A sampling of comments on Iliad Rhapsody 2

2016.07.01 / updated 2018.08.16 | By Gregory Nagy

The narrative of Rhapsody 2 now follows up on the dire consequences of the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon as narrated in Rhapsody 1. Achilles has already withdrawn from the war because of his anger. So, now that this greatest hero of the Achaeans is out of the picture, what will happen next? How will the absence of Achilles affect the story of the Trojan War? Many new doubts and fears set in, and the resolve of the Achaeans is harshly tested. There is negative talk, and there are omens. Thus the story of the Trojan War, as told and retold countless times in the distant past, must now be retold yet again, and Rhapsody 2 will set the terms for the retelling still to come. For setting the terms, Rhapsody 2 will need a new Catalogue of Ships, now happening in the tenth year of the war, as a replacement for any old Catalogue that would have logically happened already in the first year. This new Catalogue is of course not really new: rather, it is the oldest possible Catalogue that is now being renewed for the newest possible retelling of the Trojan War, reconsidered in the glaring light of the grim consequences facing the Achaeans now that Achilles has withdrawn from the war. With these consequences in view, the Catalogue will reassess all the Achaean heroes involved in the Trojan War. Of special interest will be the role of Protesilaos, who had been the first Achaean to die in the war, as a model for Achilles. As the Master Narrator notes most ruefully, Protesilaos is now terribly missed by his fellow warriors. So too will Achilles be missed.

The narrative of Rhapsody 2 now follows up on the dire consequences of the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon as narrated in Rhapsody 1. Achilles has already withdrawn from the war because of his anger. So, now that this greatest hero of the Achaeans is out of the picture, what will happen next? How will the absence of Achilles affect the story of the Trojan War? Many new doubts and fears set in, and the resolve of the Achaeans is harshly tested. There is negative talk, and there are omens. Thus the story of the Trojan War, as told and retold countless times in the distant past, must now be retold yet again, and Rhapsody 2 will set the terms for the retelling still to come. For setting the terms, Rhapsody 2 will need a new Catalogue of Ships, now happening in the tenth year of the war, as a replacement for any old Catalogue that would have logically happened already in the first year. This new Catalogue is of course not really new: rather, it is the oldest possible Catalogue that is now being renewed for the newest possible retelling of the Trojan War, reconsidered in the glaring light of the grim consequences facing the Achaeans now that Achilles has withdrawn from the war. With these consequences in view, the Catalogue will reassess all the Achaean heroes involved in the Trojan War. Of special interest will be the role of Protesilaos, who had been the first Achaean to die in the war, as a model for Achilles. As the Master Narrator notes most ruefully, Protesilaos is now terribly missed by his fellow warriors. So too will Achilles be missed. [[GN 2016.07.01.]]

I.02.001–006
subject heading(s): False Dream; Will of Zeus; plot of the Iliad; narrative arc; sub-plot; tīmē ‘honor’ of Achilles; Battle for the Ships; fire of Hector; boulē ‘wish, plan’

The False Dream that is sent by Zeus to the sleeping Agamemnon is a false Will of Zeus. Whereas the true Will of Zeus is the real plot or narrative arc of the Iliad, as noted in the comments on I.01.005 and on I.01.558–559, the false Will of Zeus is a false plot for the epic, since the eventual victory of the Achaeans over the Trojans in the tenth year of the Trojan War will not be quick and easy and painless but prolonged and difficult and painful. In the real plot of the Iliad, the Achaeans will suffer a new pain: they will find themselves on the losing side of the Trojan War while the Trojans will now be on the winning side. This temporary reversal in the tenth year of the Trojan War goes back to the moment when Agamemnon damages the tīmē ‘honor’ of Achilles. Because this damage was tolerated by the Achaeans, they will suffer—and keep on suffering—the akhos ‘grief’ of being on the losing side until the fire of Hector finally reaches the ships of the Achaeans at the climax of the Battle for the Ships. By way of this reversal, through the Will of Zeus, Achilles will recover the tīmē or ‘honor’ that he had lost. At I.02.003-004, Zeus is shown in the act of planning this reversal: it is the Will of Zeus that he will give tīmē ‘honor’ to Achilles, and this honor, it is said here, will require the destruction of many warriors at the Battle for the Ships. Such destruction will be a source of great grief for the Achaeans. For them, victory at Troy will now become a most prolonged and difficult and painful goal to achieve. Such is the real plot of the Iliad, whereas the false plot that tells of a quick and easy and painless victory is only a dream. Nevertheless, the dream of this false plot is still a part of the real plot, since the Will of Zeus subsumes the false plot. The dream, then, is a subplot. After all, it is the boulē ‘will’ of Zeus to send the dream at I.02.005, and this boulē is here described as the ‘best’ boulē in the sense of a ‘best plan’ for now. The plan of Zeus here is a subplot that is the best of all possible subplots because it is part of the overarching plot of the Iliad, a master epic that subsumes all of its various subplots. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 64, 82, 132, 334, 336.]]

I.02.007–015
subject heading(s): False Dream; Will of Zeus; micro-Iliad; First Song of Demodokos; fire of Hector; kulindesthai ‘roll’; boulē ‘wish, plan’ in the specific sense of ‘plan’

The False Dream, personified, is instructed by Zeus to tell Agamemnon that the victory of the Achaeans over the Trojans will be quick and easy and painless, since the goddess Hērā at a council of the divinities has supposedly persuaded the other gods to acquiesce to such a victory.The instructions of Zeus as formulated at I.02.011–015 are carried out by the False Dream, who delivers the formulation to the sleeping Agamemnon at I.02.028–032. Later on, at I.02.065-069, Agamemnon retells this formulation. I note that Zeus does not instruct the False Dream to say that these instructions are the Will of Zeus, though the wording of the False Dream implies it. The implication happens in an additional verse that follows the False Dream’s formulation as the messenger of Zeus at I.02.028–032. In this additional verse, at I.02.033, the False Dream says that the ultimate doom of the Trojans will be caused by Zeus. And the same addition is made in the retelling of Agamemnon, at I.02.070 following I.02.065–69. But there is no such corresponding addition after the verses containing the original formulation of Zeus at I.02.011–015. In any case, what results from the formulation delivered by the False Dream as messenger of Zeus is that Agamemnon will misunderstand what the god really wants. Agamemnon will think that victory over the Trojans will now be quick and easy and painless. But Zeus plans instead just the opposite: in order to restore the tīmē ‘honor’ of Achilles, Zeus will make sure that the struggles awaiting the Achaeans will be prolonged and difficult and painful, so that the Achaeans will now be on the losing side until the fire of Hector finally reaches the ships of the Achaeans at the Battle for the Ships. Likewise in the “micro-Iliad” of O.8.072–083, which is the First Song of Demodokos, Agamemnon misunderstands the Will of Zeus, not knowing what pains the god is planning to inflict on the Achaeans as well as the Trojans. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 64, 82, 334, 336.]]

I.02.026
subject heading(s): Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’; ossa ‘oracular voice’

The False Dream, personified, describes himself here as the Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’. Later on, at I.02.063, Agamemnon himself describes the personified False Dream as the Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’. Still later on, at I.02.93, the False Dream will be equated with Ossa, personification of an ossa ‘oracular voice’. And this personified Ossa is then described at I.02.94 as Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 138.]

I.02.029–030

The False Dream tells Agamemnon that he will capture Troy ‘now’. It is a promise of instant gratification. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 64.]]

I.02.036–040
Q&T via BA 65
subject heading(s): False Dream; Will of Zeus; teleîsthai ‘come to fulfillment’;[1] algea ‘pains’ of the Achaeans

These verses describe most accurately how Agamemnon, dreaming his False Dream, misunderstands the Will of Zeus. As we read at I.02.036 here, Agamemnon is thinking things that will definitely not ‘come to fulfillment’, teleîsthai, through the will of the god. As we read further at I.02.037, Agamemnon thinks that he will now capture Troy in just one day, in accordance with the Will of Zeus. Of course he is wrong to think this, as we read still further at I.02.038–040, since Zeus is now planning to inflict many more algea ‘pains’ in battle not only for the Trojans but also, more pertinently, for the Achaeans. The Trojan War is about to be prolonged for the Achaeans, causing them much more hardship and pain. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 65, 77, 138.]]

I.02.041
subject heading(s): False Dream; omphē ‘oracular voice’; ossa ‘oracular voice’; micro-Iliad; First Song of Demodokos; pēma ‘pain’; kulindesthai ‘roll’; Will of Zeus; boulē ‘wish, plan’ in the specific sense of ‘plan’

When Agamemnon wakes up from dreaming the False Dream, he experiences the sensation of an omphē ‘oracular voice’ that has just now been poured all over him. This idea of omphē as an ‘oracular voice’ (the word is cognate with English song) is picked up by the word ossa ‘oracular voice’ at I.02.093, which refers there to the personified False Dream who had announced himself as the Dios angelos ‘messenger’ of Zeus to the sleeping Agamemnon at I.02.026. In the context of Theognis 1.808 and elsewhere, omphē refers to the oracular voice of the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi. Such contexts show that omphē in the sense of ‘oracular voice’ is relevant to the misunderstanding experienced by Agamemnon in Iliad 2. Just as Agamemnon misunderstands the oracular voice that is mediated by the False Dream, so also he misunderstands the oracular voice of the god Apollo himself in the First Song of Demodokos O.08.072–083. At verses 77–78 of that “micro-Iliad,” it is said that Agamemnon was happy to see Odysseus and Achilles quarelling; at verses 79–83, it is said that such a quarrel was predicted by the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi to Agamemnon when this over-king went there for an oracular consultation. And at verses 81–82 it is said that this quarrel was really a sign that foretold a great pēma ‘pain’ that was about to befall the Achaeans as well as the Trojans in the Trojan War. [[GN 2016.06.30 via Nagy 2015.05.27; also via BA 65, 77, 138.]]

I.02.046
subject heading(s): skēptron ‘scepter’; aphthito– ‘imperishable, unwilting’; Oath of Achilles

The skēptron ‘scepter’ that is held by Agamemnon is described as golden, and gold is the symbol for the artificial continuum of immortality as expressed by the epithet aphthito– in the sense of ‘imperishable, unwilting’. But this scepter was originally wooden and then covered over in gold; and wood is a symbol for the natural discontinuity of mortal life as expressed by the verb phthinesthai in the sense of ‘wilt’. This aspect of the skēptron ‘scepter’ as a symbol for the natural discontinuity of mortal life is highlighted by the Oath of Achilles at I.01.233–246. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 179, 188; PH 278; GMP 125.]]

I.02.063
subject heading(s): Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’; ossa ‘oracular voice’

The False Dream, personified, announces himself to the sleeping Agamemnon, describing himself as the Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 65, 77, 138.]]

I.02.082
Q&T via BA 26
subject heading(s): ‘best of the Achaeans’; eukhesthai ‘claim; declare’

Countering the claim of Achilles to be the ‘best of the Achaeans’, Agamemnon here lays claim to the same title, and the verb for expressing such a claim is eukhesthai ‘claim’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 26, 45; on eukhesthai see also Muellner 1976.]]

I.02.086
subject heading(s): skēptoukhoi basilēes ‘scepter-bearing kings’; skēptron ‘scepter’

This expression needs to be added to the cumulative evidence showing that a person who holds a skēptron ‘scepter’ speaks with the authority of a king—an authority emanating from Zeus. [[GN 2016.06.30 via GMP 52.]]

I.02.094
subject heading(s): Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’; ossa ‘oracular voice’

In this verse, I.02.094, the epithet Dios angelos ‘messenger of Zeus’ applies to the noun ossa ‘oracular voice’ as found in the previous verse, I.02.093. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 138.]]

I.02.100–108
subject heading(s): Pelops

In the Homeric Iliad, the hero Pelops figures as an archetype of political power. The sequence of kings in the Peloponnesus is limited to the dynastic lineage starting with Pelops. [[GN 2016.06.30 via PH 130, 299.]]

I.02.101
subject heading(s): skēptron ‘scepter’

I.02.108
subject heading(s): skēptron ‘scepter’

I.02.110
subject heading(s): therapōn ‘attendant; ritual substitute’; therapontes of Ares; hero cult; cult hero

This is the second occurrence of the noun therapōn in the Iliad; the plural form here is therapontes. The surface meaning of therapōn in Homeric diction is ‘attendant’, and a fitting example is the word’s first occurrence in the Iliad, at I.01.321; the deeper meaning, however, is ‘ritual substitute’. In contexts where the plural therapontes in combination with Arēos ‘of Ares’ is applied to the Achaeans=Danaans=Argives (at I.02.110, to the Danaans) as a grouping of warriors, the deeper meaning is more evident than in other contexts. When a warrior is killed in war, he becomes a therapōn or ‘ritual substitute’ who dies for Ares by becoming identical to the war god at the moment of death; then, after death, the warrior is eligible to become a cult hero who serves as a sacralized ‘attendant’ of the war god in contexts of hero cult [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 293–295; GMP 48; H24H 6§32.]]

I.02.119–130
subject heading(s): epic traditions of the Epigonoi; epic traditions of the Seven against Thebes

The words of this challenge directed against the over-king Agamemnon by Sthenelos, chariot driver of Diomedes, recall the epic traditions of the Epigonoi = Sons-of-the-Seven-against-Thebes. Since Sthenelos figures as a character in two epic traditions, both the Iliadic and the Epigonic, his wording here can be seen as a cross-reference from the Iliadic tradition to the Epigonic. The cross-reference sets up a rivalry between the two epic traditions: the question is, are the Epigonoi as heroic characters superior to the heroic characters of the Iliad? [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 163.]]

I.02.186
subject heading(s): skēptron ‘scepter’

I.02.212
subject heading(s): a-metro-epēs ‘without measured speech’; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic

This word indicates the language of blame vs. praise. Such words can refer to blame as a foil for epic. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 264.]]

I.02.214
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; erizemenai basileusin ‘engage in strife against kings’; “speaking name” (nomen loquens)

The expression erizemenai basileusin ‘engage in strife against kings’ is a programmatic way of referring to the language of blame as a challenge to royalty. In the Iliad, Thersites is a prime exponent of blame poetry. He has a “speaking name” (nomen loquens), since Thersī́tēs is related to the noun thersos/thrasos, which refers to a negative kind of ‘boldness’ in contexts of blame poetry: see the comment at O.18.001–004. [[GN 2016.08.17 via BA 262-263.]]

I.02.216
subject heading(s): aiskhistos ‘most disgraceful’; aiskhos ‘disgrace, shame’; aiskhro– ‘disgraceful, shameful’; Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; Aristotle on blame poetry

The programmatic representation of Thersites as an exponent of blame poetry is summed up in the description of this character as aiskhistos ‘most disgraceful’. In the Poetics of Aristotle (1449a), the semantics of the underlying (a) noun aiskhos ‘disgrace, shame’ and (b) adjective aiskhron ‘disgraceful, shameful’ can be seen as the basic context of blame poetry. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 262.]]

