Book 12 (Μ）
[3] ὁμιλαδόν, in throngs; the battle is no longer confined to the “πρόμαχοι”, but all the masses of men on both sides are engaged.
[5] 5-6. Cf. 7.449-50. “οὐδὲ .. ἐκατόμβας” is best taken parenthetically, ‘without giving,’ as we should say.
[7] This line, but for the passage in H describing the building of the wall, would naturally imply that the wall had been put round the ships from the first, as an essential precaution. It is likely enough that this was the original idea; the explanation in H that it was built in a sudden emergency being an afterthought when the whole stratum containing the wall came to be incorporated with the Menis and Diomedeia, which know nothing of it.
[9] This line again, but for what immediately follows, would lead us to suppose that the destruction of the wall referred to is that wrought by the Trojans on this very day, when “τεῖχος ἐγυμνώθη” (12.399), and “ἔρειπε τεῖχος Ἀχαιῶν” (15.361). If that is so, then we may limit the latest addition (see Introd.) to the lines 10-33; and to this the awkward repetition of “ἔμπεδον ἦεν” in 12 probably points. The difficulty of the contradiction between these words and 15.361 has long been felt. Schol. A (Porphyrios) mentions an explanation, impossible of course, which gave “ἔμπεδον” here the literal meaning “ἐν πεδίωι κείμενον καὶ μὴ ἁλίπλοον”. It has also been objected that “ὄφρα .. μήνι᾽ Ἀχιλλεύς” implies that the poet of these lines had before him a legend which gave a much longer duration of the “μῆνις” than the few days ascribed to it by the Iliad, which would be so short a life for the wall as to afford no proper contrast with the picture of its subsequent destruction. But it is clear that the “μῆνις” is mentioned as the distinguishing mark of the period which required the building of the wall; it is the terminus a quo of the wall, just as the sacking of Troy mentioned in the next line is the terminus ad quem.
[11] ἦεν: vulg. “ἔπλεν”, a vox nihili; the only Homeric forms are “πέλεν” and “ἔπλετο”. Schol. A says “οὕτως Ἀρίσταρχος ἔπλεν”, Schol. T “Ἀρίσταρχος ἔπλεν σὺν τῶι ν, ἐκ τοῦ ἔπελεν συγκοπὴν δεχόμενος: Ζηνόδοτος ἔπλε ἀποκοπῆι τοῦ ἔπλετο”. It is extremely improbable that the only alternative to Ar.'s “ἔπλεν” was “ἔπλε”. Much more probably it was “ἦεν”, which has the excellent support of P (it had previously been conj. by Heyne and Brandreth). The cause of the change was no doubt an objection to end two consecutive lines with “ἦεν”. But there are several analogies for this in H.; see e.g. 2.290-1.
[14] There is an evident change of thought here; the line begins as though it were to be “πολλοὶ δ᾽ Ἀργείων δάμεν”, and then, as in Od. 4.495 “πολλοὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν γε δάμεν, πολλοὶ δὲ λίποντο”, the thought of those who fell brings up that of the large number who, unlike the Trojan chiefs, survived.
[20] Compare Hesiod Theog. 340-5, where all these rivers, excepting Karesos, are named among the offspring of Okeanos and Tethys. Aisepos, Skamandros, and Simoeis (v. 5.774, 6.4) are the only three which reappear in Homer. The Granikos is of course famous in later history, but those named in 20 are quite unknown.
[22] ὅθι applies only to the last two named. βοάγρια (only here and Od. 16.296), shields of ox-hide, like “βοείη” and “βοῦς”: lit. ‘the spoil of an ox’ (“ἄγρη”). So 14.509 “ἀνδράγρια”, warrior's spoils. Cf. Virg. Aen. i. 100 “ubi tot Simois correpta sub undis Scuta virum galeasque et fortia corpora volvit.”
[23] ἡμιθέων, a word which is not only “ἅπαξ λεγόμενον” in Homer, but is totally inconsistent with his idea of the heroes, who, though of divine descent and stronger than men of his own day, are yet no more than men. The word is found in Hesiod Opp. 160 “ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων θεῖον γένος, οἳ καλέονται ἡμίθεοι”, in the thoroughly un-Homeric passage about the successive ages of mankind. Bentley's ingenious “κάππεσον ἐν δίνηισι καὶ ἰφθίμων μένε᾽ ἀνδρῶν” and Axt's simpler “κ. ἐν κονίηι καὶ ἀρηϊθόων γένος ἀνδρῶν” are equally unlikely.
[25] For ἐννῆμαρ Kallistratos read “ἓν δ᾽ ἦμαρ”, holding it wrong to suppose that a god would require nine days to destroy what men had built in one. But 25-6 disturb the context, and may well be omitted (Hentze). ἡγεῖτο then gives the picture of Poseidon leading the procession of gathered rivers against the wall; whereas with the present text it lacks significance. Besides, in 7.4523 a reason is given for the alliance of Apollo and Poseidon in the destruction, but there is no special excuse for the interference of Zeus.
[26] For the scansion of ξυνεχές as a dactyl cf. Od. 9.74 (the only other occurrence of the word in H.), and Od. 19.113 “πα_ρέχηι”. Metrical necessity does not exist, and we must suppose that the initial “ς” of (“ς”）“έχ-ω” still makes itself felt. “συ_νεχέως” is found in Hes. Theog. 636(Schulze Q. E. 173).
[27] The trident as an attribute of Poseidon occurs elsewhere in H. only in the Odyssey.
[28] ἔκπεμπε κύμασι, expelled along the waves of the sea; the dat. is comitative, as in 207 “πέτετο πνοιῆις ἀνέμοιο”. H. G. § 144.
[29] φιτρῶν and λάων, gen. of material with “θεμείλια”.
[30] λεῖα, possibly a sort of substantival use, ‘he made smoothness,’ made all smooth; compare phrases like “οὐκέτι φυκτὰ πέλονται”. It is, however, simpler and quite possible to make the word agree with “θεμείλια”, made them smooth.
[33] ἵεν = “ἵεσαν”, as Pind. I. i. 25 “λιθίνοις ὁπότ᾽ ἐν δίσκοις ἵεν”. Cf. 2.752 “ὅς ῥ᾽ ἐς Πηνειὸν προϊεῖ καλλίρροον ὕδωρ” (and the spurious 21.58 “Ἀξιοῦ ὃς κάλλιστον ὕδωρ ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἵησι”). If we read “ἵει” (“ἵη”) we must refer it to Poseidon. “ἴεν” is also possible.
[34] For ὧς ἄρ᾽ ἔμελλον Zen. read “ὧς ἤμελλον”, a form not elsewhere found in Homer, and called ‘barbarous’ by Ar., though it is sufficiently established in later poets from Theognis onwards.
[36] δούρατα, beams (as 2.135, etc.), the “φιτροί” of 29. Ar. perversely took it to mean spears cast against the towers (“ἐλλείπει ἡ ἐπί, ἵν᾽ ἦι κανάχιζε δὲ δούρατα ὡς ἐπὶ πύργους βαλλόμενα”). For “βάλλεσθαι” = be pelted cf. 9.573 “δοῦπος ὀρώρει πύργων βαλλομένων”, 588 “θάλαμος πύκ᾽ ἐβάλλετο”.
[37] Cf. 13.812 “Διὸς μάστιγι κακῆι ἐδάμημεν Ἀχαιοί”. The metaphor expresses the sway which Zeus wields over the battle, driving the armies backward and forward as a horse is driven by a goad (see on 23.387) — an idea which is more usually given by the metaphor of pulling with a rope. So Aisch. Sept. 608 “πληγεὶς θεοῦ μάστιγι” (see Verrall's note), Aisch. Ag. 642, etc. “διπλῆι μάστιγι τὴν Ἄρης φιλεῖ”.
[41] “ὅτ᾽ ἂν .. στρέφεται” is obviously wrong; “στρέφεται” cannot be a subj., see note on 1.67. Brandreth and Paech conj. “ὡς δ᾽ ὁπότ᾽”, Nauck “ἠύτε δ᾽”, Monro most ingeniously “ὡς δ᾽ ὅτ᾽ ἔναντα” (cf. 20.67; but the dat. is unexplained, and there seems to be no better analogy than the doubtful dat. with “ἀντίος” in 15.584, 20.422, and with “ἀντιάειν” 6.127, 21.151, 431). An original “ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε”, with hiatus, would best explain the text.
[43] πυργηδόν, in serried line, “κατὰ τάξιν τείχους” Hesych., rightly. See on 4.334.
[46] φοβεῖται must here mean fears, in spite of the canon of Ar. that in Homer it always means to flee; cf. 11.544. For the second half of the line cf. 6.407 “δαιμόνιε, φθίσει σε τὸ σὸν μένος”, and 16.753 “ἑή τέ μιν ὤλεσεν ἀλκή”.
[47] πειρητίζων takes the acc. only here; so that it seems very probable that the line is a faulty adaptation of 15.615 “καί ῥ᾽ ἔθελε ῥῆξαι στίχας ἀνδρῶν πειρητίζων”. This line and the next can hardly be defended; the repetition of “στίχες ἀνδρῶν” is very harsh, and the aor. “ἔκτα” following the presents according to the usual practice should mark the end of the simile (11.555, 12.305, 16.753, 17.112, 664) (Hentze).
