Book 21 (Φ）
1-2 = 14.433-34, 24.692-93, q.v.
[3] διατμ́ηξας, evidently severing into two bodies. Bentley however took it to mean crossing as in Od. 5.409 “τόδε λαῖτμα διατμήξας ἐπέρησα”.
[4] For Ἀχαιοί most MSS. have “οἱ ἄλλοι”, a reminiscence of the same phrase in 6.41, 21.554. There is no record of the Achaians having passed the ford in the previous battles; indeed the ford itself is named only here and in the passages quoted from “Ξ” and “Ω”, always in the same formal line, and like other topographical points seems to be a mere poetical invention for occasional use. The oldest battle-scenes know nothing of it, often though the fight shifts from the city to the camp.
[6] πεφυζότες, in a state (perf.) of rout, a word recurring only in this book (528, 532) and 22.1. For the formation see H. G. § 26. 5. The isolated perf. part., without any trace of the other parts of tense, may be paralleled in modern Greek, where the perf. pass. has entirely disappeared, with the exception of the participle which is in common use. — The mist spread by Hera is forgotten again immediately, the usual fate of supernatural darkness in a well-marked class of interpolations; see 17.268, etc. We are not even told whether it is Achilles or the Trojans who are to be checked: probably we must understand it to be the latter. Düntzer omits “ἠέρα . . ἐρυκέμεν” altogether.
[8] The idea as shewn by the contrast of πεδίον (3) seems to be that above the ford hills came down to the river and cut off the retreat in that direction. The scene so far corresponds to the modern reality that the Mendere is fordable in two places, and is elsewhere deep enough to drown a man. βαθύρροος is elsewhere applied only to Okeanos.
[11] ἔννεον, prob. for “ἔ-σνεϝ-ον”, root snu, H. G. § 67; cf. “ἔλλαβε”. It may also be explained as = “ἐν”-(“έ”）“νεον”, swam therein; cf. “ἐνστρέφομαι” 5.306, “ἐντρέχοι” 19.385, “ἔγκειμαι” 22.513, though as a rule compounds with “ἐν” imply not in but into, except in the perf. (“ἐγγεγάασιν”, etc.). For περί cf. 1.317 (dat.), 18.372.
[12] ῥιπ̂ης, the rush of fire, as of the wind, 15.171. “ ἠερέθονται ”, take wing. This mode of dealing with locusts is said by the scholia to be characteristic of Cyprus, and has indeed been practised there till recent years. Strabo says that the same device was used by the locust-eating tribes in Aithiopia (xvi. p. 772).
[13] φλέγει may be either trans. or intrans.; it recurs only in the pass. “φλέγετο”, 365, which is in favour of the first alternative. But “φλεγέθειν” is found in both uses, cf. 17.738 with 21.358.
[17] ὁ διογεν́ης, a very rare use of the article in H., to be compared with “γεραιός” and a few similar expressions in H. G. § 261. 3.
[19] See note on 23.176.
[20] 20-21 = 10.483-84; but ὕδωρ in place of “γαῖα” leaves an hiatus at the end of the fifth foot. The “ι” of the dat. is rarely, if ever, left unelided. Bentl. conj. “κῦμα. αἵματος” is also a possible alternative (cf. “πρῆσαι πυρός” and similar phrases in H. G. § 151 e).
[22] μεγακ́ητεος, see note on 8.222. For the metaphor compare the picture of the “λιμὴν εὔορμος” in Hes. Scut. 207 ff., in which “ἀργύρεοι δελφῖνες ἐθοίνων ἔλλοπας ἰχθῦς”. Hence van L. conj. “ἐλλοί” for “ἄλλοι”, cf. “ἐλλοῖς ἰχθύσιν” Ai. 1297 (see Jebb's note), “ἰχθύες ἐλλοί” ap. Ath. 277D (‘Eumelos or Arktinos or whatever his name is’). The suggestion is ingenious but needless; the poet of course regards the dolphin as a fish. Cf. 13.64.
[25] The variant “δινοῖο” implies the absurd interpretation eddying, “δινήεντος”. See on 20.259.
[28] ποιν́ην, blood-price, as 18.498.
[31] στρεπτοῖσι, see note on 5.113. The “ἱμάντες” are no doubt merely the leather belts with which the tunics were girt about the waist (App. B, v., vi.). It is evident that the victims wore no “θώρηξ”.
[37] ἐρινεὸν . . ὄρπηκας, a ‘wholeand-part’ figure, rarely found except of persons. But cf. 1.236. Agar conj. “ἐρινεοῦ”, for it is evident that Lykaon can only have been cutting the branches into shape: he can hardly have been cutting them off the tree by night, as the acc. would imply (J. P. XXV. 308). The young branches are chosen for their flexibility to make the curved “ἄντυγες”. Theokritos ignorantly imitates the passage (XXV. 247) when he makes such shoots used for the felloes of wheels.
[40] ἐπέρασσε, sold, a verb occurring only in this book of the Iliad (58, 78, 102, 454) and in “ξ” and “ο”. The forms found are the perf. part. (58) and the aor. (“ἐπέρασσα” or “ἐπέρασα” as if from “περάζω”). It is to be distinguished from “περάω” to pass which makes “ἐπέρησα” only; but the two verbs are evidently closely akin, through the sense ‘to make to pass over,’ which is indeed quite admissible here. Cf. “πρί-αμαι” (in “α ξ ο” only) and “πι-πρά-σκω” (not Homeric).
[41] For Euneos son of Jason and Hippolyte see 7.469. He appears to have bought Lykaon as a slave. The ὦνος according to 23.746 was the silver cup there described. Bergk rejects the line as interpolated from the Argonautic legend, which is found in the Iliad only in late passages (see Od. 12.70). If Ar. athetized (see above), it may be that he took offence at the repetition of ἔδωκεν.
[43] This Eetion does not appear elsewhere. The epithet Ἴμβριος distinguishes him from the father of Andromache (6.395, etc.). Arisbe, a town on the Hellespont, 2.836. The πολλά given for him consisted of 300 oxen, 79-80.
[44] ὑπεκπροφυγών shews that the intention was to keep him in custody for his own safety.
[45] φίλοισι may be a locative dat., among his friends; but 7.61, Od. 13.61 (“τέρπεο τῶιδ᾽ ἐνὶ οἴκωι παισί τε καὶ λαοῖσι”) are in favour of regarding it rather as instrumental or comitative (H. G. § 145, n. 4).
[48] νέεσθαι is best taken with “πέμψειν”, οὐκ ἐθέλοντα standing by itself as in 36. But this is one of the few cases in which “νέεσθαι” means simply go, and has lost the true Homeric sense return home (happily) which is equally marked in the cognate “νόστος”. Acc. to van L. the only other cases are 23.51 (see note), Od. 4.8, Od. 14.261 (= Od. 17.430), 498, Od. 18.186 (= Od. 22.434, 496), Od. 22.484, out of more than 100 places. So also Hes. Opp. 237.
[50] The sentence is interrupted for a time by the explanation of how Achilles recognised Lykaon; it is because he is disarmed, without a helmet or shield. This again is expanded by the independent addition of the clause “οὐδ᾽ ἔχεν ἔγχος”, and 51-52 are a further explanation of how he came to be in this defenceless state. In 53 we have at last the apodosis to 49. The sentence is a good instance of the way in which the Epic narrator, without losing his main idea, lets himself be carried away by the thoughts which suggest themselves as he goes on.
[54] 54 = 13.99. 56, cf. 15.191.
[57] οἶον δ́η, see note on 13.633.
[58] πεπερημένος, a form objected to by Leskien, who reads “πεπρημένος”, which is supported by Ionic inscriptions; Fick suggests also “πεπερασμένος”, as if from “περάζω”, like “περάσσαι”. See note on 40.
[59] πόντος ἀλός, the deep of the sea; imitated by Virgil, “maris magna claudit nos obice pontus,” Aen. X. 377 . The primary meaning of “πόντος” is not clear.
[62] κεῖθεν, from the other world; probably a euphemism, as it has no distinct antecedent.
[63] The vulgate text is given above; but it may be seriously questioned if we ought not to read with Brandreth “γαῖα φυσίζωος, ἥ τε κρατερόν περ ἐρύκει”, to which the variants point. The advan tages of this reading are obvious. It is needless to point out the improvement in the rhythm. γ̂η for “γαῖα” is suspicious (see 3.104). The first syllable of “φυσίζοος” is properly short, cf. “φύσις, ἐρυσάρματες, τανυσίπτερος” etc. And if the word is derived from “ζωή”, we ought to have -“ωος”, not -“οος”. The main difficulty is the fact that in 3.243, Od. 11.301 we have “φυ_σίζοος”. Schulze has shewn how the originally short “υ^” of this and similar verbs (“λύω” etc.) has gradually succumbed to the analogy of the verbal forms with -“υς”- till in later Greek lengthening is almost invariable (App. D, B (2) “α”). Hence we need not be surprised to find a variation of quantity in Homer. And possibly in 3.243, Od. 11.301 we should read “φυσίζωος” with “ω” shortened as in “ἥρωος” (-uu) Od. 6.303. The apparent inappropriateness of the epithet itself (see note on 3.243) is pointed out by Schol. “Τ” (“οὐ καλὸν τὸ ἐπίθετον ἐπὶ νεκρῶν καὶ τύμβων ταττόμενον”). To avoid this difficulty Fick has ingeniously proposed to derive it from *“ζοϝός” a masc. form (Skt. yavas) of “ζεϝά” = “ζεία”, so that “φυσί-ζοος” = “ζεί-δωρος”. This, if correct, would of course be decisive in favour of “φυσίζοος”.
[67] In 17 Achilles has laid down his spear; but as 1-33 are in all probability of different authorship the discrepancy is not surprising.
[68] Both ὑπέδραμε and the words of 69-70 seem to shew that the spear is cast, in spite of the rule of Ar. that οὐτάμεναι is used only of thrusting.
[70] See 20.279-80. “ ἄμεναι ”, apparently a primitive non-thematic form from “α?-ω” (root sā） satiate. See notes on 13.315, 19.402. For the personification of the spear cf. 168, 11.574 “λιλαιόμενα χροὸς ἆσαι”.
[71] Cf. 6.45.
[73] The statement that this line was not found in the editions of Ar. is accepted as Didymean by Ludwich. There is however no trace of omission in the MSS., and the beginning of the speech without. it is hardly Homeric. See however 480 below.
[75] The mere breaking of bread under another man's roof entitles to the position of a suppliant, even though the intention to protect be absent. This is the rule among the Arabs to the present day (see Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 41: ‘even the thief who has surreptitiously shared the evening draught of an unwitting host is safe’). Thus though Lykaon is not actually a “ἱκέτης”, because he has not been accepted as such by Achilles, he yet claims to be ‘as good as’ one. For this sense of “ἀντί” cf. Od. 8.546 “ἀντὶ κασιγνήτου ξεῖνός θ᾽ ἱκέτης τε τέτυκται”, and 8.163.
[76] πρώτωι, first among Greeks. This seems to make the personal relation closer, as putting the actual protector in a special position. So Odysseus says to Nausikaa “σὲ γὰρ . . ἐς πρώτην ἱκόμην,” Od. 6.175, and similarly Od. 7.301, Od. 8.462. “ἀκτ́ην,” 11.631.
[79] ἑκατόμβοιον expresses the value of the cup (see on 41), not the actual substance of the ransom. Cf. 23.703-05.
[80] λύμην aor. indic., with νῦν δέ because he has in his mind his present state, which he presently resumes with νῦν αὖ in 82. It is probably through not seeing this that the ancient commentators generally took the word as an opt., ‘I should like to be ransomed again.’ The short “υ” is of course quite decisive against this (cf. “δαίνυτο” 24.665, and 16.99). τρὶς τόσσα, the “πολλά” which Eetion gave to Euneos, 42. This is evidently meant to shew Achilles how valuable he will be if again sold.
[85] Λαοθόη, see note on 22.46-51.
[86] Ἄλτἀ is the reading of C and virtually of G, writing “ἐκ πλήρους” in place of elision being common enough in MSS. This form of the gen. is the older and more likely to be corrupted, and as it gives the epanalepsis in the correct form, it should be accepted. For the elision of -“ο” of the gen. see note on 11.35. “ ἀνάσσει ”, the variant “ἄνασσε” looks like an emendation to bring the passage into harmony with 20.92 where we hear of the sack of the town by Achilles. But 6.35 seems to imply that the place was still inhabited, and we are not told of Altes' death. Nor need we be troubled to harmonize passages which may probably be of different authorship and date.