I.02.217–219
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; ugliness of blame; Aesop as exponent of praise/blame; Thersites as pharmakos ‘scapegoat’; Aesop as pharmakos ‘scapegoat’[; ainos ‘coded words; fable’]; neikeîn ‘quarrel with’; aiskhro– ‘disgraceful, shameful’; Hector; Paris=Alexandros

The content of the words of Thersites as blame poetry is matched by the form of the blame poet: just as the content is ugly, the form too is ugly. Thersites actually looks ugly. If we compare the figure of Thersites with the figure of Aesop, who is represented in myth as an exponent of blame as well as praise whenever he performs an ainos ‘fable’, those aspects of Aesop that gravitate toward blame are reflected in the portrayals of this character as markedly ugly. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 262, 308.]]

I.02.221
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; Thersites as ekhthistos ‘most hateful’ to both Achilles and Odysseus; neikeîn ‘quarrel with’; neikos ‘quarrel’; aiskhro– ‘disgraceful, shameful’; Hector; Paris=Alexandros

As an exponent of blame poetry, which is antithetical to the poetry of epic as a vehicle for praising what is good about heroes, Thersites is truly ekhthistos ‘most hateful’ to the primary two heroes of epic poetry as represented by the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey, who are of course Achilles and Odysseus respectively. As we read at I.02.220–221, Thersites has his quarrels especially with these two heroes, and the verb neikeîn ‘quarrel with’ as used here at I.02.221, together with the corresponding noun neikos ‘quarrel’ as used elsewhere, refers programmatically to the poetics of blame. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 260, 263.]]

I.02.222
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; oneidos (plural oneidea) ‘words of insult’; oneidizein ‘say words of insult’

Besides the noun neikos (plural neikea) ‘quarrel’ and the verb neikeîn ‘quarrel with’, on both of which see the comment on I.02.221, another set of words referring to the poetics of blame as antithetical to the poetics of praise in general and of epic in particular is the noun oneidos (plural oneidea), as here, meaning ‘words of insult’, and the verb oneidein, meaning ‘say words of insult’, as elsewhere. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 263.]]

I.02.224
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; neikeîn ‘quarrel with’

Here again, the verb neikeîn ‘quarrel with’ refers to the poetics of blame. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 263.]]

I.02.225–242
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; insults about greed

Epic quotes here directly the poetry of blame as displayed by Thersites. His words of blame are introduced and concluded at I.02.224 and I.02.243 respectively by way of the word neikeîn ‘quarrel with’. Although Thersites addresses Agamemnon, insulting him directly, he insults indirectly all the Achaeans, including Achilles. Among the specific insults hurled at Agamemnon are accusations of greedy behavior, I.02.237. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 261-263, 313.]]

I.02.235
subject heading(s): elenkhos ‘disgrace’

Thersites directs his blame at the Achaeans, ridiculing them by feminizing them. The noun elenkhos ‘disgrace’ is meant to shame the persons insulted by the poetics of blame. [[GN 2016.06.264.]]

I.02.241–242
subject heading(s): Thersites insults Achilles

Here the words of blame uttered by Thersites insult Achilles, calling into question the motives of that hero. It is as if the anger of Achilles were not real. This kind of misrepresentation by way of blame poetry is described as ekhthrā parphasis ‘invidious side-wording’ in Pindar Nemean 8.32. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 263.]]

I.02.243
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; neikeîn ‘quarrel with’

I.02.245
subject heading(s): blaming of blame

Thersites here is insulted by words of blame because he has used the words of blame to insult the noble. Nobility, when insulted by words of blame, can stoop to insult in return by way of using the same words. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 262.]]

I.02.246–264
subject heading(s): blaming of blame

Throughout this speech, Thersites is insulted by words of blame because he has used the words of blame to insult the noble. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 262.]]

I.02.246
subject heading(s): a-krito-mūthos ‘having words that cannot be sorted out’

The insulting language of Thersites is here being insulted in return: his discourse is described as a-krito-mūthos ‘having words that cannot be sorted out’. So, the blame poetry of Thersites is bad poetry. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 264.]]

I.02.247
subject heading(s): Thersites as exponent of blame poetry; language of praise/blame; blame as foil for epic; erizemenai basileusin ‘engage in strife against kings’; “speaking name” (nomen loquens)

Here again, the expression erizemenai basileusin ‘engage in strife against kings’ is a programmatic way of referring to the language of blame as a challenge to royalty. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 262-263.]]

I.02.248–249
subject heading(s): worst of the Achaeans

Just as Achilles and Odysseus are the ‘best of the Achaeans’, Thersites is the ‘worst’, according to the insulting words of counter-blame spoken by Oydsseus. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 260.]]

I.02.251
subject heading(s): oneidos (plural oneidea) ‘words of insult’

I.02.255
subject heading(s): oneidizein ‘say words of insult’

I.02.256
subject heading(s): kertomeîn ‘say words of insult’

This word kertomeîn ‘say words of insult’ is yet another term referring to the act of insulting by way of blame poetry. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 263.]]

I.02.265–268
subject heading(s): blaming of blame

I.02.268
subject heading(s): skēptron ‘scepter’

I.02.269–270
subject heading(s): blaming of blame

Thersites, by blaming the heroes of the Iliad, had intended to turn them into objects of laughter by way of ridicule. But the blame is reversed, and now it is Thersites who becomes the object of laughter. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 262.]]

I.02.275
subject heading(s): epes-bolos ‘thrower of words’

This word epes-bolos ‘thrower of words’ is yet another term referring to the act of insulting by way of blame poetry. A possible parallel is Latin iocus, if derived from iaciō / iacere ‘throw’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 264; GMP 164.]]

I.02.277
subject heading(s): oneidos (plural oneidea) ‘words of insult’

I.02.299–332
Q&T via HPC 123–125; also HC 1§8.
subject heading(s): telos ‘fulfillment’ as the outcome of the epic plot; Shield of Aeneas; epic Cycle

Here in the Iliad, the telos or ‘fulfillment’ of the plot is being realized only in the form of a prophecy—by contrast with the epic Cycle, where the conquest of Troy is the ultimate telos. On the epic Cycle, see the Inventory of terms and names. There are comparable themes in Virgil Aeneid 8.615-629, 729-731, featuring the Shield of Aeneas. [[GN 2016.06.30 via HPC 123–125; see also HC 1§8 and C§§15–19 on the Shield of Aeneas.]]

I.02.299–310
subject heading(s): omen of the serpent; petrifaction; terror and pity

The omen of the serpent in Iliad 2 is comparable to the omen of the serpent in Virgil Aeneid 2.199–227. [[GN 2016.02.30 via HC 1§82; also HC 1§11 on terror and pity.]]

I.02.308
subject heading(s): sēma ‘sign, signal’; etymology of drakōn ‘serpent’; thelgein ‘put a trance on, enchant’ as an effect of visual attraction

The omen of the serpent that devours the nine birds is a sēma ‘sign, signal’ that calls for interpretation. This interpretation is needed, in terms of the poetry itself, for understanding the plot of the Iliad. [[GN 2016.06.30 via GMP 204; also HC 1§§83–84 and §121 on the poetics of enchantment as conveyed by the story about the drakōn ‘serpent’; also on the etymology of drakōn.]]

