previous next

Book 14 (Ξ）

πίνοντα, 11.642, though in that line Nestor and Machaon are said to have finished drinking; a trifling discrepancy which some have needlessly exaggerated.

[8] εἴσουαι, i.e. “ϝίσομαι”, I will hasten, from “ϝίεμαι”, see 4.138. Others take it to be from “ϝιδ, οἶδα”, I will learn, and join “ἐλθὼν ἐς περιωπήν”. But this order of words is very involved. περιωπ́ην as 23.451, Od. 10.146.

[11] It is useless to inquire why father and son had thus changed shields, as the Scholiasts of course do. It may be noticed that in 9 — 11 we have three consecutive rhyming lines.

[13] The idea evidently is that Nestor finds he has no need to go to a “περιωπή” and look over the wall, as it has already been passed by the combatants.

[15] ἐρέριπτο, from “ἐρείπω” (15.356), cf. H. G. § 23. L. Meyer conj. “ἔϝριπτο” (from “ϝρίπ-τω”), but this is needless. Cf. “κατ-ερήριπ-εν”, 55.

[16] This fine simile is taken from the ‘ground-swell’ produced by a storm at a distance, and often followed by the storm itself. πορφύρηι, see note on 1.103. “πορφύρεος” is applied to waves in 1.482, 16.391, 21.326 and several times in The Od. verb recurs only in a metaphorical sense, “κραδίη πόρφυρε,” 21.551, Od. 4.427, etc. κωφῶι, as opposed to the splash and rush of the wave-tops before a wind.

[17] ὀσσόμενον, foreboding, only here of inanimate objects. Cf. 1.105.

[18] αὔτως, vaguely, aimlessly, keeps up the personification, and is expanded in the words which follow. For οὐδ᾽ ἑτέρωσε, (neither forward) nor aside, cf. 13.543; Bentley wrote “πρὸ κυλίνδεται” to make this clear. Eust. read “οὐδετέρωσε”, and so Nauck has; but H. knows neither “οὐδέτερος” nor any derivative of it. For τε Scheindler conj. “τῆι”, neither this way nor that (any other). κεκριμένον, decided, as opposed to the shifting ‘puffs’ which precede the storm. Cf. Hesiod Opp. 670 “τῆμος δ᾽” (in summer time) “εὐκρινέες τ᾽ αὖραι καί πόντος ἀπήμων”, the winds are steady.

[21] διχθάδια, cf. 16.435 “διχθὰ δέ μοι κραδίη μέμονε φρεσὶν ὁρμαίνοντι”. It appears from Herod. that some wrote “διχθαδίηι” (“διχθαδίηι ἤ” with synizesis?) but this was rejected by Ar.

[26] 26 = 13.147, 16.637. Observe the gen. νυσσομένων after σφι, as often (H. G. § 243. 3 d); it is a near approach to the gen. absolute, cf. 6.3. The middle is reciprocal, ‘stabbing one another.’

[28] ἀνιόντες, the “ἀνα”- implies inland. “πὰρ νηῶν” is explained by 30-36.

[30] For γάρ some MSS. have “γάρ ῥ᾽”, but the additional particle is not needed. See on 4.467. It is clear from the context that ν̂ηες means their ships, i.e. those of Diomedes, Odysseus, and Agamemnon, as opposed to the rest of the fleet. εἰρύατο with “υ_” as in 75, but the regular “υ^” is found in 4.248 and elsewhere (from “ϝε-ϝρύ-ατο”). The “υ_” is probably due to the analogy of other forms where it is followed by a consonant, “εἴρυ_το, εἰρυ_μέναι” (13.682), etc. Schulze Q. E. p. 318.

[31] τὰς γὰρ πρώτας is susceptible of two different interpretations: (1) for these ships (those of the chiefs) they had drawn up first to shore (in the innermost line next the sea), but had built the wall next the last (the outermost line inland). Or (2) for those (others) they had drawn up in the first row towards the land (away from the sea) and had built the wall hard by their sterns. The decision mainly turns upon the word “πρυμνῆισιν”. In (1) this is taken to mean the last (outermost) as opposed to the first (innermost). To this Herodianos objects “ὅτι οὐ τίθησιν” (the adj. “πρυμνός”) “ἐπὶ διεστῶτος σώματος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ἡνωμένου”, i.e. H. uses it of the end of a single long body, not of the last of a row. This appears to be true, and if no exception to the rule is admissible it is decisive in favour of (2). On the other hand 75 “νῆες ὅσαι πρῶται εἰρύαται ἄγχι θαλάσσης” strongly supports (1) (see however on 15.653) and so does γάρ instead of the “δέ” which we should expect with (2). Moreover (1) suits the whole tenor of the passage far better. It is a contradiction to explain the distance of the ships from the fighting by saying that the wall where the fighting is was built close to their sterns. On the whole therefore it seems advisable to admit an unusual sense of “πρυμνός”, remembering that the word is not very common, and that in nine out of the 25 places where it occurs it is found in the phrases “νηυσὶν ἐπὶ πρυμνῆισι, ἐπὶ πρυμνῆισι νέεσσι”, which are ambiguous, as they are used of fighting which occurs at the outermost ships, and also at their sterns. Similarly “πρῶτος” is used both of the end (of a pole etc.) and of the first of a series. According to the grammarians “πρύμνη” as subst. = stern is distinguished by accent from the adj. Hence if we adopt (2) we must write “πρύμνηισι” here with MSS. and Herod.; while Krates had “πρυμνῆισι”, presumably adopting explanation (1). It is commonly said that this line is in contradiction to the closing portion of H, as implying that the building of the wall took place at the time when the ships were drawn up on land. This is certainly not involved in the words, and would indeed require an imperf. rather than the aor. “ἔδειμαν”. The phrase is purely topographical, not historical.

[35] προκρόσσας can have only one meaning here, in rows or ranks, one behind another; the “αἰγιαλός” in the narrowest sense not being able to hold all the ships, they are drawn up on to the land as opposed to the beach. The only difficulty in the interpretation of the word is caused by attempts to explain it from the far more obscure “κρόσσας πύργων” in 12.258, q.v. Ar. taking the word there to mean ‘scaling ladders,’ explained “προκρόσσας” here to mean “τὰς κλιμακηδὸν νενεωλκημένας ἑτέρας πρὸ ἑτέρων, ὥστε θεατροειδὲς φαίνεσθαι τὸ νεώλκιον”, i.e. drawn up on the steep curving beach in rows one above another like the ladder-like seats of the Greek theatre. The way in which Herodotos understood the word is perfectly plain (vii. 188) “αἱ μὲν δὴ πρῶται τῶν νεῶν ὅρμεον πρὸς γῆι, ἄλλαι δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνηισι ἐπ᾽ ἀγκυρέων: ἅτε γὰρ τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ ἐόντος οὐ μεγάλου, πρόκροσσαι ὁρμέοντο ἐς πόντον καὶ ἐπὶ ὀκτὼ νέας”, they anchored in ranks eight deep. The word recurs also in Herod.iv. 152, but does not explain anything more. The arrangement in ranks is not elsewhere mentioned in the Iliad; it is evidently an invention of the moment to explain the long absence of the wounded chiefs in the crisis of the fight, due to the interposition of N.

[36] ἠϊόνος is used here in a wider sense than “αἰγιαλός”, as our ‘shore’ is wider than ‘beach.’ For στόμα compare the word “στομαλίμνη”, 6.4 (note), and “ποταμοῖο κατὰ στόμα” Od. 5.441. The promontories are regarded as jaws, the bay as the hollow of the mouth. ἄκραι, Sigeion and Rhoiteion, which are about five miles apart.

[37] ὀψείοντες, (“ἡ διπλῆ περιεστιγμένη”) “ὅτι Ζηνόδοτος γράφει ὀψαϊοντες. εἴτε δὲ μετὰ πολὺν χρόνον πορευόμενοι” (sc. “ὀψὰ ἰόντες”) “ἤθελεν ἀκούειν εἴτε μετὰ πολὺν χρόνον ἀκούοντες” (sc. “ὄψ᾽ ἀΐοντες”), “ψεῦδος: εὐθέως γὰρ ἀκούσαντες ὥρμησαν. καὶ τὸ ὀψὰ ἀνελλήνιστον: οὕτω γὰρ εἴωθε λέγειν, “ὀψὲ δὲ δὴ μετέειπε”” “ αν.Ἀρίσταρχός φησι Ζηνόδοτον γράφειν ὀψαϊοντες, ὁ δὲ Ἐπιθέτης Πτολεμαῖος “τῶι ῥ᾽ οἵ γ᾽ οὐ ψαύοντες” καὶ λόγον φησὶν ἔχειν τὴν” “γραφήν”, Did. This is interesting as shewing that the edition of Zen. was without breathings or accents, so that even Ar. himself could not be sure how the letters were to be read; if we are to believe his ‘assailant’ Ptolemy, he was not even correctly informed as to the letters themselves. The strictures on the form “ὀψά” are well deserved; but the alternative explanation, “ὄψ᾽ ἀΐοντες”, gives a perfectly good sense, and was no doubt what Zen. meant if Ar. was rightly informed. The alternative reading attributed to Zen. is not acceptable, as H. uses “ψαύειν” only in the physical sense touch; nor does the word ever seem to mean take part in in Greek. It is a long time since Agamemnon left the field (11.283), and the fact that he should only now have come to see after the fortune of the fight might well seem to require explanation. This is given by the distance at which his hut is from the wall, so that he only hears the din when the wall has long been crossed. This gives a good sense to τῶ (for which Pallis suggests “τῆι”, there), and it is a question if the reading of Zen. should not be preferred to that of Ar. It may be added that “ὀψείω” is the only desiderative in -“σείω” in H. (see van L. Ench. p. 356), and that the constr. with the gen. does not seem natural.

[40] “ἀθετεῖται ὅτι καὶ ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων νοοῦμεν ὅτι Νέστωρ ἐστὶν ὁ γεραιός. καὶ τὸ πτῆξε ἄκυρον: ἐπὶ γὰρ τῶν ἀπολελυμένων τῆι ἀγωνίαι καὶ τῶι τῆς ψυχῆς παλμῶι ἁρμόζει” (i.e. the verb is properly used not of him who causes, but of him who suffers, dejection). The line may well be omitted. There is no reason why the appearance of Nestor should cause dismay, as he is not even wounded; and the use of the verb is quite without parallel. The former objection applies also to the variants “πῆξε” and “πλῆξε”. The difficulties may be, however, evaded by Ernesti's conj. “πτῆξε δὲ θυμός”, or still better by reading “ἀχεύων” for “Ἀχαιῶν”, when “πτῆξε θυμόν” will refer to Nestor's own state of mind. “Ἀχαιῶν” as applied to the three chiefs can hardly be right. “πτήσσειν” in H. means elsewhere only cower (Od. 8.190, Od. 14.354, Od. 14.474, Od. 22.362), but comes to mean fear in later Greek (e.g. Soph. O. C. 1466 “ἔπτηξα θυμόν”, Theognis 1015 “ἐχθροὺς πτῆξαι”). The line does not look like a mere interpolation for the sake of bringing in Nestor's name, as Ar. thought.

[44] δείδια, the regular Homeric form in other parts of the verse, is in the first foot almost entirely supplanted by “δείδω”, which Ar. read, apparently preferring a spondee in the first place. The only exception is 21.536 and the variant of a few MSS, here and Od. 5.473. “δείδω” is explained as a contraction of “δείδοα” = “δέδϝοα” from “δε-δϝο”（“ι”)-“α”, whence also comes “δείδια” = “δέδϝια” from the analogy of “δείδιμεν, δειδιότες”, etc. (H. G. § 22. 4 n., van L. Ench. p. 411). In any case “δείδω” must be a false form.

