Iliad. Homer. London. 1863.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Iliad. Homer. London. 1863.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
English (Alexander Pope, 1720, ed. Watson, 1857) (OCR draft) (English) (English (Alexander Pope, 1720, ed. Watson, 1857))
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
Iliad
analysis of (the location of) the river Keladon
analysis of the location of Pylos/battle between Pylos and Arcadia in Nestor’s story in Iliad 7 and its reworking to locate Pylos in Elis (as opposed to Messenia)
analysis of the location of Pylos/battle between Pylos and Arcadia in Nestor’s story and its reworking to locate Pylos in Elis (as opposed to Messenia), and here in particular the theory of Visser 1997 (and others) to explain the passage
analysis of the location of Pylos/battle between Pylos and Arcadia in Nestor’s story and its reworking to locate Pylos in Elis (as opposed to Messenia)
analysis of the reference to the river Iardanos and its location, and the variant versions of I.07.133-135 known to Strabo and Didymus
analysis of the location of Pylos/battle between Pylos and Arcadia in Nestor’s story and its reworking to locate Pylos in Elis (as opposed to Messenia)
analysis of mētis and the phrase “began to weave mētis,” used of Nestor (as here), as implying deception
discussion of the transmission of the text of the Homeric poems (via Athens), and this passage as an apparent fifth-century Athenian interpolation
this line as one of the counterexamples for identifying unmodified laos as one’s own
comparison with I.09.104 with regards to noos and muthos
Up to now, Diomedes has been the hero who comes closest to Achilles in competing for the title ‘best of the Achaeans’. Here in Rhapsody 7, however, the focus shifts to Ajax, who responds to the challenge of Hector to fight in a duel the one hero among all the Achaeans who is truly the ‘best of the Achaeans’. As we know from the overall references to Ajax in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, this hero is considered to be the second-best of the Achaeans in both epics. So, it does not bode well for Hector that, in his duel with Ajax, he cannot succeed beyond fighting such a hero to a draw. If Hector can do no better than fight to a draw the second-best of the Achaeans, he is surely doomed when the time comes for him to face the very best of the Achaeans in Rhapsody 22.
Hector and Ajax separated by heralds, pen and ink drawing by John Flaxman, 1790’s Victoria and Albert Museum
The hero Dexiades is described at I.07.015 by way of the participle epi-almenos meaning ‘one who leaps on’, and the preverb epi- ‘on’ of the participle takes as its object the noun hippoi ‘horses’ in the genitive case. But the meaning of this combination is not ‘one who leaps on horses’ but rather ‘one who leaps on the chariot drawn by horses’. That, is, hippoi in such a context is an elliptic plural referring not only to the two horses that conventionally draw a chariot in Homeric diction but to the chariot drawn by the two horses. In the action being described here, the same hero Dexiades is mortally wounded at I.07.13 by a spear-throw that hits him and knocks him out of the chariot, and here the preposition ex ‘out of’ in combination with the noun hippoi ‘horses’ as its grammatical object in the genitive case means that the hero has been knocked off the platform of the chariot, falling out of the chariot and landing on the ground with a mighty thud. In short, then, epi + the genitive of hippoi at I.07.11 means ‘on the chariot’, with reference to standing on the platform of a chariot, while ex + the genitive of hippoi at I.07.13 means ‘out of the chariot’, with reference to getting knocked out of the chariot while standing on the platform.
