(The Basel Commentary) Brügger, Claude - Homer's Iliad. Book XXIV (2015 - 9999, de Gruyter) PDF

Homer’s Iliad
The Basel Commentary

Homer’s Iliad
Editors
Anton Bierl and Joachim Latacz
Managing Editor
Magdalene Stoevesandt
General Editor of the English Edition

S. Douglas Olson
Homer’s Iliad
Edited by
Anton Bierl and Joachim Latacz
Book XXIV
By Claude Brügger
Translated by Benjamin W. Millis and Sara Strack and

edited by S. Douglas Olson
The publication of Homer’s Iliad: The Basel Commentary has been made possible
by the kind financial support from the following organizations:
Stavros Niarchos Foundation
Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft (FAG), Basel
L. & Th. La Roche Stiftung, Basel
ISBN 978-1-5015-1229-2
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0439-6
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0429-7
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Table of Contents
Preface  VII
Notes for the Reader (including list of abbreviations)  IX
24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)  1

Overview of the Action in Book 24  9
Commentary  11
Bibliographic abbreviations  285
Preface
ἓξ δέ οἱ υἷες ἔασιν, ἐγὼ δέ οἱ ἕβδομός εἰμι·
τῶν μέτα παλλόμενος κλήρῳ λάχον ἐνθάδ’ ἕπεσθαι.
Iliad 24.399 f.
Following on the publication of the Prolegomena and the commentaries on Books

1, 2, 3, 6, and 19 of the Iliad, the present volume presents the commentary on Book
24, the final book of the Iliad. This Book is undoubtedly one of the most touch-
ing and stimulating sections of Homeric epic; this was another reason for not
delaying the commentary on it until the end of the project, but instead bringing
it forward within the overall concept of the series (on which, see the preface in
volume II.2, pp. VIIf.). In this regard, the present volume follows the principles of
commenting outlined in the ones that preceded it (esp. vols. I.2 and IV.2).
The existence of first-rate commentaries, including those by Rudolf Pepp
müller (1876), Colin W. Macleod (1982) and Nicholas J. Richardson (1993), τοσσάδ’
ὀνείατ’ ἄγοντες (24.367), as well as monographs by e.g. Götz Beck (1964) and Karl
Deichgräber (1972) – to mention only the most pertinent from the vast bibliogra-
phy – both facilitates and impedes a new treatment of Book 24 and its 804 verses.
My initial aim to encapsulate what has been recognized and well discussed, and
perhaps to go a bit beyond this here and there has proved almost overly ambi-
tious. If the undertaking has nevertheless come to a happy conclusion and one
that will, I hope, be fruitful for further research, I am indebted to a number of
institutions:
the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen
Forschung and the Hamburger Stiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft und Kultur,
which took a leading role in facilitating the completion of this commentary via
their generous financial support;
the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel and the Max Geldner-Stiftung
Basel, which supported the entire project financially;
the University of Basel and the library of the University of Basel, which sub-
stantially facilitated my research by providing infrastructure and awarding me a
privileged user status;
the Walter de Gruyter publishing house, which, in the person of Dr. Elisabeth
Schuhmann, followed the development of this volume with great goodwill and
interest (the careful technical production of the volume by Florian Ruppenstein
has also to be mentioned with gratitude).
VIII Iliad 24
I am personally greatly indebted to:

my esteemed teacher Prof. Dr. Joachim Latacz, who has unflaggingly encour-
aged me during both my studies and my lengthy collaboration on the research
project he initiated, and who has shown unqualified confidence in me;
Prof. Dr. Anton Bierl, who continually followed this work and provided a
welcome opportunity to ‘try out’ a preliminary version of the commentary in the
context of a seminar with interested students;
my colleagues Dr. Marina Coray, Dr. Martha Krieter-Spiro, Dr. Magdalene
Stoevesandt and Prof. Dr. Robert Plath, who spared neither time nor effort in
critically reading draft versions and sharing their knowledge with me;
the external experts, who offered valuable advice based on their individual
areas of expertise and saved me from many errors: Rudolf Führer, Fritz Graf, Irene
de Jong, Michael Meier-Brügger, Sebastiaan R. van der Mije, René Nünlist, Rolf A.
Stucky, Jürgen von Ungern-Sternberg, Rudolf Wachter and Martin L. West †.
Prof. Dr. Michael Meier-Brügger and the staff of the Lexikon des frühgriechi
schen Epos (LfgrE), who in May 2006 invited me, together with Magdalene Stoeve-
sandt, to Hamburg for a fruitful exchange and who also continuously and readily
entrusted the team of the Basel commentary with unpublished versions of indi-
vidual lemmata from not yet published fascicles of the LfgrE;
the student assistants Tamara Hofer and Alexandra Scharfenberger, who
read through the proofs with a keen eye and alert mind;
all the other individuals who helped me on individual issues with sugges-
tions, advice and by sending relevant material;
my parents, who facilitated my studies in Classical Philology, and my family,
who sometimes had to forego a husband or father for the sake of Homer.
To all, I express my heartfelt thanks.
Basel, August 2009 Claude Brügger
The present English edition has been made possible by the support of the Stavros
Niarchos Foundation, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel (FAG) and
the L. & Th. La Roche Stiftung Basel, as well as the publisher Walter de Gruyter
(Boston/Berlin). During the revision of the text for the English edition, errors were
corrected and in some cases bibliographic references were supplemented (January
2015). Particular thanks are due to the translators Dr. Sarah Strack and Dr. Benja-
min W. Millis and to the editor Prof. Dr. S. Douglas Olson for their most careful work.
Basel, July 2016

Notes for the Reader
1. In the commentary, four levels of explanation are distinguished graphically:
a) The most important explanations for users of all audiences are set in
regular type. Knowledge of Greek is not required here; Greek words
are given in transliteration (exception: lemmata from LfgrE, see
COM 41 [1]).
b) More detailed explanations of the Greek text are set in medium type.
These sections correspond to a standard philological commentary.
c) Specific information on particular sub-fields of Homeric scholarship is
set in small type.
d) The ‘elementary section’, designed to facilitate an initial approach to
the text especially for school and university students, appears beneath a
dividing line at the foot of the page.
The elementary section discusses Homeric word forms in particu-
lar, as well as prosody and meter. It is based on the ‘24 Rules Relating to
Homeric Language’, to which reference is made with the abbreviation ‘R’.
Particularly frequent phenomena (e.g. the lack of an augment) are not
noted throughout but are instead recalled ca. every 50 verses. — Informa-
tion relating to Homeric vocabulary is largely omitted; for this, the reader
is referred to the specialized dictionaries of Cunliffe and Autenrieth/
Kaegi.
Complex issues are addressed in the elementary section as well as
the main commentary; they are briefly summarized in the elementary
section and discussed in greater detail in the main commentary. Such
passages are marked in the elementary section with an arrow (↑). In con-
trast, references of the type ‘cf. 73n.’ in the elementary section refer to
notes within the elementary section itself, never to the main commen-
tary.
2. The chapters of the Prolegomena volume are cited by the following abbrevia-
tions:
CG/CH Cast of characters in the Iliad: Gods/Human Beings
COM Introduction: Commenting on Homer
FOR Formulaity and Orality
G Grammar of Homeric Greek
HT History of the text
M Homeric Meter (including prosody)
MYC Homeric-Mycenaean Word Index
NTHS New Trends in Homeric Schorlarship
X Iliad 24
xxxP Superscript ‘P’ following a term refers to the definitions of terms

in ‘Homeric Poetics in Keywords’.
STR Structure of the Iliad
In addition:
R refers to the ‘24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language’ in the
present commentary (below, pp. 1 ff.).
3. Textual criticism
The commentary is based on the Teubner text of M. L. West. In some pas-
sages, the commentators favor decisions differing from that edition. In these
cases, both versions of the lemma are provided; West’s text is shown first in
square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary.
4. English lemmata
The English lemmata in the commentary are taken from the translation of
R. Lattimore. In places where the commentators favor a different rendering,
both versions of the lemma are provided; the rendering of Lattimore is shown
first in square brackets, followed by the version favored in the commentary.
5. Quotations of non-English secondary literature

Quotations from secondary literature originally written in German, French or
Italian are given in English translation; in such cases, the bibliographic ref-
erence is followed by the notation ‘transl.’. In the case of terms that are espe-
cially important or open to misinterpretation, the original is given in square
brackets.
6. Formulaic language
On the model of ‘Ameis-Hentze(-Cauer)’, repeated verses and verse-halves
are usually noted (on this, cf. COM 30). Other formulaic elements (verse
beginning and verse end formulae in particular) are only highlighted to the
extent necessary to convey an overall impression of the formulaic character
of Homeric language.
7. Type-scenesP
For each type-scene, the commentary provides at the appropriate place an
‘ideal version’ by compiling a cumulative, numbered list of all characteristic
elements of the scene that occur in the Iliad and/or Odyssey; the numbers of
the elements actually realized in the passage in question are printed in bold.
Each subsequent occurrence refers back to this primary treatment and uses
numbering and bold print in accord with the same principle.
Notes for the Reader XI
8. Abbreviations
(a) Bibliographic abbreviations
For the bibliographic abbreviations, see below pp. 285 ff.
(b) Primary literature (for the editions used, see below pp. 288 f.)
Aesch. Aeschylus (Ag. = Agamemnon, Prom. = Prometheus Bound,
fr. = fragment)
Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius
Aristot. Aristotle (Rhet. = Rhetoric)
Bacchyl. Bacchylides (Epin. = Epinikia, ‘Victory poems’)
Certamen Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi, ‘Contest of Homer and Hesiod’
Chrest. Chrestomathia (Proclus’ summary of the ‘Epic Cycle’)
Cypr. Cypria (in the ‘Epic Cycle’)
Dion. Hal. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. = Antiquitates
Romanae, ‘Roman Antiquities’)
Eleg. Adesp. Elegiaca Adespota, ‘elegiac poems’ (not attributable to any
author)
Eur. Euripides (Alc. = Alcestis, Androm. = Andromache, Hipp.
= Hippolytus, IA = Iphigenia in Aulis)
Eust. Eustathius
Hdt. Herodotus
Hes. Hesiod (Op. = Opera, ‘Works and Days’; Th. = Theogony)
‘Hes.’ Works ascribed to Hesiod (Sc. = Scutum, ‘Shield of Herakles’,
fr. = fragment)
Hom. Epigr. Homeri Epigrammata, ‘Epigrams of Homer’
h.Hom. A collective term for the Homeric hymns
h.Ap., Individual Homeric hymns: to Apollon,
h.Cer., – to Ceres/Demeter,
h.Mart., – to Mars/Ares,
h.Merc., – to Mercury/Hermes and
h.Ven. – to Venus/Aphrodite
Il. Iliad
Il. parv. Ilias parva, ‘Little Iliad’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’)
Il. Pers. Iliou Persis, ‘Sack of Troy’ (in the ‘Epic Cycle’)
Od. Odyssey
Pind. Pindar (Nem., Ol., Pyth. = ‘Nemean, Olympian, Pythian
Odes’ [Victory poems])
Plat. Plato (Prot. = Protagoras, Rep. = De re publica, ‘Republic’)
Plut. Plutarch (Fab. Max. = ‘Life of Fabius Maximus’, Mor.
= Moralia)
XII Iliad 24
Procl. Proclus (see above s.v. Chrest.)

Quint. Smyrn. Quintus Smyrnaeus
schol. scholion, scholia
schol. A (etc.) scholion in manuscript A (etc.)
Soph. Sophocles (Ant. = Antigone, El. = Electra, OT = Oedipus
Tyrannus, ‘Oedipus the King’)
Thuc. Thucydides
Vit. Hom. Her. Vita Homeri Herodotea
Xen. Xenophon (Anab. = Anabasis, ‘March Up-country’, Sympos.
= Symposium)
(c) Other abbreviations

(Commonly used abbreviations, as well as those listed under 2 above, are not
included here.)
* reconstructed form
< developed from
> developed into
| marks verse beginning and end
↑ in the elementary section, refers to the relevant lemma in
the main commentary
a/b after a verse number indicates the 1st/2nd verse half
a/b after a verse number indicates only in the app. crit. an additional verse
A 1, B 1 (etc.) indicates caesurae in the hexameter (vgl. M 6)
app. crit. apparatus criticus (West)
fr., frr. fragment, fragments
Gr. Greek
IE Indo-European
imper. imperative
Introd. Introduction
loc. locative
ms., mss. manuscript, manuscripts
n. note1
1 ‘48n.’ refers to the commentary on verse 48 in the present volume, whereas 1.162n. refers to the
commentary on verse 162 in Book 1. – ‘In 19.126 (see ad loc.)’ and ‘cf. 24.229 ff. (see ad locc.)’ refer
primarily to the relevant passages in the Homeric text, secondarily to one or more commentary
entries relating to the relevant passages. (In the first example, the commentary entry can be
found under 19.126–127; in the second, relevant information can be found under 24.229– 234 and
24.229–231.)
Notes for the Reader XIII
sc. scilicet (i.e. ‘supply’ or ‘namely’)

subjunc. subjunctive
s.v., s.vv. sub voce, sub vocibus
VB verse-beginning
VE verse-end
VH verse-half
v.l., vv.ll. varia lectio, variae lectiones (i.e. ‘variant reading(s)’)
voc. vocative
24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)
The following compilation of the characteristics of Homeric language emphasizes
its deviations from Attic grammar. Linguistic notes are included only exception-
ally (but can be found in the ‘Grammar of Homeric language’ [G] in the Prolego
mena volume; references to the relevant paragraphs of that chapter are here
shown in the right margin).
R1 Homeric language is an artificial language, characterized by: G

1.1 meter (which can result in a variety of remodellings); 3
1.2 the technique of oral poetry (frequently repeated content is ren- 3
dered in formulae, often with metrically different variants);
1.3 different dialects: Ionic is the basic dialect; interspersed are forms 2
from other dialects, particularly Aeolic (so-called Aeolicisms),
that often provide variants according to 1.1 and 1.2.
Phonology, metric, prosody
R2 Sound change of ᾱ > η: In the Ionic dialect, old ᾱ has changed to 5–8
η; in non-Attic Ionic (i.e. also in Homer), this occurs also after ε, ι,
ρ (1.30: πάτρης).
When ᾱ is nonetheless found in Homer, it is generally:
2.1 ‘late’, i.e. it developed after the Ionic-Attic sound change
(1.3: ψυχάς);
2.2 or adopted from the Aeolic poetic tradition (1.1: θεά).
R3 Vowel shortening: Long vowels (esp. η) before another vowel 39 f.

(esp. ο/ω/α) in medial position are frequently shortened,
although not consistently (e.g. gen. pl. βασιλήων rather than the
metrically impossible four-syllable -έων; the related phenomenon
of quantitative metathesis [lengthening of a second short vowel]
often does not occur [e.g. gen. sing. βασιλῆος rather than -έως]).
R4 Digamma (ϝ): The Ionic dialect of Homer no longer used the

phoneme /w/ (like Engl. will). It is, however,
4.1 attested in Mycenaean, as well as in some dialects still in 19
the alphabetic period (Mycenaean ko-wa /korwā/, Corinthian
ϙόρϝα);
4.2 in part deducible etymologically (e.g. Homeric κούρη – with 27
compensatory lengthening after the disappearance of the
digamma – in contrast to Attic κόρη).
2 Iliad 24
In Addition, digamma can often be deduced in Homer on the

basis of the meter; thus in the case of
4.3 hiatus (see R 5) without elision (1.7: Ἀτρεΐδης τε (ϝ)άναξ); 22
4.4 hiatus without shortening of a long vowel at word end 21
(1.321: τώ (ϝ)οι, cf. R 5.5);
4.5 a single consonant ‘making position’ (1.70: ὃς (ϝ)είδη). 24
4.6 Occasionally, digamma is no longer taken into account 26
(1.21: υἱὸν ἑκηβόλον, originally ϝεκ-).
R5 Hiatus: The clash of a vocalic word end with a vocalic word

beginning (hiatus ‘gaping’) is avoided through:
5.1 elision: short vowels and -αι in endings of the middle voice are 30/
elided (1.14: στέμματ’ ἔχων; 1.117: βούλομ’ ἐγώ; 5.33: μάρνασθ’ 37
ὁπποτέροισι), occasionally also -οι in μοι/σοι (1.170; hiatus that
results from elision is left unchanged (1.2: ἄλγε’ ἔθηκεν);
5.2 ny ephelkystikon (movable ny): only after a short vowel (ε and ι), 33
esp. dat. pl. -σι(ν); 3rd sing. impf./aor./perf. -ε(ν); 3rd sing. and
pl. -σι(ν); the modal particle κε(ν); the suffix -φι(ν), cf. R 11.4; the
suffix -θε(ν), cf. R 15.1; ny ephelkystikon also provides metrically
convenient variants;
5.3 contraction across word boundaries (noted as crasis: τἄλλα, 31
χἡμεῖς).
– Hiatus is admissible predominantly in the case of:
5.4 loss of digamma (cf. R 4.3); 34
5.5 so-called correption: a long vowel/diphthong at word end is 35
shortened (1.17: Ἀτρεΐδαι τε καὶ ἄλλοι ἐϋκνήμιδες; 1.15 [with syn-
izesis: R 7]: χρυσέῳ ͜ ἀνὰ σκήπτρῳ);
5.6 metrical caesura or more generally a semantic break; 36
5.7 after words ending in -ι and ‘small words’ such as πρό and ὅ. 37
R6 Vocalic contraction (e.g. following the loss of intervocalic /w/ 43–

[digamma], /s/ or /j/) is frequently not carried out in Homeric 45
Greek (1.74: κέλεαι [2nd sing. mid., instead of Attic -ῃ]; 1.103:
μένεος [gen. sing., instead of -ους]).
R7 Synizesis: Occasionally, two vowels are to be read as a single 46

syllable, especially in the case of quantitative metathesis
(1.1: Πηληϊάδεω:
͜ R 3) but also in the gen. pl. -έων. (Synizesis is
indicated by a sublinear curved line connecting the affected
vowels, 1.18: θεοί.)
͜
24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R) 3
R8 Diectasis: Contracted forms (e.g. ὁρῶντες) may be ‘stretched 48

(ὁρόωντες); the metrically necessary prosodic shape of older
uncontracted forms (*ὁράοντες, ⏖–⏑) is thus artificially recon-
structed. Similarly, the aor. inf. -εῖν is written -έειν (rather than
the older *-έεν).
R9 Change in consonant quantity creates metrically convenient vari-

ants (which usually derive originally from different dialects: R 1.3):
9.1 τόσ(σ)ος, ποσ(σ)ί, Ὀδυσ(σ)εύς, ἔσ(σ)εσθαι, τελέσ(σ)αι; 17
Ἀχιλ(λ)εύς; ὅπ(π)ως, etc.
9.2 Variation at word beginning creates similar flexibility in 18
π(τ)όλεμος, π(τ)όλις.
R 10 Adaptation to the meter: Three (or more) short syllables in a 49 f.

row, or a single short between two longs (both metrically impos
sible), are avoided by:
10.1 metrical lengthening (ᾱ᾽ θάνατος, δῑογενής, οὔρεα rather than
ὄρεα; μένεα πνείοντες rather than πνέ-);
10.2 changes in word formation (πολεμήϊος rather than πολέμιος;
ἱππιοχαίτης rather than ἱππο-).
Morphology
Homeric Greek declines in ways that sometimes vary from Attic forms or
represent additional forms:
R 11 Especially noteworthy in the case of nouns are:

11.1 1st declension: 68
gen. pl. -άων (1.604: Μουσάων) and -έων (1.273: βουλέων);
dat. pl. -ῃσι (2.788: θύρῃσι) and -ῃς (1.238: παλάμῃς);
gen. sing. masc. -ᾱο (1.203: Ἀτρεΐδαο) and -εω
(1.1: Πηληϊάδεω);
11.2 2nd declension: 69
gen. sing. -οιο (1.19: Πριάμοιο);
dat. pl. -οισι (1.179: ἑτάροισι);
11.3 3rd declension: 70–
gen. sing. of i-stems: -ιος (2.811: πόλιος) and -ηος (16.395: 76
πόληος);
gen./dat./acc. sing. of ēu-stems: -ῆος, -ῆϊ, -ῆα (1.1: Ἀχιλῆος;
1.9: βασιλῆϊ; 1.23: ἱερῆα);
4 Iliad 24
dat. pl. -εσσι in the case of s-stems and other consonant

stems (1.235: ὄρεσσι);
11.4 gen./dat. sing./pl. in -φι (1.38: ἶφι; 4.452: ὄρεσφι); often metrically 66
convenient variants (e.g. βίηφι beside βίῃ).
R 12 Varying stem formation (and thus declension) appears in the

following nouns among others:
12.1 νηῦς: gen. sing. νηός, νεός, dat. νηΐ, acc. νῆα, νέα; nom. pl. νῆες, 77
νέες, gen. νηῶν, νεῶν, dat. νηυσί, νήεσσι, νέεσσι, acc. νῆας, νέας.
12.2 πολύς, πολύ (u-stem) and πολλός, πολλή, πολλόν (o/ā-stem) are 57
both fully declined.
12.3 υἱός: gen. sing. υἱέος, υἷος, dat. υἱέϊ, υἱεῖ, υἷϊ, acc. υἱόν, υἱέα, υἷα; 53
nom. pl. υἱέες, υἱεῖς, υἷες, gen. υἱῶν, dat. υἱάσι, υἱοῖσι, acc. υἱέας,
υἷας.
12.4 Ἄρης: gen. Ἄρηος, Ἄρεος, dat. Ἄρηϊ, Ἄρεϊ, Ἄρῃ, acc. Ἄρηα, Ἄρην, 53
voc. Ἆρες, Ἄρες.
12.5 Similarly complex declensions occur in the case of γόνυ (gen. 53/
γούνατος beside γουνός, nom./acc. pl. γούνατα beside γοῦνα), 77
δόρυ (δούρατος, -τι etc. beside δουρός, -ί etc.); Ζεύς (Διός, Διΐ, Δία
beside Ζηνός, Ζηνί, Ζῆν/Ζῆνα).
R 13 Among other unusual comparative forms note: χερείων, 79

χειρότερος, χερειότερος (beside χείρων); ἀρείων (beside
ἀμείνων). Some omparatives and superlatives are formed from
nouns, e.g. βασιλεύτερος, βασιλεύτατος.
R 14 Varying pronoun forms:

14.1 Personal pronoun: 81
1st sing. gen. ἐμεῖο, ἐμέο, μεο, ἐμέθεν (very rare: μοι, e.g. 1.37)
2nd sing. gen. σεῖο, σέο, σεο, σέθεν; dat. τοι
3rd sing. gen. εἷο, ἕο, ἕθεν, ἑθεν; dat. οἷ, ἑοῖ, οἱ; acc. ἕ, ἑέ, ἑ, μιν
1st pl. nom. ἄμμες; gen. ἡμέων, ἡμείων; dat. ἧμιν, ἄμμι; acc.
ἡμέας, ἄμμε
2nd pl. nom. ὔμμες; gen. ὑμέων, ὑμείων; dat. ὔμμι; acc. ὑμέας,
ὔμμε
3rd pl. gen. σφείων, σφεων; dat. σφισι, σφι; acc. σφέας, σφε,
σφεας, σφας
1st dual nom./acc. νώ, νῶϊ; gen./dat. νῶϊν
2nd dual nom./acc. σφώ, σφῶϊ; gen./dat. σφῶϊν
3rd dual nom./acc. σφωε; gen./dat. σφωϊν
14.2 Interrogative/indefinite pronoun: 84

gen. sing. τέο/τεο; dat. sing. τεῳ; gen. pl. τέων; correspondingly
ὅττεο, ὅτεῳ etc.
14.3 Anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (= ‘article’, cf. R 17): 83
the same endings as nouns (R 11.1–2); nom. pl. masc./fem. often
with an initial τ (τοί, ταί).
14.4 Possessive pronoun: 82
1st pl. ᾱ᾿μός
2nd sing./pl. τεός ῡ῾μός
3rd sing./pl. ἑός, ὅς σφός
14.5 Relative pronoun: 83
The anaphoric demonstrative pronoun frequently functions as a
relative pronoun (14.3).
R 15 Adverbial forms straddle the border between morphology 66

(cases) and word formation. They can form metrically convenient
variants to the true cases:
15.1 ‘genitive’: -θεν (whence?, see also R 14.1), e.g. κλισίηθεν
(1.391);
15.2 ‘dative’: -θι (where?), e.g. οἴκοθι (8.513);
15.3 ‘accusative’: -δε (whither?), e.g. ἀγορήνδε (1.54).
R 16 For verbs, the following points deserve particular attention:

16.1 Augment: frequently absent (which can lead to assimilation, e.g. 85
ἔμβαλε rather than ἐνέβαλε, κάλλιπον rather than κατέλιπον, cf.
R 20.1); used to fit the meter.
16.2 Personal endings: 86/
2nd sing. -σθα (1.554: ἐθέλῃσθα) 93
1st pl. mid. -μεσθα beside -μεθα (1.140: μεταφρασόμεσθα)
3rd pl. mid. (predominantly perf.) -ᾰται/-ᾰτο beside -νται/-ντο
(1.239: εἰρύαται)
3rd pl. -ν (with preceding short vowel) beside -σαν (with corre-
sponding long vowel), esp. aor. pass. -θεν beside -θησαν
(1.57: ἤγερθεν)
The difference from Attic forms frequently lies merely in the omis-
sion of contraction (cf. R 6) between verbal stem and ending.
16.3 Subjunctive: 89
frequently with a short vowel in the case of athematic stems
(ἴομεν from εἶμι, εἴδομεν from οἶδα); formed like the fut. ind. in
the case of σ-aorists (1.80: χώσεται). – In the 3rd sing. subjunc.,
the ending -ησι(ν) (1.408: ἐθέλησιν) is found beside -ῃ.
6 Iliad 24
16.4 Infinitive: 87
Aeolic -μεν(αι) (predominantly athematic verbs) beside Ionic -ναι
(e.g. ἔμ(μ)εν and ἔμ(μ)εναι beside εἶναι);
Aeolic -ῆναι beside Ionic -εῖν (2.107: φορῆναι);
thematic -έμεν(αι) (1.547: ἀκουέμεν; Od. 11.380:
ἀκουέμεναι);
thematic aor. -έειν (2.393: φυγέειν; 15.289: θανέειν).
16.5 Forms with -σκ- stand for repeated action in the past 60
(1.490: πωλέσκετο).
16.6 Especially noteworthy as variant forms of εἰμί are: 90
pres. ind.: 2nd sing. ἐσσι, 1st pl. εἰμεν, 3rd pl. ἔασι(ν);
impf.: 1st sing. ἦα, 3rd sing. ἦεν and ἔην, 3rd pl. ἔσαν (cf. 16.1);
fut.: 3rd sing. ἔσ(σ)εται;
part. ἐών, -όντος; for the inf., 16.4.
Syntax
R 17 ὅ, ἥ, τό (on the declension, R 14.3) is rarely a ‘pure article’ 99

and instead generally has an older anaphoric demonstrative
function.
R 18 Number:
18.1 The dual is relatively common; forms of the dual and the plural 97
can be freely combined.
18.2 The plural is sometimes used simply for metrical convenience
(1.45: τόξα).
R 19 Use of the cases: 97

19.1 Accusative of respect is especially common (among other
instances in the so-called σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος:
two accusatives indicate respectively the whole and the part of
something, 1.362: τί δέ σε φρένας ἵκετο πένθος;).
19.2 Indications of origin, place or direction sometimes occur with
no preposition (1.359: ἀνέδυ … ἁλός; 1.45: τόξ᾿ ὤμοισιν ἔχων; 1.322:
ἔρχεσθον κλισίην).
R 20 Prepositions:
20.1 show a greater diversity of forms: ἄν (= ἀνά; with apocope, 59
frequently with assimilation: ἂμ πεδίον, 5.87; cf. R 16.1); ἐς (= εἰς);
εἰν, ἐνί, εἰνί (= ἐν); κάτ (= κατά; see on ἀνά); πάρ, παραί (= παρά);
προτί, ποτί (= πρός); ξύν (= σύν); ὑπαί (= ὑπό);
20.2 are more independent in use and position (1) with regard to 98
nouns (i.e. are used in a more adverbial manner), frequently also
placed after them as ‘postpositions’ in so-called anastrophe (and
thus often with an acute accent on the first syllable: e.g. ᾧ ἔπι,
1.162); (2) with regard to verbs (i.e. not necessarily connected to
the relevant verb as a preverb, so-called tmesis: ἐπὶ μῦθον ἔτελλε,
1.25); this produces metrically convenient variants.
R 21 Use of the moods: 100

21.1 The moods and the modal particle (κε/κεν = ἄν) follow rules
that are less strict than those described in grammars of Attic
Greek.
21.2 The functions of the subjunctive and the future cannot always be
sharply distinguished.
R 22 Characteristic Homeric conjunctions are: 101

22.1 conditional: αἰ (= εἰ);
22.2 temporal: εἷος/εἵως (= ἕως) ‘while’, ἦμος ‘when’, εὖτε ‘when’,
ὄφρα ‘while, until’;
22.3 causal: ὅ τι, ὅ;
22.4 comparative: ἠΰτε ‘like’;
22.5 final: ὄφρα.
R 23 Alternation of voice: In the case of some verbs, the act. and 100
mid. forms are used as convenient metrical variants with no dis-
cernible difference in meaning, e.g. φάτο/ἔφη, ὀΐω/ὀΐομαι.
R 24 Particles are sometimes used in ways that differ from later 101
usage:
24.1 ἄρα, ἄρ, ῥα, ῥ’: signals or suggests that something is evident,
roughly ‘therefore, naturally, as is well known’; probably often
used mainly for metrical reasons (especially ῥ’ to avoid hiatus, cf.
R 5).
24.2 ἀτάρ, αὐτάρ (metrical variants, etymologically distinct but used
interchangeably in Homer with no distinction in meaning): ‘but,
still’; sometimes adversative (1.127: σὺ μὲν … αὐτὰρ Ἀχαιοί), some-
times progressive (1.51: αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα), rarely apodotic (like δέ, see
below).
24.3 apodotic δέ: δέ can introduce a main clause (apodosis) after a
preceding dependent clause (protasis) (e.g. 1.58). Occasionally
ἀλλά (e.g. 1.82), αὐτάρ (e.g. 3.290, cf. 1.133), and καί (e.g. 1.494)
are used apodotically as well.
8 Iliad 24
24.4 ἦ: ‘really, actually’; almost exclusively in direct speech. – Weak-

ened in the compounds ἤτοι (e.g. 1.68), ἠμὲν … ἠδέ ‘on the one
hand … on the other hand’ and ἠδέ ‘and’.
24.5 κε(ν): = ἄν (cf. R 21.1).
24.6 μέν: used not only to introduce an antithesis (with a subsequent
δέ) but also commonly in its original, purely emphatic sense
(≈ μήν, μάν; e.g. 1.216).
24.7 μήν, μάν: emphatic; when standing alone, almost always in
negative sentences (e.g. 4.512) or with imperatives (e.g. 1.302);
otherwise it strengthens other particles, esp. ἦ and καί (e.g. 2.370,
19.45).
24.8 οὐδέ/μηδέ: these connectives can occur after affirmative clauses,
not only after negative ones as in Attic.
24.9 οὖν: almost always in conjunction with temporal ἐπεί or ὡς,
‘(when) therefore’ (e.g. 1.57).
24.10 περ: stresses the preceding word; specifically concessive, esp.
with participles (1.586: κηδομένη περ ‘although saddened’);
intensive (1.260: ἀρείοσι ἠέ περ ὑμῖν ‘with even better men than
you’); limitative-contrasting (1.353: τιμήν περ ‘at least honor’).
24.11 ‘epic τε’: occurs in generalizing statements (e.g. 1.86, 1.218), esp.
common in the ‘as’ part of similes (e.g. 2.90).
24.12 τοι: ethical dat. of the 2nd pers. personal pronoun fossilized as a
particle (and often not clearly distinguishable from it); appeals
to the special attention of the addressee, roughly ‘imagine, I tell
you’.
24.13 τοιγάρ: ‘so then’ (to be distinguished from τοι ≈ σοι; the initial
element belongs to the demonstrative stem το-, cf. τώ ‘therefore’);
in Homer, it always introduces the answer to a request (e.g. 1.76).
Overview of the Action in Book 24
(‘The Ransom of Hektor’)
1–467 Preparing the encounter between Priam and Achilleus
1–187 The gods react to Achilleus dragging Hektor’s corpse and ini-
tiate the return of his dead son to Priam.
1–21 Because of his restless grief for Patroklos, Achilleus drags
Hektor’s body around his friend’s grave, day after day. Apollo
meanwhile protects the body against disfiguration.
22–76 The gods debate the appropriate response to Achilleus’ behav-
ior. Apollo advocates for Hektor, Hera for Achilleus (because of
the insult she received in the Judgment of Paris). Zeus mediates:
Achilleus shall be made to return Hektor’s corpse in exchange
for a ransom.
77–119 Thetis is full of sorrow because the death of her son Achilleus
is imminent. She is welcomed by the gods who are present and
receives instructions to urge Achilleus to release Hektor’s corpse.
120–142 Thetis relays Zeus’ instructions to her son; Achilleus expresses
his agreement.
143–187 Zeus sends Iris to Priam with the instructions that he go to
Achilleus with precious gifts, under the protection of Hermes,
in order to ransom Hektor’s body. Iris finds Priam in deepest
mourning and relays Zeus’ message to him.
188–321 Priam prepares for his journey to Achilleus in the camp of the
Achaians.
188–237a Priam immediately has his chariot made ready and in the treas-
ury selects the gifts for Achilleus. Hekabe attempts to dissuade
her husband from his dangerous plan, but Priam is determined
to go.
237b–280 Priam impatiently drives away the Trojans who are standing
about and he abuses his sons because his chariot is not yet
ready. The chariot is then made ready for travel.
281–321 Immediately before her husband’s departure, Hekabe urges him
to make a libation to Zeus and to ask for a good omen. Priam
complies, and Zeus consequently sends a large eagle, flying
from the right, as a sign.
10 Iliad 24
322–467 In the course of his journey, Priam encounters the god Hermes
in the guise of a young man and is guided to Achilleus by him.
322–348 Priam sets out together with the herald Idaios. His family accom-
panies him to the edge of the city, ‘as if he went to his death’.
Zeus instructs Hermes to lead Priam safely to Achilleus. In the
guise of a young man, Hermes proceeds to the Trojan plain.
349–439 Priam and Idaios stop on the way. They then see Hermes
approaching. As a ‘follower’ of Achilleus, he gains Priam’s trust;
his statement that Hektor’s body shows no signs of decomposi-
tion gives Priam renewed hope.
440–467 Hermes leads Priam past all obstacles – namely the guards and
the gates – to Achilleus’ quarters.
468–676 Priam’s visit with Achilleus
468–571 Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters as a supplicant.

468–512 Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters unobserved and pleads with
him for the return of his son’s body. Both mourn the fate of their
relatives.
513–571 Achilleus shows pity to Priam and gives a speech of consolation.
When Priam impatiently urges the return of Hektor’s corpse,
Achilleus responds irritably.
572–676 Priam receives the body of his son Hektor. Achilleus invites
his guest to a joint meal.
572–595 Achilleus prepares Hektor’s body for its return (funerary ritual)
and promises a share of the ransom to the deceased Patroklos.
596–632 Achilleus announces the release of Hektor’s corpse and, by ref-
erence to Niobe, who had eaten in spite of her grief, persuades
Priam to partake in a joint meal.
633–676 Achilleus grants his guest a bed for the night at the request of the
latter and promises a truce for the duration of Hektor’s funeral.
Night rest.
677–804 The funerary ceremony for Hektor in Troy

677–718 During the night, Hermes urges Priam to return to Troy. Kas
sandra catches the first sight of those returning. The Trojans
then gather before the city walls to receive them.
719–776 Lamentation for Hektor. Speeches of mourning by Andromache,
Hekabe and Helen.
777–804 Hektor’s funeral.
Commentary
Book 24 – entitled ‘The Ransom of Hektor’ (Héktoros lýtra) in the ancient tradi-
tion – begins in the night between Days 29 and 30 of the action of the Iliad and
stretches over approximately 20 days. It picks up several storylines and themes of
the immediately preceding Books:
• Desecration of Hektor’s corpse: in Book 22, Achilleus used his chariot to drag
the dead Hektor to the Achaian camp in order to expose him to the dogs and
birds without a funeral (22.330b–354, 395–404); he reaffirmed this intention
in Book 23 in a promise to his dead friend Patroklos (23.179–183; cf. 23.19–23).
The beginning of Book 24 describes how Achilleus is unable to sleep because
he constantly recalls Patroklos and how he tries to calm himself by dragging
Hektor’s corpse around Patroklos’ grave early each morning. Apollo mean-
while preserves the body from damage (23.184–191, 24.18b–21).
• Priam’s embassy to Achilleus: Priam decided already in Book 22 to demand
the return of his son’s body from Achilleus, but was prevented from doing so
by his compatriots (22.412–429). In Book 24, with divine support (and against
the continued resistance of his wife Hekabe), Priam is able to realize his plan
and recover Hektor: Achilleus proves his humanity to the old man (after
having been uncompromising on the battlefield, as Tros 20.463 ff., Lykaon
21.71 ff. and Hektor 22.123 ff./338 ff. all learned from personal experience).
• Funeral ceremony: after the detailed depiction of the cremation of Patroklos’
corpse in Book 23 (23.1–257a), the games of the Greek heroes on the side of
the besieging Achaians are described (funeral games in honor of Patroklos,
23.257b–897); it is apparent there that conflicts and rivalries that inevitably
follow from a tense competition for a valuable prize can be resolved in a
conciliatory manner and without disastrous consequences: Achilleus even
voluntarily awards the first prize in spear-throwing to Agamemnon (23.884–
897). In Book 24, by contrast, the focus of the narrative is on the besieged
Trojans during the funeral of Hektor; the dismay of the entire people is made
emotionally comprehensible, in particular via the laments of his close female
relatives (Andromache, Hekabe, Helen) (24.719–776). – The Book concludes
with the ceremonial funerary meal in Priam’s palace and thus indirectly
anticipates the fate of Troy.
12 Iliad 24
1–21 Because of his relentless grief for Patroklos, Achilleus drags Hektor’s body
around his friend’s grave day after day. Apollo meanwhile protects the body against
disfiguration.
1–5 The initial letters of 1–5 form the word ΛΕΥΚΗ ‘white’ (fem.; as a noun, the term for the
white poplar and a skin disease). Since the word has no obvious connection with the
context, this is probably a coincidental acrostic; but it did inspire the Hellenistic poet
Aratus to form the programmatic acrostic ΛΕΠΤΗ ‘fine, slender’ in his Phainomena (vv.
783–787) (Vogt 1967, 82–87; Asper 1997, 182–185; Luz 2010, 4 f., 49 f.; Hilton 2013; cf.
already Eustathius 1335.27 ff.; differently Korenjak 2009: an allusion to the island of
Leuke, to which Achilleus is supposed to have been transported after his death).
1–2a Conclusion of the games in honor of Patroklos. The end of the sceneP is sig-
naled via (a) the repetition of the term agṓn ‘assembly’ from the beginning
of the games at 23.258 (Macleod); (b) an explicit statement of the end of the
assembly (‘the people scattered to go away’: 1.487n.; Kurz 1966, 109; cf. 801);
(c) the so-called panorama point of view of the narratorP: thanks to the bird’s-
eye view, the audience can easily follow the move from one scene to the next
(Richardson 1990, 119 f.; de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 69). – On the (post-Homeric)
Book divisions, see the bibliography at 19.1–39n., end; also Nünlist 2006.
1 ἀγών: here in the original sense ‘assembly’ (DELG s.v. ἄγω); in addition to 23.258, cf. 19.42
(with n.), Od. 8.200. — λαοί: The plural λαοί denotes a multitude of persons who belong
together (Engl. ‘people’, in the Iliad usually in a military context, as here: ‘the men, war-
riors, soldiers’); the sing. λαός, by contrast, stresses the collective whole (civilian ‘peo-
ple’: 28, 665, 789; military ‘servicemen’: 658), but a clear differentiation is not always
possible. Particular connotations can be gathered from the context: an entire civilian
population, including women and children (28n.), ‘compatriots, fellow citizens’ (37),
‘townsmen’ (740), ‘subjects of a king’ (777), etc. – Bibliography: LfgrE; 1.10n.; Haubold
2000 (on the poetic function of the term λαός in Homeric epic). — θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας: an
inflectible formulaic expression after caesura B 2 denoting the Achaian encampment of
ships (14× Il., of which 9× with VE Ἀχαιῶν: 564n.). Variants: dat. θοῇς ἐπὶ νηυσί 4× Il.,
1× Od. (19.160n.); θοῇς παρὰ νηυσί 2× Od.; gen. θοῆς ἐπὶ/παρὰ νηός 3× Od., 1× h.Ap. On
the inflection of formulae in general: FOR 23. – On the ship epithet ‘swift’, see 1.12bn. —
ἐπὶ νῆας ἕκαστοι: cf. 19.277 = 23.3 οἳ μὲν ἄρ’ ἐσκίδναντο ἑὴν ἐπὶ νῆα ἕκαστος (similarly
Od. 2.258); pl. ἕκαστοι is here probably to be understood as a collective: ‘contingent’
(Peppmüller; LfgrE; cf. 3.1n.). On ἕκαστος as a distributive appositive, see 2.775bn.
λῦτο: an athematic root aorist, elsewhere with short -υ- (2× Il. and 8× Od. in the phrase λύτο
γούνατα in verse middle). Here the lengthening is by analogy with the active future and aorist forms
of λύω (thus also in the present stem: 23.513 λῦεν, Od. 7.74 λῡ�ει): Shipp (1953) 1972, 105; Wyatt 1969,
209 f.; cf. 2.769n. (μήνῑεν), 3.357n. (δῑά). Otherwise (v.l. λύτο: -ῠ-) it must be interpreted as a metrical
1 λῦτο: ‘dispersed’; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — νῆας: on the inflection, R 12.1.
Commentary 13
licence: στίχος ἀκέφαλος (on this, see M 15). – On the (indeterminable) issue of whether λῦτο is to
be translated as reflexive ‘dispersed’ or passive ‘was dissolved’, see Allan 2003, 83 f.
2b–13 After the games, the narrator immediately returns to ‘everyday business’:
‘Scarcely has Achilleus been left alone before he is again overcome by his grief’
(schol. bT on 3–4; likewise Richardson on 3–4; see also 3n.). A variant of the
themeP ‘meal – sunset – sleep – sunrise’ (1.475–477n.; an additional variant:
1.601–611n.): the standard elements (2b–3a: meal, sleep) are depicted in an ab-
breviated manner in favor of a description of Achilleus’ state of mind (3b–12a);
the sunrise is immediately linked to this (12b–13n.). On the narrative scheme
‘all are sleeping, except one’, see 2.1–6n. with bibliography (esp. Minchin
1985, 269–272, 274 f.); cf. 677–682n. (Hermes); in general, 25–26n.
2b ≈ 18.245, Od. 19.321.
3 1st VH ≈ 10.4, 24.636, Od. 4.295, 23.255. — The night between Days 29 and 30 in
the action of the Iliad (31n.). — only Achilleus: Achilleus’ sleeplessness and
lack of appetite (and sexual abstinence: 130 f.) are primarily an expression
of his unquenchable grief for Patroklos, thus inter alia 19.199–214, 23.59–67,
23.218–225, 24.123–125, 24.129 f. (analogous are Priam at 24.635–642, Laërtes at
Od. 16.142–145; cf. Penelope at Od. 4.788 f.). At the same time, Achilleus’ behav-
ior underscores his isolation, which has persisted since Book 1 (1.488–492n.).
Only the return of Hektor’s body to Priam will lead to Achilleus’ return to the
community (599–676, reconciliatory meal with Priam and night rest); earli-
er, Achilleus at least participated in the meal before the games in honor of
Patroklos, albeit reluctantly (while refusing a bath: 23.39 ff.; similarly Demeter
during her search for Persephone: h.Cer. 47–50 with Richardson on h.Cer.
p. 167), and a meal on Priam’s arrival is mentioned in passing at 24.475 f. (472–
476n.); see also 19.203–214n. and 24.621–676n. – Bibliography: Nagler 1974,
177–183, 193–197; Edwards 1986, 88 f.; Taplin 1992, 260, 275–279; Seaford
1994, 67, 159–176; Postlethwaite 1998, 98–100; Schmitz 2001, 147–149;
Hammer 2002, 188–194.
γλυκεροῦ: γλυκερός is a metrical variant for γλυκύς (with the suffix -ero like κρατερός
vis-à-vis κρατύς: DELG s.v. γλυκύς). ‘Sweet’ in the sense ‘delicious, pleasant’ is a com-
mon epithet of ‘sleep’ (cf. 2.2n., 2.71n.). — ταρπήμεναι: τέρπομαι has the basic meaning
‘savor, enjoy, take pleasure in’; in contrast, the (aorist) forms with the stem vowel α
2 ἐσκίδναντ(ο): σκίδνημι is an Ionic byform of σκεδάννυμι (cf. R 1.3). — ἰέναι: final-consecutive

inf. — τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the form, R 14.3. — δόρποιο: on the inflec-
tion, R 11.2.
3 ὕπνου: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with μέδοντο (as an objective gen.) and with ταρπήμεναι (as a partitive
gen.). — ταρπήμεναι: final-consecutive inf.; on the form, R 16.4. — ταρπήμεναι· αὐτάρ: on the
so-called correption, R 5.5. — αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (adversative: R 24.2).
14 Iliad 24
denote the pleasurable satisfaction of a need (Latacz 1966, 176–191, esp. 186 f.; cf. 513n.,
3.441n., 19.18–19n.); of sleep also at Od. 23.346; here with a pregnant sense, in contrast
to Achilleus’ insomnia. — αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: VE formula 17× Il., VB formula 5× Il.: in the
Iliad, Achilleus is ‘the central figure, from whom the focus can be withdrawn […], but to
whom it is always brought back with the phrase «But Achilleus …»’ (Latacz 1995, 88 f.
n. 91 [transl.]). The formula last occurred at the beginning of the games (23.257b). – A
change of scene after caesura C 2 is characteristic of Homeric poetics generally (1.194n.);
on αὐτάρ as a ‘discourse marker’, cf. Bonifazi 2008, 48–51; on αὐτάρ ⏑–× after C 2, cf.
Clark 1997, 140–146.
4–5 This is taken up again in 9–11a via ring-compositionP; Achilleus’ concrete
memories of Patroklos intervene (at 22.387–390, he promised never to forget his
friend): van Otterlo 1948, 38.
4 wept: On weeping by Homeric heroes and by Achilleus in particular, see
1.349n. and 19.5–6an. – Additional typical gestures of mourning in early epic,
esp. in Book 24: fasting (129, 641 f.; see 3n.), covering oneself (163n.; veiling:
93n.), rolling around on the ground and piling dirt on one’s head (164n.), tear-
ing at one’s hair (711–712n.). — as he remembered his beloved companion:
Visualization of a particular person or object can serve in Homer as a trigger for
emotions or actions, especially grief (e.g. Od. 4.104–110, 4.186–188, 19.115–120,
20.204–206), including collective mourning (Il. 24.166–168) which, via commu-
nal remembrance, sometimes has a cathartic effect (19.338–340, 24.509–516,
Od. 12.309–311); cf. Crotty 1994, 73–77. — his beloved companion: A peri-
phrastic denominationP: in the Iliad, Patroklos is repeatedly called hétaros/
hetaíros ‘companion, comrade, friend’ in the narrator-textP, in speeches by
others, and by Achilleus himself (as here; also in Book 24 at 51, 416, 591, 755).
In the Iliad, the term denotes (a) ‘comrades (in arms)’ in general (usually in
the pl.), (b) specifically the members of a leader’s inner circle who are entrust-
ed with particular tasks (19.316n.), including those deemed friends in a social
sense; thus Alkimos and Automedon, Patroklos’ successors, are also hétaroi
(473–475, see 474n.; on the esteem given to hétaroi, cf. 574 f. with n., 793n.). The
fact that the same characters are also called therápontes ‘comrades in arms,
assistants, servants’ (396n.) does indicates not synonymous use of the terms
but different aspects of human relationships (relations of friendship and em-
ployment; see LfgrE s.v. ἑταῖρος 745.20–26). On the female equivalent dmōaí
‘female servants’, see 582–583an. – Further bibliography: van Wees 1992, 335
n. 67; Spahn 2006, 175–182 (problematic conclusions, loc. cit. 200 f.).
4 ἑτάρου: = ἑταίρου. — οὐδέ: also after affirmative clauses in Homer (R 24.8). — μιν: = αὐτόν
(R 14.1).
Commentary 15
φίλου ἑτάρου: In expanded combinations such as ἑοῦ ἑτάροιο φίλοιο (416) and ὃν
φίλον υἱόν (19.4), the adjective φίλος beside the possessive pronoun ἑός/ὅς most likely
has a pregnant affective sense: ‘dear, beloved’ (see 19.4n. with bibliography; differently
Landfester 1966, 24: φίλος is pleonastic with the possessive pronoun). At the same
time, in phrases like the present one it often cannot be determined whether φίλος has
an affective or merely a possessive sense, but the context – the loss of someone close –
may indicate the former here (similarly at 2.261n., 3.31n.), hence ‘of the dear compan-
ion’, cf. 591, also 50, 700 (with nn.); see the discussion at 1.20n. and in Spahn 2006,
165–173. – On the disputed etymology of ἕταρος/ἑταῖρος and the question of whether
the word originally began with a consonant, see 19.345n. — οὐδέ μιν ὕπνος: VE οὐδέ
μιν –× 8× Il. (in Book 24: vv. 12, 414, 727), 3× Od., 1× Hes. Op.; in addition κὰδ δέ μιν ὕπνος
Od. 9.372. Cf. below, 163n. (ἀμφὶ δὲ –×).
5 1st VH = Od. 9.373. — who subdues all: cf. expressions such as ‘with the
easy bondage of slumber upon them’ (678, etc.; see also 6.74n.); in light of
Achilleus’ sleeplessness, the expression is here ‘paradoxical, clearly show-
ing the intensity of the pain’ (LfgrE [transl.]; see also Richardson; Foley
1999, 233 f.). Similarly pregnant is Od. 9.373, of the sleep of the inebriated
Polyphemos (see de Jong ad loc.). On the phenomenon of an epithet ne-
gated within its context (here ‘nor did sleep … come over him’), de Jong
on Od. 16.4–5 (an additional parallel: Il. 9.10–12). – On the word formation,
Risch 30. — he tossed from one side to the other: outward restlessness
as a symptom of internal agitation (discussed further at 10 f.); the outraged
Odysseus sleeplessly plotting revenge at Od. 20.24/28 is similar; cf. also
Od. 4.541 = 10.499.
ᾕρει: The connection of abstract nouns (especially of physical/mental states) with
verbs of grasping, coming, etc. is common in Greek; with sleep as the agent, also e.g. 2.2
ἔχε (with n.), 22.502 ἕλοι, 24.679 ἔμαρπτεν; cf. 1.387n. (anger: λάβεν), 3.446n. (longing:
αἱρεῖ), 24.170 (trembling: ἔλλαβε), 24.480 (delusion: λάβῃ), etc. On verbs of coming, see
below 707–709n.; in general, Porzig 1942, 130–133. – On the negated impf. of incom-
plete action, Schw. 2.279 (οὐδέ μιν ᾕρει: ‘and could not …’).
6–9 On the athetesis of these verses by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus, inter
alia for linguistic-stylistic reasons, see schol. A, Macleod and Richardson (on 5–11);
counter-arguments already in schol. bT; also Von der Mühll 1952, 371 f.; Latacz 1965,
74 f.
6–8 The description of Achilleus’ memories of Patroklos is strongly colored
emotionally by phrases such as ‘carry through’ (tolýpeuse), ‘endure suffer-
ing’ (páthen álgea), ‘heavy waves’ (alegeiná kýmata), underscoring Achilleus’
intimacy with the deceased (secondary focalizationP: de Jong [1987] 2004,
110 f.); as often in analepsesP, this has the function of further clarifying the
present situation – Achilleus’ mental state: Richardson 1990, 103 with n. 29. –
16 Iliad 24
Additional discussion of pairs of friends in epic and particularly the friendship

between Achilleus and Patroklos: 19.4–6an.
6 Patroklos’ good qualities – especially his friendliness and prowess in bat-
tle – render his loss all the more painful, cf. 17.670 f., 17.689 f., 19.300, 23.16,
23.280 f. – On the character Patroklos, see CH 2; 1.307n.
ἀνδροτῆτα: ‘the embodiment of being a man’ (Latacz 1965, esp. 74 f.; ‘manly vitality’:
Clarke 1999, 206 n. 92; cf. Bassi 2003, 34); only of Patroklos (also at 16.857) and Hektor
(22.363), in both cases in the VE formula ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην. An old epic word (see
below). — μένος ἠΰ: a VE formula for increased or divinely induced vigor (of human
beings also at 20.80, Od. 2.271; of horses, Il. 17.456, 23.524, 24.442); on Vedic parallels,
Schmitt 1967, 119 f., and Nagy 1990, 93 f., 113 ff., 120 f. – ἠΰς/ἐΰς ‘good, competent, val-
iant’ is an archaic word that as an adjective is largely limited to epic language; as the
prefix εὐ-, it is attested already in Mycenaean (male personal names, see MYC). On the
meaning of μένος, see 1 103n.: ‘energy’ (especially in battle).
ἀνδροτῆτα: originally probably *anr̥ tātm̥ with a short-voweled syllabic r (and m): G 15; Janko on
16.855–858; West 1988, 156–158 and 1997a, 229; Latacz (2001) 2010, 384–387; subsequently per-
haps pronounced without the nasal as ἀδροτῆτα (transmitted as a v.l.) for metrical reasons: Latacz
1965, 66 f.; Ruijgh 1997, 42 ff. (differently Tichy 1981, who links the prosodic shape –⏑–⏑ with a
reconstructed, metrically freer pre-form of the hexameter; cf. Hajnal 2003, especially 46 ff., 66 f., 77
and 2003a; opposed Rix 2005, 387 f.). Extensive recent discussion of the state of research and new
hypotheses in Barnes 2011 (ἀνδροτῆτα is a form analogous to *ἀμ(β)ροτῆτα, with parallels from
Avestan) and Maslov 2011 (epenthetic -δ- is prosodically irrelevant). – On the issue of the linguistic
age of the conjunction καί in the formula ἀνδρ. καὶ ἥβην, see Willi 2003, esp. 224–226 and 240 (per-
haps already Mycenaean).
7–8 In raids, Achilleus conquered 23 towns in the vicinity of Troy, 12 of them by
ship: 9.321–329, Od. 3.105 f.
7 ἠδ’ ὁπόσα …: a shift in construction after ποθέων ἀνδροτῆτα …: the object clause
ὁπόσα … replaces the accusative object, with μεμνημένος (4) finding an echo in ποθέων:
‘longingly recall all that …’; taken up again in 9 with τῶν μιμνησκόμενος (AH). — ὁπόσα:
a metrically conditioned lengthening of the short final vowel before caesura A 4, as at
e.g. Od. 10.353 πορφύρεα καθύπερθ(ε), 14.343 ῥωγαλέα, τά …: La Roche 1869, 65–67;
van Leeuwen (1894) 1918, 91 f. — τολύπευσε: literally ‘wind yarn into balls’, metaphor-
ically ‘carry out, complete, conduct’, in early epic usually referring to war (e.g. 14.86 f.;
see Janko ad loc.; Müller 1974, 206 f.; Maurice 1991, 163; LfgrE); on the metaphors of
weaving and spinning (of fate), cf. 209b–210n. — ἄλγεα: ͜ The ending -εα also remains
uncontracted at VE and is to be read with synizesis (G 46): τεύχεα 7.207, 22.322, Διομήδεα
4.365, 5.881, etc.; it can be partly ascribed to a modification of a VE formula, e.g. 3.27
6 ποθέων: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἀνδροτῆτα: to be read prosodically with a short ini-
tial syllable: ⏖–⏑. — ἠΰ: neut. of ἠΰς = εΰς (cf. εὖ); initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).
7 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4). — ἄλγεα:
͜ on the synizesis, R 7.
Commentary 17
Ἀλέξανδρον θεοειδέα after 3.16 Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής (Peppmüller; Witte [1913] 1972,
113 f.; Chantr. 1.56). – On VE formulae with the meaning ‘suffer pains’, especially in
reference to Achilleus and Odysseus, see Pucci (1982) 1998, 13 f. and in general Mawet
1979, 176 ff.
8 = Od. 8.183 (with 182 ἔχομαι … ἄλγεσι), 13.91 (with 90 πάθ’ ἄλγεα ὃν κατὰ θυμόν), 13.264
(with 263 πάθον ἄλγεα θυμῷ), always of Odysseus. — πείρων: The connection of πείρω
(literally ‘pierce’) with κύματα is more natural (cf. the ship epithets ὠκύπορος 1.421n.,
ποντοπόρος 1.439n., also Od. 2.434 [νηῦς] πεῖρε κέλευθον) than that with πτολέμους:
zeugma (Macleod on 6–8; Fenno 2005, 481 n. 16). Collection of examples of zeugma in
Homer: van Leeuwen on 4.282.
9 1st VH ≈ 167; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.391 (also with τέρεν rather than θαλερόν: Il. 16.11, 19.323,
Od. 16.332). — τῶν μιμνησκόμενος: an asyndetic, demonstrative connection with
6–8 (on this, K.-G. 2.343 f.; cf. v. 345) and a reprise of 4 f. (see ad loc.) in the form of a
ring-compositionP. — θαλερόν: ‘swelling, bulging’; a generic epithetP of δάκρυον/δάκρυ
(cf. 2.266n.). — δάκρυον εἶβεν: an inflectible VE formula (3× Il., 7× Od.; of these, 7× with
κατά preceding). The verb εἴβω, with its uncertain etymology, is probably to be regarded
as a metrically conditioned variant of λείβω (VE formula δάκρυα λειβ- 9× in early epic):
Haslam 1976; Reece 2009, 156 ff. Additional syntactic alternative: (κατὰ) δάκρυ χέουσα
(613n.).
10–12 The triple anaphora ‘sometimes … sometimes … now again’ (in Gr. 3× ál
lote), each time in a different position in the verse, and the amplification via
a fourth, modified element (‘then …’), are an image of Achilleus’ restlessness
and desperation (Göbel 1933, 28 f.; on ‘three–four’, cf. 16n.; additional exam-
ples of triple anaphora in Homer: 11.494 f., 17.430 f.; see also in general 2.381–
393n.). – On expressions for (restless) movement to and fro, see Macleod;
Kurz 1966, 136.
ἄλλοτ’ …, ἄλλοτε δ’ αὖτε: anaphora after the bucolic diaeresis is a popular stylistic
device in hexameter poetry, cf. 787 (Bassett 1905, 112–114; Edwards 1987, 60).
11 ὀρθὸς ἀναστάς: an emphasis on his upright posture (= activity) after three ‘reclining’
positions (10–11a); cf. inter alia 2.42 ἕζετο δ’ ὀρθωθείς, 15.6 στῆ δ’ ἄρ’ ἀναΐξας, 23.101
ταφὼν δ’ ἀνόρουσεν, in each case from sleep (Kurz 1966, 71). The pregnant coupling of
‘upright’ and ‘stand (up)’ are likely of I-E origin (Schmitt 1967, 251 f.).
12a on the beach of the sea: A motif for Achilleus’ isolation, as at 1.349 f. (see
1.350n.; de Jong on Od. 2.260; Elliger 1975, 66–68).
8 πτολέμους: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2.

9 κατὰ … εἶβεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — δάκρυον: collective sing.
11 τοτέ: ‘another time’.
12 δινεύεσκ(ε) etc.: iterative forms (R 16.5). — ἀλύων: ‘be beside oneself (with grief)’. — θῖν(α):
acc. sing. of θίς ‘beach’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — Ἠώς: ‘dawn’, Attic Ἕως (cf. R 3).
18 Iliad 24
δινεύεσκ(ε): By means of the iterative/frequentative verbal forms in -σκ- (also 13

λήθεσκεν, 15 δησάσκετο, 17 παυέσκετο, ἔασκεν), the description of the first night af-
ter the games – which up to this point had been rendered in the imperfect – merges
seamlessly into the depiction of an action recurring regularly over the course of several
days (cf. 31) (also on the divine plane: 23 ἐλεαίρεσκον, 24 ὀτρύνεσκον): AH; Genette
(1972/83) 1994, 83 ff. (‘iterative narrative’); similarly 1.488–492 with n. – On the produc-
tivity of -σκ- for word formation, see G 60; Schw. 1.710–712; Wathelet 1973, especially
393 ff.; Puhvel 1991, 13 ff.; Pagniello 2007. Forms in -σκ- are not normally augmented
(Pagniello loc. cit. 114 ff.). — παρὰ θῖν’ ἁλός: a formula after caesura B 1: 4× Il., 2× Od.,
1× h.Hom., of which 4× followed by ἀτρυγέτοιο: from caesura C 2 on, the hexameter can
be completed by a simple verse-filling epithet or, alternatively, by a clause that bears
meaning (frequently in the form of a new sentence, as here) (Edwards 1966, 172–174;
Clark 1997, 107–109; cf. 1.194n., end).
12b–13 The description of the following daybreak is tailored to Achilleus’ situ-
ation (AH; Vivante 1980, 127; Minchin 1985, 272; Kelly 2007, 67): he sleeps
uneasily – if at all (differently from 23.59–64 and 23.231 f., where he falls asleep
from exhaustion) – and is already, or still, awake before dawn; he seems almost
to be waiting for dawn in order to vent his frustration by dragging Hektor’s
corpse. Similarly pregnant is the related phrasing at Od. 22.197 f.: Melanthios,
suspended from the ceiling, will not be able to sleep because of his ‘uncomfort-
able’ position and will thus be the first to catch sight of the dawn (cf. de Jong
ad loc.). On ‘morning’ formulae in general, cf. 695n. — across the sea and the
beaches: The localization of the dawn is determined by the narrative situation
rather than by astronomic realism: the sun rises wherever Achilleus is at the
moment (Peppmüller; Leaf on 23.227; Wilamowitz 1916, 508 f.).
οὐδὲ … λήθεσκεν: negated λανθάνω (‘A does not evade B’) is sometimes to be un-
derstood pregnantly, as here: ‘B does not disregard A’ (active perception), likewise
at 15.461 f. (Teukros aiming for Hektor) ἀλλ’ οὐ λῆθε Διὸς … νόον, ὅς ῥ’ ἐφύλασσεν |
Ἕκτορ(α) (similarly at 331), with a ‘that’ clause at 23.323 f., 24.563; see Faesi on 23.323 f.;
Krischer 1965, 162 f.; Snell 1978, 93 f.
14 2nd VH = 8.402, 8.416, 18.244, Od. 3.478. — chariot: Homeric heroes do not
ride on horses but instead drive a two-wheeled horse-drawn chariot: Wiesner
1968, 1 ff., 110 ff.; West 2007, 468 (with further bibliography in n. 71); cf.
2.384n.
ἐπεὶ ζεύξειεν: an iterative opt. (Chantr. 2.224 f.); with ἐπεί also at 8.269 f., Od. 2.105
(v.l.), 4.222 (v.l.), 24.254. — ὑφ’ ἅρμασιν: locative dat., like ὑπ’ ὄχεσφιν 23.130, ὑπ’
13 ὑπεὶρ ἅλα …: to be taken with φαινομένη. — ὑπείρ: = ὑπέρ (R 20.1).

14 ὅ γ(ε): on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17.
Commentary 19
ἀμάξῃσιν 24.782, ὑπ’ ἀπήνῃ Od. 6.73 (Chantr. 2.140). – On the plural ἅρματα (usually of
a single chariot), see 2.775bn. — ὠκέας ἵππους: an inflectible VE formula (3.263n.).
15 so as to drag him: The narrator takes for granted the detailed description of
the first time Achilleus dragged Hektor’s corpse (22.395–405).
Ἕκτορα δ’ ἕλκεσθαι: an emphatic VB with the final infinitive placed before the pred-
icate (cf. ἕλκει in VB 52 and 417; on stressing words by placing them at VB in gener-
al, see Edwards, Introd. 42–44). — ἕλκεσθαι δησάσκετο δίφρου ὄπισθεν: cf. 22.398
ἐκ δίφροιο δ’ ἔδησε, κάρη δ’ ἕλκεσθαι ἔασεν. Middle δησάσκετο probably underscores
Achilleus’ personal ‘interest’, his mental investment (Mutzbauer 1909, 190). — δίφρου:
On the etymology and meaning of δίφρος ‘chariot (platform)’, see 3.262n.
16 2nd VH = 17.538, 21.28, Od. 24.77; ≈ 8.476, 17.120, 17.182, 18.195. — Driving around
the grave monument recalls the rite, practiced in many cultures in different
contexts, of the (usually three or seven-fold) ‘circumambulation’ (circling,
walking around); its diverse functions include aversion of evil, cleansing,
taking possession, and veneration (RE s.v. Peridrome). The rite is frequently
attested for the cult of the dead; in Homer also at 23.13 f.: the Myrmidons drive
their war chariots around the body of Patroklos; Od. 24.68–70: the Achaians
move in full armor around Achilleus’ funeral pyre (‘armed dance’). General
bibliography on circling a grave: Eitrem 1915, 6–57 (esp. 9–13); Pax 1937, 28–73
(esp. 44–52); Nilsson (1940) 1967, 113 f.; Andronikos 1968, 14 f. – The present
case is exceptional, in that circling the grave is combined with dragging the
body of an opponent: ‘that is a sort of tribute to Patroclus and sign of his yearn-
ing for him, as well as a degradation of Hector’ (Macleod). An analogous prac-
tice is attested for 4th-cent. BC Thessaly (Achilleus’ homeland); this supposedly
represents an old Thessalian custom: Aristotle fr. 389 Gigon; Callimachus fr.
588 Pfeiffer; schol. D on 22.398; Porphyry on 24.15 f.; van der Valk 1963, 398 f.;
Sodano 1965, 232–241; Sistakou 2004, 117 f.; Hellmann 2007, 31–34. – On
pictorial representations of dragging Hektor’s corpse, see LIMC s.v. Achilleus
pp. 138 ff.; Knauss 2006, 236–238. — three times: The number three is wide-
spread in ritual practices (Göbel 1933, 21; Germain 1954, 40; RAC s.v. Drei);
it also occurs as a typical numberP in Homer in connection with ‘circling’ at
23.13 f. (see above), Od. 4.277 (Helen walks around the Wooden Horse three
times), and is expanded by the motif ‘three times – the fourth time’ in Achilleus’
pursuit of Hektor (Il. 22.165/208; on the motif in general, Kirk on 5.436–439;
Richardson 1990, 26 f.; cf. 399n. on ‘six – the seventh’). — Menoitios’ fallen
15 δ(έ): ‘apodotic δέ’ (R 24.3). — ἕλκεσθαι: final-consecutive inf. — ὄπισθεν + gen.: ‘behind’, here
as a postpositive preposition (R 20.2).
16 Μενοιτιάδαο: on the inflection, R 11.1.
20 Iliad 24
| son: Menoitios appears in the Iliad only as Patroklos’ father (frequently as a

patronymic). Further information on this character: BNP. — tomb: After the
cremation of Patroklos’ body and the recovery of the bones, earth was heaped
over the cremation site, which was then surrounded by a circle of stones to
form a grave mound (23.236–257; likewise for the burial of Achilleus at Od.
24.71–84, where the bones of Achilleus and Patroklos are interred together;
Hektor’s grave mound at 797–801 is similar). Mounds erected over cremation
burials are attested achaeologically for the Mycenaean and Geometric periods,
among others: Andronikos 1968, 107–114; Richardson on 23.245–248. On the
grave marker functioning as a memorial (sḗma), Sourvinou-Inwood 1995,
108 ff., esp. 120 f., 131 ff., 139 f.; see also 349n.; 6.419an.
θανόντος: The aorist stem θαν- in early epic frequently appears to have a perfect sense
(LfgrE s.v. θνήσκω 1045.69 ff.; examples: loc. cit. 1046.51 ff.).
17 ἐνὶ κλισίῃ: Achilleus’ ‘tent/hut’ at 448 ff. is described as a massive wooden construc-
tion thatched with reed (see 448–456n., 448n.). — παυέσκετο: used absolutely, with
a pregnant sense: ‘rested again’ (αὖτις ἐνὶ κλισίῃ picks up on his lying down there at
night); post-Homeric ἀναπαύεσθαι at Hdt. 1.12, etc. (schol. A and T; LfgrE s.v. αὖτις
1610.27 ff.). — τὸν δέ τ’ ἔασκεν: cf. 16.96 τοὺς δέ τ’ ἐᾶν. On ἐάω ‘let a dead man lie’, see
19.8–9an.
τόνδε δ’ ἔασκεν, the reading of the majority of witnesses, is contradicted by the fact that in Homer
ὅδε refers to characters only in direct speechP (e.g. 2.236 VE τόνδε δ’ ἐῶμεν, 2.346 VB τούσδε δ’ ἔα)
and never in narrator-textP (where only ἥδε … ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή 2.5, etc.; τοῖσι … ὅδ’ ἦν νόος
15.699). There was likely originally hiatus here: τὸν δὲ ἔασκεν, or a different form of the verb: τὸν δ’
ἐάεσκεν, τὸν δ’ εἴασκεν. Discussion of the variants in Schwartz 1923, 69 f.; Ruijgh 702; Nussbaum
1998, 66–72; West 2001, 276 f.
18–21 Although at 23.184–191 Apollo and Aphrodite protect Hektor’s body (by dif-
ferent means: ointment, cloud), only Apollo’s actions are described here; this
is probably to be interpreted as preparation for his appearance immediately
hereafter: Macleod (the supposed contradiction with 23.184 ff., as well as the
use of the aegis [20n.], have led to atheteses since antiquity: schol. A and b
on 20–21; Richardson; in detail, Lührs 1992, 133 ff.). – In the story of Troy,
Apollo supports the Trojans (CG 5; 1.9n.; Erbse 1986, 169–184); he receives the
aegis from Zeus in order to support them (15.229 f./306 ff./318 ff./360 f.); Hektor
in particular is under his protection (7.81 ff., 15.253 ff., 16.712 ff., 22.202 ff., etc.;
Paul 1969, 71–74; cf. also 757–759 with n.). Whether Apollo’s function as the god
of cultic purity also comes into play here (Mueller [1984] 2009, 124; Erbse
loc. cit. 183 f.; cf. LfgrE s.v. Apollon 1101.38 ff.) must remain an open question,
especially since the notion of ‘contamination’ via contact with the dead is not
17 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἔασκεν: iterative form, ‘let lie each time’ (R 16.5).
Commentary 21
much present in Homeric epic as a whole (Parker 1983, 66 ff.); in any case,
Apollo does wash and anoint Sarpedon’s body at the request of Zeus (and has
him transferred to his homeland: 16.666–683). – In the Iliad, other gods in-
tervene on behalf of deceased individuals as well: Thetis protects Patroklos’
body from decomposition (19.30–33, 38 f.; cf. 414–415n.), the ‘Uranian gods’
bury the twelve children of Niobe (24.612); on the moral plane, the gods also
vouch for the dead, particularly Hektor at 53 f. and 113–119 (Irmscher 1950,
83 f.; Yamagata 1994, 14 ff., 171 f.).
18 VE = 1.380, h.Merc. 297. — sprawled on his face in the dust: a perversion of
burial rites, as at 23.25 f. (with literal echoes): the prone position dishonors the
body (Macleod), and letting it lie on the ground could allow it to fall prey to
dogs and birds, cf. 22n.
κόνι: The dative ending -ι of i-stems (frequently transmitted as -ει, cf. 707–709n.) is
long, cf. 6.335 νεμέσσῑ, 18.407 Θέτῑ, 23.891 δυνάμῑ, 24.141 ἀγύρῑ; here with correption. On
i-stems, see G 74; Chantraine (1945) 1961, 85–90.
19 had pity on him: The pity of the gods as a reason for their intervention
(2.27n.) is a theme of Book 24 (23, 174, 301, 332). On the Greek notion of pity,
see 44n.
πᾶσαν: together with πάντα (20) stresses the comprehensive protection provided by
Apollo. — ἀεικείην ἄπεχε χροΐ: For the construction with the dative, cf. 1.67, Od. 20.263;
additional parallels: Schw. 2.146. On the meaning of ἀεικείη, see 22n.
20 1st VH ≈ 2nd VH of 17.229; VE ≈ 17.243, Hes. Th. 127. — Aegis: Its function and
appearance vary according to context (2.446b–454n.); here the aigis is prob-
ably to be imagined, by analogy with the cloud cover at 23.188–191 (where
Apollo’s intervention on behalf of the corpse is first mentioned), as a protective
cloak (similarly 5.738, 18.204: armor-like cloak); cf. de Romilly 1981, 11; 1997,
216–218.
καὶ τεθνηότα περ: i.e. not only in life but ‘also in death, beyond his death’; illustrating
the ‘good relationship’ between Apollo and Hektor (18–21n., 33–35n.); similarly καὶ ἐν
θανάτοιό περ αἴσῃ (428, 750). With a slightly different nuance, 35 νέκυν περ ἐόντα, 423
καὶ νέκυός περ ἐόντος (direct speechesP of deities): ‘though he is nothing but a corpse’
(Bakker 1988, 129).
18 ἐκτανύσας: (ἐκ)τανύω ‘stretch lengthwise’ (aor. act. part.). — τοῖο: anaphoric demonstrative
pronoun (R 17), to be taken with χροΐ; on the inflection, R 11.2.
19 ἀεικείην: = αἰκίαν, ‘disfiguration’ (cf. 22 ἀείκιζεν); on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — φῶτ(α): ‘man’.
20 περ: intensifying (R 24.10). — τεθνηότα: = τεθνεῶτα (R 3). — περὶ … κάλυπτεν: so-called tme-
sis (R 20.2). — αἰγίδι: instrumental dat. — πάντα: masc., ‘him as a whole’.
22 Iliad 24
21 ≈ 23.187. — golden: ‘It is golden, because divine things are characteristically
golden’ (Macleod; likewise the drinking vessel at 101, Hermes’ shoes at 341);
of the aegis also at 2.448 (golden tassels; see ad loc.) and 17.594 (marmaréē
‘gleaming like metal’).
ἀποδρύφοι: Although apparently taken as a present tense in the post-Homeric period
(schol. D on 23.187; Sophocles fr. 416 Radt [with Radt ad loc.]; Xanthakis-Karamanos
1985/89, 270; Beekes), this is perhaps a thematic aorist (effective) that exists beside the
sigmatic aorist δρυψ- at 16.324, etc.: LfgrE s.v. δρύπτω; Richardson on 23.187; undecid-
ed DELG. — ἑλκυστάζων: an intensive-expressive form of ἕλκω (as ῥυστάζω vis-à-vis
(ἐ)ρύω at 755, μιμνάζω vis-à-vis μίμνω at 2.392n.; Chantr. 1.338).
χρυσείῃ: Like other Greek material adjectives (e.g. χάλκεος, σιδήρεος), χρύσεος shows prosodic
and metrical flexibility: -ειος rather than -εος (χρύσειος in Book 24 also at 341, 795; σιδήρειος 205 ≈
͜ καλὸν δέπας 101, perhaps also the VB χρυσέῳ ἐν δέπαϊ at 285 [alternatively:
521), synizesis (χρύσεον
correption]), contraction (VE χρυσῇ Ἀφροδίτῃ at 699). The lengthened form in -ειος is here prob-
ably originally the result of metrical necessity: Schmid 1950, esp. 11–22; Risch 131–134 (differently
Lindeman 1965: an analogy with adjectives derived from s-stems, such as κήδειος; Ruijgh 1967,
234: an analogy with the variation βαθέα/βαθεῖα). Further bibliography: Chantr. 1.65 f. (on syniz-
esis); West 1998, XXXVIf. (on χρυσῆ). – The suffix of material adjectives is characterized by a mul-
titude of forms also in Mycenean (e.g. MYC s.v. χαλκός): Risch (1976) 1981; Heubeck 1985; Hajnal
1994.
22–76 The gods debate the appropriate response to Achilleus’ behavior. Apollo

advocates for Hektor, Hera for Achilleus (because of the insult she suffered in the
Judgment of Paris). Zeus mediates: Achilleus will be made to return Hektor’s corpse
in exchange for a ransom.
22 1st VH ≈ 50; 2nd VH ≈ 54. — outraged: How far Achilleus’ actions violate the
norm, or indeed stay within the norm, in the narrator’s portrayal of events (see
below), is a matter of dispute; in any case, the undeterred, reckless repetition
of dragging Hektor brings about divine intervention and thus ultimately a solu-
tion to the deadlock. – The Greek verb aeíkizen (impf., ‘he sought to disfigure’)
apparently contains no moral criticism in and of itself (Richardson on 22.395;
Griffin 1980, 85 n. 9; van Wees 1992, 129 f., with further bibliography in n. 132;
cf. v. 417 f.); in the Iliad, it denotes, like the noun aeikeíē (19), physical damage
(mutilation, disfigurement) to a corpse after the removal of the armor (espe-
cially as an impulse action: 16.545–547 for revenge, 16.558–561 in triumph),
rendering a dignified burial impossible (22.395–404, cf. 22.256–259). The most
commonly mentioned form of the practice, although usually only as a threat,
21 χρυσείῃ, ἵνα: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἀποδρύφοι: ‘scratch to pieces,
tear apart’ (opt.).
22 ὥς: ‘so, thus’.
Commentary 23
is abandoning a corpse to be prey for dogs and scavenging birds (1.4n., 2.393n.,
22.42 f., etc.; cf. 19.24 ff. [maggots]; collection of examples in Kelly 2007, 315–
317; Near Eastern parallels in Rollinger 1996, 178–181); cutting off the head
and other body parts also occurs in the Iliad (11.146, 17.39, 17.126, 18.176 f.,
18.334 f.; cf. 14.496 ff.). Hektor’s body remains unspoiled (partly, of course,
because of divine intervention: 23.184 ff.; cf. 411–423n.), although Achilleus
himself announced repeatedly that he would leave the body for the dogs and
birds to consume (22.335 f., 22.348, 22.354, 23.21, 23.182 f.; initially, the narrator
omits a signal that it will not come to that: Bowra 1952, 324; Morrison 1992,
89; cf. the concerns, still in Book 24, of Hekabe at 211 and Priam at 409). – That
Achilleus chose to drag the body about allows for different interpretations:
this is (a) a personal ritual to overcome powerful emotions (grief, thirst for
revenge) on the basis of an old rite (see 16n.); (b) retaliation for Hektor’s in-
tent regarding Patroklos’ body, in accord with the ius talionis (17.125–127: drag-
ging, decapitation, leaving to the dogs; Achilleus is informed of this by Iris at
18.175–177; see Porphyry on 24.15 f.; schol. D on 22.398; Reichel 1994, 193); (c)
a contrasting background against which to view Achilleus’ ‘constructive’ be-
havior later in the Book (his consent to the release of Hektor’s body, his pity for
Priam) and Hektor’s dignified burial at the end of the Iliad (cf. 33–54n.). – For
details on common practices by victors (mutilation of corpses) and a (com-
paratively lenient) evaluation of Achilleus’ conduct against this background,
Bassett 1933; de Romilly 1981; 1997, 193–213; Vernant (1982) 2001, 332–341;
Cerri 1986, especially 6 ff., 28 ff.; Lendon 2000, 3–11; differently Segal 1971,
passim, especially 9 ff. (according to whom the maltreatment of Hektor’s
body represents the climax of the spiral of violence in the final third of the
Iliad).
ὣς ὃ μέν: a typical introduction to a summaryP that here prepares a change of sceneP, as
commonly elsewhere; the impf. signals that the actions narrated sequentially overlap
temporally (1.318an.; cf. Richardson 1990, 31–33, and de Jong on Od., Introd. XII: ‘ap-
positive summary’). At the same time, the phrasing Ἕκτορα δῖον ἀείκιζεν reaches back
to the beginning of the storyline concerning ἀεικείη (22.395 = 23.24): ἦ ῥα, καὶ Ἕκτορα
δῖον ἀεικέα μήδετο ἔργα. — Ἕκτορα δῖον: an inflectible formula, only in the Iliad (acc.:
2× VB, 6× in verse middle, 19× VE; dat.: 11× VE). δῖος is a generic epithetP (1.7n.), with a
‘combining of contrasting terms’ (δῖον ἀεικ-) noticeable here and at 22.395/23.24 (AH on
22.395 [transl.]); on epithets for Hektor as a whole, see Wathelet s.v. Ἕκτωρ 472–474. —
μενεαίνων: a denominative related to μένος ‘urge, (aggressive) energy’ (cf. 19.58n.);
here often understood as ‘in anger’ vel sim. (Peppmüller; AH), but perhaps to be inter-
preted more broadly in the sense ‘have an unquenchable desire, act on impulse’, i.e. ‘in
his rage’ vel sim.
24 Iliad 24
23 The blessed gods: a formula between caesurae B 1 and C 2 (5× Il., 6× Od., 2×
Hes.); the epithet implies ‘living safely and without care’ (1.339n.; cf. 526n.).
— as they looked: a smooth change of sceneP/setting via introduction of a
character B (here: the gods) who is observing character A in the foreground of
the action (here: Hektor); frequently in changes to the divine plane, where the
gods appear as spectators of important events and discuss what they observe
(and intervene); see 19.340n. for examples and bibliography. Here the change
is also prepared by a description of the protective measures taken by Apollo
(18b–21).
τὸν δ’ ἐλεαίρεσκον … εἰσορόωντες: variant (in the impf.) of 15.12 τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν ἐλέησε
etc. – On iterative/frequentative verbal forms in -σκ-, see 12an.; here: ἐλεαίρεσκον, 24
ὀτρύνεσκον; the other verbs are impf. (22 ἀείκιζεν, 25 ἑήνδανεν, 27 ἔχον).
24 ≈ 109. — to steal the body: a summary rendering of a multiplicity of speeches
of more or less similar content (de Jong [1987] 2004, 115 f.; cf. 19.304n.); only
the decisive counsel at 31–76 is reported in extenso (see ad loc.; cf. principle of
elaborate narrationP). — Argeïphontes: = Hermes (CG 17). On Argeïphóntēs,
probably an old title, see 2.103n. and LfgrE: the original meaning is uncertain,
in Homer likely ‘Slayer of Argos’. – Hermes is expressly marked as the god
of theft at Od. 19.396 f. (with Rutherford ad loc.) and in the (post-Homeric)
hymn to Hermes (h.Merc. 18, 68 ff.). But in what follows here, he will contribute
to the return of Hektor by different means: 153n.
κλέψαι: here implies cunning and secrecy (72 λάθρῃ) but not theft as a criminal of-
fense, thus: ‘to secretly remove from Achilleus, misappropriate’ (AH; cf. Luther 1935,
109; Burkert [1977] 1985, 157); the same verb is used to describe Hermes rescuing the
tied-up Ares (5.390 f.: ἐξέκλεψεν). In contrast, the divine removal from battle of heroes
at risk is usually described by ἁρπάζω (3.380 f., 16.436 f., 20.443 f., 21.597) or σαόω (35n.),
occasionally also ὑπεκφέρω (5.318/377); on the motif of divine removal, Kullmann
1956, 125–131. — ἐΰσκοπον Ἀργεϊφόντην: an inflectible VE formula (nom./dat./acc.
2× Il., 2× Od., 3× h.Hom.), a prosodic alternative to the VE formula διάκτορος Ἀργ. (339,
etc.; see 2.103n.). As an epithet of Hermes, ἐΰσκοπος means ‘the good scout’ rather than
‘the unerring one’ (LfgrE; differently of Artemis in reference to the bow at Od. 11.198 f.). –
Additional epithets: κρατύς (345n.), Κυλλήνιος (post-Homeric), χρυσόρραπις (343n.);
Ἀργ. as an free-standing name for Hermes without epithet: 153, 182. – On the noun-epi-
thet system ‘Hermes’ in its entirety, see Janko 1982, 21 ff.; Dee 1994, 56 ff.
25–26 The antithesis ‘all others …, but not …’ – a variant of the motif ‘all others …
x, (only) A … y’ – serves to characterize the highlighted characters and signals
a turn in the action (2.1–6n.): ultimately, the opposition of the three gods here
23 ἐλεαίρεσκον: iterative form (R 16.5). — εἰσορόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

24 κλέψαι: sc. Hektor’s body.
Commentary 25
facilitates the – far better – solution to the problem later proposed by Zeus
(109–111; Scodel 2002, 144). – Early epic frequently hints at possible alter-
natives to the actual course of action, e.g. in ‘if-not’-situationsP (2.155–156n.),
scenes of deliberation (1.188b–194n.), or different kinds of confrontations,
e.g. declined requests, as here (on the keyword ‘[did not] please, [did not]
approve’, cf. 1.22–25, Od. 3.141–144, 10.373 f.), but also threats (1.169–171 [with
n.], 24.568–570/583–586), etc.; see Richardson 1990, 187 ff. — to Hera | nor
Poseidon, nor the girl of the grey eyes: Hera and Athene (CG 16 and 8) are in
the Iliad fully on the side of the Achaians (a consequence of the Judgement of
Paris: 27–30n.), as is Poseidon (since Hektor’s grandfather Laomedon cheated
him out of his wage for building the city walls: 21.441 ff.; CG 23; Erbse 1986,
102 ff.); these three divinities are also mentioned together at 1.400, 20.33 f. (cf.
15.213 f., 20.112–115) and actively intervene in battle on behalf of the Achaians.
On sets of three gods in general, 2.478–479n.
25 ἔνθ’ ἄλλοις μὲν πᾶσιν: an inflectible VB formula (3× Il. [also at 1.22 = 1.376], 9× Od.);
on the continuation with οὐδέ, 1.318bn. — ἔνθ(α): sometimes not of a precise mo-
ment in time, as e.g. 1.22 (‘then’: an immediate reaction to a speech), but in reference
to an entire situation: ‘regarding this, in this case, in these circumstances’ (LfgrE s.v.
590.9 ff., esp. 34 ff.). — ἑήνδανεν: ‘pleased’ (literally ‘was sweet, pleasant’: related to
ἡδύς; see 1.24n.), of agreement with a suggestion. The subject inf. that belongs to the
verb must be ‘supplied’ from what precedes (κλέψαι). – On the form of the imperfect,
see LfgrE s.v. 799.21 ff.: ἑήν- rather than *ἐ(ϝ)άνδανεν, probably via the influence of Attic
ἥνδανεν.
26 1st VH ≈ 20.34, Od. 8.344, Hes. Th. 15 (VB τοῦ δέ etc. Od. 4.505, 7.61 and 5× ‘Hes.’). —
Ποσειδάων(ι): elision of -ι is relatively rare in early epic: G 30; La Roche 1869, 110 ff.;
van Leeuwen (1894) 1918, 75–77; Guilleux 2001. — γλαυκώπιδι κούρῃ: ≈ Od. 2.433
Διὸς γλαυκώπιδι κούρῃ: a variant in the dative of the VE formula γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη
(on this, 1.206n.; cf. the VE formulae Διὸς κούρῃ μεγάλοιο and κούρῃ Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο:
6.304n.); similarly in verse middle before caesura C 2 κούρῃ γλαυκώπιδι καὶ Διὶ πατρί
(Od. 24.518, beside the more common Ἀθηναίῃ γλαυκώπιδι, likewise before C 2; see
6.88n.). γλαυκῶπις by itself is used as an intimate address by Zeus 3× in Il. 8 and by
Odysseus at Od. 13.389, in narrator-text at Od. 6.47, h.Hom. 28.10: certain epithets can
stand by themselves for a divine name, thus also ἐριούνιος for Hermes (360n.); see
Hainsworth on Od. 6.47. – On γλαυκῶπις ‘bright-eyed’, see 1.206n. with bibliography;
also Deacy/Villing 2004 and Grand-Clément 2011, 399–403 (with various attempts to
relate γλαυκῶπις to Athene’s character).
25 ἑήνδανεν: Attic ἥνδανεν (impf.). — μὲν … οὐδέ: ‘although … but not’. — οὐδέ ποτε: ‘but never’
whenever this suggestion was made (cf. R 24.8).
26 κούρῃ: = Athene; on the form, R 2 and 4.1–2.
26 Iliad 24
27–30 In the chronology of the myth, the ‘Judgement of Paris’ belongs to the
beginning of the story of Troy (external completing analepsisP: Richardson
1990, 103 with n. 29; cf. STR 23 Fig. 3); within the Epic Cycle, it was narrat-
ed in detail in the Cypria (Proclus Chrest. § 1 West; cf. Cypr. fr. 5 f. West). The
‘Judgement of Paris’ is mentioned in the Iliad only here; it provides the reason
why Hera and Athene tolerate or even approve the maltreatment of Hektor’s
corpse: principle of ‘ad hoc-narration’P (Erbse 1986, 196 f.). Knowledge of the
episode is nonetheless assumed for the entire Iliad and especially for the di-
vine factions (4.5 ff., 5.418 ff., 21.418 ff.; cf. also 6.288–295n.): CH 8 s.v. Paris;
Reinhardt (1938) 1997 (‘Without the Judgement of Paris, there is no Iliad’: loc.
cit. 187 [transl.]); Kullmann 1960, 236 ff.; Stinton (1965) 1990, 17 ff.; Walcot
1977; Kullmann (1986) 1992, 393 f.; Latacz (2001) 2004, 197 f. But in the caus-
al chain, the narrator keeps it in the background in favor of the bow-shot of
Pandaros (4.86–168), by means of which he ‘develops dramatically the disas-
ter hanging over Troy in the Iliad itself’ (Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 154 n. 1
[transl.]; see also Drerup 1921, 360 n. 1 and 450 n. 3; Irmscher 1950, 43 f.; van
der Valk 1953, 17). – Allusions to stories from the Trojan and other myth cycles
are common in Homer (Calhoun 1939; Kullmann 1960, 5–11; Schwinge 1991,
497 f.; Burgess 2001, 47 f. and 209 n. 1; on allusions to the prehistory of the
Trojan War and to the first nine years of the war specifically, see Kullmann
loc. cit. 227–302; Friedrich 1975, 81 f. with 188 n. 217–223; Book 24 is particu-
larly rich in references to stories that take place before or after the Iliad itself:
Mackie 2013). Such allusions have often been suspected as interpolations;
criticism – probably unjustified – has been expressed since antiquity of the
entire section from 23 on, sometimes for linguistic reasons (e.g. because of
the use of the terms ‘insult’, ‘courtyard’, ‘lust’ [29 f. with nn.]), sometimes on
moral-theological grounds (the ‘theft’ in 24 [but see ad loc.], the evaluation of
divinities by a mortal), sometimes because of content: Poseidon (26) has no
connection with the ‘Judgement of Paris’, and in any case Homer mentions the
‘Judgement of Paris’ nowhere else (Aristarchus according to schol. bT on 23 and
schol. A on 25–30; on this, Beck 1964, 129–138; Richardson on 23–30. – West
2001, 12, athetizes 29 f.; see also app. crit.). – Further discussion of the history
and motifs of the myth of the ‘Judgement of Paris’ in Stinton loc. cit. 17 ff.,
56 ff.; Davies 2003. On pictorial depictions, LIMC s.v. Paridis Iudicium; Kaeser
2006.
The phrasing of 27–30 is expressed subjectively: narrator commentary (Richardson
1990, 145 with n. 11) or even secondary focalizationP from the view-point of the two god-
desses concerned (de Jong [1987] 2004, 84; Scodel 2002, 143 f.). The following words
are character languageP: (ἀπ)εχθάνομαι (elsewhere in Homer only at 3.454 in narra-
tor-text), ἕνεκα (de Jong loc. cit. 120; cf. Porzig 1942, 169), ἄτη (in Homer 21× in direct
Commentary 27
speechP, 4× in narrator-textP [elsewhere at 16.805, 24.480, Od. 15.233]; see Cairns 2012,
17 f.). Cf. 29n. (νείκεσσε), 30n. (‘lust’).
27 VB ≈ 12.433, 13.679, Hes. Th. 425; on the 2nd VH, see 27b–28an. — ἔχον: ‘persisted, re-
mained’, from intransitive ἔχω ‘withstand, remain’; cf. 12.433, 13.557, 13.679 (LfgrE s.v.
839.71 ff., 844.59 ff.). — πρῶτον: ‘from the first, once and for all’; emphasizes the irre-
versibility of the situation (1.319n., cf. 1.6n.). — ἀπήχθετο: The form can be interpreted
as impf. (in the sense ‘be hated by someone’) or as aor. (‘incur someone’s hatred’); see
Mutzbauer 1893, 97 f.; Chantr. 1.394. — Ἴλιος ἱρή: an inflectible VE formula (nom./
acc./gen. 21× Il., 2× Od.; sometimes with a preposition: 143n.). On ἱερός as a generic epi-
thet of cities, particularly Troy, see 1.38n.; West on Od. 1.2; here possibly with the effect
of a contrast to ‘hated by the gods’.
27b–28a = 8.551b–552a; ≈ 4.46–47a, 4.164–165a, 6.448–449a (all with the continuation
ἐϋμμελίω Πριάμοιο).
28 Paris: CH 8; often called Alexandros in the Greek text, as here, 3.16n. — delu-
sion: Greek átē indicates a stimulus for foolish action with catastrophic con-
sequences (on this in detail, 1.412n. and 19.88n.; cf. also 480). In the parallel
passages 3.100 and 6.356, the reference is ostensibly to Helen’s abduction by
Paris, whereas here the delusion is related to the preceding event in the myth,
the ‘Judgement of Paris’ (explicative function of 29 f.).
λαός: Referring to the entire population, including women and children (1n.): the royal
family and the inhabitants of Troy are affected to the same degree by the war, similar-
ly at 3.50 f., 6.282 f. (with 6.283n.), 24.715, and the iterata (27b–28an.); cf. Macleod on
27–8. — Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ’ ἄτης: = 6.356; ≈ 3.100 (ἀρχῆς); on the vacillation of the
transmission between ἀρχῆς and ἄτης, see 6.356n. In the present passage, ἄτης is better
attested in the tradition and more appropriate in terms of content (Macleod on 27–28;
West 2001, 198): a negative portrayal of Paris. — Ἀλεξάνδρου ἕνεκ(α): Hiatus without
correption after a long vowel or diphthong in the 5th longum is common in early epic
(see 3.100n.).
29 2nd VH = Od. 10.435. — in his courtyard: In the Cypria, Mt. Ida is the scene of
the ‘Judgement of Paris’ (Procl. Chrest. § 1 West; Stinton [1965] 1990, 29, 61 f.).
This may presuppose a version of the myth in which the infant Paris was ex-
posed on Mt. Ida and raised by herdsmen (cf. schol. D on 3.325; BNP s.v. Paris).
At the same time, other princes also work on Ida as shepherds, e.g. Antiphos
son of Priam at 11.104 ff. and Aineias at 20.188 f. (so too Demokoon son of Priam
in Abydos [4.499 f.] and Melanippos, a nephew of Priam in Perkote on the
Hellespont [15.547 f.]). Agriculture and the animal husbandry, at any rate, form
27 ὡς: ‘as’. — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — ἀπήχθετο (ϝ)ίλιος: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἱρή: = ἱερά.
29 νείκεσσε: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὅτε (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). —
μέσσαυλον: terminal acc. without preposition (R 19.2).
28 Iliad 24
the principal source of livelihood for all social strata in Homeric society: e.g.
Priam takes care of his horses himself (280), while Andromache tends Hektor’s
horses (8.186–189) and Patroklos those of Achilleus (23.280–282): Richter
1968, 5–8; Griffin (1986) 1992, 28–31; cf. 1.154–157n., 6.424n.
νείκεσσε: In post-Homeric versions of the myth, there is no indication that Paris ‘criti-
cized’, let alone ‘abused’, the two unsuccessful goddesses in his decision (thus the basic
sense of νεικέω, cf. 2.221–222an., 19.86an.; the contrast αἰνέω – νεικέω is also found at
10.249), but the verb probably represents the perception of Hera and Athene: for them,
being passed over was a ‘disparagement, insult, slight’ (Davies 2003, 32; cf. AH; Von
der Mühll 1952, 372); on the subjective style overall, 27–30n., end. — θεάς: Hera and
Athene (excluding Poseidon; cf. 25–26n.); the antithesis is 30 τὴν δ(έ) = Aphrodite. — οἱ
μέσσαυλον: οἱ is either an indication of direction ‘to him in his courtyard’ (e.g. 6.367) or
functions like a possessive pronoun ‘into his courtyard’ (on this, Schw. 2.189 f.; cf. 716
μοι). — μέσσαυλον: Humans and animals spend the night in the μ.: ‘courtyard, fold,
stable’; elsewhere in the Iliad in similes (a lion is chased from the μ.), in the Odyssey in
direct speechP: LfgrE with bibliography; Rougier-Blanc 2004, 119 f.
30 her who supplied the lust that led to disaster: a suprising formulation in
place of the expected ‘her who promised him Helen’ vel sim. (cf. the vv.ll. ‘her
who brought him sweet desire’ and ‘her who named welcome gifts’; see app.
crit.): the subjective point of view of the relevant individuals (27–30n., end); in
particular, the attribute alegeinós ‘causing pain, leading to disaster’ indicates
the consequences for the characters involved – and probably not only for the
goddesses not chosen, but equally for the Trojans (Mawet 1979, 233; de Jong
1988, 188; on the far-reaching consequences of an issue termed alegeinós, cf.
e.g. 18.17 [a message], Od. 12.226 f. [an instruction]). – In and of itself, the phras-
ing ‘a goddess supplies …’ is ambiguous: on the one hand, it recalls expressions
such as those at 1.72, 2.827, 13.730–734: the conferral of a (positive) feature or
capacity by the relevant deity (on this in general, see 529–530n. with bibliogra-
phy). In a number of myths, on the other hand, sexual disinhibition is imposed
as a punishment: of the Proitidai by Hera (‘Hes.’ fr. 132 M.-W.: ‘terrible lust’; see
Henrichs 1974, 300 f.), of the Tyndaridai by Aphrodite, etc. (Stesichorus fr. 223
Davies; Davies 1981, 57 f. with n. 14). In reference to Paris, 3.54 f. particular-
ly comes to mind: Hektor reproaches him for the ‘gifts of Aphrodite’ (see ad
loc.). The phrasing here is thus rendered ‘in such a way as to stress Paris’ er-
ror: Aphrodite gave him not so much the most desirable of women, as «rand-
iness», i.e. made him a seducer’: Macleod on 29–30; cf. Latacz (2001) 2004,
198 (transl.): ‘sexual attraction that radiates intensely on others’ (differently
Beck 1964, 136: ‘lust’ is metonymy for Helen; cf. LfgrE s.v. μαχλοσύνη).
30 τήν: i.e. Aphrodite, anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἥ (ϝ)οι: on the hiatus, R 4.4.
Commentary 29
μαχλοσύνην: ‘randiness, lust’, a Homeric hapaxP; in early epic also in Hesiod in refer-
ence to the Proitidai (see above), the adjective μάχλος also at Op. 586 of women during
the Dog Days. The word has a negative connotation (cf. Hdt. 4.154.2).
31–76 An assembly of gods with no explicit summons, but prepared for by 23 f.
(1.533–535n.; Edwards 1980, 26); similarly 7.443–445, 22.166 f. (the gods ob-
serve the – debatable – earthly events; one of them starts the discussion). Here
the debate among the gods serves as a ‘forum’ for forming an opinion about the
conduct of Achilleus (Cerri 1986, 19–28; van Wees 1992, 129 f.; Sarischoulis
2008, 246 f.); at its end, they begin the measures necessary for resolving the
deadlock regarding Hektor’s corpse. – The sequence ‘speech (Apollo) – re-
sponse (Hera) – mediating speech (Zeus)’, with the subsequent realization of
the action proposed by the third speaker, is comparable to 7.345–379 (where 1st
VH of 7.375 ≈ 24.75) and 9.17–79, also 7.385–413, Od. 24.426–462 (Macleod). The
three speeches are closely related (Lohmann 1970, 152 f.); Zeus in particular
takes up the arguments of the two prior speakers (offerings 34 → 68–70, con-
cept of honor 57 → 66) and even the preceding debate that was rendered only
indirectly (e.g. ‘steal’ 24 → 71); cf. 65–76n. with bibliography
31 = 1.493; 2nd VH ≈ 413, 781. — But now, as it was the twelfth dawn: The text
does not make entirely clear the point in time to which ‘now’ refers. The refer-
ence is to either (a) the start of the repeated dragging of Hektor’s corpse as just
described, and the debate among the gods that arose on this basis, i.e. directly
to Day 30 of the action of the Iliad (3–30) (thus, among others, Peters 1922,
10–12; Latacz [1981] 1994, 185 n. 22; [1985] 2003, 149; Pavese 2007; STR 21 fig.
1), or (b) Hektor’s death, the last major event (Day 27 of the action of the Iliad),
since which time Hektor’s corpse has been lying in Achilleus’ camp for twelve
days, as also asserted at 413 f. (thus, among others, schol. bT; Bethe 1914, 174 f.;
Myres 1933; Balensiefen 1955, 4–6, 13–16; Hellwig 1964, 40 f.; Macleod).
The supplementary information at 107 f., according to which the debate among
the gods referred to at 23 ff. lasted for nine days, means that in case (a), the gods
initially observe the dragging of Hektor’s corpse for three days before Apollo
speaks up; in case (b), that the events since Hektor’s death (Days 27, 28, 29) are
included in the reckoning of days. – The count of the days of the action of the
Iliad has been disputed since antiquity (on the calculations of Aristarchus and
Zenodotus, which are only partially preserved, see Düntzer 1848, 194–198;
Pfister 1948, 137 f.; Nünlist 2009, 69–73). Difficulties similar to those in the
present passage occur at 1.493 (see ad loc.: the phrasing ‘but when … after this
day …’ ‘does not refer to what was narrated immediately before’).
31 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἐκ τοῖο: ‘since then, after which’. — δυωδεκάτη: = δωδεκάτη.
32 Iliad 24
ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: a VB formula to mark a new point in the narrative, frequently with an in-
dication of time or an arrival at a specific location, occasionally clustered (cf. 443/448):
1.493n., 3.209n.
32 ≈ h.Ap. 130. — Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων: On the epithet and the VE formula, see 1.43n. — καὶ
τότ’ ἄρ(α): a metrical variant of καὶ τότε δή (1.494n.), after a ὅτε clause also at 786, Od.
15.458.
33–54 Apollo’s words are marked by emotion and a rhetorical expressive force
(see e.g. 39n.): ‘The most forceful protest against the assembled gods that can
be found in the Iliad’ (Reinhardt 1961, 471 [transl.]; similarly Segal 1971, 58 f.;
Deichgräber 1972, 39–43; Richardson; additional speeches by indignant
gods: 7.445–463 [Poseidon, Zeus], Od. 8.305–320 [Hephaistos], etc.; on this, see
Fenik 1968, 73 and Usener 1990, 152; on the speech-type rebuke, 2.225–242n.
and Minchin 2002, 96 f.). Apollo’s – negative – perception and evaluation
of Achilleus’ conduct has parallels in 9.628–639 (by Aias) and 16.29–35 (by
Patroklos); here, where Apollo draws a character sketch in which Achilleus is
presented as inhuman (39–45), it forms a strongly contrasting background to
the hero’s subsequent ‘humane’ attitude (cf. esp. 518–551n., 560–562n., 580–
595n.). On the effect of Achilleus’ character in the Iliad overall, Whitman 1958,
181 ff.; Schmitt 1990, 77 ff.; Latacz 1995, 52 ff.; Daix 2014; cf. 22n.
33–35 In their debates, the gods repeatedly use the abundant offerings of the
Trojans as an argument (Scodel 1999, 38): 4.44–49, 20.297–299, 22.169–172,
24.66–70 (24.69 f. = 4.48 f.); Hektor in particular stands out for his piety (cf.
422 f., 425–428, 749 f.; additional examples: LfgrE s.v. Hektor 510.34 ff.). On the
principle of do ut des in Greek religion, 1.39–41a n.; Scheid-Tissinier 2000,
219 ff. Cf. Od. 1.59–62 (in a reproachful question, as here).
33 ≈ Od. 5.118; VB ≈ Il. 10.164, Od. 12.279; VE ≈ Il. 24.239, Od. 10.464. — you gods:
Apollo holds all the gods responsible (likewise at 39, 53) – with the exception
of himself, of course (cf. 18b–21) – i.e. he includes those who did not do enough
to end the maltreatment of Hektor’s corpse: AH; Davies 1981, 59.
σχέτλιοι: a word from character languageP (Griffin 1986, 40), frequently used, as here,
in a reproving or accusatory sense: ‘harsh, cruel, terrible’ (2.112n.; LfgrE with bibliog-
raphy), usually of humans; in the Iliad of gods only at 2.112 ≈ 9.19, 8.361 (in both cases
of Zeus). – On the notional link with (οὐκ) ἔτλητε (here at 35), cf. Od. 11.474 f., 23.150,
h.Ap. 322 f. — δηλήμονες: nomen agentis related to δηλέομαι ‘spoil, destroy’ (Risch
32 καί: apodotic (cf. R 24.3). — ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἀθανάτοισι: initial syllable metrically length-
ened (R 10.1); on the inflection, R 11.2. — ἀθανάτοισι μετηύδα: ‘spoke in the crowd (in the circle)
of gods, to the assembled gods’.
33 ὕμιν: unstressed by-form of ὑμῖν.
Commentary 33
51 f.); at Od. 18.85, etc. of the cruel king Echetos. — οὔ νυ ποθ’: a rhetorical exaggeration
(cf. 63n.); as confirmed by Zeus at 68–70, Hektor regularly offered sacrifice. – οὔ νυ:
8× in Homer after caesura C 2 (Ruijgh 1957, 61), as an introduction to an exasperated,
reproachful question also at e.g. Od. 1.60 (with argumentation similar to here), Il. 4.242,
24.239, 24.683.
34 thigh pieces: Thigh bones wrapped in fat and garnished with raw meat are
burnt for the gods (1.460–461n.; cf. 70). On sacrificial animals in general,
125n.
μηρί’ ἔκηε: an expression used in various positions of the verse (1.40n.). — αἰγῶν τε
τελείων: VE = 1.66 (see ad loc. on τέλειος ‘immaculate’).
35 νέκυν περ ἐόντα: 20n. – νέκυς ‘dead, corpse’, with predicative (or appositive) use also
at 18.151 f., 22.386 f., 24.423; with the name of the deceased in the gen. at 24.108 (and
perhaps at 17.240, see Edwards ad loc.); see LfgrE; Clarke 1999, 158 f., 162 f. — σαῶσαι:
σαόω often denotes rescue from danger on the battlefield (also with a divine subject at
e.g. 5.23, 15.290 f., 22.175 f.; used pregnantly of spiriting away by a god: 4 12, 11.752), also
specifically of recovery of the dead (15.427, 17.149, 17.692; on the motif, see Patzer 1996,
176–178).
36–37a The polysyndetic enumeration of the bereaved – Andromache, Hekabe,
Astyanax, Priam, the Trojans – serves to heighten the emotion and, here in par-
ticular, to elicit sympathy (AH and Macleod on 36; 6.429–430n.; Deichgräber
1972, 41; cf. 466 f., 736 f., 768–772; Od. 4.224 f.; other such lists: Garland [1982]
1984, 18 f.). The naming of family members also recalls events in Book 6 (Hektor
in Troy: 6.237–529).
ᾗ … ᾧ: The two possessive pronouns at VB and VE make the degree of emotion clear
(see above). – On the reflexive use of ᾗ and ᾧ in a broader sense – i.e. in reference to
the logical rather than the grammatical subject (also at e.g. 6.500, 20.235, 24.211) – see
Schw. 2.204; further bibliography in LfgrE s.v. ἑός. — ᾗ τ’ ἀλόχῳ: either with ἰδέειν: ‘for
his wife to see’, i.e. ‘so that his wife may see him’ (similar constructions: 18.211 f. ὑψόσε
δ’ αὐγή | γίνεται … περικτιόνεσσιν ἰδέσθαι, VE 2.119, etc. καὶ ἐσσομένοισι πυθέσθαι; see
AH on these passages), or a dat. of advantage with σαῶσαι (Peppmüller and others); cf.
LfgrE s.v. ἰδεῖν 1126.27 ff. — τέκεϊ ᾧ: VE = Od. 4.175 (cf. Il. 5.71 πόσεϊ ᾧ; 16.542 σθένεϊ ᾧ;
Od. 3.39 πατέρι ᾧ). Possessive ὅς derives from *sṷos (Latin suus): G 22 and 82; Chantr.
1.146.
34 μηρί(α): neut. pl., ‘thigh bones’. — ἔκηε: 3rd sing. aor. ind. of καίω.
35 οὐκ ἔτλητε: ‘you could not bring yourself [to do], you did not dare’. — ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6).
— σαῶσαι: = σῶσαι (root σαο-).
36 ᾗ / ᾧ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — ἀλόχῳ (ϝ)ιδέειν: on the hiatus, R 4.4.
— ἰδέειν: final-consecutive inf.; on the form, R 8 and 16.4.
34 Iliad 24
37b presently: underscores the urgency of the concern (for both Apollo and the
Trojans). But a ‘speedy’ burial is also necessary for practical reasons: on the
one hand, because of the facts of nature (decomposition: 19.24–27, 24.414 f.); on
the other hand, and probably more important, because of moral and religious
convictions (parting, honoring, separation from the world of the living, etc.:
7.408–410, 19.228 f. [see ad loc. on burials between episodes of fighting], 23.49–
53 and 71–79, Od. 11.72–78, 12.11–15). – Attempts to reconstruct Homeric ideas
of death in Webster (1958) 1964, 164–166; Schnaufer 1970, 74–79; Bremmer
1983, 89–94; Johnston 1999, 9–11, 40; Albinus 2000, 30–33; somewhat mat-
ter-of-factly Garland (1982) 1984. Cf. also 591–595n., end
38 2nd VH ≈ Od. 1.291, 2.222, 3.285. — burn his body in the fire: Cremation is
the typical burial rite in Homeric epic (e.g. 1.52, 23.163–165, Od. 24.65), here
in marked contrast to the maltreatment of the body by Achilleus. In Greece,
cremation is only occasionally attested archaeologically for the Mycenaean
period (Andronikos 1968, 52–58), but examples increase rapidly in the 12th
century BC (Late Helladic IIIC), and from the 10th century on (Early Iron Age /
[Proto-] Geometric period) the rite is actually preferred to inhumation in some
locations (Andronikos loc. cit. 59–69; Lemos 2002, 186 f.; Dickinson 2006,
73, 180 f., 185–189; Vlachou 2012, 367 f.). The two types of burial continue to
coexist thereafter (for the situation in Athens in particular, see the survey in
Étienne 2005). In the Troad, cremations are attested already in the 14th centu-
ry (at Beşiktepe: Basedow 2000, 16, 37, 47, 148 f., 201; south of the lower town
and northwest of the acropolis of Troy: Mylonas 1948, 66 f.; Becks 2002). –
Additional information on the burial process: 777–804n.
ἐν πυρί: locative rather than instrumental (the latter at 21.361; see Schw. 2.170; Graz
1965, 254); cf. the frequent ἐν πυρὶ βάλλειν (9.220, etc.) as well as ἐν πυρί at VB 2.340.
— κήαιεν … κτερίσαιεν: the 3rd pl. aor. opt. is usually in -ειαν elsewhere in Homer
(Richardson); on the distribution of the -αι- and -ει-forms, see Chantr. 1.464 f. — ἐπὶ
κτέρεα κτερίσαιεν: corresponds to Engl. ‘pay final respects’; probably originally of the
practice of placing the possessions of the deceased in the grave (Leaf; Cauer [1895]
1921, 327; Mylonas 1948, 64 n. 25; Garland [1982] 1984, 21 f.; on this custom in gen-
eral, Richardson on 22.510–514 with bibliography). Elsewhere in the Iliad without an
internal acc.: ‘bury ceremoniously’, e.g. 657 κτερεϊζέμεν Ἕκτορα δῖον. – The short stem
κτερίζω is regarded as a linguistically more recent variant of κτερεΐζω (Debrunner
1922; Hoekstra 1965, 143).
37 λαοῖσι: ‘for his people’. — τοί: functions as a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5);
with opt.: potential consecutive clause. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).
Commentary 35
39 It is not only the gods who are ‘terrible’ (33), but Achilleus as well: a transition
to the next topic with repetition of the address ‘gods’ (collection of examples
of emphatically repeated addresses: 6.429–430n.; cf. 62). — cursed: The epi-
thet oloós ‘baneful, bringing mischief’ is character languageP and is common
in early epic in reference to destructive powers, but rare as an epithet of per-
sons (Schein 1984, 157 f.; cf. Friedrich 2007, 99 f.); used of Achilleus also at
14.139, by Poseidon (Achilleus’ ‘baleful heart’; cf. 1.342: Agamemnon’s ‘ruin-
ous heart’), and at 21.536 by Priam (oúlos anḗr ‘this ruinous man’; cf. 2.6: ‘evil
dream’ [see ad loc.]).
βούλεσθ(ε): in Homer almost always in the sense ‘prefer to, favor’ (1.112n.). — ἐπαρήγειν:
(ἐπ)αρήγω usually of preferential treatment of a warring party (Achaians or Trojans) by
the gods (1.408n.); of individuals also at 23.783, Od. 13.391 (Athene/Odysseus).
40 ≈ Od. 18.220 (cf. 18.215). — φρένες: originally a body part (‘diaphragm’: 1.103n.), in a
metaphorical sense ‘mind, attitude’ (mostly to localize a mental process: 1.24n. with
bibliography); rare in connection with an adjective, but in those cases all the more
emphatic (e.g. ἔμπεδοι 6.352, ἐσθλαί Od. 11.367, λευγαλέαι Il. 9.119, μαινόμεναι 24.114,
μεγάλαι 9.184, ὀλοιαί 1.342, πυκιναί 14.294); for a detailed account, see Sullivan 1988,
54–62, 75–77. — ἐναίσιμοι: denotes the correct measure (αἶσα) of emotion in dealing with
other humans (Hoffmann 1914, 61; Long 1970, 135–137): ‘measured, considerate, fair’,
cf. Od. 2.230 f. (αἴσιμα εἰδώς + ἀγανὸς καὶ ἤπιος), 5.190 f. (ἐναίσιμος + ἐλεήμων, opposed
to σιδήρεος), 7.309 f. (opposed to μαψιδίως κεχολῶσθαι; similarly at 15.70 f.: opposed
to ἔξοχα φιλεῖν, ἔξοχα ἐχθαίρειν), 23.11–14 (opposed to μάργος, ἄφρων, χαλιφρονέων).
On other uses, 2.353n. (a good omen), 6.519n. (‘at the right moment’), 425n. (offerings
owed).
40b–41a οὔτε νόημα | γναμπτὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι: means approximately ‘unwillingness
to be deterred, intransigence, implacability’, cf. 9.496–514 (Phoinix uges Achilleus to
change his mind; esp. 9.514 ἐπιγνάμπτει νόον ἐσθλῶν sc. τιμή, similarly 1.569, 2.14 f.),
15.203 στρεπταὶ μέν τε φρένες ἐσθλῶν. On the localization of νόημα within the στήθεα,
cf. Od. 13.330, 17.403.
41b–44 The simile illustrates the sketch of Achilleus’ character drawn by Apollo:
as a lion is led by its instincts while hunting, so ‘might’ and ‘will’ (bíē, thymós)
are stronger than ‘pity’ and ‘shame’ (éleos, aidṓs) in him. The further course
of the plot will prove the opposite, by showing Achilleus’ humanity (which he
has ‘lost’ only temporarily: 44), e.g. 572n., 582–586n. (Moulton 1977, 113 f.; on
the two facets of Achilleus in general: Schadewaldt [1944a] 1965, 336 ff.). –
39 Ἀχιλῆϊ: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1.

40 ᾧ οὔτ(ε): on the hiatus, R 5.7; cf. M 12.2 (hōy oúte).
41 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20 1). — στήθεσσι: on the inflection, R 11.3. — λέων … ὥς: = ὡς λέων. — ἄγρια
(ϝ)οῖδεν: on the prosody, R 4.3.
36 Iliad 24
Lion comparisonsP and similesP in the Iliad are commonly found in the context
of battle (in detail, 3.23n.). As here, a recurrent motif is the hunt for prey (pro-
nounced at 12.299–306, 17.657–664, 18.161 f.; also in the Odyssey: 6.130–134,
9.292 f., 22.402–405). Lion similes are also found outside the context of battle at
18.318–322 (a lioness grieves for the young stolen from her), 22.262–264 (prover-
bial wisdom regarding the immutable enmity between man and lion), 24.572 (a
lion pounces; see ad loc.) – all in reference to Achilleus (who is compared to
a lion only once in the context of battle: 20.164 ff.); on the Achilleus-lion com-
parisons in particular, Moulton loc. cit. 99 ff.; Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981,
86 ff.; Clarke 1995, 153 ff.; Wilson 2002a, 239 ff. – Lion similes/comparisons
belong to character languageP, as here: 5.476, 11.383, 17.20–22, 22.262–264; the
present simile, and the one at 17.20 ff., are unusual in that ‘the sympathies of
the speaker are clearly with the victims’: Stoevesandt 2004, 236 f., 257–265
(quotation: 236 [transl.]). On similes in character speeches generally, 2.289n.;
Ready 2011, esp. 27 ff.
ὥς: on postpositive ὥς, 3.2n. — ἄγρια οἶδεν: On the meaning of ἄγριος, see 19.88n.:
‘untamed, ungoverned’, further specified in 42 f. μεγάλῃ τε βίῃ καὶ ἀγήνορι θυμῷ εἴξας;
a word of negative evaluation from character languageP (6.97n.). – On οἶδα + noun or
adj. in the neut. pl. as a term for a moral attitude or social behavior, see 2.213n.
42–43 given way to … his haughty | spirit: Characteristically human terms and
patterns of behavior are frequently transferred to animals in similes (so-called
imagery interaction: de Jong on Od. 2.143–207 with n. 15; cf. 2.87n.); this is es-
pecially the case for mental processes and seats of mental processes: Böhme
1929, 94; Lonsdale 1990, 133–135; Clarke 1995, 146; Heath 2005, 42–51.
ὅς τ’ ἐπεὶ ἄρ: VB = 17.658 (simile); ≈ 18.55 (ἥ; Thetis’ speech), h.Ap. 158 (αἵ) and 4× Il.
without ἄρ (of which 3× with οὖν instead). – ἐπεὶ ἄρ occurs 15× in early epic, of which
11× in direct speechP, 2× in similes (once in character speech). In all cases, ἄρ refers to a
preceding or implied precondition: ‘namely, exactly’ (e.g. AH on 22.258 and Od. 20.86).
— ὅς τ’ ἐπεὶ … | εἴξας εἶσ(ι): ellipsis of the predicate after a combination of relative pro-
noun + temporal conjunction (Macleod with parallels). According to schol. A, Nicanor
attempted to remove the inconcinnity via an (unjustified) correction of the part. εἴξας to
subjunc. εἴξησ(ι) (as a predicate of ἐπεί) (Leaf ad loc., end). — βίῃ καὶ ἀγήνορι θυμῷ |
εἴξας: εἴκω in a metaphorical sense ‘give in to an impulse, be (mis)led by emotion’; thus
e.g. also Od. 13.143/18.139 βίῃ καὶ κάρτεϊ εἴκων (sacrilege against the gods), 9.109–111 σῷ
μεγαλήτορι θυμῷ | εἴξας ἄνδρα φέριστον … | ἠτίμησας (Nestor addressing Agamemnon;
similarly 9.598, Od. 5.126: LfgrE s.v. θυμός 1082.43 ff.; Griffin on 9.109 f.; Kelly 2007,
42 ὅς τ’ ἐπεί: ἐπεί is not to be translated here; ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μεγάλῃ … θυμῷ: to be taken
with εἴξας.
43 εἶσ(ι): 3rd sing. of εἶμι ‘go’. — λάβησιν: on the inflection, R 16.3.
Commentary 37
6–8 [a somewhat one-sided interpretation]); cf. expressions such as ἧφι βίηφι πιθήσας
(Il. 22.107; similarly Od. 21.315), θυμῷ ἦρα φέροντες (Il. 14.132; all examples in direct
speechP). — ἀγήνορι θυμῷ: VE ≈ Od. 11.562 (acc.); elsewhere usually in the nom. θυμὸς
ἀγήνωρ (Il. 2.276 etc.); the phrase denotes ‘individualistic, antisocial and often self-de-
structive behaviour’: Graziosi/Haubold 2003 (esp. 65; see also 2.276n. on the etymolo-
gy and meaning of the epithet). The phrase also refers to Achilleus at 9.398 and – after a
lion simile – at 20.174 (also in a lion simile at 12.300 κέλεται δέ ἑ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ in refer-
ence to Sarpedon); in addition, Achilleus is called ἀγήνωρ at 9.699 f., θυμολέων at 7.228.
— εἶσ(ι): On the timeless use of εἶμι in similes, see LfgrE s.v. 461.56 ff. — μῆλα βροτῶν …
δαῖτα: The addition βροτῶν is probably due less to Apollo as a divine speaker (thus AH)
than to a desired contrast between the wild animal world and human civilization, which
is also the basis for the metaphorical use of δαίς ‘meal’ (1.5n.; cf. Macleod; Schein
2009, 392 f. n. 28); similes often mention the affected shepherds (e.g. 5.136 ff., 12.299 ff.,
17.61 ff., 18.161 f.). — λάβησιν: on the form, West 1998, XXXI.
44 pity … shame: In early epic, the Greek word family ele- (here éleos) denotes
not so much the impulse of the subject (‘pity’; on this, cf. 516n.) as the result-
ing impulse for action (‘have pity’) directed at an object (human, animal, god):
Pohlenz 1956, 52 f.; Paul 1969, 12 f., 49 f.; Scott 1979, 9 f., 13 f.; Kim 2000, 64–
67. – aidṓs ‘shame’ is a central notion in the world of values in the Iliad and de-
notes an inhibition against violating others or attracting their displeasure, i.e.
it is a vital corrective to the individual’s quest for personal honor (see 1.23n.,
1.149n., 6.442n.; on aidṓs in Homer in general: Cairns 1993, 48 ff.). – The word
families of éleos and aidṓs are frequently linked in Books 21–24, usually by
Trojans who hope/plead for mercy from Achilleus or who fear his ruthlessness
(21.74, 22.123 f., 22.419, 24.207 f., 24.503; also 22.82 Hekabe addressing Hektor).
But in Book 24, ‘pity’ is the most effective motivation on both the divine (cf.
19n.) and human planes and creates a conciliatory conclusion to the action of
the Iliad after the general domination of mercilessness in the preceding Books
(Burkert 1955, 90–107; Pohlenz loc. cit. 54 f.; Cairns 1993, 118 f.; Most 2003,
71–75).
ἔλεον … ἀπώλεσεν: emphatic phrasing: ἔλεος is a Homeric hapaxP, ἀπώλεσεν is am-
bivalent ‘let perish, lose’, as at 18.82 (Πάτροκλον) ἀπώλεσα, Od. 19.81 f. μή ποτε … ἀπὸ
πᾶσαν ὀλέσσῃς | ἀγλαΐην (Burkert 1955, 101; Edwards on 18.82); cf. Il. 15.129 νόος δ’
ἀπόλωλε καὶ αἰδώς.
45 ≈ Hes. Op. 318. — ‘Shame’ (aidṓs, 44n.) is regarded as damaging when it
manifests itself as false shame vis-à-vis manual labor (Hes. loc. cit.) or as false
shyness on the part of an indigent individual (Od. 17.347/352; Yamagata 1994,
44 μὲν … οὐδέ: ‘on the one hand … on the other hand not’ (cf. 25). — οὐδέ (ϝ)οι αἰδώς: on the
prosody, R 4.3 and 5.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).
38 Iliad 24
172 f.: ‘lacking courage’). But in the present context, aidṓs ought to have an
entirely positive connotation in accord with Apollo’s intention, with the result
that 45 was athetized by Aristarchus (schol. T on 44, A on 45; Lührs 1992,
34–36; West 2001, 12; West 2011b, 225 f.): the interpolation arose from a desire
to add a predicate to the nominal clause at 44b (cf. 205n., 558n.); because of its
proverbial character, the relative clause lent itself to use as filler (Cairns 1993,
149 with n. 7; references in West on Hes. Op. 318, end). If the verse is retained,
the rhetorical figure of the polar expressionP ‘bringing harm as well as profit’
would have to be understood as a generalizing description of the effects of
aidṓs: Ruijgh 368 (similarly Kemmer 1903, 232 f., with parallels); cf. Macleod
(in polar expressions, the stress is often on only one of the two terms, here the
second); less likely are the readings of Reucher 1983, 427 and Lévy 1995, 201 n.
154 (he who lacks aidṓs suffers harm, he who has it is at an advantage).
γίνεται … σίνεται: On the assonance in the middle of the verse, cf. 6.143 ἄσσον …
θάσσον (see ad loc. with bibliography).
46–52 A conclusion a maiore ad minus (2.292–294n.); Aias argues similarly when
Achilleus rejects Agamemnon’s gifts (9.628–638; Nagy [1979] 1999, 106–109),
as does Achilleus himself in the Niobe paradigm, likewise with an (implicit)
conclusion a maiore ad minus: 599–620n., section (1). – On the exhortation to
overcome his grief, see 550–551n.
μέλλει μέν που …: On the use of μέλλω with the sense ‘it is very likely that …’ (an in-
ductive conclusion), see Basset 1979, 75–89 (on this passage: 83), 109–111; frequently in
connection with που ‘I think that, probably’ (2.116n.; here perhaps ironic: LfgrE s.v. που
1506.26–28). On που in general, see 488n.
47 Close emotional connections to children and brothers are stressed repeat-
edly in early epic: 6.239 f., 9.632 f., 24.736 f., Od. 4.224 f. (often beside parents
and spouses); this applies especially to full siblings (explicit also at Il. 11.257,
19.293, 21.95).
48 ἤτοι: ἤτοι … αὐτάρ (50) like μὲν … δέ: Ruijgh (1981) 1996, esp. 519–523; see also 462n.
— κλαύσας καὶ ὀδυράμενος: Similar synonym doublings are frequent in the semantic
field ‘lament’, e.g. at 128, 160, 696, Od. 8.577, 10.454 (Kaimio 1977, 82; cf. 1.160n., 2.39n.).
— μεθέηκεν: never connected with a part., and thus to be construed absolutely: ‘when
45 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μέγα: adverbial, ‘much, strongly’.

46 τις: collective ‘one, some(one)’. — φίλτερον: sc. than Patroklos was for Achilleus. — ὀλέσσαι:
on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
47 ἠὲ … ἠέ: ‘either … or, it may be … or’.
48 ὀδυράμενος: aor. part. of ὀδύρομαι ‘groan’. — μεθέηκεν: aor. of μεθίημι ‘stop, leave off’ (ἕηκα
is a by-form of ἧκα); so-called gnomic aor.
Commentary 39
he has wept and lamented (sufficiently), he leaves off again (from grief)’ (Leaf). On the
notion, cf. 19.229.
49 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.274. — put in mortal men the heart of endurance: On
the motif of suffering humans, see 525–548, Od. 18.130–142, h.Ap. 190–193,
Archilochus fr. 13.5–10 West, Stesichorus fr. 222(b).204–208 Davies; more
in Richardson ad loc. and in detail on h.Cer. 147 f. — the Destinies: On the
Moirai as a divine power that can influence the fate and disposition of an
individual, cf. 19.87 (Agamemnon on his behavior toward Achilleus), 19.410
(Xanthos on Achilleus’ imminent death), 24.209 (Hekabe on Hektor’s thread
of life; see 209b–210n.); further information: CG 29; Dietrich 1965, 201–206;
Sarischoulis 2008, 42–72. – In Hesiod, the Moirai appear as goddesses of fate
with individual names (Th. 904–906), in Homer only here in the pl., probably
because of the plural ‘humans’, in the sense: ‘to each person his own Moira’
(Erbse 1986, 277; LfgrE s.v. μοῖρα 247.19–26; differently Leitzke 1930, 21 n. 23
[transl.]: ‘the various acts of fate […] that an individual experiences over the
course of his life’). In comparable expressions, the gods themselves are the
subject: Il. 9.636 f., Od. 2.124 f., 23.167; this is here impossible with Apollo as
speaker.
τλητόν: ‘enduring, meek, he who withstands things’; on active verbal adjectives, Risch
19; Wackernagel (1920) 1926, 287 f.; Chantraine 1933, 306 f.
50 1st VH ≈ 22; 2nd VH = 21.201; ≈ 11 115; cf. the VE formula θυμὸν ἀπηύρα/ἀπούρας (6.17n.;
on the sematic proximity of ἦτορ and θυμός in the sense ‘life-[force]’, see Jahn 1987,
199, 201 ff.). — φίλον ἦτορ: a formulaic expression (3.31n.; there also on the disputed
question of whether φίλον in such phrases has an affective or merely possessive sense;
in the context of threats to health and life, probably pregnant ‘dear, beloved’, here in
reference to Hektor; cf. 4n.).
51 2nd VH ≈ 416 (+ VB ἕλκει 52 = 417), 755. — On the content, 14–17 with nn. — ἵππων: In
Homer, the plural and dual of ἵππος are frequently used in the sense ‘chariot (pulled
by horses)’ (6.232n.; cf. 14n.). — ἐξάπτων: iterative (sc. ‘every day’: 12 ff.), like present
ἕλκει at 52 (AH; differently Sommer 1977, 137: on analogy with χεῖρας ὀρεγνύς in prayer
scenes, the pres. part. indicates ‘that the composure of the corpse, which results from
ἐξάπτειν, persists during the subsequent dragging’ [transl.]). — ἑτάροιο φίλοιο: a VE
formula (also 23.152, Od. 22.208; ἑοῦ ἑτάρ. φίλ. at 416). On ἕταρος ‘companion’ and the
meaning of φίλος, see 4n.
52 ≈ Od. 7.159. — ἕλκει. οὐ μὲν …: The emphasis brought about via integral enjambmentP
(cf. 15 with n.) is underscored by the subsequent hiatus and the ‘strong expression of
50 ὅ γε: Achilleus. — ἀπηύρα: 3rd sing. of a defective root aor. ‘take away, deprive of’.
52 ἕλκει. οὐ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — μέν (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5; μέν ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — κάλλιον:
comparatives in -ίων/-ιον normally have a short -ι- in Homer.
40 Iliad 24
moral condemnation’ (Richardson) introduced by οὐ μέν; a similar function of οὐ

μέν at 2.203, 2.233 (with 2.232–234n.). — οὐ μέν οἱ τό γε κάλλιον οὐδέ τ’ ἄμεινον:
‘indeed, this does not befit him, nor does he gain from it’ (Yamagata 1994, 232: ‘it is
neither seemly nor profitable […]’; Macleod: ‘that will discredit and damage him’; cf.
Martinazzoli). The understatement functions as a warning (Macleod; similarly 7.352,
Od. 1.376 f., 2.168 f., Hes. Op. 759; with positive οὐ(κέτι) καλά Il. 8.400, 13.116 f., Od. 15.10,
17.460 f.). – The comparative κάλλιον in early epic regularly denotes ‘proper, fitting’ be-
havior (always in direct speechP), e.g. at Od. 3.357 f., 7.159 f. (Yamagata loc. cit. 224–232;
LfgrE s.v. καλός 1312.33 ff.); impersonal ἄμεινον in the sense ‘right, advantageous’ is
almost always found at VE, e.g. Il. 1.116 εἰ τό γ’ ἄμεινον, 1.217 ὣς γὰρ ἄμ., 1.274 ἐπεὶ
πείθεσθαι ἄμ., Hes. Op. 750 οὐ γὰρ ἄμ. (also common in Hdt., see Macleod; on ἄμεινον
generally, see Hoffmann 1914, 90 f.; Yamagata loc. cit. 199–202; LfgrE s.v. 624.39 ff.).
The synonym doubling finds parallels at Od. 1.376 λωΐτερον καὶ ἄμ., 6.182 κρεῖσσον καὶ
ἄρειον, the post-Homeric κάλλιον καὶ ἄμ. in e.g. Demosthenes’ On the Crown (18.316)
and Plato’s Republic (405c), λῷον καὶ ἄμεινον ‘better and more advantageous’ as a
formula of oracular consultation (e.g. Xen. Anab. 6.2 15, cf. loc. cit. 3.1.6 κάλλιστα καὶ
ἄριστα; LfgrE s.v. λώϊ(τερ)ον; evidence from inscriptions in Güntert 1910, 71 f.), καλὸς
κἀγαθός as a central concept of value in the 5th/4th century BC (Wankel 1961). – The
comparatives are conditioned by the implied contrary action and largely correspond to
an English positive, thus here ‘neither proper nor advantageous’ (LfgrE s.vv. ἀμείνων
624.43 ff., ἀρείων 1226.15 ff.; Seiler 1950, 57 f., 70 f., 88–91). — οὐδέ τ(ε): τε after οὐδέ is
comparatively rare and can often be eliminated by reading οὐδ’ ἔτ(ι) (Ruijgh 703–708),
although here ἔτι is less appropriate (Denniston 531 n. 1).
53 Apollo hints at the consequences of failure to observe the warning at 52: not
conducting a proper burial can trigger divine anger (22.358: Hektor, Od. 11.73:
Elpenor; Aeschylus fr. 266 Radt; see Burkert [1984] 1992, 66).
μή: a threat phrased as an independent fear clause: ‘lest …’, as at 1.26 (with Leaf ad
loc.), 1.28n. with bibliography, 1.566, 2.195, etc., in Book 24 at 569; see also AH. — ἀγαθῷ
περ ἐόντι: ≈ 1.131, 1.275, 15.185, 19.155. As at 1.275 (see ad loc.), two interpretations are
possible: (1) concessive: ‘although he is ἀγαθός’, i.e. as a physically superior individ-
ual (or as a high-ranking noble: Hoffmann 1914, 74 f.; cf. Hera’s argument at 56 ff.),
Achilleus is in principle free to do as he pleases with Hektor’s corpse (LfgrE s.v. ἀγαθός
22.18 ff.; Adkins 1960, 38), although Apollo would like to see this freedom of the ἀγαθός
curtailed for moral reasons in the present case (52; Long 1970, 127 f.; Cairns 1993, 101,
132; Macleod); (2) adversative: ‘given that he is ἀγαθός’, i.e. his noble status is in any
case intrinsically linked to an expectation of morally adequate conduct (Dover 1983,
37 f.; Ulf 1990, 18 f.; Zanker 1994, 58, 115). – On the evaluation of Achilleus’ behavior,
cf. 22n. — νεμεσσηθέωμεν: ͜ The aor. pass. of νεμεσσάω/-ομαι probably means ‘be out-
53 μή (+ subjunc.): ‘lest, so that not’; on the hiatus, R 5.7. — νεμεσσηθέωμεν:

͜ aor. subjunc.; on
the -σσ-, R 9 1; on the synizesis, R 7. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1).
Commentary 41
raged because of someone’, here ‘take out our outrage on him’ (LfgrE; cf. 2.222b–223n.,
3.156n.; on νέμεσις in general, see 463n.). The uncontracted form -θέωμεν (to be read
with synizesis) was preferred by Aristarchus (schol. A), whereas the main transmis-
sion offers contracted -θῶμεν (app. crit.; discussion in Wackernagel [1878] 1979, 1541;
Meister 1921, 161 f.; Chantr. 1.458–460). — ἡμεῖς: Probably a warning ‘we gods, (ulti-
mately) all of us’ (Macleod; cf. 33n., 70), rather than as a declarative ‘I and the remain-
ing pro-Trojan gods’ (thus AH).
οἱ: Disregard of initial digamma in the personal pronoun of the 3rd person (ἑο, οἱ, ἑ) is compara-
tively rare in early epic (in Book 24 also at 72): Petit 1999, 93–102, 421–427 (collection of examples);
Chantr. 1.147 f. (attempts at emendation). Retention of digamma in the case of οἱ is attributed to its
enclitic position in set combinations such as δέ οἱ, μέν οἱ, ὅς οἱ etc., in which the initial consonant is
necessary for prosodic reasons (Hoekstra 1965, 43 f.; West 1967, 145 f.), whereas the digamma was
otherwise probably no longer written or spoken during the lifetime of the Iliad poet: G 19 and 26;
Chantr. 1 118 ff.; Hoekstra loc. cit.; Ruijgh (1967) 1991, 200 f.; West 2001, 162 f. (differently Leaf;
van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 124 ff.). Given this context, it is striking that enclitic οἱ is here postponed
to allow for the emphatic beginning μὴ ἀγαθῷ περ ἐόντι (Macleod; Richardson; cf. 106n. on σε).
54 2nd VH ≈ 22. — κωφὴν … γαῖαν: There are two interpretative possibilities for both
words: (1) κωφός: (a) ‘numb, insensitive’, (b) ‘blunt, feeble, helpless’ (cf. 11.390 κωφὸν
γὰρ βέλος ἀνδρὸς ἀνάλκιδος: ‘ineffectual’); (2) γαῖα: (a) concretely of the earth, across
which Hektor’s corpse is being dragged, (b) metaphorically of the corpse itself, insofar
as ‘earth’, in the popular imagination, is a symbol of the (mortal) human body (7.99 ὕδωρ
καὶ γαῖα γένοισθε, Soph. El. 245 ὁ μὲν θανὼν γᾶ τε καὶ οὐδὲν ὤν, Eur. Meleagros fr. 532
Kannicht κατθανὼν δὲ πᾶς ἀνὴρ γῆ καὶ σκιά; cf. Hes. Op. 61/70 [myth of Pandora] γαῖαν
ὕδει φύρειν / ἐκ γαίης πλάσσε; more, including bibliography, in Verdenius on Hes. Op.
61). The result is a variety of interpretations of the sentence as a whole: (1a+2b) ‘ἀντὶ τοῦ
›ἀναίσθητον σῶμα ὑβρίζει‹’ (schol. D; in this sense also Eur. Antigone fr. 176 Kannicht;
Aristot. Rhet. 1380b25 ff.); (1b+2a) ‘Apollo wishes to indicate that Achilles behaves like
a coward’ (van der Valk 1963, 434 n. 104; so too Becker 1937, 170 n. 52; Erbse 1986,
183); (1b+2b) ‘In mutilating Hektor’s corpse, Achilleus mistreats an object as powerless
and defenseless as the earth […]. But it is ignoble to vent one’s anger on something so
defenseless’ (Doederlein 3.189 f. [transl.]; so too Macleod, explicitly rejecting 1a: ‘if
κωφήν means that the dead feel nothing, that tends to play down both Achilles’ mis-
deed and the importance of the gods’ intervention’; cf. Wilson 2000, 19). – According
to West 2001, 12, 277, the present verse is an early interpolation intended to supplement
the content of 52 (Achilleus’ senseless behavior).
55 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ Hes. Op. 53; 1st VH to caesura B 1 + προσεφώνεε(ν) ≈ 3.413, Od.
18.25; 1st VH to caesura B 1 (not in speech introduction) ≈ Il. 2.599 (see ad loc.), 4.391,
6.205, 9.538, 15.68, 23.482, h.Cer. 251, also Il. 20.253 (αἵ τε χ.), Od. 12.348 (εἰ δὲ χ.); 2nd
VH from caesura B 1 on = Il. 8.484; VE, see below. — A speech introduction formulaP
with a typical structure: τὸν/τὴν δ(έ) + part. + προσέφη(ς) + noun-epithet formula. The
participle describes the speaker’s emotions that determine the tone of the speech (here
‘bitterly’), his/her expression/gestures while speaking (e.g. 559 ‘looking darkly’) or the
dialogue situation generally (e.g. 64 ‘in reply’); see 1.58n. with bibliography; Beck 2005,
42 Iliad 24
284 f. — λευκώλενος Ἥρη: an inflectible VE formula (= 8.484, 21.512; dat. 1.572; acc.
20.112 and 3× h.Hom.; gen. 2× h.Ap.), more frequently θεὰ λευκ. Ἥρη (1.55n.). On the
epithet, cf. 723n.
56–63 Hera’s arguments address Apollo’s criticism that the gods are behaving
more ‘leniently’ toward Achilleus than they had toward Hektor, but she does
not engage at all with the accusations Apollo directs at Achilleus himself
(schol. bT on 55). By describing the environment in which Achilleus was born
by means of a type of climax (Thetis, Hera, Peleus the favorite of the gods,
‘all gods’ including Apollo: 59–63a), she declares the notion that Hektor and
Achilleus have equal status absurd (Richardson; Adkins 1975, 251 ff.; on
Achilleus’ status, cf. also 53n.). At the end (63b) – immediately after evoking
the magnificent wedding of Thetis and Peleus – Hera proceeds to direct in-
vective: ‘now you have joined the other side and thus betrayed the trust of
the wedded couple’ (cf. Macleod on 62–63). The ‘passionate agitation’ (AH
[transl.]) typical of many of Hera’s speeches is underscored by its formal el-
ements: change of address A–B–A, i.e. Apollo – gods – Apollo (cf. 2.225–242,
19.185–197 with nn.); switch from 2nd sing. to 2nd pl. without an explicit ad-
dress at 57 (i.e. Hera is distancing herself; cf. Macleod on 57, with parallels).
56–57 Via the overstated conclusion she draws from Apollo’s plea (57), Hera
immediately cancels her (apparent) concession (56): sarcasm (Macleod on
56–57; Deichgräber 1972, 43 f.). ‘A pause is to be placed after the first verse in
order to fully express Hera’s disapproval’ (Deichgräber loc. cit. 44 [transl.]).
56 Ἀργυρότοξε: a distinctive epithet of Apollo, in place of the personal name (1.37n.; with
the personal name: 758). — εἴη: εἰμί ‘be thus, be true, be justified’, as at Od. 15.435 (εἴη
κεν καὶ τοῦτ(ο)); elsewhere in Homer in this sense linked with οὕτως, ὧδε etc., e.g. at
1.564, 4.189, 7.34, Od. 11.348 (τοῦτο μὲν οὕτω δὴ ἔσται ἔπος, αἴ κεν …), also at 373 οὕτω
πῃ τάδε γ’ ἐστί; see LfgrE s.v. 454.52 ff.; Klowski 1975, 740 f. — καὶ τοῦτο: ‘even this’; cf.
Hoekstra on Od. 15.435: ‘equivalent to an emphatic τοῦτο’.
57 give Hektor such pride of place as you give to Achilleus: Timḗ ‘honor’ is
a term from character languageP that occupies a prominent position in the
Homeric system of values (1.11n.). In his decision, Zeus will take due account
of it (110n.; on the substantial significance of timḗ overall in this debate among
the gods, see van Wees 1992, 144). – The evaluation of whether two individuals
(here Achilleus and Hektor) deserve the same timḗ is based in the Iliad on var-
ious criteria: here descent (58 f.) vs. piety (cf. 66–70); in Book 1, political power
56 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5); here in a potential clause. — τεόν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — τεόν:
= σόν (possessive pronoun, R 14.4).
57 ὁμήν: = ὁμοίην.
Commentary 43
(Agamemnon) vs. individual achievement (Achilleus; 1.173–187n., 1.277–281; cf.

