analysis of the spelling of Dionysos in Homeric poetry with this line as an example of the spelling with omega (as opposed to the Attic spelling with omicron, in the context of analyzing O.11.321-325 and the evidence for its being an interpolation)

analysis of the spelling of Dionysos in Homeric poetry with this line as an example of the spelling with omega (as opposed to the Attic spelling with omicron, in the context of analyzing O.11.321-325 and the evidence for its being an interpolation)

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)

analysis of the meaning of Hector’s name (from ekhō) and how it is evoked in the Iliad (as here)

analysis of methienai and contrasting it with loose-wittedness, and its application to Menelaus

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 hero Kalēsios is identified here at I.06.018 as the therapōn ‘attendant’ of the hero Axulos, who is named at I.06.12–13. In the immediate context, at I.06.018, only the surface meaning of therapōn as ‘attendant’ is evident. But Kalēsios is not only the therapōn of Axulos: he is also described at I.06.019 as the hup-hēni-okhos ‘chariot driver’ of Axulos. This description of Kalēsios not only as a therapōn but also as a hup-hēni-okhos ‘chariot driver’ points to the deeper meaning, ‘ritual substitute’, for therapōn.

In the immediate context, at I.06.053, only the surface meaning of therapōn as ‘attendant’ is evident.

In contexts where the plural therapontes in combination with Arēos ‘of Ares’ is applied to the Achaeans=Danaans=Argives (at I.06.067, to the Danaans) as a grouping of warriors, the deeper meaning of therapōn as ‘ritual substitute’ is more evident than in other contexts.

Helenos is telling Hector what to tell Hecuba to do, which is, to offer a peplos ‘robe’ for Athena as the goddess of the citadel of Troy.

The encounter of Glaukos and Diomedes prompts an exquisite meditation on the opposition of heroic mortality vs. immortality in terms of nature vs. culture.

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.

The first name for the son of Hector, Astyanax [Astuanax], I.06.403, means ‘king [anax] of the city [astu]’. The meaning of this “speaking name” (nomen loquens) is relevant to the heroic function of the father as guarding a citadel from sieges. See the comment on I.22.506–507. The second name for the son of Hector, Scamandrius [Skamandrios], I.06.402, derives from a rival Aeolian tradition, here undermined by the prevailing Ionian tradition of the Iliad (HPC 203–205). According to this rival tradition, as we read in Euripides Andromache 224 (together with the scholia for that verse), Scamandrius was a bastard son of Hector who survived the Trojan War, to be distinguished from the legitimate son of Hector and Andromache, Astyanax, who tragically failed to survive. According to Aeolian traditions, Scamandrius not only survived the Trojan War but later became king of Troy (scholia T for I.24.735). By contrast, according to the dominantly Ionian traditions as represented by the Iliad as we have it, Scamandrius could not have survived if he was the same child as Astyanax, which is what we read here at I.06.402–403. So, the version as we have it kills off the potentially surviving half-brother.

Here at I.06.407–439, the wording of Andromache in addressing her departing husband Hector, whom she will never again see alive, is not just a speech expressing her sorrows: it is also, in terms of Homeric representation, a song of lament. What now follows is a general introduction to what is meant here. Ancient Greek lament is a deeply ritualized ritual practice, and there are survivals of this practice even to this day in some Greek-speaking communities. For background on the continuities and the discontinuities of this practice, I recommend the book by Margaret Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (1974). Aside from the specific example of ancient Greek laments, there are many other examples of such a practice to be found in a wide variety of societies throughout the world. In general, lament is understood to mean the formal expression of the emotion that we know as sadness—or, to say it more formally, sorrow. In Homeric diction, the primary words that are used for referring to sorrow are akhos or penthos, both of which I ordinarily translate as ‘grief’. In the case of ancient Greek society as also in many other cases, however, the general definition of lament as an expression of sorrow is insufficient. A lament can be more than just an expression of some inner sorrow by way of outward signs like crying. The outward signs can be formalized by way of crying and verbalizing at the same time. And the act of verbalizing can even become an act of singing, as in the case of ancient Greek traditions. In terms of these traditions, the act of lamenting is an act of singing while crying and crying while singing. And this kind of singing is crying; this kind of crying is singing. The physical aspects of crying are all integrated into the singing: the flow of tears, the choking of the voice, the convulsions of the body, and so on, are all part of the singing. And such physical aspects are also formalized into a kinetic system of stylized movements—to be seen as a kind of dancing that is integrated with the singing. On such a kinetic aspect of lament, see further the comment on I.18.051–060.

