patterns can be used again and again in almost any fight, but it is difficult to imagine something like this same Olympian scene appearing in many poems, unless they were telling the same story as the Iliad or one very much like it. On the other hand, there seems to be no reason to suppose that the Iliad was the only epic poem ever to put the gods on the battlefield or even to have them beaten by specially favored mor­ tals. The popular notion that Homer created the divine world as it appears in the Iliad is rendered highly unlikely by the extent to which he seems to have been dependent upon a tradition in other areas such as language, legend and narrative style. But even if these three scenes represented a type peculiar to the Iliad, they would still show that incidents which have some basic similarity tend to be narrated in much the same way and with many of the same details. That is, if the poet invented a scene of his own, one that had never appeared' in any other poem before he would, by sheer force of habit, tend to do two things. He would probably use the idea again, and would relate the scene in much the same way as he had the first time. The typical style of composition must have influenced a poet's own inventions as much as it did the way he handled everything that Ire had received from the tradition. The events leading up to the wounding of Ares are as follows: A. After careful preparation (733—92) Athena rushes to the side of the wounded Diomedes. B. She reminds him of the greatness of his father Tydeus, orders him to do combat with Ares, and climbs into the chariot beside him. C. With her help he wounds Ares, who screams in pain and disappears onto Olympos. The scenes on Olympos after the woundings of Aphrodite and Ares are quite similar. This suggests, in turn, the possibility that the action which leads to the woundings may also follow the same pattern. At E 121 Athena comes to her favorite: A. Athena, in answer to a prayer, hurries to the side of the wounded Dio­ medes. B. She gives him the might of his father Tydeus. C. She tells him to avoid any gods he sees with the exception of Aphrodite. If she appears, he is to attack her.

It is to be admitted right away that there is a formidable array of differences between the two scenes. Diomedes attacks Aphrodite only when she tries to rescue her son, and Athena does not stand by and help him as she does against Ares. There is also a considerable lapse of time (lines 134—310) between Athe­ na’s admonition to attack Aphrodite and that goddess’ appearance on the battlefield. But despite these differences the two scenes do have similar be­ ginnings, even though the first can be shown to be fully typical without reference to the second. We have already seen repeated instances where larger action sequences share identical outlines and certain smaller typical motifs as well, even though their details are on the whole quite different. Both E passages contain the following: 1. Diomedes wounded. 2. Help by Athena. 3. Reminder of the might of Tydeus. 4. Order by Athena to attack Aphrodite/Ares. 5. Wounding of the god who is attacked. . Retreat of the god to Olympos followed by two similar "consolation” scenes. The poet must have had this basic plan in mind in both passages. The sum of the smaller details, their particular combination and emphasis, are what gives each example of this basic form its individuality. But do the similarities between these two passages mean th at the same typical pattern is at work in them both, or do they show rather that the poet made them alike in order to give the whole book a balanced structure ? Is the compositional principle at work here th at of repetition of typical patterns or of conscious structuring by balance and contrast ? Keeping in mind that tiiese are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives, let us look again at tiiat part of E covered so far. There is a considerable lapse of time (lines 134— 310) between Athena’s aid to Diomedes and his wounding of Aphrodite. What iiappens in between ? A. Diomedes receives might from Athena, 124. B. He charges like a lion into the fight, 134. C. He disposes of four pairs of opponents, 144. D. He meets Pandaros and Aeneas, 166. All of these incidents, taken individually, have been shown to be fully typical — the pairs of opponents, tiie simile, the Aeneas-Pandaros encounter, etc. At the beginning of the book the following sequence is found: A. Diomedes receives might from Athena. B. Described by a simile, he charges into the thick of the fight. C. He meets the sons of Dares. D. After an interruption (itself a clear pattern of six combats) he is stopped by an arrow from Pandaros.

35 T he scenes w ith Aphrodite and Arcs on Olympos have been com pared in g reat detail b o th by L u .lge , Komposition und poetische Technik, pp. 33 ff., an d D rerijp , Das fü-n/te Buch der Ilias, pp. 330 £f. Both of these scholars emphasize th e close sim ilarity of th e two scenes.

6

43

45

Book E

Book E

It was shown earlier that the combat with the sons of Dares has the same basic form as that with Pandaros and Aeneas, and that Pandaros’ first inter­ vention is introduced in the same way as Aeneas’ later on (95, 166). The second section of Diomedes’ arisieia is thus a dose counterpart to the first ( I — 100). They share: (1) opening help from Athena, (2) simile, (3) successful fighting by Diomedes, (4) involvement of Pandaros in the counter-action, (5) the com­ bats with the two sons of Dares and with Aeneas-Pandaros, which are similar and can be considered a fifth item, even though they appear at different stages of the action. The second help from Athena is the beginning both of the large pattern leading to Aphrodite’s wounding and the smaller pattern leading to the encounter with Aeneas and Pandaros. E 1—431 thus contains a number of patterns that appear to be closely woven tog

There are widely divergent opinions as to the extent and intricacy of a consciously planned structure that can be credibly imputed to the Iliad. These opinions are often a direct result of the way a scholar conceives the background and origins of the poem. In the present day, for example, W. Schadewaldt and G. Jachmann represent opposite poles on this question. The typical style of composition that I am trying to demonstrate as operative in the battle scenes has a direct bearing here. If the action units in the battle description are indeed formulaic, then it is almost as dangerous to assume immediately some deliberate internal connection between two passages as it is between lines or phrases. This is not to reject categorically the possibility that there are lines of reference and interconnection over long stretches of the poem, but a strong caveat is in order. Repetition, by itself, is n o t sufficient proof of consciously planned effect, or for maintaining that one part is older than another, or that two different poets were at work. Other, and stronger evidence is needed for any of these conclusions. Certain patterns occur again and again. The reason is not necessarily that the poet wished to point out some important connection between scenes, but may be simply that these patterns and typical scenes are the only units in which he had learned to compose, just as the phrase formulae comprise the only poetic diction that is available to him. If he wished to point out a connec­ tion between two or more passages he would have to use some method beyond mere repetition. It remains to be seen whether different kinds of repetition, used for different artistic purposes, can be discovered in the poem. The patterns are thus analogous to the formulae. They supply the poet with ready-made compositional building blocks. The patterns and typical scenes are, of course, not so rigid as the phrase and sentence formulae, for they operate more in the manner of an outline or an architectural framework where the basic lineaments of the action, along with certain details, are fixed from the start, but can undergo an almost unlimited number of variations. The result of this manner of composition is that in the entire poem n o tw o com bats arc e xa c tly a lik e even though the battle scenes are almost one hundred percent typical. A poem composed of such patterns, typical scenes, and recurrent motifs must necessarily contain many scenes whose general plan and smaller units look very much alike. This in turn makes a certain amount of apparent cross-reference, such as foreshadowing and reminiscence, inevitable, even if none is consciously intended. The case with the repetition of phrase and sen­ tence formulae is identical. If, therefore, we are to look for a planned structure in the epic, it will not suffice to base our analysis merely on the presence of repeated lines, scenes, motifs or patterns by themselves; other kinds of evidence are required. E 432 —444. Apollo rescues Aeneas and is attacked by Diomedes. Except for a distant parallel at Γ 399 this is the only place in the poem where a mortal

44

I

1. Athena helps Diomedes, first time 2. Combat with the sons of Dares 3. Six combats with other warriors 4. Diomedes wounded by Pandaros

II 1. 2. 3. 4.

Athena helps Diomedes, second time Combat with four pairs of opponents Encounter with Pandaros-Aeneas Wounding of Aphrodite

c.f. E 793 (wounding of Ares)

In the second group, the first item is parallel to the first item in the first group, but is also the beginning of the pattern that leads to the wounding of Aphro­ dite. I t is therefore also parallel to Athena’s help at E 793, which leads to the wounding of Ares, just as the whole second group is generally parallel to th at action later in E. The second item in the first group looks like an “interruption,” but if we compare ΓΙ 257 (see above, pp. 9—10) we see that it is itself both part of a pattern and an independent pattern in its own right. All this might be taken as a highly elaborate structure, with balanced and contrasting repetitions, a ring composition and the like. But such considera­ tions only complicate matters unduly. Where we might tend to spy an elab­ orate system of cross-reference and selective repetition the poet is simply proceeding step by step, developing one or at most two patterns at a time. One pattern or one typical scene is juxtaposed to another. At most he will interrupt a larger pattern to develop a smaller one, and then continue in the original direction once the smaller is finished. He clearly is repeating certain large patterns, which are in turn constructed out of a series of typical scenes, but since almost everything in the battle scenes is repeated somewhere else in the poem critics should have an especially good reason before assuming that any given repetition implies deliberate cross-reference, i. e. means some­ thing on a larger structural scale.

46

Book E

Book E

knowingly disregards or attempts to confound a deity’s intention, or in a sense actually fights with him. We often hear that somebody w o u ld fight with a god, i. e. that he has lost sight of his mortal limitations (E 362, E 457; cf. Z 129, Y 367), but nobody else ever really does so. On the other hand, fighting be­ tween gods and mortals was a popular topic in Greek m yth and epic literature, as can be seen from references to it in the Iliad alone. Otos and Ephiaites bound Ares in a bronze jar (E 385), Heracles wounded Hera and Hades (E 392), Lykourgos attacked Dionysos and his maenads (Z 130), and Idaios challenged Apollo (I 558). Even Hector and Poseidon are set against each other, not in a personal combat, but almost as equally matched leaders (Ξ 388). Triple attem pts of various kinds are common in the Iliad and could be called a small “type scene” in themselves. They are always phrased the same way: "three times he tried, but when the fourth time came, then . . . ” Cf. Σ 155, Φ 176, X 165, 20838. We can also compare Apollo’s rebuke to Diomedes here with his words to Achilles at X 8 — 10. But the two scenes that are closest to the present one are Π 702 and Y 445. In the Y passage Achilles charges against Hector, but Apollo snatches him away: τρις μέν δπειτ’ έπόρουσε ποδάρκης δΐος Άχιλλεύς εγχεϊ χαλκείω, τρις δ’ ήέρκ τύψε βαΟεϊαν. άλλ’ 0 τε δή τό τέταρτον έπέσσυτο δαίμονι ίσος, δεινά δ’ όμοκλήσας έπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα- κτλ.

445

As in Ε, then, the Trojan enemy is rescued by Apollo and the Greek tries three times to break through the divine protection. On the fourth attem pt Achilles hurls insults at his rescued enemy. The Π passage shares the triple attem pt with E and Y, contains, like E, a warning by Apollo but, unlike in E and Y, nobody is rescued. Patroclos attacks the Trojan wall: τρίς μέν έπ άγκώνος βή τείχεος ύψηλοΐο Πάτροκλος, τρίς δ’ αύτλν άπεστυφέλιξεν ’Απόλλων, χείρεσσ’ άΟανάτησι φαεινήν ασπίδα νύσσων. άλλ’ ο τ ε δή τδ τέταρτον έπέσσυτο δαίμονι Ισος, 705 δεινά δ’ δμοκλήσας £πεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα"χάζεο, διογενές Πατρόκλεες- οΰ νύ τοι αϊσα σω ύπό δουρί πόλιν πέρθαι Τρώων άγερώχων, ούδ’ ύπ’ Άχιλλήος, δς περ σέο πολλόν άμείνων.” "Ω ς φάτο, Πάτροκλος δ’ άνεχάζετο πολλόν όπίσσω, 710 μήνιν άλευάμενος έκατηβόλου ’Απόλλωνος. 39 T ho triplo a ttem p t appears in an unobtrusive form a t I I 244, in tlie duel betw een H ector and M as. They exchange spear casts (244—54); each th e n th ru sts Ids spear a second tim e (255—62), then casts a rock (263— 72). A fter th a t th e y would have engaged w ith swords b u t nightfall in te rru p ts them and they are sep arated b y tho heralds.

47

Although the three scenes are related, it is futile to try to establish a chronolo­ gical relationship between them — i. e. to establish which is the “original.” They belong to a common type that is older than them all. Is the attack on a mortal who is being rescued by a god primary, the attack on a wall secondary ? Plow is it to be decided which is "better” or more "appropriate1’ ? Does Π 706 fit better, when Apollo speaks, or Y 448, where there is no change of sub­ ject? Even if we were to grant tlie utopian assumption that these questions admit a definite answer, the question of which scene came first would still be unsolved. There is no good reason to assume that what is oldest is best, wheth­ er in the case of whole poems, single lines or type scenes. And no general agreement, of course, on the superiority of a line or motif in one passage over that in another ever has or will be achieved. Other questions would need to be answered as well. Is the scene better if the attacking Greek speaks, or Apollo ? Are Apollo's words better suited to the occasion in E or in Π ? Is it better for the Greek to try to drive his spear through the protective cloud (Y) and fail, or for Apollo to strike his shield and drive him back ? If we proceed from the old assumption that one of these scenes is the source, and therefore older, then a ll of these questions must be answered. The favorite retreat to a common source is nothing but an emergency exit, unable to provide a satisfactory answer. Did the source combine speeches by Apollo a n d the Greek ? If not, how is it to be decided which one it did contain ? Were there spear thrusts into the cloud a n d blows on the shield ? Or references to the differences between gods and mortals a n d whether or not something was fated to happen ? Such a complicated, cumbersome scene is impossible. In contrast, the hypothesis that we have to do with a type scene which contains certain variable, but typical, details provides a much simpler and clearer explanation of the similarities between these three scenes and between all other scenes in the poem. Of equal importance, it explains why it is impos­ sible to reconstruct the original scene from which the others are supposed to be derived. The Unitarians have always pointed with satisfaction to the failure of the analysts to reach any agreement on which is the original and which are the copies among any group of related passages. The theory of typical compo­ sition explains both why the repetitions occur and why they so often bring inconcinnities of varying degrees with them (problems blithely ignored by many an Einheitshirt), and at the same time they provide an explanation for tlie failure of the analysts to achieve unanimity. It was not due mainly to human weakness, a possibility that remained unaffected by the Unitarians’ irony, but to a false assumption. The analysts sought to discover a specific archetype for these scenes, either in the Iliad itself or in some earlier and hypothetical epic. They sought in vain, for the source of the typical scenes is not to be found in a particular poem, but in the general technique of oral com­ position. The price that our own hypothesis demands is this: we discard the old

Book Ε

hope that it is possible to discover the single source, or model, or archetype among two or more related scenes. But in discarding this ambitious illusion we gain a better insight into the narrative technique of the Iliad and of the epic tradition as a whole. E 445—453. The incidents related here are unparalleled elsewhere in the Iliad. Leto and Artemis care for Aeneas while Apollo fashions an είδωλον of the Trojan over which the two armies fight. This fits into the supernatural tone of parts of E (see above, p. 39), but is not typical. E 454—460. Apollo turns to Ares and incites him to combat. Ares is there­ fore now brought back, just as he was removed earlier (E 29). Gods are often incited into action by others. Cf. E 714, Θ 352, Φ 331, etc. E 460—470. Arcs enters the fight and encourages the Trojans. 1. Gods frequently involve themselves in the fighting; Arcs here, Athena later on (E 793), Poseidon at N 10, Apollo at 0 306, etc. 2. It is also normal for a god to take the form of a mortal (Δ 8 6 , P 73, etc.) and in this guise to deliver a parainesis (E 785, N 45, etc.). 3. The structure of Ares’ parainesis is typical: address to friends, indignant questions, and a call to action. Cf. O 502, O 733. Almost all the paraineses in the Iliad have at least two of these items. 4. The second part of Ares’ parainesis, the indignant question, is: "Are you all waiting to fight until we have our backs to the wall ?” This is essentially the same question asked by Aias in a structurally identical parainesis at O 733: ήέ τινάς φαμεν είναι άοσσητηρας δπίσσω, ήέ τι τείχος ά.ρειον, ο κ’ άνδράσι λοιγύν άμύναι ;

The parainesis in the Iliad thus has a clear format in structure and detail. Most bring with them a pause or break in the action: Ares’ entrance here, for example, creates a juncture in the narrative, even though the action itself continues without interruption87. Other examples arc to be found at Z 67, Λ 276, M 310, Π 532, etc. E 471—498. Sarpedon rebukes Hector; Hector stiffens the Trojan ranks; the battle evens as both sides stand fast. This is the first example that we have encountered of one of the Iliad’s most important patterns. It proceeds approxi­ mately as follows : Hector or Aeneas is rebuked for witholding himself from combat. Most often the speaker is a Lycian ally or Apollo in human guise. The words have their effect, the Trojan advances, either charging or, as here, stiffening his ranks. The fight then cither comes to a standstill or, more often, the Trojans are repulsed. Aias always appears in the counter action. As exam­ ples, cf. A 523, ΓΙ 538, P 75, P 142, P 327, P 586. Four examples from Book P and one from Π will make it clear how this pattern works: I

II

735

In the third part of the parainesis, the call to action, Arcs incites the Trojans by pointing out that one of their best men has fallen. Cf. O 425: "Τρώες καί Λύκιοι καί Δάρδανοι άγχιμαχηταί, μή δή πω χάζεσΟε μάχης Ιν στείνεϊ τώδε, άλλα υΐα Κλυτίοιο σαώσατε, μή μιν ’Αχαιοί τεύχεα συλήσωσι νεών εν άγώνι πεσόντα.”

425

Π 541 is even closer: κεΐται Σαρπηδών, Λυκίων άγος άσπιστάων, δς Λυκίην εϊρυτο δίκησί τε καί σΟένεϊ ω, τόν δ’ όπύ ΓΙατρόκλω δάμασ’ έ'γχεϊ χάλκεος ’’Αρης. αλλά, φίλοι, πάρστητε, νεμεσσήθητε δέ Ουμώ, μή άπύ τεύχε’ ελωνται, άεικίσσωσι δέ νεκρόν Μυρμιδόνες, Δαναών κεχολωμένοι δσσοι ολοντο, τούς επί νηυσΐ Θοήσιν έπέφνομεν έγχείησιν.” "Ως έφατο, Τρώας δέ κατά κρήθεν λάβε πένθος, κτλ.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Aias defends Patroclos’ body, P 132. 2. Glaucos rebukes Hector, 140. 3. Hector and the Trojans charge, 233. 4. Aias and Menelaos summon other Greeks, 237. 5. The Trojans drive the Greeks back, 274. . Aias stops the retreat, Hector and the Trojans fall back, 278 (316).

6 ΙΠ

1. The Greeks gain the upper hand, the Trojans are about to flee, P 319. 2. Apollo, as Periphas, upbraids Aeneas, 322. 3. Aeneas stiffens Hector and the Trojans, 333. 4. They fight to a standstill over the body; Aias keeps the Greeks firm.

IV 1. 2. 3. 4. 545

Menelaos defends Patroclos’ body, P 4. Apollo, as Mentes, upbraids Hector, 70. Hector charges, 83. Menelaos retreats and calls Aias, 108. At Aias' arrival Hector retreats, 128.

V

Hard fight over the body of Patroclos, P 543. Apollo, as Phainops, rebukes Flector, 582. Hector charges, 591. Aias organizes a slow retreat with the body of Patroclos, 626.

1. Sarpedon has been slain, Π 462—507. 2. Glaucos rebukes Hector, 538. 3. Hector charges, 548.

” Pointed o u t by J o r d a n , Erzäklungsstil, p. 105. Heil 21

50

Boole E

4. Patroclos calls the Alantes to his aid, 555. 5. Trojans drive the Greeks back, 569. 6 . After a long fight the Greeks regain the advantage, 569—656. These outlines conceal, of course, the considerable differences in detail be­ tween the scenes. But a ll scenes based on any given pattern differ in detail, although tire details that distinguish any example of a pattern from its rela­ tives are, as has been shown before, themselves typical. There are two other scenes that belong in this discussion. The first is Z 73: 1. The Greeks gain the upper hand, the Trojans are about to fall back into the city. 2. Helenos a d v ises Hector and Aeneas to encourage their men. Hector should go back to Troy and instruct the women to pray to Athena, 77. 3. Hector obeys; he stiffens the Trojan ranks and returns to Troy, 102. 4. The Trojans stay the Greek onrush and the battle evens, 106. Compare with this Λ 165: 1. Agamemnon drives the Trojans in disorder. 2. Zeus sends Iris with instructions for Hector to stay away from Agamem­ non, 182, 3. Hector obeys, goes through the ranks and stiffens his men, 211. 4. Agamemnon continues his aristeia, 218. In these three scenes E 494—97 — Z 103—06 ·— Λ 211—14. In E and Λ the Greeks meet the fresh Trojan resistance with renewed firmness of their own (E 498, Λ 215). The main difference between these Z and Λ passages and the “rebuke scenes” lies in the first item: nobody is upbraided. Instead, Hector receives advice offered in a friendly manner and follows it. It was shown earlier that the con­ sultation pattern is a close relative of the rebuke pattern, differing from it only in the first item. It is now clear th at what we can call the “advice” pattern is also related to these other two. They all start with some Greek suc­ cess which in turn causes an enemy reaction. It is what follows that distinguish­ es the three patterns from each other. One Trojan rebukes another, or advises him, or persuades him to join in an attack. One or both of them then charges or stiffens his men, but this is usually countered by strong Greek resistance. In other words, a recurrent battle situation is narrated according to one of three separate but closely related action patterns. Earlier in this chapter (pp. 27—28) parts of a scene in Y that bears a certain resemblance to the consultation pattern were mentioned. It is now time to look at it in a little more detail. Achilles has just begun his aristeia. Apollo, in the form of Lykaon, urges Aeneas to attack the fearful Greek: “ ΑΙνεία, Τρώων βουληφόρε, ποΰ τοι άπειλαί, άς Τρώων βασιλεΰσιν ύπίσχεο οίνοποτάζων,

B ookE

Πηλεΐδεω Άχιλήος έναντίβιον πολεμίξειν;” Τον δ’ αυτ’ ΑΙνείας άπαμειβόμενος προσέειπε"ΓΙριαμίδη, τί με ταΰτα καί ούκ έθέλοντα κελεύεις, άντία Πηλεΐωνος ύπερθύμοιο μάχεσΟαι ; κτλ.

51 85

Apollo’s first words are more like a rebuke than anything else, but Aeneas then answers him by telling about a previous encounter with Achilles in which he barely escaped with his life. Apollo urges him on a second time, and Aeneas is persuaded. This second section does not look like a rebuke, but resembles the consultation pattern, and is especially like the one th at begins a t E 166. There, Aeneas sought out Pandaros and asked : Πάνδαρε, που τοι τόξον ίδέ πτερόεντες ύϊστοί, κτλ. Apollo asks Aeneas: ποΰ τοι άπειλαί; Both men tell of a previous encounter with the enemy who is to be attacked and complain that a god is always standing at his side to protect him (E 185, Y 98). Aeneas then over­ comes Pandaros’ objections in a second speech, just as Apollo convinces Aeneas in Y. But Aeneas then faces Achilles by himself, not with somebody else’s help, and this is again like the rebuke pattern where one Trojan resumes the offensive. The Y passage is thus an amalgamation of two type scenes. It is easy to see how such a combination is possible, since the two patterns are alike in structure and subject matter. These clearly definable patterns recur with great frequency in the Iliad. Now that their general structure has been established, it will be sufficient hereafter to examine only their variant details in order to see if these also are typical in themselves. Sarpedon’s rebuke to Hector at E 472 is the first case in point. Hector's reaction to the Lycian’s words (493), and the Greeks’ counter action (498), are both typical, as is the presence of the Aiantes in the Greek defense. Some familiar details in Sarpedon’s speech worth noting are these: Sarpedon charges Hector with thinking that he can defend Troy alone without any help from the allies (472—74). At the beginning of a rebuke at P 144 Glaucos warns Hector to consider how he can defend Troy by himself, for the allies will soon desert him. At I 46’—49 Diomedes makes an even more exaggerated boast than the one attributed to Hector here38. References to the distance of their homeland lend a special pathos to the situation of the allies (478—81; cf. E 212, ΓΙ 539, Π 460), and it is a common complaint on their part that they have to bear the brunt of the fighting while Hector and the Trojans shirk their duty (475—77; cf. II 538—40, P 146—53). Sarpedon, however, continues to fight even though Troy’s fall would mean no personal loss to himself. This generous attitude is not shared by other allies in K 420— 38 N otch by V on d e r M ü h le , Kritisches Hypomnema, p. 99, footnote 32a. Is th e charge tru e ? Cf. II 830, X 331. T he strange o u tb u rst of Achilles a t II 97— 100 m ay also be related, i.o. a play on th e same motif.

52

Book E

Book E

22, where they leave guard duty to the Trojans because they have nothing at stake in the city. The detail is typical for K3B. As is usual in rebuke scenes, the opening criticism is followed by advice or even encouragement (cf. Π 544). There is thus a structural similarity between the rebuke and the paraincsis (see above, pp. 48—49). The smaller details at the end of Sarpedon's speech do not occur elsewhere. After lines 493—498, the Greek army is described by a winnowing simile. ώς δ’ άνεμ.ος άχνας φορέα ίεράς κατ’ άλωάς άνδρών λικμώντων, δτε τε ξανθή Δημήτηρ κρίνρ έπαγομένων ανέμων καρπόν τε καί άχνας, αί δ’ ύπολευκαίνονται άχυρμιαί* ώς τότ’ ’Αχαιοί, κτλ.

500

A frequent subject of similes in the Iliad is groups of people, which means, for the most part, armies40. The most famous example is the series of similes at B 455, but there are many others as well. Cf. H 63, A 67, 0 410, etc. Further, the wind similes as a group are applied with great frequency to armies41·. The simile at E 493—98 is thus typical both in its function and subject matter. There is another winnowing simile at N 588. In these rebuke scenes the Trojan charge is usually highlighted either by a simile or by some more than ordinary description. At P 8 8 Hector is given a short simile when he attacks; at P 593, at the same place in the pattern, Zeus bolsters Hector’s charge with thunder and lightning; and at A 531 Hector’s advance in his chariot is described in vivid and gruesome detail. At E 506—507 Ares cloaks the battlefield in darkness. The detail has béen generally criticized, for it seems to be entirely pointless in its present surroundings.lt is not develop­ ed further, has no visible effect on the battle, and is never mentioned again within the book. But a preternatural darkness is spread over the field many times in the Iliad, and in almost every case it appears at the same point in the rebuke pattern: namely, Hector is rebuked, he charges or stiffens his men, and then in the ensuing action a darkness spreads over the field. There is a somewhat similar passage ( M 252 ) where a wind seems to replace the darkness. Poulydamas has tried to persuade Hector not to cross the trench, but

35 W ilamowitz characterizes the Doloncia w ith his usual precision (Die Ilias und Homer, Berlin, 1920, p . 62) : "W as u n s m it diesem I.cichtsinn versöhnt, is t die in der Ilias unerhörte U ngcnicrthcit, m it der er die heroische Geschichte zu seiner Gegenw art hcruntcrzicht.” 45 See S c o it, Homeric Simile, pp. 41 fl.; R. Hampiî. Die Gleichnisse Homers und die Bildkunst seiner Zeit (Tübingen, 1952), pp. 11 ff. 41 S c o tt, Homeric Simile, p p . 78 ff. T he d u st cloud raised b y th e masses of men is a well-known feature of th e H omeric b attle field. Cf. Γ 13 where it is also described b y a

53

Hector thrusts him aside and advances with the Trojans behind him while Zeus sends down a mighty blast of wind from Ida. The following is a list of places where darkness follows the Trojan charge in a rebuke pattern. The first line number marks the beginning of the rebuke, the second the reference to darkness: E 472, 506 P 142, 268« (M 211, 252) P 327, 366 Π 538, 567 P 586, 629 The motif at E 506 is, therefore, a typical element in its pattern despite its imperfect development. It seems that the pressure exerted by a familiar pattern could be so strong th at it forced the inclusion of one of its standard elements into a particular scene where it is either inappropriate or could not be further developed. There are many such cases which will be discussed as they occur, where disturbing or idle details are introduced because of the pressure of a type scene. At the same time, if an item can be added to a passage almost automatically because of the influence of a pattern, it is easy to see how it can quickly be forgotten in the action that follows. G. Schoeck has discussed these darkness scenes in his book on the Iliad and the Aithiopis43. He sees th at they are connected with a rebuke to Hector, and often with a fight over a body. But Schoeck is then led astray by the methodolog­ ical failure that vitiates most of the interesting observations in his book. He has attempted to show th at the Aithiopis is the one source for innumerable scenes, incidents, details, and larger elements of plot in the Iliad. He has pointed out an astonishing number of real similarities between the two poems, from which he concludes that the Aithiopis exerted a commanding, pervasive influence over the Iliad. Too often, however, he bases his argument upon resemblances th at are all too slight. In the present instance, for example, he reasons as follows: 1. In the Aithiopis there was a fight over Achilles’ body. 2. All fights over a body in the Iliad are therefore re-workings of the Aithiopis scene.(We must, in all fairness, keep in mind that Schoeck’s argument for the priority of the Aithiopis over the Iliad is a cumulative one.) 3. In some fights over a body there is a darkness on the field. 4. Where there is a darkness, therefore, there must also be a fight over a body. This logical monstrum, which Schoeck of course never states as baldly as I have done here, but which is nonetheless implicit in his argument, is compound­ ed by interpretational violence like the following. At O 6 6 8 Athena removes 4* T he wide separation here is due to a num ber of intervening speeches, including one by Zeus. T he point in the action, w here the darkness is m entioned is th e same. 45 Ilias und Aithiopis (Zürich, 1961), pp, 32 (ί.

55

Book E

Book E

a cloud from the Greeks' eyes. This, argues Schoeck, is the same darkness motif, and the body in that scene is replaced by the s h ip over which Greeks and Trojans are battling. The fight over a body is thus elevated to a new dimension, for the long fight at the ships is a variation of the fight over Achilles’ body in the Aithiopis. B ut even if it were allowed that a fight over a ship in the Iliad is the ‘‘re­ fraction” (Schoeck’s word) of the fight over Achilles in the Aithiopis, a very big if, Athena’s removal of the cloud there is still not the same thing as the battlefield darkness spread by Ares or Zeus. It is like those mists that are taken from Diomedes’ eyes at E 127 or cast over Achilles’ eyes at Y 321. One feels, to be sure, th at all these various clouds and mists and darknesses are related, but there is a considerable difference between a murkiness over the whole battlefield and over one person’s eyes. This is also more than a quantitative difference. The larger darknesses cover both armies equally and do not inca­ pacitate anybody; the men fight on as before. A haze over one person’s eyes means that he cannot, or has not, been able to see something. Schoeck finds support for his theory in our E scene since the Greeks and Trojans are fighting over the εΐδωλον of Aeneas when the darkness appears. This is true, but is a technicality only. The image is briefly mentioned at 449— 53 and never heard of again. In what follows there is nothing to indicate that the fighting centers around Aeneas' false body, whereas in the genuine Lcichenkämpfe the corpse is never lost sight of. And finally, when Aeneas suddenly returns, hale and vigorous (512), the two armies do not stop fighting over the image. The battle simply continues as before. The principle weaknesses in Schoeck's th e o r y are that it is based on a n u m ­ b e r of questionable secondary hypotheses and that it has only the partial support of the text. It is both more economical and in better accord with the text simply to connect the darkness motif witli the rebuke pattern. I t is more economical because we do not need to go outside the Iliad in order to explain anything, and more in accord with the text because the darkness over the field always does, in fact, occur in close and im m e d ia te conjunction with a rebuke pattern. It also happens that most of the fighting in Π and P is centered around the bodies of Sarpedon, Kebriones and Patroclos, and that this fighting is narrated in large measure in terms of repeated rebuke patterns. It is with these patterns that the darkness lias its primary connection, not with the fight over a body. A t the same time, the rebuke pattern itself is not n e c e ssa rily linked to this kind of battle, as the example here in E shows. The little interlude or summary scene at E 503—5Π, where Ares’ actions are explained, seems as useless as the darkness motif that immediately precedes it. But such a summary, introduced suddenly and without concern for the surrounding action, is not at all uncommon in the Iliad. There are others at Λ 73, N 345, 0 593. Compare also 0 54—77 and ΓΙ 685. Like the present example,

most of these summaries recapitulate actions or intentions of the gods which have already been set forth elsewhere. These summaries are therefore either a regular stylistic feature o ra regular kind of interpolation4'1. The first rebuke pattern thus runs typically from beginning to end. A t this point (E 512) Apollo sends Aeneas back into the fight, where his return causes rejoicing among the Trojans. There is another return to action by two Trojans at H 3, where their comrades are equally happy to see them back. When Hector is cured by Apollo and re-enters the fight at 0 263 he receives an elaborate simile but we are not told what the Trojans thought about it. The small realistic detail at E 516 f. that Aeneas’ friends had no opportunity to question him, reminds us of E 664—67, where Sarpedon’s men are so occupied with dragging him to safety that they forget to pull the spear out of his thigh. In that same scene, at 689—91, Plector cannot take the time to reply to Sarpedon because he is in such a hurry to engage the enemy45. Aeneas’ miraculous cure, then, (cf. O 262), his return to battle with Apollo's help, the Trojans' joy at his re-appearance and their lack of time to ask him any questions, are all familiar details. At E 519—527 the Greeks resist despite Aeneas' arrival and the renewed Trojan firmness, and the battle begins in earnest. The unyielding steadiness of the Greeks under Trojan attack is frequently described by a simile, as here. Cf. M 131, 0 618, etc. Clouds are never used elsewhere to describe the motion­ lessness of warriors, but they do appear again in a simile used to describe an army at Π 297. The present simile is thus typical in subject and function. More important are two other facts. (1) When one or more Trojans charge, a number of Greeks are usually called to aid and appear in counter-action. Cf. N 477, P 245, etc. (2) The arrival of Aeneas in the combat and the Greek firmness are a repetition — a doublet — of what has happened just a few lines before. Hector charges but the Greeks stand firm (493—98). The action receives its full development the second time. Greek resistance is pictured by a simile both times (499, 522) as a fierce battle develops. In outline the passage looks like this: 1. Hector charges, 493 l a Ares and Aeneas enter the battle, 506 2. The Greeks resist, 498 2a The Greeks resist, 519 3. Simile, 499 3ft Simile, 522 There are many places in the Iliad where such doublets appear in close proxim-

54

11 Tho presence of A thena a t lines 510 f. rem ains unexplained. Sho is forgotten as quickly as she is introduced. T he Apollo — A thena opposition reappears a t H 17—20, b u t there it is developed. “ V on d e r M ü iill, Kritisches Hypomnema, p. 101, also compares Z 342 and Θ 97 f. B u t th e Z passage is unlike th e others. H ector docs no t fail to reply there because he is in a hurry. I t is norm al for a person to receive a suggestion or an order and to c arry it out w ithout replying: Θ 112, O 1G8, O 236, I I 726 (as usual after rebukes), P 4 9 1 etc.

57

Book E

B ookE

ity. One of the best cases is to be found at Λ 163. Agamemnon has been enjoying his aristeia when we are suddenly told, in just two lines, that Zeus removed Hector from danger. A long description of Agamemnon’s destructive sweep (165—180) is then followed by a scene where Zeus instructs Iris to tell Hector to avoid Agamemnon. Iris delivers the message and Hector withdraws (181—217) after having encouraged his men.

it is safer to stand and fight than to retreat. Cf. Z 80—83, Θ 94f., 0 733—411fl. Agamemnon finishes his parainesis and immediately throws his spear. We find the same at 0 425; Hector delivers a short parainesis and then casts his spear at Aias. Besides this, a warrior very frequently flings his weapon after he has addressed either his opponent or some other single person. Cf. Γ 355, E 280, H 244, A 349, etc. E 533—540. Agamemnon's killing of a Trojan begins a series of slayings by both sides. This, as pointed out on p. 10, is one of the standard kinds of fights in the Iliad (cf. Δ 473—507, N 361—539, Ξ 442—507) as opposed to those where one side claims all the victims. Agamemnon’s androktasia is typical in all its details. 1. It is very common for the companion of a well-known warrior to be slain. Cf. M 378, O 331. Most often the slaying assumes a somewhat different form from the one it does here and a friend, brother, or charioteer is killed by the blow aimed at his companion or leader. 2. Deikoon stood out among the Trojans and was therefore held in great honor. Compare Imbrios at N 175. For others who are similarly treated, see above, p. 18. On the excellence of the slain man, see above, pp. 15—16 and footnote 12 . 3. Agamemnon strikes his victim in the stomach. He is, along with Achilles, the only major Greek hero who commits many painful or ugly slayings17. There arc numerous examples in Book Λ, where they will receive further attention. E 541—560. Aeneas slays two brothers. It is not said that he was angered by the death of his companion, although the circumstances suggest it. On the other hand, it frequently happens in these chain fights that a particular slaying does not have the effect that one might expect. At N 496—508, for example, an encounter proceeds as follows: (1) A throws at B; (2) he misses; (3) B kills C. That is to say, B does not turn on his attacker, but picks out a third party instead. P 304 presents the same thing: (1) A throws at B; (2) he misses and kills C; (3) B kills D. At M 378 Aias slays a friend of Sarpedon and Teucer wounds Glaucos. Sarpedon is aroused and kills Alkmaon. In all of these scenes the reaction of the man who is first attacked, or whose friend lias been struck, is not directed against the enemy who made the attack but against somebody else as yet uninvolved; so Aeneas here. As for the slaying itself, it is made up entirely of familiar details : 1. Two brothers arc slain together. See above, p. 11. 2. Their father was wealthy. Riches are a favorite theme in the anecdotes about slain warriors: E 613, E 708, Z 14, Π 596, P 576.

I— Agamemnon's aristeia I— Zeus removes Hector from combat Agamemnon’s aristeia Zeus sends Iris to remove Hector from combat There is another example in Y : ■— Achilles' aristeia, Y- Φ 135 ' The river becomes angry, considers intervening, Φ 136 Further fighting in the river, Φ 139 The river intervenes in a full-fledged episode, Φ 211 In all of these passages the idea is developed fully the second time it appears, having first received only a brief mention. The woundings of Agamemnon and Odysseus in Λ represent another kind of doublet. Agamemnon ( Λ 221) slays Iphidamas; the latter’s brother, Koon, wounds Agamemnon in vengeance, but is then also slain by him (248). At Λ 426 Odysseus kills Charops; this man’s brother, Sokos, then wounds Odysseus in vengeance for his brother's death, but then Odysseus kills him, too (428—49). I t is just possible that the E passage is more closely related to still another type of scene that is represented, say, by 0 653. Hector has rushed against the Greeks with devastating effect. At 653 a general description pictures the Greeks’ situation. Then a series of individuals appears — Nestor, 659, Athena, 6 6 8 , Aias, 674 and Hector, 6 8 8 . Another general description of the Greeks then be­ gins at 696. There is, in other words, an alternation of general scenes of the armies with individual appearances. As a final possibility, we saw earlier p. 19 that general scenes often serve as a bridge between old and new phases of the battle. Here in E lines 519—527 could be considered the bridge to the scries of encounter's that starts after Agamemnon’s parainesis at 528—32. I do not think that these different possible explanations of why the E passage looks the way it does are mutually exclusive. The element of learned habit plays a major role in composition by typical patterns, and the pressure of any number of compositional habits could have produced the present form of the passage. At E 528—532 Agamemnon delivers a parainesis. The four lines of this short speech are repeated at 0 561—64. They state a commonplace idea, that

** A t Θ 512 H ector threatens w h at he will ' Thorc is an excellent analysis of this scene by S trasdurcer , Kleine Kämpfer, pp. 71 f.