[49] ἐλλίσσεθ᾽ is the vulg. reading; it is an obvious anti-climax after so martial a simile, but the inappropriateness lies in the whole application of the comparison, not in any single word (see Introd.). The variant “εἱλίσσεθ᾽” is old, but looks like an attempt to give the application a superficial connexion with the simile by a reference to “στρέφεται”. Nikanor says “τὸ ἐλίσσετο ἑκατέροις δύναται προσδίδοσθαι, καὶ σημαίνει ἢ τὸ παρεκάλει παρὰ τὸ λίσσεσθαι ἢ ἐστρέφετο παρὰ τὸ ἑλίσσω ῥῆμα”. He decides in favour of the former, on account of the awkwardness of the pause in the fifth foot if we have to join “ἑταίρους” with “ἐποτρύνων”. Monro replies that there are two cases of similar rhythm in this passage, 44 and 51. But in the former at least “θαμειάς” is best taken as part of the predicate, dart thick the spears. Compare note on 13.611. Gerhard conj. “ἐϝελίσσεθ᾽ ἑταίρων”, without removing the fundamental difficulty. “λίσσεσθαι” is a duty urged upon Hector in 5.491.
[50] It has been objected with force to οἱ that a reference to all the Trojan horses, not Hector's only, is needed. Hence Weil conj. “οὐδέ τωι”, van L. “οὐδέ τοι”.
[52] χείλει ἐφεσταότες is the vulg.; but the variant “χείλεϊ ἑσταότες” is too strongly attested to be neglected, in view of the improbability of hiatus being introduced; it had already been conj. by Brandreth (“χείλεϊν” — he had a theory that “ν ἐφελκ”. could be added to the dat.) with the comment ‘Homerus praepositionem non duplicat.’
[53] σχεδόν here is not very easy to explain; Monro takes it to mean right over, at a bound, comparing “σχέδιος” and “αὐτοσχέδιος”, immediate, off-hand. Similarly “παρασχεδόν” in Ap. Rhod.i. 698 = continuo. Perhaps it may mean in order, in serried ranks, lit. ‘holding on’ to one another; one here or there might cross, but only to be separated from the main body, and attacked in detail. This is closer to the sense of near, which is elsewhere universal in Homer. In this case it will go with both verbs.
[54] κρημνοὶ ἐπηρεφέες, overhanging sides. So “πέτραι” Od. 10.131 , Od. 12.59. περὶ πᾶσαν, round all the circuit of the trench.
[55] σκολόπεσσιν, stakes arranged along the upper edge, so as to prevent a jumper alighting, like the modern abattis or chevaux de frise.
[56] ἵστασαν: so P. Knight for the “ἔστασαν” of tradition and Ar., which is taken to be for “ἔστησαν”, but is an impossible form. (G. Meyer's suggestion, Gr. § 530, that the sigmatic aor. like other tenses may have originally had a weak stem for the pl., of which this is a solitary relic, is very improbable.) It occurs in other passages, but in each case with the variant “ἵστασαν”, which has rightly been adopted by edd. (see Od. 3.182, also Od. 8.435, Od. 18.307, 2.525, 18.346). For the imperf. where we use the pluperf. see H. G. § 73; and also § 72. 2. Nauck's conj. “ἤραρον” is needless.
[58] ῥέα: Bentley “ῥεἶ”, Brandr. “οὐ ῥεῖά κεν”.
[59] For ἐσβαίη (get within the circuit) Zen. and Aph.read “καββαίη”, which is possible; see on 65. τελέουσι, future after historical tense, here only; Platt conj. “εἰ τελέοιεν”. But the fut. is familiar in late Greek, and in this book may be right. μενοίνεον, only here; the form is else always “μενοινάω”.
[60] Ἕκτορα εἶπε, a constr. which recurs in 12.210, 13.725, 17.237, 334, 651, 20.375 (23.155? Od. 23.91?). See note on 5.170.
[64] ποτί, apparently leaning against them, i.e. close behind. The phrase is a curious one, but the vulg. “περί” is worse. Platt conj. “αὐτήν”, which is more natural (or “αὐτῆι”?). Throughout the book we are left in doubt as to whether or no there is a space between wall and moat. Much is made of the difficulty presented by the moat up to 200, but after that line it is completely forgotten, and we are never actually told that it is crossed.
[65] Franke and Hentze reject this and the following line, on the ground that the difficulty lies not in the descent, but in the ascent on the opposite side. But for a chariot the descent of a “κρημνὸς ἐπηρεφής” is as serious a matter as the ascent. The idea seems to be, ‘we cannot even get into the trench with horses, nor, even if we get across, can we fight on the other side; for the space between the wall and the trench is a “στεῖνος”, too small for chariots.’
[66] τρώσεσθαι, come to harm, as in “ηεροδ. τρῶμα” = defeat. So 23.341 and Od. 21.293 “οἶνός σε τρώει”. For “στεῖνος” cf. 23.419.
[69] τοῦτο here refers to what the speaker himself says, and is therefore one of the very rare exceptions to the rule by which in H. “οὗτος” is distinguished from “ὅδε”. The distinction is less rigid in Attic writers, and the use of “τοῦτο” may therefore be a sign of lateness. It is only with some violence that we can read into it the proper sense, ‘this object of yours.’
69-70 are to be taken parenthetically, the apodosis to “εἰ μέν” in 67 being understood, or rather superseded; ‘if Zeus means to destroy them — that is what I wish to happen at once.’ Obviously “εἰ μέν” does not express a condition of his wishing the enemy destroyed. Cf. 1.135-7.
[71] ὑποστρέψωσι may be either intrans., turn against us (11.446), or turn us back (5.581). But the former is the regular Homeric use. παλίωξις for “παλιίωξις”, and hence always with long “ι”.
[72] ἐνιπλήξωμεν, lit. ‘stumble upon,’ get entangled in, like the birds in Od. 22.469 which “ἕρκει ἐνιπλήξωσιν”. So also 15.344.
[74] ἑλιχθέντων, rallied; for the order of words cf. 2.334. ὑπό, with “ἀπονέεσθαι”, lit. from under, as often with verbs of flight, 8.149, 17.319, etc. There is no ground for taking “ἑλιχθέντων” with some to mean ‘(the Trojans) turned back by the Greeks,’ contrary to the regular use of the word.
[77] πρυλέες, apparently predicate, on foot: see on 5.744.
[80] ἀπήμων, profitable, by the usual litotes. So 13.748, 14.164, and in Od., Od. 5.268, etc. “οὖρος ἀπήμων”. But the passive sense unharmed is commoner.
[82] ἠγερέθοντο, remained gathered together, opposed to 86 “διαστάντες”. The curious variant “ἠερέθ”（“ο”）“ντο” (stayed aloft?) has the support also of a schol. “ἠ”[“γ”]“ερέθοντο, ἀπαιωροῦντο, ἐκρέμαντο”, and is apparently alluded to in Hesych. and Et. Mag. But the other occurrences of the verb (2.448, 3.108, 21.12） do not encourage us to substitute it for the text.
[86] The text is obviously superior to the vulg. “ἀρτύναντες .. ἕποντο”, with the intolerable sequence of participles. Cf. 3.1 for the phrase ἅμ᾽ ἡγεμόνεσσιν ἕκαστοι.
[87] This division of the army into five bodies is quite forgotten in the following narrative; the allies, who are here (101) made into a single division, are elsewhere represented as far outnumbering the Trojans; 2.130.
[91] Kebriones was chosen by Hector as his charioteer in 8.318. τρίτος: it will be observed that each division has three leaders named.
[93] ἑτέρων, the second body, as 7.420, etc. With this enumeration compare the Catalogue of the Trojans, 2.816-77; the Dardanii there (819-23) seem to compose the fourth division here.
[96] 96-7 = 2.838-9. The leaders of the second division are not named in the Catalogue.
[101] ἡγεῖτο is clearly right, not the vulg. “ἡγήσατ᾽”: compare the preceding imperfects “εἵπετο” and “ἦρχε”. The desire to avoid the legitimate hiatus in the main caesura has frequently led to corruptions of this sort, as Ahrens has pointed out.
[105] βόεσσι, shields, see 7.238. This seems to indicate a rudimentary sort of testudo. The men stand so close side by side that the long shields hanging in front touch one another. Cf. 13.130 f. “φράξαντες δόρυ δουρί, σάκος σάκεϊ προθελύμνωι: ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε, κτλ.”
[107] The subject of σχήσεσθαι is probably, from the use of “ἔφαντο, Δαναούς”: they fancied that the Greeks would no longer hold their ground. But there is an ambiguity as usual; it may mean they thought they would no longer be stopped, but would fall upon the ships. See note on 9.235.