[87] ἐπί, the “ὑπό” of the vulg. is a curious instance of a corruption which has invaded all MSS.; they are, however, notoriously careless about prepositions. There can be little doubt which is right, for Satnioeis is a river in 6.34, 14.445. Cf. Schol. T, “ἐπὶ τοῖς ποταμοῖς φαμεν κεῖσθαι τὰς πόλεις” (but with lemma “ὑπό”); Strabo xiii. 605 “γράφουσι δέ τινες οὐκ εὖ “ὑπὸ Σ”.” αἰπ́ηεσσαν, here only; formed from “αἰπός” as “μεσήεις” from “μέσος” (see note on 12.269).
[88] ἔχε, imperf., although from 22.53 she is still alive, because it refers back to the time of the verb “γείνατο”. For the polygamy of Priam see 22.48.
[89] δειροτομ́ησεις, slaughter like a helpless victim at the altar; so 555, Od. 22.349. The word gives the same idea as our ‘butcher.’
[92] It is hard to say whether we should read ἔσσεται or “ἔσσεαι”. The latter has strong though not wide support, and finds sufficient analogies in 39, Od. 2.166, Od. 16.103 “κακὸν πάντεσσι γενοίμην”.
[94] 94-96 are condemned by Bayfield on good grounds. Two of them are borrowed, 94 from 1.297, 96 from 17.204. The mention of Patroklcs as ‘amiable’ is not in place in an enemy's mouth; 94 is quite unsuitable for a petition; and it is useless for Lykaon to appeal for mercy on the ground that he is not ‘of the same womb’ with Hector, when he has just reminded Achilles of the slaying of his own brother Polydoros. Achilles makes no allusion to the argument in his reply.
[95] ὁμογάστριος, Zen. “ἰογάστριος”, cf. 24.47. The only objection to this reading is that no other compounds of “ἴα” are found in Greek. It has been argued that the word shews a trac<*> of the ancient way of reckoning kinship through the mother only, especially in the taking up of blood-feuds. (See M'Lennan, Studies in Ancient History, pp. 201 ff.) The foundation for such an inference is, however, extremely slight. In a polygamous household the children of the same mother would naturally feel a closer tie among themselves than with half brothers and sisters; and all that Lykaon can urge is that his relationship to Hector is not as close as it might have been. In any case the passage would prove nothing for the Greek practice. (See 6.205 for a trace of female kinship among the Lykians.) The line added in Syr.is curious, as “χόλωαι” is not a Greek form.
[98] See 11.137. “ἀμέλικτον δὲ ϝόπ᾽ ἄκουσεν”, Fick. But there is no clear case of “ϝόψ” in H.; the “ϝ” was lost at a very early date, as in other words where it was followed by “ο” or “ω” (H. G. § 393).
[99] πιφαύσκεο, perhaps tender, see on 18.500.
[100] The position of πρίν, as a conjunction, is very rare; the primary clause almost always precedes. But see Od. 14.229. It is nowhere else correlative to τόφρα.
[101] For the qualifying τι see 9.645. It is so rare in affirmative sentences that we ought perhaps to adopt the variant “τόφρα δέ”. But “τι” gives some little colour of reluctance to make such an admission. Döderlein conj. “τόφρ᾽ ἔτι”.
[104] Ἰλίου, i.e. “Ἰλίοο” (Ahrens). See note on 2.518, and 15.66, 22.6.
[105] καί emphasises “πάντων”, even all, i.e. ‘I will go so far as to say all,’ in order to accentuate the following ‘but chiefly.’ καί and δέ cannot be taken as correlative (“καὶ . . καί” both . . and is very rare in H.; perhaps only 13.260, 636?, 24.641).
[106] In φίλος the scholia see a mocking allusion to the claim of hospitality. But it clearly marks a sudden change of Achilles' impulsive mood to a real pity for his victim — a far finer touch. It is not necessary to do more than mention the punctuation after “θάνε”, which found some favour in antiquity: my friend died; so why dost thou, etc. It is a question if instead of οὕτω<*> we should not, in spite of MS. authority, read “αὔτως”, as more Homeric.
[107] This is a famous line. Plutarch (Alex. liv. p. 695 E) says that Kallisthenes used it to warn Alexander in the height of his glory; on hearing which Aristotle remarked “ὅτι Καλλισθένης λόγωι μὲν ἦν δυνατὸς καὶ μέγας, νοῦν δὲ οὐκ εἶχεν”. Still better known is Lucretius' adaptation “Ipse Epicurus obit . . tu vero dubitabis et indignabere obire?” (iii. 1054) .
[111] δείλη is metrically doubtful; see App. N, § 20. The variant “δείλης” is meaningless. The word occurs only here in H., though common in later Greek; but we have in Od. 17.606 “δείελον ἦμαρ”, and in 232 below “δείελος”, which (or “δείελον”, Nauck) we ought perhaps to read here. For ἔσσεται . . ὁππότε cf. 4.164. The scholia generally (but not Ar.) entirely spoil the sentence, putting a stop after “ἔσσεται” which they take with the preceding line, and making “ἢ ἠὼς . . ἦμαρ” a clumsy parenthesis.
[112] Ἄρη᾽, i.e. “Ἄρηϊ”. So we must read in 431, but in 5.757 (q.v.) and Od. 8.276 the contracted “Ἄρει” or “Ἄρηι” is fixed and is evidence of lateness. The only other form of the dat. is “Ἄρεϊ” (-uu) 2.479.
[113] For the very rare shortening of ἤ see note on 576.
[115] 115-16. Cf. 14.495-96. 119 = 13.655.
[120] ἧκε φέρεσθαι, sent him off (as “πᾶν δ᾽ ἦμαρ φερόμην” 1.592, “ἧκα πόδας καὶ χεῖρε φέρεσθαι” Od. 12.442, ‘let go,’ Od. 19.468 “πόδα προέηκε φέρεσθαι”). “φέρεσθαι” means no more than to go his way, drift, expressing not so much the motion as the absence of guidance, and therefore of any care, on the part of the thrower. It is the passive equivalent of the pleonastic infin. in “βῆἰέναι”.
[122] Cf. Od. 18.105 “ἐνταυθοῖ νῦν ἧσο”: the whole passage Od. 18.101-05 resembles this in tone. σ᾽ is perhaps best taken as = “σοι”. But the sequence of accusatives “σε ὠτειλὴν αἷμα”, though unusual, is not indefensible; “σε ὠτειλήν” may be a ‘wholeand-part’ construction, “ὠτειλὴν αἷμα” acc. of ‘near and remote object,’ as Od. 6.224 “χρόα ϝίζετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς ἅλμην”. The gen. “ὠτειλῆς”, though found in most MSS., is probably only a correction; superficially it looks easier, but it is less idiomatic.
[123] ἀκηδέες, careless of thy fate (cf. 24.526, of the gods), or with a reference to the more special sense of “κῆδος”, without mourning rites (Monro). The adj. means negligent in Od. 17.319, elsewhere neglected (24.554, Od. 6.26, Od. 19.18, Od. 20.130, Od. 24.187). Hence “ἀκηδέα” has been conj. here to agree with “ς”（“ε”), rightly perhaps but needlessly. The same variation in sense occurs in “ἀκήδεστος” (-“ως”) 6.60, 22.465.
[126] Many a fish leaping through the waves shall dart up to (or beneath) the black ripple, to eat Lykaon's fat. μέλαινα φρίξ is the darkening of the surface of water by the ripple of a breeze, as is described at length in 7.63-64; cf. also 23.692, Od. 4.402 “πνοιῆι ὕπο Ζεφύροιο, μελαίνηι φρικὶ καλυφθείς”. The idea then is that the corpse after a time will float on the surface, and that the fish will dart up from beneath to eat it. Whether “ὑπο”- means ‘up to’ or ‘(along) beneath’ it is hardly possible to say, as there seem to be but few parallel compounds of intransitive verbs of motion. “ὑπέρχομαι”, however, takes an accus. of the point reached (Od. 5.476, Od. 12.21, Od. 18.150), and so “ὑποδύομαι”. The most natural meaning, ‘will dart under the ripple (from above)’ is excluded by the sense of the passage. So far the text is intelligible, though strange in expression; but it contains an apparently false quantity in ὑπαΐξει, for in all the other forms of “ἀΐσσω” the “α” is invariably long. “ἀΐσσω” is generally taken to be = “αἰΐσσω” from “ϝαι-ϝικ-jω” (cf. “δαιδάλλω” etc.). In that case we may compare for the variation of quantity “α?̓εί” from “αἰϝεί” (see note on 12.211). Anyhow this reading is better than the alternative “ὑπαλύξει”. The old explanation of this is many a fish will avoid a chill by eating the fat (!). This incredible interpretation is ascribed by Ariston. to Philetas and Kallistratos, “λέγοντες ὅτι οἱ πίονες τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ εὔτροφοι τὸ ψῦχος ὑπομένουσι καὶ οὐ φθείρονται”. They must therefore have taken “ὅς κε φάγηισι” to mean ‘who shall have eaten.’ By doing this we may make “ὑπαλύξει” mean ‘he shall avoid the surface (i.e. dive to the bottom) after his meal’ but this of course will satisfy nobody. Or again we may thus explain “ὑπαΐξει”, shall dart (away) beneath the ripple after eating, which is better, but not Epic in its indirectness. μέλαιναν again involves a violation of Wernicke's law (App. N, § 16), which may indeed be av<*>ided by adopting the variant “μελαίνηι” and reading “φρίχ̓” = “φρικί”. But it may be questioned whether the whole passage has not undergone some grave corruption now irremediable. The reading “ἐπαΐξει” ascribed to Ar. by Schol. BT makes no difference to the interpretation.
[127] ἰχθύς, the “υ” is apparently long by nature, cf. H. G. § 116. 4. ὅς κε φάγηισι who shall eat, with a prophetic colouring (H. G. § 282), and also a suggestion of intention. This alone is conveyed by the variant “ὥς κε”, which, though well attested, is hardly so good. The objection that “ὅς κε φάγηισι” must mean shall have eaten is sufficiently refuted by 8.33, 9.165, 24.119, Od. 10.538, Od. 13.399, and other passages in H. G. § 282.
[128] φθείρεσθε, a phrase more familiar in Attic than in H. The neglect of the “ϝ” of “ϝιλίου” is a ground for suspecting the antiquity of the line. Perhaps we should read “κιχήετε” with Brandreth. The verb is found only here with a local object.
[130] 130-35. “Ἀρίσταρχος διὰ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων Ἀριστοφάνη φησὶ στίχους ἓξ ἠθετηκέναι ὡς παρεμβληθέντας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀπορούντων διὰ τί ὁ ποταμὸς ὀργίζεται, καίτοι σαφῶς αὐτοῦλέγοντος τὴν αἰτίαν” (sc. 146). “καὶ τὸ “δηθά” ὡς οὐχ Ὁμηρικῶς κείμενον αἰτιῶνται. μήποτε μέντοι καὶ ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος συγκατέθετο τῆι ἀθετήσει, μηδὲν ἀντειπὼν τῶι Ἀριστοφάνει”, Did. These arguments do not seem strong, and the passage cannot be judged except in connexion with the whole episode of the fight with the river.
[131] “δηθά, ἐκ πολλοῦδηλονότι καιροῦ”, Schol. B, ‘you have long been sacrificing bulls’; ἱερεύετε and καθίετε being pres., not impf. Cf. Od. 1.49 “ὃς δὴ δηθὰ φίλων ἄπο πήματα πάσχει”, ‘has long been suffering.’ The use is not so harsh as to afford a ground for athetesis. For the sacrifice of a bull to a river cf. 11.728; it is connected with the common personification of a river in the form of a bull or bull-headed man. The sacrifice of live horses in the next line has no parallel in H., and is perhaps mentioned by Achilles contemptuously as a barbarous custom. So it appears also in Herod.iv. 61Herod., vii. 113.See however Greek instances in Paus.viii. 7. 2, and Frazer's valuable note on the passage (with Hehn p. 42). The sacrifice is invariably made to water-gods.
[135] Schol B takes νόσφιν as an adverb, and supplies “ἐόντος” with ἐμεῖο as gen. absolute, no doubt on the analogy of “ἐμεῦἀπονόσφιν ἐόντος,” Od. 18.268, and 15.548, cf. 22.332. But there is nothing against the simple prepositional use far away from me = when I was far away; 19.422 “ὀλέσθαι νόσφι φίλου πατρὸς καὶ μητέρος”, etc.