Book Λ

As usual, Agamemnon uses his sword after having failed with the spear. Items (1) and (2) in this pattern are never reversed, nor does B ever slay A. The rigidity with which these alternatives are excluded proves that this is a genu­ ine, fixed pattern. See the introduction, p. 6 . Λ 246—263- The death of Koon. This Trojan attempts to avenge his brother, Iphidamas, and wounds Agamemnon as the latter is carrying off the armor, but is then also slain by him. The warrior who attempts to avenge his brother's death is familiar in the Iliad. Compare, as samples, Λ 428, a 476, Π 319, Y 419. In this last scene, Hector, seeing his brother slain by Achilles, is grief-stricken and attacks. Nothing comes of the fight, since Hector is spirited away by Apollo (Y 443), but Hector’s reaction to his brother's death is much like Koon’s here (419—21): "Εκτωρ S’ ώς ένόησε κασίγνητον Πολύδωρον Ιντερα χερσίν £χοντα, λιαζόμενον ποτί γαίη, χάρ ρά ο! δφθαλμών χέχυτ’ άχλύς.

420

Agamemnon is wounded while carrying away his last victim’s armor. Dio­ medes ( Λ 368) and Eurypylos { Λ 581) are wounded under similar circum­ stances in this same book. Both are shot by Paris while in the act of stripping a fallen enemy. Later on in N (527) Deiphobos is wounded under exactly the same circumstances. Agamemnon, in turn, slays Koon as the Trojan is trying to drag away his brother's body. This is one of the most frequent incidents in all of the Iliad's fighting: a man is struck and killed or wounded as he is trying to rescue or capture a body (see E, p. 40). Once again Agamemnon cuts off his enemy’s head (see above, p. 84). The scene ends with a short summary (262) : £vö’ Άντήνορος υΐες ύπ’ Άτρείδη βασιληϊ πότμον άναπλήσαντες εδυν δόμον "Αϊδος εϊσω. Such summaries close out the deaths of other brother pairs at E 559 and Π 326. The first: τοίω τώ χείρεσσιν ύπ’ Αΐνείαο δαμέντε χαππεσέτην, έλάτησιν έοιχότες ύψηλησι. At Π 326: ώς τώ μέν δοιοΐσι χασιγνήτοισι δαμέντε βήτην εις ’Έρεβος, Σαρπηδόνος έσΟλοΙ εταίροι, χτλ.

If the slayings of Iphidamas and Koon are taken together, the entire scene looks like this: 1. Agamemnon kills Iphidamas. 2. Iphidamas’ brother, Koon, attacks Agamemnon and wounds him. 3. Agamemnon slays Koon. The circumstances under which Odysseus is wounded later on are identical (426): 1. Odysseus kills Charops. 2. Charops’ brother, Sokos, attacks and wounds Odysseus. 3. Odysseus slays Sokos. Both Agamemnon and Odysseus remain on the battlefield for a while after they are wounded, but are then removed by chariot. A glance at what happens to Odysseus after he slays Sokos, as well as the way his encounter with the two brothers is related, will show th at it has little in common with the Agamemnon scene in detail. In both scenes the pattern is typical, the details different; but the details are almost all repeated elsewhere. The same cannot, however, be said of the next section, lines 264—74. Nowhere else in the poem does a man continue to fight until his wound dries and the pain forces him to withdraw. The simile is also unique, both in content and in function. Only two details connect the passage with other parts of the Iliad. (1) Some repeated lines — 264 f., 273 f.; (2) in a simile at Λ 474 a deer, struck by an arrow, runs from its pursuers as long as the blood runs warm from its wound. “But after the bitter arrow subdues him, then . . .’’ B ut even here it is not said whether the deer fails because of fatigue, loss of blood, or because the wound dries and it is too painful for him to run any longer.These lines are therefore almost entirely untypical. Λ 273—279. Agamemnon climbs into his chariot and delivers a short parainesis. Reinhardt observes that in the successive woundings of the major Greek warriors in Λ "Das Besteigen des Wagens ist wie ein Refrain, der jedesmal den Taten ein Ende setzt’’12. Cf. Λ 399, 487, 517, 597. The words of Agamem­ non’s speech are not repeated elsewhere, but they are of a conventional sort. Interestingly, lines 275 f., although each is frequently repeated by itself, are put together only three times: here, Λ 586 and P 247. As a pair, they always appear when tire person calling is either withdrawing (the two Λ passages) or facing an enemy who will force withdrawal unless aid is brought (P). At Λ 284—290 Hector sees Agamemnon leaving, remembers the instructions brought by Iris, and encourages his men. Hector's speeches of encouragement to the Trojans are numerous, but two, in particular, should be compared because of the contexts in which they appear. Note, first of all, two features of the parainesis iicrc in Λ : (I) it is delivered when Hector secs Agamemnon leaving the field; (2) he points out that Zeus is helping the Trojans. They can therefore ls Ilian mid ihr Dichter, p. 254.

Book Λ

fight with confidence. A t Θ 173 Hector shouts encouragement to his men when he sees Diomedes being driven back by Zeus’ lightning bolts and he urges on his men by showing th at Zeus is giving them victory. 0 461 is even closer to the Λ scene. Zeus breaks ïeucer’s bow string to prevent him from shooting Hector. Teucer then leaves the battlefield to secure a spear and shield. Hector notices his departure and shouts encouragement to his men (484) : 'Έκτωρ δ’ ώς εϊδεν Τεύκρου βλαφθέντα βέλεμνα, Τρω σίτε καί Λυκίοισιν έκέκλετο μακρδν άόσας· "Τρώες καί Λύκιοι καί Δάρδανοι άγχιμαχηταί, άνέρες έ'στε, φίλοι, μνήσασΟε δέ Οούριδος άλκης νηας άνά γλαφυράς- δή γάρ ϊδον ύφΟαλμοϊσιν άνδρδς άριστηος Διόθεν βλαφθέντα βέλεμνα. £εϊα δ’ άρίγνωτος Διδς άνδράσι γίγνεται άλκή, κτλ.

485

490

The contents and circumstances of the speech are like those in Θ and Λ (Λ 285—87 = Ο 485—87). Hector points out that a formidable enemy is leaving the battle and boasts (correctly) that Zeus is supporting him and repelling the Greeks. The three scenes, therefore, are alike in three ways: (1) withdraw­ al of a Greek fighter, (2) a parainesis by Hector immediately afterwards, (3) his boast that Zeus is helping the Trojans (this boast is always true). Following his parainesis, Hector charges and is compared to a hunter send­ ing his hounds after a boar or lion (Λ 292—95) : ώς δ’ δτε πού τις Οηρητήρ κύνας άγριόδοντας σεύη έπ’ άγροτέρω συΐ καπρίω ήέ λέοντι, ώς έπ’ Άχαιοϊσιν σεϋε Τρώας μεγάθυμους, κτλ. A second simile quickly follows the first, which describes Hector bursting into the Greek ranks the way a storm rushes over the sea (297). For such a succession of similes, sec above on E 554, p. 58. The storm simile is elaborated to much greater length at 0 624, where again Hector drives into the Greek lines. Both the situation and the simile are therefore typical. But the most closely related simile occurs at Θ 338, and it is part of a very similar passage. Hector has just wounded Teucer with a rock. The Greek is quickly rescued by his brother Aias, and c a rried b a ck to the ships by two companions. Flector a n d Z e u s then drive the Achaians back toward the trench (335). Flector delivers no parainesis here, but is described by a hunting simile as he is in Λ : ώς δ’ δτε τις τε κύων συός άγριου ήέ λέοντος άπτηται κατόπισΟε, ποσίν ταχέεσσι διώκων. Ισχία τε γλουτούς τε, έλισσόμενόν τε δοκεύει, κτλ.

91

The passages at Θ 167, Θ 332, Λ 274 and Ο 478 thus have the following in common : Θ 167 Θ332 1. Diomedes withdraws 1. Teucer is carried off 2. Flector sees him, delivers 2. Zeus helps the Trojans a parainesis — Zeus is 3. Hector charges helping the Trojans 4. Flunting simile A 274 0 274 1. Agamemnon withdraws 1. Teucer withdraws 2. Hector secs him, delivers 2. Flector sees him, delivers a parainesis — Zeus is a parainesis — Zeus is helping the Trojans helping the Trojans A. Parainesis by Aias B. Hard fighting 3. Flector charges into the 3. Flector & Trojans, aided Greek line by Zeus & Apollo, make 4. Simile (hunter, storm) a devastating charge into the Greek ranks 4. Storm simile 299—309. This is a typical slaying catalogue. It opens with the formulaic ένθα τίνα πρώτον, τίνα δ’ ύστατον έξενάριξε, κτλ., and is immedi­ ately followed (310) by intervention from the other side (see above on E 677— 682, pp. 68—69). The simile that follows the list of victims (305—09) also depicts a storm at sea, and is related in subject and function to those at A 297 and O 624. The simile here closes the catalogue the way an anecdote closes the catalogue at E 708—10. Λ 310—319. The reaction. Odysseus spurs Diomedes on, Diomedes promises to stand firm, but has little hope for a good outcome. Diomedes and Odysseus are linked together with some consistency in the Iliad (here, in K, and at Θ 90), just as they are in tfie cycle (capture of the Palladium, murder of Palamedes, etc.). The situation here also recalls the Θ scene. Odysseus encourages Dio­ medes to hold his ground. In Θ Diomedes urged Odysseus to do the same, but without result; the Ithacan kept running without stopping to hear. It is tempting to connect the two scenes, although that relation should probably be defined not as a reminiscence from A back to Θ, but as a familiar connec­ tion between two heroes in a typical situation : Hector is charging and the danger is very great. If the A scene were to be taken as a deliberate reference back to Θ, it would only be an uncomplimentary comparison of Odysseus’ behavior there with Diomedes’ here, which has little point in the present scene. Λ 320—335. The two Greeks now fight as a pair and slay a series of Trojan pairs. For such fighting by twos, compare E 576 (Menelaos and Antilochos) and Π 317 (Antilochos and Thrasymedes). The combats here are simple and

92

Book Λ

fully typical. The boar simile is a favorite, second only to lion similes in fre­ quency, and the anecdote about the seer Merops is also typical (see E 148—51, pp. 23—24). At this point an action begins which affords an especially good example of how different patterns can be combined with each other. It also shows that the poet did not distinguish and divide these patterns into the sharply defined types which, for the sake of clarity, I have presented here. Many related patterns can be reduced to simple, basic situations — e. g. a Trojan attacks and one or more Greeks stand to face him. This situation can be developed in terms of a "consultation pattern” , a "rebuke pattern” or a "noticing pattern” . But these are not rigid or mutually exclusive; certain details can be exchanged be­ tween them, or whole sections can be combined into a "mixed pattern” . This shows that the poet composed by describing certain basic, recurrent situations with which he associated certain details. These details in turn group them­ selves along certain general structural lines — i. e. they form patterns. B ut this does not happen according to any unalterable or fixed system. The structural framework of all the patterns is variable at almost any given point, although a majority of identifying details is always present in any one example. Both the repetitiveness and the elasticity of the system are demonstrated by the fact that although the battle narrative is composed almost entirely of repeated elements of all kinds, no two battle scenes, large or small, are wholly alike. I will treat the scene in two parts, the first of which is contained in lines 336—348. This part has already been touched upon above, pp. 62—63. To review briefly, at E 590 the following action develops : 1. A pair of Greeks have just slain opponents. 2. Hector notices and charges, κεκλήγων (E 590 f. = A 343 f.). 3. Diomedes sees him and shudders (E 596 — Λ 345). Simile. 4. Diomedes urges retreat because he sees Ares aiding Hector. The similarity of this to the Λ scene is obvious: 1. A pair of Greeks slays a series of opponents. 2. Hector notices and charges. 3. Diomedes sees him and shudders. 4. He addresses Odysseus pessimistically but holds his ground just the same. The action that precedes and follows these episodes in the two books is differ­ ent. But the double combats at Λ 320—35 are not only typical in themselves, but are part of a larger pattern as well, since Hector's charge in E is also triggered by the success of two Greeks fighting as a team. Diomedes' pessimism is also a familiar detail. It appeal's in the related E scene above, Sthenelos is afraid of the advancing Trojans at E 243, Diomedes was afraid just above at Λ 317—19, Odysseus is afraid at Θ 90 where he will not stop even at Dio­ medes’ rebuke, and at P 501 Automedon bravely faces the oncharging Hector and Aeneas, but there is fear in his voice :

Book Λ

'Ά ΐα ντ’, Άργείων ήγήτορε, καί Μενέλαε, ήτοι μέν τόν νεκρόν έπιτράπεΟ’ οι περ άριστοι, άμφ’ αύτω βεβάμ.εν καί άμύνεσΟαι στίχας άνδρών, νώϊν δε ζωοΐσιν άμύνετε νηλεες ήμαρ ' τηδε γάρ έβρισαν πόλεμον κάτα δακρυόεντα "Εκτωρ Αινείας Θ’, ο ϊ Τρώων εΐσίν άριστοι.

93

510

The second part of the Λ scene runs from line 349 to 367. TII ρα, καί άμπεπαλών προΐει δολιχόσκιον έγχος, καί βάλεν, ούδ’ άφάμαρτε, τιτυσκόμενος κεφαλήφιν, άκρην κάκ κόρυθα- πλάγχΟη δ’ από χαλκόφι χαλκός, ούδ’ ίκετο χρόα καλόν έρύκακε γάρ τρυφάλεια τρίπτυχος αύλώπις, την οί «όρε Φοίβος ’Απόλλων. "Εκτωρ δ’ ώκ’ άπέλεΟρον άνέδραμε, μίκτο δ’ όμίλω, στη δέ γνυξ έριπών καί έρείσατο χειρί παχείη γαίης- άμφί δέ δσσε κελαινή νυξ έκάλυψεν. οφρα δε Τυδεΐδης μετά δούρατος ώχετ’ ερωήν τηλε διά προμάχων, όΟι οΐ καταείσατο γαίης, τόψρ’ "Εκτωρ έμπνυτο, καί άψ ές δίφρον όρούσας έξέλασ’ ές πληΟύν, καί άλεύατο κήρα μέλαιναν. δουρί S’ έπαίσσων προσέφη κρατερός Διομήδης' "έξ αδ νυν έφυγες Θάνατον, κύον ή τέ τοι άγχι ήλθε κακόν νυν αδτέ σ’ έρύσατο Φοίβος ’Απόλλων, ω μέλλεις εΰχεσΟαι ιών ές δοΰπον άκόντων, ή Οήν σ’ έξανύω γε καί ύστερον άντιβολήσας, εϊ πού τις καί έμοιγε Θεών επιτάρροΟός έστι. νυν αδ τούς άλλους έπιείσομαι, ον κε κιχείω.”

350

355

360

365

It begins with the death of Agastrophos, who leaves his chariot behind and hurries through the ranks on foot until he loses his life (338—42). Running through the ranks is dangerous. Sthenelos warns Diomedes himself against it at E 249. But the important comparison to be made here is with Y 407. 1. Polydoros, a brother of Hector, runs through the ranks until Achilles sees and kills him (411 f.) : δή τότε νηπιέησι ποδών αρετήν άναφαίνων Οϋνε διά προμάχων, ήος φίλον ώλεσε Θυμόν. 2. Achilles slays him. 3. Hector “notices”, and challenges Achilles.

Book Λ

4. The ensuing combat, entirely different from that in Λ, ends in the rescue of Hector by Apollo. 5. Achilles tries to reach Hector as he is being rescued, fails, and delivers the same abusive, derisive speech that Diomedes does in Λ (A 362—67 = Y 449—54). The two scenes thus follow a similar pattern: a man runs through the ranks until he loses his life. Hector notices and attacks, is beaten off, and his enemy showers him with scorn and derision. Achilles' triple attack in Y is very similar to the triple attack of Diomedes when Aeneas is rescued by Apollo (see above, pp. 46—48). At the same time, the Λ scene shares a considerable number of similarities with the Aeneas — Pandaros — Diomedes encounter in E : (1) Diomedes fights with another man at his side, (2) the element of fear or pessi­ mism is present in both scenes, (3) the enemy is beaten off and wounded. E and Y share the divine rescue, Λ and Y the derisive speech, E and Λ the presence of two warriors and the clement of fear, Λ and Y the man on foot and Hector’s noticing. E also has a scornful speech to a retreating enemy, but there Diomedes shouts it to Aphrodite as she withdraws. I t becomes clear from this how inter­ changeable the typical details in these scenes are, scenes which are all based on essentially the same situation: Trojan attack and repulse by the Greeks. The two major patterns that are combined herein A are: (1) a Greek pair slays one or more Trojan pairs, Hector notices and charges, Diomedes secs him, shudders,and delivers a speech,and(2)the type represented by the Y scene ana­ lyzed just above. But the two are woven together. This is no juxtaposition, but an amalgamation of two patterns. The slaying of the Trojan that attracts Hector’s attention is the second item in the first pattern, but the first item in the second pattern, etc. In a strict sense, of course, it is false to speak of two patterns at all. The poet himself would scarcely have thought of them in that way. One could, if he wished, make a good case for the priority of the Y scene over the one in A on the ground that the details do not fit here as well here as they do there. After Diomedes has knocked Hector down, why does he not attack him with his sword ? The poet is driven to the artificial explanation that Hector had time to catch his breath while Diomedes went to retrieve his spear. Ξ 423 is much more natural. Hector is quickly surrounded by his comrades after he has been wounded, and is protected from the Greeks who immediately rush after him. One would expect Diomedes to do the same thing here. Further, Diomedes’ mockery that Apollo saved Hector fits much better in Y, where it really did happen, than in A where it did not. But these inconcinnities (which are real and not to be excused out of existence) are not the result of the clumsy transfer of the Y scene into A, but simply indicate th at a type scene or group of typical details has been inexactly and unsuccessfully adapted to the situation (see the E chapter, pp. 47—48). I am not prepared to offer any

Book Λ

95

explanation as to why the poet did not have Hector saved by his comrades here, or by Apollo, and thus obviate his cumbersome explanation of how Hec­ tor escaped. The material lay at hand, but he did not choose to use it. The explanation that the poet unthinkingly fell into a trap because he had the Y scene — i. e. that specific scene, not a general type scene — in mind is worthless, because it leaves unanswered the question why he did not also use the divine rescue. I t is as much a part of the Y scene as Achilles’ parting speech. If he did not want a divine rescue here he could have substituted a rescue by a group of friends, as at E 663 or Ξ 423. I reject categorically any such reasoning as; "when the A poet copied the Y scene the divine rescue was not a part of it. I t came only later. Thus the Y scene without Apollo is older than the Λ scene, but the divine rescue in Y is younger than both.’’ A constructive dialogue based on such a method is practically impossible. I think it must be admitted that we are faced with an example of the poet’s carelessness, the causes of which we are not in a position to trace. At Λ 368—400 Diomedes is wounded by Paris while in the act of stripping the armor from Agastrophos. The incident is typical. Agamemnon is wounded while carrying away an enemy's armor (A 246), Eurypylos is shot by Paris while stripping Apisaon (A 580), Deiphobos is struck in the arm as he pulls the helmet from a slain Greek (N 527). These scenes may have relatives at N 550, where Antilochos is driven off while attempting to strip a dead enemy (cf. Δ 532), and at 0 524 where Meges is attacked while in the act of removing a man’s armor, but defends himself and slays his attacker with the help of Menelaos. Paris shoots Agamemnon while leaning against the grave monument of Ilos. The detail is curious. Is it for pictorial effect, a traditional descriptive detail, or a reminiscence of a painting that the poet saw? A t Φ 549, when Apollo comes to help Agenor face Achilles, the god stands leaning against the oak tree — φηγω κεκλιμένος. This may be nothing more than a typical descriptive detail, but its meaning and source are obscure. The wounding of Diomedes in the foot is sometimes held to be a reminiscence of the Aithiopis, where Achilles was shot and killed by Paris. I will return to this question in detail in a later chapter; the elements of the scene typical for the Iliad, how­ ever, are as follows : after the arrow has pierced Diomedes’ foot Paris leaps from his hiding place, rejoicing and boasting at the same time (378—83). Diomedes replies with scorn and abuse; Paris is a weakling, he can only inflict a minor wound; if they ever came together at close quarters he would soon learn his lesson (384—95). Odysseus then hurries to his friend's side and pulls the arrow from his foot. Diomedes climbs into his chariot and is driven back to the ships (396—400). 1. Paris appears frequently with his bow, and always succeeds in wounding or slaying his target : Λ 504, Λ 581, N 660.

Book Λ 2. Paris boasts after he has shot Diomedes the way Pandaros had done earlier at E 102. This same E scene is related to the one in Λ. For details, see E, pp. 20—21. The general scheme of the two passages looks like this: A. Diomedes fights successfully. B. Pandaros/Paris sees him and wounds him with an arrow. C. Pandaros/Paris rejoices. Pandaros thinks Diomedes is mortally wounded and urges the Trojans on. D. Diomedes withdraws, Sthenelos/Odysseus pulls out the arrow. The action that precedes and follows these incidents is different in E and Λ and many of the smaller details in the two scenes are also different. In E Pandaros thinks he has finished Diomedes for good, in Λ Paris knows that his enemy is only wounded. In Λ Diomedes is struck while stripping a fallen enemy, in E he is rushing over the field. In Λ Diomedes replies to Paris, in E he does not reply. But this Λ detail is paralleled by E 284. Pandaros’ spear reaches Diomedes’ breastplate and the L ydan shouts for joy — Diomedes is stricken. Diomedes, however, replies that he is not. The particular insults that he flings at Paris here in Λ — that he is nothing but a weakling and a seducer — are essentially the same as those that Paris hears from his brother at I’ 39: Paris’ proper sphere is the company of females; on the battlefield he is worth­ less. On the whole, however, Paris’ success in the fighting belies these charges, as Hector himself, in a calmer moment, admits (Z 521). This entire section, then, from the departure of Agamemnon to the departure of Diomedes is almost entirely typical, as was the aristeia of Agamemnon. Λ 401—488. The isolation and wounding of Odysseus. The section begins with the notice th at Odysseus is left by himself to face the Trojans. When he realizes this, he considers with himself what he should do. Before beginning an analysis of his speech and the scene that follows it, the monologues in the Iliad in general should be considered. They have been analyzed in detail by C. Hentze13; his more important conclusions are these: 1. A genuine monologue appears for the first time in Λ. They are confined to Λ, and books P through X. The loci are: Λ 404, P 91, P 201, P 443, Σ 6 , Y 344, Y 425, Φ 54, Φ 553, X 99, X 297. 2. “The occasion for a monologue is in almost every case that something is perceived which in some manner arouses a strong reaction in the observer, usually causing indignation or displeasure, terror or concern, surprise or astonishment”·1'1. 3. "The monologue can be divided into two main types, according to content: those in which the subject considers or ponders, and those in which he observes something. As an example of the first type, Λ 404 ff.; of the second, Σ 6 ff.”15. ΙΛ "D ie Monologe in don homerischen E pen ”, Philologus 63 (1904), pp. 12— 30. 14 Ibid., p. 14. 15 Ibid., p. IS.

Book Λ

97

4. "Accordingly, in the great majority of cases the monologue is a means by which the poet explains the actions of his heroes according to their own motives, much like the monologues of drama which reveal, at a critical juncture, the inner decision of a character to a certain course of action”10. 5. On page 20 of his article Hentze outlines the basic structure of the Iliad’s monologues. 6 . In contrast to the monologue is the narrative report; a person’s decision is simply stated by the poet without his motives being explained17. 7. "In other cases a character pondering a course of action does not come to a decision by himself. Rather, the decision comes to him from the outside, usually through the intervention of a god who strengthens the resolve of the vacillating mortal with an encouraging speech, as at A 194 ff., K 507 ff., ΓΙ 715 ff., or by inner influence, as at E 671 ff. (these four examples occur in Books A K Γί E where there are no genuine monologues)”18. So much for Hentze's analysis of the monologue as a type scene. Odysseus’ speech here in Λ is most closely related to three other monologues at P 91, Φ 553 and X 99. They proceed as follows. P 91 : 1. Menelaos faces the onrushing Hector. 2. He debates with himself what he should do. 3. He retreats and summons Aias. 4. Hector retreats from the two of them. Φ 553: 1. Agenor faces the onrushing Achilles. 2. He debates with himself what he should do. 3. He decides to fight. 4. Ensuing combat. 5. He is rescued by Apollo. X 99: 1. Hector faces the onrushing Achilles. 2 . Pie debates with himself what he should do. 3. He decides to fight. 4. When Achilles draws near, Plector runs away. Λ 401: 1. Odysseus faces the Trojans who hem him in from every side. 2. He debates with himself what lie should do. 3. He decides to fight. 4. After a long fight Odysseus is rescued by Aias (485). 18 Ibid,, p. 17. 17 Ibid., p. 20. Is Ibid., p. 23. O n personal decisions by mortals, both w ith and w ithout divine inter­ vention, sec now A. L esky , Göttliche und menschliche Motivation im homerischen Epos (Heidelberg, 1961).

These scenes are basically similar, and all the monologues follow the same basic plan. The warrior utters a desperate exclamation (ώ μοι εγώ), considers one possible course of action (retreat) which he then rejects, beginning each time with line άλλα τίη μοι ταϋτα φίλος διελέξατο θυμός; (Λ 407, Ρ 97, Φ 562, X 122). The Λ, Ρ and Φ passages end witli the rescue of the threatened warrior (by Aias in Λ and P). The example in P is a highly interesting mixed pattern that will be discussed in the appropriate chapter. The Λ passage begins, then, in fully typical fashion. Odysseus decides to hold his ground and is immediately set upon by a host of Trojans (411—20). The situation where one Greek is attacked by many Trojans, but continues to fight stubbornly, recurs at P 544, where Zeus forces Aias back. The Trojans attack him in large numbers and he slowly retreats. Like Odysseus he is com­ pared to a wild animal (lion) pursued by hunters and hounds (548—55) ; like Odysseus lie eventually reaches safety, although he does not need to be rescued by somebody else. At N 550 Antilochos is driven away from one of his victims by a large number of Trojans who hurl their spears at him from all sides. Like Aias, Antilochos gradually withdraws until he reaches the safety of his own lines. Aias is in the same situation at Π 102 during his last-ditch stand before the ships, when Zeus and the Trojans (103) drive him inexorably backwards. The pursuit of one Greek by many Trojans is, then, an easily definable typical scene. One Trojan is never set upon by many Greeks, and it is significant that the lone Greek is never slain in this difficult situation. This is the only time that such a monologue appears when a man is being threatened by a number of the enemy. In Ρ, Φ and X the Greek has to deal with only one of them. It seems, therefore, that the Λ scene has a mixed pattern: (1) a single Greek hounded by the enemy, (2) a monologue in the face of threatening danger. But there is an unusual feature here: Odysseus turns the tables at one point and actually attacks his pursuers, enjoying an aristeia while surrounded on all sides by the enemy. He even has time to engage in a rather long single encounter with Sokos.Thisis the only time that the single fighter does not gradu­ ally retreat until he is rescued. In order to allow Odysseus an aristeia the poet must have forgotten, or have chosen to ignore, the situation in which the hero found himself. Taken by itself, it is familiar enough for superior fighter to attack a mass of the enemy by himself the way Odysseus does here (cf. Odysseus him­ self at E 676, or Aias at Λ 489), but we are not led to expect this from the way the scene begins. This further strengthens the impression that, although all of the material in the present passage is typical, it is being combined in an unusual manner. But how does the scene end? After he has slain Sokos Odysseus calls for help, Menelaos hears him and summons Aias. T h e o rig in a l situ a tio n then re peats itself. Odysseus is surrounded by the Trojans, who hem him in on all sides. Once again a simile drawn from the animal world paints the scene:

άμφί δ’ άρ’ αυτόν Τρώες επονθ’ ώς st τε δαφοινοί θώες όρεσφιν άμφ’ έλαφον κεραόν βεβλημένου, . . . ώς ρα τότ’ άμφ’ Όδυσήα δαίφρανα ποικιλομήτην Τρώες έπον πολλοί τε καί άλκιμοι, αύτάρ ο γ ’ ήρως άίσσων ω έ'γχει άμύνετο νηλεες ήμαρ. Αίας δ’ έγγύθεν ήλθε φέρων σάκος ήύτε πύργον, στη δε παρέξ· Τρώες δέ διέτρεσαν άλλυδις άλλος.

475

485

I t looks very much as though this is another doublet scene (for other doub­ lets in Λ, see above, p. 86) : A. Odysseus surrounded and pursued by many Trojans. B. Odysseus fights and slays several of the enemy. C. Odysseus wounded and pursued by many Trojans. In the other scenes with similar monologues the threatened warrior is res­ cued. In the doublet passage here in Λ Odysseus is also rescued. The rescue itself is, further, much like that in the parallel P scene where Menelaos debates with himself, retreats, and summons Aias, at whose arrival Hector quickly retreats (128): Αίας δ’ έγγύθεν ήλθε φέρων σάκος ήύτε πύργον. ’Έκτωρ δ’ άψ ές όμιλον ιών άνεχάζεθ’ έταίρων, κτλ. If it were not for the intervening aristeia of Odysseus, then, this scene would be as close a parallel to the others as can reasonably be expected. If Aias' hurrying to the rescue, followed by Trojan retreat, is part of the Λ and P scenes, such a rescue is also a typical incident by itself, independently of the pattern. At E 570 Antilochos rushes to Menelaos’ side. Aeneas, who was threatening the Greek leader, quickly retreats. Further, just as Odysseus and Diomedes are often connected, so arc Menelaos and Aias. They appear together here in Λ (464), in the related P scene where Menelaos again summons Aias, this time to his own aid, and again later in Ρ (651 and 707) where the two of them organize the rescue of Patroclos’ body. To sum up: the Λ scene contains the following typical elements: (1) mono­ logue of a threatened warrior, (2) the pursuit of one Greek by many Trojans (twice), (3) the attack of a single fighter against a mass of the enemy, (4) a rescue of a threatened warrior, (5) the presence of Aias and Menelaos together. It is only the mixture and the ordering of the elements that is unique. In the Λ doublet scenes and in the scene later in Λ, where Aias is forced back by the Trojan numbers, a simile from the animal world describes the action. The lone fighter is compared to an animal (lion, boar, wounded deer)

101

Book Λ

Boole Λ

th at is attacked by numerous enemies. The same kind of similes appear again in the Φ and X scenes. After his monologue is finished, Agenor awaits Achilles like a panther facing an approaching hunter (Φ 571). Hector, just before his monologue (X 92), is like a ferocious serpent th at refuses to back down before a man. A simile, then, from the animal world appears in regular connection with a monologue. But the Λ passage where Aias is forced back by the Trojans 1ms n o monologue preceding it. This same kind of scene appears again at N 550 without either a monologue or a simile. The situation where one lone man is threatened by o n e dangerous enemy also occurs without the mono­ logue. At 0 585 Antilochos runs away from Hector:

I t only remains now to examine lines 420—458, th at section between the doublet scenes 411—420 and 459—484. The slayings in lines 420—25 are quickly related, and consist for the most part of repeated lines or phrases. Such series of quick slayings are typical by themselves, as in the slaying catalogues. One small detail here deserves attention. C h e rsid a m a s dies as follows (A 423—25) :

Άντίλοχος δ’ ού μείνε Θοός περ έών πολεμιστής, άλλ’ 5 γ’ άρ’ δτρεσε Οηρί κακόν ^έξαντι έοικώς, κτλ. Compare that with the beginning of Aias’ slow retreat in Λ (546) : τρέσσε δέ παπτήνας έφ’ ομίλου, Οηρί έοικώς, κτλ. At Ν 469 Aeneas charges against Idomeneus. The fight would be unequal, and Idomeneus is forced to call for help. But before he does, his courage is described as follows: άλλ’ ούκ Ίδομενήα φόβος λάβε τηλύγετον ω ς, άλλ’ έ'μεν’, ώς δτε τις σΰς οΰρεσιν άλκί πεποιΟώς, κτλ. Once again the lone warrior, the dangerous enemy, and the animal simile appear together. Had Idomeneus delivered a monologue the scene would be almost identical with those outlined above in Λ, P, Φ and X. These scenes thus break down into the following basic elements: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A single Greek threatened by one dangerous foe. A single Greek threatened by many Trojans. A monologue in the face of danger. An animal simile. Escape of the threatened warrior.

None of these single elements has any n ece ssa ry connection with any other. Ail of them appear elsewhere by themselves — i. e. in other connections, as parts of other scenes. At the same time, numbers 1—3, 5 and 3— 4 tend to be used together more frequently than in other combinations. As usual, the pattern has no monopoly on its single parts, most of which have independent lives of their own.

Χερσιδάμαντα S' επειτα, καθ’ ίππων αίξαντα, δουρί κατά πρότμ.ησιν ύπ’ άσπίδος όμφαλοέσσης νύξεν. At Y 401—02 H ip p o d a m a s is slain in the same way by Achilles: Ίπποδάμαντα δ’ επειτα καθ’ ίππων άίξαντα, πρόσΟεν δΟεν φεύγοντα, μετάφρενον οδτασε δουρί. Is the similarity of names mere coincidence ? Λ 426—433. Odysseus’ encounter with Charops and Sokos: 1. The detail τούς μέν έ'ασε occurs frequently when a victorious warrior is hurrying from one victim to the other. Cf. E 847, E 148, Λ 148, Y 456. 2. I t was shown above (p. 89) that the circumstances under which Odysseus is wounded are identical with those where Agamemnon is wounded. 3. I t is typical for a man to try to avenge his slain brother. See E, p. 12. 4. The combat pattern is a familiar one: A throws at B and fails to pierce his armor; B then slays A. See E, p. 11. 5. The verbal exchange between Odysseus and Sokos is not exactly like any other. Sokos addresses Odysseus and throws his spear; Odysseus addresses Sokos, casts his spear, and kills him. Odysseus then speaks a second time to his dead or dying foe. But the lack of a strict parallel is not important, for speeches before and in the course of a duel are very common and a large number of variations are possible. At P 12 (Menelaos, Euphorbos) the exchange goes as follows: A addresses B; B replies to A; A addresses B again and throws his spear, unsuccessfully; B then slays A. At E 277 A (Pandaros) addresses B (Diomedes) and throws his spear. A then boasts; B replies and kills A. There are in fact no two scenes in the Iliad where enemies speak to each other before and/or during a combat that follow the same pattern. The poet clearly had no fixed pattern for this kind of scene. Odysseus' final address to his slain enemy is a typical speech of triumph: cf. N 374, ΓΙ 745, Y 389, etc. For the grisly predictions about the fate of the corpse, cf. O 349, Φ 122, X 335. 6 . Compare Sokos’ first words to Odysseus (430—33) with Euphorbos' threat to Menelaos at P 34. For the alternatives — a warrior will either kill or he killed — cf. M 172, P 503, etc.

Book Λ

Book Λ

7. After Sokos has failed to slay Odysseus he tries to flee and is struck in the back. Λ 447 f. = Θ 258 f. It is typical for a man to try to escape after an unsuccessful attack and to be slain or wounded as he does so. At Ξ 402 Hector throws his spear at Aias, but fails to pierce his armor. Hector quickly tries to withdraw, but Aias strikes and severely wounds him with a stone. At P 47 Euphorbos tries to escape after his spear has failed to pierce Menelaos’ armor. The result is the same as in the other cases. There are also related scenes where the unsuccessful attacker is slain by a third party. At N 560 Adamas strikes Antilochos' shield, but his spear sticks in it and does not go through. Adamas tries to pull back, but is hit and slain by Meriones. The same thing happens again at N 646. Harpalion strikes Menelaos’ shield, but fails to pierce it. As he leaps back to his own lines he shot by Meriones. 8 . Odysseus' wounding is described as follows : *Ώς είπών οΰτησε κατ’ ασπίδα πάντοσ’ έίσην. Stà μέν άσπίδος ήλθε φαεινής οβριμον ί γ χ ο ς , καί διά θώρηκος πολυδαιδάλου ήρήρειστο, πάντα δ’ άπό πλευρών χρόα έ'ργαΟεν, ούδ’ ετ’ £ασε Παλλάς Άθηναίη μιχθήμεναι εγκασι φωτός.

435

Line 436 appears again at Γ 358, Δ 136 and Η 252. In all three of these pas­ sages it causes severe difficulties. Gilbert Murray analyzed the problem of this line with admirable clarity and showed how it is entirely inappropriate to the Γ, Δ and H passages10. The difficulties are the following. In Δ Pandaros' arrow passes first through Menelaos' ζωστήρ, then through the θώρηξ, and finally through a μίτρη. This last is called his "greatest protection” (138: ή o l πλεΐστον ερυτο). It is not only curious that a μίτρη should be a more important protection than a breastplate, it is also difficult to imagine how all this armor fits together on one man. Finally, when Machaon later cuts the arrow out of Menelaos’ flesh (215) he loosens only the belt, thereby exposing both the mitre and the arrow. No thorax is mentioned. The passage would be much better off, then, without line 136. There are two possible explanations for its presence. It could have been arbitrarily inter­ polated into a fixed text, or (2 ) it could be another example of a typical detail used inappropriately. The second explanation is much the better. There are many cases where the poet’s association of a certain detail with a given pattern or type scene led him to introduce it into a passage where it was out of place. The Γ, Δ, H and Λ scenes all describe the passage of a missile through several layers of armor and tell how it finally came to a stop before it pierced the man’s vitals. Compare Y 267, where we are also told how many layers of 10 The Rise of the Grech Epic (Oxford, 1934), pp. 135 If

103

Achilles’ shield Aeneas’ spear passed through before it was stopped. This is, then, a small type scene, which means that the poet treated it as a standard collection of details. The lines were not so important individually as they were as a group. I t would therefore not be at all surprising if he transferred them en bloc from one situation, where they were all appropriate, to another, where one of them was not. It is not necessary, in other words, to resort either to vague generalizations like "poetic license” or "poetic contempt for prosaic accuracy of detail” , or to theories of the history of the text to explain the inconcinnity. It is explainable in terms of a certain kind of poetic technique, a composition by formula and pattern, where the pressure of the familiar and the associative force of related scenes was stronger than the need felt for thorough consistency. The epic poet did not make such "mistakes” because, as a professed or un­ conscious esthete, he despised accuracy in m atters of detail, nor does he need to have been a jämmerlicher Stümper or an elender Hinterherschreiber to have committed them. His "mistakes” are the direct result, or perhaps better, the almost inevitable concomitant, of the kind of poetic technique that he had learned and practiced. The difficulties in the H and Γ scenes can be traced back to the same cause, even though they are of a different sort. In these passages a spear passes through a man’s shield, and then through his breastplate (Γ 357—60 — H 251—54): διά μέν άσπίδος ήλθε φαεινής δβριμον εγχος, καί διά θώρηκος πολυδαιδάλου ήρήρειστο’ άντικρύ δέ παραί λαπάρην διάμησε χιτώνα έγχος· ό δ’ έκλίνθη καί άλεύατο κήρα μέλαιναν. Again we make our unimaginative objection to the divine bard: how can a man twist aside and avoid a spear after it has already passed through his breastplate? The answer is, of course, th at he cannot, and that these two passages would also be better off without the troublesome line καί διά θώρηκος πολυδαιδάλου ήρήρειστο. A particularly adept fighter can perhaps be imag­ ined twisting aside as a spear passed through his shield, although even this would require considerable agility with a weapon traveling at high speed. But no amount of quickness could save him once the weapon had entered his body armor. Here too, then, a line has been transferred from one scene into another where it does not entirely fit. The associative process that brought the line into the description of Menelaos’ wounding in Δ was also at work in Γ and H. Murray himself observes that άλεύατο in all the passages cou ld be taken as pluperfect : "he h a d twisted aside, . . . ” — i. e. before the weapon struck his breastplate. This would solve the difficulty, but the argument is strained and weakened by two things: (1) the resultant clarity and simplicity of all the passages with

B ookA

the thorax line removed; (2) the Δ passage remains unaffected by this expla­ nation. If the thorax line is removed, then, everything is in the best of order. Curious­ ly, however, Murray censures the Λ passage along with the other three and considers the troublesome line to be as much out of place there as it is else­ where. But this is not so. Sokos’ spear drives through Odysseus' shield and then forces its way through his breastplate, but only along the side, where it tears the skin from his ribs. This is simple enough and easy to picture. In the Γ and H passages the spear rips a relatively loose fitting chiton as it passes by the man’s flanks, but without touching his skin. This also seems possible enough. But it is impossible to imagine a spear passing through a breastplate, even along the side, without at least causing the damage th at Odysseus suffers here in Λ. The Λ scene shows us, therefore, how the thorax line m ig h t have orig­ inally been used. I t was then attracted into other descriptions of nearmisses, where a standard element was a list of the pieces of armor through which the enemy's weapon passed. One may not, however, conclude th at this Λ passage was the "original’' source, and that the Γ, Δ, and H passages have all been copied from it and are therefore younger. The thorax line could, and probably did, become a standard part of near-miss descriptions before any of the Iliad passages were composed. 9. Athena’s help here (437) is a typical feature. Poseidon protects Antilochos in the same way at N 554 and 562, Apollo protects Hector at Θ 311, and Athena, of course, protects Menelaos in the related Δ passage (127). Lines 401—78, the isolation and wounding of Odysseus, are, therefore, almost entirely typical, both in pattern and in detail The end of the scene, where Odysseus is taken out of the fight by chariot, is equally typical, especially for Λ (see above, p. 89). There are still some details in lines 456—73 that require attention : "Ω ς ειπών Σώκοιο δαίφρονος ββριμον Ιγχος έξω τε χροές έλκε καί άσπίδος όμφαλοέσσης· αίμα δέ οί σπασθέντος άνέσσυτο, κήδε δέ θυμόν. Τρώες δέ μεγάθυμοι όπως ϊδον αΐμ’ Όδυσσηος, κεκλόμενοι καθ’ όμιλον επ’ αύτώ πάντες έβησαν. αύτάρ ο γ ’ έξοπίσω άνεχάζετο, αδε δ’ εταίρους. τρις μέν έπειτ’ ήϋσεν όσον κεφαλή χάδε φωτός, τρίς δ’ άϊεν Ιάχοντος άρηΐφιλος Μενέλαος. αϊψα δ’ άρ’ Αίαντα προσεφώνεεν έγγύς Ιόντα"Αίαν διογενές Τελαμώνιε, κοίρανε λαών, άμφί μ’ Όδυσσηος ταλασίφρονος ίκετ’ άϋτή, κτλ.