In general, the noun hippoi/hippō as elliptic plural/dual means not ‘horses’ but ‘chariot’ when this noun functions as a grammatical object in the genitive (G) or dative (D) or accusative (A) case in combination with prepositions or preverbs referring to such situations as standing on the platform of a chariot (epi+G, epi+D) or leaping down from the platform (apo+G, kata+G) or leaping up onto the platform (epi+G, eis+A) or getting knocked off and falling down from the platform (ek+G, kata+G). What follows is a list showing these occurrences of the word hippoi/hippō with the elliptic meaning of ‘chariot’ but not showing other occurrences where the ellipsis is canceled by way of correlating this word with other words like harma and diphros, both of which have the non-elliptic meaning of ‘chariot’. Here, then, are occurrences showing only hippoi/hippō with the elliptic meaning of ‘chariot’ and without an explicit mention of harma ‘chariot’ or diphros ‘chariot’: I.03.265 (ek+G), I.04.500 (para+G), I.05.013 (apo+G/D), I.05.019 (apo+G), I.05.046 (epi+G), I.05.111 (kata+G), I.05.163 (ek+G), I.05.227 (apo+G), I.05.249 (epi+G), I.05.255 (epi+G), I.05.321 (epi+A), I.05.328 (epi+G), I.05.835 (apo+G), I.06.232 (kata+G), I.07.013 (epi+G), I.07.015 (ek+G), I.07.240 (epi+G), I.08.127 (epi+G), I.08.492 (ek+apo+G), I.10.330 (epi+D), I.10.513 (epi+G), I.10.529 (epi+G), I.11.094 (ek+G), I.11.109 (ek+G), I.11.143 (apo+G), I.11.179 (ek+G), I.11.192 (eis+A), I.11.207 (eis+A), I.11.320 (apo+G), I.11.423 (kata+G), I.12.082 (epi+G), I.14.435 (ek+G), I.15.386 (apo+G), I.15.447 (kata+A), I.16.343 (epi+G), I.16.733 (apo+G), I.16.749 (ek+G), I.16.755 (apo+G), I.17.460 (epi+D), I.17.40 (apo+G), I.17.501 (epi+A), I.18.531 (epi+G), I.19.396 (epi+G/D), I.20.401 (kata+G), I.20.461 (ek+G), I.24.051 (ek+G), I.24.356 (epi+G), I.24.459 (ek+G), I.24.469 (ek+G). These elliptic usages compensate, in part, for the fact that the Mycenaean word for ‘chariot’, hikkʷiā (spelled i-qi-ja in the Linear B tablets), is missing in Homeric diction, where it would be pronounced hippiā. The metrical shape of such a form, long-short-long, would be incompatible with the rhythmical contour of the dactylic hexameter, which generally does not tolerate forms that have such a shape. But the survival of elliptic plural/dual hippoi/hippō* is not necessarily a substitution for the missing hippiā*, nor is it justified to assume that such elliptic forms represent some kind of deformity in Homeric diction.
The divinities Athena and Apollo are not only supporting the Achaeans and the Trojans respectively. They are also opposing the Trojans and the Achaeans respectively. Even more than that, these divinities are also personally antagonistic toward individual heroes: Athena opposes Hector while Apollo opposes Achilles. In this passage, the antagonism between Athena and Hector is particularly evident. When the seer Helenos at I.07.047 addresses his brother Hector by describing him as comparable to the god Zeus himself with respect to Hector’s qualities of mētis ‘mind, intelligence’, the wording of this description is a direct affront to the divinity of Athena, who is the goddess of mētis ‘mind, intelligence’ personified.
The role of Athena in awarding nīkē ‘victory’ to the Achaeans is only secondary, while the corresponding role of Zeus is primary.
The noun phríx ‘shuddering’, which conveys the subjectivized feeling of an observer who shudders when he looks at the sea being stirred up by the West Wind named Zephyros while feeling the sudden blast of the wind, is related not only formally but even thematically to the “speaking name” (nomen loquens) of Phríxos, a hero who escaped the dangers of the pontos ‘[sea-] crossing’ that is the Hellespont, as we read in Pindar Pythian 4.160–161. The wording of Pindar goes on to say there that Phríxos was ‘saved’, saōthē, because he was carried to safety by the ram with the golden fleece. Before the occurrence of the name Zephyros here at I.07.063, the same name for the West Wind has occurred in previous similes: I.02.147, I.04.276, 04.423. In a forthcoming simile showing the sea stirred up by the North Wind named Boreas together with the West Wind named Zephyros, I.09.004–008, the subjective feeling of fear that overcomes the observer is described as kruoeis ‘chilling’, I.09.002. So, the observer shudders at the chilling power of the storm at sea. The stormy combination of Boreas and Zephyros is described as stirring up the pontos ‘sea[-crossing]’ also at I.23.230, and this sea, described there as ‘Thracian’, is to be equated with the Hellespont.
Whoever is ‘best of the Achaeans’ is challenged by Hector to fight him in a one-on-one duel. Hector boasts that he will kill this fighter, still to be named, who will then be entombed inside a sēma ‘tomb’ overlooking the Hellespont, I.07.086, and thus Hector will have a kleos ‘glory’ that is eternal, I.07.091. The irony here is that the fighter still to be named will be the winner of a future duel with Hector. That fighter will be Achilles, and the eternal kleos ‘glory’ will be primarily his. On the other hand, Hector’s wording is on the mark when he says at I.07.086 that the hero who is ‘best of the Achaeans’ will be entombed inside a sēma ‘tomb’ overlooking the Hellespont. And that hero will be Achilles.
