2016.08.04 / updated 2018.09.08 | By Gregory Nagy
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.
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. [[GN 2016.08.04.]]
I.06.018
subject heading(s): therapōn ‘attendant, ritual substitute’; hup-hēniokhos ‘chariot driver’
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. [[GN 2016.08.04; see also the comment on I.05.580.]]
Ι.06.053
subject heading(s): therapōn ‘attendant, ritual substitute’
In the immediate context, at I.06.053, only the surface meaning of therapōn as ‘attendant’ is evident. [[GN 2016.08.04.]]
I.06.067
subject heading(s): therapōn ‘attendant, ritual substitute’; therapontes of Ares
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via the comment on I.02.110 via BA 293–295; GMP 48; H24H 6§32.]]
I.06.090–093
Q&T via HPC 266–267
subject heading(s): peplos ‘robe’ for Athena; peplos of Athena; pattern-weaving; Panathenaic Peplos; split referencing
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. [[GN 2016.08.04.]]
I.06.119–149
subject heading(s): nature/culture
The encounter of Glaukos and Diomedes prompts an exquisite meditation on the opposition of heroic mortality vs. immortality in terms of nature vs. culture. [[GN 2016.08.04 via BA 178.]]
I.06.271–273
Q&T via HPC 267
subject heading(s): peplos ‘robe’ for Athena; peplos of Athena; pattern-weaving; Panathenaic Peplos; split referencing
Hector is telling Hecuba what to do, which is, to offer a peplos ‘robe’ for Athena as the goddess of the citadel of Troy. [[GN 2016.08.04.]]
I.06.209
subject heading(s): pateres ‘ancestors’; name of Patroklos; “speaking name” (nomen loquens)
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via BA 102.]]
I.06.211
subject heading(s): geneē ‘immediate paternal lineage’; genos ‘paternal lineage’
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’. [[GN 2016.08.04 via BA 178.]]
I.06.286–311
subject heading(s): antagonism between immortal and mortal; hero cult; cult hero
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via BA 147.]]
I.06.286–296
Q&T via HPC 267–268
subject heading(s): peplos ‘robe’ for Athena; peplos of Athena; pattern-weaving; Panathenaic Peplos; split referencing
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 the formulaic system of Homeric diction. (On formula, formulaic system, and Homeric diction, see the Inventory of terms and names.) 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. [[GN 2016.08.04.]]
I.06.289–292
subject heading(s): variant readings; detours of Helen; pan-poikilo- ‘completely pattern-woven’
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via HPC 271; see also PH 420.]]
I.06.294
subject heading(s): poikilma ‘pattern-weaving’; pan-poikilo- ‘completely pattern-woven’; Panathenaic Peplos
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). [[GN 2016.08.04 via HPC 270–271; see also again the comment on I.05.734–735.]]
I.06.297–310
Q&T via HPC 269–270
subject heading(s): peplos of Athena; pattern-weaving; Panathenaic Peplos; split referencing
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 quoting and paraphrasing from HPC 270–271.]]
I.06.325
subject heading(s): language of praise/blame; neikeîn ‘quarrel with’; aiskhro– ‘disgraceful, shameful’; Hector; Paris=Alexandros
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. [[GN 2016.06.07 via BA 256.]]
I.06.333
subject heading(s): language of praise/blame; neikeîn ‘quarrel with’; aisa ‘portion; fate, destiny’; moira ‘portion; fate, destiny’; plot of the Iliad
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. [[GN 2016.08.04.]]
I.06.402–403
subject heading(s): name of Hector; Astyanax; “speaking name” (nomen loquens); Scamandrius; Aeolian traditions about the Trojan War
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via HPC 204.]]
I.06.407–439/ anchor comment on: ancient Greek lament
subject heading(s): lament; sorrows of Andromache
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 -> GN 2016.12.17 via HC 1§§208–211, 2§§344–345, 4§262; H24H 3§§10–11.]]
I.06.407–439 / anchor comment on: three laments by Andromache, part 1
subject heading(s): lament; sorrows of Andromache
see also anchor comment at I.22.476–515 on: three laments by Andromache, part 2
see also anchor comment at I.24.723–746 on: three laments by Andromache, part 3
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 poetry 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. [[GN 2016.12.17.]]I.06.447–464
I.06.447–464
Q&T via HC 2§336
subject heading(s): lament; sorrows of Andromache
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via HC 2§§336–340.]]
I.06.466–470
subject heading(s): Hector’s helmet
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via HPC 310 via Vermeule 1987:146.]]
I.06.484
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. [[GN 2016.08.04.]]
I.06.494–496
Q&T via HPC 308–309
subject heading(s): one last glimpse
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. [[GN 2016.08.04 via HC 1§210, HPC 308–310.]]
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.