I.02.318
Q&T via HC 1§19
subject heading(s): omen of the serpent; petrification; arizēlon / aridēlon ‘most visible’; aïdēlon ‘invisible’

The serpent, once it is petrified, is arizēlon/aridēlon ‘most visible’; according to an alternative version, the serpent does not get petrified but rather is made suddenly aïzēlon ‘invisible’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via HC 1§§26–32.]]

I.02.319
subject heading(s): arizēlo- / aridēlo- ‘most visible’; aïdēlo- ‘invisible’; variant adduced by Aristarchus; athetesis; arizēlo- ‘most visible’

The reading aïdēlon ‘invisible’ at I.02.318, adduced by Aristarchus, is incompatible with this verse, I.02.319, which is accordingly athetized by him. On athetesis, see the Inventory of terms and names. [[GN 2016.02.30 via HC 1§§20–21, 26, 28, 32.]]

I.02.325
subject heading(s): kleos ‘glory’ (of poetry)[; kleos aphthiton ‘unwilting glory’ as something eternal, not just long-lasting]

The expression kleos oupot’ oleitai ‘its glory [kleos] will never perish’, as here at I.02.325, is parallel with kleos aphthiton estai (κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται) at I.09.413, which can be translated ‘the glory [kleos] will be imperishable [aphthiton]’. This parallelism shows that aphthito– at I.09.413 and elsewhere was understood to be not just long-lasting, as some have thought, but eternal. As for the interpretation ‘the glory [kleos] will be imperishable [aphthiton]’, we will see in the comment on I.09.413 that an alternative interpretation is also possible: ‘and there will be a glory [kleos] that is imperishable’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via GMP 123–126.]]

I.02.330
subject heading(s): sign of the serpent; teleîn ‘reach an outcome’; prophecy; poetics of unchangeability; concretization; petrifaction

The petrified serpent is equated with the story of Troy, and the word teleîn ‘reach an outcome’ here conveys the inevitable outcome of that story. The prophecy expressed by teleîn reveals a poetics of unchangeability in narrating the story. And the concretization of such unchangeability is visualized as the petrifaction of the serpent. The imperfective aspect of the verb teleîn ‘reach an outcome’ here is referring to the story of Troy as it is still being told, as it is still in progress. [[GN 2016.06.30 via HC 1§§12, 18, 61, 63.]]

I.02.401
subject heading(s): mōlos Arēos ‘struggle of Ares’; biē ‘force, violence, strength’

The expression mōlos Arēos ‘struggle of Ares’ refers to a war-dance. It is as if the violence of warfare were primarily a war-dance. To be compared is the Arcadian festive event of the Mōleia, which is a ritualized dramatization of martial biē ‘force, violence, strength’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 332.]]

I.02.402–429
subject heading(s): late arrivals of Menelaos
Epitome from Nagy 2015 §§103:

Menelaos seems to be idiosyncratic in his arrivals at sacrifices. A striking example is the passage here at I.02.402–429 where Agamemnon sacrifices an ox to Zeus, I.02.402–403, 422, and makes a wish-in-prayer, as expressed by the verb eukhesthai, I.02.411, that he will conquer the city of Troy, I.02.414–415, and kill Hector together with as many other enemies as possible, I.02.416–418. To attend this sacrifice as well as the feast that follows the sacrifice, Agamemnon invites six heroes, I.02.404–407. But the hero Menelaos is not included in this group of six. Nevertheless, Menelaos does manage to attend, arriving as the seventh hero, without having been invited to the sacrifice, I.02.408–409: rather, he comes automatos, which is conventionally interpreted to mean ‘of his own accord’, or, to put it into popular idiom, ‘automatically’, I.02.408. But the reason that is given here to explain why Menelaos comes automatos is uncanny: it is because, the narrative says, Menelaos can read the mind of his brother, I.02.408–409. [[GN 2017.03.29.]]

I.02.402–429 / anchor comment on: prayers heeded or not heeded by gods
subject heading(s): eukhesthai ‘pray’

Epitome from Nagy 2015 §85. Here at I.02.402–429, when Agamemnon sacrifices an ox to Zeus, I.02.402–403, 422, he makes a wish-in-prayer, as expressed by the verb eukhesthai, I.02.411, that he will conquer the city of Troy, I.02.414–415, and kill Hector together with as many other enemies as possible, I.02.416–418—all within the space of one single day, I.02.413. But Zeus refuses to bring this prayer to fulfillment, I.02.419—even though the god accepts the offering of the sacrifice, I.02.420, and even though Agamemnon and his guests go ahead and cook the meat after killing the ox, dividing the beef among themselves and then feasting on it together, I.02.421–429. Although the narrative leaves it open whether, one fine day, Agamemnon will still succeed in his wish to conquer the city, I.02.419, it is made clear that the present wish-in-prayer, as performed by the hero on the occasion of this particular sacrifice, is a failure, I.02.419. To paraphrase in Latin terms: the vōtum as a ‘wish-in-prayer’ is not granted here. [[2017.04.06.]] [[2017.04.06.]]

I.02.408–409
subject heading(s): Menelaos mind-reader of Agamemnon

Menelaos in his thūmos ‘heart, mind’ knows what Agamemnon is feeling. [[GN 2016.02.30; see also PasP 191n14 with reference to Athenaeus 5.177ef.]]

I.02.408
subject heading(s): automatos ‘having a mind of his own’; dominant and recessive twins
Epitome from Nagy 2015 §104:

Point 1. The ability of Menelaos to read the mind of Agamemnon indicates a special meaning for the adjective automatos here. On the one hand, if Menelaos comes to the feast ‘on his own’, then we can expect his mind to be ‘operating by itself’—which is the meaning built into automatos as a compounding of the element auto– ‘self’ with the element ma-t-, derived from the root *men-/*mn– meaning ‘mind’. So, Menelaos has a mind of his own. On the other hand, something unexpected is going on here: this mind of Menelaos, exceptionally, can read the mind of the brother, and so automatos in this context means not only ‘having a mind of his own’ but also ‘having the same mind’ as the brother has. In terms of this interpretation, Agamemnon and Menelaos have the same mind because they share their own selves with each other. We can find mythological patterns of twin-like behavior in Homeric descriptions of Agamemnon and Menelaos, and these patterns affect even their thinking. See Frame 2009:177, with a further reference at pp. 72–73 n. 156. More from Frame pp. 209–215: Also, Menelaos in the Iliad consistently fails to take the initiative whenever he undertakes an activity together with his brother. In such situations, Menelaos is recessive in his twinned thinking, while Agamemnon is dominant.

Point 2. There is an allusion in Plato Symposium 174b-d to the wording here in I.02.408. And, on the basis of Athenaeus 1.8a, we can reconstruct a relevant proverb, to which Plato’s text is also alluding. This proverb can be reconstructed as αὐτόματοι δ’ ἀγαθοὶ ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασι ‘automatically do the noble go to the feasts of the noble’. In such a context, I add, not only does each noble person have ‘a mind of his own’: that mind is also the ‘same’ mind that the other noble persons have. The point is, ‘like-minded’ or ‘same-minded’ people congregate with each other automatically at dinners. [[GN 2017.03.29.]]

