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 anonymous author of a Life of Homer (on the Lives of Homer, see the inventory of Words and Ideas), in Vita 1.517–537, argues that Homer, as the poet of the Iliad and Odyssey, was an Aioleús ‘Aeolian’, and, in making this argument, he cites among other facts the existence of the form pempṓbola (πεμπώβολα) in the expression here at I.01.463, ‘and the young men were getting ready for him [= the priest Chryses] the five-pronged-forks [pempṓbola] that they were holding in their hands’ (νέοι δὲ παρ’ αὐτὸν ἔχον πεμπώβολα χερσίν). The reasoning given by the author is this: the Aeolians, he says, are the only Greek-speaking people who roast the splánkhna ‘innards’ of a sacrificial animal by using forks that have five prongs instead of three. All other Greeks use three-prong forks. This argument, based on facts of culture, is combined here with an argument based on facts of language: the Aeolic word for ‘five’ is pémpe, as opposed to the Ionic word, which is pénte. So pempṓbola ‘five-prong forks’ must be an Aeolic and not an Ionic word. (On debates about the phonology and morphology of pempṓbola, see Nagy 2011b:173–174.) In highlighting the form pempṓbola ‘having five prongs’, the narrator of Vita 1 is making the point that ‘Homer’ as a speaker of Greek defaults to Aeolic usage when he speaks about customs that are most familiar to him, as in the case of the Aeolian custom of using five-prong forks instead of three-prong forks for roasting sacrificial meat at an animal sacrifice. In terms of such an argument, that is why ‘Homer’ uses the Aeolic dialectal form pémpe ‘five’ instead of the Ionic dialectal form pénte ‘five’. This argument, combining cultural and linguistic facts, can be seen as a metaphor for explaining a linguistic process, to be defined here as the “Aeolic default.” (See also under Aeolic default in the inventory of Words and Ideas.) In terms of such a definition, Homeric diction defaults to an Aeolic dialectal form, as here, in the absence of a corresponding Ionic dialectal form. (On Homeric diction, see the inventory of Words and Ideas.) In general, it is this linguistic process of the “Aeolic default” that generates the Aeolic component of Homeric diction. But this component, it is essential to keep in mind, is secondary to the Ionic component of Homeric diction, which is primary. To put it another way: the Ionic component of Homeric diction is dominant, while the Aeolic component is only recessive. Such a relationship of Ionic and Aeolic components is metaphorized in myths claiming that the birthplace of Homer was the city of Smyrna, which was originally Aeolian but then became Ionian. (For historical background on Smyrna, see under Aeolian Dodecapolis in the inventory of Words and Ideas.) In myths about Smyrna as Homer’s birthplace, the identity of Homer as a native of Aeolian Smyrna is superseded by the identity of Homer as a native of Ionian Smyrna. (See again under Aeolian Dodecapolis in the inventory of Words and Ideas.)

• In tags for Words and Ideas, I do not write out accents of transliterated Greek words. But I do write them out in the course of strictly linguistic discussions, as in the discussion here.

The word πεμπώβολα ‘having five prongs’ at Iliad Ι 463 belongs to the dialect family known as Aeolic, as distinct from the "default" language of Homeric poetry, which belongs to the dialect family known as Ionic. The part of this compound adjective that means ‘five’ is Aeolic πέμπε, to be contrasted with Ionic πέντε. In Aeolic, kʷ becomes π before ε, whereas it becοmes τ before ε in Ionic. Further commentary on pp. 173-175 of Nagy 2011, "The Aeolic Component of Homeric Diction," http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/4138 In that article, I cite an interesting remark in the “pseudo-Herodotean” Life of Homer, Vita 1.517–537. Toward the end of this passage, the author says: 'You see, the Aeolians are the only ones among the Greeks who roast the innards with forks that have five prongs [πεμπώβολα], while the other Greeks use forks that have three prongs. And of course the word that the Aeolians use for ‘five’ [pente] is pempe.'