[137] πόνοιο in special reference to martial exploits as 11.601 and often. But “φόνοιο” is rather more suitable here.
[141] Πηλεγόνος, no doubt a Thracian eponymos, as we hear of a tribe of Pelagones there. The name, like “Ἀκεσσαμενός”, does not recur in H., but we hear of another Periboia in “η” as honoured with a similar divine liaison.
[146] δαϊκταμένων, here and 301 only. A writes, with Herodianos, “δαῒ κταμένων”, as also “Ἄρηϊ κτάμενος”. See on 1.74, 13.477.
[148] 148-49 = 6.121-22. 148 is hardly in place here after 144, and should be omitted as in Cf. Syr.note on 20.158-60.
[150] τίς πόθεν εἰς ἀνδρῶν, also Od. 1.170; for similar instances of the biending of two questions into one cf. Eur. Hel. 86 “τίς πόθεν”, Eur. El. 779, Soph. Phil. 243 “τίνι στόλωι . . πόθεν πλέων” Soph. Phil., 1090 “τοῦποτε τεύξομαι σιτονόμου μέλεος πόθεν ἐλπίδος” (and Jebb's note on 220). It is possible that πόθεν means not ‘from what place?’ but ‘of what father?’
[151] 151 = 6.127.
[153] 153, cf. 6.145. The dialogue is evidently modelled upon that between Glaukos and Diomedes.
[154] For ‘distant Paionia’ see 2.848-50 where Asteropaios is not mentioned among the leaders — though by a strict reckoning of time eleven days take us back beyond the point at which the Catalogue is inserted, as the scholia point out. To remedy this defect a line was inserted (“ἐν πολλαῖς τῶν Ἰλιάδων” Sch. T, “ἐν τῆι κατ᾽ Εὐριπίδην” Amm.by Blass's certain conj.) after 2.848 (q.v.) “Πηλεγόνος θ᾽ υἱὸς περιδέξιος Ἀστεροπαῖος”. Another difference is that in the Catalogue the Paionians are archers, “ἀγκυλότοξοι”, not spearmen (δολιχεγχέες only here); but in 4.533 “δολίχ᾽ ἔγχεα χερσὶν ἔχοντες” isused of Thrakians.
[156] This line is an echo of 81.
[158] 158 is evidently a late interpolation or adaptation from 2.850, where see note.
[162] ἁμαρτ̂ηι, see note on 5.656. “ δούρασιν ἀμφίς ”, with both spears at once. The verb (“βάλεν”) is kept in suspense while the sentence branches off into two co-ordinate clauses, each applying to one hand; “ἐπεὶ περιδέξιος ἦεν” being parenthetical, yet causing the following clause to begin with “καί”.
[163] περιδέξιος evidently = ambidextrous; the more natural “ἀμφιδέξιος” does not suit the hexameter. The alternative “περὶ” (very) “δεξιός” mentioned by the Schol. is less pointed, and open to the objection that H. never uses “δεξιός” in the metaphorical sense clever.
[165] 165 = 20.268, q.v.
[166] ἐπιγράβδην, cf. “ἐπέγραψε” 4.139, and “ἐπιλίγδην” 17.599. “ χειρός ”, the forearm, cf. 11.252, 20.479. As this is raised for the cast, the spear in touching it goes ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ, over his body.
[167] Note the sudden change of gender in ἡ; the poet evidently has the familiar “αἰχμή” in his mind. Cf. Od. 12.75 “νεφέληι . . τὸ μέν” (sc. “νέφος”).
[168] Cf. 15.317.
[169] ἰθυπτίωνα here only (but cf. App. Cr. on 20.273); explained by 20.99 “ἰθὺ βέλος πέτεται”, though there is no complete analogy for the suffix -“ι_ων” (see Schulze Q. E. p. 309). Zen. “ἰθυκτίωνα”, said to mean straight-grained, and derived from “κτηδών” or “κτιδών”, the fibre of wood, which is impossible.
[172] μεσσοπαγές, planted up to the midst; Ar. “μεσσοπαλές”, explained (a) brandished by the middle (“ὅτι πᾶν δόρυ ἐκ μέσου πάλλεται”) — here a meaningless epithet; (b) quivering up to the middle, in contrast, acc. to Hoffmann, to the commoner phrase “ἐπὶ δ᾽ οὐρίαχος πελεμίχθη”, where only the butt-end quivers. This was Ar.'s interpretation, but it is obviously unsatisfactory, as “πάλλεσθαι” does not mean to quiver, and a spear which quivered up to the middle must quiver throughout its length; unless we are meant to suppose that it is fixed up to the middle in the earth. In that case we only get by an artificial and farfetched conceit what we are told in direct words by μεσσοπαγές, which is therefore to be preferred.
[176] ἐρύσσεσθαι, for the fut. see note on 7.36.
[177] βίηι (or “βίη”, which is the same thing) is the reading of all MSS., so far as we know; but there can be little doubt that Bekker is right in restoring “βίης” from Od. 21.126 (176 = Od. 21.125), relaxed from his effort. This is the common constr. of “μεθίημι” used intransitively; it is also found with infin. (13.234, 23.434), part. (24.48), and absolutely (4.516 etc.), but never with dat. We may indeed translate ‘relaxed in his effort,’ but this does not make the constr. more probable.
[179] ἑ is more likely to have been wrongly omitted than wrongly inserted. The double acc. is normal; e.g. Od. 13.270.
[180] 180-81, see 4.525-26.
[183] 183 = 13.619.
[185] παισίν, plur. because the statement is general; so “ἀλόχοισι Διός” 499 (H. G. § 170). ἐκγεγαῶτι, the dat. is to be preferred to the acc. as it stands in a clause independent of the infin. “ἐριζέμεναι”, and is no part of the predication. It therefore follows the constr. of “τοι” (H. G. § 240).
[186] φ̂ησθα, imperf. (or aor.?), the present being “φῆισθα” (so Od. 14.149), according to the grammarians; but this is probably mere fancy. Tyrannio wrote “φήσθα” as pres., “φῆσθα” as imperf. Either tense suits equally well. γένος is to be taken by itself, by race, the genitives being directly dependent upon “ἔμμεναι”, and so γενέην in the next line (cf. 14.113, Od. 15.225).
[190] τῶ, therefore (I am stronger than thou; for) as Zeus is stronger than rivers, the children of Zeus are stronger than the children of rivers (Platt in J. P. xxiii. 213). The alternative is to write “τῶι” as rel., by what (by how much) Zeus is greater than rivers, (by so much) the offspring of Z. is greater than a river's (offspring). For this use cf. Plato Theaet. 179D “τῶι τοι μᾶλλον σκεπτέον” by so much the more must you consider, and “ὅσωι” with comparatives throughout Greek. But this leaves the difficulty that the forward reference of “τῶι”, correlating two clauses, is against the rule for the rel. use of “ὁ” (see H. G. § 262). ἁλιμυρ́ηεις, only here and Od. 5.460; in the latter case it has a more special and appropriate sense, for it is used of the mouth of a river where it ‘murmurs against the brine.’
[191] ποταμοῖο, i.e. the offspring of a river; brachylogy as 17.51 etc. For δ᾽ αὖτε Ar. read “αὖτε”, which may indicate that he took “τῶι” as a relative co-ordinating the clauses; or that “αὖτε” is itself a conjunction = autem answering to “μέν” as 1.237, 3.241, etc.
[192] πάρα would seem to indicate that the river meant is the Skamandros; though from the context it should rather be the Axios.
[194] Ἀχελώϊος, mentioned only here in H. (also Hesiod, Hesiod Theog. 340), that of 24.616 being quite different. As the only large river of GreeceS., and also probably from its connexion with Dodona, it was regarded with special veneration; “διὸ καὶ πᾶν ὕδωρ τῆι τούτου προσηγορίαι καλεῖται” (Schol.), a fact of which the Lexica will furnish the examples. The worship of Acheloos was wide-spread; see Paus.i. 41. 2 with Frazer's note. ἰσοφαρίζει, Bentley conj. “ἀντιφερίζει” on account of the “ϝ”; Dawes “Ἀχελῶος”, which is open to the same objection as “Τιταρησόν” in 2.751, a curiously similar case. But as the passage is not certainly ancient no change need be made.
[195] Ar. read “οὔτε” for οὐδέ, and therefore must have done the same in the preceding line; Zen. omitted 195 altogether, and therefore must have had “οὐδέ” in 194. There can be no doubt as to the superior force of οὐδέ, and it is not clear why Ar. did not admit it. His objection to Zen.'s athetesis — that in H. Okeanos not Acheloos, is the parent of rivers — i<*> quite sufficient to save one of the most majestic lines ever written.
[199] σμαραγ́ησηι may refer either to light or sound; see on 2.463.
[203] ἀμφεπένοντο, attended to him; an ironical expression as 23.184, the word being properly used of tending a wounded man; 4.220, 16.28. The eels are separated from the fish because they were regarded as snakes, as indeed the name shews (if conn. with “ἔχιδνα, ἔχις”, Curt. Et. no. 172). The explanation of the Schol. ‘eels and other fishes’ is therefore wrong. (So also 353.)
[204] The relation of the two participles is obscure; neither seems sufficiently different from the other to be subordinated in the usual way, as the special to the general. “κείρειν” in 11.560 (“ὄνος κ. εἰσελθὼν βαθὺ λήϊον”) is hardly to be further distinguished from “ἐρέπτεσθαι” (“λωτὸν ἐρεπτόμενοι”) than ‘biting’ from ‘munching.’ Thus it is hard to say which verb here defines the other. We can only translate feeding on the fat by biting it or the like. ἐπινεφρίδιον also is not like an Epic word. It shews an accurate knowledge of nature, however, as the fat in this spot seems to be a particular delicacy to carnivora; the New Zealand parrots kill sheep by sitting on their backs and biting it out, and the word acquires a special significance when we find that the kidneys are regarded as the centre of life not only by Australian cannibals, but by the Semitic nations (‘the fat of the kidneys is particularly selected by the Arabs, and by most savages, as the special seat of life’ Robertson Smith quoted by Platt in J. P. xix. 46, q.v.).
[206] πεφοβ́ηατο, were in (a state of) rout. These Paionians have not been mentioned before; it is to be presumed that they were with their leader Asteropaios, and were among those who were driven into the river in 1. 8.
[213] ἐκφθέγξατο, though preserved in only one family of MSS., is obviously right. For the constr. compare 23.477 “κεφαλῆς ἐκδέρκεται ὄσσε”. No adequate parallel can be adduced for “ἐφθέγξατο δίνης” in the sense spoke from the eddy; none of those given in H. G. § 152, is quite like this. Hence most edd. have followed Isaac Casaubon in reading the compound. Ar. seems to have omitted δ᾽ and presumably put a colon at the end of 212, thus producing a harsh asyndeton, and unduly separating “προσέφη” from the speech which it introduces. Heyne suspects the line, not without reason, ‘quod otiosus est, et quod in fine ingrata repetitio est: “βαθυδίνης” et “δίνης”.’
[215] ἀνδρῶν, with “περί”, a construction elsewhere found only in the phrase “περὶ πάντων” (9.38, etc.). The position of “ἀνδρῶν” is awkward enough to suggest that the line is interpolated as a gloss on “περί. αἴσυλα,” 20.202.
[220] στεινόμενος, crouded, as Od. 9.219 “στείνοντο δὲ σηκοὶ ἀρνῶν ἠδ᾽ ἐρίφων. ἀϊδ́ηλως”, destroyingly, see on 2.318.
[221] Schol. T mentions a reading “ἕασον”, supposed to mean state thyself; cf. 19.402. There seems to have been a prejudice against the use of “ἐάω” without a following infinitive; see 24.558.
[223] It is not easy to say what Achilles promises in ἔσται ταῦτα. Skamandros has asked him to drive the victims away out of his bed. It has been suggested that this is a ruse on the river's part in order to get Achilles into his power. Achilles falls into the trap, promises to do what he is asked, and in 227, 233 leaps into the river, not in order to slay the Trojans who are there, but to drive them out into the plain. This undoubtedly gives a dramatic and consistent scene; but it involves reading a great deal into the text, as we should certainly have expected to have been warned expressly of the god's deceit. The phrase of 227 also would lead us to suppose that Achilles was again slaying the Trojans, not merely clearing the river. As an alternative we may suppose that the River's whole speech is ironical — he bids Achilles in 217 do what is obviously impossible (Monro). Achilles meets irony with irony, and while answering ‘I will do as you bid,’ proceeds to do precisely the reverse, adding mockingly ‘I will do it — when I have them all cooped up in the city.’ But this also makes severe demands upon a hearer's imagination, and the real explanation must be sought elsewhere (see Introduction).
