Book 20 (Υ）
Introduction
IT is evident that the traditional title of this book, “Θεομαχία”, is a complete misnomer. There is in “Φ” a real battle of the gods; but all that we have here is a bombastic introduction (1-74) which leads to nothing whatever, and is in quite ludicrous contradiction to the peaceful mood of 133 ff. It is likely enough that the prologue here really belongs to the battle in “Φ”; for 21.385 or 387 might follow on 20.74 with much gain to the significance of 55-74. We have, in fact, a repetition of the phenomenon of “Ν-Ξ”, where we found the prologue of the “Διὸς Ἀπάτη” detached from the main story of “Ξ” and prefixed to the quite independent narrative of “Ν”. The cause of the dislocation can be perceived. The Theomachy of “Φ” has been blended into a continuous story with the fight with the River. Its prologue therefore was dropped. The fight with the River, and indeed the greater part of the battles with which we have now to deal, involve constant intervention by the gods. But after “Θ” had been brought into the corpus of the Iliad, such intervention was only permissible when the veto of Zeus in 8.1-27 had been formally removed. For this purpose the discarded prologue of the Theomachy, with its direct recantation of the veto (24, 25), was placed before the fight with Aineias, which concludes with the direct interference of Poseidon. That the otherwise incredible change from tumultuous frenzy to peaceful indifference in the attitude of the gods at large should have been left untouched does more credit to the pious conservatism than to the skill of the editor. The second section of the book, 76-352, is well marked, and has all the appearance of an independent “Aeneid.” Far from having any special appropriateness to this point of the war, it is glaringly inconsistent with its context. Achilles issues from the camp burning with the fury of insatiable revenge; yet his advice to his very first adversary is to go away “lest some harm befall him” (196). In the whole of this speech (178-98) there is not one word belonging to the situation. Achilles is in a merciful and, indeed, bantering mood, and long-suffering enough to listen to the wearisome repetitions, like those of an opera chorus, “let us have no more talk,” wherewith Aineias adorns the lengthy Trojan pedigree which he asserts that Achilles well knows already (200-58). When they come to blows Achilles is actually “afraid” at his adversary's cast (262), and his own return blow fails of its effect. Finally, after hearing of what “might have been,” we find Poseidon suddenly coming forward as a champion of the Trojans, in contradiction of all his policy, and saving Aineias for the future glory of his family. There can, in short, be little doubt that we have here a separate poem with a distinct object. That object must undoubtedly be the glorification of Aineias — an apology perhaps for the other episode twice alluded to, when he ran away from Achilles at Lyrnessos without a blow. Here he attributes his previous weakness to Zeus (242), and makes up for it by facing his enemy with not unequal courage; he rather than Achilles is throughout the hero. And the curious allusion to his descendants in 307 clearly gives the reason of the interpolation — a desire to bring into some sort of harmony with the Iliad a later local legend of the kingship of the family of Aineias in the Troad, and perhaps even to explain a Poseidon-cultus among them. The “Aeneid” seems to be a complete whole; doubts arise only as to the “prologue in heaven” 76-155, and to some passages in the Trojan genealogy. The latter are discussed in the notes on 215 and 219; with regard to the prologue we can only say that it may well be a later introduction, but that it must have become firmly attached before the wild contradiction with 48-74 could have been allowed to stand.1 That the last section (353-503) partly consists of the story of the primitive “Μῆνις”, the beginning of Achilles' career of vengeance, is highly probable. The main question is as to the point where the old work begins. Between 407 and 503 suspicion can attach only to a few short passages (see on 445, 463, 499). But the words of Achilles in 354-63 are, as Hentze has remarked, “weak and colourless,” and below the level required by the situation, shewing less energy even than those of Hector (366-72). It is therefore probable that 353-80 form a transition passage due to the diaskeuast who interpolated the “Aeneid.” With 381 the original opening of the battle may have begun. Still there are traces which seem to betray a later hand in the following passage. The apparent allusion to the Panionic festival of the Helikonian Poseidon in 404 has caused suspicion in some quarters. But those who believe in the origin of the “Μῆνις” in Greece proper may take this as a trace rather of the Achaian worship of the god in the Peloponnesian Helike. They will regard with more doubt the description of Iphition's origin in 384 ff., which betrays more knowledge of Asia Minor than we find elsewhere in the older portions of the Iliad, and is evidently in close connexion with a passage in the Catalogue (2.865-66). I should regard 383-94 as interpolated — here again the taunt of Achilles seems meaningless, and very different from the intense passion of his other short speeches, 429, 449 ff. The family history is only enough to delay the action at a moment where rapidity is needed, without giving any particular importance to the victim, or significance to the strong word “ἐκπαγλότατε”. But the point is one for the scholar's private judgment.[2] ἀκόρητοι is more in accordance with the usual rhythm (cf. “κάρη κομόωντες”), than “ἀκόρητον”, though less supported. And it is Achilles' men, not he himself, who might be supposed to have had a surfeit of battle.
[3] θρωσμῶι πεδίοιο, see note on 11.56, whence the line is no doubt copied. The line added in CJ is a good illustration of the constant tendency to supply verbs, which in this instance has not prevailed.
[4] So in Od. 2.69 it is Themis who “ἀνδρῶν ἀγορὰς ἠμὲν λύει ἠδὲ καθίζει”. The appropriateness of the function is obvious. The goddess reappears in H. only in 15.87, 93.
[5] κρατός, only here for mountaintop, instead of “κάρηνον”, see on 11.309. It is however used three times in Od. in a metaphorical sense, in the phrase “ἐπὶ κρατὸς λιμένος”.
[7] The scholia assign various reasons for the absence of Okeanos; but Heyne justly remarks that this is less strange than the presence of nymphs and rivers in a council of the gods. He thinks that 7-9 may have been interpolated to account for the presence of the River Skamandros in the Theomachy as one of the gods. It has been also suggested that as Hestia, the personification of the fixed dwelling, alone stays away from the solemn procession of the gods in the Phaedrus (247 A), so Okeanos is absent because he is the bond that holds the world together.
[8] 8-9. Compare Od. 6.123-24 “νυμφάων αἳ ἔχουσ᾽ ὀρέων αἰπεινὰ κάρηνα καὶ πηγὰς ποταμῶν καὶ πίσεα ποιήεντα”, and Hymn. Ven. 97-99. There is mention of nymphs in general in 24.616, Od. 13.350, Od. 14.435, Od. 17.211; of “νηΐδες” 6.22, 14.444, 20.384, “ὀρεστιάδες” 6.420 (where they are daughters of Zeus, see note), “ἀγρονόμοι” Od. 6.106. “ πίσεα ”, watermeadows. Compare the name Pisa in Elis.
[11] ἐνίζανον, not “ἐφίζανον”, is obviously right; “αἴθουσαι” are colonnades, not benches, as Zen. and others seem to have held (“τινὲς δὲ γρ. “ἐνίδρανον,” καθέδρας οἰηθέντες εἶναι τὰς αἰθούσας” Sch. AT'.
[13] The Schol. remarks that the special mention of Poseidon may allude to the bad terms on which he had last parted from Zeus, 15.173-218. But of course Poseidon was the chief rival of Zeus, and his obedience to a summons would not be always a matter of course.
[18] ἄγχιστα δέδηε, a difficult phrase here. The obvious sense is ‘has come to very close quarters’ — a singularly inappropriate expression to use in the midst of the only pause in the battle since the beginning of “Λ”. But if we remember that this introduction really belongs to the Theomachy at the end of “Φ” which takes place in heaven just as the great crisis, the death of Hector, is being accomplished on earth, the words gain their proper significance, and it is needless to seek for any other, such as ‘is on the point of bursting out’ or ‘is kindled very nigh Olympos(?),’ or ‘has come to a crisis,’ or ‘now most nearly concerns us’ (the gods, Agar in C. R. xi. 101). There are obvious objections to all these interpretations.
[21] ὧν is of course neuter, and epexegetic of “βουλήν. ὀλλύμενοι” may by a god be used of either party, but shews that the Trojans are uppermost in Zeus' thoughts.
[23] φρένα τέρψομαι, will take my ease; the phrase seems rather inconsistent with 21, but is developed to exaggeration in 21.389-90.
[26] οἶος, without interference of the gods. Zeus seems to forget that Achilles will rather gain than lose by such intervention, the Greek gods being the more powerful. μαχεῖται, a contracted form of the future not elsewhere found in H. It is wiser to accept it as evidence of lateness than to read “μάχηται” with van L.
[28] καὶ δέ τε . . καί, yea, and even; a remarkable heaping up of conjunctions. Compare “οὐδὲ . . οὐδέ” 18.117 etc. The combination “καὶ δέ τε” does not recur in H. This probably induced Ar. to write “τι” for “τε”, but the pronoun is insufferably weak.
[29] ἑταίρου, because of his friend, as “Κύκλωπος κεχόλωται” Od. 1.69: H. G. § 151 c.
[30] It is an old question whether we should read ὑπὲρ μόρον or “ὑπέρμορον”. Most of the grammarians, Aph., Ar. (?), Ptol. of Askalon etc. preferred the latter, on account of “ὑπέρμορα” 2.155 (q. v.). Herodianos hesitated (La R. H. T. 371). The familiar “ὑπὲρ αἶσαν”, however, is in favour of division. The sense is of course precisely the same. — The lines recorded by Sch. T are a mere conjecture, unless they come from one of the erratic texts recorded in the earliest papyri. They were substituted for 29-30 because the omniscient god ought not to fear what might happen.
[34] ἐριούνης, a title of Hermes recurring in Od. 8.322, with “ἐριούνιος” in 20.72, four times in “Ω”, and frequently in the Hymns. The common derivation from “ἐρι”- and “ὀν-ίν-ημι” is subject to the ordinary uncertainty of divine titles. In view of the pastoral character of Hermes (see on 14.491), a derivation from “ἔριον”, making wool to grow, is equally possible. Cf. on “ἀκάκητα” 16.185.