9.318 f.); success vs. a lack thereof at 4.405–410 (in contrast to the ‘Epigoni’,
the ‘Seven against Thebes’ took note of signs sent by the gods); cf. LfgrE s.v.
522.21 ff. The statement ‘X honors Y as he (sc. X) honors Z’ nevertheless often
expresses particularly high esteem and is used to justify a specific action/sit-
uation (5.467–469, 9.142, 13.176, 15.437–439, 18.79–82, Od. 1.428–433, etc.); in
such cases, Z is often represented by parents or other relatives (at 18.82 oneself:
Achilleus ‘honors’ Patroklos like himself), as well as by the gods. Collection of
examples: LfgrE s.vv. ἶσος 1229.41 ff., τιμάω 515.36 ff., τίω 548.25 ff.
εἰ δὴ … θήσετε: ‘if you wish to allocate (as Apollo’s account suggests) …’: AH (transl.).
δή serves here as a ‘marker of evidentiality’ (Bakker 1997, 74–80; see also 351n., with
further bibliography); on the future in conditional clauses with a (dismissive) resump-
tion of remarks made by others, cf. 1.294, etc. (Hentze 1908, 132, 140 f.; Rijksbaron
[1984] 2002, 68 f.); on the mixed conditional, i.e. a potential dependent clause and viv-
id main clause (likewise at 296), see K.-G. 2.467; Schw. 2.684; Chantr. 2.223, 284; cf.
220–222n., 688n. – On τιμὴν τιθέναι in the sense ‘accord honor’, Porzig 1942, 29 f.; LfgrE
s.v. τίθημι 483.19 ff.
58–59 The argument of divine descent is also used by Achilleus as a child of Zeus
to proclaim his superiority over Asteropaios, offspring of a river (21.184–199),
while Apollo uses it to encourage Aineias, son of Aphrodite, to fight against
Achilleus, son ‘of a lesser goddess’ (20.105–107; similarly Aineias in his speech
to Achilleus at 20.203–209; Fenik 1968, 67). Conversely, Agamemnon express-
es his surprise at Hektor having done great deeds ‘just like that, son of neither
a goddess nor a god’ (10.50; Scully 1990, 60). Cf. also 1.280 f.
58 1st VH ≈ Cypr. fr. 9.1 West. — Hektor: In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’
principleP, Hera continues with the two individuals mentioned in 57 (with
asyndesis; cf. 605n.). The main thought lies in the 2nd VH – Achilleus is indeed
also mortal (AH).
γυναῖκα … μαζόν: a so-called σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος (G 97; on this grammat-
ical explanation and its history in general, Jacquinod 1988; Schenkeveld 2002); a
pregnant use of γυνή for ‘mortal woman’, as at 14.315, Od. 10.228, h.Ven. 110, etc. —
θήσατο: ‘suckled’; a defective epic verb, etymologically related to θῆλυς/θηλάζω. Here
there may be word playP with 57 θήσετε, highlighting the contrast (Macleod); e.g. Il.
17.25 ἀπόνητο – ὤνοτο (with Edwards ad loc.), Od. 6.244/246 ἐμοὶ τοιόσδε πόσις – ξείνῳ
βρῶσίν τε πόσιν τε (with Garvie on 6.246).
58 θνητός: sc. ἦν (cf. 67 φίλτατος ἔσκε). — γυναῖκα … μαζόν: acc. of the whole and the part (R
19.1).
44 Iliad 24
59–63 The motif of Hera as Thetis’ foster mother (not attested again until
Apollonius Rhodius 4.790 ff.) recalls the claim in the Cypria that Thetis refuses
a marriage to Zeus ‘in order to grant Hera a favor’ (Cypr. fr. 2 West; similarly
‘Hes.’ fr. 210 M.-W.); Hera seems in return to have found the best possible hus-
band for Thetis (60 f.; cf. 534–537). Be all that as it may, the fact that Hera here
stresses her concern for Thetis (and thus implicitly for Thetis’ son Achilleus) in
this way may also be conditioned by the aim of her speech (ad hoc invention);
she uses a similar argument at 14.200 ff./301 ff. (Okeanos and Tethys as Hera’s
foster parents); see Braswell 1971, 23 f. (differently de Roguin 2007, 165–167:
a portrayal of Hera’s superiority vis-à-vis Thetis). – The wedding of Peleus and
Thetis is also referenced at 16.380 f./866 f., 17.195 f./443 f., 18.84 f. (the gods
bring gifts) and at 18.432–434, 24.537 (on external analepsesP narrated multiple
times, de Jong [1987] 2004, 155 with n. 15), as well as in the Cypria (fr. 4 West).
In Hera’s view, the participation of all the gods signifies their unconditional
agreement to the marriage (and implicitly to any offspring that result from it:
Peppmüller; AH), and Apollo’s musical performance signals his involvement
in particular (in the post-Homeric period, this is developed into a prophecy re-
garding Achilleus’ life and deeds: Aeschylus fr. 350 Radt; Euripides IA 1062 ff.;
cf. Pindar Pyth. 3.86 ff., Nem. 5.22 ff.; March 1987, 16 f.; Richardson; a plea for
a pre-Homeric date for the motif is made by Scodel 1977, one for the independ-
ence of the epic and dramatic evidence by Burgess 2004). – On the variants
of the Peleus-Thetis myth in the Iliad, frequently adapted to the immediate
context, see 1.396–406n. with bibliography; 83n.; also BNP s.v. Peleus; Lesky
(1956) 1966; Hebel 1970, 101 f.; Priess 1977, 86 f., 112 ff.; Macleod.
59 αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: a VB formula (5× Il.; cf. 3n.). — ἣν ἐγὼ αὐτή: On stressed αὐτός
in reference to birth-parents, see 210n.; here ‘the rank of a person is elevated by the
fact that someone of higher rank raised him «themselves»’ (LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1639.45 ff.
[transl.]). On the VE ἐγὼ αὐτ-, cf. 22.428, Od. 6.218, 8.391, 16.170.
60 The verse is constructed in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (on this in general,
see 1.145n.; West 2004; 2007, 117–119). — θρέψα τε καὶ ἀτίτηλα: synonym doubling
(on this, 1.160n.: emphatic), elsewhere in early epic 6× at VE (in various inflections:
14.202/303, 16.191, Od. 19.354, Hes. Th. 480, fr. 165.6 M.-W.).
καί: καί without correption before a vowel is comparatively rare in Homer, e.g. 15.290, 24.570 (‘ar-
sis’), 24.641, Od. 2.230/232 (‘thesis’) (Labarbe 1949, 168 n. 3). Attempts at emendation (usually by
adding a personal pronoun or by replacing καί with ἠδέ, e.g. at 641 [see ad loc.]) in Bekker 1872, 2;
Leaf on 15.290; West 2001, 280.
59 θεᾶς: Thetis.
60 ἀτίτηλα: aor. of ἀτιτάλλω ‘raise, bring up’. — πόρον: ‘gave’ (aor.); on the unaugmented form,
R 16 1.
Commentary 45
61 ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 211.3 M.-W.; VB ≈ Il. 22.421. Additional verses that are formally or
contextually related in Parry (1928a) 1971, 226 f. — dear: predicative phílos fre-
quently denotes the favoring of a human being by a god; cf. 67, 423 (Dirlmeier
1935, 64 ff., 176 f.; Paul 1969, 56 ff.; Adkins 1972, 11 ff.).
Πηλέϊ (or Πηλεῖ, see app. crit.): personal names in -εύς in the gen., dat. and acc. occa-
sionally exhibit the short-voweled forms -έος, -έϊ, -έα (G 76; Chantr. 1.223 f.); the deriva-
tion is disputed (a survey in Crespo 1994; on the special case of Ἀτρεύς, see 3.36–37n.;
on the metrically problematic expression Πηλῆος υἱός, 1.489n.). Particularly close to
the present case are Hes. Th. 1006 Πηλεῖ (VB), Il. 14.115 Πορθεῖ (VB), 23.792 Ἀχιλλεῖ
(VE); long-voweled Πηλῆϊ is more frequent (e.g. 534). — περὶ κῆρι: an expression after
caesurae A 1 and A 4 or at VE (in total 8× Il., 6× Od.). In most cases, περί is adverbial
(‘more than others, exceedingly’) and κῆρι locative (AH Anh., also Hainsworth on Od.
5.36; Chantr. 2.126; differently Fritz 2005, 258 f.: περί as a local preposition; cf. Kirk
on 4.46). – κῆρ is frequently used in the context of strong emotional sensations (Jahn
1987, 243 f.; on the seats of mental processes in general, 1.24n.); κῆρι in connection with
φίλος/φιλέω also at 9.117, 13.430, 24.423, Od. 15.245.
62 you gods: an emphatic address in the middle of a speech, cf. 39n., 56–63n.,
end.
ἀντιάασθε: used at 1.67, etc. of gods who participate in a sacrifice and receive their
share (1.67n.; Nagy [1979] 1999, 130, 138; cf. 70n.). The impf. is here probably a ‘vivid
imagining of the event’ (AH [transl.]; Schw. 2.276 f.) rather than iterative (‘one after the
other’: LfgrE s.v. 920.5 ff.); likewise at 63 δαίνυ(ο).
63 lyre: On the musical instrument, 1.603n.; on songs and music at weddings,
cf. Od. 4.15–19, 23.131–135; in general, see Krapp 1964, 133 f. — o friend of the
evil, faithless forever: A sharp reply to Apollo’s reproach of the gods at 33 and
of Achilleus at 39 ff. (cf. Macleod); generalizations and exaggerations (‘forev-
er’) are part of the rhetoric of disputes (1.106–108n.; Marg 1938, 52). – With
‘evil (ones)’, Hera probably alludes to the Trojans and to Paris in particular:
partisanship on the part of Hera, caused by the ‘Judgement of Paris’ (25–26n.,
27–30n.). Apollo constantly supports the Trojans in battle, including by de-
fending them against Patroklos (16.698–711); at a later date, he will aid Paris in
defeating Achilleus (cf. 19.409–410n.).
κακῶν ἕταρ(ε): possibly idiomatic, cf. Hes. Op. 716 μηδὲ κακῶν ἕταρον μηδ’ ἐσθλῶν
νεικεστῆρα (sc. καλέεσθαι): Peppmüller; Richardson. – κακός is character languageP;
61 Πήλεϊ, ὅς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — περί: adverbial, ‘very, extremely’. — κῆρι: ‘in the heart’
(R 19.2). — γένετ(ο): ‘was’. — ἀθανάτοισιν: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).
62 ἀντιάασθε: impf. of ἀντιάω ‘visit, take part in’ (+ gen.); on the middle, R 23; on the epic diec-
tasis, R 8. — ἐν: to be taken with τοῖσιν (cf. R 20.2).
63 δαίνυ(o): 2nd pers. sing. impf. of δαίνυμαι ‘eat, feast’. — αἰέν: = ἀεί.
46 Iliad 24
on the meaning, 2.190n. Here ‘mean, nasty’, noun ‘scoundrel, bandit’, cf. LfgrE (transl.):
‘good-for-nothings’, Yamagata 1994, 211: ‘i.e. my enemies’ (unlikely is van Wees 1992,
144: κακός in the sense ‘of lower status’, i.e. of Hektor in comparison to Achilleus). —
ἄπιστε: The implication is that since he participated in the wedding of Peleus, Apollo
should logically be on the side of the Achaians (cf. LfgrE s.v.).
64 = 1.560 (see ad loc.), etc.; 1st VH to caesura C 1 = in total 12× Il., 24× Od.; ≈ 24× Il., 31× Od.
(τὸν δ’); additional variants in LfgrE s.v. ἀμείβ(ω) 619.44 f./50 ff.; on the structure of the
speech introduction formulaP, see 55n.
65–76 Zeus intervenes and mediates. He takes up the concerns of the previous
speakers (31–76n.) and makes a decision that satisfies both Apollo (return
of Hektor) and Hera (preservation of Achilleus’ honor): Peppmüller and
Richardson on 64 ff.; Segal 1971, 60; Edwards 1980, 15; Taplin 1992, 262 f.;
Flaig 1994, 18 f.; Zanker 1994, 115 f. – On maintaining Achilleus’ honor, cf.
110n.
65 1st VH ≈ 1.545. — μὴ δὴ πάμπαν ἀποσκύδμαινε: the sense is ‘you don’t even have a
reason to rage against the other gods’ (AH). On the meaning of ἀποσκυδμαίνειν ‘to be
angry with someone, to quarrel’, see Irmscher 1950, 18; a hapaxP, likewise the simplex
σκυδμαινέμεν at 592; a by-form of σκύζομαι (113, etc.; ἐρίζω/ἐριδαίνω/ἐριδμαίνω is anal-
ogous). On intensifying ἀπο-, 2.772n.
66–70 On offerings as a basis for divine favors, 33–35n.; the idea is here expand-
ed emphatically by Zeus.
On the clustering of γάρ (here 4×), cf. 1.152–156, 2.12–14 (Denniston 58; Race 2000, 224
n. 41).
66 τιμή γε: The implication is: ‘in no way will the τιμή you introduced into the discussion
be the same for Achilleus and Hektor (57 ὁμὴν … τιμήν), i.e. the difference in status be-
tween the two will not change fundamentally, but 〈I submit that〉 …’. — καὶ Ἕκτωρ:
‘Hektor too’, like Peleus and his son Achilleus (61, cf. next n.). – VE 5× Il.
67 φίλτατος … θεοῖσι …: ‘Verse 67 resembles and contrasts with 61’: Richardson. – On
the interdependence of τιμή (57n.) and φιλία (68n.), cf. 2 197, 9.116–118, 9.630 f., 22.233–
235; Muellner 1996, 149. – Zeus also uses the rhetorically effective superlative φίλτατος
to Hera in the discussion regarding the rescue of his son Sarpedon (16.433), but in the
present passage, the following phrasing would be more accurate: ‘but Hektor was also
loved by the gods and was indeed the dearest of all the Trojans’ (AH [transl.]). — ἔσκε:
durative, ‘was always’ (3.180n. with bibliography). — ἐν Ἰλίῳ: On the digamma of
(ϝ)ίλιος, generally taken into account elsewhere, see 1.71n., 6.493n.
64 νεφεληγερέτα: ‘cloud-gatherer’ (nom.).

66 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — μί(α): ‘one and the same’ (≈ 57 ὁμήν). — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται (R 16.6).
67 ἐν Ἰλίῳ: originally (ϝ)ιλίῳ (R 4.6).
Commentary 47
68 γάρ: occasionally introduces an example or a piece of inductive evidence (Denniston

66); cf. καὶ γάρ 602n. — ἐμοί γ(ε): in rhetorical contrast to 59 ἐγὼ αὐτή. — οὐ …
ἡμάρτανε: ‘never failed to’ (impf.); on the use of ἁμαρτάνω, see Luther 1935, 33 f. —
φίλων: In mutually friendly relationships, φίλος may be active ‘friendly’ or passive
‘welcome’, depending on the perspective; cf. Od. 6.208 (with Garvie ad loc.) and 8.545;
1.167n.; Benveniste 1969, 348; differently Landfester 1966, 30 (functions as a posses-
sive pronoun rather than an objective gen.: ‘gifts for me’).
69–70 = 4.48 f. (Zeus on Priam and the Trojans).
69 2nd VH = 1.468 (see ad loc.), etc. — ἐδεύετο: On the form with -ευ-, see G 61. — δαιτὸς
ἐΐσης: ‘even(ly distributed) share’ (1.468n.); in the present passage (an offering for
Zeus), ἐΐσης may have the connotation ‘befitting’ (discussion: LfgrE s.v. ἶσος 1229.70 ff.;
Bernsdorff 1992, 96 f.).
70 1st VH ≈ 9.500. — the smoke and savor: i.e. libation and burnt sacrifice
(epexegetic to ‘fair sacrifice’). Libation can take place during (1.462 f.) or af-
ter a sacrifice (1.469–474n.) or, in lieu of a major sacrifice, on any occasion,
particularly before (potentially dangerous) ventures (283–314): Citron
1965, 49 ff.; Benveniste 1969a, 210 ff., 220 f.; Burkert (1977) 1985, 70 ff. On
the divine portion of a sacrificial feast, 34n. (thigh bones), 1.66n. (scent of
fat).
λάχομεν γέρας: γέρας as an abstract is ‘entitlement’ (cf. the formula τὸ γὰρ γέρας ἐστὶ
γερόντων/θανόντων, 4.323, 16.457, etc.), as a concrete ‘a (special) portion’, as at Od.
4.65 f.: νῶτα βοὸς … τά ῥά οἱ (Menelaos) γέρα πάρθεσαν αὐτῷ; cf. 20.281 f. (the serv-
ants give Odysseus μοῖραν … ἴσην, ὡς αὐτοί [the suitors] περ ἐλάγχανον). – λαγχάνω is
construed with the acc. or – less frequently – with the gen. (e.g. 76) with no apparent
difference in meaning: La Roche 1861, 156 f.; Schw. 2.104.
71–72a ἀλλ’ ἤτοι … μέν: 462n.; on ἀλλά on its own: 74n. — κλέψαι: 24n. — ἐάσομεν:
elsewhere in the sense ‘refrain from’ absolutely or with an acc. object (e.g. χόλον 9.260,
κλαυθμόν Od. 4.212); with an inf. only here, perhaps to be taken as a substantival inf.
(Leaf; cf. Richardson on 71–73: ‘but as for stealing, let us forget about it’). — οὐδέ
πῄ ἐστιν: ‘it is in fact impossible’, with ἐστιν as a full verb (differentiation of the full
verb from the copula by means of an accent is a modern convention: 6.267n.); a for-
mulaic expression (see 6.267n.), here parenthetic (on parentheses in Homer in general,
Schwyzer [1939] 1983, 91–93). — Ἀχιλλῆος, θρασὺν Ἕκτορα: an emphatic juxtaposi-
tion of ‘Achilleus’ and ‘Hektor’; cf. 469. – θρασὺν Ἕκτορα is a noun-epithet formula, 6×
68 ὥς …: i.e. φίλτατος (ἔσκε). — οὔ τι: τι is acc. of respect (R 19.2), ‘in some respect’; strengthens
the negation (‘in no way’), here with impf. ‘never’.
69 ἐδεύετο: δεύομαι = δέομαι. — ἐΐσης: = ἴσης.
70 τὸ … γέρας: ‘this … as an entitlement, gift of honor’ (predicative). — λάχομεν: 1st pl. aor. of
λαγχάνω ‘apportioned so as to rightfully receive’.
71 κλέψαι: to be taken with θρασὺν Ἕκτορα. — ἐάσομεν: short-vowel aor. subjunc. (R 16.3).
48 Iliad 24
Il. (in Book 24 also at 786), always before caesura C 2. On the ostensible contradiction
between epithet and context (Hektor is dead), see FOR 1–4; cf. Leaf.
72b–73 since always | his mother is near him …: explains why stealing the
corpse ‘secretly from Achilleus … is impossible’ (71 f.): either because of Thetis’
presence itself (Faesi) or because Thetis would immediately report such a
decision by the gods to her son (van Leeuwen). By mentioning Thetis, Zeus
cleverly alludes to Achilleus’ divine origin – and thus divine favor – which
was stressed by Hera at 59 ff. But the invocation of a force majeure (Thetis is
here introduced as such) is a human explanatory scheme (van der Mije 1987,
242–247, with parallels) and thus a rhetorical exaggeration when articulated
by Zeus (likewise at 4.10 f.; see Macleod; on ‘always’, cf. 63n.): a pretext to
push through a course of action that involves Thetis, rather than bypassing
her, and that brings Achilleus greater honor: 74–76, 110 f. (76n., 110n.; Myres
1932, 291 f.; Erbse 1986, 75 n. 19; Martin 1989, 58 f.; Heiden 2008, 206 f.). The
statement evidently has some foundation: at 1.357 ff. Thetis hears Achilleus
weeping and visits him, at 1.495 ff. she reports Achilleus’ concerns to Zeus, at
17.408 f. she relays Zeus’ decision, at 18.35 ff. she hears the lament of Achilleus
and visits him, at 23.14 she participates in the mourning for Patroklos.
ἦ γάρ: emphatic stress (1.355n.). — οἱ: disregard of the initial digamma of οἱ is rare
(53n.); after γάρ also at 23.865, Hes. Op. 526, h.Aphr. 9.
73 1st VH ≈ 4.11; 2nd VH = Od. 24.63; ≈ Il. 5.490, 22.432, Od. 2.345, 10.28, 10.80, 15.476. —
παρμέμβλωκεν: perf. of [παρα]βλώσκω ‘come, go’, < *μλώσκω with the glide -β- (aor.:
μολεῖν); like Engl. ‘stand beside someone’, it can be used in either a concrete or a
metaphorical sense (cf. Kurz 1966, 94). — ἦμαρ: The use of the neuter ἦμαρ for sing.
and pl. is probably old (so also ἐννῆμαρ 1.53n., ποσσῆμαρ 657n., etc.): Wackernagel
(1910) 1953, 835; Ruijgh 1957, 121; Chantr. 1.212 f. (differently Meister 1921, 33 n. 3, and
Leumann 1950, 100 f.: ἦμαρ is independent of αὐτῆμαρ, ἑξῆμαρ, etc.). – νύκτας τε καὶ
ἦμαρ always occurs at VE (see iterata); in contrast, νύκτας τε καὶ ἤματα (745n.) occurs in
verse middle (after caesura A 4), and 1× VB ἤματα καὶ νύκτας (23.186: Aphrodite protects
Hektor’s corpse).
74 ‘Zeus does not give a direct order to Iris, because that would seem high-hand-
ed in a context where his aim is to be diplomatic’: Macleod; similarly Minchin
2007, 208 n. 59 (a delicate matter); cf. 1.62–64, where Achilleus can only be re-
ferring to Kalchas, even if this is not specified (1.62–63n.; schol. A; Lloyd 2004,
79). – The complex situation (cf. 112–119n.) requires deployment of the appro-
72 Ἕκτορα, ἦ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἦ: ‘indeed, in fact’ (R 24.4). — οἱ: = αὐτῷ, i.e. Achilleus.
— αἰεί: = ἀεί.
73 ὁμῶς: = ὁμοίως ‘equally’.
74 εἴ τις …: ‘could someone please …?’. — θεῶν: partitive gen. with τις. — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1).
Commentary 49
priate divine helpers, particularly since Zeus never interferes personally in hu-
man affairs (cf. 2.6n., 2.27n.): Iris, Thetis, later also Hermes (Létoublon 1987,
124): Iris is the ‘standard’ divine messenger in the Iliad (CG 38), Thetis as the
mother of Achilleus is predestined to serve as a messenger to him (103–142n.,
141–142n.; on a more abstract level: ‘the goddess whose uninvited visit began
the suffering of the Iliad will now act as an emissary for resolution’: Taplin
1992, 263; for details on the ‘chiastic’ relationship between Book 1 [Achilleus –
Thetis – Zeus] and Book 24 [Zeus – Thetis – Achilleus], Létoublon loc. cit.
138 ff.; also Baltes [1987] 2005, 276 f.; below 100–102n., 127n.). More on the
role of Iris: LfgrE s.v.; Erbse 1986, 54 ff.; Kelly 2007, 322–324. – On Hermes, cf.
153n. – Parallels for the sequence ‘A sends B to C, C arrives at A and is sent on
to D’, etc. in West 1997, 190 f.
ἀλλ(ά): common in requests at the end of speeches, marking the transition to action
(2.360n.). — εἴ τις καλέσειε: a wish clause with εἰ (≈ εἴθε) as a milder form of command,
cf. 10.111, 15.571, 16.559: Schw. 2.322; Chantr. 2.214; in more detail, Lange 1872/73,
325 ff.; Wakker 1994, 384 ff. — ἄσσον ἐμεῖο: ‘here to me’ (cf. 106 δεῦρο), possibly an
emphatic contrast with 72 f. in the sense ‘away from Achilleus’. ἄσσον is the comparative
of ἄγχι ‘close’; on the accent, West 1998, XX.
θεῶν: The scholia ad loc. and on 20.53 report ancient discussions regarding the accentuation: θεῶν
(gen. pl. of ὁ θεός) vs. θέων (part. of θέω ‘run’). Here, θεῶν is transmitted almost unanimously by
the manuscripts and is preferred by Herodian (schol. A) and most modern editors (possible reasons
for favoring θεῶν on the basis of content in West 2001, 277). θέων is nevertheless not unthinkable
in the present context (θέων as part. accompanying καλέω also at 10.53 f., 12.343; θέειν of gods,
particularly of Iris, at 18.167, 23.201, h.Ap. 108, etc.; cf. AH Anh. and Martinazzoli).
75–76 Internal prolepsisP; it only becomes clear from the speeches to the actual
addressees – Thetis/Achilleus at 110 ff. and Iris/Priam at 146 ff. – how Zeus’
decision is supposed to be implemented (146–158n.; paralipsisP: ‘piecemeal
presentation’). The instructions conclude in the scene at 471 ff. (Priam visiting
Achilleus; esp. 599: ‘Your son is given back to you …’), i.e. after a lengthy re-
tardationP: ‘In the meantime Achilleus must be made ready; and, more fully,
Priam’s state of mind has to be fully established’ (Taplin 1992, 261; cf. Reichel
1990, 130).
75 1st VH ≈ 744. — πυκινὸν ἔπος: 4× Il. (7.375, 11.788 in similar contexts; somewhat dif-
ferently at 24.744 of the farewell of a dying person, see ad loc.). On πυκινός used meta-
phorically of mental processes, 2.55n.; here the exact nuance is difficult to determine:
‘clever, significant, weighty’, cf. as a contrast 92 ἅλιον ἔπος (LfgrE s.v. πυκινός 1633.5–9).
Interpretations in Lynn-George 1988, 231–233; Martin 1989, 35 f.; Foley 1991, 154–
75 ὄφρα (+ subjunc.): ‘so that’ (R 22.5). — τί (ϝ)οι (ϝ)είπω: on the prosody, R 5.4 and 4.4. — πυκινὸν
(ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5.
50 Iliad 24
156. – Vedic parallels for the figura etymologica ἔπος εἰπεῖν in Schmitt 1967, 264 f. — ὥς
κεν …: probably ‘how’ rather than ‘so that’ (Chantr. 2.233); on indirect questions in the
subjunc. with κε/κεν, Chantr. 2.295 (frequently with φράζομαι, etc.).
76 2nd VH = 116. — gifts: The acceptance of gifts in exchange for Hektor is the
course of action preferred by Zeus, since it is more diplomatic and commen-
surate with Achilleus’ status than the theft of the body would be (cf. 110 with
n.; Wilson 2002, 127). Priam’s gifts are described at 228–237. – On the com-
mon practice of releasing captives for a ransom, see 2.229–230n. and 6.46–50n.
(with bibliography). — gives back the body of Hektor: The ‘redeeming of the
son’ forms a theme in Book 24 (cf. the title of the Book), including at 115–119,
136 f., 175 f., 501 f., 560 f., 599 (Cerri 1986, 30; Létoublon 1987, 124).
δώρων: in Book 24, 7× synonymous with ἄποινα; cf. 22.341/349 (ἄποινα itself occurs 8×;
on the content, see 1.13n.).
77–119 Iris goes and brings Thetis from the sea to Zeus on Olympus. Thetis is full of
sorrow because the death of her son Achilleus is imminent. She is welcomed by the
gods who are present, and is instructed to urge Achilleus to release Hektor’s corpse.
77–88 Iris’ journey to Thetis is narrated as a type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’
(1.320–348a n.): (1) the messenger receives instructions: 74–77a, (2) departs:
77b, (4) finds the addressee: 83–86 (description of the situation), (5) approach-
es: 87, and (6) relates the message: 88. – Element (3) ‘arrival’ is replaced by
two elements from the type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (1.43–52n.,
24.89–102n.): description of route (78 f.), simile (80–82).
77 = 8.409, 24.159; 1st VH also ≈ 4× Il. (only Book 23), 1× Od. — Speech capping
formulaP and execution of instructions in the same verse, as at 2.16, 3.84, 6.286,
24.718, etc. (cf. 1.345n.). — Iris storm-footed: On Iris’ role, 74n. – Most epithetsP
of Iris refer to her speed, likewise 87 pódas ōkéa ‘swift of foot’, 95 pod-ḗnemos
like aelló-pos ≈ ‘as fast as the wind’ (see below) here, 144 tachéia ‘swift’.
ἀελλόπος: traditionally understood ‘with feet as swift as the wind’, a common compar-
ison for horses, birds, and divine messengers (also Hermes: 342; cf. his winged boots at
340–342n.): Fränkel 1921, 55. On the formation of the word, LfgrE with bibliography (cf.
ἀργίποδας 211n.). Further considerations, including the relationship between ἀελλόπος
and the semantically related ποδήνεμος (95, etc.), in Schindler 1986, 397 f.; Bader
1991, 68–71.
76 ἐκ: ‘(from the hands) of’. — λάχῃ ἀπό: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — λάχῃ: here with the gen. (but cf.
70). — ἀπὸ … λύσῃ: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).
77 ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — ὦρτο: athematic aor. of ὄρνυμαι ‘set off, start
out’ (intrans. mid.). — δὲ (ϝ)ῖρις: on the prosody, R 4.3. — ἀγγελέουσα: absolute ‘bring orders’;
uncontracted fut. part. (R 6).
Commentary 51
78–79 Geographic names in the journeys of gods (see the examples from Books 13
and 14 at 78n., also Od. 5.49 f.) impart an impression of rapid movement across
long distances and signal an important intervention by the deity (Kullmann
1956, 89 ff.; Kurz 1966, 158 f., who also points out that the stations along the
way may be based on ancient shipping routes). On the localization of Thetis’
residence, 83n.
78 ≈ 13.33, Od. 4.845. — Samos … Imbros: cf. 753. ‘Samos’ should be understood
as the island of Samothrace (at Il. 13.12 f. and h.Ap. 34 explicitly designated
as ‘Thracian Samos’; the island today known as ‘Samos’ does not feature in
Homeric epic). Samothrace and Imbros are situated in the northeast Aegean.
The area serves as a way station for the gods on their way to the Troad: Poseidon
looks out on the battlefield from Samothrace (13.10–14), he ‘parks’ his chariot
between Tenedos and Imbros (13.32–38), Hera and Hypnos reach Mt. Ida from
the direction of Lemnos and Imbros (14.225–231 and 281–285); cf. 346 (Hermes
‘arrives at Troy and the Hellespont’). – On the unambiguous authorial localiza-
tion of the scene of the action of the Iliad via this and related passages (in Book
24 also at e.g. 346, 753), see Latacz 2002, 1110.
παιπαλοέσσης: The etymology and meaning are unclear; probably ‘rich in rocks/
mountains’ (LfgrE [transl.]). On epithetsP of the geographical area ‘mountains’, espe-
cially in the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ (which admittedly does not include the islands men-
tioned here), see 2.494–759n. p. 149 f.
79 2nd VH ≈ 2.95, 4.154, 19.301, 19.338, 22.429, 22.515, 24.722, 24.746, Od. 10.454,
Hes. Th. 843, Sc. 344 (with various subjects). — and the sea crashed moaning
about her: ‘Iris plunges into the sea with a great impact’ (Richardson); on the
metaphor, cf. 2.95n.; similarly 23.230.
μείλανι: The usual epithetsP that describe the dark color of the sea include ἠεροειδής,
ἰοειδής, οἶνοψ (with which μείλανι is metrically interchangeable as the only epithet of
πόντος: 1.350n.; Hainsworth 1999, 11 f.). μέλας is joined with πόντος only here, else-
where with κῦμα and φρίξ in descriptions of the foaming sea (cf. 7.64 μελάνει δέ τε
πόντος ὑπ’ αὐτῆς, sc. φρικός), usually when a sea creature dives into (or rises from)
the sea, as here (e.g. fish: 21.126 θρῴσκων … μέλαιναν φρῖχ’ ὑπαΐξει, 23.693 μέλαν δέ ἑ
κῦμ’ ἐκάλυψεν); cf. Irwin 1974, 197 f. On epithets of the sea generally, Düntzer (1863)
1872, 511 ff.; (1864) 1979, 103 f.; Lesky 1947, 162 ff.; Dürbeck 1977, 156 ff. – On the (unique)
metrical lengthening of the first syllable of μέλας, Chantr. 1.100; cf. the personal name
Μειλανίων (Macleod).
79 ἔνθορε: 3rd sing. aor. of ἐνθρῴσκω ‘leap into’. — μείλανι: initial syllable metrically length-
ened (R 10 1). — λίμνη: in Homer also in the sense ‘the sea’.
52 Iliad 24
80–82 A swift, purposeful change of location by a god is illustrated in Homeric

epic via a variety of comparisonsP including: a meteor 4.75 ff., precipitation
15.170 ff. (likewise of Iris), a falcon 15.237 f., etc., a sea gull Od. 5.51 ff., a thought
Il. 15.80 ff. (Richardson; Coffey 1957, 119 f.; Krischer 1971, 19–23; Scott 1974,
15–20; Tsagarakis 1982, 134–137; cf. de Jong on Od. 5.49–54); here, a swift
downward movement is illustrated (Kurz 1966, 151; cf. Exodus 15:10, crossing
of the Red Sea: the Egyptians ‘sank as lead’). The relative clause at 81 f. not
only embellishes the comparison further, but goes beyond the situation under
comparison by means of the ‘raw-ravening (fish)’ and ‘(the lead weight which)
takes death with it’ (Fränkel 1921, 86 f., 105–107; Edwards, Introd. 33; cf. the
contrasting effect of ‘war’ and ‘peace’ in similes: 2.455–483n. with bibliogra-
phy). – Additional fishing similesP: 16.406–408, Od. 12.251–254; fishing with
nets: Od. 22.384–388 and possibly Il. 5.487 f. (interpretation unclear); spearing
fish: Od. 10.124. Like many similes in Homer, these examples provide a glimpse
of daily life in the time of the Iliad poet, whereas the heroes generally eat meat
(fish only out of necessity, e.g. Od. 4.368 f.); cf. Macleod; Lesky 1967, 37; Shear
2000, 143 f.; Berdowski 2008. – In addition to the fishing lead and the piece
of horn, the following items of fishing tackle are mentioned in Homer: rod (Od.
12.251), line and metal hook (Il. 16.408; cf. Od. 4.369, 12.332), bait (Od. 12.252).
While the lead serves to weight the line down, the function and position of
the piece of horn (also mentioned at Od. 12.253) are unclear; the usual inter-
pretation is that this is a small tube that protects the line above the hook from
being bitten through by fish (schol. D on 81; Buchholz et al. 1973, 169; LfgrE
s.v. μολύβδαινα; additional interpretations in Shewan 1927, 170 f.); the lead ball
must be thought of as affixed above this tube (or cast into it, cf. Labarbe 1949,
113). – On fishing in early epic and the corresponding archaeological evidence
generally, see Buchholz loc. cit. 131–180, esp. 167 ff.; Uerpmann/van Neer
2000; Fischer 2007, 130–134.
On the divergent readings in Plato Ion 538d, see Richardson (with bibliography).
80 μολυβδαίνῃ … βυσσόν: ‘lead weight … sea floor’ are Homeric hapax legomenaP. Hapax
words frequently cluster in similes: Edwards, Introd. 38. – The Greeks early on acquired
both the word for ‘lead’ (attested in Mycenaean as mo-ri-wo-do) and the metal itself from
Asia Minor; during the Bronze Age, the Cycladic island of Siphnos and the Attic mining
region of Laureion are attested as lead production sites (Beekes 1999; Melchert 2008;
further bibliography in LfgrE s.v. μόλιβος). – In Homer, lead is mentioned only in com-
parisons (also at 11.237: μόλιβος).
80 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative (R 17); contrast 81, where it functions like a relative pronoun. —
μολυβδαίνῃ (ϝ)ικέλη ἐς: on the hiatus, R 4.4 and R 5.6. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).
Commentary 53
81 ἀγραύλοιο: ‘dwelling in the fields’, an epithet of βοῦς used in various positions in the
verse (5× Il., 2× Od. [where also 1× of πόρτις ‘calf’], 5× h.Merc.).
82 VE ≈ 2.352, 3.6, Od. 4.273, 8.513. — ὠμηστῇσιν: with the exception of 207 (Hekabe of
Achilleus), always of animals: here biting fish (24.82), elsewhere carrion birds/scav-
enging dogs (11.454, 22.67), in Hesiod Echidna and Kerberos (Th. 300, 311, cf. 772 f.); cf.
ὠμοφάγος (5× Il. in predator comparisons/similes, 1× h.Ven.). Formation of the word:
ὠμός + ἐδ- ‘eat’, cf. 124n. on ἄριστον (DELG s.v. ἔδω; Leukart 1994, 160 f. n. 84). — ἐπ’
ἰχθύσι …: κῆρα φέρειν is elsewhere construed with the dat. alone (the victims are al-
ways human beings, but cf. 17.757: a falcon φόνον φέρει ὀρνίθεσσιν); the use of the prep-
osition ἐπ(ί) might be on analogy with expressions such as ἐπ᾿ ἀλλήλοισι φέρον … ἄρηα
(on this, 3.132n.), ἐπὶ ἦρα φέρων 1.572, etc. (Peppmüller) or the phrase ἐπ’ ἰχθυόεντα
19.378 (with φέρουσιν), etc. (Labarbe 1949, 118).
83–86 Element (4) of the type-scene ‘delivery of a message’ (77–88n.): descrip-
tion of the situation on arrival. This forms the background for the action that
follows: Thetis’ grief (91 f., 93 f., 104 f.). – Bystanders are often included in de-
scriptions of situations, e.g. 4.89–91, 19.4–6, 24.98 f., 24.123–125 (Arend 1933,
50; Richardson 1990, 52).
83 cave: In retrospective glances at the time before and during Achilleus’ de-
parture for Troy, as well as in previews of his (admittedly impossible) return,
Thetis appears to be living in Phthia (1.396, 16.222 f., 16.574, 18.57 ff., 18.330 ff.),
but throughout the action of the Iliad she inhabits a cave beneath the sea
(1.358/496/532, 18.35 f./50/65) – the localization of the cave off the coast of Asia
Minor (78 with n.) allows her to be particularly close to Achilleus at decisive
moments (Priess 1977, 115). In other versions, Thetis has already left Peleus as
a consequence of a quarrel shortly after Achilleus’ birth, whereupon Cheiron
takes over the boy’s upbringing (sources in Janko on 16.220–232; on myths of
‘mermaids’ who temporarily join a human man before returning to their own
element, see Nilsson [1940] 1967, 22 f.; Lesky 1947, 120 f.; on Cheiron, 19.390n.);
the Iliad at least alludes to Thetis’ aversion to her marriage to Peleus: 18.85,
18.432–434 (on the myth of Peleus and Thetis, see also 59–63n.).
ἐνὶ σπῆϊ γλαφυρῷ: 3× in verse middle in early epic, 3× at VB (usually with ἐν rather
than ἐνί; in connection with Thetis also at 18.402); 6× Od. in the pl. – On the spelling
σπῆϊ rather than σπέει, Ruijgh 1957, 126 f. – γλαφυρός is also an epithet of πέτρη 2.88n.,
νηῦς 2.454n.
81 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24 11). — κέρας: probably ‘a small tube of horn’ (above the hook). — ἐμβεβαυῖα:
here ‘mounted on’.
82 ὠμηστῇσιν: on the inflection, R 11 1.
83 σπῆϊ: dat. of τὸ σπέος ‘cave, grotto’. — ἀμφί: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘surrounding Thetis’.
54 Iliad 24
84 1st VH ≈ 99 (cf. 2.789n.). — sea goddesses: The Nereïds, daughters of Nereus

(CG 20; a list of their names at 18.39 ff.).
ὁμηγερέες ἅλιαι: The caesura (here B 1) allows the metrical license of a short syllable
in the longum; corresponding examples are 192 ὑψόροφον, ὅς (B 1), 240 γόος, ὅτι (B 1),
295 πίσυνος ἐπί (A 4), 470 λίπεν· ὅ (C 1), etc. (La Roche 1893, 110–115; see 88n. on the
vocative Θέτι; M 15; on the possibility of quantifying final -ν and -ς as double conso-
nants, see M 4.6). — ἐνὶ μέσσῃς: ‘in their midst’; on the construction, cf. LfgrE s.v.
μέσ(σ)ος 163.15 ff.
εἵαθ’: on the spelling εἵ- rather than ἥ-, 2 137n. (contra: Führer/Schmidt 2001, 20 f. [with corrigen-
dum: read εἵατ’ and εἵατο/αι in place of ἕατ’ or ἕατο/αι]).
85–86 κλαῖε here introduces secondary focalizationP; characterizing features: μόρος
and τηλόθι πάτρης are largely restricted to character languageP in Homeric epic, and
παιδός is a periphrastic denominationP (de Jong 1997a, 299 f.); in addition, a relative
clause with the (reflexive) ethic dat. οἱ (cf. 479; see de Jong [1987] 2004, 120); μέλλω
with proleptic function can also be secondarily focalized (de Jong loc. cit. 87). – The
ancient athetesis of 86 rests on an erroneous, linguistically impossible reading of 85b
(ὅς made to refer to μόρον: ‘the fate intended for him’); see Richardson; Lührs 1992,
90–92.
85 Starting in Book 1, the imminent death of Achilleus is repeatedly alluded
to in external prolepsesP (1.352, 9.410–416, etc.), and from Book 18 on, such
references appear in close succession, e.g. 18.88–96 (Thetis: if Hektor falls,
Achilleus must also die), 19.409 f., 22.355–360, 24.131 f., 24.538–542 (19.328–
333n. with bibliography; on the relevant scholia, Richardson 1980, 269). – On
the depiction of Thetis mourning, cf. 18.37/51–66, Od. 24.47–49; a pathetically
anticipated lament also occurs in reference to Hektor (Il. 6.500–502) and Priam
(24.327 f.), see 6.497–502n.; Richardson.
ἀμύμονος: a generic epithetP (1.92n.; 13× Il. of Achilleus: Parry 1973, 172). On the uncer-
tain meaning, 6.22–23n. (conventional translation: ‘blameless’).
86 ≈ 16.461 (and for 85, cf. 16.460). The motif ‘(die) far from home’ produces pa-
thos (Griffin 1980, 106 ff.; 2.162n.).
φθείσεσθ(αι): on the spelling φθει-, West 1998, XXXVI; 2001, 30. — ἐν Τροίῃ
ἐριβώλακι: an inflectible formula (3.74n.), similarly ἐν Φθίῃ ἐριβ. (1 155), ἐνὶ Θρῄκῃ
ἐριβ. (11.222), etc.; on the epithet, 1.155n., 6.314b–315n. On Τροίη (‘Troy’ or ‘the Troad’),
cf. 346n. — τηλόθι πάτρης: a VE formula (5× Il., 1× Od.).
84 εἵαθ’: = εἵατο, 3rd pl. impf. of ἧμαι (R 16.2).

85 μόρον (ϝ)οῦ: on the prosody, R 4.5. — οὗ: possessive pronoun (R 14.4). — ὅς (ϝ)οι ἔμελλεν: on
the prosody, R 4.5 and R 5.5. — οἱ: sc. Thetis (ethic dat.).
86 τηλόθι: on -θι, R 15.2.
Commentary 55
87 = 2.790, 3.129, 11.199 (speech introduction formulaP). — ἀγχοῦ δ’ ἱσταμένη: an inflecti-

ble VB formula (18× Il., 6× Od., 2× h.Cer.), always with a verb of speaking in the 2nd VH;
frequently in element (5) of the type-scene ‘delivery of a message’, as here (77–88n.).
— πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις: a VE formula (9× Il., 1× Hes.); on the epithets of Iris, 77n. On short
-ε- in ὠκέα, 2.786n.
88 The brevity of the speech – one might have expected e.g. an adaptation of
74–76 (cf. h.Cer. 321–323) – reflects the urgency of Zeus’ request (Richardson)
but also Iris’ reticence in the face of Thetis’ grief (Zeus will address this at 104–
106). For a list of speeches comprised of a single verse, de Jong on Od. 7.342 (Il.
11.606, 18.182, 18.392, 23.707, etc.).
ὄρσο … καλέει: ≈ 3.250, 4.204. Asyndeton with a specification of a rationale, cf. 355 (K.-
G. 2.344). — Ζεὺς ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς: the only formula for ‘Zeus’ that forms the end
of a verse after caesura B 1 (after B 2: Κρόνου πάϊς ἀγκυλομήτεω ͜ 2.205n., πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν
τε θεῶν τε 1.544n., ἐρίγδουπος πόσις Ἥρης 7.411, etc., Ὀλύμπιος ἀστεροπητής 1.580n.),
but in addition probably semantically significant (Macleod): for Thetis, Zeus is the font
of planning par excellence (cf. Διὸς βουλή 1.5n., 2.1 ff.). A pregnant use also occurs in the
myth of Prometheus (Hes. Th. 545, 550, 561), and at ‘Hes.’ fr. 141.26, 234.2 M.-W., h.Ven. 43
(cf. h.Cer. 321 Ζεὺς ἄφθιτα εἰδώς); VE μήδεα εἰδ-/ἰδ(μ)-/οἰδ- in total 22× in early epic (cf.
282n.). – ἄφθιτος frequently denotes the imperishability of divine buildings or objects
(2.46n.); here likely ≈ quae semper sibi constant (Ebeling), ‘immutable, incontroverti-
ble’, cf. 1.526 f. (schol. bT; AH; LfgrE).
Θέτι: The short final syllable of vocatives occasionally falls in a longum (14.357, 18.385, 19.400,
23.493, Od. 3.230 etc.): a metrical license, particularly at the caesura (84n.; Hartel 1873, 64;
Chantr. 1.103 f.; similarly West on Hes. Th. 964, end). Differently Cobet 1876, 333 f.; Wackernagel
(1878) 1979, 1533 ff.; West on Od. 3.230: restoration of the (long by position) nominative form (which
in early epic may stand in for the vocative under certain circumstances: Schw. 2.63 f.).
89–102 The type-sceneP ‘change of location by a deity’ (1.43–52n.; cf. 77–88n.): (1)
occasion: 89–92 (Thetis complies with Zeus’ request), (2) preparation for the
journey: 93 f., (3) departure and description of the route: 95–97, (4) simile, (5)
arrival: 97b (a similar description of Thetis rising from the sea: 18.66–68; also
1.357–359, 1.494–497). This is followed by elements of the type-scene ‘arrival’
(1.496b–502n.; see ad loc. also on the flexibility of this type): (3) description of
the situation: the character being sought and (3a) the bystanders: 98 f. (cf. 83–
86n., end), (4) approach: 100 (here Thetis immediately sits down: 100–102n.).
Since Thetis has come at Zeus’ behest, the direct speech by the character who
arrives, which is otherwise part of this type of scene, is omitted (element (5)).
89 ≈ (τὸν δ’) 18.127, 19.28 (see ad loc. on the two half-verse formulae).
87 ὠκέα (ϝ)ῖρις: on the prosody, R 4.3.

88 ὄρσο: imper. of the athematic aor. ὦρτο (77n.). — μήδεα (ϝ)ειδώς: on the prosody, R 4.3.
56 Iliad 24
90a κεῖνος … μέγας θεός: μέγας in the sense ‘powerful’, often formulaic (e.g. Διὸς
μεγάλου/-οιο: 2.134, 6.304, etc.), here along with κεῖνος underscores Thetis’ sense of
isolation and powerlessness. μέγας is likely also pregnant at 18.292 ἐπεὶ μέγας ὠδύσατο
Ζεύς, 19.410 θεός τε μέγας καὶ Μοῖρα κραταιή (list of all passages in Dee 1994, 153; LfgrE
s.v. μέγας 71.2 ff.). On κεῖνος expressing distance, 412n. — ἄνωγε: sc. ἐλθεῖν, ≈ καλέει 88,
cf. 74 and 106 (similar is Od. 17.508 f./553).
90b–91 Just as Helen initially refuses Aphrodite’s request to join Paris (for rea-
sons including a fear of being rebuked by the Trojan women: 3.410–412 [3.412b
= 24.91b]) and as Penelope hesitates to present herself unaccompanied before
the suitors (Od. 18.184: VE ≈ Il. 24.90b; cf. Odysseus addressing Nausikaa’s
slave-girls at Od. 6.221 f.), so Thetis struggles to emerge from her grief-induced
isolation and join the (specifically ‘blessed’: 99) gods (Griffin 1980, 190 f.;
Collins 1988, 32 f.); her aidṓs (44n.) further prohibits her from burdening her
host with her own sorrows (Od. 19.115–122; Cairns 1993, 111 f.). But in contrast
to Helen, ‘Thetis readily relents’ (Peppmüller [transl.]). — my heart is con-
fused with sorrows: = 3.412 (Helen): a ‘cri de coeur’ (Kirk on 3.410–412); cf.
105. Additional laments by Thetis concerning her fate: 1.414–418, 18.54–64,
18.429–443.
δ(έ): in the sense of γάρ, ‘because, indeed’ (1.10n.; see also schol. bT; Macleod; Race
2000, 205, 215 ff.). — ἄχε(α): On the meaning of ἄχος, 1.103n., 2.169–171n. (mental an-
guish caused by an external event, which initially leads to resignation caused by grief
or disappointment at an immutable fact, but then often to a renewed impulse for ac-
tion); the pl. lends the term ‘an indeterminate character’: Mawet 1979, 302 (transl.);
cf. Anastassiou 1973, 72 ff. — ἄκριτα: here usually understood as having the sense
‘uninterrupted, innumerable’ (AH and schol. D on 3.412; LfgrE; cf. 2.796n.; differently
Redfield [1975] 1994, 268 n. 16: ‘unsolved’). — θυμῷ: on the use of θυμός (frequently at
VE) as a mental authority in general, 1.24n.; here semantically indistinguishable from
φρένες at 105 (Jahn 1987, 202 f.).
92 ≈ 224 (Priam), Od. 2.318. — No word shall be in vain …: In a subtle allusion,
Thetis adopts Zeus’ self-conception from 1.524–528: whatever he says is always
fulfilled (Richardson).
μέν: reaffirming, with an adversative function (Leaf; Denniston 368). — ὅττί κεν εἴπῃ:
an inflectible VE formula (1.294n.).
90 τίπτε: = τί ποτε, ‘what then, why then?’ (signals reproach or disconcertment).
91 ἄχε’ ἄκριτα: on the hiatus, R 5 1.
92 μέν: here ‘nevertheless’. — οὐδ’ ἅλιον … ἔσσεται: i.e. ‘will come true’; οὐδέ occurs in Homer
also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἅλιον (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἔσσεται: = ἔσται
(R 16.6). — ὅττι: = ὅ τι; on the -ττ-, R 9 1. — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).
Commentary 57
93 ≈ 18.388; 1st VH = 468 (with n.) etc.; 2nd VH ≈ 14.184. — veil: Veiling as a
gesture of shame and mourning fits Thetis’ mood at the moment (Nagler
1974, 44 ff.; Mawet 1979, 265 f.; Cairns 2001a, 21–23; Llewellyn-Jones 2003,
299–301). Structurally, it represents element (2) of the type-scene ‘change
of location by a deity’: preparation for the journey (89–102n.; cf. Scott
1974, 18).
κάλυμμ(α): a Homeric hapaxP (likewise 94 ἔσθος), probably synonymous with καλύπτρη
‘headscarf, veil’, as suggested by the parallel in the Hymn to Demeter: after Persephone’s
abduction, Demeter in her desperation throws a κυάνεον κάλυμμα across her shoulders
(h.Cer. 42) and starts her search κατὰ κρῆθεν (‘from the head down’) κεκαλυμμένη (loc.
cit. 182; cf. Hes. Th. 574 of Pandora’s καλύπτρη) and προκατέσχετο χερσὶ καλύπτρην
(loc. cit. 197); see Lorimer 1950, 385 f.; Marinatos 1967, 13; LfgrE. — δῖα θεάων: a VE
formula (19.6b n.).
94 black: Emphatic at VB (enjambmentP), amplified by the hyperbole that fol-
lows. Black was the color of mourning, as it is today (cf. Demeter at h.Cer. 42;
West on Hes. Th. 406; RE s.v. Trauerkleidung; Dürbeck 1977, 152; Llewellyn-
Jones 2003, 305–307), in contrast to the otherwise typically bright, shining
colors of veils (e.g. 3.141 Helen, 14.184 f. Hera, 22.468 Andromache, Od. 1.334
Penelope). On kyáneos ‘dark, black’, see 1.528n.; Irwin 1974, 79–96.
τοῦ δ’ οὔ τι μελάντερον …: On expressions of this type (‘there is/was nothing’ +
comp.), cf. 2.248 (additional passages in Chantr. 2.151); usually in direct speechP, in
narrator commentary here and at Od. 20.392 (prolepsis).
95 βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: literally ‘strode out in order to walk’, i.e. ‘started her journey, set out’, with
an expressive, ceremonial nuance (6.296n.); an inflectible VB formula (βῆ/βῆν/βάν,
δ’/ῥ’, ἰέναι/ἴμεν(αι)): 29× Il., 41× Od., 4× h.Hom.; also 3× Il. after caesura A 3. The ex-
pression may be formed by analogy with the imper. βάσκ’ ἴθι: Yates 2014 (see 144n.).
— ποδήνεμος ὠκέα Ἶρις: a VE formula (9× Il., 1× h.Ap.; shorter variant: πόδας ὠκέα
Ἶρις 87n.). On ποδήνεμος, cf. the bibliography at 77n. (on ἀελλόπος); on epithets for Iris
in general, 77n.
96 guided her: When two or more characters travel together, the one who leads
is frequently emphasized: B sets out, A goes first (a hysteron proteron [100n.]);
in the combination human/deity, the deity always leads. Examples: 1.494 f.
(gods/Zeus), 3.419 f. (Helen/Aphrodite), 9.192 and 657 (envoys/Odysseus), Od.
2.416 and 3.12 (Telemachos/Athene), 22.400 (Eurykleia/Telemachos), 24.9 f.
(spirits of the dead/Hermes). Alternative phrasing: A leads, B follows (Il. 3.447,
93 θεάων: on the inflection, R 11 1.

94 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἔπλετο (ϝ)έσθος: on the prosody, R 4.3. —
ἔπλετο: 3rd sing. aor. of πέλομαι ‘become, prove to be, be’.
96 ἀμφί: ‘on both sides’. — σφι: = αὐταῖς (R 14.1).
58 Iliad 24
Od. 1.125, 2.405 f., 2.413, etc.). — the wave of the water opened: On the mo-
tif of the receding or parting sea, cf. 18.66 f. (Thetis and the Nereïds, likewise
rising from the depth of the sea), 13.29 f. (Poseidon, moving across the sea),
Exodus 14:21 f. (Israelites); Kurz 1966, 156 f.
λιάζετο: ≈ διίστατο 13.29 and ῥήγνυτο 18.67 (cf. 1.349n.; Kurz 1966, 21 n. 18). — κῦμα
θαλάσσης: a VE formula: 4× Il. (including 1.496, 18.66 likewise in contexts concerning
Thetis), 1× h.Hom.; in verse middle, 4× in early epic.
97 1st VH ≈ 18.68 (on the v.l. ἐξαναβᾶσαι, see Peppmüller; Leaf). — οὐρανόν: Heaven
and Olympus (104) both denote the dwelling-place of the gods (1.497n.; Noussia 2002,
491 ff.). — ἀϊχθήτην: The aorist of ἀΐσσω overwhelmingly shows active forms; middle
s-aor. only in the inf. (ἐπ)αΐξασθαι (22.195, 23.773 [vv.ll.]), θη-aor. 3× indic. and 1× inf. (in
addition to the present passage, also 3.368, 5.854 [the spear flies], 16.404 [reins slip]).
No semantic difference can be discerned between the voices: possibilities are an in-
gressive sense (‘begin to move quickly, leap up’) as well as an effective sense (‘reach
one’s desination swiftly, fly’); see the categories in Mutzbauer 1909, 78–80; LfgrE
s.v. – ἀΐσσω elsewhere frequently of deities who descend to earth from Olympus: 121
(formulaic).
98–99 A link to the assembly of gods that receded into the narrative background
after 31–76 (see ad loc.). The description of the situation has verbal echoes
of that at 83 f. and represents a conscious contrast: blessed gods vs. grieving
Thetis (Macleod).
98 1st VH = 15.152; ≈ 1.498 (see ad loc.); on εὐρύοπα, see also 296n.
99 1st VH ≈ 84. — μάκαρες θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες: a VE formula (also 4× Od.; cf. μάκαρες θεοί
23n., θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες 1.290n.).
100–102 The seat of honor beside Zeus (cf. 1.405n.) and the welcoming drink
serve not only as consolation, but also as Thetis’ rehabilitation and reintegra-
tion after the supplication scene in Book 1 (1.493 ff.; similarly Ares at 5.869/906,
Hera at 1.584–585n., 15.85–156); in this way, the beginning and end of the ac-
tion of the Iliad (realization of Thetis’ plea) are linked in a contrasting fashion:
Richardson; Kurz 1966, 47; Nagler 1974, 181 f.; Erbse 1986, 204; Edwards
1987, 305; Murnaghan 1997, 36–38. – That Athene and Hera in particular see
to Thetis is probably connected to their involvement with her son Achilleus
(25–26n., end; cf. also 59 f.: Hera as Thetis’ foster mother).
97 εἰσαναβᾶσαι … ἀϊχθήτην: dual and plural forms may be freely combined in Homer (R 18.1). —
ἀϊχθήτην: 3rd dual aor. of ἀΐσσομαι ≈ ἀΐσσω ‘hurry, rush (on one’s way)’ (cf. 121).
98 Κρονίδην: ‘son of Kronos’ = Zeus.
99 ἐόντες = ὄντες (R 16.6).
Commentary 59
100 Similiar formulations at 1.405, 5.869, 5.906, Hes. Op. 259. — Seating arrange-
ments are often significant: here this is a sign of honor (100–102n.); in con-
trast, of formal distance at 597 f. (see ad loc.) and intimacy at 1.360n.; Kurz
1966, 46 f. (familiarity or distance); de Jong on Od. 1.130–135 (esp. Od. 2.14 and
16.42: the gérontes and Odysseus, respectively, make space for Telemachos); on
the seat beside the master of the house, see also 515–516n.
Διὶ πατρί: a formula after caesurae A 4 and C 1 or at VE (examples in Dee 1994, 73 ff.;
cf. 103n.). — καθέζετο, εἶξε: hysteron proteron: the more important of two actions is
named first; in general, see Macleod on 206; Schw. 2.698; Chantr. 2.352; Russo 1994,
379 f.; cf. 1.251n.
101–102 A brief type-sceneP ‘welcome/farewell’ (1.584–585n.; Arend 1933, 75;
Edwards 1975, 55): (1) X offers wine to Y; (2) X addresses Y, here not in di-
rect speechP, but rather summarized as a perlocutionary act: ‘cheered her with
words’ (the welcomes at 4.3 f., 15.86 are similarly shortened: ‘greeted each
other’ as a statement of the illocutionary act; on speech-act theory terminol-
ogy in the interpretation of Homer, see de Jong [1987] 2004, 200–203, 207;
Richardson 1990, 77 f.). Elements (3) prayer and (4) libation are not realized
(divine plane).
101 a beautiful golden goblet: The precise shape of the dépas cannot be de-
termined from early epic (the same is true of other terms for vessels, such as
305 kýpellon, 429 áleison; and all can be used synonymously: ‘drinking vessel’;
see Düntzer [1864] 1979, 98). The epithets are appropriate for vessels and are
commensurate with their use (welcome, libation, guest-gift): ‘(exceedingly)
beautiful, golden, two-handled’ (e.g. 11.774, 24.429, Od. 8.430 f., 15.85, 22.9 f.);
on ‘golden’ in particular, 21n.; on ‘two-handled’, 1.584n. with bibliography;
Bloedow 2007.
ἐν χερὶ θῆκεν: an inflectible expression in different positions in the verse, denoting the
handing over of an object (Düntzer [1864] 1872, 553–557). The form χερί, rather than
χειρί, occurs only here and in the parallel passages 8.289 and 20.182 (VE ἐν χερὶ θήσω/
-ει): formed by analogy with the regular dat. pl. χερ-σί, cf. 6.482, etc. ἐν χερσὶν ἔθηκεν
(VE); see Wackernagel (1888) 1953, 634 f.; Leumann 1950, 318 f.
χρύσεον:
͜ on the prosody, 21n.
102 εὔφρην(ε): here pregnant ‘make glad, cheer’ (Latacz 1966, 168, 171).
100 πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — καθέζετο, (ϝ)εῖξε: on the prosody, R 4.3.

101 χρύσεον:
͜ on the synizesis, R 7. — χερί: = χειρί.
102 ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἐπέεσσι: on the inflection, R 11.3. — ὤρεξε: ‘handed her the cup’.
60 Iliad 24
103–142 The dispatch of Thetis is presented in accord with the scheme of the

type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (77–88n.): the messenger (1) receives in-
structions: 103–120a, (2) departs: 120b–121, (3) arrives: 122a, (4) finds the char-
acter being sought: 122b–125 (description of situation), (5) approaches: 126 f.,
and (6) relays the message: 128 ff. – Element (5) is adapted to the mother-son
relationship: Thetis sits down beside Achilleus and greets him tenderly (Arend
1933, 29 n. 1; cf. 141 f. with n.).
103 = 22.167, Od. 1.28. — The father of gods and men: a VE formula (1.544n.), a
periphrastic denominationP of Zeus that highlights his authority (cf. de Jong
[1987] 2004, 198; on the designation of Zeus as father generally, 3.276n.). The
formula is especially appropriate since Thetis is acting here as a mediator be-
tween gods and humans.
τοῖσι δὲ μύθων ἦρχε: a VB formula (7× Il., 10× Od.), see 2.433n. (speech introduction
formulaP after meals, etc.); on the locative τοῖσι ‘among them’, 1.68n.
104–119 After a few words of sympathy (captatio benevolentiae, 104–106), Zeus
informs Thetis of the discord among the gods caused by the dragging of Hektor
(31–76) and informs her of his plan (111): her son will be able to save face if he
complies with the request to relinquish Hektor’s corpse; Zeus for his part will
set in motion the necessary arrangements on the Trojan side. – On the ‘piece-
meal presentation’ of Zeus’ plan (75 f./112–119/146–158), 75–76n.
104 1st VH ≈ 1.394, 7.25. — Olympos: on Olympus as the dwelling-place of the
gods, 1.18n.; cf. 97n.
ἤλυθες: ‘there you are!’; at the beginning of a speech, this usually expresses joy at the
arrival of someone: Od. 16.23 (with AH and de Jong ad loc.), 16.461, 17.41; the reverse:
Helen addressing Paris at Il. 3.428 (see ad loc.); post-Homeric examples in Richardson.
— κηδομένη περ: an inflectible VE formula (6× Il., 4× Od., 1× h.Hom.).
105 I myself know this: By admitting that a particular issue (or assertion) has
merit, the speaker simultaneously prepares for a counterargument (AH ad loc.
and on Od. 10.457); similarly Od. 5.215/219. Here Zeus expresses sympathy and
preempts possible complaints: ‘Thetis’ misgivings are echoed and met with
both firmness and sympathy’ (Macleod).
πένθος ἄλαστον: ἄλαστος is probably related to λανθάνω, i.e. ‘unforgettable grief’
(DELG; Beekes); the expression is always used in reference to a child (and 1× a hus-
band) who has disappeared/died: Od. 1.342, 24.423, Hes. Th. 467, h.Ven. 207 (likewise
ἄλαστον ὀδύρομαι at Od. 14.174); here likely in reference to Achilleus’ imminent death
104 ἤλυθες: = ἦλθες. — Οὔλυμπόνδε: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10 1); on the suffix
-δε, R 15.3. — περ: concessive (R 24.10).
105 μετά: ‘in (the midst)’. — φρεσίν· οἶδα: ny ephelkystikon (R 5.2) before (ϝ)οῖδα (R 4.6).
Commentary 61
(Kaimio 1977, 66 f.; Mawet 1979, 269 f.; Morenilla-Talens 1992). – On the connotation
of πένθος, 1.254n. and 1.362n.: continued mourning after the death of a relative; cf. 91
ἄχε(α) ἄκριτα. — μετὰ φρεσίν: a formula (‘stop-gap’) between caesurae B 2 and C 2 (11×
Il., 8× Od., with or without -ν; on the system of formulae, Jahn 1987, 267). On the use of
φρένες as a mental seat of authority, cf. 40n. and 90b–91n., end — οἶδα καὶ αὐτός: an
inflectible VE formula (4× Il., 3× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 2× h.Merc.; also 1× each in Il. and Od. in
verse middle).
106 1st VH = Od. 19.171 (19.224 v.l.), Hes. Op. 661; similar examples with announcements of
instructions vel sim.: 1.212n. — ἀλλὰ καὶ ὧς: ‘but even so’, i.e. ‘but despite these circum-
stances’ (namely Thetis’ grief); a VB formula (10× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes.). — τοῦ … εἵνεκα:
on the proximity of the relative clause and dependent question, Schw. 2.643; Chantr.
2.167, 238, 293; Monteil 1963, 72 f. — σ(ε): In accord with I-E norms of word position, en-
clitics usually stand in the unstressed second position of a clause: Wackernagel (1892)
1953.
107 For nine days: 31n.
νεῖκος … ὄρωρεν: cf. 3.87 Ἀλεξάνδροιο, τοῦ εἵνεκα νεῖκος ὄρωρεν.
108 Achilleus, stormer of cities: The epithetP ptolíporthos ‘stormer of cities’ is
used generically in the Iliad of heroes and gods; in the Odyssey, on the other
hand, it is specific to Odysseus (2.278b–279n.). Here, where it is juxtaposed
to the phrase ‘Hektor’s corpse’, it may nevertheless be understood pregnant-
ly in reference to Achilleus: with the death of Hektor, Troy’s doom is sealed
(cf. 21.550/583 f.): Cosset 1985, 332–334; Shive 1987, 77 f.; Oka 1990, 19–22;
Richardson on 21.550. Achilleus’ earlier conquests of cities in the vicinity of
Troy may also play a role (on this, 1.366n.).
νέκυι: ‘corpse’ (35n.); on the treatment of -υι as a diphthong (cf. 16.526), Chantr. 1.50. —
Ἀχιλλῆϊ πτολιπόρθῳ: an inflectible VE formula (dat./acc.), also at 8.372, 15.77, 21.550;
prosodic variant with initial consonant: ποδώκεϊ/-α Πηλεΐωνι/-α (458n.); equivalent VE
formula in the gen.: Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο (19.279n.).
109 ≈ 24. — ὀτρύνουσιν: The past tense ὀτρύνεσκον transmitted in the mss. may be in-
fluenced by the nearly identical 24 (there in narrator textP) (Leaf). In comparison, the
present ὀτρύνουσιν (schol. A) attested in the so-called ‘city mss.’ of Massilia and Chios
is more effective rhetorically: the gods, says Zeus, to this day continue to insist on their
request (AH); Thetis thus receives the impression that she can contribute significantly
106 τοῦ: = τίνος (neut.). — εἵνεκα: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — κάλεσσα: on
the -σσ-, R 9.1.
107 ἐννῆμαρ: ‘for nine days’. — νεῖκος: ‘quarrel, disagreement, dispute’. — ὄρωρεν: ‘has
erupted, reigns, rages’ (3rd sing. perf. of ὄρνυμι, with intransitive meaning).
108 ἀμφί (+ dat.): ‘around, over, because of’. — νέκυι: -υι to be read as a diphthong.
109 ὀτρύνουσιν: pres. with iterative sense (24 ὀτρύνεσκον is analogous).
62 Iliad 24
to a solution of the issue (differently Macleod, who brings ὀτρύνεσκον forward: after
the announcement of an alternative course of action in 71 ff., the debate among the gods
was concluded). On the city manuscripts in general, see West 2001, 67 f.
110 Zeus wishes (as suggested at 75b–76 and elaborated in what follows) that
Hektor’s body be returned not behind Achilleus’ back but with his consent and
for his benefit (in exchange for ransom money) (cf. Thornton 1984, 140 n. 49);
a voluntary surrender of the body, combined with the acceptance of gifts from
Priam, allows Achilleus to save face and acquire kýdos ≈ ‘distinction, success,
prestige’ (Nestle 1941, 194 f.; on the meaning of the Greek term, see Latacz
1966, 130 f.; LfgrE). This solution reflects Achilleus’ superior status vis-à-vis
Hektor (57, 66) (1.278 f.: a king to whom Zeus awards kýdos enjoys greater hon-
or). At the same time, Zeus attempts in this way to win over Thetis, who claimed
due honor for herself and Achilleus already in Book 1 (1.505–510, 1.515b–516;
Zeus cannot of course mention to Thetis herself the reasoning at 72b–73 [see
ad loc.], namely that the theft of Hektor’s body would be impossible because
she is always present). – In contrast to the notion common in epic poetry – a
hero acquires prestige via military superiority (e.g. 22.393 f.) – Achilleus will
here do so via a ‘humane’ gesture: Taplin 1992, 263; Pucci 1998a, 208 f.; Race
2014; Macleod.
τόδε: either pointing ahead to Zeus’ instructions at 112 ff. (‘following, as follows’) or
perhaps pointing back to 108 Ἕκτορος ἀμφὶ νέκυι: ‘in reference to (the handling of) the
corpse, in this respect’; a detailed argument for the second alternative (anaphoric τόδε)
in Race loc. cit. 716–721: Achilleus acquires κῦδος via the – ceremonial – manner in
which the body is surrendered. — προτιάπτω: only here in early epic (Od. 2.86 μῶμον
ἀνάψαι is similar; more frequent later: Peppmüller; Leaf), in place of the usual κῦδος
δίδωμι, ὀπάζω, ὀρέγω, rarely also ἐπιτίθημι (Il. 23.400), etc.; see Greindl 1938, 41 ff.
111 The connection of aidṓs ‘respect’ (44n.) with philótēs ‘friendship’ in early
epic usually refers to a guest and host (18.386, Od. 8.21 f., 11.360, 14.505, 19.254,
etc.), occasionally – as here – to different groupings: Cairns 1993, 89 ff.
τεήν: has the function of either (a) a subjective gen. (thus 9.630 φιλότητος ἑταίρων) or
(b) an objective gen. (Od. 14.505 φιλότητι καὶ αἰδόϊ φωτὸς ἐῆος): Leaf; in the present
context, (a) is more likely: Zeus’ renewed favor leaves Thetis indebted also in the fu-
ture (in this sense, Cairns 1993, 92; AH; Macleod; LfgrE s.v. αἰδοῖος 269.45 ff.); case (b)
would have to draw on the episode with Briareos (1.396–406n., 1.503n., 1.518–527n.),
i.e. Zeus himself continues to feel indebted to Thetis (Richardson; Schultz 1910, 21;
similarly Faesi).
110 προτιάπτω: = προσάπτω (R 20.1).

111 τεήν: possessive 2nd pers. sing. pronoun (R 14.4). — μετόπισθε: ‘for the future’. — φυλάσσων:
‘trying to preserve, conserve’ (conative).
Commentary 63
112–119 The announcement of two sets of orders to Thetis and (again) to Iris

(15.54 ff. is similar) sets in motion parallel storylines that merge in the meeting
of the two protagonists, Achilleus and Priam, and that lead to the surrender
of Hektor’s corpse to Priam (471 ff.; cf. 146–158n.; outline in Heubeck 1954,
43). In accord with the ‘continuity of time’ principleP, the instructions directed
at Iris are narrated after Thetis delivers the message to Achilleus (143 ff.; cf.
159n.); the text does not indicate the possibility that the messengers receive
their instructions simultaneously, nor is that objectively reasonable: only af-
ter Achilleus’ promise at 139 f. (which Zeus tacitly appears to take for grant-
ed: gapP) can Priam be expected to undertake the dangerous journey to meet
with his mortal foe (cf. the assurance at 156–158 = 185–187): Myres 1932, 293;
Hölscher 1939, 47; Patzer 1990, 158 f.; Rengakos 1995, 20–22; Tsagarakis
2001, 783 f.; Scodel 2008a, 113–115.
112–116 give to your son this message: The actual instructions follow in 116;
the reasoning inserted at 113–115 (‘tell him that …!’) is intended primarily for
Achilleus: Zeus’ anger (113b–114a) has nowhere manifested itself as clearly
as in his speech at 65–76 (Létoublon 1987, 130 f.). – On the insertion of a ra-
tionale after epitéllō ‘give orders’, cf. esp. 2.802–804, Od. 12.217 f., 12.273–275,
23.361–363.
ἐπίτειλον· | σκύζεσθαί οἱ εἰπέ: an asyndetic specification of the instructions (cf.
144n. on βάσκ’ ἴθι) with an independent verb of speaking, as at 2.10 f. ἀγορευέμεν … ὡς
ἐπιτέλλω. | θωρῆξαί ἑ κέλευε …, 5.198–200 (μοι) ἐρχομένῳ ἐπέτελλε …· | … μ’ ἐκέλευε … |
ἀρχεύειν, cf. 4.301 ἱππεῦσιν μὲν πρῶτ’ ἐπετέλλετο· τοὺς μὲν ἀνώγει … – On the sense of
σκύζεσθαι, 65n.
112 1st VH = 4.70. — αἶψα μάλ(α): ‘immediately’; VB 4× Il., 5× Od. (19.36n.). – Asyndeton in
the transition to a request: Schw. 2.632.
113–115 ≈ 134–136; also 2nd VH of 113 = 14.257; ≈ h.Ap. 88.
114 in his heart’s madness: Greek maínomai (> ‘mania’) is commonly used in
early epic of the ‘raging, storming’ of an opponent in war; here, as in Engl. ‘be
mad’, as a rebuke based on improper behavior or a transgression (thus also
at e.g. 8.360 Athene about Zeus, 15.128 Athene to Ares, Od. 9.350 Odysseus to
Polyphemos, 18.406 Telemachos to the suitors): Becker 1937, 158 f.; Sullivan
1988, 75 ff.; Seaford 1994, 330 ff.; Hershkowitz 1998, 132 ff., 150.
φρεσί: 40n.
112 αἶψα μάλ(α): = μάλ᾽ αἶψα. — υἱέϊ: on the inflection, R 12.3.

113 σκύζεσθαί (ϝ)οι (ϝ)εἰπέ: on the hiatus, R 4.4. — ἔξοχα: adverbial, ‘especially, greatly’.
114 κεχολῶσθαι: ‘be angry, furious’.
64 Iliad 24
115 holds … and did not give him | back: a rhetorical polar expressionP that fills
out the verse while also adding emphasis; cf. 1.198, 1.468, 24.563, etc. (general
bibliography: 3.59n.). – In speaking to Hektor, Achilleus had rejected an un-
conditional surrender of the body (22.258–267; cf. 7.78–86) as well as its ransom
(22.338–354). The fact that Zeus does not mention the dragging of the corpse
may be based on his diplomatic behavior toward Thetis.
κορωνίσιν: ‘curved’ and thus ‘pointing upward’; on the sense and position in the verse
of this epithet of ships, 1.170n. (παρὰ νηυσὶ κ. after caesura A 4 8× Il.; the same without
κορωνίσιν 38× Il., 2× Od.). — ἀπέλυσεν: literally ‘return after the payment of a ransom’
(cf. 137n.): anticipation of 116 (schol. b on 116; Peppmüller; Leaf).
116 2nd VH = 76. — Perhaps … he will …: ‘Zeus, who respects Thetis’ pain (104),
utters his wish to the concerned mother in the gentlest possible way. Even in
this gentle form, Thetis recognizes the command of the father of the gods and
in 137 she instructs her son to fulfill it’ (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 340 [transl.];
cf. Leaf and Macleod; Minchin 2007, 208 f.). — in fear of me: In early epic,
to ‘fear’ a god primarily means to avoid provoking him to anger (113 f.), and
thus to punishment, because of misconduct (e.g. by disregarding an order):
13.622–627, 22.356–360, Od. 2.63–67, 22.35–40 (Muellner 1992, 130 f.); cf. the
attribute theoudḗs ‘god-fearing’ at Od. 6.121, etc.; in general, RAC s.v. Furcht
(Gottes).
αἴ κέν πως … λύσῃ: repeated by Thetis at 137 with ἀλλ’ ἄγε δὴ λῦσον. The restrained
phrasing αἴ κέν πως + subjunc. does not as a rule imply serious doubt on the part of the
speaker (2.72n.).
117 ≈ 145. — μεγαλήτορι: ‘great-hearted, with great energy, courageous’, a generic epithetP
(6.283n., where also of Priam). — ἐφήσω: ‘will send (to)’ (in contrast, 300 mid. ἐφίεμαι
‘order, instruct’); cf. schol. bT with Erbse ad loc. (ancient discussion of the meaning of
the verb) and 118n. on λύσασθαι.
118–119 = 146 f., 195 f.; ≈ 175 f. (cf. 1.12 f., 24.501 f.); in addition 118 ≈ 15.116; 1st
VH = 237. — ProlepsisP: ‘This fourfold repetition [see iterata] is surely not
just a formular device, but is designed to bring out the importance of this
central theme’: Richardson; cf. Létoublon 1987 passim. The triple repeti-
tion of the message of the dream in Book 2 (see 2.28–32n. and 2.60–70a n.) is
similar.
115 νηυσί: on the inflection, R 12.1. — οὐδ(έ): also after affirmative clauses in Homer (R 24.8).
116 αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1). — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5); on the usage, R 21.1. — τε δ(ϝ)είσῃ ἀπό: on the prosody,
R 4.5 and R 5.6.
117 μεγαλήτορι (ϝ)ῖριν: on the prosody, R 5.4.
Commentary 65
118 λύσασθαι: The verb of speaking (≈ ‘with the message that he should’) is implied in
the idea of dispatching (AH; Macleod), similarly ἄγγελος ἦλθε (11.715, 18 167, 24.194 f.,
h.Cer. 407–409); cf. the repetition of the order at 145 f. ἄγγειλον … λύσασθαι, 175
λύσασθαι σ’ ἐκέλευεν, 194 f. ἄγγελος ἦλθεν | λύσασθαι. – Middle λύομαι always of the
person who ‘redeems, ransoms someone’ (thus of Priam in Book 24), but active λύω
of the person ‘releasing someone’ (of Achilleus: 76, etc.). — φίλον υἱόν: an inflectible
formula (19.117n.); on the meaning of φίλος, 4n. — ἰόντ’: = ἰόντα (unambiguous because
of acc. οἶον in 148): AH; Leaf. — ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectible formula after caesura A
4 (1.371, 14.354, 15.305, 24.203, 24.519) and – more commonly – at VE, as here with ἰόντ’
at 15.116, 24.146/195; similarly θέων ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀ. (17.691), ἱκέσθ’ ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀ. (22.417); in the
dative ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν (9× Il., 1× Od.; cf. 19.160n.). – On the variants with epithets,
336n. (κοίλας ἐπὶ ν. Ἀ.), 564n. (θοὰς ἐπὶ ν. Ἀ.), also 501b–502n. (only νῆας Ἀχαιῶν). On
the inflection of formulae in general, FOR 23.
119 gifts: cf. 76n.
Ἀχιλλῆϊ: The dative ending -ι is occasionally scanned long in Homer even outside
i-stems (18n.; Chantr. 1.104 f.; Forssman 2003, 111); in most cases, the long is enabled
by a subsequent caesura (as here) and/or the beginning of the following word: liquid
or nasal (e.g. Ἀχιλλῆϊ μεθέμεν [1.283]; cf. G 16; M 4.6), double consonant (e.g. Ἀχιλλῆϊ
πτολιπόρθῳ [108]). — τά κε θυμὸν ἰήνῃ: ‘which will surely soften his heart’ (Latacz
1966, 228 f.). The prospective relative clause with a final/consecutive nuance (Schw.
2.311 f.; Chantr. 2.247) – in contrast to the faded ἀγλαὰ δῶρα (278n.) – expresses the
specific effect of Priam’s gifts; staying within the image, Achilleus’ θυμός is indeed hard-
ened (οὔτε νόημα γναμπτόν 40 f., σιδήρεος θυμός 22.357). This aim is accomplished:
592–595 (Achilleus addressing the dead Patroklos), esp. 594 οὐ … ἀεικέα … ἄποινα (see
ad loc.). – ἰαίνω denotes a corporal and mental process: softening, relaxing, warm en-
couragement (19.173–174n.; cf. 320–321n.).
120–142 Thetis relays Zeus’ instructions to her son; Achilleus expresses his agree
ment.
120 1st VH: 21× Il. (of which 8× incl. θεά), 2× Od., 2× h.Cer. (1× incl. θεά); 2nd VH = 89 (see
ad loc.), etc. – Speech capping formulaP used when issuing orders to human beings and
gods (2.166n.), esp. messengers (Iris also at 11.195, 15.168; see Barck 1976, 144 ff.).
121–123a Elements (2) departure and (3) arrival of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a
message’ (103–142n.). Thetis’ change of location coincides with a change of
118 λύσασθαι: mid. ‘pay a ransom’; infinitive of indirect speech. — νῆας: on the inflection, R 12 1.
119 φερέμεν: inf. (R 16.4). — τά: functions like a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἰήνῃ: (prospective)
aor. subjunc. of ἰαίνω, ‘soften’.
120 ὥς: ‘so, thus’. — ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — οὐδ(έ): in Homer also after
affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἀπίθησε: ‘did not obey’ (οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε is a litotes: ‘was willing’);
on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.
66 Iliad 24
scene to the human plane (on this in general, Richardson 1990, 110 f.); there,
Achilleus is in the same state as described earlier (esp. 4): this sugggests a uni-
form action in the background (the connection of 19.4 f. with 18.354 f. is similar;
Krapp 1964, 334 f.).
121 = 2.167 (see ad loc.), etc.
122 of her son: The perspective is that of Thetis (cf. 85–86n.; for ‘son’ used
to show focalizationP in the case of Telemachos: de Jong 1993, 302–304).
Additional periphrastic denominationsP in the present scene between Thetis
and Achilleus: ‘mother’ (126), ‘son and his mother’ (141): expressions of close
familiarity.
ἷξεν: a thematic s-aorist (6.172n.).
123a ἁδινά: ‘repeatedly, continuously’, frequently in the context of laments (19.314n.);
picked up by Thetis in her speech to Achilleus with τέο μέχρις (128): Kaimio 1977, 50.
123b–125 Meals, sacrifices and celebrations form a common backdrop to the ar-
rival of visitors and messengers, as also at 11.771 ff., 24.444, 24.472 ff. (with n.),
Od. 3.31 ff., 4.3 ff., etc. (Arend 1933, 68; Edwards 1986, 92 n. 27; Reece 1993, 14;
de Jong on Od. 3.4–67; on the present type-scene: 103–142n.). On the narratorP
plane, such descriptions of situations frequently have a characterizing or pre-
paratory function (de Jong loc. cit. and on Od. 4.3–19, 7.81–135, 14.5–28); here:
‘The point of mentioning these preparations is clearly that Achilles does not
intend to eat when they are over’ (Macleod; cf. 3n.).
ἀμφ’ αὐτὸν ἑταῖροι: a VE formula (4× Il., 1× Od.), elsewhere always with πολέες/πολλοὶ
δ’ preceding (e.g. 19.5). – On the ‘bystanders’ in descriptions of situations, see 83–86n.
124 ἐσσυμένως: ‘eagerly, assiduously, rapidly’ (LfgrE; cf. 3.85n.). — ἐπένοντο: ‘busied
themselves (with)’, in reference to preparations for a meal or other domestic tasks
(1.318a n.). — ἐντύνοντ’ ἄριστον: = Od. 16.2 (VB). Here the ἄριστον appears to coincide
with the δεῖπνον ‘daytime meal’ (2.381n. with bibliography).
The manuscripts of the Iliad transmit ἐντύνοντο ᾱ῎ ριστον (scriptio plena: Janko, Introd. 33; in
general, Leaf on 17.324; van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 77 f.; cf. 1.464n., end); one papyrus alone has
ἐντύνοντ(’), see app. crit. – The initial element of ἄριστον derives from an old locative *āi̯eri ‘during
the (early hours of the) day’ (Ruijgh [1985] 1996, 244; Hajnal 1992, 57 f.; 1992a, 286; cf. Od. 16.2
ἄριστον ἅμ’ ἠόϊ), the final element contains ἐδ- ‘eat’ (cf. ὠμηστής 207a n., νήστιας 19.156n.).
121 Οὐλύμποιο: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1); on the inflection, R 11.2. — ἀΐξασα:
from ἀΐσσω ‘hurry, rush (on one’s way)’.
122 ἷξεν: aor. of ἵκω ‘arrive, come’. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — κλισίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — οὗ
υἱέος: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — οὗ: possessive pronoun of 3rd pers. (R 14.4). — υἱέος: on the inflec-
tion, R 12.3. — ἐν: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘inside’. — τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).
124 καὶ ἐντύνοντ(ο): on the so-called correption, R 5.5.
Commentary 67
125 Sheep, goats, pigs and – for special occasions – cattle are found as sacrificial
animals in early epic (cf. 1.66n., 2.402n., 24.34). Rearing sheep served for the
production of wool, milk and meat; in Homeric society, herds of sheep were
regarded as a sign of wealth (Richter 1968, 53–59; BNP s.v. Sheep). — a great
fleecy sheep: The quality of livestock is frequently highlighted (‘great’: 18.559,
Od. 17.180; ‘fat’: Il. 2.403, 9.207 f., etc.; age: 2.403n.; coat: 621n.). On asyndet-
ic lists of epithets, La Roche 1897, 175 ff., 181 ff. (collection of examples); K.-
G. 2.341 f.; cf. 157n., 266–274n.
ἐν κλισίῃ: The κλισίη forms an obvious location for the preparation and consumption
of the meal (2.399, 7.313 f., etc.); more information on Achilleus’ quarters at 448–456n.,
448n. — ἱέρευτο: probably plpf. with ἱ- shortened for metrical reasons (Chantr. 1.422;
Jankuhn 1969, 98 f.; loc. cit. on the function – not clearly determinable – of the da-
tive τοῖσι; most likely a dat. of agent). The verb means both ‘sacrifice’ (with mention of
the ritual) and ‘slaughter’ (6.174, 18.558 ff., and frequently in the Odyssey [the suitors’
preparations for meals]); in principle, however, a portion seems to have been sacrificed
to the gods in the case of any meal based on meat (6.173–174n. with bibliography; cf.
621–628n.).
126 ἣ δὲ … πότνια μήτηρ: The verse structure, with anaphoric pronoun (frequently at VB)
and noun-epithet formula in apposition (usually at VE), is common in early epic, e.g.
188 (Bakker 1997, 92, 198 f.). – πότνια μήτηρ is a VE formula for goddesses or women of
high rank: 21× Il., 13× Od., 3× h.Cer.; 9× of Thetis (as here; cf. 122n.), 5× of Hekabe (710);
on the term πότνια, see 6.264n.
127 = 1.361, etc. (see ad loc.; cf. 19.7n.). On the use of the formulaic verse in the
present type-scene, see 103–142n. On the details of the linguistic and thematic
echoes of the dialogue scene between Thetis and Achilleus in Book 1 (1.357–
430), see Richardson on 126–142 (‘The poet must surely be looking back to the
theme of book 1’).
ἔκ τ’ ὀνόμαζεν: the sense has faded to ‘and spoke to him’ (6.253n.).
128–137 An extended messenger speech: (1) prologue, with reference to the sit-
uation (128–132), (2) introduction to the message, with indication of who sent
it (133), (3) the actual message (134–137); cf. 2.23–34n. In the prologue, Thetis
attempts, via an affectionate rebuke, to calm the emotional waters (Macleod
on 128–132; similarly already Zeus at 104 ff.). The core of the message is for the
most part repeated literally, as is usual (113–115 ≈ 134–136); 116–119 are com-
pressed into a brief order at 137 (116n.). By leaving out the announcement of
125 τοῖσι: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the inflection, R 11.2. — ἱέρευτο: ‘was
slaughtered, lay there slaughtered’.
126 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).
127 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).
68 Iliad 24
analogous instructions for Priam that were merely meant as background in-
formation for Thetis, the narrator retains for himself the possibility of lending
particular force to the meeting between Achilleus and Priam: Achilleus does
not expect Priam to come in person (Taplin 1992, 264; Macleod on 139; cf.
480–484n.).
128 2nd VH = 9.612, Od. 2.23, 4.100, 14.40. — eating your heart out: The ‘heart’ as the seat
of mental conditions is here used in pregnant contrast to the physical consumption of
food (2nd VH); likewise at Od. 10.379: Macleod; Nagler 1974, 182 n. 21; Jahn 1987, 233;
Clarke 1999, 88 n. 71. For more on the metaphor: 6.201–202n., 19.58n.; Jahn loc. cit.
12.
τέκνον ἐμόν: τέκνον is always used in the Iliad to address adult sons or daughters (in-
cluding 7× of Thetis addressing Achilleus), in the Odyssey also addressed to non-rel-
atives: 6.254n.; the pronoun does not appear to serve to increase emotion: 19.8n. —
ἀχεύων: a metrical variant of the denominative ἀχέων; the details of its formation are
unclear: LfgrE with bibliography; DELG s.v. ἄχνυμαι. – On the sense, cf. 90b–91n.; a
possible differentiation between ὀδύρομαι ‘weep, lament’ (external) and ἀχέων/ἀχεύων
‘grieve, be troubled’ (internal; thus Anastassiou 1973, 77 ff.) cannot be proven; the se-
mantic delineation of the word field is generally difficult (LfgrE s.v. ὀδύρομαι); on similar
synonym doublings, see 48n.
129 remember neither your food: 3n.
μεμνημένος: μιμνήσκομαι in battle (cf. 216) and in reference to bodily needs (food,
drink, sleep; cf. also 601 f.) means ‘(once again, despite adverse conditions) direct one’s
thoughts to, recall, think of’; cf. 19.147–148n., end; Bakker (2002) 2005, 139–145, esp.
142. — οὔτέ τι: on the accent, West 1998, XVIII.
130–131a It is a good thing even …: Gods rarely use gnomes in conversation
with human beings; when they do, it is usually in the context of divine messag-
es and/or as a sign of intimacy (Lardinois 2000, 658). In the present gnome,
sexuality represents all the vital needs Achilleus should once again think of
fulfilling. – Sexual intercourse is repeatedly mentioned in Homer in direct
speechP as well as in the narrator-textP (2.232, 3.441 f., etc. and 6.25, 24.676,
etc.); the brevity and discretion of these expressions (‘to mingle in love’, ‘to
lie [down] beside’, etc.: Wickert-Micknat 1982, 100–102) fits with the quite
restrained depiction of sexuality in early epic (cf. 2.262n., 19.176n.; schol. bT
on 9.134; Mauritsch 1992, 24 ff.). On the athetesis of 130–132 as ‘indecent’ and
128 τέο: = τίνος (neutr.), gen. dependent on μέχρις (here postpositive: R 20.2), thus ‘until when,
how long?’.
129 ἔδεαι: fut. mid. of ἔδω ‘eat’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — οὔτέ τι: τι (‘in some way’: R
19.1) strengthens the negative.
130 ἀγαθόν: sc. ἐστίν.
Commentary 69
‘inappropriate’ (schol. A), see Düntzer (1847) 1872, 340 f. (arguing in favor of
retaining the verses); Leaf on 129 (reflecting on the various possibilities); ad-
ditional bibliography in Erbse on schol. A on 130–132.
γυναικί περ … μίσγεσθ(αι): περ does not apply to γυναικί alone (‘at least with a wom-
an’, sc. having lost Patroklos; occasionally taken as an allusion to homosexuality:
Clarke 1978, 386 ff.; in opposition to this theory generally, Latacz 2008, 131 n. 24), but
underscores the overall concept γυναικὶ ἐν φιλότητι μίσγεσθαι ≈ ‘sexuality’ (Bakker
1988, 248 f.; cf. 425n. on καί). This creates an emphatic contrast with (a) abstinence from
food and sleep at 128–130a (Levin 1949, 45 f. n. 19; in this case, εὐνή might also be a
euphemism for sex, cf. 19.176n.); (b) imminent death, 131b–132 (with determinative γάρ;
see Macleod; Denniston 482). On περ indicating a contrast, see also 2.236n.
131b–132 = 16.852 f. (Patroklos on Hektor, see Macleod); similar phrasing occurs
in the remarks of the horse Xanthos at 19.409 f. — On the prolepsisP, 85n.
βέε(αι): originally probably a short-vowel subjunc. related to the root of βίος/ζώω; used
in Homer as a future (G 62; Chantr. 1.452 f.; Frisk I and III s.v. βίος; Janko on 15.194).
132 = 16.853; 1st VH ≈ Od. 8.218 (also ἄγχι παρισταμένη 5× Od.; cf. VE ἄγχι παραστάς/
παρέστη 6× Il., 3× Od.); 2nd VH = 5.83, 16.334, 16.853, 20.477, 21.110, Il. parv. fr. 29.5 West.
— θάνατος καὶ μοῖρα: synonym doubling (1.160n.), perceived as a single concept (hence
the predicate in the sing.). On the numerous expressions with similar content, 2.352n.;
on μοῖρα, cf. 49n. – In cases like the present one, differentiation between appellative
and personification is almost impossible (as well as unnecessary for understanding the
text): CG 29; e.g. Erbse 1986, 277 (transl.): ‘very close to […] a personified conception’
vs. Dietrich 1965, 197: ‘All that is conveyed by this phrase is that a hero’s death is close
at hand’. On the combination with παρίσταμαι, cf. inter alia 12.326 κῆρες ἐφεστᾶσιν
θανάτοιο, Od. 24.28 f. παραστήσεσθαι ἔμελλε | μοῖρ’ ὀλοή, but also 16.280 παρίσταται
αἴσιμον ἦμαρ (Porzig 1942, 145; Clarke 1999, 243 ff.). — μοῖρα κραταιή: a VE formula
(9× Il., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× Il. parv.); κραταιός is likely a secondary formation related to κρατύς,
fem. *κραταιά (Risch 74).
133 ≈ 2.26 (with n.), 2.63; 2nd VH = 24.173, ≈ 24.561. — for I come from Zeus
with a message: On the function of such references to communications from
Zeus in the structure of the action of the Iliad, see Nagler 1974, 183, 185 f.,
214 ff. Here the parallels between Books 2 and 24 are particularly conspicuous
(see iterata); on further links between the two Books, cf. 173b–174n., 217–227n.,
677–682n. (Peppmüller p. XXIVf.; Macleod, Introd. 33).
ὦκα: calls for immediate attention (a condition for the successful execution of the fol-
lowing order); likewise at 2.26, Od. 6.289 f. (LfgrE s.v. ἵημι 1156.23–26).
131 μοι: ethic dat. — βέε(αι): ‘you will live’; on the uncontracted form, R 6. — τοι: = σοι (R 14 1).
133 ἐμέθεν: gen. (R 14.1, cf. 15.1). — ξύνες: 2nd pers. sing. aor. imper. of ξυνίημι (= συνίημι) ‘lis-
ten’.
70 Iliad 24
134–136 ≈ 113–115. On the nearly literal repetition of the speech giving the orders, see
Eide 1999, 121–123; 2.28–32n. With the exception of εἰπέ > φησί (≈ ‘he told me to tell you
that …’; cf. 112–116n.), the modifications here are limited to the adaptation of the person-
al endings and pronouns.
134 τοι: in place of the transmitted σοί, which is usually emphatic (West 2001, 277; cf.
Chantr. 1.265). — ἑέ: acc. of the stressed reflexive personal pronoun of the 3rd pers.
sing. (corresponds to ἐμέ at 113); elsewhere only at 20.171 (G 81; Schw. 2.194 f.; Chantr.
1.264; on ancient discussions of the form, Barth 1984, 194 ff.). On the reflexive with a
dependent inf., Chantr. 2.154.
137 See 128–137n. – On the motif ‘release and accept ransom (for it)’, cf. 1.20, 1.95,
24.76, 24.555 (variant: ‘capture me alive [rather than killing me] and receive a
ransom’: 6.46 = 11.131).
δέξαι ἄποινα: an inflectible VE formula (6.46n., where also on the etymology of
ἄποινα). – δέχομαι means not merely ‘receive’ but ‘(willingly) accept’ (LfgrE; AH ad loc.
and on 555; cf. 305n.).
138 = 1.215, 18.187; ≈ 9× Il. (on this, see 1.84n.); 1st VH, see 64n.; 2nd VH in total
24× Il. — Achilleus of the swift feet: a VE formula (30× Il.; 1.58n.). Achilleus’
swiftness, probably recalling a specific mythological narrative, appears in
the Iliad as an established, essential personal characteristic (Whallon 1969,
14–17; Dunkle 1996/97; Foley 1997, 167 f.; Hainsworth 1999, 7–9; Graziosi/
Haubold 2005, 50–56); it is expressed in several noun-epithet formulae (e.g.
458, 668), is confirmed by individual characters (13.324 f., 23.791 f.) and is illus-
trated in the pursuit of Hektor (21.599–22.213).
139–140 Since the instructions that are given cannot be executed immediately,
as is otherwise common (188–190n.), a statement by Achilleus follows instead:
he briefly if not altogether directly declares his agreement. The impersonal
phrasing at 139 (‘studied indifference’: Wilson 2002, 128) and the reservations
at 140 (‘if the Olympian himself …’) leave open whether ‘this (is) merely super-
ficial compliance or a change of heart’: Burkert 1955, 102 f. (transl.); for de-
tailed discussion of Achilleus’ motivation in the present context, see 560–562n.
Additional bibliography on the consent given by Achilleus: Richardson on 139–
140; Segal 1971, 60; Deichgräber 1972, 50; Schein 1984, 158; Van Nortwick
1992, 78; Crotty 1994, 71; West 2011, 414 f. – On Achilleus’ short speeches in
general, Edwards on 20.428 f. (cf. 669 f., 1.216–218, 18.182, 20.429, etc.).
134 ἑέ: = ἑαυτόν (R 14.1).

135 ἀθανάτων: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).
137 ἄγε: ‘come!’ (originally imper. of ἄγω).
138 πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1).
Commentary 71
139 τῇδ’ εἴη …: Three possible interpretations have been mooted (Leaf; Richardson): (a)
‘So be it! He who brings ransom money may take the body’ (with stronger punctuation
after τῇδ’ εἴη, cf. Allen’s text; on the concessive optative, see 226–227n.); (b) ‘Let him
be on the spot, he who wishes to bring ransom money and take the body in return!’;
(c) ‘He should come here who …’. On interpretation (a): although a modal (rather than
local) function of τῇδε is unparalleled in Homeric epic, it is not out of the ordinary when
viewed in terms of related adverbs: τῇ 1× modal (Od. 8.510), ᾗ 3× (Il. 7.286, 8.415, 9.310),
πῃ 6× (including 71, 373); cf. Macleod; LfgrE s.v. τῇ 447.61 f., 448.17 ff. At the same time,
in terms of content, a reluctant ‘so be it!’ appears particularly appropriate for Achilleus’
mental state, whereas at 669 (see ad loc.), after the return of Hektor’s corpse, he will
decisively agree to a truce lasting several days with the phrase ἔσται τοι καὶ ταῦτα;
cf. also ὧδ’ ἔστω at 7.34 and 8.523, which is metrically equivalent to the optatival τῇδ’
εἴη (Sommer 1977, 214 f.), also the future ἔσσεται οὕτως at Od. 16.31, 17.599 (LfgrE s.v.
τῇδε). On εἰμί ‘be thus’, see also 56n. – Interpretation (b), advocated by West in his
text, follows the syntax of Il. 14.107 νῦν δ’ εἴη ὃς … ἐνίσποι, 17.640 εἴη δ’ ὅς τις ἑταῖρος
ἀπαγγείλειε …, Od. 14.496 f. ἀλλά τις εἴη εἰπεῖν … Taken this way, Achilleus’ remark re-
quires that the opposite party become active (indirect request); this fits with the fact that
he will only prepare the body for return after Priam’s plea. On the combination local
adv. + εἶναι in an imperatival use, cf. Od. 14.407 f. ἔνδον εἶεν and Latin huc ades (Haupt
1866, 251 f.; Macleod). – Interpretation (c), with εἴη as opt. of εἶμι ‘go’ (rather than of
εἰμί ‘be’), derives from antiquity (schol. bT) but is unlikely and unparalleled in early
epic (Sommer loc. cit. 200–214).
140 εἰ δή: ‘if indeed, if really (as you say)’; cf. 57n.; Pulleyn 2000, 262 f. (‘reluctant ac-
ceptance’). — πρόφρονι θυμῷ: ‘seriously, decidedly’, cf. 8.23 πρόφρων ἐθέλοιμι (Zeus),
8.39 f. θυμῷ | πρόφρονι μυθέομαι (Zeus), Od. 10.386 πρόφρασσα … κελεύεις (Circe). On
the nuances of the meaning of πρόφρων, 1.77n. and LfgrE s.v. — Ὀλύμπιος: The sing.
is always used of Zeus himself (so too at 175, etc.); differently only at 194: an attribute
of ἄγγελος. — αὐτός: ‘no less than the highest god’ (AH [transl.]; cf. LfgrE s.v. αὐτός
1634.55 ff.).
141–142 A variant of the speech capping formulaP ὣς οἳ μὲν τοιαῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους
ἀγόρευον (8× Il., 16× Od.; on additional variants: Führer 1967, 42 f.). A summaryP of this
type frequently introduces a change of scene to a parallel plotline (de Jong [1987] 2004,
206; Richardson 1990, 31 f.); the change of scene is here further prepared by the con-
cluding ἐν νηῶν ἀγύρι (a birds’ eye perspective, see 1–2a n.). πολλά conveys the notion
that the dialogue continues (AH; Richardson; cf. Od. 11.81–83; differently Macleod:
πολλά = ‘substantial, full of import’); this once more highlights the familarity between
mother and son – particularly in the present situation, which poses difficulties for
139 τῇδ’ εἴη: approximately ‘then so be it!’. — εἴη ὅς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἄγοιτο: mid. ἄγομαι
in the sense ‘take with him’.
140 ἀνώγει: present.
72 Iliad 24
Achilleus, cf. 72b–73n., 122n. Spending time talking together is also intimated at 13.81 f.,
Od. 24.203 f., h.Cer. 434–437.
141 ἐν νηῶν ἀγύρι: cf. νεῶν ἐν ἀγῶνι 19.42n. and ἐν νεκύων ἀγύρει 16.661; etymologically
related to ἀγείρω (on -υρ- for -r̥ - with Aeolic vocalism, see Schw. 1.351; Chantr. 1.25; cf.
233 πίσυρες ‘four’). On the ending -ῑ, 18n. (κόνι).
142 ≈ 3.155, Od. 13.165; 2nd VH = Od. 9.409; ≈ Il. 21.121, 21.427, 22.377, 23.535, Od. 4.189, 17.349
(sing.). — ἔπεα πτερόεντ(α): ‘winged words’, i.e. as unerring as an arrow: 1.201n.; LfgrE
s.v. πτερόεις. Without subsequent direct speech elsewhere only at h.Ap. 111.
143–187 Zeus sends Iris to Priam with instructions that he should go to Achilleus

with precious gifts, under the protection of Hermes, in order to ransom Hektor’s
body. Iris finds Priam in deepest mourning and relays Zeus’ message to him.
143–187 The type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (77–88n.) announced at 117–119
(cf. 112–119n.): (1) the messenger receives instructions: 143–159a, (2) departs:
159b, (3) arrives: 160a, (4) finds the person in question (description of situa-
tion): 160b–168, (5) approaches: 169 f., and (6) delivers the message: 171–187.
On the particularities of the description of the situation (element 4), see 160–
168n., 160n.; on Iris, cf. 74n.
143 1st VH = 8.398, 11.185. — ὤτρυνε: not literally a verb of speaking, but nevertheless
used occasionally as a verb to introduce a speech (3.249, 15.560, etc.; Fingerle 1939,
321). — εἰς Ἴλιον ἱρήν: a VE formula (3× Il., 2× Od.; with προτί rather than εἰς 5× Il.);
see 27n.
144 1st VH = 8.399, 11 186, 15.158; 2nd VH ≈ h.Cer. 341. — βάσκ’ ἴθι: ‘set out and go!’, a
formulaic order in the deployment of messengers, as at 2.8, etc. (see ad loc. with bibli-
ography; on the doubling of the verb, see also Yates 2014; cf. βῆ δ’ ἰέναι above at 95n.).
Here with asyndetically connected ἄγγειλον (145): ‘emphatic asyndeton of imperatives’
(Schw. 2.633 [transl.]). — ἕδος Οὐλύμποιο: = h.Cer. 341, ≈ h.Hom. 15.7; on expressions
with a place name as an appositive gen. (e.g. Od. 1.2 Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον), see
2.538n.; Peppmüller; Schw. 2.121 f.
145 ≈ 117: The function of the two verses (introduction of the instructions issued to Priam)
and the phrasing (Πριάμῳ μεγαλήτορι; VE with similar sounds) largely overlap. —
Ἴλιον εἴσω: a VE formula (1.71n.); on the combination with ἄγγειλον, cf. Od. 4.775 μή
πού τις ἀπαγγείλῃσι καὶ εἴσω, 3.427 εἴπατε δ’ εἴσω, etc.
141 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — νηῶν: on the inflection, R 12.1. — ἀγύρι:
‘meeting place’ (dat.).
142 ἔπεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
143 ὤτρυνε … εἰς: here ‘send someone (with a message)’. — ἱρήν: = ἱεράν.
144 ἴθι (ϝ)ῖρι: on the prosody, R 5.4.
145 μεγαλήτορι (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 5.4. — Ἴλιον εἴσω: = εἰς Ἴλιον (cf. R 20).
Commentary 73
146–158 ≈ 175–187 (and 146 f. = 118 f. [with n.], 195 f.). — In contrast to the brief
instructions issued to Thetis/Achilleus, which leave some matters open (113–
119/134–137; cf. 75–76n.), the narrator here has Zeus determine the procedure
precisely: a ‘«table of contents» speech’ (on the term, de Jong on Od. 1.81–95).
The Priam-plotline introduced in this way forms the action in the foreground
up to 484; this creates an arc of suspense for the audience that reaches beyond
the already ‘adventurous’ action: how will the announcement be realized?
(similarly Od. 5.29–42 with its ‘«table of contents» speech’ for Books 5–12; see
de Jong ad loc.; cf. 193–227n.). On the meaning of ‘suspense’ in Homeric epic
in general: Latacz (1985) 1996, 104–106; Rengakos 1999; de Jong 2007, 28.
152–158 ≈ 181–187 have been censured for remaining ‘without any effect in the further
course of the narrative’ (AH Anh., Einleitung p. 99 [transl.]; in detail, Peppmüller on
152 ff.): Priam does not mention them to the concerned Hekabe, but on the contrary
explicitly accepts the risk of death (224–227); Zeus’ deployment of Hermes at 331–339
appears to be spontaneous; Priam fails to recognize Hermes and is instead frightened
of him (358–360a), with the result that the god must reveal himself at 460 f. Among the
counter-arguments are the following: (a) at least 152–158 are indispensable as a ‘«table
of contents» speech’ (Leaf on 181–187); (b) the uncertainty of the affected characters
must be significant, with or without a ‘guarantee of safety’, given the daring nature of
the plan (Richardson on 175–187: ‘Priam’s experience of divine reassurance in no way
detracts from his sense of risk and anxiety’; cf. Eide 1999, 124 f.); (c) the encounter with
Hermes, who appears in the twilight in the guise of an Achaian, will at first cause fright
in any case (Martinazzoli on 152; Beck 1964, 194 ff.); (d) at 373–377, Priam appears
to entertain some suspicion and thus does not appear surprised (especially given his
miraculous escort to Achilleus’ quarters, cf. 445 f.) when Hermes reveals himself ful-
ly (Richardson on 372–377; Beck loc. cit. 198 ff.); (e) characters may doubt or conceal
prophecies (Macleod on 181–187; Beck loc. cit. 189; cf. 220–222 with n.), but Priam him-
self seems to be mentally supported by them (Beck loc. cit. 189 ff.); (f) Zeus’ ‘pity’, a
motif of Book 24 (19n.), finds its logical expression in the ‘guarantee of safety’ and the
deployment of Hermes: Beck loc. cit. 192 f.; Peppmüller on 332; Macleod on 181–187,
end; Richardson on 329–332; cf. 332n. – Conclusion: athetesis of the verses is not justi-
fied.
148 alone, let no other man: A rhetorical polar expressionP (on this in gener-
al, 3.59n.): in accord with the wishes of the narrator, Priam and Achilleus are
to meet in person and in private (Priam’s herald [149n., 468–476n., end], and
Achilleus’ companions are not counted here, because they play the part of
servants [472–476n.]); ‘in addition, being alone creates pity’ (schol. bT; simi-
146–147 ≈ 118–119 (see ad loc.).

148 οἶον: sc. Πρίαμον (subject acc.); οἶος = ‘alone’. — Τρώων: partitive gen. with τις ἄλλος ἀνήρ.
— ἀνήρ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).
74 Iliad 24
larly Preisshofen 1977, 29 f.) and emotion more generally in the case of both
the characters (esp. 352–360a) and the audience. Cf. 22.416 f. (Priam): ‘let me
alone … go out … to the ships of the Achaians.’
μηδέ τις … ἴτω: main clause rather than an infinitive construction: AH; cf. 608–609n.,
end.
149 herald: Aside from in assemblies (see 577, 701; 2.50–52n.), heralds also serve
as servants and companions in early epic, e.g. at 9.170 (embassy to Achilleus),
Od. 13.64 (Phaiake); cf. also 2.183–184n. – Here, the herald (in this case Idaios,
the chief Trojan herald, cf. 3.247–248n.) is mainly responsible for transport and
the means of transport: 149b–150, 281 f., 324 f., 470 f.
An adversative asyndeton (AH; K.-G. 2.342). — κήρυξ: On the accent, West 1998, XXI.
On Mycenaean ka-ru-ke, Panagl 2007. — οἱ: On the consistent observation of origi-
nal initial digamma here and at 152 f., see 53n. (on οἱ). — γεραίτερος: ‘older’ not so
much in comparison with Priam (cf. Odysseus’ herald Eurybates at Od. 19.244: ὀλίγον
προγενέστερος) but as a contrast to ‘young, inexperienced’ (AH; Mackie 2008, 191 f.;
on -teros formations with a contrasting function, 1.32n.; Risch 91–95; specifically on
γεραίτερος, Wittwer 1970, 62 f.). Hermes, appearing as a youth, accordingly calls the
herald γέρων (368; Macleod). — ὅς κ’ ἰθύνοι: Final relative clauses with κε/κεν + opt.
are common in Homer: 1.64n.; Chantr. 2.249.
150 1st VH = Od. 6.37 (and 6.260 VE). — the mules and the easily running wag-
on: A more detailed description of the wagon occurs at 266–274 (see ad loc.);
on the mules, 277–278n.
ἄμαξαν: literally ‘body (of a wagon)’ (266), frequently as a pars pro toto for ‘wagon’
(≈ ἀπήνη 275); on the smooth breathing, West 1998, XVII. — ἐΰτροχον: a possessive
compound ‘with good wheels’ rather than a verb-noun compound ‘running smoothly’,
cf. Od. 6.57 f. ἀπήνην εὔκυκλον (LfgrE; Plath 1994, 157 f.). An epithet of ἅρμα/ἄμαξα,
always between caesurae B 2 and C 2, in Book 24 also at 179, 189, 266, 711: Plath loc. cit.
158 ff. On Vedic parallels, Durante 1976, 94. — ἥ κε: to be preferred over ἠδέ of the main
transmission (West 2001, 277): it is not the herald but the wagon that will bring Hektor
home (697: ἡμίονοι δὲ νέκυν φέρον); see the analogous construction at Od. 6.37 f. ἥ κεν
ἄγῃσι | ζῶστρά τε καὶ πέπλους.
151 2nd VH ≈ 6.414. — νεκρὸν …, τὸν ἔκτανε: 21.235 f. is similar; interpreted as a com-
pressed expression with a resultative object by schol. A and T: ‘ὃν κτείνας νεκρὸν
ἐποίησεν’ (like 5.795 ἕλκος … τό μιν βάλε Πάνδαρος, also 5.361, 16.511, Od. 19.393 etc.),
as an epexegetic relative clause by AH. — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula (1.7n.).
149 τίς (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἕποιτο: ‘shall accompany’ (concessive opt.). — ὅς κ’ ἰθύνοι:
‘who shall steer’ (final; likewise 150 f. ἥ κε … ἄγοι). — κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5).
151 προτὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4; προτί = πρός (R 20.1). — τόν: with the function of a
relative pronoun (R 14.5).
Commentary 75
152 2nd VH ≈ 171 (see ad loc.; cf. 10.383 θάρσει, μηδέ τί τοι θάνατος καταθύμιος ἔστω etc.
[Peppmüller]). — τάρβος: ‘fear (for one’s life), despair’, like ταρβοσύνη at Od. 18.342
(LfgrE; Macleod; on ταρβέω, 1.331n.); differently Doederlein 2.156 and AH: ‘horror’
(concrete).
153 1st VH ≈ Od. 4.826. — The promise of a divine helper, as at 15.254–261, 21.288–
297, Od. 2.286–295, 4.825–829 (Richardson); gods in particular repeatedly
serve as ‘escorts’ (frequently in the Odyssey, also in the case of Bellerophon
at 6.171: see Kirk ad loc.; additional parallels, including non-Greek ones, in
Burkert [1977] 1985, 410 n. 14 and West 1997, 366). Zeus will justify to Hermes
why he has been chosen for this task (334 f.); Hermes will in turn reveal him-
self to Priam with words similar to these (460 f.). In the Odyssey, Hermes also
guides the dead (Od. 24.10) as well as heroes who descend to the underworld
alive (Herakles: Od. 11.625 f.); cf. 328n. On the function of Hermes as a guide in
general, 2.103n.; Richardson on 333–348; Heubeck on Od. 24.1–4; Erbse 1986,
65 ff.; LfgrE. On Hermes’ title ‘Argeïphontes’ (Slayer of Argos), see 24n.
τοῖον γάρ: refers to what precedes (‘such that you need not fear anything’; cf. 384) and
is at the same time substantiated by the relative clause that follows in 154 (AH; similarly
Od. 2.285–287; additional passages: Silk 1974, 240 f.). — ὀπάσσομεν: probably related
etymologically to ἕπομαι (182): causative ‘make follow’ > ‘give to’, cf. 11.796 ≈ 16.38.
154–155 lead him …: The key term is used three times in these verses (Macleod
with parallels): accompaniment by Hermes is factually and ‘dramaturgically’
necessary until Achilleus’ quarters are reached (cf. 336–338), but his presence
during the conversation between Achilleus and Priam would be unwelcome;
his departure at 468 f. is thus already prepared here (Macleod).
154 ὃς ἄξει: The conjecture ὅς ϝ’ ἄξει (ϝε = ἑ: G 81) suggested by analogy with 183 ὅς σ’ ἄξει
removes the short at VB and adds the missing acc. object (cf. app. crit.; Leaf; West on
Hes. Op. 526). For the period of the poet of the Iliad, acceptance of a so-called στίχος
ἀκέφαλος (as at 22.236 ὃς ἔτλης; M 15) is the most likely solution: the digamma remain-
ing after the elision of ϝε was no longer written out (53n. on οἱ). The acc. object is easily
supplied mentally from the context (Peppmüller p. LXVf.; Richardson on 154–155;
Eide 1999, 125 f.).
152 μηδέ (τι): picks up from 148: ‘and … in no manner’; on the intensifying τι, cf. 129n. — τί
(ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — οἱ … φρεσί: σχῆμα καθ’ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος, here
in the dat. (cf. R 19.1).
153 τοῖον … πομπόν: predicative appositive to Ἀργεϊφόντην. — γάρ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.5.
— ὀπάσσομεν: sc. ‘we gods’; on the -σσ-, R 9 1.
154 ἄξει … ἄγων: here ≈ ‘guide’. — ἄξει, εἵως: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — εἵως κεν: = ἕως ἄν. — Ἀχιλῆϊ:
on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1. — πελάσσῃ: sc. αὐτόν, ‘bring, lead someone’.
155 αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (here progressive; R 24.2). — ἐπήν: = ἐπάν/ἐπειδάν (temporal conjunction). —
ἀγάγησιν: on the inflection, R 16.3. — ἔσω + acc.: ≈ εἰς.
76 Iliad 24
156–158 The train of thought ‘not x, and not y, but rather z’ culminates and is
refined in the final affirmative section introduced by allá ‘but’: reassurance is
given to Priam (cf. schol. b on 156); similarly at 1.152–158, 6.417 f., etc. (Tzamali
1996, 283 f.; examples: LfgrE s.v. ἀλλά 514.8 ff.).
156 ≈ Od. 16.404 (other similar formulations in Peppmüller on 155 f.). — οὔτ(ε) … τ(ε):
‘not he himself … and also the others’; elsewhere in Homer only at 13.230 μήτ(ε) … τε;
common in later periods (K.-G. 2.291 f.); cf. 368n.
157–158 The respect Achilleus shows Priam as a ‘supplicant’ (hikétēs) rests only
indirectly on the status guaranteed by Zeus in his role as Zeus Hikesios to sup-
plicants in general (as it appears e.g. in the Odyssey: 7.164 f., 9.270 f., 13.213 f.,
etc.; cf. 503; Nilsson [1940] 1967, 419–421; Erbse 1986, 253); instead, it rests
primarily on Zeus’ concrete instructions, as well as on Achilleus’ respect for
Priam (139 f., 568–570; see Segal 1971, 65; Schmitt 1990, 78 f. with n. 244;
Taplin 1992, 273 f.; Yamagata 1994, 43–45; cf. 560–562n.). The existence of a
guaranteed status for supplicants in the Iliad is occasionally denied altogether
(Dihle 1970, 164 f.; Pedrick 1982, 133, 135, 140; Dreher 2006, 51), but the preg-
nant use of the term hikétēs at 157 f. (by Zeus himself) and 569 f. (by Achilleus
in connection with Zeus’ orders) in particular imply a certain divine (or at the
least moral) protection (Yamagata loc. cit.), cf. 9.511 f.: disregarding the Litaí
‘Pleas’ results in punishment by Zeus. – In early epic, several characters oc-
cupy the role of the hikétēs, including Chryses before the Atreidai (1.12 ff.; see
501b–502n.), Thetis before Zeus (1.500 ff. [see ad loc. for the bibliography]),
and Odysseus before Nausikaa (Od. 6.141 ff.) and Arete (7.139 ff.); in war, how-
ever, supplicants do not enjoy the same level of protection (6.37–65n. with ex-
amples; Stoevesandt 2004, 153).
157 Zeus implicitly defends Achilleus against Apollo’s criticism (40 f.): Macleod.
Negated epithets (with alpha privative), because of their ethical and moral content, are
largely restricted to character languageP (Griffin 1986, 44 f.; cf. Fehling 1969, 236 f.).
A set of three negated epithets occurs in the Iliad only at 9.63 (ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος
ἀνέστιος) and here (post-Homeric examples in the bibliography listed in 2.447n.; two
negated epithets: 3.40n.; Keaney 1981 [collection of examples]; on clusters of negat-
ed words in general, see 1.99n.). – Series of three attributes in the same verse produce
emphasis, e.g. 3.182, 5.31, 9.63 (where in addition in accord with the law of increasing
parts: 60n.). — ἄφρων: on the connotations, 2.258n. (foolish, careless, thoughtless,
arrogant); cf. Od. 8.209 f. ἄφρων … | ὅς τις ξεινοδόκῳ ἔριδα προφέρηται. — ἄσκοπος:
‘he who does not look around, thoughtless’ (cf. 24n. ἐΰσκοπος). — ἀλιτήμων: probably
related to the middle ἀλιτέσθαι ‘to violate, insult, transgress against’ (e.g. 570) in the
156 κτενέει: uncontracted fut. (R 6). — ἀπὸ … ἐρύξει: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

Commentary 77
sense ‘disregarding divine commandments to the detriment of his fellow human beings
and himself’ (19.265n.; Tichy 1977, 168; Blanc 2003, 20–22; cf. DELG and Beekes s.v.
ἀλείτης). Differently Keaney 1981: = ἀ-λιτάνευτος ‘inexorable’ (cf. schol. b). In early epic
only here and at 186 (the same is true of ἄσκοπος).
158 ἐνδυκέως: A word from character languageP (de Jong on Od. 15.305); denotes solici-
tous care (frequently with φιλεῖν, τρέφειν, κομίζειν; also with verbs of escorting: 438, Od.
10.65, 14.337), here ≈ ‘mindfully, responsibly’ (LfgrE; cf. Peppmüller). Schol. bT also of-
fers the alternative meaning ‘persistent, continual’ (in this sense also Nagy 1996, 43 ff.),
but this sense is likely post-Homeric: Frisk; Leumann 1950, 311 f.; cf. Rengakos 1994,
80 f. — ἱκέτεω: ͜ (Ionic) quantitative metathesis (G 40; Chantr. 1.70; Hoekstra 1965,
36). — πεφιδήσεται: Reduplicated futures may derive from the aorist or the perfect
stems, in this case the aorist πεφιδέσθαι, but at 742 λελείψεται ‘will remain (behind) for-
ever’ the perfect λέλειπται (Schw. 1.783 f., 2.289; Chantr. 1.447 f.; Risch 350 f.).
159 = 77 (see ad loc.); the repetition may highlight the thematic parallels of
the plotlines involving Achilleus and Priam, cf. 112–119n. (Kurz 1966, 105;
Coventry 1987, 179).
160–168 The change of scene once more puts the Trojan royal family in the fore-
ground (previously at 22.405–23.1: public mourning; cf. Hellwig 1964, 74).
Iris finds them still deep in mourning (cf. 163–165 with 22.414): a description
of the situation with enumeration of the characters present (element 4 of the
type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’: 143–188n.; Richardson 1990, 216 n. 26;
on listing the mourners, cf. 36–37a n.). – The manner of mourning described
here is heightened to an extreme in comparison with that of Thetis (83 ff.) and
Achilleus (120 ff.) (Peppmüller; Richardson); on the mourning gestures, see
4n., 163n., 164n.
160 ἐς Πριάμοιο: ἐς/ἐν + gen. can usually be explained as an ellipsis of a word for ‘house’,
likewise at 309, 482, 593 (La Roche 1893, 196; Schw. 2.120; Chantr. 2.104 f.; cf. 6.47n.).
— ἐνοπήν τε γόον τε: The acc. obj. of κιχάνω is normally a character, particularly in
descriptions of situations in the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (Arend 1933, 56);
here, however, ‘the use of abstract nouns having collective connotations reinforces the
expressive character of the phrase’ (Ruijgh/van Krimpen 1969, 128 [transl.]); on the
secondary focalizationP of descriptions of situations (from the point of view of the char-
acter arriving), 2.169–171n. – ἐνοπή means ‘clamor’ (3.2n.), γόος the ritual mourning
after a death, especially mourning by relatives (723, etc. [with n.]; likewise γοάω 664)
and the collective wailing (760); also occasionally without a ritual context as an action
158 ἱκέτεω:
͜ on the inflection, R 11.1; on the synizesis, R 7. — πεφιδήσεται: fut. of φείδομαι ‘let
someone live, spare someone’.
160 ἐς Πριάμοιο: ‘to/in Priam’s ⟨palace⟩’; ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1). — κίχεν: ‘found, came across’ (aor. of
κιχάνω).
78 Iliad 24
noun with κλαίειν: ‘the weeping, mourning’ (507, 524; Porzig 1942, 52, 86); see LfgrE
and in detail Derderian 2001, 31–52. On the synonym doubling, cf. 22.447 (κωκυτοῦ …
καὶ οἰμωγῆς, after the death of Hektor) and in general 48n.
161 VE = 6.247; ≈ Od. 4.74. — sons: According to 6.243b–250, the 50 sons and
12 daughters of Priam live together with their spouses in the royal palace;
additional information on the sons of Priam (genealogy, role in the Iliad):
6.244–246n.; 167–168n., 495–498n. — sitting around: 83–86n. — inside the
courtyard: In accord with the Homeric conception, the royal estate is fronted
by a fenced courtyard (aulḗ) used in part for agricultural purposes (cf. 9.475 f.,
24.640, Od. 17.296–299) in the same way that any Homeric dwelling included
a courtyard (cf. 452 f.): LfgrE s.v. αὐλή 1550.50 ff.; Knox 1973, 9–11; Mazarakis
Ainian 1997, 366. A detailed description of Priam’s palace: 6.242–250 (with
nn.); on the location of the palace in the highest part of Troy (‘Pergamos’), cf.
700n., 6.512n.
παῖδες μὲν …: asyndetically connected with 160b: a closer specification of ἐνοπήν τε
γόον τε (cf. 710n.).
162 tears: On the different expressions of grief, see 4n.; on the present phrasing,
cf. esp. Od. 17.103, 18.173, 19.596.
ὃ δ’ ἐν μέσσοισι: an emphatic nominal clause: ‘but he (was, sat) in the middle, the old
man, …’; on ἐν μέσσοισι, 84n. — γεραιός: a metrical variant for γέρων (164n.), likewise
frequently used in lieu of a personal name and positioned at VE (1.35n.); here in apposi-
tion to the demonstrative ὅ (cf. e.g. 126 ἣ δὲ … πότνια μήτηρ).
163 mantle: Together with the chiton (‘tunic, shirt’), the mantle (Greek chlaína)
is a standard part of male dress (van Wees 2005, 1–3); additional properties:
with one or two (folded) layers (on this, see 230–231n. and 3.126n.), also used
as a woolen blanket for sleeping (646); in general, see Marinatos 1967, 9 f.;
Laser 1968, 11 f. – On the depiction of veiled mourning in ancient literature
and art, Peppmüller and Richardson; Huber 2001, 120, 149, 207 f.; cf. 93n.
and Od. 8.85.
ἐντυπάς: A Homeric hapaxP, obscure already in antiquity, usually understood ‘so tight-
ly as to leave an imprint (τύπος)’ (schol. D; LfgrE): only a silhouette of Priam, who has
folded the mantle tightly around himself, is visible. Different interpretations: ‘pressed
into the ground, fallen down, cowering’ (LfgrE; Doederlein 3.362; Hooker [1979] 1996,
433 f.). – On the (similarly obscure) post-Homeric use of the term, Rengakos 1994, 81;
Castellaneta 2012. — ἀμφὶ δὲ πολλή: VE ἀμφὶ δὲ –× 32× Il., 29× Od., 11× Hes., 6×
h.Hom. (Clark 1997, 132 f.); cf. 4n., end (οὐδέ μιν –×).
161 πατέρ’ ἀμφί: = ἀμφὶ πατέρα (postpositive: R 20.2).

162 μέσσοισι: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
Commentary 79
164 Covering one’s head with dirt, dust or ashes and rolling around on the
ground (165; cf. 18.23–27, 22.414, 24.640, Od. 24.316 f.) are among the most em-
phatic gestures of mourning – signs of (self-)humiliation – with numerous
parallels in Near Eastern culture (Kutsch [1965] 1986; Parker 1983, 41, 68;
Lateiner 1995, 33 f.; West 1997, 340; Derderian 2001, 28 f., with further bibli-
ography in n. 58; Richardson on 22.414; Macleod). — the aged man: ‘the old
man’, Greek (ho) gérōn, frequently serves in both narrator textP and character
languageP as a periphrastic denominationP for Priam (and other characters, es-
pecially Nestor, Phoinix, and Laërtes in the Odyssey; a list in Dee 2000, 510 f.),
and occasionally has a thematic function (e.g. at 22.37/75/77, cf. below, 411n.,
486–489n.; de Jong [1987] 2004, 285 n. 6). It is also used as an epithet in con-
junction with an explicit mention of the name (22.25, 24.217, 24.777, etc.; all
examples: LfgrE s.v. Priamos 1544.41 ff.).
τοῖο γέροντος: VE = 9.469, 11.620, 24.577, Od. 4.410, 24.387; cf. τοῖο ἄνακτος Il. 11.322,
etc., τοῖο θεοῖο Od. 21.258. – ὁ is here probably merely a definite article: AH on Od.
3.388; Chantr. 2.164; Schmidt 2004, 18–20; Basset 2006, 111, 115 f.; G 99 (differently
e.g. Faesi: deictic, ‘expresses sympathetic interest’ [transl.]).
165 2nd VH ≈ Od. 5.482; VE = Od. 8.148 (cf. Il. 23.99). — ἑῇσιν: On the v.l. φίλῃσι, cf. 23.99,
Od. 5.482, Hes. Th. 283, h.Cer. 41. On the alternation ἑός/φίλος, see especially Il. 3.244
with n.; Leaf vol. 1, p. 564; Erbse 1960, 327 f.
166 The daughters and daughters-in-law mainly mourn for Hektor and the other
slain sons of Priam, i.e. their brothers or husbands, but also for all other fallen
individuals (namely the husbands of Priam’s daughters, i.e. Trojans who are
not sons of Priam); cf. Richardson. – On the status of widows in Homeric
epic, cf. 725n. — up and down the house: apparently in contrast to the men in
the courtyard (161; Martinazzoli), whereas at the return of Hektor’s corpse,
the women leave the house just like the men (707 ff.). Cf. 717n. (mourning gen-
erally takes place in the home).
ἰδὲ νυοί: νυός ‘daughter-in-law’ < *snuso- (IE heritage word: Latin nurus, obsolete
German Schnur). The original initial s- is apparently still prosodically effective here, see
G 16 and LfgrE (with bibliography), but without effect at 3.49, 22.65, Od. 3.451. – On ἰδέ
‘and’, 2.511n.
164 ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). — κεφαλῇ … αὐχένι: locative dat. after ἀμφί (‘around his head … neck’).
— τοῖο: = τοῦ.
165 τήν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5); κόπρος is fem. — καταμήσατο: ‘heaped
on himself’ (from κατ-αμάομαι). — ἑῇσιν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4); on
the inflection, R 11.1.
166 ἀνά: ‘throughout’. — ἰδέ: ‘and’.
80 Iliad 24
167–168 The motif ‘many (sons/brothers/husbands) have fallen’ produces a

tragic moment in the Iliad (Griffin 1976, passim; 1980, 123 ff.; Crotty 1994,
35 f.); it occurs frequently in connection with Priam, the father robbed of his
sons par excellence: 22.44 f., 22.423 ff., 24.204 f., 24.255 ff., 24.479, 24.493 ff. –
The Iliad reports the death of eleven of Priam’s sons: Polydoros (20.407 ff.),
Lykaon (21.34 ff.) and Hektor (22.361) die at the hands of Achilleus; Antiphos,
Chromios, Demokoon, Doryklos, Echemmon, Gorgythion, Isos and Kebriones
are killed by other Achaians (see CH 8 n. 28 and character index; passages in
Macleod on 498); in the Iliad, the deaths of Mestor and Troïlos are assumed to
have already taken place (257n.).
167 1st VH ≈ 9. — as they remembered: 4n.
πολέες τε καὶ ἐσθλοί: an inflectible expression (6.452n.); in the present context, cf. esp.
22.44. – ἐσθλός means ‘capable, splendid’ (19.122n. with bibliography).
168 = 13.763; 1st VH = 8.359; cf. also 17.616, 24.638. — at the hands …: ‘at the hands
of someone’ is a formulaic combination for indicating the person who caused a
violent death, cf. 638. — Argives: a term for the ‘Greeks’ beside ‘Achaians’ and
‘Danaäns’ (1.2n.; Latacz [2001] 2004, 133 f., 135 f.).
χερσὶν ὕπ(ο): On ὑπό + dat. with the function of an instrumental (‘under the effect
of’), see Schw. 2.526; Chantr. 2 140; Aliffi 2002. VB χερσὶν ὕπ(ο)/ὕφ’ in total 9× Il., 1×
‘Hes.’ Sc.; list of the attested formulations in Aliffi loc. cit. 422 f. (most commonly after
χερσὶν ὕπο: χέρσ’ ὕπο [VB], ὑπὸ χερσί(ν) [within the verse, usually after caesura A 4 or
C 1], cf. v. 638). — ψυχάς ὀλέσαντες: The exact sense of ψυχή in expressions like the
present one is disputed, perhaps – as is also the case with θυμός – simply = ‘life’, cf.
11.334 θυμοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς κεκαδών (1.3n.; Warden 1971; differentiation in Garland 1981
[with bibliography]; Jahn 1987, 27–38; Sullivan 1995, 77–90; differently Clarke 1999,
130–136: ‘breath’). – Phrases with ψυχή in the context of ‘dying’ vary widely in Homer
and are often unique (list in Jahn loc. cit. 33 f.); in contrast, phrases with θυμός are
markedly more formulaic (including the inflectible VE formula θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι: 8× Il., 1×
Od.; ὤλεσε θυμόν 3× Il. [638n.]). The same applies to expressions for killing: 754 ἐξέλετο
ψυχήν, 22.257 ψυχὴν ἀφέλωμαι, Od. 22.444 ψυχὰς ἐξαφέλησθε (1× each), but ἐξείλετο
θυμόν (2× Il., 2× Od.), ἐκ θυμὸν ἑλέσθαι (inflectible, 6× Il., 2× Od.).
169–170 Elements 5 and 6 of the type-sceneP ‘delivery of a message’ (143–188n.):
the messenger approaches and delivers the message. – Iris here appears to
167 μιμνησκόμεναι, οἵ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2); on the uncontracted
form, R 6.
168 χερσὶν ὕπ(ο): = ὑπὸ χερσίν (R 20.2); to be taken with ὀλέσαντες. — κέατο: = ἔκειντο (impf.;
R 16.2).
169 παρὰ Πρίαμον … ἠδὲ προσηύδα: on the variable prosody of the initial mute + liquid, M 4.5.
— ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4).
Commentary 81
Priam as she did to Hektor at 11.197–199 (and Athene to Achilleus at 1.197 f.

[see ad loc.]), namely with no change of form and visible and audible to him
alone, cf. 223 and in general Od. 16.161 (AH; Hainsworth on Il. 11.199; Janko
on 15.247–251; Kullmann 1956, 101 f.; Pucci [1985] 1998, 71–76 with n. 4; Bierl
2004b, 44–46; cf. the discussion in Turkeltaub 2007, 59 n. 23); in contrast,
with a change of form at 2.786 ff., 3.121 ff. (with n.; cf. below 347–348n.). — mes-
senger of Zeus: cf. 133.
στῆ δὲ παρὰ …: On the sentence structure, cf. 7.46 ≈ 8.280, 12.353 ≈ 17.707 (all with a
part.: ἰών, κιών, θέων), Od. 17.414 (with no part., as here); in these cases, παρά is con-
strued with the acc. or dat. (Chantr. 2.121 f.).
170 2nd VH ≈ 3.34 (with n.), 14.506, Od. 18.88. — in a small voice: Iris lowers
her voice in order to behave sensitively and in a restrained manner toward the
grieving Priam (Peppmüller on 159 ff.; AH; Lynn-George 1996, 3; cf. 88n.; dif-
ferently van Leeuwen and Macleod: Iris speaks quietly in order not to be over-
heard by the other characters present, but see 169–170n.). On the notion that
gods generally have loud voices (e.g. 19.250), see Krapp 1964, 136 ff.; in con-
trast, soft noises and the like are quite rare in early epic, cf. also 3.155 (with n.),
Od. 14.492 f., h.Merc. 145: Krapp loc. cit. 222 f.; Kaimio 1977, 37 f. — shivers:
Fear, or astonishment (e.g. 1.199), is a common reaction to divine epiphanies
(Griffin 1980, 151–156; Richardson on h.Cer. 188–190 and 190 [with exam-
ples]); in the case of Priam, the reaction is amplified by the psychological
stress he is already under: schol. bT; Deichgräber 1972, 50.
φθεγξαμένη: The action of the aor. part. can coincide temporally with that of the predi-
cate (here προσηύδα): ‘speaking quietly, she addressed him; she addressed him in a soft
voice’; similarly e.g. 3.139, 6.72, 6.337 f. Bibliography: Schw. 2.300 f.; Chantr. 2.187–189;
Rijksbaron [1984] 2002, 125; Macleod. — ἔλλαβε: On the connection of abstract nouns
with verbs of grasping, see 5n.; of ‘shivering’ also at 3.34, 6.137, 19.14, etc.
171 2nd VH ≈ 152, 181, 563 (cf. also Od. 4.825 ≈ h.Ven. 193); VE ≈ Il. 21.288. — On
the divine encouragement ‘do not be afraid!’ (here in the form of a rhetorical
polar expressionP: ‘be bold and do not be afraid!’), cf., in addition to the iter
ata, 15.254, Od. 7.50 f., 13.362, h.Hom. 7.55 (Griffin 1980, 153 f.; Near Eastern
parallels in Rollinger 1996, 185–190, and West 1997, 185).
Δαρδανίδη Πρίαμε: an inflectible expression in the verse middle and at VB (7× Il.); at
354 Δαρδανίδη alone. Priam is a great-great-great-grandson of Dardanos (CH 8; on the
genealogy, cf. 349n.). — τάρβει: 152n.
170 τυτθόν: ‘little’ > ‘quiet’. — τὸν … γυῖα: acc. of the whole and the part (R 19.1); on the ana-
phoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17. — ἔλλαβε: on the -λλ-, R 9.1.
171 μηδέ τι: ‘and … in no way’ (152n.).
82 Iliad 24
172 κακὸν ὀσσομένη: probably not concretely of an ‘evil, threatening look’ (thus Rakoczy
1996, 53) but of the ‘mental eye’, as at 1.105 (see ad loc.): ‘foreshadowing evil, ominous’
(AH; Doederlein 2.257) or possibly – in antithesis to 173 ἀγαθὰ φρονέουσα – ‘with an evil
message in mind’ (LfgrE s.v. ὄσσομαι 835.18 f. [transl.] following Plamböck 1959, 101). —
τόδ’ ἱκάνω: τόδε is either an acc. of destination (‘I have come here’: Peppmüller; La
Roche 1861, 89 f.; Janko on 14.298–299) or acc. of content (‘internal acc.’, i.e. ≈ ταύτην
τὴν ἄφιξιν ἱκάνω: AH; Bekker 1872, 38 f.; Schw. 2.68 n. 1, 2.77; Macleod: ‘I have come
〈on〉 this 〈errand〉’).
173a ἀγαθὰ φρονέουσα: ‘meaning well’ (likewise at Od. 1.43; differently Il. 6.162, see
6.161–162n.): Böhme 1929, 48 f.; cf. 1.73n.
173b–174 = 2.26b–27 (and 175a ≈ 2.28a) – perhaps in reference to the events in
Book 2: 172 f. would make it ‘very clear that Iris’ words to Priam refer, with
a positive contrast, to the menacing formulations of the dream [that came to
Agamemnon]’ (Bergold 1977, 14 n. 1 [transl.]; Macleod, Introd. 33). On addi-
tional links between Books 2 and 24, see 133n.
174 who far away cares much for you and is pitiful: 19n., 2.27n.; on the ‘spec-
tator’ function of the gods, cf. 23n.
175–187 ≈ 146–158. Necessary modifications: 175 syntax, 178/181/182/183 pronouns, 182
syntax (on ὀπάζω/ἕπομαι, see 153n., end). On the effect of speech repetitions, 118–
119n.
175 Ἕκτορα δῖον: On the noun-epithet formula, 22n.
188–237a Priam immediately has his chariot made ready, and in the treasure-room
selects the gifts for Achilleus. Hekabe attempts to dissuade her husband from his
dangerous plan, but Priam is determined to go.
188–190 The immediate execution of an order (with no response to the messen-
ger) is the rule in Homeric epic (1.345n.); this applies to epiphany scenes in
particular (2.182–183n.). – The departure of the god is mentioned explicitly (so
also for Hermes at 468, 694); cf. 1.221–222n.
188 = 8.425, 11.210, 18.202; ≈ 5.133, Od. 1.139, 6.41 (γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη); 1st VH in total = 8× Il.,
4× Od.; also ≈ Il. 15.405 (τὸν …), 21.298 (τὼ …). — On the verse structure (ἣ δὲ … μήτηρ),
126n.; on the VE formula, 87n.
172 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

174 σε(ο): = σου (R 14.1); gen. dependent on κήδεται (ἠδ’ ἐλεαίρει). — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6). — μέγα:
adverbial, ‘very’.
175–187 ≈ 146–158 (see ad loc.).
188 ὠκέα (ϝ)ῖρις: on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 83
189–328 Type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (19.392–424n. with bibliography; on the pres-

ent passage also Edwards 1975, 54–61); basic form: (1) harnessing the hors-
es (occasionally divided, as here, into instructions at 189 ff. and execution at
281 f.; see below), (2) mounting the chariot (322), (3) grasping the reins, (4)
spurring on the horses (326), (5) departure or journey, movement of the horses
(323 ff.). – Here the scene is strongly retardedP (Krischer 1971, 143 f.; Reichel
1990, 130): in element 1, the selection of gifts from the treasure-room (191–
237a) has been added as an important component of the undertaking (cf. inter
alia Od. 6.74–80: Nausikaa loads clothes and provisions); the preparation of
the wagon is meanwhile suspended, reactivated by Priam’s speech of rebuke
252–264 (repeated orders), and subsequently described in extenso (266–274
with n.); cf. ‘continuity of time’ principleP. – Between elements 1 and 2, again
in proportion to the significance and magnitude of the undertaking, a detailed
scene of libations and omens has been inserted, as is frequently the case prior
to a departure or a setting out for battle, similarly 16.220–254, Od. 15.147–181
(Bowra 1952, 185 f.; Stockinger 1959, 112 f.; Gunn 1970, 195 f.; Edwards loc.
cit.; Reucher 1983, 432; Reece 1993, 37 ff.). Book 24 is accordingly sometimes
termed ‘Priam’s aristeia’ (cf. the various interpretations in Kummer 1961, 34,
43; Minchin 1986, 16 f.; Danek 1988, 210 with n. 75). – On elements 2 to 5, see
322–328n.
189–280 ‘The poet binds the following actions closely together by means of a
ring-form structure’ (Edwards 1987, 306): (a) Priam’s initial orders at 189 f. (in
indirect speech), (b) the gifts in the treasure-room at 191 f., (c) Priam speaks
with Hekabe at 193–199, (d) Hekabe’s reply at 200–216, (c’) Priam speaks with
Hekabe at 217–227, (b’) the gifts in the treasure-room at 228–237a, (a’) Priam’s
repeated orders (in direct speech) and preparation of the wagon at 237b–280.
189 2nd VH = 266, Od. 6.72. — his sons: At 3.259 f., it is Priam’s helpers (with-
out closer specification) who prepare the wagon (probably not merely because
the sons are on the battlefield at the time: thus LfgrE s.v. ἑταῖρος 754.45 ff.), at
5.722 ff. it is Hebe (for Hera; CG 38), at Od. 6.69/71 ‘servants’ (for Nausikaa).
The instruction of the sons is appropriate in the context of the ‘family mat-
ter’ here, while also allowing a contrasting characterization of Priam and his
sons, and Hektor and his brothers (253–264n., 260–262n.). — mule wagon:
266–274n.
ἡμιονείην: A derivation from an animal name in accord with the type of material ad-
jectives in -εος/-ειος, like αἴγεος/αἴγειος, βόεος/βόειος, etc. (Schmid 1950, 23–28; Risch
132).
189 ὅ γ(ε): Priam.

