contra Heiden that the end of Book 15 constitutes one of two major breaks in the performance of the Iliad

analysis of the parallelism between Nestor and Patroclus, reaching its climax in I.16, where Patroclus becomes a horseman, addressed as such in this verse

in the context of discussing the interpretation of Nestor’s name and the meaning of forms from the root *nes- as “safe return home” or without “home” where it needed to be specified

comment on tanuonto meaning “went full speed” (literally, “were stretched”)

this line as one of the counterexamples for identifying unmodified laos as one’s own

analysis of the parallelism between Nestor and Patroclus (as in Nestor’s second story), with regards to Patroclus’ failure to turn back from battle as Achilles commands and here specifically Patroclus’ state of mind (which mirrors Nestor’s)

analysis of the parallelism between Nestor and Patroclus (as in Nestor’s second story), with regards to Patroclus’ failure to turn back from battle as Achilles commands and here specifically Patroclus’ state of mind (which mirrors Nestor’s)

example of laos as referring to one’s own in contexts where there is a contrast between “leader(s)” and those who “follow”

in the list of places where Patroclus is called a horseman (hippeu or hippokeleuthe)

analysis of the parallelism between Nestor and Patroclus (as in Nestor’s second story), with regards to Patroclus’ failure to turn back from battle as Achilles commands

analysis of the parallelism between Nestor and Patroclus (as in Nestor’s second story), with regards to Patroclus’ failure to turn back from battle as Achilles commands

in the list of places where Patroclus is called a horseman (hippeu or hippokeleuthe)

example of similarities between the Laestrygonians and the Cyclopes

example of similarities between the Laestrygonians and the Cyclopes. Compare to Od. X.112-113, Od. X.120, Od. X.121-122, Od. X.82-183, Od. X.98, Od. X.116, Od. X.124, Od. IX.190-192, Od. IX.482, Od. IX.537, Od. IX.108, Od. IX.167, Od. IX.187-188, Od. IX.291

in the list of places where Patroclus is called a horseman (hippeu or hippokeleuthe)

in the list of places where Patroclus is called a horseman (hippeu or hippokeleuthe)

in the list of places where Patroclus is called a horseman (hippeu or hippokeleuthe)

It seems at first as if everything is coming together here in Iliad 16. Achilles, best of the Achaeans, sends out his other self, Patroklos, to fight Hector and his Trojans, who are now on the verge of setting on fire and destroying all the beached ships of the Achaeans. Patroklos does in fact succeed in stopping the fire, which had been endangering not only the survival of the Achaeans but even the very existence of their notional descendants, imagined as the Greeks who are listening to the story of the Iliad in their own time. The conflagration that could have burned down the beached ships of the Achaeans is now literally ‘quenched’ by Patroklos, whose heroic action in putting out the fire of the Trojans is compared in a simile to a cosmic action taken by Zeus himself when this weather-god drenches and thus destroys in a violent rainstorm the farmlands of unjust men. Clearly, Zeus is now once again on the Achaean side of the Trojan War. But the success of Patroklos is not to last: soon after he kills Sarpedon, son of Zeus himself, in the course of a spectacular chariot fight, Patroklos now gets killed in the course of a second spectacular chariot fight. This time, Patroklos has gone too far, daring to attack not only Hector but also the divine protector of that hero, Apollo himself. Now everything is about to come apart again, and Achilles has yet to find out about the tragedy that awaits him.

A chariot driver and a chariot fighter in a biga (two-horses chariot). Terracotta, Late Helladic IIIA–IIIB (ca. 1400–1200 BCE). Louvre Museum, CA 2959. Credit line: Purchase, 1934.  Image Marie-Lan Nguyen (User:Jastrow), 2009-06-28 [CC BY 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons.

Ajax makes another strategic partial withdrawal, I.16.122. For an earlier reference to Ajax in the act of withdrawing, see I.15.727–732 and the comment on I.15.704–746. Meanwhile a fiery missile lands on one of the beached ships of the Achaeans, I.16.122–123, and a phlox ‘burst of flame’ envelops the prumnē ‘stern’ of that ship, I.16.123–124. As we know from earlier references to this ship, it had belonged to Protesilaos: see the comment on I.15.704–746. Achilles sees that the beached ship is on fire, and he now urges Patroklos to arm himself and go off to defend the ships from the fire.