In the Iliad, Andromache is represented as singing three songs of lament for Hector. Each one of these three laments is quoted, as it were, by the Master Narrator, and each one of the quotations corresponds morphologically to a genuine song of lament as sung by a lamenting woman. It must be emphasized, however, that the laments that we see being quoted by the epic of Homeric poety do not represent the actual meter of lament as sung in real laments. The genre of epic regularly uses its own meter, which is the dactylic hexameter, in representing other genres that it quotes, including unmetrical genres (Martin 1989:12–42; also pp. 87–88, specifically on lament). But the morphology of laments quoted by epic still follows the rules of lament. On this point about the morphology of lament, see further the anchor comment on I.19.282–302. In other words, each quotation of each one of the three laments performed by Andromache is meant to be heard as a re-enactment, performed by the Master Narrator, of a genuine song of lament. In the first lament, as quoted by the Master Narrator here at I.06.407–439, Andromache is already lamenting the death of Hector before he is even dead. As for the second lament, at I.22.477–514, Andromache will sing it when she sees the corpse of Hector for the first time. As for the third lament, at I.24.725–745, Andromache will sing it on the occasion of Hector’s funeral. The first two laments can be seen as previews, as it were, of the more formal third lament. But it must be kept in mind that the traditions of lamentation can allow for the spontaneous singing of a lament as an instant response to a deep loss that has just happened—or even as a premonition of a future loss that has yet to happen. On this point about premonition, there are further comments in H24H 3§§23–24; see also Nagy 2015.06.17. See also anchor comment at I.22.476–515 on: three laments by Andromache, part 2; and anchor comment at I.24.723–746 on: three laments by Andromache, part 3.

The wording of Hector, addressed to Andromache here at I.06.447–464, reveals a morbid but realistic premonition of the grim future that awaits her. This kind of premonition is typical in women’s laments: see the anchor comment at I.06.407–439. Here at I.06.447–464, however, it is Hector who expresses the premonition, which could otherwise have been expressed by Andromache herself in her own song of lament.

The “great floating horsetail crested helmet” worn by Hector frightens his child when the hero first tries to embrace him. I follow here the incisive observation of Vermeule 1987:146. This wistful detail can be dated back to a world otherwise long forgotten, if Vermeule is right in saying that this kind of helmet went out of production sometime around the middle of the second millennium BCE.

lemmatizing: δακρυόεν γελάσασα

As Andromache watches her husband Hector embracing their child, she ‘smiles through her tears’, or, more literally, she ‘smiles a smile that is tearful’. This weak smile carries over from I.06.471, where both father and mother smile when their child is frightened by the helmet of Hector.

After they say farewell to each other, Hector turns away and goes off to the battlefield, facing the certainty of death, while Andromache turns away and goes off to her chamber. But ‘she keeps turning back again and again’ toward Hector, entropalizomenē at I.06.496, hoping to catch one last glimpse of the receding view of her doomed husband.