84 Iliad 24
190 2nd VH ≈ 267. — ὁπλίσαι: On the meaning, 19.172a n. (to make ready a wagon or ship,
prepare for a journey; prepare a meal; arm for battle). — πείρινθα: a superstructure or
box, strapped onto the wagon for transport of goods so that items are kept from falling
off; its exact nature is uncertain (Plath 1994, 312–316; LfgrE). Pre-Greek, as with other
words denoting items of material culture in -νθ- (Risch 174; Hoekstra on Od. 15.131;
LfgrE).
191–237a Type-sceneP ‘visit to the treasury’ (de Jong on Od. 21.5–62 and p. 598),
in the Iliad also at 6.288–295 (Hekabe). The elements realized are: (1) enter-
ing the chamber: 191, (2/3) description of the room and its contents: 191 f.,
(4) reference to the key/caretaker, (5) selection of items: 228 ff., (6) history and
(7) particular value of one of the items: 234–235a and 235b–237, (8) return (cf.
236–237a n.). The present scene is expanded by retardation via the dialogue
between Priam and Hekabe (193–227).
191 = Od. 15.99; ≈ Il. 6.288; 2nd VH ≈ 3.382. — he … went into the storeroom:
Storerooms – here referring to a type of ‘treasure-room’ – were located beneath
the living quarters (basement): Wace 1951, 203, 207; 1962, 490. Mentioned as
the contents of such storerooms are the following: metals, containers, textiles,
oil/wine (see esp. 228 ff., Od. 2.337 ff.).
κατεβήσετο: a thematic s-aorist; on the (disputed) development of the form, see
3.262n., end. — κηώεντα: probably ‘fragrant’ (3.382n.), in the context of textile storage
(229–231) perhaps of a substance for protection from moths: 6.288n. – The sequence of
three attributes with enjambmentP (191 f.) serves to fill the verse, while at the same time
lending emphasis (2.42–43n.; collection of examples in Blom 1936, 36 f.; bibliography
on asyndetic clusters of epithets in general: 125n.); cf. 157n.
192 cedar: Greek kédros usually – as probably here – denotes the juniper
(Juniperus), which belongs to the genus of cypresses and is represented in the
Mediterranean by several common species, but occasionally also the ‘cedar’
that goes by the same name still today (BNP s.vv. Cedrus and Juniper; Meiggs
1982, 410–416; Zohary 1982, 104–107). Both have durable, hard, reddish, fra-
grant wood (among the junipers, this particularly applies to the Greek juniper;
cf. Meiggs loc. cit. 54 f.; Al-Refai et al. 2002). Juniper wood was used in the
construction of the royal tomb at Gordion, cedar wood for Ishtar’s house in
the epic of Gilgamesh (tablet 6.13) and for Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:15–18;
Meiggs loc. cit. 292 f., 458–460; Zohary loc. cit.).
190 ἠνώγει: plpf. of the perf. with pres. sense ἄνωγα ‘tell, order’ (with acc.-inf. construction).
191 κατεβήσετο: ≈ κατέβη (aor.).
192 ὑψόροφον: ‘high-roofed’. — κεχόνδει: 3rd pers. sing. plpf. of χανδάνω ‘contain, hold’ (with
perf. with pres. sense).
Commentary 85
κέδρινον: On material adjectives in -ινος, see Risch 100; cf. 269 πύξινος. — ὑψόροφον,
ὅς: on the prosody, 84n.; on ὑψόροφος ‘high-roofed’, 3.423n. (always of the buildings
of wealthy, noble individuals). — γλήνεα: related etymologically to γελάω ‘laugh’,
i.e. ‘(gleaming) treasures, precious objects’ (Richardson; cf. Mader 1970, 182 ff.: ‘ob-
jects that produce radiance and pride’). — κεχόνδει: the original form probably thus
(here transmitted only in a papyrus) rather than the more common -χαν-, cf. λέλογχα,
πέπονθα: Wackernagel (1891) 1953, 825; Chantr. 1.427; Frisk s.v. χανδάνω.
193–227 The conversation between Priam and Hekabe, like e.g. 1.201–219
(Achilleus/Athene), shows the pattern A–B–A’ (Blom 1936, 41) and has a re-
tardantP effect (cf. 189–328n.). – In the discussion, possible reactions to Zeus’
instructions and their consequences are voiced (with negative aspects offered
mostly by Hekabe). Priam’s reaction naturally defines the further action: not
only does he accept Zeus’ orders, but he defends them against obstacles. The
insecurity on the part of the characters involved and their concern in view of
the danger of the undertaking nonetheless become evident in a psychologically
plausible manner; in this way, the narrator maintains suspense in his audience
regarding the course and outcome of the undertaking. The same suspense is
conveyed via the libation with a plea for a bird omen (283 ff.), as well as via the
‘funeral procession’ for the departing Priam (327 f.); see Macleod on 181–187
and Richardson on 175–187; Taplin 1992, 264 f. (on ‘suspense’, cf. 146–158n.).
193–199 Priam appears determined to visit Achilleus (198n., 217–227n. [esp. 218 f.,
224b–227]): he is already in the midst of his preparations – the conversation
takes place in the treasure-room – and states his intentions only briefly (too
briefly for Hekabe: 200–216n.); his question regarding Hekabe’s opinion likely
represents simply a request for agreement and support (schol. bT on 194–199;
Macleod on 218–224; Deichgräber 1972, 52).
193 A unique speech introduction formulaP (Richardson, although the 2nd VH follows
a common pattern; see below on φώνησέν τε); on the ‘summoning’, cf. esp. 3.161
(VE: Ἑλένην ἐκαλέσσατο φωνῇ), Od. 19.15 (VB: ἐκ δὲ καλεσσάμενος), 22.436 (VB: εἰς ἓ
καλεσσάμενος); tmesis of ἐς is rare in Homeric epic (Haug 2012, 99 f.). — ἄλοχον: picked
up by γυνή at 200: the conversation is to be understood as one between spouses (cf.
de Jong [1987] 2004, 199) and thus as spatially separate from the rest of the house-
hold. — Ἑκάβην: at 6.293, 16.718 and here, initial digamma appears to affect the pros-
ody (6.293n.; Janko on 16.716–720); differently 22.430, 24.283, 24.747. — φώνησέν τε: a
VE formula: 17× Il., 17× Od., 2× h.Hom., including 30× (as here) with a verb preceding,
usually middle (-ατο/-ετο); frequently ‘a repetition merely for filling the verse’, e.g. 353
φάτο φώνησέν τε (Führer 1967, 16 [transl.]).
193 ἐς … ἐκαλέσσατο: ‘call (someone) in’ (cf. 191 ἐς θάλαμον); on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἄλοχον (ϝ)
εκάβην: on the prosody, R 4.5.
86 Iliad 24
194 2nd VH ≈ 561; VE: 4× Il., 3× Od. — δαιμονίη: The adjective originally meant ‘be under
the influence of a δαίμων’; the nuance here, as often (cf. 1.561n.), is uncertain, but at any
rate no reaction implying that the other character is behaving in an incomprehensible
behavior is recognizable, as at 2.190 (see ad loc.; LfgrE; differently Leaf and Verdenius
1959, 147: anticipation of Hekabe’s violent reaction). It is likely to be understood as an
intimate address of appeal (Macleod following Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 12 ff.; LfgrE;
older interpretations in Brunius-Nilsson loc. cit. 13); used between spouses also at
6.407/486 (Hektor and Andromache), Od. 23.166/174/264 (Odysseus and Penelope). –
The theory according to which δαιμονίη faded to a ‘discourse particle’ – with the sense
‘good god!, god almighty!’, Latin mehercule, English ‘oh my God!’ (Brown 2014) –
cannot be proven in the absence of clear parallels. — Ὀλύμπιος: 140n.; together with
Διόθεν, it defines the origin and authority of the messenger. — ἄγγελος ἦλθεν: an in-
flectible phrase (ἄ. ἦλθε(ν), ἐλθών, ἔλθω), 9× in early epic at VE, 3× in verse middle
(similarly 23.199 μετάγγελος ἦλθ’), 2× at VB. Here with infinitive of purpose, as at 11.715
= 18.167; cf. 118n. (on λύσασθαι).
195–196 = 118 f. (see ad loc.), 146 f.; ≈ 175 f. (and cf. 194 with 145 and 173b).
197 1st VH: 6× Il., 13× Od. (cf. 380n.); 2nd VH ≈ Od. 9.11 (μοι κάλλιστον ἐνὶ φρεσὶν εἴδεται
εἶναι). — τί τοι …: ‘what do you personally think of it?’; on the colloquial style, Macleod
and Richardson; on φρεσίν, Jahn 1987, 238 f. (‘emphasis on a personal, independent
component in the course of mental activities’ [transl.]).
198 ≈ 22.346. — me: The agreement between divine instructions and human
wishes is termed double motivationP, but divine intervention is generally the
trigger at the beginning of an action (1.55n., 2.169–171n.), even if here it only
serves as further reinforcement: Priam stated his intentions of his own accord
already at 22.412–429 (cf. Reinhardt 1961, 467 f.; Macleod, Introd. 21 f.). On
the role of the thymós (here something like ‘courage’) as an independent hu-
man seat of authority which can at the same time be open to divine influence,
see Pelliccia 1995, 250–268 (e.g. 9.702 f., 13.68–75).
αἰνῶς: normally with verbs of fearing (e.g. 1.555, 19.23, 24.358), used metaphorically
with other verbs of mental agitation: ‘much’ (like Engl. ‘terribly, awfully’); cf. ἐκπάγλως
2.357n. — μένος καὶ θυμός: an inflectible formula in connection with verbs of exhor-
tation and ordering (nom.: 3× Il.; acc.: 10× Il., 1× Od., 1× h.Cer.; Jahn 1987, 40 f.), always
after caesura B 2. On the metrical variant κραδίη καὶ θυμός, see 2.171n. (where also on
the synonym doubling); for detailed discussion of the terms μένος and θυμός, 6.72n. —
θυμὸς ἄνωγεν: an inflectible VE formula (11× Il., 6× Od., 1× Hes.).
194 Διόθεν: on the suffix -θεν, R 15 1.

195–196 ≈ 118–119 (with n.).
197 τόδε (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3. — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — εἴδεται: from *εἴδω (whence aor.
εἶδον ‘see’); the pres. mid. is exclusively poetic: ‘appears, seems’.
Commentary 87
199 The thrice specified indication of direction ‘emphasizes the dangerousness of

the journey’ (AH [transl.]; so too Martinazzoli); cf. 10.220 f., 24.565 f.
ἔσω …: pregnant variation of the VE formula κατὰ/μετὰ/ἀνὰ στρατὸν εὐρὺν Ἀχαιῶν
(1.229n.): ‘into the middle of the camp’.
200–216 Hekabe receives Priam’s speech in a selective and distorted manner:
she ignores the fact that this is an order from Zeus (194) and pessimistical-
ly perceives the dangers above all else (e.g. 203 ‘alone’); the name ‘Achilleus’
(196), which she herself does not use, conjures up an image of horror in her
mind’s eye (207 f., 211) because of Achilleus’ conduct when he killed Hektor
(observed by Hekabe: 22.405–407); in regard to her son (195), she stresses
heroic qualities (214–216n.). The graphic style (esp. 212 f.) and numerous en-
jambmentsP attest to Hekabe’s deep desperation and bitterness (Richardson);
the fear of losing her husband in addition to her son induces passionate ha-
tred and an urge for revenge on Achilleus (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 343 f.). –
Formally, this is a speech of protest: (1) Hekabe questions (Priam’s) suggestion
(201–205), (2) highlights its possible consequences (206–208a) and (3) pro-
poses an alternative course of action (208b–216): Minchin 2007, 149, 158 f.
Inasmuch as the speech is an attempt to dissuade another person from a dan-
gerous path, it can be specifically termed a schetliasmos (likewise Od. 2.361–
370 with a somewhat similar choice of words, also Od. 5.202–213: Krischer
1997, 106–111; see 6.407–465n.). On the role of women in the Iliad, frequent-
ly admonishing or restraining, see Kakridis (1956) 1971, 70–74; Farron 1979
(ad loc.: 26 f.).
200 1st VH = Od. 2.361; 2nd VH = Od. 15.434/439; VE in total 2× Il., 3× Od.; ≈ 5× Od., 2×
h.Cer. (ἠμείβετο). — On the speech capping formulaP ‘spoke’ + reaction of the addressee,
see 1.33n., 2.333–335n.; Finkelberg 1989, 182 f.; Arnould 1990, 173 f. Expansion of the
scheme by a speech introduction formulaP as a third element in the same verse is com-
paratively rare: 3 181 (with n.), 10.328, 14.270, 17.33, 24.424, Od. 24.513, h.Ap. 61; similarly
Od. 9.506, 11.59 (cf. Edwards 1970, 9 f.). — κώκυσεν: κωκύω occurs elsewhere mostly in
the context of a lament by women, e.g. Hekabe at 22.407 and Kassandra at 24.703 upon
seeing the slain Hektor (see 19.284n.; cf. 591n.); here and at Od. 2.361 (Eurykleia before
Telemachos’ departure) an anticipated lament for the dead: expressing fear of not see-
ing the beloved person alive again (Martin 1989, 87 f.; LfgrE).
201–202 The image of losing one’s mind represents imprudent action or over-
powering emotion (Böhme 1929, 46; Snell 1978, 65 ff.; Sullivan 1988, 40 f.;
199 κεῖσ(ε): = ἐκεῖσε. — ἰέναι ἐπί: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ἔσω: ≈ εἰς.

200 κώκυσεν: ≈ ‘let out a cry (of lament)’ (aor.; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1).
201 ᾗς: = αἷς (R 11.1). — τὸ πάρος περ: ‘earlier, always before now’.
88 Iliad 24
Hershkowitz 1998, 130), frequently in the form ‘a god robbed someone of his
senses’ (6.234n., 19.137n.); on the phrasing ‘where has … gone?’, cf. 2.339n. and
Kelly 2007, 124 f. with additional parallels. – On accusations of madness in
general, see 114n. — in time before: Priam’s wisdom here serves as a rhetorical
foil for his current (supposed) misconduct: Macleod on 201–202; de Jong on
Od. 4.31–32 (both with additional parallels; also Archilochus fr. 172.2 f. West).
But it is also presupposed elsewhere in epic, e.g. 3.105–110: deliberateness and
reliability; 7.365–379: assertiveness in political discussion; 20.183: constancy
(differently West 2000, 489 f.: ‘comparison with the aged but active Nestor
does not favour Priam’; cf. 2.796–806n. with bibliography).
ᾤ μοι: an expression of various negative emotions such as indignation, mental an-
guish or fear (1.149n.); cf. 255. — ἔκλε(ο): from ἐκλέεο, hyphaeresis like 1.275 ἀποαίρεο,
Od. 2.202 μυθέαι, 4.811 πωλέαι: schol. A; G 42; Schw. 1.252 f.; Chantr. 1.73 f. — ἐπ’
ἀνθρώπους: ‘across the (whole) world’, usually after caesura A 2 and in connection
with κλέος (Nagy [1979] 1999, 37; cf. Chantr. 2.111); the epexegetic 2nd VH (‘along out-
landers and those you rule over’) forms a kind of polar expressionP (cf. Kemmer 1903,
91 f., with examples) and adds emphasis. — ξείνους: ‘strangers’ (on the usage in detail,
LfgrE). On the compensatory lengthening with a ‘false diphthong’ (ξεῖνος < *ξένϝος), see
G 27.
203–205 ≈ 519–521 (Achilleus speaks), see ad loc.
203 alone: emphatic at VE (Richardson). Although Hekabe does not know that
Zeus has ordered that Priam go to Achilleus on his own – or accompanied only
by a herald (Priam does not mention this at 194 ff.) – this assumption is self-ev-
ident at 198 f. (thus Richardson and Shiffman 1992 contra Macleod, who
suspects a paralepsisP [or ‘transference’: de Jong on Od., p. xviii] here); simi-
larly 1.380b–381 (with n.).
πῶς ἐθέλεις: similarly 4.26 πῶς ἐθέλεις ἅλιον θεῖναι πόνον (Hera addressing Zeus in
anger), Od. 9.494 τίπτ’ ἐθέλεις ἐρεθιζέμεν (sc. the Cyclops: the companions alerting
Odysseus), 19.482 τίη μ’ ἐθέλεις ὀλέσαι (Odysseus addressing Eurykleia when she rec-
ognizes him): ‘a question of reluctant surprise; πῶς questions the probability of the
action in question: «how can you want?»’ (AH on Il. 4.26 [transl.]), ‘how can you enter-
tain the idea?’ (Clark 1997, 228). – Asyndetic lists of questions (here 201 f./203–205) are
common in epic, e.g. also at Od. 1.170 ff., 3.248 ff., 13.200 ff.: an expression of emotion
(Führer 1967, 140–143). — ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: 118n.
202 ἔκλε(ο): ‘you were renowned’ (from κλέομαι). — ἠδ’ οἷσιν: ≈ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτους, οἷς (cf. R 24.4
and R 11.2).
203 ἐλθέμεν: inf. (R 16.4).
Commentary 89
204 a man: In the Iliad, Achilleus is called ‘man’ 20× (lists in Shive 1987, 140 ff.;
Dee 2000, 134), usually in direct speechP, in which cases occasionally with
a pejorative attribute (207, 212, 506; cf. inter alia 21.314 ‘savage man’, 21.536
‘ruinous man’) or – as here – with a relative clause (Ruijgh 307). For more on
the subject, see 1.78–79n. (avoidance of the name); 1.287n. (‘this man’ in a pe-
jorative sense); Richardson on 22.38–39 (paraphrases for ‘Achilleus’).
ἐς ὀφθαλμούς: cf. 463 ὀφθαλμοὺς εἴσειμι and, used as a contrast, 23.53 ἀπ’ ὀφθαλμῶν;
also 206n. — πολέας …: on the expression, 167n.; on the form πολέας, Chantr. 1.220 f.
205 ≈ 521; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 23.172 (cf. Il. 22.357). — iron: In early epic, iron (sídēros)
is relatively rare compared to the ubiquitous bronze (chalkós); its appearance
can be traced to the influence of the contemporary environment of the poet
of the Iliad (the so-called Iron Age; see 6.3n., 6.48n.; LfgrE s.v. σίδηρος; Gray
1954; Forbes 1967, 29–33; Sherratt 1990, 810 f.). Metaphorically, iron repre-
sents hardness (Müller 1974, 119 f.; LfgrE s.v. σιδήρεος), with two – not always
clearly distinct – connotations: (a) enduring strength: ‘tireless, unwavering’
(e.g. Eurykleia at Od. 19.493 f.; cf. ‘heart of bronze’ at 2.490n.), (b) unrelenting
callousness: ‘uncharitable, merciless’ (e.g. Kalypso at Od. 5.190 f. [negated],
Thanatos at Hes. Th. 764 f.). Here and at Od. 23.172 (Penelope’s behavior to-
ward Odysseus), perhaps approximately ‘persistent, obstinate’, in the reprise
of the present phrase by Achilleus at 521 ‘imperturbable’ (cf. Williams 1993,
39; Dentice di Accadia 2012, 272 f.). – On the formulaic use of iron metaphors
in early epic, Létoublon/Montanari 2004, 33–37 (cf. iterata).
The plus-verse after 205, offered in schol. A and T with slight variations (ἀθάνατοι
ποίησαν Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχοντες), can be explained as an (unnecessary) syntactic sup-
plement to the nominal clause in the 2nd VH of 205 (Leaf; Bolling 1925, 202 f.; cf. 45n.).
— νυ: ‘now indeed, surely’, ‘used in an agitated state of mind’ (K.-G. 2.119 [transl.]; also
especially in passionate questions, cf. 1.414n.).
σιδήρειον: On the form, cf. 21n. (χρυσείῃ).
206 2nd VH ≈ 5.212. — αἱρήσει καὶ ἐσόψεται: Interpreted as a hysteron proteron by schol.

bT: first ‘catch sight of’, then ‘hold’ (so too Macleod; Richardson; cf. 100n., end).
Differently AH: at the moment when Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters, he is so to speak
at the latter’s mercy, and ‘catching sight’ implies that Achilleus recognizes him; simi-
larly LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 369.58 ff. (‘if he catches you …’, cf. Od. 19.154 f.: the suitors ‘catch’
Penelope in her weaving ploy); cf. Leaf; Martinazzoli. — ὀφθαλμοῖσιν: like ἐν ὀφθ.
(on this, 294n.), emphatic with verbs of seeing, etc. (206, 246, 294/312, 555), indicating
autopsy (cf. 223n.; 19.173–174n.) or – as here – emotion (cf. AH Anh. on Od. 4.47; 555n.).
204 πολέας: = πολλούς (R 12.2).

205 υἱέας: on the inflection, R 12.3.
90 Iliad 24
207a savage: Greek ōmēstḗs ‘eating raw flesh’ (AH: ‘blood-thirsty’) touches on

a motif Hekabe will apply to herself a few verses later to indicate her thirst
for revenge: ‘to eat the enemy raw’ (212 f. with n.; Taplin 1992, 265). On the
accusation of barbarity directed specifically at Achilleus, cf. 39 ff. (speech by
Apollo).
ὠμηστὴς καὶ ἄπιστος ἀνὴρ ὅ γε: exclamatory explanatory parenthesis (schol. A; AH;
Leaf): ‘this … man!’ or ‘blood-thirsty … as he is’; prepares the notion that follows at
207b–208a (with n.): ὠμηστής corresponds approximately to οὔ σ’ ἐλεήσει (revenge
rather than mercy), ἄπιστος to οὐδέ τί σ’ αἰδέσεται (disregard of protected status). – On
the use and etymology of ὠμηστής, see 82n.
207b–208a ≈ 22.123 f. (Hektor on Achilleus). — will not take pity … | nor have
respect: With this expression, Hekabe implicitly shares Hektor’s concerns at
22.123 f. (an imagined reaction by Achilleus to an offer of a truce by Hektor),
while at the same time replying to Priam’s wish, already expressed at 22.418 f.,
to ask Achilleus for ‘respect’ and ‘mercy’. In addition, she indirectly contra-
dicts Zeus’ promise that Achilleus will recognize the supplicant’s status (157–
158n.). – On the connection between ‘mercy’ and ‘respect’ in general, see 44n.
208b–209a 1st VH of 209 ≈ 2.137, Od. 13.337, 18.316, 19.322, 21.100, h.Ap. 96. —
sit … in our palace: a painful but safe alternative to travelling to the Achaian
camp (AH); at the same time, it implies helplessness (Macleod; cf. 2.255n.).
The Greek expression en megárōi (or pl. -ois), literally ‘in the hall’ (the central
room of the Homeric house, see 3.125n.), is frequently synonymous with ‘at
home’ (with emotional rather than topographic overtones: Lauffer 1980, 211;
603–604n.); in general, mégaron has a broader meaning in early epic than the
technical archaeological term ‘megaron’ (Hiesel 1989, 237 ff.; Weiler 2001,
68 ff.). Additional bibliography: Wace 1962, 494; Knox 1973; Lauffer loc. cit.
208 ff.; Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 363 f.; Shear 2004, 33 f. – On the formularity
of the expression, cf. 1.396n.
νῦν δέ: ‘but now’, sc. since it is so (AH; 2.82n.; cf. 757n.). — ἄνευθεν: ≈ ‘far from Hektor,
in the absence of his body’, 211 ἑῶν ἀπάνευθε τοκήων is analogous (cf. the parallels at
211n.); on the (pathos-generating) motif ‘die abroad’ in general, 2.162n.
209b–210 Three images of fate are interwoven: (a) Moira as a divine force, (b) the
spinning of the thread of life, and (c) the determination of the course of a per-
son’s life (especially death) at the moment of birth. On (a) Moira, cf. 49n. (and
207 γε, οὔ: on the hiatus, R 5.6.

208 οὐδέ τι: τι strengthens the negation.
209 τῷ: i.e. Hektor. — ὥς: ‘so’. — ποθι: originally local (cf. R 15.2); translate ‘somehow, probably’
(like που).
Commentary 91
on the VE formula, 132n.). – The notion of (b) the thread of life is – like (c) – an
IE heritage, cf. the Norns in Nordic epic, the Roman Parcae, and the Klṓthes
‘Spinners’ at Od. 7.197; similarly Hes. Th. 904–906 (Onians [1951] 1988, 349 ff.;
Dietrich 1962 [a critical account of this at LfgrE s.v. Κλῶθες]; Tsagarakis 1977,
120–122; West 2007, 379–385; Hainsworth on Od. 7.198); metaphors from the
sphere of spinning and weaving are common in Greek (plan, ploy, etc.: e.g.
6.187n., 24.7n.), on its use in the present context, see Nilsson (1923/24) 1951,
386 f.; Müller 1974, 203–205; Clarke 1999, 251 f.; Collobert 2011, 61–65. – On
(c), in addition to the iterata (below, 210n.), see 1.418, 6.488 f., 10.70 f., 22.477,
23.78 f., 24.534 f., Od. 4.207 f., 24.28 f., Hes. Th. 218 f., Vit. Hom. Her. § 14 West
(= Hom. Epigr. 4.13); cf. the myth of Meleager (the prophecy of the log by the
Moirai on the seventh day after Meleager’s birth); additional information in
West loc. cit.
210 ≈ 20.128 (subject Αἶσα), Od. 7.198 (subject Αἶσα and Κλῶθες); VE ≈ Il. 15.198, 22.87,
22.353, Hes. Th. 208, h.Ap. 317. — γεινομένῳ: ‘during birth’; aor. part. with metrical
lengthening (West on Hes. Th. 82; Wyatt 1969, 119 f.). — αὐτή: αὐτός with ‘give birth
to, bring up’, etc. expresses an emotional connection and implies ‘my own child’, cf.
22.87 (LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1639.49 ff.).
211 Similar are Hekabe’s terrible apprehensions already at 22.86–89 (on the de-
tails, Segal 1971, 61 f.); cf. also 11.817 f. (Patroklos), 22.508 f. (Andromache). —
that the dogs … should feed on him: on this motif, 22n.
ἀργίποδας: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘swift-footed’ (cf. 1.50n.); ‘fast’ (ἀργός, ταχύς; 3.26n.)
is an ornamental epithetP of dogs, in the context of consuming corpses also at 11.818,
17.558, 18.283, 22.89; on the formation of the word, cf. 18.578 κύνες πόδας ἀργοί. – Like
πορφύρεος (645n.), ἀργός has two connotations: ‘swift; bright’; the dog name Argos
corresponds approximately to ‘Flash’ (Od. 17.292 ff.; see Irwin 1974, 215 f.; Russo on Od.
17.292). — ἆσαι: ‘to satiate’ (19.307n.); aor. inf. of a defective verb (cf. fut. ἄσεσθε 717);
epexegetic for ὥς in 209 (cf. 525 f.). — ἑῶν: 36–37a n. — ἀπάνευθε τοκήων: VE = Od.
9.36. On the motif, 208b–209a n., end.
212–213 1st VH of 212 ≈ 3.429, 5.244 (ἀνδρ- … κρατερ-) and Od. 11.490, 23.219,
h.Hom. 19.33 (ἀνδρὶ πάρ-). — his liver and eat it: The motif ‘eat the enemy raw’
(cf. Greek ōmēstḗs at 207) represents an unquenchable thirst for revenge and
always has a rhetorical function: here Hekabe’s wish (on the graphic style of
the speech, cf. 200–216n.; Macleod), 4.34–36 potential (Zeus on Hera, who
210 γεινομένῳ: to be taken with 209 τῷ; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). —
ἐπένησε: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἐπι-νέω ‘spin (for someone)’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).
211 ἑῶν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4). — τοκήων: on the form, R 3.
212 ἀνδρὶ πάρα: = παρ’ ἀνδρί (R 20.2). — μέσον: predicative with the sense ‘in the middle, up to
the middle’.
92 Iliad 24
is raging at the Trojans), 22.346 f. protestation (Achilleus addressing Hektor:

‘thus truly …’; see Leaf ad loc.; Combellack 1981; differently Goldhill 1991,
89 f.); parallels from later literature in Macleod on 212 f. – On the motif in gen-
eral, see Segal 1971, 40 f.; Redfield (1975) 1994, 193 ff.; Griffin 1980, 19 f.;
Rawson 1984 (esp. 1164 ff.); de Romilly 1997, 175 ff. — liver: repeatedly men-
tioned in early epic in descriptions of wounding (11.578 f., 20.469 f., etc.), as
well as in the myths of Tityos and Prometheus (as a punishment, the liver is
eaten by vultures or an eagle: Od. 11.578 f., Hes. Th. 523 f.). It is unclear wheth-
er already in the Homeric period specific properties were ascribed to the liver
(e.g. as the seat of emotions, thus e.g. in Aeschylus: Dumortier [1935] 1975,
18–20); theories thus far are speculative: West on Hes. Th. 523–533 (on which,
Verdenius 1971, 2); Laser 1983, 46 f.; LfgrE s.v. ἦπαρ.
κρατερῷ: frequently with a pejorative connotation: ‘too strong, mighty/violent, brutal’
(AH; Benveniste 1969a, 78 f.; LfgrE s.v. passim). — ἔχοιμι: opt. of wish: ‘would that I
were able’ (AH); the sense ‘able’ developed from ‘have something in order to do some-
thing with it’ (LfgrE s.v. ἔχω 844.75 ff., cf. Od. 18.364 ὄφρ’ ἂν ἔχῃς βόσκειν σὴν γαστέρ(α)).
213 vengeance: The implication is that Achilleus would deserve to have his liver
eaten while he was still alive rather than be paid a ransom.
προσφῦσα: ‘attach oneself to, bite into’ (Mutzbauer 1893, 164); cf. Od. 12.433 τῷ (sc.
ἐρινεῷ) προσφὺς ἐχόμην ‘cling to’, also Od. 1.381, etc. ὀδὰξ ἐν χείλεσι φύντες ≈ ‘bite
one’s lip’. — ἄντιτα: haplological form derived from ἀντί-τιτος (related to τίνω), ἄντιτα
ἔργα + gen., thus ‘(produces) revenge for’ (AH), so too at Od. 17.51/60; cf. παλίντιτα ἔργα
Od. 1.379; LfgrE. — γένοιτο: A potential without a modal particle is rare; another exam-
ple: 19.321 f. (Schw. 2.324; Chantr. 2.216 f.).
214–216 Initially, after all the other Trojans had fled to the city, Hektor indeed
stood firm against Achilleus (22.92 ff.) until, overpowered by the sight of the
latter (22.136 f.), he understandably took flight as he gathered his courage once
more just before the final duel (22.304 ff.; Kurz 1966, 69 f.; Stoevesandt 2004,
225 f.). In the memory of Hekabe (and Priam: 500n.), Hektor’s heroic resist-
ance is the crucial point; she is all the more furious at Achilleus (AH on 214;
Macleod; on Hektor as the representative of Troy’s defense, see 499n.). – The
phrasing is characterized by emphatic doublings: ‘no coward | but stand-
ing before the men of Troy’ (rhetorical polar expressionP), ‘men of Troy and
deep-girdled women’ (215n.), ‘no thought in his mind of flight or withdrawal’
(216n.); the positive characterization of Hektor thus gains a generalizing force
beyond the individual situation (‘obituary’: Deichgräber 1972, 53).
213 ἐσθέμεναι: = ἐσθίειν; on the form, R 16.4. — ἄντιτα (ϝ)έργα: ‘revenge, retaliation’; on the
prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 93
214 κακιζόμενον: ‘behave like one who is κακός, prove a coward’; a Homeric hapaxP
(Peppmüller; on the word formation, Risch 299). The behavior of a coward includes
deserting the battlefield in the middle of the fighting (11.408 ff.) and fear that manifests
itself in psychosomatic symptoms (13.276 ff.); cf. 2.190n.
215 ≈ 22.514. — men of Troy and the deep-girdled women: A special case of
a polar expressionP ‘men and women’ (on which, see 697b–698n.) to denote
the entire Trojan people (6.442n.); it always occurs in the context of Hektor as
protector of the beseiged city (cf. 704).
βαθυκόλπων: a distinctive epithetP of the women of Troy in the Iliad (also at 18.122/339;
elsewhere at h.Ven. 257, h.Cer. 5; the same applies to the epithet ἑλκεσιπέπλους in the
metrically equivalent acc. formula Τρῶας καὶ Τρῳάδας ἑλκ., see 6.442n.). It means ‘with
deep folds’, i.e. ‘hanging down over the girdle’ (Leaf on 18.122; Nawratil 1959; van
Wees 2005, 7 f.; LfgrE) rather than ‘with deep bosom, full-bosomed’ (Helbig [1884] 1887,
213 ff.; Laser 1983, 32). On additional epithets for women (always referring to dress or
physical beauty), see 1.55n., 1.143n., 1.429n., 6.372n., 24.697b–698n.
216 φόβου … ἀλεωρῆς: On synonym doubling in the case of terms relating to battle/war
in particular, see Schmidt 2004, 15 (pleonasm with a ‘stylistic intensification’ in the sec-
ond substantive). Similar phrases: 12.327, 13.436, Od. 20.368; cf. 245. – φόβος in Homeric
epic means ‘flight, retreat’ (2.767n.), ἀλεωρή is a verbal abstract derived from ἀλέομαι
‘avoid, eschew’ (Risch 109), here in the sense ‘escape’. — μεμνημένον: 129n. (in the
context of flight also at 11.71, 13.48, 16.356 f.).
217–227 Priam reacts angrily to Hekabe’s objections, the vehemence of which
he had not expected, and insists on his plan with even more determination
(cf. 193–199n.; Richardson; Deichgräber 1972, 54 f.; Farron 1979, 26 f.). Like
Nestor in Book 2 (preparation for the mustering of the army), Priam prevents
further discussion by referring to the compulsory nature of the divine instruc-
tions (the arguments at 220–224 correspond to those at 2.80–83; cf. 2.83n.,
end; Peppmüller p. 100). On additional parallels between Books 2 and 24,
see 133n.
217 1st VH in total 8× Il., 11× Od., 1× h.Cer.; ≈ (τόν) 378, etc. (see ad loc.); 2nd VH:
7× Il. — On the type of speech introduction formulaP found here, see Parry
(1928) 1971, 10 ff.; Edwards 1970, 5 f.; in general, 1.58n. — the aged Priam, the
godlike: a VE formula, found only in Book 24 (7×; also 1× without ‘the aged’
[299]) and always in speech introduction formulae: so-called formula ‘cluster-
ing’ (iteratio) having the effect of a motif (Friedrich 2007, 71–73; cf. 509n. on
the formula ‘manslaughtering Hektor’).
214 ἐμοῦ, ἐπεὶ οὔ (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 5.6, 5.5, 4.4. — ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — κατέκτα: root aor.
of κατακτείνω (3rd pers. sing.).
216 ἑσταότ(α): pregnant ‘standing firm’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.
94 Iliad 24
αὖτε: an adversative particle denoting a change of speaker (3.58n.). — προσέειπε:

ἔ(ϝ)ειπε is a reduplicated thematic aorist (Schw. 1.745; Rix [1976] 1992, 216). — θεοειδής:
a generic epithetP (2.623n.), frequently of Priam (9× in Book 24, of which 8× in speech
introduction formulaeP), Alexandros (763n.), Telemachos (6× Od.), Theoklymenos (5×
Od.), occasionally of other characters. – At 483 (narrator-textP), the epithet probably
has a contextually significant sense because of the secondary focalizationP: Achilleus is
surprised by Priam’s appearance and his nature (expressly at 631 f.) (Macleod on 483;
reservations in de Jong [1987] 2004, 140; cf. 477n. on μέγας, 680n. on the metrically
equivalent VE Πρίαμον βασιλῆα).
218 κατερύκανε: ἐρυκάνω (2× in early epic, in addition 1× in the expanded form
ἐρυκανάω) is a metrical variant of ἐρύκω (e.g. Od. 1.315): Schw. 1.700; Chantr. 1.315 f.;
Risch 271 f. — αὐτή: the nuance is here unclear, perhaps ‘via your speech’ (AH: ‘by your
admonishing words’) or ‘not you of all people, my wife’ (LfgrE s.v. αὐτός 1642.63 ff.; cf.
Martinazzoli: ‘you who should be encouraging me’).
219 a bird of bad omen in my palace: With this paradox (Richardson), Priam
refers to Hekabe’s warning at 206–208, which he understands as an omen: the
mere naming of an evil may bring it about, e.g. Aeschylus Agamemnon 1246 ff.,
Sophocles Aias 361 f. (reaction: eúphēma phṓnei in the sense ‘do not speak of
it!’; cf. Gödde 2004, esp. 16 ff.); similarly the kledonomantia (klēdṓn: a random
remark taken as an omen by a third party: de Jong on Od. 2.15–37; Fraenkel
1950, 789 f. [on Aesch. Ag. 1653]; Peradotto 1969; Lateiner 2005). – The in-
terpretation of bird omens appears in the oldest Greek literature as the most
important divination technique (e.g. 1.69, 1.72n., 6.76n.; on ancient reading of
bird omens in detail, Dillon 1996; Collins 2002); cf. esp. the motif of the in-
auspicious bird on the roof (West on Hes. Op. 747; an epic Ornithomanteia was
ascribed to Hesiod: loc. cit. 828). – ‘bird (omen)’ metaphorically of a person
only here; 12.243 is similar: ‘one bird sign is best: to fight in defence of our
country’ (Stockinger 1959, 154 f.).
πέλε(ο): On the form, cf. 290n. (εὔχεο). — οὐδέ με πείσεις: a VE formula (1.132n.); like
6.360 and 18.126, a firm refusal (additional context related parallels in Martin 1989,
202).
ὄρνις: Greek has both ὄρνῐς and ὄρνῑς (LSJ; Leaf on 12.218). Early epic offers long -ις in the longum
at 9.323 and h.Hom. 19.17. The present passage might accordingly read ὄρνις ἐν (rather than ἐνὶ)
μεγάροισι in the biceps, as in several later manuscripts against the text of the vulgate (and at 12.218
with Aristarchus ὄρνις ἦλθε rather than ἐπῆλθε [schol. T ad loc.]); see app. crit.; differently Leaf;
Wackernagel 1916, 165; van der Valk 1964, 115 f.
218 κατερύκανε: ‘do not attempt to hold me back’ (conative).

219 πέλε’· οὐδέ: on the hiatus, R 5.1. — πέλε(ο): imper. of πέλομαι ‘become, prove to be, be’.
Commentary 95
220–222 On the argumentative function of reservations in regard to divine signs

and their agents, 2.80–82n. (cf. Fowler 2008, 119 ff., 132 ff.); here, as at 2.346–
356, the emphasis is on the fact that reservations are precisely not appropriate,
given the clear divine promise.
εἰ … ἐκέλευεν, … κεν φαῖμεν: On the mixed condition (protasis: contrary to fact; apo-
dosis: potential), see 2.80–81n.; cf. 57n., 688n.
220 1st VH ≈ 768. — τις … ἄλλος ἐπιχθονίων: ‘another, 〈namely one⟩ of the earth’s in-
habitants’; perhaps an interlacing of the opposites ‘a human – a god’ (223 θεοῦ) and
‘another – myself’ (223 αὐτός) (Peppmüller p. 112 f.). The category of human beings
referred to is specified in 221. – On the use of ἐπιχθόνιος in the juxtaposition human
being – god, see 1.266n.
221 In early epic, it is particularly seers (like Kalchas among the Achaian army)
and priests (e.g. Chryses) – connected with a sanctuary – who serve as medi-
ators between gods and human beings: 1.62–63n.; cf. Vermeule 1974, 112 ff.;
Burkert (1977) 1985, 111 ff. and 95 ff.; Fowler 2008, esp. 22 ff., 58 f. (additional
bibliography, loc. cit. 133 n. 2).
θυοσκόοι: an attributive appositive to μάντιες, likely ‘interpreters of sacrifices’; their
activity, a special type of μαντοσύνη ‘divination’, is not described further in Homer
(see also Od. 22.321 f. of the θυοσκόος Leodes): AH; Burkert (1977) 1985, 112 f.; Fowler
2008, 24–26. – On the word formation, Casabona 1966, 118 f.; Frisk; Beekes.
222 = 2.81 (see ad loc.; cf. 217–227n.). — φαῖμεν καὶ νοσφιζοίμεθα: ‘we’, i.e. in this case
Priam would have to agree with Hekabe. The contrast αὐτός follows at 223: ‘I my-
self’.
223–224 On the sentence structure νῦν δ(έ), … γὰρ …, | εἶμι, cf. 12.326–328 (likewise with
preceding εἰ μὲν γάρ: 12.322).
223 The verse contains a twofold emphasis: (1) ‘I myself’ – ‘the god’; (2) ‘heard’
and ‘seen’. Reference to witnessing things personally by sight especially or by
hearing is a common means of authentication: 2.301 f., 2.485 f., 7.53, 17.338, Od.
3.420, 15.532, etc. (Richardson). — god: Iris (at 194 called ‘a messenger … from
Zeus on Olympos’ by Priam).
ἄντην: ‘(look) in the eye’, i.e. ‘in real life’ (19.15n.; cf. ὀφθαλμοῖσιν 206n.); more on
ἄντην: 1.187n. (‘say to someone’s face, directly’).
221 ἠ(ὲ) … ἠ(έ): ‘either … or’. — μάντιες: = μάντεις (nom. pl.). — ἱερῆες: on the inflection, cf.
R 11.3.
222 ψεῦδος: ‘deception, illusion’. — φαῖμεν: ‘order, command’ (220 ἐκέλευεν) is to be supplied
as an object. — νοσφιζοίμεθα: local ‘depart from’, metaphorically ‘turn away from, distance one-
self from’.
223 νῦν δ(έ): to be taken with 224 εἶμι. — αὐτός: ‘with my own eyes/ears’. — ἐσέδρακον: 1st pers.
sing. aor. of εἰσδέρκομαι ‘look at, behold’.
96 Iliad 24
224a ≈ 92, Od. 2.318. On the more determined tone here, cf. Macleod: ‘Thetis [sc.
at 92] merely obeys: Priam resolves’. — this word: i.e. Zeus’ orders as conveyed
by Iris (cf. 75).
224b–227 Priam stresses his determination and his desire once again to embrace
his son (cf. 226–227n.) by use of a doubled emphasis (similarly Telemachos at
Od. 20.315–317, Anchises at h.Ven. 149–154): (a) ‘even if it costs me my life – I
am prepared to do it’ (cf. also Il. 15.115–118), (b) ‘when I have achieved this
and that, I will be ready to die’, cf. 5.685 f., Od. 7.224 f., h.Ven. 153 f., still in
use today in a faded form, e.g. Italian ‘vedi Napoli e poi muori’ (~ ‘after you
visit Naples, you can die’). The expression ‘rather to die than having to wit-
ness something, or not to achieve something’ is similar (but with reversed
polarity): an expression of desperation regarding imminent suffering or
an impending disgrace (244b–246; 6.410 f., 6.464 f., 15.511 ff., 17.415 ff., Od.
12.350 f., 16.106 f., 20.316 f., also Il. 4.182 ≈ 8.150, 7.129 ff., 18.90 ff., 18.98 f.,
Od. 1.57b–59 [on which, Kloss 1994, 46 f. n. 96], 18.202 ff.; post-Homeric e.g.
Stesichorus fr. 222b.211–217 Davies). Bibliography on the entire complex of the
motif: Macleod on 226–227; Reinhardt 1949, 116–118; Vagnone 1982, esp.
37, 40 f.; Garvie 1986, 162 f. (all with post-Homeric parallels); van der Ben
1986, 18 f.; Bremer et al. 1987a, 145–147. On a additional form of the death-
wish motif (‘had I only died before!’), see 764n.; on the conditional self-im-
precation ‘I’ll be dead if I don’t …’, 2.258–264n. – Achilleus’ thoughts at 585 f.
illustrate that in the present case mortal danger is in fact a realistic fear
(see 582–586n.).
εἰ δέ μοι αἶσα: on the formula system of αἶσα, Hoekstra 1965, 122 f.; cf. 1.416n.
225 παρὰ νηυσὶν …: ≈ 1.371 (ἐπὶ νῆας …; see ad loc.), 2.47, etc. (κατὰ νῆας …; see ad loc.);
cf. 115n. (παρὰ νηυσὶ κορωνίσιν).
226–227 with my own son | caught in my arms: Seeing the deceased once more
and saying a personal farewell is a fundamental need for those who grieve; see
also 22.426 ff., 24.743 ff.
βούλομαι: ‘would rather, prefer to’ (39n.), rather than (as Hekabe demands at 208 f.)
continuing to grieve far from his son (AH); emphatic at VB. — κατακτείνειεν: a con-
cessive optative (‘he can kill me’): Schw. 2.322; Chantr. 2.216. — ἐπὴν … εἵην: assim-
224 οὐχ ἅλιον … ἔσσεται: i.e. ‘will come true’. — ἅλιον (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — ἔσσεται:
= ἔσται (R 16.6). — αἶσα: sc. ἐστί (nominal clause).
225 τεθνάμεναι: ‘to be dead, remain behind dead’; on the form, R 16.4.
227 ἀγκάς: ‘in my arms’. — ἑλόντ(α): referring to με (226). — ἐπήν: = ἐπάν (correlative with
αὐτίκα). — ἐξ … εἵην: aor. opt. of ἐξίημι; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ἔρον: from ἔρος
(= ἔρως), still with the general meaning ‘desire’.
Commentary 97
ilation of the mood to the opt. of the main clause, as at 19.208, etc. (Chantr. 2.260;
in general, K.-G. 1.255 f.); correction of ἐπήν to ἐπεί is occasionally considered (West
on Od. 2.105; Wakker 1994, 206 n. 153). — ἐξ ἔρον εἵην: literally ‘let go of the urge’,
i.e. ‘satisfy the need’, usually formulaic for satiation with food and drink (1.469n.
with bibliography), only here of weeping and mourning (on γόος, see 160n.; a syn-
onymous phrase at 717: ἄσεσθε κλαυθμοῖο); the verb is usually middle (ἕντο), active
also at 13.638, likewise at Sappho fr. 94.23 Voigt ἐξίης πόθο[ν (on the change in voice,
G 100).
228 He spoke, and …: a brief speech capping formulaP that makes possible a
transition to the action within the same verse via a paratactic connection:
word is translated into action (247, 440, 621; cf. 19.238–240n.). — covering of
his clothes-chest: In the world of early epic, blankets, clothes and other pre-
cious objects are stored in (ornate) chests (esp. 16.221 ff., Od. 15.104 ff.): Laser
1968, 68 ff.
φωριαμῶν: epic diction, in Homer also at Od. 15.104 (Helen). — κάλ’ (καλά): Not only
the lid may be decorated, but the sides of the chest as well; καλά is thus perhaps also
to be taken with φωριαμοί via enallage, cf. Hes. Op. 94 (Pandora) πίθου μέγα πῶμ’
ἀφελοῦσα (with West ad loc.; contra Verdenius ad loc.). On the clustering of καλός and
its derivations (here περικαλλής at 229, 234), cf. 2.42–43n.
ἀνόειγεν: The verb (ἀν)οίγω ‘open’ probably derives from earlier ὀ(ϝ)ειγ-; in place of the unani-
mously transmitted ἀνέῳγε, a prosodically equivalent (unaugmented) imperfect can thus be re-
stored: ἀνόειγεν, likewise 455 ἀνοείγεσκον (Schmidt 1968, 81 f.; West 1998, XXXIII; reservations in
Forssman 2005, 108 f., 112: the restored forms are pre-Homeric; cf. the summary in ChronEG 10 s.v.
οἴγνυμι; further discussion in Verdejo Manchado 2014). Cf. aor. ὤ(ϝ)ειξε 446, contracted ᾦξε 457
(with Leaf ad loc.).
229–234 In premonetary Homeric society, textiles, metal and containers are
among the typical objects used in ‘exchange’, e.g. 6.46–48 (ransom: Wickert-
Micknat 1983, 36 n. 3; on the significance of the metals, cf. 6.48n.), 9.121–
130 (Agamemnon’s offer to Achilleus: Hainsworth ad loc.; cf. 19.243–248),
Od. 8.389–393/438–441, 15.101–108, 24.273–279 (guest-gifts: Reece 1993, 35 f.),
17.549 f. (‘«gift of clothes» motif’: de Jong on Od. 14.122–132). — twelve …
twelve …: a typical numberP (Lorenz 1984). The anaphorae (2× ‘twelve’,
3× ‘as many’, 2× ‘out’) underline the number of gifts (Macleod with paral-
lels; Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 8 f.); additional number anaphorae in Book
24: 454 f., 603 f. (in general, Fehling 1969, 200). – On descriptions via cat-
alogue-like enumerations, see Létoublon 1998, 165–172 (esp. 169 ff.; col-
lection of examples); Sammons 2010, 103–133 (esp. 108 ff.); cf. 234–237a n.
(climax).
228 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ἀνόειγεν: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἀνοίγω.
98 Iliad 24
229–231 1st VH of 229 ≈ Od. 22.144 (and 110). — Elaborate textiles play a ma-
jor role in Homeric society: 6.90–91n. The precise, unequivocal definition of
Homeric terms from the semantic field of textiles is hampered by the great vari-
ety and variability of their use (clothing, covers, bedding); thus the peplos, for
example, usually appears as a female garment in early epic (6.90n.) but also
as a blanket (for a wagon, urn or seat: 5.194, 24.795 f., Od. 7.96 f.), whereas the
chlaína is used both as a cloak and a woolen blanket (163n.) (Wace/Wace 1962,
498 ff.; Marinatos 1967, 6 ff.; Laser 1968, 11 ff.; Heubeck on Od. 24.276–277; on
bedding textiles specifically, see 644–648n.). – Some of the textiles mentioned
here will be used to clothe the corpse at 588 (see ad loc.) and will then serve as
a ‘shroud’ or ‘burial garment’ (Bouvier 1987, 27 f.: ‘the objects of the ransom
in and of themselves […] announce and suggest the action to come’ [quotation
p. 28]).
230–231 ≈ Od. 24.276 f. (where instead of λευκά: καλά [here: v.l.]); similar structure: Od.
14.100 f. — ἁπλοΐδας χλαίνας: ἁπλοΐς ‘single’ in the sense ‘with one layer of cloth only,
not folded’ (antithesis: χλαῖνα δίπλαξ 3.126n.); on the χλαῖνα in general, see 163n. —
τάπητας: to be understood ‘items made of cloth’ in a broad sense (> Engl. ‘tapestry’), in
early epic usually used as blankets (cf. 644–648n.; LfgrE). — φάρεα … χιτῶνας: items
of male dress (cf. 163n. with bibliography): a cloak-like wrap (2.43n.) and an undergar-
ment (2.42n.).
232 ≈ 19.247. — gold: Gold is a common component of ‘ransom money’ (on the
function of gold in Homer in general, Seaford 2004, 30–33); the present pas-
sage may be based on the notion of weighing Hektor’s corpse in gold: 22.349–
352 (Burgess 2001, 68 f.). — talents: the largest weight unit in antiquity. The
exact size of a Homeric talent – probably less than the historically attested
talents that weigh 25 kg and more – can no longer be determined (19.247n. with
bibliography); on the mutual relationship between Mycenaean, Near Eastern
and Classical Greek talents specifically, Ventris/Chadwick (1956) 1973, 57 f.;
on archaeological finds of Mycenaean date, Petruso 2003; on the use of the
talent in Homeric epics, Brown 1998.
The verse has probably been interpolated from 19.247 (a similar list of gifts); the indica-
tions offered in support of this thesis include: (1) ἔφερεν interrupts the anaphoric enu-
229 περικαλλέας: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — ἔξελε: = ἐξεῖλε; on the unaugmented form,

R 16 1.
230 τόσσους: on the -σσ-, R 9.1 (cf. 231 τόσους).
231 ἐπί: ‘in addition to’. — τοῖσι: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the inflection,
R 11.2.
232 στήσας: from ἵστημι, here ‘weigh’. — δέκα πάντα τάλαντα: ‘ten talents in total, ten whole
talents’.
Commentary 99
meration in 229–234; (2) the exact weight of 10 talents is not required here, in contrast to
19.247 (with reference to 9.122) (AH; Leaf; Macleod; West 2001, 12 with n. 28: ‘rhetorical
expansion’). Counter-arguments in Beck 1964, 216–218; Tartaglini 1988.
233 shining tripods, and … cauldrons: The (cooking) cauldron was placed above
the fire on a tripod (mentioned together also at 9.122 f., 23.259, Od. 13.13, 15.84,
etc.); both objects were generally made of bronze (see 19.243–244n.).
αἴθωνας: the basic meaning is disputed, in reference to metal (implements) either
‘brown’ or ‘bright, gleaming’ (19.243–244n. with bibliography).
234–237a 1st VH of 234 ≈ 11.632. — a goblet | of surpassing loveliness: The enu-
meration of the items ends in a climax with emphasis on the most important
one, cf. 16.223–227, Od. 15.99–108 (so too in the case of persons: Il. 24.257–259);
at 11.632–641 (Nestor’s Cup) and 16.225–232 (libation for Patroklos) as well
a dépas ‘cup’ (101n.) plays an exceptional role; here it shows ‘the emotion
of Priam. He parted with his most treasured possession to honour Hector’
(Griffin 1980, 17 ff., quotation from p. 19). The extraordinary value of the cup
is stressed via an indication of its origin (Reece 1993, 36, 90; Schaps 2004, 65;
on the principle of elaborate narrationP, see 2.101–108n.; on external analep-
sisP, cf. 235n.); the fact that the cup derives from a diplomatic act further indi-
cates the character of Priam’s current undertaking (Sammons 2010, 108–111).
— men of Thrace: allies of the Trojans; on their cultural significance, espe-
cially in regard to metallurgy and viniculture, see 2.844n. and LfgrE; extensive
imagery in Die Thraker 2004 (e.g. p. 90 f. the Valchitran Treasure, dating to the
14th/13th cent. B. C.).
Θρῇκες … ἄνδρες: on such phrases, 2.474n.
235 when he went to them with a message: external analepsesP regarding
Priam’s external relations also at 3.184–190 (Phrygians), 24.277 f. (Mysians).
Here possibly an ad hoc invention (Priess 1977, 142): embassies feature repeat-
edly in the Iliad (e.g. to Chryses in Book 1, to Achilleus in Book 9). — not | even
this …: i.e. of all the treasures in the palace, this cup was the most valuable in
Priam’s eyes.
ἐξεσίην: a technical term, ‘on a diplomatic mission, as an envoy’ (also at Od. 21.20; see
LfgrE); an action noun in the acc. of content with ἐλθεῖν, like ὁδόν at 1.151n. and ἀγγελίην
at 11.140 (on this, Janko on 13.251–253 with bibliography; cf. 3.206n.). — κτέρας: ‘pos-
233 ἐκ: ‘out’, sc. εἷλε (cf. R 20.2). — πίσυρας: Aeolic form for Attic-Ionic τέσσερας/τέτταρας.
234 ὅ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — Θρῇκες: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2 (likewise
after -ι-: 235 ἐξεσίην).
235–236 οὐδέ νυ τοῦ περ | φείσατ(ο): ‘now, he spared not even this one’. — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20 1). —
περί: adverbial, ‘more (than all other things), exceedingly, much’.
100 Iliad 24
session’, here a showpiece as a guest-gift; sing. elsewhere only at 10.216, othrwise al-
ways pl. κτέρεα (38n.). — οὐδέ νυ τοῦ περ: a VE formula with interchangeable pronoun
and sometimes γε rather than περ (cf. 540): 6× Il., 1× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’ (passages in Ruijgh
1957, 62).
236–237a 1st VH of 237 = 118, etc. (see ad loc.). — so much was it his heart’s de-
sire …: an authorial interpretation of the events just mentioned, as at e.g. 1.56,
2.171, 21.65, 24.708 (Richardson 1990, 148 f.). With his reference to Priam’s firm
determination ‘to buy back his son’, the narrator at the same time creates a
direct transition from the scene in the treasure-room to the preparations for
departure in the portico at 237b ff. (Priam’s return from the treasure-room –
element 8 of the relevant type-scene [191–237a n.] – is not reported: gapP;
cf. AH).
ὁ γέρων: 164n.; here perhaps with ‘a touch of pathos’ (Richardson; Macleod). — περὶ
δ’ ἤθελε θυμῷ: VE = 21.65; ≈ 16.255, 21.177; cf. VE ἤθελε θυμός 9.177 (+ iterata), 17.702,
Od. 13.40. — δ(έ): in the sense of γάρ (91n.). — φίλον υἱόν: a periphrastic denominationP
(from Priam’s perspective).
237b–280 Priam impatiently drives away the Trojans who are standing about and
abuses his sons because his chariot is not ready. The chariot is then prepared for
the trip.
237b–248a By means of the three speeches – directed to different addressees –
at 218 ff., 239 ff. and 253 ff. (see ad loc.), the narrator portrays Priam’s state of
mind: ‘Everything is to be prepared for departure; any disturbance is odious to
Priam, to whom all else is now as nothing’ (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 345 [transl.];
Macleod). In this context, Priam’s rebuke of the Trojans serves to separate him
‘from the general moaning’ (Wissmann 1997, 42 [transl.]), as well as to prepare
for the praise of Hektor at 243 f. and 258 f.
237b the Trojans | all: picks up 22.408–429 (the entire city is filled with lament,
Priam is surrounded by grieving people).
238 2nd VH cf. 22.497. — cloister walks: The architectural term aíthousa is oc-
casionally mentioned in connection with a próthyron (e.g. at 323, with n.)
and can apparently be used synonymously with pródomos (e.g. at 644/673).
Nonetheless, the exact relationship in early epic of these architectural ele-
ments both to one another and to the building as a whole cannot be deter-
mined (various attempts at explanation in Fernández-Galiano, Introd. 216 f.;
Hiller 1970; Veneri 1991, 180–183; Rougier-Blanc 1996; Mazarakis Ainian
237 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — ἅπαντας: ‘all those present’.

Commentary 101
1997, 364 f.; Shear 2000, 6–10; Rougier-Blanc 2005, 97–111); the aíthousa is
most likely a kind of vestibule between the main building and the courtyard
(on which, 161n. with further references to Priam’s palace). Guests sleep in the
aíthousa (644, etc.), and – as here – this is the spot where preparations are
made for a departure by wagon (also 323, etc.; cf. 236–237a n.).
ἔπεσσ’ αἰσχροῖσιν: i.e. words intended to evoke feelings of shame in the addressee
(3.38n.). On the semantic field ‘insult, abuse’ (in what follows, also at 248 f., 252, 265),
cf. 2.221–222a n.
239–240 ἔρρετε: a colloquial term of aggressive wishing away: ‘out with you!’; the phras-
ing at 22.497 f. is similar (LfgrE; Macleod). — λωβητῆρες: 2.275n.; either in reference
to 240b (LfgrE: ‘wretched talkers, scandal-mongers’) and/or 243–244a (‘a shame for the
town’; in this sense, Schubert 2000, 71; similarly λώβη 3.42n.). Differently Heath 2005,
150 f.: causative, ‘who let me feel their shame’, in reference to the Trojans reminding
Priam by means of their lament that he has not yet buried Hektor. — ἐλεγχέες: ‘wastrels’
(LfgrE). The unusual form (rather than ἐλέγχεα 2.235, etc.) is interpreted as a prosodic al-
ternative that avoids hiatus (Cauer [1895] 1921, 68 f.; Meissner 2006, 108; Kirk on 4.242)
or as a secondary masculine by-form (Schw. 1.513; Frisk and Beekes s.v. ἐλέγχω). — οὔ
νυ καὶ ὑμῖν …: ‘don’t you all have enough cause for lament, each in his own house?’ (cf.
LfgrE s.v. γόος and οἴκοι; on the meaning of γόος, see 160n.). – VE ≈ 33 (see ad loc.: οὔ νυ
introduces an impatient question), Od. 10.464. — γόος, ὅτι: on the prosody, 84n. — ὅτι:
‘that’, in the sense ‘I say/ask this because’ or ‘I conclude from this that’: substantiation of
a statement, question, etc. (Schw. 2.646; Chantr. 2.285; Bonifazi 2012, 193–195); cf. the
ancient v.l. ὅ τε ‘that’ (on which, 1.244n.). — κηδήσοντες: a unique future form of κήδω
‘cause harm’, here subjective in the sense ‘harass’ (Anastassiou 1973, 131; cf. AH), pos-
sibly with a purposeful echo of κήδεα: ‘shower with grief’ (cf. Macleod; Richardson;
417n.).
241 2nd VH = 2.375, 18.431. — ἦ †οὔνεσθ’†: By analogy with Od. 17.378 f. ἦ ὄνοσαι, ὅτι … ‘is
it not enough for you that …’, it seems likely that a 2nd pers. pl. of ὄνομαι ‘think little of’
lies behind the transmitted form (pres. with metrical lengthening: van der Valk 1963,
565 f.; impf.: Schw. 1.681 n. 4 and Macleod; Aristarchus read the aor. ἦ ὀνόσασθ’ [schol.
A]; differently Leaf and Wackernagel [1891] 1979, 1589 f.: a form of ὀνίνημι. Further
discussion: West 2001, 278). Like ἦ οὐχ ἅλις (5.349, 17.450, 23.670, Od. 2.312), the phrase
introduces an angry protest (ironic/rhetorical question).
238 ἀπέ(ϝ)εργεν: = ἀπεῖργεν (impf.), ‘close, exclude, crowd out, drive away’ (+ gen.: ‘from a
place’). — ἔπεσσ(ι): on the inflection, R 11.3. — ἐνίσσων: ‘rebuking, scolding’.
239 καὶ ὑμῖν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.
240 μ(ε): to be taken with κηδήσοντες (‘harass’).
241 ἦ †οὔνεσθ’†, ὅτι: ≈ ‘is it not enough for you that’. — ἄλγε’ ἔδωκεν: on the hiatus, R 5.1.
102 Iliad 24
242 losing the best of my sons: an emphatic apposition to 241 ‘sorrow’

(Macleod; Mawet 1979, 171), with ‘the best’ ‘in an emphatic position’ (AH
[transl.]). On the thought, cf. 255 ff., 384 f. — You also shall be aware of this:
of his (bitter) personal experience, cf. similar threats at 1.185, 1.302, 1.411, 2.237
(with n.), 7.226, 8.17, 8.406, etc. (AH; Macleod).
τὸν ἄριστον: ἄριστος with the article is frequently used emphatically in secondary
focalizationP in reference to heroes who have suffered an injury or defeat (again of
Hektor at 384, also e.g. Agamemnon at 11.288, Sarpedon at 16.521, Asteropaios at 21.207,
Eumelos at 23.536); cf. Basset 2006, 113.
243–244a On the thought, cf. 18.257 f. (with reversed polarity: so long as Achilleus
was angry, the Achaians were easier to fight against). – Hektor is represented
in the Iliad as the most important Trojan hero: 499n.
ῥηΐτεροι … μάλλον: an intensified comparative: ‘even more easily, much more easily’,
in Homer only here (more in LSJ s.v. μάλα II.2). On the accent of μάλλον, see West 1998,
XX, s.v. ἄσσον. — δή: underscores the preceding word (Schw. 2.562 f.: ‘often ironic’;
Denniston 204 ff.). — τεθνηῶτος: on the form, G 95; on the genitive absolute, still rare
in Homer, see Chantr. 2.323 f.
244b–246 On the death-wish motif, see 224b–227n. (‘to rather die than witness
something’: an expression of desperation); on the pathetic phrase ‘having to
witness Troy’s destruction with one’s own eyes’, cf. 22.61–65. – The audience
knows that Priam’s wish will not come true: prolepticP references to the con-
quest and destruction of Troy are a theme in the Iliad, cf. 728 f. (2.12n., 6.447–
449n.; Duckworth 1933, 30–32; Kullmann 1960, 343–349).
αὐτὰρ ἐγώ γε: a VE formula (3× Il., 8× Od.).
245 The length and rhyming assonance of the two participial forms creates emphasis
(Richardson); on synonym doubling specifically with terms from the sphere of bat-
tle/war, 216n. — πρίν: can be scanned either short or long in early epic (van Leeuwen
[1894] 1918, 90; DELG; examples in La Roche 1869, 256). On its use in the sense ‘before
it comes about that’, see 6.465n. — κεραϊζομένην: cf. 22.63 θαλάμους κεραϊζομένους, in
reference to the destruction of Troy, as here.
246 1st VH ≈ 3× Il., 2× Od., 3× Hes., 2× h.Cer.; frequently also in different positions
in the verse. — go | down to the house of the god of death: ‘[T]he image of
the descent to Hades marks out the full solemnity of death’: Clarke 1999, 170.
More on the formulation and content: 3.322n., 6.19n.
242 ὀλέσαι: ‘to lose’. — ἀτάρ: ‘but, yet’ (adversative: R 24.2). — ὔμμες: = ὑμεῖς (R 14 1).
243 ῥηΐτεροι: comparative of ῥάδιος; personal construction (ῥ. ἔσεσθε ἐναιρέμεν).
244 κείνου: = ἐκείνου. — ἐναιρέμεν: inf. (R 16.4).
246 βαίην: opt. of wish — δόμον … εἴσω: ≈ εἰς δόμον. — Ἄϊδος: ‘of Hades’ (athematic gen. sing.);
the initial syllable is long here, short in 593.
Commentary 103
δόμον Ἄϊδος εἴσω: a VE formulaP (5× Il., 4× Od., 1× h.Ven.); without δόμον 3× Il., 1×
‘Hes.’, 1× Thebais; additional information: 3.322n. (where also on the form and etymolo-
gy of the gen. Ἄϊδος; it likely means ‘the invisible one’).
247 1st VH = 13.59. — stick: The ‘scepter’ is the emblem of (royal) authority, see
2.199 and 265 with nn. (Odysseus flogs the Achaians who are running to their
ships and deals a blow to Thersites); on the scepter and its multifunctionality
in general, 2.101–108n.; LfgrE; Hornblower 2000, esp. 63 ff.
σκηπανίῳ: a rare by-form of σκῆπτρον; the word formation is uncertain (Risch 116),
possibly a diminutive related to (synonymous but only attested later) σκηπάνη (LSJ;
Frisk and Beekes s.v. σκήπτομαι). — δίεπ(ε): ‘impose order, clear a path (through)’ in
regard to a crowd (2.207a n.; Leaf); picks up ἀπέεργεν at 238.
248 1st VH ≈ 322. — σπερχομένοιο γέροντος: either an ablatival gen. (‘away from the old
man’; cf. Schw. 2.397 f.) or a genitive absolute with a causal connotation (thus Classen
1867, 181–184; cf. 243–244a n., end, with bibliography). – σπέρχομαι has both an objec-
tive and a subjective connotation: ‘hurry, rush’ and ‘rage, flare up’ (LfgrE s.v., with bib-
liography). — ὀμόκλα: picked up at both 252 in the speech introduction formulaP and
265 in the reaction to the speech: the speaker’s intention and the addressees’ under-
standing (‘take fright at the rebuke’) coincide. On the realization of the illocutionary
act, cf. 101–102n. – On the meaning and use of ὀμοκλάω, see 6.54n. (‘loud call’); on the
switch between the denominative verb here and the noun at 265, see Porzig 1942, 31 ff.
(esp. 38), 84.
249–251 Of the sons of Priam mentioned here (and at 257), the following play a
role (major or minor) in the Iliad: Helenos the augur (6.76n.) and Deïphobos
(CH 8), who are the leaders of a Trojan contingent together with Asios (12.94 f.),
kill an Achaian each before being wounded themselves (13.576 ff. and 13.516 ff.);
Athene appears to Hektor in the form of Deïphobos (22.226 ff.). Paris (cf. 28–
30), likewise a lieutenant (12.93), emerges as a warrior in Books 3 (duel with
Menelaos), 11 (369 ff., 505 ff., 581 ff.), 13 (660 ff., 765 ff.) and 15 (341 f.). Polites
(2.791n.) leads the injured Deïphobos away from battle (13.533 ff.) and kills
an Achaian (15.339 f.). – The remaining sons of Priam mentioned here do not
feature elsewhere in the Iliad; whether the original audience was expected to
know them or whether they are ad hoc inventions (‘extras’) cannot be deter-
mined (but see 257n. on Mestor and Troïlos). Most have clearly Greek names
(Wathelet s.vv.; dubious: Pammon, Troïlos); in addition, Hippothoos has a
namesake among the allies (2.840n.), and three additional characters in the
Iliad, including another son of Priam (11.101 ff.), bear the name Antiphos,
247 ἀνέρας: = ἄνδρας; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10 1).

248 σπερχομένοιο: on the inflection, R 11.2. — υἱάσιν: on the inflection, R 12.3. — οἷσιν: posses-
sive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4).
104 Iliad 24
which echoes that of Antiphonos. ‘The shadowy character of them empha-

sizes Priam’s point that his favourite sons are dead’ (Richardson); see also
Gaertner 2001, 301; Sammons 2010, 111–114; Buchan 2012, 143 f. – Lists of
nine may represent ‘a considerable number’ (2.96n.); a list of names, as here:
7.161 ff. (drawing lots for the duel against Hektor), 8.253 ff. (Achaian advance),
11.301 ff., 16.415 ff., 16.694 ff. (the dead; cf. 16.784 f.). Here the multitude of sons
criticized forms a contrast to the small number of capable warriors at 257 f.; at
the same time, it illustrates Priam’s renewed energy: he spurs on everyone in
his vicinity to act to expedite his departure (Minchin 2001, 92 ff.); cf. the simi-
lar situations at 13.89 ff., 17.210 ff. (with a list of ten at 216 ff.). – The third name
in each verse is expanded by an epithet, probably for reasons of versification
(all three formulations are unique, see the nn. that follow).
249 Ἀγάθωνά τε δῖον: Names (and words generally) of the metrical form ⏖–⏑ are rare in
this position in the verse (statistics in O’Neill 1942, 143) and are also almost never found
as noun-epithet formulae (e.g. 154 Ἀχιλῆϊ πελάσσῃ, 434 Ἀχιλῆα δέχεσθαι, 510 Ἀχιλῆος
ἐλυσθείς, etc.; but unique Ἀχιλῆϊ ἄνακτι at 9.164). The combination τε δῖον is likewise
unique in early epic.
250 βοὴν ἀγαθόν: a generic epithetP (2.408n.), of Polites only here (Hoekstra 1965, 95:
‘occasional use’). It forms a semantic unit, hence τε in third position (likewise in the 2nd
VH at 5.442): AH; Ruijgh 1 and 152; cf. 273–274n., end (on δέ in third position).
251 VB/VE ≈ 13.490. — Δῖον ἀγαυόν: Which of the two words represents the name of the
person has been a matter of dispute since antiquity; the post-Homeric mythic tradition
settled on Dios (schol. A, T; van der Valk 1964, 232; Wathelet s.v.); a similar problem is
found e.g. at 13.5 ἀγαυῶν Ἱππημολγῶν (Janko ad loc.; Matthaios 1999, 218 f.). – ἀγαυός
is a generic epithet of human beings and gods (e.g. 3× at VE Τρῶες ἀγ.); the sense is
uncertain, but most likely ‘admirable, eminent’ (3.268n.).
252 The catalogue of names concludes in a summary (asyndetic ‘nine’: K.-G.
2.343) and has verbal links with 248: a ring-compositionP in the expanded
speech introduction (cf. 248n., 2.795n., 19.404n.).
ὁ γεραιός: cf. 162n.
253–264 The criticism of the sons resembles the speech directed at the Trojans
in 239–246 in structure and tone (Macleod): an imperative, abusive address,
‘you have no place here’; Priam’s lament for his own fate; his determination.
The speech is characterized by numerous generalizations and exaggerations,
250 βοὴν ἀγαθόν: to be taken with Πολίτην (τε); βοήν is acc. of respect (R 19.1).
252 ἐννέα τοῖς: ‘these nine (sons)’; dat. probably ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with ὀμοκλήσας (cf. 248) and
ἐκέλευσεν (the latter frequently with the dat. in Homer); on the anaphoric demonstrative pro-
noun, R 17.
Commentary 105
as is typical in rebukes and disputes (1.106–108n.): the curse 253b–254 (254n.),

255 ‘my evil destiny’, 256 ‘not one’, 258 ‘god’, 260 ‘all’, the severe accusations
at 261 f. (cf. Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 62–64; more on speeches of rebuke:
33–54n.). On the ring-compositionP structure of the speech, Lohmann 1970, 21
(request – abuse – lament – abuse – request). – The narrator uses the rebuke to
illustrate once more ‘the impatience and dissatisfaction of the old man’ (AH on
263 [transl.]) as well as Priam’s exceptional appreciation of Hektor (cf. 189n.).
Furthermore, the repeated request to prepare the wagon is the cue to resume
the actual preparations for departure (189–328n.; cf. Richardson).
253 Make haste: Priam is not afraid to make those who surround him ‘crazy’
with his haste (248, 253, 263, 322, 327; cf. 322–328n., 326n.); although the
Trojans comply (247 f., 265 f.), with Achilleus this nearly leads to catastrophe
(552–571n.). – The journey to the Achaian camp is repeatedly driven by haste
as well: 440–447n., 468–476n.
κακὰ τέκνα: a reversal of the address φίλα τέκνα (10.192, h.Cer. 138; τέκνα φίλα Od.
3.418, 4.78, h.Cer. 119); on the meaning of κακός, cf. 63n. — κατηφόνες: a hapaxP, ‘caus-
ing shame, disgraceful’, cf. κάκ’ ἐλέγχεα 2.235 (Thersites addressing the Achaians). On
the meaning of κατηφ-, see 3.51n. (‘disgrace’); cf. e.g. 16.498 f. (the dying Sarpedon:
κατηφείη καὶ ὄνειδος | ἔσσομαι), Od. 24.432 (the relatives of the murdered suitors:
κατηφέες ἐσσόμεθ’ αἰεί). On the (pejorative) word formation in -ων, Macleod and
Risch 56 f. — ἅμα πάντες: an inflectible formula, ≈ ἅπαντες: 6.59n.
254 The wish that the addressee were already dead is a typical motif in invec-
tives, cf. 3.40, 3.428, 11.380 f., Od. 2.183 f., 18.401.
Ἕκτορος: ‘in contrast to πάντες, placed in initial position for emphasis’ (and strikingly
located at a distance from ἀντί): AH (transl.). — ὠφέλετ(ε): In early epic, the aor. and
impf. of ὀφέλλω denote without differentiation something unfulfillable/unfulfilled in
the present and past (1.353n.). — ἀντὶ … πεφάσθαι: i.e. if only all others were dead and
Hektor still alive; differently at 13.447, 14.471 (triumph): ‘to have died in compensation
for (a dead man from the opposing party)’. — θοῇς ἐπὶ νηυσί: 1n. — πεφάσθαι: perf.
pass. of θείνω, ‘to have been killed, to lie dead’ (related to the IE root *gṷhen-; cf. aor.
πεφνεῖν 605 etc.); see DELG (with suppl.) and Beekes s.v. θείνω.
255 ≈ 493; cf. 18.54 f. (Thetis to the Nereids about Achilleus; in general, the scenes at 18.37–
64 and 24.248–264 show situational and structural similarities: both Thetis and Priam
set out to see their sons, speak to a group of people close to them who have been previ-
ously listed in a type of catalogue, and complain about their fate as parents; in detail,
see Pattoni 1998, 15–24). — ᾤ μοι ἐγώ: VB 8× Il., 6× Od.; cf. 201–202n. — πανάποτμος:
253 f. μοι: ethic dat. — αἴθ(ε) … | … ὠφέλετ(ε): unfulfilled wish in the past (αἴθε = εἴθε). —
Ἕκτορος: dependent on ἀντί. — θοῇς: on the inflection, R 11.1. — νηυσί: on the inflection, R 12.1.
255 υἷας: on the inflection, R 12.3.
106 Iliad 24
elsewhere in early epic only in the iteratum 493 (where also Priam regarding himself;
Griffin 1986, 41). An analogous word formation in παναώριος 540, παναπήμων Hes.
Op. 811, πανάφυλλος h.Cer. 452; on tripartite compounds in general, Risch 229; on com-
pounds with παν-, 2.448n. with bibliography (παν- here with an intensifying function,
cf. 388 ἀπότμου, Od. 20.140 πάμπαν … ἄποτμος).
256 = 494. — not one of them is left to me: on the related motif ‘many sons have
died’, 167–168n.
Τροίῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ: together with 255 ἀρίστους amounts to ‘far and wide the best in
Troy’ (LfgrE s.v. εὐρύς 805.58 ff.), cf. 6.188n., 13.433, also 774 (‘no other in all the wide
Troad’). – A VB formula, 2× Il., 3× Od.; at VE in the form ἐνὶ Τροίῃ εὐρείῃ (774n.). — οὔ
τινά φημί: on οὐ … φημί as a rhetorically effective assertion, e.g. 2.248 (see iterata for
reference to a collection of examples).
257–259 On the climactic enumeration, cf. 234–237a n.
257 Mestor is attested again only in later mythographers (with differing informa-
tion, including his death at the hands of Achilleus). Details in Wathelet s.v.;
cf. 249–251n. — The killing of Troïlos by Achilleus was portrayed in the Cypria:
Procl. Chrest. § 11 West. Knowledge of this story by the original audience may
be assumed (Kullmann 1960, 292 f.; Beck 1964, 143 f.). In vase painting as well,
the myth of Troïlos is among the earliest topics depicted (e.g. on the François
Vase [570/560 B. C.]): together with his horses, Troïlos is lingering at a well out-
side the town; Achilleus ambushes him, pursues Troïlos, who flees on horse-
back, and kills him near a temple of Apollo. Possibly represented here is the
variant (less frequently attested as a whole) of Troïlos’ death in battle, if the ep-
ithetP ‘chariot fighter’ (see below) is to be understood pregnantly (schol. A, T;
Zindel 1974, 30 f.; differently Kullmann loc. cit. n. 2). Details in Richardson;
Wathelet s.v. Troïlos; LIMC s.v. Achilleus coll. 72 ff. and s.v. Troïlos.
ἀντίθεον: a generic epithetP (1.264n.). — ἱππιοχάρμην: ‘(battle-hungry) chariot fighter’
(cf. 2.336n. on ἱππότα, 2.384n. on ‘chariot’); a generic epithet, always in genealogical
contexts (also at Od. 11.259; 3× ‘Hes.’). The initial element is a metrical variant of ἱππο-
(G 49; Risch 218; cf. ἱππιοχαίτης 6.469n.) or derives from the Mycenaean i-qi-ja ‘war
chariot’ (MYC; DMic; Heubeck on Od. 11.258–259). The final element χάρμη denotes
‘hunger/lust for battle’ (cf. Latacz 1966, 20 ff.). More in Benedetti 1979.
258 a god: The designation of Hektor as a god (and at 259 as the son of a god,
on which cf. 58–59n.) reflects the high regard in which he was held in Troy
(243–244a n.; Achilleus’ remarks at 22.394 and those of Hekabe at 22.434 f. are
256 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).

257 Μήστορα …: in apposition to 255 υἷας ἀρίστους.
258 μετ(ά) + dat.: ‘under’. — οὐδὲ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)ῴκει: on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 107
similar; cf. the hyperbolic expression ‘revered by the people like a god’ of var-
ious heroes, e.g. Aineias at 11.58); in addition, the designation here serves as
a foil for belittling the surviving sons at 260 ff. – On comparisons with gods in
general, 2.478–479n.
ἔσκε: ‘was always’ (3.180n.). — ἐῴκει: the personal construction with inf. occurs else-
where in Homer only at Od. 22.348 f. (Fernández-Galiano ad loc.; LfgrE; Ruijgh [1986]
1996, 611 n. 5).
259 1st VH ≈ 10.403, 17.77, 20.266, Od. 10.306 (cf. also 9.190 f., h.Ven. 46, h.Hom.
19.33). — mortal man … god: The opposing terms are pointedly placed at
VB and VE (Richardson). The polar expressionP ‘god – human being’ in the
same sentence is common (in Book 24 already at 258, also 537; see Macleod
on 534–538; Fehling 1969, 280 ff. [esp. 282]; West 2007, 110 f.; LfgrE s.v. ἀνήρ
834.11 ff.).
260–262 The basic tenor of the severe accusations: the surviving sons of Priam
lead an idle life of luxury at the expense of the people, instead of standing up
for the community, as Hektor in particular did to set an example; similar accu-
sations are levelled at Paris (3.39 ff., see 3.46–51n.) as well as, in a different con-
text, the suitors in the Odyssey (e.g. Od. 1.150–165, 2.48–67); cf. Richardson;
Veneri 1995, 120 f. – Dance (chorós) and battle as irreconcilable opposites are
a popular rhetorical motif, see esp. Il. 3.392 ff. (3.390–394n.), 15.508, 16.617 f.
(with Janko ad locc.): Schadewaldt (1944) 1965, 63; Ulf 1990, 39 f. (on the
other hand, in antiquity so-called armored dances were common in the con-
text of military ritual, cf. Od. 24.68–70: Bierl 2001, 100–104).
‘260 is a balanced contrast of μέν and δέ clauses with dactylic rhythm, 261 a «tricolon
crescendo»’ (Richardson; on 261; cf. 3.39 with n.); in addition, a sarcastic contrast with
255 f. is created: of the heroes in battle, none are left – left are rather, without exception,
the ‘heroes of the round dance’, cf. Macleod: ‘ἄριστοι bitterly echoes ἀρίστους in 255’
(an ironic use of ἄριστος, as at 3.39, etc.). — ἄρης: on the so-called metonymic use,
2.381n. with bibliography; the present expression (‘Ares kills X’, i.e. ‘X falls in battle’)
has close parallels at 16.543, 24.498. — ἐλέγχεα: cf. 239–240n.
261 ψεῦσται: perhaps like 19.107 with the sense ‘you who do not follow what you purport
to do/be’ (see ad loc.), cf. 3.106 ἄπιστοι (Menelaos on Priam’s sons): Luther 1935, 84 f.
(‘braggarts’); differently Levet 1976, 219 f. (‘of people who invent tales’) and Carlisle
1999, 74 (‘another type of entertainer … tellers of unacceptable versions or of lesser nar-
rative like folk tales’) by analogy with Od. 19.203 (Odysseus ἴσκε ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγων
ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα); undecided, Macleod. — χοροιτυπίῃσιν: The initial element χοροι- is
259 ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).

260 τὰ … ἐλέγχεα: ‘the worthless ones there’ (deictic, cf. R 17). — πάντα: predicative, ‘all of them’.
261 χοροιτυπίῃσιν: on the inflection, R 11 1.
108 Iliad 24
a (metrically useful) old locative form, cf. 2.54 Πυλοιγενής, 24.375 ὁδοιπόρος, etc. (AH;
Risch 220); the final element is related to τύπτω, literally ‘stamp the dancing ground in
the round dance’ (Frisk s.v. χορός). On the plural in abstracts of a-stems, 2.588n.
262 1st VH = Od. 9.220, 17.242, 19.398. — the plunderers | of their own people
in their land of lambs and kids: The implication is: rather than fighting the
external foes (with livestock theft also normally directed against strangers,
cf. 1.154–157n.; Macleod; Richardson). – The accusation against kings (here
phrased as a paradox) of consuming common property is a frequent motif in
the rhetoric of dispute (1.231n.). It is difficult to decide to what extent it is jus-
tified in individual cases; here either in reference to the lack of risk in the theft
of sheep and goats that are usually left unguarded (thus LfgrE s.v. ἁρπακτήρ) or
in the sense that Priam’s sons undeservedly take advantage of the agricultural
produce they regularly receive from the people because of their status (van
Wees 1992, 86). On the moral criticism of ‘theft’, cf. Hes. Op. 356.
263 See 253–264n. and 253n. — οὐκ ἂν … ἐφοπλίσσαιτε: The potential is an ‘oblique
(but taken objectively sometimes a more emphatic) form of stating a desire, plea, re-
quest’ (Schw. 2.329 [transl.]), here in the form of a question, as at 3.52 f. (see ad loc.),
Od. 6.57 (Nausikaa); see also Chantr. 2.221 (‘why are you waiting to prepare my wagon
for me …?’ [transl.]); Richardson; Minchin 2007, 206; 2010, 393–395. — τάχιστα: fre-
quently in (impatient) requests, cf. 554, 635 (LfgrE s.v. 341.12 ff.).
264 2nd VH = Od. 15.219; ≈ Od. 3.476, 15.47. — ταῦτα … πάντ(α): must refer to the gifts
set aside in the treasure-room – possibly ‘accompanied by an indicating gesture from
Priam’ – even if they are located outside the field of view (Beck 1964, 218 [transl.];
Macleod). — ἐπιθεῖτε, ἵνα: hiatus in caesura B 2 is not uncommon in early epic, cf.
297, 318, 637, 717, 733, 784: Ahrens (1851) 1891, 123 ff.; West on Hes. Th., Introd. 96. —
πρήσσωμεν ὁδοῖο: of the departure: ‘get on one’s way’ (Kurz 1966, 136 n. 42; Macleod;
LfgrE s.v. πρήσσω); on the partitive gen., 2.785n.
265 ≈ 12.413, 23.417, 23.446; 1st VH ≈ 17× Il., 23× Od. (ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἳ δ’ ἄρα πάντες). —
ὑποδδείσαντες: ‘take fright’; in early epic, obedience is naturally repeatedly motivated
by fear (1.33, 1.568, 24.571, 24.689, etc.). — ὀμοκλήν: cf. 248n. (ὀμόκλα).
266–274 Just as with Hera’s carriage (5.722–732), Achilleus’ shield (18.478–609)
and quarters (24.448–456) and Odysseus’ raft (Od. 5.234–262), the narrator
describes the wagon not in its finished state but in the way it is assembled/
made (‘narrative in description’: Minchin 2001, 114 ff.; ‘dynamic description’:
de Jong on Od. 5.233–262). Such technical descriptions bring about an ini-
262 ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4).

263 οὐκ ἂν …: potential as a request. — ἐφοπλίσσαιτε: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
264 ἐπιθεῖτε, ἵνα: on the hiatus, R 5.6; ἐπι-θεῖτε: aor. opt. — πρήσσωμεν: Attic πράττωμεν (R 2).
265 ἔφατ(ο): on the middle, R 23. — ὑποδδείσαντες: = ὑποδείσαντες; -δδ- < -δϝ- (R 4.5).
Commentary 109
tial calm after highly emotional scenes only in order to immediately raise the
tension once more (Macleod; Richardson; Minchin loc. cit. 129): the detail
of the description is related to the significance of the subsequent action (in
which the object described is an important tool); here, the wagon will bring
the ransom gifts to Achilleus and Hektor’s corpse back to Troy (principle of
elaborate narrationP; cf. Willenbrock [1944] 1969, 56; Bowra 1952, 210).
Linguistically, such descriptions are characterized by a high density of nouns
and predicates, especially by technical terms and hapax legomenaP (Edwards,
Introd. 54; Müller 1968, 74 f.; Keil 1998, 47 n. 38; Perceau 2002, 128 ff.); the
‘prepositions’ (frequently at the beginning of clauses) also stand out: ‘(lifted)
out, (lifted) down, then out’, etc.; Fehling 1969, 195; cf. 1.436–439 with n.). On
descriptions of objects in general, see also 2.101–108n.; Grethlein 2008, 35 ff.,
47 f. — the easily running wagon for mules, a fine thing | new-fabricated:
Four-wheeled wagons (on ‘four-wheeled’, see 324) are drawn by mules rather
than horses (277–278n.; also by cattle: 782) and are used to transport goods;
cf. Od. 6.72–80 (Wiesner 1968, 10 f., 33; Richter 1968, 78–80). Because of its
role as a means to transport the ransom gifts and then Hektor’s body, the wag-
on (and/or the draft animals) is mentioned at every opportunity in Book 24
(150 f./179 f., 189 f., 277 f., 324 f., 350, 362, 442, 447, 471, 576–579, 590, 690, 697,
702, 718). General bibliography on the wagon in early epic: Leaf p. 623 ff. (ap-
pendix M); Wiesner 1968; Plath 1994. – Four-wheeled wagons are rarely at-
tested in archaeological contexts in Greece; their construction can be deduced
only approximately from the extant finds (Crouwel 1981, 54 ff.; 1992, 77 ff.). –
The emphatic cluster of attributes at 266 f. (with enjambment; cf. 191n.) points
to the special occasion (of the journey) for the king; the enjambment at 268 f.
and the clustering of ‘well polished/smooth’ at 271, 275, 280 are similar; cf.
2.42–43n.; on asyndetic series of epithets in general, 125n.; on series of four
epithets, Bühler 1960, 212–215.
ἄειραν … δῆσαν … ᾕρεον … ἔφερον …: The switch between aor. and impf. in scenes
with a dense sequence of actions is likely most often metrically determined, e.g. the land-
ing by ship at 1.432–439 (1.437n.), the dressing scene at 2.42–46 (2.42n.). Bibliography
(occasionally with attempts at differentiation): K.-G. 1.143 f.; Wackernagel (1920) 1926,
182 f.; Schw. 2.276 f.; Chantr. 2.193 f.; βαίνω in particular: 459n.
266 2nd VH = 189, Od. 6.72. — hauled out: When not in use, wagons were set on
platforms (stands, trestles) and the wheels removed: 8.441 with Leaf ad loc.;
2.777b–778a n.
266 ἐκ … ἄειραν: = ἐξῆραν ‘lifted out/down’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.

110 Iliad 24
267 1st VH ≈ 5.194; 2nd VH ≈ 190. — πρωτοπαγέα: ͜ For the special occasion, a wagon is
here used for the very first time: ‘brand new’ (cf. Pandaros’ wagon at 5.192 ff.; LfgrE with
bibliography). – The prosodic irregularity (synizesis at word end) may result from de-
clining the formula (5.194 καλοὶ πρωτοπαγεῖς: Plath 1994, 253; cf. 7n.); on the word
formation, see Risch 81 f. (verb-noun compound, final element related to πήγνυμι). —
πείρινθα: 190n.
268–269 1st VH of 268 ≈ Od. 8.67/105; 2nd VH of 269 ≈ 11.31, Hes. Th. 812. — of
boxwood: ‘The wood of the box, which grows plentifully in the mountains
of Pontic Asia Minor, was appreciated early on for its hardness, density and
lasting durability’ (AH [transl.]; see also Meiggs 1982, 280–283; LfgrE); already
attested in Mycenaean (MYC). — massive knob: On omphalós ‘yoke-boss’, see
273–274n.
ὀμφαλόεν: On the short before caesura B 1, see 84n. The v.l. -εντ’ is likely due to the
influence of post-Homeric masculine ζυγός (Leaf); on the conjecture -ειν, see Rengakos
1993, 86. — οἰήκεσσιν: a device for guiding the reins or straps (= chest/belly strap to
fasten the yoke), in the shape of rings, eyes, hooks or ends of the yoke bent upwards (or
fitted with pegs). Discussion: Leaf p. 625 f. (Appendix M); Wiesner 1968, 7 f., 16 f., 105;
Plath 1994, 383 ff.; LfgrE.
270 the yoke lashing (together with the yoke itself): repetition of a word
stem in the case of technical terms, as at 3.330, 18.476 (Fehling 1969, 161).
— yoke lashing … of nine cubits: probably a strap to connect the yoke and
the wagon-pole (273–274n.). The measurements suggest extraordinary length
(likewise at Od. 11.308–312: giants; h.Ap. 103 f.: necklace or garland for a god-
dess) – whether this is realistic or a hyperbolic indication of the quality of the
royal utensils is unclear; similarly disputed are the measurements of the wag-
on in Hes. Op. 423 ff., especially the 7-foot-long axle (Richardson/Piggott
1982, 226, 228; Raepsaet 1987, esp. 24 f.). Additional symbolic measurements:
6.319n. (Hektor’s lance, 11 cubits), 15.678 (Aias’ pike, 22 cubits). – All numbers
mentioned here (7, 9, 11, 22 [= 2×11]) are typical numbersP.
267 πρωτοπαγέα: ͜ on the synizesis, R 7; on the uncontracted form, R 6.

268 κάδ … ᾕρεον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; κάδ = κατά (with apocope and assimilation:
R 20.1). — πασσαλόφι: ‘peg, hook’; on the inflection, R 11.4.
269 οἰήκεσσιν: from οἴηξ ‘guide for the reins’ (Attic οἴαξ: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2); on the inflec-
tion, R 11.3. — ἀρηρός: ‘fitted with’.
270 ἐκ … φέρον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ζυγόδεσμον: ‘yoke-strap’.
Commentary 111
271–274 The transition from the yoke to the wagon-pole is the inherent ‘weak
point’ of an animal-drawn vehicle (the tip of the wagon-pole of a two-wheeled
chariot breaks at 6.38–43 [6.40n.], 16.370 f.), hence the careful joining via (1)
ring and nail and (2) yoke strap is all the more important, cf. 5.729 f. (illus-
trations in Wiesner 1968, 8 f. [see below]); a certain flexibility must be main-
tained, however, in the case of a four-wheeled wagon (Littauer/Crouwel
1988, 195; LfgrE s.v. πέζα).
271 ≈ Od. 6.75 (cf. 275n.); 1st VH ≈ Il. 3.293, 4.112, 6.473, Od. 9.329, 13.20, 13.370, h.Merc.
63, 134. — κατέθηκαν: rather than κατέθεσαν: for an analogous formation of a unique
aorist form in -κ- (ἔθηκα, etc.), cf. 795 θῆκαν beside 720/787/797 θέσαν (Chantr. 1.379;
Hackstein 2002, 136–139). — ἐϋξέστῳ: an epithet of various objects made of wood,
usually after caesura B 2; in Book 24 also at 275, 590 (wagon), 280 (manger) (Plath 1994,
217 ff.). Occasionally in early epic also with a feminine form (e.g. 275): an amalgam of ἐϋ
+ ξεστός (Kastner 1967, 44).
272 ring … peg: The ring fixed to the center of the yoke (‘boss’, 273–274n.) is
slipped over the nail or peg inserted close to the tip of the drawbar (Plath
1994, 381 ff. and 374 ff.).
πέζῃ ἔπι πρώτῃ: ‘on the outer part of the tip of the drawbar’. For a summary treatment
of the term and the object, LfgrE s.v. πέζα (with bibliography, esp. Plath 1994, 391 ff.);
cf. 271–274n.
273–274 The binding technique cannot be accurately reconstructed from the
text: the strap coming off the drawbar is probably looped around the boss in
a crosswise manner three times each from left and right, and is then tied to
the wagon-pole ‘in a row, in order’, i.e. in parallel, screw-like turns (Wiesner
1968, 7 f. with fig. 1 [see below]; Macleod; LfgrE s.v. ἑξείης); finally, the end
of the strap is fixed to the wagon-pole. – Discussion, some parts of which are
disputed, in: AH; Littauer/Crouwel 1988; Plath 1994, 377 ff.; Richardson
(with additional bibliography). — knob: The yoke’s thickened middle, used as
the central fastening point.
271 τὸ μέν: = ζυγόν. — ἐϋξέστῳ ἐπί: on the prosody, (eÿxéstōy epí) M 12.2. — ῥυμῷ: ‘drawbar’.
272 πέζῃ ἔπι: = ἐπὶ πέζῃ (R 20.2); πέζα = ‘«foot» (front end) of the yoke’. — πρώτῃ, ἐπί: on the
hiatus, R 5.6. — ἐπὶ … βάλλον: on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — κρίκον: ‘ring (on the yoke)’. —
ἕστορι: ‘nail, peg (on the wagon-pole)’.
273 ἔδησαν: as object sc. τὸ ζυγόδεσμον. — ὀμφαλόν: ‘knob (of the yoke), pommel’.
112 Iliad 24
A possible reconstruction of the joining of yoke and drawbar (from: Wiesner 1968, 8 fig. 1;
reproduction with kind permission of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Publishers, Göttingen). –
a. ῥυμός ‘wagon-pole’; b. ζυγόν ‘yoke’; c. ὀμφαλός ‘boss’; d. κρίκος ‘yoke-ring’; e. ἕστωρ
‘peg’; f. ζυγόδεσμον ‘yoke strap’; g. γλωχίς ‘contraption to fix the yoke strap’ (with a loop
[thus the illustration] or, more likely, with a hook).
αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα: a formula at VE (15× Il., 11× Od., 3× Hes., 4× h.Hom.), at VB (14× Il., 7× Od.)
and after caesura A 3 (3× Il., 2× Od., 1× h.Cer.), cf. Higbie 1990, 100 f.; a typical paratactic
clause connection in narrative: ‘and then’ (1.51n.). — ὑπὸ γλωχῖνα δ(έ): Because of the
postponement of δέ (see below), ὑπό is probably a preposition with γλωχίς rather than
an adverb/preverb in tmesis with ἔκαμψαν; γλωχίς (basic meaning ‘tip’) thus likely re-
fers here not to the ‘end’ of the yoke strap (which is bent downward, i.e. pulled through
underneath the knotting on the wagon-pole and so held in place), but to a ‘hook’ on
the wagon-pole nail (under which the strap end is guided, and to which it is then fas-
tened). On this passage in detail, Plath 1994, 369 ff.; see also LfgrE s.vv. γλωχῖνα (and
τριγλώχις), as well as the bibliography mentioned above. — δ(έ): On δέ in third position
after a combination of closely linked words (esp. article + noun, preposition + noun),
see Bekker 1863, 286; Denniston 185–187; West on Hes. Op. 46.
275 2nd VH ≈ 578 (v.l.), 590, Od. 6.75 (cf. 271n.). — The structure of the verse mirrors
the movements of Priam’s sons: the starting point is the treasure-room (VB), the
end point the transport wagon (VE); the object (‘the unnumbered spoils’) is left
until the end of the sentence (276). – On the ‘treasure-room’, see 191n.
274 γλωχῖνα: ‘hook (on the wagon-pole)’.

Commentary 113
276 ≈ 579 (unloading the wagon). — Ἑκτορέης κεφαλῆς: a periphrastic denominationP.

κεφαλή as a representative body part of human beings can connote both ‘(endangered)
life’ and ‘(dear) person’ (with emotional coloring): 17.242 ἐμῇ κεφαλῇ περιδείδια, 18.82
(τὸν τῖον) ἶσον ἐμῇ κεφαλῇ (similarly Od. 11.557 ἶσον Ἀχιλλῆος κεφαλῇ), Il. 18.114 ὄφρα
φίλης κεφαλῆς ὀλετῆρα κιχείω, in the address at 8.281 φίλη κεφαλή, 23.94 ἠθείη κεφαλή
(cf. post-Homeric literature, e.g. Soph. Ant. 1: Ἰσμήνης κάρα); additional examples:
LfgrE s.v. κεφαλή 1396.38 ff.; bibliography: Edwards on 18.82; de Jong on Od. 1.343–344;
Clarke 1999, 174. Cf. below, 579n. – On the combination adj. + κεφαλή, see the passages
above with ἐμός, φίλος, etc.; differently (concretely of the head) Γοργείη κεφαλή at 5.741,
Od. 11.634; on the type of possessive adjective with the Aeolic ending -εος, see 2.54n. —
ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα: described in detail at 229 ff.; despite its formulaic nature (VE formu-
la, 11× Il.), the epithetP could thus be understood as contextually relevant (Buchan 2012,
145); cf. 502 in direct speechP (Priam addressing Achilleus), 555 f. ἄποινα πολλά, τά τοι
φέρομεν, 594 οὐ … ἀεικέα … ἄποινα, but see the reservations at 1.13n. (where also on the
form ἀπερείσιος). – The parallelism Ἑκτορέης κεφαλῆς ἀπερείσι’ ἄποινα (adj. + noun /
adj. + noun) lends weight to the matter: 19.267n., end (with examples).
277–278 Mules were considered extremely useful and were valued accordingly
(e.g. as a prize for boxing: 23.653 ff.): Richter 1968, 78 ff.; Wiesner 1968, 10 f.,
33, 101 f.; Griffith 2006, 229–241. The area of the Propontis and the southern
coast of the Black Sea was apparently an important center for mule-breeding
(2.852n.; schol. T on 24.278 [with a quotation from Anacreon 377 Page]).
277 ≈ Od. 6.253; 1st VH ≈ Od. 6.111. — κρατερώνυχας: an epithet of mules as strong draft an-
imals in difficult terrain: a naturally strong hoof is an important criterion of quality in an
era without horseshoes (Delebecque 1951, 148 f.; Hainsworth on Od. 6.253). Elsewhere
usually of horses (in the Iliad as a VE formula κρατ. ἵππους 5.329, 16.724/732, all in the
context of speed); on horse epithets in general, 2.383n.; cf. the VE formula μώνυχας
ἵππους 19.424n. — ἐντεσιεργούς: ‘working in harness’ (a hapaxP; cf. ταλαεργός 23.654
etc.); ἔντεα in the sense ‘harness for draft animals’ elsewhere only in post-Homeric liter-
ature (Richardson); on the word formation with dative/locative initial element, Risch
219 f. (On the unresolved issue of whether the initial element was originally ἠνυσι- vel
sim., see the bibliography in LfgrE, esp. Wyatt 1969, 63 ff.).
278 2nd VH ≈ 534, etc. (see ad loc.). — Mysians gave once: The external analep-
sisP (cf. 235n.) lends the animals ‘a certain distinction’: Delebecque 1951, 28
(transl.). – In the action of the Iliad, the Mysians are Trojan allies; their territo-
ry borders the Troad to the east (2.858n.).
τούς: ἡμίονος is feminine as a rule (thus at e.g. 324 f.), rarely masculine (also at 17.742
[simile]). — ἀγλαὰ δῶρα: a VE formula (8× Il., 6× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Merc.); in the verse
276 νήεον: impf. of νηέω ‘pile up, load’; the impf. indicates iteration (‘one gift after another’). —
Ἑκτορέης: on the -η- after -ε-, R 2.
278 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1).
114 Iliad 24
middle (mostly in the 3rd/4th metron, cf. 447) 3× Il., 4× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Merc. – The ep-
ithet likely has a merely ornamental function (1.23n., but cf. οὐ … ἀεικέα … ἄποινα 594n.).
279 ≈ 23.291. — they led under the yoke those horses: After the detailed de-
scription of the transport wagon – which will be driven by the herald Idaios
(324 f.) – the preparation of Priam’s team of horses (somewhat less important
for the plot) is reported only briefly (Peppmüller; cf. 3.328–339: the arming
of Paris is described in detail, while that of Menelaos is allowed only a single
verse; see 3.339n.). The team of horses will pull a two-wheeled wagon, as is
customary in early epic (322; see 14n.).
280 cf. 5.271. — himself had kept, and cared for them: Priam again uses
one of his most valuable possessions for his journey to plead with Achilleus
(Martinazzoli; cf. the precious cup at 234–237a [with n.], the mules 277 f.); in
addition, the horses are a gift from the gods (534–535a n.). On horses as an aris-
tocratic ‘hallmark’ in general, see the bibliography at 2.762n.; on horse rearing,
especially in Troy, 2.230n.; on the common motif of feeding horses before and
after a drive, 2.775b–777a n.
αὐτὸς ἔχων: ‘keeping for himself, for his own use’ (AH; cf. 1 133, 2.233 [with n.], 5.271,
Od. 21.30).
281–321 Immediately before her husband’s departure, Hekabe urges him to make a

libation to Zeus and ask for a good omen. Priam complies, and Zeus consequently
sends a large eagle, flying from the right, as a sign.
281 ζευγνύσθην: a causative middle: ‘they had their teams harnessed’, i.e. by Priam’s sons
(schol. bT; AH; in general: K.-G. 1.108 f.). — ἐν δώμασιν ὑψηλοῖσιν: a VE formula (also
at Od. 21.33, h.Hom. 29.1), cf. VE ἐν ὑψηλοῖσι δόμοισιν 6.503n. – ὑψηλός is a common
epithetP of buildings or parts of buildings, with δῶμα also at 16.213 = 23.713 δώματος
ὑψηλοῖο (VB); cf. 449n. (of Achilleus’ κλισίη).
282 = 674; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.353. — the herald | and Priam: 148n., 149n.
πυκινὰ φρεσὶ μήδε’ ἔχοντες: a variant (‘inflection’) of the VE formulaP … μήδεα
εἰδώς (88n.), aside from here and 674 also at Od. 19.353 (Penelope on Eurykleia); θεοῖς
ἐναλίγκια μήδε’ ἔχοντα Od. 13.89 (of Odysseus) is similar. The expression πυκινὰ φρεσὶ
μήδε(α) also occurs at ‘Hes.’ fr. 43(a).9 M.-W. (π. φρ. μήδε’ ἰδ[υι-) and in the quotation
of ‘Homer’ at Xen. Sympos. 8.30 (π. φρ. μήδεα εἰδώς); cf. also 3.202n. (εἰδὼς … μήδεα
279 ἵππους … ὕπαγον ζυγόν: ‘they led the horses under the yoke’; ζυγόν is acc. of direction
dependent on ὕπ(αγον).
280 ἀτίταλλεν: ‘he cared for, brought up’ (durative impf.). — ἐϋξέστῃ ἐπί: on the hiatus, 271n.
281–282 τὼ … ζευγνύσθην … | … ἔχοντες: dual and plural forms can be combined freely (R
18.1). — δώμασιν: here ‘building complex’ (including the courtyard). — μήδε(α): ‘thoughts, ideas,
stratagems’.
Commentary 115
πυκνά). – Whether the epithetP (metaphorical in the sense ‘wise’: 75n.) here and at 674 is
to be taken as (a) ornamental or (b) contextually relevant is difficult to decide. If (a): an
expression of the wisdom characteristic of old age, cf. 486–489n. (thus schol. T on 674;
Macleod). On Priam’s wisdom in particular, see 201–202n.; on Idaios’ wisdom, 7.278
and 24.325 (as well as Od. 2.38 of another herald). If (b): Priam and Idaios focus their
thoughts entirely on the hazardous undertaking that is imminent (thus Richardson).
283–321 The type-sceneP ‘libation by an individual’ (Edwards 1975, 55): (1) in-
vitation to offer libation (283–298; followed here by an assent at 299–301, an
element that is otherwise part of the more common type ‘libation [by a group]’:
1.469–474n.; Edwards loc. cit. 56; de Jong on Od. 3.332–342), (2) washing hands
(302–304), (3) libation with wine (305–307), (4) prayer (308–314a), (5) response
by the god (314b–321; = element 9 of the type-scene ‘prayer’: 306–314n.). – On
the function of libations, see 70n. with bibliography
283–298 Hekabe unexpectedly appears once again: retardationP (whether the
appearance of Menelaos during Telemachos’ departure in the related scene at
Od. 15.144 ff. [where 284–286 ≈ Od. 15.148–150] should similarly be interpreted
as a ‘last minute delay’ or – more likely – as the customary discharge of a host’s
obligations is disputed; on the one hand, see Reece 1993, 98 f.; on the other,
Reinhardt 1961, 492 f. and Tsagarakis 1979, 29 f.; cf. 286n.). Only with much
worry and reluctance has Hekabe resigned herself to letting her husband go –
she models her terms for denoting his undertaking on his own words (198 f. +
218 ≈ 288 f., 298) – but she nevertheless tries to obtain the best possible condi-
tions for him (and a bit of consolation for herself): he will perform a libation to
Zeus (Hekabe’s recommendation to Hektor at 6.258 f. is similar) and demand
a genuine promise from the highest god in the form of a bird omen. Already
in her earlier speech, Hekabe did not want to believe that Zeus was watching
over Priam’s mission from the start (200–216n.). On such omens demanded in
prayer, so-called omina impetrativa (in Homer also at Od. 3.173 ff., 20.98 ff.), see
Cuillandre 1943, 328 f.; Stockinger 1959, 50, 156; West 1997, 399 (parallels
at Judges 6:36–40: Gideon).
283 1st VH = 5× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’; ≈ 2× Il., 1× Od. — τετιηότι θυμῷ: a VE formula (also 11.555,
17.664; on metrically equivalent formulae, Friedrich 2007, 109 f.); it means approxi-
mately ‘dejected, worried, troubled’ (cf. LfgrE s.v. τετίη(μαι); differently Anastassiou
1973, 205 ff.: suffering due to an unfulfilled hope). On the co-existence of the perf. part.
active (7× early epic) and middle (τετιημένος 12× early epic, of which 11× in the inflecti-
ble VE formula τετιημένος ἦτορ), see Schw. 1.768; Chantr. 1.432; on the expansion of
the stem with -η-, Schw. 1.770; Chantr. 1.428; Hackstein 2002, 243 f.
283 ἀγχίμολον: adverbial, ‘close by’. — σφ(ι): = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1); dative of destination with ἦλθ(ε).
116 Iliad 24
284 ≈ Od. 15.148. — μελίφρονα: approximately ‘heart-warming’; a generic epithetP

(6.264n.).
285 ≈ Od. 15.149; 1st VH ≈ Od. 3.41 (cf. 18.121). — δέπαϊ: -ῑ as at Od. 3.41; cf. Ἀχιλλῆϊ 119n.;
see also Wathelet 1962, 9 f. In contrast 3× Od. ἐν δέπαϊ χρυσέῳ (VB): long by position.
— ὄφρα λείψαντε κιοίτην: The final clause might display secondary focalizationP:
Hekabe expressly confirms her intention at 287 ff.: σπεῖσον (de Jong [1987] 2004, 111
with n. 32 p. 268; below, 583b–585n.). – Forms of the defective verb ἔκιον (preterite)
frequently supply a prosodic alternative (beginning with a consonant) for εἶμι (begin-
ning with a vowel). More on the form and use of ἔκιον in Létoublon 1989, 85–92. —
λείψαντε κιοίτην: The participle expresses the main idea: ‘so that they offer a liba-
tion before setting out’, ‘so that they do not depart without having first sacrificed’; 581
πυκάσας δοίη ‘so that Achilleus enshrouds the corpse before handing it over’ is similar.
Bibliography: K.-G. 2.98 f.; Verdenius 1956 and on Hes. Op. 131. On the clear-cut tempo-
ral relationship between predicate and participle, see Oguse 1962, 174–176 (collection of
examples).
χρυσέῳ: On the prosody (synizesis χρυσέῳ?),
͜ see 21n.
286 1st VH = Od. 15.150; ≈ Il. 14.297, 23.582, h.Cer. 63, h.Ven. 81; 2nd VH (speech
introduction formulaP): 17× Il., 26× Od., 2× h.Ven. (on the faded sense of the
VE formula, cf. 127n.). — She stood in front of the horses: in part because of
the prescription of the rite (libation/prayer before departure), in part to stand
in the way of those setting out so as to lend emphasis to her plea: Kurz 1966,
89 (differently Kelly 2007, 141 f.: ‘protective attitude’). On the parallel at Od.
15.148–150, see 283–298n. At Il. 23.582–585, the position is adopted for ritual
reasons: Antilochos stands before the horses because he must touch them (or
their heads) during the oath.
287 1st VH ≈ 6.259. — Sacrifice/libation and prayer are often mentioned in the
same breath or – with regard to the principle of do ut des (1.39–41a n.) – per-
formed concurrently, e.g. 2.400 f., 16.231 f., 16.253, 24.306 f., Od. 3.45, 15.258
(Benveniste 1969, 235 [transl.]: ‘word and action complete one another’;
Corlu 1966, 71 f.; Reynen 1983, 25 ff.); on libation in general, see 70n.; on the
type-scene, 283–321n. — Zeus father: cf. 308 with n. — and pray you may
come back | home again: On the wish for a happy return home, cf. esp. Il.
15.372–376, Od. 13.47–63, 21.207–211.
284 δεξιτερῆφι: on the inflection, R 11.4.

285 δέπαϊ, ὄφρα (λ)λείψαντε: on the prosody, R 5.6 and M 4.6. — λείψαντε κιοίτην: dual of the
3rd person; κιοίτην is an optative form of a defective verb with the meaning ‘go’.
286 ἐκ … ὀνόμαζεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).
287 εὔχεο (ϝ)οίκαδ(ε): on the prosody, R 4.3; on the uncontracted form, R 6.
Commentary 117
τῆ: ‘there!, take it’ (with imperatives: 14.219, etc.); an old instrumental related to the
pronominal stem to- (Frisk; Beekes; Schw. 2.579; LfgrE). — εὔχεο … ἱκέσθαι: aor. inf.
in reference to an action in the future: 2.401n.; Schw. 2.296; Chantr. 2.189. — οἴκαδ’
ἱκέσθαι: an inflectible VE formula (3× Il., 4× Od.); variant ἐνθάδ’ ἱκ- (2× Il., 11× Od., 3×
h.Hom.).
288 δυσμενέων: a term from character languageP, in the Iliad always of opponents in war
(see 3.51n.). — ἐπεὶ ἄρ: 42–43n.
289 μέν: ‘of course’ (AH), with an adversative function (σέ γε – ἐμεῖο μέν) as at 92 (see ad
loc.); somewhat differently, Denniston 378 f. (μέν in a dependent clause without corre-
sponding δέ); cf. R 24.6. – Bibliography on the gen. absolute: 243–244a n., end
290 εὔχεο: ͜ The position of the imperative before the pronoun creates emphasis; cf. the
‘normal’ VB ἀλλὰ σύ γ’ εὔχεο Od. 9.412 (AH). – For discussion of the transmission and
prosody of the verbal ending -εο, see Chantr. 1.59 f.; West 1998, XXII with n. 48; GT 7;
G 45 with n. 25; Passa 2001 (on this line: 401). — ἔπειτα: either ‘subsequently’, i.e. ‘after
the libation and the first general prayer’ (Faesi [transl.]; similarly Richardson: ‘in addi-
tion’), or ‘in this case’, ‘since it is so’, namely that you absolutely wish to visit Achilleus
(resumption of ἐπεὶ ἂρ σέ γε …; cf. ἔπειτα after an εἰ clause at 296 f.): AH; Cunliffe s.v.;
cf. 356n. and 19.112–113n. — κελαινεφέϊ Κρονίωνι: a VE formula (1.397n.).
291 on Ida: The cult title ‘Idaios’ is mentioned also at 16.604 f. (death of the priest
Laogonos); the cult places are situated on Mount Ida (8.47 f., 22.170 f.; on the
role of Zeus Idaios in the Iliad in general, Woronoff 1995; cf. 3.276n.). The
invocation of the local god – an entire verse is used here to present him (cf.
1.36n.) – can lend special emphasis to a plea, as also at 308 with iterata (‘Zeus,
watching over us from Ida’; Chryses, Pandaros, Glaukos addressing Apollo at
1.37 ff., 4.101, 16.514 f. and Achilleus addressing Pelasgian Zeus at 16.233 are
analogous; bibliography on the contrast between local cults and Panhellenic
religion in epic: 1.44n.). — looks out: namely down from Mount Ida (explicitly
so at 8.51 f., 11.337, 13.4–14): an expression of the protective function of the god
(Macleod).
292–295 ≈ 310–313 (293 f. = 311 f.); 292b–293a ≈ 9.521 f.
292–293 a bird … a rapid messenger …: An eagle (315 f.), explicitly sent by
Zeus also at 8.247, 12.200 f., Od. 2.146 f.; elsewhere at Il. 13.821 f., Od. 15.160 f.,
20.242 f. At Od. 15.526, a falcon is termed the ‘swift messenger’ of Apollo (with
289 ὀτρύνει: ‘drive somewhere, call upon, dispatch’ (like 143). — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1).
290 εὔχεο: ͜ on the synizesis, R 7.
291 Ἰδαίῳ, ὅς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — κατὰ … ὁρᾶται (+ acc.): ‘look down
onto …’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2; on the middle, R 23.
292 τέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3. — οἱ αὐτῷ: ‘him himself’, i.e. Zeus (cf. R 14.1).
293 καί (ϝ)εο:
͜ on the hiatus, R 4.4; on the synizesis, R 7. — ἑο:
͜ = αὐτοῦ (R 14.1).
118 Iliad 24
Hoekstra ad loc.; post-Homeric parallels in Silk 1974, 89 with n. 13). – In

Homer, the eagle appears only in omens and similes; its characteristics (usu-
ally superlative): Zeus’ favorite bird (here and in parallel passages), a relia-
ble omen (315 = 8.247), keen sighted (17.674 f.), strong and swift (here and at
21.253). On the eagle as a royal bird, see Thompson (1895) 1936, 3 f.; on its sig-
nificance in antiquity overall: RAC s.v.; on bird omens, cf. 219n.
οἰωνόν: pregnant, ‘bird of omen’ (Stockinger 1959, 154 f.). — ταχύν: thus the main
transmission (with v.l. ἑόν) here and in the iteratum at 310, but ἑόν alone is transmitted
at 296; see Leaf and Richardson; in detail, Erbse 1960, 331 ff.; van der Valk 1964,
93. — ἑο:
͜ gen. of the personal pronoun (= αὐτοῦ; G 81; on the form, cf. εὔχεο 290n.).
Transition from the relative clause (292: ὅς …) to an independent clause (with anaphoric
personal pronoun) as at 1.78 f., etc. (K.-G. 2.432 f.; Chantr. 2.243; Macleod). — κράτος
ἐστὶ μέγιστον: a VE formula (6× Il., 2× Od.); on its use in connection with Zeus, see
2.118n.
294 = 312; 2nd VH = h.Ven. 83, 179; cf. 15.422. — on the right: i.e. from the point
of view of the observer (Leaf on 12.239; Collins 2002, 27 ff.); here and in the
fulfillment of the plea at 320 in emphatic position at VB. The right is thought to
be the auspicious side (in Homeric epic at 10.274, 13.821, Od. 24.311 f.). — your
eyes: on the significance of autopsy, 223n.
ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσι νοήσας: a semantically equivalent ‘replacement’ for the inflectible VE
formula (which does not offer a suitable participle form) (ἐν) ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι (5×
Il., 1× Od., 3× h.Hom.; only participial form attested: ἰδοῦσα h.Cer. 409) and ὁρᾶσθαι
(5× Il., 5× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom.; participial forms: ὁρῶσα Od. 8.459, ὁρῶντα ‘Hes.’ fr.
204.101 M.-W.); cf. Il. 1.587, 3.306 with nn.; Bertolín Cebrían 1996, 58; LfgrE s.v. νοέω
416.1 ff. – The aorist of νοέω is frequently used as a verb of perception in early epic
(≈ ἰδεῖν): Böhme 1929, 24–27; Bertolín Cebrían loc. cit. 56–59; LfgrE loc. cit. 410.54–56,
414.50 ff.; cf. Il. 15.422 f. (Hektor) ἐνόησεν ἀνεψιὸν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν | ἐν κονίῃσι πεσόντα.
Interpreted pregnantly, by contrast, at Nagy 1990, 205 f.; Schmitt 1990, 140 f.: ‘(to see
the sign and) recognize its significance’, cf. the combination of the two verbs at e.g. 337
ἴδῃ … νοήσῃ (with n.). – The switch between (locative) ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσι and (instrumen-
tal) ὀφθαλμοῖσι (e.g. at 206, 246) is probably for the most part metrically conditioned in
early epic (cf. ἐν πυρί 38n.). On the original meaning of the preposition ἐν, see on the
one hand Schw. 2.458 (transl.): ‘the ancient notion of what is seen as an image in one’s
own eye’ (so too Bechert 1964, 76 n. 1); on the other hand, AH (transl.) on 18.135 / Od.
8.459: ‘what is or happens in someone’s field of view, «before the eyes»’. – On the func-
tion of (ἐν) ὀφθαλμοῖσι as a indication of autopsy, see 206n.
295 ≈ 313; 2nd VH ≈ 14.21. — Danaans: A term for the ‘Greeks’ (cf. 168n.).
294 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14 1). — αὐτὸς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσι: ‘with one’s own eyes’.

295 τῷ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).
Commentary 119
τῷ: ‘does not merely pick up μιν in 294, but rather summarizes the content of the preced-
ing participial construction μιν – νοήσας: «this bird of omen seen with one’s own eyes»’
(AH [transl.]). — πίσυνος ἐπί: on the prosody, 84n. – πίσυνος is perhaps formed by
analogy with θάρσυνος (13.823, likewise in an eagle omen), see Risch 150 f. — Δαναῶν
ταχυπώλων: an inflectible VE formula (1× nom., 10× gen., only Il.), the only formula in
the gen. for ‘the Greeks’ after caesura C 1 (Parry [1928] 1971, 101, 178). The epithet (else-
where only at 23.6 of the Myrmidons), like other epithets of the Danaans (e.g. αἰχμηταί,
ἥρωες, θεράποντες Ἄρηος; see Dee 2000, 153 f.), likely refers to qualities in battle, here
to the use of the (two-wheeled) war chariot (on which, 2.384n.); cf. Delebecque 1951,
40.
296 εἰ … οὐ δώσει: ‘when it comes about that he will not give = will refuse’ (AH; K. G.
2.189, 191); οὐ δώσει ‘will refuse’ forms a conceptual unit like οὔ φημι, etc.; cf. οὐκ ἐάω
at 569n., οὐκ ἐθέλω at 3.289n., οὐκ ἄνωγα at 6.444n. (in general, see Wackernagel
[1924] 1928, 262 f.; Schw. 2.593 f.). – On the mixed condition (protasis: factual; apodo-
sis: potential), see 57n.; οὐ in an εἰ-clause is also not unusual in Homer (Schw. 2.593;
Chantr. 2.333 f.). — εὐρύοπα Ζεύς: an inflectible VE formula (nom./voc./acc.): 13× Il.,
7× Od., 7× Hes., 6× h.Hom. – εὐρύοπα (otherwise only in the expression εὐ. Κρονίδην
1.498, 24.98, etc.) probably signifies (a) ‘far-seeing’ (1.498n.; Schmitt 1967, 157 ff., with
IE parallels) rather than (b) ‘with far-reaching (thunderous) voice’ (on ὄψ ‘voice’:
Pulleyn on 1.498); cf. DELG: secondary reinterpretation of (b) to (a) due to echoes of
ὄψομαι/ὄπωπα ‘see’.
The acc. εὐρύοπα Ζῆν (thus e.g. 331) is likely primary: Chantr. 1.200; Pulleyn on 1.498; Janko
on 14.264–266; Schmitt 1967, 157 ff. with bibliography (differently [nom. primary]: Peppmüller on
331 f.; Kirk on 8.206; Witte [1912] 1979, 112 f.). Because of the analogy with Vedic dyā́m (Latin diem),
the acc. form Ζῆν is accordingly not to be understood as elided Ζῆνα (Schw. 1.577; Frisk; Leumann
1950, 47 f., 291; Hagen 1994; Janko loc. cit.).
297 ≈ 9.517; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 23.264 as well as 8× Od. ἐποτρύνων/-ας ἐκέλευσα/-ε. — οὐκ ἂν …
κελοίμην: taken as a conceptual unit by schol. bT and Faesi: ‘I would advise you against’
(so too AH on 14.62 f. πόλεμον δ’ οὐκ ἄμμε κελεύω | δύμεναι; cf. 296n. on οὐ δώσει). But
the separation of negative and verb and the stressed ἐγώ γε suggest instead an (ironic)
understatement: ‘I myself would hardly suggest that you do something’.
298 1st VH ≈ 12.246, 19.236 (νηυσὶν ἔπ’ Ἀργείων) and 3.119 (νῆας ἔπι γλαφυρὰς ἰέναι, with
n.). — μάλα περ μεμαῶτα: an inflectible VE formula: 14.375, 17.181, Od. 22.172, ‘Hes.’
fr. 35.3 M.-W.; also 2× Il. in verse middle after caesura B 1 (on this, Janko on 15.601–
604).
296 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — δώσει (ϝ)εόν: on the prosody, R 4.4. — ἑόν: possessive pronoun of the
3rd person (R 14.4). — εὐρύοπα: probably ‘far-seeing’ (nom.).
297 ἔπειτα ἐποτρύνουσα: on the hiatus, R 5.6.
298 νῆας ἔπ(ι): = ἐπὶ νῆας (R 20.2). — μεμαῶτα: part. of μέμονα ‘be eager, strive’.
120 Iliad 24
299–301 Priam’s assent is characterized by formal cordiality: he gives in to

his wife in order to placate her (schol. bT; Faesi; Macleod [all on 300]).
Implication of the gnome added as a justification: ‘I will go in any case; all the
better if Zeus – beyond what Iris promised – lends his support’. On the brevity
and casualness of the reply, cf. Achilleus at 139 f. (with n.).
299 A speech introductory formulaP; on the 1st VH, see 64n. (similar formulae
of reply: 217n., 372n.). — Priam the godlike: 217n. (elsewhere always ‘aged
Priam …’).
300 ὦ γύναι: ὦ before vocative is comparatively rare in the Iliad; whether it expresses the
heightened emotional involvement of the speaker is disputed (1.442n. with bibliogra-
phy). In the case of γύναι, its use appears to have a metrical basis: ὦ γύναι only at VB
(in the Iliad also at 3.204, in addition 12× Od.), but in verse middle it always lacks the
interjection. – γύναι ‘woman’ is a neutral address in various contexts (usually but not
exclusively addressed to wives: 6.441n.; Wackernagel [1912] 1953, 991–993; but cf. ἆνερ
725n.). — οὐ … ἀπιθήσω: ‘will follow, obey you’ (litotes: Wackernagel [1924] 1928,
297); aside from 10.129, elsewhere always in the narrator textP after orders/requests (usu-
ally ὣς ἔφατ’, οὐδ’ ἀπίθησε: 2.166n.; Peppmüller): Priam’s assent complies with the
epic convention of immediately carrying out requests (188–190n.). — οὐ μέν τοι: after
a vocative at the beginning of a speech, as here: 23.795, Od. 7.159; at the very beginning
of a speech: Od. 1.222, 4.836, 16.267; also Il. 8.294, 21.370 (2nd verse of a speech), Od.
18.233, 23.266 (in the middle of a speech).
301 Gnomes concerning behavior toward gods are common in the Iliad: 1.218,
1.589, 3.65 f., 6.267 f., 24.425 f., etc.; on gnomes at the end of speeches, cf.
1.218n. — to lift hands: a gesture of prayer common in many cultures (3.275n.
with bibliography).
αἴ κ’ ἐλεήσῃ: an inflectible VE formula after verbs of pleading and sacrificing (6× Il., 1×
Od.); αἴ κε expresses a hope: ‘whether … in fact, whether … perhaps’ (6.94n.; different-
ly LfgrE s.v. λιτανεύω [transl.]: ‘conditional subordinate clause with a final implication
that indicates at the same time both the content and the aim of the plea’ [on 24.357]). –
On the mercy of Zeus, 19n.
302 1st VH ≈ Od. 6.198, 19.96. — told: a summary order (in indirect speech);
the execution of it follows immediately (303 f.): de Jong (1987) 2004, 116 f.;
Richardson 1990, 71 f.
ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formulaP with a subject that is consistent but explicitly
repeated only here and at 3.310, 14.346, 23.596, 24.596 (likewise with ἦ, καί at 1.219n.; cf.
300 ἐφιεμένῃ ἀπιθήσω: on the hiatus, 271n. — ἐφιεμένῃ: mid. ἐφίεμαι ‘order, demand’.
301 ἀνασχέμεν: inf. (R 16.4). — αἴ κ(ε): ‘whether in fact’; αἰ = εἰ (R 22.1); on the use of the modal
particle κε = ἄν, R 21.1.
302 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24.1).
Commentary 121
22.77 ἦ ῥ’ ὁ γέρων). 24.643, ‘where the personal name that follows immediately is not a
postponed subject, but belongs to the next sentencee’ (Fingerle 1939, 366 [transl.]), is
unusual: ἦ ῥ’ [sc. Priam]· Ἀχιλεὺς δ’ … κέλευσεν. — ἀμφίπολον ταμίην: a combination
of terms for type and function, likewise at Od. 16.152, also γυνὴ ταμίη at Il. 6.390, etc.
(in general, see 2.474n.). The ταμίη is an (unfree) servant in a senior position (6.381n.;
LfgrE). On ἀμφίπολος in detail, 3.143n.
303 On the requirement that hands be washed before ritual action, 1.449n.; ele-
ment 2 of the type-scene ‘libation’ (283–321n.).
ἀκήρατον: The etymology is uncertain, and the parallels adduced are all linguistically
problematic: κήρ ‘death, doom’, κηραίνω ‘harm’, κεραΐζω ‘destroy’ (cf. 245), κεράννυμι
‘mix’ (on which, 2.341 ἄκρητος, of unmixed pure wine); likely no longer distinguish-
able already in antiquity, cf. 15.498 οἶκος καὶ κλῆρος ἀκήρατος and Od. 9.204 f. οἶνον
ἀκηράσιον; here probably in the sense ‘uncontaminated, pure, clean’ (and hence puri-
fying); see Leaf; DELG; Nussbaum 1986, 67 f. (all with bibliography).
304 The water is poured over the hands from a jug (próchoos), with the hands
held over a basin (here chérnibon, in the Odyssey lébēs).
A variation of the formulaic verse χέρνιβα δ’ ἀμφίπολος προχόῳ ἐπέχευε φέρουσα (Od.
1.136, 4.52, 7.172, 10.368, 15.135, 17.91, always of entertaining a guest: Calhoun 1933, 9 ff.).
— χέρνιβον: appears at first to be a heteroclite form of χέρνιβα (acc. of χέρνιψ) ‘water
for washing hands’, but on the basis of Mycenaean and post-Homeric parallels it more
likely = ‘wash-basin’ (DELG; Beekes; DMic s.v. ke-ni-qa; Richardson); the combination
with πρόχοόν θ’ ἅμα also suggests ‘(holding) basin and jug (in one’s hands)’ (Leaf; van
der Valk 1982, 297) rather than ‘water and jug’ (thus Peppmüller). — χερσὶν ἔχουσα:
an inflectible VE formula (often with ἐν or μετά preceding, cf. 647n.): 8× Il., 7× Od., 5×
Hes., 3× h.Cer.; in addition, 13× in various positions in the 1st VH.
305 κύπελλον: used in early epic with no discernible difference from δέπας (285) (101n.).
— ἐδέξατο: similar phrasing at 1.596; here, as there, receiving the cup indirectly signals
relenting on the part of the character concerned – δέχομαι also always implies the po-
tential for the opposite ‘refuse’ (137n.; LfgrE; cf. 1.595n.).
306–314 The type-sceneP ‘prayer’ (1.37–42n. with bibliography; also de Jong on
Od. 2.260–267). The elements realized here are: (1) prayer gesture, (2) verb of
praying, (5) invocation of the deity with cult titles, (7) plea, (8) formulaic con-
clusion, (9) description of the god’s response.
303 ἥ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17) with 304 ἀμφίπολος in apposition.

304 ἅμα: to be taken with χέρνιβον … πρόχοόν θ’ (‘and also, and at the same time’; θ’ = τε).
305 νιψάμενος: ‘after he washed his hands’ (from νίζω). — ἐδέξατο (ϝ)ῆς: on the prosody, R 4.3.
— ἧς ἀλόχοιο: ablatival gen.; ἧς is the possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4).
122 Iliad 24
306–307a = 16.231 f. (Achilleus prays to Zeus); 307a ≈ 7.423, Hes. Th. 761. —
prayed, and poured the wine out: on the combination of libation and prayer,
287n. — enclosure: Greek hérkos, referring to the courtyard (aulḗ, 161n.); there
must be no great distance from the vestibule (where the wagon has been pre-
pared) to the courtyard (238n.; cf. AH). – An altar to Zeus Herkeios, protec-
tor of farmsteads, stands in Odysseus’ courtyard (Od. 22.334 f.), and a similar
one should be imagined here in Priam’s courtyard, as well as in Achilleus’
quarters (16.231 f. with Janko ad loc.; schol. b on 24.306; differently Donnay
2005: in the present context, Zeus Herkeios plays no role; on Zeus H. in gen-
eral, Nilsson [1940] 1967, 403; Brulé 2005); in the further course of the story
of Troy, Neoptolemos is supposed to have killed Priam at this altar (schol. b;
Il. Pers.: Procl. Chrest. § 2 West; see Taplin 1992, 266). — looking up into the
sky: like raising the hands (301), a common prayer gesture that aims to create
contact with the deity (3.364n.; Macleod).
307b ἔπος ηὔδα: a VE formula with a preceding participle that usually anticipates the
illocutionary act (εὐχόμενος, etc.) (14× Il., 1× Od.); with φωνήσας (locutionary act) only
here: Peppmüller; Muellner 1976, 89, 94 n. 41 (collection of examples). On the terms
of speech-act theory, see 101–102n. with bibliography
308–313 The narrator once more subtly distinguishes between Priam’s main
concern and Hekabe’s overpowering worry: Priam does not ask primarily for
a happy return (287 f.) but for a successful embassy to Achilleus (309; cf. 224–
227; Macleod on 309; Richardson); this is what Zeus promised him via Iris
(153–158/182–187). – In contrast, the remainder of the prayer (310–313) is put in
Hekabe’s words, in accord with oral poetic technique.
308 = 3.276, 3.320, 7.202; 1st VH ≈ 8.397, 8.438. – Solemn whole verse addresses
with epithet clusters are typical of the language of prayer (2.412n., 6.305n. with
bibliography). – On Zeus Idaios, see 291n.; on ‘Father Zeus’, 3.276n.
κύδιστε μέγιστε: 2.412n.; West 2007, 129 f.
309 ≈ Od. 6.327 (ἐς Φαίηκας, of Odysseus as supplicant; here with elliptical ἐς + gen., on
which cf. 160n.). — δός: a common expression in prayers (Morrison 1991, 153 n. 26).
— φίλον ἐλθεῖν ἠδ’ ἐλεεινόν: The main idea is contained in the predicative adjectives
φίλον/ἐλεεινόν, i.e. appoximately: ‘let me receive kind treatment and mercy when I
come …’. On the two terms, see 68n. and 44n. (cf. also Od. 19.253 f.). At 650, Priam will
be addressed as γέρον φίλε ‘dear old man’ by Achilleus (650n.).
306 μέσῳ ἕρκεϊ: statement of place without preposition (R 19.2). — δὲ (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody,
R 4.3.
308 Ἴδηθεν: gen. dependent on μεδέων ‘ruling over’; on the form, R 15 1.
309 ἐς Ἀχιλλῆος: ‘in/to Achilleus’ 〈quarters⟩, to Achilleus’; ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1).
Commentary 123
310–313 ≈ 292–295 (311 f. = 293 f.).

314–321 The type-sceneP ‘omen’ (2.303–335n.). Since the omen appears here in re-
sponse to a corresponding request, the interpretation is to some extent a given,
and the speech of interpretation can be omitted (especially since the eagle’s di-
rection of flight is clearly positive): (7) the emotional response of the recipient
is immediately followed by (13) the additional effects of the omen (322 ff.); see
Stockinger 1959, 131–133.
314 = 16.249, Od. 20.102; ≈ Il. 15.377; 1st VH in total 12× Il. (of which 1× fem. εὐχομένη), 5×
Od. — A formulaic verse indicating that a prayer has been heard (1.43n.), the final ele-
ment of the type-scene ‘prayer’ (306–314n.). — μητίετα Ζεύς: 1.175n.
315 = 8.247. — eagle …: 21.252 f. ‘the black eagle, the marauder, who is at once the
strongest of flying things and the swiftest’ is similar. It is today difficult to de-
termine the exact species of animals portrayed in ancient poetry, e.g. the snake
at 2.308 (see ad loc.), the two eagles in the parodos of Aeschylus, Agamemnon
(108 ff.); here the intended reference is probably to the Golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos) or the Eastern imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) (Arnott 2007 s.vv.
Morphnos and Perknos). ‘Poetry is not real life, […] not a naturalist’s field-re-
port. At the same time, an image’s power increases in proportion to its preci-
sion’: Arnott 1979, 7; likewise Richardson on 314–316, end.
αὐτίκα: frequently used in the Iliad when a character is following instructions (2.442n.);
it is significant here insofar as the eagle can be understood as an unequivocal sign
from Zeus because of its immediate appearance, as at 8.245 ff. (Stockinger 1959, 132;
Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981, 179 f.; Dillon 1996, 108). — τελειότατον: in the case of
sacrificial animals, in reference to their immaculate condition (‘entirely perfect’: 1.66n.,
cf. verse 34); here also of the assuredness of fulfillment (AH [transl.]: ‘most promising’,
Willcock: ‘most significant’; cf. 2.330n. on τελεῖται): schol. D; Macleod; Gundert
1983, 166–168; LfgrE.
316 called as well the …: The narrator uses this phrase either to introduce a
(less familiar) technical term or to sum up a description with a well-known
precise term (hip socket at 5.305 f., a type of helmet at 10.257–259); frequent-
ly merely introducing ‘a secondary and informal name’ (Kirk on 6.402–403),
in part with etymological explanation: the constellations Ursa Major 18.487
and Sirius/Canis Major 22.26–31, Skamandrios/Astyanax 6.402 f. and 22.506,
Areïthoös/club-fighter 7.138–141, Kleopatra/Alkyone 9.556–564 (de Jong [1987]
2004, 95 [with bibliography]; Richardson 1990, 141 f.; Stoddard 2004, 51 ff.).
At the same time, the phrase creates a reference to the present: de Jong on
310–313 ≈ 292–295 (see ad loc.).

314 μητίετα: ‘rich in μῆτις, clever’ (nom.).
124 Iliad 24
Od. 5.273 (‘omnitemporality’). – On the related phenomenon of differentiating

between divine and human language, see 1.403n., 2.813–814n.
μόρφνον: The etymology is uncertain, and the word is usually interpreted as ‘dark
(colored)’; see Frisk; Beekes; LfgrE; Arnott 2007 s.v. Morphnos (all with further bib-
liography). — θηρητῆρ(α): of an animal only here and at 21.252 (likewise of an eagle),
elsewhere always of human beings. — πέρκνον: probably ‘dark mottled/speckled’ (thus
also ὑποπερκάζουσιν at Od. 7.126 of ripening grapes), here likely a substantive ‘dark
speck’ (?) (on the development of a name from an attribute, see 1.403n.; West 2001,
279). – The root contained in πέρκνος forms the basis for a variety of animal names, e.g.
Latin porcus, English ‘perch’. On the etymology, word formation and usage (a Homeric
hapaxP) in detail, see LfgrE; ChronEG 6 s.v.; Giger-van den Heuvel 2007, 30–38. – On
the clustering of technical terms, cf. 266–274n.; 2.765n.
317–319 The illustration of the wingspan by a simileP – each wing is as large as
a (stately) door – adds to the effect of the eagle omen: it is conspicuous and
brings about a change of mood (320 f.). For the association between door and
wing, similarities in style of movement might be crucial (cf. German ‘Türflügel’
[‘wings’, i.e. leaves, of a door]: Peppmüller ad loc., end; Fränkel 1921, 53;
excessively far-reaching associations in Anhalt 1995). – Among similes re-
garding measurement, comparisons of size (as opposed to e.g. distance: 3.12n.)
are comparatively rare (Scott 1974, 20 ff.): ‘as big as a mountain’ (Od. 3.290,
9.190–192, 10.113, 11.243), ‘as long and thick as a mast’ (Od. 9.322–324), ‘as
wide as a cargo ship’ (Od. 5.249–251), perhaps also of Aias’ shield ‘like a tower’
(on which, Kirk on Il. 7.219–223). – House architecture occurs as a motif of
comparison also at 16.212 f. (closely-jointed house wall), 23.712 f. (intersecting
rafters); the rich man as a motif of comparison: 4.433 ff. (many sheep), 11.67 ff.
(abundant harvest), 24.480 ff. (influence in the community), Od. 11.414 ff.
(feast).
317 ≈ 16.589. — θύρη: In the sing., this can denote both a ‘(single leaf) door’ and an individ-
ual ‘leaf’ of a (double leaf) door (cf. Odysseus’ armory at Od. 22.155 ff.).
318 1st VH = Od. 14.200; ≈ Il. 24.482 (and cf. Od. 14.414). — ἔϋ κληῗσ(ι): The transmission
for the most part offers ἐϋκλήϊς ‘well-locking’ (thus also Aristarchus: schol. A), but since
an absolute use of ἀρηρώς is attested only rarely (elsewhere usually with adv. or dat.,
thus e.g. 269), the v.l. ἔϋ κληῗσ’ (dat. pl.) should be preferred, hence ‘well equipped with
317 ὅσση: on the -σσ-, R 9.1; likewise 319 τόσσ(α).

318 ἀνέρος: = ἀνδρός; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10 1). — ἀφνειοῖο, ἔϋ: on the hia-
tus, R 5.6. — κληῗσ(ι): ‘with bars’.
319 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), referring back to the ‘eagle’ (315); possessive
gen. with πτερά. — ἔσαν: = ἦσαν (R 16.6). — πτερά· (ϝ)είσατο: on the prosody, R 4.3. — εἴσατο: aor.
of εἴδομαι ‘appear, become visible’ (here with part.). — σφιν: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1).
Commentary 125
bolts’. Discussion in schol. A; Peppmüller; Richardson; LfgrE s.v. κληΐς 1443.18 ff. – On

the meaning of κληΐς ‘key, ring’, cf. 6.89n.; on the locking mechanisms of doors, 446n.
— ἔϋ: on the accent, West 1998, XXf.
320–321 ≈ Od. 15.164 f. (bird omen on the occasion of Telemachos’ farewell from Menelaos);
in addition, 1st VH of 320 ≈ Od. 2.154; 2nd VH of 321 ≈ Il. 23.600, Od. 23.47 (additional var-
iants in Hoekstra 1981, 27 f., and 1965, 122). — οἳ δὲ ἰδόντες: an inflectible VE formula
(masc. pl. and fem. sing.), in total 4× Il., 1× Od., 6× h.Hom. — γήθησαν: i.e. contented
calm replaces the anxious tension and uncertainty: ‘γηθέω expresses an intense feeling
of happy satisfaction’ (Latacz 1966, 233 [transl.]; 1.255–256n.); in connection with di-
vine signs also at Od. 15.165, 20.104, 21.414 (Latacz loc. cit. 150). — πᾶσιν θυμὸς ἰάνθη:
the general sense: ‘all hearts were warmed’, ‘a load was lifted from everyone’s mind’
(Latacz 1966, 230); on ἰαίνω, cf. 119n. – πᾶσιν = φίλοι πάντες at 327 (with n.).
322–348 Priam sets out together with the herald Idaios. His family accompanies
him to the edge of the city, ‘as if he went to his death’. Zeus instructs Hermes to
lead Priam safely to Achilleus. In the guise of a young man, Hermes proceeds to the
Trojan plain.
322–328 Elements 2 through 5 of the type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (189–328n.) in
loose order (because of the combination of mule wagon and horse carriage;
see Arend 1933, 88; Tsagarakis 1982, 92) and with an accelerated narrative
tempo (cf. storyP). After the retarding libation scenes, ‘in haste’ at 322 (cf. 248)
signals a return to busy preparation for the departure (281 f.); cf. 326n. – With
the journey that begins here, Priam in some sense crosses the entire space of
the human action in the Iliad (from his palace in Troy, through the plain to
Achilleus’ quarters in the Achaian camp), symbolically bridging the distance
between the two warring parties: Lowe 2000, 112.
322 1st VH ≈ 248; 2nd VH ≈ 8.44, 13.26 (ἑοῦ δ’). — ξεστοῦ: only here as an epithet of the
δίφρος, by contrast ἐΰξεστος 4× (cf. 271n.). On the v.l. γεραιὸς ἑοῦ in place of γέρων
ξεστοῦ, see Peppmüller; Macleod.
323 ≈ Od. 3.493, 15.146, 15.191. — forecourt: 238n.
προθύροιο: ‘area of the door/gate’. Like other architectural terms in early epic, this can-
not be localized precisely (238n.); depending on context, a reference to the courtyard
gate or the main entrance door is possible (Gray 1955, 8 with n. 5; Hiller 1970, 18 ff.;
LfgrE). Departure scenes refer to the former, as here (in this case together with αἴθουσα
320 διὰ (ϝ)άστεος: ‘through the city’; on the prosody, R 4.3. — δὲ (ϝ)ιδόντες: on the prosody,
R 4.3.
321 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1).
322 ἐπεβήσετο: ≈ ἐπέβη (aor.).
323 ἐκ δ’ ἔλασε: ‘drove out’; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.
126 Iliad 24
probably a hysteron proteron: Hoekstra on Od. 15.146; cf. 100n.). — ἐριδούπου:

‘loud-thundering’; here perhaps a contextually relevant epithetP of the ‘thundering
hooves’ (and the noise of the wagon wheels), as at 11.152: Reinhardt 1961, 492; thus
also Macleod; Kaimio 1977, 69; Usener 1990, 156 ff.
324 The cargo wagon drives ahead ‘because, as the slower vehicle, it must dictate
the speed’: Kurz 1966, 127 (transl.).
τετράκυκλον: here scanned ⏖–⏑. There are several instances of a short syllable before
-τρ- (in general, see M 4.5), whereas τετρ- itself is elsewhere always long. Similar pro-
sodic exception: Od. 9.242 τετράκυκλοι with long syllables (Leaf; Chantr. 1.108; LfgrE
s.v.).
325 1st VH ≈ 2.764. — τάς: 278n. — δαΐφρων: on the word formation and sense, 6.161–
162n.; whether it is to be understood here as ‘brave in battle’ (thus e.g. the charioteers
at 16.727, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 119; see LfgrE s.v. δαΐφρων 206.73 ff.) or as ‘clever’ (AH; Buttmann
[1818] 1825, 201 f.; cf. 282n.) is unclear. — αὐτὰρ ὄπισθεν: a VE formula 5× Il., 2× Od., 1×
‘Hes.’ (also 1× Il. αὐτὰρ ὀπίσσω).
326 2nd VH ≈ 23.642. — The portrayal of Priam’s impatience dominates the entire
departure scene (253n., with further examples) – even now, as he drives be-
hind the (slower) mule wagon (Combellack 1965, 46 f.). — the horses | came
on as the old man laid the lash upon them: Priam drives his team himself,
as already in Book 3 (a journey to the battlefield for the conclusion of the trea-
ty: 3.261/311); at the same time, he fulfills Zeus’ precondition (‘alone’: 148/177).
Each man also steers his own vehicle in chariot races (23.362–372). In battle,
by contrast, the chariot is driven by a ‘charioteer’, with the warrior standing
beside him: 3.262 (with n.), 6.17–19 (with n.), 17.464 f. (cf. 2.384n.); so too in the
procession during Patroklos’ funeral (23.132). – At 440, Hermes will play the
role of charioteer.
ἐφέπων: at 16.724/732 (see Untermann ad loc.) with the dat. ‘guide the horses toward
someone’; here probably simply ‘follow after’ (cf. schol. D; AH).
327 2nd VH ≈ 1.424, Od. 10.425. — ἄστυ: as a topographic term, generally used in Homer
without any difference in meaning from πόλις (here at 329; likewise e.g. 2.329/332,
24.703/707). But sometimes ἄστυ carries a particular connotation as an archaic word:
in such cases, it tends to represent an internal view (one’s own city) and thus has more
emotional value vis-à-vis the inhabitants (here, the relatives follow κατὰ ἄστυ); πόλις
by contrast tends to be a more objective term. Bibliography: Lévy 1983; Casevitz et al.
1989; Schmidt 2006, 440 f.; LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1350 f. (πόλις = in general ‘city’) and 1351–
1353 (on ἄστυ and πόλις). — φίλοι: ‘the relatives’, specified as sons and sons-in-law in
325 τάς: functions like a relative pronoun (R 14.5), likewise τούς at 326.