[35] ἐπὶ . . κέκασται, tmesis; and so also perhaps in 24.535 “πάντας ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἐκέκαστο”. It is true that “ἐπί” there may be taken as a real preposition, on the analogy of 14.742 “κάλλει ἐνίκα πᾶσαν ἐπ᾽ αἶαν,” Od. 24.509 “κεκάσμεθα πᾶσαν ἐπ᾽ αἶαν”, and in Od. we elsewhere find “κεκάσθαι” intrans. with “ἐν” or “μετά” (with dat.). On the other hand in Il. the verb takes either the direct acc. of the object excelled (14.124) or the gen. of comparison (24.546), and, as van L. remarks, the name “Ἐπικάστη” offers some support to the compound “ἐπικεκάσθαι”, which is not elsewhere found. Rhythm and sense alike forbid us to take ἐπὶ φρεσί together. “κέκαστο” of most MSS. is probably a reminiscence of 24.535. There is some support for “ἐνί” in place of ἐπί, but this does not help. Hermes, Hephaistos, Artemis and Leto are all new to the war, in which, outside this and the next book, they take no part whatever.
[36] “ σθένεϊ βλεμεαίνων, ” 8.337. 37 = 18.411.
[38] κορυθαίολος is only here applied to any but Hector.
[39] ἀκερσεκόμης, elsewhere only postHomeric (Hymn. Ap., Pindar and later).
[42] τέως as trochee = “τῆος”, see note on 19.189. “ ἐκύδανον ”, intrans., were triumphant. The verb recurs only in 14.73, in the trans. sense. For the rest of the couplet see 18.247-48. 44 = 7.215.
[48] It is most natural to suppose that the apodosis begins with ὦρτο δέ, as the end of a line suggests the break in the sentence. Ar., however, placed it at the bucolic diaeresis, as Aristonikos says “ὁ δέ σύνδεσμος περισσός ἐστιν ἐν τῶι “αὖε δ᾽ Ἀθήνη”,” and the antithesis with “αὖε δέ” in 51 is thus made slightly more effective.
[49] See 9.67. “ παρά ” with acc. shews that στᾶσα is, as so often, to be taken pregnantly, ‘coming up to the trench.’
[50] For the lapse from the participial to the direct construction in ἀύτει cf. 3.80. Here, however, the change is not due to the wish to supply a more appropriate verb, but seems merely to arise from the tendency to relieve the suspense of the long participial sentence. ἀκτάων, sea -shores, as always.
[53] θέων is apparently to be taken with the following words, or we should need the acc. “πὰρ Σιμόεντα”. The expression is an odd one, but the alternative “θεῶν”, adopted by Ar., i.e. ‘Kallikolone of the gods,’ meaning ‘where the gods were,’ is hardly credible. An.indeed says “τόπος οὕτως καλεῖται ἐπὶ τῆς Ἴδης, θεῶν Καλλικολώνη”, but that of course is only a deduction from the present passage. Nothing will evade the difficulty of the sudden naming, as though it were well known, of this locality, which recurs again only in 151. It is needless to say that the attempts which have been made to identify the spot are perfectly futile (see Schliemann Ilios 71). Tradition made it the scene of the judgment of Paris; but whether the name ‘Beauty Hill’ caused or arose from the identification we cannot say. A similar ambiguity as to the accent of “θεων” occurs in 24.74.
[55] σύμβαλον, commiserunt, as 3.70. In 16.565 the word is intrans., and might be so taken here. ἐν δ᾽ αὐτοῖς, and among men. It is more natural to explain among themselves at the same time, and 66 seems to assume that the outbreak among the gods has been already announced. But the reflexive use of “αὐτός” is so doubtful in H. that we must hesitate to adopt this rendering. It has indeed been proposed to omit 66-74 as an interpolation, so that the actual conflict of the gods will be postponed to the Theomachy in the next book, and the fight between them here, which is announced with so much circumstance in order to end in nothing, will disappear. But 75 prevents this, and shews that the whole introduction to the book hangs together. ῥ́ηγνυτο, caused to break out, a quite unique phrase; the nearest analogies are “ῥῆξαι” (rarely “ῥήξασθαι”) “φωνήν” from Herod. onwards, “δακρύων ῥήξασα νάματα” Soph. Tr. 919, “ἀναρρήξει κακά” Soph. O. T. 1075, and closest of all “ἐκρήξει μάχη” Ai. 775. “ῥήγνυσθαι” is common in M, N, and O of breaking through an enemy's line or wall.
[64] Compare Virgil's “regna . . Pallida, dis invisa,” Aen. viii. 245 . εὐρώεντα, dank, occurs also Od. 10.512, Od. 23.322 “Ἀΐδεω δόμον εὐρ.,” Od. 24.10 “εὐρώεντα κέλευθα”, and, always in similar phrases of the underworld, Hes. Opp. 153, Hes. Theog. 731Hes. Theog., 739Hes. Theog., 810, Hym. Cer. 482, “τάφον εὐρώεντα” Ai. 1167 (where see Jebb's note). Döderlein, Ahrens, and others have proposed to read “αὐερόεντα” (“αὐήρ” = “ἀήρ”） or “ἠερόεντα”, gloomy; but there is no reason for departing from the traditional derivation from “εὐρώς”, mould, Virgil's “loca senta situ” （Aen. vi. 462) . Cf. Simonides fr. iv. 4 “ἐντάφιον δὲ τοιοῦτον οὔτ᾽ εὐρὼς οὔὠ ὁ πανδαμάτωρ ἀμαυρώσει χρόνος”. Scholiasts and late poets (Oppian and Nonnos) took the word to mean spacious, as though from “εὐρύς”. But this weakens every passage where it occurs, and in that from Soph. is impossible.
[67] There is no apparent principle in the pairing of the gods, except in the antagonism of Hephaistos and Skamandros, fire and water. The scholia give long disquisitions on the hidden meaning supposed to be conveyed; the only point of interest in them is that one, which makes Athene an allegory of wisdom, Aphrodite of desire, etc., is said by Porphyrios to be “ἀρχαῖος πάνυ καὶ ἀπὸ Θεαγένους τοῦ Π̔ηγίνου, ὃς πρῶτος ἔγραψε περὶ Ὁμήρου”. Of this Theagenes we know only that he is called the first Greek grammarian, and that acc. to Tatian he was contemporary with Kambyses (529-522 B.C.). See Sengebusch Hom. Diss. Prior pp. 210-13, Schrader Porph. p. 384. ἔναντα and ἰά for “ἰούς” are both “ἅπαξ λεγόμενα” in H.; the latter form seems not to recur in Greek. ἄνακτος, the “Ϝ” is neglected.
[70] See note on 16.183.
[72] σῶκος, here only (but as a proper name in 11.427). The rare verb “σωκεῖν” (Trag.) seems to indicate that it means strong, but this of course is uncertain. Ἐρμ̂ης, the contracted form is found four times in Od. but not elsewhere in Cf. Il. “Ἑρμέαι” 5.390; elsewhere only “Ἑρμείας”.
[74] For the language of the gods see note on 1.403. As there suggested it is possible that both forms may be attempts to Hellenize a foreign name of difficult pronunciation like Ksamnd-; and in that case it might be surmised that “Σιμοεντ”- was also another rendering of the same stem.
[77] ἑ, so Ar.; most MSS. “γε”, and it may be questioned if this is not right, as the pronoun, though it seems to be needed, is in the wrong place (H. G. p. 337. “γάρ Ϝε μάλιστά γε”?).
[78] 78 = 5.289; for ταλαύρινος see note on 7.239.
[83] 83-85. Compare 13.219-20, 8.229-33.
[85] The fut. πολεμίξειν is on the whole superior to “πολεμίζειν”, as the fut. is usual after verbs of promising (e.g. 13.366). The present is however quite defensible, see note on 3.28, and the very similar 10.39-40 “ὑπόσχηται τόδε ἔργον . . σκοπιαζέμεν”: in both these instances the infin. is epexegetic of the subst. and therefore less directly dependent on the verb. See also Lendrum in C. R. iv. 100.
[90] This story is alluded to again by Achilles, 187-94. It was related in the Kypria, as appears from the abstract of Proklos (Dind. Schol. in Il. i. xxxvi. 12), “κἄπειτα” (“Ἀχιλλεὺς”) “ἀπελαύνει τὰς Αἰνείου βόας, καὶ Λυρνησὸν καὶ Πήδασοι πορθεῖ”.
[93] Van L. reads “ἐνῶρσε” with T, comparing “ἐν μένος ὦρσε” 8.335; similarly 14.522, 18.218, 20.110.
[95] φάος, salvation; see 6.6, 16.39.
[96] Λέλεγας, the inhabitants of Lyrnessos; see 10.429, 21.86.
[98] 98 = 5.603. See note there, and add Fick's conj. “πάραι εἷς”.
[99] καὶ ἄλλως, ‘even without the assistance of a god,’ just as in 9.699, where see note. It thus has a specific instead of a general reference, and differs from the same phrase in 11.391, which should be compared.
[101] For the metaphor in τείνειεν see on 7.102, 13.358. “ τέλος ” instead of “πεῖραρ” seems to shew that the physical idea of ‘rope-end’ is passing into the abstract ‘issue.’ οὔ κε is rather better supported than “οὔ με”. In either case it is best to read νικ́ησεἰ with Bentley, not “νικήσει”, as the whole tone of Aineias' words requires the opt. in the apodosis, while the mood can be used without “κε”, H. G. § 299 f. The confidence of the fut. indic. is not in place here as in 9.386 (q.v.). οὐδ᾽ εἰ (102) is not to be considered a second conditional protasis at all; it is added independently, and does not affect the question of “νικήσει”. P. Knight reads “οὔ κέ με ῥεῖα”; cf. 17.462. The elision of the “ε” of -“ειε”, which is practically forbidden in Attic, is rare in H.; but see Od. 11.585, 591 and note on 2.4. παγχάλκεος, i.e. invulnerable. The metaphor in “χάλκεον ἦτορ” 2.490 is different.