Patroklos wears the armor of Achilles, but he leaves behind that hero’s meliē ‘ash spear’ I.16.143. Only Achilles can wield that weapon, I.16.140–144. The symbolism of this spear corresponds to the myth of the bronze generation of heroes in Hesiod Works and Days 143–151, who were born of ash trees and were made of bronze, just as the shaft of the spear of Achilles is made from an ash tree while the tip is made of bronze. By contrast with the immortalizing armor that Achilles receives from his immortal mother Thetis, he receives the ash spear from his mortal father Peleus. For more on the symbolism of the hero’s ash spear, I recommend Shannon 1975.

The word melíē functions as the word for both "ash tree" (e.g. I.16.767) and "ash spear" (as it does here). For a thorough discussion of the Homeric evidence, see The Arms of Achilles and Homeric Compositional Technique (1975) by Richard Shannon, especially pp. 46–48 for his comments on Works and Days 143–155. There is a manifestation of the heroic type represented by the Bronze Men of Hesiod in the heroic character of Achilles himself, and more specifically, in the spear he wields. In fact, Achilles is described as the only hero who could wield this magnificent spear (I.16.140–142), which is also the only piece of the hero's armor that Patroklos did not take with him when he fatally replaced Achilles. In sum, the diction of the entire Iliad makes the bronze-tipped ash spear an emblem of Achilles just as surely as the bronze and ash wood characterize the equally wanton Bronze Men, who are depicted by Hesiod as bent on nothing but húbris and war.

See the comments at O.12.132 and at O.23.246 on myths about solar horses; the name of Xanthos is relevant.

On the word harpuia, personified as ‘Harpy’, see Parts 3 and 4 of the comment at O.15.250–251.

Here, for the first time in the Iliad, Patroklos is marked as the therapōn of Achilles. His dual role as ‘attendant’ and ‘ritual substitute’ is already implicit.

I note here only in passing the semantic and morphological links between these two adjectives kratero- ‘having the power to win’ and hiero- ‘sacred’ in contexts where they describe the noun menos ‘mental power’.

This word biē ‘force, violence, strength’ and its synonym īs are conventionally associated with violent winds.

This word hupophētai ‘spokesmen’ refers to interpreters of oracular pronouncements.

As it was noted in the comment on I.13.111–113, Agamemnon ‘dishonored’ Achilles, I.13.113, as expressed by the verb a-tīmân, and Zeus therefore punished the Achaeans. Again here at I.16.237, the Achaeans are being punished by Zeus, while he ‘honors’, tīmân, Achilles.

Achilles is sending off Patroklos to fight in his place, but he is not sure whether he can identify himself with his best friend when Patroklos goes off on his own. This uncertainty, as we will see in the comment on I.16.244, is relevant to the use of the word therapōn.

Here, for the second time in the Iliad, Patroklos is marked as the therapōn of Achilles. His dual role as ‘attendant’ and ‘ritual substitute’ is already implicit.

Achilles is pictured as standing in front of his klisiā ‘shelter’, to get a better view of the battle scene. In the comments on I.08.220–227 and on I.11.005–016, there is more about the positioning of this klisiā.

The wording of Patroklos describes Achilles as the ‘best of the Argives’—which is another way of saying that Achilles is ‘the best of the Achaeans’.

In the words of Patroklos, there are warriors and then there are therapontes of warriors. These therapontes are ankhe-makhoi, literally ‘fighting next to them’, that is, fighting side by side with the warriors. Here we see the stance of a chariot driver who is speaking about standing next to the chariot fighter. They stand together, side by side on the chariot platform. So, standing here side by side with the chariot fighter is his very own chariot driver, his very own therapōn in the dual role of ‘attendant’ and ‘ritual substitute’. The ritual pose, as it were, of the therapōn as he takes his stand side by side with the primary warrior on the platform of the chariot is a physical embodiment of his role as ritual substitute.

For Agamemnon to dishonor the status of Achilles as ‘the best of the Achaeans’, as Achilles himself says at I.01.412, is a sign of the over-king’s atē ‘aberration’. Patroklos says it again here, I.16.273–274.

As Patroklos rides off to battle, soon to die as the ritual substitute of Achilles, we see here standing next to him on the chariot his very own therapōn. It becomes clear, as the narrative proceeds, that this therapōn is the hero Automedon. Does this hero function here not only as the ‘attendant’ of Patroklos but also as that hero’s very own ‘ritual substitute’? The answer is: no. Automedon is temporarily the chariot driver for Patroklos, but he will not become a ritual substitute for him. True, we see Automedon functioning as an ‘attendant’ at I.16.145–154, where he yokes the horses of Achilles to the chariot that he will drive for Patroklos: so, Automedon is definitely a temporary attendant for Patroklos as well as his temporary chariot driver. But Automedon will not become a ritual substitute for Patroklos.

For Achilles to renounce his mēnithmos ‘anger’ is equated, already here, to his restoring the relationship that should exist among companions who are philoi ‘near and dear’ to each other: such a relationship, as we see here, is philotēs ‘being near and dear to one’s near and dear ones’. In the Iliad, Patroklos takes on the role of restoring, by way of his own death, such philotēs between Achilles and the Achaeans.

Patroklos, hastening to reach the scene of battle, finally arrives at the center of the action, where the ship of Protesilaos is beached. Now he is right next to the prumnē ‘stern’ of that ship. See also the comment on I.15.704–746.

At I.16.287–292, Patroklos successfully defends the beached ships of the Achaeans: he kills Puraikhmēs, the foremost attacker, and he puts the other attackers to flight, thus saving the Achaeans by ‘quenching’, as expressed by way of sbennunai, I.16.293, the fire that had threatened their ships.

Patroklos now leads the Achaeans in counterattacking the Trojans, leaving behind the ship of Protesilaos, half of which has by now been burned down in the battle, I.16.294.

The successful action so far is now summed up here: the Achaeans=Danaans, led by Patroklos, have succeeded in pushing back the fire that had threatened the beached ships.

At I.16.287–292, Patroklos successfully defends the beached ships of the Achaeans: he kills Puraikhmēs, the foremost attacker, and he puts the other attackers to flight, thus saving the Achaeans by ‘quenching’, as expressed by way of sbennunai, I.16.293, the fire that had threatened their ships.

So, Zeus has now shifted the momentum of the battle, and nīkē ‘victory’ has gone over to the side of the Achaeans.

The victory that Zeus is now making possible for the Achaeans is compared here to a storm that is stirred up by the god.

The momentum of Hector’s chariot, as he is driving away from the ships, is compared to the flooding caused by a violent rainstorm stirred up by Zeus against the unrighteous. Since Patroklos had effectively ‘quenched’ the fire that had threatened the beached ships of the Achaeans, I.16.293, the comparing of his success against the fleeing Trojans to a cataclysmic rainstorm stirred up by Zeus is all the more appropriate.

In this context, the localized meaning of dēmos in the sense of ‘district’ is still overt.

The description here of an impending funeral and entombment for Sarpedon is replete with references to hero cult. Some of these references, as we will now see in detail, indicate that the cult hero is destined to be immortalized after death.

The symmetry of personified Sleep and personified Death here is comparable to Homeric attestations of parallel syntax for describing explicitly an awakening after sleep and implicitly a revival after death in scenarios for the immortalization of a cult hero.

In this context, the localized meaning of dēmos in the sense of ‘district’ is still overt.

These two verses, repeated at I.16.674–675 and foreshadowed by three verses at I.07.084–086 containing an indirect reference to the funeral and entombment of Achilles, refer to the funeral and entombment of Sarpedon in his role as a cult hero. Here I give an epitome of a far more detailed argumentation in Nagy 2012:60–69. In terms of hero cult, the wording that refers here at I.16.456–457 to a funeral and an entombment implies a ritual preparing of the dead body for a mystical revival after death. The word that refers to such immortalization in these Homeric passages is tarkhuein (ταρχύσουσι), at I.07.085, I.16.456, I.16.674. It can be argued that this Greek word tarkhuein, which I translate here neutrally as ‘ritually prepare’, is a borrowing from the Anatolian language that we know as Lycian, and that the corresponding Lycian word conveys the idea of ‘immortalize’. The most relevant forms in the surviving corpus of Anatolian linguistic evidence are (1) Lycian Trqqñt-, name of a Lycian thunder god; (2) the cognate Luvian form Tarḫunt-, name of the thunder god who is head of the Luvian pantheon; (3) the cognate Hittite form tarḫu-/tar(r)uḫ- (/tarxw-/), a verb meaning ‘be victorious, overcome’. Cognates of this Hittite verb tarḫu- in other Indo-European languages convey the idea of ‘overcome’ or ‘transcend’ in contexts where the object of transcendence is death itself (GMP 139). An example is the Greek compound noun nek-tar (νέκταρ), consisting of roots meaning ‘death’ (nek- as in nekros ‘corpse’) and ‘conquer’ (-tar, cognate with Hittite tarḫu-). I argue that the Lycian and the Luvian names of the thunder god convey the idea of revivifying as well as overcoming, since thunder gods as described in Indo-European languages have the power to use their thunder weapons not only to overcome violently their enemies but also to preserve and thus make sacred their own devotees—and even to revivify them (GMP 197; see also GMP 132–134).

In the first round of this duel of Patroklos and Sarpedon as chariot fighters, Patroklos is the first to aim his spear at Sarpedon, and then Sarpedon in turn aims at Patroklos, I.16.462–469. Here is what happens in these verses. First, Patroklos misses, hitting Thrasymelos, the therapōn of Sarpedon. So, the chariot driver as therapōn “takes the hit” for the chariot fighter, fulfilling his role as a ritual substitute. Then, Sarpedon misses hitting Sarpedon with his spear, hitting instead Pedasos the mortal horse of Achilles.

In this context, the localized meaning of dēmos in the sense of ‘district’ is still overt.

The Trojans experience collective penthos ‘grief’, I.16.548, over the death of Sarpedon. On the collective aspects of penthos ‘grief’ see the comment on I.04.197. On collective akhos ‘grief’, see the comment on I.01.407–412 and on I.01.509.

See anchor comment at I.05.077–078.

Before the duel of Patroklos and Hector as chariot fighters begins, the momentum is with Patroklos, and he is marked as the therapōn of Achilles in this context. His role as a ritual substitute is only implicit here.

We see here further indications of Sarpedon’s impending immortalization: Apollo anoints the hero’s body with ambrosiē ‘immortalizing substance’ and clothes him in vestments that are ambrota ‘immortalizing’.

See the comment on I.16.454–455.

See the comment on I.16.455.

See the comment on I.16.456–457.

See the comment on I.16.670.

See the comment on I.16.454–455.

See the comment on I.16.455.

At I.16.685, Patroklos experiences a personal atē ‘aberration’, as expressed by way of the verb aâsthai ‘veer off-course’.

Patroklos confronts Apollo four times and then backs off, thus avoiding the mēnis ‘anger’ of the god, I.16.711. At the moment of his climactic fourth confrontation with Apollo, Patroklos is described as daimoni isos ‘equal to a daimōn’, I.16.705. The ‘superhuman force’ to which this word daimōn refers here can be understood to be Apollo himself. We see here a climactic moment in a pattern of divine-human antagonism that links the god Apollo with the hero Achilles, but Patroklos can now take upon himself the role of a ritual substitute for Achilles.

We see at I.16.722 a wish that is predicated on confidence in some specific certainty: αἴθ ὅσον ἥσσων εἰμί, τόσον σέο φέρτερος εἴην ‘If only I could be superior to you—as surely as I am that much inferior to you!’ On the syntax of such wishes, see the comment on I.18.464–466. In this case, however, the predicated certainty is falsified, since the speaker is Apollo disguised as Hector’s uncle, and the god is of course superior rather than inferior to Hector. Here I epitomize the analysis in GMP 300. Apollo now says, in the guise of Hector’s uncle: if you were that much inferior, then you would retreat in battle, I.16.723. But, since Hector is supposedly that much superior to his uncle, he is of course expected not to retreat. What is hidden in these comparisons is the relative stature of the god himself: the uncle is to Hector as Hector is to Apollo. From the standpoint of Hector, the premise in Apollo’s use of the idiom is reality: the uncle is inferior to Hector. Here I repeat the wording of I.16.722: αἴθ ὅσον ἥσσων εἰμί, τόσον σέο φέρτερος εἴην ‘If only I could be superior to you—as surely as I am that much inferior to you!’ From the standpoint of Apollo and the framing narrative, however, the premise is false: Apollo is superior, not inferior, to Hector. Therefore the wish that is based on the premise is augmented: the ‘that much’ of ‘let me be that much superior to you’ is immeasurably more than Hektor might think.

Here the word means ‘ash tree’; elsewhere, as we saw in the comment on I.16.140–144, it means ‘ash spear’, I.16.143.

Patroklos has reached the point where he is about to die by way of Apollo’s direct intervention. At this point, I.16.784, he is described as atalantos Arēï ‘equal to Ares’. But this hero’s death is more complex, as we will see in the comment on I.16.786–804.

Patroklos confronts Apollo four times and then, the fourth time around, he fails to back off as he had backed off in the previous confrontation at I.16.705–711. In the course of that previous confrontation, Patroklos had thus avoided the mēnis ‘anger’ of the god, I.16.711. But now he will fail to avoid the god’s anger. At the moment of his climactic fourth confrontation with Apollo, Patroklos is once again described as daimoni isos ‘equal to a daimōn’, I.16.786, just as he had been described in the previous confrontation I.16.705. And, once again, the ‘superhuman force’ to which this word daimōn refers here at I.16.786 can be understood to be Apollo himself. As earlier, we see here a climactic moment in a pattern of divine-human antagonism that links the god Apollo with the hero Achilles, and Patroklos will now take upon himself the role of a ritual substitute for Achilles. In this role, Patroklos is not only daimoni īsos ‘equal to a superhuman force [daimōn] at I.16.786: he is also atalantos Arēï ‘equal to Ares’, I.16.784. See the comment above on I.16.784. As a warrior, Patroklos is matched with Ares as the god of war. As a ritual substitute of Achilles, however, he is also matched with Apollo as the divine antagonist of Achilles.

At this climactic moment of the hero’s death, the Master Narrator addresses Patroklos in the second person. Such poetic conventions reflect a phase of epic poetry when it was not yet fully differentiated from praise poetry.

As Apollo strips away the protective armor from the body of Patroklos, piece by piece, the hero is being prepared for his ritualized death. At this moment, Patroklos is possessed by atē ‘aberration’, I.16.805.

Patroklos is now gumnos ‘stripped’ of all his armor, ready to be killed. While he was still wearing the armor, he would have been been invulnerable. At a later point, after Hector has already taken possession of this armor and is now seen wearing it, I.17.194, the adjective ambrota ‘immortalizing’ is applied to these teukhea ‘arms’. This adjective ambroto- ‘immortalizing’ is applied to words that make the hero immune to death.

The nīkē ‘victory’ of Hector over Patrokos was granted, says Patroklos, by Zeus and Apollo. In most Homeric contexts, nīkē ‘victory’ is ordinarily granted by Zeus alone.

The psūkhē ‘spirit’ of Patroklos leaves him at the precise moment of his death. Here we see the most basic Homeric way of visualizing the psychology, as it were, of dying.

After having just killed Patroklos, Hector goes after Automedon, who is evidently still standing on the platform of the chariot and who is marked here as the therapōn of Achilles. Hector takes aim with his spear, but he misses hitting Automedon, who drives off with the chariot, I.16.864–867. Automedon here is no ritual substitute for Patroklos, nor is he now a ritual substitute for Achilles, since Patroklos has just now fulfilled that role by getting killed instead of Achilles.

Ajax makes another strategic partial withdrawal, I.16.122. For an earlier reference to Ajax in the act of withdrawing, see I.15.727–732 and the comment on I.15.704–746. Meanwhile a fiery missile lands on one of the beached ships of the Achaeans, I.16.122–123, and a phlox ‘burst of flame’ envelops the prumnē ‘stern’ of that ship, I.16.123–124. As we know from earlier references to this ship, it had belonged to Protesilaos: see the comment on I.15.704–746. Achilles sees that the beached ship is on fire, and he now urges Patroklos to arm himself and go off to defend the ships from the fire.

See also the comment on I.13.688.

Hector and Ajax are struggling one-on-one with each other here: Hector is trying to set on fire the ship that Ajax is protecting from the fire. No clear outcome of the struggle is as yet visible.

analysis of different interpretations of I.16.060-065 (whether Achilles is giving up his mēnis or not, etc.), comparison with the conditions Achilles sets specifies at I.09.650-653

analysis of Achilles’ intentions in sending Patroklos out to fight in his own armor, giving up his mēnis and identification with Patroklos

analysis of Achilles’ intentions in sending Patroklos out to fight in his own armor, giving up his mēnis and identification with Patroklos

analysis of mēnis as a tabu deformation and here specifically an example the relaxation of the speech tabu

analysis of the development of the meaning of Latin spendō, in the context of analyzing the development of uoueō/eukhesthai

in a list of examples of Homeric prayers, in the context of analyzing the meaning of eukhesthai in formula (A) and here specifically the Homeric notion of prayer

analysis of kluein + eukhesthai formulas (here, examples of absolute eukhesthai)

in a list of examples of absolute use of eukhesthai to report prayers (kluein + eukhesthai formulas)

example of a transformation parallel to that of formula (A) to formula (B), where eukhomenos is deleted because of the change of context from sacral to secular [MRBTP: 'ff']

analysis of mēnis in Patroklos’ aristeia

analysis of Achilles’ intentions in sending Patroklos out to fight in his own armor, giving up his mēnis and identification with Patroklos

in a list of examples of Homeric prayers, in the context of analyzing the meaning of eukhesthai in formula (A) and here specifically the Homeric notion of prayer

switch from Dii patri to Dii t’alloisin te theoisin, in the context of analyzing Allen’s text at I.08.526 vs. Zenodotus’s version of the verse

in a list of examples of eukhesthai + dative (formulas which report prayers)

analysis of the formulas with the three places where eukhesthai + dative has the shape eukh ˘ ˘ – [=short short long], as in this verse

in the discussion of the rationale of the classification of the attestations of eukhesthai + dative

analysis of the traditionality of the collocation of eukhesthai and spendein

comparison of the themes in Iliad 1 with this speech, the continuity of Achilles’ goals from Iliad 1 to here and the identity and solidarity of Achilles and Myrmidons

comparison of the themes in Iliad 1 with this speech, the continuity of Achilles’ goals from Iliad 1 to here and the identity and solidarity of Achilles and Myrmidons

comparison of the themes in Iliad 1 with this speech, the continuity of Achilles’ goals from Iliad 1 to here and the identity and solidarity of Achilles and Myrmidons

analysis of Phoenix’ speech to Achilles and atē leading to mēnis

the significance/purpose of Patroklos’ return to fighting (analysis of Nestor’s and Patroklos’ intentions in the latter’s wearing Achilles’ armor, and Achilles’ intentions in sending Patroklos out to fight in his own armor, giving up his mēnis and identification with Patroklos)

analysis of themistes and their violation as provoking mēnis from Zeus on the whole community

contra Chantraine’s claim that the passage is consistent with Hesiodic religious ideas and therefore not genuinely Homeric

contra Benveniste’s claim that themis concerns genos and dikē is inter-familial, as evidenced by this passage

analysis of eukhesthai in its concrete sense ‘say a prayer’ with the adverb megala, in the context of postulating ‘say (in a functionally marked context)’ as antecedent of ‘pray’ (eukhesthai in sacral contexts)

analysis of philotēs and timē going together with this passage as an example

Apollo’s name-epithet formulas which have the same metrical shape as the divine names in the dative in the eukhomai + dative formulas, but which are not used in this system because, unlike the others, they begin with a vowel (here, words occurring before Apollo’s two dative formulas that always end with a consonant)

classification and analysis of attestations of eukhesthai + (aorist) infinitive

analysis of kluein + eukhesthai formulas, here, with akouein instead of kluein, and formulas with akouein as formally related to eukhomenos || toud’ eklue (= formula A)

in a list of examples of absolute use of eukhesthai to report prayers (kluein + eukhesthai formulas)

examples of the identical contexts in which eukhos and kudos occur

this verse as signaling that it is becoming a fixed whole-line formula (cp. I.05.654, I.11.445)

in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos, and analysis of the instance of eukhos in which kudos could fit the metric as well (as in this verse)

analysis of mēnis in Patroklos’ aristeia

analysis of mēnis in Patroklos’ aristeia

analysis of the formula daimoni isos used of heroes in their aristeia only, and in the context of hero-god antagonism

analysis of mēnis in Patroklos’ aristeia

the diction associated with mēnis, here aleuein

in the list of offenses that (threaten to) incur mēnis

in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos

comparison of Patroklos in his aristeia with Ares (e.g with regard to reaching or crossing the limit, being teikhesiplēta)

analysis of the formula daimoni isos used of heroes in their aristeia only, and in the context of hero-god antagonism

analysis of the identification of Patroklos with Achilles, here Patroklos’ being addressed in the second person by the narrator and the special sympathy and philotēs that indicates

analysis of Patroklos’ undoing after his fourth, tabu assault

analysis of Patroklos’ undoing after his fourth, tabu assault

analysis of Patroklos’ undoing after his fourth, tabu assault

in a list of usages contextually parallel to the death-eukhesthai usage

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

The pukinon epos is language one can personally "keep"—or fail to keep, as is the case when Patroklos forgets Achilles' personal warning (16.686-87): "If he had guarded the epos of the son of Peleus, he would have fled the evil fate of black death." In this function, epea are often spoken by women, a convention that appears to be canonical in the deployment of the phrase epos t'ephat' ek t'onomaze (Martin 1993:38).

Hektor's words to the dying Patroklos are introduced as a boast (epeukhomenos, 16.829) and with the winged-words formula. They contain an embedded directive—Hektor's rendition of what he imagined Achilles to have commanded—but their directive force comes from Hektor's description a few lines before that "quotation": "Here the vultures will eat you." Although this is cast as a prediction, the sentence conveys what Hektor wants to happen to the corpse of his enemy.

It is not unlikely that the regular employment of the formula—usually introducing friendly, same-side directives between just two speakers—carried with it an implicit tone of voice and volume. Such speeches could properly be performed by a poet in a stage whisper, or with an intimate low modulation. If this same auditory effect was produced by Homer as he imitated Achilles' or Hektor's voice in the speeches we have just noted, the audience, recalling the more common employment, would hear the intimate voice of violence (Martin 1993:33).

The powerful muthos performed by Achilles as he marshals the Myrmidons begins with an injunction to recall their previous threats (apeilai) against the Trojans: "Myrmidons, let no one forget on me the threats with which you threatened the Trojans at the ships all during the time of anger" (16.200-201). Although Achilles mentions threats, he does so not to threaten anyone himself but to challenge the Myrmidons—a strategy of recalling past speech-acts to shame the present hearers into action, already displayed by Nestor early in the poem (2.349). Achilles' challenge is the more effective because he not only recalls one speech-act but uses a direct quotation to mimic another, one the Myrmidons had employed, and then dismisses these earlier grumbling speeches as mere talk (ebazete, 16.207). In familiar flyting fashion, he contrasts "then" with "now": the Myrmidons used to talk of going home because Achilles was angered, "but now has appeared the great work of strife, of which you were previously enamored" (16.207-8) (Martin 1993:71-72).

For the broader analysis of the flyting genre and the recalled-speech strategy, see the comment on Iliad 4.336-421.

References

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

The exchange between Hektor and Meriones at 16.617-21 and Patroklos' words to Meriones at 16.627-31 illustrate a paradox inherent in the flyting genre. Meriones responds to Hektor's flyting words by capping Hektor's lines exactly: where Hektor says "My spear would have stopped you... dancer though you are," Meriones replies "It is hard for you to quench the strength of all... strong though you are." The latter mimics Hektor's style down to the coincidence of metrical segment and subordinate clause at line-end. Meriones has performed a poetic coup. Although Patroklos halts this neikos by reference to the lesser importance of extended speech, his own warning is itself a finished performance with a polished gnomic chiasmus, "For in hands is the end of war, of words in the council" (16.630), and a juxtaposition marked by alliteration: "Therefore it is not necessary to increase the muthos, but to fight (makhesthai)" (16.631). Flyting by its very nature leads to the enactment of a performance with a focus on style, even more so than in the genre of commands (Martin 1993:76-77).

For the broader analysis of the flyting genre, see the comment on Iliad 4.336-421.

References

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