[45] The allusion is evidently to the words of Hector in 8.181, 526. It follows that this passage must be as late as “Θ”. Though ποτε thus means only the preceding day, <*> is excusable, as in the poem itself “Θ” is a long way back.

[49] This and the two following lines are very suspicious. With very few exceptions, mostly of a doubtful character, ὢ πόποι elsewhere begins a speech (see 13.99). We have apparently an addition, to explain the difficult line 40; the dismay there caused to Agamemnon is now attributed, very unnaturally, to a fear that Nestor may have left the fight in resentment against him. Besides, from Agamemnon's words in 65, it would seem that he only learns of the fighting “ἐπὶ πρυμνῆισι νέεσσιν” from the following speech of Nestor. For ἐν θυμῶι βάλλονται cf. 9.434.

[53] ἑτοῖμα, ‘brought to reality,’ cf. 9.425, and so also Od. 8.384. ἄλλως, differently from what they are.

[56] 56 = 68. Bentley rejects it here. Cf. 7.437. The word “ἄρρατον” mentioned as a variant by Schol. T and meaning hard appears to be found only in Plato Rep. vii. 535B, Crat. 407

[58] Cf. 5.85 “Τυδεΐδην δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν γνοίης ποτέροισι μετείη”.

[62] εἴ τι . . ῥέξει, assuming, as a mere supposition, without implying anything as to its correctness, that advice will be of some good. Rhetorically, of course, this is a suggestion that it will not.

[63] βεβλημένον, an expression which refers only to the others, as Nestor is not wounded. He may perhaps include himself among them (“ἄμμε”) on the score of age. It is, of course, easy to read “ὔμμε” for “ἄμμε”, with Barnes.

[67] οἷξ, though supported only by one of the two editions of Ar., seems preferable to “ἧι”, as including the wall, the most important part of the “εἶλαρ”.

[69] 69 = 2.116,9.23; 70 = 12.70, 13.227.

[71] 71-72. The reading and constr. of this couplet are both doubtful. Ar. read “ὅτε” in both lines, and this gives the best sense: As I knew when Zeus was helping the Danaans with all his heart, so I know now when he is exalting the Trojans. The object to “ἤιδεα” and “οἶδα” is left vague, ‘I knew what it meant,’ just as in 8.406 “ὄφρ᾽ εἰδῆι γλαυκῶπις ὅτ᾽ ἂν ὧι πατρὶ μάχηται,” Od. 16.424 “ἦ οὐκ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτε δεῦρο πατὴρ τεὸς ἵκετο φεύγων;” (In all these cases it will be seen that the “ὅτε”clause is not the object of the verb; e.g. the last instance does not mean ‘do you not know the date of your father's coming?’ but ‘do you not know what had happened when he came?’) If we read “ὅτι” in 72 with most MSS., we still have the same sense. It would then be tempting however to take the “ὅτι”clause as the object both of “ἤιδεα” and “οἶδα”: I knew, (even) when Zeus was fighting for the Greeks, and I know now, that he exalts the Trojans; i.e. I knew all the time, even when we were victorious, that Zeus was really in favour of the Trojans. This gives a vigorous sense, and suits the character of Agamemnon; but “πρόφρων”, implying real and not merely apparent aid, is fatal to it.

[73] κυδάνει trans. = “κυδαίνει”, cf. “οἰδάνει νόον” 9.554 and note on 7.64. The verb recurs only in 20.42, where it is intrans. For the metaphorical use of ἔδησε cf. “ὅς τίς μ᾽ ἀθανάτων <*>εδάαι καὶ ἔδησε κελεύθου” Od. 4.380. (Pallis' conj. “ἔλυσε” is not necessary.)

[74] 74 = 2.139, 9.26, in both cases introducing a similar proposal by the same speaker.

[75] ν̂ηες, though less strictly grammatical than the “νῆας” of most MSS., deserves preference as more idiomatic. For similar cases of ‘inverse attraction’ see H. G. § 267. 4. πρῶται, here clearly first from the point of view of a spectator by the sea, as in 15.654 from the land. See note on 31.

[76] πάσας, sc. all these, while ἁπάσας in 79 means all the rest; a tacit limitation exactly like that of “νῆες” in 30.

[77] ὕψι, afloat, perhaps a technical term, which evidently does not mean, as we might have expected, far out at sea. So in Od. 4.785 “ὑψοῦ δ᾽ ἐν νοτίωι τήν γ᾽ ὥρμισαν, ἐκ δ᾽ ἔβαν αὐτοί”, where see M. and R. ‘The expression describes a ship ready for sailing at a moment's notice. . . She hes afloat; her stern made fast with a hawser to the shore, her bows made fast to the anchor-stone (“εὐναί”).’ So also Od. 8.55, Ap. Rhod.ii. 1282 “ὑψόθι νῆ᾽ ἐκέλευσεν ἐπ᾽ εὐναίηισιν ἐρύσσαι” .

[78] νὺξ ἀβρότη, only here; apparently a variation of “νὺξ ἀμβροσίη”, though another possible explanation is suggested on 10.65. εἴ κεν, van L.'s conj. (“αἴ κεν”) for “ἢν καί”, to remove the non-Homeric “ἤν”, is supported by two MSS. (“εἰ καί” Brandreth). ‘The suggestion that the Trojans may fight by night is ironical; such a thing was unknown in Homeric warfare,’ Monro. τ̂ηι seems to be a pure dat., by reason of or even out of regard to night; cf. H. G. § 143 and note on 7.282.

[80] οὐ νέμεσις, see on 3.156. ἀνὰ νύκτα, here only; see H. G. § 210.

[81] This line has been rejected by Friedländer as a gnomic ‘tag.’ Though such tags were peculiarly suitable for interpolation, there is really no cause for suspicion here. The sentiment of course is the familiar saw about ‘him who fights and runs away.’ For βέλτερον ὅς (where “ὅς” = “εἴ τις”) compare note on 7.401, and Od. 15.72 “ἶσόν τοι κακόν ἐσθ᾽, ὅς τ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλοντα νέεσθαι ξεῖνον ἐποτρύνει”, Hesiod Opp. 327 “ἶσον δ᾽ ὅς θ᾽ ἱκέτην ὅς τε ξεῖνον κακὸν ἔρξηι”. Similar cases are common in Euripides, Thuk. and others. Ameis compares Luther's words, ‘Wer zu viel Honig isset, das ist nicht gut.’ προφύγηι evidently means escapes, as distinguished from the simple “φεύγων”, by flight.

[83] 83 = 4.350, and cf. 9.409 with note.

[84] οὐλόμενε, see note on 1.2. The vocative is similarly used in Od. 17.484. στρατοῦ, for the gen. see H. G. § 151 f. σημαίνειν, when meaning to command, elsewhere always takes the dat., and so Nauck would read here. But the analogies in favour of the gen. are quite sufficient. So “ἀνάσσειν” generally takes the dat., but is found eight or nine times with the gen.

[86] τολυπεύειν, to wind up in the sense of carrying through to the end; “τολύπη” being the ball of wool wound up after spinning. So 24.7, and several times in Od.; see M. and R. on Od. 1.238.

[87] φθιόμεσθα, aor. subj. as “φθίεται,” 20.173. These words might contain a bitter taunt against Agamemnon, as though the destruction of every man were his aim (ὄφρα final). But it is more natural to take them as part of the description of the heroes, ‘men who are born to battle, and will fight till they fall’ (“ὄφρα” temporal).

[89] For καλλείψειν Zen. read “ἐκπέρσειν”, which gives a very vigorous sense if read with a note of interrogation: Is this the way in which you expect to take Troy? (Is it possible that he may have read “καλλήψειν”, and explained it by “ἐκπέρσειν”? See note on 13.620.)

[91] διὰ στόμα ἄγοιτο, bring through the mouth, as though a word were a tangible thing taken bodily out of a man over the ‘barrier of the teeth.’ Hentze compares “πάλιν λάζετο μῦθον,” 4.357.

[92] The so-called ‘attraction’ of the mood in the subordinate clause to the opt. of the principal clause (as “ὅν . . ἄγοιτο” is here in relation to “ὃς ἐπίσταιτο”) merely means that the condition is regarded from the same point of view as the main action. Here the main action “οὔ κεν ἄγοιτο” is put as a possibility only, so the condition is left only as a possibility, the speaker not caring to shift his point of view in order to insist upon his assumption or expectation of its reality as he might do by the indic. or subj. respectively. If it is desired, however, to insist upon this expectation, the mood is changed to the subj., e.g. 127 “ὅν κ᾽ ἐὺ εἴπω” after “ἀτιμήσαιτε” (cf. H. G. § 305 ad fin.) Thus Bentley's conj. “ἐπίστηται” for “ἐπίσταιτο” is needless, though to some extent supported by the fact that several MSS. have “ἐπίσταται”.

[93] For the addition of the clause with καί οἱ cf. 1.79, 12.229.

[95] 95 = 17.173, q.v. The line was justly athetized by Ar. and Aph., as out of place; νῦν δέ requires some such phrase as ‘I used to esteem your wisdom’ preceding it, but there is nothing of the sort here. For σευ Zen. read “σε”, which probably is for “σἐ”（“ο”): the hiatus after “σε” would be very harsh, even at the end of the first foot (see 2.87). For the aor. ὠνοσάμην see H. G. § 78. 1. The idiom is common in Attic (“ἐπήινεσα”, etc.) but very rare in H.; cf. 24.241. Aisch. Agam. 277 “παιδὸς νέα ὣς κάρτ᾽ ἐμωμήσω φρένας”.

[97] ὄφρα seems here to be final, in strong irony, as though the victory of the Trojans were Agamemnon's conscious purpose; cf. 87.

[98] εὐκτά, for this quasi-abstract use of the neut. plural cf. “φυκτὰ πέλωνται”, 16.128, Od. 8.299, “οὐκέτ᾽ ἀνεκτὰ πέλονται” Od. 20.223, and note on 12.30. e)/mphs seems to imply ‘though they are already victorious, you are not content with that, but mean to give them their heart's desire, the destruction of the ships.’

[99] ἐπιρρέπηι, descend in the scales of fate; cf. 8.72 “ῥέπε δ᾽ αἴσιμον ἦμαρ Ἀχαιῶν”.

[101] ἀποπαπτανέουσι, they will look away from the fight thinking only of retreat. The vulg. “ἀποπτανέουσι” is a curious ‘mumpsimus’ which has invaded nearly all MSS. and must be of great antiquity, dating no doubt from Alexandrian times. It was first corrected by Bentley from Hesych. (Letter to Dr. Davies), after Barnes, conscious of metre but careless of form, had tried “αὐτὰρ ἀποπτανέουσιν”.

[102] It is impossible to say whether δηλ́ησεται is aor. subj. or fut. indic. The former is, however, more usual. For κε Barnes conj. “σε”, Axt “δέ”.

[104] καθίκεο: cf. Od. 1.342 “ἐπεί με μάλιστα καθίκετο πένθος ἄλαστον”, the only other instance of the compound in H. In Attic writers it is equally restricted to the metaphorical sense.

[107] εἴη ὃς . . ἐνίσποι, 17.640 “εἴη δ᾽ ὅς τις . . ἀπαγγείλειε,” Od. 14.496 “ἀλλά τις εἴη εἰπεῖν”. The clause ἐμοὶ δέ κεν ἀσμένωι εἴη is virtually an apodosis to this wish; for if the wish had been expressed, as it well might have been, by “εἰ δ᾽ εἴη”, we could then not have been sure whether we had an ordinary conditional protasis and apodosis, or an independent wishclause, followed paratactically by a sentence expressing the result of the wish, as with the present text.