[225] πειρηθ̂ηναι ἀντιβίην as 5.220; the dat. Ἕκτορι goes with “ἀντιβίην” as with “ἀντίος” 20.422, “πειρηθῆναι” meaning ‘to try conclusions,’ cf. 23.553.
[226] With the punctuation and accentuation of the text ἢ . . ἤ give the two alternatives paratactically, as 11.410, q.v. It is possible to put a comma after “ἀντιβίην” and take the “ἤ”-clauses as subordinate indirect questions, ‘to try whether . . or.’ In this case we must according to the rule write “ἦ” for the second “ἤ” (H. G. §§ 340-41). The sense in that case is ra her weaker than with the text.
[229] This speech has been generally condemned, on the ground that Apollo is not present to hear the appeal, and that as a matter of fact it remains entirely fruitless and unnoticed. But as a mere expression of reproach, not as a cry for aid, it is by no means out of place, and no further effects would be expected from it. It is true that we know nothing of any such commands of Zeus as are spoken of in 230; but this may be regarded as a passionate outburst in which the exact presentation of fact is not poetically indispensable. It is sufficient that Zeus should have permitted (and encouraged) Apollo to help the Trojans for an angry partisan to take it as a command.
[232] δείελος, evening (cf. note on 111), perhaps properly the evening star, or the setting sun — the epithet “ὀψὲ δύων” seems to imply something of the sort, cf. “ὀψὲ δύοντα Βοώτην,” Od. 5.272. In Od. 17.606 we have “δείελον ἦμαρ” = declining day. The word may even be “δεϝ-ελον” from “δύω” (Brugmann); but this is far from clear.
[236] 236, see 344. ἔσαν ἅλις, though poorly supported, must be preferred to the vulg. “ἅλις ἔσαν”, as the “ϝ” of “ϝάλις” is hardly ever neglected (17.54, where see note, is the only other case). Brandreth conj. “αὐτά” for αὐτόν.
[237] μεμυκὼς ἠύτε ταῦρος probably explains the common personification of rivers in the form of bulls.
[238] χέρσος is elsewhere used only of the shore of the sea, not of a river (so “ψάμαθος” is always sea sand except 202, 319). σάω, as 16.363.
[239] For a similar miraculous hiding in a river cf. Od. 11.244, with M. and R.'s note.
[242] “εἶχε, ϝεικε” Brandreth, cf. 7.217, 18.520. The variant “εἴα” is not acceptable as the contraction cannot be resolved.
[243] “ἡ δ᾽ ἐκ ῥιζῶν, ἐκ ῥιζάων δ᾽” van L., to avoid the contraction.
[245] γεφύρωσεν, perhaps rather dammed than bridged in our sense; see note on 5.89. The latter meaning is, however, evidently admissible here. αὐτόν, the very river, seems to imply ‘wide though it was.’
[246] δίνης rather than “λίμνης” because the latter implies a large open sheet of water; hence it is properly used in 317 of the inundation covering the plain, but not here while the river is still within its banks.
[247] πεδίοιο is to be taken with “πέτεσθαι, ἤϊξεν πέτεσθαι” being like “βῆἰέναι”, etc.
[249] ἀκροκελαινιόων, “ἅπ. λεγ”., with black surface. For the rest of the couplet cf. 137-38. For μιν Bentley conj. “μέν”, but this is needless, cf. “μιν . . Ναυσικάαν,” Od. 6.48, and the common use of “ὁ” as a pronoun in apposition with a proper name. Still the redundant pronoun suggests that 250 has been interpolated from 138.
[251] ἐρώη, the well supported “ἐρωήν” may be defended by Od. 9.321 “τὸ μὲν ἄμμες ἐΐσκομεν εἰσορόωντες ὅσσόν θ᾽ ἱστὸν νηός,” 325 “ὅσον τ᾽ ὄργυιαν ἐγὼν ἀπέκοψα,” Od. 10.113 “γυναῖκα εὑ ῀ ρον ὅσην τ᾽ ὄρεος κορυφήν,” 167 “πεῖσμα δ᾽ ὅσον τ᾽ ὄργυιαν πλεξάμενος”. These differ, however, either in having the object of the verb in the principal clause expressed in the acc., which makes the attraction explicable, or in the relative clause being itself the object of a transitive verb (Od. 9.325). As neither of these conditions is present here, it is simpler to supply “γίνεται” or “ἐστίν”, as so often with relatives (H. G. § 271); cf. 15.358 where the same phrase has “γίνεται” expressed (possibly, however, by an interpolator). So also 10.351, 23.327. It is very probable that the acc. is a mere error due to the preceding “ἐπί”, as though = as much as over a spear-cast. But all Homeric analogy is in favour of joining “ὅσον ἐπί” = “ἐφ᾽ ὅσον”, see 3.12, 7.451, 15.358, 23.251. The accent is not thrown back, because of the interposed “τ᾽”.
[252] οἴματα, see note on 8.349; here Philetas read “ὄμματα. τοῦθηρητ̂ηρος”, the great hunter. Cf. 24.316 “μορφνὸν θηρητῆρ᾽ ὃν καὶ περκνὸν καλέουσιν”. The use of the article is late. Perhaps for this reason Ar. is said by Eust. to have read “μέλανός του”, a certain black hunter — which is so patently un-Homeric as to deserve no credence. In fact from a very imperfect schol. U it seems more likely that Ar. opposed this reading on the ground that “του” for “τευ” is not Homeric. Aristotle is said to have read “μελανόστου”, black-boned — “ἀγνοεῖδὲ ὡς οὐ δεῖἀπὸ τῶν ἀφανῶν ποιεῖσθαι τὰ ἐπίθετα”, Schol. T. It may be added that the contracted form is not Homeric, and the epithet is zoologically false. From Porphyrios on 24.315 it seems probable, however, that this theory is due not to Aristotle but to Demokritos. Others (perhaps Philetas) read “μελανόσσου”, blackeyed, which is better. But still more plausible is Abren's conj. “μελανόρσου”, black-tailed. This at once recalls the famous passage of Aischylos about the two eagles “ὁ κελαινὸς ὅ τ᾽ ἐξόπιν ἀργᾶις”. Aristotle himself distinguishes (H. A. ix. 32) the “γνήσιος” as the largest eagle, but the “μελαναίετος” or “λαγωφόνος” as the ‘swiftest and strongest.’ So also Porph. on 24.315 “εἴωθε δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἀρχίλοχος μελάμπυγον τοῦτον τὸν ἀετὸν καλεῖν, “μή τευ μελαμπύγου τύχηις”.” It seems, however, that it is not possible confidently to appropriate these epithets to any of the rather numerous species of eagles found in Greece (Thompson, Gloss. s.v. “ἀετός”).
[254] ἐϊκώς only here in the masc., though it is the old form, and the fem. “ϝεϝικυῖα” is common. In “ἐοικώς” the strong stem is due to the analogy of the indicative. G. Meyer, Gr. § 552, H. G. § 26. 2.
[257] The practice of irrigation does not seem to be elsewhere alluded to in H., unless possibly in Od. 7.129 f. The simile is particularly vivid and striking.
[258] ὕδατι ῥόον ἡγεμονεύηι, on the analogy of “ὁδὸν ἡγεμονεύειν τινί”, e.g. Od. 24.225 (the same construction is found with “ἡγεῖσθαι” also, see Lex.). Good authorities have “ὕδατος”, but the gen. cannot be used with the acc.; “ἡγεμονεύειν τινός” is another thing.
[259] ἔχματα, impediments, see 14.410. “ ἔχων ” is subordinate to βάλλων, meaning no more than with a mattock in his hand.
[260] τοῦμὲν . . τὸ δέ, the subject is the same in both clauses, and there is no opposition even of the verbs. Thus the particles do not really correspond as in later Greek, “μέν” as often in H. merely emphasizing the preceding word, here marking the change of subject from “ἀνήρ”. So far from any opposition being implied, the repeated “τε” actually points out the three clauses in 260-62 as being parallel and corresponding, “δέ” being in each case purely continuative.
[262] προαλεῖ, evidently sloping; the origin of the word is unknown, and it does not recur before Ap. Rhod. φθάνει, the “α” is always long in H. (as it stands for “φθαν-ϝ”-); see notes on 9.506, 10.346, H. G. § 47. “φθανέει”, the reading of Zen. and others, was presumably taken as a collateral present stem, admitting the more familiar “α^” of Attic. τὸν ἄγοντα, the man who is leading it, a very rare use of the article in H., see note on 3.138. — The Duris who is quoted by Schol. U here (and perhaps on 259) is not elsewhere known as a Homeric critic.
[269] πλάζε, beat upon, root “πλαγ” of “πληγ-ή” (cf. “πλήσσω” etc.); in this sense only here, 12.285, and perhaps Od. 5.389. It is just possible to take it here to mean drove aside, the usual sense, but the use of “ὤμους” makes this unlikely.
[273] ὡς, exclamative, ‘to think that!’ (Monro), as with “ὄφελον”. So also Od. 16.364 “ὡς τόνδ᾽ ἄνδρα θεοὶ κακότητος ἔλυσαν”. This seems to be the only case where it is used in a negative sentence (with the possible exception of Od. 2.233). The predicate also generally contains an adjective or adverb with which “ὡς” might be taken. See note on 14.294.
[274] τι πάθοιμι seems to be used in the familiar Attic sense, perish: ‘if I be but saved from shameful death by drowning, then let come what may.’ Cf. 11.470 “δείδω μή τι πάθηισιν”, and for the thought 17.647 “ἐν δὲ φάει καὶ ὄλεσσον”.
[276] ἀλλά, a very natural change in the form of the sentence for “ὅσον”, cf. 340, 6.335-36, etc.
[278] Compare Hector's dying prophecy in 22.359-60. The slight discrepancy from 113 is hardly worth notice. Cf. Soph. Phil. 334-36 NE. “τέθνηκεν” (“Ἀχιλλεύς”), “ἀνδρὸς οὐδενός, θεοῦδ᾽ ὕπο, τοξευτός, ὡς λέγουσιν, ἐκ Φοίβου δαμείς. Φι. ἀλλ᾽ εὐγενὴς μὲν ὁ κτανών τε χὠ θανών”, where the last line seems to be a reminiscence of 280 below.
[279] γ᾽ here looks like a metrical stop-gap; in the bucolic diaeresis it might be omitted. There is no objection to the vulg. “τέτραφ᾽”, except that it is not elsewhere found; see, however, 23.348. For the intrans. “ἔτραφον” cf. 2.661. Herod. accented “ἐτράφ᾽” for “ἐτράφη”, but such an elision is quite impossible.
[282] The position of ὡς before a substantive without a finite verb, instead of after it (“ὥς”), is very rare. The simile is clearly taken from the practice of sending swine to fatten in the oak-woods on the mountains in autumn, and driving them home as winter comes on; “uvidus hiberna venit de glande Menalcas,” Ec. x. 20.
[283] ἔναυλος, a gully, mountain torrent. ἀποέρσηι, see on 6.348, and cf. 329 below. According to the scholia on the latter passage the verb is Kyprian. For the lengthening of the -“ο”- cf. “ἀποϝειπών” 19.35. It is generally considered that “ϝερ” is the strong form of the root of which the weak is “ϝρα” in “ἀπουράς” (“ἀπο-ϝρα-ς”), etc. But the sense sweep so exactly suits the sigmatic forms that it is hard to separate them from Lat. verro (root vers -); in that case “ἀπουράς” must be distinct in origin, as there is a clear difference in meaning.
[287] τοῖσι is evidently due to a mechanical reminiscence of a favourite line (7.445, etc.); it is not appropriate here, as Poseidon speaks to Achilles only. ‘Ammonios’ appropriately compares Od. 5.202; see also Od. 7.47.
[288] τρέε, shrink, not a mere synonym of “τάρβει. ‘τρεῖ” ille qui periculo percepto vel vero vel ficto, celeri corporis motu retractat,’ Lehrs.
[290] 290 “ἀθετεῖται, ὅτι ἀπίθανον εἰς ἀνδρὸς μορφὴν ὡμοιωμένον λέγειν “ἐγὼ καὶ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη.” τίς γάρ ἐστιν, οὐ μὴ νοήσηι”, But An.the objection would apply to the whole scene; Achilles has to know that the support given him is divine. The assumption of a human disguise is sufficiently explained by the danger to mortal eyes of a god's appearance in his proper brightness; “χαλεποὶ δὲ θεοὶ φαίνεσθαι ἐναργεῖς” 20.131.