I.02.431
subject heading(s): dais ‘feast, division of portions (of meat), sacrifice’

I.02.484–487
Q&T I.02.485–486 via BA 16, 271.
subject heading(s): performance & composition; kleos ‘glory’ as ‘the thing heard [kluein]’; Muse(s) as goddess(es) of poetic inspiration

The immediacy of the Master Narrator’s performance here is counterbalanced by an attitude of remoteness from the composition. Such a counterbalance indicates the Narrator’s deference to the epic tradition of Homeric poetry. The Narrator does not claim that he knows the tradition: instead, he says he just ‘hears’ it from the Muses, goddesses of poetic inspiration, and this act of ‘hearing’ is kleos, I.02.486, derived from the verb kluein ‘hear’. The literal meaning of kleos as ‘the thing heard’ has an enormous prestige that translates into the idealized meaning of ‘glory, fame’ as applied to the composition and performance of Homeric poetry. The Narrator of Homeric poetry is proud of his capacity to ‘hear’. To hear what? To hear ‘the thing heard’, which is kleos. This capacity translates into ‘glory, fame’ not only for Homeric poetry but also for the poet who performs the poetry. Such a poet claims access to both the form and the content of what he ‘hears’ the Muses tell him. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 16, 271; PH 148, 227, 422; PasP 61.]]

I.02.484
subject heading(s): re-invocation of Muse(s); ennepein ‘narrate, tell’; Mousa ‘Muse’; singing as narrating
lemmatizing: ἔσπετε νῦν μοι Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι

In this verse, which can be translated ‘tell me now, you Muses who have your dwellings on Mount Olympus’, we see a rhyming of … Mousai, situated before the primary mid-verse word-break, with … ekhousai, situated before the verse-final word-break. Such rhyming is rare and archaizing. (On archaic patterns of rhyming in early Greek poetry, see Nagy 1974:99–101.) On the poetics of re-invocation here, there will be more to say in the comments on I.02.761, Ι.11.218, I.14.508, I.16.112. For now, it suffices to observe that the re-invocation of the Muses here at I.02.484 pictures these goddesses in the plural, by contrast with the singular Muse who had been initially invoked at I.01.001. There will be another invocation of the singular Muse at I.02.761, to be followed by invocations of plural Muses at Ι.11.218, I.14.508, and I.16.112. In the case of each invocation, there is a heightened level of poetic self-awareness about the importance of what is about to be narrated. Here at I.02.484, for example, the Master Narrator shows his concern about the need for accuracy in re-creating a comprehensive catalogue of essentially all the cultural ancestors of the Greek-speaking world. On other occasions of re-invocation, there will be comparable poetic concerns, as we will see in comments still to come. [[GN 2016.10.27.]]

I.02.486
subject heading(s): elliptic plural; Homer’s ‘I’ and Homer’s ‘we’

The ‘I’ of Homer is interchangeable with ‘we’. The ellipsis of successive ‘I’-s in this ‘we’ indicates a vertical succession of performers. [[GN 2016.02.30 via HTL 174.]]

I.02.488–493
Q&T via HTL 174-175
subject heading(s): re-experiencing of performance

|₄₈₈ πληθὺν δ’ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ’ ὀνομήνω, |₄₈₉ οὐδ’ εἴ μοι δέκα μὲν γλῶσσαι, δέκα δὲ στόματ’ εἶεν, |₄₉₀ φωνὴ δ’ ἄρρηκτος, χάλκεον δέ μοι ἦτορ ἐνείη, |₄₉₁ εἰ μὴ Ὀλυμπιάδες Μοῦσαι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο |₄₉₂ θυγατέρες μνησαίαθ’ ὅσοι ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθον· |₄₉₃ ἀρχοὺς αὖ νηῶν ἐρέω νῆάς τε προπάσας.

|₄₈₈ But the number [of Achaeans] I could not tell nor name |₄₈₉ (not even if I had ten tongues and ten mouths |₄₉₀ and a voice that was unbreaking, and if a heart of bronze were within me) |₄₉₁ if the Muses of Olympus, of Zeus the aegis-bearer |₄₉₂ the daughters, did not mentally connect [mimnēskein] me, (about) how many came to Troy. |₄₉₃ But now I will say the leaders [arkhoi] of the ships, and all the ships.

The performer here is re-experiencing the here-and-now of his own performance. See further the comment at I.02.492. [[GN 2016.06.30 via HTL 175.]]

I.02.492
subject heading(s): mnē- ‘mentally connect, put the mind in touch’

What the Muses do is ‘put the mind in touch’: the translation of mnē- as ‘mentally connect’ is more accurate than ‘remind’, since the idea of ‘reminding’ in a language like English restricts the idea of mental contact to the past. But the idea ‘mentally connect’ as conveyed by the word mnē- is broader. This Greek word refers to mental contact not only with the past but also with the present and even with the future. The Muses have the power to put the mind in touch with times and places other than one’s own. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 17.]]

I.02.493
subject heading(s): prooimion ‘proemium, prelude’

We see here a transition from the prooimion ‘proemium, prelude’ that introduces the Catalogue of Ships to the actual narration of the Catalogue. The transition is formalized by way of picking up a basic idea from the prooimion. This idea, signaled by the word hēgemones ‘leaders’ at I.02.487 in the prooimion, is now picked up by the word arkhoi ‘leaders’ here in the first verse of the actual narration, I.02.493. For the etymology of prooimion ‘proemium, prelude’, see the comment on O.08.074. [[GN 2016.06.30 via PH 493.]]

I.02.540
subject heading(s): ozos Arēos ‘attendant of Ares’

Here is the first Iliadic occurrence of the epithet ozos Arēos, which can be translated generally as ‘attendant of Ares’. The application of this epithet to a hero indicates that such a hero, as a warrior, is destined to become a ritual substitute for the war-god Ares. See the anchor comment at I.12.188. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 295.]]

I.02.546–552
Q&T via HTL 161
subject heading(s): Erekhtheus; Athena and Athens

|₅₄₆ Οἳ δ’ ἄρ’ Ἀθήνας εἶχον ἐϋκτίμενον πτολίεθρον |₅₄₇ δῆμον Ἐρεχθῆος μεγαλήτορος, ὅν ποτ’ Ἀθήνη |₅₄₈ θρέψε Διὸς θυγάτηρ, τέκε δὲ ζείδωρος ἄρουρα, |₅₄₉ κὰδ δ’ ἐν Ἀθήνῃς εἷσεν ἑῷ ἐν πίονι νηῷ· |₅₅₀ ἔνθα δέ μιν ταύροισι καὶ ἀρνειοῖς ἱλάονται |₅₅₁ κοῦροι Ἀθηναίων περιτελλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν· |₅₅₂ τῶν αὖθ’ ἡγεμόνευ’ υἱὸς Πετεῶο Μενεσθεύς.

|₅₄₆ And there were those who held Athens [Athênai], well-founded city |₅₄₇ which was the district [dēmos of Erekhtheus], the one with the mighty heart, whom once upon a time Athena [Athḗnē] |₅₄₈ nourished, daughter of Zeus, but the grain-giving earth gave birth to him. |₅₄₉ And she [= Athena] established him in Athens [Athênai], in her own rich temple. |₅₅₀ There he is supplicated, with sacrifices of bulls and rams, |₅₅₁ by the young men of Athens, each time the seasonal moment comes round. |₅₄₂ And their [= the Athenians’] leader was Menestheus, son of Peteoos.

Pictured here is the installation of the hero Erekhtheus within the sacred precinct of the goddess Athena in Athens. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 192, with other examples of such a relationship between hero and goddess; also GMP 254; HTL 161; more on Erekhtheus in HC 1§138.]]

