BOOK VI.
Iliad. Homer. Boston. 1870.
Iliad. Homer. Boston. 1870.
English (William Cullen Bryant, 1870) (OCR draft) (English) (English (William Cullen Bryant, 1870))
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
analysis of Hephaistos’ arrival in Athens (dating) and his connections with the Troad and Sigeion
comparison of Diomedes and Athena to the Epeian twins (of I.23)
analysis of (ep)otrunō in its connections with menos and memona
analysis of Enuō in the Iliad in the context of discussing the Mykenaean war goddess found in “Tsountas’ House”
analysis of Apollo’s anger at Diomedes
analysis of the etymology of Neleus and how it was understood in Homer, connection with nēleēs and the underworld, and in this context also Pylos as equated with the “gates” of Hades
analysis of the nostoi and that of Diomedes’ in particular, with reference to his wife’s Aigialeia’s being called periphrōn, characteristic epithet of Penelope
analysis of Apollo’s anger at Diomedes
analysis of Apollo’s anger at Diomedes
analysis of Apollo’s anger at Diomedes
analysis of the meaning of Hector’s name (from ekhō) and how it is evoked in the Iliad (as here)
analysis of (ep)otrunō in its connections with menō
example of laos as referring to one’s own in contexts where there is a contrast between “leader(s)” and those who “follow”
analysis of aorist meaning of hairéō, “to slay” as evidence for the suggestion that hairéō and halṓō are genuinely opposed pairs
analysis of the location of Phērai and an objection to its location in Messenia
in the context of discussing the extent of the Pylian kingdom
analysis of Enuō in the Iliad in the context of discussing the Mykenaean war goddess found in “Tsountas’ House”
analysis of Athena’s association with/wearing peplos
analysis of the close alliance of Athena with Zeus (in the Iliad and in the myth of the gigantomachy)
discussing the accessories of the statue of Athena Polias at Athens, here especially the aegis and the gorgoneion in the context of discussing the two aspects of Athena, as a virgin war goddess and as a mother goddess
analysis of the change of Athena from the mother goddess to the virgin war goddess at Athens under the influence of the Homeric poems
analysis of Athena’s association with crafts and in particular the production of clothing
analysis of the name Stentōr (in the context of analyzing names in -tōr)
analysis of Athena’s relationship to Erechtheus, as the palace goddess protecting the king and whose protection passed from father to son (as in this passage, regarding Diomedes)
comparison of Diomedes and Athena to the Epeian twins (of I.23)
comparison of Diomedes and Athena to the Epeian twins (of I.23)
analysis of the myth of Athena’s birth from Zeus’ head
analysis of the myth of Athena’s birth from Zeus’ head
analysis of the myth of Athena’s birth from Zeus’ head
analysis of damnēmi and Laodamas
The momentum of the war is spirited, and the fighting mood of the warriors verges on overreaching. An outstanding example is Diomedes, who already owns a glorious past as a conquering hero in the epic tradition known as the Sons of the Seven against Thebes or Epigonoi. Now in the epic present of the Iliad he has a chance to outdo himself, performing deeds so glorious that they would outshine perhaps even the deeds of Achilles, who is now out of the picture. The successes of Diomedes reach the point where he is capable of feats that are superhuman, as when he lifts a rock that even two humans today could not budge—or as when he wounds the god of war himself, Ares, and then, shortly thereafter, the goddess of love and sexuality, Aphrodite. But such momentum is not to last, and the antagonism of Diomedes toward divinities will have its consequences.
“Aeneas and Diomedes.” Wenceslaus Hollar (Bohemian, 1607–1677). Image via Wikimedia Commons.
In this context, plural therapontes indicates the ‘attendants’ of the king Idomeneus.
evidence for the manuscript tradition at Il. I.5 in opposition to Zenodotus’ alternate reading οἰωνοῖσι τε δαῖτα (Athenaeus Epitome 12f)
The collocation of tektonos huion (τέκτονος υἱόν) ‘son of the joiner [tektōn]’ at I.05.059 with Harmonideō (Ἁρμονίδεω) ‘son of Harmōn’ at I.05.059 indicates three generations of ‘joiners’, in that Phereklos is a son of a joiner who is in turn a son of a joiner. The grandfather Harmōn has a name that can be reconstructed as a noun ar-s-mōn, derived from the verb ar-ar-iskein ‘fit together, join together’. And the grandson Phereklos is said at I.05.061 to have ‘built-as-a-carpenter’, tektainesthai (τεκτήνατο), the ships sailed by Paris=Alexandros for the abduction of Helen. This verb tektainein is derived from the noun tektōn* ‘carpenter, joiner’, which is in turn derived from the verb-root tek(s)-. No longer attested in Greek, this verb-root tek(s)- survives in Latin as texō, which can refer to the craft of woodworking, not only the craft of weaving. On verbal art as woodwork, see HC 2§282n.
This micro-narrative about Phereklos, a master carpenter who built that ships sailed by Paris=Alexandros for the abduction of Helen, concerns epic events that precede the narrative arc of the Iliad as we have it—but these events are here explained as the real beginning of that same narrative arc. In terms of this micro-narrative, the plot of the Iliad—in the sense that the name Iliad means ‘the story of Ilion [Troy]’—was started or even caused not by the mēnis ‘anger’ of Achilles, as our Iliad says at the beginning, but rather by an event that preceded that anger. According to this micro-narrative, what really started the Trojan War was the abduction of Helen, which was the kakon ‘bad thing’ that caused all the subsequent bad things, as we read here at I.05.063. And, as predicted at I.05.064, this same event caused the ‘bad thing’ that is about to happen to Phereklos himself. All these events, taken together, thus become part of the overarching plot of the Iliad as we have it.
The epithet arkhe-kakoi ‘beginning the evil’ at I.05.063 describes the ships in the previous verse, at I.05.062. These ships, as we have seen, were sailed by Paris=Alexandros for the abduction of Helen. The ominous tone of the epithet, and its positioning in the verse immediately following the mention of the ships, is comparable to the ominous tone of the epithet oulomenē ‘accursed’ at I.01.02 in the verse immediately following the mention of the mēnis ‘anger’ of Achilles in the previous verse, at I.01.01, which is the beginning of the Iliad. Even the meaning of the epithet arkhe-kakoi ‘beginning the evil’ at I.05.063 indicates in its own right the beginning of an epic, though of course this beginning does not correspond to the beginning of the Iliad as we have it. Another point of comparison is the epithet dourateos ‘wooden’ at O.08.493, which is a verse that immediately follows the mention of the hippos ‘horse’ in the previous verse, at O.08.492. Here again we see an ominous mention: this wooden horse, the Trojan Horse, is the marker of yet another potential beginning of an epic narration.
Wherever priests (as here at I.05.077–078 and at I.16.604–605) or kings (as in other Homeric contexts: I.10.032–033, I.13.217–218) are said to receive honor as conveyed by the verb tīein ‘honor, give honor to’ (or by the noun tīmē ‘honor’ and the verb tīmân ‘honor, give honor to’, as at I.12.310), Homeric diction is thereby referring indirectly to the receiving of hero cult by a cult hero; such reception happens in the localized context of the dēmos ‘community, district’. The cult of heroes is parallel to, though in some ways different from, the cult of gods, but the cult of gods is likewise conveyed by the verb tīein ‘honor, give honor to’ or by the noun tīmē ‘honor’ and the verb tīmân ‘honor, give honor to’.
This verse-final adjective krataiḗ can be explained as a morphologically leveled replacement of an older feminine form, to be reconstructed as krataí-u̯i-ă *and meaning ‘whose power [u̯i-] has the upper-hand [krátos]’. The morphological leveling involves a replacement of the alternation -́i̯ă-/-i̯ā́- by way of non-alternating *-i̯ā́-.
This verse shows that the hero Diomedes has a chance to qualify as the ‘best of the Achaeans’, aristos Akhaiōn. In the long run, however, in line with the plot or narrative arc of the Iliad as we have it, Diomedes fails to qualify. Still, his greatest epic moments in the Homeric Iliad are traditionally known as his aristeiā (as in the scholia for I.06.448), which I translate here as ‘epic high point’.
Here the verb eukhesthai ‘declare’ expresses a hero’s superiority not overall but only in a one given area of heroic endeavor, archery.
This is the first occurrence of the noun hēni-okhos ‘chariot driver’ in the Iliad. Literally, the word means ‘he who holds the reins’.
The genealogy of the Trojan Dardanidai is appropriated here into the genealogy of Athenian kings, and the references to a four-horse chariot team at I.05.271 is an Athenian signature. In the present action, however, at I.05.272–273, the four-horse team is reduced to a two-horse team, which is the canonical number for chariot teams in the Iliad.
lemmatizing: θήλεας ἵππους
In the combination θήλεας ἵππους, the first-declension accusative plural in -as, positioned before a vowel, is scanned here as a short rather than long syllable. The attestation of such a form -ăs reflects not dialectal variation but formulaic simplification: an earlier complementary distribution of prevocalic -ăns (which becomes -ās*) and preconsonantal -ăs is simplified, resulting in occasional instances of prevocalic -ăs*.
At the moment of his death here, the hero’s menos ‘mental power’ is released from his body, and this moment of release is expressed metaphorically by way of the verb luein ‘release’. Just as a horse is released from being harnessed to the chariot that it draws, as at I.05.369, so too the menos is released from the body. On metaphor, see the inventory of Words and Ideas. In the present context, the noun psūkhē ‘spirit’ is used as a synonym of menos.
The epithet Dios thugatēr / thugatēr Dios ‘daughter of Zeus’, applied here to Aphrodite, can signal the beneficence of such goddesses toward privileged heroes like, in this case, Aeneas.
The function of Aphrodite as Dios thugatēr / thugatēr Dios ‘daughter of Zeus’, as at I.03.374, is reinforced here at I.05.370–371 by the designation of this same goddess as the daughter of Diōnē, which is a feminized version of the name Zeus.
The wounding of the god Hādēs here with an arrow shot by Hēraklēs is associated with the place-name Pylos, Pulos, which is figured at I.05.397 here as a ‘gateway’ of the sun as it passes at sunset into the underworld. The name of Pylos as a place that can serve as a setting for ritual can stand for the name of a mythical place that is associated with the given ritual. Such a mythical place is the ‘Gates of the Sun’. By implication, the setting sun passes through the same gates as do the psūkhai ‘spirits’ of the dead who are entering the underworld.
In this context, Paiēōn (from Paiāwōn) is still distinct from rather than identical to Apollo.
Although Diomedes is recognized as aristos Akhaiōn ‘best of the Achaeans’ here at I.05.416, in the present moment of his aristeiā or ‘epic high point’, this hero’s epic momentum is about to peak, and his martial superiority will soon recede. Further, the present verses at I.05.406–415 imply that something sinister will happen to Diomedes after he comes back home from the Trojan War. His wounding of Aphrodite, goddess of sexuality and love, will have its consequences. As we read in the scholia for I.05.412, there is a myth that tells how Aphrodite punished Diomedes: the goddess induced his wife, Aigialeia, to cheat on him back home by taking many lovers.
The adjective thoós ‘running, swift’ is derived from the verb theein ‘run’. The god Ares is traditionally pictured as thoós ‘running, swift’; by implication, he is as swift as a violent wind.
Apollo is engaged here with Diomedes in a deadly form of antagonism between immortal and mortal.
“The Combat of Diomedes” (1776). Jacques-Louis David (French, 1748–1825). Image via Wikimedia Commons.
Diomedes is daimoni īsos ‘equal to a superhuman force [daimōn]’ when this hero dares to attack the god Apollo. Ultimately, he backs off. The use of this expression daimoni īsos ‘equal to a superhuman force [daimōn]’ here at I.05.438, and also again at I.05.459, goes to the core of the central idea of ritualized antagonism between immortal and mortal.
These verses show the fatally serious difficulties encountered in differentiating between mortals and immortals, in the context of similes comparing mortals to immortals by way of words like hoios ‘such as’ and enalinkios ‘looking like’; of special relevance are these two words: īsos ‘equal to’ and atalantos ‘equal to’. The idea of being īsos ‘equal to’ a divinity, as expressed already at I.05.338, is made parallel here at I.05.440–442 with the idea of thinking ‘in ways that are equal’, īsa, to divine ways of thinking, as expressed at I.05.441. These ideas are part of the larger idea, centering on a basic pattern of antagonism between immortal and mortal.
As the god Apollo says at I.05.441–442, the immortals as a ‘grouping’, phūlon, are different from mortals as a ‘grouping’, phūlon. So, he goes on to say, immortals and mortals are not the same. In the Greek, the ‘grouping’ of immortals and mortals is not homoio-, I.05.441. In terms of this negative context, then, the meaning of homoio- can be interpreted to be ‘the same as’. Meanwhile, the meaning of this same word homoio- in non-negative contexts can be interpreted to be ‘similar to’. In non-negative or let us say positive contexts, homoio- exemplifies the making of comparisons in the form of metaphors and similes.
In the case of metaphors, Aristotle himself actually uses the word homoio- in his own definition of metaphor, Poetics 1459a5–8:
πολὺ δὲ μέγιστον τὸ μεταφορικὸν εἶναι. μόνον γὰρ τοῦτο οὔτε παρ’ ἄλλου ἔστι λαβεῖν εὐφυΐας τε σημεῖόν ἐστι· τὸ γὰρ εὖ μεταφέρειν τὸ τὸ ὅμοιον θεωρεῖν ἐστιν
But the greatest use of words is the use of metaphor [tò metaphorikon ‘that which is transferable’]. This is the only thing that cannot be learned from someone else; and it is also a sign [sēmeion] of a-good-quality-that-is-inborn [euphuia], since the making of good metaphors [eu metapherein ‘good transference’] is the same thing as the contemplation [theōreîn] of what is similar [homoion] to what.
What follows is epitomized from MoM 2§§6–7. Now we turn to similes. This term simile is derived from the neuter form of the Latin adjective similis meaning ‘similar’, from which the English word similar is in turn derived. In English, a simile is signaled by expressions such as like or as or similar to. As for Greek, the primary word for signaling a simile is homoio- in the sense of ‘similar to’. But the etymology of homoio- shows that the meaning ‘similar’ derives from a more basic meaning, ‘same as’. From the standpoint of Indo-European linguistics, the Greek adjective homoio- (ὁμοῖο-) derives from homó- (ὁμό-) ‘same as’, which in turn derives from a prototypical form somo-, meaning ‘same as’. The English adjective same is derived from this same prototypical form. Another derivative is the Latin adjective similis, meaning ‘same as’ or ‘similar to’. In the usage of both Latin similis and Greek homoio*- (ὁμοῖο-), the same semantic principle applies: for A2 to be similar to A1, it has to be the same as A1 in some respect, which is X. Further, for A2 to be the same as A1, it has to be one with A1 in respect to X. That is because the Indo-European root som- of somo- ‘same as’ means ‘one’, as we see in such forms as the Latin adverb semel ‘one time’. And the idea of ‘one’ in words like English same has to do with an act of comparing. When we compare things, what is the ‘same as’ something else in some respect becomes ‘one with’ that something in that respect. That is how a word like Latin similis, deriving from the concept of ‘one’, means ‘similar to’ in the sense of ‘one with’. What is similis ‘similar’ to something else in some respect is ‘one with’ that something in that respect. Similarly in the case of the Greek adjective homoio- (ὁμοῖο-), it refers to something that is ‘one with’ and therefore ‘the same as’ something else in some respect. And, as we will see in the comment on O.16.172–212, if something else is not the same, then it is alloio- (ἀλλοῖο-) ‘a different kind’, which is the opposite of homoio- (ὁμοῖο-) or ‘the same kind’. As we will also see in that same comment, the extension -io- (-ιο-) of the two adjectives homoio- (ὁμοῖο-) ‘the same kind’ and alloio- (ἀλλοῖο-) ‘a different kind’ is parallel to the extension -io- (-ιο-) of the adjectives hoio- (oἷο-) ‘what kind’ and toio- (τοῖο-) ‘that kind’.
Here we loop back to what the god Apollo says at I.05.441–442: in a negative sense, immortals cannot be the same as mortals. Still, in a special positive sense, mortals can momentarily become the same as immortals when their identities merge in contexts of ritual. Such a special positive sense applies in situations of ritualized antagonism between immortal and mortal. In such situations, the mortal becomes one with the immortal—and can die as a consequence. That is what almost happens to Diomedes, but then he backs off.
The word phūlon marks a given group as distinct from another group. In this case, the grouping of mortals is marked as distinct from the grouping of immortals as superhumans. Comparable is the word phūlē, which I have translated as ‘subdivision’ in the contexts of I.02.655–656 and I.02.668.
Retrospectively, Apollo in his own words is saying that Diomedes was daimoni īsos ‘equal to a daimōn’ when this hero dared to attack the god. The use of this expression daimoni īsos ‘equal to a daimōn’ here at I.05.459, and also before at I.05.438, goes to the core of the central idea of antagonism between immortal and mortal. Most relevant are the intervening verses at I.05.440–442.
The “speaking name” (nomen loquens) of Hector, Hék-tōr, is morphologically an agent noun derived from the verb ekhein ‘hold’, which can have the specialized sense of ‘uphold’ or ‘protect’ or ‘guard’, as in the present context. The expected role of Hector is to protect the city of Troy, and the direct object of ekhein ‘uphold, protect, guard’ here at I.05.473 is polis ‘city, citadel’, referring to Troy.
The goddess Demeter is the only divinity in Homeric poetry who is described by the epithet xanthē ‘golden’ (with reference to hair).
Aeneas here kills two Achaeans=Danaans, who are described as ‘the best [aristoi] of the Danaans’. But the use of the plural aristoi in the sense of ‘best’ does not convey the same kind of zero-sum competition among the Achaeans=Danaans=Argives as does the use of the singular aristos in the sense of ‘the very best’.
The use of this adjective thoós ‘running, swift’ as a generic epithet of a warrior, as here, is related to the use of this same adjective as a particularized epithet of Ares as god of war, as at I.05.430: Ares is as swift as a violent wind.
The hero Mudōn is identified here as both a therapōn ‘attendant, ritual substitute’ and a hēni-okhos ‘chariot driver’. The collocation of these nouns therapōn ‘attendant, ritual substitute’ and hēni-okhos ‘chariot driver’ in describing Mudōn here implies that he functions as a ritual substitute for an unnamed hero who is primarily a chariot fighter.
See the comment on I.02.658.
In the Iliad, Hēraklēs as the only hero besides Achilles who qualifies as thūmoleōn ‘having the heart [thūmos] of a lion’; Achilles is thūmoleōn at I.07.228. In the Odyssey, Hēraklēs is the only hero besides Odysseus who qualifies as thūmoleōn ‘having the heart [thūmos] of a lion’, at O.11.267; Odysseus is thūmoleōn at O.04.724 and O.04.814.
The idea of the ‘gates’ or pulai of Hadēs is a variant of the idea of a ‘gate’ or Pulos of the Sun, where the mythical idea of such a Pulos is parallel to the ritual reality of Pylos as a place where the myth is realized. By implication, the setting sun passes through the same gates as do the psūkhai ‘spirits’ of the dead who are entering the underworld.
This verb noeîn ‘take note (of), notice’ is attracted to contexts where the subject of the verb is seen as taking the initiative. Here at I.05.669 is the first Iliadic application of this verb to the actions of Odysseus, who is specially linked with the meaning of noeîn, ‘take note (of), notice’.
At the moment of his fainting or swooning here, the hero’s psūkhē ‘spirit’ in the sense of his ‘life’s breath’ is released from his body. But then he ‘comes to’, as it were, and now his life’s breath returns to him. The verb that expresses this idea of revival is ana-pneîn (ἀμπνύνθη)—variant en-pneîn (ἐμπνύνθη)—in the sense of ‘taking a breath’—‘breathing in’. So, the hero’s breath comes back into him, and that is what had left him when his psūkhē in the sense of ‘life’s breath’ had left him. But if we take this same word psūkhē in the sense of a disembodied ‘spirit’, then the spirit that has come back to the hero’s body has not only revived him: it has brought him back to life. Such a mystical sense of revival is most appropriate to the hero Sarpedon: after he is killed in battle, Sarpedon’s funeral leads to his mystical immortalization, as analyzed in the comments at I.16.456-457 and I.16.674-675 .
In this context, the localized meaning of dēmos in the sense of ‘district’ is still overt.
The neuter plural kukla corresponding to masculine singular kuklos means ‘chariot wheels’. The metaphorical use of kuklos ‘cycle, chariot wheel’ with reference to the epic Cycle as the sum total of Homeric poetry is relevant to the meaning of Homēros in the sense of a ‘joiner, carpenter’ who makes chariot wheels. See the comment on O.17.384–385. On the epic Cycle in general, see the inventory of Words and Ideas.
reference that both lines have comparable instances of verse-final ἀμφίς
When the goddess slips out of her peplos ‘robe’ and into the khitōn ‘tunic’ that belongs to her father Zeus, there is an intervening moment of nudity. See MoM 3§1-3§7. This passage shows (a) the complementarity of the peplos ‘robe’ and the khitōn ‘tunic’ worn by Athena and (b) the complementarity of her roles as Athena Polias (goddess of the citadel) and Athena Parthenos (goddess virgin) in the myths and rituals of Athens. This complementarity is re-enacted in the Iliad. See MoM 3§§9–12. We see in these verses a linearity that follows a sequence controlled by time in the Homeric reference to the Peplos of Athena. This linearity substitutes for the circular sequence of the Athenians’ charter myth about Athena and the Gigantomachy, which means ‘battle of the gods and giants’. The Iliad here shows a metaphorical substitution of the Trojan War for the Gigantomachy. On metaphor, see the inventory of Words and Ideas; also MoM 0§01, 0§1 Extract 0-A. For the Athenians, Athena is the primary narrator of the Gigantomachy by way of pattern-weaving the narration in her own Peplos as a masterpiece of metonymy. On metonymy, see the inventory of Words and Ideas.
The peplos ‘robe’ made by the goddess Athena is seen as a prototype of a perfect masterpiece of pattern-weaving. It is also a perfect masterpiece of metonymy coordinated with metaphor. On metaphor and metonymy, see the inventory of Words and Ideas. Further, the peplos ‘robe’ of the goddess is a prototype, in the world of myth, for the re-enacting of its pattern-weaving in the world of ritual in Athens. The peplos that is pattern-woven by Athena in Athenian myth is the prototype of the Panathenaic Peplos from the standpoint of Athenian ritual. The Panathenaic Peplos was pattern-woven for ritual presentation to the goddess Athena at the climax of the quadrennial Athenian festival known as the Great Panathenaia.
note that these verses were athetized by Zenodotus
analysis of the coextensiveness of the khiton and aegis worn by Athena when she goes to war and metonymically shared by Zeus with her
analysis of Janko’s argument that the manuscript reading δ’ἑκάθεν at Il. XIII.107 is “superior” to OCT edition, which replaces δ’ἑκάθεν with δὲ ἑκάς on the basis of its older form and appearance at Il. V.791 (Janko 1990.332-334)
In this context, the hero is simply ‘reviving’ from a wound; but there are intimations, already here, of a future reanimation or immortalization that awaits this hero after he is killed at a later point in the narrative, in Iliad 16. For more, see the earlier comment on I.05.696–698, in anticipation of the later comment on 16.456–457.
The description of Diomedes here as aristos ‘best’ implies that he is still in contention for the absolute title ‘best of the Achaeans’ in the Iliad.
The description of the hero Periphas here as ‘best of the Aetolians’ can be seen as a subcategory of the all-important title ‘best of the Achaeans’.
The insulting of Ares by Zeus here is parallel to the insulting of Achilles by Agamemnon at I.01.177. For both Ares and Achilles, eris ‘strife’ is a defining feature.
In this context, Paiēōn (from Paiāwōn) is still distinct from rather than identical to Apollo.
analysis of miaiphonos as an epithet of Ares and as applied to Patroklos
analysis of Athena’s interruption to get Ares to withdraw from the fighting to avoid Zeus’ mēnis
analysis of teichesiplēta as an epithet of and metaphor for Ares’ tendency to reach the limits of behavior (and application to Patroklos)
in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos
examples of the identical contexts in which eukhos and kudos occur
in the list of offenses that (threaten to) incur mēnis
analysis of Athena’s interruption to get Ares to withdraw from the fighting to avoid Zeus’ mēnis
example of a common formula with a different half-line following it nine other times and different lines describing deaths of six heroes as examples of the results of the variation aesthetic (the poetics of the battle-books as promoting the preservation of archaisms and stimulating the innovatory usage of a half of a formula outside its conventional context)
different lines describing deaths of six heroes as examples of the results of the variation aesthetic (the poetics of the battle-books as promoting the preservation of archaisms and stimulating the innovatory usage of a half of a formula outside its conventional context)
different lines describing deaths of six heroes as examples of the results of the variation aesthetic (the poetics of the battle-books as promoting the preservation of archaisms and stimulating the innovatory usage of a half of a formula outside its conventional context)
different lines describing deaths of six heroes as examples of the results of the variation aesthetic (the poetics of the battle-books as promoting the preservation of archaisms and stimulating the innovatory usage of a half of a formula outside its conventional context)
different lines describing deaths of six heroes as examples of the results of the variation aesthetic (the poetics of the battle-books as promoting the preservation of archaisms and stimulating the innovatory usage of a half of a formula outside its conventional context)
analysis of whether the verse should have eukhomenos or epeukhomenos
this verse as one of two places where the dictional bonds tying together (A1)-(A5) are shattered – resumes the narrative not after prayers but boasts
manuscripts attesting this verse with epeukhomenos
analysis of other gods’ interference in the fighting after Ares has withdrawn on Athena’s urging as only to restrain and defend
analysis of Diomedes’ behavior as parallel to Ares’
analysis of divine mēnis at sexual transgressions (regarding amphadiēn as “with the knowledge of Zeus”)
analysis of the interconnections of statements of physical prowess, prestige, and identity, in the context of establishing the contextual unity of eukhesthai einai + superlative/comparative and their relationship to the genos eukhesthai einai contexts [MRBTP: 'ff']
comparison of the verse with eukhomai einai + superlative with a similar construction attested in the Rig-Veda, in the context of analyzing the etymology of eukhesthai
in a list of examples of eukhesthai einai + comparative/superlative (regarding physical prowess, physical beauty, prestige)
analysis of the interconnections of statements of physical prowess, prestige, and identity, in the context of establishing the contextual unity of eukhesthai einai + superlative/comparative and their relationship to the genos eukhesthai einai contexts
analysis of references to divine mēnis against Trojans in the context of an Achaean warrior’s efforts
analysis of recurrent aspects of the mēnis theme, here that group offences incur mēnis
in the list of offenses that (threaten to) incur mēnis
in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos
analysis of the contrast between unmarked phanai and marked eukhesthai in contexts where the latter is associated with asserting superiority [MRBTP: 'ff']
comment on the etiquette of naming conventions, the omission of one’s own name in geneē-speeches vs. mentioning another’s name in such contexts, and stating one’s own name as a sign of special fame (in the context of analyzing genos eukhesthai einai formulas)
in a list of attestations of genos eukhesthai einai and its transformations
comment on the etiquette of naming conventions, the omission of one’s own name in geneē-speeches vs. mentioning another’s name in such contexts, and stating one’s own name as a sign of special fame (in the context of analyzing genos eukhesthai einai formulas)
comment on the etiquette of naming conventions, the omission of one’s own name in geneē-speeches vs. mentioning another’s name in such contexts, and stating one’s own name as a sign of special fame (in the context of analyzing genos eukhesthai einai formulas)
in a list of attestations of genos eukhesthai einai and its transformations
analysis of the divergent attestations of eukhesthai in the context of genos specification, namely, Aeneas’ specification of both of his parents, with eukhesthai ekgegamen instead of genos eukhesthai einai
in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos
analysis of other gods’ interference in the fighting after Ares has withdrawn on Athena’s urging as only to restrain and defend
analysis of philotēs and timē going together with this passage as an example
analysis of Athena’s interruption to get Ares to withdraw from the fighting to avoid Zeus’ mēnis (emphasis on his inactivity)
example in analysis of the language of binding as metaphoric for the “killing” of an immortal [MRBTP: 'ff']
analysis of the etymology of Neleus and how it was understood in Homer, connection with nēleēs and the underworld, and in this context also Pylos as equated with the “gates” of Hades
analysis of the development of Greek posis compared with Vedic pati-
analysis of the Diomedes-Ares identification/antagonism [MRBTP: 'ff']
analysis of the Diomedes-Ares identification/antagonism and Diomedes’ shunning Apollo’s mēnis
comment on tutthon as a distance retreated by Diomedes and its relation to his respect for the boundary the transgression of which would incur mēnis (in contrast to Patroklos)
in the list of offenses that (threaten to) incur mēnis
analysis of Apollo’s call to Ares to return to fighting as referring to and contravening Athena’s earlier request that he refrain, and beginning with the same line as Athena’s request
analysis of miaiphonos as an epithet of Ares and as applied to Patroklos
analysis of teichesiplēta as an epithet of and metaphor for Ares’ tendency to reach the limits of behavior (and application to Patroklos)
analysis of the Diomedes-Ares identification/antagonism and variant theme of mēnis
analysis of the Diomedes-Ares identification/antagonism and thematic linkage between the mēnis of Apollo against Diomedes and that of Zeus against Ares
analysis of the Diomedes-Ares identification/antagonism and thematic linkage between the mēnis of Apollo against Diomedes and that of Zeus against Ares
example of a common formula with a different half-line following it nine other times (the poetics of the battle-books as promoting the preservation of archaisms and stimulating the innovatory usage of a half of a formula outside its conventional context)
analysis of the one instance of eukhos where kudos could fit the metric just as well
in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos
examples of the identical contexts in which eukhos and kudos occur
discussing the accessories of the statue of Athena Polias at Athens, here especially the aegis and the gorgoneion in the context of discussing the two aspects of Athena, as a virgin war goddess and as a mother goddess
comment on poikilos, epithet of Athena’s peplos, as ‘pattern-woven’
analysis of Athena’s entering into battle against Ares and the change in divine mēnis against him and in solidarity from when Athena prevented him from entering battle
analysis of Athena’s entering into battle against Ares and the change in divine mēnis against him (replaced by a variant kind of heroic mēnis) and in solidarity from when Athena prevented him from entering battle
as evidence in the context of analysis of dikaios as ‘just’ in the sense of the opposite incurring mēnis in I.03.132-136 and comparison with Hesiod
analysis of interconnections of themis and mēnis, which protects the former
analysis of Athena’s entering into battle against Ares and the change in divine mēnis against him (replaced by a variant kind of heroic mēnis) and in solidarity from when Athena prevented him from entering battle
analysis of the Diomedes-Ares identification/antagonism and variant theme of mēnis
analysis of the name Stentōr (in the context of analyzing names in -tōr)
analysis of the formula daimoni isos used of heroes in their aristeia only, and in the context of hero-god antagonism
At 5.715, Hera refers to a past commitment as a muthos with the qualifier halion ("in vain"): "Vain, indeed, is the muthos we promised Menelaos." Achilles uses the same adjective halion at 18.324 for a past speech-act but the line concludes with epos instead: "A vain epos I tossed forth that day." The nature of the original speech-act explains the difference: as a boast, Achilles' speech is attracted into the language of actual boast descriptions, which often contain the formula eukhomenos epos ēuda. External factors—formulaic pressure, poetic themes in the larger discourse—can mask the inherent semantic distinction between muthos and epos (Martin 1993:28).
At 5.816-17, Diomedes labels his talk with Athena an epos: "I recognize you, goddess, daughter of aegis-bearing Zeus. Therefore I will candidly say a word (epos) and will not conceal it." Achilles similarly refers to Athena's private advice (1.216) and his own prayer to Zeus (16.236) with the word epos. Prayer, which epitomizes private communication, is in fact never designated muthos in the Iliad.
A further indication of the personal nature of epos comes from Homer's adjective usage: possessives frequently accompany the word epos—Achilles speaks of "your word" (1.216), Achilles praying to Zeus and Hera using a similar formula to Hypnos say "You have heard my word before" (emon epos eklues, 14.234, 16.236), and Zeus refers to his own command with this phrase (8.8). By contrast, muthos is rarely referred to by a speaker as his or her own or as that of his or her addressee (Martin 1993:38).
Sarpedon's rebuke of Hektor in Book 5 is later labeled a muthos (5.471 and 5.493). The then/now contrast opens his attack, followed immediately by a reference to Hektor's earlier boasts: "Hektor, where has your strength gone, which you previously used to have? You used to say at some point that you would hold the city alone, without troops and allies, with your brothers and brothers-in-law. I cannot see any of them now or notice any, but they all cower like dogs around a lion" (5.471-76). The speech is noteworthy for its insistent criticism of Hektor's verbal behavior, charging him with failing to give orders (5.485) and advising him to supplicate the allied leaders for help in order to deflect verbal abuse (kraterēn apothesthai enipēn, 5.492). The foil technique recurs when Glaukos later uses Sarpedon's own career as a contrast to Hektor's passivity (17.152). Hektor has not learned (Martin 1993:72-73).
For the broader analysis of the flyting genre, see the comment on Iliad 4.336-421.
Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.
The battle-boast Tlepolemos makes to Sarpedon (5.638-42) is the only other passage in the poem to mention sacking a city, ships, and a specific number. Tlepolemos boosts his own status by referring to his father Herakles, who sacked Troy in the previous generation, with six ships and a few men. The same function is served by Achilles' reference to his own raids at 9.328-29: it is part of the warrior's rhetoric of egoism, the verbal performance that authenticates his martial acts. But the differences between the two passages are telling. Achilles boasts of his own sacking, not of one city, but of twenty-three towns around Troy. His act is bigger; the expanded two-line expression of his deeds fits the exploits. The difference in size between the two heroes' achievements is explicit in the doubling of the number at the beginning of 9.328—twelve cities versus Herakles' six ships; the formula is expanded semantically as well as spatially. The shadow of Herakles follows Achilles throughout the Iliad, and I now suggest that this attitude on the part of Homer arises from his own situation as performer when he attempts to compose an Achilles epic against a widespread and predominant earlier tradition that privileges the role of Herakles (Martin 1993:227-29).
For the broader argument that Homer's composition of the monumental Iliad starts from the need to outdistance previous epics, see the comment on Iliad 2.488-492.
Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.
Zeus' reply to the wounded Ares (5.889-90)—"μή τί μοι, ἀλλοπρόσαλλε, παρεζόμενος μινύριζε. ἔχθιστος δέ μοί ἐσσι θεῶν οἳ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν"—provides a model for the replacement expansion at 9.311-12. The technique of expansion by replacement shows up clearly when these lines are compared with Achilles' words: mē moi truzēte can be matched with mē ti moi . . . minurizē; parēmenoi with parezomenos; ekhthros gar moi keinos with ekhithistos de moi essi; and the vocative alloprosalle with an expression of different meaning but identical metrical and similar phonological shape, allothen allos. Whereas Zeus' direct and blunt style in this speech is emphasized by end-stopped lines, Achilles' tone sounds more rational because his syntax is more complex: he uses hōs and gar to connect what in Zeus' speech are three separate elements. The effect of the conjunction and particle is fluidity. Furthermore, rather than calling his interlocutor "most hateful"—although the thought underlies his words—Achilles mutes his expression to the simpler "hateful is that man." In both the speech of Zeus and of Achilles, the lines form a separable introduction directed to an interlocutor who has made a complaint, and both speakers shift the topic abruptly after the rebuke (5.895, all' ou man; 9.314, autar egōn) (Martin 1993:212-13).
For the splitting and replacement expansion at 9.310-314 of which this passage is a model, see the comment on Iliad 9.310-314.
Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.