example of Nestor as the symbol of nóos

analysis of the connection of Nestor with noos, he as its personification

comparison of Nestor and Polydamas, the counselors on their respective sides, in terms of noos (in the context of interpreting them in terms of the twin myth)

example of the inherent opposition between verbs pheúgein and halonai. Compare to Il. XXI.493-495

provides evidence for contention that Homer no longer understood the context and traditional meaning of ásmenoi because it has here lost its verbal force and functions as an adjective

analysis of asmenos as having lost its original meaning and being understood as an adjective meaning “happy” in Homer, with this verse as an example

evidence for the description of D.B. Monro’s understanding of the verb anései, as a compound verb meaning “to place” or “set upon”

in the context of analyzing the anomaly of Apollo’s journey from Olympus in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo

analysis of instances where an explicit reference to an act of love is omitted, but where ērassato used of the male is followed by the female conceiving and giving birth

analysis of instances where an explicit reference to an act of love is omitted, but where ērassato used of the male is followed by the female conceiving and giving birth

Hephaistos’ being the son of Hera and Zeus in Homer, in contrast to in Hesiod

The momentum of the attacking Trojan warriors gets stalled here, since Hērā interrupts the ongoing Plan of Zeus. The goddess seduces the god, and the setting for their divine sexual encounter is the spectacular landscape of Mount Ida, which is the private abode of the thundering almighty. During the tryst of the god and the goddess, the Achaeans regain the upper hand in the fighting. But this new momentum is soon headed for a downturn. The divine interruption, despite all its cosmic sexual energy, becomes retrospectively a mere interlude in the narrative arc of the Iliad—once the tryst is over and the Plan of Zeus resumes its relentless course of action.

Juno and Jupiter. Detail from “Loves of the Gods,” fresco by Annibale Carracci (1560–1609). Annibale Carracci [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carracci_-_Jupiter_et_Junon.jpeg.

Again, as at I.13.227, the fear is expressed that the invading Achaean warriors could die nōnumnoi ‘nameless’ at Troy. On the connotations, which can be seen by way of comparing Hesiodic poetry, see the comment on I.12.079.

example of ‘standard’ usage in Homeric quotations of Plato

As Hērā readies herself for her sexual encounter with Zeus, her cosmetic self-adornment is pictured here as a cosmic ‘arrangement’, kosmos, of beauty.

Janko’s 1992:180 comments on the verses and GN’s comments on them

Hērā’s wording here rationalizes her initiating a sexual encounter with Zeus. The idea of such an encounter is conventionally known as hieros gamos—in the sense of ‘sacred sexual intercourse’ (as in Theocritus 17.131). From the dramatic standpoint of the immediate narrative context, Hērā is making up what she is saying; in the comments that follow, however, it is argued that the wording of the goddess here derives from genuine theogonic traditions centering on the idea of sacred intercourse as an act of cosmogonic creation.

Highlighted in the comments so far on the cosmic river Ōkeanos is the role of this world-encircling fresh-water stream as a boundary delimiting light from darkness, wakefulness from sleep, life from death. Such delimitations, as we have seen, are elaborated poetically in contexts that picture the rising of the sun out of the waters of the Ōkeanos at sunrise—after its setting into these same waters at sunset. See the comments on I.07.421–423 and I.08.485–486. And now, in the context of a scene that evokes the themes of hieros gamos ‘sacred sexual intercourse’, we find that the role of Ōkeanos evokes also the themes of theogony and cosmogony. These themes are conveyed by wording that points to the role of Ōkeanos as a personified god who combines with a personified goddess Tēthus in prototypically initiating a genesis ‘generating’ of gods, as we see here at I.14.201, and even a genesis ‘generating’ of all things, as we will see at I.14.245–246–246a.

The goddess Hērā promises to commission the making of a beautiful thronos ‘throne’, I.14.238. The maker will be the divine artisan Hephaistos, son of Hērā, I.14.239–240. This throne made by the god will be aphthito- ‘imperishable’, and this imperishability will last aiei ‘forever’, I.14.238. Also, this throne will be khrūseo- ‘golden’, I.14.239. On the combination of aphthito- ‘imperishable’ and khrūseo- ‘golden’ in symbolizing the artificial continuum of immortality, see BA 179. The Greek combination of the adjective áphthito- ‘imperishable’ with the adverb aieí ‘always’ here is comparable to the Indic combination of the adjective ákṣita- ‘imperishable’ with the adjective viśvā́yur ‘lasting for all ages’ at Rig-Veda 1.9.7: the form viśvā́yur is the neuter of viśvā́yus-, agreeing with śrávas ‘glory, fame’. (Full argumentation in GMP 123–126 for interpreting viśvā́yur as a neuter and not masculine adjective in this context: it goes with śrávas ‘glory, fame’ and not, as some have argued, with the name of the god Indra.) The element ā́yus- in this Indic form is cognate with Greek aiṓn ‘life-force, lifetime’, the original locative singular of which became the adverb aieí, meaning ‘forever’. See the note on I.01.052. The formulaic combination áphthiton aieí is attested elsewhere as well in Homeric diction, at I.02.046 and at I.02.186. And there is even an instance of the combination kléos áphthiton aieí ‘a glory that is imperishable forever’ in an archaic piece of poetry inscribed in the seventh century BCE: κλεFος απθιτον αιFει, DGE no. 316. This combination brings us back to the wording κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται = kléos áphthiton éstai ‘there will be an imperishable glory’ at I.09.413. To be noted again is the parallelism between the Greek combination of the adjective áphthiton ‘imperishable’ with the noun kléos ‘glory, fame’ at I.09.413 and the Indic combination of the adjective ákṣita- ‘imperishable’ with the noun śrávas ‘glory, fame’ at Rig-Veda 1.9.7 (full argumentation in GMP 123–126).

Our source for this set of verses, I.14.245–246–246a, is Plutarch On the face in the moon 938d, whose narrative provides a context for including verse 246a in such a set. Without the testimony of Plutarch, we would not know about this verse, since it does not survive in the medieval manuscript tradition. But it had survived, as we know from Plutarch, in the text of the Homeric Iliad as edited by Crates of Mallos, Director of the Library of Pergamon (see under Crates in the inventory of Words and Ideas). In that text, verse 246 of Iliad 14 was followed by another verse, labeled as 246a in modern editions:

I.14.246 Ὠκεανός, ὅσπερ γένεσις πάντεσσι τέτυκται

I.14.246a ἀνδράσιν ἠδὲ θεοῖς, πλείστην <τ᾿> ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἵησιν

Taken together, these verses can be translated this way:

I.14.246 … Ōkeanos, who has been fashioned as genesis for all

I.14.246a men and gods, and he flows over the Earth in all her fullness.

What is said about Ōkeanos in the “plus-verse” I.14.246a as attested here by Crates is closely related to what we find in poetic traditions attributed to Orpheus. The existence of such Orphic traditions is clearly attested in relevant quotations and paraphrases made by Plato, especially in Cratylus 402a-c regarding the role of Ōkeanos as a primordial source of creation. Details in HPC 2§§128–147. As for Crates (F 20 ed. Broggiato 2001), he cited the “plus verse” I.14.246a as evidence in arguing for his theory that the Ōkeanos was a salt-water Ocean covering a spherical Earth. For Crates, then, these verses at I.14.245–246–246a about the Ōkeanos were an essential part of an allegory about the cosmos. According to this theory of Crates, the earth was a sphere, located at the center of a universe that was likewise spherical. Crates evidently interpreted in a modernizing sense the expression at I.14.246a: ‘[which flows] over most of the earth’ (πλείστην … ἐπὶ γαῖαν). In other words, the salt-water ocean covers most of the spherical Earth. This theory was opposed by Aristarchus, Director of the Library of Alexandria (see under Aristarchus in the inventory of Words and Ideas), who viewed the Homeric Ōkeanos as a fresh-water river surrounding an Earth that is circular and flat (HC 2§150). See further my comment at HC 2§153 about this dispute between Crates and Aristarchus. What was at stake, as I say in my comment there, was no trivial matter. In this case, in fact, the stakes were of cosmic proportions. Both sides of the dispute were attempting to establish their theories of the cosmos by way of deciding the rightness or wrongness of different variants in the text of Homer. I find it ironic, I went on to say, that I am describing this ancient state of affairs in an era when it appears fashionable to dismiss Homeric textual variations as “trivial,” “banal,” and even “boring.” There will be more to say in my comment on I.18.478–609, in the context of the Shield of Achilles in Iliad 18, about the conceptualization of Ōkeanos as some primordial work of art as suggested by the verb tetuktai (τέτυκται) ‘has been fashioned’ here at I.14:244. For more on the narrative that is taking shape at I.14.245–246–246a, see the comment on I.14.301–302.

the Homerus Auctus as not an editorial conflation of incompatible texts but as a preedited corpus of undifferentiated oral traditions that later became differentiated into distinct textual traditions

Gods can take an irrevocable oath in the form of swearing by the waters of the underworld river Styx, which is what the goddess Hērā is asked to perform here at I.14.271–276 and which she actually does perform at I.14.277–280. See further in the comment on I.15.037–038.

The visualization of the landscape here, as the narrative views the goddess Hērā traveling toward Mount Ida, corresponds to what you would see if you looked due north while standing on the north shore of the island of Lesbos. Across the sea, beyond the strait separating this island from the mainland to the north, is the shoreline of the region leading uphill to the heights of Mount Ida. Just as you are looking north from the shores of Lesbos when you see that skyline, so also Hērā is traveling north as she hastens to arrive at her point of assignation with the mighty thunderer on the peaks of Mount Ida. This view from Lesbos, then, shows an Aeolian poetic vantage point in visualizing the narrative space of Troy in its entirety.

The goddess Hērā refers here at I.14.302 to the cosmic river Ōkeanos as the ‘genesis of the gods’ (θεῶν γένεσιν). This reference is a continuation of the earlier reference at I.14.246 to Ōkeanos as a god ‘who has been fashioned as genesis for all’ (ὅς περ γένεσις πάντεσσι τέτυκται). Supplementing my comment on I.14.245–246–246a. I now offer further comment on those verses in the context of the narrative as it continues here at I.14.301–302. What follows is an epitome of what I have to say in HC 2§§156–157. I start with I.14.246, where the immediate point is this: Ōkeanos is a primal ancestor of the gods Zeus and Hērā. At I.14.246a, this theme is developed further: Ōkeanos is a primal force that ultimately generated humans as well as gods, and this force pervades the earth. Such a theme is actually implicit already at I.14.246, even without the explicit amplification of I.14.246a: the adjective pantessi (πάντεσσι) ‘all’ at I.14.246 implies that Ōkeanos is the father of not only ‘all’ gods but also, by extension, ‘all’ men. There is a parallel idea in Homeric references to Zeus himself as the ‘father’ of gods and men, patēr andrōn te theōn te, as at I.01.544, and so on. Further, the noun genesis (γένεσις) in the same verse, I.14.246, which I translated above by using the English borrowing ‘genesis’, implies a depersonalized cosmic power that generates not only all gods and all men but also all things. The idea that Ōkeanos is the ‘genesis’ of all is ultimately not so much the expression of an interpersonal relationship, such as parenthood in the immediate narrative context, but of a depersonalized cosmic creation, a cosmogony. Thus the adjective pantessi (πάντεσσι) ‘all’ is in fact all-inclusive, even without I.14.246a. I should add that there is nothing non-Homeric about picturing the Ōkeanos simultaneously as an anthropomorphic father of gods and as a cosmic source for everything on earth. The cosmogonic themes of I.14.246-246a, less explicit as read by Aristarchus without 246a and more explicit as read by Crates with 246a, are in any case deeply rooted in the Homeric tradition. The more explicit Homeric readings of Crates reflect, more clearly than the corresponding readings of Aristarchus, an earlier phase in the evolution of the Homeric tradition. I propose that Crates derived “plus verses” like I.14.246a from a “Homerus Auctus,” on which I have this to say at HC 2§178: “a verse like [I.14.246a], stemming from a Homerus Auctus as edited by Crates in Pergamon, need not be dismissed as an interpolation from Homeric editions that had been contaminated, as it were, by Orphic traditions. The Homerus Auctus need not be viewed as an editorial conflation of incompatible texts but as a preedited corpus of undifferentiated oral traditions that later became differentiated into distinct textual traditions that we recognize as Orphic, Hesiodic, Cyclic, and even Homeric.” On the term “Orphic” as I use it here, see the comment on I.14.245–246–246a above.

analysis of the meaning of thēmis and the role of Themis

in a list of attestations of genos eukhesthai einai and its transformations

analysis of the classification and interrelationship of the different genos eukhesthai einai formulas

analysis of the use of eukhesthai in sacral contexts (formulas concluding prayers) and deletion of the verb in parallel expressions in secular contexts

examples of the identical contexts in which eukhos and kudos occur

analysis of the meaning of secular eukhesthai reporting speech (usages where eukhesthai is glossed by phanai)

in a list of secular eukhesthai reporting speech (absolute usage)

By Book 14, Diomedes has learned how to construct an impregnable speech by taking preemptive action against possible objections. As does Nestor, he prefaces his speech with disarming recollection of the past—his own ancestry in this case—and thus rejects possible claims that he is too young to speak well, while raising his status as a warrior by blood. As a result, his muthos is assured of success: "Therefore, you cannot devalue my muthos by saying I am strengthless and have a bad ancestry, whatever I say" (14.126-27). The poet concludes the speech with the same line that followed Nestor's exemplary muthos in Book 9: "Thus he spoke and then they listened and obeyed" (14.133 = 9.79) (Martin 1993:25).

When Hera describes her plan to reconcile Okeanos and Tethys she uses the vocabulary of epea: "If persuading them with words (epeessi paraipepithousa) in the dear heart I might manage to unite them in affection" (14.208-10). To carry out Hera's project, Aphrodite grants her parphasis, the sort of speech characterized as "soft," "gentle," and "sweet." It is personal appeal, not authoritative performance, that generates speech denoted as epea (Martin 1993:38).

Diomedes' employment of genealogical recitation at 14.110-27 is a device for accomplishing his entry into the world of heroic speakers. The recitation of genealogy in poetic form is recognized throughout Africa as an essential social genre and holds a good claim to be one of the oldest Indo-European genres, attested in Irish, Welsh, Avestan, Old English, Norse, and non-Homeric Greek poetry. The role of genealogical memories within Iliadic speeches is oriented toward the hero's marking of his own deeds or to shaming another to act: Agamemnon and others use genealogical recitation with Diomedes himself at 4.375 and 5.813. Aeneas' use of the genre is ambiguous—he is characterized as "a master of poetic skills in the language of praise and blame," as his very name asserts, yet seems to spend an inordinate amount of time recounting his genealogy to face down Achilles before a duel (20.200-258), compared with Achilles, who can afford to wait until after the victim is dead (Martin 1993:85-86).

For the broader analysis of memory as a muthos genre, see the comment on Iliad 1.259-274.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.

The style of giving more information by adding clauses can best be seen in longer stretches of Odysseus' speech. His reply to Agamemnon's proposal in Book 14 features at least one such clause in nearly every sentence: "Nor should you rule us, to whom Zeus granted . . . the raveling of wars" (14.85); "You wish to abandon Troy . . . for which we suffer many evils" (89); "Silence, lest another Achaean hear the muthos / which a man, at least, might not draw all through the mouth, a man who knew to speak close-fitting things" (91, 92). These eight lines contain four relative clauses, compared with Agamemnon's immediately preceding speech, in which only two occur over seventeen lines (67, 81). The difference in their preferred syntactic strategies explains a good deal of the tone of each hero's speech: curt and hard-bitten for Agamemnon, fluid and accommodating for Odysseus (Martin 1993:122-23).

The realization that speech can be good or bad prompts Odysseus' remark that Diomedes should neither praise nor blame too much among a knowing audience (10.249). The urge for proportionate speech explains his criticism of Agamemnon's style, since Agamemnon's call to retreat is out of all proportion with the heroic ethos: it is, to Odysseus, a muthos that one can hardly pronounce, the opposite of an act of speech (Martin 1993:122-23).

For the broader analysis of Odysseus' style, see the comment on Iliad 3.212-223.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.

Aphrodite's host formula when addressing her visitor Hera at 14.195-96—auda ho ti phroneeis; telesai de me thumos anōgen / ei dunamai telesai ge kai ei tetelesmenon estin—provides a model for Achilles' words at 9.310. The same couplet is addressed by Hephaistos to Thetis at the start of another visit type-scene (18.426-27). In this formulaic opening, the negative element ("do not conceal") is omitted, perhaps because gods are assumed to speak truthfully to each other; in addition, there is a different focus, on the speaker's willingness to complete the action which the addressee has in mind. The verb phroneō occurs in the same slot in 9.310 as phroneeis in the formulaic lines, and the second half of 9.310 reproduces, with slight changes, the second half of the second line in the formulaic couplet used by the hosts. Achilles' use of this host formula is deviant: instead of saying "speak what you think and I shall fulfill it," Achilles reflects back on himself—"I must deny the offer in the way that I think and the way it will be fulfilled." This conglomeration of motives—the perfect host, the man in crisis who must speak his refusal—produces the expanded, seemingly incoherent opening to Achilles' great reply (Martin 1993:210-12).

For the splitting expansion at 9.310-314 and the model from Zeus' rebuke to Ares (5.889-90), see the comment on Iliad 9.310-314.

References

Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.