[112] σὺν αὐτοῖσιν, not simply ‘with them,’ but a form of the phrase “αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἵπποις”, horses and all. It has been pointed out in the Introd. that the following episode is added simply in order to explain how it is that when Asios is slain in 13.384 ff. he has chariot and horses with him. The phrase which has caused so much trouble, “νηῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά” (118), is taken from 13.675, because the reference there covers the fight in which Asios falls.
[116] δυσώνυμος: cf. 6.255 “δυσώνυμοι” “υἷες Ἀχαιῶν,” Od. 19.571 “ἥδε δὴ ἠὼς εἶσι δυσώνυμος”: hardly to be named, accursed. ἀμφεκάλυψεν: the metaphor is given fully in 16.350 “θανάτου νέφος ἀμφεκάλυψεν”, cf. 20.417, 5.68. The idea is that of death darkening the eyes like a cloud (see 16.333).
[117] For ἔγχεϊ Agar conj. the more usual “ἔγχει ὑπ᾽”: for “Ἰδομενεύς” never admits an initial “ϝ. Δευκαλίδαο”, son of Deukalion, the patronymic being formed from the short form of the name; so “Ἀνθεμίδης” 4.488 = son of Anthemion, 4.473.
[119] νίσσοντο may mean either were (now) going or were wont to go. The latter is preferable, as there is no mention of an attack on any stragglers, and “εἰ” with opt. in 122 perhaps implies that there were none. There is of course a causeway over the trench by which Asios drives across (“διήλασεν”).
[120] πύληισιν, here evidently of a single gate; see Introd. and note on 175.
[122] Cf. 21.531 “πεπταμένας ἐν χερσὶ πύλας ἔχετ᾽, εἰς ὅ κε λαοὶ ἔλθωσι πρότι ἄστυ πεφυζότες”.
[124] ἰθὺς φρονέων go together, with aim direct, as 13.135 “οἱ δ᾽ ἰθὺς φρόνεον”. So “ἰθὺς μεμαώς” 8.118, 11.95.
[125] For the form κεκλήγοντες (or “κεκληγόντες”) with the variant “κεκληγῶτες” see H. G. §§ 26 (1), 27, van L. Ench. § 159, and cf. note on “κεκοπώς” 13.60. The repetition from 106-7 at such close quarters seems very weak.
[127] The dual, as read by Zen. and Aph.in this line and the next, clearly deserves the preference over the plur. of the vulg., as the tendency to substitute the plur. for dual is here, as elsewhere, reinforced by the tendency to abolish permissible hiatus. The form υἱέε does not recur elsewhere, but is of course implied in the declension “υἱέος”, etc., which is constantly found.
[128] The Lapiths are named again only in 181 and Od. 21.297 in H. See, however, note on 1.265-8. Here again the possibility of Attic influence is strongly suggested in so late a passage. Leonteus and Polypoites are named in 2.740-7, without any specific reference to Lapith origin.
[131] The difficulty alluded to in the Introd., the simile which presents the two heroes as rooted like oaks in front of the gate, followed by another (145) which portrays them as rushing through the gates, has long been felt, and the three possible explanations are all old. (1) 141-53 are to be transposed, so as immediately to follow 130 (so ‘some’ in the long scholion of Porphyrios on the passage). (2) 131-40 and 141-53 are a double recension, and one of them should be expelled (Hephaistion, ibid.). (3) The poet, after stating the main fact, turns back to the circumstances which led up to it; so that 141-53, though subsequent in order, are to be understood as precedent in time, as in 6.159 (where, however, there is no ambiguity), and 9.529 (where the confusion is even worse than here). This is Porphyrios' own explanation; but it seems to be equivalent to saying that the poet did not know how to tell a story. (2) is no doubt right, though we must not talk of ‘expelling’ either version till we consider ourselves in a position to reconstruct all the original elements of the Iliad.
[137] Why πρὸς τεῖχος? We have just been told that they were attacking the gate, not the wall. Apparently this is a fragment of an older narrative where Asios leads a division against the wall on foot; we hear no more of horses and chariot. βόας, shields, see note on 7.238 “βῶν”.
[141] οἱ: to whom does this refer? If to the Lapiths, it should be “τώ”, as 145 (and so Bentley conj.). Probably the pronoun at the beginning of the ‘other recension’ (141-53) may originally have had a quite different reference. εἵως, properly “ἧος”, for a while. In this sense it is always followed by “μέν,” 13.143, 15.277, 17.730, Od. 2.148, Od. 3.126. In several of these passages the more usual “τείως” occurs as a variant, and so Brandreth (“τειος”) and Nauck (“τῆος”) would read here.
[142] As the passage stands ὄρνυον must be transl. by a plpf., had been inciting; the narrative reverts to the moment preceding the attack of Asios, when the Lapithae are still on the walls. Hence ἐόντες, the reading of Ar. and best MSS., is clearly preferable to the variant “ἐόντας”.
[147] δέχαται: an anomalous form, for which see note on 2.794.
[148] δοχμώ: cf. Hor. Carm. iii. 22. 7 “verris obliquum meditantis ictum.”
[149] Cf. 11.417.
[151] Observe how a mere detail in the original scheme of the simile is here made the base of a fresh simile. It must be confessed, however, that the sudden turn is rather disturbing to the effect. Ameis refers for similar ‘twosided’ comparisons to 15.623 ff., 13.492 ff., 795 ff. κομπεῖν occurs only here.
[153] Zen. appears to have read “λάοισιν” for λαοῖσιν, and to have explained it as = “λάεσσιν”, ‘trusting to the stones thrown from above.’ Observe the use of καθύπερθε used attributively with the subst., where later Greek would require the addition of a participle, “οὖσιν” or the like.
[160] The addition of the Trojans is a curiously awkward afterthought. ῥέον too, though the proper correlative to 5.618 etc. “δούρατ᾽ ἔχευαν”, has an odd effect in this connexion. αὖον ἀύτευν: cf. “καρφαλέον ἄυσεν” 13.409 (whence Fick conj. “αὖον ἄυον” here), “fragor aridus” Virgil, and “sonus aridus” Lucretius.
[161] μυλάκεσσι, as large as millstones, cf. 7.270 “μυλοειδέϊ πέτρωι”.
[162] 162 = 15.397, Od. 13.198.
[163] ἀλαστήσας, only here, 15.21 “ἠλάστεον δὲ θεοί”, and Od. 1.252 “ἐπαλαστήσασα”. The explanation of the word depends on that of “ἄλαστος”, which is generally derived from “λαθ”, in the sense not to be forgotten, which suits wherever it is an epithet of “ἄχος” or “πένθος”. But in 22.261 “Ἕκτορ ἄλαστε” this will not do, nor is it easy to deduce the sense of the verb from it (‘to feel things intolerable, lit. not to be forgotten,’ hence ‘to break out in protest,’ as Monro and others explain, is very artificial). It is preferable with some of the ancient grammarians to derive “ἄλαστος” (or perhaps rather “ἀλαστός”) from *“ἀλάζω”, a by-form of “ἀλά-ομαι” with the sense of “ἀλύω”. The adjective will then mean ‘mad,’ distraught, and the verb “ἀλαστέω”, to be distressed, at one's wit's end.
[164] The accusation is a mere outbreak of petulance. If ground for it is required, it may be found in the promise in 11.207 sqq.; cf. 8.170-82, 3.365-6.
[167] αἰόλοι, bright = coloured, variegated. Others after Buttmann take it to mean flexible, from the thin waist of the wasp; cf. 19.404 “πόδας αἰόλος ἵππος”. The same ambiguity arises in line 208 “αἰόλον ὄφιν,” 22.509 “αἰόλαι εὐλαί”.
[169] Observe the transition from the subjunctive to the more graphic indicative.
[170] ἄνδρας may be taken either with “μένοντες”, when for “ἀμύνονται περί” compare 243, or better with “ἀμύνονται”.
[171] It has been mentioned in the Introd. that the comparison to a swarm of wasps or bees entirely loses its point when restricted to two men only. Erhardt remarks that we have only to read “ὑψηλάων” for καὶ δύ᾽ ἐόντε to restore good sense, by referring the comparison to the whole Greek army instead of the pair of Lapiths.
[175] 175-81. These lines, which the ancient critics unanimously rejected, are plainly an addition meant to explain that the gate where Asios attacked is not that where Hector ultimately breaks in. On this see the Introd. The question probably did not arise in the mind of the author of the Asios episode. Ar. discussed the question in his treatise On the Naval Camp, maintaining that there was only one gate, and that on the left (118). Such an arrangement would be absurd, and a comparison of 13.312 and 679 shews that, in N at least, Hector is conceived as having attacked in the centre, where, if there was only one gate, it must have been. But it is useless to expect consistency in such details from a composite work like the Iliad. 175 is plainly adapted from 15.414. Furthermore, the introduction of the poet's personality in 176 is a mark of a late origin, cf. 2.484, 761, etc. In 177 τεῖχος is violently separated from λάϊνον, and the mention of fire is quite out of place, as the Trojans have not yet reached the ships, and indeed only a few have even crossed the trench. It has been proposed to join λάϊνον with πῦρ and explain it of ‘the flame of battle carried on with stones.’ This is, however, even less possible than to join λάϊνον with τεῖχος, however unnatural the order of the words is, and however feeble the adjective in the emphatic place. Bentley conj. “δήϊον”, which would evade the difficulty, but is too familiar to be corrupted, unless from the Attic form “δάϊον”. Besides, when an epithet of “πῦρ, δήϊον” never has the first syll. in arsis; see on 9.674.
[181] The return to the two Lapiths is most clumsy, and the phrase συμβαλεῖν πόλεμον is unique.
[184] 184-6: cf. 20.398-400; 185-6 = 11.97-8. The variant “ἱεμένη” (“ϝιεμένη”, speeding) is perhaps to be preferred to χαλκείη, which has been used in the preceding line.
[189] ζωστῆρα: App. B, vi. τυχήσας, hitting his mark, 4.106.
[192] αὐτοσχεδίην, sc. “πληγήν”: see 5.830 “τύψον δὲ σχεδίην. οὖδας ἔρεισεν”: see on 11.144.
[196] οἵ is here the relative, and so in the next line, which is added to describe those here named; in 199 it is demonstrative. Cf. 88-9.
[198] ῥήξειν: for the fut. after “μέμασαν” here and in 200, 218 cf. note on 7.36. The aor. has fairly good support here.
[199] The narrative reverts to 59, “μενοίνεον εἰ τελέουσι”.
[201] ἐέργων, skirting the host on his left, i.e. flying along the line in front from right to left. For this sense of “ἐέργειν” cf. Herod.vii. 43 “ἐπορεύετο ἐνθεῦτεν ἐν ἀριστερῆι μὲν ἀπέργων Ῥοίτειον πόλιν”, and so vii. 109, etc. It is derived from that of bounding, as 2.845, etc.
[202] φοινήεντα only here and 220; cf. “δαφοινός” of a snake, 2.308.
[203] ἔτι seems to go with “ζωόν, ἀσπαίροντα” explaining it. The variant “ὁ δ᾽” for καί, though found only in a late quot., is most probably right; it gives the required change of person, for the subj. of λήθετο is of course the snake.
[204] Probably we ought to read, with Heyne, “κόψε δέ ϝ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔχοντα”, he struck him (the eagle) holding himself (the snake). κόψε and ἔχοντα both seem to require an object expressed, and if we take αὐτόν as the acc. after “κόψε” the emphatic pronoun is out of place (‘struck at him in return,’ Monro). Herodianos apparently read γάρ αὐτον, holding that “αὐτός” in the merely anaphoric and non-emphatic use was enclitic.
[207] κλάγξας: the eagle's cry is called a yelp by Tennyson. πνοιῆις, a comitative dat.; see on “κύμασι”, 28. Ap. Rhod. imitates the use in i. 600, iv. 1624, “πνοιῆι Ζεφύροιο θέεσκον” , both times of a ship, where the case may rather be instrumental; though it would not be wrong to say that the eagle flew by means of the wind. “ἅμα πν. ἀνέμοιο” is the usual phrase.
[208] αἰόλον, glistening or wriggling, see on 167. ὅπως: Brandreth conj. “ἐπεί”, which has some support from quotations, and is certainly right; see on 11.459. ὄφιν: the word does not recur in H., and the irregular lengthening is unexplained. Tzetzes quotes from Hipponax ( fr. 49. 6) a choliambic “ἢν αὐτὸν ὄφις τὠντικνήμιον δάκνηι”, and Antimachos ( fr. 78) has “Τήνου ὀφιοέσσης” in a hexameter — the latter, however, is excused by metrical necessity. The same is true of “ὀφιόδειροι”, in an oracle quoted by Aristotle mir. ausc. 24. G. Meyer (Gr. § 210) compares the frequent cases of “κχ, πφ, τθ” written for simple “χ, φ, θ”: “ὄκχον” Pind. O. vi. 24, “ὀκχέω” ii. 67, “σκύπφος” Hes. fr. 194(Rzach), and on inscriptions. The same lengthening is found but not expressed in letters, in “βρο?χος” Hes. Theog.1099, “φιλόσο_φον” Ar. Eccl. 571, “φαιο_χίτωνες” Aisch. Cho. 1049.Schol. Heph. explains it “διὰ τὴν σφοδρότητα τοῦ πνεύματος, ὡς καὶ Ἡλιοδώρωι δοκεῖ τῆι δασείαι πλέον τι νέμειν”, i.e. the breathed element of the aspirate makes position. Demetrios de eloc. thought that Homer purposely made a “στίχος μείουρος” for the sake of effect (to express the serpent's tail?). Brandreth conj. “ὕδρον” (cf. 2.723); but the analogies given are sufficient to defend the text, whatever the explanation. See Schulze Q. E. p. 431 and App. D (C 3).
[211] The exordium is quite inexplicable after Polydamas' speech in 80 ff., where he has given advice which Hector at once accepts. The two passages evidently belong to different versions; but the present conception of the relations of the two men is the more prevalent, as it recurs in 13.726 ff., and is brought out at length in 18.243-313. Polydamas is there introduced (249-52) as though he were an unknown character; and it is likely enough that he first appeared there, and is a later comer in this place, his words referring to the general view of him there established. ἀεί, with “α^”, is an Attic form recurring only in 23.648, Od. 15.379. Hence Brandreth conj. “Ἕκτορ, ἔμ᾽ αἰεί πως μέν”, van L. “Ἕκτωρ, αἰεί πώς μοι”.
[212] The repetition of the negative gives a rhetorical emphasis; the second “οὐδέ” going more especially with the verb, cf. “οὐδὲ ἔοικε” 1.119 and often; e.g. Od. 5.212 “οὔ πως οὐδὲ ἔοικε”.
[213] δῆμον in the sense of ‘one of the vulgar’ is a strange use, as the tendency of “δῆμος” is so decidedly to express the total community as opposed to any individual. Hence Bentley's conj. “δήμου ἐόντα” is probably right; cf. 2.198 “δήμου ἄνδρα”. Horace's “plebs eris,” Ep. i. 1. 59 , may be an imitation, but proves nothing. παρέξ, aside from the straight way, i.e. wrongly (from Hector's point of view — a touch of irony). This sense is else only Odyssean: Od. 4.348, Od. 17.139, Od. 23.16; cf. Od. 14.168.
[214] ἀέξειν: supply “ἔοικε” from 212.
[217] εἰ here assumes as a fact, and virtually = since.
[218] ἐπῆλθε: Ar. “ἦλθε” to preserve the familiar scansion. But “ὄρνι^ς” recurs in 24.219, and in Attic we find “ὄρνιν” and “ὄρνεις”, and occasionally “ὄρνι^ς”, Soph. Ant. 1021, Soph. El. 149, Eur. Her. 72. “ὄρνι^ς” is the original stem, “ὄρνι_ς” is from “ὀρνι-ιθ-”, a diminutive; cf. “μάστι_ξ” = “μαστι-ιγ-ς” beside “μάστι^ς”. The form should not be interfered with, and the compound “ἐπῆλθε” is required as in 200. “ὄρνι_ς” occurs in 9.323, but there length may be due to the ictus.
[222] ἐτέλεσσε, completed his journey, φέρων δόμεναι being taken together. For this pregnant sense of “τελέω” cf. Od. 7.325 “ἄτερ καμάτοιο τέλεσσαν ἤματι τῶι αὐτῶι”.
[224] εἴξωσι, it will be seen, has very much better support than “εἴξουσι”, but it may be questioned if the fut. indic. is not better here — “ῥηξόμεθα” being of course ambiguous. Compare the end of Hector's reply, 248-50, where the fut. indic. is used; his words sound almost like a taunting echo of these. But see H. G. § 292 b in defence of the subj.
[225] οὐ κόσμωι, litotes. αὐτὰ κέλευθα: so Od. 8.107 “ἦρχε δὲ τῶι αὐτὴν ὁδόν”, and so Od. 16.138; in 6.391 we have “τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδόν”.
[229] For the gen. after οἶδα see H. G. § 151 d; and for the transition from the rel. ὅς to the anaphoric οἱ compare 1.79, etc.
[231] 231-4 = 7.357-360.
[236] For this promise see the note on 164.
[238] Paley suggests that a note of interrogation should be put after πείθεσθαι, which gives more force to the emphatic τύνη: ‘are you the one to persuade me?’