From a purely linguistic point of view, an ‘Aeolian’ was whoever spoke a dialect known as Aeolic, which along with Ionic and Doric was a major dialectal grouping of the Greek language. From an anthropological point of view, however, there is more to it: as we see from such sources as Herodotus in the fifth century BCE, an Aioleús ‘Aeolian’ was whoever belonged to a social and cultural grouping of Greeks who distinguished themselves in their rituals and myths from other social and cultural groupings. Thus the Aioleîs ‘Aeolians’ were socially and culturally distinct from, say, the Iōnes ‘Ionians’, as we see for example from the remarks of Herodotus 1.149 about a twelve-city confederation of Aioleîs ‘Aeolians’ located on the mainland of northern Asia Minor, which rivaled a corresponding twelve-city confederation of Iōnes ‘Ionians’ located on the mainland of central Asia Minor. (See under Aeolian Dodecapolis and Ionian Dodecapolis in the inventory of Words and Ideas.) And these differentiated social groupings of Aioleîs ‘Aeolians’ and Iōnes ‘Ionians’—as also Dōrieîs ‘Dorians’—corresponded neatly with the linguistic groupings of the dialects spoken in Asia Minor and in its outlying islands:

1. The Aeolian speakers of Aeolic inhabited the northern part of coastal Asia Minor together with the outlying islands of Lesbos and Tenedos.

2. The Ionian speakers of Ionic inhabited the central part together with the outlying islands of Chios and Samos.

3. The Dorian speakers of Doric inhabited the southern part together with outlying islands like Rhodes.

By contrast with the dialects of these Asiatic Greeks, however, the corresponding dialects of the European Greeks inhabiting the mainland and islands on the western side of the Aegean Sea are in some cases more difficult to track linguistically. Such is the case with Aeolic dialects spoken on the European mainland, notably in Thessaly and in Boeotia. In the case of Thessaly in particular, the various dialects spoken in this overall region are difficult to correlate with the dialect spoken on the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos as also on the facing Asiatic mainland, but it can be argued that both these sets of European and Asiatic dialects are Aeolic; and it can also be argued that the Thessalians figured themselves as true Aeolians in their rituals and myths. And their primary hero, as we will see in the anchor comment at I.02.689–694, was Achilles of Thessaly, figured as the ultimate Aeolian.

The idea of ‘division’ latent in contexts where dais refers to a ‘feast’ becomes overt in expressions like δαιτὸς ἐίσης ‘equitable dais’ referring to an ‘equitable’ (adjective isos/isē) division of meat on the occasion of a feast.

There are two comparable situations in the Iliad where a paiēōn is sung to mark a major remedy for the Achaeans. In the present situation, the singing of such a song marks the cessation of algea ‘pains’ for the Achaeans. In another situation, I.22.391, it marks the winning of a mighty kūdos ‘sign of glory’ for the Achaeans, which is, the killing of Hector by Achilles: see the overall context of I.22.391–394.

We see here in the Iliad the first occurrence of the epithet rhododaktulos ‘rosy-fingered’, applied to Ēōs, goddess of the dawn. This epithet can be explained as a substitution for another epithet, thugatēr Dios ‘daughter of Zeus’, which is applied to other goddesses, most notably to Aphrodite: see the anchor comment at I.03.374.

restriction of the eukhesthai formula (as in this verse) to sacral contexts

in a list of examples of absolute use of eukhesthai to report prayers

example of the language of the sub-genre of the narrative of ritual scenes, characterized by an abundance of finite verbs in the indicative

in the context of discussing the restorative social power of narration of mēnis (appeasing mēnis with song)

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

the source Agamemnon’s and Achilles’ grievance against each other bound up with the mēnis theme, here explicitly attached to Achilles

analysis of Achilles’ alienation and the opposition of mēnis and philotēs

analysis of the verbal legitimating of Achilles’ mēnis and it’s exceptional nature

Achilles’ own suffering from his mēnis as he yearns for the social occupations of a warrior male