I.02.546
subject heading(s): Athena and Athens

The name of the goddess Athena and the name of the citadel of Athens were originally the same, as we see from O.07.078–081. [[GN 2016.06.30 via HTL 161.]]

Ι.02.547–548
subject heading(s): Gaia, Athena, and Erekhtheus; trephein ‘nourish’

Although Erekhtheus here is born of the goddess Gaia as ‘Mother Earth’, he is nursed by the goddess Athena. This division of labor between Gaia and Athena is signaled by the verb trephein ‘nourish, nurse’, revealing a pattern of differentiation between older and newer concepts of a mother goddess. In terms of an older concept, an autochthonous hero would be both born of and nursed by a mother goddess, visualized primarily as the Earth. We may compare the wording in Plato Menexenus 237b on Mother Gaia, ‘the one who gave birth, nourished [trephein], and accepted [them] into her care’ (τῆς τεκούσης καὶ θρεψάσης καὶ ὑποδεξαμένης), with reference to the Athenians as her autochthonous children. See HTL 161, with bibliography. [[GN 2017.08.07.]]

Ι.02.548
subject heading(s): Dios thugatēr / thugatēr Dios ‘daughter of Zeus’
For the first time in the Iliad, we see here the epithet Dios thugatēr (/ thugatēr Dios) ‘daughter of Zeus’, applied in this case to the goddess Athena. This epithet is also applied to other goddesses, most notably to Aphrodite. See the anchor comment at I.03.374.[[GN 2017.04.12 via GMP 247–249; also 150n27.]]

I.02.553–554
Q&T via MoM 2§9
subject heading(s): homoios ‘similar to, same as’; relativism/absolutism

The word homoios ‘similar to, same as’, used in comparisons, is essential for understanding the semantics of relativism as well as absolutism in Homeric diction. See the anchor comment at I.05.441. [[GN 2016.07.06.]]

I.02.557–568
subject heading(s): Hesiod F 204.44–51

The narrative as presented here is significantly different from the corresponding narrative as presented in Hesiod F 204.44–51. [[GN 2016.06.30 via PH 73.]]

I.02.557–558
subject heading(s): Solon

Tradition has it that the Athenian statesman Solon once cited these verses in the context of a territorial dispute between the city-states of Athens and Megara. Such a tradition shows that myths were used as juridical evidence. Especially useful were myths mediated by prestigious forms of poetry like the Homeric Iliad. In earlier phases of Homeric poetry when this medium could still be described as a living oral tradition, any verses that would commonly be recognized as part of this poetry could thereby become acceptable as a form of proof in arguing a territorial claim. In later phases of Homeric poetry, however, when it was no longer a living oral tradition, antiquarians were prone to interpret verses once cited in territorial disputes as interpolations promoted by those whose political interests were served by tampering with the textual transmission of Homeric poetry. [[GN 2016.06.30 via PH 320 and HPC 355.]]

I.02.577
Q&T of part of the verse, via BA 26
subject heading(s): ‘best of the Achaeans’

The theme centering on the claim of Achilles to be the ‘best of the Achaeans’ is confronted here with a rival theme: Agamemnon too claims the title. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 26.]]

I.02.580
Q&T via BA 27
subject heading(s): ‘best of the Achaeans’

This verse expands on the rivalry of Achilles and Agamemnon for the title of ‘best of the Achaeans’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 27.]]

I.02.594–600
subject heading(s): Thamyris

This negative encounter between Thamyris and the Muses in the Iliad is to be contrasted with the positive encounter between Homer and the Delian Maidens in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo. [[GN 2016.06.30 via PH 376; see also PasP 178 on the reportage of Pausanias 9.30.2 on Thamyris; more on Thamyris in HC 3§41n.]]

Ι.02.637
subject heading(s): red. vs. purple color-coding

The ships of Odysseus here are described by way of the epithet milto-parēioi ‘with cheeks of red’; at O.09.125, the same epithet describes generic ships. To be contrasted is another epithet for ships, phoinīko-parēioi ‘with cheeks of purple’, applied to generic ships at O.11.124 and O.23.271. Inventories of chariots in the Linear B tablets of Knossos show a parallel dichotomy of red and purple in descriptions of colors painted on chariots: the noun i-qi-ja ‘chariot’ is described as either mi-to-we-sa = miltówessa ‘red’ as in Knossos tablet Sd 4407 or po-ni-ki-ja = phoinikíā ‘purple’ as in Knossos tablet Sd 4402. [[GN 2016.06.30 via PasP 172n70.]]

I.02.653–670
subject heading(s): ktisis-poetry

We see here the earliest attestation of a reference to ktisis-poetry, which is a special form of poetry centering on the colonization of daughter-cities by mother-cities. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 140.]]

I.02.655–656
subject heading(s): phūlē ‘subdivision’

The division of the island of Rhodes into three cities is comparable to the division of any given Dorian city into three phūlai ‘subdivisions’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via GMP 285.]]

I.02.658
subject heading(s): biē ‘force, violence, strength’; kleos ‘glory’; bíē Hēraklēeíē ‘force of Hēraklēs’

The name of Hēraklēs is linked with the epic theme of biē in the sense of martial ‘force, violence, strength’; even the name of Hēraklēs can be formulated periphrastically as ‘the force of Hēraklēs’. [[GN 2016.06.30 via BA 318.]]

I.02.663
subject heading(s): ozos Arēos ‘attendant of Ares’
See anchor comment at I.12.188.

I.02.666
subject heading(s): biē ‘force, violence, strength’; kleos ‘glory’; bíē Hēraklēeíē ‘force of Hēraklēs’

See the comment on I.02.658. [[GN 2016.09.25 via BA 318.]]

I.02.668
subject heading(s): phūlē ‘subdivision’; kata-phūladon ‘by way of subdivision’

The tripartition of the whole island of Rhodes kata-phūladon ‘by way of subdivision’ is comparable to the traditional tripartition of many Dorian cities into three phūlai ‘subdivisions’. In Dorian societies comprised of three phūlai, kings are conventionally chosen from the second phūlē. Similarly in Indic traditions, kings are conventionally chosen from the second varṇa- or ‘subdivision’ of society. [[GN 2016.06.30 via GMP 285.]]

I.02.681–694
subject heading(s): homeland of Achilles

The first part of this micro-narrative, I.02.681–685, highlights various territories unified here under the leadership of Achilles, who sails in fifty ships with warriors originating from these territories, I.02.685. Relevant names of special interest here are: ‘Pelasgian’ Argos at I.02.681, Phthīē and Hellás at I.02.683, Myrmidónes and Héllēnes and Akhaioí at I.02.684. The second part of this micro-narrative, I.02.686–694, highlights the fact that the warriors who sailed on the fifty ships and were led by Achilles have lost their leader, since Achilles is now refusing to participate in the Trojan War. And a sub-part of this micro-narrative, I.02.689–694, retells the story about the anger of Achilles over the seizing of Briseis by Agamemnon. [[GN 2016.09.07.]]

I.02.689–694
subject heading(s): epic deeds of Achilles before the time dramatized in the Iliad; Achilles the Aeolian

The Iliad refers to a variety of epic deeds performed by Achilles, and the relative chronology of these deeds is in many cases situated before or after the time-frame of the Iliad as we know it. One category of deeds stands out: before he joins the other Achaean leaders at Troy, Achilles conquers various places that are culturally identifiable as Aeolian as a result of his conquest, and, in each case, he captures aristocratic women who are likewise Aeolian—but only as a result of their being captured by Achilles the Aeolian. For a definition of ‘Aeolian’, see the anchor comment at I.01.463. The significance of the Aeolian identification of Achilles—and, by extension, of the women he captured—is analyzed in the anchor comment that immediately follows, at I.02.689–694; also at I.09.128–131 / I.09.270–272 and at I.11.624–627. [[GN 2016.10.05.]]