[291] ὥς, so Cauer: vulg. “ὡς”, which may be right but expresses the same connexion of thought less clearly (seeing that).
[292] λωφ́ησει, will give respite, in H. only in Od. 9.460, but familiar in Attic, both prose and poetry.
[295] Ἰλιόφι seems to be used as a pure gen. after “τείχεα”. It must then be a false archaism, the original locative or instrumental force of the termination being forgotten when the functions of the old locative had been divided among the other cases. See on 3.3, 8.561 (where “Ἰλιόθι πρό” may have assisted the misuse), 11.350, and H. G. § 158. It is more probable, in so late a passage, that this mistake was made than that we should restore “Ἰλίοο” with L. Meyer; this would have been changed to “Ἰλίου” as in 104, q.v. ἐέλσαι with prothetic “ε” before “ϝ” also suggests the mistaken analogy of “ἐελμένος” (“ϝεϝελμ”.), but can be paralleled by “ἐεισάμενος, ἐέλδομαι, ἐείκοσι”, and others.
[296] ὅς κε, a sort of ‘whole-and-part’ apposition with “λαόν.” Ἕκτορι, we should have expected the acc. as the usual construction with verbs of robbing; but cf. 17.236.
[302] πλῶον, were floating, expresses the violence of the flood which could lift even armour off the ground. For the form cf. Od. 5.240 “τά οἱ πλώοιεν ἐλαφρῶς”.
[305] ἔληγε trans., see on 13.424.
[307] For Simoeis see note on 5.774. The mention of him seems purely perfunctory, as we should expect from the rareness of his appearances in the Iliad. It will be observed that the appeal remains absolutely unanswered, like that to Apollo in 229.
[308] For the scansion of φίλε see 4.155.
[313] ἵστη, for this form of the imper. cf. “δαίνυ_”, and various post-Homeric instances in G. Meyer, Gr. § 573. It is explained as the simple strong present stem without personal ending, whereas “καθίστα” (9.202) is a contracted form for the thematic “καθίσταε”, like “ἵει, δίδου”. H. G. §§ 5, 18.
[315] μέμονεν ἶσα θεοῖσι, cf. 5.440 “μηδὲ θεοῖσιν ἶσ᾽ ἔθελε φρονέειν” (“ἶσον ἐμοὶ φρονέουσα” 15.50 is different', and in the same sense “ἶσον ἐμοὶ φάσθαι” 1.187, 15.167.
[317] τὰ τεύχεα καλά, the order of the words shews that “τά” is not an article in the Attic sense, but a real pronoun, those his fair arms. Cf. “τὸν Χρύσην . . ἀρητῆρα” 1.11, “τοῦβασιλῆος ἀπηνέος” 1.340. “ νειόθι ”, cf. “νειόθεν ἑκ κραδίης” 10.10. “ λίμνης ”, see on 246.
[318] αὐτόν, as opposed to his armour. ἰλῦος, the “υ_” is a relic of the original length of the fem. suffix -“ύς”.
[319] The readings of this line are an old crux. There is something to be said for “ἰλύσω”: the verb is not found elsewhere, but may be a ‘nonce-word’ coined with reference to “ἰλῦος” above, as though ‘I will slime him down with sand.’ εἰλύσω itself is not free from difficulty. It must come from “ϝελυ-, ϝελϝ”- = volv -; but the “εἰ”- seems to be due to error. For the Homeric forms “εἰλέωσιν, εἰλόμενοι, εἰλεῦντο” we should probably read “ϝέλλωσι, ϝελλόμενοι, ϝέλλοντο”, and for the perf. “εἰλυμένος”, etc., “ϝεϝλυμένος” from “ϝλυ_”- (cf. “σρυ_”- beside “σερυ^”-). “εἰλύω” will then be a later analogical formation from the perf., the only tense which recurs in H., or indeed in any but late authors with the exception of “εἰλύομαι” = crawl in Soph. Phil. 291Soph. Phil., 702(see van L. Ench. p. 493). “εἰλυ_φάζει” 20.492, “εἰλυ^φόων” 11.156 are further offshoots. χέραδος, shingle, neut. acc. The variant “χεράδος” as fem. gen. is due to the later constr. of “ἅλις” with gen., which is not found in H. There is no good evidence for the fem. now that “χεράδει” is read for “χεράδι” in Pind. P. vi. 13 on the express authority of Sch. T here. The neut. is further attested by Sch. U from Alkaios, and by Sch. Ap. Rhod.i. 1123 from Sappho (corruptly however, see Et. Mag. 808. 35). The variant “σχέραδος” rests on a quotation from Euphorion, “τύμβος ὑπὸ κνημοῖσι πολυσχεράδος Μυκόνοιο”.
[320] Friedländer has suggested that 320-21 and 322-23 are two distinct variants wrongly combined; in the first Achilles' bones cannot even be found, while in the second they are to be buried by the Achaians. If this suggestion be admitted, it seems to follow that the second form (322-23) is the older and the first interpolated, as μυρίον comes in awkwardly after “ἅλις”. But it is certainly not necessary, and 323 does not involve finding the bones (see next note) even if it is consistent with it.
[323] τυμβοχόης, so Krates read, while Ar. made the word “τυμβοχοῆσ᾽” (for -“ῆσαι”, aor. infin.). The question is of course one of interpretation only, not of MS. tradition. It seems clear that Ar. is wrong, and the only difficulty is to understand how he came to adopt an explanation which seems so perverse. “τυμβοχόη” it is true does not recur in Greek, while “τυμβοχοέειν” is used by Herodotos; but the formation is quite regular (cf. “οἰνοχόη”), and the verb implies the subst. Against “τυμβοχοῆσ᾽” it must be objected (1) that the -“αι” of the aor. infin. is nowhere else elided; (2) that the constr. “τυμβοχοῆσαί μιν” is very harsh, and cannot be supported by “νέκταρ οἰνοχοεύειν”, where the acc. is cognate. (Herod. uses the word without an object.) On the other hand the constr. “χρεώ μιν ἔσται” with gen. is sufficiently attested by Od. 4.634 “ἐμὲ δὲ χρεὼ γίνεται αὐτῆς,” 9.607 “οὔ τί με ταύτης χρεὼ τιμῆς. θάπτωσιν” may mean ‘perform funeral rites,’ setting up a “σῆμα”, even in the absence of the body. Such a cenotaph is not mentioned in H., but naturally follows from the importance attached to the formalities of burial, and is hinted at in 22.512-14, Od. 1.291. But it is equally possible to regard “ὅτε μιν θάπτωσιν” as covered by the negative; ‘he will need no mound at his burial, because he will have no burial’ (Monro).
[331] 331 “ἀθετεῖται ὅτι ἄκαιρον τὸ ἐπίθετον” Schol. A (Hera should not allude to her son's deformity when asking a favour). But the line is obviously indispensable. Cobet suggests that the scribe has mistaken the paragraphos, a dash a little above the line at the beginning of a speech answering to our inverted commas, for the obelos, a dash at the side of the line. In his copy the diple which really belonged to the line may have been accidentally omitted, so that seeing as he supposed the obelos, and having a note referring to a critical mark, he inserted the word “ἀθετεῖται” on his own responsibility. Schol. U has in fact “Ἀριστόνικος” in place of “ἀθετεῖται”. For κυλλοποδίων cf. 18.371.
[332] ἠΐσκομεν, the ironical imperf. implying ‘it seems we were wrong.’ The reference is evidently to the pairing of the gods in 20.67. The symbolic allusion to the enmity of fire and water is obvious.
[334] ἀργεστᾶο, see on 11.306.
[335] εἴσομαι, i.e. “ϝίσομαι”, I will hasten (“ϝίεμαι”). Zen. took it to mean ‘I shall know,’ and for “ἥ” (336) read “ἤ”, whether, with “ὄρσασα” for “ὄρσουσα”. Hera takes no steps to fulfil her promise.
[336] Τρώων is of course to be taken with “κεφαλάς, ἀπό . . κ́ηαι” going together. The opt. expresses the remoter purpose. κεφαλάς virtually = persons, cf. “κάρηνα” 11.158.
[338] ἐν . . ἵει πυρί, almost literally our ‘set on fire.’ 23.45 “ἐνὶ Πάτροκλον θέμεναι πυρί” is nearly the same. For the rest of the couplet cf. 20.108-09.
[343] πρῶτα μέν is answered by the simple “δέ” in 349, instead of “ἔπειτα δέ”.
[344] This line is probably a mere interpolation from 236, where αὐτόν has its proper reference. Here also we must take it to mean the River, though the only subst. to which it can belong is “πεδίον”. Of course we could read “ἔσαν ἅλις”, or “αὐτό” with Bentley, as “ϝάλις” keeps the “ϝ” (an objection to Wolf's “καταυτόθ᾽” which many edd. adopt'. But it is better simply to reject the line and not trouble about emending it. It happens also that “αὐτό” is never found in H.
[347] ἐθείρηι, a word recurring in Greek only in Arg. 932 “χρυσέαις φολιδεσσιν ἐθείρεται”, which explains nothing. The der. and meaning are unknown; the context suggests tills.
[349] κ̂ηεν Hephaistos: ὁ δέ indicating a change of action, but not of subject.
[350] For καί the vulg. has “τε καί”. But the “ϝ” of “ϝιτέαι” is preserved in Od. 10.510 “μακραί τ᾽ αἴγειροι καὶ ἰτέαι ὠλεσίκαρποι”: cf. vit-ex <*>, our withy. According to Barker Webb, quoted by Schliemann Ilios 116-18, all the trees and plants here named are still to be found in the Trojan plain — so far at least as we are justified in identifying them.
[352] For the lengthening of τά in the first arsis see App. D, C. 1.
[353] ἐγχέλυες, see note on 203. οἴ, sc. “ἦσαν”. See H. G. § 271 and note on 11.535.
[356] The periphrastic use of ἴς, though common in Od., does not recur in Il., where “βίη” is used instead. The only other place where the “ϝ” of “ϝίς” is neglected is 17.739. Heyne reads “καίετο ϝίς”. PindarionPtol. 's “καί ἑ τόδ᾽ ἴς κτλ”. is an amusingly ingenious word-puzzle, but can hardly have been taken seriously even by its author.
[358] φλεγέθοντι agrees with “σοί, πυρί” being an instrumental dat., fight against thee thus blazing with fire.
[360] τί μοι ἔριδος, for this use of the partitive gen. cf. H. G. § 151 e.
[361] φ̂η is only here used after a speech in place of the regular “ἦ”.
[362] “ὅτι οἶδεν ἕψησιν κρεῶν, χρωμένους δὲ τοὺς ἥρωας οὐ παρεισάγει”, See An.similar remarks on 388, 15.679, 18.219. There is however a want of point here, for it is not the boiling of flesh but the melting of lard which is described. Presumably Ar. considered that the habit of boiling flesh was implied in the existence of caldrons. ζεῖ, read “ζέει”: the contracted form is not only un-Homeric but unmetrical. So “τρεῖ” for “τρέει” 11.554. The verb is used with “λέβης” just as we say ‘the kettle boils.’
[363] μελδόμενος, melting the fat. The verb is evidently not a passive, as some have taken it. It recurs only in late imitative poets, in the act. Of the variants given above there is something to be said for “κνίσης”, if we read “μελδομένης”. On “μελδομένου” there is a remarkable scholion in U: “Πεισίτρατος ὁ Ἐφέσιος καὶ Ἑρμογένης ἐν τῶι περὶ προβλημάτων: “ἐγέγραπτο μελδομενο, καὶ δέον ἦν <τὸ υ> προσθεῖναι, κακῶς δέ τις τὸ ς προσέρραψεν. ὁ γὰρ νοῦς: τῆι κνίσσηι τηκομένου τοῦ συός. ὁ μὲν ποιητὴς μέλδε-” “σθαί φησι τὰ ἐψόμενα, οἱ δὲ πεποιήκασι τὸν λέβητα τηκόμενον”.” The schol. goes on to repeat at further length that “μελδόμενος” is merely a conjecture of the “μεταχαρακτηρίσαντες”, who did not understand that “ΜΕΛΔΟΜΕΝΟ” = “μελδομένου”. The reading “κνίσηι μελδομένου”, ‘with the fat of a hog being melted down,’ is quite possible. Nothing more is known of this Peisistratos. For Hermogenes see Schrader Porph. p. 440. Ammonios attributes the same theory to Krates.