326 ἵπποι: sc. ‘pulled the carriage, came’ vel sim. — κέλευεν: ‘spurred on’.
327 κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: ‘through the city’; on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 127
331; at 161 ff. Priam is also surrounded by male offspring in the courtyard, whereas his
female offspring stay within the living quarters (166). – Substantival φίλος is a term from
character languageP: ‘The narrator’s use of φίλοι creates a pathetic tone’ (de Jong 1997a,
301; cf. de Jong on Od. 1.19).
328 1st VH ≈ Od. 13.221; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 11.684 (‘to the fighting’), Od. 16.21 (‘as if he
had escaped dying’). — as if he went to his death: an expression of continued
concern by the relatives (secondary focalisationP: de Jong [1987] 2004, 121); cf.
the anticipated mourning for Hektor at 6.500–502 (85n.; on the present pas-
sage also Kelly 2012, 241–245). The narrator has not let the Trojans forget the
positive bird omen (although skepticism toward divine signs is not foreign to
early epic: 220–222n.), but aims once again to highlight Priam’s courage and
determination, so as to maintain suspense for his audience (cf. 189–328n.,
193–227n., 193–199n.; Macleod on 327–328; Deichgräber 1972, 58 f.).
According to some interpreters, the narrator here provides a ‘dramaturgic’ signal that
Priam’s journey to Achilleus may be interpreted following the motif of a descent into
the underworld (katábasis) and the retrieval of a deceased person (as e.g. in the myth
of Orpheus and Eurydike; on the motif in general, Bowra 1952, 78 ff.); cf. the phras-
ing at 246. If so, the following might be additional signals: nightfall (351n.), escort
by Hermes (153n.) equipped with his staff, Ilos’ grave monument (349n.) and the riv-
er (351n.) as a crucial point in the liminal zone (cf. 329–332n.), Hermes opening the
locked door of Achilleus’ ‘palace’ (453b–457; cf. ‘the gates of Hades’ at 5.646, 23.71/74),
Achilleus as ‘ruler’ over the dead Hektor (cf. Od. 11.491): NTHS 48; Crane 1988, 36–
38; Stanley 1993, 237–240, 244 f. (with further bibliography at 393 n. 11); Danek 1998,
50 f.; in detail, Herrero de Jáuregui 2011; reservations in Beck 1965, 29; Mueller
(1984) 2009, 73 f.; interpreted in a broader sense as a ‘quest narrative’ by Mackie 2008,
50 ff. — πολλ(ά): adverbial, ‘violently, much’ (of mental intensity, see 1.35n.; LfgrE s.v.
1423.10 ff.); cf. οἴκτρ’ ὀλοφυρ- 4× Od., αἴν’ ὀλοφυρ- 1× Od. — ὡς εἰ … κιόντα: ὡς εἰ +
part., as at 5.374, 16.192: Lange 1872/73, 538–553 (for the present passage, 547 f.);
Ruijgh 620–624 (for the present passage, 622). – κιόντα is a predicate of the acc. ob-
ject to be supplied with ὀλοφυρόμενοι (sc. γέροντα). — θάνατόνδε: cf. θεοὶ θάνατόνδ’
ἐκάλεσσαν (Patroklos and Hektor): 16.693, 22.297; similarly θάνατον καὶ πότμον ἐπισπεῖν
2.358–359n. – On the use of the allative -δε with terms that can imply both a location
(here: death) and an action (here: to die), see 2.51n. (ἀγορήνδε; cf. 2.443 πόλεμόνδε);
cf. 338n.
329–332 With the arrival in the plain and the return of the companions to town,
the narrator sets the ‘stage’ for Priam’s encounter with Hermes and the mi-
raculous journey to Achilleus. The plain between Troy and the encampment
328 ὀλοφυρόμενοι, ὡς: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ὡς εἰ: ≈ ὡς. — θάνατόνδε: on the form, R 15.3. —
κιόντα: participle of a defective verb with the meaning ‘go’.
128 Iliad 24
of ships here takes on the appearance of a liminal zone (330: human beings
withdraw; 332: gods intervene).
329 ≈ Od. 24.205. — flat land: = the Trojan plain (2.465a n.); cf. 351 ‘river’
= Skamandros.
330 ≈ 3.313 (Priam and Antenor leave the battlefield before the duel between
Paris and Menelaos); 2nd VH ≈ 14.46, 21.561.
προτὶ Ἴλιον ἀπονέοντο: cf. the VE formula προτὶ Ἴλιον ἠνεμόεσσαν 3.305n.
331 Zeus … failed not to notice: on the gods observing and intervening, 23n.
(here, as there, with a change of scene; see ad loc.). The expression is used fre-
quently (in reference to various deities), e.g. at 15.461, 16.232, 20.112 (Kullmann
1956, 84; LfgrE s.v. λανθάνω 1628.60 ff.).
οὐ λάθον: i.e. Zeus did not disregard the two (on the sense of negated λανθάνω, see
12b–13n.). — εὐρύοπα Ζῆν: 296n.; the epithetP with the meaning ‘far-seeing’ is here
likely related to the context (οὐ λάθον, ἰδών).
332 1st VH ≈ 17.487; 2nd VH ≈ 15.44, 17.441, 19.340 (and cf. 1st VH of 8.350, 15.12,
16.431). — He saw the old man and took pity | upon him: Zeus sees that the
time has come to fulfill the promise he made at 153 f./182 f. (cf. Priam’s plea at
301). On the theme of divine pity, see 19n. (and 146–158n., end).
333–361 The dispatch of Hermes, formed in accord with the type-sceneP ‘deliv-
ery of a message’ (77–88n.): (1) issuing orders with detailed reasoning, (2) de-
parture of the messenger (on the elaboration of this element via additional
type-scenes, see 339–348n.); the arrival (3) is narrated from the point of view
of those present on site for the benefit of ‘dramatic’ suspense (they see the
messenger arrive: Edwards 1987, 307; Richardson 1990, 117; de Jong/Nünlist
2004, 80 f.; similarly at 283), the description of the situation (4) consequently
becomes particularly detailed (instead of e.g. ‘Hermes found them at the riv-
er’); (5) Hermes approaches and begins the conversation in a sensitive manner
(there is in fact no order to be conveyed in the present case [element 6]): Arend
1933, 54, 58 ff.; Tsagarakis 1982, 78 f.
329 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἐπεὶ οὖν: on the so-called correption, R 5.5.
— πόλιος, πεδίον: statement of origin and direction without preposition (R 19.2); on the inflec-
tion, R 11.3. — κατέβαν: = κατέβησαν (R 16.2). — ἀφίκοντο: on the unaugmented form (-ῐ-), R 16.1.
330 οἳ μέν: = φίλοι (327), clarified in 331. — ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — προτὶ (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R
5.4; προτί = πρός (R 20.1). — ἀπονέοντο: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10 1).
331 παῖδες καὶ γαμβροί: in apposition to 330 οἳ μέν. — τὼ … λάθον: dual and plural forms can be
combined freely (R 18.1).
332 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — προφανέντε, (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. — προφανέντε: nom. dual of
the aor. part. of προφαίνομαι ‘become visible, come into sight, appear’, with ἐς + acc.
Commentary 129
333 ≈ Od. 5.28 (additional parallels from the Odyssey for the entire scene: 339–
345n.).
Ἑρμείαν: Hermes; on the form, G 39. — ἀντίον ηὔδα: a VE formula in speech introduc-
tory formulaeP, usually as formula of response in dialogues: τὸν/τὴν δ’ αὖ(τ’) … ἀντίον
ηὔδα (13× Il., 52× Od., 1× h.Cer.; variants: 23.482, Od. 2.242, 4.648, h.Ap. 463); before an
independent speech only here and at Il. 5.170, 8.200, Od. 5.28, h.Ap. 525, h.Ven. 91.
334–338 Zeus explicitly justifies his ‘personnel decision’ by portraying the skills
and qualities needed to execute the task as characteristic of Hermes: relia-
ble guidance (on which, 153n.), friendliness to human beings (cf. 347–348n.),
stealth (445 ff., 462 ff., 677 ff. [esp. 691 VE]; cf. 24n. and Macleod on 334–335);
in contrast, Hermes’ ‘partisanship’ (he is essentially pro-Greek: CG 17) is of
secondary importance.
334 ≈ 23 156; 1st VH ≈ 461, Od. 5.29, 19.397. — σοὶ … μάλιστα: i.e. in contrast to other gods
(AH; 2.57n.). — γάρ: may refer to both the preceding vocative and the following order,
and thus justifies why Zeus entrusts Hermes with this task and also why he trusts him
with this particular task: Denniston 69; Ruijgh 720 (also on the particle combination
γάρ τε); cf. 23.156 with AH ad loc.
335 to whom you will: ‘a common qualification in telling of a god’s powers. […]
It explains why he does not always do what he is supposed to be able to’ (West
on Hes. Th. 28); cf. 343 f.
καί τ(ε): καί likely has a coordinating function, τε a generalizing one (‘epic τε’):
Denniston 528 ff.; Ruijgh 763 ff. — ἔκλυες ᾧ: dat. rather than gen. of the person is
rare after κλυεῖν (e.g. Hes. Th. 474; cf. ἀκούειν ἀνέρι Il. 16.515 f.): LfgrE s.v. 1459.25 ff.;
Meier-Brügger 1986 (on the present passage: 353 n. 28); cf. 1.37n. (μοι in κλῦθί μοι has
a gen. function). – On the function of the aorist of ἔκλυες, cf. 616n. on ἐρρώσαντο (sim-
ilar phrasings: 1.218 ὅς κε θεοῖς ἐπιπείθηται, μάλα τ’ ἔκλυον αὐτοῦ, 9.509 καί τ’ ἔκλυον
εὐξαμένοιο). — ἐθέλῃσθα: on the form, G 89.
336 βάσκ’ ἴθι: ‘get going and go!’ (144n.); in most cases at the very beginning of the speech
of instruction to the messenger, here delayed by the justification at 334 f. (Richardson;
Reinhardt 1961, 478 f.). — καί: ‘and’; although additional imperatives after ἴθι are gen-
erally connected asyndetically (144n.), understanding καί as ‘also’ (sc. like any other
ἀνήρ [335]) is here hardly plausible, cf. 23.646 (with Leaf and Richardson ad loc.), Od.
18.171; differently AH. — κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula after caesura B 1 (also
333 ἀντίον ηὔδα: ‘address, speak to’.

334 σοὶ … μάλιστά γε φίλτατόν ἐστιν: ‘to you especially is this work most dear’. — γάρ: ‘indeed’.
— τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24 11); likewise 335.
335 ἑταιρίσσαι: intrans., ‘join someone as a ἑταῖρος’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — κ(ε): = ἄν (R 24.5). —
ἐθέλῃσθα: generalizing subjunc. (cf. 343); on the inflection, R 16.2.
336 νῆας: on the inflection, R 12.1.
130 Iliad 24
at 8.98, 22.465); on the variations (‘to/at the hollow ship/s’), see Kurt 1979, 35 (collec-
tion of examples). – Variant after caesura B 2: θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν (564n.); on simple
ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν (after C 1), see 118n. – κοῖλος is part of the group of ship epithets that
describe their construction and, like γλαφυρός (731n.), refers originally to the ‘cavity’ of
the hull (Gray 1974, 97). This is the only ship epithet with the prosodic form – – (list in
Parry [1928] 1971, 112). On ship epithets in general, 1.12b n.
337 that no man shall see him, none be aware of him: Clarification of
153 f./182 f. and also a seedP for 343 f. (Hermes seizes the magic staff), 445 f.
(he puts the guards to sleep), 477 (Priam approaches Achilleus without being
noticed).
μήτ’ ἄρ τις … μήτ’ ἄρ τε: an emphatic double negative, cf. μήτ’ ἄρ τι … μήτέ τι 21.288,
οὔτ’ ἄρ τε … οὔτ’ ἄρα 5.89 f., οὔτ’ ἂρ … οὔτ’ ἄρ’ 6.352, 20.205, h.Merc. 346 f. – Attempts
at explanation and correction of the redundant τε in Ruijgh 841 f.; other rare particle
combinations with τε in Chantr. 2.344. — ἴδῃ … νοήσῃ: ‘see and notice’ (in the sense
‘recognize’), cf. on the journey home αἴ κ’ Ἀγαμέμνων γνώῃ σ(ε) (687 f.), οὐδέ τις ἔγνω
(691), also 5.475, Od. 16.160, 19.478 etc.: LfgrE s.v. νοέω 414.20 ff.; above, 294n.
338 1st VH = 2.674, 17.280, Od. 11.470, 11.551, 24.18. — of the other Danaans:
namely other than Achilleus (the same juxtaposition Greeks – Achilleus also
in the iterata).
Πηλεΐωνάδ(ε): ≈ ‘to (the house of) Achilleus’. Allative -δε appears only here with a
personal name (see the list in Lejeune 1939, 56 n. 1; repeatedly imitated by Apoll. Rhod.:
Richardson). The explanation is disputed: ‘Leumann’s’ formation in accord with
22.214 Πηλεΐωνα δ’ ἵκανε > Πηλεΐωνάδ’ ἱκ- (Ellendt [1861] 1979, 86 n. 11)? analogous to
the VE formula οἴκαδ’ ἱκέσθαι 287, etc. (Peppmüller)? (cf. Von der Mühll 1952, 379 n.
46: ‘hyperhomericism’.)
339–348 The messenger setting out (333–361n.) is rendered as the type-sceneP
‘change of location by a deity’ (89–102n.) and forms a covering sceneP for
Priam’s uneventful drive through the plain. Element (2) preparation for the
journey is also expanded as the type-scene ‘dressing‘ (on which, 2.42–47n.: it
serves to prepare for a momentuous action) with (3) shoes and (4) ‘weapon’ –
here, specific to the context, Hermes’ ‘magic staff’ (343n.). On the (modified)
element (5) arrival and the realization of the intent of the intervention, see
333–361n. (there elements 3–5).
339–345 = Od. 5.43–49 (Hermes); also 340b–342 = Od. 1.96–98 (Athene); 343b–
344 = Od. 24.3 f. and 348 = Od. 10.279 (Hermes). – On the (motif-related, lin-
guistic, etc.) links between Hermes’ appearances at Il. 24 and Od. 5 (Kalypso)
and Od. 10 (Odysseus), see Beck 1965; Crane 1988, 38–40; Hölscher (1988)
337 ὥς: ‘so, thus’. — ἄγαγ(ε): aor.: ‘take!’.

Commentary 131
1990, 80; Usener 1990, 165–182; de Jong on Od. 10.275–309; cf. also 555n. –
Additional correspondences between Book 24 and individual Books of the
Odyssey concern in particular Od. 1: council of the gods regarding the return
of a deceased person (Hektor) or supposedly deceased hero (Odysseus),
Od. 6/7: hikesia scene (Priam with Achilleus, Odysseus among the Phaiakians),
Od. 24: burial of a hero (Hektor and Achilleus), reunion of father and son
(Priam/Hektor and Laërtes/Odysseus); see Rutherford (1991/93) 2001, 130–
132; Currie 2006, 10–15.
339 1st VH see 120n. — courier, Argeïphontes: 2.103n. (cf. 24n.); the epithetP
‘courier’ is particularly appropriate in the present context.
340–342 The text gives no indication as to whether Hermes’ sandals are sup-
posed to be winged (schol. T; Richardson); pictorial representations of such
sandals can only be found in Greece from the Archaic period on (LIMC s.v.
Hermes). On ‘wind-shoes’ in Hurritic-Hittite poetry, West 1997, 191; 2007, 152
(cf. the epithets of the divine messenger Iris, 77n.). – On the symbolism of the
sandals and their possible connection to Hermes’ function as god of transi-
tions, see Cursaru 2012.
340 = Od. 5.44; ≈ Od. 17.2; 2nd VH = Il. 2.44 (see ad loc.) etc. — sandals: 2.44n.
(with bibliography).
αὐτίκ’ ἔπειτ(α): Asyndeton with αὐτίκα is common (K.-G. 2.346 f.), here with an ex-
planatory function; on αὐτίκα in general, 315n. (here amplified by ἔπειτα: ‘immediately
after’, cf. 1.583, 2.322, 3.267, etc.).
341 golden and immortal: On the notion of ‘golden, because divine’, see 21n.;
West on Od. 1.97. On the asyndetic cluster of attributes, cf. 125n.
ἀμβρόσια: A derivation from the verbal adjective ἄμβροτος with the meaning ‘being
part of the immortals, divine’ (also as an epithet of the night: 363n.), see Frisk s.v.
βροτός; Risch 124; G 15; on the divine nourishment ‘ambrosia’, see 19.38n. — φέρον:
Divine implements and actions are generally portrayed in the (timeless) present (e.g.
the staff at 343b–344); exceptions, like the present one, regularly cause difficulties of
interpretation, cf. 2.448 ἠερέθοντο of the tassels of the aegis (see ad loc.), Hes. Th. 10
στεῖχον of the Muses (West on Hes. Th. 7 and 10). Here understood by AH and LfgrE s.v.
φέρω 848.20 ff. as an iterative imperfect: ‘used to wear, always wore’; but one might also
interpret this as an injunctive, which is used in the Rigveda to portray divine qualities
but has otherwise largely disappeared (West 1989; on the injunctive in general, Rix
339 ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — οὐδ(έ): also occurs after affirmative clauses
in Homer (R 24.8).
341 χρύσεια: on the metrical lengthening, R 10.1. — τά: with the function of a relative pronoun
(R 14.5). — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — φέρον: The predicate of a neuter pl. can be sing. or pl. in
Homer. — ἠμὲν … ἠδέ: ‘both … and, as well as’ (R 24.4). — ὑγρήν: on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2.
132 Iliad 24
[1976] 1992, 191 f., 194). — ὑγρήν: ‘the sea’ (ὑγρός is literally ‘liquid, flowing’: LfgrE). A
substantival feminine adjective like γλαυκή (likewise ‘the sea’; Hes. Th. 440 with West
ad loc.), ἀμβροσίη (19.38n.), θεσπεσίη (2.367n.), etc. (AH Anh. on Od. 1.97).
342 = Od. 1.98, 5.46; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 12.207, 23.367, Od. 2.148. — ἐπ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν: Aside from
here and in the iterata, always in a VE formula (1× Il., 4× Od., 6× Hes.; sometimes κατ’
rather than ἐπ’). Together with ἐφ’ ὑγρήν, it forms a polar expressionP, at 341: ‘across
the entire world, everywhere’ (Kemmer 1903, 160 f.); the epithet ἀπείρων, although for-
mulaic when combined with γαῖα, probably strengthens this connotation (cf. LfgrE s.v.
ἀπείρων). — ἅμα πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο: ‘together with the wind’; an expression illustrating
speed, i.e. ‘as swift as the wind’, of Hermes also at Od. 5.46, of Athene at Od. 1.98 (and
in the comparison ἀνέμου ὡς πνοιή at Od. 6.20); of horses: Il. 16.149, 19.415 (with n.),
harpies: Hes. Th. 268, an eagle: Il. 12.207 (with simple dat.), Od. 2.148 (μετά rather than
ἅμα; similarly Il. 23.367: horses’ manes fluttering in the wind).
343–344 = Od. 5.47 f.; ≈ 24.4 f. — On Hermes as god of sleep and dreams, cf. Od.
7.137 f., h.Merc. 14 f. (with Càssola ad loc.); Brillante 1990, 43.
343 He caught up: 2.46n. (dressing/arming scene). — staff: Greek rhábdos, the
‘hallmark’ of Hermes; cf. the description at h.Merc. 529 ff. and Hermes’ epithet
chrysórrhapis ‘with the golden staff’ (3× Od., 6× h.Hom.). On the relation of
the staff to the kērýkeion and caduceus, see Nilsson (1940) 1967, 509 f. (with
bibliography in n. 10). It is functionally signficant in the subsequent action
as a ‘magic staff’ (even if not mentioned again): 445 f.; see Peppmüller on
339 ff.; Richardson; de Jong on Od. 5.44–48; Danek 1998, 463 f.; cf. 337n.
(seedP). – On the magical touch of the gods, see 2.451b–452n.; examples of the
sleep-inducing effect of the magic staff in Thompson 1955/58 no. D1364.18; on
the motif of the magic staff in general, loc. cit. no. D1254; Buchholz 2012, 268 f.
— he mazes the eyes of … mortals: i.e. sends people to sleep (Greek thélgei,
literally ‘enchants, enthralls’); somewhat differently at 13.434 ff.: Poseidon ‘be-
witched the eyes, made motionless the limbs’ of Alkathoös in order to render
him incapable of flight, see Janko ad loc.
344 ὧν ἐθέλῃ: The ind. and subjunc. are transmitted here (Richardson); on the subjunc.
as preferable, Hainsworth on Od. 5.48. – On the meaning of the expression, 335n. —
καί: probably strengthening the polar expressionP: ‘(not only ὄμματα θέλγει, but) also
ὑπν. ἐγείρει’. — ὑπνώοντας: The formation of the word is disputed, since the meaning
does not fit with factitive ὑπνόω (Shipp [1953] 1972, 99; Heubeck on Od. 24.1–4); most
likely a present with diectasis of a denominative ὑπνάω derived from ὕπνος (DELG with
342 γαῖαν: = γῆν. — πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο: on the inflection, R 11.1 and 11.2. — πνοιῇς: initial syllable
metrically lengthened (R 10.1).
343 δὲ (ῥ)ῥάβδον: on the prosody, M 4.6. — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24 11).
Commentary 133
bibliography and suppl.), less plausibly an analogous formation related to the denomi-
nal ἱδρώω (Chantr. 1.366 with bibliography); cf. Risch 330.
345 Holding | this in his hand …: A scene ending after the description of an
item as at 2.47, 2.450, 15.311; with an (asyndetic) demonstrative connection (on
which, K.-G. 2.343 f.; cf. 9). — winged: probably not only metaphorical of great
speed at a crucial moment (thus Kurz 1966, 139, 151 f.), but also actually of
his movement through the air (thus LfgrE s.v. πέτομαι 1194.7 ff.): in early epic,
gods are repeatedly compared to birds, e.g. Hermes at Od. 5.50–54 (additional
passages in Hainsworth on Od. 5.51; in detail and with further bibliography,
Bannert 1988, 57–68; Carter 1995; cf. 2.71n.). Here, Hermes will assume hu-
man form and cover the last bit of the way on foot (347 f.).
κρατὺς Ἀργεϊφόντης: a VE formula (2× Il., 2× Od., 5× h.Hom.); see 24n. The adjective
κρατύς (in this form in -ύς) is only attested in the present Homeric noun-epithet formula
(elsewhere κραταιός [on which, 132n., end] and κρατερός).
346 2nd VH ≈ 15.233, 18.150, 23.2 (‘to their ships and the Hellespont’). — to Troy
and the Hellespont: taken as a geographic unit by the narrator (cf. 78n.). Troíē
sometimes denotes the city of Troy/Ilion, sometimes the region of the Troad
(2.141n.; LfgrE); on the ‘Hellespont’, see 544 f. with n. (the border of Priam’s
realm). – On the mention of place names in ‘divine journeys’, see 78n. (a list of
‘waystations’) and 78–79n. (the function of such namings).
347–348 Hermes takes on human form and impersonates the youngest son of
a noble Myrmidon and follower of their leader (396–400). This converts the
encounter with Priam into a variant of the themeP ‘a foreigner meets a na-
tive’, in which a new arrival is led to the palace, usually by a child of the local
ruler (on the type in general, Fenik 1974, 32 ff., 153 f.; Reece 1993, 13, 168 f.;
Bettenworth 2004, 105 f.; de Jong on Od. 6 [p. 151 f.]). In a similar way,
Hermes leads Odysseus to Kirke (Od. 10.275 ff.), also Athene at 13.222 f. as ‘a
young man, … such as the children of kings are’ (after Odysseus’ landing in
Ithaka) and at 7.19 f. as a ‘replacement’ Nausikaa (for Odysseus’ journey to the
palace of the Phaiakian king and queen). In addition, the specification of age is
functional in the present context: ‘As self-assured and in his element as the no-
ble youth is, so exposed is the old man’ (Reinhardt 1961, 479 f. [transl.]); this
contrast elicits mutual sympathy and thus prepares not only the encounter be-
tween Priam and Achilleus (anticipation of scenesP), but also particularly the
344 ἐθέλῃ: generalizing subjunc. without modal particle (R 21.1; cf. 335). — αὖτε: mildly adver-
sative, ‘on the other hand, however’.
345 τήν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — μετὰ χερσίν: μετά often occurs in Homer
with a locative dative (‘amidst/among, in’).
134 Iliad 24
topic of conversation at 486 ff. and 534 ff. via the father-son motif (on which,
362–439n.): Keil 1998, 158. – The reverse situation is found at 14.136 (after the
young Diomedes’ speech, Poseidon appears as an ‘old man’, see Janko ad loc.)
and in the common motif ‘goddess as an old woman’, e.g. Aphrodite as Helen’s
wool spinner (3.386), see Richardson on h.Cer. 101. On divine appearances
in human guise in general, Kullmann 1956, 99 ff. (collection of examples);
Fuchs 1993, 22 (appearance otherwise generally in the form or a relative/confi-
dant or another authority figure); de Jong on Od. 1.96–324 (with bibliography);
cf. 169–170n.
βῆ δ’ … ἐοικώς …: identical sentence structure in a similar situation at 15.237 f.: at Zeus’
behest, Apollo goes among human beings.
347 VB = 95 (see ad loc.); 2nd VH ≈ 12.385, 16.742, Od. 8.164, 12.413. — αἰσυιητῆρι: The
meaning of this was obscure already in antiquity and is thus to be preferred as the lectio
difficilior (West 2001a, 119 f.; a collection of the many ancient interpretations in Erbse
on schol. A and bT ad loc.); syntactically, a specification of κούρῳ on analogy with 17.726
κοῦροι θηρητῆρες, 18.494 κ. ὀρχηστῆρες (on the combination of terms for type and
function, cf. 302n.). Probably to be connected with the Trojan name Αἰσυιήτης (2.793,
13.427), which is likely of non-Greek origin and contains a signifier for ‘ruler, prince’
vel sim. (Wathelet s.v.). This also applies to the v.l. αἰσυμνητῆρι attested in the (later)
form αἰσυμνήτης at Od. 8.258 (≈ ‘judge, referee’); in the post-Homeric period, a term
for kings and magistrates (here accordingly understood as ‘prince’): DELG; Beekes;
Richardson; Janko on 13.427–433.
348 = Od. 10.279 (and 2nd VH of 347 ≈ Od. 10.278). — with beard new grown:
The first facial hair (mustache) is seen as a sign of reaching adulthood, e.g. at
Od. 18.175 f./269 f. (Telemachos is ready to succeed his father): Ulf 1990, 56 f.
— the most graceful time of young manhood: On the positive evaluation of
youth in Homer, see Latacz 1966, 102; Vernant (1982) 1989, 56 ff.; the typical
beautiful young man is also personified e.g. by Ganymedes (20.233–235). On
the meaning of the adjective charíeis, see 6.90n. (‘attractive, with a charming
effect’).
347 αἰσυιητῆρι (ϝ)ε(ϝ)οικώς: on the prosody, R 5.4.

348 πρῶτον ὑπηνήτῃ: ‘who is growing a beard for the first time’. — τοῦ περ: ‘especially to one
such (youth), whose …’ (generalizing in reference to youth); τοῦ with the function of a relative
pronoun (R 14.5); on περ cf. R 24.10.
Commentary 135
349–439 Priam and Idaios stop on the way. They then see Hermes approaching.
As a ‘follower’ of Achilleus, he gains Priam’s trust; his statement that Hektor’s body
shows no signs of decomposition gives Priam renewed hope.
349–361 Via a natural interruption of the drive (letting the animals drink at the
river under cover of dusk, cf. 351n.), the narrator creates the pause necessary
for the meeting between the two old men and Hermes (Peppmüller on 351;
cf. Kurz 1966, 119). The portrayal of the encounter is modelled on the so-
called ‘«action–perception–reaction» pattern’ (on which, see 696–709n.; cf.
Richardson on 352–357): Idaios sees a man approaching (on which, see 333–
361n.) – inevitably identifies him as an enemy – flight or plea for mercy? – Priam
panics (on the fright of the two men despite Zeus’ promise at 152–154/181–183,
cf. the discussion at 146–158n.). The second reaction (Priam) is heightened fur-
ther in comparison to the first (Idaios). The tension only begins to ease when
Hermes grasps Priam’s hand in a friendly fashion while addressing him as ‘fa-
ther’ (361 f. with nn.). – This scene is the first of four suspense-enhancing situ-
ations that illustrate the peril of the undertaking, which had been anticipated
with concern by Priam and those around him (193–227n.). The scenes that fol-
low are: (2) Priam approaches Achilleus undetected (480–484n.); (3) Achilleus
bursts out in anger at Priam’s impatience (552–571n.); (4) the overnight stay
with Achilleus and the return to Troy (649 ff./679 ff.; see 650–655n., 683–688n.,
end). On the common epic motif of heroes having to overcome numerous dan-
gers, cf. Bowra 1952, 48–50.
349 the great tomb of Ilos: a topographic fixed point in the narrative of the Iliad,
located in the plain before Troy (on this in detail, 2.793n.). Beyond the mere
geographic information, such fixed points signal special situations (Trachsel
2007, 84–89): Hektor takes counsel at the grave mound (10.415), the Trojans
flee past it in the direction of the city (11.166 f.), and Paris shoots at Diomedes
there (11.371 f.) – it is evidently a place that ‘signals to the Trojans relative prox-
imity to the city and thus safety’ (Danek 1988, 147 [transl.], with bibliography):
this is where Priam leaves safety (cf. 692–695n.). – Ilos, the founding hero of
the city of Ilion, is Priam’s grandfather via Laomedon (20.230–240; the entire
genealogy in Priess 1977, 92 f.; Edwards on 20.215–240; Mannsperger 2002,
1077–1079: ‘distant past’). In this regard, its function within the storyP aside,
the ancestor monument (similar to other public or religious buildings) reflects
the historical and political self-image of the society in question: Hölkeskamp
2002, 321 f. (with bibliography); Crielaard 2003, 59. On the cult of ancestors
and heroes in the 8th cent. BC, see 6.419a n.
349 οἳ δ(έ): Priam and Idaios (cf. 329n.). — σῆμα πάρεξ Ἴλοιο: = πάρεξ σῆμα Ἴλοιο. — ἔλασσαν:
3rd pers. pl. aor. of intr. ἐλαύνω; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
136 Iliad 24
πάρεξ: topographically ‘past’. On the accent, West 1998, XIX. — Ἴλοιο ἔλασσαν:
‘irregular’ hiatus, as at 2.332 Πριάμοιο ἕλωμεν, 24.528 δὲ ἐάων (see ad loc.), etc.: van
Leeuwen (1894) 1918, 86; Schwartz 1923, 70 f.; West on Hes. Th. 369.
350 they stayed their mules and horses: The stop is described by analogy with
the type-sceneP ‘arrival by chariot’ (440–485n.): (1) stopping (cf. 5.755), (3)
feeding the animals.
ἡμιόνους τε καὶ ἵππους: a variable expression; in the same position in the verse also at
Hes. Op. 816 (dat.); at VB and VE ἵππους (θ’) ἡμιόνους τε (VB: 23.260, 24.471, adapted at
697; VE: 576, 690), after caesura A 4 ἵππους τε καὶ ἡμιόνους 362 (dat.: 442).
351 ‘River’ without further specification usually means the Skamandros (2.465a n.)
= Xanthos (6.4n.), the most important river in the Iliad (cf. ‘plain’ 329n.); here
probably specifically the ford across the Skamandros, which in addition to
the grave mound of Ilos represents a topographic fixed point between the
safe and the dangerous zones (349n.): on the way home, Hermes will leave
Priam at this ford (692 ff., with n.). Contrary to the seemingly natural assump-
tion that mention of the ford (692) always implies crossing it, meaning that
the Skamandros crossed the direct path between Troy and the encampment of
ships (Thornton 1984, 154 f.; Luce 1998, 116 ff.), in the narrator’s imagination
it was instead located along the edge of the battlefield (6.4n.; Elliger 1975,
48–51; Hainsworth on 11.166 and 497; Janko on 14.433–434; Richardson on
21.1–2). The ford thus only plays a role outside the battle scenes proper: effect-
ing a rescue of the wounded Hektor in the direction of the city at 14.432–436,
the Trojan escape route at 21.1 f., here Priam’s journey to the Achaian camp and
back (Trachsel 2007, 76–78). — darkness had descended: The indication of
time serves as a retroactive explanation for the interruption in the journey
(Richardson 1990, 146 with n. 13). At the same time, darkness is an impor-
tant precondition for the following story, both as a protective environment for
Priam’s secretive action and as a sinister backdrop at tense moments (esp. at
352 ff., 443 ff., 650 ff.). At dawn, Priam will have left the Achaian camp again:
692–695n.
ἐν ποταμῷ: a VB formula in the Iliad (4×), in the Od. 3× after caesura A 3; here ‘at the
river’ (as at 18.521, Od. 5.466). — δὴ γάρ: always at the beginning of a sentence, with
strong emphasis (8× Il., 9× Od., 2× Hes., 3× h.Cer.; cf. Wills 1993, 73–76). The meaning of
δή is disputed: temporal (like Latin iam), affirmative/accentuating, logical/inferential?
For details, see K.-G. 2.123–131; Navarre 1932; Denniston 203 ff.; Schw. 2.562 f. – δή has
350 ὄφρα (+ oblique opt.): ‘so that’ (R 22.5).

351 δὴ γὰρ καί: ‘then indeed also’ vel sim. — ἐπὶ … ἤλυθε γαῖαν: ‘had come across the earth’;
ἤλυθε = ἦλθε; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.
Commentary 137
recently been taken in particular as a signal of the interaction between narrator and
recipient (or, in direct speechP, between speaker and addressee): ‘the use of this particle
draws the hearer into the story by marking the narration as deriving from a shared basis,
a common experience that binds the narrator and the listeners together’ (Bakker 1997,
74–80 [quotation from 78 f.]; similarly Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993, 51–53, 140–151; Wakker
1997, 211–213, 216 f.). — καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἤλυθε γαῖαν: a unique variant of the VE formula
καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἦλθεν (1.475n.) or καὶ ἐπὶ κνέφας ἱερὸν ἔλθῃ (3× Il.); also 1st VH ἀλλὰ πρὶν
κνέφας ἦλθε (8.500).
352 ἐξ ἀγχιμόλοιο: adverbial, ‘from near-by’ (on the perspective, cf. 2.456n.: ἕκαθεν). The
form and use are unusual (Wackernagel [1944] 1953, 892 f.): (a) an alternate formation
for the metrically impossible *ἀγχιμολόθεν, cf. Od. 5.283 τηλόθεν … ἴδεν; (b) ἀγχίμολον
(-μολ- related to μολεῖν ‘to come’), elsewhere always in connection with verbs of motion,
usually ἐλθεῖν. — ἐφράσσατο: only ‘perceive, become aware’, not ‘(see and) recognize’
as usually (esp. Od. 10.453 f., 21.222 f., 24.391 f.; cf. 337n.), since Idaios himself will speak
merely of ‘a man’ (355); Ἑρμείαν (353) derives from the narrator’s (and listener’s) ‘great-
er knowledge’: narrator-textP (de Jong [1987] 2004, 104 f.; cf. 3.191n.).
353 ποτὶ δὲ Πρίαμον φάτο: The unusual phrasing (598 is similar) is perhaps caused by
the anapaestic rhythm – otherwise rare for personal names – of Πρίαμος (Edwards
1970, 28). — φάτο φώνησέν τε: = Od. 4.370, h.Cer. 53; on the VE formula φώνησέν τε,
see 193n.
354 1st VH ≈ 5.440, Od. 4.71, h.Ven. 177. — Δαρδανίδη: 171n. — φραδέος νόου: cf. formula-
tions such as ἀφραδίῃσι νόοιο at 10.122, etc. (on νόος as the force behind cleverness and
ignorance, Böhme 1929, 52 f.; cf. Sullivan 1989, 159, 163). The νόος (‘thinking, mind,
intellect’: an action noun) is thought to be capable of ‘achieving something’ in uncer-
tain situations: φραζώμεθ’, ὅπως ἔσται τάδε ἔργα, εἴ τι νόος ῥέξει (14.61 f., the Achaian
council in great need). Idaios himself suggests two possible responses at 356 f., although
initially Priam’s νόος will fail: 358 (see ad loc.). In contrast, the young man (Hermes) is
characterized in Priam’s eyes by his νόος (377): a clustering of the same word in a few
verses (354, 358, 367 [see ad loc.], 377). – φραδής is a hapaxP and is attested elsewhere
only as a compound (ἀ-, ἀρι-, περι-, etc.): Risch 80; Leumann 1950, 111. Here perhaps an
ad hoc use (‘wary’) in a word-play with φράζεο ‘beware’: AH; Richardson; Meissner
2006, 207 f. (on φράζομαι with this meaning, LSJ s.v. II.6; cf. ἐφράσσατο at 352). The rep-
etition of a word (stem) in the 2nd VH lends emphasis to this statement, as at e.g. 7.282,
13.72 (Fehling 1969, 166; Richardson). — ἔργα τέτυκται: with the gen. ‘it depends
on …, is a matter of …, requires …’ (cf. Latin opus est). A VE formula (also in the plpf.
ἔ. τέτυκτο), 3× Il., 2× Od., 2× h.Hom.; in these cases, the initial digamma of ἔργα is not
taken into account 5× in total, as is the case here (G 26; cf. Hoekstra 1965, 57).
352 ἀγχιμόλοιο (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3.

353 Ἑρμείαν: in apposition to 352 τὸν δ(έ). — ποτὶ … φάτο: ≈ προσέφη (on ποτί, R 20.1–2, on the
middle, R 23).
354 φράζεο, φραδέος, νόου: on the uncontracted forms, R 6.
138 Iliad 24
355 VB = 5.244 (Sthenelos sees Pandaros and Aineias approaching; his response at 5.249 ≈
24.356); from caesura A 4 on ≈ Od. 1.251, 16.128; — ἄνδρ’ ὁρόω: an asyndetic continua-
tion providing a rationale (88n.). — τάχα: frequently with the future in apprehensions
and warnings: 2.192–193n.; LfgrE (‘heightens the certainty of the speaker, the vividness
of the situation’ [transl.]). — διαρραίσεσθαι: on the sense and expressive use of the
verb, cf. 2.473n.: ‘to shatter’, here ‘to tear into pieces’ (AH). διαρραίσεσθαι is taken to be
a passive form by schol. bT and D, as well as in most commentaries – in Homer, middle
future forms often have a passive force: K.-G. 1.113 f.; Schw. 1.763; Wackernagel 1926,
137 ff. But the addition of ἄνδρ(α) as a subject acc. is also possible here (in which case
ἄμμε as an object): Richardson.
356 ≈ 5.249. — with our horses: i.e. in Priam’s chariot, after abandoning the
mule wagon, probably not with the objective of distracting the stranger with
the sight of the precious gifts (thus schol. T) but out of fear; in addition, a more
rapid flight is possible with the horse-drawn chariot than with the mule-drawn
wagon.
ἵππων: = ‘wagon’ (51n.). — ἢ … ἔπειτα: ‘or else/otherwise’, the introduction of an alter-
native as at 13.743, 20.120, Od. 20.63; similarly Il. 6.350 (see ad loc.); on ἔπειτα, cf. also
290n.
357 1st VH ≈ 21.65, Od. 6.169, 22.339; cf. Od. 10.481. – On the VE formula, see 301n.
— clasp his knees: a customary gesture of supplicants (478n.).
358–360 Given the unexpected situation, portrayed as exceedingly dangerous by
Idaios, Priam’s fear appears natural and, precisely for that reason, poignant
(Leaf on 359, end; cf. Lateiner 1995, 45 f.). Aside from the brief expressions
‘the fear that makes one turn pale took hold of someone’ or ‘shaking of the
limbs (shivering of the knees) took hold of someone’ (examples in Fernández-
Galiano on Od. 22.42; cf. 170n.), numerous varied, vivid descriptions of the
symptoms of fear and terror, like the one here, can be found in early epic, com-
prising a range of psychosomatic phenomena such as blanching, shivering,
paralysis (here at 360a), palpitations of the heart, and chattering of the teeth:
3.30–37 (Paris), 10.93–95 (Agamemnon), 13.279–283 (typology of the coward),
22.448/451–456 (Andromache) and others (see the collection in Körner 1929,
57–59 and Janko on 13.282–283). Goose bumps, however, are unique in this
context (in the post-Homeric period at Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 1624 f.; at
Hes. Op. 539 f. of freezing in winter). Cf. the English ‘hair-raising’.
355 ὁρόω: on the epic diectasis, R 8. — τάχα: ‘soon’. — ἄμμε: = ἡμᾶς (R 14.1).

356 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14 1).
357 γούνων: = γονάτων (R 12.5 und 4.2). — λιτανεύσομεν: identical in meaning to the more com-
mon λίσσομαι ‘plead’; short-voweled aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). — αἴ κ(ε): ‘whether in fact’; αἰ = εἰ
(R 22.1); on the use of the modal particle κε = ἄν, R 21.1.
Commentary 139
358 VE ≈ 13.481 (Idomeneus is afraid of the approaching Aineias), Od. 6.168, 18.80. —
σὺν … νόος χύτο: i.e. Priam ‘became confused’, he was ‘incapable of rational thought’
(Jahn 1987, 87 [transl.]); on the formulation, cf. 9.612 μή μοι σύγχει θυμόν ‘do not shatter
my resolution’ (Griffin ad loc.), 13.808 οὐ σύγχει θυμόν ‘could not shake their compo-
sure, could not take away their courage’ (additional material in Porzig 1942, 105), also
Od. 9.256 κατεκλάσθη φίλον ἦτορ ‘(our) heart shattered (from fear)’. — δείδιε: plpf. from
perf. δείδω (< *δεδϝοα < *δέδϝοια) ‘be afraid’, see 6.99n. — αἰνῶς: 198n.
359 2nd VH = 11.669, Od. 11.394, 13.398/430, 21.283, h.Ven. 238 (frequently with the v.l. ἐνί/
ἐπί). — ἐπὶ γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσιν: meaning ‘all over his body’ (Faesi), cf. Hes. Op. 540
(τρίχες) ὀρθαὶ φρίσσωσιν ἀειρόμεναι κατὰ σῶμα. – μέλεα denotes ‘probably the muscu-
lar parts of the body’ (LfgrE [transl.] with bibliography) – also frequently of the body in
its entirety – and, in the present noun-epithet formula is generally used in the context
of physical strength (11.668 f., Od. 11.393 f., 21.282 f., h.Ven. 237 f.: ‘… strength as it used
to be present in the supple limbs’; also 16.109 f., 23.688 f., Od. 11.599 f.: ‘sweat is pouring
from the limbs’). But the epithetP γναμπτός ‘flexible, supple’ (verbal adj.) is here either
used ornamentally or has undergone a change in meaning – in the present context in
reference to the old man and his paralysis (360): ‘bent’. The remaining passages with
their juxtaposition of ‘formerly = young = supple’ and ‘now = old’ (see iterata) may have
facilitated such a reinterpretation (Leaf; Snell [1949] 1966, 63 f.; LfgrE s.v. γναμπτός;
Hainsworth on 11.669; Faulkner on h.Ven. 238; differently Fernández-Galiano
on Od. 21.283, who takes ‘bent’ to be the primary meaning, with reference to various
bent or curved objects such as the clasps at 18.401; but see e.g. 40 f. νόημα γναμπτόν
‘supple mind’). In addition, ὀρθαί ‘erect’ and γναμπτοῖσι ‘bent’ form an antithesis (cf.
Macleod).
360 VB = 11.545 (Aias is frightened by Zeus), 16.806 (Patroklos after the interven-
tion of Apollo); VE: 5× Il., 3× Od. (and ≈ 1× Od.).
στῆ … ἐγγύθεν ἐλθών: a suspenseful antithesis of VB and VE: Kurz 1966, 84 f. —
ταφών: ‘as though paralyzed (by fear)’ (schol. b: ‘it has rendered him speechless’; cf.
482n.). An isolated root aorist, related to θάμβος, τέθηπα (DELG and Beekes s.v. θάμβος;
Untermann on 16.806; cf. 253n. on κατηφόνες). — αὐτός: ‘on his own’, ‘without
waiting for an address by Priam’ (AH [transl.]). — Ἐριούνιος: a distinctive epithetP of
Hermes; used independently for the god’s personal name here and at 440 (cf. 1.37n. on
Ἀργυρότοξος, 26n. on γλαυκῶπις), elsewhere 11× attributive, also 2× at VE in the form
ἐριούνης. Additional epithets of Hermes: 24n.
In antiquity, the etymology of the final element of Ἐριούνιος was a matter of speculation (e.g.
schol. D: μεγαλωφελής, i.e. -ουνιος related to ὀνίνημι); today, it is linked to an Arcado-Cypriot
term for ‘run(ning)’, thus depending on the interpretation of the initial element either ἐρι- ‘swift
358 σὺν … χύτο: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

359 ἔσταν: = ἔστησαν (R 16.2). — γναμπτοῖσι μέλεσσιν: on the inflection, R 11.2 and 11.3.
360 ἐγγύθεν: normally without an ablatival sense in Homer (cf. R 15.1): ‘near(-by)’.
140 Iliad 24
runner’ (ἐρι- as a reinforcing prefix, ‘much’ vel sim.; see Ruijgh 1957, 135 f.; Reece 2009, 283–288;
Hainsworth on Od. 8.322–323; DELG) or ‘the one who runs on high’, i.e. can fly: Willi 1999, 97 f.
(ἐρι- < *ser ‘above’ [IE root noun]).
361 2nd VH = 5.756; ≈ Od. 4.461, 631. — took the … hand: Gestures play an im-
portant role in Book 24, see also 478 f. (Priam grasps Achilleus’ knee and kiss-
es his hands, cf. 506), 508 (Achilleus pushes Priam away), 515 (Achilleus lifts
Priam up), 671 f. (Achilleus grasps Priam’s wrist). – The grasping of the (right)
hand as a friendly gesture frequently accompanies address of another person,
familiar or unknown, in early epic: e.g. as a greeting (Od. 1.121), as a farewell
(Od. 18.258), by way of encouragement (Il. 14.137, Od. 3.374) or affirmation (Il.
21.286, 24.671 f. [with n.]) – here probably both greeting and reassurance (AH;
Richardson; cf. 6.233n.: an expression of peaceful intentions); on Homeric
gestures of greeting in detail, Hentze 1902, 327–332 (on the present passage,
esp. 328, also 342 f.); Lateiner 1995, 67–72; collection of examples in Barck
1976, 142. – On the basic pattern ‘A approaches B, grasps his hand, addresses
B’, cf. 19.7n.
προσέειπεν: elsewhere usually with a personal object (additional exceptions: Od.
4.234/484 and 24.350/393): Peppmüller. – On the form -έ(ϝ)ειπε, 217n.
362–439 The dialogue between Priam and Hermes is comprised of nine speech-
es (more than any other conversation in the Iliad; eight speeches and three
speakers can be found at 3.162–242 [Priam/Helen/Antenor: teichoskopia] and
10.378–453 [Dolon/Odysseus/Diomedes]). The dialogue creates a retardationP
of the journey (Beck 2005, 136) and springs from Hermes’ subtle conduct of the
conversation, which aims at gaining trust and sympathy and conveying infor-
mation regarding the situation in the Achaian camp. From Hermes’ speeches,
a combination of questions and cleverly selected cues (385/388 ‘son’ = Hektor;
394–396/406 ‘Achilleus’ follower’) apparently arising from natural curiosity,
Priam readily picks up on the cues of interest to him, whereas the actual ques-
tions remain unanswered (e.g. at 362 f. concerning his destination, at 380 ff. his
motivation): Minchin 2007, 183 f. – Several superordinate motifs pervade the
dialogue and in some cases have an effect beyond it, especially the father-son
motif (362, 371, 397, 466 f., 486, 493 ff., 534 ff.; see also 347–348n., 19.322–337n.,
and Kummer 1961, 40 f.) and the age motif (398, 487, 515 f., 541, 565); the motif
‘Hermes as the savior of the seriously endangered Priam’ occupies the begin-
ning, middle and end of the dialogue: 362 ff., 401 ff., 437 ff. (cf. Danek 1988,
202). – A detailed characterization of the dialogue is found at Kummer loc. cit.
34–36; Erbse 1986, 66–69; Danek loc. cit. 199–203; Wathelet 1988, 330 f.; on
the parallels at Od. 10.275–309 (Hermes and Odysseus), see the bibliography
at 339–345n.
Commentary 141
362–371 Hermes begins the conversation with feigned ignorance (as suits his
role); similarly suggestive questions posed with the aim of drawing out the ad-
dressee: Athene/Mentes to Telemachos at Od. 1.206–212/224–229, also Athene
to Zeus at 1.59–62, Odysseus to Telemachos at 16.95–98 (de Jong on Od. 1.59–
62; Fuchs 1993, 17). – Hermes names the dangers in four pairs of verses; the
focus moves steadily from the general environment (darkness at 362 f., the
enemies close by at 364 f.) to Priam himself (the valuable gifts at 366 f., the
defenselessness of Priam and Idaios at 368 f.): Danek 1988, 200. Hermes offers
himself as someone who can protect them from danger and legitimizes himself
as a necessary and simultaneously trustworthy escort: 370 f. (Erbse 1986, 66;
Jahn 1987, 51 n. 66).
362 my father: Greek páter, an affable, deferential address directed at older men
(also 7× Od. toward Odysseus); here, together with the pregnant, ring-com-
position-like repetition at the end of the speech (371: ‘like a beloved father’),
it introduces the father-son motif: Macleod; Richardson on 362–371. Priam
for his part will address the young man as ‘dear child’ (373) (on such recip-
rocal references between speakers, see Bassett 1920, 44; Macleod, Introd.
52 f.).
ὧδ(ε): ‘thus’; either a reference to the unusual circumstances (nighttime; thus
Martinazzoli) or said with a view to the old man: ‘thus, as you are; just because; thus,
without further ado’ (like γέρων … ὡς σύ περ ὧδε at 398: Hentze 1868, 515; cf. 464n.).
363 ≈ 10.83, 10.386 (nocturnal expedition); 1st VH = 10.41, 10.142, Od. 9.404, 15.8.
— while other mortals are sleeping: a variant of the motif ‘all are sleeping –
except one’ (2b–13n.); here it underlines the unusual timing of the journey
(cf. AH).
ἀμβροσίην: 341n.; as an epithet of the night, usually understood in the sense ‘divine
gift’ or ‘giving vitality’: 2.57n. (where also on διά and the formulaic system διὰ νύκτα; see
also 366n.).
364 2nd VH ≈ 2.536 (Ἄβαντες), 3.8, 11.508 (Ἀχαιοί). — μένεα πνείοντας: ‘breathing (out)
aggression’ (2.536n.), here probably a contextually relevant epithetP as a contrast to the
frightened, defenseless Priam (cf. 3.8, Od. 22.203).
362 πῇ: ‘(to) where?’ (literally ‘on which path?’, cf. 373 πῃ ‘somehow, approximately’, 381 πῃ
‘(to) somewhere’).
363 ἀμβροσίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — θ’: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).
364 ἔδδεισας: = ἔδεισας, here ≈ ‘have you let yourself be deterred by’; -δδ- < -δϝ- (R 4.5). — μένεα:
on the uncontracted form, R 6 (likewise 365 δυσμενέες). — πνείοντας: = πνέοντας; initial syllable
142 Iliad 24
365 VE = 22.153; ≈ 7× Il., 7× Od. (ἐόντα, etc.). — δυσμενέες καὶ ἀνάρσιοι: predicative; like
its opposite ἄρθμιος (‘allied’), ἀνάρσιος is etymologically related to ἀραρίσκω; here as a
synonym doubling: ‘enemies’ (AH; van Wees 1992, 391 n. 100).
366 = 653; 2nd VH = 10.394/468, Hes. Th. 481, Carmen Naupactium fr. 7 West. — θοὴν διὰ
νύκτα μέλαιναν: a VE formula, always with secretive actions (see iterata; also without
θοήν at Il. 10.297, Hes. Th. 788, Margites fr. 7.10/12 West; VE Νύκτα μέλαιναν Hes. Th. 20,
VE νυκτὶ μελαίνῃ 2× Il., 3× Od.). – θοός ‘swift’ as an epithet of the night (also as a person-
ification: Νυκτὶ θοῇ Il. 14.261) is problematic (on the discussion in antiquity, especially
in the scholia on 10.394, see Schmidt 1976, 136–139): most likely ‘swiftly descending’,
‘because in southern lands the night descends quickly, without a gradual transition
via dusk and evening’ (AH on Od. 12.284 [transl.]; somewhat differently Buttmann
1825, 67–69: ‘abruptly’, with an emotional connotation in reference to the dangers of
the night); other interpretations assume mechanical reshapings, e.g. from the formula
θοὴν ἀνὰ/ἐπὶ νῆα μέλαιναν, etc. (Hainsworth on 10.394; Macleod) or from an original
‘walk/drive quickly through the night’ (West on Hes. Th. 481); on the epithets of the
night in general, de Jong 1998, 130–133. On the spatial connotations of διὰ νύκτα, see
2.57n.; Luraghi 2012, 381–383.
367 τίς ἂν δή τοι νόος εἴη: νόος is here understood in various ways: as the ‘mood of the
soul’ (Buchholz 1885, 103 [transl.]), thus ‘how would you feel in that case?’ (AH; simi-
larly Macleod), or – probably corresponding more closely to the use of νόος elsewhere
(cf. 354n.) – as the result (or content) of an act of thinking (result noun; Böhme 1929,
59 f.), thus ‘what would you do then?’ (Jahn 1987, 50 f.; in this sense also schol. bT: τί
διανοήσῃ; Leaf: ‘expedient’; see also Porzig 1942, 27; Bechert 1964, 128 f.), cf. 9.104,
15.509, Od. 5.23.
368–369 The external risks for Priam are compounded by a general characteris-
tic of old men: a decreasing ability to fight also mentioned at e.g. 3.149–151 in
the case of the Trojan dēmogérontes, the ‘eldest in the people’s council’, and at
4.313–325 in the case of Nestor (cf. 1.259n., below 486–489n.). Hermes, on the
other hand, represents a young man in his prime (347 f.).
368 1st VH ≈ Od. 16.71. — οὔτ(ε) … δέ: ‘not on the one hand … but on the other hand’, as at
7.433 (K.-G. 2.292; Denniston 511; cf. Higbie 1990, 43 f.); 156 (see ad loc.) is similar. The
construction creates an elegant variation in the two halves of the verse (instead of mere-
ly ‘neither of you is young enough to …’ vel sim.; cf. Richardson). – An asyndetic con-
tinuation of 367 with the sense ‘I ask this because …’ (substantiating, cf. 88n.).
365 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — ἔασιν: = εἰσίν (R 16.6).

366 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — σε (ϝ)ίδοιτο: on the prosody, R 4.3.
367 τοσσάδ(ε): on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ὀνείατ(α): here ‘valuables, treasures’, elsewhere usually of
food stuffs, e.g. 627 (literally ‘refreshments’, related to ὀνίνημι).
368 ἐσσί: = εἶ (R 16.6). — γέρων: predicative (i.e. ‘he is old who accompanies you’).
Commentary 143
369 = Od. 16.72, 21.133; ≈ Il. 19.183. — ἀπαμύνασθαι: Strictly speaking, the infinitive is de-
pendent only on οὔτ’ … νέος ἐσσί ‘you are not young (enough)’ (e.g. 5.171 f., 13.622 f.,
Hes. Th. 972 f., Op. 405 f., where a relative pronoun and an adjective, respectively, refer
back to an earlier term: K.-G. 1.80; West on Hes. Op. 406); in terms of content, howev-
er, ἀπαμύνασθαι may relate to both clauses in 368 (discussion in Peppmüller; Leaf;
differently Macleod: infinitive dependent on γέρων, i.e. ‘too old to …’). — πρότερος:
denotes the person to act first (frequently in reference to injustice or quarrels: 3.299,
3.351, 19.183 [with n.], Hes. Th. 166, etc.; Il. 2.378 ἐγὼ δ’ ἦρχον χαλεπαίνων is equivalent);
cf. 634n. — χαλεπήνῃ: ‘act antagonistically’ (2.378n.; Cairns 2003, 23 f.: ‘unprovoked
aggression’) – here of the perfectly realistic risk of a sudden attack/assault, as at e.g.
662 f., 778 f. (cf. 779n.; Reinhardt 1961, 482 f.).
370–371 The suspense built up at 362–369 (cf. 362–371n.) is resolved: Hermes re-
assures Priam that he poses no danger but instead represents help, since he
feels connected to him (362n.; cf. 57n. on a comparison between two individu-
als that expresses esteem).
καὶ δέ κεν ἄλλον: καὶ δέ ‘and//but also’ (Denniston 199 f.); on καὶ ἄλλος ‘also any-
one else’, 768n. — ἀπαλεξήσαιμι: Three aorist stems of ἀλέξω ‘defend’ are attested:
ἀλαλκεῖν (reduplicated root aorist), ἀλέξασθαι (sigmatic aor.), ἀλεξῆσαι (expansion with
ē-, beside the future ἀλεξήσω): Chantr. 1.415; Risch 349 f.; ChronEG 3 s.v. — ἐΐσκω: on
the form and use, 3.197n. (‘consider as equal, regard equally’).
372 = 386, 405, 552, 659; 1st VH: 48× Il., 24× Od., 2× h.Ven. (τὸν δ’ / τὴν δ’); 2nd VH = 217. etc.
(see ad loc.). — In what follows, the narrator provides variatio via regular alternation be-
tween the speech introduction formulaeP τὸν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα (Priam: γέρων Πρίαμος
θεοειδής) and τὸν δ’ αὖτε προσέειπε (Hermes, 378, etc.: διάκτορος Ἀργεϊφόντης; used
by Priam at 217); see Janko 1981, 255 ff. (esp. 259 f.); Friedrich 2007, 68–73; cf. 1.121n.
with bibliography. On another form of variatio in the speech introduction, see 3.171n.
373–377 By agreeing with Hermes’ assessment of the present danger, Priam im-
plicitly accepts his support (373). With dramatic ironyP, Priam ascribes the good
fortune of meeting a trustworthy stranger in risky terrain to the intervention of
a god (Jörgensen’s principleP); although he may have a certain inkling (146–
158n.) thanks to Iris’ announcement that Hermes will escort him (181–183), he
cannot know with any certainty at this point (cf. 358–360n.) that the young
man standing before him has been sent by Zeus and is indeed a god himself
(377n.) (Richardson; Deichgräber 1972, 60 f.).
369 ὅτε … χαλεπήνῃ: an iterative temporal clause, frequently without the modal particle in
Homer (R 21.1). — τις: picks up ἄνδρ(α).
370 ἀλλ’ ἐγώ: ‘I, however’. — οὐδέν: adverbial, ‘in no way’. — σε (ϝ)ρέξω: on the prosody, R 4.5.
— κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).
371 σεῖ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1). — πατρὶ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)ίσκω: on the prosody, R 5.4.
144 Iliad 24
373 2nd VH ≈ Od. 4.611; VE: 3× Il., 9× Od., 1× h.Ven. — dear child: an echo of ‘my
father’ (362n.), as an address similarly not necessarily tied to actual kinship:
3.162n.; cf. 19.8n.
οὕτω πῃ τάδε γ’ ἐστί: on εἶναι ‘be thus, be true’, cf. 56n. (εἴη). – πῃ ‘somehow’ may
here lend the sentence a concessive connotation (LfgrE s.v. 1209.44 ff.): ‘that may well
be – but one … by the gods …’; on the function of ἀλλά at 374, LfgrE s.v. 523.2 ff. (transl.):
‘An argument is acknowledged [sc. here 373], while another one (concerning the same
problem) is juxtaposed’, likewise at 1.286 f., 6.441 f., etc.
374 has held his hand above me: On the widespread image of the protect-
ing hand of a god, cf. 4.249, 5.433, 9.420, etc.; Exodus 33:22, Ezra 8:31, etc.
(see Hainsworth on 9.420, with bibliography).
ἔτι … καὶ ἐμεῖο …: implication: ‘has held a hand over me even after all the misfortunes
that have befallen me so far’ (AH).
375 ὁδοιπόρον: ‘traveler, wanderer’ (not ‘guide, travel companion’, although he is wel-
come to Priam as one who knows the way: Doederlein 2.143; LfgrE); the initial element
ὁδοι- is probably an old locative form (261n.).
376–377 The combination of external and internal virtues (here beauty and clev-
erness) is highly regarded in Homeric society, not only in direct speech as a
compliment, as here, but also in the narrator text (e.g. 632: external appear-
ance and eloquence): Bernsdorff 1992, 20–24.
376 2nd VH ≈ Od. 14.177. — αἴσιον: a Homeric hapaxP, related to αἶσα ‘(appropriate) share,
lot, fortune’, i.e. ‘appropriate, (coming) at the right time’ (as at 6.519 ἦλθον ἐναίσιμον;
thus LfgrE) or ‘auspicious’ (as at 2.353 ἐναίσιμα σήματα; thus AH; Richardson; further
bibliography in Sarischoulis 2008, 94 n. 359); here of a ‘lucky coincidence’. — οἷος δή:
normally with an emotional connotation (frequently ironic, here admiring): Denniston
220 f.; οἷος is generally a word from character languageP (Griffin 1986, 46; de Jong
1988, 188). – On οἷος + predicate adj. (so that οἷος ≈ ὡς), e.g. 15.94 οἷος ἐκείνου θυμὸς
ὑπερφίαλος καὶ ἀπηνής, 21.108 οἷος καὶ ἐγὼ καλός τε μέγας τε. — δέμας καὶ εἶδος: syn-
onym doubling, after caesura B 2 also at Od. 5.213, 14.177; also VE εἶδός τε δέμας τε 5×
Od., 1× h.Ven. – On the semantic field ‘physique’, cf. 1.115n., 2.58n. — εἶδος ἀγητός: an
inflectible VE formula (5.787, 8.228, 22.370, Od. 14.177, h.Ap. 198). ἀγητός ‘admirable’ in
early epic is attested only in this VE formula.
373 τάδε: i.e. ‘the present situation’.

374 ἔτι: ‘still, furthermore’. — ἐμεῖο: = ἐμοῦ (R 14.1), gen. dependent on ὑπερέσχεθε. — θεῶν:
partitive gen. with τις. — ὑπερέσχεθε: poetic by-form of ὑπερέσχε ‘held … over’.
375 ἀντιβολῆσαι: final/consecutive inf. with ἧκεν.
376 σύ: sc. εἶ ‘you are’. — δέμας καὶ εἶδος: acc. of respect (R 19.1).
Commentary 145
377 2nd VH ≈ 387. — your parents are fortunate in you: The point is that Hermes’
parents (like he himself, of course) are ‘blessed’ (a formulaic appellation of
gods, cf. 23n.): dramatic ironyP (373–377n.; Macleod; cf. Keil 1998, 43).
πέπνυσαι: πέπνυμαι/πεπνυμένος ‘(be) clever, intelligent’ appears in early epic inter alia
in the case of ‘professional’ orators (heralds, council members: 3.148 with n.) and as a
qualification of younger people and their speeches – as exceptionally good for their age
(here thus in reference to 362 ff.; cf. 9.57–59 and 46× Od. Τηλέμαχος πεπνυμένος ἀντίον
ηὔδα): Austin 1975, 74–78; ChronEG 4 s.v.; Heath 2001, 133–138; Cuypers 2005a and
LfgrE; cf. the Cypriot personal name Πνυταγόρας (Ruijgh 1957, 135). – The etymology of
πέπνυμαι is disputed; it is likely related to πνέω (‘breathe’ > ‘be conscious’ > ‘be clever’):
ChronEG loc. cit.; Heath loc. cit. 133 f. n. 11; LfgrE. Additional thoughts and bibliography
on the morphological-formal relationship between πέπνυμαι and πνέω (and πινυτός)
also in Frisk; Clarke 1997/98, 137 f. n. 15 and 19. — νόῳ: ‘intellectual capacity, intellect’
(354n.); instrumental dative. — μακάρων: in Homer usually of the ‘blessed’ gods (23n.),
less frequently of fortunate (e.g. Od. 1.217) human beings or those judged fortunate (e.g.
Il. 3.182, Od. 5.306; in a context similar to the one here: Od. 6.150–161 [Odysseus address-
ing Nausikaa]; cf. Dova 2000, 62–64 with n. 48).
378 = 389, 410, 432; ≈ 21.497 (Λητὼ δέ), Od. 5.145 (τὴν δ’ αὖτε); 1st VH in total 34× Il., 46× Od.,
2× Hes., 1× h.Merc.; ≈ (τήν) 217, etc. (see ad loc.). Cf. 372n. — διάκτορος Ἀργεϊφόντης:
an inflectible VE formula (2.103n.; on formulae for Hermes, see also 24n. above).
379–388 Hermes does not correct Priam (379) and returns to the unanswered
question regarding the latter’s destination (362, see 362–371n.); to avoid
arousing suspicion, he makes two intentionally erroneous if not unlikely as-
sumptions in this regard (380–384a, see 381–382n. and 383n.). The postponed
justification for his assumptions (384b–385) is similarly well-calculated: the
sensitive praise for the fallen Hektor must affect Priam all the more lastingly
as it is uttered by a stranger (Richardson on 379–385). Hermes’ strategy pays
off: at 387 f. Priam once more disregards the question regarding their destina-
tion and gratefully picks up on the subject of Hektor with a counter-question;
with this, Priam takes over from Hermes the role of the one posing questions
(Macleod on 381–384 and Introd. 41; Erbse 1986, 67; cf. 362–439n.).
379 = 1.286, 8.146; ≈ 2× Il., 4× Od. – Via the formulaic verse (see 1.286n.), the
speaker politely approves of what has previously been said in order to subse-
quently change the subject (as here [380], frequently in the form of a request:
Peppmüller; Pelliccia 1995, 207 f.; Kelly 2007, 180–182). In addition, the ap-
proval is given with an intentional ambiguity: ‘Priam’s words are more true
377 πέπνυσαί τε …: transition from a relative to an independent clause (τε = ‘and’). — ἔξεσσι:
2nd pers. sing. of ἔξειμι (cf. 368n.). — τοκήων: on the form, R 3.
146 Iliad 24
than he realizes’, see 373–377n. (and 377n., end) in reference to the dramatic
ironyP (Richardson; so too Macleod; on the term ‘ambiguity’, see de Jong on
Od., p. xi).
380 = 10.384, 10.405, 24.656 and 13× Od.; on the 1st VH, see 197n.; 2nd VH ≈
Il. 10.413, 10.427, Od. 24.123, 24.303, ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.11 M.-W. – The formula ex-
presses the existence of differing levels of information between two characters;
either in the guise of a request for information, as here, or in the 1st person as
an announcement of a bit of information; by a deity in human form also at Od.
1.206/224 (Athene addressing Telemachos). On the variability of the formula
and its use, see Finkelberg 1987; Danek 1988, 144–146; cf. 407n.
ἀτρεκέως: ‘accurately’, literally ‘untwisted’ (see 2.10n.).
381–382 The notion of a potentate attempting to bring his fortune to safety abroad
is an obvious one, not least in view of the given situation; moreover, in Priam’s
case such action is explicitly attested – albeit not by Homer himself: short-
ly before the fall of Troy, Priam entrusts the Thracian king Polymestor with
his youngest son Polydoros and much treasure (Eur. Hecuba 4–12; in the Iliad,
Polydoros has already died in battle: 20.407–418, 22.46 f.); see Peppmüller on
379 ff. (p. 183) and Richardson on 379–385; Wathelet s.v. Polydoros.
381 2nd VH = 9.330, Od. 15.159, 19.272. — πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλά: 167n.
382 1st VH = Od. 14.231, 20.220; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 13.364 (the gifts of the Phaiakians after
Odysseus arrives in Ithaka). — ἀλλοδαπούς: on the meaning, 3.48n. (‘foreign, distant’).
— ἵνα: ‘so that there’; the relative (‘where’) and final (‘so that’) functions can barely be
differentiated here, cf. 3.130n. (Leaf; Schw. 2.673; Chantr. 2.268; Monteil 1963, 380;
Willmott 2007, 158–160). — σόα: σόος is the usual Homeric form (originally σάϝος,
Attic contracted σῶς): 1.117n.; LfgrE s.v. σάος/σόος/σῶς with bibliography.
383 Achilleus already considered abandonment of the city a possible Trojan reac-
tion to the death of Hektor (22.383 f.). In addition, the motif of flight from Troy
prior to its capture has an equivalent in the version of the myth of Aineias as
told in the Iliou Persis (Procl. Chrest. § 1 West; Anderson 1997, 62 f.). — all of
you: implication: not only possessions (381) but the people themselves.
Ἴλιον ἱρήν: an inflectible VE formula (27n.).
380 ἄγε: ‘come!’ (originally imper. of ἄγω). — τόδε (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3; τόδε refers to
the double question that follows (381 ff.).
381–383 ἠέ … ἦ(ε): ‘whether … or’. — πῃ: ‘(to) somewhere’ (362n.).
382 ἄνδρας ἐς ἀλλοδαπούς: = εἰς ἄνδρας ἀλλ. (R 20.1–2). — περ: ‘at least’ (R 24.10), with τάδε
(κειμήλια). — σόα: ‘in safety, unhurt’.
383 καταλείπετε (ϝ)ίλιον: on the prosody, R 4.3. — καταλείπετε: ‘you are in the process of leav-
ing’ (pres.). — ἱρήν: = ἱεράν.
Commentary 147
384 2nd VH ≈ 16.521 (Sarpedon; cf. 17.689 of Patroklos). — in fear: emphatic en-

jambmentP; the following explanation (similarly 6.137, 15.628, 21.24) illustrates
that Hermes – despite his disguise – speaks of the Trojan fear (which is only
natural, given the circumstances) not mockingly but full of compassion (379–
388n.; cf. 393n.).
τοῖος γὰρ ἀνὴρ ὥριστος: an indirect reciprocation of the compliment Priam directed
to the young man at 375 (τοιόνδ’ … ὁδοιπόρον). τοῖος is either attributive: ‘since such a
man, the best ⟨among all⟩, has perished’ (Martinazzoli; Richardson) or predicative:
‘since such a one (protector of the city) has perished with the best of men, you may well
consider abandoning the city’ (AH); on τοῖος, cf. 153n. – ὥριστος < ὁ ἄριστος (crasis: G
31; Chantr. 1.85); on the use of ἄριστος with the article as an honorific, see 242n.
385 1st VH = Od. 4.807. — your son: This surprising identification (emphatic at
VB: Macleod; Edwards, Introd. 43) is part of Hermes’ engaging conversation-
al strategy (at 388, Priam picks up on it approvingly in catchword-techniqueP:
‘my … son’s’) rather than a slip of the tongue with which the god betrays his
omniscience (for which reason Bekker 1872, 29–31, Peppmüller on 379 ff. and
AH, among others, wanted to delete 385): Leaf; Martinazzoli; Erbse 1986,
67; cf. 390n. – In a similar manner, at Od. 14.440 Odysseus, in the guise of a
beggar, mentions Eumaios’ name before the moment of recognition (de Jong
on Od. 14.440–1).
μάχης ἐπεδεύετ’ Ἀχαιῶν: (ἐπι)δεύομαι with the ablatival gen. means ‘be inferior in
something/to someone’ (in litotes with negation: ‘be superior, strong’), cf. 17.142 and
23.670 μάχης (as here), 13.310 πολέμοιο, Od. 21.185 βίης ἐπιδευέες ἦσαν; Il. 5.636 ἀνδρῶν,
23.483 f. Ἀργείων. The combination of two genitives is rare; at Od. 21.253 f. τοσσόνδε βίης
ἐπιδευέες εἰμὲν | … Ὀδυσῆος, the personal name is probably a comparative gen. (AH ad
loc.; LfgrE s.v. ἐπιδευής). Here, μάχης and Ἀχαιῶν as genitives of the object and per-
son are either equally dependent on ἐπεδεύετο, thus ‘in battle was not second to the
Achaians in any way’ (Doederlein 1.102; LSJ s.v. ἐπιδεύομαι), or Ἀχαιῶν is an objec-
tive gen. dependent on μάχης (as at 11.542 Αἴαντος δ’ ἀλέεινε μάχην): ‘want for noth-
ing in the battle against the Achaians’ (Leaf; Macleod; Erbse 1986, 67; LfgrE s.v. μάχη
46.58 ff.).
386 = 372 etc. (see ad loc.).
387 1st VH = 6.123, 15.247; 2nd VH ≈ 377. — In Homeric epic, identity is generally
derived from paternal ancestors, i.e. a question regarding ‘who’ someone is
is also always an inquiry into lineage and ancestry: 397; other characters in
Homeric epic also fail to mention their name during introductions (see 6.145n.;
on the IE parallels, see the bibliography at 6.123n.).
385 μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6).

387 σύ ἐσσι: on the hiatus, R 5.7. — τέων: = τίνων (R 14.2).
148 Iliad 24
δέ: on δέ after interrogatives in general, 6.55n.; here ‘a question arising from pleasant
surprise that suggests itself in a lively fashion’: AH. — φέριστε: a polite address (6.123n.
and Graziosi/Haubold on 6.123; cf. LfgrE), in the Iliad 3× after questions regarding the
identity of characters (see iterata).
388 [ὥς] ὅς: ὅς and ὡς occasionally compete with one another in the transmission; like-
wise at 7.171, 14.45, 21.127, 22.236 (see the respective app. crit. in West’s edition). The
vacillation may be attributed in part to different spellings (an o sound in both cas-
es, cf. Janko, Introd. 34 f. with n. 62), in part to notes by ancient grammarians (e.g.
Aristophanes in schol. A on 14.45; on the uncertainty of the interpretation, cf. also schol.
A on the present passage). On analogy with 15.247 τίς δὲ σύ ἐσσι, φέριστε, θεῶν, ὅς
μ’ εἴρεαι ἄντην, the relative pronoun ὅς is here more appropriate in connection with
the question regarding identity: ‘who are you, you who …’ (Peppmüller; Willcock;
Macleod); on the explanatory function of the relative clause, cf. e.g. 434. – The ὡς pre-
ferred by West has an exclamatory function: ‘how …!‘ (cf. AH; Richardson); factual
ὡς ‘that’ (cf. Leaf: ‘from what you say’) would also be possible. — καλά: adverbial,
as an evaluation of speeches also at Od. 8.166 (καλόν in the sense κατὰ κόσμον 8.179;
antithesis: ἀτάσθαλος), 17.381 (οὐ καλά in contrast to ἐσθλὸς ἐών), h.Merc. 479 (καλὰ καὶ
εὖ κατὰ κόσμον). Probably less subjectively of the effect on the addressee ‘sympathetic,
sensitive’ (Cunliffe s.v., end; AH; Martinazzoli) than objectively ‘befitting, appro-
priate’ (Macleod). — οἶτον ἀπότμου παιδός: A pointed resumption of 384 f. ὄλωλεν
| σὸς πάϊς. Since οἶτος and πότμος are used as approximate equivalents in early epic
(Dietrich 1965, 272; Erbse 1986, 280), the result is a word playP with the character of
an oxymoron, albeit not as marked as in the type πότμον ἄποτμον (Eur. Hipp. 1143 f.;
in Homer, cf. Od. 18.73 Ἶρος Ἄϊρος, 23.97 μῆτερ ἐμή, δύσμητερ); on such oxymorons in
general, Risch (1949) 1981, 90 ff.; Fehling 1969, 286 ff. – ἄποτμος is otherwise in early
epic used only of Odysseus (Od. 1.219, 20.140). — οἶτον … ἔνισπες: In the Odyssey, οἶτος
as the object of a verb of speaking (Sarischoulis 2008, 123 f.) sometimes has a titular
character and thus references the storyP – i.e. the Odyssey – itself (so-called self-refer-
entiality, see 2.119n. with additions at 6.356–358n., end): Od. 1.350 Δαναῶν κακὸν οἶτον
ἀείδειν (351 f. follows the reference to the popularity of the ἀοιδὴ νεωτάτη), 8.489 κατὰ
κόσμον (≈ here καλά, see above) Ἀχαιῶν οἶτον ἀείδεις; νόστος with a verb of speaking
is similar, e.g. νόστος + ἐνέπω at Od. 9.37 (LfgrE s.v. νόστος 434.53 ff.; cf. de Jong 2004b,
49–51). But whether a self-reference by the narrator is to be posited in the present pas-
sage must remain an open question.
389 = 378 etc. (see ad loc.).
390–404 In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP, Hermes initially
picks up on the conclusion of Priam’s speech (topic: Hektor), responding only
later to the initial question (regarding his identity). This response (396–400) is
388 τόν: the ‘article’ with anaphoric demonstrative function (R 17) refers back to 384 f. —
ἔνισπες: 2nd pers. sing. aor. of ἐνέπω ‘report, mention’.
Commentary 149
in turn centrally embedded in the framework (constructed in a parallel man-

ner) of ‘battle/abstinence from battle’ (in the past at 391–395, in the future at
401–404): Danek 1988, 200 f. – The fabricated autobiographic story is compa-
rable, on the one hand, to other instances of gods appearing in human form
(Athene/Mentes at Od. 1.179–194, Demeter at h.Cer. 119–134, Aphrodite with
Anchises at h.Ven. 108–130), and on the other hand to Odysseus’ ‘tall tales’ on
Ithaka (on which, de Jong on Od. 13.253–286, with bibliography): a mix of facts
and fiction attuned to the addressee (always with argument functionP); here
Hermes continues to be intent on gaining Priam’s trust (for details on which,
see the following nn.).
390 1st VH = 433; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 1.284. — You try me out …: implication: ‘you
are using the question about my identity as a pretext to gain more information
about Hektor’ (Macleod). The mention of Hektor’s name – the conversation
thus far concerned only a ‘son’ – is a clue for Priam that the speaker has recog-
nized his own true intentions (Richardson on 389–404) and is well informed
concerning Hektor (AH) – ‘a tactful way of asserting his divine superiority
without revealing his divinity’: Macleod on 433.
πειρᾷ: < *πειράεαι, a contraction of the 2nd pers. sing. mid., unusual in Homer (Leaf;
Chantr. 1.57), likewise at 21.459; cf. 2.365n. (on γνώσεαι). — καί: explicative/specifying
(Macleod; Verdenius 1956a, 249 f.; likewise at 2.74 with n.). — Ἕκτορα δῖον: 22n.
391–393 Hermes’ speech calls to mind Hektor’s great successes in Books 12–16
(esp. 12.436 ff., 13.136 ff., 15.262 ff./405 ff./623 ff., 16.112 ff.) – for Priam proof of
Hermes’ trustworthiness and at the same time an additional compliment re-
garding his son (Macleod on 391–404; similarly Athene/Mentes on Odysseus
at Od. 1.255–265). Comparable in content and phrasing are the external analep-
sisP at Il. 19.134–136 (see ad loc.) and the prolepsis at 9.651–653.
391 2nd VH = 6.124, 7.113, 8.448; ≈ 4.225, 12.325, 13.270, 14.155. — τὸν μὲν ἐγώ: an inflecti-
ble VB formula (τόν/τήν/τούς/τῷ/τῶν; also ἐγώ/ἐγών as prosodic variants): 10× Il., 15×
Od., 1× Hes.; here continued by ἡμεῖς δ’ ἑσταότες … (394). — μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ: a VE
formula (6.124n.). The epithetP may be contextually relevant here: in battle, Hektor has
gained κῦδος ‘prestige’.
392 my eyes: cf. 206n., 223n. (on the significance of autopsy), 294.
ὄπωπα: perf. of an attained state, especially as a ‘summary of a series of similar pre-
vious events’ (Schw. 2.263 [transl.]; likewise AH; see also 2.272n.). — καὶ εὖτ(ε): ‘(and)
390 εἴρεαι: (uncontracted) 2nd pers. sing. pres. of εἴρομαι ‘ask’ (with acc.: ‘inquire about’).
391 πολλά: ‘often’. — μάχῃ ἔνι: = ἐν μάχῃ (R 20.1–2); on the prosody (máchēy éni), M 12.2.
392 εὖτ(ε): ‘as’ (R 22.2). — νηυσίν: on the inflection, R 12.1. — ἐλάσσας: aor. part. of ἐλαύνω,
intransitive ‘drive (a chariot)’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
150 Iliad 24
especially as’; continues on from μάλα πολλά (391) while adding intensification. On this
use of καί, Denniston 291 f.; Verdenius 1956a, 250. — ἐπὶ νηυσίν: on ἐπί + dat. as an
indication of destination with verbs of movement, cf. 2.6n. (with bibliography); with
transitive ἐλαύνω also at 15.259.
393 The emotionally colored verb daḯzō (literally ‘cut into pieces’, cf. 2.416),
which usually occurs in direct speechP or secondary focalizationP, is repeated-
ly used to describe Hektor’s actions in battle against the Achaians (here and at
19.302 f.) and especially against Patroklos (18.235 f., etc., partly in combination
with the same VE formula as here); see 19.203n.; LfgrE s.v. In the present con-
text, it is to be understood as a further commendation (not criticism) of Hektor
(cf. 384n.), preparing the following juxtaposition ‘successful Hektor – idle us’
(394 f.).
ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (25× Il., 11× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’); on its use primarily in static/gener-
ic contexts (here iterative κτείνεσκε), see Bakker (1992) 2005, 29–33. – χαλκός ‘copper,
bronze’ is used via metonymy for ‘weapon’ (usually spear): 1.236n., 6.3n.
394–400 The report from the point of view of a (forced) spectator lends addi-
tional weight to the eyewitness account of the ‘Myrmidon’: he had the time to
observe Hektor’s deeds closely. The mention of Achilleus appears to happen
only incidentally in this context and leads to the speaker’s ‘autobiography’ in
the form of an epic regressionP (396–400); the initially undefined ‘we’ (394; the
Myrmidons are meant) is defined in the process, as is the origin of the young
man: Hermes poses as a ‘follower’ of Achilleus, of course with a view to the
destination of Priam’s journey, and thus becomes Priam’s informant for all
matters concerning Hektor (namely his corpse): 406–409 (with n.).
394 1st VH = 2.320 (see ad loc.); ἑσταότες here means ‘idly standing about’ (with a jus-
tification in the following γάρ-sentence): Kurz 1966, 61 n. 5; cf. 403 καθήμενοι. — οὐ
γὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς …: on the formulation, cf. 11.717 f. (οὐδ’ ἐμὲ Νηλεύς | εἴα θωρήσσεσθαι),
15.521 f. / Od. 7.40 f. (οὐ γὰρ Ἀπόλλων/Ἀθήνη | εἴα).
395 A four-word verse (1.75n.). — his anger at Agamemnon: A reference to
events in Book 1 (internal analepsisP); the keyword chólos ‘anger’ (of Achilleus)
is used there in 192, 224, 283.
μάρνασθαι: synonymous with μάχεσθαι, attested only in the pres. and impf. (Trümpy
1950, 167 f.; Beekes; cf. DELG: ‘an archaic character’). — κεχολωμένος: On the Greek
terms for ‘anger, wrath’, see 1.81–82n.
393 κτείνεσκε: iterative form (R 16.5).

394 ἑσταότες: on the uncontracted form, R 6. — θαυμάζομεν: impf. (R 16.1).
395 εἴα: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἐάω; sc. from 394 ἡμᾶς ‘us Myrmidons’. — Ἀτρεΐωνι: by-form of
Ἀτρεΐδης (dat.).
Commentary 151
396 henchman: Greek therápōn denotes men of various social ranks who are
themselves free but subject to others either permanently or temporarily (1.321n.;
2.762n.; van Wees 1992, 42–44; Schmidt 2006a, 123 n. 30; Spahn 2006, 177–
179). In the Iliad, the following characters appear as Achilleus’ therápontes:
Patroklos (at 18.151 f. explicitly called a therápon), Automedon and Alkimos
(474n.); on the relationship between the terms therápon ‘battle companion,
aide’ and hétaros ‘companion, comrade’, see 4n. — strong-wrought vessel:
Both the statement that he travelled on the same ship as Achilleus and the
rejection of Priam’s gift (433–436, with n.) are signs of the position of trust held
by the therápōn (cf. schol. D; AH).
νηῦς εὐεργής: an inflectible VE formula (nom. and 2× Od., 2× h.Hom.; acc. εὐεργέα νῆα
6× Od., in addition 1× Od. in verse middle). εὐεργής ‘well-wrought’ is an ornamental
epithetP also of δίφρος ‘wagon’, χρυσός ‘gold’, etc. (Plath 1994, 211–217).
397 ≈ Od. 15.267; cf. Il. 5.248, 20.209. — I am a Myrmidon: The supposed
‘Myrmidon’ does not mention his name but only his homeland and father:
387n. – On the name and role of the Myrmidons (Achilleus’ contingent),
2.684n.; on the localization of their homeland, 2.681n. — Polyktor: In the
Homeric period, this was probably taken as the speaking name of a rich man
(explicitly at 398 ‘wealthy’; Edwards 1987, 121; cf. the signal function of speak-
ing names in Odysseus’ fictional biographies: Grossardt 1998, 214 f.). Other
bearers of the name: Od. 17.207 (builder, perhaps donor, of a sacred fountain),
18.299/22.243 (father of the suitor Peisandros); see Rank 1951, 94, 146 f.; Russo
on Od. 17.207. – The etymology of the short name is uncertain: ‘possessor
of many things’ or ‘donor of many things’ (more details in von Kamptz 69;
Peters 1980, 237 f. n. 187).
398 Wealth is an important factor in the prestige of a Homeric hero and is fre-
quently mentioned in the so-called ‘obituaries’ of fallen warriors: Strasburger
1954, 28; Ulf 1990, 184 f.; Stoevesandt 2004, 128, 139 ff. – Here wealth and
age are elements that link Polyktor and Priam and promote the formation of
trust (schol. bT; AH; Macleod); on the effectiveness of the age motif in this
scene, 362–439n.
ὡς σύ περ ὧδε: ‘as you stand before me’ (AH; see also 2.258n. on ὡς νύ περ ὧδε); h.Cer.
116 (γυναῖκες) τηλίκαι ὡς σύ περ ὧδε is similar.
399 six … seventh: Typical numbersP. An ordinal number provides the culmi-
nation and conclusion of a (detailed or summary) sequence; see 2.313n. on
eight–ninth (with bibliography), cf. 2.326–329n. on nine–tenth, 19.246n. on
396 τοῦ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); Achilleus is meant. — ἐγώ: sc. εἰμί. — μία …
νηῦς: ‘one and the same ship’.
152 Iliad 24
seven–eighth; see also 31n. Further six–seven progressions: 7.247 f. (layers of a

shield), Od. 10.80 f., 12.397–400, 14.249–254, 15.476 f. (days); additional groups
of seven individuals: Il. 6.421 (Andromache’s brothers), 9.85 (guard supervi-
sors), 9.128 f., etc. (women of Lesbos).
ἓξ δέ οἱ υἷες …: In such expressions, the numeral tends to be placed at the beginning of
the sentence, cf. 5.10 δύω δέ οἱ υἱέες ἤστην, 11.692 δώδεκα γὰρ Νηλῆος … υἱέες ἦμεν, Od.
6.62 πέντε δέ τοι φίλοι υἷες …
400 The drawing of lots to determine a selection or sequence of individuals is
described repeatedly in early epic (for details, 3.316–325n.). The present case
deals with the fulfilment of military service by a family (see below): where-
as the kings and contingent leaders voluntarily swear an oath of allegiance
to Agamemnon (2.762n. with bibliography), their subordinates had a certain
liability for military service, although the relevant references occur only in
passing in Homer (Janko on 13.663–670; Hellmann 2000, 54 n. 21): Euchenor
from Korinth goes to war to avoid the ‘troublesome price the Achaians would
ask’ (13.663 ff.); Echepolos from Sikyon presents Agamemnon with a mare in
order to be released from military service (23.295–299); among the four sons of
Aigyptios, only Antiphos goes to Troy (Od. 2.17–22); Odysseus as a ‘Cretan’ must
go to war along with Idomeneus as a result of public pressure (Od. 14.229–239).
The characters mentioned and the Myrmidons all (a) are portrayed as wealthy
and (b) belong directly to the realm of a military leader (2× Agamemnon, 1×
each Odysseus, Idomeneus, Achilleus; cf. Taplin 1990, 68); the function of
therápōn (396n.) marks the ‘son of Polyktor’ as a particularly close confidante
of Achilleus for the duration of the campaign (Gschnitzer 1976, 83 f. n. 183;
van Wees 1992, 43). – The drawing of lots among Polyktor’s seven sons is due
either to the fact that each household was in principle required to provide only
one man for military service (AH; Roussel 1976, 120; Hellmann loc. cit. 53 f.)
or that the father was able to buy out some of his sons (in this case, six of sev-
en) from military service, depending on the size of his fortune (Nowag 1983,
27 f.). – More in Schadewaldt (1938) 1966, 38 n. 1; Hellmann loc. cit. 52–55;
Stoevesandt 2004, 147 n. 465.
τῶν μέτα: μετά ‘amid, among, with’ is usually constructed in Homer with the dat.,
rarely with the gen. (Schw. 2.483; Conti 2003, 211 f.). — ἐνθάδ’ ἕπεσθαι: cf. the VE for-
mula ἐνθάδ’ ἱκέσθαι (287n.); on absolute ἕπεσθαι ‘to go to war, to join the campaign’, cf.
3.239 f., 11.781, Od. 24.117.
399 δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14 1). — ἔασιν: = εἰσίν (R 16.6).
400 τῶν μέτα: = μετὰ τούτων (R 17, R 20.2). — ἐνθάδ’ ἕπεσθαι: inf. dependent on λάχον.
Commentary 153
401–404 ‘Nothing here depends on the reconstruction of military incidents, but

instead everything focuses on bolstering the courage of the old king and ex-
pediting his plan’: Erbse 1986, 68 (transl.). The motif ‘Hermes as savior of the
acutely endangered Priam’ (362–439n.) is ingeniously used, as at 437–439 (see
ad loc.), on the level of both the characters and the narrator: (a) at 401a, the
surface meaning of Hermes’ statement is ‘I went to reconnoitre’ (schol. bT; AH),
the connotation is ‘I came for your sake’; (b) the announcement that battle will
be resumed the following morning is a hint to Priam that he absolutely must
complete his plan this very night; for the audience, this heightens the sus-
pense concerning the further course of the story: false prolepsisP (at 656–672,
Achilleus and Priam agree to a truce; see 658n.); cf. Macleod: ‘the war must
go on, and Troy fall, whatever happens between Achilles and Priam.’ — But
now …: The ‘autobiographic’ narrative (390–404n.) concludes by returning to
the present and explaining why the person is now here; likewise at Od. 1.194
(with the same VB), 17.444, h.Ven. 117, similarly Od. 24.307 f., h.Cer. 133.
402 θήσονται … μάχην: either pregnant ‘commence battle’ (Mutzbauer 1893, 203), ‘rein-
state the state of war’ (Porzig 1942, 28–31 [quotation from 29], with further discussion)
or periphrastic = μαχήσονται (cf. 7.30 ὕστερον αὖτε μαχήσοντ(αι) in a similar situation;
16.448 περὶ ἄστυ … μάχονται); frequently attested in the post-Homeric period, the for-
mally closest parallel is Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.51.2 μάχην ἕωθεν τίθεσθαι; sometimes
with an attribute of μάχην (‘Hes.’ Sc. 261/411 δριμεῖαν; Plut. Fab. Max. 11.5 καρτεράν).
— περὶ ἄστυ: locative (6.256n.). — ἑλίκωπες Ἀχαιοί: an inflectible VE formula (occur-
rences: 1.389n.); on the unexplained meaning of the generic epithetP, see 1.98n.
403 καθήμενοι: connotes ‘inactivity’ or ‘pointless activity’ (2.255n.); cf. 542. The
Myrmidons, condemned to idleness at 2.779, 16.200–209, 24.394 f., show that an army
may grow restless during such lulls in fighting (403 f.) (cf. their reawakened lust for
battle at 16.155–166). In the present situation, their arms had been at rest since the cre-
mation of Patroklos’ body (on the chronology, 31n.).
404 πολέμου: with the function of an action noun, i.e. ‘the fighting’ (2.453n.); to be linked
syntactically ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with both ἴσχειν and ἐσσυμένους, cf. 9.655, 13.315 (Peppmüller;
Leaf). — βασιλῆες Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (also 7.106, 23.36); on the Homeric term
βασιλεύς, 1.9n.
405 = 372 etc. (see ad loc.).
401 ἦλθον: sc. as a scout. — πεδίονδ(ε): on the form, R 15.3. — ἠῶθεν: ‘at day-break, early in the
morning’, related to ἠώς ‘dawn’; on the word formation, R 15.1.
402 περὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4.
403 ἀσχαλόωσι: related to ἀσχαλάω ‘be irritated, be annoyed’ (due to impatience); on the epic
diectasis, R 8. — οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).
404 ἐσσυμένους: perf. part. of σεύομαι ‘hurry, charge, push; strive, aspire to’, with the gen.
154 Iliad 24
406–409 The keyword ‘henchman’ (catch-word techniqueP: 396) functions as a

signal for Priam: the young man is just the person to provide him with informa-
tion and to lead him to Achilleus (430 f.). – The inquiry after his son (407–409)
is primarily an ‘expression of paternal concern’ (Peppmüller [transl.]), while
practical considerations likely play a role as well: Priam’s undertaking has a
purpose only if Hektor’s corpse is still in the camp (408) (schol. bT on 408 f.;
Erbse 1986, 68).
406 ≈ 16.653 (of Patroklos). — εἰ μὲν δή: ‘if you in fact, as you say, …’ (Denniston 392);
usually at the very beginning of speeches, e.g. 660, Od. 4.831 f. — Πηληϊάδεω ͜ Ἀχιλῆος:
a VE formula (= 1.1, 1.322, 9.166, 16.269, 16.653, Od. 11.467, 24.15), see 1.1n. It is impossible
to determine whether the patronymic here, as at 1.1, is contextually relevant (e.g. in the
sense of a diplomatically accurate designation: Shive 1990, 180). – Achilleus is men-
tioned both at the beginning and the end (409) of the speech.
407 A variation of the formulaic verse at 380 (see ad loc.) in combination with the inflect-
ible VE formula ἀληθείην καταλέξω/κατέλεξα (6× Od.; with πᾶσαν: Od. 17.122). In ad-
dition, the VB formula εἰ δ’ ἄγε δή (3× early epic, also 25× ἀλλ’ ἄγε δή, 2× μαῖ’, ἄγε
δή) is modified by the emphatic runover word εἶς (Macleod with parallels). — πᾶσαν
ἀληθείην: ‘(unsparingly) the whole truth’, explicitly requested also at 9.309–313, Od.
3.96 f. (AH; Martinazzoli; Barck 1976, 115 f.; Steiner on Od. 17.108); explicated by the
indirect double question at 408 f.
408 ≈ Od. 11.175; 1st VH ≈ Il. 22.386 (κεῖται πὰρ νήεσσι νέκυς, sc. Patroklos), Od. 14.260,
17.429.
409 Priam fears the worst, see 22n., 211n.; the formulation is accordingly pathet-
ic: in other passages (in the context of declarations of intent, threats, etc.),
the victim is not ‘thrown before’ the dogs but ‘given’ to them (17.127, 23.21; cf.
Peppmüller), while the ‘cutting up’ is left to the dogs themselves (22.354,
23.21).
ᾗσι κυσίν: In early epic, κύνες is usually masc., less often fem. (as here, also e.g.
17.127 and 17.255 in a similar context). — μελεϊστί: ‘limb by limb, into pieces’, an adv.
in -τί related to the verbal adj. of (unattested) μελεΐζω: Risch 366 (with bibliography);
Anghelina 2007, esp. 2 f. In early epic only in connection with ταμεῖν (also Od. 9.291
[Polyphemos], 18.339 [Odysseus addressing Melantho]).
406 Πηληϊάδεω ͜ Ἀχιλῆος: on the synizesis, R 7; on the declension, R 11.1/11.3; on the single -λ- in
Ἀχιλῆος, R 9.1.
407 εἶς: = εἶ (R 16.6). — ἄγε: 380n. — ἀληθείην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2.
408 ἠ(ὲ) … ἦε: ‘whether … or’. — πάρ: = παρά (R 20.1). — νήεσσιν: on the declension, R 12.1. —
μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1).
409 ᾗσι: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing. (R 14.4); on the declension, R 11.1. —
προύθηκεν: = προέθηκεν.
Commentary 155
410 = 378 (see ad loc.).

411–423 In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’ principleP, at 411 Hermes first
picks up Priam’s imagined horrors from 409, then (at 412) his hopes from 408
(in catch-word techniqueP: ‘beside the ships’ 408/412, ‘dogs’ 409/411, ‘Achilleus’
409/412). He immediately dismisses the imagined horrors as unfounded (at
19.23b–33 Thetis must likewise reassure Achilleus, who is anxious about the
body of Patroklos; see Foley 1991, 163–168, who terms this narrative pattern a
‘feared desecration’). In a series of items of increasing intensity that takes the
form of a priamel, Hermes lists in detail – and thus credibly (schol. T on 414 f.;
Peppmüller on 412 ff.) – what Hektor’s corpse is not subjected to: (a) annihi-
lation by scavenging animals, decomposition, maggots: 411–415; (b) disfigure-
ment resulting from the dragging and the wounds inflicted by Achilleus and
the Achaians respectively: 416–421 (on the parallelism between enumerations
(a) and (b), cf. Danek 1988, 201). The integrity of the corpse at first appears
a miracle (cf. 418b); only at the close of the speech does Hermes pointedly
name the reason for its integrity: the care of the gods (a so-called epiphonema:
Macleod on 422–423; Richardson on 410–423; on the term, Lausberg [1960]
1990, 434). – On the speech as a whole and its preparatory function for the
meeting between Achilleus and Priam, see Segal 1971, 62–64 (‘Now that tent,
sheltering the corpse of his [sc. Achilles’] bitterest enemy, will be the scene of a
magnanimity scarcely imaginable before’: loc. cit. 64); on the literal echoes in
Hekabe’s mourning speech, see 748–759n.
411 1st VH ≈ Od. 3.226. — ὦ γέρον: a deferential address (exceptions: 1.26n.) common at VB
(8× Il., 11× Od., 2× h.Merc.); Priam in particular is styled a γέρων by both characters and
the narrator (164n.). — κύνες φάγον οὐδ’ οἰωνοί: cf. 2.393 φυγέειν κύνας ἠδ’ οἰωνούς
(with n.), 22.335 f. σὲ μὲν κύνες ἠδ’ οἰωνοί | ἑλκήσουσ(ι).
412 lies: That the (intact) body is lying there is a motif of the speech (also at 414,
419).
κεῖνος: can signal distance in a temporal (2.330n.) or, as here, locative sense: ‘he …
there’ (3.391n.; Schw. 2.210 f.; Chantr. 2.169 f.).
413 the twelfth dawn: 31n.
ἐν κλισίῃσι: i.e. in the (sheltered area of the) military camp, similarly at 11.834(–836):
schol. bT; Martinazzoli; cf. Segal 1971, 64. κλισίη has different connotations in 554,
569 (see ad locc.). — ἤδη: Beside ἠώς in the main transmission is an apparently ancient
variant ἥδε with the weakly attested further variant ἤδη (see app. crit.). An argument
against ἠώς might be found in the fact that it is inappropriate for night, when the action
412–413 ἔτι … αὔτως: ‘still the same (as he was)’, i.e. undamaged. — δυωδεκάτη δέ οἱ ἤδη |
κειμένῳ: i.e. he has been lying there for twelve days already. — δέ (ϝ)οι: 399n.
156 Iliad 24
takes place: Leaf, Macleod; ellipsis of a term for ‘day’ vel sim. is common in Greek,
cf. 1.54 (with preceding ἐννῆμαρ), 1.425, etc. (Schw. 2.175), and ἤδη is here particularly
fitting after 411 οὔ πω and 412 ἔτι. At the same time, ἠώς in the sense ‘day’ would not
be exceptional as a ‘unit of counting’ (and probably occurs in the main transmission of
the present passage for that reason): 21.80 f. ἠὼς δέ μοί ἐστιν | ἥδε δυωδεκάτη (similarly
21.155 f., Od. 19.192, all in direct speechP), Il. 13.794 ἠοῖ τῇ προτέρῃ (van der Valk 1982,
299 f.; Richardson).
414–415 Not even the natural process of decomposition has begun; cf. Patroklos’
corpse at 19.23b–33 (19.23b–27n., 19.25–27n.). On the protection by the gods, cf.
18–21n.
χρώς: frequently denotes the body in its entirety: ‘skin’ > ‘(skin with) flesh’ > ‘body’
(19.27n. with bibliography).
415 ≈ 19.31 (μυίας, αἵ ῥά τε …); see ad loc.
416–418a Hermes summarizes the events reported by the narrator at 12b–21 for
the benefit of Priam (cf. 422–423n.); the two passages are linked by literal ech-
oes (‘tomb’, ‘drags’, ‘dawn’). A special nuance: the periphrastic denominationP
of Patroklos at 416b (‘his beloved companion’s tomb’) appears more emotional
than the patronymic in the narrator’s version at 16b (‘the tomb of Menoitios’
fallen son’): Macleod; Richardson.
ἑοῦ ἑτάροιο φίλοιο: a merging of two formulae: VE οὗ ἑτάροιο (23.748) and VE ἑτάροιο
φίλοιο (51n.) (Hainsworth 1968, 78). On ἕταρος ‘companion, comrade, friend’ and on
the meaning of φίλος, see 4n.
417 VB ≈ 22.465 (Achilleus’ horses drag the body toward the Achaian camp). —
The designation of dawn as ‘divine’ is probably of IE origin: Schmitt 1967,
172–175; West 2007, 218 f.; cf. 2.48n.
ἀκηδέστως: ‘careless, ruthless’. As at 240 (see 239–240n., end), 422, etc., the stem
κηδ- here likely connotes specifically ‘mourning, burial, honors for the dead’ (which are
not respected by Achilleus in his actions) beside the general sense ‘care, sorrow, grief’:
Mawet 1979, 372; likewise at 6.60 (see ad loc.), 6.241.
414 οὐδέ τι: τι (‘in any regard’: R 19.1) reinforces the negative, here ‘yet … by no means’; the
second οὐδέ is intensifying: ‘and not even’.
415 ἔσθουσ(ι): a poetic by-form of (unmetrical) ἐσθίουσι. — ῥα: ‘indeed, of course’ (R 24 1). — τε:
‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).
416 ἦ μέν: strongly emphatic (‘in fact’ vel sim.): R 24.4/6. — σῆμα (ϝ)εοῦ ἑτάροιο: on the
hiatus, R 4.4 and 5.6. — ἑτάροιο: = ἑταίρου. — ἑοῦ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. sing.
(R14.4).
417 ἠώς: ‘dawn’ (Attic ἕως). — ὅτε … φανήῃ: iterative temporal clause (R 21.1, cf. 369n.); φανήῃ
is uncontracted 3rd pers. sing. aor. subjunc. (R 6).
Commentary 157
418 αἰσχύνει: of the disfigurement of the body, like ἀείκιζεν at 22 (see ad loc.); cf. 18.180,
22.75. — αὐτὸς ἐπελθών: a VE formula (an additional 5× Od.).
419 οἷον: not used to denote the degree (‘how fresh like the dew he is lying there’) but
rather modally (‘in which [miraculous] way he is lying there as fresh as the dew’):
AH; Ruijgh 526. — ἐερσήεις: = ἑρσήεις (with prothetic vowel), ‘dewy’ (in contrast to
‘bloody’: αἷμα, μιαρός); similarly Hekabe at 757 ff.: ἑρσήεις καὶ πρόσφατος – like one
who dies a sudden, painless death. Dew symbolizes moisture, freshness, vitality, fer-
tility, e.g. at 14.346–351, Od. 13.245 (see also Boedeker 1984; on the present passage,
77–79). — αἷμα νένιπται: Hektor is the subject. Verbs of cleansing are frequently con-
strued with a double accusative (of the person or body part and of what is cleaned
away), e.g. at 16.667 (Zeus to Apollo) αἷμα κάθηρον … | Σαρπηδόνα, Od. 6.224 f. χρόα
νίζετο δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς | ἅλμην (Schw. 2.83; Chantr. 2.43); here in the passive with the
person in the nom. and what is cleaned away in the acc.
420a μιαρός: a Homeric hapaxP, ‘defiled’, attested in Mycenaean as an attribute of tex-
tiles (the meaning is obscure: ‘dyed’?, see DMic; Neumann 1992, 73; ChronEG 7 s.v.); cf.
4.141–147: comparison of a wound with a colored piece of ivory (2× μιαίνω).
420b–421 In the internal analepsisP at 22.371–375 (Achaians stabbing at the slain
Hektor), the portrayal of the integrity of the corpse reaches its climax (see 411–
423n.): in a dead body, wounds do not heal naturally (schol. T on 420).
ἐν αὐτῷ: ‘in his body’ (AH); in Homer, αὐτός frequently denotes human beings in terms
of their physicality (1.4n.). ἐν + dat. indicates the aim or endpoint: Chantr. 2.101 f.;
on the construction of ἐλαύνω, esp. de Boel 1992; parallels: 20.259 ἐν … σάκεϊ ἔλασ’ …
ἔγχος, similarly 5.317 χαλκὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι βαλών, etc. — χαλκὸν ἔλασσαν: an inflectible
VE formula (8× Il., 1× Od., usually in the phrase διάπρο δὲ χαλκὸν ἔλ.).
422–423 Via Hermes, the narrator provides a summary of (a) the interventions
by Aphrodite and Apollo aimed at protecting the body (23.184b–191, 24.18b–21)
and (b) the council of the gods (23–76, with literal echoes: 423a ≈ 35b [here with
the perspective reversed], 423b ≈ 67); see also Richardson. – On the motif of
the pious Hektor as a protege of the gods, cf. 33–35n., 748–759n.
418 οὐδέ μιν αἰσχύνει: ‘and still does not disfigure him’. — θηοῖο: 2nd pers. sing. pres. opt. of
θηέομαι ‘observe, see with amazement’ (Attic θεάομαι). — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).
419 περί: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘all around’.
420 ποθι (μ)μιαρός: on the prosody, M 4.6. — ποθι: = που ‘anywhere’ (R 15.2). — σὺν … μέμυκεν:
‘have closed’ (so-called tmesis: R 20.2), related to μύω ‘close’ (of eyes, wounds).
421 ὅσσ(α) ἐτύπη: Hektor is the subject (τύπτω τινὰ ἕλκος ‘give someone a wound’), thus ≈ ‘all
wounds he had received’. — πολέες: = πολλοί (R 12.2); on the uncontracted form, R 6. — χαλκόν:
metonymy for ‘weapon’. — ἔλασσαν: cf. 392n.
158 Iliad 24
422 κήδονται … θεοί: in opposition to 417 ἕλκει ἀκηδέστως (on the climactic form of the
speech and its pointed conclusion at 422 f., see 411–423n.). – ‘care for’ is common as a
motivation for divine interventions: 2.27n.; Anastassiou 1973, 145–147; Lynn-George
1996, 6–11. — υἷος ἑῆος: approximately ‘of your noble son’, a VE formula (3× Il.; also 1×
each παιδὸς/ἀνδρὸς/φωτὸς ἑῆος). On the disputed etymology of ἑῆος, 19.342n. (related
to ἐΰς ‘good, capable’ or the possessive pronoun ἑός; for ἑός = σός, see Hainsworth on
11.142).
423 καὶ … περ: intensifying rather than concessive: ‘even (more)’ (Denniston 484–486;
cf. 428, 750). — φίλος περὶ κῆρι: 61n.; on the correlation of φίλος and κήδεσθαι, see
also 749 f. (Kim 2000, 57).
424 1st VH = 6.212, 17.567, Od. 7.329, 8.199, 8.385, 13.250, 18.281, Hes. Th. 173,
h.Cer. 370 (with the exception of the present case, always with a noun-epithet
formula in the 2nd VH); on the VE formula here, as well as the structure of
the verse, see 200n.; cf. also 1.33 with n. — was made joyful: i.e. after be-
ing soothed, Priam responds with satisfaction to the information provided by
the ‘Myrmidon’ and feels confirmed in his plans; see 425–431n. (Latacz 1966,
140 f., 235).
425–431 On the basis of the divine assistance (422 f.), Priam draws the conclu-
sion, phrased as a gnome (Ahrens 1937, 38), that his regular sacrifices had
been worthwhile (these were in fact an important topic in the divine assem-
bly; see 33–35n.): ‘Book 24 here, as in general, affirms in the midst of the trag-
ic suffering that the gods are in some measure good and just’ (Macleod); cf.
Laërtes’ statement at Od. 24.351 f. (Richardson; Heubeck on Od. 24.351–355).
Priam offers a gift to the ‘Myrmidon’ out of spontaneous gratitude (schol. bT
on 429; Deichgräber 1972, 62; Erbse 1986, 68) and combines it with a request
to guide him ‘with help from the gods’. The narrator creates a multi-layered
dramatic ironyP (Macleod on 430; Richardson on 429–431; similarly Danek
1988, 201 f.): (a) the offer of a gift to Hermes is similar to the language of prayer
(430n.) and, in combination with the expectation of something in return, ex-
emplifies the principle do ut des mentioned at 425–428; (b) ‘with the gods’
grace be my escort’ (430) – that is why Hermes appeared in the first place. This
point particularly illustrates the subtlety of Hermes’ strategy (cf. 362–439n.):
he uses the conversation to make Priam ask of his own accord and full of trust
for Hermes to guide him, without ever having to so much as hint that he has
come on behalf of Zeus.
422 ὥς: ‘so’. — τοι: R 24 12. — υἷος: gen. dependent on κήδονται; on the declension of υἱός,
R 12.3.
423 ἐόντος: = ὄντος (R 16.6). — σφι: = αὐτοῖς (R 14.1). — περί: adverbial, ‘very, extremely’. —
κῆρι: ‘in the heart’ (R 19.2).
Commentary 159
425 ὦ τέκος: VB = Od. 7.22 (Odysseus addressing Athene in the shape of a girl), ‘Hes.’
fr. 248.1 M. W.; on the use of τέκος, 373n. — καί: refers either to ἐναίσιμα δῶρα alone
(AH) or to the entire sentence (in which case in the sense ‘it is worthwhile 〈beside
all other things in his life⟩ to do good also toward the gods’; thus at 7.282 = 7.293, Od.
3.196; περ at 130 [see ad loc.] is similar; Denniston 321; Kirk on 7.282). — ἐναίσιμα
δῶρα: ‘gifts that correspond to the αἶσα (the portion due), i.e. that one owes’ (LfgrE;
Sarischoulis 2008, 97–99), as at h.Cer. 369 (where those who do not fulfil this obliga-
tion are threatened with lifelong punishment: loc. cit. 367–369); cf. 40n. — διδοῦναι: an
infinitive form not otherwise attested. Various explanations (not mutually exclusive) are
possible: (a) adaptation of the inflectible VE formula δῶρα δίδωμι/διδοῦσιν/διδοῖτε Od.
20.342/18.279/11.357 (Peppmüller; Wyatt 1969, 224; in which case, the fut. inf. δῶρα
διδώσειν at Od. 24.314 with Heubeck ad loc. is also analogous); (b) influence of the aor.
inf. δοῦναι (Schw. 1.808 n. 4; Chantr. 1.104; Leaf; similarly García-Ramón 1990, 159);
(c) metrical lengthening of the pres. inf. διδόναι (not attested in Homer, but not impos-
sible metrically), as e.g. ζευγνῦμεν 16.145 (with Leaf ad loc.), τιθήμεναι 23.83 (Chantr.
1.486; Richardson).
426 ἐπεί: with the sense of γάρ (explicative); cf. K.-G. 2.461 f.; Rijksbaron (1984) 2002, 86.
— εἴ ποτ’ ἔην γε: a VE formula, ‘if ever there had been one’ – ‘the phrase of one looking
back to happier days’ (Willcock); see 3.180n.
427 2nd VH = 5.890, 13.68, Od. 6.240, 8.331, 19.43; ≈ Il. 5.404, Od. 12.337, 14.394,
18.180, Hes. Th. 101, Op. 139, 257, h.Ap. 498, 512, also (at VE only) ‘Hes.’ Sc.
79, fr. 10(a).1 M.-W. — forgot: To not forget the gods (litotes) – i.e. to sacrifice
regularly – is a sign of a morally exemplary attitude; cf. Od. 14.420 f. and 33–
35n.
ἐνὶ μεγάροισι: ‘at home’ (208b–209a n.). — οἳ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν: cf. the (longer) VE
formulae Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχοντες (1.18n.), τοὶ/οἳ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσι (2× Il., 16× Od.,
1× Hes., 1× h.Hom.).
428 2nd VH = 750. — τῶν οἱ ἀπεμνήσαντο: In the post-Homeric period usually
ἀπομιμνήσκομαι χάριν + gen. ‘pay someone thanks for, repay something’, e.g. Hes. Th.
503: Zeus frees the Cyclopes, οἵ οἱ ἀπεμνήσαντο χάριν εὐεργεσιάων (ἀπο- as an expres-
sion of reciprocity; see also Richardson). Here τῶν likely refers to 425 δῶρα (or gen-
erally = ‘this’); there is also a v.l. τῶ ‘therefore’. — καὶ … περ: 423n. — θανάτοιο …
αἴσῃ: an appositive genitive (Chantr. 2.62); in addition to 750, the same expression
occurs at Cypr. fr. 9.1 West, similarly at Il. 16.687 κῆρα … θανάτοιο, Od. 2.100 μοῖρ(α) …
θανάτοιο.
425 ἦ ῥ(α): ‘indeed, surely’ (R 24.4, 24.1). — ἀγαθόν: sc. ἐστιν, here ‘it is worthwhile’.
426 ἀθανάτοις: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6).
427 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισι: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the inflection, R 11.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1). — θεῶν:
dependent on λήθετ(ο) ‘forgot’.
428 οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1; here dat. of advantage).
160 Iliad 24
429 this beautiful drinking-cup: The ‘cup’ spontaneously offered by Priam calls

to mind the ‘goblet of surpassing loveliness’ from Thrace (234 f.; cf. schol. T on
433 f.; Willcock). Differently Eustathios 1357.31 ff. and Macleod: that vessel
is too valuable for Priam to purposely give it to anyone other than Achilleus;
the cup here is thus implicitly reckoned among the objects transported (i.e.
invented ad hoc). – On designations of vessels in early epic and their epithets,
101n.
430 Borrowed from the language of prayer: 17.645 (Aias addressing Zeus) Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἀλλὰ
σὺ ῥῦσαι …, 10.463 f. (Odysseus addressing Athene) ἀλλὰ καὶ αὖτις πέμψον … — αὐτόν:
αὐτός occasionally stands in in early epic for a 1st or 2nd person in an oblique case (here
≈ ἐμέ): 2.263n. (perhaps also here with an implied contrast ‘person’ vs. ‘belongings’:
δέξαι … ἄλεισον, αὐτόν τε ῥῦσαι). — σύν γε θεοῖσιν: ‘with the aid of the gods’; on dra-
matic ironyP, 425–431n.
431 ≈ 448 (see ad loc.). — until I make my way: Now that nothing impedes
the continuation of his journey, Priam again urges haste (Martinazzoli; cf.
326n.).
ὄφρα κεν … ἀφίκωμαι: ὄφρα with subjunc. can have a temporal (‘until’) or final (‘so
that’) sense: Schw. 2.651; Chantr. 2.262; Wathelet 1999 (esp. 368 f.).
432 = 378 etc. (see ad loc.).
433–439 The ‘Myrmidon’ rejects Priam’s gift for two reasons (structured via the
similar-sounding verse beginnings at 435 and 437 in his speech: ton men egṓ –
soi d’ an egṓ): at 435 f. out of fear and respect for his master (modern paral-
lels in West 2000, 492), and at 437 f. out of kindness toward Priam. This again
stresses the honesty and trustworthiness of the ‘Myrmidon’ and his intimacy
with Achilleus (396n.); on Achilleus’ strictness and violent temper (436), cf.
the characterization at 11.647–654 – somewhat exaggerated by Patroklos due
to the situation (with Hainsworth ad loc.), also 1.188 ff., 24.572 (see ad loc.)
and 585 f. – In the present speech – the last before Hermes reveals himself –
the narrator makes the most of the dramatic ironyP resulting from Hermes’ role
(cf. already 425–431n.): (1) the (ostensible) ‘putting to the test’ of the god at 433
(with echoes of 390: Macleod on 433; Richardson on 432–439); (2) the refusal
of the gift by the god (schol. bT on 433 f.; Macleod on 430; in a similar manner,
Athene/‘Mentes’ refuses Telemachos’ guest-gift: Od. 1.316 f. [de Jong on Od.
1.309–318]); (3) the offer to accompany Priam all the way to Argos ‘by ship or
429 ἐμέο πάρα: = παρ’ ἐμοῦ (R 14.1, R 20.2).

430 αὐτόν: = ‘me’. — τε (ῥ)ῥῦσαι: imper. of ἔρυμαι/ῥῦμαι ‘protect’; on the prosody, M 4.6. —
πέμψον: ‘escorted, guided’.
431 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).
Commentary 161
on foot’ (437 f., with allusions to 340–342: the winged sandals carry Hermes
‘everywhere over land and sea’, cf. 342n. and 437n.).
433 1st VH = 390 (see ad loc.). — aged sir, for I am young: A pointed antithesis.
On the one hand, it is appropriate that the younger person obey the older one,
since the latter has more experience of life (1.259 with n.; cf. 486–489n.); on
the other hand, the older person should limit his influence over the younger
(‘who easily falls prey to temptations’: AH [transl.]): Hermes pretends to inter-
pret the offer of a gift as a test of his integrity (cf. Eurymachos to Halitherses at
Od. 2.185–193: Ulf 1990, 206 f.).
οὐδέ με πείσεις: a VE formula (219n.) in parenthetic position (the relative clause at 434
follows on from πειρᾷ: AH); cf. 9.345 μή μεο πειράτω … οὐδέ με πείσει.
434 κέλεαι: ͜ On the restoration of the uncontracted form – the transmission unanimously
offers κέλῃ – see 2.365n.; Richardson. — πάρεξ: in a metaphorical sense like English
‘behind someone’s back’, cf. παρ(εξ)ελθεῖν ‘to circumvent, outwit’ (1.132n.), also Od.
4.347 f. οὐκ ἂν ἐγώ γε | ἄλλα πάρεξ εἴποιμι παρακλιδὸν οὐδ’ ἀπατήσω, Il. 20.133 πάρεκ
νόον ‘against all reason’ (Schw. 2.429; Faulkner on h.Ven. 36); on the original locative
sense as well as the accent, 349n.
435 τὸν μὲν ἐγώ: a VB formula (391n.), continued by σοὶ δ(έ) 437 (cf. 433–439n. on the
structure of the speech). — δείδοικα καὶ αἰδέομαι: Fear (in the face of danger) and
awe/respect (within a community; see 44n.) frequently appear in Homer as mutually
complementary motivations; pregnant at 15.657 f. (despite their distress, the Achaians
persevere behind the ships): ἴσχε γὰρ αἰδώς | καὶ δέος (discussion of this passage in
Wissmann 1997, 48 f.); Od. 7.305 f. (Odysseus justifies not having come to Alkinoös to-
gether with Nausikaa): ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἔθελον δείσας αἰσχυνόμενός τε, | μή πως καὶ σοὶ
θυμὸς ἐπισκύσσαιτο ἰδόντι; 17.188 f. (Eumaios does not want to act against Telemachos’
wishes): ἀλλὰ τὸν αἰδέομαι καὶ δείδια, μή μοι ὀπίσσω | νεικείῃ (in part conditioned by
the subservient relationship, as here; cf. 1.331: Cairns 1993, 88 f.). More in Macleod;
Richardson on h.Cer. 190 (with older bibliography); Williams 1993, 196 f. n. 24. — περὶ
κῆρι: 61n.
436 συλεύειν: συλάω/συλεύω elsewhere usually of the despoiling of fallen warriors; here
metaphorically in reference to the ‘booty’ due Achilleus in the form of ransom for the
slain Hektor (LfgrE). — μετόπισθε γένηται: VE ≈ 20.308, Od. 8.414.
437–439 The dialogue between Priam and Hermes concludes in the form of a
ring-compositionP with renewed pledges of aid (≈ 368–371: Danek 1988, 202;
on the motif ‘Hermes as savior of the immediately endangered Priam’, 362–
433 νεωτέρου: in apposition to ἐμεῖο (= ἐμοῦ, R 14 1).

434 κέλεαι:
͜ on the uncontracted form, R 6; on the synizesis, R 7. — σέο: = σοῦ (R 14.1); ablatival
gen., dependent on δέχεσθαι.
435 δείδοικα: δειδ- < *δεδϝ- (R 4.2).
162 Iliad 24
439n.). In addition, the keyword ‘guide’ (437/439) recalls the promise Priam
received from Iris in her literal repetition of Zeus’ orders (152 f. ≈ 181 f.; Hermes
will reveal himself at 461 with the same keyword [460–461n.]). – On Hermes’
role as guide, 153n.
437 2nd VH ≈ Od. 6.321. — Argos: The term may specifically designate Pelasgian
Argos, home of the Myrmidons (2.681; schol. bT; AH; Richardson), but also
the Greek homeland in general (2.287n.; Cauer [1895] 1921, 288; Macleod; ad-
ditional bibliography in Graziosi/Haubold on 6.152). That said, Argos here
has the function of an extreme example (on the term, Lohmann 1970, 128 n.
59) by symbolizing for Priam the heart of the enemies’ country: Danek 1988,
202 n. 58; cf. 433–439n., end.
ἂν … καί κε: καί κε after ἄν appears to mark the noun that follows as a special case:
‘possibly even’ (AH), likewise καὶ ἄν after κεν at 14.244–246 (Hypnos): ἄλλον μέν κεν
ἐγώ γε θεῶν … | ῥεῖα κατευνήσαιμι, καὶ ἂν ποταμοῖο ῥέεθρα | Ὠκεανοῦ; without καί
at 13.126–128 φάλαγγες | … ἃς οὔτ’ ἄν κεν Ἄρης ὀνόσαιτο μετελθών | οὔτέ κ’ Ἀθηναίη
(similarly Od. 4.733 f.); also καὶ ἄν and καί κε + noun without duplication of the modal
particle at Il. 5.362, 19.415, Od. 6.300, etc.; in detail on which, K.-G. 1.246–248; AH (with
Anh.) on Il. 14.245. Differently Ruijgh (1990) 1996, 646 f. (σοὶ … πομπός as a protasis, καί
κε … as a new sentence), Chantr. 2.345 (textual corruption). On the coexistence of the
modal particles ἄν and κε/κεν (which originally probably derive from different dialects)
in general, see LfgrE s.v. ἄν 709 f. and the bibliography in Meier-Brügger 1992, 1.108. —
κλυτόν: ‘famed’; only here as an epithet of a place name, a metrical alternative to 4.171
πολυδίψιον Ἄργος ἱκοίμην; probably consciously chosen by a ‘Myrmidon’ as a ‘Greek’
(Ἀργεῖοι is the term for all Greeks). κλυτός is elsewhere a generic epithetP of magnificent
objects – e.g. of gifts (458 etc.) and palaces (719n.) – and of gods, less frequently of hu-
man beings (e.g. Hektor at 789; see ad loc.); see also 2.742n., 19.10n. — Ἄργος ἱκοίμην:
an inflectible phrase at VE (also 4.171; see above) and after caesura A 3 (4× Il.).
438 ἐνδυκέως: 158n. — ἐν νηῒ … ἢ πεζός: πεζός means ‘on foot’ (in contrast to ‘by wagon’)
or ‘across the land’ (in contrast to ‘by ship’; the use of a wagon cannot be ruled out here:
LfgrE), cf. 9.328 f., Od. 3.323 f., 11.159, etc.
ἁμαρτέων: ͜ Papyri and manuscripts always transmit the verb with an initial ὁμ-, but accord-
ing to the scholia on 12.412 and 23.414, Aristarchus read ἁμ-, while the related adverb ἁμαρτή
is overwhelmingly attested in this form. ἁμ- is probably the original form (< ἅμα), whereas
ὁμ- is secondary and dependent on ὁμός (Attic, as a means of differentiating it from ἁμαρτάνω/
ἁμαρτεῖν); see West 1998, XXX; Fernández-Galiano on Od. 21 188; DELG and Beekes s.v. ὁμαρτέω;
additional bibliography in Rengakos 1993, 123.
437 πομπός: predicative, ‘as a guide, escort’. — κλυτὸν Ἄργος: indication of direction without a
preposition (R 19.2).
438 ἁμαρτέων: ͜ ‘following, accompanying’; on the synizesis, R 7.
Commentary 163
439 The asyndeton expresses an effect or consequence; cf. 2.276n.; K.-G. 2.342 f.; 3.53 is
similar (see 3.52–53n., end).
440–467 Hermes leads Priam past all obstacles – namely the guards and gates –
to Achilleus’ quarters.
440–485 After the departure from Troy (322 ff.) and the intermediary stop at
the river (349 ff.), a second departure (440–442) follows as a transition to the
type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (1.496b–502n., 24.89–102n.): (2) the arrival is portrayed
in two steps (see below), as at e.g. 6.237/242 and Od. 3.4 f./31, indeed primari-
ly as a penetration, initially through the fortifications of the camp (443–447)
and subsequently, in an intensified form, through the entrance to Achilleus’
quarters (448–458), which is described in detail – as frequently occurs for the
‘backdrop’ of arrival scenes, e.g. 18.369–371, Od. 14.5–28 (Arend 1933, 32, 37;
6.242–253n. with further bibliography); (3) Priam ‘finds’ Achilleus (with de-
scription of the situation: 472–476, with n.), (4) approaches him (477–484;
on the peculiarities here, 477–478n. [visitation scene] and 477–571n. [hikesia
scene]), and (5) speaks to him (485 ff.). – Element 3 is retardedP, on the one
hand by Hermes’ departure (459–469a, with n.), on the other by the type-sce-
neP ‘arrival by chariot’ (Arend 1933, 86–90; Kelly 2007, 92–96 [esp. 95 f.]; de
Jong on Od. 4.39–42): (1) the character stops and/or dismounts (Hermes at 459
and Priam at 469), (2) the horses are unharnessed and (3) fed and/or tethered
(here they are temporarily held by Idaios: 470 f.), (4) the chariot is unloaded
or stowed away. Elements 2 and 4 in turn are only realized after the discussion
between Priam and Achilleus has reached its goal with the release of Hektor’s
body (576–579, with n.).
The parallelism in the portrayal of the arrival at (a) the camp’s fortifications (443 ff.) and
(b) Achilleus’ quarters (448 ff.) is underscored by linguistic framing: 443/448 ἀλλ’ ὅτε
δὴ … (ἀφ)ίκοντο – 446/457 Hermes ὤειξε/ᾦξε – 447/458 ἐς δ’ ἄγαγε … δῶρα.
440–447 The pace of the narrativeP picks up again after the scenicP dialogue.
The action itself speeds up as well – this is entirely in Priam’s interest (253n.
[with additional examples]; Richardson; Arend 1933, 89) and is expedient
in regard to his return from the Achaian camp as soon as possible (i.e. at the
latest before the first watch of the day: 680 f., 691, 692–695n.): Hermes does
not dismount, but instead leaps onto the wagon (element 2 of the type-scene
‘chariot-ride’, see 189–328n.), ‘rapidly’ grasps the whip and reins (3, similarly
439 τοι: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ as an ethic dat. with ὀνοσσάμενος and a dative object of μαχέσαιτο. —
πομπόν: ‘〈me as your⟩ guide’. — ὀνοσσάμενος: aor. part. of ὄνομαι ‘disdain’; on the -σσ-, R 9 1.
— μαχέσαιτο: ‘commence battle, attack’ (ingressive aor.).
164 Iliad 24
significant in the iteratum at 17.482, where Alkimedon stands in as charioteer;

on his speed, cf. 446n.), and spurs on the horses, not so much by means of the
whip as by his divine influence (4): Arend loc. cit. 89; Tsagarakis 1982, 92 f. –
On the function of the charioteer, see also 326n.
440 VB = 621; ≈ 3.369; VE: 3× Il., 2× ‘Hes.’, 1× h.Hom. — The kind god spoke,
and …: a speech capping formulaP (302n.). The last point of the dialogue
(430 f./437–439: guiding Priam to Achilleus) is immediately put into action;
cf. 228n.; Macleod. In this way, the close of the dialogue between Priam and
Hermes (with the revelation of Hermes’ identity: 460 ff.) is retardedP (cf. 433–
439n.).
ἀναΐξας: only here of leaping onto a wagon; expressions for (swiftly) leaping onto
something vel sim. are emphatic in contrast to the usual ἀναβαίνω/ἐπιβαίνω (e.g. at 322)
(Delebecque 1951, 189–191, with a list of verbs); cf. 711 (Andromache and Hekabe) ἐπ’
ἄμαξαν … ἀΐξασαι: ‘rushed to the wagon’. — Ἐριούνιος: 360n.
441 = 17.482; 2nd VH = 5.365, Od. 3.483.
442 In a similar manner, Zeus instils Achilleus’ (grieving) horses with energy:
17.456 (cf. Athene 23.390/399 f.). On the forms of divine stimuli, cf. 2.451b–452n.;
on ‘inspiration’ in particular, 19.159n.
μένος ἠΰ: 6n.
443–447 The suggestion that a wall be constructed around the encampment of
ships was made by Nestor at 7.337b–343 (including mention of the three com-
ponents also indicated here: bastions, ditch and a gate through which wagons
can pass; additional passages relating to the construction of the enclosure in
Iakovidis 1977, 218 f.). Together with the guards, who appear for the first time
at 9.65–68/80–88, the wall constitutes an obstacle – insurmountable without
divine aid – for Priam, cf. 566, 681 (Peppmüller; see also 448–456n.); for de-
tails on the role of the camp’s fortifications throughout the action of the Iliad,
see Mannsperger 1995 and 1998.
440 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — καὶ ἀναΐξας: on the so-called correption, R 5.5. — ἅρμα
καὶ ἵππους: ‘horse-drawn chariot’ (hendiadys); acc. of direction, dependent on ἀν-αΐξας (‘jump
onto something’).
441 λάζετο: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of λάζομαι ≈ λαμβάνω; on the unaugmented form, R 16 1.
442 ἐν … ἔπνευσ(ε): so-called tmesis (R 20.2), likewise 445 ἐφ’ … ἔχευε, 447 ἐς … ἄγαγε. —
ἵπποισι: on the inflection, R 11.2. — ἠΰ: 6n.
443 πύργους … καὶ τάφρον: indication of direction without a preposition (R 19.2). — νεῶν: here
≈ ‘the encampment (beside the ships)’; on the inflection, R 12.1. — ἵκοντο: on the unaugmented
form (ῐ-), R 16.1.
Commentary 165
ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: 31n. — πύργους … καὶ τάφρον ἵκοντο: hysteron proteron, likewise at 446
ὤειξε πύλας καὶ ἀπῶσεν ὀχῆας (AH on 443; schol. T on 446; differently AH on 446: καί is
explicative/specifying [on which, cf. 390n.]). Additional bibliography: 100n.
444 The arrival of a character frequently coincides with a meal consumed by
those present (123b–125n.). – The guardsmen take their meal on the spot, i.e.
between the ditch and the wall: 9.87 f.
οἳ δὲ …: taken as a parenthetic remark by West and others (cf. Leaf on 443, Richardson
on 443–447). At the same time, the reference of τοῖσι in 445 to the φυλακτῆρες becomes
clearer when the ‘guards’, the topic of the present passage, are not merely introduced
within a parenthesis but form the subject of an independent sentence; interpreting 444
as a main clause to which 443 is subordinate is accordingly preferable (thus, inter alios,
AH), with οἱ δέ at VB and stronger puncuation (colon) at VE of 444. In that case, δέ is
apodotic: Willcock (on this in general, Denniston 177 ff., esp. 179). — περὶ δόρπα …
πονέοντο: cf. περὶ δεῖπνον … πένοντο Od. 4.624, 24.412.
445–446 The action is prepared for by 337 (Zeus’ orders) and 343 f. (Hermes’
staff) (with n.). – The motif ‘someone falls asleep (with or without divine influ-
ence), with the result that he does not notice something’ is common: Athene
induces drowsiness in the suitors so that they miss Telemachos’ departure (Od.
2.393–398); she makes Penelope fall asleep so that she ‘sleeps through’ the kill-
ing of the suitors (21.356–358/22.428–431/23.1–9; on which, Hölscher [1988]
1990, 279 ff.); on a divine level: Hera asks Hypnos to make Zeus fall asleep
(Il. 14.231 ff./352 ff.); outside Homer: David spares the sleeping Saul (1 Sam.
26:12: ‘a deep sleep from the lord’; see West 1997, 182 and 400). The sleep-
ing guards in particular are a typical fairytale motif, e.g. in ‘The Master Thief’
(Grimm/Bechstein), ‘Ivan and the Fire-bird’ (Russia); the motif is also implied
in the shape of Argos, who is killed by Hermes (cf. 2.103n.). The way Hermes
induces sleep in the guards during their preparations for a meal also recalls
the narrative in ‘Sleeping Beauty’ (Grimm).
445 ὕπνον ἔχευε: as a phrase, an additional 3× Od. and 1× h.Ven., all at VE; other similar
expressions in Peppmüller (instead of χέω also βάλλω, in place of simple τινί frequent-
ly τινὶ ἐπὶ βλεφάροισι, etc.). – On χέω with changes of consciousness (sleep, fright,
fainting, death), 2.19n.
444 οἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), given specificity by the appositive φυλακτῆρες.
— νέον: adverbial, ‘just then, shortly before’. — δόρπα: on the plural, R 18.2. — πονέοντο: on the
uncontracted form, R 6.
445 δ(έ): ‘apodotic δέ’ (R 24.3).
166 Iliad 24
446 2nd VH ≈ 21.537. — on all: an emphatic runover word (enjambmentP): a pre-

requisite for Priam getting into the camp unobserved (cf. Martinazzoli). —
quickly: Actions and movements by the gods are typically ‘swift’ or ‘effortless’
in Homer (Macleod on 446 and 565–567; de Jong on Od. 3.231; Griffin 1978,
10; cf. 78–79n., 80–82n., 440–447n., 526n., 567n., 690–691n.). — shoved back
| the door-bars: Whereas in the iteratum at 21.537 the bars of the Trojan gate
are correctly and realistically shoved back from the interior of the gate, here
another of Hermes’ magical acts is perhaps to be reckoned with. At the same
time, the bars are repeatedly used ‘as needed’ by the narrator (van der Valk
1964, 158 f.); thus in Hektor’s attack at 12.455 f. they are described as double
(two crossbars held in place by a bolt), while elsewhere a ‘large bar’ (sing.)
is mentioned (e.g. at 13.124 with rhetorical and psychological effect: Michel
1971, 40); the differences are in part probably due simply to formulaic language
(Janko on 13.124–125; poetic plural: Macleod on 565–567). – On the techniques
of bolting doors and the relevant Greek terms, see AH; Leaf and Hainsworth
on 12.455 f.; Diels (1914) 1924, 40 ff.; Willetts 1977; Rougier-Blanc 2005,
154–157; BNP s.v. Lock, Key.
ὤειξε: ‘opened’; on the form, 6.298n.; cf. 228n. above
447 VB ≈ 458, 577, also 1.346, 19.118 (ἐκ δ’). — ἀγλαὰ δῶρ(α): 278n.
448–456 The Greek term klisíē ‘tent, hut, quarters’ is used for both the wooden
construction of Achilleus and the living quarters of Eumaios’ homestead (Od.
14.5–14a/48–51a) (in detail, see Knox 1971; cf. 448n.). The building described
here is characterized by high, solid construction (Rougier-Blanc 2002, 107):
walls of fir trunks, roof of reed (thatched roof, with a steep incline), the yard
enclosure of posts, the door with a bar of fir – once more an obstacle Priam
must negotiate (with divine help) before reaching Achilleus; cf. 443–447n.
(Richardson; Müller 1968, 97–99). In this respect, the description is a typ-
ical example of the principle of ‘ad hoc narration’P (van Leeuwen; Edwards
1987, 307), as also in view of the fact that the subsequent action writ large – but
also including everyday tasks (washing the corpse, preparation of the meal,
the overnight stay of the guests) – will take place in the same location (Paris’
palace at 6.313 ff., for example, is similar; see Macleod on 448–456 and on
583; Lynn-George 1996, 11–13; Rougier-Blanc 2005, 302). More on technical
446 ἀπῶσεν: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἀπ-ωθέω ‘shove, push away’. — ὀχῆας: acc. pl. of ὀχεύς ‘bar,
bolt’.
447 δῶρ’ ἐπ’ ἀπήνης: i.e. ‘the wagon with the gifts’ (with Hermes driving ahead of the mule
wagon in the horse-drawn chariot).
Commentary 167
descriptions in Homeric epic: 266–274n. (retardingP function; narrative rather

than descriptive depiction).
On the parallelism of 448 ff. and 443 ff., see 440–485n., end
448 ≈ 11.618, 24.431 (cf. 1.322, 9.166); 1st VH ≈ 7.313, 9.669, 23.38. — κλισίην: Achilleus’
quarters in the army encampment, like the quarters of other Achaian heroes, are gener-
ally termed κλισίη by the narrator and other characters (e.g. 1.322, 9.622, 24.155, 24.596),
and are rarely referred to by other generic terms for ‘building, house’ (in Book 24: οἶκος
471, 572; δώματα 512; δόμος 673; cf. Weiler 2001, 69–75). Individually signficant parts
of the building are highlighted by name, e.g. the πρόθυρον, where the as-yet-unburied
Patroklos is lying (19.212; cf. 323n.), the μυχός, where Achilleus sleeps (9.663, 24.675),
the αἴθουσα, where the guests stay overnight (644; termed πρόδομος at 673; cf. 238n.),
the μέγαρον as the main room (647; cf. 208b–209a n.). In this way, Achilleus’ quarters
appear ‘ennobled’, particularly in visitation scenes (and especially in Book 24): ‘palace
terminology was felt, perhaps subconsciously, to create the appropriate background
and atmosphere for this great scene’ (Knox 1971, 31).
449 VE = 452. — their king: = Achilleus; a periphrastic denominationP (cf. 122n.)
from the perspective of the Myrmidons. On (w)ánax ‘lord, ruler, leader’ as a
title, 1.7n.
ὑψηλήν: an epithetP of buildings (281n.), here in enjambmentP probably with a preg-
nant sense; see 448–456n. and 448n., end (likewise at Od. 7.44 f. ἀγορὰς καὶ τείχεα
μακρά, | ὑψηλά, …, θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι: Odysseus views the buildings of the Phaiakians;
9.182 f. σπέος εἴδομεν … | ὑψηλόν: Polyphemos’ cave). On the separation of the runover
word from its reference word, cf. Il. 22.133 f.: Πηλιάδα μελίην … | δεινήν. – The introduc-
tion of building descriptions via one or more adjectives and the mention of the builder
in a relative clause is typical (e.g. 18.369 ff., Od. 14.5 ff.): Arend 1933, 32; Reece 1993, 14;
see also the parallel passages mentioned at 440–485n.
450–451 2nd VH of 450 ≈ Od. 23.193; 451 is a four-word verse (1.75n.). — The
fir is repeatedly characterized in early epic as growing particularly tall (e.g
14.287, Od. 5.239); it is used as construction timber (including ship building)
throughout antiquity, e.g. Od. 2.424, 19.38; see Meiggs 1982, 111, 118; BNP s.v.
Fir.
448 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή: continued by 457 δή ῥα τόθ’ (‘yes, since …’). — κλισίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2.
— Πηληϊάδεω: ͜ on the inflection, R 11.1; on the synizesis, R 7.
449 τήν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ποίησαν ἄνακτι: originally (ϝ)άνακτι,
digamma is no longer taken into account (R 4.6).
450 δοῦρ(α): acc. pl. of δόρυ (R 12.5). — κέρσαντες: from κείρω ‘cut’. — ἀτάρ: ‘but’ (progressive:
R 24.2); transition from a relative clause to an independent main clause. — ἔρεψαν: from ἐρέφω
‘cover, roof’.
168 Iliad 24
δοῦρ’ ἐλάτης κέρσαντες: It is unclear whether the action is referred to is: (a) cutting
down the fir trees (cf. h.Ven. 264/268), thus analogous with cutting reeds in 451 (LSJ;
LfgrE s.v. κείρω); (b) removing branches (possibly also the bark) from the felled trees
(schol. D; Peppmüller on 449–456, end, with a reference to Od. 23.195 f.). – ἐλάτης is
probably a collective singular (LfgrE s.v. ἐλάτη). — ἔρεψαν | … ὄροφον: figura etymo
logica, ‘covered ⟨the κλισίη⟩ with a roof’; ὄροφος is a verbal substantive with vowel al-
teration of ἐρέφω. In antiquity, in contrast, ὄροφος was sometimes understood as a
term for a particular type of reed (e.g. schol. D on 451; cf. Doederlein 1.217); although
here the material is implied in the attribute λαχνήεις (see below) and the specification
of provenance λειμωνόθεν ἀμήσαντες – in early epic, ‘meadows’ are frequently explic-
itly located on the banks of bodies of water (2.461, etc.) – it is hardly contained in the
term itself, cf. 1.39n., end, and ὀροφή at Od. 22.298 (Leaf; Macleod; LfgrE s.v. ὄροφος).
— λαχνήεντ(α): perhaps in reference to the inflorescence of the reeds (which are not,
of course, utilized in roof construction): ‘downy’ (AH), or of the roof’s rough surface:
‘shaggy’ (LfgrE). — ἀμήσαντες: an absolute use of ἀμάω ‘reap, cut down’ also at 18.551,
Hes. Op. 392.
452–453 On the enclosed yard as part of a Homeric residence, see 161n.; the pres-
ent description shows similarities with Od. 9.182–186 (wall of stones and long
tree trunks, in the case of Polyphemos) and 14.5–28 (wooden fence and stone
wall, in the case of Eumaios).
αὐλήν: as in the parallel passages mentioned above, probably in the sense ‘enclo-
sure, courtyard wall’; μεγάλην denotes thickness and height (AH; LfgrE s.v. αὐλή). —
ἐπιβλής: a beam pushed across (related to ἐπιβάλλω) that functions as a ‘bar for the
door’ (a Homeric hapaxP), = μεγάλην κληῗδα 455 (an appositive ‘full of emphasis’ to τόν
in 454: AH). On the bar in general: 446n.
454–456 The description of the door-locking mechanism is based on a common
motif that occurs in Homer in a range of variants, usually highlighting the size
and weight of an object and thus the quasi-superhuman powers of the hero
who knows how to handle it (Macleod; Edwards on 19.387–391; de Jong on
Od. 9.240–243). The two basic patterns are: (a) ‘what the hero can achieve with
ease, another character can do barely, if at all’ (cf. 14.166–169: no other god
451 λειμωνόθεν: on the form, R 15.1.

452 ἀμφί: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘all around’. — δέ (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1),
with ἄνακτι as an appositive.
453 θύρην: ‘gate, door’; on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2. — ἔχε: i.e. ‘shut’. — μοῦνος: = μόνος (< μόνϝος:
R 4.2).
454 εἰλάτινος: ‘of fir (wood)’; initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — τόν: with the
function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἐπιρρήσσεσκον: iterative form (R 16.5), likewise 455
ἀνοείγεσκον (from ἀν-οίγω).
455 θυράων: on the plural, R 18.2 (cf. 453 θύρην); on the inflection, R 11.1.
Commentary 169
can open the lock on the door to Hera’s bedroom), (b) ‘two other characters
cannot do what the hero manages by himself and with ease’ (in detail, 19.388–
389n.). The present variant, ‘only three others can manage what the hero can
do by himself’, is unique in early epic (in a parallel in Irish epic, nine men are
needed to lock a door: West 2007, 426). – The anaphoric ‘three … three’ (treis
men … treis de) recalls the expression ‘three times … three times (… the fourth
time)’ (tris men … tris de); on its repeated occurrence, see Bannert 1988,
40–57, on the present passage especially 54 f. with reference to 21.171–179/200
(Asteropaios attempts three times without success to pull Achilleus’ lance from
the ground – Achilleus manages this easily); ‘three’ is here a typical numberP.
On anaphoric series of numbers, see also 229–234n.
ἐπιρρήσσεσκον: ἐπιρρήσσω = ‘drive home, push shut (the bar)’ (LfgrE), with an ex-
penditure of force and accompanied by creaking noises (schol. bT; Peppmüller), cf.
Soph. OT 1244 πύλας … ἐπιρρᾱ´ ξασ’ ἔσω; perhaps related etymologically to ἀράσσω
‘beat, smash’ (LfgrE and Frisk; cf. Plato Prot. 314d ἀμφοῖν τοῖν χεροῖν τὴν θύραν πάνυ
προθύμως ὡς οἷός τ’ ἦν ἐπήραξεν; differently Beekes s.v. ῥάσσω). – The iterative infix
-σκ- makes the meaning ‘every time Achilleus did not do it himself’ (Düntzer [1847]
1872, 356 f.; AH); at 456, ἐπιρρήσσεσκε is used in an abbreviated manner for ‘closed and
opened’ (on analogy with 454 f.): schol. bT and Macleod on 456 (with parallels). —
ἀνοείγεσκον: ‘opened’, < ἀν-ο(ϝ)είγεσκον (228n.), restored from the unanimously trans-
mitted ἀναοίγεσκον. — καὶ οἶος: a VE formula, 6× Il. (of which 4× in the motif ‘another
may not do …’, see above); on the emphatic placement at the end of a line of thought,
see Kahane 1997, 118 f., 122 (contrast narrative – present).
457 δή ῥα τόθ’: a VB formula (4× Il., 3× Od., 1× Hes.; cf. VB δὴ τότε 1.476n.), also 1× each in
Il. and Hes. in verse middle. Usually at the beginning of a sentence, it refers to a situa-
tion described earlier (here 448 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή, similarly 13.709–719). On the meaning of δή,
351n. — ἐριούνιος: 360n. — ᾦξε: ‘opened’; on the forms of ὀείγω, 228n.
458 VB = 447; ≈ 577. — ποδώκεϊ Πηλεΐωνι: an inflectible VE formula (dat. also at 23.249,
acc. 10× Il., gen. ποδώκεος Αἰακίδαο 8× Il., 2× Od. [2.860n.]); a prosodic variant with an
initial vowel: Ἀχιλλῆϊ πτολιπόρθῳ (108n.). The complementary formula in the nomina-
tive is ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς (668n.; on the coexistence of ποδάρκης and ποδώκης,
see West 2001a, 132 f.; on the inflection of formulae in general, FOR 23). – ποδώκης
in total 24× of Achilleus, rarely of other characters or horses; on Achilleus’ swiftness,
138n.
456 τῶν ἄλλων: sc. Ἀχαιῶν; partitive gen. with τρεῖς. — Ἀχιλεύς: on the single -λ-, R 9 1. — οἶος:
‘alone’.
458 ἐς δ’ ἄγαγε … Πηλεΐωνι: by-form of Πηλεΐδης (dat.); ‘brought in the gifts for Achilleus’, spe-
cifically as in 447 ἐπ’ ἀπήνης (see ad loc.).
170 Iliad 24
459–469a Hermes’ orders have been completed (153–155, 336–338). Being a god,

he must exit the scene prior to the meeting between Achilleus and Priam, ‘so
as not to disturb the deep humanity of the scene’ (Martinazzoli on 464, end
[transl.]). Before exiting, Hermes reveals himself and offers Priam advice re-
garding his future course of action (465–467; Athene to Odysseus before he en-
ters the Phaiakian palace is similar: Od. 7.18–83 [on this analogy, cf. 339–345n.,
end]); in this way, the journey scene is linked to the following supplication
scene (‘hinge passage’).
459 ≈ 3.265/8.492, 10.541/11.619. — ἵππων: = ‘wagon’ (51n.). — ἀπέβαινεν: The compound
occurs in the impf. instead of the aor. only here, likely metri gratia: the prosodic structure
(⏖–⏑) is equivalent to the participle in ἐξ ἵππων (δ’) ἀποβάντες ἐπὶ χθόνα at 3.265/8.492
and the 3rd pers. pl. in κατέβησαν/ἀπέβησαν ἐπὶ χθόνα at 10.541/11.619; the impf. at
21.529 ἀπὸ πύργου βαῖνε χαμᾶζε is similar: the formulaic VE ἄλτο/ὦσε/ἧκε/θῆκε χαμᾶζε
(all after caesura C 2; see 469n.) is analogous. More on the metrical restrictiveness of
the tense of βαίνω: 1.437n.; Debrunner 1921; Bergold 1977, 201; LfgrE s.v. 13.69 ff.; in
general, cf. 266–274n. – The dismounting represents element 1 of the type-scene ‘arrival
by chariot’ (440–485n.). — φώνησέν τε: 193n.
460–461 Hermes reveals himself as a god; his name is placed emphatically at the
VB of 461 (enjambmentP, cf. 501 ‘Hektor’). In this way, the dramatic ironyP built
up in the preceding speeches of the dialogue (425–431n., 433–439n.) reaches
its conclusion. – On the self-revelation of gods, cf. 22.8–13 (Apollo), Od. 11.252
(Poseidon), 13.291–310 (Athene), h.Cer. 268 f. (Demeter), h.Ap. 480 f. (Apollo);
human beings sometimes recognize deities solely on the basis of their demea-
nor or means of transportation: Il. 3.396 f., 13.71 f., 17.333 f., Od. 1.319–323/420,
3.371–379, h.Ven. 181–186, etc. (3.396–418n.; Macleod; Richardson; Fuchs
1993, 19 f.; Patzer 1996, 211–213; Turkeltaub 2007, esp. 59 f.; West 2007, 133
with n. 50).
460 ὦ γέρον: 411n. — θεὸς ἄμβροτος: in the nom. or acc. always in the same position in
the verse of a deity interacting with human beings: also 20.358, 22.9, Od. 24.445, ‘Hes.’
fr. 240.10 M.-W. – ἄμβροτος is linguistically older than ἀθάνατος, which occurs more
frequently in Homer: Schmitt 1967, 193; cf. G 15. — θεὸς … εἰλήλουθα: θεός is a predic-
ative appositive, as at Od. 2.262; Il. 6.128 ≈ Od. 7.199 (τις ἀθανάτων) is similar, also Od.
19.549 (τεὸς πόσις εἰλήλουθα), etc.: AH; Létoublon 1985, 90 f. – ‘Coming’ frequently
implies ‘helping’, especially in prayers, e.g. Il. 23.770 (Macleod).
461 1st VH ≈ 334, Od. 5.29, 19.397. — guide: cf. 437–439n.
460 ἤτοι: affirmative, here approximately ‘know’ (R 24.4). — εἰλήλουθα: = ἐλήλυθα (initial sylla-
ble metrically lengthened: R 10.1).
461 πατήρ: Zeus. — ἅμα: frequently intensifying in the sense of an escort or protection (148
ἅμα … ἴτω, 182 ἅμ’ ἕψεται). — ὄπασσεν: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
Commentary 171
462 ἀλλ’ ἤτοι μέν: a VB formula (8× Il., 4× Od., of which 6× with ἐγώ(ν) following; also
71 ἀλλ’ ἤτοι … μέν), usually in announcements or requests (1.140n.); ἤτοι μὲν ἐγώ here
correlates with 465 τύνη δ(έ) (on ἤτοι μέν as a functionally equivalent variant of μέν
alone, see Ruijgh [1981] 1996, esp. 523–532; on the differentiation between narrator textP
and character languageP in the use of ἤτοι, see Cuypers 2005, 63–65). — εἴσομαι: The
future form εἴσομαι in the present meaning ‘I will go’ can be traced back to (ϝ)ῑ῞εμαι ‘hur-
ry, strive’, cf. 11.367 ἐπι(ϝ)είσομαι. But on the basis of the semantic and formal proximity
in some passages (where no initial digamma can be restored), εἴσομαι might have been
understood secondarily as a future of εἶμι ‘go’, so perhaps here in πάλιν εἴσομαι and at
Od. 15.213 δεῦρ’ εἴσεται (likewise in the aorist at Il. 13.90, 17.285 μετεισάμενος beside
11.358 κατα(ϝ)είσατο and 15.415 ἐ(ϝ)είσατο): Chantr. 1.142 f., 293 f.; see also Hoekstra
on Od. 16.313; Létoublon 1985, 80 f.
463 2nd VH = 3.410, 14.336, Od. 22.489. — ὀφθαλμοὺς εἴσειμι: cf. 204n. — νεμεσσητὸν
δέ κεν εἴη: The word family of νέμεσις is character languageP and denotes the ‘disap-
proval’ of an instance of misconduct by the public, the ‘indignation’ of the latter in the
face of the misconduct (see LfgrE s.v. νέμεσις etc.; also 2.222b–223n., end). In speeches,
the present phrase is used as a justification or request for changes in behavior (LfgrE
s.v. νεμεσ(σ)ητός; Cairns 1993, 54): Helen refuses to join Paris (3.410); Hera wishes for a
less risky location for intercourse than Mount Ida (14.336); Eurykleia reminds Odysseus
to put on clean clothes (Od. 22.489). Here it is a ‘a polite excuse for departure’ (Taplin
1992, 266 f. n. 25).
464 ≈ 21.380 (Hera to Hephaistos at 21.379 f.: οὐ γὰρ ἔοικεν | ἀθάνατον θεὸν [sc. the river
god Skamandros] ὧδε βροτῶν ἕνεκα στυφελίζειν). — θεὸν ὧδε βροτοὺς ἀγαπαζέμεν:
Because of the two accusatives, the sentence may be understood in two ways: (a) ‘a god
may not simply favor humans for all to see’ (thus e.g. AH; Beck 1964, 222; Deichgräber
1972, 62), (b) ‘humans may not simply welcome a god’ (thus Leaf; Willcock; Macleod;
Thalmann 1984, 110; Cairns 1993, 54; cf. LfgrE s.v. ἄντην). Variant (a) follows imme-
diately from the train of thought of the preceding sentence: ‘I will turn back and not
face Achilleus, in order not to make too obvious the assistance you receive from me as a
god’. But variant (b) has the advantage of agreeing with the normal use of ἀγαπάζω: in
Homer, the verb denotes the warm reception of a visitor or relative by the host (and not
the other way around; see e.g. 16.191 f., Od. 7.32 f., 16.17 f., 23.213 f.); the forward place-
ment of an accusative object (ἀθάνατον θεόν) that results from this reading is not un-
paralleled (Il. 9.315 f., 9.410 f., 19.225, 22.339, Od. 5.103 f., 21.322). Implication: ‘Achilleus
may not simply greet me, the god, face to face (on ἄντην, cf. 223n.) – but you go on
in …’. – The appearance of gods in their own form is also problematized elsewhere:
462 πάλιν: ‘back’, sc. to Olympos. — εἴσομαι: ‘will go’. — οὐδ(έ): in Homer also after affirmative
clauses (R 24.8). — Ἀχιλῆος: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; cf. 456n.
463 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5).
464 ἀθάνατον: initial syllable metrically lengthened: R 10.1. — ὧδε: ‘just like that, readily’. —
ἀγαπαζέμεν: inf. (R 16.4).
172 Iliad 24
Il. 20.131, Od. 3.221 f., 10.573 f., 16 161 (see 169–170n.); all these cases may hint at the
idea that, in the past, free contact between human beings and gods was the rule (myth
of the Ages of the World), see ‘Hes.’ fr. 1.6 f. M.-W., also Il. 1.423 f. with n. (Aithiopians),
Od. 7.201–206 (Phaiakians) and in detail Thalmann loc. cit. 98–102; cf. the wedding of
Peleus and Thetis (59–63n.) and the visits of gods to the earth in ancient myths and in
the Old Testament (so-called theoxenies; see e.g. Frenzel [1976] 1999, 284–296, s.v. ‘Gott
auf Erdenbesuch’; Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984; West 1997, 122–124). – On gnomes ut-
tered by gods, see 130–131a n.
465 go you in yourself and clasp the knees: carried out by Priam at 477 f. (see
ad loc.).
τύνη: emphatic σύ; on the form and usage, see 19.10n. — λαβὲ γούνατα Πηλεΐωνος:
The construction with acc. of the grasped body part and possessive gen. of the person,
and that with the acc. of the person and gen. of the body part are both attested in Homer:
e.g. 18.71, 24.478 and 1.407, 1.500 (with n.), 6.45.
466–467 Close relatives, one’s own body, other property or the gods are
all invoked, sometimes in multi-part sequences, in pleading requests:
15.659–666 (Nestor addressing the army: parents, children, wives, proper-
ty), 22.338 (Hektor addressing Achilleus: life [psychḗ], knees, parents), Od.
2.68 (Telemachos addressing the assembled suitors: Zeus, Themis), 11.66–68
(Elpenor addressing Odysseus: those who stayed at home, i.e. wife, father,
son), 15.261 f. (Theoklymenos addressing Telemachos: sacrifice [being offered
at that moment], god, head, companions), h.Ven. 131 (Aphrodite addressing
Anchises: Zeus, parents). The instances of appeal listed here are the conven-
tional ‘father’, ‘mother’ and ‘child’; they represent the closest relatives by way
of example, with no reference to Peleus, Thetis or Neoptolemos necessarily
intended (in this sense, also Erbse 1986, 68 f.; Blössner 1991, 77 n. 308; also
Naiden 2006, 98 f. [parents and children are considered a ‘symbol of inno-
cence’]). As he planned already at 22.419 f., Priam will take the liberty of focus-
sing on Achilleus’ father – successfully (486/504; on the father-son motif, cf.
362–439n.); in addition, he will not only grasp Achilleus’ knees (465), but also
kiss his hands (478 f.). These discrepancies between order and execution have
pragmatic reasons: ‘What the god commands is a conventional supplication.
What the man does over and above that is to appeal as a father to his son’s
killer’ (Macleod on 460–467, with parallels; Scodel 1999, 82 f.; further dis-
cussion in Dentice di Accadia 2013, 117 f.). Where the instructions are taken
not as conventional but literally, these discrepancies, as well as the disputed
question of whether Achilleus’ son Neoptolemos is mentioned in the Iliad at all
465 γούνατα: on the form, R 4.2, on the inflection, R 12.5.

Commentary 173
(on which detail, 19.326–337n.), have provided occasion for considering 466 f.
to be interpolated (Düntzer [1847] 1872, 357 f.; Peppmüller on 460 ff.; Leaf;
West 2001, 12).
466 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 280.20 M.-W. — ἠϋκόμοιο: a generic epithet of goddesses (of Thetis
also at 4.512, 16.860 – if the reference is indeed to her; see 466–467n.), less frequently of
human women (e.g. Niobe at 602). In general on epithets highlighting (female) beauty,
see 1 143n.; on epithets describing hair ornaments, 6.379–380n.
467 τέκεος, ἵνα: on the prosody, 84n. (likewise at 470 λίπεν· ὅ). — σὺν θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς:
θυμὸν ὀριν- is an inflectible VE formula (8× Il., 3× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’) and describes an emo-
tion – often provoked by a speech – that triggers an impulse to action (here mercy, else-
where also anger, sorrow, etc.; cf. 568, 585: anger); see 2.142n.; Bergold 1977, 118 n. 1.
With intensifying σύν also at 4.332, ‘Hes.’ fr. 51.3 M.-W.
468–512 Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters unobserved and pleads with him for the
return of his son’s body. Both mourn the fate of their relatives.
468–476 The narrative pace increases and the action speeds up (Martinazzoli
and Macleod on 469; cf. 440–447n.): on the one hand, the narrator employs
short sentences, sometimes with enjambment (Richardson on 469–476); on
the other hand, Priam ‘leaps’ off the wagon (cf. 440: Hermes ‘leaps’ onto the
wagon) and approaches his goal, Achilleus, as rapidly as possible. In this, he
shows no reaction whatsoever to Hermes’ last speech – his suspicion that he
enjoys divine support has perhaps solidified over the course of the dialogue:
146–158n. (point d), 373–377n., 425–431n., end (Richardson on 468–469;
Beck 1964, 202–204; on the reactions to divine epiphanies usual elsewhere,
see 170n.). – In order to facilitate a private encounter between Priam and
Achilleus (148n.), all other characters are removed from the foregrounded ac-
tion (Hermes departs [468 f.]; Idaios must wait outside [470 f.] – perhaps to be
ready for an immediate departure, should it come to the worst [West 2011, 420];
and Achilleus’ companions are sitting elsewhere or occupied [472–476n.]).
468 2nd VH = 694, Od. 10.307, 15.43. — ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας: an inflectible VB formula as a
speech capping formulaP: 35× Il., 27× Od., 2× h.Hom., of which 8× Il., 5× Od. with ἀπέβη/
ἀπεβήσετο: as here, signaling the exit of a god (on which, cf. 188–190n.) or, in the case
of human beings, transition to the next scene: Kurz 1966, 106 f.; de Jong/Nünlist 2004,
67 f. — μακρὸν Ὄλυμπον: a VE formula, 19× in early epic (1.402n.); also in the nom.
(Il. 15.193, Hes. Th. 680).
466 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — μητέρος: = μητρός. — ἠϋκόμοιο: on the inflection, R 11.2.

467 λίσσεο, τέκεος: on the uncontracted forms, R 6; with τέκεος sc. ὑπέρ. — ἵνα (ϝ)οι: on the
prosody, R 4.3; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14 1). — σὺν … ὀρίνῃς: so-called tmesis (R 20.2), likewise 470 κατ(ὰ) …
λίπεν.
174 Iliad 24
469 2nd VH ≈ 5.111/16.733/16.755, 5.835/11.143/11.320/20.461. — Ἑρμείας. Πρίαμος δ(έ):

an emphatic juxtaposition, as at 72 Ἀχιλλῆος, θρασὺν Ἕκτορα. — ἄλτο χαμᾶζε: a VE
formula (12× Il.; similarly ἄλτο θύραζε 572, Od. 21.388); variations: βαῖνε χαμᾶζε (1× Il.,
see 459n.), ἧκε χαμᾶζε (3× Il., 2× ‘Hes.’; 1× Od. compound ἀποπροέηκε χ.; also in verse
middle 2× Od.), θῆκε χ. (2× Od., of which 1× compound κατέθηκε), ὦσε χ. (4× Il.). On
the accent of ἄλτο, see West 1998, XX; on the formation of χαμᾶζε, see Untermann
on 16.733 (acc. pl. *χαμᾱ´ ς + -δε; originally perhaps a locatival gen., cf. Ἄϊδόσδε: Meier-
Brügger 1991).
470 ≈ 17.535. — Cf. 468–476n., end.
ἐρύκων: ἐρύκω is frequently used of the stopping or holding of a team on the spot
(3.113, 5.261 f., 11.47 f., etc.).
471 1st VH ≈ 23.260, 24.697 (see 350n.). — ἰθύς: strictly speaking, a predicate adj., also used
secondarily as an adv. or prep. (with gen. of location: ‘straight for/toward’), cf. Latin
adversus: Schw. 1.620; LfgrE. — οἴκου: refers to the κλισίη described at 448 ff.; on the
architectural terms, see 448n.
472–476 A description of the situation from the point of view of those arriving:
element 3 of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (89–102n.); in addition to the person be-
ing sought, bystanders are regularly noted, here in a broader sense the people
in the same building at 473–475a (83–86n.). Priam finds Achilleus at an oppor-
tune moment: he has just eaten and is still seated at the table (on meals as the
setting for the arrival of a character, see 123b–125n.); his followers are sitting
somewhat at a distance (albeit still within sight: 484) or are otherwise occu-
pied (on their presence/absence, cf. 573n.). In a similar manner, Zeus is alone
when Thetis approaches him (1.498), as is Anchises when visited by Aphrodite
(h.Ven. 76, with Faulkner ad loc.). – On the function of this description of a
situation (cf. 123b–125n.): Achilleus’ mood has evidently ‘normalized’ some-
what; although he is still isolated, he is no longer fasting (3n.; Thetis persuad-
ed him to give this up at 129 f.), which is a precondition for the negotiations
between Priam and Achilleus to take place (Burkert 1955, 103; Deichgräber
1972, 64; Schmitz 2001, 148; Macleod). In addition, that the table is still set
foreshadows the subsequent joint meal of the two men (seedP: 625 ‘table’, see
621–628n.).
ἐν δέ μιν αὐτόν | ηὗρ’ …: i.e. Achilleus is to be found in the anticipated location; in
addition, this prepares for the contrast ἕταροι δ’ ἀπάνευθε καθείατο (473), which in turn
469 ἵππων: here ‘team of horses (with wagon)’. — ἄλτο: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἅλλομαι ‘leap,
jump’.
470 αὖθι: ‘on the spot, there’, i.e. in the αὐλή (452). — λίπεν(ν)· ὅ: on the prosody, M 4.6 (note
also the caesura). — ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).
471 κίεν: ‘he went’ (defective verb).
Commentary 175
stands in contrast to 473b–475 τὼ δὲ δύ’ οἴω | … ποίπνυον παρεόντε (on the contrasting
‘article’ in specifications of numbers – here τὼ δὲ δύ(ο) – cf. 5.271 f., Od. 10.116 f., etc.:
Chantr. 2.162).
472 διίφιλος: a generic epithetP (1.74n.), 5× of Achilleus, 4× of Hektor, 3× of Odysseus, oc-
casionally of other characters (including Apollo: 1.86n.), always between caesurae B 2
and C 2, with subsequent ἐν δ(έ) also at 6.318, 8.493 (both verses with a similar sentence
structure), 16.169. On the concept of the hero, king, etc. who is dear to the gods, see
West 1997, 130 f., and 2007, 130. – Here perhaps a pregnant use: ‘an insistence on dignity
conveyed by the word lends color and impressiveness to the situation’ (Edwards 1966,
165); in what follows, both Achilleus and Priam repeatedly receive comparable epithets
(Priam: 477 μέγας, 483 θεοειδής; Achilleus: 486 θεοῖς ἐπιείκελος). – διῑ- is likely derived
from the old IE dative form -ei, like Mycenaean di-we, i.e. Διϝεί (see MYC s.v. Ζεύς; Meier-
Brügger 1992, 2.67 with bibliography).
473 VE ≈ Od. 3.424, 12.154, 14.94, 16.245. — companions: on the term, 4n.; on the
situation, 472–476n.
474 ≈ 19.392, 24.574. — hero: here, as often elsewhere, Greek hḗrōs has the conno-
tation ‘warrior’ (West on Hes. Op., p. 370 f.). As a generic epithetP in the nom.
at the beginning of the verse, also of Agamemnon (1.102, etc.), Asteropaios
(21.163), Idomeneus (13.384, etc.), Meriones (13.575), Protesilaos (2.708). More
on the use of the term: 1.4n., 6.34–35n. — Automedon … and Alkimos: the
most important characters in the Myrmidon contingent after Achilleus and
Patroklos (16.145–147, 24.573–575); as hétaroi ‘companions’ (473, 622, cf. 23.563)
and therápontes ‘aides, followers’ (573; on the term, 396n.), they serve as both
charioteers in battle and domestic helpers (9.209, 19.392–397, 24.622–626):
19.392n. (where also on the form of the name Alkimos).
ὄζος Ἄρηος: a generic epithetP of warriors; meaning obscure, perhaps ‘companion,
servant of Ares’ (2.540n.); chiastic with ἥρως.
τε: The position of τε is unusual; one would expect ἥρως τ’ Αὐτομ. (with unshortened καί fol-
lowing, cf. 60n.; 19.392, by contrast, is unproblematic: ἵππους δ’ Αὐτομέδων τε καὶ Ἄλκιμος …).
Alternatively, τε καί might be replaced by ἠδ(έ) (thus at 574 with v.l. τε καί), or ἥρως by ἥρω’ (dual,
referring to both characters, in enjambment with τὼ δὲ δύ’ οἴω, cf. 8 114): West 2001, 279.
472 τῇ: ‘where’ (relative; cf. R 14.5). — ῥ(α): = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἵζεσκε: iterative form (R 16.5), ‘cus-
tomarily sat, was in the habit of sitting’. — ἐν: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘within, inside’. — μιν αὐτόν:
‘him in person, the man himself’.
473 ἕταροι: = ἑταῖροι. — ἀπάνευθε: ‘apart, at a distance’. — καθείατο: = ἐκάθηντο (R 16.1–2). —
τὼ … οἴω: nom. dual; on the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun, R 17; οἶος = ‘alone’.
474 Ἄρηος: on the inflection, R 12.4.
176 Iliad 24
475–476 According to Homeric custom, tables (likely constructed so as to fold

up) are set out for each meal and subsequently put away again: Od. 1.138, etc.
(West on Od. 1.111–12 with bibliography; cf. the type-sceneP ‘meal’ 621–628n.).
On ancient discussion of the point in time when the tables would have been
removed – in the Odyssey usually only after the departure of the guests – see
Düntzer (1847) 1872, 359; Schmitt 1976, 180 f.; Richardson. Clearing away
leftover food and dishes is explicitly mentioned only in special cases (Od. 7.232:
the servants doing the clearing do not overhear the conversation between Arete
and Odysseus [Garvie ad loc.]; 19.61 f. elucidates the suitors’ parasitic behavior
[de Jong ad loc.]; also 14.455). Here the detail indicates that Priam arrives, albe-
it unexpectedly, at an opportune moment (472–476n.). – On Homeric furniture
and ‘table manners’ as a whole, see Laser 1968, 56–62.
ποίπνυον: originally a reduplicated intensive of πνέ(ϝ)ω with metrically lengthened -υ-:
‘wheeze, pant’ (Schw. 1.647; LfgrE); but also linked by folk etymology with the word
family πόνος (schol. bT on 1.600, A on 14.155), a connection that often occurs in Homer
in πένομαι and πονέομαι for ‘kitchen labor’, e.g. at 124 (at the ἄριστον) ἐσσυμένως
ἐπένοντο, 444 περὶ δόρπα … πονέοντο, hence ‘be busy/occupied’ (AH). — ἀπέληγεν
ἐδωδῆς | ἔσθων καὶ πίνων: ≈ Od. 5.196 f.; ἔσθων κ. π. (VB) = Od. 10.272, 20.337 (ad-
ditional examples of the inflectible phrase in Roth 1989, 69 n. 1). The two participles
explain ἐδωδή (used here as an action noun, as at Od. 4.105): AH; Porzig 1942, 48; Beck
1964, 223. — παρέκειτο τράπεζα: ≈ Od. 21.416 (Odysseus’ first arrow lies on the table
ready to hand).
477–571 The themeP ‘hikesia’ (1.500–531n. with bibliography; also Edwards
1980, 5–8; de Jong on Od. 7.139–206; Giordano 1999, passim, esp. 15 ff., 135 ff.,
227 ff.; Naiden 2006 passim, esp. 4, 8 ff., 29 ff., 105 ff. and 321 f. [list of Homeric
supplications]). Here, as at 1.496b–502 (see ad loc.), the sequence of events
is at the same time part of the type-sceneP ‘arrival’ (440–485n.): the suppli-
cant approaches the addressee – a gesture of hikesia (self-abasement, touch) –
a speech by the supplicant (486–506n.) – a response by the addressee that
consists of a gesture/action (marking acceptance or rejection of the hikesia)
and a speech. Here, the gesture of hikesia is especially emphatic, see 478n.
Achilleus’ acceptance of the plea is delayed: after an intially deprecatory ges-
ture (508) and the joint mourning (507–518n.), he makes an inviting gesture
and accepts Priam as a supplicant (515, 522), but in his first speech (518 ff.)
he does not yet consider Priam’s actual request, with the result that the latter
urgently repeats his plea (553 ff.); only at this point does Achilleus’ explicit ap-
475 ποίπνυον παρεόντε: plural and dual forms can be combined freely (R 18.1); παρεόντε
= παρόντε R 16.6. — νέον: adverbial, ‘just now’.
476 ἔσθων: = ἐσθίων (cf. 415n.).
Commentary 177
proval follow (560–562), together with his fulfillment of the request (580 ff.). –
The present sequence corresponds in some details to Odysseus’ hikesia before
Alkinoös (Od. 7.134–206: inter alia, the surprise of those present, the delayed
response and speech of the addressee; see Pedrick 1982, 127; Richardson
on 469–691, end; see also 339–345n., end and 477–478n.). But within the ac-
tion of the Iliad, the parallels and differences vis-à-vis Book 9 are more sig-
nificant: in contrast to Priam, Agamemnon did not meet with Achilleus in
person; at the same time, his embassy (which had a hikesia function in the
broadest sense) likewise arrived in the evening and surprised Achilleus (who
at that point still had Patroklos beside him: Il. 9.185–195). Phoinix’ attempts
at placating (including use of the father-son motif: 9.478–495; for an addi-
tional parallel, see 518–551n., end) and Agamemnon’s gifts failed to change
Achilleus’ mind – in contrast to Priam’s words in what follows (cf. 486–506n.).
Both scenes conclude with a night’s sleep (with an overnight stay by Phoinix
and Priam, respectively). See also Macleod, Introd. 34 f. and on 472–476;
Rutherford (1996) 2013, 52. – The pictorial representations of the hikesia
scene ‘Priam visiting Achilleus’, usually labelled ‘the ransom of Hektor’, are
numerous (bronze reliefs, vase paintings, etc.); the relationship between
these representations and the text of the Iliad is sometimes close, some-
times looser. Select bibliography: LIMC s.v. Achilleus p. 147 ff.; Basista 1979;
Shapiro 1994; Junker 2002, 19–25; Giuliani 2003, 168–186; Müller 2005;
Knauss 2006, 238–243; Sparkes 2006; Bouvier 2009, 503–509; Burkert
2012.
477–478 Priam follows Hermes’ advice (literal echoes of 465). In contrast to ‘nor-
mal’ visitors, who wait at the host’s threshold until asked inside (see below),
the supplicant Priam enters of his own accord and without being noticed (sim-
ilarly Odysseus when visiting Alkinoös at Od. 7.134–145, also the embassy to
Achilleus at Il. 9.192 f.; Hermes as a messenger to Kalypso at Od. 5.76 f. is some-
what different); in addition, here the guest is fed only after (not before, as is
otherwise usually the case in visits) the consultation regarding the matter that
concerns him (Arend 1933, 38 f.; Bowra 1952, 183; Heath 2005, 157). – Overall,
the themeP ‘hikesia’ can be defined as a special instance of the type-sceneP
‘visit’, which can contain the following elements: (1) the visitor, who has just
arrived, waits at the door, where (2) he is seen by a resident of the house (at
times with surprise; 480–484n.); (3) the latter rises and/or hurries to greet the
visitor (Priam, of course, has already entered), (4) grasps the visitor’s hand
and bids him welcome, (5) leads him into the house and (6) offers him a seat
(515–516n.); (7) a meal is served and (8) consumed; (9) those present begin a
conversation (on elements 7–9, see 621–628n.). – Bibliography: Arend loc. cit.
178 Iliad 24
38 f. (for critical comments on which, Tsagarakis 1982, 54 f.); Edwards 1975,
61–67; Reece 1993, 12 ff., esp. 15–22; de Jong on Od. 1.113–135.
477 μέγας: As a generic epithet of warriors, the word is mostly used of Aias (including
μέγας Τελαμώνιος Αἴας 12× Il.) and Hektor (including μέγας κορυθαιόλος Ἕκτωρ 12×
Il., see 2.816n.), occasionally of other heroes (a list in Dee 2000, 559) and also in ex-
pressions such as ἠΰς τε μέγας τε (‘valiant and imposing’, 2.653n.). Of Priam, perhaps
used pregnantly with the sense ‘majestic, dignified’ (cf. 483 θεοειδέα and 472n. above);
likewise at 7.427 (LfgrE s.v. 70.27 f.; Kummer 1961, 37; Bissinger 1966, 21). — ἄγχι δ’ ἄρα
στάς: i.e. he came up close to the other man and – as is probably to be supplied, in
view of the gesture that follows (see also 508/510, 515) – knelt down; in this sense, van
Leeuwen with reference to 5.309 ἔστη γνὺξ ἐριπών, etc.; cf. Kirk on 5.309–310 (στῆναι as
an expression of an absence of movement, not of an upright posture) and Hainsworth
on 9.570 (Homeric language lacks a specific verb for ‘kneel down’). – The phrase recalls
two different VE formulae: (a) ἄγχι παραστάς (7× early epic), (b) ἄγχι δ’ ἄρ’ αὐτοῦ/αὐτῆς
(3×); on aural systems of formulae, 1.35n.; FOR 25.
478 Grasping the knees is a typical gesture of supplicants (6.45n. with bibliogra-
phy; Naiden 2006, 43 ff.), whereas kissing the hands of Achilleus of all people
is a sign of pathetic submission (Gould [1973] 2001, 58–62; Pötscher 1992,
5 f.; differently Richardson on 477–479: ‘[…] ‘defuses’ their power to harm’). In
general, the kiss appears to be an unusual gesture in hikesia: at 8.371, Athene
claims in malicious exaggeration that Thetis had kissed Zeus’ knees, while in
his tale at Od. 14.279, Odysseus uses the kiss as ‘an exotic feature’: Hoekstra
ad loc. (at the same time, kissing is frequent in Homer as part of an affection-
ate greeting, e.g. Od. 16.15 f., 24.398: Richardson; Hentze 1902, 335–340).
Additional modifications of hikesia gestures are listed in Edwards 1980, 6 f. –
On the effective portrayal of body language and non-verbal communication in
the present hikesia scene generally, see Lateiner 1995, 36–41.
χερσὶν Ἀχιλλῆος: VB = 21.47 and ≈ 22.446, in each case with Ἀχ. as a possessive gen.
with χερσίν (i.e. Achilleus’ hands), but here in reference to γούνατα (i.e. Achilleus’
knees, which Priam clasps with his hands; cf. Peppmüller). The position of the hands
of Priam and Achilleus at VB and VE respectively (χερσὶν … χεῖρας: polyptoton) under-
scores linguistically the gesture of hikesia (Perceau 2002, 233; cf. Martinazzoli: ‘tragic
symmetry’).
479 The tripartite climax with increasing clarification (two asyndetic attributes
standing in enjambmentP and a relative clause; 614 f. [614–617n.] is similar)
captures the strongly emotional significance that Achilleus’ hands have for
478 Ἀχιλλῆος: gen. dependent on γούνατα. — κύσε: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of κυνέω ‘kiss’.
479 αἵ (ϝ)οι: on the hiatus, R 4.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — πολέας … υἷας: on the inflection, R 12.2
and 12.3.
Commentary 179
Priam (perhaps an implicit secondary focalizationP, cf. Priam’s words at 505 f.:

de Jong [1987] 2004, 119 f.; 1997, 314 f.; Perceau 2002, 233), highlighting the
significance of the kiss: Achilleus’ hands have killed Priam’s sons (namely
Hektor); accordingly, Priam needs enormous willpower to undertake this ac-
tion: he places himself as a supplicant in the power of his greatest enemy (cf.
Macleod). – On the expressiveness of 478 f., see also Nagler 1988, 126 (‘a ges-
ture which can still cause a shudder on any sensitive reading’); Lynn-George
1988, 238 f. — manslaughtering: mostly an epithet of Hektor (509n.), 3× of
the hands of Achilleus, the man who defeats him (also at 18.317 = 23.18 [in the
context of Patroklos]): here, the word evokes the tension between the two cen-
tral characters of the Iliad (Gross 1970, 374; Redfield [1975] 1994, 215; Lynn-
George loc. cit. 239; Friedrich 2007, 104–106). — killed so many | … sons:
on the motif, 167–168n.; a similar characterization of Achilleus: 204 f. ≈ 520 f.
ἀνδροφόνους, αἵ οἱ …: Explanatory relative clauses are used inter alia with rare words
that apparently require explanation (usually compounds, see 1.238n. and 2.212–213n.
with bibliography), or they serve to amplify/clarify the significance of a word in context
(2.197n., 2.313n.; e.g. 562, 651 f., 729 f.). Here the relative clause creates a specific refer-
ence to Priam’s sons (similarly at Od. 1.299 f.: Orestes ἔκτανε πατροφονῆα, | Αἴγισθον …,
ὅ οἱ πατέρα κλυτὸν ἔκτα); παιδοφόνος at 506 is thus pregnant (cf. Garvie 1986, 296).
480–484 ‘This must be the most dramatic moment in the whole of the Iliad, and
its character is marked by a simile which is extremely individual’: Richardson.
The simileP primarily illustrates the surprise of those present at the sight of
the unexpected visitor (a frequent motif in the type-sceneP ‘visit’ [477–478n.]:
9.193, 11.777, Od. 7.144 f. and additional examples in de Jong on Od. 16.12–14;
cf. Richardson on 482–484), but receives portentous depth from its multi-lay-
ered references (on which, see below): what will Achilleus’ reaction be after
his initial surprise (Griffin 2007, 191)? On Priam’s dangerous situation, see
349–361n. — The motif ‘exile after a killing’ is common in Greek myth (exam-
ples in Parker 1983, 375–392; Nünlist 2009a) and assumes that the relatives
of the slain person have a right to blood vengeance (Od. 3.196–198, 15.272–278,
23.118–120, 24.426–437); the killer may evade this by leaving his native country
(schol. D on 480; for instances of the motif in early epic, see below) or by pay-
ing blood money (Greek poinḗ) (Il. 9.632–636, 18.497–501): Cantarella 1976,
18–35; 1979, 224–243; Gagarin 1981, 5–21; Roisman 1982, 38 f.; Giordano 1999,
96–107. – In the Iliad, the motif frequently occurs in the so-called ‘obituaries’ of
Achaian warriors: 13.694–697 = 15.333–336, 15.430–432, 16.570–576, also in the
catalogue of ships at 2.661–670 and in the mouth of Patroklos’ spirit at 23.84–
90 (in the Odyssey, in Odysseus’ fictitious stories at Od. 13.257–275 and 14.378–
385, in Theoklymenos’ ‘biography’ at Od. 15.223–225/272–278, in Odysseus’
thoughts after killing the suitors at Od. 23.118–122; in addition, at ‘Hes.’ Sc.
180 Iliad 24
11–13, 79–85). In these cases, the motif can serve to justify mythical-political
facts (e.g. Il. 2.661–670; on which, see 2.653n. and Visser 1997, 622 ff.; in gen-
eral, Scodel 1999, 39) or social connections (e.g. 15.430–432; Aubriot-Sévin
1992, 413; Stoevesandt 2004, 134 ff.). In the Iliad, the house of Achilleus’
father Peleus in particular is a hospitable haven for supplicants (16.570–576
Epeigeus, 23.84–90 Patroklos; Phoinix too was received by Peleus during
his flight: 9.447–484) – an obligation toward his guest, Priam, that Achilleus
can now hardly evade, as appears to be suggested by the simile (Beck 1964,
224–226; Schlunk 1976, esp. 207–209; Heiden 1998, 4–6; Mills 2000, 15 f.). In
addition, the switching of roles in the simile expands the pathos and tension
that have become apparent in the kiss: Priam, who is the perpetrator in the
simile, is a victim in the action of the Iliad; at the same time, he is the suppli-
cant, albeit in his own country and as a wealthy man, whereas Achilleus, who
has spilled blood in a foreign country (479 ‘killed’ – 481 ‘murdered’), receives
Priam as a visitor in the same place (a so-called ‘reverse simile’: de Jong on Od.
5.394–399; a pregnant example also at Od. 23.233–239 [Odysseus/Penelope]):
Richardson; Strasburger 1954, 31; Heiden 1998, 2–4 (with additional bibli-
ography); Buxton 2004, 153–155; Grethlein 2006, 299 f.
480 when dense disaster closes on one: On Greek átē ‘delusion’, see 28n. with
reference to 1.412n./19.88n. Here, the ‘delusion’ leads to killing, with exile as
its (natural) consequence (on the syntax of the Greek text, 481n.; on the issue,
480–484n.). The notion that this suggests that Priam’s journey of supplication
also ought to be characterized as átē likely goes too far (thus, with different
nuances, e.g. Fränkel 1921, 95 f.; Macleod; Cairns 1993, 119 n. 216).
ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἄν: attested 13× in Homer as an introduction to a simile (passages in Chantr.
2.258). — πυκινή: The exact nuance is difficult to grasp: ‘«strong» […], because its grip
is hard to escape from’ (Macleod), ‘overwhelming’ (LfgrE s.v. 1632.48 ff.), perhaps mere-
ly ‘strongly, heavily’ (cf. AH). Similar formulations: πυκινὸν δ’ ἄχος ἔλλαβ’ Ἀχαιούς
(16.599), Ἕκτορα δ’ αἰνὸν ἄχος πύκασε φρένας (8.124, etc.). — λάβῃ: cf. 16.805 τὸν δ’ ἄτη
φρένας εἷλε; on combinations of abstract nouns with verbs of grasping in general, see
5n.
481 1st VH cf. Od. 23.118; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 15.238, 16.382 (cf. 15.228, 20.219). — κατακτείνας …
ἐξίκετο: The killing, expressed in the part. κατακτείνας, is the actual action caused
by ἄτη; the verb of the relative clause (ἐξίκετο) continues the thought further (exile as
a consequence of manslaughter): AH; Leaf. The action contained in a participle fre-
quently has more weight in its meaning than the main verb does: 285n. — ἐξίκετο:
With ἱκέτης ‘supplicant’ or ξεῖνος ‘guest’ as the subject, ἱκάνω implies both the physical
480 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1).

481 φῶτα: from φώς ‘man’. — δῆμον: indication of direction with no preposition (R 19.2).
Commentary 181
arrival and the targeted visit/request, likewise at e.g. 501 (Létoublon 1985, 148–151;
Giordano 1999, 194–211; LfgrE s.v. ἱκάνω 1175.41 ff.). — δῆμον: ‘community’ (2.198n.).
482 1st VH ≈ 318, Od. 14.200; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 3.342, 4.79 (ἔχεν), also ‘Hes.’ fr. 75.8 M.-W. (θ. δ’
ἔχε πάντας ὁρῶντας, cf. Il. 23.815, Od. 3.372) as well as 5× Od. σέβας μ’ ἔχει εἰσορόωντα/
-ορόωσαν. — ἀνδρὸς ἐς ἀφνειοῦ: Only a wealthy person can provide the refugee with
sufficient protection and shelter (AH). On elliptic ἐς + gen. (sc. ‘house’), see 160n. —
θάμβος: denotes the response to an unexpected or uncanny appearance, from surprise
and bewilderment via incredulity, to paralysis and falling silent out of fright: 3.342n.
Here this is the cue for the simile (θαμβ- 3× in total in 482–484); analogous repetitions
of simile-cues at 2.87/91, 2.459/464, 2.480/483, 2.781/784, etc.; see Fehling 1969, 145 f.;
Edwards, Introd. 31.
483 1st VH cf. 1.199. — θεοειδέα:
͜ on the use of the epithet, 217n. (cf. also 472n. on διίφιλος);
on the synizesis at VE, 7n. (on ἄλγεα).
͜
484 2nd VH ≈ Od. 18.320 (the servants’ response to Odysseus’ speech; see AH ad
loc.). — By including the others present (473–475a) in the reaction to Priam’s
appearance, the narrator creates a sense of collective astonishment and pa-
ralysis (Peppmüller) – time seems to stand still for a moment. Priam uses
this moment of rapt attention to present his case (485 ff.). — looked at each
other: an expression of each individual’s surprise; at the same time, a collec-
tive endeavor to ensure that everyone feels the same emotion (2.271n.; see also
Martinazzoli; Richardson on 482–484).
ἐς ἀλλήλους δέ: On the position of δέ, cf. 274n. on ὑπὸ γλωχῖνα δ(έ).
485 2nd VH ≈ 3.303, 24.777. — τὸν καὶ λισσόμενος …: The structure of the verse is related
to speech introduction formulaeP such as (a) 5.632 τὸν καὶ Τληπόλεμος πρότερος πρὸς
μῦθον ἔειπεν (≈ 13.306, Od. 16.460, 17.74; in the present formulation, the more specif-
ic λισσόμενος is used in place of the factually possible πρότερος: an illocutionary act
[101–102n.]; Beck 2005, 139); (b) Il. 14.41/23.438 τὸν καὶ φωνήσας/νεικείων προσέφη ….
In both types of formulae, the function of καί is interpreted in various ways: (1) as a
verse-filler, especially when comparing type (a) with the sematically equivalent VB for-
mula τὸν πρότερος προσέειπε (Leaf on 5.632; Hoekstra on Od. 16.460; cf. schol. bT:
περισσὸς ὁ ‘καί’); (2) the initial position of the anaphoric pronoun is conditioned by
formulaic language (rather than καὶ τόν: Riggsby 1992, 112 f.); (3) a logical connection
to what precedes: (3a) καί picks up the main storyline: ‘and thus’, e.g. 13.306 (referring
back before the simile at 13.298–305 to 13.297); by analogy, the same applies here (pick-
482 ἀνδρὸς ἐς …: ‘into a man’s ⟨house⟩’; ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1). — εἰσορόωντας: on the epic diectasis,
R 8.
483 ὥς: ‘thus’. — θάμβησεν ἰδών: ny ephelkystikon (R 5.2) before (ϝ)ιδών (R 4.6). — θεοειδέα:
͜ on
the synizesis, R 7.
484 δὲ (ϝ)ίδοντο: on the prosody, R 4.3.
485 πρὸς … ἔ(ϝ)ειπεν: = προσεῖπεν; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.
182 Iliad 24
ing up from 479): Peppmüller; Faesi; (3b) καί suggests an effect or consequence: ‘then
thus (also)’, e.g. 23.438, likewise (not in speech introductions) at 1.406, 20.223 (both
with AH ad loc.), 20.234 (Edwards on 20.233–235), etc.; (3c) καί refers to something new:
‘now also, in addition’; see Düntzer (1847) 1872, 360 n. * (transl.): ‘Priam thus far has
sought to stir Achilleus’ compassion only via gestures, now a beseeching plea is added’;
cf. the VB formula τοῖσι δὲ καὶ μετέειπε, which via καί ‘inserts a new speech into one
already made’: Peppmüller p. 233 n. * (transl.). — πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν: VE formula for a
speech introductionP in speeches directed at a single person (only 2× at several) (18× Il.,
15× Od., 1× Hes., 5× h.Hom.; also Hes. Th. 24 ἔειπον); cf. 1.552n.; Kelly 2007, 275–277. On
the variant μετὰ μῦθον ἔ., 777n.
486–506 The plea is part of the themeP ‘hikesia’ (477–571n.) and, like a prayer,
consists of the following basic elements: address (here at 486), performative
verb (‘I implore you’ vel sim.; here contained in 501 [481n.]), legitimation of
the plea (passim), the plea itself (in general, see 1.17–21n.; de Jong on Od.
6.148–185). The order of the elements varies; the section of legitimation in
particular is adapted to the situation in extent and content (pronounced at
e.g. 21.74 ff.: Lykaon addressing Achilleus; Od. 6.149 ff.: Odysseus addressing
Nausikaa; 9.259 ff.: Odysseus addressing Polyphemos). In accord with Hermes’
advice (466; see 466–467n.), Priam here immediately evokes Achilleus’ father
(captatio benevolentiae), upon whom he bases the legitimacy of his plea. After
his initial emphasis on commonalities between Peleus and himself, Priam
evokes Achilleus’ grief for his father (and thus in turn his pity for Priam:
Crotty 1994, 76; ‘an emotional process of identification’: Dentice di Accadia
2013, 119 [transl.]) with references to the – supposed – differences (490–492
with Richardson ad loc.), since Peleus is waiting in vain for Achilleus’ return
(Hammer 2002, 184 f.; cf. 493–494n.). Priam delivers the actual request, and
the offer of the ransom, in a few brief words (501 f.; see schol. T on 504: ‘since
this would have destroyed the pathos’), in contrast to Agamemnon in Book 9
(Taplin 1992, 269 f.; cf. 477–571n., end). In the peroratio at 503–506, Priam once
more picks up the motifs of the beginning of the speech (ring-compositionP):
an address directed to Achilleus, ‘think of your father’, ‘I’ in comparison with
Peleus (Richardson on 503–506). The concluding words are an urgent appeal
to Achilleus’ feelings (compassion and respect for Priam). – On the pathos of
the speech as a whole, see also Giordano 1999, 145–150; Zecchin de Fasano
2000, 59–62; on its rhetorical quality, Dentice di Accadia 2012, 271–278; on its
structure, Lohmann 1970, 121–123.
486–489 In the Iliad, Peleus and Priam are repeatedly characterized as old:
Peleus as the father who remained behind and gave his son good advice on
his way to war and who now, close to death and besieged by ambitious rivals
(on which, 488–489n.), awaits his son’s return or indeed word of his death
Commentary 183
(e.g. 9.252–259, 11.783 f., 19.334–337, Od. 11.494–503; cf. 19.322–337n.); Priam,

frequently referred to as ‘the old man’ in Books 3 and 24 (164n.), has grey hair
(Il. 22.74/77, 24.516), like Peleus no longer participates in battle (3.146–153, cf.
3.105–110), and is deeply concerned about his son (Books 22/24, esp. 22.59–76,
24.224–227). – The negative valuation of old age is based especially on dimin-
ishing physical strength (and thus capability; cf. 368–369n.), as well as the
increased need for care (especially where a wife and/or children are lacking),
e.g. 4.313–325, 24.540–542 (541n.), Od. 19.358–360, 24.211 f., Hes. Th. 603–605a,
h.Ven. 223–246 (Preisshofen 1977, 24 f., 28 f.; on the positive aspects of old
age, extensive experience and rhetorical ability, see 1.247b–252n., 1.259n.; on
representations of old age in Greek literature in general: Schadewaldt [1933]
1970; Falkner 1995). – Priam deliberately stresses his age in order to appease
Achilleus: 22.418–422 – and succeeds: 24.515 f.
486 θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ: = 9.485, 9.494, 22.279, 23.80, Od. 24.36, probably always used
pregnantly (cf. Parry 1973, 221; Griffin on 9.494; LfgrE s.v. ἐπιείκελος), here as a reveren-
tial address by the supplicant (schol. bT; Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 138); cf. διίφιλος 472n.,
θεοείκελος 1.131n. – On comparisons with gods in general, see 2.478–479n. and 2.565n.
σοῖο: The transmission here, as at 14 118 and repeatedly in the Odyssey, is split between (πατρὸς) σοῖο/
ἐμοῖο (possessive pronoun) and σεῖο/ἐμεῖο (gen. of the personal pronoun functioning as a posses-
sive pronoun, cf. Schw. 2.205 f.); in the scholia, Zenodotos regularly appears as an advocate for the
second form (σεῖο/ἐμεῖο; here schol. T, seconded by van der Valk 1964, 73 f.), whereas Aristarchus
and the majority of modern interpreters prefer the possessive pronoun (Rengakos 1993, 111 with n.
4; Matthaios 1999, 480 ff., esp. 484 f., 488; laconically Richardson: ‘The possessive adjective σοῖο
is what is wanted’). On the third v.l. ἑοῖο, see Leaf.
487 is of years like mine: cf. 486–506n., also 398n.
ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ: ‘in old age’ (in the sense of a life stage), in the Iliad only in state-
ments by Priam concerning himself (VE = 22.60; elsewhere: Od. 15.348, Hes. Op. 331).
On the formularity and metaphorical content (disputed in details) of the expression in
general, see Leaf and Richardson on 22.60; Verdenius on Hes. Op. 331; Faulkner
on h.Ven. 106; Kiss 2010. – The epithet ὀλοῷ (similarly Hes. Op. 331 κακῷ ἐ. γ. οὐδῷ)
refers to γήραος via enallage, cf. Hes. Th. 225 Γῆράς τ’ οὐλόμενον, 604 ὀλοὸν δ’ ἐπὶ γῆρας
ἵκηται, h.Ven. 224 γῆρας ὀλοιόν (list of all epithets: LfgrE s.v. γῆρας, end).
488–489 After referring to Peleus’ age as well as his own, Priam creates a sec-
ond analogy between himself and Achilleus’ father: age-related helplessness
in the face of threats from the environment – on the one hand, the siege of Troy
by the Greeks; on the other, the rivalry for the kingship of the Myrmidons (in
486 σοῖο: on the inflection, R 11.2.

487 ὥς περ: ‘just as’ (R 24.10). — ἐγών: = ἐγώ. — ὀλοῷ … οὐδῷ: explains τηλίκου ‘so old’. — ὀλοῷ
ἐπί: on the prosody, (oloōj epí), M 12.2. — γήραος: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
184 Iliad 24
this sense also the concern of Achilleus’ spirit at Od. 11.494–503 as to whether
Peleus is still ruling); in addition, post-Homeric sources report that Peleus was
expelled by Akastos or his sons, see Richardson (the expulsion of kings is a
common mythological motif: Edwards 1985, 54 f.).
488 καὶ μέν που κεῖνον: ‘indeed he too … probably …’. ‘καὶ μέν, like καὶ μήν, introduc-
es a new point, or develops and amplifies an old one’, e.g. 1.269, 24.732: Denniston
390; Labarbe 1949, 155 f. – που ‘I think so, likely’ largely belongs to character languageP
and is used inter alia ‘in statements that one is convinced are true without being able
to prove it’, here namely ‘of the supposed actions of those absent’, as also at 614, etc.
(Wackernagel [1895] 1953, 701 [transl.]; further developed by Bolling 1929; see also
Wakker 1997a, 229 f.). — ἀμφὶς ἐόντες: an inflectible VE formula, here of interfering,
recalcitrant individuals, as at 9.464; elsewhere 3× of the gods surrounding Kronos in
Tartaros (14.274, 15.225, Hes. Th. 851), 2× in a different sense (ἀμφὶς ἐόντα of one who is/
has been away: Od. 19.221, 24.218). On the somewhat redundant phrasing περιναιέται
ἀμφὶς ἐόντες, cf. Od. 2.65 f. περικτίονας ἀνθρώπους, | οἳ περιναιετάουσι.
489 τείρουσ(ι): Both age (4.315, 5.153, Od. 24.233) and war (Il. 6.84 f., 6.255 f., 6.387 in ref-
erence to the Trojans) are causes of ‘distress, attrition’. Ultimately, both play a role here.
— ἐστιν: On the unaccented form, see 71–72a n. with reference to 6.267n. — ἀρήν: ‘harm,
ruin’ (not related to ᾰ᾿ ρή ‘prayer, curse’), in the transmission occasionally confused with
Ἄρης (Janko on 14.484–485 with additional bibliography). The word is only used in
combination with references to defense, namely ἀρὴν ⏖–⏑ ἀμῦναι also at 12.334, 16.512,
Od. 2.59, 17.538; in these cases, ἀρή (in contrast to the more general λοιγός) seems to
denote mostly the ‘damage to life and property’ that ‘obliges the relatives to provide
support or exact revenge’: LfgrE (transl.); so too (using 14.485 as an example) Wilson
2002, 157 f. — λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι: an inflectible VE formula (14× Il.).
490–492 Contrary to Priam’s assumptions, Achilleus will not return home from
Troy alive (for the repeated allusions to his death in the Iliad, see 85n.): dra-
matic ironyP.
490 1st VH ≈ 9.701, Od. 3.195, 11 118, 14.183. — ἤτοι: with αὐτάρ (493) like μὲν … δέ, see 48n.
— σέθεν ζώοντος ἀκούων: ἀκούω (and πεύθομαι/πυνθάνομαι) can be construed in
Homer with both an ablatival gen. (to specify the person speaking) and, as here, with
a partitive gen. (to specify the content about which one hears; specified by περί at Od.
19.270 and in prose generally; both genitives in the same sentence at Od. 17.114 f.). On the
present passage, cf. Il. 19.322 οὐδ’ εἴ κεν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποφθιμένοιο πυθοίμην, Od. 11.458
ἔτι ζώοντος ἀκούετε παιδὸς ἐμοῖο: Schw. 2.106; Chantr. 2.54 f.
488 καί: to be taken with (ἐ)κεῖνον. — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6). — περιναιέται: ‘inhabitants of the
region’. — ἐόντες: = ὄντες (R 16.6).
489 ἀμῦναι: final-consecutive inf., dependent on τίς ἐστιν ‘there is someone to … / who could …’.
490 σέθεν ζώοντος: genitive with part., dependent on ἀκούων; σέθεν = σοῦ (R 14.1, 15.1); ζώειν
is an epic form of ζῆν.
Commentary 185
491 ἐν θυμῷ: clearly pregnant at Od. 22.411 (ἐν θυμῷ, γρηῦ, χαῖρε καὶ ἴσχεο μηδ’ ὀλόλυζε):
‘in secret’ (Jahn 1987, 225); perhaps thus also here (Latacz 1966, 72). — ἐπί τ’ ἔλπεται:
The original initial digamma of (ϝ)έλπομαι is no longer taken account of in all cases in
early epic (Chantr. 1.133), cf. 15.539 ἔτι δ’ ἤλπετο, h.Cer. 35 f. ἔτι δ’ ἤλπετο … | ὄψεσθαι. –
ἐπί is an intensive prefix (in tmesis); cf. the compound at Il. 1.545 and Od. 21.126: LfgrE
s.v. 561.69 f. (differently Martinazzoli: adverbial, insuper). — ἤματα πάντα: a VE for-
mula (7× Il., 19× Od., 5× Hes., 11× h.Hom.); distributive ‘each day, day by day’ rather than
summarily ‘always’ (Treu 1965, 18 f.).
492 2nd VH ≈ Od. 9.38; without ἀπό at Od. 3.276, 4.488. — ἀπὸ Τροίηθεν: The pleonastic
preposition in such expressions (e.g. also ἀπ’ and ἐξ οὐρανόθεν) was probably original-
ly adverbial: Chantr. 1.241 ff. (esp. 243) following Lejeune 1939, 78 ff.; on the ancient
discussion, see Erbse 1960, 315 f. On the factual equivalence of the suffix -θεν with the
(ablatival) gen., cf. G 66.
493–494 ≈ 255 f. The VB of 493 (‘but I’) has been adapted to the intention of the
present speech, in contrast to 255 (‘ah me!’): while the focus there was on the
contrast between his proficient (fallen) and his lazy (still living) sons, Priam
here establishes a contrast between his own situation and Peleus’ supposed-
ly still intact hopes (Martinazzoli; Richardson); an escalation of the same
statement follows at 498–500: Peleus’ son (Achilleus) is still alive, Priam’s
(most capable) son (Hektor) has died (cf. Macleod on 498).
495–498 Fifty …: a typical numberP (cf. 6.244–246n.); 22 of Priam’s 50 sons are
mentioned by name in the Iliad (CH 8 n. 28). – Aside from Hektor and Paris,
Antiphos 11.101–104, Deïphobos 22.233 f., Helenos 6.86 f. and Polites 13.533 f.
are named in the Iliad as sons of Hekabe; it is unclear whether the sons listed
at 24.249–251 are also regarded as children of Hekabe (cf. Richardson on 495–
497). Of Priam’s additional wives (497), Kastianeira (mother of Gorgythion,
8.302–305) and Laothoë (mother of Lykaon and Polydoros, 21.84–92, 22.46–48)
are mentioned in the Iliad (polygamy is characteristic of Near Eastern rulers:
Deger-Jalkotzy 1979; cf. 6.244–246n.). Extramarital children of Priam (with-
out indication of the mother’s name): Demokoön (4.499), Doryklos (11.489 f.),
Isos (11.101–104), Kebriones (16.738) and Medesikaste (wife of Imbrios, 13.173).
Although their social position is somewhat below that of the children from
legitimate marriages, an extramarital background is not a stigma per se in the
society portrayed by the narrator (6.22–23n. [on Boukolion]; further discussion
in LfgrE s.v. νόθος). – On the motif ‘many (sons) have fallen’, see also 167–168n.
491 ἐπὶ … ἔλπεται: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — ἤματα: pl. of τὸ ἦμαρ = ἡ ἡμέρα.
492 Τροίηθεν: on the form, R 15.1.
493 ἐγώ: sc. εἰμι.
494 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).
186 Iliad 24
495 1st VH ≈ Od. 22.421 (50 maid-servants of Odysseus); 2nd VH ≈ Il. 9.403, 13.172,
22.156. — were my sons, when …: a look back to the prosperity of the period
before the war; see 543n.
υἷες Ἀχαιῶν: an inflectible VE formula (in early epic 40× nom., 24× acc.), a periphrastic
collective term for the warriors assembled before Troy, cf. ‘the sons of Israel’ (1.162n.;
further bibliography: LfgrE s.v. υἱός 701.3 ff.).
496 Nineteen: specification of the actual number of children conceived by
Hekabe (on which, 495–498n.). The number nineteen occurs only here in early
epic (cf. the list of numbers from 13 to 29 in Visser 1997, 731); its connotations
are obscure (likely the sum of the two typical numbersP 9+10: Peppmüller;
cf. the considerations regarding the similarly unique number 22 in the
Catalogue of Ships at 2.748n. [the contingent of Enienes and Perrhaibians];
also 270n.).
497 2nd VH = Od. 22.421; ≈ Od. 11.162, 19.16, 19.87, 19.497, 22.151, also 20.6. — ἔτικτον ἐνὶ
μεγάροισι: cf. 603–604n. (παῖδες ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν).
498 Ares: The formulation with ‘Ares’ as the subject (metonymy for ‘battle, war’;
see below) is on the one hand diplomatic toward Achilleus, who is in fact re-
sponsible for the death of many of Priam’s sons (schol. b; in contrast, see the
stark statements in Achilleus’ absence at 22.44 f., 22.423, 24.204 f., as well as
that by Achilleus himself at 24.520 f.); on the other hand, it prepares for the
climax at 500 (‘you have killed my best son’): Macleod; Dentice di Accadia
2013, 119 f.
θοῦρος: ‘boisterous, impetuous’, related to θορεῖν ‘to leap’ (Frisk; Beekes; LfgrE).
The noun-epithet formula θ. Ἄρης elsewhere in the Iliad (1× nom., 9× acc.) denotes
Ares himself, while here and in Panyassis (fr. 19.6 West) metonymy is to be presumed
(260–261n.); similarly χάλκεος Ἄρης (4× of the god himself, but metonymy at 16.543).
— ὑπὸ γούνατ’ ἔλυσεν: an inflectible VE formula (8× Il., 4× Od., of which 5× in total
without ὑπό; in verse middle at 22.335), except at Od. 20.118 (exhaustion) a euphemis-
tic metaphor for ‘kill’ (Garland 1981, 56; Visser 1987, 76 n. 116), whereas medio-pas-
sive forms describe psychosomatic events, e.g. λύτο γούνατα Od. 4.703–705, 18.212
(see Russo ad loc.), γούνατ’ ἔλυντο h.Cer. 281 f.; see also 6.27n. (ὑπέλυσε μένος καὶ …
γυῖα).
495 ἤλυθον: = ἦλθον.
496 ἰῆς: = μιᾶς (‘one and the same’). — νηδύος: ‘abdomen, womb’, sc. of Hekabe.
497 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισι: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the inflection, R 11.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1).
498 τῶν … πολλῶν: ‘the majority of them’ (gen. dependent on γούνατα). — ὑπὸ … ἔλυσεν:
so-called tmesis (R 20.2).
Commentary 187
499 Hektor is the most important Trojan in the Iliad and is repeatedly charac-
terized as the protector and defender of the city and its inhabitants: 6.403,
22.507 (he alone protects Troy), 24.729 f. (protects city, women, children), also
215 f., 243 f., 258 f., 705 f.; see 6.402–403n. with bibliography; Erbse (1978)
1979.
οἶος: ‘only’ in the sense ‘the only son who really counted at all’ (Richardson). —
εἴρυτο: likely a plpf. with the function of an impf. of ἔρυμαι ‘protect, preserve’; on the
diversity of forms derived from this verb, see Chantr. 1.294 f.; Untermann on 16.799;
Fernández-Galiano on Od. 22.372. — ἄστυ καὶ αὐτούς: ‘the city and its inhabitants’,
corresponding in general sense are 3.50, 6.95, 24.706, 24.729 f., Od. 9.40; a similar phrase:
‘the ships and their crews (the Achaians)’: Il. 7.338, 14.47. Hektor’s excellence was based
on his ability to guarantee substantial protection for town and people; in contrast, the
v.l. καὶ αὐτός ‘and (did so) by himself’ (rather than καὶ αὐτούς) after οἶος seems merely
repetitive (Macleod; differently Leaf; Cauer [1895] 1921, 21). – On ἄστυ, cf. 327n.
500 2nd VH ≈ 12.243, 15.496. — as he fought in defence of his country: Priam
picks up Hektor’s motto (12.243, 15.496–498), thus highlighting the latter’s ser-
vice to his native country (similarly already Hekabe at 214–216, with n.); for
details on the motif of Trojan patriotism, see Stoevesandt 2004, 292 ff. (with
additional examples at n. 876).
πρῴην: ‘recently’, a vivid portrayal of an event at some distance in the past (here at
least several days ago, see 31n.), as at 2.303 f. χθιζά τε καὶ πρωϊζ(ά).
501a Hektor: an emphatic runover word, as at 22.426, etc. (Macleod; Dentice di
Accadia 2013, 119); picked up again by ‘for whose sake …’.
501b–502 ≈ 1.12 f., 1.371 f. (in the present passage, phérō ‘I have with me, I bring’
as a finite verb is ‘emphasized more strongly’ than the coordinated part. at
1.13/372: AH [transl.]). — 501b–502 is the first of several passages that in lan-
guage and content recall the Chryses-episode in Book 1, where an old man
(Chryses and Priam) likewise comes to the Achaian camp with ransom mon-
ey in the hope of buying back his child (Chryseïs and Hektor), but is initially
turned away by the Achaian leader (Agamemnon and Achilleus); the latter re-
turns the child after an ‘intermezzo’ (Agamemnon admittedly only under com-
pulsion); see also 503 ≈ 1.21/23, 555–557 ≈ 1.18–20, 560a ≈ 1.32a, 569 f. ≈ 1.26/28,
571 = 1.33. The depiction in Book 24, structural similarities aside, has much
more emotional and ‘humane’ pull, because of the greater detail and the em-
499 ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). — δὲ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.

500 κτεῖνας: = ἔκτεινας (on the unaugmented form, R 16.1).
501 εἵνεχ’: εἵνεκα, initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — νῆας: statement of direction
with no preposition (R 19.2); on the inflection, R 12.1.
502 σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1).
188 Iliad 24
phasis on positive interpersonal values (compassion, etc.): Macleod, Introd.

33 f.; Reinhardt 1961, 63–68; Lohmann 1970, 169–173 and 204 f.; Mueller
(1984) 2009, 71–73; Létoublon 1987, 137–142; Crotty 1994, 21 f.; cf. 1.17–21n.,
1.33n. — win him back: the theme of Book 24 (76n.).
ἱκάνω: 481n. (on ἐξίκετο). — νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula after caesura C 2 (9× Il.; on the
variants with a preposition and sometimes an epithet, see 118n., 336n.). — ἀπερείσι’
ἄποινα: 276n.
503 1st VH ≈ Od. 9.269. — Priam’s appeal is based on Zeus’ promise at 185–187.
αἰδεῖο θεούς: The inclusion of the gods lends particular weight to Priam’s appeal, in-
sofar as the gods guarantee basic interpersonal values such as guest friendship and the
sanctity of the supplicant (cf. 1.21, 9.508 f., Od. 9.269–271, 21.27–29; 157–158n.): Pohlenz
1956, 55 f.; somewhat differently, Lévy 1995, 201: αἰδεῖο θεούς (… αὐτόν τ’ ἐλέησον) is
more diplomatic than the direct μ’ αἴδεο (καί μ’ ἐλέησον) at 21.74, etc. – On αἰδώς as a
norm, see 44n. (where also on the connection of αἰδώς and ἔλεος). — αὐτόν: 430n.
504 remembering your father: a ring-compositionP with reference to the begin-
ning of the speech (486); see 486–506n.
ἐλεεινότερός περ: ‘more pitiful’; on intensive περ, Denniston 482 (modified by
Bakker 1988, 84 f.); cf. 1.352n.
505 I have gone through what no other mortal … has gone through: Priam
styles himself an exemplum simply by proving his uniqueness, similarly Nestor
at 1.262–272 (see 1.259–274n.); elsewhere, the motif of uniqueness is often used
as a compliment directed to another person, e.g. by Odysseus to Nausikaa (Od.
6.160 f./167 f.), Antinoos about Penelope (2.117–120), Thetis to Achilleus regard-
ing his new armor (Il. 19.11), the narrator about Menestheus (2.553 f.). In the
present passage, Priam underscores his plea for compassion, and by ‘realizing
a force of endurance and willpower unheard of so far […]’ becomes ‘a paradeig
ma, in the sense of Apollo’s demand at 24.49, for Achilleus, for whom the death
of his friend is an ἄτλητον ἄχος [átlēton áchos, ‘unbearable agony’] (19.367)’
(Nestle 1942, 71 [transl.]; cf. AH; Burkert 1955, 104). – In early epic, unique-
ness can be expressed via the negation of up to three factors: personal ‘no
human, no other’ (on which, see 2.248n., 19.11n.), temporal ‘never before, nev-
er elsewhere’ (3.169n.; van Groningen 1953, 13 f.), categorical ‘nothing of the
kind’ (here hóia ‘what’; on this, Monteil 1963, 181 f., 186 f.; Ruijgh 525); fre-
quently of Odysseus (e.g. Od. 10.502, 12.186 f., 19.350/365/380, 24.267).
503 αἰδεῖο: < αἰδέεο (2nd pers. sing. imper.). — Ἀχιλεῦ, αὐτόν: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — αὐτόν:
= ‘me’.
505 ἔτλην: ‘I have brought (it) upon myself’. — οἷ’: = οἷα.
Commentary 189
506 of the man who has killed my children: an inversion of the common for-
mula ‘manslaughtering Hektor’ (509n.) on the level of both language (‘man-
killer of sons’ / ‘sonkiller of men’) and content (Achilleus/Hektor): Sale 2001,
73 f.
ἀνδρὸς … ποτὶ στόμα χεῖρ’ ὀρέγεσθαι: The verse has difficulties on both (a) a syntactic
and (b) a pragmatic level. On (a): middle ὀρέγεσθαι is elsewhere construed with instru
mental χειρί (suggested here e.g. by Doederlein 2.283 f., Leaf and De Boel 1988, 121–
123) and means ‘to reach for something with one’s hand, to try to grasp something’ (e.g.
23.99), while active χεῖρα(ς) ὀρέγειν is always used with a transitive sense (‘to stretch
out one’s hand/hands imploringly, etc.’: 743n.). At least the direction of the movement
of the hand is the same in both constructions: away from oneself and toward a person
opposite, and the verse can accordingly be understood as Priam stretching out his hand
toward Achilleus’ mouth in order to touch his chin (a typical gesture of pleading, as
at 1.500 f.). (b) But this interpretation does not tally with the information provided by
the narrator at 477–479, according to which Priam grasps Achilleus’ knees and kisses
his hands (κύσε χεῖρας) – a more pathetic gesture than touching the chin (478n.), and
thus more plausible as a justification for Priam’s self-assessment at 505 ἔτλην δ’ οἷ’ οὔ
πώ τις …. ἀνδρός is thus here to be taken with the acc. dual χεῖρ(ε) as a possessive gen.,
while the middle ὀρέγεσθαι is to be understood as an indirect reflexive: Priam brings
Achilleus’ hands to his own mouth in order to kiss them (thus schol. D). The identity of
the process at 477 ff. and 506 is further supported by the echo of χεῖρας … ἀνδροφόνους
in ἀνδρὸς παιδοφόνοιο … χεῖρ(ε) (παιδοφόνος is a Homeric hapaxP). See the discussion
in Peppmüller, Beck 1964, 230–233, and LfgrE s.v. ὀρέγω 762.43 ff. (all of whom read the
verse in accord with (a)) and Sommer 1977, 129–142, Pötscher 1992, 7–12, and LfgrE s.v.
στόμα 229.52 ff. (who argue for (b)). – Archaic pictorial representations, frequently de-
picting Priam with outstretched hands or even with his hands touching Achilleus’ chin
(illustrations in Basista 1979, 15 ff.), cannot be used as evidence, because of both their
artistic freedom and the stereotypical nature of this plea gesture (Macleod; Pötscher
loc. cit. 12–15; Burgess 2001, 69 f.; Müller 2005; Naiden 2006, 47; cf. the bibliography
at 19.3n.).
507–518 Achilleus’ reaction to the supplicant’s speech reveals a number of peculi-
arities in the context of the ‘hikesia’ themeP (477–571n.): Priam’s appeal literally
touches him: a gentle move of the hand temporarily creates physical distance
(508n.), while the psychological pressure discharges ‘uncontrollably’ in tears
(507). The shared tears breach ‘all the barriers of enmnity, revenge, hatred’ and
bring the two men closer to one another on an emotional level (Reinhardt
1961, 493 [transl.]; similarly Griffin 1980, 69; 509n.). Only now can Achilleus
respond to the hikesia adequately and with the usual procedure for acceptance
506 ἀνδρός: gen. dependent on χεῖρ(ε). — ποτί: = πρός (R 20.1). — ὀρέγεσθαι: the general sense
is ‘bring Achilleus’ hands to his own mouth’.
190 Iliad 24
(513–515, with the roles reversed, correspond to 507 f.): he grasps Priam’s hand,
lifts him from the ground, and invites him to sit down (515–516n.). On the pas-
sage as a whole, see Burkert 1955, 105; Lynn-George 1988, 243 f.; Taplin
1992, 270; Lateiner 1995, 38 f.; Hammer 2002, 185 f.; Richardson on 508 (‘the
sequence is wonderfully natural and powerfully effective’). – In epic poetry
(as in life), climaxes are often accompanied by tears (here continued by the
mourning for Hektor in Troy, esp. at 746, 760, 776); cf. the tears on the occasion
of Odysseus’ reunion with Penelope in Od. 23.207 f./231 f. (Greene 1999 with
additional parallels).
507 = Od. 4.113; ≈ Od. 19.249, 23.231 (τῇ/τῷ δ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον), also Il. 23.108 (≈ 23.153),
Od. 4.183 (τοῖσι δὲ πᾶσιν); in addition, 1st VH ≈ Il. 24.265, 2nd VH ≈ Od. 16.215.
— So he spoke, and stirred in the other …: one of the numerous speech cap-
ping formulaeP: ‘spoke’ + emotional impact of the speech on the addressee(s),
usually agitating them (2.142n.) or, as here, provoking tears (iterata); the pat-
tern at 200 (see ad loc.) is similar.
ὑφ’ ἵμερον ὦρσε γόοιο: Like simple γόον ὄρνυμι (6.499, etc. [see ad loc.], cf. 24.760
γόον ὀρίνω), this denotes an external impulse for lament or the need to cry (LfgrE s.v.
ἵμερος; according to Kloss 1994, 63–65, ἵμερος also contains an aspect of mesmeriza-
tion: ‘a fixation of the thoughts on weeping’ [loc. cit. 64; transl.]); in the narrative, al-
ways followed by a description of the characters crying (here at 509–512; among the
iterata, cf. esp. Od. 4.183–188) and/or a statement that the urge to cry has now been
satisfied: here γόοιο τετάρπετο (513n.), ἀπὸ πραπίδων ἦλθ’ ἵμερος (514n.). – On γόος
(≈ κλαίειν, similarly στοναχή 512), see 160n.
508 The vacillation in gestures between maintaining and terminating contact –
Achilleus grasps one of Priam’s hands, albeit to keep him at a distance, but
again with gentle, minimal movement – is an expression of the still unstable
relationship between the two characters (Lynn-George 1988, 243; Lateiner
1995, 51; Giordano 1999, 35; Gödde 2000, 51–55; Richardson; also 507–518n.).
In contrast, at 6.62 f. the ‘pushing away’ signifies the complete rejection of the
pleading Adrestos by Menelaos: 6.61–65n. with bibliography (cf. Od. 15.280
[negated]). – On the rejection of supplicants in general, see Naiden 2006,
129 ff. (esp. 130–132).
507 φάτο: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — πατρὸς … ἵμερον … γόοιο: ‘the
desire to grieve for his father’. — ὑφ’ … ὦρσε: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); ὦρσε is 3rd pers. sing.
aor. of ὄρνυμι ‘rouse’.
508 ἀπώσατο: from ἀπωθέομαι (mid.) ‘push away from oneself’; Achilleus is the subject. — ἦκα:
‘a little bit, gently’ (positive form of ἥκιστα with psilosis; on the hiatus before ἦκα, R 5.6).
Commentary 191
509 and the two remembered: ‘Patroclus and Hector were mortal enemies and
no less so are the men who weep for them, but the common act of memory
brings out the deep similarity of the experience […]. Remembering emerges
as a reconciling force’: Crotty 1994, 76; see also Nagler 1974, 189 f. and 4n.
above.
τὼ δὲ μνησαμένω, ὃ μὲν …: a distributive appositive with two subjects (generally ὃ
μὲν … ὃ δέ) after a dual verb form, as at 4.536 f., 7.306 f., 13.584 f., 22.157, Od. 8.361 f.,
18.95 f.; here with a personal name for clarification in the second part (511: αὐτὰρ
Ἀχιλλεύς) instead of ὃ δέ, as at Il. 7.8–11, 12.400–404, cf. 583b–585n. The repetition of
the same verb (κλαῖ(εν) 510/511, ἤλασε/ἔλασσεν Od. 18.95 f.) or an equivalent one (ἤϊε/
κίε Il. 7.307, βεβήκει/ἵκανε Od. 8.361 f.) highlights the parallelism of the events. – On
distributive appositives in general, K.-G. 1.286 f.; Chantr. 2.15 f.; Hahn 1954, 202–209.
— Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο: a noun-epithet formula, always in the gen., at VE 8× Il.
and 1× ‘Hes.’, at VB 3× Il. (of which 1× with v.l.: 724 with n.). The epithetP derives from
IE poetic language (West 2007, 80, 454) and, along with Hektor, is used less frequently
also of Ares and the hands of Achilleus (479n.), as well as 1× each of Lykurgos (6.134n.),
Herakles’ lance and a poison. The metrically equivalent Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο (4× at
VE: 16.717, 22.161, 22.211, 24.804; 1× at VB as v.l.: 24.724) only seemingly contravenes the
principle of economy of Homeric formulaeP, which in general applies also to formulaic
denominations of Hektor (Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 122–139): Ἕκτ. ἵππ. never occurs
in direct speechP (aside from the variant with words intervening in 7.38 [Apollo]), where-
as Ἕκτ. ἀνδρ. is used 3× in speeches by Achilleus (1.242, 9.351, 16.77), 1× in a speech of
Achilleus as imagined by Hektor (16.840), 1× in secondary focalizationP by Achilleus’
horses (17.428), 1× in a speech by Aias (17.638); in total, Books 16–18 (the Patrokleia) con-
tain six examples of Ἕκτ. ἀνδρ., two of them in narrator-textP (so-called formula clus-
tering: Janko 1981, 254 [cf. 217n.; criticism by Olson 1994, 149]; on the distribution of
the two formulae between narrator and characters, see 1.242n. and de Jong 1998, 128 f.).
Additional criteria for differentiation: (1) Ἕκτ. ἀνδρ. is limited to specific situations: di-
rect speech by Achilleus, (actual or anticipated) laments for Hektor by his compatriots
(thus here and at 6.498, 24.724 [v.l.]), Hektor’s appearances in Achilleus’ armor, which
had been stripped from Patroklos (Sacks 1987, 163–175; similarly Friedrich 2007, 104–
106); (2) Ἕκτ. ἀνδρ. always has a function related to the context: Hektor as a dangerous
and successful warrior, an idea recalled in the present mourning scene either wistfully
(Cosset 1985, 338 f.) or as a sharp contrast (Di Benedetto loc. cit. 137–139) (cf. 6.498n.;
differently Whallon 1979, who assumes an overall fading of the meaning of ἀνδρ.); (3)
the assumption that each instance of Ἕκτ. ἀνδρ. refers to Hektor’s aristeia likely goes a
bit too far (Camerotto 2009, 102–111).
509 τὼ … μνησαμένω: nom. dual. — Ἕκτορος: sc. μνησάμενος.

192 Iliad 24
510 ≈ 20.324. — ἁδινά: 123a n. — ἐλυσθείς: from εἰλύω ≈ Latin volvo (Chantr. 1.131; DELG;
Beekes); a self-abasing posture of mourners and supplicants, either ‘rolling around
on the floor’ (Kurz 1966, 40 f.; cf. 165 κυλινδόμενος [164n.]) or ‘huddled, crouched’
(Martinazzoli; Richardson). Cf. Odysseus beneath the ram’s belly: ὑπὸ γαστέρ’
ἐλυσθείς (Od. 9.433).
511 Achilleus also remembered his father with enormous sorrow in his lament for
the dead Patroklos (19.314–339); see 19.322–337n. Cf. also 23.222–225: Achilleus
cries for Patroklos like a father for his child (Zanker 1994, 15 f.).
512 κατὰ δώματ(α): The spatial dissemination of sound is naturally a gauge of its intensi-
ty, cf. esp. the mourning scene at 703 (Kassandra) κώκυσεν … γέγωνέ τε πᾶν κατὰ ἄστυ,
Od. 24.48 (the Nereids arrive for Achilleus’ funeral) βοὴ δ’ ἐπὶ πόντον ὀρώρει; see also
2.153n. with bibliography.
513–571 Achilleus shows Priam pity and offers a speech of consolation. When

Priam impatiently urges the return of Hektor’s corpse, Achilleus responds irritably.
513 ≈ 23.10 (cf. also 23.98, Od. 11.212, 19.213 = 19.251 = 21.57). — τετάρπετο: The redupli-
cated aor. can have a completive function (in the middle, also reflexive): literally ‘make
oneself satisfied’, here with γόοιο ‘take one’s fill of mourning, cry oneself out’, comple-
mentary to 507 (see ad loc.): Latacz 1966, 188 f. – On ταρπ-, see 3n.; on the reduplicated
aor. in general, Latacz loc. cit. 58–64; Chantr. 1.395–398; Risch 243.
514 ἀπὸ πραπίδων ἦλθ’ … ἠδ’ ἀπὸ γυίων: The extent to which the process described here
is to be envisaged as concrete or abstract remains unclear; in this unique expression,
πραπίδες and γυῖα may simply be used for ‘soul’ and ‘body’ as the entirety of the person
affected (in this sense, van der Valk 1964, 445; Jahn 1987, 234 n. 31; Macleod), i.e. in
substance, the present expression signifies little more than γόου ἐξ ἔρον ἱέναι at 227:
Latacz 1966, 179. 188. But a psychosomatic aspect cannot be entirely ruled out (on such
descriptions in Homer, see 358–360n.): during mourning, the body is either quasi-para-
lyzed (thus LfgrE s.v. γυῖα 184.6 ff.; similarly Düntzer [1847] 1872, 363) or very restless
(thus Onians [1951] 1988, 79; cf. Richardson); Od. 6.140 ≈ 10.363 ἐκ δέος εἵλετο γυίων
is perhaps similar. It seems unlikely that an actual mourning gesture (beating the chest
with the hands; thus LfgrE s.v. πραπίδες 1527.44 ff.) is referred to; cf. schol. T (discussed
in Lührs 1992, 115 f.). – The verse was athetized by Aristarchus (schol. A) and Dionysius
Thrax (schol. T) on the ground that γυῖα ‘limbs, arms/legs’ in Homer cannot also signify
511 ἑόν: possessive pronoun of the 3rd person (R 14.4). — ἄλλοτε δ’ αὖτε: ‘then again’ (in Homer
occasionally without a corresponding ἄλλοτε μέν).
512 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — δώματ(α): on the plural, R 18.2.
513 αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (progressive: R 24.2). — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24 1). — γόοιο: on the inflection, R 11.2. —
τετάρπετο: aor. of τέρπομαι; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.
514 καί (ϝ)οι ἀπό: on the prosody, R 4.4 and 5.5. — οἱ: = αὐτῷ (R 14.1). — ἀπὸ … ἦλθ(ε): ‘went away
from …’. — ἠδ(έ): ‘and’ (R 24.4).
Commentary 193
‘body’ (but cf. 3.34 with n., Od. 6.140; Richardson). — πραπίδων: difficult to interpret
as an anatomical term: 3× Il. ἧπαρ ὑπὸ πραπίδων, traditionally taken ‘diaphragm’, alter-
natively ‘lungs’ (Onians [1951] 1988, 26) or ‘chest, thorax’ (LfgrE; Szemerényi 1977, 9).
In early epic, it usually serves as a seat of psychological authority like the φρένες
(for the present occurrence, cf 11.89 περὶ [adv., ‘all around’] φρένας ἵμερος αἱρεῖ):
40n.; 1.24n.; Sullivan 1987. — ἦλθ’ ἵμερος: In early epic, the onset of a physical or psy-
chological state is frequently described with verbs of ‘coming, affecting’ (707–709n. on
ἵκετο), its conclusion analogously as ‘departing’ (also 22.43 ἦ κέ μοι αἰνὸν ἀπὸ πραπίδων
ἄχος ἔλθοι; similarly of the process of dying at 13.671 f. ὦκα δὲ θυμός | ᾤχετ’ ἀπὸ μελέων,
etc.).
515–516 The joint lament leads to Achilleus’ compassion for the old man: he ac-
cepts Priam’s hikesia (507–518n.) and henceforth treats him as a supplicant
and guest. The following actions are elements of the themeP ‘hikesia’ (477–
571n.) and the type-sceneP ‘visit’ (477–478n. with bibliography): Achilleus rises
(perhaps ‘leaps up’: a sign of mental agitation, thus Kurz 1966, 76) and takes
Priam’s hand (the gesture is particularly symbolic in light of Achilleus’ intially
defensive reaction at 508 and Priam’s submissive position ‘at Achilleus’ feet’
at 510, cf. Od. 14.318 f.: Hentze 1902, 343 f.). He then offers him a seat (522;
this is either the host’s own seat – thus at Od. 1.130 f., 16.42 f., h.Cer. 191 – or
one immediately next to the host: 100 [with n.], Od. 3.37–39, 4.51, 7.169–171;
more on this: 597–598n.). – On guest-friendship in Homeric epic in general:
3.207n.
αὐτίκ(α): frequently introduces an action that is the immediate result of an emotion
(Erren 1970, 32 f.; LfgrE s.v. αὐτίκα 1606.47 ff.). — θρόνου: the most distinguished type
of seat in Homeric society, usually reserved for the master of the house and his close cir-
cle, or for guests (Laser 1968, 38 f., 48 ff.; Reece 1993, 22; West on Od. 1.130). The δίφρος
(578), by contrast, is generally a simple, easily movable four-legged chair with no back-
rest; in the Odyssey, such stools are used by servants (at 578 by the herald Idaios), by
Odysseus as a beggar and in the archery contest (Laser 1968, 36 ff., 45 ff.; Fernández-
Galiano on Od. 21.177; cf. 3.262n.). On the third type of chair, the κλισμός, a chair with a
backrest, see 597n.
516 ≈ 22.74. — the grey head and the grey beard: The analogy created by Priam
between himself and Peleus at 486–489 (with emphasis on their advanced
age; see ad loc.) has not missed its mark with Achilleus: his emotions regard-
ing his father are here transferred to the person opposite (Falkner 1995, 11 f.;
Kim 2000, 62 f., 146 f.). At 22.74, Priam described his misery to Hektor with the
same phrase (emphatic anaphora of the adjective in the same verse, likewise
515 θρόνου ὦρτο: on the correption, R 5.5; ὦρτο from ὄρνυμαι ‘raise oneself, rise’. — χειρός: sc.
λαβών vel sim.
194 Iliad 24
at 23.790, Hes. Op. 391: Fehling 1969, 204; cf. also 772). — grey: Greek poliós is,
like English ‘grey’, the typical (hair) color of old age (Faulkner on h.Ven. 228
with additional examples).
οἰκτίρων: οἰκτίρω and οἶκτος denote an internal emotional response, in English ap-
proximately ‘pity, agitation, compassion’ (LfgrE s.vv.; Paul 1969, 17): Achilleus feels pity
for the old man, which is also expressed in his subsequent speech (518: ἆ δείλ’, …). In
contrast, the semantically related word family of ἔλεος denotes the impulse for action
that arises from pity: ‘mercy’ (see 44n.) – Achilleus shows mercy by fulfilling the plea
Priam uttered at 503 and by receiving him as a supplicant and guest.
517 A speech introduction formulaP (1.201n.); on the ‘winged words’, see 142n.
518–551 After the joint lament, Achilleus expresses his compassion and respect
for Priam by offering a speech of comfort: consolatio (on the individual topoi,
see 526n., 529–530n., 534–548n., 549n., 550–551n.). He urges Priam to endure
his suffering (in the manner of a ring-compositionP at the beginning and end of
the speech, see 549–551n.), since the gods wished it thus (524–526: substanti-
ating gnome; here evidence of particular wisdom, since elsewhere gnomes are
generally directed by older characters to younger ones: 1.274n.; Lowenstam
1993, 131, 176; cf. Ahrens 1937, 38, 55). The gnome is expanded into the met-
aphorical story of Zeus’ two urns (527–533), which is then exemplified first by
Peleus and then by Priam (in arguments with parallel constructions: luck at
534–537 and 543–546, misfortune at 538–541 and 547 f.; cf. 534–548n.); for-
mally (541 f.) and factually (see 542n.), Achilleus is ‘in the middle’: the insight
relating to human fate ultimately applies not only to Peleus and Priam, but
also to Achilleus himself (Lowenstam loc. cit. 131–135; Lardinois 2000, 647 f.;
Graziosi/Haubold 2005, 140–143). – The story of Zeus’ urns is a secondary
storyP (termed áinos by Alden 2000, 30–35: ‘another kind of paradigm […] with
a veiled meaning on a deeper level’; on the term, see also loc. cit. 200 f. n. 55
and Verdenius on Hes. Op. 202, with bibliography). In the Iliad, three speech-
es are characterized by such figurative theological interpretations of the world;
they occur at critical points in the action of the Iliad (cf. Held 1987): Phoinix
addressing Achilleus on the occasion of the embassy in Book 9 (the personified
Litaí ‘Pleas’: 9.502–512), Agamemnon addressing Achilleus in Book 19 after the
end of his boycott of battle (Átē ‘Delusion’: 19.86b–138n.) and here, Achilleus
addressing Priam immediately prior to the ransoming of Hektor’s body. – On
Achilleus’ speech as a whole, see also Macleod; Richardson; Lohmann 1970,
516 κάρη: ‘head’ (neut. sing.); on the -η after -ρ-, R 2.

517 μιν … ἔπεα … προσηύδα: double acc. object. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἔπεα: on the uncon-
tracted form, R 6.
Commentary 195
121–124; Deichgräber 1972, 67–69; Nagler 1974, 190–192; Edwards 1987, 309–
311; Lynn-George 1988, 244–248; Taplin 1992, 270–272; Heath 2005, 144–147;
Rinon 2008, 40–43.
518 ἆ δειλ(έ): an inflectible VB formula, also ἆ δειλοί/-ώ, in total 7× Il., 7× Od., frequently
at the beginning of a speech; expresses actual, rarely feigned (in threats and scoldings)
regret (Brunius-Nilsson 1955, 44 f.; Opelt 1978, 180 f.). – In Homer, the interjection ἆ is
attested only in this phrase. — ἦ δή: ‘yes indeed’ (AH); a strongly affirmative expression
(1.518n.). — σὸν κατὰ θυμόν: an inflectible VE formula (= 549; ὃν κ. θ.: 2× Il., 5× Od.,
2× Hes.), here specifying the κακά as mental suffering (Jahn 1987, 228). – κατὰ θυμόν
and the prosodic variant ἀνὰ θυμόν (only after caesura A 4; e.g. 680) show no apparent
semantic difference (2.36n.; George 2006, 83–86, 92–94).
519–521 ≈ 203–205 (see ad loc.; on 519, cf. also Od. 11.475 πῶς ἔτλης Ἄϊδόσδε κατελθέμεν).
— ‘It is not alien to the spirit of the scene that Achilles should be made to feel this sym-
pathetic admiration for Priam’s boldness in undertaking his present mission. But these
lines do not fit their immediate context very well’: West 2001, 279 (similarly AH on 519).
After the joint lament, Priam’s arrival is no longer an appropriate topic; in addition, the
contradiction between 519 (οἶος) and 563–567 (divine escort), as well as the unprob-
lematic connection of 522 with 518, suggest that the verses ought to be deleted (West
loc. cit.; cf. Köchly 1859, 15 [transl.]: ‘senseless repetition’ of 203 ff.). – Differently Beck
1964, 206–208 (transl.): ‘affirmative repetition’, i.e. the narrator has Achilleus use al-
most the same words as Hekabe in order to demonstrate that both parties are aware of
the magnitude and peril of Priam’s undertaking (cf. de Jong [1987] 2004, 188 f.; Clark
1997, 227 f.; Létoublon/Montanari 2004, 33). On details of content and language, see
Shiffman 1992 (οἶος until 577, Achilleus is indeed confronted with Priam only); Kurz
1966, 120 f. (on ἐλθέμεν ‘to go/come’); Monteil 1963, 62 f. (on the 1st pers. ἐξενάριξα
after a relative pronoun); 205n. above (on σιδήρειον).
522 The invitation to sit down is part of the process of hikesia: 515–516n.
κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζε(ο): an inflectible expression after caesurae A 4 and B 1, e.g. ἤτοι ὅ γ’ ὣς
εἰπὼν κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζετο (1.68, etc.), ἂψ δ’ αὖτις κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζετ’ ἐπὶ θρόνου ἔνθεν ἀνέστη (4×
Od.). In this expression, the particle ἄρα seems to have ossified into a metrical stop-gap;
especially conspicuous at Od. 10.378 τίφθ’ οὕτως, Ὀδυσεῦ, κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζεαι (direct speech,
as here), 16.213 ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας κατ’ ἄρ’ ἕζετο (2× ἄρα; so too at h.Merc. 365). – On
518 ἦ: ‘indeed, in fact’ (R 24.4). — ἄνσχεο: 2nd pers. sing. aor. ind. of ἀνέχομαι; on the unaug-
mented and uncontracted form, R 16.1 and R 6; on the apocope of ἀνα-, R 20 1.
519 ἔτλης: ‘you have brought it upon yourself’. — νῆας: on the inflection, R 12.1. — ἐλθέμεν:
infinitive (R 16.4). — οἶος: ‘alone’.
520 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1). — τοι: = σοι (R 14 1), likewise 521. — πολέας: on the inflection, R 12.2.
521 υἱέας: on the inflection, R 12.3. — σιδήρειον: on the metrical lengthening -ει-, R 10 1.
522 ἄγε: ‘come!’ (originally imper. of ἄγω). — κατ’ … ἕζε(ο): aor. imper.; on the so-called tmesis,
R 20.2. — ἄρ’: = ἄρα (R 24.1). — ἔμπης: ‘although’ (namely ἀχνύμενοί περ 523).
196 Iliad 24
the uncontracted form ἕζεο preferred by West (the transmission here uniformly offers
ἕζευ), see 6.280n. with bibliography.
523 2nd VH = 18.112, 19.8, 19.65, Od. 16.147. — κατακεῖσθαι ἐάσομεν: ἐάω + κεῖσθαι gener-
ally denotes leaving those slain behind on the battlefield (19.8–9a n.), here metaphori-
cally ‘to let rest’, namely ἐν θυμῷ ‘internally’, i.e. ‘no longer make manifest’ (AH; Jahn
1987, 229; on the exhortation to endure suffering, see 550–551n.). Different use of κεῖσθαι
in a psychological context: Od. 24.423 ἄλαστον ἐνὶ φρεσὶ πένθος ἔκειτο (of burdening
pressure). — ἀχνύμενοί περ: a common expression in different positions within the
verse; ἀχν. is used in the context of grief, disappointment and resignation in the face of
the immutable (524 οὐ γάρ τις πρῆξις, cf. e.g. 1.241 f. τότε δ’ οὔ τι δυνήσεαι ἀχνύμενός
περ | χραισμεῖν): 19.8n. with bibliography.
524 1st VH ≈ 550, Od. 10.202/568 (cf. Il. 1.562, Hes. Op. 402). — On the motif of
pointless grief, see 550–551n.
κρυεροῖο: likely related to κρύος ‘icy cold, frost’, i.e. ‘what makes one freeze or shiver’
(LfgrE and DELG), ‘spine-chilling’; of γόος also at Od. 4 103 (VE) and at 11.212, else-
where like κρυόεις also of various terms having to do with war (e.g. φόβος Il. 9.2, 13.48),
etc.; ‘lament’ and ‘war/battle’ (causing lament) share other epithets as well: δακρυόεις,
ὀϊζυρός, ὀλοός; cf. 3.112n., 3.133n.
525 1st VH ≈ Od. 1.17. — spun: On the notion of the ‘thread of life’, see
209b–210n.
ἐπεκλώσαντο: in Homer another 7× Od., literally of the ‘spinning’ of the thread of life
(thus at Od. 4.207 f.), then also of the meting out of a particular fate, like δίδωμι (cf.
529, 531), τίθημι (cf. 538), etc.: Dietrich 1965, 292–294; LfgrE s.v. κλῶσαι. — δειλοῖσι
βροτοῖσιν: a VE formula, usually in a context associated with human suffering and/or
in contrast with the μάκαρες θεοί (βροτός = ‘mortal’, see 1.272n.); in addition, likely used
here with the intention of including Priam, who at 518 is himself termed δειλ(έ), part of
the communis hominum condicio (Lynn-George 1988, 245; on the topos of consolatio,
see 526n.).
526 that we live in unhappiness: The basic constant of human existence (17.445–
447, Od. 18.130–137; cf. the ‘Iron race’ at Hes. Op. 176–179, as well as the evils
released by Pandora at loc. cit. 90 ff.) that applies not only to Peleus and Priam
(534 ff.) in particular but also to Achilleus himself (18.61 f. ‘he toiled as long
as he lived’: áchnytai); the fate of suffering is compensated for by the human
ability to endure suffering (49, 522 f., 549n.; h.Cer. 147 f. with Richardson ad
523 ἐάσομεν: short-voweled aor. subjunc. (R 16.3). — περ: = καίπερ (R 24.10).

524 πρῆξις: ‘business’ in the sense ‘use, success, profit’. — πέλεται: ‘there is’.
525 ὥς: ‘thus’ (points ahead to 526 ζώειν ἀχνυμένους). — δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσιν: on the inflection,
R 11.2.
526 ζώειν: epic form for ζῆν. — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11), likewise 527, 530.
Commentary 197
loc.; a topos of consolation literature: Kassel 1958, 54 f.; Johann 1968, 63–67;
Chapa 1998, 33–43; also in the epic of Gilgamesh: West 1997, 346 f.). – Human
suffering stands in contrast to the easy, carefree life of the gods (Griffin 1980,
189–191; Schein 1984, 52–54; cf. 446n.) that emerges from the VE formula
‘the gods who live at ease’ (6.138n.) and from descriptions of the merry life on
Mount Olympus (Od. 6.42–46).
ἀκηδέες: in early epic both active ‘carefree, light-hearted’ (thus here and at e.g. Od.
17.319, Hes. Op. 112) and passive ‘unprovided for, neglected’ (554 and at Od. 24.187 in
reference to burial [417n.]).
527–528 Stories of containers that hold positive or negative forces (including a
genie) are common; in early epic also at Hes. Op. 90–99 (Pandora’s ‘box’, lit-
erally Greek píthos ‘large jar’, as here at 527, see below), Il. 5.385–391 (Otos and
Ephialtes bind Ares in a cauldron), Od. 10.19–22/47 f. (Aiolos binds the winds in
a sack): Bonner 1937, 3–8; Fauth 1974, 114–123; Ogden 1998, 220 f. The present
passage is based on the idea of a storage urn (527n.) from which Zeus doles out
‘provisions’ like a ‘steward’ (cf. 19.223b–224n. on tamíēs) (similarly the prov-
enance of rain and wind from the ‘treasury’ of the god of the Old Testament
[Deuteronomy 28:12, etc.; see West 1997, 400] or the cup with the wine of fury
at Jeremiah 25:15 ff., Psalms 75:8, etc. [Musäus 2004, 69]). – On the polar du-
ality (a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ urn), cf. Od. 19.562 f.: the two gates of dreams, Hes.
Op. 11–13: two kinds of ‘Eris’ (strife/competition; see also Verdenius on Hes.
Op. 12), 225–247: the just and the unjust city, etc.
527 1st VH ≈ Od. 19.562 (the two gates of dreams). — urns: A ‘pithos’ is actually a
large, usually ceramic storage and transport container for oil, wine, grain, etc.
(Od. 2.340 ff., Hes. Op. 368) that was set against a wall or dug into the ground;
such containers are attested archaeologically from the Minoan period on (inter
alia at Knossos and in the Uluburun wreck): BNP s.v. Pithos.
ἐν Διὸς οὔδει: ‘on the floor of Zeus⟨’s palace⟩’, cf. πατρὸς (= Zeus) ἐπ’ οὔδει 5.734
= 8.385; LfgrE s.v. οὖδας.
528 δώρων: a neutral expression (‘gift’) for characteristics and circumstances bestowed
by the gods, cf. 534 f., also 3.65 f., Od. 18.142, h.Cer. 147 f.; for more on this, 529–530n. —
κακῶν, ἕτερος δὲ ἐάων: a distributive appositive (509n.), with the antithesis in the ini-
tial element not formally specified: sc. ἕτερος (πίθος) μὲν (κακῶν) (Aristarchus in schol.
A; Leaf; Macleod on 527–533); likewise e.g. 22.80 (ἑτέρηφι), 22.157 (ὃ δέ), cf. 511 ἄλλοτε
δ’ αὖτε; additional examples in Denniston 166; LfgrE s.v. ἕτερος 757.54 ff. – The variant
527 κατακείαται: = κατάκεινται (R 16.2); κεῖμαι in Homer frequently means ‘exist, be at hand,

have in stock’.
528 δίδωσι: sc. Ζεύς. — κακῶν … ἐάων: substantival adjectives, cf. 530; sc. ⟨ἕτερος μὲν⟩ κακῶν.
198 Iliad 24
κηρῶν ἔμπλειοι, ὃ μὲν ἐσθλῶν, αὐτὰρ ὃ δειλῶν attested in Plato (Rep. 379d) likely rep-
resents a post-Homeric attempt to clarify the construction: Labarbe 1949, 276–281; van
der Valk 1964, 316–318. – ἕτερος is frequently used in Homer without the article, which
can however be added as a means of reinforcement (e.g. at 598 τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέρου):
Chantr. 2.162.
ἐάων: serves as a neut. gen. pl. of ἐΰς, i.e. ‘goods, goodness’. Elsewhere in early epic, the word is at-
tested only in the synonymous VE formulae θεοὶ δωτῆρες ἐάων (Od. 8.325, Hes. Th. 46, 111, 633, 664)
and δῶτορ ἐάων (Od. 8.335, 2× h.Hom., always of Hermes) that in turn have Sanskrit parallels: dātā́
vásūnām ‘giver of good things’ in reference to Indra (Schmitt 1967, 146–148; West 2007, 132). The
form ἐάων (in the transmission mostly written with spiritus asper: ἑάων) is obscure. A comparative-
ly simple (purely intra-Greek) interpretation would be an alteration of original *ἐέων (a regular gen.
pl. of ἐΰς) to ἐάων by analogy with the 1st declension, where (Aeolic) -άων is clearly more frequent
than (Ionic) -έων (Kretschmer 1923, 188 f.; Wackernagel [1924] 1928, 142; Schmitt loc. cit. 143 f.;
Frisk). Other explanations take into account IE developments, e.g. the theories (varying in detail)
of Szemerényi 1957, 176 (pro: Hainsworth on Od. 8.325; contra: Schmitt loc. cit. 143 f. n. 867);
Hoffmann 1976, 593–604 (building on this, de Lamberterie 1990, 782–786; contra: Ruijgh 1993,
539; Nussbaum 1998, 134 f. n. 125); Nussbaum loc. cit. 130–145 (reservations in Forssman 2001,
116 f.). – The hiatus δὲ ἐάων is unusual (349n.; the Derveni papyrus offers δέ τ’ ἐάων – apparently
a conjecture: Richardson; differently West 1967a, 192 f.); despite Sanskrit vásūnām, an original
initial consonant (digamma) cannot be substantiated for the Greek, cf. Mycenaean e-u- (Nussbaum
loc. cit. 133 n. 121; statistical proof of an initial vowel for εὖ/εὐ- in de Lamberterie loc. cit. 766–779).
529–530 mingles these and bestows them | … now in evil, again in good for-
tune: The notion that humans receive both good and bad, happiness and mis-
fortune, in a mix or alternately – but never good things only – usually at the
hands of Zeus, is expressed frequently in the Odyssey; there the idea usually
has a consolatory function (Od. 1.348 f., 4.236 f., 6.188–190, 15.488, 20.75 f.; also
Hes. Op. 179; cf. 526n.), as it does here, but it occasionally also has a warn-
ing function (Od. 17.419–424, 18.130–137, 19.75–80; Hes. Th. 602–612); cf. Od.
8.63 f., 14.444 f., Hes. Th. 905 f., Archilochus fr. 130 West. The same ‘principle of
distribution’ applies to the good or bad, present or absent characteristics and
capabilities of human beings, which are awarded by the gods: Il. 3.54 f./64–66
(with nn.), 4.320, 9.38 f., 13.730–734, etc. – Bibliography: Thalmann 1984, 78–
112; van der Mije 1987, 248–263; Scheid-Tissinier 2000, 208–219.
Ζεὺς τερπικέραυνος: an inflectible VE formula (5× Il., 6× Od., 2× Hes., 4× h.Hom.; also
6× early epic in different positions in the verse or with word(s) intervening, cf. 2.781n.);
in the nom. a metrical equivalent of νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς (Parry [1928] 1971, 178), here
perhaps used in an associative manner in reference to the misfortune at 531–533 im-
529 ᾧ … κ(ε): relative clause with a conditional connotation (‘if for someone …’); κε = ἄν (R 24.5).
— ἀμμείξας: = ἀναμείξας (assimilation: R 20.1), sc. ‘from the two urns’. — δώῃ: 3rd pers. sing. aor.
subjunc. of δίδωμι.
530 κακῷ ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — ὅ γε: picks up the relative pronoun ᾧ.
Commentary 199
posed by Zeus: lightning as a symbol of punishment and fear (Lowenstam 1981, 24–26).
On Zeus’ epithets as a god of (thunder-)storms and rain in general, 1.354n.; CG 24. —
κακῷ … ἐσθλῷ: ‘misfortune … luck’; cf. Od. 15.488 f. παρὰ καὶ κακῷ ἐσθλὸν ἔθηκε | Ζεύς.
— ὅ γε: ‘emphatic because of the contrast at 531’ (AH [transl.]). — κύρεται: ‘meets …’;
probably a metaphorical use, as at Hes. Op. 216 ἄτῃσιν (with Verdenius ad loc.), 691
πήματι. Middle only here, elsewhere always in the active: the dactylic form of the word
is metri gratia before caesura C 2 (Meister 1921, 10–22, esp. 19 f. on middle verb forms;
see also Hoekstra 1981, 70 f.; West on Hes. Op. 431).
τερπικέραυνος: On the word formation, see Tronci 2000: a verb-noun compound with -ι-, prob-
ably by analogy with ἀργικέραυνος, which is formed in accord with the Caland system (19 121n.;
on the Caland system in general, also Meissner 2006, 16–26, 223–225); a different hypothesis in
West 2007, 239–244 (‘having a smiting bolt’: initial element originally related to the Slavic root *per
‘strike’, final element linguistically related to the Lithuanian thunder god Perkunas).
531–533 On the close relation between homelessness and destitution, cf. Bellerophon at
6.201 f. ἀλᾶτο | ὃν θυμὸν κατέδων, Odysseus at Od. 15.343–345 πλαγκτοσύνης δ’ οὐκ
ἔστι κακώτερον … (although the beggar is under Zeus’ protection: Od. 6.207 f., 14.57 f.);
the lack of honor and respect for ‘non-citizens’ is particularly emphasized: … ὡς εἴ τιν’
ἀτίμητον μετανάστην Il. 9.648 = 16.59 (on the meaning of μετανάστης – ‘émigré’ like Attic
metic – see Wackernagel [1924] 1928, 246 f., followed by Frisk, Beekes and LfgrE s.vv.
ἀτίμητος and μετανάστης; sceptically DELG), Tyrtaeus fr. 10.3–10 West (πτωχεύειν …
ἀνιηρότατον …, πᾶσα δ’ ἀτιμίη καὶ κακότης ἕπεται). On the status of the homeless
‘wanderer’ (‘migrant’) in general, see Padel 1995, 108 f.; Montiglio 2005, 24–26. —
τῶν λυγρῶν: partitive gen.; ≈ κακῶν 528, cf. inter alia Od. 18.134 λυγρὰ θεοὶ μάκαρες
τελέωσι, Hes. Op. 100 μυρία λυγρὰ κατ’ ἀνθρώπους ἀλάληται (myth of Pandora). – The
article has a contrasting function (‘bad’ vs. ‘good’): Chantr. 2.163. — λωβητόν: ‘cov-
ered with λωβή «shame», bereft of honor/social status, «outcast»’ (LfgrE [transl.]), ex-
plicated in 532 f. λωβή plays an important role in the Iliad as the designation of a loss of
honor (1.232n. with bibliography; Heath 2005, 148–151).
532 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.63 M.-W. — καί: explicative, ‘and so’ (Verdenius 1956a, 249).
— ἐπὶ χθόνα δῖαν: ἐπί + acc. specifying extent is common in Homer, particularly in
expressions such as ‘across the sea, across the land’ (Chantr. 2.110). – χθὼν δῖα seems
generally to denote pregnantly the fertile soil (14.347, Hes. Op. 479, Sc. 286 f.), here per-
haps in paradoxical contrast to βούβρωστις ‘hunger, famine’.
βούβρωστις: a Homeric hapaxP, the sense was disputed already in antiquity (see e.g. the scholia
ad loc., as well as on Plato Rep. 379d); it recurs in post-Homeric literature as (a) ‘craving’ (final el-
ement -βρωστις related to βιβρώσκω ‘eat’; initial element βοῦς ‘cow’, a vivid image like English ‘as
hungry as a wolf’, French faim de loup) and (b) ‘famine’ (list of examples in Hopkinson 1984, 161 f.;
LfgrE). Regarding the course of the fates of Peleus and Priam (534–548), the misfortune consists
531 ἔθηκεν: τίθημι + predicate adj. ‘make someone (into)’ (sc. ⟨τοῦτον⟩ λωβητὸν ἔθηκεν);
so-called gnomic aor.
532 ἑ: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — βούβρωστις: ‘(constant) hunger, famine’.
200 Iliad 24
of the loss of the livelihood guaranteed by wealth and family members; the sense ‘(permanent)
hunger’ (equivalent to deep poverty, misery) thus seems obvious for the present passage as well,
cf. 531–533n. (Macleod; Richardson on 527–533; Hopkinson loc. cit.). – Other interpretations: (1)
βούβρωστις = ‘consumption of meat’; β. must be taken as κακή when – like αἰδώς and ἐλπίς at Hes.
Op. 317 (αἰδὼς οὐκ ἀγαθή) and 500 (ἐλπὶς οὐκ ἀγαθή) – it hinders rather than aids life in certain
situations (Svenbro 1976, 52–57). (2) The loss of honor as a punishment from Zeus presupposes a
relevant offense by the person concerned: βούβρωστις = ‘consumption of someone else’s livestock’
(Richardson 1961, 18 f.; on the theft of livestock, cf. 262n. above). (3) βούβρωστις – originally per-
haps βούβρως τις – denotes a kind of ‘gadfly’ (literally ‘cattle-eater’), cf. the simile at Od. 22.299 f.
βόες … | τὰς … οἶστρος ἐφορμηθεὶς ἐδόνησεν as well as Io at [Aesch.] Prom. 681 f. οἰστροπλὴξ …
| … γῆν πρὸ γῆς ἐλαύνομαι (interpreted as a metaphor by Leaf: ‘the fatal gadfly’; cf. Doederlein
1.81 f.; Richardson 1961a; somewhat differently LfgrE: ‘livestock epidemic’). (4) Likely secondary:
Bubrostis as a deity that causes hunger (evidence for a relevant cult in Smyrna at Plut. Mor. 694AB:
Peppmüller; Pötscher 2001; Faraone 2004, 229 f.).
533 neither of gods nor mortals: i.e. ‘of no one’ (polar expressionP: Kemmer
1903, 105 f.), likewise at 15.98 f., h.Ap. 351. Cf. 259n. — respected: On the signif-
icance of the concept of honor in Homeric society, see 57n.
φοιτᾷ: φοιτάω means ‘walk to and fro (searchingly), pace’ (e.g. 3.449 f., 20.4–6), then
also of travelers (ὁδῖται) ‘be on the move, wander’ (h.Merc. 203–205).
534–548 Achilleus logically applies a theological explanation of fate (525 ff., es-
pecially its alternating nature at 529 f.) to Peleus as a paradigm (534–542) and
to Priam by analogy (543–548; exempla are a common topos of consolation lit-
erature: Kassel 1958, 70–73; Johann 1968, 64, 66). He here picks up the com-
parison between the two characters that was introduced by Priam (486 ff.). – In
order to enhance the paradigmatic nature, the prestige, power and wealth – all
portrayed as in the past – are exaggerated, in Peleus’ case by reference to the
tangible and intangible gifts from the gods (including his marriage to Thetis),
in Priam’s case by identification of the geographical sphere of his influence.
In contrast to this, the misfortunes of both men turn out so much the worse:
for Peleus due to the (imminent) loss of his only son (Achilleus), for Priam
because of the long war (implying the loss of many sons, including his favorite
son Hektor, cf. 498–501a). ‘What unites the suffering of Achilles, Priam, and
Peleus is the collision of their fates: Priam is about to lose his home, Achilles
will not return home, and Peleus will die alone’: Hammer 2002, 187.
534–535a The ‘shining gifts’ (cf. 528n.) probably denote in the first instance
Peleus’ fortunate lot generally (detailed at 535b–537; cf. the notion of the deter-
mination of one’s fate at birth, 209b–210n.), but the gods’ tangible gifts to their
‘favorite’ Peleus (61) are likely to be thought of as well: the horses (16.866 f.,
533 τετιμένος: related to τίω ‘honor’, with dat. of agent.

534 μέν: continued with ἀλλά (538). — Πηλῆϊ: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3.
Commentary 201
23.276–278; see 19.399n.), the armor worn first by Achilleus, later by Hektor
(17.194–197, 18.82–85: a divine gift on the occasion of the wedding of Peleus
and Thetis), finally the famous ‘lance from the Pelion mountains’, a gift from
Cheiron the centaur (16.143 f. = 19.390 f., see 19.388–389n., 19.390n. and Janko
on 16.130–154).
534 ≈ 16.867, 18.84. — ἀγλαὰ δῶρα: a VE formula (278n.).
535 πάντας … ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους: ‘in all the inhabited lands, world-wide’ (LfgrE s.v.
ἄνθρωπος 892.58 ff.). — ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους ἐκέκαστο: The group of persons compared via
κεκάσθαι is usually placed in the acc. (e.g. 2.530), less frequently, as here, indicated with
ἐπί + acc. (cf. 202 ἔκλε’ ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους, Od. 24.509 κεκάσμεθα πᾶσαν ἐπ’ αἶαν; differently
Leaf on 20.35, who assumes a tmesis of ἐπεκέκαστο), rarely in the gen. (546n.).
536 1st VH = 16.596, Od. 14.206; ≈ h.Merc. 529; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 16.596, 21.188. — On
the content, see 534–548n.
ὄλβῳ τε πλούτῳ τε: ὄλβος ‘happiness, good fortune, prosperity’, πλοῦτος ‘wealth,
affluence’ (see LfgrE s.vv.); in reference to Priam, picked up by ὄλβιος at 543 and πλοῦτος
at 546.
537 On the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, cf. 59–63n.; as here, it was highly ac-
claimed in the post-Homeric period (examples in Macleod and Richardson).
— bestowed an immortal wife on him, who was mortal: 259n.
ποίησαν ἄκοιτιν: an inflectible VE formula (ποιήσατ(ο) Od. 7.66 and 4× Hes. Th., 9×
‘Hes.’; ποιήσομ(αι) Il. 9.397). The subject is the ‘gods’ (534).
538–542 Using words reminiscent of Priam’s portrayal of his own situation
(493–500), Achilleus challenges the claim that Peleus is faring better than
Priam (490–492): namely, Peleus would also have no successor after the loss
of his son (Hebel 1970, 69; Grethlein 2006, 295 f.; Macleod on 538–540 and
540). Achilleus here alludes to his own imminent death (prolepsisP: 85n.). – In
the Iliad, Achilleus appears largely as an only child (and thus a particular-
ly important member of his family); exceptions: mention of Peleus’ daughter
Polydore (16.175); ‘Hes.’ fr. 300 M.-W. in fact mentions many children of Peleus
and Thetis (Janko on 16.173–178; Priess 1977, 112 n. 1). – For discussion of
Achilleus’ son (and thus Peleus’ grandson) Neoptolemos, see 19.326–337n. (cf.
466–467n., end).
ἐπὶ … τῷ θῆκε θεὸς κακόν: on the formulation, cf. 529 f., 6.357, Od. 15.488 f.
535 ἐκ γενετῆς: ‘from birth’. — ἐκέκαστο: from the perf. κέκασμαι ‘excel, stand out’.
536 τε (ϝ)άνασσε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — Μυρμιδόνεσσιν: on the inflection, R 11.3.
537 καί (ϝ)οι: on the hiatus, R 4.4; οἱ = αὐτῷ (R 14.1), likewise at 538. — ἐόντι: = ὄντι (R 16.6). —
θεὰν … ἄκοιτιν: Thetis.
538 ἐπὶ καὶ τῷ θῆκε: = καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἔθηκε or καὶ τούτῳ ἐπέθηκε; on the anaphoric demonstra-
202 Iliad 24
539 παίδων … κρειόντων: is perhaps pregnant and emphasized via the position of the
words at VB and VE (hyperbaton): ‘children who are able to succeed to power’ (AH,
Macleod and others), cf. 5.153–158 (children inherit the estate); differently LfgrE s.v.
κρείων (‘thriving, outstanding children’, like υἷας ἀρίστους at 493). On κρείων as an ep-
ithet in general, see 1.102n. — παίδων ἐν μεγάροισι: 603–604n. — γονὴ γένετο: figura
etymologica (Tzamali 1996, 482, with Greek and Sanskrit parallels).
540 VE = 15.349. — παναώριον: a contrast with 539 παίδων … κρειόντων and, as there,
stressed via hyperbaton (ἕνα παῖδα … παναώριον); the literal meaning is ‘entirely un-
timely’ (related to ὥρα; a tripartite compound like e.g. πανάποτμος, see 255n.), preg-
nant in reference to Achilleus ‘dying before his time’ (in terms of sense = μινυνθάδιος
1.352, ὠκύμορος 1.417, etc.), cf. the post-Homeric ἄωρον (ἀπο)θανεῖν Hdt. 2.79.3, Eur. Alc.
168 (thus also schol. D on the present passage: παντελῶς ἄωρον ἀποθανούμενον). – A
Homeric hapaxP, typical of Achilleus’ individual idiom (character languageP; Griffin
1986, 52). Further discussion of the word in Richardson on 538–540; LfgrE; Keil 1998,
80–83; Sarischoulis 2009, 6 f. (all with bibliography). — οὐδέ νυ τόν γε: 235n.
541 In Homeric society (and not only there), caring for elderly parents is among
the foremost duties of children, as a sort of repayment of the parents’ earlier
expenditures in bringing them up: 4.477 f., 17.301 f., Od. 16.119 f., Hes. Op. 187 f.
(so-called thréptra/threptḗria, Attic tropheía; see Richardson; Bolkestein
1939, 80, 160 f.; Falkner 1995, 12–14, who concludes in reference to the hospi-
tality scene at 621 ff.: ‘Achilles and Priam here assume surrogate roles in a shat-
tered institution: Achilles in effect rendering to Priam the threptḗria he will not
provide for Peleus, Priam receiving it from the man who has taken the life of
the son who should have provided it’ [loc. cit. 14]; Felson 2002, esp. 46 ff.; see
also 486–489n.).
τηλόθι πάτρης: a VE formula (5× Il., 1× Od., with μάλα also Il. 18.99); cf. 86n. (the motif
‘far from home’).
542 1st VH ≈ 19.330; 2nd VH ≈ 9.679. — As at 507 ff., the memory of Peleus brings
out Achilleus’ ‘soft’ side: ‘It is […] a fine touch that Achilles sees both Priam’s
and Peleus’ suffering as embodied in one and the same person: himself’
(Macleod; the same point is made by Zanker 1994, 62 f.; Lynn-George 1996,
16; Hammer 2002, 186 f.). – Achilleus speaks similarly when reproaching him-
self after the death of Patroklos: I ‘sit here beside my ships, a useless weight on
the good land’ (18.104), and Odysseus offers Penelope a retrospective in which
tive pronoun, R 17. — ὅττι (ϝ)οι: on the prosody, R 5.4. — ὅττι: = ὅτι, here ‘namely that’ (on the
-ττ-, R 9.1).
540 τόν γε: i.e. Peleus.
541 τηλόθι: on the form, R 15.2.
542 ἐνί: = ἐν (R 20.1). — Τροίῃ: on the -η after -ι-, R 2. — ἠδέ: ‘and’ (R 24.4).
Commentary 203
he relates how much suffering he caused other people (Od. 23.306 f.; on this,
de Jong on Od. 8.521–531).
ἧμαι: connotes inactivity or pointless activity, implying an actual seated posture;
here in reference to neglecting one’s father (cf. 2.255n.; Macleod). — Τροίῃ: = ‘Troad’
(346n.). — κήδων: ‘causing grief/suffering’, with the implied contrast: ‘rather than car-
ing for my father’ (σε κήδων rather than πατρὸς κηδόμενος: middle κήδομαι ≈ κομίζω at
541) (Macleod; Lynn-George 1988, 246).
543 In the Iliad, Troy’s legendary wealth before the war is repeatedly used as
a point of contrast with the present: 2.797 (with n.), 9.401–403, 18.288–292,
22.153–156, 24.495. The city’s wealth is expressed by both the contents of its
treasuries (6.288–295, 24.191 f./228–236) and its payments to allies (17.225 f.,
18.291 f.).
ὄλβιον εἶναι: an inflectible VE formula (also at Od. 17.354, 18.138, h.Merc. 379). εἶναι in
direct speech here corresponds to an impf. (ἦσθα), like the present perf. κεκάσθαι at 546
(Chantr. 2.195, 305 f.). On ὄλβιος, cf. 536n.
544–545 The boundaries of Troy are demarcated on three sides: Lesbos to the
south, Phrygia to the east, the Hellespont to the north (on the formulation,
cf. 2.616 f., 2.845; also 544 ≈ h.Ap. 37). Achilleus’ speeches frequently use geo-
graphic details ‘as material for rhetorical expansion’ (Scodel 2005, 159 f. [quo-
tation at 160]; similarly Friedrich/Redfield 1978, 272–274; Griffin 1986, 54–
56): 9.381–384, 9.404 f., 16.233–235, 20.390–392, 21.193–197, 24.615 f. — Lesbos:
The island appears as part of enemy territory throughout the Iliad (Achilleus’
raid on it: 9.128–130 ≈ 270–272, 664 f. [cf. 1.125n.]). The traces of Bronze Age
settlement on Lesbos are Anatolian in character (Spencer 1995, 6 [Thermi];
Lambrianides/Spencer 1997); according to Hittite testimony, in the 14th/13th
century Lesbos (Hittite Lazba) belonged to either Wilusa or the Hittite vassal
state of Sēḫa that bordered Wilusa to the south-east (Latacz [2001] 2004, 83;
Mason 2008; BNP s.vv. Lesbos and Sēḫa; on the name Wilusa/Ilios, cf. 1.71n.).
The immigration of Aetolians appears to have started at the end of the 2nd
millennium (Latacz loc. cit. 317–319; West 2002, 207 f.; Mason 2004). —
Makar: The legendary founder-king and legislator of Lesbos (KlP); according
to h.Ap. 37, he is the son of Aiolos (cf. 6.154n.) and as such the protagonist
of Euripides’ fragmentary tragedy Aiolos. — Phrygia: The Phrygians are close
Trojan allies also elsewhere in the Iliad: they provide one of the allied contin-
gents (2.862 f., 10.430 f., 18.291 f., always listed together with the Maionians);
543 καί: ‘also’, sc. like Peleus (534 ff.). — τὸ πρίν: ‘then’, to be connected with ὄλβιον εἶναι. — μέν:
continued by αὐτάρ (547). — ἀκούομεν: ‘we hear it said, we have learned; it is widely known’.
544 ὅσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἐ(ϝ)έργει: = εἴργει ‘encloses’.
204 Iliad 24
Priam for his part supported the Phrygians in their fight against the Amazons
(3.184–190 with n.; cf. 235n. above); according to 16.717–719, a Phrygian named
Dymas is Hekabe’s father (see Janko ad loc.). On the geographical location of
Phrygia, 2.862n. — Hellespont: In Homer (and occasionally also later: LSJ s.v.),
‘Hellespont’ appears to denote not only the Dardanelles themselves but in a
broader sense also part of the north-eastern Aegean (cf. 346); it is used as a
boundary (namely of Thrace) also at 2.845 (see ad loc.; Leaf; Jachmann 1958,
250 f.; Luce 1998, 37–44; LfgrE; contra Herzhoff 2011, 235 f. n. 21 [and 237 n.
38]). The attribute ‘boundless’ here fits the extended meaning; elsewhere, it is
usually an epithet of the earth (342n.).
ἄνω … καθύπερθε: Both adverbs occur here in a somewhat uncommon sense: ‘onto
the sea, located in the sea’ (cf. ἀν-άγομαι ‘put to sea’), and ‘inland’ (which is naturally
equivalent to ‘upward’ when seen from the coast), see LfgrE s.vv.; Macleod. — Μάκαρος
ἕδος: < Μάκαρος (σ)έδος (M 13.2); cf. Latin sedes.
546 From caesura A 4 to C 2 = Od. 14.206 (before Eumaios, Odysseus poses as the
son of a certain Kastor, who had been distinguished equally by ‘luck, fortune,
sons’). — children: The number of children was previously the most marked
difference between Priam and Peleus: 534–548n.
τῶν … κεκάσθαι: On the construction of κεκάσθαι, cf. 535n.; the gen. is rare, here either
comparative or partitive, cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 343.16 f. M.-W. περὶ πάντων and Hes. Th. 929 ἐκ
πάντων; see also Schw. 2.101.
547 πῆμα τόδ(ε): ‘the current suffering’ (cf. 518 πολλὰ κακά), i.e. in abstract terms the ad-
dition of misfortune from the relevant vessel (527 ff.), in concrete terms the current war
(AH), cf. Hes. Op. 242 f. τοῖσιν δ’ οὐρανόθεν μέγ’ ἐπήγαγε πῆμα Κρονίων, | λιμὸν ὁμοῦ καὶ
λοιμόν. — Οὐρανίωνες: = ‘gods’; in the nom. usually as the VE formula θεοὶ οὐρανίωνες
(612n.). On the formation of the word, see 1.570n. (generally taken as a derivation from
οὐράνιος: ‘the heavenly ones’; less frequently understood in a stricter sense: ‘the off-
spring of Ouranos’ [a patronymic]).
548 2nd VH ≈ 7.237, cf. Od. 11.612, Hes. Th. 228. — αἰεί τοι: usually exaggerating/accusing
(1.107, 1.541, 2.796, 3.60, 5.873, 22.488; αἰεὶ γάρ τοι 1.177, 5.891), but here sympathetic:
Achilleus limits himself to general reference to ‘fights and killings’ (without explicit
mention of Hektor’s death), see AH and Martinazzoli on 549.
549–551 A taking stock of the speech in the shape of a concluding exhortation (connected
asyndetically, cf. 112n., 252n.; Peppmüller on 549), with an allusion to its beginning via
ring-compositionP: ἄνσχεο σὸν κατὰ θυμόν 549 ≈ 518; uselessness of lament at 550 f. ≈
(522–)524 (respectively οὐ γάρ τι πρήξεις and οὐ γάρ τις πρῆξις).
546 τῶν: i.e. ‘of/among the inhabitants of the area mentioned’. — υἱάσι: on the inflection, R 12.3.
547 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1), likewise 548.
548 αἰεί: = ἀεί. — περὶ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 5.4.
Commentary 205
549 But bear up: The encouragement to endure and persevere even in suffer-
ing is a typical motif of consolation speeches (cf. 526n.), elsewhere usually at
the beginning: 1.586 ≈ 5.382 (Hephaistos addressing Hera, Dione addressing
Aphrodite), Od. 20.18 (Odysseus in a soliloquy); cf. 49n. — nor mourn end-
lessly: see 550–551n.
ἄνσχεο … σὸν κατὰ θυμόν: ≈ 518 (where indicative). — ὀδύρεο σὸν κατὰ θυμόν: preg-
nant at Od. 13.379 and 18.203 ‘mentally, secretly’ (likewise at 8.577 ἔνδοθι θυμῷ), which
is inappropriate here, however, after the joint lament at 509–512; cf. 522–524 (LfgrE s.v.
ὀδύρομαι 501.5–8). — ἀλίαστον: literally ‘inescapable’, then also ‘incessant’ (LfgrE);
here an adv., at 760 an attribute of γόος.
550–551 The fact that the dead cannot be brought back to life even via great
grief is a typical argument against excessive, futile mourning (with an implicit
appeal to resign oneself to what has happened and return to normality), cf.
524, 755 f., 19.8, 19.228 f., Od. 4.543 f., 10.202 = 568, somewhat differently at
Il. 6.486 f. (mutually complementary collections of post-Homeric examples:
Richardson; Arnould 1990, 108 f.; on the topos of the uselessness of weep-
ing in consolation literature in general, Kassel 1958, 63, 70; Johann 1968, 56–
63; Chapa 1998, 33–43); the notion that the need for mourning is eventually
quenched is related (23.157, 24.46–49, Od. 4.102 f.). — Rhetorically, the state-
ment is structured as an adynaton; the present temporal form (‘not x, before y’,
i.e. ‘y will happen rather than x’ in the sense ‘x will never happen’; cf. schol. A)
occurs many times in Homer: 1.29, 8.165 f., 16.629 (≈ Od. 13.427, 15.31), Il. 18.283,
22.266 f., Od. 3.117, 11.330 (later examples in Canter 1930, 33 f.; Herter 1939,
207). ‘You will rather suffer further misfortune’ (551b), i.e. ‘you will rather die’,
is thus not to be understood as a (death) threat, but is part of the rhetorical
figure (schol. A; AH; Macleod; Taplin 1992, 272; differently Beck 1964, 236
[transl.]: ‘[…] the subtle threatening that […] leads […] to a change in the tone
of the conversation”; Wilson 1991 [ad loc. 182 f.]: ‘illogical πρίν’ as a character-
istic of Achilleus’ character languageP).
550 1st VH ≈ 524 (with n.). — ἀκαχήμενος υἷος ἑῆος: ‘with/in mourning for your noble
son’; the perf. (ἀκαχήμενος from ἄχνυμαι) stresses the ongoing condition: 19.312n. with
bibliography. – On the VE formula υἷος ἑῆος, see 422n.
549 ἄνσχεο: aor. imper. (on the form, cf. 518n.).

550 πρήξεις: 2nd pers. sing. fut. ind. of πρήσσω (Attic πράττω), ≈ ‘be able to achieve’. — υἷος
ἑῆος: causal gen., dependent on ἀκαχήμενος (perf. with pres. sense of ἄχνυμαι); on the form,
υἷος R 12.3.
206 Iliad 24
551 πρὶν … πάθῃσθα: The prospective subjunc. expresses the speaker’s subjective ex-
pectation more strongly than the fut. does (Schw. 2.310/654; similarly Chantr. 2.209 f.
[transl.]: ‘a type of affective future’; cf. 1.262n.); on the rhetorical figure, 550–551n.
552–571 ‘The process swings unpredictably between acceptance and refusal, en-
durance and impatience, sensitivity and brutality’: Lynn-George 1988, 248.
Priam nearly provokes an altercation (559 ff.) – his third perilous situation
(349–361n.): (a) he initially refuses Achilleus’ invitation to sit down (522), i.e.
he turns down the proffered guest friendship (515–516n.): Gould (1973) 2001,
30 n. 33; Foley 1999, 171 f.; (b) he touches on the speech of consolation only su-
perficially (556b–557 may pick up from 541 f. the motif ‘far from home’): Heath
2005, 152–154; (c) he rather impatiently pushes for the release of Hektor’s body
(which Achilleus left entirely unmentioned); see AH on 560; Lesky (1962) 1966,
76 f.; Deichgräber 1972, 70; Wilson 2002, 130. – Although the refusal of an
invitation is a common epic motif (more on this at 6.264–268n., cf. esp. h.Cer.
191 ff.), the manner in which it is uttered by Priam here is somewhat undip-
lomatic (Richardson on 552–595; Kurz 1966, 46; Taplin 1992, 273; Minchin
2007, 56, 68 f., 209–211); his impatience had already driven those around him
‘mad’ on several occasions (253n.; ‘with all speed’ at 554 as at 263, where di-
rected to his sons; see also Beck 1964, 237 f.). At the same time, in this de-
cisive situation Achilleus is probably a bit torn and thus extremely irritable
(cf. 560–570n.), namely in light of the curtailment of his self-determination
by external influences (Martinazzoli on 559, Leaf on 560, Peppmüller on
560 ff.; Minchin 1986, 13–16; Taplin 1992, 274; cf. 560–562n.). – Priam’s speech
and the subsequent enraged response by the addressee recall Chryses’ plea
and Agamemnon’s response in Book 1, see 501b–502n.; Achilleus’ refusal to
partake of food before Patroklos has been avenged (19.199–214) and Odysseus’
refusal to eat while his companions remain transformed (Od. 10.373–387 [1st
VH of 10.387 = 555 here]) are comparable.
Other interpretations of Achilleus’ fit of anger: (1) Priam insists too strongly on the ran-
som, whereas Achilleus does not want his decision to return the body to be understood
as based primarily on material gain, cf. 9.378–387 (Holoka 1983, 15; Zanker 1998, 84 f.;
Postlethwaite 1998, 95–98; but cf. 560–562n.); (2) the wish that Achilleus may return
home safely is contradictory to his heroic destiny and would thus appear as an insult
to him (Martin 1989, 145; Felson 2002, 47 f.; somewhat differently Edwards 1980, 7:
‘irony on the poet’s part’); but cf. 556–557n.
551 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — ἀνστήσεις: from ἀνίστημι ‘bring back to life’ (with apocope: R 20.1).
— πρίν: adverbial, ‘beforehand, before this happens’. — πάθῃσθα: 2nd pers. sing. aor. subjunc.;
on the inflection, R 16.2.
Commentary 207
552 = 372, etc. (see ad loc.).

553 2nd VH ≈ 635. — μὴ … ἵζε: On the multitude of formulae of refusal in the context of an
invitation, see Dickson 1995, 164 f.; Minchin 2007, 67 f. The closest parallel: 6.360 μή
με κάθιζ(ε). — διοτρεφές: Aside from combinations with appellatives (e.g. βασιλεύς:
803n.), διοτρεφής is used as a generic epithetP of various heroes (usually Menelaos), in
the voc. frequently without a personal name (LfgrE). Of Achilleus also at 9.229 (Ἀχιλεῦ
at 225), 21.75 (Ἀχιλεῦ at 74), 24.635; in each case, the speaker approaches Achilleus with
a specific concern (Parry 1973, 228). – On the meaning of the epithet (‘nourished by
Zeus’), cf. 1.278–279n. and CG 24.
554 κεῖται: subjunc., contracted from *κεjεται (a short-vowel subjunc.: G 89), see 19.32n. –
‘lie’ is here perhaps an antithesis to 553 ‘sit, be seated’. — ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν: The implica-
tion is ‘in the (enemy) camp rather than in a location appropriate for burial (in one’s
native land)’; differently at 413, 569 (see ad locc.). — ἀκηδής: here with a passive sense
‘uncared for’ (526n.), of a dead body: ‘unburied, without having received the last rites’,
including washing, anointing, clothing, laying out, lament (580–595n.); likewise at Od.
24.187 and ἀκήδεστος at Il. 6.60 (see ad loc.). — τάχιστα: 263n.
555 1st VH = Od. 10.387 (Odysseus addressing Kirke regarding his companions, similarly at
10.385; on the parallels in the Odyssey in general, see 339–345n. and Heubeck on Od.
10.383–387). — λῦσον … δέξαι ἄποινα: The motif ‘release and receive (in return) the
ransom’ (on which, see 137n.) is here expanded by the emphatic enjambment πολλά
(similarly at 8.204, 9.148, Od. 1.278, etc.; see LfgrE s.v. πολύς 1419.7–11) and the explana-
tory relative clause τά τοι φέρομεν (collection of examples: La Roche 1897, 171 f.). – On
the VE formula δέξαι ἄποινα, see 137n. — ὀφθαλμοῖσιν: ‘expresses a longing desire’ (AH
[transl.]; see 206n.). — σὺ δέ: frequently intensive with imperatives (λῦσον – δέξαι), see
6.46n. with quotation from Schw. 2.188.
556–557 Aristarchus suspected these verses on the ground that the wishes directed by the
king of Troy to his enemy are inappropriate for his character and reveal hypocrisy/flat-
tery (ὑπόκρισις) (schol. A; similarly Faesi; Bolling 1944, 194). Linguistic reasons also
indicate that this might be a later addition (e.g. the 1st pers. pl. φέρομεν [see below];
repetition of σὺ δέ from 555; metrical irregularities in 557 [on which, Leaf]; the disput-
ed meaning of ἔασας [see below]). – Differently Peppmüller: a wish for the wellbeing
of the addressee (especially the thriving of his family, a safe return home) is a typi-
cal motif in speeches of pleading and farewell, in ‘exchange’ for a favor expected also
at 1.18–21, Od. 6.178–182, 7.147–152, 8.408–411, h.Cer. 135–140 (see also de Jong on Od.
6.180–185 and 8.408–415; Richardson on h.Cer. 135 ff.). As at 1.18 f. (Chryses addressing
the Achaians), ‘the wish, uttered by a […] local, represents a declaration of submission’
(1.18–19n.; likewise van der Valk 1964, 396; Lohmann 1970, 171 f.; Richardson).
553 ἵζε: transitive, ‘make sit down’. — ὄφρα: ‘so long as’ (R 22.2); corresponds to μή πω ‘not yet’.
554 ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν: on the inflection, R 11.1; on the plural, R 18.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1).
555 λῦσον: sc. Hektor’s body.
208 Iliad 24
556 φέρομεν: A 1st person pl. occasionally seems to replace a 1st person sing. in Homer:
13.257 (Meriones addressing Idomeneus during his search for a replacement spear) τό
[sc. ἔγχος] νυ γὰρ κατεάξαμεν, ὃ πρὶν ἔχεσκον, Od. 24.259 (Odysseus addressing Laërtes)
Ἰθάκην τήνδ’ ἱκόμεθ(α) (Laërtes replies with ἱκάνεις [281]). But frequently a so-called
sociative use of the pl. can be posited as well, e.g. at Il. 7.196 (Aias before his duel
with Hektor) οὔ τινα δείδιμεν ἔμπης, 22.393 (Achilleus after his victory against Hektor)
ἐπέφνομεν Ἕκτορα δῖον – Aias and Achilleus include the Achaians in their confidence
and exultation. Strictly speaking, Achilleus here does not know of Priam’s companion
Idaios, who is still waiting in the yard, but Priam might of course include him. Further
discussion of the phenomenon in Schw. 2.243; Chantr. 2.33; Floyd 1970; Tzamali
1996, 314, 406 f., 493 f.; in favor of a sing. sense, Shewan 1913; Wackernagel (1920)
1926, 98 f.; in favor of a pl. sense with a sociative and/or affective nuance, Slotty 1927;
Zilliacus 1953, 12–19; see also 567n. on ἡμέτερος. — τῶνδ’ ἀπόναιο: a blessing: ‘may
you still have the opportunity to enjoy these things’, with the implication ‘may you not
die before’ (cf. the motif of wealth that can no longer be enjoyed in the so-called ‘obitu-
aries’: Stoevesandt 2004, 139 f.; see also 398n.).
557 1st VH ≈ Od. 4.474 (also = 6× Od. in the 2nd VH); 2nd VH ≈ Od. 17.573. — πρῶτον:
On the common usage ‘(since) once’, see 1.6n. But here probably = ‘from the very first’
(Leaf, Richardson), ‘from the beginning’. Differently Kim 2000, 65 n. 58: an expression
of mutuality (in the sense ‘first you have done me a favor, now I reciprocate: I wish
you …’). — ἔασας: Absolute ἐάω is not uncommon in Homer (cf. 17 ‘let a dead body
lie’), in the sense ‘leave unharmed, let live, spare’ also at 569, 684, Od. 4.744, possibly
Il. 16.731 (or ‘disregard’?). Differently schol. A: εἴασας εἰς λόγους σοι ἥκειν; Lohmann
1970, 170 n. 17: ‘let return home’ (restored from 556 f.); cf. the range in Eust. 1364.59 ff.:
λαλῆσαι ἢ ζῆν ἢ πελάσαι σοι.
558 ≈ 18.61/442 (ὄφρα δέ μοι ζώει καὶ ὁρᾷ …), Od. 4.540/10.498 (ἤθελ’ ἔτι ζ. …),
4.833/14.44/20.207 (ἤ and εἴ που ἔτι ζώει καὶ ὁρᾷ …), h.Ven. 105 (δηρὸν ἐῢ ζ. …); 1st VH
= Od. 13.360, 16.388. — The verse is missing in several mss. and papyri (cf. the marginal
note in Codex A: οὗτος ὁ στίχος οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τῷ παλαιῷ; similarly loc. cit. on 5.901),
and the labored remarks of the ancient grammarians – besides schol. A (557n.), also T –
regarding 557 ἔασας indicate that they too did not know it (the only external evidence:
the Homeric Cento of Eudocia, verse 883 Usher, with minor modification: με rather than
τε). The interpolation probably resulted from a desire to supplement syntactically the
supposedly elliptical construction of 557b (ἔασας) (20.312 is analogous, similarly 45n.),
for which purpose formulae (see iterata) are especially suitable: Leaf; Richardson
(who also records dissenting voices arguing for the verse’s authenticity); Edwards on
20.312; West 2001, 12.
556 τά: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — τοι: = σοι (R 14 1). — τῶνδ(ε): refers to
ἄποινα. — ἀπόναιο: 2nd pers. sing. aor. opt. mid. of ἀπ-ονίνημι.
557 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).
Commentary 209
559 = 1.148, 22.260, 22.344; 1st VH (with slight variations) 17× Il., 9× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’,
1× h.Hom.; 2nd VH = 138, etc. (see ad loc.). — looking darkly at him: An ex-
pression of indignation at a violation of social norms, always in speech in-
troduction formulae (1.148n.; also Cairns 2003, 42–44); 5× of the enraged
Achilleus, always in a conversation with an opponent (Agamemnon 1.148;
Hektor 20.428, 22.260, 22.344; here Priam): ‘the expression on Achilleus’ face
imparts a sense that its recipient is moving in a strong field of undischarged
electricity’ (Holoka 1983, 14; cf. Lesky [1962] 1966, 76).
ὑπόδρα: an ossified nom./acc. neut. of a root compound with a zero-grade final ele-
ment (-δρα < *dr̥ k, cf. δέρκομαι ‘look’): Plath 2006, 136–138.
560–570 In contrast to his first, highly sympathetic speech to Priam at 518 ff.,
Achilleus here is noticeably irritated (thus e.g. at 560, 563 [which contrasts
especially with the admiring statement at 519]). The present speech is struc-
tured as a ring-compositionP: the initial warning addressed to Priam (560a) be-
comes even more urgent toward the end (568–570); in the meantime, Achilleus
remarks on the gods’ exertion of influence on himself (561b–562) and Priam
(563–567), cf. AH (transl.) on 563: ‘as I received a messenger from Zeus, so you
also arrived with divine guidance’. Zeus stands above all, as it were (561/570);
Achilleus will thus act immediately after this speech (572 ff.). – Achilleus refers
to Priam’s preceding speech at two central points via catchword techniqueP:
‘give back’ (555/561), ‘leave alone’ (557/569). On the situation as a whole, see
also 552–571n.
560–562 The motives for Achilleus’ consent – initially stated at 139 f. (139–
140n.) – are weighed differently and combined variously in Homeric scholar-
ship: (a) sympathy and mercy on the basis of the sorrow he experienced jointly
with Priam and the experience of another person’s grief, cf. 516/518 (in detail,
Grethlein 2006, 291–302; Dentice di Accadia 2012, 269–271, 273–280, 286
[with emphasis on the rhetorical effectiveness of Priam’s speech of supplica-
tion]; see also Scott 1979, 11 f.; van Wees 1992, 130 f. with n. 136; Crotty 1994,
71 f.); (b) an individual willingness to ‘let go’, not least after several days of
sleeplessness and dragging the corpse (which did not lead to any disfigure-
ment) (Bassett 1938, 43 f.; Segal 1971, 60 f.; Knox 1998, 4–6; cf. 12b–13n.);
(c) an expectation of the ransom, see 119, 139, 594 (Minchin 1986, 18 n. 14;
Crotty loc. cit. 5; further discussion in Giordano 1999, 139–144; but cf. 552–
571n., end); (d) the authority of a god: ‘the Olympian (Zeus) himself orders it’
(140, 561; cf. Zeus’ expectation at 116 and Achilleus’ response to Athene’s inter-
vention in Book 1 [1.216–218]), as well as the obvious divine support received
559 ὑπόδρα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3. — πόδας: acc. of respect (R 19.1).