[109] λευγαλέοις, sorry, contemptible, as 9.119. ἀρεῖηι, see on 17.431. Here there is no question that the word means ‘abuse.’
[114] Ar. rightly objected to Zen.'s reading of this line (see above) that “ἦ” = “ἔφη” is used only after the speech to which it refers, not as an introduction. θεούς from what follows can refer only to the Greek gods, Poseidon and Athene. The insertion of the prologue to the Theomachy (see Intr.) has probably suppressed some passage which made this clear. We should naturally suppose it to mean all the gods with whom we were dealing in 67-74. Cf. also 149.
[117] ὅδ᾽ ἔβη, here cometh, as 5.175.
[119] ἀποτροπόωμεν (for -“άωμεν”), see on 15.666. Notice the different tones of command in παρσταίη . . δευέσθω: let us turn back . . or one might stand by . . he must not fail.
[120] αὐτόθεν, from the spot, as we say ‘on the spot’; the local meaning carrying with it the temporal, as is shewn by ἔπειτα, thereafter (as an alternative).
[122] δευέσθω, fail, elsewhere always (except in the part. “δευόμενος” 1.134, 22.492 = in need) takes the gen.; hence Köppen's “θυμοῦ” for “θυμῶι” is highly probable; see 3.294, 13.786, Od. 7.73 etc.
[125] 125-28 were athetized by Ar. as contradicting the words of Zeus in 26; the danger is not that Achilles may be defeated, but that he may be irresistible. There is some ground for this as the text stands; but the difficulty disappears when we recognise that this part is entirely independent of 1-74 in origin, and that the πάντες here are the gods on the Greek side only. If we took it to mean the whole army of 67-74, it would of course be untrue to say that they had all come down to help Achilles; and 123-24 would, in the presence of the opposition, be intolerably rude and provocative. There is a marked resemblance in phraseology, though none in content, between the whole passage and Od. 7.195-201.
[128] For the metaphor of the thread of life cf. 24.210, Od. 7.198; and for γεινομένωι = “γενομένωι”, at birth, note on 10.71.
[129] On εἰ . . οὐ, with indic., see note on 4.160. “ ὀμφ̂ης ” does not necessarily mean an open communication; it implies perhaps rather inspiration, an unconscious impulse or feeling, in Od. 3.214-15 “ἦ δέ γε λαοὶ ἐχθαίρουσ᾽ ἀνὰ δῆμον, ἐπισπόμενοι θεοῦ ὀμφῆι”, with M. and R.'s note. Such inspiration in the form of a dream is called an “ὀμφή” in 2.41. There is however no mention of anything of the sort here till we come to the explicit words of 21.288 ff.
[131] χαλεποί, dangerous, hard to endure. The infin. φαίνεσθαι is added loosely, for their appearing openly, cf. 21.482, 1.589 “ἀργαλέος γὰρ Ὀλύμπιος ἀντιφέρεσθαι”, and other instances in H. G . § 232. ἐναργεῖς, cf. Od. 3.420 “Ἀθήνην, ἥ μοι ἐναργὴς ἦλθε θεοῦ ἐς δαῖτα θάλειαν,” Od. 16.161 “οὐ γάρ πως πάντεσσι θεοὶ φαίνονται ἐναργεῖς,” Od. 7.201, and Virg. Aen. iv. 358 “ipse deum manifesto in lumine vidi.” Fick, to avoid the contracted termination, writes “ἐναργές”, assuming a wrong transliteration of the original -“ΕΣ”.
[133] παρὲκ νόον, see on 24.434.
[135] The evidence of MSS. shews that this line was adapted from 8.211 at a very late date; though the presumption in the case of that book is generally the opposite.
[136] ἔπειτα, ‘in consequence of what I have said,’ cf. 24.290.
[137] ἐκ πάτου, the beaten track, as “πάτον ἀνθρώπων ἀλεείνων” 6.202. For the second half of the line see note on 6.490-93, where “ἄνδρεσσι” is opposed not, as here, to gods, but to women.
[138] ἄρχωσι, the “σχῆμα Ἀλκμανικόν”, for which see note on 5.774. The constr. is however particularly harsh here as the two nominatives are connected by the disjunctive ἤ instead of the “καί” which we should have looked for. This may be implied as a variant in the statement of An.that Ar. had “ἤ”. It is however a question if we should not read “ἄρχηισι” with Zen. This may have been altered to suit the following lines, where the plur. verbs are more natural as they follow both nominatives. The variant “ἰδέ” is not very probable.
[139] Here again οὐκ follows “εἰ”, but in this case goes closely with “εἰῶσι”, as in the other instances where the verb is in the subjunctive; H. G. § 316 ad fin.
[140] παρ᾽ αὐτόθι, see note on 12.302. Here “αὐτόφι” has almost universal support.
[141] διακρινθέντας, separating: the regular word to express the end of a decisive battle. See 212 below, 3.98, 102, Od. 18.149 etc.
[143] ἀναγκαίηφι, though it has hardly any support, is clearly preferable to the vulg. “ἀνάγκηι ἶφι”, of which “ἀνάγκης ἶφι” is doubtless a conjectural improvement. It is a question however if “ἀναλκ”（“ε”）“ίηισι” is not better than both, beaten by their own feebleness, as 6.74, 17.320, 337.
[145] The legend, which is evidently a familiar one, is quoted by Schol. A and Apollodoros (ii. 5. 9) from Hellanikos. Poseidon, when defrauded by Laomedon of his hire for building the walls of Troy (21.446-57) sent a seamonster to ravage the land. Laomedon, in obedience to an oracle, exposed his daughter Hesione to be devoured by the monster, but promised his immortal horses (5.640) as a reward to any who should slay it. This was done by Herakles, with the protection of a wall built for him by Pallas; but Laomedon deceived him, giving him only mortal horses. This is of course a version of the Perseus legend. ἀμφίχυτον, of heapedup earth, cf. “χυτὴ γαῖα” 6.464, etc.
[147] τὸ κ̂ητος, this use of the article to denote ‘well known’ is very rare in H., except with a very few nouns. Instances such as this are confined to late passages in the Il.; see H. G. § 261. 3.
[148] μιν, Herakles; the subject of σεύαιτο being “κῆτος”. For the trans. use of the aor. mid. cf. 3.26, 11.549, 15.272.
[149] θεοὶ ἄλλοι here evidently includes only the Greek party, cf. 114.
[154] δυσηλεγέος here and Od. 22.325 only in H. (Hes. Theog. 652, Hes. Opp. 506). Like “τανηλεγέος” (for which see note on 8.70) it is best referred to “ἄλγος”, with the “ε” developed from the liquid as in “ἀλεγεινός”. The “η” is an instance of the vowel-lengthening which is peculiarly common at the joint of a compound; as in “δυσηχής”, which is identical in sense (see note on 2.686).
[155] κέλευε is best taken, with Hentze, absolutely, was supreme over them, as “ταμίης πολέμοιο”. Cf. the use of “κελεύων” in 11.65, 13.91. The ordinary explana tion, though Zeus enthroned on high had bidden them (to fight', is unsatisfactory, because it requires us to take “ἥμενος ὕψι” as a standing epithet = “ὑψίζυγος”, which it can hardly be (cf. Od. 16.264 “ὕψί περ ἐν νεφέεσσι καθημένω”); and also because Zeus had not commanded them to fight one another.
[156] καὶ λάμπετο χαλκῶι, a parenthesis, the following words being in apposition with τῶν. κάρκαιρε, only here in Greek; an imitative word (like our ‘creak’) of the same class as “βαμβαίνω, μορμύρω, γαργαίρω”.
[158] 158-60. Cf. 13.499-500, 6.120. It will be noticed that the combat is introduced as though it were a casual meeting, and had not been prepared in 79-110.
[161] ἀπειλ́ησας, notice the force of the aor.; ‘strode on with (a word or gesture of) defiance’ (Monro).
[164] It has been justly remarked that the following long simile is the most finished, as it is certainly one of the finest, in Homer. It stands out from the context as do some of the remarkable similes in M.
[165] The καί continues the emphasis on σίντης (cf. 11.481), and the sense is fairly given by ‘consequently’; it is thus very similar to the “καί” in 1.249, q.v.
[166] ἀτίζων, heeding not, here only in H. and quite a<*> exception to the ordinary formation of compounds with “ἀ”-. It is, however, not to be condemned on that ground, as it is freely used by the Tragedians. Compare also “ἀτίω” in the same sense. δ̂ημος, village, see note on “δήμου ἀρίστω” 11.328. For the concord of the plur. part. with the collective sing. cf. 18.604 “ὅμιλος τερπόμενοι”.
[170] Schol. B records the old belief that the lion “ἔχει ὑπὸ τῆι οὐρᾶι κέντρον μέλαν, ὡς κεράτιον, δι᾽ οὗ ἑαυτὸν μαστίζει ὑφ᾽ οὗ νυττόμενος πλέον ἀγριοῦται”. So also Scut. Her. 430-31 “γλαυκιόων δ᾽ ὄσσοις δεινὸν πλευράς τε καὶ ὤμους οὐρῆι μαστιόων ποσσὶν γλάφει”.
[171] On ἑέ, the emphatic form used in reflexive sense, see 13.495.
