Book 23 (*y）
[2] e)pei/, for the scansion see 22.379.
[7] u(p' o)/xecfi, apparently in an ablatival sense, from under; H. G. § 156. It is perhaps possible to take the prepositional phrase as attributive to “i(/ppous”, the horses in the chariots; but this is less likely.
[9] o(/ may be a rel. even with “ga/r”, which is the due; see note on 10.127, and the similar phrases in 12.344, Od. 24.190. But the phrase occurs five times with “to/”, and it is difficult not to believe that “o(/” was here meant to be identical with “to/”. The relative use of the article and the similarity in Greek between the two stems (rel.) yos (“o(/s h(/ o(/”) and (dem.) sos (“o( h( to/”) must have made such a confusion easy — at least when the use of the article as a rel. had become archaic. See Delbrück Gr. v. p. 311, Brugmann Griech. Gramm. § 203 Anm.
[10] tetarpw/mesqa go/oio, one of the phrases peculiar to “*y” (also 98), “*w” (513), and the Od. (six times). The same is the case with the similar “i(/meros go/oio”, and “go/ou e)c e)/ron ei(/hn” 24.227. The word no doubt expresses satiety (cf. “koressa/meqa klai/onte” 22.427), but certainly has not lost the sense of satisfaction. (In Od. 15.400 “meta\ ga/r te kai\ a)/lgesi te/rpetai a)nh/r” the idea is different, as the reference is to past sorrow — “haec clim meminisse iuvabit.”) Schol. B quotes from Aischylos “oi(/ toi stenagmoi\ tw=n po/nwn i)a/mata”. So “est quaedam flere voluptas,” Ovid Trist. iv. 3. 37.
[13] Cf. 24.16 and note on 22.396 for the practice of driving round the dead man's tomb. In 19.211 the body of Patroklos was in the hut, “a)na\ pro/quron tetramme/nos”. Here it is evidently conceived as being out in the open, on the shore, where the Myrmidons and Achilles sleep round it.
[14] Heyne suspects this line as a needless expansion; for Thetis is not among the Myrmidons. Cf. 18.51.
[15] “Spargitur et tellus lacrimis, sparguntur et arma,” Virg. Aen. xi. 191.
[17] 17-18 = 18.316-317.
[19] kai/, even in Hades, where there is but little rejoicing indeed.
[20] tele/w, better taken as a present than as a future; already I am fulfilling, i.e. this is an earnest of the complete fulfilment of my word. u(pe/sthn, see 18.334 ff., 21.27-32, 22.354.
[21] “ w)ma/, ” Od. 18.87 “mh/dea/ t' e)ceru/sas dw/hi kusi\n w)ma\ da/sasqai”, where the neut. plur. is natural; cf. “w)mo\n bebrw/qois *pri/amon” 4.35. Here, where there is no subst. for it to agree with, it may either be due to the implied notion of “kre/a” (“w)/m' a)potamno/menon kre/a e)/dmenai” 22.347) which might be omitted when “w)ma\ da/sasqai” had coalesced into a single phrase; or more probably it is analogous to the ordinary adverbial use of the neut. plur. as in “o)ce/a keklhgw/s”, etc. The difference here evidently is that the adj. expresses a quality of the object of the verb, and does not qualify the meaning of the verb itself. But the logical inaccuracy though real is not unnatural. P. Knight and others regard 21-3 as an interpolation to explain what Achilles refers to, made up from 18.336-37 with a reminiscence of Od. 18.87. This is quite possible. Note the neglect of “v” in “e(ru/sas” (“veru/s” Schulze; see App. D, vol. i. p. 594).
[24] The double acc. is evidently analogous to “kako\n r(e/zein tina/” (H. G. § 141), *(/ektora being governed by the complex of the verb with its acc. of the ‘Internal Object.’ The a)eike/a e)/rga seem to imply no more than leaving the body naked and neglected — which is somewhat of an anticlimax after what has preceded.
[27] u(yhxe/as, see on 5.772. Here we have our choice of the variant “lu/onto de\ mw/nuxas i(/ppous”. The mid. is used of unyoking horses only in 7 and 11 above. The act. is the regular voice, even where a driver unyokes his own horses (e.g. 5.776).
[29] muri/oi, very many, see 1.2. The actual number of Myrmidons is 2500 from 16.168 ff. (a late passage however). ta/fon dai/nu (also Od. 3.309) like “ga/mon dainu/nai 19.299, Od. 4.3. ta/fos” never means tomb in H., only funeral.