[364] ἀμβολάδην, spurting up; cf. “ὑποβλήδην. κάγκανα”, also Od. 18.308, dry; cf. “πολυκαγκέα δίψην” 11.642.
[366] οὐδ᾽ ἔθελε, he had no mind to flow on. “ἐθέλειν” implies ‘a wish in which there lies a purpose or design, consequently a desire of something the execution of which is, or at least appears to be, in one's own power’ (Buttmann Lexil.). It thus comes to mean “δύνασθαι”, but with a very clear touch of sarcasm. So 9.353, 13.106.
[367] βίηφι seems to be a pure gen., ‘the breath of H.'s might.’ The order of words is against translating ‘H.'s breath wore him down perforce.’ See note on “Ἰλιόφι”, 295.
[369] ρ́όον ἔχραε κ́ηδειν, laid hands on my stream to vex it; so Od. 21.69 “τόδε δῶμα ἐχράετ᾽ ἐσθιέμεν”. The dat. is also found, “στυγερὸς δέ οἰ ἔχραε δαίμων,” Od. 5.396, cf. 17.352. “ἔχραε” is an aor. from root “χραυ”, which with its cognates “χρ-αίνω, χρ-ίω” (Brugm. Gr. ii. p. 990) means touch, stroke, graze, and has thence developed into lay hands on in a hostile sense. The regular sigmatic aor. is “χραύσ-ηι” (5.138); there is little ground for the proposed separation of the two words alluded to in the note there. The two co-existent aorists are exactly parallel to “λόε” — “λοῦσε. ἐξ ἄλλων” = “ἔξοχον ἄλλων”.
[374] 374-76 = 20.315-17, except for the transfer of MS. authority from “δαιομένη, δαίωσι” to “καιομένη, καίωσι”.
[386] ἄητο, either mid., breathed in two directions, or pass., was blown about by gusts of passion (cf. Od. 6.131 “ὑόμενος καὶ ἀήμενος”, in the literal sense). The latter gives the better sense, and is supported by “ἀεσίφρων” 20.183, 23.603; cf. 3.108 “ὁπλοτέρων ἀνδρῶν φρένες ἠερέθονται”. For the former the nearest analogy is perhaps the phrase “μένεα πνείοντες”. In Scut. Herc. 8, Hymn. Cer. 276, the word seems to be used of the wafting of fragrance.
[388] “σάλπιγξεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς μὲν ὀ̂δε σάλπιγγα, χρωμένους δὲ τοὺς ἥρωας οὐκ εἰσάγει”, Ar., see on 362, 18.219. The metaphor is tragic rather than epic. The idea seems to be that the noise of the fighting echoed back from the vault of heaven, not that thunder accompanied the battle; for Zeus, the thunderer, is passive. Cf. Hes. Theog. 679, of the battle with the Titans, “ἐπέστενε δ᾽ οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς σειόμενος”.
[390] Zeus appears to have a just appreciation of the whole combat as a parody of serious fighting. It is only here and in 508 that Homer's Zeus ever goes beyond a smile, like the Zeus of the hymn to Hermes (389), who ‘laughs loud’ at the tricks of his naughty son.
[394] κυνόμυια, dog-fly: “ὁ μὲν γὰρ κύων ἀναιδής, ἡ δὲ μυῖα θρασεῖα” (cf. 17.570), The An.compound (here and 421 only) has no parallel in H.; we can only compare a few such words as “ἱππαλεκτρυών, ἰατρόμαντις” in later Greek. Many MSS. and all edd. have “κυνάμυια”, but the -“α”is indefensible.
[395] ἄητον, a doubtful word; see on “αἴητον” 18.410. It may perhaps be related to “ἄητο” above, in the sense ‘blown about,’ flighty. Another interpretation is insatiable, as if from sa, “ἄω”, which is barely possible. Qu. Smyrn. has “θάρσος ἄατον”, which may therefore have been an old variant here, though it would be no clearer than the text, “ἀήττητον” in P is of course an etymology which has displaced the word it was meant to explain. For the last part of the line see note on 7.25.
[396] “ἦ οὐ, οὐ” Brandreth. μέμνηι, rather “μέμνἠ”, see 15.18.
[397] πανόψιον, a strange word, ap parently meaning visible to all, as opposed to the goddess who was invisible. The allusion is to 5.856. Antimachos read “ὑπονόσφιον”, either as adv. secretly, or adj. the surreptitious spear (cf. “νοσφίδιος”, Hes. fr. 4); and the variant has actually turned up in a papyrus. Bentley conj. “πανίψιον”. 398, cf. 5.858.
[399] ὅσσα ἔοργας has little support, but is preferable as recognising the “ϝ”, which, as Brandreth remarks, is generally preserved throughout the “θεομαχία”.
[401] “ὅτι ἰδίως ἐπὶ τῆς αἰγίδος τοῦτό φησιν, ἣν Διὸς ὅπλον παραδίδωσιν”, An., i.e. the expression is a curious one (“ἰδίως”) by which to describe the shield of Zeus himself. It is perhaps for this reason that most MSS. give “ἀσπίδα” for “αἰγίδα”. But θυσανόεσσα is only used as an epithet of the aegis.
[403] 403-04 = 7.264-65. From Schol. U on 424 it appears that objection was taken to παχείηι used of the hand of a goddess; some would read “βαρείηι”, others “Παλλὰς Α᾿θήνη”. But see Od. 21.6, Hymn. Ap. 340.
[405] Cf. 23.332, and note on 12.421.
[407] For πέλεθρα see note on 11.354. So Tityos lies spread over nine “πέλεθρα” in Od. 11.577. The only other equally exaggerated picture of divine stature is in 5.860 (and 744?); all, it will be noticed, in passages of apparently late origin. Compare also 13.20. Homer's gods, though ‘divinely tall’ (18.518), are not such monsters as this.
[410] νηπύτιε as a form of address is a peculiarity of this book (441, 474, 585). Cf. note on 20.200.
[412] τ̂ης, thy; read “ἧς” (App. A, vol. i. p. 563). Ares' desertion of his mother Hera's side is denounced in 5.832. The ἐρινύες here can hardly mean more than curses, and have entirely lost the moral significance of the avengers of parental wrongs. Compare Od. 11.280 “ὅσσά τε μητρὸς ἐρινύες ἐκτελέουσι”, Aisch. Eum. 417 “Ἀραὶ δ᾽ ἐν οἴκοις γῆς ὑπαὶ κεκλήμεθα”, Hes. Theog. 472 “τίσαιτο δ᾽ ἐρινῦς πατρὸς ἑοῖο”.
[416] “ὅτι οἱ χωρίζοντές φασι τὸν τῆς Ἰλιάδος ποιητὴν εἰδέναι συνοῦσαν τῶι Ἄρει τὴν Ἀφροδίτην, τὸν δὲ τῆς Ὀδυσσείας διαφώνως Ἡφαίστωι” (i.e. in the lay of Demodokos in “θ” the amour with Ares is carried on secretly, while here it appears to be public). “λέγειν δὲ δεῖ ὅτι οὐχ οἱ αὐτοὶ χρόνοι ἦσαν τῆς συμβιώσεως”,
[417] ἐσαγείρετο, cf. 15.240 and “θυμηγερέων,” Od. 7.283.
[419] 419-20 = 5.713-14.
[421] καὶ δ᾽ (“δὴ”) αὖτε there again, an expression of vexation. See note on 1.202. So Η = that, in contempt.
[426] κεῖντο, the regular form is “κείατο”. But the hiatus shews that the text should not be altered. So “ἐπέκειντο” Od. 6.19.
[429] μαχοίατο, opt. by ‘attraction,’ as usual after a wish; 14.107 etc.
[431] Ἄρη᾽ (“Ἄρηϊ”), see note on 112.
[434] 434 is evidently interpolated from 1.595, to soften the rather harsh transition to a fresh scene.
[436] διέσταμεν, stand apart from one another. But the variant “ἀφέσταμεν” may be preferable; it is the regular word for standing aloof from battle (391, 13.738, 15.672, etc.), and the hiatus may have caused the change. This bellicose Poseidon hardly seems to be the same god as in 20.138-43.
[440] 440 = 19.219, and cf. 13.355. For the compliment of allowing an enemy to begin cf. 7.235.
[442] μέμνηαι, a form not elsewhere found in full, though “μέμνἠ” (“αι”) should always be restored for “μέμνηι” (15.18, 20.188, 21.396). The later “μέμνησαι” occurs in 23.648. The legend of the servitude of Poseidon and Apollo to Laomedon is again mentioned in 7.452-53 (see note). The reason of the humiliation is not given, though “πὰρ Διός” might be thought to imply a punishment. The later mythologists said that it was in order to display to the full the “ὕβρις” of Laomedon.
[444] θητεύσαμεν, the verb recurs in H. only in Od. 11.489 “βουλοίμην κ᾽ ἐπάρουπος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλωι,” Od. 18.357; “θῆτες” are distinguished from “δμῶες” in Od. 4.644. That the word implies hired service is clear from Od. 18.358 “ἦ ἄρ κ᾽ ἐθέλοις θητευέμεν . . μισθὸς δέ τοι ἄρκιος ἔσται”, and this sense remained in later Greek. It is, however, going too far to conclude from the word “ἐπάρουρος” that “θητεύειν” implied the status of a serf adscriptus glaebae.
[445] σημαίνων, giving orders; see 1.289, and Od. 17.21 “ἐπιτειλαμένωι σημάντορι πάντα πιθέσθαι”.
[446] For the legend of the building of the wall of Troy by Poseidon see note on 6.433-39. The discrepancy between this and 7.452, where both gods are made to join in building, was one of the grounds for Ar.'s athetesis of 7.443-64. — Aridikes (see above) is again named by Schol. U on 474 and by Et. Gud. on 22.328 (s.v. “ἀσφάραγος”); nothing is known about him.
[450] τέλος, the term of hire. πολυγηθέες by Epic usage must be a general epithet, ‘bringing the glad changes of the year,’ rather than special, ‘bringing our glad release.’
[451] ἐξέφερον, brought to completion (“ἐξ”). Cf. the phrase “τελεσφόρος ἐνίαυτος. βίησατο μισθόν”, “destituit deos Mercede pacta Laomedon,” Hor. C. iii. 3. 21 . “βιήσατο” is only here construed with two accusatives as a verb of robbing.
[453] For σύν the printed vulg. has “σοί”, with some MSS.; this, however, is in every way inferior, as it introduces an entirely false antithesis with “ἀμφοτέρων”; there is no reason why Apollo should be singled out for special punishment.
[454] περάαν, see on 40. τηλεδαπάων: the “θηλυτεράων” of the ‘city’ editions was probably understood to mean ‘fertile,’ cf. “θῆλυς ἐέρση”, and “θηλύτατον πεδίον” in Kallimachos.
[455] στεῦτο, see on 18.191. Ar.'s ἀπολεψέμεν is obviously more vigorous than the vulg. “ἀποκοψέμεν”: Laomedon is made to speak contemptuously as though the divine bodies were mere tree-trunks to be ‘lopped’ (1.236).
[458] ἠμέων, for the gen. with “μετά” see note on 11.51; van L. suggests “ἡμῖν”.
[459] πειρᾶι, i.e. “πειράἐ” (“αι”): the alternative “πειρᾶις” cannot of course be resolved, See on 24.390.
[460] πρόχνυ, see note on 9.570.
[464] An obvious reminiscence of the famous simile in 6.146, though far from improved by the totally incongruous clause “ἀρούρης καρπὸν ἔδοντες”, and by the ludicrous confusion of metaphor in ζαφλεγέες, ‘like leaves are full of fire, eating the fruit of the earth.’ It is hard to believe that any poet could have written such a medley except in deliberate parody.
[467] παυώμεσθα is to be preferred to the “παυσώμεσθα” of most edd., as the -“ω”- is out of place in the subj. of the sigmatic aor.; cf. 7.290. αὐτοί, by themselves, without our interference.
[469] μιγ́ημεναι ἐν παλάμηισι, a strange phrase apparently founded on the familiar “μιγήμεναι ἐν δαῒ λυγρῆι” with the “ἐν παλάμηισιν” of 7.105, 24.738. Cf. 14.386.
[471] 471 “ἀθετεῖται ὄτι περισσὸς μετὰ τὸν “τὸν δὲ . . θηρῶν.” τίς δὲ κυνηγετικὴ θεὸς εἰ μὴ ἠ Ἄρτεμις”; The An.line may be a gloss, but is quite inoffensive.
[473] μέλεον, adv. as 10.480, 16.336, for nothing, without a struggle. So also ἀνεμώλιον αὔτως may be taken together as “μὰψ αὔτως”. Compare Pandaros of his bow, 5.216 “ἀνεμώλια γάρ μοι ὀπηδεῖ”.
[475] 475-77. “ἀπὸ τούτου ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι γ́: οὐ δύναται γὰρ δ αἰδούμενος “πατροκασιγνήτοιο μιγήμεναι ἐν παλάμηισιν” ἀεὶ προκαλεῖσθαι τὸν Ποσειδῶνα ἐν τῶι Ὀλύμπωι πρὸς μάχην. ἄλλως τε οὐδὲ πολεμικός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ χοροῖς καὶ φόρμιγγι τέρπεται”, But An.the speech can hardly end with 474, and self-contradiction is not inconceivable in the author of the Theomachy.
[480] [480]. This line is unknown to Eust., and was interpolated later than Aristonikos, who says that we must supply “προσέφη” in 479 from 478, “κοινὸν δεῖ δέξασθαι τὸ προσέφη”. Such a construction is harsh and un-Homeric, but not therefore to be rejected in the Theomachy. The line is adapted from 2.277. Compare note on 434 above, which was added for similar reasons, but has found its way into most MSS.
[482] στ́ησεσθαι after “μέμονας”, see note on 7.36. ἀντιφέρεσθαι, cf. 1.589 “ἀργαλέος γὰρ Ὁλύμπιος ἀντιφέρεσθαι. μένος” recalls “μένος ἀντιφερίζειν” or “ἰσοφαρίζειν” (411, 488, 6.101, cf. 9.390) where the verb means to rival, not as in 1.589 to oppose. It appears therefore that we must here take it in the former sense, if indeed we ought not to adopt the variant “ἀντιφερίζειν”. If it meant oppose we should require “μένει”.
[483] γυναιξί is the emphatic word, ‘even if you have a bow, it was only given you to use against women, not against goddesses.’ The masc. λέοντα is strange, but the fem. does not occur in H. (see on 17.134, 18.318), and the masc. may therefore be taken as of common gender, especially as it appears to be a borrowed (Semitic) word. Death is commonly personified under the form of a lion in Semitic mythology, and some traces of this appear even in Greek symbolism, of which the present passage is the clearest. For Artemis as a deathgoddess see 6.205, 428, etc. She is said to have been worshipped in Ambrakia in the form of a lioness.
[485] Ar. remarked that ἐναίρειν, literally despoil (“ἔναρα”), is not properly used of slaying animals. See, however, Ai. 26, and Od. 19.263 “μηκέτι νῦν χρόα καλὸν ἐναίρεο”.
[487] See 6.150 for possible constructions of the passage. We may here regard 489 as supplying a very practical apodosis to the “εἰ”-clause, as in 7.242. So Nikanor suggests, “ἢ καὶ κομματικὸν ἀπέλιπε τὸν λόγον ἐπίτηδες ὁ ποιητής, τῆς θεοῦ διὰ τῶν ἔργων τὸ λεῖπον ἀναπληρωσάσης”. For the gen. πολέμοιο, to learn about war, see H. G. § 151 d.
[490] τόξα, from the mention of arrows in 492, seems to mean ‘weapons of archery,’ including the quiver; though this is not a Homeric use, cf. 1.45. “ αὐτοῖσιν ” in the emphatic place cannot mean less than ‘those very weapons,’ i.e. her own bow and arrows.
[492] ἐντροπαλιζομένην, turning aside her head to avoid the blows. The variant “ἐντροπαλιζομένη” is evidently inferior, as there is no reason why Hera should turn aside. Schol. U is very corrupt but seems to point to a variant “ἐντροπαλιζομένης” as well as “πολλὰ λισσομένης”, both of which are possible.
[495] χηραμόν, a cleft, a word recurring in Aristotle and later writers. “χειή” is used in the same sense in 22.93.
[499] πληκτίζεσθαι, to bandy blows. ἀλόχοισι, plur. because the sentiment is general (cf. 185), containing also an evident allusion to the triumph of Hera.
[502] καμπύλα applies properly only to the bow though τόξα plainly means the arrows; an instance of the purely mechanical use of a familiar standing epithet. So μετὰ στροφάλιγγι κονίης is tastelessly borrowed from the fine passage 16.775. Here it can only mean that she raises the dust by running away. πεπτῶτα: the correct form of the perf. part. in H. is doubtful; MSS. invariably confuse it with the commoner “πεπτηώς”, crouching, from “πτη-” (“πτήσσω”), and the mistake is as old as Ap. Rhod. who has “ἄτηι ἐνιπεπτηυῖαν” iii. 973 (but “περὶ γούνασι πεπτηυῖαν” iv. 93 is ambiguous). It recurs in H. only 22.384, where MSS. have “πεπτε-, πεπτη-, πεπτει-ῶτας, πεπτη-, πεπτε-ότας”, of which only the first and last will scan. The Attic form is “πεπτώς” (Ai. 829, Ant. 697), and this is presumably right for H. also. The weak form of the stem is “πτ-”, not “πτε-”, and “πε-πτ-ώς” thus corresponds to “βε-βα-ώς, ϝε-φικ-ώς”, etc. The only alternative would be “πεπτωώς”, on the analogy of “πέπτωκα”, a difficult form. (Cf. Brugm. Gr. ii. p. 1206, where an intermediate “πε-πτ-α-ώς” from “πε-πτ-ϝώς” is assumed.)
[504] This line looks as though it were formed on 18.138 “ὣς ἄρα φωνήσασα πάλιν τράπεθ᾽ υἷος ἑοῖο”, but the constr. must be different, as πάλιν evidently cannot here be taken with the gen., back from (see 20.439). We must either make θυγατέρος depend on “τόξα” or regard it as a gen. of the point aimed at or attained (H. G. § 151 b, c). Neither of these alternatives is satisfactory.
[509] 509-10 = 5.373-74, as indeed the whole scene is clearly founded on reminiscences of the wounding of Aphrodite. 510 is omitted here by almost all MSS.
[511] κελαδειν́η as subst., see 16.183.
[513] νεῖκος ἐφ̂ηπται, cf. 2.15. But “νείκε᾽ ἐτύχθη” would be a more suitable phrase — the quarrel is no longer ‘impending,’ but has come to a head. It is likely that this was the reading of Ar. (Ludwich ad loc.).
[515] ‘Ammonios’ in his schol. on 232 has “οἶος” for φοῖβος. This suits the context well, as emphasising the contrast with “οἱ ἄλλοι” 518, but looks very like a conjecture.
[522] Adapted from 18.207, not successfully. The disasters caused by Achilles seem to be compared to the disaster of a burning city; but according to the actual words they are compared to the rising smoke. This is very pointless.
[523] θεῶν . . ἀν̂ηκε may be taken as a parenthesis, indicating perhaps that the fire is accidental, and not due to an enemy; then “καπνός” will be the nom. to “ἔθηκε” and “ἐφῆκεν”, and the unity of the simile is at least superficially saved. Still this is very harsh. It is almost equally unsatisfactory to make “μῆνις” the subject of the three following verbs, as the comparison to the smoke is entirely lost sight of. We may, however, take it to be “the conflagration,” or more generally “the state of things,” which causes misery like that of Achilles' progress. Bothe by omitting 524 certainly improves the passage, and gets rid both of the sham antithesis “πᾶσι .. πολλοῖσι”, and of the fourfold assonance of “ηκε”, which is disagreeable to our ears, though we cannot be sure that it was so to the Greeks (there are three rhyming lines in 23.152-54). It is thus possible to regard Achilles' progress over the plain as likened to the slow but unceasing advance of a great column of smoke, putting aside all question of the misery caused by the fire. No stress can be laid on the omission of the line by L; it is due merely to homoioteleuton, which has not affected the other MSS. of the same family (P Lips.). The same cause has led to the omission of 525 in T and presumably to its displacement in
[525] If 524 is omitted, πολύστονα is obviously better than the vulg. “πόνον καί”, which merely reinforces the false antithesis of 524.
[526] θείου, probably as built by Poseidon. “θεῖος” is not used as a mere synonym of “ἱερός”, the common epithet of citadels. So “θεοδμήτων ἐπὶ πύργων” 8.519.
[528] ἄφαρ, see on 11.418, 13.814. Here it is no more than “μάλα”, were chased amain.
[530] ὀτρύνων is better than “ὀτρυνέων”. The future part. is out of place in introducing a speech which is to be regarded as the actual representation in words of the action of the verb.
[531] πύλας refers presumably to the Skaian gate, the only one of which we hear on the side towards the plain.
[533] κλονέων, the variant “κλονέει” is equally good. λοίγια, as 1.518.
[535] “οὕτως Ἀρίσταρχος, ἐπανθέμεναι διὰ τοῦ ν, οἷον ἀναθεῖναι. τινὲς δὲ τῶν κατὰ πόλεις ἐπ᾽ ἂψ θέμεναι”, Did. So in 18.14 Ar. read “ἂψ ἐπὶ νῆας ἴμεν” for “νῆας ἐπ᾽ ἂψ ἰέναι” of MSS. It is not easy to decide between the two readings. Against “ἐπ᾽ ἂψ θέμεναι” the only argument seems to be the sound. “ἐπιτιθέναι” is the Homeric word for closing a gate (e.g. 5.751), while “ἐπανατιθέναι” is not elsewhere found. Compounds with “ἐπανα”are common in later Greek, but the only Homeric instance is “ἐπανέστησαν” 2.85. But as these arguments are by no means strong, we may be content to let Ar. decide the matter for us.
[536] μ́η left long in thesi before a vowel is a very rare license in this place; cf. 1.505, 4.412, 22.199. ἅληται, aor. subj. from “ἅλλομαι”, here only; in 11.192 we have “ἅλεται” (“ἄλεται”?) the correct form answering to the non-thematic “ἆλτο”. The scholia all refer the word to “ἀλῆναι”, like “ἀλέντες” above.
[537] ἄνεσαν, loosed, relaxed, the fastenings; cf. Od. 8.359, 22.80 for this sense of “ἀνίημι”.
[538] φάος, safety for the fugitives, as 6.6, 18.102, and elsewhere. “Ζηνόδοτος τοὺς στίχους ἠθέτηκε, γελοῖον ἡγούμενος διὰ πύλης φωτίζεσθαι τὴν πόλιν, τοῦ παντὸς τόπου ἐναιθρίου ὄντος”, It An.is not easy to believe that this silly reason was Zen.'s real ground for the athetesis; the criticism is more in the style of Zoïlos, for whose name Zen.'s may have been accidentally substituted.
[539] It is not easy to decide between ἀλάλκοι and “ἀμύναι”. As a rule “ἀμύνειν” takes acc. and gen., “ἀλαλκεῖν” acc. and dat. On the other hand, “λοιγὸν ἀλαλκεῖν” comes twice besides in this book (138, 250), and we have “φάρμακον … ὅ κέν τοι κρατὸς ἀλάλκηισιν κακὸν ἦμαρ,” Od. 10.288 , and “οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ ὃς σῆς γε κύνας κεφαλῆς ἀπαλάλκοι” 22.348. The balance is thus slightly in favour of the text. There are two possible alternatives, if we accept it, which evade the unusual constr.; we may take “Τρώων” with “ἀντίος”, putting the comma after it, or we may make it depend as a possessive gen. upon “λοιγόν”, cf. “λοιγὸν Ἀχαιῶν”, 134. But neither of these is natural; and “ἀντίος” is generally used of hostile meeting.
[541] καρχαλέοι, here only before Ap. Rhod. It is presumably connected with “καρχαρ-όδους”, and means rough, Virgil's “asper siti” （G. iii. 434) . But “καρφαλέοι”, dry, would be defensible if it had better support.
[542] σφεδανόν, as 11.165, 16.372. But there is weighty evidence for “σφε-” “δανῶν”, and this was the reading of Ar.; “ὅτι σφεδανῶν σφόδρως διώκων”, An., “οὕτω σφεδανῶν, ὑπερρωμένος τῶι θυμῶι καὶ σφόδρος ὑπάρχων, καθάπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ φονᾶν τὸ φονῶν”, Did. Of these the latter explanation is the more correct, as “σφεδανῶν” would be intrans., though coming from “σφεδανέων” rather than “σφεδανάων”. The contraction is in itself suspicious, and the participle is not demanded by the analogy of 15.742. 24.326.
[544] 544-45, cf. 16.698-700. 546, cf. 4.194.
[548] The reading of the text is that of all MSS., so far as is known. It is true that Hoffmann quotes A C, and La R. A only, for “κῆρας” instead of “χεῖρας”; but the facsimile shews that this can only be due to some strange hallucination. A, like the rest, has “χεῖρας”, as is correctly printed by Villoison. As “κῆρας” is found as early as Eust., MS. support may yet be discovered for it; but this will not alter the fact that “χεῖρας” is the only authentic reading. “κῆρες θανάτοιο” is not an uncommon phrase in H., and in view of the similarity of sound we might expect to find it sporadically here as the result of mere error. Its absence is thus the more significant. We must, therefore, accept the bold personification of ‘the heavy hands of Death,’ which after all hardly goes beyond “Ὕπνωι κασιγνήτωι Θανάτοιο” in 14.231. This line and the MS. reading of 1.97, “λοιμοῖο βαρείας χεῖρας ἀφέξει”, mutually support one another, and the reading “Δαναοῖσιν ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἀπώσει” should be rejected. (For the personification of “λοιμός” in later poetry cf. Soph. O. T. 27 “ὁ πυρρόρος θεὸς . . . λοιμὸς ἔχθιστος” and Amorg. Simon. fr. 7. 101 “οὐδ᾽ αἶψα λοιμὸν οἰκίης ἀπώσεται, ἐχθρὸν συνοικητῆρα, δυσμενέα θεόν”). It is noteworthy, however, that the metaphorical uses of “χείρ” are curiously rare in H.; Od. 20.267 “ὑμεῖς δὲ μνηστῆρες ἐπίσχετε θυμὸν ἐνιπῆς καὶ χειρῶν” is looseness of expression rather than metaphor. Even “ἐπιχειρεῖν” and “ὑποχείριος” appear only in the most literal sense.
[549] φηγῶι, presumably the oak by the Skaian gate; see note on 5.693.
[550] “πτολίπορθον: ὅτι πλεονάζει ἐπ᾽ Ὀδυσσέως τὸ πτολίπορθος, νῦν δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπ᾽ Ἀχιλλέως. πρὸς τοὺς χωρίζοντας: τούτοις γὰρ χρῶνται. τινὲς δὲ Ἀχιλλέα Πηλείωνα ποιοῦσι, ξενισθέντες πρὸς τὸ ἐπίθετον”, We An.find “πτολίπορθος” as an epithet of Achilles, however, in 8.372, 15.77, 24.108, so that An.'s “ἅπαξ” cannot be justified. Apparently the chorizontes argued that Achilles was “πτολίπορθος” in Il., Odysseus in Od., to which Ar. replied that the epithet as used of Achilles was unique (or rare at least'. Odysseus is also “πτολίπορθος” in Il., 2.278 (see note), 10.363, so the argument does not come to much.
[551] πόρφυρε, see notes on 1.103, 14.16.
[552] 552 = 11.403, where it introduces a speech very similar in construction to Agenor's, though shorter. The scheme of Hector's deliberation, 22.99-130, is still closer to the present. In all these cases two alternatives are discussed and rejected, with the identical line 11.407 = 21.562 = 22.122, in favour of the more heroic course. Between Hector's speech and Antenor 's there is the further resemblance that (1) the most obvious means of escape, direct flight, is summarily rejected; (2) a more circuitous evasion is first entertained and then dropped, after both sides have been considered; (3) resistance is decided upon with some faint hope.
[555] ἀνάλκιδα, not ‘helpless,’ ‘unarmed,’ as some have taken it, but a coward with all the contemptuous connotation of the word, as will be seen by referring to the other instances, e.g.11.390 “ἀνδρὸς ἀνάλκιδος οὐτιδανοῖο,” 15.62 “ἀνάλκιδα φύζαν”, etc. δειροτομ́ησει continues the same thought; see note on 89.
[556] εἰ, ‘suppose I leave’; no apodosis is required; cf. 1.581. So in 567 and the corresponding line 22.111.
[558] This line seems hopeless as it stands. The meaning of Ἰλ́ηϊον we cannot guess at; it is the adj. of an unknown name “Ἰλεύς”. It is commonly taken to be from “Ἶλος” or “Ἴλιος”, and explained to mean ‘near the tomb of Ilos’ (Schol. B, cf. 10.415) or ‘the plain of Ilios.’ But even if the form admitted this, no “πεδίον” other than the “Τρωϊκόν” (10.11, etc.) or “Σκαμάνδριον” (2.465), the plain between the city and the ships, appears elsewhere in the poems. Nothing is gained by adopting Krates' reading “Ἰδήϊον”: the correct form of the adj. is “Ἰδαῖος”, and there is no plain near Troy which can be called ‘the plain of Ida,’ for Ida is twenty miles away across entirely hilly country. There must therefore be something wrong with the text. Bothe's “ἐυλήϊον” is a step in the right direction, as substituting a general epithet for a proper name. But by far the most ingenious and convincing emendation is that of van L. and M. da Costa, “φεύγω πρὸς πεδίον λεῖον, ὄφρ᾽ ἄγκε᾽ ἵκωμαι”. They suppose that “ἄγκἐ” (“ΑΝΚΕ”) was mistaken for “ἄν κε”, and the second particle dropped as redundant, the defective metre being filled out by turning “λεῖον” into “Ἰλήϊον” (“ΙΛΕΙΟΝ”). For “λεῖον πεδίον” = level plain see 23.359; it is opposed to the ascent to Troy on which Agenor finds himself. He proposes to turn aside to the plain of the Scamander SW. of the city, and follow it up till he reaches the ‘glades’ (the natural aim of the fugitive, cf. 22.190, Od. 4.337) and ‘foot-hills of Ida’ — a perfectly intelligible plan. The τε after “Ἴδης” in 559 thus gains a meaning which in the existing text it entirely lacks.
[561] ἱδρῶ ἀποψυχθείς, cf. 10.572, 11.621.
[563] ἀπαειρόμενον, our colloquial ‘taking myself off.’ The act. “ἀπαίρειν” is familiar in this sense in Attic prose and verse, e.g. Eur. Cycl. 131 “ὡς ἀπαίρωμεν χθονός” : the mid. seems not to recur. For the independent subj. with “μή” cf. notes on 1.26, 16.128.
[567] The apodosis is again omitted, as in 556. The synizesis of πόλιος is very rare (only 2.811 in the same phrase): Menrad conj. “πρόσθεν πόλιος”.
[568] It will be noticed that the invulnerability of Achilles is a purely postHomeric legend.
[569] For the hiatus see on 9.319. Here Fick conj. “ἔννι δ᾽ ἴα”, i.e. “ἔνι” with lengthening in the first ictus, Agar “ἐν δέ ϝ᾽” (“οι”） “ἴα”.
[570] 570 “ἀθετεῖται ὅτι ὡς ἐλλείποντος τοῦ λόγου ἐνέταξέ τις αὐτόν. δεῖ δὲ τῶι “θνητὸν δέ ἕ φασ᾽ ἄνθρωποι” προσυπακούειν τὸ ἐ̂ναι. καὶ ὅτι ἐπιφερόμενον τὸ “αὐτάρ οἱ Κρονίδης Ζεὺς κῦδος ὀπάζει” ἐναντίον ἐστὶ τῶι προτρέποντι τὸν Ἀγήνορα ἀντιστῆναι τῶι Ἀχιλλεῖ”, The An.objection is well founded; the desire to supply a verb which is not needed has been a fruitful source of interpolation, cf. 1.295. The meaning of the last clause is that the line directly contradicts the hope of victory which has just been expressed. It is from 8.141.
[575] ταρβεῖ, read “ταρβέει”: so also 12.46. “Ἀρίσταρχός τινάς φησι γράφειν “κυνυλαγμόν.” καὶ Στησίχορος δὲ ἔοικεν οὕτως ἀνεγνωκέναι. φησὶ γοῦν” ““ἀπειρέσιοι κυνυλαγμοί”,” The Herod. reading is worth consideration, among other reasons because it avoids the trochaic caesura in the fourth foot; though this is not uncommon after “ἐπεί κε” (“σε” etc.), cf. 483 and van L. Ench. p. 20. But the compound is certainly a startling one.
[576] The shortening of ἤ (from “ἠϝέ”) is very rare; the only other cases in Il. are 10.451 (read “ἢ ἀντίβιον”), (16.515 if we read “ἐνί”,) 21.113, 23.724. Here μιν is out of its proper order (H. G. p. 337) and is better omitted (the same objection applies to reading “ϝ᾽” for “μιν”). The alternative “τις” may indicate that both words are mere stop-gaps.
[580] πειρ́ησαιτο, the only instance in H. of the opt. after “πρίν” (except “πρίν γ᾽ ὅτε . . ἄσαιμι” 9.489).
[583] ἔολπας, the neglect of the “ϝ” is rare, cf. 20.186, and see H. G. p. 376. Bentley conj. “ἐϝέλπἐ”, the simplest change of several that have been proposed (“ἦμάλα δή τι ϝέϝολπας” Cobet; “ἦ δή που σὺ ϝέϝολπας” Brandreth).
[587] “οὕτως αἱ Ἀριστάρχου οἳ καὶ πρόσθε: ἔν τισι δὲ τῶν εἰκαιοτέρων οἵ κε πρόσθε”, Did. All our MSS. read “κε” or “κεν”, which involves taking “εἰρυόμεσθα” as a future; but there is no meaning in the particle, which is purely otiose. “καί” is used with the rel. precisely as in 20.165, where see note. It marks the clause as a consequence of the preceding words, and may be expressed by ‘therefore.’ τοκέων, a non-Homeric form for “τοκήων”, see note on 15.660. “τεκέων” is obviously inadmissible here, and there is no satisfactory correction.
[588] ἐφέψεις and “ἐφέψειν” Od. 24.471 are the only instances of the future in this phrase (for which see on 6.321), the aor. being elsewhere the only tense used.
[591] “καί ῥ᾽ ἔβαλε, καί ϝ᾽ ἔβαλε” Brandreth.
[592] οἱ, so La R., for the vulg. “μιν”. As he points out, the dat. is the only case used in similar phrases, e.g. 12.396, 13.805, 18.205, where it means upon him. When “ἀμφί” is used with acc. it means round about, 17.414, 24.588, etc. If “μιν” be read it must therefore mean “κνήμην”.
[594] 594 looks like an addition intended to bring in an allusion to the “ὁπλοποιΐα”: the fact that A omits it may be significant.
[596] οὐδέ τ᾽ ἔασεν, most MSS.; but the “τ᾽” is meaningless, and if it is true that CD omit it (Hoffmann), we have valuable MS. testimony to the reading “οὐδέ ϝ᾽ ἔασεν”, which in any case is clearly right (Brandreth). So in the next line read “δέ ϝ᾽” for δ᾽ ἄῤ (Brandreth).
[604] δόλωι . . ποσὶν οἶσι, a parenthesis, ἕως being answered by “τόφρα. δέ ϝ᾽ ἔθελγεν” (rather “δέ ϝε θέλγεν”, because of the caesura) Brandreth.
[609] γνώμεναι ὅξ, a case where the rel. pronoun comes very near the indirect interrogative, cf. on 7.171. πεφεύγοι, this thematic perf. opt. is very rare (see note on 8.270), and it is a question if we should not read “πεφεύγει” — in such a question MSS. hardly count. But we may perhaps see a special vividness in the opt., which expresses the mere possibility only of any particular man having survived: ‘to discover the man who might have escaped and him who had fallen.’
[610] ἐσσυμένως though not strongly supported, seems better than the vulg. “ἀσπασίως” after “ἀσπάσιοι” just above.
[611] For σάωσαν Ar. read “σαώσαι”, which is defensible on much the same grounds as “πεφεύγοι” above. The use of the sing, verb, even though πόδες is one of the nominatives, is sufficiently supported by 2.339, 3.327, Od. 14.291, cf. 17.387. Bekker has ingeniously but needlessly conjectured that both readings spring from an older “σαώσαιν” = “σαώσειαν”, of which he finds another instance by reading “ἄλφοιν” for “α<*>´λφοι” in Od. 20.383. This form of the 3rd pl. opt. is sufficiently established by inscriptions from Delphi for the thematic tense (-“οιν”), and we should therefore be justified in assuming its existence in the aor. form, if there were any need. See G. Meyer Gr. § 589, H. G. § 83.