460

105

seus calls for help three times. This does not happen anywhere else, although a triple attem pt of any kind is a standard motif (cf. E 436, Π 702, Σ 155, Y 445). Achilles yells three times from the wall (Σ 228). Odysseus’ call for help here is much like Menelaos’ call in the related P scene, 120. The call for help is an interesting motif in itself, and falls into certain types. There is nothing especially remarkable about them except that, as usual, the different types are repeated. 1. Λ man, alone, is attacked and calls for help: Λ 461 (Odysseus), N 477 (Idomeneus), P 120 (Menelaos). 2. Aias answers the call and comes to the rescue: Λ 485, P 128. Aias typi­ cally comes to the defense of others and initiates counter-attacks: cf. M 343, P 278, P 356, etc. 3. In the Λ passage one man (Menelaos) summons a second (Aias) to help a third (Odysseus). In the same way at P 120 Menelaos summons Aias to pro­ tect the body of Patroclos. Again, at P 708 Menelaos delivers a report to the Aiantes and then urges th at they rescue Patroclos’ corpse. 4. A call for help can also take the following form: one man sends a second as messenger to summon a third to bring aid to a fourth : M 343: Menestheus (1) sends Thoas (2) to get Aias (3) to defend the wall (4) against Sarpedon. P 685: Menelaos (1) sends Antilochos (2) to Achilles (3) who is to help save the body of Patroclos (4). Λ 489-—497. Aias counter-attacks in a fully typical scene. A series of quick slayings, followed by the simile of a torrent to describe the warrior’s charge, is discussed above, pp. 84—85. I t is also normal for Aias, or any other Greek coming to another’s aid, to draw first blood in the ensuing fight. Cf. Λ 575 (Eurypylos), M 378 (Aias), etc. On νόθοι, see E 69—75, p. 18. Λ 497—503. Hector does not know how badly the Trojans are being beaten here, for he is occupied elsewhere: ούδέ πω 'Έκτωρ πεύθετ’, έπεί ρα μάχης έπ’ άριστερά μάρνατο πάσης, βχθας πάρ ποταμοϊο Σκαμάνδρου, τή £α μαλιστα άνδρών πΐπτε κάρηνα, βοή δ’ άσβεστος όρώρει, κτλ.

500

These lines are to be taken in conjunction with Kebrioncs’ rebuke to Plector a few lines later (521) : 465

As usual, when a weapon is removed from the wound severe pain or faintness results. Cf. E 112, E 694, A 398. Often death is the result — cf. Π 503. Odys-

Κεβριόνης δέ Τρώας όρινομένους ένόησεν "Εκτορι παρβεβαώς, καί μιν πρός μύθον έειπεν. ** Έκτορ, νώϊ μέν ένθάδ’ όμιλέομεν Δαναοΐσιν έσχατιή πολέμοιο δυσηχέος- οί δέ δή άλλοι Τρώες δρίνονται έπιμίξ, Ιπποι τε και αυτοί, κτλ.”

525

107

Book Λ

Book Λ

Hector takes Kebriones’ words to iieart and charges into the Greek lines. The description of his onrush consists for the most part of repeated verses. Lines 534—37 are repeated at Y 499—502, where they are used of Achilles20. Lines 540 f. are repeated earlier at Λ 264 f. Hector’s avoidance of Aias is discussed below. The whole section is clearly an example of the familiar rebuke pattern dis­ cussed above, pp. 49—51. It can be outlined as follows: 1. Hector is unaware of Trojan defeat elsewhere on the field. 2. Intervening battle description. 3. Hector is rebuked for not being where he is most needed. 4. Hector attacks. 5. Aias leads the counter-action. There is a very similar sequence to be found at N 674: 1. Hector is unaware of Trojan defeat elsewhere on the field:

505, Eurypylos, 581). In the parallel N scene Paris shoots and kills Euchenor just before we hear that Hector did not know what was happening elsewhere on the field (660). And after Hector has been rebuked by Poulydamas and arrives to give help, he meets Paris and criticizes him severely. I t seems that the poet associated Paris somehow with this particular pattern of Hector’s unawareness, rebuke, and subsequent attack. Plis actions and their timing vary slightly in the two passages, but such differences are normal. Still another consideration suggests that Paris lias a basic connection with this scene. Earlier he had been fighting at the same place as Plector. Diomedes had wounded Hector, and Paris had wounded Diomedes shortly thereafter. Odysseus, who had been with Diomedes, was rescued by Aias. This should mean, therefore, that Paris, Hector, Diomedes, Odysseus and Aias were all on the same side of the field. But Plector is then suddenly described as fighting on the opposite side. When he comes to the threatened area he avoids Aias (542). This means that both Hector and Paris have suddenly and inexpli­ cably been transferred to the other side of the field from Aias. It is easy to see how Hector got to the other wing. The pattern which the poet introduced here, without troubling himself about geographical consis­ tency, required that Plector be elsewhere than where the Greeks are doing the most damage. Since Aias is the chief victor, Hector must be on the opposite side of the field from him, even though a glance at the preceding action shows that he should have been in the same place. But why does Paris change posi­ tion as well? In the N scene he is not in the same place as Hector,but on the wing where the Trojans are having the worst of it. That is, Paris’ action could be related, thereby satisfying the requirements of the pattern, without making him change position. The reason why he is suddenly made to change places here, therefore, should lie not in the pattern but elsewhere. I would suggest the following. The pattern called for the presence of Paris and his successful wounding or slaying of a Greek foe. If he were left where he was earlier in Λ the poet would be forced to make an extra change of scene by telling of Paris' wounding of Machaon and then turning back to Plector and bringing him back to th at part of the field where he is so badly needed. We might have something like the following: Aias’ charge, switch of scene to Hector, switch of scene to Paris, switch of scene back to Hector, I-Iector’s arrival at the threatened po­ sition. But this does not seem to have been a viable alternative for the poet, since scenes are never changed so many times within a short space in the Iliad. At the same time, it would be difficult to fit in Paris’ action either be­ fore the first change of scene to Hector, or after Hector's arrival on the other wing, because there the stage is occupied by Aias who took charge after he rescued Odysseus. He could not, of course, be wounded by Paris since he is to lead the defense of the wall later on, and his retreat at 544 could hardly be brought into connection with Paris. Aias is too mighty a hero for that.

άλλ’ εχεν yj τά πρώτα πύλας καί τείχος έσαλτο, ρηξάμενος Δαναών πυκινάς στίχας άσπιστάων.

680

Compare Λ 502 where we are told of Hector’s unawareness: "Εκτωρ μέν μετά τοΐσιν όμίλει μέρμερα ρέζων £γχεΐ 0’ Ιπποσύνη τε, νέων δ’ άλάπαζε φάλαγγας2. Intervening battle description, 685—722. 3. Hector is rebuked by Poulydamas, 726. 4. Hector hurries to where his men are in trouble, gathers a group of war­ riors around him and attacks, 754. 5. Aias leads the counter-action, 809. In outline the two scenes look very much alike. In both the notice of Hec­ to r’s unawareness and the subsequent rebuke arc separated by intervening battle description ; both times Hector brings aid to the weak side, and Aias is involved both times in the counter-action. As usual, however, the two scenes diverge considerably in detail. Above all, the intervening battle description in N is highly unusual, but will have to be reserved for discussion in the N chapter. Poulydamas’ rebuke there is also more like his two rebukes to Hector at M 61 and M 211 than it is to Kebriones' criticism here in Λ. The presence of Paris in both scenes is interesting. In Λ it is his wounding of Machaon that fills in between the notice of Hector's unawareness and Kebrio­ nes’ rebuke. Besides appearing with his bow elsewhere, Paris is given a special role in A in the wounding of the Greek chieftains (Diomedes, 369, Machaon, so T he detail of the horses tram pling the dead, found in b oth passages (Λ 534-, Y 499), recurs in more d rastic form a t Y 394, w here a m an's body is c u t in half by tho chariot wheels.

Book Λ

If we think ourselves into the position of the poet, then, the causes of the inconcinnity are clear. He began a new pattern that centered around the un­ awareness of Hector. It did not bother him that this pattern demanded the presence of the Trojan leader where in reality he should not be. The pattern also called for some successful action by Paris. The poet either instinctively avoided a cumbersome series of scene changes, or else once again did not trouble himself with the problem at all, and introduced Paris in the wrong place as well. In N the problem does not exist, since Hector and Paris are separated the whole time, and from N 312 onward Hector is fighting against Teucer and the Aiantes while Idomeneus and Meriones attack on the other side. I t is these two warriors who necessitate Hector’s intervention from the other side later on. Paris appears just a t the end of the unsuccessful battle that leads to Hector’s change of position. Once again it is the pressure of a pattern th at causes a factual discrepancy. Uvo Hölscher explained it as follows: "Diese Szenenwechsel beruhen auf einer durchgefühlten Zweiteilung der Schlacht, und diese räumliche Teilung ist durchaus keine allgemeine Beschreibung der Lokalität, auf daß wir uns das Schlachtfeld anschaulicher vorstellen möchten, sondern sie gründet allein in dem Verlauf der Geschichte selber, in der diese Zweiteilung Thema werden soll. So ist es auch möglich, daß Paris 11, 369 offenbar auf dem rechten oder m itt­ leren Teil der Schlacht ist, 505 aber auf dem linken, denn die thematische Zweiteilung gilt nur für Hector, als eine Begründung, weshalb er von den Vor­ gängen auf dem anderen Flügel noch nichts wußte21.’’ Hölscher’s explana­ tion is only partly correct, for it fails to account entirely for Paris, ignoring as it does the question why he appears just at this point, and also why Hector changes places, too. It is true that Paris wounds several Greeks in Λ, so that his shooting of Machaon is in place, but the advantage of the explanation offered above is that it accounts both for Paris’ appearance a t th is p o in t in the action and for the inconsistency of locality that it causes. Familiar details to be noted in this section are: l.The Λ and N scenes, although they represent a distinct pattern by them­ selves, are really only a variation of the common rebuke scene which is discussed in the E chapter, pp. 49—51. To review briefly, the standard elements of this type scene are: A. Flector or Aeneas is rebuked for not fighting as he should. B. Fie reacts and charges, or causes the Trojans to stiffen. C. Aias is usually involved in the counter-action. The Λ and N scenes thus represent a sub-type within this larger category. Its chief characteristics are (1) the reason for tire rebuke to Hector is that he is not fighting where he is most needed, (2) the presence of Paris " Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee (Berlin, 1939), p. 40.

109

in the action, (3) the notice of Hector’s unawareness is separated from the rebuke by intervening battle narrative. 2. The motif of Flector’s not being where he belongs is found again at P 75. Apollo, in the form of Mentes, rebukes him for pursuing the horses of Achilles a t the same time when Menelaos has slain Euphorbos and is about to recover Patroclos’ body. On the whole, however, the P scene is of a different type. 3. Nestor brings Machaon back to the ships in a chariot. This is in prepara­ tion for the meeting with Patroclos at Λ 644. The dismal refrain of a wounded man climbing into a chariot to leave the battle is repeated once again (see above, p. 89). 4. Kebriones' rebuke follows the regular pattern: opening criticism, de­ scription of the bad situation, call to action. Compare the rebukes at E 472, N 726, Π 538. 5. Flector avoids Aias (542). This never happens elsewhere, although at P 166 Glaucos accuses Hector of being afraid of Aias; Hector, of course, denies it. 6 . Schadcwaldt cites the battle description between lines 521—96 as an example of the technique whereby the time required for one action to be completed is filled in by something else that goes on simultaneously22. This battle goes on during the time it takes Nestor and Machaon to drive back to the ships. They reappear at 597. The narrative technique pointed out by Schadcwaldt is indeed operative here, but in no way affects the pattern under discussion. That is, the pattern seems to require intervening action between the notice of Hector's unawareness and the rebuke direct­ ed at him. This intervening action is the notice that Nestor drove Macha­ on back to the ships. The time it takes these two men to reach the ships is filled in, in turn, by the second part of the pattern, which consists of the rebuke to Hector, etc. The whole passage can be outlined as follows: ,—

Rebuke Pattern

Paris’ action — Nestor and Machaon— , — Rebuke to Hector I "fill in’’ technique — Nestor and Machaon— · noted by Schadewaklt

The apparent complexity is illusory, for it arises through simple pro­ cesses. Compare the apparently complex interlocking of patterns outlined at pp.43—45,where what might seem like an elaborate interweaving arises simply from the process of juxtaposition. Other examples of this fill-in technique cited by Schadewaklt are: the Diomedes — Glaucos encounter (Z 119—236), which fills in while Hector returns to Troy (Z 118—237); lliasslutlien, p. 77.

no

111

Book Λ

Book Λ

the teichoskopia (Γ 121—244) fills in while the heralds do their job (Γ 120—245); Odysseus' trip to Chryses fills in between Thetis' promise to Achilles (A 430) and her arrival on Oiympos (A 493) ; battle description {P 702—761) fills in while Antilochos runs to tell Achilles of Patroclos’ death. Λ 544—595. Aias’ retreat and the wounding of Eurypylos make up the final battle description before the scene shifts to the tent of Nestor. It begins with the famous description of Aias’ slow retreat, pictured in unforgettable detail by the two similes in which he is first compared to a lion (548) and then to a donkey (558). After the similes his withdrawal is described directly (563— 74), with the following details: 1. The situation where one man is set upon by many is typical. It recurs at A 411 (Odysseus), N 551 (Antilochos), and P 725 (Aiantes). Compare as well Aias’ tortured retreat before the Trojans at Π 102. The scene at the end of P is the closest to the present passage in detail and tone, and the following comparisons will be made largely with it. 2. Aias sometimes retreats, sometimes he quickly turns to face his pursuers. This is what Menelaos does when he retreats from Hector at P 108. The closest to the present passage is P 725, 732—34, where this same tactic of the Aiantes is described by a simile (cf. Θ 340). At Π 593 Glaucos suddenly turns amidst a general Trojan retreat, slays his pursuer, and the Greek advance is halted. 3. Aias holds the Trojans back from the ships.At P746 the Aiantes hold them back again, and their action is described by a simile. In both items 2 and 3 a detail that is only briefly related in Λ receives a longer description and simile in P. 4. Aias is driven back by Zeus. Cf. Θ 75, E 601, Π 102, etc. 5. Lines 571—74 are repeated at O 314—17. Aias’ retreat, then, is described with entirely typical details. As for the tsvo similes that introduce it, the comparison to a donkey is unique; that animal is never mentioned again in the Homeric poems. Beyond this, however, there is nothing unusual in the section. Pinsler writes: "Dem berühmten und cha­ rakteristischen Gleichnis geht ein anderes vom Löwen hervor, das aus seiner richtigen Stelle 17, 657 hierher geraten ist. Hier ist es stilwidrig, weil niemals eine und dieselbe Handlung durch zwei Gleichnisse veranschaulicht wird23". This is false on two counts. The lion simile describes the same action both times, and is certainly as appropriate for the situation and person of Aias in Λ as it is for the situation and person of Menelaos in P. Further, it is not true that the same action is nowhere else described by two similes. The most obvious example is the famous series of similes that describes the marshalling

of the Greek army at B 455. At Ξ 394 a series of comparisons is phrased differently than usual, but they are nonetheless similes, and three of them describe the same thing:

« Homer, p. 112.

οδτε θαλάσσης κΰμα τόσον βοάα ποτί χέρσον, παντόθεν όρνύμενον πνοιη Βορέω άλεγεινή· οδτε πυρές τόσσος γε ποτί βρόμος αίθομένοιο οδρεος έν βήσσης, δτε τ ’ ώρετο καιέμεν ύλην οΰτ’ άνεμος τόσσον γε περί δρυσίν ύψικόμοισι ήπύει, 0 ς τε μάλιστα μέγα βρέμεται χαλεπαίνων, οσση άρα Τρώων καί ’Αχαιών έπλετο φωνή,

395

400

Menelaos' comparisons at P 20 are the same kind: οΰτ’ οόν παρδάλιος τόσσον μένος οδτε λέοντος ούτε συός κάπρου δλοόφρονος, ου τε μέγιστος θυμός ένί στήθεσσι περί σθένεϊ βλεμεαίνει, δσσον Πάνθου υΐες έϋμμελίαι φρονέουσιν. Not strictly identical, but certainly related, are those groups of two or more similes that follow quickly upon one another and describe closely related actions. Cf. O 618—38, or the series of similes at P 725, 737, 742, 747, and 755. And finally, two short similes describe the same action at N 437. The details of Aias’ retreat, therefore, are completely typical except for the subject of one simile. As for the scene as a whole, its basic ingredients are the following: (!) a charge by Hector, (2) Zeus’ aid to the Trojans, (3) a single Greek exposed to danger, (4) Greek retreat. This same collection of details, each of which is typical by itself, appears in other scenes as well. At Θ 66 Zeus lifts his scales and the lot of the Greeks sinks. All retreat under Hector's charge, Diomedes alone remains to rescue Nestor. Throughout the action that follows, Zeus’ aid to the Trojans is manifest and strong (thunderbolts fall in front of Diomedes’ horses, etc.). Again the basic elements appear: (1) charge by Hector, (2) Zeus’ aid, (3) a single Greek exposed to danger, (4) general Greek retreat. A fifth item is the rescue of the endangered Greek, something that also happens in the Λ scene (575). The way these basic elements are combined and developed in the two scenes is completely different — so dif­ ferent, in fact, that they scarcely resemble each other at all. But compare O 579: Antilochos rushes forward to strip a slain enemy, Hector notices and charges, Antilochos beats a hasty retreat. This is followed by a long section describing Zeus’ aid to the Trojans in order to honor Achilles. The Achaians are driven back to the ships and, characteristically, it is Aias who provides the major resistance (674). At P 582 Apollo upbraids Hector and the Trojan charges. Zeus shakes the aegis and drives the Greeks back. When Hector

Book Λ

Book Λ

drives Idomeneus away (620), Aias recognizes Zeus’ manifest aid to the Tro­ jans. The scene ends with the removal of Patroclos’ body, and the slow retreat and defense by the Aiantes (715). These four examples show how a certain fundamental situation (Zeus’ favor to the Trojans, Greek retreat) can be given different forms by the mixture and variation of certain basic elements such as the exposure of a single Greek, rescue, slow retreat and Trojan charge. These scenes do not all follow one pattern, but each of them is, with the exception of the Θ passage, an example of so7ne pattern, examples of which occur elsewhere. The basic situation where­ by Zeus aids the Trojans and forces the Greeks back is developed in various ways, and these different ways fall into certain pattern groups. Λ 575—584. The intervention and wounding of Eurypylos: 1. Aias is rescued here just as he himself rescued Odysseus earlier at Λ 485, when the latter was also hard-pressed by a horde of Trojans. The rescue of a threatened warrior is a typical incident (cf. E 561—72, pp. 58—60). The rescuer regularly draws first blood in the ensuing fight (see above, p. 105). It is interesting that Aias should be rescued here, for the role of hurrying to somebody’s aid belongs almost exclusively to him in the Iliad. 2. Eurypylos is wounded by Paris as he is stripping the armor from Apisaon. Diomedes and Machaon are also wounded by Paris in Λ, and Agamemnon, Diomedes and Eurypylos are all wounded while either removing or carrying away the armor from enemies they have slain. Λ 585—596. The rescue of Aias: 1. Lines 586—88 are repeated. 2. Line 585 is partly repeated at N 533 where Deiphobos, wounded, draws back into his own ranks as Eurypylos does here. 3. This is the only case where one man (Aias) is hard-pressed, another (Eurypylos) comes to his aid but is wounded himself, withdraws, urges his comrades to rescue his endangered friend, and both then escape. Friedrich seems to think that Aias returns the favor and comes to the aid of Eury­ pylos: "Eurypylos weicht unter seine Gefährten zurück: wir hören noch, daß er von ihnen, vor allem von Aias geschützt wird24’’. But this would require the reading τοϋ δ’ άντίος ήλυθεν Αίας, instead of των. The line must mean that Aias reached the protection of his own lines. Eurypylos had already called on the Greeks to protect Aias, who is thus the subject of line 595. What we have here is another unique combination of typical details: A. A conventional call to the Greeks to stand firm. B. A wounded man retreats before the enemy (cf. N 596, Helenos). H Verwundung und Tod, p. 32.

113

C. A man is wounded while stripping the body of a slain enemy. D. One warrior calls on others to help a wounded comrade. Cf. Θ 93 (Diomedes to Odysseus to save Nestor), Λ 465 (Menelaos to Aias to save Odysseus), P 120 (Menelaos to Aias to protect tire body of Patroc­ los), and P 708(Menelaos to the Aiantes to protect the body of Patroc­ los). E. The Greeks protect Aias here the way the Trojans protect Hector at Ξ 424, or the Thracians Peiros at Δ 532. 4. Line 596 is a short transitional line. See above on E 84, p. 19. Λ 599. At this point the battle account breaks off. The Nestor-Patroclos scene has been well analyzed by Schadewaldt, to whom the reader is referred for details25. Since the chief concern of this study is with the battle scenes, the analysis will resume at lines 735—59, where Nestor describes the engagement in which he triumphantly gained his first success as a fighter. Schadewaldt's remarks on Nestor’s speech to Patroclos are relevant here: “Die Rede ist eine typische Mahnrede, eine Paränese. Von der gegenwärtigen Lage geht sie aus, gelangt zu einem bestimmten Vorschlag an Patroklos, und bringt als Kern­ stück eine Erzählung, die etwas lehren, etwas sagen soll — wir können sie Paradeigma oder mit dem alten, noch unverengten epischen Ausdruck αίνος nennen, Es ist hier nicht der Ort, die Mahnreden der Ilias im Zusammenhang vorzulegcn: Nestors Reden im A 254 ff. und H 124 ff. z. B. haben in kleinerem Maßstab den gleichen Dreistufenbau, den gleichen vorwurfsvoll erregten Anfang und die Jugcnderzählung als paradeigmatisches Kernstück; die Phoinixrede I 434 ff. steht der Nestorrede des Λ besonders nahe. Es genügt, die Grund­ form dieses wohl uralten Redetypus begriffen zu haben, um einzusehen: cs geht nicht an, die Jugenderzählung des Mittelteils sei cs herauszuschneiden, sei es als läßlich lustiges Kabinettenstück greisenhafter Redseligkeit abzutun2®'’. Nestor’s description of the battle between the Pylians and the Epeians is given in typical style. The only major difference between it and the other battle narratives of the Iliad is that Nestor relates everything much more hurriedly than the poet himself normally does. 1. 735. The account begins with daybreak. Cf. Θ I, Λ 1, T 1. 2. 734. Cf. M416. 3. 736. Δή τ’ εύχόμενοι καί ΆΟήνη. A whole army does not pray for success before a battle elsewhere in the Iliad, but it is common for single fighters to pray before or even during an encounter. Cf. Γ 350, E 174, P 46. 4. άλλ’ δτε δή ΓΙυλίων καί Έπειών άπλετο νεϊκος, πρώτος έγών ελον άνδρα, κόμισσα δέ μ.ώνυχας ίππους, Μ ούλ',ον α ίχ μ η τ ή ν κ τλ .

lliasshidien, ρρ. 82 ff.

Ibid., pp. 82 f.

Book Λ

Nestor was the first to slay an enemy. We are regularly told who drew first blood in any opening fight. Cf. Δ 457, Λ 92, Π 284, etc. 5. The slaying of Moulios follows Beye’s ABC pattern (see E, pp. 16— 17). He was the husband of Agamede. A man’s marriage is a favorite theme of anecdotes — seeA221—47,p.87. As usual, when somebody’s married daugh­ ter is mentioned, she is the eldest. Cf. Δ 59, N 429, Φ 143. 6 . The Epeians flee when they see one of their leaders killed. See E 27—29, p. 13. 7. Nestor performs mighty feats: (747—49): αύτάρ έγών έπόρουσα κελαινγ) λαίλαπι ϊσος, πεντήκοντα δ’ ελον δίφρους, δύο δ’ άμφίς έκαστου φώτες όδάξ ελον ούδας έμω υπό δουρί δαμέντες. The capture of fifty chariots and the slaying of two men in each one is found only in the story of Nestor. Such exaggerations are avoided in the Iliad, even in the aristeia of Achilles. But Π 784 is a not too distant relative, both themat­ ically and stylistically: "Three times Patroclos charged, and each time he slew nine men’’. "Fifty chariots I captured, and in each one I slew two men". Aside from the improbable number, the killing of two men in a chariot by a single opponent is common. The short simile is also typical: a charging warrior is compared to a mighty wind27. 8 . “Then I would have slain the two Aktorione, but their father Poseidon wrapped them in a mist and saved them." This is the familiar divine rescue. 9. The Epeians then break into flight, the Pylians follow, slaughtering men and capturing their armor. Such retreat scenes arc common in the Iliad (cf. Θ 336, Λ 153, ΓΙ 367, Y 490), especially where one warrior leads the pursuit. They arc usually described in greater detail than Nestor allows himself here (see above, p. 85). As usual, we hear that the pursuit is continued up to a certain point (756). Cf. Θ 343, Λ 181, Π 394, Φ 1. That the gathering up of the fleeing enemy’s armor is a regular feature of a pursuit (755) is seen by 0 347 and Z 67—71. !! S c o tt, Homeric Sim ile, pp. 78

BOOK N Book N begins with the description of Poseidon’s decision to intervene in the battle and of his chariot ride to earth. It is a fair assumption that descrip­ tions of divine chariots and scenes of the gods' anger and reprisal were favorite topics in the epic tradition and th at the Iliad was not unusual in this respect. Indeed, the Iliad itself furnishes enough material to show th at this opening scene in N is typical both in outline and in detail. Other descriptions of divine chariot journeys appear at Θ 41, Θ 381 and E 720, and the similarities between these scenes are well known.(See pp. 74 — 75) Closest to the N passage is E 720: 1. Both times Trojan success inspires the intervention and we are carefully informed as to how this action is possible. At E 757— 6 6 Zeus grants Hera's request and sends Athena against Ares. Here in N the poet is driven to the strained and artificial explanation that Zeus "turned his eyes from the battle." 2. E 770 describes the extreme speed of Hera’s chariot. Poseidon’s trip at N 26 is described in terms of grandeur and beauty rather than speed, just as at Θ 45—47 Zeus’ journey has no details about swiftness. But Poseidon walks to his chariot with superhuman speed (17). The same motif takes on a different form. 3. Lines 23—26 describe the splendor and beauty of Poseidon’s chariot. Cf. E 722 and Θ 41 (the descriptions of Hera’s and Zeus’ chariots). N 23—26 = E 41—44. 4. At the end of the journey the chariot is put away, the horses released and fed: E 773—77, N 32—38 (cf. Θ 433—35, 440 f.). In N the further detail is added that the horses were hobbled1. This gives a clear-cut type scene with a collection of typical details and a number of repeated lines. What follows shows that the two passages not only belong to a common type, but that they both fit into larger patterns of which the chariot journey is only a part. 1 T here is one unim portant unparalleled detail in Poseidon's jouvnoy, tho joy of the ocean, and its fish in th e presence of the ir god (27—30). B u t this looks like an old motif. One could cite parallels enough outside thepoom , b u t the reaction of n a tu re to th o lovemaking of Zeus a nd H era a t Ξ 347 is related.

116

Book N

5. In the Ε scene there are two gods involved, in N only one. The connection between Hera and Athena is typical, however, by itself (Cf. A 195, B 155, Δ 20, etc.). Poseidon performs alone the actions that are distributed between the two goddesses in E. Hera assumes human form (E 784) and shouts encouragement to the Greeks, while Athena goes to Diomedes and leads him against Ares. Poseidon assumes human form, first encourages the Aiantes personally, and then delivers a parainesis to all the Greeks. 6 . At E 785 Hera takes on the form of Stentor. It is only natural that a god who wants to shout encouragement to an army should appear as a mortal witli a powerful voice. Poseidon thus appears as Calchas at N 45, είσάμενος Κάλχαντι δέμας καί άτειρέα φωνήν. The Greek seer was not, however, usually known to have an especially strong voice. The poet in fact attributes one to a n y mortal whose form a god temporarily assumes in order to deliver a speech. At P 555, where Athena appears as Phoinix, and at X 227, where she appears as Deiphobos, the phrase is applied formulaically and indiscriminately, whether the person whose form is assumed really was famed for his voice or not. 7. Both Hera (E 787) and Poseidon (N 99) rebuke the Greeks by pointing out that while Achilles was still fighting the Trojans never dared to join in pitched battle (sec E, p. 75). 8 . The aid that Hera, Athena and Poseidon bring to the Greeks is unusually direct and manifest, so that both scenes have a certain number of dissim­ ilar details. At the same time they are alike in their supernatural features. When Athena climbs into Diomedes' chariot, its axle creaks under her weight (E 837). Poseidon strengthens the Aiantes with his magic wand (59) and then flies away in the form of a bird (62). The magic wand, though familiar in the Odyssey (κ 238, v 429, π 172) is unusual for the Iliad and is found again only at Ώ 343 (in the hands of Hermes). No other god in the Iliad flies away as a bird from mortals with whom he has just talked. Once again the Odyssey supplies the parallels: γ 371, ε 352, χ 239. It is not, however, unusual in the Iliad for a god to take the form of a bird: cf. H 58, Ξ 289. 9. Both Athena and Poseidon are d ire ctly involved in the fighting that develops after their appearance (E 837, N 89, Ξ 384). 10. In E and N the divine intervention decisively turns the tide of battle; in E directly (Z I), in N after a hard fight that lasts for most of the book, and again in Ξ (384). In outline and in their details the two scenes are thus nearly identical: 1. Hera/Poseidon is aroused to intervene by Trojan success. 2. Similar descriptions of the chariot-rides to earth,

Book N

117

3. Hera/Poseidon assumes the form of a mortal and shouts encouragement to the Greeks, pointing out that while Achilles was fighting the Trojans never dared face them in open combat. 4. Athena/Poseidon brings direct aid to the Greeks. 5. The divine intervention turns the tide of battle. At the same time, each of the two scenes has a character of its own and many de­ tails which the other does not. It has already been shown th at those details in items 3—5 above which set the E scene apart from other examples of its type arc typical. Is the same true of the N passage ? The battle opens with a description of the Trojans’ charge, lines 39—58, in which they are compared to fire and wind. These are common subjects for similes describing armies: cf. B 780, N 334, N 795, Ξ 396, P 736. The poet frequently states the intent or expectation of the Trojans as they charge that they will break the Greek ranks, burn the ships,and slaughter the enemy. He does so four times in Book M alone: 106, 125, 197, 261. Compare as well N 143 and 0 701. Hector also threatens to do the same at Θ 526, I 240 and Ξ 44. Cf. P 234 and P 495. Here the notice is part of a larger pattern, as can be seen by a comparison of a section some one hundred lines ahead (N 136—45) : Τρώες δέ προΰτυψαν άολλέες, ήρχε δ’ άρ’ Έκτω ρ άντικρύ μεμαώς, όλοοίτροχος ως άπό πέτρης, δν τε κατά στεφάνης ποταμός χειμάρροος ώση, κτλ. ώς "Εκτωρ ήος μέν άπείλει μέχρι θαλάσσης ρέα διελεύσεσθαι κλισίας καί νήας ’Αχαιών κτείνων.

138*123456 143

The section in between these two similar passages can be outlined as follows: 1. Trojans charge, expect to take the ships, 39—42. 2. Poseidon encourages the Aiantes, 43—81. 3. General battle scene; Greeks in full flight, 82—89. 4. Poseidon spurs on all the Greeks, 89—125. 5. Greeks close ranks, 126—35. 6 . Trojans and Hector charge, expect to take the ships, 136—45. 1 do not think that the poet was following some elaborate structural scheme here, or even using "ring composition" (items 1 and 6 ), although the section docs conform to a certain pattern : I— 2

119

Book N

Book N

Number (1) depicts the desperate situation in which Poseidon intervenes. Number (2) is his first speech of encouragement. But at (3) the situation is still desperate and requires some further help from tire god, which is then given in (4). In (5) the Greeks close ranks and meet the Trojans head-on. Under Po­ seidon’s influence, then, the situation changes completely from (2) through (5). Number (6 ) returns to the general circumstances from which we started: Trojans and Hector charging, and expecting to break through and burn the ships. In other words, items (1) and (6 ) give the same scene and the same situ­ ation. Number (6 ) is simply a return to number (1), after the first scene was interrupted for the account of Poseidon’s activity. I am dwelling here on something th at is perhaps painfully obvious because the scene demonstrates two important aspects of Homeric narrative technique. First, it would seem that this is another case of simultaneous events which are related as such and not as if they followed one another (see E, pp. 37—39). The poet simply returns to the original scene, which was interrupted for another action, and which has not changed in the meantime. That this entire section was felt to be a unit and not a series of disconnected actions is shown by the following : when the scene shifts from Poseidon to the army, to Poseidon, to the army, and back to the Trojans again there are no transitional formulae of any kind between the scenes, as there are when we are taken from one in d e p e n d e n t action to another. For further examples, see the discussion in E referred to above. Second, the narrative is really an alternation of (1) preparation by the army and (2 ) speeches to stir them on. A. General scene of Trojan charge. B. Speech of Poseidon to Alantes, and Aiantes between themselves. A. General battle scene. B. Parainesis by Poseidon to Greek army. A. General scene of Greeks and Trojans. B. Speech by Hector. A. Actual start of the fighting. The preparations of the Myrmidons to enter the fighting in Π are narrated the same way: A. Patroclos and Myrmidons prepare for battle, 130—97. B. Speech of encouragement by Achilles, 198—209. A. The Myrmidons close ranks, 210—20 (N 131—33 = Π 215—17). B. Achilles prays to Zeus, 220—56. A. The Myrmidons charge out to fight, 257—67. B. Parainesis by Patroclos, 268—74. A. Beginning of the fight. N 43—58. Poseidon encourages the Aiantes. The encouragement of one or more mortals by a god in human form is common in the Iliad. The structure

of Poseidon’s speech has no close parallel, although the details themselves are for tiie most part commonplace: 1. The Aiantes arc to be strong and protect their men. Cf. P 559. 2. Hector is described as “raging” or "m ad” (λυσσώδης), as elsewhere. Cf. Θ 299, I 239, O 605. Other men are also described as "maddened” when the battle fury is upon them: Diomedes at Z 100 and Achilles at Φ 542. 3. Poseidon promises that they can turn Hector back, even if the Trojan be helped by Zeus himself (57). The ability, or inability, of men to fight against the gods is a favorite topic in tire Iliad. See E, p. 46. 4. Poseidon ends his speech with the usual call to action. N 59—82. Poseidon strengthens the Aiantes and flies away as a bird. The two men marvel at the occurrence and describe their eagerness to fight. It is com­ mon for a god to strengthen a mortal, and for a mortal to see through his disguise (cf. Γ 396 and P 333), but the rest of the scene is most unusual. Only one other passage describes two warriors holding a discussion in the midst of the battle and not discussing something like tactical manoeuvres or how to rescue a comrade or a man's body. The otiier conversation also appears in N, at 249, where Idomeneus and Meriones carry on an extended colloquium while the battle rages around them. A comparison of the two passages reveals the following: I A. Hector and the Trojans charge. B. Poseidon encourages the Aiantes and the rest of the Greeks. C. Conversation between the Aiantes. D. Tiie Greeks turn the Trojans back. E. Tiie Meriones-Deiphobos encounter. Meriones breaks his spear and is forced to withdraw to get a new one (156 ff.). IIA . Hard fight in which the Greeks have the better of it, but Poseidon’s grandson, Amphimachos, is killed (169—205). B. Poseidon encourages Idomeneus. C. Conversation between Idomeneus and Meriones. D. Aristeia of Idomeneus. E. Meriones wounds Deiphobos (527 ff.). As often, an outline makes the two sections of narrative (one cannot call them scenes) seem much more similar than they really arc. In detail, length, and elaboration they are very different. At the same time they do have a large number of common items: (I) some Trojan threat or success (39—42; 183—87); (2) Poseidon encourages one or a pair of Greeks (43—65 ; 206—38); (3) a conversation between two Greeks — the only two of their kind in the poem (66—82; 239—329); (4) in the ensuing combat the Greeks have the better of it; (5) Deiphobos — Meriones encounter.

Book N

To repeat, these sections are so extensive, and some of the items so widely separated, that they cannot be called patterns or type scenes in the regular sense of the word. Tire sections do, however, share this general outline: (A) divine intervention for the Greeks follows Trojan success; (B) the two unusual conversations follow direct contact with Poseidon, who assumes human form and addresses himself to one or both of the men; (C) Meriones first makes an unsuccessful, and then a successful, attempt to strike Deiphobos. Of these three action pairs the first half appears in the first narrative section, the other half in the second, which suggests that the poet was working with typical incidents and perhaps a traditional opposition between Meriones and Deiphobos. which he strung as doublet pairs throughout a large section of this part of the fight. Such doublets are not uncommon (above, pp. 55—56). This accounts for the similarity of certain items in different parts of the battle without forcing us either to the conclusion that the similarities must be nonexistent or, in the other extreme, that two such long and varied sections of the battle are genuine patterns or type scenes. At N 83—89 the Greeks are forced back. The same panic and confusion arises as occurred earlier at Θ 336. It reappears at 0 367 (Θ 345—47 = 0 367—69), and again at 0 699, where they despair for their lives as they do here in N. Both the situation and description are thus typical. N 89—124. Poseidon encourages seven of the Greek leaders and delivers a parainesis. Seven names are listed here. Seven are named again in the series at E 705 and Φ ‘209. Nine are listed at A 301, ΓΙ 415, ΓΙ 694, Ω 2492. The only such list that does not contain either seven or nine names occurs at Θ 274, where eight persons are mentioned. Even at ΓΙ 784, where Patroclos makes three final charges, he slays nine men each time. Poseidon’s speech has been much discussed and is widely held to contain a “double recension’’. Basically, it has the same structure as most rebukes and paraineses in tiie Iliad: (1) a strong reproach, (2) description of the bad situation, (3) a call to action. Compare Sarpedon’s rebuke to Hector at E 472 or Poulydamas' at N 726. Sometimes only two of these elements arc present, as at E 788 or Λ 276. Schadewaldt has convincingly refuted the theory of a double recension: “ Der Beginn der Poseidonrede (95/98) und der zum Anfang zurückbiegende Schluß (116/22) sind aus dem herkömmlichen Motivgut einer typischen Kampfparänese entwickelt (αιδώς 95, 122. Mahnung an die άρετή, 117. νεμεσσαν, νέμεσις, 119, 122). ...W e n n aber die Poseidonrede so ge­ staltet ist, daß Schema und Motivgut der typischen Kampfpaffinese den Auf­ bau geben und ‘Erweiterungen’ das Ganze auf die besondere Lage und die besondere Aufgabe der Rede zuschneiden, so kennen wir diese 'Erweitcrungstechnik’ schon aus den typischen Wappnungsszencn. Eine hier nicht zu füh5 A t Ω 251 we m ust rca526—29.

137

139

Book N

Book Ν

To review quickly, the pattern underlying the action here looks like this: a. Λ kills an enemy (B), inay try to strip him. b. C throws at A. c. He misses and kills D. d. C tries to strip D. e. C is driven back or killed. f. The Greeks gain possession of the bodies. Items a—b—c and d—e can function as independent patterns.They are combin­ ed only twice, in the present N passage and again at N 182—96. A comparison of them with others that contain items a—b—c and f gives an even clearer picture of how composition by pattern and pattern variation works. Outlined according to the above system, these passages look like this:

Following this the Trojans withdraw and the Greeks pull away the bodies (P 317 f. — Δ 505 f.). Only two points need to be mentioned: (1) Aias’ slaying of Phorkys represents an independent third item, (2) the Trojan is slain while stepping over the body either to protect it or to drag it away (see E, p. 40). The section between items c and f is therefore fully typical. The section in Δ:

N 182

N 384

N 516

b

b

b

d

d e

f Δ 488

P 304

b

b

CP

cp

What do the Δ, N and P passages substitute for items d—-e ? In Book N, Item c is Deiphobos’ slaying of Hypsenor with a spear intended for Idomeneus. Item b is Antiiochos’ protection of the body until it is carried away by Mekisteus and Alastor. In between these two items Deiphobos boasts over his victim. This is a typical speech in itself, but is also one of a series of insulting taunts exchanged by Greeks and Trojans in this section. Another scries occurs at Ξ 454, 470, 479 and 501. The intervening section between items c and f is therefore fully typical in its own right. In the P passage item c is Hector’s slaying of Schedios when his spear intended for Aias missed its mark. Aias had previously slain Hippothoos (P 293), item a. The action then continues: Αίας 8' αδ Φόρκυνα δαίφρονος Φαίνοπος υιόν, ΤπποΟόιρ περιβάντα μέσην κατά γαστέρα τύψερηξε Sè θώρηκος γύαλου, διά δ’ άντερα χαλκός ήφυσ’· δ δ’ έν κονίησι πεσών όλε γαϊαν άγοστω.

315

τοϋ δ’ Όδυσεύς μάλα θυμόν άποκταμένοιο χολώθη, βή δό διά προμάχων κεκορυθμένος αϊθοτα χαλκω, στη δέ μάλ’ εγγύς ίων καί ακόντισε δουρί φαεινω άμφί § παπτήνας- ύπδ δό Τρώες κεκάδοντο άνδρός άκοντίσσαντος· δ δ’ ούχ άλιον βέλος ήκεν, άλλ’ υιόν Πριάμοιο νόθον βάλε Δημοκόωντα, κτλ.

495

Odysseus is angered at the death of a friend, tie leaps forward, casts his spear into the milling Trojans, and kills one of them. Compare the act of Antiiochos at 0 573 (Δ 496—98 — 0 573—75). The Trojans retreat and the Greeks capture the bodies. This is also told with repeated lines (Δ 505 f. — P 316 f.). It is common for a man to avenge his slain friend. At Π 577 Hector slays a comrade of Patroclos, who then charges in anger and kills a Trojan in return (note the independent third item in both scenes). The Trojans retreat. Δ 505 = P 316 = Π 588. Or again, at N 660 Paris is angered at the death of a friend and slays a Greek in retaliation. The Δ scene is thus fully typical. Those scenes,then,which do not contain items d—e replace them with equally typical material.We can therefore reaffirmour earlier conclusion th at a—b—c is the basic pattern. Others can be added to it if the poet so chooses, but he can easily omit them. Familiar details, N 509—33: 1. N 511, where Idomeneus is forced back by the Trojans, is a typical scene (see above). The parallels cited there were Δ 531 and N 550. E 620 provides the final proof. Aias pulls his spear out of a victim's body but has to retreat because the Trojans press in on him from all sides. E 620—22 = N 509— 11. Deiphobos strikes at Idomeneus as he is backing off (516). It is typical to strike an enemy as he is withdrawing (N 650, Ξ 461, Ξ 409, etc.) or as he is turning to flee (E 40, M 427, ΓΙ 307, etc.). 2. Lines 521—25 are a short explanatory and review passage, for which see E. pp. 54—55. 3. Deiphobos tears Askalaphos’ helmet from his head, but is then wounded by Meriones and drops it. That he is wounded in the act of removing armor from a corpse is typical by itself (see E., p. 40), as is the act of dropping what he had in his hand — cf. Δ 493, E 343, P 298. A body is grasped either by the head (here, N 188; cf. Γ 369), or by the feet (Λ 258, P 289,

140

141

Book N

Book N

Σ 155). I t can also be grasped by the head and feet at the same time — Π 762. It is never grasped by the arms. 4. At N 531 Meriones is compared to a vulture. For other similes comparing warriors to birds, cf. Π 582, P 674, P 755, Φ 252, X 308. 5. Three times in this book Meriones wounds or slays a Trojan who has just attacked or killed a Greek. Besides the present example, see N 567 and N 650. These last two arc especially similar to each other. 6. «ψ 8 ’ έτάρων εις έθνος έχάζετο (533).The full line: άψ 8 ’ έτάρων εις έ'θνος έχάζετο κήρ’ άλεείνων occurs at Γ 32, Λ 585, Ν 566, Ν 648, Ν 596, Ξ 408, and Π 817. Of these seven occurrences, it is used four times of a man who is struck and either killed or wounded while trying to withdraw into his own ranks (N 566, N 648, Ξ 408, ΓΙ 817). Twice (Λ 585, N 596) it is applied to somebody who has already been wound­ ed but who succeeds in rescuing himself. It is used only once of a warrior who successfully retreats out of fear (Γ 32). A fighter’s with­ drawal, therefore, is most often the result either of being wounded or leads to his being wounded or killed. The line under discussion almost always appears under these circumstances. It is noteworthy that a fighter never succeeds in retreating after he has made an unsuccessful attack on a single enemy. The 3/4 line appears twice: here, and at N 165. Both times it is applied to Meriones, who strikes at Deiphobos and then quickly retreats. The first time he is unsuccessful, the second time Deiphobos is wounded. At N 566 and N 648, where the full line occurs, two Trojans are slain who have tried unsuccessfully to strike a Greek and then quickly withdraw. The man who slays them as they retreat is Meriones. There may be delib­ erate cross-reference here — i.e. the reader or listener is to remember the various Merioncs-encounters and observe with satisfaction how the Greek escapes from a situation where he himself slays others. It is more likely, however, that the poet simply associated Meriones with this particular kind of combat where the fighters quickly spring back and forth. 7. The rescue of Deiphobos is typical. N 535—38 = Ξ 429—32 (the rescue of Hector). A comrade helps him away and he is removed, groaning heav­ ily, to the city by chariot. See E, p. 40. N 540—544. The death of Aphareus is a short and typical androktasia, introduced by a familiar transitional line (see E, p. 19). For a spear thrust into the neck, cf. N 388. The slain man's head falls to one side as in the famous scene at Θ 306.The familiar a—-b—c pattern is at work here through line 575. Beyond this, there is a remarkable similarity between the whole section (540—75) and N 502—39.

In outline, the first passage looks like this: 1. Aeneas throws at Diomedes and misses. 2. Idomeneus slays Oinomaos. a 3. He tries to strip the body, but is forced back. 4. Deiphobos throws at Idomeneus, b 5. He misses, and kills Askalaphos. c 6. He tries to strip the body, d 7. He is wounded by Meriones, e The second passage proceeds as follows : 1. Aeneas slays Aphareus. 2. Antilochos slays Thoos. a 3. He begins to strip the body (αΐνυτο), but is forced back. 4. Adamas throws at Antilochos. b 5. He misses, his spear sticks in the enemy’s shield, c 6. He is slain by Meriones as he attempts to withdraw. The coincidence is remarkable. Aeneas begins the action in both sections, but drops out of sight when the Greeks, instead of attacking him,seek out a fresli victim instead. Items b and c in the two passages are separated by the typical incident of a Greek being prevented from stripping a slain enemy and being forced back by a large number of the Trojans. Meriones disposes of the two Trojans whose actions comprise items b and c in the two passages. The pattern here is thus of a different kind from those discussed so far. These have been either short series of details that are exactly repeated, or almost so, in different places(e.g. the a—b—c pattern), or general outlines which govern a segment of narrative on a large scale, but allow considerable variation of detail within them (e. g. the consulation patterns), or a combination of two or more of the smaller patterns (e. g. a—-b—e—d—e—f).All these patterns appear in widely separate sections of the poem ; they are independent,as it were, and not bound to any particular person or section of the story. This is not the case with the two N passages. The specific presence of Aeneas and Meriones makes it impossible for this pattern to appear at any place and at any time. I suspect the poet composed the first passage according to certain of his regular principles so that it was, when completed, indeed fully typical, and even had smaller standard units within it, but did not conform as a w hole to a preconceived outline or a single pattern. In the section which follows he repeated himself, perhaps consciously, perhaps only half so, and created a second scene which was, with certain (typical) variations, a close replica of the first. But it was the influence of the first passage that made the second one so much like it, not an independent pattern outline th at the poet had in mind from the start and which he could be expected to follow in other sections of the poem as well. N 545—49. Antilochos slays Thoos. Friedrich has discussed this passage in some detail, and made it clear that the vein described as running all the way

Book N

up the man’s back cannot possibly be identified with the aorta orwith any other vein17. It is a master example of what Friedrich has pertinently labeled “Scheinrealismus'’. A careful, detailed description conceals the fact that what is being described is an invention of the poet. Thoos is hit while turning to flee, the only really intelligible detail in the whole scene, δοκεύσας, normally meaning to draw a bead on a charging enemy, seems here to mean nothing more than “to take aim.” Thoos is struck in the back, and yet he then falls down on his back (ΰπτιος, 548). This seems impossible, but the detail itself is typical, and used correctly, for example, at Λ 144 or ΓΙ 289. On the other hand, line 549 furnishes a detail that seems possible under the circumstances : άμφω χεΐρε φίλοις έτάροισι πετάσσας. Since Thoos is running away, and falls on his back, he is facing his comrades and can therefore stretch out his hands to them. At Δ 523, however, we have to imagine that Diores turned back to his own men a fte r he was struck. Despite this one point in its favor, however, the illogical or impossible details in the N scene predominate. The Iliad, of course, is full of such inconcinnities, which are often the result of a typical, formulaic style of composition for which the pattern and the formula were more important than the specific demands of a given situation. In the present instance, the poet wanted the pathos of a man’s stretching out his hands to his friends. He did not trouble himself with the question of whether the dying warrior was in a position that would enable him to do so. N 550—559. These lines picture Antilochos’ attem pt to strip the body of Thoos and his slow retreat in the face of the on-pressing Trojans. See A, pp. 97— 100 for an analysis of this typical scene. Antilochos is protected by Poseidon here. Divine protection of a mortal is, of course, common in the Iliad, and takes various forms. Here it is not of the more spectacular variety; the god's action is not even described. We simply hear that Poseidon protected his man. Cf. Θ 311, E 662, 0 521. It is interesting that parallel incidents in the poem arc sometimes caused by the gods and sometimes not. For example, a hero (usually Hector) can be rebuked either by a god in human disguise or by a mortal. Whether man or god, this has no effect on the action that develops. At E 311 Aeneas is badly wounded and Diomedes rushes forward to slay him. But Aeneas is rescued, first by Aphrodite and then by Apollo. At Ξ 421 Hector has been equally badly wounded by Aias, the Greeks rush forward to deliver the coup dc grace. But Hector is rescued — not by a god — but by his comrades, who form a proeoctive wall around him until he is removed. At N 550 Antilochos, alone, is forced back by a mass of Trojans and has to defend himself from spear thrusts from all sides. How does he survive? Poseidon protects him. At Λ 544 Aias is in the same position as Antilochos, but he has to save himself entirely 17 Vcnmmdung unit Tod, p . 43.

143

by his own efforts. As Antilochos retreats, Adamas throws his spear a t him. In other cases of such unsuccessful throws in the a—b—c pattern the failure is due to natural causes. At M 400 Aias and Teucer strike Sarpedon a t the same time. Neither manages to pierce his armor, but they succeed in pushing him back a little. The reason their weapons did not reach Sarpedon’s body is th at Zeus protected him (M 402). At N 190 Aias aims a blow at the charging Hector. He fails to pierce his armor, but manages to push him away. In this case he fails because Hector was too well protected by his armor (191). When a man ponders a course of action he may either decide for himself or a god may decide for him (see A, p. 97). A man may find the courage to face a powerful enemy in a monologue with himself either because a god prompts him (Φ 545) or because he makes the decision by himself (Λ 404). I t is not true that every action by the gods can be and is replaced by purely human action or motivation, but it does happen in many of the every-day incidents on the battlefield. N 560—575. Antilochos, Adamas, and Meriones. This scene was outlined above, p. 141, and compared with Deiphobos’ attack on Idomeneus earlier. I suggested at the time that although each of the two passages contains patterns within it, they could not be called patterns when taken as wholes. The simi­ larities seem rather to have resulted from the poet's simply modeling one longer section on another. Since the same persons appear in both sections, these could more accurately be called doublets than two examples of a single pattern. As for the outline on p. 141, items 4—7 in the first passage and 4—6 in the present one are indeed similar, but not identical. Deiphobos misses Idomeneus and kills somebody else instead (I, 5—6), whereas Adamas kills nobody at all (II, 4—5). And although both men are struck by Meriones, this occurs under somewhat different circumstances in the two passages. The present section looks like this (560—75): 1. Adamas strikes at Antilochos, who has just slain a Trojan. 2. Ι-Iis spear fails to pierce Antilochos’ shield. 3. Adamas tries to withdraw to safety. 4. Meriones kills him as he does so. Grisly death. This is precisely the pattern of N 643: / 1. I-Iarpalion strikes at Menelaos, who has just slain a Trojan. 2. His spear fails to pierce Menelaos’ shield. 3. Harpalion tries to withdraw to safety (N 566 = N 648). 4. Meriones kills him as he does so. Grisly death. The two passages arc also similar in that between Antilochos’ slaying of a Trojan and the attack on him by Adamas, and between Menelaos’ slaying of a Trojan and the attack on him by Harpalion, there is an intervening section of action : Antilochos has to retreat before a crowd of Trojans, Menelaos delivers a speech over the body of his victim (620). Note th at there was also an inter­ vening action between Idomeneus’ slaying of Oinomaos and the attack on him

145

Book N

Book N

by Dciphobos (506—16). The poet was, therefore, repeating patterns and pat­ tern combinations from one scene to another. An extended section of narra­ tive is constructed out of self-repeating patterns, the details of which are varied just enough in most cases to prevent the repetition from becoming too obvious. The action of Meriones runs like a leit-motif through the section and is the easiest to recognize, but his presence is no more repetitive than other elements which reveal themselves only after a closer examination. A repetition of patterns like this is typical itself, the best examples of which occur in books II and P. As for the slaying, Meriones, true to form, strikes his victim in the groin, "where a wound is especially painful for wretched mortals." Grisly slayings are, for the most part, done by minor heroes, but Meriones stands out even among these. Friedrich writes: "Mehr als irgendein anderer Held ist Mcriones für einen bestimmten Typus von Verwundungen zuständig18." There are four groin woundings in the Iliad, and Meriones is responsible for three of them: Δ 492, E 66, N 567, N 650. The last three belong to Meriones. The Δ slaying is simply and briefly described (βεβλήκει βουβώνα), in con­ trast to the others where Mcriones is involved. The Meriones — Adamas incident ends in fully typical fashion (570—75) : 1. The last gasps of the dying are a favorite detail. Cf. K 521, E 585, N 399, Φ 182. 2. The comparison of a warrior to a stricken bull is also common. Cf. ΓΙ 487, P 520, Y 403. 3. Death follows when a spear is drawn from a wound. Cf. Ξ 518, ΓΙ 504. N 576—580. This short androktasia has no dose parallel elsewhere, but is composed of typical material: 1. The Thracian sword (577). Cf. 'F 807 and Leaf's note. 2. The manner of slaying is typical: 576 — E 584; 580 — E 659 ~ X 466. Cf. N 579 f. and Ξ 411. 3. The fallen helmet that is picked up is perhaps related to Γ 376. N 581—600. The encounter between Menelaos and Hclenos, in which Helenos is injured. The two men attack each other at the same time. Other simultaneous attacks occur at E 655 (Sarpedon — Tlepolemos) and N 610 (Menelaos —■ Peisandros). Another at Θ 321 bears an interesting similarity to the present scene. Teucer has just slain Hector’s charioteer. Hector finds a new driver, picks up a heavy rock and charges against Teucer. The Greek tries to string another arrow and shoot, but he is not fast enough. Just as he has the bow drawn all the way back (αύερύοντα παρ’ ώμον, Θ 325) iic is struck by the rock and has to be rescued by Aias. The chief difference between the two scenes is th at here Helenos manages to shoot his arrow, whereas Teucer does not. Whether the bowman’s opponent uses a rock or a spear is not important; both are regular weapons. The scenes are therefore basically alike: a bowman

faces a charging enemy; the bowman is wounded and forced to leave the fight. Familiar details: 1. Helenos’ arrow bounces off Menelaos’ shield. At M 400 Teucer’s arrow fails to pierce Sarpedon’s armor. A spear can also bounce off a shield — cf. X 291. 2. There is another elaborate winnowing simile (588—91) at E 499. 3. For line 596, see above, p. 140. 4. Agenor draws the spear out of Helenos’ arm as Odysseus (Λ 397) and Sthcnelos (E 112) draw the arrows out of Diomedes. For the care of a wounded person by a single friend, cf. E 353 and N 533. A group of friends care for a wounded man at E 663 (Sarpedon) and Ξ 424 (Hector). The detail of the sling is unique (599). (It seems that σφενδόνη here must mean "sling’’ — i. e. the weapon — see Leaf’s note.) For other cases where a retainer carries a hero's weapons, see M 372 and N 710. N 601—618. The death of Peisandros at the hands of Menelaos. After each man has failed with his first spear-cast, they rush at each other in a simulta­ neous attack (see p. 144). Another encounter at ΓΙ 335 follows an indentical pattern, although it is much more briefly recounted. Peneleos and Lykon both miss with their first spear-throws and then rush at each other. Lykon strikes Peneleos’ helmet, the way Peisandros strikes Menelaos’ here, but Peneleos hits Lykon in the neck and kills him. A further similarity between the two scenes is that they both end in a gruesome phantasma: Lykon's head is cut completely off except for a single piece of skin from which it continues to hang. Here in N Peisandros’ both eyes are knocked out by the terrific blow and fall in the dust at his feet. This is all the more striking because an initial miss by both parties followed by a simultaneous attack is itself a mixed pattern; the second part occurs without the first, and vice versa. The first half of this N scene, in fact, shows an unmistakable resemblance to other "initial-miss” scenes. Aside from the Π scene discussed above, in four other places in the Iliad the eventual victor in a combat misses on his first spear-cast. One of these, ΓΙ 462, the PatroclosSarpedon duel, is especially complicated and will be treated only in the FI chapter. The next example, Λ 232, proceeds as follows: 1. A (Agamemnon) throws his spear at B (Iphidamas) and misses. 2. B strikes A but fails to pierce his armor. 3. A kills B. The Hector-Achilles fight at X 273: 1. A (Achilles) throws at B (Hector) and misses. 2. B strikes A, but fails to pierce his shield. 3. A kills B. Our N passage looks exactly the same in outline: 1. A (Menelaos) throws at B (Peisandros) and misses.

18 Verwundung und Tod, p. 52.

Book N

Book N

2. B strikes at A but fails to pierce his armor. 3. A kills B. As usual, these related scenes differ considerably in detail, but they follow identical patterns, even to the extent that A always m isse s on his first throw, while B always manages to h it A or A's shield, but never drives his weapon through his armor. The order is never reversed. An initial miss by the eventual victor is thus a typical detail which has its iixed place in the Λ, N and X passages. The simultaneous attack also seems to have some connection with an initial miss, for they arc not only combined here in N and at Π 335, but in the X passage as well. Hector leaps at Achilles in a final effort (X 306) and is struck as he does so. The initial miss and simultaneous attack appear together as follows: initial miss N 605 _ Π 335 _ X 273 _ A 232 Π 462 Φ 161

simultaneous attack ___ N 605 __ Π 335 ___ X 273 E 655

The Φ passage alone is unlike any of the others: 1. A (Asteropaios) throws two spears at the same time at Achilles (B). 2. One spear misses entirely, the other wounds B slightly. 3. B throws at A and also misses. 4. B slays A with his sword. This combat, however, is unlike any other in the Iliad both in outline and most of its details. Of the passages cited above, it and Π 462 are unlike the rest, although we will see later that the II combat is fully typical in its own right. All of the others follow one of two patterns: (1) the initial miss and unsuccessful counterblow of N, A and X ; (2) the simultaneous attack with helmet blow and phantasma in N and Π. Familiar details of N 601—618: 1. For the action of moira (602), cf. Δ 517, E 613, E 629. 2. Peisandros’ premature optimism (609) is like that of Pandaros and Paris (see E, p. 32). Aside from Achilles, who is a special case, the only Greek who threatens or boasts excessively before a combat is Tlepolemos (E 633) and he is slain by Sarpedon. 3. After Mcnclaos has thrown his spear he draws his sword. See E, p. 61. 4. Peisandros' eyes are knocked out (616). This happens again at Ξ 493 and Π 741. 5. Menelaos delivers a speech over the body of his slain enemy, much of which has been athetized by the commentators. I t begins as a typical

147

"Hohnrede”common in thelliad.but is then expanded into a series of general reproaches. I t ends in an inept list of those things of which eveiy man eventually gets his fill (sleep, love-making, etc.) and the curious rebuke ,to the Trojans that they are nonetheless insatiable in battle. As Leaf remarks, “to be unwearied in battle is not a reproach, nor is success in battle a sign of υβρις.’’ At the same time Menelaos' unhappy excursus is a product of the same “Erweiterungstechnik’' which characterizes the speech of Poseidon and other related speeches (pp. 120—21). The speaker allows one thought to lead him on to the next. Further, in a reply to Euphorbos in P Menelaos again rebukes his enemy in a complimentary way: Ζεϋ πάτερ, ού μέν καλάν ύπέρβιον εύχετάασθαι. οδτ’ οδν παρδάλιος τόσσον μένος οδτε λέοντος οδτε συος κάπρου δλοόφρονος, οδ τε μέγιστος θυμύς ένί στήΟεσσι περί σθένεΐ βλεμεαίνει, δσσον Πάνθου υΐες έΰμμελίαι φρονέουσιν.

20

A comparison of this with, say, the boar simile a t Λ 414, where Odysseus is pictured as he faces the Trojans, shows how much better Menelaos’ words would suit such an occasion than they do a rebuke to the enemy. Tire fact that the N and P speeches by Menelaos are similar in this detail does not of course make them any less curious, but it does suggest that there is more behind the oddity than just the incompetent vagaries of an interpolator. It is better explained as a particularly unsuccessful example of the “expansion technique.’’ If the poet of Menelaos' speech here was someone other than the main poet himself, lie was nonetheless a man who composed, however poorly, in a traditional manner. 6. Menelaos’ rebuke to Zeus (631) can be compared to M 164. The armor of a slain man is given to the victor’s retainers to be carried back to the ships. Cf. E 25. N 643—659. The death of Harpalion. The combat pattern is analyzed above, pp. 143—44. The scene has two untypical details, neither of which is partic­ ularly important : (1) the simile at 654, and (2) the notice that Harpalion had followed his father to the war. Asios and Adamas (cf. N 560 f.) are another father-son pair fighting for the Trojans, although tire poet nowhere draws attention to the fact. Pylaimenes, the father, is of course a famous case; al­ though he appears at the end of this scene mourning his son, he was already slain by Menelaos at E 576. The discrepancy, though easy enough to understand, is all the more curious because of the explicit notice that the son followed his father to Troy It is interesting to compare the case of Melanippos. He receives a full intro­ duction at O 546, and is then slain by Antilochos at O 575. But he, or at least

Book N

Book N

somebody else named Melanippos, had already been killed by Teucer at Θ 276, and he has to die a third time at the hands of Patroclos at ΓΙ 695. Is this a discrepancy, or are there three different persons named Melanippos ? Neither. A look at the Θ and Π passages shows that Melanippos appears in both places at the e n d of the line in a slaying catalogue. Melanippos is therefore merely a name used to fill up a catalogue line and the poet clearly has nobody special in mind. We are therefore not at all surprised when a son of Nestor named Me­ lanippos appears at T 240. Tire circumstance ? He is the la st named in a list of Nestor’s sons. The role of Meriones in the slaying was discussed above. His repeated ap­ pearance is also observed by Friedrich, who comments as follows: "Nachdem er schon Deiphobos, den gefährlichsten Gegner seines Fürsten, zum Rückzug zwingen konnte, darf er noclr zwei weitere einprägsame und trotz eines Ab­ standes von fast 70 Versen deutlich aufeinander bezogene Taten verrichten. Da er schon in der Vorbereitung der Doppelaristie eine bedeutende Rolle spielte, wechselt sein Name regelmäßig wie ein Rondothema mit denen der anderen griechischen Helden: Meriones — Idomeneus — Meriones — Antilochos — Meriones — Menelaos — Meriones19.” It should be added that not only does Meriones keep reappearing, but the action patterns in which he is involved repeat themselves as well. N 660—672. The death of Euchonor. Familiar details: 1. Paris, angered at the death of a friend, avenges himself by slaying one of the enemy. Cf. Δ 494, Γ1 581, etc. 2. On the manner of introduction (?jv δέ τις), see E, p. 11. 3. Euchenor is the son of a priest. See E, p. 11. 4. For fathers predicting the future to their sons, or failing to do so, see E, p. 24. 5. Euchenor was wealthy. See E, p. 57. 6. Paris' appearance with his bow is familiar. Cf. his wounding of Diomedes, Eurypylos and Machaon. This is, however, the only time that he manages to slay somebody. 7. Lines 671 f. are repeated at ÏÏ 606 f. The repetition is especially interesting because in ΓΙ they arc also applied to the son of a priest. What is unusual about Euchenor is that all these familiar details in combi­ nation make him into a rather close doublet of Achilles20. He has a choice: he may stay at home and die from a terrible disease, or he can come to Troy and perish in battle. Euchenor’s choices are not, to be sure, the same as those of Achilles, but the story-telling principle behind them is. Achilles’ mother prophesies to him, Euchenor’s father reads the future for his son. Both men are slain by Paris, both times Paris uses his bow. Euchenor, then, is a "doub-

let” of Achilles. A word must, however, be said about the significance of this term. To begin with, it is important to keep in mind that Euchenor, as the son of a priest, belongs to a rather widely represented group in the Iliad, to which Achilles, on the other hand, does not belong. Even Polyidos' prediction th at his son could die in one of two ways, as similar as it is to the story of Achilles' choice, is also only a variation of a motif that is familiar from the rest of the Iliad (see item 4 above). All the other details of his life and death — his wealth, the circumstances of his death, the action of Paris with his bow — are fully typical within the Iliad itself without reference to Achilles. This means that Euchenor is not only related to Achilles, but also to other persons who in turn have little or nothing in common with the son of Peleus. We cannot, therefore, say that the poet was thinking o n ly of Achilles when he composed the story of Euchenor. Here another question suggests itself: were Achilles and Euchenor the only two men in the epic tradition who had some such choice and picked one or the other alternative ? The question is not an idle one, for although there is no information on which to base a sure judgement, the following considerations point most definitely in one direction. I have already shown elsewhere that in the non-Iliadic tradition the late-coming allies to the war, Rhesos, Memnon and Eurypylos, all share a surprisingly large number of details in their careers and activity in the Trojan war21. The following brief summary will illustrate the basic similarities. The major features in the career of Memnon are the following: 1 . son of a minor goddess. 2. wears armor made by Hephaistos. 3. drives magnificent chariot and horses. 4. arrives at Troy in the late days of the war. 5. enjoys great initial success. 6 . slain by Achilles. 7. is granted a special dispensation after death through the efforts of his mother. The career of Rhesos i n the n o n - Ilia d ic tra d itio n shares items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 with that of Memnon. A comparison between Achilles and Memnon is equally interesting: 1 . son of a minor goddess. 2. Hephaistian armor. 3. magnificent horses. 4. special dispensation after death won through the efforts of his mother. Eurypylos, the son of Telephos, is another late-coming ally. Like Rhesos and Memnon he first wreaks havoc among the Greeks until he is slain by Neoptolemos {the son of Achilles). Eurypylos came to Troy through the evil

13 Verwundung und Tod, p. 56.

s" Kleine Kämpfer, p. 75.

al Iliad X and the Rhesos, pp. 28—40.

149

Book N

conspiracy of his mother, Astyoche, who had been bribed with a golden vine from Priam. This in turn is an unmistakable parallel to the Eriphyle story. Eurypylos' history is thus built out of a combination of what we might call two sets of motifs: the reason for his coming to Troy and his actions when he arrived there. Achilles therefore shares certain important attributes with Memnon and Rhesos, these two share others with Eurypylos, Achilles shares still others with Euchcnor. If we admit these cyclic parallels into the discussion — i. e. if we look upon the cycle and the Iliad as products of the same epic tradition and admit the possibility th at the content (not the form) of the cyclic poems was as old as th at of the Iliad, and not a copy or a later continuation, then certain conclu­ sions follow22. One of the most important is this: just as there were certain favorite patterns and type scenes according to which battle scenes were narrated, in the same way there were certain groups of motifs that were especially popu­ lar in making up the lives and careers of epic heroes. Obviously, not all heroes have similar careers, any more than all battle scenes are related, but within the welter of examples in both these categories certain ones fall into related groups and arc recognizable as belonging together. This means that in the above mentioned cases, at least, the technique of biography is related to th at of battle narrative. In both cases the poet had a model, or outline, before him, and constructed a given scene or personal history accordingly. This in turn suggests that Euchenor and Achilles, both of whom have relatives elsewhere besides being related to each other, had even more “doublets’’ elsewhere in the epic tradition, many of which could have been invented on the spur of the moment and as quickly forgotten. Others could have been standard mythical personages who had a fixed place in the tradition. We of course have no way of knowing whether any such figures did indeed ever exist, but the narrative process at work in the careers of Achilles, Euchenor, Rhesos, Memnon and Eurypylos shows how easily they could have been created. But does the Iliad its e lf contain characters whose lives are made out of a common group of details? The answer is yes. At Y 381 Achilles slays a young Trojan by the name of Iphition: ευ δ’ Άχιλεύς Τρώεσσι Oops φρεσίν είμένος άλκήν, σμερδαλέα ίάχων, πρώτου δ’ ελε Ίφιτίωνα, ΙσΟλδυ Ότρυντεΐδην, πολέων ήγήτορα λαών, δν νύμφη τέκε νηις Ότρυυτηϊ πτολιπόρΟω Τμώλω υπο νιφδεντι, "Υδης έν πιόνι δήμωτύυ δ’ ίθύς μεμαώτα βάλ' εγχεϊ δϊος Άχιλλεύς.

385

of the basic argum ents of K u i.lm an n , Die Quellen der Ilias (Wiesbaden, I960).

IS!

Iphition’s mother was a nymph, and we are told where she bore her son, under snowy Tmolos, and who his father was. The mention of the warrior's mother and the brief notice of where her son was born lend the scene a distinct kind of pathos. At Ξ 442—45 the lesser Aias slays a Trojan : ένθα πολύ πρώτιστος Όϊλήος ταχύς Αίας Σάτνων οδτασε δουρί μετάλμενος όξυόεντι Ήυοπίδην, δν άρα νύμφη τέκε νη’ίς άμύμων ’Ήνοπι βουκολέοντι παρ’ δχΟας Σατνιόεντος.

445

Satnios is very much like Iphition; an unimportant victim, quickly slain, and perhaps as quickly forgotten. I-Iis mother was also a nymph, and she bore her son by the banks of the Satnioeis, to Enops. The two scenes share closely related sets of details, and evoke the same pathos in the reader or hearer. The notice of the mother and where she bore her son makes us think of him as a young man, cut down just as he approached the prime of life. All this is stated directly in the case of Simoeisios at Δ 473, who, like Satnios, is named from the river along whose banks he first saw the light of day : ”EvO’ εβαλ’ ΆνΟεμίωνος υίύνΤελαμώνως Αΐας, ήίθεου θαλερύν Σιμοείσων, ον ποτέ μήτηρ 'ΊδηΟεν κατωΰσα παρ’ οχδησιν Σιμόεντος γείνατ’, έπεί ρα τοκεΰσιν άμ’ έσπετο μήλα ίδέσΟαιτοΰνεκά μιυ κάλεον Σιμοείσων ουδέ τοκεΰσι Ορέπτρα φίλοις άπέδωκε, μινυνΟάδιος δέ ο ΐ αιών έπλεΟ’ ύπ’ Αίαντος μεγαΟύμου δουρί δαμέντι.

475

Simoeisios’ mother was not a nymph, but in all the other details the anecdote is closely related to those in Y and Ξ. The peculiar pathos common to them all is most poignantly developed here in Δ by the addition of further details, such as the elaborate tree simile th at follows the slaying, but it is in no way different. A final example is found at Z 21, where twin brothers are slain by Diomedes ; βή δέ μετ’ Αΐσηπου καί Πήδασον, οΰς ποτέ νύμφη νηις ’Λβαρβαρέη τέκ’ άμύμον. Βουκολίωνι. Βουκολίων δ’ ήν υ’ώς άγαυοΰ Λαομέδοντος περσβύτατος γενεή, σκέτων δέ έ γείνατο μήτηρ· ποιμαίνωυ δ’ έπ’ δεσσι μίγη φιλότητι καί εύνή, ή S’ ύποκυσαμένη διδυμάονε γείνατο παΐδε.

25

Book N

In this anecdote the father is mentioned as well (he is a typical νόθος). Again the mother is a nymph, and although we are not told where she bore her sons, we do hear where she conceived them. It seems clear, then, that these four ‘'biographies/' despite the particular details that give each one its own individual color, are all composed according to a single mould with the purpose of achieving a distinct kind of pathos. There is no need to assume th at Simoeisios, Aisepos, Pedasos, Satnios and Iphition were fixed persons in the epic tradition, as Memnon or Eurypylos were. They may of course have been, or maybe only one or two of them were. In any case, it is easy to see how any number of careers like theirs co u ld be invented on the spur of the moment once the poet had the model firmly in mind. The similarity of such biographical composition to the technique of battle description is striking. The emotional similarity of these four scenes to each other becomes even clearer when we compare them to the Imbrios episode at N 170. In my dis­ cussion of that incident at pp. 125—26 I compared it to the slaying of Simoei­ sios. The two scenes have in common Beye’s ABC pattern followed by an elab­ orate tree simile, and each comes at the beginning of a fresh section of fighting. But the resemblances are far more formal than thematic. The Imbrios episode lacks those specific details that give the four scenes in Δ, Z, Ξ and Y their particular quality, and replaces them with others which, though equally typical, are of a different kind. We will therefore continue to call Euchenor a doublet of Achilles, but with a better understanding of the processes from which the similarity between them resulted. N 673 ff. Hector does not know how badly his men are being beaten on the other side of the field. "Ω ς οί μέν μάρναντο δέμας πυρός αίθομένοιο' "Εκτωρ 8 ’ ούκ έπέπυστο Διΐ φίλος, ουδέ τι ηδη όττι ρά οί νηών έπ’ αριστερά δηϊόωντο λαοί ύπ' Άργείων. κτλ. The poet introduces his change of scene in the regular way, with a general line (seeE 84, p. 19). The notice of Hector’s unawareness starts a pattern that was discussed in detail at Λ 497—503, pp. 105—08. Its basic elements are: (1) a bow shot by Paris (at different places in the two scenes), (2) Hector does not know what is going on elsewhere on the battlefield, (3) he is rebuked for this, (4) he advances to the attack, (5) Aias is involved in the counter action. The general lines of action from line 673 to the end of the book (837) are thus established. But although the narrative follows a fixed scheme in its basic outline, some of its details and smaller sections are problematical. The section between lines 685 and 722 is among these. Between the notice of Hector’s

153

unawareness and the rebuke there is an intervening section of battle descrip­ tion. The Λ passage presents no problems because the intervening section is understandable both in function and in detail, but the case in N is different. The intervening section consists of a curious, heavily athetized catalogue of Greeks and allies. An extensive list of objections could be drawn up against it, but two facts stand out above the rest: (!) the introduction of a catalogue here is totally unmotivated and, more importantly, occurs in a situation different from that of any other catalogue, long or short, in the rest of the Iliad. Cata­ logues normally come before a battle (B 494, Δ 250 — taking the epipolesis as a catalogue — Λ 56) or at a significant new start in a battle that is already under way (Θ 261, M 88, Π 168). Neither of these conditions prevails at N 684. (2) Nowhere else in the Iliad does a body of soldiers bring about a repulse of the enemy the way the Locrian bowman and slingers do here (712). These are important differences, and the passage forms the longest and most impor­ tant »»-typical section met thus far. This fact, together with all of the smaller problems in the section, leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that some disruptive process has taken place which disfigured the passage considerably. At the same time, there are many typical details within the section : 1. Compare N 687 f. with O 406. 2. Medon, the bastard son of Oileus, is living in exile because of a murder (694—97). These items are fully typical. He was a νόθος (see E 70, p. 18) and he took refuge at the home of another after he had killed a man. Cf. B 661, O 431, Π 573, Ψ 85. I 447 is also related, and the information related here about Mcdon is repeated at O 333. This man is therefore an excellent example, in miniature, of the formulaic technique of biography discussed above. 3. For other cases of retainers carrying a man’s weapons (here 710), see N 600, p. 145. 4. 701—08. The lesser Aias sticks close to the side of the greater Aias and they fight as a close pair. Such fighting by twos is common in itself (cf. E 576, Λ 320, etc.), but this section is most reminiscent of Θ 266, where Teucer fights in close conjunction with Telamonian Aias and hides be­ hind his shield whenever he needs to. This rather general similarity is not very close or important in itself, but the Θ scene also comes right after a short Greek catalogue which is placed at the beginning of a turning point in the action. Zeus has answered Agamemnon’s prayer and given strength to the Greeks. They turn and begin to push the Trojans back. Then comes the catalogue and the joint action of Aias and Teucer. We may, therefore, have a small typical scene here, but the larger difficulties of the N section make it impossible to be sure. N 723—747. The pattern which began with the notice of Hector’s unaware­ ness now continues with Poulydamas’ rebuke to him, which is the only thing

Book N

which prevents a complete Trojan rout. I t is a regular stylistic feature for a dangerous situation to he carried to the extreme, and the inevitable conse­ quences then averted only by some intervention (cf. Θ 217, Σ 165, Y 288, etc). Within this general class, the present passage represents one of the most common types: "then the Trojans would have been driven back to the city, b u t . . or “then the Greeks would have captured Troy, b u t . . (cf. Z 73, Θ 130, Π 698, etc). Poulydamas’ rebuke has been discussed in connection with Poseidon’s speech at N 89— 124 above, p. 121, where it was shown that its digressions and rambling structure, as disturbing as they are, arc nonetheless characteristic of such speeches throughout the poem. Tire person speaking regularly allows himself to develop one or more subsidiary ideas to the extent that they lose pertinent connection with the point th at the speech is supposed to make. That is precisely what happens in lines 729—34. This may even be related to the well-known tendency of similes to develop a short story around, say, a lion to which somebody has been compared. The story itself in no way illustrates the person or his situation, but is a small, independent tale to which the poet is led by his interest in the animal and by the pleasure of narration. The speech also carries on the opposition between Poulydamas and Hector which began in M (61, 211) and continues through Σ (254). The opening com­ plaint, th at Hector will not listen to good advice because he thinks he always knows better, was also part of the rebuke to him at M 2 11, although there was no evidence at that point of any such behavior on his part. In fact, Hector had listened and followed Poulydamas' advice at M 61. The second M passage seems, therefore, to be another example of careless use of typical material. I t was pointed out at p. 108 that the pattern involving Hector’s unawareness is a variation of the common rebuke pattern. It occurs twice, here and at Λ 502. The N passage has still another close relative at M 61 : A. Poulydamas criticizes Hector’s tactics, suggests a change and re-organi­ zation. B. Hector obeys, the Trojans re-group around him (M 80 f. = N 748 f.). C. Catalogue of the Trojan leaders. D. Trojan charge, Asios episode, defense of the gate by the Lapiths. Starting with the rebuke itself, the N passage looks much the same: A. Poulydamas criticizes Hector’s leadership, suggests that the leaders withdraw and confer on how to continue. B. Hector obeys, tells Poulydamas to gather the chiefs. The Paris-Hector scene (769). C. Catalogue of the Trojan leaders who follow Hector (789). D. Trojan charge, strong counter-action from Aias. The two passages are very close and establish a pattern in that they add to the.

155

familiar rebuke pattern the extra item of a Trojan catalogue. This same detail appears in a rebuke scene at P 140: A. Glaucos rebukes Hector. B. Hector angrily replies, encourages his men, and withdraws to put on Patroclos’ armor. C. Zeus sees and pities Hector. D. Hector gathers the Trojans around him. E. Catalogue of the Trojan leaders. F. Speech by Hector. G. Trojan charge. H. Aias and Menelaos in counter action. A short catalogue, therefore, of the kind found at N 789 typically appears before the Trojan charge following a rebuke to Hector. This does not violate the normal rule for catalogue position since a fresh beginning is made in the fighting after a rebuke. N 754—87. The Hector-Paris scene. If lines 674 (the notice of Hector’s unawareness) to the end of the book (837) are regarded as one large pattern, there arc two major interruptions or delays in the course of its development. The first of these is the catalogue section at 685—700, followed by the account of Oilcan Aias and the Locrians who break the Trojan lines (701—22). The rebuke to Hector follows this. The second delay is the Hector-Paris scene which falls between Poulydamas rebuke and the Trojan catalogue and charge. By ''interruption" or “delay” I do not necessarily mean interpolation — i. e. that the intervening section was inserted into its surroundings and split them apart. It is normal for patterns to be expanded and varied by the addition of extra details. The Hector-Paris scene is, in fact, typical. On the practical side, Leaf notes th at it is necessary because it finally removes the two-front offensive which then never appears again. From tire typical point of view. Hector rebukes Paris three times in the Iliad: here, at Γ 39, and at Z 326. Γ 39 = N 769. The uncomplimentary reference to Paris’ good looks (είδος άριστε) is especial­ ly suited to him, but the contrast between the battlefield and the realm of Aphrodite recurs throughout the poem (cf. E 348, X 126, etc.). A regular way of accusing somebody of weakness or cowardice is to call him "handsome." Cf. E 787, Θ 228, P 142. Hector’s rebuke and Paris' reply are therefore typical in themselves,but this is the only place where two rebukes(Poulydamas’ to Plector and Hector's to Paris) come so close together. It is this more than anything else th at gives this section at 726—87 its peculiar flavor. The closest parallel is in P, the section beginning with Glaucos’ rebuke at 142. There Hector replies, dresses himself in Patroclos’ armor, and then delivers a parainesis to the allies that begins in a most unfriendly manner (220). But such close prox­ imity of two rebukes as here in N remains unparalleled.

Book N

The simile at 754 is unique, that at 795 typical. Hector’s appearance at 802—07 has already been compared with that of Deiphobos at N 156—58 (above, p. 125). Hector fails to break through the phalanx just as he fails at N 145 and Asteropaios fails at P 352. At this point the last scene in the book begins, a confrontation between Hector and Aias. I t starts in regular style with a challenge by Aias and a reply by Hector. The omen that follows Aias’ threat (821) is unusual, for a sign never appears under these circumstances elsewhere, but it is a small matter. The real surprise comes at 833. Hector has just finished his reply to Aias' challenge, and we wait for the fight to develop. Instead: "Ως άρα φωνήσας ήγήσατο- τοί δ’ άμ’ εποντο ήχη θεσπεσίη, έπΐ δ’ ίαχε λαός όπισθεν. Άργεΐοι. δ’ έτέρωθεν επίαχον, ουδέ λάθοντο άλκής, άλλ’ έ'μενον Τρώων έπιόντας άρίστους. ήχή δ’ άμφοτέρων £κετ’ αιθέρα καί Διός αύγάς.

835

At the beginning of Ξ, which now follows, the scene switches to Nestor and Machaon. After that there is a conference of the Greek leaders (27) and then the Διός ’Απάτη (153). It is not until Zeus is asleep (352) and we return to the battle (379) that Hector and Aias finally begin their duel (402). As usual, the resumption of the scene is preceded by a general description of the prepara­ tions on both sides (379—401), so that we have to imagine the Aias —■Hector encounter there as beginning afresh. There is no parallel elsewhere in the Iliad for such an abrupt and unexplained interruption of a developing scene. What happens here cannot be compared either to those Olympian scenes that suddenly remove us from a battle which then resumes after the gods have had their say(e.g. E 352, Π 431, X 166), or to the κόλος μάχη at Y 419 where Hector and Achilles meet in a brief prelude to their final confrontation in X. This last scene is a complete event in its own right, for it is not left hanging in an unfinished state. The Olympian scenes do indeed interrupt the action, but (1) they are organically connected with the action which they interrupt in a way lines 833-—37 are not ; (2) they never delay the completion of an action for so long a passage as between N 832 and Ξ 402; (3) the N passage is not interrupted in the true sense of the word. Lines 833—37 are a genuine change of scene, not merely an interruption. Again, those places where a change of scene occurs, after which the original scene reappears (e. g. E 318, 319—330, 330; E 663—67, 668—81, 682), are not true parallels. These scenes can be broken off and then resumed without detriment to their internal coherence, which is not the case here, and at the same time they are not interrupted for such a long time. Most important, the general description at N 833 effectively closes the scene.

157

The only thing th at even remotely resembles what happens here occurs at Π 632. Aeneas has just missed hitting Meriones with his spear and taunts him. Meriones replies, but is chided by Patroclos for wasting his time talking instead of fighting. Patroclos then leads the way, Meriones follows, and Aeneas is completely forgotten. But as abrupt as the end of this Π encounter is, the interruption is at least partially explained. The two men do not continue fighting because Patroclos suddenly appears on the scene and leads Meriones away. What is left unexplained is why the fight between the two is not con­ tinued after Patroclos tells his ally to stop talking and start fighting. The two scenes thus have some similarity, but the one here in N is the more difficult. There is no explanation at all why the duel never starts. The traditional explanation for this situation is simple: the section between lines N 832 and Ξ 402 has been inserted into an originally unified context, splitting it apart and arresting its conclusion. It is, indeed, difficult to escape the conclusion that something has gone seriously awry here, however it may have happened. The feeling that N 832 and Ξ 402 belong together is further strengthened by their stylistic relation as Friedrich has established. One of the stylistic categories that he isolated is what he calls “biotischer Realismus.” This is a manner of describing things or events simply and straightforwardly, but with an eye for detail. It is to be contrasted, for example, with that style which describes details that are weird, fantastic, or grisly, or the monumental style where details are held to a minimum and only what is necessary or most important is described. Friedrich concludes: “ Fassen wir nämlich alle Stellen ins Auge, an denen die Bücher N und Ξ den minutiös beobachtenden, auf Motivierung bedachten, eher nüchternen als überschwenglichen ‘biotischcn’ Stil aufweisen, dann heben sich aus all den Einzelkämpfen die folgenden heraus : N 156—158, 384—401, 402—412, 527—539, 576—600, 803—808; Ξ 402—439; (O 240—243). Diese Auswahl nach stilistischen Gesichtspunkten rückt Dinge zusammen, zwischen denen jetzt viel Andersartige stellt, die Idee verdunkelnd, welche die herausgehobene Stücke miteinander verbindet; die Priamossöhne werden einer nach dem anderen verwundet23." These are startling observations, and a check of all the fighting in N and Ξ will show that Friedrich is right. This particular stylistic tendency appears only in these two books and, with the exception of N 384—401 (the death of Asios and his charioteer), it is always in connection with one of the sons of Priam, who are wounded one after the other. Other explanations for this stylistic phenomenon besides “disturbance of the original context” are possible. The poet could have had scenes in mind from another poem, his own or some­ body else’s, from which he borrowed, and where these men's woundings were related in this particular style. Perhaps the deaths and woundings of certain persons were more fixed in the tradition, stylistically and otherwise, than we 23 Verwundung und Tod, p. 39 f.

might expect. But the transition from one of these stylistically identifiable sections to another, where the style is different, and vice versa, is not abrupt or difficult elsewhere as it is here between N 832 and Ξ 402. It is this combination of stylistic relatedness and the abrupt break at N 833, plus the thematic connection of N 832 with Ξ 402 that forces the conclusion that some violent disturbance has taken place. The close of book N has, therefore, three important untypical sections: (1) the catalogue of Greeks at 685; (2) the presence of two rebukes so close together at 726 and 769; (3) the interruption at 833.

BOOK P The action in Book P consists entirely of the fight over Patroclos’ corpse. No other combat over a slain man is drawn out to such length in the Iliad, for the duration of the battle reflects the importance of the person over whom the fighting is taking place. Just as the subject of the battle remains the same throughout the book, so the fighting itself takes a simple and repetitive form: it consists basically of Trojan attack, Greek defense, withdrawal and counter­ attack. This situation is developed in terms of the familiar rebuke pattern. This pattern is the backbone of the entire book, for although variations in detail manage to disguise the fact, essentially the same thing happens four times: I 1. Menelaos successfully defends Patroclos’ body, 1. 2. Apollo, as Mentes, upbraids Hector, 70. 3. Hector charges, 83. 4. Menelaos retreats and calls Aias to his aid, 108. 5. At Aias' arrival Hector retreats, 128. II 1. Aias defends Patroclos’ body, 132. 2. Glaucos rebukes Hector, 142. 3. Hector and the Trojans charge, 233. 4. Aias pessimistically addresses Menelaos, who summons other Greeks to their aid, 238. 5. The Trojans drive the Greeks back, 274. 6. Aias stops the retreat, Hector and the Trojans withdraw, 278, 316. III 1. The Greeks have regained the upper hand, the Trojans are about to flee, 319. 2. Apollo, as Periphas, upbraids Aeneas, 322. 3. Aeneas stiffens Hector and the Trojans, 333. 4. The Greeks and Trojans fight to a standstill over the body. Aias keeps the Greeks firm, 356. Section 366—542 IV

1. Menelaos, strengthened by Athena, slays a Trojan over Patroclos’ body, 533. 2. Apollo, as Phainops, upbraids Hector, 582. 3. Hector charges, 591.

161

Book P

Book Ρ

4. Zeus helps him and throws the Greeks into flight, 593. 5. Aias and Menelaos organize the slow retreat with the body of Patroclos, 626. In this last encounter the Trojan assault is not turned back, but is replaced by the slow and painful rescue of the corpse. But Aias is again the organizer and mainstay. The "intervening” section, 336—542, consists in the main of three parts: (1) a long description of the terrific back-and-forth struggle over Patroclos (3 6 $—425), (2) the lament of Achilles’horses (426—65), (3) the encounter be­ tween Automedon/Alkimedon and Hector/Aeneas along with Chromios and Aretos. This last can be outlined as follows: 1. Automedon and Alkimedon team up. The latter takes over the horses, the former prepares to fight, 466. 2. Hector sees them and goes to Aeneas. He persuades him to join in an attack in order to capture the horses, 483. 3. 'They charge together, 4 9 1 . 4. The two Greeks stand firm and call the Aiarites to their aid, 501. 5. Automedon slays Aretos, but the arrival of the Aiantes puts an end to the fight, 516. This is immediately recognizable as a consultation pattern, which is outlined and discussed along with related examples at E 166, pp. 24—26. This part of the book, therefore, which falls between the third and fourth rebuke patterns is itself a genuine type scene. It also fits especially well into the action of P as a whole because it is closely related to the rebuke pattern that otherwise dominates the book. Both the consultation and rebuke patterns describe a Trojan attack and Greek defense. I t is therefore not unfair to say that the pattern of Trojan attack — Greek defense occurs five times in P, and is the basic unit upon which all further development and elaboration are built. The first rebuke pattern begins with Menelaos’ slaying of Euphorbos in defense of Patroclos. This inspires Apollo’s rebuke to Hector. Interestingly, the fourth pattern also begins with a slaying by Menelaos after he has been strengthened by Athena (553—74), although the subsequent action there develops differently. Menelaos steps over Patroclos (1—8), a common manoeu­ vre on the Homeric battlefield where one warrior stands in defense over the body of another. Cf. N 420, Θ 330. The similarity with P 132 is especially close. Aias steps over Patroclos, beginning the second pattern just as Menelaos here begins the first:

Both men are given similes at this point: Menelaos is compared to a mother cow, Aias to a lion. Is it coincidental that both animals are described in connec­ tion with their young? This may be the result of an associative force in the poet’s mind rather than a necessary part of the pattern. That is, both scenes begin like patterns, the actions themselves are identical. The mother animal simile in the first scene may have led the poet to describe another animal in defense of its young in the next one, too.But it is only the simile itself which is typical at this point, not the subject. This can be seen from E 297 where Aeneas, in an identical manoeuvre, leaps down from his chariot to defend the body of Pandaros: Αινείας δ’ άπόρουσε συν άσπίδι δουρί τε μακρω, δείσας μή πώς οί έρυσαίατο νεκρόν ’Αχαιοίάμφί δ’ άρ’ αύτω βαίνε λέων ώς άλκί πεποιΟώς, πρόσΟε δέ οί δόρυ τ ’ έσχε καί άσπίδα πάντοσ’ έΐσην, 300 τόν κτάμεναι μεμαώς δς τις του γ ’ άντίος έλΟοι.

Αίας δ’ άμφί Μενοιτιάδη σάκος εύρύ καλύψας έστήκει ώς τίς τε λέων περί οίσι τεκεσσιν, ώ ρά τε νήπι’ άγοντι συναντήσωνται έν Ολη άνδρες έπακτηρες- κτλ.

All three scenes share certain details. P 7 f. = E 300 f., E and P share a lion simile, the two P similes describe animals with their young. Although defense of a body occurs elsewhere, these three are the only places where this action is described in any detail. Since the details themselves are closely related, we have here a small type scene. I t is also noteworthy that at least six of the most unusual and memorable similes in the Iliad are applied to Menelaos. Besides the mother cow simile here, he is given two more famous similes at Δ 130: a mother brushing a fly away from lier sleeping child, and a piece of ivory stained with crimson. He is given the courage of a persistent, buzzing fly in a remarkable simile at P 570, and at T 597 his spirit rejoices like a field of waving grain. At N 588 an arrow bounces off his breastplate the way peas or beans fly from a winnowing fan on a windy day. Menelaos is also described by one of the most elaborate lion similes in the poem at P 61—69, and his first victim in this book, Euphorbos, is described by one of the most interesting and unforgettable similes of the entire Iliad (53—60). No other single character is the subject of so many unusual similes. P 12—42. The verbal exchange between Menelaos and Euphorbos is typical; two men often address each other before they come to blows (see Λ, p. 101). Euphorbos’ threat and his advice to Menelaos to retreat while he still has time (16—17) arc like the end of Menelaos’ reply (31—32) or Achilles’ warning to Aeneas (Y 196). Menelaos’ reply is curious: Ζεϋ πάτερ, ού μέν καλόν ύπέρβιον εύχετώασΟαι. οΰτ’ ούν παρδάλιος τόσσον μένος οΰτε λέοντος ούτε συός κάπρου όλοόφρονος, ου τε μέγιστος θυμός ένί στήΟεσσι περί σθένεί βλεμεαίνει, οσσον ΙΙάνΟου υΐες έϋμμελίαι φρονέουσιν.

20

Book

ουδέ μέν ούδέ βίη Ύπερήνορος ίπποδάμοιο ής ήβης άπόνηΟ’, οτε μ’ ώνατο καί μ’ δπέμεινε καί μ’ εφατ’ έν Δαναοϊσι έλέγχιστον πολεμιστήν εμμεναι- κτλ.

Book P

25

Euphorbos’ brother, Hyperenor, was slain by Menelaos at Ξ 516 amid a general rout of the Trojans. Euphorbos tries to avenge him but is himself killed in turn. This is a familiar sequence by itself. At Λ 221 Agamemnon first slays Iphidamas and then Koon, who tries to avenge his brother's death. At Λ 426 Odysseus kills Charops and Sokos in the same way. When Achilles kills Polydoros at Y 407, Hector, in fury, attacks his brother’s slayer. Hector would have been killed too, but is rescued in time. Only in the case of I-Iyperenor and Euphorbos are the deaths of the two brothers so widely separated. The problem here is th at before Hyperenor was slain he made none of the insults mentioned by Menelaos. He was one of a series of victims who were quickly slain and did not say anything at all. The discrepancy is considerable. There were perhaps two poets at work here, or there may have been some standard ver­ sion of Hyperenor's death that was ignored for some unknown reason in the Ξ passage. It is also possible th at the poet invented the story on the spur of the moment in order to re-enforce Menelaos’ complaint against the sons of Panthos. In any case, both the quick slaying of a series of victims and the attem pt to avenge a slain brother are typical, and this may be why they are indis­ criminately connected here. Menelaos' complaint, however, is a problem in itself. Lines 20—23 are not a good description of ύπερηφανία at all. They picture instead a blazing and untiring warlike spirit. This in turn recalls N 620, where Menelaos again criticizes the Trojans in a most complimentary manner (see pp. 146—47). I observed in the N chapter that there may be some connec­ tion between the two speeches (they are both inappropriate in the same way), but it does not seem possible to go further than that. Euphorbos’ reply (34—42) is a collection of familiar details : 1. Vengeance for a slain brother, 34 f. See above. 2. Hyperenor was newly married (36). This puts him in the list of slain men whose marriages are mentioned (A 226 & 242, N 173, N 356, N 428). He is especially like Iphidamas (A 242). Both men left their brides shortly after marriage, never to return. 3. I-Iyperenor’s family will have its grief lightened if his death is avenged by Euphorbos (38—40). For the thought, cf. Ξ 482. 4. Cf. P 41 f. and X 268 f. as part of a challenge to fight. P 43—50. The combat follows a common pattern: A throws at B and either misses or fails to pierce his armor; B then kills A.See E, p .ll. It is also important that Euphorbos is trying to withdraw when he is struck (47). Note the two cases in N where a man was hit as he was pulling away (566, 648), although

163

there the slayer was not the person who was originally attacked. The fights between Odysseus and Sokos at Λ 434 (Sokos trying to avenge his brother!) and Hector and Aias at Ξ 402 follow exactly the same pattern as the P en­ counter: Sokos/Hector throws unsuccessfully at Odysseus/Aias.Each then tries to get away, but Sokos is killed and Hector severely wounded, f Î5Î 51—69. Euphorbos falls, Menelaos strips him of his armor, and nobody dares stand against him. The defilement of Euphorbos’ beautiful and decora­ ted hair in the dust (51—52) is a good example of a favorite motif. At Π 794 the plume of Achilles’ helmet falls into the dust, something that had never happened before. At P 439 the manes of his weeping horses hang on the ground and are soiled. At X 401 the beautiful hair of Hector is defiled in the same way. At O 538 the plume from Dolops’ helmet falls into the dust. The simile which follows the death of Euphorbos is an elaborate and memorable example of a common type in which falling warriors are compared to trees (see N, p. 126). The lion simile describing Menelaos is also a particularly elaborate example of the most common type in the poem. This first part, then, of the first rebuke pattern in P is entirely typical except for the puzzling remarks by Menelaos in his speech at 19—32. The second phase begins at line 70 as Apollo intervenes and arouses Hector to attack. The rebuke itself is fully typical: 1. Apollo assumes human form. 2. He arouses Hector by telling him that somebody has been slain. Cf. Π 541, P 589. 3. The difficulty of managing Achilles' horses is mentioned again at K 401 and P 475. 4. Hector’s response to bad news (83) is usual: cf. Π 548, P 123, P 694, P 591 = Σ 22. Lines 70—131, which contain the middle and end of the first rebuke pattern, relate the following: Apollo’s rebuke to Hector, Hector’s charge, Menelaos’ monologue, his retreat, his summoning of Aias, Aias’ arrival and Hector’s retreat. This interesting scene is built out of several independent type scenes. The first is Menelaos’ monologue, which he delivers as he sees Hector rushing toward him (91— 105). The Iliad's monologues were discussed above at A, pp. 96—98. The outlines of those scenes related to the present one are as follows : A 401. 1. Odysseus is isolated and faces the onrushing Trojans. 2. He considers what he should do, and decides to stand. 3. Ensuing combat. 4. He is rescued by Aias. Φ 552. 1. Agenor, alone, faces the onrushing Achilles. 2. He considers what he should do, decides to stand. 3. Ensuing combat.

Book P

4. Agenor is rescued by Apollo. X 98. 1. Hector, alone, faces the charging Achilles. 2. He considers what he should do, decides to fight. 3. At the last moment he runs away. The P example is like the others in the following details: the warrior cries out in desperation (ώ μοι έγώ) ; he then considers one course of action which, however, he rejects, always beginning with the line: αλλά τίη μο'. ταύτα φίλος διελέξατο θυμός ; (Λ 407, Ρ 97, Φ 562, X 122). He also receives a simile in every scene; in Λ, P and Φ after the monologue, in X just before it. We have, therefore, a very clear type scene. But the present example is especially interesting for two reasons. First, because it is the only place where the monologue appears in conjunction with a rebuke pattern. This gives us an additional insight into the way patterns can work. The monologue scene, indeed, fits quite neatly into a rebuke pattern — just as it could fit easily into a consultation pattern. The pattern itself remains unchanged, even though one of its sections — the Trojan charge and Greek reaction — is represented by an in d e p e n d e n t type scene. Second, it is only here that a warrior in this situation decides n o t to fight. At the same time, Menelaos' reason for retreat is fully typical: the gods are on the Trojans' side and it is madness to resist them. At Θ 140 Nestor urges Diomedes to retreat because Zeus is helping the Trojans. Earlier, at E 601, Diomedes himself had instructed his men to fall back because Ares was fighting beside Hector. Agamemnon, in his three attempts to persuade the Greeks to leave for home, emphasizes the uselessness of trying to conquer the Trojans when Zeus is helping them (B 116, I 23, Ξ 69). At Y 97 Aeneas explains his unwillingness to fight Achilles : there is always some god helping him so that a man does not have an even chance. At Π 119 Aias sees the hand of Zeus in what is happening and withdraws. This is, therefore, a common idea in the poem. With the exception of the Diomedes-Aphrodite encounter, which is a special case from beginning to end, divine aid for one side alsvays means re­ treat for the other. This particular motivation has been inserted into a mono­ logue, with the result that it ends in what is for this kind of scene an unparal­ leled decision, but which is at the same time strictly typical in its own right. Familiar details in Menelaos’ monologue: 1. For lines 91 and 97 see above. 2. έμής ενεκ’ ενθάδε τιμής (92). Cf. E 211, p. 28. 3. Menelaos is afraid of being surrounded by the enemy (95). Cf. E 623, Λ 405. 4 . καί πρδς δα.ίμονά περ (104). See E, p. 46. P 106—122. Menelaos retreats until he reaches the safety of his own lines, then he summons Aias to his aid. The slow retreat of one fighter in the face of a

165

large number of the enemy is a type scene: Odysseus at Λ 411, Aias at Λ 545, Antilochos at N 550. The way Menelaos withdraws from Hector is directly related to the retreats in these three other scenes. The man pulls back slowly, occasionally turning to face his pursuers, until he finally reaches safety. Here the mass of Trojans is replaced by Hector alone, and this in turn relates the scene to O 585 where Hector charges Antilochos. Nestor’s son cannot face him, turns and runs like a frightened animal. Of all these scenes, only that with Antilochos at N 550 does not contain a simile to describe the retreating warrior. I t is therefore clear what the poet is doing. He first used an independent type scene, the monologue, as part of his larger rebuke pattern. He then introduced the typical motif of fear and retreat in the face of divine aid to the enemy in order to make Menelaos deride not to fight Hector. This, in turn, led to another, equally independent, type scene, in which one fighter gradually retreats until he reaches the safety of his own ranks. But such a retreat, though typical in its own right, would seem to dis­ rupt the normal development of a rebuke pattern, since it is regular in these scenes for the Trojan attack to be at best only partially successful. This diffi­ culty is neatly solved by the addition of still another type scene, the call for help. Aias comes to the rescue, Hector retreats, and the rebuke pattern resumes its normal course. The poet's procedure here illustrates especially well an important aspect of the narrative style in the Iliad’s battle books, namely its flexibility. Although the chief aim of this study is merely to identify and de­ scribe the recurrent, formulaic elements of the battle narrative, it must not be forgotten with how much flexibility and skill the poet handles them. They do not operate at all in a restricting, confining way, or at least Homer did not allow them to do so. In the hands of a skillful poet they became an instrument capable of almost unlimited variation. As for the cal] for help, the following parallels can be cited : 1.

At Λ 459 Odysseus, alone and wounded, is pressed on all sides by the Trojans. Earlier, in the same situation, he had delivered a monologue related to Menelaos’ here (Λ 404). He yells for help, Menelaos hears him and summons Aias, who rushes to Odysseus' aid. The Trojans disperse at his arrival ( Λ 485), as Hector quickly retreats here in P: Αίας δ’ έγγύθεν ήλθε φέρων σάκος ήότε πύργον, στη δέ παρέξ· Τρώες 3έ διέτρεσαν άλλυδις άλλος. So in P 128: Αίας 3’ εγγύΟεν ήλθε φέρων σάκος ήύτε πύργον 'Έκτωρ δ’ αψ ές όμιλον ίων άνεχάζεΟ’ έταίοων.

166

Book P

B aokP

2. At P 530 the two Aiantes break up another fight by their arrival, at which three Trojans fall back: καί νύ κε δή ξιφέεσσ’ αύτοσχεδον δρμηΟήτην εί μή σφω’ Αϊαντε διέκριναν μεμαώτε, o t β’ ήλΟον καθ’ δμιλον εταίρου κικλήσκοντος. τούς ύποταρβήσαντες έχώρησαν πάλιν αδτις 'Έκτωρ Αινείας τ’ ήδέ Χρόμιος θεοειδής.

530

The Aiantes had been summoned by Automedon (507) when he saw Hector and Aeneas, along with two other Trojans, moving to attack him. This attack, in turn, is part of a consultation pattern begun by Hector’s going to Aeneas at P 484 and suggesting that they join forces and try to capture Achilles’ horses. 3. Idomeneus yells for help at N 477 when he is threatened by Aeneas. This is also part of a consultation pattern, where Deiphobos and Aeneas are the two Trojan partners (N 455). 4. At M 331, also a consultation pattern, Menestheus secs Sarpedon and Glaucos attacking at the head of the Lycians. He sends Thoos to bring the Aiantes. These hurry to the threatened area and lead the fight against the Lycians. Both the call for help, then, and Aias’ successful intervention are fully typical elements, used here as parts of a rebuke pattern th at requires strong Greek resistance. Compare as well Hector’s quick retreat here with Aeneas’ at E 571 when Antilochos suddenly rushes to Menelaos’ side just as he and the Trojan are squaring off: Άντίλοχος 8è μάλ’ άγχι παρίστατο ποιμένι λαών. Αινείας 8’ ού μείνε, θοός περ έών πολεμιστής, 6>ς εΐδεν δύο φώτε παρ’ άλλήλοισι μένοντε.

570

Another call for help occurs in the next rebuke pattern, but will be discussed below. With Hector’s withdrawal the first rebuke pattern is completed. The second begins immediately with Aias standing over Patroclos and Menelaos beside him. The rebuke to Hector, this time from Glaucos, follows just as quickly (142—68). This second pattern begins at line 132, where Aias stands over Patroclos — i. e. where the Greeks have regained the upper hand —, and ends at line 318 where the fighting that follows the second rebuke to Hector and his charge finally leads to another Trojan repulse. This second pattern is consid­ erably longer than the first. It is increased principally by (1) the intervening action between Glaucos’ rebuke and Hector’s charge, (2) the length of the fighting after Hector’s charge.

167

The nature and structure of Glaucos’ rebuke were analyzed earlier at N, pp. 120—21. Hector’s rep])' to Glaucos (170) was discussed, with parallels, in the same chapter, pp. 154—55. The typicalness of Glaucos’ speech as well as Hector's heated reply can now be assumed. The present P passage was out­ lined above on pp. 154—55, where it was compared with N 726 and M 61 : A. Glaucos rebukes Hector, 140—68. Hector replies, 169—82. He stiffens the Trojans, 184—87. He puts on Patroclos’ armor, 188—97. Zeus contemplates him, 198—209. B. Catalogue of Trojans around Hector, 215—18. Hector addresses them, 219—32. C . Aias and Menelaos face him, 233—45. D. Menelaos calls for help, 246—61. E. Eight over the body, 262—328. It is clear from this that the present pattern has been expanded by the addition of extra material, particularly between lines 169—209. Elector's reply to Glaucos, the first “delay” in the development of the pattern, is fully typical by itself (see above). It remains as yet to be seen whether the same is true of the rest. The rebuke pattern at N 726 looks like this: A. Poulydamas criticizes Hector’s generalship and suggests some re-organi­ zation of their forces. B. Hector obeys and tells Poulydamas to gather the chiefs. The Paris — Hector scene (769). C. Catalogue of the Trojan leaders (789). D. Fight, with resistance led by Aias. M 61 is developed as follows: A. Poulydamas criticizes Elector’s tactics, suggests a change and re-organi­ zation. B. Hector obeys and the Trojans re-group around him. C. Catalogue of the Trojan leaders. D. Fight, defense of the gates by the Lapiths. The M and N passages are more closely related to each other than either is to the P scene, but all three are basically rebuke patterns that contain a short catalogue of Trojan leaders, inserted just before the Trojan charge begins. The P scene is, therefore, a rebuke pattern which belongs to a specific type containing a catalogue of Trojan leaders; tire structure of Glaucos’ rebuke is typical and Elector's reply is equally so. Lines 132—37, where Aias steps over Patroclos, have already been discussed above, pp, 160—61. The details of Glaucos’ rebuke are as follows : 1. είδος άριστε (142). A favorite insult. Compare Γ 39 and N 769. Also

168

Book P

similar are E 787 and Θ 228. I do not think that this is an ironical appli­ cation of Hector’s earlier words to Paris (Γ 39, N 769), now turned on Hector himself, and there is absolutely no ground for seeing here the reflection of some imagined cyclic passage in which Paris was the person upbraided. This conclusion was reached by Schocck in one of his typical combinations1. Namely, in the Aithiopis there was a fight over Achilles' body; the fight over Patroclos in the Iliad is therefore a copy of the Aithiopis scene. If a person is rebuked in this fight in the Iliad, then there must also have been a rebuke in the Aithiopis (!). Hector was already dead there and since Paris was Achilles' slayer, just as Hector is Achilles’ slayer in the Iliad, Paris must have been rebuked in the Aithiopis (είδος άριστε) and the motif transferred to Hector here. Besides being both logically and methodologically unsound, Schoeck’s argument is pain­ fully cumbersome when applied to the text of the Iliad itself. In the first place, rebukes are, as we have seen, very common there. Sclioeck’s reasoning can lead only to the conclusion that all of the Iliad’s rebuke scenes were derived from the Aithiopis either directly or through the medium of Glaucos’ rebuke at P 142. Any attem pt to demonstrate this would of course lead to vast and inextricable complications, as opposed to the simple explanation that rebuke scenes are a typical narrative pattern, common to the Iliad and the epic tradition out of which it grew. Further, the battlefield and the realm of Aphrodite are often contrasted, always to the detriment of the latter (see above, p. 155). Both Paris (Γ 39, N 769) and Hector (P 142) are called είδος άριστε at the moment when their valour is being called into question. In the same way the Greeks are called είδος άγητοί (E 787, Θ 228) when they are being reprimanded for cowardice and weakness. Diomedes tells Aphrodite to leave the battlefield and stay where she belongs (E 348), and Hector observes that he and Achilles are not going to chat like a young couple (X 126). Diomedes, hurling insults at Paris, picks out the Trojan's beauty for attack; χέρα άγλαέ (Λ 385). Priam’s abuse of his sons at Ω 261 is developed from this same contrast. Hector was a mighty warrior, they — ψευσταί τ ’ δρχησταί τε, χοροτυπίγμην άριστοιTo call a man "handsome,’’ then, or a good dancer is to call him a weak­ ling and a coward. Glaucos’ use of the insult at P 142 cannot be used to prove anything else. 2. At lines 144 f. Glaucos warns Hector that he had best think of a way to save Troy without his allies, and then adds (154 f.) th at if the Lycians * Ilias und Aithiopis, p. 94.

Book P

169

leave for home the city will be an easy prey. In a rebuke at E 472 Sarpe­ don had accused Hector of thinking he could hold off the Greeks alone, without the help of the allies. Could this be a traditional motif which the poet never chose to develop ? 3. I t is a standard rebuke on the part of allies that they arc bearing the brunt of the fighting while the Trojans are shirking their duty. Cf. P 146—53, E 475—77, Π 539. 4. Glaucos pictures for Hector the way the Trojans should fight (156), just as Sarpedon had done earlier (E 490). 5. 'fire suggested trade of Patroclos’ corpse for Sarpedon’s armor is unique in the poem. 6. On Hector's fear of Alas (166), cf. Λ 542, P 128 f. P 169—182. Hector's reply to Glaucos. Since the charges against Hector are that he is a poor fighter and a coward, his heated reply is hardly surprising. In the same way Agamemnon accuses Odysseus of cowardice at Δ 338 (epipolesis) and Odysseus answers angrily. We can especially compare P 179—82 and Δ 353—55: "Just look and see,’’ say both men, " and you will find out how much truth there is in what you say.” Immediately thereafter Agamemnon goes on to accuse Diomedes unfairly, and this time is strongly contradicted by Sthenelos (370, 404). Of course, the situations in Δ and P are different, but the charge of cowardice followed by an angry reply must be reckoned as a typical incident either during or before battle. The Δ and P passages, along with the two other replies to criticism at M 231 and N 775, are all related. I t is interesting th at Hector defends himself here on the same grounds with which Menelaos justified his retreat from Hector: it is impossible to oppose the gods’ will. P 183— 187. Hector encourages the Trojans. Lines 183 f. appear frequently, but the most important comparison to be made is with Z 110 : 'Έκτωρ δε Τρώεσσιν έκέκλετο μακρον άυσας"Τρώες ύπέρΟυμοι τηλεκλητοί τ ’ επίκουροι, άνέρες έστε, φίλοι, μνήσασθε δέ Οούριδος άλκής, 8φρ’ άν εγώ βήω προτι ’Ίλιον, ήδέ γέρουσιν εϊπω βουλευτησι καί ήμετέρρς άλόχοισι δαίμοσιν άρήσασθοα, ύποσχέσθαι δ’ έκατόμβας.”

110

115

The most obvious connection between the two passages is their verbal simi­ larity, but there is something even more important: both speeches come just before Hector’s withdrawal from the battlefield: after he Iras been rebuked in P and after he has received ad v ice in Z (77). It would seem from this that a typi­ cal place for a parainesis is just before a man leaves the fighting. This is in fact established beyond ail doubt by Λ 276 and Λ 587, where Agamemnon and

Book P

Book P

Eurypylos each deliver a speech of encouragement before he is rescued from the battlefield. When Hector returns to the front line at P 212 lie delivers another parainesis (220) before leading the assembled leaders back into the fight. This is probably not so much a m atter of design — i. e. that Hector’s withdrawal and return are framed by speeches of encouragement — as it is a typical narra­ tive feature (1) for such a speech to accompany withdrawal and (2) to precede a charge or attack. Patroclos urges his men on just before they enter the fight (Π 269), and at Θ 173 Hector again delivers an elaborate parainesis just before a furious attack. Compare also Λ 154 and 165, where we are simply told that Agamemnon pursued the Trojans, calling (κελεύων) to his men as he did so. P 188—97. Hector puts on Achilles' armor and this is followed by a short summary scene of the type discussed at E 508—11, pp. 54—55. P 198—208 Zeus contemplates Hector. The gods are frequently moved to action or thought by something they see on the battlefield: Hera at Θ 198 and E 711, Zeus at Π 431, etc., but the sympathetic, pondering Zeus is one of the hallmarks of books Π and P (Π 431, 644, P 441). Here he decides to give Hector an extra measure of glory and success in recompense for his imminent death. He does the same for Patroclos at Π 644: άλλα κατ’ αύτούς αίέν δρα καί φράζετο θυμώ, πολλά μάλ’ άμφί φόνφ Πατρόκλου μερμηρίζων, ή ήδη καί κείνον ένί κρατερή ύσμίνη αύτοΰ έπ’ άντιθέω Σαρπηδόνι ιραίδψ,ος "Εκτωρ χαλκω δηώση, άπό τ ’ ώμων τεύχε’ έληται, ή έτι καί πλεόνεσσι όφέλλειεν πόνον αίπύν.

650

We are not told that Patroclos is given further success in recompense for his impending death, but basically the situations are similar: Zeus allows a doomed man an additional short period of victory. Achilles’ life is perhaps another, more elaborate, variation of this same motif: his short life is compensated for by brilliant success. Zeus makes the armor fit closely to Hector's body so that he is filled with might and the spirit of Ares (210— Î2). For such close, well-fitting armor and its effect on a man’s spirit, cf. T 384 and T 16. Hector returns to his men, to whom he is a welcome sight: ίνδάλλετο δέ σφισι πσ.σι. Compare the effect of Hector's and Paris’ return to the fighting at H 4, or Aeneas' at E 514. The catalogue of Trojan leaders at 216—18 has already been treated in connection with the rest of the pattern. H e c to r 's parainesis is conventional insofar as it is a speech of encouragement just before a fresh attack (see above, p. 169), but its specific tone is unusual:

κέκλυτε, μυρία φΰλα περικτονίων επικούρων ού γάρ έγώ πληθών διζήμενος ούδέ χατίζων ένΟάδ’ άφ’ ύμετέρων πολίων ήγειρα έκαστον, άλλ’ ίνα μοι Τρώων άλόχους καί νήπια τέκνα προφρονέως ρύοισΟε φιλοπτολέμων ύπ’ ’Αχαιών. τά φρονέων δώροισι κατατρύχω καί έδωδή λαούς, ύμέτερον δέ έκάστου θυμόν άέξω κτλ.

171 220

225

These are harsh words, and Hector does not address the allies in such a manner anywhere else. The reason could be that he is still smarting from Glaucos' rebuke, or it could also be another vestige of a motif which obtrudes from time to time without ever being fully developed, namely the tension between the Trojans and their allies. From Sarpedon’s rebuke at E 472, Glaucos' at P 142 and earlier at 1Ί 538, along with Dolon’s remarks at K 416—22 and Hector’s irritated tone here, the possibility suggests itself that ill feeling between Troy and its allies may have plaj'ed some role in the story of the war, but was not elaborated in the Iliad. Familiar details in Glaucos’ speech : 1. The allies have come to defend the Trojans' wives and children. Cf. O 494, O 662, Φ 586, etc. 2. The impoverishment of Troy through the war (225) is another theme that is mentioned now and again without anything more being made of it. See E 201—05, p. 28. 3. Cf. P227 f. and 0 494—97. 4. Hector offers a reward to whoever captures Patroclos' body (229). See N, p. 131. P 233—261. The Trojans attack. It was shown above that certain parts of the first rebuke pattern in P are represented by independent type scenes (e. g. monologue, slow retreat, call for help). The same thing happens in the second pattern. Its final section looks like this: A. The Trojans charge. B. Two Greeks (Aias and Menelaos) face them. C. One of them expresses fear. D. The other calls for help. E. Help arrives and a fight develops. A call for help frequently occurs on the battlefield. Pessimism or fear on the Greek side in the face of Trojan attack is also typical (see pp. 30—31). To review briefly, c l. E 243 : A. B. C. D.

Aeneas and Pandaros charge. Sthenelos and Diomedes face them. Sthenelos is afraid and urges retreat. Diomedes rebukes him and stands fast.

173

Book P

Book P

Λ 313: Λ. Hector charges. Β. Odysseus urges Diomedes to stand fast. C. Diomedes is pessimistic, but agrees to fight anyway. Λ 343: A. Hector charges. B. Diomedes sees him and shudders. C. He expresses his fear to Odysseus, but stands his ground. The present P scene is, therefore, another mixed pattern, in which the scene of two warriors facing a charging enemy, where one of them is pessimistic, is combined with a caii for fieip. This same combination appears in another scene later in P, at 501 : A. Aeneas and Hector charge. B. Automedon warns Alkimedon and tells him how to hold the horses. C. He then calls to the Aiantes and Menelaos for help. D. Fight between the two sides. E. The Aiantes arrive and break up the fight. The order of events here is slightly different from th at in the earlier P scene — the help arrives, for example, only after the two sides have engaged, but this kind of difference exists between many related scenes. The general lines of action, then, between P 233 and 261 are entirely typical. Familiar details: 1. When the Trojans charge they expect to capture Patroclos' body. The Trojans are generally optimistic when they charge (cf. N 41, N 143, P 495), which then contrasts with their frequent failures. 2. Aias’ remark to Menelaos at 240—44 is unparalleled, but its phrasing is like that of Hector’s comforting words to Andromache at Z 450. 3. Compare P 252 f. with B 488, M 176 and M 337. In this last scene Menestheus, seeing Sarpedon, Glaucos, and the rest of the Lycians attacking the wall, wants to call the Aiantes for help but cannot because it is impossible to make himself heard over the noise of battle. So Menclaos here. He cannot see to call anybody because the battle is raging so fiercely. 4. The names of the men wiio answer the call for help are listed (256—59). In the same way, when Idomeneus shouts for help at N 477 he calls them individually by name and they all come. The same principle is at work here as in those scenes (M 91, N 756, P 216) where a list of Trojan names appears at the start of a new phase in the action. The fight which develops between 262 and 318, in which the Greeks once again gain the upper hand, represents the final stage of the second rebuke pattern. The Trojans charge in full force, the Greeks stand in close ranks to face them, Zeus spreads a darkness over the field. Everything here is entirely

typical. For the simile at 263 cf. Λ 307, 0 381. The Greeks stand in a close, phalanx-like formation — see N 130 f., p. 123. The dark cloud over the field appears at its regular place in the rebuke pattern, just after the Trojan charge. See E 506 f., pp. 52—53. Because a new section of combat is starting there is the usual general battle description before the individual fights begin (see Λ, p. 79). P 274—287. The Trojans push the Greeks back: Ώσαν δέ πρότεροι Τρώες έλίκωπας Αχαιούς’ νεκρέν δέ προλιπόντες ύπέτρεσαν, ούδέ τιν’ αυτών Τρώες ύπέρΟυμοι ελον Ιγχεσιυ Ιέμενοί περ, άλλα νέκυν ερύοντο- μίνυνΘα δέ καί τοϋ ’Αχαιοί μέλλον άπέσσεσθαι' μάλα γάρ σφεας ώκ’ έλέλιξεν Αίας.

275

The Trojans drive back the Greeks until Aias brings them to a halt. P 274 is repeated at Π 569. A closer look at the ΓΙ passage shows th at there, too, a fight develops over a body in which the Trojans momentarily gain superiority until the Greeks are rallied by Patroclos. A little farther back in this Π section the following sequence occurs: A. Patroclos has slain Sarpedon. B. Glaucos rebukes Hector (538). C. Hector charges at the head of many Trojans. D. Patroclos urges the Aiantes to fight. E. The forces clash, Zeus spreads a darkness over the field. F. Ώσαν δέ πρότεροι Τρώες έλίκωπας ’Αχαιούς. This Π scene, which has been reserved until the typicality of the P passage could be demonstrated without reference to it, is, of course, almost identical; in the action that follows in If Patroclos rallies the Greeks the way Aias does here. Notice th at Patroclos is alone when the Trojans charge, whereas Aias and Menelaos are together in P, but the presence of a single warrior who calls for help when he is under attack is as typical as the presence of two together — cf. A 461 (Odysseus), N 477 (Idomeneus). Further discussion of the if scene m ust be reserved for the appropriate chapter. Familiar details of P 274—87 : 1. The Trojans drive the Greeks back but fail to kill anybody. The sparing of Achaian lives by the poet is not unlike O 638 where, although Hector attacks furiously (605—38),he manages to slay only one man, and th at by a lucky accident. 2. Aias is the second best of the Achaians (279—80). Cf. B 768, N 324 f. 3. The simile at lines 281—83 is typical both in subject (boar) and function (to describe an attacking warrior).

Boole P

P 288—303. The death of Hippothoos. This androktasia is especially impor­ tant and characteristic. It is, first of all, the first item in an a—b—c pattern of the kind analyzed at N, pp. 126—28. A. Aias slays Hippothoos. B. Hector throws his spear at Aias. C. He misses and kills Schedios. After Hector has killed Schedios by mistake Aias does not attack him, but slays Phorkys instead. This is the familiar independent third item (see N, p. 137). In outline, therefore, this last section of the second rebuke pattern is fully typical. Familiar details: 1. Hippothoos is slain while attempting to drag away the body of Patroclos. Such slayings are among the most common of all occurrences in the Iliad’s battle scenes : cf. Δ 467, A 256, N 527, Ξ 476, Π 577. The death of Hippo­ thoos is widely held by neo-analysts to be a copy of Aias' slaying of Glaucos over the body of Achilles in the cycle, a matter to which I shall come back in the final chapter. 2. Patroclos’ foot falls from Hippothoos’ hand and he falls onto the body he was trying to drag away. This falling on the corpse is repeated in the same kind of slaying at Π 579, the dropping of the body at Δ 493. Compare also E 343 and N 529. 3. P 301—03 — Δ 478—79 (the death of Simoeisios). 4. The details of the death blow are grisly and not easy to understand (294—98), but they belong to the common type of slayings characterized by what Friedrich has called vulgar realism2. 5. On the closing remarks (301—03), cf. Δ 477 and Λ, p. 87. The death of Hippothoos is thus fully typical. Schedios is hit and slain by mistake (304— 11). See above. For the most part, men who die a lien o vu ln ere are either charioteers (cf. Θ 309, ΓΙ 463, Π 737), or appear in an a—b—c pattern (as here). This is not, however, an absolute rule — cf. Θ 300. The slaying of Schedios also follows Bcye’s ABC pattern. The next androktasia (Phorkys) is described in typical fashion and consists for the most part of repeated lines. Phorkys, too, is slain while stepping over his brother’s body. This study will not examine the interesting question of how often repeated lines occur in genuinely related scenes, but such an in­ vestigation would certainly repay the effort. The present scene is a good case in point. I t proceeds as follows: Αίας δ’ αύ Φόρκυνα, δαΐφρονα Φαίνοπος υΙόν, ΊπποΟόιρ περιβάντα μέσην κατά γαστέρα τύψε1 Verwundung und Tod, p . 20.

Book P

£ηξε Sè θώρηκος γύαλον, διά δ’ έντερα χαλκός ήφυσ’· δ 8 ' έν κονίησι πεσών έλε γαΐαν άγοστω. χώρησαν δ’ ύπό τε πρόμαχοι καί φαίδ'.μος Έκτωρ· Άργεΐοι δέ μέγα ίαχον, έρύσαντο δέ νεκρούς.

175

315

Lines 316 f. are repeated at Δ 505 f. in a scene that has little similarity to the present one. But 316 appears again at Π 588 in a situation very similar to that in Δ. In Δ, after Aias kills a Trojan, another Trojan tries to slay him but hits a companion of Odysseus instead. Odysseus avenges himself on still another Trojan; at this point the lines in question appear. In the Π scene there is a fight over a body and Hector slays a Greek (570) ; Patroclos, in anger, leaps forward and strikes a Trojan. When he falls, the single line χώρησαν δ’ υπό τε πρόμαχοι καί φαίδιμος ’Έκτωρ appeal's. It is found twice, then, after a slaying carried out in revenge for a previous one. P 314 f. = N 507 f., and P 313 is much like N 506. What has happened just before in N ? Aeneas throws at Idomeneus and misses. Idomeneus then slays Oinomaos, with the repeated lines. Both Oinomaos and Phorkys fall from a blow in the stomach. The two scenes also share the independent third item. The phrase ό δ’ έν κονίησι πεσών έλε γαΐαν άγοστω occurs three more times (Λ 425, N 520, Ξ 452), but never again in conjunction with the repeated line at P 314 (== N 507), nor do the scenes there have anything in common with those in N and P. P 319—332. The Greeks now gain complete control of the battle and would capture the city itself if Apollo did not arouse Aeneas. It is a regular stylistic feature for a situation to be carried to the extreme and the consequences then averted only by some kind of intervention (see p. 154), and it is this situation which prevails at the beginning of the third rebuke pattern : 1. The Greeks regain control of the fight, 319. 2. Apollo, as Periphas, rebukes Aeneas, 327. 3. Aeneas encourages Hector and the other Trojans, 335. 4. General fight, Greek resistance is led by Aias, 344, 356. These "extreme situations’’ are of different kinds (cf. E 311, Θ 90, Θ 217, Y 288, etc.), but there is one especially frequently occurring type among them. It begins with some such statement like "then the Greeks would have captured Troy,’’ or "then the Trojans would have fallen back into the city," etc. This is prevented by some direct intervention, usually by a god. Θ 130: (1) The Trojans would have fallen back into the city, but (2) Zeus flings a thunderbolt in front of Diomedes’ chariot and stops his advance. ΓΙ 698: (1) The Greeks would have captured Troy, but (2) Apollo flings Patroclos back. (3) Immediately thereafter Apollo rebukes and encourages Hector, who attacks fiercely.

176

Book P

Book P

P 319: (1) The Trojans would have fallen back into the city, but (2) Apollo rebukes Aeneas, who (3) encourages Hector and the rest of the Trojans to renew the fight. Φ 544: (1) The Greeks would have taken Troy, but (2) Apollo breathes strength into Agenor, who (3) then stands and faces Achilles. All of these scenes belong, then, to a rather specific type within the general category of extreme situations that are saved by divine intervention. But sometimes this same situation is saved by a mortal: N 723: (1} Then the Trojans would have retreated into the city, but (2) Poulydamas advises Hector, who (3) gathers his men and charges. Z73: (1) Then the Trojans would have retreated into the city, but (2) Helenos advises Aeneas and Hector to take measures. (3) Hector obeys and stiffens his men. These scenes are therefore interesting for two reasons. First, they are all representatives of a single type scene; second,this little type scene can serve as the starting point for a rebuke pattern (Π 698, P 319, N 723). Whenever Apollo assumes human form (323—26) the act is usually described in a specific way : Apollo encourages so and so, looking like Periphas, Mentes, or whoever; then a description follows of the person whose form he has taken. This is in turn followed by τω μιν έεισάμενος προσέφη Διός υιός ’Απόλλων, or the equivalent. Cf. Π 716—20, P 583—85, Y 81 f. Sometimes, however, this system is not followed — P 73, E 785. P 327 ft The rebuke. There are no two rebukes in the poem that are exactly alike, but Apollo’s speech here is most like Glaucos' to Hector at P 156. Both criticize the criminal indifference of the Trojans and picture the way a people in their situation should fight. Aeneas recognizes Apollo through his disguise. Cf. Γ 396, N 70. The most striking thing about this passage is that two speech­ es follow so closely upon one another: a rebuke to Aeneas followed by a paraincsis from Aeneas to Hector and the rest of the Trojans. The following partial parallels can be cited. 1. At Z 77— 101 Helenos sees how badly things are going for the Trojans and advises Hector and Aeneas what to do. Hector then stiffens the Trojans and delivers a short speech of encouragement (111—15). This Z scene also begins, incidentally, with the notice “then the Trojans would have fallen back into city,” etc. (Z 73 f. — P 319 t). 2. At N 726—47 Poulydamas strongly rebukes Hector. Hector then instructs Poulydamas to gather the Trojan leaders about him while he goes to lo o k after some of the others. He finds Paris and delivers a stinging criticism against him (769—73). The N scene, too, starts with the same kind of notice (723—25) as the other two. What all three scenes have in common is a rebuke quickly followed by an­ other rebuke or parainesis from the person who was the object of the first. I am not sure, however, that we can designate this as a set pattern. All three

177

scenes begin with the same kind of notice — “then the Trojans would have fallen back," etc., but from that point on they diverge considerably and the differences outweigh the similarities. We can say that a series of two rebukes, or a rebuke followed by a parainesis, in which the man who was the object of the first delivers the second, is a typical narrative feature. P 344—65. A short "chain” fight develops over Patroclos of a kind which does not occur elsewhere: 1. A (Aeneas) kills B (Leokritos). 2. C (Lykomedes), in r e v e n g e , slays D (Apisaon). 3. E (Asteropaios) tries to avenge D. 4. He is stopped short by a wall of spears. Everything is typical, however, when taken individually. Item 2, for example, is typical in two respects: Lykomedes avenges a fallen companion, and does not attack Aeneas but picks out another victim instead. This last is the familiar independent third item which frequently appears where one fighter slays another in revenge for a fallen companion, e. g. Δ 490: (I) Antiphos kills Leukas, a friend of Odysseus, (2) Odysseus is angered and slays Demokoon. E 608: (1) Hector kills two Greeks, (2) Aias pities them and slays Amphios. N 650: (1) Meriones slays Harpalion, (2) Paris is angered and slays Euchenor. This sequence often appears inside an a—b—c pattern — the Δ passage is an example — but the passages in E, N, and here in P show that the connection is not always made. Asteropaios tries to take vengeance but is stopped by the phalanx - like formation. Hector is stopped in the same way at N 145 and N 806. P 356—65. Aias as the organizer and leader of the Greek resistance is a familiar fig u re n t is also a standard tactic for a warrior to move through the ranks and encourage his men. Cf. Z 104, Λ 212, etc. The particular advice that Aias dispenses here is most like that of Nestor at Δ 303: μηδέ τις Ιπποσύνη τε καί ήνορέηφι πεποιΟώς οΖος πρόσΟ’ άλλων μεμάτω ΐρώεσσι μάχεσΟαι, μηδ’ άναχωρείτω- άλαπαδνότεροι γ«ρ έ'σεσΟε. For other examples of phalanx formation, see N, p. 123. Lines 366—425 contain a remarkably long description of the fight over Patroclos’ body, w h ic h is th e n fo llo w e d b y a lo n g e r s e c tio n , 4 2 6 —542, which can be called a digression from the main theme of the book, the rescue of Patroclos’ corpse. The description of the fight over Patroclos is noteworthy because of its sheer length. There are no individual encounters here, only similes and various pictures of the duration and intensity of the struggle. Aside from its length, such scenes are not unusual, even though most of the fighting in the Iliad is related in terms of single combats rather than general

[

12

(Icrimi.KiiiMlsclirirten, Heft 21

Book P

Book Ρ

description. At Π 756—76 the battle over Kebriones is pictured in the same way, and at two places in the teichomachia, M 265—89 and M 413—36, the single encounters are replaced by extensive general scenes in which the two armies fight to a standstill. The most striking aspect of all these scenes is their similes. The passage here in P, in fact, is rather unusual in that it contains only two (366, 389). A long, static description is of course especially suited to a battle over a fixed point like a corpse or a wall, but all that is really required is that a situation, whatever it is, remain unchanged for a while. A long passage at P 722—61 describes the Greeks' rescue of Patroclos’ body and their slow retreat. This splendid scene has five good-sized similes. There are no single fights, just the pursuit by all the Trojans and the slow, painful retreat of the Greeks. At 0 592—638 there is an elaborate description of Hector’s fearsome attack. No single encounters are related, only pictures of Hector, battle-mad­ dened, and of the Greeks who face him as best they can. Again at X 139—66 and, after the interruption for the scene on Olympos at 1SS —207, Achilles’ pursuit of Hector is drawn out to considerable length by the simple method of similes, general narration and descriptive digression. At O 696—715 the last stage of the fight at the ships is narrated in this same style. It would be easy enough to multiply shorter examples, but these are sufficient to show how the poet could draw out any situation which he considered important in order to emphasize it and make it more memorable and heroic. Familiar details, lines 366—425: 1 , 366—77. The darkness motif is almost, if not quite, in its regular place. I t usually comes after the Trojan charge, which in turn follows a rebuke to Hector or Aeneas (sec E, pp. 52—53). The localization of the darkness to a certain spot on the battlefield is unparalleled, as is the rather non­ chalant fighting described at 370—77. 2. The mention of Thrasymedes and Antilochos is also a little odd. Antilochos seems to be mentioned because he will carry the news of Patroclos’ death to Achilles later on, but Thrasymedes has no part in that and very little to do in the rest of the book. He is sent as a re-enforcement at P 705, and that is all we hear of him. His association with Antilochos is most likely a carry-over from Π 317 where they were fighting as a pair. The notice itself, however, is peculiarly otiose: δύο S’ oö πω φώτε πεπύσΟην, άνερε κοδαλίμω, Θ ρβ σο μ ήΒ 'η ς 'Α ν τ ίλ ο γ ο ς τ ε , Πατρόκλοιο Οανόντος άμύμονος, άλλ’ ί τ εφαντο ζωών ένί πρώτω όμάδω Τρώεσσι μάχεσΟαι. τώ δ’ έπιοσσομένω θάνατον καί φύζαν έταίρων νόσφιν έμαρνάσθην, έπεί ώς επετέλλετο Νέστωρ ότρύνων πόλεμόνδε μελαινάων άπό νηών.

380

179

The information about the two brothers is not tied in any way to the action preceding or immediately following. On the other hand, the notice that somebody was unaware of what was going on elsewhere on the battle­ field is typical by itself. At A 497 we are told that "Hector did not know what was happening on the right wing since he was far to the left, wreak­ ing havoc among the Greeks with his spear and his horsemanship, and breaking the ranks of the enemy." At N 674 "Hector did not know th at his men were being slaughtered on the left. . . . He remained where he first broke through the wall, smashing the solid lines of the enemy.’’ Thrasymedes and Antilochos here in P "did not know th at Patroclos was dead, but thought he was still fighting the Trojans. They were fighting elsewhere as Nestor had instructed them when they left the ships." The main difference between the two notices of Hector’s unawareness and that of Antilochos and Thrasymedes is th at the former are parts of a t y p e sc e n e — i. e. they are an in te g r a l part of the surrounding a c tio n , while the latter is not. Its chief purpose seems to be to arouse the emotions by depicting the pathetic ignorance of certain persons on whom the terrible news is about to descend. A similar notice at P 401—11 does the same thing: ούδ’ άρα πώ τι jjSîs Πάτροκλον τεθνηότα δΐος Άχιλλεύς' πολλόν γάρ ρ’ άπάνευΘε νεών μάρναντο Οοάο)ν, τείχει υπο Τρώων τό μιν οΰ ποτέ ελπετο θυμω τεΟνάμεν, αλλά ζωόν ένιχρ',μφθέντα πύλησιν 405 αψ άπονοστήσειν, έπεί ούδέ τδ ελπετο πάμπαν, έκπέρσειν πτολίεθρον άνευ εθεν, ούδέ σύν αύτω· πολλάκι γάρ τό γε μητρδς έπεύΟετο νόσφιν άκούων, κτλ. Is there any deliberate connection between these two passages, the one concerning Achilles' unawareness, the other that of the sons of Nestor? Their positions in the passage as a whole might make it seem so: battle description (366—77), Antilochos and Thrasymedes unaware (377—83); battle description (384—401), Achilles unaware (401—-11). But despite this apparent structural ordering, the function of the two notices probably lies elsewhere. The poet, in order to sustain a long g e n era l description, must resort to various devices: similes, the darkness over the field, the imaginary spectator (398), the thoughts in the minds of both sides (414), and these two descriptions of those who did not yet know about Patroclos’ death. Each has a strong and similar emotional content, and each helps sustain the long description of the fight. In other words, these two notices have a similar function, but it is not a structural one. There is also an interesting difference between the two in that the second soon turns into

180

Book P

Book P

a summary scene of the kind discussed at E 508— 11, pp. 54—55. The poet recapitulates information th at we already know or that concerns previous events. 3. The elaborate simile at 389—95 describes the same action that is narrated directly in the fight over Kebriones at Π 762 f. : "Εκτωρ μεν κεφαλήφιν έπεί λάβεν, ούχΐ μεΘίει· Πάτροκλος δ’ ετέρωΘεν £χεν ποδός. 4. On the imaginary spectator, see N 127 f., p. 123. 5. Close, bitter fighting in which neither side gives way is also described by similes at M 421, Π 756 and Γί 765. 6 . Lines 414—23 describe the thoughts in the minds of the Greeks and Trojans. At Γ 297, Γ 319 and H 201 we are told in the same manner what the two sides were thinking about or praying for. In these last three passages, however, their thoughts are the same. 0 699 is closer to what we have here in P : τοισι δέ μαρναμένοισι 6 δ’ ήν νόος· ήτοι Α χαιοί ούκ έ φ χ σ α ν φ εύ ζεσ Ο α ι ύ π έ κ κακού, άλλ' όλέεσθαι, Τρωσίν δ’ ελπετο θυμός ένΐ στήΟεσσιν έκαστου νήας ένιπρήσειν κτενέειν 0’ ήρωας ’Αχαιούς.

700

ρ 426—65. The scene with Achilles' horses is unlike anything else in the poem. But despite its unusualness it is not without certain typical features. 1. The poet makes his transition from the fight over Patroclos to the weeping horses in the conventional manner — a short general description that takes us from the fust scene to the new one (424 f. ; see E 84, p. 19). 2. The simile of a stele describes motionlessness. Cf. N 437. 3. Zeus, sympathetic and pondering, is especially characteristic of books Π and Ρ (Π 433, 644, P 201). The most striking thing about his speech here is its thematic relation to his two others at Π 644 and P 201. Zeus grants both Patroclos and Hector an additional period of success in recompense for their impending deaths (see above, p. 170). In the present speech he pities the horses because, although immortal, they are forced to share the woes of mortal men. This, and the fact that he has Achilles’ armor,is enough for Hector; Zeus will give the horses added strength until the day is done and darkness puts an end to the battle. Lines 453—55 recall Λ 192—94 where Zeus tells Iris his plans for Hector. A comparison between these three scenes, II 644, P 201 and P 443, reveals in almost paradigm fashion how a single basic idea — the re­ compense for suffering or impending death — can be applied, with slight variations, to a number of different situations and persons. The two P scenes even share some lines, as though to emphasize their similarity (P201, 206,443). The rest of this scene is unparalleled: the weeping horses, Automedon's frantic attempts to get them to move, and their galloping about the field while

181

Automedon cannot fight because he has no charioteer (457—65). Only the small detail at lines 439 f., where the horses’ manes are defiled in the dust, is a typical motif (see P 51, p. 163). P 466—542. The encounter between Automedon / Alkimedon and Hector / Aeneas. This scene lias already been discussed in earlier chapters. To review briefly the major points: 1. I t is a consultation pattern. See E, pp. 24—26. 2. One side is especially interested in capturing the splendid horses of the other (486). See E 260, p. 25. 3. For the apprehensive address of Automedon (501), see E, pp. 29—31. 4. For the call for help (S07), see P, pp. 165—66. 5. For the intervention of Aias and the retreat of the Trojans (531), see P, pp. 165—66. 6. The short conversation between Alkimedon and Automedon at the be­ ginning of the scene has no close parallel since its subject is Automedon's unusual ride around the battlefield with Achilles’ horses (469—80). At the same time, his request to Alkimedon to take the reins so that he, Auto­ medon, can fight is similar to the discussion between Aeneas and Pandaros in another consultation scene at E 226—38. 7. When the Trojans charge Automedon instructs his driver to hold the horses close behind him (501 f.). Cf. E 261, p. 29. 8. For the optimism of the Trojans when they charge (495), cf. P 234, p.172. Tliis scene is therefore as typical as any other in the Iliad. The presence of Chromios and Aretos in the Trojan attack (494) is an interesting detail. A consultation pattern requires that at least two Trojans attack together (Pandaros / Aeneas, Deiphobos / Aeneas, etc.), but it is not unusual for others to follow them when they attack (cf. M 330, N 489). The reason for this is clear. It gives the Greeks a chance to kill somebody without the Trojans having to lose a man like Aeneas or Hector. It does occasionally happen that one of the two main Trojan partners in a consultation pattern is either killed or (more often) wounded, such as Pandaros at E 290, Glaucos at M 387 and Deiphobos at N 528, but the poet apparently did not want Aeneas or Hector to be wounded at this point. A rebuke pattern also calls for an enemy repulse, but Automedon could not be permitted to slay or wound men like Aeneas or Plector. Aretos thus has an important function. In the same way, an unimportant companion of Glaucos and Sarpedon is slain in a consultation pattern at M 378. P 516—42. The last stage of the rebuke pattern now begins as the two sides clash and Automedon slays Aretos. For the death wound (519), cf. E 539, E 616. The simile of a bull (520) is regularly used to describe a stricken warrior. Cf. N 571, ΓΙ 487, Y 403. The grisly detail at line 524, where the lance quivers in the victim's stomach, is related to the even weirder incident at N 442—44 where a dying man’s heart-beat shakes the end of a lance. Both of these are

Book P

Book Ρ

exaggerated variations of the lance quivering in the ground, as we see it at Π 612 and P 528. See N, pp. 133—34. P 525—531. The two sides continue the fight but are separated by the Aiantes. Before th at happens Hector throws iris spear at Automedon but misses and the weapon sticks in the ground. This same thing happens in two other passages, N 504 and Π 611. See pp. 136—37. In all three the two parties who originally face each other fail to continue their combat. The way this fight is brought to an end is also typical: first, the use of swords would have followed the spear casts, in regular sequence; second, otiier duels are interrupted just as they are about to enter their final stage at Γ 379, II 273 and Y 288; third, the intervention of Aias is typical both by itself and as part of this pattern. The motif of a “fair exchange” of slayings is also familiar (see N, p. 135) as is the bloodstained warrior (cf. Z 268, Λ 169, Y 503, etc.). The third rebuke pattern ends at line 542, and the fourth begins immediately thereafter. Athena strengthens Menelaos, whose success brings Apollo to rebuke Hector. Athena’s descent to the battlefield is described as follows :

The amazement of the onlookers can only mean that they saw Athena descend as a meteor or fire-ball. Without the report that the Greeks and Trojans were surprised and interpreted the appearance as an omen for good or evil, the simile would naturally be taken to describe Athena’s speed. As it is, it must describe her appearance. The Δ and P passages are therefore alike in their mixture or combination of simile and direct narration3. Athena assumes tire appearance of Phoinix and encourages Menelaos. Menelaos replies that he would be willing to defend Patroclos if Athena would only help him, but Plector has terrible strength and Zeus is helping linn. Athena then gives Menelaos the strength and courage of a blood-thirsty fly. Almost everything is typical here : a god assumes human form, addresses and strength­ ens a mortal (cf. N 44, 215), Menelaos complains that a god is helping the enemy (see above, p. 164). Although the fly simile is remarkable and unparal­ leled, it is not surprising in Menelaos’ case since he is the subject of more unu­ sual similes than anybody else (see above, p. 161). Athena’s joy that she is the first god to whom Menelaos looks for aid is paralleled only in the Odyssey, γ 52. All this serves as preparation for the next Tebuke pattern. I t sets the stage by giving the Greeks the initiative as Menelaos, filled with new strength, slays a Trojan:

ήυτε πορφυρέην Τριν Ovvjtoîot t α νΰσ σγι Ζευς έξ ούρανόθεν, τέρας εμμεναι ή πολέμοιο, ή καί χειμώνος δυσθαλπέος, ος ρά τε έργων ανθρώπους άνέπαυσεν έπι χθονι, μήλα δέ κήδει, ώς ή πορφυρέ»] νεφέλη πυκάσασα ê αυτήν δόσετ’ ’Αχαιών έθνος, έγειρε δέ φώτα έκαστον.

550

Similes regularly describe journeys of the gods (see E, p. 74). Here Athena is compared to a rainbow. Curiously, however, she seems actually to assume the appearance of the thing to which she is compared. She “wraps herself in a purple cloud.” This seems to mean that it is the cloud in which she wraps herself that is like the rainbow and portends war or disaster as a rainbow does. Like Zeus, Athena makes it a sign to mortals. But although the simile can be dissected in this way, a basic confusion exists in which the subject tends to become identified with the thing to which it is compared. Another simile at A 75 also describes the descent of Athena to the battlefield, and the same process is at work: oTov δ’ άστέρα ήκε Κρόνου πάϊς άγκυλομήτεω, 75 ή ναύτ^σι τέρας ήέ στρατω εύρέΐ λαών, λαμπρόν του δέ τε πολλοί από σπινθήρες Ιενταί' τώ έΐκυΐ’ ήϊξεν επί χθόνα Παλλάς Άθήνη, κάδ δ’ εθορ’ ές μέσσον Θάμβος δ’ έχεν είσορόωντας, Τρώας θ’ ίπ π ο δ ά μ ο υ ς και έϋκνήμιδας ’Αχαιούς80 ώδε δέ τις εϊπεσκεν ίδών ές πλήσίον άλλον· " ή β’ αύτις πόλεμός τε κακός και φύλοπις αίνή έσσεται, κτλ.

έσκε δ’ ένΐ Τρώεσσι Ποδής, υΙός Ήετίωνος, άφνειός τ’ αγαθός τε· μάλιστα δέ μίν τίεν "Εκτωρ δήμου, έπεί οΐ εταίρος è’ïjv φίλος είλαπιναστήςτόν (Ια κατά ζωστήρα βάλε ξανθός Μενέλαος άίξαντα φόβονδε, διαπρό δέ χαλκόν έλασσε, κτλ.

183

575

Familiar details : 1. For this manner of introducing a combat, see E 9, p. 11. 2. A victim’s wealth is often mentioned in the anecdote (576). See E 544,

s E verybody knows th a t lines 545 £., which explain why A thena w as allowed on the battlefield, stand in contradiction to 593, where Zens intervenes in th e fighting to drive the Greeks back. Besides this, the rescue of Patroclos is n o t assured until 2 165, where H era finally sends Iris to arouse Achilles. I t is his mighty yell (217— 29) that /tightens the Trojans and allows th e Greeks to rescue the body. A thena’s descent to th e battlefield and encouragement of Menelaos is a typical scone; Zeus’ aid to th e T rojans a t 593 is equally typical. B ut th e problem still rem ains; there is a contradiction. T he easiest a n d most economical solution is to delete lines 545 f. as a pedantic addition, designed to explain how i t happened th a t Athena was p erm itted to intervene. T h is of course im plies t h a t the poet ignored Zeus’ earlier com m and n o t to intervene, b u t i do n o t find this a serious objection. A t A 438 A thena also comes to Menelaos’ aid in a nother ty p e scene, and we are not informed as to how she managed to circum vent Zeus' order.

185

Book P

Book P

3. This man was a special friend of Hector. For other such special friends, besides Achilles and Patroclos, cf. E 325, N 660. 4. Menelaos strikes Podes as he is turning to flee; cf. E 45, Π 307, etc. 5. The capture of the body by theGreeks is also regular—cf. Δ506, P 317, etc. This short androktasia is therefore fully typical. As for the scene as a whole, the fourth rebuke pattern has certain similarities to the first. I t is Menelaos’ success both times th at brings Apollo to rebuke Hector,and both times Mene­ laos iras slain some special Trojan (P 80, P 589), which Apollo points out to the Trojan leader. Both times Hector is struck with grief (P 83, 591) and quickly charges. But at this point the time has come for Patroclos finally to be rescued and the action must take a different turn. The Trojans have the better of the en­ suing fight and drive the Greeks back. This is followed by the dispatching of Antilochos to tell Achilles what has happened. The major points in the action are as follows: A. Menelaos, encouraged and strengthened by Athena, slays aTrojan. B. Apollo rebukes Hector. C. Hector charges and Zeus casts fear into the Greeks. D. Combat, in which the Trojans are victorious. E. Complaint and prayer of Aias. F. Menelaos is sent to find Antilochos, who then withdraws to report to Achilles. G. Menelaos returns to Aias, slow Greek withdrawal and rescue of the body. What begins, then, as a rebuke pattern ends as something quite different. But since different patterns and type s c e n e s c a n easily be mixed, it remains to see whether this second part of the scene — let us say items D-G or C-G - - are typical themselves and if so in what way. Hector’s charge is described as follows :

forcing a Greek retreat. Zeus’ intervention thus breaks the normal course of the rebuke pattern, but is typical in itself, and prepares the way for the slow retreat and transport of Patroclos' body back to the ships. The passage at O 320 where Apollo shakes the aegis in the Achaians’ faces offers another comparison. At the high point of the Greek retreat in O Nestor prays to Zeus for relief. Aias also prays for relief here in P (629). The prayers themselves are entirely different. Patroclos then leaves Eurypylos, whom lie has been tending, hurries back t o Achilles (390), and a long fight fo llo w s in which the Greeks are gradually forced back to the ships. At Π 1 the scene shifts back to Patroclos and Achilles, and the counter-attack of the Greeks is gradually set in motion. In outline, the O — Π section looks like this: 1. Apollo shakes the aegis, the Greeks flee, 320. 2. General rout of the Greeks, Apollo fills in the trench, etc. 3. Nestor prays to Zeus for help, Zeus answers, 370. 4. Continued pressure from the Trojans, 379. 5. Patroclos leaves Eurypylos and hurries to Achilles, 390. 6 . Fight at the ships, 405—746, during which Patroclos goes to Achilles. 7. Patroclos and Achilles, ^ " l. If we list the most important incidents of P 593 — Σ 1 in outline form, they appear as follows: 1. Zeus shakes the aegis, lightnings and thunders, the Greeks flee. 2. Hector fights successfully, Idomeneus and Meriones retreat. 3. Prayer of Aias, 626, Zeus answers. 4. Aias sends Menelaos to dispatch Antilochos to Achilles, 651. 5. Menelaos carries out the order and Antilochos departs, 685. 6 . Menelaos returns to Aias, together they organize the retreat to the ships with Patroclos’ body, 702—61. During this time Antilochos makes his way to the ships. 7. Antilochos and Achilles, Σ 1. No two scenes in the Iliad compared thus far differ as much in detail as these two, and yet the general similarity between them is clear. They share drastic divine intervention, Greek retreat, prayer for aid, reply by Zeus, and fighting which fills in a period of time during which somebody carries an important message from one place to another. The poet doubtless had a general sequence of action in mind which he followed throughout, despite the great variation in detail which he allowed himself. Many different smaller patterns can be used within such a large section without changing its basic form. The endings of the two scenes also represent the two major Greek defensive actions in the poem — the fight at the ships and the rescue of Patroclos’ corpse, both of which are led by Aias. It is also worth noting that the Greek rout at Θ 78 is directly inspired by Zeus’ thunder and lightning (75), and th at Agamemnon prays to Zeus for aid (236) in a speech that began as a rebuke to Ills men (228).

'Ώ ς φάτο, τον δ’ άχεος νεφέλη έκάλυψε μέλαινα, βή δέ διά προμάχων κεκορυθμένος αϊΟοπι χαλκω. καί τότ’ άρα Κρονίδης έλετ’ αιγίδα θυσσανόεσσαν μαρμαρέην, “Ιδην δέ κατά νεφέεσσι κάλυψεν, άστράψας δέ μάλα μεγάλ’ έκτυπε, την δ’ έτίναξε, νίκην δέ Τρώεσσι δίδου, έφόβησε δ’ ’Αχαιούς.

595

The rebuke pattern does not follow its regular course because Zeus shakes his aegis and drives the Achaians back. Trojan success of this kind is always effected by direct divine intervention. At Θ 130 (169) Zeus directly intervenes and the Greeks retreat in panic and confusion. At 0 320 Apollo holds up the aegis and the effect is again the same. For more examples, see E, pp. 62—64, where it is shown that divine aid to the Trojans is the standard method of

Book P

Book p

The fighting from Zeus' intervention to Aias’ prayer for relief begins in untypical fashion. Peneleos is wounded by Pouiydamas (597), which is not unusual by itself except that the narrative immediately moves to the next combat without explaining how Peneleos managed to escape. This is the only case of its kind in the Iliad. I t is then followed by another which represents a unique combination of typical details:

The section from 597 to 608 therefore has certain typical features, but also a certain number of equally important untypical ones. In the following section, lines 608—19, Koiranos is killed by a spear aimed by Hector a t Idomeneus. He thus belongs generally to the class of charioteers who die a lim o v ulnere (cf. Θ 309, II 737). This man’s history as a πεζός also fits him into another typical category, for which see E, p. 28. But despite the parallels within the Iliad, this scene is most like the death of Antilochos in the Aithiopis. There Nestor was threatened by Memnon, but Antilochos placed himself between his father and the enemy and was slain. The fact that Koiranos does not actually engage Hector in combat, but is killed by a spear already in flight, does not destroy the similarity entirely. The main difference is that Koiranos is hit while driving a chariot, while Antilochos seems to have encountered Memnon on foot. The similarity between the two is emphasized most strongly by the explicit notice that Koiranos saved Idomeneus’ life by suddenly appear­ ing to take the fatal blow. This does not happen in the case of other charioteer slayings. At this point Meriones needs no further convincing. He seizes the reins and beats a hasty retreat with Idomeneus to the ships. Such outright flight occurs again only at Θ 78, where Idomeneus, Agamemnon and even the Aiantes run away. At P 629—47 Aias prays to Zeus for relief. We have already seen that this belongs in the large pattern th at lies behind the action from P 593 to the beginning of Σ (above, pp. 185—86). The first part of the large pattern looks like this: 1. Zeus shakes the aegis and routs the Greeks. 2. Trojan charge, short fight, Meriones and Idomeneus turn to headlong flight. 3. Aias encourages his men, prays to Zeus for relief from the darkness. 4. Zeus answers the prayer. The first part of the O scene to which the P passage was compared is very similar: Apollo shakes the aegis, the Greeks retreat, Nestor prays to Zeus for relief, Zeus replies. In only one other place in the Iliad does Zeus intervene so directly against the Greeks (Θ 130): 1. Zeus hurls his lightning bolts in front of Diomedes’ chariot. 2. Diomedes grudgingly retreats. 3. Mighty charge by Hector, 172—97. 4. Hera tries unsuccessfully to persuade Poseidon to intervene. 5. Agamemnon encourages his men to intervene and then prays toZeus for help. 6 . Zeus answers the. prayer immediately. The pattern is, we see, interrupted here at several points, but the basic action is the same in O and P: direct divine intervention, Greek retreat, Greek prayer, immediate reply. Aias’ famous appeal to Zeus — "at least remove the darkness, and then destroy

186

Λήϊτον αυθ’ "Εκτωρ σχεδόν οδτασε χειρ’ επί καρπω, oliv Άλεκτρυόνος μεγαθύμου, παυσε δέ χάρμηςτρέσσε δέ παπτήνας, έπεί ούκέτι έλπετο Ουμω έγχοζ Ιχων έν χειρί μαχήσεσθαι Ύρώεσσιν· "Εκτορα δ’ Ίδομενεύς μετά Λήϊτον όρμηθέντα βεβλήκει Οώρηκα κατά στήθος παρά μαζόν· èv καυλώ δ’ έάγη δόλιχόν δόρυ, τοί δέ βόησαν Τρώες. ‘

605

Leitos is disabled by the blow the way Deukalion is by a spear thrust of Achilles at Y 478. There the Trojan watches helplessly as Achilles rushes up to him and delivers the death stroke (481). Here Leitos quickly looks about for a way of escape as Glaucos does when he is wounded in the arm at M 390 : δψ δ’ άπό τείχεος άλτο λαθών, ίνα μή τις ’Αχαιών βλημένον άθρήσειε καί εύχέτόωτ’ έπέεσσι. Hector now rushes forward to slay I-citos, just as Achilles finishes off Deukalion in the Y scene mentioned just above, or Antilochos first wounds and then slays Medon at E 580, or Peiros first wounds and then kills Diores at Δ 517. But Hector is stopped, even though Idomeneus’ spear does not penetrate his armor. At N 190 Aias strikes Hector as he is rushing forward to strip a victim. He does not pierce Hector’s shield, but tire blow pushes him back. At Ξ 402 Hector strikes Aias with his spear at the point on the chest where the shield and scabbard straps cross, but fails to drive the weapon through. At M 400 Teucer’s arrow hits Sarpedon’s chest where it is protected by the sword strap, and fails to pierce it. This aspect of Idomeneus’ spear thrust is therefore typical. Two other things make it unusual. The first is that nowhere else is a man struck, wounded, or killed under these circumstances: that is, as he is rushing forward to slay an enemy whom he has just wounded. The second is that Idomeneus’ spear breaks. It is of course not at all unusual for a spear to break in a shield (607 = N 162, N 608), but it is surprising to find this happen when it hits a breastplate. The closest parallel is Λ 234, where Iphidamas attempts to drive his spear through Agamemnon’s ζωστήρ, but the point is turned back "like lead.’’

187

189

Book P

Book P

us in the light” — is of course different from the prayers of Nestor and Aga­ memnon, who ask for respite, but it is also hardly accidental that the darkness motif re-appears here in its familiar place amidst the Trojan attack and follow­ ing a rebuke. The rebuke pattern is thus still making itself felt, even though its normal conclusion is being replaced by something different. Two other points also deserve mention: 1. Aias complains that Zeus is helping the Trojans. This is a common idea, found not only in Agamemnon’s suggestions to withdraw (B 111, I 117, Ξ 69), but also in other speeches in the middle of battle — E 185, E 601, Y98. His remarks that the Greek weapons do not find their mark, while the Trojans’ do, no matter who throws them, are not found together anywhere else, although at Y 99 Aeneas complains that Achilles’ spear never misses because he is always getting divine help, and at E 187 Pandaros explains his failure to kill Diomedes earlier by saying that some god turned his arrow aside. 2. Aias sends Menelaos to find Antilochos, who is then to take the report of Patroclos' death to Achilles (652—55). The reason for this is not given here, but Menelaos explains it later to Antilochos when he finds him: Achilles may be able to help them rescue the body (692). There is nothing entirely like this elsewhere in the poem, although the call for help is a common occurrence. The closest thing to the present passage is M 331: Menestheus sees the Lycians attacking. The noise of battle is too loud for him to call himself (337), so he dispatches Thoos to summon the Aiantes. The message is delivered and Aias hurries with Teucer to the threaten­ ed position. What is similar in the two scenes is that one man sends a second to call a third. The function of the third man is different in M and P. Menelaos does not wish to leave Patroclos (6 6 6 ), but he does so anyway and is described by an elaborate lion simile (657). This is much like the way he retreated from Patroclos at P 108 when he was challenged by Hector. There, too, he is compared to a lion that is driven away from the fold by men and dogs. The situation here is entirely different, but the slow withdrawal from the body is described both times in the same terms. Before leaving he delivers a short parainesis :

P 673—699. This scene between Menelaos and Antilochos is unique, and the same is true of the simile at 674, although birds are frequently used to describe the fighters — O 690, Π 428, Π 582, X 308. Lines 682 f. are also used formulaically to describe a man for whom another has been looking and has found — cf. N 765, 767 and P 116 f. Nowhere else does a man take off his armor to run and deliver a message (698 f.), but the way Menelaos uses Thrasymedes to fill the gap left by his brother (702—05) is like the step taken by Aias at M365 when he answers Menestheus' call for help. This detail draws the two sceneseven more closely together. Menelaos’ report to Aias is another unicum (708), although the way Patroclos is lifted into the air is like N 197. The scene that follows belongs generally to those long, static descriptions discussed above a t pp. 177—78. The slow Greek withdrawal is pictured in a remarkable series of similes. The situation itself — Greek rescue of a body in the face of strong Trojan pursuit — is unparalleled. In these last ninety lines or so of P the untypical prevails over the typical, but that is only because the situation itself is unique. At the same time neither tire situation nor the details are «». 119.

195

more fully the second time, just as Zeus’ rescue is longer and more detailed the second time in A. In lines 306—57 a number of Greeks slay opponents. The whole section has frequently been held to be an interpolation, but without good reason. The sequence is typical both by itself and also as an "interruption” of an aristeia. It is therefore not to be attacked on this ground. The slayings are in part weird, and even fantastic. Friedrich writes: “Denn 306—351 werden nicht allein durch ihren Personenbestand zusammengehalten, sondern lieben sich auch als stilistischer Komplex von ihrer Umgebung deutlich ab; diejenigen Helden nämlich, die im Bereich des abenteuerlichen Stils eine so große Rolle spielten, bewegen sich hier im gleichen Treibhausklima, das Phantastik and Undeut­ lichkeit charakteristisch vermischt4.” To take the slayings one by one, Patroclos begins the series by killing Areilykos (306—311). As usual, it is noted who was the first to slay an opponent (see E, p. 15). Line 306 is repeated at O 328, where it is also used to introduce a series of one-sided slayings, this time by the Trojans. Areilykos is killed as he is turning to flee, a common occurrence (cf. E 40, M 428, etc.), especially if we count those cases where a man is struck while in flight (see E, p. 15). The lan­ guage is either identical or very similar to that used elsewhere, as a glance at the concordance will show. Menelaos then slays Thoas in a brief but typical encounter (311—12), as he manages to spy an opening and get his spear past the Trojan’s shield. Cf. Δ 468, M 389, ΓΙ 400. These first two slayings are not very remarkable; the one th at follows, however, is most bizarre:

Φυλείδης S ’ ’Άμφικλον εφορμηθέντα δοκεύσας £φθη όρεξάμενος πρυμνόν σκέλος, ένθα πάχιστος μυών άνθρώπου πέλεται- περί δ’ Ιγχεος αιχμή νεύρα διεσχίσΟη· τον δέ σκότος οσσε κάλυψε.

315

At first glance this androktasia might seem normal enough. Anatomical detail and description are not uncommon in the Iliad (cf. E 305, N 545), and the last half of line 316 is frequently repeated. Friedrich has compared this passage with N 545: Άντίλοχος δέ Θόωνα μεταστρεφΟέντα δοκεύσας οΰτασ’ έπαΐξας, άπό δέ φλέβα πάσαν έκερσεν, ή τ’ άνά νώτα Οέουσα διαμπερές αύχέν’ (κάνει' τήν άπό πασαν εκερσεν ό δ’ ύπτιος έν κονιήσι κάππεσεν, άμφω χεϊρε φίλοις έτάροισι πετάσσας. * Verwundung und Tod, p. 114.

545

Book Π

Book Π

Both passages contain exact anatomical description, but they are both com­ posed of an impossible combination of details5. In N, the vein so carefully described does not in fact exist; the verb δοκεύσας, used correctly here at Π 313, means little more than "to take aim," and although Thoon is struck from behind as he is turning to flee,he falls on his back. In II Amphiklos is struck while charging, but lines 314—16 can only mean that he was hit in the b ack of the leg (viz. thigh). The unclear style of both scenes is their most strik­ ing characteristic. Another curious aspect of this slaying is that a man should die, at least so quickly, from a blow in the thigh (see Leaf's note). But another of Patroclos’ victims dies of a blow in the thigh at ÏÏ 308, and something even more surpris­ ing happens at Δ 517 : Diores is struck in the right ankle by a stone and falls, "breathing out his life" (524). His slayer, Peiros, then delivers the death stroke with his sword, but the language implies th at Diores would have died anyway. All this does not make these various slayings related in a strict sense, but it j does show that even the odd features of Π 313—16 are paralleled elsewhere ! in the poem. Π 317—329. The deaths of Atymnios and Maris at the hands of Antilochos and Thrasymedes. This scene contains a unique combination of familiar details: 1. The death of two brothers, one after the other. Cf. E 159, E 541, Λ 221, 248, etc. 2. One man dies trying to avenge another. Cf. Λ 248, Λ 428, N 384, etc. See Λ, ρ. 8 8 . 3. Two Greeks fighting as a pair both slay an opponent. Cf. E 576, Λ 320 and Λ 328. 4 . Antilochos and Thrasymedes appear fighting together again at P 377. 5. The anecdote tells about the victims' father. This happens twice again when two brothers are slain together at E 148 and E 543. There are two unparalleled features of this scene: ( 1) this is the only occasion where one brother pair slays another brother pair; (2 ) although it is regular for a man to be killed while trying to avenge another, this does not happen again where two pairs fight each other. But both these features are really variations of fully typical motifs and cannot truly be termed unique. Karl Reinhardt has tried to relate the Antilochos — Thrasymedes scene t o a supposed source in the Aithiopis: "Die kurze Episode ist die Umkehr des späteren Untergangs, bei dem der Bruder dem Bruder nicht zur Seite stehen wird8." But this short episode is not connected significantly to anything in the fatal encounter of Antilochos with Memnon. The circumstances here are entirely different, nor is there anywhere a mention of Thrasymedes' failure to stand by

his brother when Antilochos challenged Memnon. The scene here is more closely related to other incidents in the Iliad itself than to the Aithiopis scene. If the cyclic poem is to be posited as the source for every appearance of Anti­ lochos, then his retreat from Hector at 0 585 would have to be another "Um­ kehr" of his courage in the face of Memnon, and we might even be able to glimpse a subtle irony at Δ 303 where Nestor instructs the charioteers not to fight out of formation.lt will turn out that Nestor will be trapped in his chariot, alone, and his rescue will cost his son’s life. Π 330—334. Aias and Kleoboulos. The lesser Aias captures his enemy and then kills him. It is normal for a Trojan to plead for his life under these cir­ cumstances (cf. Z 46, K 378, Λ 131, Y 463, Φ 74), although the request is never granted. All of the above passages, except for Y 463, are related verbatim, and therefore develop into important episodes. This does not happen in the present scene, which accounts for its abbreviated quality. T h e same thing happens in the slaying th at follows:

5 Verwundung und Tod, pp. 43. 98,

4 Ilias und ihr Dichter, p. 357.

Πηνέλεως δέ Λύκων τε συνέδραμον έγχεσι μέν γάρ ήμβροτον άλλήλων, μέλεον δ’ ήκόνησαν άμφω· τώ δ’ αδτις ξιφέεσσι συνέδραμον. ένθα Λύκων μέν ίπποκόμου κόρυθος φάλον ήλασεν, άμφί δέ καυλέν φώσγανον έρραίσθη' ό δ’ ύπ’ ουατος αυχένα Οεϊνε Πηνέλεως, παν δ’ εΐσω έ'δυ ξίφος, έσχεΟε δ’ οΖον δέρμα, παρηέρθη δέ κάρη, ύπέλυντο δέ γυϊα.

197

335

340

The combat pattern Imre is fully typical 1. A throws at B and misses. 2. B throws at A and misses. 3. A kills B. The pattern is analyzed at N,pp. 145—46.N 601—18is the closest parallel.Peisandros and Menelaos, after each has thrown his spear without success, rush at each other in a simultaneous attack, Peisandros with an axe, Menelaos with his sword. Peisandros strikes Menelaos’ helmet (as Lykon strikes Pencleos’ here) but is struck himself in the face and killed. Both scenes end with a bit of grim fantasy: Peisandros’ eyes are knocked out by the force of Menelaos’ blow, and here in II Lykon’s head is left hanging only by a strip of skin. The one unusual feature of this scene is that the initial miss by both men is only briefly related (335 f.), whereas in every other case it is described in detail. Compare, for example, N 604 or Π 462. Like the preceding encounter, then, this one also seems abbreviated in comparison to others of its kind. Another interesting case of such shortening is to be found at K 522. Hippokoon is awakened by Αροίΐο after Diomedes and Odysseus have slain Rhesos :

Book ΓΙ

ό δ’ |ξ ΰπνου άνορούσας, ώς ίδε χώρον έρημον, ÖÖ’ εστασαν ώκέες ίπποι, άνδρας τ ’ άσπαίροντας έν άργαλέησι φονήσιν, ώμωξέν τ ’ άρ’ επειτα φίλον τ’ όνόμηνεν έταΐρον. Τρώων δέ κλαγγή τε καί ίίσπετος ώρτο κυδοιμός, κτλ.

520

Line 522 is used two other times, at Ψ 178 and Ω 591, and in both these places it in tro d u ce s a lament. In K, however, because no speech follows it, it becomes an acco u n t of a lament, which gives the passage a strongly abbreviated quality. The use of the word ώμωξε by itself confirms this. At Σ 35 it is used to describe Achilles’ groans at the news of Patroclos’ death, but everywhere else it appears in an introduction to a speech or a lament: Γ 364, M 162, 0 397, Φ 272, X 33, X 408 (the speech begins at X 416). The use of the line at K 522 is therefore distinctly untypical. The second half of the line, φίλον τ ’ όνόμηνεν έταΐρον, appears by itself at Π 491, also as an introduction to a speech. Meriones slays Akamas in a short but fully typical androktasia at 342—44. Akamas is caught while fleeing, a frequent occurrence (E 40, M 428, etc.). -- Lines 343 and 344 can be compared with E 46, E 47, E 696 and Y 421. Idomen­ eus’ slaying of Erymas closes out the series (345—50). The description here is especially horrible and belongs to that group of slayings to which Friedrich has given the name of “vulgar realism” (niederer Realismus). Some of the details here are familiar enough — the smashing of bones in the head, the knocking out of teeth and passage of a spear through the mouth (cf. E 73, E 290, Δ 460, II 736, P 617), but no two such slayings are entirely alike and lines 348—50 are unique. With this the second part of the major pattern that governs the fighting early in Π is ended. The third and final part begins at line 372, where Patroclos re-enters the scene and drives the Trojans in confusion. At 352 the Achaians rush forward like ravenous wolves, essentially the same simile used of the Myrmidons earlier when they first entered the fight (156). The short intermezzo at 358—63, in which we hear of Hector's steadfastness amidst the general retreat, has already been discussed above, pp. 193—94. At line 367 Hector suddenly turns and flees while the other Trojans fall back in panic and con­ fusion. There is no exact replica of this scene, but it belongs to a common type with a typical collection of details. Compare, for example, the Trojan retreat at Λ 148 (see p. 85). Agamemnon and Patroclos both leap in where the ranks are thickest (A 148, ΓΙ 377), similes of natural catastrophe depict the violence of the action (Λ 155, Π 384), horses pull empty chariots back toward Troy (A 159, Π 370,378), Agamemnon and Patroclos both follow hot on the heels of the fleeing enemy (A 153, Π 372). The two passages thus clearly draw on a common collection of details. It is the ordering of these details, the particular simile, and the omission and addition of certain facts that create the indivi-

199

duality of each scene without, however, being able to disguise its similarities to others. The sudden retreat of Hector may also be explained along these general lines. In the retreat scene in Λ, mentioned just above, Zeus draws Plector out of danger (163, 182). Iris delivers instructions th at he is not to tight until he secs the wounded Agamemnon leaving. The reason behind this is simple and practical: Agamemnon first has to enjoy his aristeia without interruption from Plector. The poet apparently wished to avoid a confrontation between the two, most likely because he was saving Hector for the encounter with Diomedes later on. That either should slay the other was of course out of the question. We can only guess at the poet’s reasons, of course, but the fact remains that Hector conveniently remains out of sight until Agamemnon’s period of success comes to an end. Plector’s retreat here in ΓΙ performs the same function. He would be in the way in the early part of the fighting, for Patroclos cannot yet be slain. The major part of his aristeia still lies before him. At the same time we would like to know what Hector was doing all the while, and so for the sake of convenience we are told how and why he disappears — in A through the direct action of Zeus, here in Π through retreat on his own initiative. In much the same way Apollo warns H e c to r away from a confron­ tation with Achilles at Y 376. Shortly thereafter, when Hector is infuriated at his brother's death and attacks Achilles anyway (419), he is rescued by Apollo (443). Only after Achilles' aristeia is completed can Hector, at the climax, be allowed to face him. It is also noteworthy that when Hector is absent from the scene during a Greek’s aristeia he is twice called back by a rebuke. Glaucos brings him back in this book at 538, and Sarpedon spurs him on to his first appearance in the fighting at E 472. When the general description of the Trojan flight is ended a description of individual encounters and slayings begins. It is this series of victories by Patroclos that brings him to the attention of Sarpedon. He begins by killing Pronoos and his charioteer (399—410), a typical double slaying. First, it is regular for one man to slay both an enemy and his driver, the way Diomedes docs at E 159 or Agamemnon at A 101 and 122. Second, and most important, is the manner in which the charioteer is slain. Its closest relations are found at E 584 and N 394. See pp.·.61—62_where all the scenes are discussed and compared in detail. To review them briefly, in all three the reins fall from the charioteer’s hands — here and in N because he is terror-stricken, in E because he has been struck by a rock. The three drivers are slain after their leaders, and in E and Π the slayings are followed by phantasmata. In E the charioteer falls head-first into deep sand where his body remains upright until the horses knock it down; here in Π, in especially gruesome fashion, Patroclos lifts his victim, impaled on his spear, out of the chariot the way a man lifts a fish from the water. In the E and N scenes Antilochos slays the driver while somebody

200

Book II

Book Π

else kills his leader. The present scene, therefore, has two roots : the slaying of leader and charioteer by one man, and the particular kind of charioteer slaying found in the E and N passages. No outlandish description is ever repeated twice in the Iliad, the present one included, but the fear that immo­ bilizes a man when he is attacked appears in another scene at Λ 126, where Agamemnon slays the two sons of Antimachos: του περ δή δύο παΐδε λάβε κρείων ’Αγαμέμνων είν ένΐ δίφρφ έόντας, όμοΰ δ’ εχον ώκέας ίππους' εκ γάρ σφεας χειρών φύγον ηνία σιγαλόεντα, τώ δέ κυκηΟήτην. Here, too, the reins fall from the victims' hands. Π 41 1 —4 1 8 . Patrocios continues his slaying by destroying EryaJos and then a whole series of victims. Stones are frequently used as weapons, and Eryalos' death is a combination of that of Epeigeus at Π 577 and Iphition at Y 386.Such smaller details can be combined with almost infinite variation^ The list of victims which follows ends with the formulaic line 418: πάντας έπασσυτέρους πέλασε χθονί πουλυβοτείρη. The slaying catalogues have been discussed at E 677, pp. 68—69. They share two basic features: (1) most often they are the result of divine aid, (2 ) they are followed by some kind of intervention from the other side. Certain lines also appear frequently in them, such as line 418 here or the common ένθα τίνα πρώτον, τίνα δ’ ύστατον έξενάριξε, κτλ. The present catalogue is not the result of divine aid but does end with direct intervention from the other side in the person of Sarpedon (419). This and line 418 establish it as typical. Sarpedon’s entrance is related as follows:

Σαρπηδών ώς οδν ϊδ’ άμιτροχίτωνας εταίρους χέρσ’ ύπδ Πατρόκλοιο Μενοίτιάδαο δαμέντας, κέκλετ’ άρ’ άντιθέοισι καθαπτόμενος Λυκίοισιν "αιδώς, ώ Λύκιοι- πέσε φεύγετε; νΰν ΟοοΙ έστε. κτλ.

420

The most frequent way of introducing an enemy’s reaction is, as here, the report that he "saw” or “noticed” a successful adversary and then attacked. Cf. E 680, Λ 343, Y 419, etc. Aeneas' reaction to the wild charge of Diomedes at E 166 is introduced in the same way : τον δ’ ϊδεν Αινείας άλαπάζοντα στίχας άνδρών. He then seeks out Pandaros and suggests a joint attack: άλλ’ άγε τώδ’ εφες άνδρί βέλος, Διί χεϊρας άνασχών, 6 ς τις δδε κρατέει καί δή κακά πολλά Ιοργε Τρώας, έπεί πολλών τε καί έσθλών γούνατ’ δλυσεν.

201

Sarpedon announces his intention of attacking Patrocios the same way: άντήσω γάρ έγώ τοϋδ’ άνέρος, δφρα δαείω δς τις δδε κρατέει καί δή κακά πολλά δοργε Τρώας, έπεί πολλών τε καί έσθλών γούνατ’ δλυσεν,

425

Everthing here in Π is therefore typical. Karl Reinhardt has argued that a consequence-laden “chance” (Zufall) plays an important role in the Iliad7. Things happen accidentally but then lead to results that are of fundamental importance. The present scene is a major example: up to this point Patrocios has followed Achilles’ warning and fought only by the ships. But his victory over Sarpedon makes him forget himself; he charges all the way to the walls of Troy and meets his death: “Unterliegend wird dieser ihm zum Verhängnis.” Other such chances are Glaucos’ sudden intervention at P 140 and Helenos’ intuition in Z (75) which leads to the Hector-Andromache episode. I t is true enough that there is nothing in the preceding events that inevitably leads to these “chance occurrences,” but the same could be said for hundreds of events in the poem. Why did Agamemnon have the bad luck to take a girl whose father was a priest of Apollo? Why does Aeneas “happen” to see Diomedes at E 166? Why docs Sarpedon happen to rebuke Hector at E 472 or happen to meet Tlepolemos a t E 628? In fact, all of these events are as well motivated as most things in the Homeric poems. Sarpedon intervenes because he sees Patrocios slaying his men; Glaucos rebukes Hector at P 140 and Helenos advises him at Z 75 because the Greeks are gaining the upper hand and some­ thing has to be done. There is nothing "accidental” about any of this. Further, even if they were accidental, even by Homeric standards, this is not as impor­ tant as whether the poet calls attention to the fact. Not only does he not do this, but it is a standard feature of Homeric narrative technique to leave many things “unmotivated.” We have to do here with an un-self-conscious stylistic habit, so to speak, which cannot be arbitrarily elevated to the rank of a tragic irony. Reinhardt's categories of “accidental” or "deliberate” are irrelevant and unprofitable. The duel between Sarpedon and Patrocios, first stage: confrontation (426— 30). As usual, when a man leaps down from Iris chariot it marks the beginning of an important new action. A simile to describe attacking warriors is common, as is the subject (birds) of the present one. Cf. O 690, Π 582, P 674, X 308. 431—461. The duel between Sarpedon and Patrocios, second stage: the scene on Olympos. τούς δέ ίδών ελέησε Κρόνου πάϊς άγκυλομήτεω, "Ηρην δέ προσεειπε κασιγνήτην άλοχόν τε· ώ μοι έγώ, κτλ. ’ Ilias und ihr Dichter, p. 338.

202

Book ΓΙ

Book Π

The sympathetic, pondering Zeus is one of the notable features of books Π and p — here, Π 644, P 198 and P 441. Two other major combats are interrupted for a scene on Olympos where the gods discuss the question of life or death for one of the combatants. Here in Π Zeus considers whether he should save his son. At X 166 he wonders whether he should rescue Hector: X 178—81 = Π 440—43. At Y 290 the fight between Achilles and Aeneas is interrupted for a scene among the gods in which Poseidon decides to rescue Aeneas. Such an interruption must, then, be reckoned as a typical stylistic feature. The structure of these dialogues between the gods is significant. To take the present scene as the first example: 1. Zeus considers whether he should save Sarpedon. 2. Hera replies angrily and suggests an alternative. 3. Zeus gives in and allows Sarpedon to die. The X scene (168) follows the same pattern: 1. Zeus considers whether he should save Hector. 2. Athena replies angrily; Hector is long since destined to die. 3. Zeus gives way and replies to Athena in a conciliatory tone. A clear pattern emerges from these two examples. The Y scene represents a variation : 1. Poseidon sees Aeneas and Achilles and suggests that Aeneas be rescued.

2. I-Iera does not reject the idea, but refuses to help.

3. Poseidon descends to the battlefield and rescues Aeneas. The Y scene has no close relatives, but the other two have several. Consider, for example, Θ 201: 1. Hera is enraged at Hector’s success and urges Poseidon to help her intervene. 2. Poseidon is scandalized and refuses. 3. Hera does nothing. There is no conciliatory reply here by Hera, but she does give way to Poseidon’s objection. Taking the Θ, ΓΙ and X scenes together we see that the subject of the discussion can vary, but the pattern remains the same: (1) one god wishes to do something, (2) a second strongly objects, (3) the first gives way. This same pattern is operative in a wide variety of scenes. At 0 14 Zeus has awakened from his fateful sleep and threatens Hera: 1. Zeus threatens Hera and considers various punishments. 2. Hera replies meekly. 3. Zeus answers in a conciliatory, even kindly tone. Another example is found at Θ 5: !. Zeus warns all the gods away from the battlefield. 2. Athena promises obedience but hopes that she and Hera can still help the Greeks indirectly.

3.

203

Zeus replies in a conciliatory manner, especially striking in contrast with the truculent tone of his previous warning. Zeus does not, of course, retract iris command, but his tone does change from one of belligerence and irritation to kindness and gentleness. All the scenes between the gods clo not follow this pattern and it would be futile to argue that they do. At Θ 447, for example, Hera and Athena have just returned from their abortive attem pt to aid the Greeks: 1. Zeus addresses the two goddesses in a teasing, challenging tone. 2. Hera replies meekly. 3. Zeus answers in a hard, unyielding tone. The divine scenes at A 540 and Δ 7 do not follow the pattern either, even though in the latter Zeus does teasingly make a suggestion from which he backs down in the face of strong objection from Hera and Athena. If this dialogue pattern does not appear in all the Olympian scenes, it is also not restricted to conversations between the gods. At I 17 Agamemnon suggests that they leave Troy and go home. Diomedes angrily replies (32) and the Achaians shout their approval. Nestor then takes over, and although we do not hear anything more from Agamemnon, his plan is clearly rejected and he does not defend it further. Only tire first two elements of the pattern are present here, but it is complete in the related scene at Ξ 65: 1. Agamemnon, in despair, suggests that the Greeks board their ships and sail for home. 2. Odysseus angrily replies and refuses to consider the idea. 3. Agamemnon meekly gives way and calls for another plan (104) which is then presented by Diomedes. To return to the passage in question, we can now say that it has two typical features: the first is that a duel between two important warriors is interrupted for a scene on Olympos where the fate of one of the men is discussed, the second is tire manner in which the dialogue between Zeus and Hera is constructed. Apart from the repeated lines, the content of Hera’s reply to Zeus is unparall­ eled. After Sarpedon is dead, Sleep and Death are to remove him to his home in Lycia. The neo-analysts have argued that this scene borrows motifs from the Aithiopis where Memnon was transported away to eternal blessedness after his death. I will reserve discussion of this until the final chapter. Just before the fight starts Zeus sends down a bloody rain (459) to honor his son. Cf. Λ 53—55. Π 462—507. The duel between Sarpedon and Patroclos, third stage : the fight. Because this is an exceptionally important combat it is given unusual length and apparent complexity. The complexity, however, is illusory for the fight is composed almost entirely of familiar elements which are combined in unusu­ ally large numbers, one juxtaposed to the other. The duel falls into two parts, of which the first covers lines 462—76. Both Patroclos anci Sarpedon miss on

204

205

Book Π

Book Π

their first spear throws and kill somebody or something else instead. It is very common for the eventual victor in a combat either to miss on his first spear cast or to hit somebody else by mistake, as it is for both men to be unsuccess­ ful on their first spear cast. See N 601—17, pp. 145—46 for discussion and examples. Patroclos misses Sarpedon but kills his charioteer, Thrasymelos. The death of a charioteer or θεράπων from a blow aimed at his master is, of course, one of the most frequent incidents in the fighting: cf. Θ 119, Θ 312, Π 737, P 610. Sarpedon, in turn, kills Patroclos' horse. This is the only combat in the poem where both men not only miss each other on their first throw, but both manage to kill somebody or something else instead. This is a clear indi­ cation of Sarpedon’s prowess as a fighter, but also a sign that lie is nonetheless inferior to Patroclos. This is also the only time th at a horse is killed while his m aster is fighting a duel, although Nestor’s horse dies at Θ 81 by an arrow from Paris. Like Patroclos’ horse, it thrashes about in the traces and startles the others and Nestor, like Automedon, cuts the straps to free the dying animal and thereby calm the other two. The passage is, therefore, a unique combination of familiar details. The technique shows that when the poet, who constructed all his battle scenes out of typical details, wished to narrate an especially long, difficult, or important fight, he did so not by inven­ ting a new action or new details, but by the larger than average accumulation of familiar details. An especially significant combat is given the weight and length that it deserves by the simple process of addition and lengthening. This is easy enough to observe in the first half of the combat, but becomes even more obvious in the second. This second part is a familiar combat pattern which normally makes up the w hole of a fight, but here is appended to the first part as a seco n d stage:

ΓΙ 492—507. Sarpedon begs Glaucos to rescue his body. This scene was discussed at E, pp. 69—70 in connection with E 682—88 where Sarpedon, who has been only wounded but apparently expects to die, begs Hector to defend bis body. The Π scene is more like the one in E than any other, but it is to be remembered that in all three of the most important deaths in the Iliad (Sarpedon, Patroclos, Hector) the vanquished warrior speaks a few words be­ fore he dies. The deaths of Hector and Patroclos are especially similar to each other, much more than either is to the death of Sarpedon. They will be com­ pared at the end of this chapter. What all three have in common is th at the dying man speaks, and that the scene ends when the victor pulls his spear out of the victim’s body (Π 503, ΙΊ 682, X 367). Π 508—531. Glaucos is unable to defend Sarpedon because he is wounded. He therefore prays to Apollo who cures the wound. It happens with some fre­ quency that a man prays for help and is immediately answered; cf. Θ 236, 245; O 372, 377; P 645, 648. But the closest relative to this scene is E 115 (see p. 21). Diomedes has been wounded and prays to Athena for help. She comes immediately and cures him, after which Diomedes re-enters the fighting. Both Diomedes (E 98) and Glaucos (M 387) have been wounded by arrows. Π 532. At this point a rebuke pattern begins, identical to the type that forms the backbone of book P (see pp. 159—60). It can be outlined as follows: 1. Patroclos has slain Sarpedon (i. e. as usual, it is some Greek success that inspires a rebuke). 2. Glaucos rebukes Hector, 538. 3. Hector and the Trojans charge, 548. 4. Patroclos urges the Aiantes to help him defend, 556. 5. The Trojans first drive the Greeks back, 569. 6 . Patroclos counter-attacks, 581. The same pattern occurs four times in P, and every item in the present example has a direct parallel there. A consultation pattern also appears at P 483 (see p. 160), which contains many of the features of the rebuke pattern: e. g. a Trojan charge, summons to the Aiantes for aid, Trojan defeat. Nor is this the only rebuke pattern in II. There is another at 721, whose long and compli­ cated conclusion sustains the action to the end of the book. With this a whole new structural field becomes apparent. That is, we now see that alm o st a ll o f the a c tio n fr o m Π 538 to the e n d o f P i s su sta in e d by a s ix fo ld (counting P 483, a sevenfold) re p e titio n o f th e sa m e p a tte r n o f T r o ja n re buke (or consultation), charge a n d re p u lse . Moreover, this six-fold repetition occurs, with only one exception (II 721) in c onnection w ith a fig h t over th e body o f a fa ll e n w a rrio r. The exception, the rebuke at ΓΙ 721, leads to the fight in which Kebriones dies and over whose b o d y a vicious battle develops. Greeks and Trojans fight over Sarpedon and Kebriones in ΓΙ and over Patroclos in P. As in the teichomachia, then, this long battle has a center, or a series of iden-

Έ νθ’ αδ Σαρπηδών μέν άπήμβροτε Soupe φαεινοί, Πατρόκλου δ’ υπέρ ώμον αριστερόν ήλυθ’ άκωκή έγχεος, ούδ’ £βαλ’ αύτόν 6 δ’ ύστερος ίρνυτο χαλκοί Πάτροκλος- του δ’ ούχ άλιον βέλος έκφυγε χειρός, άλλ’ έβαλ’ ένθ’ άρα τε φρένες έρχαται άμφ’ άδινόν κηρ.

480

throws at B and misses [the spear passes over him — cf. E 16, X 275, etc.), after which B kills A. See E, p. 11. The combat between Patroclos and Sarpedon, then,despite its length and complexity, is entirely typical, as is the description of Sarpedon’s fall: 1. The stricken man is compared to a tree. See N, p. 126. 2. ΓΙ 482—86 = N 389—93 (the death of Asios). 3. A second simile (487) compares Sarpedon to a steer killed,by a lion. The lion is the most common of all simile subjects, and steers are used to describe fallen warriors again at N 570, P 520 and Y 403.

A

207

Book Π

Book Π

tical centers around which the action revolves. Unlike in the teichomachia, however, we are seldom allowed to forget just what the center of action is. Again, therefore, the familiar narrative technique is at work whereby basically identical actions are repeated with variations of smaller details — but here not in a group of scattered incidents, but in a series of consistently repeated patterns over the space of almost one and a half books and almost eleven hundred lines. Little needs to be added about the details of Glaucos’ speech and Patroclos’ call to the Aiantes. The rebuke has the familiar structure of (I) criticism, (2) description of the bad situation, and (3) call to action. It contains the usual complaint of the Lycians that they are doing all the fighting while the Trojans shirk their duty, and the announcement of somebody’s death (cf. P 79, P 589). See E, pp. 5 1—52 and N, pp. 120—21 for details and comparisons. Summons to Aias, within and without the rebuke pattern, are discussed at P, pp. 164—66. As usual (cf. P 83, P 123, P 694, P 591 — Σ 22) the person who receives bad news is grief-stricken. The section from line 562 to 568 is a general description of the kind that normally precedes either the opening of a battle or of a new phase within a battle already in progress. See A, p. 79. The darkness that Zeus spreads over the held (567) is in its regular place in the action following a Trojan charge when one of them has been rebuked (see E, pp. 52—53). The fighting over Sarpedon now begins with the slaying of the Myrmidon Epeigeus (569—80). Compare this scene with the closely similar P 262. There Hector leads the Trojans in a charge after he has been rebuked (P 142), a general battle description precedes the single combats, Zeus spreads a darkness over the field, and at the start of the fighting the same line appears (274) as here at 569. In P Aias leads the resistance, while here in Π it is Patroclos. Both scenes depict the fight over a body, and in both the first man killed is trying to drag away a body (Π 577, P 289). The ΓΙ scene is equally typical in detail : 1. The slaying follows Beye's ABC pattern (see E, pp. 16—17). 2. Epeigeus is killed as he tries to puli away a corpse. Cf. Δ 467, Λ 256, N 527, Ξ 476, P 289, etc. 3. ΓΙ578 f. = Π 412 f„ P 300. 4. The anecdote here concerns the fugitive Epeigeus. After slaying a relative he sought protection with Peleus and Thetis, who sent him to follow Achilles. Such exiles are common in the Iliad; cf. B 662, N 694 ( = O 333), O 430. What is especially interesting is that Epeigeus is a Myrmidon, a follower of Achilles. This puts him in the same class with two other followers of Achilles : Phoinix (I 447) and Patroclos (Ψ 84), both of whom came to him under similar circumstances. Patroclos and Epeigeus had to run away because they had killed somebody, Phoinix to avoid his father’s wrath. I t is hard to know what to make of this. Strasburger writes; “Epeigeus floh nach der Tötung seines Verwandten zu Peleus und Thetis,

und wurde von diesem dem Achill mitgegeben, was zunächst als eine Doublette zu Phoinix und Patroclos aussehen könnte. E r fällt in der Patroklie nach Sarpedons Tod als erstes Opfer der zur Rache drängenden Troer, und bezeichnet mm die Wendung der Handlung, mit seinem gleichen Schicksal auf den nahen Tod des Patroclos vorausweiscnd'^.Strasburger's judgement would be more convincing were it not that Epeigeus has a typical biography which is shared by persons who have no connection with Peleus or Patroclos. Even though it is admittedly striking that three persons who accompany Achilles should share such similar life histories, it is most unlikely that Epeigeus in any way foreshadows the imminent death of Patroclos at the hands of Hector. In the Iliad this part of Patroclos' life is never emphasized. His flight from Ironie is first men­ tioned much later, in VF. Even though it was a traditional part of his history, familiar to poet and audience alike, is it likely th at an audience, or even a reader, would think of Patroclos’ past history when he learns of the fate of Epeigeus ? Hardly, because Patroclos is characterized above all as the friend, the man who tries to take Achilles’ place in battle. His earlier life has not only not been mentioned up to this point, but it has no connection with his characterization and function in the poem. Π 581—588. Patroclos avenges his follower’s death by slaying Sthenelaos. The pattern and details here are all fully typical. For the pattern, cf. Δ 494: A. A friend of Odysseus is killed. B. Odysseus is angered and attacks. C. He slays a Trojan. D. The Trojans and Hector retreat. Δ 505 = Π 588. Familiar details: 1. For bird similes describing warriors, cf. O 690, II 428, X 308. The closest parallel is found at P 674, where the subject is again the pursuit of a small bird by a larger, stronger one. The function of the simile here, to describe an attacking warrior, is regular. 2. Stones are frequent weapons, and the breaking of τένοντες a favorite anatomical detail. Cf. Δ 521, E 307, K 456, Ξ 466, etc. 3. The Trojans retreat here as they do in the related Δ scene. In the simile that follows (589—92) we arc told just how far they retreated. This is the only time that such information is given. The lines are still typical, however, ( 1) because it is a regular function of the simile to express measure (cf. E 770, K 351, etc.) and (2) this same simile of a man throwing a spear is used to describe measure at O 358 and again at VF 431, where the spear is replaced by a discus. While the Trojans are in full retreat Glaucos suddenly turns around (στρεφΘείς εξαπίνης) and slays a pursuer. This tactic is unparalleled. Closest to it is the 8 Kleine Kämpfe./, p. 30.

208

209

Book Π

Book II

frequent turning around of a man who is being hard-pressed by the enemy, like Antilochos at N 556 or the Aiantes at P 732. Otherwise, the androktasia is fully typical: 1. It follows Beye’s ABC pattern. 2. The victim was notably wealthy. See E 544, p. 57. 3. The Trojans take heart a t Glaucos’ success and resist, but as usual the Greeks do not retreat easily, even under the pressure of attack. Cf. E 498, Λ 215, N 470, etc. Π 603—632. A new section begins with the death of Laogonos, the son of a p r ie s t (see E 10, p. 11), who is killed in almost exactly the same way as Euchenor (Π 606 f. = N 671 f.), the son of a so othsayer. Aeneas and Meriones now face each other (608— 18) in a scene that has already been discussed in connec­ tion with N 496 a n d P 526; see pp.136—37 Basically, the similarities are these: in all three combats one man throws at another, misses, and his spear sticks in the ground. Then something happens which stops the fight. Neither man goes on to slay or wound the other. The present passage is especially curious because of the way the fight is abruptly broken off. In this respect it is some­ thing like the abortive confrontation between Aias and Hector at the end of N(see pp.156—57)]^After Aeneas has taunted Meriones and Meriones has replied, indicating th at he is going to continue the fight (623—25), Patroclos interrupts and rebukes his ally for wasting his time by talking instead of fighting (626—31). The two of them then go off in another direction, no doubt leaving Aeneas gaping in astonishment. No indication is given why Meriones does not take Patroclos' words to heart and get on with his duel with Aeneas. It is simply not continued. Familiar details: 1. Patroclos criticizes Meriones for wasting his time talking to the enemy. This will get him nowhere; a war is won by fighting. One fighter often reminds his opponent of the uselessness of threats and taunts (cf. H 234, Y 211, Y 244, Y 367, Y 431), although this is the only time anybody rebukes his own ally for such talk. 2. Meriones ducks to avoid Aeneas’ spear (611). Cf. P 527, X 274. 3. Compare Meriones’ advance here (609) with that of Deiphobos at N 156 and Hector at N 803. 4. Aeneas, referring to Meriones’ agility, sneeringly calls him a ‘‘dancer.’’ For oilier metaphors taken from the world of Aphrodite and used to describe the business of fighting, cf. H 241 and N 291. The Aeneas-Meriones encounter is followed by a rather long, static description of the fight over Sarpedon. This type of scene is discussed at P, pp. 177—78. Within this section Zeus ponders whether he should allow Patroclos to be slain over Sarpedon’s corpse or grant him some further success (644), and decides for the latter. The two important elements of the scene have already been discussed

elsewhere: monologues, either in the first or third person, are treated at A, pp. 96—98, and Zeus’ granting a man extra victories at P, p. 170. The whole section, then, between 633 and 655 is fully typical. The rescue of Sarpedon’s body by Sleep and Death, 666—83, and its transport to Lycia will be considered in the final chapter. As it stands, it is unique within the Iliad. The action which is interrupted by this incident is resumed at line 684 without transitional for­ mulae of any kind, a type of composition discussed at E, pp. 37—39. After he decides to allow Patroclos some additional success Zeus puts Hector to flight (656). Hector had already fled once in Ι Ί (367); does any pattern lie behind this double retreat? The following outline makes the general sequence clear. There is no mathematical symmetry here, and the chart admittedly makes certain things look more similar than they really are. But it does show the general lines of action that lie behind the back and forth of the fighting. 1. Greeks and Patroclos fight successfully, 278. — 2. Hector retreats, 367. ------- 3. Patroclos fights successfully, 372. ------------- 4. Patroclos — Sarpedon, 419. ----------------- 5 . Rebuke to Hector, 538. ---------------------- 6 . Hector and Trojans attack, 548. --------------------------7 . Eight over Sarpedon’s body, 563. '— 8 . Hector retreats, 656. ------- 9. Patroclos fights very successfully, 684. ------------ 10. Patroclos at the wall, 698. ---------------- II. Hector rebuked, 721. -------------------- 12. Hector charges, 727. ------------------------ 13. Kebriones is slain, 737. ------------------------ 14. Fight over Kebriones’ body, 751. 15. Last effort and death of Patroclos, 783. To repeat, this chart is not offered as an illustration of intricately correspond­ ing and balanced composition. It does show that the familiar rebuke pattern is made to function here in a context that is peculiar to II and, to a somewhat lesser extent, to P. Namely, the rebuke to I-Iector is always justified by an earlier retreat, which in turn removes him from the scene while Patroclos continues his aristeia undisturbed. There is, then, a simple pattern that under­ lies the action here: 1. Retreat by Hector, 367, 656. 2. Success for Patroclos, 372, 684. 3. Rebuke to Hector, 538, 721. 4. Trojan attack, 548, 727. 5. Fight over a body, 563, 751.

Book II

210

The rebuke pattern thus functions in a particular way in 1Ί and P ; the fighting which follows the rebuke always centers on a corpse, and the rebuke is always preceded by a retreat of Hector that is specifically mentioned. This basic pattern in ΓΙ furnishes, I think, an explanation for the curious fight between Patroclos and Hector at 731. This duel begins in a typical manner — in the same way, in fact, that the combat between Patroclos and Sarpedon began. Patroclos threw his spear first and slew the Lycian's charioteer. He kills Kcbriones in tfie same way at 737, except th at this time he uses a stone. But at this point the fight ceases to be a confrontation between Patroclos and Hector and suddenly turns into a combat over Kebriones’ body. The slaying of an enemy's charioteer, a familiar part of a typical combat pattern, becomes independent and dominates the following action, and because o f th is th e fig h tin g re m a in s cen tered over a corpse. The basic pattern outlined above thus continues. Underlying the complicated action of ΓΙ, then, there seems to be a flexible master plan according to which the most important incidents are arranged. Twice Hector retreats, twice Patroclos drives the Trojans in confusion until a major obstacle presents itself (Sarpedon, the wall of Troy), twice this is followed by a rebuke to Hector, and there are two hard fights over a body, both of which end successfully for the Achaians. Such large-scale repetition of id e n tic a l o r d o s e t o id e n tic a l i n c id e n t s over a long section of the narrative represents the same narrative technique found in the repeated use of rebuke patterns in P, the series of victim-pairs slain by Diomedes and Agamemnon in E and Λ, or the repeated appearances of Meriones in N. If the general lines of action here are cleai’, some of the details are not. Specifically, the section that tells of Hector's retreat contains a major problem: Έκτορι δε πρωτίστφ άνάλκιδα Ουμδν ένηκεν ές δίφρον δ’ άναβάς φύγαδ’ Ατραπέ, κέκλετο δ’ άλλους Τρώας φευγέμεναΐ' γνώ γάρ Διδς ίρά τάλαντα. tfvQ’ ούδ' ϊφΟιμοι Λύκιοι μένον, άλλα φόβηθεν πάντες, επεί βασιλήα ϊδον βεβλαμμένον ήτορ, κείμενον έν νεκύων άγύρει.

660

The difficulty in lines 659—61 is very great. The Lycians have been fighting over Sarpedon’s body ever since he fell (witness the presence of Glaucos, 593), and yet all at once they flee — not because, like Hector, Zeus puts them to flight — but because they suddenly see, apparently for the first time, their leader lying on the ground amid the corpses. Whatever may have caused the present condition of the text, there can be no doubt th at something is seriously wrong, Friedrich writes: "Wie oft in der Ilias, ist die ursprüngliche SarpedonErzählung weit auscinanclergczogen worden, und nichts bürgt uns dafür, daß ihre Reste durchweg in der alten Reihenfolge erscheinen9." * Verwundung und Tod, p. 107.

Otherwise, the section is typical enough. Zeus sends Hector into flight as he does, say, Aias a t Λ 544 or the whole Greek army a t Θ 75. The brief mention of Zeus’ scales (658) shows that the motif was familiar. The scales are mentioned in the same casual manner at T 223. After the Trojans flee the Greeks strip the armor from Sarpedon, according to regular practice. Even some of the details of the scene where Sleep and Death remove the Lycian leader to his homeland are familiar. The removal of the body reminds us of the suggestion by certain gods to send Hermes to steal Hector’s body from Achilles (Ω 23), and the use of ambrosia here (680) is something like that at T 38. Compare as well Ω 18—21 and Ω 413. Π 684—691. Patroclos begins his fateful advance. Πάτροκλος δ’ ίπποισι καί Αύτομέδοντι κελεύσας Τρώας καί Λυκίους μ.ετεκίαΟε, καί μέγ’ άάσόη νήτκος· εί δέ έπος Πηλη'ίάδαο φύλαξεν, ή τ ’ άν ΰπέκφυγε χήρα κακήν μελανός Θανάτοιο. άλλ’ αίεί τε Διάς κρείσσων νόος ήέ περ άνδρών κτλ.

685

This short section has been widely held to be an interpolation, but without good reason. It clearly belongs to the class of summary scenes where tire poet interrupts his account and cither recapitulates or comments personally on the action. These scenes are quite numerous and must be reckoned as typical (see E, pp. 54—55). Here it is the "mind of Zeus” th at leads the servant to forget his master’s warning. The mind of Zeus is also too strong for Aias at ΓΙ 103, but i t works to a helpful end a t 0242. Cf. P 176. It is interesting that even at the higher levels of poetic composition, and not just in the recitation of battle scenes, the poet operates,or at least on occasion can operate, with type situations. We have already seen, for example, how typical biographies are composed (N, pp. 148—52). Achilles and a number of late-coming Trojan allies are described by a set of typical biographical details. There are, of course, always enough differences between them to give each one individuality, just as no two battle scenes are identical, no matter how closely related they may be. The present passage is another example of this same technique. Most readers of the Iliad will be struck by a certain likeness between Patroclos and Hector — not only because they die with divine inter­ vention and have a final exchange of words with their respective vanquishers — but above all because of their infatuation with success and refusal to listen to those who offer them good advice. The poet remarks hete: " If Patroclos bad remembered the words of Achilles, . . .” Instead, he becomes intoxicated with success and loses his life: μέγ' άάσθη. The parallel with Hector is clear. Like Patroclos he overestimates his victory, like him he pays the penalty, and like him he is given an additional short period of victory before lie is handed over to

Book Π

Book Π

his fate (P 201). After Hector’s refusal to retreat into the city at Σ 285—309 the poet again interrupts the narrative to comment on what has happened:

three times to slay Aeneas who is being rescued by Apollo. On the fourth try the god warns him away as lie warns Patroclos here. In Y Achilles tries to slay Hector who is also being rescued by Apollo. Like Diomedes, he attacks three times in vain and shouts insults on the fourth attempt. In E Diomedes withdraws after the god’s warning the way Patroclos does here (7f0). Our passage is therefore fully typical, although it is surprising to find Patroclos suddenly at the walls of Troy. B ut this is only the first of several measures taken by the poet in this last section of Π to increase the impact and splendor of Patroclos’ final hour. Familiar motifs are crowded together here in a way th at glorifies Patroclos, but makes the battle as a whole confused and impossible to follow. At ΓΙ 712—25 we return to Flector, who is rebuked by Apollo for withholding from combat. The importance and circumstances of the rebuke patterns in Π have been discussed above, pp. 205—06. Familiar details : 1. The structure of the rebuke is regular: strong reproach, ending with a call to action. As sometimes happens (cf. P 327), a description of the desperate situation, which sometimes fills the middle section, is left out. 2. For the way Apollo’s disguise is described, see P, p. 176. 3. Flector debates vvitli himself what he should do, but his decision is made for him by Apollo. This is one of the regular ways these narrative mono­ logues end. See A, p. 97. 4. Apollo’s threat here is unlike anything elsewhere: “ If I were only as much stronger than you as I am weaker, you would not get away with hanging back from battle.” A death threat is made on three occasions to persons who refuse to fight (B 391, M 248, O 348), and at two other places men freely admit their inferiority in battle to another (T 217, Y 434; cf. N 481), but the two ideas are never combined elsewhere as they are here. At line 727 the fight between Hector and Patroclos begins that is to end in tlie death of Kebriones. The slaying of a charioteer, normally only a single incident in a larger fight, leads the action here in an entirely new direction. The confrontation between Patroclos and Flector is fo r g o t te n as a fight devel­ ops over the body of Kebriones. It was suggested above (p. 210) th at the reason for this was the poet’s obvious interest, from the death of Sarpedon to the end of P, in centering his fight on a fallen warrior. Sarpedon is followed by Kebriones who in turn is replaced by Patroclos himself. B ut there is still another stylistic habit at w o r k here. Flector and Patroclos meet twice in this book, and the second encounter is the decisive one. Compare with this Y 419, where Hector attacks Achilles in fury over the death of his brother Polydoros. Before the fight can be ended Hector is rescued by Apollo and does not meet Achilles again before their final duel in X. Once again, therefore, the final encounter is preceded by a brief, indecisive one. This same section of the Iliad lias two more good examples of the same style. At Y 463 a Trojan gives himself

212

“ Ως 'Έκτωρ άγόρευ’, επί δέ Τρώες κελάδησαν, νήπιοι- εκ γάρ σφεων φρένας είλετο Παλλάς Άθήνη. Έκτορι μεν γάρ έπήνησαν κακά μητιόωντι, Πουλυδάμαντι δ’ άρ’ oö τις, δς έσΟλήν φράζετο βουλήν.

310

We do not need to exaggerate the similarities between the two men and argue that they arc more alike than they really are. The differences, in fact, predom­ inate. But the poet has used the same basic motif — short-lived success, infatuation with success, resultant death — for both of them. Because the circumstances under which these two similar destinies fulfil themselves are so different neither seems even remotely to be merely a copy or a variation of the other. Π 692—696. For the second time in iiis aristeia Patroclos slays a series of Trojans in quick succession, a staying catalogue (cf. Π 415, and pp. 68—69). For the name Melanippos that appears at line 695,seeN,pp. 147—48. As usual, the catalogue is followed by strong reaction from the enemy side : ’Ένθα κεν όψίπυλον Τροίην ελον υϊες ’Αχαιών Πατρόκλου υπό χερσί' περιπρό γάρ εγχεϊ δΰεν εί μή ’Απόλλων Φοίβος εϋδμήτου επί πύργου έστη, τω δλοά φρονέων, Τρώεσσι δ’ αρήγων. τρις μέν επ’ άγκώνος βή τείχεος ύψηλοΐο Πάτροκλος, τρις S ' αυτόν άπεστυφέλ'.ξεν ’Απόλλων, χείρεσσ’ άΟανάτησι φαεινήν ασπίδα νύσσων. άλλ’ 6 τε δή τό τέταρτον έπέσσυτο δαίμονι ίσος, δεινά δ’ όμοκλήσας έπεα πτερόεντα προσηύδα"χάζεο, διογενές Πατρόκλεες- ου νύ τοι «ίσα, κτλ.

700

705

This passage is a combination of two distinct type scenes: 1. The first is th at type which begins with a statement such as “then the Trojans would have fallen back into the city, but . . The catastrophe is then averted, sometimes by a human, most often by a god. These scenes are discussed at N, p. 154 and P, pp. 175 —77. The present example is somewhat unusual, since normally a god or mortal encourages some Trojan to stop the flight, while here Apollo himself repulses Patroclos. 2, The reason for this difference is the second type scene that is combined with the first: namely, the triple attack by a mortal th at is turned back by a god (Apollo). These scenes are discussed at E, pp. 46—47. The two other major examples are E 436 and Y 445. In the first, Diomedes tries

213

Book Π

up to Achilles and prays for his life. But Achilles is unmoved and slays him. Tin's incident is related very briefly, in n in e a n d a h a lf lin e s. Shortly thereafter, starting at Φ 34, the Lykaon incident begins, the longest and most elaborate scene of supplication in the poem. Does the first short scene anticipate the second? The number of parallels suggests th at it does. Hector’s first brief meeting with Achilles anticipates the second and final one (see above), but the latter is actually anticipated by still another. Near the end of Φ Agenor stands alone to face Achilles. He debates with himself whether he should stand or turn and run away, and decides to fight. When he is about to be slain Apollo rescues him, assumes his appearance and runs away with Achilles after him (Φ 596-X 20). The god reveals himself only when tire rest of the Trojans have reached safety. I t may well be that this incident enables the poet to put the Achilles — Hector combat on an empty stage, as it were, where there are no other Trojans around to disturb them, but the scene with Agenor is a remarkably close replica, for all its differences, of the scene which follows between Achilles and Hector: (1) a warrior stands alone to face the on-rushing Achilles; (2) he debates with himself what he should do; (3) he decides to make a stand; (4) he is chased by Achilles. This last item is of course quite different in the two scenes, but the element of chase is nevertheless there. The two monologues, ending in the decision to stand and fight, also belong to a common type scene (see A, pp. 96—97). These anticipatory scenes, therefore, may or may not be similar in detail to the one th at follows. The examples could be multiplied at length, but two more passages especially deserve mention. 1. At Θ 198 Hera is outraged by what she sees on the battlefield and tries to persuade Poseidon to join her in doing something about it. Poseidon is scandalized and refuses — Zeus is too mighty to disobey. Before long Hector’s success arouses Hera once again (350), and this time she turns for aid to Athena, who is only too happy to join lier. Hera’s first attem pt with Poseidon seems to be another preview, a quasi-doublet of the Hera — Athena intervention later on. 2. At N 159 Meriones strikes Deiphobos’ shield but his spear breaks and he has to withdraw to get a new one. Later in the same book they meet again, and this time Meriones succeeds in wounding him (531). These anticipatory incidents seem, then, to represent a regular stylistic feature. Some of them are genuine doublets because of their similarity of detail, others are more like a preview of scenes to come where the same person(s) will be involved in a more elaborate way. Familiar details in the first Patroclos — Hector encounter: 1. Apollo enters the battle and pushes the Greeks back (728—30). This is much like Ares’ personal intervention at E 506, or Apollo's action at 0 318, 355, where he enters the battle with' Hector and throws the Greeks into

215

headlong flight. The trouble here is th at the κλόνος κακός that he raises in the Greek army lias no visible effect and is promptly forgotten. This seems to be another example of the indiscriminate use of familiar motifs at the end of Γ1. 2. Kebriones is killed by a stone, which is not unusual, but the slaying is grisly and unreal. His eyes are knocked out of his head and fall on the ground at his feet, and he falls from his chariot like a diver. Men’s eyes are knocked out again at N 616 and Ξ 493. It may be pedantic to observe that the detail of his eyes falling on the ground at his feet is not especially appropriate for a man standing in a chariot«, but it is revealing as another example of the inexactitude of detail to which formulaic language and typical composition can lead. The case with the diver simile is similar. I t appears again at M 385 where a man falls from the wall. It seems to be more in place there than here since he falls from a great height11. The slaying is thus an example of unclear typical composition. 3. Kebriones is a νόθος. See E, p. 18. 4. A speech of triumph over a fallen enemy is familiar. Although the details of Patroclos’ speech here are unique, we can compare its violent, boasting tone with the scornful remarks of Achilles over Lykaon (Φ 122) and Asteropaios (Φ 184). After Patroclos has finished his speech lie and Hector face each other over the body of Kebriones, and this in turn widens into a general engagement (751). This battle, like the ones over Sarpedon at 1Ί 634 and over Patroclos at P 366, is depicted in a rather long, static description of the type discussed at pp. 177—78. Wc arc presented with a series of similes, description of the back-and-forth of the battle, the whizzing arrows, the rocks smashing against shields, etc. Hector grabs the dead man’s feet and tries to pull him away, as he tries to drag the body of Patroclos off at Σ 155. The tugging back-andforth, described here directly, is depicted at P 389 by a simile where the two armies are compared to a group of persons stretching a great hide. There are two lion similes at 752 and 756; the wind simile at 765 has its usual function of describing armies. This brings us to the climax of the book: "Οφρα μέν Ήέλιος μέσον ούρανόν άμφιβεβήκει, τόφρα μάλ’ άμφοτέρων βέλε’ ήπτετο, πΐπτε δέ λαός 1 ήμος δ’ Ήέλιος μετενίσετο βουλυτόνδε, καί τότε δή ρ’ ύπέρ αίσαν ’Αχαιοί φέρτεροι ήσαν. 780 έκ μέν Κεβριόνην βελέων ήρωα έρυσσαν Τροιών έξ ένοπης, καί άπ’ ώμων τεύχε* έλοντο, Πάτροκλος δέ ΤρωσΙ κακά φρονέων ένόρουσε. τρίς μέν Ιπειτ’ έπόρουσε θεω ατάλαντος ”Αρηϊ, 10 Verwundung und Tod, pp. 28 f.

11 Ibid., p. 16.

Book II

Book I I

216

σμερδαλέα Ιάχων, τρίς 8 ' έννέα φώτας έπεφνεν. άλλ’ οτε 8 ή τό τέταρτον έπέσσυτο δαίμονι ίσος, ένΟ’ άρα τοι, Πάτροκλε, φάνη βιότοιο τελευτή·

785

ήντετο γάρ toc Φοίβος ένί κρατερή ΰσμίνη δεινός' κτλ. After almost six full books of fighting, which include the aristeiai of Agamem­ non and Idomeneus, the teichomachia, the intervention of Poseidon and repulse of the Trojans in N, the Διός ’Απάτη, the fight at the ships, the intervention and aristeia of Patroclos — after all this we first reach midday. It is not necessary to enter the debate whether Π 777—79 and Λ 84—90 mean the same thing, i. e. whether the same day has two noons (see Λ, footnote 6). Twelve o 'clock comes very late in the day, whether it occurs twice or not. If there really is a discrepancy with Λ 84—90, it is not because the poet forgot in Π what he had said in Λ, but because his only interest is the splendid symbolism of the sun's descent heralding the final hour of Patroclos. Hector’s fate, too, is sealed with the setting of the sun ( Λ 191—94, Σ 239). Another familiar motif follows quickly: Patroclos charges three times, and each time he slays nine men. “But when he rushed forward for the fourth time, then . . This makes i t clear how the poet is operating at the end of this book. First, the near capture of Troy; second, the triple attem pt on the wall and the encounter with Apollo; third, the intervention of Apollo in the fight; fourth, the midday m otif; and finally, the triple charge with t w e n t y seven men slain. The poet is elevating Patroclos’ final combat and death into the realm of the gigantic and supernatural. It becomes impossible to picture exactly what is happening, for normal geographical and temporal relations are suspended. It is pathos and massive effect th at interest the poet here, not a dearly defined series of events. What the scene loses in plasticity and clarity it gains in grandeur and awesomeness. But this effect is not achieved with new, unparalleled motifs or bold new inventions. Instead, familiar, typical motifs are crowded togetherinto a small space, one following quickly on another. The poet uses this grouping and concentration of familiar material to create a special effect, which is, after all, only what we should expect from one who composed his battle scenes according to more or less fixed patterns and typical motifs. The manner in which the fight between Sarpedon and Patroclos is related is not essentially different. Two independent patterns and a number of smaller details are combined into one scene, and through their concentration an espe­ cially important, complex and impressive combat is created. Patroclos’ final hour has come, then, and A p o ) lo m o v e s a g a in s t h i m through the struggling masses of men. There is nothing else like this powerful and terrifying scene elsewhere in the Iliad, and yet most of its smaller details are completely familiar.

217

1. Apollo's laming of Patroclos is what contributes most to the eerie quality of the scene, b u t i t is not unlike Poseidon's benumbing of Alkathoos a t N 434 so that he could be slain by Idomeneus. The Π scene is more elaborate, but not much different. 2. The helmet plume is befouled in the dust. See P 59, p. 163. 3. Euphorbos is a late-comer to the war. Cf. N 793, Φ 155, K 434. 4. Hector strikes Patroclos as he is trying to withdraw (817). Cf. Λ 446, N 566, N 648, Ξ 408, etc. 5. Even the double attack on Patroclos is not unparalleled. At 0 525 Dolops perishes under the combined attack of Meges and Menelaos, whereby Menclaos delivers the death-blow into the Trojan's back. . Cf. Π 794 f. and N 529 f. 7. Euphorbos wounds Patroclos, then pulls out his spear and leaps back into his own ranks (813). So Meriones at N 528: he leaps forward, wounds Deiphobos in the arm, pulls out his spear and leaps back to his own lines. The death of Patroclos follows the same general scheme as the two other important deaths in the Iliad., those of Sarpedon and Hector. In each the dying man speaks a few words, either to a friend or to his vanquisher ; the scene ends when the victor pulls his spear out of the victim’s body. The present scene is most similar to the death of Hector. The following comparisons can be made between them ·. 1. Π 830—42, X 331—36. I-Icctor and Achilles both guess at the thoughts of their enemy before he was beaten. 2. Π 851—54, X 358—60. Both dying men hint at the imminent death of their conquerors. 3. Π 855—57 = X 361—63. 4. II 859—61, X 365 f. Both Hector and Achilles reject the warning — each in his own way. Hector is not convinced th at he cannot slay Achilles (ci. Σ 305), while Achilles affirms his readiness to die whenever the gods will it (cf. Σ 98, T 421, Φ 108). The attitudes of the two men are distilled in Hector's answer to Patroclos here (859—61) and in Achilles’ reply to his horse at T 420—23. Both men have just been warned of impending death. Hector answers:

6

Πατρόκλεις, τί νύ μοι μαντεύεαι αίπύν όλεθρον; τίς δ’ οίδ’ εϊ κ’ Άχιλεύς, βέτιδος πάϊς ήϋκόμοιο, φθήη εμω ύπλ δουρι τυπείς άπδ θυμόν όλέσσαι ;

860

It is this fatal self-confidence that will lead Hector to his death. Achilles, who fights with all the desperation and pitilessness of a man who knows he is doomed, replies differently:

218

Book Π

Ξάνθε, τί μοι θάνατον μαντεύεαι; ούδέ τί σε χρή. ευ νυ τδ οϊδα καί αύτδς 8 μοι μύρος ενθάδ’ δλέσθαι, νόσφι φίλου πατρός καί μητέρος’ άλλά καί έμπης ού λήξω πρίν Τρώας άδην ελάσαι πολέμοιοThe two conversations follow the same simple statement — reply pattern. The X scene has one more exchange than the one in Π.

420

BOOK Θ It will come as a surprise to nobody that Θ is the least typical of the battle books, with the exception, of course, of Φ, which is in a category of its own. 0 ’s peculiar qualities are common knowledge, and it is widely held to rep­ resent one of the last stages in the composition of the poem. The present analysis will be concerned only with lines 53—349, i. e. the fighting proper. I will, as usual, concentrate only o n th e typicalness or non-typicalness of the battlefield incidents themselves, ignoring the problems of traditional analysis and foregoing any discussion of how, when, or under what circumstances Θ entered the poem. The book is, however, most unusual. Familiar elements are indeed present in large numbers, but they function more in the manner of a typical background against which a series of distinctly untypical incidents are set. The book begins with a scene on Olympos. The structure of the conversation there is typical (see Π, pp. 202—03), and the raw, bnital tone of Zeus’ threats can be compared with 0 14 or 0 135. Zeus’ chariot ride to Ida is also typical; see N, p. 115. The fighting itself begins in regular fashion as both sides prepare themselves for action (53—59; cf. Λ 47—6 6 ). The Trojans, though outnumbered, are eager to fight for their women and children (56 f. ; cf. K 418, 0 497, 0 662, P 223, Φ 586). Lines 60—65, which describe the first collision of the two armies, are repeated in the opening battle at Δ 446—51, and they give the regular picture of fighting on a large scale before the individual encounters begin (see Λ, p. 79). Lines 6 6 ··—6 8 , which tell how the battle was fought evenly until midday, at which point the Trojans gained the advantage, represent a typical manner of introducing a decisive change of situation after a battle has been fought for a while on nearly even terms.See Λ ,ρρ, 81—82 for details and discussion.The scales of Zeus are an equally familiar motif. The passage closest to the Θ section is X 209, where Zeus lifts his scales and weighs the κήρε of Achilles and Hector; the Trojan’s lot sinks and Apollo leaves him to his fate. I t has often been argued that the motif seems better suited to two individuals than to two armies, but the importance of this, assuming th at it is true, should not be overestimated. Even if the motif does fit single persons better, it is not 8, 206 710 145 723 176 726 109, 120, 121, 167 126— 47 176 756 172 764 179 765 41, 189 767 189 167, 168 769 775 169 792 130 793 217 117 795 802 124 803 125, 208 157 803— 08 806 177 810 135 832 156 832— « 4 0 2 157 833 71 a 20 23 27 44 49 57— 60 65 69

68

135'» 156 117 , 122

21021

30, 203 129, 164, 188

83 95 147 151 f. 153 161 216 289 347 352 376 379 384 385 388 394 396 402

402— 39 408 409 411 414 421 423 424 429— 32 442— 45 442— 507 449 452 454 461 462 466 470 476

479 482 493 496 501 508— 10 511 514 516 518 520

Index of passages

Index; of passages

252 31 57 77 78 156 135“ 74 7 5 , 116 125' 156

122

156 116 78, 220 4 6 , 79

111

117 11. 71, 102, 125, 156 ff., 163, 186 157 125, 140, 217 35, 139 144 5 8 , 126 142 21, 67, 94, 95 113, 145 140 151 f. 10, 57 127 175 131, 138 139 226 207 131, 135, 138 12, 40, 88, 127, 174, 206, 233 131, 138 162 146, 215 84 131, 138 87 10, 15 18 162 144 18

0 1— 4 14 54— 77 56 80 90 113

121

135 158 168 170 203 220 236 237 239 240— 43 242 244 253 262 263 281 286— 93 303 306 312 314— 17 318 320 320— Π 1 323 328 331 333 343 343—6 9 347 348 349 358 367 367— 69 370— 78 372, 377 377 381 397 406 410 419 425

227 202, 219 54 130 74 228 12e, 127 14 219 87 55« 74 122 37 55« 75 35 157 211 75, 76 21 55 10, 55, 79 36, 63 28 78 48 23 110 214, 220, 223 f. 184 185 58, 220 10, 15, 195 57 18, 206, 153 128 223 114, 222 129, 2 13 101 207 120 227 21 205 79 173 198 153 52 127 57

425— 28 429 430 431 437 438 440 f. 442 448 455— 57 461 478 494 497 502 521 524 525 538 546 549— 51 551 561 561—6 4 573 575 579 585 592 592— 638 593 605 605— 10 615 618 6 1 8 — 38 624 624— 27 638 639 653 653— 58 661 662

668

690 696— 715 699 701 721 727 733 733— 41 735

48 61 206 153 227, 235 18 27

21

192 29 6 7 ,9 0 91 171 219 48 142. 227 95, 131 13, 217 163 147 126 18

122

56 f. 139, 192 147 60, 111, 127 100, 197 130 178 54 48, 119 227 123 55, 135

111

9 0 , 91 58 173 18 56 223

122

171, 219 22, 53 I. 189, 201. 207 178 , 180 117 75, 121 232 48 57

120

122

Π 69

102 112

102— 24 103

119 130 130— 275 131 168 174

221010 212

257 257— 428 259 269 278— 783 284 284 1. 289 297 306— 51 307 308 313 317 317— 25 319 326 328 330 335 342 343 356 358— 63 363 364 364— 93 367 372 377 384 384— 93 394 399 400 401 402 405

75, 121 98, 110, 232 190

211

87 164 78 118, 190 73 153 58 129 80 123 9, 44 14

10

170 209 15, 114 191 {. 142 55 195 184 15, 225 82 11, 92, 129, 178 60 , 88

8182

18 83 145, 146 18 15 193 194 194 193, 194 85 29, 114, 194, 209 209 20, 22, 23 , 82 23 114 82 195 61 83 19

20

415 415, 419 419 424 f. 428 431 431, 462 433 459 460 462 462— 507 463 465 482 487 492 503 504 508 532 538

120 68 19, 71 27 189, 207 73, 156, 170 37 180 80 51 135, 146, 197 49 174, 221 6 5 s* 58, 126, 131 144, 181 69 104, 205 144 21 49 49, 51, 53, 109, 135, 136, 171, 199, 209 538— P 761. 205 538 ft'. 26 539 28, 51, 169 541 163 541— 48 48 544 52 548 136, 163, 209 562 79 563 209, 233 567 22 569 173 573 153 577 40, 139, 174, 200, 206, 233 579 174, 233 581 148 582 140, 1S9, 201 588 175 593 210, 225 57 596 604 11 606 f. 148 608 136 609 125 610 132 611 182 133, 134, 182 612 157 632 634 215 644 170, 180, 202 646 68 652 135«

253 656 657 658 659 659—61 663—65 664 682 684 685

688 692 694 695 698

702 702— 11 706 707 712 715 716— 20 721 726 727 731 736 737 738 741 743 745 751 752 756 756— 76 762 765 775 777 777— 79 791 791 ft. 794 817 823 844

209 29

220 210 12 13

15

205 209 54, 68 59

61820 68

148 , 154, 175 f., 176 62, 105 46 47

68 68

97 176 205, 209 55« 209

210

198 61, 174, 187, 204, 221, 222 18 146 15 101, 121, 130 209, 233 58 180 178 .140, 180 180, 215 70 81 216 13, 191 133 163 140 58 69

P I — 128 ft. 3

1

159 233 227

Index of passages

254 3— 8 4«.

12 20 19

34 36 43 45 46 47 53 61— 69 73 75 79 80 83

88 91 92 97 108 116

120

123 126 128 128 f. 130 132 132— 316 132 ff. 140 142 142, 268 144 146 156 166 176 194 198

201 204 216 223 225 229 234 245 247

33 33, 132 49 32, 6 6 . 101 147

111011 11 87

27“ 113 35, 58, 161 48, 49,

102 126 176 109, 135

206 184 184, 206 52 96, 97 f. 28 9 8 , 164 , 188 4 1 , 189 105, 113, 135 163, 206 84 105 169

110 12

33, 132, 160 f., 227 159 49 155, 201 4 9 , 121, 155, 171 53 51 53 176 109

211 202 79

9 6 , 180 188 172 219 28 226 117 55 89

262 266 268 274 278 288 288— 311 289 293 294 298 298— 300 300 304 312— 15 317 319 319— 56 319 ff. 327 333 336_542 348— 51 352 356 364 366

79, 206 123 22 206 105 40, 128, 233 17 139, 206 138 82’ 139 40 87 5 7 , 1 3 7 ,1 3 8 233' 128, 184 176 159 49 49, 53, 213 119 160 17 124, 156 105 123 22, 53, 178, 215 366— 77 179 377— 83 179 384—4 0 1 179 389 178, 215 398 123, 130 401— 11 179 434 133 437 85 439 163 441 170, 202 443 96 469 29 475 163 4 7 5 — 80 29 483 1 2 s, 19, 31, 205 483 ff. 25 484 166 491 55« 495 117 496 129 501 25, 29, 92, 131, 172 503 101 503— 06 32 507 136, 166 520 131, 144, 204 523 134

of passages 525 526 527 528 530 533— 626 538 543 ff. 544 545 f. 547 555 556 559 570 575 576 578 582 583— 85 586 589 591 593 593— 96 593— Σ 1 605 608 610 617 620 629 643 645 645— 50 648 649 651 657 674 682 685 694 702— 61 705 707 708 715 722 722— 61 725 732 732— 34 736 737 742

136 f. 208 208 133, 134, 182 166 159 f. 135 49 72, 98 183» 74 116 129 119 161

11 111 57 15

176 4 9 . 53, 71 163, 184, 206 163, 184, 206 52, 63, 224

220

185, 187 128 61 28, 204, 234 19, 198

220 22 21 22 110

53, 224 205

205

99

140, 201 41 105 163, 206

110

178 99 105, 113

112 110 110 111111

128, 232 178, 232 , 111 208 117

746 747 755

110

111, 135 111, 140

Σ

262

35 155

165 176 205 228 239 254 285— 309 288 305 579

96 163, 206 70, 198 46, 105, 140, 215 154 84

10

105 216 154

212

28 217 58

T

1

16 38 85 217

221

223 239 240 300 364 369 374 384 420 421

78, 113 170

211211 211

213 80

, 220

15 148 188 78, 191 73

11

170 217 {. 217

Y 31 48 49 51 79 79 ff. 81 f. 83 83— 85 90 94 ff. 97

79 14, 77, 79, 80 80 80 29, 59 26 176 50 f. 27, 224 83 27 164

98 105

112

133 156 164 178 184 196

211 221 213 215

244 252 261 267 274 278 283 288 290 291 293 318 321 326 332 344 367 376 381 386 389 394 398—400 401 f. 403 407 411 419 421 425 431 434 438 443 444 445 448 449 449— 54 455— 89

51, 188 67 37 14 37 58 66, 75. 122 226 161 208 135 58 31 208 121 125 102 f. 32 125 33 154, 175, 182 36, 202 37 73 12, 37 22, 54 39 87 96 46. 208 87, 199 150 ff. 82, 200 101, 130 106»° 82 101 131, 144, 181, 204 93, 162 28 12, 88, 200, 213 198 96 208 213 77 12, 88 39 46, 62, 105, 212 f. 47 41, 222 94 84

255 456 457 460 460—62 461 463 478 481 486 487 488 490 499— 502 503

24, 101 23, 35, 61

11

23 15 83, 197, 213 23, 35, 61 62 83 12. 62, 225 15 20, 84, 114 106 182

Φ

61

18— 26 34 47 54 74 95 96 108

122

135 141 143 150 155 157 161 162 176 182 184 206 209

211

252 272 331 391 505 509 542 544 545 549 552 553 562 571

85, Π 4

22

23 83, 86, 214 75 96 83, 197 83 188 217 85, 101, 215 56 58 114

66

130, 217 58 146 67“ 46 144 67, 215 13

61820

140 198 48 14 41 228 119 176 143 70, 95 163 f. 96, 97 (. 98, 164

100

256 586 5% 597

index o t passages 171, 219 12. 214 39

X

8— 10 12 46

25 26 33 38 82 92 98 99

122

126 126— 28 139— 66 165 166 167 178— 81 183 188 188— 207 208

80 198 30 30

100

209 227 265—67 268 273 274 275 279 288 289 291 297 308

164 96, 9 7 i. 98, 164 155, 168 41 178 46 37, 156, 202 73

331