As noted in the previous comment, the tomb of the hero whom Hector imagines he will kill is the tomb of Achilles, who in fact will kill Hector before he dies his own death. For details about the funeral and entombment of Achilles see the comment on I.16.456–457, with special reference to the word tarkhuein ‘ritually prepare’, as attested here at I.07.085.
The memorial language imagined here in the wording of Hector corresponds to the formulaic language of poetry written down on stone in the form of epigrams. So, Homeric diction shows here an awarenes of the genre of epigrammatic poetry. But this genre needed the technology of writing only for the sake of recording a given epigrammatic poem, not for the sake of actually composing it. Therefore, the awareness of epigrammatic language in Homeric diction does not require us to think that the technology of writing was needed for either the composition or the performance of Homeric poetry.
In Hector’s imagined scenario of an outcome for his duel with a hero who is the ‘best of the Achaeans’, that hero, whom he will kill, is pictured as ‘striving to be the best’, as expressed by the verb aristeuein, I.07.090. The corresponding noun, not attested in Homeric diction, is aristeiā ‘epic high point’, on which see the comment on I.05.103.
The Achaeans, faced with Hector’s challenge, hesitate, I.07.092–093. Their hesitation seems to indicate that not one of them is really the ‘best of the Achaeans’. Finally, Menelaos is first to volunteer for a one-on-one duel with Hector, I.07.094–103. An absence of volunteers, Menelaos knows, would be aklees ‘a thing without glory [kleos]’, I.07.100. It seems of course fitting for him to be the first, since his grievance against the Trojans over the abduction of Helen is primary, but the problem is that all the Achaean chieftains are aware of his inferiority to Hector, I.07.106, and so, fearing for his life, they restrain him from arming himself for a duel. Even the Master Narrator says outright that Hector was superior to Menelaos, I.07.104–105. Then Nestor goads the chieftains to take up the challenge of Hector, I.07.123–161, and his goading now prompts nine of these chieftains to volunteer, I.07.161–169: they are Agamemnon, Diomedes, the two Ajaxes, Idomeneus and Meriones, Eurypylos, Thoas, and Odysseus. It is significant that Nestor’s words refer to these nine chieftains as aristēes Panakhaiōn, I.07.159. For a translation of this expression, the singular form aristeus of plural aristēes first needs to be correlated with the verb aristeuein, which can be translated as ‘strive to be the best, to be aristos’, as at Ι.06.208 and I.11.784. In the second of these two passages, I find it most significant that the referent is Achilles himself. An aristeus, then, is a man who strives to be the best, aristos. Correspondingly, the expression aristēes Panakhaiōn at I.07.159 must refer to ‘men who strive to be the best of all the Achaeans’.
While volunteering to accept the challenge of Hector, Menelaos blames the other Achaean chieftains for hesitating. He engages them in ‘quarrel’, neikos, and ‘he says words of insult’, oneidizein.
In the immediate context, only the surface meaning of therapontes as ‘attendants’ is evident.
Not only Menelaos but Nestor too blames the other Achaean chieftains for hesitating. He goads them into action not only by blaming them but also by telling a story about one of his past successes as a warrior.
Nestor’s story of his fight with Ereuthalion amounts to a lesson about strategy in warfare. A pivotal figure in the story is the predecessor of Ereuthalion: he is Arēi-thoos, at I.07.137 and again at I.07.138, whose name is a combination of themes involving the god Ares and a primary characteristic of Ares: this god runs with the speed of wind, as conveyed by the adjective thoós ‘running, swift’, derived from the verb theein ‘run’.
See the comment at I.02.401.
In the immediate context, only the surface meaning of therapōn as ‘attendant’ is evident.
By goading the Achaeans, Nestor is engaged in the act of neikeîn: so he ‘quarrels with’ the Achaeans. This way, he engages in the language of blame as opposed to praise. And, even before Nestor starts blaming the Achaeans, Menelaos has already engaged in his own act of neikos ‘quarrel’, I.07.095.
The field of nine Achaeans competing for the title of ‘best of the Achaeans’ in response to Hector’s challenge and to Nestor’s reproach is now narrowed down to three: Ajax, Diomedes, and Agamemnon.
Ajax boasts that he is superior to other Achaeans both by way of biē ‘force, violence, strength’, I.07.197, and by way of idreiē ‘intelligence’, I.07.198. In Homeric diction, a synonym for the second of these two words would be mētis ‘mind, intelligence’.
The role of Zeus in awarding nīkē ‘victory’ to the Achaeans is primary, while the corresponding role of Athena is only secondary.
Even Hector acknowledges the superior status of Ajax among the Achaeans: Ajax excels in biē ‘force, violence, strength’, I.07.288, and in pinutē ‘intelligence, I.07.289. In Homeric diction, a synonym for the second of these two words would be mētis ‘mind, intelligence’.
Hector seems to be saying that the Trojan women ‘pray’ to him, as expressed by the verb eukhesthai. This turn of phrase may point to the status of Hector as cult hero beyond his epic existence.
The theme of awarding the choice cut of meat to the foremost warrior in the context of a dais ‘feast, division’ continues to accentuate what is missing in this picture, which is the fact that Achilles lost his equitable share at the beginning of the Iliad.
The choice of the word mētis ‘mind, intelligence’ in the sense of ‘plan’ here is relevant to the undercurrent of an opposition between this word and the word biē ‘force, violence, strength’. The opposition of mētis and biē corresponds to a potential antagonism between Odysseus and Achilles.
Nestor, in speaking to the assembled Achaeans, prescribes that they build a Wall for the purpose of protecting both them and their ships from the attacks of the Trojans. This purpose is spelled out at I.07.338. What Nestor prescribes for the Achaeans to accomplish here at I.07.336–343 is then actually accomplished by them, as described at I.07.434–442, where the purpose of protecting both the Achaeans and their ships is restated, I.07.437. The details of the prescription and of the description supplement each other. For example, an important detail that is absent in the prescription is supplemented in the description: the word teikhos ‘wall’, referring to the overall structure that the Achaeans are building, is absent in the prescription, I.07.337, but this word is present in the description, I.07.436. Both in the prescription and in the description, at I.07.336–338 and at I.07.435–437 respectively, the Wall is linked to the collective tomb that the Achaeans are to build for their war dead: this tomb is located right next to the pyre where the bodies of the dead are cremated, I.07.337 and I.07.436.
In contexts where the plural therapontes in combination with Arēos ‘of Ares’ is applied to the Achaeans=Danaans=Argives (at I.07.382 here, to the Danaans) as a grouping of warriors, the deeper meaning is more evident than in other contexts.
What follows is epitomized from H24H 10§30. The cosmic river Okeanos is situated at the outermost limits of the world, which is encircled by its stream. The circular stream of the Okeanos flows eternally around the world and eternally recycles the infinite supply of fresh water that feeds upon itself: see I.14.246–246a, I.18.399, I.20.065. This mystical river Okeanos, surrounding not only the earth but even the seas surrounding the earth, defines the limits of the known world. Every evening, as the sun sets at sunset, it literally plunges into the fresh waters of this eternally self-recycling cosmic stream, I.08.485, and it is from these same fresh waters that the sun rises again every morning at sunrise, as here at I.08.421–423 as also at O.19.433–434. This cosmic river Ōkeanos, encircling the known world, is a boundary delimiting light from darkness, wakefulness from sleep, life from death. The movement of the sun both into and out from the waters of the Ōkeanos is envisioned as a cosmic model for an alternation between sleep and awakening, between death and rebirth.
Within these verses I.07.433–465 is a description of the building of the Achaean Wall at I.07.434–442 that matches the prescription given by Nestor at I.07.336–343. While the Wall is being built, I.07.434–442, the gods are watching, I.07.443–444, and Poseidon makes a speech to Zeus, I.445–453, indicating that this Achaean project is against his will and, presumably, against the will of Apollo. Poseidon is concerned that the kleos or epic ‘glory’ of the Achaean Wall, I.07.451, will detract from the corresponding glory of the Trojan Wall that had been built by him together with Apollo for Laomedon, who had been king of Troy before Priam, I.07.452–453. Zeus responds with reassurances, I.07.454–464, reaffirming the kleos or epic ‘glory’ that belongs to Poseidon, I.07.458 (σὸν …κλέος). In other words, Poseidon and Apollo will never lose the epic glory that is theirs because they built the Wall of Troy. And Zeus then utters a prophecy about the teikhos ‘wall’ of the Achaeans, I.07.461: it will be destroyed once the Achaeans leave the Trojan landscape, I.07.459–464. So the kleos or epic ‘glory’ of the Achaean Wall, as signaled in the wording of Poseidon at I.07.451, will not destroy the kleos or epic ‘glory’ that is owed to Poseidon and to Apollo for their building of the Trojan Wall. In terms of this formulation made by Zeus, it is not clear whether the Trojan Wall will later be utterly destroyed or simply damaged when the Achaeans finally conquer Troy. Such a distinction is relevant to a claim made in historical times by the inhabitants of New Ilion, which was in fact the Old Ilion, otherwise known simply as Troy: the people of Ilion maintained that their Wall had not been completely destroyed by the Achaeans in the Trojan War and that their city, despite all the destruction, had never been left completely abandoned. This claim is documented but rejected by Strabo 13.1.40 C599. See Point 7 of the anchor comment at I.09.328–333 about efforts of Aeolians to possess ancient Troy and its environs in the historical period.
in the discussion of the rationale of the classification of the attestations of eukhesthai + dative
analysis of the third person references to oneself by a speaker in Iliad
in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos
analysis of the location of Pylos/battle between Pylos and Arcadia in Nestor’s story and its reworking to locate Pylos in Elis (as opposed to Messenia)
analysis of the reference to the river Iardanos and its location, and the variant versions of I.07.133-135 known to Strabo and Didymus
in a list of passages exemplifying the complementary metrical distribution of eukhos and kudos
in a list of examples of directly quoted prayers not concluded by formula (A)
analysis of the phraseological correspondence between the two ‘modes’ of ritual narrative sub-genre, ritual prescription and ritual description, with I.07.194 and 200 as examples
I.07.194 as the only instance in Section II (= eukh—˘, under eukhesthai + dative) of deviation from the inflection eukhonto and I.07.200 as filling the prescription
in a list of examples of eukhesthai + dative
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
analysis of the phraseological correspondence between the two ‘modes’ of ritual narrative sub-genre, ritual prescription and ritual description, with I.07.194 and 200 as examples
in a list of examples of eukhesthai + dative
I.07.194 as the only instance in Section II (= eukh—˘, under eukhesthai + dative) of deviation from the inflection eukhonto and I.07.200 as filling the prescription
comparison of eukhos and kudos, and here specifically analysis of the phraseology surrounding them that is paralleled by only kleos
examples of the identical context in which eukhos and kudos occur
in a list of examples of directly quoted prayers not concluded by formula (A)
in a list of attestations of eukhesthai + dative in sacral contexts, in the subcategory of anomalous attestations (isolated metrical position of eukhesthai)
the only place in Homer where a dative after eukhesthai is not a god/a collection of gods, and argument that this usage promotes Hektor from man to ‘god’
anomaly of the formula in this verse, namely, the complement to eukhomai is not a noun (e.g. name of divinity) but a pronoun
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
analysis of the transformation of formula (A) to (B), which resumes the narrative after an order/exhortation by a man in authority to a group of men to do something (here, to prepare dinner), and conclusion that (A)’s eukhomenos was felt to be have sacral connotations inappropriate to the secular contexts of (B)
analysis of the development of Greek posis compared with Vedic pati-
The duel of Hektor and Ajax would have continued if not for the intervention of the heralds, one of whom, the Trojan Idaios, "said a muthos" (eipe te muthon, 7.277). Ajax replies: "Bid Hektor to speak these things (muthēsasthai). For he himself challenged all the best to battle. Let him take the lead" (7.284-86). Hektor then pronounces the end of the duel (7.290-93): "Let us cease from battle and strife."
Because Homeric poetry so keenly attends to socially correct forms of speech, Hektor's words are more than a simple directive: they represent an actual "performative utterance"—language that brings about a desired end by virtue of the very pronouncement. There are "felicity conditions" for performative utterances, and the poem respects just such parameters: to be linguistically correct, Hektor, who began the duel with the challenge, must "pronounce" its end. Ajax, with a good sense of propriety that marks the most successful Homeric warriors, defers to his opponent. Idaios has an exact analogue in the religious or legal official who instructs the groom to say "I thee wed." (Martin 1993:40).
Those who are equals, socially or as "performers" of deeds, can challenge one another's muthoi: Paris does so with Antenor's proposal in the Trojan assembly, answering "You know how to think of another muthos better than this one" (7.358) (Martin 1993:23).
The adjective puknos and its by-form pukinos, "dense" or "tightly-packed," are the only words associated with both epos and pteroeis when those are examined separately; when applied to speech, the adjective carries the sense of language that is dense with meaning and filled with urgency. Priam's formal bid to call a truce (7.375) is the first of four instances of pukinon epos in the Iliad (7.375, 11.788, 24.75, 24.744).
The adjective pukinon modifies arms and armor, beds, troop formations, house construction, branches, and clouds; mental products can also be thus qualified—a tightly constructed plan (2.55), Odyssean wiles (3.202), an ambush (4.392), a trick (6.187). This particularized form of speech is the paradigm for the best kind of epos, speech that has become a lasting possession for its hearer, the "last word" to remain with an intimate (Achilles, Andromakhe) or to put an end to strife (the truce in Book 7, the ransom in Book 24) (Martin 1993:35).
Nestor's speech at 7.124-60 illustrates his strategy of thickly layered memory. He begins with his characteristic expression of dismay—"A great sorrow has come to Akhaia. Peleus, the honored horse-driver, would groan"—a phrase that reuses the strategy of his first speech in the poem (1.245-46). He recalls three separate items: Peleus once questioned him about Argive genealogy (7.127-28); he wishes he were young as when he fought the Arkadians (7.133-57); and embedded in the latter ring-composition is a third memory, the heritage of the armor of Ereuthalion, whom he defeated long ago. The importance of armor as a signifier of heroism in the poem (consider Achilles' equipment) and the relevance of genealogical lore place this narrative sign in a wider context. All three memories are set in terms appropriate to flyting as the speech ends: "Thus did Nestor make a neikos" (7.161). It becomes clear that he has used himself as foil to shame the Achaeans into volunteering for the duel (Martin 1993:82-83).
For the broader analysis of Nestor as master of the memory genre, see the comment on Iliad 1.259-274.
Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.
Two more times Hektor practices eulogistic dramatization, when he sets the terms for his single combat with an Achaean and when he calls a formal halt to the duel. Again he uses the figure of his addressee as the starting point for a quotation that ultimately returns praise to himself: if he kills his enemy, in future time someone sailing past the man's burial mound at the Hellespont will say, "This is the marker of a man who died long ago, whom once shining Hektor slew as he was excelling" (7.89-90). In this imagined eulogy, which echoes the diction of attested epitaphs, the dead hero remains nameless, obliterated by Hektor's reputation (Martin 1993:136-37).
Hektor's strategy must be contrasted with that of Diomedes in the Book 6 scene: if Diomedes has fabricated a past, Hektor fictionalizes a future, and then, just as Diomedes had, makes the fiction affect the present. His suggestion of an exchange of gifts "in order that someone of both Achaeans and Trojans may say 'They fought over spirit-devouring strife, then in amity joined they parted'" (7.301-2) presents us not with a portrait of the developing hero but with a man already living in the poetic tradition that is to overtake him (Martin 1993:137).
For Hektor's distinctive quotation strategy and its psychological consistency, see the comment on Iliad 6.459-461.
Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.
A remarkable testimony by Hektor himself about his ability as a performer comes when Ajax challenges him to fight the "best of the Achaeans" after Achilles (7.235-41): "Do not try me like a simple child, or a woman, who does not know war-work. / I know well fights and man-slayings, / I know to the right, I know to the left how to move my ox-hide shield / that I own for warring. / I know how to leap into the moil of swift horses, / I know how to dance to hostile Ares in the close fighting." The convergence of fighting and dancing in Hektor's words puts the two activities on the same level of stylized action. The mention of the performance theme by Hektor is itself a well-crafted musical performance, "an old, pre-epic lyric sword-dance song." The anaphora of "I know" (oida, lines 237, 238, 240, 241) marks off metrical cola that strongly resemble later-attested Greek lyric metrical segments (Martin 1993:132-33).
But the concentration on his own performance is like that of the dancer so concerned with the criticism of the audience that he or she limits expressiveness by paying too much attention to footwork. Hektor's style in commanding is remarkable for its inwardness: he orders primarily himself. No other speaker makes explicit so consistently the next moves he intends to make (Martin 1993:133-34).
For Hektor's distinctive quotation strategy in the memory genre, see the comment on Iliad 6.459-461.
Martin, R. P. 1993. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca.