The comments I offered in Classical Inquiries 2016-2017 on Iliad Rhapsody 1 through Rhapsody 24, starting here with Rhapsody 1, were based mostly on details that derive from seven books that I indicate in the Bibliography by way of these abbreviations: BA, GMP, H24H, HC, HPC, HQ, HR, MoM, PasP, PH. Each one of these books has its own index locorum. My colleague Anita Nikkanen, an Associate Editor for the online project A Homer commentary in progress, tracked the sequences of Homeric verses as listed in the indices for six of these books and then summarized my comments on those verses. Following up on her meticulous work, I am in the process of converting her summaries into a form of commentary that is being incorporated into AHCIP. My comments on the Iliad as I presented them in Classical Inquiries 2016-2017 are merely samplings of the content that I hope to contribute to the overall commentary, to which a number of other colleagues are also contributing their own comments. That said, I now proceed to offer a sampling of comments on Rhapsody 1. At this point, my comments about this beginning of beginnings need no further introduction of their own.

📷

“The Rage of Achilles,” by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, 1757, [public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

The words spoken by Kalkhas the seer here at I.01.074–083 indicate three different kinds of anger: mēnis at I.01.075, kholos at I.01.081, and kotos at I.01.082. In the case of mēnis, it is a kind of “cosmic sanction”: I cite the definitive work of Muellner 1996, especially ch.1. As for kholos, it is a kind of explosive anger that is generally instantaneous, as opposed to kotos, which is an anger that is timed to go off only in the fullness of time, when the course of events in the narration has come to fulfillment, as expressed here at I.01.082 by way of the verb teleîn ‘come to fulfillment’. On kotos in particular and on kholos in general, see Walsh 2013, especially ch. 1, where he analyzes the wording of the seer here at I.01.074–083 as a kind of “folk definition” for all three of the different kinds of anger mentioned in this passage.

When the hero Achilles swears by the god Apollo, he marks himself as a Doppelgänger of the god. (I use here the word Doppelgänger, borrowed from German, in line with standard definitions found in English-language dictionaries.)

The meaning of eukhesthai as ‘declare’ has to do with speaking for the record in the form of ‘boasting’ or ‘praying’ or ‘juridically declaring’ (Muellner 1976). The question of who is the ‘best of the Achaeans’ is being contested here.

Before the hero Achilles ever felt mēnis ‘anger’, the god Apollo already felt mēnis, and it was the god’s anger that ultimately led to the hero’s anger. Relevant are the words akhos ‘grief’ and algea ‘pains’, which are used in equivalent contexts.

The paragraph that follows is meant to illustrate, for those who are reading the Iliad for the first time, the kinds of textual variations that we find in the manuscript tradition.

Iliad 1.97 οὐδ’ ὅ γε πρὶν λοιμοῖο βαρείας χεῖρας ἀφέξει Iliad 1.97 variant οὐδ’ ὅ γε πρὶν Δαναοῖσιν ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἀπώσει The verse as we see it in our base text shows a reading that matches what we read in the majority of medieval manuscripts. Such a majority of medieval manuscript readings is conventionally known as Ω. The manuscript known as Venetus A is among the Ω manuscripts that shows this reading in its base text. But there is also a variant of this verse, which I call “Iliad 1.97 variant,” and this variant verse shows the variant wording Δαναοῖσιν ἀεικέα λοιγὸν ἀπώσει instead of λοιμοῖο βαρείας χεῖρας ἀφέξει. In the Venetus A, this variant wording is actually written out in the space between the Iliadic text and the text of the marginal scholia. The scholia found in that space are known as the text scholia. And the text scholia in this case add a comment after quoting the variant wording: οὕτως αἱ ᾿Αριστάρχου ‘this is the way the (two) manuscripts of Aristarchus (have it)’. Also, in the marginal scholia of the Venetus A, we read a summary of the reportage of Didymus, who says that Aristarchus, in a treatise that he produced in response to one Komanos, preferred the reading of the Iliad 1.97 variant. And Aristarchus found the same variant in the manuscript of Rhianos and in the Massaliotike. As for Didymus himself, he found the reading of the Iliad 1.97 variant in ‘the (two) manuscripts of Aristarchus’, to which he frequently refers. It can be shown that these two manuscripts used by Didymus had base texts that no longer matched the original base text of Aristarchus, who flourished about 150 years before Didymus (and Aristonicus). Didymus remarks that the other reading that he knows, which is what we read as Iliad 1.97, must have been the reading in the text of Zenodotus. The way that Didymus says this makes me think that he did not have access to the original base text of Aristarchus. The reading that we read in our base text is also given by van Thiel in the base text of his edition of the Iliad. By contrast with van Thiel, Allen and other modern editors give the reading “Iliad 1.97 variant” in their base texts. They do so even though Aristarchus in his base text must have given the same reading that we give in our base text. GN 2010.02.20, updated 2016.02.05.

The words akhos ‘grief’ and algea ‘pains’ are used in equivalent contexts.

commentary on kholos and kotos in opposition to mēnis, in the context of criticism of Considine

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

\r\nAnomaly of the formula in this verse, namely, the complement to eukhomai is not a noun (e.g. name of divinity) but a pronoun.

argument for the contextual unity of eukhesthai einai + comparative/superlative expressions regarding superiority in age on the one hand and prestige, physical prowess and physical beauty on the other (secular contexts)

In a list of examples of eukhesthai einai + comparative/superlative (secular contexts).

\r\nArgument for the contextual unity of eukhesthai einai + comparative/superlative expressions regarding superiority in age on the one hand and prestige, physical prowess and physical beauty on the other (secular contexts)

\r\nComparison 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

apoina as object of dekhesthai, in the context of analyzing I.18.499-500 (litigation scene on the Shield), and Corlu, Benveniste, and Chantraine

commentary on the similarities between Demeter’s and Achilles’ alienation over the loss of a girl

commentary on ‘gracious’ in the context of appeasing Apollo’s mēnis through ritual

apoina as object of dekhesthai, in the context of analyzing I.18.499-500 (litigation scene on the Shield), and Corlu, Benveniste, and Chantraine

commentary on Agamemnon’s mistake about the exchange value of Chryses

commentary on Agamemnon’s mistake about the exchange value of Chryses