210 Iliad 24
by Priam (van Wees 1992, 137 with n. 148; Zanker 1994, 118 f.); (e) a purely
structural basis (unlikely): the traditional manner in which Zeus’ instructions
have been delivered by Thetis (on the form, cf. 2.23–34n.) entails the address-
ee’s obeisance as an inherent consequence (Foley 1991, 159–163). – On the
basis of the storyline, as well as Achilleus’ own statements (139 f., 560b–561,
593 f.), none of the internal (a, b) or external (c, d) motifs can be excluded;
given the divine influence (d), a so-called double motivationP is most likely
(Schadewaldt [1938] 1966, 136; Schmitz 2001, 154–157; Sarischoulis 2008,
246 n. 899; cf. the summary of motives in Zanker loc. cit. 118–122).
560 1st VH ≈ 1.32; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 21.257. — ἐρέθιζε: ‘irritate, provoke (to anger)’, cf. 569 f.,
also 1.32 (Chryses provoking Agamemnon), Od. 9.494 (Odysseus provoking the Cyclops):
Thornton 1970, 85. — νοέω: ‘I intend to, plan’, with the connotation ‘I am aware, know
(sc. what I must do)’, cf. Od. 21.257 νοέεις δὲ καὶ αὐτός ‘you’re aware of this too’ (without
an inf.), also 16.136 τά γε δὴ νοέοντι κελεύεις and similar expressions (1.577n.).
561 2nd VH ≈ 194. — δέ: in the sense of γάρ (90b–91n.).
562 1st VH ≈ 5.313, 22.428, Od. 23.325, cf. also Il. 1.352; 2nd VH = 1.538, 1.556, Od.
4.365. — Filling a verse with the naming of a character signals the person’s
significance (1.36n.; here in reference to 120 ff.), elsewhere also frequent in ad-
dresses (e.g. 2.79), especially prayers (308n.). The name itself, however, is not
pronounced (periphrastic denominationP, patronymic). — my mother, she
who bore me: = Thetis; the relative clause is a redundant clarification similar
to 2.313, etc. (see ad loc.; cf. 479n.). — of the sea’s ancient: = Nereus (CG 20;
1.358n.); a VE formula (4× Il., 4× Od., 1× Hes.).
563 I know you, … and it does not escape me: a rhetorical polar expressionP
(115n.).
καὶ δὲ σέ: σέ anticipates the object of the subordinate clause (σ(ε) 564): K.-G. 2.579.
On καὶ δέ ‘but also’, 370–371n. — γινώσκω … φρεσίν: Just as Achilleus ‘sees through’
the reasons for the arrival of Agamemnon’s heralds at 1.331–333 (ἔγνω ᾗσιν ἐνὶ φρεσί,
1.333n.), he recognizes Priam’s divine escort ‘on the basis of a reasonable assessment of
the situation or also via personal observation and deduction’ (Jahn 1987, 239 [transl.]) –
φρένες is thus here perhaps pregnant in order to ‘emphasize a personal, independent
component in the course of his thought’ (Jahn loc. cit. 238 ff. [transl.]; cf. Böhme 1929,
42). On γιγνώσκω ‘recognize/acknowledge a divine influence’, see LfgrE s.v. 159.2 ff. —
οὐδέ με λήθεις: an inflectible VE formula (7× Il., 3× Od., 2× Hes., 1× h.Ap.); on the use of
λανθάνω, cf. 12b–13n.
560 μηκέτι … ἐρέθιζε (durative pres.): ‘do not irritate any longer, any further’.
561 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1). — Διόθεν: on the form, R 15.1.
563 οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).
Commentary 211
564 some god: Achilleus naturally does not know that this was Hermes
(Jörgensen’s principleP).
θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν: a VE formula (9× Il.; cf. 1.371n.); on the variants, see 1n. (with-
out Ἀχαιῶν), 118n. (without epithet), 336n. (κοίλας rather than θοάς).
565–567 Achilleus justifies his assumption that Priam could only have arrived
with divine help in two ways: first with a general deduction based on prob-
ability (565–566a), then with actual clues (566b–567: access to the camp, ac-
cess to his own quarters; both obstacles were stressed in the narrative: 444 f.,
453 ff.). The argument ‘not even one strong in youth’ (VE = 12.382, Od. 23.187;
de Jong on Od. 4.595–598: ‘«(not) even + hyperbole» motif’) is here espe-
cially pregnant, given Priam’s age: Reinhardt 1961, 483 f.; Heubeck on Od.
23.187–9. – The present passage contains several literal and motif-related cor-
respondences with Od. 23.184–189, where Odysseus explains why no one can
move his marital bed (which serves as a clue in the recognition scene between
Penelope and Odysseus) from its place: in addition to (a) the hyperbole ‘not
even one strong in youth’, also (b) the antithesis god-human and (c) the (fruit-
less) ‘lifting, moving aside’ of a heavy or immobile object: 1st VH of 567 = Od.
23.188 (similar are Il. 12.447 f. the stone before the gates of the Achaian wall,
Od. 9.241–243/304 f./313 f. the stone before the entrance to Polyphemos’ cave,
also Il. 11.636 f. with its paradox that Nestor can easily lift the cup, despite his
age; on all these parallels, see also 454–456n.). On the passage in the Odyssey
as a whole, see Bierl 2004a, 119–121.
τλαίη: cf. 505 ἔτλην / 519 ἔτλης (with 518–551n.), here again picked up by Achilleus.
On the motif ‘not dare to’ as a whole, see Kelly 2007, 121 f. — οὔτε … οὐδέ: ‘neither …
nor also’, with a climax in the second part (K.-G. 2.290; Denniston 193; cf. 368n.). —
φυλακούς: They were called φύλακες in 9.477 (ῥεῖα λαθὼν φύλακάς τ’ ἄνδρας); on
the switch between consonant and o-stem (which here does not appear to be based on
metrical constraints), see Schw. 1.458; Chantr. 1.231 f.; Risch 11 (cf. the epic by-form
φυλακτῆρες at 24.444, etc.). Elsewhere in Homer, the o-stem occurs only in the personal
name Φύλακος: (a) the father of Iphiklos from Thessalian Phylake: Il. 2.705, 13.698, Od.
15.231 (with Hoekstra ad loc. and on 15.231–236); (b) a Trojan who is killed: Il. 6.35.
The name may already be Mycenaean (DMic s.v. pu-ra-ko[); additional historical exam-
ples: LGPN s.v. Φύλακος. The appellative is attested in post-Homeric literature as well
(including on the Laconian name-cup of the Arkesilas painter, ca. 560 B. C.: Wachter
2001, 160 f.; also Hdt. 1.84.2 etc.; see also LSJ). — ὀχῆα: a v.l. beside the better attested
564 ὅττι: on the -ττ-, R 9 1.

565 οὐ γάρ: sc. without divine guidance. — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5). — ἐλθέμεν: inf. (R 16.4). — ἡβῶν:
pres. part. of ἡβάω ‘be in the bloom of youth’.
566 ἐς στρατόν: sc. the Greeks. — ὀχῆα: ‘bar’; on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3.
212 Iliad 24
pl. ὀχῆας (see app. crit.); on the alternation between sing. and pl. in the case of ‘bar’, see
446n.
567 1st VH = Od. 23.188; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 3.407, 9.304, 18.32. — A four-word verse
(1.75n.). — lightly: Moving the bolt normally requires the strength of three men
(454–456, see ad loc.) unless it is done by Achilleus himself – or a god (see
446n. on ‘swiftly’ and ‘lightly’ regarding divine actions).
ἡμετεράων: either ‘our (gate)’, taking the other inhabitants into account (associative
pl.), or ‘my (gate)’, inasmuch as only Achilleus can throw the bolt by himself (453–456).
On the use of ἡμέτερος with the sense ἐμός, e.g. Od. 19.344 (Odysseus addressing
Penelope) οὐδὲ γυνὴ ποδὸς ἅψεται ἡμετέροιο (referring to his scarred leg); see Shewan
1913, esp. 129 f.; Floyd 1970, esp. 118 f., 129; further bibliography at 556n. on φέρομεν.
568 2nd VH ≈ Od. 5.83, 5.157, 9.75, 10.143 (ἄ. θ. ἐρέχθων/ἔδοντες), 15.486 (ἐνὶ φρεσὶ θ.
ὀ.). — μὴ … ὀρίνῃς: The negated command with μή + aor. subjunc. is rarely attest-
ed in Homeric epic (Chantr. 2.230 f.; collection of examples: Beck 2008, 357 n. 27). —
μάλλον: on the accent, West 1998, XX, s.v. ἄσσον. — ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς: ἐν ἄλγεσι
‘in the midst of my pains’, cf. Od. 21.88 κεῖται ἐν ἄλγεσι θυμός (AH; Martinazzoli; dif-
ferently Macleod: ‘ἐν ἄλγεσι goes with θυμόν rather than the verb’, i.e. an attributive
use, cf. 617n.). On the VE formula θυμὸν ὀριν- and its use, see 467n. (where affirmative
of pity, here prohibitive of anger).
569 VB = 1.26, ≈ Od. 18.21. — μή σε … οὐδ’ αὐτὸν … ἐάσω: probably less a final clause than
a threat, phrased in the manner of an independent fear clause: ‘lest …’ (53n.). – Stressed
αὐτόν either prepares the antithesis to 570a (with the sense ‘not even you, although
you are a supplicant and under the protection of Zeus’; thus in essence Martinazzoli)
or refers back to 561a (Hektor), i.e. ‘will 〈not only not return the corpse, but〉 not spare
even yourself’ (thus Eust. 1365.53 f.). — οὐδ’ … ἐάσω: In Homeric μὴ οὐ clauses, the
second negative can be closely linked with the predicate: οὐδ(ὲ) … ἐάσω ‘not spare’
= ‘kill’, similarly at 584 οὐκ ἐρύσαιτο ‘give free rein (to anger)’, 1.28 οὐ χραίσμῃ ‘be use-
less’ (cf. Chantr. 2.336 f.; on a negated verb perceived as a single unit in general, see
296n.). On ἐάω ‘spare’, see 557 with n. (here perhaps intentionally picked up again:
catchword-techniqueP); cf. Faesi on 568 f. with reference to 586 κατακτείνειε (on which,
582–586n.). — ἐνὶ κλισίῃσιν: sc. as the location where Achilleus has received Priam as
a supplicant (on which, 157–158n.) and guest; that a guest is to be treated respectfully
and may not be killed is a recurrent theme in Homeric epic, cf. 6.226–229 (Glaukos and
Diomedes on the battlefield, see 6.226n.), 9.640 (Aias addressing Achilleus, see Griffin
ad loc.), Od. 8.204–211 (Odysseus visiting the Phaiakians), 14.404 f. (Eumaios addressing
Odysseus ironically). On additional connotations of the κλισίαι, cf. 413n., 554n.
567 ῥεῖα: adv., ‘lightly, easily’. — μετοχλίσσειε: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — θυράων ἡμετεράων: on the
inflection, R 11.1.
568 τώ: ‘for that reason’ (picking up 560–562).
569 μή: ‘lest’. — γέρον(ν), οὐδ(έ): on the prosody, M 4.6 (note also the caesura).
Commentary 213
570 2nd VH ≈ 586, also 15.593. — the god’s orders: refers in a more narrow sense
to Zeus’ orders, conveyed by Thetis at 133–137, to return Hektor’s body to Priam
and receive the ransom from him; cf. 140 (Zeus ‘commands’), 561. But this like-
ly also refers more generally to the protection granted a supplicant by Zeus
Hikesios (157–158n.) (Richardson on 568–570, end), especially since there
are literal echoes of Zeus’ prediction for Priam at 157 f.: ‘obeisance towards the
gods, protection of the supplicant’ (Yamagata 1994, 44 f.). Given these earlier
indications, it can hardly be expected at this point that Achilleus will defy the
supreme divinity (569 f. is thus a mere threat).
καί: On καί without correption, see 60n. — ἀλίτωμαι: on the meaning, 157n.
571 = 1.33 (on the links between Books 1 and 24, see ad loc. and 501b–502n.); 1st
VH = 1.568, 3.418, 10.240, 24.689. — and did as he told him: It remains unclear
for now whether Priam’s obedience implies that he now sits down, after the
original invitation at 522 and his refusal at 553 (thus AH and Kurz 1966, 46; cf.
597n.). But in the further course of the story, the narrator appears to assume
that Priam is seated (Idaios in turn receives a chair himself: 578; Achilleus sits
down opposite Priam: 597 f.). Differently Tsagarakis 1979, 41–45: the obedi-
ence merely refers to the fact that Priam no longer urges Achilleus to return
the body.
572–595 Achilleus prepares Hektor’s body for its return (funerary ritual) and prom
ises a share of the ransom to the deceased Patroklos.
572 ≈ Od. 21.388; VE, cf. 469. — bounded … like a lion: ‘[…] the hero shares
the lion’s readiness for action, his uncompromising single-mindedness, and
his power to terrify. These particular lion-like qualities define Achilleus at this
point of the tale. They explain what it is that could cause Priam, or even us, the
audience, to fear him’ (Minchin 2001, 141 f.). The lion simile is usually under-
stood in this sense as a reflection of the tense situation at 552–571 (see ad loc.):
Achilleus’ movements appear sudden and potentially dangerous (cf. the simile
motif ‘springing lion’ at 5.138/142, 12.305, 16.754). But Apollo’s judgement that
Achilleus is wild and ruthless like a lion (39 ff.; see 41b–44n.) has in hindsight
proved incorrect, since Achilleus was able to subdue his ‘lion-like’ aspects to-
570 καὶ … περ: = καίπερ (R 24.10). — ἐόντα: = ὄντα (R 16.6).

571 ἔφατ(ο): 3rd pers. sing. impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — ἔδδεισεν: = ἔδεισεν; -δδ- <
-δϝ- (R 4.5).
572 οἴκοιο … θύραζε: ‘out of the house to the door’; οἴκοιο is an indication of place of origin
without preposition (R 19.2); on the form θύραζε, R 15.3 (-ζε < *-σδε). — ὥς: ‘like’ (postpositive).
— ἄλτο: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of ἅλλομαι ‘leap, bound’.
214 Iliad 24
ward Priam to the extent that they caused no further damage, and he will also
restrain himself in the future: 582–586 (on Achilleus’ threatening character, cf.
433–439n.). – On the present simile, see schol. bT; Macleod; Moulton 1977,
114; Clarke 1995, 158 f.; Minchin loc. cit.; Scott 2009, 35 f. (a different, un-
likely interpretation in Wilson 2002a, 242–244: Achilleus pounces like a lion
on Priam’s gifts [also considered by Postlethwaite 1998, 96] – but after the
acceptance of the ransom, the violence turns into ‘heroic self-restraint’).
οἴκοιο … θύραζε: ‘out of the house to the door’; θύραζε strengthens the gen. of separa-
tion οἴκοιο (LfgrE s.v. θύρη 1095.24 ff., with numerous parallels). — ὥς: ‘like’, postposi-
tive like a comparative particle and accented as at 2.190, 2.764, 2.781, 3.2, etc. — ἄλτο: on
the accent, West 1998, XX.
573 ≈ 3.143 (Helen), Od. 1.331, 18.207 (Penelope); 1st VH = Il. 2.745, 2.822 (Polypoites,
Aineias), Od. 2.11 (Telemachos), 15.100 (Menelaos); ≈ 6.84 (Nausikaa), 19.601
(Pen.). On the formula system, cf. Nagler 1974, 93; Clark 1997, 86–89. – The
motif of being escorted by (usually two) persons (‘attendance motif’: Nagler
loc. cit. 64 ff.; ‘«not alone» motif’: de Jong on Od. 2.11) has (a) a pragmatic func-
tion as well as (b) one that aids characterization and structure. On (a): the at-
tendants help complete tasks (as here) or accompany noble women when they
venture into public (cf. Il. 22.449 f., Od. 18.184) – namely Penelope, who (b) at
key moments is characterized as a faithful wife via her entrances and exits be-
fore the suitors (Od. 1.331/362, 18.206 f./302 f., 19.601 ff.). Here and at 473–475,
the motif frames the conversation between Priam and Achilleus by naming the
companions and introduces the preparations for the return of Hektor’s body
(Nagler loc. cit. 187, 193). — henchmen: on the term, 396n.
οἶος· ἅμα: The lengthening of final -ος may derive from the initial consonant of ἅμα, the
effect of which might be preserved in the formulaic verse (s- > h-, related to IE *sem-/
som- as in εἷς and ὁμός): Ruijgh 2011, 262 f.; cf. M 13.2; 1.51n.
574–575 575 ≈ Od. 24.79 (of Antilochos who was buried together with Achilleus
and Patroklos); other similar expressions: Il. 2.21, 16.146, etc. (Peppmüller). —
after Patroklos dead: Here, immediately before the return of the corpse, it is
recalled that Patroklos was Achilleus’ favorite: it is for his sake that Achilleus
has thus far retained the corpse (Taplin 1992, 79 f.; Macleod). In addition,
574 f. and 591–595 (where Achilleus talks to the dead Patroklos) constitute a
frame for the portrayal of Achilleus’ preparations of the body for its return. –
573 τῷ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17).

574 ῥα: = ἄρα, ‘indeed, as is well known’ (R 24.1).
575 τῖ(ε): 3rd pers. sing. impf. of τίω ‘honor, esteem’. — Ἀχιλεύς: on the single -λ-, R 9 1. —
ἑτάρων: = ἑταίρων; partitive gen.
Commentary 215
On the ‘successor’ role of Automedon and Alkimos, see 474n. (574 ≈ 474). —
honored: an expression of appreciation (57n.).
μετά: ‘after’, as an indication of ranking, with a temporal connotation (‘after Patroklos’
death’): Schw. 2.486; Chantr. 2.119. — θανόντα: 16n., end
576–579 Unharnessing the horses and unloading the wagon are elements of the
type-sceneP ‘arrival by chariot’ that have been suspended until a preliminary
agreement is reached between Achilleus and Priam (560 f.), see 440–485n.;
West 2011, 422. In addition, the unloading is described with nearly the same
words as the loading (276): the gifts have reached their destination (cf. also
579n.). At the same time, the herald (last mentioned at 470 f.) is received as an
additional guest (type-scene ‘visit’, elements 5 and 6: leading the visitor in and
offering him a chair [477–478n.]).
576 On the 2nd VH, see 350n.
577 VB: 447n.; VE: 164n. — καλήτορα: formally an agent noun, ‘caller, convener’ (cf. 2.50–
52 with n., 9.10–12), here an epithet of Idaios, elsewhere a personal name (Achaian:
13.541; Trojan: 15.419; cf. Kalesios, Axylos’ charioteer: 6.18n.). Idaios is also awarded
unique herald-epithets elsewhere: ἠπύτα ‘loudly calling’ (7.384), ἀστυβοώτης ‘calling
throughout the town’ (701). More on the functions of heralds: 149n.
578 1st VH ≈ 2.549, 7.57, Od. 6.212; 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ Sc. 273; cf. Il. 24.275 (ἐϋξέστης ἐπ’ ἀπήνης
etc.; see 275n.). — δίφρου: 515n. (on θρόνου). — ἐϋσσώτρου: ‘with good felloes’, cf.
ἐπίσσωτρον (v.l. ὀπίσσωτρον) ‘tire’ Il. 5.725, etc. Beside the more common ἐϋξέστου in
the same position in the verse (271 with n., 275, 590, Od. 6.75; transmitted by most mss.
here as well), ἐϋσσ. ought to be preferred as the lectio difficilior, attested inter alia by
schol. D and T, as well as by two papyri; thus Richardson; Labarbe 1949, 99 f.; van
der Valk 1964, 577 f. Differently Peppmüller and Macleod: the formularity (578b–579
≈ 275b–276) speaks against such variatio. – The epithet occurs elsewhere only at ‘Hes.’
Sc. 273 (ἐ. ἐπ’ ἀπήνης).
579 ≈ 276 (see ad loc.). The repetition of the phrasing of 276 (treasury scene,
Priam’s perspective: ‘Hektor’s head’, ‘large ransom’) may be a signal by the
narrator of Achilleus’ empathy toward Priam (Scodel 2008, 78 f.; cf. the next
n., end).
576 ὑπὸ ζυγόφιν: ‘out from under the yoke’ (gen.; on the form, R 11.4).
577 ἐς … ἄγαγον: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); ἐς = εἰς (R 20.1). — τοῖο: = τοῦ, here as the article; on
the inflection, R 11.2.
578 κὰδ … εἷσαν: sigmatic aor. act. (transitive) of καθίζω/καθέζω ‘let one sit’; κάδ = κατά (assi-
miliated form with apocope: R 20.1); on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2. — ἐϋσσώτρου: on the -σσ-,
R 9.1.
579 ᾕρεον: the impf. indicates iteration (‘one gift after another’).
216 Iliad 24
580–595 For the purpose of the return of Hektor’s corpse, Achilleus conducts the
anticipated funeral rites (normally provided by the relatives of the deceased):
washing, anointing and clothing (preparations at 580–586, implementation at
587 f. [on the details, see ad loc.]), laying out (so-called prothesis, here togeth-
er with preparations for transport: 589 f.); this would otherwise be followed
by the lament, which is here replaced by an invocation of the dead Patroklos
(591–595). The ritual is reprised by the Trojans at 719 ff. (prothesis, lament)
and brought to its completion (784 ff.: cremation on the pyre, retrieval of the
burnt remains and burial in a tomb, erection of the grave monument, funeral
meal; see ad loc.). On the sequence of events in funerary ritual in detail, see
Andronikos 1968 (esp. 1–37); Sourvinou-Inwood 1983 (esp. 37–43); Cerchiai
1984, 47–61; specifically from a narrative point of view, Edwards 1986; de Jong
on Od. 24.37–92 (type-sceneP). – By personally participating (589), Achilleus
pays his last respects to Hektor, thus making amends for his abuse of the corpse
and ‘officially’ terminating his revenge for Patroklos (to whom he accorded the
same ritual at 18.343–355). In this way, he returns to his former generosity to-
ward slain opponents (e.g. Eëtion: 6.417–419a with n. and 6.413–428n.) – a gen-
erosity that came to him easily then, before Patroklos’ death, but which is now
all the more indicative of his attitude, see 21.100–105 (on Achilleus’ ‘humane’
relenting, cf. 33–54n.). Finally, he also shows reverence to Priam by personally
handing over the body, just as Priam came in person to deliver the ransom
(Macleod on 587–589; Richardson on 582–590; Beck 1964, 243 f.; Segal 1971,
65; Taplin 1992, 274; Seaford 1994, 173 f.; Heath 2005, 154 f.; Grethlein 2007,
38–42; cf. 626: Achilleus serves the meat).
580 On the use of the garments, see 587–588n.
ἐΰννητον: an epithet of textiles (elsewhere at 18.595 f. χιτῶνας | … ἐϋννήτους …
στίλβοντας, Od. 7.96 f. πέπλοι | λεπτοὶ ἐΰννητοι); as is frequently the case, the (good)
characteristics of the material – here the ‘well-spun’ yarn – are applied to the entire
object (LfgrE s.v., with parallels).
581 2nd VH ≈ Od. 1.317, also Il. 11.798, 23.856 and the inflectible VE formula οἶκόνδε νέεσθαι
2.290n. — πυκάσας δοίη: The participle expresses the main idea (285n.).
582–586 Achilleus is concerned that the sight of his slain son might cause Priam’s
grief to turn to rage directed against Achilleus as the perpetrator (Düntzer
[1847] 1872, 369 n. *; LfgrE s.v. ἄχνυμαι 1771.19 f.; Macleod; the v.l. góon ‘lament’
580 κὰδ … ἔλιπον: sc. on/on top of the wagon. — φάρε(α): on the uncontracted form, R 6; on the
hiatus, R 5 1.
581 ὄφρα (+ opt. as an indication of indirect speech): ‘so that’ (R 22.5). — δοίη (ϝ)οῖκόνδε: on the
prosody, R 4.4; on the form οἶκόνδε, R 15.3.
Commentary 217
in place of chólon ‘anger, rage’ at 584, transmitted in schol. b and T, is probably

too trite: Erbse ad loc. with bibliography). This hints at a potential escalation
of the situation – which was already characterized as tense in the preceding
pair of speeches (552–571) (cf. 572n. [lion simile]), with the possibility of the
narrator offering an alternative storyline (586a; see Richardson 1990, 188 f.;
Nesselrath 1992, 21): Achilleus’ possible reaction to Priam’s behavior is now
explicitly described as ‘to kill’, as opposed to the periphrasis ‘not to spare’
at 569 f. (586; see Richardson on 582–586: ‘much more explicit’; similarly de
Jong 1997, 316) – the worst possible consequence Priam had imagined before-
hand (224–227), and which Achilleus wants to avoid by all means. A ‘confron-
tation between Priam and Achilleus over Hektor’s body’ is generally avoided
throughout the entire scene (again at 600 f., 619 f., implicitly at 650; see over-
all Basista 1979, 5–14 [quotation: p. 5 (transl.)]). The narrator thus defers the
reunion between father and son and reserves the lament proper for the next
scene (in Troy) (retardationP).
583 (or 584) through 586 have been variously suspected as interpolations, among other
reasons because they merely repeat what Achilleus already said (see Peppmüller on
580 ff.; AH on 583, with Anh.); 586 in particular is sometimes considered a careless ad-
aptation of 570 (Leaf), a ‘commonplace’ (Beck 1964, 242) or a mere rhetorical expansion
(West 2001, 12 n. 28). But see above on the attempt to interpret it as a climax.
582–583a serving-maids: dmōái ‘female servants’ generally denotes the fe-
male domestic staff of the palace (e.g. in Troy: 6.323, 6.375 f.; common in the
Odyssey); in the Achaian camp, these are probably captive women (cf. 18.28;
Hainsworth on 9.658; Wickert-Micknat 1983, 164 f.; Schmidt 2006a, 127).
Their most frequently mentioned tasks are: serving food (but in Book 24
this function is filled by the hétaroi ‘companions’: 473 ff., 622 ff. [4n.]), wash-
ing guests (cf. 587 f.), preparing beds (643 ff., together with the hétaroi).
Bibliography: Ramming 1973, 34–41; Wickert-Micknat loc. cit. 227–230. —
called out …, | but take it first aside: Hektor’s body had until now lain out-
side ‘in the dust’ (17 f.); the ‘outside’ here gains a special significance: a conflict
with Priam is to be avoided.
νόσφιν ἀειράσας: with δμῳάς, ‘when they had carried him away’ (part of the summary
order in indirect speech, cf. 24n.; sc. as the object: νέκυν from 581).
582 ἐκκαλέσας: sc. from out of the house. — κέλετ(ο): ‘ordered’ (impf.). — ἀμφί: adverbial
(R 20.2), ‘all around’.
583 ἀειράσας: fem. acc. pl. of the aor. part. of ἀείρω (Attic αἴρω). — ὡς μή: final (likewise μή at
584). — Πρίαμος (ϝ)ίδοι: on the prosody, R 4.5.
218 Iliad 24
583b–585 ὡς μὴ Πρίαμος ἴδοι υἱόν, | μὴ ὃ μὲν … οὐκ ἐρύσαιτο: Final clauses (particu-
larly those with an optative indicating indirect speech: Nünlist 2002, 452) can express
a character’s subjective intentions (secondary focalizationP) and thus explain particu-
lar actions and/or characterize the individual for the audience. Additional examples:
5.563 f., 10.366–368, 18.344 f., 23.434–437, 24.284 f. (see ad loc.), 24.580 f., Od. 1.133–135,
715–17 (de Jong [1987] 2004, 113 f., 118, 122; collection of examples in Richardson
1990, 235 n. 17). — ὃ μὲν … Ἀχιλῆϊ δ(έ): Although the portrayal is of Achilleus’ own
thoughts, a personal name is used in place of a pronoun: this lends more weight to the
statement’s second part (Macleod); cf. 509–511 ὃ μὲν … αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς (509n.) and
the name Eurykleia in the retrospective of the story of Odysseus’ scar at Od. 19.401 (sec-
ondary focalizationP; de Jong on Od. 19.392–468). — οὐκ ἐρύσαιτο: ≈ ‘give free rein
(to anger)’ (on the close linking of οὐ + verb, see 296n., 569n.). ἔρυμαι means ‘protect,
preserve, keep’ (499, also 1.216, Od. 16.459, etc.), ‘fend off, detain’ (Il. 2.859, 8.143, etc.).
— ὀρινθείη … ἦτορ: On the use of ὀρίνω with emotions, cf. 467n. — φίλον ἦτορ: a VE
formula (13× Il., 19× Od., 2× Hes.). φίλος as an attribute of limbs/body parts has usually
faded to an expression of natural association (i.e. it corresponds to a possessive pro-
noun), see 1.20n., 3.31n. (but cf. 4n. on its emotional use).
586 2nd VH ≈ 570 (see ad loc.). — κατακτείνειε … ἀλίτηται: Whether the opt. and sub-
junc. differ in meaning when they are used in the same sentence, in the sense that the
opt. would express a mere possibility, the subjunc. an expectation or consequence (cf.
551n.), is a matter of dispute; thus perhaps here: ‘… and thus would contravene Zeus’ or-
ders’. Pro: Peppmüller; Monro (1882) 1891, 253; Chantr. 2.211 f./298 f.; cf. 6.454–455n.;
contra (a change in mood is necessitated by formulaic language or is metri causa; a
difference in nuance is hardly susceptible of proof): Tabachovitz 1951, 49–55; Macleod
on 688; Richardson on 582–586.
587–588 587 = Od. 8.454; ≈ Od. 4.49, 17.88; 2nd VH = Od. 8.364, h.Ven. 61; ≈ Od.
4.252, 23.154, 24.366, also Il. 23.186. – 588 ≈ Od. 3.467 (= 23.155), also (with dif-
ferent terms for the garments) ≈ 4.50 (= 17.89), 8.455, 10.365, 24.367. — Then
when …: immediate execution of the orders given at 582 (cf. 302n.), with
literal echoes: servants, washing, anointing. — olive oil: For both the living
and the dead, olive oil is used for care of the body after bathing or washing
(Andronikos 1968, 2 f.; Laser 1983, 160–164). In the Mycenaean period, the
addition of scents to oil (rose, sage and sedge) and its processing into oint-
ment are well attested (Ventris/Chadwick [1956] 1973, 476 f.; Laser loc. cit.
163; in detail, Shelmerdine 1985, esp. 17 ff., 123 ff.), cf. 14.171 f., 18.351, 23.186,
Od. 2.339 (a guarded interpretation of the Homeric testimony in Lilja 1972,
584 μή ὅ: on the hiatus, R 5.7.

585 παῖδα (ϝ)ιδών: on the prosody, R 4.3.
586 καί (ϝ)ε: on the prosody, R 4.4.; ἑ = αὐτόν (R 14.1).
588 μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14 1).
Commentary 219
58 f.). On oil production in general, see also Richter 1968, 134 ff. — cloak …:
After washing and anointing, the body is wrapped in beautiful garments (from
the deceased’s own house, if possible – a custom here taken into account by
Achilleus, cf. Yamagata 2005, 543; Martinazzoli on 581): 16.670 (Sarpedon’s
body), 18.352 f. (Patroklos’ body), 22.510–513 (Andromache sees no possibility
of wrapping Hektor’s body; see Richardson ad loc.), Od. 2.97–102, etc. (the
shroud for Laërtes), 24.59 (Achilleus’ body); see also 229–231n., end. – In ac-
cord with the narrator’s imagination, the body was probably clothed in a ‘bur-
ial gown’ (chitṓn, otherwise the ‘undergarment’; cf. 229 ff. with nn.), laid out
on a blanket (pháros, usually = ‘cloak, mantle’) and covered with a second
blanket (‘pall’); thus the interpretation of 580 by schol. b, as well as the text
of a law from Iulis on Keos dating to the 5th century (cited by Richardson on
580–581; on the law in detail, Engels 1998, 60–64; see also Andronikos 1968,
7 f.; Wagner-Hasel 2000, 92–94). Geometric vases often show the pall with a
checkerboard pattern and conspicuously spread above the corpse (Marwitz
1961; Ahlberg 1971, 55–63). – That the present verse, in contrast to 580, men-
tions only one blanket (namely the pall) is a result of the formularity: it occurs
elsewhere in bathing scenes (where clothing oneself similarly follows washing
and anointing), see the iterata (Richardson on 587–590; Arend 1933, 124; cf.
Foley 1991, 184–187, who stresses the connection between the bath and the
subsequent feast). On the hysteron proteron (the gown is actually put on before
the blanket/cloak), cf. 100n., end.
589–590 2nd VH of 590 ≈ 275, etc. (see ad loc.). — An anticipation of the laying out
(‘prothesis’), see 719 f. The prothesis is an integral element of funerary ritual:
the body is prepared for burial, the survivors can mourn beside it (cf. 18.352–
355, 21.122–125, 22.86–89, 22.352–354, Od. 24.43–62); see Andronikos 1968,
7–14; Alexiou (1974) 2002, 6 f.; cf. 719–776n. — himself: Greek autós, i.e. one
person (here Achilleus) does more than is expected or customary, thus making
a particular contribution – personally – to the success of a matter (cf. 9.12,
14.379 f., Od. 13.20–22, 22.450 f.); see 580–595n. with bibliography
Ἀχιλεὺς … ἀείρας, | σὺν δ’ ἕταροι ἤειραν: The linguistic parallelism is a reflection of
the repeated lifting action. — λεχέων: In a funerary context, λέχος ‘bedstead’ denotes
one’s own bed as the place for displaying the corpse (743), the ritual deathbed for laying
out (720, perhaps originally one’s own bed as well), or, as here, the bier for transport-
ing the body (also at 600, 702; likewise at 18.233, identical with φέρτρον at 18.236);
589 λεχέων: gen. dependent on ἐπέθηκεν (‘lay upon’); on the plural, R 18.2; on the uncontracted
form, R 6.
590 σύν: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘together with Achilleus’. — ἕταροι: = ἑταῖροι. — ἤειραν: = Attic ἦραν.
220 Iliad 24
see LfgrE s.v.; Laser 1968, 5, 16 f. – After ἐπιτίθημι, gen. rather than dat. is rare, but cf.
Hdt. 2.121δ.1 (with ἐπί + gen.).
591–595 In terms of form and content, the speech picks up 23.178–183 (Achilleus
addressing Patroklos after lighting the pyre): the same speech introduction for-
mulaP (591n.), an introductory imperative, an address by name, a qualification
‘though you be in the house of Hades’ (592–593n.). This reprise signals ‘I know
that I promised you (already intimated at 22.354, 23.19–21) not to hand over
Hektor’s body for proper burial’ – but both the situation and Achilleus’ per-
sonal attitude have changed in the meantime; he now gently asks for lenience,
probably also for his own reassurance (Heath 2005, 155): anticipatory ‘do not
be angry with me’ (592), empathy conveyed by ‘his father’ (cf. Martinazzoli
on 594; Hammer 2002, 191), litotes ‘not unworthy (ransom)’ (594n.), promise
of an adequate compensation for acquiescence – the latter as a sort of addition
to the offerings associated with the cremation at 23.163 ff. The belief that the
living can attract the anger of the dead, and/or that the dead are to receive of-
ferings even after burial, is attested only occasionally prior to the Classical pe-
riod (in early epic, cf. Od. 11.29–33); secure inferences thus cannot be drawn re-
garding the custom: Andronikos 1968, 126–128; Bremmer 1983, 108; Parker
1983, 133 f.; Johnston 1999, 46–63; also 592–593n.
591 A formulaic verse for emotional situations: 10.522 (Hippokoön discovers the
annihilation of the Thracians, especially Rhesos; without direct speech), 23.178
(see 591–595n.); 2nd VH = 16.491 (the dying Sarpedon addressing Glaukos);
also 1st VH = 15.397, Od. 13.198 (on additional variants with different verbs, see
3.398n.).
ᾤμωξεν: denotes a shriek occasioned by physical or mental anguish (literally ‘cry
οἴμοι’); men are always the subject (LfgrE). – The equivalent for women: κωκύω (200n.,
cf. 703 κώκυσέν τ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα).
592–593 The lack of certainty as to whether the dead can perceive the living is
repeatedly offered as a reservation in Greek literature (Macleod with exam-
ples and bibliography); cf. Il. 23.19 = 179. At any rate, at 22.389 and Od. 11.475 f.
Achilleus explicitly notes that the souls of the dead lack the ability to think or
recall (Il. 23.103 f. is difficult to interpret, see Richardson ad loc.), and in the
Nekyia Teiresias alone is endowed with reason (Od. 10.492–495); the other dead
can recognize and talk to Odysseus and display emotion only after partaking
of the sacrificial blood (Od. 11.147–149, 152–154, 387–391). On the (occasionally
contradictory) notions surrounding death in Homer in general, Schnaufer
1970, 58–70; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 78–83, 89–92, 106 f.; Johnston 1999,
7–11.
Commentary 221
592 1st VH ≈ Od. 23.209. — σκυδμαινέμεν: 65n. — αἴ κε πύθηαι: an auditory echo of the VE

formula αἴ κε πίθηαι (1.207n.), cf. FOR 25.
593 Ἄϊδος: cf. 246n., end. — Ἕκτορα δῖον: 22n. — ἔλυσα: an anticipation of the ‘official’
announcement at 599 υἱὸς μὲν δή τοι λέλυται.
594 οὐ … ἀεικέα: only here in place of ἀγλαά (278n.) or ἀπερείσια (276n.), the more com-
mon epithets for ἄποινα: the litotes is expressive (on the intention of the speech, see
591–595n.); cf. 119n., 1.13n. – The term is picked up at 595 with ὅσσ’ ἐπέοικεν (on which,
cf. 3.286 with n.).
595 ἀποδάσσομαι: related to ἀποδατέομαι, literally ‘give/give over a share of the war
booty’ (cf. 17.231, 22.118; simplex at 1.125, etc.), here meant as a sacrificial offering
(591–595n.).
596–632 Achilleus announces the release of Hektor’s corpse and, by reference to

Niobe, who ate despite her grief, persuades Priam to partake in a joint meal.
596 ἦ ῥα, καί: a speech capping formulaP (302n.). — δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς: a VE formula
(1.7n.).
597–598 The motif ‘he sat down on the chair from which he had risen’ (attested
repeatedly in the Odyssey: de Jong on Od. 5.195–196) picks up 515: Achilleus
there rose to receive Priam as a supplicant; since Priam’s request has now been
fulfilled and Hektor’s body prepared, Achilleus can sit down again. He does so
‘at the wall opposite ⟨Priam’s seat⟩’ (Frazer 1971, 297 f.). As before, this seating
arrangement suggests a formal, deferential distance, as also during the embas-
sy in Book 9 (9.218 f.) and shortly before the reunion of Odysseus and Penelope
in Od. 23.89 f., 23.164 f. (Richardson; de Jong on Od. 23.89–90 and 23.164–165;
cf. Kurz 1966, 47); the distance will be diminished further only with the joint
meal (628–632; cf. 621–676n.).
597 1st VH = Od. 4.136; VE = Od. 5.195, 18.157 = 21.139 = 21.166 = 23.164 (and ≈ 21.243/392). —
κλισμῷ …, ἔνθεν ἀνέστη: The κλισμός, a chair with a backrest (related to κλίνω), in its
design and use occupies an intermediary position between the θρόνος and the δίφρος
(Laser 1968, 43 f.; see also 515n.). It is used inter alia as a substitute chair for the master
592 σκυδμαινέμεν: ‘be angry with’ (imperatival inf.); on the inflection, R 16.4. — αἰ: = εἰ (R 22.1).
— πύθηαι: = πύθῃ (R 6).
593 εἰν Ἄϊδος: ‘in 〈the house of〉 Hades’, cf. 246n.; εἰν = ἐν (R 20.1). — περ: concessive (R 24.10).
— ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6). — ὅτι Ἕκτορα: on the hiatus, R 5.7.
594 φίλῳ, ἐπεί: on the hiatus, R 5.6.
595 καὶ τῶνδ(ε): ‘also from these’. — ὅσσ(α): on –σσ,- R 9.1.
596 ἦ: 3rd pers. sing. impf. of ἠμί ‘say’. — ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24 1). — καὶ ἐς: on the correption, R 5.5. —
ἐς: = εἰς (R 20 1). — κλισίην: on the -η- after -ι-, R 2. — πάλιν: ‘back’. — ἤϊε: = ᾔει ‘went’.
597 ἔνθεν: relative, ‘from where’.
222 Iliad 24
of the household when a guest is awarded the privilege of the θρόνος (Od. 1.130–132);
should this also be the case here (if Achilleus offers his own θρόνος to Priam at 515/522:
Frazer 1971, 296, 299 f., 301; Reece 1993, 19, 21; cf. 571n.), the present phrasing may be
the result of a contamination of two typical actions: ‘returned to his former seat’ and
‘sat down on a different chair opposite the guest’ (in this sense, Edwards 1975, 69–71;
on the typical motif, see 597–598n.). If one instead understands ἔνθεν ἀνέστη literally,
κλισμός here and θρόνος at 515 should be synonymous, as at 11.623/645 (Laser 1968,
43 f.; Hainsworth on 11.623; Leaf; Richardson); in that case, Priam sat down on a
chair other than the θρόνος. Differently again Bouvier 2009, 489–502 (contamination of
two different variants of the same story). — πολυδαιδάλῳ: ‘richly decorated, ornament-
ed’ (LfgrE). Chairs often have epithets that hint at their elaborate or valuable character:
π. and δαιδαλέος also at h.Ap. 345 and Il. 18.389 f., 4× Od.; additional attributes of a
κλισμός: ποικίλος (Od. 1.132), χρύσεος (Il. 8.436), φαεινός (h.Cer. 193). At the same time,
Achilleus’ implements are frequently described with words related to δαίδαλον, calling
attention to their owner at key moments; this applies e.g. to the phorminx at Il. 9.186 f.
and repeatedly to Achilleus’ new armor (19.13n.; Morris 1992, 15–19). Further bibliogra-
phy on δαιδαλ- at 19.13n.
598 1st VH = Od. 23.90; ≈ Il. 9.219. — τοίχου: a partitive genitive of place, ‘on one spot of
the wall’ (Schw. 2.111 f.; Chantr. 2.58). — φάτο μῦθον: at VE 4× Il., 6× Od., 1× h.Ap. On
ποτὶ δὲ Πρίαμον φάτο, see 353n. On the construction with μῦθον and acc. of the person
addressed, cf. the formulaic expression at 485 τὸν … πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν, 682 μιν πρὸς
μῦθον ἔειπεν.
599–620 Achilleus solemnly announces the release of Hektor’s body (599) and
urges Priam, via the paradigmP of Niobe, to eat, all his grief notwithstanding
(602 ff.; cf. Odysseus at 19.225: ‘one cannot mourn the dead with the stomach’;
on which, Heath 2005, 162; Lentini 2006, 137–140). The speech is constructed
from multiple instances of ring-compositionP (including an epic regressionP at
602–613); a parallel construction is added at 613–620. On the structure as a
whole, see the analyses (in part slightly divergent) in Heubeck 1954, 25, 28;
Lohmann 1970, 12 f. (with earlier bibliography at n. 1); Krischer 1971, 138;
Pötscher 1985/86, 22 f.; Minchin 2001, 191, 194 f.; Richardson:
1 Hektor has been laid out (a precondition for the ritual of lament);
you may take him back to Troy tomorrow (600 f.).
2 But first let us partake of a meal (601b).
3 Even Niobe ate (602).
c She even had 12 children, all of whom died in the bloom of their youth
(603 f.).
598 τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέρου: ‘at the wall opposite’. — ποτὶ … φάτο: ≈ προσέφη (so-called tmesis:
R 20.2; on ποτί, R 20.1; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1, on the middle, R 23).
Commentary 223
b Apollo and Artemis killed those children out of vengeance (605 f.).

a Since Niobe blasphemed against Leto (607 f.).
b’ For that reason, Apollo and Artemis killed Niobe’s children (609).
c’ They lay in their own blood for nine days without anyone burying
them (610 f.). x
Since the people had been turned to stone (611b). y
Therefore, the gods buried the children on the tenth day (612). x’
3’ At that point, Niobe ate and interrupted her mourning (613). A
Now she has given herself once more wholly to grief (614–617). B
2’ Let us thus have a meal as well (618 f.). A’
1’ You also can lament later and continue your mourning B’
when you conduct Hektor home tomorrow (619 f.).
The story of Niobe is among a series of famous Homeric paradigmsP derived

from non-Trojan myth cycles: Lykourgos in Book 6 (6.130–140n.), Meleagros in
Book 9 (9.524–605; see Hainsworth ad loc.), Zeus’ delusion on the occasion
of Herakles’ birth in Book 19 (19.86b–138n., 19.95–133n.); see also Oehler 1925,
esp. 5–31; Held 1987, esp. 245–247, 252 f., 254–256; Alden 2000, esp. 13–47; also
27–30n. (general bibliography on references to myths). On the post-Homeric
use of the Niobe story (including at Sophocles Antigone 823 ff.), see Oehler
loc. cit. 119 f.; Arnould 1990, 236–239.
The argument functionP of the Niobe paradigm is twofold (cf. Davies 2006): (1)
comfort in the fact that others (namely other parents) have previously suffered
worse – comparable exempla may be found e.g. in the first song of Gudrun
in the Edda, where Gudrun is inconsolable at the death of Sigurd; (2) exhor-
tation directed at Priam to interrupt his mourning and take a meal together
with Achilleus now (Marino 1999, 25–33 goes further: the paradigm has a pre-
scriptive effect on Priam’s planning of the funeral rite at 660 ff.; cf. 664–667n.).
The fact that Achilleus underlines his invitation to eat with a paradigm, and
immediately afterward begins preparing the meal (621n.), may be based on
his concern that Priam might again decline the invitation (cf. 552–571 with n.;
Beck 1964, 120). In addition, several key functionsP arise: on the one hand,
Achilleus seals his guest-friendship with a meal typical of such scenes, thus
casting himself in a conciliatory light (return to ‘normality’: 621–676n.), per-
haps even with the realization that mourning excessively, as he himself did for
Patroklos, should not become an end in itself (i.e. in a way he heeds Apollo’s
warning at 46–52 without being aware of it; cf. already Achilleus’ speech at
518 ff., esp. 524, 550). Niobe’s fate, on the other hand, is used to character-
ize grief as a life-long companion, anticipating the subsequent storyline on
the Trojan side (and thus the end of the Iliad): lament and grief will contin-
224 Iliad 24
ue to dominate (703 ff.), interrupted only at the very end by a meal (801 ff.). –

Recent bibliography on the Niobe paradigm: Alden 2000, 26–29; Schmitz
2001; Heath 2005, 156–166; on ‘eternalized’ grief in particular: Seaford 1994,
174 f.; Lynn-George 1996, 15 f.; Mackie 1996, 161–163; somewhat differently
Andersen 1987, 5 f. (key function: as e.g. at 525 f. or 547 f., the distance between
gods and humans is also discussed in 610–612; similarly Heath loc. cit. 161 f.,
164–166).
On individual idiosyncracies of the Homeric Niobe paradigm:
(1) The number of Niobe’s children (603 f.) varies widely in the mythic tradition;
most often there are 10, 12, 14 or 20 children (ancient testimony for this in
Roscher 1904, 44 f., and Erbse in his apparatus to schol. A on 604; on the
varied representation of the Niobe myth in antiquity in general, see e.g. Bömer
1976, 47–53; BNP s.v. Niobe). In Homer, twelve is a typical numberP, e.g. twelve
children of Aiolos at Od. 10.5 f., twelve sons of Neleus at Il. 11.692 (cf. 229–
234n.). Irrespective of the actual number, the focus here is on the conclusion
a maiore ad minus: twelve children of Niobe as opposed to one son of Priam, cf.
602n., 603–604n. (Hebel 1970, 39 f.; Alden 2000, 27 n. 39).
(2) The version according to which Zeus – whose name is perhaps merely a stand-
in for the originator of an inexplicable event (cf. Jörgensen’s principleP) – had
turned the populace to stone, so that the slain children lay unburied until the
gods’ intervention (610–612), is unique. The petrification may be based on a
transfer of motifs within the story: in the version that has become canonical
(sketched out briefly at 614–617, in detail at e.g. Ovid Metamorphoses 6.146–
312), Zeus pities the mourning Niobe and places her in petrified form on Mount
Sipylos in her native Lydia. The motif transfer is facilitated by the assimilation
via a folk etymology of laós ‘people’ (on the plural: 1n.) to the phonetically
similar láas ‘stone’ (so too by way of example in the myth of Deukalion: ‘Hes.’
fr. 234 M.-W.; cf. Leaf; Rank 1951, 101–103); on petrification as a common myth-
ological motif in general, cf. 2.319 (snake in Aulis), Od. 13.163 (Phaiakian ship),
etc. (Louden 2011, 307–309; 2.318n., end). The modification – apparently an ad
hoc invention – serves to make the paradigm parallel with the storyline of the
Iliad: like Hektor, Niobe’s children remain unburied for several days (the nine-
day mourning period for Hektor at 664 is similar), while the gods protect the
bodies of both Niobe’s children and Hektor: Kakridis 1949, 99–102 (although
with an overly broad parallelism of the paradigm and the Achilleus story, see
Pötscher 1985/86, 24 f., and Schmitz 2001, 145 f.); Willcock 1964, 141 f., 147;
Hebel 1970, 41 f.; Heath 2005, 159 f.; Macleod on 611 (on the modification,
also loc. cit. on 614–617); cf. also 6.218–221n.; differently Pötscher loc. cit. 27–
31 (contamination of two traditional variants of the myth); on the fine line the
Commentary 225
narrator walks between tradition (the story must be recognizable in its basic
outline) and innovation (the story must fit the current context) in general, see
Friedrich 1975, 76 f.; Edmunds 1997, 420–422, 428; Scodel 2002, 22–26, 31. –
On the chronology of events in Book 24, cf. 31n. (nine- and twelve-day periods);
on the number nine, especially in funerary ritual, 664–667n.
(3) The authenticity of 614–617 was questioned by the Alexandrian grammarians
Aristophanes and Aristarchus, in part because the verses ridiculed Achilleus’
appeal to Priam: ‘eat, since also Niobe ate and turned to stone’ (schol. A; AH
Anh.; in a similar sense also Kakridis 1949, 97 f.; Pearce 2008); additional
arguments: geographical contradictions (Sistakou 2002, 160–162; cf. 615n.
below on Sipylos and 616n. on Akelesios), a mythographical insertion caus-
ing disturbance in the ring-composition (thus e.g. Nestle 1942, 66 f. n. 3;
Lohmann 1970, 13). On the structure, see both the scheme above (with parallel
construction) and Willcock 1964, 142 n. 3 (‘mathematical exactness’ is not
required; point (4) at 6.433–439n. is similar); in regard to the argument and
key functions (see above) in particular, the continuation of mourning at a later
date is a key element of Achilleus’ statement; in addition, both the allusion at
639 to 617 (‘to digest suffering’) and the references of later poets to this passage
in the Iliad presuppose 614–617 (Leaf; Von der Mühll 1952, 384 f.; Beck 1964,
124 f.; van der Valk 1964, 385 f.; Rengakos 1993, 95 f.; Schmitz 2001, 151–153).
599 Achilleus fulfills Priam’s request (and thus implicitly Zeus’ orders: 75–76n.;
cf. 560 f.). — is given back: a motif in Book 24 (76n.). The de facto ‘release’
has already taken place at 580–595 (see ad loc.), and its execution is now an-
nounced (Greek lélytai perfect).
μὲν δή: ‘now’; in direct speechP (frequently at the beginning of the speech), stresses
the execution or completion of an action or the fulfilment of a wish: 3.457 νίκη μὲν δὴ
φαίνετ’ … Μενελάου, Od. 21.207 ἔνδον μὲν δὴ ὅδ’ αὐτὸς ἐγώ (sc. Odysseus), Sappho fr.
112.1 f. Voigt σοὶ μὲν δὴ γάμος ὠς ἄραο ἐκτετέλεστ(αι). An exhortation (developing the
action) sometimes follows with νῦν δέ, ἀλλ’ ἄγε vel sim., here at 601 νῦν δὲ μνησώμεθα
δόρπου (examples in AH, also Il. 3.457 f., 17.708–712, Od. 23.257–261); similarly 650/656
(650n.). — ὡς ἐκέλευες: an inflectible VE formula (also in the aor.), in total 5× Il., 10×
Od., 1× h.Cer.; cf. ὡς σὺ κελεύεις 669n. – Aside from ‘order’, κελεύω (‘direct, bid’) can
also be used in a weakened sense in early epic: ‘request, urge, beg’, etc., cf. LfgrE s.v. On
the (not unusual) impf. of a verb of speaking, see Schw. 2.277 f. with earlier bibliogra-
phy; Chantr. 2.192 f.
599 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

226 Iliad 24
600 1st VH ≈ 4.143; 2nd VH = 9.618, Od. 12.24, 15.396, h.Cer. 293; ≈ 2× Il., 4× Od. (ἅμ’ ἠοῖ φ.).
— On the postponement of the reunion of father and son, see 582–586n.; on the phras-
ing ἅμα δ’ ἠοῖ … | ὄψεαι, cf. 8.470 f. ἠοῦς δὴ καὶ μάλλον … | ὄψεαι.
601 2nd VH ≈ 19 148 (χάρμης), 15.477, Od. 22.73 (ἀλλὰ μν. χάρμης), 20.246 (ἀλλὰ μν. δαιτός).
— νῦν δέ: 599n. (μὲν δή). — μνησώμεθα: 129n. — δόρπου: the contextually relevant
‘evening meal’, in contrast to the general σίτου in the paradigm (602, 613, 619).
602 καὶ γάρ τ(ε): καὶ γάρ introduces exempla of all kinds, especially mythological para-
digmsP (e.g. also in the myth of Meleagros at 9.533 and the Zeus/Herakles myth at 19.95;
in post-Homeric literature at Pindar Ol. 7.27; Bacchylides Epin. 5.97), see 2.377n. and
Edmunds 2006, 24; similarly 2.292–294n. (a conclusion a maiore ad minus, which is also
present here). – τε in a concrete, quasi-historical description is striking and is explained
by the mythological, generalizing context (Denniston 531; Ruijgh 738); differently
Chantr. 2.343 (‘a potential and contingent force’ [transl.]). — ἠΰκομος: 466n.
603–604 ≈ Od. 10.5 f. (Aiolos). — τῇ περ: περ in the relative clause reinforces the conclu-
sion a maiore ad minus: ‘also Niobe, who even lost twelve children’ (whereas at issue
here is one dead son, Hektor): Bakker 1988, 79 f. – On the dat. of possession, Schw.
2.147 f.; Chantr. 2.71 f. — παῖδες ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν: ἐνὶ μεγ. underscores the children’s af-
filiation with the family, cf. 497, 539 and esp. 6.421 (Achilleus kills Andromache’s seven
brothers); additional passages: LfgrE s.vv. παῖς 934.2 ff., τίκτω 512.20 ff. On the emotional
shading of ἐνὶ μεγ. in general, 208b–209a n. — ἓξ μὲν …, ἓξ δ(έ): On the numerical
anaphora (here in a parallel sequence), cf. 229–234n.
605–609 ‘Greek mythology abounds in stories of mortals who dared to compete
with the gods in battles and competitions’: 6.130–140n. (with the examples
from the Iliad); on the Odyssey, see de Jong on Od. 8.223–228 (on the phras-
ing here ‘Apollo killed out of anger, because …’, cf. esp. Od. 8.227 f.); also the
Cypria: Procl. Chrest. § 8 West. – Apollo (CG 5) and Artemis (CG 7) here act pri-
marily as the children of the affected Leto (CG 18), but because of their arrows
are elsewhere also considered to be the originators of a sudden (or easy) death
(Od. 15.409–411), Apollo particularly for men (758 f., Od. 3.279 f.), Artemis for
women (Od. 5.123 f., 11.172 f./198 f.); see also 6.205n., 19.59n. (with bibliogra-
phy).
600 λεχέεσσ(ι): on the inflection, R 11.3. — ἠοῖ: dat. of ἠώς ‘dawn’ (Attic ἕως). — φαινομένηφιν:
fem. dat. sing. (R 11.4).
601 ὄψεαι: = ὄψῃ, sc. ‘your son’; on the uncontracted form, R 6.
602 καὶ γάρ τ(ε): ‘since also …’; on the ‘epic τε’, R 24.11. — ἠΰκομος: initial syllable metrically
lengthened (< εὐ-): R 10 1. — Νιόβη ἐμνήσατο: on the hiatus, R 5.6.
603 τῇ: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισιν: on the prosody,
M 4.6; on the inflection, R 11.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1). — ὄλοντο: on the unaugmented form, R 16 1.
604 θυγατέρες, (ϝ)έξ: on the prosody, R 4.5. — θυγατέρες: initial syllable metrically lengthened
(R 10.1). — υἱέες: on the inflection, R 12.3. — ἡβώοντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8.
Commentary 227
605 2nd VH ≈ Il. 1.49. — sons: In accord with the ‘continuity of thought’ princi-
pleP, Achilleus continues with the group of persons mentioned second in 604
(schol. A; cf. 58n.).
πέφνεν: 3rd pers. sing. aor. of θείνω ‘kill’, cf. 254n. (πεφάσθαι). — ἀπ’ ἀργυρέοιο βιοῖο:
ablatival gen. (point of departure > means): Schw. 2.446 f.; Chantr. 2.94; the same ex-
pression is also found at verse 12 of the Certamen § 9 West, the gen. alone (without ἀπό)
at Il. 1.49. – Cf. Apollo’s attribute ἀργυρότοξος ‘with a silver bow’ (1.37n.); on βιός ‘bow’,
1.49n. – Variant: (ἀπὸ) κρατεροῖο βιοῖο at Od. 24.170, h.Ap. 301.
606 Ἄρτεμις ἰοχέαιρα: an inflectible noun-epithet formula; ἰοχέαιρα is a distinctive epi-
thetP of Artemis (see 6.428n.).
607 of the fair colouring: a generic epithet of women and goddesses (1.143n.),
always at VE in Homer.
ἰσάσκετο: on the form and meaning, see LfgrE s.v. ἰσάζω with bibliography: ‘she had
(repeatedly) compared herself to’; also Kimball 2014, esp. 171 ff.
608–609 One of the ‘rhetorically most expressive passages in all of epic’
(Fehling 1969, 282): antitheses ‘two – many’, ‘two – all’ (the second antithesis
is further intensified by compression into one syntactic unit); antithesis ‘give
birth to (2×) – kill’ (Greek ólessan ‘put to death’ corresponds to ólonto ‘were
killed’ in 603). The two verses are not lacking in a certain amount of sarcasm
(Macleod speaks of ‘a note of grim pathos’): Niobe’s boast (608) is juxtaposed
with the ease with which Leto’s children execute the revenge (609).
The change in construction at 608, from the inf. τεκέειν (indirect speech) to the finite
verb γείνατο, corresponds to the transition from dependent to independent speech that
is not uncommon in Greek: Wackernagel 1916, 167; Macleod on 608; on this in gener-
al, Fränkel (1924) 1960, 80 f.; Slings 1994, 411–413.
609 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.81.
610–612 On the version of the myth here and its parallels with the action of the
Iliad, see 599–620n., section (2).
605 τούς: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἀργυρέοιο: on the inflection, R 11.2.

606 τὰς δ(έ): sc. θυγατέρας.
607 οὕνεκ(α): crasis of οὗ ἕνεκα (R 5.3), ‘therefore, because’. — ἄρα (Λ)Λητοῖ (ϝ)ισάσκετο: on the
prosody, M 4.6 and R 4.4. — ἄρα: ‘as is well known’ (R 24.1), likewise at 609. — ἰσάσκετο: from
ἰσάζομαι ‘liken oneself, compare oneself’; iterative form (R 16.5).
608 φῆ: = ἔφη; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — δοιώ: acc. dual, ≈ δύο; here ‘〈only〉 two’. —
τεκέειν: sc. Leto as the subject acc.; on the form, R 8 and 16.4. — ἥ: = Niobe; anaphoric demon-
strative pronoun (R 17). — γείνατο: transitive aor., ‘give birth to’.
609 τώ: nom. dual of the anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — καὶ … περ: concessive. —
ἐόντ’: = ἐόντε (dual of the part. of εἰμί, cf. R 16.6). — ἀπὸ … ὄλεσσαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2);
on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
228 Iliad 24
610 οἳ μὲν ἄρ’ ἐννῆμαρ …: a summaryP with a specification of time, using a typical num-
berP, see 31n., 1.53n. (nine- and twelve-day periods). — ἐν φόνῳ: here the ‘place of the
slaughter, site of the killing’ (schol. bT; LfgrE]); somewhat differently, Ebeling s.v. and
Porzig 1942, 252 f.: ‘(they lay) in their blood’.
611 δέ: in the sense of γάρ, ‘for, since’ (90b–91n.).
612 θεοὶ οὐρανίωνες: a VE formula (3× Il., 3× Od.; cf. 547n.).
613 The link with 602 in the form of a ring-compositionP is achieved via a chiastic structure:
ἐμνήσατο σίτου / σίτου μνήσατ(ο); cf. 801n. — δάκρυ χέουσα: an inflectible VE formu-
la, cf. 745 and 786 (in total 15× Il., 13× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’); variants: 9n.
614–617 On the function of these verses, see 599–620n., section (3).
που: either local ‘somewhere’ (thus LfgrE s.v. 1504.57 ff.) or modal ‘I suppose, probably’
(on which, 488n.). — ἐν πέτρῃσιν, ἐν οὔρεσιν …, | ἐν Σιπύλῳ, ὅθι …: a tripartite geo-
graphical description with increasing precision (similarly at 479; see ad loc.); the inten-
sification is made formally clear via the anaphora of ἐν, cf. 22.503 f., Hes. Th. 483 f. (Beck
1964, 119 f.; Macleod on 614–15). In addition, the embellished description of Sipylos as
the supposed dwelling place of the vivacious nymphs (615 f.) represents a contrasting
foil to the petrified Niobe’s loneliness (614, 617). – On Achilleus’ predilection for geo-
graphical details, see 544–545n. and Richardson ad loc. (p. 342). Local knowledge of
western Asia Minor (especially the Ionic-Aeolic areas) appears repeatedly in the Iliad
(2.145n.; Scully 1990, 92).
614 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.574 (ἐν οἰοπόλοισιν ὄρεσσι); cf. the metrically equivalent VE ἐν οὔρεσιν
ὑψηλοῖσιν 2× h.Ven. (Faulkner on h.Ven. 160). — οἰοπόλοισιν: ‘abandoned, lonely’
(19.377n.).
615 ≈ 2.783 (see ad loc.). — Sipylos: according to classical tradition, a Lydian
mountain range extending from Smyrna to the north-east along the river
Hermos, the modern Sipil Dagi or Manisa Daği (named for the nearby ancient
city of Magnesia, modern Manisa). Attempts have been made since antiquity
(e.g. Pausanias 1.21.3) to interpret certain rock formations there, namely a re-
lief, as Niobe, see Leaf on 614–617; BNP s.v. Sipylus with bibliography; Taplin
2002, 25 f. — they say: Impersonal phasí ‘they say, it is said’ marks facts known
610 κέατ(ο): = ἔκειντο (R 16.1–2). — οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — ἦεν:
= ἦν (R 16.6).
611 κατθάψαι: = καταθάψαι (R 20.1); final-consecutive inf. — λαούς: ‘people, populace, fellow
citizens’. — Κρονίων: ‘son of Kronos’ = Zeus.
612 τῇ δεκάτῃ: sc. ἡμέρᾳ.
613 ἣ δ(έ): = Niobe. — κάμε: aor. of κάμνω, with part. ‘tire of, cease (to do something)’. — δάκρυ:
collective sing.
614 πέτρῃσιν: on the inflection, R 11.1. — οὔρεσιν: from ὄρος ‘mountain, mountain range’; initial
syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1).
Commentary 229
or acknowledged generally (i.e. not just from personal observation) (2.783n.

with bibliography; also Stoddard 2004, 49–51).
616 nymphs: Mountains and rivers/springs as dwelling places, as well as
dance and play as occupations, are typical of nymphs: Od. 6.122–124 (with
Hainsworth on 123 f.), Hes. Th. 129 f. (with West on 130), h.Ven. 257–263. On
the nymphs in detail, Larson 2001, esp. 8 ff. (landscape), 20 ff. (early epic),
98 ff. (Acheloos), 198 ff. (Lydia); cf. also the structure of the lemma in LfgrE.
— [Acheloios] Akelēsios: The name, reconstructed by West (see app. crit.)
on the basis of information in ancient grammarians and geographers, is that
of a river that supposedly rises on Mt. Sipylos and whose nymphs are explic-
itly mentioned by Panyassis (fr. 23 West); on the ending, cf. Titarḗsios at Il.
2.751 (details in West 2001, 280; also schol. A and T on 616; LfgrE s.vv. Achélēs,
Achelḗtis, Achelṓïos). The rather obscure name must have been gradually re-
placed during the transmission of the text by Achelṓïos, which is attested uni-
formly in the mss. – Achelōos is one of the major rivers of Greece (location:
north-western Greece), but other, smaller rivers also bear the name (cf. 21.194
with Richardson ad loc.; Macleod).
ἐρρώσαντο: In descriptions of typical or repeated mythical actions (especially by
nymphs, Muses or gods), the present, aorist and other tenses are often used concurrent-
ly (here aor. ἐρρώσαντο beside pres. πέσσει; similar combinations at e.g. 527–533, Hes.
Th. 1 ff., h.Ap. 1 ff., h.Ven. 1 ff., 257 ff.). In these cases, the aorist gains a timeless sense, as
in similes, which is often, as here, reinforced by the generalizing ‘epic τε’ (Ruijgh 412 f.:
gnomic aor.; West on Hes. Th. 7: ‘timeless’; Faulkner 2005: ‘omnitemporal’; cf. Schw.
2.283–286; McKay 1988; somewhat differently, Bakker [2002] 2005, 138 f., 145–149: the
aorist is ‘perceptual’ [76], i.e. it describes in a broader sense ‘something present, hap-
pening right before the poet’s mind’s eye’ [73]). – ῥώομαι literally means ‘perform wave-
like movements’, here ‘dance’ (again of the nymphs at h.Ven. 261; of the Muses at Hes.
Th. 8; in both cases in the aor.), see LfgrE.
617 θεῶν ἔκ: to be taken as attributive with κήδεα: ‘the sorrow caused by the gods’ (schol.
D; Peppmüller; Macleod). — κήδεα πέσσει: likewise at 639 κήδεα μυρία πέσσω
(linked with the present passage, see ad loc.), χόλον θυμαλγέα πέσσει at 4.513 ≈ 9.565
is similar. On the metaphorical use of πέσσειν ‘to digest’ in the sense ‘having to digest
something’, see 2.237n. with bibliography; also Spanoudakis 2002, 159 f., 179 f.; LfgrE.
The use is particularly pointed here in connection with an actual meal. Other verbs used
615 Σιπύλῳ, ὅθι: on the hiatus, R 5.6; ὅθι = ‘where’ (R 15.2). — θεάων: on the inflection, R 11.1. —
ἔμμεναι: = εἶναι (R 16.4).
616 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11).
617 ἔνθα: picks up ἐν πέτρῃσιν …: ‘since (therefore)’. — ἐοῦσα: = οὖσα (R 16.6). — θεῶν ἔκ: = ἐκ
θεῶν (R 20.2). — κήδεα: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
230 Iliad 24
with κήδεα in Homer: ἔχειν, ἀνέχεσθαι, ἀναπίμπλημι (in the sense ‘fulfil the lot of one’s
life’), ἀνατλῆναι.
618 1st VH to caesura C 2 = 4.418, 5.718, where with VE θούριδος ἀλκῆς, here bridged by
(the unique) δῖε γεραιέ, the gen. object σίτου following in enjambmentP in 619.
619 afterwards: The argument ‘let us now do this and that (here at 618); oth-
er things we can do later/a different time’ (with potential optative or conces-
sive future) occurs frequently in Homer (e.g. 6.68–71, 7.29 f. [with AH ad loc.],
23.7–11, 24.716 f., Od. 12.291–293). In addition, the statement ‘you may continue
to mourn afterward’ represents a parallel to the Niobe paradigm: ‘she is now
mourning again’ (614–617; see Peppmüller on 613; cf. the scheme at 599–
620n.).
620 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.404, h.Cer. 220. — πολυδάκρυτος δέ τοι ἔσται: lends weight to
ἔπειτά κεν … κλαίοισθα (619) (variatio of the expression via δακρυ- and κλα(ϝ)-, as at
e.g. 1.360/362, 24.712/714). πολυδάκρυτος ‘much cried-for’ perhaps comprises a double
reference (one objective, the other subjective): (a) Hektor will receive proper burial rites,
(b) Priam will be able to sate his need for mourning (cf. τάρφθη πολυδακρύτοιο γόοιο
Od. 19.213, etc. [on τέρπομαι γόοιο, see 513n.]): Nagler 1974, 195 n. 32.
621–676 Via the meal shared with Priam and his night’s rest with Briseïs, Achilleus
returns to ‘normality’ from his mourning, after the refusal of nournishment,
sleep and sexuality that had largely dominated his life since Patroklos’ death
(see 3n. with bibliography); mutatis mutandis, this also applies to Priam af-
ter Hektor’s death (637–642). What is more, the shared meal results in a par-
ticular emotional closeness between the two main characters (629–632; cf.
also 541n.) and agreement to a truce for the duration of the mourning period
(669 f.). On this mediatory and conciliatory function of meals in Homer (also
in this sense at 19.179 f.; see ad loc.) in a somewhat broader context, see Foley
1991, 174–189; 1999, 171–174 and 271–273; this function is all the more clear
given that Achilleus has actually just eaten (472–476 with n.; Richardson on
601).
621–628 As is the case here, the type-sceneP ‘meal’ frequently forms part of
the type-scene ‘visit’ (477–478n.) and shows numerous variants (cf. 622n.,
623–624n.); where the preparation of the meat is described in extenso (i.e.
with emphasis on the correct procedure), as here (621–624), it partially corre-
sponds to the type-scene ‘sacrifice’ (which likewise concludes with a meal, cf.
1.447–468n. and 125n.; Hitch 2009, 56–58; on the details of the preparation of
618 ἄγε: 522n. — νῶϊ: ‘both of us’, nom. dual of the 1st person personal pronoun.
619 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — κλαίοισθα: on the inflection, R 16.2.
620 Ἴλιον: acc. of direction — τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).
Commentary 231
meat, Bruns 1970, 46–49). The basic elements are: (1) preparations (including
slaughtering the animal, cutting up the meat, skewering and roasting; com-
mon in the Odyssey: washing hands, setting out tables; the latter is omitted
here, since the table is still there: 476 [see 472–476n., end]); (2) serving the
food (and pouring wine): 625 f.; (3) consuming the meal (usually only a single
verse: 627n.); (4) conclusion of the meal and transition to conversation: 628
(the continuation of the conversation is here delayed by 629–632; cf. Edwards
1980, 21 f.). Bibliography: Arend 1933, 64, 68–75; Gunn 1971, 22–31; Reece 1993,
22–25; Bettenworth 2004, 45–143, 527 (scheme); de Jong on Od. 15.135–43.
621 VB = 440; ≈ 3.369. — Homeric paradigmsP frequently evoke an immediate
response from the addressee (Minchin 2001, 204 f.): here this happens only at
639 (see ad loc.). Achilleus instead begins at once to prepare the meal, without
waiting for Priam’s reply – perhaps in order to preempt a rejection of his invi-
tation: 599–620n. (on the argument function of the Niobe paradigm); cf. Kurz
1966, 76 (transl.): ‘leap up’ denotes ‘an internal agitation’ (cf. 572 ‘leapt like a
lion’) or action ‘in order to steer past the tense atmosphere’ (as in the case of
Hephaistos at 1.584 f.).
ἦ, καί: a speech capping formulaP (302n.). — ὄϊν: ‘sheep’, cf. 125n. — ἄργυφον: ‘bright,
white(ish)’ (schol. D; LfgrE), cf. ἄργυφα μῆλα Od. 10.85. The word contains the same root
as ἀργός (211n.), ἀργεννός (at Il. 3.198 similarly of sheep, see 3.141n.) and ἄργυρος, Latin
argentum ‘silver’ (Risch [1968] 1981, 165; on the suffix -φο-, cf. Chantraine 1933, 262–
264; Risch 171; differently ChronEG 10 s.v. ἄργυρος: a compound with ὑφή, i.e. ‘of white
cloth’). Epithets of sheep usually refer to the quality (e.g. 125 λάσιος) or color of the coat;
in the Iliad, the latter is usually white (6.424, 18.529), less frequently black (10.215); cf.
3.103–104n. on the color of sacrificial animals. — ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς: an abbreviated form
of the more common VE formula πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς (19.295–297a n. [short form] and
138n. [long form; there also on the significance of Achilleus’ swiftness]).
622 VE = 10.472 (see Danek 1988, 152, on the use of the formula). — σφάξ’ … ἔδερόν τε
καὶ ἄμφεπον: The same sequence ‘(1) slaughter, (2) skinning, (3) preparation’ with a
partially identical formulation at 7.314/316; only (1) and (2) at 1.459, etc.; (1) and (3) at
18.559; (2) and (3) at 23.167, Od. 8.61, 19.421.
623–624 = 7.317 f.; ≈ Od. 19.422 f.; in addition, 624 = 1.466, etc. (see ad loc.). — 623 is formu-
laic in meal scenes with no separately described sacrifice, in contrast to μίστυλλόν τ’
ἄρα τἄλλα (sc. what has not been burnt as sacrificial meat) καὶ ἀμφ’ ὀβελοῖσιν ἔπειραν in
meal scenes with a preceding sacrifice (1.465, etc.; see ad loc.): Gunn 1971, 28 (considers
the present verse to be an adaptation: replacement of τἄλλα, which is inappropriate in
this context); Reece 1993, 157 n. 17 (considers the present verse old for linguistic rea-
621 ἦ: 596n. — ὄϊν: from ὄϊς ‘sheep’ (Lat. ovis).

622 ἕταροι: = ἑταῖροι. — ἄμφεπον: from ἀμφιέπω ‘attend to, carry out’, here ‘prepare’.
232 Iliad 24
sons). — ἐπισταμένως: ‘knowledgably, comme il faut’ (LfgrE), cf. περιφραδέως in the

same position in the following verse (also in the iterata), as well as 622 εὖ κατὰ κόσμον.
On the emphasis on diligence in such scenes, see Lynn-George 1996, 17.
624 = 1.466, etc. (see ad loc.).
625–626 ≈ 9.216 f. (and 627 f. = 9.221 f.); also 1st VH of 626 = Od. 20.255. — After
474 and 574 f. (see ad loc.), Automedon’s assistance in place of Patroklos (9.216)
is mentioned once again: Mueller (1984) 2009, 161; Clark 1997, 225–227. – The
master of the household himself cuts a fitting piece of meat for his guest and/
or serves it: 7.321 f. (Agamemnon for Aias), 9.209/217 (Achilleus for the envoys),
Od. 4.65 f. (Menelaos for Telemachos), 14.437 f. (Eumaios for Odysseus), also
(with different roles) 8.474 f. (Odysseus for Demodokos). But the task can also
be fulfilled entirely by servants (Od. 15.321–324, 16.253).
σῖτον: concrete, probably = ‘bread’ as the most important accompaniment for meat:
LfgrE s.v.; κανέον accordingly denotes the bread basket (for details, see LfgrE s.v.).
627 = 9.91, 9.221 and 11× Od. (usually followed by the formulaic verse 628); VE ≈
Od. 9.288. — A formulaic verse describing the partaking of the meal (element 3
of the type-scene [621–628n.]). On this and the function of 627 f. in the compo-
sition of meal scenes in general, see Latacz (1979) 1994, 22–26. – Slightly less
frequent is the functionally equivalent formulaic verse at 1.468 (see ad loc.).
ἑτοῖμα: ‘prepared, ready’, not in the sense ‘finished’ but instead ‘available, present’
(LfgrE; DELG); beside this, προκείμενα is likely to be understood pregnantly as a passive
of προτίθημι ‘put before, serve’.
628 = 1.469, 2.432, 7.323, 9.92, 9.222, 23.57, also 14× Od., 1× h.Ap. — On the linguis-
tic particulars, see 1.469n.; on the probable great antiquity of the verse, West
1988, 164.
629–632 At the apex of an encounter, two characters pause in silence and/or ad-
miration (cf. AH on 629): Od. 23.88–95 (Penelope and Odysseus), Herodotus
1.88.1 (Kyros and Kroisos; on which, see Pelling 2006, 85 f.), Apollonius
Rhodius 3.967–972 and Valerius Flaccus 5.373–377 (Medea and Iason), Livy
30.30 (Hannibal and Scipio: paulisper alter alterius conspectu, admiratione mu
tua prope attoniti, conticuere). Here the motif picks up 480–484 (‘wonder’) by
625 ἐπένειμε: from ἐπι-νέμω ‘apportion, distribute, serve’. — τραπέζῃ: specification of location

without preposition (R 19.2).
626 ἀτάρ: ‘but’ (R 24.2), here slightly adversative (≈ ‘while’).
627 ὀνείαθ’: = ὀνείατα, from ὄνειαρ ‘dish’ (367n.).
628 αὐτάρ: ‘but’ (progressive: R 24.2). — πόσιος: on the inflection, R 11.3. — ἐξ … ἕντο: so-called
tmesis (R 20.2); ἕντο is (unaugmented) 3rd pers. pl. aor. mid. of ἵημι (Attic εἷντο). — ἔρον: ἔρος,
-ου in Homer rather than ἔρως, -ωτος, here in the general meaning ‘desire’.
Commentary 233
way of contrast and signals ‘human greatness, to which Achilleus and Priam
approach in recognition of the lawfulness of all human things’ (Kullmann
[1968] 2001, 405 (transl.); similarly Grethlein 2006, 300 f.; cf. also Taplin
1992, 277). – On the high stylistic quality of the verse, see Deichgräber 1972,
73 f.; cf. 629n., 632n.
629 ≈ 631. The parallelism in the word order in both verses (with chiasmus in
the grammatical connections) formally reflects the settlement reached and the
mutual admiration between Priam and Achilleus.
ἤτοι: 48n. — Δαρδανίδης Πρίαμος: 171n.
630 2nd VH ≈ h.Cer. 241. — he seemed like an outright vision | of gods:
Comparisons with gods serve to glorify a character (2.478–479n.), here pos-
sibly in secondary focalizationP by Priam, cf. Telemachos’ amazement at god-
like Odysseus at Od. 24.370 f.
ὅσσος ἔην οἷός τε: either purely outwardly of Achilleus’ god-like appearance, i.e. ‘how
tall and how beautiful’, cf. 21.108 (Achilleus on himself): οἷος καὶ ἐγὼ καλός τε μέγας τε
(thus schol. bT; AH; Richardson), or ‘how tall and of what kind’, i.e. οἷος in the sense
‘how outstanding, how proficient’ (of any heroic virtue), cf. the comparable formulation
at 2.120 and 5.758 (of the λαός) as well as the VE formula ἠΰς τε μέγας τε (477n.), and the
combination of appearance and rhetorical skill at 632 (Marg 1938, 58 f.; Deichgräber
1972, 74; on the linking of external and internal merits, see 376–377n.). On οἷος as a word
from character languageP, cf. 376n. — ἄντα ἐῴκει: ἄντα is originally the acc. of a root
noun meaning ‘face’, here and at h.Cer. 241 either as an acc. of respect (thus Wachter
2001, 286 f.) or, as elsewhere in early epic, ossified as an adverb (and then abbreviated
in place of (ἐσ)άντα ἰδέσθαι/ἰδεῖν ‘for one who looks closely’: LfgrE s.v. ἄντα 915.22 ff.
with bibliography); similarly εἰς ὦπα ἔοικεν at 3.158n.
631 ≈ 629.
632 ἀγαθήν: The attribute placed in the middle of the chiastically arranged verse is men-
tally taken with μῦθον as well: ἀπὸ κοινοῦ (schol. bT; hence perhaps also the unusu-
al position of τε: Ruijgh 205); on the expression, cf. 9.627 μῦθον … οὐκ ἀγαθόν, but
there merely of the ‘bad news’. ἀγαθός here probably reflects Priam’s ‘noble’ manner
as an equivalent of Achilleus’ ‘likeness to a god’ at 630, cf. Priam’s epithet θεοειδής at
217n. (Hoffmann 1914, 72 n. 1; Yamagata 1994, 191; LfgrE s.v. ἀγαθός 27.24 ff.). — μῦθον
ἀκούων: an inflectible VE formula (3.76n.). Unusually, μῦθος here may not aim at a par-
ticular speech or speech intention (especially given that the portrayal of the meal scene
manages without direct speechP, unless one adds a conversation on the level of thought:
629 Ἀχιλῆα: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1.

630 ὅσσος: on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — ἔην: = ἦν (R 16.6). — ἄντα (ϝ)ε(ϝ)ῴκει: on the prosody, R 4.3.
631 ὅ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17), to which Ἀχιλλεύς is in apposition.
632 εἰσορόων: on the epic diectasis, R 8.
Commentary 235
4.294–306, 7.335–8.1, etc.): (1) the host invites the guest (or guests) to remain
overnight (Il. 9.617 f., Od. 7.318 f.) or the guest requests a place to sleep (635–
642), as here and at Od. 4.294 f.; (2) the other individuals present retire to bed;
(3) the host issues the order to prepare a bed for the guest (643–646); (4) the
order is carried out (647 f.); (5) the guest is invited to go to bed (649–655), and
(6) lies down (often with a specification of the room: 673 f.); (7) the host sleeps
in the inner part of the house with his wife or concubine (675 f.; on the func-
tion of the present version, see 673–676n.); (8) the next day dawns (695; cf.
element 9 of the type-scene ‘dream’: 677–695n., end). – Here, element 5 is ex-
panded (preparation for the departure at night, agreement to the truce: 649–
658n.), and element 8 is delayed (Priam must rise again before daybreak). –
Bibliography: Arend 1933, 99 ff., esp. 101–105 and plate 8 / diagram 12; Gunn
1971, 17–22; Edwards 1992, 307 f.; Reece 1993, 31–33; de Jong on Od. 3.396–403;
cf. also Reinhardt 1961, 498–504 (in the present context, the type-scene has a
pregnant function within the narrative: ‘culmination of a conciliation’ [loc. cit.
502 (transl.)]; see 621–676n.).
635–642 In Priam’s speech, the narrator once more reveals the close ‘kinship in
suffering’ between Priam and Achilleus: their deep grief, as well as their refus-
al of food, drink and sleep (cf. 3n., 621–676n.). ‘The two men have shared their
grief; they now also share their return to normal life’: Macleod on 637–642.
τάχιστα: 263n.
635b–636 = Od. 4.294 f. (Telemachos and Peisistratos), 23.254 f. (Odysseus and Penelope);
in all the passages, the transmission vacillates between pl. κοιμηθέντες and dual -θέντε
(here of Priam and Idaios: 648, 673 f. [Peppmüller; differently Gemoll 1883, 93 f.: Priam
and Achilleus]; similarly VE εὐνηθέντε(ς) at Il. 3.441, 14.314, Od. 8.292); also 2nd VH
of 635 ≈ 553. — διοτρεφές: 553n. — ὄφρα καί: Although καί after ὄφρα is elsewhere
always used pregnantly (e.g. at 6.230 f. ‘so that also they recognize …’), here it proba-
bly instead underscores the connection between the main and subordinate clauses, as
occasionally in relative clauses (1.249n.) (Leaf: ‘continuative or explicative sense’; thus
perhaps also in the controversial passage at Od. 23.171, cf. the discussion in Heubeck
on Od. 23.168–172). The v.l. ὄφρα κεν is unlikely, given that final ὄφρα is only rarely ac-
companied by a modal particle (Chantr. 2.270; Wathelet 1999, 379 f.). — ὕπνῳ ὕπο …:
locative with κοιμηθέντε, corresponding to the Homeric concept of sleep as a cover or
wrapping, cf. 2.19n. (Leaf; Latacz 1966, 187). The sentence is ‘a poetic circumlocution
for «so that we may sleep sufficiently and wake satisfied»’: Latacz loc. cit. (transl.); on
ταρπώμεθα, cf. 3n. — γλυκερῷ: 3n.
635 λέξον: 2nd pers. sing. imper. aor. act. of λέξασθαι ‘lay (down), go to bed’, here causative
‘bring to bed, give a bed, let sleep’. — ὄφρα (+ subjunc.): ‘so that’ (R 22.5).
636 ὕπνῳ ὕπο: = ὑφ’ ὕπνῳ (R 20.2). — κοιμηθέντε: dual.
236 Iliad 24
637–638 A chiastic antithesis: predicate – subject – ὑπὸ βλεφάροισιν – ἐμοῖσιν || σῇς – ὑπὸ
χερσίν – subject – predicate (Macleod; Richardson). — ὄσσε ὑπό: On the hiatus, see
264n.
638 ≈ 10.452. — beneath your hands: On the formulaic phrase ‘beneath some-
one’s hands’, see 168n. The emphasis on Achilleus’ hands here may recall
not only the killing of Hektor but also the beginning of the hikesia – which in
the meantime has proved successful – where Priam kissed Achilleus’ hands
(depicted emphatically at 478 f. and phrased in Priam’s own words at 505 f.; see
ad loc.): Martinazzoli.
ἐξ οὗ: A look back to a key moment in the action (more or less distant in the past) sug-
gests that an end to the state of affairs ongoing since that time (here sleeplessness) is
at hand, cf. 765–775 (Kelly 2007, 286 f.). — ὤλεσε θυμόν: VE = 11.342, 20.412 (cf. the VE
formula θυμὸν ὀλέσσῃ 1.205n.); similar phrasing: ψυχὰς ὀλέσαντες (168; see ad loc.).
639 1st VH ≈ 19.132. — Via the literal allusion to 617 (Niobe mourning), Priam
acknowledges the aptness of Niobe as an model (posited by Achilleus)
for his own fate (cf. Schein 1984, 161 f.), as he also does by stating at 641 f.
that he has now eaten again for the first time. But he claims other aspects
of Niobe’s experience to an even greater degree: ‘I sigh incessantly’, ‘thou-
sand-fold suffering’ (cf. Beck 1964, 126 [transl.]: ‘the present tense [gains]
an apodeictic-final aspect; it remains valid forever, like Niobe’s mourning
above’). The period of mourning has been at least temporarily interrupted
(cf. 619 with n.): whereas Niobe ‘is mourning now’ (614–617), Priam has ‘now
eaten’ (641 f.): ‘the temporal sequence is inverted so as to produce a sense
of closure implicitly contrasted to her [i.e. Niobe’s] open-ended sorrows’
(Holmes 2007, 76 f.).
640 1st VH ≈ 11.774; 2nd VH = 22.414 (Priam immediately after the death of Hektor
and the dragging of the corpse). — Priam’s own statement underscores the pa-
thos of the speech and corresponds to the description at 162–165; on the ges-
ture of mourning, see 164n.
641 Cf. 639n. — νῦν δή: ‘only now, now finally’ (Peppmüller; AH; cf. Denniston 206 f.).
Priam’s fasting had thus far been implicit (cf. 621–676n.). — καὶ … καί: A correlative
function of καὶ … καί (‘both … and’) cannot be safely assumed for Homeric epic; the
first καί instead probably carries the original meaning ‘also’ (Peppmüller; Schw. 2.567
637 ὄσσε: ‘eyes’ (dual).

638 σῇς: = σαῖς (R 11 1).
639 αἰεί: = ἀεί.
640 χόρτοισι: ‘pen, enclosure’ (related to Latin hortus, English ‘garden’).
641 πασάμην: ‘partake (of food or drink)’ (the present πατέομαι is not attested in Homer); cf. 642
πεπάσμην (plpf.). — αἴθοπα (ϝ)οῖνον: on the prosody, R 4.3.
Commentary 237
n. 4 with bibliography). Here it creates a link to the other fundamental human need –
sleep (635 ff.) – whereas the second καί connects the two predicates of the present clause
(Faesi; somewhat differently Denniston 322/324: the first καί emphatic, ‘I have tasted’).
— αἴθοπα οἶνον: αἴθ. οἶνον is an inflectible VE formula (acc.: 8× Il., 8× Od., 1× Hes.;
dat.: 3× Il., including 791); the meaning of αἶθοψ (used inter alia of metals) is disputed:
‘ember-colored’? ‘gleaming, glittering’? (cf. 233n.; Hainsworth on Od. 7.295; Beekes
1995/96, 15–17, 25; a summary of earlier scholarship in Dürbeck 1977, 177–180).
καὶ αἴθοπα οἶνον: καί without correption before the vowel is comparatively rare in Homer (60n.; at
caesura C 2, such hiatuses without correption are unusual: Ahrens [1851] 1891, 137 ff. [ad loc. 143];
Leaf p. 638 f. [Appendix N 20]). This may be a case of transmission of the license for hiatus between
(ϝ)οῖνον and αἴθοπα; additional examples: 16.226 ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ αἴθοπα οἶνον, Od. 2.57/15.500 τε αἴθ.
οἶνον. Contrast the use with ἠδέ at Od. 7.295 ἠδ’ αἴθ. οἶνον; with a different epithet at Od. 5.165 καὶ
(ϝ)οῖνον ἐρυθρόν (Severyns 1943, 87 f.; Garvie on Od. 7.295; Hoekstra on Od. 15.500).
642 2nd VH ≈ 18.386/425, Od. 5.88, also Il. 16.796. — λαυκανίης καθέηκα: The expressive
phrase (‘have sent down through my throat, let trickle down my throat’) perhaps re-
flects the pleasure with which Priam drinks his first sip of wine after a long time; similar
phrasings at 19.209 (κατὰ λαιμὸν ἰείη) and h.Merc. 133 (περῆν’ ἱερῆς κατὰ δειρῆς, with
additional post-Homeric examples in Allen/Halliday/Sikes ad loc.), also Od. 9.373 (re-
versed process: φάρυγος δ’ ἐξέσσυτο οἶνος); see also Hoekstra on Od. 16.191 (δάκρυον
ἧκε χαμᾶζε). – λαυκανίη in early epic also at 22.325 (Achilleus lethally wounds Hektor
in the throat).
643 ≈ 9.658; 2nd VH ≈ Od. 4.296, 15.93. — his serving-maids and companions:
on the two terms, see 4n. and 582–583a n.; on the cooperation between the
groups, cf. 572–590.
ἦ ῥ(α): a speech capping formulaP (see 302n. on the syntactically unusual use of the
formula in the present passage). — ἰδέ: ‘and’; a rare metrical variant of ἠδέ (2.511n.).
644–648 For the iterata, see 635–676n.; also Clark 1997, 171–173. — The textiles
used for beds cannot be defined precisely, see 229–231n.; the most secure in-
terpretation of chlaínai is ‘woolen blankets’ (for covering). tápētes are among
Priam’s gifts for Achilleus (230) and in early epic are used as mats for sitting
and sleeping (LfgrE s.v.). The relationship between the tápētes and rhḗgea, an-
other typical component of bedclothes, is obscure: rhḗgea ‘padding, mattress-
es’, tápētes ‘covering, sheets’? In the present, typical description, the narrator
is probably less concerned with terminological precision than with portraying
the bed as proper and fitting via the multitude of materials; see LfgrE s.v. ῥῆγος;
Garvie on Od. 7.336–338; Snodgrass 1970 (additional interpretations in Laser
1968, 1–34, with consideration of archaeological evidence). The formal struc-
642 λαυκανίης: ‘throat’. — μέν: ≈ μήν (R 24.6).

643 ἦ: 596n. — ῥ’: = ἄρα (R 24 1).
238 Iliad 24
ture of the verses contributes to the dignity of the description (Richardson

on 643–648 with reference to the increasing length of the individual infini-
tive clauses in 644–646, chiasmus at 644b–645, execution of the order at 647 f.
with homoioteleuton [as at e.g. 2.87 f.]).
644 porch: Greek aíthousa (238n.). It is customary in Homeric epic that guests
sleep in an ‘antechamber’ (cf. 673), whereas the hosts sleep ‘inside’ (675):
Telemachos and Nestor at Od. 3.399/402, Telemachos and Menelaos with Helen
at 4.297/302/304 f. (cf. 15.5), Odysseus and Alkinoos with Arete at 7.336/345/
346 f. In the case of Phoinix, the location of the bed is not specified: Il. 9.620–
622, 9.658–662 (as a member of the family he may sleep in the interior, as ev-
idently does Achilleus as the host: 9.663). – On the stylized use of terms from
palatial architecture for Achilleus’ quarters, see 448n.
645 of purple: In antiquity, royal purple was an expensive, prestigious colorant
due to its labor-intensive production from marine snails (BNP s.v. Purple; cf.
796n.). Purple-colored fabrics are thus frequently thrown across chairs and
beds for guests (iterata [635–676n.], also 9.200, Od. 10.353, 20.151; Stulz 1990,
96 ff., esp. 114–119).
πορφύρε(α): like ἀργός (‘bright; swift’: 211n., 621n.) and αἰόλος (19.404n.), an adjective
with a double meaning: color and/or movement, hence ‘purple, shimmering, flowing’
(on the etymology and semantics in detail, LfgrE s.v.; Grand-Clément 2004, esp. 126–
134; see also 1.482n.). The word is attested already in Mycenaean Greek in reference to
purple-colored textiles (DMic s.v. po-pu-re-ja); on the archaeological evidence of Bronze
Age production of royal purple, Reese 1987, 203–206; Singer 2008, 27–29.
647 On the iterata, see above 635–676n. — αἳ δ(έ): Regarding the execution of Achilleus’
orders issued at 643, the narrator mentions only female servants: the preparation of
beds typically falls within their remit (582–583a n.). — μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσαι: an inflect-
ible VE formula (3× Il., 5× Od., 3× h.Cer.; μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχων also in verse middle, after
caesurae A 1 and A 4; cf. 304n.); also with pl. δαΐδας in place of δάος (Od. 7.101, 2×
h.Cer.).
644 θέμεναι: inf. (R 16.4).

645 πορφύρε’ ἐμβαλέειν: on the hiatus, R 5.1; on the form of the infinitive, R 8 and 16.4. —
στορέσαι: ‘to spread (the covers)’, in contrast to 648 στόρεσαν ‘cover (the bed), make the bed’;
aor. of στόρνυμι (Attic στρώννυμι, ἔστρωσα).
646 καθύπερθεν: to be taken with ἐνθέμεναι (‘to overlay’) or ἕσασθαι (‘to pull across oneself’). —
ἕσασθαι: final-consecutive inf., ‘cover oneself’ (mid. of ἕννυμι).
647 αἵ: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); in reference to δμῳαί (643). — ἴσαν: = ᾖσαν (3rd
pers. pl. impf. of εἶμι). — δάος: ‘torch’, collective sing.
Commentary 239
648 ἐγκονέουσαι: ‘be active, bustle’ (only here and in the related verses at Od. 7.340,
23.291); a part. of accompanying action, like ἀμφιέποντες (2.525–526n.), ἐπειγόμενος
(6.388, etc.): LfgrE.
649–658 A common practice in other scenes of overnight stays (see 644n.) is
here given a narratologically strategic function: Priam must sleep ‘outside’,
i.e. in an antechamber (673), so that he can depart unobserved and without
difficulty during the night (cf. schol. T on 650, end; the truce is accordingly
agreed on now: 656 ff.); in a dangerous situation, Nestor and Diomedes also
sleep ‘outside’, ready for action (10.74 f./151, with the sense: ‘outdoors’; cf.
Hainsworth on 10.74). Achilleus’ orders also fulfil two additional purposes:
they correspond to (1) Zeus’ assurance that Achilleus will protect his guests
from the other Achaians (156 = 185), and (2) Achilleus’ reluctance to have the
reunion of Priam with Hektor’s body take place in his presence (582–586n.). –
But the justification supplied by Achilleus (spontaneous seeking of advice/
counsel by the other Achaian leaders: 650b–655) is likely an ad hoc invention
(cf. Rothe 1910, 331 f.): although not plucked out of thin air or unbelievable (cf.
the embassy visiting Achilleus in Book 9 and the Achaians’ night-time council
in Book 10; Hermes will warn Priam of the same thing: 687 f.), it is neverthe-
less phrased in an exaggerated manner (‘always’ at 651; cf. 72b–73 with n.); a
typical set phrase for such pretexts: ‘as is customary’ (652; cf. 2.73n.; Macleod;
Richardson).
The participle ἐπικερτομέων in the speech introduction formulaP at 649 should refer
to this supposed justification as well, although the exact implication is disputed; at
any rate, as a part of the typical structure of a speech introduction formula (on which,
55n.), it intimates the situational intent and tone of the speech (as at 55 χολωσαμένη,
64 ἀπαμειβόμενος, and others; list in Clarke 2001, 330 n. 9). The basic meaning of the
word family κερτομ- appears to be ‘provoke’, with the provocation being either overt
and aggressive or covert and subtle, frequently with an element of pretence by the
speaker and – in contrast to the present passage – a violent reaction by the address-
ee (e.g. 1.539 ff., 4.5 ff., Od. 9.474 ff., 16.85 ff., 24.235 ff.; see 1.539n.; Hooker [1986] 1996;
Clay 1999). In the parallel passages 16.744 and Od. 22.194 (the only additional Homeric
attestations of the compound ἐπικερτομέων) in particular, the participle characterizes a
sneering, sarcastic speech of triumph over a defeated opponent: Patroklos over Hektor’s
charioteer Kebriones and Eumaios over Melanthios. But renewed verbal aggression by
Achilleus against Priam (as at e.g. 559–570) should be ruled out here after the concilia-
tory tenor of the meal (esp. 628–632): overall, the speech is kind and benevolent. The
provocative element – in the broadest sense – of the present passage must thus reside
in Achilleus implicitly communicating to his guest that the time for his return has ar-
648 δοιὼ λέχε’: ‘two beds’ (acc. dual).

240 Iliad 24
rived, but without ‘throwing him out’ expressis verbis – ἐπικερτομέω here also in the
sense ‘give a hint, allude’ (cf. Clay loc. cit. 619; Lloyd 2004, esp. 76–78, 87–89; similarly
Macleod: ‘polite deception’). Different interpretations: (a) ἐπικερτομέων here has the
weakened sense ‘teasingly, in jest’, i.e. Achilleus does not take his own justification en-
tirely seriously (Peppmüller; Willcock; Bergold 1977, 136 n. 1; guardedly Leaf; cf.
the understatement at 655 [650–655n.]); (b) the provocation is directed at Agamemnon
rather than Priam (insofar as Achilleus is going over his head in this matter): ‘mock-
ingly, scornfully’ (see the bibliography cited in Peppmüller p. 304 f. n. † and Leaf;
Postlethwaite 1998, 102 f.; Tsomis 2010; cf. 650–655n., end; the thesis advanced by
Gottesman 2008, esp. 8 f., aims in a similar direction: Achilleus’ speech serves to assert
his authority).
649 1st VH to caesura C 1 ≈ 16.744, Od. 22.194 (προσέφης); 2nd VH = 138, etc. (see ad loc.).
— ἐπικερτομέων: see 649–658n.
650–655 The description of the fourth dangerous situation in which Priam finds
himself (349–361n.) contains literal echoes of the first (653 = 366; Martinazzoli
on 653): Priam might be discovered by an Achaian leader and betrayed to
Agamemnon. Achilleus avoids explicit description of the possible conse-
quences by using the impersonal phrasing at 655 (with n.) (understatement;
cf. Macleod ad loc.: euphemism; Jones 1973, 10: ‘vague possibility’); Hermes
will be somewhat more direct at 685–688. – The difference in opinion between
Achilleus and Agamemnon hinted at calls to mind the confrontation between
the two men in Book 1; on the contrast here between the polite Achilleus and
the severe Agamemnon, see Strasburger 1954, 87; Collins 1988, 101 f.
650 μὲν δή: states the fulfillment of Priam’s wish (635 λέξον νῦν με τάχιστα) with em-
phasis on ἐκτός ‘outside’ (placed at VB), and prepares the further request at 656 (ἀλλ’
ἄγε …), cf. Od. 23.257–261 εὐνὴ μὲν δὴ σοί γε τότ’ ἔσσεται …· ἀλλ’ … εἴπ’ ἄγε μοι …; for
more, see 599n. — γέρον φίλε: ‘This address shows that Achilleus has overcome all
bitterness; previously only γέρον or Πρίαμε, 618 δῖε γεραιέ’ (AH [transl.]), i.e. Priam is
now Achilleus’ guest-friend in a pregnant sense (φίλος); Priam himself pleaded to Zeus
at 309 for such a reception: δός μ(ε) … φίλον ἐλθεῖν (Zanker 1994, 123; Kim 2000, 63 f.;
Hammer 2002, 193). – γέρον φίλε elsewhere only at Od. 3.357 (Athene/Mentor address-
ing Nestor, same position in verse). — μή: ‘out of concern/fear that’; introduces an inde-
pendent fear-clause (K.-G. 1.224; Schw. 2.674 f.; cf. 53n.).
651–652 βουληφόρος, οἵ τε … | βουλὰς βουλεύουσι: The relative clause provides the
rationale for why the arrival of a council member must be reckoned with at any time,
while simultaneously explaining the term βουληφόρος (on such relative clauses, 479n.).

650 λέξο: 2nd pers. sing. aor. imper. mid. (cf. 635n.), ‘lay down to sleep!’.
651 ἐπέλθησιν: on the inflection, R 16.3. — τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μοι: to be taken with
παρήμενοι.
Commentary 241
βουλὰς βουλεύειν is a figura etymologica and means ‘to hold council, consult’ (VB of 652
≈ 10.147/327/415, Od. 6.61; in contrast Il. 9.75 βουλὴν β. ‘to give particular advice, make a
suggestion’). On the ‘council’ as a body, see 1.144n.; cf. 2.194n. – The plural βουλεύουσι
is used either because of an implicit τις Ἀχαιῶν … βουληφόρων (Ruijgh 408) or be-
cause βουληφόρος can be understood as a collective (AH; Erbse 1960, 246); parallels in
Chantr. 2.21. — ἣ θέμις ἐστίν: a formula at VE (3× Il., 2× Od., 1× Hes.), VB (3× Il., 1× Od.)
and in verse middle (1× Od., 1× h.Hom.). On its use as a set phrase: 649–658n.
653 = 366 (Hermes addressing Priam; see ad loc.).
654 Ἀγαμέμνονι ποιμένι λαῶν: an inflectible VE formula; list of iterata: 2.254n. (dat.),
2.243n. (acc.); variant in gen.: Ἀγαμέμνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο (1.203, etc.; see ad loc.).
655 ἀνάβλησις λύσιος νεκροῖο γένοιτο: ‘a Homeric approximation of bureaucratese’
(Gottesman 2008, 9): an unusual accumulation of substantives (noun-heavy style;
ἀνάβλησις in Homer also at 2.380 ἀ. κακοῦ ἔσσεται, λύσις also at Od. 9.421 f. εἴ τιν’
ἑταίροισιν θανάτου λύσιν … | εὑροίμην), specifically of verbal abstracts (action nouns)
in -σις as e.g. Thuc. 1.137.4 γράψας τήν τε ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος προάγγελσιν τῆς ἀναχωρήσεως;
see Schw. 2.356 f. and in general Porzig 1942, 20–22; Krarup 1948. On the meaning of
the clause, see 650–655n.
656 = 380 (see ad loc.). — κατάλεξον: In response to the question ποσσῆμαρ …, Priam in
fact supplies a formal ‘enumeration’ of the time required (664–667): Becker 1937, 105 f.;
Perceau 2002, 58 f.
657 2nd VH ≈ 9.356. — ποσσῆμαρ: a hapax legomenonP; on the word formation (πόσ(σ)ος
+ ἦμαρ), see 73n.; LfgrE. — μέμονας: here probably in the weakened sense ‘want, have
in mind’ (Martinazzoli; Kirk on 7.36; LfgrE s.v. 123.57 ff.; Bertolín Cebrián 1996, 31);
elsewhere ‘vigorously aspire, have the urge’ (2.473n.). — κτερεϊζέμεν: 38n. — Ἕκτορα
δῖον: 22n.
658 A truce for the burial of the dead was also agreed on at 7.375–378 ≈ 7.394–
397, there officially with all concerned, here privately between Achilleus and
Priam – yet another indication of how close the two men have become, es-
pecially given that Achilleus now goes even beyond Zeus’ orders at 133–137
(on the ‘focus on strictly private relationships’ in the Achilleus-Priam episode
overall, see Elmer 2013, 180–182). The question posed since antiquity – e.g.
in schol. D on 671 – as to whether Achilleus exceeds his military and political
competence with the truce (cf. 23.156 f.) is thus idle: ‘Should Achilleus say to
Priam: «I will convey your request to Agamemnon and the other leaders and
653 τῶν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — σε (ϝ)ίδοιτο: on the prosody, R 4.3.

655 κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — λύσιος: on the inflection, R 11.3.
656 τόδε (ϝ)ειπέ: on the prosody, R 4.3.
657 ποσσῆμαρ: ‘how many days’; on the -σσ-, R 9.1. — κτερεϊζέμεν: inf. (R 16.4).
658 τέως: ‘so long’ (adv.).
242 Iliad 24
send word to you if they agree», thus sending Priam away in a state of uncer-
tainty?’ (Rothe 1910, 331 f. [transl.]).
τέως: on the prosody, 19.189n. — μένω … ἐρύκω: subjunctives; for both verbs, a mean-
ing can be posited that relates to both (a) the location and (b) the action: μένειν (a) ‘to
remain in the camp’ (AH), (b) ‘remain quiescent, take no action’ (Cunliffe), ‘to wait’
(LfgrE); ἐρύκειν (a) ‘to retain in the camp’, (b) ‘to prevent from fighting’ (cf. LfgrE). – On
the motif ‘to pause and keep others back’ in general, cf. 2.191, 5.822 f., 15.723.
659–667 Priam gratefully accepts Achilleus’ offer of a truce and sketches his fur-
ther course of action – what is customary for funerary rituals. With its refer-
ence to the resumption of battle, 667 contains an external prolepsisP beyond
the actual end of the Iliad (‘12th day’ = the first day after the story): the tempo-
rary truce does nothing to avert the imminent destruction of Troy (Morrison
1992, 102 f.; Taplin 1992, 282 f.). – The fact that both the beginning (1.425/493:
Zeus among the Aithiopians) and the end of the Iliad are structured by twelve-
day periods might be due to the poet’s desire to ‘distinguish via two great cae-
surae’ his narrative ‘from the mass of the epic tradition’: Latacz (1981) 1994,
201 f. (transl.); on twelve-day periods in general, 31n.
659 = 372, etc. (see ad loc.).
660 2nd VH ≈ 657 in terms of sense. — εἰ μὲν δή: 406n. — τελέσαι τάφον: ‘to conduct the
funerary ritual’, cf. τέλος γάμοιο Od. 20.74, τελέειν γάμον ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.85; on the mean-
ing of τελέω, see Gundert 1983, 55 (transl.): ‘The question is not whether the funeral
will be «completed» […], but rather whether it can take place at all or will be prevented
by battle’ (differently Porzig 1942, 54 f.: a mere paraphrase of θάπτω); on τάφος, see
804n. — Ἕκτορι δίῳ: a VE formula (11× Il.), cf. 22n.
661 ὧδε: pointing ahead to 664 ff.: ‘as 〈I will say in a moment〉; what follows’ (AH; Leaf). —
κεχαρισμένα θείης: χαρίζομαι refers not only to the effect on the recipient (‘gratifying,
pleasant’) but also to the – kindly – attitude of the donor, cf. Od. 8.584–586, 10.43 (Latacz
1966, 120 f.), thus ‘would you do me a favor and prove your kindness’ (cf. Macleod;
Perceau 2002, 60). On the formulation with τίθημι, cf. Od. 15.488 f. σοὶ … ἐσθλὸν ἔθηκε |
Ζεύς (cf. 538–542n., end), elsewhere generally in negative contexts (‘cause hassle, pain,
grief’: LfgrE s.v. τίθημι 484.3 ff.). – The actual protasis to κεχαρισμένα θείης is not con-
tained in the εἰ-clause at 660, but in ὧδε … ῥέζων (Hentze 1870, 146).
662–663 and wood is far to bring in: This is realized in what follows at 777 ff.
The portrayal of the procurement of wood for the pyre reflects the mood of the
660 μ(ε): subject acc. of τελέσαι. — ἐθέλεις: here, as often, with the meaning ‘be in agreement’.
661 ὧδε … ῥέζων: conditional. — κέ μοι: to be taken with κεχαρισμένα θείης; κε = ἄν (R 24.5). —
θείης: in the sense ‘prepare, do’.
662 κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ (ϝ)ε(ϝ)έλμεθα: on the prosody, R 4.3 and 5.4. — ἐέλμεθα: perf. mid.-pass. of
εἰλέω ‘confine, pen up, hem in’. — τηλόθι δ’ ὕλη: sc. ἐστίν; τηλόθι ‘at a distance, far away’ (R 15.2).
Commentary 243
situations in the passages concerned: a much abbreviated narrative at 7.417–

432 with a stressed parallelism of Achaians with Trojans; a detailed technical
description of the tasks carried out in honor of Patroklos at 23.110–128 as a
balance to the preceding emotionally intense scene (Richardson on 23.109–
126; cf. 266–274n.); the procurement of wood for Hektor’s pyre characterized
by fear and exertion here and at 777–784: the Trojans’ situation is precarious
(besiegement), the destruction of the city, a fate sealed with Hektor’s death,
casts its shadows ahead (allusion to the ‘end game’: Oka 1990, 28 f.; cf. 799–
800n.). As a result, the entire nine-day period of mourning is tarnished by this
mood (change of perspective: 664 ‘nine days of mourning’ → 784 ‘nine days
of gathering wood’ [cf. 784n.]). On a psychological level, the present verses
are easily intelligible: Priam appeals to Achilleus’ pity and takes him to task
with an introductory ‘as you know’ (Macleod on 662; Perceau 2002, 60; cf.
Leaf). Differently Peppmüller on 661 ff.; AH on 663; West 2001, 280 f.: 662 f.
have been added as a (belated) justification to reconcile Priam’s programmatic
speech with its implementation (777–784).
οἶσθα γάρ, ὡς: an inflectible VB formula (also at Od. 23.60; with οἶδα: Il. 4.360, Od.
10.267, 11.69). — ὡς: both a modal (‘how’) and a factual meaning (‘that’) are possible,
see Tzamali 1996, 318 f. — κατὰ ἄστυ ἐέλμεθα: In the Iliad, medio-passive εἰλέομαι re-
peatedly denotes the besieged state of Troy (during both retreat and flight of the Trojans
to their city: 16.714, 18.286 f., 21.534/607, 22.12/47). — τηλόθι δ’ ὕλη | ἀξέμεν: an inani-
mate subject in the nominal clause with a final-consecutive inf., as at 9.227 f. πάρα γὰρ
μενοεικέα πολλά | δαίνυσθ(αι), Od. 3.349 f. οὔ τι χλαῖναι καὶ ῥήγεα πόλλ’ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ | …
ἐνεύδειν; cf. Schw. 2.362 f. — ἀξέμεν: a thematic s-aorist (6.52–53a n.).
δεδίασιν: the only form of δείδια ‘be afraid, fear’ without compensatory lengthening (loss of digam-
ma: δε-δϝ- > δειδ-, cf. G 27; but in Attic regularly δεδ-: Schw. 1.227, 769) in Homer, but also the only
example of the verb in the 3rd pers. plpf. in early epic as a whole. δειδίᾱσιν would be unmetrical
(Schulze 1892, 88; Chantr. 1.162), δειδίᾰσιν morphologically unusual (perf. ending -ᾰσι only 2×
Od.: Garvie on Od. 7.114).
664–667 The anaphoric enumeration of days (9–10–11–12, in each case at VB,
typical numbersP) corresponds to the ritual procedure of the funeral (thus also
serving as an internal prolepsisP, cf. 665n.); at the same time, it fulfills the ‘for-
malities’ of a truce agreement (656n.). – A nine-day period (on which in gen-
eral, 31n.) is repeatedly attested in funerary ritual; at Od. 24.63–65, Achilleus
is mourned for 17 days and cremated on the 18th (= 2×9), see Andronikos
1968, 9; additional examples in Roscher 1904, 63 f.; Richardson on 660–667;
cf. 610; on nine-day periods in cult and ritual overall: Richardson on h.Cer.
p. 165 f. Nevertheless, a one- or two-day prothesis is more common (so too in
the case of Patroklos): Andronikos loc. cit.; Garland 1985, 26.
244 Iliad 24
ἐννῆμαρ μέν: VB 5× in early epic, followed by τῇ δεκάτῃ δέ (sc. ἡμέρῃ), as here, at

1.53 f., Od. 10.28 f.; in contrast, ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ δεκάτη … at 784 f., h.Cer. 47/51. On the for-
mation of ἐννῆμαρ, see 73n., 1.53n. — ἐνὶ μεγάροις: 208b–209a n. — γοάοιμεν: denotes
ritual lament (160n.).
665 feast: realized at 801–803. Like lament, cremation and the erection of a grave
monument, the feast is a set part of funerary ritual (even held after the deaths
of Aigisthos and Klytaimestra: Od. 3.309 f., see West ad loc.; additional paral-
lels in Samter 1923, 158 ff.); it is employed, however, in different ways by the
Homeric narrator: when funerary games take place after the funeral, the latter
recedes into the background (held already before the cremation: Il. 23.28 f.;
unmentioned: Od. 24.43–92; cf. Mylonas 1948, 57; Richardson on 23.1–34),
while it otherwise occurs at the end of the festivities. The discrepancies within
the present episode (at 665 f., funerary feast between cremation and construc-
tion of the grave; at 801–803, after construction of the grave) are either due to
the composition (funerary feast as the solemn conclusion of the Iliad; with an
eye not so much to the dead Hektor as to the surviving Trojans: Edwards 1986,
84 f., 90; 1987, 315; Di Benedetto [1994] 1998, 269 f.; cf. 803n.) or are irrele-
vant, given the typical numbers of the days (9th/10th/11th day as variables):
Macleod on 801–803; cf. Andronikos 1968, 16–18.
δαινυῖτο: restored form of the 3rd pers. sing. pres. opt.; the mss. transmit δαίνυτο/δαινῦτο without
the -ι- that signals the optative and with variable accentuation (cf. schol. A), and a similar phenom-
enon occurs frequently with the aor. opt. of δύω (e.g. Il. 16.99 ἐκδῦμεν, Od. 9.377 ἀναδύη); additional
examples in Schw. 1.795 and Chantr. 1.51. The date at which the contraction from υι > ῡ occured
is disputed (pre-Homeric: Leaf; Wackernagel [1891] 1979, 1591 f.; Tucker 1990, 373 n. 91; post-Ho-
meric: Bekker 1863, 69 f.; van Leeuwen [1894] 1918, 232, 238; Schw. 1.199 f.).
666 The construction of the grave is described at 797–801.
667 πτολεμίξομεν: probably spoken in a resigned tone, i.e. either a future with concessive
meaning (as at 717 ἄσεσθε; see ad loc.) with the sense ‘the battle may continue then’, or
a short-voweled aor. subjunc. ‘let us continue fighting then’ (Macleod); differently AH
(transl.): future ‘as a promise: «we will be ready for battle»’. – The initial syllable πτολ-
(rather than πολ-) frequently occurs in mss. and papyri even where there is no metrical
need for it (Ruijgh 1957, 78–81; West 2001, 210; cf. G 18). On verbs in -ίζω with future/
aorist in -ξ, Chantr. 1.340 f. — εἴ περ ἀνάγκη: ‘if it must be’; εἴ περ is here not conces-
sive, but instead introduces the worst possible case (‘really only if …’; see Bakker 1988,
230–232; Wakker 1994, 319–322).
664 αὐτόν: sc. Hektor. — γοάοιμεν: on the uncontracted form, R 6.

667 δυωδεκάτῃ: Attic δωδεκάτῃ. — πτολεμίξομεν: future or (short-vowel) subjunctive (R 21.2).
Commentary 245
668 ≈ 20.177, 21.149; 1st VH = 378, etc. (see ad loc.); ≈ 217, etc. (see ad loc.); 2nd VH: 21× Il.
— Both halves of the verse are formulaic, but are used in combination only here; alter-
native formulae of response: τὸν/τὴν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα ποδ. δ. Ἀχ. (1.121, 18.181), τὸν/
τὴν δ’ ἀπαμειβόμενος προσέφη πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχ. (138n.); on the diversity of formulae, cf.
372n. — ποδάρκης: a distinctive epithetP of Achilleus, only in the VE formula ποδ. δῖος
Ἀχιλλεύς (on which, and on the disputed meaning of the epithet, see 1.121n. and LfgrE).
On the complementary acc./dat./gen. formulae, see 458n.; on Achilleus’ swiftness in
general, 138n.
669–670 A brief affirmative speech by Achilleus, as at 139 f. (see ad loc.) deliv-
ered in a distinctively friendly tone – and his final words in the Iliad. On the
truce, see 658n.
669 ≈ 21.223. — ἔσται τοι καὶ ταῦτα: In post-Homeric literature usually a clichéd agree-
ment, in early epic by contrast a decisive promise ‘this will come to pass’ (with proph-
ecies and wishes), cf. 21.223 (Achilleus addressing Skamandros) ἔσται ταῦτα … ὡς
σὺ κελεύεις, Od. 16.31/17.599 (Telemachos addressing Eumaios) ἔσσεται οὕτως, ἄττα
(Fraenkel 1962, 77–89, esp. 78). As a result, Achilleus here appears much more resolute
than e.g. at 139 (see ad loc.). – καὶ ταῦτα: namely, after the return of the body, now also
the granting of the truce. — γέρον Πρίαμ(ε): a unique address: in early epic, the voc-
ative γέρον is otherwise never combined with a personal name; perhaps a variation of
the VE formula γέρων Πρίαμος θεοειδής (217n.) as an alternative to γέρον φίλε (650n.),
which would here result in hiatus. — ὡς σὺ κελεύεις: ‘as you desire’; VE formula 4×
Il., 3× Od., 1× h.Merc.; cf. ὡς ἐκέλευες 599n. (loc. cit. on the meaning of κελεύω).
670 2nd VH ≈ Od. 19.169. — σχήσω … πόλεμον: with the sense ‘bring to a halt, interrupt’ (≈
παύω as at e.g. 7.29 παύσωμεν πόλεμον; cf. 19.119 ἀπέπαυσε τόκον, σχέθε δ’ Εἰλειθυίας,
Od. 5.451 [river] παῦσεν ἑὸν ῥόον, ἔσχε δὲ κῦμα; additional examples of ἔχειν in this
sense in Graz 1965, 266 n. 1; LfgrE s.v. 845.71 ff.). Differently Il. 14.99 f. οὐ γὰρ Ἀχαιοί |
σχήσουσιν πόλεμον ‘will not endure’ (AH). – πόλεμος in early epic usually means ‘fight/
fighting’ as an activity, less frequently ‘war’ (6.203n. with bibliography).
671–672 While the handshake seals a mutual agreement (6.233n.; Kitts 2005,
79–84), the friendly, reassuring gesture here emanates from Achilleus alone.
He thus underscores the oral promise given at 669 f. (schol. bT) and encourag-
es Priam (672; see ad loc.); the closest parallel (‘took by the right hand at the
wrist’): Odysseus during his parting from Penelope (Od. 18.258). So too in the
present passage, the gesture proves to be one of farewell: this is the last con-
tact between the two characters in the Iliad. More on the gesture: Macleod;
Lateiner 1995, 57; Boegehold 1999, 17 f.; on gestures of greeting, see 361n.
671 2nd VH ≈ 18.594, 21.489, h.Ap. 196. — ὣς ἄρα φωνήσας: 468n.
669 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1).

670 τόσσον … ὅσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
246 Iliad 24
672 2nd VH ≈ Od. 16.331; VE ≈ Il. 13.163, Od. 16.306. — might have no fear: likely
a reference to Priam’s just-mentioned fear of an attack on the Trojans outside
the city walls (662 f.) and thus to the possibility that the Achaians might break
the truce just promised (778–781). But the possibility of an indirect reference to
the worry – put forward by Achilleus in the preceding speech, later repeated by
Hermes – that Priam might be discovered during the night cannot be entirely
excluded (650–655 [see ad loc.], 683–689; thus Deichgräber 1972, 77; Jones
1989, 249).
673–676 For the iterata, see 635–676n. — Resumption of the type-sceneP ‘over-
night stay’ (635–676n.). Elements 6 and 7 are here particularly pregnant
(Edwards 1987a, 58; Macleod): despite the danger, Priam and Idaios sleep
‘on the spot’ in the antechamber (673; cf. 644n.); Achilleus lies in his bed –
the final image the Iliad offers of him (Frontisi-Ducroux 1986, 74–76). In
contrast to his restlessness at the beginning of Book 24 (4 ff.), he is now calm
and lying next to a woman, in accord with Thetis’ recommendation (128–132):
Briseïs, whom Agamemnon took from him in Book 1 and who was temporarily
replaced by a different concubine in Book 9 (9.663–665): a return to the status
quo (cf. 621–676n.; 19.297b–299n.; Schadewaldt [1944a] 1965, 349; Edwards
1987, 313). Only one person is missing: Patroklos (mentioned in the overnight
stay scene at 9.666, cf. 477–571n.); see Taplin 1986, 17 f.; 1992, 80–82.
674 = 282. — On reading the formulaP of the 2nd VH as either ornamental or
contextually relevant, see 282n. In the second case, this would mean that the
thoughts of Priam and Idaios circle around the dangers of the night and the
imminent journey back to Troy (Reinhardt 1961, 502 n. 19; Deichgräber
1972, 76 f.; Dué/Ebbott 2010, 235); in other passages, however, the mulling
over of matters is expressed via a less ambiguous formulation: 10.4, 24.680,
Od. 15.8.
675 αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: 59n. — μυχῷ: ‘in the interior part’, in contrast to ‘outside’ (650/673);
see 6.152n. — ἐϋπήκτου: an epithet of closed rooms, always at VE (2.661n.).
676 2nd VH ≈ ‘Hes.’ fr. 343.5 M.-W. — καλλιπάρηος: an epithet of women (1.143n.); else-
where of Briseïs in the VE formula Βρισηΐδα καλλιπάρηον (1.184n.).
672 ἔλλαβε: on the -λλ-, R 9.1. — δεξιτερήν: = δεξιάν; on the -η- after -ρ-, R 2.
673 αὐτόθι: ‘there, on the spot’ (cf. R 15.2).
674 μήδε(α): ‘ideas, strategems’.
675 μυχῷ: indication of place without preposition (R 19.2).
676 παρελέξατο: cf. 635n.
Commentary 247
677–718 During the night, Hermes urges Priam to return to Troy. Kassandra catches
the first sight of the men as they return. The Trojans gather before the city walls to
receive them.
677–695 After the detailed depiction of Priam’s outward journey under the
protection of Hermes (333–469a), the narrator can here forego the details of
Hermes’ second appearance and Priam’s return journey (Lorimer 1950, 471). It
thus initially remains unclear whether Hermes should be thought of as a dream
figure (like e.g. Athene in the guise of a friend with Nausikaa: Od. 6.15–51) or
as a divine warning in persona (like Athene with Telemachos lying awake: Od.
15.1–47), especially given that Hermes revealed himself at the end of the first
journey (460 f. with n.; ‘supernatural visitant’ is a neutral term for this: Gunn
1971, 15–17 [see 2.6n.]; further discussion in Hundt 1935, 98 f.; Kessels 1978,
58 f.; Brillante 1990, 40–46, who considers the boundaries between sleep
and waking to be particularly obscured here: on the one hand, Priam’s waking
is not mentioned [689]; on the other hand, Hermes is involved in the subse-
quent action beyond his appearance at Priam’s bed [690–694]; cf. also 343–
344n. on Hermes’ role). Formally, the narrative follows the type-sceneP ‘dream’
(2.16–49n.): (1) night/sleep, expanded by the sleeplessness of Hermes himself:
677–681; (4) the description of the situation has already been anticipated at
673 f. (those sought are asleep); (5) Hermes approaches (682) and (6) speaks
(683–688); (8) Priam responds (689); Hermes accompanies the two back to the
ford and (7) disappears only then (690–694); (9) daybreak (695; cf. element 8
of the type-scene ‘overnight stay’: 635–676n.).
677–682 Just as Zeus lies awake at the beginning of Book 2 pondering how to
realize Thetis’ plea, so Hermes here searches for a way to conduct Priam safely
back to Troy in order to carry out the orders he received from Zeus (334–338),
thus setting the story in motion again in the middle of the night. On the nar-
rative patterns in detail, 2.1–6n. (on the pattern ‘all are asleep except one’, cf.
also 2b–13n., end). On additional parallels between Books 2 and 24 of the Iliad,
see 133n.
677–678 = 2.1–2a (see ad loc.); 678 = 10.2 (and VB of 677 ≈ 10.1, VB of 679 ≈ 10.3);
2nd VH of 678 ≈ Od. 15.6, VE of 678 ≈ Od. 7.318, 13.119. — bondage: cf. 5n.
μαλακῷ: in a metaphorical sense (‘gentle’) an epithet of sleep (ὕπνος, κῶμα; cf. 2.2n. on
νήδυμος) and words/speeches (cf. 1.582n.).
679 ὕπνος ἔμαρπτεν: cf. 5n. (ᾕρει). — ἐριούνιον: 360n.
677 ῥα: = ἄρα (R 24 1). — καὶ ἀνέρες: on the correption, R 5.5. — ἀνέρες: = ἄνδρες; initial syllable
248 Iliad 24
680–681 An abbreviated type-sceneP of considering the most advantageous

course of action: Hermes’ decision is not stated but directly enacted in word
and deed. On the basic pattern, see 2.3–7n. — not be seen by the […] gate-war-
dens: Priam must leave the Achaian camp before the wardens wake from their
sleep (induced at 445 f. by Hermes himself); a similar situation: Diomedes in
the camp of the Thracians (10.507–514).
680 1st VH ≈ 21.137, Od. 2 156. — ἀνὰ θυμόν: a formulaic specification for the mental seat
of authority (518n.; 1.24n., 2.36n.). — Πρίαμον βασιλῆα: a unique expression, perhaps
a secondary focalizationP by Hermes (Friedrich 2007, 103 f.); metrically equivalent to
the similarly unique expression Πρίαμον θεοειδέα ͜ (483, VE) that otherwise occurs in the
nom.: (γέρων) Πρίαμος θεοειδής, see 217n.; gen. variant: Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος (2.373n.). –
In Homer, VE formulae with personal names in the gen./dat./acc. + βασιλῆος/-ῆϊ/-ῆα
are attested only 11× (including 4× Alkinoos); see also 803n.
681 νηῶν: i.e. ‘from the (Achaian) encampment of ships’ (cf. 1n.). — ἱεροὺς πυλαωρούς:
On the role of the guards in Book 24, cf. 444 (with 443–447n.), 566. – ἱερός, attested al-
ready in Mycenaean as ‘sacred’, is used sporadically in Homer in connection with terms
that at first glance appear to lack any ‘affinity with the divine, sacredness’, namely ἰχθύς
16.407 (fishing simile), δίφρος 17.464, στρατός Od. 24.81; interpretations are numerous
(see Janko, Edwards, Heubeck on the relevant passages, also Russo on Od. 18.60,
all with further bibliography). A meaning ‘strong, active, energetic’ vel sim. is usually
posited on the basis of the etymological relationship with Vedic iṣirá- (García-Ramón
1992, esp. 183 and 185–188 [with bibliography]; Clarke 1995a). The closest parallel
to the present passage may well be Il. 10.56 φυλάκων ἱερὸν τέλος ‘the sacred duty of
the guards’; in this context, the attribute perhaps indicates the protection of the office
granted by Zeus (as in the case of kings and heralds: LfgrE s.v. ἱερός 1143.66 ff.) or more
generally ‘the importance and dignity of guarding’, cf. 21.530 ἀγακλειτοὺς πυλαωρούς
(Wülfing-v. Martitz 1960, 300 f. [transl.]; so too Leaf and Hainsworth on 10.56;
Macleod); a transfer from the ‘sacred walls’ where the wardens fulfil their duties is
also possible – ἱερός occasionally occurs as an epithet of urban walls (4.378, 16.100)
and of towns more generally (1.38n.), see LfgrE s.v. πυλαωρός; Scully 1990, 50 f. with
n. 16.
682 = 23.68, Od. 4.803, 6.21, 20.32, 23.4; ≈ Il. 2.59; 1st VH = 2.20. — On the notion
that dream figures approach sleepers ‘by their head’, see 2.20n.: ‘the shortest
path to influence’.
πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν: a VE formula (485n.).
680 ὁρμαίνοντ(α): to be taken with Ἑρμείαν. — βασιλῆα: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3.

681 νηῶν: on the inflection, R 12.1. — λαθών: refers syntactically to Hermes, but applicable also
to Priam (and Idaios).
682 στῆ: = ἔστη; on the unaugmented form, R 16.1. — μιν … μῦθον: double acc.; μιν = αὐτόν
(R 14.1). — πρὸς … ἔ(ϝ)ειπεν: = προσεῖπεν; on the so-called tmesis, R 20.2.
Commentary 249
683–688 Homeric dream speeches (element 6 of the type-scene ‘dream’: 677–

695n.) follow a relatively fixed pattern. The following components are typical:
(1) address, mention of the state of sleep, accusation of carelessness (683 f.),
(2) specification of the current situation or danger (685–688), (3) assignment/
counsel (here implemented immediately); see Kessels 1978, 134, 141–143; Lévy
1982, 36–41; de Jong on Od. 6.25–40 (cf. 2.23–34n., 2.23–25n.). – At 685–688,
the warning of danger in the Achaian camp already expressed by Achilleus
at 650–655 is clarified and reinforced by the god Hermes (on Priam’s perilous
situation, cf. 349–361n., end).
683 οὔ νυ: 33n.; Hermes’ reprimand can be understood as a question or an exclamation
(Martinazzoli). — οἷον: explanatory, ‘〈if I see〉 how; 〈according to〉 how’ (Willcock;
Macleod), corresponds to ὅτι οὕτως (K.-G. 2.370 f.; cf. 2.320n., 6.166n.); the ‘how’ is to
be understood modally (419n.), i.e. ‘how calm/unconcerned …’ (AH).
684 1st VH ≈ Od. 19.110. — δηΐοισιν: on the prosody, 6.81–82n. — ἐπεί σ’ εἴασεν Ἀχιλλεύς:
cf. 557 (said by Priam himself). – ‘The stress is on Ἀχιλλεύς: the mercy of Achilleus
makes you forget the danger looming in the shape of others (687 f.)’ (AH [transl.]). On
the sense of ἐάω, see 557n.
685–686 A paratactic enumeration with dé ‘but, and’. The implication is: ‘given
that you have paid a great ransom for your dead son, your sons would have to
pay three times that for you alive’ (AH [transl.]). Fundamentals of parataxis in
K.-G. 2.226, 229 f.; Chantr. 2.351 ff.
685 2nd VH ≈ 21.42; VE (after caesura C 2) ≈ 11.243, Od. 7.264. — καὶ νῦν μέν: νῦν μέν ap-
pears to prepare the contrast with σεῖο δέ κε; on the shift in the contrasting term (νῦν –
σεῖο rather than υἱὸν – σεῖο), cf. 1.18–20n.; K.-G. 2.268. The nuance of καί is difficult to
determine, perhaps adversative: ‘and yet’ (AH); approximately: ‘Are you not aware of
any evil? And yet you are in great danger’. On adversative καί, see Verdenius 1955, 15
(with examples and bibliography).
686–687a three times as much: a typical numberP, frequently used as a figure
for compensation, etc. (1.128, 1.213 with nn., 21.80). — for you, who are alive:
an implicit antithesis versus the ‘〈dead〉 son’ at 685. Aside from this, it is usu-
ally the father who must pay the ransom for his (captive) son, not the reverse:
2.239–231, 6.46–50, etc. (Wilson 2002, 29, 150; cf. 76n.).
683 οὐ … τι: τι (‘in some way’: R 19.1) intensifies the negation. — ἔθ’: = ἔτι.
684 δηΐοισιν: on the inflection, R 11.2.
685 ἐλύσαο: 2nd pers. sing. aor. mid. (on the uncontracted form, R 6).
686 σεῖο: = σοῦ (R 14.1); gen. dependent on ἄποινα ‘ransom for …’. — κε: = ἄν (R 24.5).
250 Iliad 24
687b–688 The threatening nature of the situation is highlighted stylistical-

ly: (a) anaphora gnṓēi – gnṓōsi ‘recognize … learn of’ with intensification
‘Agamemnon’ – ‘all Achaians’ (Macleod on 688; cf. 2.364–368n.; Fehling
1969, 193); (b) emphatic position of the personal name at VE (Agamemnon at
687) and the patronymic in progressive enjambmentP (Atreïdes at 688), see
2.576–577a n. – On the role of Agamemnon, cf. 654 (650–655n.).
688 1st VH ≈ 1.411, 16.273; 2nd VH = 23.661; VE = 19.173, 23.766, 23.840 and 5× Od. — γνώῃ:
on the structure of the mixed conditional (protasis: prospective subjunc.; apodosis: po-
tential [686]), see K.-G. 2.474 f.; cf. 57n., 220–222n.
689 ≈ 1.33, 24.571. — The short sentences reflect Priam’s fright, the increased
narrative speed (storyP) his rushed departure; the brevity of the description is
especially notable in contrast to Agamemnon’s detailed waking and dressing
scene at 2.36–47. Cf. 677–695n.; Kurz 1966, 57 f.; de Jong 1992, 396.
690–691 A short type-sceneP ‘chariot-ride’ (189–328n.): (1) harnessing the hors-
es, (5) driving. As at 440 f., Hermes sees to the steering of the team of horses
himself, and everything happens ‘quickly’: 440–447n., 446n.; AH on 691. –
The purely dactylic rhythm of 691 (after the largely spondaic 690) perhaps un-
derscores the speed: Richardson on h.Cer. 89, end (with parallels; general
reservations in this regard in Leaf on 6.511).
690 ἵππους ἡμιόνους τε: on the expression, 350n.
691 1st VH ≈ 5.237. — οὐδέ τις ἔγνω: i.e. Priam and Idaios manage to leave the Achaian
camp without incident (contrastive reprise of the verb in anaphora at 688; cf. 681
λαθών); Kassandra, a Trojan, will be the first to ‘notice/recognize’ Priam (698 ἔγνω). On
Hermes’ stealth, cf. 334–338n. – VE ≈ Od. 13.188, 13.299; cf. also Il. 11.526.
692–695 As the day dawns, the god leaves the two in the same location where
night fell and Hermes joined Priam and Idaios on the outward journey (349–
353: transition between safe and unsafe areas, see esp. 349n., 351n.); see
Mackie 1996a, 295.
687 τοι: = σοι (R 14.1), ethic dat. — μετόπισθε λελειμμένοι: ‘remained behind (i.e. at home, in
Troy)’. — αἴ κ(ε): = ἐάν (R 22 1, 24.5).
688 γνώῃ: ‘see and recognize’ (3rd pers. sing. aor. subjunc.); on the uncontracted form, R 6
(likewise γνώωσι).
689 ἔφατ(ο): impf. of φημί; on the middle, R 23. — ἔδδεισεν: = ἔδεισεν; -δδ- < -δϝ- (R 4.5).
690 τοῖσιν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the inflection, R 11.2.
691 οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8).
Commentary 251
692–693 = 14.433 f., 21.1 f. — 693 is preserved in only a few mss.: a so-called con-

cordance interpolation dependent on parallel passages (Macleod; West 2001,
13). — crossing-place of the … river ≈ Od. 1.84; 2nd VH = Il. 24.468 (Hermes’
first departure; see ad loc.), Od. 15.43.
695 ≈ 8.1; 1st VH ≈ 19.1. — Eos: On the reckoning of the days of the action, see 31n.
— yellow robe: 19.1n. – On the abundance of variation in formulae describing
dawn, and on their function as a connection between the divine and human
planes, see Kirk on 2.48–49 and 8.1; Macleod, Introd. 47 f.; cf. also 2.48–49n.,
19.1–2n.
πᾶσαν ἐπ’ αἶαν: a VE formula (4× Il., 1× Od.).
696–709 Just as Priam and Idaios left their relatives behind when the two
reached the plain at 329 ff., they are now received by them again. The narrator
here uses the so-called ‘«action–perception–reaction» pattern’: Priam returns
to Troy with Hektor’s body – is observed by Kassandra – and she reacts with
a speech listing possible responses (‘come and see’: 704–706); this draws the
attention of the Trojans as a group to the men who are returning (707–709); on
the ‘pattern’, see de Jong on Od. 5.279–290 and cf. 349–361n.; on the linking of
perception and emotional response in Homer in general, Schmitt 1990, 157–
166; Bartolotta 2002, 125–128; on noeín ‘to become aware’ (700) specifically,
see von Fritz 1943, 84 f. – This pattern serves to introduce Kassandra into the
action as a character (699n.) and to bring about the final change of scene in the
Iliad – from the encampment of ships to Troy (Hellwig 1964, 75; de Jong [1987]
2004, 107; cf. sceneP).
696–697a οἳ δ(ὲ) … ἔλων … | ἵππους, ἡμίονοι δέ: οἳ δέ picks up 694: Hermes exits, Priam
and Idaios continue their journey. In 697, the mules are the subject of a separate clause
(rather than e.g. VB ἵππους ἡμιόνους τε as at 471), since they play an important role
in the repatriation of Hektor’s body: in what follows, Hektor represents the thematic
focal point (on the significance of the mule wagon, cf. 266–274n.; Düntzer [1847a] 1872,
387; Peppmüller). — ἄστυ ἔλων: Hiatus is rare in this position (3.46n.). — οἰμωγῇ τε
στοναχῇ τε: synonym doubling (48n.); on τε … τε at VE, 2.39n.
697b–698 ≈ h.Cer. 94 f. — aware … at first: On the motif ‘A is the first to rec-
ognize/see/hear B’, cf. 10.532–542, 13.65–67, 22.25 f., 23.450–455, Od. 1.113–118,
692 ἷξον: 3rd pers. pl. aor. of ἵκω ‘arrive at, reach’. — ἐϋρρεῖος: < ἐϋρρεϝέος, gen. of εὐρρεής
‘fair-flowing’. — ποταμοῖο: on the inflection, R 11.2.
695 Ἠώς: ‘dawn’, Attic Ἕως (cf. R 3). — ἐκίδνατο: κίδνημι is an epic by-form of σκεδάννυμι.
696 οἵ: = Priam and Idaios; anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — εἰς ἄστυ: ‘into the city’.
— ἔλων: 3rd pers. pl. impf. of ἐλάω = ἐλαύνω, ‘were driving on’ (durative).
698 πρόσθ(ε): temporal, ‘earlier, before then’. — ἀνδρῶν … γυναικῶν: partitive gen. with τις
ἄλλος.
252 Iliad 24
4.524–528; see also 691n. On the motif ‘no one … before’, cf. 1.547 f., 8.253, 17.14
(Kelly 2007, 256 f.). — no man, no fair-girdled woman: a polar expressionP,
negated with the sense ‘no-one’, e.g. 707 f. (Kemmer 1903, 92 f.).
οὐδέ τις ἄλλος: an inflectible VE formula (masc./fem.: 4× Il., 9× Od., 1× h.Cer.). —
καλλιζώνων τε γυναικῶν: an inflectible VE formula (gen. also at Od. 23.147; nom. Il.
7139; acc. h.Ap. 154), metrical variant βαθυζώνων τε γυν. (h.Cer. 95; acc. Il. 9.594, Od.
3.154, ‘Hes.’ fr. 205.5 M.-W.), cf. also ἐϋζώνοιο γυναικός (Il. 1.429, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 31). The girdle
is a characteristic element of female attire, see e.g. Od. 5.231 f. (Marinatos 1967, 11 f.;
van Wees 2005, 31 n. 66).
699 2nd VH = 19.282, ‘Hes.’ fr. 30.25 M.-W. — Kassandra: mentioned by name
elsewhere in Homer only at 13.366 (Othryoneus had asked for Kassandra’s hand
in exchange for driving the Achaians away from Troy) and at Od. 11.422 (in the
underworld, Agamemnon describes his own death and that of Kassandra; per-
haps also alluded to at Il. 1.113 f., see ad loc.). The narrator could nevertheless
likely assume knowledge of Kassandra’s prophetic gift (post-Homeric exam-
ples: Cypria, Procl. Chrest. § 1 West; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1072 ff.): Kassandra
keeps watch at the right moment, is the first to see the returning party, and
announces Hektor’s repatriation to the entire city; the specification of the lo-
cation, Pergamos, which is the site of the temple of ‘her’ god Apollo (Il. 5.445 f.;
see below 700n.) among other things, might be connected with this; at the same
time, the Homeric narrator has made no explicit reference to Kassandra’s gift
of prophecy (AH on 699/700; Richardson on 699–702; Kullmann 1960, 247;
Beck 1964, 145 f.; Schein 1984, 189; Wathelet 1988, 333 f.; Mazzoldi 2001,
115–117, with further bibliography; on the omission of individual strands of a
myth in Homeric epic, see Dowden 1996, 52 f.; e.g. 6.153/157/183nn.). Additional
interpretations of Kassandra’s appearance: beside the subsequent speeches of
lamentation by Hektor’s wife, mother and sister-in-law, with Kassandra one of
his sisters also has a say (Rothe 1910, 334; cf. schol. bT on 699–700); the refer-
ence to her beauty (comparison to Aphrodite, see below) points to her future
role as the paramour of Agamemnon (who will take her back to his home after
the war ends) and thus to the destruction of Troy (Reinhardt 1961, 59; Taplin
1990, 78). Additional information on the character Kassandra: Wathelet s.v.
and BNP s.v. Cassandra; on her rape by the ‘lesser’ Aias (CH 3) in the sanctuary
of Athene in particular, cf. Od. 1.327, 3.135/145, etc.; post-Homeric mentions in
the Iliou Persis (Procl. Chrest. § 3 West) and at Alcaeus fr. 298 Voigt; see West
and de Jong on Od. 1.325–327; Irmscher 1950, 69–71. — a girl like Aphrodite
the golden: Briseïs is honored with the same comparison, likewise in her
699 Κασσάνδρη, (ϝ)ικέλη: on the prosody, R 4.4; on the -η after -ρ-, R 2.

Commentary 253
only appearance with direct speechP: her lament on seeing the dead Patroklos
(19.282; see ad loc.). At 13.365 f., Kassandra is called the ‘most beautiful among
Priam’s daughters’ – as admittedly is also Laodike at 3.124 (see ad loc.).
ἀλλ’ ἄρα: ἀλλά after οὐκ ἄλλος, οὔ τις vel sim. means ‘no other than’, sometimes with
its own predicate (identical or of similar sense): here ἔγνω – εἰσενόησεν, 19.388 f.
δύνατ(ο) – ἐπίστατο, 18.403–405 εἴδεεν – ἴσαν, Od. 16.204–206 ἐλεύσεται – ἤλυθον. ἄρα
after ἀλλά appears to strengthen the logical cohesion of the sentences thus connect-
ed, cf. 13.714–717, 19.92 f., Od. 24.222–225 (Ebeling s.v. ἄρα II.3.k; Cunliffe s.v. ἄρα 7;
Denniston 42; Faulkner on h.Ven. 10–11). But with the supposition of a pregnant use
of ἄρα (with the sense ‘as is known, evidently’), the particle signals that Kassandra’s
prophetic ability is assumed to be generally recognized (LfgrE s.v. ἄρα 1143.65 ff.).
χρυσῇ: on the form, 21n.
700–702 The verses reflect the natural sequence in which Kassandra recogniz-

es the members of the returning party: first the two men who stand upright,
Priam and Idaios, then the prostrate Hektor; at the same time, this indicates
that Hektor’s body was been successfully repatriated. – The antithesis ‘Priam
is standing, Hektor lying’ prepares for a reminiscence of the time when Hektor
used to return from battle alive (704–706 with n.; Kurz 1966, 59). On the nor-
mal position of people in Homeric wagons, cf. 3.262n.
700 2nd VH ≈ Od. 22.99, 22.112, 24.319, also 6.56, 16.202. — Pergamos: The
Pérgamos is Troy’s ‘acropolis’, i.e. the highest part of the city housing its
political and religious center (6.512n.). Apollo, to whom a temple on the
Pergamos is dedicated, surveys the plain below from this vantage point as well
(4.507 f., 7.20 f.), whereas the Trojans themselves generally use the pýrgos, a
tower with a platform at the Skaian Gate (3.149n.), as a look-out (also at e.g.
21.526 f.).
φίλον: probably with an emotional sense (‘dear, beloved’): Kassandra had anxiously
awaited her father’s return. On the Homeric use of φίλος, see 4n.
701 1st VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 61; ≈ Il. 4.366, 11.198, 13.261, 20.245, Od. 11.583, 24.204 (ἑσταότ’ ἐν …).
— ἀστυβοώτην: a hapaxP; on the meaning, 577n.
702 τόν: The designation of Hektor with a demonstrative pronoun rather than a personal
name (as e.g. in the similar verse 15.9: ‘he [Zeus] saw Hektor lying in the plain’) lends
particular pathos to the statement, especially after the two functional designations ‘fa-
ther’ and ‘herald’ at 700 f.: this is Kassandra’s beloved, longed-for brother, the central
701 ἑσταότ(α): = ἑστῶτα (on the uncontracted form, R 6). — τε (ϝ)αστυβοώτην: on the prosody,
R 4.3.
702 τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); refers to νέκυν (697). — ἴδε: = εἶδε (on the
unaugmented form, R 16.1). — λεχέεσσιν: on the inflection, R 11.3; on the plural, R 18.2.
254 Iliad 24
figure of the Trojan royal family (secondary focalizationP), see Macleod (supplemented
by Rutherford on Od. 19.354); de Jong (1987) 2004, 103 f.; cf. AH on 22.463; 2.778b n.
on ἀρχόν. — ἐφ’ ἡμιόνων: i.e. on the wagon drawn by the mules (as at 356 ἐφ’ ἵππων
= ‘on the wagon’); see 51n.
703 1st VH = 18.37. — to the entire city: In what follows, the narrator repeat-
edly stresses the large number of sympathetic persons (which corresponds to
the enormous significance Hektor had for Troy): 704, 706, 707 f., 712b, 713–715,
then also at 740, 776 f.; cf. Haubold 2000, 97.
κώκυσεν: 200n. — γέγωνε: ‘could be perceived’, here perhaps with an active sense
‘made themselves known, called’ (Garvie on Od. 6.294). Despite its formal equivalence
to the perfect, γέγωνε is here plpf. with the function of an imperfect (thematic ending):
Chantr. 1.438 f.; Shipp (1953) 1972, 115. — ἄστυ: on the use of the term, 327n.
704–706 The contrasts lend a tragic, pathetic note to Kassandra’s speech: by
means of the dead Hektor, an image is evoked of the living hero returning from
battle, so that the joy of the past is evoked by the present grief (with the word
play ‘joyful – joy’ in 705 f.): AH on 705; Deichgräber 1972, 79; Richardson
on 703–706. On Hektor as the city’s protector in general, 499n. — men of Troy
and Trojan women: 215n.
704 ὄψεσθε: Either an imperatival future or an imperative with a future aspect (as οἴσετε,
ἄξετε; for details, see 3.103n.); in any case, such forms (probably formed secondarily)
are used by preference in contexts relating to the future (3.103–105 οἴσετε … οἴσομεν …
ἄξετε, Od. 22.101–106 οἴσω … ἀμφιβαλεῦμαι … δώσω … οἶσε) and/or, as here, with the
connotation ‘goes/comes in order to …’: ὄψεσθε … ἰόντες, likewise at Od. 20.154 ἔρχεσθε
κρήνηνδε καὶ οἴσετε θάσσον ἰοῦσαι, 22.106 οἶσε θέων, also Od. 8.307/313 δεῦθ’ … ὄψεσθ’,
Il. 24.778 ἄξετε … ξύλα ἄστυδε; see the considerations in Chantr. 1.417 f.; Leumann
(1953) 1959, 239 f.; Roth (1970–1974) 1990, 19–40.
705 ≈ 5.157; 2nd VH = 17.207, 22.444. — him come back living | from battle: al-
ways used pathetically of heroes who will not survive (here and in the iterata,
including 3× of Hektor): Segal 1971a, 41 f. – The joy at the warrior’s return from
battle is a typical epic motif (6.480–481n. with examples).
εἴ ποτε: ‘if ever’, with the implication ‘as surely you were often …’ (AH); calls the ad-
dressees to their duty, cf. 22.83 (elsewhere usually in prayers that name services ren-
dered or received in the past: 1.37–42n., 1.503n.).
706 2nd VH ≈ 3.50 (Paris as a μέγα πῆμα, see Macleod on 704–706). — χαίρετ(ε): On the
construction with the dative (νοστήσαντι) and causal clause (ἐπεί), see Latacz 1966,
703 κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.

704 Ἕκτορ(α): acc. object of ὄψεσθε.
705 μάχης ἔκ: = ἐκ μάχης (R 20.2).
706 χαίρετ(ε): impf. (iterative); on the unaugmented form, R 16.1.
Commentary 255
66 f.: the immediate occasion for joy and its deeper reason. — μέγα χάρμα … δήμῳ:
On the formularity of the expression, see 3.50n. with bibliography; on the predicative
verbal noun χάρμα, 3.50–51n.
707–709 The narrator summarily depicts the Trojans congregating from a bird’s-
eye view, allowing him to subsequently focus on individuals (on this narrative
pattern – frequently e.g. in the gathering of armies for battle – see 3.1–14n.
with bibliography; 19.356b–20.3n.). They also congregate on the occasion of
Hektor’s return at 6.237 f. — no man … | nor woman: a polar expressionP
(697b–698n.); ‘woman’ (stressed at VB) may prepare for the important role of
women in the subsequent lament (cf. 723–776n.).
πτόλεϊ: This form of the dative also occurs at 17.152; there with metrically lengthened -ῑ
(before τε), here with the beginning of the following word treated as a double consonant
πτόλεϊ (λ)λίπετ’ (M 4.6; G 16); πόλει is elsewhere usually bisyllabic (e.g. at 706), 1× πόληϊ
(3.50); cf. 18n. — ἀάσχετον: probably = ἄσχετον ‘irresistible, overwhelming’ (16.548 f.
Τρῶας … λάβε πένθος | ἄσχετον, οὐκ ἐπιεικτόν [after Sarpedon’ s death]). The reason
for the doubling of α- is obscure: loss of -ν- (ἀ-αν- or ἀν-α-)? epic diectasis? duplication
of the negative for the sake of clarity? (discussion in AH Anh. on 5.892; Wackernagel
[1878] 1979, 1552–1556; Chantr. 1.83; LfgrE s.v.). — ἵκετο πένθος: VE = 1.362, 18.73, Od.
23.224. ἱκάνω in combination with an abstract subject (frequently a physical/mental
state) and an accusative of the person (or of the body part in question) means ‘over-
come, befall, overtake’, e.g. 3.97 f. ἄλγος ἱκάνει | θυμὸν ἐμόν, 19.307 μ’ ἄχος αἰνὸν ἱκάνει,
etc. (examples: LfgrE s.v. ἱκάνω 1173.41 ff.); cf. 5n. on ᾕρει (verbs of touching), 514n., end
(departing), 19.164–165n. (κίχανω).
709 ἀγχοῦ … πυλάων: ≈ 714 πρὸ πυλάων, i.e. concretely ‘before the Skaian Gate’ (a Trojan
gate that plays an important role elsewhere in the story of the Iliad: 3.145n.). — ἄγοντι:
sc. Πριάμῳ as the person who has achieved Hektor’s repatriation (Peppmüller). On the
construction, cf. Od. 10.105 κούρῃ δὲ ξύμβληντο … ὑδρευούσῃ.
710 2nd VH ≈ 6.471. — On Andromache and Hekabe, cf. 723–776n., 725–745n.,
748–759n.
Asyndeton can occur in Homeric epic ‘when individuals, via the addition of πρῶτος vel
sim., are picked out from a crowd described generally’: Nägelsbach 1864, 52 (on 1.105
[transl.]; cf. Od. 22.212 with similar VB; additional examples in Peppmüller). — ἄλοχός
τε φίλη: an inflectible expression (6.366n. with examples). — πότνια μήτηρ: 126n.
707 αὐτόθ(ι): ‘there, on the spot’ (sc. ἐνὶ πτόλεϊ). — ἐνὶ πτόλεϊ: ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1), πτόλεϊ = πόλει
(R 9.2). — λίπετ(ο): ‘stayed behind’ (mid.-pass.). — ἀνήρ: initial syllable metrically lengthened
(R 10.1).
709 ξύμβληντο: root aor. of συμβάλλω (mid.-pass., with dat. ‘meet, encounter someone’); ξύμ-
= σύμ- (R 20.1). — πυλάων: gen. dependent on ἀγχοῦ; on the inflection, R 11.1.
710 ἄλοχος: Andromache. — μήτηρ: Hekabe.
256 Iliad 24
711–712 Pulling out one’s hair (also known from other cultures) is among the
common Homeric gestures of mourning (19.284–285n. with bibliography); it is
attested already in Mycenaean images, and then more commonly in those from
the Geometric period (Neumann 1965, 86 f.; Vermeule 1965, 128, 142; Iakovidis
1966; van Wees 1998, 19–41; Huber 2001, 59, 82–86, 200–202). Something sim-
ilar is true of touching or holding the deceased’s head by close relatives (712,
724, 18.71 [anticipated lament: Schein 1984, 131 f.], 23.136): Richardson on
23.136 (with archaeological bibliography); Macleod on 712; Alexiou (1974)
2002, 6; Huber 2001, 204 f.; cf. 719–776n.
τιλλέσθην: ‘pulled out their hair in mourning (for Hektor)’; a pregnant use with acc.
of the person mourned (710 τόν γ’) rather than with a term for ‘hair’; similarly post-Ho-
meric κόπτομαι, τύπτομαι: literally ‘beat one’s chest (out of grief)’ (e.g. Hdt. 2 132.2; see
Peppmüller; Macleod on 710–711). — ἄμαξαν ἐΰτροχον: 150n.
712 1st VH ≈ h.Ven. 27; VE = ‘Hes.’ fr. 75.7 M.-W. (during a contest); ≈ Il. 18.603
(during a dance). — the multitude: On the role of the accompanying crowd,
see 703n.
713–717 An ‘if-not’ situationP with expansion of the formula ‘the sun would have
set over their grief, if … had not …’ (23.154, Od. 16.220, 21.226; cf. Od. 23.241 ‘the
sun would have risen …’); see de Jong (1987) 2004, 77, 79; Nesselrath 1992,
26. By indicating that the Trojans would have mourned Hektor before the city
gates forever, the narratorP heightens the pathos of the scene (Lang 1989, 12 f.);
at the same time, he can here once more illustrate Priam’s resolve and determi-
nation: the old king speaks directly from the wagon (715–717); cf. especially his
impatience with the Trojans standing about and his dawdling sons at 237–265,
as well as his order to procure wood after the lament for Hektor at 778–781 (see
ad loc.; Richardson on 707–718, 716–717).
713 ≈ 1.601, etc. (see ad loc.). — πρόπαν: On the form and its use, see West on Hes. Th.
525.
714 1st VH ≈ 17.700, 22.81; cf. 2nd VH of 24.786. — πρὸ πυλάων: a VE formula (also at 6.80,
10.126; in verse middle: 5.789); cf. 709n.
715 ἄρ(α): signals the surprising turn of events in ‘if-not’ situations (3.374n.).
711 τιλλέσθην: dual impf. mid. of the 3rd pers.; on the combination with pl. πρῶται, see R 18.1.
— ἀΐξασαι: aor. part. (‘after they …’) of ἀΐσσω ‘rush, hurry’.
712 κεφαλῆς: sc. Ἕκτορος. — ἀμφίσταθ’: = ἀμφίστατο.
713 ἦμαρ: = ἡμέρα. — ἐς: = εἰς (R 20 1). — ἠέλιον: = ἥλιον.
714 δάκρυ: collective sing. — ὀδύροντο: with κε (713) a past contrary-to-fact (durative), ‘they
would have continued to grieve, mourn’.
715 λαοῖσι: ‘among the people, to the people’ (dative dependent on μετηύδα).
Commentary 257
716 εἴξατέ μοι οὐρεῦσι διελθέμεν: either ‘make way so I can pass with the mules’ (in
this sense, Richardson) or ‘make way for my mules so that they may pass’ (AH, with
οὐρεῦσι as a datival direct object of εἴξατε [718 εἶξαν ἀπήνῃ is similar]; in this case, μοι
has the function of a possessive pronoun [cf. Chantr. 2.72; 29 οἱ is similar]). – οὐρεύς,
like ἡμίονος, means ‘mule’ (on their use as synonyms in early epic, see LfgrE s.v. οὐρεύς;
Griffith 2006, 230).
717 1st VH ≈ Od. 21.228 (likewise in a speech after an ‘if-not’-situation). — when
they had brought him inside the … house: All public sympathy notwith-
standing (703n.), the lament (in the context of the prothesis) and funeral meal
normally take place within the familial space, cf. Reiner 1938, 36 f.; Derderian
2001, 35.
ἄσεσθε: fut. ind. with concessive sense, ‘may you sate yourselves’ (Hentze 1868, 519–
521; 6.71n.); on the verb, cf. 211n.; on the formulation ‘then afterwards | you may …’, cf.
619n. — ἀγάγωμι: On the extended ending -μι with the 1st pers. sing. subjunc., see G 89;
Chantr. 1.461 f.
718 ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἳ δέ: a speech capping formulaP (45× Il., 35× Od., 1× Hes., 1× h.Hom.), with a
subsequent execution of the order (cf. 77n., 200n.). – οἳ δέ = λαοί (715).
719–776 Lamentation for Hektor. Speeches of mourning by Andromache, Hekabe

and Helen.
The Trojans continue the funerary ritual (580–595n.). – Pictorial representa-
tions – namely on clay sarcophagi (larnakes) from Tanagra/Boiotia (14th/13th
cent. B. C.) as well as on funerary vases from Attica (amphoras, craters; 8th
cent. B. C.) – suggest a continuity of certain elements within the ritual, as de-
scribed here, from the Mycenaean to the Geometric period: the corpse is laid
out (prothesis), mourners crowd around the bier, one person touches the head
of the deceased, women perform the lament: Cavanagh/Mee 1995; Rystedt
1999; Eder 2006, 555 f.; see also 589–590n., 711–712n., 777–804n., 795n.
719 ≈ Od. 10.112. — κλυτά: a generic epithetP (437n.); 9× as an attribute of δώματα ‘palace’.
— τὸν μὲν ἔπειτα: an inflectible VE formula (6× Il., 7× Od., 1× Hes., 2× h.Cer.).
716 μοι οὐρεῦσι: on the hiatus, R 5.6. — διελθέμεν: final-consecutive inf.; on the form, R 16.4. —
αὐτάρ: ‘but, however’ (progressive: R 24.2).
717 ἐπήν: = ἐπάν. — ἀγάγωμι: = ἀγάγω (aor. subjunc.); sc. νεκρόν (cf. 709). — δόμονδε: on the
form, R 15.3.
718 καὶ (ϝ)εῖξαν: on the prosody, R 4.4; εἶξαν from εἴκω (with dat.) ‘make way (for someone),
yield’.
719 εἰσάγαγον: sc. νεκρόν. — δώματα: specification of direction without preposition (R 19.2); on
the plural, R 18.2.
258 Iliad 24
720a = Od. 3.399, 7.345. — on a carved bed: in contrast to the simple bier on
which Achilleus had placed the corpse (589): AH. Perhaps also in contrived
contrast to 22.86–89 and 22.352 f.: Hekabe’s fear and Achilleus’ threat that
Hekabe would not be able to place her son on a bier and mourn him there has
not come true (Schein 1984, 189).
τρητοῖς: ‘pierced with holes’, to fasten the straps that support the mattress (3.448n.).
On λέχος ‘death bed’, see 589–590n.
720b–722 A group of singers (professional or at least specialized) are fetched
to perform thrḗnoi ‘dirges’, the women (members of the family) present ‘re-
spond’ in a kind of refrain with wails: Reiner 1938, 61–67; Andronikos 1968,
12–14; Alexiou (1974) 2000, 10–13; Tsagalis 2004, 2–6, 48 f.; cf. 2 Chronicles
35:25. – On the accumulation of technical terms, cf. 266–274n.; Keil 1998, 172;
Tsagalis loc. cit. 3 f.
721 2nd VH ≈ Od. 11.383 (στ. ἀϋτήν, cf. FOR 25). — ἐξάρχους: a Homeric hapaxP, cf. the
verb ἐξάρχω ‘lead, strike up’ in the context of laments (747, 761, also 18.316, etc.) and
dance and song (18.606, etc.); on the additional uses and interpretations of the verb, see
Zimmermann 1992, 19 f.
722 2nd VH = 19.301, 22.515, 24.746 (see ad loc.). — The interplay of singers and women
in the joint lament (721 στονόεσσα ἀοιδή) is mirrored in the chiastic antithesis at 722:
οἳ ἐθρήνεον – στενάχοντο γυναῖκες (cf. Eust. 1372.32 ff.). — οἳ μὲν ἄρ(α): picks up and
clarifies οἵ τε (721) and introduces a distributive structure (5.574, 12.288, 23.3, Od. 1.110
are analogous; cf. 509n.); in this sense, Leaf; Willcock; Grandolini 1996, 69 f. In that
case, στονόεσσαν ἀοιδήν is to be read as an internal accusative with ἐθρήνεον (and per-
haps also more loosely connected with ἐπὶ στενάχοντο). On other interpretations (some
with different readings and/or with an athetesis of 721), see app. crit. and Peppmüller,
as well as the bibliography in LfgrE s.v. θρῆνος. — ἐπὶ δὲ στενάχοντο: ἐπί in the sense of
a response to the speeches of mourning (‘thereupon’; see 720b–722n. with bibliography,
also Derderian 2001, 26 n. 46; Tsagalis 2004, 66 with n. 205; Beck 2005, 245).
723–776 Within the storyP, the royal women closest to the deceased – Andromache,
Hekabe and Helen – in a sense take over the leading function of the thrḗnoi
singers (whose appearance is related in only a summary fashion: 720b–722
with n.). Their speeches of mourning, rendered with great personal feeling,
are not only a eulogy of Hektor in life and death, but also offer deep insight
into the thoughts of the affected family members, as well as into the mood of
720 λεχέεσσι: 702n. — παρά: adverbial (R 20.2), ‘besides’. — εἷσαν: transitive aor. of ἕζομαι, ‘let
take a seat, cause to sit down’.
721 τε: ‘epic τε’ (R 24 11).
722 οἳ μὲν ἄρ(α): to be rendered as ‘on the one hand’ vel sim. in English (sc. ‘the women on the
other hand …’). — ἐθρήνεον: ͜ on the synizesis, R 7. — στενάχοντο: on the middle, R 23.
Commentary 259
the population of a doomed city generally – a final climax of pathetic psycho-

logical illustrative art immediately before the end of the Iliad (Deichgräber
1972, 79–82; Taplin 1992, 281 f.; Wagner-Hasel 2000, 88 f.; Macleod; some-
what one-sided Perkell 2008, according to whom the mourning speeches
represent a corrective to the dominant heroic ideology of the epic [cf. below
739n., 770–775n., end]; on the content and structure of speeches of mourning
in general, see 19.286–339n. with bibliography; Gagliardi 2007). The speech-
es also contain references to Book 6 (where Hektor, still alive, encounters
the three women) and Book 22 (where the immediate reaction of Hekabe and
Andromache to Hektor’s death is depicted): see 6.237–529n., 6.369–502n. (with
bibliography); for more on these references, 725–745n., 748–759n. – The order
of appearance of the three women in Book 6 is climactic: Hekabe – Helen –
Andromache (cf. 6.237–529n.; similarly in Book 22: Hekabe – Andromache);
conversely, in the present scene, Andromache, as the most affected person, is
placed first with the longest speech of mourning; on Helen’s position as the
third and final speaker, see 762–775n.
723 ≈ Od. 6.101, 7.233, 11.335. — τῇσιν: ‘among them’ (locative: 1.68n.). — λευκώλενος: a
generic epithetP of goddesses and high-status women (who do not need to work out-
doors), characterizing beauty: 1.55n.; the only epithet of Ἀνδρομάχη in Homer (aside
from here, only in Book 6: 6.371/377). On a possible but unlikely contextually relevant
interpretation, see Kaimio 1977, 50 n. 104; Edwards 1987, 314; Richardson on 723–724:
(a) a reference back to the encounter between Hektor and Andromache in Book 6; (b) an
emphasis on Andromache’s arms in the context of the gesture of mourning: she holds
Hektor’s head μετὰ χερσίν (724). — ἦρχε γόοιο: synonymous with the more common
ἐξῆρχε γ. (747, etc.): Grandolini 1996, 71; cf. 721n.; on the introductory verses of speech-
es of mourning in general, Tsagalis 2004, 55–64. – In contrast to the formal θρῆνος
(720b–722n.), γόος is the spontaneous lament by the relatives during the mourning ritu-
al (160n.).
724 and held in her arms: Andromache’s position at the head of Hektor’s corpse
is not just a mere gesture but a sign of her emotional connection to the de-
ceased (711–712n.).
Ἕκτορος ἱπποδάμοιο: The vulgate offers Ἕ. ἀνδροφόνοιο; in contrast, several papyri
and other witnesses offer Ἕ. ἱπποδάμοιο (including Matro in a parody of the present
verse [4th cent. B. C.]). This seems to support Ἕ. ἱππ. (West 2001, 281). – Arguments for
retaining the main transmission: (a) ἀνδροφόνος might be presupposed in 736–739; (b)
the word is also used at 6.498 in connection with Andromache’s mourning for Hektor
(Richardson on 723–724; Friedrich 2007, 106; cf. 509n., with further thoughts on the
use of the two noun-epithet formulae). The other examples of Ἕκτορος ἱππ. (16.717,
724 κάρη: ‘head’ (neuter sing.); on the -η after -ρ-, R 2.

260 Iliad 24
22.161, 22.211, 24.804, all at VE) are not disputed. — ἱπποδάμοιο: a generic epithetP of
heroes (frequently Diomedes; of Hektor also 4× at VE) and of the Trojans; on the possible
reference to Trojan horse-breeding, which is known to be of great antiquity, see 2.230n.
725–745 Andromache’s mourning for Hektor has parallels in form and content
to her earlier speeches in Books 6 and 22: it is likewise tripartite (here under-
scored by changes in address: see below; on the typical tripartite structure
of speeches of mourning, see 19.286–339n.; Lohmann 1988, 70–72; Alexiou
[1974] 2002, 132 f.; Foley 1999, 188–198; Tsagalis 2004, 46 f.), and it elaborates
further the motif of the widowed wife and orphaned son as a consequence of
Hektor’s death: a brief mention at 6.432 (seedP), a vividly painted image of the
orphan boy as an outcast in his native land in the second speech at 22.482–507
(Astyanax’ death is hinted at as an alternative at 22.487); in the present pas-
sage, Andromache finally projects a horrific vision of Astyanax, captured and
led away by the victors or even killed on the spot (climactic use of the motif:
Kullmann [1968] 2001, 399–402; Lohmann 1988, 72–74; de Jong 1987a, 109 f.;
on Astyanax, see 734b–738n.). Further details in Richardson; Tsagalis 2004,
133–136.
The speech is characterized by an accumulation of stylistic elements: (1) change of
address A–B–A: ‘husband’ (725–732a) – ‘child’ (732b–740; in this section, Hektor is re-
ferred to in the 3rd person) – ‘Hektor’ (741–745; vocative at 742 as an emphatic runover
word: Edwards, Introd. 43); (2) an increased occurrence of integral enjambmentP ex-
pressing agitation: 725 f., 727 f., 728 f., 729 f., etc. (cf. 6.407–412n.); (3) word playP and
word repetition: etymologizing of the name ‘Hektor’ (729b–730n.), designation of the
potential master and of Astyanax’ father as ἀμείλιχος and οὐ … μείλιχος 734/739 (cf.
11.136 f. προσαυδήτην βασιλῆα | μειλιχίοις ἐπέεσσιν· ἀμείλικτον δ’ ὄπ’ ἄκουσαν), linking
of Astyanax’ fate and Andromache’s grief with Hektor’s eagerness in battle via triple
λυγρός at 735/739/742 (Macleod on 739; Murnaghan 1999, 216 f.), figurae etymologicae
at 733 and 744 (ἔργα … ἐργάζοιο, εἶπες … ἔπος); (4) sound pattern: assonance and allit-
eration at 725 (1st VH), 733 (ε-), 734 (α-) (Richardson on 725–726, 732–740).
725 My husband, …: Each of the three mourners (Andromache here, Hekabe at
748, Helen at 762) uses the relevant kinship specification in addressing Hektor
(cf. Friedrich 2007, 106 f.) and elaborates further on her relationship to him
in the speech: Andromache as widowed wife (and mother of their joint son),
Hekabe as mother, Helen as sister-in-law. — young: Early death is a motif typ-
ical not only of the Iliad (Hektor: 15.612 f.; Achilleus: 1.352, 1.417, etc., cf. 540n.;
other warriors: 4.478 f., 5.550–553, etc.) but especially of funerary inscriptions
(so-called mors immatura; see e.g. Griessmair 1966).
725 ἆνερ: initial syllable metrically lengthened (R 10.1). — ὤλεο: on the uncontracted form, R 6.
— κάδ: = κατά (assimilated form with apocope: R 20.1), with 726 λείπεις (so-called tmesis: R 20.2).
Commentary 261
ἆνερ: The vocative ἆνερ (unique in Homer) in place of the metrically equivalent
Ἕκτορ (thus at 748, 762) reflects Andromache’s intimacy with Hektor, cf. 6.430 σὺ δέ
μοι θαλερὸς παρακοίτης. On the use of ἆνερ/ἄνερ, largely restricted to the husband, in
Greek literature, see Wackernagel (1912) 1953, 991–993 (but cf. 300n. on γύναι). — ἀπ’
αἰῶνος … ὤλεο: a pathetic formulation, like English ‘snatched away in the prime of
life, departed from this world’; expressions such as ‘lose one’s life’ vel sim. are more
common (e.g. θυμὸν ὀλέσσαι, 1.205n.); cf. Macleod. On the meaning of αἰών (‘life force’
of young people), see 19.27n.; West on Hes. Th. 609. On the construction, cf. 18.107 ὡς
ἔρις ἔκ τε θεῶν ἔκ τ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλοιτο, Od. 15.91 ἐκ μεγάρων κειμήλιον … ὄληται.
— χήρην: a contrast to the vocative ‘my husband’ (VB – VE), with a faintly accusatory
tone (cf. 742–745; Alexiou [1974] 2000, 182–184). – The difficult situation faced by wid-
ows is frequently highlighted in Homer, especially at 6.405 ff., 22.482 ff., Od. 8.523 ff.; see
2.289n. with bibliography.
726–727 ≈ 22.484 f. (Andromache’s speech of mourning following closely on
Hektor’s death).
ἐν μεγάροισι: ‘at home’ (208b–209a n.). — νήπιος αὔτως: ‘still so young’ (6.400n.). —
δυσάμμοροι: ‘very miserable’; on the formation and use of the word, 19.315n.
728–729a The last explicit prolepsisP of the fall of Troy in the Iliad (244b–246n.).
On the narrative pattern ‘X will not come about; sooner Y will happen’, e.g.
1.29 f., 16.628 f. (Kelly 2007, 191 f.).
ἥβην ἵξεσθαι: ‘to reach maturity’, as at Od. 15.366; ἥβη denotes ‘adulthood’ (maturity,
ability to wed) (LfgrE). — κατ’ ἄκρης: = 13.772, 15.557, 22.411 (always of the destruction
of Troy), also at Od. 5.313 (Odysseus on a raft); literally ‘from top (i.e. ἄκρης πόλεως) to
bottom’, metaphorically ‘from the ground up, thoroughly’ (Schw. 2.480; Leumann 1950,
56 f.; LfgrE s.v. πόλις 1374.2–13). — πέρσεται: on the passive use of the future middle,
355n.; in the case of πέρθω, the aorist middle also has a passive function: διεπράθετο
(Od. 15.384).
729b–730 Hektor’s significance for Troy (on which, see 499n.) is highlighted via
an accumulation of pertinent terms: ‘patron, protector, guard’. The first term
is elaborated in the relative clause (cf. 479n.), the second and third are placed
immediately next to one another in the Greek (with the clauses arranged chi-
astically). In addition, the scholia (T) already identified an allusion to Hektor’s
name in the third term (éches, originally (h)ékhes) (in the sense ‘preserver, pro-
726 πάϊς … νήπιος: sc. ἐστίν.

727 οὐδέ: in Homer also after affirmative clauses (R 24.8). — οἴω: = οἶμαι (R 23).
728 πρίν: adverbial, ‘(even) sooner, before’.
729 πέρσεται: ‘will be destroyed’. — ἦ: ‘truly, indeed’ (R 24.4). — ἐπίσκοπος: sc. ὤν. — τε: ‘epic
τε’ (R 24.11).
730 ῥύσκε(ο): iterative form of ἔρυμαι/ῥῦμαι ‘protect’ (R 16.5); on the uncontracted form, R 6. —
ἔχες: here in the sense ‘keep from, protect’.
262 Iliad 24
tector’): etymologizingP, on which, see 6.402–403n., end (with bibliography);

also Peppmüller and Macleod.
ἐπίσκοπος: ‘overseer, protector’ (the modern word ‘bishop’ is derived from this word),
similarly at 22.255 ‘guardian, guarantor’ of an agreement. — μιν αὐτήν: ‘she herself’
(sc. πόλιν), to which 730 (in the sense ‘her inhabitants’) is complementary; cf. 499n. (on
ἄστυ καὶ αὐτούς). — ἀλόχους κεδνὰς καὶ νήπια τέκνα: ≈ 4.238, 18.514; also ἀλόχους/
-οι καὶ ν. τ. 5× Il. (2.136n.), VE νήπια τ. in total 11× Il., 3× Od. (2.311n.). The formula usually
occurs in the context of an absence of a husband/father and the dangers faced by his
wife and children (Edmunds 1990, 27 f.); here it is used in relation to all Trojan families.
— κεδνάς: ‘dear, lovingly devoted, devoted to’ (LfgrE); an attribute of ἄλοχος and μήτηρ
(also in the form κεδνὰ ἰδυῖα/κέδν’ εἰδυῖα), less commonly of servants and other indi-
viduals with a close connection; perhaps etymologically related to κήδομαι ‘care about,
take care of’ (ChronEG 8 s.v.).
731–735 On the custom of taking away women and children as prisoners of war
and selling them as slaves, cf. 6.454–465 (Hektor’s fear), 9.593 f., 22.45, 24.751–
753, Od. 14.264 f.; more at 1.13n., 6.57b–60n.; on trade in Homer overall (fre-
quently not for economic reasons but for prestige), van Wees 1992, 238–248. –
On the brutal killing of children, cf. 6.58 f., 22.63 f.
731 δ’ ἤτοι: A coordinating particle (δέ) is needed after demonstrative αἵ at the beginning
of the sentence; the reading of the main transmission δή τοι is therefore to be correct-
ed to δ’ ἤτοι, cf. 22.12, etc.: Peppmüller; Bühler 1960, 131, 228–230. — τάχα: 355n. —
νηυσὶν … γλαφυρῇσιν: γλ. is a common epithet of ships: 2.454n.; with separation of the
noun and adjective only here and at Od. 13.74. On the meaning, cf. κοῖλος 336n.
732 1st VH ≈ 1.516, Od. 21.231, 22.318; VE ≈ Il. 16.12, 22.451, Od. 3.49, 4.177, 9.421,
23.253. — I … also: Via the stressed kai men egṓ, Andromache emphatically
classes her fate with that of the other women (731 ‘wives who’). In the epic
cycle, Andromache falls to Achilleus’ son Neoptolemos in the distribution of
spoils: Il. parv. fr. 29.1 f. West, Il. Pers. Procl. § 4 West (Wathelet and BNP s.v.
Andromache; on Neoptolemos, see 19.326–337n.). — and you, my child: It is
unclear from the text whether Astyanax should be thought of as present (→ ad-
dress) or absent (→ so-called apostrophe); in favor of the former, de Jong 1987a,
109 f. (with reference to depictions of prothesis showing children as well); in
favor of the latter, Macleod on 732–740; both are possible: Martinazzoli;
Richardson on 732–740.
καὶ μέν: 488n.
731 ἤτοι: ‘certainly’ (R 24.4). — ὀχήσονται: ‘will be borne, go’. — γλαφυρῇσιν: on the inflection,
R 11.1.
732 τῇσι: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17). — ἠ(έ): = ἤ, correlative with ἤ in 734:
‘either … or’.
Commentary 263
733–734a ἔργα ἀεικέα … | ἀθλεύων: cf. 19.133 ἔργον ἀεικὲς ἔχοντα ὑπ’ Εὐρυσθῆος ἀέθλων,
with n. on ἔργα ἀεικέα (‘labor incommensurate with a person’s worth, i.e. dishonora-
ble, degrading labor’) and on ἄεθλος (‘toil associated with suffering and danger’). – On
the hiatus in ἔργα ἀεικέα, see 264n. (here perhaps necessitated by modification of the
formula: elsewhere ἔργον ἀεικές 6× in Homer [19.133n.], ἀεικέα (ϝ)έργα 3× Od.; cf. M 14);
2nd VH ἔργα … ἐργάζοιο ≈ Od. 22.422, Hes. Op. 382. — πρὸ ἄνακτος: ‘for the master of
the house’; on this meaning of ἄναξ (elsewhere in this sense mainly in the Odyssey), see
LfgrE s.v. 788.53 ff.; Yamagata 1997, 3 f.; Schmidt 2006, 443, 446 f. – πρό ≈ ὑπέρ, as at
8.57, 10.286 (schol. D on all three passages; Peppmüller; AH; Schw. 2.506); differently
Leaf: ‘before the face of’; Chantr. 2.131 (transl.): ‘under the eyes of > under the orders
of’.
734b–738 The narrator has Andromache offer speculations regarding Astyanax’
death; these correspond to elements of the myth known from other (post-Ho-
meric) sources and are thus likely a deliberate allusion to these sources –
‘a poetic means of contributing a further dimension to Andromache’s suf-
fering’ (Anderson 1997, 56; on the characterization of Andromache, see
Beck 1964, 161–163; on the embedding of the story of the Iliad in the – large-
ly reconstructed – Trojan myth cycle, cf. 27–30n.; STR 23). In the Ilias parva,
Neoptolemos flings Astyanax down from the walls (fr. 29–30 West); in the Iliou
Persis, Astyanax is killed by Odysseus (Procl. Chrest. § 4 West, without further
specification of the circumstances); in Euripides (Troades 721–725), Odysseus
suggests that Astyanax be killed to pre-empt his revenge on the Achaians (at
the same time, Andromache here assumes that the Achaians will immediately
take revenge for the deaths caused by Hektor, cf. 739). Pictorial evidence links
Astyanax’ death with that of Priam (in several depictions, Neoptolemos hurls
the boy against his grandfather, who has fled to an altar; for details, see LIMC
s.v. Astyanax; Mangold 2000, 13–33). Further discussion and bibliography
in Beck loc. cit. 157–168; Anderson loc. cit. 53–59; Burgess 2001, 66 f., 154;
2010; 2012, 176–182; Macleod on 734–738 (with parallels for the combination
of ‘false’ and ‘true’ premonitions); Richardson on 734–739.
735 ≈ Il. parv. fr. 29.4 West (likewise of Astyanax), cf. also Il. 1.591; 1st VH ≈ h.Ap. 318. —
λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον: an inflectible formula at VE and after caesura A 3 (2.873n.); as an
appositive to a clause, the expression may have a pregnant/concrete meaning here: ‘an
abhorrent way to die’ (cf. Od. 3.193 f. of Agamemnon’s death): Anastassiou 1973, 152 f.;
on the so-called acc. of a clausal appositive, Schw. 2.86, 617; Chantr. 2.15.
733 ἔργα ἀεικέα (ϝ)εργάζοιο: on the prosody, R 5.6 and 4.3.

734 πρὸ (ϝ)άνακτος: on the prosody, R 5.4.
264 Iliad 24
736–737 1st VH of 737 ≈ 2nd VH of Od. 22.216; VE of 737 = Il. 2.161/177 (Od. 8.217 is
similar). — in anger because … killed his brother | or his father, or his son:
as in blood feuds: 480–484n. On the emotional enumeration of relatives, cf.
36–37a n. — so many Achaians: In the Iliad, Hektor kills 28 opponents men-
tioned by name (list: LfgrE s.v. Hektor 511.30 ff.) in addition to numerous name-
less victims (8.341 f., 11.304 ff.).
δή που: In contrast to the later compound δήπου, both particles retain their own func-
tion (Denniston 267): δή reinforces the relative pronoun (it can be rendered causally in
English: ‘since his …’); on the usage of που, see 488n., here ‘probably, I suppose’.
738 1st VH = 7.105; ≈ 5.558, 15.411; 2nd VH = 19.61, Od. 22.269 (in addition, VE at
Od. 13.395). — bit the … earth: a paraphrase for death on the battlefield, cf.
English ‘to bite the dust’, German ‘ins Gras beißen’ (2.418n.). On the VE formu-
la, see 19.61n.
ἐν παλάμῃσιν: a variant of the more common ὑπὸ χερσίν vel sim. (e.g. 168 [see ad loc.],
638); cf. ὑπ’ … παλαμάων 3.128n.
739 no merciful man in the horror of battle: Hektor’s ruthlessness in battle
has its drawbacks: it affects the surviving members of his family (especially
736–738); this is nonetheless no ‘redefinition of martial valor’ (thus Lohmann
1988, 79 [transl.]): without heroism, Hektor would have been unable to ful-
fil his role as protector of Troy (729b–730 with n., 6.441–446n.; Schein 1984,
190). – On the intrinsic, irreconcilable conflict between mercy and war, see
15.741, 20.467 f., also 22.373 f.; in particular, the speeches of warriors about to
deliver the coup de grace to an opponent despite pleas for mercy are described
as ‘implacable’ (11.137, 21.98).
οὐ γὰρ μείλιχος … λυγρῇ: The close connection of Hektor’s fate with that of his family
is underscored by literal repetitions (μείλ-, λυγρ-): 734/735/739/742 (725–745n.). — ἔσκε:
‘was always’ (3.180n.). — ἐν δαῒ λυγρῇ: a VE formula, also at 13.286, Hes. Th. 650, 674;
variant ἐν δαῒ λευγαλέῃ Il. 14.387. On the archaic character of the rare δαΐ ‘battle’, see
Trümpy 1950, 136; DELG; cf. δαΐφρων 2.23n.
740–742 An accumulation of terms from the semantic field ‘grief’ and a climactic
enumeration of those affected: mourning by the Trojan people – lament by the
parents – grief of Andromache herself (742 ‘passing all others’): Richardson
on 740–742.
736 ᾧ δή που: ‘because probably his’ (ᾧ refers to τις Ἀχαιῶν [734]). — ἀδελφεόν: = ἀδελφόν.
739 τεός: = σός (R 14.4).
Commentary 265
740 τὼ καί: ‘therefore … also’, i.e. because Hektor was such a successful warrior (739)
and Troy’s protector par excellence (729 f.; in this sense, AH; cf. Murnaghan 1999,
216 f.).
741 = 17.37 (and ≈ the extra verse after 23.223). — ἀρητόν: only here and in the iterata;
the meaning is unclear, perhaps ‘cursed’ (related to ἀρή/ἀράομαι, 1.35n., although else-
where in Homer with no pejorative sense: 6.115n.), thus with the sense of 23.10 ὀλοὸς
γόος (Mawet 1979, 273; West 2001a, 121; differently Giordano 1998: ‘a lament during
which one curses the murderer or wishes revenge on him’). In contrast, the v.l. ἄρρητον
‘unspeakable’ requires no explanation and is more appropriate semantically; it is thus
preferred by Leaf and Edwards (both on 17.37); LfgrE s.v. ἀρητός; Morenilla-Talens
1992, 296–298.
742 1st VH ≈ 6.493 v.l. (see ad loc.), Od. 14.138; 2nd VH ≈ Hes. Op. 200 (cf. Il.
21.585); also VE = 13.346; ≈ 19.49. — Hektor: a return to the address to Hektor
with an emphatic vocative (725–745n.).
λελείψεται: a reduplicated future (158n.).
743 It is a fundamentally human wish to die in the arms of one’s family (cf. Il.
13.653 f.) or to embrace the dying (226–227n.). Here this has been impossible,
not least due to the circumstances of the death: Hektor died on the battlefield,
not at home. — stretch your arms to me: Stretching out the arms is general-
ly a gesture of pleading, of asking for help: Achilleus to Thetis 1.351, Nestor
to Zeus 15.371 (on prayer poses, see 301n.), Priam to Hektor 22.37, Odysseus’
companions in Skylla’s clutches at Od. 12.257. Here it can be understood as a
gesture of attachment and parting, in accord with passages where survivors
embrace the deceased: Il. 19.284 (Briseïs and Patroklos; see 19.284–285n.), Od.
8.527 (a married couple [simile]); attempted embrace: Il. 23.99 (Achilleus and
Patroklos’ spirit), Od. 11.392 (Odysseus and Agamemnon’s spirit). Further dis-
cussion: Hentze 1902, 354 f.; Sommer 1977, 136–138; on the similarly pathetic
expression ‘to spread one’s arms’, Kirk on 4.523; Kurz 1966, 27.
744 πυκινὸν ἔπος: see 75n.; here as a kind of legacy of the deceased that remains fixed in
memory (745; see AH; Martin 1989, 35 f.; Crotty 1994, 73), e.g. words of thanks or con-
solation, counsel, prophecy; see the (partially overlapping) examples in Garland 1985,
20, 136; Mackie 1996, 122 f.; Richardson on 743–745; cf. Foley 1991, 155 f. – The words
of farewell between Odysseus and Nausikaa at Od. 8.461–468 fulfil a similar purpose
(Griffin 1980, 61), as do those between Odysseus and Penelope (cited by Penelope in
her speech addressed to Eurymachos: 18.257–271; cf. Hölscher [1988] 1990, 50).
740 τώ: ‘therefore, thus’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — κατὰ (ϝ)άστυ: on the prosody, R 4.3.
743 λεχέων ἔκ: = ἐκ λεχέων (R 20.2).
744 μοι (ϝ)εῖπες: on the prosody, R 4.4. — πυκινὸν (ϝ)έπος: on the prosody, R 4.5. — τε: ‘epic τε’
(R 24.11). — κεν: = ἄν (R 24.5). — αἰεί: = ἀεί.
266 Iliad 24
745 ≈ 18.340, Od. 11.183 = 13.338 = 16.39. — Andromache is always described as

weeping in the Iliad because of the associated situations: 6.373n.
μεμνῄμην: On the (athematic) optative, see Schw. 1.795; West 2001, 270. — νύκτας
τε καὶ ἤματα: an inflectible formula after caesura A 4 (nom./acc.: 2× Il., 3× Od., 4×
Hes., also 1× Od. νύκτες τ. κ. ἡμέραι; cf. 73n.). The polar expressionP contains ‘the notion
of continuation, an uninterrupted connection’ (Kemmer 1903, 174 [transl.]) and corre-
sponds to αἰεί in αἰεὶ μεμνῄμην at 744 f. — δάκρυ χέουσα: 613n.
746–747 ≈ 22.429 f.
746 = 19.301, 22.515; ≈ 19.338, 22.429, 24.776; 1st VH = 22.437; ≈ 24.760; 2nd VH
= 24.722. — A speech capping formulaP of laments in Books 19, 22 and 24. At
the same time, the repetition of the 1st VH after the speeches by Andromache,
Hekabe and Helen (746, 760, 776) conveys an impression of ritual solemnity
(Segal 1971a, 35 f.; Tsagalis 2004, 48 f.; cf. refrain compositionP: van Otterlo
1944, 195); the response of the bystanders that follows is here represented in
a climax: 746 sighing of the women, 760 persistent weeping (by those pres-
ent), 776 sighing of the entire people (schol. bT on 776; Monsacré 1984, 165;
Tsagalis 2004, 65; cf. 703n.). The narrator also prepares the change of scene
at 777 ff. with ‘vast populace’ at 776: the Trojans as a group become the focus
once again (cf. Beck 2005, 250 f.).
747 ≈ 22.430; 2nd VH = 18.316, 22.430, 23.17; ≈ 18.51, 24.723, 24.761. — On the 2nd
VH, cf. 723n. (introductory verse of speeches of mourning).
ἁδινοῦ: 123a n.
748–759 The topic of Hekabe’s speech, ‘Hektor under the protection of the gods’,
was prepared for by the divine debate at the beginning of Book 24 (especially
Apollo at 33 f., Zeus at 66–70; cf. 33–35n.) and by Hermes’ promises to Priam
(411–423) (on the literal echoes at 749 f./755 f./757 f. of 422 f./416 f./419 f., see
Beck 1964, 209: ‘a type of affirmative repetition of words’; Kim 2000, 54). To
the extent that Hektor deserves the protection of the gods, Hekabe’s speech of
mourning is a eulogy of him: (a) specification of the topic: 748–750; (b) point
1: Hekabe’s other sons have been sold into slavery by Achilleus: 751–753 (with
n.); (b’) point 2: Hektor has been killed and dragged by Achilleus: 754–756; (a’)
preservation of Hektor’s body by the gods: 757–759 (on the ring-compositionP,
Lohmann 1970, 111 f.; Tsagalis 2004, 31 f.). – Hekabe’s final speech in the
Iliad is at the same time the most conciliatory and consoling of all her speech-
es; contrast at 22.82–89 the fear of Hektor’s body being torn apart by dogs in
745 ἤματα: from ἦμαρ = ἡμέρα.

747 αὖθ’: = αὖτε ‘in turn’, here in the sense ‘subsequently’ (cf. ἔπειτα 761). — Ἑκάβη ἁδινοῦ: on
the hiatus, R 5.6.
Commentary 267
place of a proper burial (cf. 720a n.), 22.431–436 the desperate lament for the
loss of Hektor (on the reference to the present speech, see Tsagalis loc. cit.
156 f.: ‘complementarity’), 24.201–216 a passionate hatred for Achilleus (here
only hinted at: 756, see 755–756n.). – Additional bibliography on the present
speech: Richardson; Segal 1971, 69–71; Schein 1984, 190 f.; Taplin 1992,
281 f.; Tsagalis loc. cit. 158–161; Gagliardi 2007, 170–175.
748 ≈ 762 (see ad loc. for additional iterata); a whole-verse address. — dearest
by far to my spirit: On similarly intimate addresses, see 19.287n. — of all my
sons: 495–498n.; on an address with a specification of familial relationship,
see 725n.
749–750 The retrospective of the life of the individual mourned for and the juxta-
position ‘during his lifetime – in death’ are typical motifs of lament: 19.288 f.,
22.435 f. (19.286–339n.; Alexiou [1974] 2002, 165–171; Tsagalis 2004, 30, 44 f.).
At the same time, the protection rendered by the gods ‘even in death’ is high-
lighted with satisfaction (cf. 748–759n.).
περ … περ: underscores the antithesis ‘life – death’: Richardson on 748–750.
749 2nd VH ≈ Od. 24.92, h.Ven. 195. — dear to the gods: 61n.
750 2nd VH = 428 (see ad loc.; cf. also 20n. on καὶ τεθνηότα περ). — ἄρα: ‘as I can see,
as becomes evident’, ‘a conclusion drawn from the sight of the corpse’ (AH [transl.];
likewise Macleod); on this function of ἄρα (frequently with a verb in the imperfect) in
general, see Denniston 36 f.; LfgrE s.v. 1160.1 ff.
751–753 In contrast to Priam (22.44 f., etc., see 167–168n.), Hekabe mourns not the
death of many of her sons, but rather the fact that they were sold into slavery.
In this way, she stresses the killing and maltreatment of Hektor by Achilleus
(and thus also the effectiveness of divine protection) as her favorite son’s spe-
cial fate (cf. AH on 751; Leaf on 752). – The iteratives in 752 and the rhetorically
exaggerated listing of the three islands in 753 underscore the frequency with
which the sons were taken away. In an earlier phase of the war, Achilleus in fact
captured several Trojans, including Lykaon (Macleod on 751–753; cf. 753n.; on
captivity in general, 731–735n.). – On the motif ‘all others … x, A (alone) … y’
(751/754), cf. 25–26n.
751 1st VH ≈ Od. 3.86, also Il. 5.877, Od. 21.232. – On the VE formula, see
138n.
748 πολύ: adverbial, ‘by far’.

749 ἦ μέν: ≈ ἦ μήν (R 24.4/6). — μοι: ethic dat. — περ: contrasts with καὶ ἐν θανάτοιο περ αἴσῃ
(750), ‘not only …, but even’ (R 24.10). — ἐών: = ὤν (R 16.6).
750 σεο: ͜ = σου (R 14.1); on the synizesis, R 7.
268 Iliad 24
752 πέρνασχ(ε) … πέρην: The basic meaning of the verb is clearly perceptible in early
epic: ‘export’ (Becker 1937, 33 f.; Chantraine 1940, 11 f.; Benveniste 1969, 133 f.); the
combination of a verb and adverb with the same word stem has an intensifiying effect,
e.g. 9.11 κλήδην κικλήσκειν (Fehling 1969, 160). On the use of πέρνημι in Homer in gen-
eral: Scheid-Tissinier 1994, 74–78. — ἁλὸς ἀτρυγέτοιο: a phrase at VE (3× Il., 3× Od.),
also 1× Od. in verse middle. On the epithet, see 1.316n. (‘with much noise, surf’).
753 2nd VH ≈ h.Ap. 36. — Samos … Imbros … Lemnos: On Samos (= Samothrace)
and Imbros, see 78n. During their Trojan campaign, the Achaians maintained
active trade relations with Lemnos (7.467–475; explicit mention of slave trade
on Lemnos at 7.475 as well as at 21.40 f., 23.746 f. [Lykaon]); in addition, they
stopped at the island on their outward jouney (8.230–232) and abandoned
Philoktetes there (2.721–723). Poliochni, in the southeast of Lemnos, will have
played a particularly important role during the Bronze Age as a harbor town
along the shipping routes toward the Dardanelles (BNP s.v. Poliochni). More
on Lemnos (Hephaistos; language of the inhabitants): 1.593n. – The verse is
structured in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ (60n.).
ἀμιχθαλόεσσαν: a Homeric hapaxP, elsewhere at h.Ap. 36 and in Hellenistic poetry
(where an attribute of ἀήρ). Etymology and meaning are obscure, frequently interpreted
as ‘inhospitable’ or ‘hazy’ in accord with the scholia: ‘The cloud of uncertainty around
this foggy gloss has not been lifted by modern scholarship’ (Richardson). Detailed dox-
ography: Bettarini 2003, 69–79.
754 You: an antithesis to 751 ‘others of my sons’; on the structure of the speech,
748–759n.
ἐξέλετο ψυχήν: 168n. — ταναήκεϊ χαλκῷ: a VE formula (3× Il., 1× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’), al-
ways of weapons or tools. The epithet means ‘with a long point’, the initial element is
related to τανα(ϝ)ός ‘(e)long(ated)’ (LfgrE). On χαλκός, 393n.
755–756 The motif that a deceased person cannot be brought back to life regard-
less of the effort expended (550–551n.) is here likely an expression of Hekabe’s
bitterness toward Achilleus (Segal 1971, 69, 71; Schein 1984, 190 f.; cf. 212–
213n. and 748–759n., end). Another interpretation: insight into the futility of
human endeavor and thus a renunciation of – clearly pointless – revenge (thus
Martinazzoli on 756; Taplin 1992, 281 f.; Macleod on 746–756 goes even fur-
ther: ‘not far from pity’).
752 πέρνασχ’ (= πέρνασκε) … ἕλεσκε: iterative forms (R 16.5), likewise at 755 ῥυστάζεσκεν. —
πέρην (with gen.): ‘beyond’.
753 ἐς: = εἰς (R 20.1).
Commentary 269
755 2nd VH ≈ 51, 416. — ῥυστάζεσκεν: an intensive-expressive form (21n., end); on the

content, 24.15 f. with nn.
756 1st VH, cf. 17.35, 17.204. — killed, … did not | bring him back to life: The
antithesis highlights the finality of Patroklos’ death; as his adversary Hektor
will also ‘not come back to life’ (2nd VH of 756 ≈ 1st VH of 551), the families of
Achilleus and Priam are now ‘even’ (cf. Taplin 1992, 282).
757–759 A sudden, easy death is frequently attributed in speeches to Apollo’s (or,
in the case of women, Artemis’) arrows: 605–609n. In addition, the mention
of Apollo on the narrator level may allude to the fact that the god already took
care of Hektor’s body earlier: 18–21 with nn. (Richardson; that the use of the
motif in the present passage is not merely formulaic, but rather expressive, is
also argued on the whole by Reinhardt 1961, 484 f.; Macleod on 759). – On
the contrast of mercy and violence in the case of Apollo (‘killed with his gentle
missiles’) overall, see Bierl 1994.
757 νῦν δέ: juxtaposes all that has happened before with ‘what counts, matters now’
(cf. Leaf on 752, end; 208b–209a n.). — ἑρσήεις καὶ πρόσφατος: on ἑρσήεις, 419n. –
πρόσφατος (a Homeric hapaxP) probably derived from the root of θείνω/πεφνεῖν (cf. 254
πεφάσθαι): ‘just killed (died)’, i.e. ‘fresh’, cf. Hdt. 2.89.2 μισγόμενον νεκρῷ προσφάτῳ
γυναικός; here in an etymological word playP with ἔπεφνες 756 and καταπέφνῃ 759
(LfgrE; DELG s.v. θείνω; Frisk and Beekes s.v. πρόσφατος). A different derivation in
schol. T and Leaf: from φαίνω (‘just appeared, fresh’). – The (obscure) initial element is
connected with πρός as an expression of spatial or temporal proximity (DELG loc. cit.).
— ἐν μεγάροισιν: ‘at home’ (208b–209a n.).
758 ἀργυρότοξος Ἀπόλλων: a VE formula (6× Il., 2× Od., 1× ‘Hes.’, 3× h.Hom., also 1× Od.
in verse middle). On the epithet, cf. 56n.
759 ≈ Od. 3.280, 5.124, 11.173, 11.199, 15.411 (all with the aor. ind.; see app. crit.); 1st VH ≈
Il. 2.164/180 (see ad loc. also on ἀγανός ‘gentle, soothing, kind’).
760 1st VH ≈ 746 (see ad loc.). — γόον … ὄρινεν: 507n. — ἀλίαστον: 549n.
761 VB ≈ 3× Il., 2× Od. (τοῖσι …); on the 2nd VH, see 723n., 747n.
755 πολλὰ (ῥ)ῥυστάζεσκεν: on the prosody, M 4.6; πολλά adverbial, ‘frequently, repeatedly’. —

ἑοῦ: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4).
756 τόν: with the function of a relative pronoun (R 14.5). — ἔπεφνες: 2nd pers. sing. aor. of θείνω
‘kill’. — μιν: = αὐτόν (R 14.1). — οὐδ’ ὧς: ‘nor in this way’.
758 τῷ (ϝ)ίκελος(ς) ὅν: on the prosody, R 4.4 and M 4.6 (note also the caesura). — τ(ε): ‘epic τε’
(R 24.11).
759 οἷς: possessive pronoun of the 3rd pers. (R 14.4). — ἀγανοῖσι βέλεσσιν: on the inflection,
R 11.2 and 11.3. — ἐποιχόμενος: ‘overcoming, visiting upon someone’. — καταπέφνῃ: generalizing
subjunc. without a modal particle (R 21.1).
761 τριτάτη: = τρίτη.
270 Iliad 24
762–775 As the third and last to deliver a speech of mourning after Andromache
and Hekabe, Helen occupies a prominent position, and even a pointed one as
the causa belli (and thus ultimately the initiator of Hektor’s death); on this, see
the interpretations in Groten 1968, 38, Farron 1979, 21 f., Monsacré 1984,
158 f., and Worman 2002, 54 f. (a nuanced portrayal of the figure of Helen);
Clader 1976, 11 and Pantelia 2002 (Helen establishes Hektor’s epic fame);
Suzuki 1989, 54 f., and Roisman 2006, 30 f. (Helen is an equal to Hekabe and
Andromache in the Trojan royal family); general bibliography on the figure of
Helen in the Iliad: 3.121n. – Helen’s speech, like Hekabe’s (748–759n.), is struc-
tured as a ring-compositionP: (a) Hektor is the dearest: 762–764, (b) he never
directed a bad word to her: 765–767, (c) the attitude of the remaining Trojans:
768–770, (b’) Hektor’s kind words: 771 f., (a’) no one is left who is kindly dis-
posed: 773–775 (Lohmann 1970, 110 f.). Helen picks up on motifs that were sig-
nificant in her appearances in Books 3 and 6 (6.344–358n.); she focuses on her
relationships with those closest to her: Hektor, Paris, the sisters- and brothers-
in-law, Hekabe and Priam, the Trojans as a group (Richardson; Reichel 1994,
264 f.).
762 ≈ 748 (and VB 763 ≈ 749); 2nd VH = ‘Hes.’ Sc. 78; ≈ Od. 24.517, also Il. 5.378,
Od. 16.445. — Helen’s intimate address to her brother-in-law (cf. 725n., 748n.)
legitimizes her appearance as someone offering a speech of mourning and sets
the tenor for her remarks as a whole: ‘Hektor the dearest’ (Collins 1988, 48 f.).
δαέρων: On δᾱήρ ‘brother-in-law’, see 3.180n. At the VB of 769 certainly to be read as
bisyllabic with synizesis δᾱέρων,
͜ but here with shortening of -α- in the internal hiatus:
δᾰέρων (Chantr. 1.216; cf. G 46 and G 39).
763–766 A reference to Helen leaving Sparta for Troy (external analepsisP), as
at 3.173–175, 3.351–354, 3.442–446, 6.292, etc. (Kullmann 1960, 248–253; cf.
2.161n.; CH 8 with n. 30; more on allusions to the prehistory of the Trojan War:
27–30n., 765–766n.). — The (rueful) reminiscence of the wedding to Paris and
the self-imprecation (764n.) are standard motifs in Helen’s speeches (3.173–176
[3.172–180n.], 6.345–353, varied at 3.428 f.; see Ebbott 1999, 4–7, 9–11; also
on the wedding motif, Tsagalis 2004, 164). 763 f. could be interpreted as a
secondary thought arising from the address at 762: ‘Hektor, you are my dear-
est; Paris may be my husband, and still be alive, but it is from you that I re-
ceived the most support all this time’ (Peppmüller p. 344 f.; AH and Leaf on
763; Richardson on 763–767; Bretzigheimer 1969, 174; Carvounis 2007).
Differently e.g. Düntzer (1847a) 1872, 391 and West 2001, 282 f., who view
763 f. as an interpolation (mention of Paris in a lament for Hektor is ‘absurd’;
765 ff. are connected ‘very well to the address at 762’ via ‘since’: Düntzer loc.
cit. [transl.]).
Commentary 271
763 πόσις: ‘spouse’ (3.163n.). — Ἀλέξανδρος θεοειδής: an inflectible VE formula (nom./

acc.: 12× Il.), see 3.16n.; on the epithet, cf. 217n.
764 ≈ 7.390 (Idaios on Paris); 1st VH ≈ 22.116. — here to Troy: cf. 765–766n., end
(on ‘I came …, forsaking …’). — I should have died before: A death-wish
motif, here as a self-imprecation by Helen to express remorse, as at 3.173,
6.345–348 (see ad loc.; Reichel 1994, 265 f.; discussion of more far-reaching
interpretations at 6.344–358n.); at the same time, a typical element of speech-
es of mourning as a whole, thus e.g. Andromache at 22.481: ‘I wish my father
had never begotten me’ (Alexiou [1974] 2002, 178 f.; Tsagalis 2004, 42–44;
see also Richardson). – On a different form of the death-wish motif, see
224b–227n.
ὡς … ὤφελλον: On the form and function of this expression, see 6.345n. — πρίν: 245n.
765–767 The motif ‘always/for a long time/many … but never …’ forms a kind of
summary priamelP (de Jong on Od., Introd. XVIII); for examples, see 2.798–
799n. and 3.184–190n., end.
765–766 ≈ Od. 19.222 f., 24.309 f. — the twentieth year: This specification of time
has been a topic in discussions of mythological chronology since antiquity
(see scholia ad loc.). Attempts to explain the number ‘twenty’ are based some-
times on poetic, sometimes on pragmatic considerations: (a) a round number
as an emphatic expression of a long duration (typical numberP with no claim
to chronological accuracy), (b) an approximate figure for the time actually
passed arrived at via calculation. The two interpretations are not mutually ex-
clusive, but instead contribute jointly to the pregnancy of the specification of
time. On (a): twenty occurs frequently in early epic as a typical number: ‘an
all-purpose expression denoting the passage of «so many years» after one’s de-
parture from home’ (Hooker [1986a] 1996, 489 f. [quotation from p. 490]; see
also Reinhardt 1961, 488–490). In an ‘exuberance of emotion’, Helen thus de-
scribes the extended period during which she was able to experience Hektor’s
‘kindheartedness’ (Jachmann 1958, 133 f. n. 188); the ‘20 years’ in Odysseus’
deceptive speech to Penelope at Od. 19.221–224 contain a similar emphasis (in
part an iteratum; on the Odyssey, see below). On (b): given the ten-year dura-
tion of the Trojan War (cf. Il. 2.134, 2.328–330, 12.15, Od. 5.106–108), of which
the audience was well aware, the specification of time used by Helen cannot
be entirely specious (Kullmann [1965] 1992, 192); the ‘remaining’ ten years not
elaborated on in the Iliad are thus perhaps to be accounted for via episodes
from the epic cycle, e.g. (1) the (return) journey of Paris and Helen to Troy and
764 Τροίηνδ(ε): on the form, R 15.3. — πρίν: adverbial, ‘(even) sooner, before’.

272 Iliad 24
its extended detours (Kakridis 1960, 407; 1971, 30 n. 13; cf. 6.292n.), (2) the
lengthy mustering of the Achaian forces (schol. D), (3) the erroneous journey
to Mysia (the so-called Teuthranian expedition: Von der Mühll 1952, 389;
Kullmann 1960, 192 f.), (4) the growing up of Achilleus’ son Neoptolemos, who
was conceived not long before the beginning of the war and who in the end
participates in the sack of Troy (Kullmann [1965] 1992, 191 f.). The calculation
20 = 10+10 is also the basis for the Odyssey’s chronology (Od. 2.175, 16.205 f.,
etc.): 10 years of war + 10 years for Odysseus’ return (including one year with
Kirke: Od. 10.469, 7 years with Kalypso: Od. 7.259 ff.). – See also Willcock on
765; Macleod on 765–766; Richardson on 765–767; West 2001, 281 f. A dif-
ferent approach is proposed by Tsagalis (2003/04) 2008 and Bollack 2012:
deliberate intertextuality between the Iliad and the Odyssey (see iterata). —
from the place: In the present situation, Helen tactfully avoids mentioning
Sparta by name (Martinazzoli). — I came …, forsaking …: Helen occasion-
ally suggests in her own statements that she followed her seducer out of her
own free will, especially at 3.173–175; see 2.356n., 3.173b–174n.; Blondell 2010,
2 f.
767–770 Helen repeatedly reveals a pronounced sensitivity to public opinion
(6.350–353n.); without Hektor, she feels isolated (774 f.; cf. 3.229–244n., end).
At the same time, the criticism directed at her by the Trojan royal house has left
no immediate mark within the Iliad, but does resonate e silentio or e contrario
at 3.156–160 (Trojan elders), 3.164 (Priam), 7.345–420 (Trojan council meeting,
talks with the Achaians); possible criticism is anticipated by Helen herself
at 3.410–412. Cf. Ebbott 1999, 4 f., 12–17; Roisman 2006, 7 f.; similarly in the
Odyssey: de Jong on Od. 4.121–136.
767 κακὸν ἔπος: cf. Od. 24.161 ἔπεσιν … κακοῖσιν ἐνίσσομεν (here 768 ἐνίπτοι); in contrast,
17.701 of a ‘message of evil’ (Patroklos’ death). — ἀσύφηλον: an adjective with uncer-
tain etymology but an evidently pejorative meaning. In Homer also at 9.647 f. (Achilleus:
Agamemnon μ’ ἀσύφηλον … ἔρεξεν | … ὡς εἴ τιν’ ἀτίμητον μετανάστην [ῥέζω with dou-
ble acc. in the sense ‘do something to someone’]); here perhaps ‘unkind, disparaging,
contemptuous’ (schol. D: ὑβριστικόν; AH: ‘scornful’; LfgrE: ‘hurtful’), 768 ἐνίπτοι is
corresponding, 772 ἀγανοφροσύνῃ / ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσιν is contrastive; cf. Quint. Smyrn.
9.521 f. (ἀσύφηλος as much as χαλεπός, antithesis ἤπιος), eleg. adesp. fr. 25.1 West
(= schol. on Eur. Androm. 184): ἡ νεότης ἀσύφηλος ἀεὶ θνητοῖσι τέτυκται.
765 ἐεικοστὸν (ϝ)έτος: = εἰκοστὸς ἐνιαυτός; on the prosody, R 4.5.

766 κεῖθεν: = ἐκεῖθεν ‘from there’, i.e. from her native land. — ἔβην … ἀπελήλυθα: ‘departed
(aor.) … am gone (perf.)’. — πάτρης: specification of origin without preposition (R 19.2).
767 σέ(ο): = σοῦ (R 14.1); gen. dependent on ἄκουσα, ‘heard from you’. — κακὸν (ϝ)έπος: on the
prosody, R 4.5.
Commentary 273
768–772 The priamel-like enumeration of relations (by marriage) at 769–770a (cf.

36–37a n.) serves as a foil to Priam (770b) and especially to Hektor (771 f.); the
contrast is highlighted by the chiastic structure (brothers- and sisters-in-law –
mother-in-law | father-in-law – brother-in-law [= ‘you’]) and the antithetical
repetition of hekyrḗ – hekyrós ‘mother-in-law – father-in-law’ (770) (in addi-
tion, 769 is structured in accord with the ‘law of increasing parts’ [60n.]). –
Whether the explicit mention of the mother-in-law is meant to appeal implic-
itly to Hekabe, who is also involved in the mourning, cannot be ascertained;
the aim, however, is not criticism of Hekabe (and others) but praise of Hektor
(differently AH [transl.]: ‘highly inconsiderate’; so too Von der Mühll 1952,
389 and Roth 1989, 70 f., with misguided analytic conclusions; more neutral
are Eustathios 1374.36 f. and Macleod on 770, who credit Helen with sincerity
and candor). In any case, no ‘bad word’ by Hekabe regarding Helen is found in
the Iliad (cf. 767–770n.).
768 1st VH ≈ 220. — εἰ … ἐνίπτοι: The sole Homeric example of εἰ with the past iterative
(Chantr. 2.277; Wakker 1994, 203 n. 147, 205); on the form and meaning of ἐνίπτω, see
3.427n. — τις … καὶ ἄλλος: ‘(also) some other, every other, all other’, cf. 370 (LfgrE s.v.
ἄλλος 555.37 ff.). — ἐνὶ μεγάροισιν: ‘at home, among the family’ (208b–209a n.).
769 ≈ 6.378, 6.383. — γαλόων … εἰνατέρων: denotes the husband’s sisters and the wives
of the husband’s brothers (6.378n.).
770–775 Priam’s kindness to Helen is on display in the Iliad especially at 3.162–
165 (see 3.164–165n.; schol. T.; Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980, 82 f.; Reichel
1994, 267 f.), Helen’s good rapport with Hektor at 6.343–368 (on which, see
6.344–358n.). – A reminiscence of the kindness and helpfulness of the de-
ceased also features in Briseïs’ lament for Patroklos (19.300, where 1st VH ≈
24.773); there are also other similarities between Helen and Briseïs: both have
left their native country and have lost a confidant to death (19.287–300n.;
Reichel 1994, 270 f.; Tsagalis 2004, 161–165). – 771 f. are characterized by a
number of stylistic refinements (for details, see Macleod ad loc.): anaphoric
‘your’ (cf. Fehling 1969, 205); repetition of the root ‘gentle’ (analogous exam-
ple: 7.119 ‘from the hostile battle and the … hostility’; Fehling loc. cit. 164);
framing via repetition of ‘with words’ – a supplement to Andromache’s praise
of Hektor’s military ability (and ruthlessness): ‘it brings out how the killer and
man of action (cf. 739) used words to protect Helen’ (Macleod loc. cit.; likewise
Deichgräber 1972, 81; Roisman 2006, 32).
768 ἐνὶ (μ)μεγάροισιν: on the prosody, M 4.6; on the inflection, R 11.2; ἐνί = ἐν (R 20.1).
769 δαέρων:
͜ on the synizesis, R 7.
274 Iliad 24
770 2nd VH ≈ Od. 2.47, 2.234, 5.12 (of Odysseus as ruler), 15.152 (of Nestor’s atti-
tude toward Menelaos); ‘like a father’ also at Od. 17.397 (Telemachos sarcasti-
cally of Antinoos). Post-Homeric examples of father imagery in Silk 1974, 51 n.
18.
771–772 1st VH of 771 = 1.582. — ἐπέεσσι παραιφάμενος: elsewhere at VE παραιφάμενος
ἐπέεσσι (2× early epic), VB παρφάμενος ἐπ. (2× early epic). — κατέρυκες | … σοῖς
ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσιν: cf. 2.164, 2.180, 2.189 (Odysseus prevents an Achaian retreat); on
the use of ἀγανός ‘gentle, soothing, kind’, see 2.164n. – ἀγανοῖς ἐπέεσσιν is probably
a replacement formation for original ἀγανοῖσι (ϝ)έπεσσι, cf. 759 ἀγανοῖσι βέλεσσιν, etc.
(G 70; Chantr. 1.133 f.; West 1998, XXXIII; 2001, 281). — σῇ τ’ ἀγανοφροσύνῃ: ≈ Od.
11.203 (Antikleia’s spirit of Odysseus); σῇ = ‘with your own’ (AH).
773 1st VH ≈ 19.300. — ἄμμορον: ‘miserable’ (6.408 Andromache on herself; see ad loc.). —
ἀχνυμένη κῆρ: an inflectible VE formula (19.57n.).
774 1st VH ≈ 9.104, 20.339, Od. 3.377, 16.204; cf. also Od. 21.93. — ἐνὶ Τροίῃ εὐρείῃ: = 13.433,
Od. 11.499, 12.189; on the meaning, 256n.
775 shrank when they saw me: A pathetically heightened close to the speech of
mourning. Helen here interprets subjectively the attitude of those around her
(Scodel 2008, 20 f.), but elsewhere as well she describes herself as horrible
(with various terms in the Greek): 3.404 (stygerḗ; addressing Aphrodite), 6.344
(kryóessa; addressing Hektor); Achilleus of Helen at 19.325 (rhigedanḗ, with n.)
is similar, as are the Trojan elders at 3.158 (Helen is ‘terrifyingly’ beautiful, with
n.). An awareness of the sufferings resulting from the war that Helen caused
reverberates throughout these passages (Clader 1976, 19–23; Lateiner 1995,
44); in a somewhat different context when Paris addresses Diomedes at 11.383:
‘the Trojans, who shudder before you as bleating goats do before a lion’ (fear,
terror). – On Greek phríssō/phríkē ‘shudder/shuddering’ in general, Cairns
2013; on the notion, contained in the verb, of hair standing on end, cf. 359
(with 358–360n.; Zink 1962, 19–21).
φίλος: here with an active sense ‘kind to someone, lovingly’ (Hoffmann 1914, 20;
Hooker [1987] 1996, 508 f.).
770 ἢ (ϝ)εκυρή – (ϝ)εκυρός: on the prosody, R 4.4. — πατὴρ ὥς: = ὡς πατήρ.
771 ἀλλά: apodotic (R 24.3), ‘then, thus’. — τόν: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); picks
up τις (768). — παραιφάμενος: ‘encouraging, conciliatory’; παραι- = παρα- (R 20.1); on the middle,
R 23.
773 τώ: 740n. — κῆρ: ‘heart’; acc. of respect (R 19.1).
774 Τροίῃ εὐρείῃ: on the prosody (Tróiēy euréiēi), M 12.2.
775 πεφρίκασιν: perf. of φρίσσω ‘freeze, shiver, bristle’, wth intensive pres. sense; here meta-
phorical (with acc.): ‘shrink from someone’.
Commentary 275
776 ≈ 746 (see ad loc.; on the climax, also 746/760/776). — δῆμος ἀπείρων: ‘Hes.’ Sc. 472
λαὸς ἀπείρων (during the burial of Kyknos) is similar. On the meaning of δῆμος ‘inhab-
itants (of a certain area), people’, cf. 2.198n.; LfgrE. On the use of ἀπείρων, Leaf.
777–804 Hektor’s funeral.
The Homeric style of cremation, as described here (cf. 580–595n.) and in the
funerals of Patroklos at 23.127 ff. and Achilleus at Od. 24.63 ff., finds parallels
in the Greek world in various places and times, namely at Lefkandi and Eretria
(Euboea), Salamis (Cyprus) and Athens. The following elements in particular
are detectable archaeologically: the corpse is burned on a pyre, the burnt re-
mains are collected and placed in an urn, the urn is lowered into the ground,
and a tomb monument is erected above it (Coldstream 1977, 349–352; Blome
1984; Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989, 18–22; Crielaard 2002, 246–249; Guggisberg
2008; cf. 719–776n.); on imitations of Homeric funerals in the Hellenistic peri-
od, see 795n. – On cremation in general, see 38n.; on secondary burial: 795–
798n.
777 2nd VH = 3.303 (see ad loc., also for the VE formula). — λαοῖσιν: here the male popu-
lace in particular, ‘the men’ (1n.). — ὁ γέρων Πρίαμος: a phrase that occurs after caesu-
rae A 4 (also at 21.526) or A 1 (13.368, 22.25); cf. the VE formula γέρων Πρίαμος θεοειδής
(217 etc.), and simple ὁ γέρων in verse middle (236, etc.); see also 164n. — μετὰ μῦθον
ἔειπεν: a speech introduction formulaP for addressing a collective (collection of exam-
ples: 3.303n.); in contrast, cf. πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν at 485n.
778–781 In his order to the Trojans, Priam refers back to the results of his ne-
gotiation with Achilleus regarding a truce (656–672, esp. 658, 662 f.). This is
the final direct speechP in the Iliad (on which, see Beck 2005, 250 f.); like the
first (1.17–21, Chryses), it is delivered by a father who ransoms his child (Pratt
2007, 38 f.; cf. 501b–502n.). – Priam’s interruption of the mourning finds paral-
lels at 7.427 (similarly preparations for a cremation; cf. 662–663n.) and 713–717
(see ad loc.; Louden 2006, 50 f.); it restarts the action after the speeches.
778 ἄξετε: On the form, see 704n. (ὄψεσθε). — μηδέ τι θυμῷ: an inflectible VE formula,
also with οὐδέ (see 19.312n.).
779 πυκινόν: here probably with the connotation ‘densely populated, strong in numbers’,
as at 4.392 f. πυκινὸν λόχον …, | κούρους πεντήκοντα, 5.93 f. πυκιναὶ κλονέοντο φάλαγγες
| … πολέες περ ἐόντες, 13.680 Δαναῶν πυκινὰς στίχας ἀσπιστάων (AH; Nowag 1983,
777 μετὰ … ἔειπεν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2); in combination with the dat. λαοῖσιν: ‘said among
the people, to the people’.
778 ξύλα (ϝ)άστυδε: on the prosody, R 4.3. — μηδέ τι: τι (‘in some way’: R 19.1) intensifies the
negative; μηδέ is also used in Homer after affirmative sentences (R 24.8).
276 Iliad 24
54–56); in contrast, Od. 11.525 πυκινὸν λόχον of the Wooden Horse ‘tightly, solidly made’.
— λόχον: ‘ambush’, here as at e.g. 18.513 in a verbal use: ‘ambuscade, attack’; it can also
denote the group that lies in ambush (6.189n.); see also 1.226–227n. (special deploy-
ment of an elite group). On ambushing as a Greek military tactic in general, see Krentz
2000; van Wees 2004, 131–133. — ἦ γὰρ Ἀχιλλεύς: VE = 21.532 (likewise a speech by
Priam).
780–781 ὧδ’ ἐπέτελλε …, | μὴ πρὶν πημανέειν: The relationship between predicate
(ἐπέτελλε ‘gave the order, directed, instructed’) and infinitive (πημανέειν) appears to be
loose here: ‘(Achilleus) instructed as follows’, i.e. ‘instructed me to convey the follow-
ing’, namely ‘that he would not cause 〈us〉 harm’ (in this sense van Leeuwen; AH; Beck
1964, 252 f.; LfgrE s.v. τέλλω 386.42–44); on ἐπιτέλλω ‘(have) convey’, cf. 11.839 f. (in
reference to 11.791 ταῦτ’ εἴποις Ἀχιλῆϊ), 24.112. Differently Leaf, who maintains the basic
meaning: ‘was giving orders that they would not harass us’.
780 1st VH ≈ 11.785. — black: a common epithet of ships (94× early epic), the
word refers to the (water-resistant) coating of hulls with pitch (1.141n.).
μελαινάων ἀπὸ νηῶν: = 16.304, 17.383; metrically equivalent to νεῶν ἄπο καὶ κλισιάων
(2.91, etc., see ad loc.; cf. Hoekstra 1965, 127).
781 ≈ Od. 4.747; 2nd VH ≈ Il. 1.493, 24.31. — none should do us injury until …:
a common expression in announcements, threats, etc., which are then mostly
fulfilled (e.g. at 1.97 f.); largely an element of character languageP (Kelly 2007,
339–341). — the twelfth dawn: i.e. the twelfth day; on the reckoning of days in
the action, cf. 667 (659–667n. and 31n.).
πημανέειν: ‘to harm, cause injury’, almost exclusively in character languageP and
always in a religio-legal context: 3.299n. — μόλῃ: a metrical alternative to ἔλθῃ, which
is more common with designations of time than is μολεῖν (the latter also at Od. 17.190 f.
δὴ γὰρ μέμβλωκε … | ἦμαρ); cf. Létoublon 1985, 114.
782 ὣς ἔφαθ’· οἳ δ(έ): 718n. — ὑπ’ ἀμάξῃσιν: on ὑπό with dat., 14n.; on the transport
wagon, 266–274n. — βόας ἡμιόνους τε: cf. VB βουσὶ καὶ ἡμιόνοισιν at 7.333, Hes. Op.
607, 816; ἡμιόνων τε βοῶν τε Od. 17.298.
783 αἶψα δ’ ἔπειτα: a formulaic expression (8× Il., 2× Od., 2× ‘Hes.’), usually denoting a
rapid arrival by wagon or on foot (e.g. at 6.370). — πρὸ ἄστεος ἠγερέθοντο: On the
formulation, cf. Od. 24.468. The formation of ἠγερέθοντο (related to ἀγείρω/ἀγορή) is
uncertain (2.303–304n.).
780 πέμπων: in the sense ‘dismiss, see off’. — μ’: = με (dependent on πέμπων). — ὧδε: ‘thus’
(refers forward to 781). — ἀπὸ νηῶν: to be taken with πέμπων.
781 πρὶν … πρίν: the first πρίν is an adverb, the second a conjunction: ‘previously …, before’. —
πημανέειν: fut. inf.; on the form, R 8 and 16.4. — ἠώς: cf. 695n.
782 βόας: = βοῦς.
783 πρὸ (ϝ)άστεος: on the prosody, R 5.4.
Commentary 277
784–804 The narrator occupies a ‘panorama’ point of view (Lateiner 1995, 55;

de Jong/Nünlist 2004, 69), and the narrative pace increases (storyP). The
preparations for Hektor’s funeral are described only briefly, in view of the fact
that a similar process (the funeral of Patroklos) was portrayed in extenso in
Book 23 (Kelly 2007a, 383: ‘decreasing doublet’). The action is structured by
closely spaced specifications of time: 784 summaryP, 785 f. ‘when | … dawn …’,
788 f. ‘when the young dawn …’ (Lynn-George 1988, 255; on the wide variety
of formulae for ‘morning’, cf. 695n.); direct speech is absent. In addition, there
is a gapP at the transition from the tenth to the eleventh day of the ritual: the
pyre is lit (787) – the night’s rest remains unmentioned – the next day, the
Trojans gather once again to quench the fire (789/791: Kurz 1966, 15; Lowe
2000, 107 n. 6). Only the interment proper is described in some detail as the
central act in the funerary ritual (Richardson on 777–804; cf. 791–801n.).
784 The last nine-day period in the Iliad has a structural correspondence to Book
1: there the pyres of the plague victims burn for nine days (1.52 f.), whereas here
the pyre for Hektor’s corpse is constructed over the same amount of time (STR
21 fig. 1; Richardson on 660–667; Hellwig 1964, 40 f.; Stanley 1993, 242);
see also 662–663n. (664 ‘nine days of mourning’ → 784 ‘nine days of collecting
wood’), 664–667n. (nine-day periods in ritual).
γε ἀγίνεον: On the hiatus at caesura B 2, see 264n. — ἄσπετον ὕλην: an inflectible VE
formula (2.455n.).
785 ≈ 6.175; 1st VH = 9.474, h.Cer. 51. — φαεσίμβροτος: an epithet of Helios (Od. 10.138,
Hes. Th. 958) and of the sun (Od. 10.191); only here an as epithet of Eos/dawn, in place
of the more common (weakly attested in the transmission here) ῥοδοδάκτυλος (788n.),
perhaps for reasons of variatio vis-à-vis 788 (Peppmüller; Richardson; Friedrich
2007, 76). The word may originally have meant ‘seeing, watching human beings’ (of
Helios: Schmitt 1967, 164, 174 f.; cf. 3.277 with n.), but in early epic is apparently under-
stood ‘shining/appearing to human beings’ (cf. Od. 3.1 f., 12.385 f.; schol. D; LfgrE). – On
the interpretation of the infix -σι- by analogy with initial elements with a sigmatic aorist
stem as in e.g. τερψίμβροτος (similarly an epithet of Helios), see Risch 192; Tronci
2000, 294 f., 302 f. — ἠώς: In contrast, this is understood by West as a personification at
788 (Ἠώς); on the ‘confluence of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic action’,
see CG 28 (and 38).
786 2nd VH = 1st VH of 714. — The ekphora (transport of the corpse to the place of
burial) is described in more detail in Book 23: 23.127–139; in contrast to the pro
784 τοί: anaphoric demonstrative pronoun (R 17); on the form, R 14.3. — ἀγίνεον: a derivation
from ἄγω (deverbative) with an intensive sense: ‘transport, procure’.
786 καί: apodotic (R 24.3).
278 Iliad 24
thesis (589–590n.), it is rarely depicted in the visual arts (Andronikos 1968,

50 f.; Ahlberg 1971, 220–239; Garland 1985, 31–34).
καὶ τότ’ ἄρ(α): 32n. — θρασὺν Ἕκτορα: 71–72a n. — δάκρυ χέοντες: 613n.
787 ≈ 23.165. — aloft a … pyre: On cremation, see 38n. (cf. 777–804n.).
ἐν δὲ …, ἐν δ(έ): on the anaphora, 10–12n. — ὑπάτῃ: on the etymology and use of the
epithet, 19.258n. (mostly of Zeus, 2× of πυρή).
788 = 1.477 and 20× Od.; in addition, 2nd VH = 23.109, Od. 23.241; ≈ Il. 6.175, Od.
5.121; VE = Il. 9.707, Hes. Op. 610. — The narrator introduces the eleventh day
of the funerary ritual – the actual burial – with a formulaic verse that occurs
elsewhere in the Iliad only at 1.477 (= eleventh day of the action of the Iliad;
see 1.477n.). On the repetition of the specification of time at 785/788, cf. 784–
804n.
ἠριγένεια … ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς: On Eos and the two epithets, see 1.477n.; West 2007,
218–220; Janni 2011 (on ‘rosy-fingered’).
789 ≈ 7.434 (additional parallels between 7.433 f., 24.788 f. as well as 23.226–228: funerary
context, specification of time with ἦμος … τῆμος). — κλυτοῦ: a generic epithetP (437n.);
only here of Hektor, perhaps a gen. variant of the acc. formula θρασὺν Ἕκτορα (71–
72a n.).
ἤγρετο: Here and at 7.434, the tradition offers the form ἔγρετο (originally an aor. of ἐγείρομαι
‘rise, awaken’, e.g. 2.41), but the context demands a form of ἀγείρομαι ‘congregate’ (cf. Od. 14.248
ἐσαγείρετο λαός, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 475 ἠγείρετο λαός, in each case at VE; cf. 783 ἠγερέθοντο; Haubold
2000, 197 f.); modern editions thus print ἤγρετο or ἄγρετο (app. crit.; AH Anh.). Because of their
formal similarities, the two verbs are also confounded elsewhere (LfgrE s.v. ἀγείρω 55.5 ff./61 ff.;
Chantr. 1 11; Janko, Introd. 35 n. 65; Hes. Op. 240 ἀπηύρα with 419 ἐπαυρεῖ is similar [see West and
Verdenius on Hes. Op. 240]); this may thus not necessarily be a mere error of transcription (since
in the old Attic alphabet both /ē/ and /ĕ/ were written with epsilon: GT 6; Wackernagel 1916, 88;
West 2001, 23); cf. also Macleod.
790 = Od. 2.9, 8.24, 24.421; ≈ Il. 1.57 (οἳ δ’ ἐπεὶ οὖν …), see ad loc. — Since the verse is miss-
ing from several (important) manuscripts as well as from the only papyrus containing
the end of the Iliad, it is regarded as a concordance interpolation (AH Anh.; West 2001,
13).
791–801 Because of the similar storyline, this passage displays several par-
allels in language and content with 23.237–244 and 23.250–257 (Achilleus’
instructions for the burial of Patroklos and the execution of the orders), see
Richardson on 788–801; cf. 784–804n. The iterata in a narrower sense are
marked below for individual verses.
787 ἐν … ἔβαλον: so-called tmesis (R 20.2).

788–789 ἦμος … τῆμος: ‘when …, then’ (temporal: R 22.2).
Commentary 279
791 = 23.250; ≈ 23.237. — with … wine they put out the pyre: Possible archae-
ological evidence for this process is mentioned in Richardson on 23.237–238
(with bibliography); an Anatolian parallel is described in the funeral rite for
Hittite kings (at dawn, women quench the fire with wine and beer): West 1997,
398 f.
πυρκαϊήν: ‘pyre, place where a fire is lit’ (= πυρή); originally *πυρ-καϝ-ιη from πῦρ and
καίω, cf. Mycenaean pu-ka-wo /pur-kawos/ ‘individual in charge of lighting the fire’
(DMic), Προμηθεὺς Πυρκαεύς (title of a satyr play by Aeschylus), et al.; on the suffix -ιη,
Risch 116 f. — αἴθοπι οἴνῳ: 641n.
792 = 23.238. — ἐπέσχε: in the sense ‘extend (oneself)’, as at e.g. 21.407 (Ares) ἑπτὰ δ’
ἐπέσχε πέλεθρα πεσών. — πυρὸς μένος: Whether this is used pregnantly of the ele-
mental force of the fire (development of the blaze: LfgrE s.v. μένος 142.37 ff., esp. 51–53;
Clarke 1999, 110 f.; cf. 6.182n.) or is simply a periphrasis for ‘fire’ (Graz 1965, 294–296)
is disputed.
793 2nd VH ≈ 4.441 (fem. sing.), 16.456, 16.674, Od. 15.273 (‘brothers and rela-
tives’), Il. 6.239 (acc.). — the white bones: The (ultimately ornamental) epi-
thetP ‘white(ish)’ is occasionally associated with the bleaching of the bones
of an unburied corpse, cf. Od. 1.161 (Handschur 1970, 36 f.; Laser 1983, 5 f.),
but is equally appropriate for the natural color of bones (as they appear e.g.
in animal sacrifice, e.g. Hes. Th. 557; cf. West ad loc.) or for the whiteish-gray
discoloration of bones burnt at high temperatures (Il. 23.252, Od. 24.72/76; on
the change of color of cremated remains, see Grévin 2005; Grosskopf 2005).
— the brothers and companions: The hétaroi ‘companions’ (4n.) are often
regarded as equivalent to brothers or other close relatives, see e.g. 9.584 f., Od.
8.585 f., 21.216; cf. Ulf 1990, 131.
ὀστέα λευκά: a noun-epithet formula at VB (only here), at VE (2× Il.), after caesura A 3
(3× Hes. Th.; Certamen § 9 West); also 4× Od. λεύκ’ ὀστέα.
794 VE = Od. 4.198/223; cf. above 9n. — An emphatic highlighting of the great
sorrow (cf. the parallel passage at 23.250 ff., where 252 merely has ‘weep-
ing’).
795–798 Secondary burial: the cremated remains are not left at the site of the
pyre itself (see 16n., end), but are interred in a separate grave. On the details,
see the following nn. (and 777–804n.).
791 κατὰ … σβέσαν: so-called tmesis (R 20.2). — αἴθοπι (ϝ)οίνῳ: on the prosody, R 5.4.
792 ὁπόσσον: on the -σσ-, R 9.1.
793 ἕταροι: = ἑταῖροι.
794 δάκρυ: collective sing. — παρειῶν: specification of origin without preposition (R 19.2).
280 Iliad 24
795 casket: Greek lárnax ‘chest, box, casket’, at 18.413 Hephaistos’ (silver) ‘tool-
box’, is here the (golden) urn for Hektor’s cremated remains. In archaeology,
‘larnax’ is a technical term for a container for human remains in the shape of
a chest; on Crete and in Tanagra/Boiotia, several clay larnakes of Mycenaean
date (14th/13th cent. B. C.) have been found, the majority of them between
0.5 m and a little over 1.0 m in length and featuring figured decoration (men
and women with gestures of mourning, occasionally in combination with a
‘prothesis’): Cavanagh/Mee 1995; Immerwahr 1995; Burke 2008, 71–76. In the
Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina, two gold larnakes served as urns (2nd half
of the 4th cent. B. C.); the bones they contained had been wrapped in purple
cloth – apparently an imitation of the process described here (Andronikos
1978, 40–42, 46; in general, Guimier-Sorbets/Morizot 2005; cf. 777–804n.,
796n., end).
ἑλόντες: The participle ἑλών/ἑλοῦσα/ἑλόντες is frequently joined with a predicate for
intensification (e.g. 625 σῖτον ἑλὼν ἐπένειμε), especially with τίθημι (3.424 f. δίφρον
ἑλοῦσα … | … κατέθηκε etc.); examples: LfgrE s.v. αἱρέω 354.41 ff.
γε χρυσείην: Elsewhere in early epic, a mute plus liquid in initial position normally makes ‘posi-
tion’; in the case of χρ-, it fails to make position in only ten passages: also at 23.186, Od. 8.353, Hes.
Op. 588, 605, ‘Hes.’ Sc. 199 (text uncertain), h.Cer. 431, h.Ap. 253, h.Merc. 332, h.Mart. 1 (cf. La Roche
1869, 39–41; M 4.5). – On the form of the material adjective, see 21n.
796/798 Two four-word verses (1.75n.) with similar structure (adj. – noun in the dative –
verbal form – adj.); in addition, 796 has formal parallels at 1.582, Od. 20.58, h.Merc. 485,
h.Hom. 19.9 (noun in the dat. pl. – verbal form – μαλακοῖσιν/-ῇσιν).
796 soft robes of purple: In the present context, purple (645n.) may be interpret-
ed as a symbol of the royal dynasty (Blum 1998, 68–75; in general, Reinhold
1970) or, in accord with older interpretations, as the color of blood in funer-
ary ritual (Wunderlich 1925, 46–59, with parallels; contra Blum loc. cit.,
111–118). – The purple covering (péplos, see 229–231n.) recalls the purple cloth
woven by Andromache at 22.440 f.: the use of textiles produced within the
household for funerary rites is common (587–588n.); see Griffin 1990, 368;
Pantelia 1993, 497. Textiles are attested archaeologically for both wrapping
the human remains and enclosing the burial container (Andronikos 1968, 74;
Kurtz/Boardman 1971, 98 f.; Richardson on 23.254; cf. 777–804n., 795n.).
πορφυρέοις … μαλακοῖσιν: On the accumulation of epithets, cf. 125n. (on ‘great,
fleecy’); μαλακός is frequently combined with other adjectives: 2.42 f., 14.349, 18.541 f.,
Od. 1.56, 9.133. — καλύψαντες: It is probably the bones (τά γε, 795), not the larnax, that
are to be added as the object: ‘they collected the bones and placed them in the larnax
795 τά γε: sc. ὀστέα. — θῆκαν: = ἔθεσαν (787, 797).

Commentary 281
after they had wrapped them (the bones)’ (AH, Macleod and others; differently Leaf).
At 23.254, by contrast, the phrase is to be understood such that Patroklos’ bones are
placed in the urn on top of a double layer of fat, after which the whole object is wrapped
in a cloth.
797–798 On the construction of a burial pit with a stone (or earth) cover, see
Kurtz/Boardman 1971, 26, 33, 37, 51 and the bibliography at 777–804n.
797 κάπετον: here ‘burial (pit)’ (imitated at Soph. Aias 1165, 1403), 15.356 of the ditch of
the encampment of ships (= τάφρος, see Leaf ad loc.), 18.564 of an irrigation channel
surrounding the vineyard (Achilleus’ shield; see Edwards ad loc.); see also LfgrE. —
αὐτὰρ ὕπερθεν: a VE formula (2.218n.).
798 1st VH ≈ Od. 14.36, 23.193 (and ≈ 2nd VH of Il. 16.212). — On the structure of the verse,
see 796/798n. above. — λάεσσι: from λᾶας ‘stone’, here: ‘stone slabs’; on the declension,
3.12n.
799–800 The mention of look-outs presupposes that the grave monument is
erected outside the city walls, as is customary; on the level of narrative strat-
egy, this works together with 662 f. and 778b–781 to keep alive awareness of
both the continued threat the Achaians pose to the Trojans – for this reason,
the monument is built ‘quickly’ – and the imminent resumption of fighting
(cf. 659–667n., 662–663n.): Macleod on 800; Richardson on 788–801; Lynn-
George 1988, 254.
799 2nd VH ≈ 18.523, Od. 24.208.
800–804 800, 802, 803 and 804 all culminate in a noun-epithet formulaP: sol-
emn finale.
800 μή: ‘out of fear/worry, that’ (650n., end). — πρίν: The (adverbial) πρίν here and at
23.190 is not followed by a corresponding conjunction πρίν; the precise temporal ref-
erence thus remains open (cf. AH on 23.190): ‘before the time’, i.e. here ‘sooner than
agreed upon’ (thus AH in reference to the unambiguous phrasing at 781) or ‘before the
celebrations would have been concluded’. — ἐϋκνήμιδες Ἀχαιοί: an inflectible VE for-
mulaP (31× Il., 5× Od., 1× Hes., of which 19× nom., 18× acc.); on the realia (‘greaves’),
1.17n. and Franz 2002, 62 f.
801 ≈ 23.257. — they went away: signals the end of an assembly or scene
(1–2a n.), here the end of Hektor’s funeral. The final scene of the Iliad (funer-
ary feast in Priam’s palace, 801–803) is introduced immediately afterward with
‘but then’.
797 θέσαν: sc. λάρνακα.

799 ἔχεαν: 3rd pers. pl. aor. of χέω (here ‘pile up’). — εἵατο: 3rd pers. pl. impf. of ἧμαι (R 16.2).
801 τό: the ‘article’ with an anaphoric demonstrative function (R 17); refers back to 799. — κίον:
‘they went’ (defective verb).
282 Iliad 24
αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα: on the formula, 273–274n.; on a change of scene after caesura C 2, see
3n., end. — χεύαντες δέ: picks up 799 ἔχεαν, cf. 1.595 f., etc. (paratactic style: Chantr.
2.359; Fehling 1969, 146–148). On the chiasmus σῆμ’ ἔχεαν – χεύαντες … σῆμα, cf.
602/613 (the frame, structured as a ring-composition, of the Niobe paradigm: 613n.). –
On the root aorist ἔχε(υ)α, see 3.10n.
802 2nd VH = Od. 3.66, 13.26, 20.280; ≈ Od. 10.182. — Great Homeric feasts (funer-
al, wedding, entertainment of guests) are aimed at creating a sense of commu-
nity and reinforcing status: Finley (1954) 1977, 123–126; van Wees 1992, 44–48.
εὖ: ‘as befits’, with δαίνυντ(ο): ‘plentifully, generously’ (AH; Leaf), and/or
συναγειρόμενοι: ‘solemn’, like Latin rite (Peppmüller; on this sense, cf. Macleod); see
also Lynn-George 1996, 23. — δαίνυντ(ο) … δαῖτα: a figura etymologica (δαι- ‘distrib-
ute, allocate’), at Od. 3.66/20.280 reinforced by the preceding μοίρας δασσάμενοι. On the
Homeric formulae for ‘take a meal’, see Reece 1993, 24. — ἐρικυδέα: ‘lavish’ (3.65n.).
803 The portion of the action set at Troy in 696–804 concludes in a solemn man-
ner via the key words ‘palace, Priam, king’ (cf. 665n.; Richardson on 801–803,
end).
διοτρεφέος βασιλῆος: an inflectible VE formulaP (8× Il., 4× Od., 2× Hes., 1× h.Hom.; by
case: 5× gen. sing., 3× nom. pl., 6× gen. pl., 1× acc. pl.); with Πριάμοιο preceding also at
5.464 (cf. 4.338 Πετεῷο διοτρ. βασ.; also 680n.). On the epithet διοτρ., see 553n.
804 Like the Iliad, the Anglo-Saxon epic Beowulf ends with the funeral of the
fallen protagonist (description of pyres, grave mounds, lament: verses 3137 ff.)
and a concluding summaryP: ‘so the people of the Geats mourned / the fall
of their lord (sc. Beowulf) …’ (3178 f.). – On the manner in which the narrator
ends his epic (conclusion with no epilogue, explicit moral, vel sim.), see van
Groningen 1958, 70–74; de Jong 2004a, 18; West 2007a, 4–7. On the form of
the summaryP in general, Richardson 1990, 31. — Hektor, breaker of horses:
The Iliad begins with the ‘anger of Peleus’ son Achilleus’ (1.1) and concludes
with the ‘funeral of Hektor’: the epic is framed by its two protagonists (cf. Metz
1990, 400 f.).
ὣς οἵ γ(ε): an introduction to a summaryP (22n.), here of the closing image of the Iliad. —
τάφον: ‘funerary celebration’, the rite in its entirety, cf. 660 τελέσαι τάφον, Od. 20.307
τάφον ἀμφεπονεῖτο; in contrast, Il. 23.29, Od. 3.309 used pregnantly of the funeral feast
(δαίνυ τάφον), which should be included here – after 802 δαίνυντ(ο) … δαῖτα – given
that ἀμφιέπω is frequently used in the sense ‘prepare a meal’ (e.g. at 622). — Ἕκτορος
ἱπποδάμοιο: a noun-epithet formula (VE 16.717, 22.161, 22.211; VB 24.724, v.l.; see 509n.,
724n.).
803 δώμασιν ἐν: = ἐν δώμασιν (R 20.2); on the plural, R 18.2.

Commentary 283
Schol. T attests a v.l. for ἱπποδάμοιο (‘τινὲς γράφουσιν’): ἦλθε δ’ Ἀμαζών | Ἄρηος θυγάτηρ
μεγαλήτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο (= Aethiopis fr. 1 West; 2nd VH of the additional verse ≈ Od. 10.200 [of
Polyphemos]; a different appositive for Ἀμαζών is transmitted by a papyrus at the end of a prose ac-
count of the prehistory of the Trojan War: ἦλθε δ’ Ἀμαζών | Ὀτρήρης θυγάτηρ, εὐειδὴς Πενθεσίλεια;
on the relationship between the different additional verses in schol. T and in the papyrus, see West
2001, 283–285). Neither the change of scene after caesura C 2 (on which, see 3n., end) nor the sud-
den appearance of a character with ἦλθε δ(έ) is unusual (e.g. Athene at 1.194 [see ad loc.], Patroklos’
spirit at 23.65 and other dead souls 4× Od. 11, the beggar Iros at Od. 18.1); nevertheless, the transition
between Hektor’s funeral and the arrival of Penthesileia in this manner appears overly abrupt. It is
thus assumed today that the v.l. derives from a rhapsode who amalgamated the entire content of the
epic cycle into a continuous narrative, so that in the present case the Aethiopis was seamlessly con-
nected to the Iliad (a similar purpose – linking to the Cypria – is perhaps to be seen in the alternative
prooimion of the Iliad transmitted in one ms.: ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι, |
ὅππως δὴ μῆνίς τε χόλος θ’ ἕλε Πηλεΐωνα | Λητοῦς τ’ ἀγλαὸν υἱόν· ὃ γὰρ βασιλῆϊ χολωθείς [= 2nd
VH of Il. 1.9]). Bibliography: Bassett 1922/23; Bethe (1922) 1929, 383 f.; Beck 1964, 168; Kurz 1966,
121 f. with n. 16; Burgess 2001, 140–142 (with further bibliography in n. 23 p. 242); also Wheeler
2002, 42 f.; somewhat differently, West 2011, 428–430 (the Iliad originally ended with 803; 804 is a
remnant of the transition to the Aethiopis). – On a similar result in the corpus Hesiodeum, see West
on Hes. Th., Introd. 49 f.
Bibliographic Abbreviations
1 Works cited without year of publication (standard works)

AH Homers Ilias. Erklärt von K. F. Ameis und C. Hentze, Leipzig and Berlin 11868–
1884 (Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze); most recent edi-
tions: vol. 1.1 (Books 1–3) 71913, rev. by P. Cauer; vol. 1.2 (4–6) 61908; vol. 1.3
(7–9) 51907; vol. 1.4 (10–12) 51906; vol. 2.1 (13–15) 41905; vol. 2.2 (16–18) 41908;
vol. 2.3 (19–21) 41905; vol. 2.4 (22–24) 41906. (Reprint Amsterdam 1965.)
AH, Anh. Anhang zu Homers Ilias. Schulausgabe von K. F. Ameis, Leipzig 11868–
1886 (commentary on Books 1–6 by Ameis, rev. by Hentze; 7–24 by Hentze);
most recent editions: 1st part (1–3) 31896; 2nd part (4–6) 21882; 3rd part (7–9)
2
1887; 4th part (10–12) 21888; 5th part (13–15) 21897; 6th part (16–18) 21900; 7th
part (19–21) 11883; 8th part (22–24) 11886.
AH on Od. Homers Odyssee. Für den Schulgebrauch erklärt von K. F. Ameis (and, from
the 5th ed. on, by C. Hentze), Leipzig 11856–1860; most recent editions (rev.
by P. Cauer): vol. 1.1 (Books 1–6), Leipzig and Berlin 131920 = 141940; vol. 1.2
(Books 7–12) 111908 = 121922 = 131940; vol. 2.1 (Books 13–18) 91910 (reprint 1928);
vol. 2.2 (Books 19–24) 101911 (reprint 1928). (Reprint Amsterdam 1964.)
AH, Anh. on Od. Anhang zu Homers Odyssee. Schulausgabe von K. F. Ameis, Leipzig 11865–
1868; most recent editions (rev. by C. Hentze): 1st part (1–6) 41890; 2nd part
(7–12) 31889; 3rd part (13–18) 31895; 4th part (19–24) 31900.
Allen Allen, Th.W. Homeri Ilias. Oxford 1931. (3 vols.)
Allen/Halliday/ Allen, Th.W., W. R. Halliday and E. E. Sikes. The Homeric Hymns. Oxford 1936.
Sikes (Reprint Amsterdam 1980.)
ArchHom Archaeologia Homerica. Die Denkmäler und das frühgriechische Epos. Edited
by F. Matz and H.-G. Buchholz under the authority of the DAI. Göttingen
1967–.
Beekes Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, with the assitence of L. van Beek.
Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10. Leiden and Boston
2009. (2 vols.)
BNP Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, edited by H. Cancik and
H. Schneider, transl. by C. F. Salazar. Leiden 2002–2011. (German original:
Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart and Weimar 1996–2003.)
Càssola Inni Omerici, a cura di F. Càssola. Milan 1975.
Chantr. Chantraine, P. Grammaire homérique6. Paris 1986–1988 (11942–1953). (2 vols.)
ChronEG Chronique d’étymologie grecque, ed. by A. Blanc, C. de Lamberterie and
J.-L. Perpillou, appears annually in: RPh 70 ff., 1996 ff. (also in: DELG); cited
in this volume: ChronEG 3, RPh 72 (1998) 117–142; ChronEG 4, RPh 73 (1999)
79–108; ChronEG 6, RPh 75 (2001) 131–162; ChronEG 7, RPh 76 (2002) 113–142;
ChronEG 8, RPh 77 (2003) 111–140; ChronEG 10, RPh 79 (2005) 161–180.
Companion Morris, I. and B. Powell (eds.). A New Companion to Homer. Leiden etc. 1997.
Cunliffe Cunliffe, R. J. A Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect. London etc. 1924.
DELG Chantraine, P. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des
mots. Nouvelle édition avec, en supplément, les Chroniques d’étymologie
grecque (1–10). Paris 2009 (11968–1980).
286 Iliad 24
Denniston Denniston, J. D. The Greek Particles2. Oxford 1954 (11934).

DMic Aura Jorro, F. Diccionario Micénico. Madrid 1985–1993. (2 vols.)
Doederlein Doederlein, L. Homerisches Glossarium. Erlangen 1850–1858. (3 vols.)
Ebeling Ebeling, H. Lexicon Homericum. Leipzig 1885. (Reprint Hildesheim 1987.)
(2 vols.)
Edwards Edwards, M. W. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. V: Books 17–20. Cambridge 1991.
Faesi Homers Iliade4. Erklärt von J. U. Faesi. Leipzig 1864–1865 (11851–1852). (2 vols.)
Faulkner Faulkner, A. (ed.) The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Introduction, Text, and
Commentary. Oxford 2008.
Fernández-Galiano Fernández-Galiano, M., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, Vol. III: Books
XVII–XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.)
Frisk Frisk, H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1960–1972.
(3 vols.)
Garvie Garvie, A. F. (ed.) Homer, Odyssey Books VI–VIII. Cambridge Greek and Latin
Classics. Cambridge 1994.
Graziosi/Haubold Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold (eds.) Homer, Iliad Book VI. Cambridge Greek and
Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010.
Griffin Griffin, J. (ed.) Homer. Iliad Book Nine. Oxford 1995.
Hainsworth on Il. Hainsworth, B. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. III: Books 9–12. Cambridge 1993.
Hainsworth on Od. Hainsworth, B., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII.
Oxford 1988. (Original Italian ed. 1982.)
Heubeck Heubeck, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI.
Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1983.); vol. III: Books XVII–XXIV. Oxford
1992. (Original Italian ed. 1986.)
Hoekstra Hoekstra, A., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. II: Books IX–XVI.
Oxford 1989. (Original Italian ed. 1984.)
HTN Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer. Tradition und Neuerung. Wege der Forschung 463.
Darmstadt 1979.
Janko Janko, R. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. IV: Books 13–16. Cambridge 1992.
de Jong de Jong, I. J.F. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge 2001.
von Kamptz Kamptz, H. von. Homerische Personennamen. Sprachwissenschaftliche und
historische Klassifikation. Göttingen and Zurich 1982. (Originally diss. Jena
1958.)
Kirk Kirk, G. S. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. I: Books 1–4. Cambridge 1985; vol. II:
Books 5–8. Cambridge 1990.
KlP Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike in fünf Bänden, ed. by K. Ziegler and
W. Sontheimer. Stuttgart and Munich 1964–1975. (Reprint Munich 1979.)
(5 vols.)
K.-G. Kühner, R. and B. Gerth. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache.
Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Hanover 1898–1904. (Reprint Hannover 1992.) (2 vols.)
Leaf The Iliad2. Ed. with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices
by W. Leaf. London 1900–1902 (11886–1888). (2 vols.)
van Leeuwen Ilias. Cum prolegomenis, notis criticis, commentariis exegeticis ed. J. van
Leeuwen. Leiden 1912–1913. (2 vols.)
LfgrE Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Founded by Bruno Snell. Prepared under
the authority of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen and edited by the The-
saurus Linguae Graecae. Göttingen 1955–2010. (4 vols.)
Bibliographic Abbreviations 287
LGPN Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, ed. by P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews. Oxford
1987–2013. (7 vols.).
LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, ed. by H. C. Ackermann and
J. R. Gisler. Zurich etc. 1981–1999. (18 vols.)
LSJ Liddell, H. R., R. Scott and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon9. Oxford 1940.
(Reprint with revised Supplement 1996.)
Macleod Macleod, C. W. (ed.) Homer, Iliad Book XXIV. Cambridge Greek and Latin
Classics. Cambridge 1982.
Martinazzoli Martinazzoli, F. (ed.) Omero, Iliade libro XXIV. Rome 1948.
MHV Parry, M. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry.
Edited by Adam Parry. New York and Oxford 1971. (Reprint 1987.)
Peppmüller Peppmüller, R. Commentar des vierundzwanzigsten Buches der Ilias mit Ein
leitung. Als Beitrag zur Homerischen Frage bearbeitet von R. P. Berlin 1876.
Pulleyn Pulleyn, S. (ed.) Homer, Iliad Book One. Edited with an Introduction, Trans-
lation, and Commentary by S. P. Oxford 2000.
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinander
setzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, ed. by Th. Klauser, E. Dass-
mann et al. Stuttgart 1950–.
RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edi-
tion, ed. by G. Wissowa with the cooperation of numerous specialists. Stutt-
gart 1894–2000.
Richardson on Il. Richardson, N. J. The Iliad. A Commentary, vol. VI: Books 21–24. Cambridge
1993.
Richardson on h.Cer. Richardson, N. J. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford 1974.
Risch Risch, E. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache2. Berlin and New York. 1974
(11937).
Ruijgh Ruijgh, C. J. Autour de ‘te épique’. Études sur la syntaxe grecque. Amsterdam
1971.
Russo Russo, J., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. III: Books XVII–
XXIV. Oxford 1992. (Original Italian ed. 1985.)
Rutherford Rutherford, R. B. (ed.) Homer, Odyssey Books XIX and XX. Cambridge Greek
and Latin Classics. Cambridge 1992.
Schw. Schwyzer, E., A. Debrunner, D. J. Georgacas, and F. and S. Radt. Griechische
Grammatik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 2.1.1–4. Munich 1939–
1994. (4 vols.)
Steiner Steiner, D. (ed.). Homer, Odyssey Books XVII–XVIII. Cambridge Greek and
Latin Classics. Cambridge 2010.
ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, ed. by the Fondation pour le Lexi-
con Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC) and the J. Paul Getty Mu-
seum. Los Angeles 2004–2014. (8 vols. and 1 index vol.)
Untermann Untermann, J. Einführung in die Sprache Homers. Der Tod des Patroklos, Ilias
Π 684–867. Heidelberg 1987.
Verdenius Verdenius, W. J. A Commentary on Hesiod, Works and Days, vv. 1–382. Mnemo-
syne Supplements 86. Leiden 1985.
Wathelet Wathelet, P. Dictionnaire des Troyens de l’Iliade. Université de Liège. Biblio-
thèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres. Documenta et Instrumenta 1.
Liège 1988. (2 vols.)
288 Iliad 24
West on Hes. Op. Hesiod, Works & Days. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by
M. L.W. Oxford 1978.
West on Hes. Th. Hesiod, Theogony. Ed. with Prolegomena and Commentary by M. L.W. Oxford
1966.
West on Od. West, S., in A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. I: Books I–VIII. Oxford
1988. (Original Italian ed. 1981.)
Willcock Homer, Iliad. Ed. with Introduction and Commentary by M. M. Willcock. Lon-
don 1978–1984. (2 vols.)
2 Editions of ancient authors and texts*

Aeschylus, fragments (Radt)
in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 3, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1985.
Alcaeos (Voigt)
in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971.
Anacreon (Page)
in Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page. Oxford 1962.
Archilochus (West)
in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 1. Oxford 1989 (11971).
Aristotle, fragments (Gigon)
in Aristotelis Opera, vol. 3: Librorum deperditorum fragmenta collegit et annotationibus
instruxit O. Gigon. Berlin and New York 1987.
Callimachus (Pfeiffer)
Callimachus, ed. R. Pfeiffer, vol. 1: Fragmenta. Oxford 1949.
Certamen (West)
in Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb
Classical Library 496. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003.
Elegiaca Adespota (West)
in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 2. Oxford 1992 (11972).
‘Epic Cycle’ (West)
in Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Century BC, ed. and transl. by
M. L. West. Loeb Classical Library 497. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003.
Eudocia (Usher)
Homerocentones Eudociae Augustae, rec. ediditque M. D. Usher. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1999.
Euripides, fragments (Kannicht)
in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 5.1–2, ed. R. Kannicht. Göttingen 2004.
‘Hesiod’, fragments (M.-W.)
in Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum, ed. F. Solmsen; Fragmenta selecta3, edd.
R. Merkelbach et M. L. West. Oxford 1990 (11970).
* Editions are included only of works for which different editions offer different verse-, para-
graph- or fragment-numbers.
Panyassis (West)
Porphyrius (MacPhail)
Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Text, Translation, Commentary by J. A. MacPhail
Jr. Texte und Kommentare 36. Berlin and New York 2011.
Proclus (West)
Sappho (Voigt)
in Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta ed. E.-M. Voigt. Amsterdam 1971.
Scholia on the Iliad (Erbse)
Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), rec. H. Erbse. Berlin 1969–1988. (7 vols.)
Scholia on the Iliad (van Thiel)
Scholia D in Iliadem secundum codices manuscriptos, ed. H. van Thiel, http://kups.ub.
uni-koeln.de/5586/ (retrieved 1. 1. 2015).
Sophocles, fragments (Radt)
in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta2, vol. 4, ed. S. Radt. Göttingen 1999 (11977).
Stesichorus (Davies)
in Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, post D. L. Page ed. M. Davies, vol. 1. Oxford
1991.
Tyrtaius (West)
in Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati2, ed. M. L. West, vol. 2. Oxford 1992
(11972).
Vita Homeri Herodotea (West)
in Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer, ed. and transl. by M. L. West. Loeb
Classical Library 496. Cambridge, Mass. and London 2003.
3 Articles and monographs

Journal abbreviations follow l’Année Philologique.
Adkins 1960 Adkins, A. W.H. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford.
Adkins 1972 Adkins, A. W.H. ‘Homeric Gods and the Values of Homeric Society.’ JHS 92:
1–19.
Adkins 1975 Adkins, A. W.H. ‘Art, Beliefs, and Values in the Later Books of the Iliad.’ CPh
70: 239–254.
Ahlberg 1971 Ahlberg, G. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art. Studies in Mediter-
ranean Archaeology 32. Göteborg 1971.
Ahrens 1937 Ahrens, E. Gnomen in griechischer Dichtung (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus).
Halle.
Ahrens (1851) 1891 Ahrens, H. L. ‘Homerische Excurse, 9. De hiatus Homerici legitimis quibus-
dam generibus.’ In H. L. Ahrens. Kleine Schriften, vol. 1: Zur Sprachwissen
schaft, ed. by C. Haeberlin, pp. 123–143. Hannover. (First published in Philo
logus 6 [1851] 9–34.)
290 Iliad 24
Albinus 2000 Albinus, L. The House of Hades: Studies in Ancient Greek Eschatology. Studies
in Religion 2. Aarhus 2000.
Alden 2000 Alden, M. Homer Beside Himself: Para-Narratives in the Iliad. Oxford 2000.
Alexiou (1974) 2002 Alexiou, M. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition2. Greek Studies. Lanham
etc. (11974).
Aliffi 2002 Aliffi, M. L. ‘Le espressioni dell’agente e dello strumento nei processi di
«morte violenta».’ In Montanari 2002, 409–423.
Allan 2003 Allan, R. J. The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study in Polysemy. Amster-
dam 2003.
Al-Refai et al. 2002 Al-Refai, A., R. M. Mohadjer, B. Stimm. ‘Der Baumwacholder. Verbreitung,
Ökologie, Nutzung und Vermehrung.’ Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift 16; Elec-
tronic copy: http://w3.forst.tu-muenchen.de/~waldbau/litorg0/295.pdf
(retrieved 30. 4. 2014).
Anastassiou 1973 Anastassiou, I. Zum Wortfeld ‘Trauer’ in der Sprache Homers. Hamburg.
Andersen 1987 Andersen, Ø. ‘Myth, Paradigm and «Spatial Form» in the Iliad.’ In Bremer et
al. 1987, 1–13.
Andersen/Haug 2012 Andersen, Ø., D. T.T. Haug (eds.). Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic
Poetry. Cambridge.
Anderson 1997 Anderson, M. J. The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art. Oxford.
Andronikos 1968 Andronikos, M. ‘Totenkult.’ ArchHom chap. W. Göttingen.
Andronikos 1978 Andronikos, M. The Royal Graves at Vergina. Athen. (First published as ‘The
Royal Graves in the Great Tumulus.’ AAA 10 [1977] 40–72.)
Anghelina 2007 Anghelina, C. ‘On Some Adverbs with Variable Endings in Ancient Greek.’
Glotta 83: 1–12.
Anhalt 1995 Anhalt, E. K. ‘Barrier and Transcendence: The Door and the Eagle in Iliad
24.314–21.’ CQ 45: 280–295.
Arend 1933 Arend, W. Die typischen Scenen bei Homer. Problemata 7. Berlin.
Arnott 1979 Arnott, W. G. ‘The Eagle Portent in the «Agamemnon»: An Ornithological
Footnote.’ CQ 29: 7–8.
Arnott 2007 Arnott, W. G. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z. London and New York.
Arnould 1990 Arnould, D. Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon.
Collection d’études anciennes 119. Paris.
Aslan et al. 2002 Aslan, R., S. Blum, G. Kastl, F. Schweizer, D. Thumm (eds.). Mauerschau. Fest
schrift für Manfred Korfmann. Remshalden-Grunbach. (3 vols.)
Asper 1997 Asper, M. Onomata allotria: zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion poetologischer
Metaphern bei Kallimachos. Hermes Einzelschriften 75. Stuttgart.
Aubriot-Sévin 1992 Aubriot-Sévin, D. Prière et conceptions religieuses en Grèce ancienne jusqu’à
la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C. Lyon etc.
Austin 1975 Austin, N. Archery at the Dark of the Moon: Poetic Problems in Homer’s Odys-
sey. Berkeley etc.
Bader 1991 Bader, F. ‘Les messagers rapides des dieux: d’Hermès ἐριούνιος à Iris
ἀελλόπος, ποδήνεμος ὠκέα.’ SCO 41: 35–86. (Abridged version: ‘Autour de
ϝῖρις ἀελλόπος: étymologie et métaphore.’ RPh 65 [1991] 31–44.)
Bakker 1988 Bakker, E. J. Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and the Description
of the Particle ‘per’. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
Bakker 1997 Bakker, E. J. Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse. Myth and Poet-
ics. Ithaca and London.
Bakker (1992) 2005 Bakker, E.J. ‘Formula, Context, and Synonymy.’ In Bakker 2005, 22–37.
(First published as [in collaboration with N. van den Houten] ‘Aspects of
Synonymy in Homeric Diction: An Investigation of Dative Expressions for
«Spear».’ CPh 87 [1992] 1–13.)
Bakker (2002) 2005 Bakker, E. J. ‘Remembering the God’s Arrival.’ In Bakker 2005, 136–153. (First
published in Arethusa 35 [2002] 63–81 [slightly revised]).
Bakker 2005 Bakker, E. J. Pointing at the Past: From Formula to Performance in Homeric
Poetics. Cambridge, Mass. and London.
Balensiefen 1955 Balensiefen, E. Die Zeitgestaltung in Homers Ilias. Tübingen.
Baltes (1987) 2005 Baltes, M. ‘Beobachtungen zum Aufbau der Ilias.’ In M. Baltes. EΠINO
HMATA. Kleine Schriften zur antiken Philosophie und homerischen Dichtung,
ed. by M.-L. Lakmann, pp. 273–291. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 221. Mu-
nich and Leipzig. (First published in Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 28
[1987] 9–25.)
Bannert 1988 Bannert, H. Formen des Wiederholens bei Homer. Beispiele für eine Poetik des
Epos. Wiener Studien, Beiheft 13. Vienna.
Barck 1976 Barck, C. Wort und Tat bei Homer. Spudasmata 34. Hildesheim and New York.
Barnes 2011 Barnes, T. G. ‘Homeric ἀνδροτῆτα καὶ ἥβην.’ JHS 131: 1–13.
Barth 1984 Barth, H.-L. Die Fragmente aus den Schriften des Grammatikers Kallistratos zu
Homers Ilias und Odyssee (Edition mit Kommentar). Bonn.
Bartolotta 2002 Bartolotta, A. L’occhio della mente. Un’eredità indoeuropea nei poemi omerici.
Palermo.
Basedow 2000 Basedow, M. A. Be¸sik-Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld. With a for-
ward by M. Korfmann and contributions by U. Wittwer-Backofen, J. Wahl,
V. Dresely, T. H. Schmidt-Schultz and M. Schultz. Studia Troica Monogra-
phien 1. Mainz.
Basista 1979 Basista, W. ‘Hektors Lösung.’ Boreas 2: 5–36.
Basset 1979 Basset, L. Les emplois périphrastiques du verbe grec μέλλειν. Lyon.
Basset 2006 Basset, L. ‘La préfiguration dans l’épopée homérique de l’article défini du grec
classique.’ In Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek (Proceedings of
the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’, Madrid, 18–21 June 2003),
ed. by E. Crespo, J. de la Villa and A. R. Revuelta, pp. 105–120. Bibliothèque
des cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain 117. Louvain-La-Neuve.
Bassett 1905 Bassett, S. E. ‘Notes on the Bucolic Diaeresis.’ TAPhA 36: 111–124.
Bassett 1920 Bassett, S. E. ‘Ὕστερον πρότερον Ὁμηρικῶς (Cicero, Att. 1.16 1).’ HSCPh 31:
39–62.
Bassett 1922/23 Bassett, S. E. ‘The Last Verse of the Iliad.’ CJ 18: 305–307.
Bassett 1933 Bassett, S. E. ‘Achilles’ Treatment of Hector’s Body.’ TAPhA 64: 41–65.
Bassett 1938 Bassett, S. E. The Poetry of Homer. Sather Classical Lectures 15. Berkeley.
Bassi 2003 Bassi, K. ‘The Semantics of Manliness in Ancient Greece.’ In Andreia: Stud
ies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. by R. M. Rosen and
I. Sluiter, pp. 25–58. Mnemosyne Supplements 238. Leiden and Boston.
Bechert 1964 Bechert, J. Die Diathesen von ἰδεῖν und ὁρᾶν bei Homer. Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft F. Munich.
Beck 2005 Beck, D. Homeric Conversation. Cambridge Mass. and London.
Beck 2008 Beck, D. ‘Narratology and Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on
Homeric Speech Representation.’ TAPhA 138: 351–378.
292 Iliad 24
Beck 1964 Beck, G. Die Stellung des 24. Buches der Ilias in der alten Epentradition. Tübin-
gen.
Beck 1965 Beck, G. ‘Beobachtungen zur Kirke-Episode in der Odyssee.’ Philologus 10:
1–29.
Becker 1937 Becker, O. Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im frühgriechi
schen Denken. Hermes Einzelschriften 4. Berlin.
Becks 2002 Becks, R. ‘Bemerkungen zu den Bestattungsplätzen von Troia VI.’ In Aslan et
al. 2002, 295–306.
Beekes 1995/96 Beekes, R. S.P. ‘Aithiopes.’ Glotta 73: 12–34.
Beekes 1999 Beekes, R. S.P. ‘The Greek Word for «Lead».’ MSS 59: 7–14.
Bekker 1863 Bekker, I. Homerische Blätter, vol. 1. Bonn.
Bekker 1872 Bekker, I. Homerische Blätter, vol. 2. Bonn.
van der Ben 1986 van der Ben, N. ‘Hymn to Aphrodite 36–291: Notes on the pars epica of the
Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.’ Mnemosyne 39: 1–41.
Benedetti 1979 Benedetti, M. ‘Il composto omerico ἱππιοχάρμης.’ RAL 34: 169–185.
Benveniste 1969 Benveniste, É. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 1: Éco
nomie, parenté, société. Paris.
Benveniste 1969a Benveniste, É. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Vol. 2: Pou
voir, droit, religion. Paris.
Berdowski 2008 Berdowski, P. ‘Heroes and Fish in Homer.’ Palamedes 3: 75–91.
Bergold 1977 Bergold, W. Der Zweikampf des Paris und Menelaos (Zu Ilias Γ 1 – Δ 222). Ha-
belts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Klassische Philologie 28. Bonn.
Bernsdorff 1992 Bernsdorff, H. Zur Rolle des Aussehens im homerischen Menschenbild. Hypo-
mnemata 97. Göttingen.
Bertolín Cebrián 1996 Bertolín Cebrián, R. Die Verben des Denkens bei Homer. Innsbrucker Bei
träge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 97. Innsbruck.
Bethe 1914 Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage. Vol. 1: Ilias. Leipzig and Berlin.
Bethe (1922) 1929 Bethe, E. Homer. Dichtung und Sage2. Vol. 2: Odyssee. Kyklos. Zeitbestimmung.
Leipzig and Berlin. (11922.)
Bettarini 2003 Bettarini, L. ‘Λῆμνος ἀμιχθαλόεσσα (Il. 24.753).’ QUCC 74: 69–88.
Bettenworth 2004 Bettenworth, A. Gastmahlszenen in der antiken Epik von Homer bis Claudian.
Diachrone Untersuchungen zur Szenentypik. Hypomnemata 153. Göttingen.
Bierl 1994 Bierl, A. ‘Apollo in Greek Tragedy: Orestes and the God of Initiation.’ In
Apollo: Origins and Influences, ed. by J. Solomon, pp. 81–96 and 149–159.
Tucson and London.
Bierl 2001 Bierl, A. Der Chor in der Alten Komödie. Ritual und Performativität (unter be
sonderer Berücksichtigung von Aristophanes’ ‘Thesmophoriazusen’ und der
Phalloslieder fr. 851 PMG). Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 126. Leipzig.
Bierl 2004a Bierl, A. ‘Die Wiedererkennung von Odysseus und seiner treuen Gattin
Penelope. Das Ablegen der Maske – zwischen traditioneller Erzählkunst,
Metanarration und psychologischer Vertiefung.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 103–126.
Bierl 2004b Bierl, A. ‘«Turn on the Light!»: Epiphany, the God-Like Hero Odysseus, and
the Golden Lamp of Athena in Homer’s Odyssey (Especially 19.1–43).’ ICS 29
(Divine Epiphanies in the Ancient World): 43–61.
Bierl et al. 2004 Bierl, A., A. Schmitt, A. Willi (eds.). Antike Literatur in neuer Deutung. Fest
schrift für Joachim Latacz anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstages. Munich and
Leipzig.
Bissinger 1966 Bissinger, M. Das Adjektiv μέγας in der griechischen Dichtung. MSS, Beiheft K.
(2 vols.)
Blanc 2003 Blanc, A. ‘La «faute» et le «parricide» en grec, le «dommage» indo-arien et la
«peine» germanique: formes de la racine *h2ley-.’ REG 116: 17–53.
Bloedow 2007 Bloedow, E. F. ‘Homer and the depas amphikypellon.’ In Epos: Reconsidering
Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Proceedings of the 11th Inter
national Aegean Conference (Los Angeles, 20.–23.4.2006), ed. by S. P. Morris
and R. Laffineur, pp. 87–97. Aegaeum 28. Liège and Austin.
Blom 1936 Blom, J. W.S. De typische getallen bij Homeros en Herodotos, I. Triaden, heb
domaden en enneaden. Nijmegen.
Blome 1984 Blome, P. ‘Lefkandi und Homer.’ WJA 10: 9–22. (Partially reprinted in
P. Blome. ‘Die dunklen Jahrhunderte – aufgehellt.’ In Latacz 1991, 45–60,
esp. 45–50.)
Blondell 2010 Blondell, R. ‘«Bitch that I Am»: Self-Blame and Self-Assertion in the Iliad.’
TAPhA 140: 1–32.
Blößner 1991 Blößner, N. Die singulären Iterata der Ilias. Bücher 16–20. Beiträge zur Alter-
tumskunde 13. Stuttgart.
Blum 1998 Blum, H. Purpur als Statussymbol in der griechischen Welt. Antiquitas, Reihe
1, 47. Bonn.
Boedeker 1984 Boedeker, D. Descent from Heaven: Images of Dew in Greek Poetry and Reli
gion. Chico.
Boegehold 1999 Boegehold, A. L. When A Gesture Was Expected: A Selection of Examples from
Archaic and Classical Greek Literature. Princeton.
de Boel 1992 de Boel, G. ‘Lexicographie et syntaxe: le cas de ἐλαύνω chez Homère.’ In
Létoublon 1992, 63–73.
Böhme 1929 Böhme, J. Die Seele und das Ich im homerischen Epos. Leipzig and Berlin.
Bolkestein 1939 Bolkestein, H. Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum. Ein
Beitrag zum Problem ‘Moral und Gesellschaft’. Utrecht.
Bollack 2012 Bollack, J. ‘Vingt ans pour Ulysse, vingt ans pour Hélène.’ In Donum nata
licium digitaliter confectum Gregorio Nagy septuagenario a discipulis collegis
familiaribus oblatum, Center for Hellenic Studies, http://chs.harvard.edu/
CHS/article/display/4644 (retrieved 30. 4. 2014.)
Bolling 1925 Bolling, G. M. The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer. Oxford.
Bolling 1929 Bolling, G. M. ‘The Meaning of που in Homer.’ Language 5: 100–105.
Bolling 1944 Bolling, G. M. The Athetized Lines of the Iliad. Baltimore.
Bömer 1976 Bömer, F. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar. Heidelberg.
Bonifazi 2008 Bonifazi, A. ‘Memory and Visualization in Homeric Discourse Markers.’
In Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, ed. by
E. A. Mackay, pp. 35–64. Mnemosyne Supplements 298. Leiden and Boston.
Bonifazi 2012 Bonifazi, A. Homer’s Versicolored Fabric. The Evocative Power of Ancient
Greek Epic Word-Making. Hellenic Studies 50. Cambridge Mass. and London.
Bonner 1937 Bonner, C. ‘The Sibyl and Bottle Imps.’ In Quantulacumque: Studies Pre
sented to Kirsopp Lake, ed. by R. P. Casey, A. K. and S. Lake, pp. 1–8. London.
(www.questia.com/read/85822898/quantulacumque-studies-present-
ed-to-kirsopp-lake [retrieved 30. 4. 2014].)
Bouvier 1987 Bouvier, D. ‘Mourir près des fontaines de Troie. Remarques sur le problème
de la toilette funéraire d’Hector dans l’Iliade.’ Euphrosyne 15: 9–29.
294 Iliad 24
Bouvier 2009 Bouvier, D: ‘Le trône d’Achille: Représentations de chaises et de fauteuils

dans l’Iliade, regards philologique et archéologique.’ In Reconstruire Troie.
Permanence et renaissance d’une cité emblématique, ed. by M. Fartzoff et al.,
pp. 489–510. Besançon.
Bowra 1952 Bowra, C. M. Heroic Poetry. London.
Braswell 1971 Braswell, B. K. ‘Mythological Innovation in the Iliad.’ CQ 21: 16–26.
Braund/Most 2003 Braund, S. and G. W. Most (eds.). Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to
Galen. Cambridge.
Bremer et al. 1987 Bremer, J. M., I. J.F. de Jong, J. Kalff (eds.). Homer: Beyond Oral Poetry. Recent
Trends in Homeric Interpretation. Amsterdam.
Bremer et al. 1987a Bremer, J. M., A. M. van Erp Taalman Kip, S. R. Slings. Some Recently Found
Greek Poems: Text and Commentary. Mnemosyne Supplements 99. Leiden
etc.
Bremmer 1983 Bremmer, J. N. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul. Princeton.
Bretzigheimer 1969 Bretzigheimer, F. ‘Hektor in Troia. Zu Homer, 6.237–529 und 24.697–804.’
Anregung 15: 167–176.
Brillante 1990 Brillante, C. ‘Scene oniriche nei poemi omerici.’ MD 24: 31–46.
Brown 1998 Brown, A. ‘Homeric Talents and the Ethics of Exchange.’ JHS 118: 165–172.
Brown 2014 Brown, H. P. ‘The Grammaticalization of «Daimonie» at Iliad 24.194.’ Mnemo
syne 67: 353–369.
Brulé 2005 Brulé, P. ‘«La cité est la somme des maisons». Un commentaire religieux.’ In
Dasen/Piérart 2005, 27–53.
Brunius-Nilsson 1955 Brunius-Nilsson, E. ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΕ: An Inquiry into a Mode of Apostrophe in
Old Greek Literature. Uppsala.
Bruns 1970 Bruns, G. ‘Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten.’ ArchHom chap. Q. Göttingen.
Buchan 2012 Buchan, M. Perfidy and Passion: Reintroducing the Iliad. Madison.
Buchholz 1885 Buchholz, E. Die homerischen Realien, Bd. 3, Abt. 2: Die homerische Psycholo
gie und Ethik. Leipzig.
Buchholz 2012 Buchholz, H.-G. ‘Erkennungs-, Rang- und Würdezeichen.’ ArchHom chap. D.
Göttingen.
Buchholz et al. 1973 Buchholz, H.-G., G. Jöhrens, I. Maull. ‘Jagd und Fischfang.’ ArchHom chap.
J. Göttingen.
Bühler 1960 Bühler, W. Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar.
Hermes Einzelschriften 13. Wiesbaden.
Burgess 2001 Burgess, J. S. The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle.
Baltimore and London.
Burgess 2004 Burgess, J. S. ‘Untrustworthy Apollo and the Destiny of Achilles: Iliad 24.55–
63.’ HSCPh 102: 21–40.
Burgess 2010 Burgess, J. S. ‘The Hypertext of Astyanax.’ Trends in Classics 2: 211–224.
Burgess 2012 Burgess, J. S. ‘Intertextuality Without Text in Early Greek Epic.’ In Andersen/
Haug 2012, 168–183.
Burke 2008 Burke, B. ‘Mycenaean Memory and Bronze Age Lament.’ In Suter 2008, 70–
92.
Burkert 1955 Burkert, W. Zum altgriechischen Mitleidsbegriff. Erlangen.
Burkert (1977) 1985 Burkert, W. Greek Religion, transl. by J. Raffan. Cambridge Mass. (German
original: Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stutt-
gart 1977.)
Burkert (1984) 1992 Burkert, W. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek
Culture in the Early Archaic Age, transl. by M. E. Pinder and W. Burkert.
Cambridge Mass. and London. (= expanded version of: Die orientalisierende
Epoche in der griechischen Religion und Literatur. SHAW 1984 1. Heidelberg
1984.)
Burkert 2012 Burkert, W. ‘Der Abschluß der Ilias im Zeugnis korinthischer und attischer
Vasen (580/560 v. Chr.).’ MH 69: 1–11.
Buttmann (1818) 1825 Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung,
hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod2, vol. 1 Berlin (11818).
Buttmann 1825 Buttmann, Ph. Lexilogus, oder Beiträge zur griechischen Wort-Erklärung,
hauptsächlich für Homer und Hesiod, vol. 2. Berlin.
Buxton 2004 Buxton, R. ‘Similes and Other Likenesses.’ In The Cambridge Companion to
Homer, ed. by R. Fowler, pp. 139–155. Cambridge.
Cairns 1993 Cairns, D. L. Aidōs: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient
Greek Literature. Oxford.
Cairns 2001 Cairns, D. L. (ed.) Oxford Readings in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford.
Cairns 2001a Cairns, D. L. ‘Anger and the Veil in Ancient Greek Culture.’ G&R 48: 18–32.
Cairns 2003 Cairns, D. L. ‘Ethics, Ethology, Terminology: Iliadic Anger and the Cross-Cul-
tural Study of Emotion.’ In Braund/Most 2003, 11–49.
Cairns 2012 Cairns, F. ‘Atē in the Homeric Poems.’ In F. Cairns (ed.) Papers of the Langford
Latin Seminar 15, pp. 1–52. Prenton.
Cairns 2013 Cairns, D. L. ‘A Short History of Shudders.’ In Unveiling Emotions II. Emotions
in Greece and Rome: Texts, Images, Material Culture, ed. by A. Chaniotis and
P. Ducrey, pp. 85–107. HABES 55. Stuttgart.
Calhoun 1933 Calhoun, G. M. ‘Homeric Repetitions.’ UCPCP 12.1: 1–25.
Calhoun 1939 Calhoun, G. M. ‘Homer’s Gods – Myth and Märchen.’ AJPh 60: 1–28.
Camerotto 2009 Camerotto, A. Fare gli eroi. Le storie, le imprese, le virtù: composizione e rac
conto nell’epica greca arcaica. Padua. (Part of this originally published as:
‘«Obrimos Ares, obrimos Hektor». Epiteti epici e significati.’ Aevum(ant) n.s.
2 [2002]: 141–187.)
Cantarella 1976 Cantarella, E. Studi sull’omicidio in diritto greco e romano. Milan.
Cantarella 1979 Cantarella, E. Norma e sanzione in Omero. Contributo alla protostoria del di
ritto greco. Milan.
Canter 1930 Canter, H. V. ‘The Figure ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ in Greek and Latin Poetry.’ AJPh 51:
32–41.
Carlisle 1999 Carlisle, M. ‘Homeric Fictions: Pseudo-Words in Homer.’ In Carlisle/Levia-
nouk 1999, 55–91.
Carlisle/Levianouk 1999 Carlisle, M., O. Levianouk. (eds.) Nine Essays on Homer. Lanham etc.
Carter 1995 Carter, J. B. ‘Ancestor Cult and the Occasion of Homeric Performance.’ In The
Ages of Homer: A Tribute to E. T. Vermeule, ed. by J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris,
pp. 285–312. Austin.
Carvounis 2007 Carvounis, K. ‘Helen and Iliad 24.763–764.’ Hyperboreus 13: 5–10.
Casabona 1966 Casabona, J. Recherches sur le vocabulaire des sacrifices en grec. Des origines
à la fin de l’époque classique. Aix-en-Provence.
Casevitz et al. 1989 Casevitz, M., E. Lévy, M. Woronoff. ‘«astu» et «polis», essai de bilan.’ LALIES
7: 279–285.
Castellaneta 2012 Castellaneta, S. ‘ἐντυπάς.’ Glotta 88: 111–121.
296 Iliad 24
Cauer (1895) 1921 Cauer, P. Grundfragen der Homerkritik3, vol. 1. Leipzig (11895).
Cauer 1902 Cauer, P. Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάς. Homers Ilias (Schulausgabe), 2nd revised and ex-
panded edition. Leipzig.
Cavanagh/Mee 1995 Cavanagh, W., C. Mee. ‘Mourning Before and After the Dark Age.’ In Klados:
Essays in Honor of J. N. Coldstream, ed. by C. Morris, pp. 45–61. BICS Supple-
ments 63. London.
Cerchiai 1984 Cerchiai, L. ‘Geras thanonton: note sul concetto di «belle mort».’ AION
( archeol) 6: 39–69.
Cerri 1986 Cerri, G. ‘Lo statuto del guerriero morto nel diritto della guerra omerica e
la novità del libro XXIV dell’Iliade – Teoria dell’oralità e storia del testo.’
In G. Cerri (ed.). Scrivere e recitare. Modelli di trasmissione del testo poetico
nell’antichità e nel medioevo, pp. 1–53. Rome.
Chantraine 1933 Chantraine, P. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Collection linguistique
38. Paris.
Chantraine 1940 Chantraine, P. ‘Conjugaison et histoire des verbes signifiant vendre (πέρνημι,
πωλέω, ἀποδίδομαι, ἐμπολῶ).’ RPh 14: 11–24.
Chantraine (1945) 1961 Chantraine, P. Morphologie historique du grec2. Paris (11945).
Chapa 1998 Chapa, J. Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. Papyrologica Florentina 29.
Florence.
Citron 1965 Citron, A. Semantische Untersuchung zu σπένδεσθαι – σπένδειν – εὔχεσθαι.
Winterthur.
Clader 1976 Clader, L. L. Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradi
tion. Mnemosyne Supplements 42. Leiden.
Clark 1997 Clark, M. Out of Line: Homeric Composition Beyond the Hexameter. Lanham
etc.
Clarke 1995 Clarke, M. ‘Between Lions and Men: Images of the Hero in the Iliad.’ GRBS 36:
137–159.
Clarke 1995a Clarke, M. ‘The Wisdom of Thales and the Problem of the Word ἱερός.’ CQ NS
45: 296–317.
Clarke 1997/98 Clarke, M. πινύσκω and Its Cognates: a Note on Simonides, fr. 508 Page.’
Glotta 74: 135–142.
Clarke 1999 Clarke, M. Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer: A Study of Words and Myths.
Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford.
Clarke 2001 Clarke, M. ‘«Heart-Cutting Talk»: Homeric κερτομέω and Related Words.’ CQ
NS 51: 329–338.
Clarke et al. 2006 Clarke, M. J., B. G.F. Currie, R. O.A. M. Lyne (eds.). Epic Interactions: Perspec
tives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to Jasper Griffin by
Former Pupils. Oxford.
Clarke 1978 Clarke, W. M. ‘Achilles and Patroclus in Love.’ Hermes 106: 381–396.
Classen 1867 Classen, J. Beobachtungen über den homerischen Sprachgebrauch. Frankfurt
am Main.
Clay 1999 Clay, J. S. ‘Iliad 24.649 and the Semantics of κερτομέω.’ CQ NS 49: 618–621.
Cobet 1876 Cobet, C. G. Miscellanea Critica quibus continentur observationes criticae in
scriptores graecos, praesertim Homerum et Demosthenem. Leiden.
Coffey 1957 Coffey, M. ‘The Function of the Homeric Simile.’ AJPh 78: 113–132. (Also in: de
Jong 1999, vol. 3, 322–337.)
Coldstream 1977 Coldstream, J. N. Geometric Greece. A Benn Study: Archaeology. London.
Collins et al. 2008 Collins, B. J., M. R. Bachvarova, I. C. Rutherford. (eds.) Anatolian Interfaces:
Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Confer
ence on Cross-Cultural Interaction (17.–19.09.2004, Emory University, Atlanta).
Oxford.
Collins 2002 Collins, D. ‘Reading the Birds: Oiônomanteia in Early Epic.’ ColbyQ 38: 17–41.
Collins 1988 Collins, L. Studies in Characterization in the Iliad. Beiträge zur klassischen
Philologie 189. Frankfurt am Main.
Combellack 1965 Combellack, F. M. ‘Some Formulary Illogicalities in Homer.’ TAPhA 96: 41–56.
Combellack 1981 Combellack, F. M. ‘The Wish Without Desire.’ AJPh 102: 115–119.
Conti 2003 Conti, L. ‘Die Bezeichnung instrumentalischer Bezüge bei Homer.’ IF 108:
195–222.
Corlu 1966 Corlu, A. Recherches sur les mots relatifs à l’idée de prière, d’Homère aux
tragiques. Paris.
Cosset 1985 Cosset, É. ‘Esthétique et système formulaire dans l’Iliade.’ LEC 53: 331–340.
Coventry 1987 Coventry, L. ‘Messenger Scenes in Iliad 23 and 24 (23.192–211, 24 77–188).’ JHS
107: 178–180.
Crane 1988 Crane, G. Calypso: Backgrounds and Conventions of the Odyssey. Beiträge zur
klassischen Philologie 191. Frankfurt am Main.
Crespo 1994 Crespo, E. ‘El origen de la flexión del tipo de Τυδέος, -έα en Homero.’ In Actas
del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Madrid 23.–28.9.1991, ed. by
the Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos, vol. 1, 87–92. Madrid.
Crielaard 2002 Crielaard, J. P. ‘Past or Present? Epic Poetry, Aristocratic Self-Representation
and the Concept of Time in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BC.’ In Mon-
tanari 2002, 239–296.
Crielaard 2003 Crielaard, J. P. ‘The Cultural Biography of Material Goods in Homer’s Epics.’
Gaia 7: 49–62.
Crotty 1994 Crotty, K. The Poetics of Supplication: Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Myth and
Poetics. Ithaca and London.
Crouwel 1981 Crouwel, J. H. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age
Greece. Allard Pierson Series 3. Amsterdam.
Crouwel 1992 Crouwel, J. H. Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece. Allard
Pierson Series 9. Amsterdam.
Cuillandre 1943 Cuillandre, J. La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques. En concor
dance avec la doctrine pythagoricienne et avec la tradition celtique. Paris.
Currie 2006 Currie, B. ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition.’ In Clarke et al. 2006, 1–45.
Cursaru 2012 Cursaru, G. ‘Les sandales d’Hermès, I: Les καλὰ πέδιλα homériques d’Her-
mès.’ RFIC 140: 20–61.
Cuypers 2005 Cuypers, M. ‘Interactional Particles and Narrative Voice in Apollonius and
Homer.’ In Beginning from Apollo: Studies in Apollonius Rhodius and the Ar
gonautic Tradition, ed. by A. Harder and M. Cuypers, pp. 35–69. Caeculus 6.
Leuven etc.
Cuypers 2005a Cuypers, M. ‘Homeric πεπνυμένος.’ Talk at the APA Annual Meeting. Ab-
stract: http://apaclassics.org/sites/default/files/documents/abstracts/
cuypers.pdf (retrieved 30. 4. 2014).
Daix 2014 Daix, D.-A. ‘Achille au chant XXIV de l’Iliade: lion exécrable ou héros admi-
rable?’ REG 127: 1–27.
Danek 1988 Danek, G. Studien zur Dolonie. Wiener Studien Beiheft 12. Vienna.
298 Iliad 24
Danek 1998 Danek, G. Epos und Zitat. Studien zu den Quellen der Odyssee. Wiener Studien
Beiheft 22. Vienna.
Dasen/Piérart 2005 Dasen, V. and M. Piérart. (eds.) Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ. Les cadres ‘privés’ et ‘pub
lics’ de la religion grecque antique. Actes du IXe colloque du Centre Interna
tional d’Études de la Religion Grecque Antique (Fribourg, 8.–10. September
2003). Kernos Supplements 15. Liège.
Davies 1981 Davies, M. ‘The Judgement of Paris and Iliad Book XXIV.’ JHS 101: 56–62.
Davies 2003 Davies, M. ‘The Judgements of Paris and Solomon.’ CQ NS 53: 32–43.
Davies 2006 Davies, M. ‘«Self-Consolation» in the Iliad.’ CQ NS 56: 582–587.
Deacy/Villing 2004 Deacy, S. and A. Villing. ‘Athena Blues? Colour and Divinity in Ancient
Greece.’ In Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World, ed. by L. Cleland and
K. Stears, pp. 85–90. BAR International Series 1267. Oxford.
De Boel 1988 De Boel, G. Goal Accusative and Object Accusative in Homer: A Contribution to
the Theory of Transitivity. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor
Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België 125. Brussels.
Debrunner 1921 Debrunner, A. ‘Homerica.’ IF 39: 202–207.
Debrunner 1922 Debrunner, A. ‘Homerica.’ IF 40: 107–112.
Dee 1994 Dee, J. H. The Epithetic Phrases for the Homeric Gods (Epitheta Deorum apud
Homerum): A Repertory of the Descriptive Expressions for the Divinities of the
Iliad and the Odyssey. New York and London.
Dee 2000 Dee, J. H. Epitheta Hominum apud Homerum: The Epithetic Phrases for
the Homeric Heroes. A Repertory of Descriptive Expressions for the Hu
man Characters of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Alpha-Omega, Reihe A 212.
Hildesheim.
Deger-Jalkotzy 1979 Deger-Jalkotzy, S. ‘Homer und der Orient: Das Königtum des Priamos.’ WJA
5: 25–31.
Deger-Jalkotzy/Lemos 2006 Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and I. S. Lemos. (eds.) Ancient Greece: From the
Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Ed-
inburgh.
Deichgräber 1972 Deichgräber, K. Der letzte Gesang der Ilias. AAWM 1972.5. Mainz and Wies-
baden.
Delebecque 1951 Delebecque, E. Le cheval dans l’Iliade. Paris.
Dentice di Accadia 2012 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. Omero e i suoi oratori. Tecniche di per
suasione nell’Iliade. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 302. Berlin and Boston.
Dentice di Accadia 2013 Dentice di Accadia Ammone, S. ‘Homer und seine Redner. Drei Bitt
reden als Beispiele homerischer Redekunst.’ Gymnasium 120: 103–122.
Derderian 2001 Derderian, K. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of
Literacy. Mnemosyne Supplements 209. Leiden etc.
Di Benedetto (1994) 1998 Di Benedetto, V. Nel laboratorio di Omero2. Turin (11994).
Dickinson 2006 Dickinson, O. The Aegaean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and
Change between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC. London and New York.
Dickson 1995 Dickson, K. Nestor: Poetic Memory in Greek Epic. New York and London.
Diels (1914) 1924 Diels, H. Antike Technik. Sieben Vorträge3. Leipzig and Berlin (11914).
Dietrich 1962 Dietrich, B. C. ‘The Spinning of Fate in Homer.’ Phoenix 16: 86–101.
Dietrich 1965 Dietrich, B. C. Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea
in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer. London.
Dihle 1970 Dihle, A. Homer-Probleme. Opladen.
Dillon 1996 Dillon, M. ‘The Importance of «Oionomanteia» in Greek Divination.’ In

M. Dillon. (ed.) Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches,
pp. 99–121. Amsterdam.
Dirlmeier 1935 Dirlmeier, F. ‘ΘΕΟΦΙΛΙΑ – ΦΙΛΟΘΕΙΑ.’ Philologus 90 (NF 44): 57–77 and
176–193.
Donnay 2005 Donnay, G. ‘Εὔχετ’ ἔπειτα στὰς μέσῳ ἕρκεϊ (Iliade 16.231, 24.306).’ In Dasen/
Piérart 2005, 1–11.
Douglas 2007 Douglas, M. Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition. New Haven
and London.
Dova 2000 Dova, S. ‘Who is μακάρτατος in the Odyssey?’ HSCPh 100: 53–65.
Dover 1983 Dover, K. J. ‘The Portrayal of Moral Evaluation in Greek Poetry.’ JHS 103:
35–48.
Dowden 1996 Dowden, K. ‘Homer’s Sense of Text.’ JHS 116: 47–61.
Dreher 2006 Dreher, M. ‘Die Hikesie-Szenen der Odyssee und der Ursprung des
Asylgedankens.’ In Luther 2006, 47–60.
Drerup 1921 Drerup, E. Homerische Poetik, Bd. 1: Das Homerproblem in der Gegenwart.
Würzburg.
Duckworth 1933 Duckworth, G. E. Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Epics of Homer, Apollo
nius, and Virgil. Princeton.
Dué/Ebbott 2010 Dué, C. and M. Ebbott. Iliad 10 and the Poetics of Ambush: A Multitext Edition
with Essays and Commentary. Hellenic Studies 39. Cambridge Mass. and Lon-
don.
Dumortier (1935) 1975 Dumortier, J. Le vocabulaire médical d’Éschyle et les écrits hippocratiques2.
Paris (11935).
Dunkle 1996/97 Dunkle, R. ‘Swift-Footed Achilles.’ CW 90: 227–234.
Düntzer (1847) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Über das vierundzwanzigste Buch der Ilias.’ In Düntzer 1872,
326–376. (First published in RhM 5 [1847]: 378–421.)
Düntzer (1847a) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Schluss der Ilias.’ In Düntzer 1872, 383–398. (English
original in The Classical Museum 4 [1847]: 36–47.)
Düntzer 1848 Düntzer, H. De Zenodoti Studiis Homericis. Göttingen.
Düntzer (1863) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Zur Beurtheilung der stehenden Homerischen Beiwörter.’
In Düntzer 1872, 507–516. (First published in Verhandlungen der 21. Ver
sammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Augsburg [24.–27.9.1862],
pp. 102–107. Leipzig.)
Düntzer (1864) 1872 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Aus-
druck.’ In Düntzer 1872, 517–549. (First published in JbbClassPhil 10 [1864]:
673–694; also in: HTN 88–108 [abridged]).
Düntzer (1864) 1979 Düntzer, H. ‘Über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den homerischen Aus-
druck.’ In HTN 88–108. (Unabridged version: Düntzer [1864] 1872, see above.)
Düntzer 1872 Düntzer, H. Homerische Abhandlungen. Leipzig.
Durante 1976 Durante, M. Sulla preistoria della tradizione poetica greca. Parte seconda: Ri
sultanze della comparazione indoeuropea. Incunabula Graeca 64. Rome.
Dürbeck 1977 Dürbeck, H. Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeichnungen. Bonn.
Ebbott 1999 Ebbott, M. ‘The Wrath of Helen: Self-Blame and Nemesis in the Iliad.’ In Carl-
isle/Levianouk 1999, 3–20. (Also in: Nagy 2001a, 235–252.)
Eder 2006 Eder, B. ‘The World of Telemachus: Western Greece 1200–700 BC.’ In De-
ger-Jalkotzy/Lemos 2006, 549–580.
300 Iliad 24
Edmunds 1990 Edmunds, S. T. Homeric Nēpios. Harvard Dissertations in Classics. New York
and London.
Edmunds 1997 Edmunds, L. ‘Myth in Homer.’ In Companion 415–441.
Edmunds 2006 Edmunds, L. ‘The New Sappho: ΕΦΑΝΤΟ (9).’ ZPE 156: 23–26.
Edwards 1985 Edwards, A. T. Achilles in the Odyssey. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 171.
Königstein/Ts.
Edwards 1966 Edwards, M. W. ‘Some Features of Homeric Craftmanship.’ TAPhA 97: 115–179.
Edwards 1970 Edwards, M. W. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions.’ HSCPh 74: 1–36.
Edwards 1975 Edwards, M. W. ‘Type-Scenes and Homeric Hospitality.’ TAPhA 105: 51–72.
Edwards 1980 Edwards, M. W. ‘Convention and Individuality in Iliad 1.’ HSCPh 84: 1–28.
Edwards 1986 Edwards, M. W. ‘The Conventions of a Homeric Funeral.’ In Studies in Honor
of T. B.L. Webster, ed. by J. H. Betts, J. T. Hooker and J. R. Green, vol. 1, pp. 84–
92. Bristol.
Edwards 1987 Edwards, M. W. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore and London.
Edwards 1987a Edwards, M. W. ‘Topos and Transformation in Homer.’ In Bremer 1987, 47–60.
Edwards 1992 Edwards, M. W. ‘Homer and Oral Tradition: The Type-Scene.’ Oral Tradition
7: 284–330.
Eichner/Rix 1990 Eichner, H. and H. Rix. (eds.) Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie. Jacob
Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Kolloquium der Indogerman. Ge
sellschaft vom 13.–15.10.1988 in Basel. Wiesbaden.
Eide 1999 Eide, T. ‘Reformulated Repetitions in Homer.’ SO 74: 97–139.
Eitrem 1915 Eitrem, S. Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer. Oslo.
Ellendt (1861) 1979 Ellendt, J. E. ‘Einiges über den Einfluß des Metrums auf den Gebrauch von
Wortformen und Wortverbindungen im Homer.’ In HTN 60–87. (First pub-
lished as Programm Königsberg 1861; also in J. E. Ellendt. Drei Homerische
Abhandlungen, pp. 6–34. Leipzig.)
Elliger 1975 Elliger, W. Die Darstellung der Landschaft in der griechischen Dichtung. Unter-
suchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 15. Berlin and New York.
Elmer 2013 Elmer, D. F. The Poetics of Consent: Collective Decision Making and the Iliad.
Baltimore.
Engels 1998 Engels, J. Funerum sepulcrorumque magnificentia. Begräbnis- und Grab
luxusgesetze in der griechisch-römischen Welt mit einigen Ausblicken auf Ein
schränkungen des funeralen und sepulkralen Luxus im Mittelalter und in der
Neuzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 78. Stuttgart.
Erbse 1960 Erbse, H. Beiträge zur Überlieferung der Iliasscholien. Zetemata 24. Munich.
Erbse (1978) 1979 Erbse, H. ‘Hektor in der Ilias.’ In H. Erbse. Ausgewählte Schriften zur Klas
sischen Philologie, pp. 1–18. Berlin. (First published in Kyklos. Griechisches
und Byzantinisches. Rudolf Keydell zum 90. Geburtstag, ed. by H. G. Beck,
A. Kambylio and P. Moraux, pp. 1–19. Berlin and New York 1978.)
Erbse 1986 Erbse, H. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Götter im homerischen Epos.
Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 24. Berlin and New
York.
Erren 1970 Erren, M. ‘Αὐτίκα ‘sogleich’ als Signal der einsetzenden Handlung in Ilias und
Odyssee.’ Poetica 3: 24–58.
Étienne 2005 Étienne, R. ‘L’incinération: l’exemple athénien.’ Ktèma 30: 183–188.
Etter 1986 Etter, A. (ed.) O-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Ber-
lin and New York.
Falkner 1995 Falkner, T. M. The Poetics of Old Age in Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy. Nor-
man and London.
Faraone 2004 Faraone, C. A. ‘Hipponax Fragment 128W: Epic Parody or Expulsive Incanta-
tion?’ ClAnt 23: 209–245.
Farron 1979 Farron, S. ‘The Portrayal of Women in the Iliad.’ AClass 22: 15–31.
Faulkner 2005 Faulkner, A. ‘Aphrodite’s Aorists: Attributive Sections in the Homeric Hymns.’
Glotta 81: 60–79.
Fauth 1974 Fauth, W. ‘Der Schlund des Orcus. Zu einer Eigentümlichkeit der römisch-
etruskischen Unterweltsvorstellung.’ Numen 21: 105–127.
Fehling 1969 Fehling, D. Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor
Gorgias. Berlin.
Felson 2002 Felson, N. ‘Threptra and Invincible Hands: The Father-Son Relationship in
Iliad 24.’ Arethusa 35: 35–50.
Fenik 1968 Fenik, B. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Tech-
niques of Homeric Battle Description. Hermes Einzelschriften 21. Wiesba-
den.
Fenik 1974 Fenik, B. Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden.
Fenno 2005 Fenno, J. ‘«A Great Wave Against the Stream»: Water Imagery in Iliadic Battle
Scenes.’ AJPh 126: 475–504.
Fingerle 1939 Fingerle, A. Typik der Homerischen Reden. Munich.
Finglass u. a. 2007 Finglass, P. J., C. Collard, C. and N. J. Richardson. (eds.) Hesperos: Studies in
Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday. Ox-
ford.
Finkelberg 1987 Finkelberg, M. ‘Homer’s View of the Epic Narrative: Some Formulaic Evi-
dence.’ CPh 82: 135–138.
Finkelberg 1989 Finkelberg, M. ‘Formulaic and Nonformulaic Elements in Homer.’ CPh 84:
179–197.
Finley (1954) 1977 Finley, M. I. The World of Odysseus2. London (1New York 1954).
Fischer 2007 Fischer, J. ‘Ernährung und Fischkonsum im spätbronzezeitlichen Griechen-
land.’ In Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen
Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des internationalen Kongresses
vom 3.–5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg, ed. by E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale,
pp. 125–139. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichun-
gen der Mykenischen Kommission 27. Vienna.
Flaig 1994 Flaig, E. ‘Das Konsensprinzip im homerischen Olymp. Überlegungen zum
göttlichen Entscheidungsprozeß Ilias 4.1–72.’ Hermes 122: 13–31.
Floyd 1970 Floyd, E. D. ‘The Singular Uses of ἡμέτερος and ἡμεῖς in Homer.’ Glotta 47:
116–137.
Flückiger-Guggenheim 1984 Flückiger-Guggenheim, D. Göttliche Gäste. Die Einkehr von Göttern
und Heroen in der griechischen Mythologie. Bern etc.
Foley 1991 Foley, J. M. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic.
Bloomington and Indianapolis.
Foley 1997 Foley, J. M. ‘Oral Tradition and Its Implications.’ In Companion 146–173.
Foley 1999 Foley, J. M. Homer’s Traditional Art. University Park Pa.
Forbes 1967 Forbes, R. J. ‘Bergbau, Steinbruchtätigkeit und Hüttenwesen.’ ArchHom chap.
K. Göttingen.
Forssman 2001 Forssman, B. Review of Nussbaum 1998. Kratylos 46: 113–117.
302 Iliad 24
Forssman 2003 Forssman, B. Review of Homers Ilias. Gesamtkommentar, ed. by J. Latacz.

Kratylos 48: 104–114.
Forssman 2005 Forssman, B. ‘Das Verbum οἰγ- «öffnen» bei Homer.’ In Sprachkontakt und
Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft
(17.–23. Sept. 2000, Halle an der Saale), ed. by G. Meiser and O. Hackstein,
pp. 105–115. Wiesbaden.
Fowler 2008 Fowler, M. A. The Seer in Ancient Greece. Berkeley etc.
Fraenkel 1950 Fraenkel, E. (ed.) Aeschylus, Agamemnon, edited with a commentary by
E. F. Oxford.
Fraenkel 1962 Fraenkel, E. Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes. Rome.
Fränkel 1921 Fränkel, H. Die homerischen Gleichnisse. Göttingen. (= 21977: unaltered re-
print with an afterword and bibliography, ed. by E. Heitsch; excerpt in Eng-
lish translation in Wright/Jones 1997, 103–123.)
Fränkel (1924) 1960 Fränkel, H. ‘Eine Stileigenheit der frühgriechischen Literatur.’ In H. Frän-
kel. Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Literarische und philoso
phiegeschichtliche Studien2, ed. by F. Tietze, pp. 40–96. Munich. (First pub-
lished in NGG [1924] 63–127).
Franz 2002 Franz, J. P. Krieger, Bauern, Bürger. Untersuchungen zu den Hopliten der ar
chaischen und klassischen Zeit. Europ. Hochschulschriften 3.925. Frankfurt
am Main etc.
Frazer 1971 Frazer, R. M. ‘The κλισμός of Achilles, Iliad 24.596–98.’ GRBS 12: 295–301.
Frenzel (1976) 1999 Frenzel, E. Motive der Weltliteratur. Ein Lexikon dichtungsgeschichtlicher
Längsschnitte5. Stuttgart (11976).
Friedrich 1975 Friedrich, R. Stilwandel im homerischen Epos. Studien zur Poetik und Theo
rie der epischen Gattung. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft,
N. F. 2.55. Heidelberg.
Friedrich 2007 Friedrich, R. Formular Economy in Homer: The Poetics of the Breaches.
Hermes Einzelschriften 100. Stuttgart.
Friedrich/Redfield 1978 Friedrich, P. and J. Redfield. ‘Speech as a Personality Symbol: The Case
of Achilles.’ Language 54: 263–288. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 4, 231–261.)
v. Fritz 1943 Fritz, K. von. ‘νόος and νοεῖν in the Homeric Poems.’ CPh 28: 79–93.
Fritz 2005 Fritz, M. A. Die trikasuellen Lokalpartikeln bei Homer. Syntax und Semantik.
Göttingen.
Frontisi-Ducroux 1986 Frontisi-Ducroux, F. La cithare d’Achille. Essai sur la poétique de l’Iliade.
Biblioteca di QUCC 1. Rome.
Fuchs 1993 Fuchs, E. Pseudologia. Formen und Funktionen fiktionaler Trugrede in der
griechischen Literatur der Antike. Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswis-
senschaft, N. F. 2.91. Heidelberg.
Führer 1967 Führer, R. Formproblem-Untersuchungen zu den Reden in der frühgriechischen
Lyrik. Zetemata 44. Munich.
Führer/Schmidt 2001 Führer, R. and M. S chmidt. Homerus redivivus (review of Homerus, Ilias,
recensuit/testimonia congessit M. L. West, vol. 1, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998).
GGA 253: 1–32.
Gaertner 2001 Gaertner, J. F. ‘The Homeric Catalogues and Their Function in Epic Narrative.’
Hermes 129: 298–305.
Gagarin 1981 Gagarin, M. Drakon and Early Athenian Homicide Law. New Haven and Lon-
don.
Gagliardi 2007 Gagliardi, P. I due volti della gloria. I lamenti funebri omerici tra poesia e antro
pologia. Bari.
García-Ramón 1990 García-Ramón, J. L. ‘Proportionale Analogie und griechische Morphologie:
Athematische Infinitive im Attischen und im Westionischen.’ In Eichner/Rix
1990, 150–169.
García-Ramón 1992 García-Ramón, J. L. ‘Griechisch ἱερός und seine Varianten, vedisch iṣirá-.’
In Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Leiden, 31.8.–4.9.1987), ed. by R. Beekes,
A. Lubotsky and J. Weitenberg, pp. 183–205. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprach-
wissenschaft 65. Innsbruck.
Garland 1981 Garland, R. ‘The Causation of Death in the Iliad: A Theological and Biological
Investigation.’ BICS 28: 43–60.
Garland (1982) 1984 Garland, R. S.J. ‘Γέρας θανόντων: An Investigation into the Claims of
the Homeric Dead.’ AncSoc 15–17: 5–22. (First published in BICS 29 [1982]:
69–80.)
Garland 1985 Garland, R. The Greek Way of Death. Ithaca.
Garvie 1986 Garvie, A. F. (ed.) Aeschylus Choephori. With Introduction and Commentary
by A. F.G. Oxford.
Gemoll 1883 Gemoll, A. ‘Die Beziehungen zwischen Ilias und Odyssee.’ Hermes 18:
34–96.
Genette (1972/83) 1994 Genette, G. Die Erzählung. UTB für Wissenschaft. Munich. (Translation
of 1. ‘Discours du récit.’ In Figures III. Paris 1972; 2. Nouveau discours du récit.
Paris 1983.)
George 2006 George, C. H. ‘The Spatial Use of ἀνά and κατά with the Accusative in Homer.’
Glotta 82: 70–95.
Germain 1954 Germain, G. La mystique des nombres dans l’épopée homérique et sa pré
histoire. Paris.
Giger-van den Heuvel 2007 Giger-van den Heuvel, C. Schwarz und Weiß im mykenischen
Griechisch. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 125. Innsbruck.
Gill et al. 1998 Gill, C., N. Postlethwaite and R. Seaford. (eds.) Reciprocity in Ancient Greece.
Oxford.
Giordano 1998 Giordano, M. ‘Γόος ἀρητός tra maledizione e vendetta di sangue: un saggio
di analisi semantica.’ AION(filol) 20: 59–77.
Giordano 1999 Giordano, M. La supplica. Rituale, istituzione sociale e tema epico in Omero.
AION Quaderni 3. Naples.
Giuliani 2003 Giuliani, L. Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der griechischen
Kunst. Munich.
Göbel 1933 Göbel, F. Formen und Formeln der epischen Dreiheit in der griechischen Dich
tung. Stuttgart.
Gödde 2000 Gödde, S. Das Drama der Hikesie. Ritual und Rhetorik in Aischylos’ Hiketiden.
Orbis Antiquus 35. Münster.
Gödde 2004 Gödde, S. ‘Euphêmia. Zur Performanz kultischer Rede zwischen Sprechen
und (Ver)schweigen.’ In The Language of Silence, ed. by A. Timonen, W. Grei
senegger and R. Kneucker, vol. 2, pp. 9–34. Turku.
Goldhill 1991 Goldhill, S. The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cam-
bridge etc.
Gottesman 2008 Gottesman, A. ‘The Pragmatics of Homeric kertomia.’ CQ NS 58: 1–12.
304 Iliad 24
Gould (1973) 2001 Gould, J. ‘Hiketeia.’ In J. Gould. Myth, Ritual Memory, and Exchange: Essays
in Greek Literature and Culture, pp. 22–77. Oxford. (Forst published in JHS 93:
74–103.)
Grand-Clément 2004 Grand-Clément, A. ‘Histoire du paysage sensible des Grecs à l’époque
archaïque: Homère, les couleurs et l’exemple de πορφύρεος.’ Pallas 65:
123–143.
Grand-Clément 2011 Grand-Clément, A. La fabrique des couleurs. Histoire du paysage sensible
des Grecs anciens (VIIIe – début du Ve s. av. n. è.). Paris.
Grandolini 1996 Grandolini, S. Canti e aedi nei poemi omerici. Edizione e commento. Pisa and
Rome.
Gray 1954 Gray, D. H.F. ‘Metal-Working in Homer.’ JHS 74: 1–15.
Gray 1955 Gray, D. ‘Houses in the Odyssey.’ CQ NS 5: 1–12.
Gray 1974 Gray, D. ‘Seewesen.’ ArchHom chap. G. Göttingen.
Graz 1965 Graz, L. Le feu dans l’Iliade et l’Odyssée. ΠΥΡ: champ d’emploi et signification.
Études et commentaires 60. Paris.
Graziosi/Haubold 2003 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. ‘Homeric Masculinity: ΗΝΟΡΕΗ and
ΑΓΗΝΟΡΙΗ.’ JHS 123: 60–76.
Graziosi/Haubold 2005 Graziosi, B. and J. Haubold. Homer: The Resonance of Epic. London.
Greene 1999 Greene, T. M. ‘The Natural Tears of Epic.’ In Epic Traditions in the Contem
porary World: The Poetics of Community, ed. by M. Beissinger, J. Tylus and
S. Wofford, pp. 189–202. Berkeley etc.
Greindl 1938 Greindl, M. Κλέος, κῦδος, εὖχος, τιμή, φάτις, δόξα. Eine bedeutungsgeschicht
liche Untersuchung des epischen und lyrischen Sprachgebrauches. Munich.
Grethlein 2006 Grethlein, J. Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phänomeno
logischer und narratologischer Perspektive. Hypomnemata 163. Göttingen.
Grethlein 2007 Grethlein, J. ‘The Poetics of the Bath in the Iliad.’ HSCPh 103: 25–49.
Grethlein 2008 Grethlein, J. ‘Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ JHS
128: 27–51.
Grévin 2005 Grévin, G. ‘La crémation sur bûcher dans l’Antiquité à la lumière de l’eth-
noarchéologie.’ Ktèma 30: 15–20.
Griessmair 1966 Griessmair, E. Das Motiv der mors immatura in den griechischen metrischen
Grabinschriften. Commentationes Aenipontanae 17. Innsbruck.
Griffin 1976 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Pathos and Objectivity.’ CQ NS 26: 161–187.
Griffin 1978 Griffin, J. ‘The Divine Audience and the Religion of the Iliad.’ CQ NS 28: 1–22.
Griffin 1980 Griffin, J. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford.
Griffin 1986 Griffin, J. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers.’ JHS 106: 36–57.
Griffin (1986) 1992 Griffin, J. ‘Heroic and Unheroic Ideas in Homer.’ In Homer: Readings and
Images, ed. by C. Emlyn-Jones, L. Hardwick and J. Purkis, pp. 21–31. Lon-
don. (First published in Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios, ed. by
J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richards, pp. 3–13. Oxford 1986.)
Griffin 1990 Griffin, J. ‘Achilles kills Hector.’ Lampas 23: 353–369.
Griffin 2007 Griffin, J. ‘Desperate Straits and the Tragic Stage.’ In Finglass et al. 2007,
189–203.
Griffith 2006 Griffith, M. ‘Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Im-
agination.’ CPh 101: 185–246 and 307–358.
van Groningen 1953 Groningen, B. A. van. In the Grip of the Past: Essay on an Aspect of Greek
Thought. Philosophia Antiqua 6. Leiden.
van Groningen 1958 Groningen, B. A. van. La composition littéraire archaïque grecque. Procédés
et réalisations. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie
van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, N. R. LXV.2. Amsterdam.
Gross 1970 Gross, K. ‘Götterhand und Menschenhand im homerischen Epos.’ Gymna
sium 77: 365–375.
Grossardt 1998 Grossardt, P. Die Trugreden in der Odyssee und ihre Rezeption in der antiken
Literatur. Bern.
Grosskopf 2005 Grosskopf, B. Leichenbrand. Biologisches und kulturhistorisches Quellen
material zur Rekonstruktion vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Populationen und
ihrer Funeralpraktiken. Diss. Leipzig 2004/2005, http://d-nb.info/979587166
(retrieved 30.04.2014).
Groten 1968 Groten, F. J. ‘Homer’s Helen.’ G&R 15: 33–39.
Gschnitzer 1976 Gschnitzer, F. Studien zur griechischen Terminologie der Sklaverei. Zweiter
Teil: Untersuchungen zur älteren, insbesondere homerischen Sklaventermino
logie. Wiesbaden.
Guggisberg 2008 Guggisberg, M. A. ‘Gräber von Bürgern und Heroen: «homerische» Bestattun-
gen im klassischen Athen.’ In Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monu
mentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäolo
gische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, ed. by C. Kümmel,
B. Schweizer and U. Veit, pp. 287–317. Tübinger Archäologische Taschen-
bücher 6. Münster.
Guilleux 2001 Guilleux, N. ‘Le i bref de datif singulier athématique: Les règles d’une élision
homérique et tragique.’ RPh 75: 65–82.
Guimier-Sorbets/Morizot 2005 Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. and Y. Morizot. ‘Des bûchers de Vergina
aux hydries de Hadra, découvertes récentes sur la crémation en Macédoine
et à Alexandrie.’ Ktèma 30: 137–152.
Gundert 1983 Gundert, B. τέλος und τελεῖν bei Homer. Kiel.
Gunn 1970 Gunn, D. M. ‘Narrative Inconsistency and the Oral Dictated Text in the Ho-
meric Epic.’ AJPh 91: 192–203.
Gunn 1971 Gunn, D. M. ‘Thematic Composition and Homeric Authorship.’ HSCPh 75: 1–31.
Güntert 1910 Güntert, H. ‘Zur Geschichte der griechischen Gradationsbildungen.’ IF 27:
1–72.
Hackstein 2002 Hackstein, O. Die Sprachform der homerischen Epen. Faktoren morphologi
scher Variabilität in literarischen Frühformen: Tradition, Sprachwandel,
Sprachliche Anachronismen. Serta Graeca 15. Wiesbaden.
Hagen 1994 Hagen, H. ‘Die Diskussion um die Schreibweise von Ζῆν’ im homerischen
Epos.’ Glotta 72: 98–104.
Hahn 1954 Hahn, E. A. ‘Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative.’ TAPhA
85: 197–289.
Hainsworth 1968 Hainsworth, J. B. The Flexibility of the Homeric Formula. Oxford.
Hainsworth 1999 Hainsworth, J. B. ‘Meaning, Precision, and History in Homeric Diction.’ Ae
vum(ant) 12: 5–15.
Hajnal 1992 Hajnal, I. ‘Homerisch ἠέριος, Ἠερίβοια und ἦρι: Zur Interrelation von Wort-
bedeutung und Lautform.’ HSF 105: 57–72.
Hajnal 1992a Hajnal, I. ‘Der mykenische Personenname a-e-ri-qo-ta*.’ In Mykenaïka.
Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les textes mycéniens et égéens (Athen,
2.–6. 10. 1990), ed. by J.-P. Olivier, pp. 285–301. BCH supplément 25. Athens.
306 Iliad 24
Hajnal 1994 Hajnal, I. ‘Die frühgriechische Flexion der Stoffadjektive und deren ererbte
Grundlagen.’ In Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung
der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (5.–9.10.1992, Zurich), ed. by G. E. Dunkel
et al., pp. 77–109. Wiesbaden.
Hajnal 2003 Hajnal, I. Troia aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Die Struktur einer Argu
mentation. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 109. Innsbruck.
Hajnal 2003a Hajnal, I. ‘Der epische Hexameter im Rahmen der Homer-Troia-Debatte.’ In
Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, ed. by C. Ulf, pp. 217–231. Munich.
Hammer 2002 Hammer, D. The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought. Nor-
man.
Handschur 1970 Handschur, E. Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den home
rischen Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos. Dissertationen der
Universität Wien 39. Vienna.
Hartel 1873 Hartel, W. Homerische Studien. Beiträge zur homerischen Prosodie und Metrik2.
Berlin. (1st ed. in SAWW 68, 1871.)
Haslam 1976 Haslam, M. W. ‘Homeric Words and Homeric Metre: Two Doublets Examined
(λείβω/εἴβω, γαῖα/αἶα).’ Glotta 54: 201–211.
Haubold 2000 Haubold, J. Homer’s People: Epic Poetry and Social Formation. Cambridge
Classical Studies. Cambridge.
Haug 2012 Haug, D. T.T. ‘Tmesis in the Epic Tradition.’ In Andersen/Haug 2012, 96–105.
Haupt 1866 Haupt, M. ‘Analecta.’ Hermes 1: 251–262.
Heath 2001 Heath, J. ‘Telemachus πεπνυμένος: Growing into an Epithet.’ Mnemosyne 54:
129–157.
Heath 2005 Heath, J. The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer,
Aeschylus, and Plato. Cambridge.
Hebel 1970 Hebel, V. Untersuchungen zur Form und Funktion der Wiedererzählungen in
Ilias und Odyssee. Heidelberg.
Heiden 1998 Heiden, B. ‘The Simile of the Fugitive Homicide, Iliad 24.480–84: Analogy,
Foiling, and Allusion.’ AJPh 119: 1–10.
Heiden 2008 Heiden, B. Homer’s Cosmic Fabrication: Choice and Design in the Iliad. Oxford
and New York.
Helbig (1884) 1887 Helbig, W. Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern erläutert. Archäologi
sche Untersuchungen2. Leipzig (11884).
Held 1987 Held, G. F. ‘Phoinix, Agamemnon and Achilleus: Parables and Paradeig-
mata.’ CQ NS 37: 245–261.
Hellmann 2000 Hellmann, O. Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias. Das Bild des Dichters vom Kampf
in der Heroenzeit. Hermes Einzelschriften 83. Stuttgart.
Hellmann 2007 Hellmann, O. ‘Aristoteles und Achilleus: Der poetische Held aus der Sicht des
Philosophen.’ In Philosophie und Dichtung im antiken Griechenland. Akten der
7. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung (Bernkastel-Kues, 10./11.10.2002),
ed. by J. Althoff, pp. 27–41. Philosophie der Antike 23. Stuttgart.
Hellwig 1964 Hellwig, B. Raum und Zeit im homerischen Epos. Spudasmata 2. Hildesheim.
Henrichs 1974 Henrichs, A. ‘Die Proitiden im Hesiodischen Katalog.’ ZPE 15: 297–301.
Hentze 1868 Hentze, C. ‘Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete der homerischen Syntax.’
Philologus 27: 494–533.
Hentze 1870 Hentze, C. ‘Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete der homerischen Syntax.’
Hentze 1902 Hentze, C. ‘Die Formen der Begrüssung in den homerischen Gedichten.’
Hentze 1908 Hentze, C. ‘Der homerische Gebrauch der εἰ-Sätze mit dem Indikativ des Fu-
turum.’ ZVS 42: 131–146.
Herrero de Jáuregui 2011 Herrero de Jáuregui, M. ‘Priam’s Catabasis: Traces of the Epic Journey
to Hades in Iliad 24.’ TAPhA 141: 37–68.
Hershkovitz 1998 Hershkovitz, D. The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius.
Oxford.
Herter 1939 Herter, H. Review of E. Dutoit. Le thème de l’adynaton dans la poésie antique.
Paris 1936. Gnomon 15: 205–211.
Heubeck 1954 Heubeck, A. Der Odyssee-Dichter und die Ilias. Erlangen.
Heubeck 1985 Heubeck, A. ‘Zu den mykenischen Stoffadjektiven.’ MSS 46 (Festgabe für Karl
Hoffmann, Teil III): 123–138.
Hiesel 1989 Hiesel, G. Späthelladische Hausarchitektur. Studien zur Architekturgeschichte
des griechischen Festlandes in der Bronzezeit. Mainz.
Higbie 1990 Higbie, C. Measure and Music: Enjambement and Sentence Structure in the
Iliad. Oxford.
Hiller 1970 Hiller, S. ‘Die Aithusa bei Homer.’ WS 4: 14–27.
Hilton 2013 Hilton, J. ‘The Hunt for Acrostics by Some Ancient Readers of Homer.’ Hermes
141: 88–95.
Hitch 2009 Hitch, S. King of Sacrifice: Ritual and Authority in the Iliad.’ Cambridge Mass.
and London.
Hoekstra 1965 Hoekstra, A. Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes: Studies in the De
velopment of Greek Epic Diction. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse
Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, N. R. 71.1. Amsterdam.
Hoekstra 1981 Hoekstra, A. Epic Verse Before Homer: Three Studies. Amsterdam etc.
Hoffmann 1914 Hoffmann, M. Die ethische Terminologie bei Homer, Hesiod und den alten
Elegikern und Jambographen. I: Homer. Tübingen.
Hoffmann 1976 Hoffmann, K. ‘Avest. vanhuuam.’ In K. Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik,
ed. by J. Narten, pp. 593–604. Wiesbaden.
Hohendahl-Zoetelief 1980 Hohendahl-Zoetelief, I. M. Manners in the Homeric Epic. Mnemosyne
Supplements 63. Leiden.
Hölkeskamp 2002 Hölkeskamp, K.-J. ‘«Ptolis» and «Agore»: Homer and the Archaeology of the
City-State.’ In Montanari 2002, 297–342.
Holmes 2007 Holmes, B. ‘The Iliad’s Economy of Pain.’ TAPhA 137: 45–84.
Holoka 1983 Holoka, J. P. ‘«Looking Darkly» (ΥΠΟΔΡΑ ΙΔΩΝ): Reflections on Status and
Decorum in Homer.’ TAPhA 113: 1–16.
Hölscher 1939 Hölscher, U. Untersuchungen zur Form der Odyssee. Szenenwechsel und
gleichzeitige Handlungen. Hermes Einzelschriften 6. Berlin.
Hölscher (1988) 1990 Hölscher, U. Die Odyssee. Epos zwischen Märchen und Roman3. Munich
(11988).
Hooker (1979) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘ἐντυπάς.’ In Hooker 1996, 433–434. (First published in Sprache
25 [1979]: 174–175.)
Hooker (1986) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘A Residual Problem in Iliad 24.’ In Hooker 1996, 493–498. (First
published in CQ NS 36 [1986]: 32–37.)
Hooker (1986a) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Helen and the Duration of the Trojan War.’ In Hooker 1996,
489–491. (First published in PP 41 [1986]: 111–113.)
308 Iliad 24
Hooker (1987) 1996 Hooker, J. T. ‘Homeric φίλος.’ In Hooker 1996, 499–520. (First published in
Glotta 65 [1987]: 44–65.)
Hooker 1996 Hooker, J. T. Scripta Minora: Selected Essays on Minoan, Mycenaean, Homeric
and Classical Greek Subjects, ed. by F. Amory, P. Considine and S. Hooker.
Amsterdam.
Hopkinson 1984 Hopkinson, N. Callimachus, Hymn to Demeter, edited with an Introduction
and Commentary. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 27. Cam-
bridge.
Hornblower 2000 Hornblower, S. ‘Sticks, Stones, and Spartans: the Sociology of Spartan Vio-
lence.’ In van Wees 2000, 57–82.
Huber 2001 Huber, I. Die Ikonographie der Trauer in der Griechischen Kunst. Peleus 10.
Mannheim and Möhnesee.
Hundt 1935 Hundt, J. Der Traumglaube bei Homer. Greifswalder Beiträge zur Literatur-
und Stilforschung 9. Greifswald.
Iakovidis 1966 Iakovidis, S. E. ‘A Mycenaean Mourning Custom.’ AJA 70: 43–50.
Iakovidis 1977 Iakovidis (Iakovides), S. ‘Vormykenische und mykenische Wehrbauten.’
ArchHom chap. E, pp. 161–221. Göttingen.
Immerwahr 1995 Immerwahr, S. ‘Death and the Tanagra Larnakes.’ In The Ages of Homer: A
Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule, ed. by J. B. Carter and S. P. Morris, pp.
109–121. Austin.
Irmscher 1950 Irmscher, J. Götterzorn bei Homer. Leipzig.
Irwin 1974 Irwin, E. Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto.
Jachmann 1958 Jachmann, G. Der homerische Schiffskatalog und die Ilias. Wissenschaftliche
Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nord
rhein-Westfalen 5. Cologne and Opladen.
Jacquinod 1988 Jacquinod, B. ‘Analyse syntaxique de la mise au même cas du complément du
tout et du complément de la partie en grec ancien.’ In Rijksbaron et al. 1988,
135–145.
Jahn 1987 Jahn, Th. Zum Wortfeld ‘Seele–Geist’ in der Sprache Homers. Zetemata 83.
Munich.
Janko 1981 Janko, R. ‘Equivalent Formulae in the Greek Epos.’ Mnemosyne 34: 251–264.
Janko 1982 Janko, R. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Dic
tion. Cambridge.
Jankuhn 1969 Jankuhn, H. Die passive Bedeutung medialer Formen untersucht an der
Sprache Homers. Ergänzungshefte zur ZVS 21. Göttingen.
Janni 2011 Janni, P. ‘ΡΟΔΟΔΑΚΤΥΛΟΣ ΗΩΣ. Piccola storia di un miraggio.’ QUCC 97: 187–
196.
Johann 1968 Johann, H.-Th. Trauer und Trost. Eine quellen- und strukturanalytische Unter
suchung der philosophischen Trostschriften über den Tod. Studia et Testimo-
nia Antiqua 5. Munich.
Johnston 1999 Johnston, S. I. Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in
Ancient Greece. Berkeley etc.
Jones 1973 Jones, H. ‘Homeric Nouns in -sis.’ Glotta 51: 7–29.
Jones 1989 Jones, P. V. ‘Iliad 24.649: Another Solution.’ CQ NS 39: 247–250.
de Jong (1987) 2004 Jong, I. J.F. de. Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the
Iliad2. Amsterdam (11987).
de Jong 1987a Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Silent Characters in the Iliad.’ In Bremer 1987, 105–121.
de Jong 1988 Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homeric Words and Speakers: An Addendum.’ JHS 108: 188–
189
de Jong 1992 Jong, I. J.F. de. Review of Martin 1989. Mnemosyne 45: 392–397.
de Jong 1993 Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Studies in Homeric Denomination.’ Mnemosyne 46: 289–306.
de Jong 1997 Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homer and Narratology.’ In Companion 305–325.
de Jong 1997a Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Narrator Language versus Character Language: Some Further
Explorations.’ In Létoublon 1997, 293–302.
de Jong 1998 Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homeric Epithet and Narrative Situation.’ In Homerica: Pro
ceedings of the 8th International Symposion on the Odyssey (1.–5.9.1996), ed.
by M. Païsi-Apostolopoulou, pp. 121–135. Ithaka.
de Jong 1999 Jong, I. J.F. de. (ed.) Homer: Critical Assessments. Vol. 1: The Creation of the
Poems; Vol. 2: The Homeric World; Vol. 3: Literary Interpretation; Vol. 4:
Homer’s Art. London and New York.
de Jong 2004a Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient
Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, vol. 1, ed. by I. J.F. de
Jong, R. Nünlist and A. Bowie, pp. 13–24. Mnemosyne Supplements 257. Lei-
den and Boston.
de Jong 2004b Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Paratexts «avant la lettre» in Ancient Greek Literature (Homer
and Herodotus).’ In Paratext: The Fuzzy Edges of Literature, Papers Presented
at the Second Annuel Colloquium of the Research Programme History of Litera
ture (Amsterdam, 30.–31.01.2003), ed. by C. Dauven et al., pp. 47–59. Amster-
dam.
de Jong 2007 de Jong, I. J.F. de. ‘Homer.’ In Time in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in An
cient Narrative, vol. 2, ed. by I. J.F. de Jong and R. Nünlist, pp. 17–37. Mnemo-
syne Supplements 291. Leiden and Boston.
de Jong/Nünlist 2004 Jong, I. J.F. de and R. Nünlist. ‘From Bird’s Eye View to Close-up: The
Standpoint of the Narrator in the Homeric Epics.’ In Bierl et al. 2004, 63–83.
Junker 2002 Junker, K. ‘Symposiongeschirr oder Totengefässe? Überlegungen zur Funk-
tion attischer Vasen des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’ AK 45: 3–26.
Kaeser 2006 Kaeser, B. ‘Ein Mensch muss über Göttinnen richten: Das Urteil des Paris.’ In
Wünsche 2006, 106–119.
Kahane 1997 Kahane, A. ‘Hexameter Progression and the Homeric Hero’s Solitary State.’
In Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Tradition, Performance, and the Epic Text, ed.
by E. Bakker and A. Kahane, pp. 110–137. Cambridge Mass. and London.
Kaimio 1977 Kaimio, M. Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature. Commenta-
tiones Humanarum Litterarum 53. Helsinki.
Kakridis 1949 Kakridis, J.Th. Homeric Researches. Lund. (For the chapter ‘The Myth of Niobe
in Ω’ [96–105], cf. Kakridis, ‘Die Niobe-Sage bei Homer.’ RhM 79 [1930]: 113–
122.)
Kakridis (1956) 1971 Kakridis, J.Th. ‘The Rôle of the Woman in the Iliad.’ In J.Th. Kakridis. Homer
Revisited, pp. 68–75. Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund 64.
Lund. (First published in Eranos 54 [1956]: 21–27.)
Kakridis 1960 Kakridis, J.Th. Review of Jachmann 1958. Gnomon 32: 393–410.
Kassel 1958 Kassel, R. Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolations
literatur. Zetemata 18. Munich.
Kastner 1967 Kastner, W. Die griechischen Adjektive zweier Endungen auf -ΟΣ. Heidelberg.
Keaney 1981 Keaney, J. J. ‘ἀλιτήμων: Iliad 24.157 (= 186).’ Glotta 59: 67–69.
310 Iliad 24
Keil 1998 Keil, D. Lexikalische Raritäten im Homer. Ihre Bedeutung für den Prozeß der
Literarisierung des griechischen Epos. Bochumer Altertumswissenschaft
liches Colloquium 35. Trier.
Kelly 2007 Kelly, A. A Referential Commentary and Lexicon to Iliad VIII. Oxford.
Kelly 2007a Kelly, A. ‘How to End an Orally-Derived Epic Poem.’ TAPhA 137: 371–402.
Kelly 2012 Kelly, A. ‘The Mourning of Thetis: «Allusion» and the Future in the Iliad.’ In
Homeric Contexts: Neoanalysis and the Interpretation of Oral Poetry, ed. by
F. Montanari, A. Rengakos and C. Tsagalis, pp. 221–265. Trends in Classics
Supplementary vol. 12. Berlin and Boston.
Kemmer 1903 Kemmer, E. Die polare Ausdrucksweise in der griechischen Literatur. Würzburg.
Kessels 1978 Kessels, A. H.M. Studies on the Dream in Greek Literature. Utrecht.
Kim 2000 Kim, J. The Pity of Achilles: Oral Style and the Unity of the Iliad. Lanham.
Kimball 2014 Kimball, S. E. ‘Homeric κρύπτασκε, ῥίπτασκε and ἰσάσκετο.’ Glotta 90: 163–
173.
Kiss 2012 Kiss, D. ‘Iliad 22.60 and 24.487: Priam on the Threshold of Old Age.’ RhM 153:
401–404.
Kitts 2005 Kitts, M. Sanctified Violence in Homeric Society: Oath-Making Rituals and Nar
ratives in the Iliad. Cambridge etc.
Kloss 1994 Kloss, G. Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgriechi
schen Epos. Hypomnemata 105. Göttingen.
Klowski 1975 Klowski, J. Review of C. H. Kahn. The Verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek. Dordrecht
and Boston 1973. Gnomon 47: 737–746.
Knauß 2006 Knauß, F. ‘Hektors Lösung.’ In Wünsche 2006, 236–243.
Knox 1971 Knox, M. O. ‘Huts and Farm Buildings in Homer.’ CQ NS 21: 27–31.
Knox 1973 Knox, M. O. ‘Megarons and μέγαρα: Homer and Archaeology.’ CQ NS 23: 1–21.
Knox 1998 Knox, R. ‘Iliad 24.547–549: Blameless Achilles.’ RhM 141: 1–9.
Köchly 1859 Köchly, H. Hektor’s Lösung. Gratulationsschrift der Universität Zürich zum
16. October 1859 […] Herrn Dr. F. G. Welcker. Zurich.
Korenjak 2009 Korenjak, M. ‘ΛΕΥΚΗ: Was bedeutet das erste «Akrostichon»?’ RhM 152: 392–
396.
Körner 1929 Körner, O. Die ärztlichen Kenntnisse in Ilias und Odyssee. Munich.
Krapp 1964 Krapp, H. J. Die akustischen Phänomene in der Ilias. Munich.
Krarup 1948 Krarup, P. ‘Verwendung von Abstracta in der direkten Rede bei Homer.’ C&M
10 (appeared 1949): 1–17.
Krentz 2000 Krentz, P. ‘Deception in Archaic and Classical Greek Warfare.’ In van Wees
2000, 167–200.
Kretschmer 1923 Kretschmer, P. ‘Literaturbericht für die Jahre 1919 und 1920. Griechisch.’
Glotta 12: 179–230.
Krischer 1965 Krischer, T. ‘ΕΤΥΜΟΣ und ΑΛΗΘΗΣ.’ Philologus 109: 161–174.
Krischer 1971 Krischer, T. Formale Konventionen der homerischen Epik. Zetemata 56. Mu-
nich.
Krischer 1997 Krischer, T. ‘Regularität und Komplexität im homerischen Epos.’ In Létou-
blon 1997, 105–116.
Kullmann 1956 Kullmann, W. Das Wirken der Götter in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur Frage
der Entstehung des homerischen ‘Götterapparats’. Deutsche Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft
1. Berlin.
Kullmann 1960 Kullmann, W. Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). Hermes Ein-
zelschriften 14. Wiesbaden.
Kullmann (1965) 1992 Kullmann, W. Review of Reinhardt 1961. In Kullmann 1992, 170–197. (First
published in GGA 217 [1965]: 9–36.)
Kullmann (1968) 2001 Kullmann, W. ‘Past and Future in the Iliad.’ In Cairns 2001, 385–408.
(German original: ‘Vergangenheit und Zukunft in der Ilias.’ Poetica 2 [1968]:
15–37; also in Kullmann 1992, 219–242.)
Kullmann (1986) 1992 Kullmann, W. ‘Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker über Homer und den epischen
Kyklos.’ In Kullmann 1992, 373–399. (First published in Friedrich Gottlieb
Welcker. Werk und Wirkung, ed. by W. M. Calder III et al., pp. 105–130. Hermes
Einzelschriften 49. Stuttgart.)
Kullmann 1992 Kullmann, W. Homerische Motive. Beiträge zur Entstehung, Eigenart und
Wirkung von Ilias und Odyssee, ed. by R. J. Müller. Stuttgart.
Kummer 1961 Kummer, H. ‘Die Iliaslektüre. Erfahrungen und Wünsche.’ AU 5.1 (Zur
Homer-Lektüre I): 21–43.
Kurt 1979 Kurt, C. Seemännische Fachausdrücke bei Homer. Unter Berücksichtigung
Hesiods und der Lyriker bis Bakchylides. Ergänzungsheft zur ZVS 28. Göttin-
gen.
Kurtz/Boardman 1971 Kurtz, D. C. and J. Boardman. Greek Burial Customs. London.
Kurz 1966 Kurz, G. Darstellungsformen menschlicher Bewegung in der Ilias. Bibliothek
der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, N. F. 2.11. Heidelberg.
Kutsch (1965) 1986 Kutsch, E. ‘«Trauerbräuche» und «Selbstminderungsriten» im Alten Testa-
ment.’ In E. Kutsch. Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament. Zum 65. Geburtstag
hrsg. von L. Schmidt und K. Eberlein, pp. 78–95. Berlin and New York. (First
published in Lüthi, K., E. Kutsch and W. Dantine. Drei Wiener Antrittsreden,
pp. 23–42. Theologische Studien 78. Zurich 1965.)
Labarbe 1949 Labarbe, J. L’Homère de Platon. Liège.
de Lamberterie 1990 Lamberterie, C. de. Les adjectifs grecs en -υς. Sémantique et comparaison.
Bibliothèque des cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain 54–55. Lou-
vain-la-Neuve. (2 vols.)
Lambrianides/Spencer 1997 Lambrianides, K. and N. Spencer. ‘Unpublished Material from the
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and the British School at Athens and its
Contribution to a Better Understanding of the Early Bronze Age Settlement
Pattern on Lesbos.’ BSA 92: 73–107.
Landfester 1966 Landfester, M. Das griechische Nomen ‘philos’ und seine Ableitungen. Spudas-
mata 11. Hildesheim.
Lang 1989 Lang, M. ‘Unreal Conditions in Homeric Narrative.’ GRBS 30: 5–26.
Lange 1872/73 Lange, L. Der homerische Gebrauch der Partikel εἰ. ASG 6.4 and 6.5. Leipzig.
Lardinois 2000 Lardinois, A. ‘Characterization through Gnomai in Homer’s Iliad.’ Mnemo
syne 53: 641–661.
La Roche 1861 La Roche, J. Homerische Studien. Der Accusativ im Homer. Vienna.
La Roche 1869 La Roche, J. Homerische Untersuchungen. Leipzig.
La Roche 1893 La Roche, J. Homerische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Theil. Leipzig.
La Roche 1897 La Roche, J. ‘Die Stellung des attributiven und appositiven Adjectives bei
Homer.’ WS 19: 161–188.
Larson 2001 Larson, J. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford.
Laser 1968 Laser, S. ‘Hausrat.’ ArchHom. chap. P. Göttingen.
312 Iliad 24
Laser 1983 Laser, S. ‘Medizin und Körperpflege.’ ArchHom. chap. S. Göttingen.

Latacz 1965 Latacz, J. ‘ΑΝΔΡΟΤΗΤΑ.’ Glotta 43: 62–76.
Latacz 1966 Latacz, J. Zum Wortfeld ‘Freude’ in der Sprache Homers. Bibliothek der Klas-
sischen Altertumswissenschaft, N. F. 2.17. Heidelberg.
Latacz (1979) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Homer.’ Der Deutschunterricht 31.6 (1979) 5–23; slightly abridged in
Latacz 1991a, 1–29 and Latacz 1994, 13–35.
Latacz (1981) 1994 Latacz, J. ‘Zeus’ Reise zu den Aithiopen (Zu Ilias I, 304–495).’ In Latacz 1994,
175–203. (First published in Gnomosyne. Festschrift für Walter Marg zum
70. Geburtstag, ed. by G. Kurz, D. Müller and W. Nicolai, pp. 53–80. Munich
1981; also in Latacz 1991a, 515–551.)
Latacz (1985) 1996 Latacz, J. Homer: His Art and His World, transl. by J. P. Holoka. Ann Arbor.
(German original: Homer. Der erste Dichter des Abendlands. Munich and Zu-
rich 1985; Düsseldorf 42003.)
Latacz 1991 Latacz, J. (ed.). Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Rückblick und Ausblick.
Colloquium Rauricum 2. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Latacz 1991a Latacz, J. (ed.). Homer. Die Dichtung und ihre Deutung. Wege der Forschung
634. Darmstadt.
Latacz 1994 Latacz, J. Erschließung der Antike. Kleine Schriften zur Literatur der Griechen
und Römer, ed. by F. Graf, J. von Ungern-Sternberg and A. Schmitt with the
collaboration of R. Thiel. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Latacz 1995 Latacz, J. Achilleus. Wandlungen eines europäischen Heldenbildes. Lectio
Teubneriana 3. Stuttgart and Leipzig (21997).
Latacz (2001) 2004 Latacz, J. Troy and Homer: Towards a Solution of an Old Mystery, transl. by
Kevin Windle and Rosh Ireland. Oxford. (German original: Troia und Homer.
Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels. Munich and Berlin 2001; Munich and
Zurich 42003; latest ed. Leipzig 62010.)
Latacz (2001) 2010 Latacz, J. Troia und Homer. Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels6. Leipzig
(Munich and Berlin 12001).
Latacz 2002 Latacz, J. ‘Troia – Wilios – Wilusa. Drei Namen für ein Territorium.’ In Aslan
et al. 2002, 1103–1121.
Latacz 2008 Latacz, J. ‘Die Ilias: Inhalt und Aufbau.’ In Homer. Der Mythos von Troia in
Dichtung und Kunst (Katalog zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung: Basel 16. 3.–
17. 8. 2008, Mannheim 13.9.2008–18.1.2009), ed. by J. Latacz et al., pp. 114–
138. Munich.
Lateiner 1995 Lateiner, D. Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic. Ann Arbor.
Lateiner 2005 Lateiner, D. ‘Signifying Names and Other Ominous Accidental Utterances in
Classical Historiography.’ GRBS 45: 35–57.
Lauffer 1980 Lauffer, S. ‘Megaron.’ In ΣΤΗΛΗ. Τόμος εις μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος,
pp. 208–215. Athens.
Lausberg (1960) 1990 Lausberg, H. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der
Literaturwissenschaft3. Stuttgart (Munich 11960).
van Leeuwen (1894) 1918 Leeuwen, J. van. Enchiridium dictionis epicae2. Leiden (11894).
Leitzke 1930 Leitzke, E. Moira und Gottheit im alten griechischen Epos. Sprachliche Unter
suchungen. Göttingen.
Lejeune 1939 Lejeune, M. Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux.
Lemos 2002 Lemos, I. S. The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh
and Tenth Centuries BC. Oxford.
Lendon 2000 Lendon, J. E. ‘Homeric Vengeance and the Outbreak of Greek Wars.’ In van
Wees 2000, 1–30.
Lentini 2006 Lentini, G. Il ‘padre di Telemaco’. Odisseo tra Iliade e Odissea. Pisa.
Lesky 1947 Lesky, A. Thalatta. Der Weg der Griechen zum Meer. Vienna.
Lesky (1956) 1966 Lesky, A. ‘Peleus und Thetis im frühen Epos.’ In Lesky 1966, 401–409. (First
published in SIFC 27–28 [1956]: 216–226.)
Lesky (1962) 1966 Lesky, A. ‘Zur Eingangsszene der Patroklie.’ In Lesky 1966, 72–80. (First pub-
lished in Serta Philologica Aenipontana. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwis
senschaft 7–8 [1962]: 19–26.)
Lesky 1966 Lesky, A. Gesammelte Schriften. Aufsätze und Reden zu antiker und deutscher
Dichtung und Kultur, ed. by W. Kraus. Bern and Munich.
Lesky 1967 Lesky, A. Homeros. Sonderausgaben der RE. Stuttgart. (Also in RE Suppl. 11
[1968]: 687–846.)
Létoublon 1987 Létoublon, F. ‘Le messager fidèle.’ In Bremer et al. 1987, 123–144.
Létoublon 1989 Létoublon, F. ‘Aoristes et imparfaits des verbes de mouvement chez Homère.
Problèmes d’aspect et de morphologie verbale (ἤια, ἤιον, ἦλθον et ἔκιον).’
In Études homériques. Séminaire de recherche sous la direction de Michel
Casevitz, pp. 77–93. Lyon.
Létoublon 1992 Létoublon, F. (ed.) La langue et les textes en grec ancien. Actes du colloque
Pierre Chantraine (Grenoble, 5–8 Septembre 1989). Amsterdam.
Létoublon 1997 Létoublon, F. (ed.). Hommage à Milman Parry. Le style formulaire de l’épopée
homérique et la théorie de l’oralité poétique. Amsterdam.
Létoublon 1998 Létoublon, F. ‘Descriptions dans l’Iliade.’ In Quaestiones Homericae. Acta
Colloquii Namurcensis (7.–9.9.1995), pp. 163–186. Collection d’Études Clas-
siques 9. Louvain-Namour.
Létoublon/Montanari 2004 Létoublon, F. and F. Montanari. ‘Les métaphores homériques. L’ex-
emple du «coeur de fer».’ In Skhèma/Figura. Formes et figures chez les An
ciens. Rhétorique, philosophie, littérature, ed. by M. S. Celentano, P. Chiron
and M.-P. Noël, pp. 31–46. Paris.
Leukart 1994 Leukart, A. Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und -ās. Untersuchungen
zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den Nomina auf -eús).
Mykenische Studien 12. Vienna. (Originally diss. Zurich 1973.)
Leumann 1950 Leumann, M. Homerische Wörter. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswis-
senschaft 3. Basel. (Reprint Darmstadt 1993.)
Leumann (1953) 1959 Leumann, M. ‘«Aoristi mixti» und Imperative vom Futurstamm im
Griechischen.’ In M. Leumann. Kleine Schriften, hrsg. zum 70. Geburtstag
von H. Haffter, E. Risch und W. Rüegg, pp. 234–241. Zurich. (First published
in Glotta 32 [1953]: 204–213.)
Levet 1976 Levet, J.-P. Le vrai et le faux dans la pensée grecque archaïque. Étude de voca-
bulaire, vol. 1: Présentation générale. Le vrai et le faux dans les épopées
homériques. Paris.
Levin 1949 Levin, S. ‘Love and the Hero of the Iliad.’ TAPhA 80: 37–49.
Lévy 1982 Lévy, E. ‘Le rêve homérique.’ Ktèma 7: 23–41.
Lévy 1983 Lévy, E. ‘«Astu» et «Polis» dans l’Iliade.’ Ktèma 8: 55–73.
Lévy 1995 Lévy, E. ‘Arétè, timè, aidôs et némésis: le modèle homérique.’ Ktèma 20: 177–211.
Lilja 1972 Lilja, S. The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity. Commentationes
Humanarum Litterarum 49. Helsinki.
314 Iliad 24
Lindeman 1965 Lindeman, F. O. ‘Notes sur les adjectifs de matière en grec.’ SO 40: 27–38.
Littauer/Crouwel 1988 Littauer, M. A. and J. H. Crouwel. ‘New Light on Priam’s Wagon?’ JHS 108:
194–196.
Llewellyn-Jones 2003 Llewellyn-Jones, L. Aphrodite’s Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient
Greece. Swansea.
Lloyd 2004 Lloyd, M. ‘The Politeness of Achilles: Off-Record Conversation Strategies in
Homer and the Meaning of kertomia.’ JHS 124: 75–89.
Lohmann 1970 Lohmann, D. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur
antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin and New York. (Excerpt in Eng-
lish translation: ‘The «Inner Composition» of the Speeches in the Iliad.’ In
Wright/Jones 1997, 71–102.)
Lohmann 1988 Lohmann, D. Die Andromache-Szenen der Ilias. Ansätze und Methoden der
Homer-Interpretation. Spudasmata 42. Hildesheim etc.
Long 1970 Long, A. A. ‘Morals and Values in Homer.’ JHS 90: 121–139. (Also in de Jong
1999, vol. 2, 305–331.)
Lonsdale 1990 Lonsdale, S. H. Creatures of Speech: Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the
Iliad. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 5. Stuttgart.
Lorenz 1984 Lorenz, B. ‘Notizen zur Verwendung der Zahl «Zwölf» in der Literatur.’ Lite
raturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 25: 271–279.
Lorimer 1950 Lorimer, H. L. Homer and the Monuments. London.
Louden 2006 Louden, B. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning. Baltimore.
Louden 2011 Louden, B. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East. Cambridge.
Lowe 2000 Lowe, N. J. The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative. Cam-
bridge.
Lowenstam 1981 Lowenstam, S. The Death of Patroklos: A Study in Typology. Beiträge zur Klas-
sischen Philologie 133. Königstein/Ts.
Lowenstam 1993 Lowenstam, S. The Scepter and the Spear: Studies on Forms of Repetition in
the Homeric Poems. Lanham.
Luce 1998 Luce, J. V. Celebrating Homer’s Landscapes. New Haven and London.
Lührs 1992 Lührs, D. Untersuchungen zu den Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias und zu ihrer
Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien. Beiträge zur Altertumswis-
senschaft 11. Hildesheim etc.
Luraghi 2012 Luraghi, S. ‘The Spatial Meaning of διά with the Accusative in Homeric
Greek.’ Mnemosyne 65: 357–386.
Luther 2006 Luther, A. (ed.) Geschichte und Fiktion in der homerischen Odyssee. Zetemata
125. Munich.
Luther 1935 Luther, W. ‘Wahrheit’ und ‘Lüge’ im ältesten Griechentum. Borna and Leipzig.
Luz 2010 Luz, C. Technopaignia. Formspiele in der griechischen Dichtung. Mnemosyne
Supplements 324. Leiden and Boston.
Lynn-George 1988 Lynn-George, M. Epos: Word, Narrative and the Iliad. Hampshire and London.
Lynn-George 1996 Lynn-George, M. ‘Structures of Care in the Iliad.’ CQ NS 46: 1–26.
Mackie 1996 Mackie, H. Talking Trojan: Speech and Community in the Iliad. Greek Studies:
Interdisciplinary Approaches. Lanham etc.
Mackie 1996a Mackie, C. ‘Initiatory Journeys in Homer.’ In Religion in the Ancient World:
New Themes and Approaches, ed. by M. Dillon, pp. 287–298. Amsterdam.
Mackie 2008 Mackie, C. J. Rivers of Fire: Mythic Themes in Homer’s Iliad. Washington, D. C.
Mackie 2013 Mackie, C. J. ‘Iliad 24 and the Judgement of Paris.’ CQ NS 63: 1–16.
Mader 1970 Mader, B. Untersuchungen zum Tempusgebrauch bei Homer (Futurum und De
siderativum). Hamburg.
Mangold 2000 Mangold, M. Kassandra in Athen. Die Eroberung Trojas auf attischen Vasenbil
dern. Berlin.
Mannsperger 1995 Mannsperger, B. ‘Die Funktion des Grabens am Schiffslager der Achäer.’
Studia Troica 5: 343–356.
Mannsperger 1998 Mannsperger, B. ‘Die Mauer am Schiffslager der Achaier.’ Studia Troica 8:
287–304.
Mannsperger 2002 Mannsperger, B. and D. Mannsperger. ‘Die Ilias ist ein Heldenepos: Ilosgrab
und Athena Ilias.’ In Aslan et al. 2002, vol. 3, 1075–1101.
March 1987 March, J. R. The Creative Poet: Studies on the Treatment of Myths in Greek
Poetry. BICS Supplement 49. London.
Marg 1938 Marg, W. Der Charakter in der Sprache der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Semo-
nides, Homer, Pindar). Kieler Arbeiten zur klassischen Philologie 1. Würzburg.
Marinatos 1967 Marinatos, S. ‘Kleidung.’ ArchHom chap. A. Göttingen.
Marino 1999 Marino, E. ‘Il lutto a banchetto (Iliade 24 – Odissea 4).’ MD 43: 15–39.
Martin 1989 Martin, R. The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Myth
and Poetics. Ithaca and London.
Marwitz 1961 Marwitz, H. ‘Das homerische Bahrtuch. Homerischer Totenbrauch auf
geometrischen Vasen.’ A&A 10: 7–18.
Maslov 2011 Maslov, B. P. ‘The Metrical Evidence for Pre-Mycenaean Hexameter Epic Re-
considered.’ Indoevropeiskoe iazykoznanie i klassicheskaia filologiia 15: 376–
389. (Also online: www.academia.edu/669547/_The_ metrical_evidence_for_
pre-Mycenaean_hexameter_epic_reconsidered._ [retrieved 30.04.2014].)
Mason 2004 Mason, H. J. ‘Looking for the Aeolian Migration.’ Talk at the APA Annual
Meeting 2004. Abstract: http://apaclassics.org/sites/default/files/docu-
ments/abstracts/mason.pdf (retrieved 30.04.2014).
Mason 2008 Mason, H. J. ‘Hittite Lesbos?’ In Collins et al. 2008, 57–62.
Matthaios 1999 Matthaios, S. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik Aristarchs: Texte und Interpre
tation zur Wortartenlehre. Hypomnemata 126. Göttingen.
Maurice 1991 Maurice, N. ‘Τολύπη ou les écheveaux de l’étymologie.’ RPh 65: 161–167.
Mauritsch 1992 Mauritsch, P. Sexualität im frühen Griechenland. Untersuchungen zu Norm und
Abweichung in den homerischen Epen. Vienna etc.
Mawet 1979 Mawet, F. Recherches sur les oppositions fonctionnelles dans le vocabulaire
homérique de la douleur (autour de πῆμα – ἄλγος). MAB 2.63.4. Brussels.
Mazarakis Ainian 1997 Mazarakis Ainian, A. From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture,
Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (c. 1100–700 B. C.). Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 121. Jonsered.
Mazzoldi 2001 Mazzoldi, S. Cassandra, la vergine e l’indovina. Identità di un personaggio da
Omero all’Ellenismo. Pisa and Rome.
McKay 1988 McKay, K. L. ‘Aspectual Usage in Timeless Contexts in Ancient Greek.’ In
Rijksbaron et al. 1988, 193–208.
Meier-Brügger 1986 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Homerisch μευ oder μοι?’ In Etter 1986, 346–354.
Meier-Brügger 1991 Meier-Brügger, M. ‘Verbaute lokale Genetive im Griechischen: ἔραζε, θύραζε,
χαμᾶζε; Ἐρέβευσφι; φόωσδε.’ Glotta 69: 44–47.
Meier-Brügger 1992 Meier-Brügger, M. Griechische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin and New York.
(2 vols.)
316 Iliad 24
Meiggs 1982 Meiggs, R. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford.
Meissner 2006 Meissner, T. S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European:
A Diachronic Study in Word Formation. Oxford.
Meister 1921 Meister, K. Die homerische Kunstsprache. Preisschriften, gekrönt und hrsg.
von der fürstlich Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft zu Leipzig 48. Leipzig.
Melchert 2008 Melchert, H. C. ‘Greek mólybdos as a Loanword from Lydian.’ In Collins et
al. 2008, 153–157. (Manuscript: www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/
molybdos.pdf [retrieved 30.04.2014].)
Metz 1990 Metz, W. ‘Hektor als der homerischste aller homerischen Helden.’ Gymna
sium 97: 385–404.
Michel 1971 Michel, Christoph. Erläuterungen zum N der Ilias. Bibliothek der Klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft N. F. 2.40. Heidelberg.
van der Mije 1987 Mije, S. R. van der. ‘Achilles’ God-Given Strength: Iliad 1.178 and Gifts from the
Gods in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 40: 241–267.
Mills 2000 Mills, S. ‘Achilles, Patroclus and Parental Care in Some Homeric Similes.’
G&R 47: 3–18.
Minchin 1985 Minchin, E. ‘The Sleeplessness Theme at Iliad 24.1–18: A Study of Function
and Form.’ PP 40: 269–275.
Minchin 1986 Minchin, E. ‘The Interpretation of a Theme in Oral Epic: Iliad 24.559–70.’ G&R
33: 11–19.
Minchin 2001 Minchin, E. Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cogni
tive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford.
Minchin 2001a Minchin, E. ‘On Declining an Invitation in Homer and in Everyday Talk: Con-
text, Form, and Function.’ Antichthon 35: 1–19.
Minchin 2002 Minchin, E. ‘Speech Acts in the Everyday World and in Homer: The Rebuke
as a Case Study.’ In Epea and Grammata: Oral and Written Communication in
Ancient Greece, ed. by I. Worthington and J. M. Foley, pp. 71–97. Mnemosyne
Minchin 2007 Minchin, E. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. Oxford.
Minchin 2010 Minchin, E. ‘From Gentle Teasing to Heavy Sarcasm: Instances of Rhetorical
Irony in Homer’s Iliad.’ Hermes 138: 387–402.
Monro (1882) 1891 Monro, D. B. A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect2. Oxford (11882).
Monsacré 1984 Monsacré, H. Les larmes d’Achille. Le héros, la femme et la souffrance dans la
poésie d’Homère. Paris.
Montanari 2002 Montanari, F. (ed.) Omero. Tremila anni dopo. Atti del congresso di Genova,
6.–8.7.2000. Storia e letteratura 210. Rome.
Monteil 1963 Monteil, P. La phrase relative en grec ancien. Sa formation, son développe
ment, sa structure des origines à la fin du Ve siècle a.C. Études et commentaires
47. Paris.
Montiglio 2005 Montiglio, S. Wandering in Ancient Greek Culture. Chicago and London.
Morenilla-Talens 1992 Morenilla-Talens, C. ‘Πένθος ἄλαστον – ἄρρητον πένθος. Klage um das
tote Kind.’ Mnemosyne 45: 289–298.
Morris 1992 Morris, S. P. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton.
Morrison 1991 Morrison, J. V. ‘The Function and Context of Homeric Prayers: A Narrative
Perspective.’ Hermes 119: 147–157. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 284–297.)
Morrison 1992 Morrison, J. V. Homeric Misdirection: False Predictions in the Iliad. Michigan
Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor.
Most 2003 Most, G. W. ‘Anger and Pity in Homer’s Iliad.’ In Braund/Most 2003, 50–75.
Moulton 1977 Moulton, C. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Hypomnemata 49. Göttingen.
Mueller (1984) 2009 Mueller, M. The Iliad2. London (1 1984).
Muellner 1976 Muellner, L. C. The Meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through Its Formulas. Inns-
brucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 13. Innsbruck.
Muellner 1992 Muellner, L. C. ‘Étymologie et sémantique de μῆνις.’ In Létoublon 1992,
121–135.
Muellner 1996 Muellner, L. C. The Anger of Achilles: Mênis in Greek Epic. Myth and Poetics.
Ithaca and London.
Müller 2005 Müller, C. W. ‘Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit als Medien der bildlichen
Rezeption literarischer Szenen am Beispiel der «Lösung Hektors».’ Akade
mie-Journal (Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften): 21–26
(www.akademienunion.de/fileadmin/redaktion/user_upload/Publika-
tionen/Akademie-Journal/AKJ_2005–1.pdf [retrieved 30.04.2014]).
Müller 1974 Müller, D. Handwerk und Sprache. Die sprachlichen Bilder aus dem Bereich
des Handwerks in der griechischen Literatur bis 400 v. Chr. Beiträge zur Klas-
sischen Philologie 51. Meisenheim am Glan.
Müller 1968 Müller, F. Darstellung und poetische Funktion der Gegenstände in der Odyssee.
Marburg.
Murnaghan 1997 Murnaghan, S. ‘Equal Honor and Future Glory: The Plan of Zeus in the Iliad.’
In Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, ed. by
D. H. Roberts, F. M. Dunn and D. Fowler, pp. 23–42. Princeton.
Murnaghan 1999 Murnaghan, S. ‘The Poetics of Loss in Greek Epic.’ In Epic Traditions in the
Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community, ed. by M. Beissinger, J. Tylus
and S. Wofford, pp. 203–220. Berkeley etc.
Musäus 2004 Musäus, I. Der Pandoramythos bei Hesiod und seine Rezeption bis Erasmus
von Rotterdam. Hypomnemata 151. Göttingen.
Mutzbauer 1893 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der home
rische Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen
Sprache, vol. 1. Strasbourg.
Mutzbauer 1909 Mutzbauer, C. Die Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre und der homer
ische Tempusgebrauch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax der griechischen
Sprache, vol. 2. Strasbourg.
Mylonas 1948 Mylonas, G. E. ‘Homeric and Mycenaean Burial Customs.’ AJA 52: 56–81.
Myres 1932 Myres, J. L. ‘The Last Book of the Iliad: Its Place in the Structure of the Poem.’
JHS 52: 264–296.
Myres 1933 Myres, J. L. ‘The Chronological Plan of the Iliad: A Correction.’ JHS 53:
115–117.
Nägelsbach 1864 Nägelsbach, C. F. von. Anmerkungen zur Ilias (Α. Β 1–483. Γ) nebst einigen
Excursen, 3rd much expanded edition by G. Autenrieth. Nuremberg.
Nagler 1974 Nagler, M. N. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer.
Berkeley etc.
Nagler 1988 Nagler, M. N. ‘Priam’s Kiss: Toward A Peace Concept in Western Culture.’ In
War and Peace: Perspectives in the Nuclear Age, ed. by U. Goebel and O. Nel-
son, pp. 125–136. Lubbock.
Nagy (1979) 1999 Nagy, G. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek
Poetry2. Baltimore and London (11979).
318 Iliad 24
Nagy 1990 Nagy, G. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and Lon-
don.
Nagy 1996 Nagy, G. Poetry as Performance: Homer and Beyond. Cambridge.
Nagy 2001 Nagy, G. (ed.) Greek Literature. Vol. 1: The Oral Traditional Background of An
cient Greek Literature. New York and London.
Nagy 2001a Nagy, G. (ed.) Greek Literature. Vol. 2: Homer and Hesiod as Prototypes of
Greek Literature. New York and London.
Naiden 2006 Naiden, F. S. Ancient Supplication. Oxford.
Navarre 1932 Navarre, O. ‘La particule δή. Étude sémantique.’ In Mélanges Gustave Glotz,
vol. 2, pp. 667–679. Paris.
Nawratil 1959 Nawratil, K. ‘Βαθύκολπος.’ WS 72: 165–168.
Nesselrath 1992 Nesselrath, H.-G. Ungeschehenes Geschehen. ‘Beinahe-Episoden’ im griechi
schen und römischen Epos von Homer bis zur Spätantike. Stuttgart.
Nestle 1941 Nestle, W. Review of G. Steinkopf. Untersuchungen zur Geschischte des Ruh
mes bei den Griechen. Halle 1937. Gnomon 17: 193–199.
Nestle 1942 Nestle, W. ‘Odyssee-Interpretationen I.’ Hermes 77: 46–77.
Neumann 1965 Neumann, G. Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst. Berlin.
Neumann 1992 Neumann, G. ‘καθαρός «rein» und seine Sippe in den ältesten griechi
schen Texten. Beobachtungen zu Bedeutung und Etymologie.’ In Kotinos.
Festschrift für Erika Simon, ed. by H. Froning, T. Hölscher and H. Mielsch,
pp. 71–75. Mainz.
Nilsson (1923/24) 1951 Nilsson, M. P. ‘Götter und Psychologie bei Homer.’ In M. P. Nilsson.
Opuscula selecta linguis anglica, francogallica, germanica conscripta, vol. 1,
pp. 355–391. Lund. (First published in ARW 22 [1923/24]: 363–390.)
Nilsson (1940) 1967 Nilsson, M. P. Geschichte der griechischen Religion3, vol. 1: Die Religion
Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft. Handbuch der Alter-
tumswissenschaft 5.2 1. Munich (11940; reprint 1992).
Noussia 2002 Noussia, M. ‘Olympus, the Sky, and the History of the Text of Homer.’ In Mon-
tanari 2002, 489–503.
Nowag 1983 Nowag, W. Raub und Beute in der archaischen Zeit der Griechen. Frankfurt am
Main.
Nünlist 2002 Nünlist, R. ‘Some Clarifying Remarks on «Focalization».’ In Montanari 2002,
445–453.
Nünlist 2006 Nünlist, R. ‘A Neglected testimonium on the Homeric Book-Division.’ ZPE 157:
47–49.
Nünlist 2009 Nünlist, R. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criti
cism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge.
Nünlist 2009a Nünlist, R. ‘The Motif of the Exiled Killer.’ In Antike Mythen. Medien, Trans
formationen und Konstruktionen, ed. by U. Dill and C. Walde, pp. 628–644.
Berlin and New York.
Nussbaum 1986 Nussbaum, A. J. Head and Horn in Indo-European. Untersuchungen zur Idg.
Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 2. Berlin and New York.
Nussbaum 1998 Nussbaum, A. J. Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics. Göttingen.
Oehler 1925 Oehler, R. Mythologische Exempla in der älteren griechischen Dichtung. Basel.
Ogden 1998 Ogden, D. ‘What Was in Pandora’s Box?’ In Archaic Greece: New Appro-
aches and New Evidence, ed. by N. Fisher and H. van Wees, pp. 213–230. Lon-
don.
Oguse 1962 Oguse, A. Recherches sur le participe circonstanciel en grec ancien. Paris.
Oka 1990 Oka, M. ‘Achill, der Zerstörer der Stadt (‘ptoliporthos’) – eine Neuerung des
Iliasdichters.’ A&A 36: 18–34.
Olson 1994 Olson, S. D. ‘Equivalent Speech-Introduction Formulae in the Iliad.’ Mnemo
syne 47: 145–151.
O’Neill 1942 O’Neill Jr., E. G. ‘The Localization of Metrical Word-Types in the Greek Hexam-
eter: Homer, Hesiod and the Alexandrians.’ YClS 8: 103–178.
Onians (1951) 1988 Onians, R. B. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the
Soul, the World, Time, and Fate: New Interpretations of Greek, Roman and
Kindred Evidence, also of Some Basic Jewish and Christian Beliefs2. Cambridge
(11951).
Opelt 1978 Opelt, I. ‘Gefühlswörter bei Homer und in den Argonautika des Apollonios
Rhodios.’ Glotta 56: 170–190.
van Otterlo 1944 van Otterlo, W. A.A. ‘Eine merkwürdige Kompositionsform der älteren
griechischen Literatur.’ Mnemosyne 12: 192–207.
van Otterlo 1948 van Otterlo, W. A.A. De ringcompositie als opbouwprincipe in de epische ge
dichten van Homerus. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akad-
emie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde 51.1. Amsterdam.
Padel 1995 Padel, R. Whom Gods Destroy: Elements of Greek and Tragic Madness. Prince-
ton.
Pagniello 2007 Pagniello, F. J. ‘The Past-Iterative and the Augment in Homer.’ IF 112: 105–
123.
Panagl 2007 Panagl, O. ‘Herold, Sänger oder Kultfunktionär? Rolle und Bedeutung von
ka-ru-ke in mykenischer Zeit.’ In Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum
von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche. Akten des inter
nationalen Kongresses vom 3.–5.2.2005 in Salzburg, ed. by E. Alram-Stern and
G. Nightingale, pp. 311–316. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission 27. Vienna.
Pantelia 1993 Pantelia, M. C. ‘Spinning and Weaving: Ideas of Domestic Order in Homer.’
AJPh 114: 493–501.
Pantelia 2002 Pantelia, M. C. ‘Helen and the Last Song for Hector.’ TAPhA 132: 21–27.
Parker 1983 Parker, R. Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Ox-
ford.
Parry 1973 Parry, A. A. Blameless Aegisthus: A Study of ἀμύμων and Other Homeric Epi
thets. Mnemosyne Supplements 26. Leiden.
Parry (1928) 1971 Parry, M. ‘The Traditional Epithet in Homer.’ In MHV 1–190. (French original:
L’Épithète traditionnelle dans Homère. Essai sur un problème de style homé
rique. Paris 1928.)
Parry (1928a) 1971 Parry, M. ‘Homeric Formulae and Homeric Metre.’ In MHV 191–239. (French
original: Les formules et la métrique d’Homère. Paris 1928.)
Passa 2001 Passa, E. ‘L’antichità della grafia ευ per εο, εου nell’epica: a proposito di una
recente edizione dell’Iliade.’ RFIC 129: 385–417.
Pattoni 1998 Pattoni, M. P. ‘ὤ μοι ἐγώ, (τί πάθω;). Una formula omerica e i suoi contesti.’
Aevum(ant) 11: 5–49.
Patzer 1990 Patzer, H. ‘Gleichzeitige Ereignisse im homerischen Epos.’ In ΕΡΜΗΝΕΥΜΑΤΑ.
Festschrift für Hadwig Hörner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. by H. Eisen-
berger, pp. 153–172. Heidelberg 1990.
320 Iliad 24
Patzer 1996 Patzer, H. Die Formgesetze des homerischen Epos. Schriften der wissenschaft-
lichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt a. M., Geistes
wissenschaftliche Reihe 12. Stuttgart.
Paul 1969 Paul, A. Die Barmherzigkeit der Götter im griechischen Epos. Dissertationen
der Universität Wien 32. Vienna.
Pavese 2007 Pavese, C. O. ‘I giorni dell’Iliade.’ Hermes 135: 119–133.
Pax 1937 Pax, W. ‘Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen zur Etymologie des Wortes
ἀμφίπολος.’ W&S 18: 1–88.
Pearce 2008 Pearce, T. ‘Homer, Iliad 24.614–17.’ RhM 151: 13–25.
Pedrick 1982 Pedrick, V. ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ TAPhA 112: 125–140.
Pelliccia 1995 Pelliccia, H. Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar. Hypomnemata 107.
Göttingen.
Pelling 2006 Pelling, C. ‘Homer and Herodotus.’ In Clarke et al. 2006, 75–104.
Peradotto 1969 Peradotto, J. J. ‘Cledonomancy in the «Oresteia».’ AJPh 90: 1–21.
Perceau 2002 Perceau, S. La parole vive. Communiquer en catalogue dans l’épopée homé
rique. Bibliothèque d’études classiques 30. Louvain etc.
Perkell 2008 Perkell, C. ‘Reading the Laments of Iliad 24.’ In Suter 2008, 93–117.
Peters 1922 Peters, H. Zur Einheit der Ilias. Göttingen.
Peters 1980 Peters, M. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im
Griechischen. SAWW 377.8. Vienna.
Petit 1999 Petit, D. *sṷe- en Grec ancien: la famille du pronom réfléchi. Linguistique
grecque et comparaison indo-européenne. Leuven.
Petruso 2003 Petruso, K. M. ‘Quantal Analysis of Some Mycenaean Balance Weights.’ In
Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th Interna
tional Aegean Conference (New Haven, 18.–21.4.2002), ed. by K. P. Foster and
R. Laffineur, pp. 285–292. Aegaeum 24 Liège and Austin.
Pfister 1948 Pfister, F. ‘Studien zum homerischen Epos.’ WJA 3: 137–162.
Plamböck 1959 Plamböck, G. Erfassen – Gegenwärtigen – Innesein. Aspekte homerischer Psy
chologie. Kiel.
Plath 1994 Plath, R. Der Streitwagen und seine Teile im frühen Griechischen. Sprachliche
Untersuchungen zu den mykenischen Texten und zum homerischen Epos. Er-
langer Beiträge zur Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 76. Nuremberg.
Plath 2006 Plath, R. ‘Das avestische Adverb fraorǝ˷t und seine sprachgeschichtliche Ein-
bettung.’ In Iranistik in Europa – gestern, heute, morgen, ed. by H. Eichner et
al., pp. 127–140. SAWW 739. Vienna.
Pohlenz 1956 Pohlenz, M. ‘Furcht und Mitleid? Ein Nachwort.’ Hermes 84: 49–74.
Porzig 1942 Porzig, W. Die Namen für Satzinhalte im Griechischen und im Indoger-
manischen. Untersuchungen zur idg. Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 10.
Berlin.
Postlethwaite 1998 Postlethwaite, N. ‘Akhilleus and Agamemnon: Generalized Reciprocity.’ In
Gill et al. 1998, 93–104.
Pötscher 1985/86 Pötscher, W. ‘Homer, Ilias 24.601 ff. und die Niobe-Gestalt.’ GB 12/13: 21–
35.
Pötscher 1992 Pötscher, W. ‘Die Hikesie des letzten Ilias-Gesanges (Hom., Il. 24.477 ff.).’ WJA
18: 5–16.
Pötscher 2001 Pötscher, W. ‘Βούβρωστις (Hom. Il. 24.531 ff.). Die Entwicklung einer Wort
bedeutung.’ AAntHung 41: 363–368.
Pratt 2007 Pratt, L. ‘The Parental Ethos of the Iliad.’ In Constructions of Childhood in
Ancient Greece and Italy, ed. by A. Cohen and J. B. Rutter, pp. 25–40. Hesperia
Supplement 41. Princeton.
Preisshofen 1977 Preisshofen, F. Untersuchungen zur Darstellung des Greisenalters in der früh
griechischen Dichtung. Hermes Einzelschriften 34. Wiesbaden.
Priess 1977 Priess, K. A. Der mythologische Stoff in der Ilias. Mainz.
Pucci (1982) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘The Proem of the Odyssey.’ In Pucci 1998, 11–29. (First published in
Arethusa 15 [1982]: 39–62.)
Pucci (1985) 1998 Pucci, P. ‘Textual Epiphanies in the Iliad.’ In Pucci 1998, 69–80. (Italian orig-
inal: ‘Epifanie testuali nell’Iliade.’ SIFC, 3. Ser. 3 [1985]: 170–183.)
Pucci 1998 Pucci, P. The Song of the Sirens: Essays on Homer. Lanham etc.
Pucci 1998a Pucci, P. ‘Honor and Glory in the Iliad.’ In Pucci 1998, 179–230.
Puhvel 1991 Puhvel, J. Homer and Hittite. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft,
Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 47. Innsbruck.
Pulleyn 2000 Pulleyn, S. J. ‘The Supposed Causal εἰ in Homer.’ Mnemosyne 53: 257–266.
Race 2000 Race, W. H. ‘Explanatory δέ-Clauses in the Iliad.’ CJ 95: 205–227.
Race 2014 Race, W. H. ‘Achilles’ κῦδος in Iliad 24.’ Mnemosyne 67: 707–724.
Raepsaet 1987 Raepsaet, G. ‘Δεκαδώρῳ ἀμάξῃ. À propos d’Hésiode, Ἔργα, v. 426.’ RBPh 65:
21–30.
Rakoczy 1996 Rakoczy, T. Böser Blick, Macht des Auges und Neid der Götter. Eine Untersu
chung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur. Classica Monacensia
13. Tübingen.
Ramming 1973 Ramming, G. Die Dienerschaft in der Odyssee. Erlangen and Nuremberg.
Rank 1951 Rank, L.Ph. Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus (Etymol
ogizing and Related Phenomena in Homer). Assen.
Rawson 1984 Rawson, C. ‘Narrative and the Proscribed Act: Homer, Euripides and the Liter-
ature of Cannibalism.’ In Literary Theory and Criticism: Festschrift Presented
to René Wellek in Honor of his Eightieth Birthday, ed. by J. P. Strelka (2 vols.),
Part II: Criticism, pp. 1159–1187. Bern etc.
Ready 2011 Ready, J. L. Character, Narrator, and Simile in the Iliad. Cambridge.
Redfield (1975) 1994 Redfield, J. M. Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector2. Dur-
ham and London (Chicago 11975).
Reece 1993 Reece, S. The Stranger’s Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric
Hospitality Scene. Michigan Monographs in Classical Antiquity. Ann Arbor.
Reece 2009 Reece, S. Homer’s Winged Words: The Evolution of Early Greek Epic Dic
tion in the Light of Oral Theory. Mnemosyne Supplements 313. Leiden and
Boston.
Reese 1987 Reese, D. S. ‘Palaikastro Shells and Bronze Age Purple-Dye Production in the
Mediterranean Basin.’ BSA 82: 201–206.
Reichel 1990 Reichel, M. ‘Retardationstechniken in der Ilias.’ In Der Übergang von der
Mündlichkeit zur Literatur bei den Griechen, ed. by W. Kullmann and M. Rei
chel, pp. 125–151. ScriptOralia 30. Tübingen.
Reichel 1994 Reichel, M. Fernbeziehungen in der Ilias. ScriptOralia 62. Tübingen.
Reiner 1938 Reiner, E. Die rituelle Totenklage der Griechen. Stuttgart and Berlin.
Reinhardt (1938) 1997 Reinhardt, K. ‘The Judgement of Paris.’ In Wright/Jones 1997, 170–191.
(German original: ‘Das Parisurteil.’ Wissenschaft und Gegenwart 11. Frankfurt
1938; also in: K. Reinhardt. Von Werken und Formen, pp. 11–36. Godesberg
322 Iliad 24
1948; Tradition und Geist. Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. by C. Becker,
pp. 16–36. Göttingen 1960; de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 47–65.)
Reinhardt 1949 Reinhardt, K. Aischylos als Regisseur und Theologe. Bern.
Reinhardt 1961 Reinhardt, K. Die Ilias und ihr Dichter, ed. by U. Hölscher. Göttingen.
Reinhold 1970 Reinhold, M. History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity. Collection La-
tomus 116. Brussels.
Rengakos 1993 Rengakos, A. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Ein-
zelschriften 64. Stuttgart.
Rengakos 1994 Rengakos, A. Apollonios Rhodios und die antike Homererklärung. Zetemata 92.
Munich.
Rengakos 1995 Rengakos, A. ‘Zeit und Gleichzeitigkeit in den homerischen Epen.’ A&A 41:
1–33.
Rengakos 1999 Rengakos, A. ‘Spannungsstrategien in den homerischen Epen.’ In Eu
phrosyne. Studies in Ancient Epic and Its Legacy in Honor of Dimitris N. Maro
nitis, ed. by J. N. Kazazis and A. Rengakos, pp. 308–338. Stuttgart.
Reucher 1983 Reucher, Th. Die situative Weltsicht Homers. Eine Interpretation der Ilias.
Darmstadt.
Reynen 1983 Reynen, H. ΕΥΧΕΣΘΑΙ und seine Derivate bei Homer. Bonn.
Richardson 1961 Richardson, L. J.D. ‘Mycenaean βούβρωστις?’ BICS 8: 15–22.
Richardson 1961a Richardson, L. J.D. ‘Further Thoughts on βούβρωστις.’ Hermathena 95:
64–66.
Richardson 1980 Richardson, N. J. ‘Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad: A
Sketch.’ CQ NS 30: 265–287.
Richardson/Piggott 1982 Richardson, N. J. and S. Piggott. ‘Hesiod’s Wagon: Text and Technol-
ogy.’ JHS 102: 225–229.
Richardson 1990 Richardson, S. The Homeric Narrator. Nashville.
Richter 1968 Richter, W. ‘Die Landwirtschaft im homerischen Zeitalter.’ With an essay on
‘Landwirtschaftliche Geräte’ by W. Schiering. ArchHom chap. H. Göttingen.
Riggsby 1992 Riggsby, A. M. ‘Homeric Speech Introductions and the Theory of Homeric
Composition.’ TAPhA 122: 99–114.
Rijksbaron (1984) 2002 Rijksbaron, A. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek:
An Introduction3. Amsterdam (11984).
Rijksbaron et al. 1988 Rijksbaron, A., H. A. Mulder and G. C. Wakker. (eds.) In the Footsteps of
Raphael Kühner (Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemo
ration of the 150th Anniversary of the Publication of Raphael Kühner’s ‘Aus
führliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe’, Amsterdam
1986). Amsterdam.
Rinon 2008 Rinon, Y. Homer and the Dual Model of the Tragic. Ann Arbor.
Risch (1949) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Griechische Determinativkomposita.’ In Risch 1981, 1–61. (First
published in: IF 59 [1949]: 1–61.)
Risch (1968) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Zephyros.’ In Risch 1981, 158–166. (First published in: MH 25 [1968]:
205–213.)
Risch (1976) 1981 Risch, E. ‘Die Stoffadjektive auf -ejos im Mykenischen.’ In Risch 1981, 517–526.
(First published in: Studies in Greek, Italic and Indo-European Linguistics, Of
fered to Leonard R. Palmer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed.
by A. Morpurgo Davies and W. Meid, pp. 309–318. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft 16. Innsbruck 1976.)
Risch 1981 Risch, E. Kleine Schriften, zum 70. Geburtstag hrsg. von A. Etter und M. Looser.
Berlin and New York.
Rix (1976) 1992 Rix, H. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre2.
Darmstadt (11976).
Rix 2005 Rix, H. Review of Hajnal 2003. Gnomon 77: 385–388.
de Roguin 2007 de Roguin, C.-F. “… et recouvre d’une montagne leur cité!”. La fin du monde
des héros dans les épopées homériques. Hypomnemata 169. Göttingen.
Roisman 2006 Roisman, H. M. ‘Helen in the Iliad; causa belli and Victim of War: From Silent
Weaver To Public Speaker.’ AJPh 127: 1–36.
Roisman 1982 Roisman, J. ‘Some Social Conventions and Deviations in Homeric Society.’
AClass 25: 35–41.
Rollinger 1996 Rollinger, R. ‘Altorientalische Motivik in der frühgriechischen Literatur am
Beispiel der homerischen Epen. Elemente des Kampfes in der Ilias und in
der altorientalischen Literatur (nebst Überlegungen zur Präsenz altorienta
lischer Wanderpriester im früharchaischen Griechenland).’ In Wege zur
Genese griechischer Identität. Die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit, ed. by
C. Ulf, pp. 156–210. Berlin.
de Romilly 1981 Romilly, J. de. ‘Achill und die Leiche Hektors (Zur Humanität Homers).’ WHB
23: 1–14.
de Romilly 1997 Romilly, J. de. Hector. Paris.
Roscher 1904 Roscher, W. H. Die Sieben- und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen.
ASG 24.1. Leipzig.
Roth (1970–1974) 1990 Roth, C. P. ‘Mixed Aorists’ in Homeric Greek. New York and London. (Ear-
lier versions of chap. 2–5 have been published previously: chap. 2 as ‘Some
«Mixed Aorists» in Homer.’ Glotta 48 [1970]: 155–163; chap. 3 as ‘More Ho-
meric «Mixed Aorists».’ Glotta 52 [1974]: 1–10; chap. 4–5 as ‘Thematic S-Ao-
rists in Homer.’ HSCPh 77 [1973]: 181–186.)
Roth 1989 Roth, P. Singuläre Iterata der Ilias (Φ–Ω). Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie
189. Frankfurt am Main.
Rothe 1910 Rothe, C. Die Ilias als Dichtung. Paderborn.
Rougier-Blanc 1996 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Πρόδομος et αἴθουσα. Remarques sur les distinctions
sémantiques et fonctionnelles entre deux termes d’architecture domestique
employés chez Homère.’ REG 109: 44–65.
Rougier-Blanc 2002 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Maisons modestes et maisons de héros chez Homère.
Matériaux et techniques.’ Pallas 58: 101–116.
Rougier-Blanc 2004 Rougier-Blanc, S. ‘Les espaces ruraux chez Homère. Terminologie et mode
de représentation.’ Pallas 64: 115–127.
Rougier-Blanc 2005 Rougier-Blanc, S. Les maisons homériques. Vocabulaire architectural et
sémantique du bâti. Études d’Archéologie Classique 13. Nancy and Paris.
Roussel 1976 Roussel, D. Tribu et cité. Études sur les groupes sociaux dans les cités grecques
aux époques archaïque et classique. Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne
23. Paris.
Ruijgh 1957 Ruijgh, C. J. L’élément achéen dans la langue épique. Assen.
Ruijgh 1967 Ruijgh, C. J. Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Am-
sterdam.
Ruijgh (1967) 1991 Ruijgh, C. J. Review of Hoekstra 1965. In Ruijgh 1991, 193–201. (First published
in Lingua 18 [1967]: 90–98.)
324 Iliad 24
Ruijgh (1981) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘L’emploi de ΗΤΟΙ chez Homère et Hésiode.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 519–
534. (First published in Mnemosyne 34 [1981]: 272–287.)
Ruijgh (1985) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Le mycénien et Homère.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 221–268. (First pub-
lished in BCILL 26 [1985] 143–190.)
Ruijgh (1986) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Review of Κ. Συνοδινού. ἔοικα-εἰκός και συγγενικά από τον Όμηρο
ως τον Αριστοφάνη. Ioannina 1981. In Ruijgh 1996, 607–612. (First published
in Mnemosyne 39 [1986]: 153–158.)
Ruijgh (1990) 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘La place des enclitiques dans l’ordre des mots chez Homère
d’après la loi de Wackernagel.’ In Ruijgh 1996, 627–647. (First published in
Eichner/Rix 1990, 213–233.)
Ruijgh 1991 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 1, ed. by
J. M. Bremer, A. Rijksbaron and F. M.J. Waanders. Amsterdam.
Ruijgh 1993 Ruijgh, C. J. Review of Lamberterie 1990. Mnemosyne 46: 534–545.
Ruijgh 1996 Ruijgh, C. J. Scripta minora ad linguam Graecam pertinentia, vol. 2, ed. by
A. Rijksbaron and F. M.J. Waanders. Amsterdam.
Ruijgh 1997 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Les origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épique.’ In Létou-
blon 1997, 33–45.
Ruijgh 2011 Ruijgh, C. J. ‘Mycenaean and Homeric Language.’ In A Companion to Linear B:
Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World (vol. 2), ed. by Y. Duhoux and A. Mor-
purgo Davies, pp. 253–298. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Ruijgh/van Krimpen 1969 Ruijgh, C. J. and N. van Krimpen. ‘L’histoire et la préhistoire de κιχάνω.
Problèmes morphologiques et sémantiques.’ Mnemosyne 22: 113–136.
Russo 1994 Russo, J. ‘Homer’s Style: Nonformulaic Features of an Oral Aesthetic.’ Oral
Tradition 9: 371–389.
Rutherford (1991/93) 2001 Rutherford, R. B. ‘From the Iliad to the Odyssey.’ In Cairns 2001,
117–146. (First published in BICS 38 [1991/93]: 47–54.)
Rutherford (1996) 2013 Rutherford, R. B. Homer2. G&R New Surveys in the Classics 41. Cambridge
(11996, as no. 26 in the same series).
Rystedt 1999 Rystedt, E. ‘No Words, Only Pictures: Iconography in the Transition Between
the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in Greece.’ Opuscula Atheniensia 24: 89–98.
Sacks 1987 Sacks, R. The Traditional Phrase in Homer: Two Studies in Form, Meaning and
Interpretation. Leiden etc.
Sale 2001 Sale, M. ‘The Oral-Formulaic Theory Today.’ In Speaking Volumes: Orality and
Literacy in the Greek and Roman World, pp. 53–80. Mnemosyne Supplements
218. Leiden etc.
Sammons 2010 Sammons, B. The Art and Rhetoric of the Homeric Catalogue. Oxford.
Samter 1923 Samter, E. Volkskunde im altsprachlichen Unterricht. Ein Handbuch. Part 1:
Homer. Berlin.
Sarischoulis 2008 Sarischoulis, E. Schicksal, Götter und Handlungsfreiheit in den Epen Homers.
Palingenesia 92. Stuttgart.
Sarischoulis 2009 Sarischoulis, E. ‘Zur Etymologie und Bedeutung des Adjektivs ἄποτμος bei
Homer im Hinblick auf potentiell bedeutungsverwandte Begriffe.’ Philologus
153: 3–9.
Schadewaldt (1933) 1970 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Lebenszeit und Greisenalter im frühen Griechen-
tum.’ In W. Schadewaldt. Hellas und Hesperien. Gesammelte Schriften zur
Antike und zur neueren Literatur in zwei Bänden, vol. 1. Zurich and Stuttgart.
(First published in Die Antike 9 [1933]: 282–302.)
Schadewaldt (1938) 1966 Schadewaldt, W. Iliasstudien3. Berlin (Leipzig 11938; reprint Darmstadt

1987.)
Schadewaldt (1944) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Die Gestalt des homerischen Sängers.’ In Schade-
waldt 1965, 54–86. (Original contribution to the 1st edition of 1944.)
Schadewaldt (1944a) 1965 Schadewaldt, W. ‘Hektors Tod.’ In Schadewaldt 1965, 268–351. (Orig-
inal contribution to the 1st edition of 1944.)
Schadewaldt 1965 Schadewaldt, W. Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Auslegungen zur
homerischen Frage4. Stuttgart (11944).
Schaps 2004 Schaps, D. M. The Invention of Coinage and the Monetization of Ancient
Greece. Ann Arbor.
Scheid-Tissinier 1994 Scheid-Tissinier, É. Les usages du don chez Homère. Vocabulaire et pra
tiques. Nancy.
Scheid-Tissinier 2000 Scheid-Tissinier, É. ‘Recevoir des dieux, donner aux dieux. Aspects de
la relation avec le divin dans la poésie grecque archaïque.’ RPh 74: 199–230.
Schein 1984 Schein, S. L. The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad. Berkeley etc.
Schein 1997 Schein, S. L. ‘The Iliad: Structure and Interpretation.’ In Companion, 345–359.
Schein 2009 Schein, S. L. ‘Narrative Technique in the Parodos of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon.’
In Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient
Literature, ed. by J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos, pp. 377–398. Trends in Clas-
sics Suppl. Vol. 4. Berlin and New York.
Schenkeveld 2002 Schenkeveld, D. M. ‘The Invention of the Whole-and-Part Figure and the
Stoics on Solecism: Ancient Interpretations of Il. 24.58.’ Mnemosyne 55: 513–
537.
Schindler 1986 Schindler, J. ‘Zu den homerischen ῥοδοδάκτυλος-Komposita.’ In Etter 1986,
393–401.
Schlunk 1976 Schlunk, R. R. ‘The Theme of the Suppliant-Exile in the Iliad.’ AJPh 97: 199–
209.
S
chmid 1950 Schmid, S. -εος und -ειος bei den griechischen Stoffadjektiven. Zurich.
S chmidt 1976 Schmidt, M. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroen
zeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias. Zetemata 62. Munich.
Schmidt 2004 Schmidt, M. ‘All about Iliad’ (review of Homers Ilias, Gesamtkommentar, ed.
by J. Latacz). GGA 256: 1–22.
Schmidt 2006 Schmidt, M. ‘Some Remarks on the Semantics of ἄναξ in Homer.’ In De-
ger-Jalkotzy/Lemos 2006, 439–447.
Schmidt 2006a Schmidt, M. ‘Die Welt des Eumaios.’ In Luther 2006, 117–138.
S chmidt 1968 Schmidt, V. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Herondas. Mit einem kritisch-ex
egetischen Anhang. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 1.
Berlin.
Schmitt 1990 Schmitt, A. Selbständigkeit und Abhängigkeit menschlichen Handelns bei
Homer. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Psychologie Homers. AbhMainz
1990.5. Mainz and Stuttgart.
Schmitt 1967 Schmitt, R. Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit. Wies-
baden.
Schmitz 2001 Schmitz, C. ‘«Denn auch Niobe …» – Die Bedeutung der Niobe-Erzählung in
Achills Rede (Ω 599–620).’ Hermes 129: 145–157.
Schnapp-Gourbeillon 1981 Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. Lions, héros, masques. Les représentations
de l’animal chez Homère. Textes à l’appui. Histoire classique. Paris.
326 Iliad 24
Schnaufer 1970 Schnaufer, A. Frühgriechischer Totenglaube. Untersuchungen zum Totenglau

ben der mykenischen und homerischen Zeit. Tübingen.
Schubert 2000 Schubert, P. Noms d’agent et invective: entre phénomène linguistique et inter
prétation du récit dans les poèmes homériques. Hypomnemata 133. Göttingen.
Schultz 1910 Schultz, R. Αἰδώς. Rostock.
Schulze 1892 Schulze, W. Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh.
Schwartz 1923 Schwartz, E. ‘Homerica.’ In ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Festschrift, Jacob Wackernagel zur
Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres am 11.12.1923 gewidmet von Schülern, Freun
den und Kollegen, pp. 62–71. Göttingen.
Schwinge 1991 Schwinge, E.-R. ‘Homerische Epen und Erzählforschung.’ In Latacz 1991,
482–512.
Schwyzer (1939) 1983 Schwyzer, E. ‘Die Parenthese im engern und im weitern Sinne.’ In
E. Schwyzer. Kleine Schriften, ed. by R. Schmitt, pp. 80–123. Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 45. Innsbruck. (First published in APAW
1939.)
Scodel 1977 Scodel, R.’ Apollo’s Perfidy: Iliad Ω 59–63.’ HSCPh 81: 55–57.
Scodel 1999 Scodel, R. Credible Impossibilities: Conventions and Strategies of Verisimili
tude in Homer and Greek Tragedy. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 122. Stuttgart
and Leipzig.
Scodel 2002 Scodel, R. Listening to Homer: Tradition, Narrative, and Audience. Ann Arbor.
Scodel 2005 Scodel, R. ‘Odysseus’ Ethnographic Digressions.’ In Approaches to Homer:
Ancient & Modern, ed. by R. J. Rabel, pp. 147–165. Swansea.
Scodel 2008 Scodel, R. Epic Facework: Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer.
Swansea.
Scodel 2008a Scodel, R. ‘Zielinski’s Law Reconsidered.’ TAPhA 138: 107–125.
Scott 1979 Scott, M. ‘Pity and Pathos in Homer.’ AClass 22: 1–14.
Scott 1974 Scott, W. C. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Mnemosyne Supplements
28. Leiden.
Scott 2009 Scott, W. C. The Artistry of the Homeric Simile. Hanover N. H. and London.
Scully 1990 Scully, S. Homer and the Sacred City. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca and London.
Seaford 1994 Seaford, R. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-
State. Oxford.
Seaford 2004 Seaford, R. Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy.
Cambridge.
Segal 1971 Segal, C. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad. Mnemosyne
Segal 1971a Segal C. ‘Andromache’s Anagnorisis: Formulaic Artistry in Iliad 22.437–476.’
HSCPh 75: 33–57.
Seiler 1950 Seiler, H. Die primären griechischen Steigerungsformen. Leipzig. (Also pub-
lished as: Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft 6. Hamburg 1950.)
Severyns 1943 Severyns, A. Homère. II: Le poète et son oeuvre. Brussels.
Shapiro 1994 Shapiro, H. A. ‘Poet and Painter: Iliad 24 and the Greek Art of Narrative.’ NAC
23: 23–48.
Shear 2000 Shear, I. M. Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts. New York and
Athens.
Shear 2004 Shear, I. M. Kingship in the Mycenaean World and Its Reflections in the Oral
Tradition. Philadelphia.
Shelmerdine 1985 Shelmerdine, C. W. The Perfume Industry of Mycenaean Pylos. Göteborg.
Sherratt 1990 Sherratt, E. S. ‘«Reading the Texts»: Archaeology and the Homeric Question.’
Antiquity 64: 807–824. (Also in de Jong 1999, vol. 2, 77–101; Nagy 2001, 139–156.)
Shewan 1913 Shewan, A. ‘The pluralis maiestatis in Homer.’ CQ 7: 129–131.
Shewan 1927 Shewan, A. ‘Fishing with a Rod in Homer.’ CPh 22: 170–183. (Also in A. She-
wan. Homeric Essays, pp. 427–440. Oxford 1935.)
Shiffman 1992 Shiffman, G. ‘«Going Alone» at Iliad 24.198–205.’ CQ NS 42: 269–270.
Shipp (1953) 1972 Shipp, G. P. Studies in the Language of Homer2. Cambridge Classical Studies.
Cambridge (11953).
Shive 1987 Shive, D. Naming Achilles. New York and Oxford.
Shive 1990 Shive, D. ‘Peleides Achilleus – formelhaft oder formell?’ In Kullmann/Reichel
1990, 175–182.
Sicking/Ophuijsen 1993 Sicking, C. M.J. and J. M. van Ophuijsen. Two Studies in Attic Particle
Usage: Lysias and Plato. Mnemosyne Supplements 129. Leiden etc.
Silk 1974 Silk, M. S. Interaction in Poetic Imagery with Special Reference to Early Greek
Poetry. London and Cambridge.
Singer 2008 Singer, I. ‘Purple-Dyers in Lazpa.’ In Collins et al. 2008, 21–43.
Sistakou 2002 Sistakou, E. ‘Kallimachos als Homererklärer: Das Beispiel der geographi
schen Namen.’ WS 115: 145–173.
Sistakou 2004 Σιστάκου, Ε. Η άρνηση του έπους. Όψεις του Τρωικού μύθου στην ελληνιστική
ποίηση. Athens.
Slings 1994 Slings, S. R. ‘Een tandje lager. Aanzetten voor een orale grammatica von Ho-
merus.’ Lampas 27: 411–427.
Slotty 1927 Slotty, F. ‘Die Stellung des Griechischen und anderer idg. Sprachen zu dem
soziativen und affektischen Gebrauch des Plurals der ersten Person.’ IF 45:
348–363.
Snell (1949) 1966 Snell, B. ‘Homerica.’ In B. Snell. Gesammelte Schriften, pp. 62–64. Göttingen.
(First published in Παγκάρπεια. Mélanges Henri Grégoire, vol. 1, pp. 547–549.
Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9. Brus-
sel.)
Snell 1978 Snell, B. Der Weg zum Denken und zur Wahrheit. Studien zur frühgriechischen
Sprache. Hypommnemata 57. Göttingen.
Snodgrass 1970 Snodgrass, A. M. Review of Laser 1968. Gnomon 42: 159–162.
Sodano 1965 Sodano, A. R. ‘Gli ἀδύνατα omerici nell’esegesi di Porfirio. La metodologia
filologico-estetica di Aristotele.’ RAAN n.s. 40: 227–278.
Sommer 1977 Sommer, F. Schriften aus dem Nachlaß, ed. by B. Forssman. MSS Beiheft 1.
Munich.
Sourvinou-Inwood 1983 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘A Trauma in Flux: Death in the 8th Century and
After.’ In The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B. C.: Tradition and In
novation (Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish
Institute in Athens, 1.–5.6.1981), ed. by R. Hägg, pp. 33–49. Stockholm.
Sourvinou-Inwood 1995 Sourvinou-Inwood, C. ‘Reading’ Greek Death: To the End of the Classical
Period. Oxford.
Spahn 2006 Spahn, P. ‘«Freundschaft» und «Gesellschaft» bei Homer.’ In Luther 2006,
163–216.
Spanoudakis 2002 Spanoudakis, K. Philitas of Cos. Mnemosyne Supplements 229. Leiden etc.
Sparkes 2006 Sparkes, B. A. ‘The Ransom of Hektor Illustrated.’ Hyperboreus 12: 5–20.
328 Iliad 24
Spencer 1995 Spencer, N. A Gazetteer of Archaeological Sites in Lesbos. BAR International

Series 623. Oxford.
Stanley 1993 Stanley, K. The Shield of Homer: Narrative Structure in the Iliad. Princeton etc.
Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989 Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft. Studien zum
griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart.
Stinton (1965) 1990 Stinton, T. C.W. ‘Euripides and the Judgement of Paris.’ In T. C.W. Stinton.
Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy, pp. 17–75. Oxford. (First published as: JHS
Supplementary Paper 11. 1965.)
Stockinger 1959 Stockinger, H. Die Vorzeichen im homerischen Epos. Ihre Typik und ihre Bedeu
tung. St. Ottilien.
Stoddard 2004 Stoddard, K. The Narrative Voice in the Theogony of Hesiod. Mnemosyne Sup-
plements 255. Leiden and Boston.
Stoevesandt 2004 Stoevesandt, M. Feinde – Gegner – Opfer. Zur Darstellung der Troianer in den
Kampfszenen der Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft
30. Basel.
Strasburger 1954 Strasburger, G. Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias. Frankfurt am Main.
Stulz 1990 Stulz, H. Die Farbe Purpur im frühen Griechentum. Beobachtet in der Literatur
und in der bildenden Kunst. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 6. Stuttgart.
Sullivan 1987 Sullivan, S. D. ‘πραπίδες in Homer.’ Glotta 65: 182–193.
Sullivan 1988 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological Activity in Homer: A Study of Phrēn. Ottawa.
Sullivan 1989 Sullivan, S. D. ‘The Psychic Term Noos in Homer and the Homeric Hymns.’
SIFC III.7: 152–195.
Sullivan 1995 Sullivan, S. D. Psychological and Ethical Ideas: What Early Greeks Say. Leiden
etc.
Suter 2008 Suter, A. (ed.) Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond. Ox-
ford.
Suzuki 1989 Suzuki, M. Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference, and the Epic. Ith-
aca and London.
Svenbro 1976 Svenbro, J. La parole et le marbre. Aux origines de la poétique grecque. Lund.
Szemerényi 1957 Szemerényi, O. ‘The Greek Nouns in -εύς.’ In ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ. Gedenkschrift
Paul Kretschmer, vol. 2, pp. 159–181. Vienna.
Szemerényi 1977 Szemerényi, O. Review of DELG. Gnomon 49: 1–10.
Tabachovitz 1951 Tabachovitz, D. Homerische εἰ-Sätze. Eine sprachpsychologische Studie. Lund.
Taplin 1986 Taplin, O. ‘Homer’s Use of Achilles’ Earlier Campaigns in the Iliad.’ In Chios:
A Conference at the Homereion in Chios, ed. by J. Boardman and C. E. Va-
phopoulou-Richardson, pp. 15–19. Oxford.
Taplin 1990 Taplin, O. ‘Agamemnons’s Role in the Iliad.’ In Characterization and Individ
uality in Greek Literature, ed. by C. Pelling, pp. 60–82. Oxford.
Taplin 1992 Taplin, O. Homeric Soundings: The Shaping of the Iliad. Oxford.
Taplin 2002 Taplin, O. ‘A Word of Consolation in Iliad 24.614.’ SIFC III.20: 24–27.
Tartaglini 1988 Tartaglini, C. ‘Nota a Hom. Il. 24.232.’ SIFC III.6: 181–185.
Thalmann 1984 Thalmann, W. G. Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry.
Baltimore and London.
Thompson (1895) 1936 Thompson, D’A. W. A Glossary of Greek Birds2. London (Oxford 11895).
Thompson 1955/58 Thompson, St. Motif-Index of Folk-Literature: a Classification of Narrative El
ements in Folktales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla,
Fabliaux, Jest-Books and Local Legends2. Copenhagen. (6 vols.)
Thornton 1970 Thornton, A. People and Themes in Homer’s Odyssey. London.

Thornton 1984 Thornton, A. Homer’s Iliad: Its Composition and the Motif of Supplication.
Hypomnemata 81. Göttingen.
Die Thraker 2004 Die Thraker. Das goldene Reich des Orpheus (Katalog), Kunst- und Ausstel
lungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Bonn. Mainz.
Tichy 1977 Tichy, E. ‘Griech. ἀλειτηρός, νηλειτής und die Entwicklung der Wortsippe
ἀλείτης.’ Glotta 55: 160–177.
Tichy 1981 Tichy, E. ‘Hom. ἀνδροτῆτα und die Vorgeschichte des daktylischen Hexame-
ters.’ Glotta 59: 28–67.
Trachsel 2007 Trachsel, A. La Troade: Un paysage et son héritage littéraire. Les commen
taires antiques sur la Troade, leur genèse et leur influence. Bibliotheca Helve
tica Romana 28. Rome and Basel.
Treu 1965 Treu, M. ‘Griechische Ewigkeitswörter.’ Glotta 43: 1–24.
Tronci 2000 Tronci, L. ‘Eredità indoeuropea e innovazione nel greco omerico: l’elemento
-ι° come «marca» caratterizzante di primi membri di composto.’ SSL 38:
275–311.
Trümpy 1950 Trümpy, H. Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos. Untersuchun
gen zum Wortschatze Homers. Basel.
Tsagalis (2003/04) 2008 Tsagalis, C. ‘Time Games: The «Twenty-Year» Absent Hero.’ In C. Tsaga-
lis. The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics,
pp. 135–149. Cambridge Mass. and London. (First published in EEAth 35
[2003/04]: 109–125.)
Tsagalis 2004 Tsagalis, C. Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad. Untersuchungen
zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 70. Berlin and New York.
Tsagarakis 1977 Tsagarakis, O. Nature and Background of Major Concepts of Divine Power in
Homer. Amsterdam.
Tsagarakis 1979 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Oral Composition, Type-Scenes and Narrative Inconsistencies
in Homer.’ GB 8: 23–48.
Tsagarakis 1982 Tsagarakis, O. Form and Content in Homer. Hermes Einzelschriften 46. Wies-
baden.
Tsagarakis 2001 Tsagarakis, O. ‘Messengers, Divine Councils and Simultaneous Actions in
Homer.’ In Πρακτικά Ια´ διεθνούς συνεδρίου κλασσικών σπουδών, Εις μνήμην
Νικολάου Αλιβαδάρα, Καβάλα 24–30 Αυγούστου 1999, vol. 1, pp. 780–792.
Athens.
Tsomis 2010 Tsomis, G. P. ‘Achilleus ἐπικερτομέων in der Ilias 24.649.’ GB 27 (appeared
2011): 1–4.
Tucker 1990 Tucker, E. F. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in
-éō, -áō, -óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen.
Turkeltaub 2007 Turkeltaub, D. ‘Perceiving Iliadic Gods.’ HSCPh 103: 51–81.
Tzamali 1996 Tzamali, E. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. MSS Beiheft 16. Dettelbach.
Uerpmann/van Neer 2000 Uerpmann, M. and W. van Neer. ‘Fischreste aus den Grabungen in
Troia (1989–1999).’ Studia Troica 10: 145–179.
Ulf 1990 Ulf, C. Die homerische Gesellschaft. Materialien zur analytischen Beschrei
bung und historischen Lokalisierung. Vestigia: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte
43. Munich.
Usener 1990 Usener, K. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis der Odyssee zur Ilias. ScriptOralia
21. Tübingen.
330 Iliad 24
Vagnone 1982 Vagnone, G. ‘Aspetti formulari in Stesicoro, Pap. Lille 76 a b c: il desiderio di

morte.’ QUCC 12: 35–42.
van der Valk 1953 Valk, M. van der. ‘Homer’s Nationalistic Attitude.’ AC 22: 5–26.
van der Valk 1963 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 1. Leiden.
van der Valk 1964 Valk, M. van der. Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad, vol. 2. Leiden.
van der Valk 1982 Valk, M. van der. ‘The Iliad and Its Ancient Commentators: Some Textual
Notes.’ GRBS 23: 293–303.
Van Nortwick 1992 Van Nortwick, Th. Somewhere I Have Never Travelled: The Second Self and the
Hero’s Journey in Ancient Epic. New York and Oxford.
Veneri 1991 Veneri, A. ‘Omero e il palazzo miceneo: alcuni aspetti dell’evoluzione seman-
tica di termini architettonici nel contesto della tradizione linguistico-stili-
stica dell’epos.’ In La transizione dal Miceneo all’Alto Arcaismo. Dal palazzo
alla città. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Rome, 14.–19.3.1988), ed. by
D. Musti et al., pp. 177–186. Rome.
Veneri 1995 Veneri, A. ‘La cetra di Paride: l’altra faccia della musica in Omero e nei suoi
interpreti antichi.’ In Mousike. Metrica, ritmica e musica greca in memoria die
Giovanni Comotti, ed. by B. Gentili and F. Perusino, pp. 111–132. Pisa and Rome.
Ventris/Chadwick (1956) 1973 Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. Documents in Mycenaean Greek 2.
Cambridge (11956).
Verdejo Manchado 2014 Verdejo Manchado, J. ‘The Verb (ἀν)οιγ- «to open»: A New Proposal of
Etymological Reconstruction.’ Glotta 90: 269–279.
Verdenius 1955 Verdenius, W. J. ‘Notes on Hippocrates «Airs Waters Places».’ Mnemosyne
IV.8: 14–18.
Verdenius 1956 Verdenius, W. J. ‘Emphatic Use of the Participle.’ Mnemosyne IV.9: 234.
Verdenius 1956a Verdenius, W. J. Review of Denniston. Mnemosyne IV.9: 248–252.
Verdenius 1959 Verdenius, W. J. Review of Brunius-Nilsson 1955. Mnemosyne IV.12: 147–148.
Verdenius 1971 Verdenius, W. J. ‘Hesiod, Theogony 507–616: Some Comments on a Commen-
tary.’ Mnemosyne IV.24: 1–10.
Vermeule 1965 Vermeule, E. D.T. ‘Painted Mycenaean Larnakes.’ JHS 85: 123–148.
Vermeule 1974 Vermeule, E. T. ‘Götterkult.’ ArchHom chap. V. Göttingen.
Vernant (1982) 2001 Vernant, J.-P. ‘A «Beautiful Death» and the Disfigured Corpse in Homeric
Epic.’ In Cairns 2001, 311–341. (French original: ‘La belle mort et le cadavre
outragé.’ In La mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes, ed. by G. Gnoli
and J.-P. Vernant, pp. 45–76. Cambridge and Paris 1982; also in J.-P. Vernant.
L’individu, la mort, l’amour. Soi-même et l’autre en Grèce ancienne, pp. 41–79.
Paris 1989; English transl. first published in J.-P. Vernant. Mortals and Immor
tals: Collected Essays, ed. by F. I. Zeitlin, pp. 50–74. Princeton 1991 [transl. by
A. Szegedy-Maszak].)
Visser 1987 Visser, E. Homerische Versifikationstechnik. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Eu-
rop. Hochschulschriften 15.34. Frankfurt am Main etc.
Visser 1997 Visser, E. Homers Katalog der Schiffe. Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Vivante 1980 Vivante, P. ‘Rose-Fingered Dawn and the Idea of Time.’ Ramus 8: 125–136.
Vlachou 2012 Vlachou, V. ‘Death and Burial in the Greek World (Addendum to Vol. VI).’ In
ThesCRA VIII, 363–384. Los Angeles.
Vogt 1967 Vogt, E. ‘Das Akrostichon in der griechischen Literatur.’ A&A 13: 80–95.
Von der Mühll 1952 Von der Mühll, P. Kritisches Hypomnema zur Ilias. Schweizerische Beiträge
zur Altertumswissenschaft 4. Basel.
Wace 1951 Wace, A. J.B. ‘Notes on the Homeric House.’ JHS 71: 203–211.
Wace 1962 Wace, A. J.B. ‘Houses and Palaces.’ In Wace/Stubbings 1962, 489–497.
Wace/Stubbings 1962 Wace, A. J.B. and F. H. Stubbings. (eds.) A Companion to Homer. London
and New York.
Wace/Wace 1962 Wace, H. P. and A. J.B. ‘Dress.’ In Wace/Stubbings 1962, 498–503.
Wachter 2001 Wachter, R. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford.
Wackernagel (1878) 1979 Wackernagel, J. ‘Die epische Zerdehnung.’ In Wackernagel 1979, 1512–
1565. (First published in BKIS 4 [1878]: 259–312.)
Wackernagel (1888) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik.’ In Wacker-
nagel 1953, 627–655. (First published in ZVS 29 [1888]: 124–152.)
Wackernagel (1891) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Κέχονδα.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 824–825. (First pub-
lished in BPhW 11 [1891]: 1475–1476.)
Wackernagel (1891) 1979 Wackernagel, J. Review of P. Cauer. Homeri Ilias, Pars I. Leipzig 1890.
In Wackernagel 1979, 1566–1584. (First published in BPhW 11 [1891]: 5–9,
37–43.)
Wackernagel (1892) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung.’
In Wackernagel 1953, 1–104. (First published in IF 1 [1892]: 333–436.)
Wackernagel (1895) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik.’ In Wacker-
nagel 1953, 680–741. (First published in ZVS 33 [1895]: 1–62.)
Wackernagel (1910) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Zur griechischen Wortlehre.’ In Wackernagel 1953,
833–840. (First published in Glotta 2 [1910]: 1–8.)
Wackernagel (1912) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Über einige antike Anredeformen.’ In Wackernagel
1953, 970–999. (First published in Programm zur akademischen Preisvertei
lung 1912, pp. 3–32. Göttingen.)
Wackernagel 1916 Wackernagel, J. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer. Forschungen zur
griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik 4. Göttingen. (Reprint 1970.)
Wackernagel (1920) 1926 Wackernagel, J. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksich
tigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Erste Reihe2. Basel (11920).
(English transl.: Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin,
and Germanic, edited with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford
2009.)
Wackernagel (1924) 1928 Wackernagel, J.: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksich
tigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Zweite Reihe2. Basel (11924).
(English transl.: Lectures on Syntax with special reference to Greek, Latin,
and Germanic, ed. with notes and bibliography by D. Langslow. Oxford
2009.)
Wackernagel (1944) 1953 Wackernagel, J. ‘Graeca. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Albert
Debrunner.’ In Wackernagel 1953, 892–896. (First published in MH 1 [1944]:
226–230.)
Wackernagel 1953 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vols. 1–2, ed. by the Academy of Sciences in
Göttingen. Göttingen.
Wackernagel 1979 Wackernagel, J. Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, ed. by B. Forssman on behalf of the
Academy of Sciences in Göttingen. Göttingen.
Wagner-Hasel 2000 Wagner-Hasel, B. ‘Die Reglementierung von Traueraufwand und die Tradi-
erung des Nachruhms der Toten in Griechenland.’ In Frauenwelten in der
Antike. Geschlechterordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis, ed. by T. Späth and
B. Wagner-Hasel, pp. 81–102. Stuttgart and Weimar.
332 Iliad 24
Wakker 1994 Wakker, G. Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek.

Amsterdam.
Wakker 1997 Wakker, G. ‘Emphasis and Affirmation: Some Aspects of μήν in Tragedy.’ In
New Approaches to Greek Particles: Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in
Amsterdam, January 4–6, 1996, to Honour C. J. Ruijgh on the Occasion of His
Retirement, ed. by A. Rijksbaron, pp. 209–231. Amsterdam.
Wakker 1997a Wakker, G. ‘Modal Particles and Different Points of View in Herodotus and
Thucydides.’ In Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic
Contexts, ed. by E. J. Bakker, pp. 215–250. Mnemosyne Supplements 171. Lei-
den etc.
Walcot 1977 Walcot, P. ‘The Judgement of Paris.’ G&R 24: 31–39.
Wankel 1961 Wankel, H. Kalos kai agathos. Würzburg.
Warden 1971 Warden, J. ‘ψυχή in Homeric Death-Descriptions.’ Phoenix 25: 95–103.
Wathelet 1962 Wathelet, P. ‘Mycénien et grec d’Homère.’ AC 31: 5–14.
Wathelet 1973 Wathelet, P. ‘Études de linguistique homérique.’ AC 42: 381–405.
Wathelet 1988 Wathelet, P. ‘Priam aux enfers ou le retour du corps d’Hector.’ LEC 56: 321–335.
Wathelet 1999 Wathelet, P. ‘Les subordonnées introduites par ὄφρα dans l’épopée homé
rique.’ In Les complétives en Grec ancien. Actes du colloque international de
Saint-Étienne (3.–5.9.1998), ed. by B. Jacquinod, pp. 367–382. Saint-Étienne.
Webster (1958) 1964 Webster, T. B.L. From Mycenae to Homer2. London (11958).
van Wees 1992 Wees, H. van. Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and His
tory. Amsterdam.
van Wees 1998 Wees, H. van. ‘A Brief History of Tears: Gender Differentiation in Archaic
Greece.’ In When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical
Antiquity, ed. by L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, pp. 10–53. London and New York.
van Wees 2000 Wees, H. van (ed.) War and Violence in Ancient Greece. Swansea.
van Wees 2004 Wees, H. van Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities. London.
van Wees 2005 Wees, H. van ‘Clothes, Class and Gender in Homer.’ In Body Language in the
Greek and Roman Worlds, ed. by D. Cairns, pp. 1–36. Swansea.
Weiler 2001 Weiler, G. Domos theiou basileos. Herrschaftsformen und Herrschaftsarchitek
tur in den Siedlungen der Dark Ages. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 136. Mu-
nich and Leipzig.
West 1967 West, M. L. ‘Epica.’ Glotta 44: 135–148.
West 1988 West, M. L. ‘The Rise of the Greek Epic.’ JHS 108: 151–172. (Also in: Nagy 2001,
vol. 1, 191–212; West 2011a, 35–73.)
West 1989 West, M. L. ‘An Unrecognised Injunctive Usage in Greek.’ Glotta 67: 135–138.
(Also in: West 2011a, 30–34.)
West 1997 West, M. L. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry
and Myth. Oxford.
West 1997a West, M. L. ‘Homer’s Meter.’ In Companion 218–237.
West 1998 West, M. L. ‘Praefatio.’ Homeri Ilias. Recensuit / testimonia congessit
M. L. W., vol. 1, pp. V–XXXVII. Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998.
West 2001 West, M. L. Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad. Munich and Leip-
zig.
West 2001a West, M. L. ‘Some Homeric Words.’ Glotta 77 (2003): 118–135.
West 2002 West, M. L. ‘The View From Lesbos.’ In Epea pteroenta. Beiträge zur Homer
forschung. Festschrift für Wolfgang Kullmann zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by
M. Reichel and A. Rengakos, pp. 207–219. Stuttgart. (Also in: West 2011a,
392–407.)
West 2004 West, M. L. ‘An Indo-European Stylistic Feature in Homer.’ In Bierl et al. 2004,
33–49.
West 2007 West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford.
West 2011 West, M. L. The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary.
Oxford.
West 2011a West, M. L. Hellenica: Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought. Vol-
ume I: Epic. Oxford.
West 2011b West, M. L. ‘Echoes of Hesiod and Elegy in the Iliad.’ In West 2011a, 209–
232.
West 1967a West, S. The Ptolemaic Papyri of Homer. Papyrologica Coloniensia 3. Cologne
and Opladen.
West 2000 West, S. ‘Priam’s Cup: A Note on Iliad 24.429–36.’ AAntHung 40: 489–494.
West 2007a West, S. ‘Terminal Problems.’ In Finglass et al. 2007, 3–21.
Whallon 1969 Whallon, W. Formula, Character, and Context: Studies in Homeric, Old English,
and Old Testament Poetry. Cambridge, Mass.
Whallon 1979 Whallon, W. ‘Is Hector «androphonos»?’ In Arktouros: Hellenic Studies pre
sented to B. M.W. Knox, pp. 19–24. Berlin.
Wheeler 2002 Wheeler, G. ‘Sing, Muse …: the Introit from Homer to Apollonius.’ CQ NS 52:
33–49.
Whitman 1958 Whitman, C. H. Homer and the Heroic Tradition, Cambridge, Mass.
Wickert-Micknat 1982 Wickert-Micknat, G. ‘Die Frau.’ ArchHom chap. R. Göttingen.
Wickert-Micknat 1983 Wickert-Micknat, G. Unfreiheit im Zeitalter der homerischen Epen.
Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 16. Wiesbaden.
Wiesner 1968 Wiesner, J. ‘Fahren und Reiten.’ ArchHom chap. F. Göttingen.
Wilamowitz 1916 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. Die Ilias und Homer. Berlin.
Willcock 1964 Willcock, M. M. ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad.’ CQ 14: 141–154. (Also
in: de Jong 1999, vol. 3, 385–402; Cairns 2001, 435–455.)
Willenbrock (1944) 1969 Willenbrock, H. Die poetische Bedeutung der Gegenstände in Homers
Ilias. Marburg and Lahn. (Originally diss. Marburg 1944.)
Willetts 1977 Willetts, R. F. ‘Homeric doors.’ LCM 2: 93–100.
Willi 1999 Willi, A. ‘Zur Verwendung und Etymologie von griechisch ἐρι-.’ HSF 112:
86–100.
Willi 2003 Willi, A. ‘καί – mykenisch oder nachmykenisch?’ Glotta 79 (2005): 224–248.
Williams 1993 Williams, B. Shame and Necessity. Berkeley etc.
Willmott 2007 Willmott, J. The Moods of Homeric Greek. Cambridge.
Wills 1993 Wills, J. ‘Homeric Particle Order.’ HSF 106: 61–81.
Wilson 2000 Wilson, J. Sense and Nonsense in Homer: A Consideration of the Inconsisten
cies and Incoherencies in the Texts of the Iliad and the Odyssey. BAR Interna-
tional Series 839. Oxford.
Wilson 2002 Wilson, D. F. Ransom, Revenge, and Heroic Identity in the Iliad. Cambridge.
Wilson 2002a Wilson, D. F. ‘Lion Kings: Heroes in the Epic Mirror.’ ColbyQ 38: 231–263.
Wilson 1991 Wilson, J. R. ‘Negative Πρίν Clauses and the Rhetoric of Achilles.’ Glotta 69:
175–183.
Wißmann 1997 Wißmann, J. Motivation und Schmähung. Feigheit in der Ilias und in der
griechischen Tragödie. Drama Beiheft 7. Stuttgart.
334 Iliad 24
Witte (1912) 1979 Witte, K. ‘Zur Flexion homerischer Formeln.’ In HTN 109–117. (First published
in Glotta 3 [1912] 110–117; also in: Witte 1972, 34–41.)
Witte (1913) 1972 Witte, K. ‘Die Vokalkontraktion bei Homer.’ In Witte 1972, 104–137. (First pub-
lished in Glotta 4: 209–242.)
Witte 1972 Witte, K. Zur homerischen Sprache. Darmstadt.
Wittwer 1970 Wittwer, M. ‘Über die kontrastierende Funktion des griechischen Suffixes
-τερος.’ Glotta 47: 54–109.
Worman 2002 Worman, N. The Cast of Character: Style in Greek Literature. Austin.
Woronoff 1995 Woronoff, M. ‘De l’Olympe à l’Ida: le Zeus des sommets.’ Ktèma 20: 213–222.
Wright/Jones 1997 Wright, G. M. and P. V. Jones. Homer: German Scholarship in Translation. Ox-
ford.
Wülfing-v. Martitz 1960 Wülfing-v. Martitz, P. ‘Ἱερός bei Homer und in der älteren griechischen
Literatur.’ Glotta 38: 272–307.
Wunderlich 1925 Wunderlich, E. Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Griechen und
Römer. RGVV 20. Giessen.
Wünsche 2006 Wünsche, R. (ed.). Mythos Troja. Ausstellungskatalog Staatliche Antiken
sammlungen und Glyptothek München. Munich.
Wyatt 1969 Wyatt, W. F. Metrical Lengthening in Homer. Incunabula Graeca 35. Rome.
Xanthakis-Karamanos 1985/89 Xanthakis-Karamanos, G. ‘Addenda Lexicis from Aeschylus and
Sophocles.’ Athena 80: 269–277.
Yamagata 1994 Yamagata, N. Homeric Morality. Mnemosyne Supplements 131. Leiden etc.
Yamagata 1997 Yamagata, N. ‘ἄναξ and βασιλεύς in Homer.’ CQ 47: 1–14.
Yamagata 2005 Yamagata, N. ‘Clothing and Identity in Homer: The Case of Penelope’s Web.’
Mnemosyne 58: 539–546.
Yates 2014 Yates, A. D. ‘Homeric βῆ δ’ ἰέναι: A Serial Verb Construction in Greek?’ Lec-
ture at the APA Annual Meeting 2014, handout: www.academia.edu/5331425/
Homeric_A_Serial_Verb_Construction_in_Greek (retrieved: 30.04.2014).
Zanker 1994 Zanker, G. The Heart of Achilles: Characterization and Personal Ethics in the
Iliad. Ann Arbor.
Zanker 1998 Zanker, G. ‘Beyond Reciprocity: The Akhilleus–Priam Scene in Iliad 24.’ In
Gill et al. 1998, 73–92.
Zecchin de Fasano 2000 Zecchin de Fasano, G. C. ‘Memoria y funeral: Príamo y Aquiles en Ilíada
24.472–551.’ Synthesis 7: 57–68. (Also online: www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.
ar/art_revistas/pr.2861/pr.2861.pdf [retrieved: 30.04.2014]).
Zilliacus 1953 Zilliacus, H. Selbstgefühl und Servilität. Studien zum unregelmässigen
Numerusgebrauch im Griechischen. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum
18.3. Helsinki.
Zimmermann 1992 Zimmermann, B. Dithyrambos. Geschichte einer Gattung. Hypomnemata 98.
Göttingen.
Zindel 1974 Zindel, C. Drei vorhomerische Sagenversionen in der griechischen Kunst. Basel.
Zink 1962 Zink, N. Griechische Ausdrucksweisen für warm und kalt im seelischen Bereich.
Heidelberg.
Zohary 1982 Zohary, M. Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook to All the Plants with 200
Full-Color Plates Taken in the Natural Habitat. Cambridge etc.

(The Basel Commentary) Brügger, Claude - Homer's Iliad. Book XXIV (2015 - 9999, de Gruyter) PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(The Basel Commentary) Brügger, Claude - Homer's Iliad. Book XXIV (2015 - 9999, de Gruyter) PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Homer’s Iliad

The Basel Commentary

General Editor of the English Edition

Translated by Benjamin W. Millis and Sara Strack and

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

24 Rules Relating to Homeric Language (R)  1

Following on the publication of the Prolegomena and the commentaries on Books

I am personally greatly indebted to:

Basel, August 2009 Claude Brügger

Basel, July 2016

xxxP Superscript ‘P’ following a term refers to the definitions of terms

5. Quotations of non-English secondary literature

Procl. Proclus (see above s.v. Chrest.)

(c) Other abbreviations

sc. scilicet (i.e. ‘supply’ or ‘namely’)

R1 Homeric language is an artificial language, characterized by: G

Phonology, metric, prosody

R3 Vowel shortening: Long vowels (esp. η) before another vowel 39 f.

R4 Digamma (ϝ): The Ionic dialect of Homer no longer used the

In Addition, digamma can often be deduced in Homer on the

R5 Hiatus: The clash of a vocalic word end with a vocalic word

R6 Vocalic contraction (e.g. following the loss of intervocalic /w/ 43–

R7 Synizesis: Occasionally, two vowels are to be read as a single 46

R8 Diectasis: Contracted forms (e.g. ὁρῶντες) may be ‘stretched 48

R9 Change in consonant quantity creates metrically convenient vari-

R 10 Adaptation to the meter: Three (or more) short syllables in a 49 f.

R 11 Especially noteworthy in the case of nouns are:

dat. pl. -εσσι in the case of s-stems and other consonant

R 12 Varying stem formation (and thus declension) appears in the

R 13 Among other unusual comparative forms note: χερείων, 79

R 14 Varying pronoun forms:

14.2 Interrogative/indefinite pronoun: 84

R 15 Adverbial forms straddle the border between morphology 66

R 16 For verbs, the following points deserve particular attention:

R 17 ὅ, ἥ, τό (on the declension, R 14.3) is rarely a ‘pure article’ 99

R 19 Use of the cases: 97

R 21 Use of the moods: 100

R 22 Characteristic Homeric conjunctions are: 101

24.4 ἦ: ‘really, actually’; almost exclusively in direct speech. – Weak-

468–676 Priam’s visit with Achilleus

468–571 Priam enters Achilleus’ quarters as a supplicant.

677–804 The funerary ceremony for Hektor in Troy

2 ἐσκίδναντ(ο): σκίδνημι is an Ionic byform of σκεδάννυμι (cf. R 1.3). — ἰέναι: final-consecutive

Additional discussion of pairs of friends in epic and particularly the friendship

8 πτολέμους: on the initial πτ-, R 9.2.

δινεύεσκ(ε): By means of the iterative/frequentative verbal forms in -σκ- (also 13

13 ὑπεὶρ ἅλα …: to be taken with φαινομένη. — ὑπείρ: = ὑπέρ (R 20.1).

| son: Menoitios appears in the Iliad only as Patroklos’ father (frequently as a

22–76 The gods debate the appropriate response to Achilleus’ behavior. Apollo

23 ἐλεαίρεσκον: iterative form (R 16.5). — εἰσορόωντες: on the epic diectasis, R 8.

39 Ἀχιλῆϊ: on the inflection, R 11.3, R 3; on the single -λ-, R 9.1.

45 τ(ε): ‘epic τε’ (R 24.11). — μέγα: adverbial, ‘much, strongly’.

moral condemnation’ (Richardson) introduced by οὐ μέν; a similar function of οὐ

53 μή (+ subjunc.): ‘lest, so that not’; on the hiatus, R 5.7. — νεμεσσηθέωμεν:

(Agamemnon) vs. individual achievement (Achilleus; 1.173–187n., 1.277–281; cf.

64 νεφεληγερέτα: ‘cloud-gatherer’ (nom.).

68 γάρ: occasionally introduces an example or a piece of inductive evidence (Denniston

80–82 A swift, purposeful change of location by a god is illustrated in Homeric

84 1st VH ≈ 99 (cf. 2.789n.). — sea goddesses: The Nereïds, daughters of Nereus

84 εἵαθ’: = εἵατο, 3rd pl. impf. of ἧμαι (R 16.2).

87 = 2.790, 3.129, 11.199 (speech introduction formulaP). — ἀγχοῦ δ’ ἱσταμένη: an inflecti-