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

comment on eukhomenos and epos being traditionally and syntactically bound together, despite the separate existence of epos ēuda# as in this verse

in a list of instances where phanai substitutes for eukhesthai where it is combined with comparative/superlative

in a list of examples of the functional relationship between eukhesthai and phanai (in the context of analyzing genos eukhesthai einai formulas)

example of the pairing of question and answer regarding identity (between man and god) in Ancient Greek that matches the Avestan model

example of the pairing of question and answer regarding identity (between man and god) in Ancient Greek that matches the Avestan model

example of an elaborated speech about one’s geneē (Glaukos), in the context of analyzing the more common short 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

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)

analysis of the application of ilaos (and cognates) to gods (and heroes) with mēnis, here the Trojans’ fruitless attempts to appease Athena

analysis of the application of ilaos (and cognates) to gods (and heroes) with mēnis, here the Trojans’ fruitless attempts to appease Athena

example of the naming process by association (here, Hektor and Astuanax), in the context of analyzing the names of Hektor’s horses

comparison of Hector’s menos with Zeus’ in fighting Typhoeus in Theogony, and the antagonism of doubles [MRBTP: 'ff']

analysis of Hector’s and Andromache’s exchange and comparison with Kleopatre’s with Meleagros (I.09) and Achilles and Patroklos, and analysis of kleos, patēr, and philoi in these contexts

analysis of Hector’s and Andromache’s exchange and comparison with Kleopatre’s with Meleagros (I.09) and Achilles and Patroklos, and analysis of kleos, patēr, and philoi in these contexts

analysis of Hector’s and Andromache’s exchange and comparison with Kleopatre’s with Meleagros (I.09) and Achilles and Patroklos, and analysis of kleos, patēr, and philoi in these contexts

switch from Dii patri to Dii t’alloisin te theoisin attested with a variation of the || (short OR two shorts) euxamenos Dii patri # formula which uses epeukhesthai instead of eukhesthai, in the context of analyzing Allen’s text at I.08.526 vs. Zenodotus’s version of the verse

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).

References

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

Hektor is more constantly preoccupied with the winning of reputation than any other hero in the poem. When others mention kleos, it is to assume that one has lost it (as Agamemnon often does) or that one will gain it ultimately (Achilles' knowledge). Only Hektor must concentrate on the process of wresting "unwithering fame" from an audience always threatening to broadcast blame. His concern shows in the single answer he gives to Andromakhe's urgent request for him to stay within Troy (6.441-46): "Woman, all this affects me, but I terribly fear (aideomai) the Trojans, and Trojan women with trailing gown, if, like a bad man (kakos), I avoid war from afar. Nor does inner desire (thumos) impel me, since I have learned to be excellent always, and fight with the Trojan front-lines, winning my father's good repute (kleos) and my own." Hektor's determination to perform before his local audience may even explain his much-noticed "secularization" of bird-signs and other prophetic speech: the performer on the stage of Troy knows that the gods cannot help him execute his moves, so he cares nothing about whether the birds "go rightwards to sun and dawn or to the left, to misty dusk" (12.239-40) (Martin 1993:133).

For Hektor's distinctive quotation strategy in the memory genre, see the comment on Iliad 6.459-461.

References

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

It is in the discourse of recollection that Hektor shows the clearest differences with other heroic speakers. A remarkable trait of his style is the use of direct quotation to dramatize for his audience what he imagines will happen. More than this, the quotations are actually representations of what already has taken place. In other words, Hektor displaces memory onto an anonymous voice that speaks the language of praise or blame. His discourse of recollection is ordered in the hierarchy of three genres beneath flyting; his rhetoric is still constrained by the imagined speech-acts of others (Martin 1993:136).

The first clear example comes in his meeting with his wife. The passage quotes an unnamed speaker's comment on seeing Andromakhe as a prize of war after the fall of Troy: "And sometime someone may say, 'Here is the wife of Hektor, he who excelled at fighting, of the horse-taming Trojans, when they fought about Ilion'" (6.459-61). The dramatic realism increases our sympathy for Andromakhe as it convinces us of Hektor's affection. But the actual content of the quote constitutes a snatch of praise-poetry concerning Hektor himself; in an oblique manner, Hektor is creating the exact format of his own reputation, like a poet writing his own epitaph (Martin 1993:135-36).

For the broader analysis of Hektor's style in all three genres, see the comment on Iliad 7.235-241.

References

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