I.02.689–694/ anchor comment on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 1
subject heading(s): Achilles the Aeolian; Briseis the Aeolian; conquest of Lyrnessos by Achilles the Aeolian; Chryseis the Aeolian; conquest of Thēbē by Achilles the Aeolian; Andromache the Aeolian; songmaking of Sappho/Alcaeus
see also anchor comment at I.09.128–131 and at I.09.270–272 on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 2
see also anchor comment at I.11.624–627 on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 3

These verses at I.02.689–694 focus on Briseis, war-prize of Achilles. An aristocratic woman, she was taken captive by Achilles when he conquered the city of Lyrnessos and killed her husband Mynes, who was defending that city, I.02.690–691. The story about the conquest of Lyrnessos by Achilles and about his capturing of Briseis stemmed from poetic traditions that were distinctly Aeolian in origin. And this Aeolian origin has to do with a most basic fact about the principal hero of the Iliad: Achilles himself was an Aeolian, and he originated from a poetic tradition that was Aeolian. Achilles was an Aeolian not only in the limited sense that he was born and raised in Aeolian Thessaly, to the west of the Aegean Sea: much more than that, the poetic traditions about this hero’s conquests of territories to the east of the Aegean, across the sea from Thessaly, shaped his identity as a prime hero not only for the Thessalians in the European mainland but also for all Aeolians, including the Aeolic-speaking populations that inhabited the coastal mainland of northern Asia Minor and the outlying islands of Lesbos and Tenedos. As we will see in the course of further analysis, it was the myths about the conquests of Achilles in the East, including the regions of Troy and beyond, that shaped the ultimately Aeolian identity of the Aeolic-speaking populations that inhabited those eastern regions—which as I noted in the anchor comment at I.01.463 included the islands of Lesbos and Tenedos as well as the coastal mainland of most of northern Asia Minor. The conquests of Achilles in that whole area can be interpreted as a charter myth that aetiologized a prehistoric or even non-historical “colonization” by Aeolians from Thessaly. (See Nagy 2011b:171–173.) It is in this light that we may view the hero’s conquest of Lyrnessos, which was a city located in the region of Troy, south of Mount Ida. For more details about the location of Lyrnessos, see the comment on I.20.089–102. The conquest of Lyrnessos by Achilles was part of the myths conveyed by Aeolian poetic traditions, and that is how the captive woman Briseis becomes part of that tradition. In other words, Briseis is figured as an Aeolian because she is appropriated by the Aeolian poetic tradition. Likewise, as we see at I.02.691 here, Achilles conquered not only the city of Lyrnessos but also the city of Thēbē. This parallelism of Lyrnessos and Thēbē is most significant, as we will now see. Thēbē was originally not an Aeolian city, and the non-Aeolian identity of Thēbē is accentuated by way of a detail: as we read at I.06.397 and at I.06.415, the inhabitants of Thēbē before its destruction by Achilles had been non-Greek Kilikes ‘Cilicians’. And there is a striking parallelism here between Thēbē and Lyrnessos: the same non-Greek population had reportedly inhabited Lyrnessos as well. We read in Strabo 13.1.7 C586 that the region of the Kilikes was evenly divided between the cities of Thēbē and Lyrnessos. Nevertheless, as in the case of Lyrnessos, the poetic tradition about the conquest of Thēbē by Achilles was Aeolian. And when Achilles conquered the city of Thēbē, as we see at I.01.366–369, he captured there an aristocratic woman named Chryseis. So, as in the case of Briseis, Chryseis too becomes an Aeolian by virtue of being apppropriated by the Aeolian poetic tradition about the conquests of the Aeolian hero Achilles. In the case of Chryseis, she was allotted by the Achaeans to Agamemnon as his very own war-prize, Ι.01.369, while Briseis had been allotted to Achilles, Ι.01.392. (For background on the Aeolian poetic traditions about Briseis and Chryseis, I strongly recommend the work of Dué 2002 and 2006, listed in the Bibliography.) And now we come to a third aristocratic woman who is likewise identified by way of parallel Aeolian connections: she is Andromache, wife of Hector. Just as Achilles captured the women Chryseis and Briseis when he conquered the cities of Thēbē and Lyrnessos respectively, so too Achilles would have captured Andromache at the same time—if she had not been already married off to Hector, who had brought her as his bride to Troy before the Achaeans ever even arrived at Troy. Andromache originated from the city of Thēbē, as we see at I.06.394–396, and we have already seen at I.01.366–369 that Thēbē was the place where Achilles captured Chryseis when he conquered that city. The father of Andromache, Eëtion, was the king of the Kilikes who had inhabited the city of Thēbē, I.06.395–398, and he was killed by Achilles when that hero conquered this city, I.06.416–420. There is an important parallel noted by Strabo 13.1.7 C586 (also 13.1.61 C611–612): the husband of Briseis, Mynes, was evidently the king of the other Kilikes who had inhabited the city of Lyrnessos; Strabo draws attention to this parallelism in the context of citing I.02.691 and I.19.295, both of which verses refer to the time when Achilles conquered Lyrnessos and killed Mynes. In sum, all three of the women who are highlighted in these Iliadic contexts—Chryseis, Briseis, and Andromache—were appropriated by the Aeolian poetic traditions about the conquests of Achilles the Aeolian. And such Aeolian poetic traditions of songmaking are directly attested in Song 44 of Sappho about the wedding of Hector and Andromache. The songs attributed to Sappho as also to Alcaeus, both of whom are dated around 600 BCE, originate from the Aeolian island of Lesbos. There will be more to say about these traditions in the anchor comment at I.09.128–131 / 270–272 on: Aeolian women in the Iliad, part 2. [[GN 2016.06.30 via HPC 243.]]

I.02.695–709
Q&T via H24H 14§13
subject heading(s): Protesilaos; potheîn ‘long for’; hero cult; cult hero

This micro-narrative tells how Protesilaos, who was the first Achaean to die in the Trojan War, was sorely missed by his people back home in his native land of Thessaly. At I.02.703 and I.02.709, it is said that the natives of this land ‘feel a longing’ for the hero after his death at Troy, and this ‘longing’ is expressed by way of the verb potheîn ‘long for, desire’. The wording here, it can be argued, shows an indirect reference to the worship of Protesilaos as a cult hero. [[GN 2016.06.30 via H24H 14§§13–14; HPC 162.]]

I.02.704
subject heading(s): ozos Arēos ‘attendant of Ares’
See anchor comment at I.12.188.

I.02.745
subject heading(s): ozos Arēos ‘attendant of Ares’
See anchor comment at I.12.188.

I.02.760–770
Q&T 760–761 and 769 via BA 27
subject heading(s): ‘best of the Achaeans’; ring-composition

The Master Narrator addresses here a singular Muse: see the comment on I.02.761. The Muse is asked for an answer to the Iliadic question: who is the ‘best of the Achaeans’? The answer of the Muse is that Achilles is the best—and that Ajax is the second-best within the framework of the Iliad. The formulation of the Muse’s answer is an exquisite exercise in ring-composition. [[GN 2016.02.30 via BA 27; PasP 61–62 on I.02.761.]]