[108] ἀσμένωι, for the dat. cf. 7.7, 12.374, Od. 3.228, etc.; H. G. § 143.

[110] ματεύσομεν, only here in H., apparently in the same sense as “ματάω”, we shall not be long at fault, see 16.474, 5.233. This is clearly the stage which connects the older meaning, to linger (in Attic restricted to “ματᾶν, ματάζειν”), with the later to seek, in which “ματεύειν” is found from Pindar onwards.

[112] See 9.54-58.

[114] Did. says that Zen. athetized this line and Aph.omitted it; Ar. though not named must also have athetized it, as the obelos is affixed in The A. verse is unobjectionable in itself, and if the genealogy is to follow the father's name seems indispensable. But the whole passage from 114 to 125 is not only needless but incongruous, and quite alien to the character of Diomedes, who is fond of alluding to his father's prowess, but could hardly give a jejune catalogue of his relationships at such a moment. It is no doubt an interpolation, like many others, of the genealogical school connected with the name of Hesiod. The objection to 114 that Tydeus, though killed in the siege of Thebes, was buried, according to the later legend, at Eleusis, is of no weight; for Pausanias (ix. 18. 2) says that his tomb was shewn at Thebes as well.

[115] Πορθέϊ, the dat. instead of the gen. with “ἐξεγένοντο” is strange; cf. 20.231. MSS. have “Πορθεῖ”, and so Ar. wrote “δισυλλάβως”, but the contracted form is against all analogy; the only case where it is required by the metre is “Ἀχιλλεῖ” 23.792, q.v. The “ε” for “η” is on the analogy of “Ἀτρέϊ, Τυδέϊ”, the only other certain instances in H. (see, however, Schulze Q. E. p. 458).

[116] See 2.638, 13.217.

[119] νάσθη, was settled, had a home given him, cf. Od. 4.174 “καί κέ οἱ Ἄργεϊ νάσσα πόλιν καὶ δώματ᾽ ἔτευξα”.

[120] According to the Scholiasts on πλαγχθείς, “εὐσχημόνως παρεσιώπησε τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς φυγήν”, as according to Pherekydes, whom they quote, Tydeus was driven away for homicide and obtained absolution in Argos. This is the familiar form taken by legends of migration; the absolution is a postHomeric idea.

[121] For the partitive gen. θυγατρῶν in place of the acc. see H. G. § 151 e, with the instances quoted there (e.g. 5.268). Tradition gives Deïpyle as the name of Tydeus' wife. Diomedes himself married another of the daughters of Adrastos, 5.412.

[122] The possession of property in land, or “τέμενος βασιλήϊον”, must be a mark of the unreserved admission of Tydeus into the royal family; for in Homeric times landed property seems to have been restricted solely to the kings.

[124] πρόβατα recurs in H. only 23.550. It seems to mean cattle of all sorts, as in Hes. Opp. 558 “χαλεπὸς προβάτοις, χαλεπὸς δ᾽ ἀνθρώποις”.

[125] “αἱ Ἀριστάρχου εἰ ἐτεόν περ, ἵν᾽ ἦι, ταῦτα δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰκὸς εἰδέναι ἀκηκοότας, εἰ ἀληθῆ λέγω. αἱ δὲ δημώδεις” ὡς ἐτεόν περ, Did. Our MSS. all agree with the “δημώδεις”. We must take ἀκουέμεν in the pregnant sense, ‘to know by having heard’; cf. 24.543 “καὶ σέ, γέρον, τὸ πρὶν μὲν ἀκούομεν ὄλβιον εἶναι”, and so Od. 2.118, Od. 3.193, Od. 4.94. “ἀκούω” is in fact a (thematic) perfect in form as well as sense; H. G. p. 396. Ye must have heard these things, whether it (what I say) is true, or, acc. to Darbishire, Rell. Phil. p. 27, if it is to be said, deriving (“ϝ”）“ετέος” from (“ϝ”）“ημί”, say.

[126] οὐκ ἂν . . ἀτιμ́ησαιτε, the opt. is potential, you could not despise me on the ground that my descent is base. See H. G. § 300, n. “β”, where a slightly different tone is assumed. For the following subj. εἴπω, which expresses confidence, see on 92.

[127] πεφασμένον from “φαίνω”, declared by speaking, as in 18.295, Od. 4.159. This is the only Homeric instance of “ς” in the perf. pass. of a “ν”-stem. Acc. to Brugmann Gr. ii. § 862 it is due to the analogy of the 2nd plural “πέφασθε” = “πέ-φαν-σθε”.

[129] ἐχώμεθα with gen. = “ἀπεχώμεθα,” 3.84, Od. 4.422, etc.

[130] ἐκ βελέων, not, as usual, coming out of the range of missiles, but keeping out of the range, as they are not to go near at all. This use is not like the regular meaning of the preposition “ἐκ”, and is not easily to be explained. We should have expected “ἀπό”, which implies merely distance from, not motion out of. See on 8.213, 16.668; and H. G. § 223.

[131] ἐν́ησομεν, sc. “δηϊοτῆτι”, cf. 10.89 “Ζεὺς ἐνέηκε πόνοισι”. Bentley most ingeniously conj. “ὀνήσομεν”.

[132] θυμῶι, resentment against Agamemnon. ἦρα φέροντες (see on 1.572), humouring, indulging.

[135] See on 10.515.

[136] παλαιῶι φωτί, this vague expression is not Homeric, as the particular person whose likeness is assumed is elsewhere always named. Hence the line added by Zen. (from 23.360).

[140] γηθεῖ ἐνί, Barnes' “γηθέει ἐν” is doubtless right. “γηθει ενι” (“γήθἐ” imperf.) Brandreth, with the Florentine edition.

[141] δερκομένωι, dat. although the gen. “Ἀχιλῆος” has preceded; so 9.636, 10.188, Od. 23.206. But the converse is commoner, e.g. 26 above. Van L. (Ench. p. 200) ingeniously suggests that the original reading was “δερκομενοι”（“ο”), wrongly transliterated into “δερκομένωι” in the new alphabet. The “δερκομένου” of a few MSS. is probably only a grammarian's correction.

[142] ὥς, so, by his own folly. The order of the words prevents our taking “ὡς” as expressing a wish as in 18.107 “ὡς ἔρις ἔκ τε θεῶν ἔκ τ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλοιτο. σιφλώσειε, ἅπ. λεγόμενον”, and quite obscure in origin. It caused Ar. to athetize the line, if we may judge from the note of Schol. T (probably An.). No form of the word occurs till the late imitative Epics, who can only have guessed at the meaning. Ap. Rhod.i. 204 has “πόδε σιφλός”, so he took the verb to mean cripple; and this is the common interpretation, though it can hardly be said to give a satisfactory sense. Eust. says that the adj. was a Lykian word, used of hollow reeds. He and the Et. Mag. also quote a form “σιπαλός” from an unnamed poet “ἀλλὰ σὺ μὲν σιπαλός τε καὶ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἔφηλος”, where it clearly means blind. This too is apparently the sense in the fragment in Oxyrhynchus Papyri i. p. 37, . . “Γλαύ”]“κωι Λυκίωι, ὅτε σιφλὸς ἔπειγε” [“ἀνθ᾽ ἑκατομβοί”]“ων ἐννεάβοια λαβεῖν” (has the reference to the Lykian any significance?). Hentze suggests that the sense blind is particularly appropriate with “δερκομένωι”, ‘may God blind his eyes thus as he is feeding them on the woes of his friends.’ This is ingenious, but hardly Homeric. If we may accept the statement of Eust. that the word was not really Greek, but borrowed, a strikingly appropriate explanation can be found in the Semitic languages; for the Hebrew shâphal (safala) is the verb which is regularly used of bringing low the haughtiness of the proud by the hand of God; e.g. Isaiah ii. 17 ‘the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low ’; x. 33 ‘the haughty shall be humbled ’; and so Daniel v. 19, vii. 24, and often. “σιφλός” of the bent reed would give the required intermediate form. But little stress can be laid upon this, as the few Semitic words which have been identified in primitive Greek are all names of objects which we may reasonably suppose to have been imported from the East (e.g. “χιτών, οἶνος”, etc.). See also note on “ἀσύφηλος”, 9.647.

[143] οὔ πω, by no means rather than ‘not yet’; see note on 3.306. The following ἔτι, however, leaves the question doubtful.

[145] κονίσουσιν πεδίον, shall fill the plain with dust; a curious variation of the familiar “κονίειν πεδίοιο”. Cf. 21.407, 22.405.

[147] 147-52. Poseidon appears to drop the character of the ‘old man,’ and to shout in his own person, without fear of Zeus. The three chiefs too are suddenly forgotten. 148-49 = 5.860-61; 151-52 = 11.11-12. See Introduction.

[148] ὅσσον δ᾽, almost all MSS. with Ar. give “ὅσσόν τ᾽” as in 5.860, where the connexion of the line is quite different, and no conjunction is required. The reading is however possible if we put a comma at the end of 147 and a colon at the end of 149.

[154] στᾶσ᾽ ἐξ Οὐλύμποιο ἀπὸ ῥίου cohere closely with εἰσεῖδε, she stood and gazed out of Olympos from a pinnacle. The order of the words is such as to suggest that the meaning is that she stood in Olympos on a pinnacle; but the thought of the mere position is dominated by that of the action which proceeds from it. So in Od. 21.419 “τόν ῥ᾽ ἐπὶ πήχει ἑλὼν ἕλκεν νευρὴν γλυφίδας τε αὐτόθεν ἐκ δίφροιο καθήμενος”: Eur. Ph. 1009 “ἀλλ᾽ εἶμι καὶ στὰς ἐξ ἐπάλξεων ἄκρων σφάξας ἐμαυτὸν σηκὸν εἰς μελαμβαθῆ . . ἐλευθερώσω γαῖαν”: ibid. 1224 “Ἐτεοκλέης δ᾽ ὑπῆρξ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ὀρθίου σταθεὶς πύργου κελεύσας σῖγα κηρῦξαι στρατῶι”. In all these cases the participle is strictly superfluous, and is to be compared to the pleonastic use of “ἰών, λαβών”, etc. in Trag. Without altering the form of his sentence, the Greek, for the sake of greater vividness, puts in a word to describe the attitude of his actor, and connects it by position with the prepositions which express action, not attitude. It is possible to join “στᾶσ᾽ ἐξ Οὐλύμποιο” by the ordinary pregnant construction, coming forth from Olympos and standing, leaving “ἀπὸ ῥίου” to go with “εἰσεῖδε”: but the order of the words is less natural, and we have to limit the meaning of “Ὄλυμπος” in such a way as to exclude the “ῥίον” from it. Another explanation of these phrases will be found in Jebb's note on Soph. Ant. 411.

[162] Bentley, offended at the neglect of the “ϝ” of “ϝέ”, conj. “ἐντύνασα”, but this change to the nom. would be very harsh. P. Knight saw that ἓ αὐτ́ην represents “ἔϝ᾽ αὐτήν, ἐϝέ” being the emphatic form of the 3rd person implied in the later compound “ἑαυτόν”; see note on 13.495, and compare “ἑός” by “ὅς”.

[164] χροῖηι here = skin. The word does not recur in H., and in later Greek generally means colour, but the two ideas are closely connected in the common idea surface. So Theognis 1011 “κατὰ χροιὴν ῥέει ἱδρώς”, and conversely “χρώς” = colour in Aisch. Pers. 317, while in 5.354, 13.279 and similar passages either idea will suit. Still it must be confessed that the phrase is an odd one.

[165] The subj. χεύηι after the opt. ἱμείραιτο cannot be satisfactorily explained, as the sending to sleep is contingent upon the “ἱμείρασθαι”, and therefore could not be spoken of with more confidence than its condition, even if we were prepared to admit the use of the subj. after a historic tense into H. at all; see H. G. § 298. It is therefore generally agreed that the opt. must be restored. Thiersch, with a fine disregard of metrical difficulties, conj. “χεύεἰ”, in which he has been followed, strange to say, by Bekker, Bäumlein, and Döderlein. L. Lange is hesitatingly in favour of “χεύαι”, though this form is very rare in H. (see note on 2.4), and, as he himself remarks, is elsewhere found only at the end of a line or before consonants. Possibly we should write “χεύειε βλεφάροισιν”, as the locative use of the dat. is particularly common of parts of the body; or rather “χεύεἰ ἐν βλεφάροισιν”, which is suggested by the variants of Q and Van Herwerden S. conj. “χεῦαι”, to be taken as co-ordinate with “ἐλθεῖν”.

[167] ἐπ̂ηρσε, this form (from root “ἀρ” of “ἀρ-αρ-ίσκω”) recurs only in the repetition of this line in 339.

[168] κληῗδι is here used in the sense not of key (as Od. 21.6, 47) but of lock, or rather bolt. So also 24.455 “τρεῖς δ᾽ ἀναοίγεσκον μεγάλην κληῗδα θυράων”, where the “κληΐς” seems to be identical with the “ἐπιβλής” of 453. The same is the case with Od. 1.442 “ἐπὶ δὲ κληῗδ᾽ ἐτάνυσσεν ἱμάντι”, where see M. and R. But as this sense of the word was dropped in later Greek, it led to the conjectures “τόν” (sc. “θάλαμον”) and “τάς” (sc. “θύρας”) for “τήν” mentioned in the scholia. It would then be necessary to take “κληῗδι” with “βῆ”, not with “ἐπῆρσε”, ‘she went with a key. ’ This sociative use of the dat. is possible in itself (H. G. § 144), but is very forced here on account of the order of the words, and quite unnecessary.

[169] For ἐπέθηκε Zen. read “ἐπιθεῖσα”, seemingly on account of the asyndeton in the following line, and it may be questioned if this is not superior to the text. Ar. held that the shorter sentence was the more Homeric.

[170] ἀμβροσίηι, see on 2.19. We naturally cannot say in what form the divine perfume was used, or how it differed from the “ἔλαιον ἀμβρόσιον” below.

[171] λύματα, defilement, see 1.314. λίπ᾽ ἐλαίωι, 10.577.

[172] ἐδανῶι is explained by the old lexica as = “ἡδεῖ”; and Brugmann (Gr. ii. p. 1048) regards this connexion as possible. Others would write “ἐδανῶι” and refer it to root “ἐδ” (see Aisch. Ag. 1407). Those who are prepared to hear that Hera used edible ointment may accept this etymology. For the variant “ἑανῶι”, which is as old as Hymn. Ven., see Allen in J. H. S. xviii. 24. It is of course indefensible, as the adj. “ἑανός” has “α_”. τεθυωμένον ἦεν is the predicate, ‘which was (well) perfumed.’ The enclitic οἱ is added without emphasis, and is difficult to express in English; if we translate ‘was perfumed for her,’ it seems as though we meant ‘was specially made for her use,’ and this of course is not in the words. The usual view is that “τεθυωμένον” is really for “τεθυωμένωι, τό ῥά οἱ ἦεν”, the epithet having been transferred into the relative clause from its proper place in the principal sentence; compare 13.340 “ἐγχείηισι ι μακρῆις, ἃς εἶχον ταμεσίχροας”, and other similar passages (e.g. 15.389, 646, 24.167). The objection to this is that if we take out the participle, the relative clause “τό ῥά οἱ ἦεν” becomes void of sense; of course Hera had the oil which she used.

[173] κατά is evidently right; the meaningless “ποτί” seems to have got into the vulgate from a reminiscence of 1.426.

[174] ἔμπης, “νῦν ὁμοίως” Schol. B (Ar.?), ‘came alike to earth and heaven.’ But it is impossible to reconcile this with other uses of the word. It seems to have meant originally altogether, here perhaps everywhere, throughout. This easily passes into the adversative sense, as in our although, for all that, toutefois (see M. and R. on Od. 2.199). It is, however, possible to give the word its ordinary sense, ‘if it was but stirred, yet all the same the savour reached heaven and earth,’ as though it had been poured over both.

[175] This is one of the three places where ἰδέ is not used as an iambus after the main trochaic caesura; the others are 18.589, 19.285. See note on 3.318.

[177] ἀμβροσίους: Zen. and “ απη.καὶ μεγάλους”, probably because they thought that three repetitions of the adj. “ἀμβρόσιος” in nine lines were sufficient. For Homeric hair-dressing see Helbig H. E. p. 247. κράατος: the form recurs only 19.93, Od. 22.218. “κράατ”- appears to be a short form of “καρηατ”-, with the original “α_” preserved, perhaps, by the idea that it was by Epic diectasis from “κρα_τ”-, while “καρηατ”- was an extension of “κάρη”. Cf. however “κρή-δεμνον”.

[178] ἑανόν, see 5.734. ἕσατο, cf. “ἕσαντο,” 20.150; the root “ϝες” follows the analogy of the dental roots in varying between -“σς”- and -“ς”- in the sigmatic aor.; H. G. § 39. 1.

[179] ἔξυσε, scraped, so as to produce either a smooth surface or a nap (like the fuller). The final operation seems to stand for the entire process of manufacture. Compare Attic “ξυστίς”, used of fine cloth. ἀσκ́ησασα, with cunning handicraft, as 4.110, 14.240, Od. 3.438. τίθει by its position seems to imply that the decoration was done when the manufacture was completed, i.e. by embroidery.

[180] 180-81. For the pinning of the dress and the decoration of the girdle see App. G, §§ 4, 10.

[182] Note the double hiatus. That at the end of the first foot is probably permissible (“ἐν δέ τ᾽ ἄῤ” Heyne); not so the second. P. Knight conj. “ἕρμαθ᾽ ἕηκεν”, Heyne “ἕρματ᾽ ἐνῆκεν”, Brandreth “ἕρματα θῆκεν.” ἕρματα, earrings. The use of these seems, like that of the “ἐνεταί”, to mark a departure from Mykenaean custom, as it is not clear that any of the ornaments found in the acropolis graves at Mykene were really for the ears. This is asserted by Schuchhardt of the ornaments which he figures on p. 193, but doubted by TsountasManatt (p. 179), on the ground that none of the Mykenaean monuments represent a woman with rings in her ears, with the single exception of a carved mirror handle, probably of foreign fabric.

[183] The adjectives are fully discussed by Helbig H. E. pp. 271-74. τρίγληνα, with three drops, see note on “γλήνη,” 8.164, and the illustrations from archaic art given by Helbig. μορόεντα is of unknown meaning. The following explanations are purely conjectural: (1) sparkling, from root “μαρ” of “μαρμαίρω”; (2) root “μερ” of “μέρ-ιμνα” etc., wrought with anxious toil; so Schol. A “πεπονημένα τῆι κατασκευῆι, ἀπὸ τοῦ μορῆσαι, ὅ ἐστι κακοπαθῆσαι” (?); (3) berry-like, from “μόρον”, mulberry; so Ernesti; (4) from “μόρα” or “μόρος” in its primitive sense part (cf. “μορίον”), hence made of many parts, elaborately built up. The old reading (“τρίγλην̓”) “ἀμορόεντα” was variously explained as ‘“ἀ” intensive’ (?) or imperishable. Brandreth conj. “τρίγλην᾽ ἱμερόεντα”. The line recurs in Od. 18.298, but throws no fresh light on the question, and earrings are not again mentioned in H.

[184] κρηδέμνωι, see App. G, § 11. Helbig notes the absence here of the other ornaments for the head mentioned in 22.468-69.

[185] νηγατέωι, see on 2.43. λευκόν, bright as well as white, cf. Od. 6.45 “λευκὴ δ᾽ ἐπιδέδρομεν αἴγλη,” Od. 10.94 “λευκὴ δ᾽ ἦν ἀμφὶ γαλήνη”. There is no need to adopt the variant “λαμπρόν”, which indeed seems to be a mere gloss. The description clearly indicates linen as the material.

[190] ἦ ῥά νύ μοί τι πίθοιο, see 4.93. Van L. conj. “ἦ ῥά κέ μοι”, corrupted into the text by an intermediate “ἦ ῥ᾽ ἄν μοι”, which is now found in the papyrus.

[195] 195-96 = 18.426-27, Od. 5.89-90. τετελεσμένον, capable of accomplishment. The ideas ‘done’ and ‘doable’ are closely allied, as is seen in the verbal adjectives in -“τος”, which themselves are almost participles (compare “τυκτῆισι βόεσσι” 12.105 with “σάκος τετυγμένον” 14.9); “κτητός” = gainable, “ῥηκτός” = vulnerable, “φυκτά” 16.128, “πιστά” Od. 11.456, “οὐκ ἐξιτόν”, there is no getting out, Hes. Theog. 732(see H. G. § 246 *). Here this pregnant sense has been imported into the participle, so that “τετελεσμένον” = * “τελεστός”, cf. “ἀτέλεστος”, that cannot be accomplished (so van L. Ench. p. 326: ‘participium pro gerundio’ Brandreth). The phrase is commonly explained to mean ‘if it is a thing that has been accomplished and therefore may be done again,’ which is not satisfactory. Others take it to mean ‘if it is a thing already accomplished in the designs of fate,’ i.e. destined to be done. But such fatalism is not Homeric either in expression or thought.

[199] δαμνᾶι, read either “δάμνασαι” with Bentley or “δάμνης” with Brandreth.

[201] Tethys appears only here in H., nor do we find any mention elsewhere of Okeanos as the progemtor of the gods; he is only personified as a deity, outside this book, in 20.7. Hesiod (Hesiod Theog. 13336) names Okeanos and Tethys among the other children of Gaia and Uranos, including Kronos. Virgil goes a step farther with his “Oceanumque patrem rerum,” G. iv. 382 . Brandreth conj. “ῥοῶν” (“ϝροων” as he writes it) for θεῶν, father of rivers, cf. 245, 21.196. See also Plato's comments, Theaet. 152

[203] Ῥείης, for the gen. after “δέξασθαι” see on 1.596. For the deposition of Kronos see note on 8.479.

[205] ἄκριτα, endless, never brought to a ‘crisis’; see note on 2.246, and compare Od. 18.264 “ἔκριναν μέγα νεῖκος”.

[207] εὐν̂ης καὶ φιλότητος is co-ordinate with and explanatory of ἀλλ́ηλων, but does not govern it. The order of the words, with the natural break at the end of the line, is enough to shew this.

[208] κείνω is preferable to the wellattested “κείνων”: for the ‘whole-andpart’ construction is usual with “κῆρ”.

[209] ἀνἕσαιμι A, with interaspiration; it is from “ἵζω”, should I set them on their bed; see on “ἀνέσαντες,” 13.657. The word evidently alludes to “καθεῖσε” above (204). For ὁμωθ̂ηναι (“ἅπ. λεγ”.) compare “ὁμὸν λέχος εἰσαναβαίνειν,” 8.291.

[213] “ἀθετεῖται, ὅτι ἐκλύει τὴν χάριν” (does away with the graciousness of the gift', “εἰ ἕνεκα τοῦ Διὸς δίδωσι καὶ οὐκ αὐτῆς: προηθέτει δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοφάνης”. The criticism is petty, and athetesis would leave us with a speech of one line only — a thing which is found occasionally in the later books, but not elsewhere before 18.182. The use of the article in τοῦ ἀρίστου is suspicious.

[214] The ‘pierced (embroidered) strap’ seems to be a mere charm carried in the “κόλπος” (App. G, 5), not the girdle which Aphrodite is wearing. It is not called “ζώνη” and is taken “ἀπὸ στήθεσφι”, whereas the girdle lay lower, round the waist, at least in archaic times (Helbig H. E. p. 211). The strap may typify the bond which unites two lovers. κεστός is a mere adjective (cf. “πολύκεστος ἱμάς” of the helmet, 3.371) and is not turned into a subst., the cestus, till much later — hardly in fact before the Roman mythologists.

[215] Editors generally adopt Hermann's “τέ” for δέ against all MS. authority (including A, though La R.'s silence would imply the contrary). But the change is needless, cf. 6.245, 8.48, 13.21, 23.680.

[217] This line has all the appearance of a gloss on the word ὀαριστύς, but there is no record that any of the ancient critics condemned it. The use of the two words in apposition may be supported, however, by “γαλήνη . . νηνεμίη,” Od. 5.392, and perhaps “μόσχοισι λύγοισιν,” 11.105 (q.v.). ἔκλεψε, deceives, see on 1.132. For the sentiment cf. Od. 15.421-22. The last half of the line is found also in 9.554.

[219] τ̂η is apparently an adverb from the pronominal stem ta, meaning simply there (see Brugmann Gr. ii. p. 787). The form “τῆτε” however, quoted from Sophron, shews that it must have been restricted to an interjectional use on handing over something, so that at an early date it came to be felt as the imper. of a verb meaning hold, take. Cf. the Cyprian inscr. (Collitz 135) on a terracotta askos, “τᾶ Ἐτεοδάμα πῖθι” (like Od. 9.347 “Κύκλωψ, τῆ πίε οἶνον”). The whole line is very similar to Od. 5.346, where Leukothoë gives her “κρήδεμνον” as a magic charm to save Odysseus: “τῆ δέ, τόδε κρήδεμνον ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τανύσσαι”.

[221] νέεσθαι in future sense as 18.101, 23.150, Od. 4.633,Od. 14.152, and elsewhere, like “ἰέναι”: see Curtius Vb. ii. 315 and the general remarks of Delbrück Gr. iv. p. 120. ὅ τι implies an adverbial accus. “τό” in the principal clause, thou shalt not return foiled in respect of that which, etc.: see H. G. §§ 269-70.

[223] “μέσωι” for ἑῶι seems to be an alteration made to avoid hiatus. The text is evidently right as answering to “τεῶι” in 219.

[226] Πιερίην, see 2.766. Ἠμαθίην (evidently from “ἄμαθος”) the coast-land of Macedonia (so Strabo). But in Hymn. Ap. 216 it is in Thessaly, as the god takes it (and Pieria) on his way from Olympos to Iolkos. Compare Od. 5.50 “Πιερίην δ᾽ ἐπιβὰς” (“Ἑρμῆς”) “ἐξ αἰθέρος ἔμπεσε πόντωι: σεύατ᾽ ἔπειτα κ.τ.λ.”

[229] Athos is named only here in H. It recurs also in the catalogue of Hymn. Ap. 33. Brandreth reads “Ἀθάου” (P. Knight “αθαϝοο”), Menrad “ἐκ δ᾽ Ἀθόωι᾽”（“ο”), the ‘Attic’ declension in -“ως” being very doubtful in Homer.

[230] Thoas is mentioned again as the contemporary king of Lemnos in 23.745. He is of course not to be confused with the Aitolian leader “Θόας Ἀνδραίμονος υἱός,” 2.638, etc. Why Lemnos should have been chosen as the spot at which Sleep was to be found we cannot even guess. It is natural to suppose that there was some local cult of Hypnos there, but if so it has left no trace. A solution of the question given by Schol. A is sufficiently characteristic to be quoted. Lemnos was a haunt of Hephaistos, who had married “Χάρις” (18.382). It was therefore a younger sister-in-law of his of whom Hypnos was enamoured (275-76), and his house would be a place to which the amorous god would be likely to resort in order to pay his addresses.

[231] The brotherhood of Sleep and Death is a familiar allegory in all literature; see, for instance, 16.682, Hes. Theog. 212 Hes. Theog., 756-759, Virgil Aen. vi. 278.Statues of the pair stood together at Sparta (Paus.iii. 18. 1). Compare the striking phrase quoted from the comedian Mnesimachos, “ὕπνος τὰ μικρὰ τοῦ θανάτου μυστήρια”.

[234] ἠμὲν . . ἠδέ, as . . so, like 16.236, Od. 8.383, cf. 7.301. A comparison of 1.453 suggests “ἤδη μέν. εἰ μέν” is of course an admissible variant.

[235] All the attested variants here are wrong; “εἰδέω χάριν” is condemned by the synizesis, Ar.'s “χάριν εἰδέω” still more by neglect of the “ϝ”, and the vulgate ἰδέω by the short stem-vowel, which is quite irregular. The correct form is “ϝείδω” (cf. “εἴδομεν, εἴδετε”), which was first restored by Brandreth. See H. G. § 80.

[240] τεύξει, read “τεύξει ϝ᾽” with van L. For the nature of the “θρόνος” see Helbig H. E. p. 118 ff. For the last half of the line see Od. 10.367. ποσίν, for the feet, is not to be construed with “ὑπό”.

[241] ἑπισχοίης is an entirely anomalous form in H., nor are the variants “ἐπίσχοιας, ἐπίσχοιες” any better (H. G. § 83). “ἐπισχείης” might be defended as a non-thematic form from the aor. stem “σχε”-, cf. imper. “σχές” (which, however, is itself not Homeric). “ἐπίσχοιες” seems to have been the old vulgate, and is explained by the scholiasts as a mistake of the “μεταχαρακτηρίσαντες” for “ἐπισχοίης”. They remark that a comfortable chair is an appropriate gift to the god of sleep. — The added lines given by Schol. T are evidently meant to account for the fact that in 354 Hypnos takes it upon him to go and tell Poseidon. But if they are accepted, the words of Hera in 15.41 ff. become rank perjury.

[248] ὅτε μ́η, unless, see on 13.319.

[249] The critical questions raised by this line are complicated and difficult, though the general sense is clear enough. Most of the readings recorded above are no more than interpretations of an original “αλλοτεη”（“ι”）“επινυσσενεφετμη”（“ι”): the only actual variants are “αλλοτεση, αλλοθεη”, and “επενυσσεν”. But of all the alternatives none can be right. Those which read “ἄλλοτε”, with the pause at the end of the third foot, are metrically intolerable, while those with “ἄλλο” give no satisfactory sense. Ar. indeed assumed in his reading (that of the text) an ellipse of “κατά”, in another respect a command of thine taught me a lesson; but this use of “ἄλλο” is without analogy, for 22.322 and 23.454 which are quoted prove nothing. As an alternative we might assume for “πινύσσω” the constr. of “διδάσκω”, thy command taught me another lesson; but then we must take another lesson to mean ‘a lesson on another occasion,’ which goes beyond all reasonable limits of looseness of expression. The same objections apply to the reading “ἄλλο τεῆι . . ἐφετμῆι”, in another respect Zeus taught me a lesson through a command of thine. Besides, the parallel passages 1.590, 20.90, shew that the right phrase is “ἤδη καὶ ἄλλοτε”. It appears then that there must be a very ancient corruption of the text, to be emended by conjecture. Van L. transposes, “ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐφετμῆι σῆι ἐπίνυσσας” (remarking with truth that the aor. is needed). Very ingenicus and less violent is Brugmann's “ἄλλοθ᾽ ἑῆι ἐπίνυσσες” (leg. -“σας”) “ἐφετμῆι”, once before thou didst teach me a lesson by a command of thine, for which see App. A (vol. i. p. 564). This he suggests was the reading of Zen., who used “ἑός” freely of other persons than the third sing. (the scholia only say “Ζην. σὺν τῶι ι”, i.e. -“ῆι ., ἐφετμῆι”). The first part of this conj. has now some MS. support; if there ever existed a variant “ἐπίνυσσες” (or -“ας”) we should have expected to find some notice of it, but in the fragmentary state of our excerpts this objection is not fatal. The whole context (to say nothing of “Διός” in the next line) shews that the “ἐφετμή” is that of Hera, not of Zeus, and that Zeus cannot be the subject of “ἐπίνυσσεν”: so that we cannot read any form of “ἑός”, in view of its reflexive sense, except with “ἐπίνυσσες”. There is thus good ground for supposing that the passage may have been altered in order to avoid the application of “ἑῆι” to the second person. πινύσσειν, to make wise, “σωφρονίζειν, παιδεύειν”, as the scholia render it, occurs only here; cf. 15.10. The reading “ἐπένυσσεν” of Syr.suggests the deriv. from “ἐπι-νύσσω”, pricked me on; but such a metaphorical use of “νύσσω” seems to be without analogy in Greek. Hesych. appears to have read “ἐπίνυσκεν”, and this form is used by Aisch. Pers. 830.

[250] Διὸς υἱός, Herakles, whose name does not occur till 266. This legend is referred to again at somewhat greater length in 15.18-30; cf. also 19.96-133 for the enmity of Hera to Herakles. κεῖνος expresses dislike as 5.604 “κεῖνος Ἄρης”.

[252] ἔθελξα is evidently superior to “ἔλεξα”, put to bed, a grotesquely material metaphor. “ἔθελξα” is given in the second Aldine and most subsequent editions till Heyne.

[254] ἄητας, see note on 15.626.

[258] ζ́ητει, this verb occurs only here in H. in place of “δίζημαι”. ἄϊστον, ‘put out of sight,’ i.e. sent to perdition; cf. Od. 1.235, Od. 1.242 “οἴχετ᾽ ἄϊστος ἄπυστος”, and “ἀΐδηλος” = destroying.

[259] For δμ́ητειρα Zen. and Aph.read “μήτειρα”, a barbarous form and far less appropriate than the text. Cf. “ὕπνος πανδαμάτωρ,” 24.5.

[260] ἱκόμην in pregnant sense, ‘came as “ἱκέτης”’: cf. 22.123.

[261] ἀποθύμια is explained by 1.562 “ἀπὸ θυμοῦ εἶναι”. The use of μ́η after ἅζετο is curious; we should have expected the infin.

[265] ἦ φ́ηις, an ironical question, which regularly follows another with “τί ἦ”, as in 6.55, 15.244. For the form Ζ῀ην at the end of the line cf. 8.206.

[267] ὁπλοτεράων, youthful rather than younger, cf. “θηλυτεράων, κουρότερος” (4.316) etc. (H. G. § 122, van L. Ench. p. 246). In many cases the word is a real comparative, e.g. 2.707, 4.325 (compare also the superl. “ὁπλότατος” 9.58); but we cannot suppose that the existence of older Graces is here implied. The “χάριτες” are vaguely personified in 5.338, 17.51, Od. 6.18, Od. 8.364, Od. 18.194, as companions of Aphrodite, givers of beauty, etc.; and in 18.382 “Χάρις” is the wife of Hephaistos. Their number seems from this passage to have been regarded as indefinite. In Hesiod Theog. 907 we already find the number three; in 945 Hephaistos marries Aglaïe “ὁπλοτάτην Χαρίτων”. Pausanias has an interesting chapter on the questionHesiod Theog., ix. 35.The word ὁπλότερος has not been satisfactorily explained. The derivation from “ὅπλον” rarely, if ever, gives a good sense, and here is quite impossible. κε . . δώσω, see on 22.66.

[269] [269]. The scribe who first interpolated this line from 276 appears to have aimed at originality by writing “ἱμείρεαι” for “ἐέλδεαι”, quite unconscious of his false quantity.