[30] “a)rgoi/ leukoi/: a)ll' ou) qu/etai leuka\ toi=s teqnew=si: dh=lon ga\r e)k tou= “e)/nq' o)/i+n a)rneio\n r(e/zein qh=lu/n te me/lainan”” (Od. 10.527) “kai\ “o)/i+n i(ereuse/men oi)/wi pamme/lana”” (Od. 10.524) Sch. T, who suggests “o(/ti ou) tw=i *patro/klwi a)ll' ei)s to\ dei=pnon tw=n zw/ntwn tou\s bo/as e)/quon”. The remark has weight, especially as “a)rgo/s” is not a standing epithet of the ox as it is of the dog (obviously in another sense). The only other animal to which it is applied is the goose, Od. 15.161, and there as well as here it may mean not so much white as glistening, ‘sleek.’ Cf. “tau=ron a)rga=nta” Pind. O. xiii. 69.The variant “a)rgw=i” (“sidh/rwi”) is evidently a mere conj. “o)re/xqeon, a(/pac ei)rhme/non” in H. and obscure in meaning. Three explanations are given by tradition: (a) “kata\ mi/mhsin h)xou= traxe/os pepoi/htai to\ r(h=ma, a)nti\ tou= e)/stenon a)nairou/menoi”, Schol. T (so Hesych. Lex. etc.); bellowed upon (when pierced by) the knife; (b) “a)nairou/menoi w)re/gonto, h)/toi e)cetei/nonto”, “Eust. e)cetei/nonto a)poqnh/iskontes, w(s to\ “kei=to me/gas megalwsti/”,” Schol. T; stretched themselves out, plunged. This is sometimes compared with “tanu/onto” (33); but that word evidently means were extended on spits (of wood); if the same sense be assumed here, we shall have to suppose that spits of iron large enough to roast an ox were known in Homeric days, which is not likely; (c) “oi( de/, dieko/ptonto. a)po\ tou/tou kai\ e)regmo/s, o( a)pokekomme/nos ku/amos”, Schol. B and Eust. who quotes 5.83 “qumo\n e)re/xqwn” (cf. also 23.317), rending his soul. Of these (b) seems the most defensible etymologically, “o)-rex-qe/w” being related to “o)-reg”- to stretch as “gh-qe/-w” to “gav” (see Curtius, Vb. ii. 343). (a) is due to the similarity of “r(oxqe/w” to roar, and in this sense Theokritos took the verb, “qa/lassan e)/a poti\ xe/rson o)rexqh=n” xi. 43. Linguistically the connexion is at least improbable, as initial “r” in Greek implies a lost consonant (“sr” or “vr”-), while the “o)”- indicates an originally initial “g”. The connexion with “e)rei/kw” generally assumed for (c) is improbable on account of the rootvowel (reik, weak rik); and even if this were admitted it would require a purely passive sense for the active form. Schol. T has a curious note on the line, “tine\s a)qetou=sin, w(s ou)k o)/ntos sidh/rou to/te”. Many atheteses would be needed to expel iron from the text in the later passages; cf. 4.123. It may be noted that out of twenty-three places where iron is mentioned in the Iliad five are found in this book (see 177, 261, 834, 850). The present case is in harmony with the usual use, by which the metal is confined to tools of small size (see Helbig H. E. pp. 329-32). This and 18.34 happen to be the only places where a knife of iron is mentioned.
[32] 32-3, see 9.467-68.
[34] “o(/ti yilw=s proenekte/on kotul/hruton” (i.e. “kotulh)/ruton”, not “kotulh/r(uton”), “ou) ga\r a)po\ th=s r(u/sews a)ll' a)po\ tou= a)ru/sai . . *)ari/starxos polu/, w(/ste kotu/lhi a)ru/sasqai” (deep enough to be taken up in cups), This An.explanation is needlessly artificial. It is more natural to suppose that the blood of the victims was caught in cups and then poured out, so as to make it a direct gift from the mourner to the dead. Blood is given to the shades as a food to strengthen them in the curious ritual of Odysseus' journey to Hades, Od. 10.535 ff., Od. 11.89, 96, 153, etc. Cf. Eur. Hec. 534 ff. (Neoptolemos sacrificing Polyxena) “w)= pai= *phle/ws, path\r d' e)mo/s, de/cai xoa/s moi ta/sde khlhthri/ous, nekrw=n a)gwgou/s: e)lqe\ d), w(s pi/his me/lan ko/rhs a)kraifne\s ai(=ma”. See App. L, § 8.
[36] ei)s *)ag., to the hut of A., as 7.312.
[37] spoud=hi, hardly, as 1.562, etc.
[40] 40-1. Compare 18.344-45.
[43] The use of o(/s tis with a definite particular antecedent is almost unique, and is rendered stranger by the addition of the generalising te which is nowhere else joined to “o(/s tis”. Even in 5.175 and Od. 17.53, the only other cases where “o(/s tis” refers to a particular antecedent, the use is intelligible, as there the actual person is unknown to the speaker, and may thus be thought of as one of an indefinite number. ‘The line, however, is evidently an old formula. The meaning may be “Zeus, or by whatever name the highest of the gods is to be called”; cf. Aisch. Ag. 160 “*zeu/s, o(/stis pot' e)sti/n”’ (Monro); and so Eur. H. F. 1263 “*zeu/s, o(/stis o( *zeu/s”, Eur. Tro. 885 “o(/stis pot' ei)= su\ dusto/pastos ei)de/nai, *zeu/s”. Grashof has ingeniously conj. “o(/s t' e)sti/”, the objection to which is, apart from the absence of authority, that in similar phrases “e)sti/n” is regularly omitted (e.g. 13.313, 16.271). See however Hymn. Ven. 37 “*zhno\s . . o(/s te me/gisto/s t'e)sti/, ktl”.
[46] For the shaving of the hair as a sign of mourning cf. note on 135. m', i.e. “me” as 1.362.
[47] metei/w, see note on 7.340, and App. D, C 3.
[48] peiqw/meqa, cf. 645 “gh/rai+ lugrw=i pei/qesqai”. The phrase is not very exact, as ‘the feast’ must mean ‘the necessity of eating.’ But this seems hardly ground enough for concluding that the line is a reminiscence of 8.502 (= 9.65) “peiqw/meqa nukti\ melai/nhi” (cf. 7.282 “a)gaqo\n kai\ nukti\ piqe/sqai”). There is a peculiar appropriateness when Achilles speaks of food as an inevitable power. The variant “terpw/meqa” is quite out of place in his mouth. Compare Od. 7.216 “ou) ga/r ti stugerh=i e)pi\ gaste/ri ku/nteron a)/llo”, Od. 18.53 “a)lla/ me gasth\r o)tru/nei kakoergo/s”, whence Peppmüller conj. “gastri/” for “daiti/” here.
[49] “