I.02.761
subject heading(s): re-invocation of Muse(s); ennepein ‘narrate, tell’; singing as narrating

Unlike what we see at I.02.484 above, where the Muses are invoked as plural goddesses, the Muse here at I.02.761 is invoked as a singular goddess, as already at I.01.001. See the anchor comment below. [[GN 2016.10.22.]]

I.02.761/anchor comment on: the singular Muse of the Iliad and Odyssey

Unlike what we see at I.02.484, Ι.11.218, I.14.508, I.16.112, where the Muses are invoked as plural goddesses, the Muse here at I.02.761 is invoked as a singular goddess. And the Muse is of course singular also at the beginning of the Iliad, I.01.001, and at the beginning of the Odyssey, O.01.001. There are also two other cases where a singular Muse is invoked:

A) In the First Song of Demodokos, O.08.73–82, which is featured as a proto-Iliad (see the comment at O.08.073-082), a singular Muse inspires the singer of tales at the beginning of his performance, at O.08.073. I think that the self-awareness at I.02.761 in invoking a singular Muse has to do with the singularity of the subject at I.02.760–770, since the subject in this case is Achilles. The Muse is asked for an answer to the Iliadic question: who is the ‘best of the Achaeans’? The answer of the Muse is that Achilles is the best. He is the singularity of the Iliad as epic, just as Odysseus is the singularity of the Odyssey as epic. That is why, I propose, the singular Muse here is the goddess Calliope. She is the perfect singularity of a Muse for these notionally singular heroes of two singularly important epics. After all, Calliope is the Muse of Epic. I refer here to my relevant arguments in Homer the Preclassic E[pilegomena] §109 (p. 345) about Calliope as the Muse of kings (Hesiod Theogony 79–93). Similarly, as I argue there, Orpheus was once the singular poet of kings, but his status was degraded in the Athenian phase of Homeric reception. [[GN 2018.08.20 via Nagy 2018.08.16, HPC E§109.]]

B) In the Third Song of Demodokos, O.08.499–533, when the singer of tales marks the beginning of his performance at O.08.499, the anonymous ‘divinity’ that he invokes at that point is a theos, in the singular. Short-term, this theos ‘divinity’ can be understood to be either Apollo or ‘the Muse’, as the disguised Odysseus himself remarks at O.08.488. Long-term, however, Apollo and the Muses are surrogates here for Zeus himself, who at O.13.025 is finally identified as the transcendent source of inspiration for the singing of Demodokos. The figuring of Zeus as such a transcendent source was traditionally considered to be a signature, as it were, of ‘Homer’ himself, as we read in the reference at Pindar Nemean 2.1–3 to the Homēridai, a guild of singers from Chios who claimed, as ‘descendants of Homer’, to be the legitimate transmitters of ‘Homer’ as their poetic ancestor. An example of such a reference is the wording at the very beginning of Pindar Nemean 2.1–3: ὅθεν περ καὶ Ὁμηρίδαι | ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων τὰ πόλλ᾿ ἀοιδοί | ἄρχονται, Διὸς ἐκ προοιμίου ‘(starting) from the point where [hothen] the Homēridai, singers, most of the time [ta polla] begin [arkhesthai] their stitched-together words, from the prelude [prooimion] of Zeus …’. [[GN 2016.10.22 via HPC 103-109.]]

I.02.811–815
subject heading(s): kolōnē ‘tumulus’; kolōnos ‘tumulus’; language of immortals vs. language of mortals; polu-skarthmos ‘taking many leaps and bounds’

The word kolōnē ‘tumulus’ here at I.02.811 refers to the place where, as we read further at I.02.814, the sēma ‘tomb’ of an otherworldly female named Murinē is located; she is pictured here as polu-skarthmos ‘taking many leaps and bounds’. We may compare the word kolōnē ‘tumulus’ here to the word kolōnos ‘tumulus’ referring to the tomb of Protesilaos in Philostratus On heroes 9.1, where this same tomb is also called a sēma at 9.3, and to the tomb of Achilles in On heroes 51.12, where that same tomb is also called a sēma at 53.11 (also at 51.2, 52.3). The naming of the location known as ‘the sēma of Murinē who takes many leaps and bounds’ is said at I.02.814 to originate from the language of the immortal gods, whereas the same location is said at I.02.813 to be called Batieia in the language of mortal men. On Murine as both cult hero and Amazon, see Nagy 2017.10.18, with reference to Pausanias 1.2.1. On the picturing of an Amazon in the act of leaping, see Nagy 2018.01.12, with reference to Pausanias 1.17.2. [[GN 2016.02.30 via HPC 166; H24H 14§§24–25.]]

I.02.829
subject heading(s): anthropogony; mantis ‘seer’

There is a wide variety of myths about anthropogony. According to one version, the first human was the first mantis ‘seer’. According to another version, the first human was generated from a tree. And such versions may overlap with one another. [[GN 2016.06.30 via GMP 198.]]

I.02.831–832
subject heading(s): anthropogony; mantis ‘seer’

I.02.835
subject heading(s): anthropogony; mantis ‘seer’

I.02.842
subject heading(s): ozos Arēos ‘attendant of Ares’
See anchor comment at I.12.188.

I.02.867–869
subject heading(s): Ionian Dodecapolis; Samos; Chios; Miletus; Carians; barbarophōnoi ‘speaking a barbarous language’

In Homeric poetry, both in the Iliad and Odyssey, there is a pattern of avoidance in making overt references to the twelve confederated states known as the Ionian Dodecapolis. In Herodotus 1.142.3, the locations of these states are listed as follows: Miletus, Myous, Priene, Ephesus, Colophon, Lebedos, Teos, Klazomenai, Phocaea, the island-states of Samos and of Chios, and, lastly, Erythrai. (See under Ionian Dodecapolis in the Inventory of terms and names.) Even in the two exceptional cases where Homeric poetry refers to any of these locations, what gets highlighted is merely the place, not the status of that place as a city-state or, when it comes to Chios and Samos, as an island-state. In one of these two exceptional cases, the mention of Chios at Ο.03.170 and at O.03.172 refers not to the famous island-state that Chios eventually became but simply to the island. In the other case, which we have here at I.02.868, the mention of Miletus refers not to the spectacularly famous polis or ‘city-state’ that Miletus eventually became but simply to the city—and this city is supposedly not even Greek as of yet. It is as if the Ionians had not yet settled Miletus: instead, Miletus at the time of the Trojan War is supposedly inhabited only by Carians, who do not even speak Greek: at I.02.867, these Carians who inhabit Miletus are described as barbaro-phōnoi ‘speakers of a barbarous language’. [[GN 2016.02.30 via HPC 227.]]

Bibliographical Abbreviations

BA       = Best of the Achaeans, Nagy 1979/1999

GMP    = Greek Mythology and Poetics, Nagy 1990b

H24H   = The Ancient Greek Hero in 24 Hours, Nagy 2013

HC       = Homer the Classic, Nagy 2009|2008

HPC     = Homer the Preclassic, Nagy 2010|2009

HQ       = Homeric Questions, Nagy 1996b

HR       = Homeric Responses, Nagy 2003

MoM   = Masterpieces of Metonymy, Nagy 2016|2015

PasP    = Poetry as Performance, Nagy 1996a

PH      = Pindar’s Homer, Nagy 1990a

Bibliography

See the dynamic Bibliography for AHCIP.

Inventory of terms and names

See the dynamic Inventory of terms and names for AHCIP.

Notes

[1] Here and elsewhere, I cite verbs via the infinitive, not via the indicative first person singular.