Iliad. Homer. ed. Robert Southey. London. 1847.
Sponsored by Tufts University.
Iliad. Homer. ed. Robert Southey. London. 1847.
Sponsored by Tufts University.
English (William Cowper, 1791, ed. Southey) (OCR draft) (English) (English (William Cowper, 1791, ed. Southey))
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
analysis of Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus at Athens, and here, of this passage as suggesting an association of them in cult on the Trojan acropolis
analysis of the relation of the goddess and her image in the context of analyzing the statue of Athena on the Athenian acropolis (with this passage from Iliad as an illustration)
analysis of Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus at Athens, and here, of this passage as suggesting an association of them in cult on the Trojan acropolis
analysis of the relationship between Athena’s peplos described in the Iliad and the name of the giant slayed by Athena
analysis of Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus at Athens, and here, of this passage as suggesting an association of them in cult on the Trojan acropolis
analysis of the statue of Athena on the Athenian acropolis with the passage from Iliad as an illustration
in the context of discussing ērato and Arētē
analysis of Arete’s pose as evidence for the pose of the statue of Athena Polias in Athens
analysis of the relation of the goddess and her image in the context of analyzing the statue of Athena on the Athenian acropolis (with this passage from Iliad as an illustration)
A high point here in Rhapsody 6 is a tearful scene of farewell for Andromache and Hector. The loving wife will never again see her husband alive. The scene is justly admired for its artistic portrayal of this tragically doomed couple, but the verbal artistry extends even further: also to be most admired here is the remarkable precision of poetic language in representing lament as it was actually performed in ancient Greek song culture.
Apulian red-figure column-crater (ca. 370–360 BCE) depicting an intimate family scene: Hector removes his helmet as he says his final farewell to his wife Andromache and to their child Astyanax. Public domain image by Jastrow via Wikimieda Commons
The singular noun patēr ‘father’ has an elliptic meaning in the plural: pateres in the sense of ‘ancestors’. The “speaking name” (nomen loquens) of Patroklos, Patrokleēs, means ‘he who has the glory [kleos] of the ancestors [pateres]’. See the comment on I.01.345.
The pair geneē/genos can be analyzed as marked/unmarked members of a semantic opposition: whereas geneē as at I.06.211 here refers specifically to ‘immediate paternal lineage’, genos as at I.06.209 refers only generally to ‘paternal lineage’.
Hector is telling Hecuba what to do, which is, to offer a peplos ‘robe’ for Athena as the goddess of the citadel of Troy.
Hecuba goes ahead and does what she has been told to do, which is, to offer a peplos ‘robe’ for Athena as the goddess of the citadel of Troy. The repetition of ritual wording in the sequence of three passages—from I.06.090–093 to I.06.271–273 to I.06.286–296—will culminate in a master plan, as it were, for performing the ritual of presenting the peplos ‘robe’ to Athena as goddess of Troy. What has just been described as a “repetition,” however, needs to be explained further (HPC 268):
In this sequence of three passages [I.06.090–093 to I.06.271–273 to I.06.286–296], we see three consecutive restatements of the same ritual act. I say three restatements instead of one statement and two restatements because none of the three passages is basic, from the standpoint of traditional formulaic diction. Not one of the three passages is formulaically predictable on the basis of the other two passages. To put it another way, the variation that we find in the three passages shows that none of the three forms is formally prior to the other two. What priorities we find are purely a function of the narration, not of any chronological order in the composition of the three passages. In terms of oral poetics, such variation is a display of virtuosity in the art of composition in performance.
The general hostility of the divinity Athena toward the Trojans in this narrative sequence, despite the fact that the women of Troy are shown here in the act of formally worshipping her as the divine protector of their citadel, can be correlated with a pattern of personal hostility felt by the goddess toward Hector as a hero who aspires to some of the same roles that Athena herself exemplifies. In the case of the verses here, I.06.286–311, this goddess is worshipped in her role as protector of citadels under siege: that is why Theano as high priestess of Troy prays to Athena by invoking her as erusi-ptolis ‘protector of the citadel [p(t)olis]’ at I.06.305. Like the goddess, Hector can be seen as an exponent of defensive tactics in protecting a citadel from sieges: as we saw in the comment on I.05.473–474, even his name fits his intended role as the protector of the citadel of Troy, since Hék-tōr is an agent noun derived from the verb ekhein ‘hold’ in the specialized sense of ‘uphold’ or ‘protect’ or ‘guard’. In the context of I.05.473–474, the expected role of Hector is to protect the city of Troy, and the direct object of ekhein ‘uphold, protect, guard’ at I.05.473 is polis ‘city, citadel’, referring to Troy. But the tragedy is, Hector will fail in the role of protecting Troy, since he will abandon strategies of defending the city and will opt instead for staying on the offensive against an enemy that will ultimately capture Troy. And a key to his failure, as we will see in the course of the macro-narrative, is the fact that Athena herself will delude Hector into staying on the offensive until it is too late for him to revert to a defensive role. Such a pattern of antagonism between immortal and mortal, it can be argued, derives from the ideologies of hero cult.
comparison of the wording in Sappho 44 with that in the presentation of the peplos to Athena in I.06
lemmatizing: παμποίκιλοι vs. παμποίκιλα
There are variant stories about detours experienced by Helen after her abduction by Paris. A trip to Sidon in Phoenicia is one such variant story. Besides the verses of I.06.289–292, which represent a longer variant reading, I posit also a shorter variant featuring one verse only, I.06.289 minus I.06.290–292. In terms of such a one-verse variant, no detour of Helen is mentioned here, and the reading for the epithet describing the peploi ‘robes’ would then be pan-poikiloi = παμποίκιλοι instead of pan-poikila = παμποίκιλα. Both variants of this adjective pan-poikilo- mean ‘completely pattern-woven’. In terms of the longer variant, the peploi ‘robes’ stored in the chest were pattern-woven by Phoenician women; in terms of the posited shorter variant, by contrast, these robes presumably would have been pattern-woven by Trojan women or even by Helen. Herodotus (2.116.1–2.117.1) argued that the longer variant was truly Homeric in its grandeur, contrasting it with the shorter variant that he knew from the epic Cypria of his day. The historian treats the unaugmented story of a direct voyage of Paris and Helen from Sparta to Troy as a foil for the augmented story of their Phoenician detour. The poet of the unaugmented story, as Herodotus sees it, is a foil for Homer as the rightful poet of the augmented story.
The noun poikilma at I.06.294 refers to ‘pattern-weaving’ in a concrete and not an abstract sense: so, ‘pattern-woven thing’. The ‘pattern-woven things’ here are the peploi ‘robes’ described by the adjective pan-poikilo- ‘completely pattern-woven’ at I.06.289. These words pan-poikilos and poikilma, which refer to the peplos ‘robe’ that is being chosen for Athena, convey not only the general idea of variation, which is relevant to the variability of the wording that describes the ritual of presenting the peplos to Athena. More than that, they convey also the specific idea of pattern-weaving a picture into a fabric. Such a picture was pattern-woven into the Panathenaic Peplos of Athena. See the comment on I.05.734–735. The adjective pan-poikilos ‘completely pattern-woven’ is the epithet of the Panathenaic Peplos (scholia for Aristophanes Birds 827), and the noun poikilma designates the pattern-weaving of the charter myth of the Gigantomachy into the Panathenaic Peplos (Plato Euthyphro 6b-c).
With each repetition of the wording for the presentation of the peplos ‘robe’ to Athena as goddess of Troy—from I.06.090–093 to I.06.271–273 to I.06.286–296—the master plan seems to fit more and more the ritual of presenting a pattern-woven peplos ‘robe’ to Athena as goddess of Athens at the Athenian festival of the Panathenaia. On the Panathenaic Peplos, see again the comment on I.05.734–735; see also HPC 270. Looking back at the entire narrative sequence as analyzed here—I.06.090–093, I.06.271–273, I.06.286–296, I.06.297–310—I highlight two most salient visual details at Ι.06.297, namely, the citadel or acropolis of Troy and the temple on top of that acropolis. These two details correspond to the two most visible details distinguishing the city of Athens from most other cities. At work here is a process I describe as split referencing. The reference is split between Troy and Athens. The referent is both the prehistorical citadel of Troy and the historical citadel or acropolis of Athens. As for the narrative here at I.06.286-311 about the presentation of the peplos ‘robe’ to Athena, the peplos to be chosen is highlighted as the biggest of all the peploi (I.06.90, I.06.271, I.06.294). It is the peplos that is most ‘beautiful’ or kalon (I.06.294), with the most ‘pleasurable beauty’ or kharis (I.06.90, I.06.271). The size and the beauty of the fabric evoke a vision of the quadrennial Panathenaic Peplos, which is notionally the biggest and most beautiful of all imaginable peploi. As for the association of the word kharis ‘pleasurable beauty’ with the fabric, it is appropriate not only to the peplos that is being described but also to the medium that describes the peplos. That medium is Homeric poetry as performed at the quadrennial festival of the Panathenaia. The concept of kharis conveys the charisma of Homeric poetry as described by Homeric poetry. In terms of this description, the peplos in this narrative, I.06.286-311, can be seen as a metaphor for epic as performed at the Panathenaia. This epic is notionally the biggest and the most beautiful of all epics. Like the peplos that is being offered by the women to Athena, this epic as performed at the Panathenaia has more kharis than all other epics.
Hector quarrels with Paris, as signaled by the verb neikeîn ‘quarrel with’. He aims words of blame at Paris, and these words are aiskhra ‘disgraceful, shameful’ because they are meant to make Paris feel ashamed. Hector’s words are shaming, since he blames things done by Paris that are perceived as shameful and disgraceful.
Here at I.06.333 as also at I.03.059, Paris actually accepts the words of blame directed at him by his quarreling brother.
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']
analysis of the interconnections of death-eukhesthai and birth-eukhesthai speeches, with this one as an example of a hero’s saying the most significant facts about himself [MRBTP: 'ff']
in a list of examples of the functional relationship between eukhesthai and phanai (in the context of analyzing genos eukhesthai einai formulas)
example of an elaborated speech about one’s geneē (Glaukos), in the context of analyzing the more common short genos eukhesthai einai formulas
in a list of attestations of genos eukhesthai einai and its transformations
example of the pairing of question and answer regarding identity (between man and god) in Ancient Greek that matches the Avestan model
analysis of the interconnections of eukhesthai einai + place of birth/father’s name and eukhesthai einai + social relationship (xeinos/hiketēs), with this exchange between Glaukos and Diomedes as illustrating their both being identity statements with identical functions
analysis of the interconnections of eukhesthai einai + place of birth/father’s name and eukhesthai einai + social relationship (xeinos/hiketēs), with this exchange between Glaukos and Diomedes as illustrating their both being identity statements with identical functions
in a list of eukhesthai einai + social relationship (xeinos, hiketēs)
analysis of the interconnections of eukhesthai einai + place of birth/father’s name and eukhesthai einai + social relationship (xeinos/hiketēs), with this exchange between Glaukos and Diomedes as illustrating their both being identity statements with identical functions
in a list of attestations of eukhesthai + dative in sacral contexts, in the subcategory of anomalous attestations (isolated metrical shape and position of eukhesthai)
in the discussion of the rationale of the classification of the attestations of eukhesthai + dative
analysis of Herodotus’ concept of Homer and distinguishing him from the poet of the Cypria
the one attestation of potni’ Athēnaiē in Homer, in the context of the analysis of the development of Greek posis compared with Vedic pati-
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 and comparison of uoueō with eukhesthai
analysis of the attestations of eukhesthai + future infinitive, where eukhesthai has been translated as ‘vow’ rather than ‘pray’, and arguing that they are not significant transformations of the prayer structure
analysis of the formula (A), in which there is a series of variations in the verse as a totality, rather than its segments occurring as independent formulas
Paris’ motto (in the context of analyzing I.11.379)
The encounter between Glaukos and Diomedes in Book 6 is the turning point in Diomedes' education in performance, as that affects his speech to enemies (Martin 1993:126). Within the Iliad the process of learning a tradition and the growth of creative ability at performance is depicted through Diomedes. Had there been little other evidence, this depiction alone would encourage the imagination that the poet in such a medium composed as he performed. After this encounter, the hero delivers several quite good flyting attacks, against Dolon (10.369 and 10.446), Hektor (11.361), and Paris (11.384).
The demand to know Glaukos' genealogy makes sense in the context of flyting, since it gives the speaker a hold with which to throw his opponent. The implication of Diomedes' remark that Glaukos has not appeared before in "man-glorifying" battle is that Glaukos has no ability to be glorified; and the reference to the "boldness" of Glaukos has to be read with an eye to the negative connotations of "boldness" when a speaker's deeds do not authorize this. The apparent digression into the story of Dionysos furthers this strategy: scared women, a comforting mother-figure, a threatening male who engages in rough language—these figures in Diomedes' miniature dramatization of "myth" are in fact projections of the participants in the very muthos of flyting in which he is engaged. For Dionysos and the nurses, read Glaukos; for Lykourgos, Diomedes; and for Thetis, compare the women of Troy. Diomedes' myth, then, is a version of his victory, a wish fulfillment of the threatening physical encounter (Martin 1993:127-28).
Glaukos is not naive. His first strategy—to question the value of genealogy—contains the famous image of the "generations of leaves," but in the language of Homer, falling to the ground connotes the end of human as well as vegetal life: this is a coded threat. The invitation to learn Glaukos' genealogy from him also contains a veiled insult: the reply, "Many men know it" (6.151), implies that Diomedes, who professes not to, is unpracticed in feats of memory, an essential genre for the performing hero to perfect. Glaukos' tale of ancestry is thus not factual information but makes sense only in performance: it is a symbol in a game of dueling narratives, an act of self-presentation that attempts to wrest authority (Martin 1993:128-29).
Diomedes' second speech—how Oineus, his grandfather, played host to Bellerophon (6.215-31)—is the only passage in which such a "myth" of Oineus' meeting with Bellerophon is ever mentioned because Diomedes has just invented the "tradition" in order to force Glaukos into the socially correct ritual exchange. He speaks to win, and does. Zeus "took away the wits of Glaukos, who exchanged golden armor for bronze, 100-cows'-worth for that of nine" (6.234-36): Glaukos resembles Laomedon, involved as he is in a shamefully bad exchange; Diomedes is analogous to Sarpedon, since he induced his enemy to switch armor. Diomedes' creative expansion of "tradition" is at work; the mention of the theme by Glaukos opens a narrative chink at which Diomedes has thrust successfully (Martin 1993:129-30).
Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.