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

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 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

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

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.

Here the idea of ‘best of the Achaeans’ is expressed by way of phertatos ‘best’. In the Iliad, only Achilles is designated as phertatos in comparison with the rest if the Achaeans as an aggregate. See also I.02.769.

See the comments on I.01.188, I.01.407–412, I.01.503–510, I.01.509, I.01.558–559, I.09.003, I.09.008–009, I.11.317–319.

This line shows that the grief of the Achaeans during the Battle of the Ships qualifies as ákhos, which signals le transfer du mal, or 'a transfer of evil':

the ákhos of Achilles leads to the ménis of Achilles leads to the ákhos of the Achaeans

See the comments on I.01.188, I.01.407–412, I.01.503–510, I.01.509, I.01.558–559, I.09.003, I.09.008–009, I.11.317–319.

See the comment on I.01.320–348. On loigos ‘devastation’ as the direct object of amunein ‘ward off’, see also I.10.456, I.15.736, I.16.075, I.16.080.

See the comments on I.01.188, I.01.407–412, I.01.503–510, I.01.509, I.01.558–559, I.09.003, I.09.008–009, I.11.317–319.

See the comments on I.01.188, I.01.407–412, I.01.503–510, I.01.509, I.01.558–559, I.09.003, I.09.008–009, I.11.317–319. Here at I.16.055, the akhos ‘grief’ that Achilles feels because he was dishonored by Agamemnon and by the Achaeans in general is equated, in his own words, with algea ‘pains’, object of the verb paskhein ‘suffering’. The idea of personal heroic suffering as expressed by way of the combination paskhein and algea here in the case of Achilles is parallel to what we see in the case of Odysseus at O.01.004.

In this verse, Achilles is speaking about Briseis. In the scholia T for this same verse, I.16.057, a variant tradition is reported about this captive woman: it comes from the epic known as the Cypria, which was part of the epic Cycle. On the epic Cycle, see the inventory of Words and Ideas. In the Cypria, as we are told by the scholia T here at I.16.057, Achilles captured Briseis when he conquered the city of Pedasos. In the Iliad, by contrast, the city that Achilles conquered when he captured Briseis was Lyrnessos, I.02.689–694. For more about such variation between Pedasos and Lyrnessos, see the comments on I.20.089–102 and I.20.187–194. See also the anchor comment at I.02.689–694 on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 1; see also the anchor comment at I.09.128–131 / 270–272 on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 2.

See the comment on I.01.320–348; see also I.16.032. Here the subject of the verb amunein ‘ward off’ switches from Achilles to Patroklos. This way, Patroklos becomes the savior of the Achaeans by rescuing them from the fire of Hector.

Here again the subject of the verb amunein ‘ward off’ switches from Achilles to Patroklos. See the comment on I.16.075.

Achilles tells Patroklos not to go beyond the limits that he sets for him in these verses. If Patroklos does exceed these limits, as he will, he will lose his shared identity with Achilles.

The heroic tendency of Achilles to behave as a lone warrior, not as a member of a group of warriors, is comparable to heroic tendencies that play out in the Indic epic known as the Mahābhārata. In that epic, Bhīma is the “loner,” as it were, while Arjuna is the “joiner.” But the characteristic of Achilles as a “loner” is complicated by the fact that Patroklos, so long as he shares his identity with Achilles, likewise behaves as a “loner” in the Iliad.

lemmatizing: ἔσπετε νῦν μοι Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ' ἔχουσαι

On the use of the plural here, see the comment on I.02.484. I repeat here the translation: ‘tell me now, you Muses who have your dwellings on Mount Olympus’. It has already been noted in the comment on I.11.218- and earlier on I.02.484- that the Master Narrator tends to re-invoke the Muse or the Muses at special moments of poetic self-awareness about the need for high fidelity to tradition. For more on the poetics of re-invocation, see also the comments on I.02.761, I.14.508. Here at I.16.112 the special moment of poetic self-awareness corresponds to the heroic self-awareness of Hector, as analyzed in the comment on I.08.180–183. Since the Muses are the goddesses of poetic memory, their re-invocation by the Master Narrator here at I.16.112 is a fulfillment of the original prediction of Hector: there will be mnēmosunē ‘memory’, I.08.181, of the moment when he will set fire to the beached ships of the Achaeans in the epic Battle for the Ships.

