Homer Iliad 2.734

A. T. Murray (Translator)

Iliad. Homer. A. T. Murray (Translator). London. 1924-1925.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.

Current edition Perseus

Iliad (English) (Homer. The Iliad, Volume 1-2. Murray, A. T. (Augustus Taber), translator. London: William Heinmann; New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1924-1925.)

Editions (1)
Ἰλιάς Perseus (Homer. Homeri Opera, Volumes 1-2. Monro, D. B. (David Binning), editor; Allen, Thomas W. (Thomas William), editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908-1920.) — 2.734 focus
Translations (8)
Iliad Perseus (Homer. The Iliad of Homer, rendered into English prose for the use of those who cannot read the original. Butler, Samuel, 1835-1902, translator. London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1898.) — 2.720 focus
English (Butler, rev. Nagy et al., 2020) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Butler, rev. Nagy et al., 2020)) — 2.734 focus
The men, moreover, of Ormenios, and by the fountain of Hypereia, [735] with those that held Asterios, and the white crests of Titanos, these were led by Eurypylos, the shining son of Euaimon, and with them there came forty ships.
English (William Cullen Bryant, 1870) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (William Cullen Bryant, 1870)) — 2.734 focus
English (Alexander Pope, 1720, ed. Watson, 1857) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Alexander Pope, 1720, ed. Watson, 1857)) — 2.734 focus
The bold Ormenian and Asterian bands
In forty barks Eurypylus commands,
Where Titan hides his hoary head in snow,
And where Hyperia's silver fountains flow.
895
English (Thomas Hobbes, 1667, ed. Molesworth 1843) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Thomas Hobbes, 1667, ed. Molesworth 1843)) — 2.734 focus
English (George Chapman, 1611, ed. Hooper 1857) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (George Chapman, 1611, ed. Hooper 1857)) — 2.734 focus
English (William Cowper, 1791, ed. Southey) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (William Cowper, 1791, ed. Southey)) — 2.734 focus
English (F. W. Newman, 1856) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (F. W. Newman, 1856)) — 2 focus

New Alexandria Commentaries

Douglas Frame

analysis of the location of the Ainianes and the Perrhaiboi in the Iliad and the Hom. Hymn to Apollo

source

comparison of Strabo and Homer on the waters of Peneios and Titaresios not mixing

source

discussion of the singularity of the Athenian entry in the Catalogue of Ships and comparison with other entries (here, Boeotia)

source

attitude towards females in the chariot race compared with that of the role of female in the failure of Agamemnon’s (and Menelaus’) nostos

source
Gregory Nagy

The narrative of Rhapsody 2 now follows up on the dire consequences of the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon as narrated in Rhapsody 1. Achilles has already withdrawn from the war because of his anger. So, now that this greatest hero of the Achaeans is out of the picture, what will happen next? How will the absence of Achilles affect the story of the Trojan War? Many new doubts and fears set in, and the resolve of the Achaeans is harshly tested. There is negative talk, and there are omens. Thus the story of the Trojan War, as told and retold countless times in the distant past, must now be retold yet again, and Rhapsody 2 will set the terms for the retelling still to come. For setting the terms, Rhapsody 2 will need a new Catalogue of Ships, now happening in the tenth year of the war, as a replacement for any old Catalogue that would have logically happened already in the first year. This new Catalogue is of course not really new: rather, it is the oldest possible Catalogue that is now being renewed for the newest possible retelling of the Trojan War, reconsidered in the glaring light of the grim consequences facing the Achaeans now that Achilles has withdrawn from the war. With these consequences in view, the Catalogue will reassess all the Achaean heroes involved in the Trojan War. Of special interest will be the role of Protesilaos, who had been the first Achaean to die in the war, as a model for Achilles. As the Master Narrator notes most ruefully, Protesilaos is now terribly missed by his fellow warriors. So too will Achilles be missed.

draft js image errorOn the reverse side of the coin: Inscription: ΘΗΒΑΙΩΝ. Pictured: the Greek hero Protesilaos, the first Achaean to step on Trojan soil and, according to the myth, the first to die in the Trojan War. The myth is retold in Iliad 2.695–709.

source

See anchor comment at I.12.188.

source

The Master Narrator addresses here a singular Muse: see the comment on I.02.761. The Muse is asked for an answer to the Iliadic question: who is the ‘best of the Achaeans’? The answer of the Muse is that Achilles is the best—and that Ajax is the second-best within the framework of the Iliad. The formulation of the Muse’s answer is an exquisite exercise in ring-composition.

source

Unlike what we see at I.02.484, Ι.11.218, I.14.508, I.16.112, where the Muses are invoked as plural goddesses, the Muse here at I.02.761 is invoked as a singular goddess. And the Muse is of course singular also at the beginning of the Iliad, I.01.001, and at the beginning of the Odyssey, O.01.001. There are also two other cases where a singular Muse is invoked:

A) In the First Song of Demodokos, O.08.73–82, which is featured as a proto-Iliad (see the comment at O.08.073-082), a singular Muse inspires the singer of tales at the beginning of his performance, at O.08.073. I think that the self-awareness at I.02.761 in invoking a singular Muse has to do with the singularity of the subject at I.02.760–770, since the subject in this case is Achilles. The Muse is asked for an answer to the Iliadic question: who is the ‘best of the Achaeans’? The answer of the Muse is that Achilles is the best. He is the singularity of the Iliad as epic, just as Odysseus is the singularity of the Odyssey as epic. That is why, I propose, the singular Muse here is the goddess Calliope. She is the perfect singularity of a Muse for these notionally singular heroes of two singularly important epics. After all, Calliope is the Muse of Epic. I refer here to my relevant arguments in Homer the Preclassic E[pilegomena] §109 (p. 345) about Calliope as the Muse of kings (Hesiod Theogony 79–93). Similarly, as I argue there, Orpheus was once the singular poet of kings, but his status was degraded in the Athenian phase of Homeric reception.

B) In the Third Song of Demodokos, O.08.499–533, when the singer of tales marks the beginning of his performance at O.08.499, the anonymous ‘divinity’ that he invokes at that point is a theos, in the singular. Short-term, this theos ‘divinity’ can be understood to be either Apollo or ‘the Muse’, as the disguised Odysseus himself remarks at O.08.488. Long-term, however, Apollo and the Muses are surrogates here for Zeus himself, who at O.13.025 is finally identified as the transcendent source of inspiration for the singing of Demodokos. The figuring of Zeus as such a transcendent source was traditionally considered to be a signature, as it were, of ‘Homer’ himself, as we read in the reference at Pindar Nemean 2.1–3 to the Homēridai, a guild of singers from Chios who claimed, as ‘descendants of Homer’, to be the legitimate transmitters of ‘Homer’ as their poetic ancestor. An example of such a reference is the wording at the very beginning of Pindar Nemean 2.1–3: ὅθεν περ καὶ Ὁμηρίδαι | ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων τὰ πόλλ᾿ ἀοιδοί | ἄρχονται, Διὸς ἐκ προοιμίου ‘(starting) from the point where [hothen] the Homēridai, singers, most of the time [ta polla] begin [arkhesthai] their stitched-together words, from the prelude [prooimion] of Zeus …’.

source

Unlike what we see at I.02.484 above, where the Muses are invoked as plural goddesses, the Muse here at I.02.761 is invoked as a singular goddess, as already at I.01.001. See the anchor comment below.

source
Richard Martin

Homer's request to the Muse at 2.761—"Who, then, was by far best—Muse, narrate to me (su moi ennepe Mousa)"—uses the verb ennepe, whose semantics have been described by Ernst Risch as referring to formal and artful reporting. This places the verb within the sphere of meanings associated with muthos and the verb mutheomai throughout the poem. The formulaic evidence confirms this: whenever a word describing speech is made the explicit object of ennepo, that word is muthos. Consider the expressions muthon enispes (11.186), ennepe muthon (8.412), muthon enispo (11.839), all naming commands, and muthoisin terponto pros allēlous enepontes (11.643), referring to the stories that Nestor and Makhaon exchange. Homeric poetry is therefore a muthos, specifically an act that can be classified as a feat of memory—the third heroic genre of discourse, and Achilles' specialty (Martin 1993:237-38).

Because the diction of Homer frames the poems in this way, the Iliad can be viewed as we do the speech-acts of the tellers within the tale: this is poetry meant to persuade, enacted in public, created by authority, in a context where authority is always up for grabs and to be won by the speaker with the best style. Most important is the further implication: that Homeric muthos is inherently antagonistic, and that the poet, like Diomedes in his contest with Glaukos, invents incident to overpower opposing versions. The poet of the Iliad, as an enacter of a muthos, must by this implication be a poet against others, out to obliterate their performances by speaking in more detail, about more topics—in short, in a more monumental fashion than any other epic performer. Achilles is the poet's voice and his emblem, a heroic speaker who outdoes others in style. I submit that the Iliad, a poem about contest, was created for a contest, of the type described in a number of texts, both in other traditions and in Greek from Hesiod to Corinna (Martin 1993:238).

For the comparative evidence regarding the poet's identification with his hero, see the comment on Iliad 9.182-198. For the analysis of Achilles' rhetoric as both model and emblem for Homer's composition, see the comment on Iliad 2.488-492.

References

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

source