[270] χ́ηρατο, this aor. occurs here only, though the reduplicated thematic form (“κεχάροντο” etc.) is not uncommon, and “ἐχάρην” is found also in 3.23, 10.541.

[271] ἀάατον, a word of unknown derivation and meaning. Connexion with “ἀάω” is usually assumed as obvious; but (apart from the question whether the real form of the verb is not “ἀάζω”, see on 8.237) this explains neither form (“ἀα”- for “ἀνα”-), quantity (cf. “ἀϝάτη” with “α^-α^”), nor meaning. In Od. 21.91, Od. 22.5 we have “ἀάατος” (u-uu) applied to the contest of the bow; but that expression is equally unexplained. The word recurs in Greek only in Ap. Rhod.ii. 77 “κάρτος ἀάα^τος” , invincible in strength. The problem is beyond our powers of solution. For the oath by the Styx see on 2.755. The appeal to the nether gods does not reappear when Hera next swears (15.36 ff.); it seems to indicate the want of a more distinctly personal sanction than a river, even in the case of a god; for this purpose only the older dynasty was available. Men also appeal to the underworld in similar circumstances, 3.278. The touching of land and sea may be regarded as an inclusion of the entire order of nature among the witnesses, or perhaps as a physical means of calling the attention of the powers below; see 9.568.

[273] μαρμαρέην, here only as an epithet of the sea; cf. Virgil's “aequor marmoreum.”

[274] The Homeric form is not ὦσι but “ἔωσι” (except in the very late passage Od. 24.491). We cannot read “μάρτυρ᾽ ἔωσι”, as the elision of -“οι” in the nom. plur. is inadmissible; van L.'s “μαρτυρέωσι” is possible, though the verb happens not to occur in H. Eust. mentions a variant “ὅσσοι ἔνερθε θεοί”, but the passages quoted to defend the omission of the subjunctive of “εἰμί” are insufficient to justify it here (1.547, 5.481, 11.477, 14.376, Od. 15.394. Cf. also “ἦισιν” for “ἔηισιν,” 19.202, Od. 8.580). Nauck would expel 272-74 altogether.

[279] For the Titans see 8.479. The genuineness of this line has been questioned, but without sufficient ground, as it seems to be implied in 274, and there is no case of an Olympian god swearing by his fellows. At all events if 279 is condemned, 278 must go with it.

[284] Λεκτόν, the promontory forming the W. S. angle of the Troad (see 8.47), is naturally brought by the Scholiasts into etymological connexion with the “λέχος” of Zeus and Hera.

[285] The hiatus before ὕλη is unexplained, except as a possible trace of the lost initial sibilant; a very doubtful resource. The variant “Ἴδη” does not help matters. Note also that this is the only place in H. where a short syllable stands before “σείω”, which is elsewhere always regarded as beginning with a double consonant, probably “σϝ”, written “σς” after the augment and in composition, just as with “σεῦαι”: see note on 11.549.

[286] ὄσσε may be taken either as subject or object of the verb: but 15.147 “ἐπὴν ἔλθητε Διὸς δ᾽ εἰς ὦπα ἴδησθε” is in favour of the latter.

[288] δι᾽ ἠέρος αἰθέρ᾽ ἵκανε, a poetical hyperbole: the tree is so tall as to pass through the mist clinging to the hillside and reach the clear air. “ἀήρ” as usual means mist or cloud; there is no ground for supposing that to Homer it meant, as we are often told, the lower stratum of the atmosphere in which clouds are formed. See App. H.

[290] ἐν ὄρεσσι belongs really to the principal sentence, in the sense “ὀρεσιτρόφωι”, not to the relative. For other instances of this hyperbaton see note on 172. What the bird was it is naturally impossible to say, though we may reasonably suppose that it was nocturnal in habits. Aristotle H. A. ix. 12 says “ὁ κύμινδις ὀλιγάκις μὲν φαίνεται: οἰκεῖ γὰρ ὄρη . . κύμινδιν δὲ καλοῦσιν Ίωνες αὐτήν”. But it is not to be supposed that he had any genuine tradition of the name which would enable him to identify the bird. For the various modern suggestions see Thompson Gloss. p. 108; and for the language of the gods see note on 1.403. Thompson suggests that the relation between Hypnos and the “χαλκίς” may have some connexion with the phrase “χάλκεος ὕπνος”. For a god in the likeness of a bird see on 7.59.

[294] ὡς . . ὥς, compare note on 1.512 and see also 19.16, 20.424. The two latter passages differ from the first and agree with the present in that the parallelism as . . so does not express the meaning, which is clearly ‘no sooner did he see than. ’ In other words “ὡς” is no longer the modal as, but has become the temporal when; and has affected the correlative “ὥς” till we can take it as then — a difference which is expressed by the aor. in the second clause, where 1.513 has the imperf. Though “ὡς” is often temporal, there is no other case of such use of the demonstrative “ὥς”: the use of the word has evidently been accommodated to that of the relative for the effect of the antithesis. Fairclough (C. R. xiv. 395) writes “ὡς . . ὡς” and regards the second as exclamative, when he saw, how he leapt. This is no doubt the way in which Theokritos and Virgil took the phrase (see on 1.512). The exclamative use of “ὡς”, if we deduct the places where it is = “ὅτι οὕτως”, is rare, but undeniable; see 21.273, 21.441, Od. 10.38, Od. 16.364, Od. 18.26, Od. 24.194 (and we should perhaps add the use in wishes and “ὡς ὄφελον”). But the obvious correlation seems to forbid such an explanation here. — For ἔρος, the only Homeric form, see note on 3.442. πυκινάς, firm, i.e. prudent: cf. “πύκα φρονεόντων” 217. It is possible to read “πυκινά” with S, taking it as an adv. with “ἀμφεκάλυψε”, beset closely; but such common phrases as “πυκινὴν ἠρτύνατο βουλήν”, etc. are all in favour of the text.

[296] The secret wedlock of Zeus and Hera was a favourite theme of later poets and mythographers, and played a prominent part in several ancient local cults (see Frazer Paus. iii. p. 183). According to Kallimachos (ap. Schol. A on 1.609) it lasted no less than three centuries. Cf. also Theokr. xv. 64 “πάντα γυναῖκες ἴσαντι, καὶ ὡς Ζεὺς ἀγάγεθ᾽ Ἥραν”.

[298] τόδ᾽ ἱκάνεις, so 309, 24.172; else an Odyssean idiom (Od. 1.409, etc.). See H. G. § 133.

[299] Zen. and Aph.omitted κ̓. It cannot be said that the presence or absence of the particle makes any appreciable difference in sense; but the absence in such final clauses is very rare (according to H. G. § 304. 1 b, 22.348 seems to be the only instance).

[301] 301-03 = 200-02; 304-06 = 205-07. The last three lines were athetized by Zen. and Ar. on the ground that they were not suitable in speaking to Zeus, as the possession of the “κεστὸς ἱμάς” made any excuses needless. ‘And perhaps Zeus might have taken her at her word and urged her to go; at all events (MS. “οὖν”, for “γοῦν”?) she should not run the risk of it,’ Schol. A. It is more likely that the Alexandrian critics found an “ἀπρεπές” in the use of the expression to one of the other sex. But its very suggestiveness is in its favour.

[308] τραφερ́ην, solid land, only here and Od. 20.98. It is connected with the sense curdle of “τρέφεσθαι” (5.903). ὑγρ́ην occurs also in 10.27, 24.341, Od. 1.97, etc.

[310] μετέπειτα, elsewhere only in The Od. usual word is “μετόπισθε”, as Zen. and Aph.read.

[314] ἐν φιλότητι goes with εὐνηθέντε, as 360. τραπείομεν from “τέρπω”, see on 3.441.

[316] περιπροχυθείς, cf. 4.716 “τὴν δ᾽ ἄχος ἀμφεχύθη” and “ἀμφεκάλυψε” in 294 for this vivid metaphor of the invasion of the mind by violent feeling.

[317] Ar. and Aph.athetized 317-27 “ὅτι ἄκαιρος ἡ ἀπαρίθμησις τῶν ὀνομάτων: μᾶλλον γὰρ ἀλλοτριοῖ τὴν Ἥραν ἢ προσάγεται. καὶ ὁ ἐπειγόμενος συγκοιμηθῆναι διὰ τὴν τοῦ κεστοῦ δύναμιν πολυλογεῖ”. It might be added that the whole character of the passage reminds one of the Hesiodean “κατάλογοι γυναικῶν” or “Ἠοῖαι”, and that the legends named, though familiar in classical times, are not Homeric; the birth of Herakles from Alkmene is mentioned in 19.99, a late passage, and Dionysos is definitely late (see on 6.130). Demeter too has no real personality in H. except in Od. 5.125, where we are told of an amour of far more primitive character than this. But the whole of the “ἀπάτη” contains myths not elsewhere found in H.; so that this does not form a convincing objection to the passage in this place. The wife of Ixion was named Dia, according to the legend which recurs in various mythographers.

[318] Peirithoos is mentioned as a son of Zeus also in 2.741. θεόφιν, the instrumental in its ‘comitative’ sense, H. G. § 155.

[319] Ἀκρισιώνης, a feminine patronymic, cf. “Εὐηνίνη” 9.557, “Ἀδρηστίνη” 5.412. This famous legend is mentioned again in Scut. Herc. 216 ff., and often from Pindar onwards.

[321] Φοίνικος κούρης, Europa, daughter of Agenor according to another and commoner form of the legend, which probably contained a tradition of the mingling of Greek and Phoenician elements in Crete.

[322] Μίνων, so Ar.; the acc. is “Μίνωα” in 13.450, and so we can of course read here. But compare “Ἄρην, Μέγην” beside “Ἄρηα, Μέγητα”. The vulg. “Μίνω” is hardly defensible. For Minossee also 13.450, Od. 11.322, Od. 19.178, and for Rhadamanthys Od. 4.564, Od. 7.323.

[331] 331-36. The construction of this sentence is as follows. πῶς κ᾽ ἔοι is the apodosis to the conditional protasis εἴ τις . . πεφράδοι, and is taken up again and expanded in the categorical form in οὐκ ἂν . . εἴη. (This form of conditional sentence is similar to those in Od. 18.223-25, Od. 18.357-61, Od. 21.195-97, in each of which the apodosis consists of an interrogation prefixed to the protasis introduced by “εἰ” with opt., and subsequently repeated in another form.) To this complex conditional sentence there is prefixed the assumption made by “εἰ” with the indic. in 331-32, as the foundation upon which all rests; this is the not uncommon form of two protases to one apodosis which is noticed on 5.212. The clause τὰ δὲ προπέφανται ἅπαντα belongs closely to the preceding; in English we should add it not paratactically but by a relative, ‘where everything is open to the view.’ Hentze prefers to make this clause the apodosis to the preceding “εἰ”-clause, and puts a colon after “ἅπαντα”, but this seems to throw too much weight upon an obvious fact, and thrusts into the background the emphatic part of the speech in 333. Van L. suggests “ἦ” for “εἰ” in 331 with a note of interrogation after “κορυφῆισι”. Other punctuations may be found in Hentze, Anh., but all of them are inferior to that given above (after Lange, EI p. 451).

[338] 338-39 = 166-67.

[340] κείοντες, see “κακκείοντες,” 1.606. “εὐνήν”, the reading of Zen. and Aph., must be taken with “ἴομεν” as acc. of the terminus ad quem, “ἐπεί νύ τοι εὔαδεν” becoming a parenthesis. For εὔαδεν see on 17.647.

[342] See 5.827, with note, and H. G. § 234. 3; and for the addition of ὄψεσθαι cf. Od. 22.39-40 “οὔτε θεοὺς δείσαντες . . οὔτέ τιν᾽ ἀνθρώπων νέμεσιν κατόπισθεν ἔσεσθαι. τό γε” is perhaps the object of “ὄψεσθαι”, but it is of course equally possible to take it as an adverbial acc. (as in E), for that matter, and this is on the whole more Homeric.

[345] φάος seems here to have a double significance, ‘light’ and ‘sight.’ But the confusion is a natural one; the power of sight being regarded as something which goes out of a man, it is natural to represent the sun's power of sight by what goes out of him. In other words, what enables men to see enables him to see too. We cannot fairly compare the use of “φάεα” for eyes in a formal line of the Odyssey (17.15, 18.39, 19.417); the verb “λεύσσω”, however, properly to shine, and then to see, is analogous. εἰσοράασθαι is of course mid., keenest for beholding, not passive.

[347] This beautiful passage, the most ‘romantic’ in Homer, may for its sense of sympathy with nature be compared with the voyage of Poseidon at the beginning of N. There is a delightful allegorical reminiscence of it in G. ii. 325 ff.; see also Milton P.L. iv. 670 ff., viii. 573 ff.

[348] Brandreth reads “λωτὸν ἐερσήεντα”, the only Homeric form being “ἐέρση”, except in 24.757, q.v. (Od. 9.222?). So also in Pindar. The word is for “ἐϝέρση”, see Brugm. Gr. i. § 626.

[349] Of the variants given in the App. Crit. it is evident that “ἄειρε” is the only one which can compete with ἔεργε for beauty and appropriateness.

[351] στιλπναί, formed like “τερπνός”, here only in H. ἀπέπιπτον, rained from the cloud: Zen.'s “ἀνέπιπτον”, fell on them, is again inferior. The added line mentioned by Schol. T is evidently designed to meet the prosaic objection that the Sleep-god does nothing after his long journey. Most readers will feel that the efficacy tacitly implied in his mere neighbourhood is a thoroughly poetical expression of his mysterious workings. On the other hand suspicion may justly be felt as to his self-imposed message to Poseidon in 354 ff. It is not needed for the story, and is probably only designed to effect a connexion with the following interpolation. See note on 241.

[358] ἔτι εὕδει, hiatus illicitus, and not to be explained, as the etymology of the verb “εὕδειν” is not known. “ὄφρά κ᾽ ἔθ᾽ εὕδει” (“εὕδηι”), Brandreth, will of course not do. “ἔτι γ᾽” Bentley.

[359] Cf. Od. 18.201 “ἦ με μάλ᾽ αἰνοπαθῆ μαλακὸν περὶ κῶμα κάλυψεν”, of the deep sleep sent by Athene to Penelope.

[363] It is to be presumed that Poseidon is still in the guise of a “φὼς παλαιός” (136), though μέγα προθορών hardly seems to suit this character. It is remarkable that in spite of all the pains which Hera has taken to give him freedom of action, he does nothing more now than at any time since he came to Troy at the beginning of “Ν”, only urging on the Greeks with taunts instead of displaying his divine power.

[364] δ᾽ = “δή”, see on 1.340. “ μεθίετε ” is preferable to the vulg. “μεθίεμεν”, as the desire to abolish permitted hiatus will account for the change.

[371] The idiomatic ἀσπίδες has been supplanted by the strictly grammatical “ἀσπίδας” in most MSS., just as in 75 q.v.

[372] ἑσσάμενοι, a curious word to use of taking shields. So far as it goes, it supports Reichel's theory that “χαλκοχίτωνες, χαλκεοθώρηκες” do not imply the use of breastplates; App. B, iii. 4. παναίθηισιν is “ἅπαξ λεγ”., and not Homeric in style. The whole idea, as well as the expression, of this passage is extraordinary; the suggestion of a change of armour in the hottest of the fight can hardly come from a poet familiar with real war, as the poet of “Λ”, for instance, must have been. Even if the climax of absurdity in 376-77, 381-82, be expelled, the passage is not much the better, as we must assume that the soldiers have, as a rule, only their second-best shields with them, and retire sub silentio to their tents to change. It would appear also either that they have, as a rule, left their helmets behind, or else that the “πάναιθαι κόρυθες” are a superior sort to those which they have. Thus the condemnation of 376-77 (which Ar. and Aph.athetized, and Zen. “οὐδὲ ἔγραφεν”) avails nothing. The athetesis must begin at all events with 370, and must extend at least to 382. Even then 383 is left without any context. The whole passage from 352 to 401 is a very poor addition (see Introduction).

[374] Poseidon here quite drops the character of the old man, apparently without exciting notice or comment.

[376] After ὃς δέ κε supply “ἔηισι”, see note on 274. Ar.'s reading “ἔχει” is very harsh, but not impossible; somewhat similar cases of subj. followed by indic. are found in similes, e.g. 9.324.

[380] See 28. Nestor is forgotten here.

[381] 381-82. There is no record of the athetesis of these lines by Ar. or the others, though if 376-77 go, these must necessarily follow; and An.says of 382 “οὗτος ὁ στίχος τοὺς προκειμένους ἀναιρεῖ. οἰχόμενοι ἐπί, ἐποιχόμενοι”, visiting all the divisions. ἄμειβον, it would seem, must mean ‘caused them to change’ their armour.

[382] χέρηϊ δὲ χείρονα deserves preference over the vulg. “χέρεια δὲ χείρονι”, as preserving the favourite ‘chiasmus’; and “χέρης” is elsewhere found only as a masc. See note on 1.80. There seems little to choose between δόσκεν and “δόσκον”. The former of course is logically consistent, but the latter is quite defensible.

[383] ῥ᾽ is an obvious metrical stop-gap (“ϝέσσαντο”), unless we read “ἐϝέσαντο” with van L.

[386] τῶι, apparently “ἄορι”, μιγ̂ηναι meaning ‘to meet, come in contact with’; a strange use. According to the regular sense of the Homeric formula “μιγήμεναι ἐν δαῒ λυγρῆι” the words should mean ‘it is not permitted for him (or it) to join in the battle,’ which is senseless here. We might translate it is not permitted (to mortals) to join in battle with it (instrum. dat., using it as a weapon), but this is little better.

[389] ἔριδα πτολέμοιο τάνυσσαν, see on 7.102. Poseidon and Hector are here treated as two equal powers, like Poseidon and Zeus in N; a thoroughly un-Homeric conception. ἀρ́ηγων itself is a word suited to an ally from without, but not to a general commanding his own troops; cf. 5.507, 511. For the gen. πτολέμοιο cf. “νεῖκος πολέμοιο”, 13.271.

[392] For the participation of inanimate nature cf. 13.29, 21.387.

[395] Notice the contrast of “θάλασσα”, the sea near the shore, and “πόντος” the deep sea. βορέω, rather “βορέἀ”（“ο”) (van L.): note the reading of S.

[396] The meaningless “ποτί” has invaded almost all our MSS., and πέλει has no authority but a quotation in the Et. Mag. The variant “ποθι” is just possible (supplying “βοάαι” from 394) but not likely. Van L. reads “τόσσος πέλεται βρόμος” from a very imperfect quot. of the scholiast on Ap. Rhod. Bentley's “ποτὶ δρυμόν” is almost too ingenious.

[398] For the variant “ἰξοφόροισιν” cf. “δρύας ἰξοφόρους” quoted by Hesych. from Sophokles (frag. 354 Dind.).

[399] μάλιστα goes with the whole sentence, not particularly with “μέγα”, ‘the wind which most of all roars loud in anger.’ When “μάλιστα” is followed by an adj. the end of a line is generally interposed, 5.5, 13.568, etc.

[402] Here we enter upon a different region of ideas, and are on purely Homeric ground. Lachmann rightly felt the change of style, and therefore joined the following passage to his ‘tenth lay,’ following immediately after 11.557, an artifice which has been generally recognised as the weakest point in detail of his theory, and has given rise to infinite discussion. See Introduction.

[403] τέτραπτο πρὸς ἰθύ οἱ, see 13.542 “ἐπὶ οἷ τετραμμένον”. But the position of the pronoun is wrong (the words must mean “προστέτραπτό οἱ ἰθύ”), and ‘the sense seems to require “πρὸς ἰθύν”, in the direction of his aim,’ H. G. § 365. This correction gains support from the reading of Syr.

[404] τ̂ηι, we must supply hit him from “οὐδ᾽ ἀφάμαρτεν”. The point indicated must be the middle of the breast where the baldricks crossed, that of the sword lying over the right shoulder, that of the shield over the left. Cf. Herod.i. 171 “τελαμῶσι σκυτίνοισι οἰηκίζοντες” (“τὰς ἀσπίδας”) “περὶ τοῖσι αὐχέσι τε καὶ τοῖσι ἀριστεροῖσι ὤμοισι περικείμενοι” (Reichel p. 32). It is clear that Aias cannot have been wearing a breastplate (see 406), as was noted indeed by some ancient critics (ap. Schol. T).

[410] χερμαδίωι, the construction is altered in the next line, as often, after the parenthesis. τά, (of those） which, virtually = “οἷα”. Cf. Od. 5.422 “κῆτος . . οἷά τε πολλὰ τρέφει,” Od. 6.150 “εἰ μέν τις θεός ἐσσι τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν,” Od. 12.97 “κῆτος ἃ μυρία βόσκει ἀγάστονος Ἀμφιτρίτη. ἔχματα,” a word which recurs only in 12.260, 13.139, 21.259, in different senses. It is most natural to regard it as = “ἕρματα”, 1.486, 2.154, stones used as shores to keep the ships upright; cf. Hes. Opp. 624 “νῆα δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἠπείρου ἐρύσαι, πυκάσαι τε λίθοισι πάντοθεν”. The only difficulty is to see how such stones could have been lying about in numbers unemployed. Dr. Hayman (Odyssey i. App. p. cxiv.) plausibly suggests that the word may mean stones used for ballast. These would naturally be thrown out when the ships were drawn up on land, in order to avoid straining the hulls; but into the sea rather than on the land. The imperf. ἐκυλίνδετο seems to imply that they were being used as missiles by others also.

[412] ἄντυγος, the rim of the shield, 6.118.

[413] Cf. 11.147 “ὅλμον δ᾽ ὣς ἔσσευε κυλίνδεσθαι δι᾽ ὁμίλου”. The traditional meaning of στρόμβος is whipping-top, also called “βέμβιξ”, and in this sense Virgil imitates the simile, “ceu quondam rapido volitans sub verbere turbo,” Aen. vii. 378 . Others took it to mean a spindle, others again a “ῥόμβος” or ‘bullroarer’ (see Lang Custom and Myth pp. 29-44). Aischylos uses the word of a whirlwind, and in later Greek it usually means a spiral shell. It is not very clear whether Hector or the stone is the object of the comparison and the subject of “ἔδραμε”, i.e. whether Aias whirls the stone like a “στρόμβος” or makes Hector spin like a “στρόμβος”. The latter is implied by the order of events, though the former seems more natural.

[416] 416-17. This couplet has been objected to as superfluous, and is certainly rather weak; note especially the use of αὐτ̂ης in an emphatic position, but entirely without emphasis — it is in fact redundant. The dislocation of τόν from its governing verb “ἴδηται” is unusual.

[419] The ἔγχος must be the second spear which the Homeric hero usually carried: Hector has already cast one. ἐάφθη, see on 13.543.

[422] θαμειάς is legitimately separated from its substantive “αἰχμάς” by the end of a line, because it is not an epithet, but part of the predicate, cast thick. See note on 13.611.

[423] “ἐδυν́ησατο: ῥ᾽ ἐδυνήσατο” Barnes, “γε δυνήσατο” Bentley, “ϝε δυνήσατο” G. Hermann (after 13.600: but see note there). But there is nothing in the lengthening of “τις” in the principal caesura to justify a change.

[426] Glaukos was wounded in 12.387, and in 16.508 is still unable to fight. The point is inconsiderable, but may indicate the interpolation of the line.

[427] ἀκ́ηδεσεν, a curious form; it seems to imply a present *“ἀκηδέσ-jω” from the stem “ἀκηδες” of “ἀκηδής”. This would form an aor. “ἀκηδέσ-σαι”, with the usual power of dropping one “ς” (H. G. § 39). Compare “ἀκηδέστως”. The only other instance of the verb in H. is 23.70 “ἀκήδεις” (“ἀκήδεες”), imperf. Hence Nauck reads “ἀκήδεεν” here.

[429] 429-32 = 13.535-38.

[433] 433-34 = 21.1-2, 24.692-93. In all the numerous alternations of the war this is the first mention we have had of the ford across the Skamandros, which in the passages quoted lies directly between the camp and the city. The poet treats his topography with the utmost freedom, according to his needs for the moment.

[434] ἀθάνατος, Zen. “ἀθάνατον”, probably on the ground that “ἀθάνατος” is nowhere in H. joined to a divine name, except in the repetitions of this line and 2.741 (in the same half line); and in the Odyssey of the subordinate divinities Proteus (Od. 4.385) and Kirke (Od. 12.302). The acc. as predicate in the rel. clause is quite defensible, see note on 13.340.

[436] ἀμπνύνθη, see note on 5.697. There is no authority here for the correct form “ἀμπνύθη”.

[437] It is strange that Nikanor should think it necessary to point out that ἐπὶ γοῦνα is to be joined with “ἑζόμενος”, not with “ἀπέμεσσεν”. The phrase evidently means ‘sitting with his knees on the ground,’ which we call ‘sitting on his heels.’ Zen.'s weak variant “ἀπέμασσεν” has some MS. support.

[440] The variant “ἐόντα” for κιόντα is due no doubt to a feeling that the latter is not the right word for a man who is carried away unconscious.

[443] Σάτνιον, a short form for “Σατνιοείσιος”: compare the name “Σιμοείσιος” (4.474) also derived from a river. For the position of the Satnioeis see note on 6.35.

[444] νηΐς, see notes on 2.865, 6.22, and similar phrases in 6.25, 34. So 447 is nearly identical with 6.64. 452 = 13.520. “ ἀγοστῶι, ” 11.425.

[455] πηδ̂ησαι, for the commoner “ἐκφυγεῖν”: the dart is spoken of like an animate being.

[457] “αὐτῶι is emphatic, the staff ‘as it was,’ ready to his hand; he would need no other on his way to Hades,” Monro. σκηπτόμενον, using as a staff: the verb is found only here in H.

[458] 458-59 = 13.417-18. 460 is a weak verse, whose authenticity is doubted with good reason by Heyne and others. The use of τῶι is hardly Homeric, and from the context we should suppose that this is still the Oilean Aias.

[463] λικριφὶς ἀΐξας, so also Od. 19.451, of the oblique charge of a wild boar (cf. on 12.148). Compare “λικροί” (“λεκροί”) “οἱ ὄζοι τῶν ἐλαφείων κεράτων” (Hesych.): “λέχριος”, ob-liqu-us, and for the termination, “ἀμφί-ς”. κόμισεν, caught in his body, as in 456 above.

[465] συνεοχμῶι, here only in Greek. It appears to come from “συν-έχω”, cf. “συνοχή”, joining; but the “ε” is then quite anomalous.

[466] ἄμφω τένοντε, see notes on 4.521, 10.456.

[467] The meaning may be either that the head is cut completely off with such force as to bring it to the ground before the body has time to fall, or that it is only partially severed, but that the blow is so violent as to turn the man head over heels and bring him face foremost on the ground.

[471] Compare the similar taunt in 13.446.

[472] The neglect of the Ϝ of Ϝείδεται is very rare. Bentley's “οὔ τι κακός μοι φείδεται” is condemned by the want of caesura. Brandreth reads “ἔσσεται” for “εἴδεται” with equal improbability.

[474] ἐώικει, the plupf. (= imperf.) implies ‘I thought he was,’ when he was alive. γενέην is a strange word, apparently expressing what we should give by ‘family type’; but neither the phrase nor the idea is like H. Aph.read “αὐτῶι γάρ ῥα φυὴν ἄγχιστα ἔοικεν”, which is plain, and has been adopted by Nauck, von Christ, and van L.

[475] εὖ γινώσκων, though he knew him well he pretended not to do so for the sake of the sarcasm.

[477] “ὕφελκε: ὑπό” = away from Akamas; ποδοῖιν, by the feet (or from under Akamas' feet?). Akamas also is son of Antenor, 2.823, 11.60, 12.100.

[479] ἰόμωροι, see note on 4.242.

[481] κατακτανέεσθε, Cobet M. C. 330 would read “κατακτενέεσθε”, see note on 6.409.

[482] εὕδει is used only here of death; but cf. “κοιμήσατο χάλκεον ὕπνον,” 11.241.

[484] The scansion of ἄτιτος with “ι_” is entirely contrary to all analogy; see 13.414, and compare “παλίντιτος, ἄντιτος, λυτός, στατός”, etc. always with a short stem-vowel. Hence Clarke transposed and wrote “ἔηι ἄτιτος”. This, however, is almost too simple — there is no reason why it should ever have got wrong. I strongly suspect that the original reading is that of R, “ἄτιμος”, in the sense unassessed. When a man's next-of-kin was gone, he had lost the avenger who exacted the price for the blood shed. Compare Od. 16.431 “τοῦ νῦν οἶκον ἄτιμον ἔδεις”, whose house thou eatest up with no price set on it, i.e. without retribution, and note on “ἀτίμητον μετανάστην” 9.648. The sense assess is of course quite familiar in the verb “τιμάω”: and even if Schulze is right in referring “τίμη” to a different root (“τι_ω” = honour） from that of “τίσις” (“τι?ω” = exact), the two had been completely confused at a very early date, as he admits (see App. D, vol. i. p. 595). — The vulg. “καί κέ τις” is clearly impossible. For καί τέ τις Monro (H. G. § 82) writes “καί τίς τ᾽”, the regular order, which may be indirectly supported by the entire omission of the particle in a few MSS. But there seems to be a certain tendency of “τε” in this generalizing sense to cohere with “καί”, cf. 1.521 and other instances in H. G. § 332, so that the text may be accepted.

[485] ἄρεω, i.e. “ἄρἠ” (“ο”), gen. of “ἄρης”, harm, wrongly transliterated from APEO: see note on 12.334. The variant “ἀρῆς” naturally arises from the acc. “ἄρην”, confused with “ἀρήν” = prayer, curse. The explanation of Ar., that “ἄρεω” is from “ἄρεως” a by-form of “ἄρης”, does not hold here, for when a man is killed in battle it cannot be said that a survivor “ἄρην ἀμύνει”, though he may keep disaster from the family by saving them the disgrace of a kinsman slain and no blood-price exacted. ἀλκτ̂ηρα from “ἀλκ”- (“ἀλ - αλκ - εῖν” etc.). Schulze (K. Z. xxix.) makes “Ϝαλκτήρ” = ultor for volctor; but this is disproved by Od. 14.531 “κυνῶν ἀλκτῆρα καὶ ἀνδρῶν”. Cf. also “ἀρὴν” (“ἄρην”) “ἑτάροισιν ἀμύνειν” 12.334, etc. λιπέσθαι, be left behind; this aor. is always used in passive sense.

[488] ὡρμ́ηθη with gen. as 21.595.

[489] Edd. read “Πηνελέωο”, like “Πετέωο” 2.552 etc., as the other cases (in MSS.) come from a nom. -“εως”. But Aph.read “Πηνέλεον” in 13.92, and the declension in -“ος” can always be restored: van L. Ench. p. 206.

[491] κτ̂ησιν ὄπασσε, as god of flocks and herds. Hence in Od. 14.435 the swine-herd offers to the nymphs and Hermes, and the schol. quote from Simonides (Amorg. fr. 18) “θύουσι νύμφαις τῶι τε Μαιάδος τόκωι: οὗτοι γὰρ ἀνδρῶν αἷμ᾽ ἔχουσι ποιμένων”. Cf. also Od. 15.319. The pastoral character of Hermes is more pronounced in later mythology, e.g. in the Hymn to him. He was worshipped as “ἐπιμήλιος” at Koroneia, “κριοφόρος” at Tanagra (see Frazer Paus. v. p. 87), and as “νόμιος” commonly.

[495] ἰνίου, see note on 5.73.

[497] ἀπ́ηραξεν, cf. 13.577 “ἀπὸ δὲ τρυφάλειαν ἄραξεν”.

[499] φ́η, see on 2.144; he held up the head on the spear-point like a poppyhead on its long stalk. “φή” is here, as in B, the reading of Zen.; Ar. read “φῆ” = “ἔφη” and probably athetized the next verse (“δοκεῖ ἀθετεῖν τὸν δεύτερον στίχον”, Herod.); he understood the words to mean ‘he said, holding it up (as) a poppy-head.’ The unnaturalness of this construction need not be dwelt upon.

[500] πέφραδε, shewed, pointed out, as 335 above, Od. 7.49 “δόμος ὅν με κελεύεις πεφραδέμεν”, Od. 10.111, Od. 11.22, etc.

[505] σὺν νηυσί and “ἐν νηυσί” are equally Homeric, but the former is commoner. But “ἐπὶ νηυσίν” always means at or among the ships on land, never on board (except as variant in 2.351).

[508] The following passage is probably a later addition. The appeal to the Muses is out of place, as there is no great crisis, but only a temporary reflux of the tide of battle (cf. 11.218). The allusion to the agency of Poseidon refers to 383-401, a decidedly late passage. The turning of the battle took place really with the wounding of Hector, and since then many “ἀνδράγρια” have been won. The phrase ἀνδράγρια, spoils of heroes, is unique; hence “τινὲς” (not, apparently, including Ar.) “ἀθετοῦσι διὰ τὸ ξένον τῆς λέξεως καὶ μὴ κείμενον ἀλλαχοῦ”. (Those who athetized 509 must equally have condemned the preceding and following lines; and this with “δέ” for “ῥα” in 511 might suffice to save the rest of the passage). The analogous words are “βοάγρια” (12.22, q. v.), “ζωάγρια” (18.407), “μοιχάγρια” (Od. 8.332), but not one of these is exactly parallel.

[514] Μόρυν τε καὶ Ἱπποτίωνα, see on 13.792. From the same passage (791) Barnes conj. “Πολυφοίτην” (“Πολυφήτην”) for “Περιφήτην”.

[516] Ἀτρεΐδης, Menelaos, who alludes in 17.24 to the death of Hyperenor, though he adds details which are not mentioned here.

[517] See note on 13.508.

[518] κατ᾽ ὠτειλ́ην, down the course of the wound, as though it were a channel along which the soul flowed; cf. “κατὰ ῥόον”.

[521] ἐπισπέσθαι may consistently with the use of “ἕπομαι” mean either ‘no man was his match so as to keep pace with him in running,’ or ‘no man was his equal for clinging to the foe when men have turned to flee.’ In the latter case ἀνδρῶν τρεσσάντων may be a gen. absolute, and ποσίν mean ‘by speed of foot.’ It is perhaps possible, however, to make “ἀνδρῶν” depend on “ποσίν”, and take this with “ἐπισπέσθαι”, as we talk of ‘hanging on the heels’ of a flying enemy. There is little to choose between ὄρσηι and “ὦρσε”. For the phrase compare 11.544, 13.362.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: