Book 6 (Ζ）
οἰώθη, was left to itself by the departure of the gods, after the events of the last book. Cf. 11.401.
[2] Note the suspicious trochaic caesura in the 4th foot. πεδίοιο, along the plain, as usual; not a partitive gen. after “ἔνθα. ἰθύειν” is the regular word for ‘charging,’ 4.507, 11.552, etc., the parallel form “ἰθύνειν” being used for the transitive. The mid. “ἰθύνεσθαι” recurs only Od. 5.270, Od. 22.8. ἰθυνομένων is gen. abs., the subject being easily supplied from the first line; ἀλλήλων is doubtless the gen. usual after verbs of aiming (H. G. § 151 c), and is not in agreement with the participle. Cf. 13.499.
[4] The reading of this line is one of the most puzzling problems in Homeric textual criticism. The MSS., as will be seen, are unanimous for μεσσηγὺς Σιμόεντος ἰδὲ Ξάνθοιο ῥοάων. But Aristonikos says (“ἡ διπλῆ”) “ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἐγέγραπτο μεσσηγὺς ποταμοῖο Σκαμάνδρου καὶ στομαλίμνης: διὸ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι φέρεται. ὕστερον δὲ περιπεσὼν ἔγραψε” (sc. “ὁ Ἀρίσταρχος”) “μεσσηγὺς Σιμόεντος ἰδὲ Ξάνθοιο ῥοάων. τοῖς γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ναυστάθμου τόποις ἡ γραφὴ συμφέρει, πρὸς οὓς μάχονται” (‘sc. hi versus illa lectione retenta’ Lehrs). Further, Schol. T says “πρότερον ἐγέγραπτο μεσσηγὺς ποταμοῖο Σκαμάνδρου καὶ στομαλίμνης: ὕστερον δὲ Ἀρίσταρχος ταύτην τὴν λέξιν” (sc. the present vulgate) “εὑρὼν ἐπέκρινεν. Χαῖρις δὲ γράφει μεσσηγὺς ποταμοῖο Σκαμάνδρου καὶ Σιμόεντος”. i.e. Ar. at first preferred the reading “μ. ποτ. Σκ. καὶ στομαλίμνης”, and adopted it in his ‘notes,’ but afterwards changed his mind and introduced the text, presumably, into the second or both of his editions; the ground for the change being that the vulg. better agreed with his view of the topography of the Greek camp, on which, as we know, he wrote a special dissertation. Now the consensus of our MSS. makes it practically certain that their reading was also that of Ar.'s vulgate. What then is the meaning of “ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις”? The phrase does not recur in the existing scholia of Did. or We An.find indeed “ἔνιοι τῶν ἀρχαίων” quoted by An.as an authority on 14.214. But the preposition “ἐν” (not “παρά”） forbids us to take the adj. as masc. here; the only substantive we can supply is “ἀντιγράφοις”. But then we are landed in the absurdity of supposing that Ar. was in possession of a whole class of MSS. which could be described as ‘ancient’ in comparison with his ordinary vulgate; and yet that he paid so little attention to them that they are never again named. (The alternative supposition, that the ‘ancient MSS.’ were in fact the vulgate, and that Ar. by his own authority succeeded in introducing a new reading into the vulgate after his time, is so absolutely opposed to the general evidence of the documents that it need not be seriously considered.) Hence various attempts have been made to emend the words “ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις”: e.g. “ἐν τοῖς Ἀρισταρχείοις” Lehrs, “ἐν τῆι προτέραι τῶν Ἀρισταρχείων” Sengebusch. But a much less drastic change will do all that is needed. I have little doubt that the correct reading is “ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαίαις”, sc. “ἐκδόσεσιν”. The ‘early editions’ are in fact mentioned in this way by Did. on 9.657, “σπείσαντες: ἐν τῆι ἑτέραι τῶν Ἀριστάρχου λείψαντες, καὶ ἐν πολλαῖς τῶν ἀρχαίων”. Whether or no these editions included those of Zen. and Aph.we naturally cannot say; but it is clear that there was an authority in favour of the variant, which Aristarchos so highly regarded that for a time he preferred the variant to the vulgate, just as he did in 9.657. And we, who are not troubled with his doubts as to the naval camp, may well agree with him as to the intrinsic superiority of the reading which names the “στομαλίμνη”. This ‘estuary’ is not again mentioned, but modern evidence shews that such an estuary must have existed at the mouth of the Dumbrek Su (Schliemann Ilios p. 84); it is extremely unlikely to have been invented, but the unfamiliar word ran every risk of being supplanted by the more familiar Simoeis, though we have had reason to suppose that this river was not recognized in the oldest form of the Trojan tradition (see on 5.774). The word “στομαλίμνη” is used by Strabo (xiii. 595) of this particular estuary, and more generally of the delta of the Rhone. Theokritos has the form “στομάλιμνον”. But the regular late Epic form (Ap. Rhod., Nonnus, Coluthus) is “στόμα λίμνης”: see Platt in J. P. xix. 38.
[6] φόως, help, as 8.282, 11.797, 16.95.
[7] For this Akamas see 2.844.
[9] φάλον: see App.
[15] φιλέεσκεν, used to entertain; cf. 3.207, and Od. 15.74 “χρὴ ξεῖνον παρεόντα φιλεῖν”.
[17] πρόσθεν ὑπαντιάσας, standing before him to meet his enemy.
[19] ὑφηνίοχος, a word not found elsewhere, is sufficiently defended by the analogy of Od. 4.386 “ὑποδμώς,” Od. 15.330 “ὑποδρηστήρ”; and it avoids the awkwardness of the detached “ὑπό” in the vulg. “ὑφ᾽ ἡνίοχος”, for which 18.519 “λαοὶ δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ὀλίζονες ἦσαν” is but a partial support. γαῖαν ἐδύτην, the realm of the dead being under ground. Cf. 411, Od. 24.106. Schol. B explains it “ὅτι γῆν ταφέντες ἐνεδύσαντο”, which is obviously inappropriate, as there is no burying in question at all.
[21] Αἴσηπος and Πήδασος are both local place-names, see 35 below and 2.825, etc. Here they are evidently to be regarded as personal eponyms of the river and town, as their semi-divine parentage shews, in spite of the obvious anachronism thus introduced into 35.
[22] νηΐς, naiad: here and 14.444, 20.384, all in MinorA., like the “Γυγαίη λίμνη” as mother in 2.865, q.v. In Od. 13.104, 356 the form is “νηϊάδες”. For nymphs in general see 20.8-9. The name Ἀβαρβαρέη looks as though it might be conn. with “βόρβορος”, mud, and mean pellucid.
[23] It appears that Bukolion was Priam's elder brother, though the name is not known in the genealogy of 20.236. But all the names in this passage are merely invented for the nonce, and are not to be taken as containing tradition.
[24] σκότιον, by a secret amour = 16.180 “παρθένιος”. Cf. Aen. ix. 546furtim. The schol. compare Eur. Alc. 989(?) “σκότιοι παῖδες θεῶν”, and Eur. Phoen. 345 “ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὔτε σοι πυρὸς ἀνῆψα φῶς νόμιμον ἐν γάμοις. μίγη”, sc. Bukolion.
[34] ναῖε δέ: Zen. “ὃς ναῖε”, acc. to An., who accuses the reading of ‘cacophony.’ On 13.172 the same difference is noted, and the charge becomes one of false quantity; but the text of the schol. gives “νάε”. Now “νάω” from root nas, to dwell, would be just as possible by the side of “ναίω”, as is “νάω” to flow (for “σνάϝ-ω”) by the side of “ναίω,” Od. 9.222, in the same sense; cf. also “δέρω” by “δείρω”. It is therefore possible that Zen. may have found an old reading “ὃς ναῖε”, representing an original “ὃς νάε”, and defended it on the analogy of “ἔμπαιος, οἷος” (uu), etc.
[35] For this Πήδασος in the Troad cf. 21.87, 20.92. Strabo calls it a city of the Leleges opposite Lesbos, and another legend identifies it with Adramyttium. More recently it has been identified with Assos. It is not recorded in the Catalogue. A town of the same name in Messene is mentioned in 9.152, and there was a “Πήδασα” near Halikarnassos.
[38] ἀτυζομένω πεδίοιο as 18.7.
[39] βλαφθέντε, entangled, cf. 7.271, 16.331, 23.571. ἀγκύλον, like “καμπύλον” 5.231, is only once used of the chariot. It doubtless indicates the curved form of the front.
[40] ἐν πρώτωι ῥυμῶι probably means the end of the pole where the yoke was fastened, also called “ἄκρος” 5.729; cf. 16.371, 24.272.
[45] δ᾽ ἄῤ: “δέ ϝ᾽” conj. Brandreth. γούνων with “λαβών”, as 1.407.
[46] 46-50 = 11.131-5, and cf. 10.378-81.
ζώγρει, take me alive. In 5.698 the meaning is quite different. The last syllable remains long because of the pause at the end of the first foot. Brandr. conj. “ζώγρεέ μ᾽”. The form δέξαι is doubtful; “δέξἐ”（“αι”) van L.[47] ἐν πατρός, sc. “δώματι” 6.378, 24.309, 482, etc. The rather awkward ἀφνειοῦ πατρός indicates that the passage is borrowed from 11.132 and not vice versa: “ἀντιμάχοιο δόμοις” there is natural.
[48] πολύκμητος, implements wrought with much labour. The working of iron was of course a difficult matter in early days, especially as by primitive methods of smelting it would be obtained not in the pure malleable condition, but combined with a certain amount of carbon, making it more like cast-iron, hard and brittle.
[51] ἔπειθε, endeavoured to persuade (observe the different sense of the aor. in 61). The variant “ὄρινε” is less appropriate; for, as La R. points out, the appeal is not to Menelaos' emotions, but to his reason. The line recurs several times, always with “ὄρινε” (2.142. 3.395, 4.208, 11.804, 13.468, Od. 17.150). See, however, 22.78.
[53] καταξέμεν is of course aor., not fut.; see 3.120.
[54] ἀντίος: so Ar.; Zen. “ἀντίον”. In other passages Ar. seems to have pre ferred the adverbial, Zen. the adjectival form. There is little or no ground of choice (La R. H. T. p. 193).
[57] The note of interrogation after Τρώων is shewn to be Aristarchean by the remark of Herodian that the “ἦ” is “διαπορητικός”, interrogative. On the whole it is more Homeric to have two consecutive questions in a case like this than a question followed by an indignant exclamation: 14.265, 15.245, Od. 16.424, Od. 17.376 (Hentze). ἄριστα is not an adv. but subject to “πεποίηται”, for the impersonal “ποιεῖταί τινι κακῶς” is not Homeric.
[59] φέροι: opt. by attraction, as usual in sentences expressing a wish. The use of κοῦρος to signify babe is quite unique; it elsewhere connotes rather a man in the prime of life. Död. thinks it means ‘of noble blood,’ but this weakens the sentiment quite intolerably. If, as we should suppose, it means ‘male child,’ we must regard the opt. as expressing a hope, not a command; unless Agamemnon's fury makes him quite unreasoning.
[62] αἴσιμα: there are very few cases in the poems of a moral judgment of the poet upon the acts of his characters. Against the present one we may set the “κακὰ φρεσὶ μήδετο ἔργα” of the human sacrifice in 23.176. “αἴσιμα” does not in fact imply an absolute moral standard (cf. on 162), beyond what is implied in due retribution (cf. on “αἶσα” 1.418) for misdeeds.
[68] ἐπιβαλλόμενος, throwing himself upon the spoil, half in a physical, half in a metaphorical sense. For the gen. Ameis compares Od. 22.310 “Ὀδυσῆος ἐπεσσύμενος”. The word occurs in later Greek, e.g. Aristot. Pol. i. 9. 16 “τοῦ εὖ ζῆν ἐπιβ.”, with the purely mental sense ‘desire eagerly’; like 1.173 “ἐπέσσυται”. Cf. the use of “ἐφίεμαι”, desire.
[71] συλήσετε, a potential or rather permissive (M. and T. § 69) fut. with double acc. (τά, sc. “ἔναρα”).
[73] The situation seems to change rather suddenly here; the words of Helenos in 96-101 would naturally follow some such account of Diomedes' exploits as we have had in E rather than the detached combats of the last 72 lines, in which he has appeared only as one among many Greek heroes. All these combats are evidently such as must have formed the stock-in-trade of the Epic poet for use wherever needed. They may have been inserted here to form a transition from the episode of the wounding of Ares. 73-4 = 17.319-20. ὑπό, as 3.61. Schol. B for once shews a touch of humour: “λίαν οἶδε τὸ τῆς εἱμαρμένης ὁ ποιητής”.
[79] ἰθύν: cf. Od. 4.434 “οἷσι μάλιστα πεποίθεα πᾶσαν ἐπ᾽ ἰθύν”, for every enterprise, lit. ‘going.’
[82] πεσέειν: see note on 2.175. Here it is clearly used of the tumultuous rout of the vanquished, who by a bitter sarcasm are said to take refuge in their wives' arms.
[83] ἐπεί κε with aor. subj. = fut. exactus, as 11.191, 23.10, Od. 18.150.
[86] ἀτὰρ σύ: for the order cf. 429, Od. 16.130.
[88] νηόν, sc. to the temple. Cf. 10.195 “ὅσοι κεκλήατο βουλήν”; H. G. § 140. 4. Schol. T remarks “περισσοὶ οἱ δύο” (88-9), and Brandreth and van L. would reject 89, on the ground that the contracted “οἴξασα” for “ὀΐξ”. is not Homeric, that “κληΐς” in H. means bolt, not key, and that it is for Theano the priestess, not for Hekabe, to open the temple; cf. 298. The lines are not repeated by Hector, cf. 270.
[90] ὅς all MSS. and Herodian; most edd. write “ὅ” after Bentley on account of the “ϝ” of “ϝοι”, and there can be little doubt that this is right. “ὅ” must of course be taken as the masc. of the relatival article; see note on 5.338. The mention of the peplos carries our thoughts to the Panathenaic festival at Athens. But the idea of propitiating divinities by clothing their images with costly robes is not only one of the most natural and universal of primitive cults, but survives in full force to the present day in many parts even of Western Europe. (References will be found in Frazer Paus. ii. p. 574.) It was particularly appropriate to the goddess who presided over feminine handiwork, including weaving, cf. 5.735. It is therefore needless to seek for Athenian inspiration in the present passage. Compare Pausan. iii. 16. 2 “ὑφαίνουσι δὲ κατὰ ἔτος αἱ γυναῖκες τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι χιτῶνα τῶι ἐν Ἀμύκλαις”, and v. 16. 2 “διὰ πέμπτου δὲ ὑφαίνουσιν ἔτους τῆι Ἥραι πέπλον αἱ ἑκκαίδεκα γυναῖκες” (in Olympia).
The appeal to Athene is made not because she is a special guardian of Troy, but because she is recognized as the protector and strength of Diomedes; only through her can his valour be abated. The title of “ἐρυσίπτολις” (305) is general. In virtue of her warlike nature she is the guardian of citadels, where her temple stands.[92] The words ἐπὶ γούνασι seem to imply a seated image; that is, a rude wooden “ξόανον” such as survived in many Greek temples to historic times. Later legend connected such an image, the Palladium, with the fate of Troy. In view of the objection that such Palladia were always standing, not sitting, figures, Schol. B after explaining “ἐπί” as = “παρά”, which is obviously wrong, quotes the authority of Strabo — who says (xiii. 601) that ancient sitting images of Athene were found in Phokaia, Massalia, Rome, Chios, and several other places. Mr. Ramsay has found such archaic sitting figures in Phrygia (J. H. S. iii. 43). This is the only allusion to a cultstatue in H. Compare 17.514 “θεῶν ἐπὶ γούνασι κεῖται. θεῖναι”: the only instance in H. of the infin. for imper. in the 3rd person with its subject in the nom. (“ἡ” 87); as they are so distant from one another, it may be questioned if we ought not to assume an anacoluthon; i.e. that when the poet began with “ἡ” he was thinking of continuing with “θέτω”. Cf. on 3.285, 7.79.
[94] ἤνις according to the old expl. from “ἔνος” (“ἐνιαυτός”), ‘one year old.’ The word occurs only in this connexion (cf. 10.292 = Od. 3.382), so that the meaning can only be guessed. The same is the case with ἠκέστας, which recurs only 275, 309, and is commonly explained untouched by the goad, as if “ἀ - κέστας” (“κεντέω”). But there is no excuse of necessity for the lengthening of the “ἀ”, nor sufficient parallel for the change to “ἠ-” (see App. D).
[96] For αἴ κεν Ar. read “ὥς κεν”, just as in Od. 19.83 he read “ἤν πως” for “μή πως”, where it was preceded by another “μή”. As Hentze on Od. 19.83 points out, he seems to have done this in both cases in order to bring the second clause into logical subordination, sacrificing the vigorous but less formal parataxis given by the repetition of the particles.
[99] Ahrens, with some MS. support, would omit the Γ᾽ as a needless stopgap.
[101] For οὐδέ τίς οἱ and ἰσοφαρίζειν most edd. now read “οὔ τίς οἱ” and “ἀντιφερίζειν” (cf. 21.357, 411, 488) after Bentley on account of the double neglect of the digamma. It must, however, be confessed that the former change at all events is not satisfactory (“οὐδέ τις ἂρ” Brandreth).
[104] See note on 5.495.
[109] “ὡς ἐλέλιχθεν ἀντὶ τοῦ οὕτως ἐλέλιχθεν” Nikanor; ‘“ὡς” for “ὅτι οὕτως”.’ as it is usually expressed. The construction is the same in 16.17 (H. G. p. 239). ἐλέλιχθεν and ἐλελίχθησαν above should, as elsewhere, be “ἐϝελ”: see on 1.530.
[112] Zen. read this line “ἀνέρες ἔστε θοοὶ καὶ ἀμύνετον ἄστεϊ λώβην”. It certainly seems more probable that this should have been altered into the regular formula than vice versa. Of course for “ἀμύνετον” we must read “ἀμύνετε”. This will have been changed, in order to avoid the apparent hiatus, by those who believed that the dual could be used for the plural. For “θοός” used in this way cf. 16.422.
[114] The word βουλευτής does not recur in Homer, but the “βουλή” was an integral part of the heroic polity. The members of it are usually called “γέροντες” (see on 2.53, 4.259), and in the case of the Trojans “δημογέροντες,” 3.149, cf. 22.119. They are, however, not mentioned in the sequel.
[117] For the construction of the Homeric shield see App. The B. hides of which the body was formed were turned up at the outer edge of the shield to form a rim, and so prevent any friction against the edge of the metal facing. This rim is the “ἄντυξ”. Hector walks with his shield hanging — probably at his back — by the “τελαμών. ἀμφί”, on both sides, i.e. above and below (rather than ‘both ancles’; see, however, H. G. § 181). πυμάτη does not imply, as some have thought, that there was more than one “ἄντυξ”, any more than “πρῶτος ῥυμός” (40) implies more than one pole.
[120] ἀμφοτέρων, the two armies. But the variant “ἀμφοτέρω” is perhaps better.
[129] For the inconsistency between this line and E see Introd.
[130] There can be little doubt that the following passage, like the few others where Dionysos is mentioned in H. (14.325, Od. 11.325, cf. Od. 24.74), dates from the very latest part of the Epic period. Dionysos is an absolute stranger to the Homeric pantheon. The legend of Lykoergos is one of a series which tell of the introduction of the orgiastic worship of Dionysos, the opposition it encountered, and the punishment inflicted on those who withstood it. The cult was of the nature of a mystic and spiritual revival, and passed into Greece from Thrace. In the present passage it is at home, for Lykoergos was king of the Edones, Soph. Ant. 955.This great religious movement spread over Greece apparently in the 7th cent. From its nature it cannot but have aroused the bitterest antagonism among the established authorities. It is highly probable that it absorbed, and in form was coloured by, more or less related popular village customs springing from a primitive nature and vegetation worship (Bather in J. H. S. xiv. 244 sqq.), but that in this more spiritual form it was essentially foreign there can be little doubt (see Rohde Psyche 299 ff., and passim). Other forms of the legend occur in Thebes (Pentheus), Patrae (Paus.vii. 18. 3), Orchomenos (Minyadae), Argos (Proitidae). Of the forms Λυκόεργος and “Λυκόοργος”, the latter is defended by van L. on the ground that it is derived from the verb “ϝέργειν” (arcere) not from “ϝέργον”. But cf. “ἑκάεργος”. The ordinary ‘Epic diectasis’ would account for “-οο-” but not for “-οε-”. In the oracle in Herod.i. 65 the balance of authority seems to be for “-οε-”.
[131] δήν = “δηναιός” 5.407; for the use of “εἰμί” with adverbs see 1.416.
[132] τιθήνας: this title recalls the maenads of later Dionysos-worship. It appears to have had a peculiar mystic significance, from the words of Soph. O. C. 1050 “πότνιαι σεμνὰ τιθηνοῦνται τέλη θνατοῖσιν” . The maenads typified the nymphs who nursed Dionysos at his birth, Hymn. Hom. xxvi. The word “μαινάς” occurs once in H., in a simile — 22.460.
[133] Νυσήϊον: the sacred mountain of Nysa was an integral part of the Dionysos legend, and was no doubt brought into etymological connexion with the name of the god. It is a mystic, not a geographical name. Schol. A says it stood for a mountain in Boiotia, Thrace, Arabia, India, and Naxos, a city in Karia and the Caucasus, and an island in the Nile (so Hymn. Hom. i. 8); it evidently went wherever the Bacchic cult was established.
[134] θύσθλα is another word whose exact meaning can hardly be ascertained. It would naturally mean the thyrsi, but the scholia explain it of various other objects of mystic significance: “οἱ μὲν τοὺς κλάδους, οἱ δὲ ἀμπέλους, οἱ δὲ τοὺς θύρσους, τούτεστι τὰς Βακχικὰς δράκας, ἅ ἐστι Διονυσιακὰ μυστήρια: ἔνιοι δὲ πάντα κοινῶς τὰ πρὸς τὴν τελετήν”. (This sense of “δράξ” is not mentioned by L. and S.) The same may be said of βουπλήξ, which does not again occur in Homer, and is explained either as ox-goad or pole-axe, in which sense later writers use it. It may possibly have some mystical connexion with “ταῦρος” as a name of Dionysos. Note how MSS. drop into the familiar contraction Λυκούργου when possible. Read of course “ἀνδροφόνου Λυκόεργου”.
[136] This line recalls the similar adventure of Hephaistos in 18.398, and is probably copied thence; here Thetis is of no significance.
[138] θεοὶ ῥεῖα ζώοντες, an Odyssean phrase; Od. 4.805, Od. 5.122. τυφλός is a word of later Greek; “ἀλαός” is the Homeric word. Cf. Hymn. Apoll. 172.
[143] πείρατα, a doubtful expression; either the uttermost bounds, like “τέλος θανάτοιο”: or the bonds, lit. ropes (cf. Od. 12.51, 162). See on 7.102. For the assonance “ἇσσον .. θᾶσσον” cf. 5.440 “φράζεο .. χάζεο”.
[146] This famous comparison has been as much imitated and quoted as any in H. Of imitations the earliest is in 21.464, the most famous perhaps that of Ar. Aves 685. For the first quotation, that of Simonides, see Bergk P. L. ^{3} p. 1146; the passage is preserved in Stobaeus. Clemens Alex. ( Strom. vi. 738) says that Homer plagiarized it from ‘Musaios,’ quoting as the original of that mythical poet “ὣς δ᾽ αὔτως καὶ φύλλα φύει ζείδωρος ἄρουρα: ἄλλα μὲν ἐν μελίηισιν ἀποφθίνει, ἄλλα δὲ φύει”.
[148] As the text stands ἔαρος δ᾽ is added paratactically, when the season of spring succeeds. But Aph.'s reading “ὥρηι” is at least equally good, and they succeed one another in the season of spring, cf. 2.468 “ὅσσά τε φύλλα καὶ ἄνθεα γίνεται ὥρηι”.
[149] φύει seems to be intrans., though there is no other instance of such a use in Homer, and it appears specially harsh after the transitive in the preceding line. Moschos and Theokritos both use “φύοντι” as intrans., perhaps in imitation of this passage. It is of course possible to translate ‘brings forth children,’ but this to a certain extent destroys the symmetry of the comparison. In any case the idea is the same: ‘one generation is in full vigour while another is dying out.’ Brandreth conj. “φύεθ᾽”, cf. Od. 9.109 “τά γ᾽ ἀνήροτα πάντα φύονται”.
[150] Nikanor would punctuate after ἐθέλεις, making δαήμεναι an imper. But it is much better to take the words together; if an apodosis is required, it is given by ἔστι in 152. For a similar ambiguity cf. 21.487, Od. 15.80. ταῦτα as usual = ‘what you speak of.’ 150-1 = 20.213-4.
[151] This line was rejected by Bentley, rightly no doubt, as intended to supply an object to “εἰδῆις”, which, however, is regularly used in this phrase without one, but only in Od., Od. 1.174, Od. 4.645, etc. The line is condemned by the neglected “ϝ” of “ϝίσασιν”.
[152] Ἐφύρη was a common cityname; three or four different towns are called by it in H. (see M. and R. on Od. 1.259). According to the tradition it is here applied to Corinth; Ar. remarks that H. uses the later “Κόρινθος” in his own person (2.570, 13.664) but gives the older “Ἐφύρη” to his characters. But it is probable that the identification is merely due to the localization of the Bellerophon myth at Corinth, which is fully established for Pindar (O. xiii.). Certainly the description “μυχῶι Ἄργεος” hardly suits that town; it should properly mean a city ‘in a nook of Argos,’ among the hills surrounding an Argive plain; and so it is used in Od. 3.263 of Mykenai with complete accuracy. It can be applied to Corinth only by taking “Ἄργος” in the widest sense, ‘in a corner of Peloponnesos’; cf. 2.287, 3.75, etc., and Pind. N. vi. 27 “μυχῶι Ἑλλάδος ἁπάσης” (where, however, see Fennell). But then this will hardly suit 224 “Ἄργεϊ μέσσωι”, where the word is used in the narrower sense. It seems necessary to conclude that the home of the myth was originally in some forgotten Ephyre among the hills of “Argos,” and was only later transferred to Corinth. Furthermore, it is open to question whether this Argos was not the Thessalian Argos, rather than the Peloponnesian. It is noteworthy in this connexion that according to Strabo (ix. 442) the “Ἔφυροι” of 13.301 were the ancient inhabitants of the Thessalian Krannon, which sufficiently suits the description, being on the edge of the plain of Larissa (the “Pelasgian Argos”) and near the Enipeus (see note on 154 below). The Ephyre of 2.659 and the Od. lay in W. Greece — Thesprotia or Elis — and is not in question here; see on 11.740.
[153] κέρδιστος, craftiest, cf. Od. 13.291 “κερδαλέος”. So Pindar O. xiii. 52 “οὐ ψεύσομ᾽ ἀμφὶ Κορίνθωι, Σίσυφον μὲν πυκνότατον παλάμαις ὡς θεόν, κτλ.”
[154] Αἰολίδης, a name the meaning of which we cannot explain. In Od. 11.237 it is given to Kretheus, where the genealogical connexion with the Enipeus carries us to the SW. portion of the Thessalian plain, called “Αἰολίς” before the invasion of the Thessalians (Herod.vii. 176). In the Hesiodean “ἢ οἷαι” (frag. 27) Sisyphos is already made the son of the eponymos of the “Αἰολεῖς”, and this agrees with the Aiolic origin of the Corinthians (“Κορινθίοις .. οὖσιν Αἰολεῦσι” Thuk.iv. 42). But the fragments of tradition about the Aiolic name are so complex that it seems impossible to disentangle any historic thread, or to feel any confidence as to the way in which the legend presented itself to the author of this passage.
[155] It will be observed that the act. and mid. of “τίκτω” are applied indifferently to the father; so also of the mother, e.g. 2.728 and 742.
[157] According to the legend given by the scholia, Bellerophon, who was originally called “Ἱππόνοος”, got his name from slaying one “Βέλλερος”, a prince in Corinth. Being exiled for blood-guiltiness he came to Argos (or Tiryns) to seek purification from King Proitos. But this of course is not Homeric, the whole conception of purification being later. In fact, with the single exception of the name “Ἱππόνοος”, it is merely made up from the story itself to explain how Bellerophon, a Corinthian, is found with the Tirynthian Proitos.
[158] This anticipates the sequel, the following 160 reverting to the reason of Bellerophon's expulsion, δέ (160) being virtually = “γάρ. ῥ᾽”: “ϝ᾽” Brandreth, van L.
[159] This line, which was condemned by P. Knight, has all the appearance of a gloss, meant to explain that the “δῆμος” from which B. was expelled was not Corinth, as might naturally be supposed by those who did not know that the kingdom of Proitos was Tiryns in Argolis. Ἀργείων: best taken in apposition with δήμου, not gen. after “φέρτερος”, when the rest of the line means ‘for the Argives it was who were the subjects of Proitos.’ It may also be translated ‘Z. had brought B. under his (Proitos') sceptre,’ which gives an even better sense; but as Monro remarks is less consistent with the use of “σκῆπτρον”, which implies rather the normal sway of a king over his subjects than accidental authority over an exile from a foreign country.
[160] Ἄντεια, called “Σθενέβοια” in the later legend. δῖα is used also of Klytaimnestra, in a purely formal sense implying no moral approval, Od. 3.266; cf. 3.352. So Aigisthos is “ἀμύμων,” Od. 1.29. ἐπεμήνατο, had mad desire for; Ar. Vesp. 744.The story is one which is familiar in various forms, as one of the most widely spread subjects of romance. Joseph and Hippolytos recall two of the best-known instances of it.
[162] ἀγαθὰ φρονέοντα, for he was noble-hearted. The phrase recalls the use of “γενναῖον” in 5.253; the quality of the high-born, of the man who has the sense of honour due to race, is the foundation of “ἀγαθός” throughout later Greek, and in this case the word approaches nearly to our ‘good,’ with its connotation of an absolute standard of moral virtue, in phrases like ‘a good man,’ ‘a good deed.’
[164] τεθναίης ἤ, i.e. I pray that you may lie dead if you do not slay. Or the opt. may be concessive, ‘you may lie dead for all I care.’ See M. and T. p. 383. The alternative explanation, ‘if you do not kill him, he will kill you,’ is obviously absurd.
[165] μ᾽, i.e. “μοι”, as “σ᾽” = “σοι” 1.170. Those who are sufficiently curious will find a very amusing instance of scholiastic lucubration on this passage by Porphyrios in Schol.
[167] ἀλέεινε with infin., cf. 13.356; and for the second half of the line infra 417. ῥ᾽: “ϝ᾽” Brandreth.
[168] It is impossible to doubt that this famous passage really implies a knowledge of the art of writing, especially since A. J. Evans' remarkable discoveries in Crete (J. H. S. xiv. 270 ff., xvii. 327 ff.) have proved the existence of written symbols in countries touching the Aegaean Sea on all sides at a date far preceding even the earliest period to which the origin of Greek Epic poetry can be assigned. But of course this does not imply a general knowledge of the art, still less the use of it for literary purposes. It will be noticed that it is mentioned in close connexion with a Lykian family; this agrees well with the tradition that Lykia was colonized from Crete, which, so far as the evidence goes at present, seems to have been the principal, though by no means the only, home of the ‘Aegaean’ script. The epithet θυμοφθόρα, taken in connexion with the “θυμοφθόρα φάρμακα”, magic potions, of Od. 2.329 (which by the way come from Ephyre, though this can hardly be the same as Bellerophon's home), suggests that writing was regarded as a form of magic — a very usual idea among ignorant nations when the art is first introduced. The πίναξ may probably have been a double tablet of wood, such as was in common use later; πτυκτός suggests that it was closed and sealed, and allows us to infer that Bellerophon would have understood the “σήματα” had they been left open. For the only other possible allusion to writing in H. see 7.187. Elsewhere “γράφειν” and its compounds mean scratch only.
[170] ὧι πενθερῶι, sc. the father of Anteia, called Iobates by the later legend. Perhaps he is identical with Amisodaros, 16.328 “ὅς ῥα Χίμαιραν θρέψεν ἀμαιμακέτην”, though the anxiety to have the Chimaira killed is hardly consistent with the word “θρέψεν”.
[174] ἐννῆμαρ, the regular ‘round’ number in Homer, followed by “δεκάτη” as in 1.53, 24.610, Od. 7.253. The entertainment of a guest before inquiring his name was an essential condition of hospitality in days when it was an even chance that a man might be an enemy, so that the inquiry itself would be a mark of suspicion. So at the court of Alkinoos Odysseus is not formally asked his name till the second day of his sojourn (Od. 8.550), and even simpler questions are not put to him on the first day till he has been entertained (Od. 7.238).
[176] σῆμα is slightly different from the “σήματα” of 168, and signifies the tessera hospitalis as a whole, apart from the marks which determined its significance. φέροιτο: the use of the middle is unusual, but clearly means ‘brought for his own behoof.’ To take it as a pass. would be entirely un-Homeric.
[179] ἀμαιμάκετος is one of the many obscure epithets of Homer; cf. 16.328. It is used again of the mast of a ship in a storm, Od. 14.311. The old interpretation was “ἄμαχος”. It is perhaps a reduplicated form from “μακ-ρός”, ‘very tall’ (Monro).
[180] θεῖον γένοξ, according to the legend in Hesiod the offspring of Typhon and Echidna. Cf. note on 9.538 “δῖον γένος”.
[181] This line is remarkable as being the only case where Homer formally recognizes the mixed monsters which play such a prominent part in later Greek mythology. Even here he makes no mention of the winged horse Pegasos, who is an integral portion of the legend in Pindar ( Ol. xiii.), unless a reference to him be found in “θεῶν τεράεσσι”, which may mean anything (cf. 4.398). But the mixed type is to be traced back to the primitive ‘Mykenaean’ gems called ‘island-stones,’ where various animals are found thus joined, one seeming to grow out of the back of another. This represents probably only a clumsy attempt of the engraver to indicate one as behind the other. The myth may possibly have arisen from the attempt to explain such pictures (see Milchhöfer, Anf. d. Kunst pp. 81 ff.). There is therefore no reason for doubting the antiquity of 181-2. The couplet recurs in Hes. Theog. 323-4. Editors of Hesiod appear generally to regard it as interpolated from the Iliad, editors of the Iliad as interpolated from Hesiod. Possibly it may come from a third source, now lost.
[182] δεινόν, adv. terribly, as Od. 4.406 “πικρὸν ἀποπνείουσαι ἁλὸς πολυβενθέος ὀδμήν”. Consistently with this line it is always the goat's head which spits fire in graphic representations.
[184] Ξολύμοισι: cf. Od. 5.283. Herod.i. 173 identifies them with the Milyai, the original inhabitants of Lykia; according to Strabo (pp. 21, 630) and Pliny (H. N. v. 27) this would seem to have been the general name for the Semitic inhabitants of Southern Asia Minor, the Milyai, Kabali, and Pisidians being subordinate divisions. It is a natural inference from the passage in the Odyssey that they had been driven to the mountains by the invading Lykians (who, acc. to Herod., came from Crete), and were in a state of chronic feud with them. According to Tacitus ( Hist. v. 2) some made them the ancestors of the Jews: “Solymos, carminibus Homeri celebratam gentem, conditae urbi Hierosolyma nomen e suo fecisse.”
[186] For the Amazons see 3.189.
[187] 187-90. These lines have rather the appearance of an interpolation imitated from 4.392 sqq., a passage which may have suggested itself at this point to some rhapsode's mind owing to the recurrence there of the phrase “θεῶν τεράεσσι πιθήσας” in 183. πυκινὸν δόλον looks like a reminiscence of “πυκινὸν λόχον” in “Δ”, where the adjective is used in a different sense. The object of Iobates was to avoid himself killing Bellerophon, his guest.
[191] γίνωσκε, began to perceive. θεοῦ γόνον: according to one legend he was in reality the son of Poseidon. This is consistent with the words of Pindar, O. xiii. 69 “Δαμαίωι πατρί”, but is not necessarily implied in them.
[192] δίδου, offered; the imperf. is somewhat more picturesque than the following “δῶκε”, as it brings before us in connexion with “γίνωσκε” above the gradual opening of the king's eyes, whereas “δῶκε” merely states a fact. It appears that Bellerophon thus became the brother-in-law of Anteia. With 193 cf. 9.616.
[194] τέμενος, a grant of public land, apparently in gratitude for his services. Cf. 9.578, 20.184. The grant of private property in land marks Bellerophon's royal rank; for only kings could hold land in severalty, apart from that belonging to the community.
[195] φυταλιῆς, consisting of orchard (or vineyard, if we compare the parallel division into “οἰνόπεδον” and “ἄροσις” in 9.579).
[199] Ar. remarked that the Homeric genealogy of Sarpedon differs from that afterwards current (e.g. Herod.i. 173), according to which Minosand Sarpedon were sons of Europa.
[200] 200-2. These lines interrupt the narration, and Köchly considers them interpolated, though there is no obvious reason why they should have been inserted here. καί seems to indicate that they belong to another context, for it is not in relation with anything else. Monro takes it to mean ‘even he, whom they had formerly loved and protected.’ Ameis' explanation, ‘Bellerophon like Lykurgos,’ (140) is too far-fetched, and Porphyrios' ‘like his children’ is open to the obvious and fatal objection that the anger of the gods against his children does not precede but follows. Again, as the passage stands, “τὴν δέ” in 205 is too far separated from its antecedent in 198. If 200-2 followed 205 there would be no further difficulty.
[201] Ἀλήϊον: cf. Herod.vi. 95 “οἱ στρατηγοὶ .. ἀπίκοντο τῆς Κιλικίης ἐς τὸ Ἀλήϊον πεδίον”. The poet evidently means to hint an etymology in the word “ἀλᾶατο”. The use of the article is not like Homer; Bentley conj. “τότ᾽”.
[202] ὃν θυμὸν κατέδων: cf. Od. 9.75 “θυμὸν ἔδοντες”, and 24.129 “σὴν ἔδεαι κραδίην”, where Schol. A says “Πυθαγόρας παραινεῖ καρδίαν μὴ ἐσθίειν”. There was evidently some legend of the madness of Bellerophon, but we know nothing of it from other sources, cf. Pind. O. xiii. 91 “διασωπάσομαί οἱ μόρον ἐγώ”. Madness has always been considered a direct infliction of heaven; so in Od. 9.411, when the Kyklopes think that Polyphemos is mad, they say “νοῦσόν γ᾽ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι. πάτον ἀνθρώπων”: cf. 3.406 “θεῶν ἀπόειπε κελεύθους”. Cicero translates the couplet (III. Tusc. xxvi. 63) qui miser in campis maerens errabat Aleis, ipse suum cor edens, hominum vestigia vitans.
[205] χρυσήνιος is used only here of Artemis, Od. 8.285 of Ares (in Soph. O. C. 693 of Aphrodite, and of Hades in Pindar, according to Pausanias ix. 23. 4). But neither Artemis nor Ares (except in 5.356) is ever represented by Homer as driving a chariot. We can only say of this, as of so many divine epithets, that the exact significance is doubtful. “χρυσάορος” used of Apollo and “κλυτόπωλος” of Hades (5.509, 654) are similar problems. For Artemis as the bringer of sudden death to women cf. 428, 19.59, Od. 11.172, 199, etc. The Lykian system of descent was through the mother (Herod.i. 173); hence Sarpedon as son of the daughter inherits the kingdom, not Glaukos.
[208] This famous line recurs in 11.784.
[211] 211 = 20.241. The lineage of Glaukos was no doubt an important tenet among the Asiatic Ionians, some of whom, according to Herod.i. 147, had taken his descendants to be their kings.
[213] For ἐπί Bekker conj. “ἐνί”, cf. 11.378; but the words may mean only that he grounded his spear; cf. on 10.153, 23.876.
[216] The legend was that Oineus brought up his grandson Diomedes after the early death of Tydeus before Thebes (see 4.378, 409). He is mentioned also 2.641, and in connexion with the story of Meleager 9.535.
[219] On staining with purple (crimson) cf. 4.141. The material of the belt is of course leather.
[220] ἀμφικύπελλον, 1.584.
[221] μιν, neut., cf. Od. 10.212, (Od. 17.268). The line naturally means ‘I still preserve it as an heirloom.’
[222] Τυδέα: this use of the acc. with “μέμνημαι” is very unusual in H.; cf. 9.527 “τόδε ἔργον,” Od. 24.122 “τάδε πάντα”, and perhaps 23.361 (Ar. “δρόμους”, MSS. “δρόμου”), where the analogy is far from complete. Heyne suggests that there may be a pause after “Τυδέα”, ‘as for T.’ Diomedes means to explain how the friendship of Bellerophon with Oineus can be called “πατρώϊος”. Schol. T remarks trenchantly, but not without cause, “ἄτοποι οἱ δύο στίχοι”. They seem to be a sufficiently prosaic explanation of the omission of Tydeus' name.
[225] τῶν, sc. of the Lykians, a rather obscure relation; cf. however 24.481, Od. 15.228 “ἄλλων δῆμον”. Note the variant “τόν”.
[226] It seems that Ar. read “ἔγχεσι δ᾽ ἀλλήλων”, explaining ἀλεώμεθα by “φειδώμεθα” to account for its governing a genitive. But there is no trace of such a construction in H., though the verb is common enough; we are therefore bound to acquiesce in the reading of the text. δι᾽ ὁμίλου, in the throng as well as on an occasion like the present “ἐν προμάχοισι”.
[228] θεόξ γε: Bekker reads “τε”. But the two ideas are not to be divided; the thought really is, ‘whom god permits me to catch.’ The “γε” emphasizes the touch of modesty, which is consistent with 129.
[229] For the forms δύνηαι and γνῶσιν see H. G. § 81, and van L. Ench. p. 303, where the former is doubted; while for the latter Brandreth and van L. emend “γνώωσ᾽ ὃ ξεῖνοι”.
[233] Cf. 2.341, 21.286, for the clasping of hands in token of a pledge.
[236] For prices calculated in oxen, as a mere measure of value, cf. note on 18.507, and 2.449, 21.79, 23.703-5, Od. 1.431, Od. 22.57. We are not told what the τεύχεα of gold were. The word seems not to include the body armour in 3.89, 21.301; possibly it may mean only shields. In 8.193-5 Nestor has a golden shield, Diomedes a “θώρηξ” made by Hephaistos (not that of Glaukos).
This almost burlesque ending to one of the most delightful episodes in Homer has greatly exercised critics. Nothing else in the Iliad or Odyssey can be compared with it, unless it be the evident satisfaction with which “κερδοσύνη” is regarded (e.g. Od. 13.291 sqq.). On the other hand, generosity between “ξεῖνοι” is repeatedly spoken of in terms which shew that the poet fully entered into the chivalrous liberality of the heroic age. There is no ground whatever for rejecting these three lines as some have wished to do. They were Homeric in the eyes of Plato ( Symp. 219A) and Aristotle (Eth. N. v. 9. 7), nor have we any reason for believing that before that time it was possible to treat the Homeric poems with obvious levity. We seem therefore to have an outbreak of conscious and deliberate humour, which is only so far isolated that it appears among men and not, as elsewhere, among the gods.[237] For the oak-tree at the Skaian gate cf. 9.354, 11.170, and note on 5.693. The two former passages do not exhibit the variant “πύργον” for φηγόν which is found here; it is therefore best to acquiesce in the text, though the ‘wall’ (“πύργος”) certainly seems a more natural adjunct to the gate than the tree.
[239] εἰρόμεναι παῖδας, sc. ‘asking about their sons,’ the so-called schema Homericum; so 10.416, 24.390. What the exact meaning of ἔται is we cannot say. The word occasionally occurs in later Greek in the sense townsman; e.g. in the treaty between Argos and Sparta, Thuk.v. 79 “τοῖς δὲ ἔταις καττὰ πάτρια δικάζεσθαι”, and in the well-known Elean inscr., Collitz 1149. 9 “αἴτε ϝέτας αἴτε τελέστα <ς> αἴτε δᾶμος”, in this case opposed to official as in Aisch. Supp. 247.This well enough suits all cases in H., where, however, the connotation is rather fellow-townsman: 7.295 “ἔτας καὶ ἑταίρους,” 9.464 “ἔται καὶ ἀνεψιοί,” 16.456 (= 674) “κασίγνητοί τε ἔται τε” (and so Od. 15.273), Od. 4.16 “γείτονες ἠδὲ ἔται”, and see Od. 4.3 with M. and R.'s note. Etymologically the word is evidently akin to “ἑταῖρος”.
[241] For κήδε᾽ ἐφῆπτο see 2.15. ἑξείης does not seem very appropriate; hence the old variant, “πᾶσι μάλ̓” for πάξαξ, mentioned by Aristonikos. Düntzer on this ground rejects the line. The athetesis might, with Paley, be extended to 240; the couplet was possibly added by a rhapsode who considered that the husbands ought to be named among the objects of anxiety.
[242] For the Homeric house in general see App. C. It would seem that the chambers of the sons ἐν αὐτῶι, in the house itself, are contrasted with those of the sons-in-law which are ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς, but outside the body of the house, on the opposite side (“ἐναντίοι”). It is remarkable that the accommodation of the great palace at Tiryns appears to have been extended by the addition of chambers “ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς”, along the eastern “αἴθουσα” (Dörpfeld in Schliemann's Tiryns p. 239).
It has been suggested that the Trojans were in the stage of domestic economy which is known in modern India as the ‘common house’ system, where a ‘joint undivided family’ is kept together as a single unit, at least so long as a common ancestor is alive. Such a family, however, regularly includes only the sons and unmarried daughters; so that we can see a reason why here the sons only are in the house, while the married daughters, perhaps by a special favour, are accommodated with lodgings outside the actual “δόμος”.[245] It will be seen that here and in 249 MSS. are divided between πλησίον and “πλησίοι”, as in many passages between (“ἐν”）“αντίον” and “-ίοι”. It is impossible to choose between them; the doubt goes back to Alexandrian times. The same is the case with “παρ᾽ αἰδοίηις” and “παρὰ μνηστῆις” in 246 and 250.
[248] τέγεος is explained by the scholiasts as “ὑπερῶιος”, as though built on the roof. But this is hardly likely in the case of chambers “ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς”, where there was no roof. More probably it means ‘provided with roofs’ to sleep upon, according to the custom of eastern countries; this would imply that they were on a scale of proper magnificence. The word seems to recur in Greek only in a fragment of Empedokles from the Herculaneum papyri, which does not explain much — “τὸν δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἄρ τε Διὸς τέγεοι δόμοι αἰγ <ιόχοιο> τέρπον ἄν, κτλ.” We can only conclude that the word must express something particularly splendid.
[251] ἠπιόδωρος: the explanation of Apoll. Lex. seems to be right: “ἤπια καὶ προσηνῆ δωρουμένη κατὰ τὴν παιδοτροφίαν”, cf. “ἤπια φάρμακα”, and fr. 35. 2(Bergk p. 985) “ἠπιοδώρου Κύπριδος”. Cf. note on 394 “πολύδωρος”.
[252] Λαοδίκην ἐσάγουσα can only mean bringing in Laodike with her; but there is no significance in such a description, and the pointless mention of a “κωφὸν πρόσωπον” has naturally given great offence to commentators. Moreover without this line it would be more natural to suppose that his mother came out of the house to meet him. Hence Ar. wrote “ἐς ἄγουσα”, and explained “πρὸς Λαοδίκην πορευομένη”, comparing 7.312 “εἰς Ἀγαμέμνονα” for “εἰς” used with a person. But for the intrans. use of “ἄγειν” he seems to have brought no authority, nor is any to be found in Homer, except the very doubtful “ἐξαγαγόντες” in 7.336. The line looks like an adaptation of 3.124, meant to supply a reason for Hekabe being out of doors. The last half is formal; no surprise need be felt that it is equally applied to Kassandra in 13.365.
[255] Hekabe answers her own question. Some have taken this and the next line interrogatively, but ἦ μάλα is never used in this way; it always expresses a strong asseveration. δυσώνυμοι: cf. Od. 19.260 Penelope's “κακοΐλιον οὐκ ὀνομαστήν”, and 12.116 “μοῖρα δυσώνυμος”.
[256] Van Herwerden's conj. “μαρναμένους” is tempting; an object for the verb is wanting, and the tendency to make an adj. agree with the nearest subst. was no doubt as strong with ancient as with mediaeval copyists.
[257] Of course ἐλθόντα goes with “ἐνθάδε”, and ἐξ ἄκρηξ πόλιος with “ἀνασχεῖν”. For the temples on the citadel see 5.446; the existence of one to Zeus there perhaps follows from 22.172. The prayer is actually made to Athene, for the reason given in the note to 90, and explained by Hector in 277.
[258] “ὄφρά κε .. ἐνείκω”, a fut. exactum, ‘till I have brought.’ H. G. § 287.
[260] The MS. evidence gives us our choice between “δὲ καὐτός, δὲ κ̓”（“αὶ”） “αὐτός”, and “δέ κ̓”（“ε”) “αὐτός”. La Roche discusses the question of crasis in Homer H. U. pp. 283-7, and decides in favour of the first. Crasis in Homer is established, as far as the Alexandrian text is concerned, by “οὑμός” 8.360, “ωὑτός” 5.396, “ὥριστος τἆλλα οὕνεκα τοὔνεκα”, etc.; and though “κε” in the present passage is possible, yet “καί” gives a better sense. In 13.734, Od. 3.255, Od. 6.282, “καί” alone seems to be admissible. Cf. also 2.238 “χ᾽ ἡμεῖς”. It is not improbable that in all these cases, however, the “αι” is really elided, as not unfrequently in verbal forms; so we find “σ᾽” and “μ᾽” for “σοι” and “μοι” (1.170). The instances of crasis are then reduced to a very small number; for “ὤριστος” the metre always allows “ὁ ἄριστος”, for “ωὑτός” we may read “αὐτός” or “οὗτος”, for “οὑμός ὁ ἐμός”, or better, with Brandreth, “ἀμός”. See H. G. § 377, and note on 5.393-400.
[261] μέγα is probably an adverb = “μεγάλως”, rather than a proleptic use of the adj. = “ὥστε μέγα εἶναι”. Cf. Od. 17.489 “μέγα πένθος ἄεξε”.
[262] ‘Spurius?’ Nauck after van Herwerden. The line is certainly rather flat in this place; and τύνη elsewhere is always the first word in the line. This emphatic form of “σύ” occurs in the Iliad only (6 times). The grammarians call “τύνη” and “ἐγώνη” Doric forms. It is curious that mod. Greek has recurred to very similar emphatic forms, “ἐμένα, ἐσένα”, for “με, σε”.
[265] The printed vulg. puts a comma before and a “δ᾽” after μένεος against overwhelming authority, including that of Ar. and Plato ( Crat. 415A “μὴ λίαν, ὦ δαιμόνιε, ἀκριβολογοῦ, μή μ᾽ ἀπογυιώσηις μένεος”). In 22.282, however, “μένεος ἀλκῆς τε” must go together. Hector was on the level of the present day in his appreciation of the disadvantage of stimulants during severe fatigue. The simple “γυιόω” is used in the literal sense to lame in 8.402, and the metaphorical to weaken by Hippokrates. The appropriateness of the expression here is obvious.
[266] ἀνίπτοισιν Ar., “ἀνίπτηισιν” Zen.; cf. note on “ἐυποιήτηισι” 5.466.
[270] θύεα, apparently burnt-offerings in the general sense; Homer makes no mention of incense properly so called, nor would that suit the compound “θυοσκόος”. (It is, however, possible that in 14.172 “ἐλαίωι τό ῥά οἱ τεθυωμένον ἦεν” a scented oil may be meant.) The word recurs 9.499, Od. 15.261, in the latter case as a correlative to “θύοντα”. Cf. Lehrs Ar. p. 83, and the commentators on Od. 5.60.
[271] 271-8. See 90-7.
[281] ὥς κέ οἱ: so vulg., the variant “καί” being only graphical. But “κε” is absolutely inconsistent with the direct expression of a wish. The words can only mean ‘In that (or some) case the earth would swallow him up,’ i.e. in the ordinary derived sense, ‘that the earth might swallow him up,’ expressing a purpose. This gives no satisfactory sense. The use of “πῶς ἄν” in later Greek (Od. 15.195 “πῶς κε”) to express a wish is entirely different; for there the speaker represents himself as asking ‘in what case would a thing happen?’ His desire that it should happen is shewn only in the anxiety with which he seeks for its conditions, and hence depends entirely on the interrogative form of the sentence. In short “κε” necessarily implies some conditioning circumstances, whereas a wish necessarily excludes them. It seems therefore inevitable that we should read “δέ” with Bekker. A similar question arises on Od. 15.545, where “εἴ κε” apparently expresses a wish, but Lange shews that it is really a conditional protasis, EI pp. 192-4 (particularly note 16), and H. G. § 300. For γαῖα χάνοι cf. 4.182. αὖθι, on the spot, 5.296, etc.
[284] Ἄϊδος εἴσω. sc. “δόμον”: for “εἴσω” in the Il. always takes the acc. after it; and “Ἀΐδης” is a person, not a place, cf. Il. 3.71.But see note on 8.367.
[285] There are three readings of this line: (1) that of the text after Zen.; (2) “φρέν᾽ ἄτερ που”, A and Ar.; (3) the vulgate “φρέν᾽ ἀτέρπου”. Of these (3) construes, but the form “ἄτερπος” is barbarous. Heyne has remarked that it is not found in the Lexica of Apoll. and Hesych. The Homeric form is “ἀτερπής”. (2) was explained by Aristarchos as follows: — “δόξαιμι ἂν ἐκλελῆσθαι τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ χωρὶς αὐτῆς γεγονέναι: ἔνιοι δὲ ἀγνοήσαντες γράφουσιν ἀτέρπου”, i.e. ‘I should deem that (being apart (“που”?) from lamentation I had forgotten it in my heart.’ But for the authority of Ar. such an elucidation would probably not have been listened to for a moment. It can hardly be called Greek, much less Homeric. The only resource is to adopt the reading (1); it must be admitted that it has all the appearance of a conjecture, and can only be approved in comparison with absolute nonsense. There is no explanation of how the nonsense came to be the vulgate. Various emendations have been proposed: “φρένα πέρ που” or “δήπου” Bentley, “φρέν᾽ ἄφαρ που” Nauck, “ἀφέρτου” Naber, “ἀτερπἔ” Platt (which does not suit the use of “ἀτερπής” elsewhere, = distressing). On the whole we can only say that the problem is unsolved. The whole end of the speech, from 281, has something strange about it in sentiment as well as expression, and doubts must go further than the word “ἀτέρπου”.
[288] κατεβήσετο should naturally imply coming down from the upper storey; but that explanation will not suit 24.191 or Od. 2.337, and even here we have no hint that Hekabe has first gone up. The treasure-chamber is in the midst of the house, and presumably had no windows; “κατα-” may possibly imply going from light into darkness, much as we speak of ‘plunging into the depths of a wood’ without any thought of a literal descent. With 288-95 cf. Od. 15.99-108 where several lines are nearly identical (288 = Od. 15.99, 289 = Od. 15.105, 293-5 = Od. 15.106-8). From Od. 15.104 comes the variant “ἡ δ᾽ εἰς οἶκον ἰοῦσα παρίστατο φωριαμοῖσιν”. which does not suit here, as Hekabe is already in the “οἶκος” (286). κηώεντα: 3.382.
[289] ἔνε᾽ ἔσάν οι (so Ar. accented against the rule, to shew that “οἱ” is not the article) offends against the “ϝ” and normal position of “ϝοι” (H. G. p. 337); van Gendt's “ἔνθά ϝ᾽”（“οι”) “ἔσαν” is doubtless right. In Od. 15.105 one MS. actually reads “ἔνθά οἱ ἔσαν”. Bentley's conj. “παμποίκιλα” saves the “ϝ” of “ϝέργα”, and has the support of one MS.; but the adj. goes better with “πέπλοι”, cf. Od. 7.96-7 “ἔνθ᾽ ἐνὶ πέπλοι λεπτοὶ” “ἐύννητοι βεβλήατο, ἔργα γυναικῶν”. Hence van L. suggests that the line originally ran like Od. 15.105 “παμποίκιλοι, οὓς κάμεν αὐτή”. Lines 289-92 are cited by Herodotos ii. 116, together with Od. 4.227-30, 351-2, as evidence that Homer followed the old tradition of the journey of Paris and Helen to Egypt related in (Herod.) 113-5, and was therefore not the author of the Kypria, which brought the fugitives to Troy on the third day from Sparta — the oldest piece of Homeric criticism in existence, and perfectly correct, if this passage always stood as at present. He quotes the lines as being “ἐν Διομήδεος ἀριστηΐηι”, a title now confined to E, but quite appropriate to the present passage, as down to 310 Diomedes is still the chief terror of the Trojans. The reading of the MSS. of Herodotos agrees with the vulgate, which was no doubt fully established in his time.
[290] For τάς Welcker conj. “τούς”, which gives a much more likely sense. The change may be due to the neighbourhood of the fem. substantive. For the handicrafts of Sidon see on 23.743.
[292] τὴν ὁδόν, as Od. 6.165: H. G. § 136. 1. ἀνήγαγεν, properly took away to sea, cf. 3.48, and “κατελθεῖν”, to return home. For the anomalous εὐπατέρειαν we should doubtless read “ἠυπάτειραν”, see note on 7.41.
[295] νείατος ἄλλων: for this idiomatic use of the superl. see 1.505 “ὠκυμορώτατος ἄλλων”: and for νείατος, 5.539.
[298] For this Theano cf. 5.70, 11.224. The later legend made her the sister of Hekabe, see note on 16.717. From 300 it would appear that her post was as much a civic as a religious appointment.
[303] 303 = 92, 308-10 = 93-5.
[305] No doubt the remark of the scholia as to the superior merits of the form “ῥυσίπτολι” is right. The vulg. is evidently due to the analogy of “ἐρυσάρματες” 15.354, 16.370; but that is from “ϝερύω” to draw, a distinct verb from “ῥύομαι, ἐρύομαι” to protect (see on 1.216), which has “υ_” in the sigmatic forms with but few exceptions. “ῥυσίπολις” occurs in Septem 129. 306-7 are imitated by Virgil Aen. xi. 483 ff.
[306] P. Knight read “ἔγχος δὴ ϝᾶξον”, to avoid “δή” kept long before a vowel. A better argument for the change would be that in no other place has “ἔγχος” the first syll. in thesis (van L.).
[311] “ἀθετεῖται ὅτι πρὸς οὐδὲν τὸ ἐπιφώνημα” (concluding remark) “καὶ οὐκ εἰθισμένον: κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὸ ἐναντίον ὁ Ζεὺς ἐπιβεβαιοῖ κατανεύων” (i.e. apparently it contradicts the promise of Zeus in A). “καὶ ἑξῆς δ᾽ ἐπιλεγομένου ὧς αἱ μέν ῥ᾽ εὔχοντο σαφῶς γίνεται περισσὸς ὁ στίχος: γελοία δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀνανεύουσα Ἀθηνᾶ” Schol. A (Aristonikos?). It is hard to believe that such remarks come from Ar., who can hardly have forgotten the fact that “ἀνανεύειν” is repeatedly used metaphorically by Homer to signify a refusal. It would seem that the word here was taken to mean that the statue itself moved its head (cf. Virg. Aen. i. 482diva solo fixos oculos aversa tenebat). The gesture of raising the chin to signify ‘No’ is still universal in modern Greece. The line, it is true, may be spared, and the “ὧς” at the beginning of two consecutive lines is certainly a stumbling-block (but cf. 17.424). But it seems clear that this, as a convenient break, was regarded as the ending of the “Διομήδεος ἀριστεία”, and 312 as the first line of a new rhapsody; cf. 22.515, 23.1. With 311 compare 16.250, and still more 2.419, 3.302, which shew that the “ἐπιφώνημα” is not unusual as the schol. says.
[316] It looks at first sight as though δῶμα here meant only the great hall as opposed to the sleeping-rooms. But the word is of general signification, and includes the women's apartments in 22.442, Od. 17.541, Od. 18.314 (see App. C). It is more reasonable to regard it as meaning the building as opposed to the “αὐλή”, and thus including the “θάλαμος” as a part. The latter is particularly named because it is the scene of the following incident.
[318] 318-20 = 8.493-5. Ar. thought them more appropriate in “Θ”, Zen. here.
[319] It is impossible to say whether we ought to read ἔχ᾽ ἐνδεκάπηχυ with MSS., or “ἔχεν δεκάπηχυ” with some of the old commentators. Either length seems unwieldy to us, but in 15.678 Aias uses a pike of twice the length, and Xenophon ( Anab. iv. 7. 16) incidentally mentions that the spears of the Chalybes were 15 cubits long. The old explanation of the πόρκης is no doubt correct, “ὁ κρίκος ὁ συνέχων τὸν σίδηρον πρὸς τὸ ξύλον τοῦ δόρατος”. Dr. Schliemann found at Hissarlik spearheads with flat bases and holes for nails, by which they were fastened into a slit in the shaft. This necessarily implies the use of some sort of ferrule to prevent the wood from splitting, probably a ‘lashing’ of wire. Cf. note on 13.162. πάροιθε, before him as he went; cf. 20.437 “ἐμὸν βέλος ὀξὺ πάροιθεν”.
[321] ἕποντα, handling. The simple “ἕπω” occurs only here; the compounds have acquired more or less metaphorical senses, which may nearly all be brought under the cognate ideas of treating or managing. The aor. is, with very few exceptions, only found in “ἐπισπεῖν μόρσιμον ἦμαρ” and similar phrases, where it has the sense of joining, i.e. reaching, an end (cf. French toucher à sa fin), J. P. xiv. 231 ff. Owing to the ordinary view that “ἀμφέπειν περιέπειν” etc., mean ‘to busy one's self about’ a thing, critics have found a needless difficulty in the absence of the preposition here; Bekker has even conjectured “περὶ κάλλιμα” for “περικαλλέα”. Curiously enough, the next line is the only place where the simple “ἁφᾶν” is found, though the compound “ἀμφαφᾶν” is common in Homer, and “ἐπαφᾶν” is Both Attic. verbs are closely connected in sense as in origin; the ‘dandy’ Paris is turning over and admiring his fine armour with the same affection which Odysseus shews to his old bow, Od. 21.393 “τόξον ἐνώμα πάντηι ἀναστρωφῶν”; in Od. 19.586 “τόξον ἀμφαφόωντας” means ‘handling’ the bow with the intention of using it.
[322] The comma after θώρηκα is approved by Nikanor, and is undoubtedly right; the two participles need a conjunction, as they are obviously co-ordinate, 21.204 being an isolated and harsh exception. It is not necessary to do more than mention the curious variant “τόξα φόωντα” which is found in D and explained by Schol. T to mean making bright. But the line has all the appearance of an addition designed to bring in mention of the “θώρηξ”: the passage reads better without it.
[324] The constr. “κελεύειν τινί τι” is elsewhere found in H. only where the accus. is a neuter pronoun, e.g. Od. 17.193 “τά γε δὴ νοέοντι κελεύεις”. The simple dat. of the person is, however, common enough, and the addition of the acc. to express the content of the verb is quite in accordance with the use of that case. Cf. note on 3.259.
[326] “οὐ .. καλά”: see H. G. § 136 and compare 8.400 “οὐ καλὰ συνοισόμεθα πτόλεμόνδε”. The mention of the “χόλος” has caused critics great trouble, as Paris' absence from battle would seem to be sufficiently accounted for by his defeat at the hands of Menelaos. It has been supposed that Hector speaks ironically, in suggesting that Paris has some cause of offence against the Trojans; but Paris himself seems to take the remark seriously (335), and the irony is too veiled for the Epic style. There is a possible alternative, to take “χόλον” as meaning ‘the anger of the Trojans against you,’ such as is exemplified in 3.56, 454, of which we should suppose Paris to be conscious. This suits the answer of Paris in 335 better, as “νέμεσις” is commonly used of the indignation shewn by others; e.g. Od. 2.136 “νέμεσις δέ μοι ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἔσσεται,” Od. 22.40 “ἀνθρώπων νέμεσις”, cf. 13.122 “ἐν φρεσὶ θέσθε ἕκαστος αἰδῶ καὶ νέμεσιν”. On the other hand, it leaves τόνδε without its proper deictic force; this must imply that some particular manifestation of Trojan resentment was immediately present to Hector and Paris. In fact, as Erhardt says, the colloquy must have been originally composed for a form of the story in which 7.345-79 or some similar scene preceded instead of following it (see Introd.).
[329] μαχέσαιο, fall out with, as 5.875, 9.32, etc.
[331] πυρὸς θέρηται, as 11.667, and in a different sense Od. 17.23. For the use of the gen. cf. H. G. § 151 e.
[333] 333 = 3.59. The colon at the end of the line is recommended by Lehrs (Ar. ^{2} p. 58 n.). ἐπεί is often thus used without a regular apodosis, see 3.59, 13.68, Od. 3.103, Od. 6.187, Od. 8.236 (compare the exactly similar use of “γάρ” to introduce a sentence), and the use of “τούνεκα” to mark an apodosis is extremely doubtful; see note on 3.400. Hence there is good ground for van L.'s suggestion that 334 is an addition made up from 1.76, q.v.
[336] προτραπέσθαι, to yield myself up to anguish (at my defeat, or at the hostility of the Trojans); an isolated use of the word.
[337] This may be a reference to 3.432, but the application is not very exact.
[339] ἐπαμείβεται ἄνδρας, shifts over warriors, i.e. goes first to one, then to another. For this use of “ἀμείβεσθαι” cf. 15.684 “θρώισκων ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλον ἀμείβεται,” Od. 1.375 “ἀμειβόμενοι κατὰ οἴκους”. For the sentiment cf. 3.440, 18.309. Here again we might suspectinterpolation of a whole line with the intention of introducing a reference to “Γ”. There is, however, no case in H. of δοκέειν without an infin., in the sense to seem good.
[344] For κακομηχάνου ὀκρυοέσσης Payne Knight rightly restored “κακομηχάνοο κρυοέσσης. ὀκρυόεσσα” is a vox nihili recurring only in 9.64, which admits of the same correction. The form was no doubt suggested by the totally unrelated “ὀκριόεις”, jagged. For “κρυόεις” in this metaphorical sense cf. 5.740, 9.2, and we may perhaps compare 19.325 “ῥιγεδανὴ Ἑλένη”.
[346] Compare Od. 20.61-82, where the “ἅρπυιαι”, the personified storm-winds, carry off the daughters of Pandareos. So also Od. 1.241, Od. 14.371.
[348] ἀπόερσε, swept away; so also 21.283, 329. See note on 1.356 “ἀπούρας”. For this use of the indic. of the past tense to express a supposition, by a sort of attraction to the mood of the principal verb “ὄφελε”, see H. G. § 325, where it is well explained. The other instances in H. are 351 below, Od. 1.218, Od. 4.180.
[349] τεκμαίρομαι, to ordain as a final decision; see note on 7.30.
[350] Here as elsewhere in H. the MSS. give “ὀφέλλω” in the sense debere (“ὀφείλω”) as well as augere. The practice is so regular as to suggest that the orthography is more respectable than a mere error in transcription, and preserves a genuine Aiolic form. The natural tendency of error would be towards conformity with the Attic “ὀφείλω”. But 11.686, 698 are the only places where this has actually prevailed.
[351] ἤιδη: indic. as 348. Cf. note on 5.326. νέμεσις here evidently means ‘the righteous indignation felt by men.’ For αἴσχεα = reproaches see 524, 3.242.
[353] ἐπαυρήσεσθαι, reap the fruits; see 1.410. For τῶ van Herwerden would read “τοῦ”, cf. 13.733, 15.16.
[355] For the metaphorical use of ἀμφιβέβηκεν cf. Od. 8.541 “ἄχος φρένας ἀμφιβ”., and in a different sense 1.37.
[356] ἀρχῆς: see note on 3.100, and cf. 24.28.
[358] ἀοίδιμοι: cf. Od. 8.580 “ἵνα ἦισι καὶ ἐσσομένοισιν ἀοιδή”, and Od. 24.200, of Klytaimnestra, “στυγερὴ δέ τ᾽ ἀοιδὴ ἔσσετ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους”: Theokr. xii. 11 “ἐπεσσομένοις δὲ γενοίμεθα πᾶσιν ἀοιδά”. The phrase “ἐσσομένοισιν ἀοιδή” occurs also Theognis 251, in a good sense, in which signification the adj., a “ἅπαξ λεγόμενον” in H., is found often in later Greek, e.g. Hymn. Ap. 299 “ἀοίδιμον ἔμμεναι αἰεί”.
[361] For this use of ὄφρα where we should rather have expected the infin. (as 9.42, 398) cf. 1.133, 4.465, 5.690. It is hardly likely that “ἐπέσσυται” is used without the object expressed (in 1.173 “φεύγειν” is to be supplied), in which case “ὄφρα” might indicate a purpose.
[365] The vulg. “οἶκόνδ᾽ ἐσελεύσομαι”, as Ahrens remarked, is obviously an attempt to avoid the hiatus, which in the principal caesura is quite legitimate. τ᾽ in 367 is similarly intruded.
[376] εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε, used in addressing several persons and followed by plural, as 2.331, 437, 3.441, 8.18, etc. So in Attic, Aisch. Pers. 140, Aisch. Eum. 307, etc.
[378] γαλόων, εἰνατέρων, her husband's sisters or his brothers' wives, glores and ianitrices.
[386] The neglect of the “ϝ” of ϝιλίου is comparatively rare (see, however, 5.204, 7.345, 18.270, 21.128, where the remedy is not obvious). Here Brandreth conj. “ϝίλου μέγαν”. Heyne suggests that 386-7 are a later variant of 388-9; but “ἐπειγομένη” and “μαινομένηι” need some explanation. Van L. points out that the name “Ἰλίου” itself seems rather out of place, and suggests that the original may have been “μέγα νηπίη”. It must be remembered, however, that “πύργον” means rather fortification than tower (see on 4.334), and in any case the phrase is no stranger than the “Tower of London.”
[388] ἀφικάνει, apparently in perf. sense; cf. 14.43, Od. 14.159, Od. 13.328.
[389] μαινομένηι: cf. 22.460, also of Andromache, “μαινάδι ἴση”.
[390] ἦ ῤα with the subject expressed as here is rare; the only other cases are Od. 3.337, Od. 22.292, 22.77. In the second clause after “ἦ ῥα καί”, however, the subject is commonly named, e.g. 1.528.
[392] εὖτε is used asyndetically as always when the clause which it introduces stands first in the sentence; see Ameis and M. and R. on Od. 3.9.
[393] τῆι ἄῤ: the printed vulg. “τῆι γάρ” seems to be a conj. of Chalkondylas.
[394] πολύδωροξ recurs only in this phrase, 22.88, Od. 24.294. Hesych. “πολλὰ λαβοῦσα δῶρα, πολύφερνος, πολύεδνος”, and Schol. A “πολλὰ ἕδνα παρὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λαβοῦσα”. The “ἕδνα” were originally (see on 9.146) given not to the bride, but to her father, but of course the word may mean that she earned her parents large gifts, cf. 18.593 “ἀλφεσίβοιαι”. Or again “δῶρα” may indicate the gifts which human nature would prompt the suitor to offer when, as in Homeric days, woman had begun to assert her independence, and the “ἕδνα” were no more than a relic of the already extinct custom of the actual purchase of wives. But it does not seem quite natural to describe a wife as ‘having had many wedding-presents made to her.’ Others compare it with “ἠπιόδωρος” (251 above) in the sense of ‘generous,’ ‘open-handed,’ which is perhaps preferable.
[396] Ἠετίων seems to be attracted to the case of the following relative; see H. G. § 271, where 10.416, 14.75, 371, are quoted; Bekker, H. B. i. 314, adds others, e.g. Od. 8.74, Od. 11.122. Thus Bentley's “Ἠετίωνος ὃ ναῖε” is not necessary. A similar epanalepsis in a different case is to be found in Od. 1.50-1 —
“νήσωι ἐν ἀμφιρύτηι, ὅθι τ᾽ ὀμφαλός ἐστι θαλάσσης, νῆσος δενδρήεσσα, θεὰ δ᾽ ἐν δώματα ναίει”. For “Ἠετίων” cf. also 1.366, 22.479, 23.827.[397] The site of Thebe is fixed by the later name “Θήβης πεδίον”, given to the plain of Adramytteion, Herod.vii. 42, etc. See notes on 1.37, 366. No mountain called Plakos could be traced in Strabo's day. Whatever the tribal connexions of these Κίλικες may have been, it is clear that they had no local connexion with Kilikia. They are named only here and 415. Compare the “Λυκίη” of Pandaros, 5.105.
[398] ἔχεθ᾽ Ἕκτορι: this use of the dative seems to be a case of the ‘true’ dat. passing into the ‘dative of the agent.’ It is analogous to the dat. after “δαμῆναι”, etc. (cf. 3.301). For “ἔχειν” = have to wife cf. 3.123.
[400] νήπιον αὔτως, no more than an infant; cf. 3.220, 7.100, 21.474, 22.484, etc. The form ἀταλάφρων for “ἀταλόφρων” is irregular, and seems to have been affected by the phrase “ἀταλὰ φρονέων” 18.567 (H. G. § 124 f).
[402] 402-3. These lines look like an interpolation intended to bring in the name of Astyanax, so well known from the Cyclic poems (cf. Pausan. x. 25. 9), but probably not Homeric. Compare 22.506, the only other passage where the name occurs in Homer. Plato commented on the name in reference to 22.506, but ignores this passage; Cratyl. 392 C “οἶσθα ὅτι Ὅμηρος τὸ παιδίον τὸ τοῦ Ἕκτορος ὑπὸ τῶν Τρώων φησι καλεῖσθαι Ἀστυάνακτα, Σκαμάνδριον δὲ δῆλον ὅτι ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν”: and 393 A “ὁ γὰρ ἄναξ καὶ ὁ ἕκτωρ σχεδόν τι ταὐτὸν σημαίνει, οὗ γὰρ ἄν τις ἄναξ ἦι, καὶ ἕκτωρ δήπου ἐστὶ τούτου”. The idea evidently is that Astyanax is called by a name which, by way of compliment, refers to the father, as Eurysakes has his name from the broad shield of Aias, Telemachos because Odysseus was fighting far away in his boyhood, Megapenthes from Menelaos' grief at the loss of Helen, Nestor's son Peisistratos from his father's oratory, Perseus' daughter Gorgophone from her father's exploit (Paus.ii. 21. 7). It follows that “ϝάναξ”, which is explained by “ἐρύετο”, conveyed less the idea of kingly sway, which Hector did not possess, than of the protection which chieftains bestowed on their realm (9.396 “ἀριστῆες οἵ τε πτολίεθρα ῥύονται,” 16.542 “Λυκίην εἴρυτο δίκηισί τε καὶ σθένεϊ ὧι”. Cf. also 5.472-3, 24.499, 729-30). Thus the “ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν” is much the same as the “ποιμὴν λαῶν”. This sense of “ϝάναξ” has also been defended by Angermann on etymological grounds (so T. Seymour D. in C. R. iii. 339).
[407] δαιμόνιε: for the meaning of this word, which is here really untranslatable, see on 1.561.
[408] ἄμμορον: cf. 22.485 “δυσάμμορος”: here and 24.773 “τινὲς γράφουσιν ἐμὸν μόρον, οὐκ εὖ” (Ariston.). In Od. 20.76 we have the curious phrase “μοῖράν τ᾽ ἀμμορίην τε καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων”, which apparently means ‘that which fate does and does not bestow,’ i.e. both good and ill fortune. Thus “ἄμμορος” means ‘deprived of “μοῖρα”,’ the just due of mankind, and hence ill-fated, opposed to “μοιρηγενής” 3.182 (q.v.). In 18.489 = Od. 5.275 it simply means ‘not partaking of.’
[409] κατακτανέουσιν: Cobet, M. C. p. 330, denounces this form (which recurs 14.481, 18.309) as a barbarism, due to a false analogy with forms like “κατέκτα, κατέκτανον, κατέκταθεν”: he is probably right in restoring “κατακτενέουσιν”.
[411] ἀφαμαρτούσηι, losing, as 22.505. χθόνα δύμεναι like 19 “γαῖαν ἐδύτην”.
[412] πότμον ἐπίσπηις: see note on 321.
[413] Cf. Ajax 514; the whole speech of Tekmessa there is worth comparison, as it is evidently full of reminiscences of this scene, many lines of which are quoted in the Sophoklean scholia.
[414] ἀμόν (al. “ἁμόν”) is apparently a proto-Epic form of “ἡμέτερον”: but in all the passages where it occurs it may = ‘mine,’ not ‘our’; and in some of them this sense is decidedly preferable, as in the present case and 8.178. It looks as though “ἐμός” were assimilating an archaic form, whose real sense was only weakly supported by tradition.
[418] It is a common custom among primitive nations to bury a warrior's arms with his dead body; it is needless to refer to more than the excavations at Mykene, where an extraordinary quantity of swords was found in the graves with the dead. So Elpenor prays, Od. 11.74 “ἀλλά με κακκῆαι σὺν τεύχεσιν ἅσσά μοί ἐστιν”: see Od. 12.13. It is noteworthy that armour is not mentioned in any of the three full descriptions of Homeric funerals (23.165-77, 24.785-804, Od. 24.63-84; in the case of Achilles his armour was of course given to be adjudged by the Greek captains, Od. 24.85). But the idea that the departed warrior needed his arms in the next world belongs rather to the time when the body was buried than when, as among Homeric and later Greeks, it was destroyed by burning. Thus the casual mention of arms and burning together, here and in “λ”, seems to indicate an irrational survival among newer customs of an older practice, which in the time of Thucydides (i. 8) had actually come to be considered Karian, i.e. barbarian. The same is the case with the burning of garments as a funeral rite (22.512).
[419] The elm was regarded as a funereal tree, we are told, “διὰ τὸ ἄκαρπον”, like willows and poplars in the Od. (Od. 10.510). Hence Virgil's “ulmus opaca, ingens”, the roosting-place of Dreams at the entrance of Orcus ( Aen. vi. 283). The cypress has no such association in H. (it is mentioned only Od. 5.64, Od. 17.340).
[420] For the mountain nymphs cf. Od. 6.105, Od. 12.132 (where they are daughters of the Sun), Od. 9.154 (“κοῦραι Διός” as here), Hymn. Ven. 257 “νύμφαι ὀρεσκῶιοι”.
[422] The masc. (neut.) ἰῶι occurs only here in H., but it is a genuine Greek form, attested by the Gortynian inscr. The fem. “ἴα” is found also in Thessalian and Lesbian (Collitz 345. 22; 214. 12). The origin of the forms is doubtful; some connect them with “οἶος”. See note on 5.603.
[425] ‘Non exemplum memini, dici reginam “βασιλεύειν”’ Heyne. But in Od. 11.285 Chloris, Nestor's mother, “Πύλου βασίλευε”, and the common “βασίλεια” implies the verb.
[428] πατρός, her father's. βάλ᾽ Ἄρτεμις: cf. 205.
[429] 429-32. For imitations of these famous lines, see (besides Soph. Aj. 514, already referred to) Eur. Hel. 278, Eur. Hec. 280, Eur. Heracl. 229; Ovid Her. iii. 51; Prop. i. 11. 23; Ter. Andria i. 5. 60.
[433] 433-9 were athetized by Ar. on the grounds (1) that it is not fitting that Andromache should act like a rival commander (“ἀντιστρατηγεῖν”) to Hector; (2) that it is not true that the wall is represented as specially accessible at this spot; nor are the enemy now near the walls. A modern reader will probably feel with more force the objection that we are presented with an anticlimax after the noble outburst of the preceding lines. But perhaps this is not a more valid criticism than the reasons of Ar. There was a legend — which of course may have grown out of these words — that when Apollo and Poseidon built the walls of Troy the mortal Aiakos helped them at this point of the circuit; see Pind. O. viii. 31-46, where Apollo says to Aiakos “Πέργαμος ἀμφὶ τεαῖς, ἥρως, χερὸς ἐργασίαις ἁλίσκεται”. This is the θεοπρόπιον referred to in 438. For the ἐρινεός as a landmark see 11.167, 22.145; it stood in the plain outside the wall, so that this line seems inconsistent with the preceding “αὐτοῦ μίμν᾽ ἐπὶ πύργωι”, an argument for the interpolation of the passage. It is probable that the events referred to were related in the Kypria; the epitome, after telling of an embassy to the Trojans, goes on “ὡς δὲ οὐχ ὑπήκουσαν ἐκεῖνοι, ἐνταῦθα δὴ τειχομαχοῦσιν”. It is curious, however, that Achilles should not be named among the leaders. The Iliad allows no place for such an attack since the quarrel. For another allusion to earlier events see 9.352.
[441] “ὅτι πρὸς τὴν λέγουσαν “ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε νῦν ἐλέαιρε” καὶ “μὴ παῖδ᾽ ὀρφανικὸν θείης” οἰκείως ἀπήντηκεν: ὁ δὲ διασκευαστὴς ἐπλανήθη”, An.; i.e. the reference in Hector's words is to 431-2, and has been disturbed by the interpolation of 433-9 — an argument hardly borne out by the facts. (“διασκευάζειν” in the scholia = interpolate, Lehrs Ar. ^{2} 334. But this sense seems to be derived from some tradition of an ‘arrangement’ of the whole text.)
[442] So 22.105, under similar circumstances. ἑλκεσιπέπλους: for the form of the compound see H. G. § 124 “ξ”, 126. 2.
[444] “οὐδὲ .. ἄνωγεν”, litotes, like “οὐκ ἐᾶν”, ‘forbids.’
[446] Hector's only object is honour, as he despairs of final success. ἀρνύμενος: 1.159.
[447] 447-9 = 4.163-5, q.v.
[453] The opt. πέσοιεν throws into the background the fate of all but Andromache, which by the subj. ἄγηται is emphasized as a fact vividly foreseen. “ὑφαίνοις” and “φορέοις” which most edd. read in 456-7 would present less vividly the secondary consequences; but the whole tone of the passage seems to call for the prophetic subj. here, carried on as it is in “εἴπηισιν”. Bekker first adopted it in his text. On this point MS. authority counts for nothing.
[455] H. uses ἐλεύθερος only in this phrase (16.831, 20.193) and “κρητῆρα ἐλεύθερον”, inf. 528. Cf. “δούλιον ἦμαρ” 463, and many phrases in which “ἦμαρ” is used to express a state.
[456] πρὸς ἄλλης, at the bidding of another woman. For this use cf. 1.239 (H. G. § 208).
[457] There was no uniform tradition in later Greece as to the position of these fountains. Messeïs was variously assigned to Messenia, to the Laconian Therapne (Paus.iii. 20. 1), and to ‘Argos.’ The context clearly shews that both fountains are in Argos; the probability seems to be that the Thessalian Argos is meant, for the best tradition, that of Pindar, places Hypereïs near Phere (P. iv. 125 “ἐγγὺς μὲν Φέρης κράναν Ὑπερῆιδα λιπών”). So also Strabo ix. 439; but in 432 he says that both fountains, Hypereïs and Messeïs, were shewn near Pharsalia. In the Catalogue (2.734, q.v.) “Ὑπέρεια” is near Ormenion. However, the disjunctive Η῎ makes it just possible to take “Αργος” in the widest sense, of Greece generally, and to locate Messeïs in the Peloponnesos. Ar. remarks that in obedience to this line “οἱ νεώτεροι” (tragedians, etc.) regularly introduce the captive Andromache as bearing water. This is done by Eur. Andr. 166 “ἐκ χρυσηλάτων τευχέων χερὶ σπείρουσαν Ἀχελώιου δρόσον”.
[459] The subj. here is a future tinged with emotion; hence its use in threats (H. G. § 275) to which a gloomy prophecy such as this is closely akin. Cf. also M. and T. 284.
[463] ἀμύνειν is added epexegetically, ‘such a husband for saving thee from slavery,’ cf. Od. 2.60 “ἡμεῖς δ᾽ οὔ νύ τι τοῖοι ἀμυνέμεν”. See also 15.254.
[465] “γ᾽ ἔτι”, though it has been defended, does not give so good a sense as γέ τι. πυθέσθαι with the gen. of the thing seems here to mean not, as usual, ‘hear the news of,’ but ‘hear’ directly; otherwise the phrase is intolerably weak. Hentze compares 15.224, where, however, the more usual meaning is admissible. Another case will be found in the phrase “πυθέσθαι ἀγγελίης”, to hear news, which occurs 17.641, 685, 18.19. For θ᾽ ἐλκηθμοῖο Nauck conj. “τε κλαυθμοῖο”, which, however, is not an improvement; “βοῆς” and “ἑλκηθμοῖο” go together by hendiadys. “ἕλκειν” is regularly used of captive women, with at least a suggestion of ravishment; cf. 22.62, 65, Od. 11.580.
[478] For Ἰλίου Bentley conj. “λαοῦ”, Brandreth “ϝάστεϊ”, in order to give a “ϝ” to ἶφι. But it is remarkable that “ἶφι”, unlike the other forms from the stem “ἴς”, never absolutely requires the “ϝ”, and in five other passages does not admit it (2.720, 4.287, 5.606, 12.367, Od. 11.284; see note on 3.375). It is therefore best to leave the text. Perhaps the line may be interpolated, as Heyne suggests, in allusion to the name Astyanax. It is added asyndetically, so that “τε .. καὶ” belong together, coordinating “βίην ἀγαθόν” to “ἀνάσσειν”, as though for “ἀνάσσοντα”, a rather harsh anacoluthon. The discrepancy in the MSS. as to the position of “τε” suggests that it would be better to omit the particle altogether.
[479] εἴποι, not “εἴπηισι”, is doubtless the right reading, as Dawes pointed out, for several reasons. (1) Schol. A (Nikanor) on the line runs “τὸ ἑξῆς, ‘καί ποτέ τις εἴποι ἐκ πολέμου ἀνιόντα”’: therefore “εἴποι” must have been the reading of Ar. The same words are quoted in Schol. A on 13.352. (2) Out of 120 passages where “πατρός” occurs in H. the “α” is nowhere else short. (3) The confident prediction expressed by the subj. (cf. 459) is quite out of place among the optatives of the prayer. The mistake no doubt arose from a reminiscence of 459. γ᾽ ὅδε, the reading of Ar., is also clearly superior to “δ᾽ ὅγε”.
[480] ἀνιόντα appears to be governed by “εἴποι” in the sense ‘say of him as he returns’; but this construction seems to be quite unique. The possible alternative is to translate ‘say to him’; though this is hardly sufficiently supported by the passages quoted, 12.60 (= 210, 13.725), 17.237, 334, 651, 20.375, Od. 23.91. In all of these “εἶπε” stands immediately with its object. We may, however, compare Od. 19.334 “πολλοί τέ μιν ἐσθλὸν ἔειπον”: from which we may explain the clause here ““πατρὸς .. ἀμείνων”” as a sort of object-clause expressing the content of the verb like “ἐσθλόν”. So we have “ἐὺ εἰπεῖν τινα”, to speak well of a person, Od. 1.302, and “πεπνυμένα βάζεις βασιλῆας,” 9.58 (see note). These lines cannot fail to recall the famous prayer in Soph. Aj. 550 —
“ὦ παῖ, γένοιο πατρὸς εὐτυχέστερος, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ὅμοιος, καὶ γένοι᾽ ἂν οὐ κακός” and its imitation by Virgil in Aen. xii. 435.[483] κηώδεϊ, fragrant, only here (and Hymn. Cer. 13?), cf. “κηώεις” 3.382.
[484] δακρυόεν γελάσασα, smiling through her tears, a deservedly famous phrase, but hardly like the oldest Epic style. Cf. Xen. Hell. vii. 2. 9 “κλαυσιγέλως εἶχε πάντας”.
[486] Brandreth notes that with the exception of 9.229 the “ι” of “λίην” is always long in the Iliad, even in thesis, unless preceded by “τι” (the exceptions in Od. are Od. 4.371, Od. 13.243, Od. 16.243, Od. 23.175). The shortening of the vowel evidently began only towards the end of the Epic period. The “τι” can always be omitted. For the tone of remonstrance and reproach in δαιμονίη see on 407, 1.561.
[487] ὑπὲρ αἶξαν: see 2.155. Ἄϊδι προϊάψει: 1.3.
[488] For the use of the middle perfect participle see 22.219, Od. 9.455; in Od. 1.18 “πεφυγμένος ἦεν ἀέθλων” the gen. implies escape from troubles in which the sufferer was actually involved; the accus. implies complete avoidance (v. Nitzsch on Od. 1.18). For the periphrastic perf. cf. 23.343 “πεφυλαγμένος εἶναι”, and in the active 5.873.
[489] τὰ πρῶτα, once for all, see 1.235.
[490] 490-3 recur with slight variations in Od. 1.356-9, Od. 21.350-3; and for the last line and a half cf. also 20.137, Od. 11.352-3. The present context is that which they suit best (see scholia on Od. 1.356), and if there has been any copying it is from here. Imitations will be found in Aisch. Sept. 200, Eur. Heraclid. 711.τὰ ξ᾽ αὐτῆς, not “τὰ σαυτῆς”, in accordance with the canon of Ar. that the compound reflexive pronouns are not found in H. The elision of the “α” of “σά” is, however, not very natural, and no doubt Payne Knight's conj. “τέ᾽ αὐτῆς” is right; see on 1.185.
[492] ἑποίχεσθαι, properly of weaving only; cf. 1.31. But the word came to be used vaguely, of ‘going about’ one's work as we say. Cf. Od. 13.34 “δόρπον ἐποίχεσθαι,” Od. 17.227, Od. 18.363 “ἔργον”.
[493] For πᾶσιν, ἐμοὶ δὲ μάλιστα Hoffmann conj. “πᾶσι, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἐμοί”, which is probably right; as it not only admits the “ϝ” of “ϝιλίωι”, but brings the phrase into agreement with the similar passages, 22.422, Od. 1.359, Od. 11.353, Od. 21.353, Od. 23.61 (“μάλισθ᾽, οἳ” Bentley).
[500] γόον, an anomalous form, perhaps an aor. from the noun “γόος”: so possibly “ὅπλεσθαι” to get ready, from “ὅπλον”, and “θέρμετο” grew warm, from “θερμός”: cf. “κτύπε” by “κτυπέω” 8.75; see H. G. § 32. 3. Cf. also the pf. part. “πεφυζότες”, from “φύζα”, and other possible instances, ib. § 26. 5. Others regard it as a mistaken form for “γόων” (“γοάω”) which occurs Od. 10.567. Brandreth reads “γόαν”, and so Fick, who compares “γέλαν” in a lyric fragment (Bergk P. L. fr adesp. 77).
[505] With this and the following lines compare 22.21-23, and for the whole famous simile, Virg. Aen. xi. 492-7. The whole passage recurs in 15.263-8, but there can be no doubt that it is in its right place here.
[506] στατός, stalled, cf. the word sta-bulum. ἀκοστήσας: Hesych. “ἀκοστή: κριθὴ παρὰ Κυπρίοις”. Schol. A “κυρίως δὲ πᾶσαι αἱ τροφαὶ ἀκοσταὶ καλοῦνται παρὰ Θεσσαλοῖς”. The variant “ἀγοστήσας” was explained to mean ‘befouled,’ from an imaginary “ἀγοστός” = “ῥύπος”. The former explanation must be accepted, though the word “ἀκοστή” is not known elsewhere.
[507] Cf. 22.23 “θέηισι τιταινόμενος πεδίοιο”. On the form “θείω” cf. Schulze Q. E. 277, where it is referred to a root “θηϝ” = Skt. dhAv, a longer form of “θεϝ”, so that we should write “θή”（“ϝ”）“ηι” here. Others write “θεύω” for “θέϝω” in Homer, as a proto-Epic form, on the analogy of the Aeolic “πνεύω”, and the fut. “θεύσεσθαι”. But “ϝ” passes into “υ” only before a consonant. See van L. Ench. p. 414. The form recurs only in the infin. “θείειν”, for which we can always write “θεέμεν”.
[508] εἰωθώς apparently means that the horse is eager to resume his accustomed habits. But the phrase is curious. Agar, who discusses the construction of the simile in C. R. xii. 431-3, comes to the conclusion that the lines should be read in the order 511, 509 (with “κυδιόωνθ᾽”), 510 (with “πέποιθε”), 508, thus getting rid of the excessively harsh anacoluthon in 511, “ὁ δέ .. ἑ” (the nearest analogies, 2.353, 5.135, Od. 1.275, are not satisfactory), and making “εἰωθὼς λούεσθαι” explain “πέποιθεν”, ‘conscious of his beauty, because he is wont to bathe.’ The simile thus becomes smoother, but the dislocation is not adequately explained.
[511] ἤθεα, haunts; so the word is used in Od. 14.411 of the sties in which the swine sleep, and frequently for ‘dwelling-places’ by Herodotos (v. 15, etc.). νομόν, pasturage. Virgil takes ἵππων as fem., in pastus armentaque tendit equarum, but this is not necessary, nor does it suit the point of the simile.
The swing of the dactylic verse has been universally recognized as harmonizing with the horse's gallop, like Virgil's quadrupedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula campum. The effect depends not only on the rhythm, but partly on the nasal consonants and the “ρ”. It is dangerous to lay too great stress, however, on the rhythm; Mr. Nicholson has pointed out that the two passages which in all Homer shew the largest consecutive number of purely dactylic lines (five) occur in the description of Patroklos' funeral! (23.135-9, 166-70). Our habit of neglecting quantity and attending only to stress misleads us into reading dactyls into ‘triple’ time instead of ‘common’ time, <*> instead of <*>. Hence a dactylic hexameter is to us a galloping rhythm — to the Greek it was rather a stately marching rhythm. The so-called ‘cyclic’ dactyl of the lyric poets is of course in triple time, but it is not epic.[513] ἠλέκτωρ, a name of the sun, cf. 19.398, Hymn. Ap. 369 “ἠλέκτωρ Ὑπερίων”. The word is evidently cognate with “ἤλεκτρον” (“-ος”) (and possibly “ἀλεκτρυών”, Hehn pp. 265, 491), but in what sense it would be rash to say. Empedokles uses it as a synonym of fire, “ἠλέκτωρ τε χθών τε καὶ οὐρανὸς ἠδὲ θάλασσα”.
[514] καγχαλόων must mean ‘laughing with self-satisfaction’; so 10.565, Od. 23.1, 59. But in 3.43 it means ‘scoffing’ (in later Greek “καχάζω”: Lat. cachinnus).
[518] ἦ μάλα δή: Paris exaggerates an imaginary accusation by way of ‘fishing for a compliment’; a most vivid touch, which is partly lost if we put a note of interrogation at the end (cf. Schol. A “τὸ ἦ πευστικῶς καὶ ἠθικῶς”).
[519] ἐναίσιμος both here and in 521 can be expressed by the Lat. iustus (here iusto tempore). The connecting link is the idea of ‘proper measure’; cf. “ὑπὲρ αἶσαν”, and note on 1.418.
[522] ἔργον, what you effect in battle; cf. 4.470, 539.
[523] τό is of course not the article, but the accusative representing the following object-clause. On the expression κῆρ ἐν θυμῶι Hentze remarks that it virtually means ‘my heart within me.’ The Homeric man half personifies his own thoughts as something distinct from him; hence such phrases as “τίη μοι ταῦτα φίλος διελέξατο θυμός; εἶπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν”: compare the expression in the Psalms, ‘I commune with my heart.’ So in Arabic nafs, ‘spirit,’ is used for ‘self’ in all senses. It is wrong to compare more or less rhetorical phrases like ‘in my heart of hearts.’ μεθίης or “μεθιεῖς”, see note on 5.880.
[524] ἀκούω must here be subjunctive, as 1.80, etc., if we write ὅθ᾽ = “ὅτε”. But “ὅθ᾽” as a rel. = “ὅτι τε” would be defensible, and then “ἀκούω” would be indic.
[526] τὰ δέ, the rest, i.e. the hard words he has had to speak to Paris, now and previously. ἀρεσσόμεθα, I will make up for; exactly as 4.362.
[528] στήσασθαι, set up as the centre of a banquet where the freeing of Troy should be celebrated by libations to the gods. Cf. 9.202 “κρητῆρα καθίστα”. For the middle Paley compares Theokr. vii. 150 “κρητῆρ᾽ Ἡρακλῆϊ γέρων ἐστάσατο Χείρων. ἐλεύθερον”, only here in H. joined to another word than “ἦμαρ” (see 455). The origin of the word, and therefore its exact meaning here, are doubtful, though a vague phrase like ‘bowl of deliverance’ is near enough.
[529] ἐλάσαντας, accus. because the part. is to be taken closely with the infin. “στήσασθαι”, ‘in honour of the driving away.’ The dat. would mean ‘to set up the bowl, after having driven away.’ See H. G. § 240.