[239] This line opens the difficult question of Homeric augury. The Trojans are at the moment looking N.; a bird has passed them ‘keeping them on his left,’ i.e. flying from their right to left, from E. to W., through N., that is, ‘widershins,’ ‘against the sun,’ ‘counter-clockwise’; whereas the lucky ways are from left to right, with the sun, from W. to In E. whichever direction an observer looks, the direction from his right to his left will always be ‘widershins,’ so long as he regards himself as the centre of the horizon; but it will only be from E. to W. so long as he looks N. But if ζόφος means W. (on which point see below), Hector speaks as though the two conditions were identical. Are we therefore to conclude, as has almost universally been done, that the Homeric augur always looked to the N.? The conclusion is hardly justified; Hector may be speaking only with a special reference to the omen which is uppermost in his thought. For we find in other cases that the position of an omen to the right is lucky even when we must suppose that the observer is facing S.; see 10.274. In the case immediately before us the main element seems to be the direction of flight, and this is insisted on in Hector's words. But in other cases mere position, apart from direction of movement, is sufficient, e.g. 10.274, 24.312, Od. 24.311. And whether the augur could detect the direction of the movement of the lightning flash in 2.353, 9.236 may be doubted; it seems more natural to take “ἐπιδέξια, ἐνδέξια” in those two places as meaning ‘on the right hand’ rather than ‘from left to right.’ But the main difficulty arises when we come to the circulation of the wine. Here the drinker is on the circumference of a circle, looking inwards. Thus ‘right’ and ‘left’ with regard to the movement of the sun have changed places; if he passes the wine from his left hand to his right, the previously lucky direction, it is now going ‘widershins,’ the previously unlucky direction. We may get over this by supposing that the wine-pourer goes round the circle outside, and that “ἐνδέξια” is used from his point of view, just as in 201 “ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά” is from the eagle's; ‘having the guests on his right’ is still the same as ‘with the sun’ (see Jevons in C. R. x. 22). Or we may hold that ‘widershins’ was the lucky direction for the wine, as it is said that some folk in Scotland still do (Darbishire Rell. Phil. 70 ff.). Again, in many cases the direction or position of the omen seems to be of no importance; all depends on concomitant circumstances. The general conclusion is clear — that we can form no consistent scheme of Homeric augury; it would be strange if we could, for the existence of contradictions is the very raison d'être of the “θεοπρόπος ὃς σάφα θυμῶι εἰδείη τεράων”. A further question is raised in Darbishire's paper already referred to, that of the meaning of ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα as opposed to πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε. It is there argued with some force that these expressions mean ‘to the north’ and ‘to the south’ respectively, not to east and west. There can be no doubt that these points of the compass suit best the conceptions of the realm of darkness and the realm of the sun. The sense N. and S. also simplifies a notorious crux in Od. 9.26, where Strabo took “πρὸς ζόφον” to mean ‘to the N.,’ as the facts require. But then we are obliged to fall back upon the supposed primitive sense of “ἠώς”, brightness, daylight, rather than dawn. If this interpretation be upheld, it appears that there is no longer any ground for the ordinary statement, based solely, it would seem, on this passage, that the Greek augur faced the N.; it will follow that he normally faced the E., for Hector's statement would become general; the eagle of 201 cannot have flown from S. to N.
It may be noticed that this indifference of Hector to omens is in the spirit of the Homeric age; the art of augury is little developed and has little positive effect at any time. Signs encourage or discourage a resolution already taken, but they never determine or prevent any enterprise as they did in later times. Indeed they are elsewhere lightly spoken of; e.g. Od. 2.181 “ὄρνιθες δέ τε πολλοὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐγὰς ἠελίοιο φοιτῶσ᾽, οὐδέ τε πάντες ἐναίσιμοι”.
[245] περί, all around, in every direction.
[250] 250 = 11.433. 244-50 were bracketed by Bekker; a modern poet would certainly not have added them after the fine climax in 243, but in matters such as this modern taste is not decisive; a modern poet would have closed the Agamemnon with the murder. The sudden change of thought with asyndeton in 244 is softened by the emphatic σύ, which takes up again the “τύνη” of 237, and the unjust and violent reproach is not inconsistent with the character of Hector.
[255] θέλγε, befooled, bewitched. The verb, which is much commoner in the Od. than Il., means to charm in either a good sense (e.g. Od. 17.514) or a bad, as here, 13.435, etc.; cf. 24.343. The scholia note with some justice that this action of Zeus is rather inconsistent, as the omen, for which he is presumably responsible, has just come to discourage the Trojans.
[257] Note that, after all that has been said about the difficulty of crossing the trench, the Trojan army is now found on the other side of it, without a word to say that it is actually passed.
[258] κρόσσας was explained by Ar. to mean scaling-ladders; he then had to make πύργων mean towards the towers just as in 36, q.v. This is clearly impossible; the word must indicate some part of the fortification and be distinct from the ἔπαλξις, which we may presume to have been a wooden breastwork. It is not possible to give a closer explanation of the word, which recurs in H. only in 444. Herodotos uses it once (ii. 125) of the steps of the pyramids. It might seem reasonable therefore to understand it here of courses of masonry; but such courses would hardly have been arranged so as to form steps for an assailant, as would follow, if this interpretation be right, from 444, and the last desire of assailants would be to destroy so convenient a construction. Others take it to mean a single course of coping-stones on which the breastwork was built; others again explain it of the battlements proper, i.e. high pieces of the breastwork between the embrasures; but there is no other indication of such construction. The question is not elucidated by the adj. “προκρόσσας” in 14.35, nor has any convincing derivation been proposed. πύργων probably means no more than fortification; see 7.338. The στῆλαι προβλῆτες are evidently posts, probably of wood, the “φιτροί” of 29, fixed into the ground in order to hold up the earth and give a steep face to the ‘profile’ of the works, like the modern ‘revetment.’
[261] αὐέρυον: see on 1.459. The imperf. here and in the preceding lines is of course conative.
[262] κελεύθου: cf. “θεῶν δ᾽ ἀπόεικε κελεύθου” read by Ar. in 3.406. It seems to be identical with our vernacular ‘to get out of the way,’ i.e. the place where men are going up and down. Cf. 11.504.
[263] φράξαντες, stopping up the gaps where the battlements had been broken down. ῥινοῖσι βοῶν is generally taken to mean with shields, but in this sense “ῥινός” alone is the usual phrase (4.447, 8.61), and the addition of βοῶν perhaps indicates that they had whole hides ready at hand for the purpose of temporarily stopping breaches; a simple and effective device.
[265] κελευτιόωντε recurs only in 13.125; it is of the desiderative class, though in sense ‘imitative rather than desiderative,’ playing the leader (Curtius Vb. ii. 388). It is the only instance of this formation in H.
[268] νείκεον for “νεικέοντες”, a relapse into the direct narrative form, as in 3.80, 8.346, 18.535-7. The line is, however, superfluous, and Nauck is perhaps right in doubting its authenticity. In any case “νείκεον” can refer only to “στερεοῖς”, not to “μειλιχίοις”. For the metaphorical use of στερεός, hard, cf. 9.510, 23.42, Od. 23.103.
[269] “μεσήεις, ἅπαξ εἰρημένον”. For similar formations cf. “ὀξυόεις” (see note on 5.50), “φαιδιμόεις”. As a rule adjectives in “-εις” are only formed from substantives. Perhaps therefore we must assume here a form “μέση” used as an abstract substantive, as if = ‘middleness.’ Goebel conj. “μεσηγύς”.
[271] ἔπλετο: for this use of the aor. to express present time see H. G. §§ 33, 78.
[273] ὁμοκλητῆρος ἀκούσας, a phrase which recurs in 23.452, and is more intelligible there. The verb is regularly used of one who urges on by loud reproof. If this is the sense here, the participle must be entirely separated from the negative, and we must understand ‘let no man turn back, now that he has heard one who urges him on.’ Otherwise it must mean ‘let no man turn because he hears a shouter,’ viz. the shout of the foe. The first alternative is more probable, but the vulgate “ἀκούων” would limit us to the second.
[274] πρόσω: so Heyne for the vulg. “πρόσσω”, which will not scan, for ῞εσθε = hasten has “ϝι_-”: 4.138.
[276] For νεῖκος in the sense of battle cf. 4.444, etc., and 13.271 “νεῖκος πολέμοιο”. It is strange that Ar. should have read “νῖκος, βούλεται γὰρ λέγεσθαι τῆς νίκης τὴν ἧτταν”, i.e. he took “νῖκος” = “νίκην”, in the sense of the enemy's victory. It would be simpler to put a comma after it and take “ἀπως... δίεσθαι” as epexegetic.
[277] προβοῶντε, cheering on; only here. In ‘some of the “ὑπομνήματα”’ Ar. read “προβάοντε”, marching forward; for which form see Curtius Vb. i. 213, where “προβῶντες” is quoted from Kratinos and “ἐκβῶντες” from the (Doric) treaty in Thuc.v. 77.
[278] τῶν is taken up again and given a construction in 287. The simile has already been used, in a less elaborate form, in 156 ff.
[280] τὰ ἃ κῆλα, these his missiles. But P. Knight's “ἑϝά” is probably right; see on 1.185, 8.430. “κῆλον” happens to be used only of divine weapons. So Hes. Theog. 707, where thunder and lightning are the “κῆλα” of Zeus. The clause seems to indicate an extraordinary fall of snow. Brandreth well compares Job xxxviii. 22-3 ‘the treasures of the snow .. which I have reserved .. against the day of battle and war.’
[283] λωτεῦντα (= “λωτέοντα”, from “λωτέω”?) and “λωτοῦντα” (= “λωτόεντα”） are equally suspicious forms, but cannot be corrected without violence (“ϝιόεντα” Brandr., “πεδί᾽ ἀνθεμόεντα” Menrad). There is no other case in H. of a contracted adj. in “-όεις”. Cf. Hesych. “λωτεῦντα: ἀνθοῦντα”.
[284] ἀκταῖς: this form of the dat. pl. is unique in the Iliad; “θεαῖς” in Od. 5.119, “πάσαις” Od. 22.471, are the only other cases in H. P. Knight would reject 283-6, and Friedländer 281-6 on the ground that the simile is disproportionately long, and that the description in these six lines tends to weaken rather than to improve the comparison. But the way in which 287 returns to the point of 278 seems to invalidate this criticism; and one could not without reluctance condemn one of the finest descriptions of nature in ancient poetry. It is proved to be late by one certain Attic form (“ἀκταῖς”), and another possible one (“λωτοῦντα”); but it has doubtless been part of the Iliad as long as the Iliad has been a continuous poem.
[285] ἐρύκεται, stops it, as though saying ‘go no farther.’ This use of the middle is found only here. Cauer's conj. “ἐρεύγεται” (15.621, 17.265, Od. 5.403) is plausible, but has no bearing on the picture. προσπλάζον, beating up against it. Cf. 11.351, 2.132, 21.269. The verb is conn. with “πληγή”, not with “πέλας”. For ἄλλά τε of MSS., Heyne followed by most edd. reads “ἄλλα δέ”, which is a little simpler but not necessary, as we can take the clause “κῦμα .. ἐρύκεται” as parenthetical, so that “τε” is co-ordinate with (“καί”) “τε” in the preceding line.
[287] πωτῶντο: so MSS.; the form is found only here, and no doubt we ought to read “ποτάοντο”, cf. 2.315 “ἀμφεποτᾶτο,” 2.462 “ποτῶνται”; see note on 15.666. λίθοι fem. as Od. 19.494, in the same sense as masc.; in later Greek the fem. is confined to precious stones.
[289] βαλλομένων, a reciprocal middle, as they cast at one another, here only. But “νυσσομένων” in 14.26 (= 16.637) is precisely similar.
[290] 290-3. These lines are practically meaningless as the book stands, for the ineffective attack on the wall by Sarpedon has in the end no bearing whatever on Hector's successful assault on the gate. They are introduced apparently for the sake of a superficial harmony between the two attacks, which were originally independent and alike successful (see Introd.), by suggesting that one led up to the other.
[294] μέν, as though “δύο δὲ δοῦρε τίνασσε” (298) were to follow; the construction is forgotten in the description of the shield.
[295] ἐξήλατον (so Zen.), hammered out, explained by ἤλασεν in the next line, for which Zen. read “ἐξέλασ᾽”: this very probably is right (as in Herod. i. 50, 68), and may have been altered to suit the reading of Ar., “ἑξήλατον”, explained to mean ‘in six layers.’ But this could only mean ‘six-hammered.’ Besides, the Homeric shield has only one layer of metal; whenever more layers are mentioned, they are always, as here, of leather (20.271-2 are undoubtedly spurious).
[297] Stitched the bull's-hide layers within with golden stitches reaching round the circle. The layers of leather are sewed together with golden wire. ῥάβδοισι is evidently, from its use with “ῥάψε”, to be taken as = “ῥαφαῖς”. Compare the description of the old shield of Laertes, Od. 22.186 “δὴ τότε γ᾽ ἤδη κεῖτο, ῥαφαὶ δ᾽ ἐλέλυντο ἱμάντων” the stitches of leather were decayed. To prevent such decay the armourer who made Sarpedon's shield used indestructible gold wire instead of the more obvious leather thongs. Such is Benndorf and Reichel's thoroughly satisfying explanation of a line which had previously puzzled commentators, ancient and modern alike, with the single exception of Brandreth, who had hit upon the truth: “Forsitan fila aurea erant, quibus coria ligno (?) assuebantur, et virgae vocabantur, quia his in scutis vimineis plectendis utebantur.” The only difficulty is the use of “ῥάβδος” in a sense different from that to which we are accustomed. But when we consider that the primitive meaning of the word was originally a young shoot of a tree and then wand; that there is no special Greek word for wire; that, whatever the origin of “ῥάβδος”, the author of the passage evidently connected it with “ῥάπτειν”: and that the appearance of the stitches outside the leather would be that of little rods, there need be no hesitation in accepting this interpretation. Cf. Schol. A “ἔρραψε τὰς βοείας ῥαφαῖς ῥαβδοειδέσιν ὥσπερ φλεψίν”. See App. B, fig. 9.
[299] 299-301: cf. Od. 6.130-4. πυκινὸν δόμον, the close-fenced dwelling or farm-stead.
[302] παρ᾽ αὐτόθι, as 13.42, 20.140, 23.147, 640, but always as a variant beside “παρ᾽ αὐτόφι” (cf. 19.255 “ἐπ᾽ αὐτόφιν,” 11.44 “ἀπ᾽ αὐτόφιν”). The adverbial termination must be right in 13.42, and seems preferable in all cases (H. G. § 157).
[304] ἀπείρητος, here in active sense, without an effort, cf. “πειρήσοντα” above. δίεσθαι, to be driven off, pass. only here and 23.475, else always mid. = to pursue. It goes with “σταθμοῖο”, as Od. 18.8 “Ὀδυσῆα διώκετο οἷο δόμοιο”.
[306] This line seems to be wrongly adapted from 11.675, where “ἐν πρώτοισι” has its regular meaning, ‘among the foremost of his own side’; here it must mean among the foremost of the enemy (“ἐν προβάτοισι” van Herw.!). The phrase is in fact used by force of habit without any more definite sense than ‘fall like a hero.’ It has also been remarked that the very martial simile is hardly suitably followed by the ‘almost elegiac’ speech to Glaukos. It is possible that the two passages beginning “αὐτίκα δέ” (294-308, and 309-29) are alternative readings.
[311] See the notes on 4.262 and 7.321, and for 313-4 see on 6.194-5; 316 = 4.342.
[318] ἀκλεέες, which still survives even in MS. tradition, was doubtless the reading of Ar.: “οὕτως ἀκλεες” (sic) “αἱ Ἀριστάρχου καὶ αἱ χαριέστεραι” Did. (“ἀκλεὲς δὲ Ἀρίσταρχος κατὰ συγκοπήν, ὡς τὸ δυσκλέα” Schol. T'. This shews at all events that Ar. did not read either “ἀκληεῖς” or “ἀκλειεῖς” of the vulg., and as his reading must have been metrically possible, “ἀκλεέες” is a certain correction. The unique survival of such a form in a late book is noteworthy, and a remarkable confirmation of the theory that the open forms should always be restored. The correction had already been made by P. Knight.
[320] With οἶνον supply “πίνουσι” (zeugma). ἔξαιτον, choice, else only Od. (e.g. Od. 2.307); the derivation is doubtful. Compare the “γερούσιον οἶνον” of 4.259.
[322] The striking story told by R. Wood about Lord Granville (Carteret) and the conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763 deserves quotation as one of the most eloquent comments on this noble passage. “Being directed to wait upon his Lordship, a few days before he died, with the preliminary articles of the Treaty of Paris, I found him so languid, that I proposed postponing my business for another time: but he insisted that I should stay, saying, it could not prolong his life, to neglect his duty; and repeating the following passage, out of Sarpedon's speech, he dwelled with particular emphasis on the third line (324), which recalled to his mind the distinguishing part he had taken in public affairs. “ὦ πέπον” (322)...“ἴομεν” (328). His Lordship repeated the last word several times with a calm and determinate resignation: and after a serious pause of some minutes, he desired to hear the Treaty read; to which he listened with great attention: and recovered spirits enough to declare the approbation of a dying Statesman (I use his own words) on the most glorious War, and the most honourable Peace, this nation ever saw” (Essay on the Original Genius of Homer p. vii.).
[323] ἀγήρω τ᾽: rather “ἀγηράω”, and so 17.444. Cf. 2.447.
[326] νῦν δ᾽ ἔμπης γάρ are to be taken all together, as “νῦν δέ” goes with “ἐφεστᾶσιν”: there is no parenthesis beginning with “ἔμπης”. For the proleptic use of γάρ see H. G. § 348 (2). But since as it is death in any case is to come. ἐφεστᾶσιν, stand in reserve, in wait for us; the sense of “ἐπί” is the same as in “ἔφεδρος”. So Hes. Opp. 114 “οὐδέ τι δειλὸν γῆρας ἐπῆν”. (Verrall on Aisch. Ag. 552.) For the κῆρες see 2.302.
[331] For Menestheus see 2.552. His appearance here, especially in close conjunction with the Salaminian Aias, naturally suggests Athenian influence; see on 2.558.
[332] The repetition of πύργον in this line and the next causes some difficulty, as the sense must be slightly changed. Hence Bekker, followed by several edd., reads “τεῖχος” in 333, without authority. Others take πύργον Ἀχαιῶν to mean the army of the A.; but “πύργος” when used of a body of men would seem to indicate a formation of a limited number for service in the field (4.334, 347) rather than a host generally, even when defending a wall as here. It is therefore best to take “πύργον” in both lines in the sense of wall (not tower, see on 4.334); and to understand “τοῦ πρὸς πύργον” as meaning ‘to his part of the wall.’ But the line has all the appearance of a quite needless explanation, added subsequently.
[334] ἀρήν: al. “Ἄρην”, an uncertainty found elsewhere, e.g. 14.485, 18.100. But in Od. 2.59 “ἀρήν” has nothing to do with disaster in war. We must recognise, therefore, a word meaning disaster generally (quite distinct from “ἀρή” = prayer, with “α_”); in all probability it is a masc. “ἄρης”, gen. “ἄρηο” (MSS. “ἀρῆς” or “ἄρεω”), acc. “ἄρην” (with accent corrupted in MSS. by the analogy of “ἀρήν” prayer). (So Fick.) This suits every passage where the word occurs except Hes. Theog. 657 “ἀλκτὴρ δ᾽ ἀθανάτοισιν ἀρῆς γένεο κρυεροῖο”, where we must read “ἄρεω” with synizesis (note the masc. adjective).
[336] This line apparently refers to 8.334, where Teukros is taken to his tent after being wounded by Hector.
[337] ἐγγύθεν: the station of the Telemonian Aias was next the Athenians, 2.558. βώσαντι: for this contracted form see note on 10.463, and compare Od. 12.124 “βωστρεῖν” (“βοάοντι” P. Knight'. γεγωνεῖν, to make his voice heard, as usual.
[340] 340-1. This couplet, which has given endless trouble, is doubtless an addition by the same hand which has given us 175-81, and has the same object, to insist on it that the camp had several gates. It betrays itself at once by the clumsy way in which καὶ πυλέων is added as an after-thought, and by the non-Homeric form “πυλέων” instead of “πυλάων” (see on 7.1). αὐτάς too is used in the weak anaphoric sense. The nom. to ἐπώιχετο is presumably ἀυτή, the war-cry was ranging over all the gates, i.e. all were now being attacked, not that on the left only. (Cf. Od. 4.451, of Proteus and the seals, “πάσας δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπώιχετο, λέκτο δ᾽ ἀριθμόν” he went over them all.) Ar. thought that he could save his theory of the single gate without the need of athetesis, by reading “πᾶσαι γὰρ ἐπώιχατο”, and explaining the whole gate was shut. This, however, will not serve unless we read “ἐπώχατο”, and take it to be a perf. from “ἐπέχειν”: even then the form and the sense shut to are without analogy (“ἐπέχειν τὰ ὦτα, τὸ στόμα” come under the general sense to keep back), and even if “πᾶσαι” = “ὅλαι” there is no sense in saying that the <*>ole gate was shut (see note on 2.809). “ἐπώιχατο” from “ἐπιϝοίγω” is equally impossible in sense and form.
[344] μὲν μᾶλλον, the “μάλιστα μέν” of Attic prose; the compar. being here used because there are only two alternatives. ὅ may be a relative, even with γάρ, see on 10.127.
[346] “ὧδε ἀντὶ τοῦ οὕτως”, Acc. to Ar. “ὧδε” always meant thus, never here, in Homer. Zen. took it to be here, as he read “κεῖσε” in 359, and he is not improbably right, as it seems arbitrary to deny to Homer a use so common in later Greek, and so much more natural both in this passage, 10.537, and 18.392.
[347] ζαχρηεῖς: cf. 5.525, and for the present after “πάρος περ”, indicating that a state of affairs in the past still remains, 1.553. The old form of the adj. was presumably “ζαχραϝέες”.
[350] Athetized, apparently, merely on the ground that no special summons was needed for Teukros, who always shot from under the shield of Aias. For the question between ἅμα σπέσθω and “ἅμ᾽ ἑσπέσθω” see on 5.423.
[355] ἠνώγει: imperf. referring back to the giving of the message, cf. 2.28 “ἐκέλευσε”.
[356] ἀντιάσαιτον or “ἀντιάητον” was conj. by Monro, as the long vowel in the aor. subj. “ἀντιάσητον” is irregular. The former now has MS. support. The opt. is explained by the past tense in the preceding line, though it must be admitted that the subj. is more natural; H. G. § 82.
[359] Zen. read “κεῖσε” for ὧδε, to agree with the local sense given to “ὧδε” in 346.
[365] For αὐτίκ᾽ Ὀϊλιάδην Zen. read “αὐτίκ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἰλιάδην”, perhaps a reminiscence of an older “αὐτίκα Ἰλιάδην”, cf. 2.527, 13.203, 712, 15.333, in all of which “Ἰλεύς” or “Ἰλιάδης” is found as a variant; and compare “Ἰλιάδα”, the probable reading in Pind. O. ix. 112.The correct form of the patronymic would be “Ὀϊλεΐδης”, and so Nauck reads (“ϝιλϝεϝιδης” KnightPind. P.'.
[368] 368-9 = 13.752-3.
[371] κασίγνητος καὶ ὄπατρος, son of the same mother and father, as 11.257. “κασίγνητος” is elsewhere used in a more general sense (e.g. 15.545, 16.456), but here the addition of “ὄπατρος” seems to shew that it means a brother uterine (cf. 19.293). In that case it is in contradiction with 8.284 (q.v.) (“Τεῦκρον”) “νόθον περ ἐόντα”. It is, however, perhaps possible to take “καὶ ὄπατρος” epexegetically, ‘his brother, to wit the son of his father.’
[372] This line was athetized by Ar. on the ground that Teukros did not need any one to carry his bow for him.
[374] For the dat. ἐπειγομένοισι cf. 7.7, H. G. §§ 143, 246. The apodosis begins with the next line.
[377] σὺν δ᾽ ἔβαλον μαχέσασθαι, the reading of T only, agrees better with Homeric use than the vulg. “ἐβάλοντο μάχεσθαι”. Cf. 16.565 “σύμβαλον ἀμφὶ νέκυι κατατεθνηῶτι μάχεσθαι”. The mid. “συμβαλέσαι” always means to fall in with, meet.
[381] ὑπέρτατος, the top of a heap of stones piled up by way of ammunition against the breastwork. The acc. ἔπαλξιν may be explained perhaps by the use of “κεῖμαι” as a perf. of “τίθημι”, and so implying motion. But we should expect “ἐπάλξει”, for the use of “παρά” with acc., without a verb of motion, is used only of one thing, or series of things, stretching along another. οὐδέ κέ μιν ῥέα: Brandreth conj. “οὐδέ κε ῥεῖα χειρί ϝε τῆι ἑτέρηι” (“χερσί μιν ἀμφοτέρηισιν ἀνὴρ ἔχοι” Nauck), Menrad “οὔ κέ ϝε ῥεῖα”.
[382] Of the two ancient variants in this line Ar. preferred the text on the ground that it was no marvel if a modern man could not lift such a stone with one hand. For the disparagement of modern men see 5.304.
[385] 385 = Od. 12.413. For the comparison to a man ‘taking a header’ cf. 16.742, where the idea is worked out, “ἦ μάλ᾽ ἐλαφρὸς ἀνήρ, ὡς ῥεῖα κυβιστᾶι, κτλ.” Paley quotes also Eur. Suppl. 692 “ἐς κρᾶτα πρὸς γῆν ἐκκυβιστώντων βίαι”, and Eur. Phoen. 1150. Eur. Itis possible that the omission of ἄῤ (see above) may be the relic of a genuine tradition “δὲ ϝαρνευτῆρι”, but the word is practically unknown except in these three passages of H., and the der. can only be guessed at. The reading of Syr.suggests “ἄρα νευτῆρι” (Cureton: cf. “νευτήρ: κολυμβητής” Hesych. There is no need to correct this to “νευστήρ”, cf. Eur. Phoen. ut supra, “ἐς οὖδας εἶδες ἂν πρὸ τειχέων”
“πυκνοὺς κυβιστητῆρας ἐκνενευκότας”).
[388] τείχεος must go with ἐπεσσύμενον, dashing at the wall (so also 16.511). The genitives in 406, 420, do not justify us in joining βάλε τείχεος, ‘shot from (his position on) the wall.’
[393] ὅμως, for the Homeric “ἔμπης”. Lehrs conj. “ὁ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὧς”, which is the regular phrase, and probably right. Od. 11.565 (al. “ὁμῶς”) is the only other instance of “ὅμως” in H., in a very suspicious passage.
[397] The ἔπαλξις is no doubt a breastwork of planks; it has been undermined, so that when it is pulled down in one place, it falls ‘all along’ the wall (διαμπερές). The nom. to θῆκε may be τεῖχος (the wall, by being stripped of the breastwork, makes an opening), but is much more naturally Σαρπηδών. The gap is not passed as yet by any of the Trojans; they did not appropriate the passage thus made (“θέσθαι κέλευθον” 411, 418). This distinction between mid. and act. is the only resource to avoid the discrepancy between 399 and 411.
[400] ὁμαρτήσαντε, simultaneously. For the ‘distributive apposition’ by which this dual is followed by two verbs in the singular, compare 7.306.
[403] νηυσὶν ἔπι πρυμνῆισι are the emphatic words; his fate is to be killed in the open plain.
[404] 404-5 = 7.260-1. The variant “ἡ δέ” for οὐδέ, found in some MSS. and quoted by Did. as the “κοινή”, comes thence, but has been altered here because the weapon does not reach his body; he is only staggered by the shock.
[407] ἐέλδετο, desired, is preferable to the vulg. “ἐέλπετο”, hoped, on account of the aor. infin. We cannot here translate hoping that he had won. See note on 3.28.
[408] 408 = 16.421 (cf. 12.467). These and Od. 6.241 are the only passages in which ἀντίθεος is the epithet of a nation.
[411] θέσθαι κέλευθον: see 397. παρὰ νηυσί: we should rather have expected “παρὰ νῆας”.
[412] For ἐφομαρτεῖτε most MSS. give “ἐφομαρτεῖτον”: the dual for the plural is doubtless the reading of Zenodotos. Cf. 23.414 (note also 413 = 23.417). δέ τοι is the vulgate, in spite of the “ϝ” of “ϝέργον”, but there is faint MS. evidence of variation. We can choose between Bentley's “δέ τε” and Hoffmann's “τοι”. MS. evidence is in favour of the former, with the generalizing “τε”.
[416] σφισι would most naturally refer to the Greeks, as the party last mentioned. as in Od. 22.149 “μέγα δ᾽ αὐτῶι φ. ἔ.”: but what follows shews that we must understand it of both parties, ‘a mighty task was revealed to them, set before them’; cf. 11.734 “ἀλλά σφι .. φάνη μέγα ἔργον Ἄρηος”, and 16.207 “νῦν δὲ πέφανται φυλόπιδος μέγα ἔργον”.
[420] τὰ πρῶτα, once, as 1.235.
[421] The simile is clear evidence of the existence in Homeric times of the ‘common-field’ system of agriculture, where the land of the community is portioned out in temporary tenure from time to time. For the οὖρα see 10.351: they are stones (21.405) marking off the allotments, and are easily movable by a fradulent neighbour (22.489). Such a fraud could only be detected by remeasurement, and it is over such a dispute that the two men are engaged. The common field was usually cut up into very small strips, of which each man had several in different parts, so as to apportion fairly the various qualities of soil. It is easy to see how such a system would lead to continual disputes about boundaries. The point of the simile of course is that the two parties stand close to one another divided by the breastwork, as the two neighbours are only divided by the stone over which they are quarrelling. The ἴση (see 11.705) is the allotted space of land. (So Ridgeway in J. H. S. vi. 319 ff. on The Homeric Land System.）
[424] αὐτέων, for “αὐτάων”, and in the weak sense, is not to be interfered with in a late passage. For 425-6 see 5.452-3.
[428] ὅτωι: so all MSS., Zen. alone reading “ὅτεωι”, which most edd. adopt. The form gains support from 15.664, where most MSS. give it; but in Od. 2.114, the only place where it recurs, it is a trisyllable. So “τεωι” is an iambus in 16.227, Od. 11.502, Od. 20.114; for “τωι” see 1.299, 12.328, 13.327. Van L. suggests “ὅτε”.
[433] ἔχον is used intransitively in the first clause (as 5.492, 10.264, etc.), and hence “ἔχει” must be understood transitively in the second, by a sort of zeugma, ‘they held on, as a woman holds the scales.’ ἀληθής seems to be used here in the primitive sense, ‘not forgetting,’ i.e. careful, anxious about her task. The adjective elsewhere is only used of spoken words. To make it here = honest, ‘conscientious,’ is to introduce an entirely un-Homeric conception. The woman weighs the wool not out of motives of conscientiousness, but in order to make sure that by giving full weight she will earn her pay. The variant “ἀλῆτις”, beggar-woman (fem. of the Odyssean “ἀλήτης”, vagabond), is harsh after χερνῆτις (which is apparently from “χείρ”, a handworker), and does not suit the picture. Though it is given in Apoll. Lex., the explanation there appended only suits “ἀληθής” (“οἷον δικαία παραλαμβάνειν τὸν σταθμὸν καὶ παραδιδόναι”).
[434] ἀμφίς goes with ἔχουσα, holding (one) on each side. σταθμόν = weight, only here in Homer. ἀνέλκει, as 8.72.
[435] We must not look upon the μισθός as anything but payment in kind, food and perhaps cloth for garments. For ἀεικέα (miserable, meagre: cf. 24.594 “οὔ μοι ἐεικέα δῶκεν ἄποινα”) Ar. read “ἀνεικέα”, explaining “ἔξω νείκους, τὸ ἴσον αὐτοῖς ἀπονέμουσα, ἄμεινον δέ, φησιν, ἀεικέα τὸν εὐτελῆ. ἐν δὲ τῶι πρὸς τὸ Ξένωνος παράδοξον προφέρεται ἀμεμφέα μισθόν” (Did.): a rare instance of vacillation. The simile is particularly interesting as giving us one of our few glimpses into the life of the Homeric poor. Elsewhere the working of wool is always carried out by the women of the house for themselves — even by Queen Arete in Phaiakia. Only here do we find the beginning of a special industry of wool-working, the spinning, as it would seem, being given out for payment.
[436] See note on 7.102.
[438] In 16.558 the same expression is used of Sarpedon. For the difficulty therein involved see the introduction to this book.
[439] 439 = 8.227. Ar. strangely enough made Zeus the subject of ἤυσεν, on the ground that Hector could not shout loud enough for all to hear him (442. Zen. must have taken the same view if he is correctly reported to have read “ἐπεὶ θεοῦ ἔκλυον αὐδήν” for the second half of 444.
[442] οὔασι, pleonastic, like “ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδεῖν, ἐκαλέσσατο φωνῆι” (3.161). It is not necessary to suppose with Ameis that it implies any emphasis, such as hearing willingly.
[444] κροσσάων: see on 258.
[446] πρυμνός, at the base. For this adverbial use cf. “μέσος, ἄκρος, πρῶτος”, etc. The use with a second adj. is, however, rare; with a participle it is not uncommon (“λαβρὸς ἐπαιγίζων”, etc.).
[447] δήμου ἀρίστω, as 11.328, ‘the best of a whole community.’
[448] ὀχλίσσειαν, as Od. 9.242. A few MSS. give “<*>χλήσειαν” (cf. 259 “ἐμόχλεον”); but Kallimachos and Ap. Rhod. use the form “ὀχλίζω”. The derivation and connexion of the word with “ὄχλος” or “μόχλος” are very obscure. 21.261 “ὀχλεῦνται” seems to be distinct.
[450] Athetized as diminishing the greatness of the feat. But, as Heyne remarks, the aid of a god only explains, without diminishing, a hero's superiority to common men.
[451] For the indic. instead of the usual subj. after ὡς ὅτε cf. 4.422. There seems, however, to have been a variant “φέρηι”, though it is not recorded in our MSS. — Hehn (Cult. p. 435) notes that πόκον properly means wool plucked out: shearing may possibly have been still unknown in Homeric days.
[454] πύκα goes with “εἴρυντο, στιβαρῶς” with “ἀραρυίας”. For εἴρυντο cf. 1.216. But the Homeric form is “εἰρύατο”: P. Knight conj. “ἐρύοντο”. The σανίδες seem here to be literally the boards of which the two doors are made (the epithets shew that πύλαι cannot mean the opening as opposed to the two doors which close it'. But it is to the two doors that the name “σανίδες” is usually given, e.g. 121, Od. 2.344 (where the epithet “δικλίδες”, here belonging to “πύλαι”, is applied to “σανίδες”).
[456] ἐπημοιβοί apparently means shifting, movable from side to side. This suits the use of 6.339 “ἐπαμείβεται”; cf. Od. 14.513 “ἐπημοιβοὶ χιτῶνες”, changes of tunics, the only other instance of the adj. in H. Two such horizontal drawbars across the top and bottom of the gate may have been strengthened by a vertical bolt. But the ancients seem to have understood the phrase to mean cross-bars in the shape of an Χ, with the “κληΐς” at the intersection. We have no material for decision. A different arrangement is given in 24.453, where the door of Achilles' hut is held by a single “ἐπιβλής”, apparently identical with the “κληΐς”.
[458] διαβάς, setting his legs well apart. ἀφαυρός is else used only of persons. Notice the curious use by which “μὴ ἀφαυρότερον” = more powerful, a comparative in the dependent form of “οὐκ ἀφαυρός” = strong by litotes.
[459] θαιρούς, hinges, projecting vertical iron pegs at the top and bottom, working in stone sockets, such as have been found at Tiryns.
[463] ὑπώπια, here in the sense of face generally; the phrase is curious, as it is in the brow, above the eyes, that we are accustomed to see a dark expression.
[465] ἐρύκακεν and “ἐρυκάκοι” are of course equally possible (see on 5.311), the sense in either case being none could have stopped him.
[466] Heyne and others are inclined to doubt the genuineness of this line, as the addition of νόσφι θεῶν, and still more of ὅτ᾽ ἐσᾶλτο πύλας, is very flat; while the last clause seems to contradict the preceding simile, and may possibly be a vague reminiscence of 2.93 “ὄσσα δεδήει”.
[470] ποιητάς = “ἐυποιήτας” 5.466, etc.