Here is where it all comes together: what the Muses are re-invoked to sing is ‘how the fire of Hector finally reached the ships of the Achaeans’, I.16.113: ὅππως δὴ πρῶτον πῦρ ἔμπεσε νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν.

Ajax sees, to his horror, that the dreaded moment has arrived. Now that the fire of Hector is about to reach the ships of the Achaeans, the Will of Zeus is finally about to be fulfilled: what Zeus now literally bouletai ‘wills’ is nīkē ‘victory’ for the Trojans, I.16.121. See also HC 4§109, with a survey of all Homeric situations where either Zeus or Athena awards nīkē ‘victory’.

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.

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.

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

in a list of parallels to the opening of formula (A) hōs ephat’ eukhomenos… occurring in the last 9 books of the Iliad (with participles after phanai categorizing the speech, here as supplication), in the context of analyzing formula (A) and the meaning of eukhesthai

the grief (akhos) of Poseidon and Achilles at the disregard of their equal status in the community and the abuse of the communal division as analogous

the grief (akhos) of Poseidon and Achilles at the disregard of their equal status in the community and the abuse of the communal division as analogous

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 different interpretations of this passage (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 mēnis as a tabu deformation and here specifically an example the relaxation of the speech tabu

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

demonstrating that kluein has no sacral connotations while eukhomenoio/euxamenoio does, in the context of the analyzing kluein + eukhesthai formulas

analysis of ēkousen as a lexical renewal of the petrified ekluen, in the context of analyzing kluein + eukhesthai formulas

demonstrating that kluein has no sacral connotations while eukhomenoio/euxamenoio does, in the context of the analyzing kluein + eukhesthai formulas

comparison of Achilles’ goals in Iliad 16 (when sending Patroklos to fight) and in Iliad 18 (when Patroklos has died and he joins battle), timē and kleos, respectively

analysis of mēnis in Patroklos’ aristeia

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

examples of the identical contexts in which eukhos and kudos occur

in the context of analyzing the identification of Achilles and Patroklos

contrasting Achilles’ philotēs in Iliad 16 (exclusive bond with Patroklos) and Iliad 18 (bond with Patroklos and with the rest of the social group)

analysis of the attestations of eukhesthai + aorist infinitive (and the series to which this verse belongs)

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)

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 formula exauda mē keuthe noōi occurs three times in the poem to mark three main stages of the narrative, each time in a scene between Achilles and a figure close to him: Thetis consoles the weeping Achilles and asks him to speak his mind (1.363); Patroklos, in tears, entreats his companion (16.19); and Thetis returns to Achilles once more, this time omitting the second part of the formulaic line as if she already knows his grief (18.74-75: exauda mē keuthe. ta men dē toi tetelestai / ek Dios). The poet seems to use it as a refrain; in context, the phrase both characterizes the tender relations between Achilles and Thetis, and Achilles and his companion, and introduces speech in such a way that we assume the following words are the candid outpourings of the speaker who is addressed (Martin 1993:209-10).

In the Conclusion to the book, the three occurrences of this formula have a further significance. Achilles is apostrophized eight times in the course of Book 16—more than any other figure in the poem at a comparable passage. If Homer puts on the role of his hero, making Achilles the "focalizer" of narration, this speech habit comes with it: Achilles, after all, is the one hero who most often addresses Patroklos in the course of the poem. Homer sees the death through the eyes of Achilles, his alter ego. In this regard, apostrophe is natural (Martin 1993:235-36).

For the broader argument that Achilles functions as focalizer of the narration, see the comment on Iliad 9.182-198.

References

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