[172] γλαυκιόων, so also Scut. Herc. 430 “γλαυκιόων ὄσσοις δεινόν”, evidently = glaring, with bright eyes, cf. 1.206. But Quintus seems to have taken it to mean blinded (cf. “γλαύκωμα” = opacity of the eye-ball), xii. 408 “ὀφθαλμοὶ . . δυσαλθέα γλαυκιόωντες”, in a gory description of the blinding of Laokoon.
[178] τόσσον πολλόν must go together, in the sense so much. This use of “τόσσον” with adjectives (which is regular in modern Greek) is rare, except in the case of comparatives. There are, however, a few cases, cf. Od. 15.405 “οὔ τι περιπληθὴς λίην τόσον”, not so very populous, Od. 4.371, 21.275, 370 “τόσον αἴτιος. τοσοῦτο” is similarly used by later writers. The peculiarity of the phrase is that “πολλόν” is pleonastic, as “τόσσον” itself includes the idea of quantity. But this pleonasm serves to emphasize the idea of the very great distance, and so heightens the sarcasm. ὁμίλου may be construed in two ways — (1) as an ablative, sallying against me so far forth from the throng; (2) as gen. after “τόσσον πολλόν”, traversing so large a part of the army. For the use of the gen. in (1) cf. “σταθμοῖο δίεσθαι” 12.304, and Od. 18.8 there quoted. This gives the most vigorous sense (cf. “ἐρχόμενον προπάροιθεν ὁμίλου” 3.22), and suits the common use of “ἐπελθεῖν”; but the constr. would be more natural if we read “ἀπελθών” with P. This regularly takes the gen. in H. (24.766, Od. 2.136, Od. 19.223, Od. 24.310). “ἐπελθεῖν” in most cases means come upon, attack; but the sense traverse can be supported by 18.321 “ἄγκε᾽ ἐπῆλθε,” Od. 4.268 “ἐπ. γαῖαν”.
[179] ἔστης, hast taken thy stand, as 17.342 “πολὺ προμάχων ἐξάλμενος ἔστη”.
[180] 180-86 were athetized by Ar. “ὅτι εὐτελεῖς εἰσὶ τῆι κατασκευῆι καὶ τοῖς νοήμασι, καὶ οἱ λόγοι οὐ πρέποντες τῶι τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως προσώπωι”. But the same objections might be urged against the whole of this dialogue.
Aineias' pretensions to the crown are explained in 213-41. See also note on 13.460. “ Τρώεσσιν ” is locative, as usual, the gen. τιμ̂ης being used of the thing ruled over, e.g. Od. 24.30 “τιμῆς ἧσπερ ἄνασσες” (see H. G. §§ 145. 7, 151 f); to be master of Priam's dignity among the Trojans. τιμ̂ης τ̂ης Πριάμου is a late construction; see H. G. § 260 g; the other instances are all in Od. or “Ι, Κ, Ψ”.[183] ἀεσίφρων, also 23.603, Od. 21.302, Hes. Opp. 335, and “ἀεσιφροσύνη” Od. 15.470, Hes. Th. 502.The word has generally been referred, since Buttmann, to “ἀάω”, from Od. 21.302 where “φρεσὶν ἀασθείς” and “ἀεσίφρονι θυμῶι” occur together. It should then be “ἀασίφρων”, which is given in Lex. 2. 7.Buttmann explains “ε” for “α” as an analogical formation due to forms like “ἀλφεσίβοιος, ταμεσίχροος, φαεσίμβροτος”. But here the derivation hardly suits the sense, as “φρεσὶν ἀασθείς” should imply a definite ‘blinding’ of the mind, hardly a state of incapacity, which the context requires. It is therefore quite possible that the old derivation from “ἄημι” may be right, cf. 21.386 “δίχα δέ σφιν ἐνὶ φρεσὶ θυμὸς ἄητο”, and “φρένες ἠερέθονται” 3.108. The word will then mean ‘blown about,’ ‘volatile,’ in mind, weakened in will by old age. (The weak stem “ἀ-Ϝε”-, root vē, is not elsewhere found, but must have existed, G. Meyer Gr. § 34. 1.)
[184] 184-85. See 6.194-95.
[186] δέ σ᾽ ἔολπα sins against “Ϝ” and rhythm (H. G. § 368. 2); “σε Ϝέϝολπα” however corrects both offences.
[187] “φόβησα” has strong MS. support, and may be defended from post-Homeric use: see on 9.329.
[188] See note on 90. “ἡ Ριανοῦ καὶ” (“ἡ”) “Ἀριστοφάνους “βοῶν ἔπι,” οὐκ ἀχαρίτως . . ἐν τῆι Χίαι “βοῶν ἔπι”” Did. But in this sense “ἐπί” seems to take the dat. only, 6.25 “ποιμαίνων ἐπ᾽ ὄεσσι”, etc. μέμνηι, i.e. “μέμνἠ”, see on 15.18. The variant “μέμνησ᾽” is also defensible. “ἦ οὐ, οὐ” Brandreth, see 5.349.
[193] 193 = 16.831.
[194] Heyne justly remarks on the lightness with which the names of gods are used as mere forms of speech; in three lines Achilles asserts that Aineias was attacked ‘with Zeus' aid,’ and that ‘Zeus saved’ him.
[195] 195-98 were athetized by Ar. on the ground that the last three lines are wrongly borrowed from 17.30-32; he rightly urged that there Menelaos tells Euphorbos to retire because his only aim is to get the body of Patroklos, whereas here Achilles has come into battle to wreak his vengeance, and should not be willing to let his first antagonist escape. But here again the vice is inherent in the whole scene. ἐρύεσθαι is perhaps best taken as fut., though the pres. is quite possible, is now protecting thee; cf. 9.248, 10.44. It is practically indifferent whether we read “σε ῥύεσθαι” or the text, as “ῥύεσθαι” has both “υ^” and “υ_”.
[200] νηπύτιος = in-fans (“νη-, ἠπύ-ω”); a word occurring eight times in “γ” and “Φ”, and else only in 13.292 = Od. 3.244.
[202] 202 = 433. ἠμὲν . . ἠδέ imply an antithesis. αἴσυλα therefore can hardly be the right word; we want “αἴσιμα” (Düntzer), as well abuse as seemly speech. The phrase thus becomes a dignified rebuke. For “αἴσυλος” see note on “ἀήσυλος” 5.876; the word recurs in 5.403, 21.214, Od. 2.232, Od. 5.10, always in the sense “ἄδικος”. Ruhnken long ago conjectured “αἴσιμα” for “αἴσυλα” (“ἄρμενα” M) in Hymn. Merc. 164.
[204] πρόκλυτα, heard in old times; or perhaps lit. heard forwards = handed onward by oral tradition, and so widespread.
[205] 205-09 were athetized by Ar. “ὅτι οὐκ ἀναγκαῖα τὰ δι᾽ αὐτῶν λεγόμενα, κατὰ τὴν γενεαλογίαν ἀμφοτέρων γιγνωσκομένων”. This is insufficient ground for condemnation in a passage like the present.
[207] ἁλοσύδνης, a word recurring only Od. 4.404 “φῶκαι νέποδες καλῆς ἁλοσύδνης”, a passage which throws no light on the present. Hesych. has “ὕδναι: ἔγγονοι”, but that is probably only an attempt to explain the word, which was presumably written as two, “ἁλὸς ὕδνης”. It was, however, accepted in Alexandrian times, as Kallim. has “῾γδατοσύδνη” as the name of a Nereid. It is possible that -“υδν”may be the same as the stem “υδα-τ” for “υδν-τ” (G. Meyer Gr. § 335). The word will then mean ‘daughter of the saltwater,’ the patronymic force residing only in the noun-termination -“η”.
[208] 208-09 = 5.247-48.
[210] ἕτεροι, one pair or the other.
[213] 213-14 = 6.150-51, q.v.
[215] With great hesitation I have read ἄρ for “αὖ” of the vulgate, which may have slipped in from 219. “αὖ” cannot introduce a narrative, and if correct is evidence of some dislocation. But it cannot be used as evidence that 215 is the beginning of a genealogy imported bodily from some extraneous source, as has sometimes been done, for it seems clear that wherever it stands it can never have been anything but an introduction; the ascending line can have gone no higher, and πρῶτον shews that it cannot have been one of a series of genealogies of sons of Zeus. On the whole it seems probable that the speech was composed as we now have it, and that the genealogy is the kernel of this ‘Aeneid,’ to which the rest is written up. The wearisome repetitions of ‘let us not waste time on words’ in 200-2, 210-12, 244-58 can only be excused by the existence of some such long digression as 215-41. This does not exclude the possibility of the genealogy being taken from some earlier ‘Hesiodean’ source; but the existence of 219 ff. makes this unlikely.
[217] The strongly-marked alliteration only shews how little stress can be laid upon any supposed design in such phenomena.
[218] ὑπωρείας, a word used several times by Herod., and quoted by Plato, Legg. 681 E, 702 A “τὰς τοῦ Δαρδάνου ὑπωρείας τε καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ θαλάττηι κατοίκισιν”. We cannot say whether it embodies a real local tradition, or is merely an ancient speculation as to the development of cities. It must in any case be taken to mean the low hill-country which fringes Ida, not as we should expect the point at which the mountains first rise from the plain; for the latter was the actual site of Ilios and is therefore expressed by ἐν πεδίωι. But even this phrase does not seem quite natural. It certainly suits Hissarlik better than Bounarbashi, for at the former site the lower town at least, as distinguished from the Akropolis, may have extended to the actual plain. Monro aptly quotes a parallel from the action of the Sikel Duketios in Sicily: “τὰς μὲν Νέας, ἥτις ἦν αὐτοῦ πατρίς, μετώικισεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον, καὶ . . ἔκτισε πόλιν ἀξιόλογον, ἣν . . ὠνόμαζε Παλικήν” (Diod. Sic.xi. 88. 6).
[219] The appearance of the purely Attic hero Erichthonios in a Trojan genealogy is startling. Fick has suggested with great probability that the passage is of Attic origin, and dates from about 610 C.B., when the Athenians were endeavouring to gain a footing at Sigeion; we know from Strabo (xiii. p. 604) that they claimed kinship with the Trojans on the ground of this community of mythical “ἀρχηγέται”, and it is quite possible that political considerations may have brought this passage into the text. Fick therefore joins 219 to 230, reading “Δάρδανος αὖ τέκετο Τρῶα Τρώεσσι Ϝάνακτα”, and remarking that the divine horses were given acc. to 5.265 not to Erichthonios but to Tros. But it is quite conceivable that the whole genealogy is of a piece, and was introduced whole with the remainder of the ‘Aeneid.’
[221] ἵπποι βουκολέοντο, a mixture of metaphor like “οἰνοχόει νέκταρ” 1.598 (and 234 below); so “ἱπποβουκόλοι” Eur. Phoen. 28.
[223] The idea that mares could actually become pregnant by the wind was widely spread in antiquity; cf. note on 16.150. Here, however, it is not necessary to see more than a mythological form of words to express extreme speed.
[224] κυανοχαίτηι, elsewhere of Poseidon only, see 13.563. It seems to have no special significance for a horse. Hence no doubt the variant (see above) which is even less suitable.
[227] Cf. Hes. fr. 143 (Rzach of Iphiklos, “ἄκρον ἐπ᾽ ἀνθερίκων καρπὸν θέεν, οὐδὲ κατέκλα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πυραμίνων ἀθέρων δρομάασκε πόδεσσι . . καὶ οὐ σινέσκετο καρπόν” (Eust., and cf. Schol. T'. ἀνθερίκων is commonly explained ears of corn like “ἀθέρων” (so Schol. A “τῶν ἐν τοῖς στάχυσι λεπτῶν ἀθέρων”). In later Greek “ἀνθέρικος” is used of the stalk or plant of the asphodel, and there is no reason why it should not be the same in this passage.
[229] For ἔπι MSS. have “ἐπί”, taking ἄκρον apparently as an adverb, for which there is no analogy. It must be a substantive as Od. 11.597, 23.339; but even so the use is doubtful, as neither of these passages supports the use of the gen. Hence Ahrens' reading, “ἄκρον ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνα”, is very probable; the change will have been made to avoid the hiatus. This is of course the regular Greek use of “ἄκρος”. The gen. was evidently read by Ap. Rhod.i. 182 “κεῖνος ἀνὴρ καὶ πόντου ἐπὶ γλαυκοῖο θέεσκεν οἴδματος κτλ” . Virgil's application of the thought to Camilla hardly needs quotation ( Aen. vii. 808-11). For ῥηγμῖνος = surf without the usual connotation of shore cf. Od. 12.214 “κώπηισιν ἁλὸς ῥηγμῖνα βαθεῖαν τύπτετε”.
[231] Cf. 14.115, where a dat. is used in place of the gen. Τρωός.
[234] καί refers to “κάλλιστος”, ‘consequently,’ as 165. Notice the variant “μέν. ἀνηρείψαντο” is the reading of MSS., but, as Döderlein has pointed out (Gloss. iii. 244), should be “ἀνηρέψαντο”, from “ἀρεπ”- = “ἁρπ” (-“άζω”) by anaptyxis. For this form we have the authority of one MS. (v' of Hes. Theog. 990, “ἀναρεψαμένη” for “ἀνερειψαμένη” or “ἀναρειψαμένη” of the rest (see Rzach ad loc.). Hence with the aid of the cognate form “Ἀρέπυια” (for which see note on 16.150) Fick has convincingly restored in Od. 20.77 (Od. 1.241, Od. 14.371) “Ἀρέπυιαι ἀνηρέψαντο”, a clear case of the favourite figura etymologica, for the vulg. “Ἅρπυιαι ἀνηρείψαντο”. The word recurs also in Od. 4.727. The sense snatch up can by no means be got from “ἐρείπω”. Whether “ἐρέπτεσθαι” is cognate is another matter. For a rather different form of the legend cf. Hym. Ven. 203-05. Aristotle ( Poet. xxv. 14) notices the slight extension of meaning by which οἰνοχοεύειν is applied to nectar.
[235] 235 = Od. 15.251. The line may be borrowed here, as the first half is tautological, and the second very weak after the more specific words of the preceding line. Ar. rejected the line in “ο”, and upheld it here. In both cases οἷο refers to the object of the principal verb, not the subject, as it should.
[238] 238 = 3.147; it is likely enough that it may be borrowed here to systematize the genealogy of the house of Priam. The idea is carried out in O, where each of the three brothers is provided with a son (419, 526, 546, 576).
[240] It will be seen that Hector and Aineias are both fourth in descent from Tros; i.e. they are ‘third cousins.’
[242] This evidently alludes to Achilles' sarcasm about Aineias' flight at Lyrnessos.
[243] “ὁ γὰρ ὄχ᾽ ἄριστος” Heyne, to explain the variant “γάρ κ᾽ ὄχ᾽ ἄριστος”, where the “κ̓” is meaningless. The lengthening of γάρ will be parallel to that of “κεν” just before — unless two such licenses in the line are considered too much (“πᾶσιν, ὅπως κ᾽ ἐθέληισιν” van L.).
[244] 244 = 13.292, and see note on 2.435.
[245] Heyne remarks that the junction of ὑσμίνη with a gen. is quite unique in H.
[247] The epithet ἑκατόζυγος (the variant “ἑκατόνζυγος” is excluded by the analogy of “σύζυγος”) evidently implies ‘a ship bigger than was ever seen.’ We hear indeed of ships carrying 120 men (2.570), but it is not to be supposed that each of these occupied an oarsman's bench. So far as we can judge, Odysseus' comparison of the Kyklops to the mast “νηὸς ἐεικοσόροιο” (Od. 9.322） implies that even this must have been a large size. So in Pind. P. iv. 245 “ναῦς πεντηκόντορος” is a type of huge bulk. For “ζυγά” = rowers' benches see Od. 9.99, Od. 13.21, “νηῒ πολυζύγωι” 2.293, M. and R. p. 540. ἄροιτο, bear, only here; “ἄρνυμαι” elsewhere always = win. It looks as though there were a late confusion with “αἴρειν” (“ηομ. ἀείρειν”).
[248] στρεπτ́η, exactly our voluble, capable of turning easily this way or that, and therefore of uttering words of every sort. For the other metaphorical use of the word see 9.497, 15.203.
[249] The sense of νομός is obscure, and is not explained by the Hesiodean “ἀχρεῖος δ᾽ ἔσται ἐπέων νομός” ( Opp. 403), nor by Hym. Ap. 20 “πάντηι γάρ τοι, Φοῖβε, νομοὶ βεβλήαται ὠιδῆς” (?). This may point to the ‘field of words’ as the sense, lit. the pasture-ground, the region in which they can find sustenance. With this metaphor Fäsi compares “ἔπεα πτερόεντα”, where words are conceived as winged creatures flying from man to man. The idea will then be that there is a wide region (of insulting thoughts) wherein words may be reared for the tongue — the range of insults is very wide. The scholiasts prefer to explain by “νέμησις”, ‘the portioning out of words is abundant on either side,’ which leads to the same result. But there is no trace of any sense of the noun in H. except pasture. The more familiar “νόμος” (law) is not Epic at all. (“νέμειν” = to divide; “νέμεσθαι” = to get divided, of land, to get as a lot; hence to inhabit, of men etc., as in l. 8 above, or cultivate land, and of animals to graze, trans. as Od. 9.449, intrans. as 15.631. A further extension is to consume 2.780, 23.177, where the idea of land has completely vanished. Thus we have a wide range to choose from, and either apportionment or pasturage is in itself possible.)
[250] Cf. Hesiod Opp. 721 “εἰ δὲ κακὸν εἴποις, τάχα κ᾽ αὐτὸς μεῖζον ἀκούσαις”. For ἐπακούσαις with the rare term. -“αις” van L. reads “ἐπακούσηις” from [Plut. ] Vit. Hom. 173. Heyne remarks that the absence of any conjunction makes the line look like an independent gnomic tag.
[251] 251-55. “ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι πέντε, ὡς ἄκαιροι καὶ ὀχληροὶ προειρημένου τοῦ “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε μηκέτι ταῦτα λεγώμεθα”” (244). “τοῦτο δὲ περιγράφοντός ἐστι τὸν λόγον . . καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα ἀνάξια τῶν προσώπων. καὶ παρὰ βαρβάροις δέ ἐστι τὸ τὰς γυναῖκας προερχομένας λοιδορεῖσθαι ὡς παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίοις” The An.first part of this criticism is justified, but these lines are not the only “ἄκαιροι καὶ ὀχληροί” in the speech; even if we expel them as a later recension, with Ar., the repetitions are still far too numerous. The comparison to the women in the streets is indeed the most vigorous passage in the speech, and is quite as consonant with the manners of the heroic age, when women were comparatively free, as with those of the Egyptians. But the contracted νεικεῦσι must be late; and ἔριδος πέρι θυμοβόροιο is almost like a travesty of the other passage where it occurs, 7.301, 16.476, cf. 7.210, 19.58.
[252] γυναῖκας, after the dat. “νῶϊν”, is ‘attracted’ by the absorbing influence of the acc. cum infin. construction. Cf. H. G. §§ 237, 240. The variant “γυναῖκες” may be right.
[255] πόλλ᾽ ἐτεά τε καὶ οὐκί, though acc. to Did. only the reading of inferior MSS., is obviously better than Ar.'s “πολλά τ᾽ ἐόντα καὶ οὐκί” with its clumsy order of words, which is only slightly improved if we read “τὰ δ᾽” for “καί”, as one of the confused scholia seems to imply. Besides, “ἐόντα” = true things is a phrase not to be paralleled in H. For the lengthening of the “α” of ἐτεά see on 18.4. The word recurs in H. only as an adv. “ἐτεόν. καὶ τά”, the false as well as the true.
[258] γευσόμεθα, make trial, as 21.61 “δουρὸς ἀκωκῆς . . γεύσεται,” Od. 20.181 “χειρῶν,” Od. 21.98 “ὀϊστοῦ”. But the word is more naturally used with a weapon than a man for its object. Cf. Pind. P. ix. 35 “γεύεται δ᾽ ἀλκᾶς ἀπειράντου”.
[259] The scholia mention a reading “δινῶι” for δεινῶι, and explain it “δινωτῶι”, absurdly (cf. 13.407); they give little warrant for attributing it to Ar., who however read “σάκεϊ ἔλασ᾽”. The very harshness of this may be evidence of its originality.
[260] σμερδαλέωι in this emphatic place after “δεινῶι” is very weak. Perhaps we should read “σμερδαλέον” as adv., though with little support. Heyne conj. “σμερδαλέον δὲ μέγ᾽”, which should be taken together, as in Od. 9.395 “σμερδαλέον δὲ μέγ᾽ ὤιμωξεν”, terribly loud. μέγα is in any case to be taken as adv. with “μύκε. ἀκωκή” is of course a possible variant for ἀκωκ̂ηι, but it is the larger body from which the noise should come.
[263] ῥέα διελεύσεσθαι, see 13.144.
[266] For ὑποείκειν Düntzer conj. “ὑποείκει”, as “οὐ ῥηΐδι᾽ ἐστὶν ὑποείκειν” is evidently not a very natural expression. The slight irregularity is, however, quite intelligible after “δαμήμεναι”, and the analogy of 10.403, 17.77 is all in favour of the two infinitives.
[268] 268 = 21.165. Cf. Scut. Her. 415 “οὐδ᾽ ἔρρηξεν χαλκός: ἔρυτο δὲ δῶρα θεοῖο”. The gold stands, as the most precious constituent, for the whole metallic facing of the shield. The plural δῶρα may be explained as referring to the collective sense of “χρυσός”, the parts of gold, as we might talk of a man possessing ‘plate, presents from friends.’ (The reference to the use of the plural of abstract words, H. G. § 171. 4, hardly suits here, as “δῶρα” is used in its most concrete sense.)
[269] 269-72. These lines are spurious, as was perceived by Ar.; and Schol T says “προηθετοῦντο δὲ καὶ παρ᾽ ἐνίοις τῶν σοφιστῶν, ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ οὐδὲ ἐφέροντο” (the ‘Sophists’ are only here mentioned as Homeric critics, and the reading is suspicious). They are evidently inserted by some one who thought that the “πέντε πτύχες” of 18.481 were formed by the different metals, whereas they were no doubt of hide. Even if the “πτύχες” were of metal the arrangement here given would be absurd, for the gold is hidden away in the middle where it would be neither useful nor ornamental. 268, as appears from 21.165, needs no further expansion. Ar.'s explanation of the interpolation is curious. “ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι δ́, ὅτι διεσκευασμένοι εἰσὶν ὑπό τινος τῶν βουλομένων πρόβλημα ποιεῖν. μάχεται δὲ σαφῶς τοῖς γνησίοις: ἄτρωτα γὰρ τὰ ἡφαιστότευκτα συνίσταται” (An.); the passage was interpolated to support the views of some of those who had made a problem of the arrangement of the metals in “Σ” — a favourite crux mentioned by Gellius (xiv. 6), and discussed at length by Porphyrios in Schol. B, and probably by Aristotle in his Homeric Problems (see below). Porphyrios held that the gold was the middle, Ar. that it was the outer, of the layers; and the latter, that he might not be accused of athetizing the lines because he could not reconcile them with his view (“ἵνα μὴ δοκῆι λύσεως ἠπορηκέναι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἠθετηκέναι”), gave as an explanation of the lines as they stood that the spear was stopped by the outer layer, not piercing it, but bending back the next layers, so that “ἐγένετο κοιλότης, οὐ τρῶσις”, and two layers were ‘driven through,’ though the outer one stopped the point! Aristotle quotes 272 in an extremely obscure passage of the Poetics (xxv. 15), which is practically unintelligible, but probably points to a “λύσις” of the same sort.
[273] Ar. objected to Zen.'s reading of the couplet (see above) that “νύσσειν” is only used of thrusting, not of casting.
[275] πρώτην, at the beginning, i.e. extreme edge, of the rim. Cf. 6.118, where “πυμάτη” means the same thing proceeding from the centre outwards, instead of as here from the circumference inwards. χαλκός here must mean the metal facing, like “χρυσός” above. This, like the hide, is made thinner at the edge, which is of less importance than the centre for defensive purposes.
[276] ῥινὸς βοός, the body of the shield; “ἐπέην, ἐπι”- implies ‘to back it up,’ not of course that the hide was in front of the metal.
[280] ἔστη ἱεμένη, was stopped in its eager course; so 15.543, 20.399. The word usually requires a complement (gen., infin., or adv.), to indicate the object aimed at, as 21.70 “ἔστη ἱεμένη χροὸς ἄμεναι”. But it is not safe to found any conclusions on this slight discrepancy. διὰ . . ἕλε, separated; this sense of “διαιρεῖν” is familiar in later Greek, but does not recur in H. “ἀμφοτέρους, τὸν χαλκοῦν καὶ τὸν βύρσινον” Schol. A, rightly no doubt — the metal facing and leather backing, which a blow at the edge would inevitably tear apart. κύκλους may be used of the ‘figure-of8’ shaped Mykenaean shield (see App. B, i. 1); but in so late a passage it is more probable that the author was thinking of the round shield. In any case this can have no bearing on the shape of Achilles' shield as described in “Σ”.
[282] The expression grief poured over his eyes is unusual, but may be paralleled by Od. 4.716 “τὴν δ᾽ ἄχος ἀμφεχύθη θυμοφθόρον”: compare also 17.591 “ἄχεος νεφέλη ἐκάλυψε μέλαινα”. The neglect of the “Ϝ” of “Ϝοι” is more suspicious; hence van L. and Platt conj. “καδ δέ Ϝ᾽”（“οι”) “ἄχος χύτο” (“καδ δ᾽ ἄῤ” G. Hermann), leaving us still to ask why sorrow should be the feeling of the moment. Bentley well suggested “ἀχλύς” for “ἄχος οἱ”, thus restoring a quite Homeric metaphor, cf. 5.696, 17.344, 20.321. We must then write “μυρίη” with Cobet, or take “μυρίον” as an adverb, cf. 21.320. Possibly the latter may be right, in which case the apparent harshness of the construction may have led to the corruption of the passage. The whole clause is parenthetical, ταρβήσας recurring to the construction of “ἀλευάμενος”.
[285] 285-87 = 5.302-04, where see notes.
[289] It is not clear whether τό οἱ . . ὄλεθρον is an independent clause descriptive of the shield (which had saved him, viz. 268 above), or is to be included under the idea of contingency in the preceding and following clauses, “κε” being virtually supplied from them, which would have in that case warded off. The former seems preferable, as the relative “τό” is regularly used to introduce such subordinate descriptive touches. But the whole sentence, with its long chain of unrealised possibilities, is by no means in the Homeric manner.
[293] The speech and action of Poseidon are as glaringly inconsistent with his attitude in the Iliad in general, and his recent speech (133-43) in particular, as are the words of 306 with that of Zeus. If Aineias is to be saved it should naturally have been by Apollo who urged him on, and is still in the field, or by his mother Aphrodite, as in But E. it is impossible to separate the action of Poseidon from the whole episode, which may have been introduced not only for the glory of Aineias, but to explain some form of Poseidon-worship among the families who claimed descent from him.
[298] μάψ, without aim or object, so far as he is concerned. ἀχέων, a strange expression; apparently ‘he takes part in the war because of sorrows which do not concern him.’ But this use of “ἄχος” is hardly in the Homeric style. Döderlein takes “ἀχέων” as a participle, ob res alienas dolens, which will not do. Bentley reads “ἀτέων”, which would remove all difficulty, but is too familiar a word to have been corrupted. There is a curious schol. of Aristonikos, suggesting that Priam's suspicion of Aineias (see 13.461) was due not to his pretensions to the Trojan crown, but to the fact that he had no personal interest in the war (“οὐ συνεπεγράφη τῶι τῶν Πριαμιδῶν πολεμῶι”).
[302] μόριμον, here only in H.; but found also in Pindar and Aischylos. The unmetrical “μόρσιμον” has almost entirely supplanted it in MSS.
[306] “ἤχθαιρε” Aph.; but the imperf., as expressing a continued state, is in too flagrant contradiction with the conduct of Zeus. The aor. may be explained as a petulant expression, has come to hate, with particular reference to the recent decision of Zeus to let the war take its course.
[307] Strabo and the scholia say that the variant “πάντεσσιν” (see above) was invented to flatter the Romans. It is significant of the honesty of the tradition that no trace of it should appear in the MSS. This famous prophecy, which is repeated in a similar form in Hymn. Ven. 197, is of course the foundation of the legend of Virgil's Aeneid, and is translated there (iii. 97-98), “hic domus Aencae cunctis dominabitur oris et nati natorum et qui nascentur ab illis.” Virgil therefore read γένωνται, not “λίπωνται”.
[311] See 10.44. We can quite well read “ἐάσηις” here and take “ἐρύσσεαι” as aor. subj.
[312] It is obvious from MS. evidence that this line has been interpolated, like 24.558 (q.v.) in order to supply a verb to ἐάσεις, which is quite capable of standing by itself, let him alone. Compare note on 5.848, and Od. 10.444.
[313] The plur. ὅρκους (here only) means ‘oaths by many different objects,’ i.e. of the most solemn sort; see 2.755, 15.36, and Buttmann Lexil. p. 436.
[315] 315-17 = 21.374-76, except that there “καιομένη, καίωσι” is the best attested reading. Syr.omits 316-17 but ‘there are traces of writing in another hand on the upper margin; probably one or more of the omitted lines.’ 317 is rejected by Bentley and P. Knight, 316-17 by Bekker, Nauck, Christ, Fick, etc. Both lines are perhaps more in place in “Φ”. The triple repetition of forms of “δαίω” is disagreeable; but a reference to 18.227 (whence a splendid effect has been badly copied) would suggest that the remedy is to be found rather in changing “δάηται”, a form not elsewhere found, into “κάηται”. (Hesych. “δάηται: καίεται”.) μαλερῶι, see note on 9.242.
[319] Line 319 = 5.167.
[322] 322-24. “ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι τρεῖς, ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέσχηται τῆι ἀσπίδι τὸ δόρυ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως, ἀλλὰ “διὰ πρὸ Πηλιὰς ἤϊξεν μελίη ”” (276) “καὶ “ἐγχείη δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπὲρ νώτου ἐνὶ γαίηι ”” (279). “πῶς οὖν ὁ Ποσειδῶν ἐκ τῆς ἀσπίδος ἤρυσε τὸ δόρυ;” The An.difficulty may be evaded if we suppose that the spearshaft had carried the shield with it; but this is not the simple sense of 276-79, and the lines are quite needless.
[329] For the Kaukones see 10.429. They are not found among the Trojan allies in the Catalogue, and later tradition knew little or nothing of them. Another tribe of the same name is mentioned as living in Elis, Od. 3.366 (see Herod.i. 147). So Pelasgians are found both in Greece and in Asia Minor. θωρ́ησσοντο, were entering the fight; cf. 13.301, 18.189.
[332] “ἀτέοντα, ἀφροντιστοῦντα: Καλλίμαχος “Μουσέων κεινὸς ἀνὴρ ἀτέει”” Sch. The A. word recurs in Herod.vii. 223 where it duly represents the normal “ἀτᾶν” (cf. “ὁρέω”), but in Homer it can hardly be right. It is presumably --u with synizesis. But we should perhaps accept the variant “χατέοντα”, joining it with “θεῶν”, lacking the aid of the gods; cf. g 48 “πάντες δὲ θεῶν χατέουσ᾽ ἄνθρωποι” .
[335] As between συμβλ́ησεαι and “συμβήσεαι” there can be little question; the former is the regular word for meeting (cf. 17.565, 21.578), while “συμβαίνειν” does not occur in H. But there is no analogy in Greek for such an aor. subj. as “βλήσεαι”, no sigmatic aor. occurring at all. Neither can it be fut. indic. We must therefore read “συμβλήεαι” with Dindorf; this is the correct subj. of which the 3rd person “βλήεται” is found in Od. 17.472. The corruption has no doubt arisen from the influence of the probably early variant “συμβήσεαι”.
[342] Cf. 15.668. “ μέγ᾽ ἔξιδεν ”, ‘stared with all his might,’ as we say, as though it required a great exercise of force; “μέγα” as in “μέγα κρατέειν”, etc. Compare “ὑπόδρα ἰδών, ἀχρεῖον ἰδών” (2.269). “ἐξ” also implies the putting forth of effort, as “κεφαλῆς ἐκδέρκεται ὄσσε” 23.477; cf. “μάκιστον ἐξιδοῦ” Soph. Phil. 851.The phrase is a curious one, but we have no right to say that it is corrupt.
[343] 343 = 11.403. 344 = 13.99.
[350] It is a question if the “ὡς” of one MS. is not to be preferred, as more Homeric, to the vulg. ὅς.
[357] ἐφέπειν, to control, manage, as we say, with the additional connotation of ‘driving,’ the enemy. See note on 11.496. “ἐφέπειν” is often used in later Greek of a general ‘controlling’ his own men, but the idea of hostility is generally connoted in H., and the parallelism of “πᾶσι μάχεσθαι” indicates that the same is the case here; otherwise it would be possible to translate it is hard for me to command so great an army and (at the same time) to fight with all the enemy.
[359] The exact metaphor of the word στόμα is uncertain; see 10.8 with note, 19.313. We can hardly go further than to regard ὑσμίνης στόμα as a periphrasis for “ὑσμίνη”. But the use of “ἐφέπειν” which forms the transition between the primitive idea of ‘managing’ and the derived metaphor ‘chasing,’ namely the sense of ‘driving’ horses (see 8.126), suggests that ‘managing the mouth’ here may be a figure from the bit and bridle. καὶ πονέοιτο is used by a sort of hendiadys for “πονούμενος”, by dint of labour; the word having as often a special reference to the toil of battle.
[361] οὐκέτι, Naber (with P) for “οὔ μ᾽ ἔτι” of “Ω”; the pronoun is not usually expressed in such phrases.
[362] The sing. στιχός recurs in 16.173, only the nom. and acc. plur. being found elsewhere. “στιχῶν” is of course impossible in a hexameter (“μάλ᾽ ἀν στίχας” Barnes, “κατὰ στίχας” Axt'. It evidently means ‘the enemies' line of battle.’ διαμπερές, right through, as 12.429 “διαμπερὲς ἀσπίδος αὐτῆς”.
[365] ἴμεναι, the “ι_” is quite unexplained; “ἴμεν, ἴμεναι” and “ἰέναι” occur about 130 times in H., elsewhere always with “ι^”. Compare note on “ζευγνῦμεν” 16.145. Transposition has been suggested, “ἴμεναι δ᾽ ἔφατ᾽”, or “φάτο δ᾽ ἄντ᾽ ἴμεναι” (Schulze Q. E. p. 377) but is not very probable. “φάτο δ᾽ ἂψ ἴμεν” Nauck. It is a question, however, if φάτο itself is the right word. It should according to usage mean thought rather than proclaimed.
[370] κολούσει is clearly necessary if the line is to stand; the ambiguous τελέει may have led to “κολούει”, which nearly all MSS. give. The present, after “ἐπιθήσει”, turns the line into a weak platitude. As an alternative we may regard it as a gnomic interpolation referring originally to Zeus. In this connexion “κολούει” is suitable, being equivalent to “ἐνικλᾶν” 8.408, “ἐπικείρειν” 16.120. It is used again = make to fail in Od. 8.211 “ἕο δ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα κολούει”. The clause τὸ μὲν τελέει is only introduced for the sake of antithesis, to set off the other alternative on which stress is laid; ‘though he will sometimes succeed, yet at other times he shall fail.’
[371] τῶι, for the dat. cf. 422, 7.20, 15.584; as the rarer form it is less likely to have been corrupted than the normal “τοῦ” of the vulg. The epanalepsis of a whole phrase (“εἰ πυρὶ χεῖρας ἔοικεν”, for “χεῖρε Ϝέϝοικεν”?) is found again only in 22.128, 23.642.
[375] Cf. 12.60 with note.
[377] ἐκ φλοίσβοιο, the surging mass of warriors opposed to the “πρόμαχοι”, = “οὐλαμός” in 379. Cf. 5.469 “ἐκ φλοίσβοιο σαώσομεν”.
[381] This line may well be the opening of Achilles' career in the original “Μῆνις”. But it is immediately succeeded by an episode which betrays later origin, 383-95. The thrice-repeated short “ο” of “Ὀτρυντεΐδης” (“Ὀτρυντῆϊ”), though common in later poetry, is against the Homeric rule, and not metrically necessary; it is never found in the frequent “ὀτρύνω” (cf. Schulze Q. E. p. 100 note). The allusion to the Catalogue (2.865) is very obvious — some actually read 385 after 2.866 (see App. Crit. there) — and the familiarity of the poet with Asiatic localities is itself suspicious. We may perhaps add the short form of the dat. plur. “ἐπισσώτροις” (394), while the phrase “πάντων ἐκπαγλότατ᾽ ἀνδρῶν”, twice used of Achilles himself (1.146, 18.170), is meaningless when applied to an unknown warrior. It is quite possible that the lines have been inserted to glorify a local Otrynteïd family by making one of their number participate in the Trojan war. We can read (382) “πρῶτον δ᾽ ἕλε” (395) “Δημολέοντα”, with “νύξας κακ” for “νύξε κατά” in 397 (Schulze), but it is simpler to remove 383-95 and the borrowed 397-402 together. Iphition is not elsewhere named.
[385] <*>δη was identified by some with the later Sardis; but Strabo (xiii. 626) is incredulous. The variant “῞γλης” is evidently wrong; see 5.708. Tmolos and the Gygaian lake (390) are mentioned again in 2.865-66, q.v.
[390] γενέη, birthplace, as Od. 1.407 “ποῦ δέ νύ οἱ γενεὴ καὶ πατρὶς ἄρουρα” ; The lake is here purely geographical, not a mythological personification (2.865).
[392] Hyllos, a feeder of the great Lydian Hermos.
[394] δατέοντο, divided in the sense tore to pieces, a strange phrase. (“ἐπισσώτροισι δατεῦντο”? Cf. 23.121.) “ ἐπισσώτροις, ” 5.725.
[396] “ἀλεξητ̂ηρα, ἅπ. λεγ”. in H. Cf. “πόλεμον ἀλαλκών” 9.605.
[397] 397-400 = 12.183-86, cf. 11.95-98.
[401] 401 = 11.423. 402 = 5.56.
[403] θυμὸν ἄϊσθε, see 16.468. ἤρυγε, bellowed, cf. 18.580 “ἐρύγμηλον”.
[404] ἀμφί seems to be used in the literal sense, dragged round (the altar of) Poseidon. Ἑλικώνιον, apparently from Helike in Achaia, a seat of Poseidonworship, see 8.203. From Hymn. xxii. 3 “ὅς θ᾽ Ἑλικῶνα καὶ εὐρείας ἔχει Αἰγάς”, it would seem that Helikon was another form of Helike, and distinct from the Boiotian mountain. The most famous cult of the Helikonian Poseidon was, however, the Panionian festival held near Priene. If that be referred to here, it will be proof of the later origin of the passage. Schol. A says of the bellowing, “δοκεῖ δὲ ἐπὰν θύωσι βοησάντων τῶν βοῶν προσδέχεσθαι τὸ θεῖον τὴν θυσίαν: σιγῶντα δὲ λυποῦνται, μηνίειν νομίζοντες”.
[409] νεώτατος γόνοιο, the youngest of his offspring. This collective use of “γόνος” is peculiar, the word elsewhere in H. being apparently used only of a single person, or in the abstract sense.
[414] For this passage (= 4.132-33) see App. B.vi. 2. “παραΐσσοντα” agreeing with “τόν” would be the more regular constr., and the hiatus would not be against it; but the immediately preceding “νῶτα” suits ill with it, and the change of case is common with participles, e.g. 14.26 “σφι . . νυσσομένων” (H. G. § 243 d). σύνεχον, probably intrans. as 478, joined together.
[421] The length of the “υ” of ἀχλύς in thesi before the diaeresis is one of many indications that this is the original quantity of the feminine termination in substantives (H. G. § 116. 3-4, and cf. notes on 10.292, 11.36). But the variant “κέχυτο χλόος” is worth consideration; it is found in good MSS., it gives better rhythm, and the fact that Ap. Rhod. thrice uses “χλόος” in the sense of pallor makes it likely that he read it here ( iv. 1279 “χύτο δὲ χλόος ἀμφὶ παρειάς” ). There is however no independent instance of it at any early date, and the eyes are hardly the seat of pallor.
[422] Ἀχιλ̂ηϊ, for the dat. cf. 371. δηρόν: “δηθά” Bentley. στρωφᾶσθ᾽, i.e. “στροφάεσθ᾽,” 15.666.
[424] ὡς . . ὥς, see note on Ξ 294.
[425] ἐσεμάσσατο, see note on 17.564.
[426] τετιμένον, the participle has become a pure adj. like “ἐπιστάμενος” in 19.80. “ ἄῤ ” is more forcible than Ar.'s “ἄν”. The opt. is potential; so can we no longer shirk, without any suggestion of condition such as is conveyed by “ἄν”. The trans. use of “πτώσσειν” recurs in Od. 22.304 only. πτολέμοιο γεφύρας, 4.371.
[429] 429 = 6.143 (cf. 7.102); 431-33 = 200-02 above; the lines are no doubt original here.
[434] The scholiasts lose the whole significance of this line by taking it as spoken ironically. It is needless to point out the dignity given to Hector's character by his facing a contest which, with heroic frankness, he admits to be unequal.
[435] See on 17.514. “ ταῦτα ”, these words of thine.
[436] αἴ κε, to decide whether.
[437] πάροιθεν may be taken in the local sense, before my face (cf. 6.319 “πάροιθε δὲ λάμπετο δουρὸς αἰχμή”); or possibly in the temporal, of old time, with a reference to the death of Patroklos (Schol. T and Eust.).
[439] Ἀχιλλ̂ηος, ablative gen., with “πάλιν”, as 18.138, etc. ἦκα μάλα, the same idea as in 444 “ῥεῖα μάλ᾽ ὥς τε θεός”, a very gentle breath from a goddess' mouth is enough to drive back the spear.
[444] 444 = 3.381. 445-48, cf. 5.436-39, 16.703-06, 784-86. 447 is omitted by most MSS. As it occurs in all the three parallel passages, it is more likely to be interpolated from them than wrongly omitted. It is less suitable here, as in the other places the fourth onset is the signal for an interference from the divine opponent, and so merits special mention; here it is only the occasion for a violent speech from Achilles himself, and leads to nothing at all. The passage clearly gains by the omission, but it is not improbable that we should regard 445-48 as a copy of a familiar scheme which has supplanted a line such as “δουρὶ δ᾽ ἐπαΐσσων προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς” (Fick, from 11.361).
[449] 449-54 = 11.362-67, except for the slight variant in 367. There can be little doubt that they are in their own place here and copied in “Λ” (see note on 11.366).
[458] For καγ γόνυ some good MSS. read “κακ γόνυ”. This is no doubt meant to express, what is clearly the fact, that the first “γ” is not the nasal but the mute, being completely assimilated to the second, as in “κάββαλε”. The Greek alphabet has no unambiguous means of representing gg. (The variant “κάμβαλε” for “κάββαλε”, often given by MSS., might be quoted for the nasalized “γ” here if it were better attested or linguistically justified.) The apocope of “κατά” before “γ” happens to occur here only.
[463] For the suspended acc. Τρῶα compare 6.510. It depends only on the general sense resumed in “φασγάνωι οὖτα” 469. From ὁ μέν to ἐμμεμαώς (468) is a passage open to serious suspicion on internal grounds. The description of Achilles in the poet's own words in 467 is wholly alien to the Epic style; and γλυκύθυμος is a strange compound, as “γλυκύς” is always used of things which give pleasure (song, sleep, etc.), and never of the mind itself, ‘gentle’ or ‘kindly.’ It looks as though the five lines were an expansion of 46869. 466 = Od. 3.146, whence it may be borrowed.
[464] λαβών is by some taken with γούνων, catching him by the knees, as 1.407, 6.45, Od. 6.142, Od. 10.264 (cf. 21.71). But the order of the words makes this almost impossible, and Hentze remarks that the imperf. “ἥπτετο” (468) is evidently ‘conative,’ and implies that he did not succeed. Hence “λαβών” must = taking him prisoner, as 11.106, “γούνων” being construed with ἀντίος. Even this is not without harshness, as “ἀντίος” is generally used with a gen. of a person (see, however, on 22.195. We may also quote the use of “ἀντιάζω, ἀντιάω”, which are freely applied to things, but in a different sense, “πολέμοιο”, etc.).
[466] “ὃ οὐ, ὅ ϝ᾽” (“οι”) “οὐ” van L.
[470] ἐκ . . ὄλισθεν means of course only that the edge of the liver projected through the wound, not that the whole organ slipped out, which would be impossible. “κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τοῦ ἥπατος ἐκκρουνίζον”, Schol. B, rightly as it seems, though “αὐτοῦ” is used in its weakest sense.
[471] For Ar.'s reading “ἐνέπρησεν” puffed out the loose breast of the chiton, see on 1.481, 16.503. Virgil evidently read the text, “transiit . . mucro . . tunicam . . implevitque sinum sanguis,” Aen. X. 819.
[473] The contracted οὖς is suspicious; see on 11.109. “δούρ᾽ οὖας” van L., “κατ᾽ οὖας: ἄφαρ” P. Knight.
[475] 475-77. See 16.332-34.
[478] ξυνέχουσι, join, intransitively (cf. on 414); the point meant seems to be the insertion of the muscles of the forearm into the elbow joint. The variant “τένοντε” for τένοντες is perhaps right; see on 4.521, 17.587. “ χειρός ”, arm, not hand; see 11.252, 21.166, 23.627.
[481] πρόσθ᾽ ὁρόων, beholding before his face. It is probable (see above) that Zen. wrote “προσορόων”. The lengthening in the first arsis is defensible (App. D, c 1), but the compound “προσοράειν” does not occur in H. The phrase is in any case unique.
[483] ἔκπαλτο, apparently throbbed forth, perhaps by some confusion with the spirting of blood from a severed artery; cf. 22.452 “πάλλεται ἦτορ ἀνὰ στόμα. πάλλομαι” is not simply = leap. See note on 15.645.
[484] Πείρεω is not a Homeric form; it is presumably to be referred to a nom. “Πείρεως”, cf. “Πείρως” 4.520, 525. But Brandreth's “Πειρόου” is doubtless right, see 2.844, where “Πείροος” is the Thrakian leader.
[486] There is strong authority for “πνεύμονι” against νηδύϊ: but μέσσον means the abdomen, not the chest; compare 13.397, 20.413 ff., with 4.528. “πνεύμονι” has probably been introduced here through a reminiscence of the latter passage.
[490] ἀναμαιμάει, rages through, here only. The simple “μαιμάω” is used only in the sense to be eager, but we have “σκόπελον περιμαιμώωσα” Od. 12.95. For the simile compare 11.155 ff.
[494] κτεινομένους ἐφέπων, driving his victims. The use of the part. “κτεινομένους”, those who were being slain, is curious. Compare “ἔφεπε . . αἰὲν ἀποκτείνων” 11.177.
[495] 495-503. This passage is rejected by many edd. (Heyne, Bekker, Düntzer, Franke, etc.), partly on the ground that 499-502 are a repetition of 11.534-37 (q.v.), and 503 of 11.169, but more because Achilles, who has hitherto been fighting on foot, suddenly appears in his chariot. The first objection is weakened by the fact that the passage in “Λ” is in the immediate vicinity of others of doubtful authenticity (see on 11.522, 540), so that it is probable that the borrowing is there and not here. As to the second, it is entirely in accordance with heroic practice to have the chariot close at hand and to mount and dismount as the needs of the moment dictate; this is constantly taken as a matter of course needing no explicit mention; as for instance in 15.352, 16.411. Achilles having slain his most prominent opponents on foot simply drives over the rank and file, who are not worth the trouble of a combat on equal terms. There is thus no cogent reason for rejection; and the simile in 495-97 is certainly in the best Epic style.
[496] The variant “ἐυτροχάλωι” comes from Hes. Opp. 599.
[497] λεπτά, here with the original verbal force, shelled out from the husk (“λέπω”). The transition to the ordinary adjectival use is easy.
